YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

VINDICATION O F
Christ's Divinity:
BEING A
DEFENSE 0% SOME
QUERIED RELATING TO
Dr. <%ARKE's
Scheme of the H.Trinity,
IN Answer TO A
CLERGYMAN in the COUNTRY.

By DANIEL WATERLAND; D.D.
Master of Magdalen- CoUege, in Cambridge,
and Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAJESTY.

xiyrpa. KaxT.^uv, Ad:. XX. 5.

The SECOND EDITION Corrected.

CAMBRIDGE:
Printed for Corn. Crownfield, Printer to the
Vniverjttj: And are to be Sold by JamIs Knapton.
and Robert Knaplock, Bookfellers in St. Paul's
Church- Yard, LONDON. MDCCXIX,

M^--^i.ir===5¥ii=--—..«.ii -=„».«— ^-S»

THE
PREFACE
TH E following Queries were drawn up, a
few Tears ago, at the Re que ft of Friends;
when I had not the leaft apprehenfion of their
ever appearing in 'Print, as might be gue/s'd
from the negligence of the Style andCompofition.
The Occafion of them wits this. A Clergyman
in the Country, well efteem'd in the Neighbour
hood where He lived, had unhappily fallen
in with Dr. Clarke'j Notions of the Trinity ;
and began to efpoufe them in a more open and
unguarded manner than the Doctor Himfelf
had done. This gave fome uneafinefs to the
Clergy in thofe Tarts, who could not but be
deeply concertfd to find a fundamental Article
of Religion called in Queftion ; and that too
by one of their own Order, and whom They
had a true Concern and Value for. It was
pre fumed, that a fine ere and ingenuous Man
(as He appeared to be) might, upon proper
Application, be inclinable to alter his Opi
nion: And that the moft probable way to
bring Him to a Senfe of his miftake, was to
put Him to defend it, fo lo$g till He might
Ji% perhaps

The PRE F ACE'
perhaps fee reafon to believe that it w~as not
de fenfible. With thefe Thoughts, I was pre
vailed upon to draw up a few Queries {the
fame that appear now, excepting only fome
flight verbal Alterations') and when I had
done, gave them to a common Friend to con
vey to Him. I was the more inclined to it,
for my own Inft ruff ion and Improvement, in
fo momentous and important an Article : Be
fides, that I had long been of Opinion, that
no method could be more proper for the train
ing up one's Mind to a true and found Judg
ment of Things, than that of private Con'
ference in Writing ; exchanging Tapers ,
making Anfwer s. Replies, and Rejoinders,
till an Argument jhould be exhauft ed on both
Sides, and a Controverjy at length brought
to a To int. In that private way {if it can
be private) a Man writes with Eafinefs and
Freedom ; is in no pain about any innocent
Slips or Mi (lakes ; is under little or no Te?np-
t ation to perfift obftinately in an Error ( the
Bane of all publick Controverjy) but con
cern 'd only to find out the Truth, which) on
what Side faever it appears) is always Victory
to every honcft Mind.
I had not long gone on with my Correfpon-
dent, before I found all my Mea fares broken,
and my Hopes intirely fruftrated. He had
fent Me, in Manufcript, an Anfwer to my
Queries ; which% Anfwer I received and read
with due Care j promis'd Him immediately a
Reply,

The PREFACE.
Reply ; and foon after prepared and finijVd
it, and convey* d it fafe to his Hands. Then
it was, and not till thdn, that He difcovered
to Me what He had been doing ; figuijying,
by Letter, how He had been over perfwaded
to commit his Anfwer, with my Queries, to
the Trefs ; that They had been there fome
time, and could not now be recalled; that I
muft follow Him thither, if I intended any
thing farther ; and muft adapt my publick De-
fenfe to his publick Anfwer, now altered and
improved, from what it had been in the
Manufcripr. which had been fent me. This
News furprized Me a little at the firft -, and
ferry I was to find my Correfipondent fo ex
tremely defirous of inftruffing Others, inftead
of taking the moft prudent and confider ate Me
thod of informing Himfelf As He had left
Me no Choice, but either to follow Him to the
Trefs, or to defift, I choje what I thought moft
proper at that Time ; leaving Him to inftrutyt
the Publick as He pleafed, defigning my Self
to keep out of Publick Controverjy ; or, at
leaft, not defigning the Contrary. But, at
length, confidering that Copies of my Defenfe
were got abroad into feveral Hands , and
might perhaps, fome time or other \ fteal into
the Trefs without my Knowledge ; and con
fidering farther that this Controverjy now
began to grow Warm, and that it became
every hone ft Man, according to the Meafure
qf his Abilities, to bear his Teftimony in fo
A 3 $°°d

The PREFACE.
'good a Caufe ; / thought it beft to revifie my
Tapers, to give them my laft Hand, and to
fendThem abroad into the World; whereThey
"muft ftand or fall (as I defire They fhould)
According as They are found to have more or
lefs Truth or Weight 'in Them.
Dr. Clarke has lately publijh'd a Second
Edition of his Scripture-Doctrine : Where, I
perceive, He has made feveral Additions and
Alterations, but has neither retracted, nor
defended thofe Tarts, which Mr. NelfonV
learned Friend had judicioufty replied to, in
his True Scripture-Doclrine continued. I hope,
impartial Readers will take care to read One
along with the Other.
One thing I muft obferve, for the Doctor's
Honour,' that in his new Edition He has left
out thefe Words of his former Introduction.
v 'Tis plain that every Ter fon may reafon-
fl a'bly agree to fuch Forms, whenever He can
" in any Senfe at all reconcile them with
^\Scripture. I hope, none hereafter will pre
tend to make ufe of the Doctor's Authority,
for fubfcribing to Forms which They believe
not according to the true and proper Senfe of
the Words, and the known intent of the 1m-
pofers, and Compilers. Such Prevarication is
in it felf a bad Thing, and would, in Time,
have a very ill Influence on the Morals of a
Nation. If either State-Oaths, on one. Hand,
or Church Subfcriptions, on the Other, once
come to be made light of; and Subtilties be
invent

The PREFACE,
invented to defend or palliate fuch grofs In-
flncerity ; we may bid farewell to Principles,
and Religion will be little elfe but difguis d
Atheiim. The learned Doctor, in his Introduction,
has inferted, by way of Note, a long Quota
tion out of Mr. Nelfon'j Life of Bijhop Bull.
He can hardly be prefumed to intend any
Parallel between Bijhop BullV Cafe and his
own : And yet Readers may be apt fo to
take it, fince the Doff or has not guarded
againft it, and fince otherwife it. will not be
eajy to make out the pertinence of it. . The
Doctor has undoubtedly fome meaning in it,
tho' I will not prefume to guefs what. He
* obferves, " That there is an exact account
" given, what Method that learned Writer
" (Biihop Bull) took to explain the Doctrine
" of Juftification (viz. the very fame and only
" Method which ought to be taken inexplain-
" ing all other Doctrines whatfoever) how
' ' zealoufty He was accufed by many Syftema-
" tical Divines, as departing from the Do-
" ctrine and Articles of the Church, in what
" He had done; how learnedly and effectually
" He defended Himfelf againft all his Adver-
" faries; and how fuccelsful at length his Ex-
" plication was, it being after fome Tears
" almoft univerfally received. This account
is true, but defective ; and may want a Sup
plement for the Benefit of common Readers ;
* lntroduft. p. 25. z6.
A 4 who

The PREFACE.
who may wijh to know, what that excellent
Method of Bijhop Bull'j was , by means of
which his Explication proved fo fuccefsful ,
and came at length to be. almoft univerfally
received. It was as follows.
i. In the firft place, his way was to ex
amine carefully into Scripture, more than into
the Nature and Reafon of the Thing abftract-
edly confider 'd. He pitch' 'd upon fuch Texts
as were pertinent, and clofe to the Toint;
did not chufe Them according to the Sound
only, but their real Senfe; which He ex
plain'd juftly and naturally, without any wrefl-
ing or {training. He neither neglected nor dif
fembled the utmoft force of any Texts which
feem'd to make againft Him ; but propo fed them
fairly, and anjwer'd them folidly; without
any artificial Elufions, or any fubtile or fur-
prizing Glo/fes.
z. In the next place, however cogent and
forcible his reafonings from Scripture appear
ed to be, yet He modeftly declined being con
fident of them, unlefs He could find them like-
wife fupported by the general Verdict of the
primitive Church; for which He always ex -
prefs'd a moft religious Regard and Venera
tion : believing it eafier J'or himfelf to err -
in interpreting Scripture, than for the univer
sal Church to have erred from the Beginning.
To pafs by many other Inftances of his flncere
mid great Regard to Antiquity, I fhall here
men-

The PREFACE.
mention one only. He * tells Dr Tully, in
the moft ferious and folemn manner imagin
able , that if there could but be found any
one Tropofition, that He had maintain'd in
all his Harmony, repugnant to the Doctrine
of the Catholick and Primitive Church, Hi
would immediately give up the Caufe , fit
down contentedly under the reproach of a No-
velift , openly retract his Error or Herefy ,
make a folemn Recantation in the Face of the
Chriftian World, and bind himfelf to per
petual filence ever after. He knew very well
what He faid; being able to Jbow, by an
Hiftorical Deduction that his Doctrine had
been the conftant Doctrine of the Church of
Chrift, f down to the Days of Calvin, in the
Sixteenth Century.
3. Befides this, He demonft rated, very
clearly, that the moft antient and valuable
Confeffions of the Reformed Churches Abroad
were intirely in his Sentiments. He examin'd
them with great Care and Exdffnefs , and
anfwer' d the contrary Tretences largely and
folidly. 4. To compleat All, He vindicated his Do
ctrine farther, from the concurring Sentiments
of our own moft early , and moft judicious
Reformers •• As alfo from the Articles, Cate-
chifm, Liturgy, and Homilies of the Church
ef England: And this with great accuracy
* Bull. Apolog. Conth T/ull. p. 7.
f Bull. Apoi. Cpntr: Tail. p. jq, ^i*

The PREFACE.
and ftrength of Reafon , without the mean
Arts of Equivocation or Sophiftry.
5r. I may add, fifthly, that his manner of
Writing was the moft convincing , and moft
ingaging imaginable: Acute,, ftrong, and ner
vous; learned throughout; and fincere to a
fcrupulous Exactnefs , without artificial Co
lours or ftudied Difguifes, which He utterly
abhor'd. The good and great Man breaths
in every Line : A Reader, after a few Tages,
may be tempted almoft to throw off" his Guard,
and to refign Himfelf imp lie it ely into fo fafe
Hands. A Man thus qualified and accom-
plijb'd, having true Judgment to take the
right Side of a Queftion ; and Learning, Ability,
and Integrity to fet it ojf to the greateft Ad
vantage, could not fail of Succefs ; efpecially
confidering that the moft judicious and learn
ed of our Clergy, and Thofe beft affected to
the Church of England {fuch as Dr. Ham
mond, &c.) had been in the fame Sentiments
before; and Bijhop Bull'j bittereft Adver-
faries were moftly Syftematical Men {pro
perly fo called ) and fuch as had been bred
up {during the great Rebellion) in the Pre-
deflinarian and Antinomian Tenets, as Mr.
* Nelfbn obferves. There was another Cir
cumftance which Mr. Nelfon alfo takes f no
tice of, namely, his writing in Latin .• Which
Jhowed his thorough Judgment of Men and
* Nelfon'/ Life of Bull, fag. 98,
+ NelfonV L'ife of Bull, fag. 9$.
Things.

The PREFACE.
Things. He would not write to the Vulgar
and Unlearned ( which is beginning at the
wrong end, and doing nothing ) but to the
Learned and Judicious ; knowing it to be the
fureft and the jhorteft way ; and that, if the
Toint be gain'd with Them, the reft come
in of Courfe; if not, all is to no purpofe. This
became a Man, who had a Caufe that He
could truft to ; and confided only in the ftrength
ofhis Reafons. By fuch laudable and ingenu
ous Methods, that excellent Man prevailed
over his Adverfaries; Truth over Error, Anti
quity over Novelty , the Church of Chrift:
over Calvin and his Difciples. If any Man
elfe has fuch a Caufe to defend as Bijhop
Bull had, and is able to manage it in fuch a
Method, by Jhowing that it ftands upon the
fame immoveable Foundations ^Scripture and
Antiquity, confirm'd by the concurring Senfe of
the judicious part of Mankind; then He need
not doubt but it will prevail and projper, in
any Proteftant Country, as univerfally as the
other did. But if feveral of thofe Circum
ftances, or the moft confiderable of them, be
wanting; or if Circumftances be contrary,
then it is as vain to expect the like Succefs,
as it is to expect Miracles. It muft not be
forgot, that the fame good and great Prelate,
afterwards, by the fame fair and honourable
Methods, the fame ftrength of Reafon and
profound Learning , gain'd as compleat a,
Vfctory over the fe\xo&, m regard to the
Queftion

The PREFACE.
f'ueftion about the Faith of the Ante-Nicene
at hers : And his Determination , in that
particular, was, and ftill is, among Men of
the greateft Learning and Judgment, as uni
verfally fubmitted to as the other. His ad
mirable Treatife {by which He being dead yet
ipeaketh) remains unanfwer'd to this Day;
and will abide Victorious to the L\nd. But
fnough of this.
I am obliged to fay fometh'mg in Defence
of my general Title. (A Vindication of Chrift's
Divinity) beca,ufe, I find, Mr., Potter, fince de
ceas'd, was rebuked by an* Anonymous Hand
for fuch a Title. The pretence is, that our
Adverfaries do not difown Chrift's Divinity,
as the Title infinuates. But to what purpofe
is it for Them to contend about a Name,
when they give up the Thing ? It looks too
like Mockery ( tfough I hey are far from in
tending it) and cannot but remind us of, Hail
King of the Jews. No body ever fpeaks of
the Divinity of Mofes, or of Magiftrates, or
of Angels, though called Gods in Scripture.
If Chrift be God, in the relative Senfe only,
why fhould we fpeak of His Divinity, more
than of the Other 1 The .Chriftian Church has
0 along ufed the word Divinity, in the ftrict
and proper Senfe : If we muft change theldez,
let us change the Name too. ; and talk no more
of Chrift's Divinity, but of his Mediatorihip
mly, or at moft, Kingfhip, This will be thje
* 4plosf far ty Quke &<£

The PREFACE.
Way to prevent Equivocation , keep up pro*
priety of Language, and fhut out— falfe Ideas,
/ know no Divinity, but fuch as I have de
fended: The other, falfly fo called, is really
none. So much for the Title.
/// the Work it felf, I have endeavor 'd to
unravel Sophiftry , detect Fallacies, and take
off Difguifes,- in order to fet the Controverjy
upon a clear Foot; allowing only for the
Myfterioufnefs of the Subject. The Gentle
men jof the New way have hitherto kept
pretty much in generals, and avoided coming
to the pinch of the Queftion. If they pleafe
to fpeak to the Toint, and put the Caufe up
on a Jhort IJfue, as may eafily be done, that
is all that is defir'd. I doubt not but all
Attempts of that kind will end {as they have
ever done) in the clearing up of the Truth,
the Difappointment of its Oppofirs, the Joy
of good Men, and the Honour of our Blejfed
Lord; whofe Divinity has been the Rock of
Offence to the Difputers of this World, now
for 1 600 Tears ; always attack' d by fome or
other, in every Age, and always Triumphant.
To Him, with the Father, and the Holy Ghoft,
Three.Perfons of the fame divine Power, Sub
ftance, and Perfections, be all Honour and
Glory, in all Churches of the Saints, now
and for evermore. THE

THE

CONTENTS.

Compare the following Texts.

I am the Lord, and there
is none elfe ; There is
no God befides me, If a.
45* 5-
Is there a God befides
me ? Yea , there is no
God, I know not any, Ifa.
44. 8.
I am God and there is
none like me ; Before me
there was no God form'd,
neither fhall there be after
me, Ifa. 46. 9.

The Word was God j
Joh. 1. 1.
Thy Throne, O God,
Heb. 1. 8
Chrift came, who is o-
ver all God bleffed for ever,
Rom. 9. y.
Who being in the Form
of God, Phil. 2. 6.
Who being the Bright-
nefs of his Glory, and the
exprefs Image of his Per
fon, Heb. 1. 3.

au E R Y I.
Whether all other Beings,-^ befides the one Supreme God, be
not excluded by the Texts of Ifaiah (to which many
more might be added) and confequently, whether Chrift
can be God at all, unlefs he be the fame with the Su
preme Ged\ p. Zt
QUERY II.
Whether the Texts of the New Teftament ( in the feconci
Column) do not flpow that He (Chrift) is not excludedi
and therefore muft be the fame God? p. 6.
-QUERY III.
Whether the Word ( God ) in Scripture, can reafonably bt
fuppos'd to tarry an ambiguous meaning, or be usd in
a dtf-

The CONTENTS.
a different Senfe, when applied to the Father and Son,
in the fame Scripture, and even in the fame verfe ? (Set
Joh. i. i.) p- 47.
QUERY IV.
Whether, fnppofing the Scripture- Notion of God to be no
more than that of the Author and Governor of the
Univer fe, or whatever it be, the admitting of Another
to be Author and Governor of the Univerfe , he not
admitting another God ; contrary to the Texts before
cited from Ifaiah ¦,• and alfo to Ua. 41. 8.  48. it.
where he declares, He will not give his Glory to Ano
ther? p. 73.
Q U_E R Y V.
Whether Dr. Clarke's pretence, that the Authority of Fa
ther and Son being One, tho' they are two diftinB Beings?
makes them not to be two Gods, As a King upon the
Throne and his Son adminiftring the Father's Go
vernment , are not two Kings , be mt trifling and
inconfiftent ? For, if the Kings Son be mt a King, he
cannot truly be called King ; if he is, then there are
two Kings. So, if the Son be not God in the Scrip'
ture-Notion of Go'd, he cannot truly be called God,-
and then how is the Dotlor confiftent with Scripture, or
•with Himfelf ?? But if the Son be truly God, there are
two Gods upon the Dollar's Hypothefis, as plainly as
that one and one are two/ and fo all the Texts of
Ifaiah cited above , befides others, ftand full and clear
againft the Dotlor s Notion, p. 79.
TE XTS , proving an 'Vinity of divine At
tributes in Father and Son, applied.

To the one God.
Thou, even Thou only
kiooweft the Hearts of all

To the Son.
He knew all Men &c.Jch.
z. 24. Thou knoweft all
the

ihe Children of Men, i.
Kings 8. 39.
I the Lord fearch the
Heart; I try the Reins,
Jer. 17. 10.
I am the firft, and I am
the laft, and befides me there
is no "God, Ifa. 44. $-
I am A and £2, the be
ginning and the end, Rev.
!• o.King of Kings, and Lord

The CONTENTS. Things,^. 16.36. Which
knoweft the Hearts of all
Men, Alls 1. 24.
I am he that fearcheth
the Reins and the Heart,
Rev. 2.23.
I am the firft, and I am
the laft, Rev. 1. 17.

lam A and £2, the begin-
ning and the end, Rev. 2*.
Lord of Lords, and King

The 1

¦nighty

God,

Ifa.

JO. 21.

Lord

over

sU,

Rom.

JO. 12.

Of Lor'ds, 1. Tm. 6. 15. of **T' **"' *7" "4
' 19. 16.
The mighty God, If.9.6.
He is Lord of all, Abls
10. 36".
Over all God blefted ,
&c. Rom. 9. 5.
QUERY VI.
ffhetber the fame CharaBerifticks , efpecially fuch eminent
ones, can reafonably be underftood of two diftinil Beings ;
and of one Infinite and Independent, the other Dependent
and Finite ? p. l6p.
Q_U E R Y VIL
tylmher the Father % Omnifcience and Eternity are not one
and the fame with the Sons, being alike defcrib'd, and
in the fame phrafes ? p. 1 00.
QUERY VIII.
Wljeiher Eternity dees not imply neceffary Exiftence of
the Son ; which is inconfiftent with the Dotlor' s Scheme*.
'And whether the * Dotlor hath not made an elufive,
* Reply, p, ii-j.. equivo-
The CONTENTS.
Equivocating Anfwer to the Objetlion, fince the Son maf
be a neceffary Emanation from the Farrier, by ths
Will and Power of the Father, without any Contrail
ftion1. Will is one thing, and Arbitrary Will another*.
p. 121.
QUERY IX. .
Whether the divine Attributes, Omnifcience, Ubiquity*'
&c. thofe individual Attributes can be communicated^
without the divine Ejfence, from which they are infepd*
rable I p. 1 64.
QUERY X.
Whether, if they (the Attributes belonging to the Son,)
be not Individually the fame, they can be any thing
more than faint RefembUnces of them , differing fy.-n'
them as Finite from Infinite,- and then in wha -^'fei
or with what" Truth can ihe Doftor pretend th„
divine Powers, except abfolute Supremacy and Inde
pendency, are communicated to the Son ? And whether
every Being, befides the one Supreme Being, muft not ne-
tejfarily be a Creature and Finite; and whether all
divine Powers can be communicated to a Creature; In»
finite Perfetlidn to 4 Finite Being? p. 174.
a U E R Y XL
Whether if the DoBor means by divine Powers, Powers given
by God (in the fame Senfe as Angelical Powers are di
vine Powers) only in a higher Degree than are given
to other Beings ; it be not equivocating and faying nothing ;
Nothing that can come up to the Senfe of thofe Textt be-j
fore cited, f or to thefe following ? p. 1 8 1 .

To the one God.
Thou, even Thou ,• art

Applied

To God the Son.
All things' were made by

Lord alone; Thou haft him,' Joh: 1. 3. By him
* Scriptfire Do&r. p. zp8. . . f Query 6. p; 8y, .,

The CONTENTS.

made Heaven, the Heaven
of Heavens with all their
Hoft, the Earth, and all
things that are therein &c.
Neh. 9. 6.
In the Beginning, God
Created the Heavens and
the Earthy Gen. 1. 1.

were all things Created ; He
is before all things and by
him all things Confift, Co,
lof. 1. 16. 17.
Thou, Lord, in the Be.
ginning, haft laid the Foun
dation of the Earth; and
the Heavens are the Work
of thy Hands, Heb. 1. 10.

Q_U E R Y XII.
Whether the Creator of all Things was not himfelf Uncreat
ed; and therefore could not be g? Qf% ovmv , made
out of nothing ? p. 194.
Q. U E R Y XIII.
Whether there can be any Middle between being made out
of nothing, and out of fomething ; that is, between being
out of nothing, and out of the Father's Subftance ; be
tween being effentially God, and being a Creature?
Whether, confequently, the Son muft not be either effen
tially God, or elfe a Creature ? p. 202.
QUERY XIV.
Whether Dr. Clarke, who every where denies the Confub-
ftantiality of the Son as abfurd and contradiBorj, does
not, of Confequence, affirm the Son to be a Creaturet
e£ CXX ovtciv, and fo fall under his own cenfure, and
is Self-condemn d? p. 212.
Q. U E R Y XV. '
Whether he alfo muft not, of Confequence, affirm of the
Son, that there was a time when he was not, fence
God muft exift before the Creature; and therefore is
again Self-condemned (See prop. 16. Scrip. Do&r.J And

The CONTENTS.
And whether he does not equivocate in faying * elfewhere
that the fecond Perfon has been always with the firft j
and that there has been no time, when he was not fo •
And laftly, whether it be not a vatri and weak^ attempt
to pretend to any middle way between the Orthodox
and the Arians ; or to carry the Son's Divinity the leaft
higher than they did, without taking in the Confubftan*
tiality? p. 214. Divine Worjhip due

To the one God.
Thou fhalt have no o-
ther Gods before me, Exod.
20. 3.
Thou fhalt Worfhip the
Lord thy God, and him
only fhalt thou ferve, Matt.
4. 10.

To Chrift.
They worfhip'd him »
Luk. 24. 25.
L?t all the Angels of God
worfhip him, Heb. 1. 6
That all Men fhould ho
nour the Son, even as they
honour the Father i Job*
5. 23.

QUERY XVI.
Whether by thefe ('of the firft Column,) and the like Texth
Adoration and Worfhip be not fo appropriated to the one
God, as to belong to him only I p. 229.
C^U E R Y XVII.
Whether, notwith ft anding, Worft:ip and Adoration be not e~
qually due to Chrift; and confequently, whether it muft
not follow that he is the one God, and not ( as the A-
rians fuppofe) a diftinB inferior Being? pi 252.
Q_U E R Y XVIII.
Whether Worftoip and Adoration, both from Men and Angels?
was not due to him, long before the Commencing of hii
* Script. Do&r. p. 418; B x Medfo

The CONTENTS
Mediatorial Kingdom, as he was their Creator and
Preferver (See Col. i. 16, ij.) And whether that be
not the fame Title to Adoration which God the Father
hath, as Author and Governor of the ZJniverfe, upon the
DoBor s own Principles ? p. 267.
aU E R Y XIX.
Whether the DoBor hath not given a very partial Account
of Joh. 5. 23. founding the Honour due to the Son,
on this only, that the Father hath committed all Judg
ment to the Son; when the true Reafon afpgnd by our
Saviour, and illuftrated by feveral Inftances, is, that the
Son doth the fame things that the Father doth, hath the
fame Power and Authority of doing what he will; and
therefore has a Title to as great Honour, Reverence, and
Regard, as the Father himfelf hath ? And it is no Ob-
jeBion to this, that the Son is there faid to do nothing
of himfelf, or to have all given Him by the Father;
fince it is own'd that the Father is the Fountain of all,
from whom the Son derives, in an ineffable manner, his
Effence and Powers, fo as to be one with him. p. 278.
a U E R Y. XX.
Whether the DoBor need have cited 300 Texts, wide of the
purpofe, to prove what no Body denies, namely a Subor
dination, in! fome Senfe, of the Son to the Father ; could
He have found but one plain 7ext againft his Eternity
er Confubftantiality, the points in Oueftion ? p. 298.
Q_U E R Y XXI.
Wlxther he be not forc'd to fupply his want of Scripture*
proof by very ftrain'd and remote Inferences, and very
uncertain Reafenings from the Nature of a thing, confef-
fedly, Obfcure and above Comprchenfion ; and yet not
more fo than God's Eternity, Ubiquity, Prelcience,
or other Attributes, which yet we are obliged to acknow-
' 'ge for certain Truths? p. 30$.
QUERY

The CONTENTS.
QUERY XXII.
Whether his (the Doctors) whole performance, whenever
He differs from us, be any thing more than a Repetition
of this Affertion, that Being and Perfon are the fame,
or that there is no Medium between Tritheifm and Sa-
bellianifm ? which is removing the Caufe from Scripture
to natural Reafon; not very Confiftently with the Title of
his Book. p. 326".
Q_U E R Y XXIII.
Whether the DoBor' s Notion of the Trinity be more clear
and intelligible than the other ?
The Difficulty in the Conception of the Trinity is, how Three
Perfons can be One God.
Does the DoBor deny that every One of the Perfons, fingly,
is God*. No: Does he deny that God is One? No: how
then are Three One
Does one and the fame Authority, exercifed by all, make
them one, numerically or individually one and the fame
God? That is hard to conceive how three diftinB Beings,
according to the DoBor' s Scheme, can be individually one
God, that is, three Perfons one Perfon.
If therefore one God neceffarily fignifies but one Perfon, the Con
fequence is irrefiftible; either that the Father is that one
Perfon, and none elfe, which is downright Sabellianifm ;
or that the three Perfons are three Gods.
Thus the DoBor s Scheme is liable to the fame Difficulties
with the other.
There is indeed one eafy way of coming off, and that ii,
by faying that the Son and Holy-Spirit are neither of
them God, in the Scripture -fenfe of the Word. But this
is cutting the Knot, inftead of untying it; and is in ef-
feB to fay , they are not fet forth as divine Perfons in
Scripture.
Does the Communication of divine Powers and Attributes
from Father, to Son and Holy-Spirit, make them one
God} the Divinity of the two latter being the Father's
B 5 Divinity ?

The CONTENTS.
phinity ? Tet the fame difficulty recurs : For either the
Son and Holy-Ghoft have diftintl Attributes, and a di-
flinB Divinity of their own, or they have not : If they
have, they are (upon the DoBor s Principles) diftinll Gods
from the Father, and as much as Finite from Infinite,
Creature from Creator; and then how are they one ? If
they have not, then, fince they have no other Divinity,
but that individual Divinity and thofe Attributes which
are infeparable from the Father's Effence, they can have
ne diftintl: Effence from the Father's; and Jo (accord
ing to the DoBor) will be one and the fame Perfon, that
is, will be Names only.
Q. Whether this be not as unintelligible as the Orthodox No
tion of the Trinity, and liable to the like Difficulties : A
communication of Divine Powers and Attributes, without
the Subftance, being as hard to conceive, nay, much har
der than a communication of Both together ? p. 345.
Q^ U E R Y XXIV.
Whether Gal. 4. 8. may not be enough to determine the
difpute betwixt us ; fince it obliged the DoBor to confefs
that Chrift is * by Nature truly God, as truly as
Man is by Nature truly Man.
He equivocates, there, indeed, as Ufual. For, he will have it
to figniff, that Chrift is God by Nature, only as having
by that Nature which he derives from the Father, true
Divine Power and Dominion : that is, he is truly God
by Nature, as having a Nature diftinB from and infe
rior to God's, wanting f the moft Effential Character
pf God, Self-exiftence. What is this but trifling with
Words, and playing f aft and loofel p. 370.
CLU E R Y XXV.
Whether it be not clear from all the genuine remains of An
tiquity, that the Catholick^ Church before the Council of
Nice, and even from the beginning, did believe the £-
ternity and Confubftantiality of the Son; if either th^
t Reply p. 8«, f Reply p. $>*„ oldeft

The CONTENTS.
oldeft Creeds, as interpreted by thofe that recite them;
or the Teftimonies of the earlieft Writers, or the publick\
Cenfures pafs'd upon Heretickj, or particular parages of
the Antienteft Fathers, can amount to a proof of a thing
of this Nature I p. 378.
QUERY XXVI.
Whether the DoBor did not equivocate or prevaricate ftrange-
ly in faying * The Generality of Writers before the
Council of Nice, were, in the whole, clearly on his
fide : when it is manifeft, they were, in the general,
no farther on his fide, than the allowing a Subordina
tion amounts to; no farther than our own Church is on his
fide, while in the main points of difference, the Eternity
and Confubftantiality, they are clearly againft him%
That is, they were on his fide, fo far as we acknowledge
him to be righty but no farther, p. 3 89.
QUERY XXVIL
Whether the Learned DoBor may not reafonably be fuppos'd
to fay , the Fathers are on his fide with the fame
Meaning and Referve as he pretends our Church-Forms
to favour him; that is, provided he may interpret as he
pleafes, and make them fpeak, his Senfe, however Contra-
diBory to their own : And whether the true Reafon why
he does not care to admit the Teftimonies of the Fathers as
Proofs, may not be, becaufe they are againft him ?
p. 422.
QUERY XXVIII.
Whether it be at all probable, that the primitive Church
fhould miftake in fo material a Point as this is ; or that
the whole Stream of Chriftian Writers fhould miftake in
telling us what the Senfe of the Church was ; and whe
ther fuch a Cloud of Witneffes can be fet afide without
weakening the only Proof we have of the Canon of
Scripture, and the Integrity of the Sacred TextX p. 4 5 6.
• Anfwer to Dr, Wells pag. 28.
B4 QUERY

The CONTENTS.
Q_U E R Y XXIX.
Whether private Reafening, in a matter above our Com-
prehenfion, be a fafer Rule to go by, than the general
Senfe and Judgment of the primitive Church, in the
firft 300 Tears; or, fuppofmg it doubtful what the Senfe of
the Church was within that time, whether what was
determin'd by a Council of 300 Bifloops foon after, with
the greateft Care and Deliberation, and has fatisfied Men
pf the greateft Senfe, Piety and Learning, all over the
Chriftian World, for 1400 Tears fince, may not fatisfy
qpife and good Men now ? p. 46*0.
QUERY XXX.
Whether, fuppo/ing the Cafe doubtful, it be 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 modeft deference to the Judgment of the Anttent and
Modern Church, than to lean to one's own XJnderfiand-
fngl p. 475. Q^U E R Y XXXI.
Whether any thing lefs than clear and evident Demonftra-
tion , on the fide of Arianifm , ought to move a wife
and good Man, againft Jo great Appearances of Truth,
pn the fide of Orthodoxy, from Scripture, Reafon*
and Antiquity: And whether we may not wait
before ¦we find fuch Demonftration ? p. 481.

A,

A

*

DEFENSE OF SOME
QUERIES RELATING TO
Dr. CLARKE'S
Scheme of the H.Trinity:
in ANSWER to a
CLERGY-MAN in the Country.
Compare the following Texts.

I am the Lord, and
there is none elfe;
There is no God be
fides me, Ifa. 45-. 5-.
Is there a God be
fides me ? Tea, There
is no God, I know not
any, If 44. .8
/ am God and there
$s none like me; Be
fore me there was no
God form'd, neither
fhall there be after
me* ?f- 46, 9.

The Word was God
Joh. 1. 1.
Thy Throne, O God,
Heb. 1. 8.
Chrift came, who is
over all God bleffed
for ever, Rom. 9. 5.
Who being in the
Form of God, Phil. x.6.
Who being the
Brightnefs ofhis Glo
ry , and the exprefs
Image of his Ter fon,
Heb. 1. 3. Query.

¥ i DEFENSE Qy. I.
Q^ U E R Y I.
Whether all other Beings , befides the one
Supreme God, be not excluded by the Texts
of Ifaiah, ( to which many more might be
added) and confequently , whether Chrift
can be God at all, unlefs He be the: fame
with the Supreme God?
TH E Sum of your Anfwer to this Query,
is, that the Texts cited from Ifaiah, in
the firft Column, are fpoken of ont Perfon on
ly, (p. 34.) TheTerfon of the Father, (p. 39.)
And therefore all other Terfons, or Beings
(which you make equivalent ) how divine fo-
ever, are necejfarily excluded; and by Confe
quence , our Lord Jefus Chrift is as much
excluded from being the one Supreme God, as
from being the Terfon of the Father, (p. 40.)
You fpend fome Pages, in endeavouring to
fhow, that the Ter Jon of the Father only is
the Supreme God ; and that the Perfon of the
Son is not Supreme God. But what does this
fignify, except it be to lead your Reader off
from the Point which it concern'd you to fpeak
to? Inftead of anfwering the Difficulty propos'd,
which was the part of a Refpondent, you chufe
to flip it over, and endeavor to put me upon
the Defenfive; which is by no means Fair.
Your Bufinefs was to ward on the Confequence
which I had prefs'd you with, namely, this :
That if the Son be at all excluded by thofe
Texts

Qu. I. of fome QU E R I E S. 3
Texts in the firft Column, He is altogether ex
cluded ; and is no God at all. He cannot, up
on your Principles, be the fame God, becaufe
He is not the fame Perfon : He cannot be ano
ther God, becaufe excluded by thofe Texts. If
therefore He be neither the fame God, nor ano
ther God ; it muft follow that He is no God.
This is the difficulty which I apprehend to lie
againft your Scheme ; and which you have not
fufficiently attended to
Iihall therefore charge it upon you once again,
and leave you to get clear of it at leifure.
I ihall take it for granted, that the defign
and purport of thofe Texts, cited from Ifaiah,
was the fame with that of the firft Command
ment: Namely, to draw the People off from
placing any Truft, Hope, or Reliance in any
but God, to direct them to the only proper
object of Worlhip, in oppofition to all Things
or Perfons, befides the one Supreme God. " Nci-
"ther Baal nor AJhtaroth, nor any that are
" efteemed Gods by the Nations, are ftri&Iy and
' ' properly fuch. Neither Princes nor Magiftrates,
." however called Gods in a loofe Metaphorical
"Senfe, are ftridrly or properly fuch. No reli-
"gious Service, no Worfhip, no Sacrifice is due
"to any of them: I only am God, in a juft
" Senfe ; and therefore I demand your Homage
" and Adoration. Now, upon your Hypothefis,
we muft add ; that even the Son of God Him
felf, however divine He may be thought, is
really no God at all, in any juft and proper Senfe. He

4 / DEFENSE Q_u. I.
He is no more than a nominal God, and ftands
excluded with the reft : All Worfhip of Him,
and Reliance upon Him, will be Idolatry as
much as the Worfhip of Angels, or Men, or
of the Gods of the Heathen would be. God the
Father He is God, and He only ; and Him only
fhalt thou ferve. This I take to be a clear Con
fequence from your Principles, and unavoidable.
You do, indeed, attempt to evade it by fup-
pofing that, when the Father faith there is no
God befides me , the meaning only is , that
there is no Supreme God befides me. But will
you pleafe to confider.
i. That you have not the leaft Ground or
Reafon for putting this Senfe upon the Text.
It is not faid there is no other Supreme God
befides me ; but abfolutely, no Other.
z. If this were all the meaning, then Baal
or Ajhtaroth, or any of the Gods of the Na
tions, might be look'd upon as inferior Deities,
and be ferved with a fubordinate Worfhip, not-
wkhftanding any thing thefe Texts fay, with
out any Peril of Idolatry, or any Breach of the
firft Commandment. Solomon might Sacrifice
to Ajhtaroth, and Milcom, to Chemojh and
Moloch, provided he did but ferve the God of
Ifrael with Soveraign Worfhip, acknowledg
ing Him Supreme. And this might furnifh the
Samaritans with a very plaufible excufe, even
from the Law it felf, for ferving their own
Gods in Subordination to the one Supreme
God; fince God had not forbidden it.
* j Kings cii. 3 • Yon

Qu. I. of fome QUERIES. $
3. You may pleafe to confider farther, that
there was never any great Danger of either Jew
or Gentile falling into the belief of many Su
preme Gods; or into the Worfhip of more than
one as Supreme. That is a Notion too filly
to have ever prevailed much, even in the igno
rant Pagan World. What was moft to be guard
ed againft, was the Worfhip of inferior Deitie*,
befides, or in Subordination to, one Supreme.
It cannot therefore reafonably be imagined that
thofe Texts are to bear only fuch a Senfe, as leaves
room for the Worfhip of inferior Divinities.
The Sum then is, that by the Texts of the
Old Teftament, it is not meant only that there
is no other Supreme God ; but abfblutely no
Other: And therefore our bleffed Lord moft
either be included and comprehended in the
one Supreme God of Ifrael, or be intirely ex
cluded with the other pretended, or nominal,
Deities. I fliall clofe this Argument with St.
Auftirfs Words to Maximin, the Arian Bifhop,
who recurr'd to the fame Solution of the Diffi
culty which you hope to Shelter your felf in.
" * Repeat it ever fo often, that the Father
" is greater, the Son lefs. We fliall anfwer
" you as often, that the greater and the lefs
" makeTwo. And it is not faid, Thy greater
* Clama quantum vis, Pater eft Major, Filius Minor, refpondcfur
tibi; duo tamen funt Major 8c Minor. Nee diftum eft Dominus
Deus tuus Major Dominus unus eft: fed dictum eft Dominus Deus
tuus Dominus unus eft. Neque dictum eft, non eft alius tqualis
mihi, fed dictum eft. non eft alius praeter me. Aut ergo Corifltere
Patrem 8c Filium unum efle Dominum Deum, aut aperte nega Do-
fiitoum Deum effc Chriftum. Avgufi, L t. c ij. p. 7*7.
* ' Lord

6 ^ DEFENSE Qu. It
" Lord God is one Lord: But the Words are:
" The Lord thy God is one Lord, Nor is it
" faid, There is none other Equal to me, but
" the Words are* There is none other Befides
" me. Either therefore acknowledge that Fa-
•' ther and Son are one Lord God ; or in plain
" Terms deny that Chrift is Lord God at all.
This is the difficulty which I want to fee
clear'd. You produce Texts to lhow that the
Father fingly is the Supreme God, and that
Chrift is excluded from being the Supreme God:
But I infift upon it, that you mifunderftand thofe
Texts ; becaufe the Interpretation you give of
them, is not reconeileable with other Texts ; and
becaufe it leads to fuch Abfurdities a$ are too
lh ocking even for your felf to admit. In fhort ; ei
ther you prove too much, or you prove nothing
at all.
Query. II.
Whether the Texts of the New Teftament {ih
the fecond Column ) do not fhow that He
(Chrift) is not excluded, and therefore muft
be the fame God?
THE Texts cited, if well confidered, taking
in what goes before or after , are enough
to fhow that Chrift is not excluded among the
nominal Gods, who have no Claim or Title to our
Service, Homage, or Adoration. He is God be
fore the World was, God over all blefifed for
ever, Maker of the World, and worfliip'd by the
Angels ;

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. 7
Angels ; and therefore certainly He is not ex
cluded among the nominal Gods whom to wor
fhip were Idolatry. But fince all are excluded*
as hath been before mown, except the one
Supreme God, it is very manifeft that He is
the fame with the one Supreme God. Not the
fame Terfon with the Father, as you ground-
lefly objedt to us, but Another Perfon in the
lame Godhead ; and therefore the Supreme God
is more Perfons than one. You argue, (p. 40.)
that if Chrift be God at all, it unavoidably
follows that He cannot be the fame individual
God with the fupreme God, the Father. By
individual God, you plainly mean the fame in
dividual divine Terfon, which is only play
ing upon a Word, miftaking our Senfe, and
fighting with your own Shadow. Who pre
tends that the Son is the fame Terfon with the
Father ? All we affert is, that He is the fame
Supreme God; that is, partaker of the fame
undivided Godhead. It will be proper here
briefly to confider the Texts, by which you at
tempt to prove, that the Son is excluded from
being the one Supreme God : only let me re
mind you, once again, that you forgot the part
you was to bear. Your Bufinefs was not to
oppofe, but to refpond: not to raife Objecti
ons againft our Scheme ; but to anfwer thofe
which were brought againft your own. You
obferve * from John 8. 54. Matt. xt. 31, 32,
and Acts 3. 13. that God the Father was the
* Pag- 34-
God

8 i DEFENSE. Cni. II.
God of the Jews, the God of Abraham, lfaac,
and Jacob. Very right. But how does it appear
that the Son was not ? Could you have brought
ever a Text to prove, that God the Son was
not God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob ; I muft
then have own'd that you had argued pertinently.
You next cite, Joh. 17. 3- 1 Cor. 8. 6. Eph.
4. 6. to prove that the Father is fometimes
ftiled the only true God, which is all that they
prove. But you have not fhown that He is
fb called in opposition to the Son, or exclufive
of Him. It may be meant in oppofition to
Idols only, as all Antiquity has thought ; or it
may fignify that the Father is * primarily, not
exclufively , the only true God, as the firft
Perfon of the blefTed Trinity , the Root and
Fountain of the other Two. You obferve fthat
in thefe and many other T laces, the one God
is the Terfon of the Father, in Contrd-
diftinction to the Terfon of the Son. It is
very certain that the Perfon of the Father is
there diftinguifh'd from the Perfon of the Son ;
becaufe they are diftinclrly named : And you
may make what ufe you pleafe of the Obfer
vation, againft the Sabellians; who make but
one Perfon of two. But what other ufe you
can be able to make of it, I fee not ; unlefs
you can prove this negative Propofition, that
no fufficient reafon can be affign'd for ftilirig
the Father the only God, without fuppofing
that the Son is exclcrded. ffovatian's Remark,
upon one of your Texts, Joh. 17. 3. (7hee<
* Vid. Tcrtull, cont. Prax. c. iS. fP-34" the

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. 9
the only true God and Jefus Chrift whom thou
haft Jent) may deferve your Notice. * He ap
plies the Title of the only true God to Both,
fince they are join'd together in the fame Sen
tence, and eternal Life is made to depend upon
the knowing of one, as much as of the other.
He did not fee that peculiar Force of the ex-
clufive Term, {only) which you infift fb much
upon. He knew better ; being well acquainted
with the Language, and the Doctrine of the
Chriftian Church. His Conftruciion, to fpeak
modeftly, is at leaft as plaufible as yours. If
you can find no plainer or clearer Texts againft
us, you'l not be able to help your Caufe. As
to 1 Cor. 8. 6. All that can be reafonably ga
thered from it, is, that the Father is there em
phatically ftiled one God; but without defign
to exclude the Son from being God alfo : as
the Son is emphatically ftiled one Lord; buc
without defign to exclude the Father from be-
fng Lord allb.f Reafons maybe afllgn'd for the
Emphafis in both Cafes ; which are too obvi
ous to need reciting. One Thing you may
pleafe to obferve; that the Difcourfe there,
* Si noluiflet fe etiam Deum Intelligi, cur addidit, & quern mififti
JefumChriftum,ni(iquoniam'k: Deumaccipi voluir. Novai.Trin.c.14.
See the fame Argument illufirated and improved by the great
Athanafius: Orat. 5. p. ff8. Vol. I. Edit. Bened.
f Si enim.ut exiftimant Ariani, Deus Pater Solus eft Deus.eaderii
confequentia, Solus erit Dominus Jefus Chriftus, 8c nee Pater erij
Dominus nee Filius Deus. Sed abfit, ut non fit, vel in Domi-
aatione Deitas, vel in Deitate Domination Unus eft Dominus 8c
unus eft Deus: quia Patris 8c Filii Dominatio una Divinitas effi«
Hieron. comment, in Ephef. C. 4. v. f.
C v. 4. $,

io ^ DEFENSE. Qu. II.
V. 4, £. is about Idols, and nominal Gods and
Lords, which have no claim or title to religious
Worfhip. Thefe the Father and Son are Both
equally diftinguiffied from : which may infi-
nuate, at leaft, to us; That the Texts of the
Old or New Teftament, declaring the Unity and
excluding others, do not exclude the Son, by
whom are all Things : So that here again you
have unfortunately quoted a PafTage, which in
ftead of making for you, feems rather againft
you. You have another, which is Eph. 4. 6.
One God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all. A famous
Paffage, which has generally been underftood
by the * Antients of the whole Trinity. Above
all as Father, through all, by the Word, and
in all by the Holy Ghoft. However that be,
this is certain, that the Father may be reafon
ably called the one, or only God, without the
leaft Diminution of the Son's real Divinity : a
fuller Account of which Matter you may pleafe
to fee in Dr. Fiddes's Body of Divinity, Vol. 1.
p. 383. &c- As to the remaining Texts cited
by you, feme are meant of Chrift as Man, or
as Mediator: And thofe which certainly re-
Jpecl: him in a higher Capacity, may be ac
counted for on this Principle, that we referve,
with the Antients, a Triority of Order to the
Father, the Firft of the BlefTed Three.
* Irentus 1. f. c. iS- p. glf . Ed. Bened. Bipfclytm Contr.Noer.
<f. 14. p. 16. Fabric. Ed. Athanefiui Ep.nd Scrap, p. 6J6.Mdri:u Viclorm.
B.P. Tom. 4. p. 1 s 8. Hieronym. Tom. 4.. p. j, p. ?£2. Ed. Bened.
This-

Qu. IL of fome QUERIES; ii
This may ferve for a general Key to explain
the Texts mention'd, or others of like import.
I cannot, in this place, defcend to Particulars*
without running too far into the Defenfive ;
and leading the Reader off from what we began
with. Had you pleas'd to obferve the rules of
ftrict method in difpute, you ffiould not herd
have brought Texts to ballance mine ; but
ffiould have referved them for another place;
All you had to do, was to examine the Texts
I had let down in the fecond Column ; and to5
give fuch a Senfe of them as might comport
With your oWn Hypbthefis, or might be un-
ferviceable to mine. You ffiould have ffiowri
that Job. i. i. Heb. I. 8. and Rom.^y. 5. may
fairly be underftood of a nominal God only j
one that ftands excluded, by the Texts of the
firft Column, from all Pretence, or Title, td
religious Homage and Adoration: For, as t
have before obferved* He muft either be intire-
ly excluded, or not at all : and if He be not
excluded, He is comprehended in the one Su
preme God, and is One with Him : or, at leaft,
you ffiould have fet before the Reader your
Interpretation of thofe Texts, and have ffiowri
it to be confiftent With the Texts of Ijaiahi
For example^ take Joh. 1. 1.
" In the Beginning was the Word, and
" the Word was with the one Supreme
" GdDi and the Word was Another
" Gdo inferior td Hirii, a C&eAture of the
€ * ««&REAf

ii of fome QUERIES. Qu. II.
" Great God: All Things were Creat
ed by this Creature, &c.
This Interpretation, which is really yours,
as ihall be ffiown in the Sequel, is what you
ffiould have fairly own'd, and reconciled, if
poffible, with the Texts of Ifaiah, (pur-
pofely defign'd to exclude all inferior, as
well as co-ordinate Gods) and particularly
with Ifaiah 46. 9. Before me there was no
God form'd, neither Jhall there be after
me: Words very full and expreffive againft
any Creature-Gods. But, inftead of this, you
tell us, God could not be with Himfelf, as
if any of us faid , or thought , That was St.
John's meaning. Thus you induftrioufly run
from the Point, mifreprefent our Senfe, and
artfully conceal your own. In this flight man
ner, you pafs over the three firft Texts already
mention'd ; but you think you have fome Ad
vantage of the Ghterift , in refpect of Thil.
z. 6. and Heb. 1. 3. and not content to fay,
that they come not up to the point ; you are
very pofitive, that they prove the direct con
trary to that for which they are alledg'd;
and exprefs your wonder that they fhould be
ojfer'd. Whether you really wonder at a Thing,
which no Man who is at all acquainted with
Books and Learning can wonder at; or whether
only you affect that way of talking, I deter
mine not ; but proceed to confider what you
have to offer againft my Senfe of the two Texts. Upon

Qu. II. of fome QJJERIES. 13
Upon Thil. 2. 6. you prefs me with the Au
thority of Novatian ; whom, I do affure you,
I very much refpect, as I do all the primitive
Writers. As to Novalian's Interpretation of
Thil. z. 6. it fhall be confider'd prefently ; on
ly, in the firft place, let me obferve to you, that
as to the main of my Argument, built upon
that and other Texts, He was certainly on my
Side. He * cites Ifa. 45". f. and underftands
it of God the Father; not fb as to exclude
the Son from being comprehended in the one
God, but in oppofition to falfe Gods only.
He proves the Divinity of Chrift frorri his
receiving Worfhip of the Church , and his
being every where prefent, f befides many
other Topicks ; and makes Him \ Confub-
ftantial with God the Father. This is as much
as I mean by his being one with the Supreme
God ; and therefore 1 have nothing to fear from
this Writer, who agrees fb well with me in
the main, and cannot be brought to bear Evi
dence againft me, unlefs, at the fame time, He
be found to contradict Himfelf. This being
* Ego Deus, Sc non eft prater me. Qui per eundem Prophetafn
refert-: Quoniam majeftatem meam non dabo alteri, ut omnes cum
fuis Figmentis Ethnicos excludat & Hsreticos. C. 3. p. 708. See
alfo the Citation above p. 9.
i Si Homo tantummcd'o Chriftus, quomodo adeft ubique invo-
carus, cum hzc hominis natura non fit, fed Dei, ut adefle omni
loco poffit ? C. 14. p. 71;-,
^ Unus Deus oftenditur verus & xternus Pater, a quo folo hire
vi^ Divinitatis emifla etiam in Filium tradita & diredta rurfum per
Subfiantia Communionem ad Patrem revolvitur. Father ii here
ftiled emphatically the one Cod, but fiill comprehending, not exclud
ing the San., coniubftantial with Him. Ch. 31. p. 730-
C 3 .premis'd

?4 ^DEFENSE Q_u. II.
premis'd, let us now fee what He fays to the
Text above mention'd, Thil. z. 6. He faith of
the Son ( I ufe your own Words, p. 35.) that
tho' He was in the Form of God, yet He ne
ver compared HimfelJ with God his Father.
You have tranflated the laft Words as if they
had run thus ; Deo, patri Juo. The Words
are, Nunquam fe Deo Tatri aut comparavit,
aut contulit. Never compared Himfelf with
God the Father. The Reafon follows, Memor
fe ejfe ex Juo Tatre: Remembring He was
from his Father ; That is , that He was be
gotten, and not unbegotten. He never pre
tended to an equality with the Father, in re
fpect of his Original, knowing Himfelf to be
fecond only in Order, not the firft Perfon of
the ever Bleffed Trinity. You may fee the
like Expreffions in * Hilary and t Thabadius ;
who can neither of them be fufpected of
Arianizing in that Point. You afterwards cite
fome other Expreffions of Novatian, particu
larly this: Duo aquales invent i duos Deos
merito reddidiffent. Which you might have
render'd thus : Had they Both been equal (in
¦ refpecT: qf Original , Both unbegotten ) They
had undoubtedly been two Gods.
See the £ whole Paffage as it lies in the Au-
* Hilary Trin. 1. 3. c. 4. p. 810. Ed. Bened.
f Vh,bad. p. 304.
i Si enim natus' non fuiflet, innatus comparatus cum eo qui
eflTet innatus, xquarione in utroqtie oftenfa, duos faceret innatos. &
ideo duos faceret Deos, Si non genitus effet, collatus cum co
(qui) genitus non cflet 6c Equates inventi, duos Deos merito reddi-
thor

Qu. II. of fome QU E R I E S. r j
thor himfelf, and not maim'd and mutilated as
you quote it, from Dr. Clarke. There is no
thing more in it than this, that Father and Son
are not two Gods, becaufe They are not Both un-
originated: which is the common Anfwer made
by the Catholicks to the charge of Tritheijm-,
not only before, but after the Nicene Council;
as might be made appear by a Cloud of Wit
neffes, were it needful. What you are pleas'd
to call a moft ftrong Teftimony againft an ab-
folute Coequality (meaning this Paffage of No-
vatian) is,1 if rightly underftood, and compared
with what goes before and after, a moft ftrong
Teftimony of fuch a Coequality as we contend
for. And therefore Dr. Whitby, having for
merly cited the whole Paragraph as a full and
clear Teftimony of the Son's real Divinity,
concludes thus. The Author, fays He, in this
Paffage, " *does, in the plaineft words imagiri-
" able, declare that Chrift is God, equal to
" the Father in every refpec~r, excepting only
" that He is God of God. The Doclor indeed
has fince chang'd his Mind ; and now talks as
confidently the other way, upon f this very
Paflage. Whether He was more likely to fee
clearly then , or fince , I leave to others to
diflent non geniti; atque ideo duos Chriftus reddidiffet Deos. fi
fine Origine eflet, ut Pater, inventus, & ipfe principium omnium,
ut Pater, duo faciens principia, duos oftcndiffet nobis confequenter
Sc Deos. C. 31.
* Ubi verbis difertiflimis oftendit ( Novatianus) Cbrifium efle
Deum, Patri squalem paremque, eo tantummodo excepto, quod
fit Deus de Deo. Whit. Trail, de Ver. Chr. Deitate, p. 6j.
f Whitby, difquilitio Modeft. f. '6+,
C 4 judge

l£ if DEFENSE Qu. II.
judge, who will be at the Pains to compare
his former with fome of his later Writings.
You have given us the Sum of the 31ft
Chapter of Novatian , as it ftands collected
by the Learned Dr, Clarke in his excellent
Anfwer to Mr. Nelfbn'.r Friend. You may
next plcafe to confult the no lefs excellent Re
ply, by Mr. Nelfon's Friend, p. 170, &c, where
you may probably meet with Satisfaction.
But to return to our Text, Thil. z. 6. The
Words, V% ' hpttaLffxov Yiynaixlo to ihcu ]ovl ®eS» you
tranflate; He did not affect, did not claim, did
pot affume, take upon Him, or eagerly de-
five, to be Honour' d as God. Afterwards,
(p. 36.) He never thought fit to claim to Him
felf Divinity, or more literally, you fay, He
never thought the Divinity a Thing to be fo
fatctid at by Him, as to equal Himfelf with
God his Father. This you give both as No-
vatian's Senfe, and as the true Senfe of the
Text, And you endeavor to confirm it from
the Authorities of Grotius, Tillotfon, Whitby,
and Clarke; who, by the way, are very diffe
rent from each other in their Interpretations of
this Place, hardly two of Them agreeing toge
ther. * However nor to ftand upon Niceties,
I may yield to you your own Interpretation of
this Paffage, did not affect to be Honour' d as
God; For the ftrefs of the Caufe does not feem
* 1 am perfwaded that the Words may very juftly bo tranflated; Ht
did not infift upon his equality -Kith. Qod, but condefcendtd, &c. fo

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. 17
fo much to lie in the Interpretation of thofe
Words, as of the Words foregoing, viz. os &>
(jLCf<pvi ®e» v7iupxaV' "Who being in the Form
" of God, that is, " truly God (which beft
" anfwers to the Antithefis following, the
" Form of a Servant fignifying as much as
*' truly Man) and therefore might juftly have
" affumed to appear as God, and to be always
" Honour 'd as fuch, yet did not do it, at
" the time of his Incarnation ; but for a Pat-
" tern of Humility, chofe rather to veil His
" Glories, and, in appearance, ro empty Him-
" felf of Them, taking upon Him human Na-
" ture, and becoming a Servant of God in that
" Capacity, &c, What is there in this Para-
phrafe or Interpretation, either difagreeable to
the Scope of the Place, or the Context, or to
the fober Sentiments of Catholick Antiquity,
not only after, but before the Council of Nice ;
as may appear from the Teftimonies cited in
* TertuIIian'/ recital of this Text, and Comment upon it, are worth
Remarking. Plane de fubftanria Chrifti putant & hie Marcionitae
Suffragari Apoftolum fibi, quod Phantafma Carnis fuerit in Chrifto,
quum dicit, Quod in Effigie Dei conftitutus non rapinam exiftimavif
Tartar i Deo, fed exhaufit femetipfum accept a Effigie fervi, non veri-
tate; ey fimilitudine Hominis, non in Homine; & Figura inventus
ut Homo, non Subftantia, id eft. non Carne. Numquid
ergo & hie qua in Effigie eum Dei collocat? Mqae non erit Deus
Chriftus vere, fi nee Homo vere fait in Effigie Hominis Conftitutus.
Contr. Marc; 1. <;. c. 20. p. 48S. Non fibi magni aliquid deputat
quod ipfe quidem sequalis Deo, & unum cum Patre, eft. Orig. in
Epijl. ad Rom I. f. ©£»s jaw xtnucmt; tctv-ni ami ts uvea laa. <E>sZ
Concil. Antioch- Labb. Vol. I. p. 848. 'O f^etcyimi fS ©s£ a«y©-,
©sa? V7mp%uii Ix, 0£B, Kix-iyoixw tavrlo y$ triii u,4ify>v laviluJ <nzgi(&,
«/aot^s7ii. Hippolytus, Vpl. 2. p. 2.9. Fabric, the

?.8 i DEFENSE Qu. II.
the Margin ? Now, if this be the Senfe of it,
which I might farther confirm by the Autho
rities of Athanafius, Jerom, Auftin, Chry-
Joftom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others
of the Antients, befides *Bifhop Tearfon and
^MhopBull among the Moderns, why ffiould
you wonder to find it again cited in the fame
Caufe, being ib full and pertinent to the Mat
ter in Hand ? Next, we may proceed to the
other Text, which you as groundlefly pretend
to be directly contrary to that for which it is
alledged. It is Hebr. i. 3. Who being the
Brightnefs of his Glory , and the exprefs
Image of his Terfon, &c. Here you are fb
obliging as to cite only one Paffage out of
Eufebius, againft me, I would fay , for me.
Eufebius, writing againft the Sabellians, pref-
fes Them with this Text, and argues thus from
it. " The Image, and that whereof it is the
" Image, cannot Both be the fame Thing (in
" the Sabellian Senfe) but they are two Sub-
" fiances, and two Things, and two Towers:
from whence He rightly infers, or plainly
means to do, that the Father is not the Son,
but that, they are really diftincL What is
there in this at all repugnant to what the
®hterijl maintains? The force of your Ob
jection lies, I fuppofe, in this, that Father and
* On the Creed: Article 3-
f, Def. Fid. N. 49. 70. Prim, Trad, p, 38, Qui unus locus, fi
r-eSfce expendatur, ad omnes Haerefes adverfus. Jefn Cjyiiti Domini
poftri perfonam repellensjas ibnScit. D. F- p. 3 j.
Son

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. i$
Son are called <Tto scn'atj <$l'o -^gjt'i/lta'Ta, and S^o
bjnifias, inconfiftenrly, you imagine, with indi
vidual Confubftantiality.
I will not be bound to vindicate every Ex-
preffion to be met with in Eufebius: But, al
lowing for the Time, when it was wrote, be
fore the fenfe of thofe Words was fix'd and de
termin'd, as it has been fince ; there may be
nothing in all this, which fignifies more than
what the Catholick Church has always meant
by two Terfons; and what all muft affirm,
who belieVe a real Trinity. So a Tier ius
call'd Father and Son ucna.$ Sboi meaning no
more than we do by two diftinct Perlbns:
And Alexander Bifliop of Alexandria , the
firft Champion for the Catholick Caufe againft
Arius, in his Letter to Alexander Bifliop of
Conftantinople, fcruples not to call Father and
Son b S~iio 'K(f/S}jLojTcL; and Tertullian intimates
that they are c dua res, fed Conjunct a; and
Methodius ufes dSbo bo-Anus, meaning two Per
fons. Thefe dr the like ftrong Expreffions,
occurring in the Catholick Writers, were only
to guard the more carefully againft Sabellia-
nifm, the prevailing Her/ejy of thofe Times,
But after Arianifm arofe, there was greater dan
ger of the oppofite extreme: And therefore
rhey began to foften this manner of Expreffion.
left any fhould be led to think, that the Per
fons of the Trinity were fo diftincl: as to be
a See Phot. "Cod. 119. p. 300. b Apud Theod. 1. 1. c. 4.
f Contr. Prax. c. 8. P. $-04. 'd Phot. Cod. 235-. p. 137.
indepen-

ao i DEFENSE Q_u. II.
independent of, feparate from, and aliene to
each other. Thus inftead of S^o qoot«, which
might be innocent before, and is ufed by * Ori
gen, They chofe rather commonly to fay, f<p<&Ctt
<pa>TOs : yet fometimes not fcrupling the former
way of expreffion \. Rather than fay, dua ejfen-
tia, which might be liable to miftakes ; They
would fay, Ejfentia de Effentia, as Deus de Deo.
The defign of all which was, fb to affert a real
Diftinction, as not to teach three abfolute, inde
pendent, or feparate Subftances ; fo to maintain
the diftinction of Perfons, as not to divide the
Subftance. Three real Perfons is what I, what
every Trinitarian, what all found Catholicks af
fert. Now let us return to the Text, Heb. 1.3.
Having fliown you that Eufebius's Comment is
sot pertinent to our prefent Difpute, nor at all af-
fedrs the Caufe that I maintain, which, I affure you,
is not Sabellianifm : Now let me proceed a little
farther, to vindicate my ufe of that Text ; which,
you pretend, is ftrong againft me. Origen per
haps may be of fome Cred it with you ; and the
more for being admired by the Arians, and much
cenfur'd by many of the Catholicks, but after his
„own Times. **His Comment,upon a parallel Text
to this, together with this alfo, is pretty remark
able. " If He (Chrift) be the Image of the invifi.
"ble, the Image it felf muft be invifible too. I
" will be bold to add, that fince He is the Re
semblance ofhis Father, there could not have
^•Comment, in Joh. p. 70. f See Athanaf. V. 1 . p. j-^. ± vid.
Cyril. Alex. Thif-p. no. **Apud Atha.n. Decret. Syn, Nic.V.i.p. »*¦».
been

Qu. II. ^ DEFENSE zx
1 ' been a Time when he was not. He goes
on to argue, that fince God is Light, and Chrift
the ' AitaL\>yx.<rcJLx>, or fhining forth of that Light,
quoting this Text, that They could never have
been feparate one from the other, but muft
have been Co-eternal.
*Dionyfius of Alexandria, another Ante-
Nicene Writer, draws the very fame Inference
from the fame Text. And Alexander Bifhop
of Alexandria, in his circular Letter, b extant
in Athanafius, makes the like ufe of it. The
latter part of the Text efpecially, the words,
exprefs Image of his Terfon, were very fre
quently and triumphantly urg'd by the Catho
licks againft the Arians : by e Alexander of
Alexandria, d Athanafius, e Hilary, f Bafil,
s Gregory Nyffen, h Gregory Nazianzen, 'l Cy
ril, and Others.
This may fatisfy you that it was neither
ftrange, nor new, to alledge this Text in favor
of Chrift's Divinity. When you have any thing
farther to object, it fhall be fairly examin'd. In
the mean while, let it ftand, to fupport the Se
cond Query ; which returns upon you, and ex
pects a fuller Anfwer. That it may come to
a ' A-7ruiyx.tr pua Je an $ut!>(; xo>x, 7mvm<; ttgjj ttittot, ai'thn', itn, 'urn:
yag de) t« o)utc(, ir,?u» «s inn du to &7mv}a<r [&& . Apud Athaos£
de Sent. Dionyf. p. 253.
b IJtfj civi/AM®' tvj ioix tS wMTpos. o tit ti'xaif Tthtux, »«( d-jmi-
yurfha t3 siwrfaj. Apud Athanaf. Vol. i. p, 299.
c Epift. ad Alexand. Theodor. p. 17. d Orat. 1. p. 4s4.de
Synod, p. 743. eDe Trin. p. 975. io8f. iij-jj, f Contr,
Eunom. p. 18. 89. g Contr, Eunsm. p. 46b. h. Orat. 36.
j Dial. f. de Tria.
you

zz ^ DEFENSE Qu. IL
you recommended in the beft Manner, and in
the beft Company, I fliall here fubjoin the Tefti
monies of the Ante- Nicene Writers, all declar
ing that the Son is not excluded from being the
one God , but is included and comprehended
therein : that is, tho' the one God primarily
denotes the Father, yet not exclufively, but
comprehends the Son too. Now, as often as
the primitive Writers fpeak of Father and Son
together, as the one God, in the Singular, they
bear wirnefs to this Truth. See the Teftimonies
of Irenaus , Athenagoras , Tertullian, Cle
ment of Alexandria, and Origen, collected in
a Dr. Fiddes's Body of Divinity, to which may
be added b Hippo lytus, c Lactant ius, and even
Eufebius Himfelf, who acknowledged d one God
in three Terfons, as Socrates informs us.
I proceed next to other Teftimonies more
exprefly declaring, that the Son is not excluded
from being the one Supreme God, by the fe
veral Texts of Scripture, which affert the unity ;
but is always underftood or implied , as com
prehended in the lame one God. e Irenaus fays
" that the Holy Scriptures declare the one and
a Vol. i. p. 587, eye
h Oix.Diofj^m <7vfj.(p&JsMt; trvi'dye-raj £15 htt, ©tov, t'.q yap ttir 0 G>i£f.
i yap itif.toai -TmTv.f,, i a'i v7u*.r.slwt 'ijos, to «s thivrnCa, a.yio-> isviiUtH,
"O &v %a.Tty in\ Tray-rav, 0 ot 'v^ac, Qg, mtymv, to Jg c&ylov nvtoua, cfl
Tisijiv. ' AAA»s re tia ©gov iiof/*tovq wv\ avvoif/,e%cs t'xv iaij ov-raj vmTfii
*&l '<(? KM «?*? x>i«/wt Tnnua^i^ti. Hippol. Contr. Noet. p. if, lot
Fabric. Edit, c Lib. 4. c. io.
d 'E»« ©ton c# Tgia-i-j iirefW(TE<n, Socr. E. H. 1. I, c. 23. p. 48
e Univcrfaj Stripturx  — unum & Solum Deum , ad' ex-
cludcndos alios , prwdicent omnia fecifle per Verbum Sutwi, &c.
1. 2. c. 27, p. ijj-. Bened, Edk. ti

Cm. II. of fome QU E R I E S. z %
" only God, excluding all Others, to have
" made all Things by His Word. Others
are excluded but not his Word, that is, his Son,
by whom He made all Things, as Ir emeus
conftantly underftands ir. At other times, He
fays, " God * made all Things by Himfelf %
" interpreting Himfelf, by His Word and by
" His Wifdom; that is, His Son, and the Holy
" Spirit. Certainly, he could not think that
God, in his Declarations of the Unity , meant
to exclude what was fb near to Him, as to be
juftly (not in a Sabellian Senfe) interpreted
Himfelf. Many more Paffages of the like Im
port might be cited from this primitive and ex
cellent Writer. I fliall only add a f Paflage or
two to fhow, that He look'd upon the Son as
the only true God, as well as the Father. He
obferves, that the Holy Scriptures never call
any Perfon abfolutely God or Lord, befides

* Fecit ea per femetipfum: hoc eft per Verbum 8c Sapientian)
fuam. Adeft enim ei femper Verbum & Sapientia, Filius & Spiritus,
per quos, 8c in quibus omnia libere & fponte fecit, Lib. 4.
cap. 20. p. 2fj.
f Nunquam neque Prophcta: neque Apoftoli alium Deum norm-
naverunt, vel Dominum appellaverunt , praeter Verum & Solum
Deum. L. 3. c. 8. p. 181 Neque igitur Dominus, neque Spiritus
Sandus neque Apoftoli eum qui non efTet Deus, definitive 8c abfo-
lute Deum nominaffent aliquando nifi efTet Vere Deus. L. 3. C- 6.
Now fee what follews.
Utrofque Dei appellatione fignavit Spiritus & eum qui urgitur,
Filium, 8c eum qui ungir Patrem. L. 3. c. 6, p. 180.
This Father g'oes on, in the fame Chapter, to produce feveral othn'
Inftances from the Holy Scripture to prove that the Son is called
(definitively and abfolutely) God. That is plainly his meaning, as any
Man may fee by looking into the Chapter. I may add that He ap
plies the Title of Solus Deus tt Chrift. L. 5. c, 1 7 . p. 3 1 4.
the

a4 i DEFENSE Q_u. II.
the only true God; and yet prefently after takes
notice, that both Father and Son are by the
fame Scriptures abfolutely fo called. See the
place in the Margin : For though abfolutely
be not there exprefs'd, yet it is neceffarily
implied, and is undoubtedly the Author's mean
ing. We may go on to Tertullian, who is fo full
and clear to our Purpofe, that nothing can be
more fb. Out of many Paffages which might
be cited, I fliall here content my felf with one
out of his Book againft Traxeas. " * There
' is therefore one God the Father, and there
' is none Other befides Him: By which He
' does not mean to exclude the Son, but Ano-
' ther God. Now the Son is not Another
' from the Father. Furthermore, do but ob
ferve the drift and tendency of this kind of
Expreffions, and you will find, for the moft
part, that they concern only the Makers
*. Igitur unus Deus Pater, 8c alius abfque eo non eft: Quod ipfe
inferens, non Fi'lium negat, fed Alium Deum. Cscterum Alius a
patie Filius non eft. Denique, inipice fequentia hujufmodi pro-
nuntiationum, & invenias fere ad Idolorum Fa&itores atque Cultores
Definitionern earuro pertinere; ut multitudinem falforum Deorum
Unio divinitatis expellat, habenS tamen Filium quanto inuividuum
8c infeparatum a Patre, tanto in Patre reputanduro, etli non nonii-
natum. At quin fi nominaflet ilium, feparaffet, ifa dicens, Alius
prater me non eft, nifi Filius meus. Alium enim etiam Filium
reeifl~et, quern de aliis excepiflet. Puta Solem dicere: Ego Sol, &
alius praeter me non eft, ni radius meus; nonne denotafles Vanitatemj
quafi non 8c Radius in Sole deputetiir. c. 18. p. $¦ io. Compare
Irenxus, 1. 4. c. 6. p. 234, 23f. Non ergo Alius crat qui cognofce-
batur, 8c Alius qui dicebat nemo cognojeit Partem, fed unus 8c idem,
omnia fubjiciente ei Patre, & ab omnibus accipiens Teitimonium
quoniam Vere Homo. 8c quoniam Vere Deus.
and

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. zf
" and Worfliippers of Idols; that the divine
" Unity may exclude the multitude of falfe
" Gods, while it includes the Son; who, iri
*' as much as He is undivided and infepa-
" rable from the Father, is to be underftood
«' as implied in the Father, tho' He be not
" particularly named. Farther; had He na-
" med the Son in this Cafe, it had been
" tantamount to feparating Him from Him-
" felf: fuppofe He had faid; there is None
" Other befides me, except my Son; He would
" in effect have declared Him to be Ano-
" ther (or aliene) by excepting Him iri
" that manner out of Others. Suppofe the Suri
" to fay, I am the Sun, and there is not
u Another befides me, except my own Ray ;
" would not you have mark'd the Imperti-
" nence ; as if the Ray were not to be reckon'd
" to the Sun, as included in it? Here you
fee plainly what Tertullian means ; Namely,
that the Son is fo much one with the Father,
that He cannot be fuppofed to be excluded
among Other Deities : He is not Another, but
the fame God with the Father : and yet this
He afferts in a difpute againft Traxeas, one of
the fame Principles, in the main, With Noetus
and Sabellius : So careful was He not to run
Things into the oppofite extreme. He takes
care ib to affert the Son to be the fame God
with the Father, as not to make Him the fame
Terfon: And on the other hand, while He
maintains the Diftiridtion of Perfons, He does
E> not

z6 ^ DEFENSE Qu. II.
not forget to keep up the true Catholick Do
ctrine of the Unity of Subftance.
I fliall next cite Athenagoras : This learned
and judicious Writer, having proved at large ,
that there is but one God, the Father; and that
the Chrifiians acknowledged no Other God;
yet immediately adds, a toS/xtv y>.p & i\oi $ ©ea,
c. a. p. 37. as much as to fay, we comprehend
and include the Son in that one God ; we are
always to be underftood with this referve, or
b Salvo to the Divinity of the Son; as does
clearly appear from what follows in the fame
Chapter, and in the next to it, where the Son
is called c the Mind and Word of the Father,
and declared to be ^Uncreated, and e Eternal.
And in f another place He very plainly com
prehends Both in fhe one God. To avoid Pro
lixity, I fliall content my felf with s referring
only to the Paffages in others of the Ante-
Nicene Writers, leaving you to confult Them
at your leifure, if you can make any doubt of
io clear a Cafe. As to the Toft -Nic ene Fathers,
a Parallel to which is that in Athanafius, Orat. 3. p. 5-5-3. NosiTof
M nt tZ /J&toi >£ 0 i(05. And again : 'Ev r« in, £ H3><?> >£ 7spuT<t
am tit toiWcoi 0 AiySK See TertuU. Contr. Prax. c. 19.
b Salvo enim filio, refle unicum Deum poteft ceterrainafle cujus
eft Filius. Tenull- adv. Prax. c. i 8.
c Kss i&.i Ao-/©- ts srargjs c. 10 p. 39.
d Oo'^ aJ$ yivof/jtvov. c Ai4.©-
f Qict li.'pvTti T miriTW rah & moras >£ t who airis XtY"'
p. 121. Compare p. 40.
g Clemens Alexandr. p. 129. 13 f. 142. Origen Contr. Celf. 1. 8.
p. 386. 8c alibi. Hippolytus Contr. Noet. paffim. Novatian. c. 3.
D'.onyfius Romanus, apud Athanaf. Dionyfius Alexand. apud Atha-
nafium, p. 2/4. Ath ana-

Qu. II. of fome QJJERlES; ±7
Athanafius, Bafil, the Gregories, Jerom, Ait-
ftin, Chryfoftom, &c. Their Sentiments are
well known, in the prefent Point; and how
they do not only reject, but abhor the Prin
ciples which you are endeavouring to revive.
However, I fhall tranfcribe one Paffage out of
Athanafius, part whereof has been given above,
which may ferve as a Comment upon the Ca
tholicks which went before Him, whofe Senti
ments He was perfectly well acquainted with*
and had thoroughly imbibed.
" * When the Prophet, fpeaking of the Crea-
" tion, faith, Which Alone fpreadeth out th&
" Heavens, Job. 9. 8. And when God fays*
" I Alone ftretch forth the Heavens, If 44. z^i
" It is Very manifeft to every Man, that in Him,
" who is faid to be Alone, the Word of that
" Alone, is alfo fignified, in whom all Things
" were made, and without whom Nothing was
" made. If therefore the Heavens were made;
44 by the Word, and yet God fays, I Alone %
" and the Son, by whom the Heavens were;
" made, is underftood to have been with ths
" Alone God ; for the fame reafon alfo, if it
" be faid, one God, and / Alone, and / the'
" Firft, we are undoubtedly to Underftand,
u that in the One, Alone, and Firft, is com-
" prehended the Word, as Eftulgency, knau-
*' yd.?/**, is implied in Light. Athanafius 's
teafoning in this Paffage is fo like j; TertuUian's
* Athanaf. Orat. 3". Contr. Ariahi p. 51^.
+ TertuU. Contr, Prax. c; 19«
D % «por*.

x8 i DEFENSE Qu. II.
upon the fame Head, that one might think He
had borrow'd it from Him. But, indeed, it is
fo intirely conformable to the true and genuine
Sentiments of the Catholicks before Him, that
it may juftly pafs for the general Senfe of
To confirm what hath been faid, I fhall ufe
one Argument more, before I pafs on to ano
ther Query ; fuch as, if carefully confider'd,
may be fufficient to filence all farther doubt or
fcruple, with regard to the Senfe of the Ante-
Nicene Writers.
It is well known, that they ever look'd up
on the Son, as the God of the Jews, the God
oi Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob. Many parti
cular Teftimonies may be cited in Proof of
the Fact , which , for Brevity fake , I pafs
over; and proceed to a more general proof
drawn from their citing of Texts out of the Old
Teftament, in which the God of the Jews is cer
tainly fpoken of; and applying them to the Perfon
of Chrift, the fecond Perfon of the ever Bleffed
Trinity. *They heard the Voice of the Lord God
walking in the Garden.  And the Lord
God called unto Adam, &c. Gen. 3. 8, 9.
f The Lord appeared to Abram, and faid
unto him, I am the Almighty -God; walk be
fore me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17. 1,1.
* Theophil. Antioch. p. 129. Ed. Ox. Tertullian, adv. Prax 0 16.
f Clem. Alex. Psdag. 1. i.e. 7. p. 131. Eufib. Detnonftr. Ev.- If.
C 9. E, H. 1. i. c. 2.
And

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. 19
*And the Lord appeared unto him in the
plains of Mamre. The Lord faid unto Abra
ham, &c. Gen. 18. 1. 13.
hThe Lord rained upon Sodom, and upon
Gomorrah brimftone and fire from the Lord
out of Heaven, Gen. 19. 14.
c And Abraham  food before the Lord,
&c. Gen. 19. zy.
AAnd God faid unto Abraham, &c. Gen.
zi. II.
e And behold, the Lord flood above it, and
faid, I am the Lord God ^Abraham thy Fa
ther, and the God of Ifaac, Gen. 28. 13.
{I am the God of Bethel , where thou
anoint edft the Tillar, &c. Gen. 31. 13.
s And God faid unto Jacob, arife, go up to
Bethel,  and make there an altar to God,
that appear 'd unto Thee, &c. Gen. 35". 1.
h God called unto him out of the midft
of the Bujh. He faid,  I am the God
of Abraham, the God of Ifaac, and the God
a Juflin Martyr, p. 213. Sylburg. Ed. Novat. c. 26. TertuU.
Prax. c. 16, 17. Eufeb. Dem. E. 1. 5. c. 9. Epift. Synod. Antioch.
Ltbb. Tom- 1. p. 84f«
b Juft. Mart. p. 215. Iren&us 1. 3. c. 6. p. 180. TertuU. Pxax,
c. 13. 16. Eufeb. £,. H. 1. 1. c. 2. Novat. c. 21. 26.
C Juft. Mart. p. 216.
d Juft. Mart. Dial. p. 162. ed. Jeb. Novat. c. 16..
e Juft. Mart. p. 2 1 8. Clemen. Alex. Pud. 1. 1. c. 7. p. 131,
f Juft. Mart. 218 Clemen. Alex. P&d.\. 1. c. 7. p. 132. Novat.
c. 27. Eufeb. Demon. Ev. 1. y. c. 10. Epift. Synod. Antioch. Lubb.
Tom. 1. p. 848.
g Juflin Mart. 218. Cyprian. Teft. 1. 1. c. 6. p. 3*}. Fd. Ox.
h Juft. Mart. p. 220. Irensus, 1. 3. c. 6. p 180. 1. 4.. c. 12.
p. 141. 1. 4. c. f~ P- 232. "ttrtull. Ppax, c. 16. Epift. Syqod;
Aptieih. Lahk. Tqirs. i. p. 348. Origen. in Joh. p. 32.
D 3 of

30 i DEFENSE Qu. IL
of Jacob, &c. Exod. 3. 4. 6.
a ./^W GW yW unto Mofes, I am that
Jam. The Lord God of your Fathers, the
God of Abraham, of Ifaac, and of Jacob, ap
pear' d, Exod. 3. 14, 1 j.
b/ appeared unto Abraham, unto Ifaac, and
unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty , but;
by my name Jehovah, was I not known unto
them, Exod. 6. 3.
c / am the Lord thy God, which brought
thee out of the Land of 'Egypt, Exod. xo. z.
AGodofl{r&e\, Exod. 24. 10.
e The Lord ftrong and mighty , the Lord
mighty in battle. The Lord of Hofts, He is
the King of Glory, Pfal. z^. 8. 10.
f Be ftill and know that I am God. I will
be exalted, &c. Pfal. 46. 10.
s God is gone up with a jhout, The Lord
(Jehovah) &c. Pfal. 47. 5-.
h The mighty God, even the Lord, hath
fpoken  *0ur God fhall come, and Jhall not
keep filence, &c. Pfal. 50. 1. 3.
a Irenxus, ubi fupra. That is, He muft of confequence under
ftand this of Chrift as well as, v. 4. 8. 19. (See True Script. DoBrine
cont'mu'd p. 159, 160.) TertuU. adv. Prax. c. 17. Juft. Mart.' Apoi. J.
P- 123. Ox. Ed. Eufeb. Contr. Marcell. \. -. c, 20i 2I_
b Juft. Marty, p. 278. S.ylbur. Edit.
c Clem. Alexand. Pudag. 1. x. c. 7. p. 131.
d Eufeb. Demonftr. Ev. 1. 5. c. 18.
ejuft. Mart. Dial. p. 1 97. Cyprian, adv. Jud. 1. 2. c. 40. p. po m,
prig, in Mat. p. 438. Eufeb. in loc.
{ Cyprian, adv. Jud. ]. 2. c. 6. p. 35.
g Juft. Martyr. Dial. p. 197. Eufeb. in Pfal 25. p. pr.
h Iren. 1. 3. c. 6. p. 180. Cyprian, adv. Jud. 1. 2. c. 28. p, 48.
«-?«V. </e P«»» P#/'<!»f. p. 22Q. Eufeb. in Pfal. p, 209.
Let

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. 31
a Let God arife, and let his Enemies, &c
Sing unto God, fing Traifes, &c. Pf. 68. 1. £.
bIn Judah is God known, &c. Pf 76. 1.
c God ftandeth in the Congregation of the
mighty : he judgeth among Gods, Pf. 82. 1.
dThe Lord reigneth  Pf 99. 1.
e Behold, God is my Salvation : I will truft
and not be afraid, for the Lord Jehovah is my
ftrength, &c. If iz. z,
f Behold your God will come with Ven
geance, even God with a Recompence, He will
come and Jave you, If 35. 4.
s That ftretcheth out the Heavens like a
Curtain, &c. If 40. 22.
h Thus faith the Lord that created thee, O
Jacob, and that formed theeO Ifrael, If 43.1.
1 Thus faith the Lord, the King of Ifrael,
and his redeemer the Lord of hofts ; I am the
firft, and I am the laft, and befides me there is
no God, If! 44. 6.
k / am the Lord that maketh all Things, that
ftretcheth forth the Heavens alone, thatfpread-
eth abroad the Earth by my felf, If. 44. 24.
a Cyprian adv. Jud. 1. 2. c. 6- c. 28. p. sj\ 49.
b Iren.tus, 1. 3 c. 9. p. 184. 1. 4. c. 33. p. 273.
c Juft. Mart. Dial. p. 277. Irenes., 1. 3. c 6. p. 180. Novat.
de Trin. c. 1*5. Cyprian- adv. Jud. 1. i. c. 6. p 35-. Euf. in loc,
d Juflin. Martyr, p. 224. Iren. 1. 4. c. 33. p. 274.
e Iren&us 1. 3. c. 10. p. 186.
f lrens.us, 1. c. 20. p. 214. Novat. c 12. Epifl. Synod. Anlioch.
Xnbb. Tom. I. p. 845-. TertuU. adv. Jud. C. 9, I 4.
g Hippolyt. Contr. Noet. c 18. p. 19. 5nJ|«« «5 wpuext r sfomS:
h Eufebius in loc. i I«#. 7»/2. 1.4. c.p.p- 40$-. k Eufeb. in loc.
N. B. I cite Eufebius, only as agreeing with the reft, in his appli
cation of fuch Texts to God the Son: not determining any thing
as to his other principles.
D 4 Surely

3i A D E F E N S E Q_u.II.
a Surely God is in thee, and there is none
elfe ; there is no God. Verily thou art a God
{kc. If 45-. 14, 15-.
h I will fave them by the Lord their God,
and will not fave them by Bow, nor by Sword,
Hofea, 1. 7.
f The Lord alfo Jhall roar out of Sion , and ut-
fer his voice from Jerufalem, Joel 3.16. Amos 1.2.
d Who is a God like unto thee, that par-
daneth iniquity  Mic. 7. 18.
p God came from Teman, and the Holy One
from mount Ephraim.  Habakuk 3. 3.
f I am God, not Man, Hofea 11. 9.
s / will ftrengthen them in the Lord, 
faith the Lord, Zech. 10. 12.
h This is our God, and there Jhall none
tother be accounted of in Comparifon of him,
Baruch 3- 3 J.
Thefe feveral Texts, befides others of like
Nature, the Ante-Nicene Writers, in general,
Underftood of Chrift. And therefore it is ex
ceeding clear, that, according to the Doctrine
of that Time, the fecond Perfon of the Trinity
sTertuU.Prax.c. 13. Cyprian, ad. Jud. 1. 2. c. 6. p. 34. Eufeb. Bern
iv. 1. f. c. 4. p. 224. LaBan. Epitcrn. c.44. p. 1 16. Edit. Dav. Inft.
p. 404. Edit. Ox. Epift. Synod. Antioch. Labb. Tom. 1. p. 845-.
b Novat. Trin. c. 12.
p Irentus, 1. 3. c. 20. p. 214. 1. 4. c. 33. p. 273.
d Iren&us, 1, 3. c, 20. p. 214. TertuU. Centr. Marc. 1. 4. c. IQ.
C Iren&us. \. 3. c. 20. p. 214. 1. 14. c. 33. p. 273.
f Cyprian. Teftim. 1. 2. c. 6. p. 3 f. Eufeb. Dem. Ev. 1. 5-. c. 21.
•J). 240. Epift. Synod. Antioch. Labb. Tom. 1. p. 845-.
§ Cyprian. Teft. 1. 2. c. 6. p^/35. Euf. Dem. Ev. I; $¦. c. 26. p. *fl.
Cyprian, Teft. 1„ 2. 0 <>. p,' ij. Lattmt. Epii, j. ufi. Ed; Dav.' i'S

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. 33
is theLord; theLord God; the Almighty God;
the Lord God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob ;
The Jehovah; the Lord of Hofts ; the Mighty
God; the Only God; and befides whom there
is no God ; the God of Ifrael, &c. All this,
I fay, Chrift is, according to the Do&rine of
thofe early Times : not exclufive of the Father,
any more than the Father is fuch, exclufive of
the Son ; but together with the Father : That
is, Father and Son Both are the one Supreme
God: not one in Terfon, as you frequently
and groundlefly infinuate, but in Subftance,
Tower, and Terfection. I know, you have
an Evafion, by which you hope to elude the
force of all that has been urged. But when I
have fliown you, how weak and infufficient
your Pretence is; I hope, I fliall hear no
more of it.
*In another part of your Book, {p. 20.) you
pretend that Chrift fpake only in the Terfon of
the Father ; and that when He faid, for in
ftance, I am the God of Bethel, (Gen. 31. 13.)
the meaning is no more than this; Jehovah
whom I reprefent , and in whofe Name I
fpeak, is the God of Bethel. Had you given
it only as your own Interpretation of this, and
the like Texts, it might be very excufable:
But having told us what you mean by fpeaking
in the Terfon of God the Father, you after
wards add, that it was the unanimous Opinion
of all Antiquity, that Chrift appear'd and fpake
*Seealfi Clarice's Scrip. Do£tr.£. 102. rftofp.94. in

34 i DEFENSE Qu. II.
in the Terfon of God the Father (/. 12.) leaving
your Englifh Reader to believe, that your no
vel Explication was the current Doctrine of
all Antiquity. The Thing may be true \n fome
Senfe, fuch as is foreign to your Purpofe : But
inyour Senfe, it is notorioufly falfe, as all that
have look'd into Antiquity very well know.
However, for the Benefit of the common Rea
der, I will fhow that the good Fathers applied
thefe Texts to Chrift confider'd in his own
Terfon -, and not in the Father's only. This
fhall be made clear, to a Demonftration, both
from particular Teftimonies of the fame Fa
thers ; and from the general Scope, Drift, and
Defign of thofe Writers, in quoting the Texts be
fore mention'd.
* Clement oi Alexandria, citing Exod. 20.2.
I am the Lord thy God, &c. and underftand
ing it of Chrift, obferves particularly, that Chrift
faid this of Himfelf, in his own Terfon.
\Tertullian, interpreting//?!. i8.and-M?V.
7. 1 8. oi Chrift, makes the like remark.
\Irenaus, having cited Exod. 3.6. {lam the
God of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, &c.)
which He underftands as fpoken by Chrift;
* n«A» i\ o'-m» Asysf a/g! « Mot, vpo^xx, wra ipoZoyu mtf-
fUytyov. £> K,^®. i Biif rx, i ifaytyi, <r£ ix j^s AijJzrls Clem.
Alex. Pard. 1. i. c. 7. p. 131. Edit. Ox.
t Ex Ipfius Domini perfona eye. Ten. Contr. Marc. 1. 4. c. 10.
i Per Use utique manifcftum fecit quoniam is qui de Rubo
tecutus eft Moyfi, 8c Manifeftavit se efte Deum Patrum Hie eft
viventium Deus  Ipfe igitur Chriftus cum Patre Vivorum eft
Deus, qui locutus eft Moyfi, qui & Patribus Hianifefbtus eft.
Irca, I. 4/ c. j:. p. :3a. S«q I 3. c.6. 1 $..c. 12.
" of

Qu. II. of fome QU E R I E S. 35-
goes on thus. ** From hence (Chrift) made
" it plain, that He who fpake to Mofes out
" of the Bufli, and manifefted Himfelf to be
*' the God oi the Fathers, is the God of the
" Living. And after a deal more in that
Chapter to fhow that the Father and Son are One
and the fame God, He concludes to this effect,
" Chrift Himfelf therefore, with the Father, is
" the God of the Living, who fpake to Mofes*
•' and was manifefted to the Fathers.
Novatian, having obferved that the Angel
which appeared to * Agar, Sarah's Maid, was
reprefented in Holy Scripture as Lord and God,
after fome reafbning upon it, fuitable to the pre
vailing Principles of his own Times, as well as
of the Times preceding, Summs up the whole
in this Manner. " f Wherefore if the prefent
4 ' Paffage cannot fuit with the Terfon of the
" Father, whom it would not be proper to call
" an Angel, nor to the Terfon of an Angel,
" which it would not be proper to call God;
" but it may comport with the Terfon of
" Chrift to be God, as the Son of God,
" and to be an Angel too, as fent to reveal his
" Father's Will: The Hereticks ought to con~
* See Cenefis c. 1 6.
f Ergo fi hie locus neque Perfons. Patris congruit ne Angelas
diftus lit, neque Perfons. Ar.geli, ne Deus pronuntiatus fit: Perfons,
autem Chrifti convenit, ut & Deus fit, quia Dei Filius eft, & An-
gelus fit, quoniam paterns difpofitionis Adnuntiator eft; intelligere
cjebent contra Scripturas fe agere Hxretici, qui Chriftum quum
4icant fe & Angelum credere, nolmt etiam ilium Deiwi pro-
nuntiare  ~. Novat. c. 26. p. 724.
'O ii "AyyeA©- & ¦Jfa.Tfls i tnoj i<nt , xt/ifis KfJg^©- jg ©E05 &'f.
Syaod, Antioch. Ep. «' fider

|6 ^ DEFENSE Qu. II,
'* fider that They run counter to the Sacred
" Writ, while They admit that Chrift is an An-
"¦ ge}, and yet refufe to acknowledge that He
" is God alfo. Here, you'll obferve, that, ac
cording to Novatian, it was to the Terfon of
Chrift, not to the Terfon of God the Father,
that the Title of God and Lord, in this or the
tike Inftances, belong'd; and that therefore
they are given to Him in his own Terfon, in,
his own right, as. God's Son and Confubftantial
with Him ; than which nothing can be more
diametrically oppofite to Your's, or to Dr.
Clarke's Hypothefis. It is not laid, God, only
as having true Dominion and Authority, but, as
Qod'sSon; and that implies, with Novatian, Sub
stantia. Communionem, real and ejfential Divi
nity*, I fhall next fhow you the fame of Juflin
Martyr-, and then beg your Pardon for the
Impertinence of infifting fo long upon what
Hone, one might think, that has ever feen the
Antients, could make the leaft Queftion of.
" Permit me, fays He, to fhow you alfo out
** of the Book oi Exodus, how the very fame
"•' Perfon, who appeared to Abraham, and Ja*
4' cob, as an Angel, and God, and Lord, and
?i Man, appear'd to Mofes in a Flame of Fire
" out of the Bufh, and talked with Him. A
little after, He adds thefe remarkable Words.
* C. 31. Compare Ch. n. Ut enim prefcripfit Ipfa natusa Homi*
Nsm crcdendum cfie, qui ex Homine fit: ita eadem natura prsefcti-
i)ft,, & Deum, er«fcn,sStMri efle,' qui- qx De.o fit,
* *You

Qu. II. t>f fome QUERIES. 37
" * You have feen, Gentlemen, that th§
" fame Perfon whom Mofes calls an Angel,
" and who convers'd with Him in the Flame
" of Fire ; that very Perfon being God, figni*
" fies to Mofes that Himfelf is the God of
" Abraham , and of Ifaac, and of Jacob, f
will not fo far diftruft your Judgment, as to add
any farther Comment to fb plain Words. I need
but juft hint to any who know Juflin Martyr^
that He, as well as Novatian, refolves the Di
vinity of Chrift into his \Sonfhip-, zndSonJhip
into ^Communication of the fame divine Sub
ftance ¦. Which I remark chiefly againft Dt.Clarke,
who feems to admit that thofe Titles belong'dto
the Terfon of Chrift ; which is more than I ap*
prehend you do. It were very eafy to add parti*
cular Paffages to the fame purpofe from other
Fathers ; but it was, in a manner, needlefs to
have mention'd thefe. For, the general fcope4
drift, and defign of the primitive Writers, in
this Cafe, fhows fufficiently what I contend for.
Their defign was to prove Chrift's Divinity \
to fhow that there was another Terfon, be
fides the Father , who was really Lord and
God; and that this Perfon was Chrift. This
is the avowed defign clear through Juftirf&
* '£2 ata'juq, vsto/H^Ti — — <m ov Xtyi yiourt^ AyyMox, h Ttog/i
(pAoyas 'M>,u\,iKivaj ccura), out®* uvtos Qtot; at oyyjcqvj Tu yj&tTBL fori
tcuToi s'sjji i ©to; ASpaisp xj loztocx >£ letxa'a, Juft. Mart. Dial. p. 220.
Compare Apoi. l.p. 123. To « u'piif&ltot <m fixTtt rS Maaiiiyot i'.fjjt,
i ott, 0 ©£05 AQfctstui Kj c|,©£0? laztctx. ti, 0 ©£05 I«k»o, xj 0 ©£05 TTtattpiit
rs, mfSitDTixoy 8 £ fr3njKioi{&i oxfivBS ptiftttt qc/ti ttvctj ui/Tx % Xfl<ptu al-
fyixiis. t p.i83 75.278.28o.Sylb. Ed, ^p. 183. 373.Ed.Jeb.
Dialogue j

38 i DEFENSE Qu. IL
Dialogue ; and the like may be faid of Nova
tian, Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaus and the
Reft (except Eufebius who fometimes varied
in this Matter) where they cite thefe Texts,
which I have given you a Lift of.
The Argument they ufed, is this. There is
a Perfon frequently ftiled God and Lord, Je
hovah, Almighty. &c. who convers'd with
Adam, appear'd to the Tatriarchs, and all
along headed and conducted the People of the
Jews. This Perfon could not be an Angel on
ly : fuch high Titles could never1 belong to any
meer Angel. He could not be God the Father :
His Office was minifterial. He is called an
Angel, He appear'd, He condefcended to take
upon Him human Shape , and other refem-
blances * : Thefe Things do not fiiit with the
firft Terfon of the Trinity. Well then ; who
could He be, but God the Son? Who being
really God, might, in his own right, truly and
juftly affume thofe high Titles ; and yet being
Second only in the ever Bleffed Trinity, and
defigning, in his own due Time, to take human
Nature upon Him, might more fuitably con-
defcend to act. minifterially among Men, (a
proper prelude to his Incarnation which fhould
come after) and fb might be, not only Godt
but an ylugel too; This is their Argument, as
* I do not find, that tlie pure fimplicity of the divine Nature tsasever
urged, in this Cafe, as a reafon why it could not be the Father: nor,
that the human Affections acid Adtions afcribed to this Angel, -acre
underftood literally, or otherwife than by -way of Figure. Tertullian
gives a very different account of it, Jlicmng hoto all might bk underftood,
ittm -gsa-Ss. Contr. Marc. 1. 2- gvci'V

Qu. II. of fome QU E R I E S. 39
every one knows, that knows any thing of
thefe Matters. Now, fuppofe that thefe good
Fathers had underftood, Gen. 31. 13. as you do ;
I am the God of Bethel: That is, my Father,
whom I reprefent, is the God of Bethel.
What a trifling Argument would you here put
into theirMouths? " Chrift declares that the Per-
" fon, whom He reprefents, is God and Lord:
" therefore Chrift is God, &c. Or propofe the
Argument thus, upon your Hypothefis : "The
" Lord God (the Father) called unto Adam, Gen.
" %.o. God faid unto Abraham, ©f. Gen. 21. 12.
" that is, God the Father fpoke by his Son;
" therefore the Son is called God, and is God.
Can any thing be more ridiculous ? The Con
clufion which Juftin Martyr draws from the
whole, and which He triumphantly urges againft
Trypho, is this ; that Chrift is really Lord and
God. * <dus jtaAeT^' x) Qioi I91 xj eVccj. The other
Writers draw the fame Conclufion from the
fame Premifes; a Conclufion without any Thing
to fupport it, had they underftood thefe Texts,
as you pretend They did. In fhort, the very
Ground and Foundation of all They fay upon
this Article, is built upon a Suppofition diame
trically oppofite to Your's ; fb little countenance
have you from Antiquity. Farther, They all
conclude that the Perfon declaring Himfelf to
be God and Lord, &c. could not be an Angel 5
not a meer Angel. There is fome Senfe in
this ; if you fuppofe an Angel declaring, in his
own Terfon, that He is God and Lord. It is
* Juft. Dial, p, 1 j 6. Ed. Jebk bk-

49 ^ DEFENSE. Qu. II.-
blafphemous and abfurd for any meer Angel to
make fuch Declaration. But, fuppofing it meant
of the Perfon of the Father, why might not
any Angel declare, what is certainly true, that
the Father is God, or deliver God's Errand in
his own Words ? Had the Fathers thought, as you
do, they muft have argued thus, very weakly:
It could not be a meer Angel that appeared, or
that fpoke thus and thus. Why ? Becaufe the
Perfon who fent Him, and who undoubtedly is
the God of the Univerfe, is called God and
Lord. Of all the filly Things that Ignorance
and Malice have combined to throw upon the
primitive Martyrs and Defenders of the Faith of
Chrift, I have not met with one comparable to
this. I am therefore willing to believe, that
you did not mean to charge them with it ; but
only exprefs'd your felf darkly and obfcurely •>
which yet fhould not have been done, by one
\vho would be careful not to miflead, even an
unwary Reader. I would here make one Remark^
and leave it with you: And that is, of the
* ftricT: Senfe wherein the Antients ufed the
word God, as applied to the Son. They argued
that it could not be an Angel that appeared.
Why ? becaufe the Perfon appearing was called
God. Thus Novatian, who fpeaks the Senfe
of all the reft. Ghtomodo ergo Deus fi Angelas
Juit ; cum non fit hoc nomen Angelis unquam
* Other Arguments of the ftriB Senfe of the Word, God, as ufed
by the Ante-Nicene Writers, and applied to the Son, n.ay bi fee'n
in Dr. Fiddcs, p. 374. &c. eon-

Q_u. IL of fome QUERIES. 41
concejfum * ? But how then is He God, if no
more than Angel, fince Angels never had the
privilege of Jo high a Title ? Novatian allows
(Ch. 15.) that Angels have been called Gods,
meaning in the looie Figurative Senfe : But here
He plainly fignifies that the Word, God, when
applied to the Son, is to be underftood in the
ftrict. and proper Senfe : And thus the Antients
in general underftood it. Angels, the very
higheft order of Creatures, were not by them
thought worthy of the Name and Title of God.
It would have been highly abfurd, in their
Judgment, to have given it them, in fuch a
Senfe, and in fuch Circumftances, as they ap
plied it to the Son. They knew nothing of
your Relative Senfe of the Word : They knew
better. But this by the Way : Let us return to
our Subject. You'll ask me now perhaps, what
did fome of the Fathers mean, thofe efpecially
whom you have quoted in the Margin {p. 22.)
by the Son of God's appearing, and fpeaking
in theTerfon of God the Father? I have fliown
you what they certainly did not mean : And if
I could not fo readily account for the other, it
is of lefs Moment ; the Caufe being little con-
cern'd in it. But I fliall endeavor to fatisfy you
in this Point alfo.
You have but two Quotations, which are any
thing to the Purpofe : One out of Theophilus,
Bifliop oi Antioch; and the other from Ter
tullian. And they indeed, verbally, may feem
to countenance your Notion ; tho', in reality t
* ch. 16. E they

42 i DEFENSE Qu. II.
they meant nothing like it. But , what did
they mean, one by, * dt iz&ca'Tr? ts ©ev, the
other by, \Auctoritate & nomine (Patris?)
Let it be confidered, that the fecond Perfon, in
the Texts above cited, is not reprefented under
his own perfonal diftinguifhing Character, as a
Son, or fecond Perfon, or Meffiah, or Media
tor, as he has been fince. It is not faid, that
the Son of the Lord God, called unto Adam ;
but the Lord God called, &c. \ . It is not, I
am the Son of the God of Bethel, &c. But
J am the God of Bethel; and fo in the reft.
Chrift therefore, in thefe, or the like Texts, is
hot reprefented under his own peculiar Cha
racter i but under fuch a Character as is common
to the Godhead, to the Father and Him too.
This Character, fince the diftinction of Perfons
has been revealed to us, has been, in a more
eminent and peculiar Manner, referved to the
Father. He is reprefented eminently now as
God; and Chrift, as Son of God; ox Mediator,
Or Meffiah. Chrift having before took upon
Him that Part, Character, or Office, which fince
that time has been referved, in a peculiar man
ner, to the Father, may be faid to have acred
in the Terfon of the Father, or in the Name of
the Father ; that is, under the fame Character
or Capacity , which the Father now chiefly
bears with refpect ro Men. This He might
well do, being equally qualified for either. As
* Theoph. ad Autol. 1, 2. p. 219. Ox. Ed.
f Termll. adv. Marc. 1- 2. c 27- $ Gen. 3. 9.
Son

Qn. II. of fome QUERIES. 43
Son of God, He was really God; and as Son
of the Almighty, He was Almighty, in his
own right, as \Tertullian expreffes it: And
therefore might as juftly bear the Stile and Title
of Lord God, God of Abraham, &c. while He
acted in that Capacity, as He did that oi Me
diator, Meffiah, Son of the Father, &c. after
He condefcended to act in another, and to difc
cover his perfonal Relation.
You cited thefe Words oiTertullian : Cujus
Auctoritate f & nomine ipfe erat Deus, qui
vtdebiztur, Dei Filius. Which might have been
rendred thus. " The Son of God who ap-
" peared, He was God {acting) in his {theFa-
u ther's)Name, and with his Authority. And
had you but cited the next immediate Words*
you might have difcovered the true meaning of
that Paflage: Sed & penes nos, Chriftus in
perfona Chrift i, quia & hoc modo nofter eft :
That is to fay : But with us (Chrifiians) Chrift
is alfo underftood under the Character, or Per
fon, of the Meffiah: Becaufe He is ours in this
Capacity alfo: That is, He is not only our
God; but our Mediator and Redeemer. And
under that Character we receive Him, as being
more peculiar to Him, beyond what He has
in common with the Father. Formerly He was
received and adored under the one common Cha-

* Suo jure omnipotent qua Filius Omnipotentis  cum 8c
Filius Omnipotentis tam Orariipotens fit, quam Deus Dei Filius.
trax. c. 17. p. >J20.
f Gontr. Marc. 1. 2, c. 27.

E % rader

44 i DEFENSE Qu. II.
racier of God, Lord, and Jehovah : not raeerly
as reprefentativeof God the Father, or as in
verted with his Authority, but as ftrictly and
truly God, Confubjiantial with God the Father ;
according to the unanimous Opinion of all the
Antients, and *of Thofe in particular, who fpeak
ofhis acting in the Name , ox T er Jon oi the Fa
ther. But now, having a new Title to diftin-
guifh Him by, we receive Him. in both Capa
cities: as God, by Nature; and as.Meffiah, or
Mediator, by Office. <
The Sum then of the Cafe is this : When
Chrift appear'd to the Tatriarchs, and claim'd
their Obedience, Homage, and Adoration ; He
did not do this under the Name and Character
which He has fince difcovered to be perfonal
and peculiar to Him; but under another;
which is His too, but in common with the Fa
ther ; namely, that oiLordGod, God Almighty,
&c. and being fince difcovered not to be the
Father Himfelf, but the Son ; not unoriginated,
but God of God; all that he did muft be re-
ferr'd back to the Father, the Head and Foun
tain oi All ; whofe Authority He exercis'd,
whofe Orders He executed, and whofe Terfon,
Character, or Office, He (in fome fenfe) reprefent
ed and fuftained. Thus, under the f New Tefta
ment alfo, He referred all that He did to the Au
thority of the Father, as the firft Original, and
* See True Script. DoBr. continued, p. 1 96.
f Vid. TertuU. Contr. Prax c. it. p. 512. Ego veni in Patris
mei nomine  Adeo femper Filius erat in Dei & Regis Sc
Domini, Sc Omnipotentis, & Ahiffimi nomine.
Foun-

Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. 4?
Fountain of all Power, Pre eminence, Dignity.
&c. acting in His Name, executing His Will,
and reprefenting His Perfon. (/ and my Fa
ther are one, Joh. io. 30. He that hath" feen
me, hath feen the Father, Joh. 14 9. I can
of my own felf do nothing, Joh. 5. 30.) And
yet whatever is faid of Chrift, is to be under
ftood of Him in his own Terfon ; and not of
the Father only, whom He reprefented. In
fine, it is not neceffary that every one who
acts in the Name, or by the Authority, or in
the Terfon of another, fhould ufurp the Stile of
that other, and fpeak in the firft Terfon ; e.g. A
Viceroy, or an Ambaffador fpeaks in the King's
Name, and by his Authority, and reprefents his
Terfon : But does not Terfonate the King, in
the ftricteft Senfe ; does not pretend to fay, /
am the King. And therefore you can draw no
certain Conclufion from the two Paffages of
Theophilus and Tertullian. On the contrary, I
have fliown you from the whole Drift, Tenor,
and Tendency, as well as from particular Teftimo
nies of the primitive Writings, that they are far
from favouring your pretences in this Cafe, but
are a perfect Contradiction to them. From what
hath been faid, thefe three Things are very plain
and evident.
1. That, according to the Mind of the An
tients, the Son was God, and fo called in his
own Terfon.
z. That He was God in his own Perfon, as
being God's Son, E 3 3. That

46 i DEFENSE Qy. II.
3. That He was God's Son, as having the
divine Subftance communicated from the Fa
ther. Thefe three Confiderations intirely take off
the force of whatever either You or Dr. Clarke
hath offer'd to perplex and puzzle a very clear
and manifeft Truth.
I have infifted chiefly on the firft Particular,
as was proper in this place; though I have,
in paffing, hinted enough of the two latter
alfo ; efpecially confidering that they will
often be glanced at again, in the procefs of
our Difpute.
Thus, I hope, I have fufficiently vindicated
the Argument of this Second Query, having
fliown from plain Scripture Texts, that Chrift
is not excluded from being the one Supreme
God in Conjunction with the Father ; and taken
off your Exceptions: And left this fliould feem
inefficient, I have confirm'd it farther, from
the unanimous confent of all Antiquity, before
the Council of Nice; which is what your felf
appeal to in the Cafe. This Article indeed has
hereby been drawn out into a difproportionate
Length : But the Importance of it is a fuffi
cient Apology. Were you able Satisfactorily to
anfwer the following Queries ; This one, while
it ftands unanfwered, would be enough for all.
But I proceed.

Querv

Qu. II. of fome QU E R I E g. 47

Q_ U E R Y III.
Whether the Word (God) in Scripture, can
reafonably be fuppofed to carry an ambigu
ous meaning, or to be ufed in a different Senfe,
when applied to the Father and Son, in the
fame Scripture, and even in the fame
Verfel See Joh. 1. 1.
HERE you make Anfwer; that the Word
(God) in Scripture hath a relative
Signification, and is ufed in a fupreme and a
fubordinate Senfe. And you appeal to Exod.
j. 1. I have made Thee a God to Tharaoh;
and to Pfal. 82. 1. God fiandeth in the AJfem-
bly of Gods ; judgeth among Gods ; and you
defire* that Joh. 10 34, 35. may be compared;
Is it not written in your Law, 1 faid ye are
Gods, &c. You are impatient, I perceive, to
come to your Diftinction of Supreme and Sub
ordinate ; which, you imagine, clears all Diffi
culties, and you will not ftay to confider what
ought to be faid firft. The firft and moft ge
neral Diftinction of the Senfes of the Word,
God, fhould be into proper and improper ; after
which it will be foon enough to come to your
famed Diftinction of Supreme ad Subordinate,
Dr. Clarke, indeed, would perfwade us, that
the proper Scripture- Notion of God is Domi
nion; and that therefore any Perfon having
Dominion, is, according to the Scripture-No-
E 4 tion,

48 ^ DEFENSE Qu.IIL
tion, truly, and properly God. This fhall be
examined ; but it will be convenient here to fet
down the Doctor's own Words. " The Word
" ©eos, God, has in Scripture, and in all Books
" oi Morality and Religion, a relative Signi-
" fixation ; and not, as in metaphyfical Books,
" an abfolute one: as is evident from the re-
" lative Terms, which in moral Writings may
" always be joined with it. For inftance: In
" the fame manner as we fay my Father, my
" King, and the like ; fo it is proper alio to
" fay, my God, the God of Ifrael, the God
" of the "Vniverfe, and the like: Which words
" are expreffive of Dominion and Government.
" But, in the metaphyfical Way, it cannot be
*' faid my Infinite Subftance, the Infinite Sub-
" ftance of Ifrael, or the like*. He repeats
the Obfervation {p. 290.) f And is very pofitive
that the word God, in Scripture, is always a
relative Word of Office ; giving the fame pret
ty Reafon for it, as before. This fliall be care
fully confidered; and the manner of fpeaking
accounted for, in the fequel.
I fliall only obferve here, by the way, that
the Word, Star, is a relative Word, for the
fame Reafon with that, which the Doctor gives
for the other. For, the Star of your God
Remphan, (Acts 7. 43.) is a proper Expreffion :
But, in the metaphyfical Way , it cannot be
faid, the luminous Subftance of y otir God Rem-
* See Dr. Clarke's Reply, p. 384.
f Compare alfo Script.- Doftr, j>. *o6\ alias 464.
.:?¦¦ phan

Qu. III. of fome QUERIES. 49
phan. So again ; Water is a relative Word ;
For it is proper to fay, the Water of Ifrael:
But, in the metaphyfical Way, it cannot be faid,
the fluid Subftance of Ifrael; The Expreffion
is * improper. By parity of Reafon, we may
make relative Words, almoft as many as we
pleafe. But to proceed: I maintain that Do
minion is not the full Import of the word God,
in Scripture ; that it is but a part of the Idea,
and a fmall part too ; and that, if any Perfon
be called God, meerly on account of Dominion,
He is called fo by way of Figure and Refem
blance only ; and is not properly God, accord
ing to the Scripture- Notion of it. We may call
any one, a King, who lives free and indepen
dent, fubject to no Man's Will. He is a King
fo far, or in fome refpect ; tho' in many other
refpects, nothing like one ; and therefore not
properly a King. If by the fame Figure
of Speech, by way of Allufion and Refem
blance, any thing be called God, becaufe re-
fembling God in one or more Particulars ; we
are not to conclude, that it is properly, and
truly God.
To enlarge fomething farther upon this
Head ; and to illuftrate the Cafe by a few In-
* It is very obvious to perceive, inhere the impropriety of fuch Ex
preffions lies. The word Subftance, according to the common ufe of
Language, when ufed in the Singular Number, is fuppofed to be
intrinfick to the Thing fpoken of, whofe Subftance it is; and indeed-,
to be the Thing it felf. My Subftance, is my Self: and the Subflanct
of If ze], is Ifrael. And hence tt comes to be improper to join Sub
ftance with the relative Terms, -underftanding it of any thing eK-
trinfick. fiances

jo ^ DEFENSE Qu. IIL
fiances. Part of the Idea which goes along
with the Word, God, is, that his Habitation is
fublime, and his dwelling not with Flejh, Dan.
2. n. This part of the Idea is applicable to
Angels, ox to Saints, and therefore they may
thus far be reputed Gods; and are fometimes
fo ftiled in Scripture, or Ecclefiaftical Writings,
Another part of the complex Idea of God, is
giving orders from Above, and publifliing con>
mands from Heaven. This was, in fome Senfe.
applicable to Mofes; who is therefore called
a God unto Tharaoh : not as being properly a
God ; but inftead of God, in that Inftance, or
that refembling Circumftance. In the fame re
fpect, every Trophet, or Apoftle, or even a
Minifter ofa Pariih, might he figuratively call
ed God. Dominion goes along with the Idea
©f God, or is a part of it; and therefore Kings,
Trinces, and Magiftrates, refembling God in
that refpect, may, by the like Figure of Speech,
be ftiled Gods: not properly; for then we
might as properly fay, God David, God Solo
mon, or God Jeroboam, as King David, &c,
but by way of Allufion, and in regard to fome
imperfect refemblance which they bear to God
in fome particular refpecfs ; and that is all. It
belongs to God, to receive Worfhip, and Sa
crifice, and Homage. Now, becaule the Hea
then Idols io far refembjed God, as to be made
the Objects of Worfhip, Off. Therefore they
alfo, by the fame Figure of Speech* are hy the
Scripture denominated Gedf* tho* at the 'fame;

sitae,

Qu. III. of fome QUERIES. yi
time, they are declared, in a proper Senfe, to
be no Gods. The Belly is called the God oi
the Luxurious, Thil. 3. 19. becaufe fome are as
much devoted to the Service of their Bellies,
as others are to the Service of God; and be
caufe their Lufts have got the dominion over
them. This way of fpeaking is, in like manner,
grounded on fome imperfect Refemblance, and
is eafily underftood. The Prince of the Devils
is fuppofed, by moft Interpreters, to be called
the God of this World, 2 Cor. 4. 4. If fo, the
Reafbn may be, either becaufe the Men of
this World are intirely devoted to his Service ;
or that He has got the Power and Dominion
over Them.
Thus we fee, how the word God, according to
the popular way of fpeaking, has been applied to
Angels, or to Men, or to Things inanimate and
infenfible ; becaufe fome part of the Idea be
longing to God, has been conceived to belong
to them alfo. To argue from hence, that any
of them is properly God, is making the whole
of a part ; and reafoning fallacioufly, a ditto
fecundum quid, as the Schools fpeak, ad di
ctum fimpliciter. If we inquire carefully into
the Scripture-Notion of the Word, we fliall
find, that neither Dominion fingly, nor all the
other Inftances of Refemblance make up the
Idea ; or are fufficient to denominate any
Thing properly God- When the Trince of
Tyre pretended to be God, Ezek. 28. 2. He
thought of fomething more than meer Domi nion

$% i DEFENSE Qu. III.
nion to make Him fo. He thought of Strength
invincible, and Power irrefiftible : and God
was pleas'd to convince Him of his Folly and
Vanity, not by telling Him how fcanty his
Dominion was, or how low his Office; but
how weak, frail, and perifhing his Nature was;
that He was Man only, and not God, v. z. o.
and fhould furely find fo by the Event. When
the Lycaonians, upon the fight of a Miracle
wrought by St. Taul, (Acts 14. 11.) took Him
and Barnabas for Gods; They did not think
fb much of Dominion, as of Tower, and Abi
lity, beyond Human : And when the Apoftles
aniwer'd them, they did not tell them that
their Dominion was only Human; or that
their Office was not Divine ; but that they
had not a divine Nature : They were weak,
frail, and feeble Men ; of like Infirmities with
the reft of their Species, and therefore no
Gods. If we trace the Scripture-Notion of one that
is truly and properly God ; we fliall find it
made up of thefe feveral Ideas ; Infinite Wifdom,
Power invincible, All-fufficiency, and the like.
Thefe are the Ground and Foundation of Do
minion ; which is but a fecondary Notion, a Con
fequence of the Former : And it muft be Domi
nion Supreme, and none elfe, which will fuit
with the Scripture-Notion of God. It is not
that of a Governor, a Ruler, a Trotector, a
Lord, or the like; but a foveraign Ruler, an al
mighty Protector, an omnifeient and omniprefrnt Gover-

Qu.III. of fome QUERIES. y3
Governor: An eternal, immutable, all- fufficient
Creator, Treferiier, and Trotector. Whatever
falls fliort of this, is not properly, in the Scri
pture-Notion, God; but is only called fo by
way of Figure ; as has before been explain'd.
Now-, if jou ask me why the relative Terms
may properly be applied to the Word God, the
reafbn is plain ; becaufe there is fbmething re
lative in the whole Idea, of God; namely, the
notion of Governor, Trotector, Sec. If you
ask why they cannot fo properly be applied to
the Word, God, in. the metaphyfical Senfe ; be-
fide the reafon before given, there is another
as plain; becaufe Metaphyficks take in only
part oi the Idea, confider the Nature ab-
ftracted from the Relation, leaving the rela
tive Part out.
From what hath been faid, it may appear
how ufelefs and infignificant your Diftinction
is, of a fupreme and a fubordinate God. For,
not to mention that this muft unavoidably
run you into Tolytheijm, and bring you to
affert more Gods than one, contrary to the
whole Tenor of Holy Scripture; which is
an * infuperable Objection to your Hypo-
thefis ; I fay , not to mention this at pre
fent , your Hypothefis is built upon a falfe
Ground, as if any thing could he properly God,
that is not Supreme. Supreme, in the ftrict
* See what Dr. Bennet has very well urged upon this Head;
Difc. of the Hj Trin. p. 178, &c Senfe,

54 ^DEFENSE. Qu. III.
Senfe, fuppofes for its ground all the eflential
Properties of one truly and properly God, as
defcribed in Scripture^ Another God after this,
is no God; becaufe Scripture makes but one;
befides that an * inferior God is only God im
properly, and fb called by way of Figure, or
in fome particular refpect: So that at length
your famed Diftinction of a fupreme and fub-
ordinate God, refblves into a God, and no God.
The Queftion then, between us, is, whether
Chrift be God properly, or improperly io call
ed ; that is, whether He be God, or no. Your
Arguments to prove Him a fubordinate God
only, I fliall look upon as fb many Arguments
againft his Divinity ; and as defign'd to prove
that He is not God.
You cite Joh. io. 35, 36. If He called them
Gods, to whom the word of God came, and
Scripture cannot be broken : Say ye of Himt
whom the Father hath fanctified, and fent
into the World, Thou blajphemefi, becaufe 1
faid, I am the Son of Godl From hence you
* Neque enim proximi erimus opiniontbus Nationum, qua: ft
quando coguntur Deum confiteri, tamen £c Alios infra Ilium volunt.
Divinitas autem gradum non habet, utpote unica. TertuU. adv.
Hermog. c. 7. p. z 36. Deus non erit dicendus, quia nee crederi-
d.us, nili Summum magnum. Nega. Deum, qucm "dicis deteriorem.
TertuU. Contr. Marc. 1,1. c. 6.
Qui fuper fe habet Alfquem Superiorem, & fub Alterius pri-
teftate eft; Hie neque Deus, neque Magnus Rex dici poteft.
Iren, 1. +. c. 2, p. 225.
Unus igitur Omnium Dominus eft Deus. Neque enim ilia fub-
limitas poteft habere Confortem, cum Sola omnium teneat pa-
5eftatem. Cypr. de Idol. Van. p. 14.. Ox. Edit.
endea-

Qu. III. of fome QU E R I E S. jf
endeavor to prove, that Chrift is God in the
fubordinate Senfe only ; that is, as I have faid,
not properly or truly God. But I can fee no
manner of ground for this Inference from the
Words before us. Our Bleffed Lord had in
sinuated that He was really and truly God ; but
had not affef ted it in plain and exprefs Terms :
Upon this bare innuendo, the Jews charge Him
with direct Blafphemy : He to evade their Ma
lice and to keep to the Truth, neither affirms,
nor denies that He meant it in the Senfe which
tbey apprehended. However, his Difcourfe be
ing in general Terms, and not explicite enough
to found a charge of Blafphemy upon, He ap
peals to their Law, in order to fhow, that it is
not always Blafphemy, to make one's felf God,
or to apply the Title oiGod, even to mortal
Men, and Men inferior to Himfelf, confidered
only as Man. This was anfwer fufficient to
Them ; who could not from his own Expref
fions clearly convict Him of meaning more,
than that He was God in the improper Senfe
of the Word, as it had been ufed, Tfal. 82. 6.
Neverthclefs, He leaves the point of his Divi
nity undecided ; or rather, ftill goes on to in-
finuate, in Words which they could not direct
ly lay hold on, the very Thing whicfy they
charged Him with. This enraged them fb much
the more: and therefore they again fought to
take Him, v. 39. But He ef coped out of their
Hand. This Interpretation may fuffice to take
of the force of your Argument. Yet, the
Words

S6 i DEFENSE Qu.IIL
Words may admit of other, and perhaps better
Interpretations, confiftent with the Principles
which I here maintain *.
You proceed ro cite Heb. i. 8, 9. and argue
thus: He who being God, calls another his
God, and is fanctified by Him, muft needs be
God in a fubordinate Senfe; that is, God
improperly fb called, or no God. To an old
Objection, I might return an old Anfwer, in the
words of Hilary, or words to the fame Effect.
*'¦ f This may fignify only his Subordination, as
41 a Son, or as God of God, without any In-
" feriority of Nature. The Father is his God,
" as He is God by being begotten of Him.
This Anfwer is direct and full, upon the Sup-
pofition that the Text cited is meant of the
divine Nature of Chrift, or of Chrift in his
higheft Capacity. But if it be meant, as \ pro
bably it may, of his human Nature only, there
is no weight in the Objection.
As to the Son's being fanctified, I fhould
hardly have thought it of any Importance to
the Caufe, had it not been twice infifted on by
you. May not the Father defign, appoint,
confecrate his Son, confider'd in either Capacity,
to the Office of Mediator, without fuppofing
Him of a different and inferior Nature to Him ?
Or, fuppofe the fanctifying may be meant of
* See True Script. Doftr. continued, ^>. 178.
f Ad Nativitatem refertur; cxterum non perimit Naturam; &
idcirco Deus ejus eft, quia ex eo natus in Deum eft. Hii. de
Jrin. 1. 4. c. 3f. p. 848.
£ See IJennet. Difcourfe oh the Trin. p. 3*, 33, &c.
the

Qu, III. of fome QUERIES. ^
the human Nature, which the Father has fancti
fied, by uniting it to the \oy>$; what force
will there remain in your Objection ? Having
anfwer'd your Pleas and Pretences for a fub*
ordinate God, I proceed to fhow that Chrift is
not called God in a fubordinate, or improper
Senfe ; but in the fame Senfe, and in as high a
Senfe, as the Father Himfelf is fo ftiled.
i. Becaufe He is called the Jehovah, which
is a word of abfolute Signification, and is the
incommunicable Name of the one true God.
* He is, very probably, called Jehovah, Luk.
1.16,17. many fhall He (viz. John theBaptift)
turn to the Lord their God, and He fhall go
before Him. The Doctor owns that, inftrict-
nefs of Conftruction, the words{the Lord their
God) muft be underftood of Chrift. And there
fore Chrift is Lord God, or Jehovah Elohim,
which comes to the fame.
/ He is likewife Called the Lord God of the
Prophets, as appears from Rev. 22. 6. com
pared with v. 1 6. oi the fame Chapter. This
may be farther confirmed by comparing the
Texts following.
* See this Text excellently defended and illuftrated in True
Scripture Doftr. continu'd, p, 132, 133, efyc,

Of

58

i DEFENSE

Qu.IIL

Of old haft thou laid
the Foundation of the
Earth, Pf. 102. 25. &c.
Addrefs'd to the Je
hovah And the Lord (Je
hovah) faid unto me:
Coft it unto the Tot
ter; a goodly price
that I was prifed at
of them, Zech. 1 1. 12.
They Jhall look on
me (Jehovah fpeaking
by the Prophet) whom
they have fierced ,
Zech. 12. 10.
The Voice of Him,
that crieth in the Wil
dernefs. ^prepare ye the
way of the Lord { Je
hovah) If 40. 3.
The Lord faid, I
will have mercy on the
Houfe of Judah, and
will fave them by the
Lord (Jehovah) their
God, Hofii.7.

a Thou Lord, in the
beginning haft laid the
Foundations of the
Earth, Heb. 1.

10.

b Then was fulfilledx
That which was fpo
ken, &c. Matth. 27.
9, 10. Another Scripture
faith, They Jhall look
on Him { Jefus Chrift )
whom they have pier
ced, Joh. 19. 37.
QThe Voice of one
crying in the Wilder
nefs , prepare ye the
way of the Lord, Mar.
1. 3. is born in the

City of David, a Sa
viour, which is Chrift
the Lord, Luk.2.11.

a See Surenhufii Conciliation, iu loc. p. Coo.
b Surenhuf. in loc. p. 280.
c Surenhuf. in Matt. 3. 3. p. 207. I refer to this Author, to ob
viate the pretence, that thefe Texts might be underftood, only by way
if Accommodation. I have

Qu. III. of fome QUERIES. $9
I have produced the Texts again, in order
to take notice of the very peculiar way, which
you have of evading. It is your avowed Prin
ciple, that Chrift is not Jehovah in his own
Perfon, (/. 24. ) and elfewhere: and that che
Terfon called Jehovah is the Father only.
What then muft be faid to thefe Texts, which
are fo very plain and exprels to the contrary ;
infbmuch that * Dr. Clarke Himfelf owns, that
the name Jehovah is given to that vifible
Terfon (meaning Chrift) who appear'd as re-
prefenting the Terfon of the invifible God ?
He does not fay, it was given to the Perfon
reprefented only, but to the Perfon reprefent-
ing alfo ; which you feem to deny. But you
confound your felf with your f own Comment
upon Hof. 1.7. {Jehovah would — ffave them
by Jehovah their God) That is, fay you, that
Jehovah himfelf would fave them, but not in
his own Terfon. Well then ; it is by another
Terfon, which Terfon the Text exprefly calls
Jehovah.
Upon Zech. 12. io.compar'd with J0h.iQ.3j.
you Comment thus {p.z6.) The Sufferings of
Chrift might well be called the Sufferings of
Jehovah, being pierced in Effigie in his Son,
who is the exprefs Image of his Terfon.
What a fanciful Turn is here, meerly to elude
the force of plain Scripture. Say rather, that
fince Chrift is the Effigies, the exprefs Image
of the Father, He might juftly be called Je-
* Reply, p. 163. t P« «)"•
F 2 hovah,

60 A D E F E N S E Qu. III.
hovah, which indeed He is, as well as the Fa
ther. I fhall dwell no longer on fo clear and
indifpurable a Point. What you hint, that the
Father and Son cannot Both be Jehovah, or as
you exprefs it, one individual Being, meaning
one Terfon, is hardly deferving Notice ; becaufe
it is nothing but playing with the word indi
vidual; and difputing againft no Body : either
rake the word in our Senfe of it, or pretend
not that you oppofe us. It has been obferved
above, that Antiquity is every where full and
exprefs in this Matter ; never queftioning, but
conftantly afferting, that the Son is Jehovah ;
and fb called, in Scripture, in his own Terfon,
and in his own right, as Coejfential Son oi God.
The next Thing which I have to obferve, is,
that Jehovah is a word of abfolute Significa
tion. The relative Terms do not fuit with
it, as with the other. We do not read my Je
hovah, or your Jehovah, or the Jehovah of
Ifrael; as is pertinently remark'd by a learned
* Gentleman; and the fame Gentleman obferves,
that it is fometimes render'd by Qils, or God:
from whence we may juft take notice, by the
way, that the word ©eos, or God, in Scripture,
is not always, perhaps very rarely, a meer re
lative Word. That Jehovah is a Word of ab
folute Signification, expreffing God, as He is,
may be proved, both from t Scripture it felf,
* The True Script. DoQx. of the Trin. continued, p. 134.
f See this proved in the Appendix to the Confiderations on Mr.
Vhifton'j Hiflor. Pref. p. ici
and

Qu. III. of fome QU E R I E S. 6\
and the * Authorities of the beft Criticks in this
Cafe. What you have to object againft it, fliall
be here examined, with all convenient Brevity.
f You make the Import of the Name Jehovah
to be, giving Being to (i.e. Performing) his
Tromifes. For Reafons beft known to your
Self, you flip over Exod. 3. v. 14, 15-. which
might probably give us the moft Light into the
Matter ; and chufe to found all your Reafon-
ings upon Exod. 6.2, 3, $§c. an obfcure Place,
on which you have made almoft as obfcure a
Comment. The Words are, I am the Lord
(Jehovah) and I appeared unto Abraham, unto
Ifaac, and unto Jacob, by the Name of God
Almighty (El Shaddai) but by my Name Je
hovah, was I not known unto them.
You do not, I prefume, fo underftand this
Text, as if this was the firft Time that God re
vealed Himfelf by the Name Jehovah. That
He had done before, Exod. 3. 14. And even
long before That, to Abram, Gen. 15. 7. And
Abram had addrefs'd Him, under that Name,
fooner, Gen. 15.2. Nay, it may be run up yet
higher, even to Adam and Eve, Gen. 4. i.|.
Your meaning therefore, I fuppofe, muft be,
* See the Authorities cited in the fecond Part of the Confiderations
by the fame Author, p. 2, 3. And ref err' d to in True Scripture
Dodtr. continu'd, p. 133, 134. f p. 19.
:£ M. Le Clerc thinks that all this may be folved by a Prolepfis,
Com. in Exod. 3. v. if. To which it is fufficient to Anfwer, that it
may be otherwife ; and that it is highly improbable, that Mofes, who
was particularly careful not to introduce the Name of Abraham and
Sarah, before the proper Time, fliould not be as careful in refpeB of n,
rnort venerable Name, the Name of God Himfelf.
F 3 that

6z ^ DEFENSE Qu.III.
that God had given many Inftances of his
Tower before, conformable to his Name El
Shaddai : But now, He was to give them In
ftances of his Veracity and Conflancy in per
forming Tromifes, conformable to his Name
Jehovah. This, I think, either is, or fhould
be your Senfe of this obfcure Paffage. That
it is not the true Senfe of the Place, is next to
be fliown.
i. It appears to be a very ftrain'd and remote
Interpretation. The primary Signification of
Jehovah, is Being, by your own Confeffion,
and as all know, that know any thing : and the
moft obvious reafbn of rhe Name, is, that God
is Being it felf, neceffarily exifting, indepen
dent, immutable, always the fame; According
to that of Mal. 3.6. I am the Lord (Jehovah)
I change not. After this, in the natural Order,
He may be confidered as the Fountain of Be
ing, or giving Being to all other Things : So
that this feems but a fecondary Notion of Je
hovah. Yours is more remote ftill : it is giving
Being, not to the World, to Angels, or to
Men; But to Words and Tromifes; that is,
fulfilling Them. And this metaphorical Senfe
of, giving Being, you would put upon us, for
the proper and ffecial Import of the Name
Jehovah, expreffing Being. Who does not fee
that this is ftrained and Far ferch'd ?
z. The Reafon which you affign for this
Interpretation, is as lame as the Interpretation
it felf. God, it feems, was now coming to
fulfil

Qu. III. of fome QUERIES. 6*3
fulfil the promife made to Abraham ; and there
fore reminds his People of the Name Jehovah;
as importing one faithful and punctual to his
Word. But what if Jehovah fliould import
one eternal and immutable God , the fame
yefterday, to day, and for ever; might not the
Confederation thereof be very proper to raife
in Men's Minds the greateft Confidence and
Aflurance imaginable, that He fliould never fail
of his Word ?
3. Befides, what Account will you give of
many other Places of Scripture, where God re
minds his People, that He is Jehovah; and
where there is no Reference at ali, to promifes,
or the like ?
Thus, in this very Chapter, Exod. 6. ?,q. I
am the Lord: (Jehovah) fpeak thou unto
Pharaoh King of Egypt all that I fay unto
Thee. Again ; Againft all the Gods ofEgypt,
I will execute Judgment; I am Jehovah,
Exod. 12. 12. None of you Jhall approach to
any that is near of Kin to Him  / am
Jehovah, Lev. 18. 6. / am the Lord (Jehovah)
that is my Name, and my Glory will I not
give to another ; neither my praife to graven
Images, If 42. 8. * many more Places of like
nature might be cited. But I chuie to refer you
to a Concordance for them. What I intend from
* Monf. Le Clerc, upon the Place, endeavors ly j£>uirli and Sub
tilty to tm-n feveral Pajfages, wherein the Jehovah is mention'd, to one
particular Senfe, in favour of the Sabellians. But that Author, and
his Manner are well known, and with what Byafs he writes- The
wry Inftama which Be brings are enough to confute Him.
F 4 them

6*4 ^ DEFENSE Qu. IIL
them is this ; tbat if your's be the true Account
of the fpecial Import of the Name Jehovah, it
Will be hard to find any Senfe, or Pertinency
in thofe , or other frequent Repetitions of it.
But underftanding the Word, as it has been ge
nerally underftood by Perfons of the greateft
Learning and Judgment, all is clear, pertinent,
and confident.
But, you will fay, why then does God io
particularly take notice, that by his name Je
hovah, He was not known to Abraham, Ifaac,
and Jacob? Exod. 6. 3. Did not they know
Him, and worfhip Him, as the true, eternal,
independent, immutable God, the Creator of
all Things ? Yes, certainly they did, and un
der the Name Jehovah too ; and probably un
derftood the import of it. The moft probable
Solution of the whole Difficulty is this ; that
the Words , in rhe latter part of the Text ,
ought to be underftood by way of Interro
gation, thus: But by my name Jehovah, was
I not alfo known unto theml That great
and venerable Name, which expreffes more
than El-Shaddai, or any other Name, and
which I have chofen for my memorial to all
Generations? If you pleafe to confult the Criticks, you
Will find this Interpretation fupported by fuch
Reafons as will bear Examining. It has been
obferved by rhe Learned, that fome of the Greek
Writers read the Words, x, to wfiz ^s, Kvpi@* ,
iMxacrz gcvtoTj. That is, my name, Jehovah, I
made

Qu. III. of fome QUERIES. 6$
made known unto them ; which Interpretation
is likewife favoured by the Arabick Verfion.
This, at leaft, we may fay ; that from a Paf
fage fo obfcure, and capable of feveral Con-
ftructions, no certain Argument can be drawn,
for the fpecial import of the Word Jehovah,
in oppofition to the beft Criticks in the Lan
guage, whether Antient or Modern. Now, to
refume the Thread of our Argument ; fince it
appears that Chrift is, in his own proper Per
fon, called Jehovah, a Word of ablolute Signi
fication, expreffing the divine Nature or Ef
fence ; it muft follow that He is God, ftrictly
fb called ; and not in the relative or improper
Senfe, as is pretended.
This will appear farther, if it be confider'd
that Jehovah is the incommunicable Name of
the one true God. This may be proved from
* feveral Texts, which I fliall only point to in
the Margin ; referring you to f a learned Author,
who has abundantly made good the Affertion.
I may remark that this and the foregoing Ob
fervation ferve to fupport and confirm each
other: For, if Jehovah fignify the eternal
immutable God, it is manifeft that the Name
is incommunicable, fince there is but one God;
and if the Name be incommunicable, then Je
hovah can fignify nothing but that one God to
whom, and to whom only, it is applied. And
* Exod. 3. 14, if. Deut. 26. 17, 18. Pfal. 83. 18. If. 4.2. 8.
fiofea 12. 5.
f %d Letter to the Author of /Ac Hiftory of Montanifm, p. 5. 8cc. if

M i DEFENSE Qu.IIL
if both thefe Parts be true, and it be true like-
wife, that this Name is applied to Chrift ; the
Confequence is irrefiftible, that Chrift is the
fame one God ; not the fame Perfon with the
F&ther, to whom alfo the Name Jehovah is
attributed, but the fame Subftance, the fame
Being, in a Word, the fame Jehovah; thus
revealed to be more Perfons than one. So
much for my firft Argument to prove that
the Word, God, when applied to the Father and
Son, in Scripture, does not bear a double Mean
ing, one proper, and the other improper ; but
is to be underftood in one and the fame true
and proper Senfe, in refpect of Both.
2* My fecond Argument for it fhall he
from Joh. i. i. purfuant to the Words of the
Query. In the beginning was the Word, and
the: Word was with God, and the Word was
God, v. i. All Things were made byHim,8cc.
v. 3. Here, we find the Son exprefly called
God: and the only queftion is, whether in a
propter* or improper Senfe. The Circumftances
Of the place muft determine us in this Enquiry,
Here are Three Marks to direct us how to
&>rm a Judgment. 1. The word ©eo$5 God,
is ufed in a proper Senfe in the very fame
Verfe. 2. The word wasGWin the Beginning,
that is, before the Creation, 3. The Work of
Creation is attributed to Him,
I fay, firft, the word ©eo$, God, is once
ufed, in a proper Senfe» in the very fame Verfe,
I have before fhawrt, that the pretended rela tive

Qu. III. of fome QUERIES. 6>
tive Senfe is only an improper and figurative
Senfe of the word G<?</, according to the Scri
pture-Notion of it; and therefore, certainly,
That cannot be the meaning of it here, being
applied to the Father, who, without difpute,
improperly God. Befides, that fince ®tl$ in the
Septuagint is frequently the rendering of J'e-
hovah, as you may readily fee by turning to
Trommius's Concordance ; and fince Sr. John
Himfelf follows that rendering, as you may ob
ferve by comparing, Joh.6.At<y. with If. 5-4. 13.
we may reafonably think that 0 ©so?, in the
Text, is of the fame Signification with Jehir-
vah : which is a farther proof that it is to be
underftood abfolutely, and not relatively, as
you term it, or as I, improperly. If therefore
the word ®ils, God, be once ufed by St. John
in the ftrict and proper Senfe ; How can We
imagine that immediately after, in the very fame
Verfe, He fhould ufe the fame Word in a Senfe
very different from that of the former? You
remark, that the Article is prefixed before
®iqs, in an abfolute Conftruction, when ffoken
of the Father ; but omitted when predicated
of the Aoyos. But if the want of the Article be
fufficient to prove that Qils, God, when applied
to the Word, is of a different meaning ; by the
fame Argument you might prove that the fame
word, ©605) without an Article, in no lefs than
four places more of this Chapter (y. 6. 12, 13.-18.)
is not to be underftood of the one true God.
I cannot help thinking a remark Trifling, ¦ which
fignifies

£8 ^ DEFENSE Qu. III.
fignifies fo little, as either to prove too much,
or to prove nothing. Could you fhow that
©eos without the Article, was always taken in
a relative, or improper Senfe, you would do
fomething. All that you attempt to fhow, is,
that o ®to$ is no where, in the new Teftament,
predicated of the Word, in an abfolute Con
ftruction: And what if it is not? Then, it is
not : For, that is all you can make of it. ®to$
without the Article in many Places, confeffed-
ly, means as much as ®tbs with the Article;
which is enough for our purpofe. Or, admit
ting that there is fome reafbn and fignificancy
in it, that the Son is not ftiled o ©eos in an ab
folute Conftruction, but that the Title is gene
rally referved to the Father, as the Title, l Ua.Tyip ;
all that it fignifies, is, that the firft Perfon
of the Holy Trinity is eminently diftinguifh'd
by an Article ; but not that the Addition , or
the Omiffion, of an Article makes any Altera
tion in the Senfe of the word Qtls. You fay,
that three of the moft learned Ante-Nicene
Greek Fathers infift upon this Remark ,
about the Article. * Clemens of Alexandria,
*Clem- Alex. Strom. 3. p. 54S. Ed. Ox. Clemens does not make
hu Remark on Joh. 1. 1. nor does He mention, that the Article is put
to diftinguifh the Father's Supereminent dignity of Nature above the
Son; As your Reader, or perhaps your Self, might imagine. His defign was
enly to prove, againft Tatian, that the True Cod (and not the Devil)
was the Author of Conjugal Procreation; for which He cites Gen.
4. 2<j, obfervir.g, that ©£05 in that Place has the Article i before it;
and therefore muft be underftood of the True Cod, the ¦na.trox.^f.Tut-.
By the very fame Rule, Chrift muft, be True God, in the fame Senfe,
according to Clemens, tie. is 0 ©s«$. See p. 72. 132. jj-i. 273,
* Origen

Qu. III. of fome QU E R I E S. 6$
* Origen, and f Eufebius. But what do they
gather from it, or what do they mean by it ?
Do they mean that the Son is not God in the
proper Senfe ? nothing like it. Do they mean
that the Article can never be properly applied
when rhe Son is fpoken of, or that the Scripture
obferves it as an invariable Rule ? That does
not appear , but rather the Contrary : For ,
they underftood many Texts of the Old Tefta
ment, where ©eos occurs with the Article, of
Chrift, as may appear, Nin fome meafure, from
the Texts before laid down; and might be
more amply fet forth by other Evidence, were
any needful in fb clear a Cafe.
The Truth of the whole Matter is, the Title
of o ®tlsi being underftood in the fame Senfe
with AvroB'tos, was, as it ought to be, general
ly referved to the Father, as the diftinguifhing
perfonal Character of the firft Perfon of the
Holy Trinity. And this amounts to no more
than the Acknowledgement of the Father's Pre
rogative, as Father. But as it might alfo fignify
any Perfon who is truly and effentially God, it
might properly be applied to the Son too : and
it is fo applied fometimes, tho' not fb often as
it is to the Father. However, it is hardly
436. 832. and likewife i 7nttrex^fruf, p. 277. See alfo p. 148.
647. * In Joh. p. 46. Origen means no more than that the Father is
Ai-rlSi©-, God unoriginated; the Son, God of God.
f Eccl. Theol. 1. 2. c. 17. Eufebius makes no farther ufe of the
Obfervation than to prove, againft Marcellus , that the Aoy©" is a
dift'mB real Perfon ; and net th Father Himfelf.
worth

|o i DEFENSE Qu.IIL
Worth the while to difpute this Point. The
gum and Subftance of all is, that * the Father
is abfolutely, and eminently ftiled o ®zh, as
the Fountain of all; the Son ®to$, God of God,
Which is fufficient ro our purpofe. You ob
ferve (/. 42.) that the LXXII have ©ecs with
out the Article, wherever mention is made of
G'od, in what you call the fubordinate Senfe.
The Inference I fhould draw from thence, is,
that when ®th has the Article prefix'd, the
fupreme God is meant thereby. By this Rule,
jf the concurrent Senfe of the Ante-Nicene
Writers be of any force or weight with you,
©ur Difpute would be at an end. For they ap
ply innumerable Texts , wherein ®ios occurs
With the Article, to our Saviour Chrift. But if
you flight their Authorities, yet I prefume you
Will be concluded by the infpired Writers, who
apply fome Texts of the Old Teftament, which
Jiave ®ils with the Article, to our Bleffed
Lord. Compare

Numb. 21. 5-, 6. 7.
Ifa. 451. 22, 23.

1 Cor. 10. 9.
f Rom. 1 4. 1 1 .Thil. 2.10.
I had almoft forgot to take notice of one
Pretence more you have, for the fubordinate
Senfe of ©eos, in Joh. 1. r. You word it thus,
(^.41.) He who is God, and at the fame time
is with God who begat Him, muft needs be
God in a different meaning ; unlefs the fame
* See this more fully explain'd and illuftrated in Dr. Fiddes'^ Body
of Divinity, Vol. i. p. 383, &c and' 397, &c.
f Vjd. Surenhuf Conciliation, p. 511.
God

Qu.HI. of fome QUERIES, yf
God could be with Himfelf, &c. To this it is
readily anfwer'd, that being with God is the
fame as being with the Father, (Comp, i Joh.
1.2.) who is God, and eminently fb ftiled, as
being firft in Order *. If he were not always
with Him, and infeparable from Him, He could
not be God in a proper Senfe. God and God,
or God of God, fuppofes two Terfons ; and
therefore there is no Foundation for the Ob*
jection of the Son's being with Himfelf. Hav
ing thus endeavored to obviate your Exceptions,
I now proceed in the Proof of my Pofition.
The Word is here {Joh. i. i.) faid to have
been God in the Beginning, that is, before the
Creation ; from whence it is farther probable
that He is God, in the ftrict and proper Senfe.
This Circumftance may at leaft be fufficient to
convince you, that the relative Senfe, which
you contend for, is not applicable. He could
have no Relation to the Creatures before
they were made ; no Dominion over them when
they were not: And therefore could not be
God in the Senfe of Dominion, or Office. But
what moft of all demonftrates the Word to be
here called God in the proper Senfe, is, that
the Creation of all Things is afcribed to Him.
* There is no inconfiftency in admitting a Priority of Order, and yet
denying the Son to be God in a fubordinate, or improper Senfe. There
was a Priority of Order, in refpeB of Adam and Seth: and yet
Seth was not Man in a fubordinate Senfe , but in the fame Senfe
as Adam was. I ufe not the Similitude, as if it would anfwer in
other refpeB s: but it may ferve fo far. to iUuftrate my meaning;
which is fufficient. See Expofit. Fid, attributed to Juftin. Mart.
t. 293. Sytb. Ed.
Crea*

jl ^DEFENSE. Qu, III.
Creation is an indifbutable Mark of the one
true God; the * diftinguifhing Character by
which He was to be known, and for which He
was to be reverenc'd above all Gods ; and on
f Account of which, He claims to Himfelf all
Homage, Worfhip, and Adoration. But of this
I fhall have occafion to fay more hereafter, and
therefore fhall difmifs it for the prefent. I muft
not forget to add, that, befides what I have here
urged, by virtue alfo of what hath been proved
under Query the firft, I may come at my Con
clufion. For, no Queftion can be made but
that the Word is called God, by St. John, in a
higher Senfe than any nominal God can pre
tend to. And therefore, fince He is not ex
cluded with the nominal Gods, He is included
and comprehended in the one fupreme God;
and confequently, is coeternal and coeffential
with the Father. Enough hath been faid in
Vindication of the Argument contain'd in this
Query : and fo now I return it upon you, ftand-
ing in full force ; and expecting a more com
pleat, and more fatisfactory Anfwer.
* Jerem. io. m, -j- Rev. 4. 10. 11.

Qu ERY

Qu. IV- of fome QUERIES. 73
Query. IV.
Whether , fuppofing the Scripture -Notion of
God to be no more than that of the Au
thor and Governor of the Univerfe, or
whatever it be, the admitting of Ano
ther to be Author and Governor of the
Univerfe, be not admitting another God;
contrary to the Texts before cited from
Ifaiah; and aljo to If 42. 8.-48. 11. where
He declares, He will not give his Glory to
Another ?
YOUR Anfwer is (/. 42.) Suppofing the
revealed Senfe of the Word, God, to
imply Dominion, and that He is the Author
and Governor of the Univerfe, the admitting
a Second Perfon, dijlinct from the one fupreme
God, to be Author and Governor, doth by no
means contradict the Tajfages cited from
Ifaiah, or any Other, or introduce two Gods,
viz. two fupreme Beings, or Terfons. Give
me leave to produce the Texts of Ifaiah once
more ; and to place others in an oppofite Co
lumn to them, only mutatis mutandis, putting
Author and Governor of the Univerfe in
ftead of the Word, God; which, with you,
amounts to the fame.

G / am

74

A DEFENSE

Qu. IV.

/ am the Lord, and
there is none elfe;
there is no Author and
Governor of the Uni
verfe befides me,\i. 45. 5 .
Is there an Author
and Governor of the
Univerfe befides me ?
yea, there is no Au
thor, Wc. befides me,
Ifa. 44. 8.

The Word was Au
thor and Governor of
the Univerfe, Joh. 1.1.

Chrift came, who is
over all, Author and
Governor of the Uni
verfe, blejfed for ever,
Rom. 9. 5".

I hope you fee plainly how the Text;, in
the two oppofite Columns, confront and con
tradict each other; and that two Authors and
Governors of the Univerfe, whom you fup
pofe two diftinct feparate Beings, are as plainly
two Gods, as if it were faid fb in Terms. For,
indeed there's no Difference more than that of
putting the Definition for the Thing defined.
But you have an Evafion after ; That They are
not two fupreme Beings. And what if They
are not ? Are They not ftill two Authors and
Governors of the Univerfe ? And is not every
fuch Author and Governor, by your own Ac
count, a God ? This pretence then comes too
late. Or admitting that Supreme muft be add
ed to Author and Governor, to make a true
Definition of God; then Author and Go
vernor of the Univerfe, without Supreme.
is not fufficient to denominate a Perfon God ;
and

Qu.lV. of fome QUERIES. 7?
and fb you ungod the Second Perfon ; and what
you gave with one Hand, you take away with
the other.
What you fliould have faid, is, (for it is
what you really mean) that there are two
Gods ; one Supreme, and the other Subordi
nate : Which being a Propofition utterly re*
pugnant to the Texts of Ifaiah, and to the
whole Tenor of Scripture, and to all Antiquity,
you do not, I fuppofe, care to fpeak it at length.
I have before endeavoured to expofe this no
tion of two Gods ; one Supreme , and the
other Inferior ; and have fliown it to be unrea*
fonable and unfcriptural. I may add, that if
there really be two Gods ( Supreme and In*
ferior) in the proper Scriptural Senfe of the
Word, the Good Fathers of the three firft Cen
turies argued againft the Heathen Tolytheifm
upon a very falfe Principle, and died Martyrs
for an Error ; the Angel in the Revelations may
feem to have impofed upon St. John with an
erroneous Maxim, Rev. 19. 10. our Savior's
Anfwer to the Devil to have been defective,
and not pertinent, Luk. 4. 8. and the many
Declarations of the Unity, fcattered through
the Old Teftament, to be unintelligible and
infignificant. But this fliall be more diftinctly
explain'd, when I come to the Argument con
cerning Worfhip.
Here let me only ask you, where does the
Scripture give you the leaft Intimation of
two true Gods? Where does it furnifli you
G 2 with

-j6 yf DEFENSE Qu.IV.
with any ground for the Diftinction of a So
vereign and an Inferior Deity ? What Foun
dation can you find for adding Supreme where-
ever the Scripture fays abfolutely there is but
one God? You are apt to complain of us,
for adding to the Text; and for pretending
to fpeak plainer than the Holy Spirit has
dictated ; 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 leaft, among many, have
faid fb, and have told it us as plainly as Dr.
Clarke and you do? I argue indeed here ad
Hominem only ; and let it have juft as much
force with you, as the fame way of Arguing ,
when you take it up in your turn, ought to
have with us. But farther; what account can
you give of your leaving Room for inferior
Deities, when the Reaion of the thing, the
drift fcope and defign of the Scripture feems
plainly to have been to exclude, not other Su-
premes only , or other Independent Deities
(which few have been weak enough to fuppofe)
but other leffer, inferior, and dependent Divi
nities ? Befides, God has declared that He will
not give hisGlory to another, If 42. 8. --48. n.
This you fay has no difficulty. How fo, I be-
feech you ? It feems to me a very great dif
ficulty in your Scheme. You add, that hisGlory
is, his being the one fupreme independent
Caufe and Original of all Things or Beings.
Now, I thought it was his peculiar Glory to
be

Qu. IV. of fome QUERIES. 77
be truly God, and^ to be acknowledged as fuch ,
exclufive of other Gods. This, I am fure, is
what the one God inculcates and infifts upon,
very particularly, in the Old Teftament. He
difeovers Himfelf to be a jealous God, and
looks upon it as the higheft Indignity to have
any admitted as partners and Sharers with Him.
All Acts of Worfhip, all Homage, Service,
Adoration, and Sacrifice, He claims, He chal
lenges as his due ; and due to Him only ; and
that becaufe He only is God. Now put the
Cafe oi another God; another Author and Go
vernor oj the Univerfe : That other will have
a Share, and divide, tho' unequally, with Him
in Glory. Was this then the meaning of Ifa.
4fz. 8. / will not give AWmy Glory to another?
I will have the greater fHhare in every Thing?
How confident might this be with the Worfhip
of inferior Deities, or with the rankeft Toly-
theifm? For many of the Pagans themfelves
paid their higheft Veneration to the one fu
preme God; only they defiled his Worfhip with
a multitude of inferior Deities ; they gave not
God the fole Glory ; but admitted others as
Sharers and Partners with Him. You add, that
whatever divine Honour is juftly given to any
other , redounds ultimately to the Glory of
Him, who commanded it to be given.
But what if God, who beft knows what re
dounds to his Glory, has already and before
hand engrofs'd all divine Honour to Himfelf,
as being the only God , and the fole Author
G 3 and

7$ A D E F E N S E Qu.IV.
and Governor of the Univerfel Then all
others arc precluded from receiving any divine
Honour; and there's no more Room left for
God's commanding it, than there is for his con
fronting and contradicting Himfelf. But more
of this hereafter, under the Head of Worfhip.
I fhall clofe this Article with Grotius'?, Com
ment upon the Text which we have been con-
fidering. The meaning of it is, fays He,
" *That God will take fevere Vengeance on
" thofe who give that Name which belongs to
*' Him, to Bel, Nebo, Merodach, and Others,
*' which by Nature are no Gods. v
* Vult enim dicere, fe Vindicaturum fevere in Eos qui Nomen,
quod Ipfius eft, dant Belo, Ncboni, Meraducho , & Aliis tm ft*

Query

C;a. V. of fome QUERIES. 79
Query V.
Whether Dr. ClarkeV pretence, that the Au
thority of Father and Son being One, tho'
They are two diftinct Beings, makes Them
not to be two Gods, As a King upon rhe
Throne and his Son adminiftring the Father's
Government, are not two Kings ; be not tri-
fivag and inconfiftent ? For, if the King's
Son be not a King, He cannot truly be call
ed King; if He is, then there are two
Kings. So, if the Son be not God in the
Scripture-Notion of God, He ' cannot truly
be called God ; and then how is the Doctor
confiftent with Scripture, or with Himfelf?
But if the Son be truly God, there are two
Gods upon the Doctor's Hypothefis, as plain
ly as that one and one are Two : And fo
all the Texts of Ifaiah cited above, befides
others, fiand full and clear againft the
Doctor's Notion.
YO U truft, it feems, that upon a fecond
Confederation of this fifth Query, The Ob
jector himfelf will not think it very pertinent
or conclufive But I can fee no Reafon for
your being fb fanguine upon it. For, as an
Argument fb plain and ftrong, needs not fb
much as a fecond Confideration ; fo if the
Objector were to confider it ever fo often, He
could not but think it to be, as He finds it,
G 4 both

80 i DEFENSE Qu. V.
both very pertinent and very conclufive. You
add, that He will not ask, a fecond Time, whe
ther one divine Terfon exercifing the Au
thority of another, to whom He is fubordi
nate, and , by whom He is fent, proves that
the two Terfons are two Gods.
But let me intreat you, in a Subject of this
Importance, not to trifle at this rate ; talking
backwards and forwards, faying and unfaying,
afferting and then recanting, and contradicting
your felf. What is Dr. Clarke's, Intention, and
what is your's, in infifting fo much on the re
lative Senfe of the word God, but to find a
falvo for the Divinity of the Son ; that He
may be acknowledged, confiftently with your
Hypothefis, to be truly, really, properly God ?
Read but over again what you your felf have
written {p, 113.) and then deny this if you
can. Well then ; if the Son, a diftinct feparate
Being, be truly and realty God; and if the
Father be fo too, what can be plainer than that
there are, upon your Hypothefis, two Gods ?
But you fay, one is Supreme, the other Sub
ordinate. I underftand it ; I confider it : And
do not you allow that a fubordinate Being may
be properly God ? Do not you exprefly plead
and contend for it ? Is it not effential in Dr.
Clarke's Scheme, and Your's too ? What mean
you then to deny that there are two Gods ? Can
you deny it, without recanting all that ypu had
laid before ; without ftriking out every fubor
dinate Being, from being truly and properly God;

Qu. V. of fome QUERIES. Si
God, without difbwning the very Principle up
on which you affert the Son to be God; in
fliort, without manifeftly confronting and con
demning your felf? I do not charge you with
afferting two fupreme Gods : But I do charge
you with holding two Gods, one Supreme, ano
ther Inferior ; two real and true Gods, accord
ing ro the Scripture-Notion of the Word, God,
as explain'd by your Self. This you cannot
truly and fincerely, you fliould not otherwife,
deny: And therefore, inftead of fliifting it off)
your Bufinefs fhould be to maintain your A£
fertion, and to reconcile it, as far as poffible,
to Scripture, Antiquity, and Reafbn. I am
fenfible, fomething may be pleaded, having feen
what has been pleaded, for the Notion of Two
Gods, as you underftand it. But, I think, it
is upon fuch Principles, as will leave you no
Pretence, from Scripture, to object Tritheifm
to others; nor any juft ground for infifting, as
you generally do, upon the ftrict Force of rhe
exclufive Terms, in order to ungod the Son.
I will not however anticipate what you may
have to fay farther on this Head ; nor what
may be pertinently replied to it. Let me fee
firft, how far you will, in good earneft, efpoufe
the Notion of two Gods : In the Interim, I may
fairly leave you to confider of it. I fhall be
content, at prefent, to follow you in the way
that you are in ; endeavoring to clear your felf
of the charge of aflerting two Gods, and yet,
all the while, pleading for a fubordinate God. To

81 i DEFENSE Qu. V.
To countenance your Notion, you produce,
"after the Learned Doctor, the Authority of
Tertullian; the izmeTertullian, whom I have
quoted above bas declaring exprefly againft any
fuch vain Imagination, as that oi a. fubordinate
God ; and throwing it off as a Tagan Dream :
the fame that fays, the Divinity has no De
grees, being one only. Will you bring Him
for a Voucher fb directly againft Himfelf? True,
He uiesthe fimilitude of a King upon aThrone,
and a Son adminiftring his Father's King
dom: But to a very different purpofe from what
you would have it ferve. The Objection
againft more Perfons than one in the Godhead
(as Tertullian refblves it) was, that the Au
thority would not be one; that there would
not be unicum imperium : fee the place in the
e Margin. The fimilitude is pertinent to fhow
how the Authority, or Government, may be
one in the Hands of feveral Perfons. But if
a Scrip. DoBr. p. 353. b See £$u. 3. p. 54.
c Monarehiam, inquiunr, tenemus. Et ira fonum vocaliter ex-
priimunt Latini, etiam Opici, ut putes Illos tarn bene intelligere
Monarehiam, quam onuntiant. Sed Monarehiam fonare ftudent La
tini; 8c Oeconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam Grxci. At ego, fi
quid utriufque Lingua: prxcerpfi, Monarehiam nihil aliud fignificare
fcio, quam Singulare ey Unicum Imperium : non tamen prjfcribere
Monarehiam, ideo quia Unius fit, Eum, cujus fit, aut Filium non
habere, aut Ipfum fe fibi Filium fecifle, aut Monarehiam fuam non
per quos velit adminiftrare. Atquin, nullam dico Dominationem
ka unius fui efie, ut non etiam per alias proximas Perfonas ad-
miniftretur — — — Si vero & Filius fuerit ei , cujus Monarcbia
fit, non ftatim dividi eam, 8c Monarehiam efie definere, fi particeps
ejus adfumatur & Filius, Contr. Prax. c. 3. p. far.
The Senfe of this Paffage is very clear : Tlae Praxeans, (I fuppofe
taking advantage of this ; that the Church had always rejeBed Tria
Principia, and r(tii kt&fXMi} pleaded for themfeh/es^ and againft a,
yoa

Qu. V. of fome QUERIES. S3
you ask Tertullian, how Father and Son can
be reputed one God; He tells you in the
a Chapter before , and in that very Paffage
which the Doctor quotes, that it is by Unity
of Subftance and Original. Unity of Autho
rity, and Unity of Godhead, are, with Ter
tullian , diftinct Things ; however you may
pleafe to confound Them : God and his Angels
have, according to Him, one Authority; but
He does not therefore fay, that the Angels are
Gods-, or that, if They were, there w7ou!d ftill
be but one God.
b Athenagoras makes ufe of the fame Simi
litude for the fame purpofe with Tertullian;
to iJluftrate the Unity of Authority and Power
common to Father and Son ; not the Unity of
Godhead. It was the c Government divine,
which He undertook, in fome meafure, to illu-
ftrate, by That Comparifbn of a King and his
Son ( which however would argue an Equa
lity of Nature, contrary to your Tenets.)
But as to Unity of Godhead, He refolves it
into d other Principles, the very fame with Ter-
real Trinity; /*oc«p^'«ir tenemus. Tertullian tells them, that They
mifunderftmd fbmatfxU. (As it might fignify unum principium, HE
had anfwered the ObjeBion before: c. 2. J Here He fays , it fignifies
only one Authority; and He fhows that, taken in that Senfe, it was
no juft ObjeBion againft a Trinity of Perfons. Thus, having main
tain' d, firft, Unity of Principle, and afterwards Unity of Authority;
He fufficiently guarded the DoBrine of the Trinity, againft the Cavils
of Praxeas.
a Unus omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per Subftantiae fcilicet Uni-
tatem, p. joi.
Filiu • non aliunde deduco, fed de Subftantia Patris, c 4. p. 502.
b Legat. c. l<j. p. 63. t iarvfuvov H*ri?*iu».
4 P- 38> 39— 9<S-
tuman s

84 i DEFENSE Qu.V:
tullian\ ; Namely, Unity of Subftance , and
Original, making the Holy Ghoft ( and the
reafon is the fame for the Son) to be a Subftan-.
tial * Emanation from the Father , as Light
from Fire. The common Anfwer to the Charge
of Tritheijm, or Ditheijm, as well of the Tofi-
Nicene , as Ante-Nicene Fathers, was , that
there is but one Head, Root, Fountain, Father
oi all ; not in refpect of Authority only, but of
Subftance alfo ; as Tertullian before expreffes
it.* Non aliunde deduce, fed de Subftantia
Tatris. This was the concurrent Senfe of f All
in general ; and into this chiefly they refolved
the Unity of Godhead; as they muft needs do,
fince they believed God to be a Word denoting
Subftance, not Dominion only ; and one Di
vinity, ®iory\s, was with Them the fame Thing
as one divine Subftance. The learned Doctor,
after his manner of Citing, £ produces, I think,
Thirteen Vouchers, (Ten Antient ; Three Mo -
dern) for his Notion of the Unity. Tertullian \
Athenagoras, and Novation (Three of Them}
evidently refolve the Unity, as before obferved,
into Communion of Subftance. Juflin, Atha
nafius,, Hilary, Bafil, Tearfon, Bull, Tayne^
(Seven more) moft of Them, in the very Paf
fages which the Doctor cites; All of them, fome-
where, or other, are known to refolve it into
Sonjhip, or Unity oiTrinciple ; either of which
* Na?, Aoy®', av<puc, *tj<)5 ris starpos, x} «5rep'pW, «$ (fa.5 izjo 5rep«^»
r\ jtneu/**, p_ 0/6,
-j- Some pretende4 Exceptions, wiU be confident in another 2lacs,Q^. a*.
$ Strict. DoBr. p. 334, jjf, &e. alias />, 301. fijc,
comes

Qu. V. of fome QUERIES. Be
comes to the fame with the former. None of
thefe Authors fb underftood the Father to be
one God, as to exclude the Son from being one
God with Him, in Nature, Subftance, and Per
fection : Nor would they have fcrupled to call
Father and Son together, one God ; moft of them
doing it exprefly, all implicitely.
Origen, another of the Doctor's Authors,
refblves rhe Unity into Communion of Godhead,
in the a Paffage cited. ®iorns is the word He
ufes ; b generally, if not conftantly, fignifying
Subftance in that very Comment from whence
the Citation is taken ; agreeably to the moft
ufiial Senfe of ®tos, in the Ante-Nicene Writers ;
and of Divinitas, in Tertullian ; and of ©sotms
in other c Authors.
Lactant ius, the twelfth of the Number, would
have fpoken fully to our purpofe, in the very
d Chapter referr'd to, if the Doctor would have
fuffered Him. He would have told us (how
ever unhappy He may otherwife be in his
Explications of That Myftery ) that Father
and Son are one Subftance, and one God; io
far, at leaft, contrary to what the learned Do-
a Coram, in Joh. p. 46. b See ibid. p. 35-. 133. if4.228.262.
c Epift. Synod- Antioch. Labb. Tom- 1. p. 847. Eufebius
Comm- in Pfalm. p. 323. 592. & in Ifa. p. 37/. 382- 551. Atha»
naf. pa film. Epiphan. Hseref. 64. c. 8.
d Una utrique mens, unus Spiritus, una Subftantia eft; fed Ille
quafi exuberans Fons eft; Hie tanquam defluens ex eo Rivus: Ille
tanquam Sol; Hie quafi Radius a Sole porredlus,  Ad utramque
Perfonam referens intulit, & Prxter me non eft Deus; cum poflit
dicere, prater nos: fed Fas non erat plurali numero Separationern
Tarns Neceffitudinis fieri, /. 4. c. 29. p. 403,404. ctor

U i DEFENSE Qu. V.
ctor cites him for. There remains only Eu
febius, whofe Expreffions are bold and free;
and fo far favourable to the Doctor, as they
are different from thofe of the Catholicks of his
own Time, or of the Times before, and after.
Ifthey are really to be underftood, fb as to ex*
elude the Son from being one God with the
Father, they ungod the Son ; and contain plain
Arianifm. But, perhaps they may admit of
fuch a favourable excufe as, * Gelafius tells us,
Eufebius, in effect, made for Himfelf, in refpect
of any uncautious Expreffions, which,' in the
warmth of Difpute, or out of his great Zeal againft
Sabellianifm, had dropp'd from Him: That He
did not intend Them in the impious Senfe {of
Arius ;) but had only been too carelefs and
negligent in his Expreffions. One may be
the more inclined to believe it, fince He ad
mitted, at other Times (as I have oblerved
above) one God in three Terfons : and elfe-
where fpeaks very Orthodoxly of the Holy un
divided Trinity, illuftrating the Equality of
the Perfons by a very handfome Similitude.
But to return to the Learned Doctor : In the
| Clofe of this Article, He has a peculiar
Turn, which fhould be taken notice of. The
* 0" yw *«tc. rm am£% <£ntiia tmuuv, aXX l£ eaittttpyts as-A^nf]©-,
Gclaf. 1. 2. de Syn, Nic. c. i. p. n.
f Ehuvji as TaZiTtt. fjt,v0x.ii<; ^tj %a,y allocs, <? fiamMrJiis rg/icthi%. vi <$
wfXX >ct uytv&Tis #>mj«5 tifm/Atni, ths t y.virmy d.7iK)nz.<v cuf.k$
iu. o-z-cpitxTx, iqij tss Xoyovf, ȣ r#i cci-nni, K-mfaipf, Orat. de
Laud. Conftant. p. fir. Ed. Valek
:j: Script. Dodtr. p. 345;.
Scho-

Qu. V. of fome QUERIES. 87
Scholaftick Writers, fays He, in later Ages,
have put this Matter (meaning the Unity of
the Godhead) upon another Foot: That is,
dr ¦ rent from what Himfelf, and perhaps Eufi-
bius in thofe Paffages, had put it upon. They
have not, it feems, put it upon a real, proper
numerical Individuality, as the Learned Do
ctor would have had them do. They do not
make the Godhead [io,o'7cgoija7c®t , one fingle
Hypoftafis; which, in the main, is all one
with the Sabellian Singularity.
The Reader fliould be told, that thofe Scho
laftick Writers are as old as Tertullian, Ire-
naus, or Athenagoras ; which brings it up al
moft to the middle of the Second Century. So
early, at leaft, Father and Son together have
been called, and all along believed to be one
God. Let but the Reader underftand, and take
along with Him, what I have now obferved;
and I fliall not differ with you about Names.
Scholaftick may ftand for Catholick, as I per
ceive it often does with you alfo, if you think
the Catholick Faith may, under that borrow'd
Name, be more fafely, or more fuccefsfully
attacked. The Scholaftick Notion then, which
has prevailed for Fifteen Centuries at leaft, is,
that Father and Son are one God: Your's, on
the other Hand, is, that the Father is one God,
and the Son another God : And I am to con
vince you, if I can, that one God, and ano
ther God, make two Gods. You ask me feri-
oufly, * whether Herod the great, was not
* Pag. 41". K'*£

gS i DEFENSE Qu.V.
King of Judea, tho' the Jews (that is, when
the Jews) had no King but Csefar ? I anfwer,
He was not : For, Herod the Great had been
dead above Thirty Years before ; and the Jews
had really no King but Caefar, when they faid
fb. However, if there had been one King un
der another King, there would have been two
Kings. The fame I fay for one God under
another God; they make two Gods. You ask,
next, whether there were more Kings of Perfia
than one, tho' the King 0/* Perfia was King of
Kings? I fliall not difpute whether, King of
Kings, was Titular only to the Kings of
Terfia, or whether They had other Kings un
der Them. I fhall only fay thus: Either rhe
fuppofed Kings of Terfia were Kings of Ter
fia, or They were not: If They were; then
there were more Kings of Perfia than one : If
They were not Kings o/Perfia; They fliould
not be fo called. To apply this to our prefent
purpofe ; either there are two Authors and Go
vernors of the Univerfe, that is, two Gods ;
or there are not : If there are, why do you deny
it of Either ? If there are not, why do you af
firm it of Both?
After all, pleafe to take Notice, that I do
not difpute againft the notion of one King un
der another; a petty King under a Supreme.
There's no difficulty at all in the Conception of
it. But what I infift upon, is this: That a
great King and a Uttle King make two Kings j
or elfe one of Them is no King, contrary to
the

Qu. V. of fome QUERIES. %
the Suppofition. The fame I fay of a fupreme
and a fubordinate God, that They make Two
Gods; or elfe, one of Them is no God, con
trary to the Suppofition.
Texts, proving ari Unity of divine Attri
butes in Father and Son, applied

To the one God.
Thou, evenThou on
ly knoweft the Hearts
of all the Children of
Men, Kings 8. 39.
I the Lord fearch
the Heart ; I try the
Reins, Jer, 17. 10.
I am the firft, and
lam the laft, and be
fides me there is no
God, Ifa. 44. 6.
I am A and VL, the
beginning and the end,
Rev. 1.8.
King of Kings, and
Lord of Lords, 1 Tim.
6. if.
The mighty God, If
10. 21.
Lord over all, Rom.
10. 1%.

To the Son.
He knew all Men ,
&c. Joh. 2.24. Thou
knoweft all Things ,
Joh. 16. 30. Which know
eft the Hearts of all
Men, Acts 1. 24.
lam He thatfearch-
eth the Reins and the
Heart, Rev. z.$.
I am the firft, and
I am the laft, Rev. 1. 17.
/ am A and Cl, the
beginning and the end,
Rev. ax. 13.
Lord of Lords, and
King of Kings, Rev.
17. 14. — 19. i(5.
The mighty God, If
9- 6. . .'
He is Lord of all
Act.10.3 6. Over all God
blejfed, &c. Rom. 9 . $ .
Query

9© i DEFENSE Qu.VL
Query VI.
Whether the fame CharaBerifticks, efpecially
fuch eminent ones, can reafonably be under
ftood of two diftinct Beings, and of one In
finite and Independent, the other Depen
dent and Finite ?
N this fixth Query (for io I chufe to rmke
it, thinking That method moft conven.cnt,
on feveral Accounts) are couched two Argu
ments for the Son's being the one true God, as
well as the Father.
The Firft is : That the Characterifticks, ap
plied to the one true God, are applied likewife
to the Son : which Confideration alone is of
great force.
The Second is : That the Attributes here ap
plied to the Son, are fuch eminent ones, that
we might fafely conclude they belong to no
Creature, but to God only.
How fliall we know, who, or what the one
God is; or what Honour, and to whom, due;
but by fuch Marks, Notes, and diftinguifliing
Charadters as are given us of Him in Scripture ?
If thofe are equally applied to two, or more
Ter fons, the Honour muft go along with the
Attributes; and the Attributes infer an equa
lity of Nature and Subftance, to fupport Them.
In a Word ; if divine Attributes belong to each
Perfon, each Perfon muft be God ; and if God, fince

Qu.VL of fome QUERIES. 91
fince God is one, the fame God. This is the
Sum of the Argument: Now let us fee what
Anfwer you give to ir.
You admit that the Attributes, fpecified in
the Texts, belong to Both : only you obferve,
that all Towers and Attributes are faid to
be the Father's only, becaufe they belong to
Him primarily, or originally, as the Self-ex-
iftent Caufe *. This I can readily admit, as
well as you, provided only, the word, Caufe,
be interpreted to a juft, fbber, and Catholick
Senfe (as the Greek Writers efpecially have
underftood it) and Self-exiftent be interpreted,
as it fliould be , negatively. You add, our
Lord Jefus Chrift, having all communicable
divine Towers derived to Him, with his
Being, from the Father, is faid to do the
fame things which the Father doth, and to
be, in a fubordinate Senfe, what the Fa
ther is.
Here are many Things, in this Anfwer,
liable to juft Exception. Firft, your ufing the
Word, Divine, in an improper Senfe. Ange
lical Powers are fuch as are peculiar to An
gels ; and divine Powers fuch as are proper to
God only : But , here you underftand ir, in
the fame Senfe, as one might call any kingly
Power, or Authority, divine, becaufe derived
from God ; and fo any thing that comes from
God, is, in your Senfe, divine. In the next
place, you clog it farther with the Term, com-
* Pag. 46. H z municable,

oz ^ DEFENSE Qu. VI.
municable, telling us that ail communicable di
vine Powers, are derived to Chrift Jefus : where
as I contend, that the Attributes in the Text,
are ftrictly divine; and therefore incommuni^
cable to any Creature. , Next, you fpeak of a
fubordinate Senfe, in which thofe Attributes
belong to Chrift; which is the fame as to fay,
(becaufe you mean fq) that they belong not at
all to Him. For, I fuppofe, omnifcience, or
eternity, &c. in your fubordinate Senfe, are
very different from the other; and therefore
are not the fame Attributes. It were better
to deny roundly, thar the fame Attributes
belong to Both ; and then we fhould clearly
apprehend each other. Laftly, I obferve to
you, that you underftand the word, fubordi
nate, very differently from what Catholick Wri
ters do, in this Controverfy ; and therefore, in
ftead of it, fliould rather have faid, in a re
frain' d, limited Senfe; which is your mean
ing, otherwife you contradict not me.
Now then, 1 muft ask you, what ground or
Warrant you have from Scripture, or right Rea
fbn, for putting Rejlrictions and Limitations
upon the Texts applied to Chrift Jefus, more
than to thofe applied to the one God? The
Expreffions are equally general ; and, feemingly
at leaft, equally extenfive. You are fo fenfible
rhat you can give no folid Proof ofa refrain' a
and limited Senfe, that you do not fo much as
offer at it; but only covertly infinuare youf
meaning, under dark and obfcure Terms You
fpeak

Qu. VI. of fome QU E R 1 E S. 93
fpeak of Subordination, and quote Fathers for
it ; who underftood it in the fobcr and ortho
dox Senfe: If you agree with thofe Fathers,
you agree with me. But, do not ufe their
venerable Names as a cover for what they ne
ver meant, but would have greatly abhor'd *.
I allow the fecond Perfon to be fubordinately
wife, good, powerful, &c. That is not the
Queftion between us : He is fapientia de fapi-
entia ; as lumen de lumine, and Deus de Deo.
What I contend for farther, is, that his Attri
butes are ftrictly divine, and his Perfections in
finite. I prove it from hence ; becaufe the At
tributes which belong to the one God, and are
therefore undoubtedly Infinite, belong to Him
alfo ; from whence it follows, that the God
head belongs to Him too ; and that there are
more Perfons than one, in the one God. What
ever I can find, in your Anfwer, tending, in
the leaft, to invalidate this reafbning, I fliall
take notice of; tho' you have been pleas'd to
be very fparing in this Article. You obferve
that the exercife of thefe Attributes being
finite, they do not neceffarily infer an infinite
Subject. I underftand not what you mean by
the exercife of Eternity and Omnifcience ,
which are two of thofe Attributes ; nor how it
can he finite, without an exprefs Contradiction;
* The Teftimonies, which you have cited from Dr. Clarke, / inks
no notice of; becaufe they have been already confider'd hy a learned
Gentleman; and fhown to be foreign to your purpofs, True Script.
Doftr. Gantinu'ds. p. i u
H 3 nor

94 /f DEFENSE Qu.VI.
nor how either of them can be exercis'd, what
ever you mean by it, but by an infinite Sub
ject. As little do I underftand how infinite
Tower, which, I prefume, is what you chiefly
allude to, muft be finite in the exercife of it ;
as if there could not be an Act of infinite
Power, or as if God could not do fomething
which fhould infinitely exceed any finite Power.
Thefe Things very much want explaining ; and
fo I leave them to your farther Thoughts.
The cleareft Expreffion you have, under this
Article, is this : when Chrijl is fiiled, Lord of
all, fee it explain'd, Matt. 28. 18. and Ephef
1. 22. where Chrift Jefus is faid to have all
power given Him. Here, I think, I do under
ftand your meaning; and am fbrry to find that
it falls fo low. Would your * Predeceffors in
this Controverfy, the Antient Arians, or Eu-
nomians , have ever fcrupled to acknowledge
that our Bleffed Saviour was Lord over all,
long before his Refurrection, or even his In
carnation ? That He was Lord of all before
his Refurrection, is very plain from the Scri
ptures, which carry in them irrefragable Proofs
of it. By Him were all Things created that
are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, vifi-
ble and invifible; whether they be Thrones,
or Dominions, or Trincipalities, or Towers,
* Antequam ficeret Univerfa, omnium Futurorum Deus Sc Do
minus, Rex & Creator erat Conftitutus. Voluntate & piafcepto
( Dei & Patris fui) Cadeftia 8c Terreftria, vilibilia Sc invifibili.i,
Corpora 8c Spiritus, ex nullis exftantibus, ut effent, fua virtute
fecit. Serm. A,rianor. apud Auguft, Tom. 2, (¦ 6z%. all

Qu. VI. of fome QUERIES. 9S
all Things were created by Him, and for
Him; and He is before all Things, and by
Him all Things confift, Col. i. 16, 17. Thou
Lord in the beginning haft laid the Founda
tion of the Earth, and the Heavens are the
works of thine Hands, * Heb. 1 . 10.
* It is not without good Reafon that we underftand Hebr. I. io,
of Chrift.
1. The context it felf favors it. The Verfe begins with, xal a-l,
which properly refers to the fame who was fpoken of immediately be
fore in the fecond Perfon. The erg preceding and <ru following, an
fwer to each other. A change of Perfon, while the fame way of fpeak
ing is purfued, muft appear unnatural,
2. The fcope and intent of the Author was to fet forth the Honour
and Dignity of the Son above the Angels ; and no Circumftance could
be more proper than that of his Creating the World.
3. If He had omitted it, He had faid lefs than Himfelf had done
before, in Verfe the 2d, of which this feems to be Explanatory; and as
He had brought Proofs from the Old Teftament for feveral other
Articles, nothing could be more proper or more pertinent, than to
bring a Proof, from thence, of this alfo.
4. Declaring Him to be Jehovah, and Creator of the Univerfe
might be very proper to fhow that He was no roiniftring Spirit,
but <ri/'v,9-gj>'©" ; to fit at the right Hand of God, which immediately
follows. 5. To introduce a Paffage here about God's immutability or fta
bility, muft appear very abrupt, and not pertinent ; becaufe the Angels
alfo, in their Order and Degree, reap the Benefit of God' s ftability
and immutability. And the Queftion was not about the duration,
and continuance, but about the fubiimity and excellency of their
rtfpeBive Natures and Dignities.
6. I may add, that this Senfe is very confonant to Antiquity;
which every where fpeaks of the Son as Creator, and in as high and
Jirong Terms: fuch as Thefe, Ts^m'-nis, ^///(apyo?, noi-ms: kfoyamuv,
icfythay, T 7ru.rmv, T 'i\m> tou tya-fbis, and the like; Teftimonies
whereof will occurr hereafter. Barnabas, fpeaking of the Sun in the
Heavens, calls it s'pjjv ^«pS» aco-na, meaning Chrifl; tho' there's
fome difpute about the Reading: of which fee Grab. Not. in Bull.
D. F. p. 23.
Thefe Confideration! feem fufficient to overthrow the Pretences of
a late Writer, Examin. of Dr. Bennet on Trin. p. 40. As to former
Exceptions to this Verfe, They are confider'd and confuted by Bifliop
Bull, Jud. Eccl. p. 43. See alfo Surenhuf. in loc. p. 600.
H 4 Can

9£ i DEFENSE Qu. VI.
Can you imagine that the Son could be Crea
tor and Treferver of all Things from the Be
ginning; and yet not be Lord over all till
after his Refurrection ? If this does not fatisfy
you, return to Joh. i. i. He was ©sos before
the World was, by your own Acknowledge
ment ; which being a word of Office and imply
ing Dominion, He was certainly Lord, as foon
as ever there was any Thing for Him to be
Lord over. And when He came into the
World, the World that was made by Him,
(Joh.i.io ) He came unto his own, {Joh.i.n.)
Surely then, He was Lord over all long before
his Refurrection.
You will ask, it may be, what then is the
meaning of thofe Texts which you have
quoted? How was all Tower given Him,
according to Matt. 28. 18? Or how were all
Things then put under his Feet, according to
Ephef 1. 22? Nothing is more eafy than to
anfwer you This. The Aoy>e, or Word, was,
from the Beginning, Lord over all; but the
God incarnate, the ®exvSpa>7ros, or God-Man,
was not fo, till after the Refurrection. Then
He received, in that Capacity, what He had
ever enjoy 'd in another. Then did He receive
that full Tower, in Both Natures, which He
had heretofore poffefs'd in one only. This is
very handfomly reprefented by Hermas, in his
fifth Similitude : where the * Son of God is
introduced under a double Capacity, as a Son,
* See Bull, D. Fid. N. p. 38. and

Qu. VI. of fome QUERIES. 97
and as a Servant, in refpect of his two Natures,
Divine and Human.
"*The Father calling his Son and Heir whom
" He loved, and fuch Friends as He was wont
" to have in Council, He tells Them what
" Commands He had laid upon his Servant;
" and moreover what the Servant had done;
'• And they immediatedly congratulated That
" Servant, for that He had received fo full a
" Teftimony from his Lord.  {Afterwards
the Father adds) " I will make Him my Heir
" together with my Son.  This defign of
tf the Lord, both his Son and his Friends ap^
" proved, namely, that this Servant fliould
'' be Heir together with his Son.
It is much to the fame purpofe that Origen
fays to Celfus. " f Let thofe our Acculers
" {who object to us our making a God of a
" mortal Man) know, that {this Jefus) whom
'? we believe to have been God, and the Son
" of God, from the beginning; is no other
*(Vztev) adhibito Filio quem carum Sc Hsredem habebat, 8c Ami-
cis quos in Confilio advocabat; indicat eis qua; Servo fuo facienda
mandaflet, qua; preterea Ille fecifiet- At Illi protinus gratulati
funt Servo illi, quod tarn plenum Teftimonium Domini aflecutus
fuiflet  volp eum Filio meo facere cohaeredem  •
Hoc confilium Domini, 8c Filius, & Amici ejus Comprobaveruntj
ut fieret fcilicet Hie Servus Cohsres Filio. Herm. Paft. Sim. y,
c. 2. p. 104. Cot. Edit.
f ''lsaoa.ii 0/ lyxaXxtTti; ira iv fijiv vofAi^afAiji j£ 7nsriurftii%i ao-
%\fyv unaf ©so» ii, 'vfiiv @i£, eiiTDi i aumhoyj*; £«J, ii. i aur turnip fa, j£ i
CLJTOCthiffetOt' To Je B-VtJTOV OCUTiS <TU{Jj&, X.C&1 TW OLvS -^017nib/J C/J CLllTto
^VYW, TV[ 1CPC& CMiiilO, is fJI^VOV HgtVOJVM ctWoC £, tVOHrj KOCI £CVC6Kp&tr{ , Td
tbtyi'^l <pu,ijt,it zrpoffiiA-/)p6»«<, x«< r';q oksivs Sreio-mTCS Kix,oiyan)ii(r)-i et tii
tyih iA,iTx£iQyx,t*itj, Orig. Contr. Celf, 1. 3. p. 136, &c. " than

9B A D E F E N S E Qu. VI.
" than the Word it felf, Truth it felf, and
" Wifdom it felf: But we fay farther that his
" mortal Body, and the human Soul that was
" therein, by means of theic moft intimate
" Connexion to, and Union with the Word,
" received the greateft Dignity imaginable, and
•' participating of his Divinity, were taken in-
•* to God. It is difficult to exprefs the full
force of this Paffage, in Englifh : But you may
fee the Original in the Margin.
From hence you may perceive, how eafy it
is to account for our Lord's having all Tower
given Him, after his Refurrection ; given him
in refpect of his Human Nature, which was
never fb high exalted, nor affumed into fuch
Power and Privilege, rill that Time; having
before been under a State of Affliction , and
Humiliation. There is a notable Fragment of
Hippolytus which Fabricius has lately given
us in the Second Volume ; and which is fo full
to our purpofe, that I cannot forbear adding it
to the former. Speaking of rhat famous Paf
fage in the Epiftle to the Thilippians, c. z.
and particularly upon thefe Words: Wherefore
God alfo hath highly exalted Him, v. 9. He
Comments upon it thus. * " He is faid to be
* ' exalted, as having wanted it before ; but in
" refpect only of his Humanity ; and He has
" a Name given Him; as 'twere a Matter of
" Favor, which is above every Name, as the
" Bleffed (Apoftle) Taul expreffes it. But
* Hippolytus Vol. 2. p. 29. Fabric. Edit. See a parallel place
in Origen, Com. in foh. p. 41 j *s in

Qu. VI. of fome QUERIES. 99
" in Truth and Reality, this was not the giv-
'« ing Him any Thing, which He naturally
4 ' had not from the Beginning : fo far from it,
" that we are rather to efteem it his returning
" to what He had in the Beginning * effentially,
" and unalterably ; on which Account it is, that
" He, having condefcended, 01x.otof1ux.as> to put
" on the humble Garb of 'Humanity \ faid, Fa-
" ther, glorify me with the Glory, which I
" had, &c. For He was always inverted with
*' Divine- Glory, having been Coexiftent with
" his Father before all Ages , and before all
" Time, and the Foundation of the World f.
I hope, this may fuffice to convince you,
how much you miftake; and how contrary
your Sentiments are both to Scripture, and Ca
tholick Antiquity, if you imagine that the A6-
7@-> or Word, then firft; began to be Lord
over all, when that Honour was conferr'd on
the Man Chrift Jefus.
* OotnudZc scat a.m7toZ}\yrm^.
f / may add a Paffage of Novatian. Ac fi de ccelo defcendit
Verbum Hoc, tanquam Sponfus ad Carnem, ut per Carnis ad-
fumptionem Filius Hominis illuc poflet afcendere, unde Dei Filius,
Verbum, defcenderat: Merito, dum per connexionem mutuam, 8c
Caro Verbum Dei gerir, 8c Filius Dei Fragilirarem Carnis adfumit ;
Cum fponfa Carne Confcendens illuc unde fine Carne defcenderat,
recipit jam claritatem Ulam, quam dum ante mundi Conftituttonem
habuiffe oftenditur, Deus manifeftijjime Comprobatur. Novat. c 13.

Query

ioo i DEFENSE Qu. VII,
Query VII.
Whether the Father's Omnifcience and Eter-
sity are not one, and the fame with the
Son's, being alike defcribed, and in the
fameThrafes? See the Text above, p. 89.
YOUR Anfwer, *with refpect to the Son's
Omnifcience, is, that He hath a rela
tive Omnifcience communicated to Him from
the Father; that He knows all Things re
lating to fhe Creation and Government of the
%)niverje ; and that He is ignorant of the Day
Of Judgment.
The Son then, it feems, knows all Thing?,
excepting that He is ignorant of many Things •?
and is omnifeient in inch a Senfe, as to know
infinitely lefs, than one who is really omnifei
ent-. Were it not better to fay plainly, that
He is not omnifeient, than to fpeak of a rela
tive Omnifcience, which is really no Omni
fcience; unlefs an Angel be omnifeient , or a
Man omnifeient, becaufe He knows all Things
which He knows ? What Ground do you find
in: Scripture, or Antiquity, for your Diftinction
of abfolute and relative Omnifcience ? Where
is it faid., that He knows all Things relating to,
his Office, and no more ? Or how can he be
fib much as omnijeient , in this low Senfe, if
He knows not, or knew nor, the precife time
* Tag- 4?,-.

Qu.VIL of fome QUERIES. 10I
of the Day of Judgment ; a Thing which, one
Would imagine, fliould belong to his Office as
much as any? Matt. 24, 36. as well as Mark
13. 32. is plainly meant only of the human
Nature ; and is to the fame effect with Luk.
z. 52. That He increased in Wifdom, which
cannot be literally underftood of the Aoy®*
with any tolerable confiftency , even upon
the Afian Hypothefis * . You tell us farther,
that All the Ante-Nicene Writers underftand
by thefe two Texts, that our Lord as the Ao-
y©-, or Son of God, did not then know the
Day of Judgment, (p. 49) This is very new
indeed; If you have read the Ante-Nicene
Writers ; you muft know better : if you have
not ; how unaccountable a thing is it to talk
thus confidently without Book ? If what you
fay was true, we fliould, without delay, give
you up all thefe Writers to a Man ; and never
more pretend to quote any Ante-Nicene Fa-
* A late Writer acquaints us, in the Name of Dr. Clarke and the
Arians, {l prefume, without their leave) " that the word really
" emptied it felf , and became like the Rational Soul of another Manj
" which is limited by the Bodily Organs; and is, in a manner, dor-
" mant in Infancy; and that the Word may be deprived of its for-
" mer extraordinary Abilities  in reality, and grow in Wifdom,
" as others do. This is making the Ao'y©-\ That greateft and beft of
Beings, ( upon the Arian Scheme) next t; God Himfelf, become a Child
in underftanding; tho' once wife enough to Frame, and Govern the whole
Univerfe. The Author calls it, (I thinjt, verj profanely) The true
and great Myftery of Godlinefs, God manifeft in Flefh. One would
think, inftead of manifeft, it ftfould have been, confin'd, loclc'd up
in Fleflli ; which is the Author's own Interpretation of this Myftery,
(p. 16.) What defign He conld have in all This, 1 know not; unlefs
He confider' d what Turn Arianifm took, foon after its Revival at the
Reformation. See Exam, of Dr. tiennet on the Trin. p. i j, 1 6.
ther.

ioa. i DEFENSE Qu. VII.
ther, in favour of the prefent Orthodoxy. But
as the Point is oi great Moment, we muft re
quire fome proofs of it : For, writing of Hiftory
by Invention, is really Romancing. You
cite Irenaus from * Dr. Clarke, , who could
find no other : or elfe we fhould have heard of
it from the firft Hand. And yet you cry out ,
All; which is more than the learned Doctor
pretended to fay ; who had his Thoughts about
Him ; and would not have let flip any fair ad
vantage to the Caufe which He efpoules.
But has the Doctor really proved rhat Ire-
naus meant fo ? Perhaps not : And then your
All, which was but one, is reduced to none.
Two Things the Doctor, or you, fhould have
proved : Firft, That Irenaus underftood thofe
Texts of the A°V@*. or Word, in that Capacity.
And Secondly, That He fuppofed Him literally
Ignorant of the Day of Judgment. The Doctor
knew full well what Solutions had been oiven
of the difficulty arifing from this Paflage. Yet
He barely recites Irenaus's Words ; and nei
ther attempts to prove that fuch was his Senfe,
nor to difprove it. You indeed do obferve, from
fome learned Terfon, that this PafJage of Ire
naus will admit of no Evafion. For, He evi
dently fpeaks not of the Son of Man, but of
the Son of God ; even of That Son with
whom, as it follows, in omnibus Tater com
municat. Let this have its due Weight : The
Argument may look fo far plaufible on that
* Script. Dodlr. p. 14.5. a!\as. 11:, fide :

Qu. VH. of fome QUERIES. 103
fide : But let the other fide be heard alfo, be
fore we determine. a Bifhop Bull has given
fome Reafons, and weighty ones too, to fhow,
that, if Irenaus attributed any Ignorance to
Chrift, He did it in refpect of his Human
Nature only. His Reafons are.
1. Becaufe Irenaus, in the very fame Chapter,
baferibes abfolute Omnifcience to the divine
Nature of Chrift.
2. Becaufe He every where elfe fpeaks of the
Son, as of one perfectly acquainted with the
Nature, and Will, of the Father.
3. Becaufe the fame c Irenaus upbraids the
Gnofticks for their Folly, in aferibing any De
gree of Ignorance to their pretended Sophia, or
Wifdom. How then could He imagine that the
true Sophia, Wifdom it felf, could be ignorant
of any Thing?
4. Becaufe the fame Irenaus d ufes an Argu
ment againft the Valentinians, who pretended
a Def. F. N. p. 82. Comp. Brev. Animadv. in G. Cl.p. 10/6.
b Spiritus Salvatoris, qui in eo eft, Scrutatur omnia, & Altitu-
dines Dei, /. 2. c. 28. p. 158.
c See I. 2. c. 18. p. 140. Iren. Quomodo autem non vanum eft,
quod etiam Sophiam ejus dicunt in ignorantia-  fuifle? Hsc
enim aliena funt a Sophia, fc contraria  ubi enirn eft Impro-
videntia 8c Ignorantia utilitatis, ibi Sophia non eft.
d Iren. 1. 1. c. if. p. 15-2. Ed. Bened. In quantum minor eft.
ab eo qui fadfus non eft & qui femper idem eft, ille qui hodie
fadrus eft 8c initium fadtura: accepit: in tantum, fecundum fcien-
tinm & ad invefligandum caufai omnium, minorem efle eo qui fe
cit. Non enim infedlus es, O Homo, neque femper co-exiftebas
Deo, ficut proprium ejus Verbum: Sed propter eminentem Boni-
tatem ejus, nunc initium Fa&ura; accipiens. fenfim difcis a Verbo
difpofitiones Dei, qui Te fecit. The whole Paffage it fuller to the
Feint. ZO

i©4 -rf DEFENSE. Qu. VIL
to know all Things , which plainly fuppofes
that Chrift is omnifeient. The Argument is
This. You are not eternal and uncreated, as
the Son of God is ; and therefore cannot pre
tend to be omnifeient, as He is.
It might have concern'd you to anfwer thefe
Reafons, and to make the Good Father, at leaft,
confiftent with Himfelf, before you lay claim
to his Authority for your fide of the Queftion.
However, I am perfuaded, that, as Bifliop Bull
is very right in determining that Irenaus could
not mean to afcribe any degree of Ignorance to
the Aoy©-, or divine Nature oi Chrift ; fb ,
you are right fo far, in the other Point, that
Irenaus is to be underftood of the Aoy@*y in
what He fays. And now the Queftion will be,
whether He really afcribes Ignorance to Him,*
or only feems to do fo , to an unattentive
Reader. Irenaus's Words, I conceive, will moft na
turally bear this following Interpretation , or
Paraphrafe. *' * If any one inquires on what
" Account the Father who communicates in
* Si quis exqm'rat caufam, propter quam in omnibus Pater com-
raunicans Filio, folus fcire 8c Horam 8c Diem a Domino mani-
feftatus eft; neque aptabilem magis, neque decentiorem, nee fine
periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat, in prxfenti, (quoniam enim
Solus Verax Magifter eft Dominus) ut difcamus per lpfum fur>er
omnia efle Patrem. Etenim Pater, ait, Major me eft. Et fecundum
Agnitionem itaque prspofitus effe Pater annuntiatus cit a Domino
noftro; ad hoc, ut & nos, in quantum in figura hujus mundi fu-
mus, perfeftam fcientiam, 8c talcs qua:ftiones concedamus Deo;
?c ne forte qua.rentes &e. Iren. 1. i. c. 28. p. 158, 159.
He had faid before.
Demimis, ipfe Filius Dei, ipfum Judicii Diem Sc Horam con«
"all

Qu.VH. of fome QUERIES. io£
" all Things with the Son, {and confequently
" in all Knowledge, and particularly in that
" of the Day of Judgment) is yet here fet
" forth as the only Perfon knowing that Day
" and Hour; He cannor, fo far as I at prefent
" apprehend, find any fitter or more decent*
" of indeed any other fafe Anfwer than this
" (confidering that our Lord is a Teacher of
" Truth, and muft mean fomething by it) that
" it was to inftruct us, as from Himfelf, thac
" the Father is above all, according to what
" He fays elfewhere, for the Father is greater
" than I. And therefore the Father is declared
" to have the Priority and Preference in refpect;
" of Knowledge, by our Lord Himfelf, for art
" Example to us; that we alfo, while we live
" and converfe here below, may learn to refef
" the Perfection of Knowledge, and all intricate
" Queftions to God.
The defign oi Irenaus was to check the vain
Prefumption, and Arrogance of the Gnofticks,
pretending to fearch into the deep Things of
God. And the Argument He had us'd was this ;
that o'ur Lord Himfelf was pleas'd to refer the
knowledge of the Day of Judgment to the Fa
ther only ; as it were on purpofe to Teach us,
that while we converfe here below, it becomes

cefilt fcire folum Patrem, manifefte dicens: de Die autem illo. 8c
Hora nemo frit, neque Filius, nifi Pater folus. Si igitur fcientiam
diei illius, Filius non enlbuit rcferre ad Patrem, fed dixit quod
verurri eft; neque nos erubefcamus, quae funt in qusftionibus
fnajora fecundum nos, refervare Deo, p. i/8.
I US

io6" A DEFENSE Qu.VII.
us not to pretend to high Things ; but to leave
the deep Things of God, to God alone. This
is his Argument, and a very good one it is.
But the good Father apprehending that what
He had faid of our bleffed Saviour, might be
liable to Exception , and be mifunderftood ;
comes afterwards to explain his Senfe more at
large. He is fenfible of the danger of aferibing
any thing like Ignorance to our bleffed Lord ,
on one hand; and as fenfible of the danger of
Contradicting the Text, on the other. Quoniam-
enim folus Verax Magifter eft Dominus, in
as much as what Chrift has faid muft be true ;
in fome Senfe or other. Dr. Clarke flipp'd over
thefe Words in his Tranflation of the Paffage ,
I fuppofe by inadvertency : But they may ferve
to give light to the reft, For the difficulty lay
here : How can it be true that the Father com
municates in all things , and confequently in
the knowledge of the Day of Judgment, to the
Son ; and yet our Saviour fay true, in aferib
ing that particular knowledge to the Father on
ly ? His anfwer is, that we are thereby taught
to refer every thing to the Father, as the Origi
nal of all Things. To Him Knowledge ought
to he principally, and in the fir fi place, afcrib*
ed: Our Saviour therefore Himfelf yields to
Him the preference, as became Him, efpeci
ally here on Earth: not as if He knew lefs,
but becaufe what He knew, He knew by Com-
municatfon from the Father ; to whom there
fore He refers fuch fecrets as it was not pro- pet

Qu.VIL of fome QUERIES. 107
per to reveal, nor fit for Men to enquire
after. That this is all that Irenaus meant, may
reafonably be thought; no;, only becaufe other-
wife it would be utterly inconfiftent with many
other parts of his Writings, as has been before
obferved : but alfo, becaufe feveral Expreffions.
in this very Paffage, lead to it. Had He really
believed the divine Aoy(gK or Word, to be
literally Ignorant ; why fliould He be fo ap-
prehenfive of the difficulty of thofe Texts?
Why fo concern'd about the fitnefs , and de
cency of his Interpretation ; and that it might
be fine periculo ? The danger was, in inter
preting ieemingly againft the Text, to find a
Salvo for the Son's Omnifcience. For this rea
fon, He does not ask, why the Father only
knew (not, cur T'ater folus Jcivit) but why,
or on what Account {Jblus fcire manifeftatus
eft) He was reprefented as alone knowing;
or, He only was faid to know. He does not
fay,, as the Doctor's Tranflation infinuates, that
the Father is more knowing than the Son ; but
prapofitus only ; which fignifies fet before,
having the Treference , or the like; which
may be conceived , tho' He be equally know
ing : and, for rhe greater Caution , it is not
faid abfolutely, prapofitus eft : hut prapofitus
ejfe annuntiatus eft : He is declared to have
the Preference : So that the Queftion , with
Irenaus , is not why the Father is Superior
in knowledge; but why, fince Father and Son
i % are

108 ^ DEFENSE Qu.VII.
are equally knowing, our Saviour makes fuch a
Declaration as gave the Preference to the Father.
And the Reafons which He affigns, are very
much to the purpofe.
i. To inftruct us, that the Father is the
Fountain and Original, even of the Son Him
felf. 2. Becaufe, in his then prefent State of Con-
defeenfiou, it became Him to refer all to the
Father. 3. Becaufe it may be an ufeful Example of
Humility and Modefty to us, that we, much
rather, while we are here below, may not pre-
rend to high Things.
Upon the whole ; it may appear, that Ire
naus 's Solution of the difficulty is the very fame
with That which rhe * Doctor quotes from St.
Bafil, who had learned it from a Child :
Namely this, " That our Lord meant to afcribe
" to the Father, the firft, (i. e. the primary,
" original) Knowledge of Things Prefent, and
"Future; and to declare ro the World, that
" He is in all Things the firft Caufe. As the
Son is God of God, and Light of Light ; fo
it is proper to fay, Omnifcience of Omnifci
ence, &c. The Attributes being derivative, in
the fame Senfe, as the EfTence is: Which is St.
Bafil's meaning ; and, I think, Irenaus's.
This Defence may be fairly and juftly made
for Irenaus, fuppofing that what he faid, was
meant of the Aoy@-, or divine Nature, as fuch:
* Script. DoBr. p. 147, 148; alias 134, ijy.
To

.Qu. VII. of fome QUERIES. 109
To which Opinion I incline. Neverthelefs, I
fliould not affect to be dogmatical in That
Point, fince learned and judicious Men have
been of both Sides of the Queftion. Tetavius
* obferves, that the Senfe is ambiguous; and
that there are not certain grounds to determine
us either way. If he underftood it of the hu
man Nature only; then the difficulty is no
thing : if of Both, I have fliown how fair an
Account may be given of it. Having thus got
over Irenaus, I have at once taken from you
all your Ante-Nicene Writers. You will ob
ferve, that the Texts might be underftood of
rhe Aoy©-, or divine Nature, as Bafil under-
ftands them, in the place above cited ; and yet
that They, who fo underftood them, might be
far from thinking that the Aoy@», or Word,
was ever ignorant of any Thing, f Dr. Clarke,
to do Him Juftice, is, in the main, fo very fair
and reafonable in his Account of thofe two
Texts, that we have no occafion at all to differ
with Him. I wifli, as you have in moft other
Matters, fo you had here alfo copied after Him.
I will not leave this Article, without giving
you a Specimen of the Senfe of the Ante-
Nicene Writers, in regard to the Son's Omni
fcience ; that you may have a better Opinion
of thofe good and great Men. We may begin
* Irenseus, libro Secundo Capite 2p, ambigue loquitur; ut ne-
fcias Infcitiam illius Diei Chrifto, faltem qua eft Homo, tribuat,
an non ac poflit ad utramque defiefti fententiam.
¦f Reply to Mr- Nelfon'.f Friend, p. 17 1.
I 3 with

iio i DEFENSE Qu.VH.
with Ignatius. a " There is nothing hid from
" the Lord: But our very fecret Things are
" nigh unto Him. Let us therefore do all
V Things, as having Hini dwelling in us ; that
" we may be His Temples, and He our God
" in us.
I proceed to Clement of Alexandria, who
fays thus: " The Son of God never goes off
" from his Watch-Tower: never parted, ne-
" ver feparated, nor moving from Place to
" Place ; but is always every- where, and con-
" tained no-where : all Mind, all Light, all
" Eye of his Father, beholding all Things,
" hearing all Things, knowing all Things.
c In another Place. *' Ignorance {in any degree")
" cannot affect God, Him that was the Father's
a Ouhv >\a.vSra-/i TotKofiov; a A >m xc/a m x-tinfios i/XtSt ifyui aura
iv. Ignat. Ep. ad Ephef. c \f. p. 17. Ox. Ed. That Ktipmv is
meant of Chrift , is very highly probable from the ufe of the Word
in this Author, and from the Context.
b P« y( tijtf&Ttq sroTt ths uutS "ZjfewwrHs 0 'tjoj t» ©sis" » /*££(-
foyjiy®* QSTC &ziTzyjVo{0/JOS, & piTc&bMtwf lv. tottx is\ tottov, 7skvt^ 'j
in 7smrt\i, xai [Ajv)c\t,yjy -afew^o^-©-, oA®- vS$, i!*©- t>Zs, HeiTgZot;
'eX@^ 'Oipfl«A//,05, Tnitra igZy , -Tmnx, axioii, si'J^s 7m-jra —————
— Clem. Alex.vStrom. 1. 7. c. 2 p. 831. See alfo p. 113. 611. 832.
C. ''M/voi* «£> xx 'mxl'Toi rS ©sa, tS 5T£J x,»TceSo>ir,i xjo-ps <rvfA-
G&hs ytvojAt-Hs tS n«Tgj5. p. 852.
N. B. The Doftor's Criticifms (Script. Doclr. p. 326, alias 294)
upon Clemens, are very flig.hr. I need only hint, that sran-oxfarwp is
applied to the Son, at leaft twice fp. 148,277.) and srayxfcwiis once
Cp. 64.7) by Clemens; and that ¦au.tiTox^a.Tc,^, may as well fignify cni-
ni-tenens, as omnipotens; and that omni-tenente Vo'untate is not im
proper, but agreeable toCiemens's philofophy. fSee the notes to Cle-
(mens. p. 43 1. Ed. Ox', j and that therefore Chrift might be fuppofed
naturally omnifeient, by Clemens, notwithftanding the Doctor's preten
ces: Befides that the paffages themfelves referr'd to, if welfcon-
fider'd, can bear no otrjer' Senfe.
«' Coun-

Qu. VIL of fome QUERIES. m
* ' Counfellor before the Foundation of the World.
* Origen is pretty large upon the very Texts
whereof we have been fpeaking. He gives fe
veral Interpretations : but it is obfervable, that
He ftudioufly endeavors to find fome Solu
tion , which may acquit the. Aoy©- from the
Imputation of being literally Ignorant of the
Day of Judgment. What Origen's Opinion
was of Chrift's Omnifcience, you may alfo fee
* elfewhere. To confirm what hath been faid,
one general Remark I'll leave with you.
The Sabellian Controverfy began early, and
lafted long in the Church. The Difpute was,
whether Father and Son were one and the fame
Hypoftafis, or Terfon. Had the Catholicks in
terpreted thefe two Texts, as you pretend They
did, there could not have been any Thing
more decifive againft the Sabellians. Ter
tullian, you know, encounter 'd them in a
pretty large Book, his Book againft Traxeas ;
Hippolytus entered the Lifts againft Noetus;
and his Book is ftill extant ; Eufebius's famed
Piece, againft Marcellus, is to the fame pur
port ; Several Fragments befides, of other Au
thors, remain. Pieafe to look them over ;• and
fee if f you can find any one of Them combat-
* Horn. 3Q. in Mat.
* Coram, in Joh. p. 28. Huet. Ed. He puts the very Queftion.
•sehether ¦ the Son knows all that the Father knows, and determines in
she Affirmative i blaming thofe who, under pretence of magnifying the
Father , prefumed ta deny it. The Paffage is. rather tea long tt> h
here inferted.
f Tertullian indeed eites the Text, in pajfag} xtt drawing tmy
fuch Argument, es I mean, front it. What He metml mil Se fhoimi
%&eafiei\ usder Jittery i&ih.
I 4 ing

ii2 i DEFENSE Qu VII.
ing the Sabellians with thefe Texts : And if you
cannot; either be content to own, that it was
a very ftrange and unaccountable Omiftion in
thofe Writers ; or elfe that they had quite other
Notions of Things , than you have hitherto
imagined. The Arians you find afterwards,
perpetually almoft, teazingthe Catholicks with
thofe Texts: Strange they fhould never have
been infifted on againft the Sabellians, being
fo full to the purpofe; efpecially if, as you
fuppofe, the Ante-Nicene Writers were them
felves of that Perfwafion, which was afterwards
called Arian. It is evident that the Sabellians
muft have underftood the Texts, if they are to
be taken literally , of the Man Chrift Jefus
only. Otherwife there had been a manifeft re
pugnancy, in the Words, not the Son, but the
Father ; fince they fuppofed Father and Son
one and the fame Hypoftafis. It is as plain,
that they muft have thought that the Catholicks
agreed with them in that Expofition; other-
wife they would have charged them, not only
with Tritheijm, but with the denial of the
Son's ejfential Divinity. It does not appear
that thofe Texts ever came into Controverfy
(betwixt Them ; or were ever urged by the
Catholicks ; fo that Both feem to have agreed
in the fame Interpretation. So much for the
Point of Omnifcience.
I come next to confider what, you have tq
object to my Argument for the Son's Eternity.
| had put it upon this ; that it is defcribed in
the

Qu. VII. of fome QU E R I E S. 113
the fame Phrafes, with God the Father's; which,
one would think, fliould be high enough. You
tell me that the Son's Metaphyfical Eternity
is no where exprefty revealed. What the fine
word, Metaphyfical, fignifies here, I know not.
If his Eternity is revealed, it is enough for me.
That I underftand to be revealed, in thefe two
Texts, Rev. 1. 17.  zx. 13. / am the firft,
and I am the laft. I am Alpha and Omega,
the Beginning and the End. That thefe, and
the like Phrafes refpect Duration, appears from
Ifa. 43. 10. compared with Ifa. 44 6. In the
latter, the Words are ; / am the firft, and I
am the laft, and befides me there is no God *.
The former, expreffing the fame Thought, runs
thus: Before me was there no God formed,
neither fhall there be after me. The Phrafe
of A and £1, Firft and Laft, is, in like manner,
explained Rev. 1. 8. I am Alpha and Omega,
the Beginning and the Ending, faith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to
come. The Phrafe then refpects Duration ;
and it is applied to our bleffed Saviour, as hath
been fhown; Rev. 1. 17. — 22. 13. Therefore
there was no God before Him : Therefore He is,
in the ftricteft Senfe, Eternal. You fay, the
Objector hath not brought one Text of Scri
pture that at all proveth ii. I did not pro
duce all the Texts proper upon that Head : I
defign'd Brevity. Befides, I had a mind to re
move the Caufe, fromCritigjfm upon Words, to
* Compute alfo Ifa. 48. j 2^
one

>J4 i DEFENSE Qu.VIL
©ne plain and affecting Argument : viz. That
the Proof the Son's Eternity ftands upon the
fame Foot, in Scriprure, with the Proof of the
Father's ; and is exprefs'd in as ftrong Words.
And for this, I appeal, as to the Texts above
cited, fo alfo to Trov. 8. 22, &c. which you
allow to be fpoken of the Meffias. The ori
ginal Word, which we tranflate, from Ever-
iaftmg, is the very fame with what we meet
with in Tfal.yo.z. where alfo we find a pa
rallel Defcription of Eternity, applied to the
one God. See alfo Tfal. 9.3. 2. I allow your
Obfervation, that the Hebrew word may, and
fometimes does, fignify a limited, as well as
it does, at other times, an unlimited Ehiration.
And therefore I do not lay all the ftrefs of my
Argument upon the critical meaning of the
Word; but upon That, and other Circum
ftances taken together: particularly this Cir
cumftance; that the Eternity of the Father is
defcribed in the fame Manner, and in rhe fame
Phrafes, with the other ; as by * Comparing
Tfal. 90. 2. with Trov. 8. 22, &c. and Rev*
1. 8. (fuppofing that Text to be meant of the
Father) with Rev. 22. 13. may fully appear.
I do not argue from a fingle Phrafe. or the par-

* Before the Mountains were
brought forl-h, or ever thou hadft
formed the Earth and the World .-
even from everlafling* Thou, art
Qad>. Pfal* g q. 2,

The Lord poffefi'd me in the be
ginning ofhis way, before his Works,
of old. I waj fet up from everlaft-
ing, from the beginning, or ever
the Earth was — —  Before tb*
Mountains were fettled; before, the
Hills, was. I brought forth* Prov\
S.;.. 3,a4 8cx> ?lC0i-»

Qi.VII. of fome QUERIES. nf
ticular force of it ; but from feveral; and thefe
equally applied to Both : as it were on purpofe
to intimate , that though thefe Phrafes fingly
might bear a limited Senfe ; yet confidering that
God had made choice of them, as moft figni-
ficant to exprefs his own Duration ; and again
made choice of rhe very fame, out of many
others, to exprefs his Svris Duration too, we
might from thence be taught to believe that
the Son is Co -eternal with Him.
You are fenfible of the Objection lying a-
gainft you; namely, that there's no certain
Proof, according to your way of reafoning, of
the Eternity of the Father, in the Old Tefta
ment : And fo refolute you are in this Matter,
that, rather than admit the Son to be eternal
too, you are content to leave us in the Dark,
fo far as the Old Teftament goes, about the
other. But, for a Salvo to the Father's Eter
nity, you obferve, that it is emphatically ex
prefs'd in the New Teftament (Rom. i. 20.)
forgetting that the word'Ai'ftos occurs but * once
more, in the New Teftament; and then fignifies
eternal in a limited Senie only, or a parte poft,
as the Schools fpeak. Well then, for any thing
I fee to the contrary, we muft contentedly go
away, without any Scripture Proof of rhe Eter
nity of the Father ; for fear it fhould oblige us
to take in the Son's alio. And this, indeed, is
what you are before-hand apprehenfive cf, and
prepared for $ and therefore it is that you tell
us, that there appears no neceffity at all, that
* Jude v. 6. th?

n6 ^ DEFENSE Qu. VII.
the Attribute of Eternity Jhould be diftinctly
revealed, with refpect to the Father; whofe
Eternity our reafbn infallibly ajfures us of,
(p. jo.) Infallibly affures : So you fay ; and, I
believe, in my own way, I might be able to
maintain your Affertion. But I profefs to you,
that I do not, at prefent, apprehend, how, up
on your Trinciples, you will be able to make
any compleat Demonfjration of it. It would
be ridiculous to talk of proving from Reafon
only, without Revelation, that the Perfon
whom we call the Father, the God of Jews
and Chriftians, is the Eternal God. I will
therefore prefume that you mean, by Reafbn,
Reafon and Revelation Both together; and if
you effectually prove your Point from Both, it
Ihall fufflce. You can demonftrate that there
muft be fome eternal God, in the metaphyfical
Senfe, as you call it, of thefe Words: But fince
the Father, the God of Jews and Chrifiians,
has not declared, either that He is Eternal, or
God, in the metaphyfical. Senfe ; it does not ap
pear how He is at all concern'd in it. He has
laid, indeed, that there is no God befides Him ;
but as He did not mean it in the metaphyfical
Senfe, there may be Another, in that Senfe,,
befides Him, notwithftanding : Nay, it is cer
tain there are and have been other Gods ; eveu
in the fame Senfe : For Mofes was a God un
to Tharaoh; and Chrift is God; and therefore
this cannot be literally true. It can only mean,
that He is emphatically God, in fome refpect of
other.,

Qu. VII. of fome QUERIES. n;
other; perhaps as being God, of ourSyftem;
or God of the Jews and Chrifiians, his pecu-
lium. It is true, He has called Himfelf Je
hovah ; which if it fignified neceffary- exiftence
and independence, it would be an irrefragable
Proof of his being the eternal God. But it
unfortunately happens that Jehovah fignifies
no more than a Perfon of Honour and Integrity,
who is true to his Word, and performs his
Tromifes {p. 19.) He has farther declared Him
felf to be Creator of the World : But this ex
ercife of creating, being finite, does not ne-
ceffarily infer an infinite Subject, (p. 48.)
Befides that this Office and Character, relative
to us, pre-Juppofes not, nor is at all more
perfect for, the eternal paft Duration of his
Being, { See p. 50. ) What fhall I think of
-next? I muft ingenuoufly own, I am ut
terly non-plufs'd ; and therefore muft defire
you, whenever you favor me with a reply,
to make out your Demonftration. But let us
proceed. Having given us a Reafbn, why it was not
neceffary that the Juppofid Eternity of the Fa
ther fliould be revealed, you go on to acquaint
us, why it was not needful to declare the fup
pofed Eternity of the Son. And here you give
either two Reafons, or one; I hardly know
whether. His Office and Character, you fay,
relative to us, does hot pre- fuppofe it. 1 know
that very wife and judicious Men have thought,
that it does pre-fuppofe it. Bifliop Bull, for
inftance,

u8 ^ DEFENSE Qu.VlI.
inftance, has fpoke admirably well upon that
Head. But the Pafiage being too long to tran
fcribe, I fliall only refer to it*. How you come
to take for granted a Thing which you know
nothing of, and which it is impoffible either for
You, or any Man elfe to prove, I know not.
It is very manifeft that, unlefs you have a full
Idea of the whole Work of Redemption, and
can tell as well what belongs to a Redeemer,
and a Judge of the whole Univerfe, as you cart
What belongs to a Rector ofa Parifh, you can
pafs no certain Judgement. No Man can cer
tainly define the utmoft of what was needful
in the Cafe ; becaufe no Man can dive into the
utmoft depth of it. There may be more than
You, or I , or perhaps Angels, can fee , in
that myfterious Difpenfation ; and therefore it
is the height of Prelumption to pronounce, that
any Power, lefs than Infinite, might be equal to
it. I do not fay that the Argument for Chrift's
Divinity, drawn from the greatnefs of the Work
of Redemption, and the Honours confequent
upon it, amounts to a perfect Demonftration :
But this I fay, and am very clear in what I fay,
that it is much furer arguing for the Affirma
tive, from what we know ; than for the Ne
gative, from what we know not. It is poffi
ble our Proof may not be fufficient : But it is,
a priori, impoffible that your's fhould. Whe
ther we can maintain our Point, may perhaps
be a Qieftion : but it is out of all Queftion,
that you cannot maintain your's.
* judic. Feci. p. i.i.- Having

Qu.VIL of fome QUERIES. 1*9
Having anfwer'd this your firft Reafon, why
it was not neceffary to reveal rhe Son's Eter
nity, I proceed to the remaining Words -, which
if I perfectly underftood, I might know whe
ther they are a diftinct Reafon, or only an Ap
pendage to t he former. They are rhefe : Nor
is it (Chrift's Office and Character) at all more
perfect for the eternal paft Duration of his
Being, { p. 50.) I have been confidering why
that word, Taft, was inferted, and what it can
mean, in that place. It feems to be oppofed
either to prefent, or elfe to, to come, tacitely
underftood. At firft, I thought thus : That it
might be put in to prevent our Imagining that
Chrift's Office might not be at all more perfect
for the eternal Duration of his Being, to come.
But confidering again, that if He does but con
tinue till the Office is compleated and perfected,
it is all one, in refpect of that Office, whether
his Duration hold longer or no ; I thought, That
could not be the meaning. Reflecting again,
I conceived that, Taft, might poffibly have
relation to the Office confider'd as prefent, or
commencing at fuch a Time; fuppofe Six Thou
fand Years ago : And you might think ; what
could it fignify to date his Being Higher? If
He did but exift, foon enough for the Office, it
is fufficient. All the Time run out before, is
of no Confideration ; having no Relation to
an Office which was to commence after, and
would ftill be but the Self-fame Temporal Of
fice, commencing at fuch a Time. If I have hit

Ho A D £ fENSE Qu. Vii.
hit your Thought at length, I affure you, it has
coft me fome Pains ; and I Willi you would ex
prefs your felf more clearly hereafter.
Now then, let us apply this Manner of Rea
foning to another Purpofe : By parity of Reafon
we may argue, that the Office of God the Fa
ther, commencing at the Creation; I fay, the
Office of Suftaining, Preferving, and Govern^
ing the World, has no Relation to the Time
paft, being but juft what it is, whether a lon
ger or a fhorter, or no Time at all be allowed
for any prior Exiftence ; nor is it at all more
perfect for the eternal paft Duration of his Be
ing. But does not this Argument fuppofe that
the Office is fuch as may be difcharged by a
finite Creature, or one that began in Time?
Certainly. And is not that the very Thing in
.Queftion in this, and in the other Cafe too ?
Undoubtedly. How then comes it to be taken
for granted ? Befides ; is not a Perfon of un
limited, that is, eternal Powers and Perfections,
more capable of difcharging an Office, than any
Creature"); Well then, by neceffary Confe
quence, the paft Duration of the Perfon is of
great Moment in the Cafe; and the Office muft
be thought as much more perfect, for the eter
nal paft Duration ofhis Being, as God's Per
fections excel thofe of his Creatures 5 and that
is infinitely.

QUERl?

Qu. VIII. of fome QUERIES. iii

*7 «•¦! ,

Query, VIII.
Whether Eternity ^j zwtf i/zz/5/y neceffary
Exiftence of the Son ; which is inconfiftent
with the Doctor's Scheme ? And whether
the* Doctor hath not made, an elufive, Equi
vocating Anfwer to the ObjeBion, fince the
Son may be a neceffary Emanation from the
Father, by the Will and Tower of the Fa
ther, without any Contradiction? WiU is
one Thing, and Arbitrary Will another.
TO the former part of the Query you
anfwer, that fimple and abfolute Eter
nity is the fame with Neceffary, or Self-exi-
ftence ; which is no where fuppos'd of the
Son, by Dr. Clarke. Here are feveral Mi-
ftakes : For, firft, the Idea of fimple Eternity
is not the fame with that of Neceffary -ex
iftence. Nor, fecondly, is it the fame with
both Neceffary- exiftence and Self exiftence ,
fuppofing it were the fame with the former;
becaufe thefe two are not the fame. The Ided
of Eternity is neither more nor lefs than
Duration without beginning, and without
end. Some have fuppofed it poffible for
God to have created the World from all Eter
nity ; and they ufe this Argument for it ; that
Whatever He could once do, He could always
do. Not that I think there is much weight in
* Reply, p. 117".'
K the

iz2 yf- DEFENSE Qu. Vilh
the Argument ; but it is fufficient to fhow, that
the Ideas are diftinct ; and that, tho' Eter
nity may, in found Reafoning, infer or imply
Neceffary- exiftence , as is intimated in the
Query ; yet the Ideas are not the fame : For if
they were ; it would be Nonfenfe to talk of one
inferring or implying the other.. Then for the
fecond Point ; it is very manifeft that the Ideas
of Necejfary-exiftence, and Self exiftence (how
ever they may be imagined with, or without
Reafon, to imply each other) are not rhe fame
Ideas. * Ariftotle , and the later Tlatonifts
fuppofed the World and all the inferior Gods
(as Tlato and the Tythagoreans, fome Supra-
mundane Deities) to proceed, by way of
Emanation , without any Temporary Produ
ction, from a Superior Caufe: That is, they
believed them to be Neceffary, but not Self-
ex ift ent. Something like this has been con-
ftantly believed by the Chriftian Church, in re
fpect of the Aoy@*: Which fhows, at leaft,
that the Ideas are different; and not only fo,
but that, in the Opinion of a great part of Man
kind, they do not fo much as infer and imply
each other ; one may be conceived without the
other. However, that is not the Point I infift
on npw. All that I affirm, at prefent, is, that
the Ideas are diftinct ; and not the very fame.
After you had laboured to confound thefe
Things together, you proceed to argue againft
*¦ See Cudvvorih. Intellect. Syftcm, p. x<jo, (}o, the

Qu. VIII. bf fome QUERIES. tij
the Son's being eternal. But what is that to
the Query? I fuppofed Dr. Clarke {Reply i
o.zzj.) to underftand the word Eternal, as I,
or any other Man fliould; and objected the
inconfiftency of acknowledging the Eternity of
the Son, and yet denying his Necejfary-ex-
iftence-, which, Eternity, I thought, inferr'd
and implied. You admit my reafoning to be juft;
if the Doctor meant the fame, by Eternal, as
I do. But if He meant by Eternal, Tempo
rary ', then my Argument fails; as moft cer
tainly it muft. But why are we thus impofed
on with fo manifeft an abufe of Words ? What
occafion is there for putting the Epithets of
fimple, abfolute, or metaphyfical to the word
Eternal; which everyone, that knows Englijht
underftands better without ? Unlefs you fup
pofe that there is an unlimited, and a limited
Eternity ; which is, in reality, an Eternity, and
no Eternity. You proceed to difpute againft the
Eternity of the Son ; which tho' it be fomething
foreign to the purport of the Query, yet being
pertinent to the Caufe in hand, I fliall here con
fider ir. You argue that, if the Son be Eter~
nai, He is Neceffarily exift ing ; which I al
low : and if Neceffarily- exift ing, then Self-ex-
iftent ; which I * deny : and you cannot prove.
* 'AAAos <*i) 7:5, TO «£(, 7T0K VZSOVOM't (Hyinvroii 'kx.UjZtt.'liTOI, aq oiov1)
et tos -yvfflq aiGJviTtiPiec TrtTnjpoJtjbiVof o'jn "/oca to vjv, ova To an, ours
to 5T£j cti'wan, tuvtov i& toi dyamiiTa. Alex. Ep. apud Th'eod. 1. I.
c. 4. p. 17. This was faid in Oppofition to the Arians, who were
willing lo confound the Idea of Eternity and of Necefary-exiflence, with
Self-exiftence. The Learned DoHor cites this VAffage, direHly againft
K 4 You

124 i DEFENSE Qu.VIIL
You go on to a new Confideration; which,
put into Syllogifm, ftands thus.
Whatever has a principium is not Eternal :
The Son has a principium, the Father being
principium Filii  Therefore, &c.
The middle Term, principium, is equivocal,
and bears two Senfes ; wherefore the Syllogifm
confifts of four Terms. If principium be un
derftood in refpect of Time, the Minor is
not true : if it be taken in any other Senfe,
the Major is not true : So that Both cannot
be true. You might, in the fame way, argue
that the Sun's Light is not coeval with the
Sun ; nor Thought coeval with the Mind, fup
pofing the Mind to think always. For, in both
Cafes, a principium is admitted ; but no Priority,
in refpect oiTime. You add, that there is a
reafonable Senfe in which the Son may be faid
to be Eternal. I hope there is : But not your
Senfe ; which is juft as reafonable, as to fay ;
an Angel is eternal, only becaufe you deter
mine not the Time when He came into Being.
I fhould think it moft reafonable, to ufe Words,
according to their obvious, and proper Signifi
cation ; and not to fix new Ideas to old Words,
without any warrant for it. , In this way of
going on with the abufe of Words, we fhall
hardly have any left, full and exprefs enough
Himfelf (Script. Doftr. p. 183. alias ifo.) It was intended, and is
diametrically oppofite to the DoBor'j leading Principle, or rather
Fallacy, which runs thro' his Performancer viz. That the Son cannot
be ftriBly and effentially God, unlefs He be Sclf-exiftent, or unoriginate
in evtry Senfe. : '
to

Qu.VIII. of fome QUERIES. 125-
to diftinguifli the Catholick Doctrine by. Ic
was once fufficient, before the rife of Arianifm*
to fay, the Son is God: But by a novel Senfe
put upon it, the word {God) was made Am
biguous. To That were added truly, and
really ; to be more expreffive : But the * Arians
found out a Senfe for thefe Terms too ; and
could gravely fay , ' that the Son was truly,
really God. God by Nature, one might think,
is full and ftrong enough : But you are ftealing
away the Senfe of that Expreffion from us.
We can add no more, but eternally and fub-
ftantially God; and yet, I perceive, unlefs we
put in fimply, abfolutely, met aphy fie ally, or
the like, even thefe Words alfo may lofe their
Force and Significancy. But to what purpofe
is aU this? Might you not better fay plainly,
that the Son is not Eternal ; not by Nature ;
nor truly God; in a word, not Godl No, but
Scripture reclaims ; and the whole Catholick
Church reclaims; and Chriftian Ears would
not bear it. So then, it feems, it is highly ne-
ceflary to fpeak Orthodoxly, whatever we
think ; to ftrip the words of their Senfe, and
to retain the Sound. But to proceed.
As to the latter part of the Query, I am to
expect no clear or diftinct Anfwer: Becaufe
what is meant by a neceffary Emanation by
the Will of the Father, you underftand not -,
nor what again by the difference of Will, and
Arbitrary Will, p. 52. Had you but retain'd
* See Socr. E. Hift. l,z. c. 19. p.82. Tjieod. 1. 1. c. 18.
K 3 »n

l%6 ^ DEFENSE Qu.VIII.
in Mind, what you muft have obferved, when
you read the Antients, you could not have been
at a lofs to apprehend my meaning. You may
pleafe to remember, that one of the principal
Arguments made ufe of by the a Arians, againft
the Catholicks, was this :
¦? Either the Father begat the Son with his
Confent and Will; or againft his Will and Conr
fent: If the former, then that Act of the Will
was Antecedent to the Son's Exiftence; and
therefore He was not Eternal : The latter, was
plainly too abfurd for any Chriftian to own.
The Catholicks took two ways of ajifwering
the Dilemma. One, which was the beft and
iafeft, was, by c retorting upon the Arians,
the Dilemma, thus: Was God the Father, God,
with, or againft his Will? By this fliort Quer
ftion, That fo famous Objection of the Arians,
was <* effectually filenc'd.
But befides this Anfwer, they had alfo ano
ther. They admitted that the Generation of
a See Athanaf Orat. Contr. Arian. 2,3,4. Hilary, p. 11S4.
Greg. NyfT. p. 6%$. Petav. de Trin. p. nS.
b Inter-rogant (ArianiJ utrum Pater Filium Volens an Nolens ge-
nuerit; ut fi refponfum fuerit quod Volens geruierit, dicjnc, prior
eft ergo Voluntas Patris; quod autem Nolens genucrit , quis pbteft
dicere? Auguft. Contr. Serm. Arian. I. 1. p. 616. Bened. Ed.
c Athanaf. Orat. 3. p.61 1. Bened. Ed. Greg. Na$ianz. Orat. jf.
p. <i6f. Auguft.de Trin. 1. j^. c. 80. p. 594,
d Viciflim qua?fivit ab eo, utrum Deus Pater, Volens an Nolens,
fit Deus : ut fi refponderet. Nolens, fequeretur ilia miferia quam de
¦peo credere magna ipfania eft; fi. autern diceret, Volens, refponde-
retur ei, ergo Sc Ipfe "Deus eft, fua Voluntate, tion Natura. Quid
ergo reft.ibat, nifi ut obmutefccret, 8c fua interroga'tiflne obliga^
Jum ipfolubiii vinculo fe videret. Auguft. ibid.
See this farther- qxplabfd in the Poft-Script^ p. 491.
the

Qa. VIII. of fome QUERIES. 127
the Soft was withlthe Will and Confent oihii
Father; ih the -fame Senfe that He is wife,
good, juft, &c.<; neceffarily, and yet not againft
his Will. Some thought it reafonable to fay,
that the Father might eternally will the Gene
ration of the Son,: and that He could not but
will io, as being eternally Good. a See Teta-
vius. This way. of reafoning b Bifliop Bull
mentions, hardly approving it: And one would
almoft think that c Dr. Clarke was once in
clinable to fubfcribe to it, underftanding eter
nal, as we do. But He thought fit d afterwards
to explain Himfelf off, into another meaning.
There was another Notion whrjch e fome of the
primitive Writers had; Namely, this: That
fince the Will of God is God Himfelf, as much
as the Wifdom, dec. of God, is God Himfelf;
whatever is the fruit and product of God, is
the fruit and pro duft of his Will, Wifdom,
&c. and fo, the Son, being the perfect Image
of the Father, is Subftance of Subftance, Wif
dom of Wifdom, Will of Willi as He. is Light
of fight, and God of God: which is St. Au-
ftin's Doctrine, in the f place cited in the
Margin. By this time, I prefume, you may underftand
what I meant by the latter part of the Query.
a Pag. jo 1, 5-91. b D. F. N. p. 112.
c Script. Do&r. p. a8o, ejr>£. Reply, p.1.13. Paper given in to*the
Bifhops. '" d Clarke i Lett. N. 8.
e See the Teftimonies collected by Cotelerius, in his Notes upon the
Recognitions of Clem, p.492. and by Pctavius, I.g. e.g. 1. 7. 012,,
§ee tfpscMly, Athanaf. Orat. 3. p. 613.. Bened, ^d. Epiphart.
Jteref. 74. p. 89$- f Pp Tria, J. 15. o S.
K 4 There

ji8 A D E F E N SvE Qu VIII.
There is a fober, Catholick Senfe, in which
the Son may be acknowledged, to be by, or
from, the Will of the Father ,. and yet may be
a neceffary Emanation alfo. And therefore
Dr. Clarke did not do well'in oppofing thofe
two, one to the other ; as if they were incon-
fiftent : Efpecially confidering that He produces
feveral Authorities ro prove the Generation to
be by a * Tower of Will, in oppofition to
Neceffity of Nature, from Writers who af-
ferted Both;, and denied only fuch a fuppofed
fteceffity as might be againft, and a force upon
the Father's Will. This is manifeft of his Cita
tions from the \ Council of Sirmium, Marius
Victorinus, Bafil, and Gregory Nyjfen ; and
hath been clearly fliown by his Learned \ An-
tagonift. The Sura of all is, that the Genera
tion of the Son may be by Neceffity of Na
ture, without excluding the Concurrence or
Approbation of the Will.. And therefore Will,
(i. e. confent, approbation, acquiefcence ) is
one Thing ; and Arbitrary Will, (that is, free
Choice of what might otherwife not be) is
Another. You endeavor to prove, that the Son
derives his Being from the Will of the Father,
in this latter Senfe ; which is the fame thing with
the making Him a Creature. You recite fome
* Script. Doftr. p. 281, &c. alias, 247, ey-c.
t Script. Doftr. p. 285% 286. alias, ¦*$¦!, a1)}.
^ True'Script. Doftr: continued, p. 119, ey,c.
' N. B. The DoBor wanijeflly perverts the Senfe of the Council of
Sirrnium, and of Hilary' j Comment upon it, by miftranfjating them ;
putting whhdut his Willi inftead of againft his WiU. - ¦'
"''• Scraps

Qu.VHL of fome QUERIES. 129
Scraps of Quotations, as collected by Dr,
Clarke and Dr. Whitby, in your Notes {p. 51.)
Not one of the Citations is to your Purpofe, or
comes up to your Point. For inftance ; Igna
tius fays, * Chrift is the Son of God, accord
ing to the Will and Tower of God. Sup-
pofing this not to be meant of his f miracu
lous Conception, and Incarnation, (which the
Context has been thought to favour, and
which Bifliop Tearfon inclined to, in his
Notes) yet fee how many feveral Interpretations
it may bear, befides what you would fix upon it.
1. The Fruit and Offfpring of the Will and
Tower of God: fignify ing no more than God
of God, in the Senfe intimated above, p. 127.
2. By the eternal Will and Power of God*
in a Senfe likewife before intimated, and own'd
by fome of the Toft-Nicene Writers,
* 'AAjj&S; Utu, <£x y/vas Aa?iJ* ^tros owgxa, 'vfoi ©js nam 9-sAjj/aoj
jj^ Sma-ftiit ©sS. — Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. 'c. i. p. i.
-f- I can by no means think, that the Son is here called, 'ifoe, GiS,
in refpeB of his Incarnation ; which mas really his Nativity xutoc
o-agxct, to which this other is oppofed, and which muft therefore be
underftood of fotne higher Sonftiip. The Phrafe of xonu. <moy&, has
been conflantly fo interpreted by the Antients; Iren$us, Tertullian,
Origen, Novatian, thi Synod of Antioch in the Cafe of Paul of
Samofata, Hippolytus, Eufebius, Laftantius, all explaining Chrift's
being the Son of David according tq the Flefh, by his Birth of the
bleffed Virgin ; and the Phrafe xam. aa^xa as oppofed to a prior Son
ftiip, in his divine Nature before the World was: in which refpeB
Be was Son of God, before He became Son of Man. That Ignatius
intended the fame is highly probable, not to fay, evident, frgm his own
Words, elfewhere. Ilgj alatm -moy. -Tmre/. w, Magnef. c. 6. 'TCiiu
tou &100, «'« hu cciroo AayJ^ ii«li®-. Ibid, c 8. Xg^rou 5 'you Qtov
tou ysiioUjlvn, on if't^to, ex trm^fjoaT^ Aa£i^. Rom. c. y. Compare
Apoftol. Cpnftit. 1- 8. c. i. Evfoxtx ©sow i ;tjo aiamv [/,o»oyi>>n,
3. With

13© A- D E F E NS.E Qu. VIII.
3. With the Approbation, and Acquiefeence
of God, in the fame Senfe that He is pleafed
with, and acquicfces in, his own Wifdom, Good'
nefs, and other Perfections.
4. The paffage may relate, not to the Son's
Generation in the higheft Senfe; but to his
Manifeftation, or Coming forth, in order to
create the World ; which is a kind of * Filia
tion mention'd by Juflin Martyr, Athe-
nagoras , Theophilus , Tertullian , Tat ian ,
Novatian, and Hippolytus, and fuppofed
as voluntary a Thing, as the Incarnation after
wards; tho' the fame Authors afferted the Eter
nity and Confubftantiality of the Aoy®*j or di
vine Nature of Chrift ; of which more here
after. From thefe four Particulars you may per
ceive, how little you can be able to prove from
that Paffage in Ignatius. As to Juftin Martyr,
I have already hinted, in what Senfe He made
the Generation voluntary. But why you fliould
ehufe to do that good Father a double Injury,
firft in curtailing his Words, and next in mifre-
prefenting his Senfe, you can beft Account.
The whole Paffage is this, literally rranflated :
,s -j- Who, according to his {the Father's) good
* Clement of Alexandria feems to intend thfi fame ( p. 6j\j.. Ed.
Qx.j expreffing it by the wrd z&i&oit). A.nd it is extremely pro-
Sable that Ignatius, had the very fame Thought. Aoy©» »$i®- ©j^
&am o-iyi)5 2rgj»A3-»V. ad Magnef. cap. 8. Evoi 1-^trout X^is?*, to\
«<p' hos, tsktsos sTposAS-oira, kqu si's sks w« jjjh ^wflvajw*. .Ibid,
«-"af. 7;
•j- To» >g»7K /S»AH1» TI)B WISH'S «} f ^* ««T». '$0t *4r9", (^ "Agfa fa*. CfX
J" yaj;i)j£7S» tj V*«V/'3 «»T«'». p. i8a. Sylb. Jeb. jjq. Parallel iq
" Plea-

Qu.VIH. of feme QUERIES. 131
*' Pleafure, is God, being his Son; and an
" Angel too, as miniftring to his Father's Will,
The meaning is not, as you reprefent it, that
Chrift is God, by the Will of the Father (tho'
even that might bear a good Senfe according to
what has been obferved above) but that it was
the Father's good pleafure that He fhould not
only be God, as He always was, being God's Son ;
but that He fhould take upon Him befides, the
Office of an Angel. That He was God was a
* neceffary Thing, as He was God's Son, of
the fame nature with Him: but that He fhould
be Both ; i. e. God and an Angel too ; this
was intirely owing to God's good Pleafure.
However, you have been fomething civiller to
this antient Father, than Dr. Whitby has beep,
in his modeft Difquifitions ; who, to ferve a
bad Caufe, ufes a wotfe Art ; j cuts the Quo
tation fhort at 'tion auTa ; and then, to make his
own Senfe out of that paflage. inferts {Et) in
his Tranflation, rendering it thus : 6)ui ex vo-
luntate Ipfius & Deus eft, Et Filius ; leaving
out, Et Angelus, to which the former, Et, re-
tohich is that of Novatian. Perfonae autem Chrifti convenit ut &
Deus fit, quia Dei Filius; & Angelus fit, quoniam paternse difpp-r
fitionis Adnuntiator eft. Novat. c. 16.
* For, tho' He was God, as ke'mg God's Son ; and a Son kcctos /3»-
Mv, according to Juftin, and other Writers before mention'd; yet they
did not think that he was God, xaru, fixMv. But becaufe He came
forth, as a Son, from the Father ; and was not produc'd l\ ont, hiz,m,
(as all Creatures are) therefore He was God, having ever exifled,
before his Coming forth, in and with the Father. Hie ergo quando
pater voluit, proceflit ex Patre: & Qui in Patre fuit, proceftit ex
Patre, Novat. c. *6\
1 Whitby s Difq. Modeft. p. jj.
1 ' ' ^ ' ' ferr'd

S3* i DEFENSE Qu.VUL
ferr'd. Strange that any fhould be fo refolutely
eager to ungod their Saviour, as not to permit
the caufe to have a fair hearing. It were pious,
at leaft, tp let the Reader know, what has, or
what can be faid on the other faid of the Quer
ftion; and to give it its due Weight and Force.
This is reafonable in any the moft trifling MaN
ter, that can come before us: But certainly
much more fo, where His Honour is concern'd,
whom All Men are commanded to Honour',
even as They Honour the Father, Joh. j. 23.
For my own part, I declare once for all ; I der
fire only to have Things fairly reprefented, as
they really are ; no Evidence fmother'd , or
ftifled, on either Side. Let every Reader fee
plainly what may be juftly pleaded here, or
there, and no more ; and then let it be left to
his impartial Judgment , after a full view
of the Cafe : Mifquotations and Mifreprer
fentations will do a good Caufe harm ; and will
not long be of Service to a bad one. But to
return: The fecond Citation which you bring
from Juftin, you give fuch an Account of, as
muft make one think, either rhat you never faw
the Book you mention ; or elfe  but fee
the Paffage in the * Margin. Your words are ;
He hath all thefe Tit les {before mention'd, viz.
* E'/fii yxf xoMTa asismvofbat^tiu, tx ti tou ijnjfsrsji' rip 5t»t«.
xai jinM/joxli , Httf ax tou ano tow -miTfo^ 9-sAno"d jsyswiiccj. DiaJ.
p. 183. Jeb. It is not from his being Begotten of the Father, that
Me hath all thefe Titles; hut from that, and his Admin'iftring to hit
fathers Will. Both together, >{ ntt either fingly } will account for all
thefe Titles..

QU.VIII. of fome QUERIES; 133
that of Son, Wifdom, Angel, God, Lord, and
Word)" from his being Begotten of the Father
by his Will; directly contrary to the whole
Tenor of the Dialogue ; and the very imme
diate Words preceding thofe you cite. In your
third Quotation, you are pleas'd for the fake
of Englijh Readers, to miftranflate ^o^ASo/gt^
produced, in ftead of, coming forth, ox proceed
ing. Your next Citation is from Clement of
Alexandria : In Which I find no fault but your
referring to Strom. 5. inftead of Strom. 7. and
bringing a Paffage "not certainly pertinent to the
Point in Queftion. If you pleafe to look into the
* Author Himfelf, you will find it, at leaft, doubt
ful, whether He be fpeaking of the Generation
of the Son ; or only fliowing how He, by the
Father's good Pleafure, was at the Head of
Affairs, and adminiftred his Father's Kingdom.
Your next Author is ^Tertullian, who is in
deed fpeaking of the Generation, that is, Mani-
feftation, or Coming forth, oi the Son : And
here you render protulit, produced, meaning
into Being , or into a State of Exiftence ;
which is not TertuUian's Senfe, nor of any of
the Fathers, who fpeak of that Matter. Ter
tullian exprefly ^excepts againft it.- So does
*Clem. Alex- Strom. 7. p. 83;. Ox. Edit. 'Atsuvtudt ayxS-av,
B-!^y[fjja,7i 8 TravToxo&Togos srotTpo^, am®* 6 'tjos xaS-isz&TOj, ngUTlsp*
yos xivitrtui, oim[Ajtc. M?afi?]@" ctit&iia-'i ; « yap a ii«, tovto utpUt) Toii
%6jp>Iozcj fm ovvutjuaoic, 2^, Tut a&iveixy tSs <r«f><9i. «mi&ijti!» ei kva-
?,%,Ql$V Q-U0KC6, &C
f Tunc cum Deus voluit, ipfum pricnum protulit Sermonem.
Tertul. Contr. Prax. c. 6.
± Contr, Prax. c. 5,
Ta.

134 i D E F E N S E. Qu.VIIL
*Tatian, the next Author which you name:
And fo likewife b Athenagoras , and c Hip
polytus, whom you have not named ; But I
chufe to mention Them , as being ufeful to
explain the former. ^Eufebius may reafon
ably be interpreted by Thofe that went before
Him; or by the Emperor Confiantine's Ex
plication of this matter, which fhall be cited
hereafter ; or by his own Account of the Holy
undivided Trinity, before menfion'd; If not ^
his Authority, againft rhe Catholicks before and
after Him, and againft Himfelf, muft appear of
fmall Weight. The reft of your Authorities
I have already fpoke ro; and you may per
ceive, by this Time, I prefume, rhat none of
them fpeak home to the purpofe for which
they were cited. However, for the fake of
fuch who, being little acquainted with thefe
Matters, may be liable to be impofed npon by
a few fpecious Pretences, I fliall now go a lit
tle deeper into the point before us j and endea
vor to fet it in a true Light.
The diftinction of a e threefold Generation
of the Son, is Well known among the Learned,
and is thus explain'd.
i. The firft, and moft proper Filiation, and
Generation is his eternally exifting in, and of
a Tatian. Sect. 7. p. 20. Ox, Edit.
b Legat. Seft. 10. p. 39. Ox. Edit.
c Contr. Noet. Seft. 10. p. 13. Vol. 2. Ed. Fabric,
d See True Script. Doclr. continued, p. 121.
e Bull. D, F. p. 232. Brev. Animadv.'in Gil. Clerke p. 10^4}
Fabric. Not, in Hippol. Vol. 1. p. 242. the

Qu. VIII. of fome QU E R I E S. 1 3 f
the Father; The eternal A oy©-, of the eternal
Mind. In refpect of this, chiefly, He is the
only begotten, and a diftinct Perfon from rhe
Father. His other Generations were rather
Condefeenfions, firft to Creatures in general,
next to Men in particular.
2. His fecond Generation Was his Condefcen-
fion, Manifeft at ion, coming forth, as it were,
from the Father (tho' never feparated or divided
from Him) to create the World : This was in
Time, and a voluntary Thing; and in this re
fpect properly, He may be thought to be ^a-
¦nTox^r 'Tt&.aws xlla-cas: Firft born of every
Creature ; or before all Creatures.
3. His third Generation, or Filiation, was
when He condefcended to be born of a Virgin,
and to become Man. Thefe Things I here fup
pofe or premife only, for the more diftinct Ap-
prehenfion of what is to follow ; not expecting
to be believed farther than the Proofs can juftify.
We may now proceed to fpeak of the Doctrine
of the Antients.
It is obfervable, that the Ante-Nicene Wri
ters are more fparing, than Thofe that came after,
in fpeaking of the firft, the eternal Generation :
Sparing, I mean, as to the Term, ov Thraje ;
not as to the Thing it felf. The Eternity of
the Word, or Aoy©-, and the Diftinction of
Perfons, they all held ; together with the Con
fubftantiality, and Unity of Principle; which
together are as much as can -be meant by eter
nal Generation, Ire-

i.36 /DEFENSE Qn.VliL
Irenaus is a a frequent and conftant Afferter
of the Eternity of the Word; but eternal Ge
neration we do not read in exprefs Terms.1
Yet we find what amounts to it, by neceffary
Implication. In one particular place, b He cen-
fures thofe who pretended to afcribe any be
ginning to the Nativity of the Word ; which is,
in effect, afferting an eternal Trolation, or Ge
neration; for He makes thefe words c equi
valent. Origen, Commenting upon the Words of the
fecond Pfalm : Thou art my Son, this day have
I begotten Thee ; Proceeds thus : " d They are
'' fpoken to Him by God, with whom it is
44 alway jTo day: For, I conceive, there is no
« ' Evening nor Morning with Him ; but the
" Time co- extended, if I may fo fpeak, with
"his unbegotten and eternal Life is the To
" Day in which the Son is begotten ; there
*•' being no beginning found of his Generation,
if any more than of the To Day. This isfar-
a Pag. ifj. 163. 209. 25-3. Ed. Bened. We do not pretend to
argue merely from the force of the Word femper, or ecu, but from
That and other Circumftances : as when Infeftus goes along with it,
or the like, p. 1^3. And as Semper aderat generi humano, p. 209^
intimates that He was with Men, as foon as any Men exifled; So,
exiftens femper apud Patrem, intimates his being coeval with the
Father. b Prolationis initium donantes, /. 2. c. 14. p. 132.
c /. 2. c. 2S. p. 158.
Af/£TC6l Tt-POiq CCVTOV V7tV # ©SOU, 01 Ct.it ES? TO Q-qLbZOOV, QGV, iVI yoiO
V / _ ~ , \ ,\ . ~ '/ >/]y .«..,,..' / - V.
$rrirzp» ©toy, tyoi 3 nyoo^oci on ovol tpoha- AAA 0 c-vi/jTmptxTSivaJv Tot
, / v ..r/ , - y ~ 'I, ,\ » I , , , \ i
9Cyz/ii*iTa> >c xioio) clutou Qay , ty ovtojc, ut&j, %Qovoc,, yfjutcoo vnv xu-
tS <ryif/jlgoy, on p yeyinwreu 0 *i)o$, ocgXtfi yv/ia-iac, aurou o'vtoc. £% iu-
{urKoiAtviK, »'? 8^71)5 iptieac. Com. in ]oh. p. 31. Compare with
tfiis; the Citation from Origen, in Pamphilus'j Apology,
ther.

Qu. VIII. of fome QUERIES. 137
ther confirm'd by what a Athanafius quotes from
Him, where Origen calls it Prefumprion bto a-
fcribe any Beginning to the Son ; and fpeaks of
the only begot ten, as being c always with the Father.
To Origen I may iubjoin d Novatian, who
fays, the Son muft have always exited in the
Father, or elfe (which He takes to be abfurd )
the Father would not have been always Fa
ther. This, I think, can bear no Senfe, un
lefs always he underftood ftrictly. And it is
very manifeft that e Novatian fuppofes the Son
to have exifted before that Trocejfion, Coming
forth, or Nativity, which He fpeaks of, in
that Chapter. Some indeed have thought, that
Novatian underftands not the word, Semper,
there, in the ftrict Senfe, of unlimited Dura
tion : Wherein, I humbly conceive, They are
miftaken. I have tranfcribed the f Paffage into
the Margin, and fhall proceed to explain its
meaning. After the Author had faid, Semper
eft in Tatre, He immediately adds a fentence
which fliows that He underftood, Semper, as
a De Decret. Synod. Nic. p. 23;. Ed. Bened.
b ' V>oc ToAfbvjareci; tic ose%w d'u iUx) ifS TtgGTtpov QSTt, ovrbo.
C Tow ecu ovuovtoc e&UTai Aoya f/jovoywisc.
d Semper enim in Patre, ne Pater non femper Pater, r. 3 rj
e Et qui in Patre fuit, proceffit ex Patre: & qui in Patre fuif;
tjiiia ex Patre fuit, cum Patre poftmodum fuit, quia ex Patre
proceflit, c. 31.
f Hie ergo cum fit genitus a Patre, Semper eft in Patre. Semper
autem fie dico, ut non innatum, fed natum probem; Sed qui ante
tmi.e Tempus eft. Semper in Patre fuifle dicendus eft: nee enim
Tern} us Illi aflignari poteft, qui ante Tempus eft. Semper enim in
Patre, ne Pater non Semper fit Pater ; quia & Pater Ilium etiam
praecedit, quod necefle eft prior Sit qua Pater Sit: quoniam antecedaE
neceffeeft Eum, qui habet Originem, Ille qui Originem nefcit.
L we

138 .f DEFENSE Qu.VIIL
we fay, a parte ante. But withal there is a
feeming Reftriction : Sic dico, ut non Innatum
fed natum probem. There might be fome
then, as well as now, who knew not how to
diftinguifli between Eternity, and Self-
existence. The Sabellians, in particular,
might pretend that the Son, heingEternal, muft
be the Self-exiftent Father Himfelf. It was
therefore neceffary for the Author to guard, in
the manner He does, againft any fuch Miftake,
or Mifeonftruction. So Alexander Bifhop of
Alexandria, while He maintains the ftridt Eter
nity of the Son, to guard againft the invidious
Mifeonftruction of the Arians, inferts the like
Caution*. " Let no Man, fays He, miftake
" Eternal, as if it were the fame with Self-
" exift ent, as {the Arians) having their minds
" blinded, are wont to do. This may ferve
for a good Comment upon Novatian. To pro
ceed : Novatian adds ; Qui ante omne Tempus
eft, Semper in Tatre fuiffe dicendus eft. Here
He explains, Semper, by, ante omne Tempus.
Now, this is the very fame, with Him, as if
He had faid of the Son, quod non aliquando
caperit ; as may appear by the f Account He
gives of the Eternity oi the Father ; explain-
* See p. 123.
•j- Nifi forte (quod abfit) aliquando effe cs.perit, nee fuper omnia
fit, fed dum poft aliquid efle csperit, intra (leg. infra) id fit quod
ante Ipfum fuerit, minor inventus poteftate, dum pofterior denota-
tur etiam Ipfo Tempore, Novat. c. 2. Mark the Force of the words.
Etiam Ipfo; intimating that Pofteriority in lime is a low degree of
Pofteriority, and that a Thing might be faid to be pofterior in a higher
Senfe than thatt viz. in Order of Nature, as we term it. ing

Qu.VlIL of fome QUERIES. 13$
ing it by his not being pofterior to Time : And
his having no Time before, is the very fame,
with having nothing a preceding. Wherefore,
when Novatian fpeaks afterwards of the Fa-*
ther's being precedent to the Son, He can mean
it only in order of Nature , not in re 'beet of
Duration. And this I take to have been the
meaning of the Catholick Writers, before and
after the rife of Arianifm, by the Phrafes ante
TempUS, 'Z3£? alavavi rzs£j 7iavmy a.ia»w, Or the
like, as applied to God the Son. So h Hilary,
in the Name of the generality of the Chrifiians
of his Time, interprets it : So Alexander of
Alexandria, in his Letter extant in Theodorit ;
the d Sardican Fathers in their Synodical Epi-
ftle; and the e Catholick Bifhops, upon the
opening of the Council of Ariminum. Thus
alfo we are to underftand, ns^} 'Ka.yrm r aiarnvt
in the Conftantinopolitan Creed. The f ArianS
indeed, equivocating upon the Words, Time,
and Ages, eluded the Catholick Senfe, ftill re
taining the Catholick Expreffion : But the
Ante-Nicene Catholicks were fincere , plain ,
honeft Men ; and do not feem to have known
any thing of thofe fubtile Diftindtions. They
a Id quod fine Origine eft, prjecedi a riullo poteft, dum non ha
bet Tempus. Ibid. Tempus here manifeflly fignifies Duration ,
in the largeft Senfe; not Time, in the reftram'd Senfe, as the Arians
afterwards underftood it.
b Audiunt ante Tempora; putant id ipfum, ante Tempera, efle
quod Semper eft. Contr. Aux.p. \266.Comp. Trin. 1. 12. p. 1 129. 1 1360
c. Eccl. Hi ft. 1. i.e. 4. p. 13. eye.
d Apud Theod. E. H. 1. 2. c. 8. p 80. 81.
e Hilar- Fragm. p. 1343. Ed. Bened.
fSee Athanaf. Vol. 1. p. 418. Hilar. 1 129. Epiphan, Hsr. 74^.887.
L 2 under-

i4o i DEFENSE Qu. VIII.
underftood thofe Phrafes as they would be
commonly underftood by rhe People; other-
wife they would not have ufed them, without
greater caution and referve. * Sifinnius long
ago obferved (which confirms what I have been
mentioning) that the Antients never would at
tribute any Beginning to the Son oi God, be
lieving Him to have been Co-eternal with the
Father. The inquifitive Reader may obferve the
ufe of thofe Phrafes, in the places referr'd to in
the f Margin ; all of them admitting, moft of
them requiring, the Senfe I contend for. I men
tion not the Interpolator of Ignatius 's Epiftles,
an Arian, probably, of the fourth Century, or
later. To return to Novatian: when He adds,
Tempus illi ajfignari non poteft : He does not
mean only, that no particular Time of the Son's
Exiftence is affignable ; but, that it was before
all Time, as Himfelf expounds it, ante Tem
pus eft, i. e. ftrictly Eternal; £ which agrees
with what follows, and makes it Senfe : Sem
per enim iu Tatre, ne Tater non femper fit
Tater. What can be more exprefs for the
* Socraf. E. H. 1. $¦• c. io.
t Ignatins ad Magnef. c. 6. p. 22. Juftin. Fragm. in Grab. Spic.
Vol. 2. p. 199, Mt-liro in Cav. H. L. Vol. 2. p. 33. Origen. in
Pamph. Apolog. Hippolytus Fragm. Fabric. Vol. 2. p. 29.. Concil.
Antioch. Comr. Paul. Sam. Lab. Tom, 1. Dionyf. Alexandr.
Refp Contr. Paul. Q. 4. Lucian. Symb. apud. Socr. 1. 2. c. IO.
Apoft. Conftit. 1. 8. C- f. Vid. etiam Suicer. Thefaur. in voce, Alan.
£ Hilary'.; words may ferve as a comment upon Novatian'.*. Quod
ante Tempus natum eft, Semper eft natum . Quia id quod eft ante
seternum Tempus, hoc Semper eft. Quod autem Semper eft natum,
non admittit ne aliquando non fuerit: quia aliquando non fuifie.jam
non eft femper efle. Hilar, de Trin, p. 1 117.
Eter-

Qu. VIII. of fome QUERIES. 141
Eternity of the Son, than to declare that the
Father was never without Him? He plainly
fuppofes it abfurd to fay, that the Father was
ever no Father, or, which comes to the fame,
that ever the Son was not. What follows there
fore, in that Chapter, of the Father, pracedit,
and antecedat neceffe eft, &c. can only be un
derftood of a priority of Nature, not of Time,
or Duration ; and in This all Catholicks agreed.
You'l excufe my dwelling fo long upon Nova
tian : it was neceffary, to clear his Senfe, and
to obviate fome *fpecious Pretences, not only
againft Novatian, but other Catholick Writers
of whofe meaning there is lefs difpute. From
hence may be underftood in what Senfe all the
Oriental Bifliops ( if the Fact be true, relying
only on the doubtful Credit of f Arius) might
teach, TrpouTrap^eji' tb \S f ®tov euxf^as. That
it could not be meant in Arius's Senfe, is fuf
ficiently evident from the determination of the
Nicene Fathers, which has infinitely more weight
in it than his fingle Teftimony ; and fhows the
Senfe of the whole Church, in a manner, at
that Time. But enough of this: I fhall only
remark, before I part with Novatian, that He
is an Evidence both for the Firft, and Second
Nativity, or Generation, of the Son. As He
fuppofes the Son exifting before the Trocefiion,
(which is the voluntary Nativity He fpeaks of)
and pre-exifting as a % Son, He cannot be un-
* Whitby Modeft. Difq.pref. p. 29, 30. Proem. p. 5. Lib. p. \66>
f Apud Thepdorit. E. 1, 1. c 5. p. 21.
4 Sive dum Verbttm eft, five dum Virtus efl, five dum Sapientia
L 3 derftood

J41 ^ DEFENSE Qu.VIII.
derftood otherwife. See this more fully ex
plain'd in a Bifliop Bull. If any other Writers,
who exprefly held an eternal Generation, any
where fpeak aifb of a temporal Troceffion, or
Nativity, the fame may be true of Them
alfo. I only give this hint, by the way, and
pais on.
b Diony fius of Alexandria, who lived about
the fame time with Novatian, afferrs the fame
Dodtrine ; viz. That the Father was always
Father ; and never was without his Son : which
is the fame as to maintain eternal Generation.
The fame Dodtrine is farther confirm'd , and
more explicitely fet forth, in his ^Epiftle againft
Taul of Samojata ; d if it be his.
sDionyfius, Bifliop of Rome, Contemporary
with the other, declares that the Son is eter
nal, and that there never was a time when
the Son was not; adding in Confirmation of it,
that He is the Word, the Wijdom, and the
Tower of God. This, tho' it be exprefs for
eft, five duro Lux eft, five dum Filius eft; non ex fe eft, quia nee
innatus eft. That is, He is natus, confider' d under any Capacity; whe
ther as Aoy©*, oivaibic, or o-vtyiat,, or <paq, or 'y°c, whether before the Pro-
cejjion, or after. This feems to be the moft probable Conftruftion of the Paf
fage; and moftConfonant to what He had faid before. Comp. Athanaf.
Vol. i, p. 222. ; a D. F. p. 222.
* Oo yag i)» on i Qioc ant, i)» TrciTqg. i yap o\, THTai
«eyo>©- om i ®ioc, iiiu i'm%ifo,!n>mtt-*-m. Athan. Vol, I. p, if 3.
c. Lab- Concil. Tom. 1. p. Sf$. 872. 864.
d See Mr. Thirlby's Defence of it : Anfw. to Whifton, part 2.p.dS.&c.
e El yag ytyottt oioc, uv o<rs or* W' un oi v fi j* c» m) jresrgit
&JV, u$ ctirlc. cptiai, xou tl ^oy®-, xai output,, x} e%ict[/,t$ e'Xg/fj8$. apud
Athanaf. Decret. Syn. N. 232. Ei' rottvy ytyottv i hioq, ijv on cine ii«
•pcqm' t)> 'ocoy, xeojgoc., oTt %*('$ TSUTur i» 0 Qefc- ifn-ntimHat o\ toutd.
Xbidi This and Novatian'* Tefiimopy, Both cf the fame Age, may
ferve to illuftrate each fitter.
the

Qu.VIII. of fome QUERIES. 143
the Eternity of the Son, yet is not full for eter
nal Generation; unlefs it had been faid, Eter
nal, as a Son. He might be fuppofed Eternal,
as the Kay%*, and his Sonjhip commence after
wards. And therefore I do not put this among
the clear unexceptionable Authorities for eter-r
nai Generation ; though hardly any reafonable
doubt can be made of it, fince He fuppos'd the
Father, the Head, Root, Origin of the Aoy@-,
* Methodius fpeaks more clofe and home to
the Point. For, upon the words of the Tfal-
mift : Thou art my Son, this day have I be
gotten Thee; He comments thus. " It is ob*
" fervable that his being a Son, is here in-
*' definitely exprefs'd without any Limitation
" of Time. For He faid, Thou art, not Thou
" becam'ft my Son ; fignifying that He did
" not acquire any new Filiation, nor fhould
" ever have an end of his Exiftence, but that
" He is always the fame. He f goes on to
fpeak of his after Filiation , intimated in the
words, This day have I begotten Thee ; and
obferves, that it was more properly a Mani-
feftation of Him ; confonant to what He had
faid before, that He could not have a new Fi
liation. This may relate either to what I be
fore called his Second, or to his Third Genera-
* Uaioxrn^riTiOV y> «7I TO JU/SV *tlot a-jTct tivttj UOgM&lf Cim<Pv,ftiTO, yjtf
Kftymut' n «£> '«jos, aitA 1<Pn, j£ i, ytyowt,' l/*pafw», fhvm tt^'oa-cptt-
tvv a!>To, TiTvxvxitaf ¦$ "ijo^&nois, [*ire a.i> tr^uTmpiftt-ta tsAoj t^ypuiicq,
kaa' iT»oj «ei t aire*. Apud Phot. Cod. 237. p. 960.
¦j- Tlggoi-nc 'iht n(ib t aimo), h im sgjsvoij, iG&Aify), ^ tb ifjo-ftj*
J4»»>tcwj, 9 $-, in, erej&i-) iyuog ftitvoti yra^iea). Ibid.
L 4 tion

144 ^DEFEN/SE Qu.VIII.
tion : The Words are ambiguous, and capable
of either henle.
To Methodius I may fubjoin Tamphilus,
who, while He delivers Origen's Senfe, in his
Apology, does undoubtedly fpeak his own too.
He is very * clear and full for the eternal Ge*
neration, if we may rely on the Tranflator.
Alexander, Bifliop of Alexandria, \ reckons
it among the Singularities of Arius, that He
would not own the Father to have been always
fo ; but pretended that God was once no Fa
ther , and that the Ao'y©-1 was produced in
Time. I obferve, that thefe two Things are
here join'd together, as being Explanatory one
of the other, according to the reafoning of that
Age, at leaft. And if the fame reafoning held
before, as may be probably inferr'd from \ other
Paffages of the Antients, then it will follow
that as many as afferted the Eternity of the
A07©-, or Word, which were all without
Exception, did implicitely maintain the eter*
nai Generation. It appears to have been
a Maxim in the Church at this Time, that is,
about the Year 315-, Ten Years before the
* Inter Op. Orig. Ed. Bafil, p. 877.
¦J- Ot/x «£i 0 ©so? -nuT-tip ity. ocaa' iv cts 0 ®£o? vmryip qtk ijv. ant,
«S£i »» 0 tS 0£s Aops, uaa' i\ Grnt, ormv yipviv. Alexand. Ep. apud
Socr. E. H. 1. I. c. 6. p. IO *Afli£ss»Tj« oiiv (femtotK £ l| ancon-m-ii
vbro9-£<rEfi>5, avocyxv Toy zrocriocf, ecu tirxj zrocrigge. Alexand. Ep. apud
Theod. 1. 1 . c. 4. p. 1 3.
:j: The Charge brought againft Dionyfius cf Alexandria; and which
tie clear'd Himfelf of, was This : Oix ecu fa 0 ©£05 sroiTijp j ix at\
m/ 40;, coaa' 0 f/Jiv Qioc ijv %oigii tS Aoyu, avroc, o\ 0 "1)05 oux ?v Ttflt
jw^ij, «M* kt bmtwj ii* fo. $fhan, Ep. de^ntent. Dionyf. p. 25-3.
Councif

Qu.VIII. of fome QUERIES. 14 j
Council of Nice, that the Father was always
Father. The fame we have feen, about Sixty
years before, from what has been cited out of
Dionyfius of Alexandria, and Novatian. The
Teftimony of * Origen, cited by Tamphilus,
with others mention'd, carry it up Forty
Years higher, to about the Year 210. Ire
naus, above Thirty Years higher, to about
173, within lefs than fourfcore Years of St.
John. Tertullian , betwixt the Two laft
named, feems to have underftood this matter
differently : For He fays plainly, that f there
way a Time, when the Son was not; mean
ing, as a Son ; and that God was not always
Father. And this is agreeable to his Principles,
who always fpeaks of the Generation as a vo
luntary Thing, and brought about in Time ; as
do feveral other Writers. From hence a Queftion
may arife, whether there was any Difference
of Doctrine between thofe Writers, or a Dif
ference in Words only. This is a Point which
will deferve a moft ftridt and careful In
quiry. The Authors who make the Generation Tem
porary, and fpeak not exprefly of any other,
are thefe following : Juftin . Athenagoras ,
Theophilus, Tatian, Tertullian, and Hipfo-
* Non enim Deus, cum prius non eflet Pater, poftea Pater efle
caepit, &c. Pamphil. Apoi. p- 877-
f Pater Deus eft, & Judex Deus eft, non tamen ideo Pater 8c
Judex femper, quia Deus fetnper. Nam nee Pater efle potuit ante
Filium, n;c Judex anre deliihim. Fuit autem Tempus cum 8c
delictum & Filius non fuit. Tertul. Contr. Hermog. c. 3 . lytus.

146 / DEFENSE Qu.VIII.
lytus. Novatian I mention not with Them,
becaufe He afferted Both. Let us then care
fully examine what their Doctrine was: And
that it may be done the more diftinctly, let us
reduce it to Particulars.
i. They afferted the Co-eternity oi the Ao-
y©% or Word, tho' not confider'd precifely
under the formality of a Son. This, I prefume,
is fo clear a point, that I need not burthen my
-Margin with Quotations for it. It fhall fuffice
only to refer to the * Places , if any fhould
doubt of it. It was a Maxim with Them, that
God was always Aoyi*.os, never "AXoy>s ; that is,
never without his Word, or Wifdom. So far
they agreed perfectly with the other Writers,
either ^before, or after, or in their own Time.
The Antients, fuppofing the Relation of the
Aoy©" to the Father to be as clofe and intimate
as that of Thought to a Mind; and that this
was infinuatcd in the very Name, rightly con
cluded that the Father could not be "AXoy>s,
or without the Aay>s, any more than an eter
nal Mind could be without eternal Thought f„
Some have pretended that the Ante-Nicene
Writers, who ufed that kind of reafoning, meant
only an Attribute, by the Aoy©* ; and not a
real Terfon. But there's no ground or colour
* Juftin. Martyr. Apoi- i. p. 122. Ox. Ed. Athenag. Legat.
e. io- p. 39. Ed. Ox. Theophilus Antioch. p. 82. 129. Ed. Ox.
Tatian. p. 20 22. Ed. Ox. Vid. Bull. D.F. p. 209. TertuU. Contr.
Prax. c. <,. p. fe%. c 27. Vid. Bull. D. F. p. 24^. Hippolyt.
Csntr. Noet- c io. p. 13. Edit. Fabric.
f See Bull. X>. F. p. ie6. for

Qu.VIII. of fome QUERIES. 147
for this Pretence, as fhall be fliown prefently.
I fliall only note here, that the * later Writers,
who, undoubtedly and confeffedly, took the
A6y<& to be a Terfon ; a real, eternal Perfon ;
yet make ufe of the fame Maxim, and the very
fame way of reafoning.
z. They did not mean by the Aoy©-, or
Word, any Attribute, Tower, Virtue, or
Operation of the Father ; but a real, fubfifting
Perfon : whom they believed to have been al
ways in and with the Father, and diftinct from
Him, before the Temporary Generation they
fpeak of. If this be well proved, other Matters,
as we fliall fee prefently, will be eafily ad-
jufted. The learned and judicious f Bifliop Bull
has fufficiently fhown, of every Author fingly,
(except Juftin, whom He reckons not with
Them ) that He muft be underftood to have
believed the real and diftinct Perfbnaliry of the
Son ; before the Temporary Troceffion, or Ge
neration mention'd. His reafonings, upon that
Head, have not been anfwer'd, and, I am per
fwaded, cannot : So that I might very well fpare
my Self the labour of adding any Thing farther.
But for rhe fake of fuch, as will not be at the
Pains to read or confider what He has faid at
large ; I fliall endeavor to throw the Subftance
* Alex. Epift. Encyc. Ath. Op, Vol. I. p. 399. Athanaf. Vol. 1.
p. 221. 424. yoo. 619. Et alibi. Greg- Nazienz. Orat. 3f. p. 574.
Greg. Nyfl: Cat. Orat. c. 1 . Cyrill 1. 4. in Joh. c. 48. Thefaur.
0.11.23. Damafc. I.i. Marc. Diadoch. p. li£.
f Defenf. F.N. S?£t. 3. c.f, 6, 7,8.9.10,
of

f48 if DEFENSE Qu. VIII.
of it into a fmaller Compafs, in the following
Particulars : Only premifing this, that fince all
thefe Authors, went, in the main, upon the
fame Hypothefis ; They are the beft Commen
tators one upon another : And whatever Expli
cation we meet with in any one, two, or
three, may reafonably ftand for the Senfe of
All ; if they have nothing Contradictory to it.
Now to proceed.
i. * Before the Troceffion, or Generation ,
of which they fpeak, they fuppofe the Father
not to have been alone ; which it is hard to
make Senfe of, if they only meant that He was
with his own Attributes, Powers, or Perfecti
ons: As much as to fay, He was wife, and '
great, and powerful by Himfelf; therefore He
was not alone. Alone, indeed, they own Him
to have been, with refpect to any Thing ad
extra; but with refpect to what was in Him
felf, He was not alone; not fingle, but confift-
ing of a Tluralityy having the Aoy©* always
with Him.
z. The fame Aoy©-, or Word, was always
f with Him ; convers'd with Him ; was, as it
+ Mo'i/©- i)» o ©£»?, fc ov etu-nS i Aoy®*. Theoph. p. 150. Auto's S
pyvos uv 517AU5 w, ovn •/> uAop$, ovte aco-o(po$, ou-n uouyctToe,, oute e£'cv-
Atv]®* tiv. All which Words correfpond to the feveral Names of the
Son or Holy Spirit; A0J95, output, $6y*[i,tc., fixAti, (tou ztoct^) and
mean the fame Thing. Hippolyt. p. 1 3. Contr. Noet. Comp.Gieg.
Nazianz. Orat, 35-. p. S74.
Solus autem, quia nihil extrinfecus praeter ilium, csterum ne tune
quidem Solus. Habebat enim fecum, quam habebat in femetipfo.,
Rationem fuam fcilicet. TertuU. Contr. Prax. c. 5. p. $-03.
+ S(w oseraf ¦£>, 2^ iojot«s oVm/ajw;, »ut\ ^ i Ao'y^, 05 \\ c*
were

Qu.VIII. of fome QUERIES. 149
were, affifting in Council, according to thofe
Writers; and therefore, certainly, a diftinct
Perfon. It wTould be very improper to fay that,
God was a in, or with one of his Attributes,
or con fuit ed with it : All fuch Expreffions muft
denote a diftinct Perfonality.
3. The fame individual Aoy©", who after
the Trocejfion was undoubtedly a Terfon, is
fuppofed to have exifted before. b Novatian
is exprefs. " He who was in the Father, pro-
" ceeded from the Father. It is the fame indivi
dual Aoy>$, according to ^Theophilus, who is
q^tklvtos, always, both before and after his
Proceffion, with the Father; and therefore, if
He was a real Terfon after, which is not di-
fputed, He muft have been fo before. That
d very Aoy©"* or Word, which had been from
all Eternity dj&xSilos, ci xapSia, ©es, becomes
afterwards vrgoipogi^o^. If therefore He was ever
ccu-nS, \3si<pq<re. Tatian. c. 7. pag. 20. 'O an cv/JbTtagajy uot%.
Theoph. p. 8 2. Toy euros 2^g.TmvT0c, hohafy.Tev ov xapSia. ©£o«. Id.
p. 1 29. -^ little after, Tou-nt tijg trufJoQovAoy, ictvTov you) (& <pgt)yritn»
otTot, < ra Aoyoi xut£ 2>l&K«yToi; iy.iAa». Idem. p. 29.
Si necefiaria eft Deo materia ad opera mundi, ut Hermogenes
exiftimavit j Habuit Deus materiam longe digniorem — — Sophiam
fuam fcilicet. ————— Sophia autem Spiritus: Hsc Illi Confiliariut
fuit. Tert. Contr. Hermog.
a ©so; if» ov 'Ap-fy. tUu Si ap%w >,iys Swtcfiit xctgitA>ipci[jiii».
Tat. p. 19.
b Qui in Patre fuit, proceflit ex Patre, p. 3 1. Zeno Veronenfis,
of the following Century, expreffes it thus: procedit in Nativitatem,
qui erat antequam nafceretur, in Patre. Which l add for Illu ftration.
c Pag. 129.
d TtsTW Toy Ao'py lytyyriss ¦X{>c$oym9V, Theoph. p. 1 29. 0*; ix @n-
Tot; jtvv&v, *7t%Qqxiv TVf xrtfri xtigicy, T toioy yny ccotZ jugva <n%OTipoy oaoc-nv
l}z?ap%ey&, Hippol. c. 10. p. 13. Nas, 05 vtfoQes h tyc-fAa iollxw-n
traii ©£o(f, c.li. p. 14. Compare Theoph. p. 1 29. before cited.
a Ter-

ijo ^ DEFENSE Qu. VIII.
a Terfon, He muft have been fb always. So
again : The Aoy©- that fpake,; to the Prophets,
and who was undoubtedly a Terfon. is the
"Very fame individual Aoys, which was always
with the Father ; o iel ov/JLtfoLgav auTaf. Tertul
lian, who diftinguifhes between Ratio, and
Sermo ¦, and afferts the former to be Eternal,
and the latter to be a Terfon ¦, yet b connects
Both in one ; and makes Them, in Subftance,
the very fame; the felf-fame Terfon Both : on
ly fuppofed under different Capacities and dif
ferent Names, before, and after the Trocejfion.
It was one and the fame Hypoftafis ; once
Ratio (according to this Writer) and as fuch,
Eternal; afterwards Sermo, and as fuch, Ga Son.
The feeming difference between the antient Fa
thers upon this Point is eafily reconciled, fays
a d very worthy and learned Trelate oi our
Church. " One faith, God was not Sermonalis
" a principio, ox his Word did not exift till the
•' Creation ; others fay, Chrift is Aoyc$ 'A\%s,
" the Eternal Word, of the Father. They
" may all be underftood, in a found Senfe,
" with the help of this Diftinction. The
** Word, as He is inward Speech formed from
" the Eternal Mind, was for ever with God :
a Theoph. p. 81,82.
b In ufu eft noftrorum — Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deum
fuifle, cum magis liationem competat antiquiorem haberij quia non
Sermonalis a principio, fed Rationalis Deus etiam ante principium,
& quia ipfe quoque Sermo Ratione conliftcns, priorem eam ut
Subftantiam fuam oftendat. Contr. Prax. c. 5. Comp, Origen. in
Joh. p-43, 44. c See Bsill. Se£t. 3. c. lo.
. d Bifliop of Lichfield and Coventry, Serm. p. 1 3, 14.
" But

Qu.VIII. of fome QUERIES. 151
" But as God's Agent to difplay and found
" forth the Wifdom of God in external Works,
" as fuch, He exifted not till the Creation——
'* the Creation being, as it were, a verbal Ex-
"• plication of what Reafon had firft filently
*' thought, difpofed, and refolved within it felf,
4. If there ftill remains any doubt of this
Matter, there is a farther Argument to be urg'd,
which may be juftly look'd upon as clear, full,
and decifive in the Cafe. Had thefe Fathers
believed rhat the Aoyos, or Word, was an At
tribute only, or Tower, &c. before the Tro-
ceffion, or Generation, which they fpeak of;
then it would follow, that the Son began firft
to be, and was properly a Creature, eg one o»-
Tfflv, in their Opinion ; and that Trocejfion was
but another word for being created. But thefe
Writers do exprefly guard againft any fuch No
tion. * Novatian very clearly diftinguifli es be
tween Trocejfion and Creation. Athenagoras,
is ftill more exprefs to the fame purpofe ; f de
claring that the Son was not then made, but
had exifted in the Father, as the Aoy©", or
Word, from all Eternity.
Juftin Martyr is the firft, and the moft con
fiderable of thofe Writers ; and therefore it will
be proper to examine his Sentiments with a
more particular care and exadtnefs. I have fe-
* Si Homo tantummodo Chriftus, quomodo dicit. Fgo ex Deo
prodii, Joh. 16.  cum conffiat, Hominem a Deo Fattum ejfe,
non ex Deo ProcejTiJfe! c. 23. s ,\ r \
f Oix, a; ytyo/^ov, t% 'Ap^fic, <£> o ©«« »a« ui~di®< i», ifey ccuroq b
itivra T Ao'pi euSiai Aoytxy; ay, c. IO. p. 39«
lected

\$z A DEFENSE. Qu.VIII.
lected the moft material Paflages I could find,
which may help to give us a juft Idea of his
Doctrine ; and have placed Them in diftinct
Columns, in the * Margin. It would fignify lit-
rle to tranflate Them ; becaufe the Arguments ari
fing from them are proper only to Scholars. I
have diftinguifh'd the feveral Citations by Figures,
for the more convenient referring to Them.
i. I obferve, firft, {SeeN. i,z.) that He joins
rtygmrr©", with ai(pQap1@r< and ai'^©-* oppofing

T. * 'O p. *f> Mavo-iis, o wy, tipv'
i oi UAonay, to ov. iiyl-ngoi j T
stmutvuv tzS ati ov-n &tii <5tfs<rnx&y
j? I t\ , '\ ' > / , , \ ,\
(ptavij- aoTtc, yap £si fugvoq o au ay
ytvtffjv ot /tow t%a>v < ttipfi<nt/jtv
yap auTov — tov tx uytyyqTov u.c ov
Hvcej AsjjVBe T85 it y-vviiTiss »> o\-
lAiafyi'riSi — pvo/fytsc. tyy "bmAAv-
ihlyxe,. Paran. p. 90, 91. Ox.
2. "Oazc yap ist ft$ r ©so» ij
S5W/ m>Tt, tkZtu (pvc-.y (p&riprw rfc{y,
xj da Tt i^atpayuBHyaf »£ {/,» tlvaj
\ti. fts'®* yap uyivvyTos £ u<p6ap-
TOt, ©EO?, StffJ[ S^tj. TOUTO ©£05 £SJ.
Dial. p. 21. Jebb.
3. hya yap, (frim, £1,1*1 e av.
arnmus'iAAay iavrov o\Aovlm o uv
toX% [juv ovTjy. Parsn. p. 87.
4. ' Ovowa to •xk.vt&iv a-UTpl
TTtToy, ayyyy,To) oy-n, isx fsiv. a yocp
&y xj ovo/jja-n vs&trwpgtViQ, ¦5»?£<r-
%u-npoy i%{ T B-tfjotyoy to oyofjoa.
ti 0% UaTtip, ii) ©£0?, ti) K^^S, }£
Keg/©-, xai kvanoTfii ix ovifi&m
i?iv uaa' ou. t tu7rouo)y k^ t tpyov
TtfHjO-plltnic.. Apoi. 2 p. 13. ©£»
oi ouri 0 71^15 ovo/au, 7rgg.i'7rr.p%iv,
out* aiiTcc. ictAJToy ovofbufyiy avfyi
hw, ik >$ flit®* v&upxw, Parsen.
p. 87.

5. 'IoveuTtt ovv iyr,<rocf3>:ot au
-ray -zs-uTiga T OAUV AlAUA7lxiya\ TtS
MaaiT, t£ AKAimvl©" uuto) ovroq
'tjS roil &toS, 05 <£ uy[tA<&> xa\
u-m>S!)A(&J xixAirmi , ohr.cuac. ixif-
Xovtaf xal 2^J rocf /sj%9<pjUxoi
T»£U^/«1®-, £ eV ttUTOO TOU X&i-
$Z0, 0JC. OUTS T ?TC6T££o^ OUTS TO?
'ijov iyvaezui • 0; ^ Aoyo«
i7C%UTOT0X<&- UV £ ©£0U, ^ ©£0{
vnupxi. Apoi. 1. p. 122,123.
Compare the Citations before
given tn p. 37,

o. U et t)05 tMUvn, 0 j/josoc, as-
yopiy®- xvgiui; 'i)0{, 0 Ao'j35 <n%l
T •mirtiiiwmv £¦ ovvw, xai ytvva-
^•©- 0T£ Ti)» <i(!^ll» A" UVTS 7IUS-
TU, tXTHK <& ixs<rfA>)ire, Xf<S55 /*£»
XCCTOS ot xtx^'o% xal XOO-fA,y,OTtj tli
Ttavra eV auToi T ©£o», AsiiTW.
Mopa xai auTo 4g&<t%oy aytvst,
mit&aciuv 'oy T^vroy xal to ©£0*5
Ifi&irxyoglVfAX ix OVOfbM In,, «»«
mtaypoil©" eW&jyiirs £j«,^ur©-
Tii (JimtV t uvJpaiTmii eV|«e. Apoi. 2.
p. 14. Ox. them

Qu.VlII. of fome QUERIES. 153
them ro <J)9ct/>Tos, y&o(Jt&@», hijuupyyTls.t and
^roMu^©* : Here therefore, * kyinylos, is not
confider'd as the perfonal Character of the Fa
ther and as fignifying unbegotten ; but as it be
longs to the to paw, and denotes eternal, un
created, immutable Exiftence. Either Juftin
muft have believed that *y/w>jTo$, in this latter
Senfe, is applicable to the Son; or elfe He
muft have fuppofed Him, not only yev^roV, but
yivofjdjj^fi foifJuapyYirlsi and <J>QotpTos alfo, which
muft appear highly abfurd to any one who has
ever confider'd Juftin's Writings.
^ z. I obferve {See N. 2-) that God's being
4ygvnjlos and a.q>Qxp\os is fuppofed, as it were, the
very Ground and Foundation ofhis being God;
on account of which He is ©sos; and without
Which, confequently, He could not be OecV
If therefore the Aoy@- be not, in this Senfe,
kytm%i and a<p9ap1os, He is not ©«o«, according
to Juftin Martyr : And yet no Man is more
exprefs than Juftin, every where, in making
the Son ®tls, and infifting very much upon it.
3. Juftin makes 0 w to anfwer to the Pla-
tonifts roov. {SeeN. 1.) And either of theni
* I need but hint that the Words ayivjUloc. and e&j^wiloc, with d'ouble dr
fingle y, have been ufed -very promifcuoufty in Authors ; and hardly
came to be accurately diftinguifh'd, till the Arian Controverfy gave oc
cafion for it. See Suicer's Thefaurus, upon th'e Ecclefiaftical ufe of thefe
Words; and Gudworth for profane Writers, p. 25 3,2f4. and Mont^-
faucon admon. »'»Athan. Decret.Syn. N. p. 207. The Son is properly
kyiv^oc,, as well as the Father; fo Ignatius; fo Irensus, fo Origen ex-
1 prefty ftiles Him; and Athenagoras'* i y-vl/Aiyoi, is to the f ami ejfeti.
The fimilitude of the Word and Sound was, very probably, the thief
Reafon why the Title of Aysujlos was not oftner applied to the Son ;
which Omiffion however is compenfated by other equivalent Fxpreffons*
M equi-

15-4 ^ DEFENSE Qu.VIII.
equivalent to kti m, and that to yma-iv (rh 'zxm*
uncreated, immutable, neceffarily-exifting. Now
compare N. $. and two more Citations given
above, pag.^y. and from thence it is manifeft
that Juftin makes the Acyos to be o ov> in his
own proper Perfon. And He gives the reafon
here why, or on what Account, He might juftly
ftile Himfelf ©eos (and the fame muft hold for
o an) it is becaufe He is ©ecj, as God's Son;
4- Juftin Martyr, having taken notice that
the Father had properly no Name, {SeeN. 4. 6.)
as having nothing antecedent or pre - exiftent,
does, immediately after, repeat the Obfervation
of having no Name, and applies it to the Son ;
obferving that neither He, properly, has any
Name, but only fome Titles or Appellations
given Him, from what He did in Time ; parti
cularly from His coming forth to create and put
into beautiful Order the whole Syftem of Things.
This feems to infinuate his Co-eternity with the
Father ; and the more fo, becaufe Juftin ob-
ferves, at the fame time, that He is emphati
cally Son of the Father, (0 (jlovos Mycins zv&as
\|os,) and Co- exift ent (ow»n) with his Fa
ther, before the World ; tho' begotten or fent
forth, in time, to create ihe Univerfe. Thefe
Confiderations convince me that Juftin, as well
as Athenagoras , taught the ftridt Co-eternity
* Compare Dial. p. 364. 183. 37 1 . 184. Ed. Jebb. J add for lllu-
ftration thefe Words of Cyril. 'Oat'p ay l| ayivipu xai atpSaprss yiyui-
y\j, tZts 7nivTu$ aQSapTiv, ii uyinfey. Cyril. Alex, Thefaur- p. 34.
Of

Qu.VIIL of fome QUERIES. r^
of the Son; which is equally true of all the
other Writers.
Befides this, the feveral * Similitudes, which
thefe Authors ufed, to illuftrate the Nature of
that Trocejfion ; fuch as the Sun and its Rays,
the Fountain and its Streams, the Root and
its Branches, one Fire lighting another, and
the like ; manifeftly fhow , that They never
dream'd of the Son's being created. Then,
the care they took left any one fliould imagine
there was any "Divifion of the Father's Sub
ftance ; and their inculcating that He was
prolatus, non feparatus ; brought forth, but
not feparated from the Father , demonftrate
their meaning to be, that here was no Pro
duction of a new Subftance, but an Emana
tion, Manifeft ation , or Trocejfion of what
was before. Farther, their declaring that, tho'
He proceeded from the Father, He was ftill in
the Father, (taken together with the f Maxim,
that nothing is in God but what is God ) fets
the matter beyond all reafonable Scruple. In
a word ; as they all held the Confubftantiality
of the Son with the Father, which is as clear
as the Light, in their Writings ; they muft have
* Juftin. M. Dial. p. 183. 373. Jebb. Athenagoras p. 40. 95.
<Ox. Ed. Tatian, c. 8. p. 21, 22. Ox. Ed. TertuU. Apoi. c. 21.
Adv. Prax. c. 8- Hippolytus Contr. Noet. o 11. p. 13. Contr.
Jud. p. 4. Fabric, Vol. 2.
N. B. Athenagoras'i words are, in (IriBnefs, meant of the Holy
Ghoft only, in Both places. But the reafon being the fame for one as
the other, they are equally applicable to Either, and it is thus only I
would be underftood, wherever I apply either of the Paffages to the
Son. f Vid. Bull D. F. N. p. 198.
M % been

\$6 ^ DEFENSE Qu.VIII.
been the moft inconfiftent Men in the Worlds
had they thought that the Trocejfion, or Ge
neration of rhe Son, was a Creation, or new
Traduction of Him ; or had they not firmly
believed that He exifted, the living and fub
ftantial Word, from all Eternity.
Juftin Martyr feems to have fpoke the Senfe
of all, in faying, "That the Aoyoico exifted with
" the Father before the Creatures ; and was then
" begotten, when the Father at firft created and
" put into beautiful Order the Frame of Things^
See the paffage above *. The Emperor Con-
ftantine afterwards expreffes the fame Thought,
fomething more fully and diftinctly * thus.
" fThe Son, who was always in the Father,
" was begotten, or rather proceeded forth, for
" the orderly and ornamental Methodizing of the
" Creation. I chufe to follow the Senfe, rather
than the ftridt Letter. Whether thofe Writers
went upon any folid Reafons, in affigning fuch
or fuch parts, in the work of Creation, to Father,
Son, or Holy Ghoft, is not very material, lt
is manifeft, they fuppofed the whole Trinity
to be concern'd in it ; and to Create, as it were^
in concert. Their aferibing rhe orderly adjuft-
ment and beautifying part to the Son, feems to
have been in allufion to his Names of Aoy©%
and <n><pi«, and <Pv$. In refpect of the laft of
them, Hippolytus fuppofes the Generation to
* P. IJ-2. N. 6. f 'Eyivvlfa, f/,aAAoy oH «5©?A%» auToc,, sij
imyrrm ci Tti vroyrgl at, hri rLo T lV avTou y.fywy,tyuy 2Jd.x$<r Uitietn
Apud Gelaf. Adt. Syn. NiG. parr. 3. p. 5-8.
be

Qu.VlII. of fome QUERIES. 157
be pofterior to the Creation, upon God's faying,
Let there be Light. Then did the Son pro
ceed <pJ$ 6«, tya-rls. * Tertullian feems to have
had the fame Thought ; and, perhaps, t Origen.
Athenagoras likewife fuppofes the Trocejfion
to be after the Creating of the unformed Mafs
of Things. And yet nothing is plainer than
that \ all thefe Writers believed the prior Ex
iftence of the Son ; and that Things were at
firft created by Him, as well as afterwards
adorn ca and regulated. In fliort, whatever the
Father is fimpoled to have done, was by His
Son and Holy Spirit ; therefore frequently ftiled
Manus Tatris: But the AuSivnci., the Defign
ing part, was thought moft properly to be re
ferved ro the Father, as the firft Perfon. Thefe
are Things not to be too curioufly inquired into,
or too rigoroufly interpreted ; but to be under
ftood 3eo7rp57rofs. In the whole, they have a very
good meaning ; and were founded in the Belief
of a Co-ejfential and Co- eternal Trinity.
From what hath been faid, I prefume, it is
evident that there was no difference at all, in
the main of the Doctrine, between Thefe, and
the other Catholick Writers; but a different
* Contr. Prax. £.7.12. f Vid. Huet. Origenian. p.41.
% As to Athenagoras, vid. fupra. Tertullian fays : Deum immu-
tabilem & informabilem credi necefTe eft, ut aeiernum; quodcunque
transfiguratur in aliud, definit eife quod fuerat, 8c incipit effe quod non
erat. Deus autem neque definit effe, neque aliud poteft efle; Sermo
autem Deus, &c. Contr. Prax. c. 27. Hippolytus hath thefe words.
IIxTgi qw/xth";, adir. Jud.p.4. "^'°5 *«"W»« Contr. Noet. p. 16. 'Au
yap y]v. c/j Mfy ^to?r^t7m, toT iSiai (wvv7m(X,ii>v ytnlrngi srgj vravToc. almoo,
% Xe9?x> %<*' "? TS Witt* xa&GoAK. Fabric. Vol. 2. p. 29. Origen
we have feen before.
M 3 man-

iy8 i DEFENSE Qu.VIII.
manner only, of expreffing the fame Things.
The Queftion was not, whether the Hypoftafis,
or Terfon, of the Son was from all Eternity,
co-eval with the Father and confubftantial with
Him ; in That, they all perfectly agreed. Nor
was rhcre any difference about the Trocejfion:
for the * latter Writers acknowledged it as well
as Thofe before them; and made it Temporary
and Voluntary, as Thofe did. But the Que
ftion was, whether, the Son's eternal Co-ex-
iftence, (I fhould rather fay, the co-eternal Ex
iftence of the Aoyos) fliould be deem'd Sonjhip
and Filiation or no ; or whether the Trocef-
fion might not more properly be fo ftiled.
Tertullian (and perhaps Others) was of Opi
nion that this latter was f perfecta Nativitas
Sermonis ; The perfect Nativity, or Birth of
the Word: who had been, as it were, quiefcent
and un-operating from all Eternity, till He
came forth to Create the World: And \ Hip
polytus carried this Notion fo far, as to think
the Filiation not compleated, till He had run
thro' die laft fort of Sonfliip, in becoming Man.
All this is true, in fome Senfe, and when right
ly explain'd. But other Fathers thinking this
way of fpeaking liable to abufe and mif-con-
* Vid. Bull. Def. F. N. Sedt. 3. c. 9.
¦f Contr. Pi ax. c. 7.
:j: Contr. Noet. C if. p. 17. O'vfe yap atmpxoc, xa] xa£r' iavroy 0
Aoy©" TzAttoc viv 'ijo;, x.aj toi TtAH1^1 Xoyoc, iiv [Aovoyvyii, ]t is remark
able, that He makes the Son perfeclly fhovoytvuc., tho' not perfeBly 'ifoc,
before the Incarnation, Others might perhaps reafon, in like manner,
with regard to the ¦xrpetAivaic ; thinking Him tt have been Aoy®r, or
ugvoyiyyi, before i{, but not '•)"?• ftruction,

Qu.VIIL of fome QUERIES. 150
ftruction ; and confidering, probably, that the
Ao'y©*, or Word , might a properly be called
Son, in refpedt of that eternal Exiftence which
He ever enjoyed in, and from the Father as
the Head, Root, Fountain, and Caufe of All ;
they chofe to give That the Name of Genera
tion : and to call the other Two, b Condefcen-
fions, Manifeft ations, Troceeding forth, or
the like. So we have feen it in Methodius,
before cited for the eternal Generation : And
He, very probably, had the notion from c Ju
ftin Martyr; who, in like manner, interprets
Generation, in the fecondary Senfe, by Mani-
feftation. And even d Hippolytus, as before
obferved, explains rhe Trocejfion, or Genera
tion of the Son, a little after the Creation, by
Manifeftation of Him.
a Omnis Origo parens eft; omne quod ex Origine profertura
progenies eft. TertuU. Contr. Prax. c. 8. See Novat. above, p. 141.
Tina ft>tv isv >i 0 viAioq tw auytit, KaC. Ecc). Th. 1. 1. C.I 2. p. 7 3;
To 2» tivo; \sa-apxoy 'vpc. Jsrv ixuvx, f'| i j£ ssw. Athan. Orat. 4. p. 628.
b It is obfervable that Juftin Martyr applies the word «s©b«»ua to
the latter of them, as well as to the Former. Dial. 228. Jebb.
And, in like manner, Clement ef Alexandria ufes .-a&O&m of Both,
p. 6/4. and Hippolytus, of the latter. Contr. Noet. c 17.
c On the words, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thees
He comments thus. Toti ytvsatv avrov Atyav ytitoQ, tbi; ' Ay'tyairon, 8*|ox»
i yvZaic. aiiTou iititAAi ytvto\. Dial. p. 270. Ed. Jebb.
d To» iSiov vovv avTa fi$vu TTgyTtgov igcp,Tov \icscop-)(fiytu, Tu Si ytyo-
f/,ivos ngo-p/,qi uogarov ovra, ogaTov ¦ttoiu. c. iO. p. 1 3. A little before
He had faid. Tav Si ytyoyAyav ap%viyov xai a-v^ZisAoy xai ipyarlw
iy'tria Aopy , ov Aoyov \yfi>y ov iavrai ao^atoy ti ovra, to> xnZoftuvj?
HS<s-\jjm, opaTov Tntu, Trporioav (pomiv /pfafyo/Atvoi, xa\ <p«s ix Qutoo yvvSv,
The Words of Zeno Veronenfis may be added, as a good Comment
upon the former. Cujus (Patris) ex Ore. ut rerum natura, qui non
erat, fingeretur, prodivit Unigenitus Filius, Cordis ejus Nobilis In-
quilinus: exinde vifibilis efletlus, quia Humanum genus vifitaturus
erat, &c,
M 4 After

i6o i DEFENSE QuVIII.
After Arius arofe; the Catholicks found it
highly neceffary to infift much on the eternal
Generation. For, the Arians, taking advan
tage of it, that the Temporary Condefcenfion
of the Son, to create rhe World, had been
often called his Generation, were for looking no
higher ; but artfully infinuated that this was the
Ur 0: production oi Him; and that it was abfurd
to talk of the Son's exifting before He was be
gotten : in oppofition to which pretence, we
find the Nicene Fathers anathematizing fuch
as fliould fay, that the * Son exifted not be
fore He was begotten ; meaning in the Senfe
now explain'd. However, the Arians might
have known that the eternal Exiftence of the
Ao'y©" Was univerfally Taught; and even by
thofe who afferted a Temporal Generation. Nor
indeed were they ignorant of it; but t they
contrived, for a Salvo, ro maintain, that the
Aoy@», or Word, which was held to be Eter
nal, was not the fame with the Aoy©" , or
Word begotten ; the former being only the
Father's own proper Word, and no fubftantial
Thing: the latter, a created Subftance, direct
ly contrary to all Antiquity which has no
thing to countenance any iuch Notion ofa two
fold Aoy©"- Upon this, it became neceffary to
explain in what Senfe any Temporal Genera
tion had been afferted ; and to keep up the
true Catholick Doctrine, which had obtain'd
* 'Rv wars ir£ Girx h, r.cti ¦jtqv yp-jv^maj one r]u,
f See Bull, Def. F, p. 19s- Athan. Orat. 2. p. J07.
from

Qu.VIII. of fome QUERIES. x6t
from the Beginning ; namely , of the Eternal
Aoy@- diftindt from the Father ; Son of rhe
Father , as partaking of the fame divine Sub
ftance from all Eternity ; * going out from the
Father to create the World ; and laftly conde-
fcending to become Man : Son, in all thefe re-
fpedts, but primarily and chiefly in refpedt of
the firft. From the whole, we may remark,
that an explicite Profeflion of eternal Gene
ration might have been difpens'd with ; pro
vided only that the eternal Exiftence of the
Aoy@>», as a real fubfifting Terfon, in, and of \
the Father, { which comes to the fame Thing)
might be fecured. This was the point ; and this
was all. In this, all found Catholicks agreed ;
and to difpute it, was accounted Herejy, and
Blafphemy . If any one, difliking the Name,
or the Phrafe of eternal Generation , thinks
it better to affert an eternal Word, inftead
of an eternal Son, (meaning thereby a di
ftinct Perfon, and confubftantial with God,
whofe Word He is) and refers rhe Generation
to his firft and fecond Manifeft ation , at the
Creation and Incarnation ; there feems to be
no farther harm in ir, than what lies in the
Words, and their liablenefs to be mifconftrued,
* This is well exprefs'd by the Antiochian Fathers, againft Paul of
Samofata; and by Clement of Alexandria, ToZrov ¦msiooibiv nit t«
TS-arol an ovtu, &x7m&\YiP0>xivyji to -eraTPix$v fiHAvj[&a, (GifSt, tw x-ntr.y
rr oAi-iv. Libb. Cone. Tom. I. p. 8-tf- Tixvov ai tS yvimoy, xai xXrioo-
yoyj'-y, lauriff lm -rivet. \iviT^-,av uvraZJu Tnw7ro^pov, v-jto /AsyxAiis oixo-
tofh'iac,, xai avaXoyixq 'S "xaTgqc,, Si oi xai to' tyaviga xai ret atpavti
? n3<r.t,is h^i/jiip-ynTsof. Clem. Alex. Quis div. p. 9/f. Ox,
f Vid. Athan. Vol. 1. p. 222. 619, 618. or

i6z ^ DEFENSE Qu.VIII.
or to gfve Offence. Here therefore every Man
is left to his own Diferetion and Prudence : On
ly the fafer way feems to be, to follow the
moft general and moft approved manner of
Expreffion , together with the antient Faith ;
being, in all probability, the fureft means to pre-
ferye Both. I defignedly faid, firft and laft, not
firft or laft. For, fuch as interpret the Gene
ration, of the laft only, ftand, I think, * clear
ly condemned by Scripture ; many places where
of can never fairly be accounted for by the
miraculous Conception folely : Befides that from
Barnabas, and Clemens Romanus, down to
the Council of Nice , all the Chriftian Wri
ters fpeak unanimouily of a higher, antecedent
S&njhip ; and, generally, even found Worjhip
upon it.
I fliall juft obferve to you, in the clofe of
this Article, that, from what hath been faid, you
may know what Judgment to make of an Af-
fertion of f Dr. Clarke's, viz. That the learnedft
of the moft Orthodox Fathers, who ajferted
the Eternal Generation of the Son, did yet
neverthelefs affert it to be an Act of the Fa
ther's eternal Power and Will. By which the
Doctor feems to infinuate, that the good Fathers
* Sane in ifta ex Maria Virginc nativitate Suprema & Singulars
»|»Z» atque excellentta Filiationis Domini noftri adeo non confiftit,
ut ea ipfa Nativitas ad ejus ftupendam evy^ToMaciv omnino re
ferenda fit. Hoc nos fatis aperte docent, fi modo a Spiritu
San&o edoceri velimus, multis in locis, S. lirerae  Ita fem
per credidit inde ab ipfis Apoftolis Catholica Chrifti Ecclefia.
Mull. ). p. go. See alfo Fir. Fiddes Vol. i. B. 4. Ch. a.
d) Script. Da&r. p.aSo. ulim 24 J. did

Qi.VIII. of fome QUERIES. 163
did not underftand Eternal in the ftridt Senfe.
If the learned Doctor can fhow, that Thofe, who
maintain'd only the Voluntary abd Temporary
Proceffion of the Son, believed that the 'Aoy©*
was eternally pre-exifting in the Father, by an
Act of his Will ; or that Thofe who exprefly
afferted an eternal Generation, believed alfo that
it was an Arbitrary Thing, and might have
been otherwife, (which I fuppofe is the Doctor's
Senfe of an Act of the Will) then He will
do fomething. But, as none of his Authorities
prove any thing like it ; it would have been a
prudent part, at leaft, not to have produced
Them to fo little purpofe. But enough of this
Matter : I have, I hope, fufficiently explain'd
my Self upon this Head ; and have therefore
the more reafon to expedt a diftinct Anfwer
from You, whenever you think proper to re-
confider this Subject.

Query

SC* 4 DEFENSE Qu.IX.
Query IX.
Whether the divine Attributes, Omnifcience,
Vbiquity, &c. Thofe individual Attributes,
can be communicated without the divine
Ejfence,from which they are infeparable ?
1 H E intent of this Query was to prevent
Equivocations; and to make theNext clearer.
You agree with me that the individuel divine
Attributes cannot be communicated without the
individual Nature in which they fubfift. You add,
?hat Dr. Clarke, in the Z30th page of his Re
plies, hath plainly Jhowfi, that individual Attri
butes, divine or not divine, cannot pojfibly be
communicated at all. Well then ; we know what
|h,e Doctor means by all divine Towers, in
his Scripture Doctrine, {p. xo^8.) which is one
point gain'd : For when words are ftripp'd of
|heir Ambiguity, we may be the better able to
deal with them. As to the Dodtor's Aphorifm*
Said down {p. X30.) I may have leave to doubt
Of it ; notwithftanding that it is fet forth to us,
\yith the utmoftAffurancc.lt is not unufual with
%he- Doctor to lay down Maxims, in relation
|o this Controverfy, which Himfelf would not
allow, at another Time, or in another Subject.
for Inftance ; * necejfary Agents are no Caujes,
*f Whatever- proceeds from any Being, otherwife than by the Wilt
af that Being, doth not in Truth proceed from that Being; but
fir em, fome other Caufe or Neceffity extrtnfick and independent of
thasj

Qu. IX. of fome QU E R I E S.- l'6f
that is, they do not fo properly Act, as ar3
adted upon. This is very true of all finite ne
ceffary Agents ; for, all their neceffary, of na
tural Adts, proceed not fo properly from Them4
as from God the Author of their Natures. But
does it therefore follow that, if God adts by d
Neceffity of Nature, in fome Inftances, He
is therein acted upon likewife ? Or that all thi
Acts of the divine Nature are Voluntary, and
Free; none natural and neceffary? This
fliould not be faid by one who , elfewhere *
fpeaks fo much of God's being infinitely wifii
and infinitely good, infinitely happy, Sec by
an abfolute neceffity of Nature; unlefs Hg
could be certain that knowing, loving, con
templating, and enjoying Himfelf, do not im
ply perpetual Acting ; or that an infinitely
active Being can ever ceafe to Act. I fliall
not fcruple to affert, that by the fame abfolute
necefiity of Nature that the Father exifts, He
exifts as a Father ; .and Co- exifts with his Co^
ejfential Son proceeding from Him. If you fay*
this fuppofes the Son Self exift ent, or Vu-ori-
ginate ; I defire it may not be faid only, but
f roved. * In the Interim , I take leave to
fuppofe that Unbegotten, and Begotten ; Vri*
originate, and Troceedin.g, are different Ideas
that Being. Neceffary Agents are no Caufes, but always Inftru
ments only in the hand of fume Other Power. Reply, pag. 2271
Compare p. 113. v \ , i »
* Oun Sio aiiviijloi, avTt Svo fusvoyivtZ aXX' iii in x«.Tt,p ayivrflgc,
(ay.vvvrros yan iw 0 itaripa pv\ *%»») xai «5 «fl Vi, kiSioit, isv. 1taT^o\
jf-fympivoi;, Cyril, Catech, 10. p. 141. Ox. Again!

e>

i6~<5 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XI.
Again (/. zz\].) *He finds fault with the Au
thor of fome Confider at ions, for fuppofing that
the Son is fomething more than a meer Name,
and yet not a real difiinct Being : And upon
this lays down another Aphorifm ; that there
is no Medium between a Being, and not a
Being: which indeed is a very true one, if
Being, and Being, are taken in the fame Senfe ;
but not otherwife. For let me mention almoft
a parallel Cafe. Upon the Doctor's Hypothefis,
that God's Subftance is extended every where;
and that the fame is the Subftratum of Space ;
we may imagine two Subftrata, one pervading
the Sun, and the other the Moon, which are
both diftinct, and diftant. Will you pleafe to
tell us, whether thefe two are real diftinct Be
ings, or no? If They are, you may leave it
to others to prove them intelligent Beings, that
is, Ter Jons : And, perhaps, the very next con
fequence will make them two Gods, upon the
Doctor's own Principles : If they are not real
diftinct Beings •, then here is fomething admit
ted between a Being, and not a Being ; con
trary ro the Doctor's Maxim : unlefs He makes
them Nothing ; and fuppofes two Spaces, with
out any Subftratum at all ; two Extenfions,
without any thing extended.
But let us confider, whether fomething may
not be thought on, to help both the learned
*To avoid this Confequence, He is forced to fuppofe (p. itf.) that
the Son is fomething more than a mere Name , and yet not a real
diftindt Being; that is to fay, that He is fomething between a Being,
and not a Being. Cl. Reply, p. 228.
Doctor

QuTX. of fome QUERIES. 167
Doctor and Us out of thefe Difficulties. The
Truth of this Matter, fo far as I apprehend, is,
that Being may fignify, either, fimply, what
Exifts; or what exifts Separately. This Di
ftinction feems to be juft, and neceffary ; and
fuch asyou'l the more readily come into, having
occafion for ir, as well as we. I hope, none
are fo weak, as to deny the Tetfons to exift
in reality. The very School-Men Themfelves
never fcruple to call Them Tres Res, Tres
entes, or the like, in that Senfe ; tho', at the-
fame time, in the other Senfe of Being, They
are all but one Being, una fumma res, and una
res numero ; which comes much to the fame
with TertuUian's una (indivifa) Subftantia in
Tribus coharentihus ; (only fetting afide his par
ticular manner of Explication) and is the Senfe of
all Antiquity. Upon the Foot of this Diftinction,
you may readily apprehend thofe Words of
Gregory Nazianzen, fpoken of the three Per
fons. Zaks Kj Zow, <J>alVa. 99 <J)aj, kyctQa, xj kya.-
Qov, efb^as % W^tu --- &tov 'ix.at.qw, a.* 3ia>pviT<q /*ow>
t« voS ¦xfttfovlos rk k%agj<px, *. By the fame Di
ftinction , you may probably , underftand a
very noted Creed; which feems to have coft
the learned Dodtor fome Pains in explain
ing. To return to our Inftance of the Two
Subftrata. I fuppofe the Doctor, or your felf,
will be content to allow, that This is Subftance,
and That Subftance ; and yet not Subftances,
but one Subftance. In like manner alfo, This
* Orat. 13. p. 211. Parif. Ed. is

168 i DEFENSE Qu. IX.
is Being, and That Being ; and yet not Two
Beings, but one Being : This Eternal, and That
Eternal; and yet not Two Eternals, but One
Eternal. I might go on almoft the length of
an Athanafian Creed. This muft be your
manner of fpeaking, if you come to Parti
culars ; and that becaufe the Subftrata are fup
pofed to have no feparate Exiftence independent
on each other, but to be united by fome com-'
mon Ligaments, which perhaps you'l call per
fonal Attributes. And why then fhould you be
fevere upon Us, for ufing the like Language, and
upon better Reafons? We believe the Three
Perfons to have no feparate Exiftence indepen-
dent on each other ; we fuppofe Them more
united, in fome refpects, than the Subftrata are
fuppos'd in your Scheme ; becaufe equally pre
fent every where: We admit fome common
Ties or Bands of Union, which we call effen-
tial Attributes and Perfedtions. Either there
fore allow us Our way of fpeaking ; which we
think decent and proper ; fuitable ro the Idea
we have, and to the Circumftances of the Cafe;
founded in the very Nature and Reafbn of
Things: Or elfe, find out a better for your
Own ; that we may, at length, learn from you
how we ought to fpeak in this Matter.
You will fay, it may be, that the Inftance
I have chofen, is not exactly parallel in every
Circumftance. No ; God forbid it fliould. But
it agrees fo far as is fufficient for my pur
pofe. There is this manifeft difference, that you

Qu.IX. of fame QUERIES, i6>
you fuppofe the feveral Subfirata io many
parts of God ; tho' every one of Them in
finitely Wife, infinitely Good, infinitely Power
ful, infinitely every Thing, but extended. We,
more confiftently, fuppofe Three Perfons equal,
in all refpedts ; none of them fingly part of
God ; but every one perfect God.
A fecond Difference is, that you fuppofe all
the finite Parts, making one Infinite, to be one
Being, one God, and one Terfon ; by Conti^
nuity, I prefume, and a perfonal Union of the
Tarts. We fuppofe Three Perfons to be One
God, by their infepar ability and the ejfiential
Union of the Terfons : Which, I humbly con^
ceive, we are as able to explain, as you are to
explain the other ; and I hope, more able to
prove it.
A third Difference permit me to mention »
that you fuffer your Imaginations to wander,
where you can find no Footing ; we are corn*
tent to underftand only, and that imperfedtly,
without imagining at all.
In fine, you have philofophiz'd fo far, in
Thefe high and deep Matters, that you really
Want all the fame favourable Allowances, which
we are thought to do. Others may objedt feve
ral Things to us , which would bear equally
hard upon us Both. The fimplicity of the du
vine Nature, for Inftance, is one of the ftrongeft
and moft popular Objedtions : But the learned
Doctor has broke through it ; and has contrived
a Solution, a very good one, both for Himfelf
N and

i7o ^ DEFENSE Qu. IX.
and Us.* I have often thought no Hands fo pro
per to be employed againft the Doctrine of the
Bleffed Trinity, as Thofe which are good only at
pulling down, and not at building up. If once
you come to fettling .and determining Points of
a myfierious Nature ; there will be as fair a Plea
for This alfo : And I doubt not but the fame
Thread of Reafoning, which firft brought you
to queftion it, will, when carefully purfued,
and as foon as you perceive the like Difficul
ties almoft in every thing, bring you to m'ak«
lefs Scruple of it. But left others fhould ima
gine, from what hath been faid, that They
may have fome Advantage over us ; let me add
thefe few Confiderations farther.
i. That what hath been urged, is not pure*
ly arguing ad Hominem; but it is appealing to
what good Senfe and impartial Reafon dictates
equally to You, or Us; on fuch, or fuch Sup-
pofitions. 2. That if we come to reafon minutely on
any other Matter, alike incomprehenfible as
This of the Holy Trinity, we may foon lofe
our felves in inextricable Mazes.
3. That if They pleafe to take any other
Hypothefis of the Omniprefence , They may
meet with Difficulties there alfo, perhaps not
inferior to the former.
4. That if They chufe to reft in generals,
Without any Hypothefis at all, and without de-
icending to the Modus, and Minutia of it;
* Anfwer to the Sixth Letter, p. 39, 40.
This

Qu. IX. of fome QUERIES. 171
This is the very Thing which we defire, and
contend for, in regard to the Bleffed Trinity
(which ought certainly to be equally dealt with)
and then we may foon come to a good Agree
ment. By purfuing this Point, I had almoft neglect
ed the learned Dodtor's Third Aphorifm : That
nothing Individual can be communicated.
Here is as great a Fallacy and Ambiguity in
the word Individual, as before in the word
Being. I fhall make This plain to you. That
particular Subftance , which is fuppofed to
pervade, and to be commenfurate to the Sun,
is an individual Being, in fome Senfe ; unlefs
there be a Medium between a Being and not
a Being, which the learned Doctor admits not :
The whole Subftance likewife is one individual
Being, and Terfon too; upon the Dodtor's
Hypothefis: And we fay farther, that three
Perfons may be one individual Being; having,
we think, a very good meaning in ir. So here
are plainly three Senfes of the word Individual;
and till you can fix a certain principle of Indi
viduation, (a Thing much wanted, and by
which you might oblige the learned World) any
one of thefe Senfes appears as juft and reafon
able as another. Nov/, the Dodtor's Maxim,
rightly underftood, may be rrue, in all thefe
Senfes. For, in refpedt of the Firft, what is
peculiar and proper to one Parr, is not com
municated, or common to other Parts : In re
fpedt of the Second, what is proper to oneTer-
N % fin.

172. A DEFENSE Qu.IX.
fon, is not common to other Terfons : And fo,
in refpect of the Third, what is proper to one
Effence or Subftance, is not common to other
E fences or Subftances. All this is very true :
but to what purpofe is it, or whom does the
learned Doctor contradidt? This is only telling
us, that Jo far , or in fuch refpect, as any
thing is fuppofed individual or incommunica
ble, it is fuppofed individual or incommunica
ble ; which no Body doubts of. But whether
This, or That be communicable, or how far,
or in what manner (which is all the difficulty)
remains a Queftion as much as ever ; and the
Doctor's Maxim will not help us at all in it.
It may be the fafeft way, firft to try the ftrength
and the ufe of it upon the Doctor's own Hy
pothefis. Let it be aks'd, whether the Wif
dom, &c. refiding in that Part which pervades
the Sun (for it feems that it muft be intelli
gent, and infinitely io ; unlefs one infinite In
telligent be made up of cOnintelligents , or
finite Intelligents) I fay, let it be ask'd, whe
ther that be the very individual Wifdom which
refides in another Part, at any given Diftance.
I prefume, to this Queftion, you muft anfwer,
Tes : And then we are to obferve, that here is
but one individual infinite Wifdom, which is
intirely in the whole, and intirely in every
part ; proper, in fome Senfe, to each fingle
Part (fince it can have only fuch Attributes as
inhere in ir) and yet common to All ; 1)if-
fujed through extended Subftance, y*et notCo-

Qu.IX. of fome QUERIES. 173
Co-extended : Nor multiplied, becaufe but
One. If you admit thus far, as I think you
muft, we fhall have nothing to apprehend, in
point of Reafon (which neverthelefs is what
you chiefly truft to ) againft the Doctrine of
the Trinity. The Communication oi Ejfential
Attributes, which we fpeak of, is, at leaft, as
Intelligible as what I have been mentioning;
and every whit as confiftent with the Dodtor's
Maxim, that nothing which is Individual can
be Communicated. Only You have your Senfe
of Individual, and We have our's ; and You
can account no better for fo many, and infinite
ly diftant Parts making one Terfon, than We
for three Perfons making one Subftance, or one
God. Let us therefore be content to flop
where it becomes us ; and frankly confefs our
Ignorance of thefe Things. For, by pretend
ing farther, we fhall not difeover lefs Ignorance
than before, but much greater Vanity. I would
not have prefumed to difcourfe thus freely of
the tremendous Subftance of the eternal God
(infinitely furpaffing Human Comprehenfion )
were it not, in a manner, neceffary, in order to
expofe the Folly, and the Prefumption of doing
it. If the Doctrine of the Bleffed Trinity is
to ftand or fall by this kind of reafoning, it was
very proper to make fome Trial of it firft,
where it might be done more fafely, to fee how
it would anfwer. You, I prefume, cannot com
plain of me, for treating you in your own way;
and turning upon you your own Artillery. But
N 3 to

174 i DEFENSE Qu.X.
to proceed ; You are pofitive in it, that the Son
of God hath not the individual Attributes of
God the Father ; for then, fay you, He muft
be the Father. On the contrary, I affirm that
He hath fhe individual Attributes of God fhe
Father, as much as He has the individual Ef
fence : For, otherwife He muft be a Creature
only: And therefore the Queftion between you
and me, in plain Terms, is, whether the Son
be God, or a Creature. Query X.
Whether if They (the Attributes belonging to
the Son) be not individually the fame, they
can be any thing more than faint Refem-
blances of them , differing from them as
Finite from Infinite; and then in what
Senfe, Gr with what Truth, can the 'Doctor
pretend that * all divine Powers, except ab
folute Supremacy and Independency, are
communicated to the Son? And whether
every Being, befides the one fupreme Be
ing, muft not neceffarily be a Creature, and
finite ; and whether afl divine Powers can
be communicated to a Creature, infinite
Terfection to a finite Being.
Have put under One Query, what before
made Two, becaufe rhe Subftance of Them
is nearly the fame ; and coutains but one Argu
ment. I have two Things upon my Hands at
* Script, Dotlr. p. 258. Once $

-Qu. X. of fome QUERIES. 175-
opce ; firft to clear and fix your Senfe, which
is induftrioufly difguifed ; and next to confute
it. The prefent Query relates chiefly to the
former, to draw you out of general and ambi
guous Terms, that fo we may come up the
clofer, and fall directly to the point in Queftion.
You tell me, in anfwer to the former part,
that the divine Attributes of the Son are not
individually the fame with thofe of the Fa
ther. * By which you mean that they are not
'Divine : And fo here you have difcovered, thaE
the Doctor does not underftand Divine, as
others do in this Controverfy ; and as a candid
and ingenuous Reader might be apt to under
ftand Him. You add, that They (the Attri
butes of the Son) are, notwithftanding, more
than faint Refemblances ; the Son being the
Brightnefs of his Father's Glory, and the ex
prefs Image of his Terfon. I allow that this
Text does fet forth a great deal more than a
Jaint Refiemblance : But you have not fliown
that your Hypothefis fuppofes fo much ; and
therefore the quoting of this Text is only ar
guing againft your felf. The Inference we draw
from this Text, confonant to all Antiquity, is,
that the Refemblance between Father and Son
is compleat and perfect; and that therefore
They do not differ as Finite and Infinite, fince
that Suppofition would fet Them at an Infinite
diftance from any fuch perfect and Compleat
Refemblance. You obferve farther, that there
t Pag. 64,
N 4 can

%7$ i DEFENSE Qu.X.
can be but one Intelligent Being { the fame,
With you, as Terfon) abfolutely infinite in all
refpects, {p. 55.) which, tho' an Affertion of
great Importance, you are pleas'd barely to lay
down, without the leaft tittle of Proof, or fb
much as pretence to ir. Nay, you admit in
your * Notes, that there may be two Infinite
Beings, in the Senfe of immenfe ; that is, two
Beings omniprefent , or infinitely extended.
And why not as well Two Perfons infinitely
perfect in all other refpects, as well as pre
sence ? For to ufe your own way of arguing,
in that very Place : If finite Power, Wifdom,
Goodnefs, &c. do not exclude Infinite; it
is plain that infinite Power, Wifdom, Good
nefs, &c. of One, do not exclude the infinite
Power, Wifdom, Goodnefs, &c. oi Ano
ther. Befides that Two. Infinite in All re
fpects, are as eafily conceived, as Two, In
finite in Any : And therefore, here you feem,
by your too liberal Conceffions, to have un-
faid what you had faid before ; and to have un-
ravell'd your own Objection. You are aware
that an Adverfary may take advantage of what
you fay ; and endeavor, lamely, to prevenr it,
l?y telling us {p- 56.) that tho' it be poffible
* One Jnfinite, in the Senfe of immenfe, does npt (by taking up
nil Space) exclude { neceffarily ) an other Immenfe, any more than it
excludes any Finite. For if a finite Being doth not exclude (God)
front a finite Place, it is plain that an Infinite, that is, an immenfe
Being cannot exclude Him from Infinite, that is, from immenfe
Hace. Sa that perhaps it is no fuch abfolute iropoffibility, as feme
have thought it, to fuppofe ttyo diftinct immenfe Beings, Not. p. <j6. 0

Qi.X. of fome QUERIES. 177
to fuppofe two diftinct immenfe Beings, yet it
is impoffible there fliould be two immenfe Be
ings of the fame individual Nature ; for fb,
They muft coincide, and be but one Terfon.
But what if thofe who affert the fame indivi
dual Nature, in more Perfons than one, un
derftand the Words in a larger Senfe than you
here take Them in? It is very certain, they do
not underftand the Phrafe of the fame indivi
dual Nature, as You, who make it equiva
lent to the fame Terfon, underftand it : For,
they affert more Perfons than one to have
the fame individual Nature. In the mean
while, what a wonderful difeovery is this,
which you have laid fuch a ftrefs on; that
two Terfons cannot be one Terfon, with
out coinciding and making one Terfon. This
is all that you have really faid; and very
true it is; only I am at a lofs to find out
the pertinency of it. To conclude this Head :
As to Infinite in the Senfe of Extenfion,
(into Length, Breadth and Highth) you will
give me leave to fufpend my Judgment. I do
not find, either that it is afferted in Scripture,
or generally maintain'd by the Fathers ; but that
it is liable to many Difficulties, in point of
Reafon, more than I am, at prefent, able to
anfwer. See what a * late thoughtful Writer has
faid, a>,J what t Cudworth had before Collect-
* Im tr rial Inquiry into the Exiftence and Nature of God, by S. C,
Pare. 2 C. I, 2, 3.
•f- intellectual Syft. .p. 8iS. t° p- S}^.
ed

178 if DEFENSE Qn. X.
ed on that Subject. In my Humble Opinion,
filch intricate Queftions are too high for Us,
and are what our Faculties were not made for.
However that be, You and I need not differ.
For, if You can admit the poflibility of Two
infinite extended Beings, You can have no
thing confiderable to object againft the om In
finity oi Three infinite Perfons, which I afferr,
and without determining the modus of it. -
' You proceed to obferve, that the Son's Office
ttndCharacter doth not require infinite Towers:
To which I fhall only fay, that it may, for any
thing you know; fo that this is only gu'effing
in the Dark. Laft of all, you come to interpret
Dr. Clarke; fuppofing Him to mean by 'Di
vine Towers, * all divine Powers relating to
the Son's Character. If He meant fo , He
might eafily have faid fo : And yet if He had,
He had ftill left us in uncertainties as much as
ever; to mufe upon a Diftinction, which He
has no ground for; and whieh, when admitted,
will make no Man wifer. You hope, the.
§hierift is fb good a Thilofopher as to per
ceive , {tho' He doth not confider it) that
abfblwte infinite Terfections include and in
fer Supremacy and Independency. And there
fore , when Dr. Clarke excepted Supremacy
and Independency , He plainly , in Reafon
and Confequence, excepted abfolute infinite
Towers.
* Script. Doilr. p. 198. t
No\^

Qu.X of fome QUERIES. 179
Now, I am perfwaded, that Dr. Clarke would
have thought it hard meafure to have been
charged, by his Adverfaries, with this fo plain
Confequence , which you here fo freely lay
upon Him. The ^uerift was aware that the
Dodtor's words might bear an orthodox Senfe ;
namely, that to the Son are communicated all
things belonging to .the Father, excepting only
what is Ter final; that is, excepting that He is
not the firft in Order; not Supreme, in that
Senfe, nor 1)n- originate. The Doctor well
knew that His words might bear this Conftru
ction ; and perhaps would not have took it well
of any, but a Friend, that fliould have tied
down a loofe and general Expreflion to a ftridt
particular Meaning; and then have loaded it
with Confequences too fhocking to be admitted
in plain and exprefs Terms. But to proceed :
You feem to be much offended at the Querift,
for asking, Whether all divine Towers can
be communicated to a Creature, infinite Ter-
fection to a finite Being? This, you fay, is an
evident Contradiction , which ought not to
have been put by one Scholar upon Another.
But, after this Rebuke, will you pleafe to
hearken to the reafon of the Cafe. The dif
ficulty, you know, with the Querift, was,
how to come at the Dodtor's real Senfe, couch'd
under general and ambiguous Expreffions ; that
fo the Controverfy might be brought to a Point;
and it might be feen plainly what was the true
State of the Queftion : Which, as appears now, is

x8o ^ DEFENSE Qu.X.
is only this : whether God the Son be a Crea
ture or no. The Doctor talk'd of the Son's
having divine Powers, and all divine Powers.
It was very proper to ask you, whether He
hereby meant infinite Powers or no ; and
withal to fhow, if you fhould not anfwer di
rectly, that He could not mean it, confid
ently with the Arian Hypothefis, which He
feem'd, in other parts of his Performance, to
efpoufe. You will not yet fay directly, that
the Son's Perfections are finite, nor deny them
to be infinite : So hard a thing it is to draw
you out of your ambiguous Terms ; or to make
you fpeak plainly what you mean. All you
are pleas'd to fay, is, that the Powers or Per
fections of the Son are not abfolutely infinite :
As if Infinity were of two Sorts, abfolute and
limited; or might be rightly divided into In
finity, and not Infinity. Inftead of this, I
could wifh, tbat words may be ufed in their
true and proper meaning. If you do not think
the Perfections of the Son are infinite, and yet
axe unwilling to limit them ; let them be called
indefinite, which is the proper word ro exprefs
your meaning ; and. then every Reader may be
able to underftand us, and may fee where we
<difler. We are now Both agreed, that the
Hoctor, by divine Powers, did not mean in
finite Powers. Now let us proceed to the next
Query. Que&*

Qu.XI.

of fome QUERIES. 181

Query. XL
Whether if the Doctor means by divine Towers,
Towers given by God { in the fame Senfe
as Angelical Towers are divine Towers)
only in a higher degree than are given to
other Beings ; it be not equivocating, and
faying nothing : nothing that can come up
to the Senfe of thofe Texts before cited, * or
to thefe following!

Applied to the one God.
Thou , even Thou ,
art Lord alone ; Thou
haft made Heaven, the
Heaven of Heavens
with all their Hoft,
the Earth and all
Things that are there
in, &c. Neh. 9. 6.
In the Beginning,
God created the Hea
vens and the Earth,
Gen. 1. 1.

To God the Son.
All Things were
made by Him, Joh. 1. 3.
By Him were all
Things created ; He is
before all Things, and
by Him all Things con
fift, Coloff 1.16,17.
Thou, Lord, in the
Beginning , haft laid
the Foundation of the
Earth ; and the Hea
vens are the work of
thy Hands, Heb. 1. 10.

IF the Doctor means, by divine Powers, no
more than is intimated in this Query, I muft
blame Him firft for equivocating and playing
with an ambiguous Word ; and next for reftrain-
ing and limiting the Powers of the Son of God;
* Qu.6. p. 89. fi°c

i8i ^DEFENSE. Qu.XL
not only without, but againft Scripture ; and
confequently for giving as, not the Scripture
'Doctrine of the Trinity, but his own. That
there is no ground, from the Texts themfelves,
for any fuch Limitation as is now fuppofed, is
tacitely implied in the Doctor's own Confeffion ;
that the Son is excluded from nothing but ab
folute Supremacy and Independency : So natu
rally does Truth fometimes prevail, by its own
native Clearnefs and Evidence, againfi the
ftrongeft and moft Jettled Trejudices. Indeed,
the thing is very clear from the Texts them
felves cited above ; efpecially when ftrengthened
With Thofe now produced under this Query.
That the Son was, and is endowed with creative
Towers, is plain from thefe Texts, and others
which might be added; and is confirmed by
the unanimous Suffrage of Carholick Antiquity.
And that the Title oi Creator is the diftinguifh-
ing Character of the one Supreme God, is fo
clear from * Scripture, that He who runs may
read it. Now let us confider what you have
to except, in order to elude the force of this
Argumenr. The Son of God, you fay, is manifeftly the
Father's Agent in the Creation of the 'Vni-
verfe ¦, referring to Ephefi.o. and toHeb.i.z.
from whence you infer, that He is fubordinate
in Nature and Towers to Him. This you
have {p. 58.) and in your Notes (/. 55.) you
* Nehem. 9. 6. Ifa. 40. 12, 13.— i8, 19, 20, 21, eV*. Ifa.
42. y. 8. Ifa, 43. 1,10. Jer. 10. 10, 1 1, 12. infift

Qu XI. of fome QUERIES. 183
infift much upon the Diftindtion between <&' au-
t«, and W *ut5, explaining the former of an
inftrumental , and the latter of an efficient
Caufe ; of which more in due time and place.
As to the Son's being Agent with, or Affiftant
to the Father, in the work of Creation, we
readily admit it ; and even contend for it. The
Father is primarily, and the Son fecondarily,
or immediately, Author of the World ; which
is fo far from proving that He is inferior, in
Nature or Towers, to the Father; that it is
rather a convincing Argument that He is equal
in Both. A Subordination of Order, but none
of Nature, is thereby intimated. * Eufebius,
whom you quote {p-55-) ont oi Dr. Clarke, and
t miftranflate to ferve your purpofe, does not
deny the proper Efficiency of the Son in the
Work of Creation. All He afferts is, that the
Creation is primarily and eminently attributed
to the Father, becaufe of his Aujtvna., his Tre-
rogative, Authority, Supremacy, as Father, or
firft Perfon ; not denying the Son's proper Effi
ciency, but only (if I may fo call it) % original
* See Eufeb. Contr. Marcel 1. I. c. 20. p. 84<
-j- The learned DoBor, and, after Him, Tou conftrue vzy' avToti, and
oY auToS, by efficient, and miniftring Caufe. As if a miniftring
Caufe might not be efficient , or mu(l neceffarily be oppofed to
it. ± This is excellently illuflrated by the elder Cyril. TiaTP 05 fixAyS-itnu;
to itay-m xa\aoTt.tvao%, Tii s wwTfog viupau 0 1/05 Ta Ttavra ton^'.isp-
y>l<nv "ya to /jotv viiiha Tygyi tu -miT^i tLu au^ivitx^v Ifysaiav, yj/jf Z
'ifoc, H naAiv 'lx,n ihsaiav T lUm hsfAjuspy^yja-mv xai pin zraTtif
intaXAoTejoiS-q -f ohamrtiaf •mvlilav fyfA.wpytj/AtU'mv, pin 0 'ifos T U3r'
kAAk o\i^nspyvjjjjeiTUV (iaeiAtvv,, kVM T \jm «»r». Catech. 1 1, p. 146.
Ed. Oxon. Effici-

*84 i DEFENSE Qu.XI.
Efficiency; that is, making Him the fecond
and not the firft Perfon ; not Father but Son.
Indeed, the * general Opinion of the Antients
center'd in this; that the Father, as Supreme,
iffued out Orders for the Creation of the Uni
verfe, and the Son executed them. And this
was afferted, not only by the Ante-Nicene
Writers, but \ Toft-Nicene too ; and fuch as
ftrenuoufly defended the Catholick Faith againft
the Arians. I have before obferved that the
Antients had a very good meaning and intent
in affigning (as it were) to the Three Perfons,
their feveral Parts or Provinces in the Work of
Creation : And let no Man be offended, if, in
this way of confidering ir, the Son be fome
times faid vim^i-niv, or Wupyuv-, or the like.
This need not be thought any greater difparage-
ment to the Dignity of the Son, than it is, on
the other hand, a difparagement to the Dignity
of the Father to be reprefented as having the
Counfel and Affiftance of two other Perfons;
or as leaving every Thing ro be wifely or-
der'd, regulated, and perfected by the Son and
Holy Spirit. Thefe Things are not to be ftrict
ly and rigoroufly interprered according to the
Letter ; but olKOy-opincas, and SiO'Trgiiras. The de
fign of all was: i. To keep up a more lively
Senfe of a real Diftindtion of Perfons. z. To
teach us the indivifible Unity and Co -effentiality
* Sec Irenocus, p. 85, Tertullian, Contr. Prax. c. 12. Hippolyt.
Contr. Noet. c. 14.
f See Petavius de Trin. 1. a. c. 7. Bull. D F. p. 80. 1 1 1 .
Of

Qu. XI. of fome QU E R I E S. 1 8?
of all Three, as of one * Creator. 3 . To fignify
wherein that Unity confifts, or into what it
ultimately refblves, viz. into Vnity oi Trin-
ciple, one 'ap^ji, Head, Root, Fountain of aJf
As to the Diftinction between h -.</rv* and l-ri
<*t/ry, per quern and ex quo, or the like ; ir cari
be of very little fervice to your Caufe. The
prepofition 3/#> with a genitive after it, is
frequently ufed, as well in Scripture as in Ec
clefiaftical Writers, to exprefs the efficient Caufe,
as much as \jaro, or g*> or <3>eJs, or any other.
So that the Argument drawn from the ufe of
the Prepofitions is very poof and trifling, as was
iong fince obferved by t Bafil the Great, who
very handfomly expofes it's Author and In
ventor, Aet ius, for it. Pleafe but to account
clearly for one Text, out of many, {Rom.
11. 36.) Of Him, and through Him (JV airy)
and to Him are all Things ; to whom be Glory
for ever If you underftand this of the Fa
ther; then, by your Argument from the Phrafe,
h' a.vTu, you make Him alfo no more thart an
inftrumental Caufe: If you underftand it of
more Perfons, Here's an illuftfious Proof of a
Trinity in Unity. If it be pretended, which
is the $ Doctor's laft refort, that although the"
ufe of thofe Prepofitions fingly be not fufficient,
yet when they are ufed in exprefs Contrd-
* So Origen, who makes the Father o\pmfyo<;, and ihe Son o\pigp.
y«s, Contr. Celf. p. 3 1 7," yet, in the very fame Treatife, denies that
the World could have more Creators thati one. Mti dbvaplvoo vim wbA-
a5v foip:ovpya> ypftvivai, p. 1 8. \ De Spir. San6t. p. 14^= C^-
:fr See Script. Dodtr. p. 90.
O diftin-

iU if DEFENSE Qu.XI.
diftinction to each other, they' are of more
Significancy ; I anfwer firft, that I defire to
know of what Significancy they are in Rom.
11.36. where they feem to be ufed in exprefs
Contr a- diftinction to each other ; and fecondly,
admitting that they are of Significancy, they
may fignify only a real Diftindtion of Perfons,
as St. * Bafil well obferves ; or fome priority oi
order proper to the firft Terfon : This is all
the ufe which any Catholick Writer ever pre
tended to make of the Diftinction. However,
to countenance the Diftinction between the Fa*
ther as the efficient, and the Son as the inftru
mental Caufe, you are pleafed to fay farther
{p. 56.) 'tis remarkable that {according to the
Senfe of the foregoing Diftinction ) though
Chrift is frequently filed by the Antients
Te^iiTTis and A^ispyos, yet noijjrk t oKw is
( to the beft of my Remembrance) always con
fined by Them to the Father only f.
Had your Remark been true and juft, yet it
would not be eafy to fhow that te^jW, or
however hp^spyi?, may not fignify as much as
«77dij]tm?. But your Memory has much deceived
you, in thisMatter; and you fliould be cautious
* De Spir. Sanft. p. 148.
f See Origen Contr. Celf. p. 3 17. where the Son is faid mi«n| r
>&e-f4Sv> and the Father to be <rrt.a>Tuc,that is, primarily, or eminently;
b\piovpyoc.. If 5TBUjTiis fignified more than hpiovpyat;, Origen fpoke
¦very unaccurately.
Cyril of Alexandria fuppofes God the Father to have been in reality
mxv'mt; from everlafting ; <Sijju,iowpyo? in Power and Intention only.
Thefaur. aft*. 4. p. 34. let Athanafius makes •mir,^ to fignify mere
than 7txvnn(. Orat. Contr. Arian. 2. p. 489. Authors do not always
sbftrve a critical Exaclnefs in the ufe of Words.
how

Qu.XI. of fome QUERIES. 187
how you make your Readers rely upon it;
Thofe Words (efpecially the Two laft of them)
feem to have been ufed by the Antients pro-
mifcuoufly; and to have been applied indif
ferently to Father or Son, as They had occafion
to mention either. If They are oft'ner applied
to the Father, it is only becaufe He is the firft
Terfon ; and is therefore primarily and emi
nently, nx/nm, hpuupyls, or ¦otijjtjis ; not that
the Son is not ftrictly, properly, and compleatly
Creator alfo, according to the fulleft fenfe and
import of any, or of all thofe Words. They
were intended to fignify that the Son is the im
mediate and efficient Caufe of all Things ; had
* creative Powers; and was, with the Father,
Creator of Men, of Angels, of the whole Uni
verfe. A late f Writer is pleafed to exprefs
Himfelf, upon this Head, in fuch a manner as
may deceive ignorant and unwary Readers.-
" I know not {fays He) that either Arians ^
" or any primitive Chriftian Writers, ever ad-
" ventured to give the Character oi great Ar-
«« chitect oftheVniverfe to Jefus Chrift; chu-
" fing rather, with the facred Writings, to fay,
" in fofter Language, that through Him God
" created All, and referving the abfolute Title
" of Creator of the Univerfe to Another.
If He knows not thefe Things, He might
forbear to fpeak of them. What He fays, even
* The Arians themfelves would fay, fua virtutc fecit, meaning it of
the Son. See the Citation above, p. 94.
fMr. Emlyn. Exam, of Dr. Bennet, p. 12. firft Edit.
O a of

188 ^ DEFENCE Qu, XI.
of the Sacred Writings, is Mi fiepre fent ation ;
For, They do not conftantly follow thar foft
Language, which He fo much approves of. They
do it not, in Joh. i 3, io. Coloff 1. 16. Hebr.
1. 10. Neither can that Conftruction be after*
tain'd, in any one of thefe Texts, from any ne
ceffary force of the Prepofition 2^g>. As to An
tiquity, which this Gentleman pretends to, He
may knew, hereafter, that the Character of
a great Architect of the Univerfe, is exprefly
given to Jefus Chrift, by Eufebius; who was
never fufpedted of carry ing Orthodoxy too high.
A Man muft be a very ftranger to the Antients,
who can make any Queftion whether They at
tributed the Work of Creation ro the Son, as
much as to the Father. They afcribed it equally
to Both ; only with this difference, as before
obferved, that, for the greater Majefty and
Dignity of rhe Father as the firft Terfon,
They fuppofed Him to b iffue out Orders, or
to give his Fiat, for the Creation, and the Son
to Execute. From hence we may eafily under
ftand in what Senfe rhe Title of Creator was
c primarily, or eminently attributed to the Fa
ther ; and yet, as to any real Tower or Effici
ency, the Son is as truly and properly Creator ;
a 'O piya$ rav 'o'aovv o\pioopyot, Aoy®-. Eufeb. E. H. 1. IO. c. 4.
pag. 316.
b Too piv traTgtfc suhxovv-nic. >£ xiAiooyl®*, s -j '^oi, it^ctasoy\®- <£
Wpiovp-puvroc., § ^ 7TVtUf4l£[oq. Tt'ifyov[oc. j£ a'v\ov[®". lien. p. 28$.
Ed. Bened.
n«7-iip r&iMtt*, V« imAatv, miopa tyav<gaaiv. Hippol. Contr.
Noet. p. 1(5.
<r VJgciTui hipiovpyov, Orig. Contr. Celf. p. 317.
dnd

Qu.XI. of fome QUERIES. 189
and is frequently fo ftiled, by the primitive
Writers, in rhe * fulleft and ftrongeft Terms.
You may fee fome Teftimonies, in the Margin,
from Athenagoras, Tatian, Irenaus, Clement
of Alexandria, and Origen. It would be eafy
to add more, from Hippolytus, Gregory of
Neocafarea, Novatian, and indeed from the
generality of the Church Writers down from
Barnabas to the Council of Nice. I muft ob
ferve to you, that even your admired \ Eufe
bius (whom you before quoted in your favour,
miftaking Him very widely) He applies rhe
Title of ttomjtjis r '6\a», (the higheft which you
think the Father Himfelf can have) to the Son,
* V.pot, auToo *f> £ ol' auTou Ttay-ra lyivtTO, ivos ovt^1 tou imi^os
r^ tou 'ijou. Athenag. p. 38. Ed. Oxon. Obferve jtjos airoi, as well
as $1 aCrou.
Autos iauTul Ty,, uaIui S'tiptapyioTtc. 'AfyiAuv eiipiovpyoc. Tatian.
p. 22. 26. Edit. Ox.
Tou-rov povoytyyi, Tounv fmvTav miriTiv. Iren. pag. 44. Ed. Bcr.cdi
Tovtov yjrp'd TroirtTw tl$ Ta to'ia iAijAv&oTa, Ibid. Toy Tr Ttav-
tuv xti^nv, xai oijpiovpyov, <£- mnijTviv, Aowv tS 0£a, p. 79 Tav dsrav*
mv nx,viTti', Xopc, p. 190. Fabricator Omnium, p. 2 19. Fabricator
Univerforum, p. 307. Mundi Factor, p. 3 if.
'if, ia TtdvTa ho\pi*oyriTa). Clem. Alexandr. p. 7. Edit. Oxon.
Zvn.jya/Tuv Oily iva pyvov ¦ o\pwopyov \o\ ev jg-XTfi, p. I42.
Xla/Ta 0 \iy®» tsoiu . . tu. oAa o\piovpyti tou ngvpis £ rj
'Av$-pei7rx o\ptovpyoi, p. 3 1 0. "H T oAm 'Apx,n, p 6d<>. 'O Ao'y©<
eUpioupjias amos, p. <5j"4 TldvTUV e\piovpyou, p. 768.
Toy Aoyov 7rt7niitjKivat. ittLvTa, ocx o TtaTrip aum cvtrstAaTf. OrlgCIfe
Contr. Celf- p. 63. Comp. Athanaf.de Decret. S.N. p. 216.
Ajpioupyov tuv Tmvmv, xxi&t', irQirtrvp, Tm Tmviwv. Origen- apud
Hiier. Origenian- p. 38.
N. B. This laft Citation, from a Catena, is of lefs Authority; tut
the Citations frtm his other certainly genuine Works, art, in Senfe,
equivalent. f Eufeb. in Pfalm. p. i2f. 764. 630. in the firft of tht thret
Places, the Words are remarkaby full and ftrong. 'O Jty&wtipyoj Ae'jjs.
$ mitnTu V saw. Tht other Two are equivalent in Stnfe. liourrHi T?
*a«', and it otmjtw »»>£>} where tAtv is mitrftood.
O j nes

io® ^ DEFENSE QuXI.
no lefs than thrice ; as Irenaus had done, thrice
alfo, before, in Words equivalent; and Origen,
probably, once; as alio * Hippolytus : not to
mention tbat All the Fathers by interpret
ing, Gen. i. z6. { ieoiy\m>ftii a^ga-jroys &c.) oi
Father and Son jointly, have implicitely and
confequcntially , tho' not exprefly, laid the
fame thing. To proceed :
You have an Argument to prove that Creat
ing does not imply infinite Power. For, you
fay, was the extent of thofe Towers, then ex-
ercis'd, infinite, 'tis evident, the World muft
be infinite alfo, (p. f 8 ) This, indeed, is do
ing the Bufinefs at once : For, if this reafoning
be juft, the Father Himfelf, as well as the Son,
is effectually excluded from ever giving any
fenfible Proof, or from exerting any Act, of
infinite Power. St. Taul's Argument from the
Creation, for the eternal Tower and Godhead of
the Creator, is rendred inconclufive : For it will
fee eafy to reply, in Contradiction to the Apo-
flle's reafoning, that the Things which are made
are finite; and therefore cannot prove the
maker of Them to be infinite : So that Atheifts
and Unbelievers were not fo intirely without
excufe, as the good Apoftle imagine!. If you
think there is fome difference between infinite
Tower, and eternal Tower and Godhead ; and
therefore that the Apoftle's Argument is not
# Contr. Beron, & Hel. p. 226. Comp. Contr. Noet. p. 16.
The genuine ft of the fir (I is fomtwhat doubtful ; but the laft is not
flu eft ion' d. per-

Qu.XI. of fome QUERIES. 191
pertinent to the point in Hand ; I fliall be con
tent if Creating be allowed a fufficient Proof1
of rhe Son's eternal Tower and Godhead;
{met it brings me directly to the Point I aim
at : Befides, that infinite Tower will come in
of Courfe afterwards, by neceffary Inference and
Implication. I had almoft forgot to take notice
of your way of wording your Argument, which
looks not very fair. You fay, was the extent
of thofe Towers infinite ; as if any one faid it
was, in the Senfe wherein you underftand the
word extent. For Reafons beft known to your
felf, you do not diftinguifli between extent of
Power ad intra, in refpect of Degree ; and
extent of Power ad extra, in refpect of the
exercife of it. It may require an infinite De
gree of Power, to create a grain of Sand ; tho'
the extent of that outward Adt reaches no far
ther than the thing created. Now, you know,
our difpute is only about infinite extent oi
Power in the firft Senfe Let us therefore put
the Argument into plain Words, and fee how
it will bear.
" Was the Power exercis'd in the Creation
" infinite in Degree, or exceeding any finite
" Power, then it is evident that the World
" muft be infinite. Make this out, with any
tolerable Senfe or Connexion, and you'l do
fomething. Next let us put the Argument in
the other Light.
" If the Power exercis'd in the Creation ex-
,( tended to an infinite Compafs, or to an in-
O 4 " finite

i9z ^ DEFENSE Qu.XI.
^ finite Number of Things, then it is evident
4f that the World muft be infinite. Right :
If the Creation had been infinite in extent,
the Creation muft have been infinite in ex
tent. But who is it that you are difpuring
againft ? Or whom do you oblige by theie Dii-
coveries? The Queftion is, wherher the Creat
ing, that is, producing out of Nothing, any one
fingle Thing, however fmall in extent, be not
an Act proper to God only ; exceeding any
finite Power; incommunicable to any Creature.
It is fufficient for Tou, ro put %)s upon the proof
of 'the Affirmative : No confidering Man would
ever attempt to prove the Negative. As to the
Affirmative, there are many very probable pre-
futiiptive Proofs, fuch as ought to have great
Weight with Us: particularly, Creation every
where in Scripture Iook'd on as a divine Adt ;
Not fb much as a Grain of Sand, or a Particle of
Matter, faid to be created by an Angel, or Arch
angel, or any Creature whatever; Reafonable to
fuppofe that nothing can come into Being by
?hy Power lets than His, who is the Author
and Fountain of all Being. To this agrees the
general Senfe of the more fober and thinking
Part of Mankind. This was the Doctrine of the
t Ante-Nicene Catholick Writers, fo far as ap-
f Hoc Deus ab Homine difrert, quoniam Deus quidem fjcit, Ho-
lmo autem fit: & quidem Qui tacit, lemper Idem eft. Iren. p. 240.
Xd. Bened.
" Nihil enim in tohim Diaholus invenitur fecifie, videlicet cum 8c
ipfe Creatura fit Dei.quemadmodum & reliqui Angeli. Iren. p. 218,,
'• See alfi Bull. D. F. Epilog, p.ijn, 292. l pears 5

Qu-XI. of fome QUERIES. 19 J
pears, as well as of Thofe that came after.
Wherefore the Arians, in aferibing Creation to
a Creature, * innovated in the Faith of Chrift,
copied after the Gnofticks, and expofed their
Caufe. Since They refblved to make aCreature
only, of the Son of God, they fliould not have
allowed Him any Power of Creating; but
fhould have interpreted all thofe Texts which
fpeak in favour of ir, as the Socinians have done
fince, of a metaphorical Creation. That in
deed had been novel, and ftrain'd enough ; but
accompanied with left abfurdity than the other.
However, This ufe we may make of what the
Arians fo generally granted ; Firft, to obferve,
that Scripture and Tradition muft have appeared
to run very ftrong, at that time, for it ; And it
may farther fhow, how eafy and natural that
Notion muft be allowed to be, which fo many
could not forbear expreffing clearly and di-
ftinctly ; even frequently when, at the fame
time, they were about to affirm, and en
deavoring to prove fomething not very con
fiftent with it. But we fhall have more of this
Matter in the following Queries.
* Ouh jap s/k 'Ayj<A«» olipigeyiu otivitrotTai, x-no-ps.ro,, ov-ni xal
livTol, x£v OvaXivm^-, r^ MupxHuv, vfu B««Ae«fljs rcutuTa fyovtwi, ti,
)>£& ixtivaf tyiXtarai rvy^ivtiTt. Athan. Orat. i. p. ^8j.

Que ft?

i?4 /DEFENSE Qu.XII.
Query XII.
Whether the Creator of all Things was not
Himfelf uncreated; and therefore could
not be e£ c«c ovtw> made out of nothing.
THIS and the four following Queries, are,
you fay, all, at moft, but Arguments,
ad Ignoranriam, or Verecundiam, (p. 5"9-) to
put us upon determining Things, on either fide,
not clearly revealed. To fay the Truth, you
feem here to be very much perplex'd ; and
therefore have reafon to complain : And I am
not to expect any very clear and diftinct An-
fwers. You admit {p. 60.) that the Creator
of all Things muft be Himfelf uncreated. Well
then: The Son is Creator of, all Things; There
fore He is uncreated. The premifes are Both
your own ; The Conclufion mine : And, one
might think, it fhould be your's too. But you
are, it feems, very loth to come into it ; and
difeover a ftrong Inclination to elude and evade
it ; if it were any way poffible for you to do
it. Let us fee what you can fay; If the
Scripture- Senfe be the true and only proper
Senfe of the word. Creature , ( to wit , the
vifible and invifible Worlds brought into be
ing by the Tower of the Aoy@-, or Son of
God, in Subordination to the Will and Tower
of the Father) then 'tis manifeft that the
Aoy©*, who thus created Them, muft {what
ever is the nature of his own Traduction or
Gene-*

Qu.XII. of fome QUERIES. 19 f
Generation) be, in this way of fpeaking, uncre
ated. This is fomething myfterious. It is how
ever very plain that you are ftraining hard for
fome odd, peculiar Senfe of the word, Creature
or Created ; which is to be called the Scripture-
Senfe; and if this does not relieve you, all is loft.
You give us the Scripture-Doctrine of
the Creation; expreffing both the Creation
it felf, and the Terfon by whom it was
wrought : and that whole Doctrine, tho' fet
forth in many Words, you call the Scripture-
Senfe of that One Word, Creature, or Created.
As if I fliould fay; the Scripture- Account of the
Ark is, that it was made by Noah; therefore
the Scripture- Senfe of the word, Ark, implies
the making of it by Noah. Or, the Scripture-
Account of the Temple is, that it was built by
Solomon ; therefore the ScripturerSenfe of the
word , Temple , fuppofes it to be fomething
made by Solomon : And if there were ever fb
many Temples befides rhat one, yet They could
not properly be call'd Temples, unlefs built by
Solomon. This is juft as good as your pretence,
that creating does not fignify fimply, creat
ing ; but creating by the Aoy®*. Give me leave
to ask whether the Jewst who kept their
Sabbath in Memory of the Creation, and un
doubtedly took their notion of it from Scri
pture, underftood the word conftantly in your
Senfe, as created by the Aoy@»? Ifthey did;
That is a point I may make fome ufe of ano
ther Tirne : If They did not ; then the Scri
pture- Senfe

ij« /DEFENSE Qu.XII.
Pfture-Senfe of the word, Creature, before the
coming of the Meffiah, was fomething different
from what you have given us. I fliall only add,
that your prerended Senfe of the word Crea
ture, or Created, does nor feem to have pre
vailed fo early as St. John's Time. He tells
ttS* all Things were made by Him, that is, by
the Aoy®- ; and without Him, was not any
Thing made that was made. Might He not
better have laid , in fhort , all Things were
created, neither was there any thing but what
was created; It was perfectly needlefs, if your
pretence be true, toinfert, by Him; becaufe, in
ths. Scrip ture -Senfe of the Word, it was implied,
and the Addition of it only renders it Tautology.
You go on to fay, it is, I think, for this
reafon, that the Scriptures never fay that
He i>s created. Ingenuoufly confefsM; a/id
therefore 1 hope you will not prefume, either
to fay, or to believe, that He is created. As
so the reafbn you affign for it , it is meer
Fancy and Fiction: I hope, cut of pure Re
verence to the facred Writ, you will bethink
your felf of fome better. You add, on the other
Hand, that the Scriptures never fay that He
is uncreated; forgetting what you had acknow
ledged, in the fame Page, viz. That the Creator
of all Things muft be Himfelf uncreated, is
an unavoidable confequence in Reafon : And
that the Ao>oj had created all Things you
admit,, immediately after, as delivered m Scri
pture. Wherefore, if Scriptuie* by mavoid- able

Qu XII. of fome QUERIES. 137
able Confequence, does fay, that He is inn-
created; 1 hope. Scripture does fay it. Th$
Scriptures, every where, carefully keep up the
Diftinction between Creator and Creature 1
and never confound Both in one. They tell
us not of any Creature of rhe Father's, which
is not a Creature of the Son's alfo. They fay,
that all Things were made by Him ; and to be
more expreffive and emphatical, without Him
was not any Thing made that was made.
How can this be if He Himfelf was made?
Si ipfe Factus eft, non per Ilium funt omnia
facta, fed caetera; faith St. Auftin.
As to the Senfe oi the Ante-Nicene Writers,
in this particular, it is well known that they do
implicitely and confequentiatly, almoft every
where, declare rhe Son to be uncreated. You
may fee fome * Teftimonies referred to -in the
Margin, where they do it alfo directly, and in
exprefs Words. I fcruple not to put Origen
amongft Them : His Orthodoxy has been ef
fectually defended by the Incomparable Bifhop
Bull, in the Opinion of the ableft and moft
impartial Judges. The learned Dodtor, notwith-
ftanding, has been pleafed to revive rhe Difpute
about Origen's Sentiments: with what Succefs,
fhall be here examin'd, as briefly as may be. The
* Athenagoras, Legar. p 39. £d. Ox. Ignat. ad Ephef. c. 7.
p. 14 Ed. Ox. Irenaeus. 1. ». c. 2r- p. if3- Ed. Bened. Origen,
Contr. Celf. 1. 6. p. 287. Dionyf. Rom. apud Athanaf. de Decrer.
Syn. N. p. 232. Dioriyfius Alexandr. apud Eund. 230. 2^3. 25-7.
Theognoftus  apud Eund. 230. Methodius apud Phot. p. 959,
Hippolytus {probably) de Theol. & Incarn. p. 2*8.
Words

198 /DEFENSE Qu.XII.
Words of Origen, which a He lays hold on, are
thefe. b npia-QuTo-Tov "7rdvmv <r%f S^fMdpyyjfx.a.Tav,
applied to the Son. Bifliop Bull, like a skilful
and a candid Man, who did not care to fet one
ambiguous Sentence againft many plain ones ;
nor to make an Author manifeftly inconfiftent,
Without as manifeft a neceffity; rendred the
Words, very rightly, Antienter than all Crea
tures. The Doctor Himfelf is forc'd to L admit,
that the Words might bear this Conftruction :
And yet d afterwards fays, that Origen exprefly
reckoned the Son among the JWspy >*/"*&•• But
how exprefly ? This can never be proved meer-
ly from the Force of ¦ffpea-Su&Tw, as a Super
lative : unlefs e Eufebius exprefly reckon'd the
Son among Times and Ages; or ' Juftin Mar
tyr exprefly reckon'd the Tentateuch among
profane Hiftories: or the fame ° Juftin ex
prefly reckon'd Mofes and the Trophet s among
the Wife-Men of Greece: which is ridicu
lous. The Superlative , we fee , hath been
ufed fometimes Comparatively; and why not
by Origen ? He may only appear to fay, what
a Script. Doflr. p. 184. 178. 282. alias 164. 245-. 249.
b Ong. Contr. Cef. 1. 5. p. 2^7.
c Script. Doflr. p. 184- alias 164. d Script. Doftr. p. 2S2.
alias 249.
e Tia\io% %givis x} itavTuv aiavm Tr^ta-ZuiaToc,. De Laud. Conftant.
C. I. p. fol. Valef. i. xai avTav oudvay £SJ Ti^yiric, xai %govx -7mv-
toq ro -z-gto-GuTaTov. Cyril. Alex dial. 2. de Trin. p. 446.
f 'ApzatoTctTati -rmo-av -mt 'i^afa l^v^iav tv\v lAuva-iuo. 'l^nsjlcui.
Paisn. c- 1 2. p. 76. Ed. Ox.
g HfstrouiuTOi Muva-Ki xai ot Aoioti nv&tpiiTtq ytyovaat ¦jra.rmv t
map' hpXv tntym. Paraen. c. 35-. p. 11S. Mwrijs -jmnm ptv'EAAivw
vnvZiTaToc., Eufeb. Prsp. Evang. 1. 14. c. 3*
He

Qu-XH. of fome QUERIES. 199
He really does not. There is certainly a wide
Difference between verbally feeming to affert,
and exprefty afferting ; as much as between being
barely capable of fuch a Senfe, and being capable
of no other Senfe. How then will the learned
Doctor be able to make good his Pretenfions ?
He *alledges the whole Tenor of Origen's Opi
nion ; In which He greatly miftakes : For the
whole Tenor of Origen, efpecially in that Trea*
tile from whence the Paffage is taken, is alto
gether contrary ; as the Learned well know,
and Bifhop Bull hath clearly fliown. But the
Doctor has a farther plea from a Paffage in
f Athanafius , which He feems to be much
pleafed with ; referring to it, once, and again,
in his Scripture -Doctrine. The principal
Words are thefe : Tor 59 £ Knows kv^aov, z, maris
'^jm^vLoim JVsg^"' The Doctor thinks He
has here difcovered a i; Contra-diftinction be
tween £ vAcjim (He neglects m&ov) and iti-
gyis 'xjzuDcpf.mcos J^wiBgyw. We are to fuppofe
itrtavs "oarofacjias of larger Extent and Signifi
cation than 7raays xrmais would have been: and,
becaufe %*is§yoy goes along with it, we are
to fuppofe that JVi/tiBg^a was underftood, by
Athanafius, in a larger Senfe than x-ncns : Laftly,
we are to fuppofe that Athanafius is, in this
Inftance, the beft Interpreter of Origen ; tho'
* Scrip. Do&r. p. 184. alias 164.
¦f Tistov hsvov uvaj Otov icArfrvi, T* xj •$ xmrsai; xugtov, xai jt^idj;
\jsrasTO0i*{ foiplupyov. Tlf alt iv isiv xth #»/ W 0 %a*a-)*o$ j£ vm/ft-
irtxava itaoy\o yurtrr^ imac,, 0 y X&t<F>u orarip ; Orat. Contr. Gent.
p.39. Ed. Bened. ^ Script. Doelr, p. 184. alias 164. k

too, / DEFENSE. Qu XII.
it does not appear from Origen's own Writings,
that He knew any thing of this peculiar Senfe
of hfiivgytiiMx,, but the Contrary. The bare Re
cital of fo many Suppofitions, advanc'd without
Proof, or any Shadow of ir, might fuffice for an
Anfwer. But we may obferve.
i. That if Athanafius , being then a young
Man and an Orator , intended only to vary
his Phrafe ; either to be more emphatical, or to
give the better Turn and Cadence to a Period
(and this might be all, for any thing that ap
pears to rhe Contrary) then the Doctor's Criti-
cifm falls to the Ground
2. If any Contra-diftinction was intended, it
fhould feem that the fame muft hold, with re
fpect to xuejiov and hpny^ylv. the Confequence
whereof is, that God the Father is not xt'e*©-
fo far and wide as He is Jtyiiagyos. It will be
fome Satisfaction to us, that if the Son be
^paoii^yti/xa, He has no Lord over Him.
3. The conftant ufe of hpuovgyyj/ux andiV,w[K§-
yo$, in other Authors, and even in * Athanafius
Himfelf, and in this very f Treatife, is another
ftrong Prefumption againft the Do&ot'sCriticifin.
* See Athanafius de Decret. Syn. Nic. pag. 235-. Where Ife ex
prefty pleads that the Father' cannot be faid to be o\pttspy\c» in rejpeci
of the Si/n.
+ T<x /*•» ov-ja iJioitBUitmv,T'v] ktkt{ -nafocTov x-nimtfe AaTctuemc, itpay-
pa ¦na<%pvTit1 avoitTov Kj ovasihii. Opoiov yt(> tt ti$ to, ipjac zrgj 8 recurs
Jav^THi, <£ tu ivTvj woAi o\i/Aov%yi[tg,(ff. ng.Ta7rAay.10. T TitTz.>vh\piovpm
yov xg.i a-mt%tn, p. 46. ThelVords ihpievgyipala and e\piovgyo, anfwer,
W the Similitude and Analogy, to x-niri artd x-noixyTa, going before. Where
fore, I conceive, that, according to Athanalius, the Two former, when
tftiderftood with relation to God, are equivalent to the Tito latter.
4. The

Qu.XII. of fome QUERIES. zox.
4. The Confequences following from the
Suppofition of fuch a Senfe, as the Doctor would
impofe upon Athanafius, may be demonftrably
confuted from the fame Treatife ; nay, from the
very fame Page where that remarkable Paf
fage is.
For, you muft know, that, if the Doctor
imderftands Him right, Athanafius included the
Son under mians •xjsroc^lnas) whereof the Fa
ther is Jyusgyos : And fo. the Son muft be hpi-
ovgyn/Mx. according to Athanafius. Not only
fb, but He muft alfo come under saW ^Tvfe
8<nas; which, for the purpofe, the learned Do
ctor took care to render all derivative Be
ing, anfwering to his rendring of hwovgyn/da.
b afterwards. This might look fair a!nd plaufible,
had we only that fingle Sentence of Athanafius
to form a Judgment by : But it ftands. in a
pretty large Treatife; wherein we find that
Athanafius is fo far from fuppofing the Son to
be (fyujaug^/ii* , , that He makes Him c tooths
of all the invifibleT owers ; nay and d d\u<yg^s
th icav-Tos, which, I think, comes to as much
as fypua^s •xiaws .-xjzsvgdttces ; and, that there
fore the learned Dodtor may almoft as reafon
ably bring the Father in, among the i^agy*-
fia^gt. of the Son, as vice verfa. To conclude ;
Athanafius, within a few lines of that Paffage
which the Dodtor makes ufe of, exempts the.
Son, clearly and exprefly, from the Rank of
a Script. Do&r. p. 4'. alias p. 5. h Script. Doiftr. p. 278.
txlias 247. c Pag. 43. i Pag. 20.
P fuch

±02 /DEFENSE Qu.XIII.
fuch derivative Beings, as the Doctor would
place Him with : * "AAA?? put W t yvtvnfy? j *,
7ta.Ms f xtrurtus. So much for Athanafius, and
the Dpdtor's Criticifms upon Him. Now, if
you pleafe, let Origen be Our's again, till you
can better make out your Title to Him. I do
not know that fhe Doctor has faid any thing
confiderable to weaken the Evidence of any
other of the Authors, referr'd ro in the Mar*
gin. So we may leave Them as They are; ancl
proceed ro another ^uery.
Query XIII.
Whether there can be any Middle between
being made out of nothing, and out of fame-
thing ; that is, between being out of No
thing, and out of the Father's Subftance;
between being effentially God, and being a
Creature? Whether, confequently, the Son
muft not be either effentially God, or elfe a
Creature ?
HERE, again, I have run two Queries
into one (being nearly allied to each
other) for the conveniency of Method. Que-
ftions of this kind you like not : It is, you
fay, preffing you to determine Things not
clearly revealed: As if you had not deter
min'd already upon the Points in Queftion;
or were at all afraid of doing it. Permit me
to fay, you have determin'd : But becaufe the
* Pag. 30. Con-

Qu.XIII. of fome QUERIES. 203
Conclufion is too fhocking to appear in broad
Terms, and too weak to bear ; therefore you
keep it under Cover, and lay Colours upon it,
the better to deceive and draw in an unwary
Reader : This is what I complain of Let every
Reader be apprized, that the only Qieftion
between us is, whether His Creator and Re
deemer, be a Creature, or no : and then the
Caufe will be brought to a fhort Iffue ; and it
will foon be feen where the Truth lies. It
is not that I defire to draw you into dangei:
of Cenfure , oi which you are apprehen-
five; I could not have a Thought fo m£an:
Befides that I intended, and defired, for the
greater freedom of debate, to be private : And
You, perhaps, may be fo ftill, if you pleafe.
It concerns every honeft Man to have the
Caufe fairly laid open. While you are en
deavouring to expofe the received Opinion, as
much as you are able, let your own be fliown
in its true Colours, and then fet againft it;
that fo we may the more eafily judge, which
has the Advantage upon the Companion. You
are very fenfible, I doubt not, that the Argu
ments againft the Son's being a Creature, bear
upon you with fuch Strength; Force, and full
Light ; that you had rather have the pinch
of the Queftion conceal'd from the Reader, or
difguifed under other Terms. The Antient
Arians , the immediate Succeffors of Arius,
found it abfolutely neceffary to refine upon
their Leader : to refine, I mean, in language ;
P 2 for

204 /DEFENSE Qu.XIII.
for their Faith was the fame. When the World
was, in a manner their owki ; and when They
were fo far from fearing cenfure themfelves,
that they imploy'd the fecular Power to a plun
der, periecute, and deftroy as many as oppofed
Them ; even then, Thofe Men durft not fay
directly, that the Son of God was a Creature.
We have Creed after Creed drawn up by Them ;
and Arius's Pofitions b exprefly difclaim'd by
fome of Them ; tho', at the fame time, They
meant the fame Things. And what was the
meaning of this Wary Proceeding ; this walking
in difguife, while they had nothing to fear from1
the Powers in Being? The Reafon is plain r
Their Dodtrine was new and c Jhocking to
Chriftian Ears. It was not fit to appear in
d clear and plain Words. It was to be insinuated
only, in remote Hints, and dark Innuendo's^
People were to be decoy'd, and gradually drawn
into a new Faith ; which if they had fully un
derftood, and feen what it led to, they would
immediately have detefted. See to this purpofe
a e Paffage of Hilary worth remarking; which
I have thrown into the Margin.
a See Athanaf. Vol. I. p. no. 317. 321. 34 j-. 362. 386. Hilar.
p. 1291. Balil.jEp. 70, 71. 282. Greg. Naz. Orat. 20. 23. if. 32.
b Athanaf- Vol. 1. p. 176. 27)-. Vol. 2. p. 733-. Socrat. I. 2.
c. 10. Sozom. E. Hift. 1. 3. c. 5. Epiphan. Hreref. 73. p. 845'.
cAthanaf.Vol. 1. P.234.2S3. Alexand. Epift. Theod H.p. 26. 30.
d &ee Athanaf. Vol. 1. p. 288.
c Hujus quidem nfque acinic Impictatis Fraude perficitur, ut jam
fub Antichrifti Sacerdotibus Chrifti Populus non occidat, dum Hoc
v. Giant Illi Fidei efle quod vo'cis eft. Audiunt Deum Chriftunij
The

Qu.XIII. of fome QUERIES. 205*
The Arians, or Semi- Arians (for Both come
to one at laft) were fo fenfible that their Tenets
would not bear the Light, that they were
forc'd to difguife aria" conceal Them under Ca
tholick Forms of Speech, with all imaginable
Art and Subtlety ; as was much complain'd of
by the Catholicks, who abhorr'd fuch Artifices.
The myftery of thefe Difguifes has been already
intimated. Had they ventured to fpeak our,
they could not have deceived any great Num
bers. The greater part of their deluded Fol
lowers were blinded and hood-wink'd ; and
hardly knew what their Leaders intended, or
whither they wTere driving. Thefe were the
Arts, by which Arianifm prevailed ; and yet
hardly prevailed above Forty Years. Whether
thefe, or the like prudential Reafons, determine
fome now to proceed with the like Caution,
and to avoid declaring, in Terms, that the Son
of God is a Creature, I know not. But this
I know, that every careful Reader ought to be
well apprized of the Tendency of your main
Doctrine. It fliould be told, that you affert,
though not directly and plainly, yet tacitely
and confequentially, that the Maker, Redeemer,
putant effe quod dicitur. Audiunt Filium Dei; put-ant in. Dei Na-
tivitate inefle Dei Veritatem. Audiunt Ante Tempera, putant id
ipfum Ante Tempera, efle quod Semper eft. Sandtiores Aures pls-
bis quam Corda Sacerdotum. Hilar, pag. 1266. See alfo Sozom.
E. H. 1. 3. c. f.
* Athanaf. p. z-$f. 224, 895"- Theod. E. H. p. 27. Socrat-
E. H. 1. 2. c 45-. Sozom. E. H. I.4. c. 29. Epiphan. Hseref. 73.
p. 84^. Gregor. Nazianz- Orat. 21. p. 387.
P 3 and

zo6 /DEFENSE Qu.XIIL
and Judge of the whole World, is no more than
a Creature ; is mutable, and corruptible ; de-r
pends intirely upon the Favour and good Plea
fure of God j has a precarious Exiftence, and
dependent Powers, finite and limited ; and is
neither fo perfedt in his Nature, nor fo exr
alted in Privileges, but that it is in the Fa
ther's Power, according ro his own good Plea
fure, to create Another equal, or even Superior,
to Him. Thefe are your Tenets, if you pleafe
to fpeak out ; and thefe, in the main, are what
Arius , being a plain, open, and confiftent
Man , at the begirining , very frankly pro-
fefs?d. But, if thefe Pofitions appear fo harfh
and fliocking, that you your Selves, whp
admit Them , do not care to own them in
plain Terms ; it may be very excufable in
Others to contradict Them; and to affert,
upon fo great Evidences of Truth, from Scri
pture and Antiquity, that God the Son is
infinitely removed from the Condition of a
Creature; is really, truly, and effentially
God. You have, it may be, fome few fpecious
Difficulties to urge againft a Trinity in Unity,
eternal Generation, or the like ; points too
fublime for Men, or, it may be, Angels to
comprehend. But why muft thefe be thought
ro weigh down the many and unanfwerable
Objections againft your own Scheme; or be
efteem?d fufficient to bear up againft the united
yoice of Scripture and Catholick Antiquity ,
no

Qu.XIII. of fome QUERIES. 207
no where afferting that the Son of God is
a Creature; but every where intimating, in
culcating, proclaiming, that He is the Crea
tor, Treferver, and Suftainer of all Things ;
very and eternal God. You'l Pardon me
this Excurfion, neceffary to give the com
mon Reader a juft Idea of the Difpute be
twixt us ; and of the true ftate of the Que
ftion. A Stranger in this Controverfy, find
ing how near we come to each other in ex-
preffion, might be apt to wonder wherein we
differ, or what it is that we difpute about ; not
being aware of the Artifice you make ufe of, in
giving an Uncatholick meaning to Catholick
Expreffions. We fay, the Son is not Self-
exiftent, meaning that He is not unoriginate :
You do not only fay the fame, but contend for
it ; meaning, not neceffarily-exifting. We fay,
not unoriginate, meaning that He is not the
Head or Fountain, not the firft Terfon of the
Trinity: You take up the very fame Word,
and zealoufly contend that the Son is not un
originate ; underftanding it in refpect of Time,
or Duration. We fay,' the Son is fubordinate,
meaning it of a Subordination of Order, as is
juft, and proper: You alfo lay hold of the word
•Subordinate, and feem wonderfully pleas'd with
it; but underftanding by it, an Inferiority of
Nature. We fay, that the Son is not abfolute
ly fupreme nor independent , intimating thereby
that He is Second in Order as a Son, and has
no feparate, independent Exiftence from the
P 4 Father,

208 / D E F'E N S E Qu. XIII.
Father, being co-effentially and co-eternalpi one
with Him : you alfo take up the fame Words,
interpret them to a low Senfe, and make the
Son an inferior dependent ''Being; depending
at firft on the Will oi the Father for his Ex
iftence, and afterwards for the continuance of
it. This is the way you chufe to infinuate
your Heterodoxy into weak Readers. In the
niean while , notwithftanding our feeming or
verbal Agreemenr, there is as wide a Difference
between what You teach and We, as between
finite and infinite, mutable and immutable, a
dependent Creature and the eternal God.
From what' hath been faid, you may perceive
what the (Jonceffions of Catholicks, which the
Doctor often boafts of, amount to. The Ca
tholicks have ufed fome Phrafes, in a good Senfe,
which artful Men have perverted to a bad one:
That is a|l the Cafe. But 1 return.
You was to find a medium between beiqg
effentially God, and being a Creature: or elfe
to declare in plain Terms, that the Son is a
Creature. A medium you find not, nor indeed
can there be any : And yet, ipftead of frank
ly acknowledging fo plain and manifeft a Truth,
you are pleas'd to fliift, double, and wind about,
in a manper unbecoming a grave Difputant, or
a fincere and ingenuous Writer. In the firft
place, you put on an Air of Courage, and give
me one Caption, viz. not to fay or attempt to
frove, that every Being that is derived muft
fe, for that reafon, a Creature, for fear of
t"'' / l : •" making

Qu. XIII. of fome QU E R I E S. 209
making my own Notion, which fuppofes the
Son generated, that is, derived, to favour the
Arians : But, admitting the Son to be derived,
as it may be underftood in a Catholick Senfe,
yet what is that to your Purpofe? Does not
my Argument turn upon the Words, out of
nothing ? Point me out any Being Jo derived,
a Being which now is, and once was not ; and
deny Hirn to be a Creature, if you can. But
you go on ; As to what is faid in the Queries,
that either the Son of God muft be the Indivi
dual Subftance of the Father, or elfe eg aht
orav, with the Arians ; / anfwer, if both Scri
pture and Reafon clearly demonftrate that the
Son is not the Individual Subftance of the Fa
ther, who muft look to that Confequence, if
it be onel
Here, at a ftrait (as ufual) the word Indivi
dual comes in; a word capable of feveral
meanings; and fo neceffary to help Inven
tion, that you would often be at a lofs what
tp fay, if you wanted that poor pretence for
Equivocation. It is evident, that you all along
ufe the Word in a Sabellian Senfe, different
from what either the Schoolmen, or more
antient Catholicks intended by it. The thing
which I affert is this; that you muft either own
the Son to be of the fame undivided Subftance
with tjie Father; or elfe declare Him a Crea
ture. If you deny the former, you muft, of
Confequence, admit the latter ; and you
really do fo. The confequence Tou are to
look

aio /DEFENSE Qu.XIIJ.
look to, as neceflarily flowing from your Pre-
mifes ; which you pretend to found on Scripture
and Reafon, without any ground or warrant
from either, you are refolved, it feems, to
difown the certainty oi the Disjunction, {p 61.)
fb afraid you are of determining the Son to be
tt Creature, eg yx oinuv. Let us hear what a
eDifputant may have to plead againft a Thing as
clear and evident as any Axiom in Geometry.
You fay, * The Nicene Fathers thought the
Son to be neither the W& ry -auTgoj, The Sub-
fiance of the Father, nor eg one ovtov, but c*,
•pis Qvai&s t5 warga?, from the Subftance of the
Father- The Nicene Fathers explain their
meaning, both in the Creed it felf, and in the
Anathemas annex'd to it; determining the
Son to be no Creature, nor a different God
from the Father ; but of the fame undivided
Subftance with Him, God of God, Light of
t*ight, Confubftantial with Him, and a diftinct
Perfon from Him.
Next, you fay, you dare not determine that
God produced all Things, or any Thing,
(ftrictly and met aphyfic ally fpeaking) out of
Nothing. Extreme Modefty \ That you dare
not determine whether God has properly creat
ed any Thing ; or whether all Things were not
neccjfarijy- exifting. Matter it felf may have
been co-eval and co-eternal with God the Fa
ther ; Any thing, it feems, but his owTn beloved
and only-begotten Son : Or elfe why are you fb
* .Set Dr. Clarke'* Reply ta the Convocation, p. Ȥ. fliy,

Qu.XHL of fome QUERIES. zi%
fhy, at other times, of acknowledging His Eter?
nity ? Or why fo refolute in difputing againfjfc
it ? An eternal Son, methinks, is much better
Senfe than an eternal Subftance, not divine,
and a Son made out of it ; which is what you
muft mean, or mean nothing. But to pro
ceed : You add, How God brings Beings into
real Exiftence we know not, becaufe we know
not their Effences, Therefore, I fuppofe, we
know not, whether He brings them into Ex
iftence at all ; or whether they had a Being ber
fore they were created: That'^s the Confequence
you intend, if any thing to the purpofe. You
go on : Or whether it be a Contradiction to
predicate Exiftence of them before their com-
ing into that State which they now are in,
and which we call their Creation, we know
not. Very Ignorant! And yet. you can be po
fitive in Things, which you know a great deal
lefs of ; ,prefuming to make the Generation
of the Son of God Temporal; and determin
ing it * a Contradiction to predicate Exr
iftence of Him before His Generation. Such
Things as thefe carry their own Confutation
with them; and only fhow that Truth is
too ftubborn to bend. Let it be faid then
plainly, and without difguife, that the Son
of God is either Con fubftantial with God the
Father i or elfe a Creature. There is no me
dium, neither can there be any; confiftent
with Scripture, and with the truth and reafon
of Things. Xhis tseing (etd^cj, pur Difpute
$Pag-r?.<?fr my

ai* /DEFENSE Qu.XIV.
may be brought into a narrower Compafs ; and
we may hereafter difmifs doubtful and ambir
guous Terms. Query XIV.
Whether Dr Clarke who every where denies
the Confubftantiality of the Son, as abfurd
and contradictory, does not, of Confequence,
affirm the Son to be a Creature eg one ovtocj
and fo fall under his own cenfure, and is
Self-condemn' dl
IT hath been queftion'd by fome, whether
Dr. Clarke has really given into the Arian
Scheme, or no. From what He faith, in fome
places of his Scripture-Doctrine, (particularly
* Prop. 14 and 16.) one might imagine that He
flood Neuter; neither determining for, nor
againft the Catholick Faith, in that Article:
Bur, from his declaring \ exprefly againft the
Confubftantiality of the Son, whether Specifick
or Individual, (between which He allows no
medium ) and from his reckoning the Son
among the J^uispy^fe, (tho' He gives an arti
ficial glofs to it ;) as alfo from his excluding the
Son out of the One Godhead ; from thefe Con-
ftderations, to mention no more, it is exceed
ingly clear, that He has determin'd againft the
Church , and declared for Arianifm. He has,
by neceffary Confequence, afferted the Son to
* Script. Doftr. p. 27 6. 279. | See Script. Do&t. p. 46/. firft Ed.
be

Qu.XIV- of fome QUERIES. ai3
be eg &x, mym ; which is the very Effence and
Charadteriftick of Arianifm. By fo doing, He is
Self-condemn'd {See Trop. 14.) unlefs affirming
a thing exprefty be highly blameable ; and af
firming the fame thing, implicitely and confe-
quentially, be juft and good. It is unaccount
able to me, how there comes to be fuch a charm
in Words, that a Man fhould be blameable for
faying a Thing of this Nature, plainly and di
rectly, which He may affirm indiredtly and
confequentially, without any fault at all. Doth
the Offence lie only in Sounds or Syllables?
Or was Arius more culpable for faying, the Son
was a Creature, and from nothing, than Ano
ther who fays, He is not Con fubftantial with
the Father, nor One God with Him, or the like ;
when it is fo very manifeft, and hath been proved
above, that they are only different Expreffions
of the fame Thing ? I can think but of three
Reafons (I fpeak not of particular Views, or
Motives) why any Man fliould condemn Arius
for declaring the Son to be eg ix Inm. Either
becaufe the Propofition is falfe ; or becaufe it
is dubious; or becaufe it is not, in exprefs
Words, contain'd in Scripture.
If the Dodtor believed it falfe, He could not,
confidently, difown the Confubftantiality and
Co-eternity ; If He thought it dubious, He muft
have obferved a Neutrality in this Controverfy ;
which He has not done : The Third Reafon
would bear too hard upon many of rhe Do
ctor's Fifty Five Tropofitions. The Conclufion, which

ii4 /DEFENSE <Ju.kVj
which I draw from thefe Preaaifes, purfuant td
the Query laid down, is, that the learned
Doctor, in condemning Arius, has implicitely
condemn'd Himfelf. It was as neceffary to take
notice of this, as it is to take ofFDifguifes, and
to prevent a Reader's being mifled hy fair Pre-'
fences. Let Things appear what they really
are, without Art or Colouring ; and then, if
yOu can make any Advantage of 'em, in God's
Name, do fo ; and, if your Caufe be juft, it
Will thrive the better for it.
Query XV.
Whether He alfo muft not, of Confequence,
affirm of the Son, that there was a Time
when He was not, fince God muft exift be
fore the Creature ; and therefore is again
Self condemn'd, (See Prop. 1 6. Script. Doctr.)
And whether He does not equivocate in
faying, * elfewhere, that the fecond Ter
fon has been always with the Firft; and
that there has been no Time, when He was
¦not fo : And laftly, whether it be, not a vain
and weak Attempt to pretend to any middle
-way between the Orthodox and the Arians ;
or to carry the Son's Divinity the leaft
higher than They did, without taking iii
the Confubftantiality ?
I Could have been willing to have had this, and
other the like Queries, relating more to the
Doctor Himfelf, than to the Caufe, drop'd. Bud
¦* Script. Doilr. p. 438, firft Ed. fince'

Qu.XV. offbme QUERIES. ii£
fince you have thought fit to publijh Them*
prefuming your felf able tb defend the Dodtor
in every Thing ; you have brought 1 kind of
necefiity upon me, of fhowing how little
ground you have for your Affurance ih this
particular ; and that the Doctor will ftill want
fome better Advocate.
He condemns, in his * Scripture-Doctrine,
Thofe who pretending to be wife above what
is written, and intruding into Things which
they have not feen, have prefumed to affirm,
that there was a TiMfe wIhen the Son Was
not. Who would think, after this, that He
fhould be the Man who fhould prefume to do it ?
Yet nothing is more evident than that He denies
the Eternity of the Son ; Which is the very-
fame as to affirm, that there was a' time when
the Son was not. He denies it, by plain Con
fequence, in fuppofing the Son to be eg wx otrnv,
as was fliown under the laft Query ; and be
fides, He exprefly fays, in his f Comments oh
the Athanafian Creed (which contain what
Himfelf fubferibes to) that there are not three
eternal Ter fons. It muft indeed be own'd ,
that in his Paper laid before theBifhops, Julyz.
1 7 14. He profeffes that the Son was eternally
begotten by the eternal Will and Tower of
the Father. But, after a Friend of his had
difcovered fome uneafinefs at that Paffage, as
looking like a Retractation of his former Opi-
* Prop. 6. p. 279. alias 24*5. f Script, Doctr, p. 429. This
part is left out in the fecond Edition, nion,

%i6 /DEFENSE Qu.XV.
nion, and as admitting the Son's Eternity, He
* took care to explain it away, and to fignify
that, tho' Fie had faid the Son was eternally
begotten, He did not mean it in the ftrict and
proper Senfe. " My Intention, fays He, was
" not to affert any thing different from what
." I had before written ; but only to mow that
" I did not in any of my Books teach (as had
" by many been induftrioufly reported) the
" Dodtrine of Arius ( viz. that the Son of
" God was a Creature made out of Nothing,
" juft before the Beginning of the World) but
" that He was begotten Eternally , that is,
" without any Limitation of Time, (a^govas,
« almai- ) in the incomprehenfible Duration of
" the Father's Eternity. This is too plain to
need any Comment.
I fliall only obferve to the Reader, how the
Doctor Angles out one particular Point, where
in He differs from Arius ; whereas it is juftly
queftionable whether that was Arms' s fettled
Opinion or no. Any one that will be at the
pains to read over Arius's Letters, extant in
f Theodorit and % Athanafius, will eafily fee,-
that the principal Thing which ftuck with Him,
was the to kihot or cwaifJW, the ftrict Eter
nity or Co-eternity of the Son. As to other
leffer Matters, He would eafily have compound
ed with the Catholicks; and would never have
* Letters, Numb. 8. f E. H. I. i. c. f.
$ De Synod. Arim. p. 729. fcrupled,'

Qu. XV- of fome QUERIES. 217
ferupled, in the leaft, to carry the point as
high as the Doctor does. He was content, for
the moft part, to fay, There was a Time when
the Son was not, without defining the precife
Time of his Generation , or Creation. To
make it the more clearly appear, that He was
perfectly of the Dodtor's Sentiments, in this par
ticular, it is obfervable that He ufes nearly the
very- fame Words, which the Doctor does:
( * 'A^goeffls, \ <cs£y X$°m]l & rTS& odww, f. .zsq)
r7cajTm t3^/" alamv) Words, tho' not exactly the
fame, yet full as high and ftrong as Thofe which
the Doctor explains his own Senfe of Eternity
by. So that the Doctor has no reafon to dif-
claim Arius -, or to endeavor to perfwade the
World that He differs from Him, in any thing
material relating to this Controverfy. But to
return: The Words eternal, always, or the like,
are plain Englifh Words; and fliould eirher
not be ufed, in this cafe, at all, or ufed in their
true and proper Senfe. You Apologize for if;
as far as the Matter will bear : But it would be
wifer, and better, and more ingenuous, to give
that Point up. Let us hear however what you
have to fay.
God could eternally act, that is, could in
any point of duration of his own Exiftence
exercife his eternal Tower and Will in pro
ducing Beings — and therefore Beings diftinct
* Epift. apud Athanaf. p. 730.
f Athanaf. ibid. Theod. c. 5. p. 21.
i- Confeff. Arii. & Euz.apud Sozom. 1. a. c, 17. p. 395-.
Q from

218 /DEFENSE Qu.XV.
from the one fupreme God may be faid to be
Eternal, as far as we are able to reafon about
Eternity { I mean as it is a, negative Idea )
fo that we cannot conceive Time when they
were not, (p. 61.) What a number of Words
are here, only to tell us, in a round about way,
that the Son is not Eternal. What is this ne
gative Eternity, but no Eternity ? And why
are not Angels, or Arch-angels called Eternal,
fince we know not precifely when they were
made, nor in what Time they began to exift ;
which is all the meaning of this new fort of
Eternity ? Befides, is not every Creature pro
duced in fome Toint of Duration, in which
God exercifes his eternal Tower and Will up
on them? Are they therefore Et email As to
your intimating of the Son, that we cannot
conceive Time when He was not; it is not
true, upon your Principles. We can conceive
it as well of Him, as of any other Creature,
Angel, or Arch- angel; if He was made in Time,
that is, if He was made at all. We can con
ceive, and muft conceive, that there were Millions
and Millions of Ages backwards; an Eternity,
a parte ante, before He came into Being. I
hope, you intended not any Equivocation in
the word, Time: But if you did, it is only
putting Duration in the room of ir, and then
all will be righr. The Arians would have been
content to have had but one moment of Time
admitted for the Father to be prior , and to
Will the Exiftence of the Son. This would have

Qu.XV. of fome QUERIES. 219
have been enough to make the Generation of
the Son fit eafy upon their Minds. But the
misfortune was, that one moment's priority of
Time muft infer an infinite Triority. The
Arians faw ir, and fubmitted to it : The Ca
tholicks abhorr'd the Thought ; and could not
bear the Impiety of making the Son of God a
Creature. You endeavor ro fhow that Dr. Clarke
takes a middle way between the Orthodox and
the Arians; by which you only happen to
fhow how little you have been acquainted with
the Forms, Creeds, and Confejfions of the
Antient Arians. The firft * Inftance you give
of the Doctor's middle Way, is, that He does
not plainly and diredtly fay that the Son was
created; He denies Him to be eg cbt ovtw.
But herein, He only Copies after many of the
Antient Arians ; who, when accus'd by the
Catholicks of making the Son a Creature, re
jected the charge with great difdain, having this
referve, f not a Creature like other Creatures
which are created mediately by the Aoyos ; the
fame Evafion, which you are pleas'd to adopt
for your own, {p. 60.) And it was % frequent
with the Arians to deny the Son to be eg Gsx
oinav ¦, ox even to Anathematize thofe that fliould
affirm it. A fecond Inftance you give, of the
Doctor's refining upon the Arians, is in the
* Pag. 60. f SeeSocrat. E. H. 1.2. c. io. p. 7 3. Hieron,
Dial. Contr. Lucif. p. 306. £ See Arian Creeds. Athanaf.
p. ?:8. Socrat. 1. 2. c, 8. 19- 30. Sozom. 1. 3. c. 11.
Q % point

220 /DEFENSE Qu. XV.
point of the Son's Eternity, {p. 61.) But I have
fhown you that He does not fo much as go be
yond Arius Himfelf, in that Point : Befides that
the a Antient Arians condemn'd thofe that
fhould prefume to fay, that there was a Time
when the Son was not, equivocating upon the
word, Time. Both your Inftances , you fee ,
fail you, being neither of them fufEcient to the
purpofe. But, to fet this Matter, in a fomewhat clearer
Lighr, it may not be improper, in this Place,
to exhibit a Draught or Reprefentation of the
Arian Tenets or Principles ; by which it will
appear what Arianifm really is, when purfued
in its remoteft Confequences; and what the
Difference is between Thofe who only admit
fome part of it (as the Doctor and your Self)
and Thofe who receive the whole.
b Tofitions of fome, or other of the Arians,
in refpect of the Son.
1. Not c Confitbftantial with God the Father.
2. Not d Co-eternal, however begotten be
fore all Ages, or without any known Limitation
of Time.3 . Of a diftinct inferior Nature, however
otherwife perfectly like the Father.
a See Arian Creeds. Athanaf. p. 738. Socrat. 1. 1. c. 18, 19.
Sozom. 1. 3. c. 1 1.
b Athanaf. p. 282. 39s. 728. Sozom. I, 1. c. 15-. Theod;
H.vrct. Fab. I. 4. c This to«s agreed to unanimoufly.
d This Point diluted by the Pfathyrians. Theod. Hsret. 'Fab. 1. 4.
c. 4. p. : ;S. 4. Not

Qu.XV. of fome QUERIES. 121
4. Not ftrictly and effentially God, but par
taking of the Father's Divinity.
5". / Creature of the Father's, however
unlike to the reft cf the Creatures, or Superior
to Them.
6. * Not like the Father ; but in Nature and
Subftance, like other Creatures.
7. | Made in Time ; there having been a Time
when He was not, made from Nothing.
8. \ Far inferior to the Father in Know
ledge, Power, and Perfections.
9. Mutable in his Nature, as a Creature,
tho' unchangeable by Decree.
10. Dependent on the good Pleafure of the
Father, for his paft, prefent, and future Being.
n. Not knowing the Father perfectly, nor
Himfelf. His Knowledge being that of a Crea
ture, and therefore finite.
12. Made a little before the World was
made ; and for the fake of Thofe that fhould be
after Him.
Thefe are the Arian Principles brought down
as low, as they can well go. Arius, the Au
thor and Founder of the Sedt, feems to have
gone through all thofe Steps, at the firft : And
indeed, all of them, except the laft, hang toge
ther ; and are but the neceffary Confequences
*f This denied by all but thofe called Anomaean.s.
•f This denied, in Words, by many.
¦$. Few bold enough to maintain exprefly this, or any of the follow*
'i?,£ Fropoftttonj.
Q 3 of

222 /DEFENSE Qu.XV.
of each other. Thofe that ftop'd in the mid
way, or fooner, might be more pious and mo
deft ; but lefs confiftent Men. A little Expe
rience convinc'd, as well Arius Himfelf, as
his Followers, that thofe Pofitions, all together,
were too grating upon, and too fliockihg to
every pious Chriftian at that Time. And there
fore (without confidering how one depended
on another ; or how a Principle could be main
tain'd, and yet its plain, neceffary Corifequences
difown'd) they immediately went to work, to
cut off what fliould appear moft offenfive, and
retain only what might found tolerably ; efoe*-
dally when worded in ambiguous, or Catholick
Terms. The nine laft Particulars were, for fome time,
and by the Arians in general, waved, drop'd,
not infifted on (as being too grofs to take)
or elfe artfully infinuated only, under fpeci-
ous and plaufible Expreffions. The firft They
all own'd, and infifted the moft upon ; having
many Pretences to urge againft Confubftanti
ality, either Name, or Thing. The fecond
and third They divided upon , as to the
way of Expreffion; fome fpeaking their Minds
plainly, others with more referve; not fo
much denying the Co-eternity, as forbearing
to affirm it. This was the method which the
Arians took to propagate their Herefy. We
need not wonder if They were often forc'd
to make ufe of Colluficns, Equivocations, and
double Entendres. For, being obliged, for
fear

Qu.XV. of fome QUERIES. 123
fear of Offence, to ufe Catholick Words, tho'
without a Catholick meaning ; and to maintain
their main Principle, without feeming to main
tain its neceffary Confequences ; (nay, feeming
ro deny and rejedt them) it could not be other-
wife. And not only the Catholicks frequently
complain of thofe fmooth Gentlemen, but fome
even of their * own Party could not endure fuch
Shuffling; thinking it became honeft and fin-
cere Men, either to fpeak out, or to fay no
thing. Of this kind were A'etius, and Euno-
mius, with their Followers, called Anomaans
and Exoucontii, being indeed no other, in re
fpedt to the Son's Divinity, than fuch as Arius
was at firft ; and fpeaking almoft as plainly and
bluntly as He did. After the Difguifes and
Softenings, and Colourings had been carried
on fo long, till all Men of Senfe faw plainly
that it was high time to leave off trifling, and
to come from Words to Things; and that
there was no Medium, but either to fettle
into Orthodoxy, or to fit down with the
pure Arians and Anomaans, { if they would
determine any Thing, and be fincere and con
fiftent Men) fome chofe the former, and
fome the latter, according as they more in
clined to one way, or the other. There is
certainly no Medium betwixt Orthodoxy and
Arianifm (for f Semi- Arianifm, if fo under-
* See Epiphan. Haeref. 76. p. 916.
-j- Semi.Arianus, & Semi- Deus, 8c Semi-Creatura perinde monftra
& portenta funt, quae Sani Sc Pii Omnes merito ex horrent. Bull.
D, F. p. 184.
Q 4 flood,

224 /DEFENSE Qu.XV.
flood, is perfect Non fenfe and Contradiction)
there being no Medium between God and Crea
ture, between Unmade and Made. Men may
conceal their Sentiments, fupprels Confequences,
and fpeak their Minds but by Halves ; and fo
one Arian may be more cautious, or more art
ful than Another: But, in truth and reality,
every Man that difowns the Confubftantiality,
rightly underftood, is as much an Arian, as
Eunomius, or A'etius, or any of rhe Antient
Arians were ; or even as Arius Himfelf, ex-
cepting only fome few Particulars, which were
not his ftanding and fettled Opinions.
In fine, there is but one middle way to take
between the Orthodox and the Arians, and
That is, to avoid determining on either fide ; to
leave the point in medio, and to fufpend affent
to either ; to believe as much, and as high, as
any of the Arians did ; and as to the reft, nei
ther to believe, nor disbelieve it. But this
is not the cafe, either with the Doctor, or your
Self. You have declared againft rhe Confub
ftantiality, and the proper Divinity of Chrift,
as well as Co-eternity : And are therefore ib
far from refining upon, that you really come
fliort of many of the Antient Arians; tho', to
do you juftice, you are the more confiftent
with your felves for it. I haye now fuffici
ently vindicated every part of the £)uery;
having fliown that the Equivocation, in refpect
of the Son's Eternity, is juftly chargeable up
on the Doctor; and that He has not ob
served

Qu-XV. of fome QUERIES. 22?
ferved a neutrality in this difpute ; nor carried
the point higher than the Antient Arians ; but
has really, and fully given into their Senti
ments ; and- therein determin'd againft the Ca
tholick Church. The ufe which I make of
this, at prefent, is to obferve to the Reader:
1 . That the Dodtor has not invented any new,
or more excellent Scheme than was thought of,
confider'd, and condemn'd, near 1400 Years
ago, by a very wife, numerous, and unbyafs'd
Council. 2. That He cannot juftly cite any
Catholick Toft-Nicene Writer, (nor perhaps
Ante-Nicene ) as certainly favouring his main
Doctrine. 3. That his attempt to reconcile the
Nicene and Athanafian Creeds to Arianifm,
form'd in diredt Oppofition to it, is endeavoring
to bring Light and Darknefs, and the moft irre
concilable lnconfiftencies to meet together. This
for the prefent: The future ufe I fliall make
of it, is to come directly to the point in Que
ftion: for when it is certainly known what
the drift defign and meaning of an Author
is, much Pains may be fpared, and a Difpute
fhortned. I hardly know whether ftrict method
would permit me to take notice of the lat
ter part of your Reply, (contain'd in Pages
62, 63, 64.) it is fo wide and foreign. You
muft have had a great mind to fay fome
thing of eternal Generation : Otherwife you
would never have introduced it in a place fo
improper. The pretence is, that we equi
vocate

*i6 /DEFENSE Qu.XV.
vacate in, talking of eternal Generation ; and
therefore it is proper to retort it upon us,
in anfwer to a charge of Equivocation. But
wherein do we equivocate , or do any thing
like it? Is it in the word, Eternal? But we
undoubtedly mean it in the ftrict and proper
Senfe. Is it in the word, Generation ? That is a
word of Latitude, capable of more Senfes than
one. We ufe it in the Senfe, which has pre-
vail'd in the Church 15*00 Years; and in a pro
per Senfe, according to the R.ule of Tertullian,
Omnis Origo Tarens eft. And where then is
the Impropriety, or Equivocation in the word,
Generation, as ufed by us ? True, it is not
the fame with Human Generation. But who
will pretend that Human is to be the mea
fure and flandard of all Generation? Ge
neration, you fay, implies Beginning; and
yet we call it * Eternal. Admit that it did
fo; yet till That can be made appear, we
may be very fincere in calling it Eternal, in
tending no Equivocation: You have not
proved that all Generation implies Beginning;
and what is more, cannot. You endeavor to
make the notion of it abfurd: Bur, unlefs you
can demonftrate the abfurdity of it, how will you
charge us with Equivocation, which was the
Point ? All you have to fay turns only upon
.* M» X&'W HXHP T* V" i0sr*A'|ij «><5 AtyovTosi «**« &xi*"»
tlgXM -yvoxrxi r jwwtgj*. 'Agm yig >5 a-j^ov^, a^-mXrixloq, ivap-
%t4 » sf«ti£* snjyn & ths ohxeuoirvvvii irompov, j? povoytvoui i srarif,
a yimrai ttiriit, xM&als ttfov ici-rio. f4»ee. Cyril. Catech. 11. p. 1 45.
your

Qu.XV. of fome QUERIES. 227
your mifeonftruction of, I fhould fay Equivo
cation in, the word Individual; which, you
muft needs know, we underftand not in your
Senfe of it ; unlefs we are weak enough to fup
pofe Father and Son to be one Terfon. You
make another Argument, by equivocating in
the word, Troduttion ; which if we ufe at all,
we always take care to explain to a good
Senfe; and never once imagine, that the eter
nal Generation is a temporal Production. You
are very unhappy, to equivocate all the way,
while you are retorting the charge of Equivo
cation ; befides that, could you have retorted
it in a handfomer manner, it would not have
been pertinent, becaufe it comes out of Place.
For, your proper part here, is, not fo much to
objedt againft our Scheme, as to defend your
own: Pleafe to clear your own Hypothefis
firft ; and then we may hear what you can fay
againft ours. The Church of Chrift has been
in poffeffion of the prefent prevailing Doctrines,
at leaft, for 1400 Years: It concerns us, before
we part with them, to fee that we may have
fomething better in their ftead. What if the
Catholick Dodtrine has fome Difficulties ? Has
Arianifm none? Or muft we change the for
mer for the latter? No, let us firft confider
whether Arianifm has not more and greater ;
and then perhaps we may fee reafon enough
to keep as we are.
It is an ufual Thing with many ( Moralifts
may account for it) when they meet with
a dif-

228 /DEFENSE Qu.XV.
a difficulty which They cannot readily anfwer,
immediately io conclude that the Doctrine is
Falfe ; and to run directly into the oppofite
Perfwafion.' hot confidering that They may
meet with much more weighty Objections there,
than before; or that They may have reafon fuf
ficient to maintain and believe many Things in
Thilofophy or Divinity, tho' They cannot an
fwer every Queftion which may be ftarted, or
every Difficulty which may be raifed againft them.
As to the Point we are upon ; while fome are
confidering only the Objections againft the Do
ctrine of the Bleffed Trinity (how Three can be
One; how the Son could be generated; how
Terfon and Being can be different; and the
like) they imagine prefently, that the World, in
a manner, has been hitherto miferably miftaken ;
and that They are the happy Men, who fee
clearly bow, and why. Let but the very fame
Men have patience a while, and not imbark in
the oppofite Caufe, till They are able to find
out a truer and a jufter Scheme, and to clear it
of all confiderable Difficulties ; I fay, let Them
but do thus, and then, I am perfwaded, They
will be much lefs fanguine in their purfuit of
Novelties. In the prefent Controverfy, there
are three Schemes, which I may call Catholick,
Sabellian, and Arian: One of the Three
muft, in the main, be true. The way to know
which, is, to weigh and confider the Difficul
ties attending each refpcetively ; and to. ballance
them one againft another. The Advocates of
the

Qu XVI. of fome QU E R I E S. 229
the Two latter have performed reafonably well,
in the offenfive part ; and efpecially againft each
other : But have neither of them yet been able
to defend tolerably their refpedtive Schemes;
nor, I fuppofe, ever will be. But I proceed.
Divine Worfhip due

To the one God.
Thou fhalt have no
other Gods before me,
Exod. 20. 3.
Thou fhalt worfhip
the Lord thy God, and
Him only fhalt thou
ferve, Matt. 4. 10.

To Chrift.
They worfhip' dHimy
Luk. 24. zf. Let all
the Angels of God wor
fhip Him, Heb. 1.6.
That all Men fhould
honour the Sont even
as they honour the Fa
ther, Joh. 5". 23.

Query XVI.
Whether by thefe (of the firft Column) and
the like Texts, Adoration and Worfhip be
not fo appropriated to the one God, as to
belong to Him only ?
THIS is a very material Enquiry, relating
to the object of Religious Worfhip; than
which nothing can be of greater Concernment.
Here rherefore, if any where, we might expect
and demand of You a very full, clear, and fatis-
factory Anfwer. I fhall examine your Anfwer,
in due time and place. Bur, firft, it Will be
proper

230 /DEFENSE Qu.XVl.
proper to fhow what Reafons we have to think,
that all religious Worfhip is appropriated to
God only. I fhall enquire into the Senfe of
Scripture, in this Article ; and next proceed to
the Judgment and Practice of the Antient
Church, the beft Comment upon Scripture.
Exod. 20. v. 3. hath been already produced.
The Words are, Thou fhalt have no other Gods
before { or befides ) me. Which is farther ex
plain'd, v. 5-. ( the reafon being the fame, both
with refpect to Images and falfe Gods) Thou
fhalt not bow down to Them, nor ferve Them*.
All Acts of Religious Worfhip are forbid
den to be offered to any other Being, be
fides the one Supreme God : to Him they are
appropriated, to Him only. So Deut. 6. 13.
Thou fhalt fear the Lord thy God, and ferve
Him : And again Deut. 10. 20. Thou fhalt fear
the Lord thy God; Him fhalt thou ferve.
which is quoted, and explain'd by our Bleffed
Lord Himfelf, in thefe Words : Thou fhalt wor
fhip the Lord thy God, and Him only fhalt
thou ferve, Matt. 4. 10. This was faid in an
fwer to Satan, who did not pretend to be Su
preme, nor defire to be acknowledged as fuch.
( See Luk. 4. 6. ) all He required was, that a
folemn outward Act of Adoration and Worfhip
fliould be paid Him: And the reafon given
for refufing ir, is not that He was a bad Spirit,
an Enemy to God; or that God had not com
manded that He fliould be worfliip'd; but the
* See alfo Exod. 22. 20.— 34. 14. Dan. 3. 28. reafon

Qu.XVI. of fame QUERIES. 231
reafon is general, that none are to be worfliip'd
but God only. And that thefe and the like
Texts were intended to exclude all Beings, be-
fide the one Supreme God, from being wor
fliip'd, either at that Time, or at any Time
after , appears, not only from the reafon of
the Thing, but from plain Scripture. Before
me was there no God form'd, neither fhall
there be after me, If 43. 10. If there arife
among you a Trophet , or a Dreamer of
Dreams, and giveth Thee a fign or wonder,
and the fign or wonder come to pafs, where
of He fpake unto Thee, faying, Let us go after
other Gods ( which thou haft not known) and
let us ferve Them, Thou fhalt not hearken, &c.
Deut. 13. 1,2, 3. The Worfhip of the fame
one God, exclufive of all others, is by this for
ever made unchangeable: Miracles could not
be fufficient to give credit to any one, who
fhould pretend to introduce another objedt of
Worfhip ; or to fet up another God, befide the
one Supreme God. All Creatures whatever are
hereby effedtually precluded from receiving any
religious Homage and Adoration. This is con
firm'd by St.Taul {Rom. 1. 21, &c.) who cen-
fures thofe that knew God, (that is, acknow
ledged one Supreme God) and yet glorified
Him not as God, becaufe they ferved the
Creature more than (or befides) the Creator,
who is bleffed for ever. Wherein the Apoftle
plainly intimates, that the Creator only is to
he ferved; and that the Idolatry of the Hea
thens

ziz A DEFENSE. Qu.XVl.
thens lay in their worfhipping of the Crea
ture. He does not blame Them for giving
foveraign, or abfolute Worfhip to the Crea
tures { They could hardly be fo filly , as to
imagine there could be more than one Supreme
God) but for giving any worftoip at all, Sove-
raign or Inferior, Abfolute or Relative, to any
Thing but the Creator. To the fame purpofe,
Gal. 4 8. He condemns thofe who did fervice
unto Them, which by nature were no Gods.
Which Texts I fhall take care to explain parti
cularly, in another Place. All this is con
firm'd and illuftrated by the Angel, {Rev.
19.10.- — 2,2.-9.) who refufed to receive fo
much as the outward Adt of Adoration ; giving
this Rule and Maxim upon ir, Worftnp God:
intimating thereby, that God only is to be wor
fhip' 'd; that all Acts of religious Worfhip are
appropriated to God only. He does not fay,
worfhip God and whom God Jhall appoint to
be worjhip'd; as if He had appointed any be
fides God : nor worfhip God with foveraign
Worfhip ; as if any inferior fort of Worfhip
was permitted to be paid to Creatures ; but
fimply, plainly, and briefly, Worfhip God.
To this I may add, that the Reafons which God
infills upon and inculcates, in the Old Tefta
ment, why He, and He alone, in oppofition
to all others, is to be worjhip'd, are fuch as
exclude all Creatures. His being Jehovah ,
* Creator, Suftainer, Preferver of all Things,
* See If 40. If. 45. j-, 6, 7. 2 Kings 19. if. Jer. 10. IO; 11. <i"
having

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 233
having no God before Him nor after Him, and
the like.
This is the Scripture Account of the Objedt
of Worfhip: There is neither Rule nor Example
in it, for the worfhipping any Creature whatever ;
but all the Texts, relating to this Matter, are
full, ftrong, and clear -for the Worfhip of God
only. Now, whatever Reafons Human Wif
dom may invent for the worfhipping of Crea
tures, befides the Creator (as Celfus and Tor^
phyrie of Old, and the Romanifts of later
Times, have pretended ) thofe are never to be
fet againft a clear and plain Law ; or oppofed
to the unerring Wifdom of God , who beft
knows to whom Worlhip is proper to be paid,
and to whom not.
I fliall not here argue the Point from the
" Nature of the Thing it felf. I will fuppofe
( without granting ) that Creatures may be wife
enough to know, ready enough to hear, and
able to relieve our wants, at any Diftance. I
will fuppofe alfo, that one Creature may be ap
pointed to bear Rule and to have Dominion over
many ; as fome have thought particular Angels
to prefide over fuch and fuch Kingdoms or
Countries. I will fuppofe likewife, that it may
feem to Human Wifdom very fit and proper,
that fuch Creatures as can affift, or have the
charge of others, fliould be refpedted, worfhip' d,
and adored by Them. I will fuppofe alfo, that
we may be fo ignorant as not to perceive any
great harm, in thefe Suppofitions, from the Na-
R ture

234 /DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
ture of the thing, barely and fingly confider'd.
But God's Thoughts are not ourThoughts : He
has been pleas'd to enter an exprefs Laveat and
Prohibition in the Cafe; and has, no doubt,
good reafon for ir. Poffibly , He may ap
prehend it to be more for his own Glory , and
more for our Good, that our whole Worfhip
and Service be paid to Him , than a part
only. Poffibly, He may know (fuch is Hu
man Infirmity) that if any part, or kind, or
degree of Religious Worfhip was permitted to
be given to Creatures, it might infenfibly
alienate our Minds from the Creator ; or eat
out all our Reverence and Refpedt for God. Or,
it may be, that while our Acknowledgments
are order'd to be paid to Him, and to Him
alone, we may thereby be induced to live more
in dependence on Him ; become more imme
diately united to Him; and have the greater
love and efteem for Him. He will not, per
haps, leave his Favors in the Hands or in the
difpofal of his Creatures, left we fliould forget
whom we are principally obliged to; or left we
fliould imagine that He is not always every
where prefent, to hear all our Peritions, and to
anfwer them, according to his own good Plea
fure. Thefe, or a Thoufand better Reafons, in
finite Wifdom may have for appropriating all
Adts of Religious Worfhip to God. It is fuf
ficient for us ro know that He has done it : and
of this Holy-Scripture has given abundant Proof,
as we have before feen. Now,

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 235s
Now, I come to confider what you have to
except againft fo clear a Truth. All is com
prized in one fhort Sentence ; one remarkable
Diftinction. Abfolute Supreme Honour is
plainly appropriated to the Terfon of the Fa
ther only (by Exod. 20. 3. Matt. 4. 10.) as the
abfolute Supreme Being, or the one God, (p. 94 )
From which I am to infer, that relative in
ferior Worfhip may be paid to the Creatures,
notwithftanding what has been urged, from the
whole Tenor of Scripture aud Antiquity, td
the Contrary. This is the famed Diftinction,
pleaded by the Heathens of Old, for Tagan 5
by the Romanifts of late, for Topifh ; and by
You, for Arian Idolatry. I fliall endeavor
ro convince you how little there is, either of
Truth, or Probability , in this fo celebrated,
Diftinction ; and then put an End to the Argu
ment of this Query.
You fet out unfortunately under a miftake*
as if We were inquiring about Refpedt and
Efteem, when the Queftion is intirely about
Acts oi Religious Worfhip. My Words were
Worfhip and Adoration : Inftead thereof, you
put Honour, an ambiguous Word ; and fb flip
over the Difficulty , which you was pinch'd
with; and infenfibly lead your Reader off from
the Point it concerned you to fpeak to. Pleafe
to remember that we are difputing about Acts
of Worfhip, Religious Worfhip. Let us keep
to the Terms we began With; left, by the
changing of Words,- we make a change of Ideas,
R 2 and

236 /DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
and alter the very ftate of the Queftion. This
being premis'd, now I come directly to the
Point in Hand. Your pretence is, that ulti
mate, abfolute, fupreme, foveraign Worfhip
is due to the Father only ; Mediate, relative,
inferior, petty Worfhip may be paid to Crea
tures : The outward Adts and Circumftances
fuppofed alike in Both, fo far as to make
Them Religious , not Civil Worfhip. Your
confidering the Father as Supreme, and your
intending Him the higheft Refpedt imaginable,
are to make His Worfhip become fupreme,
abfolute, foveraign Worfhip: But your con
fidering another Being as inferior, dependent,
and a Creature only, and your intending Him
no more than a proportionate Refpedt, are to
make the Worlhip of Him become inferior,
relative, petty Worfhip. Worfhip therefore
is to take its Quality from the Efieem and In
tention of the Worfhipper, and is to be lup-
pos'd higher and lower accordingly. This, I
think, is your real and full Meaning, in as
few and as plain Words, as I am capable of
Expreffing it. In anfwer to it, I obferve as
follows. i. I can meet with nothing in Scripture to
countenance thofe fine-fpun Notions. Trayer
we often read of; but there is not a Syllable
about abfolute and relative, fupreme and in
ferior Prayer. We are commanded to pray
Fervently and Inceffant ly ; but never Sove-
raignly or Abfolutely, that I know of. We
have

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 237
have no Rules left Us about raifing or lowering
our Intentions, in proportion to the dignity of
the Objects. Some Inftructions, to this purpofe,
might have been highly ufeful ; and it is very
ftrange, that, in a Matter of fo great Impor
tance, no Directions fhould be given, either in
Scripture, or, at leaft, in Antiquity, how to
regulate our Intentions and Meanings, with
Metaphyfical Exadtnefs; fo as to make our
Worfhip either high, higher, or higheft of all,
as occafion fhould require.
2. But a greater Objection againft this Do
ctrine, is, that the whole Tenor of Scripture
runs Counter to it. This may be underftood,
in part, from what I have obferved above. To
make it yet plainer, I fliall take into Confidera
tion fuch Adts and Inftances of Worfhip, as
I find laid down in Scripture ; whether under*
the old or new Difpenfation.
Sacrifice was one Inftance of Worfhip re
quired under the Law ; and it is faid ; He that
Sacrificeth unto any God, fave unto the Lord
only, He Jhall be utterly deftroyed, Exod.
22. 20. Now fuppofe any perfon, confidering
with Himfelf that only abfolute and foveraign
Sacrifice was appropriated to God, by this
Law, fhould have gone and facrificed to other
Gods, and have been convicted of it before the
Judges : The Apology He muft have made for
it, I fuppofe, muft have run thus. "Gentlemen,
" tho' I have facrificed to other Gods, yet, I
*« hope, you'l obferve, that I did it not abfo-
R 3 " lutely:

238 /DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
" lutely: I meant not any abfiolute or fiu-
" preme Sacrifice (which is all that the Law
" forbids) but relative and inferior only. I
" regulated my Intentions with all imaginable
" care; and my efteem with the moft critical
*' Exadtnefs: I confider'd the other Gods,
" whom I facrificed to, as inferior only, and
" infinitely io; referving all foveraign Sacri-
" fice to the fupreme God of Ifrael. This,
or the like Apology muft, I prefume, have
brought off the Criminal, with fome applaufe
for his Acutenefs , if your Principles be true.
Either you muft allow this; or you muft be
content to fay, that not only abfolute fupreme
Sacrifice (if there be any Senfe in that Phrafe)
but all Sacrifice was, by the Law, appropriate
to God only.
Another Inftance of Worfhip, is making of
Vows, religious Vows. We find as little Ap
pearance of your famed Diftinction here, as in
the former cafe. We read nothing oi foveraign
and inferior, abfolute and relative Vows;
that we fliould Imagine fupreme Vows to be
appropriate to God , inferior permitted to
Angels, or Idols, or to any Creature.
Swearing is another Inftance much of the
fame kind with the foregoing. Swearing, by
God's Name, is a plain Thing, and well under
ftood : But if you tell us of foveraign and in
ferior Swearing, according to the inward Re
fpedt or Intention you have, in Proportion to
bhe Dignity of the Perfon by whofe Name you
^ Swear,

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 239
Swear, it muft found perfectly new to us. All
Swearing which comes fliort in its Refpedts, or
falls below Soveraign, will, I am afraid, be lit
tle better than Trofanefs.
Such being the Cafe in refpedt of the Adts of
Religious Worfhip already mention'd, I am now
to ask you, what is there fo peculiar in the
Cafe of Invocation and Adoration, that They
fhould not be thought of the fame kind with
the other ? Why fhould not abfolute and rela
tive Prayer and Proftration appear as abfurd,
as abfolute and relative Sacrifice, Vows, Oaths,
or the like ? They are Adts and Inftances of
religious Worfhip, like the other ; appropriated
to God in the fame Manner, and by the fame
Laws, and upon the fame Grounds and Rea
fons. Well then, will you pleafe to confider,
whether you have not begun at the wrong
end, and committed an vq%ep\> <vs£yvi%>i in your
way of thinking. You imagine that Acts of
religious Worfhip are to derive their Signi
fication and Quality, from the intention and
meaning of the Worfliippers ; whereas the very
reverfe of it is the Truth. Their Meaning
and Signification is fix'd and determin'd by
God Himfelf j and therefore we are never to
ufe them with any other meaning, under
peril of Profanefs or Idolatry. God has not
left us at Liberty to fix what Senfe we pleafe
upon religious Worfhip, to render it high
or low, abfolute or relative, at Difcretion;
fupreme when offered to God, and if to others
R 4 inferior;

240 /DEFENSE Qu. XVI.
inferior; as when to Angels, or Saints, or
Images, in fuitable Proportion. No : Religion
was not made for Metaphyfical Heads only ;
fuch as might nicely diftinguifli the feveral De
grees and Elevations of Refpect and Honour
among many Objects. The fliort and plain
way, which (in pity to Human Infirmity and
to prevent Confufion) it has pleafed God to
take with us, is to make all religious Worfhip
his own ; and fo it is foveraign of Courfe. This
I take to be the true Scriptural , as well as
only reafonable Account of theObjedt of Wor
fhip. We need not concern our felves (it is
but vain to pretend to it) about determining
the Senfe and Meaning of religious Worfhip.
God Himfelf has took care of it ; and it is
already fix'd and determin'd to our Hands. It
means, whether we will or no, it means, by
Divine Inftitution and Appointment, the Di
vinity . the Supremacy, the Soveraignty of
its' Object. To mifapply thofe Marks of Dig
nity, thofe appropriate enfigns of divine Ma-
jefty ; to compliment any Creature with them,
and thereby to make common what God has
made proper, is to deify the Works of God's
Hands, and to ferve the Creature inftead of
the Creator, God bleffed for ever. We have
no occafion to talk oi foveraign, abfolute, ulti
mate, Prayers, and fuch other odd Fancies:
Trayer is an addrefs to God, and does not
admit of thofe novel Diftindtions. In fliort
then, Here is np room left for your diftin-
guifhing

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 241
guifhing between foveraign and inferior
Adoration. You muft firft prove, what you
have hitherto prefumed only and taken for
granted, that you are at liberty to fix what
Meaning and Signification you pleafe to the
Adts of religious Worfhip; to make them
high or low at Difcretion. This you will find
a very -difficult undertaking. Scripture is be
fore-hand with you; and, to fix it more, the
concurring Judgment of the earlieft and beft
Chriftian Writers. All religious Worfhip is
hereby determin'd to be, what you call abfo
lute and foveraign. Inferior or relative Wor
fhip appears now, to be Contradiction in
Senfe, as it is novel in Sound ; like an inferior
or relative God. To what hath been faid,
I may add a few farther Confiderations from
Scripture. The Apoftles Barnabas and Taul,
when the * Lycaonians would have done Sa
crifice unto Them, did not tell Them that
Sacrifice was of equivocal Meaning ; and that
They might proceed in ir, provided only that
They would rectify their Intentions, and con
fider Them as Apofiles only ; but They forbad
them to Sacrifice to Them at all. The Angel,
in the Revelations, did not direct St. John to
confider Him oniy as an Angel, and then to
go innocently on, in his Worfhip of Him ; but
He order'd Him to Worfhip God. Our Bleffed
Lord did not tell the Devil that all external
Worlhip was equivocal, and might be offered
to Angels or Men, provided the Intention was
* tk a. regulated*

%$z /DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
regulated, and refpect proportion' d; but He told
Him plainly that all religious Worfhip was ap
propriate to God In fine, nothing is more
evident than that the Defign, both of the
l^aw and the Gofpel, was to eftablifh this great
Truth , and to Root out Creature-Worjhip,
" And this was, as Dr. Cudworth rightly ob-
44 ferves, the grand Reafbn why the Antient
44 Fathers fo zeaJcufly oppofed Arianifm; be-
" caufe that Christianity,- which was intended
44 by God Almighty for a means to extirpate
44 Tagan Idolatry, was thereby it felf Taga-
41 nized and Idolatrized ; and made highly
44 guilty of that very thing, which is fo much
'.*• condemn'd in the Tagans, that is, Creature-
*' Worfhip. This might be proved by fundry
41 Teftimonies of Athanafius, Bafil, Gregory
41 Nyffen, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius,
^ C bry foft om , Hilary, Ambrofe , Auftine ,
*' Fauflinus, and Cyril oi Alexandria ; All of
44 Them charging the Arians, as guilty of the
" very fame Idolatry with the Gentiles, or
44 Tagans, in giving religious Worfhip, even
44 to the Word and Son of God Himfelf (and
S4* confequently to our Saviour Chrift) as He was
14 fuppofed by Them to be but a Creature *.
But, in anfwer perhaps to This, it may be
faid, by fuch as run Things off in a confufed
manner and do not ftay to diftinguifli, that
certainly there is a wide and great Difference
between giving Honour to Heathen Idols, anct
* Cudw. lotpU. Syft. p. 6a8^ doing

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 243
doing it to our Saviour Chrift, tho' a Creature
only. No doubt but there is ; and God forbid
that any Chriftian fliould fay, or think other -
wife. But that is not the point. The Worfhip
even oi Saints and Angels is much preferable
to Tagan Worfhip. But ftill They are Both
equally, tho' not equally culpable, Idolatry;
and are Breaches of the firft Commandment.
Whatever love, refpect, gratitude, &c. may be
due for what our Lord and Saviour has wrought
for us, if He be ftill a Creature, All cannot come
up to Worfhip, which is appropriate to God
alone. Well, but it may be farther pleaded,
that here is God's command in the Cafe, which
makes it widely different from any of the for
mer. Very True, there is fo; and we fhall
make a proper ufe of that hereafter : But the
Queftion is, what is the fundamental Rule of
religious Worfhip? Is it to worfhip God only?
Or is it to worfhip God, and whomfoever be
fides, God fhall appoint to be worfhip' dl They
who pretend the latter, muft fhow fome Foun
dation, if They can, in Scripture, for ir. Where is
it intimated, either in the Old or New Teftament,
that Worfhip fhould be paid to any befides
God? Neither the Law nor the Prophets,
neither Chrift nor His Apoftles ever intimated
any thing like it. Our Saviour did not fay,
worfhip God, and whomfoever God fhall order
, to be worfhip 'd; nor did the Angel, in the Re
velations, infinuate any fuch Thing: St. Taul
never told us of ferving the Creator, and
whoro

244 /DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
whom the Creator fhould nominate befides; but
Creator only. The like may be obferved up
on other occafions, where this might have been
properly intimated, but is conftantly omitted.
Nothing therefore can be plainer than that the
fundamental Rule for Worfhip is, that God on
ly is to be worfhip' d. All Worfhip, inconfiftent
with this primary and perpetual Law, muft, of
Confequence, appear Idolatrous, either in the
Practice, or the Principle: And it is thus that
the Arians, following a Scripture-Command
but not upon Scripture-Trinciples, and practi
cing a Chriftian Duty upon a Tagan Founda
tion of Creature- Worfhip and Tolytheifm,
ftand charged with Idolatry.
2. To confirm us farther in the Truth of the
Principles here afferted, I fhall fubjoin a fecond
Confideration, drawn from the Practice of the
primitive Martyrs; who may be prefiimed to
have underftood the Principles of that Religion,
for which They chearfully laid down their Lives.
It is well known that They readily fubmitted
to all kinds of Torment, and to Death it felf,
rather than offer Adoration, Incenfe, or Sacri
fice to the Heathen Deities. Now, if Soveraign
Worfhip be all that is appropriated to God ; and
if no Worfhip be Soveraign, but what the in
ward Intention, and fecret Efteem of the Wor-
Ihipper make fo; how thoughtlefs were They,
to refift even unto Blood, for fear of committing
a Sin, which it was not poffible for Them to
' liave been guilty of. They could never have
blunder'd

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 24?
blunder'd fo egregioufly, as to have confider'd
the Heathen Deities (which They heartily de-
fpifed) as Supreme Gods ; or to have intended
them Soveraign Worfhip -, and therefore could
not have been guilty of giving them that Wor
fhip which is appropriate to God. They had
fo mean and defpicable an Opinion of the Ta-
gan Deities, that if the Quality of the Worfhip
is to be eftimated from the fecret Efteem and
Intention of the Worfhipper, fuch Acts of Wor
fhip muft have dwindled into no Worfhip in
reality ; hardly amounting to fb much as an
empty ceremonious Compliment. Where then
was the Harm of Sacrificing to Idols ? What
Law had condemn'd it, if your Principles
be true? The outward Act being equivocal,
this could not be interpreted Sacrifice, fuch
as God had forbid to be offer'd to any but
Himfelf. But Thofe primitive Saints were un
acquainted with your refined Subtilries, having
learned their Logick from Scripture, and the
plain common Senfe and Reafon of Mankind.
They knew that the Signification of Worfhip
and Sacrifice depended not on their arbitrary
Efteem, or fecret Intention ; but had been be
fore fix'd and determin'd by God. To offer
Sacrifice to the Heathen Deities, was, by Con-
ftrudtion and Implication, declaring Them to
be immutable, eternal, fupreme, and ftridtly
divine. They could not be guilty of fuch a
folemn Lie, or commit fuch barefac'd Pro-
fanefs and Idolatry. They would not proftituta the

246* /DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
the Marks and Characters of Divinity to Thofe
who were by Nature no Gods ; nor give That
to Idols, which was appropriated to God only.
This was their manner of reafoning ; and this
was right : For, indeed, upon the other Hypo
thefis, there is nothing ib mean or low, but
what a Man might pay religious Worfhip to.
For Inftance: Pray to Angels, but confider
them as Angels, with proportionate Refpect,
and there will be no harm in it. Worfhip Saints
departed, but intend them only fuch refpedt as
is due to Saints, and all is right. Fall down
before a Crucifix with humble Proftration, but
Confider it as a Crucifix, and intend little or
nothing by it, and all is well. Thefe feem to
me the unavoidable Confequences of this famed
Diftinction , and thefe are the ufes which have
actually been made of it, fince Men have
learn'd to be fubtile, inftead of wife ; and have
departed from the fundamental Maxim of re
vealed Religion, that God alone is to be wor
fhip' d with religious Worfhip, The Sum of
what hath been laid, on this important Article,
may be comprized in the foUowing Particulars.
I. That, under the Old Teftament, all reli
gious Worfliip was declared to belong to God
only; and upon fuch Reafons as exclude all
Creature - Worfhip ; Namely , becaufe He is
God, Jehovah, Eternal, Immutable; Creator,
Preferver, Suftainer and Governor of all
things. 2. That

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 247
2. That our bleffed Lord made no Alteration
in this Law; but explain'd and confirm'd it;
His Apoftles, after Him, inculcated the fame
Thing, long after our Saviour's Exaltation and
Afcenfion; and an Angel from Heaven rein-
forc'd it, thereby proclaiming its perpetual Obli
gation. No Diftindtion of Worfliip, mediate and
ultimate, was ever intimated ; nor of Inferior
and Soveraign : But all religious Worfliip fup
pofed to have one Meaning, one Significancy,
one Object, viz. The divine Nature ; whether
fubfifting in one Perfon, or more.
3 . Such being the Rule and Handing Law for
religious Worfhip, none can have any right,
title, or claim to Worfhip, but in Conformity
to the fame Rule.
4. If the Son of God be very God, Jehovah,
Creator, Suftainer, and Treferver of all Things;
then He both may, and ought to be worfliip'd,
in conformity to the Scripture-Rule, and upon
Scripture-Principles : But if He be a Creature
only, the worfhip of Him is not confiftent with
the fundamental Rule both of the Law and the
Gofpel. In a word ; if the Son of God is to
be worfhip' d, He is not a Creature : if a Crea
ture, He is not to be worfhip' d.
It remains now only to inquire, whether the
primitive Church, which had the fame Scriptures
that we have and better Opportunities of know
ing and underftanding Them, made the fame or
the like Conclufions from Them. It is an Ar
gument of no fmall Importance ; and therefore I fhall

248 /DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
I fhall think it worth the while, to give you a
brief Summary of the Sentiments of the earlieft
Chriftian Writers; and in their own Words,
that every impartial Reader may be able to
judge for Himfelf.
Juftin Martyr, giving account of the Chri
ftian Worfhip, fays plainly, " a We worfhip
" God alone ; and, None but God ought to be
" worfliip'd.
b Athenagoras, in like manner, fpeaks to this
effedt : " We are not to worfhip the World,
" but the Maker of it5 we worfhip not the
,c Towers of God, but their Creator and Go-
? « <vernor.
Theophilus fays, '* I will Honour the King,
'* but I will not Worfhip Him. c I will wor-
" fhip God, the real and true God: no one
'' ought to be worfliip'd but God alone.
d Tatian, to the fame purpofe, tho' not fo
fully, fays ; " The Works of God, made for our
" Sakes, I will not worfliip.
^Tertullian fays, " What we worfliip is one
a Oiov p\v f*$tov es&mvvouptv, Apolog. I. C. IJ, Ton ©son pgy,,
ft? it^or.vvav, c. 1 1 •
b Ou toutov, a\Aa T Tt-ffiTiw auToi irfHtmAmrrtov, p. ^. Oi ro{
&vvap&S C§Oiis) irggoiovm ^t^muopiv, icXXa T mtirnn ttitav yu
HFTnTao, p. ^6.
c Qiof dk t4 . otTac. Qui >§ ocaiiJu im&irxvvS.——chi, uaau i\at
hi — X£t)tsxuvtio\ uaa' h f^va &w, p. 30. 33.
d Anpiovpyiav tv>v \jz? airov ytjtvvipttlai xagfiv ipav ,&&exwt7v i
Ss-sau, p. 18. Vid. 8c p. 79.
e Quod Colimus, Deus unus eft j qui Totam molem iftam—  de
nihilo expreflit. Apoi. c. 17.
Praefcribitur mihi ne quem Alium Deum dicam, — ne quem alium
adorem, ut quoquo modo venerer, prater unicum Ilium qui ita
mandar. Seorp. c. 4. p. 400. Rigalt.
" God

il

It

Qu. XVI. of fome QUERIES. 249
God, who made the whole Mafs of Things
purely from Nothing. I am commanded not to
call any other, God, nor to adore, or in any
wife worfhip any other befides that one.
* Clement of Alexandria has more to this
purpofe: " Angels and Men (fays He) are the
" Works of God's Hands: Let none of you
" worfliip the Sun, but let Him fet his Heart
" upon the Sun's Creator: Neither let Him
" deify the World , but to the Maker of the
" World let his Defires be. I feek after God,
" the Creator of the World, Him that light-
" ed up the Sun, and not after the Creatures
" {ipyx.) which God hath made. The Gentiles
" ought to learn, from the Law and the Pro
phets, to worfliip the one God, and Hirn
only, who is, in reality, Almighty. This
it is to worfhip the divine Being in true
Righteoufnefs of Practice and Knowledge.
\ Irenaus expreffes Himfelf thus: " You
ought to worfliip the Lord your God, and to
" ferve Him only, and to give no credit to
" Him, who deceitfully promifed Things which
* "AyysAoi <? ' A&pumt \ya T oawruXwy auTx „ pn r nAtov
tic upatv yrpaoK-vynTzo a\Xa tov yAtts TrafoiTyv hmrvB-eira. pvitiz *r vfjvusv
&Atut£tT»i, eiAAa tov %q<rpu i)iu/istpyov i7nl'ri-ni{m.TU, p. ff. Ed. Ox.
Toy uga-ps d\pioupyoy, tov viaiis tyurayAyov b>soy iTniyrru, a Ta ipyz g
&iou, p. ^q. Tas ' WAAnvac, %gn 2^g. vopn, v,a\ tt^SivitZv (Mpavjav&v
sva pgvov tsioHv Qiov T ovtuc, ovtu '7ravfar.ocf.T0ea, p. 825. To o^' t<H
Jp>)inc,iuHv to S-tiov 3*1$ Is 'ovTUt, ohxcuoo-uvno ipyoiv Tt ttj yvatstus, p. 778.
f Dominum Deum tuum adorare oportet, & ipfi foli feririre,
& non credere ei qui falfb promifit ea, qua; non funt fua, dicens :
Hit omnia Tibi dabo fi procidens adoraveris me.  Neque enim
conditio fub ejus poteftate eft, quandoqaidem & ipfe unus de Crea-
Mtris eft, p. 310. Ed. Bened.
S were

<t

it

250 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XVI.
were not his own, faying : /// thefe Things
will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down
and worfhip me  The Syftem of Creatures
is not under his Dominion, fince He Himfelf
is one of the Creatures.
* Origen has a great deal to our purpofe, in
his Book againft Celfus. I fliall feledt a few
Paffages: He blames the Gentiles, "who from
" the ftupendous greatnefs of the Things in the
" World, and the beautiful order of Creatures
i( {^puapyapui'mv) did not look up and confider
" that they ought to admire, worfhip, and adore
" Him only that made Them. In another place
" He fays: To worfliip the Sun and the Crea-
"¦ tures oi God {®iS hpuBpyyipicc^c is forbidden
" Us, who are taught, not to ferve the Crea-
*' ture, befides the Creator. He obferves a little
after that: " We ought not to Honour Thofe
" in the place of God, or of the Son of God.
Which I take notice of here particularly, that
you may fee how clearly Origen diftinguiflies
the Son from the .JViapW""^ ®i£ : as, indeed,
He does every where. In another place, He
obferves that Chrifiians are bred up to Thoughts
* Oi cm rod TyAiziTts psyiB-zss T du tu tyo-pw, l£ rod igtAAXi T
etlpuspyvpa-niiv pvi olivap/,ot ava'vAt-^ai ttgy Ssafiiio-zcf, on orpotncvvsiv
Kai Javpafav xai at'v&v %(>> pgvov to, mu-m 7Tt7n>ii))($-ju, p. ¦ y8.
 o-iQeiy j T 'r>Atov, «j Ta U Qlou hupiovpy^^c/.^. amp iptv ami-
yogdbTai cteeioriyffyioic. pu Aa<re.t6w Tij kt1q-{ 7m.°a tov y.-nrnv-m,
Pag- ns-
I fliall add another Paffage.
Ouhf, jap fiAiTiav TvTi Is ¦vj'^iis otfiSaApotc ccaao> TgLrra e£G{ t»
Jiiov Tmga r •vmfctxvuvTa svegay ktl raf 'S -mtVTCf btptvpyx, (£ jr«<r«»
ii-jQuv a'm<fi^iv CMitvi/s, p. 367. .
elevated

Qu.XVI. of fome QUERIES. 25-1
elevated far * above all Creatures, znd might
very juftly difdain to worfliip any of Them.
The like He remarks of the Jews, " that they
" were taught to t afcend up to the uncreated
" Nature of God, to fix their Eyes upon Him
" only; and on Him alone to reft all their
" Hopes and Expectations.
I might add many more Teftimonies, to the
fame effect, from the Ante-Nicene Writers:
But thefe are fufficient to give us a juft Idea of
their Principles, in relation to the Object of
Worfhip. This we fliall find run thro' Them
all, That God alone is to be worfliip'd; the
Creator in oppofition to all Creatures what
ever; the to ®iioii (as Clement oi Alexandria,
and Origen fometimes accurately exprefs it) which
alfo Tertullian feems to intimate, in the words,
<&uod Colimus, above cited. The Sum then of
the cafe is this : If the Son could be included
as being uncreated, and very God ; as Creator,
Suftainer, Treferver of all Things, and one
with the Father ; rhen He might be worfliip'd
upon their Principles, but otherwife could not.
What their Practice was, fliall be confider'd, in
its proper place. For the prefent, let it be a
Rule and Maxim with us, fix'd, as far as Scri-
* Tou? JiociftDivfat ptyaAotyvac, xjzs-igavaGciji&v ¦nav-m to o\puvp.
yi/Wja, &c. p. 237.
-f- 'AvaQcifiiiy Im tqv aylv-riToy tou &10Z <ptlo-.v xaxsivai pava) hogav,
liyy Tac, a,-' uutou ps>S lA-motts ic^Tiixav, p. ¦ 8p-
Compare p. 1 60. where Origen infifts upon the Neceffity of elevating
our Thoughts and Devotions above and beyond all created Being,
i, Tt-mTSv ytvyiTov, in one place, 7mvToc, ytvviTou tn the other. See alfo
Clem. Alex. p. 809. 816. Ox. Ed.
S 2 pture

2?2 /DEFENSE Qu. XVII.
pture and the concurring Judgment of Antiquity
can fix it (befides what might be juftly pleaded
from the Reafon of the Thing) that no kind or
degree of religious Worfliip is due, or can be
lawfully paid, to any Creature. The Conclufion
from all is ; if our Bleffed Lord is a Creature,
* He is not to be worfliip'd ; if He is to be
worfliip'd, He is not a Creature. Now we may
pals on. Query XVII.
Whether, notwithflanding, Worfhip and Ado
ration be not equally due to Chrift; and
confequently, whether it muft not follow
that He is the one God, and not {as the
' Arians fuppofe) a diftinct inferior Being?
YO U Anfwer, that Equality of divine Ho
nour is never attributed in Scripture to
the Son with the Father ; and then, in proof
of a Matter of Fadt, you aflign a reafon of your
own devifing; for then the Son would be ab
folutely equal with the Father, which is
contrary to Scripture and Reafon, (p. 94. )
But why do you not keep clofe to the Words
of rhe Query, and ro the point in Queftion.?
Worflrip and Adoration are my Words; not
divine Honour, which is ambiguous, and leads
us off from the Argument in Hand. Suppofe
it had been faid Sacrifice : Would you anfwer
+ KTio-pa y> x-no-paU & xpotrnvvii, aXha huA®» Atvmrtui, xai
lenrpa ®sly. Ath. Orat. a. p. 49I. thus?

Qu.XVII. of fome QUERIES. 253
thus ? Equality of divine Sacrifice is never at
tributed, &c. Do not you fee the Impropriety ?
Well, but, as it is, you muft fay, equality of
divine Worfhip is never attributed, &c. And
then, pray tell me, what you mean by equa
lity or inequality of Worfhip ; whether you
mean longer or fliorter Prayers, more or lefs
frequent AddrefTes, or any thing elfe. Be that
as it will, Worfhip, religious Worfliip, greater
or fmaller, longer or fliorter, has the fame Im
port and Significancy; and fpeaks the Perfon
addrefs'd to, to be divine: juft as Sacrifice,
whether offer'd once a Year only or once a
, Day, or whether it were a Lamb or only two
young Tigeons, carried rhe fame Acknowledg
ment with it of the Divinity, Soveraignty,
and Supremacy of the Perfon to whom it was
offer'd. Now, Worfhip being, as hath been
faid, an Acknowledgment of the true God, in
oppofition to all Creatures whatever, which
are by Nature no Gods ; and being offer'd to
the Father, not for the recognizing his perfonal
Properties, as He ftands diftinguifli 'd from the
Son and Holy Spirit, bur his effential Perfecti
ons, common to all, and by which He is di-
ftinguifh'd from the Creatures ; it is very mani
feft, that if the Son is to be worfhip' d too,
He is equally God, and true God, with, the
Father j has all the feme effential Excellencies
and Perfections which the Father hath, and is
at as great a diftance from the Creatures; in
oppofition to whom, and as a mark of his Su-
S 3 perior

2?4 /DEFENSE Qu XVII.
perior and infinitely tranfcendent Excellency,
He is worfhip'd. If then Honour confifts in
the Acknowledgment of his effential Perfections,
Equality of divine Honour is attributed in
Scripture to the Son with the Father ; becaufe
Worfhip is attributed to Both, and is always of
the fame Import and Significancy, by God's
own Order and Appointment. But then you'l
lay, the Son will be abfolutely equal with the
Father ; which you think inconfiftent with Scri
pture and Reafon. If you mean by abfolutely
equal, that the Son muft be the firft Terfon,
as well as the Father, I deny your Inference :
if any thing elfe, I allow it to be true. The
Son will be equal in all thofe Refpedts, for
which Worfliip is due to the Father Himfelf.
He will be equally divine, equally eternal,
immutable, wife, powerful, &c. in a word,
equally God and Lord. As to the Subordi
nation of Perfons in the fame Godhead, That
is of diftinct Confideration ; and we may never
be able perfedtly to comprehend the Relations
of the three Perfons, ad intra, amongft them
felves; the ineffable Order and Oeconomy of
the ever bleffed Co-eternal Trinity. You have
many Things to fay , in hopes to leffen the
Honour and Worfliip attributed to the Son in
Holy Scripture. But unlefs you cou'd prove
that no Worfliip at all is to be paid Him, you
prove nothing. However, that I may not feem
to pafs any thing flightly over, I fliall take the
Pains to examine your Exceptions, As

Qu.XV». of fome QUERIES. 157
As to what you fay, to weaken the force of
Job.$.zs. the anfwer to it will properly fall
under a diftindt Query -, which is intirely upon
ir. You * cite Thil. z. n. Joh. 14. 13. againft
the Querifl; as if it was any Queftion betwixt
us, whether God was glorified in his Son ;
or whether the Honour of either did not re
dound to Both. It was, you fay, the Trayer
of Chrift to glorify his Father, and the Fa
ther only. But read that part of the Prayer
again, and believe your own Eyes, Joh. 17. 1.
Father, the Hour is come, Glorify thy Son,
that thy Son alfo may glorify Thee. How fa
miliar, how equally concern 'd, as well for his
own, as his Father's Glory. So again, a little
after ; / have glorified Thee on the Earth : I
have finifhed the Work which Thou gaveft me
to do. And now, O Father, glorify Thou me
with thine own felf, with the Glory which I
had with Thee, before the World was, Joh.
17. 4, 5. See alfo, Joh. 13, 31, 32. and then
tell me whether it was Chrift's defign, or de
fire, that his Father only might be glorified.
How could you mils fuch plain Things ? You
go on ; The Father is the object, to which He
commands us to direct our Trayers. What ?
Will you difpute whether Chrift is to be wTor-
fhip'd, or invocated ? Confider, I befeech you,
Job.f.zs. mention'd above ; Recollect with your
felf, that He is fometimes diftindtly and perfonally
t invocated. Grace, Mercy, andTeace, or Grace
* P.90. fA£b7.f9. 1 Theff^.n, Rom. 10. 13. iCor.i.2-
S 4 and

z$6 /DEFENSE Qu.XVIJ.
and Teace, or Grace only, are frequently, in
Twenty Places of the New Teftament ?, im
plored of Him, together with the Father. He
is to be worfliip'd and adored, as well as the
Father, by Men, by b Angels, by the c whole
Creation. Glory and Dominion for ever and
ever are d afcribed to Him, as well as to the
Father. This is the Senfe of Scripture : I need
not add, it being a thing fo well known, the
Senfe alfo of the earlieft and belt Chriftian Wri
ters, who unanimoufly declare for the Wor
fliip of Chrift ; and their Practice was conform
able thereto. And now, that you may fee
how confiftent thofe good Men were (fuitably
to their ftrict finceriry ) with Scripture, with
Themfelves, and with each other ; I fliall flep
a little afide, to fhow You upon what Principles
They might, and did give religious Worfliip to
Chrift. We have heard Juftin Martyr, before, de
claring that God alone is to be worfhip' d. Very
true : But then He conftantly teaches us that
the Son isGod; and therefore might confiftently
fay, that the Son is to be <?- worfhip' d, and, in
the Name of the whole Church, " we f worfhip
*' Father, Son, and the Trophetick Spirit.
a See Clarke's Script. Dotlr. Ch. t. Set. 4.
b Hebr. 1. 6. c Rev. f. 8.
d 1 Pet. 3. 18. Rev. <j\ 13. See alfo Rev. 7. io.
e ngymiwiTor,, Apoi. 1. p. 94.. Apoi. 2. 3J-. Ox. Dial. pag. 191.
aoo. 251. s6f. Tebb.
C >d ~ ' i s. » ' P • * ',0.' ~ ' ^
t Exuvoy Tt, Xj T Trap avToo tfov lAirovrtt- Tfvtupu Tt To TtM-
tylltHgv TUtocjW/sJw K«| itgifmvvoupiv. Apoh 1, p. IF,
Athena*

Qu.XVII. Of fome QUERIES. 2^7
Athenagoras has before intimated that no^
thing lefs than the a Creator of the World is to
be worfhip'd. But then He tells us too, that
all Things were b created by the Son : and
therefore no wonder if, giving account, to the
Emperor, of the God whom the Chrifiians wor
fhip'd, He c joins the Son with the Father.
Theophilus declares, as before feen, for the
Worlhip of God only ; and fays, the King is
not to be worfhip'd, becaufe He is not God.
But then, as to the Son, He d owns Him to be
God ; and therefore of Confequence muft fup
pofe Worfliip due to Him.
Tatian teaches that God only is to be wor
fhip'd; not cMan, not thej Elements, not the
Creatures, hpuxpyia- Very good : But the Son
who f created Matter, and is 'Ayy'thm hfjuup-
yos, might be worfliip'd notwithftanding.
Tertullian is fo ferupulous, that He fays, He
will not fo much as call Any other, God, but
the God whom He worfhip'd, and to whom
alone He pronounces all Worfliip due. But He
muft certainly include the Son in that only God ;
as every one knows who ever look'd into his
Writings : And accordingly He § admits the wor
fliip of Him.
Clement of Alexandria, as we have obferv'd
above, "protefts againft the Worfliip of Crea-
a See the paffage above, p. 148. b See above, p. 1S9.
C! ®tovayov[ic. T tmyiir Tvh $ rfuvTot; >§ T mtpaurS Aoyov, p. it*.
d Pag. 130. e Pag. 17, 18. 79- f See above p. 189.
g Apolog.ci 21. Ad Uxor. 1. s.c.6. Adv. Jud. c.7. hP- 149.
iure$i

2?8 /DEFENSE Qu.XVII.
tures ; and allows no Worfhip but to the Ma
ker and Governor of all Things. But then
no Man more a exprefs than He, for the wor
fhipping of God the Son. The Reafon is plain:
the Son is b Maker and Governor of the World,
and even Tcaumxef.iufr according to this excel
lent Writer.
Irenaus likewife, as above cited, gives his
Teftimony for the Worfliip of God only ; and
againft the Worfliip of any Creature. But the
fame Irenaus as conftantly fuppofes the Son to
be truly God, and one God with the Father,
and exprefly c exempts Him from the number
of Creatures ; and therefore no wonder if He
admits the Son to be d invocated, as well as the
Father. I fliall obferve rhe like of Origen, and then
have done ; referring the Reader, for the reft, to
the compleat Colledtion of Teftimonies lately
made by the learned e Mr. Bingham, with very
judicious Reflections upon them.
Origen, as we have feen above, declares for
the Worfliip of the one God, in oppofition to
&\l Creatur es, hfiiy%y!i,iMx.'(gi, every thing created
yini-nv. But the good Father had His Thoughts
about Him: He clearly diftinguiflies the Son
from the hixmpyina/^t., or Creatures ; and be
fides, exprefly makes Him f a.yivrj'ns, uncreated,
immutable, &c. According to Origen , the
a Vid. p. 311. 8f 1. Ed. Ox. b See above, p. 189. 69.
c Vid. p. if 3. 243, Ed. Bened.
d Pag. 166. 232. e Origin. Eccl, B. 13, c. a.
f Contr. Celf. p. 187. 1 69, 1 70. Crea-

Qi.XVIL of fome QUERIES. 259
Creator of the Univerfe, and He only is to
be worfhip'd1, pag. 367. Very well; and look
but back to page 308, and there the Son is
b Creator of the Univerfe. So, in c another
place, He tells us, we are to worfhip Him only
who made (all) thefe Things ; and if we inquire
farther we fliall find, in the fame Author, that
God the Son d made all Things, the very words.
It is therefore a very clear Cafe, that Origen
thought the Son to have the fulleft Right and
Title to religious Worfliip, the fame that the
Father Himfelf had, as being eternal, immutable,
Creator and Governor of all Things. And
therefore He fpeaks of his being e worfliip'd as
God, by the Magi ; and calls it Ev<AQua, the
very fame word which He ufes, f fpeaking of
the Worfhip due to the Father. In § another
place, He fpeaks of the worfhipping Father and
Son jointly as one God, and h elfewhere men
tions the worfhip of the Son, in his diftinct
perfonal Capacity. The Sum then of Origen's
Dodtrine, as it lies in his Book againft Celfus
(the moft valuable of all his Works, and almoft
a Tow 9ra»ro5 o\pt\s^A%. h ^npingyoi tsA $ oravroi.
C £c£&v xg'vi psvov T -mum OTOTifliyra, p. if 8.
d Tov Aoyov -mmtirtxtva) Trnvta, oaa i yra-mg aural avtriiAafa, p. <5j.
e Pag. 46. f tJ)» si's r t oaoii o\ptit%yav tioiQ&av, p. 160.
g "slya ovv &tov , »5 ^nhhoiQipiv , T Tta-neyi j£ T 'tfoy ^oyitlio.
UjlV, p. 286.
h Ei%t&a tS Aoyoi tou ®tou, tlvvapivoi aurot iatruo%, p. 238.
Tov 2l&t(9V*v aijm Aoyov g* Qiou tGs&TXUv:/,<n>piv, p. 2 39.
N. B Here the Tranflator (as it is ufual with Him to mifreprefent
fuch ?ajfages as relate to the Son) renders Ss^nsw outZv, ejus Mini-
ftrum. The Senfe ts; Difpcnfer of them, i. e- Prophecies, juji before
mention'd, the

*tfd /DEFENSE Qu.XVlI.
the only one to be intirely depended on, as giv
ing the true Senfe of Origen, or of the Church
in his Time) is contain'd in thefe Particulars.
i. That God the Son, ifa Creature, or not
Creator, or not truly God, fliould not be wor
fhip'd at all.
2. That being truly God, and Creator, &c.
He may be worfliip'd ; either jointly with the
Father, as one -re ©eiw, or diftinct ly, as one Ter
fon of rhe Godhead.
3. That tho' He be God, and Creator, yet
the Father is fo primarily and eminently as
Father, and firft Perfon ; and therefore the di
ftinct Worfliip of the Son, confider'd as a Son,
redounds to the Father as the Head and Foun
tain of all. Hence it is, that, as the Father is
primarily and eminently God, Creator, and
Object of Worfliip; fo alfo all Worfhip, is
primarily and eminently the Father's: And
thus it is that I underftand Origen, in a * cer
tain place which has been often mif- inter
preted. 4. That the worfliip of the Son, confider'd
as a Son, is not an inferior Worfhip, nor any
other than proper divine Worfliip; being an
acknowledgment of the fame divine Excellen
cies, and effential Perfections communicated
from Father to Son : And hence it is, that there
is ftill but one Worfhip, and one Object oi
* Asijira|(*s9» «* (£ <sot5 g Aoya, ><j c«nti^ops%t ooutu, £ ti-
%M£AWf1tiP'",. € ti:^irsv%opt^a. 3 tkr evyvpitfa, jgt§s»B&u> •£ «s8s< srfe,
«*#& xvytoAt^taf "xj ^s7W^fi)irE«5j p. 233.
Wo?-

Qu.XVII. of fome QUERIES. atfi
Worfhip ; as one God, one Creator, &c. by
reafon of the moft intimate and ineffable Union
of the two Perfons; which Origen Himfelf
* endeavors to exprefs in the fulleft and ftrong-
eft Words He could think on.
From what hath been faid, we may know
what Judgment to make of the Antient Doxo
logies. They ought certainly to be underftood
according to the prevailing Doctrine of the pri
mitive Church. They were different in Form,
but had all one Meaning ; the fame which I
have fliown you from the primitive Writers.
The Arians were the firft who interpreted
fome of them to fuch a Senfe, as either favor'd
Creature-Worfhip , or excluded the Son and
Holy- Ghoft from proper divine Worfhip. It
was low Artifice to value one fort of Doxology
above another, only becaufe more equivocal %
and to contend for Antient Words, in oppofi
tion to the Antient Faith. The Catholicks under
ftood the fiibtlety of thofe Men, and very eafily
defeated it: Firft, by afferting the only true
and juft Senfe of Thofe Doxologies, which the
Arians had wrefted to an Heretical Meaning %
and next, by ufing, chiefly, Doxologies of ano
ther Form ; which had been alfo of long ftand-
* 'A»a£sWe ^ «?£S5 tov ixl ?sxoi <S>iov, o as^i'sws >£ oMiougiTUi, t&i
kpte/ms airov oiQav %l& ts s-focwyofl©* ixtivot 'ijS, tov ©sob Aoyg
xj avtplai, &c. p. 382.
The fame Thought is thus exprefs'djy Cyril.
Min 3^ to Tipav tov vm-riga yop'Ztiv, tv -n T hf^'ou^yijpiTUv $¦
'yov -vsn7?\iuimpiv , «AA" if? 7rar»f ii w«« V» xgorr.vvti&u, k) p\
Mfitf&u ii irfwxwjine. Cyril. Catsch, 11, p- J 43- Oxon. ing

262 /DEFENSE Qu.XVII.
ing in the Church ; and which, being lefs equi
vocal, were lefs liable to be perverted. But
the Subjedl of Doxologies being already in bet
ter Hands, I fliall here difmifs it, and proceed.
You obferve, that it was the conftant pra
ctice of the Apoftles to pray and give thanks
to God, through Jefus Chrift, (p. 91.)
And fo it is the conftant Practice of the
Church at this Day. What can you infer from
thence ? That the Father and Son are not equal,
or are not to be equally honour'd? Nothing
lefs: But, as the Son ftands to us under
the particular Character of Mediator, befides
what He is in common with the Father, our
Prayers, * generally, are to be offer'd rather
through Him, than to Him: yet not forgetting
or omitting, for fear of Mifapprehenfion and
grofs Miftakes, to offer Prayers directly to Him,
and to join Him with the Father in Doxo
logies ; as the Antient Church did, and as our
own, God be thanked, and other Churches of
Chriftendom ftill continue to do. You add,
that whatever Honour is paid to the Son, is
commanded, on account of his ineffable rela
tion to God, as the only begotten Son, Sec. But
this ineffable Relation is not that of a Crea
ture to his Creator ; but of a Son to a Father,
of the fame Nature with Him. This may be
ftiled ineffable : the other cannot, in any true
or juft Senfe. If the Son is to be worjhip'd,
as you feem here to allow, it can be on no
*• See Bull. D. F. p. 121. other

Qu.XVU. of fome QUERIES. 263
other Account, but fuch as is confiftent with
the Scriptures; on the Account of his being
one with the Father, to whom Worfhip be
longs ; and to whom it is appropriated in op
pofition to Creatures , not in oppofition to
Him who is of the fame Nature with, Co-ef-
fential to, and Infeparable from Him. The
Worfhip* you fay, terminates not in the Son.
How this is to be underftood, and in what
Senfe admitted, I have explain'd above. Strictly
fpeaking, no Honour is paid to Either, but
what redounds to the Glory of Both ; becaufe
of their intimate Union ; and becaufe Both are
but one God. But you fay, the Father begat
Him: Very well; fo long as He did not
create Him, all is fafe : The Eternity , the
T erf ect ions , the Glory of Both are One.
And, you fay, gave Him dominion over us :
That is more than you can prove ; unlefs you
underftand it of Chrift, confider'd as God-Man t
ot Mediator.
In fome Senfe, every thing muft be referr'd
to the Father as the firft Perfon, the Head
and Fountain of all. But this does not make
two Worfhips, Supreme and Inferior; be
ing all but one Acknowledgment of one
and the fame effential Excellency and Per
fection, confider'd primarily in the Father,
and derivatively in the Son; who, though
perfonally. diftinguifli 'd , are in Subftance un
divided and effentially one. All your Ar
guments, on this Head, amount only to a
petitif

*i$4 /DEFENSE. QU.XVIL
petitio principii, taking the main Thing for
granted ; that a 'Diftinction of Terfons is the
fame with a Difference of Nature ; and that a
Subordination of the Son, as a Son, to the Fa
ther, implies an efTential Difparity and Inequality
betwixt Them ; which you can never make out.
Inftead of proving the Son to be a Creature^ '
and that He is to be worfliip'd notwithftanding
(which are the Points you undertake) all that
you really prove is, that the Son is not the Fa
ther, or firft Perfon, nor confider'd as the firft
Terfon in our Worfhip of Him ; which is very
true, but very wide of the purpofe. What
follows in your Reply, {p. 91, 92, 93.) does not
need any farther Anfwer; being either barely
Repetition, or Comments on your own Miftake
of the meaning of the Word, Individual; of
which enough hath been faid before. You are
pleafed (pag. 94 ) to make a wonder oi it, that
I fliould quote Heb. 1.6. in favor of my Hypo
thefis. But if you confider that the Angels are
There order'd to worfhip the Son ; and that That
Text is a proof of the Son's being Jehovah (See
Tfal. 97.) and that Worfliip is appropriated to
God only, by many Texts of Scripture, and the
concurring Senfe of Antiquity, as I have fliown
above ; there will be little farther occafion for
wondring, in fo clear a Cafe. In that very Chap
ter {Heb. 1.) it is fufficiently intimated what it
was that made the Son capable of receiving Wor
fliip and Adoration. He is declared to have
made the Worlds; to be the Shiningforth of
his

Qu. XVIII. of fome QUERIES. %'€$
his Father's Glory, and the exprefs Image of
his Terfon ; and to uphold all Things by the
word ofhis Tower, (v. 2,3.) Strong and lively
Expreffions of his divine, eternal, uncreated
Nature ; fuch as might give Him the jufleft claim
to the Worfliip and Adoration of Men arid An
gels. In the clofe, you have a Reriiark about
the error of Arius ; which, you fay, did not
confift in making the Son diftinct from, and
really fubordinate to the Father {for that
was always the Chriftian Doctrine.) Here
you cOme upon us with general Terms, and <?-
quivocal Expreffions; Leaving the Reader tO
apprehend that the Chriftian Church believed
the Son to be a diftinct, feparate, inferior Be
ing; in fliort, a Creature; as Arius plainly^
and you covertly affert : Whereas there is not
an Author of Reputation, among all the An
tients, before Arius, that taught or maintain'd
any fuch Thing. A Subordination, in fome Senfe;
They held ; and that is all ; not in Arius' s Senfe,
not in Your's. Well, but yoU proceed to tell
Us, wherein his Error confifted, viz. in prefum
ing to affirm, Upon the Trinciples of his own
uncertain Thilofophy, and without warrant
from Scripture, that the Son was e£ £«, 'o,tkH
and that w -m-n <m yx w. Arius had id much
Thilofophy, or rather common Senfe, as to
think ; and fo much Franknefs and Ingenuity.
as to cOhfefs ; that there^ neither is, nor can be
any Medium between God and Creature. He
was not fo ridiculous aS tO imagine that God
' T firft

266 /DEFENSE Qu. XVIII.
firft made a Subftance, and then out of that
pre-exifting created Subftance made the Son ;
Befides that, even this way, the Son had been,
in the laft refult, eg y* oVrav : Nor was He weak
enough to believe that any thing, ad extra,
had been co-eval, or co-eternal with God Him
felf. If He had, He need not have ferupled to
have allow'd the like Privilege to the Son; the
firft and beft of all Beings, except God Him
felf, in His Opinion.
But fince you think your own Thilofophy
fo much better than Arius' s, will you be ib
kind as to tell us plainly whether the Son be
of the fame divine Subftance with the Fai
ther* or of fome extraneous Subftance which
eternally pre-exifted; or from nothing. The
firfi you deny directly, as well as Arius ; and the
fecondalio, by plain neceffary Confequence : And
why then fliould you differ upon the third,
which is the only one left, and muft be true, if
Both the other be falfe ? If Arius was rafh in
affirming This, He was equally rafh in denying
the Son's Co-eternity with the Father, and again
in denying his Confubftantiality ; and fo your
cenfure of Him recoils inevitably upon your felf.
Then, for the other Error of Arius, in afferting
that the Son once was not ; as having been pro
duc'd, or created, by the Father ; in your way,
you correct it thus* : True, the Son was pro
duc'd , brought into exiftence, had a begin
ning, and was not, metaphyfically, eternal;
but yet, for all that, it was an Error, in Thi-
* Pag. fi. 6x. l°fiphy

Qu.XVlII. of fome QUERIES. 267
lofophy, for Arius ro fay, that He once was
not. Unhappy Arius j deteftcd by h:s Ad-
verfaries ; and traduced by his own Friends,
from whom He might reafonably have expected
kinder Ufage. Let me intreat you. hereafter, to
be more confiftent: Either Value and refpect the
Man, as the great Reviver and Reftorer oi pri
mitive Chriftianity ; or renounce his Principles;
and declare Him a Heretick, as We do.
Query XVIII.
Whether Worjhip and Adoration, both front
Men and Angels , was not due to Him%
long before the commencing of his Mediato
rial Kingdom, as He was their Creator
and Treferver (See Col. 1. 16, 17.) And
whether that be not the fame Title to Ado
ration which God the Father hath, as Au
thor and Governor of the Univerfe, upon
the Doctor's own Trinciples ?
YO U anfwer , that tho' the World was
created by the Son , yet no Adoration
was due to Him upon that Account, either
from Angels or from Men ; becaufe it was
no Act of Dominion, and He did it merely
minifterially (/>, 94. ) juft as no Adoration is
now due from us to Angels, for the Benefits
they convey to us ; becaufe they do it merely
inftrumentally. This is plain dealing; and
however I may diflike the Thing, I commend
T 2 the

268 4 DEFENSE Qu. XVIII.
the franknefs of it. You are very right, upon
thefe Principles, in your parallel from Angels :
Had the Antients thought the Office of the Son
minifterial, in your low Senfe, They would
have paid Him no more refpect than they paid
to Angels; and would certainly never have
worjhip'd Him. But I pafs on : Creation, you
fay, is no Aft of Dominion ; and therefore is
not a fufficient Foundation for Worfliip. The
fame Reafon will hold with refpedt to the Fa
ther alfo; iox,Creatingis one thing, and Ruling
another. Yet you'l find that Scripture makes
Creation the ground and Reafbn of Worfliip,
ib fo particular and diftinguifli ing a Manner,
that no Perfon whatever, that had not a hand
ki Creating, has any right or title to Worfliip,
upon Scripture-Principles ; to which Catholick
Antiquity is intirely Confonant, as we have
obferved above. I did not found his Right of
Worfliip on Creation only, but Treferv ation
too; referring to Coloff. i. 17. By Him all
Things confift; to which may be added Heb.
1. 3. Upholding all Things by the word of his
Tower. The Titles of Creator, Treferver,
Suftainer of all Things found very high ; and
exprefs His fuper-eminent Greatnefs and Ma-
jefty, as well as Our Dependence ; and there
fore may feem to give Him a full Right and
Title to Religious Worfhip; efpecially if it be
confider'd, that they imply Dominion, and can
not be underftood without it. Befides that
Creator, as hath been fliown, is the Mark* or
Cha-

Qu. XVIII. of fome QUERIES. 269
Charadteriftick oi the true God, to whom all
Honour and Worfhip is due. Add to this, that
by Joh. 1. 1. the Son was0ecs before the Foun
dation of the World ; which implies, at leaft,
'Dominion, upon your own Principles: And
when He came into the World, * He came un
to his own, (Joh. 1. 11.) having been their Crea
tor, v. 20. and, as is now explain'd, Governor
from the firft. Wherefore, certainly, He had
a juft Claim and Title to Adoration and Worfliip
from the Foundation of the World, even upon
your own Hypothefis. As to his creating mini
fterially only, I have faid enough to that Point,
under the Eleventh Query, whither I refer you.
From what hath been obferved, it may ap
pear fufficiently, that the divine Aoy@r was our
King, and our God long before ; that He had
the fame Claim and Title to religious Worfliip
that the Father Himfelf had ; only not fo di
ftindtly reveal'd ; and that his Enthronization,
after his Refurrection, was nothing more than
declaring the Dignity of His Perfon more folemn-
ly , and invefting Him as f God-Man, in his
* Unus Deus Pater fuper Omnes, & Unum verbum Dei quod
per omnes, per Quem omnia fafta funt, & quoniam Hic Mundus
proprius ipfius, & per Ipfum faftus eft Voluntate Patris, eye,
— Mundi enim Faftor vere verbum Dei eft. Iren. p. 3 1 $¦.
Verbum autem Hoc illud eft, Quod in fua venit, 8c fui Eum non
receperunr. Mundus enim per Eum fadlus eft, 8c Mundus Eum
non cognovit. Novat. c. 13- p. 714.
Si Homo tantummodo Chriftus, quomodo Veniens in hunc Mun
dum in fua venit, cum Homo nullum fecerit Mundum? Novat.
^. 7 if. Vid. 8c Hippolyt. contr. Noet. c. 11. p. 14.
•j- El' JS l-^5o% At^tTaf, <£ ci Ta%i xazio-pal®* to isaip mLv ovopa
}i%ti&aj, lie, irctao c\aovoti ja]} o-agxos i-rmva^j, si'5 o-mp n> xai $i%a
r*{W: Cyril. Alex. Thef. p. 130.
T 3 whole

%jo /DEFENSE Qu. XVIII.
whole Perfon, with the fame Power and Au
thority, which, as God, He always had ; and
now was to hold in a different Capacity, and
with the Addition of a new and fpecial Title,
that of Redeemer. * They therefore who
endeavor to found the Son's Title to Wor
fliip, only upon the Powers and Authority
of the Mediator, or God-Man, after the Re-
furredtion ( alledging Joh. 5. 22. Thil. z. 10.
Heb. 1.6. and the like) give us but a very lean
and poor Account of this Matter ; neither con
fiftent with Truth, nor indeed with their own
Hypothefis. You quote Thil. 2. 6. in favour
Of your Notion ; and fay, that Chrift was from
the Beginning in the form of God; yet He
did not affume to Himfelf to be honoured like
pnto God, till after his Humiliation. But this
Pofition can never be made out from that Text.
Allowing you your Interpretation, about, af
fuming to be honour' d, yet this can mean on
ly, that He did not affume, during his Humi
liation, without any reference to what He had
done before. It is very clear from Joh. 17. 5.
that our bleffed Saviour was to have no greater
Glory after his Exaltation and Afeenfion, than
He had before the World was. Glorify me,
with thine own felf, with the Glory, which,
I had with Thee, before the World was.
His Glory had, tp appearance, been under an
Eclipfe, during the ftate of his Humiliation r

a

Clarke's

Script.

Doftr.

Prop.

48.

r°,

51.

Clarke's

Reply.

m-

23$.

, , 1

s '

)

,\:..

; ?•

l «•

: ¦>'

But
Qu. XVIII. of fome QUERIES. 271
But after that, He was to appear again in
full Luftre; in all the Brightness and Splen
dor of his divine Majefty , as He had done
ever before. You think, that our Worfhip of
Him, in his own diftinct Terfon and Chara
cter, commenc'd after his Refurrection from
the dead. I might allow this to be fo in Fact ;
and yet maintain, that He always had the feme
juft Right and Title to religious Worfliip;
whicli muft have had its effedt, had it been
clearly and diftindtly revealed, fooner. This
is enough for my purpofe ; in as much as I con
tend only, that the Worfhip due to Him is not
founded merely upon the Power and Authority
fuppofed to have been given Him after his Re
furrection ; but upon his perfonal Dignity, and
effential Perfedtions. He might have had the
very fame right and claim all along, that ever
He had after; only it could not take effedt, and
be acknowledged, till it came to be clearly re
vealed. Thus, God the Father had, undoubtedly,
a full Right and Title to the Worfhip and Service
of Men, or of Angels, from the firft: But that
Right could not take place before He revealed
and made Himfelf known to Them. This, I
fay, is fufficient to my purpofe; and all that I
infift upon. Yet, becaufe I have a religious
Veneration for every Thing which was uni
verfally taught and believed by the earlieft
Catholick Writers, efpecially if it has fome
Countenance likewife from Scripture; I in
cline to think that Worfhip, diftinct Wor-
T 4 fhip,

%yz /DEFENSE Qu.xyill.
fhip, was paid to the Son, long before his
incarnation. Irenaus is * exprefs that the Aoy<§p was wor
fhip'd of old, together with the Father. And
this muft have been the Senfe of all thofe Fa-r
thers, before the Council of Nice, who under
ftood and believed that the Peribn who ap
peared to the Tatriarchs, who prefided over
the Jewifh Church, gave them the Law, and
all along headed and conduced that People, was
the fecond Perfon of the ever bleffed Trinity.
!Now, this was the general and unanimous Opi
nion of the Ante-Nicene Writers, as hath been
fhown at large, under Query the fecond. And
it is obfervable, that Eufebius and Athanafius,
(two very confiderable Men, and thoroughly
yers'd in the Writings of the Chrifiians before
Them ) tho' They were oppofite as to Party,
and differ'd as to Opinion , in fome Points ;
yet They j intirely agreed in This, that the
Son was worfhip'd by Abraham, Mofes, &c.
and the Jewifh Church. And herein, had we
no other Writings left, we might reafonably
believe that They fpake the Senfe of their Pre-
^ecefTors, and of the whole Chriftian Church,
as well before, as in their own Times. You
Will fay perhaps, that the Worfliip, fuppofed to
nave been then paid to the Son, Was not di-
* Qui igitur a Prophetis adorajjatur Deus Vivus, Hic eft Vi«
vorum Deus 8c Verbum Ejus— — 1. 4. c. f. p. 232. Ed. Bened.
v See alfo Novatian. c. 1$. Deum £c Angelum invocatum.
+ Eafeb. E. p. 1. 1. c. 2. • Stie alfo Comtn^ in Ifa. p. 381. }8$.
Athanaf* Vol. 1. p. 443. 44,^. .¦ ' . V * -
/Wi'"'' '"' ' ¦ ; ' ,; ' jlinct

Qu. XVIII. of fome QU E R I E S. 173
ftinct Worfhip. But it is fufficient that it was
(according ro the Senfe of the Chriftian Church)
paid to the Terfon appearing, the Ter
fon of the Son , and He did not refufe it ;
which is the very Argument that * fome of
the Ante-Nicene Writers ufe in Proof of his
Divinity. The Tatriarchs worfliip'd that Per
fon, who appear'd and communed with Them ;
fuppofing Him to be the God of the Univerfe,
to whom of right all Worfhip belongs. Had
He not been what They took Him for, He
fhould have rejected that Worfliip, as the f An
gel did Manoah's Sacrifice ; and as the Angel, in
the Revelations, rejected the Worfliip which
St. John would have offered Him. In a word ;
fince the Son received that Worfliip, in his own
Terfon (according to the Antients) it muft be
faid, He was then diftinct ly worfhip'd, and in
his own Right, as being truly God. How
ever That be, my Argument is ftill good,
that the Son (having been in the Form of God,
and God; Creator, Treferver and Suftainer
of all Things, from the Beginning) had a Right
to Worfliip, even upon your Principles (much
more mine) long before the commencing of his
* Novatian may here fpeak the Senfe of all. On Gen. 31. He com
ments thm: Si Angelus Dei loquitur Heec ad Jacob, atque Ipfe An
gelus inrert, dicens: Ego fum Deus qui vifus fum tibi in loco Dei:
non tantummodo Hunc, Angelum, fed 8c Deum pofitum, fine ulls
hsfitarione confpicimus; Quique Sibi votum refert ab Jacob defti-
natum efle. eye. Nullius Alterius Angeli poteft hic accipi
tanta Au&oritas, ut Deum Se efle fateatur, 8c votum Sibi faftuia
efle Teftetur, iiifi tanturnmodo Chrifti •=— *. 27.
f Judges 13. 1*
Media-

274 / DEFENSE Qu.XVIlI.
Mediatorial Kingdom: And therefore his Right
and Title to Worfhip was not founded upon
the Towers then fuppofed to have been given
Him: Confequently, thofe Texts, which you
refer to, for that purpofe, are not pertinently
ajledged ; nor are they of ftrength fufficient to
bear all that ftrefs which you lay upon Them.
This Point being fettled, I might allow you that,
in fome Senfe, diftinct Worfhip commenc'd
with the diftinct Title of Son, or Redeemer ;
That is, our Bleffed Lord was then firft wor
jhip'd, or commanded to be worfliip'd by us,
Under that diftindt Title or Character; having
before had no other Title or Character pe
culiar and proper to Himfelf, but only what
Was * common to the Father and Him too. Tho*
Father, Son, and Holy- Ghoft are all jointly
eoncern'd in Creation, Redemption, and San
ctification; yet it may feem good to Infinite
Wifdom, for great Ends and Reafons, to attri
bute each refpedtively to one Terfon, rather
than Another ; fo that the Father may be em
phatically Creator, the Son Redeemer, the
"iioly Ghoft Santtifier: And, upon the com
mencing of thefe Titles refpedtively, the diftinct
Worfliip of each (amongft Men) might accord
ingly commence alfo. Excellent are the Words

*f Sic Deus vpluit novate Sacramentum, ut nave Unus cre-
deretur per Filium & Spiritum, ut Coram jam Deus in fuis
propriis Npminibus 8c Ferfonis cognofceretur, qui 8c retro per
Milium. 8c Spiritumr prsdjcatus non, utteUigeb^tur, TfatfuU. Contr.
%r„ax. c, 5 3,

©f

Qu. XVIII. of fome QUERIES. 275-
of * Bifhop Bull to this purpofe ; which I have
thrown into the Margin. I fliall only add that
while you endeavor to found Chrift's Right and
Title to worjhip folely upon the Powers fup
pofed to be given Him after his Refurrection,
you fall much below the generality of the An
tient Arians (whom yet you would be thought
to exceed) and are running into the Socinian
Scheme, not very confidently with your own.
Thus you feem to be fluctuating and wavering
between Two, (at the fame time verbally con
demning Both) certain in Nothing, but in oppo
fing the Catholick Doctrine ; which when you
have left, you fcarce know where to fix, or how
to make your Principles hang together. To ex
plain this a little farther : I found the Son's Title
to worfhip upon the Dignity of his Ter fin ;
his creative Powers declared in Joh.i. and elfe-
where ; his being 0eos from the Beginning ; and

* Profedro admiranda mihi videtur divinarum Perfonarutn in
Sacrofandtiflima Triade oixovopla, qua Unaquseque Perfona diftinclo
quafi Titulo humanum imprimis genus imperio fuo divino obftrin.
xerit, Titulo illi refpondente etiam diflinBa uniufcujufque imperii
patefaBione. Fatrem Colimus fub Titulo Creatoris hujus Univerfi,
qui & ab ipfa Mundi Creatione hominibus innotuerit; Filium ado
ramus fub Titulo Redemptoris ac Servatoris noftri, cujus idcirco
divina gloria atque imperium non nili poft peradhim in tern's hu
mans Redemptions ac Salutis negotium fuerit patefaBum; Spiri-
tum denique Sanclum veneramur fub Titulo Fayacleti, Illumina-
toris, ac SanBifieatoris noftri, cujus adeo divina Majeftas demum
poft defcenfum ejus in Apoftolos primofque Chriftianos donorum
omne genus copiofiflima largitione illuftriffimum, clarius emicuerit.
Nimirum turn demum Apoftoli, idque ex Chrifti mandato, Gentes
baptizabant in Flenam atque adunatam Trinitatem ( ut cum Cy-
priano loqaar) h. e. in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus Sandti.
Suit. frith. Trad. p. «4». his

t
176 /DEFENSE Qu.XVUI.
his preferving, and upholding all Things (ac
cording to ColoJf.i.i6,iy. and Heb. 1.) ante
cedently to his mediatorial Kingdom : You, on
the other Hand, found it intirely upon rhe
Powers given Him after his Humiliation (alledg-
ing fuch * Texts as thefe, Matt. z%. 18. Joh.
5. 22, 23. Thil. 2. 10,11. Rev. 1. $,6. Rev.
5. 8, 9, 10.) as if He had no juft Claim or
Title to worjhip at all, before that Time : For,
tho' you put in the equivocal Word, diftinct,
(very ingenioufly) yet your Meaning really is,
and the Tendency of your Argument requires
it, that no Worfliip, diftinff or otherwife, was
due to Him, till He received thofe full Powers.
This pretence, I fay, might come decently and
properly from a Socinian, or a Sabellian, who
either makes Creation Metaphorical, or inter
prets fuch Texts as Joh. 1. 1. Col. 1. 16, 17. and
the like, of the Reafon or Wifdom of the Father,
that is, the Father, indwelling in the Man
Chrift Jefus. But in you it muft appear very
improper; and very inconfiftent with your
other Principles : Wherefore I muft again defire
you to be more confiftent ; and to keep to one
conftaut Scheme. Take either Arian, Sabel
lian, or Socinian, and abide by it ; and then
I may know what I have to do : Bat do not
pretend to hold Two Schemes, at a time, ut
terly repugnant to each other.
As ro Scripture's feeming, in fome places, to
found Chrift's Title to Worfhip, not foi much
* See Dr, Clarke'* Reply, p. 139. 143.
upon

Qu.XVIII. of fome QUERIES. 27?
upon what He is in Himfelf, as upon what
He has done for us ; a very good Reafon may
be given for it, if it be well confidered by what
Springs and Movements moral Agents are
actuated, and that we love even God Himfelf,
with reference to our Selves, * becaufe He firft
loved us. Abftracted Reafons of Efteem, Ho
nour, and Regard are unaffecting, Without a
mixture of fomething relative to Us, which
our Selves have a near concern in. The ef
fential Dignity of Chrift's Perfon is really the
Ground and Foundation of Honour, and Efteem
(and confequently of Worfhip, the higheft Ex-
preffion of Both ) which Ought always to bear
proportion to the intrinfick Excellency of the
Objedt: But his Offices, relative to Us, are the
moving Reafons, which principally afTedt our
Wills ; and without which we fhould want the
ftrongeft Incitement to pay that Honour and
Worfhip, which the effential Excellency ofhis
Perfon demands. Scripture has fufficiently ap
prized us of Both, difeovering at once both his
abfolute, and relative Dignity ; that fo we be
ing inftructed as well concerning what He is in
Himfelf, as what He is in refpect to Us, might
underftand what Honour juftly belongs to Him,
and want no motive to pay it accordingly.
Add to this, that Chrift's Office, relative to us,
naturally leads us back to the antecedent Excel
lency and Perfection of that Perfon, who was
able to do fo great and fo aftonifhing Things
* 1 Joh- 4. 19. for

278 /DEFENSE Qu.XIX.
for us : Befides that it muft appear in the high
eft Degree probable, that no Creature whatever
(fuppofing Him to have fuitable Abilities) could
have been intrufted with fb great and fo en
dearing a Charge; fuch as muft inevitably draw
after it a larger fhare of our Love* Refpect,
and Efteem -, than feems confiftent with our
Duty to God, and the Rules laid down in
Scripture for our Behavior towards the Crea
tures. But enough of this : I proceed.
Query XIX.
Whether the Doctor hath not given a very
partial Account o/*Joh. 5. 23. founding the
Honour due to the Son , on this only, that
the Father hath committed all Judgment to
the Son ; when the true Reafon affign'd by
our Saviour, and illufirated by feveral
Inftances, is, that the Son doth the fame
Things that the Father doth, hath the fame
Tower and Authority of doing what He
will ; and therefore has a Title to as great
Honour, Reverence, and Regard, as the
Father Himfelf hath ? And it is no Ob
jection to this, that the Son is there faid
to do nothing of Himfelf, or to have all
given Him by the Father ; fince it is own
ed that the Father is the Fountain of All,
from whom the Son derives, in an ineffable
manner, his Effence and Towers fo as to
be one with Him. IN

Qu.XIX. of fome QUERIES, 27^
IN Anfwer to this, you fay, The only Ho
nour due to our Saviour, is plainly fup
pofed by St. John to be given Him, upon Ac
count of his being appointed by the Father'
judge of the World, p 96. This is very ftrangd
indeed : What ? Was there no Honour due tO
Him on Account of his having been ®tl$ from
the Beginning? None for his having created tht
World? None on Account ofhis being the only
begotten Son, which St. John reprefents as a
Circumftance of exceeding great * Glory ? Sure
ly thefe were Things great enough to demand
our Tribute of Honour and Refpect j and there
fore St. John could never mean that He was to
be honoured only upon that fingle Account, as
being conftituted Judge of all Men. This
could never be the only reafon why all Men
fhould honour the Son even as They honouf
the Father. What then did St. John mean?
Or rather, what did our Bleffed Lord mean*
whofe Words St. John recites ? He meant what
He has faid> and what the Words literally im
port ; that the Father (whofe Honour had been
fufficiently fecured under the Jewifh Difpenfa
tion, and could not but be fo under the Chri
ftian alfo) being as much concern'd for the Ho
nour of his Son, had been pleafed to commit
all Judgment to Him, for this very end and
purpofe, that Men might thereby fee and know
that the Son, as well as the Father, was Judge of
* Joh. 1. 14. fill

i8o /DEFENSE Qu.XIX.
all the Earth, and might from thence be con-
vinc'd how reafonable it was, and how highly if
concern'd them, to pay all the fame Honour to
the Son, which they had hitherto believed to
belong to the Father only. And confidering
how apt Mankind would betoleffen the Dignity
of the Son (whether out of a vein of difputing,
Or becaufe He had condefcended to become
Man like Themfelves) and confidering alfo that
the many Notices of the 'Divinity oi his Per
fon might not be fufficient, With fome, to raife
in Them that Efteem, Reverence, and Regard
for Him, which They ought to have; for the
more effectually fecuring a point of this high
Concernment, it pleafed the Father to leave the
final Judgment of the great Day in the Hands
of his Son : Men therefore might confider that
this Perfbn, whom they Were too apt to dip-
regard, was not Only their Creator, and Lord,
and God, but their Judge too, before whofe
awful Tribunal they muft one Day appear : An
awakening Confideration, fuch as might not only
convince Them of his exceeding Excellency
and Super-eminent Perfections, but might remind
them alfo, how much it was their Intereft, as
well as Duty, ro pay Him all that Honour,
Adoration, and Service, which the Dignity and
Majcfty of his Perfon demands.
Let us but fuppofe the prefent Catholick Do
ctrine of the Co-equality and Co-eternity of the
three Perfons to be true , What more proper
method can we imagine, to fecure to each Per fon

Qu.XIX. of fome QUERIES. 281
fon the Honour due unto Him, than this; that
every Perfon fhould be manifefted to us under
fome peculiar Title or Character, and inforce his
claim of Homage by fome remarkable Difpenfa
tion, fuch as might be apt to raife in Us a religious
Awe and Veneration ? This is the Cafe in fact ;
and on this Account, chiefly, it feems to be
that the Son, rather than the Father (whofe per
fonal Dignity is lefs liable to be queftion'd) is
to be Judge of all Men, that fo all Men may
honour the Son, jia^as Tiptdtn rlv Tra-rig^. The
learned Dodtor * pleads that Kctfas often figni
fies a general Similitude only, not an exact
Equality : Which is very true ; and would be
pertinent, if we built our Argument on the
critical Meaning of the Particle. But what we
infift on, is, that our Bleffed Lord , in that
Chapter, draws a parallel between the Father
and Himfelf, between the Father's Works and
his own, founding thereupon his Title to Ho
nour; which fufficiently intimates what jca^-as
means ; efpecially if it be confider'd that this
was in anfwer to the Charge of making Him
felf \ equal with God. This is what I in
timated in the Query ; upon the reading where
of, you are ftruck with amazement at fo evi
dent an inftance , how prejudice blinds the
Minds, &c. But let me perfwade you to for
bear that way of talking, which ( befides that
it is taking for granted the main Thing in Que
ftion, prefuming that all the Prejudice lies on
* Reply, p. 160. f Joh. f. iS.
V one

282 /DEFENSE Qu.XIX.
one fide, and all the Reafon on the other) is
really not very becoming, in this Cafe, con
fidering how many wife, great, and good Men,
how many Churches of the Saints, through a
long Succeffion of Ages, you muft, at the fame
time, charge with prejudice and blindnefs;
and that too after much canvaffing and careful
confidering what Objections could be made
againftThem $ to which you can add nothing new,
nor fo much as reprefent the old ones With
greater Force rhan They have been often be
fore, 1300 Years ago. It might here be fuffi
cient, for you, modeftly to offer your Reafons:
And however convincing they may appear to
you (yet confidering that to Men of equal Senfe,
Learning, and Integrity, they have appeared
much otherwife) to fufpedt your own Judg
ment; or, at leaft, to believe that there may
be Reafons, which you do not fee, for the con
trary Opinion. Well, but after your io great
Affurance, let us hear what you have to fay.
If our Lord had purpofely defign'd, in the
moft exprefs and emphatical Manner, to de
clare his real Subordination and Dependence
on the Father, He could not have done it
more fully and clearly than He hath in this
whole Chapter. Yes, fiire He might: Being
charged with Blafphemy, in making Himfelf
equal with God, He might have exprefs'd his
Abhorrence of fuch a Thought; and have told
Them that He pretended to be nothing more
than a Creature of God's, fent upon God's
Errand ;

QuvXIX. of fome QUERIES. 283
Errand ; and that it was not by his own Tower
or Holinefs, that He made the lame Man to
walk, (fee Ait. 3. 12.) Such an Apology as
this would have effectually took off all farther
Sufpicion, and might perhaps have well become
a Creature, when charg'd with Blafphemy,
who had a true Refpedt for the Honour of his
Creator. But, inftead of this, He goes on, a fe
cond Time, to call Himfelf Son of God, v. 25". de
claring farther, that there was fo perfect a Union
and Intimacy between the Father and Himfelf,
that He was able to do any thing which the Fa
ther did ; had not only the fame Right and Au
thority to work on the Sabbath, but the fame
Power of giving Life to whom He pleafed, of
raifing the Dead, and judging the World ; and
rherefore the fame Right and Title to the fame
Honour and Regard: and that the Execution
of thofe Powers was lodged in his Hands par
ticularly, leaft rhe World fhould not be fuffici
ently apprehenfive of his high Worth, Emi
nency, and Dignity; or fliould not honour the
Son even as they honour the Father.
This is the obvious natural Conftruction of
the whole Paffage : You have fome Pretences
againft it, which have been examin'd and con
futed long ago by Hilary, Chryfoftom, Cyril,
Auftin, and other venerable Fathers of the
Chriftian Church; io that I have little more
to do, than to repeat the Anfwers. The Jews,
you fay, falfely and malicioufty charged Him
with making Himfelf equal with God. So faid
V 2 the

284 /DEFENSE Qu.XIX.
the Arians : But what ground had either They,
or You, for faying fo ? It does not appear that
the Evangelift barely repeated what the Jews
had faid: But He gives the Reafons why the
Jews fought to kill Him ; namely, becaufe He
had broke the Sabbath, and becaufe He made
Himfelf equal with God. So thought * Hilary;
and He is followed therein by Others, whom
you may find mention'd in f Tetavius. And
this X Socinus himfelf was fo fenfible of, that
He could not but allow that the Apoftle, as
well as the Jews, underftood that our Bleffed
Lord had declared Himfelf equal to God ; only
He is forced to explain away the equality to a
Senfe foreign to the Context.
But fuppofing that the Apoftle only repeated
what the Jews had charged Him with ; how
does it appear that the charge was falfe ? It is
not to be denied that He had really wrought
on the Sabbath, and had really called God his
Father , and in a Senfe peculiar ; and why
fliould not the reft of the Charge be as true as
the other? The Context and Reafon of the
Thing feem very much to favor it : His fay-
* Non nunc, ut in Csteris fo'et. Judseorum Sermo ab his difrus
refertur. Expofitio potius hsec Evangelifta; eft, Caufam demon-
ftrantis cur Dominum interficere vellent. Hii. Trin. 1. 7. p.ytf.
t De Trin. p. ,fi.
$ Ex modo loquendi quo ufus eft Evangelifta, fentiam eum
omnino una cum Judaeis cenfuifle Chriftum, verbis illis, fe a:qua-
•lem Deo fecifle  neceffe fit intelligere Hoc ipfum Eum quoque
fcnfifle, non minus quam fenferit Chriftum appellafle Deum Patrem
fuutn, quod ab ipfo, uno 8c eodem verborum Contextu, proximc
''didtum fuerat. Socin. Refp. ad Vujtk. p. 57;. ing,

Qu.XIX. of fome QUERIES. 285:
ing, my Father worketh hitherto-, and I work,
muft imply, either that He had an equal Right
to do any thing his Father did ; or, that He
was fo intimately united to Him, that He could
not but act in concert with Him: Which is
farther confirm'd by what follows, v. 19. What
things foever He doth, thefe alfo doth the Son
likewife. Befides, that had this been only a ma-
licious Suggeftion, a falfe Charge of the Jews,
the Evangelift, very probably, would have gi
ven Intimation of it, as we find done in other
Cafes of that Nature, {Joh.z. 21. Matt. 16. 12.)
This is the Subftance of St. Chryfoftom's reafon
ing, in Anfwer to your firft Objection ; and I
am the more confirm'd in its being true and
right, by obferving, as before faid, that Soci-
nus himfelf, a Man fo much prejudic'd on fhe
other fide, could not help falling in with the
fame way of Thinking, fo far, as to believe
that the Apoftle and the Jews both agreed in
the fame Thing, viz. that our Lord did, by
what He had faid, make Himfelf equal with
God, in fome Senfe or other ; fuch as the Jews
thought to be Blafphemy, and in Confequence
whereof, they would have kill'd, i. e. ftoned
Him. Another Exception you make from
the Words, The Son can do nothing of Him
felf: The obvious meaning of which is; that
being fo nearly and clofely related to God. as
a Son is to a Father ; the Jews might depend
upon it, that whatever He did, was both agree
able to, and concerted with his Father; and
V 3 o^ght

286 /DEFENSE Qu. XIX.
ought to be received with the feme Reverence
and Regard, as if theJ Father Himfelf had done
it. He, as a Son, being perfectly one wjth
his Father, could do nothing Gtcwnov tcS kclt ex,
againft his Father, nothing oiMot&wj nothing
gwv, (as Chryfoftbm expreffeth it) Both having
the fame Nature * and harmonioufly uniting al
ways in Operation and Energy. Hence it
was, that, if one wrought, the other muft
work too; if one did any thing, the other
fliould do likewife ; if one quickned whom He
would, fo fliould the other alfo; and if one had
Life in himfelf (or the Tower of raifing the
'Dead) fo fhould the other have too: And if
the Father was primarily Judge of the World,
in right of his Prerogative as Father, the Son
fliould have it in the Exercife and Execution,
to manifeft the Equality. Now, here is no
flraining nor forcing of Texts, but the literal,
obvious, natiiral Interpretation. But the In
terpretation, which you give, is plainly forc'd,
makes the Context incoherent, and the whole
Paflage inconfiftent. For, be pleas'd to obferve
your Senfe of verfe the 19th. The Son can
do nothing but by Commiffion from the Father :
Why ? 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 your Senfe, that therefore He can
do every thing which the Father does.? Where
;s the Senfe, or Connexion ? Is He here limit
ing, and leffening his own Powers, as, upon your

Qu.XIX. of fome QUERIES. 287
your Principles, He fliould have done in an-
lwer to the Charge of Blafphemy ? No; but He
extends them to the utmoft; and, inftead of
retracting, goes on in the fame ftrain, and fays
more than He had faid before. To make good
Senfe and Coherence of the Paffage, upon your
Scheme, you muft fill up the Deficiency thus^
The Son can do nothing but by Commiffion ;
and Commiffion He has, to do every thing that
the Father doth : Which, tho' it founds harfh,
and looks too familiar for a Creature to pre
tend, yet might make the Context coherent.
However, fince the Interpretation I have be
fore given, is more natural and more obvious,
argues no deficiency in the Text, makes the
whole coherent, and has nothing harfh or dis
agreeing in it, it ought to be prefer'd. For, after
all, it muft be thought very odd and ftrange
for a Creature to be commiffion' d or empower'd
to do all Things that the Creator doth ; and
to do them c/uaiies, in rhe fame manner, alfo.
I do not make any forced Conftruction ; for fo
the 20th verfe, immediately following, in
terprets it: for the Father loveth the Son,
and fheweth Him all Things that Himfelf
doth. You endeavor indeed to make fome Ad
vantage of this very Text j alledging that this
Tower, which the Son exercis'd, was given
Him, not by Neceffity {which is no Gift) but
by free Love. But why muft love imply free
dom? Doth not God love Himfelf? And if the
&,Qve of Himfelf be no matter of Choice, why
V 4 muft

288 /DEFENSE Qu. XIX.
muft the Love of his Son, his other Self, be
reprefented otherwife? You are forc'd to add
to the Text, to give fome colour to your Ar- •
gument; and to call it free Love, when the
Text fays only, that the Father loveth.
Thus far I have endeavor'd to clear up the
Senfe of St. John ; and to vindicate it from
your Exceptions: which are not of fo great
Weight, that you need be amazed at any
Man's thinking flightly of them. Hilary well
obferves that the drift and defign of our Savi
our's Words was to declare his Equality of
Nature with the Father, and his Sonfhip, at the
fame Time. * No inferior Nature could be
capable of having all Things ; nor could a Son
have them but as communicated. So that, in
the whole, it is directly oppofite to fuch as
either difown an Equality of Nature, or a real
Diftinction ; wherefore Hilary concludes trium
phantly, both againft Arians and Sabellians,
in Words very remarkable, which I fliall throw
into the f Margin.
But you add, as a Recapitulation of what
you had faid upon this Article : If therefore
to be freely fent, and to act in the Name and
by the Ant hor ity of another, be, to affume an
* Omnia habere fola natura poflit indifferens j neque Nativitas
aliquid habere poflit, niii datum fit, p. 928.
f Conclufa funt omnia adverfum Hzretici Furoris Ingenia. Filius
efti quia ab fe nihil poteft. Deus eft, quia qua:cunquc Pater facit,
& ipfe Eadem facit. Unum funt, quia exequatur in Honore, Ea-
tlerhque facit non alia. Non eft Pater, quia mi flu s eft, p. 910.
1 ife hat mere io the fame purpofe^ p. 101/. \lf\. equality

Qu.XIX. of fome QUERIES. 289
equality of Honour and Regard with that
other, by whom He was fent ; we muft for
ever defpair to underftand the meaning of
Words, or to be able to diftinguifh between a
delegated, and a fupreme underived Tower,
{p. 97.) To which I make anfwer: If declaring
Himfelf to be the proper Son of That Other,
which both the Jews and the Apoftle under
ftood to be the fame with making Himfelf equal
with Him: If his claiming to Himfelf the fame
Right, Power, and Authority which the Other
hath ; and afferting that He is able to do what
ever the Other doth ; and that the exercife of
thofe Powers is left to Him, for this very end
and purpofe, that all Men may honour the
One even as they honour the Other : If this be
not affuming an Equality of Honour and Re
gard with that Other ; we muft for ever defpair
to underftand the meaning of Words, or to be
able to diftinguifli between what is proper to a
Creature, and what to the Creator only.
As to what you hint concerning a delegated
Power, it is not to your Purpofe ; unlefs you
could prove that one Perfon cannot be Delegate
to Another, without being unequal, in nature,
to Him; which would prove that one Man
cannot be Delegate to another Man ; befides
other Abfurdities. Acting by a delegated Power
does by no means infer any Inferiority of Na
ture, but rather the quite contrary ; efpecially,
if the Charge be fuch, as no inferior Nature
could be able to fuftain ; or if the Honour at
tending

%o® / D E F E N S E Qu.XIX.
tending it, or confequemi upon ir, be too great
for an inferior Nature to receive; as the
Cafe is here. However, the divine Admi
niftration, and wonderful oiKcvopiU oi the
Three Perfons, with their Order of Acting, is
what we muft not prefume perfectly to under
ftand ; Nor can any certain Argument be drawn
againft the Thing, from our imperfect and in
adequate Conceptions of it.
If it be objected that there is a Supremacy of
Order lodged in One more than in the Other ;
let that be rightly underftood, and I fhall not
gainfay it. The Father, as Father, is fu
preme ; and the Son, as Son, fubordinate. We
pretend not to make the Son the Firfi, but the
Second Perfon of the Godhead. Whatever in
equality of Honour fuch a Supremacy oi One,
and Subordination of the Other neceffarily im
ply, while the Nature or Effence is fuppofed
equal, it may be admitted : But, I am not ap
prized that they infer any ; Becaufe, tho' there
are two Perfons, there is but one * undivided
* Unius autem Subftantise, 8c Unius Status, Sc Unius Po!e§atis,
quia unus Deus. TertuU. Contr. Prax. c. 2. Unius Divieitatis Pater
§t Filius 8t Spiritus Sandlus. Id. de Pud. c. 2 1 .
*Eh tS &>S Kj tS Trap aurS Ao'ym 'ijS nonpsm kpigfeoi, wnvToh
VwoTiTaxtraf. Athenag. leg. c. 15. p. 64.
Unam 8c Eandem Omnipotentiam Patris ac Filii efie cognofcasi
£cut unus atque Idem eft cum Patre Deus & Dominus. Orig.
«fe< 'Ag%. 1. 1. c. 2.
Ov yip $».&q <&>'!«> wwnjj), )£ a».&u 'u&t i^i, A#iat pia* i§ t£*
*utkV. Cyril], Catech. 6- p- 77. Ed. Ox.
'O fa {auTui T •xUTtga t%o>*, TtSyniv, trfEAexJ' T*>* w»ff ubi» s|»i><n«»
Ss e\iiapivi, a ii 'Jaw i%pai (wkjjj*; i£ to» «|<.v?i«* cstS imimif i%{.
Greg. Nyff. Cont^, Emiona. /. n, $. l^. Nature ;

Qu.XlX. of fome QUERIES. 291
Nature ; which makes the Cafe widely different
from that of one Man (a diftinct and feparate
Being) adting under Another.
What follows, of your Anfwer to the prefent
Query, is only ringing Changes upon the old
Objection, drawn from your imaginary Senfe of
individual Subftance. And here you let your
Thoughts rove, and abound much in Flight
and Fancy ; conceiving of the Trinity, after
the manner of Bodies, and reafoning from cor^
poreal and fenfible Images. A blind Man would
thus take his Notion of Colours, perhaps from
his Hearing or Feeling ; and make many fan
ciful Demonftrations againft the Doctrine of
Vifion; which would all vaniih.upon the open
ing ofhis Eyes. Were we as able to judge of
what may , or may not be , in relation to
the Modus of the divine Exiftence, as we are
to judge of common Matters, lying within the
Sphere of our Capacity, there might then be
fome force in the Objedtions made againft the
Doctrine of the Trinity from natural Reafbn :
But fince many Things, efpecially thofe relating
Totum Pater, Totum poflidet Filius: Unius eft quod Amborum
eft j quod unus poflidet Singulorum eft; Domino ipfo dicente;
Omnia qu&cunque habet Pater, mea funt; quia Pater in Filio, Sc
Filius manet in Patre. Cui, AffeBu non Conditione, Charitate non
Neceffitate, decOre fubjicitur,. per Quem Pater Semper honoratur.
Denique inquit: "Ego ty- Pater unum fumus. Unde non diminutiva,
fed Religiofa, ut dixi, fubjeiSione eft Filius Patri fubjedrus: cum
Originahs perpetuique Regni una Pofleflio , Co-seternitatis Omni-
potentiaeque una Subftantia, una .¦Equahtas, una virtus Majeftatis
^uguftae, unito in tumitie una dignitas retiiietur. Zen. Veronenf. cit.
a gull. D. Jf. p. 26$.
to

zgz /DEFENSE Qu.XlX.
to the incomprehenfible Nature of God, may
be true, tho' we cannot conceive How ; and it
may be only our Ignorance, which occafions
fome appearing Inconfiftencies ; we dare not re
ject: a Doctrine fo well fupported by Scripture
and Antiquity, upon fb precarious a Founda
tion as this; That Human ^Underftanding is
the meafure of all Truth: Which is what all
Objections of that kind , at length , refolve
into. This being premis'd, let us next proceed to
examine your Pretences, that I may not feem to
neglect any thing you have, that but looks like
reafoning. The §£uery had intimated, that the
Son derives his Effence and Power, in a man
ner ineffable. Againft which you object thus:
But, is it not Self-evident that, let the man
ner of the Son's Generation or 'Derivation be
ever fd ineffable, if any Thing was generated,
or derived, it muft be a diftinct individual
Subftance? No; but we think it fufficient to
fay, that it muft be a diftinct individual Ter-
Jom. All the difficulty here lies in fixing and
determining the Senfe of the words individual
Subftance. Would you but pleafe to define the
Terms, we fliould foon fee what we have to do.
But you go on : It could net be part of the
Father's Subftance ; That is abfurd: and to
fay, it was. the whole, is fo flagrant a Con
tradiction, that I queftion whether there can
he a greater in the nature and reafon of
Things. Can the fame individual Subftance be
derived*

Qu XIX. offbme QUERIES. 293
derived, and underived ? Or, can there be a
Communication, and nothing communicated?
For, it is fuppofed, that the whole Effence,
or Subftance, is communicated to the Son,
and yet remains whole and uncommunicated*
in the Father ; which is evidently to be, and,
not to be, at the fame Time. This is your
reafoning, founded only on your miftake and
mifapprehenfion : By Father's Subftance, as
it feems, you underftand the Father's Hypo
ftafis, or Terfon ; and are proving, very ela
borately, that the Father never communicated
his own Hypoftafis, or Terfon, either in whole ,
or in part. You fhould firft have fliown us
what Body of Men, or what * fingle Man, ever
taught that Doctrine, which you take fo much
Pains to confute. Let me now propofe a difficulty
much of the fame kind, and nearly in the fame
Words, to you; only to convince you that
Objections of this Nature are not peculiar to
the Doctrine of the Trinity, but affedt other
points likewife, whofe Truth or Certainty you
make no manner of doubt of. What I mean
to inftance in, is God's omniprefence : That,
God, the fame individual God, is every where,
you'l readily allow ; and alfo that the Subftance
of God, is God. Now, will you pleafe to tell
me, whether that divine Subftance which fills
Heaven, be the fame individual Subftance with
That which filleth all Things, If it be not
* As to your gird upon Tertullian, in your Notes, t refer you te
Bull. D. F. p. <>f . for an Anfmt-.
: the

i$4 /DEFENSE Qu.XIX.
the fame individual Subftance (as by your
reafoning ir cannot) it remains only that it be
fpecifically the fame; and then the Confe
quence is, that you make not one Subftance in
number, but many ; the Very thing which you
charge the Doctrine of the Trinity with. But
farther , the divine Subftance is in Heaven ;
that is without Queftion: Now, I ask, ¦ whe
ther the Subftance which fills Heaven, he part
only of that Subftance, or the whole. If
it be part only , then God is not in Hea
ven, but a part of God only ; and the Attri-
bures belonging ro the whole Subftance, cannot
all be contracted into any one part, without
defrauding the other parts ; and therefore there
can be only part of infinite Power, part oi
infinite Wifdom, part of infinire Knowledge,
and fo for any other Attribute. For if you fay,
that the whole infinite Wifdom, Power, &c.
refiding in rhe whole, is common to every part,
it is (to ufe your own Words) fo flagrant a
Contradiction, that I queftion whether there
can be a greater in the nature and reajon of
Things. Can the fame individual Power, Wif
dom, &c. he communicated, and not commu
nicated? Or, can there be a Communication
and nothing communicated? For, it is fuppofed
that the whole Wifdom, Tower, &c. is com
municated, to one particular part; and yet re
mains whole and uncommunicated in the other
parts ; which is evidently to be, and not to be
at the fame Time. If you tell me that, part and

Qu.XIX. -of fome QUERIES. ip$
and whole are not properly applied to Wifdomt
Tower, &c. I fhall tell you again, that They
are (for any thing You, or I know) as preperly
applied to the Attributes, as they are to the
Subject ; and belong to Both, or Neither. And
fince you are pleafed to talk of parts and
whole of God's Subftance, of which you know
little , give me leave to talk in the fame Way,
Where I know as little. The learned Doctor
reprefents it as a great Solecifm to fpeak of an
* Ell, or a Mile oiConcioufnefs. He may be
¦right in his Obfervation : But the natural Con
fequence deducible from it, is , that Thought
is not compatible with an extended Subject.
For there is nothing more unintelligible, or, feem-
ingly at leaft, more repugnant, than unextended
Attributes in a Subject extended: And many
may think that an Ell, or a Mile oi God
(which is the Dodtor's Notion) is as great a
Solecifm as the other. Perhaps, after all, it
would be beft for Both of us to be filent, where
we have really nothing to fay : But as you have
begun, I muft go on with the Argument, about
the Omniprefence, a little farther. Well, if it
cannot be part only of the divine Subftance,
which is in Heaven, fince God is There, and
fince all the Perfections and Attributes of the
Deity have There their full exercife; let us
fay that the whole divine Subftance is there.
But then how can He be omniprefent? Can the
fame individual Subftance be confin'd, and un-
•confined? Or can there be a -diffufiow of it
* a, Lett. p. 48. every

496 /DEFENSE. Qu.XIX.
every where, and yet nothing diffufed? For it
is fuppofed that the whole Effence or Subftance
is diffufed all over the Univerfe, and yet re
mains whole and undiffiifed in Heaven. Which,
again, is evidently to be, and not to be, at
the fame time.
I fliould hardly forgive my felf, upon any
Other occafion, fuch trifling in ferious Things.
If you rake to this kind of reafoning, (which
is really not reafoning, but running riot with
Fancy and Imagination) about Matters infi
nitely furpafling human Comprehenfion ; you
will make lamentable work of it. You may go
on, till you reafon, in a manner, God out of
his Attributes, and your felf out of your Faith ;
and not know at laft where to flop. For, in
deed, all Arguments, of this kind, are as
ftrong for Atbeifm, as They are againft a
Trinity : Wherefore it concerns you fcrioufly
to reflect, what you are doing. This, and the
like Confiderations have made the wifeft and
cooleft Men very cautious how they liften'd to
the rovings of wanton Thought, in Matters
above Human Comprehenfion. The pretended
Contradictions, now revived by many, againft
the Doctrine of the Trinity, are very old and
trite. They were long ago objedted to the
Chrifiians, by the Heathen Idolaters. They
almoft turn'd the Heads of Traxeas, Noetus,
Sabellius, Manichaus , Taul of Samofata;
not to mention Arius, Neftorius, Eutyches,'
and other Antient Hereticks. The Catholicks were

Qu.XIX. of fome QUERIES. 197
were fenfible of them ; But having well con
fider'd them, They found them of much too
flight Moment, to bear up againft the united
Force of Scripture and Tradition. The Doctrine
of the Trinity , with all its feeming Contra-
didtions, has flood the Teft, not only7 of what
Human Wit could do, by way of Difpute ; but
of all that Rage and Malice could contrive,
thtough a Perfecution almoft as Bitter and Viru
lent, as any that had ever been under Heathen
Emperors. This is to me an additional Confirma
tion, that the Doctrine we profefs is no fuch
grofs Impofition upon the common Senfe and
Reafbn of Mankind, as is pretended. It was
neither Force, nor Intereft, that brought it in ;
nor that hath fince, fo univerfally, upheld it:
And Men are not generally fuch Idiots as to
love Contradictions and Repugnancies, only for
Humor or Wantonnefe, when Truth and Confift -
ency are much better, and may be had at as
eafy a rate. Thefe Reflections have carried me
rather too far : But They may have their ufe
among fuch Readers as know little of the Hi
ftory of this Controverfy ; or how long It had
been buried ; till it pleafed fome amongft Us to
call it up again, and to drefs it out with much
Art and Fineffe; to take the Populace, and
to beguile the Englifh Reader. Many Things
have fallen under this jf^uery, which properly
belong'd not to it. But it was neceffary for
Me to purfue You, what way foever You fliould
take. You was more at Liberty : My Method
is determin'd by Your's. X Qu 6 r f

29$ i DEFENSE Qu.XX.
Query XX.
Whether the 'Doctor need have cited 300
Texts, wide of the purpofe , to prove what
no Body denies , namely, a Subordination,
in fome Senfe, of the Son to the Father ;
could He have found but one plain Text
againft His Eternity or Confubftantiality,
the Toints in Queftion?
YOUR Anfwer to this is very fliort, not
to fay negligent. You fay, if the Do
ctor's 300 Texts prove a real Subordination,
and not in name only, the point is gain'd a-
gainft the Querijl's Notion of Individual Con-
lubftantiality ; unlefs the fame individual in
telligent Subftance can be Subordinate to it
felf, and Con fubftantial with it felf. Here
you are again Doubling upon rhe word, In
dividual. The Gfuerifi never had fuch a
Notion as that oi perfonal Confubftantiality,
which is Ridiculous in the Sound, and Contra
diction in Senfe ; and yet you are conftantly
putting this upon the ^uerift, and honouring
Him with your own Prefumptions. Let me
again fhow you, how unfair and difingenuous
this Method is. Do not you fay that the fame
individual Subftance is prefent in Heaven, and,
at the fame time, filleth all Things .? That it
pervades the Sun, and, at the fame time, pene-
, * Clarke's Reply, p. 7.
trates

Qu.XX. of fome QUERIES. 299
trates the Moon alfo ? I might as reafonably
argue that you, by fuch Pofitions, make the
fame individual Subftance greater and lefs than
it felf, remote and diftant from it felf, higher
and lower than it felf, to the right and to the
left oi it felf, containing and contain'd, bound
ed and unbounded, &c. as you can pretend to
draw thofe odd furprizing Confequences upon
the Ghierift. Would not you tell me, in an
fwer, that I mifinterpreted your Senfe of indi
vidual, and took advantage of an ambiguous
Expreffion ? Let the fame Anfwer ferve for Us ;
and you may hereafter fpare your Readers the
diverfion of all that unmanly trifling with an
equivocal Word. But enough of this Matter.
I might have expedted of you, in your Reply
to this Query, one Text or two to dilprove
the Son's Eternity, and Confubftantiality , and
to fupply the Deficiency of the Dodtor's Trea
tife: But fince you have not thought fit to
favor me with any, I muft ftill believe that the
Doctor's 300 Texts, tho' very wide of the pur
pofe, are all we are to expect ; being defign'd,
inftead of real Proof, to carry fome Show and
Appearance of ir, that they may feem to make
up in Number, what they want in Weight. AU
that the learned Doctor proves by his 3 00 Texts,
or more, is only tbat the Son is Subordinate
to the Father: Whether as aSdn, or as a Crea
ture, appears not. However, the tacite Con
clufion which the Doctor draws from it, and
infinuates carefully to his Reader, is, that the
X 2 Son

300 /DEFENSE' Qu.XX.
Son is not ftrictly and effentially God ; but a
Creature only. This Inference WTe deny ut
terly ; aliedging that a Subordination may be,
and may be underftood, between two Perfons,
without the Suppofition of any Inferiority of
Nature : But all the Anfwer we can get to this
is, that * Nature and Effence are obfcure Me
taphyfical Notions (which is neither true, nor
to the purpofe, nor confidently pleaded by
one who builds fo much upon Self-exiftence,
a Metaphyfical Term, the word Equivocal,
and the Notion fufficiently obfcure.) And thus,
as foon as the learned Doctor comes up to the
pinch of the Queftion, not being willing to own
the Force of what is urged, He very wifely dif-
fembles it, and goes off" in a mift of Words.
I cannot but take notice, upon this occafion,
of your charging us frequently, in an invidious
Manner, with the ufe we make of Metaphy
fical Terms. I know no reafbn you have for it,
except it be to anticipate the Charge, as being
conicious to your felves how notorioufly you
offend in this kind. Any Man, that is acquaint
ed with the Hiftory oi Arianifm knows that
its main Strength hy in Logical and Metaphy
fical Subtiltics. The Faith of the Church was
at firft, and might be ftill, a plain, eafy, fimple
Thing ; did not its Adverfaries endeavor to per
plex and puzzle it with Thilofophical Niceties,
and minute Inquiries into the Modus of what
they cannot comprehend. The firft Chrifiians
* Reply, p. 17. 19. 21. cafilv

Qu.XX. of fome QUERIES. 301
eafily believed that Father, Son, and Holy '-Ghoft,
into whom They were baptized, and whom
They worfhip'd, were equally divine; without
troubling themfelves about the manner of it, or
the reconciling it with their Belief in one God.
As Men generally believe that God fore- knows
every thing, and that Man notwithltanding is a
free Agent, (fcarce one perhaps in a Thoufand
concerning Himfelf how to reconcile thefe two
Pofitions, or being at all apprehenfive of any
difficulty in it) fo, probably, the plain honeft
Chrifiians believed every Perfon to be God, and
all but one God ; and troubled not their Heads
with any nice Speculations about the Modus
of it. This feems to have been the artlefs Sim
plicity of the primitive Chrifiians, till prying
and pretending Men came to ftart Difficulties,
and raife Scruples, and make Difturbance ; and
then it was neceffary to guard the Faith of the
Church againft fuch Cavils and Impertinencies
as began to threaten it. Thilofophy and Meta-
phyficks were called in to it's Affiftance ; but
not till Hereticks had fliown the way, and
made it in a manner neceffary for the Catho
licks to encounter Them with their own Wea
pons. Some new Terms, and particular Ex
plications came in by this means ; that fuch as
had a mind to Corrupt or Deftroy the Faith,
might be defeated in their Purpofes. It was
peedlefs to fay that Generation was without
'Divifion, while no Body fufpedted or thought
of any Divifion in the Cafe : But after Here-
X 3 ticks

302 /DEFENSE Qu.XX.
ticks had invidioufly reprefented the Catholicks
as afferting a "Divifion, it was high time for
the Catholicks to refent the Injury, and to
deny the Charge. There was no occafion for
the mentioning of Three Hypofiafies, till fuch
as Traxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, had pre
tended to make, one Hypoftafis, an Article of
Faith ; drawing many very Novel, and dangerous
Con fequences from their prime Pofition. The
Iptoyaiov it felf might have been fpared, at leaft,
out of the Creeds, had not a fraudulent abufe
of good words brought Matters to that pafs,
that the Catholick Faith was in danger of be
ing loft, even under Catholick Language. To re
turn to our Point : There would be no occafion
now for diftinguifliing between Subordination
of Order and of Nature, were it not manifeft
how much the Catholick Faith may be endan-
ger'd by the endeavors of Some, to flip one up
on us for the other. Such as know any thing
oi fair Controverfy, may juftly expect of you,
that you fupport your Caufe, not by repeating
and inculcating the word Subordinate { as if
there was a charm in Syllables, or Men were
to be led away by Sounds) but by prov
ing, in a rational manner, that all Subordina
tion implies fuch an Inferiority as you contend
for. If this can be done, the Doctor's 300
Texts (which are very good Texts, and have
Undoubtedly an excellent meaning) may appear
alfo to be pertjnenr. jp the Caufe in Hand. Query

Qu.XXL of fome QUERIES. 303
Query XXL
Whether He be not forc'd to fupply his want
of Scripture-proof by very firain'd and re
mote Inferences, and very uncertain Rea-
fonings from the Nature of a Thing, con
feffedly, obfcure and above Comprehenfion ;
and yet not more fb than God's Eternity,
Ubiquity, Prefeience, or other Attributes,
which we are obliged to acknowledge for
certain Truths?
TO the former part of the Query, you
anfwer directly in the Negative. To
which I rejoin, that I ftill maintain the Affir
mative, and can readily make it good. The
Doctor's infinuating from the 3 00 Texts (which
ftile the Father God abfolutely, or the one God)
that the Son is not ftridtly and effentially God,
not one God with the Father, is a firain'd and
remote Inference of his own ; not warranted by
Scripture, nor countenanc'd by Catholick Anti
quity ; but Contradictory to Both. Befides this,
I muft obferve to you, that the main Strength
of the Dodtor's Caufe lies, firft, in his giving ei
ther a * Sabellian, or Tritheiftick turn (admit
ting f no Medium) to the Catholick Doctrine ;
and then charging it with Confufion oi Terfbnst
f See Inftances, Seript. Do&r.p. 99. 102. 292. 42(1.465. firft Ed.
Reply p ly. 38, fi. 3"3- 93- '*>•
f Script. Dodtr. p. 86. 132. 41 f. 430. 435-. 437. 441. 447.14^..
46f. firft Ed,
X 4 P*£-

3©4 /DEFENSE Qu. XXI.
Tolytheifm, Non-fenfe, or Contradiction. Take
away That, to which his cOnftant refort is,
whenever He comes to the pinch of the Que
ftion, and there will be little left confiderable.
He fhows his Reader Tritheifm, and He fhows
Him Sabellianifm (keeping the Catholick Do
ctrine, which is Neither, out of fight) and then
recommends Arianifm ( difguifed ) to Him, as
the beft of the Three. Now, fince the Catho
lick Dodtrine, has been generally thought diffe
rent from any of the Three, and more follow
ed than all the reft put together, it ought to
have been fairly prefented, in company with
the other ; that fo the Reader, having all the
Four before Him, might be the more able to
pafs a right Judgment of Them. You will fre
quently find the learned Doctor combating the
Catholick Faith under the difguife of Sabelli
anifm, as if there was no Difference between
them ; Or if it be at all diftinguifh'd from Sa-
belfianifiH, it immediately commences Tri
theifm ; and a plurality of Co-ordinate Perfons
is inevitable with the learned Doctor: This
is the Sum of his Performance. Scripture, in
deed, is brought in, and Fathers too, which
is ftill more furprizing: But the whole, in a
manner, is this one Syllogifm.
If the Son be Confubfiantial with God the
Father, He muft be either individually or fipe-
cifically fo: But the former is Sabellianifm,
the latter Tritheifm, Both abfurd; There
fore, €^ir~ The

Qu.XXL of fome QUERIES, 30?
The learned Doctor very well knows, how
eafy it would be to match this Syllogifm, or
Sophifm, with others of the like kind, againft
Omnipre fence, Eternity, Treficience, and even
Selj-exiftence : which, in reverence to the Sub
ject, and for prudential Reafons, I forbear;
forry to find the Caufe put upon fuch a way of
reafoning, as tends to undermine fomething
more than the Doctrine of the Trinity. But
I proceed. To give the better Colour to his Charge of
Tritheifm, the Doctor * every where takes
it for granted (wThich was the only way, when
it could not be proved ) that God the Son
cannot be really diftinct, and ftrictly divine
too, unlefs He be Co-ordinate, in ail Refpects,
with the Father ; which would be contrary to
the Suppofition of his being a Son, and fecond
Perfon. Two Co-ordinate Perfons, it feems, They
muft be ; or elfe one of them muft inevitably
be a Creature: This is plainly his meaning;
however ftudioufly He avoids the word Crea
ture ; chufing rather to infinuate covertly, what
is too grofs ro appear in broad Terms. The
whole, you fee, terminates in a Thilofiphical
Queftion : And what occafion have we for
Scripture, or Fathers (except it be to amufe
our Readers) if Thilofophy can fo eafily end
the Difpute ? For it is very certain that neither
Scripture nor Fathers can add force to, if
concurring ; nor, if reclaiming, he able to ftand
* Script. Dodr. p. 86.4i/.43Q.43y..44i.447.455.46$.firftEd; againft,

305 /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
againft, clear and evident Demonftration. But
*Demonftr ation is the thing wanting: As to
Trefumptions, and Conjectures, we are in no
Pain about them. I fhall have a farther oc
cafion to confider the Charge of Tritheifm
hereafter; and therefore, difmiffing it for the
prefent, fliall return to the Bufinefs of the
Query. To the latter part of it you anfwer, that
God's Attributes are fb far from being above
Comprehenfion, that they are all ftrictly de-
monftrable by Reafon. You was fenfible this
was wide; and therefore very juftly* corrected
it, in the Words immediately following. But
I am willing to fuppofe {How could you make
any doubt of it .? ) That the Author meant,
that the Manner of their Exiftence in the
divine Nature, is above Comprehenfion ; and
fo indeed it is. Very well ; and yet you be
lieve the reality of thofe Attributes. Why
then fo unequal and partial, with refpedt to
the Trinity, the cafe being exactly the fame ?
Why may not the Thing be true, though the
Manner, or Modus of it, be above Com
prehenfion? You add, Tho' the manner of
the Son's Derivation is above Comprehenfion,
yet his real Subordination is ftrictly demon-
ftrable, p. 99.
Tantamne Rem tarn negligent er ?
Here the Argument was, in a manner, brought
to a Head; and the Fate of the Controverfy
depended on this Article. Here you had a fair
Oppor-

Qi.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 307
Opportunity given you of laying on your
Charge of Contradictions, if you had any you
could depend on ; and of clearing God's Attri
butes (particularly, the Three mention'd) from
being liable to the fame, or the like Charge.
But, inftead of this, you walk calmly off with
one Sentence; in which, to be plain with you,
it will be hard to find either Weight, or Per
tinency. If you mean, by real Subordination,
the Subordination of a Creature to God ; or of
one Perfon inferior in Nature to another of
a higher, fuperior, or more perfect Nature ;
it is not demonftrable from Scripture ¦, nor can
it any way be proved : If you mean any
thing elfe, it is not pertinent.
You are fo kind as to allow the Manner of
the Son's Derivation, or Generation, to be
above Comprehenfion. The Eunomians, your
Predeceffors in this Controverfy , * thought
(and They thought right) that, in order to fup
port their Caufe, it would be neceffary to af
firm the Nature of God to be Comprehenfible,
or not above Human Comprehenfion; and
therefore it is that \ Thilofiorgius cenfures Eu-
Jebius for clofing in with the contrary Opi
nion. You are more modeft ; They more con
fiftent : For, indeed, this Controverfy, manag'd
upon the Foot of meer Reafon, terminates at
length in that fingle Queftion, whether the
* Epiph. Hxref. 7<5. p. 91 <S. Socrat. E. H. 1. 4. c. 7, p. 176.
Theodorit. Hseret. Fab. 1. 4. c. 3. Cyril. Alex. Tfrefaur. p. 260.
Ed. Parif. Chryfoft. Horn. 27. Tom. 1 . p. 307.
f Philoftorg. lib. 1. p. 468. Ed. Valef.
Effence

3o8 / DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
Effence of God be above Comprehenfion, or no.
The Catholicks flood up for the Affirmative ;
rhe wifer, but bolder Arians maintain'd the
Negative: And this is what, if you under
ftand your own Principles, and will be at the
Pains to trace Them to the laft refult, you'l
be obliged to take Shelter in, or to give up
your Caufe, fo far as concerns all Arguments
drawn from the Nature and Reafon of the
Thing. Some of our Englifh Socinians have
exprefs'd Themfelves as roundly, upon this Head,
as any of the Antient Arians, or Eunomians ;
declaring the divine Nature to be no more my
fterious than that of his Creatures. Such Af-
fertions are fhocking; but there is a neceffity
for them, if fome Men will be confiftent, and
ingenuous enough to fpeak out. They would
not advance fuch bold Paradoxes, if They were
not forc'd to it.
Before I leave this Query, it will be proper
to acquaint our Readers what we mean by be
lieving Myfteries. For I find that this is a
Matter which is apt to give great Offence, and
to occafion many fad and tragical Complaints.
*Dr. Whitby is one of the moft confiderable
Men that I have obferved giving into that po
pular way of Reafoning, which had been for
merly left (as it ought to be ftill) to Writers of
a lower Clafs. He is very much difturbed that
any thing fliould be propofed as an Article oi
Faith, which is not to be underftood: And
* Difquif. Modeft. Prxf. p. Jg, obferves,

Qu. XXI. of fome QU E R I E S. 3 09
obferves, that no Man in his fober Senfes can
give his affent to what He underfiands not;
meaning, underfiands not at all. He is certain
ly very right, I do not fay pertinent, in the
Remark : And I may venture to add, that no
Man, whether fober, or otherwife, can do it.
For, undoubtedly, where there is no Idea,
there can be no AfTent; becaufe affenting to
nothing, is the very fame with not affenting.
Thus far, we are perfectly agreed. But for the
clearing up of this Matter, I fliall endeavor to
reduce what relates to it, to the following
Particulars, as fo many diftindt Cafes.
1 . Let the firft Cafe be, where the Terms of
a Propofition, Subject and Predicate (or either
of Them) are not at all underftood by the Per
fon to whom it is given. For inftance; the
Words, Mene mene Tekel Upharfin, carried
no Idea at all with them, till the Prophet had
interpreted them ; before which King Belfhaz-
zar could give no Affent to them. The fame
is the cafe of any Propofition given in an un
known Language^ or in fuch words, of a known
Language, as a Perfon underfiands not. Only,
I would have it obferv'd, that, in fuch a Cafe,
a Man neither admits nor rejects the Tropofi-
tion ; becaufe to Him it is no Tropofition, but
meerly Sounds or Syllables.
z. A fecond Cafe is, when the Propofition is
given in a Language well underftood, and in
Words which ordinarily convey Ideas to the
Mind;

310 /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
Mind ; but Words fo put together, in that In
ftance, as to furnifli us with no certain and de
terminate Meaning. A late Anonymous Writer
has hit upon a very proper Example of this
very Cafe. / Woman ought to have Tower
on her Head, becaufe of the Angels. The
Words, Woman, Tower, Head, Angels, are
all plain Words, and carry with Them obvious
familiar Ideas. And yet a Man may have no
Idea of what is afferted in that Propofition ;
and therefore can give no affent to it, more
than this ; that it is true in fome Senfe or other,
or that fomething fliould be believed, if He
underftood what: which is not affenting to
that Propofition, but to Another; namely, that
whatever Scripture afferts, is true. Theafore-
faid Author obferves, very fhrewdly, that hav
ing no certain Ideas oi the Terms of the Tro-
pofition, it is to Him a Myftery. I may add,
that the Tertinency of his Obfervation is ano
ther fuch Myftery ; and rhe Juftice and Equity
of his drawing a Parallel between This, and
the Myfteries of Chriftianity, properly fo call
ed, muft be a Myftery to as many as cannot
perceive either the Senfe or the Ingenuity oi
doing it. But,
3 . Another Cafe may be, when the Terms of
a Propofition are underftood, but are fo con
nected or divided, as to make a Propofition
manifeftly repugnant. / Triangle is a Square.
A Globe is not round, or the like. Such Pro
pofitions we rejedt ; not becaufe we do not un
derftand

Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 311
derftand Them, but becaufe we do ; and under
ftand Them to be Falfe. Sometimes indeed a
Contradiction lies conceal'd under the Words it
is couch'd in, till it be refolved into plainer.
For Inftance : This Propofition, The Exiftence
of a Firft-Caufe is demonftrable, a priori : As
it lies under thefe Terms, it feems reducible to
Cafe the Second ; as being Sound without Senfe.
But refolve it into This; There is a Caufe prior
to the Firft ; and then the * Repugnancy ap
pears. So again: Neceffity of Exiftence is
antecedently {in order of Nature) the Caufe
or Ground of that Exiftence. Thefe are only
fo many Syllables. But put it thus: A pro
perty is, in order of Nature, antecedent to,
and the Ground and Caufe of the Subject
which fupports it ; and the Contradiction is
manifeft. Once more : Neceffity abfolute and
antecedent {in order of Nature) to the Ex
iftence of the Firft Caufe, muft operate every
where alike. This Propofition feems to fall
under Cafe the Second. But let it be refolved
into plainer Words; and then it will appear
that this is the proper place for ir.
4. A fourth Cafe is, when the Terms of the
Propofition carry Ideas with them, feemingly,
but not plainly repugnant. For example: God
Certainly foreknows Event s depending on Un
certain Caufes. Ihe omniprefent Subftance is
* 'Aaa' ouH Imevipvi AapSan-rai tjj iiiohixTtxy1 au-m y«p av. trpo-
xigav, >ult yvu£ipuTigea o-vvifKTaj, Ta at aywipis olihv izs&v'-Tmpffl,
Clem. Alex. Strom, p. 696.

3ti /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
not extended. Propofitions of this kind may
be, and are affented to ; becaufe there may be
a greater Appearance of Repugnancy on the
oppofite Side of the Queftion; or, becaufe
there is not reafon fufficient for fufpending
AfFent. 5. A fifth Cafe is, when a Propofition is
form'd in general Terms, and reaches not to
minute Parriculars. The pure in Heart fhall
fee God. The Phrafe oi feeing God, conveys
fome Idea, but general only; not particular,
precife, or determinate. At God's right Hand
are Tleafures for evermore. God's right Hand,
and Tleafures, we have only general confufe
Ideas of: yet Ideas we have ; and we affent
as far as our Ideas reach. Having no more
than a general confufe Perception, our Faith in
fuch Points can rife no higher, or reach no far
ther ; nor can more be expected of us.
6. A fixth Cafe is, when the Terms of a Pro
pofition convey Ideas, but Ideas oi pure In
tellect ; fuch as Imagination can lay no hold
of. Philofbphers have illuftrated this by the
Inftance of a Chiliagon and a Triangle, We
underftand what is meant by a Figure of a
Thoufand Sides, as clearly, as we do what is
meant by one of Three only : But we imagine
one more diftindtly than the other. This In
ftance belongs more properly to diftinct and
confufe Imagination, than to the purpofe it is
bro^ht for. Ideas of Numbers-, in the Ab-
ftiact, are properly Ideas oi pure Intellect: And

Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 31$
And fo are, or fhould be, our Ideas of our own
Souls, oi Angels, oiGod: We may underftand
feveral Things of them ; but Imagination has
very little to do in fuch Matters. However,
our not being able to imagine, provided we do
but underftand, is no hindrance to our AfTent,
in Propofitions of this kind.
7. The laft and eafieft Cafe is, when the
Terms convey full and ftrong Ideas to the Un
derftanding and Imagination alfo. For inftance :
The Man Chrift Jefus ate, drank, ftept, was
crucified, died, and was buried, &c. Here,
all is eafy, clear, and plain, even to Thofe
who love not to think upon the Stretch, or to
be under any pain in Affenting.
Now for the Application of the foregoing
Particulars to the point in Hand. Thofe Ar^
tides of Faith, which the Church has called
Myfteries, belong not to Cafe the_firft or fe
cond, wherein no AfTent can be given : Or if
They do, They are no Articles of Faith, but
fo many Sounds or Syllables. It is to be hoped,
They come not under Cafe the third : For
plain Contradidtions are certainly no Myfteries,
any more than plain Truths ; as is juftly ob
ferved by the learned * Dr. Clarke. For the
fame reafon, They fall not under Cafe the fe-
venth, where every thing is fuppofed diftinct,
clear, and particular as can be defired. What
ever is plainly reducible to any of the four
* Reply, *. ?S. V Cafes

3T4 /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
Cafes now mention'd, is either no Matter of
Faith at all, or no Myftery. There remain
three Cafes ; where the Ideas are either feem-
/ingly repugnant, or fuch as reach not to Tar-
ticulars, or fuch as Imagination has no con
cern with. Affent may be given in all thefe
Cafes, as hath been already obferved ; and fo,
poffibly, here we may find Articles of Faith:
And, if fome Gentlemen will give us leave, after
we have thus explain'd what we mean by the
Term, we will call fuch Articles Myfteries.
For Example.
The Belief of Three Terfbns every one fing
ly God, and All together one God, feems to
fall under Cafe the fourth : The Ideas are feem-
ingly, not really repugnant. We know what
we mean, in faying every one, as clearly as if
we laid, any one, is God; a Perfon having fiich
and fuch effential Perfections. We fee not per
fectly how this is reconciled with the Belief of
one God, as we fee not how Tre fcience is re
conciled with future Contingents. Yet we be
lieve Both, not doubting but that there is a
Connexion of the Ideas, tho' our Faculties reach
not up to it.
Omniprefence, I think, is another Myftery,
and falls chiefly under Cafe the fifth. We have
a general confufe Idea of it, and mean fome
thing by it. The particular manner how it is,
we have no notion of; and therefore are not
obliged to believe any particular Modus. Fix
upon this or that, there are appearing Repug
nancies

Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 315
nancies and Inconfiftencies ; and io far, this is
reducible to Cafe the fourth, as well as fifth.
The Incarnation of the Son of God is ano
ther Myftery, and comes under Cafe the fourth
and fifth. There are fome feeming, not real
Repugnancies; and the Ideas we have of it
are general and confufe, not particular nor
fpecial. Such as our Ideas are, fuch muft our
Faith be; and we cannot believe farther than
we conceive ; for Believing is Conceiving ; con-
fufely, ii Ideas are confufe ; generally, ii gene
ral; diftinct ly and adequately, if diftinct and
adequate. The Generation of the Son of God is ano
ther Myftery. Ideas we have of it, and know
what we mean by it. But being Spiritual,
Imagination can lay no holdxif them; being
general and confufe, we cannot reach to Tar-
ticulars ; and being feemingly repugnant, we
cannot make out the intire Connexion. Equa
lity of Nature (which is part of the Notion)
is a general Idea, and well underftood; Re
ference to a Head or Fountain, is general
too, but more confufe, and befides, figura
tive ; Eternal Reference very confufe, as the
Idea of Eternity neceffarily muft be ; Infepa-
rability, is general, obfcure, negative, and we
know but very imperfedtly what the Union of
Spiritual Things means. Neverthelefs we un
derftand enough ( tho' we can imagine little)
to make it properly an Article of Belief; and
no Man can reafonably pretend to reject it, as
Y 2 having

316 yf DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
having no Meaning, or carrying no Idea at all
with it. We afTent as far as our Ideas reach, for
we can do no more: We believe in part, what
is revealed in part; our Faith keeping pace
with our Ideas, and ending where They end.
The Simplicity of God is another Myftery,
of which we have fome, but a very imperfect,
general, and obfcure Idea. It may fall under
Cafe the fifth and fixth. Scripture fays little
of it : We have took it chiefly from Metaphy-
ficks , which are fliort and defective. When
we come to inquire, whether all extenfion, or
all plurality, diverfity, Compofition of Sub
ftance and Accident, and the like, be confiftent
with it, then it is that we difeover how con
fufe and inadequate our Ideas are. And hence
it is, that, while all Parties admit the divine
Simplicity, in the general, yet when they come
to be prefs'd with it in difpute, they often give
different accounts of it; and eafily fo explain
and ftate the Notion, as to make it fuit with
their particular Schemes. To this Head belongs
that perplexing Queftion (befer with Difficulties
on all Sides) whether the divine Subftance be
extended or no. And if Extenfion be admit
ted, ingenious thoughtful Men will divide again,
upon another Queftion, whether infinite or no :
Some thinking it very abfurd for any Attribute
of God, not to be infinite ; others thinking it
no lefs abfurd to admit any infinite Extenfion,
Number, or the like, at all. They that fuppofe
the divine Subftance extended,.\eH they fhould be

Qu.XXL of fome QUERIES. 317
be oblig'd to conceive it as a point only ; and
left they fhould admit that any thing can act
where it is not, are, when prefs'd with Diffi
culties about Aliquot Tarts, forced to admit
that any part of That Subftance, how great fo-
ever, or of whatever Dimenfions, muft be con
ceived only as a point, in proportion to the
whole: From whence it follows, that, unlefs
the World be infinite, all that Acts (of that
infinite^Subftance) in the World, is but a point ;
and fo the whole Subftance, except that point,
either acts not at all in the World, or acts
where it is not. But to proceed.
Self exiftence is another Myftery, of which
we know little: And the learned are hardly
agreed whether it be a negative or pofitiveldez.
Yet every body believes it in the grofs, con-
fufely and undeterminately. It is manifeft, on
one hand, that the firft Caufe has no Caufe ;
neither it felf (much lefs any property of it felf)
nor any thing elfe : And yet it may feem very
wonderful how any thing fhould exift without a
Reafon a priori ; that is, without a Caufe for it *.
To name no more : Eternity it felf is the
greateft Myftery of all. An Eternity paft, is
a Thought which puzzles all our Philofophy ;
and is too hard for the fliarpeft Wits to re
concile. The Nunc ftans of the Schools
(though older than the Schools) has been ex
ploded ; and yet Succeffion carries with it in-
* Ou <f> $tx\) Aojto-pof tialvat imo tilt Tt itna* tivcu, pin srap" tail*
•tyiii port trap frigy to sum 'Ijcsovai. Chryf. Horn. *r. Tom. i . p. 298.
Y 3 fuperablc

318 /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
fuperable Difficulties. There is nothing pecu
liar to the Dodtrine of the Trinity, any thing
near fo perplexing as Eternity is : And yet the
Gentlemen, who are for difcarding Myfteries,
are forc'd to believe it. I know no Remedy
for thefe Things, but an humble Mind ; a juft
Senfe of our Ignorance in many Things, and of v
our imperfect Knowledge in all. Now to re
turn to the learned Dr. Whitby.
After a view of the PrCmifes, it might be
proper to ask Him, whether He difhkes the
Catholick Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as
perceiving Contradictions in it. If this be the
Cafe , however concern'd I am for that Do
ctrine (believing it to be true) I will venture to
fay, it would be an acceptable Piece of Service,
if He could any way help others to perceive
them too. Truth, certain Truth, will be al
ways welcome, in any Caufe, and from any
Hand, to all fober arid confiderate Men. But
if this could be done, He fhould not then com
plain that He underfiands not the Doctrine,
but that He underfiands {i.e. diftinct ly per
ceives) it to be Falfe.
If He means that He has no Idea at all of
the Myftery, not fb much as a general, con
fufe, or inadequate Apprehenfion of it ; that
muft be a miftake : as may appear from what
hath been before obferved. Befides that hav
ing once, or oftner, wrote for it; (tho' He
has fince laboured very much to perplex, puz
zle, and difbarage it) every candid Man muft
believe

Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 319
believe that He underftood, in fome meafure,
formerly, what He ingaged in the Proof of.
If the Cafe be that He does not throughly,
fully, and adequately comprehend it, and there
fore demurs to it ; then it fhould be confidered,
that the refult of all is this only ; that He will
not admit fo far as He may underftand, unlefs
He may have rhe privilege to underftand fome
thing more : Which whether it be not too fami
liar from a Creature towards his Creator, and
articling more ftrictly with Almighty God than
becomes Us, let any wife Man judge.
If, laftly, it be pretended that it is a Human,
not a Divine Dodtrine, which He is pleafed
to quarrel with; let Him cenfure it as Hu*-
man and cVnficriptural only ; and not as un
intelligible, and impoffible to be affented to ;
and then we may bring the Caufe to a fliort
Iffiie by inquiring, whether the Doctrine be
Scriptural, or no. Let Things be called by
their right Names, and fet in their true and
proper Light ; that Truth may not be fm other 'd,
nor any Dodtrine (efpecially fo Antient and fb
Important a Dodtrine) condemn'd, before we
know why. So much we owe to the Church
of Chrift, which receives this Faith ; to the Blef
fed Saims and Martyrs, many Centuries upwards,
who lived and died in it ; to Truth, to God, and
to our Selves, as to fee that it be fairly and im
partially examin'd; that proving all Things,
as. we ought to do, in Sincerity and Singlenefs
of Heart, we may, at length, be both wife
Y 4 enough

310 /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
enough to know, and fuitably difpofed to hold
faff that which is good.
It is excellently remark'd by the ingenious
Mr, Emlyn, in the Appendix to his * Narra
tive : " That the Holy Scriptures require no
" accurate Philofophical Notions of God's Eter- .
" nity, Omniprefence , and Immenfity, &c.
" They are content to give us popular, eafy ac-
*' counts of thefe Matters  They trouble
" not Men with the Niceties of eternal Suc-
" ceffions, or an eternal to vw, without Sue-
** ceffion; nor with infinite Spaces, or of God's
f ' being prefent in part, or in whole ; and the
** like metaphyfical Difficulties.  Our Reli-
ft gion impofes no fuch Difficulties on us, of
*' believing With the underftanding, what we
" cannot fo much as perceive by it; it only
" requires us to believe what it reveals to
" us, /". e. to our Underftanding and Appre-
«* henfion.
All this is very rightly and judicioufly ob
ferved. God's Eternity and Omniprefence we
have only general and confufe Ideas of; Scri
pture has not revealed to us the particular mo
dus, or minute Circumftances of Either $ and
we are not obliged to believe, any other-
wife than as we apprehend {i. e. confufely
and inadequately) nor indeed is it poffible. The
fame is the Cafe of three Perfons, every one
truly God, and all but one God; fo far evident
from Scripture, and apprehended, in the ge-
neraj,

Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. iz\
neral, as fully and clearly (perhaps more fo) as
Eternity. Omniprefence, or the like. But
the particular modus, How the Three are One,
and the minute Circumftances of their Union
and Diftinction, are as much a fecret to us,
as how God forefees future Contingents, or
is prefent in all places at once. Many have
been prying and inquifitive into this Mat
ter, hoping to know fomething more parti
cularly of it, till they have come to doubt
even of the Thing it ieXi, and fo have fallen
into Herefy: And Catholicks have fome
times exceeded in this way, endeavoring to
explain beyond their Ideas\ which is really no
thing elfe but multiplying Words. The No
tion is foon ftated, and lies in. a little Compafs.
All that Words are good for, after, is only to
fix and preferve that Notion, which is not im
provable (without a new Revelation ) by any
new Idea ; but may be obfeured and ftifled in
a multitude of Words. The moft ufeful words,
for fixing the Notion of Diftinction, are Ter
fon, Hypoftafis, Subfiftence, and the like : For
the Divinity oi each Perfon, opiovmoi, kyivriTos,
eternal, uncreated, immutable, &c. For their
Union, tz%ix®pn<nS' interior Generation, Tro-
ceffion, or the like. The defign of thefe
Terms is not to enlarge our Views, or to add
any thing to our Stock of Ideas ; but to fecure
the plain fundamental Truth, that Father,
Son, and Holy Ghoft are all ftrictly divine and
unffeated; and yet are not three Gods, but
one

312, /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
one God. He that believes this fimply, and
in the general, as laid down in Scripture, be
lieves enough ; and need never trouble his Head
with nice Queftions, whether the Union. of three
Perfons fhould be call'd individual or fipeei-
fick ; whether Terfion and Being are reciprocal
Terms ; whether every Perfon may be properly
faid to be Self- exift ent ; how three Perfons can
be all in the fame Tlace ; whether all Terfe-
ition might not as well have been confin'd to one
Terfon only ; or whether One might not have
been as good as Three, and the like. Thefe
are difficiles nuga, moftly verbal, or vain In
quiries ; and do not concern common Chrifiians,
any farther than to be upon their Guard, that
they be not impofed on by thefe Subtilties,
invented to puzzle and perplex a plain Scri
pture Truth , which is eafily perceived and
underftood in the general, that is, as far as
required to be believed. Minute Particulars
about the modus, may be left to the Difputers
of this World, as a Trial of their good Senfe,
their Piety, Modefty, and Humility.
We do not take it well to be reproach'd , as
running too far into Metaphyfical Subtilties, by
Men whofe peculiar Talent it is, to play their
Metafhyficks , ( that is , their Trejumptions
about the Nature of a Thing whereof they know
little) againft Scripture and Antiquity, the beft
Guides in thofe Searches. If the Catholicks
have fometimes gone farther than was neceffary,
sn particular Explications, it fhould be remem- hefd

Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 313
ber'd for whofe fake They did it ; and that it
was chiefly with a view to fatisfy fuch as wouI4
not be contented with the general Truth
laid down in Scripture. I fliall fhow, by aU
Inftance or two, how that Matter is. The
ifeiXapycns and interior Generation, are two
Specialities taught by the Catholicks, and
heavily complain'd of by your Friend * Dr.
Whitby, as unfcriptural Definitions. Now,
thefe are but Appendages to our Prime (and as
we think Scriptural) Pofitions, and we are no
farther concern'd for Them, than as they ar«
conceived to hang upon the Other ; fo that your
quarrel with us for thefe, is really finding fault
with our leading and fundamental Doctrine of
One God in ThreeTerfons. But to fhow you, how
unequal you are in cenfuring us for Unfcriptural
Terms, obferve the Courfe and Method of difpute
which draws us firft into them. You argue.fuppofe,
that the Son cannot be God, in the ftrict Senfe,
without making Two Gods : We, anfwer , that
Father and Son, by a moft iatimate and in
effable Union of Subftance, Will, Tower, Tre-
fencet Operation, &c. (which we call 'zfciyfi-
pv\<nf) may be one God. You argue again, that
if the Son be a Son, in our Senfe, there muft
be a divifion and feparate Exiftence : We fay,
No ; alledging that He may be a Son in a pro
per Senfe, and in our Senfe, without 'Divifion
and without a feparate Exiftence ; and the name
* Difyuifit. Mddcft. Przf. f. z$, for

314 /DEFENSE Qu.XXI.
for this is interior Generation. After we are
come thus far, purfuing your wandrings into
the Thilofophy of the Thing , you flep back
again, and tell us, that Scripture fays nothing
of this i&xapviois, or interior Generation. Sup-
pofing (not granting) your Pretence true ; Did
You fet out upon the Foot of Scripture ? Does
Scripture any where tell you, that two divine
Perfons cannot be one God ? Or that Father
and Son muft have a feparate Exiftence ? You
argue only from the Nature and Reafbn of the
Thing it felf, of which you have no adequate
Idea; and we anfwer what is fufficient, and
more than fufficient to confute meer Conjectures
in Matters above your reach. Lay You afide
your unfcriptural Objections, and We fhall
have no occafion for unfcriptural Anfwers.
I fliall juft take notice of an artificial Turn of
Mr. Emlyn's, relating to this Subject ; and then
put an end to this long, but, I hope, ufeful Di-
greflion. His Words are as follows : * " The
" T ride of Reafon, which hindred {theTagan
" Thilofophers) from believing in Chrift, did
«' not lie in refufing to fubmit their Faith to
" myfterious Speculations, which puzzled their
" Reafon : But, on the Contrary, it lay in a
41 proud Affectation of Swelling Words and
" Philofophick Myfteries, and not humbling
" their Underftandings to receive a plain Go-
*' fpel, and familiar Doctrine.
The Thought is ingenious, and might pafs well;
* Exam, of Dr. Benriet, &c. p. J. IntroduS^ if

Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 315
if Hiftory, like Metaphyfical Arguments, were
to be made merely by ftrength of Wit. He forgets
that the Myftery of the Refurrection was one of
thofe plain familiar Things, which the Tride
of their Reafon refufed to fubmit to. He con-
fiders not that the Jews, and the earlieft Herer
ticks (much of the fame Temper with the Ta-
gan Philofophers ) were offended at nothing
more than at the Myftery of God Incarnate ;
which we learn from Ignatius, Juftin, a Ire
naus, ^Tertullian, and c other antient Wri
ters.- And He need but look into Juftin,
Tatian, and Origen, to find that the Tagans,
in particular were in the fame Sentiments, and
join'd in the fame common Charge againft the
Chriftian Doctrine. Nay, it may farther ap
pear, from other d Evidences, that the very
Myftery of the Trinity, which is the Rock of
Offence to fome even at this Time, gave very
early Offence to the Tagan Wits; and was
much difrelifh'd by Them : So averfe were They
to the receiving of Myfteries : And the Tride
of Reafon wrought, at that Time, much after
the fame manner, as it does at this day ; Hu-
a Secundum nullam Sententiam Hereticorum Verbum Dei caro
fafiutzi eft. Iren. 1. 3. c. 11. p. 189.
b Incredibile prxfumpferant Deum Carnem. TertuU. Contr.
Marc. I. 3. c. 8.
c Alii quoque Hsretici ufque adeo Chrifti manifeftam amplexati
funt Divinitatem, ut dixerint Ilium fuifle fine Carne j & Totum
illi fufceptum detraxerint Hominem. ne decoquerent in illo Divins
nominis poteftatem fi Humanam illi Sociaftent, ut arbitrabantur,
Natiritatem. Novat. c. 18.
d Lucian. Philopatr. Atkan, Orat. p. 5-64,
man

1*$ /DEFENSE. Qu.XXiL
man Nature being always the fame. But it is
now high time to proceed.
Query XXII.
Whether his ( the Doctor's ) whole Terform-
ance, whenever He differs from us, be
any thing more than a Repetition of this
Affertion, that Being and Perfon are the
fame, or that there is no Medium between
Tritheifm and Sabellianifm ? Which is re
moving the caufe from Scripture to natural
Reafon, not very confifiently with the Title
of his Book.
IT is of fmall Importance to obferve how the
Doctor has proved fuch Points, as He and
We Both agree in. He might have fpared the
unnecefTary Pains and have took a fliorter
way with us, had his Caufe been fuch as could
be ferved by clofe Argument. He need not
have told us fo often that the Father is emi
nently ftiled the one God, or that the Son
is Subordinate. We allow all That: The
Confequence which He draws from it, and co
vertly infinuates to his Reader, is the Thing
we doubt of. This was the Point which fhould
have been labour 'd, for the Conviction of wife
and confidering Men. He has a deal to fay in
Defence of what no Body oppofes ; and may
there triumph fecurely without an Adverfary :
But when He comes to the point oiDifference, the

QuXXII. of fome QUERIES. 317
the pinch oi the Queftion, there it is that He
difeovers his want of Proof, and how
little he has to depend on, befides that one
precarious Principle intimated in the Query \
which indeed runs thro' his whole Performance,
and is oitenjuppos'd, but never prov'd.
By this Principle He a eludes the Force of the
firft Chapter of St. John's Gofpel ; And He refers
to it again upon b Acts zo. x8. c 1 Tim. 3. 16.
Joh. 5-. 18. By the fame Principle, He evades
the Force of * Job. 8.58. *Joh. iz.+iJ Job.
5". 23. And fo He might have done with any
Number of Texts, however full and exprefs
for the Received Doctrine : For, by the fame
s Maxim, He draws over the Nicene-Creed ,
and does not defpair of bringing in the h Atha-
nafian alfo. From hence it is vifible, wherein
the ftrength of his Performance lies ; and what
it is that He chiefly trulls to. It is not Scri
pture, it is not Antiquity, but a Thilofophical
Principle ; to which Scripture, Fathers, Coun
cils, Creeds, every Thing, muft yield. And in
deed had it been a principle of true and found
Philofophy, every reafonable Man would be
willing to pay the utmoft Deference to it : But
it appears, at length, to be that kind cf vain
Thilofophy, which is often intruding where it
has nothing to do. The Subject is fublime and
above Comprehenfion. We have no intrinfick
a Scrip. Dottr. p, 86. b Id. p. 87. c Id. p. 88. 97. d Id.
p. 99. ep. 102. f p. 132, gp. a,6s- h p. 428.
430. 435. Sec. firft Ed. * Evi-

3i8 /DEFENSE Qu.XXII.
Evidence, no Ideas to build any thing certain
ly upon. Extrinfick Evidence, 'Divine Re
velation, is here all in all ; And the only pro*
per ufe of our rational Faculties, is to inquire
into the true and genuine Senfe of it. To phi-
lofiophize here from the Nature and Reafbn
of the Thing it felf, of which we know little,
is chufing to be ftill in the Dark, when we have
Light before us ; and is not, properly, following
our Reafon, but our Conceits, Fancies, and fond
Conjectures. You are pleafed to fay, in Defence
of the learned Doctor, that if He had done no
more than proved intelligent Being and Per
fon to be the fame, it muft for ever remain
an unanfwerable difficulty, &c. Right, if He
had proved what He has not, fomething might
be faid. I have * before obferved to you, that
the word, Being, bears two Senfes ; and that
you your Selves will not call any thing a Be
ing, but a feparate Being. Excufe the Trini
tarians for being referved. after your Example,
in fo tender a point ; and for endeavouring to
fpeak properly, as well as to think juftly, in
things pertaining unto God. All that the Doctor
hath proved, or can prove, is only this ; that
feparate Perfons are fo many intelligent Be
ings ; which we readily admit : But united Per
fons, or Perfons having no feparate Exiftence,
may be one Being, one Subftance, one God,
notwithftanding. And that you may not think
that I Skreen my felf under dark Words, or
ibficure Diftindtions, I will tell you frankly the
* Qu. 9. p. 167, mean-

Qu.XXII. of fome QUERIES. 3*9
meaning of what I have now faid. It is lit*
tie more than this, that Perfons fo united as
to make one Being, may be one Being. I fup
pofe the Affirmative , that They may be fb
united; having fufficient Grounds for it in Scri
pture, and in Catholick Antiquity; It lies upj
ou you, in this Cafe, to prove the Negative,
viz. that no Union, whatever, can make two
Perfons one Being, one to ®tiov, one God: You
are to fhow the Suppofition to be impoffible, irt
the Nature of the Thing : That is (as I humbly
conceive) you are to prove what you can know
nothing, of; and are to work up a Demonftra-
tion without Ideas. There the Matter refts,
and, I am perfwaded, muft reft, till you pleafe
to come out of Metaphyficks ; and to put the
Caufe upon the Foot of Scripture and Anti
quity, the only Lights in this Matter. Strange
that, at this Time of Day, Any need to be told
(what * 'Unbelievers only doubted of formerly)
that Scripture is our Rule to go by, for form
ing our Notions of God ; and not the light of
Nature, which is darknefs in Comparifon.
You are offended at the Querift for faying
that the Dodtor admits no Medium between
Tritheifm and Sabellianifm. I fhould have
faid, it feems, no Medium for his AdverfarieS,
* Obit yao <pi<ni, buti avS-guftriv^ aiiyoia, o'utu piyaXa xai 9-iTei
yttao-xav otvS-gamitc, auiaiiv , a, Aha tyi ccvaHriv im tous a-yvtc. i&yopxc)
TuvixauTd. wnAStso-y SiiotZ Juft. Mart. Parser], p. 60.
navm%oJlv ro'auv tiHvou arfosjjxw, ov xthapax; Ingoic. <a%) Qtou ij r*
ofS-m 3-sorebsi'«5 pav%lviiy eso* Tt, \ muga T2 zr£b<p>iTuv psvov, t 3^ •i8
V-»V- fTn-tiioleti Jihitrxivrtlv vpscu Ibid. p. 1 ip- Ed, Ox;
7, und

330 /DEFENSE Qu.XXIL
and you wonder at fo palpable a miftake. In
deed, the meaning of what I faid was fo pal
pable, that there was no occafion for guard,
while I fuppofed my felf writing to a Man of
Senfe. You have took it right fo. far: The
Doctor allows Us, his Adverfiarie's, no Medium.
But 1 had an Eye to fomething more, viz. that
He has, by the fame Principle, teft no Medium
for Himfelf; as I fliall fhow you, in due Time.
I am only to obferve now, that it is not from
Scripture, or from Catholick Antiquity, that the
Doctor has learn'd this Maxim, of no Medium
(for fuch as believe Chrift to be effentially
God) between Sabellianifm and Tritheijm.
This was what I complain'd of, his making a
Pompous Appearance of Scripture and Fathers,
when the whole is made to depend upon a
meer philojophical Queftion, which is to be
the Rule and Meafure to try Scripture and Fa
thers by. Let Scripture, or Fathers appear
ever fb ftrong and clear for fuch a Medium,
They are condemn'd before-hand, either to
fpeak another Senfe, or to be of no Weight or
Authority. If this be the Cafe (as you feem
to admit ) you ought to go upon very fure
Grounds. And yet the learned Doctor, inftead
of favouring us with any proof of his main Po
fition, which gives the Law to the reft, has only
often repeated it; which is no more than to
fay, there cannot be any Medium, in the Cafe ;
no, there cannot. We do not pretend to be
wife enough to know any thing, a priori, whe ther

Qu.XXII. of fome QUERIES. 131
ther there can, or there cannot ; But, apofteriori,
we may inquire after Fact : And if we find by
Scripture, rightly underftood, that there really is
fuch a Medium ; we fliall not be concern'd for
any pretended Strength of your Maxim againft it.
Our Defence then againft the Charge of Tri-
theijm will be as follows. By comparing Scri
pture with Scripture, we plainly find that the
divine Unity is not an Unity of Terjon : We
obfervej that there are more Perfons than one
dignified with the fame high Titles of Lord,
God, &c. inverted with the fame high Powers,
Attributes, and Perfections ; and intituled to the
fame Honour, Worfliip, and Adoration : And
yet the Scripture never tells us of two true
Gods, but conftantly afferts that God is One.
We take notice, that the Father is Jehovah, and
Son is Jehovah, and yet the Lord Jehovah is
One Lord ; The Father creates, and the Son
creates, and yet we have no Warrant to fay
Two Creators ; The Father is worjhip'd, and
the Son is worjhip'd, and yet we find no Foun
dation for afferting two Objects oi Worjhip,
or Two Worjhip s : In a word, the Father is
God, and the Son is God, and yet we are no
where taught to call Them Two Gods. The
obvious Conclufion, from thefe Premifes, is,
that They are Both one God (otherwife indeed
'Ditheifm is unavoidable) and thus the Scri
pture-notion of Unity is of more Perfons than
One in the fame Godhead. What confirms us
in this reafoning, is, that our Bleffed Lord has told
Z z us,

331 /DEFENSE Qu.XXII.
us, that He and the Father are one ; that who-
foever hath feen Him, hath feen the Father ;
that He is in the Father, and the Father in Him ;
and very familiarly fpeaking of the Father and
Himfelf. He fays, we will come unto Him (that
loveth Chrift) and make our abode with Him.
St. Taul in his Epiftles asks for the iame Grace,
Mercy, and Teace from Father and Son ; And
alfo prays that They may direct his Way, i.
Theff. 3. 11. Thefe Things ferve to illuftrate and
explain each other ; and, all together, abundant
ly make good the Pofition before laid down, that
* Father and Son are one God. Accordingly the
Prophet f Ifaiah, as may be inferr'd from \ St,
John, makes them Both to be One Holy, Holy,
Lord of Hofts, therein fignifying both the Di-
ftindtion of Perfons, abd Unity of Godhead.
Thefe Confiderations (with many others too long
to recite) convince us that there is a Medium,
(faving the Son's effential Divinity) between Sa
bellianifm andTritheifm. We affert not Three
Abfolute, Original, Co-ordinate Divinities, like
the Marcionites ; We feparate not the Perfons
from each other, with the Arians ; we hold not
a fpecifick Unity (fuch as between two Indivi
duals of any Species, two Men, for Inftance) If
* 1 have hitherto waved the Confideration of the Holy Ghoft; for
lohich reafon alfo, l pafs it over here, confining my felf chiefly to the
point of the Son's Divinity, which if fufficiently clear'd. , he other, I
fuppofe, may be admitted without Scruple.
f Ifai. Ch. 6. £ Joh. 12. 41.
Vid. Athanaf. p. 108. 877. 889. Ed. Bened. Bafil. contr. Eunom.
/. f. p. 1 if. Hieron. in Ifa. 6. U Epift. ad Damaf. de eod. Epiph.
Ancorat. p. 1$. 21,
we

Qu.XXII. of fome QUERIES. 333
we did any of thefe, there might be fome colour
for the Charge of Tritheifm. But we acknow
ledge, with the Scriptures, one God the Father
with his Co-effential and Co-eternal Son and
Spirit ; One Head and Fountain of all ; the three
Divine Perfons being One in Nature, One in
Knowledge, in Prefence, in Operation and Ener
gy ; never Separate, never Afunder ; diftindt with
out Divifion, united without Confufion. If this
beTritheifm, it is what Scripture has taught Us,
and what God, who beft knows his own Nature,
hath- recommended to Us. But it is not Tri
theifm ; it is the true and only Medium, which
maybe found by looking in Scripture for it; and
which you feem to have loft by following a falfe
Light, and wandring too far in fanciful Specu
lations. To confirm us ftill more in this, we perceive,
upon due Inquiry, that Thofe who lived neareft
the Apoftolical Age, and beft knew the mind of
the Scriptures, They alfo taught the fame Do
ctrine which we teach. There was fome Appear
ance of Tritheifm in it then, as. there is now ;
which is an Argument to us, that it is ftill the fame :
But if any Chriftian ferioufly took upon Him to
charge the Doctrine with Tritheifm, and perfift-
ed in it, He was immediately rejected by the
wifer and foberer Chrifiians, as a Heretick.
Traxeas about the Year 186, began openly
to charge the Catholicks with Tritheifm. But
his Pretences were eafily defpifed by the Church;
and his Arguments anfwer'd by Tertullian.
Z 3 Not

334 /DEFENSE Qu. XXII.
Not long after, Noetus revived the Charge,
and his a Plea was that God is One, and that
there could not be a plurality in the Godhead:
But He went away with the Character of a
weak and rafh Man ; and was condemn'd by
the Chriftian Church. At the fame Time, the
Noetians had fo high an Opinion of the Di
vinity of Chrift (Scripture and Tradition run
ning ftrong for it) that b They had no way of
folving the difficulty, but by making Father and
Son one Terfon, and, in Confequence, were
Tatripaffians. About the middle of the third Century arofe
Sabellius. He pretended to be extremely zea
lous for the Unity, and c charged the Catho
licks with afferting Three Gods. He has been
thought to have refined upon the Noetian
Scheme (if we may call it refining) by deny
ing a God incarnate, after the Example of the
earlier Hereticks; by which He avoided the
Error of the Tatripaffians. If fb, He may be
look'dupon as holding nearly the fame Principles
with the modern Socinians. This Conjecture
is grounded on a Paffage in d Epiphanius. But
eSt. Aufiin underftood the Matter otherwife,
a Epiphan. Hsr. $7. p. 480. Theod. Haeiet. Fab. 1. 3. c. 3.
ttippol. Contr. Noet. c. 11. p. 14.
b Ne videantur duos Deos dicere, neque rurfus negare Salvatoris
Divinitatem, unam eandemque Subflantiam Patris ac Fiiii afTeve-
rant: Id eft duo quidem nomina fecundum diverfitatem Caufarum
recipientem, Unam tamen Hypoftaiin fubfiftere, id eft, Unam Per
fonam duobus nominibus fubjacentem.qui latine Patripafllani appel-
lantur. Orig. apud Pamph. Apoi. p. 226. Ed. Bened.
c Epiphan. Hseref. 62. p. f 14.
d Epiphan. Synopf. Tom. i.i. 1. p. 398. Tom. 2. p. 146. Ed.Pctav.
e Aug. Ha:ref. 41. an(j|

Qu.XXII. of fome QUERIES. 335"
and the Sabellians have been generally reckon'd
with the Tatripaffians.
Within a few Years after Sabellius, Taul oi
Samofiata carried on the fame Charge of a Tri
theifm, (or rather Ditheifm) againft the Catho
licks; and was a warm, injudicious b Aflerter of
the Unity, confining it to the Father only, exclu
five of the other Perfons. But the Catholick
Bifhops, as c Eufebius informs us, ran together
againft Him, as againft a Wolf, that was endea
voring to deftroy the Flock of Chrift.
About Fifty Years after Him, appeared Arius ;
who, to avoid d Tritheifm (as He thought) and
to preferve the Unity of the Godhead, and that
there might be one e Selfexiftent Being, or
Terfon (The fame Pretexts, in the main, which
had been handed down by fome f before Tra
xeas , as well as by Traxeas Himfelf, and
Noetus, Sabellius , and Taul oi Samofiata}
denied the Divinity of the fecond Perfon, on
ly allowing a real Pre-exiftence, and fo making
Him more antient than the others before men
tion'd did. Such were the Men, who former
ly (joining therein with sjews and Tagans)
charged the Catholicks with holding a plurality
of Gods : While the Catholicks notwithftand-

a Epift. Synod. Antioch. Lab. Tom I. p. 84<;.
b Theodoret. Hasrct. Fab. 1. ». c. 8. Athanaf. Vol. 2. p. 942.
c Eufeb. Eccl. Hift. 1. 7- c. 27.
d Rp. Alexand. apud Theoii. E. H. I. 1. c. 4.
e t,v to ayvwrtTav, «s aycvvsiTQt,.
f Vid. Novatian. c. 30.
g Athan. Vol. 1. p. /<$4. Lucian. Philopatr.
Z 4 ^g

336 /DEFENSE Qu.XXH,
ing, retained the Faith; defpifing the Apcufa-
tion, as weak, falfe, apd groundlefs ; and de
fending Themfelves upon fuch Principles as
Jiave been before mention'd. None were ever
condemp'd by the Church as Tritheifis , but
fuch as either denied the Unity of Trincipium,
or made the. Hypoftafis Heterogeneous, feparate
or aliene from each other.
We have feen then, that there is no juft
ground from Scripture ox Antiquity, to charge
our Doctrine with Tritheifm. If there be any
pretence from the Nature and Reafbn of the
thing it felf, it is of very flight moment. The
divine Nature is beft known from Revelation :
It is from thence we difeover that God is not
limit poqwxos, a fingle Hypoftafis, but that the
Father has his Co-effential and Co-eternal Son
and Holy-Spirit, always in Him and with Him.
We can have no other right Conception of the
me God (to ufe the Words of * Hippolytus) but
£>y believing in a real Father, Son, and Holy-
Ghoft, This is the Faith of the ever bleffed
Trinity ; which Scripture and Fathers hold forth
to Us; and which is too ftrongly fupported, to
he weakcn'd by any Wit or Criticifm. As to
Thofe who take Trinity and Tritheifm for
* ' Aaawc, Tt iva ©toy vopiiraj pit ovvapzja., tav pu I'vTac, Harp] &
ijZ {? d}ioi avivftfflt ipnuazopiv. Hippol. Contr. Noet. p. 16.
I fhall add his, Doxology, becaufe it has but lately appear'd in the
§riek, gnd fo has been lefs took notice of.
Ot-nc 0 ©sus 0 av'huTs©^ is ipS,c jtwyai, a> jtosvto \zsliu\tv nario.
etira i oo\a xai to xtomt, apa Xlar^i *a\ ayia laiiupaii, iv t!J
«tj<« ixxAytnot,, xai iuv, xai an, x«t lis touc, alma^Tm aiavuv, qcpv/v.
$>.' »o. Vol. s. Fabric.
Synonym

Qu.XXII. of fome QUERIES. 337
Synonymous Terms, They may go on to value
Themfelves upon it. They have Jews, Ta
gans, and Hereticks, Fifteen Hundred Years
backwards, to countenance Them in it. It is
fufficient to have fliown, that wifer and better
Men, the truly Trimitive and Catholick Church,
never thought it Tritheifm; but condemn'd
Thofe that thought fo.
Having taken off" the Charge from our Do
ctrine, I come, next, to fix it upon Your's;
where, I humbly conceive, it ought to lie. I
do not pretend that you are Tritheifts , in
every Senfe; but in the fame Senfe that the
Tagans are called Tolytheifts, and in the Scri
pture -Senfe of the word, God, as explain'd
and contended for by your Selves. One di
vine Terfion is, with you, equivalent to one
God; and Two, to two Gods; and Three, to
three Gods : The Cafe is plain ; The Confe
quence unavoidable. One Supreme, and two
Inferior Gods, is your avowed Dodtrine : And,
certainly, the afferting Three Gods (whether co
ordinate, or otherwife) is Tritheifm; againft
the firft Commandment, againft the whole Te
nor of Scripture, and the Principles of the pri
mitive Church. It is, to me, an Inftance of the
ill effects of vain Thilofophy, and fhows how
the Dijputer of this World may get the bet
ter of the Chriftian ; when Men appear fo much
afraid of an imaginary Error in Metaphyficks,
and, to avoid it, run into a real One, againft
Scripture and Antiquity. You tell rne, indeed,
¦ that

333 / D E F E N S E Qu.XXII.
that if I am pofitive in this, you'l bring both
* Ante-Nicene and Nicene- Fathers againft me.
But, let me advife You to read Them (a fecond
Time) over; and you'l fee no Reafon to be
Sanguine in this Matter. The Doctor has cited
fome Paffages from Them, and made Them
feemingly fpeak his Senfe ; though, in the main
Dodtrine, they are clearly againft Him as I have ;
obferved f above. You appeal to thefe Fa
thers as Vouchers for you. But let us attend,
however, to what you fey.
The Antient Writers of the Church un-
mimoufty agree, that nothing but an abfolute
Equality and Co-ordination in God the Father
and the Son, can make Them two Gods, and
that the real Subordination of the Son to the
Father preferves the Church from Poly-
' * The Senfe of Ante-Nicene and Poft-Nicene fathers, in Relation
to Tritheifm, may be feen in the following Paffages.
*E|«5 o1* av itngr&s Aswipi K£H 'X&S 2dg.tPaw>&s (c* ttff^.Tipyoy^4 xai
S&asf&v?&4 to oipy'o-ra%v xigvypet t" cmxawiuo. & QtS, tw po*ac%iav iii
s££(5 aiivapei^ -nvac, xai ptpigiv pivaq •v&oszlatts, t£ &£oni&s TgiTo —
— «/ T^iic Qsisi Tfiymiv Tiva xtogurlovoiv, iii *?"? vcrasasirei? \fvas oaavi-
-•.*» 7ia,ym'7m,ai xixojg.o-pivas 2i]\j.igouv{$ts tqv djiav j/gvaht,, Dionyf.
Roman, apud Athanaf. Vol. l. p. 221,
"O ptv ko%a<, utmjut no, abo xtigurli Osier aurti M.aoxwv<§- i ahcr.
jsSh* yraAiv 0 Qtoy ayiVAToy uvaf Atyoiv, uaaov oil ©eo* ylviiTor,
ib'o xai aurof Atyu ©fas, 2>\g, tLu tvh ouaias 2^g.(pogav, m @Aour<pi-
i&oti iio-zty{' 07ns '"j p'.a piv \j 'App^H, sv oh 70 t| auTVto yivvvtpa  fl;
§ios, 7iA«#s /*£» an Ilargi Is 9-eo'tjjt©" voxpiwic,, nAtla% jj >@4 lv 'ijd
s-iJs -miTgtxm fyoTijT®" xsssaoiQsoy^. Athan. Contr. Sabell. Greg. p. 42.
Comp. Bafil. Horn. 27. Contr. Sabell. p. 604, 6or-
XlZ( oi/y sjaj pia S-iotvc, ti ant s?», xtcS"' upai, 'Opoyajoc TrS n«?fi ;
61 f s£M Tiva ityfrfttoiv, liToi 2u&Qoi3epv xa-ra, T *$ ova-.Oi Aonpv, STtgoToq
ptv ai liri ©£05 6 'tjoc., iTigoics da o -moTtiO, xal cuo y&TM tzto ©sk$
iuacyxx Aeyesv mtf s&v aazvis, >£ eiiA pt-%gt ftcjyov axgqc. rtagahntiv.
'Qpokoi®- aga r5 Xlare} i \oc. chin -f> to iv B-$otii1i <rw3-ji<rsTaf.
Cyril. Alex. Theiaur. p. 78. f Qu./. theifm

Qu. XXII. of fome QU E R I E S. 339
theifm, {p. 100.) In the next Page, You appeal
ro Athanafius for the Senfe of the Nicene and
Toft-Nicene Fathers, and to Hilary and Ba
fil, in order to clear your Doctrine from the
Charge of Tritheifm ; little imagining that
Thele good and great Men have * condemn'd
your Dodtrine, as Totytheifm and Taganifm,
over and over ; as all know, that are any thing
converfant in their Works. Well: But what have
They faid to countenance your Notion ? This
only : That Unity of Trinciple clears the
Church's Doctrine from the Charge of Tri
theifm. Not your Dodtrine, not the Arian
Dodtrine; but the Catholick Dodtrine. For
fince Equality of Nature, and Unity of Trin
ciple too, are both requifite; The Catholicks
admitting the former (as their Adverfaries well
knew ) had nothing farther needful to infift
upon, in anfwer to the Charge of Tritheifm,
but the latter. Unity of Principle, and Same-
nefs of Nature together might make two Per
fons one God (according to the unanimous
Opinion of the Antients) but not either of
them alone.
But now in refpedt to the Arian (that is,
your Dodtrine ) the pretence of Unity of Prin
ciple is perfedtly abfurd. The Son is fup
pofed a Creature of the Father's: If his be
ing of, or from, the Father, in this Senfe,
makes Him one God with the Father, it will
* Athanaf. Orat. 3. p. f6f, f66. Hilar, p. 916. Bafil. Ep. 70.
pag. f-t'i. Horn. 27. p- 601, &c fol-

340 /DEFENSE Qu.XXII.
follow, that Angels or Men, or even Things
inanimate, are one God with the Father alfo.
Indeed, to do you juftice, you do not fo much
as pretend, that Unity oi Trinciple, or any
Thing elfe can make Him one God with the
Father. Which is enough to fhow, how very
widely you differ from the Antients, in the
main point of All. They thought it neceffary
to affert,, that Father and Son were Both one
God. So Irenaus, Athenagoras, Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus,
Laft ant ius, and even Eufebius Himfelf, after
fome Debates upon it ; as may appear from the
Teftimonies * before referr'd to : And of the
Toft-Nicene Catholick Writers, in general, every
body knows how They contended for it. They
thought that the Divinity of the Son could
not be otherwife fecured, and Tolytheifm at
the fame time avoided, than by afferting Fa
ther and Son to be one God; and They thought
fight. But what do you do ? Or how can you
contrive to clear your Scheme ? We ask if the
Son be God, as well as the Father ? You fay,
Yes: How then is there but one God? Your
Anfwer is, The Father is fupreme, and there
fore He, fingly, is the one God. This is taking
away what you gave us before, and retracting
what you afferted of the Son. If Supremacy
only makes a Perfon God, The Son is no God,
upon your Principles : Or, if He is God notwith
ftanding, then Father and Son are two Gods.
Turn this over, as often as you pleafe, you'l
*Qu. p p. as. find

QuXXII. of fome QUERIES. 341
find it impoffible to extricate your felf from ir.
You can lay only this ; That you do not ad
mit Two fupreme Gods. This is very true:
No more did the Tagan Polytheifts, nor the
Idolatrous Samaritans, nor Others condemn'd
in Scripture for Tolytheifm. You ftand pretty
fair upon the Principles of Thilofophy ; and are
not guilty of any manifeft Error in Meta-
phyficks, upon this Article. But you are fuch
a Tritheift, as, upon Scripture-Principles, and
upon the Principles of the Catholick Church,
both * before and after the Nicene-Council,
muft ftand condemn'd. Your Belief of the
Fathers being for you, in this particular,
is pure Fancy and Fiction; owing, I fuppofe,
to your feeing only fome Pieces of Them in
Dr. Clarke. You can find but very little among
the Antients, which either directly or indirectly
favors your Notion of a fupreme and a fubor
dinate God. They condemn'd it implicitely,
in their Difoutes with the Tagans, all along:
And no fooner was it ftarted in the Church, "t
but the Catholicks were alarm'd at it ; and im
mediately condemn'd it, as reviving of Crea-
ture-Worfhip, and reftoring Gent Hi fin, and
Pagan Tolytheifm. Two Gods, a greater and a
lefs, a Supreme and an Inferior, no Scripture, no
found Reafon, no good Catholick ever Taught;
no Church would have endured. A feparate
* N.B. I do not fay that the Ante- Nicene Writers would have called
the Arian Dollrine Tritheifm; perhaps, Blafphemy rather. But They
would have charg'd it with Paganifm (fee Tertullian above, p. 54.)
which comes to the fame with what the Poft-Nicenes faid- of it.
God

342- /DEFENSE Qu.XXII.
God from the Supreme, an inferior created
God, would not only have been look'd upon
as Tolytheifm and Contradiction, confider'd in
it felf; but as Herefy and Blafphemy, if under
ftood of God and Chrift.
To conclude this Head : If we underftand
the word, God, in rhe ftridt Senfe, it is ridi
culous to charge the Arian Scheme with plu
rality of Gods. But, if it be underftood in the
loofe popular Senfe, or in your own Senfe of
it, it is equally ridiculous to deny it. Mr. Nye,
who, you know, has ftudied this Controverfy
much and long, and is no Friend either to the
truly Catholick Scheme, or your's, condemn
ing Both as Tritheifm ; is pleafed however fb
far to give the Preference to the former, as
to declare, that the Arian Herejy is only a
more abfurd and lefs defenfible Tritheifm *.
Of all the four Schemes which have been fol
lowed, the Sabellian, Catholick, Arian, and
Socinian ; The Sabellian only (which intirely
ungods the Son, and annihilates the Holy-
Ghoft) ftands perfectly clear of any Appearance
of Tolytheifm. The Catholick appears charge
able, but really is not fo : The Arian and So
cinian both appear fo, and are fo; Where
fore a Charge of Tritheifm muft come from
Them, with a very ill Grace. For, was the
Charge really juft, and were we weak enough
to affert three Co ordinate Gods ; yet even
that could not be more repugnant to the
* Explic/tt. of the Articles of Div, Unity, p.. 91.
whole

Qu. XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 343
whole Drift, Scope, and Tenor of the Sacred
Writ, than the admitting a plurality of Gods,
great and little, foveraign and inferior, in
finite and finite, uncreated and created, to
receive our AddrefTes, and to be the Objedts of
our Love, Faith, Hope, Confidence, and reli
gious Adoration. Query XXIII.
Whether the Doctor's Notion of the Trinity be
more clear and intelligible than the other 1
The difficulty in the Conception of the Trinity
is, how three Terfons can be one God.
'Does the Doctor deny that every one of the
Terfons, fingly, is Godl No: Does He
deny that God is one ? No : How then are
Three one ?
'Does one and the fame Authority, exercis'd
by all, make Them one, numerically or in-
¦ dividually one and the fame God? That is
hard to conceive how three diftinct Beings,
according to the Doctor's Scheme, can be
individually one God, that is, three Ter
fons one Terfon.
If therefore one Godneceffarily fignifies but one
Terfon, the Confequence is irrefiftible ; ei
ther that the Father is that one Terfon, and
none elfe, which is downright Sabellianifm \
Or that the three Terfons are three Gods.
/Thus the Doctor's Scheme is liable to the fame
difficulties with the other. There

344 /DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
There is indeed one eafy Way of coming off,
and that is , by faying that the Son and
Holy- Spirit are neither of them God, in
the Scripture-fenfe of the Word, But this
is cutting the Knot, inftead of untying it ;
and is in effect to fay, They are not fet
forth as divine Terfons in Scripture.
Does the Communication of divine Towers
and Attributes from Father to Son, and
Holy Spirit make Them one God, the Di
vinity of the two latter being the Father's
'Divinity ? Tet the fame difficulty recurs :
For either the Son and Holy Ghoft have di
ftinct Attributes, and a diftinct 'Divinity
of their own, or They have not: If They
have, They are { upon the Doctor's Trin-
ciples) diftinct Gods from the Father, and
as much as Finite from Infinite, Creature
from Creator, and then how are They one ?
If They have not . then, fince They have
no other 'Divinity, but that individual Di
vinity, and thofe Attributes which are in-
feparable from the Father's Effence, They
can have no diftinct Effence from the Fa
ther's ; and fo { according to the "Doctor )
will be one and the fame Terfion, that is,
will be Names only.
Q Whether This be not as unintelligible as
the Orthodox Notion of the Trinity, and
liable to the like Difficulties : A Communi
cation of divine Towers and Attributes,
without the Subftance, being as hard to con
ceive,

Qu. XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 345*
ceive, nay much harder than a Communi
cation of Both together ?
YO U are pleafed to fay, that had the Au
thor at all underftoodDr. Clarke'j- Books,
He would not have offered thefe Confidera-
tions, They are fuch grofs Miftakes, (p. 105.)
It might be very pardonable to miftake the
Doctor, who deals much in general and am
biguous Terms ; and I am the more excufable,
as miftaking on the tender and candid Side. I
muft own ro you, I was not then aware, that
the Dodtor had denied, Father, Son, and Holy-
Ghoft, to be one God. I did not apprehend, He
would fcruple to call Them all together one
God; becaufe That would be manifeftly ex
cluding Son and Holy -Ghoft from the one God
head; and then our difpute about his meaning,
would be perfectly at an end. I fliould have
been very unwilling to make fo home a Charge,
as That upon Him : But fince you are a Friend,
and declare in publick that this is his meaning,
fo it fhall be hereafter. And now , I will
not ask how three Terfons can be one God,
upon the Doctor's Principles ; But I'll put the
Queftion thus : How can it be true {upon the
'Doctor's Trinciples) that every Terfon of
the Trinity is God; and true likewife, that
there is but one God? The Queftion or Dif
ficulty being thus fairly flared, I conceive,
that my reafoning againft the other, will, in the
main, hold good againft this too ; only muta-
A a tis

34<£ i DEFENSE Qu.XXIIL
tis mutandis. Now then, clear me up this
Difficulty in the Doctor's Scheme, and free it
from Self-Contradiction, ii you are able. 1 have
been fearching diligently feveral Pages of your
Anfwer, to fee if I might find any thing like
a Solution : But I perceive, at length, you
was fo wife as to drop it. You was to tell
me How, notwithftanding that there are Three
divine Terfons ; (that is, Gods, according to
you) there is ftill but one God. But inftead of
this, you run wandring wide and far, to fhow
how Three may be One. What ? Three Gods
one God ? That was what I ask'd ; the reft
is not pertinent, but foreign to the Point.
Finding fo little Satisfaction from you, in a
Point fo material, in the very pinch of the
Queftion between the Dodtor and Us, I thought
proper to have recourfe to the Doctor's Books
again ; to fee if any thing could be found there
to our prefent purpofe.
I perceived, that * Dominion and Authority ,
according to Him, make God to be God. Up
on this Principle, He fuppofes rhe Son, f by
nature truly God, having true divine Tower
and Dominion : And He fays, % The word,
God, in Scripture, is always a relative word
of Office, fignify ing per fon al Dominion. The
obvious Conclufion, from thefe Premifes, is,
that if Dominion and Authority ', fuch as make
any Perfon truly God, be lodged in Three Per-
* Reply, p. 301. f Ib. p,9i.
£ lb. J>. 290. ions ;

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 347
fons; Thofe Three Perfons, upon the Doctor's
Principles, muft be three Gods. The Doctor
being fenfible of this Difficulty in his Scheme,
and not being able to fblve it, nor willing
to profefs three Gods , tries to difguife and
elude it, He asks, * why muft three divine
Beings, of neceffity , be conceived as three
Gods ? The Anfwer is very eafy : Becaufe three
divine Beings, or Terfons, is exadtly the fame,
in other Words, with three Gods, upon his Prin
ciples; and becaufe every one of the Three is
fuppofed to have perfonal Dominion, thar very
Dominion which is fufficient to make a Perfon
truly God; and fuch as makes God to be God.
f He goes on to diftinguifli the three Per,ms by
the Names oiGod, Lord, and Holy Spirit •, ^
if He had forgot, or had no mind to own that
either of the two laft is God. He proceeds:
They can no more truly be faid to be three
Gods, than each of Them, fingly, can be truly
faid to be the God and Father of All, who is
above all; which is the Apoftle' s Definition
of the one fupreme God. But this is not to
the Purpofe ; unlefs no one can be God. that is
not the fupreme God. If the Doctor fays That,
He contradicts Himfelf ftrangely ; having took
a great deal of Pains to fhow that the Son, tho'
not the fupreme God, is yet truly God, hav
ing true divine Tower and Dominion. If He
rhinks the Apoftle's Definition of God to be
better than his own, why did He not ftand to it?
'*"* Reply, p. 222. f Ib« /¦• 11J-
A a z And

348 /DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
And then it would be feen plainly, that his
meaning is, that no one can be God but the
Father ; which is making fliort work with the
Dodtrine of the divine Trinity, and ftriking
out Son and Holy -Ghoft at once. It is evident
to a Demonftration , that the three Perfons
are, upon the Doctor's Hypothefis, as really
and truly three Gods, as that every one fingly,
is God: And therefore, either let Him fay
plainly, that there are rhree Gods ; or that nei
ther the Son , nor the Holy - Ghoft is God.
The Difficulty then ftill remains unanfwer'd;
how (upon the Doctor's Principles) three Per
fons can be every one, fingly, God; and yet
Scripture fay true, that there is but one
God. And now, I return to you again ; whom I
left inftrudting the Reader , very particularly ,
How Three may be One ; viz. in agreement
of Mind, in their joint care of the Churchy in
Teftimony, &c. which might have been perti
nent, had I been arguing from rhe Text, / and
my Father are One; or from Joh. 5. 7. But
your anfwering fo copioufly to what I did not
ask, and flipping over the main Difficulty,
looks as if you were more concern'd how to
keep your Reader from the fight of the Que
ftion, than how to give Him any reafonable
Satisfaction. The firft pertinent Thing I meet
with from you, is in Page 108. where you
charge me with a manifeft Error, for fuppofing
it Sabellianifm to make the one God but one
Terfon ;

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 349
Terfon; namely, The Perfon of the Father.
What I affert is, that it is Sabellian to fay,
that there is but One who is God, one Terfon
only, inftead of one Nature : Or to fuppofe
the Godhead to be one fingle Hypoftafis ; or
/Ao^o7rgo(ro7r@,' , a Farher without his Word or
Spirit eternally and effentially fubfifting with
Him, and from Him. This is what I main
tain, and what you will not be able to difprove.
But let us fee how you go about it. One God,
you fay, is one Terfon only ; otherwife one
Terfon could not be one God. I anfwer, that
no one Perfon is one God, exclufively of the
other two Perfons. You add, if one God be
two Terfons or more, it is impoffible for one
Terfon to be God. When we fay one Perfon
is God, we mean that He is a divine Hypo
ftafis, Deitatem habens, as the Schools fpeak :
But when we fay God is three Perfons, we un
derftand it of the divine Effence, or Subftance:
So that the word God is fometimes taken effen
tially, and fometimes perfonally, which makes
the Difference. You proceed : The Diefenders
of the Scholaftick Notion (you mean the De
fenders of the Triniry in Unity ) profefs the
Father alone, and diftinct from the Son and
Spirit, is God, or the one God. Very true;
in the perfonal Senfe before mention'd, diftinct
from, not exclufive of, the Son and Holy-
Spirit. In the fame Senfe, either of the other
Perfons is God, and the one God. There is
a farther Reafon, why the Father is peculiarly
A a 3 and

3 jo /DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
and eminently ftiled the one God: Not to ex
clude the other Perfons; but to fignify his
priority of Order> as Father, and as Fountain
of all. Thus I have anfwer'd your Reafons,
which you are pleas'd to call Demonftration ;
tho' it is manifeft that, all along in your rea
foning, you take it for granted, that God is
one Perfon only, and fuppofe the very Thing
k> Queftion. You next proceed to confute my
Affertion; that the making the one God but
one Perfon, is Sabellian. And you fay thus :
If by one Terfon, He means one intelligent
Agent, He makes the Sabellians Catholicks,
and condemns his own Friends for Tritheifts.
I certainly mean a real Perfon, an Hypoftafis,
no mode, attribute, or property, as you might
eafily have perceived. The charge of Tritheifm
I have fufficiently anfwer'd before ; and return
ed it to its proper Owners. I fliall only add
here, that each divine Perfon is an individual
intelligent Agent : But as fubfifting in one un
divided Subftance, They are all together, in that
refpedt, but one undivided intelligent Agent :
And thus my Friends ftand clear oi Tritheifm.
You obferve, that Sabellius held one Hypo
ftafis, or divine Subftance, in oppofition to the
Church, who profefs' d three Hypoftafes. Why
did you not add, or three divine Subftances,
having" rendcr'd Hypoftafis, divine Subftance,
juft before ? Is not the reafon of it vifible ?
You^would not fay that the Sabellians held
one Subftance, and the Church three Sub-
fiances s

Qu.XXHL of fome QUERIES. 35-1
fiances (tho' you do fay it in effect) becaufe the
Thing is notorioufly falfe. But taking advan
tage of the Ambiguity of the word, Hypoftafis,
fometimes ufed to fignify Subftance, and fome
times Terfon, you contrive a Fallacy. The
Church never profefs'd three Hypoftafes in any
other Senfe, but as they mean three Terfons %
nor would Sabellius have been cenfured for
holding one Hypoftafis only , had He meant.
me. Subftance. If you have a mind to fee clear
ly in what Senfe the Catholicks profefs'd either
three Hypoftafes, or one only, you may pleafe
to confult * Athanafius and f Gregory Nazi-
mzen, referr'd to in the Margin.
The Truth is, the Church always profefs'd
one Subftance; one eternal, immutable, uncreat
ed Subftance; and this they underftood by,
God. Notwithftanding, They believed the Son,
and Holy-Spirit to be fubftantictlly God. Tm-
xeas, Noetus, Sabellius, and others, not coq-
eeiving how one Subftance could be more thau
one Terfon, \ one Hypoftafis, innovated upoa
the Faith of the Church, and made one fingle
* Athanaf. ad Aatiochi. p. 973.
f Greg. Naiianz.. Orat. 22. p. jss(5. t«-at. 32. p. f2t.
rj: Origen. e&preffes she Sabellian Hotion, very dijiisffly in thefaEtm-
M» 2i\$.<ptgeiv. vol cc&tltpai -rot upv- tou -rrargoc,, xaa it s 1*310% xtnos,
IsAA* t(gtf -Jsnixfipivoji, nry%avm>&4 apQariggg xa-stL -mtaij hwti&c,y «
xHTx. \xto$»tm Asj*<&«£ "^sKci^yi <&. \i& Qrig- Corn., in Jofe. p. igS.
Ed Huet.
%hat is to,fayj. The- SabelHans did; sat- only; wake- lather- and. Sa»
©ne in Eflfence- (at the Church did. alfo), bm th.ey carried is- fa far
<&¦ to- make- Them, ens Subject, Suppo&Eimsj, us H^pofiafis,, 'hmiistg
m^ a egrojask ttss & isal BiSirw&iott..
ia 4

3*«. /DEFENSE Qu. XXIII.
Hypoftafis the one God, with three Names. You
tell us, with great Affurance, that this never
was, nor could be Sabellianifm, {p.ioo.) To
which I fliall only fay; Read, and you will
find. You add farther, rhat the one God is
one Terfon only y and the Father that Terfon;
And that this is the Affertion of St. Paul. We
Will fee to St. Taul prefently ; in the mean
while, I again tell you, that this is the very
EfTence of Sabellianifm, and the Dodtrine of
* Taul of Samofata { as hath been obferved to
you above) and for which He was condemn'd
by the Church. Your pretence from the Apo-
flle's Words, {To us there is but one God, even
the Father) has been fufficiently anfwer'd un
der the former Queries. I fliall only obferve
here, that the Text mention'd is much ftronger
againft the Doctor and your Self, than againft
%Js. For how can You, after io plain and ex
prefs a Text to the contrary, pretend that the
Son alio is God to us, really and truly God,
and in the Scripture-Senfe of the word, Godl
Whether, think you, do We, who make Him
effentially the fame God with that one, and
fuppofe but one God in all, more flatly con
tradict St.TanT, or You who make two Gods,
and in the fame relative Senfe, in which St.
Taul is fuppofed to ufe the word, Godl To take
Up your own Words, upon this very occafion ;
You will, I truft, be afhamed when you con-
* ha iii «»> <pmv, i sa-i ¦ntivTH ©eoj s 7ta,Tti(. Athan. Contr,
4po]linar. 1. %. p. y^x. • -. , , ,
fider,

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 3^3
fider, that you plainly falfify St. Paul. He
fays, there is but one God, even the Fathey ;
But You fay, there are more Gods than one ;
and particularly, that the Son is GWalfo, God
to us. How come you off of this? By the help
of a Diftinction, I fuppofe : And fo can We ;
by a Diftinction much older, and much bet
ter warranted than Your's ; and therefore, be fb
kind as either to take fome part of the Shame
with us ; or elfe to acquit Both. You proceed
to acquaint us, that the Father is the only true
God*. Very good : And do not the Doctor
and You tell us, notwithftanding, that, the Son
is true God, having true divine Tower and
Dominion? If You can reconcile two true
Gods, with the Dodtrine of that Text ; fore,
We need not defpair, nor have any thing to
fear from that Text, who agree fo far with it
already (more than You) as to acknowledge but
One God. We can give a Reafon why the Son
was tacitely included, being fo intimately united
to the Father, as partaker of the fame divine
Nature: But that any Creature fhould not be
excluded from being God, or that there fliould
be two Gods, notwithftanding the Text, muft
appear very ftrange. After this, you have two
or three Subtilties. The Father, you fay, will
be but a third Tart. You might, in this way,
revive all the Impertinencies of A'etius, and
throw then* before Englifh Readers. I refer
* Pag. ne. ' you

154 / DEFENSE Qu.XXHf,
you to * St. Auftin, in the Margin, for an An

er. Let me defire you not to give fo great a
loofe to your Fancy, in divine Things : You
fjeem to confider every thing under the Notion
of Extenfion, and fenfible Images. A reveren
tial Silence may well become Us in fo awful a
Subject, in which Imagination has nothing fa
dpi, and of which our moft refined and elevated
Thoughts are infinitely unworthy .But to proceed;
Yfou add, if Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft are'
ths only true God, then they are the Father.
Hut if the only true God, may be fometimes
Sijfed in a perfonal, fometimes in an effential.
Sjenfe, there is ao force ia this Reafoning.
\ might retort the Argument upon You, who,
% your way of conceiving God by extended
Farts, apply the Phrafe of one God, fome-
limes. to one Tart, fometimes to another, andi
femetimes to the whole, almoft in the flame man
ner, as We do to One, or to ail the three Ter-^
But I am weary of trifling.

* Putas Deum Patrem cum Filio 8c Spiritu Sanflo anum Deuta
<jffe non poffet Times enim ne Pater Solus non fit unus Deus, fed
fiars^Uhius. Del (juiconftat ex Tribstti Noli timere, nulla fit partiuro,
iij Deitafis unitate diviiio. In Trinitate — .qua? Deus eft, & Pater
Beus eft, 8c Filius Deus ell, 8c Spiritus Sanftus Deus eft, fit SimuL
J^i tres unus Dqus: nee hujus Trinitatis pars eft unus. nee majoE
gars duo quam unus eft ibi, nee majus aliquid funt omnes quam-,
iinguli: quia Spiritalis, non Cprporalii eft magnitude Aug. Cpntr*.
Maxjm. 1. 2. c. io. p. 697-, 698.
Pater 8c Filius 81 Spiritus San&UiS, & propter indhiiduam. Deita-
ijera Unus Deus, eft, propter uniufcujufque proprietatem tises pe»^.
fp.iu funt, 8? propter finguloiiuna Perfeliionem, P»rt*l (jflius Dei none
MM. Id., ibid. p. 699,
f, E. G. God exifts, God is in Hetyven «bove.,Qod is: on 'Earth 6elo-x\.
iJie vtord God- here, (upon the Doitor'i Hypothsijs of mfintte. exten--
ftcii}, k&>. three- fev^ak id.vVl Orm.^.d, to. ii%" '
Yost

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 35$
You ask me, wherein the prefent Schola-
fiick-Notion difagrees with the Sabellian? I
anfwer, in admitting three real fubfifting Per
fons. But fince you are fo often charging us
With Sabellianifm, it may be proper to obferve
here, how near akin the Sabellians and Arians
are to each other; Both, as it were, growing
of the fame Stock.
1. In the firft Place, Both feem to fuppofe or
take for granted, that if the modus, or manner,
be unintelligible, the Thing it felf is incredible.
%. Both agree in the fundamental Principle
of Herefy, that one Subftance, or Being, can
be only one real Perfon, or Hypoftafis. As
NeftOrius and Eutyches, tho' taking different
ways, yet proceeded upon the fame Bottom,
that two Natures could not make one Terfon
in Chrift : So Sabellius and Arius, before Them,
tho' differing in the laft refult, yet fet out up
on the fame Principle ; That two real Perfons
cannot be one Being or Subftance.
3. In Confequence of their prime Pofition,
Both confpire ro difcard, in reality, the Sod
and the Holy-Ghoft from the One true God
head; looking upon it as Tritheifm to make
the Perfons real, and divine too. One Hypo
ftafis in the Godhead is all that either of Them
admits ; both Judaizing, as * Gregory Nyffen
juftly obferves, in that refpect : And the Sa-
bellian's Td/ww/*®", (or God with three Names)
* aOv jmo '"Za&AAt®" Aiyn Tgiumpov tvtov Euvo'pi®* 'Ovopd^u
*Ay«wfti'. Greg. NyfT. Contr. Eunom. p. 6} 6. anfwers

iS& /DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
anfwers to the Arian's ' \ytmrost Self- exift ent,
or Unbegotten God. Thus far they amicably
agree ; let us next obferve where They differ.
SuppofingThem fix'd and fettled in their pre
liminary Principle, it is manifeft that the Word
and Spirit muft either be Names only, or, if
real diftinct Perfons, Creatures. The Sabel
lians were at liberty to chufe this, or that.'
But, finding Scripture run high, and Tradition
ftrong for the Divinity of the Word and Holy-
Spirit, They made choice of the former; in*
terpreting Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as dif
ferent Names of one and the fame Hypoftafis,
or real Perfon. By this, they effectually guard-
eft againft the fuppos'd Tritheifm of the Catho
licks, as well as againft Pagan Tolytheifm;
and, being wife Men fo far, fecured the Point
which They aim'd at. The Arians, who came
after (and who, as I before faid, fet out upon
the fame preliminary Principles) finding that
the Sabellian Confufion of Perfons had been
utterly routed, baffled, and exploded by all
good Catholicks, had really no Option left;
but either ro make the Son and Holy- Spirit
Creatures, or to give up their Treliminaries.
Accordingly, They rook the way which the
Sabellians had left Them ; and were very un
happy in this particular, that, endeavoring to
avoid one kind of Tritheifm, They fell into
Another. The Arian Scheme, befides it's failing in it's
principal Defign of avoiding Tolytheifm, has-
many

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 357
many real and great Difficulties ; being as well
too high for fome Texts, as too low for others ;
which the Catholicks, or Sabellians can much
better deal with. Hence, I fuppofe, it was, that
the Unitarians, at^the Beginning of the Re?
formation, having modeftly begun wth * Ari
anifm, for rhe moft part fettled into Socini-
anifm, which is near to Sabellianifm: And
our Englifh Unitarians, who for acutenefs of
Wit and fubtilty of Thought have not been in
ferior to any of their Brethren, have been ftill
refining upon the Socinian Scheme (which had
ftruck upon Ditheifm, in like manner as the
Arian had upon Tritheifm) and have brought
it ftill nearer to Sabellianifm. After all, when
Men have run their Courfe from Orthodoxy to
Arianifm, from Arianifm to Socinianifmy and
from thence to Sabellianifm ; ii They will but
give themfelves leave to reflect and look back,
They may perhaps perceive, at length, that
Catholicifm, is the only Scriptural, as Well as
the Antient Scheme ; liable to the feweft Dif
ficulties, and beft guarded againft Objections.
It is therefore no wonder that the Bulk of Chri
fiians, learned and unlearned, have, for as many
Centuries upward as we have any clear Re
cords extant, efpoufed it. It is an eafy matter
for Men of Wit and Fancy to find fault with
Any Thing: But it requires Thought and Judg
ment to fettle Things upon their true Bottom.
Let Thofe who are difpleafed with the received
* Socin. Contr. Erafm. Johan. p. 496. Doctrine,

358 /DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
Doctrine, fhow us a Better; and make any other
confiftent Scheme (confiftent with Scripture
and with it Self) if They can. Wife and good
Men will be always willing to Reform, if there
be Caufe for it : But they will not be forward
to pull down what appears to be founded en a
Rock, in order only to build upon the Sand.
It is fome Satisfaction to the Trinitarians to
obferve, how long fome great Wits have been
new-modelling Chriftianity ; and have not yet
been able to agree in any one certain Scheme.
The Arians fall upon the Sabellians, and the
Sabellians again upon Them : One defends the
Terfionality , and the other rhe Divinity oi
the Aoy®*, or Word, and cannot yet be brought
to any Agreement. * Betwixt Them, the Prin
ciples of the Catholick Church are fupported,
and They condemn each other, in the very
Things which the Church condemns in Both.
If I may give a Judgment of the two Schemes,
the Sabellian appears to be the neater of the
Two, and moft confiftent with it felf: The Arian
is more pious and modeft, tender of degrading
the Son of God too far. As Men grow bolder
and more learned in Herefy, They will, very
probably, be drawing nearer and nearer to the
Sabellians. Two of the ableft and acuteftMen
of rhe later Unitarians (one Here, the other
Abroad) have preferr'd the Sabellian way : And
* Uterque Hoftis Ecclefix res Ecclefiae agit : Dum Sabellius Deum
ex natura in operibus prardicat; Hi vero, ex Sacramento Fidei,
Filium Dei confitentur. Hilar, p. 919. as

Qu.XXm. dffom QUERIES. m
as They have given Proofs of their Learnings
fo have they fufficiently fhown their Boldnefl
alfo, by treating fo fublime and tremendous a
Subjedt, in the way of ScofFand Ridicule. To
return : You are pleafed ro fay, that you have
anfwer'd for 'Dr. ClarkeV Notion not being
Sabellian, and have proved that it is not Tri™
theiftick. But give me leave to fay, that you
are deceived in Both: The Ground is Sabel
lian, and the Super-ftrudture Tritheiftick ; and*
the whole contrived in fuch a way, as to hang
loofely together.
It is obvious, at firft fight, that the true Arian,
or Semi-Arian Scheme (which you would be
thought to come up to at leaft) can never
tolerably fupport it felf, without taking in the
Catholick Principle of a Human Soul ro join
with the Word. If you come thus far, it will then
be eafy to perceive that the Sabellian Scheme
is the fimpler and plainer ; befides that it better
anfwers the high Things fpoken of the Word;
in refpedt of which your Scheme is as much
too low, as before too high. But then again,
the Arguments for the diftinct perfonality of
the Word and Holy Spirit, bear fo full and
ftrong, that there will appear a Neceffity fot
taking in another Catholick Principle ; and That
will compleatly anfwer all. And why then
fhould not the Catholick Dodtrine (fo ap
parently neceffary to make Scripture confiftent)
he admitted ? The Cafe, in few words, appears
to be only this, You cannot underftand how
Three

3<5o /DEFENSE Qu.XXlIL
Three can he One; you fee no reafon, a priori ;¦
why, if the Son and Holy Spirit be Co eval and
Con fubftantial , They fliould not be Co-ordi
nate too ; you know not why the Father might
not as well be faid to be begotten, as to beget ;
to be fent, as to fiend, or the like. Very true :
But you may fee a Reafon, a priori, why Crea
tures, of yefterday, may not be able to fearch
the deep Things of God: You may know how
well it becomes Them to fubmit their Fancies,
or Prefumptions, to divine Revelation ; content
to fee through a Glafs darkly, till the Time
come to know God more perfectly, and to fee
Him as He is. This may be a fufficient An
fwer to a pious and humble Mind, in all Cafes
of this Nature ; where the difficulty is owing
only to our imperfect and inadequate Con
ception of Things.
I was obliged to pafs over fome Remarks
you had in your Notes *, for the fake of
Method : But it will not be too late to confider
Them here. I had made no ufe oi Joh. io. 30.
(/ and my Father are one) but you had a
mind to bring it in, to let us know how well
you could anfwer it, from the primitive Wri
ters. I am always willing to defend thofe good
Men, and to ref cue Them out of the Hands of
Thofe, who either knowingly, or ignorantly
abufe Them. You begin thus, Triumphantly :
The Defenders of the Scholaftick Explication
of the Trinity in Unity, tho' They pretend
* Pag. joo". much

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 361
much that ihe moft Antient Writers of the
Church are on their fide, yet, in expreffing
their Notion of the Unity in the divine Ter
fons, Ihey do not only leave Scripture and Rea-
fioni but plainly run againft the whole Stream
of Antiquity alfo. Ihe Text on which they fo
much rely (Joh. 10. 30.) is underftood by Ter
tullian Himfelf of the Unity of Love , and
Confent, and Tower. You go on to cite Ter
tullian, and others, from Dr. Clarke. But,
Writers in a Caufe, are very often known to
reprefent Things by halves. You fliall fee,
prefently, what little Reafon you have to talk
Of the whole Stream of Antiquity. The Text,
which you fpeak of, has all along been made
ufe of by the Catholicks, in two Refpects ; firft,
in Proof of our Lord's real Divinity, againft as
many as denied it ; and fecondly, in Proof of
his real Diftindtion from the Father, againft
the Noetians or Sabellians. There was very
little occafion to infift much upon Unity
of Subftance, with thofe who had carried
Unity of Subftance fo high, as to make one
Hypoftafis. It might be fufficient, in difpute
with thofe Men to obferve that That Text
did by no means prove an Identity of Ter
fion, unlefs Taul and Apollos were one Per
fon , which is abfurd. Whatever the Text
might otherwife prove, it certainly did not
prove, what the Sabellians pretended, an
Unity of Terfion. This the Toft- Nicene Fa
thers frequently obferve, againft the Sabellians
Bb " (as

36% /DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
(as the Anfe-Nicenc had done before) though,
at the fame time, That Text might be of gobd
ufe againft the Arians ; as it had been all along
againft the Impugners of Chrift's eDivinityi
For your clearer Apprehenfion of this Matter,
I fhall fet down, * in Two diftinct Columns,
the Sentiments of the primitive Writers, on this

* Againft Impugners of Chrift's j
Divinity.
Tertullian
Nunquam feparatus a Patre
aut Alius a Patre, quia ego Sc Pa
ter unum fumus. adv. Prax. c. 8.
Qui Tres Unum funt, non Unus,
quomodo didium eft, Ego ey Pa
ter Unum fumus. Ad Subftantia;
Unitatem, non ad numeri Singu-
lafitatem Adv. Prax. c. if.
Novatian.
Quod fi, cum nullius Hominis
Haec vox effe pofTet, Ego ty Pa
ter unum fumus, hanc vocem de
C'onfcientia Divinitatis Chriftus
Solus edicit— — jnerito Deus eft
Chriftus. c. i 3.
Si Homo tantummodo Chri
ftus, quid eft quod dicit, Ego &
Pater unum fumus, Si non 6c
Deus eft, 8c Filius, qui idcirco
unum poteft diei, dum ex Ipfo
eft, 5c dum Filius ejus eft, &
dum ex ipfo nafcitur, & dum
ex ipfo proceffiffe reperitur, per
quod 8c Deus eft. <.. 13.
Origen.
AjXTSdV Ol <fc <S3&C. TiSTO, OTI U7ttf
VtVO\x{ 0 K.ZAO-06, TO, 'E-/& K-. 0 TnZTtip
'/ , . . ' ,\ ,1 . .. \l
tV StrpSV — GV3* 05V uiTO VpMC ttyt

Againft Sabellians.
Tertullian.
Unum dicit neutrali verbo,
quod non pertinetad Singularita.-
tem fed ad unitatem, ad Conjun-
dtionem , ad dilecrionem Patris,
qui Filium diligit, 8c ad obiequium
Filii.quiVoluntati Patris obfequi-
tur. Unum fumus, dicens, quos
a:quat 8c jungit.^z/.Prae.c. ai.
Novatian.
Quia dixit unum , intelligant
Hxretici quia non dixerit unus.
Unum enim neutraliter pofitum
Societatis Concordiam, non Uni
tatem Perfons fonat merito
unum fit Pater 8c Filius per con
cordiam, 8c per amorem, 8c per
dileiSionem-  Novit hanc con-
cordis Unitatem 8c Apoftolus
Paulus cum Peifonarum diftin-
ciione  J^ui plantat gy qui
rigat unum funt. Quis autem non
intelligat alterum efle Apollo, al
teram Paulum, non eundem at
que ipfum Apollo pariter & Pau
lum- C. 2i.
Origen.
Ton •7ra.-n.0ot,, -no. aAv&i'ac. x) to*
'(jo* tw aAtiB-aav, Am ohioTij vaof»-
<r{ isgaff^\a, s» 3 rij o^vo'ta, <£ ovp-
»AAtv

Qu.XXIII. offonie QUERIES. 363
os aaov ^ifiamunv vmgct <r isn vmat
©sov, — iva ovv &sov ac, "i&iohaiixa

f*>tv, T TntTiga xj y "ifa* Sigdffivo-
f*i>. Contr. Celf. 1. 8. p. 586.
Dionysius Rom.
Oun (%gl) -"vivi<r{ xwAuiv to a\m-
pa r^ to \3irtgvaAAov pty&oc, tS
»«&<» — — kva&aj oH tu ®za t
oaojv T Aoy^v , lym yxg, tywt, ifsy
•Jiang \» ia-piv. Ap. Athan. p. 13 1.
Hi PPOLYTU S.
Ou eiof&iiii Aiyu, o,aa' ac, dian
> - \ ' ,\ . ,i» . „' >\
*M (fUTOt,, n a?5 ueteo cm. -zriyiK, D
ac, axTiva ano «Ai'b, aivapic, yx,o
pia i ox t5 vtavtii , to a% rrav
"rsaTtio, i\ ott oKvapic, Ao'y®-. c. 1 1.
Alexander Alex.
'Eya <? oTm-nif ht<rpiv.omftps)-
tr.v 0 xuoaoc, a 7nx.Tzga lav-rzv ai/aw-
g--iav. iii tos tv) •vzjofzi.Q-i ovo Cjlu-
true, piav civaj tm<pisvl<Qn>v , Uaa' oil
tviv TzzCTgixw iptp&e&av axp&Zc,
-nttpvxi oviQ&v 0 ijoc & maTeoc., t/jv
xa-ra Ttuvm, opoio-niTa auToo eV
Quo-tote, 'tenpa\apiv3&- \ t£ a-raguA-
Accxjoc. tixav y iraT%oc, Toy%avm, ii.
y ^t%O>T0TU7tld eXTVTC®^ %<x.pa%Tt\o.
Theod. E. H. I.i. c. 4. p. if.
E p iphaniu s.
K«l iZSOc, TESTIS'-, plV TUC, Vop-ZpV-
raq aAAoT&Aov uv^ tov yov % Tra-
rgoc,  >.iy{, iym (£ 0 ^atv,p lv
fo-psv '^Ig, T0 i"<*j C4I pia ivo-
77)7! S-J07JJTS5, x} at pia, yvapv[ £.
hnapi, p. 488. Ha:r./7.
Cyril. Hieros.
Ev 2l^, to k«to tuv $-tOTr)Ta
afyojjjoa ixiio'./, ®£oc, Qsov lyivvqmv.
En 2dg, to Kara iliu /SaoiAiiav—
'iv 2^d. to pqhpiav tivaj zla.<poi-
ilav h Qj.fx.m. — "Ev O^g. to pv\
ilvaf' ctAAa x,e*<coo o\pmoylifi^Ta
x} uAha TtaTtft;' pia <f> i ituvm.v
hfujiovo^a. p. iaj;, 1^5. Ox. Ed. B

Ipmia,, X* Tlf TKUTOTtiTl & $XAltK0.*
t@-. «; t tagaiym T 'i\oi (ovtm
ctTmuyzo-pa t?5 iJi'|>)5 , x] %a-
gattrtiga Tvtc, •Jznfxffzivc. tS ©sg)
iUfaxivaj ci aura ov-n tiiyvt toZ
©eS, r ®tov. Contr. Celf. 1. 8.
p. 38CJ.

Oix

Hippolytus.

ux timv on tya xj 0 TrttTng s»
tlpt, aAA' iv ttrpiv, to ydo io-piv
CB74 t<p' i>0% AlyiTOj , ciAA' EOT 0%0
TvgojuTm tohi%i», oivapiv 01 piav —
— tuv io^av m idlncac, pgi, tM>x.a
auTols iva a<n> h, 1(9.6 a>s ipiis lv —
— ti Trpoc, Tuuta i%uoi Aiy&v ol'
Netmavoi ; pu 7mvTic, iv crZpa istv'
Hgiiu tw xoiav, ti tv] dVvapi xai
Ty 3Jtj.S-iCfi t5 apoip'poviac, 'iv ytv'o-
ptyzt,; T awnv 01/1 tpottdv 0 7iw^ —
— apoAoytjazv tivxj h tiS TtaToi
aiivapi, 2^gS-ia-{- sh yko vSc, xa-
Tfo? 0 %aio. Contr. Noet. c. 7.
pag. 1 1.

E P I P H A N I U SV
II(S«S oi tisc vopiZpTiac, aunv tivaf
T-zrd-nga Ic1 T ao-rov titaj'ifov 5»^g, to
zig7iKS,vaj, iyoi xai 0 zra-ntfi.sv to- piv,-
Azy$, vroiqtnv atiTisc, iva tZtnv ev qg.-
S-ac, lya Xj tro si trpzv, ira xarai-
tyvv'A Nojjttsj' xal tv>v avTit °/o'Aw.
Tragoty^ycav uc, to pitrov tw tuv
pajtirav 'tvoiaiv, llac yao iouvaro
nire.oc, xai 'laav'vK, xai 0/ xd^i^i;
iivccj iv aie, xam. cvvaXoityvn ; p.^,88.
Cyril. Hierosol;
Oux £(2T tya xai 0 oraTup ev iifiit,
. .. , \ • 1 . </ * .,¦ -
aXt. zyca xai 0 7rarno sv tG-psv, tya
pvn a7raXb>o'l£tutwpiv, pirn tru-mMi-
\ ((>w 'tioxafyp/M'c, ijiyAO-aipsJx. p. 1 ^. i.
b i Head;

364 A DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
Head ; that you may perceive how They de
fended fuch an Unity as we maintain, at the
feme Time that they ftrenuoufly oppofed the
Sabellians. I fliall make particular Remarks
upon the Authorsj fingly, as I pafs along ; and
afterwards throw in fome general Obfervations.
To begin with Tertullian : You will obferve,
that He interprets the Text exprefty of Unity
of Subftance, in one Citation : And He is to
be fo underftood in the other, had you but
thought how to conflrue Unitatem, as you
fliould have done. I fuppofe, Unity of Love,
Confent, and Tower may very well follow,
after fo good a Foundation laid for it. Ter
tullian elfewhere intimates the ftrict and in
violable Harmony of the three Perlons, refblv-
ing it into Unity of Subftance.
Novatian is your next Author: You may
pleafe to obferve, how abfurd He thinks it
would have been for any meer Man to have
faid, I and my Father are one. And why fo?
Might not there be Unity of Will, Confent,
Authority, between God and Man ? Undoubt
edly there might. Well then ; Novatian did
conceive the Text to fpeak of Unity of Love,
Sec. but Equality of Nature prefnppofed: For
even Taul and Apollos were not of a different
Nature ; one was as truly Man, as the other .'
And fb, if Chrift was truly God, as well as rhe
Father, He might fay, / and my father are
* Tam cenfortibus Subftairtise Patris. 'Contr . Prax. c. 3.
one.

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 36s
one. This is * plainly Novatian's Senfe, in the
Citations of the firft Column; and it is very con
fiftent with the other, in the oppofite Column.
AU That Unity of Confent, Love, &c. is found
ed upon, and refblves into Unity of Subftance
and Trinciple, according to this Writer.
Origen comes next. I have fet againft Him
a PafTage of Dionyfius of Rome, who quotes
the Text in Confirmation of what He had juft
before faid, that we ought not by any means
to undervalue the fuper-eminent Dignity of the
Son, by fuppofing Him a Creature. As to
Origen particularly, it is to be confidered, that,
if He had refolved the Unity of Godhead, in
that PafTage, into Unity of Confent, mention
ing no other ; yet no certain Argument could
be drawn from thence, that He held no other ;
any more than from the Paffages of Novatian
and Tertullian before cited. Had They been
left fingle, They had been liable to the fame
Charge ; and yet it feems meerly accidental that
They were not. Authors do not always fpeak
their whole Thoughts upon a particular occa
fion ; but are content only to fay as much as
the occafion requires. Origen was guarding
againft the Sabellian abufe of the Text, and
his Thoughts were turned to That chiefly.
However, in That very place, He made fo
much Ufe of the Text, as from thence to infer,
that Father and Son are one God, and one Ob
ject of Worfhip ; which, to any one who is
* Compare a piffagt of Novatian cited above p. 36.
B b 3 acquainted

3 66 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
acquainted with Origen's Principles in That
Book, muft appear ro denote the divine an4
uncreated Nature of the Son ; and confequent
ly a fubftantial Unity betwixt Him and the
Father: Befides, that this is farther intimated,
in' the PafTage cited, by the Words, kmy.vyx.apta.
ths <^>£i?, and •^o.gcLxryi^c rm r\jsn>qa.Q'ws> which
feem to have been added to qualify the former j
and are hardly pertinent but on fome fuch Sup
pofition. To confirm which, pleafe to compare
Origen with Alexander Bifliop of Alexandria
bis Comment on the fame Text, and you'l find
Them very nearly the fame ; which is fufficient
to acquit Origen oi any Sufpicion of Arianiz-
jng, in this point.
I come next to Hippolytus . who has but
lately appear'd, and whom neither the Doctor
nor You have took notice of. He argues, againft
the Sabellians, in the very fame way with Ter
tullian, Novatian, and Origen : But then, in
rhe other Citation oppofitely placed, He clear
ly refolves the Unity of the Godhead into
Unity of Subftance and Trinciple. But befides
this, it deferves your fpecial Notice, That while
He fpeaks of Unity oi Will, and Concord (ad
mitting a kind of Parallel between the Union
of Chrifiians, and the Union of God and Chrift)
He clearly fignifies how infinitely more perfect
rhe latter isj refolving it into this, that the
Son is the vbj 7raT§oj5 the Living and Subftantia!
Mind, or Thought of the Father. This then
is rise Cafe r There is an Unity of Concord, and

Qu.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 367
and Harmonious Love, founded upon Unity of
Subftance : And the words, / and my Father
are one, Exprefs both the Unity it felf, and
the Foundation of it. Taul and Apollos were
one in Heart and Will, in fuch Meafure and
Degree as They were capable of: And fo God
and Chrift are one likewife ; but by an Union
infinitely more perfect, and upon an infinitely
higher Foundation. You need not be told, that
xolSoi; often fignifies not an exaEt Equality,
but a general Similitude : * The Remark is juft ;
and, as it is at other times urged againft us, fb
let me here claim the Benefit of it.
I have added to the Number, Two Tofi-Ni-
eene Writers, Epiphanius and the elder Cyril ;
which are enough to fhow that the fame way
of reafoning againft the Sabellians (which pre
vailed before the Nicene- Council) obtain'd like-
wife afterwards. Some are apt to triumph ex-
rremely , if They can but find any the leaft
Difference between the Ante-Nicene and Toft-
NiceneWriters. If there Be but a Text of Two
differently interpreted , a folemn Remark is
made upon it ; and fometimes a trifling Note of
fome obfcure Scholiaft, or any Imaginary Dif
ference (having no Foundation but the Writer's
Ignorance, or Negligence in comparing) is im
proved into an Argument of Change of Do
ctrine ; and Athanafianifm is made the Name
for what has been conftantly held in the Chri
ftian Church. If there be occafion to fpeak of
the Things feemingly Derogatory to the Honour
CVid-.Ath.anaf.Orat. 3. p. n*« B b 4 of

3,63 i DEFENSE Qu.XXIII.
of the Son (his being Subordinate ; his refer
ring all Things to the Father, as Head, Root,
Fountain, Caufe; his executing the Father's
Will, and the like ) Or of a real Diftinction
between Father and Son (as their being Sbo a.ej&-
pSi, dua Res, or one of them, kzj&pm 'e-ni*®*,
that is, perfonally diftindt from the other)
then only Ante-Nicene Fathers are quoted ; as
if the Toft- Nicene did not teach the very fame
Doctrine: But if any thing, which feems to
make more for rhe Honour of the Son, be men^
tion'd (as His being uncreated, eternal, one
God with the Father, Creator oi all Things,
and the like) this is to be reprefented as the
Dodtrine of the Toft-Nicene Fathers only ; tho'
nothing is more evident than that They varied
not a Tittle, in any material Point of Dodtrine,
from their Predeceffcrs ; but only preferved, as
became Them, with an upright Zeal, the true
Faith of Chrift, which was once delivered to
the Saints.
To return. It is ueedlefs almoft, to take no
tice of other Teftimonies : Thofe in. the Mar
gin are fufficient to fhow the true and con
ftant Senfe of the Chriftian Church. The
* Doctor quotes Bafil and Chryfofiom, as fay
ing Father and Son were One, k^to cStWjtiv: And,
left the Reader fhould underftand what thofe
Fathers meant by vsmi Simpta,- He cuts Chry
fofiom ffiort ; whofe words immediately follow
ing (il S$ ii Puvttpus J! auTtt, evi^Aov oti ^ y\ ouoia)
'H Pag. 100, ihovf

Qu.XXIV. of fome QUERIES. 30*9
fhow that He meant by Mapiis, not the fame
Authority, but the fame inherent, effential,
omnipotent Power.
Athenagoras' 's h,<xi*{ may be rightly inter
preted by Hippolytus before cited ; or by Chry-
fiofiom ; or by Himfelf, in feveral Places where
He is clear for the Confiubftantiality . Juftin
Martyr's Sentiments have been explain'd a-
bove ; and the Council of Antioctis Expreffion
( -rf aviAQwicf, ) is vindicated by * Hilary ; who
Himfelf may be readily underftood by fuch as
remember how the primitive Fathers held the
Holy-Ghoft to be, as it were, Vinculum Tri-
nitatis, and fometimes Amor Tatris & Filii ;
as the Son Himfelf is alfo ftiled Charitas ex
Charitate, by f Origen. Thefe Things I can.
only hint to the intelligent Reader, having al
ready exceeded the Bounds ofa Digreffiom
Query XXIV.
Whether Gal. 4. 8. may not be enough to de
termine the difpute betwixt Us ; fince it
obliged the 'Doctor to confefs that Chrift
is \ by Nature truly God, as truly as Man is
by Nature truly Mam
pie equivocates, indeed, there, as ufual. For,
He will have it to fignify, that Chrift is
God by Nature, only as having, by that
Nature which He derives from the Fa-
* Pag. 1 170, 1 171. f Parnph. Apoi. J>. >jf. Ed. Bened.
\ Reply, p. 81. " ¦ J
ther,

27© ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXIV.
ther, true divine Tower and Dominion:
That is. He is truly God by Nature, as
paving a Nature diftinct from, and in
ferior to God's, wanting f the moft effential
Character of God, Self-exiflence. What is
this but trifling with Words, and playing
faft and loofe .?
IN Anfwer hereto, you begin: Will the
Gfaerift infift upon it, that the Son cannot
be God by Nature, unlefs. He be Self-ex-
iftent ? And you proceed : / can affure Him
the learnedeft, even of his own Friends, are
4tfbamed of this ; and there are few fo hardy,
as directly to affirm it. But, have a little Pa
tience, and I'll endeavor to make you eafy.
Where were your Thoughts ? Where, were your
Eyes ? Either I am ftrangely miftaken, or the
Line, which offended you ib grievoufly, was
fcored underneath ; and pag. $>id. of the Dodtor's
Reply referr'd to, as you find now : And my
charging the Dodtor with playing faft and
loofe, immediately after, might have been a
fufficient Intimation of my meaning. Whether
I think the Son Self-Exiftent or no, is not now
the Queftion. I took hold of the Doctor's Ex
preffion, charg'd Him with faft and loofe, that
is, faying and unlaying, contradidting Himfelf.
li Self- exiftence be the moft effential Character
of God, it feems to me to follow, that the Sony
who by the Doctor's Confeffion wants that
Character, cannot be W/va&dby Nature Qod*
•-Reply, y. »*• ^

Qu.XXIV. of fome QUERIES. 3yt
any more than any thing can be truly and by
Nature Man, without the effential Character
of Man. As to my own part; I never pretend
that Self exiftence is an effential Character of
God : You might have confider'd that we deny
it abfolutely ; we fuppofe it * negative and re
lative, and call it a perfonal Character. Necef
fary exiftence is an effential Character, and be
longs equally to Father and Son : If That be
what you mean by Self-exiftence, then That
alfo belongs to Both. Explain your felf, and deal
not fb much in ambiguous Terms, which we
have juft Reafon to complain of. The Doctor
knows how Self-exiftent, by Cuftom, founds
among common Readers ; and that denying the
Son to be Self-exiftent, may be thought by
many the fame Thing with denying Him to be
God. Had He pleafed, in his Tranflations of
kymy\7o$, and eife- where, to fay oftner, unbegot
ten or underived, inftead of Self-exiftent, it-
would have been kind towards his Readers, and
perhaps as kind to Himfelf: For it will be al
ways thought as much beneath a grave Writer
to take the poor Advantage of an equivocal
Word, as it is a difparagement to any Caufe to
be ferved by ir. But to proceed.
You wanted, it feems, to bring in a parcel
of Quotations, W.hich you might as well have
* Sicut — fecundum Subfmntiam aio, Homo eft, fie fecundum Suh-
ftantittm nego, cum dico. non-homo eft &c. Relative autem nega-
mus dicendo non-jilius: relative igitur negaraus dicendo nongenitus.
^ngtnitus porro, quid eft nifi non-genttus? —— quod autem relative
pranuntiatur, oon ioijicat Sultflamtcm. Auf*.4c Trin. I. $•. c. 6.
referr'd

37i ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXIV.
referr'd to only, where They * lie, and may
be feen to greater Advantage. Whatever They
are, They contradict not me ; nor are They at
all pertinent to the Bufinefs of the Query. My
defign was to fhow, at once, the Dodtor's In
confiftency with Scripture, and with Himfelf:
Both which are intimated in the Query. It was
your part to defend Him, as fairly as you could.
The Dodtor, I obferved, was obliged from Gal.
4. 8. to confefs that the Son is by Nature truly
God. From thence I infer, that His Scheme
cannot ftand with that Text ; being an exprefs
Contradidtion ro ir. You infift upon it notwith
ftanding, that the Son may be by Nature truly
God, agreeable to the Text, and confiftent with
the Doctor's Principles. This then is the fole
Point between us, to be here difcus'd.
You have, you fay, proved, that in Scri
pture there are different and fubordinate Ac
ceptations of the word, God. True, you have
proved that Men have been called Gods ; and
Idols Gods ; the 'Devil is alfo a God, (x Cor.
4. 4.) and the Belly a God. But, I think, St.
Taul hath fufficiently intimated, (1 Cor.%.5,6.)
that the Son is not to be reckon'd among the
Nominal Gods; befides that you your" Selves
confefs it. If He be God at all, He is a real
one : And now I want to fee what Scripture
Warrants, or permits us to profefs Two real
and true Gods. You fay, the Son is God?
* Script. Daftr. p. 306, 2cc. ajias 273, &c.
truly,

Qu.XXIV. of fome QUERIES. m
truly, and properly, and by Nature, in the
Scripture Senfe of the word, God, (/.no.)
Then fay I, He muft be the fame with the one
fupreme God, becaufe there is but One. If He
is truly fo, He is the fame with the only true
God; ii properly io, his Subftance is properly
divine ; if by Nature io, He has the fame Na
ture with the one God. Yet I very well know
that you intend nothing like it : Only, from
the concurring Language of Scripture and Anti
quity, you find it neceffary to fay as we fay :
And are afterwards to rack and ftrain Invention*
to find out fome fubtile and furprizing Meaning
for it. What may we not do with any Writings
in the World at this Rate, fo long as Words
are capable of being prefs'd and tortured into
diverfe Meanings ? But let us go on, to fee how
you account for the Son's being God by Na
ture. If divine Tower and Dominion be
derived and exercis'd partially, temporarily,
or in certain Emergencies only, it makes the
Terfons to be, and to be ftiled Gods ; not by
Nature, but by Grace. Your Notion of Do
minion making God to be God, has been fuffi
ciently expofed in the former Parts. I need
only ask here, what was God before the Crea
tures were made? Or did He then commence
God, by Nature, when He created the Uni
verfe, and began to have Dominion over it?
The Dodtor appears to be in the utmoft per
plexity, how to account for the Son's being
called God, Joh. 1. 1. He is forced to quit his
Notion

374 ^ DEFENSE QU.XXIV.
Notion of Dorninion. * Sometimes it is becaufe
He was in piopqivi 0e» after the Creation, and
f fometimes becaufe He was partaker oi divine
Tower and Glory (He knew not how to fay
"Dominion) before the Creation: And fometimes
^/xt-it^v tyis auTD^ga Stoni'iTs. So that now we
have the Doctor's own Authority for contra
dicting Him , if He tells us again , that the
Word, God, is always a Word of Office. When
He was confidering rhe Son as God before the
Creation, He fliould have Thought a little far
ther, that the Father was then alfo God, and
fliould have told us, in what Senfe He was fb.
But to proceed: Give me leave to obferve here,
that the Son is God, not by Nature, but by
Grace, in Confequence of your own Principles,
Being a Creature, and finite, He can exercife
the divine Power and Dominion no otherwife
than partially ; and fince He did not exercife
the divine Power and Dominion to the utmoft,
before his Refurrection, He exercis'd it only in
certain Emergencies ; and fince the Exercife
began then, and is to end after the Day of
Judgment, it is barely Temporary : And fo, by
your own Characters, you make Him God,
by Grace, like Angels, Magiftrates, and Tro-
phets ; Only his Dominion is larger, and for a
longer period of Time : This is your God by
Nature. But you are very excufable for not
doing what is ridiculous, at firft fight, even
* Script. Dodr. p. 7}. Ed. ?.d. f Script.Do£tr.p.2Ao..E</.2<i.
i Script. Doftr. p. 7 3 . id

QuXXIV. of fome QUERIES. 371
fo much as to pretend to. For how fliould the
Son be God by Nature, upon your Principles,
when the Father Himfelf, whatever his Meta
phyfical Nature may be ( which the * Dodtot
allows not to come into Confideration) is Goo
by Office only ; might not have been God at
all, if He had pleafed to make no Creatures 5
and may ceafe to be God, in the Scripture-
Senfie of the word, whenever He will, by let
ting all Things drop into their primitive No
thing, Now unlefs Nature and Office fignify
the fame, it is not eafy to conceive, upon the
Dodtor's Principles, how any Perfon can be
God, by Nature, at all. You fay, if the di
vine Towers and Dominion be derived to,
and exercifed by a Nature, Terfon, or intelli
gent Subftance, Universally (which is im
poffible to fuppofe in a finite Creature) Per
manently (which is contrary to your own
Suppofition of a Kingdom which is to have an
end) Unalterably, (tho' an Alteration is
prelumed in refpedt of the Son, and might be
fuppofed even in refpedt of the Father Himfelf)
If thefe Things be fb ; that is, if Contradictions
be true, what then ? Then fuch a Being, or
Terfon, is God by Nature, &c. And this
you give us as the true meaning ofQal. 4. 8.
But, I hope, we fliall have more refpedt for
an iufpired Apoftle than to Father any fuch
meaning upon Him. For the true Senfe and
Import of it, I refer you to. the f Learned Gen-
* Script. Do&r. p. 243. 296. alias 210.165, Reply, p.361.
f True Script. Dotlr. continued, /. 72, &c, tfemafl

3?<5 ^ DEFENSE Qu!XXlV.
tlemahj who has fb well defended this Text
againft Dr. Clarke. You add, Had not the
Scriptures this Senfe. of the word, God, They
could not be intelligible or reconcilable (p.113 .)
But are you well afTured that you underftand
whatever is intelligible or reconcilable? The
Metaphyfical Definition, you fey, Cannot be
the only Scripture- Senfo of the Term, God/
You allow then that it may be the Trincipal,
tho' not the only Scripture-Senfe ; which I am
glad to hear from you. The Learned Doctor
will not admit the Metaphyfical Senfe to be
* ever the Scripture-Senfe of the Term, God.
The Metaphyfical Senfe, He exprefly fays, is
never intended; but the conftant ufage of
Scripture is different. The Word, God, in
Scripture , is Always a relative Word of
Office : Which tho' the Doctor has no Proof of,
nor Ground for, nor is Himfelf well fatisfied in;
yet He knew why He faid it, having very good-
prudential Reaions for it. For, if the Meta
phyfical Senie he ever intended, when the word,
God, is fpoken of the Father, no good Reafon
can be affign'd why it fliould not be fb always,
when fpoken of the fame Perfon : And if this
be the current and moft ufiial Senfe of the word,
God, in Scripture, we fliall have a fair handle
to prove rhat it was intended in the fame Senfe,
when fpoken, in fuch and fuch Circumftances,
of the Son : Or, at leaft, the Dodtor will have"
little or no Pretence left, upon his Principles,
* Script. Doflx. p. 296. Reply, p. 119. 490, far

Qu.XXIV. Of fome QUERIES. I77
for faying that the Son is truly, and properly,
God. You obferve, that the Metaphyfical
Definition of one Self-exiftent, underived, in
dependent, fupreme Being would exclude the
Son, who is derived. This is the Sum of your
Argument, and clearer than you have put it.
But I muft obferve to you, that this Definition,
or fomething like it, hath long paffed current
with Men who believed a Trinity of divine
Terfons, and were never apprehenfive of any
fuch Confequence as you would draw from ir.
It is properly a Definition of the to 3e?ov, the
divine Nature, abftracting from the. Confidera
tion of the diftinction of Perfons, which is the
ufual method that the Schoolmen, and others
have taken; and There the Words felf-exiftent,
underived, independent, are not confidered as
perfonal, but effential Charadters. Neceffarily-
exifting, uncreated, immutable, all fufficient ,
are what They mean, in thatD efinit ion : Other-
wife it is a Definition of the Perfon of the Father
only, fingly confider'd. But if inftead of Meta-
phyficks (which muft always be content to ftand
corrected by Gofpel Revelation) we chufe to
take our Definition of God from Scripture:
Then that of * Melancthon, which I have put
into the Margin, will be more full and compleat.
* Deus eft EiTentia Spiritual, intelligens, verax, bona, pura,
jufta, mifericors, Uberrima, inimenfs potentia;, & fapientiae, Pater
a-ternus qui Filium Imaginem fuam ab aeterno gcnuit, & Filius
Imago Patris Co-sterna,. 8c Spiritus Sanftus proccdens a Patre &
Filio- . Melmft. toe. theolog. de Deo.
C c Query

378 i DEFENSE Qu.XXV.
Query XXV.
Whether it be not clear from all the genuine
Remains of Antiquity, that the Catholick
Church, before the Council of Nice, and
even from the Beginning, did believe the
Eternity and Confubftantiality of the Son'%
if either the oldeft Creeds, as interpreted
by thofe that recite Them; or the Tefti
monies of the ear Heft Writers, or the pub
lick Ccnfures pafs'd upon Hereticks, or
particular Taffages of the Antienteft Fa
thers, can amount to a proof of a Thing of
this Nature?
YOU tell me, in Anfwer, that it is not
clear that the Ante-Nicene Church pro
fefs'd the Notion of Individual Confubftan
tiality : That the Objector cannot produce one
fingle Taffage in all Catholick Ante-Nicene
Antiquity, which proves an Individual or
Numerical Confubftantiality , in the three.
divine Terfons. This Anfwer is fcarce be
coming the Gravity ofa Man, or the Sincerity
ofa Chriftian, in fb ferious and weighty an Ar
gument. Did I fpeak of Individual Confub-*
flantiality ; or, if I had, could I mean it in your
Senfe? I ask, whether the Fathers believed
the Three Perfons to be one Subftance ; and do
affirm that They did, univerfally. You An
fwer, that They did not affert the Three Per
fons

Qu.XXV. of fome QUERIES. 379
fons to be one Terfon ; which is the conftant
Senfe you make of Individual. And here, you
would make a fliow as if the Objector had
been miftaken, and as if you contradidted Him;
when all refolves into a trifling Equivocation,
and you really contradidt Him not at all. That
prefent Scholaftick Notion, as you call ir, of
three Perfons being one Terfon, Hypoftafis,
or Suppofitum, is no where prefent, that I
know of, amongft any that own a Trinity :
Neither is it the Scholaftick Notion; as any
Man may fee, that will but look into the
Schoolmen, and read with any Judgment. Indi
vidual has been generally own'd, but not iri
your Senfe; and Numerical too, but in a Senfe
very different from what you pretend to oppofe
it in : And therefore, to be plain with you ;
this way of proceeding, in an important Con
troverfy, is neither fair towards your Adver-
faries, not fincere towards the Readers; but, at
beft, is only folemn Trifling. You know, or
you know little in this Controverfy, that all the
Fathers almoft to a Man, cither exprefly or
implicitely, afTerted the Confubftantiality of
the Son with fhe Father. Call it Individual,
or call it Specifick ; that is not now the Que
ftion. They unanimoufly maintain'd that the
Son was not of any created, or mutable Sub-
ftauce, but ftrictly 'Divine; and fo clofely
and nearly allied to the Father's Perfon (in
a myfterious way above Comprehenfion) that
the Subftance' of the Son might be juftly called
C e % the

j8o i DEFENSE Qu.XXV.
the Father's Subftance, Both being One. And
this is all that ever any fober Catholick meant
by Individual, or Numerical; as I have often
obferved. Is not this fufficient to urge againft Dr.
Clarke and You, who make rhe Son of an in
ferior Subftance, differing intirely in kind from
the Father's; in fliort, a Creature, tho' you
care not to fpeak it in broad Terms ? This is
what you have not fo much as one Catho
lick Toft Nicene, or Ante Nicene Writer to
countenance you plainly in. The main of your
Dodtrine, the very Points wherein your Scheme
is contain'd, and on which it turns, and which
diftinguifli you from the prefent Orthodox,
ftand condemn'd by all Antiquity. Do you
imagine, all This is to be turn'd off, only by
equivocating upon the word, Numerical; or
by throwing out the Term Scholaftick, to make
weak Perfons believe, that we have borrowed
our Doctrine from the School-men only ? No :
We know, and you may know, if you pleafe
to examine, that, as to the main of our Doctrine
of the BlefTed Trinity, we have the Univerfal
Church, as high as any Records reach, con
curring with us. To Them we appeal, as
well as to the Scriptures ; that, together with
Scripture, we may be the more fecure that we
follow the true Interpretation. I need not go
on to prove that the primitive Writers afferted
rhe Confubftantiality , becaufe you have not
denied it iu the Senfe I intended ; and indeed could

Qu.XXV. of fome QUERIES. 381
could not. Your flipping a Word upon us,
and Aiding off to another Point, may be taken
for a Confeffion and Acknowledgement, that
the Query was juft ; and fhould have been an
fwer'd in the Affirmative, could your Caufe
have fubfifted, after fo large and frank a Confef
fion. As to Creeds, you fay, none of the Three
firft Centuries exprefs the Querifl's Notion :
meaning your own Notion oi Individual, which
is not the Querift's. What follows (/. 118.) is
ftill purfuing the fame miftake. Since you have
told us, that there is no proof of Individual
Confubftantiality (that is, oi perfonal Identity,
as you underftand it, and in which Senfe no
Body oppofes you) it would have been fair and
ingenuous to have own'd that the Fathers did
unanimoufly hold a Confubftantiality, in fome
Senfe or other. If not Numerical, or Indivi
dual, in the ftridteft Senfe, was it, think you,
Specifick ? Yet, if fo, it will follow that all
the Fathers were directly oppofite to the Doctor
and you; and condemn'd your Notion of the
Son's being Inferior in Kind, Nature, Sub
ftance, &c. Specifick Unity implies Equality
of Nature; as two Men, fpecifically one with
each other, are in Nature equal ; and fo, any
other two Things of the fame fort and kind.
This Notion, if it were what the Fathers
held, You might charge with Tritheifm: And,
at the fame Time, you muft give Them all up,
as no way favourable to your Hypothefis. But
the Fathers conftantly took care to fignify
C c 3 that

38a i DEFENSE Qu. XXV.
that they did not mean that the Terfioni were
fpecifically one, like three Human Perfons hav
ing a feparate Exiftence independent of each
other: Nor would They allow Three Suns,
which would be fpecifically one, to be a pro
per or fuitable IlluftratiOn ; but the Rays of the
lame Sun, the Streams of the feme Fountain,
and the like ; all to intimate a much clofer Tie,
a more fubftantial Union than Specifick a-
mounts to. The Terfons, the Hypoftafes, were
Three ; and yet una Subftantia, as Tertullian
pxprefTes it, in all.
You would perfwade us (finding I fup
pofe that either fpecifick or individual Con?
fubftantiality would be equally againft you ) I
lay, you would perfwade us, that it was fome
Oratorical and Figurative Confubftantiality ,
which the Fathers meant. This I apprehend
from what you drop in Page ixi, where you
exprefly apply this new Solution to the -diffi
culty arifing from 'OM°««n@- in the Nicene-
Creed. I will not fuffer the Englifh Reader
to go away with this ground lefs Notion, inftead
pf a juft Anfwer. Such as know any thing of
Antiquity, do not want to have fuch Pretences
confuted : Such as do not, may pleafe to take
along with Them thefe following Confidera-
tions. i. The Doctrine of the Confubftantiality ap
pears ro have been a conftant fettled Thing,; a
fort pf ruled Cafe, running thro' all in general.
gitratjge, that They ihoujd all Rhetoricate in. a
¦ ¦¦',' . ' ¦ '¦¦;¦'¦' .>v * Mat,

Qu.XXV. of fome QUERIES. 383
Matter of Faith, of fo great Weight and Impor
tance; and that we fliould not meet with fo
much as one grave fober Writer, to ftrip the
Matter of all Fiouriih and Varnifli, and to tell
us the naked Truth.
%. It is to be obferved that the Notion does
not occur only in popular Harangues, but in
dry Debates; chiefly in Controverfy with He
reticks, where it concerned the Catholicks to
fpeak accurately and properly, and to deliver
their Sentiments very diftindtly.
3. This is farther confirm'd from the Ob
jections made by Hereticks to the Catholick
Dodtrine. There were Two Handing Objections
made by Hereticks to the Catholick Dodtrine :
¦One was, that it inferr'd a Divifion of the Fa
ther's Subftance : The other that it was Tri
theifm. We find fbotfteps of the former, as
early as a Juftin Martyr. We meet with it
in b Tertullian, as urged by Traxeas. c Tat ian
and d Theophilus Both allude to it. c Sabellius
was full of it ; and it was afterwards, one of
•the chiefeft Pretences of Arius ; as may ap
pear from his own Letters, befides many f other
Evidences. Now , what colour or pretence
Could there have been for the Objedtion, had
not the Catholicks profefs'd a proper Commu
nication of the fame Subftance? Need we be
a Dial. p. itfj. 373- Jeb. See Bull D.F. p. 66, 6j. and p. 33.
b Contr. Prax. c. 8. c Tat. p. 21. Ed. Worth.
d Theoph. 1. 1. p. 129.
e Alexand. apud Theod. E.H. I.i. 04,.. p. 17. Athanaf. p 94*.
f See Boll D.F.N, p. 33. C c 4 told

384 i DEFENSE Qu.XXV.
told that Angels and Archangels, or any created
Beings were derived from God without any
Abfciffion from, or Divifion of, his Subftance ?
Or could it ever enter into any Man's Head to
make fo weak an Objection to the Catholick
j)odtrine, unlefs a proper Confubftantiality had
been taught by Them ? Yet this was the prin
cipal, the ftaoding pretence for, and fupport
of Herefy for near ioo Years together.
The other was Tritheifm ; objected all along
by the Sabellians, and afterwards (tho' more
Jparingly) by the Arians. What kind of Tri
theifm the Sabellians meant (Tritheifm in the
higheft and ftricteft Senfe ) appears, not only
from the former Objection about the divifion
of the Father's Subftance, bur alfo, from rhe
way they took to folve the difficulty : Namely,
by making Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft one
and the fame Hypoftafis, as well as one Subr
fiance ; and their rhinking it not beneath the
Father Himfelf to have iubmitred to Tafiion.
This makes it extremely probable that the
Church, at that Time, believ'd the three Perfons
rp be Confubfiantial in a proper, not Figura
tive, Senfe; in Confequence whereof, it was
firerended that there would be thtee Gods; in
ike manner as three Human Perfons of the fame
fpecifick Nature, are three Men,
4. What puts this farther beyond all reafon
able doubt, is the method which the Catho
licks took to anfwer the Two fore- mention'd
ibijs. As to That about Diiiifion of
Sub*

Qu.XXV. of fome QUERIES. 3%
Subftance ; They never tell the Hereticks, that
there was no manner of Ground or Colour for
the Objedtion : They never fay, that the fame
difficulty would lie againft God's creating An*
gels, or Archangels, or any other Creature;
as They might, and fliould have done, had
They been of Dr. Clarke's Principles, or of
Your's. No : * They only deny any Divifion
or Diminution of the Father's Subftance, and
illuflrate, as well as They are able, fo fublime
a myftery, by one Light kindling, as it were,
from Another ; by the Sun and it's Rays ; by
Fountain and Streams; Stock and Branch:
All Inftances of the fame fpecifick Nature, and
f anfwering in fome Circumftances, tho' defedtive
in others. One would not defire a fuller and
clearer Teftimony, that thofe, or the like Simi
litudes were intended to fignify the feme with
a proper Confubftantiality, than we meet with
in Dionyfius of Alexandria \.
Then, for their Anfwers to the charge of
Tritheifm, as underftood by the Sabellians,
how eafy would it have been for Them to
have told the Objectors, that They did not
take the word God in the ftrict Senfe; that
Mofes and other mortal Men had been called
Gods; that They believed the Son to be no
* Juft. M. Dial p. 183- 373. Tat. p, 21, 11. Athenag. p. 40.9S.
Origen. Pamph. Apoi. TertuU. Apoi. c. 21. adv. Prax. c. 8.
Theognoft. apud Athanaf. Vol. j. p. 230. Hippolyt. Contr. Noet,
c. 1 1. p. 13.. Dionyf. Alexand. Refp. ad Quxft. f.
fSee Bull. D. F. p. no.
% Apvsd ^thanaf, de Senwnt. Dionyf. Tom. 1. p. a/f, ij-5,
more

iU ^ DEFE N S E Qu.XXV.
more than a Creature, tho' the moft perfect of
all Creatures ; and that the Sabellians did Them
a very great and manifeft Injury, to imagine
otherwife of Them. This would, this mult
have been their Anfwer to the charge of Tri
theifm as underftood by the Objectors; had
They not otherwife learned Chrift. Inftead
of this, They appear to be very fenfible of
the juft. Weight and Importance of the Obje
ction. They muft fecure the Divinity oi the
Son, and yet preferve the Unity too. They
have recourfe to Unity oi Subftance ( even a-
gai-nft Thofe who -made one Subftance to fignify
©ne Hypoftafis ) as Tertullian frequently does,
ia his difpute with Traxeas: And notwith-
Handkig that the Sabellians had, if I may fo
fpeak, carried the Son's Divinity too high, in
iornuch as to make Him the very fame Hypo
ftafis with the Father ; yet the utmoft 'that the
Catholicks could be 'brought to fay, in Degra
dation oi Him, was only this ; that He was
fubordinate as a Son ; equal in every refpedt,
but as a Son can be equal to a Father ; inferior
in point oi Original (the Father being Head
and Fountain of all) but ftill of the fame Na
ture, Power, Subftance, and Perfections; fub
fifting in, and from the Father, infeparably and
conftantly, always and every where ; and there
fore one God with Him. And if any Perfon,
tho1 in the warmth of Difpute, did but happea
to drop any doubtful Expreffions, tending any
way £o leffea the Dignity of she; Soo, or was bus

Qu. XXV. of fome QU E R I E S. 387
but fufpgcted to do fo ; the Alarm was foon
taken, aud it awaken'd the Jealoufy of the Ca
tholicks-, who could not bear any Appearance
of it. This was remarkably feen, in the fa
mous Cafe oi'Dionyfius, Bifhop oi Alexandria,
Sixty Years before the rife of Arius, and is re
corded by Athanafius in his Works.
5-. To this we may add, that while the Sa
bellian Controverfy was on Foot (which was
at leaft: 100 Years, and could never have lafted
fo long, had the Catholicks been of any other
Principles, thau Thofe which I here maintain)
I fay, while this was era Foot, how eafy would
it have been for the Catholicks to have pinch'd
Them clofe, and to have prefs'd Them with
variety of Arguments , more than They did,
had They been of your Principles, or of Dr.
Clarke's ? The Father is eternal, but the Sow
not fo ; the Father is omnifeient, but the Sou
Ignorant of the Day of Judgment ; the Father
js omnipotent, but the Powers of the Son finite
and limited; in a word, the Father is Creator, but
the Son a Creature; and therefore They cannot
be One and the fame Hypoftafis, or Suppofitum.
This Argument had been irrefragable, and could
not have failed of being urged and prefs'd Home,
by Men of fuch acute Pants, as Tertullian,
Origen, Hippolytus, and Others, had it been
Confiftent with CathoHck Principles; or had
They not believed, that the Son was Confiib-
ftantial, iu the proper Senfe, enjoying all the
Effential Perfections of the Father, in common
yrith Him. *• ft

3.88 A DEFENSE Qu.XXV.
6. It would be endlels almoft to proceed* iu
this Argument: The reft I fhall throw into a
narrow Compafs, and only give Hints for your
leifure Thoughts to inquire into. The ftrict
Senfe which the Antients had of the word God,
as fignify ing Subftance, and applying it to the
Son, in the lame Senfe; their admitting but one
Subftance to be ftrictly Divine, and their utter
Abhorrence of any inferior Deities ; their ap
propriating Worfhip to the one true God, and
worfhipping rhe Son notwithftanding ; their un
animous Belief of the Son's being eternal, un
treated, omnipotent, and cf his being Creator,
Preferver, and Suftainer of the Univerfe: Any
one of thefe, fingly almoft, would be fufiicient
for the proof of a proper Confubftantiality, as
afferted by the Ante-Nicene Catholick Writers:
But all together, and taken with the other Par
ticulars before mention'd, They make fo full,
fo clear, fo ample a Demonftration of a Matter
©f Fact, that a Man muft be of a very peculiar
Conftitution, who, after having well confidered
the Evidences , can make the leaft doubt or
fouple of it. And this I hope may be fuffi
cient in anfwer to your Pretence of an Orato
rical or Figurative Confubftantiality ; a Pre
tence, which you lay down with an unufual
Diffidence ; and without fo much as one Rea
fbn, or Authority, to fupport it.
It being evident, from what -hath been faid,
that it was a proper, not figurative, Confub-i
llantiality, which the Ante-Nicene Fathers in
violably

QuXXVI. of fome QUERIES. 3$$
violably maintain'd ; This is all I am Concern'd
for. As to the queftion, whether it ihall be call
ed Specifick, or Numerical, I am in no pain a=
bout it. Neither of the Names exactly fuits it;
nor perhaps any other we can think on. It is
fuch a Confubftantiality as preferves the Unity,
without deftroying the diftinct Terfionality ;
fuch as neither Sabellians nor Arians would
come into, but the Catholicks maintain'd, with
equal Vigour, againft Both. It is a Medium to
preferve theTriority oi the Father, and withal
the Divinity, the effential Divinity, of Son
and Holy -Ghoft : In a word; it is the fober,
middle way, between the Extravagancies of Both
Extremes. Query XXVI.
Whether the Doctor did not equivocate or
prevaricate ftrangely , in faying. * The
Generality of Writers before the Council of
Nice, were, in the whole, clearly on his
Side : When it is manifeft, They were, in
the general, no farther on his Side, than
the allowing a Subordination amounts to;
no farther than our own Church is on his
Side, while in the main points of diffe
rence. The Eternity and Consubstan-
tiality , They are clearly againft Him 1
That is, They were on his Side, fo far ds
* Anfvtr to S>r, Wells, pag. *8,
we

390 ^DEFENSE Qu.XXVi.
we acknowledge Him to be right, but no
farther-
IN Defence of the Doctor, you appeal to his
very numerous, and, as you fay, plain Quo
tations from the antient Authors. And this,
you promife beforehand, will be made further
evident to all learned and unprejudiced Per-
fons, as foon as Dr. Whitby's Obfervations on
Bifhop Bull's Defenf Fid. Nic. appear in the
World. As to the Do&or*s pretended plain
Quotations, from rhe antient Authors, They
have not plainly, nor at all determin'd againft
the Co-eternity and Confubftantiality of the
Son , the Toints in Queftion ; and there
fore can do rhe Dodtor no Service: But, on
the contrary, the Ante-Nicene Writers, in
general, have determin'd plainly againft Him,
as ro the main of his Doctrine, wherein He
differs from us. In afferting which, I fay no
more than the great Athanafius told the
Arians long ago, and it is Fact, that all the
Writers before Them, of any Repute or Judg
ment, were directly againft Them. " *We give
" you Demonftration, fays He, that our Do-
" ctrine has been handed down to us from Fa-
" thers to Fathers. But You, Ye Revivers of
" Judaifm and Difciples of Caiphas , what
" Writers can you bring to Father your Tenets?
" Not a Man can you name, of any repute for
" Senfe or Judgment. All to a Man are againft
* Athanaf.- de Decret. Syn. Nic. p. 033.
you,

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 391
you, &c. To the fame purpofe fpeaks St Au-
ft'm, in. a fludied Difcourfe, which may be fup
pofed to contain his cooleft and moft ferious
Thoughts. " * All the Catholick Interpreters
of the Old or New Teftament, that I could
read, who have wrote before me on the
Trinity, which is God, intended to teach,
conformable to Scriprure, that Father, Son,
and Holy -Ghoft do, by the infeparable
Equality of one and the feme Subftance,
make up the Unity divine. Here you
may obferve the Summ of the f Catholick
Doctrine. The fame Homogeneous Subftance ;
and Infepar ability. The firft makes each Hy
poftafis, res divina ; the laft makes all to be
una Subftantia, una Summa res, one undi
vided, or individual, or numerical Subftance ;
one God. This is the Antient Catholick Do
ctrine ; and, I think, of the Schools too ; tho'
the School men have perplex'd it with innumer
able Subtilties. Hilary expreffes it briefly thus.
* Omnes, quos legere potui, qui ante me Scrip ferunt deTrinitate,
quje eft Deus, divinorum librorum Veterum & Novorum Ca-
tholici Traftatores hoc intenderunt fecundum Scripturas docere,
quod Pater, & Filius, & Spiritus San&us, Unius ejufdemque Sub-
fiantU infeparabili lequalitate divinam infinuent Unitatem. Aug.
Irin. 1. i.e. 3. p. 7f3.
f I fhall add another taffage of St. Auftin. to explain his Senfe
more clearly.
Trinitas proper Trinitatem Perfonarum, Sc Unus Deus propter
infeparabilem Divinitatem, ficut Unus Oronipotens propter infepara-
tilem Omnipotentiam. Ita ut etiam cum de fingulis quseritur, unuf-
quifque eorum & Deus & Omnipotens effe refpondeatur; cum vero
de omnibus fimul, non Tres Dii. vel Tres Omnipotentes, fed unus
Deus Omnipotens: Tanta ineft in Tribus infeparabilis Unitas, quae
fie fe Voluit prsdicari, A«$ufi. in Civit. Dei. I. ri. c. 24.
Nature

J9* /DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
Natura indiffimilis atque infeparabilis Unitas-
This, I fay, is the Doctrine; Confute it, if you
pleafe, or if you can .- In the mean while how
ever, let us honeftly oWn the Fact. But to
proceed. There were many Writings extant in the
Times oi Athanafius and Auftin, which have
not come down to us; and therefore their
Teftimonies, in the Cafe, are of the greater force.
I might mention other Catholicks, about that
time, who appealed to Antiquity, with all the
Aflurance and Freedom Imaginable. But the
rjaoft remarkable Inftance to our purpofe is, that
when in the Time of Theodofius, the Arians
were prefs'd by the Catholicks in difpute, and
fairly challeng'd to refer the matter in Contro
verfy to the concurring Judgment of the Wri
ters before Them, and to put it upon that IfTue;
the Arians declined it, and durft not abide the
Trial. See the Story, at large, in * Socrates
and f Sozomen. So dull were the Catholicks
at that Time, nay, fo unthinking were the
Arians too, that They could not perceive, what
is now fo clear to the Dodtor ; that the gene-
rality of Writers, before the Council of Nice,
were on the Arian fide: But one Party was
confident, and the other fufpedted, at leaft, that
the contrary was true.
But I need not take this indirect way of
confuting the Doctor's Affertion ; tho' it affords
US a very ftrong Prefumption, and is of much
* Lib. 5. c. 10. t Lib. 7. 0 12. greater

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 393
greater Weight and Authority than the fingle
Judgment of any of the Moderns : Many of
the Ante-Nicene Writings, by the good Pro
vidence of God, are yet extant, and can fpeak
for Themfelves ; Befides that the incomparable
Bifhop Bull has unanfwerably defended Them,
and vindicated Them from all fuch Exceptions
as appeared to have any Shadow of Truth or
Probability in Them. To fhow you how lit
tle Reafon the Doctor, or your Self, hath to
boaft of the Ante-Nicene Writers, as favourable
to your Caufe, I fliall here fet down feveral
Pofitions in which the Dodtor and You run
manifeftly counter to the whole Stream of
Antiquity. 1. That the Son is not Con fubftantial with
God the Father. You are directly oppofite to
all Antiquity in This your leading Pofition, on
which the Reft hang, and on which the Con
troverfy turns. This is very clear from the
Teftimonies collected by Bifliop Bull, and from
what additional Obfervations 1 have made un
der the laft Query.
x. That the Son is not Co-eternal with the
Father. Confubftantiality implies Co- eternity :
Befides that the afore-mention'd learned Prelate,
has given us numerous diredt Teftimonies for
it from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, above Twenty
of Them ; not one of any Note plainly contra
dicting Them. Thefe two main Points being
determin'd againft you, the reft are of lefs mo
ment. Yet I cannot find that the Antients
D d agreed

394 i DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
agreed with you in your other inferior Pofiti-
ons, which you bring in as under- props to
your Scheme.
3. That, God, is a relative Word, 3zos and
Sioins fignifying not Subftance but Dominion,
and Authority. This is directly * contrary to
all Catholick Antiquity, a very iew Inftances
excepted. 4. That God the Father only was God of
Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. This Pofition I
have fhown to be contrary to the Sentiments
of the Ante Nicene Writers.
5. That the Titles of one, only, &c are ex
clufive of the Son. This alfo I have fhown,
in thefe Papers, to be directly contrary to the
Judgment of the Antients.
6. That the Son had not diftinct worftoip
paid Him till after his Refurrection. This,
in the Senfe wherein you underftand it, is not
true ; nor agreeable to the Sentiments of the
Antient Church.
* See Fiddes, Vol. 1. p. 37s, eye. and tohat I have obferv'd above,
p. 8f. Nothing more common than Sto-mc, for divine Nature (as kv-
3-guKOTiic. alfo for the Human) in Ecclefiajlical Writers. I fhall point
to a few Inftances only out of many.
Melito apud Cav. Hilt. Lit. Vol. 2. p. 33. Grabe Spicileg.
Vol. z. p. 24'5. Hippolyt. Vol. 1. p. 226. Vol. 2. p. 24. Origen
Contr. Celf. p- 342. 404. Cyrill. Hierofol, Catech. n. p. 142.
Cyiil. Alex. Thefaur. p. 232. Dial. 1. de Trin. p. 405-. Damafc.
de Orth. Fid. 1. 3. c. 11.
N. 13. There is, in ftriclnefs, fome difference belroeen to &»«», and
S-ioti.c, (tho' the latter is often ufed for the former) fuch nearly as be
t-ween Concrete, and Abftraft; but ftill 3-Jo-njs referi to Nature and
Subftance (as ©eo? alfo generally does) not Dominion. Abftrafi
Hanus of Subftances are not very common indeed, (See Lock. H. U.
1. y. c. &.)bttt here there -teas a neceffity for it.
7. That

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 395-
7. That Father and Son (or any two Ter
fons) ought not to be called one God. I have
referr'd to the Ante-Nicene Writers, who fo call
ed Them, more rhan once. Some of the Tefti
monies may be feen at large in Dr. Fiddes.
8. That the Title of God, in Scripture, in an
abfolute Conftruction, always fignifies the Fa*
ther. Directly contrary to the Stream of Anti
quity ; as may appear, befides other Arguments,
from their Application of Scripture Texts, of
the Old Teftament, in which God is fpoken of
abfolutely, to the Son.
9. That an Inferior God may be admitted
befides the Supreme , and Worfhip paid to
Both. Nothing can ftrike more at the very
Fundamentals of Religion than this Pofition, in
the Judgment of the Antients in general.
10. That the Son is not efficient Caufe of
the Univerfe, and of all created Beings. This
I take to be contrary to ali the Antients. See
the Teftimonies above*.
11. That the Son Himfelf is made or created.
This neither You nor the Dodtor admit in
Terms ; but in reality, and in other words,
you Both do -, as hath been fliown. This Po
fition is flatly contrary to the Dodtrine of the
Antients. The Teftimonies have been referr'd
to above. There are other Particulars, which
I may at prefent forget, or which may lefs de-
ferve notice. Thefe are enough to fhow that
the Doctor's Pretences to the Ante-Nicene Fa
thers, are groundlefs.
*-Qu. n. , Ddi What

39« ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
What then has the Doctor to plead for Him
felf, arid for his fo great Affurance in this Par
ticular ? Firft, That the Ante-Nicene ( as did
alfo the Tofi-Nicene) Fathers allowed a Subor
dination ; which is very true , but not at all
pertinent ; nor can any Confequence be cer
tainly drawn from it, in favour of the Doctor's
Hypothefis; which He himfelf feems to be
aware of, as I have remark'd above*. Another
Thing is, that the Ante-Nicene Writers, fome
of Them, fpoke of a Temporal Generation by
the Will of the Father, which I have account
ed for in my former Pages. And a third Thing
is, that the generality of the Antients, when
They fpeak of God abfolutely, ordinarily mean
the Father, and They diftinguifli His Perfoia
by fome eminent Titles, and peculiar Appella
tions : which may be eafily accounted for.
Can thefe Three Confiderations, or if there
be more fuch, be ground fufficient for the Do
ctor to fay, that the generality of the Ante-
Nicene Writers are clearly on his fide, when
They exprefly contradict Him in fo many Par
ticulars as I have mention'd ; feveral of Them
effentials of His Hypothefis 1 The moft that
in Truth can, or in Juftice ought to be faid, is
that, in fome Particulars, They feem to favour
Him; but could not really mean it; unlefs
They notorioufly contradicted Themfelves.
The Very utmoft which the moft fanguine Man
of your fide fliould hope for, is, that the Fa
thers may be found Contradidtory to one ano-
* Pag. 300. ther,

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 397
ther, or to Themfelves, in order to null their
Evidence. If They are confiftent, They are
our's certainly. And this Difference there is
plainly between us, and you .- That, as to your
Principles, rhe Fathers are exprefs, clear, and
full againft Them ; no poffibility of reconciling
Them together: As to our's, They are no
where directly and exprefly againft us, If They
are at all againft us, it is only indirectly, and
muft be. made out by Inference, Deduction,
and remote Confequences, neither clear, nor
certain. They may be reconciled ro our Trin
ciples, to Themfelves, and to one Another:
But, as to any confiftent Agreement with your's,
it is utterly impracticable.
Now, fuppofing the Doctor ever fo ftrongly
to believe that the Ante-Nicene Writers, in
general, held Principles which neceffarily in
fer and imply his Conclufion ; yet we infift
upon it, that They ought not to be judged of
from any obfcure, difputable Confequences which
fhe Doctor draws for Them, againft what They
drew for Themfelves. If we once take the Liber
ty of denominating, forting, or ranking of Men
with any fide, not according ro what Themfelves,
perhaps rightly, profefs'd, but according to what
fome imagine, in Reafon and good Confequence,
They ought to have profefs'd, we may call Tro-
t eft ants, Tapifts; Arminians, Calvinifts ; Or
thodox, Hereticks ; and what not. There are
fome. common Principles which all Mankind a-
gree in; au4 the feveralDifferences and Diftindtions
D d 3 amongft

§9'3 /^ DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
amongft them arife only from their drawing
Confequences differently ; and it is this that
igives Them their particular and fpecial Deno
mination. Now finee it is evident and vifible,
as the Light, that the Ante-Nicene Writers did
not own the Confequences which the Doctor
makes for them, but exprefly and clearly re
jected them; conftantly affirming the Eternity
and Confubftantiality of the Son (the very
•points of Difference between1 Us and the Doctor)
it is plain and obvious to common Senfe, that
the Doctor has no juft claim or title to Them,
•but that We have : They were, in the main points
Clearly on our fide (confiftenr, or not confiftent,
is not now the. Queftion) and as clearly againft
Him. It is to no purpofe to plead, in this
Cafe, that Tremifes only are of any Weight,
and that Conclufions always ftand for nothing.
This may be allowed in Argumentation '•, but
not in determining on what fide any Perfon, or
any Body of Men were in this particular Que
ftion ; whether fuch Conclufions follow from
fuch Tremifes. In this, the Ante-Nicene Wri
ters were directly, and plainly, Anti- Arian ;
and therefore it is a great Abufe of Language,
and as great an Injury to Them and to the
Truth, for the Doctor to fay that They were,
in the whole, clearly on his fide.
But you had promifed the World great Mat
ters from a Book of Dr. Whitby's, which has
fince feen the Light ; and I am therefore obliged
f.0 fay fomething to it, tho' otherwife I fliould much.

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 399
much rather wave it ; becaufe it is wrote only
to Scholars, with whom it can do no harm ;
and becaufe, I believe, you are fenfible, before
this Time, how uncautious a Thing it is to pro-
rnife in the Dark ; and to be Sponfor for ano
ther's Performance, fo long before-hand. Dr.
Whitby is one that has done good Service to
the Church, and to the learned World; and
one would be willing to throw a Veil over his
late mifeonduct in this Controverfy, did not
the imprudent Triumphs of others oblige us
to take fome notice of it. But let us come to
the Point : I fliall fhow you, in fome fliort
Stridtures upon the Performance, how little you
are to hope for from it; and how far it comes
fliort of Expedtation. I'll divide what I have
to fay into two Kinds of Obfervations.
1. Upon general Fallacies, running thro' the
whole Book.
z. Upon particular Defects, Mifquotations,
Mifeonftructions, Mifreprefentations, &c.
His principal, and moft general Fallacy, is his
making Effence andTerfon to fignify the fame.
One individual or numerical Effence, He every
where interprets to a Sabellian Senfe ; under
ftanding by it one individual Hypoftafis, or
real Perfon. And this ridiculous Senfe He fixes
upon * All that now pafs for Orthodox; and,
I think too, upon the generality of Thofe who
have been reputed Catholicks down from the
• Prjef. p. ji.
D d 4 Council

400 ^ DEFENSE Qu. XXVI.
Council of Nice : For He * charges Athanafius
Himfelf with it; who has been generally look'd
upon as the Standard of Orthodoxy, in this Ar
ticle. The Charge is weak, and groundlefs,
and more efpecially in regard to Bifhop Bull;
who is b known to have declared Himfelf againft
ir, as frequently, as ftrongly, and as fully, as
it was poffible for a Man to do. The learned
Examiner , tho' c He feems to have known
this, is forced to d pretend Ignorance, to give
the better colour to what He was going about.
For, otherwife, who would not, at firft fight,
obferve the peculiar Extravagancy of the un
dertaking, to confute Bifhop Bull, only by
fliowing that the Bifhop has not proved what
He never intended to prove, nor fo much as
beleved, but rejected as heartily as the learned
Examiner Himfelf can do. However, fince
this was, in a manner, neceffary, that the
learned Examiner might appear at leaft to have
fomething to fay, all due Allowances are to be
made for it. Let us now obferve how, in the

a Pra?f. p. 32.
b I fhall here only cite one Paffage of Bifliop Bull, fpeaking of
Sandius; -whofe fteps Dr. Whitby has too clojely followed.
Audtor Ille, ubique in Libro fuo illud pro certo & rato habet
Homoufianorum, quos vocat, & Sabellianorum de Filio Dei Sen-
tentiam prorius eandem efle. Quo nihil a veto remotius eft ;
Siquidem fupra clare oflendimus, Neminem Dei Folium Patri
opoiaiot poifc dicere, nifi abfurde admodum & improprie, qui cum
Sabellio fentiat. D. F. N. p. 148.
See alfo D. F. p. 230- Animadv. in Gilb. Clarke, p. 1004.
c See Modeft. Dif|uifit. p. 107. where I}e charges Bifhop Bull
•with holding a Specifick Unity-, and PrarF. p. 31.
' d Prs^f. p. 31. Entrance

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 401
Entrance, He is pleafed to ftate the general
Queftion. " * Whether All the Ante-Nicene Fathers
" profefs'd the very fame Doctrine which We
" afcribe to the Nicene Council ; That is, whe*
" ther All acknowledged the fame Numerical
" Effence of the Father to have been com-
" municated to the Son and Holy Ghoft, and
" that therefore Both are one God in Number
" With the Father.
See how many Guards He has put in ; as it
were Confcious of what He had taken' in hand,
and fearing left otherwife there fliould not be
left Him ftrength fufficient to fecure a hand
fome Retreat. He does not fay, the Genera
lity of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, but All; fo
that if there happens to be but one Exception,
He may ftill be fafe and fecure. Next, He does
not fay the Dodtrine of the Nicene Council,
but which We afcribe to that Council: Now,
who can tell what We He means? Perhaps
Himfelf and Two or Three more. Then again,
fame Effence will not ferve, but it muft be the
fame numerical Effence : And this He inter
prets, every where throughout his Book, in a
Sabellian Senfe. So here the State of the
Gfueftion is intirely changed: And unlefs the
Bifliop has proved (which God forbid) that All
* Utrum Patres Omnes Ante-Nice.ni Eandem Quam Concilio
Nic&no Tribuimus fententiam amplexi funt ; hoc eft, utrum omnes
Eandem Numero Patris EfTentiam Filio & Spiritui Sanfto fuiffe
Communicatam, eoque nomine utrumque c*um Patre XJfium Nu-
fnert Deism efle agno verunt? Proem, p. 2» the

,4oi 4 WlENv^E Qu.XXj|I,
the 4nte-Nicjene Fathers were Hereticks! a«d
fomething worfe, profeffing what Themfefes
conderrm'd as Herefy, He has not, it feems, done
enough to fatisfy the learned Examiner. Not
content with this, He demands , farther, to have
it proved that this fame numerical Effence,
that is (according to Him) Terfon, was com-
frnunkated to Two other Terfons: And He
has fome pretence for cavil at the word
* Communicated. Yet, as if all this were not
^fufficient , it muft be alfo by interior Tra
duction ; as He obferves a little after in pag. z.
and He has fome Turns of Wit upon the
jword f Troduction. Was this the way to
anfwer fuch a Writer as Bifliop Bull, a wife,
¦grave, learned, judicious Author, and Que that
was above Trifling ?
In fliort, the plain Queftion, between Bifliop
Bull and the Arians is only this: Whether
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, iu general, believed
the Son to be of an eternal, uncreated, im
mutable, and ftridtly divine Subftance, or no ?
Bifhop Bull maintain'd the Affirrjiative , and
has unanfwerably proved it, in the opinion, of
moft Men of true Learning and Judgment, whe
ther Here, or Abroad. This is, what the learned
Examiner fliould neither have concealed, nor
difguis'd; but have frankly and honeftly con-
fefs'd, as He did % formerly. If, notwithftanding,
* Proef. pag. ai. f Praef. p. 23.
% Opus aggredior quod Bullus noftras, Pietate Summa §c Dodrrijia
Vir prseditus, atque in Antiquitatis totius Scriptis Verfatifiimus, the

Qu.XXVI. of fome QU E R I E S. , 40.3
the learned Tr elate has not proved that the
Fathers held a numerical Effence, in the Ex
aminer's Senfe (fuch as He thinks neceffary to
preferve the Unity) the Bifhop fliould not be
reprefented as failing in the Proof of what He
intended; but fliould be given up for a Tri-
theift, and the Catholick Church with Him,
whofe Advocate He is, and with whom He
ftands or falls. This would have been the fair
and ingenuous way ; unlefs the learned Exami
ner would have undertaken to prove that the
Fathers before the Nicene Council were of
Arian Principles, which He durft not do. What
does it fignify to fhow that They were not Sa
bellians? Did Bifliop Bull, or does any Man
of Senfe pretend They were ?
You may judge of the Performance, from
his flaring the Queftion fo ftrangely ; and his
fetting out with fuch diffidence, as if He
thought the Caufe defperate. When you come
to the Book it felf, you'l find Two Thirds of
ir, in effect, little more than retreating to the
Sabellian Senfe of Numerical and Individual,
Which is only fo much Impertinence. This is
the principal, and the moft general Fallacy
which He trufts to ; and is, in a manner, the
Turn of the whole Book.
He has another general Fallacy, which He
ferves Himfelf of fometimes, and it is this.
epere are perenniori, ad DoBorum Invidiam, & NovtttorumCorMium,
fummo judicio & indultria peregit. Whitby. TraBat. de vera Chrif.
"*''**?• When

404 ^DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
When He finds fome Exprelfions run pretty
high and ftrong for the Divinity of Chrift, * He
lays the Arians ufed the fame, or the like Ex
preffions. There is very little Force or Weight
in the Argument : For it amounts only to this.
The f Arians, perfedt Matters of DiffimulatioU
and notorioufly accuftom'd to equivocating,
ufed fuch or fuch Expreffions, meaning little
by them ; therefore the Ante-Nicene Writers,
Men of a very different Stamp and Character,
meant no more by thofe Expreffions. Bur, be
fides this, it is well known' that the \ Arians,
at firft, did not ufe thofe high Expreffions of
the Son, but came into them by Degrees, as
They found their Dodtrine too fliocking to be
endured in broad Terms; and as They perceived
the neceffity of ufing Catholick Language. We
can eafily fhow, how, and when, and why
the Arians were obliged to fpeak higher than
They thought. But it can never be ihown that
the Ante-Nicene Fathers were under any fuch
Temptation ; or that They affedted to fpeak
* Praef. p*4. 15. Lib. p. 8, 9. 40. 90. iof. lyj.i^j. and dfewhtre-.
-fr Scilicet Tenebriones ifti parati erant quamlibet Fidei Confeflio-
srem fuo fuffragio comprobare, quae modo vocem ipsixnis nori ha-
beretr- etiamfi quoqise in ea ponwcnfur verba alia qua? apud Saws
errmes idem prorfus fignificarent. Bull D. F. p. i8f.
^ Arianos Jefum Chjiftum Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, vi-
tarn ex vifit, ante omnia S&ctda ex Deo Patre genitum dfxifle, Eu-
icbio adhuc ia vivis agente, me legiffe non memmi: utcunque 50-
flea. ad declinandam Invidiam in Publicfs Formuffs has voces frau-
dulenter ufurparent, &c. Cov. Epift. Apologet. p. Cf.
Qui Artqs Eufebii,. rdiquorumgue Arianorum Vocum Ambigut-
?4te perperuo a;bu.t$ntiu.m» noil olfaciet hac i» rej ei quid ajiud
«>ptcrn aoa videos porter nafota, <Zkt.lfift.. Grir. %. p. j\*.
QtHex

Qu. XXVI. . of fome QU E R I E S. 40 f
otherwife than They really meant, or than
They would be generally underftood. They
were plain, open Men ; unacquainted with thofe
Principles of Latitude, and ftudied Refinements
which came in afterwards. I may ufe almoft
a parallel Inftance, from what has been lately
feen among our Selves. From the Year 17 iz.
Arians have been taught to fubfcribe the Ni
cene and Athanafian Creeds. But our good
Fore-fathers would have thought it horrid Pre
varication to do it ; They were not fo fubtile
and refin'd: And therefore, tho' Subfcription
is now no certain Argument of Men's Senti
ments, it was formerly : when Men were other-
wife inftrudted, and loved Chriftian Plainnefs
and Simplicity. This may ferve for a brief
general Anfwer to the learned Examiner's
fecond general Fallacy.
There is a third general S4IV0, which occurs
pretty often ; that the Ante-dYicene Writers di
ftinguifli God from Chrift ( that is, the Father
from the Son) and call the Father God ab
folutely : Nows fince the Tofi-Nicene Writers
do fo too, and fince no Body feruples it, even
at this Day; I need not give my felf the Trou
ble of any more particular Anfwer. Thus far
for the general Fallacies, running through his
Performance : After which, it may be needlefs
to take notice of any particular Mifmanage-
raent ; But, for a Specimen, you fliall have a
few Iuftances of his Mifquotations, Mifeonftru-
ctions, Mifreprefentations, Reviving of old and
trite

4o6 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXVL
trite Objections concealing the AnfweTSj and
the like.
To begin with Mifquotations: Pag.xz. He
cites part of Tolycarp's 'Doxology, recorded1 in
the Epiftle of the Church of Smyrna. There
He a leaves out the Two moft material Words,
(crlv aire!) on which the Argument chiefly de
pended, and then infults over the learned
Trelate. Pag. 6z. Citing a PafTage from b Athenago^
ras, He changes r&zys etory, into m^}i a.hr\i'x
without giving any notice of it, or reafon for
it; only to make a weak Insinuation againft the
'Divinity of God the Son.
Pag. 75-, 76. He has a Citation from Me
thodius, part of which you may fee above
(^.143.) the remainder I have here fet dow&;
in the c Margin. After giving a Conftruction
diametrically oppofite to the Intent and Letter
oi the Author, He breaks out into this Expref-
fion ; d See how He ( Methodius ) manifeft ly
acknowledges the Son to have been made, and
before begotten (that is all the Senfe that I can
make of what He fays) in fpight of the Bifhop.
He might have faid, in fpight of Grammar and
a He reads it oV & era* ci TtviupccU dy.a ii\a, inftead of Oi' 00 oti
o-l-j auTol cv nvzuirjoclt cly.® K\a. Vid. Eufeb 1 4. c. if.
b Xigoc, uutou <f> i£j oV ttuTou imvta, lyivi-ro', Athenag. Leg. p. 38.
Ox. Ed.
C T< Ji t'/oi trvipigov y.yivrijKoi bt, 07J <sj&ovtos $i| orgy Tr aimuv,
Ziyi, ci toTc, igyvoic, s^sAii^v <? rf nsrpa yivvionf, » 0% e'si srgj<&i»
icyvotspjioi yvae/.aaj. Ap. Phot. p. 960.
d En quam clare agnofcit Filium ytpvtvxi 8c <Bt$yiyov£vtq factum
& prargenitura effe, fruftra prafulc renitente. Modeft. Difq. p. 76.
com-.

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 407
common Senfe : Nothing can be clearer than
that Paffage of Methodius for the eternal Ge
neration of the Son ; which He does not only
affert, but guards it againft the Objection from
that Text (This day have I begotten Thee")
explaining it, not of any Temporal Generation
(for He allows no fuch Thing) but of a Tem
poral Manifeft ation.
Pag. 97. You may fee how He deals with
a modern Author, the learned Dr. Cave. He
firft applauds his great Knowledge of Eccle
fiaftical Antiquity ( in which He is extremely
right) and then cites a Paffage from Him,
which , as reprefented , feems to fay , that
many of the earlieft Fathers were againft
Ghrift's Divinity. He had done this once be
fore in his * Preface, fo that one may fee
He is pleafed with the Difeovery. I have gi
ven the Paffage at large in the f Margin, in
cluding that part in Hooks which our learned
Examiner has left out. The whole turns up
on this ; whether Dr. Cave by, in quibus, in
tended the fame as, in quibus fingulis, in every
one of the foregoing Particulars, or rather iu
* Praef. p. 28.
t Nxvos, qui in Scriptis ejus (La<Shntfi) notantur, de Dki'mitatel
de sterna Filii exiftentia [de Animarum prse-exiftentia 8c Futuro
poft hanc vitam ftatu, de Fine Saeculi & Mille Annorum Imperio,
de Adventu Eliae Multos ad Dei cultum converfuro] aliifque capi-
tibus, de quibus obfcure, incaute, quandoque etiam periculofe
locutus fit, excufabunt, apud candidos rerum arftimatores. Sarculi
quo vixit circa iftas res imperitia, dogmata ipfa paulo abftracTri-
ora, nee dum a Theologis dilucide explicata nee Synodorum de-
cretis definita, & in quibus 'Opvtyijfptsc, habuit complures prsece-
deatium S«culoruro Patra. Gav. Sift. Liter. Vol.1, p.m.
many

408 4 DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
many, or moft of them. It is impoffible to
prove that He meant it ftrictly of every one ;
and therefore no certain Argument can be
drawn from this Paffage : But I will give you a
Reafon or two, why I think Dr. Cave did nor,
or could not fo mean it. You'l obferve, that
de Divinitate, ftands by it felf, as a diftinct
Article ; and, very probably, is to be conftru'd
of the Deity : Labtantius is * known to have
had very abfurd Notions of the Deity, fuppo
fing God to have had a Beginning, and to have
made Himfelf. Dr. Cave could never mean
that Lactant ius had 'O/M-^vKfious Complures,
many ofhis mind, in this Article : And there
fore could not intend, in quibus, ftridtly, of
every Particular, but of the whole, and in the
general. Then, as ro Dr. Cave's Judgment of
the Senfe of the Fathers, in refpedt to the Di
vinity of the Son, and his eternal Exiftence, it
is fo f well known, and fo often appears in his
Writings, that He fliould not be prefumed to
contradict his declared and repeated Sentiments,
without a manifeft neceffity. Wherefore Dr.
* Laftant. Inftitut. 1. J. c. 7.
f Sanfiti Patres Catholica: Fidei Nicsenorumque Dogmatum Teftes
funt inconcuffi, Vindices acerrimi; qui Fidem ab Apoftolis tradi-
tam, a Majoribus acceptam, ad nos ufque propagarunt, acceptam
Vita, Voce, etiam Sanguine fuo confirmarunt, inviftifque Argu
ments contra omnia Haereticorum molimiua fartam tedram con-
fervarunt; quique nullis Sophifmatibus flefti queunt, ut in Uni-
tariorum caufam Teftimonium dicant. Hine ilia: Lachryma;, Haec
Fundi calamitas. Adeo ut de Antiquitate Ecclefiaftica diei poteft,
quod de Ratione alicubi habet Malmsburienfis Philofophus ; ubi.
cunque Ratio Homini repugnat, Homincm ipli Rattoni repugna-
turuni. Cav. Epift. Apologet. p. 17.
Whitby

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 409
Whitby does a great Injury to the Memory of
that good Man, by taking an Advantage of an
ambiguous Expreffion. To proceed.
Pag. 60. He tells us, that the Titles of t«
tfewTes TniYfivts, and T§f o'Xav chiLuvpyos (that is,
Creator and Framer of the Univerfe) were fuch
as the Writers of that Age (the Second Cenrury)
always diftinguifli 'd the Father from the Son by.
If He means that the Son had not then, thefe
or the like Titles given Him, it is a notori
ous Untruth (as you may fee by the Quotati
ons * above from Irenaus and Clemens Alexan-
drinus) If He means only, that Thofe and the
like Titles were eminently and emphatically
given to the Father, That indeed is very true
of the Second Century ; and as true of all the
Centuries following, down to this prefent, as
appears by our Creeds ; which, I fuppofe, is no
great Dilcovery.
In his Preface, (P. 3x ) He mifreprefents Ba
fil as declaring againft Unity of Effence, where
the good Father intended nothing but againft
Unity of Terfion. In the fame Page, He brings
in | Athanafius, and interprets what He faid
againft the e^ia'aio^as if it had been meant of the
ofioiimoh betwixt which, that accurate Father al-
* Qu. 9. p. 1 89.
t Vid. Athanaf. Tom. i. p. 767. Compare Tom. ? p. ? '•
Athanafius diftinguifli' d very particularly, more than Hilary and
fome other Fathers did, between the opo&mov and the o/Asiioiov. He
thought that to fay the Son was only like Qod, was as much as deny
ing Him to be God: As if we fhould fay a thing is only like Silver,
therefore not Silver; or only like Gold, therefore not Gold. This
was his Senfe of the Matter.
E e ways

410 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
ways carefully diftinguifli'd. A little lower,
He reprefents Athanafius as maintaining nume
rical Identity ; which (in the Senfe of the
learned Examiner) is making Him a Sabellian.
Thus, it feems, He is to confute Bifliop Bull,
Only by puzzling and confounding fuch Things,
as that incomparable Prelate had made plain
and clear.
Pag. o. He reprefents Barnabas 's Epiftle,
cV voSois, which He interprets Spurious (p. to.)
neglecting and concealing in what Senfe * Eufe
bius had reckon'd it dtvojots-, and what had been
laid by very f learned Men in defence of it.
Pag. z$. He gives a partial Account of the
Antient Doxologies. No one that has feen
St. Bafil, the eighth Book of the Clementine
Conft it u tions, Tolycarp's Doxology, and the
Church of Smyrna's, befides Clement oi Ale
xandria's, and Hippolytus's, can make any rea
fonable doubt, whether to ot with, were not
applied in Doxologies to the Son or Holy-
Ghoft, as well as by, through, or in, by rhe
earlieft Ante Nicene Writers. To pretend A-
thanafian Forgeries in anfwer to all, is only
giving up the point, with the ridiculous Cir
cumftance of appearing to maintain it.
His Account of Juftin Martyr is one con
tinued Mifreprefentation, as may appear in fome
Meafure, by comparing it with what hath been
obferved in thefe Papers.
* See Cave Hiftor. Lirerar. Vol. i. p. 1 1.
f Pearfon Vindic. p. 27G. 181. Bull D.F. p. iy. Pr. Trad. p. 3.
Pag. 61.

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 4ir
Pag. 6i. He takes occafion from the Latin
Verfion to mifreprefent Athenagoras, and to
infinuate that the Son is not like the Farher.
If fhe Greek words be render'd, as They fignify,
Infecti, & Facti, the Equivocation upon Ge-
ttitus, and therewith the Argument is loft.
Pag. 6z. He undertakes another PafTage in
Athenagoras, a very famous one, and of fin
gular ufe in this Controverfy ; plainly fliowing
the true and genuine Senfe of fiich Fathers, as
fpoke of a Temporal Generation, and being of
equal Force both againft Sabellians and Arians,
as the * learned Prelate has judicioufly and ad
mirably demonftrated againft Tetavius, San-
dius, and Others. Sandius, being fenfible of
its Weight and Force, thought it the wifeft way
to fay, that the place was corrupt ; and being
a Man of Wit, He invented fomething ofa Co
lour for it. Gilbert Gierke afterwards, thought
of a more plaufible Solution of the difficulty;
but the learned f Bifhop had too much Acu
men to let it pafs. Laft of all comes Dr. Whitby
with a new Device, which, I fuppofe, is in
tirely his own. You fee the Paffage in the
i. Margin. The words yx 'ai y&°fdii°H He con-
flrues thus: Not as eternally generated, as if
He had read >wa>,uW, fupplying k'iSias- by
Imagination. The Senfe and Meaning of the
* Bull. Def. F. N. p. 104, 105-.
f See Bull. Animadv. in Gilb. Cl. Op. Poft. p. 105:2.1(^3.
i HfZtov ymtipct ilvcn t£i TrooTgi, x% ac, yivipyiov, l\ kpxpc, ^ j
&ibc vouc, iiJio? ov, itx,tv auToc, ' ci ixvtZ tuv Aoyo» eiioiac, &opnoc ei',.
Athen. Leg. c. 10. p. 38.
E e z word

4i* i DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
word * yivojuSpovt fignifying made, or created, is
fo fix'd and certain in this Author, that no
doubt or feruple can be reafonably made of it.
And that He intended to fignify the Son's im
mutable, eternal, neceffary Exiftence, in this
Paflage, is fo manifeft, that a Man muft be of
a peculiar Complexion that can fo much as
queftion it; efpecially confidering the other
high Things faid of the Son, by this Author,
in odier Places; fome of which have been
above cited. I mention not how the learned
Examiner endeavors to elude Them } putting
off one with a jeft (p. 60.) pretending an In
terpolation for another (p. 61.) and for fear
all fliould not fuffice, retreating at length to his
Quibble upon the word, Numerical.
P. 108. He makes a ridiculous Reprefentation
oi Tertullian, as if that Writer believed two An
gels to be as much One, as God the Father and
Gop" the Son are. I fliall only j tranfcribe the
Paffage, and truft it with the intelligent Reader.
; Pag. no. 113. You find Him tampering with
frenaus, Firft, infinuating as if that excellent
* Evx ©eov ayes r Txh $ nauiToc, keojitjV ocutov uAv & fjLo/Ihov,
071 To ov 0V ^tVSTUi, ocAaco TO pv ov  . p, 2 1 • To ov out, ysvio-iv Tt
ctnc vfcov it ti to ytvoppov ptv ov oi ooHkoti. p. 67. Ou ^>uo^ ovmt
ioXKoo yfaoptvav. p. 68.
f Et nos etiam Sermoni atque Rationi, itemque Viriuti, per
qux, omnia molitum Deum ediximus, propriam Subftantiam
Spiritum infcribimus ; cui 8c Sermo infit praenuntianti, 8r Ratio
adfit difponenti, 8t Virtus perficieuti. Hunc ex Deo prolatum di-
dicimus, Sc prolatione generatum, 8c idcirco Filium Dei 8c Deum
dictum, ex Vnitate Subftantia. Nam & Deus Spiritus...  Ita de
Spiritu Spiritus 8c de Deo Deus, ut Lumen dr Lumine accenfum.
TertuU. Apoi. c. 11. p. aoi. Ed. Havercamp.' Lugd.
a Writer

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 4_,
a Writer had fuppofed the Son was cur Lord
and God, according to the good Tleafure of
the invifible Father ; but admitting the more
probable Conftruction to be, that every knee
might bow, according to the good Tleafure oi
the invifible Father.
It is well known that Irenaus b allows no
Creature, nothing that had a Beginning, to be
juftly called God; c looks upon the Notion of an
inferior God, as a Contradiction ; does not d ad
mit that any Creature can create : And yet He
makes the Son e truly God, f Co-eternal, and
§ Confubftantial ( tho' He ufes not the very
word) with God the Father ; Creator of Men,
of Angels, of all Things. Teftimonies of the
laft particular are fo many and fo /clear (fome of
which have been cited above) that I need not
here refer to them. In Contradiction to all this,
Dv. Whitby would perfwade us (from two or
three Paffages which fay no fuch thing) that
Irenaus refolved all the Dignity of the Son
into the Powers given Him after his Re
furrection h. I may, upon this Occafion, take
notice of another ' Writer, who has lately
a Irenaeus, lib. i.e. io, p. 48. Ed. Bened.
b Iren. lib. 3. c. 8- p. 183. Ed. Bened. c Lib. 4. c. 2. p. 119,
d Lib. 4.. c. 41. p. 288. e Lib. 3. c. 6. p. 180. Lib. 4.
c.6. p. 13 f. f Lib. 2. c. 13. p. 131 Lib. x. 0 2j. p. 173.
g Lib. 3. c.*i. p. 117. Lib. 2- c. 13. p. 132. L. ». c. 15. p. ij-».
h Irenxus'j genuine Principles may be feen in one fhort Sentence.
Pater  verbum fuum vifibile effecit omni fieri Carni, incarna-
Jum 8c ipfucn, ut in omnibus manifeftus fieret Rex eorum etenim
ea quae judicantur, oportebat videre Judicem. & Scire Hunc a quo
judicantur. Iren. I. 3. c. 9. p. 184.
j Effllyu. Exam, of Dr.Bennet, p. 18, firfi Edit.
E e 3 mifre-

414 A DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
mifreprefented Irenaus. He imagines that the
good Father fuppofed the Aoydgr, or Word, as
fuch, poffible. The Paffages, which He builds
this Fidtion upon, you have in the * Margin,
according to the laft Edition. The moft that
you can efpy in them is, that the A&yos fuffered
in the Flefh : One of the Quotations does not
certainly fay fo much, but might bear another
Conftrudtion. It might as reafonably be pre
tended that the Aoyo$, as fuch, was Vifible, and
Comprehenfible, and changed into a frail Man,
as that He was pafiible : See the Margin. All
that Irenaus intended to prove againft the He
reticks, was, that the Aoy@* was conftantly
United to the Man Chrift Jefus, and did not de-
fert the Human Nature in the Tafiion, it be
ing f neceffary that the fuffering Redeemer
fhould be both God and Man : This is all
the. Cafe. But to proceed with the learned
Examiner.
Pag. 147. He reprefents Tertullian, as making
* Solus vere Magifter Dominus nofter; 8c bonus vere Filius
Dei, & patiens, verbum Dei Patris Filius Hominis fa<ftus. Iren.
\. 3. c. 18. p. 11 1.
'O ^oy©° i? ©sS oKf| lytvero, »£ 'nsnfyv. 1. I, c. 10. p. fo.
Compare the following Places.
Verbum, Unigenitus qui femper humano generi adeft, 8c con-
fparfus fuo Plafmati, fecundum placitum Patris & Caro faftus, Ipfe
eft Jefus Chriftus Dominus nofter, qui paffus eft, p. 106.
Os Xj on rj) esuri) aafxi, ov q xj tmtfyv Ihtianvq, p. 207,
Invifibilig vifibilis fa£tus, 8c incomprehenfibilis facvtus compre-
henfibilis, 8c impaffibilis paffibilis, & Verbum Homo. p. iod. ,
f See Irenseus, 1. 3. c. 18- p. 211. See alfo the famous Paffage
about Quiefcence, p. n 3. Which plainly fuppofes all that was fuffer
ing and low to belong to the Man only, all that was high and great to
the Aey®*! or Divino Nature,

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 41?
the Son, in his higheft Capacity, Ignorant of
the Day of Judgment. Let the Reader fee
the * whole Paffage, and compare it with ano
ther, four Chapters lower; and from thence
judge of TertuUian's meaning. No reafonable
doubt can be made, but that Tertullian under
ftood the Son's being Ignorant, &c. in refpect
only of his Humanity, as well as He under
ftood the other Things, mention'd together with
it in the fame Paragraph. Such as confider how
highly Tertullian, elfewhere, fpeaks of the Son,
making Him one undivided Subftance with the
Father, can make no queftion of it.
Here it will be proper to obviate a difficulty
which may naturally, upon the firft Thoughts,
arife in one's Mind. Why fhould the Catho
licks fo often urge the Texts relating to Chrift's
Human Nature only, againft the Sabelliansl
For it may feem that, if They thereby proved
Two Hypoftafes, They proved only a Divine
and a Human Hypoftafis ; and there might ftill
be but one Hypoftafis in the Godhead, as the
Sabellians pretended. But it is to be confider'd,
that Both Catholicks and Sabellians were agreed
* Ignorant & Ipfe Diem & Horam Ultimam, Soli , Patri not am;
difponeris Regnum Difcipulis, quomodo 8c fibi difpofitum dicit a
Patre; habens Poteftatem Legiones Angelorum poftalandi ad auxi-
lium a Patre fi vellet, Exclamans quod fe Deus reliquijfet, in Patris
manibus Spiritum ponens. TertuU. Adv. Prax. c.26. p.flo".
Habes ipfum ExcUmantem in Paffione, Deus Meus, Deus Meus, ut
quid me dereliquifti?  Sed Haec Vox Carnis & Animae, id eft.
Hominis, non Sermonis, nee Spiritus, id eft, non Dei, propterea
«miffa eft, ut impaffibilem Deum oftenderet, qui fie Filium dere-
liquit, dum Hominem ejus tradidit in mortem. TertuU. adv.
frax, ^. 30. p. 518.
E e 4 iu

416 ^DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
in one Point, that God was incarnate, the di
vine Nature perfonally united to the Man
Chrift Jefus : And the main Queftion between
Them was, whether the Father Himfelf made
one Perfon with Chrift's Human Nature, or No.
If rhe Catholicks could prove the Negative
(as They could eafily do) rhen the Sabellians
muft, of Courfe, and upon their own Principles,
acknowledge another divine Hypoftafis, be
fides the Father. The Catholicks therefore
urged all the Texts, wherever Chrift fpeaks of
Huufeif as a diftinct Perfon from the Father ;
thi' many of rhefe Texts are meant of Him,
in his Human Capacity only. Had our Saviour
Chrift fpoke of the Ao?©*, or Word, in rhe
fame manner as He does of the Father : Had
He prayed to the Aoy©«, or Word, complain'd
of being forfaken by Him ; or had He faid, I
know not the Day of Judgment, but He, the
Aoyoi, or Word, does ; it could never have been
prefumed, that the / and H e, the Aiyos and
Chrift, made one Terfion. It appearing there
fore, from that manner of Expreffion, that the
Father was not perfonally united with the
Human Nature of Chrift; this was fufficient
againft the Sabellians, who allowed that the
Man Chrift Jefus was perfonally unired with
God: And if it could not be with the Father,
\t muft of Confequence be with another divine
Hypoftafis, a fift'inff and real Son oi the Father,
Thus you fee the Force and Significancy of
thai© Texts (and of all Texts which intimated ? Plal>

QiOCXVI. of fome QUERIES. 417
a plain perfonal Diftinction between the Fa
ther and Chrift) againft the Sabellians. They
fhowed that the Perfon fpeaking was not
the Father. And yet the Perfon who fpake,
having (as both Sides allowed) a Divine
and Human Nature , might fpeak of Himfelf
in different Refpedts ; in this, or in rhat Ca
pacity. Thus, in regard to the Son's Igno
rance of the Day of Judgment, it is manifeft
that the Father and Son are there fpoken of,
as of Two Perfons ; and One as knowing, the
Other as not knowing, tho' only in a certain
refpedt : One Ignorant in fuch a Capacity, the
Other not Ignorant in any Capacity at all ,
as having never taken Human Nature, and
therewith Human Ignorance, into a perfonal
Union with Himfelf. Thus far to clear this
Point, and to acquit my felf of a * promife
made you fome time ago.
I fliall proceed a little farther in remarking
on your Friend's Performance. It is frequent
with Him to bring up old Objections, negledt-
ing and concealing the Bifliop's Anfwers. I
fliall give a few Inftances only ; that I may
not be Tedious.
Pag. 17. He pretends that the Bifliop has
not fliown, that the Fathers of the Second Cen
tury refolved the Unity into the fame Prineiple
With the Nicene Fathers, Yet the Bifliop f has
* Qu. 7. p. in- See Athanafius farther upon the Thing whereof
I have been fpeaking, Vol. I. p. 26 1.
f Bull. D. F. Sedt. 4. c 4. fliown

418 ^DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
fliown it, and Dr. Whitby allows as much- in
the very next Page; and has nothing to retreat
to but the miferable Evafion about Individual.
Pag. 84. He refers to Bafil, as an Evidence
that Gregory Thaumaturgus believed the Son
to be a Creature. This He again repeats in
the next Page; and again in his Preface, p. 10.
Yet the Fact is evidently falfe ; Bafil Himfelf
a full Witnefs on the contary fide ; and this
Bifliop Bull had a given notice of, and made
clear to aDemonftration. When a Writer ftrains
fo hard, to put a falfe Senfe upon Another;
there's no uncharitablenefs in believing, that
He gives us at leaft his own true meaning.
Pag. 87. He revives an old Objection, which
the learned Prelate had ingenuoufly b fet forth
in its full Force ; and given it as full an Anfwer.
Your Friend is here pleafed to fpeak with great
contempt of the Bifhop's Anfwer ; for no other
reafon, that I can fee, but becaufe He was not
able to confute it. Being however refolved to
fay fomething, He ftoutly denies a plain Mat
ter of Fact. OiKovopiicL, fays He, is never ufed
by the Fathers, in rhe Bifhop's Senfe. Pleafe
to turn to the places noted in the c Margin ,
and judge whether the Bifliop, or He, be the
a Bull. Def. F. N- p. iff, ir<S, ifj,
b Bull. D. F. p. 267.
c Tertullian adv. Prax. c. 2, 3. Clem. Alexandr. p. 831. gjf.
Tatian c. 8. Ed. Ox. Hippolytus Contr. Noet. p. 12. 15.
Valelius had obferved the Thing long ago, and without any View
to Controverfy.
Vetus omnis Chriftianorum Theologia Deo quidem Patri Mo-
more

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 4j9
more faithful and accurate in this Matter. If
any thing farther be wanting in Defence of Bi
fliop Bull, in this Article, let Him fpeak for
Himfelf, in another d Work, in anfwer to Gil
bert Gierke ; who, it feems, was much offend
ed at the oiKovopiU, grieved, as He well might,
to fee His moft pompous and plaufible Pre
tences intirely baffled by it. I fliould weary
my Reader, and my Self too, if I went on re
marking every Place, where old Objections are
brought up; and either none, or very flight
notice taken of the Anfwers: If you have a
mind to compare, you may note fome Pages
referr'd to in * the Margin. I fhall proceed ho
farther, in this tedious and difagreeable Employ-
na.rchiam attribuit, Filio vero & Spiritui Sanfto oti^iapiecv, id eft,
Adminiftrationem 8c Difpenfationem. Valef. Not. ad Eufeb. p. /.'$S.
See alfo p. .90. 25-3.
d Bull. Pofth. Works, p. 1045", 1046", 1047, &c.
' * Modeft. Difquifit.  Bull's Def. F.
Pag. 27. ¦  Pag. ZfS- no, 70.

*9

66.

30. ¦  16 f.
40.  > ¦  1 — 69. Judic.
50. —   117.
(S2.  .  205.
69.  ¦  > 119.
74. ' ¦  161,162,163.
77. — — — —  165 — 8®. m. 136.
81. ¦ -  ¦ 118.
pj-. .  168. 202. 164.
96. ¦ ¦  ¦ 169.
107.   — 106.
109. ¦  — 4'-
120,  ¦ —  77*
124. -»   77' 7^.

141.

261.

ment ;

4*o i DEFENSE Qu.XXVI.
ment $ except it be to obferve ro you one pe
culiar piece of Management, which I leave you
to reflect on. The learned Examiner labours,
for * two Pages together, to fhow that Clemens
oi Rome was far from fpeaking, or thinking fo
highly of our Bleffed Lord, as St. Taul did. A
little after, j- He propofes Clemens to us as a very
good Interpreter of Scripture ; and commends
Him highly, for laying Chriftianity before Us
in its naked Simplicity. What can We think
of this? The beft Conftruction I can make of
it is, that He intended in p. 14 if, not St.
Taul Himfelf, but St. Taul as now generally
underftood : And fo He was to infinuate fome
thing, which was not fit to be exprefs'd. But
a Man of Art would have conducted better;
would not have difeover'd Himfelf fo foon, but
have trufted more to the Sagacity of his Reader.
This manner of proceeding, in an important
Caufe, is what I cannot account for. It feems
to me, that if there be not Reafons of Confcience
obliging a good Man to fpeak out, there are al
ways Reafons of Prudence which fliould make
a wife Man hold his Tongue,
You may perceive, by this Time, that Bi
fliop Bull's Book is like to ftand, till fome
thing much more confiderable appears againft it.
* Aliter plane D. Paulus loquitur : ..' Argumento potius
eft Clementem de Chrifto aliter plane quam V'aulum fenfifle 
magnam fufpicionem injicit, eadem Clementem cum Paulo minime
docuiffe. Whitk. difq. p. 14, 15.
f Solus Clemens Chriftianse Fidei Simplicitatem pra: oculis Le
mons ponit. Whitb, Difq. p. 19. Several

Qu.XXVI. of fome QUERIES. 411
Several attempts of this kind have been made
before ; but to as little purpofe : And if there
be ever fo many more, by ever fo good Hands,
I'll venture to fay. They will fucceed no better.
The Book will ftand as long as clear Senfe,
found Reafoning, and true Learning have any
Friends left. The main Subftance of it is not
to be confuted ; any more than you can extin-
guifh Truth, or put out the Light of the Sun.
The Fathers have been tried and are found
faithful: What They defended while living,
The Divinity of our Bleffed Lord, againft the
Infults , of Jews , Tagans , and Hereticks ,
They ftill maintain in their works: And their
Works will be held in great Efteem, and Ve
neration ; while every weak attempt to blaft
their Credit, will meet with what it juftly de-
ferves  1 was going to fay what, but it may
found fevere : I proceed to another Query.

Query

4xx A DEFENSE Qu.XXVIt
Query XXVII.
Whether the learned Doctor may not reafon
ably be fuppofed to fay, the Fathers hre on
his fide, with the fame meaning and re
ferve as He pretends our Church-Forms to
favour Him ; that is, provided He may in
terpret as He pleafes, and make them fpeak
his Senfe, however Contradictory to their
own : And vfhfither the true Reafon why
He does not care to admit the Teftimonies
of the Fathers, as Proofs, may not be, be
caufe They are againft Him ?
IN Anfwer to this, You tell me, that it con
tains only an invidious Suggeftion ; not any
Argument. The Suggeftion, I do affure you,
is juft, and argumentative too ; and was kind
ly intended towards you ; that you might not
take Things implicitely and upon Truft from
others, but might examine them firft your Self;
and then pafs a Judgment of them. As to the
invidious Appearance of it ; had I ever intend
ed, or in the leaft thought of making the Que
ries publick, you might, with a better Grace,
have told me of it. But as I had not the liberty
of revifing my Papers, nor fo much as any pre
vious Apprehenfion of your Defign (prefuming
all along the very contrary , as I reafonably
might) thefe Things confidered, I hope the in
vidious Part you'l take to your felf ; the Ar
gument

Qu XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 4^3
gument (for an Argument it is, in its kind)
you may leave to me. It is of fome moment
to us, not only to have the primitive Writers
on our fide (as we plainly have) but to have
them thought fo toa. The learned Dodtor has
made fome Pretences that way ; and they are
of Weight with fuch Readers, as are not duly
apprehenfive of the Doctor's uncommon man
ner of fetting Things off, with great advantage
to his Caufe, and as great detriment to Truth.
Two Reafons are intimated, in the Query, why
his claim to Antiquity ought to have the lefs
Force with confidering Men: Firft, Becaufe
He lays claim to our Church's Forms ; which
every common Reader may fee, are directly
againft Him ; And Secondly, Becaufe, notwith
ftanding his appeal to Antiquity, He is wifer
than to put the Matter upon that Iffue. He
endeavors to leffen the Efteem of the Antients,
all the while that He prefumes They are on his
fide (A fure Mark that He fiifpects Them) and
is fecuriqg a Retreat when They fail Him ; as
they certainly will, whenever ftrictly inquired
into. I would leave it with any difeerning
Man (who cannot examine farther into the
Merits of the Caufe) to judge, whether it be at
all likely that thofe who fpeak always con
temptibly of the Antients, and endeavor to the
utmoft to abufe and expofe Them, can reafon
ably be prefumed to have a greater Intereft iu
Them, than They who fpeak honourably and
handfomly of Them ; who defend their Chara cter,

4*4 ^DEFENSE Qu. XXVII.
cter, and have, as it were, an affectionate
Tendernels and Concern for Them, Thus
much for the fecond Reafon intimated in the
Query. As to the firft Reafon fuggefted, the
Import of it is this. If the learned Dodtbr can
efpy Arianifm in our Liturgy, or Articles,
where it certainly is not ; He may as reafon
ably be fuppofed to miftake as much, among
the Fathers. He fees, in our Liturgy, the
Dodtrine of one God the Father, indufive oi
Son and Holy Ghoft; but does not fee one
God exclufive of Both ; which is his Dodtrine.
He finds a Subordination of Order taught in
our publick Forms ; but does not find any Sub
ordination or Inferiority of Nature; which
is his Principle. And yet, upon thefe flight
Grounds, He feruples not to fay , that the
*main Branches of his own Dodtrine are exr
prefiy affirm'd in our Liturgy ; meaning, by a
tacite Confequence of his own making. And
fince this Confequential , that is, Imaginary
Countenance is ali that He can claim from our*
Liturgy ; and all that He really means, when
He fays the Church's Forms are on his fide ;
poffibly He may mean no more, when He
fpeaks of the Fathers. The generality of Rea
ders, it may be, underftand Him, as if He had
intended to fay, that the Ante-Nicene Writers
efpecially, had declared againft rhe Co-eternity
and Confubftantiality of the Son, the Points
in Queftion : But I humbly conceive, He in-
* Script. Doftr. p. 379. firft; Ed. tended

Qu.XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 415-
tended no more than this, that the Ante-Ni
cene Writers have declared fomething, which,
He really believes, does by Confequence de-
.ftroy the Confubftantiality, &c. though, at the
fame time, thofe Writers admitted no fuch Con
fequence; but exprefly, and conftantly difovvn-
ed it. This is all that He can mean, with re
fpect to our Liturgy ; and therefore, probably,
all He does mean, in refpedt of the other ; or,
however, certain I am, that it is all He fhould
mean. Now you fee the full of my Argument.
If it look invidious, I cannot help it ; I am
perfwaded it is juft; and I think it of as much
Importance to our Readers to have the Matter
fairly ftated, as it is that Truth may not be
fmother'd ; nor any ftrefs laid upon the Doctor's
Citations, beyond what They do really bear.
The learned Dodtor owns, as to Toft-Nicene
Fathers, that They are, in the whole, againft
Hini. And He fliould have own'd as much of
the generality, at leaft, of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers too, and then He has no claim to
any thing but Concejfions ; of which He endea
vors to make the utmoft Advantage, three ways.
Firft, by making more Coneeffions than there
really are: Secondly, by reprefenting thofe
Concejfions in fo promifcuous and confufed a
Light, that a common Reader cannot readily
diftinguifli when, or where the Doctor intend
ed the full and intire meaning of an Author,
or a Concefiion only : Thirdly, by flipping his
own Conclufion upon thofe Concejfions, as if
F f They

4i 6 i DEFENSE Qu.XXVII.
They were the fame Thing ; tho' there really
is no Connexion between Them, no juft Con
fequence from one to the other. I would not
be knowingly guilty of charging the Dodtor
falfely, in thefe, or in any other Particulars, for
any Confideration; and therefore it may be
expected of me, that I explain my felf more
at large ; which accordingly I fliall do, in the
Order and Method which I have already laid
down. I. The learned Doctor has taken feveral Paf
fages for Concejfions, which are really none;
but only as He has given Them fuch a parti
cular Air and Afpedt; either by prefacing
Them, and holding out a falfe Light to the
Reader ; or by commenting upon Them ; or by
ill tranflating of Them. I fliall proceed to
Particulars ; and you muft not take it amifs, if
we call upon you to return us back what you
have unfairly wrefted from us.
Scripture-Doctrine , Pag. 3 . The Doctor pro
duces a Paffage of Athanafius, part of which,
fo far as concerns us, you fee in the * Margin;
with fo much farther as is neceffary to clear the
Senfe of the Author. The Doctor's Verfion
runs thus: " For He (the Father) is the one
" God, and the only One, and the Firft. And
* E15 yag ©205 £) /4S*©" »£ -tfa-rc, i^V osv, tic, avctigariv «J'i(«
Xzyt-Tuf pvi ysvotro. isi jttp (£ atjTt,c <yj tm in, tc, orgwTw, k, [Asvm, u$
tS 'Evoc. j£ Mow x^ njaTB if fi^t®- Aoy©°, icj (rtlftcc, (c cnnAvyta-ptt.
0' v. %<n ol Hg^ ttcZtoc. j£ kvto$ , fr^g&psc T'vic, tab kfqtis yaj p&vw
Sio-wTO',, oA®-- xai TrXf^.c, d'i ©s»'s. Athanaf. 3. Orat Contr. Arian.
p. ^¦j6. Ed. Bened.
- " yet

Qu.XXVH. of fome QUERIES. 417
" yet thefe Things do not defiroy the Divi*
" nity of the Son. This rendring is flat and
low ; and neither anfwers the intent, nor Let
ter of the Author. Owe tis ivaigww, .literally ,
is, not to exclude the Son : plainly meaning,
not to exclude Him from being the one God,
and the only One, and the Firft, together with
the Father. And fo Athanafius interprets Him
felf, in the Words immediately following : For
He (the Son) alfo is ^gat©-, the Firfi, the
fullnefs of the Godhead of Him who is the
Firft, and only God. You'l obferve that the
Dodtor renders eWctu>«o7*aj as if it had been
a.-7roLvycxcrnx rh Sijhis , Brightnefis of -Glory :
Which is again concealing and ftifling the Senfe
of the Author. Athanafius intended to fignify
the Son's iffuing ox fir earning forth, as it wTere,
from the Father's Subftance, as Light from the
Sun; which meaning is loft and funk in the
Doctor's Tranflation. You fee then that this
Paffage, when rightly underftood , is intirely
againft the Doctor ; and therefore ought not to
be reckon'd amongft Concejfions.
Let us go on to another, in the very fame page,
alias o. 4^. (the Paffage you have in the * Mar
gin.) The Dodtor renders it thus: " The true,
"God, who is moft ftrictly and abfolutely fuch,'
"even the Father of Chrift. Here the Englifh
Reader muft needs think that, if the Father be
moft ftrictly , He is more ftrictly God than
* T«» ocXvd-ivov x«< ovms ivm Ot", tcv t£ Xg/i?»u Tttn'o*. Athan.
Contr. Gent. p. 9. F f z Chrift

4i3 ^DEFENSE Qu. XXVII.
Chrift is: Efpecially when nothing appears in the
PafTage to compare the Father with, but Chrift.
Under this view, indeed, the Paffage cited is a
very great Concefiion : But, in the Greek, there
is no Concejfion at all. The juft and literal ren-
dring of the Paffage is this : The true God who
in reality is fuch, namely, the Father of Chrift.
You muft know, that Athanafius is here exhort
ing the Gentiles to turn from their dumb Idols,
ro ferve the living God., In oppofition to what
He calls * cht <*&, Things which have no real
or but precarious Exiftence, or \cbt onm roiaZ-
Ttt, Things which were not fuch as the Heathens
imagined, i. e. not divine, He advifes Them to
come over to the Father of Chrift; whole pro
perty it is to exift in reality, and who is truly
and \ ftrictly 'God; This is no more than Athana
fius would have faid of the Son ; and | indeed has
laid, (in other wTords)in that very Treatife; and
rherefore you may pleafe to ftrike this Paffage
alfo out of the Number of Coneeffions.
The learned Doctor goes on, in the fame
way (pag 4) And in another Paffage, inftead
oi far above all created Being (which the
Greek Words fignify, and which is rhe certain
meaning of the Author) He chufes to fay faf
uliove all derivative Being; infinuating to his
Reader as if the Son were to be included un
der derivative Being; than which nothing
* Vid. Athanaf. ibid. p. 7, 8. f Athanaf, p, 27.
^ 'O S\ ©to?, ui \<n, i(af & mt(yi-r&J. eto £ 0 thtis A11J95. u'v i<n,
v,c/u\ £ awfy-nc., «*A' iii £ psvoy,n,c &101 , ac ujc&oc, toi sav-
imi My/>, i(£t &VTai ern QiS, m» tApTmortv sJg.x.vQigia <? KoiS-l'pioiv.
Atkan. Contr. Cent. p. 49, -, ' /Mvt

Qu. XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 419
can be farther from the Senfe of the Author, in
that very Page ,- as I have obferved * before, on
another occafion. All the Concejfion that is
there, lies only in the Dodtor's Tranflation, aud
the Turn He gives to it in the Sequel : Atha
nafius himfelf has granted nothing that can do
you any Service ; at leaft, not in that Paffage,
and therefore let that alfo return to us again.
Pag. ^g. (a lias jo.) The Doctor cites a PafTage
oi Eufebius; which, He fays, expreffes the un
animous Senfe of the Catholick Church : And
it may be true, as it lies in Eufebius. But, as
it is reprefented in the Doctor's Tranflation, ex
cluding the Son from any proper Efficiency in
the Work of Creation, it is diametrically oppofite
to the unanimous Senfe of the Antients, and to
Eufebius too; as hath been fliown above f.
Pag. ioq, 10 1. (alias oz.) The learned Dodtor
has two Citations from Chryfoftom and Bafil;
who interpret the Texts, of Tower, as the Do
ctor alfo does oiTower. But if the Doctor means
one thing by Tower, and They another, and the
fdeas be intirely different ; their Interpretation
and his muft be as different a$ the Ideas are ;
And it is not fair to quote them as agreeing in
the Thing, when they agree only in the Name.
I have £ before took notice how the Doctor dealt
with Chryfoftom, in order to conceal the good
Father's true meaning. I fliall here obferve, how
He perverts Bafil's Senfe, by a fmall and feena-
* Qu. l}. p- 201. f Qu. 1 1. P- 183. £ Qu. 23. p. 368.
F f 3 »ngly

430 i DEFENSE Qu. XXVII.
ingly flight Turn in his Tranflation. * Bafil's
Words are '{<ru xcl\ mu-rs \$.TcL SbvaLyuv. That is,
Equal and the very fame, in refpeB of Tower.
%The Doctor drops equal, which would havedif-
^covered Bafil's meaning ; and renders it, One
and the fame in Tower. And thus Bafil's Words,
which are utterly repugnant to the Dodtor's Hy
pothefis, are improved into a Concefiion in favor
of ir.
Pag. i ox. (alias 94 ) He gives us a low and
lame Conftruction ofa noble Paffage in f Irena
us. The Words, ?oitz* to fux.cv i, 'tvh^ov, He ren
ders, in a divine and glorious Manner : The
true rendringis, in his divine and glorious Char
ratter : Namely , that which He had as God,
and Son of God. Irenaus, in that Chapter, is
reprefenting the Son as acting at different Times,
in a different Character or Capacity. When He
appeared to the Tatriarchs, then He acted in
his higheft Capacity, in his divine Character.
What that Character is, \ Irenaus explains,
a little above, in the fame Chapter : It is, as He
is rhe Word , the Framer (or Maker) of all
* "ZaCpac. to iv, krn Toi lira x«i tzcvtS xutcI Juvapiv Tmgct,>Mp-
Qavm. Bafil- Contr. Eun- 1. i. p. 35-.
+ Kcsi ciutoc. eh 0 Aoy®- too &iou tcIc u,h irpa Meoi'tnaic r.«.TP/.at-
Xaii, xaTct to irzix-eii %c/j isiitov ap.Xei- 7-015 di iv to) vapu, Hpasn-
Knv  tk'|w dxivtpiv, ptTot, c% TctOTO, "Avfyfan-©* $001$/.©-, 8cc.
Iren. 1. 3. c. 1 1. p. 191.
£ 'O T aTrarmv Ti%vi-mi Aoy©", 0 jiaS-iJ^^ im tuv Xe««£</*> %
vvvixm tu, 7rot,<nu. Iren. p. 190
'Ato tou TTdTgrji iryspovix-w kotS  xai tvfb%ov yinav.
Ulam qua: eft a Patre, principalem, 8c efficabilem, 8c gloriofam
penerationem ejus enarrat, diccns lie, in principio erat Verbum,' &
Vitbum erat apud Deum. & Deus erat Verbum, Et omnia per ipfum
faff a funt, & fine ipfo fail am eft nihil, Jren. p. 191.

Qu. XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 431
Things, who fitteth upon the Cherubims and
containeth all Things, who is the Son of God,
and God. This fhows what is meant by the ti
Bitxov x, eVJo^and, at the fame time, fhows that,
according ro Irenaus, rhe Ao'y@", who is God,
then acted in his own proper Character, and
not in the Terfon of the Father only, which
the Dodtor would infer from this Paffage.
For it muft be obferved that the Son was Oils
(Joh. 1. 1.) before rhe Time that He is fuppofed
by the Dr. to have adted h (Mgp* ®ioZ, as God's
reprefent ative : and it is of that Antecedent
Character Irenaus fpeaks, as is plain from his re
ferring to Joh. 1.1.
Pag. 11 f. (alias 106.) He cites a place of^^-
Jiin Martyr, where He renders the Words, which
you fee in rhe * Margin, thus. "It was not God
" the Creator of rhe Univerfe, which then faid to
" Mofes, that He was the God oi Abraham,
" and the God oi Ifaac, and the God oi Jacob,
An uncautious Reader might imagine from this
Paffage, put into this View, that the Son is not
God abfolutely, nor Creator of the Univerfe,
according ro Juftin. But the meaning is, that
That divine Perfon, who called Himfelf God,
and was God, was not the Perfon of the Father
(whofe ordinary Character is that of Maker of
all Things)but another divine Perfon, via. God
the Son. The unlearned Reader fliould be told,
* Ojx ° IU! T «**" 'J3*' ®.l*S ' T4 Mftio-«r n'^WV ttUTOV lIVXj ©40t>
'f&cocUp, ru ©so* 'left,*"-' >$ &"' ''**•«• Juftin. Mart. Dial. 180.
Jebb.
F f 4 that

431 i DEFENSE Qo.XXVII.
that what is here faid by Juftin, was in difpute
with a Jew, who would not acknowledge more
divine Perfons than One. It was Juftin's Bufi
nefs to fhow, that there was a divine Perfon, ,
one who was God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jap,
cob, and was not the Father; and therefore there
were two divine Perfons. The learned Dodtor,
upon his Principles, could not, in that way have
confuted the Jew; fo far as I apprehend of Jur
ftinh Argument : For the Jew might reply that
it was an Angel fpeaking in the Terfon of God;
and that therefore the Father only was God
notwithftanding. But Juftin infifts upon it, that
there was another Perfon, befides the Father,
who was really God of Abraham, &c. If this
is to be taken for a Concefiion, it may be eafily
feen on what Side it is.
Pag. 1 1 6. (alias 108.) The Doctor does not do
Juftice to Hilary. Inftead of called Lord and
God, which is diminutive, it fliould have been,
declared to be Lord and God -• But this may ap
pear flight. Such another flight inaccuracy ap
pears in his affecting to tranflate God his Father,
inftead oi God the Father (p. 104. 179.) which
however fhows too much leaning to a Caufe ; and
helps to convey a falfe Idea to theEngliJhKeadexs,
Fag.ip. (alias zio.) He has a long Citation
from Novatian ; in which all proceeds fo fair
and plaufible, that a Reader, already poffefs'd
with the Doctor's Scheme, and carrying it in his
jiead, may think that every Thing falls in UatUt
|aljywith it, But^t lengthy the Doctor Comes to.
fforue

Qu. XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 435
* fome crofs Words, and fuch as, if fuffered to
appear, would have made the Reader conftrue all
backwards, and have given quite another Light
to all that goes before or after. Here He flops
fhort, breaks off in the middle of a Sentence,
paftes over the oftenfive Words, draws a Line,
skips to the next Sentence, and goes gravely on
to amufe his Reader. A Writer is not to be
blamed, in fome Cafes, for taking what is to his
purpofe, and omitting the reft : But, as the Cafe
is here, the beft and, indeed, only Light to di>
redt the Reader to the true meaning of what is
cited, is left out. The word 'Divinity, for
inftance (which occurrs twice in that Paffage)
an Englifh Reader will be apt to take in the
Doctor's Senfe ; and indeed can hardly do other-
wife: But had the whole appeared, He coul4
not but fee how much the Doctor is miftaken.
I muft obferve to you, that (/ 336, 337.) the
Dodtor deals with Novatian, and this very
PafTage, almoft in the fame manner, again:
Excepting that growing a little bolder, He takes
more freedom in his Tranflation. Mind the
Words (P-3 37-) By the Son in f acknowledg
ment return'd; and compare, per Subftantia
Communionem, a little before. Novatian, in this
* Unus Deus oftenditur Verus & /Eternus Pater, a quo Solo Haec
vis Divinitatis emifTa, etiam in Vilium tradita & direBa rurfum per
Subftantia Communionem ad Patrem revolvitur. Deus quidem often
ditur Filius cui Divinitas tradita & porrefta confpicitur, 8c tamen
nihilominus unus Deus Pater probatur, Novat. c. ji.
f The Latin is, reciproco meatu ilia majeftas atque divinitas ad
Patrem qui dederat earn rurfurn. ab illo ipfo Filk| miffa revertitur
& retdrqaetur. Ibid, ?• ?i. place,

434 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXVII.
place, had no thought oi Acknowledgments, nor
any thing like it: But was intent upon quite
another Thing ; explaining and illuftrating, as
well as He was able, the Union and Commu
nion oi Subftance in Father and Son; and fliow
ing how all recurs to one Head and Fountain :
On which account the Father might be reafon
ably ftiled the one God, in as much as the Son
is fo intimately one with Him, as to be reokon'd,
in a manner, to Him, and not another God from
Him. It is all but one Divinity, or divine
Subftance, of the Father in Both.
Pag.x5*4. We may obferve another Turn, by
way of Tranflation. The * Greek you may fee
in the Margin, which the Doctor renders rhus:
" That Jefus Chrift, our Lord and God incar-
" nate, is not the Father, nor, as the Sabel-
*' Hans would have it (that fame Perfon who
" is ftiled) the only God; This the HolyScri-
" ptures every where Teftify. The literal and
plain Tranflation is thus : That Jefus Chrift,
our Lord and God incarnate, is not the Fa
ther, nor (in the Sabellian Senfe) the only
God, the Holy Scriptures every where Teftify.
This meaning, you fee, is clear, plain, and eafy,
without the Doctor's Erabarafmeuts ; and is
undoubtedly the true Senfe of the Author. But
fuch a hint as this might have made an unlucky
difcovery to the Reader ; Namely, that a Man
* O-n '-) o o-hokoi^ic ICtig*©- «j ©105 %puv *I»)aiS« X&fs»s • n«7-»p
evx, »<"iv, icr', lie, qmsivoi Qeuiv, 0 pgv@* ©soi;, inrnraf patiugoinv */
S-iitf yecf.<pta. Athan. Contr. Sabell. p. 47.
may

Qu.XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 43?
may believa the Son to be the only God, with
out being a Sabellian.
In the fame Page, The Dodtor has another
Quotation from Athanafius ( if that Treatife
be his) which, had He gone on but a few Words
farther, would have appeared Contradictory
to the purpofe for which it was brought.
" * There is but one God, becaufe one Father;
"but the Son alfo is God, having a famenefs
" with the Father, as a Son ; not that He is the
" Father Himfelf ; but in Nature united with the
" Father ; two indeed in Number, but one in-
" tire Effence. This is the whole Sentence lite
rally tranflated ; and the Senfe of it is clear. The
cutting it into halves, only to reprefent one
part under another View, is not giving the
Senfe of a Writer, but making one for Him.
P. ztjf. (alias xii.) The Doctor cites ano
ther Paffage from Athanafius ; and by the Turn
He gives it, ftifles the true Senie of the Author,
" f The word has no other fort of Divinity,
" but that which He derives from the only
" God, as being begotten of Him.
The true Conftruction is This :
" The Word has no other kind of Divinity, but
" that of the only God; becaufe He is begot-
" ten of Him. The plain meaning is, that the
* El? ©SOS, OTJ >£ 7T*TV$ Ltlf QtOC, C% <& 'tAOC, TOUTOTIITa. ££»», III '1)05
«£?5 irovripy ant, ainoe, uv i irctTrf, otM' ivapiv'S- T£js T imTigtp,
ty, <tu<r{- 0W0 piv agiSpJ, pint. & »«o"» «wn« tiXim. Athan. Contr.
Sabell. p. 41. , , , , „ ,
f Mwv aopv ol'&iptv, lit it hpusoyo* Aoy« (jtctmoptv x% erigov
mot. t^tiov sxieiv Sto-m-m, ii ^ i? ps*x ©«£> a/* ro i\ aire mtpvxivq.
Atha,!}. Contr. Arian, Orat. j. p. JG> Ed. Bened,
God-

4|6 A DEFENSE Qu. XXVII.
Godhead of Father and Son is all one : Direct
ly contrary to what the Dodtor cites the Paffage
for. After I had wrore this, I found that the
Doctor Himfelf (p.^xy. alias i??.) had tranf-
lated the Sentence in the very fame Words that
I have done ; excepting his putting derived (in-
ftead of begotten) which might convey a low
Idea to his Reader. I3ut, not content with
that, for fear a fagacious Reader fliould chance
ta difeover the true Senfe of the Author, He
inferts a Note upon, Divinity; interpreting it
{divine Tower) in Contradiction to the Au
thor's known ordinary Senfe of Smths, as we\\
as to the Context. ^
P. 2 5 6. (alias 2,1 3 )He cites* Gregory Nazi-
mzen, and tranftates Him thus : " There is
*'¦ but one God ; the Son and the Holy Ghoft
*•- being referr'd to the one Caufe. But then He
adds a Note, which confounds all: Namely, fays
He, as being divine Terfons by whom the one
God, or one Caufe and Original of allThings,
made and governs the World. Right ; if We
are to teach the Fathers how to fpeak: But
what faid Gregory Nazianzen ? It is this: "Wq
*' may, as I conceive, preferve (the Doctrine
1,1 of) one God, by referring hoth the Son and
** Holy Ghoft to one Caufe, without Compo-
*•' fition, or Confufion ; and by afferting (as I
* 1>«0~7T> ^* CIV, iii 0 IpSi A«y®", £45 p)v ©SOJ, «; £, «*7J0)> >£ *l|5
tytf ¦ytviu'f{cM'^'-a,viit,(pigoptvuv a mvifyptvoit. xii aiiVxXfi<f>apiyeiW ifgq
*''a t» sv. £) tuvto '? §io-n)T&J, tvcc outo, oiopoum, xivypos n >(#a
$v*n,isi, «j •&*> x xoieu ratWi^S:, Greg. Naz. prat. 23. p. 400*
|d, Parii; •' " rna^

Qu XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 43?
" may fay) one and the fame Movement; and
*' Will of the Godhead, together with Satnends
' ' of Effence. Here is not a Syllable about the
one God's governing the World by his Son and
his Spirit; which, tho' a true Notion, is not
fufficient to account for the 'Unity ; nor is it
Gregory's Account of it, as the Reader muft
have imagined from the Doctor's Comment.
P. 313. ([alias z^z.) The learned Doctor by
wrong Pointing, and Miftranflating, perverts a
Paffage oi Juftin Martyr. But 1 have explain'd
and vindicated the true Senfe of it * elfewhere.
P. 325.(^/^293.) He produces an excellent
Paffage of Irenaus, and tranflates it juftly*
But rearing it might found too high, He fub-
joins a leffening Note, to draw off the Reader's
Thoughts. " This Paffage (fays He) is parallel
" to Thofe wherein He calls the Son and Spirit
" the Hands of the Father, namely, executing
" his Will as perfectly, as a Man?s own Hands
" perform the Will of the Man. But why may
it not be rather parallel to thofe Paffages
wherein the Author fays, the Son and Holy
Spirit are (in a qualified Senfe) the very Self
of the Father 1 They are here called his own
Off-fpring, and his own Figure, and all the
Angels are faid to ferve and do obey fiance to
Them. Does not this found fomething higher
than executing the Father's Will, however /w-
fectly ? Or, than the low Metaphor about a
Man, and his Hands, as the Doctor reprefents
* Qu. 8. p.XJl. ,
Xtf

438 /DEFENSE Qu.XXVll.
it? True, Irenaus, and many other of the Fa
thers, ufe that Expreffion, which They took
from Scripture ; but They underftood a great
deal more by it ; The fame as by * $wa./ui$, or
virtus, the mighty Tower oi God, and God
Himfelf. In the fame Page, He cites another excellent
Paflage of f Irenaus ; and I am glad to have
this Opportunity of fetting before the Reader,
in its true Light, fo illuftrious a Teftimony of
a Co-eternal and Co-effential Trinity. The
literal Tranflation of the Greek may run thus':
lf Man being created and fafhion'd, is made
" after the Image and Likenefs of the uncreat-
" ed God: The Father defigning and giving
" out Orders ; the Son executing and creating;
*' the Holy Ghoft fupplying Nutriment and
" Increafe. Here you'l obferve, that the joint
Operations of the three divine Perfons, con
curring in the Creation of Man, are fet forth
in fuch a Manner, as to intimate both the di-
ftindt Perfonality, and Unity of Effence. That
Irenaus fuppofed the three Perfons to be the
one kymvrns ©?oj, or eternal God, here fpoken
of, may appear; i. From his introducing the
three Perfons immediately after, as Explanatory
* Vid. TertuU. Contr. Hermog- c. 4f. Eufeb in Pfalm. p.
701,711. Athanaf. p. 214.880. Ed. Bened. Hieron. Tom. 4.
p, 49. Ed. Bened. Bafil. Contr. Eunom. 1. 5. p. 1 1 1.
"f "O ytvrnToc, ii, imcXoxr ptvoc, ' AvScomroc, x*t' tt'n$vx >& opoiao-.v S?
ijjunjris >«eTOf ©ss' 'S piv 9rotT$o<; luhixSil^- s£ jmAed'oJ]®-', j? H 'vfc
*!re,ucsov\©- 4? o\pntoy>s«T<&', JF 0% aW,^©- i$L(pot\(&- >£ ah\ovl®-.
Iren. 1- 4. c. 38- p. zSf.
Of

Qu. XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 439
of it a. 2. From b his underftanding Gen. 1.2S.
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, Let Us
make, and alfo, after Our Image, fo that the
Image of any one is the Image of all. 3 . From
Irenaus's other known Principles ; his affert
ing the Son to be infectus, or ky'vnvrm •, (un
created) and fuppofing the Son and H. Ghoft,
to be the c Self oi the Father; and fpeaking of
Father and Son together, as one God. 4. From
feveral Hints, in the fame Chapter, all confirm
ing this Senfe. One Character of the kymi\Tos%
there given, is rlhuos: The fame Charadter is,
in the fame Chapter, d applied to the Son, in
the fame Senfe. All Things, but the kyimj-ns,
are faid to be in e Subjection : among which
Things, Irenaus can never be fuppofed to in
clude the Son and Holy Spirit. And farther,
every thing that is not, kymvtros, comes fhort
of Perfection, according ro f Irenaus; who, at
the fame time, afferts the Perfection of the Son,
as before faid. Thefe Things confider'd, the
meaning of Irenaus, in this Paffage, appears to
be, that the three divine Perfons are one eternal,
or uncreated God, as alfo one Creator- How
then came the Dodtor to cite fuch a Paffage,

. ax.

a Compare a Paffage of Hippolytus cited above, p. :
b Manus Dei ad quas pater loquens, dicit, Faciamus Hominem
nd Imaginem & Similttudinem Nostram. Iren. 1. 5. c. 1. p 293.
Idem ipfe qui ab initio plafmavit Adam, cum quo 8c loquebatur
Pater: Faciamus Hominem fecundum Imaginem & Similitudinem
Nostram. \. j. c. if. p. 3 11. Vid. 8c 1. 4. c. 20. p. if 3.
c Lib. 2. c. 30, p. 163.^
d 'TlO? TOO QlOV TltelOC. UV. p. 284. f
e T« it Aoimo 5T«v§6 c'» vsnmy^ ptv{ tx ©smu p. »8f .
}' KaS-s it pi «5ip Uytrttrm, *«•» t*t> i h&gxvj v nte's. p. 183;
which

440 -if DEFENSE Qu.XXVII.
which threatens nothing but Ruine and Deftru-
ction to his Principles ? The Cafe is this : The
learned Doctor, by a ftrange over-fight, read
tw a* ©<&> iuftead of ry i& rietTgo?, tho' Both the
Greek and the old Lat in agree in this laft Read
ing. This Alteration, in the Text, fpoils all
the Elegance, and alters the whole Turn of the
Sentence: Befides this* the Doctor tranflates
kyimru, unbegotten, inftead of unmade; not
obferving the Antithefis, between ywnxU " hi-
Jpanros, and kyimra ©eS, nor attending to, In
fect i Dei, in the old Tranflation ; which might
have fet Him right. Thus far I have gone on
with fome of the Doctor's Quotations ; but give
me leave to ftep back for a few more, which I
have overlook'd.
P. 308. (aliaszySi) The learned Doctor pro
duces a Paffage of * Bafil, which He renders
thus; very furprizingly. " Wc affirm that ac-
" cording to the natural Order of Caufes and
*' Effects, rhe Father muft have the pre-emi-
" nence before the Son. Whoever heard be
fore, from any Catholick, that the Son was au
Effect of the Father? Could Bafil fay this? If
the Dodtor would but have fuffer'd the very
next immediate Words, which make part of the
Sentence, to appear, They would have unde
ceived his Reader. The literal Conftrudtion of
the whole Sentence is this : * ' We do indeed allow,
* 'ilpiTc. o\, xcna piv tVa tuv oti-nm irpqc, tu, i\ avrZv viiru,
/sttSTnuvfrcq !? 'you t oTdTigos, (papiv xx-m « n,v <? '(pvesuc. sJg,tpogocvM
>iKiv,icYixx,TK tjjk tS jjfo'>s UKrsfo^v. Balil Contr. Eun. 1. 1. p. 31.
that,

QuXXVII. of fome QUERIES. 44r
that, in refpect of the natural Order of
(Emanative) Caufes and Things iffuing from
them, the Father is Trior in Order to the
Son: But as to any Difference in Nature, or
Triority of Time, we allow no fuch Thing.
Bafil had juft before * explain'd what He meant
by the Father's being Trior in order of Cau-
fality, by the Inftance of Fire, and Light
dreaming from it.
Pag. 317. (aliasz%5.~) The Dodtor has ano
ther Citation from t Bafil, which He renders
thus : " Therefore our Lord faith, all mine are
" thine, as referring to the Father, the original
" Caufe of all Things : And thine are mine ;
" as fignify ing that from the Father was derived
" to Him the Power of producing Things. The
true Rendring is thus, very near the Letter.
" Therefore our Lord faith, all mine are
" thine, in as much as the Original of the
" Creatures is referr'd up to the Father: And
" thine are mine, in as much as the Power of
" Creating defcends from Him, to the Son.
That is, with his Effence, as Bafil explains
it a little after. The Dodtor, I prefume, did
not care that his Reader fliould know, how
clearly Bafil diftinguiflies the Son from the
* "Est 7» tu\u>c uhc, one cm -r5 srosp ipSv D-ttnvc aonsuftiBm, &»?
airy rjj wiu Qoo-tv ouyteSic* uupZeuvov, uc, to swfi srfoj To/<p3i lit
to i\ ocutou. Ibid. p. 30. f t . , . , \
f Ai* tStb <pw» '» nogi©*, tu t[& -navm im Isik, «« Iff (xorov T?(
*?%K T htpixoynparmv kva<ppi'm> ii, tu. cm ipy., us OMet^it xdroS
-r5 ocmoLc. tou JupusgytTv xaf^ximn . Bafil. de Sp. SancT:. c. 8. ;p. 16 1.
It feems from what follows, that mtoJ, rather than «6tZ, is the
Reading. G g (Anifuap-

441 ^ DEFENSE Qu. XXVII.
(Ajj/w«jryV*&") Creatures; and not only fo,
but fuppofes the Creatures of the Father to be
Creatwes of the Son likewife. The Doctor in
tended fomething by all Things, in one place,
and Things only, in the other. But Bafil is
unconcern'd in ir.
I may juft take notice, how particularly fond
the learned Doctor is of the Phrafe, was produced
(See p. 275". 277. 28 1. 291.) which He ufesfre-
quentiy, without any warrant from the Authors
He tranflates ; and for no other reafon, thatl
can fee, but becaufe it is apt to convey a low
Idea (the Idea of a Creature, tho' the Doctor
does not like the name) to the Englifh Reader.
I fliall proceed no farther in this Article, hav
ing, given Inftances enough to fhow that fome
Abatements and Allowances fliould be made us,
for fuch Coneeffions, as are - really no Coneef
fions in the Authors Themfelves. Upon the
whole, one might really wTonder that the
learned Doctor, who had fo wide a Field of
Antiquity to range in, and was only to
pick out fuch Pafiages, as running in general
, Terms, or taken feparately , might be naatle
to appear under fuch a View as He intended,
fliould produce no more; but be forc'd even
to wreft and torture feveral of thofe He had
found, by prefacing, commenting, and tranf
lating, to accommodate Them at length hardly,
and after great Reluctance, to his Purpofe.
You will fay, perhaps, that the Doctor fets light
by the Fathers, and lays no ftrefs upon Them ;
I fliall

Qu. XXVII. of fome QU E R I E S. 443
I fliall believe you, when He fairly gives them
up. At prefent, it muft be thought that They
are efteem'd of fome Moment, when a Book is
fluffed with Quotations out of Them, and fo
much pains taken to make Them any way for-
viceable. One that fets fo great a value upon
the meer appearance and fhadow of Antiquity,
can hardly be fuppofed to flight the Thing it
felf: If the learned Dodtor is fo well contented
with Concejfions only, fhatch'd, in a manner,
and extorted from the Antients ; how would
He have rejoyced to have found Them come
heartily, readily, and throughly into his Scheme,
as They do into Ours ?
II. But fuppofing all the Doctor's Quotations
from the Toft Nicene, or Ante-Nicene Writers!
had been at leaft real and full Concejfions; yet
there is fomething fo peculiar in this new way
'of quoting Concejfions, without taking notice
of what fliould come in to explain, or ballance
Them, that we have reafon to except againft
it, as not a fair way of dealing.
1 . Becaufe, tho' the learned Dodtor does give
notice in his Preface, that we are not to take
the Opinion of the Authors, in the whole, from
thofe Quotations ; yet many may happen to
read the Book without confidering, or remem-
bring a fliort hint in the Preface ; and fo may
lay a greater ftrefs upon thofe Authorities than
the Doctor intended.
2. Becaufe the Doctor no where (in Scripture-
^Doctrine) gives any Marks of Diftindticn for an
G g 2 ordinary

444 ^DEFENSE Qu.XXVH.
ordinary Reader to underftand, where He in
tended a Conceffion only of an Author, and
where his intire Opinion; where He agreed
with the Dodtor in part only, and where in
the whole. Inftead of this, He rarely lets his
Englifh Reader fee more of any Paffage, than
may appear to comport with, arid favour his
own Hypothefis ; either ftriking out what might
have difcover'd it to be a Conceffion in parr, or
difguifing it in his Tranflation, or explaining it
away, by his prefacing it, or commenting up
on it. Befides, fince Authors have very feldom,
if ever, been cited in this manner (by Men of
Character) in favour of fuch Principles as They
really difown'd and rejected in the main ; Rea
ders will be apt to carry that Prefiimption and
Prejudice along with Them ; and a fhort Ad-
verrifefnent in rhe Preface, will not be fufficient
to prevent it.
3. Another reafbn againft this Method is, that
ir gives a Handle to many to boa't of the nu
merous Collections cf Dr. Clarke againft the
Received Doctrine. See (befides others) the
'Diffwafive from inquiring into ths Doctrine
of the Trinity (p. 28.) where this very ufe. is
made of it. By this means, Truth is darken'd,
Evidences perplex'd, and the common Readers
rather puzzled and confounded, than let into
the true State of the Fact ; fo far as relates to
the Judgment of the Antients.
4. It fhould be confider'd that the moral
Obliquity and Turpitude of mifquoting or mif-
repre-

Qu.XXVH. of fome QUERIES. 445
reprefenting Authors, confifts in this : That it
¦is a means to deceive the Simple, to furprize
the Unwary and Unlearned .(who muft, or will
receive Things upon Truft) it is taking Ad
vantage of the blind. Side. of Human Nature, lay
ing a Snare for fuch Readers (perhaps Ninety-
nine in a Hundred) as read not with due Care
and Thought, I do not fee but this very Me
thod of the Doctor's (tho' He has endeavor'd
to leffen the Scandal of it) is big with'all this
Mifchief. He has indeed given notice; and
wife Men and Scholars would have been fecure
enough without it : Others will not be fo, with
it : And therefore He is ftill to take Advantage
of the Ignorance of one, the Partiality of ano
ther, the Forgetfulnefs ofa third, the Credulity,
Simplicity, Haft, and Inadvertency of as many
as come unprepared and unfurnifh'd to the read
ing his Citations. The Thing it felf, you may
perceive, is equally mifchievous, however gilded
over with fpecious Pretences. And. there's no
more in it than this: Mifreprefentation pra-
ctis'd, and at the fame time, feemingly defend
ed; and (tho' the learned Dodtor does not per
ceive it) it is really nothing elfe but contriving
a way how to reconcile (if poffible) a good
Name, and an ill Thing rogether.
$. It might be of ill Example, fliould this
method of citing Authors (never before ufed by
good and great Men) grow into Vogue. A
Romanift, for inftance, might, in this way, un
dertake to defend fome of the Ro)nifh Tenets.
6 g 3 It

446 i DEFENSE Qu.XXVH.
It would be eafy for Hfm to make a numerous
Colledtion of Teftimonies frorfi the Fathers';
and as much to the purpofe, as the Doctor's
Collection is. Two Inconveniences He might
forefee ; one to his own Character, Upon dif-
co very ; the other to his Caufe, beCaufe His
own Citations might be turn'd againft Him. To
obviate the former, He might declare before
hand, that " He did not cite places out Of thefe
" Authors fo much to fhow whattyas theOpi-
" riion of the Writers themfelves, as to flioW
" how naturally Truth fometimes prevails by
" its own native Clearnefs: And to obviate
fhe latter; He might fay, He alledged the Tefti
monies not as Troofs, but as Illuftrations only.
Thus the Writer rnight feem to come off pretty
baridfomly : , But, in the mean while, the Un
learned and unthinking might be led afide by
the fair fhow' cf Authorities; and all the Re
medy left for them is, Si Topulus vult decipi,
decipiatur. Thefe are nay prefent Sentiments
of the Nature and Tendency of this newT and
extraordinary Method of Citing ; which, how
ever, I fliall be very glad to alter, if I fee any
good Reafon for it. To me it feems that it
ought never to be practis'd, tho' to ferve the
beft Caufe in the World.
III. After all, I muft obferve to yoU, fuppofing
the Method to have been ever fo fair, and- the
Concejfions both many and real, the Doctor has
ftill failed in his main point, of making but the
Importance of thofe Concejfions, to the Caufe in
Hand.

QuvXXVH. of fome QUERIES. 447
Hand. There the Strefs fhould have been laid:
We did not want to know what Concejfions the
Fathers, in general, had made; being ready at any
Time to make the fame Concejfions : But fhow us
the Connexionbetween thefe Concejfions, and the
Doctor's Conclufion. This is the Point which
fhould have been laboured ; and which required
all the Learning and Acutenefs which the Dodtor
is Mafter of. As thus: The Fathers afferted
the firft Terfion only to he unbegotten, or un
originate ; therefore They muft of Confequence
make the Son no more than an inferior God,
or no God. The Fathers fuppofed the Son fub
ordinate, as a Son ; therefore They muft, by ne
ceffary Confequence, deny his Confubftantiality
and Co- eternity. This was the Conclufion
which the Dodtor was to draw out of thofe
Premifes ; and fhow to be juft and true. Bur,
inftead of this, He drops the principal Thing ;
repeats indeed the Concejfions, fuch as They
are, over and over; and, by a multitude of
Words (not to fhow any certain Connexion,
but only a verbal Refemblance) He at length
flips his Conclufion into their Places. There is
really nothing more, in this Management, than
interpreting /// what the good Fathers meant
Well ; giving a low Senfe to Words and Phrafes
which They intended in a high one ; and put
ting an Arian Conftruction upon Catholick Ex-
preflions. This is all that the learned Dodtor
hath really done by the help of thofe Coneef
fions. In the fame way, a Man may quote all
Gg 4 the

448 . A DE'FIENSE Qu.XXVH.
the Concejfions of the Fathers about # proper
Sacrifice, in favor of the Sacrifice of the Mafs :
Or their Concejfions about zrealTrefonce, in:
favor qi a fubftantial Tre fence of Chrift's Body
and Blood in the Eucharift. Only, if He would
do it artfully and plaufibly, He fhould take
care to reft in generals ; and fupply what is
farther wanting, by Intimations^, and Innuendos.
This feems to have been the very Method
which the learned Doctor has taken to grace,
and fet off many of his Tropofitions ; the
9. 11, 12. 17. 34, 35, 36. 39. 43, &c. The
Concejfions there cited come not up to the
points in difpute betwixt Us, being moftly fuch
general Things as may be admitted on either
Side; and fuch as wTould not have been fufpedt-
ed to favor the Doctor's Caufe, in Oppofition
to Us, but by appearing in rhe Doctor's Book.
To make them fuit the better, the Dodtor has
form'd his Tropojitions, for the moft part, in
general, or ambiguous Terms ; content to feat-
ter Intimations of his Meaning here, and there,
as He law proper ; and to truft the reft to the
Sagacity, fliould I fay, or Weaknefs of his Rea
ders. And now, what is the refult of this Me
thod of Citing, or what does it really prove ?
I Will tell you frankly and plainly. Firft, It
proves that general Expreffions are capable of
being put into different Views, and may be
fnade to look this way, or that (taken fepa-
rately) by Men of Wit, Secondly, It proves
pas when per tjnent Authorities capnof be had.
Writers

Qu.XXVH. of fome QU E R I E S. 449
Writers in a Caufe will be content with Any.
This is all. Having feen what the learned Do
ctor's Evidence from Antiquity amounts to ; I
fliall next attend to what You have to fay in
defence of Him.
You perfift in it, that the Ante-Nicene Fa
thers and Councils  agree with the Doctor
in every Interpretation of Scripture, where
in He difagrees with the School-Notions. By
School-Notions ( a Term of Art ) I am to un
derftand the Catholick prevailing Notions of the
Bleffed Trinity. And will you pretend to fay,
that the Ante-Nicene Writers agree with the
Doctor in every Text ? How ftrangely you de
ceive your felf? Do the Ante-Nicene Writers
interpret the firft of St. John, fo as to make the
Father one God fupreme ; the Word another
God, an inferior God befides Him? This is
the Doctor's real and intended Interpretation of
it ; and your's too, however carefully you dif-
guife it. Did the Ante-Nicene Writers inter
pret the Doctor's 300 Texts, or any one of
Them, fo as to exclude the Son from being one
God with the Father ? No certainly : They
declare the contrary, and proclaim Father and
Son ro be one God. Is it poffible that the
Ante-Nicene Writers ( who underftood all rhe
Texts to be confiftent with the Son's Confub
ftantiality and Co eternity, which the Doctor
cites in Oppofition to Both) fliould interpret
the Texts as He does? Ic is too great an Af
front to common Senfe, to pretend it. But the
way

4*Q A D.EFENS E Qu.XXV^
way is this: When the Doctor produces the
Texts, He expreffes but part of his Sentiments*;
and in fuch general Words, as Catholicks land
Arians may Both agree in : And fo far He and
his Authorities go on together. Afterwards. He
comes out oi generals, bringing the Words down
to a particular referved meaning, before con
cealed (and which the Antients would have re
jected with abhorrence) and ftill He appeals
to the Antients, as agreeing with Him in his
Interpretations. Thus, for Inftance ; in inters
preting the Texts which fpeak of the Father
as the one God, He finds fome of the Antients
fey, the Father is Ainfoiost [ the Son Second on
ly, or Subordinate, God of God. Very weM's
So fays the Dodtor too : And now, who can
make any doubt whether the Antients agreed
with Him in his Interpretations? But obferve
the Sequel : When the learned Doctor comes to
explain his own Meaning of Aviv$io$, and Sub
ordinate, it appears, from many broad Hints
fcatter'd here and there, to be this ; that the
Father only is neceffarily Exifting and ftrictly
Divine-; The Son another Being, inferior in
kind (or what comes to the fame, a Creature^
directly contrary to all the Antients. Thus
you fee, while the Dodtor keeps in gene
rals, and fpeaks his mind but by Halves, He
and the Antients may agree Together ; as He
and We alfo do : But as foon as ever He comes
to Particulars, and difeovers his real and full
Sentiments, there the Antients defert Him ; as
well

CniXXVH. of fome QUERIES. 451
well as He Us. But befides this general An
fwer, give me leave to obferve that, as to fe
veral particular Texts, The Doctor has no rea
fbn to pretend that the Ante-Nicene Writers*
in general, were on his Side. Rev. 1.8. is one
erf the Doctor's Texts, which He interprets
of cthe Father: and infifts much upon it, that
the Antients applied the Title of icaJlox^iaf,
the Almighty, to the Father only. And yet
nothing more certain than that That very
Text was underftood, by the Ante-Nicene
Writers, in general, of God the Son : Catho
licks and Hereticks Both agreed in it. The
Text was urged againft the Catholicks, in the
Sdbellian Controverfy; and was as plaufible
a Text as any in the New Teftament, on the
Sabellian fide : Yet the Catholicks admitted that
it was to be underftood of God the Son; and
rsadily allowed, in Confequence of that Text,
that the Son was 0 TrWWg^T&p, The Almighty, as
well as the Father. See * Tertullian, Hippolytus,
and, probably, Origen, agreeing in this: The
Doctor has not preteuded to cite any Ante-Ni
cene, or any Antient Writer, who underftood the
Text otherwife ; tho' He makes a fhow of hav
ing the Antients in general on his fide, in this
very particular, {Script. Doctr. p. 63.) with
out proving any thing more than that the Fa-
* Tert. Contr Prax. c.17, Hippol. Contr. NOet. c.6. p.lo. Orig.
'Afls.l. i.c.2.Vid. et. Athan-p.ff4.6S4- 761- Ed. Bened. Greg. Naz.
Orat. 3f-p-f73' Andreas Ca?far: inloc.Hieron.in Zech. c. 2. p. 1718.
Epiph. Vtel. 1. p. 488. That the Son is -nuvToxooimg might be fhown
from other Texts. Pf- 24. 10. lf.6.f. Zech. i. 8. See Eufeb. Dem.
pv. 1.6. c. 16. Juft.1 Mart. Dial. p. 107. Jeb. flieron. Vo|. 3. p. f 19,
¦ »7 18. Ed,. Bened, ther

4?% A DEFENSE Qu.XX^f.
ther was ordinarily or emphatically ftiled "o
•awrejif aTO/>, which is true, but not pertinent ;
nor is it giving us the Sentiments of the An
tients, with regard to this Text ; but his own.
Job. 12. 41. is another noted Text, which the
Doctor endeavors (Script. Doctr. p. io*.) to
interpret in favour of his own Hypothefis ; and
makes a fhow of Authorities, as countenancing
Him in it. But none of his Authorities come
up to his Point : So far from it, that They are
all againft Him; as I have fufficiently proved
under 6)uery the Second, and elfewhere. The
like may be obferved of the Authorities which
He produces (p. 114, 115".) to confirm his In
terpretation oi Act. 7. 30, 31, 32. And I have,
above, fhown you as much oi Joh. 10, 30. and
other the like Texts; where you pretend to
have fome Countenance from the Antients, for
your Interpretation. Iu fhort ; there is not a Text
which the Doctor can pretend to urge in favdr
of his main Doctrine, and againft Ours ; and at
the fame time fliow that the Antients agree
with Him. As foon as ever you interpret any
Text directly againft the Divinity of Chrift, as
underftood by Us in the ftrict, Senfe, you go
off intirely from the Antients, and go on by
your Selves. But enough of this.
In anfwer to the latter part of the Query,
you obferve that the Reafon why the Doctor
doth not admit the Teftimonies of the Father^
as T roofs , is not becaufe They are againft
$$«?; but becaufe tho' They are clearly for
Hi>w

Qu.XXVH. of fome QUERIES. 4^3
Him, yet, in Matters of Faith, He allows of
no other Troof than the infallible Teftimony
of the Word of God.
One might be willing to believe this to have
been the reafon, why He would not admit Them
as Troofs, if there were not another very plain
one, why He could not ; could not without in
evitable Ruine and Deftruction to his whole Hy*
pothefis. An Adverfary need not defire any
fairer Advantage of the learned Doctor, than
to have the Iffue of the Caufe put upon the
Doctor's Citations ; taking in no more than is
abfolutely neceffary to clear the Senfe of the
Authors, in thofe very Paffages. But waving
this, let me ask you farther, why the Tefti
monies of Fathers may not be admitted as
Troofs, Inferior or Collateral Proofs ? If I can
know from Church Writers, and from Scri
pture too, what was believed by the Church
(in fundry Articles) from the Beginning ; I have
then two Proofs of the fame Thing, tho' not
Both equally Strong, or equally Aurhentick.
The Proof from Church- Writers is an addi
tional, inferior Proof; but ftill a Troof it is,
probable at leaft, of fomething, as to Fact; and
not barely an Illufiration of a Dogma, or Do
ctrine. Are we able to prove what were the
Opinions of feveral Sedts of Thilofophers from
the Books which are extant; and may we not
alfo prove what was the Faith of Chrifiians, in
the fame way, from the Books which They
have left us ? You add, The Authority of the
Fathers,

4S4 A DEFENSE Qu.XXVH.
Fathers, coiild it be proved to be unanimoik
againft Dr. Clarke, ought not to deter&iMe
any Article of Faith. No ; But it is a ftr-ong
prefumptive Proof, that his Interpretation 6i
Scripture is not the true one: A Proof fo con
fiderable, that I know not whether any thifjg
lefs than clear and evident Demonftration ptigKt
to over-rule it. For, you muft remember $$k.
Dr. Clarke, or any Moderns, as well as the
Antients , are fallible Men ; and have only
the fame Human Reafon to work with, which
others had Sixteen Hundred Years ago, ihian
Age of Miracles, and near to the Days of In-
foiration. Moderns, at fo great a diftance- off,
may, at leaft, as eafily miftake, in interpreting
Scripture, as you fuppofe the Antient and Uni-
verfal Church to have done, in a momentous
Article of Faith. Well then ; fuppofing that
we had been for fome Time debating this very
Point of the Bleffed Trinity, on the Foot of
Scripture : Mens Wits are fo various, that fe
veral Interpretations may be invented of the
fame Texts ; and perhaps none of them fo ma-
nifeftly abfurd, but that They poffibly may be
true ; nor fo manifeftly right, but that They
poffibly may be wrong. What can we do bet
ter, in fuch a Cafe, than appeal to thofe who
lived neareft the Times of the infpired Writers?
Their Judgment, their Decifions, and confe-
quent Practice, are at length the fafeft Rule to
go by ; at leaft till you can fhow us a better.
Scripture, you'l fay, is the Rule; and fo fay L
You

Qu.XXVH: of fome QUERIES, 4j<
You bring your Scripture- Proofs ; and I pro
duce Mine. You have your Solutions of fuch
Difficulties as I prefs you with ; I have Solu
tions too, and fuch, to he fure, as I think
Sounder, Better, and Jufter than Your's : You
think the very contrary. Thus far, it is com
bating Text with Text, Criticifm with Criticifm,
Reafon with Reafon ; and each fide will think
his own Superior. Now, foppofe I can farther
produce a Cloud of Witneffes, a numerous Com
pany, of primitive Saints and Martyrs, confirm
ing my Interpretation, concurring in my Senti
ments, and corroborating my Reafons: And
fuppofe I find alfo that Thofe, who took your
Side of the Queftion, were condemn'd by the
generality as Hereticks, and Corrupters of the
Faith of Chrift; this will add fuch Weight,
Strength, and Force to my Pretenfions, that
impartial Men will foon perceive, which is the
moft probable, which the fafer fide, and which
it behoves them to cleave to. This is fo agree
able to the common Senfe and Reafbn of Man
kind ; and the Advantage of having Antiquity
of one's fide is fo apparent, that I'll venture to
/ay, none ever talk'd againft it, who did not
fufpedt, at leaft, that Antiquity was againft
Them: And this I take to be one of your
greateft Misfortunes in this Controverfy ; that
you are fenfible how much it would weaken
cyour Caufe to give up the Fathers ; and yet,
you arc certain, in the refult, to weaken it as
much, by pretending to keep Them. Qu ERY

4?6 i DEFENSE Qu.XXVlII.

Query XXVIII. btts
Whether it be at all probable, that the pri*-
mitive Church fhould miftake in fo materiM
a Toint as this is; or that the whole
Stream of Chriftian Writers fhould miftake
in telling us what the Senfe of the Church
was; and whether fuch a Cloud of Wit
neffes can be fet afide without weakening
the only Troof we have of the Canon of
Scripture, and the Integrity of the Sacred
Textl
IN Anfwer hereto, you admit that the TeftU
mony of the whole Stream of Antiquity^ is
fufficient to determine, in fact, what Faith
the Church hath always profefs'd and declar'i4
in her publick Forms. I am content to put
the Matter upon this Iffue ; and let the Point
be decided from their Profeffions in Baptifm, \
Creeds, Doxologies, Hymns, which were pub
lick Forms ; and from publick Cenfures pafs'd
upon Hereticks, which are as clear Evidence,
as rhe other, of the Church's Faith at that Time.
Only I would not exclude Collateral Proofs;
fuch as the declared Sentiments of Eminent
Church-Writers, the Interpretations of Creeds,
left us by thofe that recite Them; (fuch as
Thofe of Irenaus, Tertullian, and Others) and
Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, telling us, what the Tra
dition of the Church was, down to fuch a Time. From

Qu.XXVlII. of fome QUERIES. 457
From thefe put together, we have very clear
and full Proof that the Catholick Church did
all along profefs a Trinity of Confubftantial,
Co-eternal Perfons, in Unity of Nature, Sub
ftance and Godhead. This, the Incomparable
Bifliop Bull has fufficiently fliown, in his De*
fenfio Fidei Nicena, Judicium Ecclefia, and
primitiva Traditio. Bifliop Stillingfleet pur-
fired the fame Argument, with Variety of Learn
ing, in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the
Trinity, Chapter the oth, which He concludes
in thefe Words: " Taking the Senfe of thofe
" Articles, as the Chriftian Church underftood
" them from the Apoftles Times, then we have
" as-full and clear Evidence of this Dodtrine,
" as we have that we received the Scriptures
'* from them. Dr. Clarke's and Dr. Whitby's
Pretences, to the contrary, have been fuffici
ently anfwer'd ; partly by the learned Gentle
man, who wrote the True Scripture Doctrine
Continued, and partly by thefe Sheets. You
have little to object, but that the Fathers did
not affert an individual Confubftantiality, in
your Senfe; which is true: And is no more
than telling me, that They were not mad;
when I contend that They were fober.
But you add ; the Queftion is, whether, fup
pofing the Fathers had unanimoufly declared
for our Notion, whether (in a Queftion not of
Fact, like that concerning the Canon of Scri
pture, but of Judgment and Reafoning) fuch
a Teftimony would prove that thofe Scri-
H h p tures

458 i DEFENSE Qu. XXVIII.
ptures reveal it ; or whether fuch an Inter
pretation of Scripture — would be as infalli
ble as Scripture it felf. But this is no Que
ftion at all bewteen us. What we prerend is,
that we have as good Proof of the Doctrine of
the Church, as of the Canon of Scripture.
Whether the Church, after the Apoftles, was as
infallible as the Apoftles themfelves, is quite
another Queftion. We think it very unlikely
that the Apoftolick Churches fliould nor know
the mind of the Apoftles ; or fliould fuddenly
vary from ir, in any Matter of Momenr. We
look upon it as highly improbable that the Faith
of thofe Churches fliould fo foon run counter
to any thing in Scripture ; fince They had the
beft opportunities of knowing what Scripture
meant; were made up of wife and good Men,
Men who would fooner die than commit any
Error in that kind, wilfully. Upon this, we
believe the concurring Judgment of Antiquity
to be, tho' not infallible, yet the fafeft Com
ment upon Scripture ; and to have much more
Weight in it, than there generally is in Wit and
Criticifm; and therefore not to be rejected,
where the Words of Scripture will, with any
propriety, bear that Interpretation. This is
fufficient for us to fay, or pretend. We have
as plaufible Arguments, to fpeak modeftly, from
Scripture, as you can pretend to have : Nay,
we think your Notions utterly irreconcilable
with Scripture, according to the natural, obvi
ous, grammatical Conftruction of Words. And
befides

Qu XXVIII. of fome QUERIES. ^
befides all this, we have, what you want, the
Concurring Senfe of the Antients plainly for us.
The Queftion then is not, whether Scripture
and Fathers be equally infallible : All the Fa
thers together are not fo valuable, or fo cre
dible, as afiy One infpired Writer. But it is
plainly this: Whether the Antient Hereticks,
or Catholicks, as They have been diftinguifli 'd,
have been the beft Interpreters of difputed
Texts; and whether we are now to clofe in
-With the former, or the latter. You would
infinuate that you have Scripture, and we
Fathers only : But we infift upon it, that we
have Both ; as for many other Reafons, fo alfo
for this, becaufe Both , very probably , went
together : And as you certainly want one ; fo
it is extremely probable that you have neither ;
for this very Reafon, among many others, be
caufe you have not Both. This Argument is
of Force and Weight ; and will hardly yield to
any thing fliort of Demonftration ; much lefs
will it yield to fuch fort of Reafonings as you
are obliged to make ufe of, wanting better, to
fupport your novel Opinions.
The Sum of rhe whole Matter is this. The
unanimous Senfe of the Antients, upon any
Controverfial Point, is of great Moment and
Importance towards fixing the Senfe of Scri
pture, and preventing its being ill-ufed by de-
fultorious Wits, who love to wander out of the
common way ; and can never want fome co
lour for any Opinion almoft whatever. We do
H h 2 not

460 /f DEFENSE Qu.XXIX.
.if i-
not appeal to the Antients, as if we could not
maintain our Ground, from Scripture and Rea
fon, againft all Oppofers : This has been done
over and over. Athanafius, Hilary, Bafil, the
two Gregories, Chryfoftom, Auftin, Cyril, and
Others, undertook the Caufe on the Foot of
Scripture, and were eafily fuperior to all the
Arians. But fince we have an Advantage, over
and above Scripture Evidence, from the con
curring Sentiments of Antiquity, we think it
very proper to take That in alio ; and we fliall
not eafily fuffer it to be wrefted from us.
Query XXIX. 01
Whether private Reafoning, in amatter above
our Comprehenfion, be a fafer Rule to go
by, than the general Senfe and Judgment
of the primitive Church, in the firft 300
Tears ; or, fuppofing it doubtful what the
Senfe of the Church was within that time,
whether what was determin'd by a Council
of 300 Bifhop s foon after, with the great
eft Care and Deliberation, and has fatisfied
Men of the greateft Senfe, Tiety and
Learning, all over the Chriftian World,
for 1400 Tears fince, may not fatisfy wife
dnd good Men now ?
ERE you tell me, as ufiial, when you
__ have little elfe to lay, that the Council
of Nice knew nothing of Individual Confub
ftantiality:

Qu.XXiX. of fome QUERIES. 46t
ftantiality : and then you add, pleafantly, that
you turn the Query againft the Querift, and
lay claim to ike Nicene Confeffion. What?
Lay claim to a Confeffion made in direct Oppo
fition to the Men ot your Principles? You fay,
if any Confubftantiality is to be found in that
Creed, it is the Specifick, not Individual. And
what if it were? Would that give you any
claim to the Nicene Confeffion? Are God and
his Creatures Confubftantial, of the fame rank,
fort, kind, or Species ? You are forc'd to have
recourfe to a Figurative Senfe, which Pre
tence I have obviated above. You are fo kind
to the Querift, as to be willing to fuppofe and
believe, that He is not Ignorant of the true
and only Senfe of the word ofiouwos ; meaning
thereby the Specifick Senfe. In return, I'll be
fo juft to you, as to fay, that you underftand
the word very right : And yet the Nicene Fa
thers did not teach a meerly Specifick Confub
ftantiality. The word cftobo-ios expreffes their
Senfe; but not their whole Senfe, in that Ar
ticle. It expreffes an Equality of Nature, and
fignifies that the Son is as truly Equal in Na
ture to the Father, as one Man is Equal to
another ; or any individual Equal to another In
dividual of the fame Sort or Species. And this
was chiefly to be infifted on againft the Arians,
who denied fuch Equality, making the Son a
Creature. Wherefore the true Reafon, to ufe
Dr. Cudworth's Words, only mutatis mutan
dis, why the Nicene Fathers laid fo great a
H h 3 ftrefs

4f5i /DEFENSE Qu.XXIX.1
ltrefs upon the opou™, , was not becaufe this
alone was fufficient to make Father and Son one
God; but becaufe They could not be fo with-,
out it. * 'OpioHai®* the Son muft be, or He
could not be God at all, in the ftrict Senfe;
and yet if He was barely o^oso-io?, like as one
Human Perfon is to another, the two would be
two Gods. And therefore the Nicene Fathers,
not content to fay only that the Son is opiovmo^
infert likewife, God of God, Light of Light, Be
gotten, &c. and, of the Subftance of the Father;
and this They are known to have declared over
and over , to be without any divifion : All
which taken together expreffes a great deal
more than opioacnos would do alone ; and are, as
it were, fo many qualifying Claufes, on purpofe
to prevent any fuch Mifeonftruction and Mif-
apprehenfion, as the word might otherwife be
liable to. The good Fathers, like wife Men,
at once maintain'd the Equality of Nature,
* Hi Tres, quia Unius Subftantia funt, Unum funt; & Summe
twum funt, ubi nulla Naturariim, nulla eft diverfiras Voluntatum*
Si autem Natura Unum efTent, 8c Confenfione non efTent, non
Summa unum efTent : Si vero Natura difpares efTent, unum non
efTent. Hi ergo Tres, qui Unum funt propter ineftabilem Con-
jun&ionem Deitatis, qua incffabiliter Copulantur, Unus Deus eft.
jiug. Contr. Maxim. 1, i. p. 698,
This is very fuit to our purpofe ; and, by the -may, may fhow, how
far St. Auftin was from Sabellianifm j which fome have weakly pre
tended to change Him with. But there are many Paffages in this
Piece againft Maximin, one of his very lateft Pieces, full againft Sa
bellianifm, as well as againft Arianifm. J may juft remark, that
there is a deal of difference between Unius Subftantia:, and Una Sub
ftantia. Two Men are Unius ejufdemque Subftantia;, not una Sub-
itanfia. But the three Perfons are not only jinius Subftantia;, but una
|iubftantia. Tht moderp Senfe of Cpnfubftaptial takes in Both.
-¦' ' '" ¦ '"' ' '¦•''¦'..¦' ' which

Qu.XXIX. of fome QUERIES. 463
which 9/40B0-105 expreffes, and the Vnity of the
Godhead too. Guarding equally againft Ari
anifm, and Tritheifm, They took all prudent care
to preferve the Co- equality oi the two Terfons,
without dividing the Subftance, which was what
They intended. The learned Doctor * reprefents
this Matter fomewhat crudely. He obferves
upon the Words in the Nicene Creed (ycw^itlx
ix. tb TCxrgos piovaycwi, TUTeqiii Ik *r sVi'cts tb «¦
rpU) that the Son was not Himfelf that indi
vidual Subftance, from which He was begotten.
This He has fb worded, that individual Sub
ftance, with Him, can only fignify individual
Hypoftafis, or Terfon: And ir is very true,
that the Son is not that Terfon, from whom,
or, of whom, He proceeded.- But the Subftance
might be undivided, notwithftanding; which
is all that any Catholick means by individual
Subftance. But their meaning, He fays,
was ; He was produced, not from any other
Subftance (as Man was formed from theDuft
of the Earth) but after an ineffable manner ,
from the Subftance of the Father only. Here
He leaves out the principal Thing, which the
Arians afferted, and which the Catholicks
guarded againft, viz. Not from Nothing, not
i£ Gsx ovTw. li therefore the Son, according
to the Nicene Fathers, was not from any other
Subftance, befides the Father's, nor from no
thing ; it is very plain that (unlefs They fuppofed
a Divifion of Subftance, which They abfolutely
reject) They fuppofed the Son to be of the
* Reply, P.3f. Hh4 fame

4^4 i DEFENSE QuXXlX,
lame undivided, or individual Subftance with,
the Father. As to the Suppofition 4 of his being
produced from any other Subftance (as Adam,
was form'd from the Duft of the Earth ) there
was very little occafion to guard againft it : The.
Notion is, in it/ felf, too filly for any Man to
own. The Arians themfelves (againft whom
the Creed was contriv'd). never prerended it,
but * exprefly difown'd ir: Their noted Tenet
was, that the Son was the firft Thing made.-
The Nicene Fathers defign'd, chiefly, to guard]
againft the Suppofition of the Son's being fromi
nothing, which was what the Arians infifted.
upon j They and the Catholicks equally be
lieving it ridiculous to imagine any Subftance.
to have been firft made ; and then the Son to
have been made out of it. Wherefore, I huram
bly conceive, the true Reafons why the Nicene \
Fathers were fo very particular in the Words;,,
T8tI?ji/ ex, rvis vtnas ts vrcLTgos, were, f firft, to
fignify that They underftood Generation in a
proper, and not figurative Senfe; as the Arians
did : And fecondly withal to \ fecure the divine
'Unity. For, if the Son were, ab extra, and
independent of the Father ; the Alliance, the
* Memorant Filium Dei neque ex aliqua fubjacente materia genii-
turn efle, quia per eum creata omnia lint, hilar, p. 8;i.
f Vid. Bull Def. F. N, p, 1 1+, 1 1 f. Ei' H ix tS ©'sou isx pitoc,,
»Vt)«S yvwioc, — texfrmctt iIxotoic, <£ I»TJ;$asjasrS©£2'<|os. Ath. p. 2lS»
¦if. '£| coutS kXtjis-ac yiym/) ©eo; ix ©sa, ©eo5 «>ijA»05 Ik ©sg uXn-
fyiyoi; as*. s|»3*' *"» «^« '« Is olutov idac.. Epiphan. p. 6iq.
Oi-jc ax, ctoy^ i-nocf, xctS' icwtov i^sjw;, &i\ 'iipfyv Tuvirtc, yi'pva^,
X-itt ffci tyi h-i^oTvi-ti, hntpxf* yt»))TWf. Athanaf. Orat. 4. p. 617.
"'Odii «^.@" ©£«« i 'ssic. £ -^f typfy s«iy«&hg. Qra,t. 3. p. y yj.
Reid-

QiXXlX. of fome QUERIES. 46*?
Relation, the cVnity oi the Perfons, in the fame
Godhead, had (upon their Principles) been loft;
and Ditheifm unavoidable.
This may be enough to fatisfy you, that, what
ever the word o/ioamos may commonly fignify,
yet the Nicene Fathers meant a great deal
more than a Specifick Unity ; if not by that
word, fingly confider'd, yet by that taken toge
ther with the reft, which were put in to explain
it. The word may indifferently ferve to ex
prefs an Equality oi Nature whether the Hy
poftafes he undivided, or whether They have
a feparate Exiftence. It was therefore pro
perly enough applied, in the Creed : And care
was taken that both Generation, and Confub
ftantiality-, fliould be underftood in a Senfe
fuitable to Things divine ; that is, taking from
the Idea all that is low, mean, and imperfect ;
and applying only fo much as might comport
with the Majefty, Dignity, and Perfections of
the adorable and incomprehenfible Trinity.
You feem to be apprehenfive, that you muft,
at length, be obliged to give up the Nicene
Creed, as utterly inconfiftent with your Prin-
ples; as indeed it is. And therefore, in the
next place ; you endeavour to leffen the Credit
of it ; alledging, that the Council of Antioch
before, and the Council of Ariminum, and other
Councils, after (fome of Them with a greater
Number of Bifhop s than met at Nice) deter
mined againft the c^oa'ai®". The Objection
drawn from the Determination of the Council of

46*6 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXIX.
of Antioch, about Sixty Years before the
Council oi Nice, you find largely anfwer'd by
* Bifliop Bull. They condemn'd the word, as
it had been mifunderftood and mifapplied by
Taul of Samofiata-T, but eftablifh'd the very
fame Doctrine with the Nicene Fathers. I may
anfwer you briefly, upon your own Principles.
You fay, Taul of Samofiata was condemn'd for
holding opioiicri®*, in the Senfe of individual
Confubftantiality (p. 118.) which, if it be true,
was reafon good enough for condemning Him ;
as you underftand Individual, rhat is, in a
Sabellian Senfe. The Remark of Hilary, who
goes upon the fame Suppofition which you do,
may here be pertinently -j- cired ; and may ferve
as a fufficient Anfwer. It is obfervable that
Hilary makes the Number of Bifhops in the
Antiochian Council no more than 80 ; Atha
nafius, but 70 ; Eufebius, an indefinite Num
ber; very many. It does not appear that They
were near fo confiderable as the famous Coun
cil of Nice of 318 Bifhops.
You next mention the Council of Ariminum;
and give a hint of other Councils. It would
have been but fair to have told us what other
Councils you meant, which had, as you fay, a
greater Number of Bifhops than met at Nice.
* Def. F. N. p. 19, &c. See alfo Mr. Thirlby. Anfw. to Whifton,
p> loj. Defence, p. 96.
f Male intclligitur Homoufion : quid ad me bene intelligentem ?
Male Homoufion Samofatenus Confeffus eft: Sed ntinquid Melius
Arii negaverunt ? OtTsoginta Epifcopi olim refpuerjjnt ; fed Trecenti
& decern odo nuper receperunt. Hilar, de Synod, p. 1 zoo.
You

Qu.XXlX. of fome QUERIES. 467
You know, I prefume, or at leaft might know,
that you cannot name One, befides the Council
of Ariminum ; which 1 foa}i fpeak to pre-
feptly. In your Appendix (p. 15-4.) You fay the De
termination of the Council of Nice , for the
Q/xouo-ios, was rejected by a greater Council than
that of Nice, met at Jerufialem. But in thefe
few Words, you have two Miftakes ; or at leaft,
you have faid what you cannot prove. * Eufe
bius 's Words, which you refer to, may mean
no more than this, that the Council of Jeru
fialem wTas the greateft He had known, fince
the Famous one of Nice. Your other miftake
is, that They rejected the Determination of
the Council of Nice, &c. How doth this ap
pear ? Did They fay a word againft it ? Or did
They make any Declaration againft either the
Council of Nice, or the 'Opowioi ? Not a Syl
lable. But | They received Arius ro Commu
nion; partly upon the good Emperor's Recom
mendation, who believed Him to have recanted,
and to have come in to the \ true Catholick
Faith, as cftablifli'd at the Council of Nice ;
* De Vita Conftant. 1- 4. c.47. p. 414. See Valerius3; Notes.
f See the Hiftory in Socrat. 1. 1. c. 33. Sozom. 1. 1. c 27.
Athanaf. p. 734.
^ Arius fwore to the Emperor, calling God to Witnefs, that He
believed in "Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as the whole Catholick
Church taught. Which the "Emperor could take in no other Senfe,
but as it had been lately determin'd by the Catholick Nicene lathers.
See Sozom. 1. 2. c. 27.
And this may farther appear by the Emperor's putting Arius to
the, Teft afterwards, to fee whether He really acknowledged the Ni
cene faith or r}o- See Socrat. hi. c. 38.
1 and

468 /f DEFENSE Qu.XXIX.
and, partly upon Arius' s a own Confeffion of
Faith, which was fo plaufibly worded, that it
might eafily pafs for Orthodox, tho' it. wanted
the word apodai®: Now, is it not very unac
countable in you to call this Rejecting : the
Determination for the o/mbowj when it was
only receiving a Man, fuppofed by the Em
peror, and perhaps by many of the Council,
to have repented of his Herefy, and to have
embraced every Thing that the Nicene Council
had determin'd; the very Senfe and Meaning
of 'OptoiHUioc; it felf, tho' not the Word.
Pafs we on now to the Council of Arimi-
num, in the Year 359. when the -Arians had
the fecular Power on their fide, and made ufe
of it with all imaginable Severity. The whole
Number of Bifhops in Council are computed
at about b40o, and cnot above Eighty of Them
Arians. d All the Catholicks, at firft, declared
their unanimous Adherence to the Nicene
Creed ; and protefted againft any new Form of
Faith. All manner of Artifices, Frauds, and
Menaces were contrived ro bring; Them and
the Arians to fomething like an Agreement.
Yet the utmoft They could do, was only to
bring the Catholicks to fubfcribe a e Confeffion
artfully worded in general Terms. And no
fooner did the Catholick Fathers, after their Re-
a Extat. in Sozom. 1, 2« c. 27.
b Sulpic Sev. p. 267. Athanaf. p. 7 20. 749. Maximin the Arian
wakes the whole Number 3 30. Auguft. Collat. Tom. 8. p. 6$o.
c Sulpic. Sever, p. 169. „ d Hilar. Fr3gm. p. 1341.
e Quae Catholicam difciplinam, perfidia Jatente, Igqueretur.
Sulpic p. 273- tura

Qu.XXIX. of fome QUERIES. 469
turn Home, perceive how They had been im-
pofed upon by ambiguous Terms, and over-
reach'd by Craft and Subtilty ; but They * con-
fefs'd their Error, and repented of it with Tears.
The Hiftory of the Council at large is too tedi
ous for me to recite Here : It may be feen ei
ther in rhe original Authors, Athanafius, Sul-
picius Severus, Hilary, Socrates, Sozomen,
Theodorit, and Jerom; or with lefs Trouble,
and in lefs Compafs, in Cave's Life of Atha
nafius, or laftly in Montfaucon's. When you
have well confider'd the Arts and Pradtices of
the Arians, much the fmaller Number, in that
Council , you may perhaps fee reafon to be
afliamed of having mention'd it, but no reafon
for oppofing it to the celebrated Nicene Coun
cil. While the Council of Ariminum was free,
and left to give their real Opinions; the Arians
were condemn'd by a great Majority, and
their Trincipals depofed. Even, at laft, you
have no Reafon to boaft of their unanimous
Agreement ro a new Faith. It was a verbal
Agreement only, to Expreffions feemingly Ca
tholick : And probably, the Majority departed
with the fame high value and opinion of the
Nicene Faith , which They brought with
Them. Four Years after the Synod of Arimi
num, \ Athanafius reckons up particularly the
* Vid. Ep. Liber apud Socr. 1. 4. y. iS}. Hieron. Contr. Lucif.
Dial. Sulpic. Sever.
f Athanaf. Ep. ad Jovian, pag. 781, Theod. E. H. 1. 4. c. 3.
See Liberius'j Letters An. 367. apud Socrat. 1,4. c. 12. Damafus'i
Lett. Sozom. 1. 6. c. 23.
Hoc eft iilud Homoufion, quod in Cos-ilio Nicseno adverfus Hsere-
Churches

470 if DEFENSE Qu.XXIX.
Churches which ftill embraced the Nicene Faiths
Thofe of Spain, Britain, Gaul, all Itafy,
*Dalmatia, Dacia, Myfia, Macedonia, Greece,
Africa, Sardinia, Cyprus, Crete, Tamphyliai
Lycia, Ifauria, Egypt, Libya, Tontus, Cdp-
padocia, and the Churches of the Eaft; ex
cepting a few that followed Arius. He calls
them the whole World, and all the Churches
throughout the World. He declares that He
knows it, and has their Letters by Him to
prove ir. And it is worth reciting what ac
count the Bifhops of Egypt and Libya, and
among Them Athanafius, give of the extent
of the Nicene Faith, about Ten Years after the
time that you pretend there was a general
Council againft it. Writing to the Biihops in
Africa, They begin thus : *' \ It is the greateft
" Satisfaction to us to have feen what <Dama-
*« fus our Fellow-Minifter, and Bifliop of the
" great City of Rome, and fuch a Number of
" Bifhops in Council with Him, befides other
" Synods in Gaul and Italy, hath wrote in
" Defence of the true Orthodox Faith : That
" Faith, which Chrift delivered, and the Apo-
" files taught, and Our Fathers affembled at
ticos Arianos, a Catholicis Patribus, Veritatis Auftoritate, & Au-
Goritatis Veritate firmatum eft; quod poftea in Concilio Ariminenfi
(propter novitatem verbi, minus quam potuit intelleclam, quod
tamen Fides Antiqua repercrat) mu'tis Paucorum Fraude deceptif,
Hauetica Impietas fub Hseretico Imperatore labefattare tentavit.
Sed poft non longum Tempus, Libertate Fidei Catholics prx-
valente,  Homoufion Catholics Fidei Sanitate longe laieque de-
fenfum eft. Auguft, Tom. 8. p. 704.
f Apud Athanaf. p. 891.
'« Nice,

QuXXIX. of fome QUERIES. 471
*' Nice, from out of the whole Chriftian World,
" handed down to us. So intenfe was their Zeal
" at that Time, in regard to the Arian He-
" refy ; that They who had fallen into it, might
" be reclaim'd; and that the Heads or Authors
" of it might have a Mark fet upon Them.
41 To this Determination (of the Nicene Fa-
" thers) formerly the * whole Chriftian World
" confented: And at this very Time, many
" Councils have confirm'd and publiih'd the
" fame : By means of which all They oiDal-
" matia, Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus,
" Greece, Crete, and the other Iflands, Sicily,
" Cyprus and Tamphylia, Lycia, Ifauria, all
" Egypt, the two Libyas, and the moft of
" Arabia have acknowledged it. They go on
to fet forth the great Refpedt and Veneration
due to the Decifions of the Nicene Council;
and fhow how far it was preferable, in every
refpect, to all the Arian Synods ; and particu
larly to the pretended general Council of Ari-
minum, which fome prefumed, at that Time of
Day, to fet againft it. The whole would be
weil worth the Reader's perufal, and thither I
refer you, for a more particular Anfwer ; that
you may learn hereafter, not to call every
Thing hugely Romantick, which may have
* To the fame purpofe fays Marius Vi&orinus , fpeaking of the
cpcwncv. Conditum juxta Veterum Fidem (nam & ante tra&atum) &
rnulti Orbis Epifcopi, trecenti quindecim in civitate Nic*a, quam
per Totum Orbem decretam Fidem mittentes, Epifcoporum Miliia
in eadem habuerunt, vel illius Temporis, vel fequentium Annorum.
/. 3. Contr. Aria- hap-

47a ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXIX.
happen'd to efcape your Notice or Obfervation.
I muft take leave to tell you, there never was
a Synod on your fide, fo free, fo large, fb, in
every refpect, unexceptiohable as the Council of
Nice was. Nay farther ; that whatever Oppofi
tion was made to it, was carried on with fuch
Wiles, Crafts, Subtilties, and refined Artifices,
as every Honeft Man would be afliamed of: And
farther, that, notwithftanding all They could do,
the Arians were not able long to maintain
their Ground ; but the Men who fuftain'd the
Shock, and kept up the Credit of the Nicene
Creed, were not only the moft numerous, but
appear to have been as wife, as judicious, and
as pious Men, as ever the Church was adorned
with, fince the Times of the Apoftles.
I do not pretend that there is Demonftration
in this kind of Reafoning, in favor of any Caufe.
But it will have its Weight with cool and con
fidering Men : Who reflecting, that Religion is *
not a Thing to be coin'd, and recoin'd every
Month ; that it has been thought on long and
well, and by Perfons blefs'd with as good a Share
of Underftanding, and as great Sincerity as any
are, or have been ; and that the generality of
the wifeft and moft excellent Men, have hi
therto gone on in fuch a way, and that too
after a ftrict and fevere Examination, being well
apprized of the Objections made againft it; I
fay, who, refledting thus, will be very cautious
of Contradidting what feems to have been fo
. well, and fo deliberately fettled ; and will be
rather

Qu.XXDC of fome QUERIES. 473
rather willing to fufpedt their own Judgment,
and modeftly decline what looks like leaning
too much to their own Underftandings. How
ever, fuch Confiderations may be of ufe to
Thofe who, not having Leifure, Inclination* or
Patience to examine throughly into this Con
troverfy (as perhaps few have) muft be con
tent to judge as They can : And fince They
find the fame Scriptures fo very differently in
terpreted by the contending Parries, till They
can Themfelves enter into the very Heart of
the Controverfy, how can They do better than
clofe in with Thofe, who have been in Poffef
fion of this Faith for fo many Centuries, and
have had, in a manner, in every Age, for af.
leaft Fourteen Hundred Years, I will venture
to fay, Sixteen, the moft eminent Lights and
Ornaments of the Chriftian Church, to fupporE
and defend it? This I mention as the fafeft
way ; and fuch as will be taken by modeft,
humble, and difcreet Men; being what They
can belt anfwer to God and their own Con-
fciences, even tho', at length, it fliould prove
Erroneous; which yet has not hitherto, not
ever will be, I am perfwaded, made appear. As
for Thofe who chuie to go out of the common
Road, and to run Counter to all that has hi->
therto been called and reputed Catholick, or
Orthodox -, let Them look to it, and be it at
their own Peril. They muft believe that the An
tient Hereticks were the Soundeft Chrifiians ;
that the firft general Council which met from all
I i Parts

474 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXIX.
Parts of Chriftendom, and having no byafs, fo
far as appears, to determine Them this way or
that, either did not know what was the Faith
of their refpective Churches, and what had been
handed down to them by their Predeceffors, or
elfe wilfully and unanimoufly agreed to corrupt
it ; and that too in a very material Article, in
which the fumm of the Chriftian Religion is con
tain'd ; and in which the Nature and Objedt of
our Worfhip is very nearly concern'd. They
muft believe farther that the Charches, in ge
neral, throughout the Chriftian World, through
every Age (and even fince the Reformation, up
on which Matters were ftrictly look'd into, and
carefully re-examin'd) have fallen into the fame
Error ; and fo continue, even to this Day ; fome
iew private Men only, here and there, fliowing
their diflike of it. Now, They who pretend
this, muft bring fome very ftrong Proofs to
make good their Pretences. If They have not
fomething very Weighty and Momentous to
urge; fomething that carries the Force and Evi
dence of Demonftration with it, They are firft
very unreafonable in calling us to attend to
what fo little deferves it ; and next very inex-
cufable in their Attempts to draw others into
their precarious Sentiments, and to raife Doubts
and Perplexities in the Minds of fimple well-
meaning Men. But I pafs on to.

Query

QuXXX. of fome QUERIES. 475-
Query XXX.
Whether, fuppofing the Cafe doubtful, it be
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 modeft deference to the Judgment of
the Antient and Modern Church, than to
lean to one's own 'Vnderfianding ?
UPON the Queftion, whether it be not
fafer and better (fuppofing the Cafe doubt
ful) to think too highly, rather than too mean
ly of our Bleffed Saviour ; you anfwer, quefii-
onlefs it is; which one might think a very
fair and ingenuous Confeffion ; and you need
not have added a word more. You go on to
fay, that this is our moft plaufible Tretence;
in which, I think, you do it a deal too much
Honour. I did but juft hint it; and left it
fliould not be of force fufiicient, immediately
ftrengthen'd it with another Confideration,
which I am perfwaded will bear, if this fliould
not, and the rather, becaufe you have uot
thought fit fo much as to take notice of it. I
muft however follow you, upon the former
Point, that plaufible Plea, and which is fo juft,
that you feem your felf to give into it. Yet,
I know not how, by fome peculiar turn of
Thought, you at length come to r-v, that it
proves as weak and falfe as any other they
I i z ever

476 i DEFENSE Qu.XXX.
ever alledge. If it prove no weaker, I fliall
be fatisfied. Let us hear what you have to fay.
Your Argument is this : Since Revelation is
the only rule in the Cafe, if we go beyond, or
if we fall fhort, are we not equally culpablel
I am very glad to hear from you, that Reve
lation is the only rule in the Cafe. Abide by
That, and Matters may eafily be adjufted. To
the Argument I anfwer : That you equivocate
in the word Equally, and make a Sophifiical
Syllogifm with four Terms ; Equally culpable,
fignifies, either that one is culpable as well as
the other, or that one is culpable as much as
the other ; equally a Fault, or an equal Fault.
Our difpute is about the latter , and yet all
that you really prove is only the former. Re
velation undoubtedly is the Rule, and to go
beyond it is certainly culpable, as well as it is
to fall fliort of it ; and yet not culpable ( at
leaft not in this Inftance) in the fame Degree,
Is there no fuch Thing as an Error on the right
Hand (as we fay) or a Fault on the right Side ?
Of two Extremes, may it not often happen,
that one is more dangerous than the other.?
This I affert to be the Cafe here : And I will
give you my Reafons for it. Our Bleffed Lord
hath done great and wonderful Things for us.
If our Refpect, Duty, and Gratitude happen,
through our Ignorance and exceffive Zeal, to
rife too high ; this is the overflowing of our
good-natured Qualities, and may feem a pitiable
Failing. But, en the other Hand, if we hap pen

Qu.XXX. of fome QUERIES. 477
pen to fall fhort in our Regards, there is not
only Ingratitude, but Blafphemy in it. It is
degrading, and dethroning our Maker, Prefer
ver, King, and Judge ; and bringing Him down
to a level with his Creatures.
Befides ; we have many exprefs Cautions gi
ven us in Scripture, not to be wanting in our
Refpedts and Services towards God the Son;
but have no particular Cautions againft Honour
ing Him roo much. We know that we ought
to Honour Him, even as we Honour the Fa
ther ; which, if it be an ambiguous Expreffion,
we are very excufable in taking it in the beft
Senfe, and interpreting on the fide of the Pre
cept. We know that by difhonouring the Son,
we do, at the fame Time, diflionour the Father:
But we are no where told, that the Father will
refent it as a diflionour done to Himfelf, if we
fliould chance, out of our ferupulous Regards to
the Father and Son Both, to pay the Son more
Honour than ftridtly belongs to Him. On thefe,
and the like Confiderations (efpecially when
we have fo many, and io great Appearances
of Truth, and fuch a Cloud of Authorities to
counrenance us in it) the Error, if it be one,
feems to be an Error on the right Hand. Now
you fhall be heard again. Can any Man think
to pleafe the Son of God, by giving that to
Him, which He never claim'd or could claim ?
Pofitive enough. But will you pleafe to re
member that the Query fuppofes the Cafe
doubtful (which was abundantly civil to you)
I i 3 doubt-

478 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXX.
doubtful whether the Son of God has claim'd
it, or no ; and the whole Argument runs upon
that Suppofition. This therefore difeovers ei
ther fome want of Acumen, or great Marks of
Hafte. You add : It can be no 'Detraction
from the 'Dignity of any Terfon (how great
foever that Dignity be) to forbear profefiing
Him to be that which He really is not. I
perceive, your Thoughts are ftill abfent; and
you do not reflect, that you are begging the
Queftion, inftead of anfwering to the Point in
Hand, j You are to fuppofe it, if you pleafe,
doubtful, who, or what, the Perfon is. In
fuch a Cafe, it may be better to give Him what
He does not require, rhan to defraud Him of
what He does : It is fafer and more prudent
to run the Risk of one, than of the other.
You go on : It may well become ferious and
fincere Chrifiians to confider, whether it is
not poffible that while, adventuring to be
wife beyond what is written, they vainly
think to advance the Honour of the Son of
God, above what He has given them Ground
for in the Revelation, They may difhonour
the Father that fent Him, &c. I am wreary
of tranfcribing. Confider, on the other Hand,
whether it be not more than poffible, that,
while others adventuring to be wife beyond
what is written (teaching us to profefs three
Gods, making the Creator of the World a
Creature, inventing new unfcriptural Diftin-
$ions of a fupreme and a fubordinate Wor
fliip,

Qu.XXX. of fome QUERIES. 479
fhip, with many other Things equally unfcri
ptural and unwarrantable) They vainly think
to bring down Myfteries ro the level of their
low Underftandings, and to fearch the deep
Things of God; They may not diflionour both
Father and Son, and run into Herefy, Blafphe
my, and what not ; and Sap the very Founda
tions of the Chriftian Religion. You proceed:
It may become Them to confider what They
will anfwer at the great Day, fhould God
charge Them with not obferving that 'Decla
ration of His, I will not give my Glory to
another. They may humbly make Anfwer,
that They underftood that His Glory was not
to be given to Creatures ; and therefore They
had given it to none but his own Son, and his
H. Spirit, whom They believed not to be Crea
tures, nor other Gods ; and whom Himfelf had
given his Glory to, by commanding all Men to
be baptized in their Names, equally with his
own ; and ordering particularly, that all Men
fhould Honour the Son, even as They Honour
the Father. If They happen'd to carry their
Refpect too high ; yet it was towards thofe
only, whom the Father principally delighteth to
Honour; and towards whom an ingenuous,
grateful, and well difpofed Mind can hardly ever
think He can pay too much. Upon thefe and
the like Confiderations They may humbly hope
for Pity and Pardon for a Miftake ; fuch an one
as the humbleft, moft devout, and moft confci-
entious Men might be the apteft to fall into.
I i 4 But

480 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXX.
But what muft an Arian have to fey, at that
great Day, if it appears rhat He has been ut
tering Blafphemies againft rhe Son of God,
and reviling his Redeemer ( the generality of
fober Chrifiians looking on, all the while, with
Horror ; fliock'd at the Impiety ; and openly
declaring and protefting againft it) and for no
other Reafons, in the laft Refult, but becaufe
He thought Generation implied "Divifion, and
neceffary Generation implied outward Co-action;
and He could not underftand whether rhe Unity
fliould be called Specifick or Individual ; nor
how there came to be three Perfons ; nor why
One might not have been as good as Three ;.
nor why the Father fliould be faid to beget the
Son, rather than vice verfa ; and the like ? Is
this kind of reafoning fuitable to, or becoming
Chrifiians, who have their Bible to look into ;
which alone can give any Satisfaction in thefe
Matters ? To go upon our own Fancies and
Conjectures, in a Thing of this Kind, is only
betraying too little Reverence for the tremen
dous and unfearchable Nature of God. and too
high an Opinion of our own Selves. You have
a farther Pretence, built upon your miftaken No
tion of individual, which I need not take
notice of; having already almoft forfeited the
$leader with it.

Query

Qu.XXXI. of fome QUERIES. 481
Query XXXI.
Whether any thing lefs than clear and evi
dent Demonftration, on the fide of Arianifm,
ought to move a wife and good Man, againft
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 Demonftration ?
IN your Anfwer to this, I am rebuked, firft,
for giving the Name of Orthodoxy , to a
Scholaftick Notion : And fecondly, for calling
your Dodtrine Arianifm. As to the firft, I
ftand fo far corrected, as to beg the privi
lege of ufing the word, Orthodoxy, for the
Received Doctrine. You are pleafed to call
it a Scholaftick Notion. How far ft is Scho
laftick, I do not certainly know ; But fore I am
that it is Primitive and Catholick: And I do
not know that the School-men were Hereticks
in this Article. If They were; So far, you may
depend upon it, our Notion is not Scholaftick.
As to your Doctrine being juftly call'd Ari
anifm, I hope, without Offence, I may fay, I
have made it plain to a Demonftration (except
ing only that, in fome Particulars, you fall be
low Arianifm) and I fliould advife you here
after, for your own fake, to difpute fo clear a
Point no farther. But let us go on. You add :
Jf it be impoffible, by the Rule of Scripture and

481 A D E F E N E S Qu.XXXl:
and Reafon, and the Senfe of the mofi antient
Writers, and Councils of the Church, that
the Scholaftick Notion fhould be true ; and if
there be no Medium betwixt (the Scholaftick
Notion) and *he Notion of Dr. Clarke (that is
Arianifm) then It will be demonftrated that
(Arianifm) is the true Doctrine of Jefus
Chrift and his 'foft les, as revealed in Scri
pture, and the true Senfe of Scripture inter
preted by right Reafon, and as underftood by
the beft and moft antient Chriftian Writers.
This is your Demonftration ; only I have
thrown in a word or two, by way of Paren-
thefis, to make it the clearer to rhe Reader.
The fumm of it is this ; if the Scholaftick No
tion (by which you mean Sabellianifm) be not
true ; and if there be no Medium between Sa
bellianifm and Arianifm; then Arianifm is
the true Dodtrine, &c. That is, if fuppofing
be proving, and if begging the Queftion be the
fame thing with determining it; then fome
thing will be demonftrated, which is not de-
¦monftrated. You do well to refer us to your
Appendix for proof, and to fliift it off as far
as poffible. Demotift rat ions are good Things,
but fometimes very hard to come at ; as you'l
find in the prefent inftance. You may take as
much time longer, as you think proper, to con
fider of it. Give me a Demonftration, juftly
fo called ; a chain of clear Reafoning, beginning
from fome plain and undoubted Axiom , and
regularly deicending by neceffary Deductions, or

Qu.XXXI. of fome QUERIES. 483
or clofe Connexion of Ideas, till you come
at your Conclufion. Till you can do this, it
will be but labour loft, to endeavor to fhake
the Received 'Doctrine of the ever bleffed Tri
nity. For, unlefs you can give us fomething
really Solid and Subftantial, in an Article of fo
great Importance, the Reafons which' we
have , on our fide of the Queftion , are fo
many, fo plain, and fo forcible, that, they
muft, and will, and ought to fway the Minds of
modeft, reafonable, and confcientious Men;
while the Church ftands, or the World lafts.
Any Man that duly confiders what we have to
plead from Holy Scripture, and what from the
concurring Judgment and Pradlice of the Primi
tive and Catholick Church ; and refledts farther
upon the natural Tendernefs which every pious
and grateful Mind muft have for the Honour of
his Bleffed Lord and Saviour, the Dread and
Horror of Blafphemy, and how fliocking a
Thing it muft appear to begin now to abridge
Him of that Refpect, Service, and fupreme
Adoration, which has been fo long, and fo uni
verfally paid Him, and by the bleffed Saints
and Martyrs now crown'd in Heaven ; I fay,
any Man that duly confiders this, will eafily
perceive how impoffible it is for Arianifm
ever to prevail generally, except it be upon
one or other of thefe Suppofitions : Either
that the Age becomes fo very Ignorant or
Corrupt, that They know not, or care nor,
what They do j or that fome new Light fpring up,

484 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXXl.
up on the -flde of Arianifm, fome hidden re
ferve of Extraordinary Evidences, fuch as, in
j 400 Years Time, the Wit of Man has not
been able to difcover. As to the latter, nei
ther your felf, nor yet the learned Dodtor
has been pleafed to • favour us with any fuch
Difcovery: As to the former, I have too good
an opinion of you to fufpedt, that you can ei
ther hope, or wiih for it. You will have a
mind to try 'what you can do : And fo give me
leave to reprefent to you a fliort Summary of
what we are to expedt of you.
1. You are to prove, either that the Son is
not Creator; or that there are two Creators,
and one of Them a Creature.
z. You are to fhow, either that the Son°is
not to be worfhip'd at all ; or that there are
two Objects df Worfhip, and one of Them a
Creature. 3. You are to prove, either that the Son is
not God; or that there are two Gods, and one
of Them a Creature.
4. You,, are to fliow, that your Hypothefis is
high enough to take in all the high Titles and
Attributes afcribed to the Son in Holy Scripture ;
And, at the fame time low enough to account
for his increafing in Wifidom, not knowing the
Day of Judgment, His being exceeding for-
rowful, troubled, crying out in his Agonies,
and the like. You are to make all to meet in
the one A07©-, or Word; or elfe to mend your
Scheme by borrowing from ours. 5- \

QuXXXI. of fome QUERIES. 48$
5-. I muft add ; that, whatever you undertake,
you are either to prove it with fuch Strength,
Force, and Evidence, as may be fufficient to
bear up againft the Stream of Antiquity, foil
and ftrong againft you; or elfe to fhow that
Antiquity has been much mifunderftood, and is
not full and ftrong againft you.
Now you fee, what you have to do; and
our Readers, perhaps, may underftand what
we are talking about, the Duft being, I hope,
in fome meafure thrown off, and the Caufe
open'd, Now proceed, as you think proper;
Only difpute fair ; drop ambiguous Terms, or
define Them; put not grofs Things upon us;
contemn every Thing but Truth in the fearch
after Truth ; and keep clofe to the Queftion :
And then it will foon be feen, whether Ari
anifm, or Catholicifm, is the Scripture - Do
ctrine of the Trinity.
There remain only two Queries, which I
have any concern in; and I hardly think it
needful to take farther notice of them, the
Subftance of them being contain'd in the for
mer.- Befides that this Defenfe being drawn
out into a length beyond what I expected, I
am willing to come to a Conclufion. You'l
excufe me for not returning a particular Anfwer
to your Queries, having obviated all that is of
weight in Them, in this Defenfe of my own.
Befides, you have now bad fome Years to con
fider this Subject, and may probably fee reafon
to alter fome Things; to contract y our Queries into

486 ^ DEFENSE Qu.XXXt.
into a fliorter Compafs, and to put them clofer
and ftronger: Tho* that part, 1 think, fliould
come, after you have made a ^Defenfe of your
own Principles: Otherwife, you know, it is
nothing but finding faults, Without propofing
any way to mend Them ; which is only a work
of Fancy , and is both fruitlefs , and endlefs.
My defign chiefly was to be upon the Ofien-
five: The Defenfive Part, on our fide, has
been handled over and over, in Books well
known, and eafy to be had. What was moft
wanting was, to point out the particular De
fects of Dr. Clarke's Scheme, which was thought
to contain fomething new; and was certainly
fet forth in a very new Method.
In Conclufion, give me leave to tell you, that
I have enter'd into this Caufe (after a compe
tent weighing of what I could meet with, on
either fide) under a full Convidtion both of the
Truth and Imporrance of it ; and with a Refo
lution (by God's Affiftance) to maintain it;
till I fee Reafon ( which I defpair of) to alter
my Judgment of it. Make you the beft you
can of your fide of the Queftion, in a rational
and fair manner. Truth is what I fincerely
aim at , whether it be on your fide , or on
mine. But I may be allowed to fpeak with the
greater Confidence in this Caufe, fince the Con
troverfy is not new, but has been exhaufted
long ago ; and all had been done on your Side,
that the Wit of Man could do, long before ei
ther You, or Dr. Clarke appear'd in it. You
may,

Qu.XXXI. of fome QUERIES. 487
may, if you pleafe , traverfe over again Scri
pture , Antiquity, and Reafon. As to the
firft ; all the Texts you can pretend to bring
againft us, have been weigh'd and confider'd ;
and we have Solutions ready for rhem ; while
you are yet to feek how to give a toIerabJe
Account of feveral Texts ; thofe , efpecially,
which declare the 'Unity of God, and proclaim
the Son to be God, Creator, and an Object of
Worfhip and Adoration. If you proceed to
Fathers) They ftand pointed againft you ; and
you are certain to expofe your Caufe, as often
as you hope for any Relief or Succour from
Them. If laftly (which you think your ftrong-
eft Hold) you retire to Thilofophy and Meta-
phyficks, I humbly conceive, you will ftill be
able to do nothing. If will be only falling to
Conjecture, after you fail of Troof; and giv
ing the World your Wifhes, when They look'd
for Demonftrations. I do not expedt you
fliould believe one Word of what I have now
faid ; neither fay I it to difcourage any rational
Inquiries ; let Truth have its utmoft Trial, that
it may afterwards Shine out with greater Luftre :
Only let not your Zeal out-run your Troofs.
If your Arguments have Weight fufficient to
carry the Point with Men of Senfe, let us have
Them in their full Strength; all reafonable
Men will thank you for Them. But if, failing
in Troof, you fhould condefcend (which yet I
am perfwaded you will nor) to Wile and Stra
tagem, to Colours and Difguifes, to Mifrepre fentation

488 if DEFENSE Qu.XXXI.
fentation and Sophiftry, in hopes to work your
way through the unlearned and unthinking Part
of the World ; Then let me affure you before
hand, that That Method will not do. Every
Man, that has a Spark of generous Fire left,
will rife up againft fuch Practices ; and be filled
with Difdain to fee Parts and Learning fo pro-
(lituted, and Readers fo ufed.

I am, Sir, your
Friend and Servant.

POST-

489

POSTSCRIPT. To the Firft EDITION.
I Have juft run over the Second Edition of
Dr. Clarke's Scripture -Doctrine ; where
1 obferve, that moft of the Paffages, which I
have animadverted upon , ftand as They did,
without any Corredtion or Amendment.
Where the Doctor has attempted any Thing,
which may feem to weaken the Force of
what I have offer'd above, I fhall here take
notice of it. I had noted (as the learned
Mr. Welchman had done before me) the Do
ctor's unfair manner of fuppreffing fome Words
of Chryfoftom, which were neceffary to let the
Reader into the Author's true meaning. The
Dodtor here endeavors * to bring Himfelf off,
by faying, that the Words left out are Chry*
fijtom's own Inference, and not the Expli
cation of the Words of the Text. But the
Truth is ; Chryfofiom's Inference fliows plainly

* Pag. pi.

K k

what

49o TOSTSCRITT.
what his Explication of the Text was ; which
Explication reprefented feparately without that
Inference, by the Help of the Doctor prefacing
it, was made to appear in another Light, and
to fpeak another Senfe than what the Author
intended. One in Tower (mm £tiva,puv) is the
lame, with Chryfoftom, as equal in Power or
Ability, and effentially fo. He could never
have imagined, that one in Tower fliould fignify
no more than the Doctor pretends. One having
infinite and the other only finite Power, could
not, according to Chryfoftom, be properly
laid to be one, wrd ^jvcl/hy, in Tower. His
Interpretation then, being not only different
but contrary to the Doctor's, fliould not have
been reprefented in fuch a Manner (by fop*
preffing a part of it) as to be made to appear
to countenance a Notion, which it clearly con
tradicts. The learned Doctor * has put in an Expla
natory Tarenthefis to his Tranflation of a
Paffage of Irenaus. I have took notice f a-
bove that He had not done Juftice to Ire
naus, in that Paffage : And I am glad to find
that the Doctor Himfelf is now fenfible of it.
He has not yet come up to the foil Senfe of
the Author ; as you may perceive, by com
paring what He hath faid with what I have
remark'd above. But He has laid as much as
could be expected of Him: The wiler way
* Pag. $»*• t Pag. 430* would

TOSTSCRITT. 491
would have been, to have ftruck the Quotation
out of his Book.
Pag. z$. The learned Doctor Criticizes a
Paffage of St. Auftin ; which I am obliged to
take notice of, having made ufe of that Paffage
in thefe Sheets : * I will give you the Doct
or's own Words, that you may be the better able
to judge of the Matter. After He had cited
feveral Paffages out of Juftin Martyr, where,
probably, Juftin was fpeaking of the Tem
porary tzt£}i\i\ms , or Manifestation , or Ge
neration of God the Son, He proceeds thus.
44 Note: In all thefe Paffages, the words xafQ.
•«.' jSsAw, and ,28A»i, and SeAwH, and JWjtt^,, fignify
44 evidently, not volente, but voluntate; not
" the mere Approbation, but the Act of the
*-' Will. And therefore Sr. Auftin is very un-
" fair, when He confounds thefe two Things,
'' and asks (utrum Tater fit 'Deus, Volens
'fan Nolens) whether the Father Himfelf be
*' God, with or without his own Willi The
44 Anfwer is clear : He is God (Volens) with
-'V; the Approbation of his Will; but not volun-
',' tate, not ty /SsAw, not ^bA^, 3eA«<r4, and
44 <$W^<j, DOt by an J#? of his Will, but by
44 Necefiity of Nature. Thus far the learned
¦Doctor. This is ftrange Mifreprefentation. I
pafs by his Mifeonftruction oijufiin Martyr,
•and his Infinuation (grounded upon it) that
the Son became God, by an Act oi the Father's,
* Pag. iiii.
.T * Kki Will.

49* TOSTSCRIT T.
Will. Admitting it were fo ; how is St. Auftin
concern'd in this Matter, and how comes in
the Doctor's Therefore, where there is no man
ner of Connexion ? Was St. Auftin Comment
ing upon Juftin Martyr ? The Doctor's
Thought feems to have been this: That St.
Auftin, having admitted that the Son was God
by an Act of the Father's Will, and being
prefs'd with the difficulty arifing from that Sup
pofition, had no way of coming off, but by
asking, whether the Father Himfelf was not
God by his own Will. If this was not the Do
ctor's Thought, it is at leaft what his Readers,
very probably, will have, upon the reading
the Doctor's Note. But to clear up this Matter,
I'll tell you the whole Cafe. The Arians, for
merly, as well as now, being very defirous to
make a Creature oi God the Son, fet their
Wits to work to find Arguments for it. They
had a great mind to bring the Catholicks to
admit that the Son was firft produced, or gene
rated, by an Act oi the Father's Will (in
the Senfe oifree Choice) and the Confequence
They intended from it, was, that the Son
was a Creature. The Catholicks would not
admit their Tofiulatum without Proof; and
fo the Arians attempted to prove it thus, by a
'Dilemma. The Father begat his Son, either
Nolens, or Volens ; againfi his Will, or with
his Will : It could not be againft his Will, that
is abfurd ; therefore it niuft be with his Will;
therefore that A£l of the Will was precedent

TOSTSCRITT. 493
to the Son's Exiftence, and the Father prior to
the Son. Here the Doctor may fee, who the
Men were that firft confounded two diftinct
Things, mere Approbation, and an Act of the
Will: Not the acute St. Auftin, not the Ca
tholicks ; but the Arians. To proceed : The
* Catholicks, particularly Athanafius, Gregory
Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Au-
fiin (Men of excellent Senfe, and who knew
how to talk pertinently ) eafily contrived to
baffle their Adverfaries with their own Wea
pons. Tell us, fay They to the Arians, whether
the Father be God, Nolens, or Volens ; againfi
his Will, or with his Will. This quite con
founded the Men, and their 'Dilemma; and
They had not a word to fay more. For, if
They had faid Nolens, againfi his Will; that
was manifeftly abfurd : If They had faid Volens,
with his Will; then, by their own Argument,
They made the Father prior to Himfelf. The
Doctor perhaps might have help'd Them out.
Let us fee then : The Anfwer, He fays, is clear.
But what is clear ? Does He imagine there was
any difficulty in anfwering St. Aufiin's Que
ftion , taken by it felf? This required no
Oedipus; Any Man might readily anfwer it:
But the difficulty was for an Arian to make
an Anfwer, which fliould not recoil upon Him
felf. Let us take the Dodtor's Anfwer, and ob-

* Athanaf. Orat. 3. p. 610, 61 1. Gregory Nazians. Orat. $f.
p. f 6f, f66. Cyril. Alexandr. Theiaur. p. fo. /». Auguft.
Tom. 8. p. 6z6. 994. Ed. Bened.
* ferve

494 T O S T S C R I T T.
ferve whether it could be of ufe. The Father;
lays He, is God with the Approbation of his
Will ( Volens ) not by an Act of his Will.
But if an Arian formerly had thus anfwer'd St.
Auftin, it would have made the good Father
fmile. For, He would immediately have re
plied : Well then ; fo the Father had his Son
(Volens) with the Approbation of his Will,
and not by an Act of his Will: And now what
becomes of your Dilemma, and your Nolens
Volensl What could the Arian have pretend
ed farther, except it were to perfift in it, that
the Son was God by an Act of the Will? To
which it would be readily anfwer'd, that this
was begging the Qieftion ; and fo the whole
muft have ended. Judge you now, whether
the Doctor or St. Auftin had the greater Acu
men in this Matter ; and which of them is moft
apt to be very unfair, and to confound diftinct
Things. 7 / • \ ' /

F I N I S.

BOOKS Printed for, and Sold by Cor
nelius Crownfield, at Cambridge.
CJulii Csfaris qua? exftant Omnia. Ex Recenfione Joannis Da-
. vifii, cum ejufdem animadverfionibus ac Notis Pet. Ciacconii,
Fr. Hotomanni, Joan. Brantii, Dionyf. Voffii 8c aliorum. Accef-
fere Metaphrafis Graeca Librorum vn, De Bello Gallico, nee noa
Indices necelfarii. Jjhtarto 1706.
M- Minucii Felicis O&avius, ex iterata Recenfione Joannis Da-
•vifn, cum ejufdem Animadverfionibus, ac Notis Integris Def. He-
raldi 8c Nic. Rigaltii, nee non Sele&is aliorum. Accedit Commo-
dianus, Aivi Cyprianici Scriptor, cum Obfervationibus antehac Edi-
tis, aliifque nonnullis, quae jam primum prodeunt. OBavo, 1712.
M. Tullii Ciceronis de Natura Deorum libri Tres. Cum notis
integris Paulli Manucii, Petri Viftorii, Joachimi Camerarii, Dionyf.
Lambini, 8c Fulv. Urfini. Recenfuit, fuifque Animadverfionibus
Illuftravit ac Emaculavit Joannis Davifius, L. L. D. Coll. Regin.
Cantab^ Magifter, 8c Canonicus Elienfis. Accedunt Emendationes
Cl. Joannis Walkeri, A. M. Coll. Trin. Socii. Ofi&vo. 1718.
Laftantii Firmiani Epitome Divinarum Inftitutionum ad Penta-
dium Fratrem. Eam ex vetuftiffimo MSto Taurinenfi nuper edi-
tam recenfuit, & fuis animadverfionibus illuftravit, ac emendavit
Joannes Davifius, Juris 8c Theologias Dotlor, C R. C M. C E.
OBavo, 17 1 8.
Suidae Lexicon, Graece 8c Latine. Textum Graecum cum Manu-
fcriptis Codicibus collatum a quamplurimis mendis purgavit, Notif-
que perpetuis illuftravit: Verfionem Latinam ;£milii Porti innumeris
in locis correxit ; Indicefque Amftorum 8c Rerum adjecit Ludolphus
Kufterus, Profeffor humaniorum literarum in Gymnafio Regio Be-
rolinenfi. 3. Vol. Folio, 1710.
C. Crifpi Salluftii qua; extant ; cum Notis Integris Glareanl, Ri-
vii, Ciacconii, Gruteri, Carrionis, Manutii, Putfchii, Doufas; Seleftis
Caftilionei, C & A. Popmas, Palmerii, Urfini, J.Fr.Gronovii.Vaorii,
&c. Accedunt Julius Exfuperantius, Porcius Latro : 8c Fragmenta
Hiftoricorum Vett. cum Notis A. Popmae. Recenfuit. Notas per-
petuas, 8c Indices adjecit Jofephus Waffe. Coll. Regin. apud Cantab.
Socius; & Nobilifl". Marchioni de Kent a Sacris Domefticis. Prae-
mittitur Salluftii Vita, Auftore V. Cl. Joanne Clerico. Quarto, 1 710.
Emendationes in Menandri & Philemonis Reliquias, ex nupera
Editione Joannis Clerici: Ubi multa Grotii 8c aliorum, pluriaia ve
ro Clerici errata caftigantur. Auftore Phileleuthero Lipfienfi. Scri-
ptae Anno mdccx. Accedit Epiftola Critica Richardi Bentlei de Jo
anne Malela Antiocheno,- Scripts Anno mdxccii. Editio Altera E-
inendatior. Octavo. 1713. ,..„,..
Q. Horatius Flaccus ad nuperam Richardi "Bennett Editionem ac.
curate exprefius. Notas addidit Thomas Bentleius, A. B. Collegii S.
Trinkatis apud Canubrigienfes Alumnus. OBavo. 1713.

©softajeVs XxgccKTtigtc HAxof. Theophrafti Characleres Ethici.
Graece 8c Latine. Cum Notis ac Emendationibus Ifaaci Cafauboni
8c Aliorum. Accedunt Jacobi Duporti Praeledtiones jam primuru
Editae. Graeca cum vetuftiffimis MSS. collata recenfuit, & .Notas
adjecit Vet. Needham, S. T. P. Coll. Div. Johan. Cantab. Socius.
OBavo, 1 71 J.
Bernardi Varenii Geographia Generalis, in qua affeftiones genera-
les Telluris explicantur. Adjedta eft Appendix, precipua Recentio-
rum inventa ad Geographiam fpeftantia continens, A Jacobo Jurin,
A. M. Collegii S. Trinitatis Socio, 8c Schohe Publics Novocaftrenfis
Archididafcalo. OBavo. 171*.
M. T. Ciceroni's de Finibus Bonorum 8c Maiorum Libri Quinque.
Et Paradoxwn Liber Unus. Emendavit, Notifque Illuftravit Thomas
Bentley, A. M. Trin. Col), Cantab. Socius. OBavo, 17 18.
V. Cl. Andreas Tacquet, Soe. Jefu Sacerdotis & Mathefeas Pro-
fefloris Elementa Geometria; Plana; ac Solidae ; ex Archimede Theo-
remata, Accedunt Corallaria non pauca illuftrandis Elementis ac-
commodata. 8c Varios propoficionum plurimarum Ufus continentia.
Summa cura emendata, 8c XL. Schematibus novis seri incifis illu-
ftrata. A Gulielmo Whifton, A. M. Editio Secunda, Audliior 8c
emendatior. OBavo, 1710.
Publii Virgilii Maronis Bucolica, Georgica, & /Eneis. Ad opti«
morum Exemplarium fidem recenfita- Editio Altera. \xmo. 1702.
Remarks upon a late Difcourfe ef Free-Thinking: In a Letter to
F. H. D. D. By Phileleutherus Lipfienfis. The Fifth Edition. Two
Parts. Odtavoj 1716.
A Sermon upon Popery : Preach' d before the Univerfity of Cambridge,
TXov.yh. 1 7 >$. By Richard Bentley, D. D. Mafter of Trinity
College, and chaplain to His Majefty, OBavo.
The Folly and Unreafonablenefs of Atheifm Demonftrated, In Fight
Sermons at .Mr. Boyle\r LeBure, in the firft Tear, 1691. To which it
added a Sermon preach'd at the Public-Commencement at Cambridge
July <,. 1696. By Richard Bentley, D.D. Mafter of Trinity College
in Cambridge. The Fifth Edition CorreBed. Ofravo, 1719.
Chriftian Morals, by Sir Thomas Brown, of Norwich, M. D.
and Author of Religio Medici. Publiflnd from the Original and
CorreB Manufcript of the Author; by John Jeftery, D. D. Arch-
Deacon of Norwich. I Zmo. 1716.
A Sermon preach'd before the Univerfity of Cambridge, On Wednef-
day the ift of Auguft, 1716. Being the Anniverfary of His Ma'jeftyV
Happy Accejpon to the Throne. By Theod. Waterland, M. A. Fellow
of Magdalen College. Octavo, 1716.
A Sermon Preach'd before the King, at King's College Chappel in
Cambridge, on Sunday OBober the 6th 1717. By Richard Laughtori,
D. D. and Fellow of Clare Hall. Publijhd by His Majefty'^ fpecial
Command. The Second Edition. O&avo, 1717.
A Sermon Preach'd in the Cathedral Church 'of Ely at the Afjiaet
held for the Ifle of Ely, Apr. 16. 171S. By John Whitfield, D.D.
Fellow of Trinity College in Cambridge. Publiflied at the Requefi of
the Grand- Jury and other Gentlemen. OBavo, 1718.

BOOKS printed^ and Sold hy James Knapton^
at the Crown in St. Paul's-Church-yard.

Written hy the Reverend Dr. CLARKE, ReBor of
St. James j, Weftminfter.

for Families.

Difcourfe concerning the Being and Attributes of
God; the Obligations of Natural' Religion, and the
Truth and Certainty of the Chriftian Revelation, in ¦
Anfwer to Mr.- Hobbes, Sec. and other Den:ers of
Natural and Revealed Religion. Being Sixteen Ser
mon; preached atMr. Boj/le'i Leisures, in theYears 1704
and 1705. The Fifth Edition. To which are added
feveral Letters to Dr. Clarke, relating to the firft Vol.
with the Dr's Atifwers, 8ti», Trice 6 1. _
A Paraphrafe on the four Evangelifts, with Criti
cal Notes on the more difficult Paffages, very ufeful
In 2 Vols, 8*«, Pr»« ." '• The Third Edition .
Three Practical Efl'ays on Baptifm, Confirmation and Repentance. The
Third Edition, rrice bound i j. or 116 for S I.
Six Sermons on feveral Occafions. Price 1 1. . _, .
A Colledion of Papers, between Mr. Lubmtz. and Dr. Clarkf, relating to the
Principles of Natura! Philofophy and Religion. Price 6 s
A Letter to Mr. Dodwell, concerning the Immortality of the Soul, with four
Defehfes &e. The Fifth Edirion. Price 4 s _ -„,..„ ^ •
The Scripture Dodrine of the Trinity : Wherein every Teat in the New Te
ftament Hating to that Doarine, is dtftinftly confidered ; and rhe_Q.vin.ty of
our Sed Safiour according to the Scriptures, proved and expUxned. The
^ALttKr'tft'heKeverend Dr. mils, ih Anfwer ro his Remarks, &c. Price
1 A Reply to the Objeaions of Robert Nelfin, Bfqs and of an Anonymous Ai£
thor agafnft Dr. Clarke's Scripture-Dodnne of the Trim,,, Svo, Pr.ce 4 ,.
Tacobi Rohaulti Phyfica. Latine venit Recenfuit & Annotauombus ex II u-
ftrS lfaTm2ni Ph.lolophia Maximam partem hauft.s, AmEl.ficavit X
Ornavit, S. Clark?, S. T. P. Editi. Sfarta. Pret 8 ,.
Thf Truth" of the Chrifiian Religion in Six Books by Hugo Grains: Corre&et

Ordinal}' to His Majefty

s BOOKS printed for, and
¦ By the Right Reverend the Lord Bijfjop of Bangor.'
TH E Reafomablenefs of Conformity to the Church of England. To whicH
is added the brief Defenfe of Epifcopal Ordination. The Third Edition,
Price 6 s.
Tlie Original and inftitutiph of Civil Government difcuffed. To which is ad
ded a large Anfwer to Dr. F- ~4tterburj's Charge of Rebellion. The Second Edition.
Price } s.
Eighteen Difcourfes concerning the Terms of ^Acceptance with God. The Se
cond Edition. Price 5 s.
Several Tracts formerly publifhed : Now colle&ed into one Volume. To
' which are added Six Sermons never before published, 8* 0, Price 6 ,.*
The Meafure, oi Submiffvm to the Civil Magiftrate confider'd. The Fifth Edi
tion. Price 3 s.
A Prefervative againft the Principles and Pra&ices of the Nonjurors, both
in Church and State, or an Appeal to the Confciences and Common Senfe of the;
Chriftian Laity. The Fifth Edition. Price 1 s.
The Nature of the Kingdom or Church of Chrift : A Sermon preached be^
fore the King, March 31, 1717. The Fifteenth Edition. Price 4 d.
An Anfwer to the Reverend Dr. Snipe's Letter to the Bifliop of Bangor. The
^Thirteenth* Edition. Price 6 d.
An Anfc er to the Reprefentatiofl drawn up by the Committee of the Lower
Houfe of Convocation, concerning feveral dangerous Pofitions and Dottrines
contained in the Bifliop of Bangor' 's Prefervative and Sermon. The Second EdU
tion. Price 4 3.
An Anfwer to a Calumny call upon the Biihop^f Sanger, by the Reverend Dr-
Sherlock^, at rhe Conclufion of his Book, entitled, vi Viudicaiion ef the Corporation
and Teft ^icis, &< . P'ice 3 d.
An Anfwer to a Lite Book written by the Reverend pr. Sherlock^ enrituled,
The Cmditien and Example of our Bleffed Saviour vindicated. Price 1 ,',
The Common Rights of Subjects, defended : And the Nature of the Saira-
mtntal Teft, confider'd. In Anfwer to the Dian of Chichejter's Vindication oi
the Corporation and Tejl *Acls. Price 3 s. 6 d.
A Sermon preached the 5th of Nov. 1715.
.A Sermon pieached the 29th of May tji6.
A Sermon preached on St. David's Day, March 1. 171 6.
A Sermon preach'd at the Funeral of Mrs. Eliz.. Howland, May the ift, I71 j.

By the Reverend Dr. Wells, ReBor of Cotesbach in
Leicefterihire.
("^Ontroverfial Treatifes againft the Diffmters. The Six h Edition Svo. Pr: 31 id
J An Eipofition on the Church Catechifm. Price 6 d.
Piayers on Common Occafions, appertaining to the formentioned Expofi-
tion of the Church Catechifm. Price 6 d.
An Help for the more dear and eafy underftanding of the Holy Scriptures'
being all the Books of the New Teftament, and the Book^ of Daniel paraphiafed'
with Annotations, and the Original or Creek. Text amended according to the
beft Manufcripts. The Englijh render'd more agreeable to the Original %-c
• A Treatife concerning the Harmony of the four Gofpels, together wi'th a large
TaMe reprefenting in one View, the Harmony ef the four Go/pelt fo lar fofth
as re. ares co the order of Trac, Sec Price 2 1. id
An H.-fiorical Geography of the Old and Kew Teftament, being a Geographical™*
H.jtortcal Account of the feveral Places mentioned ib the Hot, Scrip*}., . very
jfeful for the underftanding of the Holy Script*-.,, and of feveral par'ticul/r
l.xts Illuftrated. tgtli Mat, and Cut,, arid Chronological Tables, in 4 Vols 8*.
<W 1 l> + '. ' Ttlj

Sold by James Knapton. 3
The Toting Gentleman's Courfe of Mathematical : Containing fuch Elements, as
ire moft ufeful and eafy to be known, in ^irithmetick,, Geometry , Trigonometry,
Mechanicki, Optick;, viftronomy, Chronology and Dialling, in 3 Vols 8w Price
1%,. ,
Harmonia Grammaticalis, or a View of the Agreement between the Latin,
and Greek Tongues, as to the declining of Words, Sec. Price 1 s. 6 d.
A Letter to a Friend concerning the great Sin of taking God's Name in vain.
Trice 1 d. or too for 6 r.
Vnvoorthinefs no Excufe for not coming to the Sacrament, Trice 1 d. or 109
for 6 j.
Of Children's Capacity to receive Religions In/tractions, and of the manner how
to give them fuch Inpruetions ; together with Prayers adapted to the Ufe and
Capacities of Children. Price 1 d. or 1 00 for 61.
A Difcourfe concerning the Great and Indifpenfable Duty of a Decent and
Reverent Behaviour in Church,; Price 3 d. or 100 for 1 I.
The Great and Indifpenfable Duty to contribute liberally to the Rebuilding^
Building, Repairing, Beautifying and ^Adorning of Churches. Being a Difcourfe
perufed and approved of by the late mofi: Pious lUbert Nelfon, Efq; the Second
Edition. \
i A Difcourfe, fhewing that the Marriages of fuch as are near of Kin, are finful
under the Gofpel, as well as they were under the Law. To which is added the
Table of Marriage, &c. Price 3 d.

By the Reverend Dr. Bennet, ReBor of St. Giles's
Cripplegate.
AN Anfwer to the Dijfenter'i Pleas for Separation ; wherein the Subftance
of thofe Books, is digefted into one fliort and plain Difcourfe. The Fifth
Edition. Price 4 ,.
A Confutation of Popery in three Parts, Svo. The Fourth Edition. Price 4 s.
A Difcourfe of Schifm. The Third Edition, Svo.
A Confutation of SLuakerifm. The Second Edition, Svo. Price 4.1.
A brief Hiftory of the Joint Ufe of pre-compofed fet Forms of Prayer.'
The S'cond Edition, Svo.
A Difcourfe of Joint Prayer. The Second Edition.
A Paraphrafe wirh Annotations on the Book of Common-Prayer, v herein the
Text is explain'd, Objection, are anfwered, and Advice is humbly offered both to
the Clergy and Laity, for promoting true Devotion in the Ufe of it. The Second
Edition, Svo. Price 4 ,.
Two Letters to Mr. Rtbinfon, occalioned by his Review of the Gafe of Litur
gies, and their Impofition.
The Rights of the Clergy of the Chriftian Church ; or a Difcourfe ihewing that
God has given and appropriated to the Clergy, Authority to Ordain, Baptise,
Preach, Prefide in Church Prayer, and confecrate the Lord',-S»pper, and the pre
tended Divine Right of the Laity to ele&, ire. is difproved, 8™. Price 5 »'.
Directions for Studying a Body of Divinity, Svo. The Second Edition.

Dr. Vavenam'i Difcourfes on the Publick, Revenue,, and on the Trade of Eng
land, Svo. j
His Difcourfes on the Publick Revenue,, arid on the Trade of England ; wnicn
more immediately treat of the Foreign Traffick of this Kingdom.
An EfTay upon the probable Methods of making People Gainers in. the Ballance
of Trade. The Second Edition.
A Difcourfe upon Grant, and Refumptions. The Third Edition.
His EJfays upon 1. The Ballance of Power. 2, The making War, Peace and
•^ilhances. 3. Univerfal Monarchy.
His EJfays upon Peace at home, and Ff«r abroad. The Second Edition. Capta];)

$ BOOKS printed for, and
Captain WiUiam Dampier's Voyages round the' World, defcribing particularly5
the Ifthmus of ^America, the Coafts and Iflands in the Weft-Indies, and in the
South-Sea, feveral Iflands in the Eaft-Indies, New-Holland, the Cape of Good-
Mope, &c. Tlieir Inhabitants, Manners, Cuftoms, Trade, Soil, ire. Illuftrated
v/ith feveral Maps and Draughts : Alfo divers Beafts, Birds, Fiflies, and Plants,
not found in this Part of the World, curioufly ingi aven on Copper-Plate,. The
Sixth Edition, in three Vols, 8w. Price 18 s.
A New Voyage and Defcription of the Ifthmus of .America, giving an Account
of the ^Author's Abode there. ' The Form and Make of the Country, the Coaft,,
'H-.lls, Rhers, Sec. ' Soil, Weather, Sec. Trees, Fruit, Beafts, Birds, Fifh, Sec. The
Indian Inhabitants, their Features, Complexion, Manners, Cuftoms, ire. with
remarkable Occurrences in the South-Sea, and elfewhere. To which are added
the Natural Hiftory, of thofe Parts. By a Fellow of the Royal Society. And
Davis's Expedition to the Gold Mines. The Second Edition. Illuftrated with feve-
jai Cpper-Plates, By Lionel Wafer, the Second Edition, Svo. Price 4*.
A Voyage round the World, containing an Account of Capta:n Dtmpier's Er*
peduion into the South-Seas in the Years 1703. and 1704. Together with a
Voyage to Ea/i-lndia, Sec. With feveral Maps, Draughts, Figures of Plants and
Animals. By W. Funnel, Mate to Captain Dampier, 81/0. Price 5 .'.
An Introduction to the Hiftory oi the Kingdoms and States of ^Afia, ^Africa and
America, both Ancienr and Modern. According to the Method oi Samuel Puf
fendorf, Counfellor of State to the l..te King of Sweden, Svo. Price 6 ,.
A New and Accurate Defcription of the Coaft of Guinea. Illuftrated with ¦
feveral Cuts, &c.' Written originally in Dutch by W. Bofman, arid now faith
fully done into Englifh, Svo . Price 6 s.
The Artificial Clock-maker. A Treatife of Watch and Clock Work. By W.
Derham, M. A. and F. R. S. The Third Edition. Price 1 s. 6 d.
Several Difcourfes on Sraaical SubjeSs, being Ninety one Sermons by the
Reverend and Learned Benjamin Whit-hate, D. D. Ibmetime Minifter of St. Law
rence Jewry', London, to which is added the Dr's Piayer ufed before Sermon.
Examin'd and Corrected by his own Notes ; and published by John Jejfery. D. D.
Arch Deacon of Norwich. In four Vols, Svo. The Second Edition
Sixteen Sermons, on feveral Important and Praaical Subjeas. By Johnjef-
feri,O.D Arch-Deacon of Norwich, Svo. Price 5 s.
' The Hiftory of Jofiph, 3 Poem, in fix Books. With Cuts proper to each Book.'
By W. R'Je, Rector of E. Clandon in Surrey.
The hiftory of England, faithfully extraaed from ^imhentick Records and ap-
proved Manufcripts, and the molt celebrated Hiftories of this Kingdom. With
the Effigies of all the Kings and Queens of England, from the Norman Race to
the prefent Time, curioufly engraved on Copper Plates from Original Medals and ..
Piaures. The Fourth Edition, much improved : Particularly by a Continuation
of this Hiftory from the famous Battle of Blenheim, to the Death of the late Q.
^Atme, In tw o Vols, Svo. Price 121.
• Mr. Wmgate's Arithmetick, containing a Plain and Familiar Method for At-
taning the Knowledge and Praaice of Common ^irithmetick. The Thirteenth
E tition, 8 vr. Price 5 >.
The Elements of L .did explained in a New but moft Eafy Method : Together
•with the Ufe of every Propofition through all the Parts of the Mathematical.
Written in French by the Famous Monfieur de Chalet, now made Engbji. The
fifh Edition.
i An Inftitution of Fluxions ; containing the Firft Pi inciptes, the Operations, with
fome of the Ufes and Applications of that admirable Method ; according to the
Scheme prefixed to his TraS of Quadratures, by the Incompaiable Sir Ifaaa
Nc&icn By Humphry Ditton,
• ¦ The young Surveyor's Guide, or a new Introduaion to the whole ^Irt of Sur
veying Land, both by the Chain, and all Inftruments now in ufe. By E. Law
fence, Surveyor. Tilt Second Edition. Price 3 s.
¦ The Genefal Gauger : Or the Principles and PraSice, oi Gauging iter, Wine
and Matt. The whole laid down more Methodically than any Performance at
this Nature yet ej[tant,-By Mr. John Dettgharty. Jhe lb'tri Edition. Price 2 s.
• !¦¦'"¦ ; '¦ PraxU

Sold hy James Knapton. 5
Praxis Medici', or the Practice of Phyfick, or Dr. Sydenham's Proceffus Integri; i
Tranflated out of Latin into Englijh, with large ^Annotations, ^inimadverftons and
PraSical Obfervations on the fame. The Third Edition, By W.'Salmon, M.D.
Eight Chirurgical Treatifes, by Richard Wfeman, Serjeant Chirurgeon to K.
Charles 11. In two Vols, Svo. The Fifth Edition.
The Surgeon's Affiftant. In which is plainly difcovered the true Origin of
moft Difeafes. Treating particularly of the Plague, French Pox, Leprofie, &c
of the Biting of Mad Dogs, and other Venomous Creatures : Alfo a compleat
Treatife of Cancers and Gangrenes. Their moft eafie and fpeedy Method of
Cure, with divers approved Receipts. By John Browne, fworn Surgeon in Or
dinary to his late Majefty K. WUliam III. and late Senior Surgeon of St. Thomas's
Hofpital. An Apology for Dr. Clarke. Containing an Account of the Late Proceedings
in Convocation upon his Writings concerning the Trinity. Being a Collection of
feveral Original Papers, fome of which never before publiflied. Price 5 d.
Three Letters to Dr. Clarke from a Clergyman of the Church of England, con
cerning his Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity. With the Dr's Replies. Pub
liflied by the Authsr of the faid three Letters. Price 6 d.
Dt. Sherlockls Practical Difcourfe concerning Death, in Svo. The Fifteenth
Edition. Price 3 1, 6 d.
The fame in I10. Price I s. 6 d.
His Practical Difcourfe concerning a Future Judgment. The Eighth Edition, Svol
Price c s.
His Difcourfe concerning the Divine Providence. The Fifth Edition. Price j ,:
His-Difcourfe concerning the Happinefs of Good Men, and the Punifliment of
the Wicked in the next World. Containing the Proofs of the Immortality of
the Soul, and Immortal Lifiu _The Th.rd Ed>'"», Prints _l _
His Sermons upon feveral Occafions, in 2 Vols, Svo, The Third Edition. Pr.io >,'
His Prefervative againft Popery, in 120. Price 1 s.
The Rules and Exercife, of Holy Living, and of Holy Dying. By Jer. Taylor?
D D. The Twenty Third Editio*. Price 6 1.
The Golden Grove ; a Choice Manual, containing what is to be believed, pra-
ctifed, and defired or prayed for. By Jer. Taylor, D. D. The Twenty Fifth Edi
tion. Price 1 s.
Chriftian Morals and Chriftian Prudence. In two Parts. Wherein i; fliewn
the peculiar Wifdom and Beauty of the Chriftian Religion, in it's general Defign
of promoting thofe two excellent Ends fo perfective of Human Nature, Purity
and Peace. By John Laurence, M. A. Rector of Telvertoft in Nerthampton-fhire, %vt.
Price 5 s.
The Acceptable Sacrifice : Being a full Collection of Scripture-Devotions, taking;
in the whole Book ofPfalms, throughout all the Parts of it. Every Verfe of
that Book being feverally drawn up, and placed under the diftinct and proper
Head of Devotion to w'hich it belongs: Together with other the moft Devo
tional Portions of the Old and New Teftament, digefted after the fame manner,
and adapted to the Ufes of Chriftian Piety. In two Farts. With above 400
Prayers Thankfgivings, and Meditations, newly compofed, fuited and fub
joined to the Matter contained under each Head and Title refpectively. By
W. Tilly, D. D. Rector of tilbury and Goddington in Oxfordfhire, and Chaplain
to the Right Honourable the Earl of ^Abingdon.
A Dictionary of all Religions, Ancient and Modern, whether Jewifh, gagan^
Chriftian, ot Mahometan, Svo. Price 4 s.
The Chriftian's beft Guide, or the Religious Man's Companion, in three Parts
1. Containing the Hiftory of our Saviour's Birth, Life, Sufferings, Death, ant
Refurreaion. 2. An Account of the Proceedings, ire. of the Apoftles and
Primitive Chrifiians. 3. The Doarines, Precepts, and Prohibitions, delivered
by Chrift and his Apoftles ; all colleaed out of the New Teftament, and digeft
ed under proper Heads in Words of Scripture : Ufeful to inform the Under
ftanding, and govern the Life, Svo. Price 4 s.
The Conftruction of Maps and Globes. In Two Parts, r. Contains the va
rious JWays of projecting Maps, exhibited in 1 y different Methods, with their Ufes.'

£ BOOKS printed for] and
Ufes^ £. Treats of making divers Sorts of Globes, both as to the Geometrical
and Mechanical Work- Illuftrated with 18 Copperplates With an appendix,
wherein the. prefenr State of Geography is confidered, being an Inquiry into
Maps, Books of Geography and Travel, Svo, Price 6 ,. .
The Works of William Chillingworth, M. A. of the Univerfity of Oxford.
The Seventh Edition. In this Edition are added two Letters written by the
Author, never before printed.
The Comroon-Prayer-Book the beft Companion in' the Houfe and Clofet, a;
we'll as in the Temple : Or a Collection of Prayers out of the Liturgy of the
Church of England, moft needful both for the whole*amiIy together, and for
every fingle Perfon a-part by himfelf. With a particular Office for the Sacra- 1
Kent. The Fourteenth Edition. Price i s.
The Word ef God the Beft Guide to all Perfons, at all Times, and in all
places •" Or a Colleaion of Scripture-Texts, plainly fliewing fuch Things as are
Keceffary for every Chriftian's Knowledge and Practice. By the Author of the
.Common-Prayer-Book the Beft Companion. The Third Edition, with Additions.
Price i s. 6 d. >
Monfieur B«ffn.'s Treatife of the Epick Poem -• Containing many Curious Re
flections very Ufeful and Neceffary for the right Underftanding and Judging
of rhe Excellencies of Homer and Virgil. Made Englifh from the French, with a,
Preface on the fame Subject, by W- J. To which are added, an Effay upon
Satyr, by Monfieur D'Acier ; and a Treatife upon Paftorals, by M. Fontanelle.
The Second Edition. In two Vols, 1 20.
Colonel Bladen's Tranflation of Juliui Cxfar's Commentaries. The Third Edi
tion improved.
Bifhop Burnet's Abridgment of his Hiftory of the Reformation. In three
Vol.s, 10.0. .
Dictionarium Rufticum, Urbanicum & Botanicum : Or, a Dictionary of HAf-
bandry, Gardening, Trade, Commerce, and all Sorts of Country-Affairs. Tlie
Second Edition.
A Summary of all the Religious Houfes in England and Wales, with their Titles
and Valuations at the Time of their Dflblution. And a Calculation of whajt
they might be worth at this Day. Together with an appendix concerning the
feveral Religious Orders that prevailed in this Kingdom. Price 2 s.
Poems by rhe Earl of Rofcommon. To which is added an Effay on Poetry,
by the Earl of Mulgrave, ' now Duke of Buckingham. Together with Poems by
Mr. Richard Dukf.
A Compleat Collection of State Trials, Proceedings upon Impeachment, &c.
for High-Treafbn, and other Crimes and Mifdemeanours, from the Reign of K.
Henry IV. to the Death of the late Q. ^Anne. In four Volumes. Fol.
A Collection of Queries. Wherein the moft Material Objections from Scrip
ture, Reafon, and Antiquity, which have as yet been alledged againft Dr.
Clarke's Scripture Doctrine ot, the Trinity, and the Defenfes of it, are propofed,
and anfwered. Price 2 s.
A Vindicarion of Chrift's Divinity : Being a Defenfe of (bme Queries, re
lating to Dr. Clarke's Scheme of the Holy Trinity, in Anfwer to a Clergyman in
the Country- By Daniel Waterland, D. D. Mafter of Magdalen-College, in Cam
bridge, and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majefty. Price 6 s. '
A Modeft Plea for the Baptifmal and Scripture-Notion of the Trinity.
Wherein the Schemes of Dr. Bennet and Dr. Clarke are compared. To which.
are added Two Letters, one written to the late Reverend Mr. R. M. concern
ing his plain Scripture-Argument, ire. The other to the Author of a Book,
intituled, The true Scripture-DoSlrine cf the moft Holy and undivided Trinity con
tinued and vindicated. Recommended firft by Robert Nelfon, Efq; and fince by
the Reverend Dr. Waterland. wherein are obviated the principal Arguments
urged by the Reverend Dr. Waterland, in his Defenfe of fome Queries, &c.
By a Clergyman in the Country. Price 4 s.
An Introduction to the Hiftory of England, by Sir William Temple, Bar.
Price 3 J. 6 d.
Mifiellanea, the fecond Part. In four Eflays. I. Upon Ancient and Modern
Learning. 2. Upon the Gardens of Epicurus. 3. Upon Heroick Virtue.
4- Upon Poetry, By Sit William Temple, Bar. The- Fourth Edition. " yii*

Sold by James Kna?tonJ

f

r ADdifafs Travels, 120.
Xi. -Afpinw dl's Prefervative againft
Popery. Price 1 1,
'Academia, or the Humours of the Uni
verfity of Oxford, in Burlefque
Verfe. Price 6 d.
?D Arrow's Works, a Vols, Fof.
¦^ Blackall's Sermons, 8 Vols.
Bragg1 on the Parables, 2 Vols.
Bacons Effays.
Burkft on the New Teftament,
Byfthe^s Art of Poetry.
Buna's Guide to Eternity.
Brown's Chriftian Morals.
Blackball on the Clajftcs.
Blackmore's Prince Arthur.
Sentley's Remarks on Free-thinking.1
Bolt's French Diaionary.
. - - French Grammar.
Bsccace's Novels.
Bifliop Burnet's Paftoral Care."
 His Life of E. of r.ecbefleri
fo ftis's Devotions.
^ Collea. of Receip.ih Cookery,^,
Charaaerifticks, 3 Vols.
Cowley's Works, 3 Vols;
Cole's Diaionary.
Calamy's Sermons, Snoj —
Colleaion of Voyages and Travels,
2 Vols, 4».
Colleaion of Papers printed in the
Year 17 10, now reprinted. Price
is. 6 d.
Cave's Primitive Chriftianity.
f~\Ryden's Virgil, 3' Vols.
XJ .. - Mifcellanies, 6 Vols,'
- - - Fables, Svo.
. — Juvenal, 1 10.
- - - Plays, 6 Vols, I ii.
Drelincourt on Death.
Derham's Sermons, 2, Vols.
Drexelius on Eternity.
Devil of a Wife, a Comedy. Price 1 s.
£ Chard's Hift. oi England, 3 Vols, Fol.
- - - Ecdef- Hift. 2 Vols, tvi.
Eabard's Gazetteer, 2 Parts, 1 20.
- - - Hift. and Poet. Diaionary, ia«
D'Ejlrade's. Memoirs, 3 Vols.
Echard's Terence, Englifh.
fVller's Medicina Gymnaftica'.
"*•  . pharmacopeia exiempernntJ.
Female Inftruaor.
Felton- on the Clafficks.
Farquhar's Plays, 2 Vols, I2i\
Frez,ier's Voyage to the South Sea.
Fortune Hunters, a Comedy, Price 1 1.
Fair Quaker of Deal, a Comedy.
Price i s.
/"JEntleman inftruaed.
Goodman's Penitent pardon'd,
. . . Winter; Evening Conference."

Gloffographia Nova Anglican*.
Gordon's Geograph, Grammar.'
Gaftrel's Chriftian Inftitutes.
Geographia Claffica.
Gregory's Nomenclatosra.
Garretfon's Englifh Exercifes.'
Gamefter, a Comedy. Price I s'.
Godfather's Advice to his Son. Priej^
i d, or 100 for 1 /.
Governm. of the PafSons. Pr, 1 s'.
EfOweU'sHiftor. Bible, 3 Vols, Sv£
Hackf's Voyages, Svo.
Hawkins's Clavis Commercii.
Hammond's Catechifm.
nation's Pfalms.
Hudibras, 1.20.
Hatton's Merchant's Magazine^
Huet's Defcripr. of Paradile.
eYEnkm on the Chriftian ReligiorjJ
J 2 Vols.
JfEttlewcll'sWorks, 2 Vols, Fef.
** - - - On the Sacrament.
- - - Evil of Profufenefs.
- - - Death made Comfortable.'
Kennet's Roman Antiquities.
King on the Creed.
- - - Conftitut. of the Primit. ChurcW
Kiel's Anatomy.
JEftrange's Jofephus, 3 Vols, Svo.
-*-1 Lucas's Sermons.
Lock of Underftanding, 2 Vols, SvoJ
Leftrar.ge's Alfop, 2 Vol;, Svo.
Lake on the Sacrament.
Littleton's Diaionary, 4ft?,
Life of the Emperor Leopold.
- - - Oi K.James 11.
Lancafhire Witches, a Comedy.'
Love makes a Man, a Comedy.
Jt/fAundrell's Travels.
Moreland's Vade Mecum.
Milton's Paradife Loft and Regained,' ,
Markham's Mafter-piece.
Countefs of Morton's daily Exercife,
MElfon's Feftivals.
- - - On the Sacrament.
Nichols on the Common-Prayerl
Nelfin's Juftice.
Nourfe's Homilies.
Norris's Mifcellanies.
QXfird Grammar.
v Oxford Spelling-Book.'
Olljffe on the Church Catechifm.1
Ovia's Epiftles, Englifh.
Ovid's Art of Love, Englifh, 120.
Otwafs Plays, 2 Vols, 120.
Ovia's Metamorph. Englifh, 2 Vols, 7 2»<
fponer's Greek Anti^uit'^, 2 Vols.
Pyle on the Epiftles and Aas.
- - - On the Pentateuch.
Prideaux's Connex. of the O, Sc N.Teftj
Priir's Poems. tufen.

BOOKS printed for* &£'

puffendorf 'sintrod. to the Hift. of Europei
Pantheon.
Plurality of Worlds^
Pearfin on the Creed. ..
Patrick's Devout Chriftian*'
- - - Chriftian Sacrifice.
... Pfalms.
- - r Advice to a Fijend.
- - - Help to Young Communicants.
- - • Menfa Myftica.
Plutarch's Lives, 5 Vols, lie.
Pillonniere's 3 Replies to Dr. Snape, Sjcl
/yVarles's Emblems. '
r^Quincey's Difpenfatory.
- - - Phyfical Diaionary.
TiEeves's Apologies, 2 Vols, Svo'.
¦^ Roche fter's Poems, 1 at.
Row's Salluft Englifh.
Row's Plays, I2».
VHarp's Sermons, 4 Vols;
° Steel's Chriftian Hero.
Scoff's Works, 2 Vols, Fol.
Speaators, 8 Vols.
South' s Sermons, 6 Vols.
Smalridge's Sermons.
Scarron's Works.
Shakefpear's Plays, 8 Volsj
ShaawcU's-Pteyh Uo.
Stanhope's St. Auguftin.
- - - Kempis, Svo. and tit.
Sykes's 4 Letters to Dr. Sherlock}
Seneca's Morals-
Short View of the Chriftian Religion.
Price 3 d, or 100 for 1 /.
'T'dlemachus, Englifh.
Tatlers, 4 Vols.
Tillotfon's Sermons, 3 Vols, Fol.
Sir W. Temple's Works.
Topping's 4 Serm. on feveral Occafions.
"WHilgifi's Life, Fol.
Week's Preparation.
Winchefter Manual.
Weffe's Devotions.
Wilkin, oi Natural Religion^
- - - Of Prayer and Preaching,"
Wake's Sermons.
... On the Church Catechifm.
- - - Genuine Epiftles.
Whitby on the N. Teftam. 2 Vols, Fol.
Waller's Poems, 128.
Dr. Whitby's Defence of the Prop, con
tained in the B. of Bangor's Sermon.
' MR'ftotelis Ethica Gr. & Lat. Oxon.
^jj - - - De Arte Poetica, Gr. Lat.
Avantures de Telemaeue, Fr. \
^Alljchinit & Demofthenu Oratitnet, Gr.
Eat. Oxon.
S. Chrypftomi de Sacerdotii, far Hughes.
Cafialicn" Mv. Teft. Lat.
C.nfeffio Paftorxm Remonftrantium fuptr
Artie"!'1- Ecclefit Anglican*.

Cicero de Ordtore Delph. Oxon'.
- - -. De.Claris Oratoribm ire. Oxon'.
• - - De Officii,, per fooly, Oxon.
Cicero de Orator'e, per Pearce, Cantab.
 De Natura Deorum, per Davis, Cantl
- - - DeFinibui, ire. per f. Bentley'
Curcellni Ethica. ¦
Cafiiris Comment. Notis Variorum.
Cafaris Commentaria Detph.
Dionyfius de fitu Orbis Gr. Lat. Oiom.
-Ellis de 39 Articuli, Eccle fm Anglican^,
Euclid Commandini, Oxon.
Grotius de Veritate Religion!, Chriftianat
- - - De Jure Belli ir Pacii.
Horatius in ufum Ddphini.
Horatius, T. Bentleii Cantab, Svol
Horace de Dacier, to Vol,, 120.
Kiel's Inirodu&io ad Veram PhyficamC
- Introduffio ad Aftronemiam.
Leufden's Compendium Novi Teftamentil
Lucius plorus Delphini.
Livii Hift. Clerici, 10 Vols, Amfi.
Livii Hift. 6 Vols Sot, Oton.
Leufdeni Teftament. N. Gr. & Lat. Amftl
Longinu, de Sublimitale Gr. & Lat.Oxmi
Mmuciits Felix ex Recenfione, J Davifif.
Millies Seelionitm Conicarum.
MufarumAnglicanarumAnalella, 3 Vols'.
Mill.i Teftamentum Novum Graeum.
Oeuvres de Moliere, 4 Vols, Fr.
Newioni Principia PhilofophU Malhemat}
Ovidii Opera, 3 Vols, 240.
Ovid ij Metamorphofet Delph.
- - - EpiftoU Delphi
- - - De Triftibus Delph.
Puffendorf de Jure Natura & Gentium, ft.!
• - -De Officio Hominis & Civit.120.Cant.
Ray's Synopfis Avium & Pifcium.
Sanderfin de Obligation Confcienti*, &ti
Schrevilii Lexicon.
Saltuftius ex Recenfione, J Waffe.
Sirother's Pharmacopeia Praltica.
Salluftius Delph.
Sydenham'! Proceffus Integriin Merbit feri
omnibus curandis.
Synopfis Communiurn Locorum, 120.
Statius noti. Variorum.
Theophraftus Gr,& Lat. per Needham, Cant'.
Pracipmmm TheologiCapitum Enchiridion
didafficum AuoJore, T. T*llio.,
Teftamentum Novum Graeum, Cantab.
Trommii Cencordantia, 2 Vols, Fol.
Trap's PrtleHiones Poetica, 3 Vols. 8VO
Terentius Delph.
Terence de Dacier, 3 Vol.
Tacaueti Elementa Geometrit, &c. Edit. *
Guil. Whifton.
Varenii Geographia Generalis, 8w. Cant,
Welchman de 39 Articulis Ecclef. Ang.
Virgilius in ufum Delph.
Virgilius, 20,0.
Xtnophcn Gr. & Lat. Svt.

3 9002 08561 3926

•ii