IS '^ST/T^' * MA \ i r^ Qii UL o^ iia. .^^^ i:^ "^2^ OF THE AT PRINCETON, N. J. SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. q4^o CdSe^ Division ^,., © Shelf, ^ Sectl^..., I © - N», « ^ £.^^>s c^^^G £^^G .^;s4V<^2^5 fiv^S^*' • <: 'ii t-v ^ / A Second Vindication of CHRIST'S DIVINITY: Or, A Second Defense of feme () U E R I E S R ELATI N G TO Dr. CLARKE'S Scheme of the Holy TRINITY: In Answer to the Country CLERGY-MAN's Reply. WHEREIN The learned Doctor's Scheme as it now ftands, after the lateft Corredbion, Alteration, and Explanation, is dilHnftly and fully confider'd. By DANIEL IVA'tERLAN D^ D. D. Master of Magdalen - College in Cambridge : Rector of the United Parilhes of St. Aitjl'm and St! Faith^ London : And Ch A PLAIN in Ordinary to His M/iJESTl^, Beware lefi any Man fpotl you through Philofophy and vain Deceit^ after the Tradition of Men^ after the Rudiments of the Iforld^ and not after Chrifi : For in him dwelleth all the Fulnefs of the Godhead bodily. ColofT. \\. 8, 9. Quid Tibi vifum eft, Homo Ariane, tarn multa dicere, & pro Caufa quae inter nos agitur nihil dicere : Quafi Hoc lit Refpondere polFe, quod eft Tacere non pofle > Augufiin, contr. Maxim- p. 677. Ed. Bened. LONDON : Printed for W. and J. Innys, at the Weft End of St. P but^ at the fame Time^ Jome great Defed in the Caufe too^ which wanted to he thus fup' plied. For^ whether we confider the Hands fuppos'^d to have been employed in drawing up The Reply, or the Time, and Pains y^^«/ in reviftng and pclijhing*^ ixjemay A 2. be iv The P R E F A C E. he confident^ that had it been poJJibJe to find out any real and firm Foundation for Arianifm to reft upon^ it would never han)e been left to ftand upon Artificial Prgps^ or iofubjlft by Subtlety^ and Management. Ilois is not the Place to give the Reader a full Lift of all the Artificial Advantages made ufe of by fhofe Gentlemen in fupport of Arianifin : A few Hints may here fuffice. l^heir dif claiming the Name all the while ^hey are inculcating the Thing j to keep their Readers in Ignorance, and to fteal upon 'them by Surprize : ^beir wrapping up their Doctrine in general, and con- fufe terms j to prevent its being narrowly looked into^ or purfued in its remote^ or even immediate Confe- quences : their elaborate and fludied Prolixity in pro- ving fuch Points as no body calls in queftion^ and then flipping upon the Reader^ in their ftead^ fomething very different from them^ without Any Proof at all : their a- voiding as much as poftible the defenfive Part^ where the main ftrefs lies^ and keeping themfelves chiefly to the oflFenfive j perpetually objecting to the Catholick Scheme^ inftead of clearing up the Difficulties which clogg their own : their bending their main Force againft our confequential Do^rine^ of Three PerCons being One God, inftead of directly attacking our Premifes that the divine Titles and Attributes belong equally to every one 5 as to which the Scripture is very full and exprefs ; thefc^ and other the like Arti- fices will be eafily feen to run through their whole Per^ formance. But their Mafter-piece of Subtlety lies in contriving a fet of ambiguous and equivocal terms, ■to put the main Quellion into j fuch as maybe capable of n Catholick Senfe, or at leaft look very like it, in order to claim fome Countenance from Catholick Antiquity -y tut fuch as may alfo be drawn to an Arian Meaning, that jo they may fecure the Point which they intend, thus, htwi^'t the two Senfes, or Faces of the fame M^ords, chofen for the Purpofe, they ftjall never want Pretence or Colour from Antiquity, even while endeavouring to prove things the nioft vppoftte, and repugnant thereto in real The PREFACE. r real Senfe and Slgnificancy. Such is the com'en'ient Ufe of equivocal IFords^ or Phrafes^ ivhen ingenioujly made choice of^ and managed by Rules of Art. In the following Papers^ 1 haie particularly endea* vour^d to clear the Senfe of the Ante-nicene Church ; and to 'vindicate the fame from Mifreprefentation. Ml that remains to be done in I'his Preface, is to obviate T\vo Obie61:ions, of very differeyit kinds^ which have been lately made by Men of very oppofite Principles. One ^pretends that we are very fingular, in claimingthe Suf^ frage i?//^^ Ante-nicene Church in favour of the Atha- nafian Doctrines : ^he Other -f is for entirely waving all Searches into Antiquity, in relation to 'This Controverfy^ as being either needlefs, or fruitlefs. I . As to the firft^ we are confidently told^ that few of the truly learned and impartial Athanafians Them- felves, from the very Days of their Founder, till our late Writers of Controverfy, Bp. Bull^ Dr. Grabe^ Dr. Waterland^ have denied the Truth of this Fad> that the Ante-nicene Fathers were generally againft the Athanaftan^ and for the Eufcbian Doftrines II. To countenance This Pretence^ a long and pompous Detail c/ Athanafian Confeflions {as They are called) are pack' d together^ and laid before the Englifh i?(?^^^r. It will be proper here^ in the Entrance^ to examine what Truth or Juftice there is in this flrange Report \ that fo^ Prejudices being remov''d^ The Reader may come with the greater Freedom to the Examination of what is offer' d^ in the following Papers^ on the Heacl of Axi' tiquity. PFe muft trace This Matter down from the firjl Be-- ginnings of the Arian Herefy^ about the Tear 31 p. It may be known from Alexander, Bifljop of Alexan- dria, what Opinion the Catholicks in general then * Mr. Wijtfton in his Reply to Lord Nottingham. t The Author of Tm Letters y one to Lord Nottingham, the other td Mx.Wht(ion. jj Mr. ff^//?(w's Reply to the Earl o{ NQt/ingham, p. 5. A } Jbad VI The PREFACE. had of the Novelty of the Arian, or Eufebian * Doc- trines, In the Year 321. He with his Clergy^ in their cir- cular Letter -f, rcprefent the Arians, or Eufebians as fallen into a great Apollaly, and as Fore-runners of Anti-Chrift. 'They exclaim againft the Armn Do cirines in this manner^ and in Thefe Words 5 Who ever heard fuch Things as Thefe? or who, that now hears them, is not aftoniili'd at Them, or does not flop his Ears for fear of polluting his Ears with fuch Impurity of Doftrine ? Who that hears St. John declaring that in the Beginning was the Word^ does not condemn Thole that fay that He once was not? 6cc. In Con- clufion of the Epiftle^ They compare Them with Hyme- nasus, and Philetus, and the Traytor Judas : And They anathematize Them as Enemies to God^ and Subverters of Souls. Now J can we wcllfuppofe that Alexander, a 'very pious and good Man^ with great numbers of his Bi(hops and Clergy^ would enjer have gone thefe Lengths in their Cenfure^ had They had the leafl Sufpicion that the Arian Doctrines were at all agreeable to the Faith of the Ante-nicene Churches ? Two Tears after This^ in the Tear 315. The fame Alexander, in his Letter 11 to Alexander of Conllanti- nople, perfifis in the fafne warmth of Zeal againft the Arian DoUrines. The Abettors and Favourers of them He ranks with the Ebionites, Artemonites, and Samo- fatenians '* (condemned Hereticks) brands them as No- vellifts of late appearing "f", as Men that thought none of the Antients worthy to be compared with them^ pre- tending to he the only wife Men Themfelves, and to be Inventors of Doftrines which never before entred into * KoUy They were called Eufebians from 'Etifeb'tm of Nkomedi(^ one of the chief Promoters of the Arian Caufe. t Extat. zpud Athanaf. p. ^^y, Ed. Bened. ap. 6'(?fr«/. Eccl. Hiftor. i. I. C.3. Ij Extat. Theodorit. E. Hift. I. i. c.4. * Theodor. E. H. p. y. Ed. (Jant* ,t Ibid. p. i in which we have the following Tejiimonj relating to our prefent purpofe. After 400 Years almolt, fince the only begotten Son of God vouchfafed to take pity on loft Mankind, as if there had been no Apoftles before, or as if after their Martyrdoms and Deaths there had been no Chrtf" tiansj now at length is come abroad the ^rlan Pefti- lence, novel and direful, not a Plague of infe5led Air^ but of execrable Blafphemies. Have They then, who believed before, entertained falfe Hopes of Immortali- ty ? It is but late^ we know, that Thefe Imaginations have been invented by the Two Eufebius^s^ and Nar» cijjus^ and Theodorus^ and Stephanus^ and Acacius^ and Menophantus j and the two ignorant and immoral Youths, Urfacius and Valens^ whofe Letters are pub- lifli'd, and who are farther convifted by credible Wit- nefles, fuch as have heard Them, not fo much difputing^ as barking againft us *. In Another Treatife publijh d Three Tears after ^ the fame Hilary, having fhown how He had received his Faith from the Prophets, Evange- lifts, and Apoftles, goes on thus : By Thefe have I been taught to believe as I do: In This Faith am I imbued beyond Recovery. Pardon me, O God Almighty, that I cannot be mov'd from This Belief j but t Athanaf. p. 1 1 1, 2^a, 412, 5'oa, 675, 713. Ed, Bend. J Hilar, ad Conlhnt. Lib. i. p. 1210. X The PREFACE/ I can die for it. This Age is Tardy, I conceive, in bringing me Thefe moft impious Teachers : Thefe Mailers are too late for my Faith^ a Faith which Thou haft taught me. Such was my Faith in Thee, before ever I fo much as heard of Ihefe Names : By Thee was I thus regenerated, and from that Time forwards Thus am 1 ever Thine f. Such is the con- fiant Strain of this Bkffed Saint 5 who every where brands the Arian Doctrine as the new, novel, upftart Herefy^ Folly ^ Madnefs \ and the Broachers of it as ihel^Q"^ Jpofiolate^Emiffaries 0/ Anci-chrill, Blafphe- mers, and the like. Little did He fufpeEi^ tho' a know- ing and a learned Man^ that Any fuch DoSirine had been receiv'd^ or taught by the Ante-nicene Churches. About the Tear 360, Bafil entefd the Lifts in This Controverfy. JVe Jhall often II find Him appealing to the Tradition of the Fathers for the Athanafian Doc- trine, ///j Confeflion (in Mr."Wh\^on's Phrafe) re- lating to Gregoiy of Neocasfarea, amounts only to This^ that Gregory had made ufe of fome E^preftions which evil-minded Men had perverted to a falfe and bad Senfe^ directly contrary to Gregory V true Meaning. Bafil Him- felf bears full and clear Teftimony to Gregory V Ortho- doxy-y as ^p. Bull has largely demonftrated ^^ beyond Contradi6lion. As to what Bafil fays of Dionyfius of Alexandria, that He was the firft who laid the Seeds of the Im- piety of the Anom^ans : Thus much^ at leaft^ may. be gather'' d from it^ that^ in Bafil'i Judgment^ none of the IVriters before Dionyfius, (who wrote againft Sa- bcllius, about the Tear zfp) had any TinBure (?/That Impiety j but that the Ante-nicene Church in general was very free from it. And as to Dionyfius Himfelf (however hardly Bafil might once think of Him) He has been abundantly vi?2dieated by Athzn^fms amortg the Ant tent s^ and by fever al learned Moderns. t Hilar. deTrin. 1. 6. p. 892. )] Bafil. contr. Eunom. 1. 1. p. ^, De Spir. S. p. iC-j, Ep. 79. * Bull.D. F, Sea. 2, c. 12. miat The PREFACE. il IVhat Bafil is [aid to confefs of Origen, [bows that in his Opinion^ Cujlom and Common Confent was^ itt OrigenV "Time^ on the Side of the Do6lrines called Athanaiian j and that Origen Himfelf., fomctimes at leafl^ conformed to it. But I Jhall vindicate Origen at large ^ in a proper Place. Nazianzerij a Contemporary of BafiPj-, in more Pla^ ces than one bears Teftimony to the Antiquity and unin" terrupted Succeffion of the Niccne Faith from the "Times of the Apojiles. As to a pretended ConFefHon of his looking the other Way^ it will he conjidefd at large in the following Sheets. Epiphanius, about the Tear yj^-^fciys^ that the Apo- llolical Faith (that is^ the Athanafian in his Account) continued pure and uncorrupted ^till the Time of Arius, who divided the Church -f : And who by the InfUga^ tion of the Devil, and with an impudent Forehead let his Tongue loofe againfl his Lord * : So little did He imagine that Arianifm was primitive Chriftianity. He obferves farther.^ that had it not been for the fubtk Pra5lifes of Eudoxius, Bijhop of Conflantinople , in perverting and corrupting the mofi pious Emperor Valens, The very Women and Children, and all that had been in any tolerable Meafure inflruEled in Chrifiian Principles^ would have reproved and routed the Arians, as Blafphemers and Murtherers of their Lord \^ ^c. Such was the AJjurance the Athanafians then had^ that their Faith was the fettled and flanding DoUrine of the primitive Churches^ all the World over^ ""till the Time of Arius. As to Epiphanius'j Opinion of Lucian, and Ori- gen, (two ftngle Men) it was fevere enough^ and in-- deed not juft : As Bifloop Bull hath abundantly proved. Tet^ from EpiphaniusV Cenfure of Origen, one may perceive plainly .^ that He thought the Ante-nicene Church in, general^ both before and after Origen, to be of d t Epiphan. contra, H^cf. 6^, p. 728. * Epiphan. p. 736. * Epiphan, p. 737, ^^Ijf- xJi The PREFACE. 'very contrary Judgment to I'hat which He condemns in Lucian and Origen, that is^ to Arianifm. jlt This Time lived Gregory NyfTen 5 ijuho^ about the Tear 581, encountred Eunomius, the Shrewdefi and Sharpeft Arian of That Jge. In his Reply to Him^ He takes notice that the Church had been in PoJfeJJlon of This Do6lrine^ that God the Son is eflentially true God, of the EiTence of The True God : jlnd that if Eunomius Jhould. undertake to confute That DoUrine^ He ought to fix upon fome firm and certain Principles whereon to proceed^ and trace them down hy juft and regular Dedu^ions, in order to come at his Conclufton, jlfter He had faid This^ He goes on in Thefe JVords, Let no one here tell me, that We ought alfo to give rational D'emonftration of what we profefs : It is fufficient Dcmonftration of our Doftrine, that we have a Tradition coming down to us from our Fa- thers 'y a Kind of Inheritance fuccellively convey'd to us by the primitive Saints from the Jpoftles Them- felves. They that have changed thofe JDoftrines for the prefent Novelty^ will have very great need of the Succours of Reafon, and Argumentation > if They mean to convince, not the groveling Herd, or giddy Populace, but the grave, and (launch Men, Men of Sobriety and Firmnefs. While They offer us Dif- courfes without any Argument or Demonflration to (lipport them, it is only playing the Fool, and is even Brutifhly ftupid : As if greater Regard fhould be had to empty Talk, void of all Proof, than to the Doftrine of the Evangelijls^ and of the jlpoftles^ and their Snccejfors^ The Lights of the Chriftian Churches.* Here we fee with what Confidence Nyflen appeals to conftant Tradition for the Truth of the Athanafian Do^rine : So little did He imagine that the Ante- nicene Faith was any way different from^ much lefs re* pugnant to^ his own. ♦ Greg. Nyir. contr. Eunora. 1. 5. p. t2/, 126. The PREFACE. xili / may next mention a famous Cafe ivhich happen' d in the Tear 385. T'he Arians, Eunomians, and Mace- donians "were then formally and folemnly ehallen^d hy the Catholicks, to refer the Matter in Difpute to the concurring Judgment of the IVriters that lived before the Controverfy began : But They declined the Offer j refufmg abfolutely to put their Caufe upon "That Ijffue, *This is decijive in the Cafe^ that the Athanafians had all the Jffurance imaginable as to the Faith of the pri^ mitive Churches s and that the Arians isjere very fen- fible that their Do^rine could never bear fo fair and juft a trial, I'he Story is thus told in Socrates, L.f. c. 10. The Emperor (fheodofius) fending for Ne6larius The Biihop ( of Confiantinople) conferred with Him about the propereft Method of putting an End to the DifTentions, and refloring the Unity of the Church. He propofed to have the Matter in Dif- pute, which had divided the Churches, to be fully laid open 3 that, removing the Caufes of their Dif- ferences, the Churches might be reduced to Con- cord. Upon the hearing of This, Neclarius was un- der fome Concern : And calling for Jgelius the iV He fuggefted to NeElarim This Method. He very well knew that The Anti- ents had ever avoided the afcribing any Beginning of Exiftence to the Son of God, believing Him to be Coeternal with the Father : He advifcs therefore to fet afide all logical Wranglings, and to produce The Teftimonics of the Antients > leaving it to the Em- \ peror xiv The PREFACE. peror to put the Qucftion to the Heads of the fe- veral Sects, whether They would make any Account of the Do6tors of the Church who Hved before the Differences began : Or, whether They would reje6t Them alfo, as Strangers to the Faith of Chrill. For if They fhould reject Them, let Them alfo pro- nounce an Anathema upon Them : Which if They Ihould dare to do, They will be immediately deteft- cd by the Generality, and Truth will thus be mani- feftly vidorious. But if They rejcdt not the Antient Doftors, then will it be our Bufinefs to produce the Writings of the Antients, by which the Truth of our Doftrine Ihall be attefted. 'Ho us far Socrates : "who farther relates that Nefta- rius and the Emperor well approved of the Deftgn^ and immediately put it in Execution. M^hereupon the Heads of the feveral Se5ls "were at firft much confounded^ and divided among fhemfelves > fome commending what the Emperor had propofed^ and others not : But in Con- clufion "They all chofe rather to reft the Caufe folely on Logical Difputation, than upon the feftimonies of the Antients. 1'hus the Defgn came to nothing. This we may learn from it^ that at That Time of Day when many primitive Writings^ fence loft^ were extant .^ T'he Athanafians were very willing and def.rous to have their Caufe tried by the VerdiU of the Antient Writers 3 be- ing confident of ViUory in fhat Method : And that the Arians, as being fufficiently fenfible of the fame Things prudently declined it. Mr. Whifton did not care to giv£ more than fejort^ general Hints of "this Famous Challenge^ and the JJJue of it : But He endeavors to wind and turn Himfelf e- very way to evade its Force *. He pretends.^ fi^ft^ that the ^eftion between the Athanafians and their Adver- faries^ was not whether the Antients admitted the Co- eternity of the Son^ but whether They admitted his Exiftence to have been without any Limitation of * Whiftoa's Reply to Lord Nottingham. Append. p. i^j. Time ? The PREFACE. xv Time : As if the Athanafians intended no more than that the Antients ne'ver affign^d any particular Point of Time for the Son's Beginning. But^ not to mention how filly fuch a Challenge had heen^ and how un- ferviceahle fuch a Difcujfion to the Athanafian Canfe^ which required a great deal more than 7'hat comes to i I fay^ not to mention This^ Socrates and SozomenV Accounts of 'That Affair fuff.ciently obviate every fuch weak Surmife^ or Infinuation. Both fay ^ that Sifin- nius well knew that a6^ Antients never diirfl afcrihe any Beginning at all to the Son : And wtoy ? Becaufe They thought or believed Him to be coeternal with the Fa* ther'\. The §uef ion then was 7iot^ whether the An- tients had affign'd any particular Time of the Son's he* ginning to exifl : But whether They afcribed Any Be- ginning at all to Him. And Sifinnius was ready to maintain that They afcribed no Beginning to Him^ but believed Him to be coeternal. Mr. Whifton has another very extraordinary Eva^ fion^ that The antient Do6lors, appealed to^ were not Thofe of the Three firil Centuries, but only fuch as Father Eullathius, Father Marcellus, Father Alexan- der, ^c. about ^ or a little before the Council of Nice. A very likely Matter^ indeed^ that the Emperor fhould ajk the x'lrians whether They would be tried by the Ver^ dt^ of Thofe who had before condemned the Arians by Name : Or that the Arians fhould be at all afraid of pronouncing an Anathema upon fuch as Father Eufta- thius, or Father Marcellus, who had been depofed and condemned by the Euiebians, or Arians before : One in a Synod at Antioch, A. D. 319. The other in a Synod at Conilantinople, A. D. 53f. Socrates obferves^ that the Heads of thofe Parties durfi not anathematize •j- 'Ey i7ri<^uiijiv(^ ax, 6i %«.Xxio) cc^xj^v i^ruf^iuq rp ii» t£ B-tS dQvxt uzi(p'jyov' KXTtiX^ipiiiruv yxf oivrav trvjui^iov t5 ^rstTpj. Socr.I. ^. C. lo, p. 273. ~Eti "/u^ il^ity cui 61 TTccPienol a-vvxi'^ov rw ttut^I ray hkov typoyri?, ix, ircXfAj/,truv urtiv tx TtvO*' «p;t*^5 ^*''* y«Ww etVToyt^siy. SOZOID. lib. 7, C. 12. p. 292. t tho/e XVI The PREFACE. thofe Antieiit Do£l:ors, left the People Jhould ahhor Them for fo doing 5 or as Sozomen exprejfes it^ left their own Party jhould take Offence^ and defert "Them || : Is it at all likely that their own Party Jhould take fuch Offence in This Cafe^ or ftoould pay any great Re fpe^i and Deference to the Memory ^^/Euflathius, Marcellus, ^c. ? Bejides This^ Thofe Antient Doftors are ftiled hi -urw yM^yj(rc0Ti!Ci. Sozom. p. 292. Socr. p. 275. >y>yut viv«M/JHf«i. Sozom. p. 292. The PREFACE. :^vu ^ different Meanings or that their Writings have bcca corrupted by little and little, by unskiUul Tranfcri* bers > or however, that before the Rife of the Me- ridian Dxmon, Arius^Thcy might fpeak fome Things innocently, and incautioully. , fhe Pretended ConfelFions out of Jerom, relate chiefly to Origen j whofe Cafe will be confidered at large in the following Sheets : y^nd fo I need not here fay more of it. 'The like may be faid of Theophilus. IVe may now come down to St. Auftin, who delivers his Mind in the M^ords here following.^ in his Treat ife of the Trinity, finifh'd in the Tear ^i6. 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, in Conformity to Scripture, that Father^ Son, and Holy-GhofI: do by the infeparable Equality of one and the fame Subil-ance, make up the Unity divine f. Surely^ St. Aullin miift have reckon d the Ante-nicene Dolors among his Catholick htterpreterSj of whom He gives this full and plain Tefiiniony. IVhat He has faid of Origen, will he confidered in Another Place. I pafs over Anaftafius, and Judinian'; pretended Con-* feflions, as refpe cling ?ione but Origen. Photius is an Author of the Nmth Century \ who is known to have been often too fevere in his Remarks upon the Ante-nicene Writers : Not confide ring the Difference of Timcs^ or how unreafonahle it is to eX" fell that Thofe who lived before the Rife and Condem- nation of Here fie s^ fljould come up to every accurate For ui of Expreffion^ which long Experience afterwards fownd neceffary^ to guard the Faith^ againft the fubtle Practices or provoking Infults of its Adverfaries. Bifljop Bull has abundantly fl)ozvn^ how eafy it is to vindicate the Ante- nicene Fathers againfl every Thing that can be obje5i'^ ed out of Photius. + Auguftin. deTrin, 1. i. c^ p-;;?. b -Leaving xviii The PREFACE. Leaving the Antients, isoe may now defcend to Mo- derns, to fee what Judgment ihey have made in the prefent ^leftion. Cardinal Perron, no longer ago than the Reign of King]^mQ$ I. (A.D. 1610.) began the Pretence^ that the Arians Themfelves would readily fubmit to be tried by the Do6trine of the Ante-nicene IVriters. ^he Oc- ^ cafion of it was 'This : The Proteilants having well Jludied the FatherSy were now willing to reft their Caufe^ mot upon Scripture only^ but Fathers too j fo far at lea ft as the Three fir ft Centuries. And 'They thought that a much greater Deference was due to the Judgment of thofe early Ages of the Churchy than to That of the Ages fucceeding : Jd^loik the Romanifts were ufed to value the latter equally with the former^ or even to give them the Preference. The Cardinal, being prefs'd in Difpute on this Head^ could think of no better an Anfwer than That before -mention' d. What Mr. W hi (Ion calls his ConfeiTion, is^ in Truth^ nothing elfe but a poor Pretence^ or Subterfuge^ made ufe of in a Cafe of Extremity^ only to ferve the Interefts of the corrupt Church of Komc. Fifher, the Jeiliit, in the 27ar 1616 fecended the Car- dinal in the fame Plea, and upon the fame Views : But ftill little Notice was taken of it, Hill a greater than Both, The Jefuit Petavius {who in the Tear i6zz had inti-- mated Something of it, in his Notes upon Epiphanius) did by his learned Writings on the Trinity, (^A. D. 1(544*) give new Count ena^ice and Credit to it. And if we confider well the Time when Vciv^'ms firji began to talk in That Manner, (a very little after Cardinal Perron had open'd the JVay to it) or the Ufe that was to be made of it in Regard to the Interefts of the Ro- mifli Caufe j He may be fufpetied, by^ Proteilants, to have hadfomeBhk in This Matter, without any Breach of Charity^. Some learned Romanifts, fuch as Hue- ♦ See Bull Proem. §.8. p. 6. : who fo learnedly .^ and fo effeUually defend^ (d the Ante-nicene Faith^ that the Arian Caufe has been ftnking under the Weight of his elaborate Pieces ever ftnce. When Bifhop BullV Books came to be known abroad^ They met with the univcrfal Ffteem of the Lear?ied in Europe, as well Papifts as Proteftants j who from That Time have appeared generally well fatisfied in the Faith of the x^nte-nicene Writers^ ayid have food up in Defenfe of it. As to Proteftants, / 'might ynention our own Country -men ^ BifJjop Stillingflect, Dr, Cave, and many others 5 to whom I take leave to add the very pious and learned Dr. Grabc, who long refided among us. As to the foreign Reform' d^ Fa^ bricius, and M. Bayle, two very learned Men^ have declared Themfelves in Favour of the fa?ne Sentiments : As alfo have feveral other learned Proteftants abroad^ whofe Names and Treatifes are rs cited by Fabri- h J, cius. XX The PREFACE. cius*. As to Romanifts, / might mention yir Bofluet, Ute Bijhop of Meaux, 'with the Ckrgy of France"!', and even the befi learned Men among ft them. Du Pin is one "who has taken all Occafiotis of anfwering the OhJQ^ions made to the Ante-nicene Writers in the Article of the Trinity : So alfo has M, MaiTuet as far as concerned Ircn^us \ ^whereof He is Editor. Mont- taucon has done the like^ fo far as properly came in his Way 'y tho' He giz'es up Eufebius, ivho is not in Stri6i- 7}cfs to be reckon'' d with the Ante-niccnes. But the learned Le Nourry has exceeded I'hem all^ in his Ap- paratus ad Bibiiothecam maximam ; ivhere He is fo zealous in defending the Ante-nicene IVriters in gene- ral^ that He will fcarce allow Bifiop Bull to have done • Jufiice to fome of Than j particularly to Tertullian, md Laftantius, whom therefore He undertakes to vin- dicate even beyond what The Bifoop had pretended. 'Thus ftands the Matter of Fact among the learned Moderns 5 to whom I might add feveral now living among ft us^ whofe Names I am willing to [pare. What then can be meant by The firange Report made of the Athanafians, from the Days of their Founder? A Re- port without Truth \ and I had ahnoft faid^ without any Sobriety^ or Modefly. Enough hath been faid ta take cff the pretended Singularity of our Appeal to the Ante-nicene Writers^ in This Controverfy. It remains only to throw in a Word or two^ in anfwer to Another Objeciion of a very different kind. II. There was a Pamphlet publijh'd the lafl Tear^ intituled Two Letters, &c. One to the Earl of Not- tingham, the Other to Mr. Whifton. The Author writes on the Orthodox Side^ and has faid many, ex- cellent Things^ which deferve Commendation. But as He has took the Iresdom to pafs his Cenfure upon Other s^ .fir * Fabric. Biblioth. Grace. Vol.8, p. 312, &C. f N^lfm'i Life of Jg«//, p. 344, jSj-. m The PREFACE. xxi He will give me leave ^ I doubt not^ to ufe the like Free^ dom with Him, What I moft find fault with^ is his narroiving too much his own Bottom^ and his unwary Sapping the Foundation on which He ftands. To avoid Perplexities and Uncertainties (as He is pleafed to call them) He is for waving all Searches into Antiqui- ty, and is for confining the Debate to Scripture alone : And becaufe many Texts made ufe of in this Controvert fy have not been perfeElly fettled to the Satisfa6iion of Both Parties^ as to the Readings, Tranflations, or Interpretations, and it requires fome Learning and Critical Skill to fix and afcertain Them 5 Thefe Texts therefore are to be laid afide alfo^ and the Merits of the Caufe left to be tried by thofe only that remain 5 Such as have never yet been difputed by the Adver- faries^ or againft which They have nothing to fay. Pref. p. 8. He does not conftder^ 1 . The Difi[iculty of finding out any Texts^ of real Weight in This Controverfy^ which have not been con- ' troverted, either as to their Reading, or Tranflation, or Interpretation. 2. That the ftrongefl: and moft important Texts are Thofe which have been controverted j and for That very reafon^ becaufe They are the flrongeft, i^c For^ it was worth the while for the Adverfary to rack Invention^ and to call in all the Succours of Learning and Critical Skill to affoil Them^ if p>ofiible^ and to wreft them out of our Hands. Thus^ The firfl Chapter of St. John has had more Pains and Art fpent upon it^ by our Ad^ verfaries^ than any other part of Scripture. 3. Thaty if once the IJfue of the Caufe be put upon other Texts which have been more negJe^ed^ it will be as eafy^ nay much e after ^ to invent foine Pretence or other againft the Reading, Verfion, or Conftruftion, to defeat every Argument built upon Them. 4. That therefore the Method which this Author pro-^ pofeSy is in Reality (^without intending it) laying the Weight of the Difpute upon what kafi deferves it^ and can xxii The PREFACE, can leafl of all hear it. It is deferting our ftrong Holds, and engaging the Ad'verfary upon unequal Ground^ and at the ^reateft Difadvantage : In a "wordy it is to expofe^ and betray The Caufe which we are en- deavouring to fupport. What I have here ohferved in relation to our Ufe of Scripture-Texts, is in fome meafure applicable to the Teflimony of the Antients. The Reafon why This alfo has been fo warmly and refolutely contefted with us J is be caufe it is of real Weighty and of very con fi- derable Moment for determining the main ^eftion. It would be a very weak Thing to give up fo mo- mentous a Point as That is, only becaufe it has been contefted 5 that is^ becaufe it is worth the contending for. If the illiterate Vulgar be not competent Judges of This Branch of the Difpute (as indeed They fcarce are of any Difpute thro"* its whole Compafs^ thd* con-^ fined to Scripture alone ) yet there are Other s^ whom the Vulgar will take for their Guides in this Matter^ (and they ought to do fo) who can underfland^ and judge of it. The Author had but little Reafon to be concerned at Mr. WhillonV Followers bo a fling of his Performance as a Victory, in regard to the Antients : It was natu- ral for Themfo to do^ either thro"* Ignorance, or thro* Prejudice, where They had no manner of Reafon. Knowing and impartial Judges will eafily fee the Diffe- rence between obtaining a Viftory, and giving the laft Word. / muft do my I.ord Nottingham the Juftice to fay^ that He effeclually performed his Party with great Integrity^ Learnings and Acutenefs 5 with the Exa^nefs of a Scholar, and the Judgment of a com- pleat Divine. Had Mr. Whifton, in his Reply, con- fined Himfelfy (as He ought to have done^ and as My Lord very juftly had required of Him) to Thofe Points^ and thofe Citations only^ which were before in Debate^ inftead of pouring in new ImpertinencieSy and many fo- reign Matters^ to conceal and cover hij Defeat j the very raeanejl 3 The PREFACE. xxiii mednefi Reader muft ha^ue feen plainly^ on which Side the Advantage Vies* But to return^ fhe low Notion which This Gentleman every where^ thro' Both his Letters, appears to have conceived of the Primitive Saints, may^ I hope^ be corrected by his more careful per ujing Them^ when difpofed to it. His Chief Argument againfi Them^ (v'vl. that the Adverfaries have been able to raife Cavils, and to perplex their Meaning) will carry Him farther than He is well a^ ware -, even to the laying aftde^ not fonie Texts only^ and Thofe of the greateft Weighty as it hath already done J but Thofe very Texts on which He would^ at Ungth^ have the whole Strefs of the Controverfy laid. If This Gentleman be of opinion^ as He declares in his Preface, that the Gates of Hell fJjould never prevail over That Foundation, over the Do6trine of ChrilVs Divinity 5 And if He thinks it of fuch Moment that Later Ages have univerfally adhered to it^ (A Point which would be difputed with Him as well as the 0^ ther^ were it of half the Moment or Concern as the other) certainly He mufl think it of fome Importance to clear and vindicate the Faith of the m-oft pure and pri^ mitive Churches in This Article j Jefi otherwife what He calls the Foundation (if it cannot be proved to have been conftantly upheld) appear at length not to be the Foundation, but rather fo much Wood, Hay, or Stub- ble built upon it. To conclude^ as I would not detra6l from the Merit of whatever. Xl^is worthy Gentleman has well urged in Proof of our Lord's Divinity ; fo neither were it advifahle in Him.^ to deti-aU from Thofe who in Defenfe of the fame Caufe^ and to very excel- lent Purpofe^ have laboured in fe arching both Scripture, and Antiquity. To the Law and to the Teflimony let the Appeal be in the fir jl Place 5 and next to the united Suffrage of the Primitive Churches, as the befl and fafefl Co'mment upon the other. On Thefe Two Pillars will our Faith for ever fland^ firm and unmovahle^ againfi all At- , ... tempts i XXIV The PREFACE. tempts 5 "whether o/vain Philofophy,/^ hatter the Da^ ftrine, or of vainer Criticifm to corrupt or ftifle the Evidence : jlnd the Gates of Hell fhall not prevail againfl it. / Jhould here advertife the Reader^ that in the foh lowing Papers I have endeavoured always to ex' frefs my [elf fully ^ and particularly^ in the mofl ma- terial Points : But as to incidental Matters of flight er Moment^ I have fometimes , purely for the Sake of Brevity^ pafs'd them off in general Hints only > fuch as will not he perfe5tly underjiood without looking into The Reply which I am anfwering^ or fometimes into my former Defenle. I fuppofe^ the Inquifitive^ and fuch as have Leifure^ will not think it much 1'rouhle to compare all the Three together^ as they read -, efpecially where any "thing occurs which may appear ohfcure hy reafon of its Brevity, As to others,^ they will he content with a more con^ fufe and general Perception of fuch Parts as are of leafi Concernment^ and require a little more Pains and Care in the Examining than they have Leifure^ or Inclination to fpend upon them. ERRATA. PSge Line For Read 123 — — " 14 » ■■ - ■ or number .- ■ '» pf^;;5 number IJ5 1. .1 29 iTflcpfl6;6£A£j;(r«^/* , yra,^iKi}^iV(]-Ufju'A9 "l6z — — zo » you (here ■ you eome (horc 16s •— 25 ■■ ■ ■ is man . is of Man 174 36 p. 184. p. 194. 185 «— — 35' - ■ ^5 ha-ve — _— __ zs hath 2.09 ' 24 »■ ■ ' » entred to •• enrred into 2.40 • 28 183 ■ 187 2y6 — — 38 ■ i /SaXm , /SuvZv 275 _ 38 ■ , , TToAAa;^^ . 7reX?iecx^ 304 34 . i7riliVf/,ito<; .«.««_ forte, vxt^ivyjjtfivei 320 '— — 32 ...I One That _. One with That 335- — — 25- — — — iv^i^srxi . kv^irx,iTXt 336 ' — 7 • any thing of — — — any thing rwor^ of 439 — 29 ' " '-■ Origination cf ■'■ Origination in 47^ 34 ■ ■ Zx(/jo fuch as will not diflur^ the Reading. AN THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE. OU begin with big Words: You have, you lay, clearly Jhew}2^ that Dr. W.'/ Notion is c?2tirely contran to Reajoy/^ Scri- pture^ and all primitive 'A/itiquity. Your Defign, no doubt, is to magnify your Work, nnd to help it forwards in the Opinion of the Reader. But wife Men ._ will not expcd much from a Perform- ance thai wants a Proclamation in tlie Entrance: Had your Arguments been juil, and your Proots clear; a Reader might have been trulted to tind them out. You proceed to complain of my Manner of Writings as being greatly fitted to deceive. You apprehend, it feems, that it may 'llill have fome Influence, notwithtlanding that you have fo y. Wc find Chrift's Divinity in our Bibles : Yon find not the Doctrine there. Accordingly, we aflert Ch rift's Dm^/Vv, and you deny it; that is, you deny the Things and retain nothing; but the Name. The Ditference then is, not concerning the Manner of explaining om Do^rine.^ (which with you is no DoSirine) but concerning the Manner of explaining the Texts which relate to it. You fpeak of Chrift's Divinity however; you have fome Awe and Reverence for the Language of the Church, tho' you have left her Faith. * Some Concern you have alfo for your own Charadlers, and for the Intereft of the Caufe you are engaged in ; v^^hich can never prevail, no not with the Populace, but under the Benefit of a Mask. If it be asked w^hy we have no fuch Doctrine as That of the Divinity of Angels., and of Magiftrates., (called Gods., iii Scripture,) or why the Divinity of Chrift lliould be allerted^ while the other is abfolutely denied, I am perfuaded, you will be much at a Lofs for any fatisfa6tory Anfwer, upon your Principles. It will be a vain Thing for you to plead, that you aitert as much of Chrift's Divinity^ as Scripture hath alTerted. For, were the FaCl really fo, (as it certainly is not,) Then indeed Scripture might juftify you in your Denial of Chrift's Divinity:, but it can never jullify you ill calling That Divinity which, according to the Language of the Church, and ju(t Propriety of Speech, you your felveSj as well as we, know to be none. You tell me, that the zvhole and only Dejign of the Authors I oppofe., has been., foherly., and in the Fear of God., to colle3 and confider what it is that onr Saviour himfelf and his A^ p^Jiles have in Scripture taught zis., concerning That DoSirine^ feparate from the metaphyfical Hypothefes of fallible, and con- tentious Men. Now, to pafs by the extraordinary Civility of thefe Refle6i:ions upon others, and the Modefty of afifum- ing fo much to your felves ; as if you had no Hypothefes.^ no metaphyfical Fancies, were never contentious., fciirce fal- lible., like'other Men : Waving This, yet give m.e Leave to fay, that be your Defigns ever fo geod^ your Intentions ever fofober., and your Searches direiSled in the Fear of God; if the Refult of all be, that you cannot find Chrift's /)/- vinlty (properly fo called) in Scripture, you ought not to pretend, either that you are Advocates for Chrift's Divinity^ or that Any Man is to blame for charging you 2.S Inipugners of it. You fay farther, that by the Divinity of Chrift, I mean my own particular metaphyfical Explication of it. A Sug* B 2, geftiort '4, The ANSWER geftion as falfe, as it is mean. For neither is my Senfe any particular Sejife^ but the common Se^fe of all Men, learned or unlearned, that know the Difference between God and Creature: Neither is there any. thing of A/^^^;?Myi^^'j In it, more than there is in the Declarations. of the Cod of Ifraet\ as often as He proclaimed Himfelf to be God^ (in Oppofi- tion to fuch as were no Gods^) on, the Score of \\\s Almighty Poiver^ U^ifdom^ Greatnefs^ .and, other divine Perfedions. However, fiippofing my Account of the Son's Pwinity to be metaphyfical^ is not your Account of the Fjither's pivi- fiity "IS m'etaphyfical as the other? And if you, thro' your falfe Metaphyficks, exclude the Son from the One Godhead^ I fliall not be afliamed of Jiiaking Ufe of true Metaphyiicks to corre6l your Errors, and to ellablifh the Son's Divinity^ upon the fame Toot whereon Scripture has fixed it. You might be adiamed to mention Metaphyfuks^ when every Body knows that you have little clfe to rely upon, for the Support of your novel Do6lrine^ Who fees not what a Strefs has been laid upon a falfe Notion of the Self-exiJJence of the Father, to degrade and feparate his beloved Son from the One True Godhead ? What Batteries have you not railed againfl: a proper Sonpip^ irom metaphyfical Reafonings, iliould I fay, or Reveries? Hiat Generation implies Divifion^ and neceflary Generation outward Coatlion\ that Genera- tion mull be an A^/, and every Ad muil mean Choice ; that necelfary Agents are no Agents^ and neceflary Caufes m Caufes'^ that nothing individual can be communicated;, that Three Perfons mult be 'three intelligent Agents^ and Three intelligent Agents, reciprocally. Three Perfons ; that Three Agents cannot be One Beings One Subflance^ One Lord^ or One God; that there can be no Medium be- tween Beings and not Being; that infeparablc Union, with- out identical Life^ will not fuffice to make Two Perfons One God; and that if there be identical Life, then They are no longer Tvjo Perfons ; nor can there be any Equality, or Subordination; that the fame living God necelTariiy lignifies the fame individual intelligent Agent^ or Perfon ; that God the Son mult be either the fame identical whole Subfiance^ or an homogeneous undivided Part of the infinite Subltance, upon my Principles; and that He can h^ neither; and there- fore not one and the fame God with the Father. Here are Metapb\fjcks in great Plenty, fufficient, one may think, to furnifli "out an ordinary School-man. Neverthelcfs, we fliould J See mj Defenfe, p. 500, 32 3» not,. to^the 'PREFACE. $ not, on This Account, be fo iinreafonablc as* to cenfure either Dr. tilarke^ or his Friends, for procuring all the real AfliftancV They c^n ^vpm Metaphyficks -, true Metaphyficks being nothing elfc but'truc Divinity.: Let but your Reafon- ings be clear, folid, and pertinent, and we Ihall never find fault with them for being ynetaphyficaL The Truth is, you have pretended to Metaphyficks ; but have betrayed very great Miltakes in that Part, as" you have alfo done in your other Pretences, relating to Scripture., and Antiquity. To return to the Bufinefs of the Title. You obferve, very fhrewdly, that you.. could- wjth rnnck greater 'Juftice [and yet you did not think it reasonable fo to do) have entitled your Reply ^ A Vindication of the Divinity of God the Father Almighty. Truly, if you had done it, you would not have found me complaining of the Injujiice of it: For, what Hurt could you have done to me, or my Caufe, by making your felf ridiculous ? I hope, therefore, you do not expedt any Thanks from me upon This Head. You go on, however, ferioully to lliew, how you could have defended fo conceited a Title. You could have plead- ed, that the denying the Father to be alone Supreme in Au.-- thority and Dominion over all., (in which confifts the true Notion of his Divinity.,) is denying his Divinity. That i$ to fay, you could have begged the main Quefiion, and have thereupon founded a Charge againft me, with the fame, nay, greater Juftice., than 1 charge you with a plain Matter of Fa6i, no Part of the main Quefiion between us. TheQuef- tion is. Whether the one true Godhead be common to Father and Son, or proper to the Father only? You have deter- mined for the latter; therefore you have ftruck the Son out of the one true Godhead., previoufly to our Difpute ; there- fore you have denied his proper Divinity: And the Quefiion now is, not whether you have denied it, (which is out of Queftion,) but. Whether you have juftly denied it .'^ If you fee no Ditference between the Two Cafes, I can only pity your Confulion. Whether Divinity, ftridly fo called, can be common to more Perfons than one, remains to be confix dered. In the mean while, it is evident that you, by mak- ing it proper to the Father only, have denied the Divinity of all belides. 2. A fecond Complaint, is of a, Motto In my Title Page: / ar/i yefus whom Thou perfecutefl ; it is hard for Thee to kick eigainft the Pricks, Now, I thought a Writer might be at Liberty to follow his Judgment, or Fancy, in fuch aTrifle as :i Motto, without being fo folemnly called to Account for, if. But, it feems, This mull be now brought to th« B 3 Bar, « The A N S WE R Bar, and deliberately fcann'd. As if, fay yon, the not re^ ce'ivwg Dr. W.V Notions in Mctaphvficks, was perfecutin^ Chr'ift. As \^, fay I, the abufing o? Metaphyficks, to theDer flrudtion of a/j/^/V^Scripture-Dodrine, and the undermining the Chriftian Faith^ were not, by a very eafy Figure, juftly called i\\Q perfecuting of Chrift^ crucifying the Son of God a- frcfi^ and putting htm to an open Shame. Since I am called upon, in .^his Cafe, I will tell you, fo far as I remember, what I principally intended by the Motto. 1. One Thing was, to intimate the great Awe and Dread which every Man ought to have upon his Mind, when he takes Pen in Hand to write in Oppolition to his Saviour's Godhead, and with a form'd Defign to deprive him of that WorJJjip, and thofe di-vine Honours, which have been con- flantly paid him by innumerable Martyrs and Confe/Tors:, by the whole Church of Chriil for fourteen Centuries at lead, I doubt not to fay feventeen. Whatever may be pleaded for difpming Points of an inferior Nature, and lefs fet by; This particularly, is a Caufe not to be entred into "without Fear and 'Trembling, by any pious Man ; left haply he be found to fight againft God. You may think, perhaps, ■you have no need of fuch Caution : But for That very Rea^ ion, I fhould be apt to conclude, you have. 2. Another Thing intended by the /J/(3?i^o was, to infinu- ate, hoxv impra6licable and vain (in all Probability) any At- tempt mud be to defeat the Do6trine of our Lord's Divi- -siity ; which has now flood the Tell for a long Tra£l: of Centuries, tho* all imaginable Endeavours and Artifices have ibeen from the 'Beginning employed to overthrow it, A late Writer "^ very well obferves, that " This Foundation has *' been fo upheld, that where the firft Inilitutions were, as " it were, funk out of Memory, by the Weight of impure *' Mixtures, as in the Greek Church ; and where every o- *' ther Article of Faith had received Wounds by the In- " novations of Error, as in the Roman Church; yet all of ^' them have adhered to, and preferved This main and Fun- " <^^;^^«2^^/ Point to This Day. The fame is likewife true of all the Churches of thQ Reformation : And God has vi- iibly blafted and defeated All Attempts againft the eternal Godhead of our Blelled Saviour. It is hard for Thee to kick againft the Pricks. So faid a pious Father of the Church, ^ Tm. Uttm to the Earl of Nottingham, and Mr^ Whiflon. Pref, apply to the T R E FA C E. 7 applying it to this very Cafe'^, (one would think with a pro- phetick Spirit,) thirteen hundred Years ago. Such were then the Sentiments of the wiled and beft Men of Thofc Times. They wgvq fa/Iihle^They were Mc?2 : But if Po(te- rity, fallible as They, grow bold and daring, w^here the o- ther would have trembled, let Them look to it. They had the fame Scriptures we have, and better Helps for the un- derflanding them: They had their Faculties of difcerning no lefs than we; and They fpared no Pains, or Care, in their Searches. This is a Coniideration of fome Moment, efpecially in a Fundamental Article. We fliould not, at lead, go raply into contrary Sentiments, nor without /V^jy;^ Scripture to warrant it. We may be apt to flatter our felves too much, and think we fee farther than Thoie be- fore us; when in Reality, perhaps, it is not that we have more Senfe than They, but that we want their 'Piety. You tell me how carefully the Men of your Way h^v^Jlu- died the Scripture^ and howyz/?fcrr^r^flT(^t X^» ^y T"^" t^'^" «^^« TTXr^O^i CU^'S TO TlVlZuiX Tt kyiov km Tfxr^oq y.xl ulov, Epiphan. Ancor. C..14. p. 20. B 4 Day n The A n S'WE R Day of Account. In the mean while, give us leave to be fmcere too, in condemning heartily, what we heartily dis- approve. And let the Sincerity of each be tried by the Na- ture and Quality of the Caufe you and we are engaged in, and by the Strength of the Evidence on either Side; on which, as I conceive, chiefly hangs the Proof of our Sin" €erity» You proceed to Invedlive. It concerns 'Thofe who thus affcH to fit in the Seat of God^ and to equal their oivn difpHtahle Notions with the exprcfs li^ord of God, to confider a little more ferioujly^ what Spirit They are of. But, laying aiide childifh Wrath, let us argue this Matter coolly 'and fedately with you. Is it affeding to fit in the Seat of God^ that we are doing our bounden "Duty, in condemning falfe Do6i:rinc, or what we take to be fuch; and in contending earneftly for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints ? And how is it equalling our own difputable Notions with the txprcfs IVord of God.^ when we ftand up for the cxprefs IVordof God., againfl Thofe who appear to us to contradiSl: and pervert it, in Favour of their metaphyjical Conceits, and ill-grounded Hspothefes'^. What Right have a few private Men to claim exprcfs Scripture., and to equal their own difputable Notions with the cxprefs M^ord of God., in Oppo- iition to the Chrifiian IVorld^ as capable of judging what Scripture is, as They that ft) vainly boaft: of it? Charge us 110 more, fo fondly, with ajfecimg to fiit in the Seat of God^ left it be told you, in Return, that there appears to be infi- nitely more Pride, Vanity and Arrogance, in a few private Men fitting in Judgment upon whole Churches, and throw- ing their hafty., ill-grounded Cenfuxes upon Fathers., and Councils., and all the greatcll and wilefi Men that have lived in paft Centuries, than any can be imagined in Thofe whom you fo injuriouily reflcdl on ; for no Caufe, but for honefily declaring their Abhorrence of your -novel., and dangerous Opinions. Surely we may prefume, without affedling to fit in the Seat of God., to think fome very fallible Men liable to Errors: And when in P"a£t it appears that They are fo, we may prefume, according to our bounden Duty, to take all proper Care to prevent fuch Errors fpreading. But e- nough has been faid in Vindication of a Motto. 3. A Tiu'rd -Complaint is of my unrighteous Ufe of the Term Arians., and Arianifm. But that This Cenfure of yours is very unrighteous., may appear fafficiently from what I have eifewhere demonitrated *", and may again, as Occafion • Supplement to the C^fe of Arian Sulfcripthn, p.ip.toii.filfo p.6y. offers. to the T R E FA C E. ^ ©ffers. In Truth, it is complimenting yon, to call you ^- ria?is; for you really come fhort of the old Arians^ in more Points than one (as I fhall obferve hereafter,) and have not fo honourable Thoughts of God the Son, as the Generality of the ancient Avians had. As to what you pretend about t\\Q particular Tenets of Arius^ I (hewed you long ago^, that yours differ not in any Thing material from them. You are pleafcd to fay, that by my Way of confequential Deduc- tions the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and all their Catho^ lick Predecejjorsj may with equal Juftice be charged with A- rianifm. You mean, I fuppofe, provided in drawing Co»- fequences^ no Regard be had to what is plain^ or obfcure% right,, or: wrong; true, or falfe. Such a confequential W^y ^ as This, never W2iS my Way; and I hope, never will be: Whether it be yours, we (hall fee. You are to prove, that the Council of Nice is chargeable with Arianifm, upon my Principles. I perceive, you are (anguine enough to under- take it ; we are now to examine how you perform. I mull abridge your long tedious Train of Argument, to bring the Parts nearer together, and to fave my felf the Trouble of tranfcribing. But I'll take Care that your Ar« gument fhall not lofe a Tittle of its Force, or Strength; having: indeed none to fpare. " The Council of Nice, by a(rerting that the Son was, not " {TToiYi^iU 1% »jc ovTm') made or formed out of nothing, but " (yt^v/iB-iU s» T?? sV.'et? rS TTccr^os) generated from the Subflance *-' of the Father confededly, did not mean either, that *' the Son was (which is the firll of Dr. ^^.'s Two Senfes " of the Term individual) the fame identical whole Sub^ " fiance with the Father — or (which is the Do6lor's other " Senfe of the Term individual) that He was a homogeneous ^' undivided Part of That in(inite and infeparable Subftancc " which is the Father's But their Meaning evidently *' was, that as one Fire is lighted from another without any " Divjfion, Abfciffion, Diminution, ^c. fo the Spn was ge- " ncrated from the Father without any Divifion, Abfciffion^ ^' l^c. of the Father's Subflance,, or of his alone fupreme *' Authority and Dominion over all. And this Notion of *' theirs, becaufe it fuppofes the Son' to be not the ^ Befenfey p.ii6, &c. * See 7ny Supplement, />. io. roheY^ I jujlify my charging our Ad' verfaries with Confequ-enccs, and al/o intimatf in what Cafes fuch fi CondhH ii alhwabhf or otherwife, Sfibjiame lo The A N S WE R *' SuhJlaJfce of the Father^ but from the Suhjlance of the Fa-* ** ther : And becanfe it fuppofes the Generation of the " Son to be an Adi of the Father and becaufe it re-» " ferves inviolably to the Father, his Au^ivria,^ his Alone *' Supreme Authority and Dominion ouer all^ which makes " Him to be in the abfolute Senfe, The One God: There- " fore, I fay, This Notion Dr. M\ is pleafed to rank, a- " mong other Things, under the Head of Arianifm. This is the confequential Thing, which you have been pleafed to bring forth. The Sum is thus : If Dr. IV. fup- pofes the Son to be a P^r^J of the Father's Subftance, (which he does not,) and if the Niccne Council denies the P'ather and Son to be one undivided Subftance^ (which it doth not,j and if the Council fuppofes the eternal Generation to be an A6i^ in the Senfe o^ free Choice., (which is a filfe Suppo- fition,) and if the Council fuppofes the Father alone to have fupreme Dominion over all, (which is another falfe Sup- pofition,) if Thefe feveral falfe and groundlefs Suppoluions be evidently true; then Dr. ^/^. by charging fome Pcrfons with Ariamfm., who deferve it, has confequentiaily charged others al fo, who have not deferved it. That I may be certain of doing you Juftice, as to this marvellous Thread of Reafoning, I will come to Particulars. 1. In the firft Place, Where do you find me faying, that the Son is either the fame identical (that is, fame, fime) whole Suhfiance with the^hather.^ or an undi'uided Part of that Subjiance which is the Father"* s ? I leave H^hole and Parts '' to Thofe Gentlemen of ftrong Imagination., that conlider every Thing in a corporeal Way, under the No- tion of Extenfion. All that I fay is, that Father and Son are one undivided Subjiance -^ which is alfo the Senfe of the iV/V^»^ Fathers. For, 2. Where do you find that the Nicene Council ever fup- pofes the Fatlier and Son not to be one and the fame undi- lided Subjiance ? They fay, *» tji? »Vj«?, from the Subjiance of the Father : This is all you have to ground your Cavil upon. But the Council fuppofes the Son to be both from the Subftance of the Father, and of the Subftance of the Father, and but one Subjiance in Both, becaufe of the infe- parable Union and Connexion of Both. The Dodrine is j^fni^m^ m iKUfov ov ^vvccTOCi oTFffi TU, 'e6?.^94. See other Examples of the fame Way of fpeakmgy coUe^ed by Petavius. De Trin. 1. 6. c. 10. p. 35-1. ^ See Ovigen fully vindicated^ in This refpcci, by Huetius. Orfgcnian. p. 30, 93. ^See wyDefenfe, p. 464. Bull D. F. p. 1 14. Athanaf. p. 224,895'. Eufebius of Nicomedia may be an Evidence of the Meaning of tK riii w(rtei<;, (vphile he is endeavouring to expofe it,) by what he ufes a: paral- lel, and what as oppofite to it. Parallel. Jb^ CC'JTOV, U7T tCllTOUt as, OL'i f//i' t.^iiV T/i9 TeCVTCTiJTOC TJJ? ^y- Oppofite. 'Ttt' xutcZ yiyovoq, K^feb. Nicomed, apud Theod. l.'i. c. 6. p. 24. 12 The AN S WE R They intended was, that the Son was not from Nothings jior from any extraneous Subrtance, but from the Subflance of the Father ; as Light ftreaming out from Light, but without Div'tjlon^ or AbfciJJion^ or Diminution ; being eter- nally in the Father, as well as from Him, and infeparably included with Him. Indeed, xht Avians invidioufly charged Them with making the Son aPart of the Father'' s Subftance '■^\ as you alfo are pleafcd to charge me. Which is to me an Argument that my Notion is ftill the fame with That of the Nicene Fathers, and yours not different from That of the Arians. 3. Where do you find that the Council ever fuppofes the Generation of the Son to be an A^^ in your Senfe of Ad"^. The Council has not a Word about A6i^ that I know of: Nor, if it had, would it be at all to your Pur pole. The Queflion about Adi^ will depend upon another Quefti- on, viz. Whether the Council intended an eternal^ or tem^ foral Generation ? Upon either Suppolition, I can allow the Generation to be an AH-^ but not in your novel Senfe ofyf^, in Both Cafes. Suppofe it eternal^ then the Gene- ration was an Ad ; but in the ancient Senfe of Acl^ and ne- cejfary Agency : As the Sun was fuppofed to ad in gener rating Rays^ Fountains to ad in generating Streams, the Mind to ad in generating Thoughts, Trees to ^^f? in gene* rating Branches, Bodies to ad in generating Effluvia, Va- pours, or Perfumes, the Earth to ad in generating Fruits ; and the like. No matter whether, in ftriclnefs, thefe kind of Generations lliould be called Ads : They are fuch as the Antients called fo; and when we are interpreting the jintients, we muft attend to the antient Senfe of Words. NecefTary Ads were then called Ads ; and therefore no Wonder if eternal Generation was looked upon as an eter- nal Ad. But, fuppofe the Council intended only temporal Generation, (as fome have thought, and it feems not im- probable) then I readily allow it to be an Ad^ even in your Senfe of Choice \ as much as was the Son's Generation of the BlelTed Virgin. But then 1 infill upon it, that the M- Sorm of thefe ExprfJJions rvhich Eufebius ufes ^/parallel, are put in- vidioufly, mJ injurioufly. But fill, roe may fee what in the main »as the Catholick Senfe of the Vhrafe, thro' the falfe ColsHn Tfknby h hoped to expofe it, • See Arms' s Letter* Apud Theod. E. H. 1. 1. c. j-. ^. 1006. Bened. Vatrem cum audis, Filil iutellige Patrem, qui Filius fupradidae fit imago fubftantix. Kuffin. Symb. /». J40. ^ Ae|ot y/cy liL TifAiyj<; Ti'xrfoi otvrov, kxi ttxXiv vlou oo^x^ofAfivoVt fJidi- yflsAft>5 nijuotrxi 6 roZ too-outov ttxt^^ xyx^cu. Cyril. Hierof. p. 87. Bcncd. JlsQef/itiv yg rov XXTi^, B'Xvf/jX^ovlsq xurw rot vlot, ^oyep, kxi co^ixv, XMi «A^3-£jv) in Glory with Him. Wherein he fays the Truth, *' tho' he knows not what he fays. For the Sou doth not ^^ Jhare (or divide) the Glory with the Father; but He has " the Father's whole Glory, as the Father has alfo xhQvjhole *^ Glory of the Son. For thus He faid, fpeaking to the Fa- " ther, All mine are thine ^ and thine are mine, Joh. xvii. " He who is Heir of all Things, who is Creator of " the IVorlds, who Ihines out from the Glory of the Father^ " and together with it, and in Himfelf, carries the exprefs '' Image of the Father's Hypoflafis\ He has all Things what- " foever the Father Himfelf hath, and is alfo Lord of all r)rr<^* i ac(pxifeufa^^ rtfj ^a-jroTu'et? to ec^iayjU, k^ £{'5 to tv^ dbu>Mecq frete-y, jiTivti ^tmrt^i i Balil, Contr. Eun. 1.2. p. 73. C 3 " Power, s% the A N S WE R " 'Power. Not that the Majedy pafTes away from the Fa- " ther; but it abides with Him, and at the fame Time refts " upon the Son. For while He is in the Father^ He is to- " gether with his zvhole Power ^ in the Father : And as He " hath the Father in Himfelf, He muft contain x\\^ whole *' Power and Authority of the Father. For, He has the en- " tire Father in Himfelf, and not a Part only: Wherefore " having the Father entire, He muft have his Authority al- ^* fo entire. What then does Etinomius mean, by pretend- " ing that the Father has no Conjort in (Power or) Autho- ^' rity ? He lays, there is one only God, Supreme Ruler " (^-aiyVf «^r• 6ji, ^c. C 4 Authority^ 24 rhe A N S WE R, Set. Authority^ but becaufe what he fays is true and juft, anci( very well exprefled, in his Comment on the Creed^ written in Oppoiition to i\\tArtam of That Time. The Sum js This, that whatever High Things are faid of the Father in the Creed^ are to be underftood to belong equally to the Son: x\nd there was no Need of any more particular Ap- plieatioii, iince the very Name of Son is fufficientc A SE. SECOND DEFENSE OF SOME QUERIES RELATING TO Dr. CLARK Es Scheme of the H.Trinity: In Answer to the Country Clergy-Man's REPLY. Compare the following Texts. / am the Lord, and there is none elfes There is no God befides me^ Ifai. xlv. 5. Is there a God befides me ? Tea, There is no Gody I know not any, Ifai. xliv. 8. lam God^ and there isnonelikeme'^l(2i.x\\u9. Before me there ijuas no God form* dy neither Jhall there be after me, Jfai-xliii. 10, The Word was God^ John. i. I. Thy Throne, O God, Heb. i. 8. Chriji came, who is over all God hleffed for ever, Rom. ix. 5. Who being in the Form of God, Phil. ii. 6. Who being theBright- nefs of his Glory, and the exprefs Image of his Terfon, Heb. i. 3. Q^UERV 26 /^Second Defense Qu.L ^ Q^U E R Y I. Whether all other Beings^ hejides the one Supreme Godj he not excluded by the 'texts of Ifaiah, (to^ "which ma^ ny more might he added) and confequently^ whether Chrift can he God at all^ unlefs He he the fame with the Supreme God? OUR general Anfwer to This Que- ry is, that the Texts of Ifaiah ex- preflly and uniformly fpeak of a P erf on > and therefore all other Per- fons, befides the He^ the /, the Me^ are excluded from being what He^ who there fpeaks, declares Himfclf alone to be. To which I reply, firft, that the exclufive Terms need not be interpreted with any fixch Rigour: And fecondly, thai: They ought not^ becaufe fuch Interpretation leads you into Absurdities which you have not been able to anfwer. I . I fay, exclufive T'erms are not always to be in-^ terpreted with fuch Rigour, as to leave no Room for tacit Exceptions, fuch as Realbn and good Senfe will eafily fupply. Matth. xi. 27. fpeak ing of the Perfon of the Son, fays, No one knoweth the Father but the Son. Doth it therefore follow, that no Perfon but the Son, no, not the Father Himfelf, knows the Father ? So, I Cor, ii. 11. The Things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God\ no Perfon but He. Doth it therefore follow, that neither the Father^ nor the Son^ knoweth the Things of God as much as the Holy Spirit? Rev. xix. 12. it is faid of the Son of God, that He had a Name written, that no one (»V«V) knew but He Himfelf. Doth it therefore follow, that neither the Father nor Holy Ghofl knew it ? See more In- flances of like Kind, in my fourth Sermon. I fay then, that exclufive Terms are not always to be inter- preted Qu.I. of fom (lUERIES. 27 preted up to the utmoft Rigour : And there are ma- ny Reafons why They fliould not be fo interpreted, in This particular Cafe 5 as I have fhewn at large, ia the fame Sermon, 2. I am next to obferve, that fuch Interpretation, in the prefent Cafe, has led you into Abfurdities which you have not been able to anfwer. For, if the Son be excluded at all, by thofe Texts of Ifaiahy and others of like Kind, He is entirely excluded. He cannot be Another God^ all other Gods being ex- cluded by Thofe Texts j and you will not admit that He is the Same God: Since therefore He is not Another God^ nor the Same God^ it follows, upon your Principles, that He is iVi!? God. That the Texts exclude not only all other yz/pr^;;^^ Gods, but abfo- lutely all other Gods, I prove, not barely from the Force of the exclufive Terms, but from the Scope, Drift, and Intent of Thofe Texts 3 which was to exclude inferior as well as fupreme Deities j and to leave no Room for Idolatry^ which might be con- fident with paying Soveraign Worfhip (to ufe your Phrafe) to the God of Ifrael. You take a great deal of Pains to wind your felf ofFj or rather, to fhew how much you can have to fay^ when you have no- thing to reply. You tax me with ^ibbling in the Word Beings.^ as ftanding in the Query: Which is a Rebuke that comes late, now you are anfwering, not my ^eries.^ but my Defenfe. However, fince all other Gods are by me fhewn to be excluded, and not all other Perfons^ the Exprellion is juft, and no other but what ihould be. You obferve, next, that the Son cannot be the fame God with the Father on any but Sabellian Principles : Which is begging the Qucftion. It is fufficienr to fay, that the Fathers in general (as we fhall fee hereafter) acknowledged Both to be o?ie God^ and not one Perfon. You cite Eufe- hiits ^ as your Voucher, that the Words of Ifaiah {Be- I Eufeb. Eccl. Theol 1. 2. c. ip. p. 133. ftdes 2S ;^ Second Defense Qu.I. fides Me there is no God) denote one Perfon, When you look again into Eufebius, you will find that the Words are Marcelius's, not Eufebius's : Though lit-' tie depends upon them either Way. You have an- other Piece of a Quotation from Eufebius^ p, 4. where he makes it S -hellianifm^ to fay that the Fa- ther and Son are «v ;^ 'vaMxl'^^ one and the fame Thing. Add, as Eufebius there does, ov6|ua and Chriftian Ears cannot bear it. What then muft be done ? You at length put on an Air of Aflurance, and intimate to us, (p. 6.) that an inferior God befides the fupreme, is not another God\ and that 'Two Gods^ in the Nature of Language, muft fignify two Co-or- dinate Gods^ or Gods in the fame Senfe. But, as the Nature of Language hitherto has been always diffe- rent, and you can give no Examples in any Writings, facred or profane, of this new Kind of Language > that any two Gods, and each of them received and adored as a God^ were not two Gods^ as well as one God^ and another God-y ^ you muft give us Leave to think that This Kind ot anfwering is really faying nothing. All the Heathens that acknowledged one fuprme God* over many inferior Deities, will, by your Way of Reiifoning, ftand clear of the Charge I Page ip7» * Sf» the Preface ft my Sermons, p. 33, Sec, of JO y^ Secon D Defense Qu.I- of admitting more Gods than one. Strange ! that you fhould appeal to the Nature of Language^ in a Cafe where the Language of Mankind, Jews^ Pagans^ and Chrifiians^ hath been always contrary. You have two or three References at the Bottom of the Pagej which I pafs over, as not coming up to the Point in hand. If you have any Countenance from Eufebius^ it will amount to no more than That great Man's contradiding Himfclf, and the Catho- licks before him, as well asThofe of his own Time: His Authority therefore, efpecially for a plain Blun- der and Solecifm in Language^ will be very inconfi- derable, and weigh little with us. As to my Argument, concerning Baal^ and j^Jh-^ taroth^ and the Pagan Deities 3 you anfwer it by tel- ling me, you know not how to excufe it from Pro- phanenefs. You fhould have faid, (for That the Rea- der will fee to be plainly the Cafe,) that you kneiv not how to evade its Force. A Rebuke is much ea- lier than a folid Reply; which was here wanted. Tell me plainly, if the firfl Commandment excludes only other Supreme s^ and not inferior Deities > why Baal^ or AJhtaroth^ or any Pagan Deity might not have been worfhiped along with the God of Ifrael^ without any Violation of That Commandment ? The Law indeed fays, you fhall have no other Gods before, or befides Mej that is, according to you, no other fupreme God^ or Gods. How then are inferior and fubordinate Deities, how many, or what foever, at all excluded by That Law ? Here lay the Pinch of the Difficulty j which, becaufe you could not take it off, you are pleafed to diflemble, and to run to an- other Point. You reprefent it, as if I had intended a Comparifon between Chriji^ and the Pagan Deities-, and you remind me of the Difference betwixt Them 5 which is only folemn Trifling. I made no Compari- fon^ nor did my Argument imply Any: But This is plain, that the Texts which exclude only fupreme Deities^ do not exclude any that are not Stipreme^ or 3 not Qu. L offome Q^U E R I E S. 31 not confidercd as Supreme : And fo you, by your In- terpretation of Thofe Texts, have, in a manner, voided and fiuftrated every Law of the Old Tefta- ment againft Idolatry. If the very Mention of This evid' nt Confequcnce be a Thing fo prophane^ what mufl: your Do6lrine be, that involves This very Con- fequcnce in it? I fhcwed you, in my Defenfe^ ?-^^7- how, upon your Principles, Any Man might eafily have eluded every Law of the Old Teflament, relat- ing to JVorJhip^ or Sacrifice, One plain and diredt Anfwcr to That Difficulty would have been more fatisfaftory to the Reader, than all your iludied Di- verfions. You proceed to a tedious Harangue about media^ torial Worjhips which fhall be confidered in its Place, but is here foreign, and not pertinent. You fhould have {hewn how, by the Force of Thefe Texts (which declare the Unity^ and afcribe the Worfhip to God alone) inferior Deities can be excluded, but upon This Principle, that the Texts are to be under- flood as excluding all other Gods abfolutely, and not with your Reftriftion of all other Supremes only. You have indeed contrived a Way, fuch as it is, to bring in the TVorfloip of Chrift : But it is by making fo wide a Breach in the Laws of the Old Teftament, that had it been difcovercd by the Jews of Old, there had been Room enough to let in all imaginable Kinds of inferior Deities. They might eafily have pleaded, that the Texts were intended of one fup'eme God ; and that He alone was to be worfhiped as fuch : But as to fuhordinate Deities, as the Texts did not reach Them, fo neither need they be fcrupulous about the Worfhip of Them. This is the preffing Difficulty, to which, after fufficient Time to confider, you have not been able to make any tolerable Anfvver. Wherefore it may fairly be concluded, that the Ar- eumentis unanfwerable 5 and that This Query having ore the Teft, will now ftand the firmer. You feem to think that you have done your Part, when you havr j2 yf Second Defense Qu.It have found out a Reafon why Chrift fhould be wor- iliiped : But the main Thing wanting, was to give a Reafon (upon your Principles) out of the Law^ why Any inferior Deities^ along with the Supreme^ might not be worfhipcd alfo. You do well to plead for the Worfhip of Chrift : It is a Doftrine of the Gofpely and I think of the Law too. But you had done bet- ter, if you had contrived to make the Law and the Gofpel hang together 5 and had not entirely fruftrated the main Intent and Defign of one, in Order to main- tain the other. You have fome Obfervations, />. p, 10, 11. which feem to me foreign to the Bulineft of This Query : They may deferve fome Notice in a more proper Place. (1.U E R Y II. Whether the Texts of the new tefiament (in the fecond Column) do not jhew^ that He (Chrift) is not ex^ cludedy and therefore mufi be the fame God. THE Sum of my Argument is, that fince all other adorable Gods are excluded by the Texts oi Ifaiah'y and yet it appears from the fame Scripture, that Chrift is adorable^ and God^ it muft follow, that He is not another God, but the fame God with the Father. This Scripture Argument I confirm fromTeftimo- nies of Antiquity^ declaring, I. That other Gods only, (not God the Son,) or Idols^ arc excluded by the Texts which concern the Unity. z. That God the Son is not Another God, J. That He is the fame God^ or one God^ with the Father. 4. That the one God of Ifrael (confelTedly God Supreme) was Chrift, fpeaking in his own Perfons be- ing God, not as God's Reprefentative^ but as God's Sony of the fame Subfiance with the Father. This Qii. II. of fame Q^U E R I E S. 1 5 This is the Sum of what I endeavoured to make out, under the fecond ^ery. I am firil: to confider what you have to offer, in Order to take off the Force of my Evidence j and next, to examine any Counter-Evidence which you may have produced to ballance mine. In This Method 1 defign to proceed : And let the Reader, who deiires to fee dillindtly in- to the Merits of the Caufe, take it along with him. My Scripture- Argument was formed upon the follow- ingTexts: Job. i.i. Hcb, i. 8. Rom. ix. y. PbiLn.6, Heb. i. 3. Let us now examine Them in their Order. John i. I. My Argument here is, that the XJ7©', TFord^ \% called God^ not in any improper, or loofe, figurative Senfe^ but in the proper, and ffrift Senfe of the Word God. Therefore He is not excluded among the nominal Gods j therefore He is one and the fams God with God the Father. You reply, f. i y. that God the Word^ is not God in as High a Senfe as the Father Himfelf. The Rea- fon why He is not, or can not, you aflign, Becaufe By Him, or Through Him, all "Things were made-, which cannot^ you fay, be truly affirmed of the one fupreme God and Author of all. On the contrary, I affirm. That fince All Things were made by Him^ He is not of the Number of the Things ;^Wf, there- fore no Creatures therefore G^i in the Itrid Senfe > and, fince God is one^ t\\t fame God. The moft which you can juiily infer from the Fa- ther's creating all Things By or Through Chrill:, is only This J that They are Two Perfons^ and that there is a Priority of Order betwixt Tirem^ not that the Son is not God in as Z7/VZ? a Senfe, or in the y^;»(? Senfe -as the Father. What you cite from Eufebius^ fignifies little 5 ex- cept it be to expofe the Weakneffes of a great Man : Whofc Authority is of no Value with me, any far- ther than he is confiitcnt with himfelf, and with the D Catho- 34 ^ Second Defense Qu.IL Catholicks before, and in, and after his own Times. Not to mention that his Authority is late 5 and I may aim oft as well produce Athanaftus^ Hilary^ and the elder Cyril againft you, as you produce Eufehim againft me: Who, after all, is fo different fromHim- felf, in different Places of his Works, that, upon the whole^ it is extremely difficult to know what Judg- ment to make of Him. To return to John i. i. Jn vr.yDefenfe^ p.ii. I gave the Reader a View of your real, and intended Conftru£tion of St. John. The Word was with the one fupreme God^ Another God inferior to Him, a Creature of the great God, This Reprefentation, you fay, \s unjuft^ P-4r- It feems, your own real Senfe, when put into plain Terms, is too frightful for your felf to admit. You endeavour therefore to wrap it up, and difguife it, in Thefe Words : lloe TVord was with the one fupreme God and Father of alhy and the Word was Himfelf a divine Perfon, — i;^ Subordination to the one fupreme God, '^and By Him did the one fupreme God and Father of all make all "Things. All the Difference be- tween This and mine is, that I fpoke out your whole Senfe^ and you infinuate it, or mince it > being a- fhamed to fay all that you mean. This divine Perfon you fpeak of, you own to be God^ neither dare you fay otherwife j you do not allow Him to be xhtjame God'y therefore your Meaning is, and muft be, that He is Another God: So far my Reprefentation is ma- nifeftly juft. But farther, This fame divine Perfon you, with your whole Party, deny to be neceffarily* exifting'y therefore you make of Him ^ precarious Be- ings which is nothing but iVnother Name for Crea-- ture : Therefore He is, upon your Principles, a Crea- ture of the great God: And fo my Interpretation, or Reprefentation of your referved, and real Meaning, is true and juft to'a Tittle. Your next Attempt is, not to reprefent^ but to corrupt^ and mangle my Con- ftruftion of St. John, I refer the Reader to my Ser^ mons^ for a full View of my Senfe in That Particular. Let Qu. 11. offome (QUERIES. i $ Let us fee what you can make of it by the Help of Chicane, and Cavilling, l^he fVord ivas with the one fupreme God — Himfelf the fame one fupreme God, (yet meaning Another fupreme God in the fame undivided Subftance) and by the fame one fupreme God, did the one fupreme God make all Things. That is to fay, '' The Word was with the Father the one God Su^ '' preme, and was Himfelf, tho' not the fame Perfon^ '' yet one and the fame God ^ Supreme, and by the *' Son who is God Supreme, and Creator \ the Fa- '' ther, fupreme God alfo, made the Worlds. " What is there abfurd, or contradictory in all This ? I have given you three Ante-Nicene Writers {Iren^us, Cle* mens of Alexandria, and Hippolytus) interpreting St. John in the fame Way as I do. Shew me one that ever interpreted him in your Manner. You are forced to difguife the Matter, and to give your Meaning but by Halves ; becaufe you know you have not one Ante-Nicene, or Poft-Nicene Catholick Wi-iter on your Side, fo far as concerns your Conflru6lion of St. John. You pretend that I make of the Son An^ other fupreme God\ not the fame God. But as This is only faid, not proved > it mufl pafs for nothing but a trifling begging of the Queftion. Prove you That, as plainly as I have proved that you make the Son Another God, a Creature-God y or elfe acknow- ledge the Difference between a juft Reprefentation, and an injurious Mifreprefentation. So much ioxjoh^ i. I . The fecond Text is, *" Dei verbum, imo magis i^fe Deus. Iren'. p. 152. ^ Ev ^ oc[jtj(pci) 0 B-iix; . on ihiVy cv u^x^ 0 Xoy(^ h 00 tm S-s5, j^ S-205 »)y 6 Xoy^. Clem. Alex. p. igf. Conf. p. 86. El ^ ovv 6 Xoy(^ TToc^ 76)1 ^ioVy B-io^ a>Vf t/ cuv (pwiin' ccv tk; ^u9 Xiyn» ^iou^ i o'jo fd/j ouK sfco 3-£oi/5, «AA' In hxj tf^'oo-utfos, -^ ^uoy &C. Hippol* Contr. Noet. c. 14. p. i^. ' ^ Mundi enira Fador, vere verbum Dei eft. Iren, p. 152. ©£0$ t^ ^<^f^i6Vfyoi' TTccvrcc y^ ^t' eivTcu iytnTo, fC p^A^f <$ ecurov, iytysT* it^t iv, Clem. Alex. p. i/<5. D z Heh 1^ ^A Second Defense Qu.IL Heh. i. 8. My Argument here is, that Chrifl: who in This Text is declared to be God^ mufl be the fame God with the Father^ becaufe Scripture admits but one God 5 and expreflly declares againft every other God, To which you reply, />. 13. that the Apoftle fuffici- ently explains Himfelf by the Words, God^ even thy God', Verfe the ninth : And that I ought not to have emitted it. But I had abundantly anfwered That Pre- tence^, by interpreting the Words of Chrift confi- der'd in his human Capacity, referring to Dr. Bennet for a Vindication of it. Which is what you ought not to have omitted. This Text will come up agaiii under ^ HI. Rom. ix. f . From This Text I form my Argument after the fame Manner as in the two former. You pretend ic dtibious whether it may not pojjibly be meant of the Fa* iher\ referring to Dr. Clarke's Script. D06I. />. 75*. z^ Edit. On the contrary, I maintain, that no reafon- able Doubt can be made of its being meant of Chrifiy referring to fuch as have proved it ^. But allowing the Words to be intended of Chrift, (which is no great Courtefy,) you have ftill fomething farther to fay, viz. that the Meaning of This Text is diftinElIy explained^ i Cor. xv. 27. and Eph. i. 22, But how explained? fo as to make the Son Another Qod? I fee nothing like it; Neither does God's be- ing the Head of Chrill, nor his putting all Things un- der Him^ conclude any thing againft what I afTertj that Both together are one God Supreme. See my Sermons^ p. 224. A diftinfl: Perfonality, together * Defenfe, p. ^6. * My Sermons, p. 221. Grabe Not. in Bull, D. F. Seft. i. c. 5* GrabeV Injlances of Defecisy &:c. p. 24. Second Revievf of Doxologkt, p. I/, 16. Dr. CalamyV Sertrmi, p. 38* with Qu. II. offome (QUERIES. j/ with a Supremacy of Order^ or Office^ are fufficient to account for all, upon my Principles. You remind me o^ Hlppolytus's Comment on This Text, in thefe Words: " Chrifl is God over all: For thus He Him- '' felf fays plainly, All Things t^xq given me from the *' P'athers." But why did you overlook the Words immediately following: " Who being over all God '^ blefTed, was begotten {of the Virgin) and becoming " Man is God for ever". You fee, Hippolytus fup- pofes Him to have been God before the commencing of his mediatorial Kingdom, before the Time whea all Things were faid to be given Him > and therefore Hippolytus may reafonably be fuppofed to mean no more, than that all Things were intruded with Him, becaufe He, fo great and fo divine a Perfon, was the moll proper to fuftain fo great a Charge. The Con- fideration thereof leads back to his antecedent Digni- ty, and Excellency, which qualified him for Co greasy and fo endearing a Charge. Wherefore it was right in Hippolytus to make Mention of it, in Order to con- firm what was faid, Rom. ix. f . that He is over all God blejfed for ever. Epiphanius^ who cannot be fu- fpected of Ariani%ing^ fcruples not to argue upon the fame Text, jufl as Hippolytus does, and almoil in the lame Words ^. And they did not quote Matt.xi.zy, (or Luke x. iz.) to fhew how, or when, Chrifl was appointed Godj They had no fuch Thoughts, believ- ing Him to have been always God > but to confirm what was faid in Rom. ix. f . fo as to fhew withal, that He was difiin£t from th^ Father^ not the fame Perfon with Him, as Noetus pretended. 8 'Our<^ 6 iiyit ^ cutm fji,irac Tappi) } Yojj 35. A Second Defense Qu.IL You bring xy^Hippolytus'^ again, to confirm, as you imagine, your Fancies upon i Cor. xv. 27. Hippolytus anfwering the Objection o^NoetuSy drawn from Rev, i.8. where Chrifl is ftiled TravTO'^^Toip, (and from whence Noettis inferred, that Chrifl mult be the very Father Himfelf incarnate,) I fay, Hippolytus.^ in his Anfwer, hath the Words which you recite. '' If *' therefore all Things are put under Him, excepting *' Him that did put all Things under Him, He hath " Dominion over all, and the Father over Him 5 '^ that in all Things may be made appear one God to '' whom all Things are fubjedb, together with Chrifl, " to whom the Father hath fubjected all Things, ^' Himfelf only excepted." Hippolytus here fpeaks not of the >\.o7©», but of God incarnate J Chrifl Jefus j fhewing that Chrifl^ fince his Incarnation, has been fubjeU to the Father, and will be fo alfo, in his human Capacity, after He has delivered up his mediatorial Kingdom. From whence it is manifeil, againfl iVi?^/^/^-, that the 7^^- /^^r Himfelf was not incarnate^ was not Chrift; for TTccr^^a^ Kdrs^^B-ti X^^'^^'^ ■ ' Xo'.vra. l.zs^riToC'ATUi. ccvrZy Ujoi rov i^rc-' rochx-vT^, 7:caTm K^ocnT, uvrcu ^b o fr«,r;ip, 'ivcc iv TruTtv il PCf'^f • ?^ '"'^^ 7r 4^8. Omnipotens Chriftus appellatur- Si enim omnia Patris Filii funt, & ut ipfe loquitur in Evangelic, data eft mihi omn'is poteftas in cdo ^ in TerrUt C^ omnid tmet tua fant, cur non etiam Omnipotentis no- men referatui ad Chriftum, ut.ficutDeus Dei, & Dominus Domini, fie OmnipotemOmmpotemis Filius fit.? H'teronym, in Ifa. Tom. 3, /». 15. Nee mirum H Chriftus dieatur Omnipotens^ cui TraJita eft omnis Toteftas in cdo & in Terra. Et qui dicit j omnia qu& Vatris fmty mea funt. Si autem omnia, id eft, Deus ex Deo, Dominus ex Domino, iumen de lumine j ergo 8c ex omnipotente omnipotens : Neque enim fieri poteft ut quorum una natura eft, diver/a lit gloria. HierM, ifj^ 3 theB Qu. II. offome (QUERIES. 39 then whom could Chrift be fuhject to, but to Him- felf? Which is abfurd. This I take to be the Senfe of Hippolytus^ and his full Senfe j his Argument re- quiring no more : Befides that, it is not confiftent with Hippolytus's other Writings, to make the Son, in his higheft Capacity, fuhject to the Father, and under his Dominion. For, not to mention that Hip- polytus in This very Tra(5t, plainly teaches that the Son is of the fame Subftance with the Father, and one God with Him, (as fhall be fhewn more fully hereafter,) he concludes his Treatife with afcribing Glory and Dominion to the Son with the Father and the Holy Ghoft. Now, it would be very abfurd thus to join So'veraign and Suhjc^ together, afcribing the fame Glory and Dominion to Both^. And in the Words going before, fpeaking of Chrift, he fays, He being God^ became Man for our Sakes^ to whom the Father fubjeked all "Things^. Which lliews that all his Difcourfe before, relating to the SubjeEiion of Things to the Son, and of the Son to the Father, is after his Incarnation > and is to be underflood of the S^EaviS^gajTr©', the God-Man -y who, as God, had all Things under Him j as Man, was Himfelf under the Father. To confirm which, we may obferve that Hippolytus interprets Chrifl's praying to the Father, as being done olHovo/jtixwV. Thefe are his Words : Chrift made all thefe Prayers oeconomically^ as Man^ being Himfelf "very God"^. Does This look as if Hip^ polytus believed God the Father to havefovereign Do- minion over Chrifb, in his higheft Capacity ? Might not any Subject of God have prayed to God, as fuch ? Hippol. p.2o. ^ ^ ,*.,,, 9r»ry,p. Ibid. -• uX^^ivfXi. AAA' «5 that tho' the Aniients fcrupled not to fay, that Chrill was conftituted by the Father, Ruler^ or Lord^ or even Creator^ (according to Prov. viii.) or Any Thing coming under the Notion of Office.^ (the Father being ever looked upon as Firft in Order, and in virtue thereof, the Fountain of every Office^ ac- cording to his own voluntary Appointment) yet you will never find it laid by the Antients, that The Fa- ther conftituted Chrill a God, or appointed Him to be God. Which Obfervation is highly deferving your fpecial Notice > as it may difcover to you a fundamental Flaw in your flypothefis^ and may flicw that you have took a great deal of JPains with the Antients, upon a very wrong Viev/, and (give me leave to add) to very little Purpofe. Had you found ever an antient Tef- timony, declaring that Chriil was conftituted God over all^ you would have done fomething; The reft: are impertinent, and come not up to your Point. The Word God was never looked upon as a Word of Office^ or Dominion^ but of Nature and Subfiance : And hence it is, that the Antients never fpeak of Chrlft's being conftituted God. One Ufe indeed you may make of your Obfervation from Hippolytus^ that xavroy^^roi^j tho' it be often in the LXX the ren- dring of r"'lb^-lJ rn'in^ -Lord of Hofts^ yet the Fa- thers fometimes ufcd it in a lower Senfc, fuch as comes not up to the Strength of the Hebrew : And |;h^refore I readily acknov/lcdgc to you, that fuch Paflages Qii. II. offome QUERIES. 4t Paflagcs of the Fathers as flile Chrift -uravToy.^rk^Oj are not pertinently alledged to prove Him to be the Jehovah in the ftri6t Scnfe of that Name, according to Thofe Fnthers. But enough of This. Upon the whole, it may appear that you have not been able to take ofF the Force of Rom. ix. 5-. Phil ii. 6. My Argument from This Text runs thus. He that was in the Form of God^ that is, naturally Son of God, and God^ and as ilich equal with God ", is God in the fame high Senfe as the Father Himfelf isj and (ince God is one, the fame God. To This you only reply, (p. 14.) that nothing can be more dire^lly ^- gainft me^ than This Text. Which decretory Sen- tence, void of all Proof, and coming from a Man fallible as my felf, deferves no farther Notice. You have a great deal more upon This Text, from p. fo. to p. 54. but put together in fo confufed a Manner, with a Mixture of foreign Matters, that I ihall not fpend Time in purfuing you j but refer the Reader to my fifth Sermon upon this very Text: Where all that you have material is already anfwered, or obviated. Your incidental Pleas and Pretences re- lating to No-vatian^ and other Antients, will be an-' Iwered in their Place. I proceed to another Text. Heh. i. 3. My Argument here is, that He who is the Bright- nefs of his Father's Glory^ and the exprefs Image of his Perfon^ cannot reafonably be fuppofed to be excluded among the nominal Gods. But if he be not excluded. He is mcluded in the one fupr erne God. Therefore, 6f^. Now, in Page the fourteenth, you are content only to fay, which I can as eafily gainfay, that This Text is dire^ly againfi me. But you refume it again, p.6f. out of Method j and thither I muft attend you. " See my fifth Sermon, There fi ^/^ Second Defense Qu.IL There you talk much of By his Son, and By whom, and of the Father's being his God: Which kind of Reafoning I have fufficiently anfwered above. But you add, that the Image of the one fupreme God cannot he Himfelf 'that one fupreme God^ whofe Image He is. But what mean you by the Words I'h at fupreme God? Plainly, That fupreme Father^ who is God: And thus I readily allow, that He cannot be Himfelf That ve- ry Perfon whofe exprefs Image He is. But why do you thus perpetually quibble with the Phrafe That fupreme God 5 as if there were two Gods^ This and That^ and making the fupreme God a Name for one Perfon only ? This, you muft be fenfible, is taking the main Point for granted 5 and poorly begging of the Qucftion : Which is a Thing beneath the Cha- rader of an able Difputant. To proceed : I had been prefs'd with a Paflage of Eufebius^ relating to This Texts and I returned a clear and full Anfwer to it in my Defenfe^ p. 18, i p. You bring another Paf- fage out of Eufehius^ in his Demonftratio Evang. tho* you know that even Biibop Bull, who other wife is a Defender of Eufebius^ yet makes no Account of what he wrote before the Nicene Council: As neither do I. I ihall not therefore give my felf the Trouble of attending you, as often as you fill your Margin with That Author. I had faid however, what was true, in relation to the Paflage brought againft me before > that by cf*uo aV/ai, Eufebius might mean no more than what Pierius^ Methodius^ ^lexander^ and Tertullian^ meant by the like ExprefTionsj that is^ two Perfons. To which you reply, (/>.68.) that I, i'y adding what the Antient Writers conftantly difdaim- ed^ (viz. an Equality of fupreme Authority in the Two Perfons) do neceffarily make^ what They never didj Two fupreme Gods, however infeparable or undivided, as to their Subllance. But you are under a double Miftakej firft, in imagining that the Antients did not acknowledge an Equality of fupreme Authority as much as I do 5 and next, in fancying that They and I (for Qu. IL offome QUERIES. 43 (for the Charge afFefts Both, or neither) thereby make two fuprcme Gods. The Antients^ and 1 con- formable thereto, always fuppofe a Headflnp^ or Pri- ority of Order of the Father, referring his confub- ftantial Son to Him as his Head. And This Origina- tion in the divine Paternity (as Bifliop Pearfon fpeaks °) hath antiently been looked upon as the AJfertion of the Unity : And therefore the Son and Holy Ghoft have been believed to be but one God with the Father j (N. B.) becaufe Both from the Father^ ivho is one, and fo the Union of them. If you ask how the Authority^ or Dominion^ (for fo I underftand you here, and not as Authority fometimes fignifies Paternity^ and Au6lor is Pater -y) I fay, if you ask how it can be fupreme irt Both, if it be original here, and derivative there j I anfwer, becaufe it is the fame in Both, only exifting in a different Manner : Neither are there two Domi- nions or two Sovereignties^ any more than Two Ef- fences^ Subfiances^ or Gods, The Queftion, from whence the Son's Dominion is, is one Point, and how great^ or how high^ is quite Another. If you ask from whence the Son's Dominion is, I fay from the Fa* ther^ as his Effence alfo is : If you ask from whence the Father's Dominion is, I fay, from none^ as I (ay al- fo of his Effence. But if you ask me, what^ or how great^ or how high-, I fay equals in Both, and indeed one ° Pearfon on the Creed, p. 40. 4>:/'(n5 3 roi^^' Greg.Naz. Orat. 32, p. j-20. In ilia quippe una Subftantia Trini'tatis, XJnttas eft m Origme, aqualitas in Prole, in Caritate autem, Unitatis xqualitatifque Com- munio, Fulgent, ad Monim, l.z. cii. p.^j. P JEqualem ergo Patri credite Filium, fed tamen de Tatre Filium, Patrem vero non de Filio. Origo apud Ilium, Aqualitfts apud Iftum. Augufi, Serm. 140. Tom. f. />. 68 i. Quod fi dixeris, eo ipfo major eft Pater Filio quia de nullo genitus genuit tamen sequalem ; cito refpondebo, imo ideo non eft major fater Filio, quia genuit Aamlemt non mimrem, Originis enim Qux- ilio 44 yfSECONDDEFENSE Qa. 11. one undivided Same^ jiifl as the Eflence is. Tims your Charge of two Gods^ which you fo frequently repeat, through your abounding in falfe MetaphyftckSj is proved a Fallacy, and a groundlefs Calumny. You proceed to examine my Authorities for my Conftruction of Heb, i. j. one by one. This being but a very fmall and incidental Part of the Contro- verfy, I could be content to pafs it over, for fear of being tedious to the Reader. But I will endeavour to be as fhort as poffible. You begin with rebuking me for citing Origen out of Athanafius > who lived ^ you fay, above a hundred Years after Orlgen's Death. It was not quite a hundred when Athanafius wrote the Piece from whence I cited the Paflage. But no Matter. I quellion whether you can bring any Thing of Orige'a's that is of better^ or indeed fo good Autho- rity 5 confidering how carefully Athanafius''^ Works have been preferved, how negligently moil of Ori- gen'Sj and how much They have been corrupted > as the beft Criticks allow. Will you produce me any M(s. o^Origen^ above the Age oi Athanafius? Or will you affure us that later iS'^r/^^j were more faithful in copy- ing than He? To pafs on j you think however that the PafTage cited from Origen is nothing to myPurpofe-, it does not fhew that the Son is the one fupreme God, But it fhews enough to infer it, though it does not diredly fiy it. It ihews that, in Origen's Opinion, the Image mufl be perfectly like the Froto-type -, (lio efl quis Je quo fit, aequalitatis autem qnaliiy aut quantHi fif. .dagujl, Tom.S. /». 718. Cum fit gloria^ fern fiternit ate ^ virtutet KegnOy Fotejiate, hoc quod Pater eft j omnia tamen hxc mn fine Aucfore, ficut Pater, Deus ex Patre tanquam Filius, fine initio et Aqualis habet: £c cum ipfe fit orpnium Caput, ipfius tamen Caput eft Pater. Ruffia, inSymb, Cum Fatcr omnia qux habet gignendo dedit, &qualem utique gc- nuit, quoniam nihil minus dedit: Quomodo ergo Tu dicis, quia iiie dedit y iile accepit, ideo Aqiialem Patri Filium non eflej cun^ Eum cui data funt Omnia Sc ipfam Aqiialudtem videas accepifle? Atigtiji», Contr, Maxiin, l.z, c, 14. />. 707. Both Qii.ir. of fame ClU ERIE S. 4^ Both alike invifible^ and alike efernal^: So far He is exprefs'y and his Premifes infer a great deal more, by Parity of Reafon. Wherefore Origen^ in his Book againfl: Celfus^ carries the Argument up to a formal Equality in Great nefs. His Words are% " The God '' and Father of all is not, according to us, the on- '^ ly one that is great. For He hath imparted even *' his Greatnefs^ to his only Begotten, begotten be- *' fore the Creation : That He being the Image of the " invifible God, might keep up the Refemblance of *^ the Father, even in Greatnefs, For it was not pof- " fible for Him to be (if I may fo fpeak) a commen- " furate and fair Image of the invifible God, without *' copying out his Greatnefs. " Now, to me it feems, that This and the other Paflage of Origen^ are Both very much to my Pur- pofe. For, Origen was never weak enough to ima- gine that there were two Gods, equal in Invifthility^ in Eternity, in Greatnefs : But that the Father and Son, thus equal to each other, were together the one God Supreme. If you have any Paflages to al- ledge to the contrary, out of Origen's lefs accurate, or perhaps interpolated Works, They are by no means to be brought in Competition with thofe I have cited: Befides that the very mofl of them may admit of a fair and candid Conftruclion, as meaning no more than that the Father is naturally prior in Order to the Son, or in Office fuperior, by mutual Concert and Agreement. tr^OcS":')))' OCV, OTt icul CfJUOloTT)^ TVy^UViiiif TcZ VrXT^C^, eUK i'si}/ OTZ OVK KV» Orig, apud Athan. p. 233. *■ Ot/ fjcjov®^ ^ fjtjiyu<; kccB-' i-fhui; t^iv 0 ray oXu* B-toc x«» JTfiCTijp' f/jtrt' tri}^ *r»o"f(W5* l»* siKCtiv ocvro<; rvyy;,uvu\t rev uo^xra 3-tow, KUt iy t* /X/sys« S-w o-^^'!^yj T>!» ux.oyx tcZ 'Ttxr^oc; ou yu^ olcyr i^v tiyut cufAff/^ir^oy (»)< evrtf^ fiftfjijeccra)) kxI hoM^ iixsysc rod oce^ccra Bscv, fAn tiul Tcu ^iy^Vi S"<*g,^*». Www Tijy iiKifoi. Orig. Contr. Celf. p. 323;. 4 Nof^ 45 y^ Secon D Defense Qu.II, Nor Hiall I think my felf obliged (which I men- tion once for all) to anfwer fuch Teftimonies as have been before compleatly anfwered by Bp. Bull-y unlels you have fomething new to add upon the Subjeft. We ihall have more concerning Origen^ in another Place. You proceed to Dionyjlus of Alexandria^ (p-Ji-) whom I had alfo cited in Relation to Heb, i. 3. You call it citing at fecond Hand^ becaufe out of Athana^ Jius, May not any Writings whatever be almolt with equal Juftice faid to be cited at fecond Hand ? They mufl be conveyed to us by fome Hand or other : And we cannot be more certain of any Parts of old Writ- ings than we are of thefe Parts efpecially which were long ago cited, higher up than any Mfs. now reach. But enough of this trifling. You bring up again the ftale Pretence about what Bajil and Photius faid o^ Dionyftus: Which has been anfwered over and over, by confiderable Writers^. This is what you ought not to have concealed from your Reader. You obferve farther, that Dionyfius does not draw the fame Inference from the Text that I do, 'uiz. that the Son is the one fupreme God, Very true : Neither Ihould I draw That Inference, if I was only proving the Eternity of God the Son 5 but 1 fhould flop there. However, if there be occafion to advance farther, nothing is eafier than from the Coeterniiy to deduce all that I dcfire, viz. that the Father and Son are together the one God Supreme: Which is indeed the plain, certain Dodrine of the fame Dionyfius^ in the fameTreatife. 'ithe undivided Monad we extend to a friad^ and again the undiminijhed 'Triad we contract into a Monad ^, Now, I befeech you, what is his ^ Bull Def. Fid. Nic. p. 142. A/r.Thirlby'/ uin/wer toMr.VJhlC- ton's Sufpicionst p. 91, &c. Ruinart. A6t. Mart. p. 181. LeMoyne Not. ad var. Sacr. p. ^jf. Athanalius de Sententia Dionyfii. ^yf. AleXo apud AthanaC Vol. I. p. zf^, Monad^ Qu. II. offorne Q^U E R I E S. 47 Monad^ but the one God Supreme ? And what doth it confill of, but of Father^ Son^ and Holy Ghoft^ ac- cording to this excellent Writer? My next Authority vj^is Alexander o^ Alexandrhi^ -^ whom, you fay, I cite out o^Athanafius. You fhould have faid, out of Montfaucon's Edition of Athanafius'% Works, into which He has inferted This Epiitlc of Alexander. The Reader perhaps otherwife may fu- fpeft that This was again zifecond Hand^ as you would call it, from Athanafius. Well, what have yo*u to fay to the Thing? It amounts, you think, to no more than what Arius himfelf might have faid, mz. that the Son is not (dvcixoi^ r^ ^cla t» Trarpor) of unlike Suhftance to the Father You fhould have added the other Words by me cited, «xoJv rsXet^, ;^ d-ujcliiyaLcixa T» TrarPQCj the perfe^ Image and Shining forth of the Father. Which I believe neither Arius ^ nor your felf would be willing to admit. However, Arius had denied that the Son was o/jtoi©* t^ aV/f , of like Sub' fiance with the Father -^ as appears from That very E- piftle^. And neither Arius^ nor you, would have faid diTa\iyaaiJ.a t» Trar^or, but dira^jyixa-ixa. tJs" o^o^fis T» Trar^r, which Kind of Expreflion Dr. Clarke contends for in Oppofition to the other. You pro- ceed to cite a pretty large Pafl^ige from Alexanders other Epiftle in "itheodoret^ to fhew, as you pretend, that He has nothing agreeable to my Notion "y tho' the whole Epiftle is exaftly agreeable to my Notion, and indeed contains it. Alexander no where fays, with you, that the Father alone has fupreme Authority^ So- 'veraignty and Dominion : He was too wife and too good a Man to divide the Son from the Father. He yttTf/jcc reZ TTXTfoii Alexand. Alexand. Ep. inter Op. Athahaft pag. 399- " Among AriusV Tenets, This is one. O'Jn 3 ^^o*®^ ^^'^' <>^trlx» r« s-^Tgi sft/. Ibid. p. 398. exprefles 48 A Second Defense Qu.II. exprefles their Infepar ability'^ in all Things, in very full and exprefs Terms > together with the Son's Ne- ceffciry-Exiftencey^ and fupremc Divinity'^ -y blaming the Avians for laying hold of Chrift's A6ts of Sub- miflion, and Condefcenfion, in Order to fink and lef- fen it. All you can find in this Writer, that looks for your Purpofe, is, that the Prerogative of Unhe- gotten belongs to the Father (which 1 alio conftantly maintain) and that the Son was neither unhegotten^ nor created^ but between Both : Which Alexander obferves, in Oppofition to the Avians^ who pretended there was no Medium^ but that the Son mufl: be ei- ther Unbegotten^ or a Creature. You cite Part of This PafTage, but omit what would have fiiewn fully the Senfe of the Author 5 which runs thus: '' For Thefe Inventers of idle Tales (the Avians) ^^ pretend, that we, who rejeft their impious and un- *' fcriptural Blafphemy againft Chrift, as being from *' Nothing, afl^ert ^wo unbegotten Beings : AUedging, *' very ignorantly, that one of thefe two we mull " of Neceffity hold ; either that He (Chrill) is from *' Nothings or that there mud be two unbegotten Be- " ings. Unthinking Men ! not to confider the great " Diflance there is between the unbegotten Father, '' and the Things created by Him out of Nothing, *' (as well rational, as irrational,) betwixt which '' Two, come in the intermediate only-begotten Na- * ' AX>^itXu}) ot^a^it^x Tt^d^^u.Tcn.^ufiy rev jraJr/fflt ««« rav t/aj' , 6cc. p. 12. Mtretlw vxrfojjM/(St, cud"' ci^^i nvo^ moixi rovro C)*vTcc,(riSrui r«5 "^v^Yi^ hjyoi^ivn^. Ibid. y ^'Kr^i'xrcy rovrov kuI uvuXXoIutov a^ roit xurspxt ccx^oThH kxI t«- A«ci» viov »M yjcva tm ccysvr/ira XnTrofXjivop Ikuvh. p. i8. To yai^ ccttcco- yUiTfJijCC rtj5 ^e|>J5 Ujy^ ilvxi Asysir, cvveci^ii xcci to TreurorvTrov cpaqj ev s^iv ATTeu^ccirujX. si S kuI it iiKODi row B-iou ouk -hv ocu. diiXov on cuoi. cit iTif iiicay, i. 14. T^i kmTXTV, KM oi^'fc^^it kuToH ^iorryi^t p. 1 5. '^ ture. Qu. II. offome (QUERIES. 49 '' ture of God the Word^ by whom the Father made '^ ail Things out of Nothing ^" I fee nothing mThisPafTage, but what I can hear- tily afTent toj undei (landing by Nature, Perfon^ as Alexander Himfelf underftood it 5 which Valefius obferves. One Thing the Reader may remark, that the main Principle upon which you and your Friends found all your Oppofition to the Doftrine of a Ca- equal and Co-eternal Trinity, is no other than whac you have borrowed from the ancient Arianss and which Alexander^ in thisPafiage, feverely condemns j namely, that God the Son cannot be God in the ftridfc and proper Senfe, unlefs He be imoriginate and felf^' exijient^ as the unbegotten Father Himfelf j there be- ing, as you conceive, no Medium between Self-exiJ^ tence^ in the higheft Senfe, and precarious Exillence: That is, in plain Words, (tho' you love to difguife it) between being unbegotten^ and being a Creature, And thus we have done with Heb. i. 3. Some Pofi^ Nicene Writers I had added, not to make a SheWj as you fro wardly and falfely fuggeft ; but, as you very well knew, to corre6l your Wonder^ and your reprc- fenting it before as ftrange^ and newj to offer This Text in Proof of Chrift's Divinity. You have not been able, we fee, to invalidate the Force of Thofc few Texts, laid down in This Query, with defign to prove that Chrill is not excluded^ by any Texts of the Old Teftament, or New, from being one God with the Father, but neceffarily in- cluded in the one God Supreme, To thefe I might tuK •vTuv oiTi'oyi y) ciypxOov kcctoc xP^^"^ (i>^ci(r(pY,ajiUi , c^yivr/^rx a\^x(r-> ^/ ^ ~ A '/ . ' ' 0 ^ ~ "J- » > '^ -a »y , ./ . Kiiv auoT Shoiv ij-xn^ov >,iyov\i5?, ^' y,^ rot oXx s| euK evrm i7:oii)(riv 6 Trxry.^, ToZ ^ioZ koya^ 6cc. Alexand. Epift, ap. Theod. 1. 1. c.4. p. 17, 18. See Bull Sedt. 3. o ^. q. ii. Animad. in Gilb. Gierke, p, 1027.' E ad4 5© !/^ Second Defense QuJI. add many other Texts, fignifying that the Father and Son are one > that the Son is in the Father^ and the Father in Him-y that He who hath feen one^ has therein Teen the other alfo ^ that the Son is in the Bo* fom o£ the Father^ and as intimate ^sThcught to Mind ^ that all Things which the Father hath are the Son's; and that whatfoe\jer the Father doth, the Sen doth likewife > that They are reprefented as one 1'emple^ Rev. xxi. 22. and as having one 'Throne^ Rev. xxii. i. and as making one Light ^ Rev. xxi. 23. Thefe and many other Confiderations, fuggelled in Scripture, ferve to confirm and illuflrate the fame Thing. But it is now Time to examine your pretended Counter- Evidence^ drawn from Scripure : After the Difcuflion of which, we may come regulaily to our Enquiry into the Senfe oi Antiquity upon This Head. You had produced 7pofttion to what They are not oppofed to : And there is Qu. n. offome Q^U E R I E S. ^i is both Ufe and Certainty enough in Language^ in This Way, fo long as Men are blefTed with any tolerable Share of common Senfe, and are but capable nf un- derilanding the Defign, Drift, or Purport of any Speaker, or Writer. I fee where your Confu- sion lies : And if you will bear a while with me, I will endeavour to help you out of it. I confider the Matter thus : The God of Ifrael (be it Father, or Son, or Both, or the whole Trinity,) is ftiled the {^ne Gody God in the ftri6t, and emphatical Senfe of the Word God^ in Oppofition to Creature-Gods j which are none of them Gods in the fame Senfe of the Word God, Here^ you will obferve that I lay the Empbafis upon the Senfe of the Word God: And in This very higheft and moft emphatical Senfe of the Word, I fuppofe as well Son and Holy Ghoft^ as the Father, to be God. Again, the Father may be emphatically Hiled the only God^ becaufe of his emphatical Manner of exift- ing. Here I lay the whole Emphafis upon the Man^ tier of exijiing^ exifling from none. Either Son, or Holy Ghoft, is God in the very higheft Senfe^ in the fame Senfe of the Word God^ but not in the fame em- phatical Manner. If therefore the Emphafis be laid upon the Senfe of the Word God^ every Perfon of the Three is emphatically God,^ inOppofition toCrea^ ture-Gods : But ii the Emphafis be laid upon thtMan-^ ner of exifting, the Father only is God in That em* phatical Manner, and for That very Reafon is moft frequently fliled, in Scripture and Antiquity too, the only God. I perceive, you do not diftinguiih between being God in a different Senfe of the Word God^ and being God in a different Manner^ tho' in the fame ^enfe of the Word : And hence arifes your Perplexity upon This Head. I will give you one Example, ouc of many, which may help to illutlrate the Cafe. The Father is Spirit^ and the Son is Spirit -, but yet the Holy Ghoft is emphatically the Spirit. Not that He is Spirit in Tiny higher^ or any diferent Scnk of the Word IB 5 Spirit f S4' ^ Second Defense Qu.II; Spirit 'y But upon other Accounts, the Name of *?/>/- r/V is emphatically and more peculiarly attributed to Him. In like Manner, the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghofl God 5 yet the Father is emphatically the or^e God. Not that He is God in any higher^ or any different Senfe of the Word God: But upon other Accounts, (either as He \$ firft known^ or as being moll ^//^i'y^r/^//)' acknowledged*, or chiefly as being Firft Perfon -f 5 and Head of the other two,) the Name of God^ or only God^ has been emphatically and more peculiarly appropriated to Him. Thefc Thir and greater in refpeft of natural Order of Priority^ which made it proper for one to fubmit to the inferior Office rather than the other. And therefore I have not fcrupled, after Cy- frian^ Novatian^ Athanafius^ Baftl^ and others, in my Sermons +5 to admit that the Son is greater than * Quin 8c illud obfervatione dignum eft, Juda?os per id tempus, ut erant rudes 8c occa;catii folumDcum agnovifle quem Patrem fuum efle Chrif]:a<; docucrat — idcirco Joh. viii. fie illos Chriftus allo- quitur : JEjl Pater meus^ qui glortficat me^ quem vos dicitis quia Deus fejier cjl, ^ mn cognozifiis eum. Itaque de Hoc ipfo Deo, quem Ju- doei animo Capiebant, necnon Judaizantes Hxretici plerique, ad quos dedocendos, vel refutandos Johannes ifta fcribebat, loqui fie necclTe habuit, ut diccrct verbum erat ^rpcj? rev S-scv, Hoc eft apud illHmDeum, quem vos O Judxi 6c Hasretici, folum noviftis. Petav. Dogm, TheoL Tom. j-. Tart 2. />. ^ji. /. 16. c.4. f SalvQ enim FtUo, rc6le tmicwn Detim poteft deter mfnafle, cuj«»s eft Filius. Non enim dcfinit effe qui habet Filium i\>fr unicus, fuQ fcilicet nomine, quoticns fine Filio nominatur. Sine Filio autem nominatur cum j^rincipditer detcrminatur ut prima perfona, quae ante Filii nomen erat proponcnda, quia pat^^r ante cognofcitur, 8c poft jpatrem fi'i^s nominatur. Teiinl. contr.Prax. c. 18. • ^ Scrmoa 6. p. ipi. the Qu.IL of fome aU ERIE S. 55 the Holy Ghoft-, of which, if you pleafe, fee a full and brief Account, in a Book refer'd to in the Mar- gin'^. Your Tcftimonies therefore upon That Head, might have been fpared, as containing nothing con- tradi6i:ovy to me : unlefs perhaps Eiifebius^ or the Council of Sirmium (neither of which are of any great, Authority with me) might flrain the Notion rather too far j as it is certain you do. You go on to I Cor.\'m,6. where you fay the Son is in the mod exprefs H^ords excluded. Excluded from being one God with the Father? Where? Shew me the exprefs Words if you can. I fay, the Father is there emphatically ftiled the one God-, and the Rea- fon of it is intimated, becaufe of Him are all Things j whereas in refpect of the Son, they are only by Him : Which Ihews a Difference of Order betwixt Them, in exifting, and operating. i\nd this is all you can make of i Cor, viii. 6. However, as all Things are by the Son^ as well as of the Father -y it appears from That very PafFage, that They are Both one Crea- tor^ one Joint'Caufe of all Things. But of This Text I have faid more in my Sermons-\. You won- der I flooidd not fee in i Cor. viii. 6. that if the one Lord is included in the one God^ {there fpoken of^ you fhould have added,) the whole Reafoning of the Apojlle is quite taken away. But it is eafy to anfwer, that me God there is taken perfonally : And fo I do not pre- tend that it there ftands both for Father and Son, but for Father only j as one Lord is alfo taken there perfonally for the Son only. Neverthelefs, the giving the Name fometimes to one fingly, is no Argument that the fame Name may not alfo^jullly belong to Both together. On the contrary, it is certain, that if Both are joined in the fame one common Godhead^ * Leo Allatius hU Notes upon Methodius, p, 102. m Fabricius'/ yi- vc^d Volume of Hippolytus. t Serm. 2. p. 49. ^4. E 4 either $6 ^A Second Dispense Qu.II. cither of them fingly has a Right to be called the cm God^ not excluding the other from the fame Right. What you add about Sahellianifm^ I pafs over here as foreign. Your Quotation from Bp. Pear [on is {hamefully abuling your Reader, while you conceal what would have fhewn that the Bp.'s Notion was 'diametrically oppofite to yours. I have fet dov^^n his Words above -f- As to Origen's Way ot folving the Unity^ it will be feen hereafter to be diredly contra- ry to yours j as are alio the Ante-nicene Fathers in ge- neral, as will be fcen prefently. Eufehius I reckon not with the Ante-nicenes j unlefs you'll take in Athanafius too, who has Two Treatifes written before any Pieces now extant of Eufehius. What I had faid of Nova-- tian^ flood correded in my two later Editions of my Defenfe^ which you might have been fo fair as to look into. I fay, if Novatian did not mean that Chrifl: was God in the fame Senfe with the Father, and only God as well as the Father, it will be hard to make out the Senfe or Connexion of his Inference '^'^^ from 'John'^vn. 3. His Reafoning is plainly This > that when our Lord faid, 'They might know Thee the only true God^ and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft fent^ his joining Himfelf to the Father in that Manner, fhews that He mull be God aljo. The Strength of his Ar^ gumenc lies only in the Conjun<5lion And: There are but two Conftru6lions of it j either thus, know Thee, and alfo know Jelus Chriil, (according to which there is nothing like an Argument, at leail not according * Si noluiflet fe etiam 'Dmm intelligi, cur addidit, 8c quem mi- fifti ]cfam Chriflum, nifi quoniam 8c Beum accipi voluit: quoni^ am ii fe Bsum ncllet intelligi, addidiifet, 8c quem mififti Hominera Jefum Chriflum; nunc autem neque addidit, nee fe Hominemfnobfs tantummodo Chriftus tradidit, fed Deo junxit, ut & Deum, perhanc conjundiionem, ficut eft, intelligi vellct. Eit ergo crcdendum in Bominum, unum vcrum deum, 8c in eum quem mifit Jefum Chrif- tum confequcnter: qui fe nequaquam patri, ut diximus, junxiffet siifi Deum quoque intelligi veller. No vat, c.ii^, . Qa. II. offome QUERIES.' 57 to ISfo^atian ) or elfe thus, Thee the only true God, and alfo Jefus Chrift. Thus indeed the Text does afford an Argument of Chrift's being God^ and only God too. For it comes to This, that the Father, and alfo Chrift, is the only true God. And thus Am^ hrofe * reafons upon that Text, much after the fame Way with Novatian : As alfo do Athanafius j", and Au^ fiin%. Wherefore I do not fee that I have at all mifreprefented the Senfe of Novatian. What you farther pretend from other Parts of his Treatife, is by no means made out : All being eafily reconciled upon the Foot of the Son's Subordination as a Son, or his voluntary Condefcenfions^ without the leaft Diminution of his fupreme Authority, naturally and cffentially adhering to Him. But Novatian fhall be more di- llindlly and accurately confidered in the Sequel. You tell me, pag. ^6. that the Nicene Creed profefles the Father to be the one God-, as if any one queflion'd it, or thought it of any Weight in the Controverfy! Do not I alfo profefs the fame Thing? You add farther, that even the Pojl-nicene Writers refer^d the Title of 6 /jtov©' d\y\^ms 3^6or, the only true God^ to the Father only (which isaMif- take I] j) But what if They did? Then They referved fomc * Ut cognofeant Te folum verum Deumy ©» quem mijifii Jefum Chrijium-j conjunftione ilia Patrem utique copulavit &: Filium, ut "Chriftum verum Deum a majeftate Patris nemo fecernat : Nunquam cnim conjundlio feparat. Ambr. de Fid. I. f, c, i. Compare Hi' lary,p.Sis-. t Athanaf. Orat. 5. p. j-j-S. + £/ quern mififli Jefum Chrtftum. Subaudiendum efl-, unum ve- rum Beum, 8c ordo Verborum eft, ut te ^ quern mififli Jefum Chrtftum cognofcmt unum verum Deum. Auguft. de Trin. 1.6. c. 9. p. 849. Petavius remarks, that Novatian'f was the fame with St. AuftinV, Petav. deTrin. 1. 2. 0,4. jl I think it not worth while to fearch particularly for a Thing of little er no Weight. But fo far as I remember, the Title of only true God, is ver^ often applied iy the Poft-niccne Hyifert to all the Verfom together i thi 58 ^SecondDefense Qu. IL fome peculiar Titles to the Father, by Way of Emi- fiency^ to diftinguifh the fir ft Perfon of the Godhead: And That is all. And if the Poft-nicene Writers, notwithftanding their referving fome peculiar and emi- nent Titles to the Father, yet believed all the three Perfons to be the one God; why ihould the referving of the fame, or like Titles to the Father, among the j^nte-nicenesj be made any Argument againil their having the fame Faith with Thofe that came after? What you fay of Epiphanius^ (p. 37.) that He under- ilood the Words tov /jt&vov aXy]^:vov ^toy, in John xvii. 3. of the Father only^ is tiue: But you are pro- digioufly out in your Account, wWxs vo'i pretend from the fame Epiphanius^ that 6 aXn^ivc? ^sos*, the true God^ in John v. 20. was in his i'^ime^ iiniverfally under flood of the Father. Athayiafms quotes the Words feven Times-, conlbntly iindcrihndmg them of God the Son: Bafil applies Them in the fame Manner^. So alfo do Amhrofe^ Jerom^ Faufiinus^ and Didymiis. Thefe were all Contemporaries of Epiphanius. And I have not yet met with fo much as one ancient Writer that ever underftood Thofe Words in i Joh. V. 20. of God the Father. Cyril of Alexandria^ Au- fiin^ Fulgent ius^ Figilius^ Eugenius^ and the rell that wrote in the Age next to Epiphanius'' s^ interpret the Text the fame Way: And if Epiphanius did other- wife, he is very fingular in it, and his Judgment of very little Weight, againft fo many confiderable Au- tW perhaps rarely to any fingle Terforiy except the Father. Two Injlances ef the latter^ may here fuffice. 'O ya:p T8W B-scu Xoy<^ fJuo'.<^ S-sog u>[y,B-K^, ^!o Kccl f/jovoyiv\<; ^toc ro fhiv®^ sTveti B-iU coi 0 TTdT^f. Athanaf. in Pfal. Nov. Colle6l. p. 85. Eft ergo foltis (^ vcrus Deus Filius, Hsec enim Sc Filio praeroga- tiva defertur. Ambrof. tie FiJ. l.f. c.z. p-f^^. As to the M^ant of the Article, it is of »') Moment, fmce the Words vithout the Article are as full and exprejfive of the Catholick Senfe of the Son*s Divinity, as pojfiUe, * See the Fhces refer' d to, Sermon C, p» 2ii» thor$ Qu. 11. offome QUERIES. 5^ thors his Contemporaries. But it is a^ wild a Con- fequcnce as ever was drawn, that bcc.j.ur hi'ipbanius did not infift upon This Text, where he had Occa- fion, therefore all the other Fathers, (tho* we have their own Words to vouch the contrary) underflood that place of God the Father, Mr. Whifion^ whofe Zeal ronietimes tranfports him, yet did not care to come up to your Lengths inTh.s Matterj being con* tent only to Ihy, that Epipkanius was utterly a Stranger to the Athayiafmn Expofition^: Which perhaps may be very true J and to the y/r/^;? Expo (it ion alio. For I will frankly own, I am inclinable to fufpedV, that Epiphanius made ufe of fome faulty Copy which had not the word ^so?, but oKn^m^ only 5 tho' I have not obferved that Any other Greek Writer had any fuch faulty Copy. But it is certain, that fome La- tins read. Hie eft Ferus^ £5? Fit a sterna. Hilary -j" for one > and probably Fauftinus^ tho* the prefenc Editions have Deus : And there is a Latin Treatife among the fuppofititious pieces afcribed to Athana^ ftus \^ which reads the Text the fame way. The Author, probably, Idatius Lemicenfis^ about the Year 4f8. You have fomething more to fay on i Cor, viii. 6. in Page 38. But, I think, I need not add Any thing to what I have before faid, referring alfo to my Ser- mom. The next Text we are to confider is Eph. iv 6, One God and Father of all^ who is above all, and through ally and in you all : A Paflage, which, I faid, had by the Antients, been generally underflood ot the whole Trinity. Upon which you fay, a Man viuft have a ft range Opinion of the Antients, "who can think fo. Your Reafon is, becaufe He is there diftin- guilhed from the one Spirit, and the only Lord. And * Whifton'^ Reply to Lord Nottingham, p. 3;-. Append, p. 47. t Hilarius, p. 908. Ed. Bened. ^ Athanafii Opera Suppof. p. 608. Ed. Bened. what fit [/^ Second Defense QuJI. ■what if the one Lord^ and one Spirit be there firft diftinftly named, I fee no Abfurdity in afterwards inentioning and fumming up the three Perfons in the pne God^ under a threefold Confideration of above alij through ally and in all. But we are not now inquir- ing into the Senfe of the Text, but into the Senti- ments of the Antients upon it, whofe Teftimonies I have now given in one View in the Margin *. As to Irejiausy you deny that He underltands the Text of the trinity j referring to Dr. Clarke's Reply to Mr.Nelfon^ p-Ji- In return for which I refer to "frue Scripture DoUrine continued^ p. 67, 103. Nor is there any Thing more abfurd in this Confl:ru6i:ion of IrenauSy than there is in his often reckoning the Son and Holy Ghoft to the Father, as beii;g nis very Self in a qualified Senfe. Indeed, nothing is more com- mon than for the Head of a Family, fuppofe Ahra* ham^ to be underHood in a ftrider or larger Senfe j either as denoting his own proper Perfon, or as de- noting Himfelf and all his Defcendents confidered as contain'd in Him, and reckoned to Him. There is therefore nothing ilrange or abfurd in it, if the An- ^ Unus Deus Pater oftenditur, qui ^^fufer omnia, (^ per omnia, f5» in omnibus. Super omnia quidem Fater^ 8c ipj[e eft caput Chrt- /li : per omnia autem Verbumy 6c ipfe eft Caput Eccleiise : in om- nibus autem Nobis Spiriius, Sec. Iren. p. 315-^. OiKovo^ioi trvfjtj(puviciq frvvccyiTUi ii<; svx B-iovy ilc, yap l^iv o B-io<;. O' •yeep Ki^.ivaiv ^oirvj^, o h vTrxiciiCov wo§, ro h ^(Tvviii^ev Uyt'ov TrnvfAcc. O* «yy TTxryi^ sVt TrclvraVy 6 Jl vto^ ^cc ^ciyruy, to <^£ uyiov Tivlvfjjet iv ^octr^, ei'xXui; ri tvx B-iov vofjUiTcci tm ^vvcCf/jiB'tCy iccv (//» ovra^ TTccrfi KCCi vw, xccl tlyiM TTnufjuxri Tti'^iuvu^iv. Hippol. contr. Noet. p. 1 6i Ef? BiO<; iV TVl iKKXfia-iCC m^UTTiloHy 6 iTTl 'TtOCiTUVy KOc) Oloi TTUVTUV, xccl sv %oi>v fjuin^ co^ ttutk^, 0)5 <*P^») "*<♦ ^^y^t ^'* 7r»ylav Si Jiflt roi/ AcySj h ^cccn at It r» ^vivfjuUTt ra etyia. Athanaf. p. 6^6. Diverfitas autem prsepofitionum, in quibus dicitur : unus Deus, ^ Vater omniumy qui fuper omnesy ^ per omnes, ^ in omnibus^ diveriam intelJigentiam fapit. Super omnes enim eft Deus Tater* quia Au6i:or eft omnium. Ter omnes Fiiius, quia cundta tranf- currit, vaditque per omnia. In omnibus fpiritus fanftus, quia nihil abfquc CO eft. Hieron. in locum. Tom. 4. Parti.p.j^z. I tkm Qu. 11. 6ffome Q^U E R I E g. M tients fometimes confidered God the Father^ thtf Head of Both the other Perfons, either in a more reftniin'd^ or more inlarged Signification : It is Faft that They did lb, as will be feen prelently. You proceed to Hippolytus^ and fpeak of his SpU'* rioufnefs with as much Confidence as if you were a- ble to prove it : Of which more in the Sequel. You tell me alfo that He's againft me ; tho' I think He is clearly for me, and that the Father who gives Of'- ders^i the Son who executes^ and the Holy - Ghoft who finijles^ are, with Him, one Godj as plainly as Words can make it, both before and after : Which I leave to the learn'd Reader to judge of. Only, I may add in Confirmation of Hippolytus's Comment on Eph. iv. 6, that He % as well as 1'ertulUan fj and Iren^us^ confiders xho Father fometimes in a reftrain'd Senfe, for the Perfon of the Father, and fometimes in a larger^ as containing both the other Perfons. ^dihtY IS Jthanaftus againft me^ as you pretend, but dircdlly for me, when He is juftly tranilated, with- out your Interpolations. " In the Church, there is *' preached one God, who is above all, and through '' all, and in all. Above all, as Father, as Head, " and Fountain 5 and "through all by the Word j and *^ in all by the Holy Spirit.'* You, by putting in He in one place, and his twice, have endeavour'd ta pervert the Author's true Meaning ; as if Athanaftus had been fpeaking of the Father all the way, when the one God is his Subjed, and He is ihewing how the one God is confidered in the feveral Perfons of Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft. What you have farther in Page 40, 41, betrays cither fuch ftrange confufion of Thought, or fuch "* TO ^i Ttoiv TTXTtl^y £| » OVVCCf/ji^ AoV^S. Hipp, p. 1 4. t Unus omnia dum ex uno omnia, per fubftantise fcilicet unitai tern. TertuU. Contr. Prax. c. 2. Pater Tota fubftantia eft, Filius vero Derivatio & Portio Totius. Ibid, c. ^. a pecu- tfi A Second Defense Qu.II. a peculiar Talent at mifreprefenting, that I hardly know what to fay to it. But I muft make fome fhort Stridures upon it. I had faid, fome Texts are meant of Chrift as Mediator -, upon which you gravely tell me, that the one Mediator is not a part of Chrift but the fame Chrift^ the fame Per fin incar^ fiate^ and Mediator in refpeft of Both Natures. I hope you'll remember This, when we come to fpeak of mediatorial Worihip, which by This account will appear to be Ibidly divine Worfhip ; fmce a Media- tor is God^ as well as Man. But That by the way. I mufl however obfcrve, that a Mediator is confider- cd two ways, by Nature or by Ojfice.^ as the Fathers diftinguifh. He is Mediator by Nature^ as partaking of Both Natures divine and human : and Mediator by Office^ as tranfa61:ing Matters between God and Man. The fubmitting to This Office is a great In- ilance of the Son's Condefienfton 5 And if any low Things be faid of Him confider'd as executing an inferior Office, voluntarily undertaken, They afFe6t not his real inherent Dignity^ or his effential Equa- lity in all Things with the Father. It is not that He is really a Servant^ or Subjefl^ under the Father's Dominion j but that He has been pleas'd to take up- on Him a minifterial Part : So that now you may fee how little Pertinence, or Senfe there is in your wide and loofe Talk {p. 41.) about T^wo Per fins in Chrift, and about Cerinthus^ or whatever elfe came into your Head 5 to give you a handle to fill your Margin with ftrange, frightful, impertinent Quotations, to prejudice weak Readers. Your 43^, 44^^, and 4f^^ Pages, containing lit- tle but Z)^'^:/^;^^^/^^;?, I pals over: When you have any Thing that looks like ferious Reafoning, I'll attend you. I have, I hope fufficiently made it appear, that the Texts which you brought to exclude the Son, prove nothing like it > as I before fliewed, that you could not aniwer the Texts alledged to prove the contrary, lihould Qlt.II. offome QU ERIE S. 6i I ihould now be willing to go regularly on to Anti^ quity^ after the Method laid down above. But ia your 2,f'^. Page, you have thrown {omQ Met aphyftcal Jargon in my Way, and of which you are fo confident as to fay, thatunlefsl can reply to it, all other "Things are to no Purpofe. This is the Man that builds no- thing upon Metaphyfics. Indeed,* I cannot but won- der at your unaccountable Conduft in This Contro- verfy. If you really think the received Dodrine of the Trinity, to be ahfurd in \t felf^ and therefore /;«- poffible to be proved, why do you amufe us with Scrips ture and Fathers 5 as if the Strefs of the Queflion lay there, when, according to you, it doth not? You Ihould rather have wrote a P hilofophical DifCcrtmonio ihew, that the Notion it felf is contradictory, and fuch as no Scripture^or Fathers can prove. This is really yourMean- ing. And as the firll Queftion always is, whether a Thing be pojjihle^ and next whether it be true \ you fhould have begun with the Point of the PoJJibilityy without meddling at all with Scripture^ or Fathers : which are impertinently brought in, while theQueftion of the PoffihiUty remains in Sufpence. But if you re- folve to put the Caufe upon Scripture and Fathers ^ then your Metaphyfics^ which relate to the Poffibility of the Do6trine, are very impertinent, and come out of Place : Becaufe the Pojjihility is to be always pre- fuppofed before we join Iflue upon Scripture and An^ tiquity. But to leave you to take your own Way, however peculiar, or prepofterous, let us examine a little into thofe marvellous Subtilties, which you lay fuch Weight upon. Your Defign is to prove that they^?;^^ God is and muft be thefcvme Per/on^ and that therefore Two or more Perfons cannot be one God. If you can make this out, the Bufinefs is done at once j and our Difpute is at an End. Several Ways have been attempted by Dr. Clarke before, which now feem to be given up as unfacisfadtory. It was once a Principle, a Maxim with him, that a Perfon is a Beings and that two individual Beings cannot be one individual €+ !/^ Secon D Defense Qu.IL individual Being. I have heard no more of This, fince the Doftor has been apprifed, that his own Hypotbefts of the divine Subftance being extended, could not Hand with his famed Maxim 5 every Part of that Subftance being confider'd as Beings and yet all but one Being. The Do6lor however, and you, ftill re- folve to hold to your Conclufton againft the trinity 3 and to feek for new Premifes^ wherever you can find, or make them. After fome Deliberation, comes out this Syllogifm, There muft be Identicahefs of Life^ to make the fame God. But Three ^i^^r^/^^Perfons cannot have Identicahefs of Life. Therefore Three different Perfons cannot be the fame God. This After-thought ^ which has took you up fo much Time and Pains, is at length good for nothing j except it be to fet weak Perfons a muling upon the new Thing, called Identical Life, Whatever it be, you might as well have formed twenty Syllogifms as one, and all of the fame Value. For you might have ar- gued, that Three Perfons cannot have Identicahefs of Power, or Identicahefs of Will^ or Identicahefs of Wifdom > or, to fay all in a Word, Identicahefs of Effence^ which includes every Thing. But when you have done your utmoft, the main Queftion, 'uiz. what is or is not Identical^ ftands juft where it did, and you are not advanced a Tittle farther than before. There is the fame Rule for Life^ and for every Thing elfe you can invent, as there is for the Effence. The Life is common to all the Perfons, as the Effence is j and it is Identical \n all, ^ juft as the Effence is Identical So much for Syllogifm : Pity it could not be more ferviceable, in a Cafe of Extremity. * Propter unam eandcmque Naturam, atquc mfeparabilem litam, jpfa Trinitas i— « intelligitur unU5 Dominus Deus nofter. jiuguji, £pfi, 10, ad. Max. p, 60^* You Qu. IL offome Q^U E R I E S. 6$ You are often puzling yourReadeiy.nd your fclf, upon a very abftrufe and intricate Queftionj whether Any Thing,or What, can make two Pcrlbns or more oneGod. The Short of the Cafe is This 5 the Chriflian Churches have colledted from Scripture^ that Three Perlbns are OneGod: And beheving the Thing to be Fa5l^ They have, according to the beft of their Judgment, ref^lv'd the Unity into Confuhftantiality^ Infepar ability^ and Uni- ty of Origination \ finding, (or at lead: believing thac They had found) that Scripture had alfo figniiaed the three Things now mention'd. This Account appears as probable as any \ neither perhaps can hu- man Wit invent any thing beyond it. But flill it mult be faid, that Uttle depends upon flating the Man- ner hoix) the three Perfons are conceived to be one God: The Fad: is the one material Point. If Scrip- ture really makes them exprefly, or by necefTary Con- fequence, one God-y I know not what Men have to do to difpute about Intelligent ^gents^and Identical Li-veSy ^c. as if they underftood better, than God himfelf does, what one God is j or as if Pbilofopby were to di- reft what fhall, or fhall not be Tritheifm. Jews^indi Pagans^ and Heretics of feveral Denominations, have often charged the Chriftian and Catholic Doc- trine of the "Trinity with Tritheifm. The Fathers of the Church have as conftantly denied the Charge j giving fuch Reafons as I have mention'd, why it is not, and therefore fhould not be called, Tritheifm, One general Reafon might have fufficed for all, 'viz. That the Unity of the Trinity is too drift and clofe^ to admit of the Name, or Notion of Tritheifm. This is ending the Difpute at once, without farther In- quiry into the Nature of That Unity \ unlefs the Ad- verfary can fhew (which is impoffible) that no Unity whatever, can be fufficient to make more Perfons than one, one Beings one Subftance^ one God. If we are to build our Faith on Scripture^ fuch an Unity there may be,becaufe there really is. Philofophy^ falfely fo called, may reclaim againft it j but having no certain Prin- F ciplQ 66 A Second Defense Qu.II. ciple of Reafon to go upon, no Rule whereby to ^udge, whether the one God be one Perfon or more > It is evident, that this Point mutl: at length be deter- mined by Scripture alone 3 And that mull be the true Unity of the Godhead, which Scripture (according to its moft reafonable, and natural Conilru6tion) has given us for fuch. But it is high Time now to come to Antiquity j which has been fo long llaved off, and yet muftmake a great part of our Difcourfe under this Query. I ihaped out my Method into four Particulars, which may be feen above. I. The firil Particular is, that xh^Jntie?its have, in accounting for the Texts relating to the Unity , de- clared their Judgment, that Idols only, or other Gods are thereby excluded^ and not God the Son. I cited Iren£US^ox thisPurpofe, where he fays, that the holy Scriptures declare, that the alone God, ex- cluding others^ made all things by his IVord ^, That is, other Gods are excluded, not God the Son, who is not another God^ according to Irena;us\ as wefhall fee under the next Article. 1 obfervcd farther, that The Son and Holy-Ghoil, are the \c\j felf of the Fa- ther, according to Iren^us 5 as the Father is alfo the felf^ of Them : Wherefore it can never be imagi- ned that either of them is excluded from the one God, Let us go on to Clemens of Alexandria^ who fre- quently teaches the fame Thing. He fays, that the * Univerfise Scripturce . unum 6c folum Deum, ad exclu- ceiidos alios, piccdicent omnia fecifTe per verbum fuum, ^c, Iren. i. 2. c. 7. p. Iff. f Si enim exiftens in Patre, cognofcit Hunc in quo eft, Hoc eft femetipfmny non ignoret. Iten. p. 139, Fecit ea per femetipfum. Hoc eft per Verbmn &c Sdftentiam fuam. p. 163. Fecit ea per femetlpfum : Hoc eft per Verbum Sc Sapientlam fuam. Adeft enim ei femper Verbum 8c Sapientia, Films &; SpiritHS, per ^uos & in quibus omnia iibere Ik fponte fecit, p. z/3. Father Qii. II. of form Q^U E R I E S. 67 Father of all Thir/gs is alone perfe^ > immediately ad- ding, For, in him is the Son^ and in the Son the Father^. This Writer could never believe, than the exclujive Terms were intended in Oppofition to God the Son. In another Place, He fays, He that is the alone God., is aljo the alone juft : And foon after adds, that He^ (the Father) confidered as Father^ is calVd 'ithat only vjhich He is^ good-y but as the Son^ who is his Word.y is in the Father^ He is filled jufi , on ac- count of the mutual Relation to each other \. A few Pages lower, He obferves that no one is good^ but the Father 5 adding preiently after, that the God of the Univerfeis one only^ good., juft., Great or ^ the Son in the Father, to whom be Glory ^ (^c. \ What a Stranger mud Clemens have been to your nov el J^Wmiij^ where- by you would exclude the Son from being one God with the Father ? Tertullian's Doftrine in This Point is very well known, and that he exprefly interprets the exclufi've Terms in Oppolition to Idols only, or falfe Godsj or other Gods J not to God the Son, who is not another God II. And fo now I may com.e to the Proof of my fecond Article. 2. That the Antients always declared againfl: ad- mitting another God, and denied conllantly that the Son was another God. 0 viot;, Kxl Iv rai vI'm o Trocryi^. Clem. AleX'. p. 129. fij\v TrxTK^ voiTrcCi, uyxB-o^ m ccCro yjcvo» 0 s^iv y.iK>^vjrv 0 Aoyc? ^'^ri, iv rci T^ccr^.i sV*, ^Uxioc, TT^oTxyc^ivsruiy ix, r«5 Trfoq ^AAjjAst eyicrsuq. Clem. Alex. p. 140. 4:0^^15 uyx&oi ii (Jtj-/i oTTccTY,^ ocvr^ , Kccrcc\!& ^ioi) Am- ther God befides the Maker of the Univerfe. And in a Fragment cited by Iren^us^ He fays. He could not have given Credit even to our Lord himfelf, had He preached up any other God (a>Jvov ^eov) befides the Creator f. Irenaus is very exprefs to the fame Purpofe, in more Places than one , declaring againft admitting ano- ther God \. And if you would know, how then He could confidently admit another Perfon to be God, befides the Father 3 He will tell you, as before feen, that the Son is confidered as the very 7^//* of the Fa- ther, and that they are not Another and Another God II. fertuIUan is Another Voucher of the fame Thing. '^ There is, fays He, one God, the Father j and there ^ is none other befides him. By which He does not '' mean to exclude the Son, but Another God-y now " the Son is not Another befides the Father §. Or'igen fhall be our next Evidence^ who in his fa- mous Piece againft CelfuSy (the mofl to be depended on, both for the uncorruptnefsof the Copies, and the Accuracy of the Thoughts conrain'd in it) does in a very remarkable Manner, teach the fame Dodrine. * Juft.M. Dial. f. 34. Ed. Jeb. See This explain'' d at large inmyKe- fly to Dr. Whitby, p. 49, &c. f Jufl. M. Fragni. p. 408. Ed. Jeb. ^ Alteram Deum piteter eum qui efl, non requiremus. Iren, Altcrum Dcum minimc poffitfs oflendcre. />, 15-7. Nee tunc quidem oportuit Altetum Denm annuntiari. p. 23 j. jj Non ergo alms erat qui cognofcebatur, 8c alius qui dicebat, ne- mo cogncfcit pztrem, £cdi unus & idem, omnia fubjiciente ei Patre, &: ab omnibus accipiens teftimonium , quoniam vere Homo, 6c vers Deus, c^r. p. 255*. Vid. Majfuet. BiJJcrt. Tr&v. p. 131. § Unus Deus, Pater, 6c alius, abfque eo non eft : quod ipfe infe- rens, non Filium negat, fed yf/.w;? Deum, Caeterum Aiifn a Patrc Filius non eft. TerP» contr. l^rax, c, i^. He Qu. 11. of fame (QUERIES. 6i He having charged his Adverfary with the Wor- fhip, not of one God, but o^Gods *, (N. B.) tho'all the inferior Deities were fuppofed fubordinate to one fupreme, comes afterwards toanfwer theUke Charge, retorted by Celfus f > the Charge of worfhiping aWov (^-:oy) another God befides the one fupreme God. Now, how does Origen anfwer it ? Plainly, by denying the Faft, that the Chriflians did worfhip aWo'j Another (i. e. God) bcfides the God of the Univerfe. His Reafon is, becaufe Father and Son are one \. This was the only Way He had to get ofF the Charge of worfhiping Another God^ befides the Father, by taking both into one^ and considering Both as one in the Worihip. Wherefore He concludes, a little after, we therefore worjlnp as before faid^ one God^ the Father and the Son, This was Origen's Re- folution of the grand Point in Debate, between Chrif- tians and Pagans^ as to the Charge of Polytheifm j in anfwer to one of the fharpeft Adverfaries the Chrif- tians ever had, in a folemn and accurate Treatife, wrote in the Name, and in Defenfc of the Church , Mv Xiyiiv (2cciSiccv, '^tti^ S-£ou. Orig. contr. Celf. p. 385-. f 'Et f/iiV ^ fm^iVCe. UXXOV i^i{U7TiV0V O'JTOI TTX^V iVX B-iOV , ViV OiV Tiq KijrGT<; ifr&^c, ^po? 7oh<; uX>.}i^ oCTivyic Aeyo?* vvvi ^, SCC. ibid, rjifl £v itrujsv kch to h Ivyy^ imoiivav vTto roC vlou tou Bsoij h tco u^ iya> y-ot'i (TV sv i. 144. F } wrotce 7<^ A Second Defense Qu.IL wrote by the Aur*ior then above 60 Years oldj and (as Criticks now agree) after He had been admonifhed by Fabian of Rome^ for his Want of Caution at other Times, and therefore was the more likely to keep ;8:riclly up to the Senfe of the Church, in an Article efpecially of fo momentous Importance. He did not pretend that a fuhordinate God, purely becaufe fuhordlnate^ would not be Another God^ or would not make two Gods, The Pagans^ in that HUy Way, might have cleared Themfelves of the Charge of P^?- lythcifm-y as Origen v/cU knew. He did not pretend to fay, that the Father only was God, becau'.e God in a high Senfe, (which the Pagans could alfo have faid of their o/^^y/z/T^;;^^ God, and fo have got clear of Polytheifin) but he anfwer'd upon the true and {land- ing Principles of the Chriftian Church, that Father and Son were one God^ and the Son not another God, This acquitted the Chriftians of Polytheifm^ and left the Charge fixed, and unremoveable, upon the Pagans. We have (een then that the Antients never would own Another God, that They confrantly declared againdit j and even in the particular Cafe of G^^ the Son. It is to the fime Purpofe, that They as con- llantly denied l^wo Gods^ or Three Gods ^ as may ap- pear from manyTedimonies 3 which being well known, I fhall only refer to one or two in the Margin *. Nay, it was a Principle fo fixed and rivetted in the Heart of every pious Chriftian, that They would ra- ther have died than have ever admitted Gods^ or Lords y as is plainly intimated by Tertullian-\. Hitherto, * 'El ^ oit'J 0 xlyoi, ^f.3^ rev B-tov, Bsoq 6)v, rt cvv, (pi^TSUV uv riq, dva XtysivB-iouq ; ^V« fj(yiv oux. ifcj S-:^?, «AA' « fW, TT^ca-cocTx ^i ^o, gcC. Hipp. contr. Noet. p. 15-. Vid. Epiil. Synod. Aatioch. contr. Samofat. Labbe Tom. i. p. 84 f. f CjEterum fi confcientia noflra qua fcfmus JDei nomen 6c Do- mini, 6c Patri, £c FiJio, & Spiritui Sandto conveimCy Deos 8c Demi- K»s nominaremus ; extinxificir.us Faces noftras, etiam ad Martyria timidiores. Qu. 11. offome (^U E R I E S. 71 Hitherto, perhaps you tell me, that you and the ^;;- tknts can agree, (that is, in Words ) for neither do you allert Ayiother God^ or Another Lord^ nor two Godsy or two Lords, To which I anfvver, that as to Another Lord^ you have iaid it in Terms: And by necefliiry Confequence, you aiTert Another God-y yea, two Gods, and two Lords. Nor have I ever met with a more deplorable Example of Self-contradi6lion, and refolute Oppofition to the moft evident Truth, than your pretending that Father and Son are not two GodSy while you affirm each to be a God^ and deny their being both together one God. But we will go on with the AntientSy who, like Wife and Honeft Men, as they would not admit another God^ or two Gods^ fo, confidently, with Themfelves, 3. They as conftantly taught, that Father and Son were one God^ or the fame God: And thus they fettled That grand Article of the Chriilian Faith. I will ihew This plainly by clear and exprefs Evidence, and fhall anfwer your Exceptions to every Writer^ as I go along. Ihave,infome Meafure, anticipated my felf upon This Head, in my Sermons^ and elfewhere: And therefore iliall fometimes content my felf with Refe- rences. Let us take the Authors in Order of Time, fixing alfo the Time of their Writings according to the lateil and befb Accounts. A.D, i4f. Justin Martyr. As to Juftin Martyr^ I do not here produce Him as one, who, in exprefs Terms, has ever fliled Father and Son one God. But that he believed the Thing, may be made out two Ways, i . As he declares for the Worfhip of God alone^ at the fime Time admitting the Worfhip of all the three Perfons '^ : Which is timidiores, quibus evadendi quoque pateret Occafio, jurantibus fla- tim per Beos & Dommosy ut quidam Hxretici , quorum Dii flures, Tertull. contr. Prax, c. 13. * Ste ;»y Sermons, p. 259, ^c- F 4 implicitely 72 A Second Defense Qu.IL implicitely including all the Three in the alone God. (The VxxtQnct o^ inferior Worfhip, {hall be anfwer'd in its Place.) 2. As declaring that God the Son is not Another God^ befides the Maker of all Things, (that is the Father) as hath been remarked above ^. you have Tome Things to objeft to what I produce from Juftin.^ under another Article : And there I ihall confider Them as I come to them. A. D. 170. L u c I A N, a Pagan Writer. The famous Teftimony out of Liician^s Dialogue, infcribed OiKcTrarpi? , I produced in my Eighth Sermon "f to prove that, at That Time, the Chrif- tians believ'd I'hree in one^ and one in 'Three^ Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft, one God Supreme. It is fo noted a Teftimony that I need not here repeat it. There has been fome Doubt, as I intimated in my Sermons^ whether Lucian was the Author of the Dialogue 'y But all agree, that it was either Lucian himfelf, or a contemporary^ if not a more antient Writer :j: : Which ferves our Purpofe as well. A.D.ijj. Athenagoras. I produced alfo, in my Sermons I!, this antient and excellent Writer, as a Voucher for the Truth of This Do6trine , that Father and Son are one God, I {hall not repeat what I there faid, or in my De- fenfc^ pag. 16. but referring the Reader thither, lliall proceed to anfvver your Objeftions. You be- gin with lellcning the Credit of the Author, {pag, I Of.) as being full of "very obfcure Notions y a Cha- racler you would give to any Writer that is full of * See my Anfwer to Dr. Whitby, p. 49, Sec. f Sermon 8. p. 305. •j^ Vid. Bull. Def. F. p. 73. Jad. p. 32. Fabricius Bibl. Grxc lib, 4. c. 16. p. 5-04. and Le Mo^ne. Varia Sacr. Vol. 2. p. 187. jj Sermon eighth) p. 301, the Qu. II. offome QUERIES. 71 the Dodrine of a coeternal and confuhflantial Trinity. You object, that He defcribes 'this 'very DoElrine in a. way direEily condemned by Juftin JVIartyr, and even by Athanaiius Himfelf^ for Gnoilick, or Sabellian j ma- king the Holy Ghoft an Emanation^ like a Ray Jhot forth from the Sun^ flowing from it^ and returning to it. But Athenagoras's Dodrine is far from being the fame with That which Juflin condemns. He always fpeaks of the Son and Holy Ghofi as real and perma- nent^ not as the Hereticks in Juflin did, who fup- pofed Them to be diffohed^ and in a manner ex- tin^ ^. And Athenagoras did not teach a nominal Diftindlon only of the Perfons, but a real Diftinc- tion of Order ^ 5 which is diredly oppofite to the Tenets of thofe Hereticks defcribed in Juftin. Athe^ nagoras always fpeaks of the Spirit as united with the Father and the Son : And as He took the Father and Son for real Perfons, He muft of confequence think the fame of the Holy Spirit y fo that there is little or no Refemblance between the Two Notions. Befides that, if you had carefully obferved the PafTage on which you ground your Remark 5 you might have perceived that nothing more is meant, than that the Spirit was fometimes fenc to the Prophets^ and again returned to Him that fent Him. As to the Ufe of the word ^AiroY^oia^ and the Do6lrine of Emanation^ it was neither limply approved, nor condemned in the Chriftian Church, but according as it was un- derftoodj juftasTr^CcXy], or Prolatio^ was condemned by Iren^eus and T^ertullian, in one Senfe, admitted in * Juflin. M. Dial. pag. 102,572. Jcb. Athen. pag. 28. ILvvoe.a'H ^ rat hoy a, i^ ro ^^ccpyiriiccv TTuufJUein i y.oci rot koc) ccuto to jvspyav To7j> Iv r»} t«|« ^xi(i as I have remarked in my firft Sermon^. You find fault with my Conilrudtion of vos/xsv yag \L ijov T8 0e». For we under ft and^ or tacitly include, God's Son alfo^ in God before fpoken of f . That This is the true meaning, I prove ift from the Words immediately preceding. Athenagoras having declared, that the Chriftians could not be Atheifts^ becaufe They acknowledged one God^ who had made, ador- ned, and preferved the Univerfe by his Logos^ or IVord^ immediately adds, vos/atv ya^ j^ ijov ry ©s», referring to the yj^y^ He had juft before mentioned, as contained in God^ that did all Things by Him. 2. This Senfe is alfo confirmed by what follows ; where He fays, Father and Son are one\ the Son he- ing in the Father^ and the Father in the Son^ by the Unity and Former of the Spirit \. 3. The fame Thing is farther proved ^rom Athena- goras'^ joining (when He is again anfwering the Charge o{ Atheifm) Father and Son together: And as before He had the Phrafe of :3^£ov ayovlsj, fpeaking of the Father finely, now He applies the fame Phrafe to Both 11. 4. I farther vindicated This Conftru^bion, in my Defenfe^ (P^g- 2<6.) by parallel ExpreiTions of Atha- nafiiis and TertulUan: wherefore, 1 conceive, it may Hill Hand. * Sermon i. pag. 8. ■f'T^'a ytyir/iTcci to ttZv oiee, rou uurcZ Ac'yjrf, »«t ^iXKS}co fo let us enquire what They are. I. You fay, His Notion makes the Son's Genera- tion an AB^ which mine does not. If That will pleafe you, I'll allow a double A61 in the Son's Ge- neration^ according to Athenagoras, One of the Fa- ther in fending forth his Son, Another of the Son in going forth j 'viz. to create. Did I ever deny the Procejjion of the Son, which Athenagoras and feveral others intend by Generation? But, I aflert eternal Generation, which Athenagoras does not: There, I fuppofe, is the main Difference. YctAthe- i^agoras acknowledges the \hy'^ to have been eter- nally c/, and in the Father, and referred up to Him, as his Head and Source : which is acknowledging the (elf fame Thing which other Catholicks intended by eternal Generation', fo that the Difference lies only in Words ^ as I before intimated in my Defenfe X- x. You fay, that Athenagoras's Notion never fup- fofes Tivo Perfons of equally fupreme Authority and * Ita ut Filius Dei intelligatur verbum Patris, quod nempe fe ha- beatad Patrenj, ut ad mentem humanam Verbum ejus intcrius, quod 8c Splritale eft, minimeque per fe cadit in fenfusj 6c in wewfe,unde procedir, manet, nee ab ea fejungitur, Sec. Bully pag.203. t Sermons, pag, f, ^c. 4: Defenfe, pag. i;-;, 6cc. fVorJhlp^ Qu. II. of fame qjJ E R I E S. yj Worjloip^ hut afcribes every Thing the Son does t^ the fupreme Authority and IVillof the Father. But where do you learn, that Athenagoras ever excludes the Son {vom fupreme Authority (properly fo called) or from fufreme PForflnp ? Athenagoras indeed is exprefs, that there is a Difference of Order among the Divine Per- fbns : But where do you find a Difference of Domi^ nion^ or Worjhip ? You could not have chofe an Au- thor more direftly oppofite to your Sentiments, or more favourable to mine, in the very Point of Do^ minion 'y on which you are pleafed to lay fo much Strefs. For Athenagoras^ addrefling Himfelf to the Emperors Marcus Antoninus^ and his Son Lucius Commodus^ ftiles them Both equally iAyi<^oi 'Aulo- x,o^16pa)v, which I might tranflate fupreme Rulers. And He obferves, that all Things were under their common Rule and Dominion ^i and from thence draws his Comparifon for the Illuftration of the one common Rule and Government of God the Father, and the Son 3 to whom, as being infeparable^ all Things are fubjeft. Is This making the Father ^- lene fupreme Governor ? Or is it likely that a Creator and Creature fhould be thus familiar, and rule all Things equally and in common ? Where were your Thoughts? To be fhort, all that you can poflibly extract out of Athenagoras^ is no more than a Pmr//> ^i^ofiiivoa T\ieum prseter eum qui flafmaverit Hominem, pag. 311. Quoniam autem in ventre ^lafmat nos Verbum Dei, 5cc. p. 512. *' He who made all Things, He alone with his i^or^, is juftly « ftiled God and Lord. *' He v^ho v/as adored as the Living God by the Prophets, He is " The God of the Living, and his W^r you pretend It So y^ Secon D Defense Qu.ir. ic abfurd that All Things fhould be made By^ or through the one fupreme God. But you have not fhewn that all Miniftration is inconfiftent with any Supremacy ^h\M a Supremacy of Order or Office -, which I admit. What you add from Irenaus^ about the Father's commanding the Word^ I have anfwer'd in my Sermons *, and fhewn it to be, as underftood by the Antients^ dire6lly oppofite to your Principles. You are next labouring to take off the Force of what I had pleaded in refpe6t of Iren^us's making the Son and Holy Gholt the Self of the Father. But This was too hard a Task : I will truft the Reader with what you have faid, to compare it with mine > and to fee if He can make fenfe of your immediate obedience : As if any obedience^ mediate, or immediate, were a Reafon fufficient for lliling the Perfon obeying, one's Self. You refer to Ire- naus \ faying, that by the Son and Spirit^ (that is, per femetipfum^ by Himfelf^ as He fays in the fame Chapter) He made all \\\mg% freely^ and of his own wilL And fo He well might, when The Son and Spirit are fo much his felf^ as to have but one and the fame Will with Him. Others might have con- trary Wills : They could not. You mifconilrue his next immediate Words: He produced^ you liiy, the Sub fiance of the Creatures from Himfelf^ i. e. from his own original underivedPotver, But Himfelf means there, the Son and Spirit 'y as is plain from exemplum FaBorum-y (v/hichyou took care to leave out:) God the Son being the ei. F. p, 85-. " Well therefore did his Word fay to the Man, Thy Sins are for- " given Tl:/€ei He the fame againft whom we had finned in the Be- •• ginning, in the End vouchfafes RemifTion of Sins. Otherwife had *' the Precept againft which we tranfgrefled come from One, and ic *[ had been ^Qthr, that faid, Jhy sim fire forgiven Jhte , He could " neicbey 85 A Second Defense Qu.IL You here (p. loi.) take Notice of Another Paf- fage of Irenaiis ^ which I incidentally brought in (p. f4'^^ of my Defenfe) to prove that, according to Irenaus^ none that has any Superior^ any God abo've Him^ can be juftly fliled God'^. A famous PafTage, and directly oppofite to your Principles > while you pretend to'afcribe Divinity to the Son, at the fame Time fubjecting Him to a Superior God^ and putting Him fub alterius Poteftate , under the Dominion and Power of Another, You do well to labour to takeThis offj but^^-z^; wefhall feeprefently. You pretend, that Ire- naus^ in number lefs other Pajfages , exprefly afferts the Su- periority of the Father to the Son. I deny that He ever does it, (o much as in any fmgle Paffage, in your Senfe of j5'//^^r/(?nVj'. Nay, to fee how confonant to Himfelf Irenaus is, Fll lliew you where -f He , by necefiary Confequence, declares the Son to have no Superior. '' The Argument will ftand thus : '' He that is the God of the Livings and who /pake '^ to Mofes out of the Bufh, has no other God above « Him. '' Chiift is the God of the Living.^ and v/ho [pake ?' to Mofes out of the Bufh. '' Therefore *' neither hive been ^ood, nor juft,nor true in doing it. For, How " can He be good, who gives what is none of his own ? or How " can H: bej///^ that alTames what belongs to Another? Or how " could Sins be really forgiven, if He that forgave them were not *' the very fame againft whom we had finned? * Qui fupcr fc habet aliquem fupcriorem, & fub Alterius Potefta- te ell, Hie nequc T>eui, neque Rex magnus dici poteft. hen p. 229. t Is qui dcRubo Icquutus c^MoyJi, Sc manifeftavit fe efle Deum Patrum, Hie eft Viventium Deus. Quis enim eft Vcvcmra Deus, nifi qui eft Deus fnper quern alms non efi Dc:-is ? — __. Qui igitur ndo- rabatur Deus Vivuiy Hie eft vivorum Deus, £c Verbum ejus, qui lo- quutus eft Mo^fi, qui & Sadduc^os redarguit, &c. — Ipfe igitur Chriftus cum'Patre Vivorum eft Deus, qui loquutus eft Moyfim m n. Irtn, P. 232. Vide Bull, Secl.z. c. _f, *' He Qu. II. offome (QUERIES. ty " Therefore Chriil: has no other God above Him. The Premifes are both of them Iren^us's own: And the Conclufion from them is evident. We fee then 5 that Iren^us does not only lay down the gene- ral Maxim, that whoever is God^ properly fo called, can have no other God above Him : But in the par- ticular Cafe of God the Son, He applies the very Maxim, and declares that there is no other God above Him. What will you fay to thefe manifefl Truths, which fo directly ilrike at your whole Hypo- thefts ? you endeavour to find fome Shelter, by turn- ing Deus into Greek^ making it 6 ^^sor, which will not do, becaufe it is frequent with Irenaiis to give the Son the Title of 6 S^sor ^. And if He did not, yet He never appears to lay any fuch Strefs upon an Article. Nor will the Occafion of Iren^us's Maxim at all ferve you. For tho' the Difcourfe there is of God the Father^ yet his Reafoning , whereby He proves that the Perfon , there fliled 6 ^il^ , could have no other God above Him^ will prove the fame Thing of every other Perfon fo (tiled, or prove nothing. You produce fome Citations from Iren^us to prove the Father [uperior in Authority {Another God above Him , you ihould have laid , becaufe you mean it) to the *S'o;^, and the Son fubje^ to Him. None of them prove any thing like it, in your Meaning of Superiority^ and Subject ion. The Father commanded^ the Son executed. What then ? I anfwer'd This above f . Another Pretence is from the Words, conditionem fmiul^ £5? Fcrbumfuum portans : Which I may leave as I find it, till you make out the Confequence : Or I may oppofe to it, *' He that fpake to Mofes out of the Bufh, and manifefted Himfelf *' to be the God of the Fathers, He is the God of the Livrng. For " who elfe can be the God of the Livings but the God that has no " other God above Him ? . Chrifi: with the Father is the God ** of the Livings who ipake to Mofes, o>c. * Vid, ifen. p. 211. 215-. 271. Ed. Bened. t See alfo Bull. D. F. p. 80. G 4 Men/ura 'si A Second Defense Qii.II' Menfura enim Patris Filitis^ quoniam ^ capit eum. Iren. p. 2^1. Porto may as well fignify to bear ^ or con- iairi^ as fuftain. Befides that the Creatures are faid, in the very lame Place, prtare eum-, to fkftain Him^ you'll (ay. And much will yoti make of it, that the Creator of them, Mundi Factor {Irenceus his own Words of God the Son, in the fame Chapter) was fufiain'd by his Creatures. You proceed to obfervc, that the Sonminijlred to the Father : You might have obferved farther, that He ivaJJoed his Difciples Feet. But fee Bifhop Bull^ who had fully anfwered thefe Pretences, before you produced them. You farther take Notice out of Iren,£us^ that the IVord hcarnate hung upon the Crofs. Who doubts it? You fhould have took Notice likewife of what Iren£us fays, in the very- fame Chapter, that This PFord was really Maker of the JVorld^ and containeth all 'Things *. But I am weary oF purfuing Trifles. If Irenaus had had a Mind to exprefs the Subje^ion of the Son^ and fupe- rior Dominion of the Father, He knew how to do it. See how He expreffes Himfelf, where He de- clares the SuhjeBion of all Things to God the Son^ and the Holy Spirit -f, at the fame Time fpeaking of their Miniftration (not Subje^lion) to the Father; Which may befufilcicnt tolliew you, how wild your Hypothecs is, and how little Countenance for it, you can reafonably hope to find among the Antients. * Mundi enim Facfior vcre Verbum Dei eft ■ Sc fecun^ 6um invilibilitatem contincr, qux ncla funt omnia. /. j". c, i8. '' The Wonlo'i God \:-, really MaUr cf the World ■ and in *' Refpcd of his Inviilbility (or iavijMe ISIalure,) contains ail Things ^' which nre made. f M!nif^rat enim ci ad omnia, fiia progenies, Sc Figuratio fua, id eft Fi]ius, & Spiritus SancHus, Verbum & Sapientia, quibus fer- vfunt, Sc fubjcfli funt omnes Angeli. Jren, />. 136. Comp. p, 183. *' H:s ovv^n Offfprtng, and Figure, that \s, the Son and Holy-Ghofil *' The IVord, and Wifdom, to whom all the Angels arc fubjedV, and «' do ODevfance, Mmlder to Flim (the Father) in all Things. Qu. II. of fome QUERIES. $9 j^. D. ipi. Clemens Alexandrinus. I have already produced one plain and exprefs Paf- fage, wherein Clemens includes the Father and the Son in the only God. He has more to the fame Purpofe, where He fays, Both are one^ namely^ God * 3 and where He addrefTcs Both as one Lord "t", and the whole Trinity as one \, Which I took Notice of in my eighth Sermon^. You are forced to confefs, (p. 80.) that in Cle- Tnens's firft Writings, there are fome fuhlime Expref- ftons^ which^ if taken literally^ would favour either my Notion^ or the Sabellian. A pretty fair Confeflion j but it would have been flill fairer to have faid, (which is what the Reader muft fee) fome Expreffons , too plain and ftrong to admit of Any Evafion. All you have to fay is, that They are highly Rhetorical ; which is (aying nothing. You are next to oppofe other PafTages of Clemens^ to take off their Force. Upon which, I may obferve, by the Way, how difinge- nuous your Claim to the Antients is, in Comparifon with ours. You think it fufficient if you can but find any PafTages, which look at all favourable to your Scheme, however contradictory (as you underiland them) to other clear and exprefs Teftimonies of the fame Author. On the other Hand, we think our felves obliged to reconcile the feemingly oppofite Paf- Tages, and to make an Author confifient with Him- felf : Which if we cannot do, we give Him up as Neuter^ and make his Evidence Null 3 unlefs there be Reafon to believe, that the Author, upon better Con- iideration, had changed his Mind, or that fome Parts of his Works are more certainly .genuine than others. But to proceed, you begin with attempting to deprave *"Ev y^p uyj(pu, 6 B-iot;, Clem. Alex. p. 131', \ in Kxl TTXry.fi, £y otfjij^M Y^M^lt, p, 3 I I. =fc Clem. Alex. p. 311. § Sermms, p. 3o_f, ^c, ^hc 96 ^ Secon D Defense Qu.IL the Senfe of a celebrated Place in Clemens^ which I Ihall tranfcribe into the Margin *. In Englijh it runs thus. " The divine Word, who is moft manifeftly '' true God^ who is equalized with the Lord of the " Univerfe , becaufe He was his Son, and was the *^ JVord in God. '* This is a PaiTage very little fa- vourable to your Invention of 2ifuperior Dominion of the Father, and a Subjection of the Son : For, the Son is here faid to be equalized^ that is, proclaim'' d Equal to the Lord of the whole Univerfe. You fay, equalized implies an Exaltation^ a Delegation^ ^c. Ridiculous. Can any Thing, or Perfon, be made equal to God the Father, exalted to a Parity with Him ? But a Perfon may be proclaim' d equal j which is onlyfhew- ing what he was before. And Clemens afligns two fubfiantial Reafons,why theSon was thusproclaim'dj it was his natural and effential Dignity that deman- ded it 5 For He was God's own Son -f , of the fame Nature with Him> and he was xho-JVord thatexifted in God \ Himfelf j moft manifeftly therefore true God^ and accordingly equalized with God, as He had a Right to be. You give us two or three Words of Eufehius^ as exprefling the Senfe of Clemens. But let Clemens fpeak for Himfelf, who is a plainer Man , and a more conliftent Writer , than Eufebius -, and of whom it is eafier to pafs a certain Judgment. ^£jV or* ViV mcc,o(,vrcZy xal 6 >^oyo^, h hru BiZ. p. 86. Adm. ad Gent. Vid. Bull. D. F. p. 88. Anim. in Gilb. Gierke, p. loio. \ yio? row vS yvvityici, o S-sio^ Xcyoc,, (puroy,triwc,^ fu^et y.(Mv l^iXuiA/^i rov Biov, Clem. ^ -j- Toy Ku^io-j Ina-Svy tod tm TreiVTox^xrc^ixM ^iX^fAetrt iTHa-KOTtot ry^ ku^» (^'«5 il[/,ay, pag, 611, I ftruing 5)2 !/f Second Defens E Qu.IL ilruing the Words, and perverting the Senfe y as I have elfewhere ^ fhewn. na'jroy.^o[]o^i>ic^ ^iKnixali fignifies by his own Sovereign^ all-containing Will. That there is no impropriety in applying the Epi- thet TTflivloxpaTo^ixo^ to PFiU^ I proved by parallel Inllances from other Authors j and iliall now add one more, of the Hke kind \, You appear very un- willing to have the Dr.'s Criticifms on This Paflage taken from you : And therefore you endeavour, feebly, to prop them up again, in a Note, pag. 217. You tell me, that the parallel Paflages I alleged, do not fignify that God is omniprefent or omniicient by his Will^ but by his A^i'-oe governing IVifdom. Be it fo : Then let the fame anfvver ferve for the Expreffion of Clemens 'y and let Chrift be omnifcient by his a^ive governing JVifdom^ and now all is right again. I am not contending for God's^ or Chrill's knowing all things by his fFill^ in the Dr.'s Senfe: But why muft Clemens be tied up to the Dr's flricb Senfe of WiJl^ in the Word ^{KniJialij more than other Au- thors, who have likewife ufed the Phrafe of all-con" taining JVill^ as well as Clemens ? The Do6lor's fan- ciful Speculations againft the Phrafe (Script. Do5f. pag. 294.) are of as much Weight againft the Phrafe in other Authors, as in Clemens j that is, of no Weight at all, but to fhew the folly of interpreting Phrafes by Speculation, and Fancy, inftead of look- ing into Authors, to fee how they have been ufed. You was to fiy fomething, it feems, however wide, rather than giwc up a favourite Criticifm. You fay, Clemens calls the Son ^iKnixa Travroi^oL' repi'-'cv ' which is true^ but it does not there fignify the fame as Trar^iKov 3^€Xy]/jta, but all-containing IVif- domy or fftll again 3 as is plain from the very place * Defenfi, pag. no. Ed. 2. Sermons, pag. 166. s^AiTcj, Pie udo Dion yf. j^reop. deDivin, Nomin. c» 10, p. 82^. itfclf^ Qu.II. of fome QUERIES. ^j itfelf, where Clemens alfo ftiles Him cTuv^/vtj? Tayy.pa- TuV, all-containing Power ^. And it is the very rea* fon given by Clemens^ why He may be known to ally even to thofe that have not acknowledged Him 5 He is Trayy.^a.TA^'f and TravToKgaro^xof, frefent to ally or containing all. Had Clemens mtended your Senfe, He would rather have exprefs'd it by Trar^ixw ^iKfr fjiATiy as ufual t > or ^iXruxan rQ Trar^or II, or the like. Nor can you give any Inftance out of Clemens^ of TravTcx^aro^ixoV, but where it either muft, or how- ever may, bear the Senfe I have given. The Phrafe Travrox^aro^Hov ^aXn/jca, (p^g- ^S7') comes the neareft to the other. But it is there manifeft, from the Context, that it ought to be interpreted in the fame way as I have conllrued ^gX>jjua iravro^ y.^a\o^Y.oy. I much queition whether Ts-avlojifdlo^^ ros is ever ufed for t» Travlox^aVo^©', in the way that Dr. Clarke contends for. It is certain, that the other which I contend for, is moft proper, and is mod ufual and cuftomary in Greek Writers. This, I hope, may be fufficient to put an end to a weak Criticifm, which has nothing in it. Now let us go on. As to the Son's minijlring^ I have before anfwer'd : And as to the Paffages you have felc6ted, one would think you had took Them out of Bifliop Bulh^ only leaving out the Bifhop's Solutions t: which is a very unfair way of protradling a Controverly. As to Second Caufe^ you do not meet with it in Clemens 'y Jliiin^Q* am©'§ fignifies no morethany^- r^/^^^t^^;)' Caufer, ra^et c/^eiirfp©', fecond in Order in x^xTo^iKcv . Clem. pag. 64.7. t Vid. Clem. pag. 99, i_fo. Comp. pag. 85, ii^*. )| Vid. Clem. pag. if5, 710. ^ Vid. Bull. Def. F. pag. 90. § Clem. Alex. pag. 710. caufal 94 -^ Second Defense Qu.II. caufal Operations. Befides that if it flriftly meant more, allowance muft be made for Clemens^ while He is adapting the Platonick to the Chriilian Tri- nity, if He ufes the Platonick Terms > tho' They may not quadrate exaftly. You next cite Clemens for ftiling the Father jutovov ov'lcijj^scv, and introducing the Son as joining in Hymns of Praiie to him. As to /jiov©', or other the hke exclufive Terms, Clemens made no Account of Them, in exclufion to the Son, as before feen j befides that, the Son is not only cvlci)? ^^or, truly God^ with Clemens^ very frequently ^, but even /jtov©' S^scV, only God ^, and only Judge % and only Mafter ^. All Authors I have met with, thus ufe exclufive Terms > it being a Rule of common Senfe, and cuftom of Language, that fuch exclufive Terms are to be flrained no farther than They are intended in oppofition to fuch or fuch Things. As to the Son's joyning m Hymns of Praife^ you ihould have told your Reader, that He is fup- pofed by Clemens^ in That very Place, to do it as in Capacity of High-Prieft ^. I can fcarce without Indignation find fuch Things as Thefe offered by Men pretending to Letters^ or the leaft Ingenuity. You run on, about Clemens's ftyling the Father the one God^ Supreme over ally tho every body knows it never was intended in oppofition to God the Son^ ^ Clem. Alex. pag. 85, 647, 690. *■ Clem. Alex. p. 84, 142. See alfo another Tajfage of his Pscda- gogue, ixhere Hefeems to 6e /peaking of God the Son: the Wirds are, 0 ovruc, ^ice,, 6 m oivra; rci -zoUvtcc, kuI ttuvtcc 6 civrac^, «ti civrot; $-£05 a f/jo-/^B-C'cr„p, 1^0. Compare a Paflage of the Stromata, ]. 4. » ylvsrat %ccl TTCAVTCC. '^ Clem. pag. gg, ^ Clem, pag. 309. ' Af/j(pi Toi/ uyivr/jTcv (leg. ci,yiyiiro)>) «.xl uvaXsB'fiv, xxl fjuom cvt6)(; ^iov, c-vvvf/jvovvT®^ v,(jJiv rov B-sov ^.oya . ui^(^ owtC^, I^jcrcws sfg, 6 Ujiyocq 'AyB-^aTTcii iyKi?^mT»i • Clem. Alex. pag. 52,93. but Qu.II. of fome (lU ERIE S. 95 but to Pagan Deities : As is plain from what hath been faid. You next come to obferve that Clemens ftiles the Son Trgwlo/^lts'©'*. This indeed was worth remarking, and a Thing fit to be offered in the way of Obje6tion> tho* Biihop Bull had given a good Anfwer to it long ago \. It is an allufion to Pro- *verbs 8. zl. where Wifdom is faid to have been crea- ted^ that is, appointed Head over the Works of God \ > which I ihall fliew, in due Time and Place, to have been the ancient and Catholick Senfe of That Text : Nor can any Ante-nicene Father be produced for the other Senfe of Creation^ in regard to That Text. The ftale Pretence about Photius and the Hypotypofes^ hath been anfwer'd over and over §. However, it is a meer fancy of your's, that Photius *$ Cenfure upon the Hypotypofes^ was grounded upon a Paflage found in his Stromata. I have now faid enough in Vindication of Clemens j and He muft be a very Orthodox Writer indeed, when in fo large a Vo- lume, and wrote before the Avian Controverfy was ftarted, He appears to have been fo well guarded, as to leave room only for very frivolous exceptions 5 fuch, perhaps, as might moft of them be found evea in many of the Pojl-Nicene WritcrSj or in jithanaftus himfelf. What you fay after mpag. 83. is worth the taking notice of, for the peculiar Turn of it -y and becau^ it may let the Reader into the true State of the Difpute between us. You tell me, I am forced into the abfurd Inconjiftency of confounding a priority of mere Order {which exprejfes a perfect Co-ordination of Perfons equally Supreme in Authority) with ^ * Clem, pag. 699. I Bull. D.F. pag. 90. uirk<^ 0 t;;o5 x«S-/f«tr«t, ;rpwr»pVo5 xiv^o-f^s, ^uyoc^tc, uXn-pfi^ « which was fcarce worth your o"b-' ferving, when you allow in the fame Page that Ter- tullian makes Father and Son one God^ even in his Apology i", wrote very probably before He was diMon^ tanift : And I fiiould be content to try the Merits of the Cauie by That Treatife alone, which would furnifh you with few, or no Pretences againft his Orthodoxy in this Article. But to come to the Bu- finefs. You firft fall upon Him for making the Son no more than '^fmall part of the Father^ s fubftance. To which I anfwer, that if T'er tullian indulged his fancy too far in explaining the Doftrine, yet He may be a good evidence of the Church's general Doclrine, that Father and Son are one God. Hov/ever, I think this Objeftion has been well anfwer'd by Bifhop Bull\^ ♦ See ?ny Sermons, fag. 306. Pater 6c Filius 8c Spiritus, Tres credit!, mu»% Deum fiftunt.' Tertull. contr. Prafc. c. 3 i . t Quod dc Deo profedum eft Deus eft S< Dei Filiu5, 6c unu3 (fuppl. Dens) ambo. Apol. c.ii. p. 205. ^ Bull. D. F. p. ^j-, r- H and pS A Second Defense Qu.II. and Le Nourry \\ 5 whither I refer the Reader. All I fhall add, is This, that if 7'ertullian^ as I have fhown above, fometimes ufed the Term Father in a large Senfe, (as a Head of a Family fometimes (lands for the whole Family together with their Head) then it is no wonder, if God the Son might be called Portio totius^ being but one Perfon of the Trinity, not all'y as He ftiles the Father, unus omnia^ dum ex uno omnia * . This might be illuftrated from the Cafe of Abraham^ confidered as the. Father of many Nations, and containing, in a certain Senfe, all his Defcen- dants. Thus ^2i% Abraham 1'ota Famil\a^ andZ^i;/ only Derivatio &? Portio Totius j that is, of Abraham^ confidered in capacity of Head and Fountain, I do not pretend to be confident, that 'TertuUian had This Thought in his Mind : But I propofe it as a probable conjeflrure, to be farther enquired into, to make 'TertuUian appear the more reafonable and con- fiftentj who was certainly no downright Idiot, fuch as your Reprefentation would make of Him. Al- lowing fuch a Suppofition as I have here offered, there will be no Difficulty in accounting for 'TertuUian' s faying, that the Father is major FiUo^ greater than the Son^ in the manner that He does. For it will amount only to This, that the Head^ confidered as fuch, is ?najor Singulis^ as containing all 5 tho' it cannot be fiid of any but the Head^ becaufe the refl are confidered only as fingle Perfons. In the other way, it is certainly downright Nonfenfe to fuppofe the Father in his own pvoY^cv perfonal Capacity, to be the "jjbole : For, however fmall a Part you fuppofe jj Nourrii Apparat. adBibl. Max. Vol. 2. pag. ijoj-. * The like -icay of Speaking obtained among the Fagans, in reffe^ of their Supreme Jupiter, Father of the other Gois. Jupiter omnipotens regum rerumque Deumque Progenitor, genitrixque Deum, Deus unus 2c omnis. Auguft, de C, D. 1. 7, c.p.p. 170^ the Qu.IL of fame Q^U E R I ES. 99 the Son to be. That Part mufl go in to make up the whole 'y and no ftngle Perfon, barely confidered as fuch, can be called the whole. But confider the Fa- ther in Capacity of HeacI^ in the Senfe before inti- mated, and then the Notion is jufl:, and has nothing abfurd, or ftrange in it. I may farther argue againit 7'ertullian's making the Son a fmall part^ as you fay^ of God's fub fiance, from what He fiys of the Om- nipre fence of the Son, in as full and ample Terms as can be ufed of theOmniprefence of the Father Him- felf*^. You go on, {pag, jj) to fpeak of the Son's ex- ercifing the Father's Power: Right j bccaufe the Father's and his are one -j". You add, hy the Father"* s Will: yes, and by his o^vn too, for Both are the fame, becaufe their Subftance is one \. You fay in- H 2 deed * Habes Filium in Tern's, habes Patrem in czelis : non efl fepara- tio ifta, fed difpolitio divinaj c^terum Scimus Deum ctiam intra AbyfTos efTe, & ubiquc conliftere, i^di vi 8c Poteflate : Filium quo- que, ut individuum, cum ipfo ubique. Tamea in ipfa Oeconomia, Pater voluit Filium in Terris haberi, fc vcro in caslis. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 25. p. 5-14. *' The Son you have upon I.cirth, and the Father you have " in Heaven. This is no Separation, but a divine Osconomy. Fur- " thermore, we are certain that God is even in the Abyffes, and ** prefent every -where, but in Virtue and Power ; the Son alfo as ** individual (or ««^/x^;Ve^J is with Him ^xrry TP^frf. But, according " to the Oeconomy, the Father would fo have it, that the Son fhould " be confidered as being upon Earth, and Himfelf as being fn the *• Heavens." f Omniay inquit, Vatris mea funt Suo jure omnipotens," qua Scrmo Dei omnipotentis, quaque omnium accepit poteftatem. Pater omnia tradidit in manu eju? . 1 primordio tradfdit, ex quo a primordio Sermo erat apud Deum, Sc Deus erat Sermo, cui dataeft omnis Poteftasin caslo &in Terra. ^omnem enim dicens Poteftatem Sc omnia tradita in manu ejus, nullam exccptionem Temporis permittit i quia omnia non erunt, fi non omnis Tem- poris fuerint. cap. 16. ^ Quale eft ut Deus divifionem 8c difperfionem pati vidcatur in Filio & Spiritu Sanftoi n tam confort'Mi jubjlanti^ F^tris. &cc.^^ Cartcntm loo -^Second Defense Qu. II. Heed in your Preface, pag. 6, 7. that Tertullian af^ firm'd the fame Thing even of Angels^ or rational Souls, that ^ey were generated from the Suhftance of the Father : And to fhow that you really believe it, you quote {pag. f f .) Three Places of Tertullian^ to prove it. Had This been the Cafcj I would have given you up Tertullian for a Madman. But it is your Misfortune, in two of the Places, very innocently to give us Marcion's Tenet for Tertullian's own. And as to the third Place, out of his Book againft PraxeaSy it is very wide of the Purpofej being no more than this, that God breathed into Man the Breath of Life, a peculiar Privilege of Man above all the animal Crea- tion. See below * what He fays of Angels, But to proceed ; You talk of the Son's Suhjedlion^ as from Tertullian : concealing from your Reader that it is of a fubjedlion poflerior to the Incarnation, an Oeconomical fubjeftion : and that Tertullian denies any fubje5lion^ fuch as you are aiming at, in full and ex- preis Terms *. You add, upon This difparity of the Son to the Father^ (directly contrary to your Notion of rt/^ equality in Supreme Authority) as well as upon his Notion of Confubftantiality, does He ground his denial of Two Gods. Falfe every Word : How can you let your Pen loofe, to write at This Rate? TertulUan's Notion of one common fupreme Authority^ is exadly the fame with mine f • that the Three Perfons are of one State^ one Suhftance^ one Divinity^ one fupreme Caetcrum, qui Filium non aliunde deduce, fed Dc Stdfftantia Patm, nihil facientem fine patris voluntate, oranem a Patre confecutum Po- tcftatem, ^c. Adv. Prax. c. 5, 4. * Angelorum — alicnorum a fubflantia patris. Contr. Prax. c. 5. • Sophiam mnji6i fubditam, non Statu diver/am, &;c. Tert. contr. Hermog. c. 18. f Tres autcm non Statu fed gradu, nee Subilantla fed forma, nee Potcftate fed ipccie : Unius autem SubJlantUy &: un'ms Status^ &: tmius Totcjlatis, quia unus Deus. Contr. Prax. c. 2. Trinitas, un'mi Dhimtaw, Pater, Filius, Sc Spiritus Sandlus. Dc Pudicit. c.i!., .JPower Qu. II. offome Q^U E R I E S. loi Power and Authority^ as being one God. When iTertuUian fays, 7Jon Statu fed gradu: by Gradus He means Orde'r^ as Bilhop Bull hath obferved. D. F. pag. p6. And where does Tertullian found his Denial o^ two Gods upon the Difparify of Father and Son? Or where does He refolve the Unity^ as you do, into the Father alone^ calling out God the Son from the one Godhead? His conftant way is to take in Both^ and thus He makes of Both but one God. What you cite from his 1 3^^ Chapter is not at all to your pur- pofe. He plays a while with Praxeas^ telling Him, that if He would be fo hard^ as to iniift upon it that Father and Son mufl be two Gods^ on the Catholick Scheme, then let them be fo j and let Him at lead grant, that Father and Son may be two Gods^ the Son having certainly as good, or much better right to be called God.^ than many others whom Scripture has fo ftilcd. But after He had thus argued a while ad Homtnem^ and ex Hypotheft^ He returns to his Po- rtion, that' they are not two Gods^., but one God^ becaufe of Unity of Subftance^ and Original. His Reafoning, in Ihort, comes to This, that if the Catholick Dodrrine, as Praxeas inlifted, mufl be Ditheifm^ then let it be foj fo long as it is Script ure-Ditheifm^ and the Do6trine certainly true, * Duos tamenDeos Sc duosDomlnosnunquam ex ore noflropro- ferimus Nam erli Duos {blcs non faciam, tamcn 8c rolem 6c Radios ejus, tarn duas res £c duas fprcies unms indivif£. fubJlcintU numerabo, quam Deum 8c fermonem ejus* quam Patrcm 8c Filium. Tcrt. contr. Prax. c. 15. Si Filium nolunt Secundum '\ Patrc rcputari, ntfecundus duos facPat Deos dici, oftendimus eriam duos Deos inScriptura relatos, 8c duos Dominosj 8c tamen ne de ifto fcandalizentur, rationcm reddidirausi qua Dei non duo dicantur, nee Domini, fed qua Pater, 8c Filius, duo: Et hoc non ex /eparatione fubJIantU, fed ex difpofitionc, cum individuum 8c infeparatum Filium a Patre pronuntiamus, nee ftatu fed gradu alium ; qui etfi Deus dicatur quando nominatur fingularis, non ideo duos Deos faciat (tA unum, hoc ipfo> quoc^ 8c Deui ex U^itdU Vatris Vocm habcat. cap. 19. H } what- toz !/^ Second Defense Qu.II. whatever Name it be called by: But dill a very good Reafon may and has been adigned why it is not, and therefore ought not to be called Ditheifm-, be- caufe Father and Son are really one God^ as being of one fub fiance^ and the Son referred up to the Father as his Head and Source. This is the fum of 'Tertul" lian's Thoughts on that Head> which areas contrary to your's, as Light to Darknefs. You have another little Shift grounded upon Ter^ tuIUayi's blaming Praxeas for making the Father in- carnate, whom He there calls ipfe Deus^ and Domi^ nus o-fjifiipotcns 'y -^si^ "rertullian might not emphati- cally iHle the Father God^ without denying it of the Son. Thofe Phrafes there are nothing but fo many Periphrafes for God the Father, and do not at all relate to your Purpofe : Unlefs denying the Father to be incarnate^ be denying Chrift' s fupr erne Divinity^ where I fee nothing like a Confequence. As to TertiilUayi's averting a temporary Generation^ it is common to Him and many Catholic Writers, both Antenicene^ and Pojinicene * > and has no Diffi- culty in it, when rightly underllood. What you add from fertidlian's Tract againft Hermogenes^ is indeed of fome Weight, and the mod material Objeftion that his Works can furnifh you with. Yet you fhould not have conceal'd from your Reader, thatBi- fliop Bull i" has fpent a large Chapter particular- ly in Anfwer to it : And it mud appear very drange, that tertullian^ who, at other Times fpeaks fo highly of God the Son, fhould defignedly contra- dict fo many clear and plain Paffages of his Works, * Hilarlus in Matt. p. 742. !Z.eno Vcron. ap Bull. />. 200, Phacbadius. Bib). Patr. Tom. 4. Prudentius. Hymn. 11. /». 44. Rupertus Tuitieniis. Pfeud-Ambrof. de Fid. Orthod. ^ 2. />, 349. t Bull. D. F. Sea.-^. c, 10. by Qu. II. offome Q^U E R I E S. 103 by denying the Coeternity of thV ^on, and reducing Him to a Creature. Is the Divinity , fubfifting in Three, Similar with it felf , f?«^ only^ and capable of no Degrees (the exprefs Doftrine of this Writer) and yet made up of Eternal and 'Temporary^ Creator and Creature^ differing infinitely ? Is Eternity^ and Immu- tahility contain'd in the Name and Noiion of God^ and particularly as applicable to God the Son *, and yet the Son have neither Eternity^ nor Immutability ? In a Word, can I'ertuUian pretend, that an inferior God is Non-fenfe and Contradiction t, and at the fame Time affert a Creature, a Being of Yefterday, to be God^ nay, and one God with the Father ? Thefe are fuch glaring and palpable Abfurdities, that a Man of any tolerable Capacity, or Thought (and Tertullian was a Man of no mean Abilities) could fcarce have been capable of admitting Them. Wherefore They are to be commended, who have cndeavour'd to bring 'Tertullian out of Thefe Difficulties, and to reconcile, if poflible, the feeming Repugnancies. There was one Way left for it, which the excellent Bifhop Bull^ and after Him the learned L^' Nourry has taken. Ter- tullian is known to have diltinguifhed between Ratio^ and Sermo^ Both of them Names of the felf- lame Xoy©', confidered at different Times, under different Capacities 5 firft ?is file nt^ and unoperating, alone with * Deum immutabilera &: informibilem credi necefle efl: , ut ^- ternum. Transfiguracio autem interemptio eH: Prifbini. Omneenim quodcunque transfiguratur in aliud, definit efle quod fuerat, £c in- cipit elTc, quod non erat. Deus autcm neque dciinit efle, necfuc aliud poteft efle. Sermo autem Deusj & Sermo Domini manet in aevum, perfeverando fcilicct in fua Forma, Adv, Frax. c. 27. Vid. JS«//. /). 245-. t Neque enim proximi erimus Cpinionibus Nationum, qu:E fi quando coguntur Deum confiteri, tamen 8c. Alios infra ilium vo!unt. Divinitas autem gradum non habet, utpore unica. Contr, Hermogy c. 7. Deus non erit dicendus, quia nee credendus, nifi Summum magnum. Nega Deum quern dicis deteriorena. Contr. Marc, /. i. f. 6. H 4 the 104 -^ Second Defense Qu.IL the F^lhcv^^hcrwards proceedings or going forth from the Fathers to operate in the Creation. With this ProceJJion He fuppofes (as do many others) the Son- Jhip properly to commence. So that tho' the Logos had always exifted, yet He became a Son in Time 5 And in this Senfe there was a Time, when the Fa- ther had no Son. He had his Xoy©', his living fub- llantial Logos^ his (re-lay with whom He converfed, as his Ccunfellor : But the Logos was not yet a Son^ till he came out to create. This Notion of a tem- poral Sonihip, was what TertuUian endeavoured to make fome Ufe of in his Difpute with Hermogenes ^ who afferted Matter to be eternal,^ unmade^ and unhegot- ten-y in fhort, Self-exiflent in the higheft Senfe. Ter- tulUan thought it might be an Argument ad Homi- nem^ againft Hermogenes^ that He hereby made Mat- ter in fome Senfe higher than even God the Son 5 while he fuppofed it abfolutely underived^ and in no Scn{e derived^ or hegotten'M allj which was more than could be faid of God the Son, who was begotten^ and proceeded oi x\\c Father. This appears to have been Itertidlian's real and full Meaning, however He hap-r pen'd, in the Profecution of the Argument, to run ibme Expreflions rather too far j as is often feen in the Heat of Difpute, in very good Writers. Allow? ing Him only the Favour of a candid Conftru6i:ion, He may at length be made confiftent ; and his other Exprcffions Hand without Contradidion : And He has the greater Right to it, upon the Principles of common Equity > fincc one obfcure PafTage ought never to be fet againft many^ and plain ones. You proceed to obviate a Pallage which we are wont to cite for the Equality. I have cited others flronger and fuller, which you have not took Notice of. Your Correftion oi Patrem for Parent^ is what I had met with before j and it feems to me very juft. But your Quotation from his Book de Jejuniis , to take off the Force of the Words, aquat^' jungit^ dpes not fo well fatisfy me : Becaufe there is a great deaj of Qu. IL dffome Q^U E R I E S. xos of DiflFerence betwixt aquatvfh^n ufed abfolutcly, and when only in a certain refpeft. However, as I ne- ver infifted upon the Force of the Word ^equat in that Place, nor have any Occafion for it, after fo many other more certain, and lefs exceptionable Evi* dences of Tertullian's making Father and Son one God fupreme ; fo I ftiall not be at the Trouble to inquire farther about it. Our next Author is, ji. D. 240. HiPPOtYTUS. This Writer you bear fomewhat hard upon: Spu* r/ as one may perceive by what is borrowed from it by £- piphanius. The only Queftion is about Interpolations, Mr. Whiflon was fo fanguine, as to fay, He had evi- dently demonftrated % that it was, one half of it inter- polated^ o.ndhy^n j^thanajian-^ becaufe Theodorit and Pope Gelaftus had Both of them quoted a PafTage out of it, which appears much fliorter there than in Hip^ * Mr, Whiflon*/ jinfwpt to Lord Nottingham, /. i o. polytus^ io^ A Second Defense Qu.II. folytus^ as now publifhed. You are fo wife as to drop 1'heodorit^cmg apprized5perhaps, that "Theodorifs Quo- tation was not from This Treatifeagainft Noetus^ but out of another Work of Hippolytus^ upon the fe- cond Pfalm ^ : And what great Wonder is it, if an Author, in Two diftind Trafts, borrows from Him- felf > exprefling the fame Thought here more brief- ly, there more at large ? Gelaftus^ indeed, refers to the Memoria H^refimn: But as his Quotation isexa£t- ly the fame with fheodorifs^ and probably taken from Him, at fecond Hand 5 ifheodorlt is the more to be depended on, as being the elder ^ and as being a Greek Writer, and noted for his Accuracy s and his Works prefervcd with greater Care than Gelajius's. Whether the Miilake of Memoria H^refium^ was Gelajius's own, or his 'Tranfcrihefs^ an eafy Account may be given of it 5 fince Hlppolytus's Piece againft Herefies^ was the moll noted of Any, and was preferved entire for a long Seafon, and befides really had in it a PaiTage very like That other out of his Comments on the Pfalms J And it might feem no great Matter, which of the Pieces they referred to. Thefe Confidera- tionsfhow how little your critical Cenfure of a Book is to be depended on: I will therefore ftill continue to quote Hippolytus^ as genuine, till I fee fome bet- ter Reafons again ft it than you have here offered. What you hint of its being changed into Homily in latter Times, is fufficiently anfvvered by Fabricius^ vol. 2. p. 6. Let us now (q-c wh'^t Hippoly t us h^is 10 offer in relation to our main Difpute. I produced the PalFages, which I moft infifl; upon (to prove that Father and Son are one God) in myZ)^- j^;^, fir ft briefly, (p. 22) and afterwards more at large in my Sermons^ p. 307 &:c. whither, to fave my felf the Trouble of repeating, I beg Leave to refer * T» Uyia lTJ7eAc*rj?, ht, jKi *pjt^3jva«? tS B, \|/'«eA^if, Theod. Dial. 2. p, 167, the Qa. 11. offome QUERIES. 107 the Reader. You have fome pretended Counter- Evi'^ dence to produce, as ufual, in order to evade the Force of what I offered. You fay (p. po.) that thoi' He feems to aim at including the Son and Sprit 5 in fome Senfe in the one God (it is well however that he does not aim at excluding Them, having quite other Intentions than you have) yet He exprefsly afmhes to the Father ^ not a Priority of Order only^ but a real Supremacy of Authority arid Dominion. Where are your Proofs ? The fir ft is, that He talks of the Father's comman- ding^ the Son obeying : So did Athanafius^ Baftl^ Cy- ril^ Hilary^ Marius Fi^orinus^ and others * , who not- withftanding would have detefted your Notion : For They never fufpefted any Thing o£ Suhj^5lion^ or Ser^uility in it, but only a different Order or Manner of operathig, fo far as concerns the Work of Crea- tion y and a voluntary Condefcenfion, or ohovoixlay as to other Matters. But Hippolytus fays, by This^/- nity the Father is glorified. No doubt of it, fince no- thing can be more for his Glory^ than to have two fuch divine and glorious Perfons proceeding from Him, and ever abiding with Him: And they that lefTen this Glory^ Icflen Himj who in a certain Senfe, is the TOTrav. You add, as from Hippolytus^ that the Fa- ther begat the Son (that is, fent or fhewed Him to the World, which is Hippolytus's Meaning •\) when He willed^ and as He willed. Undoubtedly, in Hip- polytus''s Senfe, juft as He fent Him to be incarnate of the BlefTed Virgin, when He willed^ and as He willed. All you have farther material , I have anfwered above. You will never be able to fhew, that either Subordination^ov Miniftration^ or the Son's condefcending to become Man, and in that Capacity * See >wy Sermons, p. 72. Or Bull. D. F. p. 80. & aliW. Or Petavius de Trin. /. 1. c. 7. i oTf »6iXii. 8j. it is not clear that Origen\ Words mufl bear my Senfe. I do not wonder at your holding out, in fuch a Place as This: It mud trouble you to find yourfelves condemned in the mofl important Article of all J and that by Origen too, whom you would have to be a Favourer of you, as He is much a Fa^ vourite with you. Bur, as to the Senfe of his Words, it is fo exceeding clear^ from the whole Scope and Context, that nothing can be more fo. See what I have faid above. What then mull be done next ? Still you fay, admitting my Conflm6lion, it is not to my purpofe. What ? not to my purpofe that Fa- ther and Son are one Gody which is what I quoted it for? And if They are one God^ They are one God Supreme. You add, that Origen^ in That very Place, explains at large^ how the Father and Son are One, and alfo what fort of worlhip is to be paid the Son, ♦ '''Evoc h S-fcy, &»? kTToh^xotfXjit, Tor TTuri^x xotl Tot Ulv ^ffXTFfvcfAitr, Orig.Contr. Cclf. p. 386. " We therefore, as we have Ihewn, worlhip one God, the Fa- " ther and the Son. t See what I haxf fmd t^hovs ; And fQTnpare fr^i S^TmoXi^y P. 509. J The no !^ Second Defense Qu.IL The Senfe, you pretend, is, that Chriftiam ftill wor- Jhipped but one God (The father I fuppofe you mean) becaufe they 'worjhipped the Father hy or through the Sen. Ridiculous : For, fo Celfus and all the wifer Pagans worshipped but one Qod-y becaufe they wor- fhipped the one Supreme^ by and through all their other Deities, How then did This Anfwer clear the Chrifiians from the worfhip of S^sy?, Gods^ more than the Pagans? Was Origen no wifer than to expofe Himfelf and his Caufe to ridicule, by fo weak a Re- ply ? The Strength of his Solution refts intirely upon this-, that Father and Son are but one God -y and therefore the Chriitians worfliipped not many : He takes in Both^ to make the tv the unum^ the one ffhing worfliipped : Otherwife there was no Occafion for faying, that They were one > One in nature (as I underftand by his Inftance of Believers^ who were all of the fame nature, and as fuch equal) and One alfo in Concord, Agreement, and Samenefs of Will : which is the very Account which Poft-nicme Fathers alfo give of the Unity -y as Hilary, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerufalem, Gregory Nyjffen, and Auflin, referred to in my Defenfe *. I fliall here only cite the laft of themi", who may fpeak for all the reft. I fliall have occafion hereafter to difcourfe you fully upon the ♦ Befenfe, pag.563, 8cc. t Hi Trcs, quia unius fubftanticc funt, unum funt ; Sc fumme mum ubi nulla Naturarum, nulla eft diverfitas Voluntatum. Si au- tem rjMura unum eflcnt, & Confenfiom non eflentj nonfamme unum cflent : Si vero natura rlifpares eflent, unum non eflent. Auguftin. contr. Max. 1. 2. pag. 6p8. Etiam nos quippe incomparabilem Confenfum Voluntatis^ atque in- dividuae Caritatis, Patris & Filii 8c Spiritus Sandti, Confitemur; popter quod dicimus, Haec Trinitas unus eft Deus, Auguft. contr- Max. 1. 2. p. 720. See my Defenfe, pag, ^66, ^6j. To the fame purpofe fpeaks Theodorit, or Maximus. E«? 3'S«4, ix ^5 TfiCi>yvyj(^y ttsAA' ^$ ci if Xf^^? Keener itrfjosyoif n/i ts» Piovw T«5 trvfijt£;n^wpicr/j(.£V4xr : ^hree independent feparate Hypodafes^ unailied to each other ^ and not united in one Head, This is condemned as Tritheifm > and as being near a-kin to the Marcionite Doftrine of three Principles 5 (againll: which I prefume the Canon that goes under the Name of Jpoftolical *, was firft made) and which Dionyfius cenfures as diabolical -f Dodrine. Here it is obiervable, that we meet with ^hree Hypoftafes^ firft ' introduced in the third Cen- tury, in oppofition to the Noetian and Sabellian Doc- trine of one Hypoftafis^ and thought very proper to exprefs the Senfe of the Church > provided the Hy- poftafes were not made feparate^ as fo many Heads^ ox Principles. For, the Church has always con- demned the Notion of t^sk d^')(\y^aX yTros-aVsis- \. Origen is, I think, the firll Writer now extant thac makes mention of two, or more Hypoftafes in the Trinity. 3. A third Opinion which fome were like wife apt to fall into, in oppofition to Sahellius^ was to make the Father only the one Gody reducing the Son, and, of confequence, the Holy Ghoft^ to the Con- dition of precarious Beings^ or Creatures. But This alfo is condemned by Dionyfius^ in fmart Terms, as Blafphemy \\ in a very^high Degree. 4. After rejecting the former Three falfe and he- retical Tenets^ He at length gives us the true Faith of the Church, to This purpofe. " Therefore ic " concerns us by all means, not to divide the Vene- " rable Divine Unity (or Monad) into 1'hree Dei- * Apoft. Can. 49. ubi damnatur quiTquis baptizaverit in rf£i$ foi^X,^ocJca-(pi]fjijov ovvi » TO rvx'^v, fjoh^^-os fJijjv eyv, ^s.^oTTrntrov,^ r^ozci r<- ^i Tovro, Dionyf. p. 23 a. I '^ tiss^ tt+ yf Second Defense Qu.IL *' ties^ nor to leflen the faperlative Majcfty and '' Greatnefs of our Lord by making Him a Crea- " ture-j but tofbelieve in God the Father Almighty, " and in Clrfift Jefus his Son, and in the Holy " Ghoft; and that xhtlVord is united with the God *« over all : For, he fays, / and my Father are one j ^^ and I am in the Father and the Father in me. So " fhall the Divine "Trinity^ as alfo the facred Doc- «' trine of the Unity be preferved * ." This was his Decifion of that important Article; which He had alfo exprefled before in Words to the fame EfFed, which may here alfo be cited. " The divine Word « muft of Neceffity be united with the God of the « Univerfe, and the Holy Ghoft abide and dwell in " God 5 and the divine I'rinity be gathered together " and united into one^ as into a certain Head^ I " mean the God of the Univerfe, the Almighty f." You will obferve, how the Unity is folved by Dio- nyfius^ not by making the Son and Holy-Ghoft fuh- je5i to the Father, but by including them in the Fa- ther ; not by the Father's Governing Them, but by his containing and comprehending Them. And tho' Dionyftus ftiles the Father the God of the Univerfe, and emphatically vrcLvrcK^drcxi^y He at the fame time declares the Son to be Itndly God^ or no Creature: And He does not afterwards weakly retra6fc what He had faid of the Son, by throwing Him again Out of the one Godhead-, but wifely and confidently takes fjuovx^x • ovti 7s;oi-^tu xaXuuy to kli&ifjjy,^ ig to -csa^fiuXXov fAii'^i^(^ tou covv roy iiov uvrcv, tcccl £{? to uyiav TrviUf/jX, itvco(rB-cci os ra Bsu rav oXm rov ?^oyc'j ' lya yu^, 'U<; ^iccttutetro, Dionyf. p. l^l. f 'Hvcoa-^xi y»co uvuyKn tZ B-iSi tZv oXav rav ^uov Aoyo" * iyj^i>^oZ^ (iiv ^i 7^2 B-i^ }cccl iJiCiiT^tr^cci hT T9 'Jtyiev JTviZf/tcc' lih ^od ti^v B-uu, TOiik^iX, l/? tm coTTiio liC, y.ovv which would indeed have furniihed you with Variety of ft range Ahufes ^ : And had you found one, by chance, in me, you might have fpared the Exclamation for the Do6bor's fake. But to pro- ceed : We may learn This from LaUantius^ that the common way of anfwering the Charge of Tritheifm was, not by excluding the Son from being one God with the Father, but by including Both m the one God t- We learn farther, that They are confuh^ I z ftantial \ Sermon S. pag. 314. li Pag. 46. * See the Do6lor*s manner of quoting expofed in my Defenic, pag. 445. t Cum dicimus Deura Patrem, &DeumFilium, non diverfum di* cimus, nee utrumque fecernimus, quia nee Pater effe fine Filio poteft, nee Filius a Patre fccerni : iiquidem nee Pater fine Fiiio nun- cupari, nee Filius potefl fine Patre generari. Cum igitur 2c Pater Filium ii6 !/f Second Defense Qu.II. ftantial to each other, and to be adored together as one God. Nevertheleis, fince LaEiantius had elfewhere drop'd fome Expreflions which appeared hardly, if at all defenfiblc, I never laid much Strefs upon Z^(^^«//^i's Authority, as to the main queftion : tho I might with a much better right have done it, than you generally lay claim to Fathers^ while you think it fufficient if you can but cite a Pailage or two which you imagine to be on your fide 3 never re- garding how to reconcile many other much ftronger ones againft you. I am perfuaded, if I have been to blame, it has been on the modeft fide> not infifting fo far upon La5iantius^ as I might juftly have done. I fhall now examine whether you have not claimed a great deal too much, and I too Httle, in refped of this Author. It is certain, you can never make Him a confiflent Evidence on your fide. You can never reconcile his Confuhftantiality^ and his Do6lrine of the Two Perfons being one God^ to your Principles > fo that you have little reafon to boail of an Evidence which at bell is not for you, but either again ft you, or elfe nuU^ and none : iVnd could you have been content to have had Him fet afide, without infulting me upon it, I might perhaps have let you pafs. But now I Filium facint, 6c Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, unus Spiritits, 8c una Subfiantia eft. Scd Ille quaii exuberans Fons eft, Hie tanquam defluens ab eo Rivusj illc tanquam Sol, Hie tanquam Radius a fole porrevTtus : Qui quoniam fummo Patri 6c fidelis & Charus eft, non [eparatur, ficut nee Rivus a Fcnte, nee Radms a fole, quia cc jiqust Fontis in Rivo efi, SaSolis Lumen in Radio: a^quenecVox aborefejungi, nee P'irtus ant marms a Corpore Dizelli poteft. Cum jgitur a Pro- phetis Idem Manus Dei, 6c Virtus, 6c Sermo dicatur, uticue nulla diC- cretio eft: quia 8c lingua fermonis miniftra eft, 5c Manus in qua eft Virtus, individuA funt CorY>oi'\s portioncs. La6t. 1. 4. c. 29. Filius 8c Pater, qui unanimes ineolunt mundum, Deus unus f/?; quia 8c unus tanquam Duo, 6c Duo tanquam unus- UnumDeum' clTe tarn Patrem quam Filium £/2t;Vtj oftendit, 6cc. Ad utramque per- fonam referens, intulit, pY&ter me mn efi Deus, eum poftet dieere prdter woj««— .merito unus Deus ufcrque appeliatur, quia quicquid eft in Patre ad Filium transfiuit, 2c quicquid eft in Filio, a Patre de- fcendit. Lib. 4. cap, 25?. fliall Qu.ir. of/ome aU ERIE S. 117 fhall examine what right you have to Him. You fay, (pag. f f .) and agam, pag. 8(5. that his Senfe of Uria- Subftantia is not clear, and that it might not perhaps be taken in the metaphyfical Senfe. But no- thing can be clearer than his Senfe of unci fubjian- tia^ both from his Similitudes^ (as that of i\\t fame Water in Fountain and Streams^ and the fame Light in the Sun and its Rays) as alfo from the Name of Manus given to the Son of God, and his obferving that the Hands are indi"oidu£ Corporis Portiones^ undi^ vided Parcels of the fame Body. Where, tho the Comparifon be grofs, and the Explication favouring too much of corporeal Imaginations > yet the mean- ing is evident, that He intended the felf-fame Sub- fiance, both in kind^ and in number^ to belong to . Father and Son \ as much as you defign the/^;^^ tS"^^- ftance in kind^ and in number^ of any two Parts of the one extended Divine fubftance. You ob- ferve alfo {pag. f^) that LaUantius makes Angels to be from the Subftance of God. If He did. He has difparaged a certain Truth, relating to the Son of God, by mixing with it a foolifh Manich^an Error about Angels % having been impofed upon by fome Heretical Books. Yet La^antius has no where faid what you affirm of Him. He has no where (aid that Angels are of God's fubfiance^ as He has faid plamly of God the Son. You can only colle61: it from obfcure Hints, and dark Innuendo's. He ufes fome coarfe Comparifons about God's breathing out Angels, 2iW<\ fpeakingout\i\^ Son. But He never pre- tends that Angels, are one Subflmce^ or one God with, the Father. He fays of the Son, that He was con- ceived in the Mind of the Father {niente conceperat) which He never fiys of Angels. He fays of Angels that They were created for Service : Of the Son, He only fays, th^t He proceeded'^. In a word, allowing """■^"■— . « . * Ad minifterium Dei creabantur. Ille vero, cum fit & ipfe fpi- Titus, tamen cum Voce 6; fono ex Dei ore proceflit, 6vC. Lib. 4. €. 8. Comp, c. 6, I 5 ■ ' «"'7 ITS A Second Defense Qa.II. only for his including the Son and Angels together under the general Name of Breathings^ which may mean no more than ProduEiions^ and differing infi- nitely in kind, tho' agreeing in the common Name, (as ysv>iTa Ukewiie is a Name comprehending Things that proceed by Creation or Generation^ in time or eternally) I fay, allowing only This, there appears nothing in LaEiantius but what may fairly ftand with his other Principles, above recited*. For if, according to La^antius^ God Breathed^ that is, pro- duced his Son from his o-ivn Subftance^ but Breathed^ or produced Angels not fi'om his own Subfiance^ but from nothings as he breathed into Man a Soul f, {Gen. ii. 7.) then there is no farther ground for your Cenfure upon Him. That This was really his mean- ing, and all his meaning, I incline to think, as for feveral Reafons before hinted, fo alfo for TJiis, that in the very Chapter of the Epitome (cap.4^.) you re- fer toi:, He makes a manifeft Difference between the produftion of the Son and of Angels. The Son was de ateryiitatis fu£ Fonte.^ and de Spiritu fuo. There was not only Breathings but breathing from the very Fountain of his eternity ^ that is, from his own Sub- fiance : whereas Angels are only faid to be de fiiis Spiritibus^ from his Breathings. So He makes it the peculiar Privilege of God the Son, that He was breath- ed out, tanquam Rivus de Fonte^ and ex Deo Deus \\ : which He never fays of Angels^ any more than of * ViJ. Nourrium, Appar.ad Bibl. Vol 2. pag.ypS. f Vul. Ladlant. lib. 2. c. i?. i Deus in principio, antequam mundum inftitueret, de teferni- tatisfu£ Forjte, deque divino acpercnm fpiritufuo, filium fibi proge- nuit, incorruptum, fidelem, virtuti ac majeftati patriae refpondentera „«— — Denique ex omnibus Angelis quos Idem Deus de fuis fpirU vbus figuravit. Solus in Confortium fumms poteftatis adfcitus eft, folus Deus nuncupatus. Ladant. Epit. c. 42. p. 1 04, 1 05-. }] Laftant. Inftit. I. 4- c 8. Quoniam pleni & confummm Boni Tons in ipfo erar, ficut eft Semper, ut ab eo Bono tanquam Rivus oriretur, longeque proflueret, yroduxit fimikm fui fpiritum, quieftct Viritus Fatw pAditus, 1. 2. c. 9. Human Qu.IL of/omeQ^U^KlES. 119 Human Souls ; which He alfo derives de vitaU Fon- te perennis Spiritus *, from the Fountain of his Brea- things^ but not from his Subftance \ as I have alfo re- marked of 'TertulUan above. Indeed moft of the Fathers laid great Strefs upon the Text in Genefis ii. 7. God's breathing into Man's Nofirils the Breath of Life 'j A Privilege peculiar to Man above the Ani- mal Creation -f: Something of G^^'i own infujingznd infpiring^ fomething of a purer and diviner Subftance, Spiritual^ and enduring ; The Breath of the Almigh- ty, a Relemblance, a Shadow, an imperfe6t Copy of the Divinity it felf Thus far the Fathers carried the Notion: And you feem to have miihken it for the Marcionite and Manichiean Notion of Souls being the very Subflance of God : A Notion which the Fa- thers detelfed^ and I doubt not, La5lantius among the reft. * Ibid. /. 2. c. 12. p. 182. ■J- Toe fttiy «AAc« x^Xivcov fJt*ovov TFiTtoinniVy Tov ^ kvfip«;rev h' ocvt^ ^Z^ti^'P- 7)j(rty, KuC ri «vt» kotcv iti^Xcc ^ax yjirccf^av. Clem. Alex. p. 6o8. Incorporales Animse, quantum ad Comparationem Mortalium Cor- porum. Infuflavit enim in Faciem Homm'ti Deus Flatum Fit£ , Flatus autem Vitae incorporalis. Sed ne mortalem quidcm poflunt dicere ipllim, Flatum Vita exiilentem. Iren^us p. 300. Animae fuae umbram, Spiritus fui auram, oris fui operam. Ter- tull. de Refurr. Carn. c. 7. Intellige Affiatum minorem Spiritu efTe j etfi de Spiritu accidir, ut aurulam ejus, non tamen Spiritum « capit etiam Imaginem Spiritus dicere Flatum, nam 8c ideo Homo Imago Dei, id eft Spi- ritus. Dcus enim Spiritus — .,—. In hoc erit Imago minor veri- tate, 8c jijjiatm Spiritu inferior, habens iijas utiquc lineas Dei, qua immortalis Anima, qua libera 8c fui arbitrii, 8cc. tamen in his Im;igo^ 8c non ufque ad ipfam Vim divimatis, Tert. contr. Marc. 1. x. c, 9. I 4 Your I20 ^A Second Defense Qu.II. Your next Objeftion againft La^antlus^ is, that He fuppofed the Son to be only mentally contained in God, and afterwards begotten into a Perfon. You ground your Conjecture upon a PafTage, which you cite p. 88, and again p. no. I have certainly a bet- ter Right hereto fay, that \.\\tSenfe is not clear^ than you had with Relation to una Subflantiy. : And the Liberty you take of tranflating, comprehendit in Ef- figiem (or ad Effigiem^ as fome Editions have it) for- med into a real Perfon^ is pretty extraordinary. The learned Le Nourry gives a quite different ConftrucT tion of That obfcure Pafliige: And which to me ap- pears more probable than your's. But fuppofingThe Author to have expreffed Himfelf fomewhat crudely in This Place, in Relation to the Son's Generation , (which He at the fame Time profefles to be inexpli- cable) you very well know that the fame Author elfewhere fpeaks as crudely even of the Father Him- felf 5 whom he fuppofes to have had a Beginnings and to have made Himfelf. His Words are, '' Since it '^ cannot otherwife be, but that whatever exifts muji *^ have fometime begun to be^ it follows, that fince ^^ nothing was before Him , He muft have fprung '' from Himfelf, Deus ipfe fe fecit ^ God madeHim- " felf La5iant. /. i. c. 7. This is flrange Divinity. But the Author was a Novice 3 and He at other Times talks in a foberer Manner. He ought therefore to be interpreted with Candor, and with fome Grains of Allowance. If You take Advantage of every obfcure or uncautious ExprefTion, you will make Him as Heterodox m refped: of the real Divinity of the F^ither, as you fuppofe Him to be with Regard to the Son. But if you pleafe to interpret Him with Candor, and to explain any ob- fcure or incidental PafTage, by what is plain^ and is exprefTed more at large 5 " He may then perhaps be found, upon the whole, found and orthodox in Re- lation both to the Father and Son. You next fpeak (p. 8p.)of^he Son's entire Subje6tion and Obedience ' tQ Qu.II. ^//^«/^ QUERIES. i2t to the ff'^ill and Commands of the Father : Yet tak- ing no Notice of LaElantius vindicating to Both the fame infeparabk Honour^ as being one God^^. The Sub- jeUion you mention is intended only of what was fince the Incarnation^ and therefore nothing to the Piirpofe. And as to Chrift's not fetting Himfelf up for Another God (which appears to be Laciantins's real and full Meaning in the PafTage you cite-fj 1 fuppofe it may be admitted without any Scruple. Or at mofl, it can amount to no more than This, that in the Opi- nion of LaHantius^ Chrift (during his State of Humi- liation) never called Himfelf G^^, left He fhould there- by give Offence, and be mifconftrued as preaching up Another God. How otherwife ihall the Apoftles, or La5iantius Himfelf be juftified (by that Way of Reafoning) in giving the Title and Charafter of God to Chrift? I conclude with repeating what I before faid, that admitting fome Things in LaBantius (a Catechumen only, and not fully inftru61:ed^ to be fuch as do not perfectly agree with Catholic Principles 5 yet on the other Hand, it muft be confefled, that there are many other Things taught by Him, which can never be tolerably reconciled with yours :j: : So that you have the lefs Reafonto boaft on that Head. You are pleafed to obferve, (/>. 1 20) that Bifhop Bull gives up This Author * Duo efTe dicentur, in quibus Subfianm, 6c Voluntas,^ Tides una eft. Ergo fie Filius per Patrem, 6c Pater per Filium. Urns eft Ho- rns utrique tribuendus, tanquam uni Deo, 6c ita dividendus eft per duos cultus utdivifio ipfa Compage infeparabili vinciatur ; neutrum fibi relinquit, qui aut Patrem a Filio, aut FiJium a Patrc iecernic> Laciant. Epit. c. 49. p. 140, 141. t FuiiTet enim hoc non ejus qui miferat, fed fuum proprium nego- tium gerere, ac fe a6 eo » quern illuftratum venerat, feparare. La^am. I, 4, p. 55*4. Vid. Nounii Apparat. Vol. 2. />. 799. ^ Solus habet rerum omnium cum FiJio fuo poteftatcm: Nee fn AngeJis quicquam nili parendi ncceftitas. Lad. /«/?. /. 2. c> 16. 112 A Second Defense Qu.II. Author as not recondkable to his Opinion : You lliould have faid, not reconcileable, upon the whcJe, For the Bifhop fufpe&ed fome Paflages to have been foifted in, being pot reconcileable with others j or elfe that the Author Himfelf, being a very raw Divine^ had fallen into grofs Contradi6iions. But Bifhop Bull infifted upon It, that fome Paflagcs ofLadlantius were direftly oppofite to the Men of your Principles, and not re- concileable with Arianifm : As they certainly arc not. A, D. 35f. E u s E B I u s. We now come to a Man that lived after the Rife of the Arian¥icrt{y'y and who is fuppofed by all Sides and Parties, to have had a Tin6ture of it more or lefs y and efpecially in his Writings before the Coun- cil of Nice. A Teftimony therefore from Him in Proofof the Father and Son hQingoneGodis the more confiderable > fince nothing could extort it from Him, but either the Force of 'Truths or the Strength of fra^ dition^ or the Currency and Prevalence of That Per- fwafion in his Time. And which foever of Thefe it were, it is very much to my purpofe, tho' Eufehius might at other Times contradi6l it. I cited Socrates'^ for the Truth of the Fad, that Eufehius Himfelf confefTed one God in Three Hypoftafes : Nor do I fee any Reafon to fufpe£t his Credit. He had his Account, as He declares, from original Letters, which paiTed at That Time. And whatever Eufehius might privately write. He might not have AfTurance enough, in public Debate, to gain-fay a Thing which all Ca- tholics allowed. Any one may fee, by Eufebius's O- *' The Father alone, with his Son, has Dominion over all: Nor dith «* my thing belong to the Angels, but the Necejjlty of Obeying. . Here Lad:antius fUinly afcribes one cornmon Dominion to the Father and the Son : ' And intimates, that God the Son is exempt from any Ncceflity #f Obedience, iy theOppofition made betveeen Him and Angels. • Socrat. Ecd Hift. /. i, f« 23. ration Qu.II. offomeClVEKIES. 125 ration before Conftantine^ how tender He was of drop- ping Any thing like Arianifm in the Face of the C^- iholics^ who. He knew, would not bear it. He there fpeaks as orthodoxly of the BleiTed Trinity as a Man can reafonably defire. His Words are : '' The *^ Ternary Number firft fho wed Juflice, teaching £- ^^ quality \ having equal Beginning, Middle, and End ; '^ And Thefe are a Reprefentation of the myllical , " moil holy, and Majeflic Trinity j which compac- " ted of a Nature that had no Beginning, and is un- " created, contains in it the Seeds, Reafons, and Caufes " of all Things that have been made. And the '^ Power or Number l^hree is rightly ftiled the a^W, " the Source of All Things*. Thus far Eufehlus : And He that could fay This, (which is really flronger) may very well be fuppofed to fay the other, which Socrates reports of Him. Now, either Eufebius was Jincere in what He has here faid, or He was not. If He was, then He is an Evidence on my Side, and I have a Right to claim Him as fuch : If He was not, ftill it fhows what the prevailing Doctrine was, and which Eufe- bius durft not but comply with, in his public Speech 5 And This is an additional Confirmation of Socrates's Report, which relates to vih-M Eufebius acknowledged in Public Conferences. The fame alfo is confirm'd by his fubfcribing the Nicene Faith^ drawn up upon the fame Principles which I am here defending. Let This fufficein Proof of my Third Article, that the Antients have all along believed and taught, that j^ ^xiscyUc, , Kcct (icuriXiicr.c, r^iuhq' if rtiq uva^x,^ kc*\ ecyivitra ^otriAs ^i^rnf/um , T?§ rav ysv/jrav dTTotvlav ittrUc, ret a-7Cifyuctrx, k»1 rm Xo- fo^i^X^ vofAjitrSsiyi. Eufeb. Orat. Paneg. c. 6. p. 730. Conf. Jobium, apud Photium. Cod. 225, p. 6of, 6 it, Tti5 tS ofhyajvin Tfiyava hvoifji^inKiy oiri^ jf jy Ic^^vi rni rcif c^Mi ytnia-tvs. Phil, de Vit. Contempl. p. 8^. Father 124 ^ Second Defense Qu.II. Father and Son are one God\ and therefore God the Son was never thought to be excluded from the one God-head by the Texts which concern the Unity. I have waved all difputable Authorities : But becaufe there are fome coniiderable Teftimonies in Ruinarfs fele6t Ads of Martyrs^ which tho' not fo certainly • genuinely as Thofe before given, have yet no certain Mark of Spurioufnefs^ I may throw them into the Margin ^ for the Reader to judge of as He fees Caufe. There can hardly be any clearer, or lefs con- tefted Point than This I have been mentioning. It runs, in a Manner, quite through the Fathers down to the Times o{ Ariiis, The only Writer I have met with, within this Compafs, that can with any Show of Reafon be thought to make an Exception, is No- 'vatian^ Prefbyter of Rome^ who, with Nov at us of Carthage in the Year if i, began the Schifm, called after his Namej and in the Year ifj, or thereabout, (it could not well be fooner by his mentioning SabeU lius) wrote a Tra6t upon The 'Trinity^ ftill extant. That He was in the main. Orthodox, as to the Point of the Trinity, I think plain enough from the Tra61: it felf 5 as has been fho wn alfo by Le Moyne^ Gardiner^ Bull^ and other great Men. But his Way of refolving the Unity of God-head'mio the Father ^te^, (not very con- iiftently with his Comment on John xvii. 3. if it is to be made Senfe of) appears to me fomewhat par- ticular, and not very agreeable to the Catholics of * Chriftum cum Patre & Spiritu fandlo, Deum efle confi- teor. Ati. Epipoaii Mart, A. B. 178. Ruin. p. j6. Dominum enim Chriftum confiteor, Filium Altiflimi Patris, uni- ci unicum. Ipfum cum Patre 6c Spiritu fanfto, Untitn folum Beum efTe profiteer. A^. Vincentii Mart, A. D. 3 04. apud Rnmrt. p, Patrem 8c Filium & Spirltum fan who could not fubmit to an inferior Office (as they thought) without inverting the Order of the Perfons. See my Anfwer to Dr. Whitby, pag.73. And I may obferve, that the Poft-nicene writers, who undoubtedly believed the eflential Di- vinity of Chrift, yet talked the fame way, upon That Head -f. I may farther take notice to you, that the Catholicks in their Charge of Blajphemy upon the SaheUians, did not go upon any fuch Prin- ciple as you imagine, that the Difference of the Na- tures of Father and Son made it BJafphemy to afcribe That to one, which might be innocently afcribed to the other, but upon quite another Foundation j namely, that They thought it Blafphemy to afcribe any thing to the Father, feemingly derogatory, or * Diftus cfi: quidem Magni Confilii Angelns, id eft Nuntius ; Officlty non natuTA vocabulo.— Non ideo tamen fic Angelus intelligendus ut Aliquis Gabriel, aut Michael. Nam 8c Ftltus a Domino Vineae mittitur ad Cultorcs, iicut §c Famuli, de Fru6libus petitum. Sed non propterca unus ex Famulis deputabitur Filius, quia FAmuhrum fuccedit Officio. Tertull.deCarn. Chrift. cap. 14. " He is called, indeed, The Angel of the great Counfel j That is, ** The Mejfciiger; which is a Name of Office, not of Nature He •'is not therefore to b:; thought an Angel, like any Gabriely or Mi- " chaeL For, even the Son is fent to the Husbandmen by the Lord •< of the Vineyard, as the Servants are, to gather the Fruits. But *' we muft not therefore reckon the5' his Majefty^ beyond what Scripture had warranted. And as to their afcribing fome inferior Offices and Services to the Son, They did not juftify it by alledging the inferiority of his Nature, or Per- fon, but by ihowing that Scripture had afcrib'd thofe Things to Him, and without hlafpherning. For the Truth of what 1 lay, I appeal to T'crtullian in the Margin *> who was one of Thofe that argued in the manner you mention : And his anfwer to Pr^;^^^^, in relation to This very Charge of Blafphemy^ in a fimilar Cafe, plainly and evidently difcovers what was meant by it 5 and how little there was of what yoii fufpe6t in it. For when Praxeas^ replying to the Charge of Blcifphemy^ had laid that there was no Blafphemy in fuppoling the Father to Suffer^ on his Hypothefts^ any more than it was Blafphemy to make the Son fuffer, on the other Hypothefis^ fmce neither of them imagined the Divine Nature to fuffer but the Human only, how does I'ertuIIian anfwer? Not by telling Praxeas of the great Difparity between Father and Son; not by inliiling upon any inequa^ Uty-y but only by alledging that Scripture war- ranted their afcribing Sufferings to the Son, and did not warrant their afcribing any fuch to the Fa- ther. 6. You add, that the Ahfurdity of the SuppofJion {in the manner the Antients exprefs it) evidently arifes * Ergo, inquis, & nos cadem ratione Fatrem mortunm dicentes, qua vos Filium, non 6lafphe??mnius in Dominum Deum ; non enim €x divina, fed ex humiina fubflaricia, mortuum dicimus. To which Tertullian thus anfveers. Atquin blafphcmatisy non tantum quia mottuum dicitis Tatrem, fed & quia crucifixum. Maledidione enim crucifixi quse ex Lege in Filium competit (quia Chnfius pro nobis malediHio fadus efl non fater) Chriftum in Patrem convertentes, in Patrcm blafphernatis. Nos autem dicentes Chriftum crucifixum, non maledicimus ilium, fed/z;^- ledicium legis referimus-j quia nee Apoflolus hsec A'lCtns blafphemai/it , Si- cut autem, de quo quid capic dici, line Blafphemia diciturj ita quod non capit. Bla/^hmid eft, fi dicatur, Tertu'l. contr. Prax. c. 29. K al-jjays I30 A Second Defense Qu.IL always not from the Conftderation of Paternity, hut of //? and how handfomely They can plead for the Divinity of their bleiTed Lord. A. D. i4f. Justin Martyr. My Argument, from Jufiin^ flands thus. {See my Defenfe, pag. zp.) The Jehovah mentioned Gen. xviii. I, 13. and Gen. xix. 24, 27. The God (6 ^£0?) Speaking, G<:';^.xxi. 1 2. The Lord God o^ Abra- ham^ and God of T/^^t: fpoken of, G^«. xxviii. ij. The God o^ Bethel (Gen. xxxi. 13.) God {h ^so?) abfolutely fo called, Gen. xxxv. i . God calling out of the Bufii, and faying I am the God of Abraham^ &c. Exod. iii. 4, 6. and 1 AM That I AM, The Lord God^ ^c. Exod. iii. 14, if. God Almighty mentioned, Exod. vi. 3. Lord of Hods, Pfal. xxiv. 8, 10. The Jehovah Ipoken of, FfaL xlvii. f . The God men- tioned, P/^/. Ixxxii. 2. and xcix. i. is the one true God, the one eternal God of the Univerfe, fu- preme. But, according to Juftin Martyr, our BlefTed Lord is what hath been laid, and all that hath been faid, in his own Perfon. Therefore, i^c. Now let us coniider what you can have to except againft this plain and evident Demon ilration. I have indeed already anfwered, or obviated all you have to fay, in another Place *. And therefore Ihall be fo much the ihoner now. You plead, that according to Juftin, it were pre- fumption to fay, that the Maker and Father of the 'Univerfe left the Super- celeftial Manfions, and ap- * Anfvesr to Dr, Whitby, pa^. ^^^ Sec. peared Qn. IT. offome Q^U E R I E S. 131 peared here in a little part of the Earth. Rights becaufe the Father^ upon their Principles, was never to htfent^ or to a61: a minifterial part, any more than He was to be incarnate y lb that the Appearing, even by viftble Symbols^ (which was the only kind of ap- pearing They afcribed to God the Son) was not thought fuitable to the Firft Perfon of the Trinity j who, as He is from none^ .could not without invert- ing the Order of Perfons, be fent by Any. It was therefore proper, in That Qccoyiomy^ to affign Hea- ven as the Seat of Relidence to the Father, tho' fil- ling all Things, and the Earth to the Son, tho' at the fame time filling all Things as well as the Fa- ther ^. I mufl: farther remind the Reader, that you have not a Syllable here to plead beyond what Bifhop Bull had fully and compleatly anfwered long ago "I*. . And therefore the fliir way would have been, not to bring up again thofe obfolete, and now dale Things, fit only to be offered to very ignorant Readers, but to have fet your felf to anfwer what the Bifhop has fiiid^ which might have been an Employment worthy of a Scholar. You pretend it to be undeniably certain, from Jufiin^ that the Divine Perfon appearing was not the fupreme God^ 6cc. whereas it is undeniably certain, that He was the fupreme God^ only not the fupreme Father 'y Another Perfon from Him, nox. Another God ^ but the fime God. See above. You bid me take Notice, {pag. i 34.) that the Be- ginning and Condufion of e'very Argument is to fJoow that Chrifi is not [h Itti yrcivrm 3*sor, 6 y.ij^^ r(2\f gXcov, 6 7roiy;T/ir rdav cXoov] but always- fubordtnately ^lU 3*6c? Koi xJ^;©*. You may fancy there is lomeching * See Tertuiiian above^ p. 99. t Bull D. F. Sea. 4. c. 3. p. 267, &c. J32 -^Second Defense Qu.II. of Weight in what you fay : But all that know any thing of Jnftin^ know there is nothing in it. Juftin ulcs the leveral Phrafes you have mentioned to de- note the Perfon of the Father 5 and They amount to no more than if He had faid 6 TraT/i^j only there was a Caufe, a very jull one, as 1 have elfewhere * intimated, why he chofe the other generally, rather than that of 6 irarr,^^ There was therel-oregoodReafon ^orjujiin's form- ing his Conclufion in the Terms He did ; And it had been ridiculous to do otherwife. Yet, you will find that the Titles given to God the Son in Thofe 'Texts which Jtiftin cites, are as high and ftrong as the higheil you have mentioned , and are indeed the very fame, many of them, by which Scripture fets forth the fupreme Majefty, Dignity, and Perfedlions of God the Father. What you fay of the Title of xu^©» J^uviz/jcswv, Lord of Hofts^ applied to Chrift in Pfal. xxiv. by Jufiin^ is rightly obferved. And therefore I have hinted above, that the Title is under flood by Juflin^ as a Name of Office \ not of Nature^ as in the He- hrew Original : And fo we cannot draw fo cogent an Argument from that Title, confidered by Juftin^ as we may from the fame Title as it fignifies in the Hebrew. This I allow, and alfo that every Office is juftly referred to the Father^ as being firfl in order, and therefore firil confidered in every Oeconomy and D'lfpenfatwn. You farther argue, that Chrifl was made Tra^^nror, faffihle^ hy the Will of God^ for our fakes. Very true, becaufe He was made Man for our fakes : not that his Divine Nature yy^s paffible^ any more than the Father's. Such is Juflin's own Account of it, paffible as Mant- None of the Fathers ever thought Hmi ♦ Anfieer to Dr. Whitby, pag.^i, ^ ^ ^ . / ymt^xi. Juft. Dial p. 27f. Sylburg. paffible Qu.IL of fome Q^UERIES. 13 j paffihle any otherwife. But I am afhamed to remind a Scholar of thofc known Things. You come next to mifrcport Bp. Bull. Tou fay^ (pag. I3f.) that to all the Places i/^JullinV unqueftio- nably genuine IVritings^ which thus declare the Word to be the Minifter of God's Will^ the learned Bifiop Bull oppofes one ftngle PaJJage out of an Epiftle to Diognetus judged to be fpurious. Who would not from hence imagine that the whole Caufe, in a man- ner, depended on a fingle PafTage, of a fpurious Epiftle? But This is a moft unjuil; Reprcfentation. Let that Pailage, or That Epiftle be fpurious^ tho' if it be not Jujttn's^ yet it is certainly very antient^ and about the fame x^ge with Juftin-y and you your felf have quoted it, without Scruple, ^s Juft in' sow Uy {p. vj.) The Cauie ftands very fafe without it : And Bp. Bull has defended Juftin admirably, and unan- fwerably from his other certainly genuine Pieces ^'. All the fervice that Paftage does, is only to ftiow, that Juftin once exprcftly denies the Son to be UTDogfTyif. And has He not done the fame Thing twenty Times over, and more, by making Him the Jehovah^ and God of Ifrael^ God Jlmigloty^ &c? But ftill he allows Him to be uVyi^tTy:^, as He does "xAyytX©', a Minifter^ and Jngel by Offce^ which has nothing abfurd or improper in it j fince He con- defcended much lower, even to become Man. You next give us a long Paflage of Bifhop BuU^ which ihows the great Ingenuity of that excellent Prelate. You produce the Obje6lion which the Bi- fhop frankly propofed, at length -, but you mangle and mifreprefent his Solution of it. You fay, He thinks^ T'hey meant no more than, &cc. Thinks ? He has demonftrated that They meant no more. Bifhop Bull's own laft Account of this Matter, in anfwer to Gilbert Gierke^ is as follows. Se^ Bull D. F. p. 2 6p, K } '^ The Ij4 u^ Second Defense Qu.II. « The Sum of my Anfwer is This. ThofeDoc- *' tors of the Church who wrote before the Rife '' of Jrius's Herefy, as oft as They reafon Thus: " It was not God the Father but the Son that ap- *' pared under the Old Teftament, and became in- *' carnate in the FuUiefs of Time > the Father is in- '^ finite^ and cannot be included in a Place^ is invi- '' ftble and cannot ht feen by Any > They did not in- *' tend to deny the Son of God to be immenfe^ and '' invifible as well as the Father, but only fignified '^ barely that both all thofe Appearances of God, '^ and even the Incarnation itfelt had relation to the '' Oeconomy which the Son of God had taken upon '^ Him 5 which Oeconomy could no way fuit with " the Father becaufe of his having no Principle ^' from whence He is, nor deriving his Authority ^' from any befides Himfelf That This was the '^ certain Intent and Opinion of Thofe Antients, I '' have made appear upon thefe two Accounts, i. *' Becaufe, upon other Occafions, They in many Pla- " ces all confefs God the Son to be, as well as the '^ Father, in his own Nature, immcnfe^ omniprefent^ '^ and invifible. i. And again, becaufe fome of them '' do Themfelves exprellly interpret thefe their Say- ^' ings, of the Oeconomy. What therefore has Mr. « Gierke 10 fay to This^^?" The fhort of the Matter then is, that it did not fuit with the Father to act a miniflerial part^ or. to be fubje5l to Any^ (as Bp. Bull expreffes it elfewhere, meaning the fame Thing) becaule He is from none^ and therefore {tx\x. from none-y lell it fhould be invert- ing the Orr/^r of the Perfons. To This you object, {pag. 1 3 p.) I'he impojjlbility of . the Father'' s being a vifible Mefjenger is not founded up- on his Paternity^ but upon his abfolute Supremacy^ upon his being fubje'ci to none^ which is infeparabk from his t Bull Op. PofllL pg. 972, ^c. being Qu. II. offome QJJ E R I E S. 15;, being the unoriginate Author. But why do you change the Terms? VVho ever laid that it was abfolutely, or phyfically mpojjihle for the Father to act as the Son did ? All that is laid is, that He could not do it fui- tably, as not being confident with That Priority of Order which as Father He is poilefled of. And it is ridiculous of you to found his being fubje^l to none^ upon his being fubjeFv to none^ which is Idem per Idem. But his being fubje 51 to none^ that is, his never ailing a minifterial part^ is founded upon This, that He is Father^ firil Perfon, Head^ from whom every Thing defcendsj which Or^Vr would be inverted, if the Son were to be at the Head, and the Father minijier to Him. Such Miniftration therefore is a Contradiction to his Paternity^ but to nothing elfe. You add, Nor do the pri?mtive IFriters ever lay the Strefs of This Argument upon the Relation of Paternity, but upon theSupreinacy. That is to fay. They do not lay it upon the Paternity^ but upon the Paternity : For laying it upon the Supremacy of Order^ which He is poflefs'd of as Father^ and no otherwife, is lay- ing it, I think, upon the Paternity. And when you add [pag. 140.) that the Fathers, in afcrioing Omni- prefence to the Son, did not intend thereby to infer any equality of fupreme independeyit Authority, you only lliow how much you are at a lofs to make any thing like an Anfwer to Bp. Buir% Solution of the main Difficulty. For fo long as the Son's Omnipre^ fence is fecured, (which feemed moft to be afFe6ted by That Argument) the reft is all taken ofFat once, by allowing a Supremacy of Order, or if you will, a Paternal Authority -, which comes to the fame, and is no way inconGitent with the Son's e.quality^ either of Nature^ or Dominion. Your Quotation out o£ Clemens^ in Thefe Words j {I'his is the greateft excellency of the Son^ that He orders all Things according to the Will of the Father) is con- trived, as your Cuftom is, in a way very proper for the jPeception of a thoughtlefs, or ignorant Reader. K 4 Who 13^ ^ c:>ECOND DEFENSiS Qu. IT. Who would not imagine from the Words, as you cite them, that the higheft Hcnour of the Son is only to be obedient^ and to Jerve ? The Reader will be fur- prized to find how very different the bought is, from what Clemens is there upon. His Words run thus : " The mod Perfe&j mofl: Holy^ moft Lordly^ moft «' Princely^ moft kingly-^ and moft Beneficent^ is the " Nature of the Son, which is moft intimately allied '' to the alone Almighty. This is That greateftEx- *' cellency which orders all Things according to the " Will of the Father, and fleers the Univcrfe in the '^ beft manner, and worketh all Things by his inde- '' fatigable, unexhaufted Power, £5?^.=^" Does not the Reader fee, by this Time, what a Cheat you would have put upon him, under the Name of Clemens ? 1 mention not, that the Greek "will not bear your Conftrud:ion : or if it would, the whole Context ferves to difcover your Fraud in it. But perhaps you did not look into the Author. J. D. i^i. T H E o P H I L u s. fhecphilus^ in his little Piece, afforded me but one Text, {Gen.m. 8, p.) where God the Son is, (accord- in^ to Him) twice ftiledT"/;^ Lord God\ that is, as I undcrfland ir, the one true God^ the Creator of Man, (xJ^O- 0 -^lor) God abfolutely fo called, the 'Jehovah. You Q\i^^{pag. 141.) aPadiige o^ 'Theophilus^ which you fay (according to your ufual Style) is direFlly con- trary to what I refer to Hhn fur. 1 humbly conceive not! But let us fee : 'Theophllus argues after the fame wav with other Antients 3 that the Lord God there 7rp that He minijlred^ which I do not difpute, for He died too; That He fulfilled the Father's Commands ^ which I never quellion'dj that the Son is never called by Ire- naus^ The one God^ which I much queftion, and have proved to be falfe tho' the Point is not material > That the Son received Power to judge^ that is, from whom He received his Ejfence. What Force is there in Thefe Trite ThingsPYou add (p. 141.J thatjEA;^^. iii. 4. 8. is applied by hemeus to the Father only, I know not where ; but I am fure that He applies Verfe the 8^'^ to the Son Thrice '*. And if He has any where applied it to the Father alfo, the Reafon may be, that fince Both are the fame God^ the A[)- plication may be proper to either j which may be likewife anfvvcr fufficient to what you obferve of Ex. iii. 14, If. As to what you have farther, p. 141. I refer to what hath been faid under a former Article, to prove that Father and Son are, (accord- ing to Ir erne us) Both together one God. * Loquente Filio ad Moyfem, Befcendiy fnqiift, eripere Populum Hunc, Ipfe cnim eft qui defcendit, (^c. Iren. p. i8o. Nefcientes eum qui Figura loquutus eft humana ad Abrahaniy 8c iferum ad Moyfem, dicentem V'tdens lidi Vexationem^ &c. Haec enjm Filius, qui eft Verbum Dei, ab initio praeftruebat. p. z^6. Ipfe eft qui dicit Moy/i, Videns lidi, (^c. ab initio afluetus Ver- bum Dei afcendere 8c defcendere, />. 241. J. D. 140 -/^ Seco N D Defense Qu.IL A. D. 191. Clemens Alexandrinus. My Argument from Clemens is to This EfFcft. \lc who IS Jehovah^ Almighty God {Gen. xvii. i. 2.) Lord God of Ahr2i\\2im {Gen. xxviii. 13.) God of Bethel, 6 S^eos- (Gen. xxxi. 13.J and Lord God (Exod. XX. 1.) is the one God fupreme. But fuch is Chrift ac- cording to Clemens. Therefore, i^c. Here you tell me (p. 144.) of the Pedagogue be- ing a Juvenile Piece (which is more than you know *) or if it be, it is of never the lefs Authority, if not contradifted by his riper Thoughts, as it is not. You refer to what you had faid above j and I refer to what I have faid in Anfwer above. But you far- ther take me to Tafk, for what I had faid in my De- fenfe^ p. 34. that Chriil fpoke the Words, 1 am the Lord thy God^ Exod. xx. 1. in his own Perfon^ ac- cording to Clemens -\. This Obfervation, which, it Teems tenderly afFeds you, you call ah fur d^ ^ndper- fe^ly ridiculous. It is eafy to give hard Names*, let us hear your Arguments. All you have to plead is This, that Cbrift is there ohferved to fpeak in his own Perfon, not in Oppofttion to his being the Reprefen- tative of the Perfon of the Father^ hut in Oppofition to his heing elfewhere fpoken of in the Third Perfon, Now, I grant it was not intended in Oppofition to an Opinion which no Body at That Time was wild enough to hold : But while He is aiming at another Thing, He might accidentally drop a Sentence, which quite overthrows That Opinion^ which is the Truth oftheOafe. For what can be plainer than the Words, &\(l iJlia TrpojajTTS in his own Perfon^ and \auTOM Kiij.o\oym He profefles Himfelf to be TrounPay^i^yov^ the Leader forth^ becaufe of his Saying, / am the Lord thy God, who led forth Thee out of the Land of Egypt ? * See Grabe'j Inftances ofDefecis, p. ic. \ Uu^iiv ^ bTKv kiyti hk ToZ iOiis TTpca-aT^-a , ietvTov e^oAoya ttcci- ^uycjycy • iya Kv^i^ e S-<05 c-^ , c l\c<,ytcyoit . i4f .) Two or Three little Ca- vils, which I have anfwer'd above. You next tell me, that fertullian always declares Chrift to have ap» peafd not in his own Name^ but in the Name of the one fupremeGod. But where does 'Tertullian fay, that He appear'd not, or converfed not in his own Name ? He fays indeed in the Father's Name^ but in his own Name too, the N'ame and Nature of either being common to Both *. He took no Name but what He had a Right to : Nor faid any thing of Himfelf^ but what was true of Himfelf. And therefore He never faid / am the Father^ tho' He often faid I am Gody or Lord^ or Almighty : Which defervcs your fpecial Notice. I allow that He afted in the Father's Name, • Omnia, inquit Vatris mea funt : cur non & iJmm i TertulL contr. Vrax, e, 17, S«e my Defenfe, ^,42, 8cc. coming 142 A Second Defense Qu.IL coming with all the Authority of the Godhead^ com- mon to Both^ unoriginately in the Father, derivative- ly in the Son. This is coming in the Father's Name^ and with his Authority, to exhibite in, and through Himfelf, all the Majefiy and Dignity^ and Perfe^ions of the Godhead : Being Himfelf a full, perfect, and adequate Tranfcript or Image of all that the Father is. You would have it thought that the Father was ahfolutely invifihle (according to l^ertulliari) on Ac- count of his fupreme Majefty^ but the Son vifihle^ as a comprehenftble Part 5 And yet you very well know , that TertuUian did not allow even the Son to be vi- Jible in his divine Nature % but only by vifible Sym- bols voluntarily chofen. And all the peculiar Majefty of the Father lay only in This, that He was not to be viftble in any Way at all > becaufe He was not to minifter^ or to be incarnate. But will you peril (l in offering the mofl palpable Abufes upon your Rea- ders ? A. D. 240. HiPPOLYTUS. Hippolyttis I had cited for one Text only, his ap- plying the Words, That firetcheth out the Heavens like a Curtain (7/^x1. 21.) to Chrift. Whoever looks into That Chapter, will fee that the Perfon, of whom thofe Words were fpoken, is defcribed all the Way in Chara6]:ers peculiar to the one true God. That Per- fon therefore being Chrift, according to HippolytuSj the Confequence is evident. You have little to fay . ♦ Dicimus enim 6c Filium fuo nomine eatenus invlfibilem, qua Sermo, & Spirit us Dei : ex Subftantise conditione, jam nunc, i. qua Deus, 8c Ser- ino, & Spiritus. Vtfibilem autem fuifle ante Carnem eo modo quo dicit, (^c. TertulL contr, Trax, c. 14. *' For we fay, that the Son alfo, in his own Perfon , was invi^ *' fiBle, fo far as He was The Word, and Spirit of God: And He is fo •* alfo now, as God, and the IVord^ and Spirit : The Condition ( or •* Quality) of his Subfiance requiring it. But He was vi[ibU before •• his Incarnation, in fuch a Way, as He fays, ^c. Vid, Bull. D. F. p. 88. Npurrii i\pp. vol. 2i p. 13 10. in Qu.II. of fome CIUEKIES. 145 in Anfwer, but what has been abundantly replied to, or obviated before. So 1 pafs on. yf. D, i7,j, — 244. Origen. I cited Origen J but for Two Texts, Exod. iii. 4, 6. PfalmxKw, 85 10. According to Him therefore Chrift is God of Abraham^ Ifaac^ and Jacob > Jeho^ 'vah^ and King of Glory. Tou Jee not^ it feems, how "This proves^ that Origen thought Chrifi to be the one fupreme God. It either proves That, or elfe that O- rigen thought there were two Gods oi Abraham^ 'Two Lords of Hofls : Which yet Origen,^ as we have be- fore feen, abfolutely denies. So much for Origen, A. D. zy6. Cyprian. My i^rgument from Cyprian runs thus. He that is God of Bethel^ Gen. xxxv. i . The Lord Jirong znd mighty^ Lord o^ Hofis. Pfal. xxiv, 8. 10. He that faid, lam God (Pfal. xlvi. 10.) and who is called mighty God and our God^ Pfal. 1. i, 3. The G at lead: by me, who difpute only your Conclufion? You re- peat fome Things about the Ahfurdity of the Fa- ther's appearing, the Son's being an Angel, and the * Labbe Tom. i. p. 845*. t Su my Sermons, p. 73> 6*^. 4. likes Qii. II. offome Q^U E R I E S. 145 like 5 which have been before anfwered, and need not any fiirther Notice. A. D. If 7. Nov ATI AN. This Author, according to Order of Time, fhould have come in before : But I wns willing to poftpone Him, as you had done^ becaufe I take Him to be fbmewhat particular, and thcrerbre oF dillincl: Con- lideration , as before hinted. My Argument, from this Writer, will fliind thus. The Jehovah appearing to Abraham {Gen. xviii.) and raining upon Sodom {Gen. xix) The God fpeak- ing to Abrahara [Gen. xxi.) The God of Bethel (Gen, xxxi.j The God Handing in the Congregation {Pf. Ixxxii.) The God mentioned, //^xxxv.4. '^^^ Jehovah from Sion {Joel. iii. A?n, i.) He is the one true God. But fuch is Chrill, according to Novatian : Therefore, (s'c, I have intimated my Doubts of Novatian be- fore, as to his Way of folving the Unity : In which He appears to be various, and not very confillcnc with his own Principles j tho' Orthodox in the main, as to the Son's efjmtial Divinity. The Sa* belli an Abufe of the Phrafe oyie God^ 1 fuppofe, might make Him the more fcrupulous. I have fomctimes w^onder'd at it, confidering the knovon Principles of That Age, appearing in the Authors above men- tioned. But He was none of the mofi: judicious^ nor without his Singularities-^ as is plain from the Schipn- begun by Him. I iTiall now fee what you have to fay to this Writer. You bring up (p. 148.) the old Pretence of God the F'athcr being immenfe^ and con- tain'd in 710 Place^ whereas the Son might be con- tain'd,, iyc. A general x\nfv/er has been already given to this out of Billiop j5^;//i which AnUver is'fo full and certain, that you know not how to gain-fay it. The Meaning of the Fathers was no more than This, That God the Fiither never appeared in a Place^ no, not by vijlble Symbols^ which yet the Son did : And it was by fuch vifible Symbols only, that the Son JL was i4<5 ^Second Defense Qu.IL was containM in a Place, and not in his divine Na- tare. Novatian HimfclF is a Proof of this Matter j for. He exprelly ailcrtsthe Ornnipre fence ^ or Immenfi^ ty of God the Son*. Your other Objection is, that Novatlan fpeaks of the Son as hzm^ fubditus^ jubjeB to the Father-, which is meant only of the Son's mi- fiiftring to the Father by voluntary Condefccnfion , according to the Oeconomy entrcdinto from theCrea* tion : So that This is far from proving the Subjec- tion which you are aiming at, viz. a natural, and ne- ceflary Subje61:ion of Tiprcdzrious Being to his God and Creator. Novatian would have abhorr'd the Thought. He refervcs to the Father iolely, and exclulively, the Title of the one God^ on Account of his Supremacy of Or- fl'^r,and Office (which 1 think afilfe Way of fpeaking) at the fame Time allowing the Son to be of the fame Nature^ 2.vASubfance •, which is plainly making the Son God fupreme^ and God in the flriU Senfe, according to juil Propriety of Speech. In Words then, He may feem in fomc Meafure to agree with you: But in Reality^ He agrees more with me 5 differing only lo- qiiendi 7nodo^ or citra Ahfterii Subflantiam^ from the Catholic Do6hine, as Pctavius Himfelf confefTes of Him. Prcf. in T. 2. c. r. J. D. 318. L ACT ANT I us. There arc only Three Texts cited from this Au- thor : Ifi. xliv. (5. Ifa. xlv. 14, if. Baruch. iii. jf. But They are wonderful llrong, and expreilive. 1 am the fwft and I am the laft^ and befides me there is no God: This He underllands of the Father and Son to- gether. Surely God is in Thee^ and there is not another God befides 'Thee (fo He exprcflcs it in liis Epitome) *SiHomo tanfummodo Chriftus, quomodoadeftubiqueinvocatus j ciimHxc Hominis Natura non lit fed Dei, ut adefTe omni loco pol- fic ? Novat, c. 14. ," If Chrifl: be only a Man, Mow comes Ke to be prcfent as in- *' voked every where ; when it is not the Nature of Man but of " God, tobeprefent to all Places? 4- This Qii. II. of fame qjJ E R I E S. T47 This He undcrlhnds o^Chrijl. And the other Text, out o^ Bariich^ is as full and llrong '^'. One Thing is evident, that Latiantius never dream'd of that ftri^il: Force of excJufrje Terms, which you are ufed to in- llil upon. For, if He had, He mull have excluded the Father Himfclf from being God, in Virtue of The Text of Bariicb. You have nothing of Moment to fay to Lafta'a- iius's Citations, which are dircclly oppofite to your Principles : But with your ufual Air, when you arc entirely ataLofs, you would feem to contemn, what you cannot anhver. All you can pretend is, that Lac- tanfius ililcs the Father Deus furnmus'T^ God fupremc : * Unum efle Deum tarn Patrcm quam FiJium, T.jn.x> in illo ex- emplo quod luperius pol'uimus,oftendit cum diccrct: AdorabimtTe^ ^ Tedeprecibimtury qiiomii?n in Te Deui ejl, (jj-' tion ejl alius prefer 2>, Lad. Infl:. ]. 4. c. 29. Epitom. c 44.. Scd & alio loco fimiliter ait. Sic dictt Dcus Rex Ifrael, q. qui e- ruit eum Deui Aternm: Ego primus & ego mxijjlmus ^ prater me non efi Dens. Cum duas perfonas proporuilTet Dei Regis, id eft Chrifti, & Dei Patris ■■ ad utramque perfonam referens, inriilit , &: prAter me non ejl Dens, cum pofTet dicere prater nos: Sed Fas non crat plurali numero Separationem tant^ necciTitudinis iieri. /. 4. c. 29. Item ^eremias. Hie Den: no/ier eji, ^ non depiitabitur alius abfque illo, O'c. LacVanr. Epit. c. 44. p. 116. f Unus cfl: enim folus liber Deus, fummus, carens Originej quia ipfe eft Origo rerum, & in eo fimul & Filius ^ ornnia continenrur. Quapropter cum Mens 8c Voluntas alterius in altero fit; vcl po- tius in utroque una, merito ;^-^«; Z)p«j uterque appcllarur : quiaquic- quid eft: in Patre ad Filium transfluit, ^ quicquid ell in Fiiio a Pa- tre defcendit. The Words, Sc omnia, here feem to come in very flrangely. Laflantius mujl think the omnia to be cor.tcitned in the leather much othervoife than the Son is: Elfe hova fJmtld He prove the Son onaGod mith the Fath(r» tvithout proving the fime of every Thing elfe, as tvell as of Him, by the fa?ne Argument ? Qu. IVhethcr Rerurr,, and Omnia, may not he un- derflood of Thin Pagan Deities, or as being an inaccurate Exprellion for fummi Patris^ iht fupreme Father^ by which the Author Himfcll: interprets it, and meaning no more than that He is fupreme in Order^ or Ofice-y which I allow. See Le Nourry Jpparat. Vol. z. p. 35*3. j^. D. 33y. EusEBius. What you were deficient with refpe<5t to LaElantius^ you endeavour to make \\v>^ in regard to Eufebius. Here you infult unmercifully : A plain Sign that your forbearing to do the like, upon other Writers^ is not owing to your Civility or Modefty, but to fome- thing elfe. The Lecirned IForld muil be call'd in, and lland amazed at my Prefumption : As if none of the learned World had ever tzkcn Eufebius to have any thing Orthodox upon the Trinity. I gave a Caution at the Bottom of the thirty firll Page of my Defenfe^ in Regard to Eufebius: And it fo flood in Three Edi- tions before you publillied vour Piece. This was on purpofe to intimate, that I did not pretend to claim Eufebius as cntirelv on mv Side j but only fo far. And Vv^ith the like Moderation, 1 have always fpoke of Elufebius^ in my Sermons.^ and elfewhere 3 becaufe I would not deceive my Reader, nor be confident where a Point is difpuiablc. Learned Men know, how both Antients and Moderns have diifcr'd in their Opinions of This Man. Hilary^ Jerom^ Photius^ Two Nice- pborus's^ The v"" Council of A7V^, Baronius^ Perron^ Pelaviusj Noris^ Sandius^ Le Clercy and others > and at Qii.ir. of fbme (QUERIES. 149 at length Montfaucon^ have charged Him with Aria- nifm : On the other Hand, Socrates^ Thcodorit^ Gela- fills Cyzicems^ Camerarius^ Chamier^ Cnlovius^ Peter du Moulin^ Florentinus^ Valefius^ Bull^ Cave^ Fabri- cius * defend, or at leaft excufe Him. Athanafius -\ feems to have thought that He was once an Ar'ian^ but at length came over to the Cathohc Side. F^pipha- niiis{vj^^ He was too much incUn'd to the JrianSN^y^ And the learned Pagi (as an ingenious Gentleman ;, from whom I have borrowed Part of This Account, has obferved) confejffes Fie knoi^s not 'what to make of Him. Now, in fuch Cafes as thefe, hov/ever firm- ly perfuaded a Man may be, on This, or That Side; yet in pure Modelly and Deference to Men of Name and Charafter in the learned World, one would fpeak with Caution and Referve : And there cannot be a furer Argument of a little Mind , than to be infulting, and confident on fuch Occafions. After all, the main Qiieftion is very little concerned in This other about Eufebiiisr, who cannot juflly be reckoned among the Ante-nicene Writers (to whofc mdifferent Judgment tve. appeal) as living, and writing after the Time that Ariiis had broached his Herefy^ and rai fed a Faftion againfl the Church > to which Eufehlus^hy Affinity^ and Party (and perhaps upon Principle too) appears to have leaned. He may how^ever be a good Evidence of what the Church taught, in Thofe very Points which He endeavoured, by a novel Turn, or by foQie private Conll:ru6lions of his own, to warp from their antient Intendment andSignificancy. i^nd tho' I cannot pretend to fay, that He comes entire- ly into That Scheme which I defend, yet fure I am that He can never be reconciled,' upon the whole, to yours. * Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec. vol. 6. />. 32. t V\d. Athanaf. £/>. ad Afros, ;>. 896. Mr. Thirlby Anfmr to Mr. Whifton, />. 70* L 5 It 150 !/^ Second Defense Qii, II; It would be tedious toiun thro' all you have cited from Him: It might fill a Volume to difcufs This lingle QLieflion about Eufebius. I ihall content my i'elf therefore with a tew Strictures, juft to abate your exceilive Confidence. I have admitted, that Eufe- bius did (as fome other very worthy Men have alio done) magnify the Glory of unoriginatenefs rather too fari as if it were a didind Pcrfedfion^ and not a Relation only, or mode of exiftence^ as the CaihoUcks taught : Yet you will not find that Eufebius denies the necejfary exiftence^ or eterniiy of the Son 3 how- ever not after 'the Nicene Council. If you have a mind to gain Eufebius to your {i^q^ do not endeavour h by falfe R^cports, and manifcil Untruths \ lell the Reader fufpcclyou even in what you n\.\y jujily plead from Him, You icruple not to fay (p. ifo.) as from Eufebius^ that the Son is fliled God and Lord on account of his having received all Poiver and Authority from the Father^ and Mini firing to alibis commands: which, m effect, is making 2iPhotinian^ or Samofateniano^W\m. He no where, that I know of, fays any fuch Thing : Nor do the Places you refer to, prove any thing like it •, unlefs faying that Chriil is God^ as being our Creator '^ be the {xcci^i as faying He is God on account of receiving Authority^ &c. Eufibius's conifant way of accounting for the Son's being G(7^, is by rcfolving it into his htmo^God's Son -j', and his thereby copying out a perfect Rcfcmblance of the Father : And he makes Him by Nature great God i on that very ac- count. In one place more befidcs That beforemcn- Eccl Theoi. I. 2. p. 11 1. \ Euieb. Dem. Evan.p. 146,215, 5,27. Contra Aiarc. p. 7, 62, 68, 69, 72, 11 s,- 123, 127. Comm. in Piajm. p. yj-i-, 634. {■c^ B-ifd /V'/'?. Eufeb.' iuPfalm. p 625. tioned^ Qu.IL of fime q^U ERIE S, lyi tioned, he calls Him Go^/^ as being our Creator, or Alaker-^ : unlefs it be there meant of th^: Father -y which if it be, it fhows that Eujebiiis% looking up- on Chriil as God becaufe Creator, was no leflening Confideracion. The Reader may well wonder, after This, what could move you to make fo llrange and falfe a Reprefcntation of an Author. I may flirther hint, that, according to Enfehius, the Son could not be God, if He were produced 1^ 8/. ovrcoy, from no- thing, or did not participate of the Father's D'rci- nityx. How does this fuit with your Notion of his GodJJjip being owing to his receiving of Authority ? You next produce a V:i{^\xgQ where Eiifebhis is arguing that the Father, or God over all, could not have appeared, becaufe it is impious to fay God was changed: and This you leave with your Reader. You add another Palliige of like kind to it: It can no way be faid that the unbcgottcn and im??mtable ejjence of God fupreme was changed into the Form of a Man. This alfo you leave for any fimple Reader to imagine^ that Chriil, who took upon Him human Form, is not, according to Eufebius, of immutable eifence, but fubje<5l to change. Yet Eufebius certainly meant no more than that it was not fo fuitable to the Ma- jefty of the Firft Perfon, (whom He calls indeed y?/- preme God, in contradiftin61:ion to the Son) to fubmit to take upon Him any vifible Symbols, or to be /;/- carnate. As to the Nature and EJJence of the Son, He believed it to be ablblutely immutable \, and lia- ble * Kwpio? v.^av sfiy uc, a'^Xuvt kxI ^-205 &><; TiXoi^y,^, Eufcb. Com. in Pfal. p. 645-. f Eufeb. Eccl. Th. p. 6^. See beloro, p. 1 5-6. 4 MsWv ecvroc, ttccXiv uToc> Qie, Bici. Eufeb* in Pfal. p. 1 Sf. L 4 *' Ke 152 ^/^ Second Defen SE Qu. II. ble to no change^ as well as the Father's. Wherefore tho' Eufcbius does infilt on the Supremacy of the Fa- ther, more than other Writers before Him (which might bring Him under the Sufpicion of jlrianizing) This is in a manner all He can be faid to agree with you in, being direclly oppofite to you in the main Points of your Scheme. Such Men as Dr. Ctidwortb^ Bp. Fo'ii'Icr^ and Others, amongft us, might per- haps have claimed Eujebius as their own : You and your Friends are quite of Another Stamp , tho' you m-e willing to fcek fom.e Cover and Countenance from the Fezv Things wherein They agreed with you. The next PalTage you cite {pag. ifi. ) proves no more than that Eufehius ftraincd the Point of the Father's Supremacy too high, in cal- ling the Son a Second Lord-y which Second however was in his Opinion, in a m.anner infinitely higher and more excellent than your Scheme makes Him by depriving Him of neccffary cxiflence^ and reducing Hmi thereby to a Creature^ which Eujebius declares againft more than once. And tho I will not under- take to clear Eufehius of "Fritheifm^ or Ditheifm ; yet it appears plainly enough to me, that He was very far from Jrianifm\ at lead:, after the Nicene Council. As to the next Text, about which I appeal, you pretend that Eufehius h exprefHy againil me. Why ? becaufe He lays that the Son is not o \it] TrcLvr^siV. That is, He is rot the fupreme Father: which is all you could make of many the like Places in Eufcbius y were there not others ilill flronger elfewhere. I could ibow you where Eufehius ftiles the Son ^^soj. " lie performed d\\ Things by the Man He had alTumed - " Continu;n|^ immaterial in Himfclf, fuch as He h.id been before " This, with tiie Father, withouf any chan£,^e of his Subdancc. " Nor did he faffcr any thing in rcfpe^i of his Subllancc, being ^' impafiiblc. *' Bein^ found in Fafluon .t; a Man, !Ie might y^e;;? to ijndergQ '* no fmall change, tho' mcLin^cahk and uniariabk as Ccd. Qu.II. of fome QVEKIES. 153 Ta)vo>vOov% ando^scf Twv cXcovt, and might tranflate fiiprewe God^ as you do 6 W] -aravTcov, were there no- thing elfc to be confidcred in I'his Matter. But I will not deceive my Readers. Nor is there any fuch pecuhar Force in the Words 0 Iit\ i:l{\m ^soV, that Eufehiiis might not, as veil as the Phrygian Martyrs, apply them to the Son \, Rut I attend to theSenfe, not to the Phrafe. To proceed -, You grow bolder in your next Page (if 4.) pre- tending to tell me, from a PafTiige in Eufchius^ that the Antknt Church ii'orjhipped Chrift^ not as being the one fupreme God^ hut to the Glory of the Father who dzvelt in Him^ and from ivhom^ fays Eufcbius, He re- ceived the Honour of being vjorjhipped as God. The Reader will eafily fee the Drift and Purport of Thefe rap Words 5 for which you have not one fyl- lable of Proof Whatever may be thought o{ Eufe^ hius^ the Antient Church Hands perfeftly clear 5 as fhall be fliown in due Time and Place. As to your Cavil upon the Words of Eufehius (Eccl H Li.Ci,.) I refer to Faleftus's Notes for an Anfwer. No- thing more certain, than that Eufebius ordinarily founds the worfliip of the Son upon his being natu- rally Son of God, or very God §. If he contradifts This in his Comment on Ifa. xlv. if. He is the lefs to be regarded, as being inconfiftent : And it is one great Prejudice againft the Notion, that among fifteen Chriilian Writers who have confidered and * Eufcb. contr. Marc. pag. <57,7o. f Eufcb. Dem. Evang. pag. ii. ^ tIv iTTi TTocvTuv S-fcv j^^i^-fiv iTTi^eufjijivaq. Eafeb. Eccl. Hift. I'b. 8, cap. T I . r'd, . *• Eufeb. contr. Marcell. !. 1. c. 2. p 62. ^.* T^? cfyfu^y,^ yiny,iri(uc. Eufeb. in Pfa). p. i_f. ui^iiv yiyvy,(riv, Eufeb. conrr. Marc. p. 7 3. . *" Deus enim in eo eft: Sc in quo eft Deus, Deus eft. Non cnfm Deus in divcvi'x atque alieras a fe naturje Habitaculo eft, fed in fuo» atqueex fe genito manet, Deus in V^o, quia ex Deo Deus eft. Hilar. de Trin. If. c. 40. p. 8^4 o Teivts- Qii. II. of fame QUERIES. 155 Texts to Chrill, He did not think Him the one true God. And if He had Icarn'd of the Avians a Novel way of eluding an Argument which the Catbolicks before Him, knew nothing of, nor ever iifedj He is itill a witnels of the Church's Application of Thole Te>^ts^ (which is what I cited Him for) tho' it be againft his own Principles. But 1 am not yet fatif- fied that Eufebius differed in any main Doctrine, ex- cept it were in the manner of exprelHng the Unity^ lliil believing the eiTential Di-vinity of God the Son. You cite Montfaucon as charging Eufebius with Aria- nifm-, at the fame Time telling us, that heerroneouily calls it Arianifrn. Bat if That learned Man did not know what Arl am fm is, he might more eafilymiftake in determining of Eufehius''s Doctrine j which is a much more intricate Bufinefs. The Truth is, That learned and judicious Man underftood very Vvell what Arianifm is, and is guilty of no Error, in That re- fped : l^ut as to bis Judgment of Eufebius^ it is not fo intircly to be depended on. After he has given us a Sketch of Eujebius's Do6lrine, as being Avian j he does not yet pretend to reconcile all Etfebius's Dodrine to that Scheme, to make him, in the whole, a confiftent Writer : But He Ifill feems to fufpecfc that he may be found various, and repugnant ^ which at lall is rather making him a Neutval^ than clear for any fide^. Nor do I think it would be dif- ficult to acquit Eufebius of the Charge of Avianifm^ at leaft from the Time of the Nicene Council. It is plain enough that He does not ordinavily (for I mull: except a PalTage before cited) make Father and Son one Principle ^ox one God -y upon which chiefly Montfaucon founds his Charge of Arianifm. He did not confider that a Man might allert y^t eternity^ and fiecejjavy exiftence of the Son, and yet throw the Supvemacy and Unity of Godhead upon the Father * Quod fi in His Ztifebius ikcMva pugnare deprehcnditur ; id fane proprium Erroris cfl, ut confiflere non valeat, iibicjuc ipfi adverfe- tUf' Prelim, in lufb. p. 28, alone. 156 -^ Seco N D Defense Qu.II. alone, as felf-exiftent and God in a higher Senfe j \vhich Others have done befidcs Eufebius j tho', 1 think, not very judicioufly, or confillently. Mont- faucon takes too much Advantage of Eufebius' s De- monfiratio Evangelka^ or other Pieces, wrote before the Council o{ Nice^ and contradicted or corrected in feveral Points afterwards by the fame Eufebius. I Avill give two or three Examples. In his Demon- firatioj he makes the Son to be o^y^/jiia^y/i/jta ^. In his Difpute with Marcellus he plainly tetrads and con- tradicts it^. In his Demonflratio % he pretends that nothing can be properly faid to be V^ ^y. cvr^jiVj with- out doubt to gratify the Avians^ that They might in a certain Senfe deny the Son to be l| aV. ovrm. But in his Piece againft Marcellus^ he afferts plainly that Creatures are'lg »V. cvr^]/ % meaning that They come from non-exifience into exiftence (which is the true Signification of the Phrafe) at the fame Time deny- itng that the Son is l>c'/jiyi hr©^^ in the fame Senfe of the Phrafe ^. Wherefore the learned Montfaucon does not do juftice to Eufebius^ when He imputes to Him the Opinion of the Arians^ that the Son pafs'd ^ TiXim TiXiiii ^iif/^iioyvif/ijcc. Demonftr. 1. 4. c. 2. " t5 ^i il UvroZ (p-jvTo<, 1^5 »» oiv ^nfjijiii^yoq XiZ^ik, Eufeb. contr. Marc. p. 68. ■* hUKiri iuXiya^ r,^iv f/jiv STTiKoiviovay rv^ toO TTocr^oq B-io- Eccl. Thcol. 1. 1. c. 10. " They that admit two Hypoftafes, one unbegotten, and the " other created from nothing, do indeed make one God i but in their *' ScJieme, The Son will be no Son, nor Only -begot ten, no nor Lordy *' nor God, having no communion of the Father's Godhead, but be- "" ing liken'd to the reft of the Creatures, as having exifled fror» ' from Qu.ir. of fame QUERIES. 157 from non-exiftence to esiftence : For Eufehius plainly denies the Son to be Ik t» jmn o vt©*, in the lame Scnie that he affirms it of Creatures j and therefore muft deny his pafling out of non-exiftence to txiftence^ un- lefs He were the greatell Prevaricator and Shuffler imaginable. If it be faid, that He intended that Creatures were not made out of any thing pre-exi flings he mull then affirm that the Son was out of foynething pre-exifing: And then let any Man tell mc, what he could mean by it^ except it were that He exifted he- fore his Generation^ having been eternally in, and with the Father, of the fime Homogeneous divine Sub- ftance that the Father is. But my Perfuafion is, that Eufehius believed eternal Generation j and if fo, it is plain enough what He meant by denying the Son to be €)t juy) ovT©-. It does not appear to me, that Eu- fehius denied the Son to be did^i©', tho' I know Montfaucon charges Him with it 5 and there areniore PafTages than one * that fay fomething very like it. Eufehius was very earned in his Charge againlt Af^r- cellus^ and was ready to put any the molt invidious Conllru6tion upon his Words. As often therefore as Marcellus had made the Son aMi©*, Eufehius con- flrues it ayswyiT©*, that he might reduce Him to an abfurditv, and believing perhaps that did^iQ* and aysvvnr®', upon Marcellus's Hypothecs, went toge- ther and refolved into one. In this Senfe only, I conceive, Eufehius to have denied the Son to be d'id'i^. And if any one narrowly examines thePaf- fages, he may find good reafon to believe that This is real Faft. It may be queflioned, w^hether ever Marcellus af- ferted the Son to be aysvvyjT©'. But Eufehius charged it upon him as a Confequence of his Hypothefis-^ and laid hold of d''iG^i(^^ as implying it, and meaning as ;nuch with Marcellus^ who denied any anfemundane * Eufeb, contr. Marcell. 35-, loCJ, up, 1 Gsng" 15^ ^Second Defense Qii.II. Generation. But to return. To fhow me how low an Opinion Eufch'ms had of God the Son, you quote part of his Comment on Pfalm cix. (which I cannot find there) intimating that by the Laivs of Nature^ the Father of every Son is his Lord; and therefore God the Father is Lord and God of the Son. Admitting this Rule, I fuppofe by the fame Laivs of Nature^ every Son is of the fame Nature with his Father, and as fuch equal-y and fo let the Similitude ferve equally, if you pleafe, for Both. But (ince you produce one Tefcmiony, as you fay, from 7'hat Book^ (from Eufebius on the Pfalms) give mc leave, in my Turn, to produce fomefevv of a very contrary Strain to what you v/ould wifh. 1 . I fhall firft remind you of Eufehius's accoimt- ing for Chri(l's/)rjy/;/^^, praying as i^/;^,^^ for Things which Himfelf could bellow, or difpofe of as God'^. This feems to run crofs to "t^-jjo of your Principles. One of which is, that Chrifl being a Subject is to refer all Grj;;/i intirely to his Sovereign: The other is, that the fpeaking of Chriil in 'Tijoo difiinti Capa- cities, in the manner Eufebius does, you would call abfurd, (as in/>.i;^. 23^.) as if Fart oi Chrill prayed, and another Part did not prayj which is your pro- phane way of ridiculing a Diilinctionuniverraliy made life of by the Primitive Churches, and held Sacred amongft them. 2. I muft next obferve to you, that, according to Eufebius^ Chrill is the Creator of all ^Things (6 Tra'v Twv o\xi^^yc<;\) not only fo but 6 iroinrn^ \ alfo, and He * * Air» iftiv yu.0 toe, ' AvB-f&)7ro(;,aiaci)crt o^rKv 'airwiv uc, S-Stjs* ivooK^vroq S)^evoTi KXi (Tvvi^yovvroi row oiKiiH Trurfoii. Eufeb. in Pial. P» j"3' Vid, p. 142J 5^6> 698. •J- 'O TTuvrm <^/3/w#i»f7o5 o rou S-£oZ viU. Eufeb. in Pfal. p. Sp. Vid. p. 90. 1 25-, 634.^ ^ _ ^ , . ^ . . ^ Tew Kv^ia ««< (raTr,^oq Yf/joiv t(?i« Tvy}:^civii , ccjtq^ yu^ h 0 zoii^Ti^ iturm* Eufeb. in Pf. p. 6 30, #'0 Qu.II. of fome (QUERIES. 15^ He created all Things by his o'wn Power '^. This is a Step beyond what Dr. Clarke is yet advanced toj who often talks of the Son's creating by the Poiucr of the Father, and interprets Hebr. i. 3. f/je up^ holding all Things by the Word of his Power^ of the Father's Power 5 but is not yet come to fay, that it is by the Son's oivn Power. If He does not here contradict Eufebius^ He is how^ever vaflly fhort of him J and has not yet difcovercd any fuch honourable Thoughts of God the Son, '\%EuJebius has done. 3. Eiifebius does not fcruple to give the Son the Title of o?ily God "f", believing it to have been Him that fo called Hiinfelf, in oppofition 10 Ji range Gods^ and challenging the Jewifi worfhip as his own due, upon That very Score. How does This fuic with your Do6lrine about the exclufinje Terms, and the Texts running /j^^T^/^^Z/y, l^'Thou^ He? By which Doftrine, upon Eufebiiis^s Principles, you muft ex- clude the Father. I do not therefore citeThefe and the like PafTages of Eufebius^ to prove that Father and Son are one God-y but to {how that there is no force (according to Him) in your Argument drawn from the per final and exclufive Terms. 4. Eufebius^ in This fame Book, fully and figni- ficantly exprefles the immutable eternity \ of God the * 'O rud'e Ku] ruh rv^ .ctrfiuv • ifjiji ^ fjbovov ^ioy iihvui TrocpxKiMvFce* fjuiv... <^k iTTiXiyu iyu yuf itfjtti xtipio^ 6 B'ioq (rn, TToc^K^oa iocvrov »r6 ^ivoy, ovn odAAorpiov, cvn 7r^cocrov otTtc B-iov . iiv yxif ilt, kxi o uvrot; a ToZ B-iou /\&7o?> ''«*♦ 0 XocXui elx^x^, Ttxfet T« T^ecT^l 5?, iTTii K«i tiVTC^ «fra Tc? enmoi Son^ I^O yfSECONDDEFENSE Qu. IT. Son. For iipplying the Words of the xcii'^ {alias xciii^J Pfalm. "Thy I'hrone is efiahliJJjed of old^ TChou art from everlafting^ to our Saviour Chriil, he takes particular Notice of the Force of Thou art^ crJ sF, as denoting immutable exiftcnce j agreeably to his expli- cation of the fame Phrafe elfewhere *. f. I have above took notice of Eufehius^s ftiling Ood the Son, great God by Nature^ which is a very high and ftrong Expreflion. I lliall here farther obferve, how He interprets the Name of Hand of God, given to the Son. Not after a low difparag- ing manner, as you are ufed to interpret it, but as Chrifi: is the all-creative Power of God "j". 6. I may add a few more Obfei vations from Eu/e^' hius's Commentary on Ifaiah. His Comment on Ifa, xlii. 8. is pretty remarkable :j:. / will ?iot give my Glory to Another. Where he takes notice, that it is not faid, that Iwill give my Glory to no one, (for the Son, fays he, has the Father's Glory) but that it will not be given to Another. Now, tho' Eufcbius here comes not intirely into the common and Catholick way of Conftrudion, yet, he diifers very much from you in feveral Particulars, as that the Father's Glory is alfo the Son's Glory, and that the exclufive Terms do not affect God the Son. I may alfo take notice how magnificently Eufebius fets forth the Son's Om-- niprefence, both here |j, and in his Comment upon the Pfalms §, in Words as expreffive and full as any can be. Here alfo Eufebius keeps clofer to the Senfe and Language of the Church, in relation to the one God- head, than He has at other Times been obferved to * Vid. p.j'84. Y A5

tho' not fully coming in to Either : And you ought hereafter either to reconcile fuch Things as I have here cited out of Him, befides many others, to your Hypothefis (which can never be done) or to leave ofF boalling on That Head. It fhould be confidered that Eufe^ hlus lived and wrote at a Time when the Arian- Pretences, being moftly ne'w and untried^ appeared therefore the more fpecious and plaufible : And his familiar Acquaintance and Friendihip with the Heads of the Party, contributed to give them the greater Force with Him. They received an additional Strength from the injudicious Solutions which had been offered by Marcellus^ and other weak Defen- ders of the Homooiifian Dodlrine. Athanafius^ Hilary^ and other judicious Advocates of the Catholick Faith, had not then wrote their Immortal Pieces, to clear the Doctrine from Mifreprefentation, to ict it in a due Light, and to unravel the main Objc6i:ions brought againft it. No wonder if, inThefe Circum- llances, Eufehius might incline too much towards the Arian Caufe, and give too far into ii. Yet, even under Thefe Difadvantages, He kept himfelf free from the grofTer Tenets of the Arians 5 and He re- * 'Ey^y 0 S-jo?, ««« tux. i^i 7Cu^i% Ifhcu creo^coi . fJUiUci yojp »(rJ7$ "^f^'T?, Pioy'ix. Eufeb. in Ifa. p. 5-24.. f T?5 Tcu TTecTfoq ^icmvoc, Koivumj Sec. Eufeb. in Pfal. p. 5*54. M tain'd 162 A Second Defense Qu.II. tain'd fo much of Catholick Principles, that had He but attended to the true and certain Confequences of many of his own Pofitions, in that behalf. He could not have failed of being entirely Orthodox, and Ca- tholick. He had not fo clear a Judgment as ^tha- na^iiis^ Hilary^ Bafil^ Gregory Nazianzen^ and other eminent Defenders of the Niccne Faith : Nor did He live to fee how eafily the Jrian Sophiilry was de- feated and baffled, after it had pafs'd the Scrutiny of fuch mafterly Hands. In the mean while, He feems to have had no confiftent Set of Principles, but a con- fufed mixture of Catholkk and Jrian Tenets*, fuch as could not (land with each other in true and juft Reafoning. You have certainly no right to claim Him as your's. If you would look among the ylntients for your Scheme, it mud not be mEufehius^^ nor in any Jnte- nicene Father, or Poft-nicene j but in fuch Fathers as ylrius^ Aetiiis^ Eunomius^ or Philoftorgius : And yet you lliort even of Them in fome Points 5 particularly in the part you aflign the Son in the Creation of all Things by the Father's Power •, (you do not yet fay by his Ot£^/;, which feveral of the antient ^r/^;?j would never have fcrupled) and in the Account you give of Chrift's being appointed God over all^ after hisRe- lurre6lion^ and your refolving his Wvrjhip into the Power then given Him : Dodrines proper only to a Sarnojatenian j", or Socinian. Having lliown, from Father to Father, down to the Avian Times, that our Lord Jefus Chrift was fuppofed by 'i'hem to be the Jehovah^ the Almighty^ the one true God^ God of Abraham^ ifaac and Jacoh^ acknowledged as the oyie trueGod^ and worfhippedby the Patriarchs as fuch,:. Having proved This to have been the aniient Catholick Doctrine of the Church, ■* See my Sermons, p. 109. t See my Defenfe, p. 275', 2^c. with- Qu. ir. offome Q^U E R I E S. \6^ without any exception j unlefs o^ No'vatian^ who yet differs not from it in the main, but in Expreflion ra- ther > not in the Doftrinc of the Son's real ^ndeffoi^ //j/ Divinity : This Foundation being laid, it remains now only to take off fome Pretences you have oifer- ed to invalidate the Force of the Evidence. Your Pretence is, that tho' God the Son was God of Abraham^ God of IfraeJ^ &c. yet He was liich only in -^ fub ordinate Scnje^ bccaufe He was Reprcfcn- tathe of God the Father, /?.?^. i fp. To which I anfwer, that had the Antients fuppofed Him to be flilcd GW, and Lord^ purely in Virtue of fuch Repre- fentation^ there would then be fome Force in your reaibning: But that They did not, will appear moil evidently from the following Confiderations. I. None o^ the Fathers ever put the Godhead o? the Son upon That Foot j They never fay, nor infi^ nuate, that He is God on the Account of any fuch Reprefentation. z. They are fo far from doing it, that their whole Drift and Method of arguing fuppofes and implies the utmoffc Contradiction to it. For, if the Son were fuppofed to be God on the Score of the Re- prefentation^ then Any Angel might be God alfo on account of fuch Reprefcrtation 5 a.nd then it could ne- ver be proved (in the way that the Fathers took * ) that there was any God the Son at all> but the whole Force of their rcafoning would be vacated and null. On the contrary. They prcfumed that none could either reprefent Gud^ or pcrfonate God, or ufc the Style of God, that was not really God : x\nd upon This prefuraption, Their whole reafoning turns. If there- fore They are any where to be underllood of a Re- prefentation^ They muft mean a full and adequate Reprefentation, fiich as none could exhibit, or fuf- tain, who was not Himfelf every Thing that He re- f See my Defenfc, p, 38, 39, 4^1. Mi prefents. 1(54 '^Second Defense Qy'K* prcfents. For as nothing but Man can fully and ad- equately reprcfent Man : So nothing but God can perfc6lly and fuitably rcprefent God. 3. Add to This, the antient Fathers always fuppofe the Son to be God antecedently to The fuppofed Reprefentation-y which is decifive in the Cafe. They fuppofe Him God as being God's Son^ of the fame ISIature and Subftance with God. This is what all the Fathers exprejjly^ or in Words equivalent, refolve the Son's Divinity mio\ Which Confideration cuts off all your Pretences at once ; as I before intimated % and you take no Notice of it. The Reafon why you did not, mud be vifible to the meaneft Reader. In Proof of the Fad, that the Fathers did fo re- folve the Divinity of Chriil (tho' it be what no Scho- lar can be ignorant of) I fhall for the Sake of com- mon Readers, here recite their Teftimonies. Juftin Martyr^ in his fir ft Apology .^ fays of God the Son: TVho being the Word, God's firft begotten, is alfo God "j~. In his Dialogue^ He often repeats the fame Thing. He is God^ on Account of his being his Son begotten before all Creatures \. In another Pkce, Had you but underfiood "what is faid by the Prophets^ you could not have denied Him to be God , being the Son of the only , the uncreated^ the ineffabk God ||. To * Defcnfe, />. 46. ^ J>. 125. Ox, Dial. p. 564. , . s ^ ~ , ,\ , -c ' \ II 'Ei vivcv^KOCTi roc licyi^irx It:)) rm T^oip/irZv, cux. uv llyi^viH&i ocvtoi itvdi ^iov, rev fA^ova, kcu uysvKrii y Kxl upp^ra Bsou vlov. Dial. p. 566, ZvT. B. I read uyiv^m with fingle v, for a Reafon which will appear more fully afterward : And I underftand /w/e?sf in Oppolition to Creatures only, or falfe Gods, not to the Son who is always to be tacitly underfiood to belong to, and to be included in the alone God. And I take This oijujiin to be nearly equivalent to Thcfe other of Jhihi and C^ril of Alixandm, ^ I 'Of Qii. II. offome (QUERIES. 1 65 To the dime Purpofe, He elfewhere lliles Him God ; immediately adding, as being Son of God *. And Juf- tin is known to reprefent the Son as begotten /r^w, or oiito'L God't (I'A. 3^'=a and i^ la'^r^) wilhowi u^bfcif- /ton or Divifion \.^ as one Fire from another, and as being Jlri^Iy ^nd properly \\ (IcA/^r, and ku^'ks)^) Son of God. All which together exprelles the Confubftan- tiality^ Samenefs of Nature^ and moll; intire and per- fect Unity imaginable. Such is J lift in Marty f% Ac- count of Chrift's Divinity -y never fpeaking of his being appointed God, or being God by I know not what Reprefentation-y but of his being God^ by par- taking of the one true Godhead , naturally Son of God. Theflime Account, but more briefly, we have from 7'beophilus^ Bifhop of Antioch^ a little lower in the fame Century ^ Who fpeaks of Chrift beiyigGod^ as God's Son^. The fame we have alfo from Clemens oi Alexandria^ in a very remarkable Paflage above cited. The fame alfo from Tertullian^ who fays, T^hat ivhich is derived from God is God^ and Son of God^ and Both one God''. iVi9i;^//W/ fpeaks as plain, in Thefe Words j As Nature it felf has 77iade it a Rule^ that He muft he accounted Man^ who is Man : So the fame Rule of Nature prefcribes^ that He muft he accoufjted God^ 'who is of God"^. 0$Toy ai^Vs Aoyos v 0 >^cycc, KUi tK^ioZ 7:£. And when They do, it is, as I fliid, to ex- prefs iht fnpreme Father in a Style not proper to Chriftian Principle?, only inCondcfcenllon to the Pa- gansy to be the better underftood. To return. I perceive, the Subordination is what you lay the main Strcis upon, in order to overthrow the Church's Do6lrine of Chrift's r^^/ Divinity. You will now be reduced to This fingle Maxim (which you are fenfible you can never prove ^ but every where ftippofe) that the Unity or Equality which we teach, is not confident with any Dillinftion of Order ^ or Offices. Whenever youaredifpofed to try the Strength of your MetaphyficSy That Point may be debated with you. At prefent you have thought it the wifer way only to fpeak your IViJhes^ and to deliver cue Di^ateSy inftead of Proofs : A Method which may be thought rather too afTuming in private^ and with- al very faUihle Men 5 to expert that their bare ^ffirma^ tions fhould have any Weight againll the united Ver- dict of all the Chi ifcian Churches, antient and modern. I fhall take but little Notice of the incidental Er^ rorsy which you are pleafed to charge me with, p, 160. (^c. becaufe the Reader will have feen, before This Time, that they are imaginary only, founded upon your own Miftakes. I may jufb obferve, that p. 164, you give a Charafter, or Defcription of G^?^/ the Father^ calling it, very abfurdly, the Signification of the Word God, 'uohen applied to the Father. You might as well have given a Dcfcription, or Charac- ter of ^^<^^, caUing it the Signification of the Word Man^ when applied to Adam. To fay, what the Fa- ther's Per [on is, is one Thing : To fay, what is ^i^-- nified by the Name God^ is Another. Your Tefli- M 4 monies 15S ^Second Defense Qu. Hi monies none of them come up to the Point : Which "was to fhow, that unhegotten^ or that particular A/^«- fier of exifting^ is neccfTarily included in the Signifi- cation of the Word God. There is nothing more under This ^lery^ but what I have before fufficient- ly anfwer'd, or obviated. But fince This Query has been drawn out into a very great Length , fo as al- nioft to take in the whole of the Controverfy 3 it may be for the Eafe and Conveniency of the Reader, tofubjoin a brief Recapitulation, or Summary of what has been done in it. It has been fhown, firfl, from Scripture^ that God the Son is ?iot excluded by iuch Texts as fpeak of the Unity 'y not excluded from being God^ and o?ie God with the Father. The Texts that prove This have been cxpliin'd, and vindicated j and the pretended contrary Evidence from Scripture has been fhown to be nnll, and of no Account. It has been farther proved, that ihtAntients in ge- neral teach the fame Thing, by underflanding the^;v- clujive I'exts to affe6t Idols only, or other Gods > By declaring againft admitting any ^//:/^r God befidesGod the Father, yet admitting God the Sonj By their afTerting Father and Son together to be one God^ or the one Gody and, lailly, by their believing God the £>on to have been That very Perfon , who declared H'rmfelf God of Ifrael^ God of Ahrahara^ 13 c. befidcs whom \\\tjeivs\^z\c to have no Godj declaring This of Himfeif, in his own proper Perfon^ (not ex- cluding the Father or Holy-Ghoii:, one with Him) as being really God^ becaufe Son of God^ of the fame divine Nature and Subfance with God the Father. Thefe Things have been proved to have been unani- niouOy taught by the Antients j faving only fome little Difference in Novatian^ a Scifmatick at That Time, and of no confiderable Authority, (tho' He alfo a- grces in the main Dodrine of the Son's effentialJ^i- vinity) allowing alfo for fome Diflent in Eufehius (a late Writer, and a familiar Acquaintance of the lead- ing Qu. III. offime QUERIES. \69 ing Avians) in which He is not confident with Him-^ fell, or with the Creed which He fubfcribed, or with his pubhc Speeches and Debates. Upon the whole, one can fcarce defirc fuller, or better Evidence of what I advanced in This ^lery than hath been produced for it. And, as I for- merly told you, fo I again repeat it (tho' perhaps you may be the lall to believe) that the Fathers Jiand pointed againft you , and you are certain to expofe your Caufe as often as you hope for any Relief or Succour from Them. Which fhall be yet more fully eviden- ced in the Sequel. Q_U E R Y III. Whether the Word (God) in Scripture^ can tea- Jonably hefuppofedto carry an ambiguous Mean* ing^ or to be ufed in a different Senfe^ when applied to the Father and Son, in the fame Scripture^ and even in the fame Verfe? See John 1. I. YOUR new Anfwer to This Query is, that The Word God^ when applied to the Father, de* notes Him who alone has all PerfeUions^ &:c. in and of Hirafelf^ original^ underived^ 6cc. but when ap- plied to the Son, it denotes one who has not hisPer- fedions of Himfelf , but derived, i^c. and fo the Word God is ufed in different Senks^ fupreme and /«^- ordinate. You might as well fay, that the Word Man^ when applied to Adam^ denotes the Perfon of Adam^ who was unhegotten 5 but when applied to Seth^ it denotes the Perfon of Seth who was begot^ ten 'y and therefore the Word Man does not fignify the fame Thing, or carry the fame Idea in Both Cafes 3 but is ufed in different Senfes. What I affert i7<5 !^ Second Defense Qu.IIt I aflert Is, that the Word God fignifies, or denotes ahfolute PerfeElion^ whether applied to Father or Son j and is therefore appUed in the fame Senfe to Both, He that is pofTefled of all Perfe6lion (whether ori- ginally^ or derivatively) is God-y all that God is, God in the higheft and fulleft Senfe of the Word God. You are to fhow, that Unoriginatenefs^ or Paternity^ is contained in the Idea or Definition of God > or that the Word God neceflarily implies it. By your Account, the Word God, in one Senfe, fignifies as much as God and Father together. You have no Grotmd for This Fancy, either in Scripture, or An- tiquity. The Truth is, God denotes all PerfeBion^ and Father denotes a Relation of Order, and a parti- cular Manner of exifling : All which you confufedly blend together, as if fignified by the one Word GocL Hitherto then you have brought no Proof of two different Senfes of the Word God^ when applied to Father and Son. I mud obfcrve, that here appears to be a very great Change, a very material Alteration, in your Scheme, iince your Writing before. God was then a mere Relative^ a Word of Office^ and always fo, in Scrip- ture: So the learned Do6tor had told us % and that it was never intended to exprefs Metaphyfical Attri- hutes. But now it is to fignify All Perfe3ions^ ori- ginal^ underived (by which you mean neceffary-exif- tence^ as you elfe-where explain it) So that you now come into my Notion of the true and popr Senfe of the Word God\ excepting that you confound Un- originatenefs with Neceffary-exiftence^ which I keep difiin^l : And as 1 take the Neceflary-exiftence into the Definition of God, I as conftantly throw out imhegotten^ as having nothing to do in it. What Kind of a Divinity you have left to God the Son ,, * Sh darkens Script. BoSirine, p. 296. cd. ;'"'a Rf^, p. 119. i^o. Qii.III. offome QU E R I E S. 171 you may do well to confider^ having excluded Hlin from the one neceffarily-cxifting Godhead j and from being God in the moll ufual and fcriptural Senfe of the Word 3 which you had fome Pretence to before while you fuppofed the Word God a mere Relative^ whether applied to Father^ or Son. Our Difpute about Dominion is now at an Endj the' it before made a great Part of This ^ery. I allow that the Phrafe, Our God^ exprelTes fome Rela-- tion of God to us, as well as what He is abfolutely ia Himfelf. I admitted as much before ^j fo that you need not now have mentioned it as any difcovery. You do not tell me in what Senfe you make Chrift God.^ after you have llruck Him out of That Senfe which occurs ordinarily in Scripture, and which is indeed the only true and proper Senfe of the Word 5 all the reft being loofe and figurative only, as I fhow'd at large +• Inftead of Afifwcring Difficul- ties, which was the part you undertook, you turn Objedforr, thereby to hide, and cover, if poflible, the many Flaws in your Scheme. Why do you not tell me plainly, in what Senfe the Son is God^ that I may argue the Point with you, and do Juftice to the common Readers, who want to be fuisfied in fo important a Qiieftion? You object to me Thus : If none can properly he ftiled Qod^ who has not all Perfe^ions^ how come yoji to leave out the Principal of the cjfentlal PerfeEiions of the fir fi Caufe and Juthor of all fhings? p. 172. To which 1 anfwer, that I leave out uoPerfeBions at all. I fuppofe the Son^ with the Father^ to be the one Caufe and Juthor of all Creatures 5 and there is no need of faying Firft^ where there is never a 4^^- cond. At the fame Time, I fuppofe the Father to be Father of his Son 5 which expreflcs a Relation of * Befenfe, p. f^ t Defenfe, p. 45?, ScC, Ordefj 172 1^ Second Defense Qu.III. Order^ and Mode of cxill:ence> not any Difference in any cJfentialPerfeUion. Neither is there any great- er Perfe^ion in being a Father^ in this Cafe, than in being a Son-y but Both arc equally perfeEl^ equally ne- ceffliry in refpedt of Exiftence > all Things common but the perfonal Chara6lers : And Sclf-exiftence^ as diilincb from Nece[Jary-exiftence^ is expreilive only of the Order^ and Mariner in which the PerfeBions are in the Father, not of any diitinct Perfetiion. With This Anfwer the Catholick Fathers baffied the Ari- ans and EtinornianSj objeding in the fame way you now do: And as you might have known This, it might have been more for your Credit to have ihown the Anfwer to be infufficient, than barely to repeat a Hale Objedion. You have little elfe but Repetition in Pages 174, ijf . One Argument, in a manner, is to ferve quite through your Book. The Son cannot h^fiiprerne God j no, He cannot, becaufe He is "xSon^ becaufe He is fubordinate^ becaufe He has afted, or Hill acls minifterially. Repeat This ever fo often, it proves nothing but a dillindion of Perfons^ Order and Offices -y no Difference of Nature^ or Perfe^fions^ or Godhead. And w^hat has the Quefcion about Su- •preme Godhead^ relating to Nature and Siibftance (as God is a Word denoting Subftance^ and He is God fupreme, that knows no Nature fuperior to his own) to do with Order^ or Offices ? The Son is God fu- preme, for That very reafon becaufe He is a Son^ of the fame Nature^ and the fame divine Perfedions with the Father. But you fay, the Word Nature is: of i:ery uncertain^ various^ Signification : And you tct turn me the fame loofe Anfwer which Dr. Clarke gave to Mr. Nelfon^'^ which 1 fufficiently expofed in my Defenfe\. The plain Faft is, that you are pinched, and you fee where, and have nothing to re- treat to, but iniignificant Words. * Clarke Refly, pag. 17. ■J- Defejife, p. 300. Wh^t Qu.III. of fome QU E RI E S. 175 What is there in the Words equality of Nature^ more than what every Peafant, or Child may under- fland ? Man is in nature equal to Man^ Angel to An^ gel^ any individual to Another of the fame kind: A very little Metaphyficksmiy fufficein fo plain a Thing. This then is what I aflert, that a Supremacy of Or^^^r or o^ Office is confident with Equality of Nature > and if the Son be in nature equal to the Father, he is alfo equal in Godhead^ which is a Word exprefling Nature^ And if equal in Godhead^ equally Godfuprerne. Q^ E. D. This I took to be found, and true reafoning before : And you have been plcafedto confirm it, by your tacit Confefiion > while you avoid replying to it. To prove that Chrift is God in the fame Senfe as the Father is, I appealed to his Name Jeho'vah-y as I have alfo elfewhere *=, more at large. To This you have little to anfwer, befidcs what I have abundantly- replied to above, about Chriil's being a Meffenger^ and Reprefentati've^ SvC. As to what you add of Inferior Ar^gois fpeaking in the Style of their Principals 5 you will coniider, that it is a Notion directly oppofite to all the Antients 5 whofe general Argument for the Divinity of God the Son, drawn from the Appearances under the Old Teflament, would be intircly eluded, and fruflrated by it : Neither could They have proved, in That way, the exiftence of God the Son^ but upon a Sup- polition diredtly contrary to you. This therefore is one great Prejudice againft your Notion, and fuch as ought to have Weight with you, while you make your Boafts of Antiquity. Befides, I thought you had before allowed that God the Son was Jehovah^ God^ Lord^ &c. in his own Perfun^ tho' in a fuhordi* nate Senfe: And I think, you then gave me a Rebuke, pag.if^. for fuppofing the contrary. Are you now altered of a fudden, and become Another Man ? But be it fo, This new Anfwer will ferve no better than * Sermons, p. 33, &c. the 174- ^ Second Defense Qu.IIL the former : For, as to any pretended Inftance you can bring from the OldTeftament^ it will be anfwer'd, that the jlngel was the Logos^ for that very reafon becaufe He ufed the Style of God^y as it was cuilo- mary for Him to do. And as to your Inftance from Rev. xi. I, 3. I own, it fo runs in the EngUJh', bat a Scholar fliould have looked into the Greek^ where He will not find it» This you had notice of long ago *. Your Example given of the Roman Fecialis is as little to your purpofe as the other. For, in the Words, Ego popidufqiie Romanus^ 1 and the Roman People^ /does not denote the Senate^ as you imagine^ but the Fecialis^ the Herald himfelf coming in the Name of the Roman People confidered in their large colledive Senfe comprehending all the i?^;;^^;^;. Senate and People. And fo you find, in Rofmus^ the Herald faying, Ego fum publicus nuncius Populi Romani : not, ego fum populus Ro77ianus^ or ego fum Senatus-y as your Suppofition would require. However, I do not pre- tend that no Inftance can be given of fuch a Thing as a Proxy^ in any Cafe whatever. But that God fliould thus permit a Creature to be his Proxy^ (as Man may permit Man) appears by no means proper or congruous, becaufe of the ififinite Difparity j and becaufe of the inevitable Danger it would bring Men into, of miftaking the Creature for the Creator^ and mifplacing their Worlliip, which would be Idolatry. You proceed, [pag. 178.) to weaken the Force of what I had faid in relation to the Name^ or Appel- lation of Jehovah. Our Dilpute is in a great meafure fuperfeded, fince you no longer infift upon the Relative meaning of the Word God-y againft which I was then arguing. ♦ True Script, BoSir. continued, p. 1 84, See alfo Mr. Wade, p. 33. It Qu.m. offome QU E RI E S. xjs It is very indifferent to mc, whether Jehovah be ever an Jppellative^ (as Bifliop * Pearfon thinks) or always a Proper Name^ as others -f teach j provided only that it be looked upon as a Name exprefHve of an intrinfick PerfeBion^ and not of an outward Reld* tion^ Hke Klng^ Governor^ 6cc. And that it is exprcffive of necejjary-exiftence^ the befl Criticks, antient and modern agree. I had faid (pag.6z. of my Defenfe) that its primary Signification is Bciiig'y to which you anfwcr very ftrangciy, that the Name Jehovah fignifies neither primarily^ nor at all J Subjlance or Beings but Per fin. This is little more than equivocating upon the Word Signify^ which is low Employment. Let it denote a Perfon, which is what you mean by Signify^ (for, I hope, you do not intend to fay that the Word Per fin is the englifii for the Hebrew Jehovah) ftill it fignifies the nciture of that Perfon, to whom the Name is gi- ven, to be exifling in the emphatical Senfe, or necef" farily-exifting: And if it be applied to more Perfons than one, it ftill fignifies the fame alfo. You are fallen into fuch a Road of talking, without any di(^ tin6b meaning, that I am fometimes at a lofs ta know what it is you would fay. Jehovah^ you obferve, does not fignify Subftance^ but the Per- fin^ nsjhofi The Subftance is, I befeech you, what is Perfon but Subftance ? Is it intelligent, agent No- thing? Perfin^ as I take it, is intelligent, adring Subftance -, (tho' That is not a full Definition) and fo the Senfe of what you have faid amounts to This > that Jehovah does not fignify Subftance^ but the intelligent a£ling Subftance, whofe That Subftance is. Readers will be much edified by thefe very curiouSjand deepRemarks. The Truth may be faid at once, in a very few words, that the Name Jehovah denotes the necejfary-exiftence * Pearfon on theCre^d, p. ifo. Ed. io'\ t ^XQQkkshfiGofPelThe'ifmj p. 347. of lyS A Second Defense Qu.IIl of as many Perfons as it is applied to 5 and being ap- plied to Chrift^ it is a Proof that He is necejfarily^ exi flings as well as the Father, and one Jehovah with H:mj fince Jehovah is one *. You fay. Father and Son being two Agents will be two Jehovahs : But That, you will remember, is begging the Qiieftion. The Father is intelligent Subftance, and the Son in- telligent Subftance ^ and Both one Subftance^ one Je-^ hovah^ one God. You add, {pag. 180.) being Confub- fiantial with Jehovah will no more make another Per [on to he the fame Jehovah^ than being Confubftantlal with the Father^ will make Him the fame Father. For want of Arguments^ I am forced to take your Say-- ings^ where there is no Argument. I never put the Unity upon Confubftantiality alone f * One Man is Confubflantial to Another, and yet They are not one Man^ nor one Subftance. But if the Son be not only Confubflantial^ but alfo One Subftance with the Father, (ftiled Jehovah) as proceeding from Him, and infe- parably contain'd in Him > then He is alfo one Jeho- 'vah with Him. You have a farther Pretence, that if the Son be Jehovah^ or 0 wv. He will be unbe- gotten^ unoriginate^ Sec. But your reafoning is lamej becaufe you have not proved that 6 oSv either fignifies tmbegotten^ or ever neceflarily implies it. The Fa- ther' indeed is ocuv, and is unbegotten-^ but not 0 oS;^, becaufe unbegotten^ but becaufe necej/arily-exifting. Page 181, you come to inform the Reader what it is I mean by the Son's being fupreme God: It is,^ you fay, fupreme in the ftri^ Senfe-y God in the fame Senfe, and in as High a Senfe as the Father Him^ felf y and yet. Strange Contradi5iion ! referring all to the Father as Father^ Head^ Fountain^ &c. Now, here is no Contradi6iion at all, but what you have made to your felf, through your Confufton of * See my Sermons, p. 2 if. t See my Defenfe, p. 461, /^6zo Thoughtj Qu. III. of form CL U E R I E S. 17^; Thought, and your want of diftinU Perception For, when I apply Supreme to the Word God^ \ mean as I ought to mean, that the Son is God fu- freme^ (knowing no fuperior God^ no divine Nature greater, higher, or more excellent than his own) not that He is the fupreme Father : Who, tho' fupe- rior in Order^ is not therefore o^ fuperior Godhead-^ For a fupremacy of Order is one Thing, a fupremacy of Nature^ or Godhead another. Thefe are plain Things to all that have ever dipp'd in This Contro- verfy. But you come a little clofer up to me, in your following Words, which will indeed deferve Notice j becaufe it is running your Argument up as far as ic can poiTibly be carried. You fay, that upon my Principles, there is no impoJltbiUty but the Father (if the Oeconomy had been fo laid) might as well have exercifed the Authority of the Son^ executed his Or* ders^ 6cc. nay.^ and have been begotten alfo of the Son^ and from Him have received his Being. But do not blend Things together which ought to be kept dif-^ tincl J and then we fhall fee clearly into This Matter, fo far as is needful. If you afk, Why thatPerfon called the Son^ might not have been Father -y 1 have nothing to fay, but that in Fa6t: He is not ; So it is written^ and fo we believe. The Father is Father^ and the Son is Son ^ And becaufe of this Relation of Father and Son^ there is a natural Priority of Order (I fay. Natural^ not Oeconomicdl) by which the Son is referred up to the Father as his Head^ and not vice verfa. As to the Son's ading a Minifterial part, That in-' deed is purely Oeconomical ', and there was no i-mpof- fibility.y in the Nature of the Thing, but the Father Himfelf might have done the fame: But it was more congruous that He who is Flrfi in Order^ fhou'd be Firfl in Office too : And had it been otherwife, it would have been inverting the Order of the Per- fonsj which, I think, is reafon fufficient againlt it. N To I7S >^ Second Defense Qu.III; To which purpofe, Bp. Pear/on very juftly obferves : " Upon This Pre-eminence (of the Father) as I con- *' ceive, may iafely be grounded the Congruity of the " divine Mijjion. We often read that Chrift was '^ fent^ from whence He bears the Name of an '^ Apoflle Himfelf, as well as Thofe whom He there- '^ fore named fo 5 becaufe as xk\€{Father fent Him^ fo *^ fent He 'Them. The Holy-Ghoft is alfo faid to be *^ fent^ fometimes by the Father, fometimes by the *' Son : But we never read that the Father was fent *^ at all 'y there being an Authority in That Name " which feems inconfiflent v/ith this Miffion^T All This is very right in the Bifhop's Scnfe of Au* thority-y not in yours as fignifying Power and Do- tninionowcx 2i Suhje^i'y which is neither excellent^ nor true Divinity, but falfe and blafphemous. You proceed to coniider my Argument for one and the fame ftri6l Senfe of the Word Godj drawn from John'i. t. which Argument the Reader may fee briefly fumm'd up in my Firft Sermon^ p. 3f. I argued, as is ufual f ^ from the Word God oc- curring twice in the fame Ferfe^ without the lead hint of any [different Senfe. You pretend on the contrary, that/(?r that I'ery reafon^ it muft bear a dif- ferent Senfe, hecaufe "'tis ufed in the 'very fame Sentence hy way of Ccntradiftin6iion^ /?. 183. By what kind of Logick you draw This ftrange Inference, I fee not. Suppofe it were fiid, Seih was with The Man (i.e. Adam) and Seth was Man : Doth it follow that the Word Man carries two Senfcs ? Or God the Father * Fearfin on the Creeti, p. 36. ^ Si .cvangelifta Deum alium majorem 6c fupremum hi^ in- dicat, alium vero m'mcrem 6c longc w^quaLm; incogitDnrer admo- dum Johannes, ut ait plerumque Athanafius, res adeo tlijpamtas, fine uila diftin6tione, urn eoJrrnque n.ocabulo utramque Copulans, fignifi- cavit : Sc Verbum, ait, erat npttd Deum, & Deus erat Verbum. Nam quis non Voci lims conjundlim rcpetirae eandcm utrobique fignifi- cationem ftatim aptaverit? Quis eandem Vocem, bis codem loco cnuntiatam tarn ^//^^^'^w lignificare putaverit? Morafanccn, Pr^slim. Diflcrr. in Eufcb. Comment, in Vfalm, p. 21. was Qu. III. offome Q^U E R I E S. ly^ was with the Spirit (meaning the Holy-Ghoft) and the Father w^j Spirit -^ does it follow that the Word Spirit bears two Scnfes ? Would it not be rather ma- nifeft in Both Cafes, thatr the Words fo repeated, and fo near one another, are interpretative of each other? I'he Son^ you fay, is ftiled God the IVord^ or Meffenger-y which is more than you know. See my Sermons as to the meaning of the Name IVord *. But fuppofe Kim fo ftiled by way of ProlepftSj (be- ing here confidercd antecedently to the Creation) as one that was to be fent to create the World, and to reveal the Father to Mankind 5 how is This at all repugnant to the Doftrine of his being the one God fupreme? I have fo often anfwered This Pretence, that I am afraid of naufearing the Reader with Re- petition. You fay, He is difiinguiped from Him who of his ozvn Original Supreme Authority fends the Mef- fage. Very true 5 He is diftinguiihcd from the Perfon of the Father^ who has his Authority /r therefore God fupreme • Sermon I. p. 5", £cc. t Ste my Sermons, p. ;-4, See. 7S, ro5, 1 1 1: N i ^ ISO A Second Defense Qp.IIIJ as well as the Father. The Link is never the worfe for its length, if it be but well connefted. I had fiiid, that the Son could not be called God^ in the Senfe oF Dominion^ Job. i. i , bccaufe He is there confidered antecedently to the Creatioriy and before any Dominion commenced. This, I think, is felf-evident. But you have a mind to difpute the Point. Your Argument is, that God was mercifuly goody and ;'«/?, before the Creation, therefore alfo He was pojfefs'd of Dominion, pag. 183, 184. That is to fay. He was difpofed to Afts of Good- fiefs y Mercy y and Juftice^ and like wife to have Domi^ nion in his own appointed Time> therefore He had Dominion before He had it. Does not every Body know, that Dominus and Servus^ Mafter and Servant^ are Relatives^ as much as Father and Son^ Hujhand and Wife^ and always fuppofe and imply each other, commence and fall together? I'ertullian therefore was very right and accurate in his Diilinftion about God and Lordly that the Father was always God^ God de- noting Nature^ Subftance^ and Perfections j but became Lord in Time, as foon as the Creation commenced ; Lord expreiling his Relation to his Creatures. To proceed : I had argued for Chrifl's real and fupreme Divi- nity, from his part in the Creation^ according to John i. Here you have only the fime Thing over again, about the Diftindion of of whom^ and By 'whom y which is nothing to the purpofc. •k Del nomen dicimus femper fuifle apud femetipium 8c in fcmet- ipfo, Dommum verb non femper. Diverfa enim utriufque Condi- tio. Deus fubftantias ipfius nomen, id eft, Divmitztisy Dominus vero non fubftantiae, fed Petejlatis : SubHantiam femper fuifle cum fuo nomine, quod eft Dens i poftca Dominus^ accidentis fcilicet rci rnen- tio. Nam ex quo efle cajperunt in quae Poteftas Domini ageret, ex illo, per acceffionem Poteftatis, 6c fadus 6c didus eft Dominus, Ter- tuli. contr. Herraog. c 3. I allow. Qu.IIL offome Q^U E R I E S. i8i I allow, that the Father is primarily Creator, and Son feconclarily^ or fuhordinately j and Both one Crea- tor. There is a Difference of Order^ or Manner^ which yet makes no Difference of Power^ or God- head: So that This is mere triflings unlefs you could prove that the Unity of Godhead is not confident with the Diftin6tion of Perfons^ Order ^ or Offices-, which you have not done. I difpute not whether c^ia may exprefs the primary efficient Caufe^ it ex- preffes as much efficiency as uVo or Ix, which is all I am concerned for : And as to the different Gr^^r, or Manner of the Two Perfons concurring in the fame Thing, it neither makes them I'wo Caufes^ nor Two Creators^ nor T-'juo Gods; nor is it any Argument a- gainft the Son's being Caufe^ Creator^ or God^ in the fame high, and full Senfe of thofe Words as the Fa- ther. You have fomething to fay to two Indanccs given^ (Rom. XI. i6. PIeb.il. lo.) where d'ld is applied to the Father. You interpret the Texts of his Providential Care : Not that Things are created^ but prcferved^ through Him. Allowing you This Conllruclion, (which is perfc(5lly precariousj yet you have only feem'd to fay fomething, as ufu.il, when, upon the Matter, you have really faid nothing. For if o^a may be applied even to the Father, who, with you, is the Original efficient Caufe of the Preferva- tion of all Things, and whofe is the Original Govern- ///^Providences (a Work and Builnefs not lefs confi- derable than the Work of Creation) what can you infer merely from o^a being applied to God the Son? He might, notwithltanding what you have here faid, be efficient^ and even Originally too, either in Creation^ or Confervation-y for, They are near a-kin to each other: And fo Confervation has been fometimes ililed continued Creation^ being a continuance of the fame power. Might you not therefore have been content with my granting you more than you can fairly prove fvom the bare Force of c/^ta, inltcad of labouring a N 5 " necdlei$ 182 '^ Second Defense Qu.III, iicedlefs Point •, where, at laft, you can make no- thing out ? I have allowed you (which I may now call a Coiirtefy) a Priority of Order : Make your Ad- vantage of it. You fay it is in Words -y that is, be- caufe you make a Difference in Order^ to be no Dif- ference in Order y and confound Co- ordination with Co^ equality. I deiire no greater Advantage over an Ad- verfary, than to fee Him reduced lo fe If- contradiction^ and plain Defiance to common Senfe^ only to keep up an Hypothefis. I admit a Difference of Order^ not of Nature : But that Word Nature is fo very obfcurc, and Metaphyficaly I would {^y^ That DiftinCIion is fo plain and obvious, carrying in it fo entire a Confutation of all you have been faying, or doing, that you cannot endure the leail Mention of it. You have thought it material to obfervc , (p. i86. ) that Things are faid to have been created for the Pleafure of God the Father. (Rev.iv. lo, ii.) which is no where faid of the Son. To which I anfwer, nor twice of the Father. However, no Body can doubt but the World was created for the Son'^s Pleafure^ as well as the Father's : And to me it feems that the Expref- lion of St. Paul, (yJll Things were created by Him^ and for Him) is as ftrong and fignificative as the o- ther. I am the more confirmed in it, becaufe I ob- fervc that you tranflate, or conllrue , sis- aurcv rd irdvra. in Rom. xi. 36. (the very fame Phrafe here ufed in Coloff. i. if.) 'To his Glory they all terminate (p. iSf.) which is as much as terminating in his Pleafure *. We are now to hold a Debate about 6 3^60f, which is very needlefs in the main, becaufe I had really ad- mitted (to fhorten our Difpute) more than you could prove, either from Scripture, or Antiquity, I had allowed 6 ^sof to be the ordinary Title of God the Father, and rightly referved to Him, in molt Cafes j * $it my Sermons, p. 6i> as Qu.ril. of fome (QUERIES/ isj as his diflingaifhing peifonal Chanider *, in the Senfe of aJro^jof. Yet I very well know, thac This is more than you can prove from the Fathers^ except from Origen-, and that not from hislatell, and beft Writings. Might you not then have thought it fufficient to build upon my Conceffions^ rather than to make your Caufe appear the weaker, by cndea- vouringto give it more Strength than belongs to it? It is Demonllration , that the Fathers in general made no Account of the Diftindion between ^gof, and 6 ^sor, in our prefcnc Cafcj Becaufe of their ap- plying a Multitude of Texts to Chriil, where there is 0 ^io^ J as before fhown. Your Pretence of his being confidered -^sReprefentative only, has been ful- ly anfwer'd above : Bcfides that you are fluftuating and inconlillent in your Accounts of that Matter j fometimes allowing Chrift to be what He is there fliled (viz. 6 ^eo?) in his own Perfin-, and again re- £ra6ling ir, by fuppofing the Title to belong only to the other Per/on^ whom He reprefented. In ihort, you feem not to know what to determine, or where to fix i (o various and unconftant a Thing is Error. It being certain that the Fathers, in general, fo in- terpreted Scripture as to make no Account of your Diltin<5lion -, it will be of lefs Weight if They ap- pear to make more of it in their own Writings : For, why jliould They fix a Rule to Themfclves, which Scripture (by .their own Account) had not obferved , but the dire6l contrary ? Indeed, you have two Wri- ters, before the Nicene Council, to produce for it, Clemens and Origcri : As to Clemens^ how little He made of the Dillinftion, as to our prcfent Queft ion, may be obferved from his manner of lliling the Fa- ther and Son toocther 5 ^sor, as have been noted a- bove. Befides This, I took Notice, that He often gives the Son, fingly^ the Title of o d^of : And Ire- f Ste my Dcfenfe, p. 6g, N 4 ferrcd tS4 A Second Defense Qu.III. ferred to the Places ^ You have fomethingto fay to every one of them, tofhovv howrefoluteyou can be in defending any Thing, you have once pretended to lay any Streis upon. To the firft PafTage ^ , you fay it is only an Allufion to Pfal. xxxiv. 8. And what then ? Is it ever the lefs true, that o ^ioi is there applied to Chrill ? To the fecond PalTage "^ you fay, the \oyo^ is fpoken of, as perfonating the Father. Not a Word does Clemens fay of perfonating^ but of the Son's being the Face of the Father ^ > fo that in feeing one. Both were, in a Manner, feen > one be- ing the perfe6b Refemblance of the other, and repre- fenting Him (not in your low Senfe o^ perfonating) but exhibiting Him, as in a lively Mirrour, by exhibit- ing Himfelf. Befides, that it is plain from Clemens , that the fame Perfon who was to be Man , was o S'for. Was this tht Father^ think you, or the Son? To the third PafTage % you fay, that the 6 ^io^ is not the \oyo^-i hut a fan5iified Chriftian. But your better Retreat is to the various Le5lion^ not only be- caufe your Conflru6l:ion is at le-^.{k dubious^ but becaufe if it were certain^ it were ftill an Inftance of o ^s6? applied by Clemens^ contrary to your Criticifm. To the fourth and fifth PafTages ^, you reply, that ro)> 3>£ov and TO)" ^i^ 1^'^y he underftood of the Father. To which I need only fay, They cannot without fbraining, and making the Conftruction forc'd, and unnatural. To xht Jixth g, you fay, the 1. Imitations * Clemens Alex. p. 72, 132, 2^1, 273, 436, 832. *• "l^sT£ ort ;^j(H5-c? o ^^k. Clcm. p. 72. afwT(^. Clem. p. 132. Ti I(rffi6>)A iTrtJVofJucti-ui , on u^t Toy Bscy, -fcv xo^m * eiroc i^tv 0 ^-iog, fi AflV®", Sec. Clem, ibid, * Cle!u Alex. p. aj-i, ^Clem. Alex. p. 273, 456. « . , '^trefiditii ^ Trecrfot; ^ Clem. p. S32, added Qu. IIL offome dV E R I E S. 1 8 y added are ftrongly againft me. That is only a Fan- cy of your own : But was not theQueftion, whether 0 ^d^ was applied to Chrift by Clemens? An inge- nuous Man would either have confefled plain Fad, or havefaid nothing. None of the Pafiages you fay, give to the Son the Title (o ^^soV) in the abfolute and unlimited Conflru^ion. And might you not have had This Referve, if I had produced aThoufand PafTages with 0 ^gof applied to Chrift ? I do not expe6t you ihould grant them to be underftood in the unlimited Conftrudion : you have refolved againft it. And if there were as many Inftances in Scripture as in the Fathers, you might ftill have fome Pretence againft ^v\ u?ilimited Coni\x\x6k.ion. In the mean while, what becomes of your Criticifms upon 6 ^^sor, if we are to judge from other Rules^ whether it is to be under- ftood with Limitation^ or otherwife? Doth it not appear, even from your felf, that the infifting on the Article is very Trifling? 1 had likewife produced Clemens for ftiling the Son, 6 TravloxpaVco^ *. Here you tell me, it is not in an ^^/6?/^/^Conftru61:ion. And what if it is not ? The Inftance is fufficient to ftiow that Chrift is true God^ upon Clemens's Principles, becaufe He is 6 Tra-floK^drciip t , for , Clemens makes no Diftin<5lion about abfolute Conftruclion. But nei- ther can you prove that Clemens does not ufe the Words rc'j TravloKparo^Hj in the Paftagc cited , in an abfolute Conftrudion (if one can know what you mean by abfolute) nor if you could, would it at all change the Senfe of the Word -TravloKpdrdip , or make it fignify any thing lefs than when applied ever fo abfolutely. Clemens reafons from it in the fame Manner, as He would have done from the fame Word, or Title, underftood in the fuUeft and higheft Senfe iiTre^iT ?roTs. Clem. p. 277. f Ow -^ Biov dTTXa^i TTfoc-MFtit 6 r^^ ««f^f» TTtcru^d rot TrecyloxfocTa-^ |fl6 on^da-tcs, Clem. p. J48. 2 that i8tf '^ Secon D Defense Qu.III, that TravlcKgarwe or Almighty can come up to. It is to little Purpole for you to ihow, that Clemens fome- times lliles the Father /jtov©' 5 Tavlox^aro)^. It is not Clemens his Way to ufe the excludnje Terms, in fuch Inflances, in any Oppofition to God the Son, but quite the contrary 5 as have been obferved above. As to Origen^ you will be able to make no more of the Place cited % than Thisj that as the Xoy©* excels all other his inferiors, fo alfo the X6y©» is excelled by the Father j not in the fame Degree, but in a cer- tain Senfe, as the Father is a^ro^iQ* God from none, the Son God by partaking of the Father's Godhead. However, if Origen^ or his Interpolators have any where in Thefe Comments dropp'd any unwary Ex- preflions > you will remember that they are of no Moment any farther than they are confiftent with Origen's certain, well-weighed Doftrine, in his Trea- tife againft C elf us. As to Eufebius^ your lafl Authority for the Dif- tin6tion between S'soriand 0 ^iot (whatever his Prin- ciples were) all the Ufe He makes of the Diftinftion is only to prove againft Marcellus^ that the Son was not the Father. For, He perpetually charges Mar- cellus with SahelUaniJm', as making the Son to be the Father.^ and vice verfa. His Words, literally and jullly rendred (not as you render them) run thus. "" The Evangelill could have faid, the Word was 6 ^'cor, ^^ with the Addition of the Article, had He thought *^ the Father and Son to be one and the fame ^hivg^ ^' and that the Word Himfelf was 'the God over alii". The Senfe of This Paffage will entirely depend upon * AiKTiO* yoSf CfcyTOr? OTI T071 fJUiV U.-JTO^i(^ 6 ^SO^ i^i m m u JT^J/ ^ TO ^Ctfot TO UUToB-l®^ fXfiTO^Vj Tr,q iKUVH S-£(3T»t(^ B-iOTTOmf/jiVOV, ^K 6 ^iortfov uv MyoiTo, Orig. in Joh, p. 46, 47. Vid. Huetii not. p. 95, 94. f Avyoifjutv(^ y^v siTnTvy t^ 6 $■£05 k» 6 Pioy©^, f/j£TU T^i tou u^B-fa xpo^iiicy)^, it ys ft td rxvT'ot y.yuTo rov TreCTi^ct iivxi iCj tov vlov ' t&vTOH Ti ijftn T«» ?\oyoi 70 iVi 7!»i\»i3 Blot, Eufeb. contr. Marc. p. 127. a right; Qu.m. offomeQlJERlES. 1S3 a right Confidcration of what it was that Eufebius charged Marcellus with 5 or how He underftood Mar- cellus to affirm the Father and Son to be the fame "iThingj or fame God. Now, This will eafily appear from diverfe Places in Eufebius' s Treatife againft Him. He charges Mar- cellus with making the Word a meer notional Thing, fleeting and vani(hing, hke a Human Word, nothing Having and fubftfting *. He charges Him with taking it in a Jewifo Scnfe, and making no more than a no- minal Difference between the Father and his Word\. One EJfence and one Flypoftafis too , in the Way of Sabellius. He charges Him with taking away the very Exiftence as well as Hypoftafis of the Son j with making one Hypoftafts with uhree Names \ , having no more than a nominal^ not a realUi^mdiion. Hence it is plain what Eufebius^ in the Paffage above cited, meant by $v Kal rtxMrcv^ one and the fame Thing > as alfo by making the Xoy©-* to be rev IttI xavTwv 3^£0v, the God over all. It was making Father and Son one Perfon^ as we now term it^ and fo confounding Both in one, as to take away all real Diftin^lion. You have therefore no Reafon to think I had partially re- prefented Eufebius^ when I faid, (Defenfe^ p. <5p.) that He made no farther Ufe of the Obfervation, about the Article^ than to prove againft Marcellus^ that the Xcy©' is a diftind real Perfon , and not the Father Himfelf It is you that have partially reprefcnted Eufebius^ cither to ferve your Hypothefis^ or for want of confidering the Drift and Scope of Eufebius's Trea- tife, and in what Senfe He ufes his Terms. What then is the refult of your Enquiries about the Diftin6lion between ^sor with the Article, and without it ? I . You have not been able to prove that * Eufeb. p. 4, I p. p. ^. t Eufeb. p. 33, 35-, 3$. J Eufeb, p, 167, J7j» the iss [^ Second Defense Qu.1IL the Ante-nicene Writers in general took any notice at all of it : Two only are found, Clemens and Origen, The former never applies it at all to the Text of St. John^ nor makes any ufe of it to ihow the Pre- eminence of the Father above the Son : So far from it, that He gives the Title of 6 ^eo? indifferently to Father, or Son, or to Both together, according as occafiion offers. The latter has indeed, in an unaccu- rate Work, or perhaps corrupted, mentioned the Diflint5bion, and applied it to prove fome Pre-emi- nence of the Father as being God of Himfelf^ or un- begotten. But in his later and more certainly genuine Works, He has nothing of This kind, but refolves the Unity in a very different way from what He had done in his Commentaries y anfwering the Objedion of Ditheifm upon quite Another Foot. 2. You have not been able to {how, that the Fathers ever ima- gined the Scripture-Style to be at all conformable to That Diftin^ion: Nay, the contrary is evident from their citing a multitude of Texts of the Old Tejia- ment 5 and applying them to Chriji as therein deno- ted by the Title of 6 ^d^. 3. You have not been able to fhow, that the Fathers ever invariably, or care- fully, followed any fuch Rule in their own Style (tho' you confidently affirm They did, fag, 188.) For, befides what hath been fnown from Clemens^ exam- ples may be given to the contrary out of the other antient Writeii*. 4, If it could have been proved that This Diftin6llon had been ever fo conftantly ob- ierved > yet no certain Confcquence in favour of your Principles could be drawn from it: Nothing but what (for the fake of fliortening a Difpute) I would have admitted, without your producing any antient Writer for it> namely This, that the Father is em- * Irenseus, p. 211, i if, 27 »• Ed. Bened. Hippolytus, Vol. i. p. 267. Vol. 2. p. if, 20. Melito, cit. a Grab, Not. in Bull. p. 8^. Origencs contr. Celf. p, 8/, 162, phatically Qu. III. offome QUERIES. i S9 phatically 5 ^^eoV, as /»/ Perfon^ tho' the Son be ^io^ in the fame Senfe: almoft in like manner as the Holy-Ghofl: is emphatically to Trvcujua, tho' the Fa- ther, or Son be Trvsu/jtajin as ftri6t and proper a Senfe of Tvsu/jta, as the other. You at length bring me a Quotation from T^heo- doYus Ahucara^ a very Orthodox Man of the p^*» Century, allowing that in Scripture Style 0 ^so? is a Title appropriate to the Father. This is more than the Antients would have allowed j except the Obfer- vation be confined to the New Teftament. However, you may perceive that, in the Judgment of very Or- thodox Men, our Caufe is in no Danger from This famed Diftinftion *. They knew the Difference be- tween allowing 0 ^^so? to be an appropriate I'itle^ and making the Senfe of ^lo^ depend upon an Ar^ tick. As to John i. i. where the want of the Article before ^soV, is madeanObjeftionagainft us, it fhould be confidered that the Expreflion ^ics Jv 6 \oy©* is juft what it fhould be on our Principles. The want of the Article determines ^10^ to be the Pre^ dicate, afcertains the Conflruftion againfl: the Sahel- Hans, and is the very Expreflion which any accurate Greek Writer would chufe, rather than the other, to iignify what we underftand by it. Having done with Criticifms, you return to your Logical Subtleties. I had admitted a Priority of Order^ yet denying the Son to be God in ^ fuhrdinate ScnCc: Upon which you remark, Tben He is God in a Co^ * Petavius, where he cites the PafTageyou mention, cites alfo Another of the fame Author j which dcferved your notice. }\.u(u(n and what becomes of the Priority of Order ? To which I anfwer, that tho' He be God in a Co-ordinate^ or rather the fame Senfe of the Word God^ yet He is God in a fubordinate manner^ as being God of God: And now what becomes of the fubordi- nate Senfe of the Word God ? You pretend, xh^x, fubordinate has neceflarily a re- lation to Government : which I deny. And if you could prove it, (as you cannot) all that would follow is, that God the Son is not fubordinate. And then, inftead of faying that He is fubordinate^ we would only fay that He is a Son^ or that He is of the Fa- ther-, changing the Phrafe, but ftill retaining the Doftrine under other Terms. But it is ridiculous to aflert, that a Difference of Order does not make a fubordination^ or an equality of Order a Co-ordination. To my Inftance of Adam and Seth^ you fay that to Adam confidercd as a Governor^ Seth was fubordinate. Yes, 2iX\i fubje^ too. But to Adam confidered mere- ly as a Father^ He was only fubordinate^ and not fubjeU. You add, that Man being the abflraU Name of a Species.^ all Men are equally Men, In like manner, God being a Name for as many Perfons as have the Divine Nature^ every Perfon having That Nature^ is equally God, You go on : Among Men a Son does not derive his Being from his Father ^^ but God^ when He is filed Father^ muft always be underftood to be airiaj a true and proper Caufe, really and efficiently gi- ving Life. This is the Philofophy of Dr. Clarke * .* And it is to intimate, that tho' every Son of Man has the Nature of Man^ and is equal in Nature to his Father} yet the Son of God muft not have the Na- ture of God^ nor be in nature equal to the Father. Excellent Doftrine ! And yet you are affronted, to ; Clarke'i Scrip. Voif, p. 239, 273 • E^- *^ be Qa.Iir. offome (QUERIES. t^t be called Arians. The Anfwer is, that God the Fa- ther is not the Caufe of his Son, in Dr. Clarke'* s, Senfej who admits no necejfary Caufes. Neither can the Doftor prove either from Scripture^ or Fa- thers^ that ever the Son was fo caufed by a voluntary A5l^ or Choice. In the old Senfe of Caufe^ as the Sun is the Caufe of Light, the Root of its Branches, the Fountain of Streams, and the like, the Father was ever believed to be the Caufe of his Son, and no other wife. What you hint from No'vatian about Power, means only P at ernal Authority ^ and Priority of Order on that Account. You conclude with faying, that I might have argued that the Son is included in the cne unbegotten God. But I do not find Scripture fpeaking any thing of the one unbegotten God. It mentions the one God^ and excludes all other Godsj wherefore the Son being included, is not another Godj but the fame God. And tho' I like not the Ex- preffion of T'he unbegotten God^ and the begotten God becaufe it comes too near the Language of Dithcifm (which you are every where inculcating) yet I fhall make no fcruple of faying, that The Father, God unbegotten^ and The Son, God begotten^ are both one God*. f Sei my Jlnfntr to Dr. Whitby, pa^^ 14, &c. Qy E R y ^ ipi A Second Defense Qu.IV; Q^ U E R Y IV* Whether^ fuppojing the Scripture-Notion of God, to be no more than That of the Author and Governor of the Univcrfe, or whatever it bey the admitting of Another to be Author and Governor of the Univerfe, be not admitting Another God; contrary to the Texts before cited from Ifaiah, and alfo to Ifa. xlii. 8.— — xlviii. I r. where He declares , He will not give his Glory to Another > IN Defenfe of This ^ery^ I charged you with Ditheifm^ as profeffing one Author and Governor to be a Godj and another Author and Governor to be a God likewife j not the fame God with the other, but Another^ confequently Two Gods ^^ which is un- deniably evident in your Scheme. You fay, in anfv/er, that my Defenfe of 'This and of the following ^ery is in reality (without intending it) an Attempt to ex-pofe and render ridiculous the ex- prefs Doctrine of St. ^ohn and St. Paul, and to make it appear inconjifient with the Old Tefiament^ p. ipf . The Reader, I doubt nor, will be furprized at this high Flight of Extravagance. Hitherto, I thought I had to do with a foUer Man^ however miftaken in many Things. But you are now giving yourfelf Liberties of fuch a kind as can fcarce bdf thought confiftent with that Charafter. What I expected of you was, that you ihould clear your Hypothefis of the Charge of Two Gods\ every Man taking it for granted, that neither St. John^ nor St. Paul^ neither Scripture nor Antiquity ever taught Two Qu. I V. offome dU E R 1 E S. t? i Two Gods. But the Charge being fo full and plain, that you can no Way evade it^'you arc refolved, it (ecms, to carry it off with an Air of Aflurance, and to charge even St. John^ and St. Paul with the fame. You do well to put your Authorities Very high, and ftrdng ', becaufe, I remember, Juflin Martyr and Iremeus have Giid, that They could not have believ- ed even our Lord Himfclf, had Fie |>reach'd up Another God beflde the Maker of All Things. How- ever, if you are able to make your Point good from Scripture.^ I fhall think it fuflicient. And fuffer me once more to difpute it with you \ not to expofe or render ridiculous St. John^ or St. Panly (God forbid) but Men of a much lower Clafs ) who, when theie Caufc is moft defperate, are ufed to put on the great- efl Confidence^ for a Blind to the Readers. Let us hear what you have to fiiy : And do not tell me^ that I am not arguingagainft Dr.C\:ixktand ybu^ but againfi plain Scripture j As if Scripture were plain for I'luo Gods. You begin with your old Pretence^ that the Texts of Ifaiah arc all expreffly perfonal. Be it (a : So alfo are many ExprefHons in Scripture.^ and Antiquity^ in- deed in all Writers V where yet the exclufive Terms exclude Thofe Perfons only whom They were in- tended in oppofition to. It is a Riile of Language^ common to all kinds of Authors > Vvhcreas your ri-* gorous Interpretation of the excUifrce Terrns, has nothing in the Nature of the Thing, or in Cuftom of Speech to (llpport it. You can fcafcc dip into any Writer, but you find exceptions againil it. You endeavour farther to iliift off the Charge of Ditbeifm.^ by retorting it upon me. But how wide a Difference is there in the Two Cafes ? As I maintain that the Son is not another God^ nor Both Two Gods., ib I confidently teach that Both are 0?ie God: You maintain, that God can be a Name for no more than one Perfon., that each of the Perfons is a God., and that They are not together O ^nf 194 ^ Second Defense Qu.IV, one God. What is This but .faying dircftly that They are two Gods ? I may miftake in my Hypothefis (which yet has not been ihown) but you are plainly y^//'- r^^- demned. You have recourfc to St. Paul (pag. 197) who favours your Notions as little as I do. You afk, whether He "was a teacher of Polytheifm ?. I ve- rily think not : And if your Do&rine ftands as elear as St. PauFs^ all will be well with you : But do not father your Conceits upon the BlelTed Apofble. He dire^s u?, you fay, to the one "true God of whom are all 'things. Yes, He tells us that the Father^ of whom are all 'Things^ is the one God^ in- oppofition to falfe ones, to nominal Gods, and Lords : And it is plain, that He meant it not in oppofttion to God the Son, becaufe He reckons Him God to us^ (Rom. ix. f.) which none of the nominal Gods are. Now, fince the fame St. Paul fays, that there is none other God hut one J (i Cor. viii. 4.^ it is manifeil that tho' the Father be emphatically ililed One God^ yet He and the Son together are not Two Gods^ but One You afk, Whether when St. Paul tells us, that,. God our Sa'viour faved us through Jefus Chrifi our Saviour, He does thereby preach Two Saviours ? (Tit. iii. 45<5v) Yes certainly, unlefs Both he one Sa- viour. Wherefore you by denying Them to be One, make Two Saviours, as you do alfo Two Gods. To^ your other Qiieftion, I anfwcr, that Jefus Chrifi is the fameG(?i^ and the ^-^mt Saviour, tho* not the fame- Perfon with Him ililed God our Saviour, Tit. iv. You go on : Did our Saviour Plimfelf introduce Hea- tJjen Polytheifm,- when He faid (Mark xii. ip.) The Lord our God is one Lord, and yet immediately after mentions Another Lord, ver. ^6 ? But who has taught you to call that Other, Another Lord? This did not our Saviour; You are the Polytheifi (^and -K See my Sermons, fag. J4, not Qii. IV. offome Q^U E R I E S. 195 not Hej by your: ftrain'd, and falfe Comments upon his Words'. ' ' ' This is what you call producing exprefs Scripture. What you have farther, pag. ip8. about Bp. Pear^ fon^ and Bp. Bull (who are Both directly againft you) is marvellous v as alfo your Account of Antiquity^ which has been anfwer'd. Your pretence, that no antient Writer ever argued againft Polytheifm^ by alledging that Chrift is the one fupreme Godj or indi- vidually the fame God^ is a fbameful Mifreport, a manifeit Untruth ; unlefs you havefome poor Equivo- cation in the Words. TertuUian^ Origei;^ Hippo lytus^ HaMa^UuSj iScc^as many as refolve the Unity of God- head into' Unity of Subftance (as the Antients in ge- neral do) are lb many Evidences of your Fallhood. For if Chrift be one Subftance with the Father, He h one God fupreme^ God being a Name of Sub* ftance. Your telling me, that I make "bne Subftance^ but never one God^ is jufb as if ycu had faid, I make o?is God^ but never make one God -, or elfe it is a weak begging the Quellion. You pretend, the Unity of God is fecure by making one Original Caufc. Right, if you take in God the Father and God the Son into the one Godhead : othervv^ifc, by excluding one o^ your Gods^ you make a fupreme God^ and an inferior God^ after the way of Pagan Polytbeifts ; and fo Ditheifm is unavoidable. I afked, where the (acred Writers ever limited the Senfe of the Texts relating to the Unity ^ by the Word Supreme ? Where do They fay there is but one fupreme God, inllead of one God? You have not one Text to produce out of the Lazvs againil Idolatry : A plain lign that Scrip- ture went upon quite other Principles than vour's. And the ^ feafon of it is evident, becaufe the Dcfign was to intimate that no other God, but the God of Ifrael^ was to be admitted. To have made Him fupreme God only, would have left room for any inferior Deities to be taken in with O z. Him, 196 >^ Second Defense Qu,IV. Him. The place of the Pfalms (Pf. xlvii. 2.) decla- ring God to be i'-N^i?©*, or moft high^ reachcth not the Point 5 unlefs it had been faid, you Jh all have mm other moft high God hut Him^ to leave room for lonuer Deities. There is a great deal of Difference be- tween faying, there is one moft high Godj and there is me God *who is moft high: as much as between faying, there is one fupreme King of Great Bri- tain, and there is one King of Great Britain who is fupreme. Your Inilance is the more unfortunately chofen, be^aufe the vei^y Perfon there ftiled ihj/t?©'^ 7noft High^j is by fome of the Antients (Juftin Mar^ /)r particularly) underfloodtobeGo^^ thci^^^j which I infer from their interpreting verfe the f ^^, ^c. of Him. Your other Inftances are as little to your Purpofe : But it is pretty remarkable, that while you are confidently glorying of nothing lefs than plain^ and exprcfs Scripture, you are talking in a Style unknown to Script m^e^ but very well known to ihcPa- ganSj that there is one only fupreme God 5 intimating that there arc inferior Gods, or one God at lead, be- fides Him. As to your feveral What-'think-you^Sy pag. 200. I refer you to my Sermons ^. You tell me, that 0 ^^so?, in Scripturey 6cc. figni- fies the fupreme God. Does it fo ? Then according, to all ^«r/^//;7j applying 6 ^lU toChriftin their Cita- tions of the Old Teftament, Chrill: is the fupreme God. Bur, I beg leave to fay, that it fignifies only God^^ and there is no need of laying fupreme God^ when there is no reference to an inferior God : And there- fore Scripture^ and generally Jntiquity^ fay nothing of a fupreme God, becaufe They acknowledged no inferior God j to which fuch Expreffions have a tacit reference. It was from the Pagans that fuch Lan- guage was at firll borrowed, and ufed at length by Ibme Chriilian Writers, (as Arnobius^ and La6fantius) — 7 * StrtDon VII. ^ng,^Z'i. tho" <^uJV. cffome (QUERIES. 197 tho' by them very rarely j and with fuch Cautions as might be fufficient to prevent Mifconftruiflion. As St. Patd was willing to adopt the Name of w^i- jknonvn God, in compliance with the Pagan Pbrafe^ to lead them into a belief of the God of the Chrif- tians: fo fome of the Fathers were inclinable to take the Name of -zbt^wt©^ ^sor, or Prince ps Deusy and to apply it, in a Chriltian Senfe, to draw the Pagans in- fciifibly to the worfhip of the I'mc God^ under fuch a Name as They had given to a falfe one. Other- wife This kind of Phrafes is not properly Chrijiiariy nor to be ufed by Chrijiians. It is one Thing to fay God is fupreme^ is Tra-jro- y.^dr^^i is over all^ or the Hke, and quite another to fay, There is one fupr erne God j which, in propriety of Speech, implies that He has Another God undcr Him. We fiy of the King that He is ftipreme in his Dominions: But who ever talks of the Jupreme King of Great Britain^ as if there were any other King of Great Britain? Supreme Moderator and Governor^ we fay, becaufc there are fubordinate Moderators and Governors. You do well to quote Nebuchadnezzar for the Phrafe of God of Gods^ Dan. ii. 47. It was a very proper ExprelHon for an Idolatrous King to uCc-y and was well fuiced to a Pagan Hypothefis. And if the like Phrafe occurs elfe where, in the facred Writers, the Intent is not to fignify that any inferior God was admitted under the fupreyne^ but that the God of Ifrael was far fuperior to all the reputed Gods of the Nations. Your Comment upon I fa. xlii. 8.— xlviii. 1 1 . is very extraordinary, that God will not give the Glory of being underhed (That is all your Comment amounts to) to Any. Certainly He ivlll 'not do what He can- not. But was it fuitable to the Divine Majelly, to acquaint His People, that He will not (with Rcr verence be it fpoken) Do the moll ftaring Con- tradidion, and palpable Abfurdity ? It is evident that his Glory is his Worfhip, all Religious Worfhip O I ^vvhich ips A Second Defense Qu.IV.. (which might be taken from Him, and placed upon filfc Gods) And He would not fuffer it, with Im- punity, to be transferred from Him to other Objeds. As to your pretended mediate Worfhip, it fliall be confider'd hereafter- My faying that God has engrofled all divine Ho- nour to Himfclf, you call a ynoft prefumptuous Con- iradictlon to the "whole New Tefl anient. But as it is no great Prefumption to difpute with Men fallible fis my fclf, about the Senfe of the New "Teftarnent , So I hope the Reader will not take you to be in earnefl:, but will rather kindly cxcufe a few paflionate Words, fuch as Men are apt to throw out in great Extremities. You appeal to John v. 21. to prove, that God has given Honour and Worlliip to Chrilt as Son of Man. This will bediilinclly debated hereafter. Atpre- ient, it is enough to fay, that Chrift, rather than the Father, is to execute Judgment upon Man^ becauie He Himfelfis Man^ (which the Father is not) and that fo high and great an Ojfice is an evident To- ken of what He is, "very God^ as well as very Manj And therefore all Men are to honour Him even as ithey honour the Father. You have took a great deal of fruitlefs Pains to fliow, that the particular Glories belonging to the Son, on account of his Offices^ are dillinct from the Glories belonging to the Father. You might, in the fame Way, have fhown, that the particular Glories due to the Father under This, or That Confideration, are dill;in6t: from the Glories of the Father coniidered under another Capacity. For Inflancc, the Glory of the Father confider'd as King^ is one Glory, as Judge^ another Glory > as God of the Jews one Thing, as God o{ Chrifiians another, as God of Angels another. And Thus you may mul^ tiply the Worfmp of the Father into a Thoufandfeve- ral IVorJloips^ by as many dillindt Confiderations. But as all thefe feveral Glories arife from the Difplay of his Attributes of Wifdom^ Juftice, Goodnefs, ^c. and " " all Qu.IV. office (IV ERIE S, 199 all his Attributes are founded in the Excellency of his Nature-, (6 all the particular JVorJJjips are reduced to one 5 as being an Acknowledgment of that one di- 'viue Nature the Root and Source of all. The fame I fay of God the Son : All the particular Glories be- longing to Him on account of his Offices^ relative to us, are but partial Confiderations of his Attributes, of his Goodnefs^ Mercy ^ JVifdom^ i^c. which y^t tri- butes have their Root and Foundation in the Excel- lency of his Nature^ which N-ature is the fame with the Father's 5 And thus all the particular Glories^ or WorJJoips^ refolve into one Glory^ or JVorjhip^ paid to That Nature^ \vhich is common to Father and Son. But of This I fhall treat morediftinftly in the Sequel. To conclude This Article, you have not been able to clear your fclf of the Charge of believing and pro- fefling 1'wo Gods : But after a great many big Words, and only Words, about St. John^ and St. Paulj and plain Scripture -, You appear to have been doing nothing d^G but perverting Scripture, and depraving Chrif- tianity, and teaching us a new Language, as well as a new Faith, in aflerting a fuprcme God and an in- ferior God, inftead of one God. O 4 QjLJERV 200 y^ S?£CpNp Dt?ENsp QS-V« Q^y P R V y. Whether 2)r. ClarkeV Treterif^y that the Au- thority of Father and Son being One , thor they are t'ono d'ifitn6i Beings^ makes them not to be t'Ui'o Gods J As ^ King upo|i the Throne, and his Son adminiftring his Father's Goyern* nicnt, are not two Kings j be not trifling and inconfijtent ? For, if the Kings Son be not a Kingy he cannot trtily be called King \ if he isy then there are two Kings. So, if the Son be not God, in the Scriptttre-Notion of GoA^ He cannot truly be called God \ and then how is the T>ocfor conjifleitit with Scripture^ or with Himfelf? But if the Son be truly God, there are two Gods upon the Tractor's Hypothecs , (IS plainly as that one and one are two : And fo all the Texts of \(d\2ih, cited above y be fides other Sy fiand full and fkar againji the i>Of- tofs Notion. YPU go on here in the fame confident Way (your Confidence ajways rifing, as your Argu- ments fall) telling me that I co?rdemn Scripture for giving the Son the Title of God\ ^ecaiife, forfooth, I condemn you for giving Him the Title ^ and denying jHim the Thing ; while Scripture allows Him Both, You have nothing to reply, but that there is one firfl Caufe^ i^c. and therefore hwt one God. If a Man were to admit This, you would Hill never be able to come at the Conclufion you intend. For fuppofe the Father were allowed to be one God^ as the firfi Caufe^ but pod the Son God notwithrtanding as ncr ^effarily-exijiing^ This Hy pot be/ts is every whit as de- fenfible as yours, or more fo : Only it is liable to the Charge of Ditbeifrn., as youfs alfo is > and the like Solutions Qu.V. offomeQVEKlES. tot Solutions would ferve equally for Either. This I hint, that you may not imagine your felf ever able ]tQ gain your Point in That Way of Reafoning. But i proceed in my Charge o^Ditheifm upon your Scheme. You own the Son to be a God^ tho' not included in the one God-^ therefore you ipake "pwo Gods. Yoi^ have no Hopes of evading the Chi^rge your felf: But you think it may be fomc Relief to bring rne in to Ihare with you jn it j And fo yoi^ feebly endeavour to retort it. I will not tranfcribe all you have trifled on This Head : Your Argument, or rather no Arr gument, but Calumny^ is, that I make two fupreme Gods. Show me how. You tell me they are two Gods (in my Hypothejis) tho* and hided in Subftance. But this is a miferable begging of the main Queflion, that Thvo Perfons cannot be one God: Whereas my Charge of Ditheifm upon you, is founded upon This plain Maxim, as plain as that two and two are four, that One God and An-other God are T*wo Gods : Or that two Perfons, each of which is a God, and not together one God^ are two Gods. Learn at length to fubmit to a fclf-evident Maxim , and either confef^ two Godsy or throw out the Son from being God at all. Vou talk, in your ufual deceitful Way, of the Antient Chriftians making the Origination in the ii- rjine Paternity to be the AJj'ertion of the Unity : Which is a Thing dire&ly and fully to my Purpofe, and as dircftly contrary to yours. For, the Antients from This Principle concluded that all the Three Perfons are one God ( which Bifhop Pear [on obfervcs ) and You, in Contradiftion to the Antients^ infer from the fame Principle, that they are not one God : Was there ever a more fhanielefs x^bufe upon the ignorant Rea- ders ? I have recited the Paflage of Biftop Pearfou^ (which you refer to) once before, and ihall now again (if it be poflible to make any ImprefTions upon your Modefty) cite it to your Shame, for thus impofing on your Readers, « This zoz ^ SecondDefense Qu. v. " This Origination in the divine Paternity hath '^ antiently been look'd upon as the Aflertion of " the Unity : And therefore the Son and Holy ^' Ghoft have been believed to be but o}?e God with '' the Father, becaufe Both from the Father, who '' is one, and fo the Umon of Them *. This is a true account of the Antients , worthy of That great Man> while yours is fo entirely falfe, that were it not that you have the Privilege of writing with- out a Name^ one rpight think, that pure Regard to your Characler might deter you from thefe Liberties. How have you the JJjurance to reprefent my No-, tion as different from Bifhop Pearfon's^ when every Body that has feen my Books , knows that BiiTiop Pear foil's and mine are exaftly the fame? Do not 1 every w^here aflert the Paternity^ and refolve the Uni- ty, astheBifhop with all the Anticnts does, into Uni- ty of Siibftance and Original? All the Three are C7ie Gi?^'/, becaufe Two are referred up to one Father to whom they adhere, and from whom They derive their Sub (lance, the fame divine Subftance with His. I had reduced you to This pile.g[ima, eithpr to afferc Tivo Gods ^ or to make no God of the Son j which I call'd ungodding Him. Inllead of an Anfwer, you give me a Rebuke -, as ufual, when forepreffed. You pretend, that you declare the Son to be God , as much as Scripture does : And fo will any Socinian or Samofatenian {^-^ ^ while He fuppofes Him never, to have exidcd before He was Mayi. By the fame or the like Argument you may make a God of every Angela in as much as Angels are called Gods in Scripture. But while, notwithflanding, you deny the neceffary- cxiflence of an yf;;^^/, and make his Title nominal^ who fees not that you deny Him to be God? And thus do you with God the Son. The Cafe is mani- fcll: : And an ingenuous Man would rather give up ♦ Pcarfon sn the Creed, p. 40. fo Qu. V. offome QUERIES. 20^ fo plain a Point, than expofe Himfelf by inventing little Quibbles to make Things appear what They are not, and to keep up a Show ot believing what He believes not. But I am next to be charged as ungodding the Son, Let us hear how : You have been hitherto very unhappy in the Way of retorting. I aflert Him to be God in as high a Senfe as the Father, Well, how is This ungodding Him ? Here you are filent. But I acknow- ledge Him to be derived^ fent^ to execute the Fa- ther's Orders, i^c. Show me then that either his being a Son^ or being y^///, is any Way inconfiftent with Equality of Nature^ or Unity of Godhead : Here ■you are loft again. But you come trembling to tell me, / ungod the Father. You ought to tremble at fuch falfe and unrighteous x^ccufations. Well, how do I do it ? By ajjh'ting Another independent^ Ano^ ther fupr erne Lord ^ (yc. Wonderful ^ when my Bufi- nefs is to maintain, that He is not Another independent fupreme Lord^ but the farne Lord. I deprive Him^ you fay, of his original independent Supremacy. What ? of his Paternity ? But I own Him to be Father , and firftconfider'd in every Thing common both to the Son and Him. You have made nothing out in the Way of retorting. Come we next to 'Tertullian.^ and Athenagoras > to fee whether They agree with You, or Me, in refolving the Unity. The Criterion is This : If They take Father and Son Both into the one God^ They are mine •, if They feparate the Son from the Father, nx's^m^ Another God^ or no God of Him, then They are youfs. 'Tertullian^ you fay, founds the JJnity of God upon the Supremacy of the Father alone, in the Government of the tJniverfe: That is falfe 5 For Tertullian makes all the three Perfons of ^;^^^/^/^{?W/y, Bte' Statc^ orle Subjlance^ becaufe one God. They are his very Words cited above f. Neither are you able to prove any Thing contrary to it, out of all his Works. I referred you to a PafTage of 'Tertullian^ ■ ■ t Pag. 100, ^^:^ where 204 y^ Secon D Defense Qu.V, where He rejefts the Notion of an inferior God, as a Pagan Dream * : And to Ihow how confiftent He is with Hin^felf, He makes the Son not an inferior God, but the fame God with the Father j And He appHes the general Maxim to the particular Cafe of father and Son i", as having the fame Divinity^ fanic Pozver^ dec. Your Pretence of TertuUian^s making the Son fubordinate^ is meanly equivocating upon a Word. He makes Him fubordinate, as I alto do, in Order J or Office^ not in Dominion : And you arc very fenfible that while you are pleading TertuUian's Ex- prefTions in Favor of your Notions, you make Him all over inconfifient^ and contradi^ory to his own plain and avowed Principles. You might at This Rate, quote all the Poft-nicene Fathers > who allow of a Subordination as much as 'TertidUan. You run out (p. 211.) upon the Hilloryof his Difpute with Mar* cion^ as if That were any Secret. After a great many Words, you have nothing to elude his Teftimony againit an infei'ior God, but a precarious Fi£lion, or Conje(51:ure, that He would not have own'd the Son to be Sumynum magnum^ iht fupreme Being > Tho' He plainly does own it in making his Subftance the fame with the Father'' 5^ and afcribing the fame Di'vinity^ Power^ and Quality {unius Status) to Him. Your Cavils about Deri'vatio^ and Portio have been confi* der'd above (p. p8.) But you lay great Strefs upox^ TertuUian'^s fuppofing the Summum magnum^ iht fupreme pcing to be unbegotten^ which you think muft exclude ♦ Nequc cnim proximierimusopinfonibusNationum, qux fi quan- go coguntur Dcum confiteri, tamcn &: Alios infra ilium volunt. Divinitasautcm gradum non habet, utpote unica, Contr.Htrmog. c, 7^ Deui non erit dicendus, quia ncc credendus niii Summum magnum. Nega Dcum qucin die s deteriorem. Cornr. Marc. I. 1. c. 6. t Tres autem non ftatu fed gradu, nee Subftantia fed Forma » nee Poteftatc {cd Specie .• Umus auiem Sui>Jianti£, ^ unlus StatHj, ^ unius VotCjQntiSy quia unus Beus Cent. Prax. c. i. Trinitas unius Divinitatis, Pater, Filiusj ?c Spiritus fandlus. 2)9 Qii. V. offome Q\3 E R I E S. 1^5 the Son. But, under Favour, it is never feriuUian'^ Way to exclude the Son. Father and Son together, upon his Principles, were the one tmbegotten eternal Subftance^ till the Generation of the Son : And then the Son was begotten^ the Father tmbegotten^ and Both flill the fame Subftance as before, under a different Oeconomy. You would infinuatc, as if the Son was (accordiBg to 7'ertuliian) begotten into a Perfon^ jufl before the Creation, by the good Pleafure of the Fa- ther. I refer the Reader to Bilhop Bully for a Con- futation of this weak and groundlels Charge. I may however take Notice of it, as a Thing very par- ticular j that, till you have made the Antients the moft fltipid Men that ever lived, you prefume not to claim them as Advocates for your Opinions. Is it a fair Way of dealing with Authors to Itrain and wreft their Expreflions to a Senfe dire<3:ly repugnant to their known, and (landing Principles ? Could not you do the fame by Athanaftus Himfelf, if you were {0 difpofed, and claim all the Poft-nicene Fathers, as well as Ante-nicene y by the Help of the like Chicane? The Qucftion, you fay, is notj whether Tertullian al- ways /peaks conftjlently : And you are not , you fay, vindicating TertuUianV Reafoning^ but fuch plainly is his Notion. In this Way of talking, 1 know not why you fliould not put in your Claim to all the Orthodox Men that ever wrote upon the Trinity, For, as you think Them all inconftflent ^ it is only taking thofe Principles which you may be able to (train to a Senfe agreeable to your Notions ; and then you may claim their Countenance and Authority j much in the iiime Way as Dr. Clarke has (hown you, in refpeft of our Creeds^ and Liturgy, The Reader^ I hope, {t^^ by This Time, what your Boalls of Antiquity amount to : Little more than the fame Game over again with the Antients^ which the Doc^lor had before praftifed with our Church'; Foryiis. ^ 20(5 A Second Defense Qu.V! You are next finding fault with my Account of tertuUian^ pag. 81^ of my Defenfe. The Objedion I faid, as Tertullian refolved it, was, that the Autho- rity would not he one. I thought my putting in the Parenthefis (as Tertullian refolves it) niight have been hint fufficient to a Man of ordinary Acumen. I knew what the Objedors meant by Monarchia > and I knew alfo, to what Senfe I'ertullian turned it in his Anfwer : Which, itfeems, you did not attend to. He tells you, from his Knowledge of Greek and Latin^ that Monarchia ought to fignify ftngulare £5? unicum Imperium^ one Jingular Government ovAuthonty : And under This View, he proceeds to anfwer Praxeas^s Objection about Monarchia. But, you fay. This Inftance of 'TerttiUian may ferve to {how that Father and Son are not Two Monarchs^ but that the one Monarch mufl be He only in whom the Authority is Original. But then you'll confider that hereby you make the Son no Monarch : And fo inftead of making the Father and the Son One God (which This Example was intend- ed to illuftrate) you make the Son no God at all j or elfe you make a fupreme Godj and an inferior God^ that is Two Gods^ which you pretend to difown. Nor can you ever come off from fo evident a Dilemma. I fay then, that 7'ertullian's Similitude, tho' it an- fwered his purpofe, does not at all ferve your's. And therefore, T obferved to you that T'ertullian refolved the Unity of God not into the Father's being fole Monarch, which would have been giving up the Di- 'vinity of God the Son, but into Unity of Power^ Subfiance^ Godhead^ common to Both j taking Both into the one Godhead^ and one God. Had you done fo too, you had done wifely, and might then have claimed fome Countenance from Antiquity-^ which your iVbi;^/ Scheme is dire6lly oppofite to. Unity of Subjlance^ you fay, can never make two equally fupreme Monarch s one God. Bat it may make Two Petfons, confidered as tc^Aly fupreme oyer all, to Qn. V. offome QU E R I E S. ibr'- to be but One Monarchy and One God-y and that's as ^ well. I had faid of ^thenagoras^ that He refolves the Unity of Godhead into Unity of Suh fiance and Ori- - ginal. As if^ fay you, Unity of Suhftance^andUnity of Original ivere the fame 'Thing. 1 do not fay they are precifely the fame : For then I need not have mentioned Both. But This I fay, that no Unity of Stibfiance^ unlefs the Original was one, fo as to make the Subftance as it were of the fame Stock, would be fufficient upon the Principles of the Antients. I very well knew what I was talking about. Two uno'^ • riginate divine Perfons, however otherwife/;?7^/?^r^Z>/f,^ wouldbeTwo Gods, according to the Antients: ^Buc if ^ one be not only Confiihflantial^ but alfo of the other^ and referred up to Him as a Head or Fountain, Two fuch Perfons were believed to be one God. This was the Catholick Method, not of making the Father /«- gly^ but Father and Son, One God-y which was their pious Care, and truly Chriftian Concern, and which They expreffed on all Occafions againft J eivs^ Pa- gans^ and Hereticks. Your Obfervations on Athenagoras^ are anfwered above. You have in This Page {pag. ii6.) and the following one, the Ihrewdell: way of talking I have yet met with. You have difcovered, it feems, that my Principles and yours are the very fime > and that we need not Difpute longer. Indeed, I was wondring at your Dullnefs in not making the Difcovery fooner : For I very well knew that you could never bring over the Antients to your Principles, but you muft at the fame Time take Me alfo along with Them: And the very fame Arguments which you make ufe of to draw them in as Advocates to your Caufe, mufl of courfe draw Me in tooj being inviolably attached to Them. You have therefore here done me Juftice, undefignedly •, I am really on your fide, as much as ever the Antients were: And you are very confiflenc in taking me in with Them. But the Misfortune is, ■ - ^ thac 2^i >^ Second Defeistse Qu.V. fchat the preUy way you have of fetching any things or any Man you plcafe, into at fide, and forcing thcni into your Service, is become greatly Contemptible ^ cfpccially after the Attempts made upon fuch Men as Bifhop Pearfon^ and Bifhop BnU^ and trpon our Creeds y Article Sy and Liturgy. You have drove the Wile too far : And now every Body fees through it. But let us hear, at length, how it is that I am brought over to countenance your Principles j And let the Reader, front This Inftance, make a Judg- ment of the reft. You proceed thus : If the Unity of the Godhead is to be rejolved into one Head, Rooty Fountain, and Father of all, the Son who is not the Head, Root, Fountain, i^c. cannot he Himfelf That one fupr erne God which is the Father^ Heady Rooty and Fountain of all. Thus, after you have fwelled your felf up with Aflurance, and your Reader with Ex- pe£bation, you produce nothing but the filly Sophifm about Thisy and That j which I before (/>. f i .) promtfcd to difmifs, whcre-cvcr I fhould find it. My own Handsy you tell me, have entirely dejlroyed my own Scheme, Happy for me^ that I am here to anfwer for my felf J when vf'ixkx^y^.P ear fony^^. Bully and almoft all the Antients^y I am called in to countenance fuch Notions as I had not only deteftedy but formally con- futed. You tell me, had I re (led here (that is, in af- * Youfiruple not, pag. ii8. to cite Athansffius, Hilary, and Gre- gory Nazianzen, as making the Father the Only God ; as if They alf$ intended to exclude the Son from the One Godhead. Such as have et'tr looked into Thofe IVriters themfeheSy injlead of taking up Scraps at Second- handt cannot want an Anfwer to fuch weak Tretences. I JJjall think if fufficient to refer yon to a few Places of theft Thra fVrtters, te give yon « jiif Notion of their Principles upon This Head* Athanafius, p. f^6» 878. in Pfal. p. yf. Hilarius, 856, 85-9. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 56. p. fS6. As to your Pretence that you candot find that any cveti of the Tojl-nicenes of the 4''* Century faid that the Son was equal in Authority and in all Pcrfeftions 5 it is either a poor ^ibble upon tht fVord Authority, «• tlfe betrays your gr tat want ^reading, ferting i Qu. V. 9ffome Q^U E R I E S. 209 ferting the Father to be Hcad^ B.oot^ £cc.) the Contro^ 'verfy had been at an end. Now, if it mny concri- bute any thing to end one of the idleil Dil'putes, to fay no worfe, that ever was begun amongll u.^, 1 beg leave to afTure you that I do reft there \ and, by fo doing, I have at once took from you, as I humbly conceive, all your Pretences both from Scripture^ and Antiquity j leaving you nothing but your A/?/^^//^)y/V/^i to trufltoj •which after repeated Experiments, you have found very unferviceable, and lighter than Vanity itfelf. After you had took notice of what I had granted, as to the Father's being Root^ Head^ Fountain^ &c. you (iiy, // 'This be true as I have fully proved^ &c. And you refer to what you had done above, adding fome other Authorities in the Margin. The Reader here cannot but obferve how unac- countably you have fpent your Time and Pains, in an elaborate Proof of what I had readily before granted. This is what commonly, and very jultly, goes under the Name of Impertinence-^ and is a Method almoit peculiar to Thofe who having once efpoufed a bad Caufe^ have an After-game to play for their own Reputation^ more than for the fake of the CaufeThcy are entred to, and are to carry on the Appearance of a Difpute , after the Difpute is really ended. What other Account can be given of your filling fo many tedious Pages with Quotations from the An- tients^ really provmg nothing but what 1 had ingenu- oufly admitted before, leaving it to you to make all the Advantage you poflibly could of it ? The Reader here may again plainly fee, that your pretended Arguments againil me, are not more againll me thanagainfl: x}c\zAntients^ by whofe Princi- ples mine mufl either Hand or fall. And while you are charging me with ContradlElions^ the Charge falls equally upon Themj whofe Faith I follow, and whofe Principles I here maintain. It may be ieen, with half an eye, that you deal with the Antients juft as you do with me. You pretend firit to iplic P their 2IO 'A Second Defense Qu.VJ their Notion into contradiUory Principles ^ and then you take one part of the pretended Contradiction and play it againll the other part 5 crying out, the Antients^ the Antients^ all the way j with much the fame Juflice as'you can, when you have a mind to it, cry out,Thc Creeds^ The Articles^ The Liturgy^ and what not ? You tell me, [pag. 217.) of my perpetual Self-con- tradiEiion. Now, if you are able to prove it, you'll do fomething : If not, you only betray your own want of Judgment, or fairnefs, in making the Charge. As to the PerfeWton you imagine in the Father as fuch, more than in the Son, I deny any, except what is contained in a Mode of exifting^ or Relation of Or- der. You go on Cavilling, in a childifh manner, again ft Unity of Suhftance^ Individ ual. Numerical, 6cc. which kind of Cavils I abundantly anfv/ered again and again in my Defenfey and fhall not repeat. Homogeneous Subjlance and infepar ability amounts with you to Subftances united. You fhould have avoided This, becaufe you hereby charge your Friend the Do6tor with making the Divine Subftance a Heap of Subftances united, l^ there cannot be Subftance and Subftance without Subftances^ the Doftor and you are in a lamentable Cafe^ while you fuppofe the Di- vine Subftance to be extended : For you thereby fup- pofe Him compounded of innumerable Subftances. Learn hereafter to have your Thoughts more about: you, when you are charging Contradi5lions. I had faid, in my Defenfe^ p. 84. that the Fathers believed God to be a Word denoting Subftance % not Dominion only. You are unwilling to let This pafs, notwithftanding that you have changed your Mind in this Point of God's denoting Dominion only^ * See Tertullian <»^w«, p. 180.^ *V^«. Baf. Ep. 80. 'O a>», iCf 0 S-ios T?5 iijv aa-<«/', Epiph. vol. to p.' 1 1. fincc Qu.V. of fome O^U ERIE S. 211 fince your lail Time of Writing. Now the Word, you fliy, denotes the Perfon ivbofe the Subftance is j that is, the Subftance whofe the Subllance is ; For Perfon denotes Subftance. As to ^soVor, which be- fore lignified, with you, divbie Dominion., it now lig- nifies divine Dignity and Authority. And it is plea- fant to obferve, how you can change the Senfe of a Word, and yet give the very lame reafon for the new Senfe, as before for the old one. We were be- fore told, that ^iorrS'i like av^^ai-circryir, and all other V/ords of the like formation^ always fignifies di- 'vine Dominion *. Now, ^^soVn?, like av^^ciiTn-oT/ir, and all other IVords of like formation.^ always fignifies divine Dignity and Authority. That is to fay, once upon a Time, it always lignified an outward fielation^ expreilcd by the Word Dominion : But now it always fignifies fome intrinfick Perfections^ exprefled by the Word Dignity. I hope, the next Time vou write, it will always fignify Divine Nature.^ like ^A-j^^ti^-jro- TJir, (which fignifies the Human) and all other U^ords of like formation. I gave many plain Examples of This fignification, by References in the Margin, of my Defenfe-f. One would think that you, in your reply, had a mind only to divert the Reader. You tell me, in the Pafiage of Alelito^ ^iom^^ is expreflly oppofed to av^^oo-nroTyir. I know it, and I chofe ic for That very reafon j becaufe, as av^^ajxcr):? there undoubtedly fignifies ////?;MwA^^///r^, //; concreto^ foic determines the Signification of ^?or)irto the Divine' Nature: Befides that your ov%^n Notion of Z)/^w;7j^',Cif you have any Senfe in \x) falls in with mine o^ Subftance, For whaicver exprcdes intrinfick Dignity (and not mere outward Relation) exprelTcs the Nature^ and Subftance.^ the Seat and Ground of that intrinfick Dignity. * Se& Dr. Clarke'^ Replies, p. 183. t Defeufe, />, 8/, 594. i' 4 ' XoM_ 21 z ^SecondDefense Qu. V, You pafs over a Page or two o^ my Defenfe^iiWyou. find fometbing to carp at : And it is my faying that the Sabellian Sin2;'alarity confided in making the Godhead /urvoiir^oo'oJTr©', one fingle Hypoftafis. To which you reply, that the contrary is notorioujly tru^^ that the Sa- h iWiins fuppofed God to be [xia utto^cl^i^ T^iTr^oo-oa-nr©'. Now, of all Things, there is nothing more con- temptible among Men of Senfe, than Pedantry about "Words. Men of Learning know that the Word TJoo-WTTov has been fometimes ufed to fignify only an Appearance, or Manifeilation, or Characler : In This Senfe, the Sabe Hi an Tenet is, that the Godhead is (jLia vuro<^ct(Ti^ TQiw^ocroiwQ*^ one Hypoftafis under Three Perfons^ that is, Names^ Jp^earances^ Cha-- radlers'y the fame being cither Father^ or Son^ or Holy Ghoft^ according to his feveral Manifeflation?^ or different Appearances. But then the Word -ur^o* coiwov has been like wife ufed to fignify the fame with Hypoftafis^ a real Perfon ^ : In this Senfe, the Sahel^ llan Principle makes the Godhead /jiovo-ut^oo-wtt©', or £v TT^oa-'jiwovj one fingle Perfon -{■. But I am weary of inllru6ting you in luch k^oivnThings as you ought to have been well verfed in, before you engaged in * It is thus ufed as early as Hippolytus. Contr. Noet.c. 7.C. 14, in which Senfe alfo TertuUim frequently ufes the Latin V/ord Per- fona. Gregory N^idanzen makes it indifferent whetlier to fay, t^ror^i- c-iic, cr TTpocrcf-'Tra, provided the meaning be fecured. Orat, 39. p. 630. By degrees the Words came to be indifferently ufed, one for txhe other, as Damafcen has obferyed to have been common with the 'Fathers. i/boy 70 UTJTo izuXirciv. to kcc^-' ixvTo ia\o(rv?-oiTCjq ii, i and you may then reft confift- ently in one God^ and no more j namely, in God the Father. Q_U E R Y VI. Whether the fame CharaSierifticks, efpecialljfuch eminent ones, can reafonably be iinderftood of Two diflin^i Beings ; and of one Infinite and Independent^ the other T>ependent and Finite? YOUR new Anfwer to This Query is, I . That the Charaders can no more be under- ftood of ^wo difiinU Perfons^ than of I'ljuo dijiinci Beings. To which I anfwer, that it may be proved from Scripture that the Charaders belong to i'ljuo Perfons: it cannot be proved that They belong to J'vjo Beings^ much lefs that they belong to Two fuch difparate, and unequal Beings^ as you fuppofe Father and Son to be. 2. You anfwer, fecondly, that the Cbara5Iers are not the fame^ becaufe Powers derived and underived are not i\\q fame. This anfwer is very contrary to the Sentiments of wiferMen, who have argued the other way, that if the Powers had been equally underived^ they had not been the fame in the Two Pcrfons^: But as one of the a ill iMjii • * In diiobus inger.ttis diverfa Divinitas invenitur : in uno autem gmto ex uno ingenitOt naturalis unitas demonftratur. Fulgent, contr. Arian. p. 5-9. Si Ambo vocarcntur Tatres, efient ipvoh6to Natura diflimiles. Unufquifque enim ex femetipfo conftaret, & communem fubftan- tiam cum altcro non haberet j nee Deitas una eflet, quibus una na- jtura non cflet. Idem, p. 5-2. P4. H 216 y4 Second Defense Qu.Vl. the Perfons is derived from the other, being Light of Light^ God of God^ Subftance of Subftaucej Both to- gether are one God^ one Subftance^ &c. And the fame Powers are common to Both > as there is the fame Life in Root and Branches, the fame Light in the Sun and its Rays, the fame Plrtue in the Center and what proceeds from it. And tho' no Comparifons are fufficicnt to illuftrate Infinity, and there muil be a great deal more than we are able to conceive 5 yet there is no Principle of Reafon to contradi6l This Notiqii, that the iame Powers^ Properties^ Peffe^i- ons may be diverlly confidered in the Fountain from whence they flow, and in the Streams to which They defcend. You your felf can give no tolerable Account how the fame Powers^ Attyibutes^ &c. are equally difFufed to infinitely diftant Parrs of the Divine Subftance^ as you conceive it under Extenfion: Nor is our Notion of the fame Powers being common to Three Perfons, at all more unconceivable, or inexplicable than your's is of the other*. So that here let us be content to flop where it becomes us, and not pretend to mea- fure Infinity. You fay, the Powers are no more the fame than the Perfons are : Nor, certainly, lefs the Vame, than the Subftance is. All This will depend upon the fettling the Scnfe of Sa?ne?:efsj and the fe- veral kinds of it. When you are able to explain to me how the J^^if- dom refiding in one part of the Divine Subftance (on your Hypothcfis of Extenfion) is xhtfame^ and yet not the fame w^ith the JVifdorn refiding in any other Part'j I may then be able to account for the degree of Samencfs in the Po%vers belonging to the Three Perfons. Si verus Deus eft, Sc de Patre non eft, Duo funt habentes finguli & vcluntatr-'; Proprias & impcria diveria. Gree:. Nazianz. p. 729. Pfcud. Ambror p. 54S. ^ $t( m.j Defenfe. p. j;^2, a. In Qu.VI. cf feme QUERIES. 217 3. In the third Place, you tell me of an" in'vidious Infinuation^ couched under the AVords Finite and /«- finite. This you borrow, as you do many other Things, R-om the Author of A/o Attributes by Scrip- ture appropriated to the one true God : Befides fome ftttles^ appearing in Thefe Texts, applied to Chrift, and appropriate likewife to the one God. As to two or three other Charadlers, which you mention as appro- priate to the ^;^^GW, and which are not applied (as you pretend) to the Son j fee my Sermons % and what I have (aid above. I do not love to fill my Paper with Repetition, as often as you doyour's. You come next to lefTen the Characters given to God the Son. He is Searcher of the Hearty but as received of the Father : W hich the Text fays not one Word of. On- ly, four Verfes lower , it is faid, that He received Power over the Natioris^ of the Father : Which is very wide of our prefent Purpofe. You have fome Pretences to elude the Force of the Title Firfi and * Sermons t p. ^8o. Qp. V. offome Q^U E R I E S. 221 Lcifty which fee anfwer'd in my Sermons^, As to mighty God., you prcrend the Father is fo ahfoliitely , the Son with Limitation 5 And here you refer to the Son's being (ixiyaKti^ (^isXri^ayyiX©^) Angel of his great Counfely which is not according to the Hebrew^ and fo is of no Account while I am arguing from Scrips tiire^ not from the Fathers. The Father is Lord of all^ you fay, ahfohiteJy : And fo is the Son, for any Thing that appears 5 tho' the Father put all I'hings under Him. Let it be ihown , that the Father has any natural SuhjeEls^ which are not equally Subjects of the Son too. There is therefore no Ground for your imaginary Limitations in refpecl of the Powers and Per- fcdions afcribed to the Son. You add (p. 228.) that nothing can be communis cated to the one fupreme God. The Force of this lies only in the Terms. The firfi Perfon may eter- nally communicate to the fecond^ and Both be one God. He can have nothing, you fay, of Himfelf : Well 5 if He has it but in Himfelf^ and of the Father^ it fuf- fices. The Queftion is not 'whence He has his Perfec- tions, but what He has. It is remarkable, you fay, that the Throne^ Kingdom^ i^c. is never afcribed to Chrifl upon Account of his Part in the Work of Crea* tion. p. 230. And what if it is not? The Father is recommended to us principally as Creator^ the Son as Redeemer ^to keep up a more diftinft Notion of their Perfons^ and Offices. What a Strefs do you lay upon common Things, taught in our Catechifm ! Befides, I had obviated this Cavil in my Defenfe -f. 'Tis re* 7narkable again, you fay, that the Defcriptions of the JVord.y in the old Tcftament^ always reprefents Him as the Angel or Meflenger. You fhould only have faid ge* tier ally : And there is good Reafon why j bccaufe by That Criterion chiefly, we know that it was God the * Sermons t p. 255. t Defenfe, p. 274, 27/. 4, Son^ 222 A Second Defense Qu.VL Son^ not God the Father. He is at the fame Time, reprefented alfo as God^ and as Lord^ Jehovah^ i^c. What Ufe you can make of this remarkable Thing, has been fhown. I pafs over your Speculations on Dan. vii. 13, 14, as carrying no Argument in Them. You go on in (peaking of Chrift's receiving Domi- nion > which relates only to the Oeconomy.^ or Dif- fenfation : According to which God the Father will receive a Kingdom at the lail Day, and enlarge his Dominion over his Subje6i:s. As to Phil. ii. 6. I refer to my fifth Sermon*^ where I had obviated your Pretences before you made them. You infift upon your Conftruftion of dWcl. Which if ad- mitted, yet you can never afcertain your whole Con- ftruftion ( as I fhowed in my Sermon "f ) but the Words will ftill naturally bear a Meaning oppofite to yours. However, as to your Criticifms , about the Ufe of dWd in that Place, they appear to me of no manner of Force. The Senfe is exceeding clear, and unbarralTed, running thus : IVho being in the Form of God^ thought it not Robbery to be equal 'with God (See how great, how divine a Perfon He was.) Tet not- ivithftanding.. He humbled Himfelf\^ (^c. You pre- tend that the Words, thcught it not Robbery^ would be the Example propofed. No 5 but They are Pare of the Preface to it, to make the Example the more forcible, and the more endearing : So that I may re- turn you the Compliment of Inattention. In my Sermons^ you tell me, I mofi abfurdly inter- pret God's highly exalting Chrift^ in the fame Senfe as f Serwm V. p. 157. 4 Clemens undcrftands it in the fame Way as I do. ' O5 tv (ao^^ <^v) B-tS uTTcc^^eov is^ tc^TFocyfX/ly ryyto'ciTo TO ifveii ktx B-iZ' iKtveoa-iv -j iavrov 0 ^fcc rat c^^aih «■ ■■ '<3V krc* dh^oi^cvrx res iccvrS rrxTi^x, cCf/zoituiA-^ uyTiS'o^u^uv 6 TTccrtif ^ *^ kiihili, Eufeb, contr. Marcell. p. 70. 224 -^ Second Defense Qu.VI. in his highetl Capacity 5 as Eufebius plainly does. Nor do 1 think that Eufebius ever had fo low an Opinion of God the Son^ as to think Him capable of being exalted in any other Senfe but that of being Glorified^ or having his Glory manifeftcd. It is ob- fervable, that Eufebius does not interpret the Text of conftituting our Saviour Lord^ King^ and God^ but re- cognizing, or manifefting Him as fuch : And it is certain, that Eufebius reiblves all the Son's real and eflential Greatnefs into his Sonfnp^ ^ and not into any fubfequent Exaltation. It was as Son of God that He acknowledged Him Lord^ and Saviour^ and King^ and God : Wherein Eufebius' s> Theology, however you may boall ol: Him, very far exceeds yours. You charge me with interpreting l-^a-oiGOLro mofl abfurdly. I fuppofe^ if you had had any Reafon to afTign, you yould have obliged us with it. I fee no Abfurdity in interpreting giving a Name^ to be giving a Name j which is all I have done. But it is very abfurd of you to imagine, that God may not glorify his Son, as well as his Son may glorify Him 5 by fpreading and extolling his Name over the whole Creation. You go on to Hebr. i. 2. Whom He hath appoint- ed Heir of all 'Things^ by which you intend", I iup- pofe, to prove that He was not Lordhz^ort: Tho' in the very fame Verfe, it is faid, by whom alfo He made the Worlds. Might not This ihov7 you, that the Apoftle is only fpeaking of that peculiar and fpe- cial Right founded in the Merits of ChrilVs Redemp- tion 'y by which He became, in a more fpecial Senfe, Lord of all He had redeemed ; juil: as God the Fa- ther became in a more fpecial Senfe than before. Lord of the Jews^ upon his chufing them as his pe- culiumj or upon his delivering them from Egyptian f/l/UVy KXi which is certainly true both of the Father^ -xnd Son : If you mean otherwife , you run dire6i:ly into Socinianifm\ as I before hinted. You add, Then it wasy that God commanded, let all the Angels of God worfenp Him. And why did you not add, that then it 'was^ that He laid the Fonnda- tion of the Earthy and then it was^ that the Heavens ivere the TVorks of his Hands? Do you imagine, that St. Paul^ in that Chapter, had no other Defign, but to defcribe the Manifellations of Ch rift's Glory fub- fcquent to his Incarnation ? You find , that He was the Lord^ who in the Beginning laid the Foundations of the Earth : Which is a Itronger Chara6ter than all the rell put together j and may convince you that He was Lord long before his Incarnation, as John I, I. declares Him God before the Creation. To your Pretences about the Son's receiving Power^ Glory^^c, I had anfwer'd, wnth many of the Fathers, that He received in Capacity of Man^ what in another Ca- pacity He had before ever enjoyed. This is not the only good Anfwer to the Difficulty propofed : I have my felf made Ufe of another, which may as ef- fedualiy ferve to take off the imaginary Force of your Argument. But let us hear what you have to fay to it. You no inhere find Tldis Difthi^ion in Scripture. What? Do not you find that He was God^ and that He was alfo Man ? When you have found This, you have found the Diftindlion. But you no vuhere find in Scripture any Thing given to Chrift.^ or any thing afcribed to Him, hut ivhat is applied to his whole Per- fun. We fay, whatever is applied, is applied to his Q vjhoU 225 A Second Defense Qu.Vt whole Pei'/on-y but confidcred fecundum qtiid^ or in ^ certain Capacity^ not in every Refpeft which goes in to make up the Perfon. And can you pretend to de- ny This ? Let us fee what you are like to make of it. Jefus increafed m Stature > will you fay , that the IFurd (for that you certainly allow to be con- flitutive of the Perfon) grew taller and larger^ be- caufe This is applied to the Perfon? Vl^ Sweaty as it wacy great Drops af Blood: Was the Xoy©* ii^ a Sweat? He died^ and was buried^ and He lay in the Ground: According to you, the "whole Perfon^ the Xoy©*! it fcems, as well as the Body^ fufFered all This j For, you know of nothing that was ever applied to Part of the Perfon^ but to the whole Perfon. When you confidcr This Matter again,, learn to form your Argument with a little more Judgment: For, you feem not, at prefent, to know how to oppofe us in the beft Method, nor how to give your Caule the Advantage it is really capable of. You fhould not have found Fault with us for applying any Thmgto a Compound Perfon^ in fuch Refpecl or Capacity only^ as is fuitable?thereto \ For, This is the commoneli Thing imaginable, and is done every Day , as often as we fay Peter or John^ is fat, lean, low, tall, well, fick , or -the like : But you lliould have laid your Argument againll our taking fo much in as we da into the Perfon of Chrift (the Xcy©^^ the Soul^ and the Body) and then you might have fliown fome Degree of Acutenefs. But it is not my Bufinefs to point out to you the propercil: Way of defending your Herefy^ which is every Way indefenliblc: It may fuffice, if I reply to fuch Things as you have to* produce. You {d.y ^Judgment was not given to Part of Him which is the Son of Atan^ hut to Him^ hecaufe He is the Son of Man. There is nothing at all in your Argument : For, fuppofe a Wound^ or a Plaiflcr to be given to Peter^ that is, to the whole Perfon > yet, I fuppofe, it may be undcrilood with refpeft to one Part only of Him , 'uiz. Qu. VI. offome Q^U E R I E S. 227 I'tz, his Body. But I have allowed you that the Au- thority of executing Judgment was Oeconomically de- volved upon Chrift (conlider'd in Both Capacities ) as the propereft Pcrfon for it > being equal to the Charge as God^ and over and above peculiarly fitted for it as being alfo Man > and fo a more lliitable Judge o^ Man * TheReafon then why, out of rhree dhine Perfons^ Chriil is peculiarly appointed to The Office o^ judging us, is becaufe He had to his Divi- nity fuperinduccd the Humanity^ and thereby fami- liarized Hirnfclf the more to us. You fee then, that your ingenious Argument about Parts ^ however it might afFe6b another Hypothefts (tho' it can really hurt none) does not at all concern my Account of That Matter. As to the Place of Hermas^ which I produced ill my Defenfe^ I refer the Reader to Bifhop BuU^ and Dr. Grahe. All you have to objed, is the Expref- fion of Corpus \ by which You underftand a Human Body., I5 the whole Human Nature^ confiding of ^1?^^ and Scul. Nothing more common in Writers thaa to exprefs the whole Man by Flejh^ or Bcdy\^ and by the latter efpecially, when conlider'd as a Servant: So that your Conftruftion is at leaft vq\j precarious -y and is what neither the ExpreJJion it felf, nor what goes along with it , gives any realbnable Ground for. But i leave that Matter to be confidered by die Learned 5 there being feme Difficulties as to the ^J'ext o^Hermas., not yet fully adjufted by the MSS. You are infinuating'the fame Thing of Novatian^ tvhich you had before o^ Hermas-, as if He imagined the fFord to haveaffiimed/7^/j only, without a Soul: ♦ Pater Verbum fuum vifibile effccit omni fieri Carai, incar- hatum 8c ipfum, ut in omnibus manifeftus fieret Rex eorum, Etc- nim ea quae judicantur oportebat videre Judicena, Sc fcirc Hunc a quo judicentur. Iren, L 3. c. 9. p. 184. t See Suiccr's Thefaurus m cu^% and (r«^«, Q^i Which 128 yf Second Defense Qu.VI. Which if true, we would give you up Novatian for a very liUy Man, and withai a Heretick. The Point of Chrifl's having a Human Soul was a Thing fo fettled in No^jatian's Time, and long before j fo uni- veifally maintain'd from the very Beginning of Chrif- tianity, by all the Fathers without Exception > that had Novatian taught otherwife. He could not have pafTed for a Schifmatkk only. You may fee v/hat Socrates ^ fays to that Point, who was Himfelf of the Novatian Seft, and his Teftimony therefore the more material ( as Difciples feldom vary in any thing very confiderable from their Leaders) He de- clares, that all the Antients (fure He did not exclude the Head of his own Party) believed that Chriil had a Human Soiil^ and aflerted it as a Do5irine univer^ [ally received. He mentions Irenaus^ Clemens^ Jppol- linaris o{ Hieraplis^ Serapion Bifhop oi Antioch^ The Synod x}(\2it xviti about the Cafe o^ Beryllus ^ Origen^ Pamphilus^ and Eufehius : And it is evident ftill from their own Works, of as many as have left us Any. To Thofe He has named, may be added Clemens Ro^ maniis ^ , Juftin Martyr <^ , Melito ^ , Hippolytus ^, I'ertuUian ^, and perhaps feveral more which may have efcaped my Notice. Now, what will Nova- tian's (ingle Teflimony iignify, againft fuch a Cloud of Witneffes ? But the more Univerfal the Dodlrine was, the Icfs probable is it, that Nov at i an {houXd dif- fent from it. And indeed you have no Foundation for any fuch Sufpicion of Him, more than what lies in the Ufe of the Word Caro^ FleJJj ; which is a very common Expreflion for Man^ (Body and Soul ) in Scripture it felf, as well as in Ecclefiaftical Writers. Befides that Novatian interprets Ch rift's being made » Socrates Eccl. H. 1. 3. c. 7. p. 178. *• Clem. Pvom. Epift. c. 49. p. 169. Cant. * Apol. 2. c. 10. p. 2(5. '' Meliroapud Cav. Hift. Lit. Tom. 2. p. 55. • Hippolytus contr. Noet. c. 17. p. 18. ^ Tertullian contr. Prax. c. 16. 30. de Cam, Chrifti, c. 10^ Flefh^ Qu. VI. offome Q^U E R I E S. 22P Flcjh^ by his afTuming o^ Man^ I June Hominem^* this Man : Which is a Name He would fcarce have given to mere Body or F/eJJj > well knowing, that Man is made up both of Body and Sonl. Your Pretence about Son of God, and Son of Ajan being two Per^ fons (upon my Scheme) hinted only, without any Reafon to fupport it, may be palled over. The clearing of that Matter will require a large Difcuf- iion of the true Notion and Definition of a FerJon\ which you have not attempted: I, perhaps, may, in a proper Place. What you add farther, is of more Weight, that I fecm to fuppofe that the Glory ijuhicb Chrift had before the World idlis^ is the 'very fame with that Authority and Power of Judgment ( fo you ex- prefs it) where-with He was im-efied after his Re fur ' region. But That Authority and Pozver of judging^ as you call it, is what our Lord had before his Refur- retlion^ as Himfclf declares, John v. 28, ^c. And what I fuppofe^ is This> that all the Powers^ Glories^ Honours given to the Son, were nothing but fo many Declarations, Indications, or Manifeftations of the Dignity and Divinity of his Perfon : Which Dignity and Divinity had been celebrated in Pleaven before, and were now to be recognized after his Incarnation and Humiliation : So that in the main, This was no more than receiving the C-^mc Honours He before had, and returning, as it were, to the fame State of Glory j only now cloathed with Humanity^ which before He was not. You have fomething farther to ob(erve o? Hermas^ in relpeft of Co-heir. How can the divine Nature , fay you, be Heir of any Thing ? But I hope a Son may, without Offence, be faid to be Heir to ail his Father's Glories, in Allufion to what pafles among Men, tho' the Similitude may not anfv/er in every * Caro fit, & habitat in nobis, hoc eft, afllimit hurC Homincmj CL 3 Circum- 230 A Second Defense Qu.VI; Circumftance. It is a lively and elegant Way of conveying to us a Notion of divine Things j And is to be underftood, like many PaflTtges of Scripture , ^soTTgsTTcur, tho' fpoken avOpWTroTraGw?, You conclude wi:h a Pailiige of Irenaus^ which I have cited in my Sermons^ -y whither, to fave my felf Trouble, I refer the Reader > who may there alfo find a fufficient Explication of it. What you infer from it is 5 that the I^Ford received an addicional Power ^ and Glory upon his Refurre^ion. Power is an ambiguous Word : But He received an additional Manifeftation of his Glory > as God the Father alfo did at the very fame Time, as well as often before. And He became Lord^ and Proprietor of Mankind un- der a more peculiar Title, and ftridlcr Alliance : Jufl: as God the Father, when He had by his many De- liverances, Favors, and BieiUngs, made the People 6f the Jews more peculiarly his own , became their Lord in a ilri6t, and fprcial Senfe. Thus bot'i Fa- ther and Son will (wc hope) receive daily Additions of external Honour^ aind Increafe o^ DK.m>iion we pray for i^ : And if the Father Himfelf benotyetcompleatly King^ in the fuUeft: Senfe, what Wonder is it, if we hear of our Lord's receiving a Kingdom^ or Dominion^ io Time. External Relations may accrue to any of the divine Perfons, fuch as Dominion^ (j'c. But your great Misfortune is, that you can no where find Divinity accruing to God the Son ( except it be by eternal Generation) you can no where find , that He was ever conftitutcd God -f ( as He might be Lord) or that ♦ Sermons, p. 17^. f Novatlan is rhe only nntient Writer T haveobierved to fay any thing like it ; in the Words Uhtvey-fi, CreaturdL (^ Dom'mus ^ Deus cor.flitutus ejfe reperitur, Kov. c. ly. Yet his con/lant Way, at other Times, iz tyo rcfolve the Son's pivinity into his SonjVi^, JOeam Qu. VL ^ffvm^ qU E R I E S. 2 ji that He became, by any new Acceflion, more truly, or more fully God than He was ever before. This •Conlideracion at once fhows the Weaknefs of your Hypothejts (as 1 hinted above) and is alone fufficient to unravel all your Fallacies. Beum credmdum effe (^ut ex Deo fit. c. 1 1 . Dctts quia Bet Filius tomprobiitur. c. lO. Hoc ipfum tamen a P aire propria con/ecutut, uf om- nium (^ Deui ejfitf (^ Dominus e£et, (^ Deus ad for mam Dei Fatris ex ipfd genitHi atque prolatus. c. \j. Detis,fed qua Filins Dei natusex Deo. c. 18. Deus ergo ^rocefjit ex Deo, dum qui procejft Sermo, Deus efi qui procefjit ex Deo. c. 21. Umim potffi dtci, dum ex ipfo ejl, (^ dum Fdtui ejus efiy 0> dum ex ipfo nafcitur, dum ex ipfo froceffjfs re- feritur, per quod ^ Deus efi. C. 23. ^uofiiam ex D.o cfi, meritg Deusi quia. Vci Fiiius dicius ft. c, 26, Ferfons, Chrifli conzerdt ut f^ Deus ft, quia Dei Fdiuj. c. a®. Efi ergo l}c\zi, f&d in hoc ipf urn gent- tus ut ejjtt Deus. c. 3 i . Thcie Paflages conlidered, itis manifefl: that Novatian, in the for- mer Place circd, either ufed the Word confiitHtus improperly, for to- fUus, that is dfckratus : (S.c Chap. 12. J or elfe, which appears to me moft probable, that arguing there again It tl;e Hercti.cks , who would not a.low Chrilt to be more than Matj, tie was content at firft, to bring them £0 far, at leaft, as to admit Chrift to be God in a higher Senfe than Mo/esj and £0 by Degrees, to brmg them up to Catholic Principles. Q, u E R y VII. Texts applied To the one God. ThoUy even Thou only knoweft the Hearts of all the Children ofMen^ i Kings 8. 3p. / the Lord fiarch the Heart 5 / try the Reins , Jer. 17. 10. / am the firft^ and I am the laft , and hefides me there is no God^ Ifa. 44. 6. a4 To the Son. He knew all JVIen^ &c, foh. 2. 24. 'Thou knovjefl all Things^ Joh. i frial. But by this round about Way, you would infinuate, I pre- fume ( for ftill you are fhifting, and do not care to fpeak out) that the Texts fpeaking of the Son'sOm- nifcience^ are of no Force becaufe fomething of like kind has been faidof the Apoftles^ v/hom all allow not to be omnifcient. To This I anfwer, i. That the ExprefEons relating to our Saviour are much ftronger than the other: Such as knowing all Men, knowing the Hearts of all Men^ fearching the Reins and tha Heart : A Kind of Knowledge peculiar to God alone. Z. Confidering that our Loid was Son God^ and like- wife God^ fuch Expreflions would very probably be taken in their moH obvious and literal Senfe: And therefore they fhould not huve been applied to Him (without Guard and Caution) unlels really fo intend- ed as the Words appear to declare. As to the A- poflles, being no more than Men, there could be no Danger in a few general Expreillons of. their know- ing all 'Things^ being taught all things ^ or the like : Since no Body could miilake the meaning of the Words when fo applied. Your next Attempt is to make fome Advantage o^Matt. xxiv.^d.andA/^ry^xiii 3 2. relating toChrifl's not know- ing theDay of Judgment 5 of which I have fully, and dif- tinftly treated elfewhere*: Wherelhavealfo added other ftrongand clear Proofs of ChriiVs Qmnifcience y which you take no Notice of, tho' you quote the Sermons, You like not my afcribing the Ignorance to the Hu- man Nature : You afk, whether any Nature can with any Senfe he faid to know^ or do any Unng ? Yes , why not? You charge me (p. 238.) with Inconfif- tency^ for interpreting the Text of the Human Na* ♦ Sermm ?ii. p. 268, cJ»f. ture^ Qu.VII. of fome aV ERIE S. 235 turcj and yet faying that Irenaus^ upon That Text, is to be underftood of the Xoy©*. As if Both mighc not be true, that Irenaus underftood the Text of the Xoy©^5 while I think it better to underftand it of the Human Nature : I am weary of fuch Trifling. You proceed to fhow that Iren^tus , in his Comment on Thefe Texts, afcribed Ignorance to God the Son. You take not the leaft Notice of thefeveral weighty, and fubftantial Reafons given by Bifhop Bull * , and referred to by me ^y againft your Opinion from other Places of Irenneuih Works. It is not your Way to be at all folicitous about making Any Writer confif- tent with Himfelf If you can but meet with a Paf- fage feemingly favouring your Opinion , it muft be prefently forced into your Senfe, however contradic- tory to the Author's kno'wn Principles elfewhere. I muft dcfire the Reader to confider well what I have faid upon This PafTage in my Defenfe j and not to take it from your Reprefentation, which is extreme- ly partial. And He may alfo compare M. Majfuefs Account of the fame PafTage in his previous DiJJerta^ tions ^ to his Edition of Irenaiis, I lliall here con- tent my felf with tranfcribing fo much of Irenaus as may be fnfficient to clear his meaning, and to take off That Confuiion which you have been induftriouf- ly throwing upon it, either in tranflating, or com- mentmg. The literal rcndring is thus, much the fame as I before gave in my Defenfe. " If one inquires into the Reafon why the Fa- '^ ther, tho' communicating in all "Things to the Son, ^' is yet fct forth by our Lord as alone knowing that " Day and Hourj He cannot, at prefent, find any ^^ fitter, or more decent, or indeed any other file " x^nfwer than this ( feeing our Lord is the only ^^ Teacher of Truth ) that we are to learn of Him * Bull. D. F. N. p. 82. A^1•m3d^^. in G. cl p lofd. ^ Defenfe, p. 103." f MalTuet.' Prae\% DlC in iren. p, 3 ^^ , •'- that 23^ ^ Secon D Defense Qu.VII. ^ that the Father is ahve all-. For the Father^ faith " He, is greater than /. And therefore the Father " is declared by our Lord to have the Preference in " Knowledge, to the End that we alfo, while we " live in this World, may refer the Perfedion of *^ Knowledge, and fuch intricate Queltions to " God *. Now, that Irenaus^ Defign was not to reprefent the Son as ignorant^ but quite the contrary, may ap- pear from This very Paflage duly confidered. For the Queftion, with Him, was not why the Father is more knowing , but why , fince Both are equal- ly Knowings our Saviour made fuch a Declaration as gave the Preference to the Father as alone knowing. He puts the Queftion, why the Father tho' com- municating in all 'Things (abfolutely, not in all other Things) IS ytt fet fori h^ or alone declared^ to know. So that the Queftion is not about his Knowledge^ but about our Lord's Declaration^ why, or on what Ac- count He made it, feemingly contrary to Truth -^ fince all Things are f^w;;^o« to Father and Son. What then could be meant by fuch a Declaration ? Itmuft be true fome Way or other, our Lord being a Teacher of Truth 5 what then is the Cafe ? Ir emeus tells us, that it is true in refpe6t of the Father's hav- ing the Pre-eminence in every Thing, and fo alone knowing every Thing in the firfi Place^ or primari- ly: And therefore it was upon This Account that our Lord gave Him the Preference, and referred that ♦ Si quis cxquirat Caufam propter quam in omnibus Pater com- xnunicans Filio, folus fcire & Horam &: Diem a Domino manifeftatus eft, neque aptabilem magis, neque decentiorcm, nee fine pcriculo al- teram quam hanc inveniat in praefenti; (quoniam enim folus ve- rax Mjgifter eft Dominu?) ut difcamus per ipfum, fuper omnia efle Fatrem, Etenim P^/fr ait, major me eft. Et fecundum Agnitio- nem itaquc prspofitus cjfTc Pater annuntiatus eft a Domino noftro , ad hoc, ut & nos, in quantum in Figura hujus mundi fumus, per- fedam Scicntiam 8c tales Quaeftiones concedamus Deo. Iren. L 2, €, 28. /. If^i Iji^. Knowledge Qu. VII. offome QUERIES. 257 Knowledge to Him fokly^ as the fole Fountain of it 5 which it well became Him to do, efpecially during the State of his Humiliation, while infigura mundi^ con- verfing below : tho' at the fame Time the Son alfo has the fame Knowledge, but derived, all Things being communicated to the Son, as Iremeus had obferved. Bafil'?, and Nazianzen's Accounts of this Matter will clear it up farther, and will fix Ireineus's real meaning beyond all reafonable exception. Bafil in anfwer to the Doubt, about our Lord's not knowing That Day, fays. He will give the So- lution which from a Child had been taught Him by the Fathers before Him : and which He reprefents in thefe Words : " As to what is faid, no one knows that '' Day, we underftand it as afcribing to the Father " the primary Knowledge both of Things prefent " and Things to come > and as fignifying to us that " He is in all Things the primary Caufe*. Nazi-- anzen chufes rather to refer Chrifl's not knowing TChat Day to his Humanity -y yet He mentions alfo this other Conflruftion of Chrift's not knowing it originally, or in that high manner, as the Father may be faid to know it. His Words are to this efFeft. If the jfirfl ConftruiStion be not fufficient, we may give This for a fecond: " As every Thing elfe, fo " alfo the Knowledge of the greatell Things is to " be referred up to the Caufe it felf, for the Ho- *' nour of the Father '\. Every one may fee that Iren^eus's Conflruftion falls in with This of Nazianzen and Bafil-y who perhaps might Both borrow it from Him : Nor is it pofli- ble from Irenceus's Words to prove that He meant any thing more. Nay, the Words themfelves moil * To, ihU oTJV, r\v TT^aiTtiv sl^^ which is Omnifcience in the highell and fulled Senfe, not your relative Omni* fcience, no where found among the Antients. But you oppofe another PafTage of the fame Comment, laying, that the Father is greater than the Truth^ that is, than the Son: Which no body doubts j greater as Father, which is all that On^^;^ means. And what is That to the purpofe? Your other Quotation out of Jerom^ (then a vehement Anti-Origenifl^ and ftraining every Thing to the worft Senfe) is of very flight Moment. Let the Reader confult Bp. Bull'f^- in Defenfc of Origen againft Jerom's Invcftives : For I have no Inclination to repeat : Or let him turn to Origen* s Treatife againft Celfus^ where Origen di- reftly contradids that very Doftrine which you, upon JerorrC^ Authority, endeavour to afcribe to Him 5 He aflerts, that the Son knows the Father xar' a^/av, fuitahly to his Dignity \, From the flenderOppofition which, after long deli- beration, you have been able to make againft the Son's Omnifcience^ it ought now to pafs as a Thing concluded and determined ^ being fully fupported by Scripture^ and by All Antiquity. For befides the/>^r//V///^r Teftimo- nies before mentioned, I gave you alfo a general Ar- gument, to prove that the Son's Omnifcience muft have been a ruled Cafe, a fettled Point with the Ante-niceneOkwixcYi : To which Argument you make not a Word of reply. Only you lingle out an Ex- preilion of mine, relating to Sabellianifm^ which you ♦ Bull Def. F. Nfc. p. I a I. t Origen. contr. Cdf. p. 287, think i4o !/^ Second Defense Qu.VII; think is not juft, and which you call ahufing the Rea-^ der 'y tho' you have not yet been able to produce any one Inftance where I have done it. I have difcovered many in you, and fhall many more as I pafs on. What you blame me for, is for fuppofing that the Greek Word Hypojiafts^ fignified Perfon^ during the Time of the Sabellian Controverfy. I do aflert that it did, and could very cafily prove it : But Bp. Bull has already done it to my Hands ^. And it is fbme- thing hard, that as often as you forget your felf, or happen to be ignorant of what every Scholar fhould know, I mud be charged with ahufing my Reader. As to the Sabellian Notion of yjia oxor^o'tr r^^-^^h- cbi'uT^'i I have before ihown how it is to be under- ilood : And that Eufebius Himfelf fo underftood it is plain to every Man that can read Him. But I fuppofe, the fecret rcafon of all This was for the fake of a Tranflation of your's, one Jingle individual Sub* fiance under three perfonal Diftin^ions : Which tho' literal^ is a vtxy falfe tranflation 5 ^s fubftance and per- final Dijiin^ions are now underftood : And therefore this was meanly applying to the Populace. The true Senfe of the Words, as we fhould now exprefs it, is, one Perfon under three Nominal Diftinciions : which is manifeftly what Eufebius meant by it 5 as may appear from the Account I have given of Him above, (/>. 185.) Your referring me to Di\ Cudworth is pretty extraordinary > when it is well known that That great Man was miftaken, and that his Ac- count of That Matter (efpoufed alfo by Curcell^us) has been at large confuted by Ep. Stillingfleeffi not to mention what has been done alfo by Mr. IV'all t , and others, fince That Time. * Bull. D. F. Sea. 2. c. 9. p. 103, c^c, f Stillingfleet on eheTnmty, p. 76, to p. 100. i Wall's Hlft. of Infant Baptifm, p. 337. to p. ^^^. True Scripture'Do^rim continued, p. 239, to ijz. The Qu. VII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 241 The Truth is, had T>v.Cudworlh but diftinguifhed between Subftance of Suhftance (which fuppofcs no Divifion^ hxxt one Subftance) Tind hY'mgSubJiances^ or EJjences^ which implies Dlvifion^ his Account had been, in the main, very juil: For the Fathers knew nothing of a Trinity of Modes^ fuch as fecms to have been taught by fome of the later Schoolmen. But I pafs on. The Eternity of God the Son comes next under Confideration. You tell me, it is not alike defer ibed^ with the Father's, becaufe the Father's is unoriginate^ and underived : But where do you ^nd unoriginatCy or underived^ at all mentioned in the Texts wherein the Father's Eternity is defcribed? You maycolle6t it perhaps by Inference: But flill the Scripture- Phrafes for the Eternity^ whether of Father, or Son, are the (ame: Neither does theDifi;in6bion of derived and underived fignify any thing as to the Senfe of Eternity^ which imports neither more, nor lefs than heginninglefs and endlefs Duration. You next endea- vour to find fome Difference in the manner wherein the Texts are applied to each Perfon. As to the Phrafe Fir^ and Jl^/?, it has been vindicated already. As to Rev. i. 8 which you underftand of the Father, it is to be interpreted (with all Antiquity) of God the Son *. I know how much it concerns you to contend for the Application of This Text to God the Father 3 And therefore it is that you plead fo ftrenuoully for it towards the latter end of Query 17^^. It will be of fome fervice to fettle That Text here s ^^^^ therefore I fhall flop a while to confidcr the Strength of your re-inforcement. In my Sermons, 1 . I pleaded from the Context. 2. From Antiquity. * See my Sermons, p. 227, Sec Dcfenfe, p. 4^1, R 3.1 242 A Second Defense Qu.VIT. 3. I fhowed the Weakncfs of the DoS:or's Rea- fons for applying the Text to the Father. iVs to the Context^ you make no reply at all > tho' it is certainly of very great Moment, for the afcer- taining the Condrudion. As to Antiq^aity^ never were Men more unanimous than the Antknts were in This Mattery there being no one Exception, on Record, againfl: it. And tho' you may make flight of Pofi-nicene Writers, {Athanafiiis^ Ruffinus^ Gre- gory Nazianzen^ Ph^hadius^ Ambrofe^ Epphanius^ Jerom^ Auftin^ Andreas Cdefarienfis) yet their con- curring Voices in the Cafe are really very confide- rable \ and amount to a probable Proof, at leaft, of the univerfal Senfe of the Ante-nicene Church j efpe- cially where nothing can be brought to confront it. I obferve, it is pretty frequent with you, upon the citing of Etifebius iingly, immediately to cry out the Antient Churchy even in Points wherein £^y^^/^jflands alone, or runs counter to the Antients. I have cer- tainly a much better right to claim the Verdi6t of the Antient Churchy upon the Strength of fo many Evidences, (and few of them either much later, or lefs confiderable than Eufehius) in a Matter which the Antients have no where contradided. But, I ap- pealed alfo to Tv70 Ante-nicene Writers {Hippolytus and Tertullian^ to fay nothing now of Origen) and I oblerved farther, that Their Teilimonies in the Cafe were not to be looked upon merely as the private Judgment of Two Writers, but as iliowing that the \Praxeans ^nd N'oetians had all along taken it for grant- ed, that the Church applied Rev. i. 8. to God the Son> and that Hippolytus and "tertuUian^ however prelTed in Difpute, prefumed not to queflion it. A Proof of this kind amounts to more than many Teftimonies of Single Fathers, in relation to their own Interpretation of a Text. As to Hippoly- tus^ you call Him {pag, fop.) as ufual, a Spuri- ous or Interpolated Author j your Pretences for which have been anfwered. But We have Epi- % phanius Qu. VII. offofne Q^U E R I E S. 245 phanius * here llepping m to confirm the fame Thing, 'viz. that Noetus urged that Text, as appHed to God the Son, againll: the Catholicks : And He anfvvers as Hippolytus had done, by admitting the Text to be underllood of Chrillj borrowing his Anfvver, (as will be plain by comparing) from This very Piece of Hippolytus^ which you call Spurious^ or Interpolated. It is therefore manifeft, that the Part we are now concerned in is no Interpola- tion. As 10 TertulUan^youhy^ He docs not fuppofe This Text to be fpoken of the Son^ (p. fo8.) What does He not? Surely, you never looked carefully into "Tertullian. He obferves of the Praxeans^ f (juit as Hippolytus does of Noetus) that They had cited and urged This Text againft the Catholicks 5 applying it to God the Son : And Tertullian^'m his Aniwer, admits that Ap- plication. Wherefore it is a clear Cafe that the yinte- nicene Church univerfally under flood This Text of the Son^ and not of the Father y which I am now proving. What you throw in to lefTen the Senfe of TravroxpaTw^, when applied to the Son, I pals over here, as not affecting our prefent Queflion. Origen I infifl not upon, becaufc of the doubtful Credit of his Tranflator. Yet, conlidering that the Text was cartainly fo applied before Origen' s Time, and con- llantly after, it is more than probable that That pare at leafl is Origen's own. However, I want not his * Epiphan. Vol. i. p. 488. t Interim, hie mihi promotum fit RcfponfLim adverfas id quod & de Apocalypli Joannis proferunt. Ego Bominus qui eji, 0> qui fuit, ^ zenit Omnipotens j 8c ficubi aiibi Dei omnipotenris AppeJJacionem non putant filio convenire. Qu:ifi qui venturus eft, non fit omni- potens, cum 8c Filius omnipotentis tarn omnipotens fit quam Deus Dei Filius. Tertull. contr, Prax. c. 17. N.B. The Praxeans could not imagine that any fiich high Title could belong to the Son, unlefs the Son was the very Father Him- felf : which therefore They concluded Him to be from This and the like Texts. R 2, Tcfti- 244 ^Second Defense Qu. VIL Teflimoiiy, having abundant Proof of what I aflert, without Him. Since therefore the Context^ and all Antiquity pleads on my Side for underllanding That Text of God the Son, I mull have llrong Reafons for the other Ap- plication^ before I admit it. Dr. Clarke's principal Rcafon drawn from Verfe the 4^^ of that Chapter, I anfwered at large in my Sermons ^. It is no more than This > that the Title, which is^ and which waSy and which is to come^ is given to the Father, ver.^, therefore the fame Title, ver. 8. muft belong to Him alfo : As if the fame 'Title were not often in Scripture, ■and in the Apocalypfe too, given to Both. I inftanced in the Title of Alpha and Omega^ &c. being applied by St. John^ fometimes to the Father^ and at other times to the Son. All you have to fay by way of reply, is that the Title of a and « is indifputably given to the Son in other Places > whereas This other is ne- ver given to the Son any where elfe but here 5 where it is difputahle whether it be given Him or no. To which I anfwer,that there is very little Force in This Argument, provided we have other good Reafons for underllanding the Text of God the Son in This one place j as we certainly have both from the Con- text^ and from Antiquity : And there is ftill the lefs force, if Scripture^ and even St. John himfelf, has elfewhere applied, if not This very Title, yet equiva- lent Titles to God the Son j which He undoubtedly has. For brevity fake, I refer only to St. Johnh applica- tion of 7/^. ix. (^, 9. to God the Son -\ Holy, HolyjHoIy Lord God of Hofts : AVhich St. John exprefles (Rev. iv. 8.) by xJ^i©' 6 ^soc, o TtravloxgaTO)^, much the fame with what we have Rei;. i.8. There is therefore no Force in your Rcafoning againfl the Application of Rev. i. 8. to the Son. * Sermons, p. 228. t See my Serrrons, p. 50. \ The Qu.VII. of fome (QUERIES. 245 TheDo6bor's other Reafon drawn from the y^nti- ents^ as generally applying the Title 6 •oravlox^ara)^, to the Father, is ridiculous j when we have plani pofitive Proof that they underftood this very Text of God the Son. Whatever ufe may be made of the general Obfervation, (as there cannot much *) it does not afFed the Queftion about the Application of" This Text to the Son. Having fufficiently vindicated our Application of Rev. i. 8. I may proceed, and make my proper Ufe of it, as occafion may require. 1 may now venture, by your allowance, to call God the Son Su- preme over all -y which is your own rendring of 6 crrav- Tox^arcop. And let us not prefume to deal partially and unequally between the Father and the Son, in This important Qtieftion. We may now return to the Point of the Son's Eternity. I obferved, in my Defenfe\^ that by eluding the Proof of the Son's Eternity, you had fcarce left your felf any for the Eternity of God the Father : Or if you had, I defiredyou to {how in what Manner you could (con- fiftent with your Principles) prove the Eternity of the Father. You make a Doubt whether I intended it for fober Reafoning^ or Banter, You do well to put the Matter off with as good a Grace as you can : But I was very ferious in it ; that you had come very near defeating every Proof that could be thought on in the Cafej if you had not entirely done fo. And indeed, I am ftill of Opinion, that, thro' your imprudent Zeal againft the Divinity of God the Son, you have really betrayed the clear- eft and beft Caufe in the World to the firft bold Marcionite^ or Manichce^ that ftiall deny the eternal Godhead both of Father and Son, and aflert fome unknown God above them Both. You will remem- ber, the Queftion was, whether That particular Per- * See my Sermons, p. 230, f Defenfe, p, n j. R 3 fitt 24-6 Ji SECOND Defense Qu.VH. fon^ called the Father, be the eternal God, or how you could prove it upon your Principles. His be- ing called God ever fo often would amount to no- thing 5 That being no more than a Word of Office, His being Creator was nothing, That you could elude. His being Jeho'vab was of no Weight, mean- ing no more than a Perfon true and faithful to his Prom.ifes. As to his Eternity^ none of the Texts were ftrong enough for it, but might bear a li- mited Scnfe. I may now add, that the Title of -wavroy.^dro^o^ Jtmighty^ or God over all^ or the ftrong- cll Words of like kind in the Old Teftament^ fignify nothing \ being capable of a fuhordinate Senfe. Well then \ what have you at length referved, to prove fa momentous an Article? Only This: that He is /^ or that there is not Another God above Him -, who is really, and truly, and in the Metaphyftcal Scnfe, the eternal God. You may proceed as you think proper, to make up the apparent deficiency of your pretended Demonilration By loofening the Proof of Chrift's Di^jinity^ you have loofen'd every Proof of the Z>i- ♦ Sse my Defenfc, />. 117. 'uiraty Qu. VII. of fame (QUERIES. 247 'Dinity of God the Father alfo j which perhaps you was not aware of. For my Parr, I iliall always think, that his being fo often called God^ and true Gody and his being Creator^ and Ah7iighty^ and Jehovah^ and He that is^ and was^ and is to come^ are clear incontef- table Proofs that He is the one necejfarily-exifling God, whofe Exijience my Reafon afTures me of: And when I am got thus far, I will prove, by the fame Topics, that God the Son is fo likcwife : And thus the lame Artillery fhall ferve both againft Manichees^ and Avians j while you by pleading the Caufe of one, have infen- fibly given up a greater Caufe to the other. I muft however do you the Juflice to obferve, that fincc your firft writing, you feem to be drawing off^ with the Do6tor, from fome of your former Prin- ciples. You do not now make the Word God to be always a Word of Office : Nay, you alTert it to be very improper to fay^ that the fupreme God has an Of- fice (p. 2.Z0.) Which makes a great Alteration in your Scheme, and is jumping from one Extreme to Ano- ther j over-looking, as ufual, the Truth which hes in the Mid-way. I do not know, whether you can yet prove. That particular Perfon, called God th^ Fa- ther^ to be the one eternal God. You fuppofe the Word God , when applied to Him, to denote his Perfon j and you fuppofe That Perfon to be the one eternal God. But Suppofing is one Thing, andPr^'z;- ing Another : And I do not fee how you have proved it, or ever can prove itj unlefs you allow the Title of God to carry the Notion of Neceffary-exiftence in it, allowing the fame alfo of Jehovah. Then indeed you may prove your Point as to the Divinity of God the Father : And as foon as you have done it, by the fame Arguments we will alfo prove the Divinity of God the Son. So, chufe you whether to take in Both^ or give up Both : For, I fee no Remedy but that the Divinity of Father and Son mull Hand , or fall together. R A To 24S ^ Second Defense Qii. VII. To proceed : You pretend now, that '^oii was not arguing againft the Eternity of the Son^ but Jhowing the PVcaknefs of my jlrguments to prove his independent Eternity. You Ihall have the Liberty of recanting and growing wiTer, whenever you plcafe. But the Truth of the Fa61: is, that you were then arguing againft the Eternity of the Son, in thefe Words .quoted in my Defenfe^ p. 117. T^his Office and Ch a- racier ( of a Redeemer ) jrlative to us^ prefuppofes not^ nor is at all more perfeU for^ the eternal pafi Dura- tion of his Being. It was the Eternity^ you fee, not independent Eternity, againft which you were difput- ing. I afk'd, how you came to take for granted "what you knew nothing of j 'viz. that any Power lefs than infinite might be equal to the Work uf Re- demption. And what do you fiy to This ? My Ar- gument is, if you cannot ihow that it did not require infinite Power, you cannot fhow that it did not re- quire an eternal Agent. You fay, that an Office com- mencing in 7'ime , does not require an eternal Dura- tion of Him that executes. Right : Every Office docs not: But we are fpeaking of an Office which may (for ou^htyou know) require infinite^ and theretbre eternal Powers, becaufe nothing infinite can be in Time. You fay , Infinity of Power is not a Confe^ qiience of eternal Duration. Suppofe it be not (which you know nothing of again ) yet my iVrgument is vice "jerfa^ that eternal Duration is a Coniequence of Infinity of Powers , which you did not attend to. At length you are forced to give up the Point 5 not being hardy enough to pronounce that the Work of Redemption did not require infinite Powers. But you attempt to prove it another Way. A Mediator^ you fay, cannot be Himfelf the one fu- freme God. You ftiould have laid ( for it is all that you can prove) that a Mediator cannot be the fame Perfon whom He mediates to. And this is what Eufebius {hows in the PafHige produced by you 5 which . was vciy needlcfsly bi'ought to prove what every Qu.VIL offcmQlJERlES. 249 every Man's common Scnfe teaches. The whole Force o^ Eufebius's Rcafoning lies only in This, that the Two Perfons could not be one Perfon : Or if He meant any Thing more (which I am not fenfible He did) his Arguing is low, and trifling. I had pleaded, that by your Rcafoning, you had entirely fruftrated the Argument drawn from the A6ls of Creation, to prove the Drjinity of God the Father : For, the O/- fice of creating commenced in 'Time. You are pleafed to allow my Confequence (however fcandalous it may appear upon you) and to tell me, that the Per^ feciions of God the Father appear not barely and im- mediately from the A61 of creating , but from the Con- /deration of the Nature of a firft Caufe. I am glad to find you begin to be reconciled to that metaphy- seal Word, Nature^ which you will hardly allow us to ufe. But I muft tell you farther, that by weaken- ing, and deftroying fo many clear and undeniable Proofs of the Father's Divinity , you have not left yourfelf enough to prove Him to be the Firfi Caufe. This perhaps you was not aware of, being entirely bent upon dellroying the Son's Divinity 5 and taking it for granted, that the Father's would be admitted without Proof It is a dark Bulinefs: But Difpu- tants will fometimes overfhoot. Dr. Clarke^ I be- lieve, began to be fenfible of his Error in this refpe^t, as having undermined every Scripture-proof of the Ne- ccj/ary-exifence of God the Father. By an After- thought, in the fecond Rdit'ionof Scripture- Do 51 rine"^ ^ He was pleafed to allow that the Father's Self-exis- tence and independent Eternity were taught xnRev.i. 8. I am very glad He pitched upon That Text, be- caufe we can eafily vindicate it to God the Son: And fo we fhall have an exprefs Proof of the Necefary- exiflence of the Son-, and leave you, with Shame, to make out the Father's by fomc other as ex- f Ckrke'i Script. Doar. p. 1(^4. Ed. z\ prcls zso A Second Defense Qu.VIII. prefs Texts, or by Confequence only. I have be- fore hinted, that i Cor. viii. 6. will do you no Ser- vice dire^ly^ or by it felf j becaufe all Tubings may mean fome Tthings^ and God to us, may not mean ab- folutely the God of the Univerfe. But if the Son's Necejfary-exiftence be once admitted, according to Rev. i. 8. the Confequence will be clear and certain for the Neceffary-exifience of the Father alfo. Thus as you had once loft the Proof of the Father's Divinity, by denying the Son's \ fo by aflerting the latter, you may again recover the former, and then all will be right. CLU E R Y VIII. TVhether Eternity does not imply Neceffary-exif- tence of the Son 5 which is inconjtjient with the T)o6lo/s Scheme ? And whether the 'Doc- tor hath not made an elufive, equivocating An- fwer to the ObjeBion ; Since the Son may be a neceffary Emanation/r^/^^ the Father., by the Will and Power of the Father., without any Contradidion ? Will is one Thingy and Ar- bitrary Will another. WE have many important Matters to debate un- der This prefent^^rj/, which will require the Reader's moft careful Attention. You begin with telling me, that eternal Genera^ iion does not imply Neceffary-exifience, nay, that it is contradiUory to it. • Let us hear your Reafon. Ge- iteration is anAcl, and all kdi\ox\% fpring from //:7^Will only-y and an A(51: of the Will (that is. Free Choice) cannot be neceffary, p. ifi. Your Argument is un- doubtedly juft, according to your own novel Senfe of ihe Qu. VIII. offome (QUERIES. i^i the Word J^, But it is ridiculous to imagine, that giving new Names to old 'Truths can ever alter their Nature. Either argue againft Generation being an ^£i in the old Senfc of J5t^ or confefs your Trifling in bringing the whole to a Difpute about Words^ and Names only. In the old Senfe of A^-j Generation is an Ail : In your no'vel Senfe of AU it is not : And where areyou now, but where you at firfl: fet out ? You tell me, after the modeft Pleader ( to whom I briefly replied in a Preface) that I have not been able to produce one fingle Pajjage out of any one Ante-niccnc Writer ( you fliould have added Poji-nkene too, it being equally true of all the Fathers) wherein the Son is affirmed to have emaned, or been emitted, from the Fatijer^ by Neceflity of Nature. Will you pleafe to fhow me, where either Scrips ture^ ox Fathers^ (Poft-nicene^ ox Ante-nicene) ever faid, that God the Father exiftcd by Necejfity ofNa^ ture. They have never faid it; tho* they have, in other Terms^ aflerted the fame Thing, which we now mean by Necejfity of Nature : And This may alfo be the Cafe as to the necejfary Generation of the Son : And it certainly is fo. To clear This momentous Point I fliall here fhow. 1. Why, neither Father^ nor Son^ were ever faid, by the Antients, to exifl by Necejfity of Nature^ but the contrary. 2. I fhall fhow that the Antients^ not with flanding, believed the very fame Thing which we now diffe- rently exprefs j namely the Necejfary-exijience of God the Sonj as well as of God the Father. 5. I fhall inquire in what Senfe, or by whom, ne' cejjary Generation , or Emanation was held , and in what Words They exprefled it : Where I fhall alfo account for the Son's being faid to be generated by the mil of the Father. I . I am to begin with obferving, why neither Father nor Son, were ever faid, by the Antients^ to exifl by Ne- ccjfity of Nature^ but the contrary. None of the^«- tients 2SZ ^ Seco N D Defense Qu.VIIf. iients duid have faid, that God exifts hy NeceJJityyht- caufe it would have been the fame as to lay, that He was compelled by a fuperior Force, and againft his Will (Inch was their Senfe of the Word Ne- ceffity) to exift. The Greek 'Avayxyj had been much uled among Philofophers in This hard Senle. Some had made vsV and ^AvcLym *, Mind and Necejjity^ the Two Caufes^ or Sources of all Things. Some made NeceJJity alone the firft and highell Caufe ^. Plato meant the fame as uXy], or firil Matter, by A^^r^/j; c, following therein timaus Locrus. Some made Ne- cejjity the Mother of the Fates ^ and the Fir ft among the Deities ^^ Many made their Gods all fubje6b to Necejfty-y as is particularly true of the Stoicks. I forbear to cite PafTages which might be given in great Numbers. Such being the Ufe of the Word ISfeceJJity^ no Wonder, if the Fathers forbore faying, that God exiiled by Neceffty^ or if they even denied it. Plotinus^ a famous Platonift, of the third Century, denies that God exills yVo avaywi? % by NeceJJity^ be- ing no other than what He would chufe to be. Laclantius hints at the fame Thought *. And upon the fame Principles, the Fathers were always very caieful to remove every Thing of Neceffity \ from ■ Vid. Timcum Lccrum de Anim. Mund. p. j:^^, Amjl. ^ Vid. Vhurnutum de Natura Deorum, p. 19. alias ijj*. • Vid. Vlatohis Tm&um. Chalet d. in Ttm&um^ p. 577. Ed. Fabric. ^ Vid. Froclum. Theolog. Flat on. p. 405-. 406. Theodorit. de Provid. Dei. Scrm. 6. p. 5'<5z, S^Z* Tu uvrc(; iivcii oTTi^ xCrli; ciit i-.'^iXrjfri y^ ^i^n. Photin. Enn. 6. p. 748. * Ex feipfo eft, ut in primo diximus libro, 8c ideo talis eft qua- lem fe efle vo!uit. Laci. Injl. ]. 2. c. 8. p, 161. ■}■ T<5 0 Ty,v otyuyicYtj i7ricx?,ciiv oivTM j u -^ octottov i^i Xtyuv iTFt B-iov Uvoc/Kifv, >d ^x r^ro (putru uycc^oc, i<^iv. Athanafius, 61 1. Bonus Pater, non aut ex voluntate eft, aut NeceJJjtate y fed fupcr utrumque* hoc eft, Nainra, Ambvof, de Fid, 1. 4. c. ^, p. ^40. Patcy Qu.VIII. of fame QIJERIES, 253 from God •, and would never fiiy that He exiftcd, or was God, by Neceffity. Damafcen well cxprefTes the Thoughts of them All in Thefe Words. " God being by Nature good, and by Nature in- '^ dued with creative Powers, and by Nature God^ is '' not any of thelJ^ by NeceJJity : For, who has laid ^' any Neceffity upon Him ? I render ^Yiixia^yo^ in'* dued 'with creative Poivers^ that being the Senie of itj the' otherwife, literally, it is Creator, As low then as Damafcen^ who lived in the eighth Century, we have no Indance, that I know of, of the Ufe of necej/ary-exiftence^ or of Neceffity of Na^ ture in the modern Senfe. They that would feek for it, muft look among the later Schoolmen^ and not among the Fathers of the Church. When it firfl came in, is no great Matter, nor worth my Search : So I leave it to Thofe who have Leifurc. But I mufl complain of it as a great Inftance of Unfairnefs^ after I had given you the Hint of This in the Pre^ face to my Sermons -[~ (which you have read) for you to bring up This Pretence again, that the Ante- nicene Writers did not allow the Son to exift, or to be generated by Neceffity of Nature. Which Pre- tence amounts to no more than a poor Quibble upon an Expreflion: And you might have ufed the very fame Argument againft the Neccffiary-eicificnce even of Pater Filium genuit, non voluntate, nee NeceJJitate, fed Natttra, Symbol. Damafc. afcript. apud Hierou. Vol. f. p. 122. ocvxyKi) rccZroc itv TO ^vtriKoy TCocvTeoq id iiyxyKctcyjivot ' u(rii 3 0 S"£o?» $■£05, (puFii uyuB-o^y jjW»t»py and it is the exprefs Doftrine of Ignatius * himfelf Since then Ignatius was undoubtedly fpeak- ing of what Chrift was in two diftinft Natures , or Capacities, to one of which yevyiroV is applied, and dym-Tc^ to the others you- may readily per- ceive, that yourConftruftion of Him is entirely wide Afi^ecuiJt,, Ignat. ad Rom. c. 7. p. 40. and zs^ -^Second Defense Qu. VIII. and foreign. ^. I Ihall add thirdly^ that I havefome Reafon to doubi, whether there was any fuch Word as ayswriT©' lb early as the Time of Ignatius. This will lead me into a long but ufeful Inquiry j ufeful upon many other Accounts belide** the prefent. You are of Opinion that the antientChriftianWriterSj where- ever they ftile God dymro^^ meant the fame as dyiv j/nror, unbegotten^ p. 194. My Opinion is, that it was late before they ililed Him aytvvyiro? at all 5 and that when They fbiled Him dyk-\inro^^ they never meant precifcly unhegotten , but either unmade , or mide- rived abfolutely. We muft trace This Point up to the old Philofophers. 7'hales is the firft of Tbem : And He ufes the Word aysvyiro^^ to fignify either unmade J or eternal. Parmenides ^, about a hundred Years after, ufes the Word aygv/iTov, as is plain from the Metre j and not in the Senfe of unhegotten , becaufe He fuppofes the fame Thing to be fjtovo/svk, begotten. Clemens underftands the PafTage of God : But Eu- febius and "theodorit more rightly of the H'^orldy th©' perhaps Both may be confiitent, as fome have ima- gined Gud and the IVorld to be the fame, and pro- ceeding from a Chaos. But I incline to underftand it rather of the World difl:in6i; from God^ as the only be- gotten of God 'y [xovoym^ being a Title given to the fFbrid by T'm.^iis Locrus^^ and Plato \ who are imi- tated by Philo ^ " Ufsa-fiuTxrov rav ovruv B-ioq' ocyiv/irov ^. Diog. Laert. 1. I. p. 2 I. Ti TO ^iTov -y TO fAjyjTZ oi^pf^viv 'i^fiVy i^jiiTi rOsvryiV. Thalcs apudDiog. Laert, p. 22. UoXXu fjjuX' w, ciytviiTev toi km,) uvuXt^^cvl^iVy ■ OfAoy, {/j^veyivk rt, kuI cir^ifjuiq, yj^ uyiv^rov. Apud Clem. AleX^ p. -J 16. Eufeb. Praep. ev. p. 43. Theod Tom. 4, $-04, jiS. * Timaeus Locrus, p. 4. Gale, alias p. ^^^. Amft. *• Plato. Tim. c. 16. p. 259. Fabric. Vid. Orig. contr. Celf. p. 308, * Philo. p. 24+. 298. 87(J. Here Qu. VIII. offome Q^U E R I E S; 257 Here then dymros can only fignify unmade^ eteV'^ nal^ or Neceffarily-exijling. Ocellus Lucanus * ufes it to exprefs beginningkfs and endlefs Exiflence : or what we fhould call JSIeceJJary^ exiflence > alv/ays, and unvariably the fame. T'imaus Locrus applies it to Ideas^ zndio Duration: where he feems to mean no more than Eternity^ and Immutability -f-. I read the Word with fingle v in Both places J there being no reafon for making it: double. There is a Paflage of Timaus \ , cited by Clemens^ where the Copies have dyivvryvo^. Sylburgtus had obferved it fhould be ay^vKiTor rather. But I believe the true reading is a/svarcr, to anfwer the Diale6l:. I fuppofe, "Tim^us mult have meant voij^y by his ixia d^x^'> ^"^ ^^ ^^^ Two Principles : 'Avdyv^A was the other. And I muft note, that dyiv,,vToz here feems to be ufed in the Senfe of underi'ved ab- folutely. We may now defcend to Plato^ about 360 Years before Chrift. It is frequent with Him to ufe the Word aytvyjr©' to exprefs eternal^ immutable exift- ence, that is, Neceffary -exiflence. And tho' He de- rived his va^ and ^J/u^rJ, Mind^ and Sonl^ from the to dycL^ov^ yet He fuppofed them dymra^ Necejjarily^ exijiing 3 as Athanafius il hath obferved : And the like ♦ To 57ecv o:ya!A£3^6V »«j atyic^rcv* ku re ^^ liv xMi iftct, OcelJ. Lu- can. p. 8. Gale. al. 5-06. AytV/jros Kctl ■ec oe.^^)c. %UiT6ii iflv «sy/vyijre5 (Leg. uyivXT6<;) it yoif iysviTO, jj« kv Kv iTi 6C.^X.Xy ^^^ iKiiix t^ cc^ cc fCf^oi tyiyiTo. Clem. Alex, p. 71S. J^lato, in his FUctrus, applies This reafoning to the SouJ. Thxdr, p. 344. Vid.Cicer. Tufc. 1. p. 4)". I] *Ov xiyaa-tv ix. rov uyetB-ou vouvt xul rliV ix, roZ veZ "^v^KV, ymnrot yivaa-Kovri^ to s| m ucriVy ^x. iOo^ttB-f.a-uv o^ui kccI uvrec n'TTuy kytvYtTCC, Athanaf. de Decreti S. N. p. 2 34. S is 25S -^Second Defense Qu. VIII. is obfeiTcd of Him by Eufebms ^ Dr. Clarke tells us, in his Demonftration of the Beings &c. that, ac- cording to many of Plato's Followers, the World was fuppofed to be an eternal voluntary Emanation from the all-wife and fupreme Caufe ^. But I know not whether the Do6i:or will be able to prove This of them, in his prefent Senfe of Voluntary. Ploti- nus^ who is one of his Authorities, makes God's PFill to be the fame with God's Effence : And He de- rives the very Being of God from his /F;//, that is, from Himfelf '=. You fecm therefore to be under a great Miftake when you tell me {p. 2f4.) that the Flatonifts expreflly affirmed the World to be eternal^ and by the JVill of God, and not by neceffity : As if IVill^ in their Senfe (becaufe it is in youfs) muft needs be oppofed to Neceffay^ in your Senfe alfo of Necefjity y when neither their Senle of Will^ nor of Necefjity was the fame with your's ^. To Plato we may fubjoin ArifiotJe^ who is known to make the World ayfiv/ir©', Necejfarily-exiftent 5 which you, (becaufe you affe6t Singularity) will needs call felf-exiftent. But as there is certainly a different yy^nv • iKiiTcc s'l ocTropooMi T«5 tow fr^ara ccirm (rvq-iiton Myuv. *Ova^ y«^ ex. Tou (Jty/i tW©- wyTflj? yiyonvxt ^i^ovxi /S^Mrxu Eufcb. Praep, Ev, 1. 15. c, 15-. p. 694. ** Dr. CIarke'5 Bctnoufir^ttion, Sec. p, 3 i . Ed. 4'\ * See Cudworth, p. 40f. ^ Balil gives a 'very dijferent Acconnt of thefe Thilofophers and their Sentiments, that Thy fuppofed the iVorld eternal, and mt by the Will of Cod. Kx\ KccB-cTi ^o>L>io« rciv epxfTX(rB-i¥ruv cv¥V7ra^^stv i| u'l'^a r« B-iS rot xccf/fov, ou^i yryji/^(rS"cc; ptu^' ccjtoZ (rvvi^si>^wx9 * uXX' olovu cATVetrxi- tt(rf/jx T>o$ aiiixyjix'^ vJjtcZ xiTOfAxrajq TrxpiKTcj^vxi. Ken cciriov fjutv xu- 10Z o^oMyoZtri Tov Biovy xitiov ^ xx^oxi^iraq^ u^ t>j5 OTKixq rh a-ZfjuXg Kccl r?5 Xxyj7:^)Hv<^ ro cMyx^oi, Balil. in Hexam. Horn. i. p. lo. So alfo St. Ambrofe. Q^ijmvJs C2ufam ejus Deum cfle fateantur, caufam tamen volunt f^n e< 'uo.mtate, Sc difpoiitione fua, fed ita ut caula umbrae Corpus eii, Ambr. in Hexam. 1. 1. c. f. 4- U^<^ Qu. Vlir. offome (QUERIES. ^s9 Idea from that of Self-exiftent fixed to the Word aiyk" v^T©*, when applied to the Thing caufed^ we will, with your good leave, give the different Ideas dif- ferent Names. Simplicius^ quoted by Dr. C/^^W6>r/^ % obferves of Jriftotle^ that while He makes God the Caufe of the World, He yet fuppofes the World to be aymrQ-'^ Neceffarily-exifting, You fay, Dr. Cud' worth jultly charges Ariftotle with making the World Self-exiftent. But Dr. Cudworth was a wifer Man, than to charge Ariftotle with it. He obferves, that neither Ariftotle^ nor any of the Pagan Theologers, from his Time, ever fuppofed the Worlds or the in- ferior Gods to be Self-exiftent f j but to proceed eter- nally from a Caufe. You allow the fame Thing, (/>. 2P4.) of the Stoicks their dy'mTci ^scx, eternal and neceffarily-exifting Gods, produced from the Suh^ fiance of God. So that now we have the Senfe of Three famous Se6ls of Philofophers, {Platoniftsj Ariftoteliajis^ and Stoicks) all diftinguilliing between Self-exiftence ^n^Neceffary-exiftence'y and all ufing the Word aysvyiT©* to exprefs the latter fingly, as often as They applied it to Things produced. From the whole we may make this Obfervation, which will be ufeful to us in our reading the Fathers^ that there is nothing flrange, or uncommon, in gi- ving the Title of dymr^ to what is fuppofed to have been produced^ or begotten. To the antient In- ftances already given from prophane Writers, T fhall add a few more of fomething later date> one is from the Hermaick Books, quoted in Cyril \ , where the X6y©j is (tiled a/iv^r©', and yet yvri'o-i©' ^^m. More Cudworth, p. 25-3. tlbid.^ diayroTHy oc, par* l>ciivov TF^arn ^wxu/k;, aty/y^ro^^Scc 1 ■''£?•< oi tcu TTXt^ riXi(ii ^poyovos, xat riXuce,, k»1 yoyifttii yvnTieq vwj. Apud C^ril, AleX, contr. Jul. 1. I. p. 3 J. S i may 260 A Second Defense Qu.VIII. may be cited from Plotinus *, and other Platonifis j who call Things dymroL^ Eternal and Necejfarily^ exijiing^ the' proceeding from Another. All the while it is obfervable that dyivm^ iwas fometimes ufed in a higher Senfe, when applied to what Thofe Philofophers called the Firft Caufe^ or Supreme God: for it might then fignify both rleceffary-exijience and Self-exifience^ that is underived abfolutely : Tho' it might often fignify no more than Necejfary-exiftence^ abflradting from the Confideration of Self-exiftence *, which may befl be judged of by obferving what the Word is oppofed to. I meet not however with the Word aysw^iT©* to denote particularly Self-exiftent : nor does it feem to have been in ufe fo high as Philo's Time. For, when Philo had a mind to exprels how the X6y©^ was Necejfarily-exifting^ but not Self- exiflent (fo I underfland Him) He had no way of doing it but by faying that He was not aytvy^T©^ in the highefl: Senie as God is, nor ysv/iro? in the low Senfe as Creatures arc, but between Both -}-. If he had had the Two Words ayby^r©' and a^fWioT©', He might much moreeaiily have exprefled the Thought: As many of the Chriftian Fathers did after. I take the Word ay^^^y^r©' to have been firft brought in by the Chrifiians^ to diftinguifli the Father from the Son 5 that is, Unbegottcn from Begotten. But when, tX'it* oC''Ky^oc eisl JT«p* ^AA» oyrct, ecu. Plotin. Enn. 2. 1. 4* p, i6i> i6i. 'Ai rav ^fZv c'jtrioci ou^ iytyovro • rU yu^ eiii cvrot oiidiTton yivovTus fTFi^KfJi^eci. Salluft. dcMund. c, z, p. 2 4f. 'AvTcy ^i Ton KeiTfjboy U'p3-ufrov rt Kcd uyivtjrov s/r«* UvuyKVi i lU yu^ tu/i 3T<6 ovTtti rev Kca-fJij^ ecu T£ Tcv ^iov kycx.'b^v ilyxiy xcci rov x.o(r[Aoy Itfu^" SalJuft. de Mund. c. 7. p. zs6. Y'Ourt et^/ivriTci cjg 3-fcs av, ebn yinroe, ^5 WjK^jIs, oi^^oi (i/vroi rm Qii. VIII. offome QU E R I E S, 2tf i or by what degrees it came into ufe, is not eafy to determine. Hardly fo early as Ignatius \ or if it had, He would not have applied it to God the Soriy in any Senfe : Wherefore it is highly improbable that dyiritir(Q* fhould be the Word in the Place cited. But aysv^iT©* was a common Word, and very appli- cable i and the more hkely to be applied by Him to God the Son, whom He alfo ftiles, as the Word^ d'i(^i(^j * of like Signification with dymT©^, and frequently join'd with it in antient Writers -f". I have nothing farther to add, but that the ^nan In- terpolator well underftood the force of dyivriT^ in That place of Ignatius > and therefore craftily enough altered the PafTage, applying it to the Father only 5 fuicably to jlrian Principles, which allow not either dy'ivvnrQ^j or dy'ivitir^ to be applied to God the Son. I fhould take Notice that TJjeodoret lays it to the Charge of Saturnilus^ that He aflertcd our Saviour to be not only dy'imQ^^ but alfo dy'mAr©* t, there- in contradiding Himielf, fince He owns him to have a Father. But it is difficult to know whether ^heodoret drew This from Saturnilus's own Expreflxons, or only expreiTed what He took to be Saturnilus's Senfe, in his own Words. If the former were cer- tain, we iliould have a Proof of dymnr©^ being ufed about Ignatius's Time, tho' among Hereticks only: But That I leave to be confider'd. I incline 10 think that even when the Father was fpoken of^ the Word was flill dymr^^hwi underftood fometimcs * "O^i l^u ctuTou Vya? «idJ^65, evK utfo «riy^$ TTfoiX^uv^ Ignat. ad Magnef. p. 23. N.:b. u/^o^ here looks backwards, and is to be underftood a parte Ante, as the Schools ipcak. Compare what Irc" riAHi fays \ Ubi t^fige non erit Logos -^ & ubi Logos non utique eft fige. Iren. 1.2. g. li. p. 129. IJt,iTu(ioM» huyu, Plutarch, de u in Delphis Script. I Theod. {i^ret. Fab, p. i5>4. S I in 26i 'y^ Second Defense Qu.VIIL in the highefl Senfe, figmfylng Self-exijlent -y as we fee in the Sybilline Verfes ^. Athanafius\ Obferva- tion may hold true, that the h to dyinTO'^^ did not lignify the one tmhegotten^ but the one underivedf^ when applied to the Father , carrying in it both Ne- cejfary-exijience^ and Self-exiftence : Tho' it was often expreflive of the former only, being underilood in oppofition to precarious Exillence, and no- thing elfe : and fo the Son might be included in the h ro dymrov. I have made no Account of any X^2/i« Tranflations of the Greek dymro^^ becaufc no- thing is more uncertain. TheTranflator of Iren^eus is various, and often tranflates by tnnatus^ or inge- Yiitus^ where it is plain the Word fhould be infeElus. 1'ertullian fometimes tranflates the one Word dykvn" T©^i by two together, innatus (^ lnfc6luSy which confirms me that the Word was dym-v©^^ and that for want of a proper Word for tmderived^ He chofc to exprefs it by Two. Yet Tertullian has alfo the Word innatus for unhegotten alone > applying it to the Father in contradiftinftion to the Son. But I fhall weary the Reader. He that would fee more of the Ufe of dymr©''^ may confult the Authors in the Margin t- The Benefit of what hath been hinted will appear as I go on. * Er? 3-W5 05 ybov(i/ \ >/ \«.^ .\ ' /> ~ ^''o ^Ti W/W iX^^ '^'^^ UiTiOV, XXl UjOCAAiV CCUTCi 7tO(.TVifi lOiV Sf* T«5 (ro^fiXqy CCC. Athan. Vol. t. p. 761, Beaed. ^ Suiceri Thefaur. Petavius, de Trin. 1.6. c. i, 1. Cud worth, p. 25-3, 25-4. MoJitfaucon, Admon. inAthanaH deDccr. S. N. p. 207. J^D. Qu. VITI. offome Q^U E R I E S. 263 ji.D. I4f. Justin Martyr. I am next to ihow, that Juftin Martyr alfo taught the Neceffdry-exiftence of God the Son. His Doc- trine is, that the Son is 5 wv, The / A My a Phrafe expreiling, according to Juflin^ and all other the belt Criticks, proper emphatical exigence -y the fame which we now call Necejfary-exiftence. As to the Proof of the Fad, that Juftin really fliles God the Son 0 CUV, and in his own proper Perfon, I have given it in my Defenfe^y and am now only to take ofF your Exceptions to the Evidence. You have very little of moment to reply ; which is the reafon I fup- pofe, that you appear fo fretted all the way under this ^lery^ and betray a very indecent warmth in your Expreffions. You have only your old Pretence, (which is worth nothing) that, according to Juftin^ Chrift was Mejfenger^ or Minifter to the Father : And fo He was according to me too, in my Defenfe^ and now 'y And yet He is 6 00 v together with the Father ; and He will be, maugre all the Endeavours of paf^ fionate Men to the contrary. 1 infifted farther in my Defenfe f, that the very Reafon given why the Father is God, ^ih^ (not 5 ^foV) is becaufe He is dymr©^j Necefarily-exifting, Now (ince Juftin every where expreflly fliles the Son ^sof, and fays that He is ^io^^ God^ He muft of Confequence believe the Son to be Necejfarily* exifting. Here you are in a Paflion j telling me, (p. ip6.) that it is exactly as ridiculous as if a Man Jhould argue that fince^ according to St. Paul, God's be- ing the Father, of whom arc all Things, is declared to be the Reafon of his being th£ One God 5 there- fore if the Son be not the Father^ He is not God at alL But have a little patience, and you will fee the • -Defenfe, p. 37, i^-z, 1^-3, \ Defenfe, p. if^. S 4 clearen ^6f ^A Second Defense Qu.VIIL clearer. Had St. Paul faid, that the Reafon of the Father's being God^ is becaufe He is the Father of ivhom^ 6cc. It would be manifeil, that, according to Si. Paul^ no one could beG^i that was not alfo the Father of whom^ ficc. But as St. Paul has faid no fuch Thing, the Cafe is not parallel. Nor is the Father's being the Father of *whom^ 6cc. the Reafon or Foundation of his being the One God^ but only a Reafon why He principally is ftiled the One God : fo that you have yet faid nothing to take off the Force of my Argument relating to Juftin. You are extremely angry at my conflruing dy'inro^ in Juftin^ eternal, uncreated, immutable, not unhegetten^ or felf-exiftent : And you fay, (p. zpi.) that I have not the leafi Ground for it, from any antient Writer what-- feeder ^ Who would not imagine you were perfectly acquainted with every antient Writer^ to talk of Them fo familiarly ? I have fhown you from many antient Writers^ that ctysvyiro^ has been commonly applied to Things begotten^ or proceeding 5 where it could not fignify unbegotten. 1 would farther hint to you, which perhaps may furpiize you, that you cannot prove that ever Juftin Martyr ufed the Word ctysvyy^Tc? with doublc V, or that He knew of any fuch Word. That He ufes dymro^ is certain 5 fometimes meaning by it underived abfolutely '^$ fometimes NeceJJanly-exifting t . One Thing I will prefume to know^ and to be certain of, that in the Place by me cited, He ufed it in the Senfe of Necef- farily-exifting^ and no other j becaufe it is oppofed to precariousy periftmbk Being j as I fhowed in my Defenfe: And this was the Senfe that the old Phi- lofophers moft commonly ufed it in, whether * Pag. 387, 408,410. Ed. Thlrlby, I do not meet with more Fkces rohere the Word mufl necejfarily fignify Tnore. In the reji, I conceive, it mufi, or may fignify no wore than Ne- ceflary-exiftence. t Pag. 20,37, 72, 78, 1x4, 12S3 148, 149, I/O. fpeak- Qu. VIII. offome QUERIES. 255 fpeaking of the fupreme Caufe^ or their incorruptible Deities, as oppofed to the corruptible Creation. You think dymr(^ (for fo I read it) in his fe- cond Apology ^, mult fignify unhegotten. Far from it : it fignifies no more than Eternal^ or however Neceffarily-exijiing^ in my Senfe of the Word. His Argument requires no more than This, that God Should have none older than Himfelf to have given a Name to Him 5 And becaufe He had not. He had no Name: wherefore alfothe Son (as J uji in obkrves) being co-exiftent with Him (cruvaJv) from the firfl, and afterwards Begotten, had no Name^ having none older than Himfelf. Thus the Connexion of Juftin's Senfe is plain and clears and his Obfervation juft and natural. Oh, but you fay, Juflin^ in this *very Sen^ tence^ fiiles the Son ysvvoo/xsvc;?, in exprefs oppofition to dyvmro^. But, That I denyj ygvvw/jtsve? is oppofed only to o-uvoJy, his 'Temporal Generation to his Eter^ nal co-exiftence with the Father : For fo I interpret That PalTage with the learned Dr. Grabe-y fo en- tirely void of all Foundation is every one of your Exceptions. To thofe already given I fhall add one Proof more of Jujiin^s profefling the Necejfary-exiftence of God the Son. It is from a Fragment only f 5 But there appears no reafon to fufpeft its being genuine. What I build my Argument upon, is Juftin's fliUng the Kq- yos-i Life by Nature j by which I under Hand Necef- farily-exi fling Life, no Phrafe being more commonly ufed to fignify Neceffary-exiflence than (puVsi, or xara* ^xxjiv^ by the Antients. This very Phrafe of Life by Nature^ is fo ufed by Cyril of Alexandria^ and * Juft. Apol. 1. p. 15. Grab. p. 114. Thirlh. Ifagm. p. 406. Jcb, Grabs SpiciU Vol.2, p. 172. Others, 266 A Second Defense Qu.VIII. others *. But what mod of all confirms This Senfe, is Jujiin himfelfjor a venerable Perfon whom He produces in his Dialogue with approbation, arguing againil the Necejfary-exiftence of the Soul, upon This Topick, that fhe has not Life in her felf^jbut her Life is precarious, depending on the /F/7/ of Another, Now, in This Fragment^ Jujiin afTerts that the >sh'^o% is Life by Na- ture^ and inlivening whatever is joy n'd thereto : The very Defcription which the Platonifts ^ give of the TO ^sTov, the divine Beings which emphatically ex- ifts. I might add farther Proofs, from Jujiin^ of the Son's Necejfary-exiftence \ the fame that Biiliop Bull has produced out of Him for the Confuhftan- tiality\ For, whatever proves one, proves Both. But thefe are fufficient, and I may have occafion to hint more of This Matter, when I come to an- fwer the Objeftion made from the I'emforal Gene- ration. A. D. 177. Athena GO RAs. Athenagoras^ our next in order, will be a powerful Advocate for the Neceffary-exiflence of God the Son. He declares Him to be i yivoiJLzvo^ ^ not made-y the very fame Phrafe, whereby He exprefles the Necef- fary-exijience of God the Father ^3 and which comes • KocTaj ^jcrj Tcoit ^MoTToto^ 0 TfuvToi^ IpfsKiiyx vov, Cyril. Alex, contr. JaU.7. p.2 5-0. , , , ^ , , , ^ Qovj xciTu, iyw /tr^ «Ma* yi^ofjmm, p. 6Z^ to Qu.VIII. of fom qV ERIE S. 267 to the fame as 0 wv, (puVer wv, dti wv, all Words, or Phrafes, expreffing in AthenagoraSy Necejfary^ epciftcnce. It IS ridiculous of you to plead in oppofition to me, {p. z^6.) that jitbenagoras calls the Sonytvvn/jta in the very fame Sentence. It is the Thing that we contend for, that He may be yevvyi/jca, and yet Necejfarily-exift" ing 'y nay, that He is fo, becaufe He is yhvYiixa II, pro- perly fo' called 5 every Son being of the fame Nature with his Father. And why might not Athenagoras think the Son Neceffarily-exi flings and begotten alfo? No Philofopher^ nor Catholick Chriftian^ ever ima- gined it at all inconfiilent for the fame Thing to be both yswoj/jtsvov and dyivnrcv^ as may appear, in a good mealure, from the Tellimonies I have given above. I have fomething farther to plead from Athena* goras. He intimates, that God could never be without the Xofoj^ any more than without Reafort or fVifdom-y which is declaring his exiftence as necef-^ fary as the Father's exiftence is. See This Argument of the Antients explained, and vindicated in my Ser^ mons -f ; Befides that Bp. Bull has fo fully defended Athenagoras in particular, from the fenfelefs Charge of his fuppofing the Son to be no more than ^nAttri" bute^ before his Generation, that an ingenuous Man ihould be aftiamed to revive it, till He can make fome tolerable Anfwer to what the Bifhop has faid. But I have mentioned This Matter once before. You object, that Athenagoras fpeaks emphatically of the unoriginate underived eternity of the Father^ as the one unbegotten and eternal Godj and again, that the unbegotten God is alone eternal. Had This been really faid by Him, yet no body that knows Athena* \\ Vid, Dionyf. Rom. ap. Athan. p. 231. ^ ^ ^ Ki'^iui XoytxxKi m. Athen. p. 38, t Sermons f p.243> §ca gorasj itfu A Second Defense Qu.VIIL goras^ could ever fufpeft that He had intended any oppofition to the eternity of God the Son, included in Him j and therefore it were of no great Momenc to difpute This Point with you. But in regard to ^ruth^ I think my felf obliged to obferve, that no Proof can be given of Athenagoras'*s ever ufing the Word anvvyirof, but dtivnro^. It is under the conceo- tion of Necejjary-exlftence^ not as unbegotten^ that Hepropofes the Father as the /r«^G^^j in oppofition to all the perijhing and feeble Deities of the Pagans : And while He does This, He flill bears in mind that This Father has a Son of the fame Nature with Himfelf} and forgets not to mention Him in his proper Place : Particularly, in Thofe very Pages (57, 122,) from whence you quote the two Pafiages of the unbegotten Father (as you call Him) He takes care to bring in the mention of the Son^ as included in Him, and One God with Him. It is very llrange that an Antient Writer cannot be allowed to fpeak of the Father, in the firft place, as the One Gcd^ (which all the Churches in Chriftendom have ever done, and fliil do in their Creeds) but prefently He muft be charged with excluding God the Son : As if rcferving Him a while in mind, and forbearing to make mention of Him till it be a proper Time and Place, were the fame Thing with excluding Him from the one true Godhead. Upon a View of the Places * where Athenagoras ufes the Word dSmro^^ it is plain to me, from what I find it oppofed to, that He means no more than » ygvo/jtsvor, or (pJcr« wV, A^^- ceffary-exiftence by it, m. oppolition to the Pagan pe* riihing Deities. A'D.\%-j, Iren^us. Irenaus will be found to teach the Necejfary-ex" iftence of God the Son many ways, with great Va- i^^thcnag. p. ip, 27, 37, sh ^7» li^* I riety Qu. VIII. of fome QU E R I E S. 26> riety of Expreflion j fometimes declaring Him to be ipfe Deus % God Himfelf^ fometimes the Self^ of the Father, Creator ^ often > which, with Irenaus^ is al- ways a certain Argument of immutable Exiftence \ and a mark of Dillin6bion between what is NeceJJa* rily-exifting^ and what not: intimating alio, that whatfoever is a Creature could never create ^. I have fhown alfo, above, that Iren^eus aflerts the Son not to be Another God, but the fame God with the Fa- ther 3 from whence it muft follow, that He is alfo Necejfarily'exifting as well as the Father. He farther fuppofes Him God^ in refpeft of his Subftance ^, and co- cxilling 8 always with the Father. By thefe and other the likeCharafters, too long and too many to be here cited at length, does this very early and judicious Father proclaim the Neceffary-exiftence of God the Son. I fliall over and above produce Two Paflages j one where Ire" fiieus ftiles the Son Infe6lus^ and Another where the Fa^ therand his ff^ord are fodefcribed, as plainly to fhew that They are one NeceJ/ary-exifting Being. The firfl runs Thus ^ j " Thou art not, O Man, Neceffarily'* " exifting^ neither didft thou always co-exift with " God as his own Word. I make no doubt of Infedlus being the rendring of aHvyiTor, a Word often ufed by Ireneeus j But whether He ever has a RvvyiTo? iinbegotten^ I am not pofitive : It does not appear to me that He has ^ " Iren. p. i^i. ** Iren. p. 139, I6^ 25-3. • Iren. 44, 79, 190, 219, 307, 31^. ^ Iren. p. 169, 183, 240, • Iren. p. 288. ^ Generationem ejus quae eft ex Virgin^, 8c Subflmmn quonianji Deus. Iren. p. 217. « Iren. p. if 3. i<>5. 209, 243. •• Non enim infeduses, 6 Homo, neque femper Co-exiftebas Deo,* (icut proprium ejus Verbum. Iren, p. ly^. ' The Kmder may turn to the Pages here marked, if He is difpofed tt examine. N. B. / make no Account of the prefent Readings. Iren. p. 2, 5-, 11, $-3, 5-4, f6» 67, 100, loi, 103, j_f3, 185, 184, 2 8 J, 348. Bcncd. Ed. Now 270 A Second Defense Qu.VIII. Now as to the Senfe of the place, it is certainly the moll natural to refer each Branch of the Sentence to the fame Word of God. That is to fay, Neither art thou unmade^ as the Tf^ord is, nor did ft Tthou always co-exift with God^ as He, the fame J^ord has. But becaufe it is barely poflible for the Words to admit of another Conllrudion, I ihall not contend about it. One Thing however is certain, that the eternal co-exiftence of God the IVord is here plainly taught 5 which, among all fober Reafoners, will imply his Necejjary-exifteme^ as well as Eternity. The ether Place of Irenaus runs thus. '' But in Him who is God over all, for as much " as He is all Mind and all IVord^ (as we have faid) *' and having nothing fooner or later, or any thing *' of diverfity in Himfelf, but all equal, and like, " and ever continuing one j there can be no fuch " order of EmiHion (as the Gnoflicks pretend"^.) To This may be added another fuch PafTage. *' For the Father of all is not a kind of compound « Subftance (Animal) of any thing bejQdes Mind, *' as we have fhovvn. But the Father is Mind^ and <' Mind the Father. Wherefore it is neceflary that " the fFord^ which is of Him^ or rather the Mind *^ it felf.^ fince it is M'^ord^ fhould be perfed and im- ^^ paflible, and the Emiflions therefrom, being of the ^' fame Subftance with Him, fhould be perfe6t and '' impaffible, and always continue like to Him that " emitted themt. Thefe • In eoautem qui fit fuperomnes Deus, TotusNus, ^Tctus Logos cum fit, quemadmodum prsediximus, 8c nee aliud Antiquius, nee pofterius, aut aliud Akerius habente in fe, fed toto acquali &: Similt 6c uno perfeverante, jam non talis hujus Ordinationis fequitur emilTio. Iren. p. 132. t Non enim ut compofitum Animal quiddam eft omnium Pater |>raster Nun, quemadmodum prse-oftcndimus j fed Nus Pater, 8c Pa- ter Nus. Necefle eft itaque 6c eum qui ex eo eft Logos, imo ma' ,gis autem ipfuru Nun, cum fit Logos, ^erfe^nm ^ im^^JJiMem efle, & eas Qu. VIII. offome QUERIES. 271 Thefe twoPaflages will not be perfedly underftood by any that are not in fome Meafure acquainted with the Gnoftick Principles. Among other Conceits of theirs, this was one, that the Word was remote from the Father in Nature and Perfeftions, and liable to Ignorance and Paflion : Which abfurd Tenet Iren^us here confutes, by teaching that the Mind is IVord , and the PFord Mind^ Both of the fame Suhftance and Perfeftions. It is plain that by JVord^ in thofe Paf- fages, is not meant any Attribute of the Father, but the Per/on o£ the Son, by what follows in p. 152. where He fpeaks of the eternal Word under that Notion, and ftill continues the fame Thought of God Himfelf being Word^ or Logos^ as before. The Word therefore is perfe^^ is impajfihle^ is necejfarily" exijling^y as the Father is, acccording to Irenaus^. A.D. 191. Clemens Alexandrinus. Clemens is another unexceptionable Evidence for the fame Doftrine. He ftiles the Son ovtw? .Q^so?^, really God: A Phrafe, which He often applies, with particular Emphafis to God the Father <^, as being the one true God, in Oppofition to pretended Deities. I omit here, what I have before abundantly Ihown, that The Father and Son together are the oite God^ according to Clemens : I pafs over alfo Clemens's Doc- trine of Chrifl being Creator^ Almighty^ Adorable^ t^c. & eas quse ex eo funt Emiffiones, ejufdem fubJlantU cum fint, cujuf & ipfe, perfedtas 8c impaflibiles 8c fcmper fimiles cum co perfcvc- rare qui eas cmifit. Iren, p. 139. Compare Qui generationem prolativi Hominum Verbi transferunt in Dei Aternum VerSum, 8c prolationis initium dantes 8c Genefim, quem- admodum 8c fuo verbo. Et in quo diftabit Dei Vcrbum, imo ma- gis ipfe Deus, cum fit Verbtun, a Verbo Hominum, fi eandera habu* crit Ordinationem 8c Emiffionem gcnerationis ? Iren,^, IJ2. • Vil Mafluet Diflert. Pra:v. p. 128. • Clemens Alex. p. S6. • Glem. p. 4j. jj, 60* 6i» 8i, ^i. ijro* from i74 -^ Second Defense Qu.VIIt from whence, by certain Confequence, it may be proved that his Subftance is truly divine^ and necejfa* rily-exifting, I fhall here infift only on fuch PafTages, as more cxpreflly, and direftly iignify his Necejfary- exiftence 5 among which this is one. <' But This mult of Neceffity be took Notice of, *' that we ought not to think any Thing wife by *' A^^^^^r^jbutthe to ^^sTov, the dhine Being: Where- *' fore alfo it is Wifdom^ God's Power^ that teaches '^ Truth : And from thence the Perfedion of Know- " ledge is received ". Here JVifdom is plainly in- cluded in the to '^lio-^-i the divine Being , faid to be wife hy Nature^ that is, neceffarily wife. All that know Clemens's Stile, will allow, that by Wifdom is meant the Son of God^ the Teacher of 'Truth^ as Cle^ mens Himfelf explains it in the following Page ^> And a few Pages after, He gives Him the Titles of cro^/a, Wifdom^ and cTyva/jtir ^sy. Power of God ^, as here. Wherefore God the Son is (pJcei o-ocpoV, and alfo TO d-eToy, which fully exprefs Neceffary-exiflence, Another Pailage of Clemens^ proving the fame Thing, is as follows. "We are not as The Lord, and if we *' would, we cannot: For no Difciple is above his '' Lord. It is enough, if we be made fuch as the *^ Mafterj not in Effence^ for it is impoffible for *^ That which is by Adoption (or Appointment) to be *^ equal in EJJence (or Exifience) to what is hy Na^ *' ture: Only we may be made eternal^ and may be " admitted to the Contemplation of Things that are, <^ and may have the 'Title of Sons , and may fee the « Father in what belongs to Him *. In xefvTccvB-cc TTH fiXjjT/stt ii rsXu'fJCKi Ttis yvMO-stix;, Clem. p. 45*2. • A/ ^ KecB-O^UTCCt Tot, XXt' U^^SiCCV KUXoC KUi ^iKetlCC, p. 4^5. *" 'O xyj)t©- AXy!9-ii6C,xul (ro(pU, kxi ^vvoifjui^ ^iov. p. 4^7. Qu. VIIL offome Q^U E R I E S. 275 In thefe Words it is clearly intimated, that our Lord is v.ar isaiav^ ejfentially^ and (puVet, by Nature^ eternal^ ^vA knowings 2iV\d Son of God: Which are the known Ways, by which the xAntients exprefs Ne^ cej/ary-exijlence. (pJcret as oppofed to ^£j« is a fami- liar and very common Expreffion for what is natural^ ly and neceffarily^ in Oppofition to ^voluntary Appoint-- ment^ or Defignationi". Clemens has Another celebrated Paflage, worth the Reciting. '' The Son of God never comes down from his ^^ Watch-Tower, is never divided, never parted afun- " der, and never pafTes from Place to Place; but is ^' always every where, and yet contained no where: ^^ All Mind, all Light, all the Father's Eye, fees " all Thmgs , hears all Things, and knows all " Things \. Here we find the principal eflential Attributes of God ( Immutability , Immenfity , Omniprefence , and Omnifcience) afcribed to God the Son. And what can all This mean lefs than Necejfary-exiflence ? Com- pare with it what I had jull before cited from Ire* n^HSy who in like manner defcribes God as being all Mincl^ all Word^ ^c. And it is obfcrvable, that xetAo? • ^KccT* iJcrcyjiv(^ J » jW/fraSa/viwy ik tctth uc, tottov , ■^rcivTVf ^ «$, c A©- (pZq, ttxt^Zcc; oa(^ C?, on Pur- pofe to make it anfwer the better to dymrcs g^^^g before, and to prefcrve the Elegance of the Sen- tence. You urge ysvv>!crar aurov^ as if the fame Thing could not be faid to be dymr(^j and yet begotten : Which all iht Philojophers had admitted, and no- thing more frequent (as the Teftimonies produced above {how ) than the Application of Both to the fame perfon, or Thing : Not to mention that if Chrift was a Son^ in the drift and proper Senfe (as all the Fathers have taught) Hemufb have been unmadey or neceffarily-exifiing. Your lad Pretence is from Ge- * Sermons, p. 5-9. See alfo Le Moyne, Not. & Obferv. p. 447. Wall's Detenfe, ^.37. f Dionyfius, of the fame Age, thus reafons very remarkably upn the Thrafe z-^uroroKoq, See. ^iieov Myicof yiyivri^:cil fJ!jn utto .9-jcu y-rirBuvriXi' Orig. Contr. Celf. ^ Yiy/tTlc,fomethnps deytotes only a, Thin^^s proceeding from another ^rphe- fher eternally or tempirally, rohether by gcneratio'^ or creation. TiJATflv Atyio-J-cit Tov Koj3^«.'<*5 owo-ja, p. 386, T 4 what 2S0 .^Second Defense Qu. VIII. what is moft material, to take off your famous, and almolt only Objeftion drawn from what the Fathers have faid about Chrifl's Generation being by the IVill of the Father. 3. I am here to inquire, in what Senfe, and by whom, necejfary Generation, or Emanation was taught J and to account for the Son's being faid to be generated by the Will of the Father. Here, in the firft place, we are carefully to diftin^ guifh between Thofe who afferted vitemporal Gene- ration only, and thofe who aflerted an Eternal Gene- ration. As to the former, it may be allowed that They fuppofed the Generation to be by the fVill of the Father, even in your Senfe of fFill : And all you now have to do, is to prove, if you are able, that Thofe Writers believed no real or fuhftantial exiftence of the Son, antecedent to That Genera- tion. As to the latter, v^\io\\^di eternal Generation^ your Bufinefs will be to fhow that They believed it to be an A6i of the WiUm your Senfe of IVill^ if poffi- ble to be done : Or without This, you do nothing. It were fufficient to Men of Senfe, and to Scholars, to have pointed out a way of folving all that you hive, or ever can advance upon This Head : But be- caufe fome Readers will want to fee fome Things more particularly cleared, I ihall be at the Pains of tracing this Matter down, quite through the Fa- thers 5 fhowing you your Miftakes all the way. You will not expe6l IHiould take any Notice of xhtJpof- tolical Conjlitutions^ fo often and fo unanfwerably proved '^ to be a patch'd, fpurious, and interpolated Work. Nor fliall I have any thing to do with Ig- , natiiis's interpolated Epi flics, till you have confuted Bp. Fear/on^ and Da/I/e. I refer you to a learned F.o- s - * See Ittigius de Pfeudepigraphis .Apoflolorum, p. .190. Mr. Turner on the Aj^u'i. Confihuticns^ •i Br. Smalbroke. reigner (Ju. VIII. offome Q\5 E R I E S. 2f i reigner=^5 in the Margin, for the Senfe of wife and judicious Men in relation to Mr. IVhifton's wild at- tempt to fubllitute the larger inflcad of the [mailer Epillles. I proceed then to the genuine Ignatius^ in the fmaller Epiftles. I allowed in my Defenfe\^ that Ignatius fuppofes the Son to be a Son by the IVill ot the Father j and I fhowed in how many Senfes it might be taken, without at all favouring your Prin- ciples. You imagine I was greatly puzzled-^ which I take to be an Argument only of your fmall Ac- quaintance with thofe Matters. You pretend that Three of the Senfes have no diftin^ Senfe, But arc you to fit down in your Study, and make Reports of the Antients out of your own Head, without looking into Them, to fee in what Senfe They ufed their Phrafes ? I was not inquiring what you, or I fhould now exprefs by the Word Wiil^ but what Ideas the Antients had fometimes fixed to the Word : For, by That Rule we muft go, in judging of the Antients, What think you of Thofe that gave the Name of Will^ or the Father's Will-i to the Perfon of the Son X ? They * Quas folas genuinas efTe, akeras vero illas quas Sinceras c{ie dixi, ab Athanalio decurtatas, inauditum 8c incredibile WiMlm't Whif- ton'ty novi Arianoium in Anglia Promachi, Paradoxoii eft, Singulari nuper ScriptQ proditum magis quam Demon ftratum. Fabricii Bibl. Gr. I. j-. c I. p. 40. The fame learned Writer has alfo very lately given his Judgment of Mr. H^r/ijlons Attempt about the Conjiitutions, Quam parum t'eliciter Hoc ei SuccefTerit, evidenter expofijerunt Rob, Turnerns, Richardus Smalbroke, Jo. Emejlus Grabe : Confulendus etiam Si?mn Ockley. Licet vero iVioiftonus identidem tueri fententiam fuam co- natus eft repetitis fcriptis adverliis Grabium, adverfus Petrum AUixium, adverfus Turmrum, vix quemquam tamen Antiquitatis Ecclefiafticae peritum confido effe futurum, cui iUius Argumenta petita longius, & conjefturse Xt^it^^ rem tantam perfuadere poterunt. Fabr. Bibl. Gr. Vol.xi. p. 1 1. t piin[e, p. 1^0.^ 4: 'AyecS^oy 7!U.T^oc, aty«$-ay /Bi>.i]fJUCC. Clem. AlcX. p. 3 Op. €>iX-^fjuu TTxvToxfXTo^iKov, SovereignWUl, p 647. Ipfe erat Voluntas 8c Poteftas Patris. Tertul.de Orat. c. 4." ^ 2%z -^ Secon D Defense Qu.VIII. They had a meaning, tho' not fuch a meaning as you or I now underlland the Word fVill'm. They mud therefore be interpreted by the Ideas which fhey^ and not We^ affixed to the Phrafe, or Name. And "what think you of others who ufed the Phrafes of omnipotent or all- containing Will (as we have feen above) had not They fome different Idea of JVill from That which you have ? And mud not They be interpreted accordingly? You are very angry atThofe that have prefumed (without your leave) to fay the Will of God is God Himfelf^ (pag. if p.) And yet, whe- ther the Saying be right or wrong, when you would interpret the Do6lrine of fuch as made That their Maxim, you muft take their Words as They meant them, and according to their Ideas, and not your own. For ought I fee, They fpake more properly than you do in fo often mentioning ji5ls of the Will, Does any thing a6l but an Jgent 5 and is the Willzn Agent? How abfurdly do you (peak? Not that I fhould blame you for ufing a common Phrafe : only do not be fo very fevere and fmart upon others 5 who knew how to fpeak as properly, or perhaps BiXnfjux ToZ Tfltrp«5 £>« 'Ijjtrer? z?^'^°'i' Hippol. contr. Noet. c. 13. p. If- Charitatcm ex Charitateprogenitam. Voluntas ex mcnte procedens Orig. ^r^^j Ap;t:a;j/, Pamph. Apol.p. 255-. T«» TcZ vccTpo^ (ia^-^rtv. Conjlant. apud Gelaf. Part 5 . B»A)i xul B-iXytfjtjx Toy TTurfci;. Athanaf. p. 61 5. Sicut Sapientia, £c Verbum, & Virtus Dei, & Veritas, & Rcfur- redlio, 8c Via dicitur, ita etiam Voluntat. Hieronym. Com. in Eph. Quidam ne Filium confilii vel voluntatis Dei dicerentiiUj^enitum Verbum, ipfum ConfUium, feu Voltmtatem Patris idem '' ^rbum efTe dixerunt. Sed melius, quantum exiftimo, dicitur Conflmm de Con^ /i'lio, 8c Voluntas de Voluniate ; ficut fubftantia de fubftantia, Sapientia dc Sapientia. Auguftin. Trin.l. ly. c. 38. p.p94. Vid. Petav. Dogmat. Vol. i. p. 229. Cotcler. Not. in Recogn. p. 492. more Qu. VIII. offotne Q^UE R I E S. 2Sj more properly than you*. Ic fecms to be owing only to narrownefs of Mind, and want of larger Views, that you would confine all Writers to your particular Modes of Speaking. The Word IVilt has been ufed by fome of the Aritients to fignify any natural Povj^ €rs of God f. Will in the Senfe of Approbation^ or Acqiiiefcence^ is very common with antient Writers : Nor was it thought abfurd to fay, that God had Willed thus or thus, from all eternity^ and could not Will otherwife. Whether there be any Thing very edifying in thefe Notions or not, is not the Quellion. But when we are fearching into the Sentiments of the Antients^ we mufl carefully obferve in what Senfe They underllood ihtterms they made ufe of: other- vv^ife we fhall be apt to make very grofs Miftakes in our Reports of Them. To return to Ignatius. To cut off Difpute, I admitted that Ignatius might un- derftand by Generation, a i-oluntary antemundane Ge- neration, or Manifeftation^ with feveral other Fathers. In anfwer to which, you tell me, that I fliould ha've pro'ved that He had fomenjchere or other fpoken of Ano^ ther higher Generation > otherixjife I have given up the ^eftion. What Qucftion ? the Queilion of the eternal or necejjary exiftence of the Logos ? Nothing like it. I admitted that many of the Fathers fpeak of no higher a Generation than that Ante-mundans one : But flill I infill upon it, that Thofe very Fa- thers acknowledged the exiftenCe of a real and living Word^ a Word of God, eternally related to the Fa- * See PetavfusV Dogmata Theol. Vol. i. 1. i. c. 8. p. 6i, 5cc, 1. f. c. 4. p. 211. c. 12. p. 239. IVhere may be feen -what Fathers faid the Will of God was God Himfelf, and -what They meant by it. \ Omnis Potentia Naturalis {Dei) eft Voluntas. Mar. VicfJorin, adv. Arium, 1. i. p. 199. Baiil. Ed. Vid. Petavii Dogm. Vol. i. p. 229. Txvrov yx^ y,yov(Jt,»i <^f(jV>j}Ti» vrui, Athan. Orat. c. 6fl p. 613. ther, 284- ^ Second Defense Qu.VIir. ther, whofe Word He is : which relation to the Fa- ther as his Head^ is all that any Writers ever meant by eternal Filiation. They therefore acknowledged the fame Thing, but under another Name: There was no Difference in Do6irine^ but in the ExpreJJion^ and the manner of Wording it 5 as I obfervcd in my Defenfe^. Ignatius^ of whom we are now fpeaking, owns an eternal Logos^ and his Neceffary-exiftence 3 as I have already proved : which is fufficient to my pur- pofe 3 unlefs you can fhow that He meant an Attri- bute only, by the Logos. I go on to J lift in Martyr^ who, as I before al- lowed, fpeaks of no Generation higher than That "voluntary Antemundane Generation, othcrwife called Manifeftation: And I fhowed both ivom Juftin and Methodius^ that a Manifeftation^ might be called a Generation^. To the fame purpofe, I quoted i//))T folytus \^ who plainly makes a Manifeftation to be the Son's Generation^ As do alfo feveral others II . Now, certainly there is nothing amifs in fuppofing God the Son to have been manifefted^ in the proper Seafon, by the Will of the Father. I allow then, that the Logos became a Son (according to Juftin) by voluntary appointment : But 1 do not allow that He * Defen/e, p. i^-j, &c. ^ ^ ^ tLuToZ ^lytjiXM yivio-B-ui. Juftin. Mart. Dial. 270. U^ocvrcc vihi TC^o rZv uimav cv roT-; apavo^, £o«A)^.9-}3v x«t ra Kotrf/joi ■ ytviiiia-sii, Q^>) sV* TffeirB-iv oiyvoii[/jivov yvu^itrcci. Method, apud Phot. Cod. ijy. p. 060. , sfXToy TTonT, Ti^ori^uv (ftuyvtv ujv to Both the parts of the Sentence fingly : But I under- ftood them thus, that it was the Father's good plea^ fure that He who before was God^ as being his Sony § Defenfe, p. 131. * Reply to Dr. Whitby, p. 77. t^ Toy KXTci (inXvy r^y Uuva kccI ^icv ovrXf vtsK d'jTeVy Kul uyyiXor Ik TeZ uTTrfBTiTv rvj yvafjuv^ ccvrcu. Dial. p. 370. Ij Juftin Dial. p. 164. fhould iSd !//SecondDefense Qu. VIII. fliould now be God and Jngel Both, by the addition of the Office. That He was one, was Necejffary^ but that He fhoiild be Both in one, This was a Matter of voluntary Appointment. In like manner, it may be faid to be by the Father's good pleafure, that He is ^£0^ and a v^e^^©' together, or ^sav.^^wTr©'. I do not yet fee any thing either in Jiiftin'^ Words, or in your Comments upon them, that fhould move me to recede from This Conftrudion : However, I leave it to the Learned, to judge whether there be any thing harfh, or unnatural in it. You charge me, {p. Z54.) with Self-contradi^ion^ for faying in a Note ^, that tho' the Son was God as being a Son, and a Son nara /3yX>iv5 yet He was not God jtarcc /3a>>jiv. You fhould have let the Reader fee what I had offered in the fame Place % to clear up, and take off the pretended Contradi6tion. Let us confider whether a few Words may not fct all right : He proceeded from (was not created by) the Father 5 therefore He is God, The Proceffion makes Him a Son^ and is voluntary 5 but at the fame Time, iTiows Him to have been always God. For, fince He was not 15 ^'^t ovTOu^y, was not created^ but proceeded as a Son from the Father j therefore He is of the fame Nature with Him, and God from all eternity. Wherefore tho' He is a Son Tiaroi /Bs^Xyiv, and God becaufe a Son^ He is not God y.ard ^aXriJj which I afferted. And now where is the Contradiction? Your objecting {p. Iff.) that the fu pre }?te God could not miniller as an Angela has been often anfwered : So we may dif- mifs fuch quibbling for the future. As to Chrifl being y.ugi©* o'^uva/jtfw/ by the Father's Appointment, I have allowed it above, in Juftins Senie j which comes not up to the Senfe of the Hebrew. As to the Father's being Lord of the Son^ J u ft in explains it by his being Caufe^ or Fountain of the Son : in which all Catholicks are agreedf . You objcd that • Defenfcy p. i 3 t . See alfo Reply to Dr. Whitby, p. 78. t nV. Bull, D.F. Sea. 4. c. z. p. ijp. the Qu. VIII. offome QUE R I E S. 2S7 the Generation (compared with one Fire lighted from Another) was yet c/luva'/jtu Y.a\ (iaXri auT». I do not well apprehend what you have been doing for a Page and a half. You (eem to think that 1 have fome where denied the higheft Generation, fpoken of by Juftin^ to be temporal > whereas I have conflantly allowed it: And To you do not difpute againfl me. The Son proceeded (pw? \y. (pwror, in Time, ac- cording to Juftiriy and according to many more bc- fides Hinij particularly ////^pc/)//^!, and perhaps even the Nicene Fathers. Well, but then you'll fay, what becomes of what I call eternal Generation ? I anfwer, that before the Procejfion^ the Xor©* was h ya^^i *, as Juftin wou'd have exprefTcd it 3 in Cordey fe^ore^ utero^ as others "f. And This is the fame Thing which Pofl-nicene Fathers called eternal Gc" neration-y viz. that eternal Relation and Reference which He had to the Father > in *whom^ znd with, nvhom^ and of whom^ He always was. So that there is IHII no more than a Difference in Words between Juftin's Doftrine of the Generation, and Athanaftus's : For Athanafius own'd the ProceJJion which Juftin fpeaks of, as much as He. You had cited a fecond PafTage from Juftin '^ which, by your leaving out a material part of the Sentence, was made to run thus > He hath all thefs Titles^ viz. Son^ IFifdorn^ Angcl^ God^ Lord^ and JVord^ from his being begotten of the Father by hisJVilL The Thing that offended me here, was to find Angel brought in among the other Names, as given Him on account of his being begotten. For, if this were the Caic, He would be an Angel by Nature^ and not by i'ffice onlyj which is direftly making a Crea- * 'E>c 7«rfo? yfvv)3.9-«r«<. Juft. Dial. p. 8>-. '£y x*p^/<5£ ^fcw. Thcoph. Antioch. p. 129. t Cor^o ejus nobilis Inquilinus. Zen. Veron. Ex ore quamlibet Patris fis ortus, 8c Vcrbo editus.Tamcnpatcma inffaerg Sophia callebas prius. Prudent. Hymn, xi, p. 47, tun i88 ^Second Defense Qu.VIIt. iure of Him, fuitably to your Senfe of begotten : And you will remember that you had produced this Citation, among others, to prove that the Son was brought into exiftence j it is your very Expreflion II. I had therefore juft reafon to complain of your leaving out the Words, from his miniftring to his Fathers ff-^illy which {hewed the Name Angel to be a Name ot Office^ and gave a new Turn to the whole Sentence. The Cenfure I palTed upon your quoting fo care- lejly^ or partially^ was only this 5 'The Account you give is fuch as muft make one think cither that you ne- 'ver faw the Book you mention^ or elfe with a Stroke : Which you are plcafed to call wrathful^ and unchriftian 5 as it is natural for a Man, when He is deteftedj to fly in the Face of the calmefl Re- buke, and to give hard Names. You now tell mcj you had no Defign in the Citation more than this, to fhow that the Son was begotten by the Will of the Father, Had that been all, you fliould have had no Contradiftion from me: For I had again and again allowed it to be Juftin's Do6lrine. But if you did not deftgn^ you had really done more, in that partial Citation j which I faw, at lead, if you did not : And could I imagine you fo unthinking, as not to perceive how the Alteration was exaftly fitted to your purpofe? But as you beft know what you in- tended, let it pafs : Only the more I allow to your good meaniyig^ the lefs mud be attributed to your Sa- gacity. You proceed, in a very abufive manner, to mifreprefent my Words, and to throw Dirt where you have very little Occafion. You charge me with omitting a material Word in a Marginal Tranfation $ (which yet you know was no Tranflation)' ■^vA you intimate 1 know not what Artifice in leaving out S'sXrIcrsi, tho' it appears in the Greek y and I could not poffibly have any ill Defign in the Cafe,becaufe I j) ColU^m of ^eriest P' yi« I frank!/ Qu. VIIL offome Q^U E R I E S/ \%^ frankly admitted that the Generation of the Son was ^sXr]o-?{, by the IVill of the Father, and had no difpute with you on That Head. But your Warmth of Temper here carried you too fir: and you were refolvcd, it feems, not to be outdone in ivrathful and unchriftian Expredions : at the fame I'ime not confideiing the Difference between -^juft Cenfure^ and an injurious Calumny. T'atian^ who was Jufiin's Scholar, may come next. I allow Him to fpeak only of a Temporal Generation^ or Proceffion j in like manner as Juftin. If you can do any thing here, it muft be to prove that x.\\Q:M^ord was no more than an Attribute^ before the ProceJJion. But Bp. BuU^ is beforehand with youj having de- monllrated the contrary. You have but little to fay, and That fcarce worth notice. You obfervc that Tat'tAn fays of the JVord^ that He was Iv ayjT(^^ (not TT^o? auTov) which JJjo'ujs (as St. Bafil argues againft the Sabellians) that by the IVord is meant an- internal Power or Property^ (p. 281.) But Bafil was never fo weak as to argue that o/^ aur'^ muft neceffarily denote an Attribute, but only that tt^o^ avTov is a flronger Expreflion to iignify Perfona- lity 5 as I have alfo my felf argued in another Place IJ. h auTco may indifferently ferve either for Perfun^ or Attribute: tt^o? a^rlv will not. When. Chrift fays, / am in the Father^ and the Father in me^ doth it follow that neither of them is a Per fan? There is therefore no Force in your Remark about oj^ auVw, more than This, that the \o[Q^ in Tatian might be an Attribute agreeably enough to That Expreflion j were there not other very convincing Reafons to the contrary. The Words of 'Tatian (^^X-^artrnf dirXornr©^ avrt; TTfOTTYi^^a 0 Koyos) you have rendred two feveral w^ays, and • Bull, D.F.N. Sea. 3. C.6. p. 209. y Sermon I. p. 1 1. U 3oth 1 290 -^ Second Defense Qu.Vin. Both ofthem wrong. The firft you have, p. no. By the fimple efficiency of his Will 7'his Reafon^ or JVord^proceeded forth : where I complain of your putting in efficiency^ to fervc your Hypothefis. The fecond is, p. 270. 'The JVord proceeded from the fimple Will of the Fa- ther : where I complain of the Words from the Jtn^ple Will^ to intimate to the EnglijJo Reader, as if nothing but "^ fimple Att of the Will was concerned in That Matter. Let the Words appear as they lie in the Author, without the mean Artifice of giving them a flilfe Turn. By the Will of his fimplicity^ the Word proceeded forth . I admit the fame Thing of Athenagoras^ as of Juftin and Tatian^ that He fpeaks of no higher Ge- neration than the Proceffion : yet he believed the ex- iftence, the eternal^ and Necejfary exiftence of the Xo- Fos-, as before proved. Her^ you can have no pre- tence, except it be to imagine that the Xolo? was an Attribute only, before the Proceffion 3 As towhichy Bp. Bull ^ has effeftually prevented you: And as to what little Obfervations you had to make,. I have re-* plied to them above. Theophlhis comes under the fame Predicament with the Three Writers before mentioned. You have fomething to except againft Bp. BuW^ Rcafons f for Theophilus's believing the Son to be a real Peribn be- fore the Proceffion. His Reafons were thefe. I. That very Logos which had been from all eter- nity ovJicl^zro^ ov y.a^c!^ia-i becomes afterwards xgo.^ (^ociy2^\\. If therefore He was ever a Perfon (as is not doubted) He mud have always been ia. 2.. The y^hXo^ who fpake to the Prophets, and wa*i then undoubtedly a Perfon^ was the fame individual! * Bull D. F. Sea. 5. c. j-. t Bull D. F. Sea.;, c. 7. p. 215-. fj Tei/ro» tqj ?.<,yo'j iymwi ^r^oipofiKor, Theoph, p. up. Xo7(^ Qu. Vlir. offome (QUERIES. 29 1 Xofo? which was always with the Father 0 dii c\)ixi:cio^j aJra) *. 3'. He was the Father's Coimfellor^ cviJ-CaXo^y be- fore the Proceflionj and therefore a Perjhn. 4. He is faid to have been 'with Hlm^ and to have converfed with Him^ which are /'^r/^/^^/ Characters. f. Even after the ProcelTion, Heisftillfuppofedto be perpetually [(J'ia-uravrQ£)\mhQ. Heart of the Father ^ not feparate from Him, but exerting Himfelf ad ex^ tray in the Work of the Creation > which is the meaning of ProceJJion^ and becoming •sr^o^po^jy.of. 6. Thcophilus goes upon the fame Principles with Athenagorasy "Tatian^ and others > whatever there- fore could be pleaded for thofe Writers, in the Cafe, would be at the fame Time pleading for TheO" philus. . You pafs over all thofe Reafons, except the ihirdy and fourth : tho' Bp. Bull "f principally infills uport the firfl^ and fecond. And what you have to fay^ p. 11(5. to the 3^ and 4^^, reaches only the fourth. For Bp. Bull had allowed, that fometimes, in com-' mon Speech^ (fuch as Tatian fometimes ufes) a Perfon may be faid to be with Himfelf. But He allowed not that a Perfon might be faid to be Counfellor to Him- felf in the manner Theophilus fpeaks : Befides that tho' fometimes, and improperly, a Perfon may be faid to be with Himfelf y yet more generally being withy denotes two Perfons, as in John i. 1. It may therefore be ufed as an Argument which in the main is right and good, tho' admitting of fome few par- ticular Exceptions. I had almoft llipM over your 284'^' R^g^j where you fay, that 7'hat Generation before which the Perfon generated was every Thing He could be after it^ is no Generation. But it is undoubtedly what Thofe Wri- ters, and many after Them, call Generation: And * Theoph. p. 81, 82. t Bull a F, p, 21^, 217; U z thcr?^ 292 '^ Second Defense Qu.VIIL therefore this is difputing not againfl; Me^ but "Them, However, tho' The Logos was the fame ejfentially before and after the Generation, He was not the {itme in refpe6t of Operation^ or Manifejlation^ and outward Oeconomy : which is what Thcfe Fathers meant. I'ertullian goes upon the fame Hypothefis^ in the main, with Thofe before mentioned y and fo need not have any dillinft Conlideration : He has been be- fore vindicated at large. Clemens of Jkxandria^ whom I fhould have men- tioned before, may be hkewife allowed to fpeak of the Procejfion. And when he fays the Word fprang, or arofe, Ik t?^ -nr^rpixyis" iBsX-oVfcor, * from the Wilt of the Father ^\l is plainly intended of his being fentout to Mankind, as obferved above,(/?.pi.) Tho' I am of Opinion \h2XClemens there means the fame that other Fathers have exprcfled by \y. %a,^a'[a<:^ or Im yas-^os-, and might be rightly rendred in St. John'^ Phrafe, from the Bofom of the Father, John i. i§. Iremeus comes not under our Inquiry, having faid little either of eternal^ or temporal Generation. Only ^rom what Hints we can gather. He feems to have afferted eternal Generation ^. And you cannot ihow that He has faid any thing of its being by the Will of the Father. Hippolytus was undoubtedly in the Hypothefis of the temporal Generatioiu or Procejfion. And if jou can Ihow that the Xofcr, before That Proceflion^ was an Attribute only, according to Him 5 you wilt then take That Writer from us. You do endeavour it, p. 119. Bp. Bull ^ had obferved, and I ^ after Him, that Hippolytus fuppofes God, before the Pro- ceffion, to have been one, and ^many^ becaufe He had " Clemens Alex. p. S6. ^ See my Defcnfe, p. 13^. - - ' Bull, D. F. Se6l. 5. c. 8. p. xif\ ' Defenre. p. 148. the Qu. VIII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 29; the Son and Holy Spirit in Him and with Him *- You fay, fhat learned Prelate feems not to haiie fuffi- ciently confidered^ that (by the fame reafoning) the Power alfo, and the Counfel mentioned in the fame Sentence mufl have been Perfons. But That learned Prelate^ having 2. Judgment equal to his Learnings was ufed to conftderThmg^ with great exadtnefsj and was not fo prone to miltake as Thofe that too haftily pals their Cenfurc upon Him. You have not confi- dercd, (^tho' I gave notice of it ^) that the Words aXofor, dco^o^^ d^fv'joPiO^^ a^aXsi/lcj correlpond to XcTc^j co^la^cJ^uvafxi^^^nd CaX^', Names of the Son and Spirit, and all fo applied, except fiaXn (for which ^i\Y,>j.a. is ufed, c. 13.) in That very Treatife. And Hippoly- tus fpeaks there juft in the fame way as many other both Pofi-nicene and Ante-nlcene Fathers do upon the fame Subjedj feveral Teftimonies whereof may be feen in a Note elfewhere ^^ and their Senfe vindica- ted from fuch Exceptions as you have made to it. You add farther, that the Bilhop did not ohfer've that it is the one unbegotten God^ even the Father who is here /aid to be many. I know not why you pretend the Bifhop did not obferve what no' body can doubt of: Nor do I fee of what Service the Ob- fervation can be to You, or your Caufe. Allowing you that by yLo-jo^ is meant ihe Father^ who w^smany^ and the TO -Ko.') : ftill it was the Father confidered in the. Comprehenfive way, as a Head of a Family containing all 'y in fuch a Senfe as I have explain'd above ^. It was not Hippulytus's Way to exclude, or feparate from the alone God and Father, what was ejfential to rxm^, o'jTS cctiiXiVToc, >ty. Hipp. contr. Noct. p. 13. Compare This of Gregory Nazianzen. _ 'Ov yuf ;,v 'oTi ecMyo^ isv, ev^t^ ^'v on oj TTuryp, od^i Iv art tU uXn^^^, i;miro(po and., alfo Alexander of Alexandria^ to whom you have" fome little Exceptions, which I have anfwered above, and which are perfedly foreign to the prefent; Queftion. Eufebius [ did not cite, becaufe fome jufb Excep- tions may be made to Him j And there is no recon- ciling Him perfectly with Himfelf, at different Times. This you mufl know, and yet, very deceitfully, you. conclude^ as you fay, \p. 2.73.) the Ante-nicene fVri-' • Defenfi, p. 136. * Defenfey p, 157. ^ Defenfe^ p. 142. •* Befenfe, p. 143. See alfo my Reply to Dr. "Whitby, p. 3 r, &c. ; Bull, Def, p. 1 65. ten Qu. Vlir. offome Q^U E R I E S. 295 ters on this Head with the Judgment of the learned Eufebius, 'which may juftly he efteemed to be the true Senfe of the Antients before Him : producing a Paf- fage from his Dcmonftratio EvangeJica^ wrote before the Council of Nice^ and before He had well confi- dered the Subjcdl, and corrc£led in fome material Points afterwards, as I have obferv^ed above p. i f 6. And now we are come down to the ArianTimtS'^ in which Dr. Clarke and you think you have foand fomething to your Purpofej artificially tacking toge- ther Teftimonies of feveral kinds, Ibme Catholick^ fome Arian^ and fome doubtful: Of which in their Order, that I may fully clear the Point I am now upon. But before I come to thcfe Tcllimonies, I mull: flrike out a little into Hillory, to give the Reader a clearer Notion of what we are about. I have elfewhere ^ given a brief Account of an Argument which the Arians made ufc of to prove the Son of God a Creature. They argued that the Father mufi; produce his Son either Volens^ willingly^ (by which They underilood free choice) or jYolens againfi his Will^ which in Greek They cxprcfied by CpujiKy) djdyy.f\^ m.eaning what we Ihould now call estrinfick Neceffty. The Argument is much the fame with what Dw Clarke urges in thcfe Words j JVhat- e'-jer proceeds from Any Being other-Vjife than by the Will of 7'hat Beings doth not in Truth proceed from ^hat Beings but from fome other Canfe^ or Necef?it_y, extrinfick to^ and independent of that Being ^. And in another placed IFhatever is can fed by an intelligent Beings is caufcd by the Will of That Being : Other- wife it is not (in truth and reality) caufed by That Be- ing at all^ but by fome fuperior Caufc, be it NecefHty, or Fate, or whatever it be^ &ic. ' Defenfe, p. 126, 492. *» Clarke'f Reply, p. 227. I Clarke'; Sf/>/y, p. 113. U 4 Th if He did not exiil by IVill^ then God had '' a Son by NeceJJiiy^ and unwillingly. But who is *' it, you Mifcreants, that impofes NeceJJity upon " Him ? Epiphanius reprefents it Thus f : '^ They objc<5b '^ that He begat the Son willingly^ or unwillingly : '' and if we fay unwillingly^ then the divine Natuie " is forced by NeceJJity^ and not by Freedom of Will, He concludes that the Generation was neither wil- lingly^ nor umvillingly^ but naturally. St. Amhrofe\^ Sr. Jujlin% and others §, reprefent the fame Cavil of the Avians^ much in the fime way : Which being once well underftood, we may cafily deal with your pretended Authorities. The Firll is of the Council of Slrmium in the Year 3f i, which Kccl xiycvTi'i, II fJjA f^itMcrti yiycviv, cukoZ) oCvuy>cy,t f^-oa /W/i^ B-iXojv i.^(rit ro 7i a fc6 "/':&> f/^ni, p. 6 I I. arcTTcv «V< Ajysiv stti Bsou avayK'/iv. f QiAMv d'i iyavwiv Jj fjt/}) B^iXvy-f fxv uTrayj^v yjij BiXcjv, cc'iuyx.^ 7ri^i,3uXXof/j2V Ti Biiov . ■ I. - y.(/A locj iiTreoyuiv on ou BtXuv iyivvr,(riv eicu, kvu.yK'i] iP'j6(riwe, ' l;7i^tce,ivii ycto i; Bsicc yet Athanafiiis and others rank them in the Clafs of Avians \ And it is certain, they Hand not perfectly clear in their Chara6ler againil fome very juil and weighty Objedtions. yi.Tillemont fays of them, that I'hey weve the declared Enemies of the Chuvch^ the fame Eufebians ijoho had been condemned iyi the Council of Sardica^^: And it feems that Hilary Himfelf, who had once judged very kindly and can* didly of them, faw reafon atterwards to alter his Sen- timents f. Having now fome Notion of the Men, let us next fee what They fay, in relation to our prefent Point. " If any one fay that the Son was begotten, and ^' the Father not willing, let Him be Anathema. " For the Father did not beget the Son, as being '^ conflrained, or impelled by a phyfical Necefjity^ as " not willing ^ but He at once willed and produced " Him from Himfelf, begetting Him without Time, '' and without /^/i?ra^ any thing Ij. The Expreftions here are cautious and guarded: And tho' perhaps the Men had fomething more in their Hearts than They v/ere willing to utter > yet * Tillemont, Hrj^ory .syei rov vioVf oivcc^^tf/,^ ifw* cu yu^ 3iXc7ixy! a- v^V^'*i never ftood for what we call in this Cafe, Necejjity oi Nature, I know not whether there be one Inftance of it in all Antiquity : I have not yet met with any, no nor of the Word Nccejfity fo applied. Certain however it is, that in the Places which we are now concerned with, (pu^TiKyj dvdyY.y\ had no fach Meaning, but That only which I have given. You go on arguing, and reafoning, what NeceJJity of Nature mufl fignify : Which is only talking without Book and guefflng what Words antiently meant, without confuking the Antients to know the Faft. But at length you come to argue fomcwhat more like a Scholar: You obferve the Oppofttion made by \Q^>.y(^^>j what you fay, and yet by q?ucrc »i ava'yxy] what 1 lay; admitting no Medium^ any more than Dr. Clarke has done in this Cafe, between NeceJJity in the hard com- pulfive Senfe, and Free Choice : And perhaps they in- tended, obliquely, to charge the Athanafian Dc^irine (as the Arians ufed to do) with that hard NeceJJity ^ juft as Dr. Clarke has been pleafed to charge it as a Confequence upon ours. Thus, I think, we may fair- ly compromise the Difpure about the Sirmian Synod. You next mention the Council of Sardica^ mean- ing the falfe Sardican Council, or Synod of Philopo- polis^ in the Year 347 : which condemned Athana- fius^ Hofius^ Julius 3 As They themfelves had been condemned by the true Sardican CouncIL Hilary 300 A Second Defense Qu.VIII. /7/7^?7 * befto wed the fame kind Pains here that He ufed afterwards with the Decrees of the Slrmian Synod, to interpret their ConfefHon to a Catholic Senfe. And coming to the Words, ex 'voluntatel^ confilio^ Heun- derftands them, not in the Senfe oi free Choice^ but in Oppofition to corporalis Paffio^ corporal Pajfion , that is, extrinfic Necejfity. However , I am perfuaded (knowing the Men) that Hilary was too kind in his Conftrudion > tho' with a good Defign, hoping by condefcending towards the weak , to reduce them , by Degrees, and to gain them over to the true and found Faith. He was forced to apologize afterwards for his good-natur'd and well-meant Endeavours j which had rendred Him fufpe6ted with fome that were zealous for the Catholic Faith. But let us now come to fome better Inftanccs than fuch as you have brought me from fufpefted Synods. Sure you do not expeft I Ihould take Notice of the jlrian Council of Antioch. What if They condemn'd fome Arian Tenets ? has it not been common for Arians^ being afhamed of their Leader, to con- demn fome of his Tenets in Words, at the fame Time profeffing the fame Things in other Terms ? Give me Authorities from Men of fteady Principles, known Catholicks^ and not from known Arians. You do pretend to Three fuch, Marius Vi^orinus^ Baftly and Gregory Nyjfen. Let us examine Them. Marius Viciorinus{2iys^ that the Generation was not hy Necejfity of Nature^ hut by the PVill of the Fathers Majefty\. Such are his Words: But when you en- quire what He meant by ^/7/, and what by NeceJJi^ * HiUrius 6c Synod, p. 1172. f Eft 3utem Lumini 8c Spirimi Imago, non a Uecejfitate Naturd, fed voluntate Magnitudinis Patris. Iple cnim feipfum circumter- minavit, Sec. Filius ergo in Patre Imago, 8c Forma , 8c Aoy©- , 8c Voluntas Patris 1 Sic igitur voluntate Patris voluntas ap- paruit ipfe Acy(^> Filius. Mar, Victor. 1. i. Adv. Arium, p. 288, BafiLfid. Qu. VIII. of fome QU E R I E S. 301 ty^ He IS direftly againft you. IVill is with that Writer a Name for any natural Power ^ or for God Himfelf* j So that Generation by //^/7/ comes to the fame with Generation by Nature , which is what we now call necejfary Generation : And it is plain 5 that He underllood by Necejfity^ extrinfick Necef- fity, as oppofed to intrinfick Nature. What is This to your Purpofe ? Whoever will be at the Pains to fearch into the Sentiments of fo obfcure, and perplexed a Writer, ( whom I am not very fond of quoting ) will perceive thus much at leaft, all the Way through Him, that He believed the Subllance of the Father and Son to be equally neceffarily-exifting. I fhall con- tent my felf with a few References ■\. Bafil is alfo quoted by Dr. Clarke^ as faying that the Father begat his Son, having his Fower concur- rent 'with his VVill'y and that the Son fprings from the Father's Goodnefs\. If the Defign be to deceive the Populace with the Sound of Words, there may be fome Ufe in fuch Quotations. But fuch Things ought not to be offered either to Scholars, or by Scholars. Who knows not that Baftl is as cxprefs as poflible * A fe movens Pater, a fele generans Filius, fed Potentia Patris fefe generans Filius j voluntas enim Filius, unde enim li ipia volun- tas non eft a £t^c generans, nee voluntas eft: fed quoniam Dei eft: voluntas, equidem ipfa, quae fit generans, generatur in Deo. Ec ideo Deus Pater, voluntas Filius, unum utrumque, ^c. ibid. p. 188. t Una eademque Subftantia, vi pari, eademque potentia, Majcfta- te, virtute : Nullum alteri prius, nifi quod Caufa eft alterum altc- rius. p. 224. Una eademque Subftantia, 8c fimul, & femper : Hoc eft enim ifjifOionoy^ e^oac-Uv ix<»^i fimul Subftantiam habens, paremque exijiendi •vim atque virtu tern, eandemque Subftantix naturam, (^c, p. laj, Vtd. p. 227, 234. ^ 'O 9-£05 (Tuv^ofjijiv t^uv TM /SaAi^cM rv^v duyxfjuiv, iytyvrsirtf u^iw M»o- Toy * iymviarti W5 uvrhq oi^y, Bafil. Hom. 29. p. 624. Contr, Eunom, 1. a. p. 66, for ^02 A Second Defense Qu.VIIL for the Necejffary-exiftence of God the Son > and di- re6lly denies and confutes the very Thing for which ^ou are pleading ? " fFill you not ceafe^ you impious M^retcb^ (^fays He to Eunomius^ who was pleading the fame Caufe that you now are) to /peak of his not exifting^ who exifts mcejjarily^ who is the Fountain of Life 'y who gave Being to all 'Things that are ^ ? I ren- der Tov ovTcof ovTcLy mcejfarily-exi flings becaufe it al- ways (ignifies the fame with what we exprefsbyThat Word. Again, fpeaking of the Eummians^ He fays, They hlafpbeme in pretending to fay, the Son of God ever was not > as if He did not exift by his own Na- ture, to was brought into Being by /Z?^ Favour of God ^. What is This, but directly, and flatly denying the very Thing which you are contending for ? Againfl which you fet an obfcure PafTage or two , which mean nothing of what you intend by them. As to BafiFs firil ExprelHon , of the Father's having his Power concurrent with his JVill^ it fignifies only, that his JViJl and his Nature are the fame, coeval with each other, and equally neceffary in this Cafe. Cyril o^ Alexandria thusexprefles the fame Thought, fome- thing more diftin6lly than Baftl. " It were fuperfluous and iilly to imagine the Fa- ^ ther to be a Father either unwillingly^ or willingly^ " but rather naturally and ejfentially. For He is not '* unwillingly whatever He is naturally : Having the '' Will to be what He is, concurring with the Na- " ture ^ ^ 'Ou 7rUljjT\\ /W.JJ OVTOi TT^OCUyo^iVUV , 6f uB^liy rot 0¥rCi)^ C'J(riU^6)i sTteu ef. hi. C/riU. Dial, 2. de Trint p. 4/^. •: J He Qu. VIII. offome QUERIES. 503 He means that the Will and the Nature are Both together, coeval^ and coeternal : In like Manner as God always was what He would be , and always would be what He was. The like Thought we have before feen in La5lantius *. Here is nothing in This, that at all favours your Principles. As to the fecond Citation from Baftly the PafTage it felf leads to the Meaning. He there fliles the Son d\jrodya^d)f effentially good, as proceeding from the Fountain of eflential Goodnefs, that is, from the Fa- ther Himfelf: Which is no more than faying, that He is Goodnefs of Goodnefs^ in like Manner as God of' God. Come we now to Gregory Nyjfen^ where the Rea- der will admire at Dr. Clarke's Pretences, and yours, upon This Head j unlefs you take up PafTages at fe- cond-hand, without ever looking into the Authors, Themfelves. The Words you have firft pitched upon are thefef . " For neither doth That immediate Connexion' " between the Father and the Son exclude the IVill, " of the Father, as if He had the Son by fome Ne- * Ex feipfo efl, 6c idco talis eft quakm fe efle voluit. La<5lant. Inft. I. z. c.8.p. i6i. Flotinus, before any of them, fpeaking of God, fays that his IViU was concurring with his Exiftence : and He and His Will are the fame. ^ ^ aw/ 'Zuv^^e(jti<^ cc-jrc(; ixura .B^iXe>!v mroc, uvxt, kxI rovro cov oxtp S-jAh, f^ n ^i^vKTii Keel uCtU iK Plotin. Enn. 6. 1. 8. c, 13, ^ ^^ To ifvcci icycc^oe, rs kcci iMy,^jUv^ *^£f /t^sv, eux. U /3«AijO-«&'$ 0)1 ' elri (jtji¥ ci^i^Xiirtif^ rxZrei s^f S-sAs* yoff iTvxi rcuro axs^ £Vi» <*£jT&'$ Kccl u^i>^iiTU^ jV«y ocyu^Jxi ' 0 yu^ sV<, rcZro xxi ^i-^ ?i)iT09 s^tv uvtS, Athan. Ovat. j. p. 6if. ^ , f ''OvTi yocfl M Ufjuioroi uvTi} (rvvu oCTT^ocli^iru^ T wisv l(r}^mo'^^' H"^^ ^ /3«w- A;j(r<5 ^ifijci ^ TTxreo^ T ytov, 6>5 ri ^oc^-yifjttec ^jitu^u xufif/zTriTPTnaru, tft^ fuyiTi iK^uXXuv ^ kyfj(>XT(^ t^k ht ru UZ (iouMtriv ^ ^ ymrKruvrf^*, Greg. Nyff. Orat. 7, cont, Eunom-p. 206. ^ ./ " « cej^fy ^04- A Secoi^d Defense Qu.VIIL " ceffity of Nature^ without his Will: Neither does <^ the Will divide the Son from the Father, fo as to *' make any Dillance betwixt Them. Thus flir Dr. Clarke quoted 5 fhaping his Tranfla^ tion, with little Hints and Parenthefes, as near as He well could, to his own Senfej however oppofite to the Author's. Let Gregory go on: " Let us neither " exclude from our Notion The Father's fVill about *' the Son, as if it were ftraiten'd (or hurthened) in " the Connexion of the Son's Unity with the Fa- '' ther *y neither let us diflblve the immediate Con- ^' nexion by confidering the ^ill in the Genera- ^' tion. Gregory proceeds to tell us, that to Will what is good is eflential to, and infeparable from the Nature 3 as alfo to enjoy the Thing will'd, and that it cannot poffibly be conceived without it. He far- ther illuftrates his meaning by the Inflance of Fire, and Light flreaming from it 5 that if the Fire be ima- gined to have Reafon and ^^7//, it would chufe or will to fend forth its Streams of Light, according to its Nature, with more to That purpofe. From hence it is manifeft, that Gregory intended no more by iVill than we mean when we fay God wills his own Exiftence, or is what He would chufc to be. Whether this be a proper Senfe of iVill is not the queftion : But it was Gregory's Senfe. And it is plain He docs not mean by (pucrtxy! dvcf.ym Necef' Jity of Nature in the modern Senfe, but luch a Ne- cejjity as lays a Reftraint^ or Burthen upon the TVill^^ would be an Imperfection, or a pain and uneafinefs to the Peifon. I might fhow this farther by many * In [uch a Senfe Gregory ufei the Th^fe elfevohre. Greg. NyfT. contr. Eun. 1. i. p. 44. Parif. Vid. p. 49, 292. "Ay«y>c3) cpva-ifcyi is conftantly fpoken of as an ImperfeSim, or Mark df Subjeftion, or Servitude : for which reafon it was not thought ApplifAbk to Crod. 4. and Qu. VIII. of fame Q. U E R I E S. 30 j and exprefs Pi oofs of the Neceffary-exijlence of God the Son, occurring in This very I'reatiie, too tedi- ous to recite at length : I may jult refer to fome in the Margin f . Now for a Word or two of St. j^ufiin : And then we may fhut up our Enquiries into the Senfe of the Antients on this Head. You tell me of a chiidijly Quibble of St. Auftins^ (p. 2f f .) I gave the Rea- der, in the Appendix to my Defenfe^ an Account of what Dr. Clarke and you call a childijl) gabble : By which k may fufficiently appear that the chikUJJonefs is none of St. Auftin's. It is no commendation of your Difcretion to revive the memory of a Thing which can ferve to no purpofe, except it be to ex- pofe your unacquaintednefs with Antiquity. You pretend to tell me, that I repeat the fame ^ihble in «i!)' Appendix, without atiemptingto anf-joer the Dolors Reafoning. But the Defign of my Appendix was to fhow that the Doftor had committed an Error, in fuppofing that St. Aiiftin was making an Anfwer to fuch Teilimonies as theDoftor had produced) when He was anfwering nothing but a mean Quibble of the Arians^ about Nolens Volens, As theDo6tor had there made a flip, for want of knowing, or confider- ing what St. Auftin had been doing, and upon what Occafion He had faid what He didj for the Doctor's Credit, you ihou'd have let it drop, and have faid no more of it. The Colour you would now give to it, is, that my Anfwer to what was obje61:ed of the Son's being generated by Will^ was out of St. Auflin : Which is only heaping Mi Hake upon Miilake, and defending one Error by Another. Look again into my Defenfe^ (p. iif, .£57*^.) and you will find, I was fhowing how jtecejjary Emanation might be, and had been underftood confident with H^tlL t ©f35 ■ ■ I KctTu (puTtVi p. I . ■'■«« 't'vTuq l'vT<^, underllood of all the Three Pcrfons, p. 5. oiil oVt(^ iWep sVtV, of the Son, p. 4. ^u to whom Tyr. Clarke had appealed in His Scripture Doctrine -^. It was to obviate Thofe Tellimonies, that I refer- red you to the Writers of That Time, calling Them Antients y as you your felf have iince done, twice together : (/>'25'6, if 7,) So eafy is it to condemn Another, and to do the fame Thing your felf. It feems, They are Antients with you, while They ♦ Part 1. Sea. 17. furnifli Qu. VIII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 307 fumiih you with Objcciions : But when the fame Writer^, or their Contemporaries, afford Solutions alfo, then They become Moderns. But to return. The Sum then of what hath been faid is This : All the Fathers beHcved the NeceJ/ary-exiftence of God the Son : 1 have proved it of feveral, and might have done it of more, were it ncceflliry. But the material Thing was to take off the Objection of the voluntary Generation. I have done it, by diilin- guifhing between Thofe that afferted only a "rem^ j)oral Generation, fwhere I allow fFill to be under- flood in the ffri(5l Senfe) and thofc that afferted eter- nal. As to the latter, none of them ever allowed Generation to be by JVill^ in your Senfe of the Word. They fometimes admit it in the Senfe of Approhatioyi^ and They always rejecl Necejjlty of Nature 5 meaning by it extrinfick Force^ Fate^ or Coa&ion^ never what we now undcrftand by it when applied to God. Having thus cleared the main Point, it remains only to take fome Notice of a few incidental Ob- je6bions you have made > which could not before be brought in, without breaking my Method, and diffurb- ing the Connexion. YouobjedjC^. 2.f 3.)that if this betheCafe, that the Son Necejfarily exiffs j then He is Self-exijlent : that // the Sun ivere Self-exifient, fo aJfo "would he its Rays'y if a Tree^ fo alfo its Branches : the fame Thing partially conftdered : '^ Derivation^ Origination^ Caufality^ Generation^ in fuch a Cafe, are figurative^ impr oper Expreffions . By This then, I perceive, I have been doing no- thing in fearching Antiquity: You have fome Max- ims to your felf that muff over-rule all ^Authorities, I fhall anfwer you what I think fui^cient. i. Al- lowing your Plea, the Confequence then is, that the Son is Self-cxiftent as well as the Father: we change the Name^ but retain the 1'hing. And, now v/e Ihall challenge you to prove either from Scriptwej X 2. or 308 A Second Defense Qu.VIII. or Jntiquity^ that the Son is not Self-exiftent *, pro- vided you keep fteadily to what you have faid, that whatever is NeceJ/liry^ is alfo Self-exiftent. If This Maxim be certain, then the Son is Self-exiftenty tho' referred up to Another, and I have proved it in proving iiis Necejfary-exiftence. But, 2. I anfwer, you appear a little too late to be a Corre(5lor of the Language of all the Antients^ Philofophers, and Divines. They have conftantly diftinguifhed the Ideas 5 and where ever there is a Difference of Ideas^ there is a Reafon for afligning different Names. Who does not fee that the Queftion whence a Thing is, and the Queftion what it is, are very different Queftions ? Or that immutably exifting, and exi fling under This, or That relation^ as a Father^ or as a Son^ are quite different Things? And tho' we do not fay that Father and Son are the fame Thing partially confider'd, where there are no Parts : yet we admit them to be the fame Subjiance diverfly confidered, under (Xi^inSc Relations^ and Per- fonalities. You refer me, (p. 2f i.) to Modeft Plea^ p. 17J. where I find it obie6):ed, that // Generation were nc' cejfary^ there would be no limitation to the Number of Per fins. Yes, the Number will be limited to fo many as are Necejfary : And no more can be Necef fary than there are found, in fad, to exift. It is farther objected, that i}l Scripture^ the beget-^ ting of the Son is always mentioned as an A6t of the Father j and an Act cannot he necefjary. But fhow me that Scripture ever makes it an A^^ in yourSenlc. I have heard of begotten^ I never read that it was a ^joluntary A61, a Matter of Choice y which is your Senfe of Act. Scripture rcprefents it by the relation of Thought 10 Mind \ or by the d-uraL'jycL&ixcL^ the fhi- nihg forth of Light ^ from the luminous Fountain: " See 7ny Sermons, p. f . ^ Su iny Sermons, p. i/f. fttid Qu. VIII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 309 And fo does all Antiquity. This anfwers to the old Senfe of begetting % and aUing : But do not invent no'vel Senfes of them, and Hill pretend Scripture^ and Antiquity. In your new- Senfe of begetting^ and actings there is no Proof either in Scripture or Antiquity^ that the Father begat.^ ox a5Ied: And now what have you done, but altered Names^ and left Things as be- fore? Was there ever truer Pedantry about Words? You may call Generation.^ in our Senfe, Aletaphorical^ if you pleafe, tho' you have no Reafon to give, why it is not proper : But when you have done, fhow, if you can, that this Metaphorical Senfe was not the true and only Senfe wherein it was underllood both by Scripture^ and Antiquity. You obje<5b, that my DijiinUion bet-ween Will.^ and arbitrary Will^ is elufive and eqni'vocating. But, I pray, excufe it for the DocStor's fakej who makes the fame Diflindion ^, in other Words, between Will of Approbation^ and Will of Choice .^ which is all that I mean. You objed, that the Dodrine of necejfary Emana- tions was Gnoftick and Valentinian : Which you can never prove. But I mufl remind you ih-^tAthana/ius charged upon the Arians two Things as Gnoftick and Valentinian^ which undoubtedly are {o: One was their bringing in ^£>w/:/jia% JVlU^ between the " Aoyov vwv«»/w*3i'. Juft. M.Dial. 183. Nee dubitaverimP/i/wwdicere & Radicis Fruticem, Sc Fontis flc- yium, 6c Solis Radium j quia omnh Qrigo parens efi, &: omne quod ex Origine profertur progenies eft. Tm£ fjuiv eZv >C, 0 J)'a<(^ r>)v ecvyCy. Eufeb. Eccl Theol. 1. i. C 12. Lux fplendorem generat. Ambrof. dcFid. p. f4o. 'ATTxCyetiTfjijoc yiwecrcci. Baiil. contr. Eun. p. 89. * Script ure-Docirme, p. 248. Ed. 2. f^ B-iXrxriV yy jrpwrcv fvsvoi-rif, ifra yM>.K:ifting^ but Itill of the Father^ and referred to Him as his Head. You pretend, that the Diltin6tion of a threefold Generation is groundlcfs. If you mean that fragle Writers do not fpcak of Three Generations, it may be true of mofl of them, not all: for an Exception mufi: be made for fome *, that plainly acknowledged eternal Generation^ Ternporal Procefjion^ and Ch rill's Incarnation. But taking the Fathers ^^//(r^/c'^/}', there is Demonilration for That "threefold Difiinction I have mentioned. And even as to ftngk Fathers, tho' they did not give the Name to all the Three j They acknowledged the Things meant by that Namej as I have fully fhown. Which of the Three is mo ft properly called by the Name of Generation^ is a very iruitlefs Qiieftion : It is manifell: that That Name was given by fome^ or other of the Antients^ to all the Three. You object {p. 183.) that Iremeiis argues ngainft all internal Generations. The Reader may fee that Matter handfomely cleared up in MaJJuefs previous DifTertations upon Irenceus\. You objea [p. 28f .) that The Notion of ConfiW' ftantiality (I fuppofe you'll fay j: he fame now of Ne- cej/ary-exiftence) is far from inferring equal Supremacy. IJur, having once fufficiently proved his Nccefjary- exiftence^ and took oGF your Pretences about fVill (which you chiefly truiled to) the refl will create no Difficulty with confidering Men. As to your weak Charge upon l^ertuJIian^ i^c. about JngeJs and Soidi being Confuhftantial with God, it has been anfwered. You have a pleafant x^rgument, (p. zj i .) that // the Soa was generated^ hy the PFill and Power of the Father^ ♦ See Bull D. F. p. 232. Animadv. in Gilb. Gierke, p. 10/4. fabricius Not. inHippolyr. Vol. i. p. 24,2. t MalTuet. Prxy. DiiTcrt. p.36, 128. X 4 Into 312 !/^ Second Defense Qu. VIII. into a State ofSonJJoip^ either in T'ime^ or from Eterni- ty y 'tis fufficient to diftinguiJJj Him from the one f upr erne ^ felf-exiftent^ immutable God-y who is incapable of any QhsLngc^cvcnfo much as in any Mode of Exiftence. Your Argument here turns upon a fanciful fuppolition that all Generation, whether "temporal oy Eternal^ implies Alutability^ or Change. But be pleated to make Senfe of what you have here faid, on Either fuppofition. Suppofc the Generation eternal^ what Senle is there in conceiving a Change where there is nothing New^ no State antecedent^ no Prins or Pofterius^ which every Change implies? Suppofe it licmporaly Then as it means no more than a Mayiifeftation^ Exertion^ or taking a new Ofjue^ Relation^ 6cc. What Change is there in all This, more tlian there is in God the Father, upoii any new Atl^ Manifeftation^ exertion of Power, i^c ? There is no Change at all in it, no not fo much as in any Mode of Exillcnce. I have now run thro all that I find material under This Query. Upon the whole it appears, that the Antlents hrmly believed, and profefled the Necejfary- exiftence of God the Son: As well Thofe who main- tained the Generation to be 'Temporal^ as Thofe that proFeOcd it eternal. And you have not been able to prove, either that the former thought the Son an Attribute only before his Generation, or that the latter ever made Generation to be by fVill^ in any Senfe but what is confillent with what we now call Neceffary -exiftence^ and Neceffary- emanation. It may not be here improper to throw in a few Words about the feveral Similitudes^ and UluftrationSy made ufe of by the Antients to help Imagination, and to give Men a more lively Senfe of divine Truths. They arc all of Them low^ and infinitely fhort of whar they were intended to reprefent ; fome of them perhaps too coarfe, and fuch as might better have been fpared : But Writers are not always upon their guard. They had a pious Defign in adap- ting their Comparifons to the very meaneft Capa- cities. Qu. VIII. offome dU E R I E S. j 1 3 cities. The Refemblances were Thefe : Mind and thought^ Light and its Shining^ Sun and its Rays^ Foun- tain and Streams^ Root and Branches^ Seed and Plants^ Body and its Effluvia^ Tire and Fire^ Light and Lights IVater and Steams. Thefe Similitudes were intended to reprefent the Confubftantiality^ or Coeternity^ or ^0//:?, according as they were moil fitly adapted, relpeftively, or moll: proper to reprefent Either, or Both. The Comparifons of Fountain and Stream^ Root and Branchy Body and Effluvia^ Light and Eighty Fire and Fire^ and fuch like, ferved more pccuharly to fignify the Confuhftantiality : But Thofe of Mind and Thought^ Light and Splendor ((fo)? ;^ aVaJy^o- /^a) were more peculiarly calculated to denote Coeter^ nity; ab (trading from the Coniideration of Confuh- ftantiality. For, Thought is not any thing Suhftan^ tial : And I know not whether Eighty dTravyaa- ixcty was ever taken to be fo by the antient Fathers. It is certain that fometimes it was looked upon as a meer Energy, or Quality *. I fay then, that Co- eternity was more fitly reprefented by Thofe Two Similitudes, than Confuhflantiality. Indeed^Eufebius would not allow th^f\ Coeternityw^s fignified in the Similitude of Light and Splendor j or, 1 may more properly fay, Luminous Body znd Eighty for That is the meaning. But in This that great Man was very Singular. And tho' Afvntfaucon's Cenfure of Him, as commonly wrefting Scripture, and the Church's Doc^lrine, to his own private Fancies II, may feem ra- * Juftin Martyr. Dial. p. 572. Eufebius Dem. Evang. J.4,. c. 3. I^amafccn. Vol. i. p. ijf. 137. Theodorit. in Epift. ad Hebr. c. i . v. 3 . Hw. Fab. I. f, c. 7- p. 2^6. t Eufeb. Demonftr. Evang. 1. 4. c 5. p. 147. f) Nihil itaquc infolens fi Eufebius ^ qui plerumquc Scriptararum 2c Ecclefise Dogmata eif fenfu & opinionc fua acftimarc aufus eft, in /nultis lapfus fit. Montf, Prielim. in Eufcb. &:c. p. tp. thcr 314 A Second Defense Qu.VIII. thcr too feverej yet it is certainly true of Him in This Inftance : unlefs we could fuppofe That Paren- thefiSj or Digrellion (for fuch it feems to be) foifted into his Work by fome other Hand. No Catholick^ before, or after Him, ever talked in That way j but quite the contrary. Origen *, I'heognofius j", Diony- ftus of Alexandria^ and Alexander^ (to fay nothing of later Writers II ) give a very different Account of that Similitude : And They are more to be regarded than Eufebius^ who ftands alone in his Account of it, direftly thwarting the Senfe of all the Catholicks his Contemporaries, as well as of his Predeceflbrs that have ufcd it. But to proceed. It is obfervable that Thofe who exprefHy maintained the Temporal Generation only, as Jujiin Martyr^ Hip- polytusy and feveral others, They alfo illuftrate it by Si- militudes > not by (po) J and d-KcmyajixcL^ fofaras I have obferved, but by Light of Light ^ one /^r^ from another. Fountain ^nd Streams. They have fometimes alfo the Sun and its I^ays^ which feems to me to amount nearly to the fame with (pcuj and dTraiiyaa-ixaThoih Writers conlidcred The Light, not only as breaking forth, or flreaming out from the Father abfolutely (as They conlidered it, who ilkiftrated eternal Generation there- by), but alfo relatively^ in refpeft of the Creatures , upon whom it began to break forth and ftine, whep the Son exerted his Power in the Creation. Then Avas Light fprung up to Them £i'om th^ Father, which * ©£55 yajjj ^4)5 If .)• • ciuuvycCG-fJUCi ouk il^i tYiC ^huc, ^o^riii, tvoc to?.- p. 2 ^ 3 . ^, •J- 'Ovx. i^aB-iv ri\ g^tv i^iV^i^iio'U y rou vioZ cixncCy ouot sk fjuvi tvrav iTTsi- cii)(,Bn' oiA?iU iK TVi<; roZ Trxrooi i>!rlu(;icoTol to XfurarV" ^ov which They fignifiedby one Fire and Another : And they meant farther to fignify, that tho' the Son did in a certain Senfe come out from the Father, yet He was not divided from Him, but remained Hill really in Him, and with Him. I have fet the prin- cipal Palfages in the * Margin: which may ferve to explain each other, and fully to afcertain the mean- ing. yov TT^o/scc/KAcfJUivor (leg. !7pof3«A/>i/:A£voy) koh o7ro7ov It:] ttvooc,^ o^cofjijiv uXXa ytvojW/jyov, ovK iXuTT^fjijivv iKiivn t| o'J V, uvx\ i OCvX^B-iV X-CCi TO OV (pXinTUt CUK iXcCTToxrccv iy.iiva i\ i ccvi^ XUTOU Ji<«23-«yT05 ofAilXm. Thcoph. An- tioch. p. 129. Nee ieparar^r fubAantia, fed exteqditur 1 a matrice non re- ceffitj fed exceiflTit. Tert. Apol. c. 2 1 , 3i6 !^ Secon D Defense Qu.VIIL ing. It wou'd be tedious here :to enter into the Particulars. Upon the whole, their meaning was, that the Son fo came out from the Father, as Hill to remain in Him: It was an oeconomical^ not a r^^?/ re- paration. And fo the Father did not leave Himfelf emptied^ as it were, of his Son, by his fending Him out to create, and to tranfaft all Matters between Him and the Creature. This, I doubt not to fay, is the certain^ and the full meaning of Thofe Fathers : And had it not been for fome Perfons coming to read them with the No- tion o^ eternal Generation in their Heads, They could never have miftaken fo plain a Matter as This is, of the Son's being fent out oeconomically from the Father, firft to make^ and next to govern the Creatures: which MiJJion^ M'anifefiation^ or Exert ion, is, with thofe Writers, his Generation : As it was alfo fo reckoned even by many of the Poft-nicenes^ who may be feen in the Margin^. It mud be own'd, ih2X Hi- lary Haec erit Tfohela veritatis, cuftos unitatis, qua prolatum dicimus Filium, fie non feparatum. TertuH. contr. Prax. c. 8. Trinitas per conlerros & conncxos gradus a Patre decurrcnss, 8c Monarchic nihil obilrepit, & OeconomiA ftatum protegit. Terr, ibid. Habes Filium in Terris 3 habes Patrem in coelis. Non e(k/eparati9 ifta^ fed difpojltio divins. Tert. contr. Prax. c. 25. • Scirent Verbum in pJ^incipioDeum, & hoc a principio apiid De- um, Sc natum eHe exeoquierat, 6c hoc in eo eHe qui natus eft, quod IS ipfe eft penes Quern erat antequam nafcereturi eandem fcilicet aEternitatem efTe gi^^nentis & geniti. Hilar, in Mat. p. 742. Procedit in Nativitatem, qui erar, antequam nafceretur, in Patre, I cujus ex ore prodivit unigenitus Filius, cordis ejus Nobilis In- cjuilinus : exinde vilibi.'is effedus, quia hunianum genus Viiitaturus erat. Zen, Veron. apud Bull, p. 200. Ortus habens initiunr> in Narivitate, in ilatu non habens. Th^bxd, Hoc initium habeat Sapientia Dei quod de Deo procej/it ad creanda omnia tarn cacleftia quam Terrenaj non quo cacpent cfTe in Deo. Creata eft ergo fapientia, imo gen'tta, non fibi quae femper erat, fed fels qu«e gbea fieri oportebat. Pfeud. Ambrof de Fid. c. 2, p. 349. Qu. VIII. of fame QUERIES. 31:^ lary feems to have changed his Language, and Sentiments too afterwards : Or elfe He held a gene- ration prior to This, along with the -ur^oiKiuai^. ft muft alfo be confefs'd that the Catholicks Themfelves were for fome time pretty much divided about the Queftion of eternal Generation j tho' there was no queftion about the eternal exijience. Whether the "Kbyo^ might be rightly faid to be begotten in refpe6b of the State which was antecedent to the TrposXsua-tf, was the Point in queftion. Athanafius argued ftre- nuoully for it% upon This Principle, that whatever is of another^ and referred to that other as his Head^ (as theXoyof, confider'd as fuch, plainly was^ may and ought to be ftiled Son^ and Begotten : ^z^xdiCs^ the Arians had objefted, that there would be two unhegotten Perfons, if the \oyo^ ever exifted, and was not in the Capacity of Son 5 And the Church had never been ufed to the Language of two unbegottens, Thefe Confiderations, befides theTeftimonies of elder Fathers who had admitted eternal Generation^ weighed with the generality of the Catholicks : And fo eternal Generation came to be the more prevailing Language, and has prevailed ever fince. There is nothing new in the Doftrine more than This, the calling That eternal Generation which oihers would have ftiled the eternal Exiffence and Relation of the Koyor to the Fa- ther : which at length amounts only to a Difference in IVords^ and Names. This appears to me a fair and full Account of that Matter, after the moft careful and impartial Search I have been able to Tflr T»y Iztr' uiiToZ yiysyr^iji^ifu)! OiXKcxTfjuwif* Gonflantm. apud Gelaf! p. rS. Ex ore quamlibet Parris iis ortus, & verbo editusj Tamen patcrao in peftore Sophin caJlebas prius. Prudent. Hymn. IX. p. 44.. Vcre cnim & fine Voce natum, 8c omnia potentialitcr conrin^s Vcrbum, turn Pater adualiter generavit, quando Caslum & Tcrram, quando Lucem 8c cetera fecit. Rupert. Tuiticnfi * Athanafius contr. Arianos, Orat, 4. make 5iS A Second Defense Qti.IX. make into the Antients upon it > that I might not de- ceive either my felf, or my Readers. In conclufion > fince you have been pleafed to call upon me for SatisfaElion^ (p. 197.) which I ihall be always ready to pay for any Injury I have really done to my Readers J I now leave it to your Ingenuity to conjider^ what S at is f action you ought to make Tour Re U" ders^ for the following Particulars. 1 . For carelefly pafling over the many, and plain Teftimonies I produced for eternal Generation ; from Irenaus^ Origen^ Novatian^ Dionyftus of Rome^ Diony- Jius of Alexandria^ Methodius^ Pamphilus^ and Alex- ander of Alexandria : As to which, you hive not at- tempted to fhow that I have mifconftrued the Paf- fages, nor have you endeavoured to reconcile Them to your Principles 5 contenting your felf with Ob- jecting only, inftead of Anfwering^ as ufual with you. 2. For impofing upon us the fpurious^ or interpo- lated Cov\^\x.\xi\om: Which, you know, are of no value in This Controverfy, with Men of Letters. 3. For rcprefenting the Councils of Sirmium^ Sardica^ Antioch^ as undoubtedly Orthodox j tho' never fo accounted, or received as fuch, by the CathoUcks in general, but fufpe6led as Arian by many, and That very juftly. 4. For your feveral unfair^ not to fay, manifeftly/^^ Tranflations : Of the Words of the Sirmian Coun- cil, p. 2.5-8, 174. of Hilary^ p. zjs>') 2.7f) of fatian^ p. 270, no. of Baftl^ p. zpi. f . For reprefenting (/>. 275, 287.) Eufehius as giving the Senfc of the Antients upon a Point wherein all the CathoUcks before, and in, and after his Times, are flatly againlt Him (as many as fpeak of it) and not a Man concurring with Him. you would tell them, I fuppofe, it is "that^ by which the Heart is made to beat : Or, if you are ask'd the Caufe of the Tide -, it is That^ by which the Waters are made to ebb and flow. Who would be the wifer for fuch Difcoveries ? You have not told me what makes an Individual -J but you have fignified, in other Words, what is meant by the Phrafe, principle of Individua- tion-^ which I knew very well before. Having laid your Foundation, fuch as it is, you pro- ceed to build upon it. Two Beings^ you fay, may be one complex Beings but They cannot Either of them be That one Being which This is. Two Sub fiances may be one complex Sub fiance^ but They cannot Either of them be That one Subflance which This is. Wonderful edi- fying ! But the great Defed is (and it is ftrange you fhould not perceive it) that we do not yet know what we are to call One Beings or Two Beings j One Subftance or two Subftances : If That were fettled. Any Child could go on. We muft therefore flop your Courfe a little, and bring you back again to the Place where you fet out. To convince you of your being mightily out of the way, let me put a Cafe to you. Upon Dr. Clarke's Principles, of the di- vine Subftance being extended^ I defire to know whe- ther This Subftance which fills the Earth, be One That Subftance which fills Heaven : This is bringing your Do6lrine of Individuals to the Teft, in order to fee of what fervice it may be to us. By your Principles, fo far as I yet perceive, ^his Subftance^ and That Subftance muft be two Jimple Subftances, and one complex Subftance. I wondered indeed why you chofe the Word Com- fk^y rather than Compound -^ which fignifies the fame. Qu.IX. ^y^;^^ Q^U E R I E S. 321 fame. But now I recolledt that Dr. Clarke had de- clared * againll God's being a compound Subilance. He may be complex^ however, upon your Hypotbcfs : And fo if we mull have a complex Deity^ it may as Well be with a Trinity of divine Perfons, as 'with- t)ut. Clear your own Schemes, and you clear ours at the fame Time. Dr. Clarke's Notion of individual Suhfiance appears plainly to be Thisj that if the Subflance be hwi fpi- ritual^ and there be no difunion^ then the Subftance is One^ out ftmple Subiknce. I approve of hisNo^ tion as very jull : And fince the Three divine Per* fons are fuppofed by us to be all fpiritual^ and united as much as poflible, more clofely indeed (being equzWy omniprefent) than you fuppofe the Parts of the divine Subftance to be : I fay^ fince thefe Things are fo > the Three Perfons may be one individual Sub- ftance, upon the Doftor's Principles, one fimple^ and uncompounded Subftance > which is what we afTert : And if the Subftance be individual^ the Attributes^ we hope, may be fo too : And then all is right. You are ufed to pay a Deference to the learned Do6i:or's judgment, in other Matters 5 do fo in This : Or if you are refolved to debate the Point, difpute it firft with Him ; He may, probably, give you good Sa* tisfaftion, and fave me any farther Trouble. You are difpleafed with mc, {p. 'i^o^^ for menti- oning Parts of the divine Subftance. But let your Difpleafure fall where it ought, upon the learned Doftorj who having fubjeded the divine Subftance • Dr. Clarke'^ Anfwer to the /Ixfh Letter, />. 4. His Words ire. ** The meaning of P^r/; is feparable, compounded, ununited Parts* " fuch as the Parts of Matter j which for That Reafon is always •* a compound^ not a JimfU Subftance. No Matter is one Suhflanctr ** but a Uta^ of Suhfiances. And That I take to be the Reafon •* why it is a Subjedl incapable of Thought. Not becaufe it is ** extended-^ but becaufe its Parts are diftind: Subftanccs, ununited^ " and independent on each other : Which, I fuppoie, is not the *' Cafe of other Subftances, Y to 3-22 y4 Second Defense Qu.DL to Extcnfion^ has neceffarily introduced Parts j there being no Estenfton where there are not Parts. Be- fides that the Do6lor has expreflly admitted Parts ; provided only They be not feparabk^ compounded Parts ; which I ch-arge you not with. You fay, in- ^ctdj^ that inilead of Parts^ I ihould have faid par- tial [Apprehenfions of its omnipre fence. But, I befeech you, put me not off with Words -, nor with fuch Anfwers as you would not your fclf admit in Ano- ther Cafe. I am talking of the divine Subftance, which is not made up of Jpprehenfions^ but of fome- what reah, which (upon your, and the Doctor's Z^'- fothefis) mud be called extended Parts. You would laugh at us, if we lliould tell you that the Three Perfons are xhvce partial Jpprehenftons^ when you ask us what They arej whether Beings^ or not Beings. Do not therefore put us off with empty Sounds^ when we ask you the like Quelfions about the Parts of the divine Subftancey whether Beings^ or one Be- ingy and if one Being, whether one indi'vidual Being > and if fo, whether fimple.^ or complex. By That Time you have furnifhed out proper An- fwers to Thefe Qtieftions, all that you have objcfted about individual.^ will drop and dwindle into no* thing. And it will be great Satisfadbion to us to ob- ferve, how handfomely you can pkad on the oppofite fide J and how ingenioufly you can unravel your own Sophiftry. You may at length, perhaps, be fenfible, that all the Difficulties you: have raifed about Individual f Numerical.^ Specifick^ &c. refolve only into This > that we know not precifely, in all Cafes, what to call Individual.^ or Numerical,^ or Specifick. You have a very diilind Notion (in your way of thinking) of any I'^wo Parts of the divine Subflance: And yet you know not whether it be proper to fay, that "This Part is Individually and Numerically the ^ime" Subftance with the other Part. You would be as much puzzled about Specifick , fince you would &ardly think it fufficierit to fay, that They are fped- fcally Qu. IX. offome Q.U E R I E S. 5:5 3; ficdly one and the fame Subflance. Learn there- fore, from hence, to diftinguiili between Difficulties relating to I'hings^ and Difficulties about Names only. You attempt to anfvver what I had urged in my Defenfe^ p. 294. where 1 had argued againll the fame JVifdom^ Goodmp^ or any other Attributes being (iippofed to refide in infinitely diltant Parts. I thought no Maxim clearer than This, that Attri- butes > unlefs it be ilrange for igno- rant Creatures to know only in part^ and to be able to underfland fomething without knowing every Thing? But to return to you. I ihall now look back, to fee if there be any inci- dental PalTage, under This Qiiery, deferving Notice. Page ^02,^ I find you endeavouring to prop up the Doftor's Aphorifm, That Neceffary Agents are no jfgents^ and Nece£ary Caiifes no Caufes. This is alfo Strife about Words -^ in which the Caufe is nothing concerned. For admitting all you would have, it comes to This only, that the Antients have impro^ ferly called the Father an Ageyit^ or Caufe ^ in re- fpect of the Generation : The Do6trine will ftand exadlly as before, only in other Terms. And you mufl not pretend to change the Senfe of the Antients in refped of the Words Act^ or Caufe > and ftill appeal to their Expreffions as countenancing your Novel Notions: That will be affronting the Readers in- deed. But let us enquire a little into This New Philofophy. I asked, whether an infinitely a^ive Being can ever ceafe to A61 ? To which you anfwer not a Word. I asked whether God's loving Himfelf (which is loving every Thing that is good, and which general Love, or natural Propenfity^ feems to be the prime Mover in all the divine Adis) be not aUing ? To which you reply nothing. I believe, we are almoft out of our Depth here, and might more modeftly leave the divine AEis to that divine Being who alone underflands the Nature of Them. But fince you pretend to be wife in fuch high Things, I may put a few Queflions to you concerning Them. You fay, The ejfence of A^ion is exerting of Power^ QU.IX. of fome (QUERIES. 327 and the TVill is the Original of all exerting of Poiver, Well, let J5fion be exerting of Power : Does God never naturally^ or necejfarily^ exert any Power ? Who can be wife enough to know thefe Things? But, the Will is the Original: And is not the IVill it felf determined by eflential Wifdom, Goodnefsj, and Truth ? i^nd why is not That as much the Ori- ginal which determines, as That which is determi- ned? How is it that God cannot but ivill good, cannot but will Happinefs : as, on the other hand, he cannot but nill evil, cannot but nill unhappi- nefs ? Are approving^ and difapproving^ the fame with knowing gQok and evil? Or does He not rather ap- pro've^ and difappro^e^ becaufe He knows why "^ How hard a Thing then is it to diftinguifh between what iliall be called J5is^ or Aclions^ and what not? Yoti have difcarded all that in common Speech pafles under the Nanae of Action. Walking, riding, run- ning, are not k^s : They are bodily Motions folio w- ing'the impulfes of fomething elfe that moves and aduates. Human A^s mnft be confined to wiiat is in'-fifible^ to what pafles in the dark ReccfTes of our Minds. And here our Ideas are very defective and obfcure 3 and our Language almofl; all improper^ and metaphorical'^ taken from bpdily Motions, which are no A6ls. We may divide 'iSre Pov/ers, or Faculties of the Mind into perceptive^ and aBive : And we may call the latter by the Name of TVill. But flill what is That perpetual A^ivity of the Mind, that general purfuit of Happinefs, and avoidance of Mi- fery, which is not mercry perceptive.^ and yet is ne- cejfary^ and unavoidable? It will be faid, perhaps, that it is natural.) refulting from our Nature ; that is, from God, who gave us our Nature : And fo herein we aii not, but are aclcd upon. Be it foj let us next go higher, to the firftCaufe of all Things: Are there no natural and necejfary Propenfities There, no natural or necejfary Averiions j in a word, no /Fi/- lings^ and Nillings^ which are as necejfary as it is zo Y 4 cxifl ? %i% A Second Defense Qu. IX. cxift? Yet they are Acls^ internal Aftsj and the ground of all external : Or elfe we know not what yf5is are. But enough of This Matter, which, as I before obferved, is intirely foreign to the Caufe. You objeft, that the Father is not d{rt(^j (as Bajil lliles Him) if the Son necej/arily coexilts with Him. But He is aVri©', notwirhflanding, mBafiVs Senfe of aTri©^, in the antient Senfe of airi(^y when neceffary Caufes v/ere lliled Caufe s: And caou. any Thing be more ridiculous than to plead antient Phrafcs, and not to take them in their antient Senfe? Could not I, in This way, quote Dr. Clarke^ Mr. Whiflon^ Mx.Emlyn^ (and indeed whom not?) as being perfedly in my Sentiments j let me but put a Senfe upon their Words, as I pleafe, however con- trary to the known, certain Senfe of the Authors ? Was there ever a wilder Method of fupporting an Hypotbefis ? You have fomething, -p. 30f, which is reafonably put, and deferves Confideration. 1 had prefTed you with infuperable Difficulties relating to the Ommpre- fence^ and other undoubted Truths. To which you reply, that the Omniprefence is a 'Truth demon- ftrated by Reafon^ and affirmed in Scripture -y which our Doftrine is nor, at leail not fo certainly : That therefore tho' the Difficulties be equal, Here and There, yet the pofitive Evidence is not. You'll •forgive me, for putting your Argument fomewhat clearer, and ftronger than you had done. Now,, to This I anfwer, that our pofitive Evidence froml Scripture is very great and full j as hath been often fhewn. I will here mention but one Argu- ment of it, liiz,. That you have not been able to dude our Proof of the Son'% Divinity, without elu- ding, at the fame Time, every Proof of the Father's. J)ivimty alfo \ as I have fhown above ^, Is not This a very fenfible, and a very afFefting Demonftration of the Strength of our Scripture-Proofs^ You add far- • P'g- »4«. »47. ««• ~^ QU.IX. of fame QiV ERIE S. 32^ ther, that our Doftrine is impojfible to be underjiood. A groundlefs Calumny, which 1 confuted at large*. Is Onmiprefence impoflible to be underllood, which you fay can be demonftrated? or is our Do<5i:rine more hard to be conceived than That is? But you pretend an infuperable Difficulty in our Scheme, that it makes more fapreme Gods than one: Which h another Calumny as groundlefs as the former, ^'ou afk, are not two fuprcme Gods, tho' undi- vided, two fupreme Gods ? Yes certainly j but two fupreme Perfons^ that is Two equally fupreme in Nature^ (tho' not in Order) and undivided in Sub- fiance, are not I'wo Gods, but One God. You add, that making one Subjlance is not the fame Thing with making one God: To which it is fuf- ficient to fay. How do you know? Or how came you to be wifer, in this Particular, than all the Chriftian Churches early, and late ? The Heathens^ you tell me, did not pretend that their fubordinate Deities, tho' Confubfiantial, were equally fupreme^ They were therefore the more filly in fuppofing them Confubftantial, and not Supreme 5 that is, of the Same Nature, and yet of a different Nature. But the Heathens were farther wrong in making more Deities than one, fupreme and inferior: Wherein you copy after Them, adopting their Polytheifmy and paganizing Chriftianity as Dr. Cudworth ex- prefTes it. You accufe me (p. 311.J as prefumptuoufly call- .ing my Do6i:rine, tlye Do^rine of the bleffed Tri" nity , in Oppofition to yours. But why will you give your felf thefe afFefted Airs? Great Prefumption, indeed, to believe, that the Catho- lick Church has kept the true Faith, while Eu^ nomians, and Arians made Shipwreck of it. But f Dcfenfc, Q\^cr, xxi. p. 30^, ^c. $3<> wrf Secon D Defense Qu.IX, it is high Prefumption in a few private Men to re- vive old Hereftes^ and to talk as confidently of them, as if they had never been confuted. A modeft Man would be apt to dillruft his own Judgment, when it runs counter to fo many eminent Lights of the Chriilian Church, and has been fo often con- demned by the wifer and better Part of the Chriftian World. A becoming Deference would appear well in a Cafe of this Nature: Nor do I know any Thing fhort of Infallibility that can either warrant, or excufe this big way of talking which you affeft to appear in. You intimate (p. 3 1 1 .) that it is not Reafon^ but Scripture you appeal to j and that you will here join IJfue isoith me^-y 'apart from met aphy fecal Hypothefes. Agreed : Difcharge then your Metaphyficks for the future 5 let us hear no more of Self- exifeence^ to divide the Father from the Son, when Scripture tells us They are One. Let us no more be told, that Begetting is an AEt^ and every AU is of the JVill : This is, all tnet aphy fecal. Wave all farther Difcourfe Thomfpeci- jick^ and individual^ and intelligent Agent^ and the likes to hinder plain Chriftians from feeing that Scripture makes no more Gods but one y never fup- pofes the Son another God, nor admits Father and Son to be two Gods. Drop your Pretences about Subor- dination of Offices^ as implying diftind Authorities^ unequal Power, Independence on one Hand, Subject ion on the other : Such Reafonings are met aphy fical. Let us hear no more, that Three divine Perfons muft be Three perfonal Gods^ three Beings.^ Three Sub fiances > and that there can be no Unity of Godhead, but7^^;^- tical perfonal Unity, confined to one Perfon folely : Thefe are Metaphyficks j deep, profound Metaphy- ficks. Tell us no more that Derived and uyiderived Powers cannot be the fame Powers, nor any Equa^ lity fland with the diftinct Relations or Ofi[ices of a Father and a Son. Give up your famed Dilemma^ againll the Unity, that each Perfon muft be either Qu. IX. offome Q^U E R I E S. 331 the fame, wbole^ identical Subftance, or elfe an Ho- mogenous undivided Part of That Subftancc: And your other Dilemma^ That the Perfons muft either have the (zme identical Life^ ox dii^md: identical Lives-, neither of which (you imagine) can ftand with our Principles. Thefe are abftraft metaphyftcal Specula- tions, fuch as never difturbed the Church of Chrift, till many Years after They had profelTed their Faith in, and paid their TVorJhip to. Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft as the one true God. Wave thefc Things for the future, and we ftiall readily join Ifllie with you upon Scripture alone 3 and fhall then believe that you mean what you fay, when you here- after plead for the laying afide of Metaphyftcks. We defire no Metaphyficks but in our own neceP fary Self-defenfe : If You begin in that Way, We muft alfo enter the Lifts in the fame Way, and op- pofe falfe Metaphyficks with trtie-y to fhow the World your Wandrings, and your Inconfiftencics, even in what you moft rely upon, and (tho* you will not own it) almoft folely truft to. Query 115 ^Second Defense Qii. X. Q_ u E R Y X. WhetheTy if they (the Attributes belonging to the Son) be not individually the famey they can be my thing more than faint Refem- blances of theniy differing from them as Fi- nite from Infinite ; and then in what Senfe^ or with what Truth can the T^odlor pretend that all divine Powers, except abfolute Supremacy and Independency, are communi- cated to the Son ? And whether every Beingy hefides the one Supreme Beingy muft not ne- ceffarily be a Creature and Finite $ and whe- ther all divine Powers can be communicated to a Creature^ Infinite Terfe£fion to a Finite Being ? I Find nothing in your farther Reply (which is no Reply) to This ^cry^ but what I have fully ob- vfated in my Defenfe^ and now in my Anfwer to the other Queries above. All that the Reader can learn from what you have here faid, is, that if the Quef- tion be, what it is not, viz. Whether the Son he the Father y you have fomething to plead for the Nega- tive : But if it be, as it really is, Whether the Son be a Creature and finite y you have nothing to fiy to it. The Evidence is fo full and ftrong againft you, that you dare not fubmit it to a fair Hearing. Allow you but to wrap your felf up in ambiguous I'erms, Supre-^ macy^ Self-exiflence^ Individual^ &c. and you arc wil- ling to hold on a frivolous and tedious Difpute of no BcneQt to the Readers: But bring you down to plain Senfe, and fixed Terms > then you draw off, and take your Leave. A Condu6t fuitable to fuch aCaufe, but very unworthy of the Hands ingaged in itc Query Qn. XL offome (QUERIES, 335 Q^UERY XL Whether if the T^ocior means hj divine Towen^ *Powers given by God {in the fame Senfe a$ 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.| I'hou^ even 'fhou^ art Lord alone j ^ou haft made Heaven^ the Heaven cf Heavens with all their Hoft^ the Earth and all Things that are therein^ Sec. Nch. ix. 6. In the Beginnings God created the Heavens and the Earthy Gen.i. i. To God the Son All 'Things were madi by Him^ John i. 3. By Him were all Things creat- ed'. He is before all Things y and by Him all Things con^ fifts ColofT. i. i<5, 17. Thou^ Lord^ in the Begin^ nings f^^ft i^^^ ^^^^ Founda' tion of the Earth > and the Heavens are the Works of thy Handsy Heb. i. 10. THE Queftions here were, what Dr. Clarkt meant by Divine Powers, and whether his Meaning comes up to the Texts here cited. I am now told, that the Divine Powers of the Son are not only in ahigher Degree than Angelical Power s^ hut tot ally of a different kind : For ( let us obferve the Reafon) to the Son is com'mitted all Judgment^. 316: Well then, the Son's Divine Powers are at laft dwindled ipto his Offices given Him by God j therefore Divine moil 354- y^ Second Defense Qu.XL moft certainly. This is the Divinity of God the Son, which you ftand up fo zealoufly for in your Preface 'y and for the Sake of which you are fo highly affronted to be thought Oppofers of Ch rift's Divinity. But let us go on. I inlift upon the Son's having Creative Powers^ according to the Texts cited, and as I have proved more at large in my Sermons. You have little to reply, but that derived and unde- rived are not the fame: Whereas they are the fame, becaufe they defcend from one to the other: Were they both underived^ They could not (at lead according to the Antients) have been the fame. Derived and underived may be the fame Suhftance^ as well as greater and lefs^ containing and contained may be xht fame Subftance : Which you are forced to allow in your Hypothefts of the extended Parts of the fame Subftance. And why muft you be perpe- tually quibbling upon the different Senfes, or kinds of Samenefsy and ufing Arguments againft us, which inevitably recoil upon your felves? Do but keep to that ftri6t Senfe of Samenefs which you are ufing againft us, in the Argument about derived and underived 'y and Til demonftrate to you, upon your own Principles, as before hinted , that there is no fuch Thing as One and the Same Subftance in the World. In anfwer to hard Arguments, in this ^mj^ you return me hard Names. Heaps of Contra- dictions^ not treating the Argument fertoufly -y in ihort, any thing that firft came into your Head, being at a Lofs for an Anfwer, and refolved not to be intirely filent. You are caviUing at the Account I gave of the Antients, as afligning to three Perfons their feveral Parts and Provinces in the Work of Creation. I obferved what Meaning they had in it^, and that their Words are not to be ftridly and ri- goroufly interpreted. Have you a Syllable to objeft • Dcfenfe, p. 184, 18/. CO Qu. XI. offome Q,U E R I E S. 33^ to the Truth of this Report? not a Word: The Thing is too plain and evident to be gain-faid. The Truth is, if the Antients are to be interpreted rigoroufly, The Father is not properly Creator at all, but the Son only 5 for He is reprefented as doing and executing^ The Father as iflliing out Orders only. But who can entertain fo abfurd a Thought, as that the Father did not injork in the Creation as much as the Son? Again, the Father is reprefent- ed as (landing in need^ of the Afliflance of the Son and Holy-ghoft. How will this Suit with that Supreme Dignity, that alone Self - fufficicncy, which you are contending for ? If you interpret This rigoroufly, it muft be as great a leflening to the Fa* ther as you pretend the executing of another's Orders is to the Son. It is plain therefore, that Thefe Say- ings of the Antients were intended only to preferve a more lively Senfe of the DiJiintJion of Perfonsj while they confidered them all together as equally concern'd in the Creation, and equally working in it. You obje6b that no antient Writer ever faid that'the Three Perfons^rr^^^^^/;^ Concert j p. 2;>p. But: what did the Antients \\ mean then, by underftanding sUoiu, Kocl Kot^' of/iOioxTiv, iiK ojAAa> h rtvi HfiTjKS TroliitrafJt/iv, icXX' « t5 iecvri >^<>ya>^ xcn tvi IxvtS (recpicc, Thcoph. Anrioch. p. I T4. Nec enim indigebat Horum Deus ad faciendum qnx ipfc apud fe praedefinierat fieri, quafi ip{e fuas non haberet manus. Ircn, p. 25*3. Si neccflaria eft Deo materia ad opera Mundi ut Hermogc- nes exiftimavit; habuit Deus materiam longe digniorem— Sophi- am fuam fcilicet— Materiam materiarum quali Deus potuit e^uijfey fui magis quam alieni egens. Tertul. contr. Hermog.c. 18. I] Barn. Ep. c. 5-. 6. "» Herm. Paft. Sim. 5-. Juftin. Mart. Dial. p. iSf. Irenceus p. 220, apf. Theoph. Antioch. 114. Origen. contr. Celf p. 6^. 1^7- Synod. Antioch. LabbeTom. i. Sec Dr. JQii^hfs firft Sermon.'. the il6 ^ Secon D Defense Qu.XL the Text of Genefis^ Let us make Man^ of all the Three Perfons? And what did they mean by giving the Son the Title of aiixQiiKot^ Counfellor to the Father, in that Work ? How much does this come fhort of what I faid ? Nor can you make any thing of d^^ivrla (a Word which rarely occurs) or of Au^oritas i", (which is ufed oftner) than the Pre-emi- nence of the Father as Father^ his Priority of Order, When you wrote before, you was confident that the Son was not ftiled Tfiinryif tww oXwv; And this you noted, to confirm your piftion, that the Father only was efficient Caufe, the Son infirumental. You have been fince convinced of your Error by plain Tefli- monies given you in great Numbers :j: . But ftill you go on in your Pretence about e^rie«/ Tun^inftrumentalj notwithftanding 7r&iy)Tf)V, which youTiad before allowed to be expreilive of the efficient Caufe. Now the Defe£t is, that the Son is not 6 Troit^W? : And neither is That true, for I cited Eufehius for 6 irtxtaiz applied to God the Son. I have fpoke of <^\a. before, and fo here pafs it over. You are perfuading me that even Cyril of Jerufakm^ whom I quoted in my Defenfe {p. 183.) is exprefsly againil me. Ridiculous to any that know Cyril: You can mean This only for fuch as do not read. If there is Any thing to be fufpe£l:ed of Cyril^ it is rather his excluding the Father from 'being Creator^ than the Son from being efficient. But the late learned Eenedi^ine Editor has fufficiently cleared up CyriPs Orthodoxy on That Head 11. I * Iren. p. 292. CIcm. Alex. 769, 851. Tertullian. contr. Hermoge p. 18, Theoph. Antioch. p. izp. Hyppolyt. Vol. 2. p. 15. f Iniinuatur nobis in Patre AuSiorhxi^ in Filio Nathitas» iti 'S^- ritu Saii but not where He attempted to de- prave and corrupt the Do6trine of his Catholicfc PredecefTors i perhaps to gratifie fome Novelifts, before He had well confidered what He was doing. However, if any one has a Mind to fee what mild Conflruftion may be put upon That Expreffion of Eufebius^ He may confult Bp. Bull and Dr. Cave\ For my own Part, I think, the bell Defence to be made for him is, that he fcems to have grown wifer afterwards. You charge Baftl with Weaknefs, for making A'ctius the Inventor |) of the Diftinftiorr between Jtto and c/^(a. But where was Bafirs Mi- llake ? You fay, Origen^ Eufebius^ and Philo infift up- on it. But Philoh is only general, without Appli- cation to This Cafe : And Origen'% and Eufebius'^ amount to no more than a F re-eminence of the Fa- ther as fuch. They do not carry it to a Difference * Sermons p. 72. ^ , , ,, t Bull. D. F. p. 25-6. Cav. DiflT. 5. p. 6G. I] Balil. de Sp. Sandto p. 145-, ^c. of Qu. XII. offome (QUERIES. ^i9 oi Nature^ as Aetius did* 5 and you alfo do: You do it indeed under other Terms, but as plainly, while you deny the Necejfary-exijience of the Son. You will find none higher than Aetius^ or Eufebius of Nkomedia^io countenance you in it. There is nothing more that is material, under This Query. You have not been able to take off the Force of what is urged from Scripture and Antiquity for the Son's creative Powers : And that creative Powers are divine Powers, inquire another Senfe than the Doftor and you ufethePhrafe, in the equivocating way, will be feen as we pafs on. dUE RY XIL IVloether the Creator of all Things was not Him- felf uncreated', and therefore could not be i^ HK ivroovy made out of nothing ? AS to your complaint of my wording This Qiiery, and my ftiling Chrift the creator of all "Things j I refer to my Sermons \ where 1 have proved the Thing, and to my Defenfe X where I have fhown that it is the Language of All Antiquity^ to flile Him Creator^ and not barely in your deceit- ful way. Him, by whom God created all Things^ while you inform us not what you mean by it. You fay, you affirm not (nay^ you blame thofe that prefume to affirm) that the Son of God was created^ or that He * The SymJicon Vetus agrees wkhB.rfrs Account of A'e'tius. 0 yoc^ fj(jU,KXfirri<; 'Ev?-ciB-i(^^ Ayno^tiec^, i>i ^ Tfccf' xuri sxrfB-£yT(^ urvo^c, Tcjjuis, uvo^oiov XiyovT'^roi^ou, y ol'ou, rev y,^iovEv(ri,3ioveiti>^iy^i xMi AsTiov. Synod. Vetus. p. 2 1 1 . ap. Fabric. B. Gr. Vol. xi. p, z 1 1. ^ t Sermon z^ and 3**. 1 Defenfe, ip. 187, &:c. Z z "Was S40 A Second Defense Qu. XIL was \\ Jh ovtcov, out of nothing. With what Since^ rity you fay This, let the Reader judge from the Nine Arguments I produced in my SuppUment^ to fhow that you make the Son a Creature ^ . How you may cqui'vocate^ I know not : But I am fure you dare not tell us dillindl)^, what you mean by faying, you blame thofe that amrm that the Son is out of no- thing : It is either a mean Quibble, or fomething worfe that you are aihamed to own. You are piea- fed to give up fomc Criticifms of Dr. Clarke's in re- lation to a Paflage of Origcn which I had took notice of in my Defenfe\', fo. That we have done with. Still you talk of 'Ten thoufand PaJJages in Origen^ as oppofite to my Sentiments. When you were in the way of Romancing^ (which has no certain Rule) you did well to take a large Number. I challenge you to produce a fingle Paflage from any Piece of his, that is to be depended on, which either diredtly, or indiredly makes the Son a Creature, That, you know, was the Point here in Qiiellion. The Remainder of This Query is filled with all the worthlefs Trifles you could rake up from Sandius, or others, to reprefent the Antients as making the Son a Creature, At the fame Time, becaufe you know They have been anfwered, and that you can- not iland by Them, (yet having a flrong Propcnfity to make ufe of them, for the deception of ignorant Readers) you produce them with this faint, and difingenuous Cenfure upon them- / think that the IVr iters I have here cited were miftaken in their judg-- ing about Confequences^ when They thus charged with Arianifm the moji learned and moft eminent Men the CJmjiian Church ever had. Permit me here, for a while, to chufe my felf a new Adverfary^ one that hofiefily profcfles his Belief of the Son's being a Creat:4re^ and has produced thofe very Paflages, * Supplement, p. 2c, 6cc. f Defenfe, p. ip8, 5cc. moft Qu.XII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 54^ moft of them, as favouring thofe Sentiments 5 which He is not afraid^ nor aJJocimed (while maintaining, as He believes, the Honour of the great God) to call his owri. After long and deliberate confidering the Qnellion of the Son's being a Creature or no Crea^ ture^ the Argument He mainly depends on* with re- fpe^t to the Sentiments of the Antients^ is This : The univerfal Application of the Words in Prov, viii. 2,1. l^be Lord created me the Beginning of his ways^ 6cc. by the antient Chrillians, to the Creation of Chrifl: by God the Father. And indeed, hardly any thing can be brought outof the Antients, at all look- ing like it, but what is either the Application of, or aliufion to This Text. The Argument then is This : The Text in the Pro"jerbs has krio-s, according to the Seventy : The Fathers, knowing little or no He- brew^ followed That rendring : Ixtjo-s fignifies crea- ted: Therefore the Fathers, m general, believed and taught that the Son is a Creature. The Argument would be irrefragable, if the Word sxtkjs, as it might fignify what is- pretended, could be Ihown to have been fo underftood by the Fathers. But \^ created^ may fignify appointed^ or confiituted (as in good Latin Authors, Confulsj Captains^ Magiftrates are faid to be created^ and we fometimes ufe the Word in EngliJJj^ of creating a Peer, or creating anyOfficerJ and it may be certainly ihown that fome Fathers fo underftood it, and no Proof can be given that Any of them underftood it otherwifej then there will appear fuch a Fiaw ia the Argument, as the Wit of Man will not be able to make up. We have it upon record, that This very Point came to be confidcred about the middle of the Third Century, hy Dionyfius of Rome-\^ (with his Clergy) who fearing, upon the rife of SahelUa* nifm^ lelt fome ihould run into the oppofitc extreme of making the Son a Creature^ firft condemns all fuch * Sie Mr. Whifton*/ Re/'/y /o L(>r^ Nottingham, p. 28* t Apud Athanaf. ;>, 232. Z 5 DoSrinCj 542 A Second Defense Qu.XU, Dodrine, as higheft Blafphemy^ and next anfwers what had been urged by (ome from This Text, ex- preffing Himfelf as follows: " And what need I fay *^ more of thefe Things to you. Men full of the *•' Holy-Ghoil, and well knowing what Abfurdities *' follow upon the fuppoHtion of the Son's being a '^ Creature ? To which the Leaders hi That Opi- *' nion feem to me not to have well attended, and *^ fo they have very much erred from the Truth j *' interpreting that place ^be Lord created me the ^^ Beginning of his JVays^ not according to the mcan- '^ ing of the divine and facred Writ. For, as you " know sx,Ticr£ is a Word of more Senfes than one, *' Wro-s created^ here ftands for tTrkyio-s appointed^ " over the Works (God) had made by the Son " Himfelf. The Word {kticts is not here to be un- '' derftood to be the fame as Xnomi : for TroiAcrat and " xr/crai are very different.'' Here we find how That Text was underllood by the moft confiderable Men of the Church about the Year ifp. And let it not here beobjefted, that the Piece is of doubtful Credit, becaufe extant only in Athanafius : For no body that knows any thing of Athanafius^ and is not ftrangely bigotted to an Hypothefis^ can fufped any foul play in This Matter. It is the lefs to be fufpeded here, becaufe, as I fhall iTiow pre- fently, Athanafius did not intirely approve of this Conftru6lion of Dionyftus^ and would certainly never have forged an Interpretation different from his own. BeQdcs, it is obfervable that Eufehius^ in his famous Piece againft A/'^r^^/Z^.f, interprets That Text in the very fame manner as Z)/]o"£Vj ap^ pointed^ or conftituted. So that we have very great reafon to believe that This was the prevailing an4 f Eufcb, contr, Marcell. p, i jo, zj-i, current Qu. XII. of fame qVi E R I E S. 341 current Conftrudion of Prov. viii. 2.1. in the j^ntc- nicene Church. What confirms it is, that They all underflood a^^riv in the A^ive Senfc, for Head or Principle^ jull as Dionyjius and Eufehius do : And fo the Senfe is^ that the Father appointed the Son Head oxer all his Works. That this was the Senfe of a.^yy\ all along, may be proved * from Juftin^ ^heophiius^^ Tatian^ Clemens^ Origen^ and Methodius^ to name no more : Which Confideration is alone fufficient in the Cafe, when there is no pofitive Proof on the other fide. Only I mufl add farther, that clear and ftrong Pafiagcs may be brought, from the Fathers in general, to prove that they believed the Son to hz uncreated. Seeing then that This Text may bear fuch a Senfe as has been mentioned > feeing it was certainly fo interpreted by fome, and no realon appears for Mr. Whifton's Interpretation at all j but the Senfe of d^x^-i ^^ ""' derftood by the x\ntients, is intircly againit Him, as alfo many clear Teilimonies of the Son's being un- created : Thcfe Confiderations put together are enough to fliov/, that there is no Force in the Argu- ment drawn from the Fathers following the LXX, and reading iXTicrt in That Text. But I farther promifed to give fome Account of Athanafius^ in relation to This Text > becaufe Mr. JVhifton -\ has been pleafed to (ay fome very hard, and indeed unjull Things of Him, in relation hereto. Athanafius could not be at a lofs to know the mean- ing of iKTiaty which had been fo well explained both by Dionyfius^ and Rujehius. He therefore clofed in with the common Interpretation, as fignify ing Appointed^ or ConflitutedW . But then He underftood the appointing to be to the Work of Redemption only, not the Work * See Bull, D. F. p. no. t ^eply to Lord Nottingham, />. 29. Ij Athanaf. Orat. 1, p. ^13. Z 4 Of 344 y^ Second Defense Qu. XII. of Creation: At lead, He makes no mention of the latter. He feems to have been apprchenfive that the Notion of appointing to the Work of Creation might found too low : And indeed, many of the Arians fcrupled not to fay as much, at leaft, in Words. Athanafius thought the way of fpeaking not fo proper, his Notion being that the Father could no more create without the Son ^, than ex- ift without Him 3 Both being alike neceflary: And therefore Appointing was not fo proper a Word for it. This Principle He lays down in the very fame Oration^ where He at large comments upon Prov. viii. 21. Neverthelefs it may be fiid, that This great Man might perhaps be too fcrupulous in This Mat- ter. Cyril -\ of Jcrufalem (whofe Orthodoxy is un- queflionable) fcruples not to affign Reafons why the Son was appointed to create: And it has been ufual with all the Chriftian Writers to reprefent all Of- fices as defcending from the Father to the Son. Ath ana fill sY\^vc^{€i^ allov/s that God the Son wrought in the Creation, upon the Father's iffuing out his Fiat^ ox Command for it: xAsalfo do feveral oihcr Poft-nicene Writers IJ . This in reality comes to the fame Thing ro (pac, rm oLTtccvyoitriijcCTi tcc 7ruvrcc (paTi^n x.ccl awj rcu UTZuvyaorf/^xrot; oCk uv 71 (p&.'ri(r^iin ' kroo Kcct 6 ttccty^ &><; eta X^'fo^, h rZ Xcya u\yci~ ^h auTcZ ^^ty TroaT. Athan. Orat. 2. p. 498, 499- f Cyrill. Hierof. Catech. 1 1. p. 160. hioc, roc 7!cc\rc!C ia:',iJtji>i^yr,TVj . luci Tr,(jvi rai TkOir^l ry,v uvB-ivriy.av i%H(rMv, xccl 6 hicc^ ^\ TsUX',^ \}^v i^ijG-Mv tZ'J id.'uv 6y,i/jiis^yr,ij!jotTKV , Sec. Theodorit's Account of This Matter, appears to be as juft, and ac- curate as Any. ^'OvTi 0 5T^~J^p ^cy.'^'Mi'i tii'jytjivec, KTiC^n dice uicZ, an 0 vic^ /ic:^9"J and what iliould have been, and has been pleaded to remove and confute it, is difingenuoufly kept out of fight: Only it is faid by you, Jufficient Apologies have been made for This or That Father, to ihow that * Hoe Initium habeat Sapientia Dei, quod de Deo proceflTit ad creanda omnia tam Caeleftia quam Terreftria, non quo cseperit efle in Deo. Creata eft ergo Sapientia, imo genita; non fibi quse femper erat, fed his quae ab ea fieri oportebat. Hilar. Diacon. apud Am- brof. p. 349. • t Quod creat.^ eft Sapientia, ad Myfterium vel rerum Creanda- rum, vel HumariA Difpenfationis intellige : quam cum Dei Sapientia dignanter adfumit, creata dicitur, Fauftin. contr. Arian. c. 6, Sapientia cum Cream dicitur, non fubftantia ejus quah qua: non crat, fafta eft : fed Ipfa exiftens creata eji Imtin'n Viarum m optr* (jus. Ibid. He 34<^ ^ Second Defense Qu.XII. He was not indeed of Arius^s Notions. But what then? You pretend, that your Notions were not jirius's : So you would Hill have your Reader ap- prehend that Thofe Fathers might have been in your Notions 5 whereas Bp. Bull^ in his Confutation of thofe Scandals^ (mod of them Mifreports^ and fome of them mahcious Tales and Lies) has efFedually prevented their being really ferviceable either to Arius'% Caufe, or Yours : Which in reality (however you difguife the Matter) are the very fame. The tonclufion you draw from this heap of Stuff, is pretty remarkable : It evidently JJjows^ that thofe antient Farthers had not entertained fuch a confufed Notion as you are labouring to introduce of the Creator of all Things : Whereas it is evident, to a Demonftration, that my confufed Notion (as you unrighteoufly call it) was the very Notion which all thofe Fathers had: Or, if you think otherwife, why did you not dif- tinclly fhow where They contradi6t it, inftcad of producing a deal of idle Tales, which, (tho' you would have your Reader lay fome Str fs on) you your felf dare not undertake to defend ? Where is the Confequeric^ to be drawn from fuch Premifes? As let us fee. Thtj4poftolicalConftitutions^ which ^rtfpurious and interpolated by fome Arian^ have fald fomething ; Therefore ^c. Melito is faid to have wrote -ur^^] ht/Vso^s" X^is-i", which learned Men doubt of i and neither Ruj^inus nor Jerom would al- low > Therefore t^c. Clemens has been charged with fome Things of which He was \ try innocent y There- fore i^c, Dionyfius had Enemies that told Lies of Him, abufed Him, and mifreprcfented his Words 5 and fome honeft Men were ditctwtdi thereby 5 Therefore l^c. Gregory likewife met with fome that perverted his Words, (as many have perverted our Articles^ or Liturgy) Therefore (^c. In fhort, fe- veral other very Orthodox Men have been either falfely charged, or wrongfully fufpe6led : Therefore undoubtedly Dr. JVaterUnd is miftaken in fuppo-. Qu.XII. offomeQ^UEKl^S, 347 (ing Them to have bcea Orthodox. I refer the Reader to Bp. Bull, who has abundantly anfvvered what relates to thefe trifling Accufations. Only, becaufe you feem to infult and triumph the moil, in refped of Origen j I fhall be at the Trouble of gi- ving the Reader fome Account of That great Man and his Writings, and their hard Fate in the World. Origen was one that wrote much, and fometimes in Hafte : And it might be no great wonder if fome un- cautious Things might fometimes drop from Himj or if his Writings, pailing through ignorant or ma- licious Hands, might be otherwife reprefentcd than He intended, or wrote. He complained of fuch Mifreprefentations in his Life-time 5 and made an Apology for Things of that kind in a'-iaettcr to Pope Fabian^ about the Year 248. The Doftrine of a coeternal and confubftantial Trinity could be no new Thing at That Time. It appears by the famous Cafe of Dionyfius, but about Ten Years after, that it was the fettled Faith of the Church j and that the generality, at lead, were extreamly jealous of the Appearance of any thing that feemed to break in upon it. Origen's Works however were flill in great Efteem j and it does not appear that, for many Years after his Death, they were ever charged with Hete- rodoxy in That Article, Gregory Tbaumaturgus, and Dio- nyfius o{ Alexandria, whofe Orthodoxy in that Doftrine has been abundantly vindicated by Bp, Bull, were great Admirers of the Man, and of his Writings. Metho- dius, about the Year zpo, (a Man of orthodox Prin- ciples) began to impugn fome of Origenh Docffcrines: but laid nothing to his Charge in relation to the 7r/- vity. About the Year 308, He firfl began to have Articles drawn up againft Him j and among the ^c- yeral Charges, there were fome upon That Head. Pamphilus and Eufebius then undertook to apologize for Him 5 not by juftifying any thing that feemed to leflen the Divinity of the Son or Holy-Ghoft, but by fhowing from Origen"^ own Writings, that His Doftrinc 34^ A Second Defense Qu. XII. Dodrlne was on the fide of Chrift's Divinity^ and againft the Holy-Ghoft's being a Creature. This ap- pears from -the Remains wc have of That Apology^ according to i^^j^;?'s Tranflation 5 who profefTes fo- lemnly that He did not add a Syllable, but made a jull and literal Tranflation. So that tho' Rufin's other Verfions, where He profefTes to have taken a liberty, are thelefs to be depended on, This is of ano- ther kind, and may more fecurely be confided in : From whence I would take notice by the way, that even Eufebius at this Time, before the Rife of the jirian Controverfy, appears to have been very Or- thodox. I know there is an Objection to be made out of Jerom : which the Reader may fee anfwered in Bp. Bull'*. After Pamphilus^ we find mention made of Ano- ther Apologijl^^ a very orthodox Man himfclf, in refpe6t of the Trinity, even in the Judgment of Pho- tius^ who was ufed to judge too feverely fometimes of the Antients, comparing their Exprellions too ri- gidly with thofe in ufe in his own Times. That Apologift acquits Origen as to any erroneous Do6trmc in the Article of the Trinity : Only He allows that Origen's Zeal againft Sahellianifm might fometimes draw Him into Exprefiions that feemed to go too far the other way. Let us now come down to the Arian Times. About the Year 330, or later, the Arians endeavoured to gain feme Countenance from Origen's Writings: And feme of the more zealous Catholicks of the Euftathian Party, who were for pro- fefiing one Hypoftafts^ had no Opinion of Origen, The Reafon, I prefume, was, bccaufe Origen every where infifts upon the diftinSiion of Perfons very much, and feemed not very reconcileable to the Eu^ fiathian way of p.oieffiag one Hypoftaf.s. Origen * Bull Def. F. p. 12;. t Photius. Cod. 1 17. p. 25)5, there- Qu. XII. offome q\J E R I E S. 349 therefore was much out of favour with That more rigid part of the Catholicks -, who differed from the rell in ExpreJJion rather than real meaning, as ap- peared fully afterwards ^ jithanafius :i\\iht while Hood up for Origen^ and vindicated his ownDo6lrine from Origen's Writings ^. Gregory Nazianzen^ and Bafil were Both of them Friends of Origen-y defending his Orthodoxy againfl: the Arians ''. This was about the Year 360. And tho' Bafil thought Or/g^-w's Notion of the Bo ly-GhoJl not to hav^e been altogether found^ yet He objeds nothing againft Him in refpe6t of God the Son : And as to the Holy-Ghoft^ He yet quotes Paflages from Him where Origen fpoke conformably to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church ^. And poflibly, the other fufpefted Paflages might not be Origen's own. "Titus of Boftra^ another orthodox Man of that Time, was an Advocate of Origen. About 370, flourifhed Didymiis^ who is known to have been very zealous for the orthodox Do6trine of the Trinity, and zealous alfo for Origen > looking upon Thofe as weak Men, and of fmall fagacity, that fufpeded Origen on That Head ^. Hitherto we have found no confiderable Men that condemned Origen as Heterodox in the Do6trine of the Trinity. The Ca- tholicks of greateftName and Reputation aiferted the contrary. Let us come a little lower, to the Year 380, and we fhall now perceive a Storm gatherings chiefly, I prefume, by the Means and the Interell ot the Eu- flathiam^ who had difliked Origen from the firfl:. Epiphanius^ about this Time, was drawn in to be a " Vul. Athanafium ad Antiochenos, /». 775. Grcgor. Nazianz. Orat. 22. p. 1^6. Or. 32, p. j'lr. * Athanaf. de Decret. Syn. N. /». 232. * Vul. Socrat. Eccl. H. J. 4. c. 26. p. 2^6. ** Bafil de Sp. Sandl. c. 29. p. 21 9. ^yid' Hieronym. Tom, 4. p- 547» 3ff,4op, Party gjo ^ Second Defense Qu.XIl. Party in the Quarrel againft the Origenifts i and laid fevere Charges againft Origen^ even with refpeft to the Doftrine of the 'Trinity. Ruffinus^ at the fame Time, was a zealous Advocate for Origert's ortho- doxy j Himfelf, as is well known, a ftri6b Athana- ftan. Jerom being now about fo Years old, was alfo a great admirer of Origen, Nay, in the Years 388 and jpi, when paft 60, He ftill retained the lame kind Opinion of Origen and his Writings : As appears by his calling Him the Mafter of the Churches j fecond to none but the Apoflles themfehes'^. He de* clares that Thofe who had in Origen's Life-time, cenfured Him, did it not for ^ny Novel Do6brine, or Herefy^ but for Envy 5 becaufe they could not bear the Reputation He had raifed -f . Now, co\i\6/^erom^ fo orthodox a Man Himfeli^ and that had tranflated Didymus in Defenfe of the Divinity of the Holy^ Ghoft j could He ever have thus commended Origen^ had He, at that Time, believed Him Heterodox in the Doftrine of the Trinity? Impoffible. He gives no better a Name than that o^ barking Dogs ^ to thofe that then charged Origen with Herefy : tho' at the fame Time Avians^ or Macedonians^ and all impugners of the Di'vinity o£ Chrift or the Holy-Ghofi, were//^- reticks in Jerom\ Account. To do Jerom juftice, He flood up for Origen with Refolution and Courage, fomeTimej till finding the Stream run ftrong. He thought it convenient to tack about: And then (as is the Nature of neiv Converts in any Cafe) He grew zealous, and vehement on the oppofite fide. Then He fet Himfelf, meanly, to run down the Man whom before He had fo much commended. He fell • Origenem, quem poft Apoftolos, Ecclefiarum Magiftrum nemo nifi imperitus negabir. Hieron. Pr sef. in Norn. Hebrse. t Non propter Dogmatum Novitatem. non propter HAreJim, ut nunc adverfus eum rabidi canes infimulantj fed quia Gloriam^ Elo- quential ejus & Sciential ferre non poterantj & illo dicente omnes muti putabantur. Hicronym. Tom. 4., p. 67. to 3 Qu.XII. of fame (lUEKlES. 35t to criticizing his Works, fometimes manifeftly per- verting his Senfe, fometimes reprefenting it by Halves -, always putting the worft Conftrudions He poflibly could upon his Writings: As did alfo Epiphaniusj and I'beophilus, who were afterwards joined with jinaftaftus Bp. of Rome^ and many other Biifhops of the Weft. Still Origen was not intirely deftitute of fome good and great Defenders > as Gregory Nyjfen^ the great Chryfoftom (bred up under Meletius^ and never of the Euftathian Party) Theotimus^ and Johft of Jerufakm. Sever us Sulpitius^ of That Time, is a kind of Neuter, pafTing a doubtful and moderate Cenfure. St. Aiiftin * appears doubtful j but, taking his Accounts from Epiphanius^ or other Adverfaries, leans to the feverer fide. Fincentus Lirinenfts f in- clines to think that the Plea about Origen's Writings being adulterated II might be very juft. Socrates and Sozomen^ of the fifth Century, defend Origen's Or- thodoxy j and think He had been greatly mifrepre- fented. ^heodorit^ of the fame Agt^ has been juflly looked upon as a favourer of Origen -, becaufe He reckons not the Origenifts in his Lift of Hereticks : As neither did Philafirius^ who v/rote 60 Years be- fore Him. What followed in the Jtxth Century^ un- • Origeniani— Mortuorum Refurreftioncm negant, Chriflum autem & Spiritum Sanctum creaturam dicunt. Hscc quidem d« Ortgene, Epiphr.fiius refert. Sed Defenfores ejus dicunt Origenem Pa- trem 8c Filium 2c Spiritum Sanftum unltts ejufdewque fubjlant't^ docuifle; neque refurrcdionem repuiilTe mortuorum. Sc^ qui ejus plura legerunt, contradicunt Dicit pr3£terea ipfe Origenes quod Filius Dei Sandis Hominibus comparatus Veritas lit, Patri collatus mendacium, & quantum diftanc Apoftoli Chriflo, tantum Filius Patri. Unde nccOrandus eft Filius, &;c. Auguftin. Hseref. 43. t Sed dicat aliquis, corruptos ejje Origenif Libros. Non refifto, quin potius malo: nam id a quibufdam 8c rraditumSc Scriptum eftj non Cathoiicis tantum fed etiam Hserericis. Vincent. Lirin. c. aj. \\ See Ruffinus'i T^lea about the Adulteration of Origen"; Booki, handfomly defended againfi St. Jerom; by the burned Huetius, Ori- geniana, p. 187, 188. dor Y$z ^ Secon D Defense Qu.XIL der Jtiftiman^ is rather too late to come into Ac* count. From what hath been faid, it appears, that tho' Antiquity were much divided in their Sentiments of Or/g^/'/'s Orthodoxy, in refpedt of the Trinity j yet the moft early, and the moil valuable Men down to the Times of Jerom^ (and for a long while Jerom Himfelf) had acquitted Him on That Head. This Account is a fufficient Anfwer to what you have ra- ked together in Pages 317, 328, 319, 330. And I muft oblerve, that were it really Fa6t that Origen had taught what you pretend in refpe^ to the Article of the TCrinity^ it would by no means follow that He was therein a true Interpreter of the Church's Doc-- trine in That Inftancej any more than in the other Articles laid to his Charge by his Accufers: Many of which are known to have been directly contrary to the Handing Do6trines of the Church, as well before^ as after his Time: Such was the denial of ihtRefur- reEiion of the Dead^ imputed to Him, among other Errors, by his Adverfariesj as St. Auftin obferves: Who, in the fame Place, mentions fome other erro- neous and uncatholick Tenets of Origen. At laff, the Queftion of Origen's Faith in the Trinity, may- be certainly determined out of his Treatife againft Celfus^ (ftill remaining, and free from Corruption.) And it is from thence chiefly, that Bp. Bull has de- mondrated that Origen*^ Dodrine on That Head was found and jufl, direftly oppofite to the Principles Vvhich you are now efpouiing. I may take notice of your citing,(p. 3 3 f .)a fecond-hand Paflage of Eufebius j as if He had made the Son created in the vulgar Senfe of/r^^/ci in this Queftion j dire6tly contrary to what Eufebius has argued at large, in his Piece againfb Marcellus. I hope, you did it igno^ rantly. However, to prevent the like for the future, I {hall here give you Eufcbius's own Words. Com- menting on Prov. win. zz. He fays thus: " Though ^^ He fays created^ He does not fay it, as if He came 4. "from QU.XII. of fome q^UEKlES. 55 J '' from non-exiftence^ into exifience > nor as if He alfo, '' like as the reft of the Creatures, were from Non- '^ entity (as fome have erroneoully imagined) but He ^' was living and fubfifting, prior and pre-exifting to *' the creation of the Univerie : And being appointed " of The Lord his Father to bear rule over the Uni- " verfe j Created here ftands for appointcd^or conftituted*. He goes on to feveral Texts of Scripture, i Pet, ii. 13. Amos iv. 13. Pfal ci. ip. to fhow that y.t'kti^^ or xt/^w, may admit that Senfe of Appointing^ or Or- daining^ rather than Creating. And upon the Words of the Pfalm, create in me a dean Hearty O God^ He obferves, that this is not faid as if the P/^/;;^//?'s Heart was then to begin to exift, but what was before, fhould be cleanfed. You will pleafe to remember how highly you refented my quoting Socrates for Eufebius's Opi- nion, feemingly contradictory to Eufebius's other Tc" nets. You have here quoted a fhort Sentence out of an Index of a Book, not publifhcd to fpeak for it felf^ and have given it aConftrudionflatly contrary to Vsfh'xl Eufebius undoubtedly taught in his Piece againfl MarcelluSy namely, that Prov. viii. 21. v/as not to be underftood o£ creating^ in the Senfe you pretend. As to what you cite from Him in refpect of the HoIy-GhoJI^ I know not whether it may admit of a candid \ Conftru6lion. He was certainly miftaken, if He took That Doctrine, fuch as you underftand ir, to be the Do6lrine of the Church. But it is out of my Compafs to treat of the Divinity of the Holy-Ghofl. To conclude j I referred ji you to Ignatius^ Athena- X.XI cuiy TTfcav T£ x«( '^povzs-ci^^6J¥ rij? y TToivToq Mo-f/j^ (TV^DCfTiej^ . ei^^av et TiJi oXw vTTo KV^iit b" etCrS ttxt^oi; KxrocriTxyf/ziv'^y b* izrifny i'JTxZ- S-x ccvt] ? Kxrirxliv^ « KXTi^nctv ti\'>ifjuivii. Eufcb. Ecl. Thcol. p. IfO, Iff. t See The Bifhop of London's Letter defended, p. f6, 6^c. I) ^^Me, p. ip7. A a goras^ 354 y^ Second Defense Qu.XIIL goras^ Iren£us^ Origen^ Dionyfius of Rome^ Dionyfius of Alexandria^ 'Theognoftiis^ and Methodius-^ zs exprefi Authorities againft the Do6trine of the Son's being a Creature As to confequential and indireti Teili- monies againft it, They are numberlefsj and have been produced by Bifhop BuU^ Le Moyne^ Nourry^ and many others, in this Controverfy. To This you have oppofed fuch Evidence as Biihop Bull has already anfwered, and You will not ftand by, or engage to defend > but have rather own'd to be indefcnfible. Only, you think fome Advantage you fhould make of it > which fome Advantage is yet very linfair^ and not regularly or diftinBly laid down by any certain Confequence, but is meerly a confufed and precarious Conclufion. Upon the whole, every Hone ft Reader will eafily perceive on what fide He ought here to determine. ^-^^f'^'^-^^'^^^^^^^^-ti^^'^y' (1.U E R Y XIII. Whether there can be any Middle betis:een being made out of nothings and out of fomething > that is, between being out of Nothing, and out of the Father's Siibfiance ; between being cfientially God, and being a Creature; IVhe- ther, confeqttently, the Son mtifi not be either cITentially God, or elfe a Creature \ IF any Man wnntcd an Tnftance of the Power of AfFeSiions or Prejudice in holding out againft Coyi^ 'viUtlon \ or if there were not too many lamentable Examples of it in Hiftory, Sacred^ and Profane-, I would recommend to Him the Perufal of what you have Qu. XIII. of fame Q^U E R I E S. 3^5 have under this Query, to give Him a very lively Example and Idea of it. You begin with telling me, there are many Dilemmas, in Metaphyficks, Phy- lacks, and Theology, 'wherein it may be 'very pre^ fumptuous to determine abfolutely which part of the Dilemma is the T!ruth. Had you relied Neuter in This Controverfy, your Plea would have appeared the better : But as you have determined on one fide, and in Virtue of fuch Dilem?nas as are neither half ib ckar^ nor half fo certain as This is, you have no Pretence left of That kind. You fhould therefore tell me, what Medium there is between being ejfentially God^ and being ^Creature-, or elfe own theSDnaCrM//^r6'. We do not thus Ihifc andlhuffle with You, when youprefs us with Dilem- 7!ias. Deri'ved or under i'ved^ we fay derived : Being or not Beings we fay Being : NeceJJary or not necef- fary in Exigence ^ we fay necejjary : felf-exifient or mt felf-exifient ', we lay not felf-exiftent. Supreme God or not fupr erne God: we {^y fupreme God. And what- ever invidious Terms, or however liable to be mifun- (ferftood, you put the Qiieftion in. Hill we anfwer frankly, and difcover our Minds. And what can be the reafon of the Difference between your Conduft 2nd ours, but that We dedre to be open, and plain, and You love difguifes? We have a Caufe which we know we am defend. You are confcious that you have not. We are juftly lenfible what Advantage you every where make by putting the Quellion, ivhether God the Son be the fupreme God^ or "That fu-^ preme God ? I . The Expreffion is apt to infmuate to the Rea- der a Notion of l^wo Gods^ fupreme and inferior: On which fuppofition the Son certainly could not be tht fupreme. z. It is flirther apt to confound the Reader, as in- finuating either that we fuppofe the Son to be the fupreme Father Himfelf, or elfe that the fupremacy of Qrder^ or Office^ belonged equally to Both. Yet we A a i bear 3S6 A Second Defense Qu.XIII. bear with your thus unequally, and partially wording the Qiieftion \ being content to admit it with proper Difli nations, and to afTert that God the Son is ne fupreme God^ or even 'That fupreme Gody as you are pleafed to word it for us. And why fhould not you as plainly own, that you make the Son a Creature > there being no imaginable Medium between uncreated and created^ between God and Creature ? Yet you pretend to be arguing only againll the Son's being cflentially God, or fu- preme Gody and not to be arguing for his being a Creature > tho' They come to the fame Thing diffe- rently expreffed. You fay, p. 338, there lies a Fal' lacy in my Words, ejjmtially God. As How? Show where the Fallacy is. You fay, the Words ought to m^^nfilf-exifient in fucha Senfeas the Father alone is. Well then 5 if you take felf-exiftence and necejja- ry-exiftence to fignify the fame Thing, you of confequcace allow no Medium^ but that the Son mufl either be the Father Himfelf, or elfe a Crea-- tare. Why do you not therefore fay plainly He is a Creature? You will ask then, whether I would prove that the Son is xhc Father Himfelf ^ in proving Him to be no Creature? No. But when 1 have proved That Point (as is eafily done, and has been done a Thoufand Times) it will then be apparent how ab- furd and wild your Notion is, that there is no Me- dium between God the Father, and a Creature. I fay then, that there neither is nor can be any Medi' am between being NeceJ/arily-exiJiingy and being a Creature : And therefore (ince you allow nothing to be necejfary but the Father, you plainly make a Crea- ture of the Son. Inflead of anfwering This plain Argument, you do nothing but evade, and Ihift in fuch a manner, as fliows only that you are afraid of coming to the Point, and.of putting the Controverfy on a fair IfTuej which is highly difingcnuous. Were I to abufe my Readers at This Rate, how would you infult, and look upon it as no better than giving 5 . - - ^ y^ Qu. Xril. offome Q^U E R I E S. 357 up the Caufe. I told you before =^5 and now tell you again, that you aflert evidently, and by immediate neceifary Confequence, "That the Maker, and Re- " dcemer, and Judge of the whole World is a Crea^ ^' ture^ is mutable and corruptible, depending intire- *' ly on the good pleafure of God, has a precarious " Exigence and dependent Powers, finite and limi- " ted> and is neither fo pcrfeft in his Nature, nor " fo exalted in Privileges, but that the Father may, '^ when He pleafes, create Another, Equal, or even ^' Superior to Him. This is no unrighteous Reprefentation^ nor appealing to the Prejudices of the ignorant Vulgar : You know it is not : But it is laying down the plain naked Truth, And it ought to be founded in the Ears, and rivetted in the Thoughts of all that come to read you J that They may be deeply fenfible what you are doing, and whither it is that you are leading Them. Thefe are not Things fhocking to the Vulgar only, nor fo much to the Vulgar as to the wifell, and mod confiderate, and moll religious Men. In lliorr, they are fuch Weights upon your Hypothefis^ as have ever funk and bore it down among the fober part of Mankind : And they will ever do fo, as long as true Piety, and fobriety of Thought, have any Footing in the World. This you are fenfible of j and are there- fore forced to wink hard. You are next endeavouring to retort j which is your conffcant Method when you are non-pluffed, and have no direft anfwer to give. I ajfert^ you fay, many fupreme Gods in one undivided Subftance. Ridi- culous : They are not many Gods^ for That very rea- fon, becaufe their Sub fiance is undivided. Is there no DiflFerence between chzrgmg falfe Confequences and true ones? Make you out the Confequence which you pretend, at your Leifure: Mine is fclf-evident, and makes itfelf. ♦ Definfe^ p. 20/, A a 3 You 358 .^4 Second Defense Qu. XIIL You run off (p. 341) to fome foreign Things: which have been anfwered in their Place. You talk of Authority^ and Dignity j not telling us what you mean by them, whether of Order and Office^ or of Nature y tho' it is about the laft only, that we arc inquiring. I fuppofe, if there be ever fo many Te- ilimonies in Antiquity, for the Son's Uncreatednefs^ ConfuhJlantiaJity^ Eternity^ Necejfary-exiftence^ Omni- p'efence^. Omnipotence^ and other divine Artributes 5 all muft yield to a few Equivocations, and Quibbles, a- howl Authority ^nd Dignity : Which if you had once defined and fixed to a determinate Meaning (as eve- ry ingenuous Man would have done) it v/ould have been prefently feen whether Any Tellimony you produce were pertinent or no 5 or rather, that none of them are pertinent. As to Baftl^ whom you pretend to cite, it is certain he did not mean by agtcJ/jtart what you mean 5 for He abfolutely denies, that the Father is greater in Refpe6l of Dignity ^^ meaning effential Dignity : x^nd He particularly excepts a- gainft your Notion of making the Son Subject-, and cenfures Eunomius fmartly, for taking from Him the Dignity of Dominion, ro? cf^nTTrareici^ ro d^lcxifxa. In Another Place, He fpends a whole Chapter in Con- futation of that very Notion you are contending for 3; proving that God the Son is united in Nature^ in Glory^ in Dignity \\ with the Father, of equal Honour and Authority \. I had told you, that an eternal Subftance^ not divine^ and a Son made out of //, was *what you muft meany or mean notbing-f. This you confute by calling it a Calumny^ ridiculous^ and un* * 'AXXk jMiyiBsi fJb)y 0 7rxr¥!f tov liou ovk ay Xi^B-mt f/jii^aVt Urru^oi- Eun. 1. 4. [I Ta; uttctifJt^xri trvvrifjijUjivov, ^ "ZuvB-^oyov KCcl 6(Ji^oTiyjoy mmma TO Tif} «^|<9e5 O(JI/0Tif6vV, Bsfil dc SpV San6to ^. 6. - t Dcfenfe, p. 21?, Qu.XIV. of fome (QUERIES. a 59 jiift y which is a very eafy way of Confutation. Let the Reader fee the Reafbn why you had nothing to offer but hard Words. You deny the Son's be- ing of the fame divine Sub (lance that the Father is J you allow Him not to be iieceffarily-exifting'^ you deny his being out of nothing. Let any Oedipus make other Senfe of This put together^ than what I made of it * Q_UERY XIV. Whether Dr. Clarke, who every where denies the Coiifiibftantiality of the Son as abfurd and contradictory y does not of Confequmce affirm the Son to be a Creature^ ^ an ^vr-jcvy and fo fall under his own Cenfttre^ and is Self- condemned ? HERE, being confcious tliat.»;Tliis Charge is juif, you can give no direft' Anfwer j but, as ufual, mull retreat to little Shifts, and poor Evafi- ons 1 iuff ciently explained the true Senfe, and my Senfe of Co-ry^'ubfiantiality in my Defenfe^ p. 461, 4(52. Yet now you pretend to complain you under- Ifand not what I mean by Confubftantiality : Whereas, the Truth is, you underftand it fo well as to know * Qui Filium de Patris Subftantia natum denegant, debent utique oicere unde arbitrcptur Dei Filium cxftinfle: utrum de nihilo, an ex kltcuo ? Si ile nihilo cxftitit, Creatufa dicendus eft, non Creator. Si autem de alii^uo dicarur, fie etiam id ipfum Deus fecit, unde Fili- um ^enuir. An forte co&temum dicitur aliquid habuiffe undepoflec Filium gcncrare? Si coseternum aliquid aeftimatur,.,u.ide genitus Fili- us creditur, Munich ioru7?i error hac adfertione firma^ur. Tnlger.t. j^efp. contr. Arian. objedt. 4. p. ^ 8. A a 4 that s6o A Second Defense Qu.XIV, that This Query is unanfwerable. But let us hear how you can ca'vil^ where you cannot reply. Some* times J you tell me, / feem to mean^ that the Father and Son are individually the fame ftngle^ identicaJy whole Suhftance. But where do you ever find me talking lb weakly, and crudely ? This you gather only from the Word individual -y which is capable of a larger and ll;ri6ler Senfe, as I have often intimated. When you fuppofe That Part of God's Subftance which fills the Sun^ to be individually the fame with what fills the Moony do you mean that Both are in- dividually the fame fingle^ identical^ ivhole Suh fiance ? How often mull you be reminded of your une- qual Dealing in this Controverfy, that Arguments rauft hold againft the I'rinity^ which, in other Cafes, have no Force with you at all? I may fpeak of whole and Parts^ while I am arguing againft a Man that brings every Thing under Extenfton: But as to the Catholick Do6trine of the Church, which I here defend, the Words are not proper > only this is certain, that one Perfon of the Trinity is not all the Perfons of the Trinity. Yet becaufe the Perfons are undivided^ They are one indi' vidual Subftance j which is as far from Sabellianifm as from I'ritheifm^ and can juftly be charged with Neither. You pretend, that Dr. Clarke does not de- ny fuch Confubftantiality as was taught by the Nicene Fathers. If This be true, then He admits, or does not deny, that the Subftance of the Son is of the fame kind with that of the Father, as truly as Light anfwers to Lights Very God to Very Godj uncreated to uncreated^ and fo on=^: That is, He admits all that I do, and there is no longer any Difpute be- tween us. For, I will eafily prove to him, after he is advanced thus far, that whatever is thus equal in Se6 my Vefenfet p. 452. Nature Qu.XIV. of fame (QUERIES. $6i Nature to the Father, cannot be unequal in any ef^ fential Powers or Perfe^lions : And fo all that you have been doing, drops at once. If thefe be the Do6lor's prefent Sentiments, I am very glad of it: They were not always fo. You fay, indeed, what- tver the Son's metaphyfical Nature^ EJjence^ or Sub^ fiance be^ all the Dodior's Propofttions (fo far as you perceive) hold neverthelefs equally true. Are you then fo very unperceiving in a plain and clear Cafe ? Turn to five of the T>o^ox's Propofttions f'f^^ ii^^, 14^^, ip^\ zj'^) where He denies the Subftance, or Perfon, of the Scn^ or Holy-Ghofl^ to hcSelf-exifient : And com- pare your own Con{lru6tion of Self-exiftent^ by necef- farily-exi flings with them 5 and then tell me, whether the Doftor has determined nothing about the Sub- fiance of the Son. Doth He not make the Subftance of the Father necefiary^ the other precarious -y the one Self-fufficient^ the other depending-^ the one im' mutable^ the other mutable at Pleafurej in a Word, the one infinitely per fe^^ the other infinitely {hoxi of it? All This follows by felf-evident Connexion from the Doi^tor's denying the Son's Neceffary-exifience^ Now, certainly He has hereby determined their Subftances to be intirely different in Kind: Or elfe I fhould defpair of fhowing, that a Man and a Horfe^ Ti'Tree and ^ Stone are noi lixc^aia-, are not of the fame kind. For, what is it we deno te anddiftinguiih dif- ferent kinds of Subftances by, but by their different effential Properties? Do not therefore now bring mc the lame Pretence, about the Doctor's Propofttions being the fame on Either Suppofition. I bore with ic in the modeft Pleader^- (tho' fenfible how little Sin- cerity was in it) becaufe 1 was then doubtful whether the Do6i;or fhould be charged with denying the Ne- ceffary-exifience. You have eafed me of That Doubt : And now the Plea is ridiculous, and will ferve no f $i9 she Frefaee to my Sermons, p. i j. longer. 36Z ur^ SeCO N D DeFENS E Qu. XV, longer. The Myftery is at length come outj and Self-exifience^ wherewith we have been fo longamuf- ed, wants no unriddling. qUERY XV. ^ Whether he alfo miift noty of Confeqtience, affirm of the Son-, that there was a Time when He was not, jince God miift exift before the Crea- ture ; and therefore is again Self condemned, (See Prop. 1 6. Script. Doftr.) And whether He does not equivocate in faying^ elfewhere^ that the fecond Terfon has been always with the Firjl ; and that there has been no Time, when he was not fo : And laflly., 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 leafl higher than They did-, without taking in the Confubfiantiality? IT has been fhown that the Son is, upon the Doctor's Principles, a precarious Beings which is nothing but another Name for Creature : And now the Queltion is only whether a Creature can be eter- nal. And This is of no great Moment to the Caufe it fclf, but only to {how the Dodtov's Sdf^ condetnnation^ in blaming fuch as have faid nere was a Time when the Son was not. If, for the fake hei-eoF, you will maintain that a Creature is eternal^ you ftiall difpute by your fclf, or clfe againft Mr. iVbif>Qn^l Qu. XV. offome Q^U E R I E S. 365 Whifton^j who juftly calls it a defpifed and abfurd Tenet : Only He happened to have his Thoughts a little wandring, when He called it an Athanafian Myftery, inftcad of calling it an Arian one. For I never heard of Any One Athanafian but what defpifed and rejected it. There were fome Avians that formed a new Se6t about the Year 394, under the Name of Pfathyrians^ who have been charged with That Principle by "fheodorit^ -, tho' I think Socrates's and Sozomen's Account :|: of them rather acquits them of it. Now, if you are inclined to main- tain fuch wild Dodrine, fay fo plainly: If not, let us know the Meaning of the Dodor's ccnfuring Thofe that fhould prefume to fay of the Son, that nere was a Time when He was not II •, and of his faying that the fecond Perfon has been always with the Firll. I am fenfible there is fomething very mean and difparaging in the Way of equivocating upon fo ferious a Sub- ject. A Man may well be aihamed to own it : Sol prefs it no farther. You was to find a middle Way between the Ortho" dox and the Avians-, which I called a vain and weak Attempt, and proved it to be fo. You do not care to own your Miftake here : But you fay, it is not material to determine. That is, you find it has been evidently determined 'SigT^.^^ you 5 tho' you are very unwilling to confefs it. Next you come to your ufual Method of mifreprcfenting my Notion, and * Nor do I quife defpair of feeing fuch flirewd and cunning Athanajimsy as Dr. IV. driven to This lajl 'Etajion, and of hearing Them broach This other great Athanafian Myftery, how defpif^ and abfurd an one foever, that Any Creature whatfoever may be ftrictiy fpeaking, in Point of Duration, coeternal with its Creator. IVhif- ton Reply to Lord Nottingham, p 30. t Thcod.Hasrct. Fab. 1. 4. Compare the Suppofititious Difp(tati$ contra Arimn p. 211. Ed Bened. t Socrat. Eccl. Hifl. 1. j-. c. 25. p. :5oo. Sozom. Eccl. H. ]. 7. c. 17. p. 30 j, £ Clarke's Script. Dodr, prop. i^. charging 164 A Second Defense Qu.XV. charging Three fupreme Gods :'W]\\Qh trifling has been anfwcred oftner than it deferved. What follows, p. 348, 54P is fo exceeding low, that in pure Com- miferation one would pafs it over. P. jfo, you come to difpute the Point, whether the Do6bor's Scheme was condemned near 1400 Years ago by the Council of Nice ? You pretend that none of his Proportions were condemned. But I infift upon it, that the Doftor, in denying the Son's Necejfary-exif- fence ^ evidently makes Him a Creature : And there- fore all that is material in the Doftor's Propofttions^ all that we find Fault with, in refpeft of his Doc- trine of God the Son, ftands fully condemned by the Nicene Council. And do not imagine that the Point of Difference betwixt us lies only in Authority ^ or Office^ and not in Nature : You make the Na^ ture of the Son wholly of a different kind from the Father, as hath beenfhown. I told you of our Doc- trine, that it has prevailed for 1400 Tears\' Upon which you remind me of my faying of the Arians^ that the JVorld was oncc^ in a Manner^ their own. In a Manner, that is, when They had got the Ent" perors of the World, in a Manner^ on their fide. You return to your Quibble about individual EJfence. Pleafe to obferve EJfentia de EJfentid^ Suhftantia de Sub- flantia^ was Catholick Doftrine all along : And This is the full Meaning of individual EJfence : Not EJfences^ nor Subfiances^ noxBeings 5 any more than you'll fay Sub- fiances^ while yet you admit Subflance and Subftance*, or Beings^ where yet you are forced to allow Being and Bein^. You tell me, I acknowledge Perfon and intelligent Agent to be the fame: I never acknowledged any fuch Thing; but always denied their being recipro- cal. But becaufe this Word Perfon is a Matter of ♦ Set my Vef^nfe, p. 168, 1^7, 2p^. And Repl/ to Dr. Whitiy, p. ./. - much QiL XV. of fame QUERIES. 365 much Difpute, I fhall here endeavour, having no- thing farther worth Notice under This Qiiery, to give the beft Account I am able of the true Notion of Perfon. I fhall not here fearch into the Books of PhilofopherSy but into the common Apprehen- fions of Mankind, learned and unlearned j which appears to be the true Method of knowing what Ideas are affixed to the Word Perfon. Our Ideas are at firfl all of them particular^ and borrowed from what we daily converfe with, from what we/eej ^nd feel. Our firft Notion of Perfon is the Notion we have of a Man^ a IVoman^ a Child. By Degrees we learn to abftra6l from the Differences of j^ge^ Sex^ Stature^ ^c. and fo we form a more general Idea of an Human Perfon^ meaning one of our own Species: And this Idea^ perhaps, a rude Country-man would exprefs, improperly, by theWord Chriftianfm Oppofition toBrutes^ or inanimate Things. From the Idea of Human Perfons thus formed, we proceed to make a more general Idea, by leaving out what is peculiar to our Species^ and taking in what we conceive common to us with Angels^ fuppofe, or any intelligent Being. And now we take in Ratio- nality only, or Intelligence : And a Perfon is Some- thing intelligent in Oppofition to the Brutal Creation. Indeed, there is fomething analogous to Perfon^ even in Brutes : And fo it is common to fay, Z/^?, or She of Them, in like manner as we fpeak of Per- fons. But fbill the common Notion of Perfon in- cludes Intelligence : And I think Damafcen * is very fin- gular in bringing in rcvc/^g tov 'ittttcv^ under uTroracrr, and TT^ocoiirov, fignifying Perfon. But perhaps He meant it of u7ro<^aji^ only, and did not nicely di- ftinguifli. Thus far we are advanced that Perfon is Something which is the Subject of Intelligence. But ftill we are not come far enough to fix the Idea f Damafcen. Dialcft. c, 43, p. 46, of $66 ^ Second De FENSE Qu.XV, of a Jingle Per/on : For an Army, a Council, a Se- nate is fomething which is the Subje^ of Intelligence^ Something that underfiands and a^s. We mufl: there- fore be more particular : And at length we may bring it to This: A fingle Perfon is an intelligent Agent ^ having the diftin6live CharaSlers of /, Thou^ He-, and not divided^ or diftinguijhed into more intelligent Agents capable of the fame Characters. This Defini- tion, or Defcription, will, I think, take in all the Ideas that Mankind have generally affixed to the Word Perfon^ when underllood of a fingle Perfon. I will {how this firil: negatively^ and then pofi- tively. I Negatively. An Army^ a Senate^ 6cc. is not a fingle Perfon^ becaufe divided into more. The Tri" nity^ upon the Catholick Hypothefts^ is not a fingle Perfon, becaufe. dijiingnijhed into more intelligent Agenrs than one. z. Poficively. A Man is a fingle Perfon by the Definition. An Angel \% a fingle Perfon by the fame. Father^ Son^ or Holy-Ghoft^ a fingle Perfon by the fame. Am feparate Soul, a fingle Perf3n alfo. The ^sa'y^^caTof, or God-Man^ a fingle Perfon; becaufe not divided or diftinguifhed into more intelligent Agents than one, having each of them the diflinctlve Chara6lers. To clear this Matter a little flirther, we mud next difiinguifii Perfons into feveral kinds; As I. Divided '^n^Undivided. z. Simple Tux^d. Compound : Which, when explained, will, I hope, fet This whole Affair in a true and full Light. I. As to the Diftinftion of divided and undivided '^ all Perfons, but the three divine Perfons^ are divid- ed and feparate from each other in Nature, Sub- itiince, and Exiftence. They do not mutually in- clude and imply each other: Therefore They are not only diftinct Subje^s^ Agents^ or Suppofita^ but diftinft Qu. XV. offome Q.U E R I E S. ^67 diftindb Suhftances alfo. But the Divine Pcrfons, being undivided^ and not having any feparate Ex- a^ncG independent on each other 3 They can- not be looked upon as Suhjlances^ but as one Sub- fiance diftinguiflied into feveral Suppofita^ or intelli- gent Agents. z. As to the other Diftinftion of Simple and Com- pounds it will appear what Reafon there Is for it. An Jngd^ or a Soid^ (whether fuppofed firfl: pre exifting^ or afterwards feparated) is a fimple Perfon : And lb is God the Father^ or God the Holy-Gholi^ upon the Catholick Scheme. But Man is a com- pound Perfon of Soul and Body. It is plain, that according to the common Idea of Perfon (which muft here be our Rule) the Body goes to make up the Perfon : Otherwife we could not fay James^ or John is fat or lean^ low or tall^ healthful or fckly^ or the like 5 fuch Things belonging to the Body only, and yet belonging to the Perfon. If wc fuppofed John's Soul to have pre-exifted^ it would be a Perfon in that pre-exiftent State as much as after, having all that belongs to the Definition of a Perfon : And by taking a Body afterward, the Soul does not become magis Perfona^ but 7?tajor Perfona. That is, the Perfon is inlarged by the Addition of a Body^ but ftill all together is confidered but as one Subjecl: with intelligence in it j and all is bun one Peter^ one John^ one /, He^ or Ttjou^ which compleats the Notion of a fingle Perfon. Let John die, the Body is no longer Part of the Perfon^ bun xki^ Perfon goes where the Intelligence reftsj the Soul in this Cafe becomes, not minus Per fona^ by the Se- paration, but minor. Our next Example of a compound Perfon, is the v'sav^^wTcr, confifting of the Logos^ the Soul^ and the Body. The Logos was a Perfon before the In- carnation, as much as after. But by taking in a Soul and Body^ the whole Perfon then is made up of all three. And thus Qhrifi is always rcprefentcd in I Scripture 3 6S yf Second Defense Qu. XV. Scripture in the fame Manner as any fin^e PerfoH is reprefented} one /, one Hcy one nou^ whether He is fpoken of with refped to what he is as the Logosy or as having a Soulj or a Body. The fame Chrjft made the Worlds increafed in JVifdomy was pierced with a Spear : In which three Examples, ic appears that the Logos^ the Soul^ and the Body^ all go to make up the one Perfon, the one compound Per- fon of Chrift. And hence it is, that the Churches of God, following the common Idea of a fingle Perfon, which they found to fuit with the Scripture Reprefentation of Chrilt, have rightly and jullly [in- cluded all the Three Conftituents in the one Perfon*. Thefe aix my prefent Thoughts of the Word PerfoUy and ihe Ideas contained in it. If any Man has any Thing to objed to it, I iliall be wiUing either more fully to explain, or elfe to alter the No- tion, as I fee Reafon for it. You will perceive that intelligent ailing Subftance is implied in every Perfon-^ And more Perfons are more intelligent Suhfiancesy whenever their Subilance is divided^ but not other- wife: And Two intelligent Subilances are Two Perfons, where Both have exifted Separately^ or have been feverally capable of the difiin5live Chara6ters, but not otherwile. You will alfo perceive, that intelligent ailing S'uhftance (that is intelligent Agent ^ as you call it) is not equivalent to Perfon^ nei- ther are the Phrafes reciprocal. But to intelligent Agenty add, its not being divided^ nor diftinguijhed in- to more intelligent Agents having the fame dillinc? tive Charaders j and then, as I conceive, you com- pleat the Notion of Perfon ^ according as it has commonly pafs'd with Mankind. I fuppofe not any of the Divine Perfons a Perfon in a different Senfe ■*f Videmus duplicem Statum, non confufum fed conjun£lum m Una Terfona, Deum & Homincm Jeftm. Tertull. conrr. Prx. c. 27. frenisi Fragm. p. ^^.y. Bened. pf Qu. XVI. offome (QUERIES. i69 of the Word Perfon : They arc Perfuns m the fame common Senfe of Perfon y but Perfons of a different kind^ and differently circumftantiated from what Z/^- man^ or jingelical^ or any other kinds of Perfons are. Thus Perfon^ Hke 'Triangle^ appears to be the Name for an Ahflracl Idea: And the Name is equally appli- cable to every kind of Perfon, as the Name of "friangle is to every kind of Triangle. Q.UE RY XVI. Whether by thefe (of the firft Column) and the like TextSy Adoration and Worjhtp be not fo appropriated to the One God^ as to belong to Him only ? Divine Worihip due To the One God. To Chrift. T^hou Jhalt have no other Gods before me^ Exod. XX. 3. 7'hou Jhalt worfnp the Lord thy God^ and Him only flmlt thou ferve^ Mat. iv. 10. T'hey worjlnpped Him, Luke xxiv. 2f. Let all the Angels of God worjhip Him^ Heb. i. 6. That all Men fiouU honour the Son^ even as they honour the Father^ John V. 23. UNder This Query I fully proved, in my Be- fenfe^ that, according to Scripture and Anti- quity^ Adoration is due to God alone^ in oppofition to all Creature-voorfljip whatever. You enter very lit- tle, if at all, into the Particulars of the Evidence which I produced : But you form two Objecftions againll the Thing in general, leaving me the Part of B b ai?^' S76 A Second Defense Qu.XVL a Refpondent^ inftead of undertaking it your felf, as was proper in anfwer to ^leries. Your Two Ob- jedtions are Thefe: i. That if my Arguments prove any thing, they prove too much, 'vtz. That Chrift is the very Father Himfelf. i. That They again prove too much in difallovving all mediatorial Wor* Jhipy which, you think, is plainly warranted by Scrip- ture, and Antiquity. 1. As to your firfl Pretence, it is founded only on the perfonal Chara61:ers, /, Thou^ He\ feemingly ex- cluding all Perfons but one. To which it is an- fwered, that there is no Neceffity ariiing from any pretended Force of the exdufive Terms, for exclu- ding all other Perfons*: But there is a Neceffity, from the very End 2i\'\di Deftgn of the Law, for ex- cluding all other Gods j and from the whole tenour of Scripture, for excluding all Creatures: So that my Argument proves what I intended to prove, and no more. And why have you not anfwered, after you have been fo often called upon, the Reafons I had offered, in my Defenfe^ and Preface to my Ser~ mons^ againfi: the receiving inferior Gods to any Degree of religious Worlliip ? Surely, it fhould be your Bufinefs to re/pond fometimes, efpecially in reply to ^leries^ and not mcerly to oppofe. 2. As to your fecond Pretence, about Mediatorial WorjJoip^ firfl borrowed from Pagans^ handed on by Arians^ and brought to our own Times by Papifts -, I fhall give it a large and diflincl Anfwer prefently. You have for fome time (I mean you, and your Friends) amufed unthinking Perfons with a Phrafe, never yet diftin6lly explained by you, but ferving to delude fuch as can be content with Sounds^ inftead of Senfe. I fhall endeavour to fearch This Matter to the Bottom, once for all; And then fhow how eafy it is to unravel your Speculations, on this Head. * See my 4''' Sermon. By Qu. XVI. of fame (QUERIES. j 7 1 By Mediatorial Worfljip^ you intend fome kind of Worfhip, to be paid to Chriilj fuch as you have been plcaibd to invent for Him, rather than none. I do not find that you have fecured xAny worlliip at all to the Holy-Gboft^ (who is no Mediator) tho' all Antiquity has paid Him worfliip. But you are fo confufcd and undcterminate in your Account of ;;;^- diatorial M^orjJjip^ that it is not eafy to difcover what you precifely mean by it> Or perhaps you yourfelf do not yet know what you intend. There are but Two general Senfes, fo far as I conceive, to be piic upon it J tho'Thefe again are divided into many />^r- ticular ones. The Two I fpeak of, are either, i. The making Chrifl the Medium of worfhipj or, 2. The worlhipping Him under the Charafter of a Me-^ diator. We mult examine Both Theie : I. A Medium of JVorjloip is a Phrafe of fome La- titude and Ambiguity. It muft be explained by In- llances, and Examples \ that confidering all Q'A^'^ which can well be thought of, we may at lail; hit up- on what you mean by mediatorial worfhip. hn Image has been fometimes thought a Medium of Worfhip, when God is fuppofed to be worfliipped by, and through an Image j as in the Inftance of the Molten Calf^ and in the Golden Calves of Dan and Bethel. Such mediatorial Worlhip as This, leaves very little Honour to the Medium : All is fuppofed to pafs thro', to the ultimate Objecl. Thus the Egyptians^ in worfhipping the facred Animals, fuppo- fed the worfhip to pafs to the Prototype^ to the Deity whereunto the Animals belonged. This, I prefumc, is not your Notion of mediatorial Worfhip: If it be, it is low indeed. There may be a fecond Senfe of making a Medium of worfhip: As, if we were to pray to Chriff, to pray for us. This is near akin to the Ro^mjlo Doc- trine of praying to Saints^ and Angels. If This be what you mean by mediatorial Worfhip, your Opi- pion of Chrift may ilill be very low, as of one B b 2 that 372 ^Second Defense Qu.XVL that gives us nothing Himfelf, but only afks Ano- ther to give us. But, befides that there is no war- rant for praying to any thing lefs than God^ and fo fuch a Pradife mull be wholly unjuftifiable 5 I con- ceive that This is not what you mean by mediatorial WorJJnp^ it being fo extremely low and difhonour- able to fuppofe that He can Himfelf do nothing for us, efpecially having declared the contrary, John xiv. 15, 14. There is a third Senfe of a Medium of Worfhip : As if we afk the Father any thing by, and thro' the Merits of Jefus Chrift, If This be what you mean by mediatorial Worfliip, I am afraid it will amount to no worfhip at all upon your Principles. You will not fay that ihQ fame M^orjhip is therein paid to Both : And unlefs you fay That, you leave no worfhip at all for God the Son, in fuch AddrefTes, or Applications. There may be a fourth Confideration of a Medium of worfliip, fuppofing Chrift to be d i redly wo rfhip- ped, but to the Glory of the Father : the Father be- ing imagined to be glorified thro' Chrift as thro' a Medium. Now here I muft afk. Whether the worfhip fuppofedtobe paid to ChriH be fup'eme^ or inferior? You will not fay fupreme : And if it be inferior^ it cannot be prefumed to pafs on to the fupreme Objtd:, who would not be honoured but affronted with infe- rior Worlliip. It muft therefore reft in the inferior Object, and fo cannot be called mediate^ but ultimate worfliip. I muft add, that no worfhip of a Creature can terminate in the Creator^ or be for his Glory ^ be- caufe He has abfolutely forbidden all Creature- wor- fhip : And therefore, again, fuch worfhip as we are now fuppofing cannot be mediate^ but ulti- mate^ terminating where it is offered. Indeed, the Scripture never makes any Difference be- tween direBing and terminating worfhip 5 but fuppofes it always to terminate in theOb]c61: to which it is di- reded, or offered. God interprets all Image-worfhip^ Qu. XVI. offome Q^ U E R I E S; 3 7 j or Creature-ivorjhip^ as terminating in the Image^ or €reature^ to which it is offered. When the Ifra- elites worlliipped the Calf, they offered Sacrifice to art Idol^ not to God J and They worjhipped the molten Image^ not God, in doing it 5 however They might intend^ and mean it (as They certainly did) for the Jehovah. They are faid to have forgat God their Sa^ viour, (Pfal. cvi. 21.) Notwithiianding their I^ten- tion to remember Him in it 3 becaufe it was not re- membring Him in a manner fuitable to his Com- mandment, which was to offer worfhip to God only. So alfo Jeroboam is faid to have made other Gods^ and to have call God behind his back^ (i Kings xiv. p. 2 Chr. xiii. 1 1 .) notwithiianding his Intention to ter^ minate all the worfhip in the true Jehovah. I may- add, that when St. Johri was preparing to offer worfhip to an Angel^ (whether out of a fudden Trans- port, or not then knowing that it was a meer Angel) no doubt but He defigned the Glory of God, and to terminate all worfhip there : And yet it is obfervable, that the Angel, notwithftanding, bad Him worflnp God'y intimatmg, that it is not worfhipping of Godj unlefs the worlhip be dire6tly offered to God. Dr. Clarke * has a Fancy, that the Idolatry of fuch as worfhipped the true God through Mediums of their own inventing, lay only in their making Idol-media^ tors., fuch as God had not allowed them to have. But This Notion is very peculiar, and has no Foun- dation in Scripture^ or Antiquity. To pay religious worlTiip to any thing is, in Scripture ftyle, making a God of it. This is true, even of what is called mediate^ or relative worfhip > as I have before in- llanced in the Cafe of the golden Cglf, and the Calves of Dan and Bethel. And Laban's Teraphims, or Images, which were fuppofed to be no more than * Clurke'i Script. Dodr. p. 344.. Ed. ^^. B b 5 'Symbols^ 3 74 y? Second Defense Qu. XVL Symbols^ ox Mediums of the Worlhlp of the Jebovab, (for Laban woi fliippcd, as fome believe, the true God *) are called Gods -\ > becaufe worfhip was offered direftly to them, inftead of being offered immediately to God. To make any Medium of worfhip was fet- ting up other Gods^ not other Mediators ; ftrange Gods^ not firange Mediators , it was robbing God^ not any Mediator^ of his Honour > and making an Idol-god^ not an Idol-mediator. The Idolaters are never charged with millaking the Medimn^ but miftaking iheObje^l'y not with having falfe Mediators, but falfe Gods'y not for worfliipping thofe that were not Mediators by Office^ but Thofe that by Nature were no Godsy for worfhipping the Creature^ not inftead of the Mediator^ but inftead of the Creator^ who is hleffed for ever. Such is the conftant Language both of Old and New Teilament, which never fix the Charge upon the fetting up falle Mediators^ or Mediums of worfhip > nor ever infert any Caution a'gainft it : So weak and groundlefs is the Do6i:or's Notion of Idol-mediators. What Then is the refult, you'll 'd,^\^^ of this Reafoning? Does not the worfhip of Chrift terminate in the Glory of God the Father? AdiTiit that it docs fo : Then certainly the worfhip of Chrift is xsozCreature-ivorjlnp. For, {ixict all wor- fhip terminates in the Objc6t to which it is directed, or offered, if the fame Ad of worfhip, offered to Chrift, terminates in God the Father 3 then the Cafe IS plain that it terminates in Both^ and Both are one undivided Object. Having confidered the feveral Senfes of a Medium of worfliip, and fhown that none of them will anfwer your purpofe. 1 come how, z. To confider the worfhip of Chrift under the Charafter of a Mediator^ and to fee whatSenfewecan * Gen. xxxi. 49, f?. f Cen. xxxi. 30. Jolh. xxlv. t. make Qu. XVI. of fame (QUERIES. 375 make of Mediatorial worfiip under That view. A Mediator may be confidered two ways, according to the Aiitients, a Mediator by Nature^ and Mediator by Office. The firft and principal Senfe of a Medi- ator (/jts(7/ry]r) between God and Man, is a Perfon partaldng of the Nature of Both, perfect God and perfect Mz;2. In This Senfe, principally, the antient Chriilians conftantly underftood Chrift to be a Me- diator. So Irenceus^ Melito^ Clemens^ Hippolytus^ TertuUian^ Cyprian^ Novatian^ and others of the An- te-nicencSy whofe Teilimonies I have placed in the Margin *. As to Poft-nicenes^ fince no doubt can be made of them, I content^ my felf with refcr- Iren. p. 211. Ed. Bened. ©£35 ysip av, ofjtjQ rs kxI kvB-^cJX'^ TtA£<(^, 0 ccvtoc, txc, Jc/o ee,VT\k ia-txq sTri^-aG-aro v.fjiAv. Melito, Cav. H. L. vol.2, p. 33. 0£O5 iv civB-^cdTTo), Ku] 6 ce,v^^07:(^ 3-£o$ . KXi TO ^i?[y}f/jX y 7rxrfio(; i truTA^ ^2 uv^^aTtuv. Clem. Alex, p. ijT. '^hx ^i oitp^^vi TO cwx^^poTi^ov iX^^ ^^ sccvtS ri[v rz roZ ^ioZ ^triotv iceCi Tijv e'I ocvB-^ojTrav, 6>5 kxI 6 A^of oA(^ Aiyjt, fA/ia-ir/iv B-iou »»l uvB-^a- ^UO. i^il oOv rev ;^iP<5"0l' B'iOU KCCt UV^^UTiCOV, fJUlG-kTYiV yiVOjJl/iyoV TtX^ CifJU' (poTi^uv x^^xfiavu, Tivx iiM and all the particular worjhips amount to no more than one worJJjip^ one divine worfhip be- longing equally to Both. Having thus far cleared my way, I may now pro- ceed to examine what you have done under This Query. But I fliould firfl obferve to the Reader, what you have not done\ that He may be the more fully apprized of your manner of Difputation : which is to anfwer Difficulties, by flipping them over without notice. I urged Qu.XVI. ^//m^ QUERIES. 379 1 urged the great Defign of the Law^ and of the Gofpel^ to exclude inferior^ as well as other fupreme Deities : You take no notice. I urged, that even Miracles could not fuffice for the introducing j^no- iher God: You are profoundly filent. I pleaded, that the Reafonso^ worfliip which God infifts upon, are fuch as exclude all Creatures : Not a Word do you give in anfwer. I fhowed, {p. 238.) that Any JMan, with your dilHn&ion o^ fovereign and inferior worfhip, might have eluded every Law about facri^ ficing to the true God only : You have nothing to (iiy to it. 1 pleaded the impropriety of ahfolute and relative Sacrifice*, Vows, Oaths, fs?^. Not a Syllable do you reply. I pleaded fcveral Texts of Scripture, and fever al Examples again ft Creature-worJJoip^ and againft your Diftinction made from the Intention of the worfhipper: x'\ll is pafs'd over. I farther prefled you with the Pra6tice and Principles of the primitive Alartyrs'y of which you take no Notice. You have indeed fomething to oppofe in favour of the other fide of theQueftion: But is it my Bufinefs only, to anfwer Objedions? I thought you had undertook to anfwer ^eries-y to clear fomething, and not to be always in the way of puzzling. But let us fee however what you have in the way of Obje6iiori, I have anfwered your two principal Picas already ; I am now to feek for fome of the {lighter Pretences. You find fault with me {p. ^fj.) for making the Nature of God, not the Per/on^ the objeft of wor- ♦ Sacrifice, without diftinftion of abfolute and relative, fupreme and inferior, the outward A(ft of facrificing, was always looked up- on as appropriate to God. Now, Frayen were of the fame import with Sacrifice, in the primitive Church, and cfteemed by Them as the pureft and beft Sacrifices. See Juft. Mart. Dial. p. 540. Jeb, Irenxus, 1. 4. c. 17. p. 249. Clem. Alex. p. 848. Tertull. ad Scap. c. 2, fe'p- $%o A Second Defense Qu.XVI. ' fhip. But, what \^ I make 1'hree Perfons the ob- je6b (which is the Truth of the Cafe) on account of their divine Nature? Is there any thing more abfurd in This, than in your making One Perfon^ 0:1 account of his Perfc6tions, that is of his Nature ? And where is the Difference between You and Me, but that you worfhip individual living Suhftance which You confine to One Per [on 5 and I, individual living Sub- fiance^ w^hich I fuppofe common to more Perfons? You the TO ^HO)) in one Perfon j 1 the to ^gTov in more than one ? You fay, the 'Texts of the Old 'Teflament relate not to an indefinite Perfon^ hut definitely to the Perfon of the -Father. Yet many of them (in the judgment of all Antiquity) relate to the Peifon of the Son, as we have feen before : And that none of them are ever meant indefinitely^ is what you can never prove *. However, if you could, you would Hill be far from proving your Point. For, fuppofing God^ or Jeho- 'vah^ to be always taken perfonally^ fometimes deno- ting the Perfon of the Son^ abflrading from the Con- iideration of the Father, and fometimes denoting the Perfon of the Father, abftracfting from the Con- fideration of the Son 5 it might (fill be neverthelefs Ifue that Jehovah is One, both Father and Son. ^'" You attempt, {p. 3(5o.) to prove that the worfhip of the Son \%fuh ordinate^ mediate^ relative. You quote Heh. i. (5. and infer that the Angels are to worfhip Him, not as fupreme^ hut hy the command of the Father, Wonderful ! that if the Father has ever commanded any one to worfliip Himfelf (as He often has) his wor- fhip therefore is not fuprefne. Has not our Saviour commanded us to worfhip the Father y is his worfliip therefore not fupreme? Sure, Arguments muff run very low with you, or you would not trifle at this rate. As to Heb. i. p. I have anfwered it above : And f See my Sermons, p. 1 44, &c. Qu.XVI. of fom (lU ERIE S. jSt as to John v. i^. Chrift is not worfhippcd becaufe God committed Jwdgmcnz to Him : But God commit- ted it to Him for this End and Purpofe, that Men might be ienfible of the Dignity ^nd Divinity of his Pciion, and thereupon worlTiip Him. The Prophecy o^ Daniel^ (Chap.vii. 13.J fpeaks o£ ^ Kingdom^ and 2i Dominion^ in a particular Scnfe j as i Cor. xv. fpeaks of a Kingdom to be received by the Father : This is all Oeconomical^ and makes nothing for your purpofe. But your Argument is calculated for the Socinian Hypothefis, rather than the Arian. Theantient Arians would have condemned fuch Men as you, for their low Thoughts of our Saviour. They did not worfhip Him meerly as having 2l Judgment^ or ^ Kingdom com- mitted to Him, but as being Creator *. You throw together, (p. 361, 362.) a multitude of Texts, pro- ving only that Chrift is Mediator. Does anyChrifti- an doubt of it? There is not a Syllable about ahfolute and relative^ fovereign and inferior Prayer: Which is what you was to fhow. A Mediator may be a divine Mediator notwithftanding : And fo all your Pretences vanifli into Air. And what if it be faid, {Rev. v. p, iz.) Worthy is the Lamb that was flain to receive Power^ and Riches^ and Wifdom^ and Strength^ and Honour^ and Glory : And if it be faid, unto Him that loved uSy and wafied us^ &c. he Glory and Dominion^ Rev. i. 5", 6. What are we to learn from thence ? Here is nothing faid of the Foundation of worfhip : But the Perfon is defcribed under his proper and peculiar Cha- ra6i:ers, and fuch as may recommend Him to our Af- feSlions. Not a word is there of Mediatorial wor- fhip, or of any Thing like it. And if his htmgGod^ or God fupreme^ be not afligned- as the Reafon for worfhipping Him, doth it therefore follow that He is not to be wor/hipped as God fupreme ? By the fame * Chriftum Colimus ut Creatorcm. Serm. Arian, ap.Auguftin. p. ^2^. Maximin. ap. Auguft. p, 663. Argument. ■ J $sz ^ Secon D Defense Qu.XVL Argument, you might as well prove that neither is the Father to be worihipped as Supreme God. We find it faid, (Eph. iii. lo, 21.) Unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ajk or think ^ according to the Po^juer that worketh in us-, unto Him be Glory in the Church by Chrift Jefus, (^c. The Reafon here afligned for worfhipping the Fa- ther, is not his ht\v\gjupreme Godj but only his being able to do more than we can ajk^ pr 'Think. So again in the Book of Revelations (Ch. xix. i, z.) Salva- tion^ and Glory^ and Honour^ and Power unto the Lord our God, for true and righteous are his Judg- ments^ &:c. Here the Reafon affigned is not his being fupreme God, but his being true and righteous. Again, in Chapter the iv^^, Verfe the ii^^\ Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive Glory, and Honour, and Power : For Thou haft created all Things, and for thy Pie afar e They are, and were created. Here the Rea- fon afligned for worfhipping the Father, is not that He is fupreme God, but that He created all Things for his Plea fare: Which Reafon, tho' not exprellly apphed in This manner to God the Son, is yrt equally applicable in Virtue o{ Heb.i. 10. and Col.'x. i5. I own that fupreme God is implied in this lafl Title of Creator : Wh ich however is equally true, either of Father or Son. I obferved in my Sermons^, how frequent it is for the Father Himlelf to infill upon what He had done for Men 5 claiming their Worfhip upon Thofe moving Reafons, or Motives: And what Won- der is it, if fome much greater, and more endearing Works of God the Son be mentioned as Motives to our WoriTiip of Him ? The Foundation ilill of Worfhip flands as before 3 which is wholly to be refolved into the infinite Excellency and Divinity of his Perfonf. You pretend to fay, that the WorflAp * Scrmonty p. 176, 177. t See the Preface to my Sermon^ p. 47, 48« 4- ■ "/ Qu. XVI. offome QJJ E R I E S. 385 of the Father is founded ^principally in his fupreme^ in-- dependent^ under ived Po^ujer^ 6cc. If you mean any Thing contrary to Me, you mean, on his Selfexijience^ or being unbegotten^ asdi{lin6t ^\om Neceffary-exijience. Show me one Text of Scripture for it, at your leifure. You do not pretend any : But you fpeak of all An' tiquity\ not knowing what you fay, nor whereof you affirm. You fliould have fhown me who, and what Antients ever founded his Worfhip in his hz" ingFather^ or unbegotten-, and not in his being God, After abundance of trifling, you come at length to make fome Reply to what I had urged from An^ tiquity ^ : Only you firfl: take notice of my charging you"f with flipping over a Difficulty,^ by putting Ho^ nour^ an ambiguous Word, inilcad of tVorjhip and Adoration. The Reafon I had for it, is, that IVor^ Jhip^ and Adoration Hand for exterior A^s-y whereas Honour may ftand for either interior or exterior^ and is therefore more ambiguous. Exterior A£bs have their Signification fixed and determined by Circum- ftances, and do not depend upon the Intention of the Mind to make their Signification /:?fg/^^r and lower ; as mental Honour does. This therefore was the Reafon of my blaming you for changing Worjhip into Ho^ nour. The Difference of thefe Two is eafily fcen in This Inftance; Equality^ or Fnequality of Honour are proper Expreflions : But Equality or Inequality of Sacrifice (an outward AEk) is very improper. Now, our Difpute was about outward A5ls. The Foundation I went upon was This ; that in order to .have God's Authority and fuperlative Excellency owned, there fhould be fome outward vifible AtlSj which we call tVorflnp,^ appropriated to God, to put a viftble Difference between God and the Creature. For, herein lies the Mamfeflation of that inward Senfe we have of his fuperlative Excellencies and * Bcfenfe, p. 248, ^c. t Defevfe, p. 237, 2/1, Pcrfedions 384 yf Second Defense Qu.XVI. Perfeftions : And the confounding This Difference, by applying thefe peculiar and appropriated A6i:s to any Creature^ is the great Sin of Idolatry. The in- ward Intention is of no Moment in this Cafe : For, if the outward Acts be the fame, how then fhall God be outwardly dillinguiihed (as He ought to be) in the Honours paid to Him, above the Creatures? This Confideration is alone fufficient to cut off every Plea and Pretence for offering Religious fVorJhip to any but God. You have firil a Dilfindion of Su- preme and Inferior^ of ultimate and mediate Worjhip: But That is utterly unferviceable, becaufe it would not fo much as exclude the Worlliip even of Pagan Deities (if confidered as inferior) along with the true God. You may next fay, that Worfhip fhould not be paid to any inferior Gods that ftand in OppO" Jit ion to the true and fupreme God : And yet nei- ther will This Reitri6lion fufficiently anfwer the Purpofe> fince it does not exclude the Worfhip of Saint s.^ or Angels , Friends of God, and not oppofite to Him. You may retreat to a farther Reftriftion, that even inferior religious Worlhip muft be paid to none but fuch as God has nominated^ and allowed to be worfhipped: Which, you may think, will effec- tually exclude all but Chrift. But after you have thus far followed your own Inventions, in your fe- veral Reftri6bions, and Qualifyings of an ahfolute Command j there is ftillthis invincible Reafon againft them all, that, whereas there ought to be fome pe- culiar outward Acts (as Sacrifice was formerly) appro- priated to God^ as exterior Acknowledgments of his infinite Excellencies and Perfections above his Crea- tures-y by thefe Reftricirions and Limitations, all fuch P^f«//^r;V;' of exterior Acknowledgments is taken away, and it is made impolUble even for God Himfelf to prefcribe any. Now you fee why I found Faulty and that I had fome Reafon for it. But you afk me, ivhy then did I found Cbrifis TVorJl)ip upon John f . 23. which fpeaks only of Honour? The Reafon is plain : Qu. XVI. offome Q^U E R I E S. 3 S 5 plain : If I am to honour the Son^ ez'en as 1 honour ths Father y 1 muil; fignify it by the fame outward Expreffions, that is by J4^orfl)if. The Text then is very much to my Purpofej tho' Honour and TVor- Jhip are not the fame Thing, but differing as the internal 7'hought and the outivard Manifefration. Now let us come to the Antients^ upon This Head of Worjhip. I fhowed, by plain Teftimonies, what their Doc- trine was> mz.. to worfliip God alone^ the Creator^ in Oppoiition to the Creature. You take no No- tice of the lad Particular j becaufe it was very ma- terial^ and preffed hard upon your Scheme. But you obferve, by the alone God is evidently meant 'The God and Father of all. I am perfuaded you, in the main, are right in your Obfervation : And now theQuellion will be, whether when They propofed the Father as the only God^ they intended it in Oppoiition only 10 falCs Gods, and Creature-Godsj ^idmiizing a Latitude in the exdujtve Terms 5 or whether They intended any Di- ftindlion of IVorjhip^ making it fnpreme and inferior^ ahfolute and relative^ ultimate and mediate. This is a Queftion which will admit of an eafy, and a certain Decifion, upon a due Confideration of Circum- flances. There are but two Ways of making This Matter out : Either by admitting fome Latitude in the exclufive Terms^ fo that the Father fhall be un- derftood to be the only God in Oppofition to Crea^ tures and falfe Gods : Or by admitting fome Dillinc- tion and Degrees of Worfhip, that fupreme Wor- fhip may be due to the Father as the highed God, and inferior to the Son as an inferior Deity. Now This, 1 fiy, will be eafily decided. L^, when the Antients fpeak of worfhipping one God^ the Father, They either fay, that He alone is to ht Sovereignly^ or ahfolutely worfhipped 3 Or if They found his Title to worfhip upon his being Father^ or unhegotten^ rather than upon his being God\ Oi if They admit any in- ferior Gody or Any other God belldes the Father; C c - then 3S6 yf SeCON D De FE NSE Qu. XVI. then you will have fomething to plead from ihcAn" tients for your Opinion. But, on the other Hand, if They never mention two Worjhips^ or fwo Gods; if They mean, when They fpeak of Worihip as due to God alone ^ not foverelgn Worfliip only, but all r^//^/^/^J Woiihip J it 1 hey fuppofe the Son not to be another God^ but one God with the Father y and if They intimate their Intention to be to ex- clude Creatures^ or falfe Gods^ not God the Son-, then the Cafe will be manifeft, that They ufed the exclufive 'ferms^ not with utmoft Sriftnefs, but with a proper Latitude •, and This will be the true Way of interpreting the Antients. That This latter is really the Cafe, is evident to every Man that is at all converfant with the Antients: And He that thinks otherwife mufl either never have read them, or have read them with very little Judgment. Their Way was to fpeak of the One God in Oppofition to all falfe Deities 5 and by the One God They meant principally the Father^ as firji in Conception, and ftrji in Order*, but always with a Referve for the Son and Holy-Ghoft^ reckoned to Him, and included in Him : So that the Father confidered with what naturally be- longed to Him, was the One God of the Chriftians in Oppofition to all Other Deities. This is fo clearly and fo evidently the current and prevailing Notion of the Antients, that I fcruple not to fay, that They who fee not This, fee nothing. I {hall briefly confider the Teftimonies I before gave, and then conclude This Article. Juftin Martyr fays, God alone is to be worJJoip- fed *. He does not fay fovereignly^ or abfolutely^ but barely worfiipped : Neither does He fay, wor- fhip Him alone as fupreme God, to infinuate any /»- ferior God: And therefore it is evident that Juflin * ©jfiy (JL>iv fAivov TT^OTKu'^yiif, Apol. I. C, 23. T^ ^m f/liirov ^« If^QCKVmU C, 2 I. was Qu. XVI. cffome Q^U E R I E S. j S 7 was not in your Scheme of tivo Goch^ and two IVor- JJjips^ but in mine of one God and one IForJhip; con- fidering the Father primarily as the one God^ not cx- clufive of the Son. Jtbcnagoras\\\ lays the Strcfs upon worfhipping the Creator^ in Oppofition to Creatures: So that it is plain He was in my Principles, not yours: Be(]des that He (^lys nothing o^ fovereign and inferior Worlliip. 7'heopbilus* fpeaks of IVorJljip fimply, not fove- reign Worfhip, as due to God alone : And the Reafon He gives why the King is not to be woifhippcd is not becaufe he is not underived^ or unhegotten^ but becaufe he is not God. ^atian\ denies IVorjhip (not fovereign Worlhip only) to the Creatures. TertulUanX is exprefs againft any inferior Worfhip, any IVorfJoip at all but to the oyie God •, in which one God^ as every Body knows. He includes all the three Perfons. Clemens Alexandrinns\\ has not a Word that looks favorable to the Diil:m61:ion of Supreme and inferior Worfhip j but He confines all Worlliip to the Creator^ excluding all Creatures from it, making no Medium between Creator and Creature. Ill Ov tStov, uX?uc rot ri^virm oiCiS 'j^otrKWYtTioi. Athen. p. f^. 74». p. 5*6. • Aiu Ti a 7r^')(rx.vvi ", tov hxciAici^ or* hk hc, to 7r^onioJxi ytyont -'^''-C ^ oox. £f'v, ci^X'ot 'uv^fiuroit^£ov^ ^iu. Thcoph. p. 35. ^ A/if/jigify'Uy Ty,v ItTs* ((■■JT^ yiyiVKUjivriv ^^^iy iitAOiv Tifucxvvliv o-j ^kXco, Tatian. p. 18. (nmn at Tm <^oi-^^i,uit r-f.v v^o^cio-iv ar' otv ■^nd^uiiv, &c. p. 79- 4: Quod colimus Deus unus ert:. Tertull. Apol. c. 17. Prxfcri- b.itur mihi nc quem Aliutn Deum dicam, ne qucm uilium adorem, aut quoquo Modo venerer, prxter unicum ilium qui ita nijiidat. Scor- piace. c 4. confer Prax.c. 5 i. Orar. c. 2. ctpn notis Albafpina:!, 1) Sec the Palfages in my Dcfenfe, p. 249. Comp. p. 2/7. 4 ." Q cz Irenaus 588 A Second Defense Qa.XVi. Iren£us ^ fpeaks of adoring or worjhippng-y but not a word of Sovereign^ or abfolute Adoration : And it is reafon fufficient with Him againft the worfliip of Any thing,- that it is a Creature : which you take no notice of. Origen \ alfo is exprcfs agauift the worfhip of any Creature -y which you obferve not, tho' before hinted. Neither does He fpeak o'i fupreme worfhip, but all worfliip, when He confines it to the Creator^ to x\iz divine ISfature^ to 3^sTov, to the eternal and ««- created Nature of God. You pretend, that to ^uo'* is a figurative way of fpeaking for 6 d^so?, hke the Kin^s Majefty for The King^ p. 3f(5. But I affirm, on the contrary, (which is fufficient againft your bare Affirmation) that it generally, if not always, figni- fies the divine Nature^ ox Subftance \^ confidered as the Subject of divine Perfe6lions. As to Origen in particular, in his Piece againft Celjus^ I know not that He any where ufes the Phrafe of to ^sTcjy, but where it either muft, of may bear the Senfe I contend for. See p. i f 8, i f p, zi6, 311, 374, 375-, 376, 377, jpi. And, I think, if what Origen has in Page 342, be well confidered, it may fuffice to determine the Difpute about the S^n^Q of Tc ^^sTov in Him. For there He plainly ufes * Dominum Deum tuum adorare oportet & ipfi foli fervfre, & non credere ei qui falfo promifit ea qux non funt fua ; H£c omnia tlbi dabo, fi procidetis adoraveris me. Neque enim Cond'tio fub ejus Poteftate eft, quandoquidem &; ipfe unus de creaturit eft. Iren. p. 320. \ See the Tajfa^es collecied in my Defenfe, p. 25-0, 25-1. ^ The Reader may fee feveral plain Examples in Gregory Nyjf, contr. Euncm. It is not worth the v/hile to fearch or cite many Authorities for a known Thing, which no body conversant in the Creek Fathers can doubt of. Greg. NyJf. p. 89, 92, 93, 145-, 147, i5i, \6i, i6j, i66y 167, 168, 179, 180, 181, 191, 203, 264, 281, 291, 294, 301, 302, 303, 319, 327, 329, 411, 427. —-448, 4JI, 4j-^ 4f7» 471. tJ Qu. XVI. offome (QUERIES. 389 Ti ^ito-^ to denote That which is dro'ine in our Lord, (as diilingiiiihed from his human Nature) mx. The Only-begottm of God-, intimating that his Subjlafice is very dilTerent in that refped : "AXX©* 0 -ar^^i nira, 3^ Ti]^ i^Jia^ aurS^ Xcy©' hly -nra^d tov -gti^i t» vo»/-t«v« xara tov Inc^v av^e^'-ora. AnU He afterwards gives the Name of t« 3^e/«, to That very Dh'inity^ or divine Nature, which He fuppofes in our Lord toge- ther with ihc Manhood^. The like may befaid o£ Clemens' s ufe of thePhrafe, who Ukewife includes the Son in the to ^j7cv "j", as obferved above §. Other Places i of Clemens^ where the Phrafe is alfo ufed, may be compared at leifurc. To ^iiov^ and 0 ^ic^ may fometimes indifferently Hand for each other : But a judicious Reader may often obferve to ^uov to be ufed where 6 ^ioc would be very improper, and fo vice 'verfa. God confidered fiih(layitially^ as Res divina^ is the proper Notion of TO -^sTov, and not conlidered according to perfonal Charafteis, Afts, or Offices. It would be improper to lay, for inftance, that the 70 ^sTsv begat ^ or fent his Son, or did A6t:s of Mercy ^ or the like. I need not give morelnftances: An intelligent Reader v;ill eafily perceive, from the C i re um fiances, where to S^sTov is the more proper Phrafe, and where ^i^f. To return to Origen. You tranliare dymrcv (f.ujrv in Origen]]^ moriginate Nature^ in Head of uncreated Nature: Which is the conflant Senfe of dymro-j in That Treatife of Or/^^;;, oppofed to yjvy.To;, a Name for created^ mutable^ and perijhing Things. You have nolnflancein all Catho- r< iv a.jr.0 * Tot TTfpi TOV I»;0*2y T«;vy^ y,cfJ^o fASt viitYtTcti ^ik,t/,7l fff«;^9-/yT«, iV»v oa-iU^y )cou b [AC'i'^ofj^ivx r'^ zi^i tZ ^u'^ moi^t, Orig, p. g42. f Clem, Alex. p. 45- 2. § ^aery VI 11. 4: Clem. Alex. p. 5-0, ^1, 5-8, 113, 704, 7 78, 82^, 2^6, 84 Jl, 845-, 848. Ij Orig. contr. Cclf. p. 189. C c J lick 196 ^ Second Defen SE Qu. XVII. lick Antiquity where Worfhip is put upon the unde^ ri'vednefs oF the Father, any farther than as it implies Necejjary-exijleme : Nor a lingle Example to prove a Dilbnftion of iCwo njuorjloips^ one fupreme^ and the other inferior. Some Pretences of yours relating hereto will be examined in the next §uery. Query XVII. Whether J not'withftanding, Worjhip and Adora- tion be not equally due to Chrtji ; and confe- quently, whether it mtiji not follow that He is the One God, and not [as the Avhns fuj)- fofe) a dijtin£l inferior Being ? YOU here begin with repeating your Argument from the perfonal Chara^lers, /, 'Thou^ He : Which has been often anfwcred. You go on, (p. 568.) to argue for A/f^/ti/^ worfhip, becaufc the wor- ihip of the Son is to the Glory of the Father. I might here infill upon it (as an ingenious Gentleman * hath lately done ) that the Words, xu^i©' Iyj^^ X^i?oj £1? cJ^'o^av ^'zS -TTdr^o^^ may be jullly renJred, ^je Lord Jejtis Chrifi is (or Jefus Cbrift is Lord) in the Glory of God the Father : Which rendring, agree- able to the Italick^ and feme other Verfions, would intirely defeat your Argument. Bur, allowing the common Condrudion, and that the worfhip of God the Son terminates in God the Father j flill it is ma- nifell, for that very Reafon, that it is not an inferior worfhip, becaufe then it could not terminate in the Father, being unworthy of Him. Nor indeed can any AQc of worihip extend to Both^ unlefs Both * Mr. WzSe's Jhort Inquiry h.to the Vocirtne of the Trinity, /•• f f« N. B. Cyprian, Novatian, Hilary, «« as if worfhipping the divine Subftance as perfonalized in the Father, were not the fame thing with worfhipping the Father's Perfon. Pray, what is the Perfon of the Father but living, ading, intelligent Subftance ? Do you mean, by intelligent jigent^ intelligent and ading Nothing ? All worjhipj you fay, isperfonal: And 1 fay every Perfon is Sub- ftance : therefore worfhip may as well be called y^^- ftantial^ TLSperfonal^ amounting, in this Cafe, to the fame Thing. And if worlhip be paid to Three Perfons^ is it not truly perfonal^ as well as when paid to one ? Your Quotation from Bp. Pearfon is nothing to the Point in hand, but wide and foreign as pofHble. I had obferved, in my Defenfe^ that you had many things to fiy, in hopes to leflen the Honour attributed to the Son in Scripture. Upon This, you gofolemnly to Prayers : I pray God forgive you the Injury you here do me. I thank you for your charitable Prayer, if really fuch. But had you put it up from you Clofet^ inflead of fending it from ihtPrefs -y there would have been lefs Sufpicion either of Jffe&ation^ or Malice in it. As keen a Satyr^ and as bitter a Revenge may appear in the iTiape of a Prayer^ as in Any other Form. The great Injury^ it feems, lies only in the word Hopes j an ExpreUion perhaps not fo exaftly proper, or accu- rate : A candid Conilruftion of it, would have been a much furer Token of a forgiving^ and charitable Temper, than this unufual fally of Devotion thrown out upon fo flight anOccafion. But let us pafs on. You tell me, {p. 371.) of building my Notion of re- ligious worfhip upon Metaphyftcal fpeculations : Which is doing me a great Injury, and laying your own C c 4 Faults 3p2 A Second Defense Qu.XVII. Faults to my charge. I build my Notion upon plain Scripture^ the univeiTal fuffrage of Antiquity, (till the Time that praying to^W«^i,and Angels came in) and upon the Principles and Practices of the Jews before Chriftj who always looked upon Creature- ijuorjjoip as Idolatry. You build your dijjent to fuch a cloud of Witncfles upon nothing, that I can yet perceive, but fomeil/^M/Z^j/y^^^/ Speculations about Self'cxijience^ Generation being AVt^ A6ls being all Afe of the Will^ necellary Generation being Coa^tion^ and the like. And when, in the ftrength of thefe Speculations, you have difcarded God the Son from the one Godhead-^ then you have recourfe to fuch Principles! as Pagans firfl, and Papifts iincc^ have made ufe of in favour of Idolatry^ to bring in the worJJ:ip of the Son, at a Back-door j inflead of fix- ing it where Scripture^ and Antiquity^ and all fober Chriftians have ever fixed it. You afk me, if I '/eally think that the mwrjhip of the Father does as much terminate finally in the Son^ as the "worjhip of the Son terminates finally in the Father? But let me ait you 'y Do you really think that any Great ure-ivorfhip^ any inferior worfnip terminates in the Father ? I have Ihown you that it docs not, and cannot. Your own Argument therefore turns upon yourfelf Either the fuppofed inferior worfhip terminates in the Son, and then it is ultimate > or it terminates in the Father, and \.\itx\\i\%fupreme: Chufe which you pleafe. I fay, what 1 take to be Senfe and Truth, that it ter- minates in the divine Nature^ confidered primarily in the Father, and derivativ'ely in the Son : And now all is right. You afk, if the Son's glorifying the Father means the very fame Thing with the Father's glori^ fying the Son ? Yes, the very fame Thing : How can you doubt of it, when you read John xvii. i . And as to PhiL ii.p. J queftion not its meaning being the very fame. I allowed, that Prayers are generally to be offered rather through^ than to the Son, becaufe of his being I\fiediator. You afk, how This is confiflent with the allowing Qu. XVII. offome QUERIES. 39 J allowing no diftinftion of mediate^ and ultimate vjov- fhip? You fliould have fhown how it is inconfiflent : But you chufe rather to amufe your Reader with Words^ where you give Him no diftin6t Idaas. Ei- ther the Son is not worfhipped in This Cafe, or He is worfhipped : If He is not, there is no mediate wor- fjiipi if He v^^ then in worfhipping the Father thro' Him^his Divinity^ and ejjential Union with the Father fwhich alone can render our fervices accepted, and unite us to God) are at the fame Time acknowledged. And fo the worfhip of Both is One^ being an Ac- knowledgment of the fame diz'ine Excellencies under a diftin6lion of Perfons^ and Offices. Where do you find two different V which fcarce carries the Face of an Ob- jeftion. For, why may not the Father, who, ac^ eording to his good pleafure^ makes known Himfelf^ and demands worihip to Himfelf^ do the like for his Son ? Hitherto the Point in difpute is clearly determined on my fide, by Antiquity. Origen's Principles appear more difputable : But when He is rightly underftood, He will be alfo an Advocate on the fame fide. 1 fhall firft lay down the Arguments on my fide, and vin- dicate the fame from your Exceptions : And then ihall confider what Counter-evidence you have pretended out of Him. 1 . In the firft place, Origen declares fully againft the worfliip of all Creatures \ whatever j clearly dil- tinguifhing the Son from the Creatures. This you fay nothing to. 2. The Reafons which Origen founds worfhip on, are applicable to the Son, as well as to the Father. The uncreated Nature^ dyinT& (puVir, is adorable as * Pag. 94- t Qi^i igitur a Prophetis adorabatur Dcus vivus ; Hie eft vivo- nim Deus & Verbum ejus, qui & loquutus eft Moyfi, Sec— -^ Ipfe igitur Chriftus cum Patre vivoriiin eft Deus qui loquutus efj Moyfi, Sec. p. 152. ^ bee mf Dcfenie, p. 2^0, 25-8 ■ fuch : <^u. XVII. cffome QV E R I E S. 397 fuch : But fuch is the Nature of God the Son : I have proved above, that He makes the Son ctytv^iT©'. The (^fi^xia^yo? rS Travrof, creator of the Umverfe is adorable as fuch : But fuch alfo is the Son. To this you objed, (/>. j8o.) that the Father is pri- marily Creator (fo you ought to have rendred Trpw- TWf c/^yi/juy^yov, and not primary Maker) the Son only immediate Maker, at the Father's command. But a difference in Order^ or Manner^ makes no difference in the Thing itfelf : Or if there be Any, the Son i% more properly Creator than the Father, according to the flriftncfs of the Expreflion in Origen. Origen's Do<5trine is, that He who made all Things is adorable^ as fuch : And He alTerts expreflly, thaC the Son made all Things^ the very Words*. To which you again objcd, that He made them at the Command of the Father : which I allow in fuch Senic as the Antients meant it, explained above. But the Point o^worfJnp is not put upon the -primary manner of making, nor \y^o\M\\t commanding to make, by Origen^ but upon the making : fo that in This refpeci there is no difference. 3. 1 farther pleaded Origen's fuppofing the Son to be ivorJJjipped^ becaufe God\. And I have above pro- ved :j:, that He is to be worfhipped as One God with the Father ; Therefore their worfhip is one^ not two worjhips^ fupreme, and inferior. 4. I pleaded, laftly, that the worfliip of Father and Son is infeparahly^ and undividedly one, accord- ing to Origen. His Words are : " Now He has '' afcended to the God of the Univerfe, who undi- '' I'idedly^ infeparahly^ unpartedly worfhips Him '' through the Son, the IVord and Wifdom of God, * Set nty Defenfe, p. 25-9. f Origen. contr. Cclf. p. 45, t Pag. 6p, I op. « feen 39S ^ Second Defense Qu.XVII. " feen in Jefus^ who alone brings Thofe to Him *' that i^c. *" You was fenfible how ftrong this Paillige was a- gainft your Piinciples j and therefore endeavoured to pervert the Senfe, by foilling in a Word into your Tranflation. You fay, iv'ith an undivided^ undiftraEied^ unparted Affection. Where do you meet with Af- fe^ion ? Or how came it in here, where the Author is not talking of the undiftraUednefs of our Affe^li- ons^ but the undivided worfiip of Father and Son ? He is commenting on i Cor. viii. 6. where it is faid, one God of whom are all things^ and aUb one Lord by^ or through whom are all things : And This made Him bring in the Difcourfe of worfhipping one by the other infeparahly. What follows in that Sentence, farther lliows, that This muftbe his meaning; where He obferves, that it is the Son only, who is the very Word and Wifdom of God (well therefore may He be undivided from God) that brings Men to God. This then may fliow you what worfhipping the Father through the Son means in Origen: it is di- reding the worfhip to the Father j but fo as to look upon the Son as infeparably worfliipped in the fame A61. I illuilrated the Thought by a parallel place of the elder Cyrillf^ which you take no notice of ♦ 'Avci'citviKi ^£ TTpc? Toy sTTi TrociTi B-soy, 0 oCG-XiTati Kxl u^idifireeKi, kxI Vi(pUc, h TM I}3(ra Bia^nfjuivny Scc. Orig. contr. Celf p. 381. •J- MsjTE OM TO Tif/joiv ray TTXTi^ei yo(/ji^uv, iv Ti ray c-Af/j^soyvif/juruv rcy liov i:ro7rri'J(rcii>f^/iVy ocXh! iU ^scr^a Jl' »va? t/t» TT^atrKvysi^rB-eo, Kcti f/jn fji,i^i^i(rB-M i; Tr^oa-Kvvwii. Cyrill. Catech. 11. p. 143. Ox. MiU y«() £5" and That being obfcure, and of doubtful meaning, ought never to be fet again ft many^ and plain ones, but rather to be interpreted by Them. I gave a fufficient An- fwer to it before, producing the PalTage in the Mar- gin. You tell me that, for a 'very good Reafon^ I thought not fit to tranflate it, I muft own, I do not love to abound in Tranflations, only to fwell Pages 5 while I fuppofe my fclf writing more for the uS of Scholars^ than for the Populace^ who are fcarce com- petent Judges of our Difputes about Antiquity. I perceive, you are very full of 'Tranflations^ out of Eufebius efpeciallyj as if you intended Show more than Any thing elfe ; For, They are of no more real Weight, than if I were to tranflate as much out of Alexander^ Athanafius^ or Cyrill the elder, and throw it before the Readers. But This by the way. I return to Origen. The Paflagc, juftly and literally rendred, runs thus : " All Supplication^ and Prayer^ *^ and Interceffion.^ and Thank/giving^ are to be ifent '' up to the God over all, by the High-Pricft, who " is above all Angels, being the living M^ord^ and " God. And we may alfo offer Supplication to the '' JVord Himfelf, and Interceflion, and Thankfgiving, *' and Prayer j if we can but underftand how Prayer '' is taken in propriety of Speech^ or in an improper '' Scnfe *. UvXTtf/zlTrtOf TW STt TToitrt B-i^f OiOC ^ iTvl 7TUVTU1 OCyyiXuv UD^ti^ifOC,, Iji/- "^uxa Mya Ksc] S-S5W • ^/itrof/fiB-x ds kuI uurou ^ Xoy^t ^oti lynv^oyji^et rvic, TTs^l '^z^oa-ivx^t; xv(iioM%iuq, KCtl Kxret^viTiUi ' Orlg. COQtr, Celjf. 1. jf, p. 133. Vift. Bull D. F. Sea. i. c, 9. c. iii. Bingham Origin, Eel. 1. 13, c. a. p. 4/, 8cc. What 400 yf Second Defense Qu.XVII. What I gather from This PafTage, is, that Prayer in the moil proper Senfe, is to be underftood of Pray- er direded immediately to the Father. This has been the mod ufual and common Method of Pray- ing: Wherefore this kind of Praying has obtained generally the Name of Prayer^ and is what the Word Prayer has been ordinarily ufed to mean. Origen does not fay, that the Prayers^ Supplications^ Inter cejfions^ and i'hankfgi'uings^ offered to God the Son, are none of them properly fo called j but He makes his Remark upon Prayer only : And He does not fay, that even Prayer^ when direfted to God the Son, is not proper divine Worjhip^ or that it is Ano- ther worihip, or an inferior worfhip : Nor can any fuch Confequence be juftly drawn from his Words. All that we are obliged to grant, in virtue of This PafTage, is that one part of divine Worfhip called Prayer^ is mod properly and emphatically Prayer^ when dire^ed to the firft Per/on of the God- head 5 in as much as That Method of praying has been moflcuftomary and prevailing, and has thereby, in a manner, engrofTed the Name of Prayer to it felf : Juft as Addrejfes^ by being mod commonly offered to a Prince, come at length, by ufe, to mean Addreffes of That kind only 5 and then Addreffes to others are not fo properly 'Addreffes. Prayer then, properly, or emphatically fpeaking, is praying to the Father, to whom all Prayer primarily belongs. Allowing This to beOrigen's meaning (and it is the very utmofl that can be made of it) how will you ^xowe fupr erne and inferior Worfhip from it ? I have before obl'erved, that the worfhip of the Son, according to Origen^ is ^vo^er\y divine -y being offered to Him as Creator^ and as Neceffarily-exijiingj and as God: And I obferved alfo, that Father and Son to- gether are worfhipped as One God. I obferved farther, that even in Prayers dire6ted to the Father through the Son^ the Son is fuppofed, by Origen^ to be worfhip- ped undividedly in the fame A5i. How then do you make Qu. XVII. effime Q_U E R I E S. 401 make out your 'Two worJJjips ? Suppofe the Prayer to pafs through^ or by the Son to the Father 5 IHII it is one Prayer^ one IVorjJnf^ confidered as belong- ing to Both in a different manner. For, as the one Work of creating delcends, as it were, from the Fa- ther by the Son> who are therefore One Creators So the one "worjloip afcends, as it were, by :he Son to the Father j who are therefore 0«^ Object of worfhip. You lliould have proved two unequal worfhips: But you have proved no more than This, that one und the fame worJJnp^ diverfly confidered, is paid to Both, in the very fame Ad : To the Father direftly, as being primarily and eminently Creator, God, i^c. and fu^ freme in Order and Office 3 to the Son obUquely, or interpretatively, as being equally God, Creator, fjfr. but God of God^^ and mediating between God and Man. There is therefore no Difference in the wor- ship it felf, no fuperiority or inferiority^ no Acknow- ledgment of higher and lower Perfe6lions : But the fame worfhip, the fame acknowledgments of the fame infinite Perfe6t:ions^ admit of a different manner of Application, to keep up a Senfe of the Diftin6lion of Perfons^ Order, and Offices. You reprefent Bp. Bull (p. 385.) as making a Diflinftion o^ one worfJnp'^dAdi to the Son asGoaabfo- lutely, and Another worfhip paid to Him as God of God'^. This is not a juft Reprefentation of Bp.^«//, as if He admitted one^ and another worfhip, Two worfJjtps^ to God the Son •, when He makes but one worfjjip of all, due to Father and Son. This, I fuppofe, was to give fome Colour to your own Hy- pothefis, Bp. Bull's meaning is plainly This > that the Son is confidered as divine whenever we worlliip Him i and that That alone is the Foundation of his worihip f . But we may conlider Him barely as divine^ ■ - ♦ Vid, Bull D. F. Seft. 2. c. 9. S. i;-. p. 120. t Vid. Bull Prim. Trad. p. 36. W- fi. The Defign of This Piece of Bp, P«//, is to prove that D d thf 402 A Second Defense Qu.XVIL divine^ abflradting from all relations of Order^ and Office, or divine infuch znOrder^ or together with the Office of Mediator. The divine PForpip is the iame^ under thefe Three Conceptions^ becaufe divine enters them all : But the additional Confideration of Order^ and Office^ in the two laft, makes a Difference, not in the worjhip it felf^ but in the Order^ and man- ner of applying it. You proceed to cite another Pafiage of Origen % where arguing, ad Hominem (as the Schools call it) He pleads a command for the worihip of Chrift, a- gainft Celjiis \ who could plead no command for the worfhip of the Pagan Deities. This was indeed fhowing a very great Difference in the Two Cafes, fuch as was worth iniifting upon: But it does not from hence follow, (the contrary is very evident) that Origen ever founded the worfhip of Chrill upon meer command^ w^ithout reference to the Dignity and real Divinity of his Perfon. What you iarther cite from the Piece 7r?^r su;:^??, whether Origen s own, or foifted in by fome other Hand, is of no moment in the Cafe, being clearly contradidted in his Treatife againfl: Celfus^ which is certainly genuine^ and con- tains Origen's lail and maturefl Thoughts upon the Subje6b. Do you ever find Origen placing the Son among the ysvy)T^ in his Book againil Celjus? Doth He not conttantly diftinguifli Him from Them, and fet Him above Them, making Him aysv^r©', as I have proved ? Or does He ever deny that Chrill is to be pniyed to at all> as This Author of the Piece TTsgi vjxf>^ does ? No, but He frequently, plainly, and fuiiy ailcrts the contrary. the worfliip paid to Chrift is properly divine, and not merely Me- diitorial. From whence iet the Reader jud^^e with what Truth, or fiiirnefi, you reprefent 'Q^.BulL as differing from mc, in the allow- ing MeiiiatDval vporfiip, p. 120. * Orig. contr. Celf. p. 384. Wbafi Qu. XVir. offome Q\J E R I E S. 403 What you add, [p. 1^6 ) about Doxologies^ is low and triflmgi elpecially afrer That Matter has been fo carefully and accurately dilcufTed by learned Hands. And your quoting x.ht\y\x\gPhiloftorgius in a Matter of Fad of Flavian\mx.voducm2, a nev' kind of Doxology, which He reports againil the Faith of all Hiftory % is a great AfFront upon your Readers. I might quote you a better Authority than Philo- ftorgius^ namely, Theodorit\^ to prove that yfr//^j m- troduced a change of the aiitient Doxologies. But learned Men know that neither of Thofe Accounts is true: but that Doxologies of Both forts were in ufe long before either Flavian on one fide, or Arius on the other. You go on to other Writers, endeavouring to prove, as you fay, mediate and ultimate worfhip : That is your Phrafe now, inflead of inferior zndfu' preme-y becaufe you imagine the Reader may more eafily be deceived under Thofe Terms, than under Thefe. For if the Father be but worihipped through Chriil 'y prefently you cry out mediate worfhip 5 tho' it be all one divine worfhip, not Two : And either the Son is not worihipped at all, in fuch a Cafe j or, if He is, the fame worfhip is then offered to Bcth^ The nature of the Worihip is not altered by the manner of Conveyance s any more than a prefent of Gold^ made to Two Perfons, becomes Brafs to one, and Gold to the other, only by being conveyed thro' one to the other. You will never be able to prove any Difference in the nature, or kind of the Worfliip, meerly from the Oeconomical manner of applying it. You begin with the Jpoftolical Conftitutions, which you know are of no Authority : 'And fo I fhall not trouble my felf to (how, that the Padages, were they really genuine, are nothing to your purpofe. You go on to Polycarp > who glorifies God through * lU Bull D. F. Sea. i. c. 3. p. /i. t Theod. H^ret, Fab. 1. 4. c, i. I D A I Chriit. 404 ;^ Second Defense Qu.XVIL Chrift. Cyprian fays, that the Father commanded his Son to he worjhipped : Therefore his worfhip : is medi- ate. Wonderful ! Novatian fays, if Chrill be a Man only, why is He invoked '^iS Mediator ? Therefore again his worjQiip is mediate. You did not confider Novatian's Notion of a Mediator^ that He muft be both God and Man: And fo you loft the whole Force of his Ar- gument 3 which was to prove the Son to be God from the Invocation^ and not Man only, as fome He- reticks pretended. What you cite from La6lantius^ I have anfwered above : Or, if I had not, you muft be fenfible that very little Strefs ought to be laid, upon a few un- cautious Expreffions of a Catechumen^ not yet per- fectly inftrudled in the Do&rines of the Church, which was the Cafe of La^antius. He had, how- ever, learned fo much of the Church's Doctrine, as to determine diredly againft you in the prefent Queftionj where He fays, one Honour belongs to Both as to one Gody and that their worfhip is infe- parable *. As to Eufehitis^ your laft Evidence, tho' I build little upon fo late, and fo fufpe<5ted an Authority^ (which, as I have often hinted, you ought no more to urge againft me, than I to urge Alexander^ Cyril^ Athanafius^ or Hilary^ againft you) yet neither had He any fuch mean Thoughts of God the Son, as you have: Nor did He found his worjhip upon any fuch low Principles > wiiich I have fhown above. He is, however, the firft you could find, among fuch as have been ever called Catholicks^ who pretended to fay, that Father and Son are not laoTiixeij the firft that durft ever flatly contradid St. John^ (ar rariier our Saviour Himfelf by St. John) where He fays. * Ufjus eft Honoi utriquc tribuendus tanquam uni Deo : 5c ita divi- dendus eft per duos, cultus, ut divilio ipfa Compage infeparabilt Vin- clatur. Ncutrum fibi relinquet, qui aut Patrem a Filio, aut Filium a Patre Secernit. Lad. Epit. c.49. p. 141. Ed. Cant. that Qu. XVIII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 405 that all Afen Jhould honour the Son even as they ho' nour the Father^ John v. 23. I conclude with the fame Declaration I formerly made, that " I defire '' only to have Things fairly reprefentedj as They '' really are •, no Evidence Imothered, or llifled, on ^ either fide. Let every Reader fee plainly what " may be juftly pleaded here, or there, and no " more."" Had you attended to thefe good Rules, which you are pleafed to remind me of, and to fa- vour with your Approbation, you might have brought your Book into a lefs compafs j and perhaps have done as much real Service to your Caufe, and lefs Hurt to your Charafter. Q^UERY XVIII. Whether Worjhip and AdoratioUy both from Men and Angels y was not due to him^ long before the Commencing of his Mediatorial Kingdom, as he was their Creator and Treferver^ {fee Col. i. 16, 17.) And whether That be not the fame Title to Adoration which God the Father hath^ as Author and Governor of the Univerfe^ upon the HoSfor's own Principles ? IT is proper the Reader fhould be let into the full Defign and Purport of Thisi^^ry, that He may be able to pafs a more certain Judgment of the Per- tinence, or Impertinence of your Anfwer. The Queftion is, whether the worfliip of Chrift be founded upon any Thing antecedent to his Incarnation and Exaltation, or only upon the Powers then fuppo- icd to be given Him. If it was founded on Any D d J thing 4.06 A Second Defense Qu.XVIIL thing antecedent^ then the Doftor, and you, have very impertinently cited iV/<^//i?. xxviii. i8. Johnv^ 21, 23. Phil. ii. 105 II. and the hke Texts, as car- rying m Them the fole Foundation of his worfliip, after the manner of the Socinians : If it v^^as not founded on any thing antecedent^ what Account can you giv^e of ChrilVs being Cfrator^ of his being God before the Creation, John i. i. of his having Glory before the World was^ and the like? In fhort, the Do6tor is here confounded between Two Schemes, Socinian and y^rian > and very unfkilfully endeavours to tack Both together •, which is utterly impr.i&icable^ Either let Him found the worihip of the Son upon what was antecedent to the Incarnation, and then He may tolerably go on upon the jlrian Scheme : Or if He chufes to found it intirely upon the fubfequent Powers^ He is all over Socinian^ and does not know it. My Defign is net to fuffer you to take the Advantage of Both the Schemes, which are utterly inconfiilent with each other. You muft either drop your ^rian Principles, and fo fettle in Socinianifm : Or if you refolve to retain your Arian Tenets, you muft drop your Socinian Pleas, to be all of a Piece. This is what you may eafily be drove to > and That was the jDelign of This ^iery. If the Reader takes This along with Him, He will readily perceive how hard you are here prefs'd 5 and how elufive, and infuffi- cient all your Anfvvers are. You fay, whenever x}ci^ Mediatorial Kingdom began, the worJJoiphowtv^s of Chrift was by the command of the Father. That I allow : And fo was alfo the worihip of the Father firft introduced by the command of the Father. Hitherto you are only fhifting > and come not to the pinch of the ^/^//^;^ 5 namely, ^ii'hen the Worfliip hegan^ or 'whereon it was founded. What follows, (/>. 3p2.) is ftill evading, and running from the Point in Queftion. What comes nearelf to it, is your faying^ that He hy whom God created all fhin^Sy Qu. XVIII. of fame (QUERIES. 407 Things^ has not the fame Title to Adoration with Him who created all 'Things by Him. Well : but has He any Title at all upon the Foot of his being Creator? Or do you make Him a meer nomi- nal Creator? If, according to Heh^ i. 10. He laid the Foundation of the Earthy and if the Heavens ivere the Works of his Hands: And if He was God before the Creation, (according to John i. i.) then fliow me, that the power of Judging^ or any thing of like nature fubfequent, ever could be a higher^ or an equal Foundation of worfhip with what has been menti- oned. You cannot fhow, that He was made a God^ after his Refurreclion : But it is plain, and you can- not gainfay it, that He was God before the Creation. Wherefore I infift upon it, that He had as clear and full a Title to worfiip before his Incarnation, as any you can fhow after : And therefore it is llrangely in- confiitent of you to found his woriliip upon the power of judging^ &c. No one ever would do This that believed the Son to be God^ and Creator (tho* in a lower Senfe than the Father) before the World. The Socinians were fhrewd Men, and fhowed fomc Parts and Sagacity in the working up their Scheme. They founded the v/orfhip of Chrift w^onihc power of judging^ and his exaltation: But then They were never fo filly as to fuppofe Him God and Creator before. The Arians founded the worfhip of Chrift upon his being Creator^ and God before the World : But then They were not fowcak as to found it upon x}ciz power q£ judging^ 6cc. Whereas you, to give a Specimen of your great Dexterity in forming a Scheme, have marvelloufly tacked two parts toge- ther, one of which will fuit only with the Sociman Scheme, the other only with the Arian^ or Catho- lick 'y thereby betraying great unfkilfulnefs, and want of Thought. Which of Thefe Parts you will ac length give up, I know not : But all Men of Senfe, and common Difcernment, will laugh at you for holding Both. D d 4 When 4-ps A Second Defense Qu.XVIIL When I wrote my Defenfe^ the Doftor had not determined that God the Father is ever called Godi^ m Scripture, in the metaphyfical Senfe. Worihip even of Him was to be founded only upon hisOffice (God was then a Name of Office) relative to us. I was therefore of Opinion, that if the Son w^ls Creator^ as great an Office as any, and as highly meriting of us, He mull then, upon the Do6i;or's ov/n Prmcipks, have the fame Title to Adoration as the Fathr Him- felf had : Nor do I fee, that you have yet been able to baffle This reafoning. For you have been forced to allow (obliged thereto by the unanimous Current of Antiquity, Eufeblus not excepted) that the Son is immediate Artificer, or Creator^ of the Univerfe. This is meriting as highly of us as is poffible; more one would imagine than meerly gi- ving out Commands 5 which is an Honour you re- ferve peculiar to the Father. If therefore worfhip be founded, not upon any Dignity and Excellency of Nature^ but upon relative Offices -y it feems to me, that the Son's Title to our worlliip is as clear and full as pofflble, upon your own Principles j fuch I mean as They were at That Time. My Argument therefore was good when I made it 5 however you may have varied your Notions fince. I add further, that my Argument, from the hand the Son had in creating^ will remain impregnable for an equality of worfhip, whatever Principles you take up in hopes to elude it : tho • That particular was not the fpecial Purport of This Query. You had argued againfl creatiyig being a juft Foun-' dation of worfhip, becaufe no Atl of Dominion: To which I replied, that the fame Argument would hold with rcfpc6lto \\-\q Father alfo> And fohis creatinglhQ World would be no foundation forworfliippingHim, bein^T no more an^^ of Dominion than the^'^^'s creating is. To which you now reply, that the World was made by the Father's Original ah folate Authority and Power, This is not defending yowx Jirfi Anfwer, but retreat- iQu. XVIII. cffome Q U E R I E S, 40^ ing to Another, However, This will not do, any more than the Firft. For, you will never be able to prove, that the Son is not as compleatly and fully Creator as the Father : And Scripture never founds worfhip upon the original^ underi'ued manner of Cre- ating, which you fpeak of, but upon the creating it felf^. What you obje£t from Rev. iv. 10, 11. created for his pJeafure^ has been anfwered above j-. You go on upon This Argument of the Son's ha- ving the fame Title that the Father has, tho' but a by-part of the ^uery. Not a word do you fay to clear your felf of Socinianifm 5 not a Syllable to vin- dicate your inconfiftency m founding the Son's wor^ Jhip upon his Mediatorial powers given after his Rc- furredlion ; at the fame time admitting that He was God before the World, and created the World. This perhaps was too tender a Point to be touch'd. To purfue you in your own way. I pleaded, John xvii. f . Glorify me with the Glory^ &c. not to prove that the Son had the fame Title to worfhip which the Father has 5 but to fhow that the Glory He had after his Incarnation was not greater than He had before: And therefore it was a weak Thing of you to overlook his former Glories equal to any, and to found his worfJnp upon what came after. To This you reply, {p. 394.) His being re ft or ed to the Glory He had before^ does not prove that the Power of judgment^ &:c. was 7iot an additional exaltation. Yes, but it proves fomething morej that even after all judgment was committed to Him^ He was yet not in- vefted with float Glory^ not with (o great Glory ^ (for ' why fhould He afk for lefs, if He had greater) as He had before the World was. But you add, that // the Son had the fame right to Glory that the Father hadj it could be no more proper for the Son to pray to the -* See my Sermons, p-pj. t Pag. 182. ^ , _.. Father^ 4IO A Second Defense Qu. XVIII. Father^ to glorify Him, than for the Father to 'pray to the Son. But the Cafe is different, becaufe the Son was incarnate^ and not the Father : Therefore it be- came the Son to pray^ but not the Father. Ay but, fay you, could not the Son Himfelf have given it by his own Authority ? Yes 5 But as the Father did not difdain to receive Glory from the Son, why ihould the Son refafe to receive Glory from the Fa- ther ? As to Iren^us's TelHmony, that the Son was of old worfhipped together with the Father, ir is a very plain one ; and I have given it above ~j~. The Fa- ther and Son together are there expreflly ftiled The God of the living : And it was the God of the living that the Patriarchs adored. You have a pleafant Remark {p. 142.) on That Pafiage of Iremeus: You fay, I take no notice of the emphatical Words, Refurreclio ant em ipfe Domi" nus efi. Behold, now I have taken notice of them : of what ufe are They, I befeech you, in our prefent Debate? How do They at all leffen the Force of my Argument ? Would you have it, that Chrift was adored by the Patriarchs of old, as God^ becaufe He was to be exalted to be God 2000 Years after? You fhould fpeak out plainly, that a Reader may underiland you : unlefs your Defign be to give a Hint as if you had fomcthing material to lay, when you have really nothing. It puts me in mind of the Modeji Pleader^ who once thinking Himfelf obliged to quote, at full length, a noted Paf- fage of Bp. Pearfon ^^ which had been ufually cut into halves, (The latter Half begins with and there- ^ fore) He claps This Note upon it : IVhat 'that learn- ed Writer meant by the Word.^ Therefore, I fuhmit to the judicious Reader f. No doubt but He would have the judicious Reader imagine there is fomething t Pag. 595. * See it above, p. 202.^ •j- Modefl Plea, p. 212. weighty Qu. XVIII. of fome Q^U ERIE S. 411 weighty in the Remark 3 tho' He can neither fhow *wbat^ nor why. But to proceed. I had referred to Eufehius and Athanafius^ as Both agreeing that God the Son was worfhipped by Abra- ham^ Mofcs^ and the JewiJJj Church : It was there- fore the Senfe of the Antients in general (as we may fafely conclude from Thefe Two Writers, and their Agreement j were there no other Proofs) that God the Son had dillinft worfhip paid Him long before his Incarnation: And therefore his uwrjhip (whatever it were) could not be founded on the Commiflion to judge^ or the like, as you have founded it. After your many boafts of the Antients^ groundlefs and ihamelefs as I ever met with, here in a very impor- tant Point, the Point of Worflnp^ wherein our Prac- tice is nearly concerned j here, I fay, you run coun- ter to all the CathoUcks of the Primitive Churchy nay, to all the fober Avians^ who will hereafter rife up in Judgment, and condemn you, for founding Chrift's worfhip fo meanly^ upon I know not what Pozvers given after his Refurreftion. They founded it upon Reafons antecedent to his Incarnation, upon 'lis being Godhz^oxt the World, and Creator of the World by his own Power ^. You endeavour to fhow that Eufehius' s Dodrinc about the worfhip of Chrift runs not fo high as mine. Perhaps it docs not : I did not cite Eufehius for That purpofe. But I cited Him as an Evidence, to prove that all Antiquity is diredly and fully againit iyour way of founding Chrifl's worlliip in the Power 'of judging^ 6cc. You have none of the Antients, ex- cept fuch as Photlnus^ or Paul of Samofata^ to coun- * Chriflum Colimus ut Creatorem, Serm, Arian. ap. Augufl-, p. 663. Antequam facerct univer/a, omnium Futurorum Deus 5c Domf- nus. Rex &: Creator crat conflitutus. Voluntate & praccepto (Patris) Cseleftia 8c Terreftria, vifibilia & invifibilia, corpora 8c fpiritus, ex PhIUs exfianti^Hs, ut eilent, fm virtute fecit. Serm. Arianor. p. 622. tenance 412 A Second Defense Qu.XVIII. tenance you in it : The Arians^ at leaft the genera- lity of Them, would have been afhamed of it. This is what I before prefled you with > And you, in your Reply, diflemble and totally conceal it, lead- ing your Reader off to quite other Things. w hat you have from Philo is ftill diverting, and running off from the main Point : Nor are Philo's Notions, in This Cafe, of any moment in the Con- troverfyj unlefs the Apoftles and Primitive Chrifti- ans had no better guide than Philo. Philo might hit upon fome Truths, but Ihaded with Errors, and not breaking out with full Luftre and Brightnefs. A clearer and fuller Difcovery was a Privilege referved for the Chriftian Church. Your Remark, {p. jpj.) about the Angel which appeared to Manoah is juff: And had you looked into the lait Edition of my De- fenfe^ you would have found that part correfted. For It is not my way, after I perceive any Miflake, to perfift in it. To conclude. The Reader is defired to obferve, that you had been charged with taking in two incon- fiflent Schemes {Avian and Socinian) into one, and tacking Them very abfurdly together j that you have been called upon to declare which of the disjointed parts you would give up, or elfe to fhow how it is poffiole to make them ftand together > th^t after ma- ture Deliberation, you have made no Anfwer to the Charge, but have paffed it over in profound Silence. 1 hefe are the FaSls-^ let every honeft Reader judge what to infer from them. Query qu.XIX. cffom QUERIES. 41J Q^UERY XIX. Whether the T)o£lor hath not given a very par^- tial Account of John v. 2 5 . founding the Ho- nour due to the Son^ on this only-, that the Fa- ther hath committed all Judgment to the Son 5 when the true Reafon ajjigned by our Saviour^ and illujlrated by feveral Inflames y iSy that the Son doth the fame things that the bather doth, hath the fame Tower and Authority of doing what he willr, and therefore has a Title to as great Honour , Reverence, and Regard^ as the Father himf elf hath ? And it is no Ob- je Elian to this^ that the Son is there f aid to do nothing of Himfelf, or to have all given Him by the Father ; fince it is owned that the Fa- ther is the Fountain of all, from whom the Son derives^ in an ineffable manner^ his Ef fence and Powers, Jo as to be one with Him ? THO' you have nothing under This Query but what I have before fully anfvvered, or obvi- ated} yet becaufe you are pleafed to repeat, I fhall repeat alfo. Dr. Clarke's Pretence is, that Chrift's Honour is founded upon the power of judgment com- mitted to Him: 1 fay, his Honour is founded on the intrinfick excellency, and antecedent Dignity of his Perfonj whereof the Power of Judgment committed is only a farther Atteftation, and a provifional Secu- rity for the payment of his due Honour. It did riot make Him worthy^ hut found Him fo: And it was added, that fuch his high worth and dignity might 41+ -^ Second Defense Qu.XIX. might appear to Men, and be acknowledged by Them. T'be Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son^ that all Men JJjould honour the Son^ e^ven as *They honour the Father. This is not giving us the formal Reafon, or Foundation of his Honour^ but the final Reafon^ or moving Caufe^ why the Son is to execute Judgment rather than the Father Himfclf. It is becaufe Men would hereby be apprized of his antecedent worth and dignity, and at the fame Time be incited to pay Him fuitable Honour, in external A6bs of Worflnp and Adoration^ as to the Father Himfelf. This is the obvious, natural Conllru£tioii of the Place in ^i.John-^ as I before intimated. And I confirmed it by the Accounts which St. John has given us of his antecedent Dignity, his being God before the Creation, and his creating the World : Which makes it plain, that the committing of Judg- 7nent was no addition of new Dignity, but rather declarative of the old\ that it might appear the more fully, and be the more fecure of the effect upon Mankind. This Reafoning appearing to me very clear and jull, demanded as clear an Anfwer. But you have little to lay, except in the way of Objec- tion and Repetition^ about derived and underived : Which is not arguing from Scripture^ but from Me- taphyftcal Notions you have taken up about Same- nefs^ and fuch as you allow not in any Cafe but This > contradicting that fbri6b Notion of Sayne- nefs^ as often as you make an infinite Number of ex- tended Parts to be \\\z fame Sub (lance. To what you repeat from xhcModefi Pleader about the Father's hw.gFountainj I returned a fufKcient An- fwer in a Note to a Sermon ^\ Tou afk^ can one Perfon commit Powers to Another who had already in Himfelf the fame Powers ? Yes, by voluntary O economy^ the exercife of Powers common to man)^, may devolve upon one chiefly 5 and may run in his Name. I gave you a * Sermon 2. p. ji. proper Qu.XIX. offome Q.U E R I E S. 415 proper Rebuke in my Defcnfe^ p. 282. for your ex- prefTing great Amazement at my Prejudice^ and Blinds fiefs^ in maintaining only what had been held by all the Chriftian Churches. I reminded you of the ma- ny ijoife^ great^ and good Men, whom you charged through my fides. This^ you fay, is not a right way of dealing with Scripture. That was not the Point: But it might be a right way of dealing with a Gen- tleman who was gone beyond Decorum^ and appeared too full of Z//";;^/^//' 3 forgetting that a modeji Deference is due to 'wifiy great^ and good Men, even where wc dijent from them. But to pafs on. I charged your Interpretation of John v. ip. as unnatural J znd forced^ making the Context incoherent. The Son can do nothing but by CommiJJion: For (ob- ferve the Reafon) He can do e^uery Thing the Father does. But if the Senfe runs thus 5 The Son beingOne with the Father can do nothing feparately^ then the Context is coherent 5 for^ whatfoeuer the Father doth the Son does alfo^ or likewife. You fay, the IVord^ for, in the latter part of the ip^^^ Verfe, is not the Reafon given of what went before^ but that the latter part is a Parenthefis. But who will give you the liberty of making Parenthefes^ where there ii. no oc- cafion, only to ferve an Hypothefis ? I fhowed, that you cannot make your Senfe out of the PafTage, bun by fupplying the deficiency of the Text with what the Text has not faid. Which obfervation of mine you call retra^iing the Charge before made, when it is really inforci?2g it : And I preferred the Cathoiick Interpretation as more natural^ and as arguing no de- ficiency in the Text. Befides that, admitting ^he Sentence to be elliptical, in order to make the Senic coherent in your way of Conftruftionj yet 1 took notice farther, how very harlli and ftrange it mult found for (^ Creature to be commiffioned to ao all that the Creator does. To which you have nothing to reply, but that your Interpretation docs not fuppofc the Son created. Say then, that He is uncreated^ and ^i6 1/^ SEcdi^D' Defense Qu.XIX. and let us end the Difpute; provided only, you'll pleafe to mean^ as well as fay. I accept, however, of your tacit acicnowlcdgment, that my Argument againil the Son's being a Creature^ is unanfwerable. How far you are concerned in it, the Readers will judge. You go on > it mufl he odd^ and firange^ that the fupreme Godfiouldbe commijjioned. Nothing flrange at all, that one who is fupreme in Order, and Office'<^ fhould give CommifHon to another not fupreme in Order, or Office 5 tho' Both be equally fupreme in Nature-^ which is the true Notion oi fupreme God. I fhowed you what Anfwers had been formerly given to your Obje6lions by Hilary^ Chryfoftom^ Cy- ril^ and Aufiin: in reply to which, you tell me, that Novatian and Eufebius were more Ant lent Fathers. But did I put it upon the Authority of the Fathers, which I cited? I infifted upon the Reafons They gave, againft thofe very Pretences which you revive. And why did you not anfwer Them? Their Reafons were drawn from Scripture^ and founded on the 'Text it felf> againil which neither Nouatian^ nor Eufebius is of any the leaft Weight. But Thus you love to difguifc the true Matter in qucftion, and to lead your Reader off to fomething wade and foreign. How- ever, Novatian has not a word to your purpofe> unlefs copying out the Father's Works {imitator ope- rum Paternorum) proves the Son to be of a different Nature froni the Father. Tertullian^ antienter than either Novatian or Eufebius^ underflands the Son's doing nothing of Himfelf^ of the intimate Conjundion of the Father and Son, the Son being in the Father^ and feeing all that He docs, or rather all that He Jeftgns^ ox conceives'^-. He goes upon the old Notion, that * Filius nihil a femetipfo poteft Facere, nifi viderit Patrem faci- entem. Pater enim fenfu agitj Filius vcro qui in Patris fenfu eft, videns perficitj lie omnia per Filium fada funt, ^ fine lib Fadum c(l nihil. TeriHll.ctntr, frax. c. ij. Qu. XIX. offome Q^U E R I E S. 417 that the defigning^ or conceiving part belongs peculiarly to the Father^ the executive and finiJJjing part to the Son : And Thus Father and Son were jointly con- cerned in every Operation. As to Eufebius'% Au- thority, where He has not Reafons^ nor elder Fa- thers to fupport Him, it is worth nothing, j^tha- nafius has Writings extant older, probably, than Any we have of Eufebius'Sy except his Oration before PatiUnus of T'yre^ or what may be had in Pamphilus's Apology. i\nd as to Hilary^ there's a- bout 20 Years difference between his Age and Eufe- hius's: A mighty Thing for you to boaft of. I excufe your citing, (p. 404.) a Sentence of the Semi-arians in Epiphanius > miftaking it for Epipbanius's own : I fuppofe you did it ignorant- ly. And it is the more pardonable, becaufe learned Men had formerly made the fame Blunder: tho', I believe, never fince the Time i\\?ii Pet avius^s Sagacity fet That Matter right in his Notes to his Edition^ the fame that you made ufe of. To your Argument drawn from the Father's loving the Son, I replied, that He loves alfoHimfelf> which is no Matter of Choice. You pretend, however, x.h-iiJJj owing the Son all T'hings^ is Free: which you have no ground for faying, but it is purely Fiftion to fervc an Hypothefts. Your adding, bis giving Au- thority to do likewfe^ is corrupting the Text, which fays nothing of Authority -^ tho' if it had, it might iiTTiiVy TTxr^iKai;. Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. p. ^"84. Eufebius has the like Thought, which He expreflcs however fa Terms fbmewhat harfh. y Trxrfi^ >,oyi as when we lay the Body of the Moon for the Moon^ or the Matter of the World for the World. Which kind of Language has its Reafon and Foundation in our Way of forming, and ranging our Ideas for our more diftin^l Perception. For, not content with a general confufe Idea of any Thing, wc take it, as it were, into Pieces, or Parcels, for a more diftinct and particular View of it. The Idea^ fuppofe, of God the Father^ we divide into two Ideas^ Subjlance and jittrihute ; and Attribute again into many Ideas dill more dillin6t, and particular. And now Father ftands for the general confufe Idea^ while Suhftance and Attribute are confidered as Parts of it, and belonging to it. This, 1 take to be the true Account of That way of fpeakingi as well in this, as in the other Oafes above mentioned. So, tho' the Per [on of the Father ht really nothing elfe but the Father -, yet it is coniidered as fomething diflintl^ after we have once parceird out the general confufe Idea into fe- veral particular Ideas 5 as into Perfon^ Power ^ Goodnefs^ &c. for the greater Diflin^ion. Then even Perfon is confidered as but Part of that confufe Idea for which the Word Father fbandsj and it is conceived to belong to it, as a Part to the whole. Hence, as I apprehend, arifes the way of fpeaking before mentioned j which is right and juft inRefpe6i: of our Ideas^ but very inaccurate in regard to the things Themfcl/es, for which the Ideas ftand : Be- .caufe indeed our Ideas are not adequate; being formed in a way fuited to our own Infirmity^ rather than to the Trutbj and Stri5incfs Things. E C 3 (iUE RY 4iz ./^ Second Defense Qu. XX. Q_U E R Y XX. Whether the T>oElor needed have cited 300 TextSy wide of the piirpofe^ to prove what no Body denies^ namely^ a Subordination, in Jome Senfe, of the Son to the Father 5 could He have found but one plain Text againjl his Eternity or Confubftantiality, the Toints in ^ieflion ? YOU hiive little under This Query but Repeti-^ lion Tiwd Reference: which requires no farther Notice. As to the Form of Baptifm^ which you mention in the Clofc, I have confidered it m a dif- tin<5l Dilcourfe % which you had feen before you came to This ^iery. You have nothing to object but a Paflagc from the fpurious Conjiitutions^ of no \'alue •, and another from Eufebius^ of very httle. I content my fclf therefore with referring to my De- fenfe^ and Sermons . * See my eighth Sermon. Q^uER r <^u.XXI. 6f Come (QUERIES. 423 Query XXI. Whether he be not forced to ftipply his "jvant of Scriptiire-Troof by 'very ftrained and remote Inferences^ and very uncertain Reafonings from the Nature of a thing, Confeffedly Ob- fcure and above Comprehenfion\ and yet not more fo than Gods Eternity, Ubiquity, Prc- fcicncc, or other Attribute s-^ 'ujhich yet we are obliged to acknowledge for certain Truths ? YOU tell me, in the Entrance, that none of Dr. Clarke's Propoiitions, on which He lays any Strefs^ are drawn by mere Reafonhigs from the incom- prehenfihle Nature of God. JBut what think you of five of his Propofitions^ where He denies the Necef- fary-exiftence^ (for fo you now underfland Self-exift- ence) of the Son and Holy-Ghofi ? Has the Doctor fo much as one Text in the Scripture for any of tlfem ? Not a Syllable, either in Old or Ne-iv Teflament, but what he pretends to infer from very obfcure and uncertain Reafonings about derived and underivcd^ about J^s and not Acis^ about necefjary Agency be- ing no Agency^ about Will^ Coa^ion^ 6cc. profoundly Aletaphyfical^ and Fanciful^ with nothing folid or certain in them. The like may be faid of the Doctrine con- tained in his ij^^ Propolitionj which has no Text of Scripture to Hand upon, tho' He lays great Strefs upon it. In iliort, I obferved in my Dcfcnfc^ and here repeat, that " the main Strength of the Doc- >* tor's Caufe, lies firft in his giving either a Sabel- *' lian^ or T'ritheiftick Turn (admitting no Mediii?n) ^' to the Catholick Dodlrine-, and then charging it ^^ with confufion of Perfons^ Polytheifm^ Nonfenfe^ *'' Contradi^ion. Take away Tha.t (to which his E e 4 " con- 424- -^ Second Defense Qu. XXL *^ conftant Refort is, whenever He comes to the *' Pinch of the Qnellion) and there will be httle *' left confiderable." For the Truth and Jufticc of This Report, or Cenfure, I appealed* to the Doc- tor's own Books, which is a fair Procedure: And if you have any Thing to (iiy in Vindication of the Doftor, fhow that the Fa6t is othervvifc than I re- prefented. Not being able to do Any Thing of this kind, you endeavor as ufiial, to turn it off by retort- ing ^ and to put me upon the Defenfeve^ having no- thing to plead in Defenfc of the Do6bor, or your felf. This may ferve to blind a Reader, and to con- ceal your Shame 5 but it is not anfwering ^eries. You fall again upon i Cor.Vni. 6. which has been an- fwered over and over. What is That to the Point now in Hand, the Dociofs iDTiking firained Inferences^ except it be giving one Example more, by his wrell- ing of That Text? As to God's Eternity y Ubiquity^ Prefcience^ you fay, They l^hemfehes are the SuhjeH of our Beliefs not particular Men's philofophical Explications of the Manner of them. Well then, let it be the Subject of our Belief, that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy-Ghoft God 5 and that they are the One God of the Chridians. But as to the Manner how They are ^hree^ or One^ let no body concern Himfelf about it. If any one, under Pre- tence of explaining the Manner,^ changes the Senfe of the Word God^ making the Son a nominal God on- ly, and the Holy-Ghoil (carce fo much ; what is This but doing the fame, as if under Pretence of explain- ing the Manner of Eternity^ Ubiquity^ or Prefcience^ He fhould introduce the Do6trinc of a nominal not real Etiernity, a nominal Ubiquity, a nominal Prefci- cncej undermining the Doctrines themfelves? Our Difpute is about' the Senfe in which any of the Perfons is God: Let this be determined by Scripture, ♦ Sec my Defenfe p. Joj l^^. Qu.XXI. offomClUEKlES. 415 and Antiquity, and proper Rules of Criticifm. Make no Objeftions from the Manner how The Thing fhould be : For, all fuch Objedions arc as improper, as it would be in the Queftion of Prefcience*^ Eter- nity^ ox Ubiquity^ to leave Scripture, and fuch approv- ed Rules as ferve to determine the Senfe of it, and to retreat to philofophical Reafonings about the Manner how thcfe Things are. This is the very Fault which you have perpetually run into. And ♦ A late Author, in his Apfenl to a Turk &r Indian, being prefled with the Inftance about Prefcfence and/rf« Agency, has no Way of coming off, but by denying that there is fo much as zfeein'mg Repugnancy . between the Two Ideas, p. f. He is the firft Man of P4r/5 who, after confidering the Subjedl, ever thought fo. I could name Him many of the cleareft Heads, and fineft Wits among Antients and Moderns (fuch as Dr. Burnet of the Charter Houfe, Mr. Locke, 8cc.) who have been fo fcnfible of the feemmg Repugnancy, as to dcfpair of ever clearing it, or reconciling the Idear. Is there no feem'tng Repugnancy in maintaining that the fame A61 is certain as being fore- known, uncertain, as depending on the iVill of a Free Agent? I fhfjuld be glad to fee the feeming Repugnancy anfwered, or took off any other way than by an humble Acknowledgment of our Igno- rance m the Hr^^ Things of God. And I would remind this Author, that This very Inftancc about Prefcience, and Free-will, carries much greater Difficulty in it, than the Doftrine of Three and One, For, there is no Argument, I know of, againfl: the Latter, but what is cipablc of a juft Solution : That is, it may be fliown where the Argument has a Flaw, and where the Chain breaks. But in the other Cafe, I think, the utmoft we can do is only to prove that the Argument muft have a Thw fomcwhere, tho' we fee not where i being content to refolve all into the infcrutable Perfedtion of the divine Prefcience, which infinitely tranfcends our finite Capacities. With this Author's good Leave then, Thire is a Difference between thefe two Cafes: But the Advantage lies wholly on the fide of the Dodlrine of the Trinity, as being more eafily defended than the other. And if he pleafes but to point his Logick, contained in Page 6'^ againft Free-will, or Prefcience, with the fan>e Rigour as he intends it againft the Trinity, I ^are promife Him an abfolute Vidtory there, tho' not here. But this, perhaps, the Author was not aware of ; any more than of the Difference between faying, that few under- ftand the Doctrine of the Trinity, and few underftand the Contr*- 'v^fy about the Trinity} committing the fame Blunder twice p. 12, j/^. Sec my Supplement, p^ 7^. while 425 ^ Secon D Defense Qu.XXI, while we are bringing you plain Scripture Proofs for Chrift's Divinity^ as plain as can be brought for the Divinity of the Father 5 you are filling People's Heads with Tritheifm and SahelUanifm^ with fpecifick and ■individual^ with identical wholes and undivided Parts, with j45ls and no A5is.y with Caufes and no Caufes, with derived and underived^ with Coordinations^ Three fupreme Gods^ 1'hree Subftances^ and I know not what j all cavils taken from the Manner of the Thing, and intended to undermine the DoElrine it fclf, which is and ought to be the Suhje6i of Be- lief, You will fay, perhaps, that we have not fo full Proof of this Doctrine, as we have of Eternity^ Pre* .fcience or Ubiquity. Admit we have not: Yet let That Point, as to the Truth of the Doftrinc, be de- cided by proper Evidence j difcarding all vain Pre- tences about the Manner y and then we may bring it to a fnort KTue. The Direciio7is^ you fay, given in Scripture concern- ing the Worjloip of God and Chrift (and not philofophi- cat Conje^ures concerning Subjlances and Effences) ought to be the Guide of our Prailice. Let us then follow the. Directions given in Scripture: Not philofophical Conje£bures about Self-exifience > nor Pagan Diftinfti- ons about abfolute and relative^ ultimate and mediate Worfhipj nor precarious Suppofitions of one that had been God and Creator before, becoming greater by being appointed Judge. Let Worihip, all reli- gious Worfhip, be paid, as Scripture every where directs, to God alone, and to no Creature. Let none have Worfhip that cannot be proved to be God^ nor any want it that can: And then there will foon be an end of all Difputcsj And TVorfloip will fland up- on its old Foundations, as it had ever flood, before Pagans.^ Arians.^ and Papijls perverted and corrupt- ed the true Notion of it. You flate the main Quellion between us in Thefe Terms (p. 413.) Scripture^ you (iiy, tells us there's but one God even the Father, Yes. Scripture fliles Qu. XXI. offome Q^U E R I E S. 427 lliles the Father the one or only God: That is all you fhould pretend. The fame Scripture ililes the Son God^ afcribing alfo divine Titles, Attributes, Glory, to Him. Now let your Queftion be put: In what Senfe^ thefe two Propofttions are^ according to Reafon^ and the life of Language^ hefl under flood to be confiflent, I have at large confidered This very Queftion, fo flated, in a diilinclDifcourfe^i which was publifhed before this Part of your Reply was put to the Prefsj as appears by your quoting my Sermons in the for- mer Part. I have therefore juft Reafon to com- plain of your Complaint^ which you have borrowed from the Modeft Pleader , and which, whatever was then, you have now no Pretence for. I have fhown abundantly that your Argument from the excluftve Terms^ls not cither^ according to Reafon^ or Ufe of Lan- guage^ of any Weight, in Comparifon to the Proofs we bring of Chrift's being God in the Same Senfe as the Father is, and One God with Him. The i^"^ Cor. viii. 6. which you urge in fuch a Manner as if the whole Scripture was to yield to One 'Text^ and That mifinterpreted, has been often anfwered. You blame me for not expreffing my Faith in any Scripture- pofitions : As if every Thing I aflert as Matter of Faith, were not as much Scripture Pofition^ according to my way of underflanding Scripture, as yours is to you Script ure-pofit ion according to your Way: Only the Difference is, that mine is the Catholick^ approv- ed way i yours is partly Arian^ and partly Socinian. Under This ^ery^ I entred into a Difcourfe about the Meaning of believing Myfteries^ in anfwer to the Objeftion, that our Do6l:rine is not intelligible, I fhowed both of the Dodrine Jn general^ and of the Particulars mod ufually excepted againft, that They ^ve intelligible y as intelligible, at leail, as Om- niprefence^ Eternity^ Prefcience ^ GodV Simplicity^ II 1^ :>i;.u-^.,i.j.iii:.yA whether when we Vay any Thing exiles of it felf^ or is felf-exijimt^ the Words a fe^ or of felf^ have any /?^//;^'^ Meaning, or mean only that it does not exifi of another. Some have carried the Notion of its being pofitive^ fo far as to {ay God is the Caiife of Himfelf^^ or even made Hifnfelf^ as Laclantius exprefleth it : Which is fup- pofmg the Idea pofitive indeed, and is manifeftly ab- furd. Dr. Clarke^ one of the lateft Writers, and from whom one might have expeded fomething ac- curate, yet appears to be all over confufed upon This * The Expreffions of uoroyiVA^^ and ctuTo(^y«?, if flridlly taken, lead to fuch a Meaning: As alfo ex fe orfus, ex feipfo, and the like. Tet^vms cites feveral Tcllimonies of this kind. DeTrin. ]./. c, 5-. p. 294.^ vi«v ixvrS. Synef. Solus Deus eft, itaque Principium } qui ex Seipfo dedit libi ipfe principium, Zen. Veron. Deus— ipfe fui Origo eft,! fuaeque Caufa Subftantiae. Hieron. ia Ephef 3. Id quod eft, ex fe, atque in fe continens. Hilar, Ex fe principium cui contigit. Hilar, alter. ^tyj^'' «| icK.vr'i TO Hvui 0 hi. Zach. Mttylen. Sui nainque Principium. Ex feipfo procreatus— — .ipfe /c fecit. Ltt^nnt. very Qu. XXI. offome QUERIES. 429 veiy Head in his famous Demonflration of the Ex^ ijlence. His profefTed Defign there is to prove the Exiftencc of a Firft Caufe a />mri.| Which has no Scnfe without the Suppofition of a Caufe prior to the Firft \ which yet is Non-fenfe. The Do6tor was too wife a Man to fay that God is the Caufe of Himfelf: And yet He fays what amounts to it una- wares. He fpeaks of Necejfity of Exiftence^ as being Antecedently ,y in Order of Nature^ the Caufe or Ground of T'hat Exiftence^: Which is, in ihort, making a Property^ or Attribute antecedent, in Order of Nature, to its SuhjeEt^ and the Caufe and Ground of the Subjed. And He talks in his Letters^ of this NecefHcy ahfoJute and ante-cedent (in Order of Na- ture) to the Exiftence of the Firft Caufe, operating every where aUke \ : As if a Property operated in €aufing the Subftancc 5 or making it to be what it is. All This Confufion feems to have been owing to the Doctor's not diftinguifliing between modal^ and cau^ fal Neceflityj and his not confidering that Selfex' iftencc^ ox Afeity\^ as the Schools fpeak, \^ negative y and does not mean that the Firft Caufe \% either caufed by any Thing ad extra^ or hy it felf (much lefs by any Property of it felf) but has no Caufe, is abfolutely uncaufed. I was not therefore confidering, whether any, or what pofttive Perfedions arc implied in Self- exiftence^ or in any Being that is felf-cxiftent as you haftily apprehended, but whether Self-ex- iftence (having plainly a Reference to the Queftion whence, the Thing is) is to be confidered pofttively^ or • See Demonfiration^ &c. p, p, lo, 16.- Letter Si p. j 7, 56, 16. f Letters p. 20, 37. ■i Hanc Oei proprietatem quidam ex recentioribus Philofophfs Afe'itixtcm vocarunr, quia Deus, eo quod principio caret, eft a fe, non ab alic j coiitenduntque earn effe Pofitivum Attributum } quod eo- dem quidem redit ac id quod diximus, fed vocibus novis fine Cauia expreflfiiin eft. CUrici Pncumatol. c. j. p. i/o, negatively 430 yf Second Defense Qu.XXI; negatively in Regard to the Caufe of That Exiftence. I have now determined, I think upon plain Rea- fons, that it is kiegative only : And that we are not to fuppofe any Caufe, external or internal^ but abfo- lutely no Caufe 5 becaufe there is no Caufe prior to the Firjl. The true way of ending the Difpute a- bout the i\.ttribute of Self-exifience being pofttive or negative^ is by fhowing what Ideas arc fuppofed to be contained in it. No doubt, but Exiflence is a po- fitive Idea : And the Queftion only is, whether the Manner of exifling exprelTed by felf^ denotes any i\\\v\^ pofttive. It is plain it doth not, fince it means exifting from no Caufe^ which is negative -j tho'fuch Exiftence implies all pofitive Perfedions. Bp. Stil- lingfleet on the Trinity (p. 178.) fays, " To be from *' Himfelf^ in the Senfe generally underftood, is a " meer negative Expreflion And in This Senfe ^^ only, learned Men have told us, that it is to be ^^ underflood by thofe ancient and modern Writers, '^ who have ufed That Expreffion, as when St. Je- *c rom fiich, that God is felf- originated^ and St. ^^- '^ ftin^ 6cc. — All thefe and fuch like Expreffions are ** only to be negatively underflood. To return. You proceed to make two or three little Excep- tions (fcarce worth Notice) to what you met with in my Defenfe. You declare that your Argument againll the Son's being God, in the ftri5l Senfe^ is not founded upon what can^ or cannot be (which I am glad to hear) but upon i Cor. viii. 6. which I have often anfwered. You acquaint me farther, {p, 41(5.) that 'Two Supreme Gods cannot be One Supreme God; which I readily agree to: As neither can two Gods,fupreme and inferior, be one God, or ever fland with the Scripture Do6trine of One God, But two Perfons in Nature equal, and fo equally fupreme, may be One Supreme God. You afTure me, that you did fet out upon the Foot of Scripture^ and do continue upon fhat Foot fill. I heartily wifh you could mean^ as well as 7%', and not revoke Qu.XXI. of fome QUERIES. 4n revoke all again prefently, by denying the Son and Holy-Ghoft to be neceffarily-exifting: Which you have not the leafl Syllable of Scripture to counte- nance you in. Andlwifh you would not everywhere rcprcfent a Diflinftion of Order^ or Office to be in- confiilent with the divine Unity: Which again you have no Scripture for, but meer fanciful Speculations. You have the lefs Reafon to blame me for mention- ing Office in Refpe£t of God : Becaufe, you know. There was a Time, when the Word God was thought to be always a relative Word of Office. As to Lucian's Phikpatris^ I have given my Thoughts of it above {p 72.) Your Hints about a Paflage of Irenaus^ which I had fufficiently explain- ed* by another of iV^i;^//^.^, and a third olTertullian^ are very trifling. Thofe Hereticks thought it mean and degrading for God to become Man: Which made fome of Them deny Chriil's Divinity^ and others his Humanity -y all, the Union of Both Natures in one Perfon. Whether You, or I give the molt Countenance to Thofe Heretical Tenets, I leave the Reader to judge. * Befmfe,^, 31/. QuERT 4J2 y^ Second Defense Qu. XXIL Q_ U E R Y XXIL Whether his (the Dolor's) whole Terformance, whenever He differs from uSy be any thing more than a Repetition of This Affertion^ that Be- ing and Pcrfon are the fame^ or that there is no Medium between Tritheifm and Sabel- lianifm ? which is removing the Caufe from Scripture to natural Reafon ; not very con- fiftent with the Title of his Book: YO U begin with telling me, that // two or more Intelligent Agents can he the fame Beings or fub- ftfi in the fame individual Subftance (provided the Agent be not all of Them Self-exiftent) 'This "will no way affect the truth of Dr. ClarkcV Propofitions. The Reader is to know, that by ih.t fame Beings or Suhftance^ in this cafcjis underftood the izxiiCneceffarily-exifting'Snh^'^ncc : For necejffary and precarious^ that is, uncreated and create ed cannot be called the fame individual Subftance. By Self-epciftent^ as you have now explained your felf, you mean neceffarily-exifttng. The Sum then of what you have here faid, amounts to This wife Sen- tence 5 " If Two or more intelligent Agents can *' be the fame neceffarily-exifting Beings or fubfift in '' the fame necejjarily-cxifting Subftance (provided the *' Agents be not all of them neceffarily-exifting) This *' will no way afFed the Truth of Dr. Clarke's Pro- ^' pofitions. What is This to the Purpofe? Do not you here plainly deny that two Perfons can be one tiecejfary Being, or Subftance? And This is what Dr. Clarke S Qu.XXII. of rome QUERIES. 4^ Clarke has often denied *j and could nev^er give a fuf- ficient Reafon for doing it. Indeed the Do6tor (or you for Him) feems at length to have given up his general Principle, which he firft infilled upon, "oiz. that Two Perfons cannot be one Being-y which He chiefly grounded upon the Confideration of the imaginary Compofition implied in it. I fay, He ap- pears to have given This up j being at length fenfi- ble that He has allowed, in another cafe, Subftance and Suhftance^ Being and Being to make One Subftance and one Beings without any Compofition. But what the Do6tor (or you) infifts upon now, is, that T\yo fucb Perfons cannot be one necefiary'Btmg or Subilancej or that derived and underived cannot be Both in- cluded in one NeceJJary fub fiance. Which tho' it be putting the Objection upon a different Foot, yet wants to be proved as much as did the other : And is equally liable to the Charge I brought againft the Doctor in this ^iery^ his removing the Caufe from Scripture to natural Reafion'y to a philofophical Queflion, whether the Ideas of Self-exifience and Necefiary-exiftence be the fame or different^, ox whether underi'ved exprefles an eflential Perfection, ail that Necefiary-exiftence does, or only a Relation of Order, and Mode of Exiftence. After all your Pre* tences to Scripture^ you really refolve the Difputc into This Metaphyfical Queftion: And you cannot * Three intelligent Agents in one individual, identical Subftancff> is fo fclf-cvident a Contradidlion, that I think no Reafoning can make it plainer than Intuition. Dr. Clarke's Three Letters, p. g i. Two Perfons to be one Being, I think a manifeft Conrradidtion in Terms. Clarke & Reply, p. 1 5-7. Two Perfons in one and the fame individual mcom^omded Being, » an cxprefs Contradidlion. Ibid. p. 169. Two Individuals cannot, without an exprcfs Contradidioj3|» have an Identity of Nature. Kefly, p. 184. The Reafon why our Saviour could not affirm that He and his father wei-e one Being, is becaufe he would thereby have affirmed that they were One Pcrfon. Reply, 191, F f advance 434 >f Second Defense Qu.XXIL advance your Caufe at all by Scripture^ but by the Help of your Metaphyftcks. You take your Rife from I Cor. viii. 6. to come at unoriginate: Thus far is commenting u^on Scripture. The reft is Philofophy^ falfe Philofophy, drawing Inferences from unoriginate to Self-exiftence., from Self-Exiftence to Necejfary-ex- ijience^ from thence to the Father's being alone ne- cefTarily-exifting, from thence to the Exclufton of the Son from being necejfarily-exifting^ from thence to the making Him ^precarious Being (tho' in Words you deny it) and from thence to his being a Creature: This is the Courfe of your Reafoning. Your -^^mtov ^l/g{i'c/^(5?, or fundamental Error, lies in y our Pbilojopby, confounding unoriginate fas did the antient Euno- mians) with Necejfary-exiftence-y which you have no Foundation for : Or if you be allowed to make A^(?^ or that the Self-exiftence of three Perfons (fo underftood) is at all inconfiftent with a real Diflinc- tion of Order^ and Offices. It will be changing the Names of Things, and nothing more. It is ma- nifeft, from what I have obferved, that Scripture is not the Thing you truft to, but Pbilofophy-y be- caufe when we have granted you all you pretend to have proved from Scripture, viz. that the Father is the firjl Perfon, derived /ro;;^ none^ you arc ftill but where you were, till you call in Philofophy and Me- taphyftcks to make out the reft, and to determine the main Queftion. You are now pleafed to put the Matter upon This, whether two fupreme Perfons can be one fupreme God. You fay {p. 420.) 7'wo equally fupreme Perfons united may be in the complex Senfe^ one Being, one Subftance^ hut I'bey will not confequently he one fupreme Governour^ one Lord^ one God. Now, here in the firft Place, I very much j,^._ blame your not attending to the Diftinftion of fu- ^^ preme in Nature^ and fupreme in Order, It is in tie firft Scnfe only, that we afTert Two, or Three Supreme Qu. XXII. offome Q^U E R I E g, 43 ^ Supreme Perfons-y fupreme in every Perfe6tion5 hav- ing no higher or lower^ no better or worfe^ no De- grees of eflential Power ^ IVifdom^ or any other Attribute. At the fime Time, Thofe Perfons, thus equally iupreme in Nature^ are not equally fupreme in Order 'y but Two of Them 2Xt fuh ordinate to One, the Head and Center of Unity. And, becaufe They are in Nature undivided^ and in Order referred up to That one Head and Fountain of all, They are there- fore, with Him, One Governor^ One Lord^ and One God, And tho' the Authority, the Dominion, the Power be confidered always primarily in the Father^ yet is it common to allj only with this Order^ that the Father has it from none^ They from the Father : So that all that remains peculiar to the Father^ is a Pre-eminence, or Priority of Order. This is the Catholick Do6i:rine, v/hich you are endeavouring to confute: But, inflead of Arguments, you generally give us only ambiguous Words, and Names, to con- found and perplex what ought to be kept clear and diftina. You tell me of running counter to Scripture and Antiquity^ in making more than one ahfolutely fu^ pr erne over all. Here you are only doubling upon^ or trifling with^ the Word Supreme. I make Three fupreme in Nature s I fuppofe One only fupreme in Order^ or Office : Show me either O;?^ Text of Scrip- turCj or one fngle Teftimony of Catholick Antiquity (1 allow not Eufebius for fuch) that plainly contra- cJi6l:s Either of Thefe Pofitions. They appear to me. Both of them, true and jufl Pofitions ^ founded in Scripture^ and confirmed by the univerfal Suffrage of the Antients, If They appear not confident in your Philofophy^ own it frankly and ingenuoufly^ as an honeft Man would: But do not mif-report Scripture^ and Antiquity. What follows in p. 411, is only repeating your «f1^n Fi^ions both of Me, and of the Antients.j 436 y? Second Defense Qu. XXIL I bad appealed to the Prophet Ifaiah^ as inter- preted by St. John^ making Father and Son One Lord of Hofts. You tell me bluntly, 'There is nofucb Thing in the Texts y referring me to Dr. Clarke's Scripture-DoUrine. I fay, there is in Thofe Texts all that I before aflerted : And why do you now refer me to Dr. Clarke^ whofe Pretences I had before* confidered, and, 1 think, confuted? You tell me that neither the antient Writers, nor Bp. Bull^ are at all of my Opinion in the Point of equal Supremacy of Dominion. But fo far as I appre- hend of the Antients^ and of Bp. Bull^ They were cxadly of my Opinion, as They are diredlly oppo- fite to yours : And I wonder at your Prefumption in claiming any Acquaintance with Them, or Intereft in Them. You have a pretty Argument (/>. 41 f.) to prove St. Paul a Pagan^ and an Idolater^ upon my Princi- ples j that is, upon the Principles of the CathoUck Church in all Ages : For mine are no other. But how is This wonderful Confequence to be raifed? It is firfl by fuppofing, that St. Paul excluded the Son from the One Godhead -y an imaginary Confe- quenc drawn from i Cor. viii. 6. And next by fuppofing, that St. Paul allowed mediate and inferior Worfhip 5 another imaginary Inference drawn from I Tim. ii. f. Phil. ii. 11. After fporting your felf a while in fo ridiculous an Argument, you come to invent fomething for me to fay : You fuppofe I fhall fay, that our Lord is That One God men- tioned I Cor. viii. 6. Which you think highly ab- furd. But what if I fhoiild plead, that That One God is a filly Expreffion, where there are not Two One-Gods 5 and therefore fhould rather fay, that our Lord is not That Per/on there fliled One God by way of Eminence, but Another Pcrfon, who is yet * Smmnu p. 30, 31; One Qu. XXII. of fame Q.U E RI E S. 437 One God with Him. Your Interpretation of the Gods many and Lords many^ as alluding to the /upe^ rior and inferior Deities of the Pagans, ftands upon the Authority of Mr. Mede: Who, like a modeft and a learned Man, propofed it only as a plaulible Conje^ure^ not with the Confidence you fpeak of it. An ingenious Gentleman ^ has very lately fuggefted feveral Things on That Head, well deferving Confi- deration ^ and fuch as appear fufficient to make Mr. Mede's Conllru6i:ion pafs io^ precarious at leafb, if not certainly fajfe. There's one obvious Obje6lion to be farther ufed againll it j that to make the Gods many anfwer in theCoraparifon (in your Way) They fhould be underftood to be mmy fupr erne Godsj which yet the Heathens never afTerted, but the contrary : As Dr. Cudworth and other learned Men have abun- dantly ihown. To me it appears, that The many Gods and many Lords mean the Hime Thing, un- der different Names j and that St. Paul^ in Oppofi- tion to having many^ alTerts that all Things were of The One God, and by The One Lord, intimat- ing their perfed Unity of Power, Perfedion, and Operation, fo as to be Both but One God and One Lord'y the One Lord being One with the One God, and vice verfa. To proceed : How well you have been able to anfwer the Charge of Polytbeifm^ has been (ten before : And particularly as to Origen^ it has been ihown that his x\nfwer to the Charge in his Piece againd Celfus^ was nothing like yours, but diredly contrary > affirming Father and Son to be One God. I pafs over your Repetitions in p. 41(5, 427, which have been abundantly anfwered. Two Gods, One Supreme and Another inferior^ is fo manifellly your Dodrine, that you do but expofe your fclf to ridi- cule by llruggling to evade it. The Socinians^ in This, * Mr. WAde's fliort Inquiry into theDo<^rine of the Trinity. 8cc. F- 39* Sec. F f } were 43S A Second Defense Qu.XXII were plainer Men, and did not fcruple to confefs ^ clear Thing. You pretended, before, to bring Ante-nicene and P oft -niceneW Titers againft me, as to the Point of charg- ing you with Polytheifm. I knew you had none, but that you had unhappily deceived your felf with a few fecond-hand Scraps of Athanaftm^ Hilary and Bafil^ which you underflood not. I anfwered your Pre- tences, and produced full and plain Tellimonies * againft you, both ^Kovix Ante-nicene 2in(\ Poft-nicene Aw" tiquity. One was out of a Fragment o^ Dionyfius Ro- maniis^ preferved by Athanafius > a very valua.ble one, and fuch as no Critick will ever doubt of, as to its being genuine : Your Exceptions therefore againft it, as of doubtful Authority, are not worth the Notice j be- fldes that I have anfwered themabove||. Another Te- ilimony I produced from Athanafius Himfelf (or per- haps Bafil) who makes it D it he if m either to fuppofe ^wo Principles^ or to admit One God under i-ved and (mother God derived. Your Remark upon Him for it, is fo very ftirewd and fagacious, that it is pity the Rea- der iliould lofe It: He fhall have it in your own Words. Tou cite a Pajfage of Athanafius, that Ho. who introduces a God under ived^ and another who is a God derived^ makes t^joo Gods : PFhich is not very confiftent with his own foregoing V/ords^ that He who introduces two original Principles, preaches Two Gods. For^ that in This unoriginate Principality over all^ confifts the Unity of God^ was the exprefs Do6irine of all the Ante-nicene Writers. |^ow, are you really fo blind as not to have perceived, that That Origination (accords ing to the Antients) was not fuppofed to make the Father One God excliifive of the other Perfons? But becaufe Two of the Perfons were referred to One as their Head^ undivided from Him j Therefore all TJoree together were the One God. This was the u(e They^made of the Origination : Not to throw out The Son and Holy-Ghoft^ as you do, but to take QU.XXII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 459 Them Both in. Yet you are conftantly reprefent- ing that Origination in a quite different Light, and to a quite different Purpoiej meanly quotmg Bp. Pearfon for it: Who contradids you in the very fame Sentence, and reprefents the Cafe as it really ftood among the Antients^ being a learned^ and a ju- dicious Man. Upon This Occafion, I ihall here tranflate That Paflage of Athanafius^ that the common Reader may- fee what the Antients thought of Tritheifm^ in a very few Words. " He that introduces Tivo Principles (or Heads) " preaches up "T^doo Gods: Such was the impious " Dodrine of Marcion. Again, He that aiTerts an '' uncreated God, and another God created^ does " alfo make Two Godsy becaufe of the difference of " Nature {Efence) which He blafphemouily intro- " duces. But where there is one Head, (or Fa- '^ ther) and one Offfpring from Him, there is but '^ One God; the Godhead being perfea in the " Father, and the perfed Godhead of the Father " being alfo in the Son." I refer the Reader to my Defenfej (p. 3^8.^ for the Original-, where he will alfo find other Paffiges to the fime purpofe. What you produce next from Juftin^ Novatian^ Hilary^ and Bp. Pearfon^ the Reader may judge of by the laft of Them j whom you quote as faying, This Origination of the divine Paternity^ has antiently been looked upon as the AJfertion of the Unity. Here you flop, as ufual. The very next Words of Bp. Pearfon are \ And therefore the Son and Holy-Ghofi have been believed to be but One God with the Father^ becaufe Both from the Father^ who is One^ and fo the Union of Them^- : Dircclly contrary to what you cited Him for. Such are your Reprefentations of Authors j fuch your manner of ufing the commoa Reader. * Pearfon m the Creed, p. 40. F f 4 QjLT E R Y 440 A Second Defense Qu. XXIIL ^^^^ ^. ^^ ^' ^ .^ ^ ^- a ^^ -^ -^ ^^^^a'^ ^ .?^ cIS e- ,^ 4^ Q^UERY XXIII. Whether the T>o5ior*s Notion of the Trinity be more clear aiid intelligible than the other ? The T>ifficiilty in the Conception of the Trinity is^ howThree^ erfons can be One Cod? T>oes the ^Do5ior deny that every One of the Terfons, fingly^ is God? No : T)oes he deny that Cod IS One ? No : How then are Three One? ^oes one and the fame Authority y exercifedby alU make them oncy numerically or individually one and the fame God ? That is hard to conceive how three diftin£i Beings^ according to the Potior' s Scheme^ can be individually one Cod^ that is, Three Terfons One Terfon. Jf therefore One God necejfarily fignifies but One T^erjon, the Confequence is irrefiflible ; either that the Father is that One Verfon, and none elfCy which is downright Sabellianifm ; or that the Three Terfons are Three Gods, Thus the T>oBors Scheme is liable to the fame "Difficulties with the other. 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 Scrip- ture fenfe of the Word, But this is cutting the Knot, inflead of untying it i and is \in ef- fe£i to fay, they are not fet forth as divine Terfons in Scripture, ^1>oes the Communication of divine T^owers and Attributes from Fat her ^ to Son and Holy Spirit ^ mak^ Qu. XXIII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 441 make them One God, the divinity of the Two latter being the Fathers T)ivmity ? Tet the fame T>ifficulty recurs : For either the Son and Holy Ghoji have diJiinEi Attributes, and a dijlinci 'Divinity of their own, or they have not : If they have, they are {upon the T)o&ofs Principles) diftin^ Gods from the Father, and as much as Finite from Infinite, Creature from Creator s and then how are They One ? If they have not, then, fince they have no other Di- vinity, but that individualDivinity, andthofe Attributes which are infeparable from the Fa- thers Effence, they can have no diflinEi Ef fence from the Father's 5 and fo [according to the Doctor) will be One and the fame Verfon, 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 communication of di- vine Towers and Attributes, without the Subflance, being as hard to conceive, nay, much harder than a communication of Both together ? You begin thus: The Difficulty in the Conception of the 'Trinity^ is not how Three Perfons can be One God. For^ the Scripture no ivhere exprcffes the Do^rine in T'hofe Words : And the Difficulty of under- ftaruling a Scripture Dodirine ought not furely to Us wholly upon Words not found in Scripture. The Rea- der is to know that This is a new 'Turn^ intended to bring you off from the firft ftate of the Qiieliion where you happened to lole your felf, in your firfl: Anfwer. However, tho' it may pafs for an ingeni- ous fhift in Diftrefs, there is very little in it more ^han in youx firjl ilnfwer. Only it is hard upon me 442 ^ Second Defense Qu.XXIII. to have new Anfwcrs now formed to old Queries, and to be put upon changing my Method of De- fenfej as often as you are plealed to vary your Re- fponfes. Whoever taught you This new furn^ was a Man of no great Prudence, or Forefight : He did not confider how it inevitably recoils upon Dr. Clarke, For, the Scripture no where ex prefTes in Words, or in Senfe, his main Do5lrine that the Father alone is NecejUarily-exifting^ that neither the Son nor the Holy- Ghoft is NeceJJarily-exifting : (fo you now confefledly uudcrlland Self-exiftent) Thefe are Tenets not found in Scripture expreflly, nor fo much as deducible by any Confequence, or Shadow of a Confequence. Why then did you not confider better, before you drew up a Charge upon others, which at length falls only on your own Friends ? You go on : 'Tis 'very Jirange that a Man of your Abilities Jhould write a- large Book without fo 7?iuch as knowings or ever once being able to exprefs what the true ^eftion is. And it is very ftrange that a Man of your Abilities fliould perceive nothing of my miftaking the ^ueftion^ when you firfl: anCwered the ^eries ; but Ihould be forced 'to learn This, at length, of the Modeft Pleader^ from whom you have been content to ccchoe it. Tho' my ylbilitles are very flender, yet This mean Suggeilion will hardly find Credit, even among the lowcll: Readers that can at all dillinguilli between a probable Untruth, and one that is plainly Roman- tick. When you are again difpofed to abufe an Ad- verfary^ do it a little more artfully 5 if without any Truths yet with a little Difcretion. But I excufe vou for being mifled by a Third Perfon, who was too wife to fet his Name. As to the ^efiion^ I have not miftook it, but have kept clofe to it y while the Doctor and You have been either induflrioufly difguifing it, or unfairly running from it. You might think it fufficient if your Shifting, and fhuf- fling in fo momentous a Controverfy (which plain and'honcll Men, on Either iidc, can but hardly ex- cufe) Qu. XXIII. offome QUERIES. 443 cufe) be pafs'd over as tolerable 5 or may but admit of any candid^ and plauftble Colour, from the Circum- fiances you are under. It becomes you not, in the mean Time, fo magiflerially to corred others for flating the Queftion right^ and as it ought to be da- ted. Had you but had the Courage, and Spirit of your Friend Mx.Whifton^ I doubt not but you your felf would have ftated the Queftion as He, and I and all Men of Senfe and undifguifed Ingenuity have ever done. But enough of This. You were here to clear Dr. Clarke"^ Do6]:rine of the Charge of Three Gods. You firll obfcrve, that the Word God no where in Scripture denotes the Holy-Ghoft, Well then, you will throw Him out from being God^ and reduce the Number to Two : Tho', whenT wrote before, I imagined. Dr. Clarke and You, had admitted the Holy-Ghofl to be God\ and the rather, becaufe I never heard that you had re- traifled your Subfcrtption^ or would fcruple to repeat it But not to prefs you farther on fo tender a Point ; how get you off from averting Tivo Gods^ the Fa- ther and Son? You have nothing to fay, but Repeating, and Trifling : Let us go to another Point. You are next to retort the Charge of Tritheifm upon Me: which I have anfwered more than once, and need not do it again. Dr. Clarke's Scheme, you fay, is eafily expreffed in the very Words of Scrip- ture. But, had the Doclor gone no farther than Scripture^ his Schem-e could never have been ex- prelTed at all. Only, ^mct He has told you where, and how, to underftand Self-exiftent^ and where to exclude it 3 now you pretend his Scheme may be exprelTed in ^yrr/^^/zr^ words. Do' you imagine that I cannot as eafily, or more eafily, find Scripture- words for mine? But This is trifling. Why have you not laid down your Do6lrine in Scripture words, that I might compare it with the Doc- tor's 444 ^ Second Defense Qu.XXIII. tox^s Proportions^ to fee how far They exceed, or come fliort ?j I may here difmifs the Modefi Pleader^ who is fet in the Front, and is not anfwering my Defenfe^ but my ^eries: Which you had done before, and, I think, more to the purpofe > I am fure more ingenuoujly and frankly^ and more like a lover of Truth. I have reafon to complain of your not digefting your Book better, and not throwing your disjointed Materials into a more neat and regular Order, after you had fo long Time for the compiling. For when fometimes X thought a Point had been difculTed, and we were to have no more of it, in That ^ery at leaft> as I go on fome Pages forwards, there, 1 obferve, I am to difcufs the fame Things again j which gives me fome Trouble, and muft create Confufion in the Reader. The Modeft Pleader^ I perceive, draws off in ^. 43<5. And now I am to engage a ne-w Man, whom I'll fuppofe to be the Man I am writing to. You need fay no more about the Charge of ^hree Gods^ or Two Gods : I underftand you very fully, that the Father is One God^ as being Necejffarily-exifting ; the Son Another God infinitely inferior, of the Father's ap- pointing. Strain no more for Apologies: The Thing is out, tho' long a bringing forth > and now our Difpute will run clear. Here is very little of Mo- ment occurring but what has been anfwered. You have a few Quibbles in p. 438. which are all abun- dantly anfwered in my Defenfe *. You objed" Bp. Pearfon to me againft my faying, that the Word God is fometimes taken Per finally^ and fometimes EjTentiaUy. And what fays '^^. Pearfonl I have a great refped for his Memory. He fays, the Word God in the Apoltles Creed is not taken EJJentially : So fay I too. Nor is it taken ejjentially^ but perfo- nally^ in the Nrcene Creed. Therefore what.^ There- fore it is never taken otherwife : That is your Confe- *J>efmf2, p. 349. Qu.XXnL offome (QUERIES. 445 quence, when you can make any Confequence of it. It is the old Falentiman Diilin^lion, you obferve. I am glad it is fo old however : Thofe Hereticks fomc- times borrowed good Things from the Church j the' They happened to fpoil Them in the Ufe. But, if you look again into ^ertuJlian^ you will find That VaUntinian Diftinftion to be nothing a- kin to ours, except it be in the Name. In Page 439^ you are finding I know not what Perplexities in a very eafy Thing j which I have accounted for twice already, in Print*. Intelligent Agent^ being only two Adje&ivcs, is to be underftood according to the SuhjeB to which the Attributes are applied. Put the Words to Subftance^ and then we have intelligent Agent Suhftance^ whether in Per' fon^ or Perfons. If the Subftance be thus, or thus circumftantiated, ( as explained above ) intelligent Agent Suhfiance may be a Jingle Perfon ; if otherwife, it may be more Perfons : So that intelligent Agent is different in Senfe and Meaning, according as it may be differently applied. What you repeat about a Principle of Individuation^ and your f^irther Specula- tions thereupon, have been fufficiently obviated ; or have nothing contradiftory to any thing I aflert. I allow that ^ree ftands for Tlrree.^ and Three Suhftances for Three Subftances, and Three Gods for Three Gods. What is all This to Me } I do not afTert that Three ftands for more, or lc6 than Three > nor that Three Subftances, but that Three Perfons (who are not Three Subftances) are One Subftance> nor that Three Gods, but Three Perfons (who are not Three Gods) are One God. What you fay of Sahellius., (p. 442.) has been anfvvcred above. And what you fay of the Church's holding one and the fame individual identical whole Subjlance^ afFe^ls not me, who never exprefs my Notion in fuch uncouth • preface to Sermons, />. fi. Suj^lmm to the Cafe of Arian Subfcripthn, p. ji. Terms, 44^ A Second Defense Qu.XXIIL Terras. The fame undivided Subftance is what I hold and maintain, in oppofition both to Subftance s and to the SabelUan Notion of one Hypoftajis^ nemi-' nally, and not really diftinguifhed. Origen's Account of the Sahellian Notion is very diftiniS and accurate, as I before obferved, wz.That the Father and Son were One^ not in EJfence only (or Subftance) but in Subje5l (or fuppojttum) being called Father and Son under different Confiderations^ not really, or perfonally diftinguifhed*. This is a juft account of Origen's Senfe in That Paflage. And it is obfervable^ that the Noetians of That Time would not have been blamed for fuppofing the Father and Son to be tv «V/f , one in E [fence ^ for what we call one in Subftance) had they not carried the Union fa high as to make one Suppofitum^ or what we now call One Perfono^ Both, without anyr^^/Diftinftion. Your Account of it is very little different from mine : Only you are fond of the Phrafe, ftngle \ex^ iftent Subjiance^ which ferves you to play with, and you know not what you mean by it. Do but de- fine ^hit^fingle exiftent Subflance is^ and I will fooa tell you whether the Name belongs ro every fmgle Per/on^ or to all together. Undivided Subftance^ in Three Perfons, you fay^ makes Three Subftances. How you do prove it ? 1 have often told you that Dr. Clarke and you, will not admit This kind of Reafoning in Another Cafe -, for fear of dividing the divine Subftance into numberlefs Subftances. If you can admit Subftance and Sub- ftance^ nay, This Subftance and That Subftance^ where there are no Subftances \ why do you deal thus unequally with others ? You muft allow that Union icX>Koe, Kcc] vTVoKiifjuiya rvy^ciiovru^ cifjij(p6Tiq}ii, kxtu, tivx^ 69rivoiU(;f ixMT vzo^ettriVt ?^iyi(r^en Ttenri^os. xm\ wsr. Origcn. Com, in Job. p. l8^. 1% Qu. XXIII. offome dU E R I E S. 447 is enough to conilitute Samenefs^ without making ^ixhcv complex^ or compound S\xh^2inct: Othervvife you make a complex^ ox compound Subftance of God. Since therefore the fame, or equal Difficulties bear upon Both j be fo fair, and fo candid, as to condemn, or to acquit Both. As to the Senfe of Hypoflafis^ I have delivered my Mind above. You bring in a long detail of the Senfe of »cr/A and ^wo%ac\^^ in which I am very little concerned j having never pretended that Hypoftajis^ or Perfon^ does not im- ply Subftance -y or fignify Subftance. Only, in Divinis^ a Perfon is not feparate Subftance^ nor, confequently, more Perfons mort Subftance s : So that what you have to fay in the following Pages, is moftly wide and foreign. I may juft throw a few Stri6lures upon your account, as I pafs along. 'T7ros"ajZi, you fay, fignifies /?;i!^«/^r identical Subftance. Now, becaufe you often fpeakof Jingular identical Subftance^ as if you really underftood what you are talking about j let us Hop a while and examine what you mean by it. I conceive, you mean juft as much Subftance as you take into your Thoughts at once, confidering it as one. You have brought the divine Subftance^ under extenfion : And fo give me leave to quellioh you a little upon That Head, in a ilyle proper to your Notion. You can conceive, in your Thoughts, as much of that Sub- ftance as is commenfurate, fuppofe,to the Sun: Pray, tell me, if This be not a fmgular identical Subftance^ in your own way of reafoning. Confider only Half of That ; and then there's another fmgular identical Subftance. Divide into garters: And then you have ioMX ftngular identical Subftances. And as every Thing extended is ( as our Mathematicians tell us ) infmitely divifible J there will be as m^iny ftngular identical Sub- ftances as you are pleafed to conceive diviCble Parts. Do I mifreprefent you? Or are none of thole Parts ftngular identical Subftances., but all one ftngular iden- tical Subftance ? What is the reafon of it? Is it not that Union makes Samenefs.^ all real Samenef ? You mull 448 ^ Se CON D Defense Qu. XXIIL mufl fay fo: Otherwife, upon your Principles, I'll demonftrate that there is not zjingular identical Sub- fiance in the World > the Icaft imaginable y^;^^ being Itill farther divifible^ in conception, infinitely. What ufc you will now make of fingular identical Subftan- ces^ I know not: But This I know, that you can never oblige me to admit Two undivided infeparable Perfons to be Ty^o fingular identical Sub fiances^ till you divide the divine Subftancc (as you conceive,.- it) into as m'^ny fingular identical Subfiances as there are conceivable Parts. Having given This hint of the fruitleflhefs of the Pains you are taking about Hy- po ft afis ^ I may now ailv, is this the Dodtrine Chrift came to teach, that nree divine Perfons muft he 'Three fingular identical Subfiances ? But to proceed. 1 forgot to afk you, whether any Two Parts of the divine Subftance, in your way of thinking, are 6/jtoy- cicL^ or rauTcacria, or ixovoiiaia'^ I know they mult be Una Subfiantia^ tho' Either of them is fingular iden- tical Subftance^ dillinft by itfelf, and This is not That. I believe, you would be more puzzled about the ufe of Terms^ in That Cafe, than ever were the Fathers in refpeft of the Trinity. What I intend by jail I have here faid, is to make you at length fenfible of Two Things, about which you have been hitherto very flow and unperceiving. 1. That a Man may have a very clear and tuU Notion of an Union and a DifiinUion^ and yet be very much puzzled about the Names whereby they ihould be called. 2. That the Metaphyfical^ Objections wherewith you have been endeavouring to clog the Catholick Do£brine of the Trinity, (about Specifick^ Numerical^ Individual^ Identical^ and the like) are not fo much ow- ing to any Difficulty there is in the conception of the Do6lrine (which was a plain Thing long before ever thofe Words came in, and ftill is fo) but to the Dif- ficulty of fixing, defining, fettling, in all Cafes, what Thofe feveral IVords^ Names^ or Phrafes fliall import. But I piroceed. Inftead Qu. XXin. offome dU E R I E S. 44^ Inftead of amufing your Reader with a long de- tail of the ufe of Jcr/a and uVcracrir, fuch as the learned will defpife, and the unlearned will not edify by i it were better to have endeavoured to give Him a diftinft Idea of what the Antients meant by OnQ Hy po ft aft s^ ovThxtcHypoftafes. That I may fay fomething which may be ufeful to commoa Readers , the Cafe lies thus : The Faith of the Church all along was in Father, Son, and Holy- Gholl, One God, into which They were baptized. The Father was not the Son, nor the Son the Fa- ther, nor the Holy-Ghoft Either of the other. This was the common Faith of the Church, before either Perfon^ or Subftance^ was talked of. In Juftin Martyr's Time, we find, that] nothing was to be worihipped but God-y that Thefe Three, Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft, were all worjhipped^ yet not as] three Gods-y that They were believed to be really diftinft, and not nominally only: But The Diftin^ion was not exprefled by Perfons^ nor the Union by Suhftance j nor does it appear that the W ovdi'Trinity was yet applied to this Cafe. In Athenagoras^ we find plain mention made of the Union and Diftin^lion of Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft J but ftill nothing of Perfons^ and Sub* fiance, I'heophilus^ of the fame Age, about the Year 180, is the firft Writer extant that exprefsly gives them the Name of Trinity, But ftill Perfons and Subftanc§ were not mentioned. But upon the Difputes raifed by Praxeas^ NoetuSy and Sabellius ^y (one after another) it by degrees grew * Tacundui Hermlmenfis is a little miftaken, when He confines it to the Times of SaMlius : But if we underftand Him oi Sabellius » and his PredeceiTors, iioetns and ^rnxetis, his Obfer7aticyik is juft. His Words are: T G g Nam 450 y^ Second Defense Qu. XXIII . grew into common ufe to exprefs theDiftinftion by Perfons^ and the Unity by One Subftance. I know not whether Clemens of Alexandria may be reckoned the firfl: Writer extant that exprefsly has the Name •of One Subftance (ixovad^iy-ri ^aia.) appHed in This Cafe. It is ccn^ln'tertullian has it, and Perfons too. And This became the ufual way of expreffing what had been all along believed, and profefled, tho' under other Terms. The Sabellians (by which I mean all of Sabcllian Principles) charged the Catholicks with ^hree Gods^ and thereby firit gave occafion to the Churchtto make ufe of the Word Perfon : For, their An- fwer was, that They did not profefs fwo Gods^ or l^hree Gods^ but One God and ^wo Perfons^ or I'hree Perfons^, There being in the Trinity^ a DiftinUion^ and an Union , there would naturally arife fome Difference about the ufe of feveral Tteryns^ to be either plurally or ftngularly predicated, accord- ing as the intent might be to Ipeak of the Per- fons as difti}iguift:)ed into I'hree ^ or as united in- One God. The fame Names either plurally or fin- gularly predicated fometimcs fcrved to exprefs both the Dillintlion^ and Union. Gregory Nazianzen calls them Lights and Light^ that is, "three Lights.^ and yet but One Light > and fo three Lifes and yet but One Life-, Three Goods^ and yet but One Good; Three GlorieSj and yet but One Glory ^ the Mind conceiving Nam fie Ecclefia Chrifti, etiani cum necdum ad diftindiionem Patris, 8c Filii, 8c Spiritus Sandi, utcretur nomine Ferfon£, Tres credidit, 8c prsedicavit, Patrem, 6c FiJium, & Spiritum Sandtum, mmmVerfondrum autemnomen non nili cum Sii6ellius impugnarct Ecclc- iiam, necefTario in uium prnedicationis nfiumptum eft; ut qui fem- pcr tres crediti funt, & vocati. Pater, 8c Filius, 8c Spiritus Sandrus, uno quoque limul 8c communi Perfonarum nomine vocarentur. Deindc etiam 8c Subj'ijlem'u di(5bc lunt, quoniam Ecclefioe placuit, ad fignificandam Trinitatem, 8c hoc nomen diftindioni perfonali tribuere. Facund, Herm. 1. i. p. 8. See yehat I hai^e faul above, p. 2 1 5. i^^Hippolytus contr. Noct. and Tertull. adv. Prax. the Qu. XXIir. offome Q^U E R I E S. 45 x the Three as Diftinui^ tho' in themfclves ujiircd and infeparablef. All the care to be taken in thcfe Cafes was, not to make the Diftin^ion too wide by the plural Expreffions, nor the Unity too clofe by the fingular : And the Difputes that arofe in this Cafe were from Men's diffcrcnc Appiehcndons about This or That Phrafe^ or ExpreJJlon^ as being Hablc to abufe one way or other, 'fhree Spirits was a Phrafc gene- rally thought to carry the Diflinftion too far; And therefore One Spirit became the more common Lan- guage 5 tho' even y^/(?;« Himlelf has been thought to have ufed the Phrafe of Three Spirits *. But the greateil Debate of all was about Three Hypoftajes , begun at Antioch, The Arians had ufed the Phrafe to fignify Three Suhftances^ underftanding them to be different in kind (as Gold^ Silver J Brafs) and feparate from each o- ther. Again, the iy^^^Z/i^/^i had made ufe of O;;^ Z/^- pofiafis^ to fignify One Suhfiance in fuch a Senfe as left norf^/Dill:in(5lion5 hut nominal only. Here was there- fore Danger on Either fidej either o£ diviciingthe Sub^ (lance by making Three Hypoftafes^ or of confounding the Perfons by making One, This Difference was at length compromifed (yf. D. ^6z.) in a Synod at Alex^ dndria^ where Athanafius prefided : Either manner of ExpreiHon was left indifferent, fo long as They agreed in one common Faith, meaning Both iht famo Things under different Terms. So that /a/a ifTrc^oicri^ or T^5K i>Vo?a(7£i?, might be afferted, in like manner as (pojs- or (pwVa, the Tame Word plurally predica- Orar. 13. p. 21 1. * Trcs Spiritus nominates breviter ©ftendam. ■ Tr.ncipalcm Spiritum Patrem appellat : quia Filius ex Patrc, 8c non Pater ex Filio. Spiritum autem recium, Veritatis atque juftitia:, Chriftum Dominum Significat. ■ Porro Spiritum Sancitvn aperto nomine vocat, Hteron, iii Galat. c. 14. p. 268. Tom. 4. G g z ted 45 2 ^Second Defense Qu.XXlIl ted to exprcfs the Dijlin^lion^ and alfo fingularly to exprefs the Union -y the plural being equivalent to Three PeiTons, the fingular to One God : For That was all the Antients intended, never to make the Per* fons One^ nor the Godhead Many. The Latins * could hardly bear the Phrafe of 'Tres Stihftanti£ : It Teemed to carry more in it than the Greek's Three Hypo fia/es. It was underllood to mean either T'hree Subftances^ (that is, a Divifton of Sub" fiance^ or Three different kinds of Subftance > Neither of which could be born : And therefore Una Sub^ ftantia became the common Language 5 but fo that the real Diftinftion between Father, Son, and Holy- Ghoft was kept up, to guard againfl Sabellianifm. Indeed, Hilary ufes Tres Subftanti^ f : And fo, no doubt, did fome other Latins who were zealous Ca- tholicks: But then They intended no Difference in the kind of Subftance^ nor any Divifion in the [ami kind'. Which fecured the true Catholick Notion; and the Offence lay only in the Exprefflon. In ♦ Et quifquam, rogo, Ore Sacrilege Trei SubJimtUs prsedicabit ? Hieron. Ep. ad Damaf. Tom. IV. p. 20. Sub nomine Catholicas Fidei, impia Verba defendant; diccntcs, Tres ejfe Stibftantiasy cum Temper Catholica Fides Uneim Subjlantiam Patris & Filii &: Spiritus Sanifli confefTa fit. 'Faufiin. Fid. Theo- dof. MifTa. Quia noflra loquendi confuetudo jam obtinuit, ut hoc intelligatur cum dicimus ejfeijtiam quod intelligitur cum dicimus Subfiantiam y non audemus dicere unam ElTentiam, Tres Subflamias^ fed unam ejjentiam, vel Stibjiantiam^ Tres autem Terfonas. Auguft. Trin. 1.^, c. 9. p. 8318, Sunt Tria qu-idum cocterna, confubftantialia, coefTentialia. Sed cum quasreretur a Patribus, ut diceretur, Quid Triaj nee EjfentMs, nee Subjlamasy nee Naturas dicere auli funt ; ne aliqua forte Jiverfaas credcretur eflentiarum, aut naturarum, aut fubftantiarum : Sed dixc- f unt Tres Terfonas, unam eflentiam j ut una cffentia declararet Deum anumy Tres autem Perfonae Sandtam Trimtatem oftenderent. Itilgent. de Trin. cap. 3. p. 330. t Idcirco Tres fubjiant'ms efle dixerunt, fubfiftentium Ffrfmat per SubjUntias edocentes, non fubftantiam Patris & Filii diverfitate dif- iimilis cfTentiae feparantes. Hilar, de S/nod. p. 11 70. (hort, Qu. XXIII. of fame (QUERIES. 455 fhort, the mainjThing They intended in all, was, that the Three Perfons were really^ and more than nominally diftind, and all but One God. And They admitted feveral ways of exprcfling the Diftin6tmi^ or Union^ in fuch Modes of Speech as were thought mod proper to it. Provided both a real Di{lin6bion, a real trinity were kept up, and at the fame Time an Unity of Godhead -, the reft amounted only to a 'verbal Difpute, or Strife about fiords. I may here remark, that Bafil^ Nazianzen^ Auftin^ and others, blame the fcantinefs of the Z^//« Tongue, as being the fole Reafon of the perplexity of theZ^- tins^ in relation to the Phrafe of T'res fnhflanti<£. Yet we find, that for a long Seafon the Phrafe of TpgT? ^-Ko^iim was almoil as much a Bone of Contentioi^ among the Greeks^ as Tres Subftanti^, among the Latins y2indi that it was with great Difficulty that it at length prevailed, and became the common Language : As it was alfo with fome Difficulty that the other way of fpeaking, viz.Una Subftantia^ obtained among the Latins. The true Ground of all was This, that Both Greeks and Latins wanted a Phrafe to exprefs Subftance confidered as United^ but Diftinguifrjed at the fame Time. "Three Subftances (whether jTres-ao-srr, or Subftantice) cxpreiTed, ordinarily. Three divided Subftances i and the latter, Three of different kinds: What therefore could They invent to exprefs Three Things (Tres res^ or Trio) real and fubftantial, but undivided? Here lay the Pinch of the Difficulty. Subftantia de Subftantia expreffed it tolerably well; like as Lumen de lumine^ and Deus de Deo : But ftill what were they to put to the Word Three^ in the plural way of Predication ? Perfons ? But Sabellius had wrefted, and depraved the Senfe of the Word Per/on to an ambiguous, or linifter meaning. Sub- fiances? But That was alfo liable to Mifconftruftion, and to be perverted to another Extreme. However, the Greek u7ro?ao-«?, by degrees obtained, to fignify the {ame as 7rg6cr«7ra IvuTroTara. And fo long as no G g } Divifton 454 ^ Second Defense Qu.XXIIL Droifion be underftood, the Phrafe may ferve very well : And fo perhaps might the Latin SubftanticC^ had not Cuftom carried it the other way. The La- tins have fince invented 'Tres fubfi ft entire ^ T'ria fuppo- fita^ inflead of I'res fuhftantia-y t ho' the very School- men have not fcrupled 'Tres fuhftantia^ with the addition of incommunicahiles^ or relati'va^^ to inti- mate that the Perfons are not divided Sub fiances^ but that They are United^ and depending on each other, relative as to exiftence, fo that one cannot be with- out the other, ov feparate from the other: Under which Cautions They can admit 'Tres fubftanti^^ and yet Una fubftantia in all 5 like as Tres Res^ tho'all X-O- gtihtvUna fiimma Res> The Truth is, every Per/on is Sub fiance^ (but not properly A Subftance) Subftance in Union with Subftance^ and not divided: A Thing eafy to be underftood, but not eafy to be exprcfled. You would find the like Difficulty in exprelling the Parts of the divine Subftance^ in your Hypothefis of extenfion. You cannot but admit that every Part is Subftance (Subftance it muft be, or nothing) and yet becaufe of their infeparable Union, and their making One Subftance in the whole • you would not dare to call one Part A Subftance^ or fever al Parts feveral Subftances, This I again intimate, that you may not be too fevere upon others, merely about a Mode of Expreffion fwhich is all the Cafe) when, in a pa- rallel Inftance, the Objedion may be as ftrongly re- * Eft xquivocum Subf^antU nomen, 8c faspe fignificat ejfcntiam _— .Potefl: etiam fignificarc Suppojltum; 8c maxime fi addatur frimu. Sub'ftantia quia Stippojitum maxime per fe SubfilHt. Unde in hac fignificitione admitti poflunt Tres SubJiantU in Deo, non vero" in priori. Et propter hanc sequiyocationem virandam, multi ex" Antiquis Patribusncgarunt hanc locuticnem, ne viderenrur cumArio fcntire, qui cflcntias m Trinitate nuilf'plicaba^— Sc itaD. T/;^?;/?/?^ di- cit juxta confuetudinem Ecclefije non ti^t ab£>Jure dicendas Tns Sub- . Jlanr'ras ; addendo vero aliquid quod determiner Significationem, did. ■poff: /T Tres SubJiar^tA \nc0rr.mun\c2h\ks, (q\x riktivdi,. Sua-* rez. Metaph. Dilp. 34,. Sed.,!. N. <5. p. 177, '. ,,.;j torted Qu. XXIII. offome (QUERIES. 455 torted upon your felves. You admit Subftance and Subjtancej where you think it not proper to fliy Sz/^- ftances: And if you had not, yet you could never be able to fhow that Subftance and Subftance, confi- dered in Union^ muft always make Subftances. Yet a great part of what you have been endeavouring under This ^ery^ as well as what Dr. JVhitby has urged in the Second Part of his RepJy^ is founded chiefly upon a precarious, nay falle Suppofition, that, if every Perfon be Subftance^ Three Perfons muft be 'Three Subftances^ and cannot be One Sub- ftance. Now, to return. I muft here take notice of a PafTage of Gregory Nazianzen^ produced firft by Mr. JVhifton ^ with great Pomp, as making fome notable Difcovery^ and now by you, I fuppole, for the like purpofe. What Mr. JVhifton profeiledly, (and you covertly) intends from That Paflage, is, that Athanaftus was the firft Inven- tor, or Teacher of the Divinity^ Confubftantiality^ Coequality^ and Coeternity of the Holy Spirit. This would be a great Difcovery indeed, had Gregory Na* zianzen really faid it. But before we come to the remarkable Paflage, it will be proper to inform the Reader what Gregory had been faying before, and how This Sentence, which 1 fhall prefently produce at length, came in. The Oration is a Panegyrick upon Athanaftus-, wherein He runs through the moft remarkable inci^ dents of his Life, his Sufferings^ and his Ser^vices^ his great Prudence, fervent Zeal, and undaunted Courage in the Caufe of Chrift, He obferves, how Athanaftus j", even in his younger Years, before the Nicene Council, had very juft and accurate Notions of the Doftrine of the Trinity j keeping a Mean be- * Whifton'^ Keply to Lord Nottingham, ^dd, p. 92. t Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 380, 381. G g 4 tween 456 yf Second Defense Qa. XXIIL tween the extreme of Sabellius (who had too much contrafted the Godhead, by confounding the Dif- tin6tion) and the other extreme of Arius^ who had divided the Godhead .into feparate Deities. He dc- fcribes afterwards the many Difficulties Athamfius met with, raifed by the Hatred and Enmity of the Avians: Particularly in the Year 3f5, in the Reign of Confiantius^ v^hen George the Arianw^s put into the Sccof Alexandriajznd At/Mnajtus forc'd to flee for his Life. Then were the Churches put into the Hands of the Arians : Who having the fecular Power on their fide, fpared no Severities > but raged againft the Catho- licks with all imaginable Cruelties. Then it was, cfpecially about the Year 3fp, that the antient and pious Dotlrine of the Trinity (as Nazianzen * fays) was difiblved and dellroyed : And Arianifm^ unfcriptural Arianifm, brought in, in its room. Many, who were in their Hearts true Friends to the Antient Doc- trine, yet complied too far with the Avian Confef- ilonsfi which, Nazianzen fays, He had often la- mented with Tears. And fuch was the violence of the Perfecution^ that, excepting fome few Men that Hood out, and others whofe Station was fo low as to make them be overlooked, all yielded to the Times > induced thereto either by Fear, or by In- tereft, or elfe ignorantly circumvented by Fraud. During Thefe Storms, and in the midfl of fo gene- ral an A^po^'^.cy'i Athdnafius flood firm, and unmoved; the main Support of the true antient Faith. In 361, ConftantiuSy who had been the Strength of the Ari- ans^ dies: And aworfe than He, Julian the Apoflate Emperor, fucceeds. Here was fome Peace to the Church, but it was yet miferably diflracted with He- refies, with variety of Sc6i:s and Parties, tearing one another. In 363, Julian being d^Lm^ Jovian fucceed- cd : Still Things were in Confufion as to the ftate of * Greg. Naz. p. 586. I Greg, Naz. Orat. p. 587. the Qu. XXIII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 457 the Church. Tho. Avians^ in fome Places, were many, and powerful, and had been endeavouring, very early, to flir up the Emperor Jovian ^g^im^AthanaJius and all his Adherents. At This critical Time, in the midft o£ Danger, That great and good Man was not afraid to preach the Truth boldly, and to propofc it open and undifguifed to the Emperor Himfclf in writing: Of which noble Inftance, both of his Courage and Conftancy, Nazianzen thus fpeaks. '' And here particularly appeared the Integrity of " the Man {Athanafius) and the firmnefs of his Faith '' in Chrift. For when, of all the other Chriftians, " divided into Three Parts, many were unfound in " their Faith concerning the 5"^;;, and «^(?r^ concerning '' the Holy-Ghoft (where to be on\y lefs Impious was '^ efteemed Piety) and but a few were found in Both ^' Articles 5 He was the fir ft , and only Man (ov however " with a very few) that had the Courage to profeft '^ the Truth, in writing, plainly and in exprefs '' words. The One Godhead and Eflence of *' T'hree, And what many of the Fathers before had *' been divinely moved to confefs in relation to the '* Son^ He was afterwards infpired to confefs con- *' cerning the Holy-Ghoft; bringing a Gift truly " royal and magnificent to the Majefty Royal, a " written Faith in oppofition to unwritten No- « velty *." Now, what is there in this Paflagc ef Nazianzen more than This: that at a Time when many had abandoned the Faith, and more had been Sneakci^s, * Tuv fjbtt y«p ef AA^y eczs-UfTotfy ciXuv f/jlf ovruv rav TTi^l Toy iiof up^a^tsvTur, TrMiimv ^ ratf TTtpl t% Trnvf/jee. to ocyiov^ *tt^» k»1 to i)TTov aKTifeilP, 'Eun/inac svo/jukt^i)' •Aiy* 0f Tm KUT Ufjtj^QTifcc iyucivo»T(^ ' TpSr^ xtcl ^o»(^, h ko/jui^ aru» ♦A*y<«?, oc7roTe>if^£ TKf tcXyiB-iM9 a-et^Z(i 4ru(rl kccI ^app'iiJV, "rm zpitfi* picey B-teryfTcc xul itnun iyy^ti^ttq ofiioMyitret^ ' xx) o t5 ToAAaJ tZ$ rcC" ■Tifm u^i^fjuSi V(fl Tov itey s^et^urShi ffpar«^o>, rSro Tfpt tS tiyla Trto- fuuT(^ rtwri? t/^TKjvj-^ets wftfw, &c. Greg. Nazianz. prat. ii. ?• 354.. and 45^ ^ Second Defense Qu. XXIII. and Time-fervers, Athanafius^ with a few Adherents, had the Courage to fpeak out the Truth, boldly, without mincing it: And that This brave Refoluti- on of his was owing to the Spirit of God, moving and inciting Him to make That glorious Confeflion, in the Face of the World ? I have tranflated l^a^lffh'nj according to what appears to me to be the true and full meaning of Nazianzen : who in This very Ora- tion fpeaks of the Nicene Council^ as called together by the Holy-Ghoft *, that is, moved and incited by the Holy- Spirit to the Refokitions They madeagainlt Arius^ and his Herefy. In like manner, He fuppofes Athanafius to have been ftirred up, by the fame Spi- rit^ to make that noble Confeflion of the Divinity of ^he Holy-Ghoft, and in the like expreffive Words. All this well agrees with what Nazianzen had faid, but a few Pages before, that notwithftanding the violence of the Perfecution, there were fome that had^ Courage to refift, and ftand firm > whom God preferved, that there might be ftill remaining fome Seed and Root for Ifrael to reflourilh, and take new Life by the Influxes of the Holy Spirit f. That This was all his meaning, may appear farther, from his reprcfcnting the Do6trine ofacoeffentialTrini- ty, everywhere, as ^/2/;>;;^ Do6t:rine 5 and his branding the contrary Dodrinc as Novelty^ in That very PafTage. Nor could a Man of Nazianzen's good Senfe, and piety,- be fo ridiculous, and filly, as to build his ow^ Faith, (which This was) upon any fuppofed private Infpnation in the 4^^ Century, or any Century after the Jpoftks, or indeed upon any thing but the fa-- ered Writings. It is certain, He looked upon the Doftrinc of ih^ Godhead ol tht Holy-Ghoft, as one of thofe 'Truths, into the Knowledge whereof the ^ Gre^. Naz.Orat. ii. p. 381, f Grc^, Naz. p. 387. ■0oftles iQu.XXlII. of fame QUERIES. 45^ Jpoftles were led immediately after Chrift's Afcen* iion:^. All that was done after, was the fixing it by ferms that could be not eluded. I mufl obferve, that where Gregory Nazianzen fpeaks of the Smallnefs of the Number joining with jithanafms^ and adhering to the Nicene Faith j fomc Allowance muft be made for his Oratorical manner of fetting forth Athanafius's fingular Courage and Conlbncy : Or elfe He muft be underftood only of the Chriftians of Alexandria^ or Conftantinopk j who had been, for the generality, perverted by the Ari^ ans. For, as to other Places, it is certain, that the Nicene Faith was, at That very Time, profefTed by almoft all the Churches, all the World ov^er. For no fooner did the Catholicks recover a little refpite from Perfecution, about the Year 3(^2, but They condemned all that had been done by the Arians in the Council o^ Ariminum^ -y and profefTed their fteady Attachment to the Nicene Faith. Athanafius afTures the Emperor Jovian^ in That very Year 365, that the Nicene Faith was univerfally received by all the Churches of Spain^ England^ and Gaul -y by all Italy^ Dabnatia^^ Dacia^ Myfia and Macedonia > by all Greece and Africa^ by the Iflands of Sardinia^ Cy^ prus^ and Candia > by Pamphylia^ Lycia^ Ifaurta^ ALgypt^ Libya^ Pontus.^ Cappadocia^ and the Eaft j that is, by all the Earth, excepting a fmall Number of Arians. He declares, that He was alTured of the Faith of all Thofe Churches 5 and had their Letters by Him to produce -j-, in teftimony of it. From hence I infer, that Nazianzen is to be un- derftood only of fome particular Place at That Time over-run with Arianifm 3 moft probably, Con^ Greg. Naz. Orat. 37. p. 609, * See TillemontV Hi/^my oftheArhns, Sc6l. 83, p. 279, &C. t Athanaf. EpiH. ad Jovian. ^. 787. 4 fiantino^J^. 460 ^ Secon D Defense Qu.XXIIL ftantinople^ where Eufebius of Nicomedia^ Macedo- niusy and Eudoxius had fucccflively held the See for above 20 Years 5 and mull of courfe have corrupted great Numbers: And it is certain, that by the SuccefHon of Demophilus^ (another Ring- leader of the Arians) the Catholick Intereft in That City was in a manner opprefled and llifled, before Nazianzen came thither, about the Year J78. To return. I have nothing more to fay to your long account of Hypofiafis^ which does not at all af- fect Me: When you are once able to fix and fettle the precife Meaning oHndividual^ identical Subftance^ you may then know how to oppofe me. That Per- fon is Suhftance^ I have always allowed : That Sub^ fiance and Subftance always makes Subfiances^ you cannot prove: Or if you could, you know very well, that the Confequence bears as hard upon the Doftor and You, as it can upon Me 5 fince it makes the Divine Beings upon your own Principles, a Com- pound of innumerable Subftances : So that you can- not condemn my Way of thinking and fpeaking, but with the Shame of Self-contradi£ition, and condemn- ing your own felves. I had told you in my Defenfe p. jf 2, that to fay the One God is one Perfon only, and the Father That Perfon, is the EfTence of Sabellianifm^ and the Doftrine of Paul of Samofata^. This you call Romantick Hiftoryj which I am wiUing to excufe, charitably believing 'you really think fo : Tho' had any Man well verfed in Antiquity told me as much, I muft have had a hard Opinion of his Sincerity, S-£»TDT« — »7-o5 ^l a Ajy« y*ovoy B-lov Jio6 to JT»Vwi' livxirov ^ccrs^a, ti?i)Cot fjijcvov S-sov, kvVA^aiiy oirov to kolt it,vTov, r\v tS wS ^lornTM. )Cj i/Jro- ^0ti ilvec^ a'i Toy vtov rod B'iov iyvTo^ocrct^ iXAoe «» icvrw B-sSiy aiJ TToivrei S'eos, d srecTi^, AthaDaC fontr. Apollinar. p. 94Z. "■Qy y^p So/SsAAto; Xtyn r^iatvfAoy^ tQtov Evtefjbtoi cyofAu^u etymifr«9 ^ Greg. NylT. contra Eunom. p. 676, alias 248. Uterque Hsercticorum iftorum Singtdarem in Deo perfonam afleruit; quod de Sabellio nemo prorfus ignorat : dc Taulo Samojattm tcftan- tem Efiphanmm audivimus, Petay. Dogra. vol. $, p. 6* now, 4^2 A SECOND Defense Qu.XXIIL n ^w, where is the DifFerence between Them and You ; except that They made the Perfon of the Father the alone God^ under Three Names -y You make;the fame cue Perfon the alone Gud^ under the one Name of the Sclf-exiftent God^? This 1 demonftrated very di- llin6lly to you in my Defenfe-y and you take not the lead Notice of it. The Reader will fufpeft you had a Reafon for flipping over fo material a Point. I retorted upon you your Plea from i Cor. viii. 6. afking, how you can make 'Two Gods^ in Conrra- diftion to St. Paul^ who fays there is huf one? You diftinguifh between a fupreme God^ and an inferior God'y which St. Paul does not: We diftinguifli upon the Jlri^^ or large Intent of the excluji've Terms : And 1 told you, that our Diftin6lion was much older, and better warranted than yours. I therefore defired you, no more to charge us with contradi6ling St. Pauly but either to condemn your felves for doing it, or at leaft to acquit Both. To this you reply, that to fay the Son is^ (an inferior) God^ is no way con- trary to this Text. But it is contrary to the whole Tenour of Scripture, and to the fourth Verfe of That very Chapter y which fays abfolutely, that there is none other God but one. St. Paul does not fiy, no t See my Defenfe p. 3 5- 5-, &c. Gregory Njffeu's Obfervation is worth the reciting: He fays thus, *' To charge our Doftrine with Saiellianipn, or Montan'tfm^ is •«• much the fame as to impute to us the Blafphemy of Eummius. *' For if any one carefully examines into the common Miftake of *' Thofc Herefirs, He will find that it has a near Affinity to that of '*' "Eunomius. Both judaize in the fame Doctrine ; as not admitting «* the only-begotten to be God, nor receiving the Holy-Ghoft into f the Communion of the Godhead of Him whom they call the *' Great, and the Firfi God. For, whom Sabellius calls the trinominal •<' God, the fame does Eunomius name Self-exijient : And neither of •* them looks upon the Godhead as common to a Trinity of Per- *' fons. Let the Reader then judge who it h that comes neareft •' to SMlihs. Greg, Nyff. Orat. 9. p. (J76, alias 248. fupreme Qu. XXIII. of fome QUERIES. 46 j fupreme God only, but abfolutely. None, In Stri6b- nefs therefore you contradict St. Paul^ as diredly as Eoflible : And you have no other way of coming off, ut by a no'uel Diftinclion. Now, iince it is eafy for us to come off from the Charge you make, by the Help of a Dijiin^ion^ and one much better warranted than yours > why are we blamed, and you freed ? I have before ihown what we mean by fay- ing that the Son is tacitly included, tho' the Father be eminently ftiled ih&One God: Not that the Word God^ or the Word Father^ in fuch cafes, includes Father and Son> but it is predicated of one only, at the fame time that it is tacitely underflood that it may be equally predicated of Either, or Both 5 fincc no Oppofition is intended againll Either, but againft Creatures and falfe Gods. You have here pafTed over fifteen Pages of mine, which contained Things of great Moment: I may pafs over two of yours, which contain nothing but Words. Query 4^4 :/^ Second Defense Qu.XXIV. Q^UERY XXIV. Whether Gal. iv. 8. »2^ ;/^^ ^^ enough to de- termine the T>ifpute betwixt us 5 Jtnce it obliged the T>o£lor to confefs that Chrift is by Nature truly God, as truly as Man is by Nature truly Man ? He equivocates therey indeed, as Ufual. For^ he will have it to fignify, that Chrift is Cod by Nature^ only as having by that Na- ture which he derives from the Father^ true T)ivine Tower and dominion: That iSy he is truly God by Nature^ as having a Nature diftin£t from^ and inferior to y Godsy wanting the moft effential Charader of God, Selfexiftence. What is this but trifling with Words y and playing faft and loofe ? TH E Modefi Pleader here (lands in the Front j and, after his foleran way, gives me RehukeSj when He is at a Lofs for Anfwers. He tells me of an exprejs Scripture-diftin6iion that I am ridiculing: As if ridiculing what is really ridiculous^ and what is very profanely called exprefs Scripture -y (viz. the Diftinftion of Two adorable Gods^ fupreme and infe^ rior) were ridiculing Scripture. However, I was n- diculing nothing in This Query j but only laying before the Reader Two or Three Inftances of Dr. Clarke's equivocating^ and trifling: Which, it feems, is refented as a high Affront, and^is to be [turn'd upoi^ Qu.XXlV. of fame QJJ E R I E S. \6s upon the Scripture it fclf. And the Reader is to be gravely called to judge, whether it were a Zeal ac- cording to Knowledge^ &c. All This, becaufe one fallible Man, who has been charging whole Churches, and whole k^z% with Contradiction^ znd Nonfenfe^ has been charged with trifling and contradifting Him- felfj and that in a cafe too, which is felf-cvident and undeniable. The Argument on which the Charge refts, is This. '^ He that has not the Nature of the true and on^ *' ly God^ or is not naturally and necejfarily God, is '' not by Nature truly God^ as truly as Man is by '' Nature truly Man. '' Our Lord (according to the Doftor) has not ^' the Nature of the true and only God, nor is He ^' naturally and necejfarily Godi: Therefore He is not as hath beenfhown above. 4. A fourth Cavil is, that the diltindtion of Ef- fential and Perfonal has no place here, becaufe both the Perfon and the Effence are felf-cxiitent. But this is begging the Queftion. The Effencs belongs to three Perfons ; Self-exiflence^ or Underivednefs^ to one only: Therefore tho' Neceffary-cxiffence bean effential Character common to all, Self-exiflence is not. f . A fifth Civil \s againlt my including fupreme in the Definition of the Divine Nature, abftrafting from the Conhderation of Perfon. As if^ fay you. Supremacy was a Characler not of a living Agent^ hut of an AbfraU Effence. Ridiculous enough : As if the living Subftancc, common to three Perfons, were not as Qu. XXIV. offome Q.U E R I E S. 467 as truly Ihing^ and Jgent^ as when confider'd in one ^, Let the Reader now judge to whom the heap of Ah^ furdities juftly belongs. You have invented fome imaginary ones for Mc, and betrayed real ones of your own j having a happier Talent at wriung Nou'- fenfe for others, than Senfe for your felf. Your Argument to prove that; a Perfon maybe God on account of Dominion before any Dominion com- menc'd, has been already anfwerM. As to the fenfe of Gal. iv. 8. I referred to what had been faid by a learned Gentleman -\ upon it. You, on the other hand, refer to Dr. Clarke's Pieces, and to Modefi Pleay &c. The Difpute^is about the meaning of the Phrafe t«k /jcyj (f Jcret yen 3^£oTf, or fhorter, about (puVec ^*£or, God by Nature^ what it fhould iignify j whe- ther fiibftantially and ejfentially God, or really God as having true Dominion. The Reafons for the for- mer Interpretation are fuch as follow : 1 . The common ufe of the Term f uVif, for EfTence, or Subftance. 2. The ufe of (pujei ^soc in That fenfe among Greek Writers \ : As particularly by Iren^us^ and Athanafius j and by Gregory NyJJen in relation to this very Text. 3. Worfhip is required to be given to God prin- cipally on account, of his being 5 cJv, or Jehovah^ that is, on account of his being ejjmtially^ or fuh^ ftantially God. Nor is it of any moment what the Modeft Plea urges, that then Father and Son will be fwo Jehovahsj if each of them is to be worfhipp'd as * See my Sermons, p. 226. t The Scripture Doftrine of the Trinity, ^c. p. 19, ^c. True Scripture Do(5lrIne continued, p. 75, &c. Edwards's Critical Remarks, p. 18. 4= Naturaliter Dens , in oppolition to one that only bears Domi- nion, who is God verbo terms. IreriAus allows the Diflindtion, but rejeds the Application. Irm. /. 4- c.t. ©JtX o>T« KXTX T/y ^ucTi/, cTte 6 waT^^. AthsH. Vol. 2. p. 4. J. t/V« ^fcf. Athan, inPfal. p. 83. Greg, Ny IT. Contr. Eun." H h i being 46S A Second Defense Qu.XXIV. being o wv, or Jehovah : For, That is fuppofing the name Jehovah to be proper to one Perfon only, and not common to more j which is begging the Queftion. 4. Scripture is ufed to argue againft the Gods of the Heathen as being no Gods\ not as wanting di- vine Dominion only, but as having no divine Nature or Subftance. f . The true Notion of Idolatry is paying religious Honour to any thing that has not the divi?ie Perfec- tions J that is, divine Subftance, the only ground of divine Perfections. To which may be added, 6. That St. Paul (J^om. i. lo.j condemns the Wor- (hip of the Creature^ confines all Worfhip to the Creator : Which is explicatory of G^/.iv. 8. Now, the Creator is God ejjentially^ the Creature not ef- fentially God : Wherefore, as all Things are really excluded by St. Paul from Worihip that arc not ef- fentially divine > That mufl be the meaning of Gal. iv.8. Thefe are theReafons on our lide. Dr. Clarke on the other hand, pleads, I. The different ufe of the word (pujis- in Scrip- ture^ to (ignify State^ Condition^ Capacity^ &c. and even Cuftoms only. But if the Places be well confi- dered where the ExprefTion (puVet, hy Nature^ oc- curs 'y we fhall find that it is put in oppofition to fomething accejfional^ fuper-induced^ accidental^ or the like : From whence one may plainly perceive that it relates to fomething inherent, innate, permanent, fix'd and implanted in any thing from the firft. The Uncircumcifion by Nature (Rom. ii. 27.) is op- pofed to Circumcifion fuper-induced l^y Laiv. The Wildnefs by Nature (Rom.xi. 24.) is oppofcd to what is fuper-induced by Grace. The Jews are faid to be fuch by Nature, as being fuch from their Birth, in oppofition to being fnade, or adopted. The Gen- tiles do by Nature the Things contained in the Law, (Rom.il 14.) in oppofition to the doing the fame by til; fuper-induced Law. We are by Nature Children of Qu. XXIV. offome q\5 E R I E S. 4 By our depraved Nature^ our conditio nafcendi^ fince the Fall, we are under the fentence of the divine Difpleafurc *. Even in that famous place ( i Cor,yi\. 14.) Doth not even Nature it felf teach you^ &:c. The word Na* ture docs not fignify Cuflom^ but the MafcuUne Na- ture, in oppofition to the Feminine. Subjc6tion is natural to the Woman, in token whereof fhe is to wear htv Feihy and her Hair^ as another kind of Veil; while the Man^ in token of his being naturally fupe- rior to the Woman, goes with his Head uncover'd, and with fhort Hair. Nature, in the formation of the Two Sexes, has made the diflindtion o^ Superiority and Inferiority j and they are born to This, or That, by the condition of their Sex. This appears to be the mod obvious and eafy fenfe of That Text. Such being the ufual fenfe of Nature^ or of the Phrafe by Nature j we may infer thus much from Gal. iv. 8J Tliat nothing is to bc-worJJjipp'd that has not a divine Nature. Whatever is God by Nature^ as Chrift is now fuppofed to be, mud have That which makes God to be God 5 (in like manner as Man by Nature muft have 57:?^/ which makes Man to be Man > or a Jew by Nature mull have 'That which makes a Jew to be a Jew^ and the like :) And what can That be, but his having the divine Perfe5lions^ and confe- quently, the divine Subftance^ coeval with the Father, that is, from all Eternity ? I may add, that whatever Pafliiges may be brought of the ufe of (puVef, yet They come not fully up to the Cafe j unlefs (p Jj-et ^io^ could be {hewn to bear fuch a Senfe as you would put upon it. Many Ex- amples may be brought of Ours : Few, or perhaps ♦ Naturam aliter dicimus cum proprie loquimur naturam Homi- nis, in qua primum in fuo genere inculpabilis fadtus eft : aliter iftam in qua, ex iliius damnati poena, &; mortales &; ignari, & carni fubditi aafcimur. Auguft. de lib. Arbitr. J. ;. c. 19. Hh 3 floac 470 !/? Second Defense Qu. XXIV. none, of Yours. The Modeft Pleader (p. 147.) thinks that the Paflage cited out of Eufebius *, where ^milian the Roman Prxfeft makes mention of the Pagan Deities, as being Gods by Nature^ is directly contrary to our Notion 3 becaufe the Romans did not look upon their Gods to ht felf-exijicnt^ Tindfupreme, This Oblcrvation is to the purpofe, and is not with- out its weight. But, as the Pagans had fcveral Schemes of Theology^ and feveral Hypothefcs in re- fpect of their Gods, and it cannot be certainly known what Hypothefis jEmilian went upon > we cannot be certain in what fenfe he ufed the Phrafe. And tho* the Pagans did not beheve more than one fu- preme God^ yet their inferior Gods were generally fuppos'd ay^vyilcf, eternal^ and necejfarily exifting 5 which anfwers to ^iol y^ara (pucriv, Gods by Nature "f • Befides that, as many Pagans as fuppofed the inferior Gods to be nothing but the Polyonymy of their one fupreme God, muft have thought them all to be ^loi v-ard ^Lio-jv, Gods by Nature. I may add, that it feems highly probable that jEmilian dellgn'd what he faid, in anfwer to what Dionyfius^ or other Chriftians had pleaded > 'viz. that They worfliipp'd one that was God by Nature^ in oppofition to the Pagan Deities^ which were none of them fuch. I fiy, in anfwer hereto. He pleads that their Deities were Gods by Nature alfo : And why then might not Chriftians worfhip both the Pagan ^iU9 ?3-fc- Itance, feems to intimate that They would be Gods if they were of the fame Suhftance^ and not one God as upon our Principles. But St. Paul's Ex- preffion is very right. The Fault of the Pagans was not in worfhipping Gods •, had there really been mojiy Gods^ many Gods by Nature : Their Fault was in worlliipping Gods that were not really^ and ejfentially fuch. Nor would it be any Fault in Chriftians to worfhip many Godsj were there really many Gods by Nature : But the Fault is in worinipping any that are not Gods by Nature^ or more Gods than there really are > which Fault is committed by worfhip- ping more Gods than Qne^ becaufe there is but one God by Nature. Whether more Perfons than one would be more Gods^ or ctherwife, by partaking of the fame Subflance > is neither affirmed nor denied in This place of St. Paul: Only the Pagans are con- demn'd for worfhipping Thofe as Gods^ which had not the Nature of Gods, or what was ncccfTary to make them really Gods. * Cum de Re loquimur ttizina vobifcum, Hocut oftcndatis cx- pofcimus, ejfe Dsos alios natura, vi, nomine: non in limulachris pro- pofitos quos videmus, fed in ea fuoflantia in qua conveniat 3cfti.!nari tantiqfTe nominisoporterevirtutem. Armb^contr. Gmt» 1. 3. p. 10 1. ' H h 4 }. It 472 A Second Defense Qu. XXIV. 3. It is Eirther pleaded by Dr. Clarke^ that the true Notion of Idolatry is the afcribing to Any Being fuch Worlhip and Honour as does not belong to it. To This Pjxteiice fee a fufficient Anfwer in 'True Scripture DoHrine contimid'^j of which the Modefi Plea has taken no notice. To conclude This Article j you have not been able to acquit the Doftor of the Charge of equivoca- ting or contradi6iing Himfelf j nor to take off the Force of our Argument built uponG<^/. iv. 8. for the ejfential Divinity of God the Son : who, becaufe He is adorable^ is therefore God by Nature in virtue of That Text. Your trifling about the Definition I gave from Melancihon^ as if it could not hcfcriptu- ral becaufe it is taken from MelanHhon who took it from Scripture, is beneath my Notice. ^ True Script. Do6ir. p. 76, 78, O'C. Qu E R Y Qu. XXV. of fome ^^'i ei¥B-^a7Foi ;ii who taught that the Son of God was not Himfelf made Man^ but only united to a Man. He thinks, he has here faid fomething fmart: But, becaufe every Body will not underftand thtinnw* endo^ and He durft not fpeak plainer for Fear of difcoverng his whole Hearty we may pafs it over. He takes no Notice of Cerinthus's being con- demned, as well as Ebion^ for denying our Lord's jD/- *vimty ij and the Eternity of the IV'ord, He proceeds ;^jft?-ov «*'? Tc?f from whom arofe the Dodrine of Neeeffary-emanalions : To which weak Piece of Calum- ny I have anfwered above. He takes no Notice of the Valenttnims denying the Eternity of the Logos^ nor of their making Creature-Creators^ nor of feveral of their other Principles, whereby They led the way to Arianifm^ as Athanafius hath ihown *. 5. ly^^^/Z/^x, it feems, was cenfured for teaching /«i/- 'vidual Confuhftantiality : That is, for Nonfenfe, For Confubfiantiality^ and Individual^ (in the Sabellian Senfe of Individual) are repugnant, and contradictory as poffible. Nor did Sabellius ever teach Confuhjian- iiality at all f. Whether the Modeji Pleader has here fliown a Zeal according to Knowledge^ let any Man judge that knovjs Antiquity. He takes no Notice of Sahellius's being condemned for confining the Gedhead to one real Perfon, (inftead of extending it to Three,) upon the very fame Principles, on which Arius afterwards founded a different Herefy ^ > •viz. the apprehenfion of there being no Medium ^ be- tween making the Son to be ih^felf-exiftent Father Himfclf, and excluding Him from the one Godhead. After a lame, partial, and falfe Account of the an- tient Herefies condemn'd by the Church, the Modeft Pleader goes on to give as partial and falfe Accounts of the Doftrine of the Fathers. But having obvia- * See Montfaucon*s Preface to the Pirft Volume of Athamfms., p. 24. ^ ■ Epiph. Haer. 6g. n. 70. p. 797. » Sae my Defenfe, p. 335-, ^3^5-. &c. \ , , v , v^ ^ ** S<«oiAA<^ at t5 ZccyjotruTieijq Uouj^iii, y^ rm %«rr Wjtov iTrioiOiiKicci SFi^TCJKi jrAapjf. Athanaf! contr. ApoII. J. 2. p. 942. 9-w c^&ik i^iTsivi Xi'^iut;, 7rpo That very inftance proves the Thing I am fpeaking of I have however ex- plained above what They meant by Diminution^ and what by denying it in This Cafe. 4. A fourth Argument I drew from Another no- ted Obje^ion made to the Catholick Dodrine, viz. Tritheifm : And I obferved both from the fenfe of the Obje^orSj and from the method taken in the An- fwers, what kind of 7'ritheifni was intended 5 fuch as f See my Defenfe, p. 384. was Qi. XXV. offome aU E R I E S. 479 was founded on the fuppofition of a proper Confub" ficmtiality. This Argument you have took no notice of, but have left it in T'he Heap^ undillurbed. f . I added a fifth Reafon from the particular ftate of the Sabellian Controverfy, and the Arguments made ufc of in it j quite different from what would have been, and mult have been, had the Fathers been of the fame^ or like Principles^ with you and Dr. Clarke. To which you fay nothing. 6. In the fixth place, 1 threw in a Heap o^ Reafons^ Reafons^ I think, and not JVords only : To one of which, relating to Worjhip^ you vouchfafe mc a brief Anfwer, but fuch as I have anfwefd in another place. Upon the whole, you appear to have been much diflrelTed in This Query : For, otherwife who would believe that a Man of your Abilities, after fo long confidering, would leave any thing un* anfwer'd ? Ay, but after all, you fay, Dr. Clarke's Propofitions will remain true and untouch' d^ which way foever any of thefe Points be determin'd, (/>. 471.) Indeed, They are wonderful Propofitions : They feem to be much of the Stoick Make, and Condi tution i that if they be ever fo diftrefs'd, or cruih'd, or even ground to pieces, yet they cannot be hurt. To be ferious 5 If the Doctor's Propofitions have really nothing con- trary to the Son's Eternity^ or Confuhftantiality^ or Necejfary-exiftence y (which comes to the fame) if They leave to God the Son That Honour^ and That M^orfioip which Thofe di'vine Perfe6tions demand j If They do not make Him precarious in Exigence, or dependent on the good Pleafure of Another; in fhorr, if They leave to the Son the one true Godhead^ or divine Subftance, then let the Propofitions pafs as very harmlefs, innocent, trifling Propofitions, con- taining nothing but old Truths under a novel and conceited way of Expreflion. But if the Propofi- tions really run counter to the Necejfary-exiftencej the immutai/k Vcxk^iQUS^ ih^ divif^e fForJhip^ &cc. of Cod 480 A Second Defense Qu.XXV. God the Son (as I conceive they do) then the Pro- pfitions appear to be very nearly conc^rn'd in what I have been proving. But you fay, the true and only material Queflion is, Who is the alone fir fi Caufe^ the alone fupreme Go- 'vernor ? 6cc. Now as to This Matter, I will be very frank and plain with you. Do but fincerely and plainly acknowledge that God the Son is coeter^ nal^ and confubftantial with the Father, of the fame divine Subjiance^ necejfarily exifling^ having the divine Perfe5tions^ Creator by his own Power, worthy o^ equal Honour, and of the fame kind of Worjhip : Do but admit Thefe Things, and you fhall have the liberty of talking as you pleafe about the alone firft Caufe^ and the alone fupreme Governor -y That is, Firft in Order, and Office. But if you deny the Son's Necejfary-exiftence, if you deny his divine Perfe5iions ftriftly fo called, if you fcruple to admit Him as Creator by his own Power, (which many Arians al- lowed) and to worfhip Him as Creator 5 nay, to call Him Creator, which the very Eunomians never fcrupled : If you betray your Diflcnt from us in fo ma- ny, and fo material Points as thefe are > do not then pretend that the Supremacy is the main Point of Dif- ference, or the only material ^eftion : Becaufe it is pretending fomething direftly/^//^, and what you know to be filfe j and therefore what ought not to be pre- tended byanyhoneil or good Man. It is pofiibleyou may undeillandy///jr^;;^^ Governor in fuch aSenfe, that all the other Qtiellions may be reduced to That one : And fo may they alfo to This one ^ueftion j Whether God the Son be a Creature, or no. If this be your Meaning, then there is no difference betwixt your ftate of the Queftion and mine, except This j that what You have put into ambiguous, equivocal, de- ceitful Words to confound the Readers, I have put into plain, clear, and diftind Terms to in- ftrud and inform Them. And now the main Queftion will not be about the Supremacy^ whether 4. to Qu. XXV. offome QUERIES. ^%i to be aflerted, or denied > but about the Senfe and Meaning of Supremacy : Whether Supremacy is to be aflerted in fuch a Senfe as to make the Sort a Creature^ or in fuch a Senfe only as is confident with his being effentlally God, and one God with the Father. For, you maypleafe to take notice that ma- ny other Queftions mull come in, in order to give light into the Queftion about Supremacy : Or if yoii pretend to take the Supremacy in a Senfe peculiar to your felf, and then to argue from it 5 This is only begg- ing the main ^efiion^ and purfuing your own In- ventions, in oppofition both to Scripture and Anti^ quity. You have an odd Remark in the Clofe : You fa}^, to prefewe the Priority of the Father^ and withal the Divinity^ the cfTential Divinity^ of the Son^ is no Dif- ficulty. This is News from you: I hope, you are Jincere^ and have no double Meaning. For if Thefe two Things, the effmtial Divinity of the Son, and the Priority of the Father, be admitted as confillent, the Difpute is at an end. But you add, that I pre- tend fomething more, 'uiz. to preferve the Priority of the Father^ and withal^ the equal Supremacy of the Son in point of Authority and Dominion. Yes j I do pretend to hold the Priority of the Father in Order (which is natural) in Office (which is oeconomical) as confident with the Son's effential and equal Divinity: In a word, I hold any Supremacy confident with the Son's effential Divinity. \^ you carry the Supremacy farther, you either rf?;2i'r^^i(^ your felf, ox equivocate m a childidi manner in the word effential. Chufe you Either part of the Dilemma: It is all one to the Argument whether the Fault lies, in your Hearty or your Head, Q,UERY 4S2 y^ Second Defense Qu. XXVI. Q. U E R Y XXVI. Whether the T>o6ior did not equivocate^ or pre- varicate ftrangely in faying. The Generality of Writers before the Council of Nice^ were, in the whole, clearly on his fide : When it is rnanifefty they were, in general, no farther on his fide^ than the allowing a Subordination amounts to ; no farther than our Church is on his fde, while in the main points of diffe- rence, the Eternity and Confubftantiality, they are clearly againfl him : That is, they were on his fide, fo far as we acknowledge him to be rights but no farther. HERE I am told by the Modeji Pleader^ (who was to reclify your unwary Anfwers to my ^^ueries^ after He had feen my Defenfe) that Dr. Clarke did not equivocate^ or prevaricate ; becaufe the jlnte- nicene Writers a^ne ivlth Him in all tJoe Points laid down in his Propofitions. Th^s is a fhameful Untruth^ as hath been often proved : And fince you have now own'd that felfexiftent is necej]arily-ei or I know not what is fo. * See my Dcfenfe, p. 393. 2. The Qu. XXVI. offome (QUERIES. 485 2. The fecond Charge was, that you do by ne- cefTary Confequence, deny the Son's Coeternity. Here again you. prcju?ne not to fay the Son is not eternal^ but the Father is fupreme^ &:c. I did not ask about the Father : However, what you intend, is, to deny the Eternity^ not dired:ly, but implicitely, by aflerting the Father alone to be necej/arily-exifting. Now, it is all one to us, whether you do it dire^lly^ or by cmfequence : Undermining the Faith in a Terpentine way, is as pernicious as a more open attacking it. If you do not deny the Eternity^ it is plain however that you do not afTert it> and therefore you come very fhort of the Antknts. 3. Another Article was, the Dodor's AHerting S^sof, God^ to be a relative Word. This I fhew'd to be contrary to all Antiquity, a few Inltanccs except- ed J your Reply to this Article hath been obviated above, p. iii. 4. You differ from all the Antients in pretending that the Father only was God of Abraham^ &c. You plead, in anfvver hereto, that it is a Scripture Pro^ pojition : Which is falfe, as hath been fliewn. How- ever, the Antients (about whom our prefent Quef- tion is) never thought it to be a Scripture- P ofition^ but quite the contrary. f. You differ from all Antiquity, in pretending that the Titles of one^ only^ &c. arc exclulive of God the Son. TMi you rldiculoufly call an exprefs Scripture PropofUiCn. J have anfwer'd your Cavils on That Head : In the mean while it is evident, and you do not gainfay it, that the Antients never thought as you do. 6. You again differ from all Ar^iquity^ in pretend- ing that the Son had not diftin5l PVorJJnp paid Him till after his Refurreciion. You here make References only, which I may anfwer by References'^, * I>efenfe, p. 272, Sec See Above on Qu.XVlII. li } 7. You ^$6 A Second Defense Qu.XXVI. 7. You run counter to all Antiquity in pretending that T'voo Per fans may not be, or are not, one God, To this you reply, that the one God^ you think, aK ways, in the Ante-nicene Writers, fignifies the Fa- ther. I have demonflrated the contrary. However, if Both together be ever called God^ or included in that fingular Title, it comes to the fame thing, tho' the word One be away. 8. You contradid all the Antients^^ in faying, that the Tiitle of God^ in Scripture^ in an ah faint e Confiru- Bion^ ahvays fagnifies the Father. The Quotations of the Antients from the Old I'efiament have been abundantly vindicated above. See Qu. II. p. You run counter to all Antiquity^ in admitting an inferior G^^ be fides tho^ fupreme-y and allowing religious Worjloip to Both, You appeal to St. Paul^ which I have often fhewn to be a weak Plea 5 and it is here foreign. The Antients never underftood St. Paul in any fuch fenfe, but the contrary. You have therefore no pica from the Ante-nicene Fathers, which was the Point in hand. 10. You contradi6t all Antiquity in denying the Son to be efficient Caufe of the Uni'verfe. You now fay, you do not deny it -y which I am very glad of : There is one Point gain'd. You did before, in oppo- sing efficient to inftrumcntal j and referving the firlt to the Father only. You now fay, the Son is not the original efficient Caufe. This is ill exprefs'd, and worfe meant : But do you ever find the Antients ma- king 'Two Caufes? 11. You run counter to all Antiquity, in fuppo-» fing (not faying) the Son to be a Creature. That you fuppofe ir,and really mean it, under other Terms, Iiath been fhcwn*. ■ 12. You contradi^l: all Antiquity in refolving the J^oundation o^ the Son's Perfanal Godhead into the power and Dominion which you fuppofe Him ad- J See my Supplement, 5cc. p. 20, ' vanced Qu. XXVII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 4«7 vanced to after his Refurredion. 'Tis your exprefs Dodrine. ColleU. of ^leries^ p. 7f . 13. You run counter to all the Antknts in fuppo- fing the Logos to have fupplied the place of a Human Soul J and making the Logos^ "^s^uch^ pajfible. As to the former part of this Charge, you have given broad Hints, up and down, in This Reply : As to the lat- ter part, it is, or was, your exprels Do6trine. Col* le5i. of ^J-, p. 145. Let the Reader now judge of your repeated Boafts of Antiquity : Such as none could ever have made, but the fame that could cfpy Arianifm in o\xx Liturgy^ and our Articles^ and bring the Creeds of the Church to fpeak the Language of Herejy. (i.u E R Y XXVII. Whether the Learned T)o£ior may not reafonably be fupposd to fay-, the Fathers are on his fide 'With the fame Meaning and Referve as he -pretends our Church- Forms to favour him ^ that isy provided he may interpret ns he pleafes^ and make them fpeak his Senfe^ however con- tradiEiory to their own: Aiid whether the true Reafon why he does not care to admit the Tefiimonies of the Fathers as Proofs, may not be, becaufe they are againft him ) YOU ask me whether I admit the I'eflimonies of the Fathers as Proofs^ fince \ difipprove of the Doftor's making Them Illuftrations only. You think, it had been jtifi in me to declare upon This Head. Verily, I thought I had declared^ ^^\■2avl' * Defenfe, p. 45- j. 114 ly, 488 !i^ Second Defense Qu.XXVIL ly, that I admit their Teftimonies as Proofs^ two ways : Certa'm Proofs, in many Cafes, of the Church's Doftrine in That Age> probable Proofs of what the Do6i:rine was from the Beginning. In refped of the latter, They are inferior additional Proofs^ when com- pared with plain Scripture-Proof : Of no moment if Scripture is plainly contrary j but of great moment where S^'ipt'dre looks the liime way, becaufe they help to fix the true Interpretation^ in any difputed Texts. I build no Article of Faith upon the Fa- thers^ I'ut upon Scripture alone. If the Senfe of Scripture be difputed, the concurring Sentiments of the Fathers m any Dodlnne, will be, generally, the beft and fafell Comments upon Scripture, fo hr as concerns That DovStrine : Jull as the Pradtice of Courts^ and the Decifions of emimnt Lawyers^ are the beft Comments upon an A^ of Parliament made in, or near their own Times: Tho' it be neverthelels true, that the Obedience oi i\\q Subject Y^ihfolely upon the La'ws of the Land^ as its Rule, and Meafure. You proceed to vindicate fome Tranjlations of ihc Doctor's, which I had found fault with. But you are firil wrapped up in Admiration of the Do61:or's Performance 5 that fo acute a Man^ 6cc. could not find abo^ce 10 Pajffages to cavil at^ in a Book of near Yoo Pages full of Rotations. Whether it was cavil- ing^ {hall be feen prefcntly. But you will remember, that, befides a general Charge of want of Pertinence in many, and of great Unfairnefs ^ in the whole Courfe of them j 1 had over and above took notice of particular Faults, very great ones, in the Doftor's Verfion$. xAnd furely zo Faults of This kind were enough for one Man to commit within the Compafs of about 500 Pages : For I examined no f^uther t, ha- ving found and noted a fufficient Number for my ■ ^ See my Defenfe, p. 445, &c. f The learned Reader will obferve more In fiances of like kind, \n Script. DoBr. p. i()^, 296, ic^y, 304, 512, 314,312. a'^Edit. The moll fhameful of them, is a Ver/my in p. 3 12, of a FafTage cited at the |jottom of p. 3 1 t . ''■'■ ■ • • Purpofe 3 Qu. XXVII. of fame Q^U E R I E S. 489 Purpofc •, which was to awaken the Reader's Cau- tion, and to prevent his relying too impHcitcly upon the Do6tor's Reprefcntations. And you will confl- der, that it was not merely for Inaccuracy in his Tranflations, that I blarncd Him, 'fuch as a Man may innocently commit, or fometimes chufe, to fave Time or Pains, when the Caufe '\^ not concerned in ir, or when it is not material whether a fcrupulous cxa6t- ne(s be obferved, or no) but it was for his mis-tran- flating fuch Parts of what he cited, as were o^greatefl moment to theQueftion in hand, and his induftrioufly warping them to his own Hypotbefis. You do well to labour This Point: For, mdeed, the Doctor's /«- tegrity^ or Fidelity^ to fay no more, is pretty deep- ly concern'd in it j tho' my Defign was, not to ex- pofe hhS Characler^ but to prevent the Deception of the Reader. They, who defire to re-examine This Matter, may pleafe to look into my Defenfe j that I may not be at the trouble of repeating. I. In the firll PafTage, I complained of two falfe Rendrings j one of the word'^, «V. «c ava/^rctv, ano- ther of the word aVauyaT.aaj m Both which the Doctor fer\xd his Hypotheft.^ obliquely, againfl the Senfe of the Author. You cannot, you do not pre- tend that his \'er(ion 'W'\sjuft : I cited as far as was ne- ceflary to fhow that it was not. What then? You pretend I leave out the only vjords for the fake of which the Doctor cited it. I left out no Words that were at all necelTary to fnew the Senfe of the Author, or to judge of the Doctor's Verjlon. It was undoubtedly the Doctor's Bufinefs either not to cite, or tranllate the Author at all, or to render his Words faithfully, fo far as He did pretend to tran- flate from Him. And tho' the Doctor's particular Pefign, in I'hac Pafiag**, might be to lliew that Athanafius allowed the Father to be ftiled the only God {Mark xii. 32.) yet He had a more ^^;7^r<«/ De- flgn, running thro' his Performance, v/hich was to teep the Reader in the Dark a.s to the antient way of 490 A Second Defense Qu.XXVII. of underftanding it, in oppofition to falfe Gods, or Idols only : To ferve which general Defign, He per- verted the Senfe of That PalTage in his i'ranjlation of it. z. The fecond Paflage * which the Doftor had mis-tranflatedj you are willing to corred, in feme meafure, by leaving out the word moft. But you will Hill have it ahfolutely and ftriSily Godj inftead of really God : Which might not be much amifs, had not the Doftor made fuch frequent ill ufe of ahfolute- ly'i'm refpeftof theFather j intending therein an oppo- sition to God the Son's being ahfolutely God. This was not the meaning of Athanafius^ who meant no oppofition but to Idols |J . I obferved, that jitha- nafiiis would have faid, or had faid, in other Words, as much of the Son^ as He has there faid of the Fa- ther, To which you reply, that you 'will not under- take to anfwer what Athanafius would have faid^ were I to indite for Him : But you deny that He has faid it. I Ihewed before what Athanafius had faid, in that very Treatifei:, namely, that the Son is the wv, fig- nifying emphatical Ex'i fence •, which amounts to the fame Thing He had before laid of the Father. And to fhew farther, what Athanafius would have faid, I have quoted in the Margin what he really has faid^ in a Treatife ^ annexed to the other, written at the fame Time, and being a fecond Part to it, fo that They may be jullly elleem'd one Treatife. He there ■* ToK ctXvfiivci'j xccl cvrct-'q ovrcc B-ilvy rev r» X^^'^^ TS-xnfx, Athan. contr. Gent. p. 9. jj See my Defenfe, p. 428. :^ 'O ^ S-sc? uv i^i Kod a G-vvti,(^ , Ko kxI 6 Titm Xcy(^ m sVt ku\ i truvhro^f uXXoi ilc, xoii f/^ovoyir/iq B-jcc ■■ co xcn uvTM cvri B-iZ T/iV G-ufjij7rx yivaifTKit. Athan. p. 87. 'Eywfi'^i] f^£05 «sA>jf/y?;, Biov B-ih }\iy^\ p. 88. teaches Qu. XXVII. of fame QUERIES. 49 1 teaches us to worjhip the Son only^ and He ftiles Him Itrue God. Thefe Things put together amount to full as much as was faid of the Father * in the Paf- fage cited by the Do6lor> namely, tov aXnOjvcv }^ ovTw? Q-Jlct ^sov, lignifying that He is the true God^ and that He exifts emphatically : And it is manifeft, that Athanafius intended no oppofition to the Son, in what He faid of the Father, but to Idols only. 3. As to the third place which I found fault with, you would perfuade us that the Do6lor was very fa- vourable in his I'ranjlation^ and took the leaft advan- tage pofHble. I blamed Him for his rcndring far a^ hove all derivative Beings intending thereby to in- cludetheSon^ as \^ Athanafius mcxni that the Father w^s far above the Son: Whereas if it be rendrcd, as it ought to be, far above all created Being ; it would then be plain that this PafTage relates not to the Son at all, but to Creatures only. But the Doc- tor, you now fay, might have tranflated it far above all Begotten Being. He might, indeed, have done fo, and have thereby fhewn Himfelf as ill a Crit^ck^ as before a partial Writer. For what if fomc Copies read ysvv/iriiV, with double v, inftead of fingle j is any thing more common than Miftakcs of that kind? A Httle lower, in the fame Page, the Editions had ysvvriTwv inftead of ysvyjTwv II. The Senfe mult deter- mine us in fuch Cafes, and a critical Judgment of the Principles laid down in the fime Treatife. One Thing is certain, that however yrjnryi^ be rendred, the Dodlor is intirely falfe in rankmg the Son under ysvoTy],- aV/as-, becaufe Athanafius^ in the very Page, clearly exempts Him from the rd yi-jYird^ from created contr. Gent. p. 39. TtZ kyu6cZ zFccr^lc, 'v^roc^xii Xty<^, &c. p. 39. Ed. Bencd. comp. Orar. 1. c. f6. p. 460, &c. Which, if there be any doubt, will determine the meaning of the Phrafe ^aao5 tw yiy^Tm, &c. ■'•• V Beings: 492 A Second Defense Qu.XXVII. Beings : You may, if you pleafe, fay, from the be- gotten Beings^ and juftify it in the fame way as you pretend to juftify the other. The late learned Edi- tor of Athanafius^ eafily perceiv'd that the word Ihould be ysyyiT?? in one place, and ysvyiTwv in the other : And fo it ftands corre6ted in his Edition. 4 I found fault with the Doftor's Tranflation of a place in Eufebius *, wherein he was doubly blame- able : Firft, for tripping in his Logick^ by oppofing efficient to minifterial Caufe, when the fame may be both efficient and minifierial -, and fecondly, for faul- ting in a momentous Article of Faith ^ excluding God the Son from being efficient Caufe of all Things. Upon this you are in a vehement Paflion : It is^C^- ml^ moft ridiculous., as well as unjuji. 1 am not dif- pleafed to hear you fay fo; becaufe now I maybe confident that what I faid was very right, juft, and uaanfwerable. It is an Obfervation the Reader may have made, which will not be found to fail in any one Inftance, that whenever you throw out this kind of Language, it is a certain Mark of your Dif- trefs, and of your not being able to make any folid Reply. Let us fee whether it does not hold true here, as well as in former Inftances. The Dodlor's "Tranflation^ you fay, does not exclude tJoe Son from any proper Efficiency^ hut from fupreme fe If- author it a- tive Efficie?icy. You may be a better Judge than I, of what the Do6tor believes, or maintains upon fe- cond Thoughts ; But I niay prefume to judge of a Tuv oXm -sron^TiKyiv rov ^tCT^c^ uuSivrmv. Eufeb. Eccl. Theol. 1. i. C. 20. The Doftor's Tranflatm, or Taraphrafe. " whereas He might have exprcfs'd it thus. Ail Things were " made by Him, as the efficient Caufe \ He does not fo exprefs its ** but thus } All Things were made by Him as the mmifiringCaufe\ " that fo He might refer us to the Supreme Totoer and Efficiency of « the Father, as the Maker of all Things." Script. Dod. p. 851. alias 79. writtei] Qu. XXVII. offome QUERIES. 4!) 5 written Tranflation. And, I fay, it is plain from his oippofing efficient (not fupreme cffident) to miniflerialj that, unlefs his Wits were abfent, He intended as much to fay that the Son was not efficient Caufc, as that the Father was not minifterial. He continues the fame Thought all along, concluding the Father to be the Maker (not fupreme Maker only) of all things 'y therein {hewing his fupreme Power ^ and Efficiency, This is the obvious Senfe of the Do6i:or's Verfion. But I am not forry to find, that either the Doctor, or you, are coming off from it, and ap- proaching nearer to CathoUck Principles : Tho' it llill looks a little fufpicious, that you are every where fcrupulous of ftiling the Son Creator^ or Maker^ and will never fay that He created by his own Power, but by the Power of the Father. 5*. J found fault with the Dcdlor's partial rendring a place of St. Chryfoftom^^ and cutting the Quotation fhort. You repeat (/>. 4(52.) the fame thing that the Do6i:or had pleaded for Himfelf> and which I fhew'd to be infufficient, in my JppcncUx. As to Bafl^ the Dodor had dealt as partially by Him \U Bafil makes the Son's inherent Power equal to the Father's 5 and in That Senfe fays, that as to JPoivtr^ He is equal and the fame. The Do(5lor means no more than that the Son's Power (however unequal) is deriv'd from the Father, and in That Senfe They are one in Power. Now, 1 fay, Bafil's Idea and the Doctor's are very different : And the Do61:or was fenfible of it •, dropping the v/ord equal in his Ver- fion of Bafil. Bafil fhould not have been quo- ted, as agreeing in the Things when He agrees on- ly in the Name. You fay, Bafil could not mean that the Son's Power is co-ordinate. But He certain- ly meant, and faid, that the Son's Power is equal : * Defcnfe, p. 368, 429, 489. Jl See m^ Defenfe, p. 42 p. Let 494 ^ Second Defense Qu. XXVII. Let the Dodor fay This, and our Difpute is ended. It is plain, that Bafil\ Reafon for the Father and Son being one^ is quite another than what the Doftor's is j and that the Doftor's Notion of one in Power ^ is not Bafirs Notion*. Why then was he quoted, and ntis'tranjlated^ to confirm an Interpretation intirely different from, nay, contrary to his own ? 6. I found fault with the Dodor's partial rendring a noble PalTage of IrenausV That Irenaus was not fpeaking of the Son confider'd in a reprefentative Ca- pacity^ (which the Dodor, without any Warrant % would exprefs by 01/ fJtoe(p? ■^^ss) is manifeft from Ire- nous's referring to Job. i.' i. which defcribes the Son as God before that ifiditious Reprefentation the Doc- tor fpeaks of. Therefore the ro^s:Kov;c,£VQf^a^ov,inThat place of Iren^us^ is to be underftood of the antece- dent Chara6ler which belonged to God the Son, be- fore the World was 3 and not of any fubfequent Re- prefentation. 7. I took notice '^ of a Paflage in Jtiftin cited by the Dodor, and truly rendred, but fct in a falje Light to deceive the Reader > as if God the Son were not Himfelf Creator^ and God of Ahrahani^ but -one perfonating the Creator, and God of Abraham. I obierved, that the Doftor could not have con- futed the Jevj^ as Jujiin did, while He goes upon the Suppofition of the Son's perfonating the Father : A plain and evident Token of the Dodor's Mifun- derllanding, and mifreprefenting his Author, when * The Doctor, by To-ooery feems to mean moral Power j fuch as Mofalifts define to be That by which a Perfon is enabied to do a Thing lawfully and with moral Effeft: But Bafil means natural Power. The Do<9-or interprets the Text of Chrift's ajfumingto Hipt' felfthe Forper and Attthority of God, Reply, p. 147. See alio, p. 15^, jj See my Defenfe, p. 4^0, 490, " See my Sermons, p. lyS. *• Dcfenfe, p.4ji« ■i.l He Qu. XXVII. of fome QUERIES. 49 5 He makes a great part of the Dialogue Nonfenfe, to bring it to his Hypthefts. For how fhould Jujlin ever prove that there was a di'vine Perfon, diltin6t from Angels^ one that was really God^ God of Abra- ham^ dec. if the Perfon pretended to be iuch, was only perfoyiating the God of Abraham^ and was not Himfelf God ? Might not the Jew infift upon it, that it was an Angel only, ferfonating God ? Why mull it be Another, who was really God oi Abraham as well as the Father *? The whole drift oijujiin's Argument is intirely defeated by fuch a Fiction of Perfonating: Which makes it evident that Juftin had no fuch Notion, but the quite contrary. You do not pretend to fay that the Dodor, upon his Prin- ciples, could have confuted the Jeiv in the fame way with Juftin : Only you fay. He never thought of confuting Him upon mine. But it is manifeft that He did confute Him upon this Principle, that there was a Perfon, belides the Father^ God of Abra- ham^ really fo, in his own Perfon,^ becaufe fo defcri- bed m Scripture : And therefore there exifts a di- vine Perfon, befides the Father, Son of That Father 5 which was to be proved. Your weak Pretences a- bout the Son's miniftring^ and his not being fupreme God becaufe of That, have been often anfvver'd. 8. I took notice of fome Things of a flighter kind 5 but fuch as betrayed too much leaning to an Hypothefis^ and tended to convey falfe Ideas to the common Reader IJ. And tho' the Alteration in fuch Cafes may appear flight, like the Change of a Fi- * For if He always fpake in the name, ^c. of the Father, no Texts could be brought to prove Him Lord God, becaufe Lord God would exprefs the Ferfon and Authority of the Father : But it is evi- dent that Jujiin, Iren^Hs, and others, do profciTedly cite Paflages of Scripture to prove the Son to be Lord G»d : That Title Or Name then, no lefs expreflcs the Perfon and Authority of the Son, than of the Father. True Script. Dodtr. eentinued, p. i^6. )| Defenfe, p. 432. gyre, 405 -^ Second Defense Qu.XXVIt gurc, or a Cypher in an Account > yet is it very mi{^ chievous, and, if defignedly done, very difhoneft. p. I blamed the Doftor ^ for skipping over fome very material Words of Novatian. Do you deny the Fa6l ? No : But you inliil upon it, that Novatian has a great deal which may look for your Purpofe. I allowed as much before : Only, as the Words were capable of a CathoUck Meaning, and muft be determined to That Meaning if fome Parts of the Sentence are incapable of any other 5 I defirM that the V7 oxds per fubftanti£ communionem^ h^ Communion of Subftayjce^ (which the Do6tor had unfairly omit- ted) might be brought in, to end the Difpute. As to Novatiafi's real Principles, I have given you my Thoughts above. He takes a particular way in the refolving the Unity^ very like to your's : Yet He maintains the Eternity "f , and Confuhftantiality of God the Son > wherein He differs as much from you, as He agrees with me. The Subordination He exprefTes in very (Irong Words, but yet fuch as do not amount to an Inferiority of Nature. You intimate, that the Author intended an in- equality of Perfe^ions^ and not merely an inequality in refpe^L of Original: Which is more than Nova- tian's Words prove j or, at leaft, than they appear to * Defenfe, p. 432. t As to Novatian's fuppofing the Father prior to the Son, I ac- counted for it in my Befenfe, p. 139, 141. I fliall here add a few parallel Exprefl'ions from other Catholick Writers, who undoubt- edly believed the Coeternity. Ex quo o^^nditur femper fuiiTe vdforem iflum virtutisDeif Nttilum hal>entem inttium mfi ipfum Deum •• Neqj enim decebat aliud ei effe initium nifi ipfum unde eft Scnafcitur. Pamphil. Apolog, p. 230. Primitivus eftdi£l:us (\nii prater Patrem, cui. etiam codternus eft Di- vinitate, cum Spiritu San6lo, ante ipfum nullus eft primus. Zen. Veroneuf. Serm. in Exod. ix. ^(•TiTtty^fm, Bafil. contr» Eunom. 1. a. p. 73/. mc Qu. XXVir. offome Q^U E R I E S. 497 me to prove. I fhall give the Paffiige in the Mar- gin *, which mud decide This Matter. No'vatian there many ways exprefles the fame Thing, that had the Father and Son been equal in 1 cfpcd of Original^ liad They Both been undcrrjcd or unbegottten^ There might then have been juft Pretence for making them Two Gods. He adds, that had They been Both invifible and incomprehenfihle^ They had then been 'T'vtjo Gods. To underftand which, we are to remember that it was the general Do6trine of the Fathers, that God the Son might be vifthle and appear in 2iplace^ per af- fumptas fpecies^ by 'vifible Symbols ; but that God the Father might not, it being unfuitable to the Cha- radler of the firjl Perfon to be fent^ and confequent- ly to appear in That manner. Upon This Hypothec JjS^ had the Son been inviftble^ and incomprehenfible^ in fuch a Senfe as the Father was conceiv'd to be, it would have been the fame thing as \{ He had been Another Father^ or Another Firft Perfon-^ and That would infer Two Gods. He is not therefore fpeak- ing of any Difference as to ejjential Perfections^ but only of the Difference between a Firfi and Second perfon j that one could not hefent^ or become I'tjible and confin'd to a Place in any fenfe: The other might in fuch a fenfe as hath been mentioned, viz. * Si cnim natus non fuifTet, imatus comparatus cum eo qui eflcC innatiis, sequatione in utroquc oftenfa, duos faccret innatos, 6c ideo iluos faceret Deos. Si non genitHs efler, collatus cum eo(qui} genitus non cfTet, &: aequales invcnti, duos Deos merito reddidifient }2on-geni' tii arque idco Duos Chriftus reddidifTet Deos. Sij7ne Origine eflets ut Pater, inventu?:, &: ipfe Principium omnium, ut Pater, duo fa- ciens principia, duos oftendilTet nobis conlcquenter & Decs. Aut d & ipfe Filius non eflef, fed Pater generans de fe alrerum Filiuni;, merito collatus cum Patre, &c tantusdenoratus, duos Patres efFeciiTer, & ideo duos approbalTct etiam Deos. Si hivij76ilis fuiilet cum invi- fibili collatus, par expreflus, duos init/ihiles oftendifTct, 6c ideo duos comprobalfet 8c Deos. Si wcomprchen/iSilis, fi 8c cietera quaecunque funt Patris ,• merito dicimus, duorum Dcorum quam ifti ccnfingunt controverfiam fufcitaffct. Nunc autem quicquid eft, non ex fe cft» quia nee innntta efl, Novat. c. 3 1. K k bv- 498 ^Second Defense Qu. XXVII. by Symbols of his Prefence. Otherwife No'uatian admits the Son in his own Nature to be omniprefent^ as well as the Father, as is plain from his Words II. See This Point more fully clear'd in Bp. Bull ^. The whole Courfe and Tenour of Novatian's Difcourfe tends only to This, that there is but one Head^ viz. the Father^ to whom the Son Himfelf, his Subftancej his Power ^ and Perfcdions are referred, and in whom they center -y that there is a Difference of Order be- caufe of That Headfhip 5 and that, conformably thereto, the Son in all Things ads fubordinately^ mnijiers to the Father, and executes inferior Of- fices under Him, as a Son to a Father, not as a Ser- 'uant to his Lord. This is all that Novaticm\ Words ftridly amount to : And tho' He fpeaks of the Sub' je5fion of the Son, it does not neceflarily mean any thing more than that voluntary oeconomy which God the Son underwent, and which would not have been proper for the Father Himfelf to have fubmitted to, becaafe not fuitablc to the Order of the Perfons. One Paflagc 1 muft here give, becaufe we differ chiefly about what That Paflage contains. The lite- ral Veriion runs thus-|-. '' Whofe Godhead is fo delivered, as not to ap- " pear to make Two Gods, either by a Difagree- ''. ment<^ or Inequality of Godhead. For, all Things " being f] Si Homo tontummodo Chriftus, quomodo adeft ubique invoca- tus ? Cum Hcec Hominis natura non fit (^6 Dei, ut adeile omni loco poiTit. Novat. c. 15-. See True Script. Doftr. continued, p. 170. * B:dL D. F. Sea.4. c. 3. t Cujus lie Divinitas traditur, ut non aut dljfonanm, aut in^qua- litatt divinitacis, duos Deos reddidifle videatur. Subjeftis enim ei, quafi Filio, omnibus rebus a patre, dum ipfe cum bis qux illi fub- jcdta funt, Patri fuo fubjicitur, Patris quidem fui Filius probatur, csetcrorum autem & Doniinus &: Dcus clTe reperitur. Ex quo dum Huic qui eft Deus, omnia fubftrafta (leg. fiibjlrata) traduntur, 6c cundla fibi fubjeda Filius accepta reFert patri, totam divinitatis A.u6toritatem rurfus patri remittit > unus Dcus oHenditur verus 8c sterous Qu. XXVir. offome Q^U E R I E S. 499 " being by the Father made fubjcft to Him^ as " to a Son, while He HimfelF, with thofe Things " which are made fubje^t to Him, is fubjed to his '' Father: He is lliewn indeed to be the Son of his ^' Father j but is found to be Lord and God of all " Things elf^. And fince all Things are thus fub- *' je6led to Him {the Son) who is God, and fincc '' He owes their being made fubje^t under Him to '^ the Father, He again refers back to the Father " all the Authority of the Godhead: And fo the '' Father is fhewn to be the one true and eternal ^' God, from whom alone This Efflux of the God- '' head being fent out and communicated to the Son, ^' revolves again to the Father by Communion of Sub^ " fiance. The Son is indeed fliewn to be God, as '^ the Godhead is communicated and dcliver'd to " Him : But at the fame time the Father is ne-» *^ verthelefs the One God^ while That very Majcily " and Godhead is, by a reciprocal Courfe, retur n'd, " and referred up again from the Son, to the Father " that gave it." This is, I think, a fair and true rendring of N'o* "vatian : Only I am now to juilify fuch Parts of it as you will be apt to except againil. Inilead o{ Inca-ua^ lity^ you chule the reverfe, viz. E^uality^ upon fome flender Sufpicions of your own, againit the Faith o£* the Copies. Conjectural Emendations ought never to be admitted, but upon the greateii NeccHity* For, it often happens that Men plcafe Themfelves a \vhile with Reafons that look plaufible : But when the Thing comes to be well coniider'd, Reafons as seternus P;\ter, a quo folo Hxc vis div'mitntis emilfa, etiam in Filiuni tradita 8c direila, rurfum per fu6j?antijc comjnunionem ad Pjtrem re- volvitur. Deus quidcm otknditur Filius cui divinitas tradita 8c porretla conipieitur,- 8c tamcn nihiiominus unus Dcus pater pro-* batuFi dum gradatim reciproco meatu ilia Majoflas atoue Divinitas ad Patrem, qui dedcrat earn, rurfum ab illo ipib Filio miila rcver-* titur, a Difagree- ment of two independent Deities, without any Son- Jhip which makes the Union II. Hence then Nova- tian excludes Equality of Original, by the words non Dijfonantia y but at the fame time teaches an Equality of Nature, or Godhead^ that He might avoid the op- pofite Extreme. And Thisisbutfuitable to the very Tenour of hisDifcourfe, there, and clfewhere. For how can there be a Communication of Subllance, and Godhead, without the Suppofition of Equality of Nature^ and Godhead ? A little before, He had faid, the IVord was di'vine Suhftance \ : And He here fpeaki * True Scripture Dodrine continued, p. 172. f Dum non aliunde eft quam ex Patrc, Patri fuo Originem fuam debens, Difcordtafn Divinitatis de numero duorum Deorum facere noa potuit. No vat. c. 3 I . j! Si ambo vocarcntur P^//T^, effcnt prokcto natura Jijimiles : unuf- quiique enim ex icmctipib conflaret, Sccommunem fubftantiam cum aitero non haberet ,• nee Deitas una eflet, quibus una natura non ef- fet. Fulgent. Refp. contr. Arian. p. 5-2. Duos autem Deos dicere non poiTumus, nee debemus : non quod Filius Dei Deus non fit, imo verus Deus de Deo veroj fed quia non aliumle quam de ipfo uno Patrc Dei Filium novimus, proinde unum Dcum dicimus.— Si verus Deus eft, & de Patre non eft, diio funt, habentes linguli 8c voluntates proprias, & imperia diverfa. Greg. Nazian2. op. Vol. i. p. 728. Ambrof op. Vol. 2. p. 347. Quicquid extra eum eft, cum contumelia ei honoratae virtutis equabitttr. Si enim aliquid quod mn ex tpfo efi, reperiri polt^ Jimilt ci, & virtutis ejufdem; amific privilegium Dei fub Confortio CoAciua- iis: jamque non erit Deus unus a quo indifFcrens fit Dius Alius. At vero non habet Contumelian-i Propriet^tis aequalitas, quia Suum cfl quod fui fimile eft; bcex fe ed quod iibi ad fimilitudincm compara- tur ; nee extra fe eft, quod quae fua funt poteft : Et Profedlus Dig- nitatis eft gcnuiffe poteftatem, nee alienalTe naturam. Hilar, dt Trin. p. 934. 4- Subftantia fcilicet ilia divina, cujus nomcn eft verbum. No- vat* c. 31. of \ Qu. XXVII. offome (QUERIES. 501 of the Godhead being communicated, or imparted to the Son, and revolving again to the Father as the Head or Fountain. Befides that, Novatian is known to make the Son as truly of the/ame Nature with the Father, as any Man is of the fame human Nature with his Father *. What is This but, in other Words, declaring Equality of A^<^///r^, or Godhead? There is therefore no realbn for altering Novatian*% Text i" •* However pofitively you may exprefs your felfon That Head. As to the Words accepta refert Patri^ they really mean no more than that He received them from the Father, or acknowledged them to be received : Which comes not up to the Dodor's ExpiefHon (which I found fault with) in Acknowledgment returned: Be- fides that the Dodor was not there tranflating ac- cepta refert^ but reciproco meatu revert it ur^ &c. The words vis Divinitatis^ I render Efflux of the Godhead y which you render divine Power, I could not think of a better ExpreiHon than what I made ufe of That I have not mifs'd the Senfe I per- fuade my felf, becaufe Novatian is fpeaking of C^;;^- munion of Snbfance in the fame Sentence, and had ililed the Word divine Suhfiance^ a little before: And He is here plainly fpeaking of the divine Subftance being porreBa^ and tradita^ communicated from Fa- * Ut enim prsefcripfit ipfa natura Hominem crcdendum qui ex Homine lit : Ita eadem natura praefcribit 8c Deum credendum elfc qui ex Deo fit. Novar. c. ii. t I may here cite a PafTsge of Hilary, which may ierve as a juft Comment upon This o^ Novatian -y being extremejy like it, and car- rying the fame Thought, probably, in it. Infunt jibi invicem, clian non efi nifi ex Patrc natizitas, ^um in Deum alteram nature vel exterioris, vel difllmilis non fubfifl'u, dufn Deus ex Deo manens non ejl aliunde quod Deus efi. Hilar, p. 93 7. Here arc the fame Reafons given why Father and Son are not Two Gods : And Hilary's Exprefllon of non nature exterioris, anfwers to Novatian's of non dijfommta j as alfo his mn dijjimilis to the other's non indciHuUtate, Kk 5 thcr 502 y^ S E C O N D D E F E N S E Qu. XXVII. tber to Son, and recurring to the Father as Head. If Fis anfwers to the Greek c^uva/atr, as I conceive it here does, it means the fame as the living and fub^ flantial Power of God, the fame that we exprefs by Efflux^ or Emanation. The Thought of Nova- tion leems to be the fame with That ot I'ertullian % whom He loved to imitate in many Things. To make it flill plainer that I interpret Him rightly, pleafe to obferve the words, Dens quidem oftenditur Filius^ cut Divinitas tradita i^ porreUa confficitur. Here, He gives the Reafon why the Son is God : It is becaufc the Godhead extends to Him, or is com- municated to liim. Compare This with what the Author fays in Another place fj and you will fee how confiilcnt and uniform This Writer is in his Do6lrinc, that it is the Son's proceeding from the Fa- ther, or his partaking of the divine Suh fiance that makes Him God. So little Reafon have you to ima- gine that ihtwoxds^ per fubfianti^e commiinionem^ crept mto the Text out of the Margin. Whether the Do6t:or, or I, have purfued a wrong Scent in ex^ plaining Novaticiu^ I now leave to the Reader to judge. ID. I had rcmark'd [j upon the Do(5lor's rendnng a PafTage of Atbanafius \ , more to ferve his Hypo^ * Cum Radius ex fole porrfgitur, portio ex fumma -, fed Sol crit in Radio, quia Solis efl Radius, nee feparatur fubilantia, fed exten- ditur. Tertull. Apol. c. 21. Prolatum filium a patre, {t^ non feparatum. Contr. Prax. c. §. \ Qui idcirco unum potefi: dici, dum ex ipfi eft, 5: dum filius ejus eft, 8c dum ex ipfo nafcitur, 5c dum ex ipfo frocejjijfc reperitur, fer quod 8c Deus eji. Novat. c. 23. Si Homo tantummodo Chriftus, quomodo dicit, ego ex Deo fro- dit (^ zieni ? cum conftet Hominem a Deo factum efte, non ex t)co frocejjljfe. . m Deus ergo proceftit ex Deo, dum qui prcceftit iermo, Deus eft qui procejjit ex Deo. Novat. c. 23, jl Defenfe, p. 435. 4= 'O (TUfxciiB-iU KVfi'^ x.sti 5s55 v.fjbav I--5(r»$ ;^^*r35 o TTCtry.f ouy. i^iv, e^^fi ici hiim (peiiiv, 6 //>cv(^ S-ios. AthaH. contr. Greg. Sabell. p. 47. thefsy Qu. XXVII. of fome q}]l£.KlE S. 505 thefts^ than puriuant to the Senle of the Author. The Reader muft be left to judge for Himfelf, after comparing what hath, or may be faid on Both Sides. The Author, as I take it, is there blaming the Sa- helUans for imagining the Son to be the only God^ in fuch a Senfe as to make Om Per [on only (under I'hree Thames of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoil ) in the Godhead, inftead of Three real Perfons. Ac- cordingly, the fame Author cenfures them {p. 39. II) for making the Son /utoy©', or the Alone Divme Per- fon, in contradJcbion to Job. viii. i(5. I am not alone^ hecaufe the Father is with me. Which Text He pro- duces to prove, that Father and Son were I'wo Per- fons^ and that the Son was not /jtov©' in fuch a Senfe, as to infer a Confufton of Perfons. This therefore being all that the Author intended againft the Sabel- liansj it feems to me plain, that the Conftrudtion 1 before gave of wV ly.dvci (fahv^ was right, and the Doftor's wrong. That the Author could not deny the Son to be the Only God in any other Senfe, is plain from his making Father and Son One perfect Subftance'^ : and his afferting One Godhead of Both -[ . In another Place t, He cenfures the SabelUans for ma^ king the Son the One and Only God : But how ? So as to deny tlie diftincl Perfonality^ and no otherwife. And in the very Place we are now upon, all that the Writer infills upon is, that the Father and Son are diftincl Perfons, not One Perfon : In which Senfe the Author does not admit the Son to be 5 /jtov©^ «/£ ^t fjijcvov B-iov ii^vxij 8cc. Eufeb. in Pfal. f-i^o^. t Defenfe, p. 43f. B Defenfe. p. 43/. ' elude Qu. XXVII. of f0ffieQ,VEKl ES. 505 elude the Son from neceffary Exifience^ (fo you inter- pret felf-exiftent .) Now, can Any thing be more unfair, or fraudulent, than to cite Authors as ftiling the Father the Only God^ to countenance a Propo- fition in fuch a Senfe as Thofe Authors detefted, and abhorr'd ? All the Apologies you can poflibly invent, can never make fuch a Practice righteous, or Ho- neft. 13. I remark'd* upon a PaiTage cited out of Na- zianzen-y where the Doftor, by a Note^ had mofl fhamefully ftifled, and perverted the Author's Mean- ing. You fay not one Word of the Doctor's Nvte^ the only Thing I found Fault with : And which in- deed can admit of no colourable Excufe, except it were done through Careleflhefs, taking a PafTage at fecond Hand^ and commenting upon it, without ever looking into the Author to fee what went before, or after. 14. As to the Paflage of Juftin Martyr^ enough hath been faid above. If. 1 remarked II upon another Note of the Do- ftor's, on a Paflage in Irenaus^ and gave feveral Rea- fons to fhow the Unfairnefs and Falfenefs of it. You have here Nothing to fay in his Defenfe : So I pafs on. 1(5. I remarked upon Another Paflage f, where the Do6i:or had read the Text of Irenaus wrong j which you civilly acknowledge, and thank me for the Notice. But there are ftill Two Qiieflions be- twixt us relating to That Place. Firli, whether it fhould be /?/??/: Which however I acknowledge to be of lefs Weight, be- caufe He is fometimcs millaken in fuch Cafes > put-? ting ingenitus for infettus , and perhaps infe^us for ingenitus^ or immius, II. A much llronger Reafon is, that through that whole Chapter dymrQ" is oppofcd to Things made^ Things of tranlient, and precarioiis exillence. The Oppofition runs between the Things made^ and the Maker of them'^: III. Another very weighty Reafon is drawn from the Oppofition between yjv/jrci «v3^^ai7r©', and ays* v/}T« 3^£» .* That the Reading is yv^ro^ not with dou- ble V, is evident from the whole Chapter ^ where the Oppofition runs between Man made f, and God his Maker. And there is not the Icall Hint of Man confidered as begotten^ or as Son of God j as you would underlbmd it, referring to Luke 3.. 38. Thefe Rea- fons convince me, that the true Reading of the Words is u yinro^ av^pcox©', and ts dymm ^iS. * Ta> fA>i» B-SM , Uil }6«tToj TO, ocvrk ovri^ Kcci kyimra ^ uTrusx^vTt , _ , Toc ^i "/iyovoTX KX^-o i/jiTiTTSiTcc yiviosu^ cc(ij(^-/iv i^iccv \%i, KUTdl, Xivcn rcc vioif] yiyivvKf/jivu,. Iren. p. 28 j. Volunt fimiles eflTe Faclors Deo, 8c nullani elTe differentiam infect Del & nunc faci't Hominis. p. iSy. , ./ ,< ^ + 'Y.y.iiv®^ oi^Ti yiysvkc, . nu<^] yiyovoTM, kv^^uTrov, on f^a uyBvvyir(^ '/jc. p. 284, ^ p. iSj, The Qu. XXVII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 507 The next Queftion is, whether the Son be here included under dymm ^£«. I gave levcral Rcafons why all the Three Perfons are included 5 which Rea- fons may be feen in my Defenfe. I fhall add two more : One, that as the Oppofition runs between the Thing made and the Maker > fo it is obfcrvablc that God the Son frequently is Fa&or^ 7roir,Trir, Maker^ according to Iren^eus % which fhows, that He is in- cluded in the dy'inr^ ^sof. And again, it is Ire- nous's Dodrine, that Man's being made after the Image of God is to be underilood of his being made in the Image of God the Word\ : Which llill far- ther confirms my Conftruction of That Paflage -, and I now fubmit it to the Judgment of the learned Reader. As to my tranflating lucToKavr©' by defign- ing^ I have accounted for it above. 17. As to the PaGxige in Baftl^ which the Doctor had not done Juftice to, I defire the Reader to fee my Defenfe \\. That jS^// allows the Father to be a Natural Caufe of the Son is very true ; not a Caufe in the Doctor's Senfe : Nor do ^^y//'s Words con- vey any fuch Notion to the Reader, as the Doftor's AVord, Effects^ does. And therefore the Doctor cannot be acquitted of a Mifreprefentation. I leave it to any Reader, who will compare my Account of Bafil with the Doctor's Verfion, to judge whether the Ideas here, and there, be not very widely diffe- rent. And what Occafion was there for the Doctor's faying EffeEis^ inflead of Things ijjuing from them^ O Aoy©^ ■ T/.v iiKovcc toii^iv a:A>3£ra!$, a:t.rc$ toZtc ytvctjui*^ i^rtp nv it iix.uv uvr^, Iren. I. 5*. c. 16. p. 515. Quia jam adhaerebat illi Filius, SecumU pcrfona, fermo ipfius, &: TerUn^ Spiritus in Sermone, ideo pluraliter pronuntiavit, FactamuSi & mjiram. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 12. Unum enim funt, quorum Imaginis & Similitudinis unum ef! Homo facShis exemplum. Hilar. dcTrin. 1. j. c. 8. II Defenfe. p. 441. but 50S A Second Defense Qu.XXVII. but to favour an Hypothefts^ and to hold out a falfe Light to the Readers ? As to what you fay of a^/o)- fjta. Dignity^ I have anfwer'd it above. Your Rea- fon for TT^oriTCLX^^ fig"ifyi"g ^fiore than Priority of Order ^ is very pecuUar, ^viz. becaufe Baftl in another Place has both ra^ef, and d^i^ixctri : Therefore when He makes mention of Order only ( as in the Word TT^oTird^^ai ) He meant more than Order. You might perceive, by the Reafon given in Both Places, that 'GT^oTird')(^^ai applied to the Father, and rd^ei cAsuTs^©' applied to the Son, anfwer exactly to each other, and literally fignify Order ^ and Nothing elfe*. And had you attended to Bafil's Reafoning, where He allows d^K^ixarij as well as raget, you would have perceiv'd that it was rather ad Hominem^ or for Argument Sake, than any Thing elfe. For, admit- ting that the Son or Holy Gholl were a^ico/jiaTi, as well as ra^ei, fecond and third ( as Eunomius pretend- ed) yet He fhows that no certain Confequence can be drawn from thence to Inferiority of Nature. Or however, at the moft, all you can make of it is, that The Father being Supreme in Office^ as well as in Order^ was on That Account a^ioi/aaTi tt^cot©^, firft in Dignity : As one Angel (which is Bajifs Illuftra- tion) is fuperior to another in Rank, or Office, tho' in Nature equal. Bajil. I. 7,. p. -jo- I p. The lail PaiTage I found Fault with, you are content to throw off under the Name of a Quibble \ becaufe you could not account for the Do6i:or's foul Play in miftranflating it, and warping it to his own Hypothefis. Why was not the Word cVjxiypyyi/jtara rendred Creatures, as it ought to have been } And why did the Doftor put All "things, when fpeaking of Things produced by the Father, and Things only in Refped of the Son's producing, when He had no Ground for the Diftinftion in Baftl ? But enough of This. The Doctor's Partiality in * See Another PaiTage of B<^fd above, p. 496. ma»y Qu. XX VII. offomCllJEKlES. 5 09 many of his Quotations has been fufficiently mani- fefted. And tho' you are pleafed to pafs the Mat- ter off with as good a Face as you can, (and it is your wifeft Way fo to do) yet you will hardly find many Readers of Opinion with you, that thefe Kind of Slips, in a Man of Charader, are of flight Mo- ment. Had Bilhop Bull been ever guilty of Things of this Kind, I well know what Ufe would have been made of it. Mr. IVhiJIon * charged him with once unfairly tranflating a Paflage of Origen y where yet the Biihop was right, and Mr. Whifton certainly wrong, as I have prov'd in my Defenfe f : And This one pretended Inllance of Unfairnefs is brought up again, and aggravated, by another Gentleman )J, with fome Kind of Infult. A few Slips of this Nature, where a Charge is really juft, are not eafily pardon'd in any Writers of the higher Clafs : betraying either Want of Learnings or Want of Care^ or, what is word of all, Want of Honefly. You endeavour to throw off the Force of the next five or fix Pages of my Defenfe^ (which you can never fairly anfwer) by charging fomething diftnge^ mious^ as you pretend, upon Me ; As if all the Dovlor^s Citations from the Fathers in general were ConcefHons only from Writers^ "who were Adverfaries in the Whole, But I made a Diftin6lion t, as the Doclor himfelf had done % between Ante-Nkene^ and Pofl-Nicene Writers. As to the latter. He laid claim to Nothing but Conceffions : And as to the former. He did indeed claim more in Refpeft of fome of Them, tho' I think without Reafon. You are ftill fanguine enough to fay, that much the greater Part of the Authors He cites^ all^ you think, of the three firft Centuries^ agree with Him in the full Senfe of all * Primitive Chriftianity revived. Vol. 4. p. ij'^.. t Defenfe. p. 198, Sec. \\ Prim. Chriftianity reviv'd. Append, a. p. 44.* ■k^ Defenfe, p. /^\^. ' Preface to Script. Doar. p. 18. I'^'Ed. Reply, p. y, 6. " inf 5IO A Second Defense Qu.XXVII. his Propofttions. How wild, and indeed Romantick this Imagination of yours is, hath been fufficiently fhown all the Way j firfl, in My Defenfe^ and again in thefe Papers : particularly in the eleven Inftances above mentioned, wherein the Doctor runs counter to all Antiquity. As to fupreme Dominion^ which you lay fo mnch ftrefs on j it is Demonftration that the Fathers held no Supremacy but what was thought confiftent with Equality of Nature^ and with the Unity of the fame Godhead common to Father and Son. If This be your Supremacy^ all is right and well. But it is ridiculous of you to quote Antients for the Supremacy, and at the fame time to throw out all the Confiderations which ihould come in to qualify, fix, and determine the Notion of Supre- macy^ among the Antients. Are not all the o- ther Tenets, wherein the Ayitients evidently contra- di6t the Do6tor's whole Scheme, fo many Demon- ftrations that They never undeiilood Supremacy in any fuch Senfe as He does ? What is the Doctor or you doing, but playing onc^ or tim Principles of the Antients^ of uncertain Meaning in Themfelves, a- gainft twenty clear , plain , undoubted Principles ? Which if you were able to do with Succcfs , it would not be proving that the Fathers were on your Side, but that They were Fools and mad, and are of no Account on either Side of the Controverfy. But, I hope, the Reader will eafily fee thro' the Myfle- ry of the whole Deceit which you are putting up- on Him, (and perhaps upon your felves at the fame Time) which is only This: The llraining and pervert- ing the true and Catholick Notion of Supremacy ( held in all Ages of the Church, before and after the Ni- cene Council ) to an Arian and Heretical Senfe > that fo you may obliquely (what you care not to do di- reUly) reduce the Son and Holy Gholl to the Rank of Creatures. Your conftant Plea is, The Suprema- cy^ The Supremacy : The Antients^ it feems, were for Supremacy, amidfi all their Variety of Metaphyfi- €al Qu. XXVII. offome dU E R I E S. 5 1 1 eal Speculations : So that every other Tenet, whereby the Antients plainly overturn your whole Scheme, muft be thrown off as a Metaphyfical Speculation 5 and nothing but Supremacy muft be founded in our Ears. Yet, after all, you can make nothing of This pretended Supremacy 'till you turn it into a Meta- phyfical Speculation upon Self-Exiftence^ and That a- gain into Necefiary-Exiftence 5 then adding fundry o- ther Metaphyfical Speculations to degrade, and link God the Son into precarious Exiflencc. This was not the Way of the Antients j nor was This the Ufe they ever made, or intended to make of the Supre- macy : If They had, you would have allowed Them, I fuppofe, in this fingle Inftance, to run into Meta- phyfical Speculations. One Thing is evident, amidfi all their Variety of Metaphyfical Speculations in which you think They abounded, more than You, that what Metaphyficksli\\ti\\?A in x.\\t\\' great Abundance^ They employed them all in Defenfe of our Lord's Divinity; while You, on the contrary, employ the Little you have, in dire6t Oppofition to it. Certainly, the Anti- ents^ being fo much given to Metaphyficks^ could have been Metaphyfical on your Side of the Queftion, as well as You are now : But either They were wife e- nough to dillinguiih Falfe Metaphyficks from 'True 5 Or, They had not fo learned Chrift. But to re- turn, I intimated* how a Romanift might, in Dr. Clarke's Way, fill Pages with Quotations wide of the Purpofe, and call them Concejfions^ and thereby deceive weak Readers. Here you have nothing to reply, but that I do the Doctor Wrong in applying this to all his Citations, I applied it not to all^ but to as many (be they more^ ox fewer) as have been thus deceitfully made ufe of by the Doftor. By his own Account it mull be underftood of as many Pofi- * Defenfe, p. 44/, 448. Kicem 512 y^ Second Defense Qu.XXVII. Nicene Cat h clicks, as He quotes in that Manner : And how many Ante-Nicenes it ought to be under- flood of, may appear from what 1 have fhown of their being in very oppofite Sentiments to his, in the moll material Points of our Difpute. But allowing your Plea, is it any Juflification of the Dodor's Me- thod of Quoting ? I charge Him with Deceit : And you, in his Defenfe^ reprefent Him as pradifing it not fo much^ or fo often^ as I might imagine. But why did He pra&ife it at all ? You next endeavour to retort fomething upon Me like to the Romanifis > tho' entirely wide and foreign, and brought in moft ftrangely. They have Recourfe, you fay, to Tradition : You mould have faid to Oral Tradition, which is quite another Thing from writ- ten Tradition. And what Harm is there in having Recourfe to the written Tradition of Fathers for the Senfe of Scripture, more than in having Recourfe to a Di5lionary for the Senfe of Words j or to the Pra- ftice of Courts^ Refolutions of Judges^ or Books of Reports^ for the Senfe of Laws ? All Helps, for the underftanding of Scripture, ought to be made ufc of : And Recourfe to the Fathers is one, and a very confiderable one. The Romanifts^ you add, call their own Doftrine Catholick : Yes, and without Reafon. The Fathers, long before Popery^ called their Do- ctrine Cat/jolick, and with good Reafon. What then? The Romanifts alfo call That Herefy ^ which is re- ally none ; May we not therefore call That Herefy^ which really is fuch, and which has been ever fo ac- counted in all Ages of the Church ? What you have farther is Repetition : except your Speculations on Rev. i. 8. which have been moftly confider'd above*. There remain only a few incidental Matters to be here taken notice of, very briefly. I had referr'd to f p. 24i» 8cc. four t^u. XXVII. of fbmeqXJ'EKlE S. 5 1 i four Places t in Clemens^ where He either dirc6lly or indirectly makes the Son TravroKpaTCi)^, Almighty, OF Three of them no reafonable Doubt can be maToxfarcpe« B-iov !\cyov, p. 277. AuyocfAK; jrotyxpaTtj? ••— — — B-birif/icc zxvToxfcCTft" X'l'. p. 646. H iiou (pv(ri^ vi 7a fjijoia •atx.vTOK^uTo^iTr^otnxi'iOi.Tvt, p. 83 I. TTij^fTa'v Ta T0{! ciycc^ov, kccI 5T«/rojc()tfr6p05 S^fA^jM/oCTt TotTfa^. p. 832. - IJ See BhII D. F. Seft. 2. c. 6. NoHrrii Apparat. Vol. x. p. 974,' Lord i^ottifighftm's Anfwer to Whifton, cc L I QuERTf J1+ y^ Sb CON f) Defense Qu.XXVIIIi^ dUERY XXVIIL Whether it be at all probable y that the primitive Church Jhould miftake in Jo material a Toint as This is -, or that the whole Stream of Chri^ ft ion Writers Jhould mijiake in telling us what the Senje of the Church was : And whether fuch a Cloud of Witnejfes can be Jet ajide without weakening the only Troof we have of the Canon of the Scripture, and the Inte- grity of the Sacred Text ? fTpHE Modefi Pleader thinks it not nnterial to JL inquire whether the Antient Writers of the Church were better fkilF din Metaphyfical Speculations^ than We at this Day ? This kind of Talk is what He afFeds, and pieafes Himfelf in j though He has no- thing but Metaphyp'-ks to depend on, as I have often obferved: And I will venture to aflure Him, that the old and well - tried Mefaphyficks of the Antients are fuch as He will find much fuperior to his own. Me- iaphyficks were indeed firft brought in by Hereticksj and were much encouraged by Arius^ Eunomius^ and the whole Sc6t of Arians : But the Fathers of the Church, having better Senfe than They, were able to bafHe them at their own Weapons. The modeft Pleader^ I think ( if there be not an Interpolation by another Hand ) ftiil goes on, and tells me how una* mmoujly^ how uniformly the Antients aJJ'erted a real Supremacy of the Father's Dominion, And yet the certain Tf utli is, that He has no Ante-nicene^ or Poft^ nicene Catholick Writer that ever came up to his Notion of it. Where does He find them faying, that the Father alone is fupreme in Dominion ? He may find Many exprefsly contradifting it j as many ■ ' ■ ' as Qu. XXVIII. offome (QUERIES. 515 as make Father and Son One God^ or proclaim them undivided in Dominion, or fay that they are Unius Potejiatis^ Unius Divinitatis^ of One Poiver and Godhead^ and the like ; Many Teftimonics whereof have been given in the Courfe of thefe Papers. All He can prove is a Supremacy of the Father, a Supre- macy in refpeft of Order ^ or Office^ nothing more. But his Way is to take old Expreilions, and to affix new Ideas to them, under pretence that thofe old Writers knew not how to fpeak accurately. What They call'd Caufe^ is with Him, no Caufe -, What They call'd ^^Sy are no Jbls > What They call'd Generation is no Generation 5 and their Subordination (hke mine) is a Co-ordination : Andi fo, I prefume, their »S'^/jr^;»i^^y is no Supremacy.^ but mufl be ftretch'a farther upon the Foot of the new Metaphyficks. This is the whole of the Cafe > new Ideas to old Terms, that a Man may feem to concur with the Antients^ while He is really contradidling them in the groHlfl: Manner, and introducing a novel Faith. 1 knov/ not how far fuch a Method may ferve with the Po- pulace : Wife Men will fee through it, and give ic its due Name > viz : Either great Ignorance of An- tiquity, or great Partiality. But He goes on ; JVhole Streams of Writers in Matters of Controverfy , reprefentin^ other Alen's O- pinions otherwife than in the IVords of the Perfons ^hemfelveSy are no Manner of Evidence, One would wonder what This wife Paragraph meant, or what it was to the Purpofe, Have we not the Scnfe of the Church from Churchmen Them- felvcs ? But he wanted to introduce an ill-natur'd Gird upon Some Body. He is terribly afraid left any Man fhould judge of Dr. Clarke'% Writings from his Adverfary's Accounts. I hope, the Reader will beat" this Caution in Mind, as often as He reads Dr. Clarke's Accounts of the Ante-yilcene^ or Pofl-nicene Writers, to whom He is an utter Adverfary •, tho' a profefs d one to the Latter only. As to what He fays about hit "Weaken^ 516 ^ Second Defense Qu. XXIX. "weakening the Canon of Scripture^ I refer to my Defenfe^ 'y where That Matter is fairly, and fully Hated. I now come to you. You repeat the Pretence of Supremacy : which requires no farther Anfwer but This 3 that you miftake the alone unoriginatenefs^ for alone Dominion. The Father is not the alone Go- 'uernour : But He alone hath his Authority, and Do- minion/rc«^ none, qjjERY XXIX. Whether private Reafoning-, in a matter above our Cornprehenfion^ be a fafer Rule to go by^ than the general Senfe and Judgment of the primitive Church in the firjt 3 00 Tears : Or^ * fiippofing it doubtful' what the Senfe of the Church was within that time^ whether what was determined by a Council of 300 Biff ops foon after y with the great eft Care and "Deli- beratioriy and has fat is fed Men of the great- eft Senfe, Tiety and Learning, all over the Chriftim World, for 1400 Tears fince^ may not fat is f J wife and good Men now ? I here meet with nothing but what has been abun- dantly anrwcred, or obviated. Your former Pre- tences were > I. That the Nicene Council knew nothing of in- dividual Confubftantiality. z. That they underilood Confuhjlantial in ^fgura-^ five Senfe. * Defenfe. p. 45'7, S;c, %. That Qu. XXIX. offome Q^U E R I E S. 517 3. That if they intended any real Confubflantia- lity, it was Specifick only. 4. That Tcveral Councils, more numerous than That of iV/V^, determin'd againft the oix^iicnoy. All thcfe Pleas were parricularly examin'd^ and con- futed^ in my 'Defenfe : And you have been content to drop them, as indefeniible, without any Rein- forcement. You have nothing farther but a few trifling Qiiib- blcs about Individual^ and Identical^ and Supreme Authority : Which may now pafs with the Readers for Words of Courfe > fuch as you have accuitom'd your felf to repeat, when you have no mind to be filent. I muft defire the Reader to turn to my De- fenfe of This ^lery^ and to compare it with your Reply y if He finds any thing in what you have faid, that feems to require any Confidcration. Q^UERY XXX. Whether, fuppqfing the Cafe doubtful, it be not a wife Maris part to take the fafer Side 5 ra- ther to think too highly y than too meanly of our blejfed Saviour ; rather to pay a modcft deference to the Judgment of the Antient and Modern Churchy than to lean to orie's own Underftanding ? Imuft take notice of what the Modeft Pleader here pretends, that This ^ery 7nay he retorted with ir- reftftihle Strength. After He has thus prepared his Reader, let us| hear what his Words come to. It is Thus, Whether it he not a wife Man's part ^ rather to think too highly^ than too meanly of God the Father ; and to he tender of his incommunicable Honour. To which I anfwer, that God the Father has determin'd L 1 5 This 5iS ^^ Second Defense Qu^XXX. This Queftion already, by his Commanch laid upon us to honour his Son even ?isHimfelf -y and by his giving no particular Cautions againft honouring Him too much. If we err on This part, in honouring the Son too highly (without the leait Thought of difhonouring the Father) we err on the right Side, as erring on the fide of the Precept ; whereas the other is erring againft the Precept. This I urged before 5 and nei- ther the Modeft Pleader^ nor your felf take the leaft notice of it. However, I relied my Argument up- on this farther Condderation, that the Modeft fide is the Safeft to err in : And I thought a Debt of Mo- defty very proper to be paid to the Antient Churchy and to all the Modern Churches j unlefs you had plain Demonftration for your Diffent. But the Modeft Pleader fays^ a modeft Deference JJjould he paid to the exprefs Declarations and Commands of Scripture^ rather than to the Additions of any Hu- man^ and fallible Judgment. But where is his Modeft y to call his unfcriptural Inventions by the venerable Name of Scripture ? The Queftion is not, whether exprefs Scripture ought to be obeyed : But whether, what a few confident Men call exprefs Scripture^ and all the Churches of Chriftendom, early and late, take to be directly contrary to exprefs Scripture, is to be ad- mitted as an Article of Faith. It is very ftrange that you iliould fo often fpeak of Human and fallible Judgment, and never confider that the Judgment you make is Human^ and falli- hle^ as well as the reft. Are you, in particular, pri- vileg'd from Errors^ or blefs'd with the Gift of Infal" ability ? Since we are comparing Human with Hu- man^ and fallible with fallible Judgment ; Think it pofTible that many , and great , and ivife Men may have judged right -^ and that a Few may have judged ^rong. There is a Prefumption, a ftrong Probabi- lity, to fay no more, againft you : Nor will any thing lefs than Demonf ration be fufficient to fupport your Pretences, in Oppofirion to the current Judg- ment Qu. XXX. Qffome (QUERIES. j 19 ment of the Chriftian World. In Modcfty, the NovelUfts ought to pay a Deference to wifer Men than Themfelves j and not prcfume that They have Scripture on their Side, 'till They arc able to prove it. But of This I faid enough in my Defenfe * ; and you make no Anfwer. You have nothing more, un- der This Query, but Repetition of your Preface ^ which I have anfwer'd in its Place. Only I muft take notice of one very peculiar Piece of grave Banter j your accufing Me as appealing to the PaJJions of the Readers^ only for retorting upon you your own De- clamation, in fomewhat ftronger Words > as I had a better Caufe to fupport them. Who was it that firil called upon us to confider^ what to anfwer at the Great Day^ 6cc. ? So folemn an Appeal, upon fuch trifling Pretences as you had, obliged me to remind you of the infinitely greater Rifque you run, in un- accountably Denying your Lord and God. You tell us alfo of Names of Reproach j at the fam^ time re- proaching the Church of God, and the moft Emi- nent Lights of it in all Ages, as Trithsifisj or Sahel- Ham, ox Scholafticks, ox 2isContentiom Mtn^thzthuWt their Faith on Metaphyfical Speculations, Itfeems, you can feel any thing that looks like a Reproach upon your felves 3 at the fame Time caufelefly dealing about hard Names, and mofl injurious Refledions upon all around you. Learn to be Modeft, or at leaft commonly Civil to Others 5 and you may meet with fuitable Returns. We fhall not fuffer you to run on with your Charge of SahelUanifm, Tritheifm^ Scholaftick Jargon, 6cc. which you cannot make good againft Us > without letting the World know (ome- thing of a Charge of Arianifm, which we can make good againft You, having often done it with the Force and Evidence of Demonftration. As to the 'Charge I made (/?. 480.) relating to your refting f Defenfe, p. 45-8, ^^^, L I 4 your 520 [/^ Second Defense Qu.XXXJ your Caufe, in the laft Refult, folely upon Metaphy^ ficks^ tho' you are pleafed to call it Calumny^ there is not a Syllable of it but what is flridly true, and may be undeniably proved from Dr. Clarke's own Pieces, and yours. I except One or Two Particu- lars, which I remember to have met with only in Mr. Emlyn's Tra6tsf . I hope, you will not think Him an ignorant Writer^ nor one that is ufed to al* hdge fiich Reafons only as his Adverfaries fhould de^ fire^ or wifh for. He has long ftudied This Contro- verfy, and, as I conceive, underftands it better than Some who have fucceeded Him in it, and who have been content fometimes to borrow from Him. But That by the Way : I flill continue to affirm, having proved it more than once, that in the laft Refult your Doftrine ftands upon Metaphyftcks only, and fuch Pretences as I mentioned in the Place above cited. They are what you conftantly retreat to, when prefs'd : And without Them you cannot advance one confiderable Step towards what you aim at, with all your pretended Proofs from Scripture^ or Antiquity, t Emlyn's Tradls : p. 16 f<. Qy E,R V Qu. XXXI. offome Q.U E R I E S. 521 (^ U E R Y XXXI. Whether any thing lefs than clear and evident ^emonjiration, on the fide of Arianifm, ought to move a wife and good Man, againft fo great Appearances of Truth, on the fide of Ortho- doxy from Scripture, Reafon, and Antiquity : and whether we may not wait long before we find jtich Demonftration > WHAT the Modeji Pleader here pretends a^ gain ft the Charge of Arianifm^ has been a- bundantly anfwer'd more- than once*. And as to his Cavil againft charging Confequences in This Cafe, I have diftindly confider'd it elfewhere f. Among all the Charges I made, you will hardly meet with any fuch general Charge as is here brought againft Me, o^ fuhverting all Science^ and all Religion j without lliowing how^ or why. When I make a Charge, I lignify upon what I found it, and give you the Liberty of defending yourfelves if you can. This other Method of general Scandal^ thrown out in fuch a Way as to bar a Man the Privilege of Self- defenfe^ is of all the moft ungenerous, mean, and deteftable. All I ftiall fay to it is This > that 1 have Demonftration before me, that if the Man had had any thing He could have mentioned without expofing * In my Befenfe, and in tnis Second Befenfcy and particularly in my Supplement to the Cafe of Arian Subfcription. p. 20. 67. t Supplement, Sec p.ai,^c. Him.- 512 y^ SECOND Defense Qu.XXXL Himfelf, He would certainly have produc'd it at full Length: And therefore, Iprefume, his ^^«^r^/ Charge about no body loiows what, may reafonably pafs for a Bounce extraordinary. Words and no more. After a deal of trifling Repetition, you arc at length pleafcd to eafe your Reader, and Me ; leaving one fome Words of my own, which ftand better in their Place. You do well to return me back the good Advice I gave you, which you had made no ufe of. As to the Honeft Reader, I defirc Him to take notice, that every Thing material iuk This ^lery is intirely drop*d : No Demonflration given of the New Scheme^ nor fo much as pretend- ed 5 no Anfwer to five Particulars which required Satisfa6tion. As you begin, fo you end, with Eva- fions and Subterfuges, Shiftings and Difguifes > per- petually running off from the tine Point in Quefti- on, and wrapping your felf up in Clouds and Dark- nefs > fludying and contriving all poflible Ways to perplex rather than infiruft, and fearing nothing fo much as tohavethelflueof theCaufeput upon a clear Foot, or left to a fair Hearing. It might reafonably have been expedted, while you write under Cover, that you would have taken quite another Method : And give me leave to judge fo jufdy^ or at leaft fo kindly of you, as to believe you would have done it, had you been left intirely to your own Counfels. I am not fuch a Stranger to You, or fo unacquainted with your Style J your Manner^ your Didiion^ (in many private Papers, as you well know, befides what you liTiVC puhlijh'd) as not to perceive, that Many Things, which I have here anfwer'd as yours, yet never came from your Pen. I cannot indeed critically diftinguifh in all Cafes, where you begin to fpeak, or where you end : But, in the general, where there is any thing that looks of a more ingenuous Strain, and is moft like .what one would exped from a plain^ honefi I^an i That I conceive certainly to be all your oivn. in» QU.XXXI. ^//^;^ClUERIES. 51 j Indeed, you have interpret at ively made the whole yours^ by lending your Name^ I fhould rather fay your Perfon^ to it : For You ^ve perfomted z\\ the way through. You will therefore the more eafily cxcufc me for direfting my felf generally to You, even in Thofe parts where I am Tenfible I have had to do with Another Man. One Thing I complain of, and That is of the dif- ingenuous Ufe every where made of writing under Concealment, and without a Name. I fhould have h^d a great deal lefs Trouble in examining the Reply^ had it been to be own'd by any Man of Charafter, and his Name fet to it. He would have wrote very proba- bly, with more Care, had his Reputation been ftaked upon it i He would have cut off many Imperti- nencies, would not have attempted to put fo many grofs and palpable Abufes upon the Readers, nor have undertaken to defend what was at firil Sight plainly indefenfible. He would have feleded Such Things, and Such only, as might bear fome Colour at leaft, and appear of real Weight : Such, in a Word, as might become a Scholar^ a Man o^ Senfe^ and a Man oi Probity., to urge, and nothing more. And then I am fure, that both the Reply itfelf, and my Labour in examining it, would have been very much fliort- en'd : And our Readers would have been more agree- ably, and more ufefully entertain*d. I ihall conclude with obferving, how eafy a Thing it may be to reduce This Controvcrfy into a fmali Compafs > if Men will but come fincerely to it, and keep clofe to the principal Points in Qiiellion. The moft convenient Method, and moil natural Or- der of Enquiry, would, I conceive, be This follow- mg one. I. PFhat the Dodtrine to be examined is, II. Whether it be pofible ? III. Whether it be True ? I. The ^24 A Second Defense Qu.XXXI. I. The firfl: Queftion is. What the BoEtrine iss which lies in Thefe Particulars. I. That the Father is God (in the ftrift Senfc of i^ecejfarily-exifiing^ as oppofcd to precarious Exift- ence ) and the Son God, and the Holy - Ghoft God^ in the fame Senfe of the Word God. z. That the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy-Ghofl: either Father or Son : They are diftin^^ fo that One is not the O- ther 5 that is, as we now term it. They are Three diftinft Per fins y and two of 'em eternally referr'd up to One. 3. Thefe Three, however dtftin^ enough to be ^hree Pcrfons, are yet united enough to be One God, II. The fecond Queflion is. Whether theJDoUrlne h fojfibk ? All that relates to This Queflion, is refolvi' ble into three other Queftions. 1. Whether there can be Three Perfons Necefa- rily-exifting ? 2. Whether Three fuch Perfons can be One God., in the Nature of the Thing it felf, or upon the Foot of mere Natural Reafon ? 3. Whether They can be One-God^ confidently with any Data in Scripture, any thing plainly laid down in Sacred Writ -y as, fuppofe. Subordination^ MiJJton^ Generation? 6cc. If any one of Thefe Queftions can be determin'd in the Negative with fufficient Certainty ^ then the Doftrine, as here ftated, is not poffibk : But if none of Thefe Queftions can be with any Certainty deter- min'd in the Negative^ the Doftrine then muft be al- lowed to be pfible, I, The Qu. XXXI. offome aU E R I E S. 5 xi 1. The fir ft ^leftion cannot be determin'd in the Negative -, For, after frequent Trials fo to deter- mine It, no one has been yet found able to do it : All the pretended Proofs of it are Sophiftical j They may be, They have been, fhown to be fo. 2. As to the Second ^eflion^ no one has hi- therto been able to determme it in the Negative^ tho' often attempted. And there is this Reafon to be given why it never can be done j that no cer- tain Principle of Individuation ever has, or can be fix'd : Upon which alone the Refolution of ThaC Queftion, on the Foot of mere Natural Reafon, in- tirely depends. 3. As to the Third ^eftion^ there is no deter- mining it in the Negative j becaufc it is certain that Subordination J or MiJJion may be confident with Equality of Nature > as is feen even in Men, And if it be pleaded, that fuch Subordination is not confift- ent with the Unity^ (tho* it might with the Equa^ lity) our Ideas of the Unity are too impcrfedb to rea- fon folidly upon : Nor can any Man prove that every Kind of Unity mull be either too clofe to admit of any Subordination^ or elfe too luofe to make the Per- fons One God. How fhall it be ihown, that the Diftin^ion may not be great enough to anfwer the Subordination^ 6cc. and yet the Union clofe enough to make the Perfons One God ? Our Faculties arc not fufficient for Thefe Things. If eternal Genera- tion be obje6ted to as a Thing impojjible^ The Ob- jedors fhould fhow that there cannot be any eternal Refer e?ice ov- Relation of One to the Other, as Head^ Fountain^ or Center : Which is the Sum of what eternal Generation amounts to > and which, ( though often attempted) could never yet be proved to carry any thing contradictory in it. Not to mention that could it be really proved to be abfurd, or contra- didory, yet the main Doctrine might poffibly fland independent of it j among fuch at lead; as icruplc not to $26 y^ Second Defense Qu.XXXI. to throw off the jlntients^ and confine the Difpute to Scripure alone : Which is not fo clear or full for the eternal Generation^ as it is for the eternal Exift- tnce of the Son. Upon the whole, fince the Dodrine can never be proved to be mpoffibk j it muft be al- lowed to be poffible : And now, III. The Third and laft Queftion is, whether the Do&rine be True ? For the refolving of which, we muft have Recourfe to Scripture, and Antiquity. Whoever undertakes to debate This Queftion, fhould forbear every Topick drawn from the Nature of the ^hing 'y becaufe fuch Arguments belong only to the ether Queftion, Whether the Do6lrine he poJJibJe : And, in all Reafon, the PoJJibility fhould be pre- fuppofed in all our Difputes from Scripture^ or Fa- thers. By what I have here obferved, it appears that the Controverfy of the Trinity may be eafily brought to a fhort IfTue, and be comprifed in Two Sheets of Paper. The Strength of the Adverfaries moft certainly lies in the Queftion of the Pojjlbility : And if They have any thing coniiderable to urge, it may be difpatch'd in a very few Words 5 One De- ^lonflration (if any one can be found) being as good 'as a Hundred. If none can be found, I doubt not but all rea- fonable Men will immediately give up the Point in refpeft of Scripture, and Antiquity j which have been fo often, and fo unanfwerably proved to be on our Side. My hearty Concern for Truth, on whatever Side it may be conc.eived to lie, and my Defire to fubmit every Dodrine (not excepting even Thofe which we call Fundamental) to a free and fair Trial, makes me willing to offer Thefe Hints ; which may be ufeiiil to our Adverfaries, if there be any real Strength Qu. XXXI. offome QUERIES. 527 Strength in the Caufe They have undertaken. I am not afraid of pointing out to Them the fhortcft and readieft way of Confuting us, if there be any Way of doing it. Let Them try the Strength of their Philofophy^ or Metaphyficks^ when They pleafe : I dcfirc only to have the Caufe put upon clear and folid Reafoning, upon firm Principles purfued by regular, and juft Inferences, or Deduftions. And Ice the World fee whether any modern Improvements in Philofophy, Logick, or Metaphyficks, can raifc Arianifm up, inThcfe latter Days, which never could be fupported, formerly, by all that Human Wit and Learning could invent, or contrive for it. AN ( 528 ) Bip^^*^ w A int ^ ^^^s^si WylHfc i^T/APlFjmilM^-^^M l^^^p^^^ ^^^^^''^^%^H mutmrngmAjit^^M^^^^h^ I^^*^^^^P-^^^I wmmWm^^^^.^^^^^.^mj!^m^m&r::'^m^\ mBB^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^ml IJPH^^^^^^^^^iSil ANSWER T O T H E POSTSCRIPT. OU conclude with a Poftfcript relating to Dr. Calamy : Whom you firft re- proach very roundly, as one that has been throughout mijled^ hy trufling to my Citations^ and Comments, You ought to beg his Pardon for This unrighteous Report 5 which was not made in the Fear of God^ nor under a fenfe of the common Obligations of Humanity^ or Jujiice towards Man. If 1 iliould report that you had been frequently^ ( I do not fay throughout) milled by Dr. Clarke's Citations, and Comments j I fhould fay no more than I have given abundant Proof of : But what Proof have you given that Dr. Calamy has been TChrougJoout mifled by mine ? 1 know not whe- ther you will be able to give a iingle Example of it. However, it had been but juft, rather to have faid that He had been mifled by trulting to his own Judg- •nient^ concurring with mine. For, it is plain enough that the Do^or has examined for HiiTxfelr : And if He has the Postscript; 5^5 iias fallen, in a great meafure, into the fanfie way of thinking with Me 5 it is not as trujfing to my Cita- tions^ or Comments^ but as approving the Grounds upon which They ftand. You had the lefs reafoa to reproach Him as having been throughout mijled by Me, when the main Defign of your Poftfcript is to intimate to the World that He differs from mc in one part of his Scheme, which you think very con- liderable : An Argument, fure, that He did not take Things upon 1'ruft from others 5 but confidered and examined carefully, before He gave into Them. The fec'ond Citation which you produce from Him, to intimate to me (as you pretend) the Confequence of my Notion^ relates not to my Notion-, nor was it wrote with any fuch Fiew^ but with regard to quite another Notion '*. The unaccountable Part you have here aded, in citing it and tacking it moll unrighteoufly to the former, mud make your very Friends blufh for you, or ftand aftonifhed at you. Whether it was done with Defign^ or was purely Blunder^ the Author of the Poftfcript (for I would gladly hopCj it was not You) befl knows. Suppofe it owing to Hafte^ and Carekjjnefs \ yet even ivUnt of Care, in Charges of This kind, will: be apt to call fome Blemifh upon a Writer's Honcfty^ or Probity. I lay hold on This Opportunity of thanking Dr. Calamy for his learned, and ufcful Labours in Defenfe of our Com-mon Faith : And it is with Pl^a- fure I take notice of the feafonable Stand which He and many Others (the mod eminent and moil: confi- derable Meu of the Dijfenting ivay) have made, ia' oppofition to the threatning DefeBion^ and to preferve their Flocks in Time of Danger. If He has any where differed from me, in lefs material Points, hold- ing the Foundation fure^ the Dodrine of a real and coequal Trinityy He is at liberty to follow his own • Sec Dn Cfikmfs Sermons, p. 5 4^ , - " Mm Judgmentj Sjo ANSPFERto Judgment, and to defend the main Articles in fuch ^ way as appears to Him moft reafonable, and freeli from Embaraflments. I will fir ft fuppofe that He really differs from me, in the Point of Subordination ftho'^ I conceive, He does not) yet what Advantage do you propofe to reap from it, that you fhould now fo plume your felf upon it ? Do not deceive your felt in This Matter : If Dr. Calamy has made any ConceJJion of This kind, beyond what I have thought proper to do *, He will ftill be able to maintain his Ground againft Dr. Clarke and his Adherents, both from Scripture^ and Antiquity. As to Scripture^ al- lowing any natural Subordination of Chrift, as God^ to be inconfiftent with his ejfential Divinity 3 The Queftion then will be, whether your Proofs of any fuch natural Subordination (diftinguiih'd frem Oecono- mical) are plainer, ftronger, or fuller than the Proofs of the ejjential Divinity. Here, I conceive. He will have the Advantage very evidently, both in the Number^ and the Strength of his Proofs. Your pretended ^voluntary Generation He will reje£t as an unfcriptural Dream of human Invention : Your Scrip- ture Proofs o^ ih(^ NeceJ/ary exiftence of the Father will fland upon no better a foot than his Scripture-Proofs of the Neceffary exiflence of the Son. Your Pretences from the Prepofitions, O/, By^ fhrough^ or In^ He will refolve into Oeconomical Order: And you will not be able to prove from i Cor. viii. 6. that God the Son is included in the all Things which are of the Father. Metaphyjicks you will be afliamcd to offer 5 having fo often pretended to condemn Them in Us. All your little Quibbles about derived and underived^ about Caufe and Effe5lj about A5ls of the IFilly about Identical Subftance, Identical Lives, and the like, will drop at once. In fhort, when An- iiquity is fee afide, you will find it extremely difficult to make it appear that the Scripture Account of Sub* ordination necefTarily infers any natural Subordination, qr may not poffibly be underftosd of Oeconomical on- ly i the Postscript. su ly J asfomc Writers;of Note feem to have underflood, as high as the lixth Century*, if not higher. As to Jntiquity^ you will be able to prove a natu* ral Subordination^ very plainly, from the earlieft Fa- thers : But not more plainly than Dr. Calamy will be able to prove the Confubjiantiality^ Coeternity^ Omni- prejhice^ Omnifcience^ and other di'vine Attributes of God the Son : Not more plainly than He will prove from the Jntients-^ that the Father and Son arc one God^ (one God moft High) that Creature-'worflnp is Idolatry^ that no inferior God mufl be admitted, and the like. The Qiieltion then will be (fince the An* tients^ upon the prelent Hypothefis^ mufl be faid to have concradid:ed Themfelves, and each other) I fay, the Qiieition will be, whether you have more andjlronger Teftimonics for one part of the Contra" didtion^ than the Dodor will have for the other part. Here again He will manifefhly have the Advan- tage over you, in the Number and Strength of his Teftimonies : And He may juftly plead, either to have the Evidence of Antiquity fet afide as null > or that the many Tenets, wherein the Fathers agree with his Schetnc, be admitted as more confiderable than the few Tenets wherein They agree with you. Thus, fo far as I apprehend, you and your Friends will be really no Gainers by Dr. Calamy's Conceit fions 5 or by throwing off the Subordination, as im* poj/ible, and contradi^ory, on Both (ides. Neverthelefs, I am fully and unalterably perfuaded, thatthe true, and right way is, to admit the Subordina* tion, ^nd to aflertthe^^w/i^/Divinity of all the Three Pcrfons together with it. Both Parts appear to he founds td in Scripture, and were undoubtedly believed by the jlntients in general : And there is no Repugnancy be- tween them, more than what lies m miftaken Fancy, or Imagination. I know not whether Dr. Calamy • SicJ^ims apud Photium. Cod. 222. p. ^24, 6if, M m z might Vsi ANSWER to ■inlgbt not pay too great a Regard to Di\ darkens partial Rcprclentation of this Matter > and fo take Bp. P ear/on' s and Bp. BtilFs Sentiments fomething othcrwife than They intended them. I obferve, that He admits f eternal Generation^ necejfary Emanation^ ^nd Natural Order -y which is, in other Words, admit- ting all that is intended by priority of Order^ or Sub' Grdination. The Son proceeds from the Father \ The Father from none : This is the Difference of natural Order which the Antients^ and after Them Thoie Two excellent Moderns^ fpeak of > viz. that the Son is referr'd up to the Father as to a Head, or Foun- tain, and not ni'ice n;erfa. This Reference, or Rela- tion of the Son to the Father, we call Subordina- tion: And This is all that is natural^ the reft is oeco- nomicaL If Dr. Clarke has reprelented Subordination otherwife, pretending Bp. Pearfon's or Bp. BuWs Authority for it, He has done unfairly : And per- haps Dr. Calamy intended no more than to condemn the Notion fo reprefented *. Which is not con- demning either Bp. Pearfonh^ or Bp. Bull's^ or My Dodrine > but fomething elfe which others have in- vented for us. I know not indeed whether you'll allow me to put my felf in 5 becaufe I am reprefented as teiching o. real Co-ordination^ and a verbal Subordination only. But I am very certain that the fame Objedion, or rather Cavil, lies equally againft Bp, Pearfon^ or + Serm. p. 20, 49, 161,. * '* Whol^jevtT will be at the Pains to compare the iwera! Pafiages cited by Dr. Clarke, as they ftand in the Places whence they are taken, with other clear and exprefs Psflages of ouf learned Author (Bifl-iop Bull) and with the whole Scope and Pur- port of his Rcafonings for the Truth of the N'tcene Do(5lrine, muft evidently perceive that thcfc are all placed m quite Another Light than in the Book referred to : That feme are dtrecily contrary to the Anthers true Meaning, and to his Defign in Writing; and moft of the refl inconjlpnt, at lead, with the fame, as the Do^Qf Z'ery vctll knew* ^dfm's Life o^ Bulk P« 3^^* 3^7' Bp, ^^^ Postscript. 533 Bp. Bull ; and you are very fenfible of it : Only you are difpofed to ferve a Turn by making iome ufe of Thofe great Names. They Both aflcrted a CoequaU-- tjj in as full and ftrong Terms as I any where do : Which Coequality you are pleafed to mifcall, in Me,^ Co-ordination 5 afluming a llrange Liberty of altering the Senfe of Words, and affecting to fpeak a new Language, to make way for a new Faith. To conclude. If Dr. Calamy and I really differ, (as I think we do not) we agree however in the main Points, and much better than our late Revivers oi Arianifm agree among Themfelves. And I doubc not but that by the united Labours of the True Friends of our Common Faith^ (wit*Ii God's BlelTing upon Them) the vain Attempts of our new Arians^ and Eunomians^ will be defeated and bafHcd, (as v/ere for- merly thofe of their PredecefTors) and that the Ca- tholick Dodbrine of the Ever-Bleflcd Trinity, Thac Sacred Depofttum of the Church ofChrifl, will be preferved whole and entire, and handed down, as to \Js^ fo to our lateft: Poilerity, through all Genera- tions, FINIS, TEXTS of SCRIPTURE Conjider'd and E^phirid. Prov. Chap. VIII. Fer. Mat. Pag. — 341 Chap. VIII Fer. Pag. . 6.— f5-,437, 46 i Gal. KXIV. 55.- Mark- — 254 IV. IV. 8.— 4<54,47i Ephes. XIII 3i. - — 234 Phil. I. V. John. I. — Z3.— Acts. 35,178 i4> 384 413 * ir. I. I. IV. 6. — 41,212 II. yjo Heb. 2. 224 « At III. IX. 8.-. 16 I.- — Rom. f — 36 Rev. 8. 241 105I1. 182 I Cor. A N A N INDEX O F Principal Matters. A. AC T S ( Divine ) hard to determine whatjhall he fo calVd. Page ji(J Adoration, fee Worfliip. 'AyevTiT©', ^ How they differ^ and "which of them ap* and > flicahle to Chrift, iff •— Z(J2, fofj 'AyEVVriT®', -> — 5-07 Alexander of Alexandria cited and vindicated. 47, 294 Antients, neceffary to he referred to in the prefent Con'' troverfy. Pref xx. — xxiv In "what Cafes J and how far their T'ejiimonies are to he admitted. 488 Their IVords.^ in fome Cafes^ not to be too ri^ goroufly interpreted. jj4 exclude not the Son from the one Godhead, 66 — • — r- deny that the Son is another God, 6y teach that the Father and Son are the fame God. 71, iiS apply Texts meant of the Supreme God to God the' Son. 125 don^t diftinguifj he t ween Supreme and inferi- or Worfoip. ?po— jpi in what Terms they exprefd the Trinity and Unity. 44P, 4^ f M 4 ^^fVhcrein The index: ,1 '— U^crcin the Modern Arians differ from them. Page 481—487 Antiochian Fathers cited and explain' d. 144 Arians, (Modern) their artificial Management of the Controverfy. Pref. w ■ think more meanly of Chrift than their Prede- cejfors, 161^ 3815 411 — confound 'Being and Perfon. 4}2L »> and Co-ec^uality with Co-ordination. 96 i- — and Self-Exiilcnce -with Neceflary Exiftence. 42.8 — 430 deny the Suh fiance of God to he God. 41^ - — equivocate in calling the Son God by Nature. 465* . J^at Divmhy the^ are willing to allow him. 333; 'fi'-ppofe the Son a Creature. 35-4 — \^6 * defeat every Argument of the Father's Divinity. , . , ^ .-.trr - Hf »■ ' ■■ and )'ct make the Father and Son to he Two Gods. 193, 101 — make Metaphyficks //^^Vlaft Retreat. 4, no, 33^^ 4^r5 434. 4845 fiJj fH. f^^ -^- — i— ^ fix new Ideas to old Icrms, S^S ^ — — -' TJjeir Fundamental Error, what 434 Athanaffus ^//^^ ^;?i 'i/:;W/V^/(?i. 6f, ip5, 438, 439, . 490, f02 i — - Greg. Nazian7^n'j CJoara^er of him. 4f f — 4f 7 AthemgoY^s cited and explained, yz-rr^jSj z66 — 268, 2po, 387 Auftin cited and explained, \of B. Bafil cit&d and' explained', jo^j 338> 3fS Being and Perfon confounded, 4^z Bull, (Bijhop) vindicated, A^h S^9:. C. Characters pf>- the one true God applied to the Son. zio Qarke (Dr.) His Notion of individual Subflance, '■' " 3^2,1, 435 ^of The INDEX. — of Idol Mediators. Page 37^, ^^ — His DiftinUion of Will of Approbation, and Will of Choice. ^09 partial in his flotations. 488 • — 5-08 /^;V Propofitions iVtfi;^/, and fajfe. 48 i Clemens of Alexandria cited and ^vindicated. 66^ ^9 — P7, 1405 271 — 27f, 292, 387, 389 Co-equality confounded ivith Co-ordination. ^ ' conftftent with Priority of Order. 20 — 5p<5, i8p, 43 J- Creation, by or thro' Chrifl^ how to he tinder flood. 35, ■ hy the three Perfons in Concert. 3 3^ entitles the Son to equal iVorfJjip with the Fa^ ther. ^ 408 Cyril of Alexandria cited and explained. 302 Cyril of Jerufalem cited and vindicated, 3 25 Cyprian cited and explained. iii^ i±x D. Deriv'd ^;^i Underiv'd, the CharaBers confider^d. 2,1 r Dionyfius of Alexandria cited and vindicated. 4<^,. I If, 294 Diony fius of Rome cited and vindicated. 112 — n f, Ditheifm chared upon the modern Arians. 193, 201 Poininion exprefs'dhy\_jO\di.^ and not by God. i8o,2ia See Supremacy of Dominion. E. Emanation, fee Generation and NecefTary Exiflcnce. Epiphanius cited and explained. y8, 296 Equality of Nature in the Godhead'^ what it means. ij\ Eternity afcrib\l to Father and Son in the fame Scrip- ture-Phrafes. 241- Eufebius r/>^i. 33, 122, 148 — i52, 338, 404 ' How far his Authority is to be received. 3 5 Exclufive Terms fometimes leave room for tacit Ex- The INDEX. ■>■ I to he underjiood only in Oppofttion to what they are opposed tQ, Page fi, P4, ipj, jSf F. Father (in the Godhead) exprejfes a Relation of Or- der and Mode of Exiilence. 171, 172, - ^"fuppofes him to have a Son equal to himfelf. 25 — — — is the Head of both the other Perfons. 60 Father's Divinity, E'very Argument for it defeated by the modern Arians. 24f Fathers ( Ante-nicene ) confiantly appeal* d to by the CathoUcks in the Arian Controverfy. Pref. v — xx See Antients. Fundamental Article of Religion > the controverted Jr- tide fuch a one, 1 3 G. Generation of the Son, temporal and eternal, ajferted by the Antients. 280 •—— yf Three-fold Generation ajferted by the Anti^ ents. 311 *■ ■ But neither of them implying Mutability or Change. 3 1 2 ,., IVbat they under flood by eternal Generation, 287 — — How they underfiood it to be an A61 of the Fa- tber. 12, '2fi, 308 m ■ ■ How they underflod it to be by the Will of the Father. 28 f — 307 ""They who admitted not of an eternal Generation, yet ajferted an eternal Exiilence. 3 1 7 G o D, ^ Name of Nature and Subflance, not of Of- fice or Dominion. 40, 210 — • denotes abjolute Perfe^ion^ whether applied to Fa- ther or Son. 170, 247 » " 7'he Difference between being God in the fame Senfe, and in the fame Manner. f 5 —Two Gods never allowed by the Antients. ^ 6j ■ ' Father and Son ajferted by the Antients to be the fame God. 71 % Gre^» The index: Gi^cg.N^ti^nien dud and vindicated. Page 4^^ — 4(5(5 Gregory NyfTen died and explained. 503 — 2 or H. Hermas cited and vindicated. ziy Hippolytus cited and vindicated. J7— 3P56I5 lof— . 108, 142, 2p2.— lp4 Honour, how it differs from Worfhip. jgj I. Idol Mediators, Dr. ClarkeV Notion of them weak and groundlefs. zy^^ 2^4 Jehovah, fVhat it fignifies. 17^ Ignatius cited and explained, if 4 — 2(52, 28 r — 284 Individual Subftance, Dr. ClarkeV Notion of it. 321 Individuation, Z?^;-^ to fix any Principle of it. 3 ip, 447 Infinite Powers, necejfary to the Work of Redempti- on. 248 f^^Ppofi ^n eternal Duration. Ibid. Intelligent Agent, How diftinguifJfd from Perfon. 368 » may be underjiood either of Perfon, ar Subftance. Irenxus cited and explained. 60, 6(5, 78 — 88, 138, 23 f, 268, 271, 2P2, 388 Judgment, why ajjign'd peculiarly to Chrift. 227 Jultin Martyr cited and explained. 68, 71, 130, 136, 164, 263, 266, 284, 28p, }86, 3P4 L. Laclantius cited and explained. 1 1 ^ — • 1 22, 1 4(5, 404 Lucian cited and explained, yz M. Manifeftation exprefs'^d by Generation. 284 Marcellus, 7:;^^ f^^r^V /'j/ Eufebius. 187 Marius Vi6torinus cited and explained. }oo Mediator by Nature, and Mediator by Office, hovi diftinguifh'd. 6Zy Zjf Mediatorial Worfhip confider'd at Jarge^ :}7i, &c. Medium The index: Jvledium of Worfhip, how underftood. Page 371, ^jt See Worfhip Mediatorial. Metaphyficks , The principal Refuge and lafl Retreat of the Mo* dern K\\2J\%, 4, 350, 42.f5 434, 484, fii, 5-14, ^erfiodius cited and vindicated, Zp4 '■' ' N. NecefTary-Exiftence to be diftinguiJJfd from Self-Ex- iftence. 17O5 if8, 2fp Allowing both to fignify the fame things it would make nothing for the Arians. 307 «— of the Son taught by the Fathers. 2f4, 310 Nece.ffity, in what Senfe us'd by the antient Pbilofo- phers. 2f2 NecefTity of Nature, not us'd by the Jntients in the modern Senfe. Zfi Nice (Council of) cited and indicated. 9 Novatian cited and vindicated, ^6, 1245 I4f5 227, 2P45 4P7 — yoi O. 'Oi the Art ick.be fore ©soj, makes no Difference in the - Signification. 182' — 189 Oeconomy and Order in the Trinity confidefd. 177 Omnifcience of the Son affertcd by the Ante-niccnes. 233, &c. One ^ w L God, in what Senfe us'd by the Jntients^ 38 f Only 3 Origen cited and vindicated. 44, (58, lop, 112, 1435 2.7f, 279, 2P4, 337, 388, 3PP, 402 --i«p-- Some Account of him and his IVritings. 347 — 5 f 2, P. Pamphilus cited and vindicated. 2p4 Pcrfon, the Notion of it fated. ^66-^^69 ff---. dijiinguifb'd from intelligent Agent. 3<58 ^m^Wher^ The I N D E X: fiiim JVhen^ and upon what Occafionfirfl us'd. 21 j-^ . II Ho'm ahus'd by the SabcUians. z i ^ Powers Divine, in what Senfe afcrih'd to Chrifl by the modern Arians. ^ j j Precarious Being, the fame thing with Creature. 219 — — ne Son precarious upon the modern Scheme, ibid. Prefcience and Free -Will more difficult to he reconciVd than Trinity and Unity. 41^ Priority of Order confiftent with Coequality. p6, 1 8^ il^o-wTTov, what it fignifies^ and how it differs from "TTTo^a^t^. 212, 215 iVhenfirft m'd by the Fathers in refpeU of the Trinity. 213, 4fc> R. Redemption, whether it requires infinite Powers, con* fequently eternal Duration. 248 S. Sabellians, their Here fy^ what, 312,4(^1 neir Notion of Subftance and Perfon. 3 1 } Samenefs in the Deity^ the Degree of it inexplicable, z\6^ 232 Made by Union. 3 24, 394 Sardican Council falfely fo calPd. zpp Self-exiftence to be difiingnifyd fro'm NeccfTiry-exif- tence. 170, 361 But confounded by the Arians. 361 ■= ^e one not a greater Perfection than the other, 217 •- Allowing both to fignify the fa?ne^ wou'd be no Advantage to the Arians. 307 ; — A Negative Idea. 430 Similitudes fnade ufe of to illufirate the I'rinity. 3 1 3 Sirmian Council explained. zp6 — 299 Soul (Human) ajfum'd by Chrifi, . 227 Sub (lancet The INDEX. Subftancc, when and upon what Occajion the JVori was fir ft introduced into the Controverfy. 449 Subftance individual, Dr. ClarkeV Notion of it. 5 it , One and the fame iti the "three Perfons. 367 .. (Divine) // extended^ muft hame Parts, ibid. 447 » (Singular, identical) conftder*d. ibid. Subftantia, whether it anfwers to the Greek 'T-Trbsdai^. — In what Senfe us'd hy the Latins. ibid. Tres Subllantia;, when and by whom «jV.ibid. Supremacy of Dominion, how abus'd and perverted by the modern Avhns. 43,5-105^15' not the only material ^ejlion. 17,480 i • of Nature, Order and Office to be diflinguifJfd. 20 of the Godhead^ wherein it confifts. 1 66, 1 72, 1 76 Supreme God, an Expreffion feldom us\l in Scripture or Antiq^uity. ip6 > JVhatUfe made of it by the modern Arhns. ^ff T. Tatian cited and vindicated. iSp — 290, 387 Tertullian cited and vindicated. 67,68, 97- — lof, 141^ 203, 2p2, 387. Theophilus of Antioch cited and vindicated. 1 36— 1 385 i6f, 290 — 2p2, 387 Oios with or without the Article conftdefd. i8z — i8p %%QTf,';'i what it fignifies . 211 Titles of the Father don't exclude the Son and Holy Ghoit. f7 Trinity, of the Arians, what. 418 * how exprefs'd by the x'\nte-niccnes. 449 — JVhen and upon what Occafion the Word was firfl us\l. ^ ibid, * AJhort Method of ending the Controverfy.fil — ^^f 27 Union fuflicient to make Samenefs. 324, 394 Unity of the Godhead^ in what the Antients placed it. df, 66^ 202, 207 The INDEX. T. 'T7r?pu-vJ/oa>, in what Senfe us'd in Scripture. i j 5 *T7rc?ao-{f, what it fignifies^ and how it differs from ri^VwTray. 212, 2 1 J, 240 ■■ How it differs from Subftantia. 4^2 Three Hypoftafes, c?rone, ^^^w under flood, 4^1 W. Whifton (Mr.) »^^^^5 Pr. v, &c. J41 Will (thelVord) in what Senfe us^dhythe Antlents, 281 — — of A^'^roh^OAon and of ChoicQdiftinguifi'd, jop Worihip due to the Son before the Incarnation. 407, 408 ■ not founded upon the Power ^/Judging.407— 41 z a Proof of his Divinity. i8 ■ not due to inferior Gods. jO ' the Foundation of it, ipg « terminates in the Divine Nature. 378 '■ (mediatorial) confider'*d at large, 371 how it differs from Woviowx, 3^i Supreme ^nd inferior not diflinguiflj'd hy the Antients, 586—390,400 ■ . (inferior) terminates where offered, jpo, jpi FINIS. h 0 0 K S written hy the Reverend T>r. W A T E RL A N D, and fold by W. and |. Innys at the Weft End of St. PaulV^ London 5 ^»^ C Crownfield in Cam- bridge. EIGHT Sermons preacVd at the Cathedral Church of St. Pml^ in Defence of the Divinity ot our Lord Jefus Chrift > upon the Encouragement given by the Lady Moyer^ and at the Appointment of the Lord Bifhop oi London, The Second Edition. S^o. 1710. n- A Sermon preach'd before the Sons of the Clergy, ^t their Anniverfary Meeting in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul,, Dec, 14. i/zi. 8^ vo The Cafe of ^ri^«-Subfcription confider'd : And the feveral Pleas and Excufes for it particularly exa- inin'd and confuted. The Second Edition. 8^®. 172.1. A Supplement to the Cafe of ^r/^;?-Subfcription confider'd > in Anfwer to a late Pamphlet, intituled,- ^he Cafe of Subfcription to the XXXIX Articles confix dered, 8^^^. ijiz. A Vindication of Chrift's Divinity : Being a De- fence of fomc Queries relating to Dv. Clarke's Scheme of the Holy Trinity j in Anfwer to a Clergyman in the Country. The Fourth Edition. 8^^. 172,1. • An Anfwer to Dr. IVhhhfs Reply, refpefting his Book, intituled, Difquiftiones modeflce. 8^^. 17ZO, 'i 0^- >