LIBRARY OF TIfK PRlIiCETOlV, N. J. Letter No. DONATION OF SAMUEL AONEW, A, - *, O F V H I I, A I>K L P H I A . P A . o Cnse^ Division ^ Shelf. ^ ,. V BooU, 4'e<^^>©s<^^os<^i^^ :; ii^^^i.*,s-5^^ e ^^^©♦i' ^t* 7-^-^1. y t7ic ^* 'remarks OnT)r. Waterland'^ Second Defense OF SOME QU E R I E S. BEING A brief Confideration of his Notion of the Trinity, as ftated by himfelf in Three Queftions. With an APPENDIX, Shewing the true Senfe of Creation, Eternity and Confubftantiality. In a LETTER /^ the "Doaor. ^y Philalethes Cantabrigiensis. Qui reqairunt quid quaque de re ipjj fentiamus, curiofms idfaciunty quam necejje eft : Non enim tarn authorita- tis in difputandoi quam rationis momenta quterenda funt, Qttin etiam oheji p/erunq^ iis qui difcere volunty authoritas eorum quife docere projitentur : Defmunt enim fuum judicium adhihere^ idqj hahent ratum^ quod ah eo quern prohant^ judicatum vident, Cic. de Nat. Deorum, Lib. i LONDON: Primed for J, Noon, at the White Hart in the Poultry. M.dcc.xxiii. [3] zAii m c\ i>an nodo/* o*rc>::: '^moi-. j^^^ierend Sir, HE Second Defenfe of your Notl^ on of the Trinity falling lately into my Hands, I was forry to find the Controverfy [which is of fo great Importance to Pvcligion] carried forth to fuch a Length, as, I am afraid, will we^ry moft Readers, and be well con- fiderM but by few. After you had feen the Strength of what your" Adverfaries had to reply, you wou'd, I was iii hopes, have (horten'd the Difpute, by reducing it to thfe main Points of which it confifts, thofe in which Chriflian Faith and Pradife are principal- ly concerned, and which, I think^ might be fum'd tip in a few Particulars. . : cd •{' A 5 But [4] But fince you have thought fit to make a large Defenfe of every Thing you had treated of before, and which had been largely confider'd and re- ply'd to by your leiarned Adverfary, I (hall leave the Rejoinder on your Adverfary^s Part to be ma-^ nagM by that able Hand ,• and only take the Liber-* ty to confider briefly, in ja Ihort and ftrid argU* mentative Way, the thret Queflims under which ym h^ve reduced and comprized the Dodrine o£ the Trinity, according to your own Notion and Explication of it. I own, I was glad to find, after reading nwre than Five Hundred Pages, that your felf had ftated the whole of your own Cafe in three Pages, and in three Qtieftims^ and had engaged your felf to be fatisfy'd, if a Reply can be made to them. As I will not deny but the Method you have propos'dj is rational and fair^ fo you will the more eafily give me leave to debate with you the Points which you have proposed to be argued, in a free a Ad open Way: And as I intend to be very frank and flain ; fo I hope that you, if you fhaU think any Thing that I offer worthy your Reply, tvill ufe the fame frank and plain dealing in your l>efenfe. tou conclude your Book with fumming up the Controverfy in this manner. " I fhall conclude (fay pu, Page 523.) with ob- ^* ferving how ealy a Thing it may be to reduce ^l this 15 3 ^^ this Controverfy into a fmall Compafs ; if Men ** Will but come fincereiy to it, and keep clofe to *^ the principal Points in Queftion. The moft con- ■*^ Venient Method, and moft natural Order of En- Jf quiry would, I conceive, be this following one. " Firfiy What the Dodrine to be examin'dis? • " Second, Whether it h^pffibk? " I'hird^ Whether it be true i You Hate your firft Notion (Page 524*) under thefe three particular Dodrines, 1^/2:.. *^ Firfly That the Father is God (in the ftrid ** Senfe of necejfarily Exifting, as opposed to peca- ** Yious Exiftence) and the Son God, and the Holy " Ghoft God, in the fame Senfe of the Word God. v\\ '^Secondly, That the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Ghoft either Father or Son : They are diflinB, fo that one is not the other i that is, as we now term it, they are Three diflinB Perfons, and two of them eternally referred up to one. ** 'thirdly, Thefe Three, however diflinSl enough to be three Perfons^ are yet united enough to be One God, Having thus ftated your Doftrine, you propofe the Qiieftion about the Pojjihility of it, under Three other Queftions, i/i%,^^ 'J I. Whe- [6] o, ^^ i. Whether there can be ThteePerfonsm^/^- *^ rily Exifling ? ^' 2, Whether Three fuch Perfons can be Otie ^^ God, in the Nature of the Thing it felf, or upoii *^ the Foot of mere natural Reafon ? ^^ 3. Whether they can be One God, confifteiitly ^^ with any data in Scripture, any Thing plainly *^ laid down in facred Writ ; as fuppofe, Suhordina^ \^ tion, Miffiony Generation^ Sec; ' •; Now in Order to a Reply : The firft Queftion concerning the Poffibility of your Dodrine, h)iz,. Jj/hether there can he three Perfons necejfarily Exifiin^y being, I take it, different from the firft Dodririe laid down (on which yet it is built) namely. That the Father is God (in the flriB Senfe. of necejfarily Exifiing, as opposed to precarious Exi/ience) and the Son God, and the Holy Ghofl God, in the fame Senfe of the Word God (bfecaiife if it X^aS poffible for Three Perfons necelfarily to exift, it would not at all follow, that that Doftrine was poffible) I fliafl therefore, in Reply to the Poffibility of the /r/? Do- ctrine, make two Enquiries. ' I. Whether it is true, or poffible, That the " Fa- ** ther is God [in the ftrid Senfe of neceffarily Exifl- ingy as oppos'd to precarious Exiftence] and the " Son God, and the Holy Ghofl God, in the fanie '[ Senfe oiih^'SNoxdi God? , 5. Whe- [ 7 ] ' i. Whether tljere can be three Perfons necejfa^ rily Exiftingf li As to the firft Enquiry, I take it for granted, before one can know certainly what any Dodrine is, or whether it is, or can be true ; that it is ne- ceffary to have a clear and diftind Perception of the Terms in which it is ftated or exprefsM. Now in the Dodrine here by you ftated, there are two 'terms which ftand in need of Explication, in order to know the diftind Senfe of the Dodrine contained under them, viz,, necejfarily Exifling^ and fame. Neceffary Exiflence is an ejfential and primary At- tribute of God; by primary, I mean, that Attri- bute or Property of God, which is primarily and principally confiderM by us in our Conception of God^ and which is conceived to be, as it were, the Ground and Foundation of all the other Divine At^ tributes or Perfedions, they being all necejfarily Exifient : And when we afcribe necejfary Exifience to God upon the Principles of natural Reafon, we are always fuppos'd to mean, that God exifts by Neceffity of Nature, abfolutely without any Caufe of his Exifience, underivd, independent ; and that he is the Fountain, Original, and firft Caufe of all Things. This I take to be the true Notion of God, as founded upon the Principles of Nature and Rea- fon i and that this is the Senfe in which the Qne God and [S3 and Father of alt^ w^ois above all (Egh^f. iv.>.} The One Gudy the Father y of ivhom are all Thi^^ ( ^'^ox* viii. <5.) is God, upon the Principles both of natu^ ral and reveal'd Reli^oii. " ^ . : 11^: .^jij o: 7 K .1 Now this being the y2w<^ ^nd pcpop^r $en,f? pf %»] eejfmly Exiflingy \^ whiph Senfe,^ J takp i; fpr^jcer- taiji [and that yQU tyill not diff^ite it] ^ba^theF^, ther is Go^ ihh^nm plainly foUows, 'th^t if thf^5b;% and Sprit are each in their diflinB Perfpns Go4, in the fame Senfe of the Word God, or in th,ey?^^^: Senfe oi necejfarily. Exifiing ; th^ neither have tl^ey aMolutely any Caufe of Exiftence ; t^ea do th^y^, in like manner, exift by Neceffity of Nature, under:\ nvdy independent; and ar« y^Q FqtmmA) Q^^igimty and Firft Caiifiy of all Things j and in Scriptqr^ Language are each the meGody the Father y ofivhpmi are ail Things y the one God and Fathei^ of^ll, wixy-.i^v itho"^e all In this Senfe •ther^f^:^®, : of necejfai(i}y> Exifiingy your Dodrine is not, and cannot, poilt- biy be true ; and you muft meai> fomething elfe by necejfarily Exifiingy and the Son and Spirit being Goci in the fame Senfe of the Word God. Tour Sejpf^ p£ necejfarily ExifiMigy ^% applied* to.th^ Son and Spirit^. Cannot be the flriEi Senfe of the Wor4,: a^ applied to God, in all Philofophical'RQ^tonmg upon the Be- ing and Attributes of God i but fome other Senfe- that is merely Theological: And by it, in your Boofes*^' you explain your felf 60 mean., ■a^M^fffm^^^^.^.^P'^''^> which you had rather call DerivatMx Emanation;- m what feems moft to pl^afe you, ^n eternal, nece/^r>r . ^ ^ [9] iy Reference of the Son and Spirit up to God the Patherl as Heady Root, Fountain and Original of them : And you do not mean that they are thus necejfarily re^ ferr^dy as the Attributes of God are to the Subftance in which they fubfift (which woii'd amount to the lirfi: and firici Senfe of necejfarity E>iifting;) but by Reference you mean more than this, and that the^ Son and Spirit are truly and really diflinEl Perfons, of diftind Subfiftence,^ and are necejfarily generated^ derivdy or emaning from the Father, as their Head^ Rooty Fountain and Original Caufe, This is the Senfe of their necejfarily Exifting, which is the Ground of their being God. Kow this being fo, there is a gfeat Pallacy in your Dodrine, vvhich being laid open, fhows, that ftill it is not, and cannot, poflibly be true. For by the F^ therms necejjarily Exifiing, you mean one Thing; and by the Sons and Spirit^s necejfarily ilxifiingy you mean another Thing; and you can- not fay the Father is God in the Senfe of necejfarily Exifting, as applyM to the Son and Spirit ; any more than they are God in the Senfe of necejfarily Exifiingy as apply 'd to the Father : For to fay the Patheir is God in the Senfe of necejfarily Exijling^ a% fignifying being neceffarily generated, derivdy emd-» tiingy and refer/ d up to one as Head, Rooty Fountain, and Original Caufey of his Exiftence ; is, you muft allow^ as abfurd, as to fay the Son and Spirit ard necejfarily Exifling in the ftrid Senfe, namely^ aS ^xifting by neceffity of Nattire^ without^any Origin [lo] nal Caufe of their Exiftence. Nor can you alledge^ That the firft and ftrid Senfe of necejjarily Exifting is not applicable toG^Oi^^confiderM (imply and abfolute- ly as God^ or that God as God can be ftridly and properly confider^'d without the Application of it to his Nature* Since therefore you make a Diftini^ion betwixt necejfary Exiflencs ablolutely without any Gaufe or Original, underiv'd, dec, and necejfarily Exiftence re- latively ^^nV^, and referr'd to a Caufe, &cc. the plain and unambiguous State of yourDodrine wouM have been ; " The Father is God (in the ftrid Senfe o£ *' ahfolutey necejfary Exiftence^ without any Caufe or " Original, underiv'd, iXc as diftinguiih'd both *^ from relative y necejfary ExiBence^ darivd and re- *' ferrd to a Caufe ; and from precarious Exiftence} " and the Son God, and the Holy Ghoft God, in " the fame Senfe of the Word God. But then there is yet a Flaw, and felf-evident Contradidion in your Dodrine (which fhows it cannot poffibly be true) arifing from the Words, the fame Senfe of the Word God. For it is evident, if the Father is God in the Senfe of ahfolute neceffary Exiftence, as explained, and the Son and Spirit God in the Senfe oi relative neceffary ExiRence^ as laid down by your felf, and which you infift to be a different Senfe j they cannot be God in tho, fame Senfe of the Word God. For let the Son and Spirit be God in what Senfe foever, and let their Nauue and Perfedions be what- [ I> ] xvhfLtfoeveY } fo long as they are not necejfarily Ex-^ iRent in the Senfe in which God ftridJy and pro- perly confider'd^j- God^ upon the Principles of na- tural Reafon, is neceffarily Ey:iRent -y and finee they do not •exift abfolutely without a Caufe of their Exiftence; are not underivd^ independent ^ the Head Rooty Fountain aud Original of all ; or in Scripture Stile, the God and Father cfall^ ivho is ahve all, and of whom are all Takings j they may be God in fome Senfe, in a like Senfe, or any other Senfe; but in the fame Senfe of the Word God in which the Fa-^ ther is God, as you put it, they cannot be fo : And therefore your Dodrine cannot poflibly be true. I would not have fo mean an Opinion of you, as to think, that you will give in for Anfwer, that by fame Senfe of the Word God^ you mean in the fame Senfe of Divine SubBance, abftraded from the Con- fideration of Perfon : Becaufe that is plainly faying nothing ; for the Argument no Way depends upon fuch a Diftindion j the Senfe in which the Father is God with refped to his Divine SubRance^ as well as Perfon, being, you own, as Underivd, Head^ and referrdtonone, dec. And the Senfe in which the Son and Spirit are God with refped to their Divine Sub^ fiance^ as well as Perfom^ being, you alfo own, as derivd, and refer/ d to a Caufe, &c. So that the Senfe in which they are God is ftill equally and total- ly different. Further, if you fliou'd fay, that all the Perfons ^re God in the fame Senfe, having thQ&mQ neceffary B a £v- E^if^ence] merely as that ftands oppos*d topmariA cus Exiftence, i. e. as having a Stakiity and /«cer:* TUptihility of Exiftence : If this was all you meant by their necejfary ExiRencey [which is, indeed^ a very different Thing from neceflary Exiftence] ope might allow the Son and Spirit to be necejfarily Ex^Bing^ and yet their Exiftence to be a 'voluntary Thing, or By the PTill of God. But this will not help you out of theDifficnhyat all; becaufe the Father is God in a much higher Senfe than having merely StU'* lility and Incorruj^tihility of Exiftence j the Perfeiftion of his Deity is his having that Stability and Incorrufti-^ hility (with all his other Perfedions) from none', ha- ving it abfoiurely without any G?«/^, and being the Caufe of it in all other Perfons. So that this alfo is faying nothing. What next to fay for you [for I wou'd, if poftible,' prevent our mifunderftanding of each other, an4 thereby lengthning the Debate] to deliver your Dodrine from Abfurdity and Self-contradidion, I profefs fincerely, I do not know, and muft leave the Matter to your .Cpafideratiou. And proceed^^ ^dly^ To enquire. Whether there can b^ three Perfvns neceffarily Exifiing^ in the Nature and Rea-« fon of Things. That in Fad the three Perfons, Father y Son^ and Holy GhoB, are not, and cannot bCj^ neceffarily ExiRent^ in xhtfame Senfe y has-been al- ^*^^4yj ' demonftrated upon common Principles agreed upon oii both Sides ; Becaufe (to fum up the Mat-. [133 liitter briefly) lihy necejf.irily E:Afiing^ you meai cxifting by abfojute NecelTicy of H^'iT-e, wlttiout any Origiaa! Caufe, underjvid, 9^¥i^piindeHt^\\^^ tJien you muft own that two o£ f he Perfons, ^ s be < ■ i^ YfferKd up to One who is the Onginal Caufe afd'^eix Exiftence, and being deriv'd^ &c* ^re not neo (flirily Esifling : But if you mean by it, a relative Meceffity of Nature, referrd up to an Heady dew* dy and na- ming a Caufe and Original of Exiftence, [ana one of thefe Two you muft mean ,] tnen you muft own thej firftPerfon, or Father, \sx\otneceJfarily ExlRingy as not being referrd up to a Head.^ Caufey Uerivdy 6lc. So that allowing you which Senfe you plearc to take o£ neceffarily B>i^^ingy all the three Perfo^s, you XBuft allow, are nor, and cannot be, ntejfaril) E.\iji'^_ ing in the fame Senfe. Whence I go en To demonftrate from feveral Argumencs of Rea-^ foHy the Abfurdity^ and utter ImpoflibilLy, of the £?ciftence of three necejfarily Exi fling Perfois,* in ordfer to which it will be firft neceflary to explain the J^eaning of the Term, Perfons. By P^yfon then you mean, not an Attrilutey buc (there being no Medium ' an aEiing SuhflanUy an intelligent Agent (Second Defenfe, Page 175^ 356.) Three diftincl Perfons then are, by your own Expli- cation, three aEling SuhflanceSy or three AgentSy (Se- cond Defenfe, Page 357.) I remember you are Render of faying a Perfon Is a Subftance, you had rather fay Subftance without a i arguing there ad bominem from your Adveilaries Notion [as you tell tdltis, for I do not find it in hisBook^] qftheEx^ unjton of the Divine Subftance. But I, who' h^ve nothing to do with that Notion one Way or other^' in my Debates with you, hope you will not ftant^ upon the Letter i5j, which you know has nothing in' it ; and that yoti will give me leave t6 underftand you to mean, that as one Perfon is an aEiing Suh^ fiance^ an Agent in the /^^wZ/^r Number, fo ^hree are the /'//^r^/ Number, i,e, three aBing Suhflances] or as you exprefly admit, three Agents'; arid that you really mean three ading Subftances diflinB', tho not feparats or difunited. And this you muft mean, becaufe with you the Subftance of one Per- fon is not the Subftance 6f either of the other, buif different j howfoever of the fame Kindy or united to them ; Nor do you mean, that they are three Parts of one Subftance, as you charge your Adverfaries with conceiving in the Omniprefent Subftance. I take it for granted there can be no Controverfy oi> this Head, when- Men have the Ingeniiity to be candid and open. Now, that there cannot be Three necejfarily Exift- ing Perfons, is as evident, as that there cannot be Three Gods. I. All Philofophers, and all Chriftian Writers, 'Anti-Nkene^ Nicene^ Poft-Nicene, and all learned Moderns [except the Popifh and Sabellian School- men] agree upon common Principles of Reafon^ that three Perfons necejfarily Exifting in the ftrid Senfe of the Word, f. e, exifting by ^bfolute Necef- fity [15 3 {ty of Nature without any Caufe or OrigiHal^ inde^ rivd^ independent^ &c. are, and muft be, under^ ftood to be T'hree Gods. Which, by the Way, de- monftrates, that all unanimoufly underftood by three Perfons, three intelligent Beings, three aSiing SuhBances^ three Agents i othervvife it wou^d be ridi^ culous to fuppofe one underivM intelligent Being, one ading Subftance, one Agent, though they cali'd it ever fo many Perfons, to be more than One God: Atid accordingly the Sabellians^ tho* they profefs'd Father, Son and Spirit, to be all umriginated^ or anderivdy yet were never thought to make more Gods than One i becaufe they held but one intelli-^ gent Being, one ading Subftance, one Agent. And this is an Argument to prove the Perfons to be really diflind Beings, Subftances or Agents, whicb^ I think, your Adverfaries have not mentioned. 2. Seeing by three neceffarily ExiRing Perfons, you have explain*d your Notion of them to be, three Sufr ernes in Nature and PerfeBzons, i. e. three fupreme Perfons, three fupreme Agents, (Second De- fenfe. Page ^6'j,) that the Son and Spirit are each God fupreme^ God in the fame ^ and in as high a Senfe as the Father is; this is an Impoflibility and Contra- diction to the Nature and Reafon of Things : For three fuprefne Perfons, equally fupreme in Nature and all Perfedions [which is your conflant Dodrine] are three fupreme Beings y three fupreme Agent s^ three fu^ pre?ne Gods ; as certainly and as evidently, as that one Supreme Being, Perfon 91 Agent, is one fupreme God. As t If] Jis in Morality and Religion there is and can be no other Notion of one Supreme God^ but one Per-- fon, Being or Agent, Supreme in Nature and all Perfections i fo there is and can be no other Notioii of three Supreme Gods, but three Perfons, Beingt, or Agents, Supreme in Nature and all PerfeEtions^ If you fuppdfe them [oVokV/o/] ConfubRantidl, they are yet three ConfubRcmtial Gods ; if you fiippofe their Pe'rfons or SuhRance feparate^ they are three feparate Gods; if united^ they are three united Gods. For neither CmfuhRantiality, Separation or VnioUy do make their Perfons more or lefs God j k is being diftindly Supreme in Nature and all PerfeEli* cnsy that alone enters into the Notion of their being each God Supreme, and which makes thtee diftin^ terfons, three Supreme Gods. 3. Three necejfarily ExiBing Perfons is an tmpolJU hility^ as being contrary to the Idea of a necejfarily Exiting Perfon. The Idea of a necejfarily Exiting Perfon, Being of Agent, is the Idea of a Perfon, the Suppofition of tvhofe Non-Exiftence is dn exprefs Contrad dion: This is the common, natural, univerfal Notion of x necejfarily Exiflent Being, Perfon or Agent? To this Notion all are immediately led by the moft certaiii and evident Principles of Reafon ; and therefore, as certainly as this is the true Idea of one necejfarily ExiRent Perfon, Being or Agent ; fo if three fucfi Perfons cou'^d adually Exift, it muft be Equally a Contradidion to fuppofe the Non-exiftence of Three ['7] as of One: But the fame Reafon which demoiiftrateS to us the Contradidion of the Suppofition of the Non-esifience of one neceffarily Exifling Perfon^ Being or Agent ; does by no means demonftrate to us the Contradidion of the Suppofition of the Non-exiftence of three neceffarily Exif]:ing Perfons^ Beings or Agents ; which no doubt it wou'd do^' and it is unaccountable to fuppofe otherwife, i£ there were, or could be, three alike neceffarily Exifling Perfons. To prefs this Point a little more, it mufi: be al^ together unaccountable, and, I think, a plain Contradidion, to fuppofe three Perfons, Beings ol: Agents, equally Eternal, and neceffarily Exiflent^ arid each God in the fame Senfe ; (and that there-* fore in Confequence there muft be in Reafon^ and in the Nature of T'hings^ equally clear Evidence, Proof and Certainty of the Exiflence of each o£ them, as much as of one of them :) And yet thac natural Human Reafon from the Beginning of ths World to this Day, fhould never be able to dif-* cern, or prove with Certainty, the Exiflence o£ more than one neceffarily Exifling Perfon, Being or Agent j and fhould be fo far from feeing the Contradiftion of the Suppofition of the Non-ex- iftence of three fuch Perfons, as never to be able to form a clear and diflind Notion of three fuch Perfons. There feems to me to be fomething in this Argument fo little Ihort of Certainty ,* that i£ there can be thye neceffarily Exifling Perfons, Ex- [i8] ifting (as you affirm) by the fame Necej]ity of Na- ture, and having all the fame ejfential PerfeSlions ; ReafoHy which iliows the Evidence , the Cevtainty^ the Demonflration of One and ?20 ?//or^, muft be reduced it felf to an Abfurdity atid Contradiction. Surely it is Demonflration, That the Exiftence of but one All-{erfeBy All-fufficient Perfon, Being or Agent, can be neceffary [and you fuppofe not any PerfeSiion to be in one of the Perfons which is hot in the others, denying Vnoriginatenefs ^ which in TVords^ but not in Reality^ as we fhall fee, you afcribe to the Father only, to be a PerfeBion^ Second Defenfe^ Page 1 50.] therefore it is Demonftratioii that there can be no more than One, 4. If there cou'd be three neceffarily Exi fling Per- fons, fuppofing two to be derivd or originated froni one ; it wou'd follow that there muft be more thaii ivio 'y that there muft be an infinite Number of ori-* ginated or derived Perfons. To fuppofe any particular Number of Beings or Perfons to be neceffarily Originated^ and this necef^ fary Origination not to be determined by the Pf^ill o£ a fuperior Agent, [in which Cafe, that which is faid to be neceffarily Originated^ as Rays from the Sm^ H not, indeed, neceffarily Originatedy but truly and flridly Originated by the Will of the Superior Agent"] is to fuppofe the Operations of Neceflity, abfolute Neceffity, to have Bounds and Limits, and fo to be the Operations of Willy not Necej]ityy which is a Gontradid;ion. For it is the very Nature and ElTence C 19 1 Effence of NeceJJlty, abfolute Neceffity, in Oppoil- tion to Willy to be capable of no Bounds or Li- mits in its Operations ; as its Operations, and the Effeds or Originations of it, muft be abfolutely from Eternity^ becaufe Neceffary^ fo they can never ceafe or be confin'd, but muft continue abfolutely to Eternity y becaufe Necejfary. Whereas, on the con- trary, it is of the very Nature and Eflence of Will in Oppofition to Neceffity^ that a free Agent can ad lichen he wills, and as he wills ,* and can determine and limit the Number and Duration of the Effeds of his Agency, or the Beings produced or originatedBr his Will. So that to fupp.ofe two Beings or Perfons necejfarily originated^ and no more^ is to fuppofe their Origination and Exiftence to be Voluntary at the fame Time that it is declared to be Neceffary ; which is an exprefs Contradidion. And therefore, as fure as there is not, and cannot, be an infinite Number of necejfarily originated Perfons, fo fure there is nor, and cannot be two, or any at all. This Argument, in part, I find, has been put by your Adverfaricsj and you having never yet,' as I perceive, given any other Anfwer to it, but that in FaEl the Thing is otherwife, without giving any Reafon, but the Suppofition of the Truth of your own Hypothefis j I hope you will now confider has it is here fet forth upon the Principles of Rea- fon ; and reply, not by taking any Thing for grant- ed, but by {hewing the Infufficiency of the Argu* ment, from Principles of Reafon alfo* C a Seiond^ [ oo ] Secondly^ Your Second Queftion is, IVhethev Th'ee fuch Perfons can be one God ? Having, I conceive, already provM, that they are and muft be [fuppofing it pollible for three fuch to exift at all, which I have prov'd to be im- poffible] three Gods; I might juftly infer without farther Reafoning, that they cannot be one God, But notwithftanding, I Ihall argue direftly and di- flindly to this Point, and demonftrate, that three fuch Perfons cannot be one God. But you tell me before hand. Page 505. either to deter me, or fave my Labour, " That there is *^ this Reafon to be given, why it never can be ^^ done," [^ e. you mean, be provM, that three iieceflarily Exifting Perfons cannot be one God] ^' that no certain Principle of Individuation ever ^^ has or can be fix'd : Upon which alone the Re- *^ folution of that Qiieftion on th^ Foot of mere na- !^ tural Reafon entirely depends. This is in other Words to tell us. That we can inever prove by Reafon that three Perfons cannot be one Gody becaufe it is, impolTible for us to knoiy, what is one God. This is a melancholy Confideration indeed, that; the firft, and moil fundamental Principle, both of natural and reveafd Religion, the Unity of God^ ne^ Kuer has^ or never can be fixd. That the moft rea-^ fonable and wife Men of all Ages have worfhip^d me Perjon^ on^ intelligent -Being, one Agent, as, m^ ' God^ [ 21 ] God fupremey without knowing at all xvhat they have been doing. Not knowing what Unity is, o;: one God is, they may have been worlhiping 772any Supreme Gods, while they thought there was but One^ and worlhipM God under the Notion of One, But if this is the Cafe with refped to natural Reafon^ I doubt we Ihall receive little Help, in this Point, from Revelation; Revelation never tells us, that three Perjons are one God; and if it did, we fhou'd be never the Wifer according to you: Since it has not fix'd the Principal of Individuation any more than natural Reafon^ we can never know what one God is, or whether one God is not more than o;^^, or many Gods. So neither can you tell what one Perfon is, or whether, what you call one is not mbre than one ; and when you fay three Perfons are one Gody by your own Confeflion, you fay, that yot^ dont know what is^ you dont know what : And thus according to the Explication of your Notion of the Trinity, any 'Thing may be any Things and every Thing he every Thing. So dangerous a Thing is it to dif- pute, or to deny f elf-evident Principles, which is at once to overthrow all Science, all Truth^ and all Re^ ligion together. And to what a ftrange confus'd Way of thinking and writing about God, this fort of Imagination. has led you, will appear from your Notion, which ihows, that by leaving natural Reafon as of no Ufe or Certainty in the Matter^ Revelation it felf has Tiot been able to give you any diftinft Notion of God^ God, or one God at all : And therefore I do not wonder you fhou'd be fo pofitive, that it cannot be prov^'d, that three Perfons cannot he one God. I (hall then firft obferve, into what Confujion you run in your Notion of God [as if you intended to. prevent, if poflible, all P^eafoning with you ;] and then try, whether we may not come to fome fix^d ^nd certain Principle of Individuation or Unity i and thereupon be able to reafon, whether three Perfons caHy or cannot, be one Godu In your Fourth Sermon, Page 144, 145. in which Sermon you undertake to State and Clear the Di-* nuine Unity, you are fo far from being able to do it, that you exprefs your Notion of God in thefe Words : " No good Reafon can be given why the *' Word God may not be us'd in a large indefinite ^^ Senfe, not denoting any particular Perfon, juft as *^ the Word Man is often usM in Scripture, not de- *' noting any particular Man, but Man in general, ■' Man indefinitely. As the Word Man fometimes *' ftands for the whole Species ; fometimes indefi- *^ nitely, for any Individual of the Species ; --— fo ** by way of Analogy, or imperfed Refemblance, *' the Word God may fometimes fignify all the Di- *' vine Perfons; fometimes any Perfon of the Three l^ indefinitely/* Thus in Stating and Clearing the Divine Unity, it is, you tell us, fometimes One, fometimes Three. God (or the one God) is fometimes taken for a Trinity of PerfonS; and then it is, it feems, like the C ^3 3 the Word Man, the complex Name of a Species ; fometimes it is taken for an Unity only, or for on^ Per/on, and then like the Expreflion, a Man, or one Man, it ftands indefinitely for any Individual of the Divine Perfons. This is your Explication, and it is methinks ftrange Divinity ; but however, I muft take you in your own Way, and apply both thefe Senies to the Matter before us. In the individual, or. indefinite Senfe then, as the Word God ftands for any one individual or par- ticular Perfon, it cannot be true, th^t three Perfons are one God, i. e. one particular or individual, in- definite Perfon, for that is a Contradidion : And therefore you can only mean that three Perfons are me God in the large complex Senfe of the Word God, wherein you fuppofe it to ftand like the Word Man, for the ahftraEi Name of a Species, comprehending feveral Individuals under it, and fignifying all the Divine Perfons. But this Notion, which is fuffi- ciently abfurd in it felf, and contrary to the Noti- on of God, as founded upon the Principles both of natural and reveafd Religion, will not anfwer the Purpofe of your Dodrine. For altho' it be al- lowed, that as many Human Perfons are call'd by the AbftraEl Name of Man, fo many Divine Perfons tou'd be call'd by the Name of God, making that ail AbflraB Name too ; yet as we never fay, or can fay, that three Human Perfons are literally one Man ; fo neither can we fay, that three Divine Perfons are literally one God; The' Language may bear the one Ex- Expreflion, it will not bear the other!^ So that, though you might have the Liberty o£ calling all the Divine Perfons together, God, as all Human Perfons, Man [in which Way of fpeak- ing, neverthelefs, the three Divine Perfons are as much three Gods, though all call'd God in the Ab- ftraB^ as many Human Perfons are many Men, tho* all call'd in the Abftraci^ Manf] yet you cannot call them, nor can they be literally one God. The Reafon is, becaufe when we fay, one God^ as one Man; the Word God, as alfo Man, is not, and cannot, be confider'd as an Abftrad general Name of many Individuals, but neceffarily denotes fome one particular Perfon, Being, Subftance or Agent : So that to fay three Divine Perfons are one God, is to fay, they are one particular, individual, intelli- gent Being, or Subftance, one Agent, Le. really one Perfon ', in like manner as to fay, three Human Perfons are one Man, is to fay, they are one indivi- dual Being, one Perfon, which is a flat Contra- didion. And fo the laft Refult of your Notion, of three Perfons being one God, is in common^ Senfe, in Truth and Reality, no other Notion, but that three diftind Perfons, three ading Beings, or three Agents, is one God, i. e. one ading Being, one Agent, one Perfon, and no more, which is an evi- dent Contradidion. And when all Art and Sophiftry, and Difguife, is taken away, and Men cither think or fpeak ckarfyy plainly [ 25 ] plainly and honeflly ; there is no Difficulty at aU of -fixing and afcertaining the Principle o£ hdlviduati- en or Uraty. God [to allow you all poffible liberty of Lan- guage] muft neceflarily fignify either one intelli^ gent Being, one Agent, one Perfon, or more than one, /. e, it muft either fignify in a large Senfcs me in Kind^ comprehending more than one in Num- her^ or in a reftrain'd Senfe, one in Number i and feither of thefe Unities are eafily fixM and under- ftood. If God fignifies one in Number^ i. e. one intelligent Being , one acting Subftance , one Agent, one Perfon, then it is felf-evident, that three of that of which it is but one^ i. e. three in- telligent Beings, three ading SubftanceS, three Agents, three Per (on s, cannqt be literally, and ia Kumber, one God;, becaufe not one intelligent Be- ing, one ading Subftance, one Agent, one Per- fon in Number. But if it (ignifies one in Kind^ then though three Perfons, three intelligent Beings, three ading Subftances, thrse Agents [fuppoling it, againft what has been already proved to the con- trary, polTible for three Supremes in Nature and Perfections, three neceflarily Exifting Perfons to exift] may be one God^ as fignifying one commoa Specific Divine Nature, one in Kind; yet neverthe- iefs they are evidently three intelligent Beings, three Perfons, three ading Subftances, three Agents, three Gods in Number^ though of one Kind; but can- not be me both in Kind and Number too, becaufe ^ D thac [a6] that is to be more than one in Number, and yet to one in Number, which is an exprefs Contra- di(5i:ion. Therefore turn your felf which Way you will, and invent, and give what Names you pleafe to Things; call God This, or T^hat^ or any Thing -your Imagination can fuggefl: ; yet it is a plain, a certain and demonflrative Truth, That three Divine Perfons, three intelligent Beings, three ading Sub- fences, three Agents, [for all thefe are one and the fame, or I have been talking all the while with a Sahellian] I fay, three Agents Supreme in Nature and all Perfections, are three Supreme Gods ', and cannot, in a juft, proper, or literal Senfe, in any Senfe founded upon the Principles of natural or reveal'd Religion, be, or be call'd individually, one God. 'Thirdly, The third Qiieftion is. Whether they [three neceffarily Exifting Perfons] can he one God, €onJiflently with any data in Scripture, any Thing plainly laid down in f acred Writ i as fuppofe. Subordination, Miffion, Generation, &c. Having already prov'd that they cannot be one God upon the Principles of natural Reafon, I (hall have the lefs fear of proving the fame Thing from Revelation, becaufe that cannot teach any Thing that is contrary to Reafon. You grant then, that the Scripture declares for the SubordinatiQU^ MifJiQUj^ Generation^ 6cc. of the Son, is [ ^7 ] Son, &c. The Bar you put in againfl arguing for the Negative of the Qiieftion is; ^ Becaufe (you " fay. Page 525.) it is certain that Stibordinatioti- " or Miffion may be confident with Equality o£ *^ Nature ,* as is feen even in Men. ' And if it be pleaded. That fuch Subordination is not confix flent with the Unity (though it might with the Equality) our Ideas of the Unity are too im- perfect to reafon foiidly upon. * • How fhallit be Ihown that the DiflinEiion may not be great enough to anfwer the Subordination^ &c. and yet.the Union clofe enough to make the Per- fons one God ? If eternal Generation be objeded to as a Thing impoffibk^ the Objedors fhou'd fliow, that there cannot be any eternal Reference or Rela-- tion of one to the other, as Head, Fountain or Center: Which is the Sum of what eternal Gene^ ration amounts to, Not to mention. That could it be really prov'd to be abfurd or ,contradTdory, yet the main Doctrine might poffibly ftand independent of it ,• amongft fuch ^* at leaft, as fcruple not to throw off the Anti- ents, and confine the Difpute to Scripture alone ; ^^ Which is not fo clear or full for the eternal Ge- " neration^ a5 it is for the eternal Exifience of the r Son. Thefe being the Fleas, or Arguments, which you offer in Defenfe of the Affirmative of your j^uellion, or Propofition, I anfwer to them# P I Firfl, [ 28 J Firfly By Suhrdination (a Part of .vyhich you imake the Miffion to be) you muft, I think, plainly mean here more than a mere verbal Sub ordination , in order of Wofcls, or in naming the Order of the Perfons, as they may ftand in our Conception, of firfty fecondy third; to fiippofe you to mean no more than this muft make you a Trifler indeed. I think you muft alfo mean more than Subordinati- on in mere Mode of Exi/ience, fuch as we conceive in the Exigence of the Sun and its Rap^ Fountain and Stream^ Root and Branch (though yet, how- ever, I fhall fay fomewhat to this) becaufe Miffi* en can be no Confequence of fuch a Difference in mere Mode of Exiftence : And I conclude you mull mean a Subordination of feme fort of Prerogative, Dignity, Precedence and Authority, on which to found the Miffion, and the OEcommy^ (which you allow) of the Sons aEling a miniflerial Part j being Angel or Meffenger to the Father, by the Father^s voluntary Ap-- ■bointrnent ; and executing his Orders and Commands. This which you every where in your Books ex- prefly admit, and afcribe to the Son, is the plain Dodrine of Scripture, as well as the concurrent Senfe of the Primitive Church; and you allow thefe to be fubordinate CharaBers and Offices; and iuch.as are not fui table and congruous [fo you foftly exprefs what the Antients more harfily call being ab-^ furd and impious] to fuppofe the Perfon of the Fa- ther to fuilain, who is (you admit) alone Supreme, as [ ^9 ] as being the Head^ Fountain and Original Caufe o£ the Son and Spirit, And thefe Chara<5lers cannot mean lefs [nor did the moft eminent Athanajiam Bajily Hilary^ dec. and amongft Moderns, the Learned Bifhop Bul/^ mean by the«n lefs] than a Pre-eminence in the Father, and Subordination in the Son, in Dignity and Authority, To fuppofe any Thing lefs than this by the Cha- raders of the Subordination, is to fuppofe Language to have no Senfe, to confift of Words and no more. Taking then the Subordination and Miffion, and the Offices and CharaElers of them, which you admit^j to mean fomething, and at leaft as much as I have fupposM they muft mean, if they mean any Thing; I fhalJ, I hope, be eafily able to fatlsfy you, that though in Men fuch a Subordination may confift with- an Equality of Nature, yet in Refped of God, it cannot. The Reafon why Superior and Subordinate Powers, or Offices^ in Men, are confiftent with Equality o£ Nature, plainly is ; becaufe by Nature Men are capable of more Powers than originally belong to, or are inherent in their Natures : And the Superior and Inferior Powers and Offices which they fuftain, are not ejfential to them, or flow immediately and neceffarily from their AT^/^^^r^x. One Man (though equal in Nature to another) may have more Power or Authority than another, or more than is effen- Hal to him as a Man^' by thf Will or Appointments >■■ cf [ go ] of God^ or by the Confent of Men ; fupernatuml Powers, Offices or Authority, may be delegated to him, . Eu't nothing of this Kind can poffibly be with xefped to God.^ Ail the Dignity ^ Powers and Autho^ titjy of God Supreme, arife immediately and necef-^ farily from his Nature^ and are ejfential to the Deity.: Tliey cannot be 7nore or lefs^ or any other^ but what they are by the Neceffity of his Exiftence ; and muft be fuch as the Nature is from whence they flow, i. e. Supreme J abfolutely Supreme in every Senfe, and Co-ordinate, as the Nature, or Subjed, of them is. And therefore to fuppofe unequal or fuperior Powers, Offices or Authority, to confift with an Equality and Co-ordination of Divine Nature ; or to belong to a Nature or Perfon who is neceffarily Ex^ ifiingy and God Supreme^ is a direct and evident Contradidion. . To fuppofe a Perfon who is neceffarily Exiflenty and God Supreme, to have afuhrdinate Office, to be delegated, coiwniffion d, and exercife a fubordinate Authority j and minifter to the Will and Commands of another ^ to be his Angel, and to be fent by him by his voluntary Appointment, is a palpable Ab- furdity and Contradidion in Terms; is evidently fuppofing him to be not God Supreme and neceflari- ly Exifting : And your whole Error (li you will give me leave to point it out to youj confifls in not coniidering the Difference betwixt the Human and Divine Nature ; that the OQe is precarious and depen-^ E 3» ] denty and confequently capable of an Addition of Powers more than is effential to it ; or more than another of the fame Nature mzy be invefted with ; the other is necejfarily Exiflent^ immutable, and inde^ pendent; and therefore admits of neither more or lefs Powers than are effential to it : Confequently the Nature being eq^ual, and Deity ca-ordinate, the Power Sy offices and Authority, and every Thing, - muft he equal and co-ordinate too : And every Subor- dination in office, and any Powers belonging to it, muft infer a Subordination and Inequality of Nature^ and muft infer the Nature and Deity not to be G^- ordinate and Supreme, So that you muft, fo far as I can fee, cither ad- mit the Subordination and Miffton of the Son and Sni- rit to be inconfiftent with Supremacy of Nature and Powers, with Eojuality and Co-ordination, with God the Father i and fo by your own Argument admit they are not, and cannot, be one God with him ; or elfe you muft deny the Subordination and MifCton, and tell the World plainly once for all, that by Subordi- nation and Mijfion, and the Powers and Characters confequent thereon, viz. the Son's ailing a mini- fterial Part, having delegated Powers, being by God's voluntary Appointment the Angel and Mef- fenger, executing the Orders and Will, and obey- ing the Commands of the Father ; you really mean nothing but the mere Sound of Words, and empty Amufement: For that the Father is in Nature ar*d Reality as much fubordinate to, and fent and dc- ti^Iegated by the Son ; is as much the MInlfter arid Angel of the Son ; as much obeys the Orders and Commands of the Son : And that though the Lan* Wuage of Scripture and Antiquity is like that of other Books, and feems to exprefs the common Senfe and Reafon of Mankind j yet that it is of a quite different Nature; means nothing like what the tTerms of it exprefs, and muft be underflood in the reverfe of all other Speech and Language whatfo- €ver. But I am unwilling to think, that fo ferious a Man as you feem to be, can ever be driven ta this Diftrefs i efpecialiy, when after all it will do no good, but three Supreme neceffarily Exifting Perfons, intelligent Beings or Agents, three Su^ pre me and Co-ordinate in Nature and PerfeBioni (admitting you this Plea, in point blank Contra- didion to Scripture and Antiquity) will, in the Na- ture and Reafon of Things, as effedually deftroy . your Notion of their being One God, as three not Supreme, and not Equal in Nature, &c, I promis'd to take Notice of a Subordination in jnere Mode of Exifience, [which is next to a Subordi- nation in mere Words] if you Ihould happen to take Refuge in that Explanation. Even this Suhor-- dination will not come up to, or be confiftent with a Co-ordination or Equality in Nature ; becaufe the ahfolute PerfeBion of the Divine Nature is fuch as will admit of no Variety or Difformity ; and a Differ fence even in Mode of Exiftence muft infer as a differ t 33 ] hnt,' IS af /^/i' perfeft and inferior Nature i For dh^ folute PirfecJicn being but oney and having but one poflible, invariable Mode of Exiftence, whatever beCid^S'varieSy tven in Mode of Exiftence, muft be 1q{s perfed. Ahfolute PerfeBion therefore, will ftand with nothing but Umriginatenefs tini Indepen- dency of Exiftence ; with nothing but what iS neceffa- viJy £x//?^;2f, abfolutely without any Caufe or Ori- ginal; and will not admit any Reference or Relation tfo any Thing as the: i/^^^, jRoof, Fountain y on Caufe of its Exiftence ; if itdiH or couM, itotcfti Novst, de [3+] cn, P^rivatioft, Originationy Sec. mufl: infer a SuhoV'^ dination^ and Inequality of Nature^ fuppofing even it cou'd be necejfary^ though to fuppofe thaty is, I have already prov'd, and Ihall further hereafter iprove, a flat Contradiftion. Next you are apprizM it may be objefted, that the Subordination^ Mijjion^ &c. will not be confiftent with the Unity : But you think the Union may be ckfe emughy to make the Perfons one God, Now here, in the firft Place, I beg leave to ob- ferve, that you clearly difcover (whether defigned- ly or not) your real Notion of the three Per- fons, to be if//ryiUrAaB4 rci^li'-iarl^he Help of all your metaphyfical, Diftip(aiO:ns ^ you will ftill fijid it every Way uilanfwer able i itifin-^ deed obvious and evident C^tponftration, though I, do not find your Advexf^rjes h,ave yet objeK^ed it to^i you, at leaft in thefe Terms. Suppofe three Hu" man SoUl$ clofely and infeparably united^ yet they are neverthelefs three Human Souls^ and fhree Hu-! ipan Perfons, as long as their perfonal Properties ; their InteUi^ence and Agency remain in ^each diJiinEi ^ ■ fo.long althey are three difiinB Agents, = This Reiafoning is foftrong and convidive, and you feem fo feufible of it i that inftead of defending your feif on this Head, you always evade it, and reply, only by retorting upon your Adverfaries the like Difficulty in refped of their Notion (as you tell us) of the- Omniprefent, or infinitely expanded Subftance of God ; and if they had not, happily for you, advanced iiich a Notion, you woud have had jftothing at all to fay. But; L 37 J Biit now (to deal plainly with you^ is it not ftrange and furprizing, that you IhouM take the Ad- vantage of an Opinion of your Adverfaries, which yo,u think, at the fame Time, to be an erroneous and falfe Opinion, and attended with ALbfurdities and Cpntradiftions i and argue upon it in Defenfe of your own Opinion, which you fuppofe to be true? They, you think, in the Confequence of their Notion make many ^bftances^ and then, in an ab- furd aa4 contradictory manner, make many Suhftan- ces^ by. Vnh^n^ one Subftance j therefore^ou, in like manner, and froni the fame Arguments, can^make many Subftances, very truly, and without any Ah^- fiirdity and Contradiction at all, to be one Sub- ftance : The FalfliQod of their Opinion (you think) Cpnfifts in making one Suhftance of many; but this very Falfhood in your Hands, and in fupport of your Opinion, immediately becomes a Truth : Nay, and as it were, becaufe it is falfe in them, it is true in you ; and you do as good as tell them ; do not yoUj (though falfely) make Subftance and Subftance, /. e. many Subftances, by Union, one Subftance, there- fore where is the Faljity in me doing the fame Thing? Surely all this is very unaccountable, and muft amaze the Reader of your Defenfe s. Had you allow' d your Adverfaries Notion to be right y and a good Account oi Subftance and Subftance^ or of many Subftances, by Union, becoming one Sub- ftance in Number , you might then have had a bet- ter Pretenfe of making ufe of their Reafoning, and ap- fC 38 3 applying it to your Notion of the Trinity,- and you wou*d herein have then been guilty of no other F^ulthvitmrfapplyingy and not difcerning the Diffe- rence of the Cafes : But as the Point ftands, and whilffi you condemn that Notion in them, it is n'^r- mlousy and even monftrous, to make ufe of it as if it was truey in Defenfe and Explication of your No- tion of the Trinity. Therefore by this Manage- ment, I conclude, you only mtended to ftop the Mouth of your Adverfaries, knowing at the fame Time it was impoffible to anfwer the Arguments brought againft your own Notion. But after all, you lie under a very great Miftake, in thinking your Adverfaries Notion of the Omnr^ frefencey parallel in the Explanation of it, t© your Notion of the Trinity : And though Sulfftance aiid Suhflancey in their Notion, may make one Suh fiance^ yet it cannot do fo in yours. To thofe who make the Omnipefent Divine Sub- Sance infinitely extended or expanded, though, I think, you may objed, that they fuppofe it to con- fift of Farts (which, perhaps, they wou'd rather call Conflituents) and you may call this Part or Con- ftituent, Suhftance i and that^ Subftance ; and they are undoubtedly difiinEl and many m Number; yet, neverthelefs, thefe Parts or Conflituents being unpanable^ all Self-exiflent, and effentially and in- feparably conneded and united, and being all to- gether fo conneded and united, the Ground or Suh* pFl of an individual Unity of Perfedions, of but em C 39 3 ine InteSigence in Number, one Agency in Number^ they are confequently, very truly, one Divine ad- ing Subflance in Number, one Agent ^ one Per/on^ one God. •;»') n ■li.iA rj v\ Thfere IS no' other Difficulty, or Objection, at ;iali, lies againft this Notion, that I can fee, but the fuppoiing a Whole to confift of the Parts or Con^ fiituents of it ; and the Parts or Conflituents all toge- ther to make one I Whole ; and this, methinks, Ihould not much difturb a reafonable or thinking Man. But now, you don*t fuppofe in your Notion, the three Divine Perfons to be Parts or Conflituents of me whole Divine Perfon ,* or the a5ling Suhflance of Ae Son or Spirit to be unoriginated Parts or ConflitU" ents of the aEiing Subflance of the Father : Or if you ivas fo abfurd as to declare this in your great Di- ftrefs, it would not do ; unlefs you fupposM fur- ther, all the PartSy Conflituents, or Perfons together, to be the Subjeft of an individual Unity of Perfedi- ons, to have but one Intelligence in Number, one Agency in Number ,* and then, indeed, you might call them o»^ ading Subflance in Number, one God; But, I hope, you fee at the fame Time, that thus they muft be one Agent, one Perfon, and no more. For if the feveral Parts or Conflituents (according to your Objedion againft your Adverfaries Noci-- ;on) of the Omniprefcnt Subftance, were each di^ ftinElly endued with diflinSl Perfedions, or intelli- gent Powers i fo that there were as many Intelligent I 40 ] tesy ^r\A. Agencies y as there ate Paytf oT Cofiftituem ^ (tvhethdr thefe Parts or Conftitumtswtx^ fart able or not) they would be fo many really diflinB ading Be- ings, Agents and Gods ; they evidently could not bfe me intelligent aEiing Being, or me God: Aiid fo in like manner the Divine Perfons in your Notion j (if you Ihould fuppofe them Parts or Conftimentt of one whole, yet) if the Subftance of each, each Part or Conftituent is the Subjed of an Intelligeme and Agency diftin6t in Number from the Intelfi-^ cence and Agency of the Subftance of the others; of the other Parts or Conjiituents, they are, knd niuft be {though never fo united) really diflinSi &>^ ings. Grading Subftances, diflinB Agents, diftin^ Gods ; and cannot poifibly be one ading Subftance,' ene Agent, one God. - -^^-^ All this I take to be as elear and certain, aS our Reafon and diftind Ideas can make a Thing to be ; and for you to pretend, that the Ideas of the Unity are too imperfe^ to reafon folidly upon, is only a Banter upon the common Senfe of Mankind i and perfwading them (as it were) to lay afide the Ufe of their Underftanding and Reafon, that you n^ay put what Fallacies you pleafe upon them, under the Notion of certain Truths, certain in themfelves, but of fo high and myfterious a Nature as not to be diftindly perceived, or reafon d folidly upon. This, indeed, is fuch an Account of revsafi Dodrines of Religion, aslfhou'd be forry to havd found true ; But I think the Cafe to b^ 4^it€! other- wife, and fo proceed to confider another Branch of the Subordination allow d by yoU to be declared in Scripture, ^/z,. Generation. I (hall not ftand with you upon the Nicenefs of the Word Generation, as if it was any Thing ana- logous to humane Generation ; but fhall take your Meaning to be any Kind of Derivation of Nature^ [which you may give what Name you pleafe toj whereby God is the Father y Author ^ or proper Caufe^ of the Exigence of the Son and Spirit. To fuppofe the Son and Spirit to exift by abfo- lute Neceflity of Nature, without any Original Caufe at all ; to exift by the fame Neceffity [as you unadvifedly affirm] by which the Father ex- ifts, is directly to make them unoriginated and un-- derivd ; becaufe it is an unoriginated and underivd Neceflity by which the Father exifts : And fo is diredly to deny the Generation^ Derivation, or Ori^ gination of the Son and Spirit, at the fame Time that you affirm it. But if the Son ai^d Spirit are really derivd or originated from the Father as the^ proper Caufe or Original of them, it demonftra- tively follows. That God the Father is the intelli^ genty aElingy and voluntary Caufe of their Exiftence ; that God is really and truly an Agent in their Ori- gination, as he is in the Origination of all other Beings. If it was not fo, but the Origination of the Son and Spirit proceeded neceffarily, not fronv the IVill, but from the Nature of God, [as his own Attributes do, or as you in Comparifon repre- F fens C 40 fent the Sun and its Rays] then it would follow^ Firft^ That the Father is no more Father or Caufe of their Exiflence, than of the Exiftence of his ou'il Attributes, which are all as really umriginated and underivd as the Father himfelf is, and in the Exiftence of which he is no Agent, Father, or Caufe, at all : And fd the Generation, Derivation^ Origination, &c. is only a mere extravagant Figure of Speech, and Abufe of Language : The Son be- ing really, according to this Explication [in Con- tradidion both to Scripture and all Chriftian An- tiquity] ayivpidof^ unhegotten, and the one God the Fa-- ther, of whom are all T'hings, as much as the Faiher himfelf. Or, Secondly, If the Son is a necejfary Derivation, as Rays from the Sun, it will equally follow (as in the other Cafe) either that he is umriginated, as the Rays of the Sun would be, if the Sun it felf was umriginated ; or that as the Rays are not truly de- rivd from the Sun at all, but are Parts of the Sun it felf; or as the Sun is no Agent in the Emanation of them, but both Sun and Rays are truly derivd from the Creator of them, who is alone the Agent, and Caufe of their Exiftence, and to whofe IVill their Operations are faffively fubjed : So the Son, &c, would not be at all derivd from the Father, or the Father would not be an Agent at all in the O- rigination of the Son ; but it would follow by this Argument, that the Son was the Father himfelf, partially confider'd, and that both were really de-- rivd [43] rivd from a fiiperior Agent, who was the proper original Caufe of both, and to whofe Will the Ex- iftence both of the Father and the Son, &c, wa« faj]tvely fubjed ; which is infinitely abfurd. As necejfary Exifience therefore is a Contradlftion to a real Subordination ,• and a Being or Perfon ne^ cejfarily exiflent can receive nothing from, nor ovje any Thing to another ; fo an intelligent ading Na- ture, Subftance, or Perfon, that is really derivd or originated from another, muft be fubordinate in Nature and Powers^ and muft be fubjed to, and dependent upon the Will of the original Agent from whom it is deriv'd; and fo cannot in your Notion be One God with him. As this IS plain and indifputable in Reafon^ fo it is abundantly prov'd by your Adverfaries, [be- yond, I think, all PofTibility of Reply] to be the certain^ exprefs^ and concurrent Senfe of Chriftian Antiquity ,• and you your felf allow this great Ad- vantage to them, that the Antients^ as oft as they fpeak of the Generation^ make it a voluntary * T^hing : And *!*(?« fay the higbeft Generation fpoken of ly the Amientt is loth voluntary and temporary ; Firft Defenfe, :Page 135, 158. And particularly grant it, Page 145, of Juftin Martyr, Athena- goras, Theophilus, Tatian, Tertullian, and Hippolitus. They aflerted [you add^ Page 145.] the Co-eternity of the Alyoi, Of "Word, though not confidex'd precifely under the formality of a Son« [ 4+ ] And that in Confequence thereof they teach, that the Son, in his higheft Capacity^ was fent by the i;0- NoWy if he ivas not corifdev^d as a Son, he mufi he confidered either as an Attribute ov internal Property [which ycur Adf c^ ^i/^i«f^}i//£«7^] Creatures : And therefore when Plato ftiles the in- jevior Gods fometimcs [^cLyivifjot, or even Aymi{Jot'] untreated or unhegotten, it is not inconfillent [as fome antient Chriilian Writers thought] with their being, in his Opinion, Creatures i or fup- ppfeth that he hereby made them equal to the one Su« i: 55 ] Supreme God : For he meant no more, as Plu- tarch informs us at large [_de Anima procreat~] thaa that they were uncreated or under zv'd^ only with refped to the . abftrad original Subftance , or C*^^)^"] »So«/ of the World out of which they were made y which S^^vyn^origWi^Xy unformM, abftrad: Subftance, Plato thought was uncreated^ felj-ex- iflenty and underivd; but that they were created with refpecl to their particular and perfonal Ex- iftence, which was formd out of this univerfal [4u%"] Soul of th^ World : Juft as he wou'd, in like manner, fay that the Wvrld (though he con- flantly afferted it to be made hyGod. in or vjith Time) was \jlyzv\ylci] uncreated^ and before T'imey and Eternal y with refpecl to the original^ unde^- riv'd, unformdy and alftraEi [ua»?] Matter^ out of which it was made. For Plato (as. Plutarch ex- plains at large his Philofophy in this Point, De Auima: procreat. FagQ 1014, 10 1 5, 10 17.) could not conceive any Thing , whether Tkf^/^m^/ or Immaterial, to be made out of Nothing; and there- fore he fupposM an eternal, underivd, ahflraci: [vAfl and 4^X"] Matter and Spirit, . to be the [ TG 'v}-3D;ceiWaf ] the metaphyseal Subftance , or Subftratum of all Things; which oah being fwjnd by God, to them it was fubjed, and put into Order, and the 'hyj> endued by him with Reafon and Intelligence, they became the Body ancf Suul of the World; and out of the one, God form'd all Material^ and out of tlie other, all Im- material 1 56 ] material and Rational Beings, which being depend denty and fubjeEi to God, and receiving their For^ mation from him by his Power and Will, on that ac- count were efteemed his Creatures. This was the Platonic Philofophy j and the Stoics agreed with him \t^ho, as Plutarch tells us, [Adv. Stoic. FagQ 1075.} j/ivv^ -vW Tvep^ : Expre/ly taught that all the Gods were originally made, and would finally he dejiroyd hy Firel And yet they wouM call their [ctyhyflot, dQapctJoty and diJ'ioi^ uncreated or underivd^ immortal and eternal (and they would fay the fame of the World it felf ) not thereby meaning (as you imagine^ that their Perfons or Deities were necejfarily Exiftent (though not felf Exiftent, which you vainly diflinguifh, and without ail ground or reafon pretend to be the old philofophic Notion, in your Second Defenfe^ Page: 255, 262.) or that they were equal to the firfl Caufe, or one Supreme God; but meaning only, that they were uncreated [and the fame they thought of the World'] with refpe(5l to the underivd, felf Exifient [u'aji or vv:^j'] Matter or Soul out of which they were made or form' d: And that, whereas the groffer Ma- terial, and inanimate temporary Beings, which were the Creature, vulgarly fo call'd, daily corrupt and periih, the Exigence of the Gods fthey thought) continued unchangeable from their firft Formation before the World, till the End of this Syftem, and to the general Conflagration of all Things, And [ 57 ] And howfocver abfurd it may be^to fuppofe an ««« fotmdy al^firaB, eternal and felf Exi/ient v^i^^nd -I^X^i being as the metaphyfical Subftance or Subftratum for God tQ work upon, and to create out of them all Beings; yet the Notion of Derivation^ and of receiving Exiftence by the Power and Will of God, as making all Beings to he derivd (in whatfbever manner they are deriv d, whether out of Nothings or otherwife) to he Creatures y feems to be the moft na- tural Dedudion of mere Reafon, on the mere Prin- ciples of which we rightly confider every Thing that is deriv dy [and which is not it felf the unde- riv*d Creator] to be a Creature; Reafony I think^ does not (hew us, that there is any difference be- twixt being originated, derived, &c. and being made or created, I thought it not improper to treat this Matter diftindly; and hence you may perceive how little favourable either of the precedent Noti- ons of Creature are to your Purpofe. If according to the more large, high, and indefinite Notion of Creature, every originated and derived Being or Per^ fin (even though confuhflantial and eternal) is a Qceaturey then you make the Son of God a Creature as much as your Adverfaries do ; but if, according to the more low and reftrain^d (and which feems to be the ordinary and vulgar) Notion, the Creature is that only which was made or formed in 'Time, i. e* commencing with, or after the Formation of the World, and is of a precarious and continuaily pe- rifhing Nature ; and according to which Notion, [58] whatever cxifted before the mundane Formaticm, and was of a permanency immortal, and immutabk Nature [though by the Will oi God] was not * Creature ; then your Adverfaries no mor^ tnake xhi6 Son a Creature than you do. But this will appear ftill more plain by confidering the Senfe of the antient ^et3$ and Chriftians of this Matter. The antierit Jews Cas may appear from Philo) thought the My^ or Word to be neither uncreated, in the Senfe in which the Supreme God was uncreated, nor cre^ ated like one of us, but of a middle Nature betwixt both : His Words concerning the Ao>©- or Word are, prs dyi'/nlQ- a^ 0so? av, a t5 yiVidQ- ui niJ^tify ctAAoci ixi(TQ- 7a y AX-^eov, &c. Lib. quis rerum d'mn* H\.v. . \,\ ■;:. To cpnciude this Head ; cithet take the Scrip-^ ture^Notion of Creature^ and ^dmit that only to be the Creature which God created fy.Jefus Chrifi ; or take the Notion of every Origination^ Derivation, &e, being a Creation ; or if neither will pleafe you, find a Medium if you can : And I think I can venture to promife, that I will prove, That in the Explication of your Nption of the Trinity, you [how inconfiftently foever with your felf] make the Son of God as much a Creature as your Adver^ faries do; and that they (in the true Cohfequenee of their Notion) no more make the Son a Cne^ ture, than all the Primitive ChriftiahSy and Scripture itfelfdoes. , j/V - ;- If you pretend to colled the fuh&rdinate Chara- dors and Offices which the Scriptures and all Pri- mitive Chriftians uniformly and univerfally afcribe to Chrlft, and then call them Charaders and Offi- ces of a Creature^ I (hall tell you, that this is a ipere begging the Qiieftion, and fuppofing thefe Charade rs and Offices, cannot belong to a derivd Being ,* and is not oppofing your Adverfaries, but is oppofing Scripture and Antiquity for afcribing thefe Charaders and Offices to him. And how weak it is, and betrays an utter Unacquaintednefs v.^ith the Language both of antient Philofophers, jfeiuj: and ShriftianSj to alledge that there is no Medium, Medium, no Diftinaion betwixt being the one God Supreme^ and being a Creature of a frecarious and mutMe Nature, has been already fhown : And if you fhall ftill go on againft all Evidence and Con- vi^on, to amufe and impofe upon your Readers with this Fallacy ; you muft be told over and over Hiat it is not only falfe and groundlefs in it felf but irrefiftably recoils alfo up, " i% j<) TO IfMy nji TO etri, »7€ Ti ^^ al covm Tafcu- *](iv ^ T$ dfivvi(]a» Let no one underftand the Expreflion, Ex» ifiing alwaysy to come up to being Vnbegotten* • • For nei- ther the Word, was^ or ahvaysj or before the Ages, is the fame as Vnbegotten. Alex. Alex- Bj)iji, apud Theodoret. If he latter fays ; vth yivvtfloVy k %£/i'o/< fxiv Tt^tv «x oj/Jaj v^i^V S'k Tojs yifovojet. ttAAo^ oe^^ ^e^ytov eumieov %v\ct 7t^ %VTety yzvveoyLiv j} ^ eL^ivmra 'TTa'^'o^, (S^ Trdvicov cucoyeoVy 0)0 *? T^ TfitjTof dviK^pd^^ iLj d'TTZeJLVQnT^i ^8Am? ts y^ J^vdy-iCDf ^O'tHfMvov, The Son was begotten, not as if he was at any Time not exifting, and was afterwards begotten : But exifting before all Ages, and being pre exiftent, and ejiifting always as a Son with the Father j but not being unbegottony but begot- ten of the unbegotten Father: Having his Subfiftence by the inef- fable and incomprehenfible ViTill and Vower of the Father before all Age«. Dem,Evang. lib. 4. c. 3. And as being begotten of tie latbtr hy his Power and Will, the fame Author fays, he was I ft fajleriat [^8 1 Duration of God the Father : So long as the SoiS did not exift eternally by ahfolute f Neceffity of Na-' ture, without any Original, or Caufe of his Ex- iftence, he could not, in their Opinion, be equal c... -..,..■:: 1. to poperioY to the Father, Bis Words are \ o ^ TFetr^f «©e^uV*fp^« r2 tfa x^ -^ yzv^tnai avt^ fSfi^v(piTt)KiVy A i^ovoi dfivnTos Iw x^ • fj^ Kctb* Iavt- TiKeio^y }^ 'TT^Sroi ai TetTri^y :^ 'f t« qs (Tv^A' &iai AiTio^, — — i5 be confiftent with' all the fore-mention'd SttbordinrnQn and Ja^quor ftty. '-A^^^W;.^ tern porro nunc appellat vhtw ■ ex qua eft rerum nniver- fitas : Again ; Ncceffitatem proptrrea quod ■ ■■ ■■ necelTe fa- erat adfcifci earn ob fabftantiam ccrporalem, Chalcid. in TlaU Tim, P, 377, 578, Plotinus alfo [Ennead. 6, P. 742, 743.I faysy That God whom be fiiks [tIoj dfX^Jj} /2?5 firft Caufe, <«ow vottxift i^dvtLyn^^'] from NecefEry, as tie Caufc cf his Ex- ifence^ as the Epicureans, againfi iz-honj he h arguing^ ^Jferted : But he adds \ \hf 5B To7f iTrofjiivot^ tm ae %m « (fdyjinl Necefll- ty belongs to thofe 'Things which are pofterior to God the firft Caufe, And in Oppojltion to the Epicurean Isfeceflicy, which exclnded an ^ji^yjd Original, firft Caufe of all Things^ and made neceiTarily Exiftent Atoms the Original prodttBive Caufe of every 'Things even tf God himfelf ; he frequently aJferfSy that God U what he will'd to be ; being neither what he was^ by Chance, nor produced out o/necefiarily Exiftent Atoms without his Will, as the Epicureans leld, yet Vlot'inus plainly /uppos*d, that the [^'fX"3 God, the firft Caufe, did exifi by an internal Necefllty of Nature, by faying^ that he was {Tap 6fci/T«] of or from himfelf, i, e, felf-exifient ; that he was, as he there adds^ [oVcf ^X?^-^ ^> ^^^ o'^sf ?/«] what he ought and muft be : And prefently after he fays y the firft Caufe [«;c dva^yx^h v^cLreiK^yLiAvoiy aKK' dv7^ ivdyam ray ot A- Kcdv «Vm< 3^ voua] is not fubjeB to Neceffity, but is himfelf that Neceflity (or necejfarily Exijient Being) who gives Laws to all fither Beings, Secondly, In the Stoic Vhilofophy alfoy that Necefllty to which all the Gods were thought to be fubjeB and dependent upon^ was in reality no other than the one neceffarily Exiftent, Unbegotten, Supreme God himfelf, whom they abJlraBedly call'd NeceiSty. ithm [71] Ori Secondly, For you to deduce from the anti- €nt, Exprellions of the £wm;' and Confuhflantiality of ^he Son, Inferences which you may think wiU fol^ ['^i>tt^ Plutarch ohfeyoes concerning the Stoic Notion of God as he- »*^rNeceffity and Mind, [clvakyi }y vt^ er/V w Mx,ts(ra, cT/cj x«V- »rav <^wja.[JLif] Neceffity an^ Mind is the {intelligenti 'Power vjhkh fervades the XJniverfe, Pfycog. P. 102^^. And TertuL ob^ ferves^ that they calVd God, Fatum & Neceffitatem rerum, Fate and l^ecejfity^ Apol, c. 21. ivhich Jhows their Notion ^ that God didexift by Neceflity of Nature ; and aJfot what ivas meant hy Neceffity being f aid to he the Mother of the Fates, and the firft among the Deities; which you feem not at all to underftand. But they were never fo ^bfurd as to think {as you reprefent them^ P. 252.) there was any other Superior Neceffity to which God was fubjeft. And that uAw, which (you ohferve) Plato calVd Neceffity, was not by himfuppos'd to he Superior to God, hut to he inferior and fubje£l to him i and, indeed, was plainly nothing hut the Original Matter out of which all 'Things wefe formM j and calVd Neceffity, as being of a paffive Nature, and neceffiiry to the- Formation of corporeal Things, Therefore what you mean by that Obfer^ation, is hard to know. The Platonics, Stoics, and all Chriftian Writers, always fuppos'd the one Supreme God to exifi ly Neceffity of Nature ; and this neceffity Exiftence theyfitong- Jy and clearly exprefs*d, by faying, he was IctfivvriTOi} unbegotten, and had no Caufe of Exiftence, which is the 'Very Thing which we ^ow mean, and exprefs by exifiing^ by Neceffity of Nature : And though the Stoics, and Platonics, were fo weak as to imagint /^eSubftance of the inferior generated Deities, to he neceflari- ly exiftent, yet they were not fo weak as to fay at the fame Time, that it exifted by the WiU of God :^ , And there-- fore, much lefs can any reafonable Man think that the antient Chri' fiiatt Writers Iwhofe Vhilofcphy was mmh improvd by Revel afionl would [70 follow from thefe Terms, as now underfiood upbi Principles of modern Philofophy, (when the Antients did not think any fuch Inferences to follow from would conjlantJy declare the Generation, the higheft Generation {as you onvn) of ihi Son^ which they ever [peak of^ to behy the "Will cf God, by the Will of the Father, if they had thought him neceflari- ly Exittent. Do they ever fay any fuch 'Thing of the Father^ ^his, indeed, would be to your Furpofe, Or, do they ever fay the Son had no Caufe of his Exijlence, as ihiy confiantly affirm of the Father ? 'This would be to your Furpofe, What further^ I think* beyond all Vifpute [jifid which you have not confiderd at alt\ Jhewsy that the Antients, by faying the Son was begotten C|3«A.?'» ^iKmei, &c.] by the Will of the Father, meant to deny that he was jieceffarily 'E.xiOitnX^' is \ ihat Athanafius, who firfl introducdthe Notion of the neceflary Exigence of the Son, and the Poft-Niceaes after hifn, conflantly deny that he was begotten [^kA.m> 9sA.«fl*e<, &C.3 by the Will of the Father.* Why did they depart from the. antient Language of the Church, if it was not to Jhew their Senfe^ that if the Generation was {_as the Antients exprefs* d it'\ by the Will of the Father^ the Son could not he neceflarily Exiftent, as their new DoBrine fuppos*d ? And therefore they underfiood, that Generation by the Will of tie Father, meant, by theFather^sVt^c^iW and- Voluntary Agency. Bejldes, you never confider the plain Ahfardi- fy of fuppojlng a neceffarily Exiftent Per/cw being {asyouallow^ with refpeB to the OEconomy of Creation, Miflion, Incarnation, £^f J fubje^l to the Will and Commands of another Ferfon ; or, U he in any Senfs generated by the arbitrary Will and Appointment of God the Father. Lallly, Another 2 hit- ^hich c^^s'^jMVre- ienfes of the Antients having taken any Notice of any prior, or higher Generation, than that by the Will of God, is, that they al' ways fuppos'd by this voluntary Generation, the Father to he the Caufc of the E^iflence of the Son^ [73] the Words as then underftood, or upon the Prin- ciples of amie-at Philofophy) is very unfair and de- ceitful : Ir is putting a new Senfe upon old Words, and then pretending to prove this new Senfe from the old Words, though they ivere declared to have, and to be underftood in a different Senfe. Some Amients thought the Son might be eternally begotten by the IVillofthQ Father ; you lay hold of the Expreffion of Eternity, and infer from it, in di- red Gontradi6ion to their Senfe, upon Principles p£ modern Phllofophy, that the Son is 'not begotten by the fVill of the Father, bur is neceffarily Exifiing which they would have ftilM being Unhegotten ,• and then you pretend this to be their Senfe, which they would have condemn'd for Blafphemy and Impiety. So again, fome Amients exprefs'd their Notion of the Generation of the Son, as if he was Confuhflantial> or begotten from the Suh flame of the Father ; but ftill they declared his Generation to be by the TViti of the Father, and a voluntary Thing: That ftill the Father alone was the One God, atone Supreme ; and they never thought that it followed frorii the Confuhflantial Generation, that the Son was equally Supreme God, God in the fame, in a§ high, in a co- ordinate Senfe with the Father : You lay hold of this Word alfo, and thence infer from modern Me- taphyrics (which they knew ilothing ofj that the Son is the fame Subftance, and fame God with the Father j equally Supreme and independent God ; and R in-. [ 74- 1 infift that this was the Senfe of thofe Antients, iri point blank Contradidion to their whole Wri- tings. And wiien your whole Books written on the Sub- jed are carefully confiderM, they will be found to confift of nothing but an artful-Management of the three ambiguous Terms [Eternity^ ConfubflahtiaJity^ and Creature'] treated of in thefe Papers, and the frequent Abufe of the Word Subordination or Order. The two former Terms with you always ftand for Premi- fes to prove what Conclufion you pleafe from them : If you can but fay the Son is Eternal and Confubflan-- tial^ you can prefently, you think, infer wichouc any more to do, that he is necejjarily Exiflent, and Supreme God ; that he is e^ual to the Farher in JSta-^ ture and all Perfections^ the fame Nature ^ fame Sub* fiance, fame God, with the Father. Secondly, If you are pinched with the ijohntary Generation of the Son, and nmriginated Exigence of the Father ; yet thefe two Terms will fa ve iall ; the Generation is then on\y,^n eternal Reference or Relatl^ on to a -Head, Root, -or Fountain; and yoii care not how^ little your Reader thinks of God as being the Father and Caife of the Son's Exiftence : AM though the Subflance of the Son is originated, yet Uni- on can make it the fame,. Subflance, both tn Kind and Number^ with the unoriginated Subflance of the Fa- ther. Thirdly, If you are prefs'd with the Doclrine of the AiitieiitS;, that the Father is the fiifi: and Su- preme C 75 ] premt God, and as fuch, the only primary and ul- timate Ob jedofWorfhipj that he is greater, more powerful, and more excellent, than the JVord or Son 'y in Dignity^ Glory^ Authority, Power and God- head; and, that the Son is Second, Inferior, and-D^- pendent in Nature and all PerfeBions ; that he is wor- ihip'd only in the Second Place, by God's cxprefs Will and Appointment, as being God's Angel, and reprefenting his Perfon ; as our High-Prieft and Me- Viator; and, finally, to the Glory of God the Father; and that he always aded minifterially to the Will and Commands of the Father; all the higheft and ilrongeft Exprefllons of the real Supremacy of the Father, and of the Subordination and SubjeBion of the Son to him, are anfwer'd in one Word, name- ly, that all means no more, than that the Father is Supreme in Order, as being the Head, Root, and Foun- tain, of the Deity: The Son being, neverthelefs, neceffarily Exiftent, and Confubfiantial; and fo, equal in Nature, and all effential Perfedions, with the Father; and that the Father has nothing which the Son has not, except Self-exifience, and that, you fay, is no Perfection, but a mere Mdtle ofExiflence. But, Fourthly, If your Adverfaries are not fa- tisfy'd with this, and think, that the ExprelTions of the Antients mean a great deal more than mere Order, which you explain away into a mere Order of Conception and Words-, and if they endeavour to Ihew the ImpolTibility of your Notion being true, and its abfolute Inconfiftency with the whole Te- K a nor [76] nor of Scripture and Antiquity ; then you unan- fvverably maintain your own Notion, and confute theirs by telling them, that if what you hold is not true, or, if what they hold is true, then it follows [not that what you argue for, is true, or what they argue for, is falfe ; but it follows] that Cliriil the Son of God is a Creature, and they are Arians^ &c. and fo there is an End of the* Controverfy w This, indeed, is the Sum of your whole Writings; the whole Fabric of- your Scheme is built on this Foundation ; and whether it be a Foundation of Rock or Sand, the Reader muft judge from the pre-: ceding Obfervations, To conclude ; as it Is, I think, plain and evident,^ that the Eternity and Confuhflantiality of the Son, let them mean what they will, if they do not mean that he is neceJfarilyExiflent, i. e.exifts by NecefTity of Na^ ture without any Caufe of his Exiftence, but that he exifts by the Power and Will of the Father, are of no moment in the prefent Controverfy : And that your Adverfaries may admit any Notion of the Eternity of the Son, which is confiftent with his Generation, and does not imply, or infer, his being Viihe gotten. So likewife, if you could Ihow from any Principles of Reafon, or true Philofophy, that it is in the Nature of Things poilible, fgr a derivd or originated Being to be Confubflantial with God, i. e. for an originated Subftance to be of the fame Kind with an timriginated Subftance, yo.ur Adyer- farieSj [ 77 ] fanes, for ought I can fee, may let the * Confute ftantiaiity pafs as a mere ffecidative Opinion ; and the main Points of the Controverfy will ftiil remain ktire : And it will ftiil be cle^r, evident, and de- mon- * Bui m SathfaBion is ever to he expeB&dfrom you on this Head 5 and your Notion of the Confubftantiality is fo confus'dy and you are fo bewildered in your Acxount of it, that it is plain ^ you know not at all what you mean, or woudfay^ when you talk about it. Individual Confubftantiality, or fame Suhfancein Number exprefs*dby Tctvro6(Ti and finee. they were written* Price IS. • ' A Letter to a DifTenter at Exeter, occafion*d by ihe late Heats in thofe Parts, upon fome Diffe-^ rence of Sentiment^ amung che Brethi'^^^- Second Edition. Price 6 d. Plain Chriftianity defended ; or, an Anfwer to a Pamphlet lately printed at Exon, intitled, Arius DeteEied and Confuted, Part I. and II. Price 6 d. each. Part III. and IV. Price i s. By the Au- thor of the Letter. The Reverend Mr. Trojfe^s Arguments anfwer'd, relating to the Lord Jefus Chrift, and the Deity of the Holy Ghoft; taken from his Catechifm, and Sermon on Luke 22.31. Price 3 d, An Anfwer to Mr. Watts, concerning the Trinity, b^ing a fober Appeal to a 'Turk or an Indian* Price 2 i". The Apoftles Creed better than the Aflembly s Catechifm : Or, Ae Doafine bf Chrift and his Apo- ftles concerning the Unity and Trinity; Price i Si FARTHER REMARKS O N Dr. WATERLANUs FARTHER VINDICATION OF CHRlSTs Divinity. By Phi L A L ETHES C a ntabrigiensi s. LONDON: Printed for J. Noon at the White Hart in Cheapfide near the Poultry. Mdccxxiv. Price I Xt CORRIGENDA. PAGE 7. 1. 2. read. t^V;^psT/x«\ p. 2(5, p. 27, p. ^7, in the Notes read /'r^x. for /'rcJx. p. 43. 1, i. r. ^x wem. p. ^7. 1. 28. for fecondly^ r. moreover. THE INTRODUCTION. jR. IVmerLvid, in the Conclufion of the fecond Defenfe of his Queries^ had fum'd up the Ccntroverfy concerning the DoElrine of the Trimtyy in three Queftions, in order to bring it to a iliort lilue ; viz,, 1. J^hat the DoEirine to be examind is ? 2. Whether it he pojjtble ? 3 . Whether it he true ? Tlie third QuelHon depending (according to the Dodor) upon Scripture and Antiquity, I faw, had been largely difcufs'd on both Sides : Dr, W, had fpent his Strength, and I thought all reafonable and learned Men could not but fee and be fatisfy^'d, that he was fully confuted beyond all Poflibility of Reply on thefe Heads : And that this Part had been fo weakly manag'd hy him in his fecond De- fenfe, that it was plain he had done, tho* he was refolv'd not to be filent, but to give Words (and often very foul ones) when he had nothing elfe to offer ; and fo, I thought, that the making any further particular Reply to what he Qimld repeat B without (2) Without End, would be no lefs than affronting the Senfe and Underflandings of the Readers. I judg'd therefore that Dr. W- wou'd be glad to be eas'd of the Labour of any farther arguing upon Scripture and Antiquity^ in both which, the' he had taken a great deal of Pains, it was evident (at lead to me) that he rightly underflood fo little of either, that in writing of about fifteen hundred Pages upon the Subjed, he was not able to alledge fo much as one Text of Scripture, or one fingle Teftimony of any antient Chriftian Writer for more than three Centuries, at all in Favour of his No- tion ', and had he pleasM to have been pertinent, and to have kept clofe to the principal Points in Queflion, he might have reduc'd (as he obferves) all that he has faid, to two or three Sheets of Paper. As the Doctrine oj the Trinity is a Scripture Doc- trine, and was certainly taught and believ'd by the primitive Church, fo it was very proper to enquire into the Senfe of Scripture and Antiquity concerning it : But yet, I was always of Opinion, that Di% W-^^s Notion and Explication of this Dodrine was. not only moft plainly and expredy contrary to the whole Tenor of Scripture and Antiquity^ but alfo as demonftratively oppofite and contradidory to the mofl: evident Principles of Reafon, as even Tranfuh^ ftantiation itfcJf, or the Popifh Explanation of the Doftrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper^ tho' that Dodrine is a Scripture DoElrine alfo : And therefore it feem'd to be a Favour to give Dr. JV'-'S Notion a hearing out of Scripture and Anti- quity^ when it might eaiily have been confuted at once, r?) once, by ckmonflrating the Impoffibility of the Truth of it from Arguments of Reafon. But two things were to be done by Dr. W—s Adverfaries. Firjly to fhew the true Scripture Dcclrine of the Trinity attefled to -by the primitive Church ; and. Secondly i to fhew that Dr. IV-s Notion was not the Doftrine of either, and was inconfiftent with both. In the Courfe of which Debate they now and then let Dr. Pf/ — fee [[[-i order to bring him to a more unprejudicM Attention to the Doc- trine of Scripture, and of the ancient Church} that his Notion is repugnant to the firft and mofi: evi- dent Principles of natural Reafon^ and is a mani- feft Abfurdity and Contradidion in itfelf. With thefe Arguments the Dr* is always fenfibly touth'd, calls them vain Philofophy and Metaphyfics i and cries out perpetually of Unfaimefs and hnperti- nency in arguing from Reafon and the Nature of the Things when the Controverfy is about the Senfe of Scripture and Antiquity ; and moil fhamefully quib- bles in order to evade them. But thefe Arguments being alledg'd againfl him to fliow that his Inferences [for he has nothing but Inferences to urge] from the Words of Scripture and Antiquity cannot be right Conclufions, as being con- tradidory to Reafon^ they are both fair and to the Purpofe : And how low an Opinion foever Pr. W. has exprefsM of Reafon iw this Controverfy, [which flipws plainly that he is afraid of it] yet I am of Opinion, and think I have fhown that mere abflrad Reafon, diftind from the Confideration of Scripture B z and (4) and Antiqmtyy may be apply'd to this Controverfy i and that it may be, and is prov'd that Dr.W—s Notion is inconfillent with it. So that I own I was fomewhat furpriz^'d, tho* not without being pleas'd at the fame time, that Dr. W—- fhould ven- ture to propofe his Notion to be try^d and debated upon Principles of Reafon ; and that he fhouM give his Ad\ erfaries Leave, and even challenge them to try their Strength^ in the Point in which he thinks it fmfl certainly lies^ * namely, in the Queflion of the Poffihi- Ijty of his Notion; ail the Arguments relating to which he had hitherto defpis'd, or fhaniefully evaded. This Handle which the Dr. had given (boafting at the fame time of Vidory before hand) I was glad to take ; for altho' I knew that if Dr. IV— s Notion was m itfeif pofjlhle, it had been neverthe- lefs fufEciently prov'd to be falfe^ as being inconfi- ftent with Scripture and Ardiquity ; yet I doubted not but it might be lliown to be abfoiutely imfoffibky upon the moft plain and certain Principles oi Reafon. On this Account I accepted his Challenge j and provM in a plain, eafy, and flrift argumentative way, that his Notion was inconfiftent with the firft and fundamental Principles o'c natural Religion; con- tradidory to itfeif in many Refpeds, and in^ceflarily ended in Tritheifm, which is the fame as Atheifm. That whilft he pleaded for his miRaken Notion of tlie Divinity of Chrijl^ he really deftroy'd both that^ and the Divinity of the one God and Father of (lU^ wbp is i. ' ' ' . . .. ' • f id Pefen, p, 516, 527. . is above all, by deftroying the Unity, I further fhow'd, that his Notion was repugnant to the whole Tenor of Scripture and Antiquity^ in relation to the Generation and Licarnaticn of the Son of God ; the one of which he has reducM to a mere Mode of Exjflence in the Father, or a te?nporal Manifeftation^ dzo and the other to a mere Phantoin or Appearance i fo that Chriftianity is totally overthrown by his No- tion, as well as natural Religion. Laftly, to cut fhort the Argument betwixt him and his Adverfaries with Relpe(5t to Antiquity ; I {howM him that his Pretences of the Son's Confuh* ftantialityy Eternity^ necejfary Exiflence, and having Creative Powers, on the Suppoficion of which he builds his Hypothefis, were either very falfe, or very inconclufive : For upon the Principles of An- tient Phikfophy, neither Confubjiantiality^ Eternity^ having Creative Powers, or even necejfary Exijienc^ itfelf, was thought to infer an Equality with the one God 3 or Supremacy of Power and Dominion ; buC on the contrary might exift in a Being fuppos'd to be inferior and fubjeEi to the one Supreme God, and whofe perfonal Subfiflence was even created. But more particularly I fliew'd the Dr. that whatever Notion the primitive Chriftians had of the Cmjubflantiality of the Son [tho' not one, whofe Writings are extant, ever exprefly makes mention of it, but TertuUian, and that in a very low Senfe, as being a fmall part of thq Father's SuLfiance, to whom he might add Laciantius, if he thought him of any Advantage] yet neither thefe or any other Writer ever infer'd from this, or any other Charader of of the Son, that he was the one God Supremey or equal to the Father in Authority^ Powers or Dominiony but the contrary. 3. Neither was any fuch thing ever infer'd by the AntientSj from their Notion of the Son's Eter- nityy which was no more than a Proaval Duration^ or ante'mundane Exifiencey without any Limitamn of time 5 and which, unJefs it meant an umriginatei Duration of Exigence (from which they exprefly diflinguifh'd it) was always believ'd to be, and certainly really is confident with all pofTible Suhor^ dination and SubjeBion of the Son to the Father : And nothing can be more weak and unreafona^lc than for Dr, W* to urge this as an Argument for his Notion, not daring at the fame time to afErin that the Son is (tho' his Notion really fuppofes him to be) umriginated» 3. The necejfary Exijlence of the Son is the moft plaufible Plea for the D/s Opinion ; but that is fo far from being taught by any antient Chriflian Writer, that Dr. W, infers it in a moft monftroufly abfurd manner from them, whilft they arc inculca- ting in the plaineft and moft exprefs Words the con-. trary Dodrine of the Son's Generation, (his ame-mun-^ dane and higheft Generation) by the IViU and Purpofe of God the Father : Dr. IV. all the time betraying fo great Ignorance and Unacquaintednefs with an- tient Books, as not to know or confider, that necejfary Exiftence and Self- exijlence is the fame thing, un- queftionably the fame in itfelfy and was fo under- ftpod by the moft antient Writers, whether Heathen or Chriftian- . Lafily, (7) Laftly, the Creative Powers of the Son ^wcrc al\)^rays underflood and exprefs'd to be (vToi^m^) Miniflerialy not [^uOsvTixa] Authoritative^ Original or Supreme ; and the Antients were fo far from inferring hence the Son to be the Supreme God and Maker of all JhingSy that they never fcruple exprefly to teach that he was created* So weak or utterly falfe is every Ground on which Dr. IV* builds his Notion, that one might (not without Reafon) judge from thefe Pleas which he conilantly urges, and which are all he has to offer, that he either never well read or rightly underflood one antient Book at all. All this was briefly offer'd in a Letter to him^ which, I perceive by his laft Pamphlet, he received and read : But whether he repented of having made his Challenge, or did not intend a Challenge^ but only a Flourijh to go handfomly off with, hoping that no Body wouM mind ity he beft knows. But inftead of defending hirafelf on the Points propofed by himfelf, he falls into a violent Paflion, and calls us very hard Names. Firft, he brands us with the Name of * Ariansy which he knows is with many (who judge by Names more than by 'Things) one of the moft odious Charaders. But if he wou'd tell what he means by Arians^ he wou'd either fhew that he knows not what an Anan iSy or that his Charge of Arianifmy (on thofe who infifi: not on, nay, who condemn thofe who do infifi on the particular 'Tenets ofAriam) is a mofl injurious Calumny. ^ Nexr> ! Pag. I. (i) Next, he goes a Strain higher, and fays *, we are refolute in our Opfojiticn to the Faith of Chriflj (tho* that is what we contend for, and wou'd gladly fpend our earneft Breath in the Defenfe of it) blaf- fheming his Godhead, (which we moil: humbly adore) impugning his IVorJIjip, (to which we devote both our Souls and Bodies) and defpijing every kind Offer of InflruEiion or Exhortation to convince or reclaim us^ (tho' we make the Scripture the only Rule of our Belief, and defire not to be wife above what is written) Thus Dr, W, appeals to the Prejudices and Paf-- ftons of the vulgar and ignorant ; and thefe are the Words of this courteous Gentleman, who declares he thinks it a much greater Dif grace to be outdone in Ci- vility, than in Argument, f Thus this vain and unhappy Man [unhappy in his Caufe, which is certainly one of the worll: and mofl; indefenfible in the World ; and ftill more unhappy in the Spirit with which he has manag'd it] accufeth and reviles his Brethren for maintaining (at leaft in their own Opinion) the Caufe of God and of true Religion ; the Dodrine of Chrift and his Apoflles, and of the whole Pri- mitive Church ; and for oppo/Ing his Principles^ which (howfoever the Defenfe of them may be thought or well intended by him to be a Vindication of Chriffs Divinity) are moft plainly deftruftive both of that, and of the Divinity of God the Father himfelf, and necejGTarily (tho* to be fure he does not know or confider it) coincide with and infer the Impiety of Tritheifm; and which un- doubtedly ♦ Pag. I. t Pag. 134. (9) doubtedly won'd hive been condemn'd by the whole Primitive Churchy and even by the Council of Nice itfelf. Yet the Dr* has fo high and peculiar a Con- ceit of his own Performances, as to allow all thofe who are not convinced by them, (of what, I think, it is impofTible any rsafonahle and unprejudiced Man Ihou'd ever be convinc'd) no better a Charader than that of Defpifers of every kind Offer of Ir/flruElion, Thefc are the iveak and pajfonate Efforts of an impotent and baffled Adverfary ^ who, as foon as his fecond Deferfe appear'd, I faw had done reafcning ; and now is carried forth to fuch an Height of Fiercenefs and Railing, that it may be thought un- merciful to urge him any farther. I fhall not therefore take upon me [indeed it were a Pity that any one fhou^d] to confider every ueak and tU-natu/d thing which Dr. W. has faid in this his farther Vindication^ But fince he hath vouchfafed to take a little notice of the Remarks pubiifhM againfi his fecond Defenfe ; and to attempt an Anfwer to fome Parts of them ; and hath withal inCi^itd on feveral things which were argued againft him in them : I flialJ prcfume to offer a it^N farther Remarks upon fuch Parts of the D/s farther Vindication, as either are alledg'd in Anfwer to my former Remarks^ or relate to the Arguments v/hich are debated in them. The Dr. begins his Vindication, with bringing up all his flale Pretences which had been confuted over and over. C I. Th«? ( 10) * I. The Charge of his Adverfaries making two Gcds^ one fupreme, and another infer tor : Which is a Solecifm m Language ; for two Gcds are in Propriety of Speech, in the Account of Reh'gion, and in the Senfe of the Ancients, two unoriginated, two co-ordinate^ two equals two fupreme Gods ; if the Son is prov'd to be inferior or fubordinate to the Father, he cannot with the Father make two God^. If the Dr. will Hill have ic that a fubordinate Perfon derivd from andfubjeSi to the one God, which fubordinate Per- fon is yet alfo ftil'd God, is another God, and with the one God the Father makes two Gods, he mufl: reply (not to his Adverfaries) but to thofe Scrip- tures which mention many Gods, But I have prov'd againft him, that his Notion, and his only, makes tivo Gods llridly and properly fpeaking, J two fw freme co-ordinate Gads^ And this Charge is truly un- fupportable to the Dr$ Notion, and muft at laft fatally fink it, 2. He pretends his Adverfaries have not got over the Difficulty of fufpojlng the Son and Holy Ghofi to be Creatures, in direEl Oppojltion to Scripture and Antiquity, \ This is nothing but a poor Quibble upon the Word Creature, which is ambiguous, and which I prov'd at large to be no more a Difficulty in the Notion * Pag. 4. ^ Remarks ^^.\ Of, I 5, I^, 24, 25, iCi. Ps.nA No'vat, ecjuahs invent! duos Deos merito reddidilfent non geniti. — C\ invifibilis fuiflet cam invifibili (Patre) coUatus, ^ar expreflus— fi incom- prehenfibilis, (1 & cxtera quaecunq; funt Patris; merito dici- mus, dnorum Veortfmj quam ifti contingunt, controverfiam fuf- ^trafT^t. c. 51* t Pag- 4- (II) Notion of Dr. IV—'s Adverfaries, than in his own Notion ; and if Dr. W. pleafes to look into Ami- quityy which he feems here at lead to have not con- fider'd , he will find that almoft all the Antients to a Man thought that the Scripture did flile the Son z Creature ; and they themfelves never fcruple to ftilc the Son and Spirit Creatures, meaning [not that they are made like unto us, or like the ordinary Creatures vulgarly fo call'd] but that they were produc'd or derivd in an ineffable manner by the in- comprehen/ible Po-wer and TVtU of the one Gcd and Father of all, ivho if above all. This Dr. W—'s Ad- verfaries had unanfwerably £hown in many * PafTa- ges of the E.eply to Wis fir fl Defenfe, to which others might be added ; and to thefe the Dr. has not attempted any Reply, [for I call his Defence of his 12th Query, wherein this Matter was to be confi- der'd, no Reply, but a mere Duft of Words quite foreign to the Purpofe] nor can he ever reply, un- iefs it be as he does to all other things, by Diflinc- tions and Evafans, and Showing that (if pofTible) Words have no meaning ,• and fo^ that Creation and Creature is the fame as Generation and Son ; and Ge* neration and Son the fame as neceffary or felf Exifience, and the one God and Father of all : And by fuch a way as this, he can prove any Tubing to he any 'Thing' But if the Dr. wou'd argue reafonably and tairly, he might be fenfible there is no anfwering to this Point ; and that they, who were as zealous for the Honour and Divinity of the Son as Z)r. IV* can be, C 2 wou'd ♦ Se& Reply, P, 3 2 5,^3 3<;. woii'd never have declared his SuhordinatJon and Suh- jeEiion to the Father in fuch Arong Terms as to ftile him Creature^ if they had not thought it neceflary to maintain the alone Supremacy of the God and Father of all^ and to preferve the Unity. To renew this Charge therefore betrays either great * Weak- nefs, or fomething worfe. 3. He wants Satiifa^ion about Chrifl being Crea'- tor and Creature tco ; f when he knows that Chrift is neither in Scripture, or by the Antients ever under- ftood to be Creator^ but only as being (not the Su- preme Maker of all things, not the one God of whom are ali things) but the Perfon i?y whom, (through whofe Minijiration) are all things : And this in the very Nature of Grammar fhows the Subordination and Sub- jeEiion of the Son in the Work of Creation ; and Dr. W. himfelf owns that the Son aEled a minifierial Part, and executed the Orders and Commands of the Fa- ther : All which demonflrates that the Son's creative Powers are not fupreme, and that he is not Creator in the Senfe in which the one God of whom are all 'fhings is Creator ; he is the Minijler, Agent, and Ex- ecutor of the Will of the Sovereign Creator, and Lord of aH. But what can a Man do in Dr» W--s Condi- tion, (if he is refolvM not to be convinc'd) but repeat the fame flale things, tho' they had been confiderM ^nd confuted a thoufand times ? To proceed • A principal Charge againft Dr. W-*s Notion is ; that it takes away the natural and necef- fary Supremacy of the one God and Father of all, his Supremacy ^ S^e Rem* p, 50— dz. t P^g- 5» Supremacy of Authority and Domimon, on which, according to the univerfal Voice of Reafony and the firft Principle both of natural and reveaVd Religion, and the unanimous Dodrine of the antient Church, the Unity of God is founded. On this alone Supre- macy the Scripture places the abfolute Invifibihty of the Father, on which account it was impoffible for him either to be fent or be incarnate ; and the Via- bility, MiiTion, and Incarnation of the Son, who was fent in our Flefh to do the Father's Will : On this Supremacy the primitive Church infifted fo far, as to aiErm it to be impojjibk, ahfurd, fenfekfsy and impious^ to fay that [o ^^k t«v oA«v] the God ftipreme over ally or God the Father, cou'd be an Angel or Mejfenger^ be vifibky fent or become incarnate and paffible ; and that it was in the Name and by the Au- thority of the Father, that the Word or Son of God fuftain'd all thefe Charaders. This Supremacy of the Father, and SubjeEiion of the Son to him, Dr, W» will not allow to h^ natural or ejfentialy but fays it is merely contingent and precarious^ might not have been, m\dmay ceafe to be; i and every where infills that the Son is equally fupreme and independent Gcd ; equal and co-ordinate in Nature, and in every Per^ feEiion ' So that the Father, as Father, has in himfelf no more Authority over the Son, than the Son has over the Father,- and that the Son's aciing a minifierial Part does not proceed from the inherent Sovereign- ty and Dominion of the Father, but from the vo- luntary Agreement and Concert of the Son with him, as t Pag. 90. (H) as another fupreme independent Agent ; which volun- tary Agreement the Dr» calls the Oecommy, But this Notion of the Oeconomy is a mere groundlefs Imagination and PiEiion ; and fliows that the Dr. who boafts fo much of his Knowledge of the Antients, and comparatively defpifes his Adver- farieSj really knows little of this Matter. There is not a Word of any fuch mutual Agree- went and Concert [which the Dr. perpetually talks of as if it was a known thing] to be met with amongft the Antients ; nothing that founds or looks like it. The Oeconomy w^s underftood (as the Word im- ports) to be the Oeconomy, Difpenfation or Goueru- menty not of the Father and Son together, as two equal independent fupreme Perfons come to Terms of Agreement ; but of the Father only, who, by Vertuc of his underivd fupreme Authority, manifefted and ftnt his Son into the World, to ad as his Minifler^ in his Name, and by his Authority \ to execute his Orders, WiO, and Commandments, and to become at laft, in Obedience to liim, incarnate and pajjibk, in which the Oeconomy was confummated. In this Oeconomy the Fa therms (dv^evrfei) fupreme Majefly^ Dignity and Honour was difplay'd -, and the [to v'^vip^.n^ xov] Mtniflration and SubjeBion of the Son to him was fet forth ,• who, by the Father's Sovereign Au- thority and Will, as an obedient Son, as an Angel and Meffenger, did thofe things which it was not only incongruous, hut abfolutely impoffible both in the Nature of things, and as being derogatory to \\\s Supremacy^ for the Father, for the one God and Father of all, to do in his own Perfon. Had the Antients thought that , (15) that this Oecommy was the mere mutual Concert and Jgreement of two equally fufreme ; and that there- fore it was in hk\^ pojpble (as the Dr. prefumptu- pufly affirms) that the Father himfwlf might have acied the mhufierial Part in Obedience to the Son ; might have been vifible, fenty and at laft incarnate and fajjible : Had the Ancients, I fay, been of Dr. W"S Opinion, wou'd they have ilil'd it * fenfekfsy f abfurd^ § impious, J atheifttcal, and * diabolical Blafphemy, to afcribe all thefe things to the Father^ or to the one God over all; and yet think it congruousy proper 2Lhd pious, to afcribe them to the Son, if they had thought the Son equally the one God over al!$ and equally fupreme with the Father ? I defire Dr» W, to look again into the Ancients, before he offers this Pretence any more. Or let him confult Bijbof Bull 2Lnd Pear/on, who have more truly and ingenu- oufly fpoke the Senfe of the Ancients in this Matter, than Dr- W, has, tho' they have not fpoke their full Senfe. The Words of Bifhop Bull are very remarkably different from Dr. fV-s Notion in this Point. " tin * Juft. Mart. Dial, cum Tryp. P. 73. edit. Gr. Apol. 2, P. i5r. t Novat. c. 16. Eufeb. Hift. Eccles. c. 2. P. 4. Dem. Evang. lib. I. p. II. - $ Synod. Antioc. adv. P. fam o Sar. 5 Hufeb. de Eccles. TheoJ. lib. z. c. 4. * Tertul. adv. prax. c. i. (i6) ^^ *' t In their Opinion (fpeaking of the Antients unl- "*' verfally) God the Father never was nor ever cou^d "be feen of any one, no, not even by any aflum'd *' Symbols (or Reprefentation of his Prefence.) *' He having no Original, is fubjeft to none ; and " can no more be faid to be fent, than to be begot-' ** ten by another. On the contrary the Son of God, *^ as being begotten of God the Father, does on that ** Account certainly o-uje all his Power to the Father, *^ as received from him : Nor is it lefs honourable " for him to be fent, than to be begotten of the ** Father." In which Words ^tis obfervable how greatly the learned Bifhop's Notioii of the Oeconomy difagrees with Dr- IV-s. The Bifhop gives it for the unanimous Opinion of the Antients, not only that the Father was not vijible, (iho pcffible to have been fo, as Dr. W, thinks) but that it was impojjible for him to have been feen : The Reafon of which follows (not as Dr. W. pretends, becaufe it was otherwife voluntarily agreed) but becaufe the Father being umriginate was Jubjecl to none i it was an In- ftance of Subjedion, of which the Father,the Original and Fountain of all Power, (as the Bjfl:)Of prefently adds) was not naturally capable ; who couM no more f Ex ipforum (vetenitr.) Senrentia, Deus Pater a nemine nnquam, ne per afTumptas cjuidem fpecies vifus eft, aut videri ptep, A nullo ille ortus principio nulli fubje£lus eft: neque magis ab alio miflus, quam ab alio natus dici poteft. Con- tra fiVius Dei, qua ex Deo Patre natus eo certe nomine'Pa- tri fuam omnem Audoritatem acceptam refert ; neqoe mi- nus rpfi honorificum a Patre mitti, quam ex Patre nafci. De- fen. F. N. Se£t. 4. c. 3. (17) more be fent than he cou'd be begotten ; i. e, cou'd not htfenty not by Vertue of an Agreement to the contrary merely/tho* otherwife, Dr, W. thinks, foffibly might have been fent) but cou'd not be fenty becaufe it was as naturaUy and neceffary impofpble for him to be fent as to be begotten, which latter Dr, W. himfelf allows was naturally impojjlble : And this natural Impoffbility of the Father^'s hQ'mo^fent was foun- ded in his Supremacy Jin his being the Fountain and Ori- ginal of all Power, which being derivd to the Son, whofe Nature alfo was derivd from the Father made the Miffion, not only compatible to the Son ; but (as the Bifhop concludes) made it as honourable for him to be the Father's Meflenger, as to be his Son ; making the Son's Miffion as natural as his Generation. Bijhop Pearfon alfo fpeaks excellently to this Purpofe. " We mud not fo far endeavour to involve our- *' felves in the Darknefs of this My fiery, as to deny " that Glory which is clearly due unto the Father ; *^ whofe Preeminence undeniably ccnfiils in this, that '' he is God, not of any other, but of himfelf ; and ^' that there is no other Perfon who is God, but is " God of him. It is no Diminution to the Son, to " fay he is from another -, for his very Name im- " ports as much. But it were a Diminution to the " Father, to fpeak fo of him : And there muil be " feme Preeminence, where there is Place for De- ** rogation." Creed, p. 35. D Hilary ( iS ) Hilary himfelf fays ; * " Who will refufe to ac- '^ knowledge that the Father is fuperior (to the *' Son) he that is unhegotten to him who is kgotten, ^' [which fhows this Superiority was underfiood to *' be natural^ the Father to the Son, he that fendeth '' to him that is fenr, he that commands to him who " obeys ?'* t Bafil alfo acknowledge th a Superiority^ a natural Superiority of the Father to the Son in Dignity and Honour y as being the Original and Caufe of f/;e ^Sb^/'s Exiftence, '^^ Alexander Bifhop of Alexandria infills upon the fame natural Preeminence of the Father to the Son : And T'ertulUan carries it to a much higher Pitch, when he fays, fpeaking of the Father, and his only begotten Word ,• tf " That which is un- *' begotten is more puijjam than that which is begot- *' ten ; and that which is unmade is more powerful '* tlian that which is made: For that which needed " no Original of its Exiftence, will be much fupe- " rior * Qiiis parrem non potiorem confitebitrir, iit ingenitum X genito, ut patrem u filio, m eiim qui miferit ab eo qui mif- fus eft, lit volentem ab ipfo qui obediat? de Trinit. lib. 3. on ei$x^ Kj ACi'ttt -n? «veu «mjt8 o sr«.7»if • Adv. Euum. lib. 5. p. 73. AiiJ again, Tt^t«» lib. 4. p. 100. ** Tftl fji-h iyivntci TretloJi c/x«ov ic^iafd-a p&\«JtTlejr /unS'iiA tS *';»«« «i;.Tc?T9r »Tjo» \e>"v?af. Epift. apud Theod. ft Innatum nazo fortiuSy & quod infe^lum fa £^0 valid ius: quii quod fit eilet nuUius eguir auftoris, multo fublimius erit eo, cjucd, ut effet, aliquem habuit au^^orem. Ad-v. Her- mo^:. c. 1 3. ( 19 ) " rior to that which had a Caufcof its ExiRence-" By which he fliows, in very fliong Terms, his No- tion of the natural Superiority of the Father to the Son, which Dr. IV. condantly denies- Any one who is the leall vers'd in Antiquity, cannot but obferve, that it is the conilanc, univerfal and unva- riable Do(5crine of the Primitive Church to place the Unity of God in the unoriginated Dominion of the Father (as Bifhop Peaifon alfo hath obferv'd) ; the Paternity itfelf was always thought to imply a Suhlnnity and Authority, which the Son had not, and to which he was fuhjetl : And upon account of the Self-origination^ the Father was taught to be greater and more excellent than the Son, in Deity^ in Nature^ in Dominion and Vo-wer ; and to be his LQ)-d and his Cod : On the fame Account alfo, the Father only vv^as worfhip'd as the one fupreme God, and all the Worfhip of the Son was founded in his Will and Appointment, and always underfiood to be directed finally to the Glory cf God the Father, as St. Paul fpeaks, Phil. 2- II. All which is inconteftable Evi- dence, that the Supremacy of the Father, and his Superiority to the Son, was ever lookM upon by the Antients (agreeably to Scripture and the Reafon of Things) as natural and necejfary ; as being the natu- ral and necejfary Confequent of the Unoriginatenefs of the Father, and of the Originatenefs of the Son, (which Dr. IV- himfelf allows to be natural and necejfary, P. 38.) and not to be founded on any volun- tary Agreement and Concert of the Son witii the Fa- ther, as another eq^ual, independent fupreme Agent : Hence alfo it plainly follows in the Keafon of the D 2 things ( io ) thing, as well as from the Evidence of FaE}, that the Antients believM the Origination and Exiftence of the Son to proceed from the IVilI^ and voluntary Power of the Father i otherwife they wou'd not, (as in Reafon they cou'd not) have placed the Unity in the divine Paternity ; and attributed any Supremacy or Superiority to the Father above the Son, in Re- fpeci of his being the [y-Ayvi O^oVviTog] Fountain of the Deity; the [^PX^.> ^^^' ^''^^'^ '^^ ^^^'] Original and Caufe of the Exifience of the Son. Hence farther Dr. W. may learn, (what he has not at all confidet'd, and i^ perpetually confounded in) the Reafon why the Titles of [o ^m Tuv 6'Xwy, unus Deus, &c.] Godfu- preme over ally the one God, &c. are perpetually us'd and underltood by the Antients to fignify the fame as the [o 'KciTVi^ Twv oXwv, tfJTT^tvTwv, Deus> pater] Father of all ^ or God the Father , namely, becaufe of the natural Supremacy and Dominion of the Father, founded necellarily in his umriginated Nature ; and his being Author and Caufe , the real and voluntary Caufe of the Exifience of all other Beings, and even of the Son and Spirit. In Oppofition to all which, to Scripture, Antiquity,, and the Reafon of things. Dr. W. pretends, with- out any Evidence either from the Antenicene or Nicene Church, (even the moll eminent Pcftni- cenes differing from him in this Point alfo, and many the mofl learned Moderns, BuH, Pearfon, &:c.) that the Father has no natural Supremacy, no natural Power, Authority or Superiority over the Son ; and that his Unoriginatenefs is only a Supremacy of mere Order^ Vas being prior in Conception-, * in Order of Caufality, * Pag. 44- Caufalityy he alfo allows, if it be underflood, in the eld Senfe of Caufality refpeEiing emanative necejfary Caufes ; which is neither indeed the old Senfe, or any Serfe : In ihort, Dr. W- will not admit the Sufre- macy of the Father's Unoriginatenefs, which is natural and neceffary, to be any PerfeFIion, but only to be a mere Mode of Exigence, j Nor the Generation of the Son to be any real Derivation or Rmiffion of Being from the Father ; or to imply in it any Sub- ordination of Nature, or Pouer j but to be only another M?^^ of exifling, a mere . Relation of Order, Thus Dr* W. in the mofl: abfurd and contradidory manner, in the neceflary Confequence of his Notion, both deftroys the Unity of God, by denying the natu- ral and neceffary Supremacy o£ the Father in Autho- rity and Dominion ; and making the Son another neceffarily exijicnt, independent fupreme Agent, and Go- vernor of the World, co-ordinate to the Father in Deity^ and all effential PerfeBicns ; and at the fame time exprefleth this his Ditheifm in fuch a manner, (to blind his Reader's Eyes from feeing that he takes away the Unity) as in Words at leaft to make the Son the fame Perfon with the Father ; afl'erting and infilling that there is no Difference of the Son and the Father in Nature, Deity, and Perfeclionsy that they are the fame, individually the fame in both ; and that they differ in nothing but in Origmutenefs and Unoriginatenefs, which, (tho' a very great Diffe- rence in the Opinion of the Antients) is with £)r. W. nothing but a Difference in mere abflrad Rela- tion, ( ii ) . tio'a, or Mode of E^rfieNce, which Bifhop Bull himfelf exprefly affirms to be * Sabelltanifrh, Dr. M^' having reduced to nothing the natural and real Supremacy of the one God and Father of ally who is above ally which is the Foundation of the Unity , and the firft Principle both of natural and reveaVd Reli- gion j indead of it, he fets up a figurative, imagi- nary ^ and merely theatrical Supremacy, which he calls a Supremacy of Office, f and Oecommical ; and by a mere FiEiion founds it in a fuppos'd voluntary Agree- ment and Concert between the Father and the Son ; wherein the Son confents, (tho' equal in Authority and Poiver with the Father) to aB a miniflerial Part for a while ; to be the Father^'s Minifler and Agent, and execute his Orders, and at laft become incarnate : To this time the Father was to be alone fupreme\ but afterwards the Son^ Miniftration was to ceafe ; and the Father was to deliver up to him that King- dom in which he had from the beginning of the Vv'orld aded [by the Son's Leave] as fupreme, and the Supremacy of it was to devolve to the Son ; and (according to Dr. IV.) the Father has no Power in Chrift's mediatorial Kingdom ; nor is to have any to the end of the World ; and therefore he ex- prefly fays, that the Father's Dominion is not yet ple- nary and over all things, J and refers to i Cor* 15. 28. And at the end of the World, it feems, the Oeconomy * Addo ego Perfonam ^ne Eifentia concipi non pofle, roSi ftatueris Perfonam in divinis nihil aJ'iud ejfe cjuam nie- vum rp^Tcv t»V«V5s*'5» ^uod plane Sabellianum eii. Def. F. N. lib. 4. P. ^7,^. T Pag. 9. ? 2-^- Defen. Pig. 81. ( ^3 ) ^ Oecommy is entirely to ceafe ; and then Father and Son are neither of them to be alone fuprenie^ but both to exercife their eciual inharent and natural Su- premacy and Independency cf Do?myiion over all things. This is Dr, W-s Scheme, as I take it, which I re- fer to any reafonable or ferious Perfon to confider, whether it is the Religion of Chrift taught in the Scripture, and profefs'd by the Primitive Church ; and whether it is or can be confifient with Reafouy and the Principles of natural Religion, Befides further, as the Dr's Oecommy is merely fictitious and chim^j'ical ; fo the two Words Supre- macy and Office, d.s put together by Dr^ IV, are really two Blunders. 1. It is a Blunder to talk of Supreinacy of Office m regard to God ; thcfupretne God can have no Office. office m the Nature of it fuppofes Subordination, and the Perfon invefied with it to be delegated, to h^mt fupreme. 2. 'Tis abfurd to talk cf Supremacy, without ad- mitting fome Powers, Authority, or Dominion to be- long to the Perfon alone, who is fupreme : The very Notion of Supremacy carries along with it perfonal, incommunicable Poner, Authority, Dominion and Supe^ riority over ail others, without which Supremacy is-a mere empty Name, is nothing real. Laflly ; to fup- pofe the Supremacy of the one God and Father of all, icho is above all, to be nothing in Nature, nothing natural or effenttal to his Perfon, but founded merely in the voluntary Agreement of the Son, is not only a mere invented Hypothefis, an abfurd Maginati on, hut a Notion directly tending to Lreligicn and Impiety, And And for Dr, IV. further to affirm and infift that the neceffary Exiflence of the Son, [on which he places his Sttfremacy of Nature and Power'] is a. certain, plairiy Catholic Isnet, always and univerfally believed by the Chur- ches ofChrift, * without being able to alledge the leafl Evidence of it from any one antient Writer in the World i and in point blank Contradidion to the numerous exprefs Sentiments of Antiquity for 300 Tears ; as well as in Oppofition to Scripture and the plain Reafon of things : This, I fay, is fuch an hardy and Ciamelefs Aflertion of a manifeft Untruth, (nay of what is altogether impoffible to be true) as muft greatly {hake the Credit and Teftimony of the Man that fpeaks it in other things. Co-eternity is another Charader which Dr. W. here, and frequently elfewhere, roundly and without blufhing afcribes to the Son, as a CathoUck Tenet, always and univerfally believd : And yet no one Writer extant for three Centuries ever attributes Co-eternity to the Son ,• and many, whofe Writings are extant, exprefly deny it ; nay, Dr^ IV' himfelf owns con- cerning many of the Antients, that the Word, whofe Co-eternity was ajferted by them, was not confiderd pre- cifely under the Formality of a Son : t i- e. It was confi- der'd (he m'ght as well have faid) by them, either as a mere internal Property or Attribute of God the Father -, or as another unbegotten Perfon ; and he may take which Notion he pleafes, or find a Me- dium if he can : So little does the Dr. confider what he fo peremptorily afferts. The * Pag. 8. t i^ I^ef. p. 1^6, ( ^5 ) The Truth is (as hath been obferv'd before) the Eternity of the Son, as that fignifies an ante-mundane Exigence without any Li?mtation of Time or Duration, may be (and is all that can with Truth be) allowM to have been believd by the Antients. But as no Confequence in Reafon can hence be drawn for the necejfary Exiftence or Equality of the Son, fo neither did the Antients ever infer liis necejfary Exiftence or Equality with the Father from it : On the contrary, they unanimoufly pro- fefs'd that the Generation of the Son, tho^ irwas, as fome taught, ['^rpo t^'vtwv ^f/wvwv, Trpo «T£/pwv a/wvwv"] before all Ages, before infinite Ages, was yet [not necef- fary,^ but voluntary, was by the /^/^ and Purpofe of God the Father: And ic is very remarkable, that the great and learned Eufebius, who carried the Notion of the Sony's Exiftence as high, if not higher than any other exprefly does ; and affirmed his Generation X.0 be [a.1lm~] eternal; yet at the fame time exprefly alf6 denies him to have an eternal Ge- neration in any other Senfe than by the Will oi the Father: and makes Eternity, in any other Senfe, to be the fame as felf Exiftence \ and acct)rdingly charges Marcellus, who held the Eternity of the IVord in the Senfe o^ necejfary Exiftence, with making the Word unoriginate and 5 unbegotten* Confubftantiality is another Chara&er on which Dr. TV. builds the Son's Supremacy, a.nd alledges it to have been a Catholic Tenet, * always and uni-v erf ally believd: Yet it was very rarely mentioned ; and was fo far from E being 1 Eufeb. Eccles. Theol. lib. i. c. 3. 12. * Pag. 8. (16) being thought to infer necejfary E^xifteuce or Supremacy.^ either of Nature^ or Perfections, that f Origen, who is thought to be one whp taught it, (upon Princi- ples of Philofophy, npt as a Chriftian Dodrine) is alfo upon the fame Evidence thought to hav^ held the Confuhftantiality of Angeh and humane Souls ; and is declared by the molt zealous Athanafians themfelves to have made the Son a Creature. Ter- tuUian i$ another, who, when a Montanifi at leaft, taugl]t the Confubfl ami alky of the Son, but yet ex- prefly piakes him a Creature alfo ,• and teaches with O.rigSK, that the Souls of Men are confubfl ami al with God, J [ex Subflantia ipfms, fc Dei, animatas] that tbeir Souls are derivd from the Subflance of God ; which is yery like the ExprefTion of the Nicene Council con- cerning the Cor/fubfiamialny of the Son, who they f;^y is. [^yewi^^slg en t% i(^icig ra 'KciTi^og'^ begotten of the Subftance of the Father » Dr. TV's Pretence that 'TertuliianAid not holcl the Confubftantiality of Souls, § hecaufe he had utterly deny'd it of Angels, is groundlefs: For in his faying th^t Angels are [ft alieni a Sub- ftantia Patris] feparate fr$m the Sub fiance of the Father, he does npt deny their Confuhjiantiajity with God, nor fuppofe thein to have been made [ex aliena Subflantia] cut of any other Subrange but Gods ; but only means that they are not fo clcfely unipe^ to Gpdj as his Son and Spirit, He argues that the economy t -^gf)/ rtp%<( lib* i» apud Hieron. Epift. ad Avit« 5 Adv. Prox. c. 5. (} Paga lOOo it Advc Prox. c. 5, i-^l) O^conbmy cannot make a Divijton of the divine Mcnar^ chy, as being admini/Ier'd by the Son and Sj^irit, who are * [tarn unicis] fo much one^ fo inueh united to the Father ; fince it is not divided when admini- fter'd by Angels, who are not (tarn unicis) fo much cne, fo much united to the Father, but [tarn alienis] fo far from any fuch Union (as the Son and Spirit have) vdith the Subftancs of the Father, This is T^ertut-- Hans Argument^ if the Dr. wou'd attend to it. Thefe are the Plea^ hrom which Dr MA infers^ [what the Antients never thought of, but exprefly taught the contrary] the necejfary Exiftence and Supre-^ macy of the Son, and thereby takes away the Su- premacy of the one God and Father of ah\ v^ho is dkvi aUy and with it defiroys the Unity. The Ground of Dr. W 's Inference for the necef firy Eociftence of the Son is, that if he is not neceffd- riiy-exifientyf he tx'As /precarioujly and contingently; and he infids that there is no Medium betwixt necejfary Exifience, 5 and precarious ExiflenCe. Ths meaning of which [if it has any meaning] is^ that if the Son is not neceffanly-exiflent, which is con- trary to the evident Keafon of things, the Senfe of Scripture, and of all Antiqjiity, then he txi^s by the Will, ^y the vchiraary Power and Agency of the Fa- ther, is not independent, 7incriginatedy and of co-ordinate Deity and Perfections with the Father ; which is the unanimous Doftrine of Scripture, and of the pi-imitrve Church, concurring with the Nature and F^safcn of thing?* And (o, no doubt, if there is no' E 2 Medium, * AJ-s% ?rox. c. >, t Pug. 8. 5 ^'< 47« (zS) Medium, the Exifience of the Son is fo hv preca-* rious as this comes to. But ftill Jefm Chrifl is the fame yeflerday^ to day, and for ever, as the Scripture teflifies. He has not a precarious^ but an immortal and immutable Exiftence, immutable by the Will of the Father, but not independent of him- The Ex- iftence of the Son is no more precarious, than Dr. JV, makes the Supremacy oithe one God and Father of all, who is above all, [pardon the Shockingnefs of the Expreffion, ^precarious;] who teacheth that what he abfurdly calls the Supremacy of Office, and which is the only Supremacy of Dominion, which, ac- cording to him,the Father has or can have, is mere- ly ceconomical, not natural or effential; that it de- pends on the voluntary Agreement of the Son, and in the Nature of things was poffible not to have been at all, and may ceafe to be i] Nay, on the con- trary, that the Son might have had the Supremacy, and the Father have aEied the minijlerial Part, have receivd and obeyd the Orders of the Son, been incar^ nate and pafftble ; and in Confequence of this Oeco- mmy, (if there is any thing in Dr. W-'s reafoning from the fuppos'd Precarioufnefs of the Son) the one God and Father of all, -who is above all, might have been fo precarious, as that the Son wou'd have been to the Father, (which the Antients, agreeably to Scripture, z^rm the Father to be to the Son) his Ruler^ his Lord and his God ; to reward him (as Z)r. TV- ar- gues) 5 if he does well, to punijh him if he does amiff, to do with him according to his WtU and Pleafure, as with * Pag;, ^c, t Pag. 90. 5 Pag. 8. ( ^9 ) ivith any other Creature. This may let the Br, fee the fatal Tendency of his own ra(h Words, who regards not where or on whom his Arguments fall, if they are but level'd at his Adverfaries ; and is willing to give up the Supreme Dominion of the one God and Father of ally as precarious , rather than be deprivM of the Pretence of his Adverfaries making the Son precarious^ becaufe they infill that he is begotten of the Father, that is, by the Power and IVtU of the Father , and does not exift by an independent Necejfty of Nature, i. e. is not felfex- ifient or unhegotten : The Dr, difputing all the while contrary to all Senfe and Reafon, that neceffary Exiftence is not the fame as felf Exiftence* The Dr- is forc^'d after all his Struggles to own,' that there may be Difficulties in reconciling the Equality and Supremacy together. ^B\xc as no one Text of Scripture, or Teftimony of any antient Writer ever declares the Son to be equal [in Power and Dominion] to the Father, tho' the contrary Doftrine is frequently taught in exprefs Terms j fo I know of no Dif- ficultyy unlefs the plaineft Contradiciions are Difficul- ties, which is the only way that the Dr, has of re- conciling them together. In Conclufion of this Argument, the Dr- alledges that the charging him with t difoivning the Fathers natural and neceffary Supremacy of Dominion at all, is Iniquity. He thinks^ there is a great deal of Diffe^ rence betvceen faying^ that the Father has a natural and neceffary Dominion over the Creatures in common with the Son * Pag. lo. -j- Pag. lo. (30) Svn nnd holy Ghofl, and faying^ that he has ni) ndtU-^ ral Supremacy of Di^minion at alL In the former Part of the Sentence, the Z)r» drops the Word Supreme before Dominion^ as if confcious that he ihou'd liave made a Blunder if he had added it, thereby making Supreme Domi- nion common to three Perfons, which is a Contra^ didion in Terms : And, fecondiy, i£ the Dr. pleafes, there is no Iniquity^ but a great deal of 'Truths ivi making a difownwg of the alone fupreme natural Domi- nion of the one God and Father of all ^ who is ak've ally to be a difowning of his fupreme Dominion at all. Nothing can be plainer than that, if the one God and Father cf all, who is above all, is not alone fupreme-^ he cannot be at all fupreme ; there are no Degrees nor can be any Commimicatim of Supremacy ; and if two 6r three Peribns are fuppos'd to be abfolutely equal in every things (in all Power and Dominion) ^tis evident that no one of them is or can be fu- preme in any thing. If this is not Demonftration, there is no fuch thing in Nature. Therefore, if there is any Iniquity^ ix. is in the Drs thus poorly endea- vouring to evade a true Charge of the greateft Moment, by putting a Fallacy upon his carelefs and ignorant Reader, I meet with nothing that belongs to me to con- fider, till I come to Page 21, where the Dr. to Ihow that he has not wholly flighted the Remarks, vouchfafes to take notice of an Argum.ent urg'd in them, againft his grand Plea of Union of Subftanc^^ which is all he has to depend on to prove that the three divine Perfons^ each of which diftindly he allow? to (?? ) to be 4n intelligent acting Suhjlance^ or an inteUigeta Agents are [viz., by an infeparable Union of Sub- llance] one individual intelligent ading Subftance, or vne God. The Argument offer'd againft his Notion briefly is i that if the Union of acling Suh fiance made the three Perfons one ading Subflance, one in Number i then the Union of Perfon, which the Dr. himfeif de- fines to be a;i inteUigent Agent or aBing Suhfiancey and which Union he makes to be as chje and infefa- rahle as that of Subflance, muft for the fame Reafon jnake the three Perfons to be one Perfon. This Ar- gument the Dr, who is wont to allow as little as pofTible to any thing ofler'd by his Adverfaries, .grants to be exprefs'd plainly^ and urgd handfomly enough, tho -cjitb too 7nuch Boafling; f and I fuppc fe, if he fiiou'd do it the Honour of a fecond Notice, he will tell me, I am grown proud upon it. But let us hear the D/s Anfwer. He fays^ tho' the Union of the three Perfons (each Perfon beiyjg Subftayice) makes them one Subftance^ yet the fame Union does not make them one Perfon : His Reafon is, becaufe Union oj Subftance is one thing, and Uiity of Perfon is another - But what need the Dr, quibble thus if he had any thing to reply ? The Argument is not whether Union of Sub- ftance and Unity of Perfon are the fame ^ but the Ar- gument is, that the Refuk of the frme Union of the fame Thing mull: be the fame : i. e. if Union of ading Subftance makes ading Subftance, one in Number^ the fame Union of Perfon, which is nothing t ^a-. 21. nothing but ailing Subftance, muft make cne Per/on^ i. e. again 5 aclir^g Suhftancey one in Number , which is the fame as one Perfon. If the afting Subfiance of three is one, one adting Subftance in Number y becaufe of the Union ; then the Perfon^ i. e. again the afting Subftance, of threey muft be one^ one Perfon in Num-^ hery becaufe of the fame Union. Again , the ading Subftance which conftitiites the Pe/fon of the Father is no more the ad:ing Subftance which conftitutes the Perfon of the Son or Spirit, than the Perfon of the Faiher is their Perfons ; \is Union alone which according to the Dr, makes the ading Subftance of Father, Son and holy Ghoft, all one, one afting Subftance in Nutnher; and therefore the fame Union muft make the Perfon^ for that is ftill the aBing Sub- flancey of Father, Son and holy Ghoft, all one, one Terfon in Number* Once more. Union (with the Dr.) makes acting Subftance^ aEiing Subfiance^ aH^ing Subftance, each (as I obferv'd juft now) diflinci from the other, to be one individual aBing Subftance ; muft not the /i?;?^ Union then make Perfon, Perfon, Perfon^ each diflinEi alfo, to be one individual Perfon ? And this too, fuppofing Perfon and ading Subftance to. be different, and therefore much more (if poffible) when they are the fame* For ftnce 'tis the Union alone that makes the Unity in our Cafe, it muft do fo in the other, or in any Cafe : For Example; \i any Kind of Union cou'd make three Angels, one Angel, wou'd not tht fame Kind of Union make three Men, cne Man ; or produce the fame Effed, the fame Unity in any other Inftances ? Nothing in the World (I think) can pofTibly be plainer than all this. And the the D}\ himfelf is Co fenfible of it, that he allows the Argument of the Remarks to be good, in the Suppojition that * Perfon and aEiiug Siihftance are equi- 'valent and reciprocal ; ijchich the Author of the Remarks (he adds) had Acutenefs enough to fee, and therefore fixes upon mey unfairly, that 'very Suppofition : And refers to his Definition of Perfon, but cares not to produce the Words which are to fhow that the Terms are not reciprocal; as knowing very well, no doubt^ that the Addition which he puts to intelligent Agent, or aEiing Subflance, namely, having the diflmBive Cha- raBers of I, Thou, He, &c. is nothing to the Pur- pofe, nor alters the Argument in the leaf: : And if the Terms were really different, I have fhow^'d it wou'd fignjfy nothing. But that the Dr. may not think to come off with this Pretence, Til be at the Trouble to put down his whole Definition, (tho', for his own Credit, he had much better not have mentioned it, for 'tis a very flrange and confus a one) into the Argument, that the Reader may iee, I have us'd no Unfaimefs, [and the Drs Confcience might fmite him when he laid it to my Charge] and that the Confeqtience is ftill exadly the fame. According to Dr. W- then, each Perfon is an inteU ligent Agent or aHing Subftance, f having the difimElive CharaSlers of I, Thou, He ; and not divided or dif- tingui/Jj d into more intelligent Agents capable of tie fame CharaElers. Now, [no: to repeat what has been already faid] the Point with him is,how to make the F diftind Pag. J I. t :i. Def. Pag. i^6. (34) diftind ading Subftance, [with the forementlon^d Chambers of I, &:c.] of Father, Son, and holy Ghoft, to be one aEiing Subflance in Number^ without making it one ading Subftance in the fame Senfe, as he defines a Perfon to be ading Subftance, i* e- without making it one Agent, or one Perfon. This he thinks is to be done by an infeparable Union of Subftance : But then his infuperable DiiEculty is^ that whatfoever thing infeparable Union of aBing Subftance (with the diftindive Charaders, &c.) makes ; the fame infeparable Union ol Perfon, (i. e. again, of ading Subftance with the diftindive Cha- raders^ &c.) muft neceftarily make the fame thing. If the Union of the ojie makes one individual, nume- rical acting Subftance, the Union of the other muft for the fame Reafon make one individual, numeri- cal Perfon, Union can plainly make no more or no lefs Alteration in the ading Subftance, (having the diftindive Charaders, &c.) than it can make in the Perfon, tho' (as was obferv'd) it were different, and therefore much more (if pofTible) fince it is thQ fame thing* So that it the Subftance is fo unitedy that the DiftinBion of the Subftance of Father, Son, and holy Ghoft ceafeth ; and the ading Subftance is not only undivided, but the ading Subftance, the Agency, the Intelligence, &c. of one Perfon, is the in- dividual ading Subftance, the individual Agency, In- telligence, &lc. of all the three Perfons, and not diffe- rent ; then are their Perfons demonftratively one and the fame Perfon. But on the other hand ; if in this Union, the ading Subftance, the Agency, the Intel/i- gence, ^x. of one Perfon remains, (tho' undivided and r 35 ; and fnfeparable) yet individually difiinfi from that of the other Perfons; then they are three really diftinft (tho' undivided and infeparable) individual ading Subftances, Beings, or Agents (with the diftindive Charaders, &c.) i.e. three diftmci PerjonSy but not otherwife. And now I will venture to repeat, that let Dr. W* turn this Argument about in his Head as much as he will, he will find it to be mmnfwerahle. And if he will maintain three dillmdi Perfons, equal, fupye?ne, and co-ordinate in Deity, Nature, Suhftance and Perfeclicns ; he mufl in Confequence, how fliocking foever the Kotion be, maintain three equal, ftipreme, co-ordinate Beings, Subflances, Agents, i. e. three f up- eme Gods, And no Union can make them literally one individual Subftance, or one Gcd, any otherwife than by making them one Agent, and one Perfon, i. e. by deflroying the DiJiinElion of their Agency, Intelligence, or perfonal Properties. I fhall take notice here once more for all, [to avoid endlefs trifling] of the D/s poor Diftindion of ading Sub/lance, and an acting Sub- ftance, which is the fame as the Diftindion of Perfon and a Perfon ; as i^ with him the Perfons were not each a diftinB Subflance, or dijiinci Perfon^, but [as he imagines \n his Adverfaries Notion of the Omniprefence~\ were only Parts or Conftituents of one Subflance, and one Perfon. But if the Dr, will deny, that each Perfon (which he fancifully calls ading Subflance, rather than an acting Sub- flance) \% a diflinH: fingular exiftent Subftance or Being, he mufl be accounted as a perfed Sc ranger 10 Antiquity, and unavoidably run into Sale Hi aw fm, F 2 the ( 3<^ ) the very Efence of which confifled in making the three Perfons one individual fingular exiftent Sub- fiance or Being, I e. according to the Catholkksy one Ferfon* I have dwelt longer on this Argument than was needful, and have prefs^'d it, I fear, with too much Uneafinefs to xhtDr : But his way of Evafion, and always 2.dding one Shift or another to blind his Reader, and elude what he cannot anfwer, in a. manner obliged me to be thus particular and large. And now that the Dr. has forc'd me to mention his Definition of Per/on, [which, in Favour to him, I took no notice of before] I will make an Obfer- vation or two upon it. Fj'rft ; it follows from the D/s Definition, that the Words of Scripture, / am the Lord — and there is no God bejide M E j "Thou Jhalt ijuorfiip the Lord thy God, and H i m only Jhalt thou ferve, cannot denote more Perfons than oney or include the Tr/- nity y becaufe the Texts are fpoken of an intelligent Agent with the difiindive Charaders /, Thou, He, and which Agent, with the diflinBive CharaBers, is not divided or dijiingiajh'd into fmre intelligent Agents capa- ble of the fame CharaSiers j j 'tis but one Agent, with one I, Him, Me, that is reprefen ted in the Texts, which is the Drs Definition of a fngle Perfon* 2. The Dr. fays, that the [GeavOpw^o^] God-man is dijtyigle Perfon ; yet aflirming that he is two intelli- gent Agents, >u*o aBing Subfiances : And here comes in the Ufe of the latter Part of his Definition, cal- culated merely for this Purpofe, viz. not divided or diflinguijl/d t 2^d- Defo p. 5^6. (37) diflinguijh'd into more intelligent Agents capable of the fame CharacierSj of I^ &c. Was ever any thing fo nice as this ? So that Chrifi is more intelligent Agents than one, yet but one Perfon; becaufe the Dr. will have it that one of the intelligent Agents [viz. the humane] is not capa- ble of the diftinEii've or perfonal CharaEiers of /, &c. Whence it follows (according to the Dr.) that fpeaking of the mere Man Jefus, we cannot fay that He increased in Wifdom, Luc. 2. 52. Nor can wc fay, as our Lord did, M e, ^z Man that hath told you the Truth, Jo. 8. 40 The H e, and the M e (accor- ding to the Dr,) belong only to the [><6yog'] Perfon of the IVord ; and the humane intelligent Agent is not capable of thefe CharaEiers* ' But is not this a mere invented Hypothejis ? And what Reafon can the Dr. give that every intelligent Agent is not capable of the perfonal Charaders ? That every intelligent Agent in the World (liou'd be a cornpleat Perfon, except the Man Chrifi Jefus ; that H E only [the Dr. will pardon my not know- ing how to fpeak otherwife than by faying H e] fhouM be an incompkat intelligent Agent, wanting and not being capable of the Charaders which all other intelligent Agents, all other Men have. Is it not then much more likely to be the true Reafon, why the Scripture reprefents Chrifi to be but one I, dec, but^?f Perfon, that he is but cne Pc^r- fon, in the fame Senfe as all other fingle Perfons are but one Perfon ; than that the Scripture fhou'd be made to fpeak a Language diflerent from all others, and from the common Senfe and Reafon of Alankind ? But ( 38 ) But this is not all ; for after the Z)r. has fuppos'd Chriji to be a compound Per/on,-* [compounded really of two Perfons^ which feems to me to be a dividing ef Chrifi, and fo like the f Cerynthian Herefy, that I know not how, unlefs I might ufe fome.of the D/s DifiinEiionSy to diftinguifh them] he fays, the [Aoyo?] Word was a P erf on before the Incarriation^ as much as after ; but by taking in a Soul and Body, the whole P^y^ fon then is made up of all three* Now here the DiiEculty is; how the [^orojj Wbrd^ which was a Perfon, a whole and dijlinB Jingle Perfon, before the Incarnation, underwent fuch a Change and Dimimiticny as to be afterwards not a whole Perfon, but only Part of a Perfon ; the whole Perfon then (according to the Dr.) being not the [>^6yog'] Word fingly, but the Word, the Soul and the Body, all three together* Is not this making the [Aoyo?] Word mutable^ as well as uniting to it an in- compleat Agent ? The Br. no doubt, has it at his Finger's Ends to anfwer, that the Word, after the Incarnation, became a compound Perfon, being only a fimple Perfon before. Admitting this ; here is fHU a Change^ which is certainly incompatible to the///- preme Deity : The one fupreme God is abfokitely in- capable of being compounded, which is worth the' Drs Confideration. Bat what if a compound Perfon is Nmfenfe^ A Soul in an humane Body is not (as * 2d. Def. P. 367. •]■ The Cerynihians made a Dlftinrtion betwixt Jefiis and Chr'ifl, and thereby did Kvziv rh ^n^'^v (as many antient Co- pies read i jfo. 4. 5.) divide J^^fiff from Cbrip, making the latter a diftinut Ferfon from the former. ( 39 ) (as the Dr. imagines it is) a compound Per/on ; the luhole Perfon is the Jlmple intelligent Agent without any Confideration of the Body; and when we fay, John is fat, healthful, &c. the meaning is, thsLtJohfi the Agent, the Perfon of John, is fat or healthful, with rSfped to be fure to his Body only, which is not really any Part of his Perfon, but the Body of his Perfon only : I wonder the Dr. fhou'd not fee fo plain a thing as this is, efpecially when he cou'd fee that the Soul is as much a Perfon without the Body as with it. In Ihort, the Dr, is fuch a fukile Scholajiic, that with him an intelligem Agent fhall have Intelligence, Agency, Power, Will, and all perfo- nal Properties whatfoever, and yet fhall not be a Perfon, or capable of the -diftindive Charaders, I, &c- (which neverthelefs only ferve to denote Intelli- gence, Agency, dec- and the being invelled with them is being an intelligent or rational Agent.) Nay, what is ftill more wonderful i more Perfons than one, each a fingle Perfon, or diflind intelligent aBtng Suhftance, Ihall not be more Suhfiances than one; fhall be but one in Number : And which is the top of all, even in the very fame Perfon, inore than one intelligent ading Subftance, [_one of which is, according to him, more than one Perfon] fhall yet together make but one Perfon. I fay here, one of which is more than one Perfon ac- cording to the Dr. unkfs he will either feparate the divine Subllance, which is incarnate, from the Per- fons fubfilHng in it ; or own the Subftance of the Word to be di/Iin^ from the Subflance of the other Perfons, and give over calling them, in a deceitful manner, one Subftance, one in Number. ISlow f 40 ) Nov/ fure the Dr, cou'd not intend his Account of Perfon^ for ferious Argument -, and I cannot help bringing to Mind the Conduct of the Popjh School- meriy who, in order to introduce the monftrous Hypothefisor Doclrine of Jranfuhftantiation^ invented a Jargon cali'd School- Divinity, 2l Philofophy *contra- didory to all true Phtlofophy, to all the Senfe and Reafon of Mankind, in order to fupport a Notion equally contradidory. The Dr^ muft pardon my bringing this Part of Jiis Defenfe upon the Stage, and putting him in Mind of his own Words upon it, viz. Tto // any Man has any T'hing to ohjeB to. it, * he will be willing either more fully to explain, or elfe to alter his Notion ^ as he fees Re af on for it. The next Particular I am concern'd in, is the Charge of the D/s denying any real Generation of the Son, either temporal or eternal Which is certainly FaB, and cannot be gainfaid, even with refped to all his three Generations, as he calls them ,* (tho' his Adverfary, he ought to have confider'd, was only fpeaking of Generation before the IVorld) for accor- ding to the Dr> every Generation of the Son is only either a mere Manifeflation, or Mode of Exiftence, or the eternal Co-extflence of another imhegotten Perfon. Inftead of a Defenfe, he falls foul upon his Ad- verfaries, and calls the attributing the Words, before all Ages, to the Council of Nice, a Blunder, A t Mi' ftake, I grant, it is ', but it alters nothing in the Ar- gument. * 2d Def. Pag. 9^$. t P^S* 23. ( 41 ) gument. For both J Orjgen and Eufehhis^ who held the Gensratkn of the Son to be before all Agesy with- out any Limitation ot Time, yet made ic voluntary^ or by the W'lU of the Father ; which is what Z)r. ^^, calls temporal: And they both \xsdi the fame Simih'cude of Light and Splendor^ as TertuUian alfo does, who the Z)r. allows to be one of thofe who comes into the vohmary and * temporal Ge}7eratim : And Alexander himfelf infifts that the [to ^yivvv^rovl uncriginated Exigence of the Father imply 'd in it an higher Notion of Duration or Exigence, thaa the Words \j6 de}^ ^po «\a;vwv] al-waysy or hefire th Agesy afcrib'd to the Son, di\6. \ and exprefly oppofes it to the Son's antemundane Exigence, alvjays and before the Ages- So that the Dr.- is brought in^ whether he will or not, as a l/cucher for the Ancient i [both An- tenicene and NicQne'] profejjing no more than a temporal Generation^ [tho' I think it a Blunder or Solecifm in the Dr. to call an antemundane Generation without Limitation of Time, 3. temporal Generation'] tho'* they exprefly fay that it iLas before all Ages, This the Dr- mufl: own, unle fs he will own that what he calls the eternal Generation vjQlS voluntary, as that which Origen and Eifebius fpeak of (and no doubt the fame is true of Alexander ^ "Theogncftus and Z)/o- mftus of Alex.) exprefly is- I defire to make one or two Obfervations on the • preceding Argument. G I. Of a-ffr1o7Xi)t@^ TTu'cTBc x];rt«r, Lib. 4. vifi «Vx * ^V^^ J^^« eniit. ad Men, Huer. 0,ig. Pag. 41. EkfcHhs's Nctioi is fo well knov^ii as nei^Js J^®^ to te here inicucd. ♦adDcf. P^i^. 104, a?»- ( 4^ ) I. Of the nvo ancient Similitudes, Light and Lighty Light and Splendor, the Dr. fays ; the Simili- tude of Light from Light [^w^ c'x (pwro^] fervd more peculiarly * to Jrgnify the Confubflamiality .-and yet he owns that the f Son proceeded [ in his Senfe of the Opinion of the Antients. Next, the Dr. arraigns the Learning of his Adver- faries, in a Point in which I am fomewhat con- cerned, viz. their afferting that the Antients never expref/d G 2 the * P. 24. I Phot. CoJ. io<^. Cave Hiff. Lit. p. 98. Bafil. Fpiff, 41. Phor. Cod. 10^. Gennad. da Ecclef. Dog. c. 4. ( 44- ) the firji (or eternal) Generation of the Son by Filiation or Generation or begetting^ or by any other equivalent 'Term I 5 ^nd roundly calls it a notorious Untruth' Now the Reader ought to know, what it is the D/s Adverfaries really do fay; for it is almofl im- poflible for him ever to know the Truth from the jDr's Reprefentation of them, who has got an in- tolerable Habit of difguifing or mifreprefenting every Thing. The Dr's Notion is that there are tv:o antemun- dane Generations of the Son ; the fyfl or prior of which, he fays, * is his mofl proper Filiation and Ge- neration and in Refpetl of which y chiefly, he is the only- begotten and a dtJiinB F erf on from the Father, And he fays that f taking the Fathers colledively there is Demonflration for them. Now what his Adverfaries afTert upon this is; that it is fo far from Demonfira-* tion, that the Fathers coHeBively held fujo antemun- dane Generations, that there is no mention made of two by fo much as any one ancient or Antenicene Writer ; the Dr- cannot produce one Pafl'age for them : And that which he calls thcfrji or prior of the two is a mere Chimaera. The Truth plainly is ; that the Antients (with Scripture) held but one antemundane Generation of the Soil, which fome of them feem to have car- ried higher y and fome lower ; fome made it [^rpo ^dvTuv amuv'^ before all Ages without any Limitation of Time ; this is the highefl and all the eternal or antemundane Generation which thefe Writers fpeak of i tvfo of which, who carried it as high, ii not higher * ift D>d^. p. 1343 155. t ad Def. p. 311. (45) higher than the reft, were Origen and Eufehius ; yet both were far from making it mceffary^ but, on the contrary, expredy made it 'voluntary. Others of the Antients feem to have thought the Generation of the Son to precede, but a little, the Creation of the World. There were many of this Opinion, ^uflin, Tatmii, AthenagnaSy IheophiluSy 'tertulliany Hippolhusy LaciantittSy &c. and they are known never to fpeak of any other or higher Generation ; and the Dr. is forc'd to own it. So that his fir ft ^nd prior of tix:o antemundane Generations (which he calls the eternal 2Lnd only proper Filiation) i^ wholly without Evidence. This is the Charge againft him, and he has not produced fo much as one Tef- timony in his own Defeiife. He himfelf calls the Notion of the foremention'd Writers concerning the Exifrence of the [j^h^(i\ Wordy prior to the Ge- neration, an exifliy?g in [not a Generation of or from] the Father ; * the eternal [hoyoo] Word of the eternal Mind. And more exprefly fays, f that they ajferted the Co-eternity of tie Word, tho' not confider'd frecifely under the Formality of a Son. And again, after al- lowing the highefi Generation fpoken of by many of the Antients to be 'voluntary and temporaly he puts the Qiieftion himfelf: J Well hut then you II fay ,• -v^hat he-- comes of what I call eternal Generation? I anfwery that before the Procejjion the [_>^o'yc;~] Word was h 7K<^pi, as Juflin woud haue exprefs'd it (but never does) — and this is the fame thing which Pofiniccne Fathers (tho* 1 do not find that neither) called eternal Generation, viz* ♦ ift Def. p. 155. t ift- Def.p. 14^. ? id.Def. p. z??. viz. that eternal Relation and Reference ivhkh hs had to the Father ; in who?n^ and with ixihomy and of vjhom he always was : By which Words the Dr, fure does not mean that the IVord was eternally both in and of or from the Father. But not one Teftimony all this while has this learned Dr, fo well vers'd in the Antients, been able to alledge for their calling [which is what he was to prove] the Exigence of the [y^oyoi] Word in the Father, by the Name of Generation, Filiation, &c. or any other equivalent Term. This is the Drsfirfl and higbeft Generation, prior to his temporal, ante-mundane and voluntary one ; and he is challeng'd to bring any Evidence or Tef- timony from any one antient Writer in the World, as calling this (which is the Dr's only proper Gene- ration of the Son) by the Name of Generation at all, or any thing like it. Nay, he feems to be confcious that it is never fo called, by terming it himfelf an eternal Reference or Relation, and elfewhere a Mode of Extflence, which is a very different thing from Ge^ neration or Derivation of a real Perfon from another : and it feems (nor does the Dr, difallow it) to have been the Senfe of the Nicene Fathers, that the Exiftence of the Word m the Father, prior to his antemundane Generation, was not itfeif a Gene- ration from the Father, but an Exiftence in him, potentially and in an unbegorten manner, as * Eu- febius reprefents it. Further, I wou'd beg of the Dr» the next time he writes, to fhow where the Pofinicene dy%vvfiTci>f. Eufeb. Epift. ad Ecclef. Caefar. apud Theodoret. lib* I* Bccles. Hill. (47) pofkicene Fathers call the eternal Exiftence of the iVord^ in the Father, by the Term of Generation, So prefumptuous is this Gentleman, in charging haflily, and without giving himfelf time to think, his Adverfaries with alVerting a notorious Umruthy when what they aifert is certain and undeniable 'Truth, The Dr, proceeds to (how his Senfe of the eternal Generation t being merely a Co-exiflence with, not a Derivation from the Father. And the laft Refult of his Notion is, that the IVord is not eternally begotten or derivM from the Father, but only has an QtcvnalRelation to him ; is the eternal >^6yog [f v^/«Q;ito?, the internal IVord or Reafon] of the eternal Mind\ which, he fays, is the aptefl Similitude to exprefs the Coetemity, Yes, it may aptly exprefs the Coeternity of an Attribute^ Proferty, or internal Relation of the Father ; but not of a real Per/on generated from the Father • And it is to be remember'd, that he fays, that the fVord in this Cafe is not confidered pre- cifely under the Formality of a Son : the plain Confe- quf nee of which is, that the Word is either an At- tribute, Mode, Property^ Relation, &c. or is another unbegotten Perfon. The Dr. was charged with making the Terms, one God, to mean * no Body knows what. Here he an- fwers ,* J that one God means one necejfarily exifling, all perfeEl, all fufficient Subflance or Being- To which I reply ; does notfelfExifience, and being deri'vdfrom none, the having all Power and Dominion of himfelf, being t Pag, 29. * See^^^;. p. 20— 25. ? Pa (48) being the one God of whom are all things ; do not, I fay, thefe Charaders come neceilarily into the De- finition of the one God ? Let the Dr, confult Reafon, read and confider the Scripture and the AntientSy and then he will be able to tell what one God means* In the mean time, I have diftindly proved again(l him, that his Notion of God is fo confus'd, that neither he himfelf or any Body c\k can tell what he means by it. The Dr. allows, by Vertue of i Cor. 8. 6. that the Son is excluded from being God in that eminent J manner y that unoriginate manner as the Father is ; not from being God in the fame Senfe of the Word, The Fathers being God in an unoriginate manner, and which the Dr* ililes an eminent manner too, is not- withftanding it feems being God in no Senfe of the Word j for the Son, he fays, tho' not unoriginate, not God in this eminent manner, is yet God in the fame Senfe with the Father. Was ever any thing like this, tho' I ow*n 'tis like the Dr ? Bat it being certain and moft unqueftionable that there is no other Senfe of the Father's being God, but this eminent, this unoriginate Senfe ; and that the Nature and all . the PerfeBions of the Father are unoriginate^ and that thefe conftitute his Deity ; the Son muft by neceflary Confequence be excluded from being God in the * fame, i.e. the eminent, the unoriginate* *S(?;^y^ in which the Father is GW. The Dr. adds: Since all things are of one (of the Father) ^/.^^ By {Through] r/?^w/^^r, (the Son) they together are one Fountain of all things. Mind the D/s Argument « Pag. 54. ^ Sqq Rem. p. 7 — U< ( 49 ) Argument : All things are of the Father , by [through] ?/;^ -Sow ; therefore all things arc of both. What can one do with a Difputant, that has no Regard to Grammar or common Senfe ? Let the Dr. confult * Philoy t Origen, and J Eufebius ; they'll teach him to argue better, and will tell him, that the Expref- iion, of whom are all' things, denotes the primary, original, authoritative Agency [dvhvTiuv'] of him who is the fupreme Caufe, the Fountain, the one God and Father of all, uho is above all ; but the Ex- preflion, by whom, fignifies, (in the Nature of Lan- guage) the [opr«vov, TO ikv^penKov] inflrumentaJ, miniflerial Caufe, the fecondary, fubordinate Agent I and t*hat it is abfurd to afcribe the Expref- (ion, by [through] whom^ to him who is abfolutely (o ^£o;) God, or the one fupreme God. The Dr. gives us a Caft of his Knowledge of the Amients, in roundly allerting that ever Jtnce the 'Terms Subftince and Perfon ** came into this Controverfyy Father and Son have been always believd and profefs'd to he one Subflance. After this great Pretence to An-^ tiquity, he has but one Inftance to alledge, and that not the Catholic, but the Montanifl TertuHian, (I can help him to one more, if he likes him, namely^ LaElantius) and which Paftage of his too, when rightly underftood, is nothing to the Purpofe. But now I will venture to affirm, that the Reverfe of what the Dr* here fo pofitively afl'erts, is the Truth : H And *De Cherub, p. 129. f Com. in Joh. p. 55, ^6, 5 De Ecclef. Theol. lib, i.e. 20, cont, MarceL lib, 2. c, I4s ** Pag. 580 ( 50) And that all the Antients have ever held Father and Son to be two Subftances^ two Natures^ two fpiri- tual Beings, &c. The Teftimonies are in the * Margin. And * of numerous Paflages for the Senfe of the Antients, the following may fuffice. %v ^Iv to dyivvuroVy o 'TrotVTOKpArap B^oi- iv S'l KciiTo i-^oyiVvnQiVi Ai tT Ta.ichT(t lyiviTO- There is one unbegotten Being, viz. God fupreme over all. and one iirft begotten Being, by (through) whom all things were made. Clem» Alex. Strom. 6. p. ^44. Where two things are obfer- vable ; Firft, the ttnhegouen Being is diftinguifh'd from the jffy/? hegotten Being: And fecondly ; the God fupreme over all is diftingmfh*d from the Word, hy whom are all things. 2. Ongen accounts it Sihelliayi to teach ; ixn^i i^istv KAt^h vjov* That the Holy Ghoil has not a proper Subjlance of its own dijlincl from the Father and the Son. Com. in Joh. p. 55. Again ; he fliles the Father and Son, Svo t» V'TTO^A^^ T^dyixd^Ay tivo fubfiftent Beings. Adu. Cels. lib. 8. p. 386". Again; he fays the Son is, t'Ji^oi — kaT v^lciVt ano- ther in Subftance (from the Father) de Orat. p. 48. Again he (hows, IJ? iKfici J^ti^naivdLil^ ^'^^h "jrAJipAi that the Fa- ther is dijrinci in EJJence (or Subftance) from the Son. Com. in Joh. p. 70. He calls Father and Son j^iia qjS)]a,y t?n Account] that the Diflindion oiperjonal Properties avehfi^ and the Perfons are the fame Perfon, or elfe diftind umrigi-* nated Perfons, which he owns to be Tritheifm. And that the fupreme Power of Generation is with the Dr* no Power at aU^ and confequently Generation m Generation at ally he intimates plainly m adding ; this fupreme Power of deriving, &c. amounts to nothing more than a Mode of exi fling. J The next Thing which concerns me, is; the Argument which Dr. W> had drawn from his Ad- verfaries Notion of the Divine Omniprefence^ to ex- plain his Notion of the Trinity , which was fliown to be both unfair and nothing to the Purpofe. He has not thought fit to anfwer the Arguments alledg'd againft him in the * Reinarks, tho' they lay before him : I fhall therefore leave him to confider a little better upon the Argument, only firft fhowing him feveral Errors which he has here committed in his Account of it. I. He fays, that upon the Hypothecs of his Ad- verfaries, there will be this f SuipfaKce and that Sub- fiance, and yet but one numerical Subftance in the whole* But this is not fo i for upon the Hypothefis of the emniprefent Subftance of God, there is no fuch Thing as this Subftance and that Subftance. The Subftance may (I think) be faid to confift of Parts^ or 5 See Rem. p. 52, 33, * Pag. 35—40. ( 54 ) or perhaps rather Conflituents ; and this Pan or Conjlituem is Subflance and that is Subflance^ which is all j but there is no fuch Thing as this Subflance, and that Subflance, i. e. difi^erent Subflances; be- caufe the Conflituents are not only infeparably united, but have no intelligent or ferfonal Fropcvtics fever al or diftinB, but are altogether, fo united, the Ground or Subjeft of an individual Onenefs or Unity of intelli" gent Properties ; there is but one Intelligence in Num- ber, one Agency in Number, and fo the whole is but one Subflance in Number, one Agent, one Per- fon, one God. And this fiiows the Difference of the Drs Explication of the Trinity, from that of the Omniprefence, 2' The D/s faying; This Part 'will be (in his Adverfaries Notion of the Omniprefence) one indi- vidual Subflance with thzt Part, is wrong again ; for no fwo Parts or Conflituents are the fame Part or Conflituent j they are indeed all together the fa?ne in- dividual Subflance, but not other wife. Jufl in like manner as two Parts of Space or Duration are not the fame individual Part, or one Part in Number ; but all the Parts together are one individual Space or Duration. A third Error of the Dr\ is, that he thinks the prefumption of his Notion being neceflarily either Irithejfm or Sabellianifm,^ is grounded upon the reafoning — that Subflance and Subflance however united muft make Subfiances. No, it is grounded [and immoveably too] ._ ^ j__ . ... .. I ,.j .... Ill— -1 - -— I II , . 1 Pag. 55r. ( 55 ) too] upon the reafoning, that Subflance and Suhfiance^^ Agent and Agent^ with d:ftinci perfonal or intelligent Properties, are and mufl be, however united, diftinEl Subllances, dijimti Agents, and, if all fupreme, dh "fijnci Gods' If the meUigent or perfonal Properties are diftinft, it is T'ritheifm or Ditheifm ; (even tho* the Subftance cou^d pofTibly be individually one) if they are not diflincl:, but individually the famey then, tho' there were one or more Subftances, united or not united, there wou'd be but one Per/on^ which is SabeUianifm, And ihQone or the other is altogether unavoidable in the Drs Notion i but not at all fo> as he may apprehend, m the Notion of the Omni" prefence. 4. The D/s charging me with * grofs Mif/epre- fentation for complaining of his pleading his Adver- faries Opinion as true^ at the fame time that he judged it to be erroneous and falfe, is itfelf a Mifre- prefentation. For it is not to the Purpofe for the Dr. to fay, that he pleads nothing but what he takes to he true, namely, that Subflance and Subftance in Union does not always make Subjiances, which (he adds) is Dr^ ClarkeV DoElrine as well as his.\ No, it is Dr. Clarke's Dodrine, that Subflance and Subflance^ when each Subftance is inverted with diflincl perfonal intelli- gent Powers or Properties (and efpecially when the Subftance of one is originated and derivd from the other which is unoriginated) always does, and al- ways muft make Subflances, howfoever united. And Union * i^ag. 57, t Pag. 5S. (5^1 Union of ading Subfiance can never make me Sub- fiance, one in Number^ but where there is alfo an Onenefs or individual Unity of perfonal intelligent properties :; i. e. never but where it makes one Per- fen as well as one Subftance* And therefore it is Fal- lacy in Dr» W* to argue from his Adverfaries Princi- ples of the omniprefent Subfiance being One^ by an Union of Subfiance and Unity of perfonal intelligent Properties together, to a like Unity of the Sub- fiance of the three divine Ferfons, from an Union of their Subfiance merely, without an Unity of per- fonal intelligent Properties ; as if becaufe an Unity of Properties made Subfiance individually one^ a 7r/- nity of Properties did the fame. But that very Rea-- foKy \Nfhic\\ makes the individual Unity of the omni- prefent Subllance by the effential and infeparable Union of the Conllituents of it, makes it impoillble that the three Perfons Ihou'd be m like manner me individual Subfiance* As therefore the Reafon why all the Conllituents of the omniprefent Subfiance make one individual Subfiance y znd one God, is ; be- caufe they are all of the fame Nature and EJfence, all -unoriginate, and all together the Subjed of an indivi- dual Unity of perfonal intelligent Properties, and thus are one individual Subfiance^ one Perfon, and one God : So the divine Perfons of the Trinity are not one individual Subfiance, becaufe the Nature, Sub*- fiance or EJfence of the Father is umriginate, that oi, the Son, &c, is originate, and their united Subfiance •is not the Subjed of an Unity, but of a Trinity of perfonal intelligent Properties, Powers or Attri- buteSj unoriginaud and origmatedi and fo they arc three three individusLl Subflances, three Agents, three Pcr- fons ; and, if all fupre?ne and c(hordmate in Deity, three Gods: And thisy the Dr, may plainly fee they are, for the very fame Reafon that the omnipre- fent Subftance is but otje Subfiance, one Agent, one Perfon, one God. So wide of any Parallel or Ana- logy of Argument is the D/s Explication of his Notion of the Trinity, from his Adverfaries Expli- cation of the Omniprefcme ; and fo he has no Pre- tence to retort the Difficulties of his Explication upon theirs. Concerning the Quefiion, how we JhaU prove from Scripture, * who is the eternal God whofe Exiflence is prov'd by Reafon ; we urge (fays the Dr.) in Favour of God the Sony that he is Ged according to Scripture y in the true and full Meaning of the IVord ; therefore he is the eternal God (whofe Exiflence iz prov*d l5y Reafon) and has no God akve him* But the Dr. had much better have let this Argu- ment drop. What ! do we difcdver by Reafofj a neceffarily exiftent God the Son? Does not, on the contrary, Reafon difcover to us, that the one God i$ the unoriginated God and Father of ally of Whom are all things ? Therefore we are fure that the Perfon ftyl'd God the Son in Scripture, who is originated and through whom are all things, cannot poffibly be the one fupreme God as difcover'd by natural Reafon^ who, Reafon affures us, is the underivd Fountain and Origi-' nal of alL The Idea of Unoriginatenefs neccflarily I enters ( 5^ J enters into the Notion of God as difcovcrM by the Light of Reafon ,• this is confider'd as the firfl and fupreme Perfedion of the Deity ; all Generation, all Reference to any thing as Head^ Fountain^ or Original of Exiflence, is excluded in the Idea of God as demonft rated by Reafon : And therefore it is evident that the Perfon of God the Son, according to the Drs Notion of him, cannot be the one God of Na- ture, the one fupreme neceffarily exiftent God mani- fefled by the Light of Reafon. The Dr^ flill infifls upon altering the Readings of all Antient Bocks,'* with Refpcd to the Word ^ymviTog with doable v, affirming that it ought always to be read ^yivviTog with fingle v ; and this without any Evidence of any MSS. and upon the mere Imagi- nation of a Difference in Sjnfe betwixt npcejjfary Ex* ifience, and felf Extfience ; which has no Foundation in Nature, or any Tefli monies from any antient Writer, either Heathen, Jewiflj or Chrifiian, as far as hath yet appeared. If in the ancient Theology there were (as Dr. IV. allows) ^yivi^To/ 6eo/, uncre' ated Gods, which were flill [ye'JVfrol o£ diriag'] origi- nated, or had a Caufe of their Exiflence ; the unorigi- natedfirjl Caife, from whom they were deriv'd, could not be better exprefs'd in Contradiftindion to them, than by the Word [dyhvYtTog'] unbegotten, or unorigi- nated* And it is well known, that the ufual Title oiGoiiviflomsr, Ennius, Plautus, Virgil, and other ancient Heathen V/riters both Poets and Philo- fophers, is Father of the Gods and Father of all, which in * Pag. 58. t See Rem* p. l,^,% lo, ii, I2, 13, ih i^' ( 59) , in Senfe is the fame as [dyhyv^rog] unhegotten : And fhows that they who ufed the one Expreflion, might very well and properly ufe the other ; and therefore that there is no Reafon for changing the Word ^yivvviTog into ^yhv^roQ, Bat after alJ, to fhow in one Word the Weaknefs of Dr, Pf/^'s, Criticifms, which he has purfued thro' fcveral * Pages ; the Amients^ as far as appears, made no Difference in Senfe betwixt the Words uyiv^ViTog and ^rfivv^roc, tho' they us'd both : And fo there is as much Reafon, in the thing itfelf, for changing dyht^rog into ^yivvv^roc with double v, as vice verfa. For in what Senfe the old Philofophers, Platonifts, and Stoicks faid that the inferior Gods and the World were [jiyevv^Tot'] uh" made, it was the fame as if they had faid ihey were, [^dyivvviTot'] underiijed ; meaning that they were w«- made, with refped to the Original [*u%v? and v Ati] Spirit and Matter, out of which they were fuppos'd to be formM, which original Spirit and Matter were, according to Plato, felf exifient unfortnd Subjedls or Stibflratums, out of which God formed all fpiritual and material Brings : And, according to the Stoicks, they were the Suhflance of the felf exiftent God him- felf, whom they fuppos'd to make all things out of his own Suhflance. But according to both, the difiinEi ferfonal Subjiftence of the Gods, and the World with refped to its dtflinci Formation, were made and were Creatures ot the one unhegotten fnpreme God- And tho' the Word [y^MViTO'i] created or made was apply 'd (as Simplicius upon Ariflotle obfcrves) to the things that I ^ were * 2d. Def. fxom p. 25^, to p. xSu were formed in a determinate Portkn of Time j yet it does not appear to me, that thofe later Platonifls^ who are faid to have thotight the UA)Yld and the inferior Gods to be eternal, ever exprefs'd the Notion pf their J^ternity by the Word ^yhvpro^y (tho' the learned * Dr. Cudworth thinks they did) but only by their being [««i, or «'/J/e/, or «h £V x^iv^^l alwaysy eternal, or not in time, meaning an Exiftence without Limitation of Time. But whether this was the Cafe or not ; yet there is no Appearance of the Word uyivyiTOi [admitting it to fignify eternal, with refped to the Perfons or Subjiftence of things] being ever usM to exprefs necejfary Exiftence and unmade, in Contradiftin^ion to felf Exiftence, or being unori" ginated : And thofe who fuppos'd the World, and the inferior Gods to be eternal, i. e. [a yiyviro) h %povip] not made in time, fuppos'd them yet to be [yevviToi] made, t So entirely void of all Reajon and Founda* tion is Dr. fV's Criticifm, and fo little carefully or judicioufly has he thought upqn the Matter in which he is fo pqiicive. Dr' IV, tells us; where the Suh flame is neither fef a" rate nor fe^arable (as in the divine Per/cm) ther^ Unity of Kind and Number are conftftent, 5 But this is a felf-evident Contradiftion ; for tlie Reafon why any Being is, or can be one in Kind, is, becaufe it is more than one in Number, becaufe it is one of many invef- ted with the fame fpecific ellcntial Properties, and, whether fef arable or not froni another, alters no- ' ^ ' ' ' thing : ♦ Intelleff, Sy{i, p» ^ 14, | See Rtm. p. 550—580- I Pag, 80. (61) thing : if it be cne in Numhery it cannot, for tha^ very Reafon, be one in Kind, As (according to the Obfervation of Bajil) nothing can be [oiio^m^ one in Kind with itfelf; Kind^ in the Nature of the Thing, fuppofing [iVspov ^^al iVspov] this and thaty me and another Being : So nothing can be one in Number with another i Unity of Number being indivilibie into more numerical Unities. So that Dr* IV* is as far as ever from cuttingoff(a,s hefpeaks) the main Argument of his Adverfaries at once. It is not my Eufinefs to examine particularly the Drs Defence of his Quotations from the t Antiems ; it feems he is refolv'd not to own Fallibility in z Thing he has once faid ; and his Defence of his Senfe of the Words of J Clem. Alex, and of * Cyril are, out of many, as remarkable Inftances of this Kind as can be produced. So that if the Dr. has a mind to fancy black to be white^ it is in vain for any one to convince him that it is not. Indeed upon the fullefl and moft mature Confideration, I really think, and it hath been fdly {hown, that every one of the Drs Citations from the Antients are eitlier foreign to the Argument, or Mifreprefentation of the Senfc of Antiquity. And if the Dr. ecu d, out of all his Reading or CoUedions from others, produce me but cne (ingic Paflage out of any one Writer be- fore or at the Council of Nice^ which in plain and exprefs 5 The Words of Clemetit are, J[^i, ^ f^Js frs^Carv, for the Senfe of which compare Rep!y, p. 144. with the Dr's zd Lef. p. 140- ♦ Compare Beply^ p. 318. and Ohfiruat, p. 131, with the Dr\ zd ^f. p. y^6. (61) exprefs Terms (without the Help of the D/s tnfe- rences and DiftinEiions, which arc mde and endlefs) declareth the Co-equalityy the neceJfary-Exiflence, or the fufreme Authority and Dominion^ of the three di- vine Perfons, or of two of them ; which he perpetu- ally afferts to have been always and univerfally re^ ceivd; it would be more to the Purpofe, and eon^- vince me and ais Readers more than any Thing, or than all the Things he hath yet feid. But I may fafely ? lirm that he cannot produce fo much as 07iefagle l\'ftimmy : and without this, all he hath done, or can do, is vain. Bat on the other Side I Hiall produce, whac the Dr, challengeth any Man to produce, * many exprefs (vouchers from Catholic An- tiquityy for the real or natural SuhjeElion of God the Son, or the real or natural Superiority of the Fathe/s Dominion ever him. And wath thefe I fhall fhut up my Thoughts upon the Controverfy. In debating the Senfe of Antiquityxoncerning the natural Supremacy of the one God and Father of ally -who is above all, and his Dominion over the Son, tjc, (which is the main Point of the prefent Con- troverfy) that Dr. W- may have no Pretence to charge me with Unfairnefs, I fiiall not cite Tefti- monies out of any Writings, about whofe Genuine- nefs there are any Difputes, tho' Z)r. U^- has here done it infeveral Inftances. I fhall therefore quote nothing out of the ApofloUc Confiitutions againfl him, tho' they are full to the Purpofe, and are unqueftio- nably ♦ Pag4 127- i^3) nably very ancient, and can be fufpe<5led to be in* terpolated by no Body but the Athanajians, Nor fliall I mention the Clementine Recognitions^ becaufe the Author is unknown, tho' the Book is undoubt- edly very old, and has no juft Sufpicions of Interpo- lation that I know of. Nor will I make ufe of either the larger or leff'er Epidles of Jgnatiusy as being difputed which are really the true ones ; tho' I myfelf make no Queflion of the Genuinenefs of the former, and of the Spurioufnefs of the latter ; which, I think, are plainly nothing but an imper- fect interpolated Abftrad from the larger Epiflles : And which therefore Dr. IV, fliou'd not have cited, tho' there is really nothing at all - in them to his Purpofe ; not a Word of the Confuhfiamialityy ^Co- eternity^ and necejfary Exiftence of God the Son in them, as he pretends ,• nay, not a Word of the Generation^ or Exigence of the Son at ail, before his Incarnation, They ftile the Word exprefly {^uyivw^Tog'] unbegotten^ andfuppofe it to be the internal felf-exifient Wordy oTperfonal Reafon of God hirafelf ,* and plainly fa-- vour the Sahelliany which is the fame with the So" cinian Notion. The Dr's citing Luc ian^ or (as he hys) f owe other contemporary Pagan Writer^ f as a Tejtimony for his Notion (tho' the Paflage refer'd to is not fuch) is very much below a reafonable Man or a Scholar : As alfo his alledging the fabulous Creed afcrib'd to Gregory of Neocajareay againft J which he himfelf allows * Pag. loQ. t Pag. m. 5 P^g. izo. allows that Su/pkions have been raisd^ {% another In- ftance of great Partiah'ty and Unfairnefs. And juft Exception might be taken againfl the two Bk- nypy whom he produces at fecond Hand out of Athanajius, This being premised, I proceed to give direSi and ^xprf/i Evidence of the concurrent Senfe of the AntientSy for the natural Suferkrity of the Father to the Son, in Power^ Authority^ Dominkny &c. and for the natural Injerkrity and SubjeSikn of the Son to the Father. And this I fliall breifly prove from five fe- veral Arguments. I. The firft Argument may be drawn from the different Titles and Charaders univerfally afcrib'd by the Antimts to the Father and Son. The Father alone in his own diflind Perfon is conftantly {ixl^dGod * abfolutely ; him who is ahfo- lutely t Gody Lordy Maker of the Univerfe, of whom are all things, him who is J abfolutely the one, the only ^ the * *0 BiU* The PalTages brorght by Dr, W, to (hew that Chrift is ftil'd (o 6«w) God ah fo lutely^ are either not fpoken of him ahfoluteJy at all ; as that of Olem, Alex* cited in his Sermons, p. 141 ; and two out of Irenaus^ cited alfo in his Sermonsy^» 209 : or elfe they are only Applications of Texts of the old Teftament to Chrift fpealdng in the Name of hira who is ahfoJuteJy God^ reprefenring his Perfotjy and appearing and aSing as his Angel and miniflerial Agent. Both which Cafes therefore are norfiin^ to the Purpofe. \ 'O fiiw> • xi/fi«r, J[t(rwvnsy * woiJiTW laTr axs^i 1^ • (or) cV ? ( 65 ) the true, the only true God; him who is * abfolutely frimary God^ God over al/, God fupreme over all. AH thefe Titles, which are the higheft Charaders of natural Supremacy of Dominion and Godhead^ are not only attributed to the Father alone by the An- rients unanimoufly ; but are alfo very frequently afcrib'd to him in exprefs Contradidion to the Son; who not only never has thefe Titles given to him^ (which cannot be conceived that they fhou'd not, if he was believ'd to be equally fupreme God with the Fa- ther) but fome of the moft learned Antients declare exprefly with refped to five of the foremention'd Charaders, that they do not belong to the Son, or ought not to be afcrib'd to him. f Origen fays, that the Title (o ^ek) God abfolutely with the Article be- longs peculiarly to him (and that it is (o apply'd by the Evangelift) who is [o ocyew^Tog tSv oAwv oclnog^ and auTo6co;] the uncreated Caufe of all Things, and God of himfelf or felf-exijient. J Eufehius alfo thinks it ab- furd to ftile the [Aoyo^] Word (d ^dq) God abfolutely, \ Origen alfo denies that the Son is [d fV2 t^c-/ ^d{\ abfolutely God over all; and this upon the TeRimony of our Lord^s Words, that the Father who fent him is greater than He. And infers from the Father be- K ing t Comment, in Johyi, p. 46", 47 ; of which Commentaries the learned 'Dr. Mills fays, that they are, ab omni Interpola- tione liberi, free from all Interpolation, Proleg* in N. T". p. 24. 5 De Ecclef. Theol. lib. 2. c. 14, I Advr. Celf. lib. 8. p. 587/ ( 66 ) ing the Petfon (v$' 5) * of or from whom are all 'Things y that he is therefore (/^e/^wv) greater than the IVordy (^^' «) BY or through whom are all Things, The Council of Antioch f make it impious to think that the Son is ("o 0£o? twv oAwv) abfolutely God of the Univerfe-y declaring it Impiety to think that the abfo- lute God of the Unnerfe is call'd an Angel ; but the Son (they add) is the Angel of the Father. J Eufebius hys, Chrift is (^sog) God, but not [o Trpwro? ^eog'] the primary or fupreme God' And throughout his Bocks againfl: Marcel/us lays it down for the Dodrine of the Church, that Chrift is not [o fV* Travr^v Qeoj] abfolutely God over all; and affirms in exprefs Words, I that he cannot be a pious Perfn who fays that the Son is God fupremc ouer all. He £ fays moreover that Sabellius was excommunicated as an Atheifl and Blaf- phemer, for teaching that [o ^V; x^vrwv Oeo?] i/;^ y}^- preme God was incarnate and paffible. The Reafon of the Aniients applying the fore- going Titles peculiarly to the Father, and denying that they can or ought to be apply'd to the Son, is . becaufe they denoted the [«u6£VT/av] fupreme Domi- nion * Comment, in Job. p. 55. To the fame Purpofe Eufe- I'lHS remarks, de Ecclef. Theol. lib. i. c. 20. cont. Marcel, lib. 2. c, 14* f foir /u^v >*j fltJr 7a» 6^»» «ff«Cs? «^\o» vo/Aiazti y,a\ii^ut- • c^l^ 5 Demonf. Evang. p. 227. Eccltf. Theol. lib. i. c. 7. 4 Ibid. lib. 2. c* 4. (61) vion and Authority of the one God and Father of all; and therefore to afcribe them to the Son, or to teach that the Son is God abfolutely, God fupreme over all^ was [iince there cou'd not be niore than one fupreme God] to make him the fame Perfon with the Fa- ther. On which account * TenuUian elleems it er- roneous to flile the Son [ipfe Deus Dominus omni- potens] the Lord God Almighty ; and f Novatian reckons it no lefs to fay that he is [unus Deus] the one God: becaufe the Antiencs knew no Diflinc- tion betwixt a Perfon's being God abfolutely^ the one God, or the fupreme God, and being the Perfon of the one God and Father of all who is above ail* Since therefore, according to the univerfal Senfe of Antiquity, all the high Titles denoting the fu- preme natural Authority and Dominion of the one Gody ixt 2i{cnWd peculiarly and only to the Father j noneoi them ever attributed to the diftind Perfon of the Son, and many of them diredly deny'd that they can or ought to be attributed to him -, this, tho* it is not an exprefs Evidence of the Father^s particu- lar Superiority and Dominion over the SoHy yet infers it by neceflary Confequence, and is a very exprefi Declaration of. the Senfe of the Antients, that the Father alone is the one fupreme God ; in the felf-Ori- gination of whofe Perfon accordingly the Unity was always placM. But fecondly; that thefe Titles were intended by the Antients to fet forth their Senfe of the natu- ral Superiority of the Father to the Son, and the Son's Inferiority and SubjeEiion to the Power and Domi- , J^ ^ Kion * Adv. Prox. c. 2. t De Trinit. c 50, 51. («8) mon of the Father, very plainly appears (not only in Confequence of the Son's being exprefly deny'd to be the fupreme God) but alfo from the particular Charaders given to the Son, which carry in them exprefs Limitations and Marks of Stihjeclion to the Father. Juftin Martyr fays ; the Son * has all the Titles [viz. Sony God, Lord, Word, dec. mentioned imme- diately before] from his being begotten of the Father by his Will. In which Words the Son is declared to have the Titles of God, Lord, &c. by the vo- luntary Generation of him (as Dr. W. himfelf underftands the Generation here to be) from the Father. And there cannot poffibly be a more mani- feft Evidence of the natural Superiority of the Fa- tjier, and of the natural SubjeEiion of the Son to his fupreme Authority and Dominion, than his be- ing Son, Gods Lord, IVord, &c. by being begotten or deriv'd by the voluntary Power of God the Father ; and he cannot but be naturally fubjeEl to the WtU of the Father, fince from the Father's M/ill he deriv'd his Nature, his being Lord and God, ^uflin afferts the fame Thing again • viz. J Him who by his (the Father's) Will is both God, as being his Son, and Angel, from minifiring to his Will. With refped i)t TO •iTTO Tw Tretl^t Qn\i(rei >«>4m£&at. Dial- cum Tryph. p. 74. Edit, Paris. C^gtTU9 T^ >V«V»i tWTV. Ibid p. 120. r^fpefl: to the two preceding Paffages I muft ob* ferve, that the former is fo clear and ftrong for the Son's being God, &c. by a voluntary Generation from the Father, [which is the higheft Evidence poffible, even in Dr. W's Account, of the Son's natural Suhje^ion to h.m] that he has nothing at all to * reply to it. To the latter, ^wWich is no lefs plain and cogent, he endeavours to make a Reply, but fo as to fall into Jelf ContradiBion' He infifts that the Sen's being t Gud is not voluntary^ is necef- fary; yet he owns, ^ he proceeded from the Father ^ therefore he is God, and the Proceffion (he adds) is voluntary: The Confequence therefore is, that his being God is voluntary, nothing can be plainer. Again he fays, II He is a'Soa yetrd ^aXi^v [by the Will of the Father] and God, becaufe a Son: Thence it neceffarily follows that he h God [x^ra AsAi^v] by the Will of the Father, which cne Dr. denies; but which is che undeniable Scni^ o[ Ju/im's Words, and fhows again that he cannot evade it, without contradtEling hi?nfelf» Again, Jufiin fays that Chrifl is [_'^vpiog Juv^piswv] Lord of Hofts, which is the fame as {jKuvro^paTup^ Almighty ; but not of himjelf, or by natural jupreme Dominion; but "^^ by the vViil of the Father who giveth him the Power. This Notion is exj refs'd by Hiffolitut * See his id. Def. p. 287, 2SS, 289. t ift. Def. p. 151. id. Def. p. 285, i.U, 5 id. Def. p. iSd. 11 id. Def. p. i%6, WJpof. Dial. p. 91. (70) Hifpohtus when he fays ; * Chnfl is conftituted Al- mighty ^y the Father. Again, f ^^ "^^o is over all is God, for he fays, all things are deliver'd unto me of 7ny Father^ Mat. 11.27. And by Novatian^ J he (Chrill) is conftituted both Lord and God of the whole Creation, And by Laciantiusy § he (Chrift) hath receiv^'d the I'ttkofGod. And by Eufebiusy H he (Cbrift) has the Name of Gody which he receivM from the Father, From all which Dr, IV- may fee the Reafon why the Antients never flile the Son ahfolutely Gody or abfolutely fupreme over all ; becaufe all his Power , with his Nature, is deriv'd from the Father by his IV2II. Ladly ; when the Antients afcribe to the Son the Title of Creator and Maker of all Things/tis always underllood with Limitations and Marks of his Sub- jeBion to the Father. He is therefore [ct-o/vjtvj? twv oAwv] Maker of all 'Things , not abfolutely, not primarily, and in the fupreme Senfe, but only fo, that aH Things were made [^i' ^Wh] by or through him, in Mini- firation and Obedience to the Soveraign Will and Commands of the Father. This is fo well known and Noet. p. 10. *3rApct may learn farther from this Paflage of Jufiin, that the Father^'s being faid to be the Caufe of the Son's Exiftence, means that he is the real and voluntary Caufe, otherwife his being Caufe at all cou'd plainly be no Foundation of his Dominion over the Son, and of being his Lord, as well as God. Theofhihis teacheth ; that * the Word being God, and Son of God, the Father of all knds Imn any xvhere when he fleafeth. And Novatian ; f moreover he (our Lord) declares that he was fent j that by this Inflame (?/ Obedience, which Chrifl the Lordjhow^d in coming when he was feniy he might be provdi to be, not the Father, but the Son ; who would certainly have been the Sender, had he been the Father : but the Father was not fent, lefi by being fent, he fhoud be found to be fubjed to another God» In which ? Pag. 123. nc»i o\«y, TrifJiTrH eivTov He hvx'l bTrov- Ad Autolyc. p. 130. t M'ljjum przeterea Te q{^q dicit, lit per banc obedientiam qua venit dominus Chriflus milTuj, non pater, fed filiiis probe- rur ; qui mifillet utique, fi pater fuiflet : Mjfus aiitem non fait pater, ne pater fuhditus alteri Deo, dum mitt'itur, pro- baretur, Dc Trinix. c. 2Z. ( 75 ) which Words this ancient Writer argues, that Chriffs being fent is a Token of his Obedience, and of being Son ; who muft have been the Sender, not the fenty had he been Father- Thereby plainly fiiowing the Authority 0^ fending to be the natural (not oeconojnh cal) Supremacy of God the Father, founded necejfa-- rily in his Paternity i not in any voluntary Concert, or arbitrary Agreement of the Son. He argues alfo, that to be fent is an Inllance of Suhjeclion to a Superior, for which Reafon he fays the Father was not fent, as bdng fuLje EI to none, and to whofe Dominion every other Perfon is fuh- jecl : And for the fame Reafon he makes it ahfurd^ to fuppofe the Father to be an J Angel or Meflen- ger, i. e. to be fent. Eufehius fays, that Chrifl * ivas fent by one greater than himfelf. The Council of Sirmium, according to Hilarys own Interpretation of it, declared ,• f '^^ do not make the Son equal, or compare him to the Father, but under-- ft and him to he fubj'eft to the Father, And Hilary farther declares his own Senfe in pa- raphrafing the Words of the Council, thus, 'viz.. ^ L 2 In 5 Abfic Deum patrem Angelum dicere ; ne aiceri fubditus fir, cujiis angelas faerit. c. ^6. * rjfo? TK Uf^^ofoe ttTngaXjufnt- PnTp. Evang. lib. 7. c. 12. 1 'Ou . i. c. a. p. 4S' Edit. Grcib. t Uifi TOv «>xaj» [^TtiiMjUifaf tie BiSf^ l^»/U4»» aTamtitt tl'Trocflei' iv ft-B^sfH 715 wuparXiiciov Tnpi 7V 'I>j!7"*i «t5TO«Ai|o^u» c-xi ot^re 6=^ AE'aOtAI *4»T» TO nyutffdtti. 7ra yrcti'Tiif 'nyjun rov Cior y,x6me tuxun toi» jraWcx. Cent. Ce/5. lib. 8. p. 584. 5 Pater Deus praccepit iilium fuum adorari. De bono patient/ (78) the XJnoriginatenefs of the Father, and the Onginate- nefs of the Son, are natural and necejjary. Therefore, fince according to the Dodrine of all the AntientSj the Unity of God was plac'd in the Un- criginatenefs of the Father's Divinity ; which thing was alfo exprefly taught in the firft Article of all the antient Creeds, and in the Nicene and Conflantinopo- litan Creeds themfelves j (and the Pofl-nicene V/riters conftantly aflerted the fame Dodrine) making Unity of Gody and Unity of Original, one and the fame ; and profefTing that more than one [«p%vi] Original of Divinity wou'd make more Gods than one ; it hence follows that the natural Si\^i^m2iQy of Domi- nion, which necejfarily flows from, and is infeparably annexed to the divine Unity^ to the one God, the Fountain, Original, and firfl Caufe of all things,' peculiarly a/nd incommunicably belongs to the Per- fon of the Father. And all the antient Ante- nicene s ^ and even the Nicenes and Pofi-nicenes included in the Innafcihility or Unoriginatenefs of the Father, which made him the one God, a real Supremacy of Dignity and Authority ; and exprefly founded on this alone all the Charaders of his incommunicable Sove- raignty, his abfolute Invifihilityy and Impoflibility of being fent, and his Authority of fending the Word or Son ; and the Son's Obedience and filial Sub- jeBion to his Will and Commands. Whence it is moft evident that the Father was thought to have a true and real Superiority by Nature [and not by mere oeconomical Compact] over the Son. It hath been already fhown that Juflin Martyr held the Father to be the Lord of the Son, as ^- being (79) being his Father and God, and the Caufe of his Ex- igence ; than which nothing can be more clear and exprefs for the natural fufreme Dominion of the Fa- ther oijer the Son. Tenullian alfo fays, * that which is unoriginated is more powerful than that which is originated — becaufe that which had no Caufe of its Exiflence will be much fuperior to that which had a. Caufe of its Exiflence^ Novatian attefls, that the Son is f inferior to the Father, as being originated from him: And fuppofeth that the Son could not be equal to the Father, un- lefs he was in like manner J unbegotten : And that the II Obedience of the Son {tho he himfdf is alfo God) to the Father in all things, Jhows that the Father from, whom he is originated is the ohe God. And again, that our Lord himfelf § maketh a DiftinBion betwixt his own P erf on, i. e. the Son, and the {erfonal Authority of the Father^ not merely in Sound of ' Namey * Innatum nato fortius — quia quod ut eflec, nuUius eguit au£tons, multo fublimius erit eo, quod ut elfer^ aliquem ha- buit auctorem. Adv. Hermog. c. 18, t Simul ut hie minor lit— habens Originem, quia nafcituro c. 31. 5 Si non genitus eflet, colhtus com eo qui genltus non eifet, & AciuaUs invent!, duos Deos merito reddidiflent non geniti. ih'iA. |{ Ita dum fe patii in omnibus obtemperantem reddit, quamvis fit & I)em^ unum tamen Deum Patrem de obedientii fua oftendit, ex quo & Originem traxit. ihlL ^ Proprietatem perfon^ fuse, id eft, filii, u paterna Aufro- ritate difcernit, atque diftinguit; non tantummodo de fouo nominis, fed etiam de ordinc.dirpofitae poteftatis. c. 22. (8o) Name, [viz* of Father and Son] but alfo in Order and Difpojition of Power. And Alexander of Alexandria^ * Therefore we mufi referve to the unbegotten Father this peculiar Dignity, that no one is the Caufe of his Exiftence* And Bajily t the Son is fecond to the Father in Order^ as being from him : and alfo in Dignity ; becaufe the Father is the Original and Caufe of his Exifience *, and hecaufe through him ix^e ha^ue Accefs to God even the Father* And 5 Greg. Nazianzen ; we are to preferve to the Father the Dignity of being the Original [of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit.] Hilary | owns ; the Subjedion of the Son [to the Fa- ther] is the Piety [or Property] of Ins Nature^ And ic hath «»« tuij]^ h ai7jo» XiyvTOc- Epift. apiid Theod. t 'O i^'oc 7ttf« Atgv ef TV jrarg??, lit a-ir «x»ivjr, J^ «|t»/*aT», otj yt'^ii jTfof Tiv 6so» x^ jTWTJ^a- Adv. Eunom. lib. 3. p. 79. 5 To i>)r A/)p,«c flt|i»/xct. Orat Apolog. p. 354. 4. Subje£t:io filii natnrae Pietas. Thus reads Vr, W, or his Edition. But the old Bafil Edit, 1550, reads otherwife thus; Subjeftio filii naturas Proprietas: -which exprefifeth more ftrongly the ejfentiaJ or natural Subje£l:ion of the Son to the Father, as being the Author or Caufe of the Son's Ex- iftence. Which is more agreeable to Hilary*s Style elfewhere : and he had faid a little before, He (the Son) is fubjeft to the Father, as being the Author (of his Exiftence) 93or did he by Robbery equal himfelf to Gody in whofe Form he ivas* Patri fubje£tus eft, ut autori, nee fe per rapinam Deo, cujus in forma manebat, scquavit. DeS/ood. p. 327, And thisfhows his Senfe of P/;/7. 2. 6. (8i ) hath been obferv'd before that he makes the Suh- jeBion of the Son to be a natural Subjeciion to the Father ; and this SuhjeElion \% never the lefs natural [as Dr, W. imagines it is] in the Son, for being a 'voluntary or free Submijjion to the IViU of the Father. Phabadius alfo owns ; ^that it is the Doctrine of the holy and Catholic Church, that the Son is fubjeft to the Father on account of the Relation of Father and Son. Which (hows that it was a natural Subjedion, ejjen- tially and necejfarily proceeding from the Generation cf the Son. In which refped he fays prefently after ; f The Wordy being in the Form of God, did not yet equal himfelf to God the Father. ' And the learned Dr'- Cudvcorth declares his Opi- nion, that according to the Principles of Chrifiianity itfelf ihere mufl of Necefftty be fome Dependence and Subor- dination oj the Perfons of the Trinity, in their Relation to one another I a Priority and Pofteriority, not only T«5£w;, but alfo ciiiu!(j.ciTog, of Dignity as well as Order amongft the?n. Firfl, becaufe that which is originally of itfeljy and underivd from any other, mufl needs have fome Superiority and Preeminence over that which derives its whole Being and Godjhip from it ; as the fecond M doth * SubjeSlnm patri filiiim p.itris & filii nomine, ut fan£la & catholica dicit Ecclefia. Apud Bib. Pat. Tom. 4, p. 175. t Sermo, cum in forma Dei Q^^t non fe Deo Patri adaequavit. ibid. p. 178, which fhows that he interpreted the Text 'Bhilip. 2, 6. very difterently from Dr. M', and agreeably to the Antenkene Writers. ( 8i ) doth from the fir ft alone therefore neither of thefe two latter is abfolutely the Czuk of all ThingSy but on" ly the fir ft. IntelleEi. Syflem- p. 598. Again ; there are fundry Places in the Scripture 'which do not a little favour feme Subordination and Priority both of Order and Dignity in the Perfons of the holy T'rinity i of which none is more obvious than that of our Saviour Chrifl^ my Father is greater than I : which to underftand of his Humanity only, feemeth to be lefs reafonable ; becaufe this was no News at ally that the eternal Cod, the Creator of the whole Worldy jhouldbe greater than a mortal M:Ln born 0/^ Woman: and thus do divers of the Orthodox fathers, as Athana- fius kimfelf St. Bafil, St. Greg. Nazianzen, and St. Chryfoflom, voith fever al others of the Latins, in- terpret the fame to have beenfpoken^ not of the Huma- nity, but the Divinity of our Saviour Chrift* ibid. He fays again \ And tho it be true that Athana- fius, writing againfl the Arians, does appeal to the Tra- dition of the ancient Church, and amongft others cites OrigenV Teftimony too -, yet was this only for the Eter- nity and Divinity oj the Son of God; but not at all /or (uch an abfolate Coequality of him with the Father^ as would exclude all Dependence, Subordination, and Inferiority, p. 5^5. This ihows the learned Drs Opinion [of whqra, it is no Derogation to Dr. W- to fay, that he had fludied and under/lood the anticnt Writers in another manner than Dr^' W- has] of the na- tural Supremacy and Superiority of the Father over the Son, who was not even by the moft zealous Oppofers Oppofers of the An'ans thought to be co-ordinate in Divinityy and eqtml in Authority and Dignity to the one God and Father of ally who is above ally feven above the Son himfelf. Accordingly, I do not find that even Athanajius himfelf, or his mofi: zealous Follow- ers, Bajil, Chryfcflom, Greg. Naz.iahz.eny &c. ever ftile the Son [d ^eog] God ahfolutely : \_eig o ^sog, o i^6vog, 6 ciKvi^mg^ 6 ^ovog ciKvi^mg, 6 ^sdg twv oKcav , d eiri 'na.MTm ^eog, &c.] ablbiutely the one God, the only God^ the true Gtd, the only true God, the Gcd of the Uniz'erfe^ the Gcd fupreme over ally 3cc. as acknowledging the Superiority of the Father to the Son in refped of Original to be [not a mere Alvde of Exiftence^ and no PerfeEiion at all, as Dr, W- by mere Invention thinks ; but] a real and natural Superiority in Dignity and Authorityy to which the Son ow'd a natural Obedience and Subje^lion* On this unoriginate Supremacy, [and not on an imaginary Concert and Agreement of the Son abfolutely equal and co-ordinate in Dignity, Pouer and Authority with the Father] they founded the Oe^ conomy of the Mijjion and Incarnation of the Son. And it is evident, that wliecher thro' great Preju- dice y or Want of Judgment and Difcernmenty Dr, W, hath not at all underllood or righcly reprefenred the Senfe of the Antients ; and hath mifunderftood the Nicene and Pcfinicene Writers alfo; many of whom exprcfly declare for the natural Supremacy of the Father founded in his Paternity j and his Su- periority to the Son in Dignity and Authority derived [not from the Son's arbitrary Agreement, but] from the Self-origination of the ^diXh^x's Divinity; to which the Son navuraUy and necejfarilyy and as being origi* M % nuted. • natedy was fuljeB : And without this they were aware that it was impoffible to preferve the Umty of God, which they had greatly weakened and dimi- nifli'd by carrying the Notion of the Confubflantiality of the Son to fuch high Degrees of Coequality with the Father ; fuch as the Primitive Church never pro- fefs'd, and ^ix^dXy deny'd; tho' yet they did not carry it to an abfolute Coequalityy as Dr, Ctidivorth and Bifiop Bull have rightly obferv^d. Fifthly and laflly ; I fhall produce other numerous exprefs Pouchers from Antiquity to prove their Senfe of the Superiority of the Father to the Son in Dig- nity^ Authority, Pozver, Godhead, and all Perfeclions, lertullian fays ,• * voe under fland the Father to he in- vifible on account of the Fulnefs (or Immenfity) of his Majefly ; but we acknowledge the Son to be vifible in refpeci of his being a derivM Portion of the Father^'s divine Nature.] Where he compares the Subllance of the Father to the Body of the Sun^ and the Son to a Ray emitted from it, . Analogous to which Expreflion is that of Nova- tian : f If the Son was invifible // he was incom- prehenfible i or if he was in any ether RefpeB what the Father is, then we allow, it might juflly be objected that they are two Gods. Origen * InviJthlJem patrem intelligamns pro plemtudine Majeftatis ; 'v'ifihllem vero filium agnofcamus pro moduh^derl'vatioms. Adv. Prax. c. 14. _ t Si luvifibUis fnifTet— — fi incor/ipvehenfibilis, fi 8c csete- ra qusctinque funt patris ; merito, dicimus, duorum Deorum oiiam ifti CGnfingcmr, coatroverfiam fufcitaflet. c. 31, (3?) Origen fays, * We affirm that the Son is not more powerful, but that he is lefs powerful than the Father. And this we affirm out of a Perfuajton of the Truth of his Words^ who Jaid^ the Father that fent me is greater than I. Again ; f the Son is a difiinci fuhfiftent Beings and hbjcd to the Father' Ag^in ; God the Word is J excell'd by him who is the Godfupreme over all [viz. the Father.] Again , the Father is | fuperior and greater than the Word, Again i £ as the Father of Truth is more perfed God and greater than him who is Truth ; and the Fa- ther of Wifdom is fuperior and more excellent than him who is Wifdom i fo in like manner does he excel him who is the true Light* Again : /srarijpj o 'jkfj.'^tkf ^s, ^ei^m [/.a iri* Cont. Cels. lib. 8. p. ;S8. 'jctr^oi* '37€p. iv^. p. 48. 5 'T'znf'-')(OiJLivoi J-aro 7d t^v qKcov 6ic. Com. in John p. 49- 4. Kpei'lrar ^ (Asi^av 'Trct^ei ^v \oyov. ihid, p. ^6, ( '^Q. Ai Attfa 'ttaIyi^ %€ 6fcAij9«W Qihi 'TcKeiav' i9i i^ [le^^cdv it) addend.] elhi^etA, iy Trttriip wV c-o(picti KfeijTOJV ^t'VQf. ibid. p. 70. (8(5) Again* * We fay that our Saviour with the Holf Choft^ not only comfarati'vely^ but fufertminently excels all the 'Things that are made, [by him] being yet himfelf t-sr cell'd by the Father as much or even more than he and the Holy Ghoft excel the other, and thefe not the ordi- nary [Creatures] neither ; [yh. Thrones, Angels, Principalities y &c.] hit notioithflanding, he 'u:ho ex- cels fuch and fo great Beings in Ellence, and Dignity, and Power, and Godhead, for he is the living Word and Wifdom, is neverthelefs not in any thing compared to the Father. Agreeably to which, Novatian fays, f God the Fa- ther is the Maker and Creator of all Things, alone un-. originate, invijible, incomer ehenf hie, immortal^ eternal, the one God, ivhofe Greacnefs, Majefty* and Power, nothing can^ I do not fay excel, but even be compar'd ijoith. Bajil, an unqueflionable Voucher, teRifies that Dio- njjtus 0/ Alexandria J held not only that the Father and Cmpx^ ^a/xeK tb' trwiSp* x.*? to TrriZfAo. to nyaty CrnfiyjifXifit toCk-toit, npiatf « ffvyy-plxtTttt xolt i! i-mO'^etXat \ietv ^a] Jhcmfi^t JoyMccn^H, biro^if^MKivcu ytf duro t2i tS Tnttpoe x-atj tS i|2 «Vof*'crx« cAl-'ar- Cod* $i ^'^ ^-^ *'^' "^^^ 'f/jvM HK Ly, Jrii £pifi. apud i'heodo,''/iift. lib. i. c. 5.] I'he Son had a Beginning of Exijlence ; ivas not al^^.-^ys '-, did net exifl before he *was begotten. And Athanajtu^ quotes Ariuiy faying in his T^baliay That the Son was \_h yj^va y^fctccfi begotten in 'Time. But 'tis certain that the /^^-i^w/^fuppormg they us'd rhe Expreflion which v/as charg'd on them [Vm 'u'otz on kk, Luj C^n^ ^ '3-2~] were not fo abfurd or filly as to teach thereby that there was a ^ime when the Son was not, in the old Senfe of Time as fup- pos'd to be created; and they expreily faid on the contrary, that he was before Time. And therefore Alexander very unfairly and falfely infers from the Charge of their faying [bju^ ■'^oji ots «)t tfjj] the Son ivas not ; that they fuppos'd the Son to be made in the Inievjal of fome of thofe Ages which were all made hy him, and that he was pojierior to "lime^ which was created by him. [Jlexarjder*s "Words are ; « ^ocf Xd^Vo/^ 6//7roA/]d6'«c&tf/ cTb rh liic hjJy Yi cduvo? nvi cf'ia.c-i^ixetjiy el roivwj ctAJiQe? To, *nrcLv]dL cTi etv^ yzfovivau, J^yi\cpoTe h^ '^ol^ ^eoy j^ xe.^VB- ^ J^lCL^niXATAy >C) TO 'TS-OTiy Iv oJi TO Jpc V^ <£ei(^yATcfJy J^/ AVt^ tyiVilo' i^ ^§^ ^K d'TTiSetyov T '^ XCP^'^^ ^ cuuvcti y^ Kcuf'^<;y li oT? TO «x, VJi a'vy.'7rk(;iv{lou, 'Troiijcrapja.f dvlbv 'WoTZ (/.ri ^.veu ?y.iyeiV ; clJ^lctVO'ilTOV }S ' ■ " ' TOU CUTIQV 'f/j'ofJ^OV TlvQ-y (IvtI? lAiTdL'f/ji'^z^v \iyeiv T«? laeiv^ 'j{uk. This being the Cafe, to what purpofc ^s it for Dr. Berriman to fpend fo many Pages to Ihovv (what none of his Adverfaries deny, and what all of them are as zealous for as he can bej that the Son of God is a divine Perfon and truly God^ exift- ing before the World, in Oppoiition to fuch as de- nyM his Divinity^ and held him to be a mere Man i This takes up a great Part of the DoBors Book, and he has little more to urge till he comes near or to the Council oiNice ; and the greateft Part of what h related after that Council, is as little to the Pur- pofe, being fpent in purfuing and difcuffing from the fifth to the prefent Century, the various FaElions^ DiviJionSy and mutual Perfecutions of the Athanajians and Ariansy fo call'd, as either were encouragM and alTifted by the temporal Powers, in the contentious, dark and ignorant Ages of the Church, when Chri- flianity was over-run with Superilition, and foon fwallow'd up in the great Apoftacy of Popery. If the DoBor could have produc'd any thing in Favour of his own Notion, or againft that of his Adverfaries, from the Remains of the primitive Church, his Labour would have been ufefully fpent ; but not to be able to alledge fo much as one Inftance diredly to his Purpofe, not one Paifage teaching the Son, &c. to be the one God, Godfupreme or equal to the Father in Authority^ Dominion, &c. is furely, inftead of fupporting his Caufe, plainly {howing that ic cannot be fupported. I fliall therefore in the enfuing Papers briefly confider every thing which I can pick out of the BoBors Hiftory that is any way to the Purpofe, all which lies in the Compafs of about an hundred Pages of his Book, and (how that he has not repre- fented the Tranfadions and Senfe of the Church fairly ^v fully ^ either before^ at or after the Council of Nice, The The DoSlor having no where produced fo much as me Teflimony from the numerous remaining Re- cords of Antiquity, for the main Points in difpute, to wit, for the fupreme, independent Divinity and Authority of the Son and Spirit^ and their Coequa- lity with the Father ; but being contented fafter Dr. IV.) to argue only for them by remote Infe- rences and Deduflions from Expreffions aflerting the Son to be God^ and feeming (from the Similitudes wsd) to imply his Confiibflantiality with the Father ; and endeavouring at the fame time to evade with fcholaflic Diftindions and quibling Pretences fwhere- in all the Strength of Dr. W 's Books lies) the many dired and ftrong Expreffions of the Suhordina-^ tion. Inferiority and SuhjeElion of the Son and Spirit to the Father, who is fet forth as being alone God ah- folutely, and the one God, and fupre?ne ultimate Obje(5t of Worfhip, in all the ancient Creeds^ and in all the public Forms of the Church as recited by thofe An- cients who have tranfmitted them to us ,• after fuch a Cloud of Witnefles for the Catholic Dodrine of the Supremacy of the Father, and the Subordination of the Son and Spirit, the DoBor feems to be fenfi- ble of a Want of Evidence on his own Side, and to be pinchM with the great Appearance of it on the Part of his Adversaries, fo as to fay : *^ Had '^ the * ancient Liturgies been tranfmitted down en- *' tire, it might here have been an ufeful Labour *^ to have made fuch Obfervations upon them, that " the Worfhip of the Church might come in to the " better Illuftration of her Dodrine. In this *^ Cafe therefore [of the Want of the ancient Litur- " gies] the beft Evidence that can be brought is from the fcatter'd Accounts which the Writers of " thofe Times have kft, who are the fitteft Wit- ■*Page 151, 155, !^ nefles ( H ) *' neffes of the Worfhip, as well as of the Do&ine *^ of the Church. As the Father was conilantlv ac- *' knowledg'd for the Fountain of the Deity , and never *^ reprefeiiLed as aEling in Subordination to the other " Perfons ; who on the contrary were always con- *^ fider'd ^s fuhordinate to him^ and fuftaining their " refpedive O^ices in the Work of our R ademption. *^ From hence it is no Wonder if the Prayers of thd ** Church ihould generally be addrefs'd to the Per- " fon of the Father, — thro the Merits of Chrift. — • " We acknowledge the plain Footfteps of ihis Wor- " fhip to appear thro' all Antiquity, and the Church " has defervedly continued it to this Day. Let our " Adverfaries make the moft of this Conceffion/* This Conceffton^ which the DoUor is forc'd to al- low to be the Refiilt of the flain Senfe of all Anti- quity, is not, methinks, very favourable to the No- tion of the Son and Sfirit being neceffarily-exillent and equally fupreme God with the Father, coordi^ nate with him in Nature and all Perfedions, which is Dr. B \ as well as Dr. W — 's conftant Do- drine. Firfly The Ancients (he owns) conflantly achnow^ tedgd the Father to he the Fountain of the Deity; which is a plain Declaration of his alone Supremacy, as being alone the original firft Caufe of all things ; the alone Fountain of all divine Power and Dignity; [fo the Words 'sth^m ^i'o]\)]©- mean, not the Fountain of THE Deity, as if Deity was a complex Name of a Species, and fupposM more Perfons or Gods exifting in it than one ', ] the alone Author and Caufe of the Divinity^ and of all the Perfedions of the Son and Spirit. To be thus the Fountain of Dei^ ty is furely a di%'ine (nay, if I may fo fay, the moft divine and fupreme) Perfetlion of God ; efpecially when it is further confider'd (which a faithful Hi- ftorian fhould have told his Reader) that the Anci- ents^ in Confe^:]aence of their profeffing the Father 10 ('5) to be the Fountain of Deity, always plac'd the Unity in the Unoriginatenefs of his * Perfon, as the learned Bifhop Pearfon himfelf has own'd : And therefore if the Unity of God be itfelf a PerfeElion^ the Founda- tion of this Unity the divine Paternity can be no lefs fo. Bifhop Pearfon^ Btdl^ and the learned Di. Cud- •worth t, all admit that it carries in it a Preefninence which belongs not to the Son, and which makes the T^lhtr greater than he, in his higheil Capacity : And in the Senfe of the ancient Church it was always efteem'dj and the Father was always II peculiarly a- dor'd on account of it, as being the higheft incom- municable Perfection of God. And yet in Dr. B 's Account, (as alfo in Dr. /^ ^s) this fupreme Per- fedion is no PerfeElion at all^ but a mere Mode of Exi- ftence, which derives no Dignity, Poiuer, Preeminence or Authority to the Perfon, to the one God and Father of all, who is above all, poflelTed with it. Who would imagine, when it was confefs'd to be the Senfe of the ancient Catholic Church, that the Father was the Fountain of the Deity, that it fhould yet be pretend- ed to be their Senfe alfo, that the Son, &c, was neceffarily-exiflent , and confequently as much the Fountain of the Deity as the Father ? But the An- cients were not thus inconfiftentj they meant as they fpoke, and fpoke rationally ; and not only ne- ver taught that the Son was necejfarily-exiflent, but in exprefs Contradiction to it, confiftently profefs'd that the Son was begotten or derivM by the Will of * See Reply to Dr. W — 's Defenfe, ?ag. 23 — 102, &*c. t Creed, ^ag, 35. Def. F. N. Sea. 4. c. 3. Intel. Syft. ^age 598. II Two Paflages out cf many fhall fuffice, 'uiz* t&TmIj/ Ayzv- v'{\m 'Ts-itj^t oiKeiov d^icouct (pvKcfiCliov-, (J.YiS'ivct rk u) ojjtS ^ <£'nm \ Son and Spirit would have appeared beyond Difpute? The Senfe of Antiquity is compriz'd in three Par- ticulars : Ftrfly That the Father alone was ever worfliip'd m the higheft Manner as the one fupreme God^ and ulti- mate Objed of Adoration. And this they carried fo far as to reprefent God the Son himfelf ^joining in Adoration to the Father, and a^ being f devoted to the Worfhip of God the Father. Secondly^ That the diflind: Worlhip of the Son was always paid to him, not as being the one fupreme God, but in s. fecond and fuhordinate Senfe, as being the only begotten God, the Word, or Son of God, our high Prieft and Mediator to God the Father for us : and therefore he was never invocated as the primary and final Objed: of Worfhip ; but even when he was diredly invocated, [of which there are very few Inflances in Antiquity] the Invocation was un* dyivvidovy )y dvcoM^^Uy iy y'oyov oi>]coi OsV, aujjvyi'^vlQ- vifj-lv r^ 6stt' Ac^». '* If thou wilt, be thou initiated, and thou fhaltbQ *' in the Chorus with Angels, praifing the unbegotten and in- '' corruptible and only true God ; God the Wordj joining with us *^' in our Hyn?.ns of Pcaife." Clem» Alex, Frotrept. ^» j'ii 1 5* Se» Keply,^37^5 — 5_9-7- ^ ^ ^ , , \ ^ y.iy(i>^' i<^c>, mitive (24) ___ mitive DoiSrine ; and knows withal how very few Inftances can be alledgM, (and how hard f Bafil himfelf was put to it to alledge any) out of Antiqui- ty for fuch Form of Doxology ; and that the In- ftances alledg'd were not the Forms of the Churchy but the Speculations of a private Writer or two at the moft, againft numerous Inftances of the Forms thro' the Son, ^y or in the Spirit, which were the known, tmiverfally accuftom'd Forms of the Churches Dox^ ology, as far as can be known, and which we more particularly learn from il Jufiin Manyr and * On- gen. Whoever confiders all this, will eafily be con- vinced that the Forms in the APoflolic Conftitutions have been tamperM with by fome Athanafians (thofe known Corrupters of Booksj in the fourth Century, when the Form of Doxology became a Matter of Difpute. And it is not at all improbable what t Philoflorgius the Hiftorian, and II Theodorus Mofftie^ f See Mr. Whijions fecond Letrer concerning Doxologies, il Ou T©- KdiCcoVi cuvov :ti fllo &' fpl- rltuifan^o. Thefaur, Orthodox, FUoLib, 5, c, 30. See Reply p. 387* ( 25 ) ^enus relate, that about the fniddle of the fourth Cen^ tury^ Flavian^ afterwards Bilhop of Antioch, firft changed the more ancient Doxologies of Glory TO the Father, By or Through the Son, IN the Holy Ghoft, and us'd in the Church inftead of them, the prefent Form, To the Father, and To the Son, and To the Holy Ghoft. But for Dr. B to fay that this later Form afcribes equal Glory to the Holy Ghoft with the Father and the Son, is a manifeft Un- truth, and faKifying the Doxology. The Doxology in the Form which the Dodor would have, no more afcribes equal Glory to all the three Perfons, than the Form of Baptifm does ,* or than St. Paul's Charge to Timothy before God and the eleEl Angels ^, makes the Angels equal to God. Thirdly^ If the Dodor had underftood rightly the Paffage of Origen, about which he is fo uneafy, and ufes fo many poor Pretences to evade ; he mighc have known that in it he does not difclaim all Invo- cation of the Son, but only that fort of Invocation, which he is there fpeaking of,* and which is the Prayer which he elfewhere ftiles t Prayer in the f roper and emphatical Senfe, namely, that Prayer which is finally and ultimately offerM to the primary and fu^ preme OhjeEl of it, viz.. the Father. And this is a- greeable to Origens Senfe in all other Places of this Treatife, and in his other Books, and to all Anti- quity. Origen does not fuppofe that Chrift is not to be invocated at all, but only that when invocated, he is to be invocated as Mediator and Intercejfor, to of- fer the Prayers of the Church, and to join his own with them, unto the Father ', and is to be the Medi- um Through whom our Prayers are to pafs ultimate^ * 1 *Tim, 5. 2r. ^ T€?/ '7r^c(7zv)(jii Kt/j/oAsJu? k^ KA7a.yjn^ie^^' Lib. 5, adv. Celf. p. 233* » if. (26) ly to the Father : And therefore Prayer thus offerM to Chrift, is not Prayer in the proper and highefl Senfe, but he calls it Prayer \/^cO,ct'x^^micoi] \n an im- proper, inferior or figurative Senfe. And that this is his true Meaning, appears from a remarkable Paf^ fage in his Book againft Celfus, which clearly recon- ciles this Palfage with all his other Teftimonies ; *viz,. * " We worfhip (fays he) the one God, and *' his one Son and Word and Image with Suppiica- *' tions and Prayers to the utmoft of our Power ; *^ putting up our Prayers TO the God of the Uni- *^ verfe, T'hrotigh his only begotten Son : To whom *' we offer them firft, entreating him, as being the *^ Propitiation for our Sins, to prefentas our High *' Prieft oar Prayers and Sacrifices [Thankfgivings] " and Interceflions, TO the fupreme God over all." This fhows that when Origen faid, we were not to pray to Chrifi, he meant that we were not to pray to him in the fame Senfe, or in the fame Manner as we pray'd unto the Father i that our Prayers were not finally to centre in his Perfon as the fupreme Ob- jed of Worfhip, but were to be underflood when offerM to him, of praying to him as Mediator to prefent our Petitions, and to join his own with them for us, unto God the Father : And fo all Prayers dire^led to Chrift were not fo properly and emphati- cally Invocations of him, as of the Father through him ; and all Prayer in the ftriB, proper and emphatic al Senfe belonged to the Father only. And this fur- Tetl . ^Ji Kcijci t3 J^iujcijoi^ iiyJiv iKiaietii ?Cj d^ieSffiCTt (TiCouiv. IT^dck- *Ta.i hnu^ei? ni-^^v ttJ l^l 'tta^fi Qiu, ibid. lib. S. p. 386. See Kep. p.3S'i''^583. ir-her (27) ther explains another Paffage of (c) On'gen, fhowing that in thus vvorfhipping the Father and Son, [/. e, the Father through the Son] they did ftill worfhip but One God [/. e. the one God the Father, through the Son.] And Dr. W himfelf grants that it i$ Origens Dodrine, (d) " that Prayer, in the moft " proper Senfe, is to be underftood of Prayer di- *^ reded immediately to the Father. One Part o£ *^ divine Worfhip, call*d Prayer^ is moft properly and *^ emphatically Prayer, when direded to the firfl Per- ■^ fon of the Godhead. Prayer then, properly or *' emphatically fpeaking, is praying to the Father, to .*' whom all Prayer primarily belongs.^' If the other Parts of Dr. W — 's Doctrine were uniform and a- greeable to this, we might foon agree in the Senfe of Scripture and Antiquity, and joyn our good VVifties and Endeavours that the public Forms and Wor- fhip of the Church might be rendered unexceptio- nably conformable to the Rule of the Gofpel and the Pradice of the primitive Church. Having made the preceding Obfervations upon the Dodor's Concepon, which the irrefiftable Light and Evidence of Antiquity forcM from him in fa-^ vour of his Adverfariesj and in them fhown not only that he has no dired Teftimony from fo much as one ancient Catholic Writer for his Notion of the fupreme Divinity of the Son, &c. and his Co^ equality with the Father ; but alfo provM that the conftant Dodrine and Pradice of the Church was plainly againii it : I proceed to examine the grand Plea on which the whale Scheme of the pretended Orthodoxy of the modern Athanafiam is founded ; and from which it is concluded, without any direft '^iuoiAiW adv. Ceir. p. 585. (d) Second Defenfe, P^^. 400. ^ Pa t Evidencgr ( 2S) Evidence whatfoever by way of Inference and De- dudion, only according to the Principles of their own fcholaftic Metaphyfics, to be the Senfe of the ancient Church ; and this is the Pretence that it is the primitive Catholic Doftrine that the Son and Spirit are [ o^.o^^tot ] Coiifubfl'imial. with the Father. The Ancients (fay they) exprefly teach the Confuh- pantiality of the Son, &c, and this confequentially (they think) infers their Ncceffary-Exiftence^ Supreme Divinity^ Coordination and Coequality with the Father in Nature and all PerfeB.iuns, This is the grand Foundation- Principle of what is vulgarly and er- roneoufly ftil'd Orthodoxy. This is perpetually re- cur'd to and infifted on by Dr. W — and Dr. B- — and all the Adherents of their Opinion : If they can but alledge the Confubflantiality, they think no- thing elfe can be difputed with them. I Ihall therefore enter into a particular Difcuflion of this Point i examine all the Dodor's Evidences of a Confuhflantiality i confider what Confuhftantiality^ or what Senfe of it any Ancients held or rejeded ; and how it was receivM and underftood by the Council oi Nice^ and foon after univerfally laid afide or rejeded by probably many of the Nicene Bifhops themfelves, and by almoft all the Bifhops of Chri- ftendom met together at feveral Councils. Where- in I (hall fhow that the Confuhflantiality never was the Dodrine or Profeffion of the ancient Catholic Church j that on the contrary it was openly re- claimed againft as foon as known to be profeifedly taught, and was upon mature Deliberation rejeded the tirft Time that it was treated of in a public Sy- nod : And that neither tliofe Amenicenes^ who are fupposM to have held it, ever inferM the Equality ^ JSleceJfary-Exiflence or fupreme Divinity of the Son, C^c. from it, but taught the exprefs contrary ; and that the Council of Nice itfelf did not teach in Con- fequence of it either the Neceffary-Exiftence or Equa- ' lity (29) iity of the Son with the Father, but on the othtoK(7ltf o-vyx^iio-AiAiuni o'/oiJ.uTr tpi'ft. ad Casf. apud. Socrat. Hift.Ecdef.li6. I. c. 8. Senf« Senfe of the Word Confuhfiantial, which was hot then tinder Debate, and appears no more to have been intended by the Nicene Council, than by the Ancients before them ; but only to juftify the Ap- plication of the Word Confuhflantial to the Son at all, in the Creed then depending ,* which Word having never been usM before in any Form of the Church, and once been jjuhlickly rejeEIed, occafion'd a juft Scruple at the Admiflion of it. I hope the Doftor will make an Acknowledgment to his Reader of thiis Abufe, and be more careful hereafter. Who thofe Ancients were whom Eufehius fpeaks of as having us'd the Word Confuhftantia!^ with Re- fped: to the divine Nature of the Son, cannot cer- tainly be known, becaufe he mentions none of ""em by Name j but it is not unlikely he might mean T^r- tullian^ Origen^ and perhaps Dionyjitts of Alexandria alfo. However, thefe before-namM are the only exprefs ancient Teftimonies which the Do6i:or has further to alledge for the Confubflantiality : and of thefe the Opinions of the two latter are tranfmitted to us from Athnnafiam^ out of Writings of the Au- thors which are not extant. And nothing could poffibly have happen'^d more unfortunate to the Do- dor^s Caufe, than that thofe Ancients from whom alone he has any exprefs Evidence of the Confubflan- tiality of the Son with the Father Ihould remarkably of all others of the Ancients oppofe that Notion which he would fupport by it. Tertullian [when a Montanifl'] diredly ajGferts the Confubflantiality of the Son and Spirit i yet he is fo far from ufing the Word to exprefs their Equality with the Father, that he aflerts, in the loweft Avian Terms, (n) " that there was a Time when the Son fn) ¥mt Umpus cam f I'm s nor) fult^ ad Bsvmirg. c 5. !Sva9 ( ?? ) ^ was not:" and fpeaking of the only-begotten Word, or Son of God, he fays : "' (o) That which *^ is unhegotten is more puijfant than that which is " begotten; and that which \s unmade is moice powerfui " than that which is made : for that which needed " no Original of its Exiftence, will be much fiipe- *^ rior to that which had a Caufe of its Exiftence/"* And in that very Montanifl Book, wherein he af- ferts the Confuhflantiality of the Son and Spirit, he not only exprefly makes the Son no more than a fmall undivided Part of the Father's Subftance, and derived [^de fatris voluntate^ c. 27.] by the /^// of the Father ; but he alfo afferts Humane Souls to be (p) Confuhfiamial with God, as well as the Son and Spirit. And befides, the mofl learned modern Athanafians^ particularly Petavins and Huetius have given up T'er- tuUian, with almoft all the reft of the Ancients, as being full againft that Notion which they with the Dodorcall Orthodoxy. Origen, another Voucher for the Confuhflantiality^ was fo far from teaching the Equality^ Sec. that he is exprefly charged by the moft zealous (q) Atha- nafians^ as giving handle to the Arian Notions i and making the Son and Spirit created Beings. He taught that the Son was begotten by the WiU of the Father ; and that Angels and humane Souls were con-- fnhflantial aifo ,• and his remaining Writings are fo qmA (o) InnAtum nato fortius^ ^ quod hfeBum faHo validius ; quiit -^uod ut ejfet uttllius egutt auBoriSy multo fuhlimius er'it eo, quod^ ut fjf^ty alicfuemh/jhuit auEforem. ibid. c. 18. {j^)Exfuhflantla ipjius \_fcil. Deil anlmatas. adv. Vrax\ c. 5.\VhicK is very like his Expreffion of the ConfubjlantiaUfy o^ihftWord^ quodexipfius Subflantia mijfum eji, adv. Prax. c, 7. and agree- able to tihe Nisene Expreffion of it, when they fay the Son is iyivm^t^i-^ix, tmj «VU^ 'ts <7rctT§o^'} begotcen-~of the Subftacce of the Father. () Gennadius does the fame, and ob- ferves with Bajil^ that the Ariam derivM their No- tions from him. T'heogmftus of Alexandria, another of Origens Scho- lars, is alfo cited by Athanajtus for the (a) Confiibflan-* tiality-y yet he alfo (whom Athanafins ftiles an do-i quent and wonderful Man) was fo far from holding the Equality ; that Photius accufeth him of making the Son a (h) Creature : and the learned Dr. Caue (c) re- prefents him as maintaining after Origen, the grojfefl Errors^ making different Degrees of Dignity in the Per^ fons of the Trinity, and depreffing Chrift and the Holy Spirit into the Rank of Creatures, Thus it appears, that all thofe Ancients whom the Doftor can by any fort of Evidence produce for the Confubftantiality of the Son, &c, were fo far from uiing it to exprefs (as he would pretend) the Equality of the divine Perfons, or the One Divinity of Father and Son ; that the moft learned and zea- loxxsAthanaJians themfelves, both ancient and modern,, have carried their Cenfures of them fo far [upon account of their exprelling fo ftrongly the Catholic. Doftrine of the alone abfolute Supremacy of the Fa- ther, and of the Subordination and Inferiority of the. Son and Spirit to him] as to charge them with fa- vouring and holding Arian Dodrines. And hence (y) Cod. iq6. ijj) Lib, de Ecclef, Dogfnat. c. 4, De Decret. Syn. Nic. (b) KTi(T[j.ct ewlov A'Tso^pttiVH* Cod,, 106, (c) Origen'is nim'ium fequaXy errores immifcuit peffimos ; tntet S, S. Trimtatls Verfojias totidem Dignitatis gradus affingeniy Chri' fiumque par'cter ac ffmtumfan^um ad creaturarHm (prtem detm* dens* Cav* Bifi, Lit, p. 5)8. E 2 two two Things are obfervable ; one,^ that the Word ' Confubftantial was riot underftood in the Philofophy and Senfe of the Ancients, to imply or infer an Equality either of Nature, Dignity, or Authority : an- other, that thofe who in the latter end of the fourth Century and afterwards, from the Ufe of it by the Council of Nice, infe/d the Supremacy and Coequa- iity of the Son, &c. with the Father, did corrupt the ancient original Meaning and Application of the Word, and thereby introduced Innovations into the Catholic Dodrine of both tht Antenicene and Nicene Church, and gave too great Occafion to the Error of SabeUianifm on one hand, and to the Im- piety of Tritheifm on the other hand ,* into which two Hereiies the Afferters of the Athanafian Confuh^ ftantiality were foon divided, as I (hall have Occa- iion more particularly to note hereafter. That which deceivM the primitive Chriflian Wri- ters who held in Speculation, upon the Principles of the Stoical and Platcnical Phylofophy, the TVord or Son of God to be Confidjlantial with the Father, was die philofophical erroneous Notion of the Emana- tion of L'ght from the Sun, to which they compa- red the Son of God from the Scripture-Similitude and Reprefen ration of him, as being the Brightnefs of God's Glory (d) ; and alfo ftilM the Brightnefs of everlafting Light (e). As they thought [according to (f) Athanajfus's Reprefentation of the Opinion of iTheog- mjlus'] that the Sun continued the fame and undivided by (d) n,l, I. 3. Ce) Wi[A, 7. 25, [Avcti^ v-sf ojjT^ (ijjycu<;y 'irco^ j/cTe n \Wicl tk 'ttclI^U dhhoicotriv VTriiAc-iVif' P>e Decret. Syn, Nic. And '^iheognoftus there repre- fents the Son as [jj/ccjo? cfcV./\3 ^ Valour of Water, which is a jlow Similiuide. the ( J7 ) th Rays of Light which ijftiedfrom it; fo alfo that the Sul- fiance of the Father (in the Generation of the Son from it) received no Change, Divifion or Diminution. The fame Notion plainly imposM upon ( g) T'ertuIIian. But had they underftood (as the Truth is) that Rays of Light are divided Parts of the Sun, and that the Sun is really diminifh'd by them i they would probably have refted in the Scripture ExPreffon of the Son's being the Brightnefs of the Father's Glory, and not venturM to have fpeculated fo far upon it, as to in- fer his being Confuhflantial to the Father, as Light is to the Sun; which would confequentially imply the Divijion ^nd Diminution of the Sulfiance of God , as we find accordingly in Fad the Notion of the Con- fubftantiality was charg'd with it, and thereupon re- i^^td by thofe who were lefs addicted to vain Phi- lofophy, and more clofely adher'd to the Dcdrine of Scripture. Cgj Nee feparatur fuhjiantta^ fed extenditur^ Apol.c.zi. Alfo adv. Frax, c. S. This Similitude-, founded upon fa] fe Philofo- phy, was made ufe of ('and more plau'ibly) by the old Sabeltian Gnoftics for their Notion of the Son being only a different /Ip, pearance of the Perfon of the Father ; which they repreiented by the San znd its Light ; which Light they argued was only dif- fiti'd or extended from the Sun, but was infepiyable from it : and thus in like Manner that the Word or Son of God was only a diftinft Manifeftatiorj^ and nut a different Ferfon from the Fa- ther. This Notion Jptjlin Martyr [who mentions it, Diai, p, I, 20. Edit. Far.'] condemns, as making the Son nothing but another Name of the Father, [«V to ra nXta (?:>;5^ oi'o[XA{t y/oi'-ov o.eSueiTcti'] as the Light of the Sun is only different from the. Sun itfelf ift Name. But the Word [or Son] he adds ; [dex^fxcp tj^ov TtWi'^ is numerically ('or really) diftinft from the Fa- ther; not as the Sun and its Light which is Part of the Sun it- felf, bat as one Light ot Lamp isdiftinO: from another, which is Jufiinh Comparifon : and the' it may feem to infer a Confub- fiantialiiy of another fort, yet that does not appear to be Jw fiinh Meaning, but he fpeaks by way of Similitude only. Haviflj^ ( ?8 ) Having fhown how few Inftances of ancient Wri- ters can be alledgM for the Notion of the Confub- Jiamiality ; and in what Senfe they underftood and apply'd it without ever inferring a Coequality either of Nature or Powers from it. It is moreover obfer- vable, that T'ertuUian is the only Writer who ex- prefly teaches and infifts on the Confuhftamiality of the Holy Ghoft, as well as of the Son ; the others not diredly fpeaking of that Matter, and are cited for the Confubfiantiality of the Son only. I fhall there- fore fas I proposM above, f. 23.) fhow briefly what Reafon there is to think that the Dodrine of the confubflantial Divinity of the Holy Spirit was pecu- liarly a Branch of the Afc;;^^^;^//? Opinion. Firft, It is remarkable that no ancient Writer of the three firft Centuries either before or after 'Ter- tuUian ev^er taught thatN:he Holy Ghoft is God or Confubflantial with the Father : And Secondly ^ 7er^ tullian himfelf never mentions this Opinion, but only in the Books which he wrote after he was a (/?) Montanifl : And T'hirdly, He intimates that it was a Part of his (i) Montanifm : And Fourthly , The (k) Athanajians themfelves declare that the Mont am ft s agreed with them in the Dodrine of a confubflantial Trinity. Ch) T)e Vtid, c, 21. Cont, Prax. c. iz, 5 r. (i) Nos enim max'ime Paracleti non hominum difc'ipuU^ duos ejHidem definimus^ patrem &" fiUum, Qp JAM trei cum fpiritu fanBoy fecundum ratlofjem osconom't& Ifcil. uwus fubflantU in tri- hits coh^ventibu^y adv. Prax, c, 12.] ^m Built Def. F, TvT/V. p. I9. (o) *Ev 0«'] Confubfiantial in the individual Senfe ,* and the Fa- thers of the Antiochian Synod might have condem- ned the Word, thus underftood, as implying [as I fhall (how it was underftood to imply] a Bivifion of the divine Subftance, after the Manner oiSalellians and Valentinians, into diftind Proholas, Effluxes, or Emanations y conceived as confuhfiantial Parts of one Subftance. And after the Council had declared the Churches Senfe that the Word ivas a diftind fubfifting Perfon, and really God before the JVorld ; Paul might then endeavour to turn the Confuhflan" tiality upon their Notion i and argue as Athanajius reprefents him ,* that if their Notion of theperfo- nal Preexiftence of the Word was true ; " and (/?} Chrift was not (as he maintain^) of a Man made " a God, it would then follow that he muft be Con^ " fuhftamial with the Father, and [in their Senfe however] there muft be [a Divifionoi the divine '^ Subftance into] three diftind Effences, one^ pri*^ [^ mary (ov original) and two, derivM from it." Thus I think Hilary ^ and Athanajius* s Account may be reconciled together ; and "tis plain from both that the Confuhflantiality was rejected ; and ad- mitting Hilary to be under a Miftake (as fome have thought) in fuppofing the Confuhflantiality to have been rejeded in the indi'vidual or Sahellian Senfe of (p) • Tou YIojjKm (^QZih^ ti 0eAo{'7©" yu hiyot^Q-. ei f^ri \)tm^. De Synod. Arim, ©» Ssleitc, Ss^. 4^, 'Tom', s, wd» QP (40 it ; yet it appears from Athanafius hirlilelf, as well as (we fhall fee) from Bafil, that the Word was wholly rejed:ed by that primitive Council, as car- rying in it the Notion of the Divijion of the Sub- ftance of God, which was indeed a 'wicked and ab- furd Senfe, but which they thought was the natural Senfe and Meaning of the Word, and therefore re- jeded it. It does not at all appear that they were impos'd •upon by Paul with a faife Senfe of the Word ; but that they agreed to his Interpretation of it, as in- ferring a Divijion of the divine Subftance. This was their Senfe of it, and they knew of no good one that the Word was capable of Athanafius does in a Manner own as much, faying of them, that {({) writing in a more plain limple Manner concern- ing the Divinity of the Son, they did not nicely underftand the Word Confubflamial^ but fpoke *^ their Senfe of it according to their own natural *^ Conceptions of it/' And their natural plain Conceptions [who were jiot usM to vain philofophlcal Diftindions] were, that the Word Confubflantial was of an ill Signification^ and imply^d a Divifion of the divine Subftance j and therefore was to be rejeded. Bafil tells us, (r) " they rejecled the Word [Con-- l^ fubflantiat] as having no good Meaning -, for they Cq) rteel tJ)^ T8 q « dzoJiflO' aTTXig-i^jv ypJ.(pov]z^i « Kctliyi- iji^] tS o/xo»(7f« ^^nKdL hereafter, and fliow that in the Paflage oi. Akxanderl on which Bifhop Bull chiefly builds his OpinioHj^ it is not fupposM that SahelUans and Valentinians made the Objedion of Divijion againft the Catholic Doctrine, but on the contrary, that the Objedion lay againft the SahelUan and Valentinian Notion. The Words of Alexander are ; " We (tS) believe ^^ in one Lord Jefus Chrift, the only- begotten Son *^ of God, begotten not out of nothing^ but of the exi- " fling Father : not after the Manner of Bodies, by *' SeEhions or divided Emanations^ according to the *' Opinion of SahelUus and Valentinus ; but after an *' ineffable and inexplicable Manner/' Here the natural Senfe of the latter Part of the Words is, that the Opinion of SaheEius and Valentinus fuppos d the Son and Spirit to be divided Effluxes, SeElions or Emanations ; and not that they had objeded this Notion to the Church's Dodrine. That the Valen- tinians held fuch divided Emanations is manifeft : Tertuliian (a) chargeth it upon them (and Irenaus before him^ and the Biftiop owns it. Therefore the Bifhop [not very fairly] drops the Word Valen-^ tinus in the Paflage of Alexander^ as confcious there was no Pretence to fay the Valentinians^ who were known to teach the Dodrine of Emanations of AEons divided from each other, had objeded this Divifan. againft the Church : and he fuppofes the Objedion to have come from SabeUians only, and according to his own Interpretation puts in part at leafl an ab- furd Senfe upon Alexander's Words. The Bifhop. (2,) Yli^iVOlAev €K iVA KUEiOV 'inTaV XciTol' 7hi' ^^iV 'T« 05« T^/ fj.ovoyivnj yivvn^kvldi, «'/{, I/, -t^ /^.« o;'7©-, ««aa' i;t rk of'IO- -^r^- etAA* dppiirco^ )^ dviKS'iiiyheJi* apud Theod, Hift. Ecclef. lib. r. Ca) VitlenUnuf ^xohoUs fnas difcermt ^ fe^arat ab auflore. adv* Prax, c, 8, ( 49 ^ ^j^ras led into the whole Miftake for want of know^ ing that the Catholics [whether rightly or not] did objed Divijton of the divine Subftance to the SabelJian Notion as well as to the Valentinian ,• which makes the Senfc oi Alexander clear, and (hows that he was {peaking of an Objedion againft the Vakntiuian and Sahellian Scheme, and not of one of theirs againft the Catholic Dod:rine. That this is Alexander's true Meaning [which In- terpreters have hitherto miftaken] is further evi- dent from an authentic Letter of the Presbyters and Deacons of Alexandria to Alexander himfelf, where- in they lay before him the Faith which they had heard him profefs, and which they had been taught by him : In which Letter they obferve, " that (0 *' Sahellius dividing the Unity callM [God] both Fa- " ther and Son/' Sabeliius had divided the ferfonat Unity of God, into three Perfons, contrary to the Catholic Faith. And tho' indeed Sabeliius did fup- pofe but one real divine Perfon or fubfifting Beings yet he fo explained his Notion of the Son and Spirit^ as to give Occafion to the Objedion of Divijton of the divine Subftance^ repefenting the Father under the Similitude of the Sun ; and the Sen as a Ray emitted from it, as (cj Epiphanius informs us ; and which is the old Gnoflic Explanation mention^ by (d) ^ufiin ; and a (e) learned Perfon tells us from Tiheodoret, that he made the Son and Spirit [joiJidi kj tt-sroppoia?] SeEii^ ms and Effluxes from the Father ; which is the Very Thing w^hich Alexander fpeaks of. (b) ^a,^ being lighted by another ; adding, that it is without Divi^ fioUy left any (hould obje(5t it \ and to fhow the Dif- ference betwixt his and the VaUminian Notion, which inferM Divijton. Tertuliian was indeed liable to the Objedion of the Divijton of the divine Subjiance ; and this is a ftrong Argument of the Truth of what I am contending for, namely, that the Confubjlantiality was not the Dodrine of the ancient Catholic Church ,* becaufe the Objedion was not made againft him by Praxeas^ as an Objedion againft the public Faith of the Church ; but was made by the Catholics themfelves againft the particular novel Notion of 'tentiUian^ who had imbib'd the Montaniji Opinions, and was the firft who profeffedly taught the exprefs Con- fubjlantiality of the Son and Spirit with the Father ; which being unknown to the Body of Chriftians be- fore, they exclaimM againft it as (g) dividing the Uni- ty, and introdticing a Plurality of Gods. And 'Tertuliian had no way to avoid the Charge of bringing into the Church the exploded Valentinian Confubjiantial 6V- farate Emanations, but by declaring the Son and (i) Dial. p. 375- y^^' . . ^ . . fg) SimpUces enim qu'ique — • qu Tify.'f tiy^iv cujtov, Soz. Hift. ^ (p) TdxjTA « fJiQPQV ly iKz^fiaicL S'lil'iKei hiyuvy dh>, ' firfi (54) firft Publication of Arius^s Dodrine to have been in as public a Manner as poflible. The Emperor Conflantine^'s Account lays the Oc- cafion of the Difpute and Quarrel to (q) Alexanders fropofing a frivolous Queflion among fl his Presbyters ^ and to the imprudent Reply which Arius made to it, and which caus'd the Oppofition and Difcord between them. Socrates fays the Difpute began upon Alex- ander s once difcourfing in the Prefence of his Pres- byters and the reft of his Clergy (r) ijoith more than ordinary Warmth concerning the irinity^ and aiferting an Unity in the Trinity. Which Arius ^ one of his Presbyters, thinking to favour the Sabelli an Opinion ^ out of Opppfition to the Sahellian Dodrine, went into the contrary Extreme, and vehemently oppos'd what his Biihop had faid ; and afferted that the Son, as being begotten, had {s) a Beginning of Exi- ftence ; and that from thence it follow^ CO ^^^^ ^^^^^^ was a Time when the Son was not; and that in neceffary Confequence he had his Subjtflence out of nothing. Thefe novel Affertions occafionM much Difpute not only in Alexandria, but throughout all AEgypt, Libya, and the upper (u) T'hebais, 6cc. and (x) many of other Churches, efyecially Eufebius o{ Nicomedia, favoured Arius's Opinion : Upon vihichAlexander grew very much {y) incensed, and calling a Council of many Bilhops together, he deposed Arius and his Adherents, and (q) ConHani, Lit. apud Eufeh. in Vlt. Covfiant. HL 2. c. dp. (t) (^iKoli/o]zeyv, Hift. EccleH lib. i . c. 5. *yiyvi}^d?' Ibid. ^ (t) Kelt l)C^ TaTa J'nhon on \m on aV Vm q5f' dKO^a^ei n *5 ^vciym^', e0 i)t oi^eou '^yjeiv gjjtov tIjj uVorct^/;/* ibid. See ^ition, Orat. I. coitt, Ariany p. 294, 2^5, (u) Ihid, C.6, ^ (x) 'S,miKa.^QcLyQv\Q T? 'Af«a ef'^f ^ 'TToKKoi ^h i^ ^h\ot, &c. Ibid. Ty) 'O 'Ahi^cLvJ^fi^^ Tfoi o^ybjj I^a^z^titcu. Ibid. wrote ( 55 ; tvrote the Account to all the Bifhops of other Churches abroad. It is neceffary to make one Obfervation on what Dr. B alJ edges from the Account of Socrates^ from whom he tells us, that Alexander in explaining the DoEirine of the Irinity ^ had ajferted the infep arable Uni- ty of Subftance * Unity of Subftance is put in Italick Characters, as if they were the Words of Alexander^ and Socrates is refer^d to for them : and yet neither in Socrates's Account of Alexander's preaching con- cerning the Do(5trine of the Trinity, nor in Alexan- ders large Epiftle general to all the Bifhops which he recites, and to which Dr. B — - refers, is there any fuch Affertion of Alexander s as an infeparable Unity of Subftance in Father and Son. All that Alex-^ ander there afferts is, that the Son is not, as xhtArians taught, Cs.) unlike in Subftance to the Father , as being the perfeEi Image and Brightnefs of the Father : Whence it is reafonable to infer, that he thought the Son was like in Subftance to the Father, which he blames the Arians for denying ,* and in explaining his No- tion, he never goes any farther. And in his other Letter to his Namefake of Conftantinople, he exprefly makes the Father and Son (a) two fubjifling Natures Cor Beings J Whence it appears that Dr. B has not that ftrid Regard to Truthy which fo ferious and important a Matter as he is treating of, re- quires. But to proceed; Soz>omens ^^rxmon is moft full and particular, and has feveral precedent Circum- ftances which are omitted in the other Accounts, and fets the whole Matter in the cleareft Light. He * ^ag. 166. (z) n«f clvolJLOtQ- TM aVfct '78 TAT^U^ \eLCm cti^-eivov VI) 'TneX T^v dy.ziCohejv Ikat^o} (A^et TT^B^vAt hoyovy 6cc. Ibid. (e) 'Hf o[j.o4(riQ'^ x5 (ruxiAic^ioi Ir/r qo^ ra Tetrei' Ibid, vuv* Ibid* Ariui ( 57 ) 'Aritts was in the (g) Right, he excommunicated both' Arius and thofe Clergy who adherM to his Dodrine ; [and afterwards (h) deposed them from their Mini-, itry.] But Arius was not deftitute of Favourers ; a \i) great Part of the Laity went over to him, and to thofe Clergy who were ejeded with him ; and they fent Meifages to the Bilhops of every City to ac- quaint them with their Cafe ; and delivering to them a written Account of their Faith, defir'd them, that if they judg'd their Dodrine to be right, they would intercede to their Bifhop Alexander for them : or if otherwife, that they would inftrud them better. The doing of this was no fmall Advantage to the Arians ; for it made the controverted Do- drines to be publifh'd all abroad, and enquir'd into amongft the Bifhops every where : and the EfFed was, fome Bifhops wrote to Alexander not to ad- mit Arius and his Adherents to Communion, un- lefs they renounced their Opinions ,* but others in- treated him to admit them. But when Alexander perceivM that a great (k) many Bifhops who were ve- nerable for Gravity ^n6. SanEiity oi Life, and excelled in Eloquence of Speech, favoured the Arians ; and efpecially Eufebius, then Bifhop of Nicomedia, a Man eminent for Learning^ and of great Efleem in the Court : He [_feU into a Paffion, and (/) defos'd Arius and his Followers, and] wrote to the Bifhops e^ery where not to communicate with the Arians, Hence both Sides grew more warm, and, as is ufual in fuch ^^yw^^^u^rh^'A^eioviVoiyj^ov, Ibid. (h) Socrat, Hift, Uh, i,c,6, 'Theodovet, Hift, Vik I. r. 2. (i) Ta Acta '6K ohiyn i^ol^^. iJ.{]ihvjo 'rr^oi ajflU* Soz. ut fu- pra. J^triV!^^, (TvKKctuQcLvoi/kv^i Toli cly.u tIv ''A^eioVf §5C. ibid. ^IJ Socrat. lib, u c, 6» , ^ " ^ H Cales^ ( sn Cafes, tlie Contention and Oppofition between theS fencreas'd. For when Eufebius and they who join'd with him could not after many Entreaties prevail with Alexander to ufe mild and moderate Meafures ; they thinking themfelves ill-treated^ began to refent the Ufage, and usM more vigorous Endeavours to "get Aritis^s Opinion to be eftablilhM : and calling together a Synod in Bithynia^ they wrote to the Bi- Ihops every where to hold Communion with the Arians as Men of {m) Orthodox Opinions^ and to en- deavour to prevail with Alexander to comriiunicate with them alfo. But when this Application had no Effed upon Alexander , Arius fent Meffengers to paulinus^ Bifhop of Tyre^ and to the great Eufebius Pamphilus, Bilhop of Cafarea in Palefline^ and to Patrophilus, Bifhop of Scythopolis ; and defir'd that ht and the other Presbyters who agreed with him, inight ht permitted to hold a Congregation of thofe People who adherM to them, as it was the Cuftom of Presbyters in Alexandria to do. Thofe Bifliops meeting together in a Synod vvith other Bifhops in Palejiine, fuhfcrib^d Arius^s Petition^ exhorting them to call together their Congregations as before, but withal to be in fubjedion to their Bifliop Alexan- der, and to endeavour, by continual Supplication, to obtain Peace and Communion with him. From the preceding hiflorical Account of the Rife of the Controverfy betwixt Alexander and Afius^ fe- veral ufeful Obfervations naturally arife, which give Light to the primitive Dodrine concerning the Trinity ; and plainly Ihow that the Notion of the T Ihiyz Tii TrctT^h 1-h lioVi k^tI/jj cwtVjj ^aiAV 'ly^eiv Tw yzUi'ViiyJori 62w' Hift. lib. i. c. 2, Ta Tctjj 0^ Tof' ^o^ ouotfTiov kiyovl©-' H^rer, f^b. lib. 4. c. i, Co) Socrat. Hift. lib. $.c. 10. Soz. hb. 7, c. 12, H % '' tbm ( 6o ) *^ that (p) the Ancients avoided afcribing a Begin- *' ning ofExiftenceto the Son of God/' The Co^ eternity was his own Inference without any dired Evidence at all from Antiquity ; and againft many exprefs Teflimonies for the contrary Opinion. Secondly^ Therefore it appears not only from the fore-mention'd Hiftorians, but from Alexanders own Letters which Theodoret relates at large, that he neither direftly aflertcd [in his greateft Oppolition againft Arms'] the ConfubBantiality or Coeternity of the Son : and the Coequality of Dignity, Honour or Worjhip was fo far from being declared for by him, that it did not enter into the Difpute at all ; and there are fe- veral Paflages in Alexander s Letters plainly againft it : and the Pretence of his teaching it is certainly either a very great Error or Mifreprefentation of "fheodoret. The beft Light in this whole Matter is to be had from the original Papers on both Sides which ftill remain, and from which we may collect what were the true Opinions both oi Alexander and the Arians, and withal what was the Catholic Do- arine of the Church at that Time. The Catholic Dodrine of the Church which Alex^ 'dnder had publickly profefs'd and taught amongft his Clergy and People, we have fet forth in an au- thentic Letter extant in Athanafius and Epiphanius^ which the Presbyters and Deacons of Alexandria wrote to Alexander their Biihop upon Occafion of the Arian Controverfy. In which they tell him : " That *' (q) the Faith which they had received from their *^ Forefathers, and had been taught by him alfo, was yov. Ibid. &c. apnd Athanaf. de Synod. Arim. & Seleuc, 6c Epiph, •! this. (<5i ; *^ thiS^ We confefs one un begotten, (r) only ttet^ *^ nal, only true God. That tliis God begat his '^ only-begotten Son before the Ages of the World > " By whom alfo he made the Ages and the World. ** That by his own (s)Wilihe gave him Subfiftence, " who is the immutable and unchangeable perfeti Creature " of God J but not like one of the Creatures [made *^ By him] — neither exifting before he was be- *^ gotten or created into a Son : as even you your- *' felf, bleffed Father, in the midft of the Church, ** and frequently in the Affembly of the Clergy, *' have confuted and rejeded thofe who introduced " fuch Opinions. But, as we have faid, he was *^ created by the WtU of God, before Time and be- '^ fore the World. — So that there are three fubfi- fting Perfons ,* and God who is the Caufe of all, is alone without Beginning (or Original : ) but the Son, who was begotten of the Father before Time, and created and brought forth before the Ages of the World, (0 did not exifl before he was begotten for he is not (abfolutelyj eternal, or coeternal, or unbegotten (or unmade) as the Fa- ther is ; nor coexiftent with the Father. ~^ — ^' Wherefore the Father exifted before the Son, as we have been taught by you, when you preached !^ in the midft of the Church/' The whole Letter is highly worth the learned Reader^s Perufal ; and is not improbably that writ^ ten For?n of Faith, or the Subftance of it at lead, which (u) Soz.07nen fays the Fav^ourers of Arius fent to the Bifiiops of foreign Churches r and that it is a true and impartial Account of the Catholic Dodrine (r) M'ovov d'tJ^iov uovoi' ctAnO/rof. Ibid. '/ji cruet 7^ biy^rkxeiov* Ibid. (u) Biillib, i.f, 15, ' " b£ bf the Church, and which Akxander himfelf had profefs*d and taught, may be concluded from the follovving Confideratlons. Firfi, That it clearly a- grees with the profefsM Dodrine of Antiquity, of the alone Supremacy of the one God and Father of all ; of the Generation of the Son by his Will : and his being thereupon conftantly faid to be created by Gad, which feems very near the Stile of the Crea- ture of God, hut not as one of the other Creatures [created by him} fo familiar among the Avians or Eufehians of the fourth Century, but as being im- mutable and ferfeEl ; the perfeB Creature of the perfeEt God, as (x) Eufehius calls him : and that he was pro- duced or begotten of the Father before all Worlds ^ but not abfoTutely coexiftent with the underivM Du- ration of God the Father, but poflerior to him (tho* without Limitation of TimeJ as being derivd from him. Secondly, ''Tis obfervable that this Form of Faith doth not dire(5cly affirm any one of the parti- cular Arian Tenets, which were condemnM by (y) Alexander : as either that there was a ^ime when the Son was not ; that he was made out of nothings or was iihe the Creatures which are made out of nothing ; was unlike in Subflance to the Father ; or was of a mutable and changeable Nature ; the leaft of which is exprefly deny'd in it ; as alfo in the Letters both of (x,) Arius and (a) Eufebius of Nicomedia.: So that in this Point Alexander has mifreprefented, or ftrain'd the Opinion of the Arians beyond, and even againft what they exprefly taught ; and feems to have char- ged that upon them as one of their Principles3 which he thought was a Confiquence of what they- (^) Tik&ioy TtKiA^i <^ii[.a^yii[J.ct'' Dem. Evang. lib. 4.0. 2, (y)Socrat.Hift.iib,l,c.6, ThecAorefJ'ih. I. c^. (z) Apud 1'heodoveta Bi^, llh. I. c» <, (s) md.c.6. 4^4 did really pfofefs, ivhich is a common, but very uiS fair way of Adverfaries dealing with each other. Having (hown the common Standard of the Do- ferine both of Alexander and Arius before any Dis- pute or Controverfy began betwixt them ; it will not be difficult from thence, and by comparing the original Letters on both Sides, which contain the PoStions of both, and their mutual Charges on each other, to enter into the Merits of the Caule which was fo warmly agitated by both Parties. Alexander^ in his general Epiftle to all the BilhopS^, declares what were the particular Pofitions of Arius and his Adherents, for which he had excommunicd-* ted and deposed them, 'viz.> {b) " That God was ndC " always Father ; but there was a Time when he ^^ was not Father : the Word of God was not a^ " luaysy but was made out of nothing therefore *^ that there was a Time when he was not. That ** the Son is a Creature, and made : That he is *^ not like to the Father in Effence (or Subftance) " nor the true and eflential Word of the Father. *^ — — That he is of a mutable and changeable Na- " ture ; aliene and feparate from the Subftance of :! God, &cr In his other Epiftle to hIS Namefake Bilhop of Conftaminople^ he fums up the Charge againft the Ariansy in three Particulars, namely ; " Firji^ Their ^ (c) faying there was a Time when the Son of God *^ was not. Secondly, That he was made out of no- " thing, like the reft of the Creatures. Thirdly, That II he was of a mutable Nature.'^ That Arius gave Alexander a {d) juft Handle for thefe Charges againft him, Theodoret tells us appears (h) Socrat. Hift. EccUf. lib. i.e. 6. (c) Iheodoret, Hift. Ecclef. lib. i. c, 4, (dj ThsjdonU WJtt lib. i. r, 4, ( ^4 ) from Arius^s own Letter to Eufel?r us ^"B'l&o^ oiNi-* comedia^ which he produces at large, and wherein Arius fays ; He was {erfecuted by his Bijhop for not a-* greeing with him ; (e) " That the Son is always as ** God is always.- — ^That the Son was coexifient with *^ God in an unhegotten Manner. That he was al- *^ ways begotten, and was begotten from being w^- *V begotten. That God did not exift before the Son *^ either in Conception^ or any Point of Duration. *^ And that the Son is begotten out of God him- *' felf." In Oppolition to which Dodrine of Alex^ ander, he fays, that the great Eufebius of Cafarea, Theodotus (o{ Laodicea) Paulinus (of Tyre) and others ; and all the Biihops of the Eaftern Churches (three only excepted, who held the Son to be an Emana- tion^ Emiffion, or unbegotten Property) ^^ taught (/) *' that God, as being unoriginated and without Be- *^ ginning, exifled before the Son!^ Then he declares what was his own Dodrine, viz., " that {g) the Son *' is not unbegotten^ nor in any Refpe(5c a Part of the '' unbegotten God, nor made out of any preexiftent Subftance : but that by the IVill and Purpofe of God, he exifted before Time and Ages, perfeB God, the only-begotten i and immutable. That he was not, before he was begotten ; had a Begin- ning of Exiftence, and was made out of nothing.* j cc T^clyei 050^ Ta LJy* — r* 5§ cu/tS* er/ to 9s« o q'of* Ibid. c. J, See Athanaf. Or at. i. rc^;//. /4W/?w. p. 294, 295. ({) Ilciv]i^ ol icctTcl rluj dvdLToKhJi ^iyaffiy, on '7r^u'ZFet§^€i 5 620? TO i/« fltWfX'^f" ;t.T. A. Ibid. , , > , (g) "Ot/ if^^ «'^ «^'''' dyivuidG-y zS'l (A^i dytvvnTa ka]^ hoi&)]Q-' }^ Tf/V yivpn^iij &c. aV toy -* d^yJ-'JJ i'/j^ ^ m'°^ — ^^ ^V '^Qvl^v Wiv' Ibid. $g; Athan. Orat. U conr. Anai],/>. 25)4. 295* To ( «5 ) To which we may add further out of Etifehhif of Nicomedias Letter j (/;) '' We never hear of " two Unhegottensy nor of one divided into two, -r— " but one unbegotten, and one truly derived from " him ; and not made out of his Subftance, nor *' partaking in any wife of the unhegotten Nature *^ but being wholly different in Nature and Powery *' made in the perfecl Likenefs of the Difpofition of " his Nature and Power. The Beginning of whofe ^^ Exiftence is inexplicable and inconceivable to all " created Beings. Nothing is produc'd out of " the Suhftance of God^ but all Things are made by " his JVill according to his free Purpofe."** From the preceding Account it is evident what it was that drove Alexander and the Arians into fuch a warm Oppofition againft each other : namely, their both pretending to be i^ife above li^hat is ivrit^ ten, and to difcufs Dodrines which were wholly deriv'd from Revelation, upon uncertain Principles and Speculations of Philofophy, without any Evi- dence from Scripture. Alexander underftanding the Son, who is ftil'd the IVord of God, in a metaphyfical Senfe, as being the internal Word or Reafon of God himfelf begotten into a Perfon, argued (againft both what he himfelf and the Ancients before him had conftantly pro- fefs'd and taught) that the W)rd or Son muft be ab- folutely coexifient and coeternal [tho"* he never ufes (h) ^'O'jTZ cTuo dyivmla, a)cmoctiJLiVy «t5 'h e;? J^vo c^tuf^'AixiVov* — — (Ikk %v {jXv To ctykvviTjoVt tu cTe to vtt* c/jjt^ cImS^^, }d^ «V k)i TJi? '^(Ticti cwr'^yifovh^, ^.c^OoAJf t«? pt-^sw? 7>!i^ d')^ii'niT'iQ'iAM7Hi hiyeiVy Ahoyoy ^ ctV^^of tots Toy 6soi»' AUy. Epip, apud Sccrat. Bfi, Uh, uc,6. ^.•; (67) or Duration (t ho* they did not pretend to define or limit k) when the Son did not exift. So that the whole Controverfy between Alexan^ der and the Avians turnM upon one (ingle Point, 'uiz,. how or in what Senfe the Son was faid to be (k) begotten of the Father before all Worlds^ according to the Creeds then univerfally received. The Avians infifted that this was not fo to be explained as that the Son was [i/. T»^bt6t|cc//.«;'©-' apud Theodo- rer. lib. i. c. 4. (q) I'heodorety Ibid, (r) '*F-j/ dyiuvulov 'Trctjfif Ibid. (s) 'AyvQ^v^ii 01 dvcLCTKyfjot eo^ y-etK^v av «}) (J-iJcf-^u Tetr^k dyivvnTu x^ tcov KJio-Bivruv yV cwtb ^ ^k oyjcov — Sv ^iomen, in their Account of the Matter, of Hojtus's ratifying thi Sentence which Alexander had denounced agam^ Arius : fo had he pretended to any fuch Thing, he had aded not only without Authority, but againft the ex- prefs Defign of the Emperor's Letters which he carried : which were not intended to decide any Thing on either Side, but to command them both to lay afide their Difpute, and to be Friends, and. hold Communion with each other. The Truth of the Fad therefore is ; the Emperor equally {y) blamed both Alexander and Arius for quarrelling a- bout fuch nice and fukle Quefiions ; in which, if they could not agree, they ought both to have beenjiknt^ and commanded them (2:.) to lay afide their frivolous Cu) Bfc^.CivS'cu elflujbjj, Vit. Conftant. lib. 1. c. 6^. (xj Vit. Confiant. lib. i.c.6'^~ 73. Fbilojiorg. lib. I. c. 7. So:rat. lib. i. c. 7. Soz. Uh. I.e. 16, (y) Enfeb.&> Socrat.ihid. lib. J. c. i<^. % Difputes^ (74) Difpute, and to he Friends^ with each other. This is Soz,o?nens Account : and 'Eufehius^ and Socrates from him, further oblerve, that Conflantine in his Letter calls the Matters in difpute, (a) '^ Qiieilions which " no Scripture had commanded as neceffary ; but *^ which were afruitkfs idle Contention : '^-^ th^t (I) *^ they were very intricate and obfcure Points, not *^ eafy to be refolv'd. -That they ought to ask *' each others Pardon : for that their Controver- ** fy was not about a fundamental Precept (or Do- *' drine) of Scripture ; nor was any new Opinion *' concerning the Worfliip of God built upon it ; *' but they both agreed in the faine Faith i but their *' Difpute was about very little and trivial Matters, •' a little verbal Contention about trifling Matters *' no ivay necejfary. That they agreed with each *' other, and with the whole Church in one Faith.--^ *' That the Matter of their Difference was no Point *' of Religion^ but a VQiyfooliJh Qrieftion" Thefe were the Sentiments of the religious Em- peror Conflantine exprefs'd in his own Letter, which Socrates fays was (c) admirable and full of Wifdom ; from whence it appears what Opinion he had of the Conrroverfy which made fo much Noife in the Church. That he was far from thinking the con- troverted Points (concerning the Nature and £x/- (a) Tfit? fo TQiojjTcL'; (nlixrc-ii oTTroJct^ y.n vo^/m tivU dvdyaw Vit. Conftanr. lib. 2. c. 69. Socrat. Hift. lib. i. c. 7. (bj Aictv A'^z^c^Vy Sec, iKccJee^^ vy-ci^v '^kt^tIjjj (Tvy^vco^hj} *7r(i(>J.^i!ov. — «<) TSf/ era x.of uyy and FaEi^ to produce all the Evidence that appears on one Side as well as on the other. And here I defire Leave to remind Dr. B- — of the excellent Words of his Friend Dr. TV- — , which had he himfelf obferv'd, the Controverfy might have beea brought to a ^,ood Iflue before now. '^ For {d) my *^ own Part [fays he] I declare once for all i I de- '' fire only to have Tilings fairly reprefented, as ** they really are : no Evidence fmoi he /dor flifled on " either Side. * Let every Reader fee plainly what *' may bejuflly pleaded here or there, and no more ; " and then let it be left to his impartial Judgment, *' after a full View of the Cafe. Mifquotation and Mifrefrefentation will do a good Caufe Harm, and V will not long be of Service to a had one." This Declaration I have always made the Rule of my own Writing, and have endeavour'd impartially to fulfil it in the prefent Papers. Having thus brought down in as (liort a Method as I well could, the hiftorical Account of the Con- troverfy concerning the Dodrine of the Trinity, to the Council of Nice j we may from the preceding Evidence and Obfervations upon the Rife and Pro- grefs of the Controverfy which occafion'd the meet- ing of this Synod, eafily form a Judgment of the podrine and Decifions of it. And therein it will appear from the Teftimony of thofe who were fre- fent^ and heard all the Debates, and gave their Suffrage againft Arius, that this illuftrious Alfembly of more than three hundred Bifhpps, very hardly ;'. fd) Di.WaterlanasVdcnCe of hisQuericS; p, 132. and ( 11 ) i3Cj^ \v\t\\ Difficulty admitted the Confuhflantiality ; andiF^r, from inferring thence the necejfary Exiflence^ Qoeternity and Coequality of the Son and Spirit with phe /Fat^r, or frorn confelfing their Belief [as Dr. ^—— ..pretends] * in the Father and the Holy Spirit as being nuinher'd together in the. fame, , Divinity^ they fhow^d themielves plainly of a contrary Opinion : and had it not been for the pertinacious and conten- tious Condud of the Arians^ in infifting to explain the general Words of Scripture and the Catholic I^or Srioe concerning the Generation of the Son from the Father before all Worlds^ according to their own par- ticular (e) Opinions, and refufing to leave the Words in the Latitude m which they had been al- ways us'd ,• it is highly probable that this eminent Council would have agreed to have declar'd* their Faith conformably to the primitive Catholic Creeds, and in the Words of Scripture only^ without deciding/or or againfl any particular Explanations ; and fo hap- pily have put an end to the Difpute betwixt Alexan- der and Arius, by obliging both to acquiefce in a general Catholic Scripture -Beliefs and to impofe no- thing more on each other ; and have publiftiM fuch a Form of Dodrine as might have defervM to be retained in the Chriftian Church in all fucceeding Ages. When the Bifhops were met together at Nice in Bithynia, they had, before they entered into a pub- lic Synod, feveral (/) private Conferences together about the Matters in Difpute bctmxt Alexander and Arius i and after a full Examination of Arius's Opi- * Tag, 185. Ce) Jthamf. de Decret, Syn, N'tc. & Eufeh, Nic, Epifi. atuA rheod.rib,j.c,6. Cf) Soz, Hifi, lih, I. r. 17, 19, aions (78) nions were inclined not to give their Suffrage (g) one way or other, either /or or againft him ; but to have left them undecided, as being mere fpeculative Notions, and to have agreed to declare their Faith in the catholic (h) receivM Forms of the Church, without any Alteration. Thefe precedent Tranf- adions of the Nicene Biftiops Dr. B takes no no- tice of. They (how too plainly that the Council at firft were not fo fhock'd with the Avian AfTertions, as to hefiffd [as the Dodor expreffes it * ] viith Honor and Aftonifl>ment^ and at once convinced of the Neceffity there 'was to anathematii>e fuch impious Blafphemies. They were not fo full of Gaul; and knowing very well that the Church had determined nothing about them ; they confider'd calmly and deliberately upon them; and tho' they did not approve them, yet neither did they think it neceffary to anathematiz,e them, or to exclude them by making any Additions to the ancient Creed ,* tho^ afterwards, when they faw the Avians fo full of Contention and Cavillings they refolv'd to condemn their Tenets, both declaring againft them in their Creed it felf, by inferting in it fome new Expreflions for that very Purpofe; and alfo by annexing to it Anathemas on all the parti- cular Pofitions chargM upon them. When the Bifhops were fummon'd to meet in the Prefence of the Emperor, and the Matters be- fore privately debated, were to be again difcufs'd publickly ,* the Emperor having firft put an End to tome Feuds and Animofitles that were amongft rrdL^ytycfSoVi H^ dKeuCn ^dcTctvov Wo/«i'To reop dVT^ '7r^7cL(Tiuv'' T^^cTwf cTs i/T/ Sift-re^- tIw ^^(pov ayetv \u.o6(noi'] confuhflantial (with the Father) but only to have faid, " that (/) the Son is by Na- ^^ ture the only-begotten of God/^ And he himfelf (ni) grants that in fpeaking concerning Chrifl it is heft [as the Avians infifled] to keep to the Words ofScripture^ and not to ufe unfcriptural Expreffions : for that re^ 'veal'd Truths cannot be fo well exprefs'd as in the Words of Scripture : and fays, in Apology for the Council, that the contentious Ill-behaviour of the Eufebians forc'd the Bifhops to infert the (unfcriptural) Words which plainly deftroyM their Notion. For finding no other way to put an End to the cavilling (i") 'E/. rcdv BiO'tTVZvreov Koycov KdCcoy.zv tcov (nl^i^iivecv iLcjj h\j]Q-* De Synodi Arim. 6c Seleuc. "^ Jr2, 553. ^ . (S) Th OfO/>tctT« 0^0«(7t» Ct(ry' apud, Soctar* lib. 3. c, 25. & Soi. lib. 6. c. 4. ( §o ** like in Subftance to the Father — 'In Oppofition t(5 V the Affertion that he was made out of nothing." From the Nicene Council's Interpretation and Senfe of the Word Confuhft ami al, it plainly appears, that they were far from underftanding by it or in- ferring from it that the Son was necejfarily-exijient and coequal with the Father in Nature and all Perfe- Biuns. This was a Senfe in which the Word had never once been us'd by any Chriftian Catholic Wri- ter in the World; and which when taken in the mofl ftrii^ literal Senfe, it was not underilood to im- ply upon the Principles of ancient Philofophy : and there are befides other Circumftances which (how that the Council oi Nice could intend no fuch Mean- ing by it. It was well known by the Council, that thQ Avians maintained that " the (t) Son fubiifted " by the Will of the Father ; and that he was not *' equal to him ; " as well as that he was made out of nothing, and did not exifl before he was begotten. Had the Council therefore thought that thefe Aflertions were erroneous as well as the other, they would un- queftionably have either faid in their Creed, that the Son was equal to the Father, and did not fubfift by his Will 3 or at leaft have anathematized thefe with the other Arian Opinions. But this not being done, and the Word [h^j.^^cm'] Confubjiamial, never imply- ing either Neceffary-Exiflence or Coequality, accord- ing to the Ufe of it amongft the Ancients,* and the Council explaining it in no fuch Senfe, or applying it in Oppofition to thofe who (they knew) deny'd them ; there is not the leaft Ground or Pretence to think that the Council meant any fuch Thing by it, and ^tis almoft a Demonftration that they did wVjjffs is^»i<7« 'TTctJ^Mct* Thai. Arii apud Athanaf.de Synod* Arirri. Se Sekuc* vid.'gg Epifl. Arii apud Theod. c, 5, iioti (8| ) inot^ And we may with Certainty conclude that the Council of Nice did agree with all primitive Catho- lic Antiquity, that the Son was not neceffarily-exiflent^^ but on the contrary, was begotten of the Father by his Will ', and that he was not coordinate and coequal with the Father in Nature and all PerfeEiions, 2. ^Tis evident that the Word Confubflantial was notunderftood by the Nicene Council, in a ftri^t, li- teral and phyfical Senfe, in which it implyM that the Son was either a confubflantial Part or Emanation of the Subftance of the Father ; or was a diftinct Specific Subftance : in which Senfe ic had been reje- ded by the Council of Antioch, as implying a Divi^ fion of the divine Unity, and introducing Polytheifm. Thefpecific Senfe Dr. B thinks *to be downright Iritheifm. Dr. W—' every where owns the fame : and this being the only literal and grammatical Senfe, if the Council did not ufe the Word in this Senfe (as it is allow'd they did not) they muft ufe ic with a Latitude, and in a Senfe peculiar. And what their Senfe was, they themfelves exprefly de- elarM j namely, that they applyM it in Oppofition to the Arian Pofitions, that the Son was a Creature made out of nothing^ like to the Creatures made by him^ and unlike in Nature and Subflance to the Father ; and that they meant by it that the Son was truly be^^ gotten [fx. r6 0sb] of God the Father^ and therefore truly God ; and was not like to the Creatures which God made by him j but was in all Things Uh to the Fa- ther alone who begat him. So that the Word [o/zobV/oc] Confubflantial^ was. plainly underilood in the Senfe of the Son^s being [o^o/i/v \iT[/.fv (7vvo<^ov S'ivTi^v fTvjiZ)t^c,r&i [Icil. Nicenani] Eufeb. in vit. Conftant. lib. 4. c. 47. Synodiis longe omnium celeberrima & cum Niciena Synodo comparanda fi Hnfebio credimus : quippe quae ex omnibus Romani imperii provinciis ad dedicarionem regalis Eaiilic^! a principe e(Tet con- giegara* Valef. obferv. Ecclef. lib. 2 c. 2. ad fin. Hill. So^. Cm) Socrar, lib. 1. c. 26. Soz. lib, 2. c. 27, Creed]; < 95) Creed] fecommeiid them to the Council, and. or^ der'd them to be admitted to Communion. The Council, with the Emperor^s Letters, received their Creed, and gave both it and the Men themfelves an ample Teftimony of their Approbation ,* declared their Dodrine to be orthodox and apofloUcal, and them to be found and worthy Members of the Church of Chrift, whom Envy and Party-Zeal had till then driven out of the Church : and wrote a Sy^ nodical Ep'Me to the Church of Alexandria, and to the Biihopsof all Churches, to admit them immediately into Communion, and not to fufFer former Difputes to break Peace and Union any longer amongft them* This is the Subftance of theDecifion and Decree of this moft eminent and truly orthodox Council ,* the Original of which, as related by (n) Athanajius himr^ felf is in the Margin. Hence it appears that the Church, and no lefs the Emperor Conftantine, were foon fenfible of the ill Confeqnences which the Infertion and Impofition o£ mfcriptural Expreflions, in Matters of Faith, had produced ; and therefore were refolvM not to make them any longer I'erms of Communion. And this Co) "Oi/? [fcil. Arianos] ^rf 5^ tiva Kctt^oi' iaijokakI^ (pOor©** ^Uvi Iw d'Ts-iyyco^cf, ol 'Trdvra vyimi ItTAV i^ Ikk^ho-ioltikIuj, iKiiKmiA TS 65»* — — «5 TTf et^i^n of the M- cene Council. The Dodor, to make his Reprefen- tation of Things the more plauiible, and to raife in his Reader's Mind an Indignation againll that Ca- tholic Dodrine which he traduces under the Name of Arianifm i prefaceth his Relation with the, trite Story ( 97 ) Story Xyf^rius^ sfudden Death *, calling it the viJtM^ Hand and Interpojition of Providence. This is a Story of much like Nature with that which Philvftorgius telJs concerning feveral Athanajian Biihops who met at Nicomedia^ being Part of the Arimini Council, and were (o) fwaHoivd up with an Earthquake. The Sto- ry of Arius's Death [if it was any Thing to the Purpofe] ftands upon the Credit of his moft invete- rate Enemy Athanaftus^ which he fays was told him by the Presbyter Macarius ; and which he publiili'd iabove (/') fwenty Tears after the Thing is fuppos*d to have happenM : And it is further obfervable, that Athanajius orders Serapion (to whom and to fome Monks he had fent the Relation) (q) neither to take himfelf any Copy of his Letter y nor tofuffer any Body etfe to take one ; but orders it to be returned to him again : and fays he had given the fame Charge to the Monks. This is enough to render the .Story fufpicious at leaft. But fuppofing the Fad to be true ; it is [even as re- lated by Athanajius himfelf] an Argument not a- gainfl but rather [tho* in Reality on neither Side] for the Truth of Arius's Opinions : and if it was a Judgment y it] was for his Hypocrify and Perjury in con- cealing and denying his real Sentiments upon Oath too before the Emperor Conflantine, Dr. 5— proceeds f ; "It would be tedious tb explain the manifold Divifions - — among the A- rians i the various Councils which were holden by them ; the different Forms of Confeflion which were drawn up, fome more openly aiferting the Blafphemies of Arius^ others by no means difr cc (C * "Pa^. 2.06. (o) Hifi.EccJef. Ilk ^,c. 10. ^ (?) ^P'ft' adSoliiariof & ad Serap, vid, Montfaiic. In 'Utt. Aihd^ mf, pag, soi Cq) Epifi' ad Serap. N ^ daiming ( 98 ) ^^ claiming them ; and none of them profeffing the *^ whole Faith of the Church, but leaving fome Re- ^^ ferve or Subterfuge for their Impiety/' Here the D^edor, in a Way fuitable to the reft bf his Hiftoryi reprefents the difcontented diffent- ing Athanafiam and thofe who followed them, few in Comparifon of thofe he ftiles at Random Avians, to be as it were the whole Chunk : and charges thofe Confeifions which were made in many eminent and humerous Councils of truly catholic Bifhops in a Succeflion of about thirty Years together, and which Were admir'd and allow'd to be orthodox ^^ even by the Athanajtam themfelves ; to be either open AJfer- ticns of the Blafphemies of Arius, or tacitly contain- ing his Notions. Which Calumny caft on fo many learned and pious Bodied of Men is merely founded 6n their not infiiling on and refufing to impofe the ■ nnfcriptural JExprefTions of the Confuhflantiality^ 3cc, [which the Dodor calls the Faith of the ^ Church'} which had been very much abusM both to the di- Hurbing the Peace and corrupting the Dodrine of the Church ; tbo* yet ^tis well known that they ex- |)refly condemn^ the Arian-AJfertions ; and taught nothing but what had always been the profefs'd Do- ftrine of the primitive Chriftians before them ; and therefore are very injurioufly ftil'd Avians, And it will be fufficient to confute all that the Dodor has laid within that Compafs of Time to which I intend to confine my Confiderations on the Controverfy bf th^ Trinity, briefly to (how what was the Dodrine ^nd public Profeffion of thofe many and numerous Synods which he calls Avian; tho' jflilavy himfelf ^llowM feveral of them to be Orthodox ; and that they taiight no other than the catholic Dodrine of Ailti- ^tiity^ dnd tvhich \vas the general and almoll: una- nimoufly received Dodrine of the Chutch till after t!ie middle of the fourth Century, ( 99 ) It hath been already fhovvn, that the great Council pf ^erufakm did not think the Confubjiantiality to be any Part of the Cathohc Dodrine, The Emperor Conftantine was of the fame Opinion, and continuM to be fo as long as he liv'd. Not many Years after his Death, a great Council met acAntioch by the Order of his Son Conflmthis *, to celebrate the De- dication of the great Church there. This Council; drew up feveral Confefllons, iji which they con-, demnM the (O^^^'^^Pofi i ions, and profefsa their Belief in general. Catholic and Scripture-TermSy lea- ving out the Mention of the Confuhfiantiality^ which they diflik'd. The Ads of this Council were of fo great Note as to be inferted into the Code of the Canons of the univerfal Church. The Dodrine o£ this. Council Wary f^} allows and interprets as ortho^ dox ; and our own learned (t) Dr. Cave owns it to. be found in all Things but the Omiifion of the Co/2- fuhflamiality. So that they ivere not only Arians who were averfe tothe Confuhflamiality^ but the tru- ly catholic and orthodox Part of the Church were fo too, who condemn^ at the fame time the parti- cular Arian Tenets^ aa much as the Athanajtans themfelves did. About four Years after, another Council at (u) 'Antioch t, composed ('tis probable) chiefly of the feme Bi(hops which had made the former Synod, publifli'd the largeft and moft explicit catholic * An. ?4i. (r) Socrat. Hifi, Ecclef, Uh, 2. r. lo, i8. Aihanaf. de S^md. Arim.&'Sekuc, (s) De Synod, (t) In omnibus his fidel formuJiSj catera (ut vtdetur) fanisy -rS ojj.omi^i vocahulum nufqmam reperire licet^ utpote a quo pn'itus ah- horrebant, Hifi, lit. ?2inU. pag. 3. (u) Socrai. iib, 2. c, i^. Aihanaf, de Synod, N 2 Form ( 100 ) f prm of Faith that had ever been known ] in whicK they anathematize not only the Avian AfTertions, but alfo the Errors of Paulus Samofatenus, Sahellius^ Marcel/us, Photinus and others. And they them- felves declare they had enlarged their Confeflion on pxirpofeto take off all Sufpicion of their Heterodoxy y an4 to convince the TVefiern Church, to whom they fent it, of the impudent Calumnies of their Adver- fkries, [viz,, the Party of Athanajius who had mif- ireprefented them] and that all of uncorrupt Prin- ciples might know that the Dodrine of the Eaflern f hurch was Catholic and agreeable to Scripture.' This Confeflion (x) Valejtus himfelf fays, is moft elegant and learned^ and a Catholic Explication of the JOoSlrine concerning the Holy Trinity^ only that it omits the Confuhftantiality : Which Word was left out on purpofe to fhow that they were neither addided to pne Party or other ,* were equally averfe to all no- *vel and erroneous Doflrines under what Name fo- ^V€r ; and profefs'd nothing but the indifputable Catholic Do(^nne confirm'd by the Teftimony of ScripturCo This Council taught and confirmM the catholic Doftrine of the (y) Supremacy of the Father over the ^on, and the SuhjeElicn of the Son to him : and alfo of the (^j voluntary Generation of the Son j condemning thoiS (x) Fides— —»CI. Valefii judicio, doftifllrni & elegantlflima, 5n qua doftrinam de facrofanfta Trinitate & Dei filio, oraifla fola Vy oMo«(ri« mentidne, fenfu fatis catMico exponunr, Apud. Cav. Hift. lit. P/irMI. p^^. III. ij»* V« 3 lia V'Ts-oJtjetffJLiv^ tS "ToLT^i, Socffat. lib. 2. c. 19. (z) Toy? J ^^hYKTet a/e ^iKn<7ei y^^ivM^ tqv x^-'-^^v eifimort^i •7 Wf dh^^tJicLi ^ivni i'7fftyti/>:U)ioiMv, They explajp their Senfe 30 die Words prefently foUpwing, 'vk^ cwtok^.to^ ^ m/* e?f (loT) thofe who deny'd it, and affirmM that the Son was begotten mceffavily^ and not by the Will of the Fa- ther. This Doftrine of the voluntary Generation of the Son, which had been the unanimous Dodrine o£ Antiquity, [tho^ Athanajius bid the Avians fhow who had (^) taught it, by which it appearM how much he was acquainted with the ahtient Books} was profefs'd afterwards by the Eafterns of xht^Sar^ dican Council j and (b) Hilary gives his Suffrage and Explication of their Do6trine, as Catholic an4 Orthodox y tho^ they did rejed the Confuhfiantiality, About four Years- after the Sar dican Council, a famous Synod composM both of Eaftern and Weftem Biftiops met at Syrmium f, and deposed Photinus^ Bi* fhop of the Place, for denying the Divinity of Chrift, and afferting him to be a mere Man, Hilary commends and explains at large as Orthodox the Con- feffion of this Council, who, as on the one hand they condemn'd the Arian Opinions, To oh the other hand they difapprov'd and laid afide the Confuh^ jlantiality,' They anathematizM feveral erroneous Opinions ; and as they profefs'd the true and proper Divinity of the Son, fo in oppofition to a Plura- lity of Gods, they declar'd that he was not coordi^ note oxequaly but fubjeB to the Father ; that he was rh hoVy Kvexoy ewjlv Itwrt «J^ot5?, iKM^iu^ twjov ;^ ^ixoflct [f QsAofrW. AthanafJ tov iaov ytfivvv\K.ivAi lM(nCui C'Tffeihh'fety.iVm Socrat. ibid. & Athanaf. de Synod. , (a) "Ei'^scLJgoffAv rfuv [rcil, Aiiani.] — Tct^! rtpQ" tuv dyiuv a^aVcti'TS? .^vy.'Wi(po^v\KdL^ to him by *^ a SubmifUonGfOhedience '-^'^ as being^J/^^ by him ; " as receiving every thing from him, and in all " things obeying the Will of him that fent him/* *ro which he afterwards adds ; ^^ that the Son is V fubjecl to the Father by the Nativity of his Naturec -r— ^ Again ; ^'^ is fubjeEl to him as the Original of -Vhis Exiftence i^' which (hows his Opinion plainly of the natural SuhjeBion of the Son to the Father in his higheft or divine Capacity. (c) ^Ov cujjTelayo^t.iV Tov i^ov T^ ^ctj^jy aXK \zgvi{ja,][/.ivov r^ *yrJ)i^\. Soc. lib, 2. c. 50. non exxqiiamus vel conformamus [ai. comparamus] filium patri fed fLibjeQ:tim intelligimus. De Synod, (d) In eo quidem maxime non comparatiirnec coasquatur filius patii, dum fubditusper obedienris obfequelam eft — — dum mittitur, dum accipir, dum in omnibus voluntati ejus, qui fe mifit, obfequitur. Hil. de Synod. Subjeftum alterum alteri Natmtate Nature, Patrem in eo majorem effe <]uod pater eff, £liumin eo minoiem effe quod filius eft. -^^TLlnfubje^Hsefim ^Htor'iy &c. ibid. tli u ( lOj ) " If any (e) one (fays the Council) afferts thlt the Son was begotten mthmt the ^^// of the Fa- '" tber, let him be anathema. For .the Father did " not beget the Son by the Comfulfion of the M^ ^^ ceffity of his Nature without his Willi but he feotR " 'will'd (the Exiftence of the Son) and begat hiift *^ of himfelf before Time, and without being Pdjjvue (!& " his Generation/') This Hilary SJaowz to be hft own Senfe, as he had done before. . _ Again ; " We (/) pioufly, refer (fay they) ail '^ Things to one umriginated Principle of the tFrii« *^ verfe thro the Son/' In the Explanation of which Article, Hilary declares his own Opinion in the following remarkable Words. " It (g) is nioft im-? *^ pious to profefs the Son to be unoriginate ; for if l[ ioy ;there will no longer be one God; becaufe the w^six. ^QsASf iyivvi) " m refpuit ergo innnfcibilem filium pr^dicarifidei fatJ^a^ Utpet UnUM ihhafdbikm'f DewnunumpTAdicen Hil.ibid, . . •^ i ''Doarin* ( ib4 ) ^^ Doftrine of the Unity of God h founded neceffa- *^ rily. in the Nature of one unoriginated God, — «- ^^ There is therefore but one Gody feeing it is the *' Father that is (abfolutely) God, and the Son is " t?o-iptuye^ it is decreed that it " fhall be wholly laid aiide, and no Mention made of it for *' the future. But we affirm that the Son is Ike unto the Fa- '* ther, as the divine Scriptures exprelly teach. Athanaf. de Synod, Arim. & Sehuc, (y) Ldit) omnes adproi-hdas veveyfuntHr, Hierot^ym, adv. Luci* fer, p. 145. (z) Hilary addreffes the Council of Arimim in thefe Words, VIZ. Ariam non efliSf cur negando Uomouflon (en[emlnl Ar'iani ? de Church ( 109 ; Church after the Nicene Council for many Years to- r. W) in calling the Father the one God of the Chriftians, in exprefs Contradiftindion to the Son &c ; whereas Dr, W. thinks and aflerts, that the Son and Holy Ghofi are as much the one God of Chrifiians, as the Father (alone by St. Paul de- clar'd to be fo) is. Again, inftead of faying, there is one God, and one Mediator hetween God ami Men &c. he fhou'd have faid (in diredt Contradi6lion) there is one God who is Mediator hetween God and Men: for that the Son fwho was made Fie fhj/^-? Man Chrifl Jefus, v/hom 6"/. Paul ftiles Media- tor, is equally, Dr. fV. thinks, Supreme God with the one God and Father of all, to whom he is Me- diator, Once more, inftead of faying, one Spi- rit one Lord one God and Father of all, who is above all, the Apoftle ought, according to Br. JV.^ to have included the one Spirit and the one Lord in the one God, and not to have diftinguifh'd the one God from them by the perfonal Appellation of Fa- iher of all, who is above all ; as if he was eminently and peculiarly the ^;z^ G, 367, e^r. t Ibid. ^ 177. and ( 8) and the whole Body of Chrifliahs, which he h^ the Afiurance (as if it was the Churches Dodrine) to call upon the Church to authorize, and efta- blifli by Humane Authority. The Church, which he means, has had the irut Scriptiire-Do^lrim of the Trinity laid before it, in the Propofitions relating to this Dodlrine which the late Dr. Clarke deduc'd from Scripture. Thefe were well confider'd by the mod eminent and learned Body of the Clergy ; who after mature Deliberation, and without any Prejudice in Favour of Br. Clarke^ did not gainfay any Part of his Propofitions ; or alledge, either that he had mif- underftood or mifmterpreted any one of above a thoufand Texts of Scripture, on which his Pro- pofitions were founded; or that any one of them Was not rightly deduc'd from the -Scriptures, which he brought to fupport them. What was this but a tacit Determination in Favour of the Scripture- Boilrine of the Trinity, afferted by Br. Clarke. But as no learned and eminent Man has yet appear'd in Defenfe of Br. Ws. Notion ; fo it is to be hop'd, tliat none will ever be fo unwife as to rifque the Reputation of his Learning and Religion, by- appearing in fo indefenfible and bad a Caufe. One eminent Prelate * has already fhewn his Senfe of the Dr's fundamental Dodrine, by not fo much as mentioning it in his Catalogue of the great and fun- damental Doctrines of Chrillianity. So that as every Chriftian cannot but be furpriz'd at, fo eve- ry Scholar mud contemn, thofe high and arro- gant Demands here made of their Faith to a Do- drine, which it is impoffible that any knowing fincere Chriftian fliou'd believe, or fhou'd not ut- terly renounce and deteft. * Sit theBldjop of London's 2d Pafi. Let. p. 24,25. &c. I proceed to examine his Condud towards, and Treatment of thofe, who, in Defenfe of Scripture and primitive Chriftianity, differ from his Notion of the Doctrine of the Trinity. He fays, (/>. 38.) " Can thofe who believe Chrift " to be God, and who honour Him as fuch, ever " think it reafonable or pious to hold Commu- *' nion with Men, who, by what they call inferior " Worjhip^ do thus manifeftly difhonour and de- " grade their God and Saviour, denying his di- " vine Perfections ^cP To the fame Purpofe he adds, C^. 42.) " Guilt iscontraded by commu- " nicating with thofe, who openly and refolutely '' corrupt the Faith (knowingly or ignorantly) in '' very important Articles." But how do they difhonour Chrift, who honour Him with every high Title afcrib'd to him in Scripture ? who refufe him not the Title of Gody tho' to be fure not in Dr. W\ Senfe of his being the one God of ChriJiianSy whom St, Paul ftiles the one God and Father of all^ who is above all \ this would be not to honour Chrift, but to difhonour the Father who fent Him : but they acknowledge him to be God, as being the only-begotten Son of God, the Word or Revealer of his Will, whom God hath appointed to be their Saviour^ Mediator^ and Judge, And how do they degrade him by inferior Worjlnp^ who, as the Church ex« horts every Priell at his Ordination, continually pray to God the Father^ by the Mediation of Jefus Chrifi ? Do they degrade Chrifi in their Worfhip, who, ac- cording to his own Command, pray to the Father in his Name * ? Is giving to Chrift me- diatorial Worfhip degrading Him ; or is it de- grading Him by inferior Worfhip, in offering (as he Himfelf has commanded us. Mat, 6.9.) all our Prayers prifnarily and ultimately to Cod the Father, C to ( 10 ) to whom He Himfelf alfo prap ? Is it degrading Chrift by inferior Worftiip, to fay that Prayer^ in the moft proper Senfe^ is to he underftood of Prayer direBed immediately to the Father ;' ■ that one Part of divine Wor/hip called Prayer is mojl properly and emphatically Prayer, when dire5ied to the firji Per- fin of the Godhead j that Prayer properly, or em- phatically^ fpeaking, is praying to the Father, to whom all Prayer primarily belongs * ? If then all Wor- fhip of Prayer primarily belongs to the Father, is it degrading Chrift by inferior Worfhip, to worfhip him (not primarily^ butj in Subordination to the one God and Father of all, to whom he is Mediator, and through whom, therefore, all our Prayers and Praifcs ought primarily and ultimately to be offer'd to God the Father ? This is our Rule of Wor- fhip ; and if he is confiftent, it will be his Rule too : Otherwife, let him fay, not that we, but let him fay, as he ought to fay and in Confequence does fay, that the Scripture dijhonours Chrift by giving inferior Worfhip to him ; and that we, by following that inftead of humane Inventions for our Guide, do likcwife difhonour him by inferior Worfhip. I appeal now to any fober Chriftian for the CharitaUenefs, Equity, and Confijiency of Dr, jV's preceding Infinuation. The Texts of Scripture which he civilly apply s to the Oppofers of his Notion, as being fuch as openly reje^ the fundamental Do brines of Chriftianity, andfo not fit to he communicated with, are, viz. {Rom, i6.i 7 J "t" rnark them which caufe Diviftons and Offen- ces, contrary to the Dooirine which ye have learned, and avoid them. Again; t(GaL i. S.)thowe,oran Angel from Heaven, preach any other Gofpelunto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him he ac^ cursed. Again ; ^j (i T!im. 6. v. 3,5.) If any Man * See his ad Dffenfe^ p. 400. te§ch ( 11 ) Uach otherwife^ and confent not to wholefom JVords^ even the Words of our Lord Jefus Chrijl^ and to the Do5lrine which is according to Godlinefs fromfuch withdraw thy/eif Again; (Tit. 3, v, 10,11.) • A Man that is an Heretic after the firfl and fecond Ad* monition reje5l ; knowing that he that is fiich is fuh- verted and finneth, being condemn* d of Himf elf. Again ; (2 Epifi, 7. 198 J allow a few, who are capable (by their Super ftition^ Bigotry^ or fomething worfe) to examine in order to know that her Boolrine is undoubtedly true^ that they may have fomething to fay againft Oppofers s and may pretend, at lead, that their Do- dlrine ( »7 ) 6lrine will bear Examination : But as it is there at Mens utmofl Peril, either with or without Exami- nation, not to know the Church's Dodrine to be in- fallibly true ; fo Dr, W. thinks it ought to be here at Mens utmoft Peril likewife, if, after they are encouraged to examine^ they do not know the Church's Dodlrine to be certainly true^ as certainly fo as Mathematical or Arithmetical Demonftration. And this Dominion over the Faith and Con- fciences of Chriftians, they have (he thinks) a Right to claim, in oppofition to St. Paul's plain and exprefs Declaration in Refped of himfelf and other Preachers of the Gofpel, that they had not Bo- 7ninion over Mens Faith. (2 Cor. i. 24.) This Text, he fays (p. 200.) is of oh f cure Meaning ; and pre- tends as if he knew not what to make of it. But had it been faid that the Church., or Church Gover- nours, had Dojninion over Mens Faith ^ the Text with him would have been as clear as Light ; and any one that fhou'd have fcrupled his Senfe of it, wou'd have been charg'd by him as guilty of heretical Pravity. The Senfe of the Text is plain enough. The Apoftle told them, (v. i^.) that he wrote none other Things to them., than what they had read or acknowledged to be the Dodrine of Jefus Chrift the Son of God, who was preached among^ them, by hi?n^ and Sihanus, and Timotheus, (v. 19.) this was. the Faith in which, he tells them, (v, 24.) they flood ; and therefore in refpecl of their Faith, he fays, he had no Dotninion over them, either to alter or over- rule it; in this they had no Lord or Mafter, but Chrift the Author and Revealer of their Faith, and Ruler of their Confcience: and He, and the other Preachers of the Gofpel, who were the Declarers of this Faith, were the Heifers and Promoters of their Joy and Confolation, ia receiving and ftanding firm in the Faith and Do- ctrine of Chrift. Therefore {v, 23.) he calls God D to ( i8 ) to witnefs, that his not coming to them, as was ex- pelled, was merely out of Tendernefs and to fpare them^ who ftood in Need of Reproof on Account of fome Divifions that were amongft them : not that he had Dominion over their Faith, or that, when he fhould come amongft them, he did exped that, upon his mere Authority, they ought to believe or receive any Thing as the Dodrine of Chrift, or as an Article of their Faith, but what he had be- fore, by the Infpiration and Power of the Holy Ghoft, preach'd unto them, and which they were convinced, and had acknowledged, to be the Truth of Jefus Chrift. And if St. Paul renounc'd all Claim and Right by his mere Authority ftho an Apoftle of Chrift) to impofe any Thing as Articles of Faith, or a Rule of Confcience, but what he had firft prov'd, by the Power and Infpiration of the Holy Ghoft, to be the Dodrine of the Scriptures, and the re- veal'd Will of God by Chrift ; and had convinc'd thofe to whom he preach'd of the Truth of it ; it cannot be Right, or become any Men, to claim fuch an Authority, who are not only uninfpir'd and fallible, but often have, and always may have, worldly Views and Interefts to ferve by fuch a Pow- er over the Faith and Confciences of Men. And the Berearis are commended {A5fs 17. i;. 1 1.) as be- ing of ingenuous, free, and unprejudic'd Difpofitions (which is the Import of the Word, render'd noble) in attending with all Readinefs to the Word which Paul and Silas preach'd to them -, and in believing it, after they \-\2i(\ fearch'* d the Scriptures, and found it confirm'd by them. The Church then (any Authority of which in Matters of Faith and Confcience is never men- tion'd in the Scriptures, nor arc we ever com- manded there to receive the Do6lrine of the Church) can only have an Authority to propofe the Do- ctrine ( 19 ) drine of Chrift, declar'd in the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith and Confcience to thofe who are convinc'd of the Truth of them ; and to inftrud: its Members in the great and important Points of Religion, which are contained in them. And as all ought to have the ingenuous, free, and unpreju- dic'd Difpofitions of the Beream, in attending with all Rcadinefs to the Word preach'd to them, which is able to make them ivife unto Salvation ; fo they ought, with them, to have the Liberty of fearching the Scriptures, in order co know and be convinc'd whether the Doctrine propos'd is true or not, be- fore they deceive or believe it ; and to afTent to it or diffenc from it accordingly with Impunity, and without Force or Compulfion of their Confciences by any pretended Human Authority over them. One might have hop'd, that the Proteftant Prin- ciple of the ible Authority of Scripture as the Rule of Chriftian Faith, in Oppofition to any Claim of humane Dominion over it, had been fufliciently underftood and univerfally receiv'd, fo as not to be capable of Difpute, amongft Proteftan ts. Confounded, as it were, with the Force of Truth he fays [p, 200.) '' the Proteftant Churches claim no more than a " dird^ive or inftru^ive Power " over Mens Faith or Confciences." So far good ; but he adds, " Church Cenfure and Difcipline afFc6t " the overt Afts, the Speaking., Writings 'Teachings '^ perverfe Things •,«— for which {p, 201.) they " are accountable to the Church, as much as other " kind of Offenders are accountable to the State." The Church, he fays, claims no farther Power over Mens Faith than what is inftru5iive ; very well ; to be fure it has no farther Right or Power. But that we may not think ourfelves the better for any Conceffion of his, he takes Care to let us know, that he means nothing like what he fays ; hx his meaning only is, that the Church claims not D 2 " to ( xo ) lobe a Searcher of Hearts, and not being fo, it cannot know whether its Intlruaions and Doc- trines are receiv'd and believ'd or not, and fo bng as Men keep their Thoughts private to themfelves, they are out of the Reach of the Church s Cenfure, But if the Church knew Mens inward Thoughts, then he wou'd plead for a Right in her to cenfure and punifli them, for not believing what it is im- poiTible for them to believe; becaufe, he fays. Men ought not to judge againll her Definitions, they ought to know her Dodtrine to be true. Was the Br, fmcere in faying the Church's Power is meerly inftruBive, he ought, in Confe- quence and Confiftency with himfelf, to plead that the Church has no Right to go farther than merely to inftruB her Members, by propofing to them what {he judges to be the Chriftian Dodtrine ; and that inftead of inflruc^ing, fhe lords it over God's Heri- tage^ contrary to the Apoftolic Ordinance (i Pet, c. 3.) when fhe requires any of her Members to make a declared ProfefTion of her Do6lrines, not exprefly contain'd in the Scriptures ; and demands the Submiffion of their Faith and Confciences to her fallible Definitions ; and infills that they ought to receive them, and examine them only^ in order to know that they are true •, but not in any wife to doubt of them, or differ from them, under Pain of incur- ing her fevered Cenfures upon every overt A5i of fpeakim^ writings teaching otherwife, which can- not but be (according to Dr. W.) fpeaking,^ writings teaching ^ ferverje T^hings^ howfoever true in them- felves,*^or agreeable to Scripture, if they agree not with what fhe has determined beforehand^ that every Perfon ought to find true. All Claim of this Kin4 @f Authority to impofe, and cenfure for not fub- mitting to her Impofitions, he ought to give up %f^6. plead againft as inconfiftent with the Office and Truft ( 11 ) Truft committed to her, which, he owns, /; no more than a directive or inftrn^live Power over Mens Faith and Confciences, But to allow that the Churches Power is merely infiruBive^ and with the fame Breath to affirm, that fhe has Power to cenfure and punifh every overt Acl of teachings &c. tho Men teach nothing hut that which they are ferfuaded^ may be concluded and proved by the Scripture (which is the Promife requir'd of, and made by, every Prieit at his Ordination) this is fuch an inconfiflent and arbi- trary Power of infiruBing, as is fit only for a Popiih Advocate of a Popifh Church to claim. The Reafon which the Dr. gives for the Claim of this Dominion over Mens Faith, is as truly a Popifh Reafon as can be given. He fays (/>. 201.) ^' can any Man claim a Right of perverting ({o he *' calls teaching out of the Scriptures) his Fellow- *' Chriftians, as he pleafes, and at the fame Time *' deny others a Right of doing what in them " lies, to preferve their People from falling into *' the Snares laid for them ? Shall they not be *' permitted to makeUfeof thofeT^inV^/^/ Powers^ " which God has put into their Hands ? There- " fore [A^. B.'] let the Adverfaries be content to " keep their Thoughts to themfelves, and then *' no Body can have Do?ninion over their Faith at " all" No thanks to the Church then for that, according to the Dr. but to God only, who has not put it into the Church's Power to know Mens Hearts. But is not this Popijh Orthodoxy in Per- fedlion .? The Dr*s Complaint is, that if the Ad- verfaries of his Notion claim a Right, as Chrifti- ans and Teachers of God*s Word, to declare what they believe and can prove to be the true Chri- ftian Dodtrine , if they claim (as they are in Duty to the Church, as well as to Chrift the Head of it, bound) to teach and inftrud their Fellow- Chrifti- ans in the Knowledge of God's reveal'd Truth 5 and and if, as they promis'd the Church at their Ordi- nation^ they are ready ^ with all faithful Diligence^ to hamfh and drive away all erroneous and flrange T>o- Elrines contrary to God^s Word\ if they thus do their Duty to God and the Church, and are fo hap- py as to convince many of their Chriftian Brethren by Reafon and Argument out of the Scriptures ; fhall Dr. IV, on the other Hand be deny'd a Right (inftead of Reafon and Argument out of the Scrip- tures, and in Oppofition to thekfpiritual JVeapns) to ufe his carnal Weapons \ to do what in him Hes, by calling out for Lxcommunicatwns^ Deprivations &c. not to convince but topunifh all who do not a^ree to, or who dare to oppofe, his Dodtrine, how con- trary foever it be to Scripture and Reafon ? There- fore I might juftly return his Compliment, and ask him, " with what Modefly^ Decency^ or Confiftency^ " does he claim a Right of preverting his Fellow- '' Chriftians, as he pleait-s," by fuch high and ar- rogant Pretenfes of Dominion over their Faith^ as if he was more thman Apoftle ; endeavouring by the Force of Church Cenfures^ which he thinks he ought to have at command, and to throw out at plt^afjrf, to pervert and frighten his Fellow- Chrlflians from embracing the Truth of Scripture; and at the fame Time deny others a Right, which is the common undoubted Right of all Chriftians equally, to judge for themfelves (fince no others are qualify'd to judge farther) in Matters of Faith and Religion ; and alfo by Chriftian Inftru6lion, with Reafon and Argument out of the Scriptures, to do what in them lies to preferve their Chriftian Bre- thren from falling into dangerous Errors, or being infefted with Antichriftian Dodrine ? what Pre- fumption is it in him to call upon rhe Church to efpoufe his Errors, which his Adverfaries have more Reafon to call upon it to cenfure and con- demn, as being moft oppofite to thofe Scriptures^ which ( »5 ) which the Church has declar'd to be the Rule of reveal'd Truth ? He did not learn of the Church his Method of preventing what he may think to be Error: At his Ordimfionhe ipromls'd the Church, lo inftru^ out of the Scriptures the PeopU committed to his Charge-^ and to form his own Faith and Doc- trine by that Rule j and he was then exhorted by the Church, continually to pray to God the Father ^ By the Mediation of our only Saviour Jefus Chrift^ for the Hea^ venly Affifiance of the Holy Ghojl. This is a truly fcriptural and primitive Exhortation and Form of Worfhip, of which the Br, flands very much in Need of being reminded : and if he laid to Heart his Ordination-Promife and Duty, as a faithful Paf- tor, to inftrudl his Fellow-Chriftians in this Worlhip of God taught by the Church out of the Scriptures, and not to talk fo foolifhly, like a Spanijh Pro- vincial^ oi Anathemas^ Excoimnunications^ Depriva- tions &c. to propagate by mere human Authority, Scholastic Abfurdities and Contradictions inflead of Scripture- Do^rine^ he wou'd appear both a more reafonable Man, and better Chriftian, than he now feems to be. To give the Sum of this matter ; if there is a Right at all of private Judgment in Matters of Faith and Religion^ fand if there is not. Popery is the unavoidable Confequence) it follows necef- farily, that there is a Right to declare this Judg- ment by fpeaking^ writings &c *, otherwife it is a Right and no Rights which is a Contradidion. If any one thinks that what another teaches, as his Senfe of Religion or Scripture, is erroneous, he has Liberty to refufe Aflent to it, and fo it can do him no Harm ; if he aflents to it, thinking it 'fruth when indeed it is Er7'or^ it can ftill do him no more Harm than he does himfelf in miftaking the Senfe of Scripture in any other Point ; i. e, it can do him no real Harm at all .* God requiring us, in Matters ( »4 ) Matters of Belief, not to be infallible^ but only to be Sincere in our Enquiries after the Truth of what he has reveard to us. In fundamental Points fincere Men are in no Danger of erring, tho' Churches are ; have err'd, and do grofly err, and, what is worfe, impofe their Errors for divine Truths. 'Tis exadly the fame in civil Matters. If I have a Right to judge for myfelf, in Relation to my civil Property and Liberty^ I have a Right to fpeak and write in Defenfe of this Property and Liberty ; and alfo a Right, in Conjundlion with others, to oppofe the Invaders of them. There- fore, as the Subjedls of a State have a Right, by Overt Acls^ to maintain their Civil Liberty and Property againft all arbitrary and tyrannical Pow- er, by uniting to reform it, or, if that cannot be done, to deftroy it *, fo the Members of the Church of Chrift have a Right to maintain that private Judgment which they juftly claim, independent of all Ecclefiailical Power, in Matters of Faith and Religion^ by the Overt ABs of preachings writings and teachings what they fincerely believe to be the Dodrine ^nd Truth of God's reveal'd Will -, and to unite in Order to reform^ or, if ir- reformable, to abolidi and deftroy all Ecclefiafti- cal Authority, ufurping Dominion over their Faith and Confciences, This Aflertion of Chriftian Liberty is the Ground of the Proteftant Reformation ; as on the contrary, our Author's Notion is the Ground of Popifh Superftition and Tyranny, and is im- mediately deftrudive of all true Religion. Let a Man then do what lawfully he can, by teaching or writings to propagate Truth, and pre- ferve his Fellow-Chriftians from falling into un- chriftian Errors : but let no Man, or Body of Men, endeavour to force, by civil Penalties or Difcouragements, or by any Thing which they may ( M ) rnay think to fanclify by the Name of fpiritual Fower^ the Definitions of their fallible Judgment for a Rule of Faith. If they do, the Members of the Chriftian Church, who may in Judgment differ from them, have the fame Right to infiid: Cenfures upon them, and, when they have Pow- er, to lay them under Civil Difcouragements, £) ) infallibly knew did To. They were fuch as either deny'd Cbrift^s coming in the Flejb^ the Refurre- Elton of the head and a fuime Judgment -, or fuch as allow'd of Fornication^ and ot honouring Idols by eating 'Thiijgs offered to them. And none were accounted Heretics with Refpedl to the Divinity of Chrift, but the impure, prophane, and impious GnoJlicSy the Followers of Stmon Magus ; fome of whom (the Cerinthians) deny'd Chrift, the divine Word and Son of God, to be paffible^ or to have really fuffer'd for the Sins of Mankind \ afcribing his Sufferings to his mere hu?nan Nature^ or to the Man Jejus^ as this Author knows who do : others held three unoriginated necejfarilyeiciftent Ferfons*^ in point-blank Oppofition to the Uyiit'^ of God^ the one God and Father of all. This was an Heref'j and Impiety both againft natural and re- vealed Religion \ this was a flat Denial of the only Lord God : yet this is the darling Notion which this Author efpoufesfor Orthodoxy^ with fo much Wrath and Uncharitablenefs, as if he was pof- fefs'd with fome of that old Heretic's Spirit, and was in the Gall of Bittcrnefs^ and Bond of Iniqidiy {A5ls 8. 23 J But the Notion, which this Au- thor perpetually ftiles by the invidious Name of Arian^ i. e. the Dodlrine of the Subordination of the Son of God to the one God and Father of all^ and who is his God^ and Greater than He^ is fo far from being condemned as Heref^^ that it is the very Dcftrine of Chrift and his Apoftles, inculcated in more than a Thoufand Places of Scripture. Let then every Church (tho not infallible as the Apoftles were) endeavour to follow their Kxan-kple in rejecting thofe, only as Heretics, from her Favour or Communion, who either by Im- morality of life, or by wicked Error, contradid * Tf«« ctVctfX**^ & dymnj^i, Conft. Apoft. lib. 6, c. io« fdit. Cot. the ( t? ) the plain exprefs Doflrine of the Gofpei ; this ;s St, Paul's Rule, Rom. i6, 17. Let the Defini- tions of Chrift and his Apoftles (not thofe of fal- lible Men) be the Rule to try every Dodrine whether it he (not of the Church, but) of Gcd, Whatever Chriftian oppofes, by teaching or o- thcrwife, this Rule of Faith, oppofeth not Man but God : and in fo doing is an Apoftate, and cannot be fincere ; on which Account St. Paul fays an Heretic is [elf-condemn^ d^ Tit. 3. 11. and fo ought to be reje61:ed from the Communion of ChrKtians. And none are in fo much Danger of being Heretics in a Scripture-fenfe, and incurring the Anathemas there denounc'd againft them, as they are, who blindly following the Didates of fallible or worldly Men as their Rule of Faithj do, as St. Paul did in his unconverted State, kick againft the Pricks^ deny the Faith of Chrift, and by exciting Church Cenfures againft it per- fecute, as he did, the true Profeflbrs of it. How many have made fhipwreck of their Faith by relying on this Foundation, I need not fay ; but as it is certain, that the whole Scheme of this Author's Orthodoxy has no better Ground, he wou'd do well (if he is not incurably blind and infatuated) to confider whether, in his own Account of Herefy, he is not highly guilty of it, and ought to be rejedled out of that Chri- ftian Communion, as a Teacher of falfe Dodlrine, and a Deluder of his weak Brethren, out of which he is fo zealous for ejeding others. The Point plainly is, which he wou'd feem to debate in his Way {p, 210 — 215,) if the Scrip- ture is a Rule of Faith in all Matters of God's reveal'd Will, and, as fuch, fufficientiy plain in it- felf in all important fundamental Articles, and Hands not in Need of an Interpreter, the Senfe of whofe Words, in neceflfary Points of Faith and E 2 Religion, ( i8 ) Eeligion, cannot be clearer and eafier to be un- derftood than thofe of the Holy Ghoft in the Scriptures themfelves j it hence undeniably follows, that the Chriftian Church cannot better confult the Honour of Chrift, and of true Religion, and the Happinefs and Peace of all its Members, than by propofmg its Creeds^ Confejions^ Articles pf Faith, and Fonns of J^VorJhip, in the Words and Forms of Scripture, Hereby the Church can incur no Danger of Error on its own Part, and all the Members of it will be free in their Confciences, and cannot offend or deferve Cen- fure, but by departing from the Faith deliver'd by Chrift and his Apoftles to the Saints, or Profeflbrs of Chriftianity. Men may, indeed, and have, for worldly Ends, and to avoid Perfecution from Pagan Tyranny and Superftition, perverted and deny'd this Faith, and have been juftly rejefted by the Church for fo doing, as Heretics and Apoftates. But dill the Fathers of the Church, in the firft and pureft Ages of it, never ventur'd to enlarge their Cree<3s beyond the Bounds of Scripture ; or to fxprefs their Faith in Terms of Philofophy and huixsan Invention ; bejng fo wife, as well as pious, as ito know, that they cou'd not better exprefs the "Truth of God, than in the Terms of his Word. And it may, I hope, be fa id agreea- bly p their Sentiments without Offenfe, that the Senfe of the Articles of particular Churches, whiicji are mere Interpretations of Scripture, hath be.en» ^nd is, and, probably, always will be har- der to underftand, and be more liable to be dif- puted, than the Dodrines of Scripture form'd in Scripture-Terms, and relating to* all important ppints of the Chriftian Faith are, or are like to be, 4 remarkable Inftance of the Truth of what is Hid^ \^ a Point which pur Author feems to Jay greater ( 1? ) greater Strefs upon, than on the whole Scripture. The Council of I^ice (on vvhofe Definitions, Dr. PF. pretends, what he calls Orthodoxy, and the Dodlrine of the Trinity, is founded) exprefs'd the Dodtrine of the Scripture and the Church, concerning the Son's being the oyil^ hegoiten of the Father^ the Image of the invijible God^ the Brightnefs of his Glory ^ and the exprefs Image of his Perfon^ this Similitude they ex- prefs'd anddefin'd by the Word (o/xoaV/o^) confnhflan^ tial'y which, literally taken, means more than a bare Sif?iilitude (tho they meant no more by It) and may be underftood, either of tht Father and Son being of one fpecific Subflance^ in the 'Tritheiftic Senfe ; or elfe of one individual Suhjiance^ in the Sahellian Senfe. Now this was denoting, what was fufficiently clear in the Words of Scripture, by siphilofophical Term, whofe Senfe was very liable to be difputed ; and, accordingly, foon became matter of great Contro- verfy and Contention in the Church. 'Tis true, the Council immediately explain'd what is meant by the Word Confubftantial^ viz. that the Son was not Confuhjlantial by Divifjon of the Father's Sub fiance (as the Word literally imply'd) but that the Word denoted^ * that there was no Siinilitude betwixt the Son and thofe Creatures which were made by him \ but that he was altogether like unto the Father only who begat him. Athanafius f himfelf owns this was the Senfe of the Nicene Council ; and fo does the Council of Antiocb., \\ under Jovian^ in like Manner underftand it. This Senfe of the Word was harmlefs in itfelf -, ^nd had this Explication, which, upon Eufebiu^ of * EuIeL CifauEpid, apud Theod. Hifl, Eeclef, lib. r. c. li. & SDcratA\h» i.e. 8. t "o7/ AM^h 'OMOI'OTHS h [o waO T« yiVvr\(fa.vlQ-. De Synod. Arim, ^ Seleuc. (I An. 1 6 1, To %vo^A 7« o/!zo«o-l« df^et^v^ Tilv'x^Ki im.^. Toif mtj^ttffjv [viz^ NiC] isi/.ljjHetf, (m/MimffMS o]t in rm icjetf rig apud Sec* lib, 3. c. 25,5c Sex,Mb, 6, c. 4, ( ^o ) C{^farea*s Propoial, was agreed to by the Nicene Council, always gone along with ic, great and fa- tal Difputes might have been prevented. But the unfcriptural Word Confuhftantial being put into a Confeflion of Faith, and feemingly authoriz'd by a great and eminent Synod (tho never intended by it to be profefs'd as the common Faith of Chri- ftiansj they who were Lovers of Strife and Con- tention, more than Lovers of Truth and Charity, immediately fell a quarrelling about a Mctaprjfical Term, and laid a greater ilrefs upon it, than upon all the Articles of the Chriftian Faith : one Party underflanding it in the Sabellian Senfe of be- ing one individual Si bftance^ and fo, that the Father and Son were the fame Beings Per/on^ Agent ^ or God : The other Party, on the dire<5l contrary, under- Handing it to mean the fame fpecific Suhftancey in the Senfe of Tritbeifm or Ditheifn^ which made the Father and Son two diftind confubftantial Beings^ PerfonSy Agents^ ox Gods: both equally deftroying the true Divinity of Chrift, the Son of God, the one by confounding his Perfon with the Father^ iho, other by dividing the Subftance of the one God into two Perfofis. Yet both thefe Parties, oppofite as they were both to Truth, and to one another, had that good Opinion of themfelves, as to ilile themfelves Or- thodox •, and both agreed ftho Heretics to each otherj to brand, with the Name of Herefy, thofe who held the true catholic and primitive Faith, which was the Mean between the Herefies of Sabel- lianifm and Tritbeifm held by thefe Parties. Thefe, for Diftir>6tion's fake, I may call Eufebians^ who, agreeably to Scripture^ the unanimous Senfe of the antient Church, as exprefs'd in all their * Creeds and * Vide Symh, Bapti/m. apud Jpofl. Conji. lib; 7. c. 41. Iren. lib, I. Co 2. lib. 5. c. 4. Tertul. de vtUnd, Virgin. PrAfcipt. adv. and Writings, and of the Nicene Council itfelf, dedared their Faith in the one o}7ly true Gcd, who was the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift •, that the Son was the moft perfe5i Likefiefs of the Father, who begat or produc*d him by his JVill and Power^ before all Worlds ; that he was truly God, by the Exercife of a true divine Power and Dominion in the Creation of the World, and in the Government of the Church communicated to him from God the Father, and executed in Subordination and Obe- dience to bis fovereign Co??imand, IViJl and Appoint- 7nent^ who alone is the Original of all Power and Dominion, and alone the fupreme God over all and above all^ and greater than the Son, as he him- felf hath declarM, John 14. 28. This primitive Scripture-dodlrine diftinguifh'd the Perfons of the Father and the Son, in Oppo- lition to Sabellianifm^ or thofe who held the Sub- fiance of the Son to be the Subftance of the Father ; and alfo preferv'd the Unity of God, in the unori- ginated Perfon of the one God and Father of ally in Oppofition to Tritheifm, or thofe who held the diftind Beings, Subftances, or Perfons, of the Fa- ther and Son to be equal in Nature, Do?ninion and Power : and this was the Dodrine which generally prevailed, and had the Sanction of the mod nu- merous and eminent "f* Councils of the Church, even in its corrupt State in the fourth Century. But as the Leaven of Superftition and Popery encreas'd, and by Degrees prevail'd, the Tritheijiic HAret.c. 15, 14. & adv. Prax, c. 2. Symh, Lucian, Martyr* O* Eufeh. CaJI apud Socrat. Htft. lib. i. c. 8. & Theodoret* lib !• C. 12. Symb, etiam Nicen* & Cyr. Hierofol. t Vide Dijfert. PrAv. ad Novat, edit* Jackfon. p. 6y — 70. & ^Annot, ejufd.inNovat.p, 375—378. 6c p. 387 — 391. and the true Narrative in Anfwtr t9 Berriman'^ Hifi, Ac(m»f of the Trmity, p. 92— no, Tri- (j2) Trinitarian Notion gain'd Ground, and eftablifh'd k- felf by Perfecution and temporal Power : the Ma?i of Sin grew up with it, and handed it down, from Age to Age, with many Superftitions, idolatrous, pefti- lent, and immoral Herefies, with which, as with Lo- cufts, the whole Church was overfpread, and the very Vitals of true Religion eaten up. And thus an Innovation, fmall in Appearance, and without any bad Meaning or Defign at the firft, once made in the Chridian Faith, fpread like a Canker, till every Part of the Chriilian Faith was corrupted by it: And Men having once departed from the Form of found and Scripture-words, there was no End of their Wanderings, when, inftead of Scripture, they foUow'd fallible human Judgment fdiredled too often by Paffion and worldly Intereft) as their Guide. The foregoing Obfervations, made to fhew that the Scripture is the beft and cleared Guide in all Articles of the Chriftian Faith, and eafier to be underftood, in all important and fundamental Points of Belief, than the beft human Forms and Inter- pretations are, were necefiary, on Account that the fame Delufions and Errors, which prevailed in the former Ages of the Church, by mifunderftanding human Forms, and building falfe Dodrines on the pretended, but miftaken or corrupted, Senfe of the Church, have feiz'd and been propagated in our Times. To mention once more the precedent Inftance of the Word [dixo8(Tios] ConfnhftantiaU or being of one Siihjlance. From the Sound of the Word, one might be apt to think that the Council of Nice intended to teach, that the Son was, in a ftrid Metaphyfical Senfe, the fame fpecific uncriginated Subflance with God the Father, as if the Subftance of God was divided into two Perfons or Subftances, or the Son was an undivided, but really diftindt Part of the Sub. ( 33 ) Subftance of God the Father; this is the literal Senfe of the Word, but far enough from the Senfe of the Council of Nice, as hath been (hewn. Yet a Perfon unskiil'd in Ecclefiailical Antiquity, or who never read or underftood the Hiftory of that Council, will eafily and naturally conclude that to be the Senfe of the Council, and fo be mifled into the grofs Error of thinking God the Father and and the Son to be two umnginated Perfons^ Beings^ or GodSy becaufe of the fame Kind of Subftance in both : it being impofiible, as to conceive the Sub- ftance of the one God the Father to be other than unori^mated^ fo to conceive the Subftance of the Son, if the fame in Kind with the Subftance of the Father, to be oihtr zhd^nunoriginated d\(o \ to fuppofe the Ja7ne Subftance in Kind originated and unoriginated being a moft flagrant Contradi- ction ; and not lefs fo than to fuppofe the fame individual^ or undivided^ Subftance to be originated and unoriginated. Indeed, as I have obferv'd, if a Man has Learning enough to read and under- ftand the Hiftory of the Nicene Council, he will find they meant nothing more by the Word Confub^antial, than to exprefs their Senfe, that the Son was not like to the Creatures which God made by Hi?n^ but was in all Things like unto the Father : or as Alexander Bifhop cf Alexandria^ who occafion'd the meeting of tiie Nicene Coun- cil, declar'd his Senfe, * that the only-begotten Son ivas a middle Nature betwixt the unbegotten Fa- ther^ and the Creatures zvhicb God made By Him. The Council took Care to difclaim the literal Metaphyfical Senfe of th'^ Word, which imply'd a Divtfton of the Subftance of God -, on v/hich Account it had, about fixcy Years before the Council of iVitTf, after mature Debate been rejedted * AUk Eftft. apHd Theodpret, Hiji, EccUf, lib, i. c. 4. F and ( 54 ) knd cohdemn'd by the Council of * Antioch^ as a Word of ill meanings and deftroying the U?2ily of God. And for the like reafon, after many Struggles pro and con about it for above thirty Years after the Nkene Synod, it was finally re- jeded, and flruck out of the Greedy by a Coun- cil of above five hundred Bifhops of the Eaftern and Weftern Church, met together at Jriminum and Seleucia. The Sentence of the Synod was j •, '' as to the Term Sulftance^ which in Simplicity " was us'd by the [Nicene] Fathers, but being not " underftood by the People gave Offence to them ; ^* and becaufe alfo it is not to be found in Scripture, " it is decreed^ that it fhall be wholly laid afide, " and no mention be made of it for the future. — • *' But we affirm, that the Son is like unto the Fa- *' ther, as the divine Scriptures exprefly teach." This is the Account of Athanafius •, and Jerom a- grees to it, and adds, |1 " that the Bifhops there " did not regard the JVord^ fo long as the Senfe " of it was prefer v'd." This Senfe the Council declar'd to be, " that the Son was LIKE unto the " Father:" which indeed, as I have fhewn, was the Senfe of the Nicene Council. As there never was a greater or wifer Council of learned and pious Bifhops, afiembled in the Chri- iVian Church, than this laft mention'd, fo their Example cannot but be highly worthy of Imita- tion, for the Frefervation of Chriftian Peace and * See the trm Narrativg againft Dr. Berriman*s Hiji, of the Trir/ify^ p. 39 — 44* jithanaf, de Synod, Ar'im. 6c Sekuc* \\ Non erat cuix Epifcopis de vocabulo, cuna fenfus eflet in tuto, Bierpn* adv, Lueiftn Charity} ( 35 ) Charity ; efpecially, lince not only as bad, but a, far worfe Senfe has been put upon the Word, and infilled upon by the modern Impugners of the primi^ tive and Scripture-DocTtrine of the Trinity, than was done at that Time, when the whole Eaflern and Weftern Church, in Conjunction, agreed to lay it afide, and to obliterate the Memory of it for ever. The plain and exprefs Doclrine of Scripture, and the unanimous declared Senfe of the primitive An- ten'icene Church, had yet fuch an Awe over moll of the Athanafian Party, that, in the Innovations which they had made in the Chriftian Faith, they duril not deny, but that the Father alone, as being inwri- ginated^ W2ls the one fypr£??ie God over all -, theydurft not venture to affirm, that the Son fand much lefs that the Spirit) was [d ^eog ^uvron^ciTup, 6 ^sog im eA«vj the one fupreme God^ the one God of the Unu verfe and over all j or that he was equal to the Fa- ther in Dominion and Authority. Athanafius himfelf acknowledg'd, that, in the Creation of the World, the Son aded in Obedience to the l^Fill and Com- ?nand of God the Father ; and that he, the Son, be- ing the Sender of the Koly Ghoft, was * Greater than He. But our modern Metaphyseal Trinitarians, as if they were wifer than Chrift and his Apoftles, and the whole primitive Church, have advanced upon the Steps of the firft Innovators, and im- prov'd the unfcriptural Term Confubfiantial, fo as to build upon it, by vain Philofophy, the mon- ftrous TritheiJJic Notion of three indepe-ndent Supreme necejfarilyexiftent intelligent Agents^ abfolutely equals and coordinate in Nature and all Perfedions ; and when their Tritheifm flares them in the Face, and * He calls the Son wttz/ixotTflf y.ii^QVAy becaufe he fent him, vc* Orat, 2, adv, Arian. F 2 frightens (l6 ) frightens their Saheliian Brethren, who are ready on that Account to reje6t them, they, by Con- tradiclion very ufual with them, affirm them, in the fame Breath, to be one independent^ Supreme^ mcejffaril^-exiftent^ undivided^ intelligent Agent ; and fay, * they are the fame in Kind and alfo the fame in Nurnher ; i. e. xht fajne^ and not the fame : and alfo fcruple not to affirm, that the Son is i* '' THESubftance of the Father," in Contradiction to the Nicene Creed, and themfelves at other Times affirming, that the Son is fnot theSubftance but) ^/, or from^ the Subflance of the Father, and is a diftin6t t acling Suhftance or Agent. And if any Thing can farther fhew a Difregard to (not to fay a Contempt of) the whole Scripture-Do- drine, it is, that the peculiar Prerogative of the Father^ as being alone unhegotten and underiv'd, always held facred and incommunicable by the An^ tenicene and Nicene Church, is given up by Dr, W. " who has nothing to fay (2d Defenfe/'. 177.J " why the Son might not have been Father, but *' that in Faut he is not and that there was *« no Impojftbilitj in the Nature of the Thing, *' but that the Father Himfelf might have aded *' the Minifterial Part," An amazing Expref- fion to come out of the Mouth of a Chriftian, who has the Benefit both of natural and reveal\i Religion, to inform his Reafon and Underftand- ing better ! I will endeavour to make him afham'd of the grofs Impiety of his Notion, from two eminent Bifhops, one Nicen^^^ and one Poflnicene (againll whom I am fure he has no Exception^ Alexander of Alexandria^ and Hilary of Poitiers, •* Dr. Waterland*; 2d Def. ;'. 35)^ t Dr. Waterland'5 ifi Def./'. 379, ^^o. ^ Dr. WatcrlandV zd Dq^, ^. 17$, 3tpiT«p, Supreme over all] of his only [or only-begotten] Son Jefus Christ our Lordy and of the Holy Spirit, &c. TThis is the Dodlrine of the Trinity which we hold ; not implfd, but exprefly fet forth in the primitive baptifmal Creeds, But what has this to do with Br. fF*B. Trinity ? Nothing G like ( 40 like that Is exprefsM in any of them. Therefore the Word implicit is to make Room for Art, to bring in his Notion. He wou'd have it thought, that tho his Do6lrine of the Trinity is not exprefs'd., yet that it is iftiplfd in the ancient Creeds. We are contented with what is exprefs'd in the Creeds, as being the Forms and Expreffions of Scripture -, however, we will be fo fair as to allow of his No- tion, if it be really i?nplfd in them. How does he prove it to be implyM then ? Why thus (p. 225.) " in the Creeds we profefs to believe in God the *^ Father, the Son, and Holy Ghofl: this (adds ** hej is declaring the facred three to be the one «c God it carries in it a Confeflion of the three *' divine Perfons being the one true God of Chri- *' ftiam'' (p. 225.) Q^ E. D. Notably prov'd of a School-Do6bor. But let us hear how St. Paul un- derftands the Words ; he fays, one Spirit — one Lord — One God and Father of all^ who is above all. Here, not the three divine Perfons, but one of the divine Perfons, the Father only, is declar'd to be the one true God of Chriftians ; as the fame Apoftle fays in another Place : to us (Chriftians) there is but me God, even the Father, And farther, that Dr, Ws, Dodtrine of the Trinity is imply'd in the ancient Creeds we not only cannot fee, but we certainly know that it is not ; becaufe it was the unanimous Senfe of the ancient Church, who form'd and us'd thefe Creeds, that the one true God of Chrifiians was that Perfon, whom the Scripture ftiles, in Con- tradiftinftion to his Son and Spirit^ the one God and Father of all. Accordingly, in almoft all the Creeds (agreeably to the Nicene) the firft Article was, / believe in one God, the Father Almighty : the Father only being always profefs'd to be the one Gody in Diftindion to his Son and Spirit^ never fo caU'd either in any antient Creed, or by any antient Ca- tholic Writer whatfoever. So that if the Words (43 ) imph the three divine Perfons to be the one God in the Creeds, they i?nply them to be the one God, the Father Almighty, The Creeds therefore exprejly and implicitly^ plainly and undeniably, teach no other than the Scripture-Do(5lrine of the Trinity; viz. one Spirit — one Lord — one God and Father of all^ who is above all {Ephef. 4. 4, 5, 6.) and the one God of Chrijiians^ is declar'd in thefe exprefs Words of the fame Apoftle cited above, to us (Chriftians) there is but one God^ even the Father, of whom are all T^hmgs (i Cor. S. 6.) and this is fpoken in diredl Contradiftindion to Jefus Chrift, whom the Apoftle there ftiles the one Lord, by (chro'j whom are all'Things. This is St. Paiilh Trinity and Unity, and it is ours, whom the Dr, civilly calls Heretics : Let him make his own Do(5lrine out of it if he can, and we fhall no longer difagree. Having done with Proof by Implication, he mentions (p. 2 30. J an ancient Creed of Cyril of Jerufalem, which is exprefs for the Divinity of God the Son ; it ftiles him " true God^ begotten of '' the Father before all Worlds, by whom all " Things were made." Whether this Creed of Cyril be older than the fourth Century, may be queftion'd ; [however there is good Reafon to think, that the Words [06ov aAvi6ivcv] true God, were in*- ferted out of the Nicene Creeds becaufe they are not to be found in any Creed of the three firft Centuries, the in fome of them Chrift is ftil'd God. Cyril was one of the moft moderate of the Athanafians \ and he expreffes his Faith, and the firft Article of all the antient Creeds, very clearly and fully, that the one God of Chriftians was God the Father only^ in Contradiftindlion to the Son, His Words are, * " We ought not only to believe in l^tULi KoCTuAxofiedcc* Cattchef. 7. G 2 tbfi (44 ) ^' the one God-, but we alfo pioufly confefs him to '' be the Father of his only-begotten (Son) and " our Lord Jefus Chrift." And he immediately ob- ferves, that Chriftians differ from Jews in this, that the Jews acknoivledge there is hut one God, but do not, with Chrlftiam, confefs him to he the Father of cur Lord Jefus Chrift, Yet C^jril held the Son to ht true God ^ 2Lndi conji f hfl anti al vnththt Father; but did not infer from either, that he was the one God of Chri^ians, the one fupreme God, or equal to the Father. Being confuhftantial (he knew) imply'd no fuch Thing, nor was fo underftood by the Council of I'^ice ; and that the Son might be true God, and yet there be, to us Chriftians, hut one God, even the Father of who?n are all things, was plain to him for thisReafon, beaufe the Son was not the one God, but the one Lord, by whom are all 'Things : being the one God, of whotn are all Things, denoted the Su- premacy of the Father ; and being the one Lord^ by whom are all Things, denoted the Subordination of the Son to him who alone was the one God and Father of all, who is above all. Thus his own Au- thor, an Athanafian too, is clear and ftrong ^gainft his Do6lrine of the Trinity. And the Learned Br, Spencer well explains the Text (i Cor, g. 6.) to this purpofe ; * " Under the New Tefta- ^^ ment, the Title of K^.ng and Lord is eminently ^' afcribed to Chrift, that inftead of the Gods and ?' Lords of the Gentiles, all might learn to wor- ^' fhip oyie God, the Father of all \ and one Lord^ ^' Jefus Chriji:' * Sub novo teftamento nomen Kegh & Domini Chrifto ^gnanter tribuftur, ut omnes, Diis & Dominis Ethnicorum ad ^rocem ant potsus inferos amandatis, unum Deum^ Patrem om- wm, ^ ^n»^ Vomimm, Jefum Chriftunis venerari difcercnt*,; '§$ Leg, Bph, Uk I. C. 6* p. 25|c ( 45 ) The Dr, next obferves, that Irenaus in explain- ing the Rule of Truth fays, * '' There is one " God Almight'j^ who created all Things By his " Word — adding, that he made all Things By his " Word and Spirit." This one God Almighty^ Ire- ncdus^ in the Place, fays, is the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrijl, Now what is this to Dr, TPs Purpofe ? He fays, it " intimates the real and proper Divinity of '' the Son and Holy Ghoft^^ But it does not in- timate^ but exprefs the Supreme Divinity of the one God, the Father Almighty. And who deny the real and proper Divinity of the Son, but they who either make Him -f the Suhflance of the Father, the fame individual God wij:h the Father ; or ano- ther diflind, t necejfarily-exiftent, aBing Sub- JHnce, and Supreme God ? The true and proper Divinity of the Son fubordinate to the Father, as declar'd in Scripture, and by the Suffrage of^ the primitive Church, is what we have been pleading for, and vindicating thefe twerm^ Years againft Dr. W. and the modern Impugners of it. We believe, and conflandy teach, that Chrift is God, as being the only-begotten Son of the one God, the Father Almighty, profefs'd in all the antient Creeds : and can any Thing be plainer than that, to fliew that Chrift, the Word and Son of God, is not the one God Almighty, mention'd in IrencB- iih\ Rule of Faith ; it is there faid, that the one God Almighty created all Things by his Word, and ^3; his Spirit P Are not the Word and Spirit the Minifiringzndi fubordinate Agents, the || Hands Cor * Iren» adv, H&ref, lib, i.e. 22. p. 58' edit. MaflueC. \ Dr. Waterland's firft Def. /. 379, 580. X See his ^d Def. /. 17$, '2,66, itd/ WrtJ/po^ Irm. lib, 5. c. 5. See a full Account of the Senfe of the Antients in this Point, in AmoHt, ad Novat, p. 324, %^, Edit.Jatkfm. - — inftru- ( 4^ ) inflrumental Agents) as he with others of the An« cients call them, hy whom the one God^ the Father jilmighty^ made and governs all Things ? Here then is indeed the Dodrine of the Trinity fully exprefs'd, but it is the Scripture-Trinity, and fuch as is dire6lly oppofite to Br. W*s Trinity. I pity his next Obfervation, as I fuppofe his Adherents will be afhamed of it : he was to fhew, from the Ancient Creeds, his Doctrine of the three divine Perfons being one God ; and having fhewn nothing more, than that the Son is ftiled or intimated to be God, but in exprefs Diftind:ion to ihe one God^ the Father Almighh^ and in Subordination to him *, and not being able to fhew, that the Holy Ghoft is ever fo much as barely (lil'd God ; therefore, left in the Account he fhou'd be oblig'd to drop the Divinity of the Spirit^ he obferves very acutely (/). 231.) " '^ there is a Creed in Tertullian fully " exprefling the Divinity of God the Son, and " [N. B.] obliquely intimating the Divinity of the " Holy Ghoft." This is Demonftration indeed -, the Creed obliquely intimates the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft ; what Need of any farther Proof? But this happens to be a moft unlucky Obferva- tion for the Dr, becaufe it undeniably (hews, that ^ertullian knew that the Holy Ghoft was never ftiled God in any ancient Creed. For his own Do- d:rine, that the Spirit was God^ as being a confuh- ffantial Part of the Subftance of the one God the Fa- ther^ was, he owns, a Dodrine, which he had juft then learned f of the Paraclete of the Montanifts ; but he never pretends or intimates it to have * Adv. Prax* c. 2. j- Nos enim— maxime Paracleti non homlnum difcipuli duos quidem deHnimus, Patrem Sc Filium, 8c JAM tres cum Spiritu San£lo, fecundum rationem Oeconomfas [fci). unius fubftamiac in tribus cohaerentibus, adv, Prax* t» 1 2 J quae facii fiumerum. 4^x'« Prax*c» 13. been (47 ) been the Doclrine of the catholic Church .* nay he owns that the CathoHcs charg'd his new Do- drine with * l^ritheifm. Therefore T^ertullian\, tho*, when a Mo?2tanhl, he ftil'd the Holy Spirit Gody which no Ancient had done before him, yet he wou'd not fo far innovate, as to afTert it as a Part of the Chriftian Faith deliver'd in any Creed, but defend- ed his Notion as a Part of his Montanifm ; fo that nothing in Nature cou'd ever be more oppofite to the Dr's. Purpofe and Dodrine, than his own Obfervation in this Place. In Truth, all the ancient Creeds are as full and exprefs againft Dr, IVh, Dodrine of the Trinity, as if they had been made on purpofe in Oppo- fition to it: and of all Things, I thought he might have been fo prudent at lead, as not to have appealed to the Creeds of the ancient Church, than which, next to Scripture, we defire no flrono-er Proof againft his Notion. Having try'd what he can do with genuine Creeds, he next prefents his Reader (p. 234.) with one which isfpuriousy the famous romantic Creed which f Gregory of Neocoifarea is faid to have receiv'd by Revelation from the Virgitt Mary^ who fent it him by St. John, Had there really been any fuch Creed in the Time of Gregory of Neoccefa- reay Eufehius of Ccefarea^ in whofe Time Gregory flourifh'd, moft probably wou'd 'have known it, and made mention of it. Jerojne^ at leaft, wou'd have taken Notice of it, had he known it to have been Gregory's. The Stile of it ihews it not to be older than the fourth Century ; and fome Parts of it favour of being later than the Council of Nice^ t Simplices quique, quae major femper credentium pars,- , duos & tres JAM jaaitant a nobis praedjcari, fe vero unius Dei cwtores prsefumunt. ibid. c. 3. I See Greg. Nyf in laude Greg. Jhaumaf, p. 378. Nicethor. WSbM^f*^'^^* ^« c. 17: Muffin, ^^f¥ ^*fi- M^jf* ''^* 7* ^- 25; tho' ( 48 ) tho' the [SiJ.oi ) from the primitive Catholic Writers of that Church, he gives us Scraps from Poftnicene Writers, en- gag'd to fupport Innovations made in the Faith of the ancient Church -, . fuch as Athanafius^ Gregory Nyjfen^ Hilary^ Rujjinus, Fdgenlius^ &c. This Pro- cedure, therefore, is very unfair ; and his Evidence for the Dodlrine of the ancient Antenicene Church deferves no more Credit, than that of Arlus or Eii^ nomiiis for the Dodtrine of the Nicene Church. How incompetent his Wicnelles are I ihall give a Specimen in the famoufeft of them, Athanafius. * Arlus taught that the Son fuhfijled by the IVill of the Father^ as the Do6lrine of the ancient Church ; Athanafius replies to the Arians very wifely, f let them tell us frofn whom of the priinitive Sawts they learned this DoEirine^ that the Son fuhfijled by the Will of the Father. This fhews how little Athana- fins was acquainted with the Writings of the primi- tive Saints, or the Dodlrine of the primitive Church -, in which there is not any Dodlrine more exprefly and unanimoufly taught than this, that the Son was begotten and fubfifted X by the Will of the Father. The Arians^ on the contrary, might: very well have afk'd Athanafius^ from wh.K pri- mitive Saint, or Writer, he had been taught his novel Dodrine of the Son's deriving his Sub- fiftenc'e, not from the A//7//, but from the jj Nature^ of the Father •, and he muft have been filent, or aOiamed. After all, the Sum of Dr. V/'i. Evi- dence, from his Poftnicene Writers, amounts to no * 'TTTOfJs [o \)ilf\ ^i\!]3-ei TO7f&,:t. Thai. Alt apud Athan, de S'^nod, Anm. dc Sileuc. vid. & Ep'iji. Ani apud Theoiiret^ Tnipo^riKtiaiv — to — khu^stv- Da Decret. Synod. Nic. % If any one has a Mind to fee the concurrent Senfe of An- tiquity laid together in Refped of ihis Doatine. he may con- fult the Notes which are added n: the End of Novatian, pub- lifhM by Mr. ':}Ackfon, p. 373—379. II Vid. adv, ArUn, Orat. 4. p. 300, edif. Paris. H ' more ( 50 ) more than to prove (p. 238 — 240) the Son to be God (which is not deny'd) becaufe the Father is God, which is no Proof at all : that the Name of Father implies a Son ; yes it implies all Man- kind to be his Sons^ becaufe he is the Father of all j and he farther pretends, that in their Opinion (tho they do not fay fo much) " the Son muft be " allow'd to be of the fame Nature with the Fa- " ther, and Equal in all effential Perfedions.'* That thefe Writers fhou'd hold the Confihftantiality is no wonder ; and tho Hilary, with the other ^tha- 77ajia?ts, profefs'd it, he was far from allowing the Son to be equal to the Father in all effential Perfec- tions, What thinks he of Hilary's Saying, * *' herein, more efpecially, the Son is not compared *' or equaWd to the Father, as bQingfubje^ to him " by a Submiffion of Obedience as being SENT *' by him; as receiving every Thing from him, " and, in all Things, obeying the TFill of him that *' SENT him" adding, " that the Son is Sub- *' jeof to the Father by the ISJativity of his Na- " ture again, is fubje^ to the Father as the *' Original of his Exiilence." Now was not Hi- lary a very proper Po§lmcene Writer for Dr. JV. to alledge amongft others for his Notion, that the Son is equal to the Father in all effential FerfeEli-^ ons ? cou'd he have produc'd a Writer, even an Jntenicene Writer, more flrongly denying the E- quality both of Nature and Perfe5iions ? Fulgen^ tins and Gregory Nyffen fpeak more to this Pur- pofe •, but they are not only Writers of LelTer * In eo quidem maxime non comfaratur nee cosequatur Fi- lius Patri, dum fubditus per obedientU ohfeciHeUm eft dum mittitttry dum accipit, dum in omnibus voluntati ejus, qui fc tnifity obfequitur. Mil, de Synod, Subjeftum alterum akeri nativitate nature. Patrem in eo fnajorem elTe quod Pater eft, Filium in eo minorem effe quod ]^ilmi eft — Patri fubje^fts eft ut autm. Ibid, Note, ( Jl ) Note, but the latter efpeciaJJy is a Tritheijl^ as the iearn'd f Z)r. Cudworth hath obferv'd. Befides, I would ask, with Refpeft to the two laft, who feem to have thought that every Thing, or Perfedlion, belonging to the Father belong'd equally to the Son, I wouM ask, whether thefe Writers thought the Nature or Stibftance of God the Father was unoriginated^ or not ; and fo, whe- ther the ejfential PerfeBions of the Father were not all, with his Ejfence or Suhftance^ wwrigimted likewife ; if they are, whether they thought, or with what Reafon they thought, the Son to be of the fame ejjenlial, i. e. umriginated Nature and Per- fe5lions with the Father. But if the Nature and Perfe6lions of the Son vftxt both originated from the Father, as they durft not deny that they were ; it follows that they cou'd neither be the fame^ or abfolutely equal. The Thing is, the Poftnicenes^ talking of the Generation of the Son of God after the manner of Humane Generation^ to which it wou'd admit of no Similitude or Comparifon, run themfelves into the mofl grofs Absurdities and Impieties. The Antenicenes avoided all Offence, by taking care not to define the metaphyfical Na- ture or Subftance of the Son of God, and by af- ferting his Subordination, and the Supremacy of God the Father. One Paflage from one of thefe Writers wou'd have more Authority and Weight in fhewingthe Senfe of the ancient Church, than all the Pojlnicenes he has cited. But the Dr. ha- ving burned his Fingers fufficiently by meddling with them heretofore, it was but prudent in him, to be cautious of referring to them any more. However he ventures upon two PalTages (/>. 241, 243.J one of Bionyftus of Alexandria cited by A- thanaftus^ and the other of Novatian. But what ^ Intelle^, Syftem,^. 603, 604. H 2 does ( 50 does B'lonyfius fay in the Place refer'd to, In which he is apologizing for fonie Expreflions which he was charg'd to have us'd, and fo is to fay the mod he can for Himfelf ? Does he fay that he ever taught the Son to be the one God, the Supreme God^ or equal to the Father ? Nothing like it: all that he iays is, " that the Son is [umiog'\ eternal^ or *' before the World that he is mjeparahle from •' the Father. and that having been charg'd *' with making God the Creator of Chrift *' he lays that having before ftil'd him Father, he *' included the Sen in Him." In which PalTage he does not deny that he made the Son a Crea- ture at all, but intimates only that he cou'd not be fuppos'd, to make him a Creature like the reft of the Creatures, becaufe he thought him to be alv/ays in the Father. Now this is an evafive Apology ; and his real Thoughts feem to have been, that the Son was always in the Father, as being the [^oVof iv^icc^ero;'] internal Word or Rea- fon of God ; but begotten out of the Father, as Light fro77i Lights into a diftinct real Perfon -, and this Generation of the Son, by v;hich he was a diftind fubfifting Perfon, he had call'd a Creation^ and in this refpedl: made Chrift a Creature, as he was accus'd of doing by the Sabellians. That this was his real Sentiment and Dodrine we learn from an unqaeftionable Witnefs, Bafil a Pofinicene and Athanafian^ but a fair Writer ; he tells us, that having read the Writings of this Dion)fius, he did not * like feveral Things, that were in them ; that he f thought him one, who laid the Seeds of the Anom^an Opinion \ and that with refpecl to the Confuhftar.tiality, he was ifaul- tering and uncoyiflant, fometime holding it, and other Tfpes rejetfi?ig zV: more particularly, that he held * Bar. Ep;{l. 41, t Ibid. t Ibid, *' * the ( 55 ) " * the Father and Son to be not only di/llfj^l " Perfons, but of different Suhftance-, and that the *' Son was inferior in Power and Glor'j to the Fa- « /y??^r. And befides this, he fpoke very un~ " becoming Words concerning the Spirit ; not *' allowing him divine IVorJhip^ but depreiTing *' him into the Number of created and mijiijtring '' Beings." And f Athcviafius^ in his Apology for him, owns, that he did indeed ufe fuch Kind of Expreflions. And || Fhotius^ another unfufpeded Evidence, layeth the fame Charge againft him that Bafil had done, j Gennadius, another y^tba- 7mf:an, does the fame -, and obferves with Ba/d, that the Arians deriv'd their Notions from him. As to Novalian^ his other Author, his Writings are extant, on which Account Dr. W. fhould not have prefum'd to have alledg'd him for his Notion, becaufe the Reader, with his own Eyes, may fee, that the whole mod excellent Book of that ancient Writer is mod full and exprefs againft his Doc- trine of the Trinity, in Agreement with all the Remains of primitive Antiquity. He gives, in his laft Chapter, the Sum of all his precedent Dodrine concerning God the Father, and the Son ; and in this Chapter, the entire Dodrine of the primitive Church is fo fully and clearly contain'd, concern- ing the Supremacy of the Father^ as being alone the one God without compare or eqiial^ and the Subordination and SuhjeBion of the Son to him, as deriv'd from him by his Will^ and as having received all his divine Pov/er from him, and being confiituted ^opety, )^ S'uvcf! (j.ico^ vtpim jy ^'o^m -m.^.hhcf.y^jjj —rTrth Ji 7»7C/?j TP.eX 7« TViV/UCLlZf A(p7lKi (pmo,^ ^iU^A TTfSTi/OTtf TzJ TtAv TiT X77r« }C) ?^HTiifya (pucrei ffWAex^^uv, ibid. f De Sentent, Dionyf. Se6l. 4. 11 Cod. 232. X Lib, de Ecclef. Dogmat.c, ^, b7 ( 54 ) by him the Lord and Head of every Creature, bue himfelf, with e\^ery Creature thus put under him, iliii fubje& to his Father, who is thereby declared to be the one and only true God. * This Dodrine of the primitive Church is fo amply and excellently fet forth by Novatian^ .as not only to defer ve the moil ferious Attention and Confideration of every Chriftian, but to be alone fufficient to end all Dif- putes concerning the Dodlrine of the Trinity. * Eil ergo Deus Pater omnium inftftutor & creator, So- LUS originem nefciens, invifibilis, immenfus, immortalis, as- teinus, Unus Deus, cujus neq^ magnitudini, neq; majeftati, neq; virtuti, quicquam non dixerim prseferri, fed nee compa- raii poteft. Ex quo, Quando ipfe Voluit, fermo Filius na- tus eft. Quin 6c Pater ilium etiam prjicedit, quod neceffe eft pnor fit, qua Pater fit; quoniam antecedat neceife eft eum qui habet originem, ille qui orfginem nefcit. Simul ut hie minor lir, dum in illo efle fe fcir, habens originem quia nafcitur. — — Deus utiq; procedens ex Deo fecundam Perfonam efficiens, fed non eripiens illud PATRI, quod Unus eft Deus. Si enim natus non fuiftet, innatus comparatm cum eo qui eft innatus, yEQUATiONE in utroqj oftenfa duos faceret innatos, & ideo duos faceret Decs ^^quales inventi duos Deos merito red- didilTent. .ft invifibilis fuiftet, cum invifibili collatus PAR exipreifus duos invifibiles oftendiftet, & ideo duos comprobaffet i ) that the Son being Son, and being feni and appear-- ing and a6ling in Obedience to the IVill and Cc;;j- mands of God the Father, is not founded in any natural, ejfential Or r^'^/ Subordination of the Son to the Father in Authority and Power \ but in ^ ?;?^^r voluntarj Agreement between the Father and the Son ('as being diftindlly co-ordinate in Nature and Perfedions^ to aflumc amongft Mankind dif- ferent Names and Charaders ; for Dr. IK has no* thing to fay, * why the Son might not have been Fa-^ ther, hut that in Faul he is not — '■ — and that there was no hnpojjihility in the Nature of the mng^ hut that the Father hivifelf inight have aBed the 7?iinifte' rial Part, So that according to Dr. JV's Ortho- doxy, the Father might have been SENT from Heaven to do the IVill of the Son, been 7nade FlefJo^ and died in Obedience to the 6"^;; his heavenly Fa- ther \ the Son might have been his God ; have given to the Father all Power in Heaven and Earth •, and as a reward for becoming Man, made him the Mediator between God and Man ; exalted him to his own right Hand, and com?nitted the Power of final Judgment to him. All which the Primitive Church declar'd to be moH f abfurd^ impious, and impoffible, I 2 This * Second, Def, p. 177. + 'Ou 7uV TnttflYiv TUP oAedv iy 'Tia.rit^. ' Tn^dv^cti -nuf ConcU, Amiocb. com*. P. Samofn. Vifus eit Temper ^;^- autori- tate Patris. Tertul. ut meritc nee defcendiir, nee afcendat, [Paten quoniam ipfe orrnia & cominet &: implet. Novat. folus originem nefcienSj invifibilis [whom no mac hath feeii nor can fee, ,i Tim. 6. i6»] immenfus, immortali^. ^dem, Ab- furdilpme miiTus diceretur [Pater] Auguflir;. proptec aH6lornru"n folus Pater non dicitur mij[:4s. idem. See all the Paflag^' , and many more to the fame Purpofe, cited at length in the L<.eply to Dr, WaterUnd's Defenfe^ p. 9, 1 8, 59, . 66,) " I can " fee no probable Reafon why the Church of " God fhou'd be, as it were, firft put under the " immediate Condudt of the Father^ then under " the Son^ and laft of all under the Holy Ghoft — " when the Father might as well have had the " fole Honour of all ; but upon the Hypothefis " which I have hinted." I wou'dbe glad to know, y/ho firft put under the Father the ifnmediateConducf of the Church of God, We read {Ephef i. 17, 22.) that the God of our Lord Jefus Chrift^ the Father of Glory gave (Chrift) to he the Head ever all "Things to the Church : and alfo gave the Holy Ghoft CO be a miniftring Spirit to Chrift, in the fame Church. But it wou'd be monftrous to hear or read, that the Church was put under the Father^ as if he was capable of being put into an Office^ how high foever, who is Supreme ever all. The Condudl of the Church therefore is folely the Father's by Original fupreme Right, uncor/i- municated and uncommmiicahle to Him ; and the Son and Spirit are declar'd, in Scripture, to be fubordinate and miniftring Agents to Him in the Government of the Church ; and as the Son re- ceives his Office in the Church, which is mediato- rial^ from the fupreme underiv'd Authority of the Father, fo, if Br, V/, will hear St, Paul, he muft, at the End, deliver up this his (jnediatorial) Kingdojn to God, even the Father — and the * Firji Defenfe, p. ^78. Soff ( 6z ) Son alfo Himfelf be [uhjeEl unto Him who put all Things under Him^ that God {even the Father^ as he had faid juft before) may he all in all, i Con 15. 24, 28. Does Dr, W. think it 'probable or pojjible for the Father (in order to have the file Honour of all) to be fent and become incarnate^ and to be Mediator between God and Man ? What then does he mean by this flrange Hypothefis, from which, one wou'd fuppofe, that either he had never read the Scriptures at all, or not regarded them at all. This is the Hypothefis of the Tri- nitjy fo altogether Antichriftian, which He holds, and is fo zealous to maintain by Church Cenfures againft all who differ from him. This is the Man fo free in charging thofe with Herefy, who adhere to the Scripture-Dodlrine of the Trinity ; whilft he himfelf maintains real Herefy Ihocking in the laft Degree, and fubverfive of the great fundamental Principle both of natural and re- Hjeal^d Religion, the Unity of God, Let him clear Himfelf of this Charge if he can j he has been admonilh'd over and over about it, and muft not think to clear himfelf by high Pretenfes and big Words ; calling his Adverfaries Names^ and threatning what he wou'd do, if he had a comte- tent Authority. There is in this {\ cannot but think) fomething fo prefumptuous and infamouf- ly afluming in a Man, who is, in his Circumftances, and who is fodefervedly above all others, liable to every Cenfure that is due to the Teachers of falfe Do(5lrine, the Deluders of Chriftians, and the Promoters of Contention, Strife and Divifion, as is unparallel'd and even amazing. If he is fo infatuated with the Love of Antichriftian Error, as not to abide the Communion o'i faithful Chxi- ftians, the Door is open, and he m.ay, v/ith his de- luded Followers, leave that Church, which profef- feth the Scripture, and the Scripture only, to be the (6^ ) the Rule of its Faith ; and which has no Concern with his Hyporhefis but to condemn it. Having made this general Remark upon his Hiftory of Herefies, there is very little remains worth Notice. He fays (p. 247 ) " the Sum of Cerinihus*s> He- '* refy was, that Jefus and Chrift were two PerfomP This was neither the Sum, nor the grofleft Part, of his Herefy. The Sum of his Herefy really was, that having made Jefus and Chrlfi^ or the Word^ two diflind Agents, or Perfons, he fepa- rated them at the Pajjion^ and affirm'd fas * Ire- ncBUs affures usj that Jefus (only) fuffer'd^ and rofe from the dead^ hut that Chrifi remained impaffthle. The Sum of his Herefy and the very EfTence of it, therefore, confided in the denying that Chrift really fuffer^d \ in his making the Sufferings of Chrill: the Sufferings of a meer man^ and denying the \Uy9i\ Word^ or Chrift^ to be paJfMe. This is the Herefy which Iren^us every where chargeth him and his Followers with, and very largely confutes up and down in his Writings. There was very good Reafon for Dr. W*^ dropping this principal Part of Cerwthus's Herefy, and initead of it, amuf- ing his Reader about other Points, quite foreign to the Purpofe : indeed he wou'd have been much wifer had he drop'd the whole, or faid nothing at all o^Cerinthus'^ becaufe it is apparent, that Cerin- thui\ Herefy is the very Image of his own in every Part of it. Cerinthus^ he obferves, mzdit Jefus (the humane Soul and Body) and Chrift [the divine JVerd] two Perfons: very right; in Confequence he did fo: and does noi: Dr. W, do the fame ? Does he not fuppofc, the humane Soul and Body, or the Man Jefus, to be as diftindl a Perfon from the IVord^ * Jefum paflum efTe & rcfurrexifTe 5 Chrlftum autem impaf- ftkilem perfcveuffc. lih, i, c,26. tdiuMaffuet. the ( 64 ) the divine Perfon, as Cerinthus did P I defy him to fhew any real Difference. Cerinthus held the two Perfons united 2it the Baptifm of Chrifl, Dr. IV, holds them united about thirty Years before -, and what fignifies this Difference in a Point of meer Time ? Two Agents, or Perfons, originally and in Nature, diflind: and continuing to exift, are two Agents, and two Perfons, whether feparate or united •, whether united at one Time or at another. So that in Cerintbus's Scheme the divine and hu- man Nature, Agent or Perfon, were as much one Agent or Perfon at the Baptifm of Chrift, as, in the Dr's Scheme, they were at the Birth of Chriil ; and are as much two Perfons in his Hypothefis, as they were in that of Cerinthus. Again, Cerinthus feparated Chrijl from Jefus^ the divine from the human Perfon, at the Crucifixi- on, that the human Perfon or Man Jefus only might fuffer *, the divine Perfon [hiyos] Word^ or Chrift^ being, by him, thought irapaffible. In like manner, the Dr. fuppofes Chrift, the divine M-^Grd^ to be impafftble^ and the meer Man Jefus only to fuffer : he fuppofes the divine Perfon to be prefent only to the Sufferings of the meer Man Jefus, but not really to partake of them, or to fuffer^ any more than Cerinthus did. Cerinthus could not fee, but, that if the Union continued, Chrijl muft fuf- fer, whom he thought impaffihle\ and therefore rather chofe to feparate the divine Perfon from the Human, than to make it paffible : Dr. W. thinks (m.ore abfurdly in my MindJ that the Union might continue, and yet Chrift not fuffer: but both evi- dently agree in the main Point, which IrencBUs condemn'd in Cerinthus as an Antichriftian Herefy, namely, that the ilf^/^ Jef^s only fuffer'd, and that Chrifi^ the IVord^ remain'd impaffible. And ^tis farther obfervable, that he makes no Diffe- rence in this Herefy, whether the Perfons^ Jefus and ( <^5 > and Chrlft were united or nor. " * If ffays he) " they alledge that they are united^ neverthelels " they declare that the one only fuffc^^'^U and the " other remain'd iinpaffible'' Had Cerinthus allow'd Chriil the Word to be j[mffihle^ and to have really fufftr*d^ Irenceus wou'd not have charg'd him with Herefy ; for he infiftg upon it as a fundamental Point, that Chrid the IVord and Son of God did f reall'^ fuffer ; and ar- gues that had the mere Man Jefus only fuftain'd the Sufferings, the Value of therri wou'd have been greatly diminifh'd, aiid he wou'd have fal- len (hort of the Sufferings of his Martyrs, if he their Lord and Mailer 7'eally fufferW nothing. The Dr, perhaps will fay that the Man jefus, or the Human Soul and Body in Chrift, were not an human Perfon, tho' they conftitute a Perfon ia every other Man in the World: Cerinthus might with equal Reafon have faid the fame, and been iaugh'd at for it ; as Z)r. W, has been fufficiently expos'd for making this |] Pretenfe. And fhou'd he be fo ridiculous as to fay this again, there is * Et fi iin'ttei eos dixerint, iterum oilendunt eum quidem participaiTe pajfionewt hunc autem impajfibilem perfeverafTe. Lib^ 3. c. 17. edit. Majfuet. M]V(o^A^ iv ry-lVi Itc? elvT^i i^iv hoyoi rk Qg^. Ltb, i.e. i. Se5l, zo. edit. Grab. Koyo^ «7« Se? cd^^ lyiviro KcttiTTet^iV* ibid, c, 4. invifibilis vifibilis fadus, & incomprehenfibilisfaftux comprehenfibilis, & impailibilis pajfibilis^ &. verbum homo. — Si alter quidem pajfus eft, alter aucem impa/Jibilis manfit uon unus fed dtto monftramur. lib. 3. c. 18. Here we fee Ire?Uus charg'd Cerinthus with making Jefus and Chrlft tv)o Verjons, bccaufe he fuppos'd Jefus the Man only to fofFer, and Chriftt the Word to be impajfible -, which is exactly Dr, W*s Notion^ Si cnim non -vere pajfus eft &c Patiens verbum Dei Patris &c. vid. Annot. ad Novat, p. 357- 359. edit, Jack/on. (I See farther Remarks on Dr. Ws farther Vindicatior>, p, 36—40. by Phfi. Canh K flili (66) dill no Difference between him and Cerinthus^ in the grand fundamental Point of the Sufferings of Chrift the Son of God. The Scripture fays, the Lord of Glory was criicify*d (i Cor. 2. S.) that he who was in the Form of God'-'—'bu'mhled Uunfelf^ and became obedient unto Death (Philip, 3. 6, 8.) That the Captain of our Salvation was made perfect through Sufferings (Heb. 2. loj And as the Scrip- ture never fuppofes Chrift to be more than one Ferfon^ fo it every where fuppofes this one Per- fon Chrift, the only-begotten Son of God, to have fuffer'd for our Salvation. This was the Do6lrine of JrencBUs and * other Antients againft the Herefy of Cerinthus ; and this Dodrine, with the Scripture and primitive Fathers, we profefs againft t>r. fVs Notion. From what hath been obferv'd it appears, that there is not one Fgg more like unto another, than the Cerinthian Herefy is to Dr. W^^ Orthodoxy \ and therefore I refer v'd Cerinthus to fet him in the Dr's view, that in him he might fee his own Face as in a Glafs. Another Thing to be obferv'd is, that as be- fore (/?. 233.J the Dr. in Defenfe of his Notion, gave us a fpurious Creed -, fo here (p, 2 69. J he puts upon us a fpurious Text (i Joh. 5. 7.) Tho* the Text in icfelf, if it was genuine^ is nothing to his Purpofe, yet he muft pardon me, if upon the occafion I put him in mind, inftead of what St, * "O'TTCd'; eiS'C^l/.iV OV mtVip IVV iCtVTH VfOV )y \V TViVTOif W- 077 5K«fc^ rk SsK i{U eov 8)C etVTbhetyL^XViVi rwv yiVOfMtvuv K^ mjiA^ctlVoVTtav eLV7U» Ju/i, Mart. Dial. p. 104. Ttt l^vn i^tjA- yo&iv — dK^cmuTzi 7oV et'Trd 7u>v ATznroAwj' durs xufwp;^94i/7zt Jidv-mv TmUvTct AOroN. ibid. p. 106. \£ss^ WO©- «A9gt/ ctTroGA? TO Osa AOrOS. HippoL cont. Noet. p. 16. edit. Fabric, And in Tome Creeds, God the Father was peculiarly chara- ^etiz'd as being impajftble, John ( 6? ) John does not fliy here, of what he really does fay in another Place, / teftify to every one that heareth the Words of the Prophecy of this Book^ if any one fh all add to them, God will lay upon him the Plagues zvhich are written in this Book. Rev. 22. V. 18 -, that he may be fenfible of the Danger of wilfully adding to the Word of God. That Text, which our Reformers (tho' dubious about it^ ad- mitted, bur printed in a different Charader, to fignify its being wanting in the Original, has fince, after the fulleft Examination of it, been fhewn to be an Interpolation in the lacred Writ, with a Degree of Evidence as clear and ftrong as ever was, or perhaps can be produc'd in a negative Point, It does not appear in any one Greek Ma- nufcript extant, that is genuine or known to be older than printing ; befides that it is not once cited by any Antient Greek or Latin Writer, or Commentator. So that a Scholar, or one who has the leail Knowledge of Manufcripts and Criticifm, might be aOiam'd to alledge it. Nor is this all in Dr. IV's Cafe. I have good Reafon to believe that he was convinc'd that St, John really v/rote no fuch Text, when he firll entered into the Controver- fy about the Doctrine of the Trinity ; and that on this Account he did not alledge it in his Writings. What new Light he has fince or lately received, I will not pretend to know ; but hope that if he has received any, he will impart it unto us for our better Information : and I fhou'd be forry, if to fervc a prefent Purpofe, he has alledg'd it againft the Convidion of his Confcience. Tiiis wou'd be making himfelf an immoral profligate Heretic indeed. Nothing farther in this long Chapter of the Z)r's remains to beobferv'd but his faying (p. 319.} " that the Conduct of the Church with refped: " to the PraxeanSy Noel tans and Sabellians, is a K 2 " Demon- (68 ) '*«^ Dcmonftration of the Truth of his Notion, ^' Thefe Men charg'd the Church as teaching <^' three Gcds. Then wouM have been the Time, ^' and muft have been, for the Church to declare ^' (had they ever meant \x) that the Father is God.^^ I fl-iou'd be glad to know how this Objedion of ^ritheijm is to be anfwer'd upon his Notion. He is fo cautious as not to tell us how he anfwers ic, becaufe he knows he cannot anfwer it i and had he ventured to tell us truly how the Antients anfwer'd theOb- jedlion, it mull have appeared that they anfwer'd it fo, as to confute and condemn his Notion at the fame Time. He muft then be a perfect Novice in the Writings of the antient Church, that does not know, or who does deny, that they did anfwer the Objedion of Tritheifni by aiferting the Unitj in the Perfon of the Father. They did conftantly and invariably declare their Faith, that xh^ Father 0ily is God, i. e. God abfolutely [avro^so;'] by fupreme underiv'd Power and Authority •, which being in Him alone, he was therefore the o^e^ only^ and true God. They never anfwer'd the Ob- jedion by aiTerting the Father, Son, and Holy Choft to be one God, or the Jame God, or the fti- freme God \ or by faying that the Son and Sprit were, diftindly, y/ith the Father, each the one fu- fre?ne God \ or three confuhftantial divine Perfons, equal in Nature and all ejj'erdial Perfecfions : they were fo wile as to know, that thefirft of thefe Aflertions was coming into the very Notion of their Adverfa- ries, and was that Ailertion for which Sahellius was cpndemn'd by the Church as an Alheijl * and Blaf- phe- * He hsd prefum'J to afTeit Chrift the Son of God to be 0} \m 7mv7ti)V Qscf) God fupreme over all\ this was the fame ^s to afleit, that he was the Father j the Church not teaching ^y other Perfon to be God fupreme over all^ but the Father only* ( <^9 ) fhemer •, and that the latccr was diredlly owning that Dcftrine of Tritbeifm^ with which the Sabellians had charg'dthem. But they knew the Objedion of three Gods cou'd not affedl them, who taught that the Father onh\ as being utioriginated^ was x\\i:one JU' ^remc God-^ that the ^on tho' God couM not divide the [/;///}•, becaufe he was noi abjolutely 2ind of Himfelf God:, becaufe he was begotten, deriv'd or pro- duc'd, by the IVtll and Paver of God the Father ; therefore was infer ior to him in Nature and Per- feciions ; andalwa^^s afted niinift erialh in Obedience to the [iuQgVT/xvj i'i^aici] the Sovereign Authority of the one God and Father of all ivho is above all. This was the Anfwer which the antient Church made to the Objedtion of Tritheilm, and it is the true Anfwer *. The Senfe of the Antients I have thrown And had they who taught the Son to be a diftind Peifon from the Father, at the fame Time taught, that he was God fupr erne over all, they knew they muft have taught iwo Gods, and have renounc'd Chriftianlty thereby ; being aflurM from Keaforiy as well as from Scripture^ that two Per fans, fupreme cvtr all^ were undoubtedly two Gods. This Dr. IV, never confider'd, and, as it feems, never will. See Eufeh. Ecdef Theolog. lib. 2. c. 4. * Nos autem Hnum 5c folum veram Deum Dodorem fequen* tes qui in noviflimis temporibus Filium fuum raanifefta- vit. Iren. lib. 4. c. 69. Solus unus Dens iabricator hie Paler, hie Deus. lib. i. c. "^f^. Ipfo Domino Patrem tantmn Deum //?. 1. ad Serap, Why (7» ) Why does he not let his Reader know from their own Words, how they diftlnguiJIJ' d chemfelves off from Sahellianifm ? No ! that was not to be done without diicovering at the fame Time, that the Orthodoxy of the antient Church was of quite another fort from his Orthodoxy ; and that his Orthodoxy was efteem'd by them a greater Herefy than Sahelliamfm, It was enough for him therefore to fay, that they avoided what was afterwards call'd Arianifm ; knowing his Admirers to be fuch, that any Thing will go down with them, and that a mere Word at any Time is as good for them as a real Argument. But if I fhou'd not be too troublefomc to him, I wou'd afk him what^m- mfm is :' and will venture to fay, that if he once fairly and truly fets it before his Reader, it will appear not to be what he has hitherto call'd by that Name ; and that the Game which he has been playing many Years, has been to decry the Catho- lic Dodrine of the primitive Church, under the feign'd Name of Arianifm^ in order to give a better Colour to his own Dodlrine, as if favour'd by it, tho* it is certain (as I have already fhewn, and (hall farther prove prefently) that it is a Do- drine which they detelled as the ranked Herefjy and as bad as Atheifm. His feventh Chapter (p. 355 — 467.) which is to fhew the Ufe and Value of Ecclefiaftical Antiquity, might have been of fome Service to his Caufe, had he Ihewn before, that the Fathers of the antient Church, in their Creeds or Writings, had ever countenanc'd it : but fince he is not able to fhew fo much as an Appearance of any Evidence from them on his Side, the Ufe and Value of Ecclefi- aftical Antiquity only ferves to expofe and con- demn the more a Dodrine, which is utterly op- pofite to the conftant, unanimous, and univerfal Senfe of the primitive Church. WHiat is here faid I hath { 72 ) hath been in good Meafure ah'eady prov'd ; but itl order to a Conclufion, I will briefly let before the Reader the Senfe of the antient Church, with re* fped; to the Dodrine of the Trinity, in their In- terpretation of fome principal Texts of Scripture relating to it. And this will give me very lit- tle Trouble. And to (hew how fliir I intend to be, I will begin with the Confideration of thofc Texts which he thinks mofb to his Purpofe. John I. i^ 2, 3. In the Beginning was the JVord^ and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 5 the fame was in the Beginning with God : all Things were made by him., &cc. In the Interpretation of thefe Words, tho eafy enough in themfelves, there are feveraf Things obfervable. i/. Here are indifputably two diftindl divine Agents, two ading Beings, according to Dr. Ws own Senfe, ^ho owns that a Perfon is an intelligent Agent *. One of the Perfons, ftil'd the Word, is di- flfnguidi'd from the other ftil'd abfolutely (i &6o^) God ; as having beerl with God in the Beginning, i. e, of the Creation of the World ; and as being the Perfon t h C^^^ thro') whom all Things were made. 2dly. It is obfervable, that St. John does not here ftile the Word God, Or fay that he is God (as- neither doth he fay fo any where elfe) but fays, that in the Beginning he was God-, meaning (as all the Antients have obferv'dj that before his Incarnation, and from the Beginning of the World, he was God, or the divine Perfon who appear'd to Jda?n, the Patriarchs, &c. as the Mejjenger, Word, Angel and Reprefentatrje of the 7noft high God -, of Him whom- * Second Defenfe, p. 17^, 366,^^67. ^ ^ ^ {Av don [^Y^o'ffij.'d] Tov Qiov vf « y!yofiv ;- o^ycDjov J^ ;^o- ycy Ostf, A/' « y^iK^YJiV'l^'A' Pl^i'. J"^- ^/^- ^^ Cherub. (75 ) St. John here ftyles emphatic al^ and ahfolutely (o 6f<5ff) God\ appearing and a(5ling minifterially ia the * Natne^ and by the Authority^ of the fupreme God : becaufe it was impojjible in itfelf, and ifnpious to fuppofe the fnoft high God, the God of the Uni- verfe, whom no one hathfeen or can fee, i Tim. 6. 1 6. to appear Himfelf in Perfon. This Cha- rader the Word laid afide, when he was viade Flejh, V. 14. but inftead of it receiv'd a greater, more glorious, and divine Name, being then de- clar*d the only begotten of the Father, and our Lord and Saviour. This was a more eminent Charader than being 7nerely the IVord of God, who as being the Angel of God, and the Revealerof his Will, had been ftil'd God. Other Angels had the Title of God given them ', hut unto which of the Angels faid he at any Time, Thou art my Son, &c. Heh, r. 5. And when Chrift was invefted with this Charadler of the only^ begotten, then it was commanded, that all the Angels of God fhou^d worfhip him, v. 6. And after his Refurredtion from the Dead, when all Power was given him both in Heaven and Earth, he then was declar'd to be the Son of God with Power ; was highly exalted, and had a Naine given him which is above every Name, that every Tongue [hoiC d con- fefs, that Jefus Chrifi is Lord (of Angels as well as MenJ to the Glory of God the Father, Phil, 2. 9, II. Having a Perfonal Dominion given him, and being conftituted, as Son of God, the Head over all Things to the Church, he was then made * Cujus auHoritate 5c nomine ipfe erat Deus- — — — vifus eft fcmper ex auHorltatc Pairis. Tertull. In nomine Dei varie yi- fuin patriarchis, TertulL " AvetKAiJi^dvvv Trt ircJo^'^cv vk 7iaj^( ^ 8£«, Theaph, ad Autolyc. Toy iiiv ^ov ^ oKuv dm^U a,y^ yj^'iv vcfMont ii^hH^^^j, Sjnod, Antioch. adv, Paul. Samt/at^ L Lord (74) , Lord over all, which imply'd his being God in ^ far higher Senfe, than when he a6ied from the Beginning, merely minifterially as the Angel of God and fVord of God. This (hews the Reafon why St. John chofe to fay of the F/ord^ not that be JSy but that be was God, 3. The Evangelift fays, all 'Things were tnade By \^ioi through^ Him ; that is, he was the mi- nifferial Agent, By whom God made the World ; whence jt is infer'd, that he was really fubordinate, in Power and Authority, to him who is ftil*d God (p fifOf) ahfolutels ; and who by Original, Supreme, undenv'd Power, made all Things Bj his Word, Where is the Herefy of this Expofition ? Or who can find out from the Words of the Apoftie, that the IVord who was with God, and By whom all Things were made, is fas Dr. W, inviolably maintains, p. 470.) the jame God with the Father \ the fame God with Him, with whoj7i he was in the Be- ginning 5 the fame God with Him who made all Things By Him ? This is Dr. JV's avow'd Senfe ; for which he gives no better Reafon than the ftale exploded Pretenfe, that if he is not the fame God with the Father, he mud be another God, and in Confequence there mufc be two Gods (p. 472.) as much as to fay, that Chrift muft either be the fame God, i. e. the fame Agent or Perfon with the Father, or elfe, if God at all, he muft be another diftind,, equally fupreme, unoriginated Agent. PerfoE or God ; which indeed and nothing elfe, as hath been fully (hewn, is properly two Gods^ and was always fo underftood by the antient Church. Dr.fF, himfelf does not really mean, that the Son is th« fame God, i. e. the fame individual Being or Agent, with the Father ; he makes Him ^s much a diftind a^ing Suhftance or Agent, as |ii$ Pppofers do. If then he is r40t thus the fame ( T5 ) ■Gcd with the Fatlier in Dr. JV's Senfe, how will Dr. W, himfelf avoid that Confequence, which he charges on his Adverfaries Notion, of making two Gods? If he fays that the Union of the diltindt ading Subftance of the Son, or of his Perfon, to the diftind ading Subftance, or Perfon, of the Father makes x.\\tm the fame God ^ his Adverfaries [if they v/ou'd take the Liberty of quibbling and playing with IFords without Senfe, as he does] might fay the fame ; for they fuppofe as clofe and intimate an Union between the Father and the Son, as Dr, W, does or can do. But they know that two Gods., howfoever utiited, are as much two Gods as if not united, they arc and muft be two united Gods, So that Dr. JV. is plainly entangled in his own Objedion, and not only makes the Father and Son two Gods^ as much as his Op- pofers do ; but much more does he make them two Gods, making them fo in the ftrid and proper Senfe of Ditheifin, as making them two equal., fu- fremey independent Agents, i. e. two fupreme Gods, On the other Hand his Adverfaries are clear of this Charge. For as the Angels fand even Men) whom the Scripture ftiles Gods, are neither the fame God with the one God the Father, nor are other Gods in Diftindlion to him, or with the one God the Father make 7na?2y Gods ; becaufe they arc the Ministers of the one God, and ad by his Authority : fo much more neither does Chrift, by being ftil'd God, who is the Son of God, and Sent by the one God the Father, and who always ads in Obedience to the Will of him his Father and God, make it be infer'd either that he is the fame God with the Father, or that there are two Gods, It is the Sovereign unoriginated Power and Dominion of the one God and Father of all, who is above all, from whom Men and Angels and the Son Himfelf is deriv'd, and from whom they receive L 2 that (76 ) that Power and Authority, on Account of which they are call'd Gods, that preferves the Unily of God and Monarchy of the Univerfe in his Perfon, who is alone Supreme over all. Next he invidioufly, and alfo inconfiftently, charges his Adverfaries with making the Word^ or Chrid, a Creature of the great God. (p. 472.J For if they make him a Creature., how contra- dldlory is it to charge them at the fame Time with making him another God ? For Row fhou'd the Word, if a Creature ftil'd God, be another God, or make with the Father two Gods, any more than Angels, who are Creatures ftil'd Gods, make with the Father juany Gods ? He is not aware what a foul Imputation he cafts upon the Scrip- tures by the inconfiftent Charge, which thro' a blind and perverfe Zeal he throws upon his Op- pofers ; who fay no more than the Scripture fays, and build all their Faith upon it. Again, How does he prove that his Oppofers make Chrift a Creature ? Or what does he mean by their making him a Creature ? Do they fay, or does any Thing they fay imply, that the Son or iVord of God is one of thofe Creatures which God made By Uhn ? This is too abfurd a Charge for even Dr. W. himfclf to lay upon them. Are there then other Creatures befides thofe which were made By the Word F let him tell us who they are, and where they are mention'd. Therefore it is very unfair in Dr. IV. to charge his Adverfaries with making the Son of God a Creature, becaufe they do not think him to be the one God and Fa- ther of all. It is alfo very mconfifient ; becaufe if there is no Medium between the one Supreme Unoriginated G^^anda Creature, then Br. W. who does not fay, nay, who in Words [how contra- dictory foevcr] denys the Son of God to be unori- ginated^ does himfelf alfo make him a Creature^ as (77) as well as bis Oppofers do : but if there is a Md- dium between the one fupremc imoriginated God and a Creature^ then the Oppofers of Dr. JV. beg his Leave to think and to fay, that Chrift the TVord and Son of God, is fuch a * middle Per/on : and why does not Dr, IV, fay (as he thinks his Adverfaries fay or ought to fayj in plain Terms^ either that the Son of God is imoriginated^ unhe- gotten^ and underiv^d, or that he is a Creature ? Having thus (hewn the Interpretation of the Text before us, and withal how abfurd Br. fF's Explication of it is, and alfo how weak, frivo- lous, and contradidlory, his Inferences are againft our Interpretation ; I proceed to fet before the Reader the full Senfe of the antient Church, on this Text, that he may judge thereby whether Br,JV*s. Explication, or that which I have given, is moft agreeable to the Senfe of the antient Church. And in this matter I will chufe, out of Favour to Dr, W.^ to begin with the Expofuion of the moft learned Origen^ becaufe Dr. W. alTures us (/>. 310.) that " Origen's Orthodoxy in the Article of Chrift's ** Divinity has been abundantly vindicated, and " clear'd from all reafonable Exception.*' I defire he'll remember that he has faid this •, for I in- tend to give him enough oi Origen^ whom, I aflure him, I admire for his Orthodoxy, as much as he can do. Origen then fays upon the Text, " ne Word *' was with God, and again, the IVord was God, * Alexander y the famous Bifhop of Alexandria who con- demned Arms, fays exprefly, that the only begotten Son of God is a middle Nature between tht nnhgotten Father, and thofe Creatures which he made By the Word, ^Ayvo\ivTii ot dydffiUi-nt, ttVTk ^ »x. ovmv hoyiKsoVTi iu dx'oyav, uy ME21TET0T2A *T2I2 f^voycvm, J)* r^ lu oKcl «§ 4K oyjufv imineny TraLrh ^ Qgtf A6>tf. £/i/J. a^Hd Theodora, Hifi. Ecdef lib, i, c. 4, " Jobi ( 78 ) " John very carefully, and as not being ignoi'a^f *' of the accurate Nature of the Greek Language, ** fometimes ufeth the Articles, and fometimes " omits them : adding the Article in the Appei- " lation, (e* Aoyof) the Word •, but in the Appel- *' lation (6sof) God^ fometimes adding it, and *' fometimes, for Diilindtion fake, omitting it. * " He applies the Article when the Title God de- *' notes Him, who is the unoriginated Author of *' Univerfe \ but he drops it when the Word is " call'd God, And as in thefe Places ("of the E- *' vangelift^ there is a Diftin6lion made between *' him who is ahfolutely God (d ^edg) and Him who *' is fimply (Qsof) God \ foobferve whether there is *' not the like Difference between the Word (o Uyo^) '' with the Article, and the Word {hoyog) with- *' out the Article : for as he who is the God over *' all is God abfolutely [d ^sog] and not fimply God *' [^£og] fo the Fountain of that Reafon which is in " every rational Being, is abfolutely Reafon \J Uyog"] *' the particular Reafon of every rational Being ** not being ftil'd properly, and in like manner, *' with the Fountain of Reafon [^ hoyog'] abfolutely *' Reafon. To thofe who apprehended it might ** 779»f07 ^Iv y^ TO A^^aV, on 6sof ovo^pet ^ ^ dyivnT^ 7aV(7gT3t/ <^ o^av <*/77»* (nwTTA S^ ctVTo 071 hoyO" Sf T^'mvyb Wi *7ta'« »» rtV Kuex«<>ii o^iui tw 'TTfUTcp, ovouAjQivmi ^ ^2>'&£>'T'9-, *0 AO'rOS. The Force of Origen*s Reafon- ing" cannot be fo clearly underftood without feme Knowledge of the Greek Language, in which the Articles are often very emphatical. But his Senfe is evident, that God the Father only is abfolutely God over all-y and the Word barely ftilM God ^ the Difference between thera being, according to Origen^ the fame, as between the IVord, whom he fuppofes the Fountain of that inferior Reafon which is in rational Beings, and the in- ferior Reafon of thofe rational Beings, as he cxprefiy after- wards fays. Com, in ^oh. p» 4^, 47; (79) *^ be infer'd from the Title of God being afcrib'd *' both to the fupreme God over ally and to the " Word^ that there were two Gods^ he remarkably " fays, * that he who is God felf-exifienl is (alone) '' properly and abfolutely G(?^; wherefore our Sa- *' viour fays, in his Prayer to the Father, thai they " iiiay know thee^ the only true God. But every Be- " ingjbefides him who is God felf-exiftent^ receiving ■*' his Divinity by Communication from him, is " not (»* 6eo^; God ahfolutely % but may more pro- *' perly be Itil'd [/^eog) a divine Ferfon^ He adds, *' There was He who is abfohitely God^ and He ^' who is fitnply God ; then Gods in a twofold *' Senfe [viz. Angels^ who are Gods by Participa- '' tion of Divinity^ or thofe, who are cali'd Gods, '' but really are not^ i. e. the Heathen Deities] the *' fuperior Order of which Deities [the Angels] " is exceWd by God the Word, who is Himfelf " exceWd by Him, who is abfolutely the God of the ^' Univerfe^ Eifehius^ the Learned Bifhop of Ccsfarea^ makes the fame Diftindion between the Word who is God fimply and without the Article, and the Fa- ther who is God abfolutely with the Article. Mar- cellus Bifhop of Ancyra had aflerted that Chrift was [4 6fOf] God abfolutely \ Eufebius oppos'd him with the PafTage of St. John before us, obferving, " f that according to the Pretence of Marcellus.^ the fjr MvoV^d\v\^tvov hlv TivLf J^ TO nS^ to ATTO0EO2, (U- Tox^i TVf iKeiya kovfnx QiOTniif^vov, iK O 0EO2, a^^et ^^iot xuei»7ic9V^AV Ki^i-n,'^ Uj -^ O 0EO2 ^ Gfio^ ^irt Geflt J)^i (Scil 0eo/ ^Ti;)^V7if QiS", i. c. Angeli ctt., m Myo' t^^vot^^ivi iJkfiiii cTi ovTii Qiot. i. e. Dii Ethnicorum, p. 48.) uvT^ xfeiTTtvO-^Ttty/uaivi Cm^ix^ h'oi ^o^f, TnEPEXO- MENOS^JW "tS ^ ohuv SfiS". Cfim, in ^oh. p. 4^, 47, 49. iKAT AVToy, To IV i^y% ,V A0>^, lovv ^Vcti iWl 1^ ( 8o) ^' the Saying /// ibe Beginning 'was the Word (e Ao- "^' yog) wou'd be the fame as to fay, in the Begin- " ning was (d ^eog) he who is God ahfolutely ; and *' the Saying, and the Word was with God^ the *' fame as to fay, he who is God ahfolutely was " with Him who is God ahfolutely [or, according " to Dr. W.^ the fame God was with the fame *' God ] and the Saying, the Word was God^ the " fame as to fiv, that he who is (e ^eoo) God ah- '' folutely^ is (620;) fimply God, i. e. God not ah- " folutely. All which he concludes, is inconfiflent " and ahfurd!'* The Reafon he adds is, that the Word^ being not unoriginated as the Father is, can- not be ahfolutely God \ therefore the EvangeUft * did not flile him God ahfolutely with the Article, lefi it JJoould he infer* d that he was fupreme God. Methodius fays *, " t that the Word, By whom " all Things were made, is the Original of other *' Things, next after the Father^ who is his unori- '-'- ginated Original.*^ Having feen how the moft learned of the An- tients underflood and diflinguifh'd upon the firft Verfe of St. Jobn^s Gofpel, never in the lead imagining the Word or Son to be the fame God with the Father, or the fupreme God, whom they con- flantly declar'd to be the Father only \ I (hall next lliew, that in their Explanation of the third Verfe, all things were made by him, they unanimoufly un- derllood the Word, or Chrift, to be the jninifierial Agent, who, in the Creation of the World, aded «m/ iJ, ;4 O 0EO2 ^v rrreS^ TON GEOn* o^/«; cTe «J rj tcIt^v '-nlvThv eivdLt tJ xJ 0eo^^ h O 0EO2- « «^6 '7r{oi n^ * Ovic' ei'TTcav v^ Ao^©- Iv O 0EOS f/STtt ^ r ap9pJ< vtes^VwAU ha, /uUvrhv hvai TON EHI nANT^N (0EON) seJeniTUi. Ecclef,Thealog. lib. 2. c. 14. t Ol)uv Ae>!i3 META TYW WiLV AVctp^v dp^v r-mries^, ireafis, . ill ( 8i ) li'i Subordination and Obedience to the fovereign IVill and Command of the Father, as the fupre?ne God of the Univerfe. I fhall, again, begin with On^f/?*. " The Ex- '' prefTion, By h'lm^ (fays he J never imports the " fi^ft Tprincipal) Place, but always the fecond " Place thus therefore, if here all Things are " made By the Word^ they are not (originally) " OF the Word ; but are (originally) OF him, who ** is fuperior to^ and greaterih2LX\y the Word: and *' what other can this Perfon be but the Father:'' Origen\ Mafter, Clemens of Alexandria^ had faid before him, '' f There is one unbegotten Being, *' God fupr erne over all % and one firft-begotten Be- " ing. By whom all Things' Were made for as *' Peter writes, there is indeed but one God, who *' made (or conftituted) the Beginning of all " Things, meaning his Firft-born Son," who is the Beginning of the Creation of God, Rev, 3. 14. Irendus^ contemporary with Clemens^ upon the Words fays ; jj " By him {of or from him, as the M efficient J'i del. ^aTw Tnivuv >y iv^dj'i « 'ttavtvl Aia t» hoya iyivii^^ in, rnO TO Koy^lyiviTJiy dhh" varo KPEITT0N02 ^ MEI- 2ONO2 «3^5fc Tov ho-pv 77i <^' oil' a^kQ- »t©- TvyydLVi} n 'Tmvl^' Ccwiin ^0 p. 5^, 56. t EN uiy TO Ay{vvi]T0Vi '7mvroit^,7w2 ^iU, EN eTs ^ ro T^yiVvwUvi A/' » Ttt Tidv-nt kyiviTo. « j ^ iJ ovtj gr/v Qioi, Of Afyfiv Trav Aidvjwv iTnina-iv, fjj^vvav t <:fffUTo^v@v i^ov, Uir(y^ y(y' 517. X T^Tov vrtTivoiiiv ffCy T« -miex etn ovtu. kn-m'TrK^uKiVAt To Trale^XfiV ^tshUfXA 'TT^i 7hV K\i(Tiv T6iv o^aV' Synod. Amioch* Non alium oftendit tunc adfuiire Deo cui praeciperentur hsec o- pera ut fierent, nifl eum per quem fada Tunt omnia, z^c* Nevat, c. 17. edit. Jack/on. II Aiyav Si i^vctyyiht^m) A/' dvT^ yiyivuii^ott ttotI (ilv 'TOV xoypv, TTore Si Ta irdviAy ro UTn^iliKov tv Gs» (Koyu) -ntt- eis'mi. J^jvAfJiivci y'iv '^vctyytht^m eiTTeiv tai^a Til' duj^ s^fefsjo-— -»P(^^t/V' «/)» 2(p«, fitAAa A/' dvj^i ha, tj/jLobidvet- miA-^if hn rm ray ohav wonfjiK^v t» Tmjfo^ a,vBiv](etv, Ecclef. Theol. lib. I. c. 20. ^cy'^ Si }LAi to. TAulct cT' ctvV lyivi% ^ff>j^v IJei, Iro? ovjoi tk vtok^i^ivh j » yui^ v'tt ctt/;», (pimv, »d'' fe| ai/7» Tti 'TTAVTA ycyivvTi^Ati akka S? av%' » Si AIA ^go9«?7j To.TriHPETlKON f}if^/if6i»^ iTi^* ftiV TmrziiiKo' tQ- (84) ^^ the World, fomecimes that all Things were *' made By {lik through) Him, fhews the minif- f' terial Agency of God the Word ; for whereas *' he might have faid that all Things were made " [v'K oLMT^] by him {ox of Him) as the efficient " Caufe, he does not fo exprefs it, but thus ; *' all Things were made By Hun [as the minif- " terial Caufe] that fo he might refer us to the " fupreme efficient Power of the Father, as the " Maker of the Univerfe." Again, " How will *' it be confiftently faid, all Things were made " ^31 Him^ if he is the fame Being with the Fa- " ther ? For he does not fay that all Things were " made [yr: awsj by Him [as the efficient Caufe] " nor OF Him •, but that they were made [A/a»J " By Him^ which implies his minifterial Agency — ." another Perlbn being the Maket\ and He tni- " niftring to him. So that we muft look for ano- *' ther Perfon, who is ablblutely the Maker of the *' Univerfe^ even that Perfon who gave Subfiftence "to all Things By [liot] Him \^ho is hereflil'd " God.-r^ — * which being fo, we muft of Ne- *' ceffity acknowledge, that he whom the Evan- " gelift ftiles God^ is not the God fupreme over '' all\ neither the Father^ but his only begotten « Son,'' o\aV T ^A T« ^iohoy}i^iy\i T^t wavta V7nT^.gel of the Fa- ther, can be abfolutely the God of the Univerfe ; for that is to fuppofe the God of the Univerfe might be an Angel and fent. Eufehius fays the fame : and Jufiin Martyr frequently affirms, that jthe Son of God, who appear\l to the Patriarchs, ifyc, was not % abfolutely the Maker of the Univerfe ; but his Angel., who 7nimfler\i to the IFiiloi ih^fup-eme Maker of the Univerfe. II Bafil himfelf, an Athanajlan^ agrees to this Dodrine. " Let no one (fays he) think that I af- " firm, that there are three Supreme Agents.^ " for there is but one Original of Things, who " created them By the Son, and pcrfeded them " in the Spirit you underfland then there are *' three Beings, The Lord who commanded \ the " Word who created', the Hol^ Ghofl who ejiablifhW *' [the Things created.] And Cyil of Jerufdem fays, ** " when the Fa- *^ ther "uJilVd that all Things fliou'd be made, the " Son created all Things at the Command of tht; * Dem. Evang. p. 227. t Tov [liv QsoF q^ ohcov ATi^U AyyzKov vouJattt y^he'.^:tty Syn, Anttoch. Wi ya.^ rov I'TrkKtiVA ^ qKcov Uov tj> atv T,i tiTTZov iV7i^»i eiiv. Etifeb. EicleJ. TheoLog. lib. i.e. 7. V'TTYi^nuv, Dial. p. 73. edit. Par if. \\ Kai /omJ^hV^ oti<^a (jc Tf«f eluai K^y^tv etf^Xcif V'tto- saV«j- — ctf^+fy) y J)aJii(jei] Cont. Noet, § 7. edit. Fabric. •j- Si enim erat, ut hasretici putanr, P4/^r Chiiftus, oportuit dicere, ego Pater unus fum. At cum ego dicit, deinde Patrejn jinfert^ dicendo, ^^(J c?' Pater, propdetatem pei-ibnas fuse, id eft. (91) ?* faid, / the Father am one [one Per Ton] but in ^' faying/, then adding the /^2//jt'r, aad laying, / *' and the Father^ he leparaces and diilingyillieth " his own proper Perfon, as being the Son^ from " the Jtflhorily, of the Perfon of the Father ; not ^-' only in the mere Sound of hame^ but ahb in the '' Order and Difpofition of Power. ^^ Laftly, Alexander Bifhop of Alexandria agrees to the fame Senfe of the Text, and obferves, *' that " our Lord in the * Words, / and the Father " are one^ did not ftile Himfelf the Father •, or " fignify that their tivo Natures in Subfiftence were V' one : but that the Son was the exa^ Re/emblance '' of the Father, and the perfed: Likenefsof Him '* by Nafjre/' From the precedent Senfe of the Antients upon the Text Joh. lo. 30. it appears, that as the Text was urg'd by the Sahellians, in Favour of their Notion of an Umty of Subftance in the Father and the Son ; fo that Senfe of it was condantly denv'd by the Catholics, as confounding the divine Per- fons : whence it follows, that the antient Church thought an Unity of Subftance was capable of no other but a Sabellian Senfe, which was oppofite to the Catholic Dodrine, that the Father and the Son were, as Alexander exprefles it, [t^ C'xoceiffei ^vo fpweig^ two Natures didind in Subjijience^ or two diitind: fubfifling Beings or Agencs. Another Text, which Dr. IV, thinks to edablifli his Notion by, is Rom. ^. v. 5 — —Ofwhom^as Filii, a patcrna 4^icforitate difcernit atq, diftin^uft, non tantum modo de fono NOMINIS, fed r-hm de ovdine diTpofita: P(?- tejiatis. Novat. c. zj, edii. ^jackfon. T.~ VTrrscL^bi Avo TSEl2 [Mclv tivcti ov.(pluji^cov' ctKK on rm r^Tti T(*V7a ofxatovjTti. elvT^ Ik pV(naf djo^^a^ivQ-y Epiji, aPiid Theodont. lib. i. c, 4, ' concerning ( 5^4 ) concerning the Flejh^ Chrijt came^ who is over all God hlejfed forever. This Text the Trilheijiic-Orlhodox on one Hand, and the Sabellian- Orthodox on the other Hand, are apt to triumph in, making no Queftion at all but that the Words, who is over all God hlef- fed for ever., are undoubtedly afcrib'd to Chrift, and that hence he is prov'd according to the one, to be the fame God with the' Father ., in the Gnoftic^ Sahellian Senfe ; or according to the other, by a di- redly contrary Interpretation, to be diftindly from the Father God fnpreme over all., in the 7>i- theiftic Senfe, And thus our Saviour is in the Text, as it were, again criicify'd between two 'Thieves., two Herefies equally deftrudive of his true' Divi- nity. And it is not confider'd in either of them, that if the Words were really fpoken of Chrift, St. Paul himfelf has enter'd a Caveat againft both the Senfes, faying, i Cor. 15. 27, 28. For he (God the Father, i;. 24'.) hath put all Things under' his (Chrift's; Feet •, but when he faith., all Things are put under him, it is manifejl that he is excepted, who did put all Things under Him and the Son himfelf fhail he fuVjeul unto him, that did .put all Things under him. Before I fhew the Senfe of the Antients upon the preceding Text, I will rnake a few Obferva- tiqns upon it. ift. in the Text the Word (fifoVj G^<^ is wanting in ifeveral Antient Latin MSS. of Cyprian, and ic is doubtful whether Cyprian rc2id it in his Copy or n6t. The Reafon which Dr. Mills gives, that Cy^ ^r/^wmuft have' had it, viz, becaufe he follows the fame Tranflation of the Scriptures which Ter- tullian follow*d, who had it in his Copy, is not a good one •, becaufe any one upon comparing the Citations of Tertullian and Cyprian together, as I have carefully done, will have reafon to conclude, they ( 95 ) they did not follow the fame Tranflation. Gro- tius obferves, that the Word was not in the Syriac Verfion. MiiU finds Faults with Grotius as being incorre)? 6T/ ntcLAm 9£of XgijTj^ ofiovoytviif Qior h 'TViuj^ a;*oK 6 TTa^^KhtflQ-, to -cans Xe(r2 7ny(.7n^zvoy, ibid. lib.' 3. c. 17. ± n«f ^«^| Vdi\iv ^A %'n ant J^oKei Xetjoj eivcti Ik 'f Tctp- 'TVTov^a.T^^tTeiKa.i^ eivii i Vi 7^7^* xjueiivuv -, yvu^if J^4 77^®" ^ilQ" I'm^dL^'XJACLi'', Ignat, Epift. ad PhiUp. § 7. tl '077^ ^>i dvjQ- k^9 1711 rjTAvluv Gs^f -^ 'T^iri^, aAA«6 Lioi ( lOp ) ^' felf faith, / afcend unto 7ny Father and 'your Fa- ?' ther^ and unto my God and your God: and zvher^ ^' all 'Things are put tinder hitn, then Jh all he he fub- ^' jeul unto him ivho put all "Things under bivi, that " God may he all in all: wherefore he who put all ^' Things under him, and is all in all, is one perfon^ *' and he whom they are put under, and who alfo *' himfelf with all Things will be made fuhjeol^ " is another Perfon." And Origen fays * " admit there are fome, a- ^* mongfl a Multitude of Believers of differene " Opinions, who rafhly affirm, that our Saviour ^' is the God over all •, yet we do not affirm this, as " believing him who hath faid, My Father is ^' greater than I" And Irenaus before him every where fuppofes the God over all to be the Perfon of the Father, i^ ^' By him [of or from him] who is the God over all ^ " all things were appointed and made by [per ^' thro''] his IVord^ [as the miniflring Caufe]," ^ Qgov j:z« it) hov Vf^V it), orav \iS!tlct^^ eivna 7a Wj^at) To7| ^ ffntfivldL h t«?- hcL fjLit Aujov elvcLt r Ivn rrdv-mv [Qe^tJ cciaifjcti. ibid, lib. 2. c. 14. fTiV. i^i^. lib. I.e. 7. ^ II El/i «!/ EN ^ TATTON h I Os- < ^^ er ct'-c^-rJ a6^(G^, }Lj iva.v^^coTrJxTdLi yt^ ^a.^cov ji a.vcLyfy^.[x\xivcL z] d'Tro^CtVCOlf vs^' ^^l-ioti iyKAJi^i^iV. ibid, lib, z, c. 4. •« £0 ( 102 ) *•' to affirm, was efteem'd by the Church of God •' to be an Atheift and Blafphe?ner,^^ Laftly, * " The Evangelift (fays he) cou'd have «' flird the Word [o ^eU\ God abfolutely^ had he *' thought the Father and Son to have been one *' and the faine Being *, and that the Word was the " God over all. But now by ftiling the Father *' [o figoV] God ahfolutel)\ and the Word barely (^£0^;) " God^ or a divine Ferfon^ he has plainly taught us *' to efteem the Father of the Word, with whom *' the Word was, to be the fupr erne God over all \ *' and next after him to underftand that the Word, *' who ishisonly^begotten Son, is not the God over ^' all^ but that he is a divine Perfon." From the foregoing Teftimonies it is evident, that it was the Dodrine of the primitive Church, that the Title of God over all was fo peculiarly af- crib'd to God the Father in the Scriptures, that it was Blafpheni)^ and hnpiety to afcribe it to the Son of God : whence I conclude that the Words of the Text, Rom. 9. 5. ivho is over all God blejfed for ever., were by the antient Church generally underftood 'd,\'\<^ interpreted, as fpoken of God the Father. And Tertullian^ f Cyprian, and Novatian, who at- tributed ^pSfSf T£:ct«^j « yi tv }y tblvtvv riyeiTr) r mni^ eiVAi )y ^ C\ov, cLVTov 7i Hvai T h!(jyov ^ ^ ■miv'Twv ^^ov vvv\ cTe vf^eiiravy ^ AoyO" y>v t^V r)tv ^iov ^^ioi Hf "hoy©-. '^yO/-- i'TTeiTxt (Mi AvjoVi uvt ctyvoeiV 6)^ iy o hoyoi /xovoycvhi vibi, ^')(l dvroi m o k-m TrztVTzav Gsof? ctAA.* 077 )tj dvToi Qioih Ecclef. Theoiog. lib. 2. c. 17. •j- The one fupreme God all ihro' Cyprian's Writings is the Perfon of the Father, who he fays '• is ihs one God who is *« Lord of all, of uneqt^aWd Majefty and Power.'* Unus i^iiuc omnium Dominus eft Deus ; neqj enim ilia fubh'mitas poteft habere confortem, cum fola omnem teneat poteftatem, De bono ^aiientidi. p. 14. Tertullian's and Nox^^/i/i^J's Opinion have been tile W A ( loj) tributed this Text to our Saviour, neverthelcfs ftill confefs'd that the Father only was the God fupr erne ^ or over all. Nay Baftl Himfelf, an Atbajiafnin, fliews, that the Tide of God over all peculiarly be- longs to God the Father, faying •, * " It is the " peculiar Charaoieriftic of his-Perfon who is God " over all to be the Father., and to have no Caufe " of hisExiftence." Having fliewn that the Texts of Scripture, which Dr. U^. principally urgeth in Favour of his own Nodon, are full and clearly againft in ; and were Underftood and interpreted by the antient Church, in a Senfe quite contrary to it •, I proceed to fnew the Senfe of the primitive Church upon fome other Texts, which teach a Dodlrine diredlly oppofite to his Hypothefis. Mat. 19. t;. 17. JVhy callejl thou 7?iegood^ There is none good but one., that is God. This Text was un- derftood by all the t Antients as fpoken of God the Father, iht Original^ fupre7ne^ underiv^ d Good % the Son being the Image., as of the PerfoHy fo of the Goodnefs of God the Father. }j IrencBus cites the Text as if it had been writ- ten, why callefi thou me Good, there is but one Per- fcewn above, and will be farther fhewn hereafter. Cyprian elfe- where to the fame Purpofe fays, that Chrift cali'd the Father his Lord and God, (^c, Dominum 5c Deum fuum ;«— — quando ipfam potejUtem, qua baptizamur, & fanftificationem ab eodem Patre Qhxi^ns acctperit j quem majoretn dixen'r, a quo clarificari petierit j cujus vcluntatem, ufq. ad obfequium bibendi calicis & fubeundae mortis, impleverit, £/>//?. ad Jubaian. p. 203. * 'O e/V i'^ Tny-mv Ssaf %^a\^Z7qv 77 yvcoei(T(^ ^ iAvn iJtjo- %Xfi' ^^f ^pfi- 45. concerning the Difference of the Words, iaiA and vm^Acji. \ Jufi. Mart, eTi? I^jV *}A9of » wSTTff ^jlh Iv rolf i^yol<. There is one who is good, even my Father who is in Heaven, Vial, cum Tryph. II E«V €^V A)aQo^, TctTw'f Iv roti i^AVoti. lib. i. c. 20» edit. Majfuft. Quern folum merito bonum pronuntiat Dominus - cu- fus bonitatis totus teftis eft mundus, Ncvatian, c. 4, fon ( ^©4 5 fon who is good, my Father iji^hich is in Hea'Den. And fo * Clemens Alexandrinus cites it. Clemens elfewhere explains his lenfe of the Text faying, '*" whom our Saviour and God declares to be alone '' GoG^^ cvQii God I he Fat her J' Again, " that He " who is truly alone the one God fupreme over all^ ** may be declar'd alfo to ht Good for ever and *' ever, faving us by his Son." -f- Origen remarkably fays, '^ Our Saviour fays, *' the Father that fent me is Greater than I ; and *' therefore refus'd to accept the Title of Good^ '' in the proper^ true^ and perfetl: Sefife of it, i^hen " offer'd to him, but referM it gratefully to' the '' Father^ and rebuk'd him who wouM have thus' *' glorify'd the Son above Meafure.^' The Rea- fon which he adds is, that the Son is not In any Thing comparable to the Father -, " for that he is [not the * PAdagog, lib. I. **Ov ^vov hret Osoy 'd. Strom. 7. ottw? tm ovJs eituvet (mlav c/>a Ci^* Strctn. 7- P'^^35' ^^{'- Oxon, t UeiboLCiVoi tJ azoTiiei hk-)pv\r "Tnlri^ Tnii-ldi fU /U«^«f y>dAv Tiiv yjJetcLV j^ ctAwQ?? it} Tihf^tLV 'mptJ^^a<^cLi auTcJ 't^o'- ^iC9^ivm> tiK7^ct cCva.(pi^v7i dvlhv kv^ei^i 'm Wlei [»ta plane legendum, non utjn edit. Tf^v/^l/, quae corruptio fiebat ex errore librarii fcribentis ~^t f. e. vrvivyLAv pio tt/j/ '• « Tm^eiy quo». ^n Mat. p. 370, 377, Original ( 105 ) ^- Original Good but] the hnage of the Father's "" Goodnefsr Again, " the Appellation of Good^ properly fo " called, is in the Text attributed to him only " who is abfolutely God :" and to no other " Perfon befides and when apply'd to an in- *^ ferior Perfon, it hath another Signification " that our Saviour is the hiage of the Father's " Goodnefs ; and that his Goodnefs isthe^fame, or ^' greater, in proportion to the Goodnefs of others, " than the Goodnefs of the Father is to his Good- " nefs." * Eufehius agrees to Origen\ Senfe, that the Son, tho good^^ is not the original fupreine Good ; but the l77iage of the Father's Goodnefs^ who only is the original, ahfolute, underiv*d Good. So that the Senfe of the antient Church plainly is, that as the Fa- ther only, who is unoriginated, is the one God fu-- prefne over all, fo he is alone fupreme and abfo- lutely perfed in refped of every divine Attribute! and that all the Perfedions of the Son, and a- mongft thefe his Goodnefs, being deriv'd to him with his Nature from the Father, are not co-ordi- nate or equal to the underiv'd Perfedions of the Father, and fo, that the Attribute of Goodnefs can- not belong to the Son in the fame high and abfo- lute Senfe, in which it is afcrib'd co the Father, to whofe fupreme Goodnefs, our Saviour himfelf in the Text before us yields the Fre-eminence, And as our Saviour declar'd, that the Attribute of Good- nefs fo peculiarly and eminently belong'd to his Father, that it cou'd not be afcrib'd to himfelf in the fame high Senfe and Degree of Perfedion : fo he has alfo declar'd, that the Perfedion of abfolute 0o<' ecrejVgf — r— «K«V d^a^mQ- cti/T« (waj^'j } Corn* in PfaL 72. P Knci^- ( io6 ) Knowledge is the peculiar Attribute of the Father only. " But of that Day and Hour knoweth no *' one [i^ek no Perfon] no not the Angels of Hea- " ven, but my Father ONLT^ Mat. 24. 36. But " of that Day and that Hour knoweth no one " \ilug no Perfon] no not the Angels which are ** in Heaven, neither the Son^ but the Father^ Mar, *' 13. 17. 32." Than which no Words or Language can morfe plainly and ftrongly exprefs, that our Lord and Saviour did not then know the Day of Judgment fpoken of in thefe Texts ♦, that being one of thofe Things which, as Chrift told his Dif- ciples after his Refurredlion, '' the Father had put *' in his own Power," A5ls i. 7. And which was referv'd to be reveal'd to Him after his Exal- tation to the Throne of God in Heaven. The Book of the Revelation is therefore call'd, the Re- velation of Jefus Chrift^ which God gave unto Him^ Ch. I. v. I. And the Knowledge of the future State of the Church which had been in Part, and more obfcurely, reveal'd to the Prophet Daniel^ was more fully and clearly reveal'd to Chrift, as the Reward of his Sufferings and Redemption of us. Rev, 5. V. 1—9. Dr. W, has nothing to alledge againft the plain meaning of the precedent Texts, but the abfurd Cerinthian diftindion between the * humane and divine Perfon (which he unphilofophically calls the humane and divine Nature) of Chrift : as if Chrift knew any Thing which his entire Perfon knew not j or his Nature^ diftindl from his Perfon^ cou'd be faid to know any Thing at all. The Scripture has prevented all fuch Qaibbles ('which tend only to make the Dodrines of Chrift ridicu- lous) by exprefly declaring, that the Son did not know the Day of Judgment, and that the Father * See a Reply to Dr. VV>tterland's Defenfe of fome Queries, by a Clergyman in the Country, |^. 7. /*. 23d, &c. cnl'j (C ( 107 ) onl'j knew it. So that there is no pofTible Way for Dr. JV, to infer that the Son knew it, but by fuppofmg him to be the Per/on of the Father^ or the fame individual intelligent Agent with the Fa- ther ; and to differ from the F^/^^r, not in Perfon^ but merely in Na?ne. That the Antients underftood the Son in the Text to be Chrift in his higheft Capacity, to be not merely the Son of Man, but the very Son of God Himfelf, I Ihall prove from two unqueftiona- ble Writers, Irenceia and Origen, who deliver the Dodrine of the Church. " * Being unreafonably puffed up (fays Irenceus to the Gnoflics) ye pre- fumptuoufly take upon you to lay, that you know the unutterable Myfteries of God ; when " even our Lord, the Son of -God Himfelf, confeffd, " that the Father alone knew the Day and Hour of " Judgment ; exprefly affirming, of that Bay and *' Hour knoweth no one^ neither the Son, hut the " Father only. If therefore the Son was notafham'd *' to refer the Knowledge of that Day to the Fa- " ther, but faid what was true ; then furely nei- *' ther fliou'd we be afham'd to referve to God *' fuch Queftions as are far above us : for no one *' is above his MafierP Upon the preceding Words of IrencEus f Eraf- 7nus owns, that Irenceus feem'd to think that the Father only knew the Day of Judgment, and that * Irrationabillter autem inflati audaciier Inenarrabilia Dei> myfterla fcire vos dicitis : quandoquidem & Dominus, ipfe Ft- litis Dei, ipfum judicii diem & horam conceflit fcire /o/««» P be known by the Father-enlj ; or that the Son was Equal in Knowledge to God the Father, it wou'd have been faying fomething. 2. Origen^ tho' he allows that the Son knows the whole Will of God, yet denies that he is e- qually perfe6l in Knowledge with the Father. " * The inquifitive Reader (fays he) may afk, " whether the Father knows himfelf, as he is " known by the Son : and finding that it is writ- " ten, the Father who fent me is greater than /, he " will be perfwaded that this is in all refpeds true, *' fo as to fay that the Father is greater than the " Son even in Knowledge alfo, being more per- " fecflly and clearly known by Himfelf, than by *' the Son." Agreeably to this he elfewhere fays upon the Words of the Apoflle, this ts the true Lights " f for the fame Reafon as God, the " Father of him who is the Truth^ is a Superior. " and Greater Truth ; and the Father of him " who is Wifdom^ is Greater and more excel- * Curiofus leftor inquirat, utrum a femetipfo cognofcatur Pater, quomodo cognofcitur a Filio : fcienfqj illud quod fcrip- tum eft, Pater qui mijit mt major me e(l ; in omnibus verum efle contender, ut dicat & in Cognitione Filio Patrem effe Major EM, dum perfe^ius dc purius a femetipfo cognofcitur quam a Pilio. UL 4. deprinclpiis apud Hieronym, in Epifi. ad Avit. c, 4. atq; id tdi^i caufae, quare Filium a Patre comprehendi, Patrem vero a Filio neutfquam comprehendi poffe opinatus fit, ait Hie^ ron, ibid, nro) CmfiXl^ '^ ^^^ 'P^^ ciKnQivov, Com* in Joh, p. j©. " lent ( 110 ) '- lent than MA/dom \ for the fame Reafon he ex- '' cells him alfo who is the true Light:' Bafil himfclf underftands the Text of the di- vine Perfon of Chrift, and that the Knowledge fpoken of in it belongs primarily to God the Father. His Words are very remarkable. "^ * That which I have been taught from a Child, *' of thofe that went before me, is this that as *' we underftand thofe Words, there is none good '' hut one, that is God^ to be fpoken by the Son, " not as excluding himfelf from being Partaker " of the Nature of Good, but only as fuppofing ^' the Father to be the FIRST Good, and by the " Word none meaning no other FIRST Good •, " but that he himfelf is the Second So in thofe *' W^ords, no one knoweth^ &c. we believe our ^' Lord meant to afcribe to the Father the FIRST " KNOWLEDGE of Things prefent and future, " and to declare to the World, that he is in all « Things the FIRST CAUSE, ^^." And it is certain, as hath been (hewn before, that the moderate Aihanafian Writers never taught, that the Son was equal to the Father in ahfolute di- vine Perfe^ions\ but profefs'd, that the Father, as being alone unoriginated^ and the firjl Caufe, was in ail Things fupr eminent to the Son, who deriv'd his Nature and all his Perfedions from him ; and who alv/ays aded in Obedience to his fupeme Au- thority. e'T6tsf. «? Tin^imi^iv e^' 7»> k/«V *>a9°f^ ^ /a4 «f, w-ni hiyel dhhcL, i'TteiS'n to t^^ttI' etya^^jV o TizLTjjy^ tc5 Tjctv To/h* F« ^ 2 1 , " tion Cll2) *' tion on Gen, 19. 24.] being his Father and God^ " and the Author of his Exiftence, even tho he '' himfelf alfo bt powerful, and Lord^ and God.'* And he every where denys Chriil, tho God, to be [oto/>j- Ti^f Twv oAwv] the abfolute or fupreme Maker of the Dniverfe : but declares, that he is fubje^i to him, and yd-/// by him. And Irenceus from this Text infers fas hath been juft obferv'dj that the Father is ahve all\ and de- clared by our Lord himfelf to be fuperior to him the Son in Knowledge. Agreeably hereto he fays elfewhere, * " that our Lord himfelf taught his " Difciples, that the Father only is that Lord and " God^ who is the only God and Ruler over all'' Tertullian comparing the only-begotten Son to the unbegotten Father fays, f " that which is *' unoriginated is more powerful than that which is '' originated becaufe that which had no Caufe " of its Exiftence will always be much fuperior to " that, which had a Caufe of its Exiftence." Hence he fays in another Place *, 1| " The Father is the '' whole (divine) Subftance, of which the Son is a '' derivative Part •, [like a Ray from the Sun^ which " is his Comparifon] he himfelf declaring, My *' Father is greater than I." Origen fays, as Huetius interprets his corrupted Greek ; '' It is a greater Thing that the Son of '' Man is glorify 'd by God, the Inferior by the '' Superior^ than that he who is inferior ftiould have * Ipfo Domino Patrem tantum Deum & Dominum eum qui folus eft Deus & Dominator omnium tradente difcipulis, fequi nos oportet. Lib. 3, c. 9, f Innatum nato fortius ;—»— quia quod ut effet, nullius eguit auftoris, multo fublimius erit co, quod ut ciTer, aliquem habuit auftorem. Co»/. ffcrwo^. f. 18. II Pater tot a fubftaniia eft, Filius vero derivat'w totlus & por- tio, (icut ipfe profitetur quia Pater major me eft. Adv, Prax, *' glorify'd ( »«3 > «' glorlfy'd him who is greater God, agreeably to " the Words, The Father who fent me is greater *' than I*" Again, " the Father hfupericr to, and greater ** than the Word." Again, " we affirm, that the Son is not more " fowerfuU but that he is lefi powerful than the *' Father ; according to his own Words, the Fa- «^ ther who fent me is greater than I. We fay " that our Saviour, whom we acknowledge to be ** God the Word, beareth Rule over all Things *' which are made fubjed to him *, but not over *' his Father and God, who bears rule over « him." Again, " we fay that our Saviour, with the Holy *' Ghoft, not only comparatively, but fuperemi- *' nently excells all the Things that were made *' (By him) being yet himfelf excelled by the Fa- *' ther as 7iiuch^ or even more than he and the Holy '' Ghofl excell the orher Creatures [viz. nrones^ " Angels, &:c.] But notwithltanding he who excells ** fuch and fo great Beings in Ejjence and Dignity " and Power and Godhead [for he is the living * Majus eft, quod Filius homlnis glorificatus fuerit per Deum, inferior per prAjianttorem, quara quod inferior glorificaverit Deumprdflantiorem , juxta illud : Fater qui mifit tne major me efi^ Com. in "^oh, p. 417. ^eiTiz^v i^ iie^Cav [0 Tmlh^'] <^^ r hiiyov ibid. p. 56. ^dtyiXv r t^ov iK}<^v^TiCPV r'^ 'Trdj^^i cih\* O'VifX-idi \J.i fjJi^eov ^ l^'^'A^^eiV — (pct^iv r ozSj?}^ «a A/rat. ©75 VQ^^iV dvToV QiOV KQ')J>V TmVTZdV [J.h ^ VTJlT^luy^.iv wv J^ 9s». Cont. Celf, lib, 8. p. 383. 'yrdvjcov (azv ^ yn/^lav vm^ix^^y K avyKd J^ kortiTJ- ap. Sifcrat, Hiji, EccU lib. 2. And ( 11 J ) And Baftl himfelf declares as much, * ^' the *' Son (fays he) is fecond to the Father, in Order " fof Nature) as being from him; and alfo in *^ Digniiy, becaufe the Father is the Original and *' Caufe of his Exiflence ; and, becaufe ibro' hi??i, *' we have Accefs to God even the Father." Hi- lary's Opinion has been fhewn above •, and to put this Matter out of all Difpute, Bifhop Bull him- felf has confefs'd, f" that On^g^^/s Dodrine, that *' the Son, even as he is God, is lefs than the Fa- " ther, is plainly the Catholic Dodrine, main- *' tain'd even by the Fathers, after the Council of *' Nice, who moll llrongly oppos'd the Arian O- '' pinion." Another Text fufficient to filence the vain Pre- tenfes of modern Scholaftic Orthodoxy that the only true God is the Father^ Son and Holy Ghoff, is John 17.3. where our Saviour in his Prayer to his Father fays, " This is Life eternal, that they may *' know Thee, the only true God^ and Jefus Chrift " whom thou haftyd-w/." Parallel to this Text is that other of the fame Apofhle, i John 5. 20. *' And we know that the Son of God is com'^, and " hath given us an Underftanding that we may *' know the true God [rov aAvjQivov Gsov, fo the Ori- " ginal, according to the bed and oldefl MSS] *' and we are in him that is true [the true God] in " [it fhou'd be rendei'd, By] his Son Jefus Chrift. t 'O vioi ixL^etylv ^iv-nes^ r^^ctlfliy on dir 'ivAv'd. ^ d^- icduef.TJ, 077 d^')M id) dma, Ta ^PeLt auT« o 'Tretjyj^, K^ o-n'^i etVT^ « vff^QoJhi }^ rarcs^y^T^ ^iT QgoJ' i^ MV n^] 'TTffcffyivve.v ^. c. . 4. viL lib, t, c 56. iib. 5. c. 15. iie>. 6. c. 9.' lib. 7. c. 37? 5^» ^.-':' ^ ( 122 ) " bove all Things I praife Thee, I blefs Thee, *' I glority Thee, thro' the eternal high Prieft *' Jefus Chriil, thy beloved Son: through whom, *' and with whom, in the holy Spirit, be Glory *^ to Thee now and for ever and ever. Amen." Juftin Martyr fays ; * " there are no Nations *' upon Earth, in which Prayers and Thankf- *' givings are not put up to the Father and Ma- " ker of all Things, through the Name of Je- *' fus who was crucify 'd." Again ; *' The Mi- *' nifter taking [the Bread and Cup] gives Praife *' and Glory to the Father of all, thro' the Name *' of the Son, and thro' the Holy Ghoft." And this he tells us was the Rule in ail religious Ob- lations at the Lord's Supper. This primitive Martyr tells us farther, f that next after the unbegotten God^ they alfo worfhip'd the Son by his Command^ in the fecond Places or in fubordination to Him. Melito the antient Bifhop of Sardis^ delivers the Chriflian Do61rine in thcfe Words; t " we do not ^' worfhip Beings that have no fcnfe, but the on- *' ly God who is before all and above all, even *' above Chrifl himfelf who is truly God the ^' Word/' Ecclej. 'ib.^4 '• 5' ^y^^gidLt 760 7rv'l§i^ y^t TTOtmiji 7(^V Oh6dV yli'COlfrcfJ. Uial p^ 112. » i Kd.^"V iiVQi /Li,< cfti^ctwrn 'TTcneA t^v oA«j/ tfid rk *, i6; . 'Vid. p. 6 .'. + ApoU 1. p. 2r. edit. Grab. Apol. 2. p. 34, 35. Dial. p. 97. gdii. Steph ^ , . ,. ^ , a > , % :J: 'Oy» ItriJAV iiJ\fjaa.v di Cdf, lib. 8. p. 3^6. fee p. 384. I Dg Qrau p. 50, 5 1, 52, 53. tdit WetJIem ■* — ^^'" *^ without ( 125 ) ^" without our High-Prielt. — —Therefore the " Saints in their Euchariftical Prayers, give Thanks " to God throi:gh Jefus Chrij}. And as he that *' prays in the ftricl and proper Senfe, ought not " to pray to him Cprimarily and ultimately) who " himfelf prays ; but to the Father^ whom our '' Lord Jefus taught us to invocate in our Pray- " ers ; fo ought no Prayer to be otfer'd to the " Father without Him, Juhn i6. 23, 24." Whence he concludes that we ought always to pray to the Father in bis Nmne. And as our Prayers ought to be oifer'd up to God the Father through Chnft ; fo he obferves farther, that the * Doxolcgy in the End of our Prayers, ought likewife to be ofFer'd to God through Chrijl, and in the Holy Ghoft. Laltly, Eiifehius fays •, t '' the only-begotten ^' of God and firft-born of the Univerfe, the Be- " ginning of all Things commands us to efleem " his Father the only true Gody and to worlhip " him alone." From the preceding Paffages, to which many more might be added, on the Point of Worfliip, it is as evident and demonfl table as a Matter can be, that as the antient Church always profefs'd ic as the Scripture-dodlrine, that God the Father only was the only true God, and the fupreme Maker of the Univerfe •, fo likewife it taught that he on- ly ouglit to be invocated and worfhip'd, in the highefty ftri5l and proper Senfe of Prayer and Wor- fhip j /. e. as the Original^ primary and ultimate Ob- jed of all religious Adoration : that as the Holy Ghoft was never ftil'd God or Lord, fo he was ne- ver invocated in Prayer at all : and that, as the * p. 14-, 146. fttiyQV ffi^6i¥ Yi^v 'mQf.YM^X'l-nkt. Pr&p. Evang, Uh^-j. p. 327. SOii ( 126 ) Son was Inferior to the Father, and alv/ays fubjedl unto him, and was conflituted by him to be our High-Prieft^ Saviour^ Advocate^ and Judge : fo the Father was worfhip'd and pray'd to 'Through him^ and in his Name ; and He himfelf was invocated in a inediate and fuhordinate Senfe, that he might (as our Mediator) offer up, and by his iMediation render effedlual our Prayers to the one God and Fa- ther of all. But it never was the Doftrine or Pra- dice of the antient Church to worfliip Chrift as being ihe fupreme God., or the fame God with the Father •, as Dr. IV, pretends, and moft grofly mif- reprefents it, and abufes his Readers in io doing. Two Texts more remain to be confider'd in order to conclude this Treatife. Prov, 8. 22, " The Lord poffefs'd [iitr/o-s Gr. created] me in; " the Beginning of his Way, before his Works of ^' old." Parallel to this is Colojf, i. 15. " who is " the Image of the invifible God, i\\Q firft-bcrn of « ever'j Creature^ In the firfi: Text IVifdom there fpoken of was underftood by the Antients, to be meant of Chrift the Son of God, who is alfo in the new Teftament call'd the Wifdom of God., i Cor. i. 24. And the Antients alfo underftood the Text, as rendered by the Greek I nterpreters, viz. that Chrift or Wifdiom was created by God : the Antient Jews likewife, as appears from the Chaldee Par^aphrafe underftood the Word render'd /^^^/i'ti, to fignify cheated., as the Greek verfton of the Seventy, and the old Syiac verfion have it ; and as the * Word fignifies elfewhere. So that they who alledge that the Word fignifies, popfs'd, as diftind from be- mior>yl!us fons Arii. Gevnad. lib. de F.cclef. Dogmat. c. 4. vid. & Bafil. Epij}. 4!. & Vionjjium Alexandrma urbis Epifcopum, vi^um erurli.iilimum rontra Sabellium difpuiantem, in Ariamm dogm.' delabi Hierov. Apol. 2 adv. Ruffin. ** TloKh^A aV ivfpti iKei (pmdLi -raV vvP 79K di^^-nvfit^ ^-5^ yi?-w ^i%vv 7rctii^{jAvA<;, «< to KTJ(r^A k^i to mi\^yxt^ Keti eiv 'nii'^TOV,^a/.de Gre^. Thamririt. Eptjl 64 tt KTiHiJidL dvTov Xei^lv'} ATtzpalvei' T'hot.^ de Th?ognoft. Cod, 106. Or'igenii niaiium fequax errores immifcuit ^^eiUmos ; iniet ( 129 ) thetii Scholars and Followers of the great Orlgen^ taught with him, that the Son and Spirit were Creatures of the Father. * Pierius another mod eminent Scholar of Ori^ gen taught the fame Dodrine. And the Learned Eufebius of CiBfarea calls the Son, f " theperfed " Creature of the perfeci: God." And alfo ; " the " fubftantial Wifdom created [Prov. 8. 22.] of " God before all Ages." And declares the Holy- Spirit " to be one of thofe Beings which were " ??iade by the Son ; and affirms this to be the *' Do6lrine of the holy Catholic Church deliver'd " in the Scriptures." And to this agrees the Let- ter of the Pre/by lers and Deacoiis of the Church of Alexandria^ which they wrote upon Occafion of the Arian Controverfy juft then broke out, to A- lexander their Bifhop ; in which Letter they tell him X " that the Faith which they had received " from their Forefathers, and had been taught by " him alfo, was this. We confefs one unbegot» *' ten, only tltrn^l^ only true God that this '' God begat his only-begotten Son before the inter S. S. Trinitatis perfonas totidem dignitatis gradus efEngens • Chriftumque pariter ac Spiritum S. ad creaturarum fortem detru- de ns. Cav. Hifi. liter, p. c8. ■*■ Hid ^iv rot 7« 'TTViVl/.ATCi \'m(T(^A}\ui XUv y^dLl JlxTS-i- l//K ATrt^dffKet t^'5«^ -^^ Pierio. Phot Cod. 119. t T^ArtOK 71A«« (hf/A^fyviiAA, Demon f. Evang. lib, 4. c, 2, K7Ja-Qei(rt1i^ Eclog. prophet, apud Cav. Hifi. liter, part. 2. p. 65. To J^ TItLfj'KknTOV "TTViVlAA, %% Qs^f, »7e VIC?' gj/ J^ 'I "^^^"^ -^^^ y /« yivoyhuv^ TAv-m (Av ^v tH? ka^oM- xJic KAi dyAi iKK\i)aiA? focfi rrn J)a t«j/ Oti'^J' (puyc&y tta^- 4^ibint TBI fJuu^fiejLA. De Ecclef, Theol, lib. 3. c, 6. vid. 6c cont. Marcel, lib, i. c, 4. t ^'H TTtjti Yi^v « \k '?r^9yiVedVy tiv kaI a^'o (ra (JLiUA^nKAy.iV -^UOyoV AlJ)0V — ^JLQVOU A^i^QtVoV, — V7nTYIo6iYint\ that he was the fame God with the one God and Father of all : both by con- trary extremes, agreeing in taking away his true and proper Divinity as being the only-begotten Soa of God. The Dodlrine of 'Tritheifm and Polytheifn a- mongfl: the reft of the old Herefies, dar'd to fhew its Head in the firft Ages of the Church ; and it was one Branch of the Gnoftic Impiety, amongft the Valentinians^ as Sahellianifn was another ; and alfo the known Marcionite * Dodlrine. The forty firft Apoftolical Canon points at fome who baptiz'd f into three unoriginated Per- fons. And the t Apoftolical Conftitutiofis afTure us, * See Tertul adv. Marcion. llh. i. & Athanafius de Synod. Artm. & Seleucp, 929. edit. Paris. 1^27. t ^IS TfBf i.vA^y^i. apHd. Cottier. Vol. i. p. 449. ci Ji' J)J9 ayinnm. lib. 6.c. 10. ^ ^^ S 2 that that fome of the Slmonian Gnoftic Heretics taught there were man^ Gods ; others that there were three unoriginated^ and others that there were two unhe- gotten Perfons (or Gods.) And * Origen fpeaks of Heretics who dar*d to ajirm two Gods : Such were the Marcionites. But as the Herefy of Ditheifm or 'Tritheif?n was more wicked and impure than any of the reft, and by immediate Confequence deftroy'd not only the Divinity of the Son, but the Divinity of the one God, the Father alfo, and was no better than A- theifm *, fo it neither appear'd fo openly as the o- thers, and was foon quafh'd and came to nothing ; and reviv'd not again till the latter End of the 4th Century, amongft fome of the Followers of Athanafms. That Dr. JVaterland's Dodrine of the Trinity is in the ftridleft Senfe Tritheifm, I have fully prov'd in the foregoing Papers ; and that he teaches and avows the Atheiftical and diabolical Do- drine (as the -f Apoftolical Conftitutions call it) of three fupreme, necejfaril'^-exislent, or iinoriginated Perfons, Agents or Gods, in as full and ftrong Terms as the Simornan Gnoftic Heretics ever did, has been demonfl:rated from his many diredl AfTer- tions of this Dodrine; and particularly, from his affirming it pcffible, that the Son might have been God the Father, and the Father have been the Son, and aofed the minijlerial Part : and that the three divine Perfons differ in no ejfential Per- feolion \ but in mere Name or Mode of Exi- ftence : for a Mode of Exiftence which is not eft- fential to the Deity, or is not an ejfential Perfe- Bion, is nothing more than a mere Name, And * Et duosquidem Deos aufos efle Iisereticos dicere. iSth, i. 4e Princip, c. j* f Lib, 6. c. 9> 10. ' fince ( M5 ) fince the Reafon and common Senfe of all Man- kind have ever taught them, that the Nature and all the ejjential Perfe^lions of God are unoriginated and underiv'd \ he vvhofe avow'd Dodrine it is, that the Son and Spirit have the Nature and all the effential Perfe5iions of the one God and Father of all, does, with the Simonian Heretics, profefTedly teach [T^eTg dvu^x&Q & uyevvviTsg] three unoriginated or ne^ cejfarily exyient^ unhegotten Perfons^ or Gods, This is the Do6lrine which, with great Bitter- nefs and Uncharitablenefs of Spirit,. Dr. JV, de- fires to impofe upon the ProfefTors of Chriftiani- ty ; otherwife wou'd exclude them (if he had competent Authority^ p. 196 J from the Commu- nion of the Chriftian Church. If this is not the Spirit of Antichrift^ 'tis impoffible to know what is. He has had fufficient means of Convidion laid before him, from Scripture^ Reafon and Anti- quit 'j : But Scripture is to be perverted^ Reafon is to be degraded and abus'd by metaphyfical Jarp-on, and the Language of all the antient Fathers treat- ed, as if their Words had no meaning at all, or meant the Reverfe of what the fame Words mean in all other Books whatfoever; and in fhorr, 2}\ Science and all Religion, natural -^wA rsveai'd, IS to give Way to an unreafonable and Antichri- flian Hypothecs : and this is the Sum of ail Dr. TV's, Writings, and the great Bufinefs of his Life. Whoever oppofes him mutt exped nothing but Rage and Rudenefs ; and tho' he ought long acyo to have fat down in Shame and Silence, having been fo often and thoroughly confuted ; yet being gaul'd and griev'd to fee 'Truth prevail and to have many Adherents ; and that Scripture, Reafon and Antiquity,^ fpeak all unanimoufly and loudly for his Adverfaries, and as unanimoufly and loudly con- demn him ; he is refolv'd [fo much is he fet againft the Truth] to try to difcourage and quafli it by bumans ( iH ) humane Authority^ and the Force of Cburch-cenfurgs : as if he thought there was no fenfe of Chriftian Liberty in the Governours of the Church ; and that Popifli Impofition and Tyranny might eafily be incroduc'd. But I hope he will find and feel that the more he pleads for humane Authority to impofe the worft of Errors, the more he will only kick againft the Pricks ; that Truth will mere and more prevail, till at laft all Antichriftian Dodrine and Impofition being banifh'd out of the Chriftian Church, it will be without Spot or Wrinkle^ and like a pre Virgin fit to be efpous'd to Chrift, FINIS. DATE DUE 1 ' i DEMCO 38-297 i.!'" ^r^.'^M-^l^ .«»■