^^ t ' t '> ii A Second Vindication of CHRIST'S DIVINITY: Or, A Second Defense of foine QUERIES RELATING TO Dr. CLARKEs Scheme of the Holy TRINITY: In A N s w E R to the Country CLERGY-MAN's Reply. WHEREIN The learned Doctor's Scheme as it now flands, after the latefl: Corre^lion, Alteration, and Explana- tion, is didinctly and fully confider'd. By DANIEL W^TE R L AND, D. D. Master of MagiUUn-ColUgz in Cambridge: And Chaplain in Ordinary to His MAfESTT. Beroxre lefl any Man fioil jou through Vh'ilofophy aiid vain Deceit, after the Tradition of Men, after the Kudime^zts cf the li orhl, and net aft^r Chriji : For in him tiwelleth all the Fulmp of the Godhead bodily. ColofT. ii. 8, 9. Quid Tibi vifum eft, Homo Ariane, tarn multa dicere, & pre Giufa quae inter nos agitur niliil dicere : Quali Hoc lit Re- Ipondere poiTe, quod eil Taccre non poiTe? Augujlin. contr. Maxiin. p. 677. Ed, Bencd. c o N D Edition C A M B R I D Q E. 'rinrcd for Corn. C row n' f i el d, and W. I xv n y s at the \Vc(^ End of Sr. P.t;;/'s, LQ-SlTyO'A. MDCCXXXL 4 % -^ A a y ( iii ) T H E PREFACE T is miu about Three Tears and, a hiilf fi'/:ce I of- fer d to the iVorld A Vindicarion of Chrifl's Di- vinity, or A Delenfe of fome Ci.i?ries, /;/ an- fiver to a Country-Clergy-man. V/nhin a few Jlionths after the Ptihl}u}tion^ fonie Notice HJas tak^n of it in an Anon-jmoas Piimpblet-i intiitdledy Modcill: Plea, c^c. conrinucd : Or A Brief An(v/cr {not to ^;;y Dclcnfc, hut) to ?}7y Queries. To which I replied, joon aficr^ as much as I thought Keedful, in a Preface to irij liighc Sermons. / was pror?7ijed, in an Advertifem^nt at the End of Modeli: Pica, c;-'^:. A large :^\v\ particulai' An- fwer to r/jy D:^fcnfc : yUd This, I prcj^mc, is vJoat has now lately appear dy i-.uituled A Reply ro Dr. TV's !D:fenfe, o-c. under the Name of a Clergyman in rhe Country. To This the I allowing Sheets arc intended for a fpill and difiinth Atpver : How far They are really foy or how far thcj come Jhrrt, is jHbraitted to the jnaicioHS Reader. The Book^, ii^hich I here profefs to exAmine , may be allowed to contain, in a manner. The whole Strength of the Arian Caufe, real, or artificial ; all that can be of (iny Force either to convince, or to deceive a Reader. And if there appears to be a gr^at deal more of the Ar- tificial than there is of the Real , there is certainly a Taulc in the Aien', but, at the fvne Time, fame great Defect in the Caufe too, which ivanted to be thus jap^ flied. For, ivhethcr ws conjider the Hands ftipoos'd to have been employed in drawing up The Reply, or the f ime, and Pains fpca in r^vifing ^,W poUping ,• ii^'e mai A 2 4/ iv The PREFACE. he cor.fif.k}it^ that had it been pcljible to find out any real ti'id hrm FoMndation for Aiianiim to reft tipony it would Kcvcr have been left to Jland upon Artificial ProfSy or to Jub/ffi by Subtlety^ and Management, This IS not the Place to give the Reader a full Lifi of ^.11 the artificial u4dvantages made ufe of by Thofe Gentlemen in Jupport of Arianifm : u4 /hi/ Hints may here ff^jpce. Their difdaiming the Name all the while They are incnkating the Tiling; to keep their Readers in Ignorance, and to jJed upon Them by Surprize : Tkirr wrapping tip their Dotirine in general, and con- fute 7ffr;;?i ; to prevent its being narrowly looked into^ cr purjHcd in its rer/iot€t or even irnrriediote Ccniequcn- i-es ; Their eLiborate and ftudicd Prolixity in proving fn:h Points as no body calls in ^uejlion , and then /lip" ping pipon the Reader, in their ftead, fomething very d':^crent from them, ji'ithcat ^ny Proof at all : Their a- 'Voiding ai much as fojjible the de fen five Part , w'jere the main jh'c/s lies, a>id keepihr Themfelves chiefly to the oittUiiV'^y pcrpettudiyoh]r: Ts^cir bcndin^r their- main Force ai^ainfl- our con- fi.'q\^ent:al Dciirine, cf Three Perfons being One God, iKjh/id of dlrcltlj attacking our Prewifes that the divine •Tniesr and Arti ibures' belong ccjualiy to every one ; -as tJ> 'which the Scripttire is very full and exprefs : Ti:ejey ftad Pther the //% Artifices will be eafily feen to run thrdUii} their whole Performance. But their Alaflcr-piece of Subtlety lies in contriving a fet of ambiguous and e- qui vocal Terms, to put the r-^ain Queflion into ; fuch may he capable of a Catholic k Senfe, pr at leafl look^ •very like ii, in order to claim fome Countenance from Ca- thoUck^ Antiquity \ but Jtich as may alfi be drawn to an Arian Meaning, that fo They may fecure the Point which They intend. Thus, betwixt ' the Two Senjes, or Faces of the fame Words, chofen for the Purpofe, They Jhall never war.t Pretence or Colour from Antiquity, even while en» deavot^ring -to prove Things, the mofi oppofite, and repug- nant thereto in real Senje and Significancy, Such is the convenient The P R E F A C E. v ponvenient Vfe of equivocal Words, or PhrafeSy 7vhen ingemoufly mude choice of, and managed by Rules oj Art, In the following Paper s^ I have particf/larly endeavoured to clear the Senfe of the Ante-nicene Church ; and to vindicate the fame front Alifiepre/cntafion. All that re^ mains to be done in This Preface, is to obviate Tv/o Ob- jections, of very different kinds, u'hich have been lately made by Men of very oppojite Principles, One ^ pretends that we are very /ingular, in claiming the Suffrage of the Ante-Nicene Church in favour of the Athanafian DoEirines : The Other f is for entirely waving all Searches into Antiquity, in relation to This Controverjy, as bein^ either needlefs, or fruitlefs. I . As to the fir/} J we are confidently told, that few of the truly learned and impartial Athanaftans Themfelves, from the very Days of their Founder, till our late Writers, of Controverfy, Bp. BidU Dr. Grabc, Dr. Wa-- tcrlojid, have denied the Truth of this Fadt ; that the Ante-nicene Fathers were j^enerally againft the Athmia" firm, and for the Eufebian Oodrines"^*. To Cotrnte-^ naiKe This Pretence , a long and pQr/:popi5 Detail of Atha- Dadan Confeilions {as They are called) are packed tQ" get her i and laid before the Englifh Reader, It will be proper here, in the Entrance, to examine what Truth or jnfiice there is in this firange Report ; that fo. Prejudices being removdy The Reader may come with the greater Freedom to the Examination of what is offer d, in the following Papers^ on the Head of An- tiquity. We muff trace Hois Matter down from the firfl Be^ ginnings of the Arian Herefy, about the Tear ; ip. It may be known from Alexander , Bifl^op of Alexan- dria , what Opinion the Catholicks in general then * Mr. Wloifion in his Reply to Lord Nott-ngham. \ The Author of Two Letters, one to Lord Nottinghamt the Other to Mr. Whijion. ** Mr. Whlfton'^ Reply to the Earl of Nottingham, p. g. had vi The P R E F A C E. fjfid of the Noveky of the Arian, or Eufebian ^ Do^ /trtKes. / In /he Tear 511. He 7vith his CUrgj, in their cir- cular Lctttr ti rn^rejeiit the Arians, or Hufebians .4J fd- len imo a great Apoilafy, and as Fore-runners of Anti- Chriil. The'j exclaim agair/ft the Arian Dooirines in this fiuvaner^ and in Thefe Words i Who ev^r heard fuch Things as Thefe? or who, that now hears them^ is not afloniili'd at Them , does not flop his Ears for fear of polluting his Ears with fuch Impurity of Dodrine ? Who that hears St. John declaring that in the Beginning was the Word^ does not condemn Thofe that fay that He once was not / &c. In Conclujion of the Epifile^ They cornfare Them 7vith Hymenaeus, and Pluletus, and the Trajtor Judas : And They anathema-- tf^c Them as Enemies to God-, and S/dverters of Souls^ IVow, can we 7veU fuppofe that Alexander a vtry pions find good Man 3 7mh great nnmhers of his Bijhops and Clergy i ipould have gone thefe Lengths in their Ccnfure^j load They had the leajl Sa/picion that the Arian Dotirines 2i'cre at all figrceahk to the Faith of the Ante - nicene Churches ? J Two Tears afieic Tlois , in the Tear 523. The fams Alexander, in his. Letter "^"^to Alexander of Conflanri- ^ople , perfifis in the fame warmth of Zeal again/} the Arian Do^rines, Tje Abettors and Favourers of thc,^ He ranks with the Ebionites, Artemonltes, and Samor farenians it ( condemn d Hereticks) brands them as No- Yell ills of late appearing ^y as Men that thought none ef the Anrients 71^ or thy to be compared with them, pre- tending to be the only wife Men Themfelves, and to be Inventors of Dodrii^es which never before entred into * N^^te, They were called .E«/e^.'^»; from Eufecius of Nicomq" ii^, one of the chief Promoters of the Arian Caufc. • t Exrat. apud Athmaf> p, 397, Ed. Bened. ap. aocrut, Eccl. Hiflor. 1. I.e. 3. ■**' F.xt:t. Theodorit. E. Hiil 1. i. c. ^.. tf Thi!odor. E. H. p. ij. Ed. Cant. ^ Ibib. p. 10. Man's The PREFACE. vii Man's Head "^ . This was wh^t Alexander thought ef the Arians at That Time, Little did He fufpeti that the Ante-niceae Church had been at ail favottrahle /* their Notions. In the Tear 325, as is ivell k^o^vyt. The Arian JD^c- irines were projcribcdy and anathematiz,ed in the famouf CoHncil of Nice J conjifting 0/318 Bifiops very unani^ mous in their RefolntionSi excepting a frw Reclaimants. In their Synodical Epiftle t> '77!?^^ declare that they had tondemKcd the Arian DoEiri'nes of the Son's bein^ from nothing and That He once was not, as full of Blaf^ phemy, and Madnefs, md fuch as They had not Pa- tience to hear. So far were They from any apprehen^ fion that the Arians or Eufebian Dotlrines had been held hy the Antient Church, This ivas the Tear before Atha- tiafiiis, {our Founder as Air, Wh. calls Him) was BifJoop of the Church, and about 1 5 Tears before He drew ifis Pen in Defenfe of the DoUrines eflablifkd in That Council. Much about the fame Time-, the good Emperor Con- flanrine, after a fair and full hearing of the Caufe im the Nicene Council, bears his Tcfiimony againft Arius* as being the firlt Broacher of That Doctrine, by the In- iligation of the Devil **. ^nd He tiakes an Order t9 have the Arians branded with the name of Porphyrians§, as being followers of the Pagan Porphyrias, either itt their avowed Oppofition to Chrifl ( as fome thinly) or in their adopting the Plaronick Gradations into the Chri- y ftinn Trinity ; as others conjcEhure. / In the Tear 335, Marcellus and Eufebius ingagcd en oppofite fidss : fron^ which time Air. W hi Hon be- gins the Date of the Athanafian Confeflions. Tfhat He produces from Eufebius Himfelf is not to the Pur* pofcy fince He redans not Him with the Aihanafians, ^bout whom our prefcnt Cncfilon is. However y it is * Thcod. ibki. p. 17. t Apud.Socrar. E. Hiil. ]. 1. c. 9, Compare AshariMf, VSi. i. Sacrat. £. H. 1. t. c. ?• p. 3*. 5 Ibid p. 31. •♦ // t^iii The PREFACE. cf m great moment if Eufebius conld ever fo jufilj ap- feal to the Antienr Dodlors agaitTJi MarcellusV jjarti^ cular Tenets: Many of luhich (as Eufebius ?i.w f leafed to uyiderfiand them ) were umloHbtcdij Novelties. ^: to Marcellus, He charges the Euiebiao, or Arian //n other Pajfaies ^ of the lihe i???port 7naj h pro- dnced from Athanafius : JVuo every ii'hcre appeals to cofiflant Tradition, dong with Sciiptiire, for the Tittth of his Dcclrine 3 againji the Arian Novelties. Neither are the prcte/ided Confeffions which Mr, VVhifton d- ledges out cf Him-, of anj the leaji mor/ient ; ninon-itifjg to no more than his propopng of fome Arian Ohjcdicns ; which he abtindantly confutes in ths very Place'", jhcw^ ing Them to be nothing elj'e hut Aiifrcprcjsntation and Caltimny, /In the Tear 355, Hilary, one of the great cfi BiiK^ps /of the TVeJly ar^d who may he jprlHy call'd the U/jhrn Athanafius, ')ifrote his firfl Letter to Confrantius the Em^ per or y in vjhich we have the folloimng Tcfiimcnj relating to our prefent pnrpofc. After 400 Years slmofl, {ince the only begortca Son of God vouchfafed to take pity on loic Mankind, as if there had been no u4pofilcs before, or as if aier their Martyrdoms and Deachs there had been no thrift tians, now at leni^rh is come abroad the Arian Peiti- lence, novel and direful, not a Phgue of infecled Air, but of execrable Blafphemies. f^ave They then, wlio believed before, enterrain'd falfe Hopes of Immortali- ty \ It is but latcy we know, that Thefe Imaginarirnf have been invented by the Two Ei^fehius's^ and 7V«r- cijJltSy and TheodorKS, and Stephanus, aiid Acncius, snd Menophantus ; and the two ignorant and immorcl .Youths, Vrfatius and f^iler:s, whofe Letters are piih- lilli'd, and who are farther coavidrtd by credibl? ^Vir- nefifes, fiich as have heard Them, not fo m.uch difp^ti; as barling again (1: list* /« A:wther Trcatife Three Years after ^ the fann Hilary, having f: ^ iLe had received his Faith from the Prophets, Evange- \ifts, and Apodles, ^^00- on thus: By Thcfe have I b-en taught to believe as I do: In This Faith am I imbued beyond Recovery. Pardon me, O Cod Almighty, that I cannot be mov'd from This Belief; b'u^ * Athanaf. p. m, 2 5a, 412, fOi.^J?^, 72},. Ed^EcixJ. f Hilar, ad Con(but. Lib. i. p. liiQ, V B I CAH X The P Tv E ? A C E. I can die for it. This Age is Tardy, I concetv^^ irt bringing me Thei'e rroft imfious Teachers : Tiiele Mafters are too late for my Faifh , a Fsith which Tl'joff haft tanght me. Such was my Fnith in Thee^ before ever I io much as heard of Thefi Names: By Thee was I thus regenerated, and Irom that Time forwards Thus am I ever Thine *. Suth is the ccn^ ft ant Strain of this Blejfed Saint ; "who evcrj 7vhere hrands the Arian DoEirine as the new, novel, tipjlart IicrcJ\\ Folly ^ Aladytejs ; and the Broachcrs of it as the New ^poiioUte, Emijjaties cf Anti-chriO, Blafphemers, a^d the Uk^. Little did He fufpeB-, tho' a, linowimr aiid tt learned Alan^i that Anj juch Volrrine had been re^ ceiv'd- or taught bj the Ante-nicenc C/^/irr^^j. y Ahotit the Tear 300, Ba(il enter d the Liils in This ^ Comroverj. We Jball often \ find Him appealing to the IVadirion of the Fathers for the Athanaf^an Do" thine, Hts Conteflion (in A.r, VVhiilon'j Phraje) re-' latir.g /o Gregory of Neoc^\ As to 'what Bafil frys of Dionyfius '<^/^A!exandria , that He ovas the firft who laid the Seeds of the Im- piety of the Anomaans : Thus muchf at leaft^ may be/ gather d from it, that, in BaiiTj judgment, none of the Writers before Dionyfius, (n^ho imote againft Sa- bellius, about the Tear i^y) had any Tinthsre of Tliat Impisry ; bttt that the Ante-nicene Church in general WA^ ver'j free from it. - And as to Dionylius Hi?yfelf (ho'jmvcr hardly B a f)\ f^iight otice thinks of Him) Fie has hen iibuKdajith' vindicated by A>rhanaf]us among the An-' tieatSi tind by jeverai learmd Moderns, * nijM". dc Trin. I. 6. p. S92. f Bilil. comv. Eunora. 1. i. p. j-. De Spir. S. p. iCj. Ep. 79. ^* i>ui:, D. F. Stit i c. li. The PREFACE. xi 7fW Bafil is fiid to confefs of Origcn, f.mrs tku in his Opinioti, Cpiiom and Common Conjent 7i>as, /« Ori- genV Time', on the Side of the DociriKes called Atiiana- iian ; and that Origen Himjeif, jometimes at ica/lycon' for filled to it. But I fiail vindiiate Origen at large, in A proper Place. Nuzianzen, a Contewporary of Eal^T/, in r^^ore Places than one be a s Tcftifnony to the Ami qui tj and uninternipt^ ed SiiCicflun of the Niccne rAith from the Ti?nes of the Apo/iles, Ai to a pretended Cotifelnon of his. looking the oih^r Way , it wnl be confidtfd at large in the jol^ lowing Sheets, Epiphanius, about ths Ttar 375.3 f^js^ tl^t the Apo- itoiical Faith (that is, the ArharLifian in his Accotrnt ) ^continued pare and uncorrtdpted 'till the Ti?r,e of Arius, %jho divided the Church "*■ ; And who by the Infiiga- tion of the D^vil , and with an Impudent Forcheaa let bis Tongue loofe againj} his Loi'd f •' So little did He imagine that Ananifm was primirive Chrilrianiry. He abferves fa-ther, that had it not been for the: fnbile Praciifis of £udoxius , Bijlop of Conflantinopie , in perverting and cormpt'tni thj mot pious Emperor Valens, The verj Women and Children , and ail that had been in any tolerable Aleafare in'iirHcied in Chrijiian Principles, would have reproved, and routed the Arians, ds Blafpliemcrs and Munherers of their Lord "^^5 \:^c. Such was ■the. Ajfur^ce the Athanafians then had , that their Faith was tke fettled nnd fi an ding Dolhine of the primitive Churches^ all the Wsrld over, 'till the Time of Arius. As to Epiphaniiis'j Opinion of Lucian, ayid Origen, ( tivo Jingle Aden ) it was fever e enough, and indeed not j*tjl: As Bifbop Bull hath abundantly proved, Tct, from Epiphanius'i Cenfure of Origen, one may perceive plain* ly, that He thougU the Ante-nicene Church iv general., both before and after Origen, to be of a very contrary * Epiphan. contra Hxref. 69. p. 718. f Epiphm. p. 756. ** Epiphan. p. 737. B 2. Judgmeni xii The PREFACE. yudgwent to That Ti^hich He condemns in Lucian unci Origen, that is, to Arianifm. j^ This Time lived Gregory Nyffen; who ahotit th Tear 7,^u c'/iCoHmred Eunomius, the Shrewdeit and Sharpefl Arian of That yjge. In his Reply to HiWy He ' takes notice that the Church had been in PojfeJJion of This Do^irine, that God the Son is effcntially true God, of the EfTence of The True God : And that if Eu- nomius fljculd undertake to confute That Dctirine, He oMght to fix upon fome firm and certain Principles ^vhsre^ t?« to proceed) and trace them dorwn by jufi and regular Dedficiions , in order to come at his Conclufion, After He had faid This, He goes on in Thefe JVords. Let no one here tell me, that we ought alfo to . give rational Demon ilrur ion of what we profefs : It i IS fufficient Demonftration of our Dodrine> that we I have a Tradition coming down to us from our Fa- ther; a Kind of Inheritance fucceffively convey 'd to US' by the primitive Saints from the Apofiles Them-» felves. ' They that have changed thofe Doftrincs for the prefent Novelty, will have very great need of the Succours of Rea(on, and Argumentation; if They mean to convince, not the groveling Herd, or giddy Populace, but the grave, and ftaunch Men, Men of Sobriety and Firmnefs. While They offer us Dif- couries without any Argument or Demionllrarion to fupport them, it is only playing the Foci, and is even Brutii'hly flupid : As if greater Regard fliould be had to empty Talk, void of all Proof, than to the Dodrine of the Evangelifj^s , and of the Apojlles ^ and their Succejforsy The Lights of the Chriflian Churches^. • Here vje fee v^ith what Confidence Nyflen appeals to^ conftant Tradition for the Truth of the Athanalian Do^ clrine : So little did He imagine that the Ante-nicene ■Faith 7i'as any way different from-y much lefs repugnant to, his own. * Greg, NyfT. contr. Eunom. 1. 5. p. iij*. \^6, ' The PREFACE. xia / may next meyttion a famous Cafe which happen d in the Tear 383. The Arians, Eunomians, and Mace- donians oi^cre then formerly and folcmnly challenged by the Catliolicks, to refer the ALnter in Dijpute to the concurring yttdgment of the iVriters that lived before the Controverfy began : Bat They declined the Offer ; refufmg ahfolntely to pn their Catije upon That /Jfue. This is decifive in the Cafe^ tLit the Athanalians had all the Af^tdrance imaginable as to the Faith of the pri^ r/iitlve Churches ; and that the Arians were ve^y fen- fible that their Doclrine could never bear fo fair and juji a Trial, The Story is thfis told in Socrates, L. 5. c. 10. The Emperor ( Theodofins ) fending for NeEiarius The BiihopCof Conjiantinople ) conferred with Him about the propereft Method of putting an End to the DiiTentions , and reftoring the Unity of the Church. He propofed to have the Matter in Dif- pute, which had divided the Churches, to be fully canvafs'd ; that, removing the Caufes of their ]3if-» ferences, the Churches might be reduced to Con- cord. Upon the hearing of This, Nellaripts was un- der fome Concern : And calling for Agelins x\\z No* vatian Biiliop, of the fame Faith with Himfelf, He acquainted Him wirh the Emperor's Defign. He (ylgclins) tho* otherwife a \try woithy Man, ye^ having no Talent for Difputation, recomm.ended Si- JinmuSy his Lecior , to engage in a Conference. Si- fmnins was a Man of great VVifdom, and Experience, Vv-ell verfed in Scripture, and alfo m Philofophy : But being very fenfible that Difputations generally are fo far from healing Differences, that They rather fo- ment and inflame them ; He fuggeficd to Ne^tarias This Method. He very well knew that The Ami^ ems had ever avoided the alcribing any Beginning of Exiftence to the Son of God, believing Him to be Coeternal with the Father: He advifes therefore to fet afide all logical Wranglings , and to produce The Tellimonies of the Antients ; leaving it to the Em- peror xiv The PREFACE. |)£ror ro put the Queftion tvo the Heads of the feve- ral Scds , wheriier They would make any Account .of the Dodors of the Church who lived b'::fore the Difference began : Or, whether They would rcjed: Them aifo, as Srrangers to the Faith of Chrift. For if They ihould reject Them, let Them alfo pro- nounce an Anp.ihema, upoH T'hem ; Which if They fiiould dare to do, Tfe^y ^will be immediately deteft- cd by the Generality, and Truth v/ill thus be mani- fefly vidorious. But if They reject not the Antient Dodors, then will it be our Buhnefs to produce the y/ritings of the Antients, by which the Truth of our Dovfrrine fnall be atteftcd. ThvA far Socrates : 7vho farther relates that Nedarius 0id tec Lmperor well a<>proved of the Defgn^ and im' mediately pit it in Execution. Whereupon the Heads af the fcuerai SeEls were at firji much QGnfounded^ and di^ vided among Themjelves ; Jor/fe commen'uing irhat the Em- peror h^td propofedj and others not : hut in Cone I /(/ion Jliey 41 chafe rather to refl the Caufe Jolely on Logical Diipuration, than upon the Tefimonks of the Anrunt^. fh^is the Dejjgn ca^ne to nothing. This we may learn from it ^ tljot at That Time oj Day when many pri^ fnitive Writings^ fmce lofi^ were extant ^ The Aihana- ilans were ixrj willing and dc [irons to have their Caafi tried by the Vcvdlti of the Aniient V/ritcrs\ being conf" dent of f^itlory in That Method: And that the Arians, m being fu^cientij fenllble of the fame, Things prudently de-" ilincd tr. My, Whiuon did not care to give more than fl^ortf, general Hints of This Famous Challenge , and the /Jpie «/ it : But He endeavours to wind and turn Himfelf e^ "yery way to evade its Force*, He pretends, firjly thaf the Quejiiou between the Athanaiians and their Adver- Jaries, was not whether the. Antients admitted the Co^ eternity of the Son , hut whether They admitted his fixifcncc to have been without any Limitation of ^ Wijiftqii's Reply to Lord Nottinghara. Append, p. ^?. Time; The PREFACE. Xf Time : u4s if the Athanafians ititendcd no mere tlMm that the Antients nez'cr aJfignJ. any particular Point of Time for the Soyi's Beginning. But riot to mcKtion how Jtlh fitch .^q ci TTX^ctio) cvvx.ciov tZ T^xT-A -nv vicv i'j^nTSi;, Or)C tTt^uj^Tixi ii^siiii ix r.'Jti ''■^X/.i 7>}v yi/iffjr ^"wT»f ".■^"►. Sofcoin, lib. 7. thofe xvi The PREFACE. ihofi Antlent Dodors, Icfi the People fl^oM ahhcr Therh for Jo doiyg ; or as Sozonicn cxpnjfes it, Lfi their own Party (Jjopild take Offence y and dcjcrt Them ^ : Is it at all likely that their own Party Jhould take fuch Offence in This Caje, or Jhould pay any great Re^peci: and Defer- €nce to the Memory of YL\x^i2x\i\\\'iy Maicellus, ^c,\ B^- fides This, Thoje Anticnr Do^^ors are filed oi '7ra\aiO(, a Word not Z'ery proper for fuch as lived hut about 50 or 60 Tea)'S before ; and foine of them alive TPithin twen^ ty , nay within ten Tears of the Time : ^s is particu* larly true of Marcellus, 7vho died A. D. 374. u4dd to This, That Socrates and Sozomen are express that the Antienc Dodors appealed to^ were Thofe that lived be- fore the Rife of the Differences t : (^^ comnion Senfe alfo 7nui} tell us They ought to be) And who could Thofe be hiit the Ante-niccne Fathers^ Come we now down to the next Century , hegin^ ning with ^00, -where we find Rufiir.us a jiraniom Ad'^ *vocate for the Faith of the Arite-nicene Church as con- formable to his own. The Pretended Confcmons which are partially repre/ented from Hira , araount to . little more than This, that OrigenV and the Two Ckmens*^ their Works were originally Oithodox, but had been afterwards corrupted, and inrcrpolatcd by Flerctici^i in Jome Parts of them. This f]:>ows 7vhat Rufhnus really thought of the Orthodoxy of the Ante-nicene Writers Ther/ifelves i that They were of the ja?ne Faith with the Arhanafians. And tho* Jerom endeavours to expofe Ruf- iiniis*J Account, ^vith all the Kecnnefs and Satyr of an Adverfarj ; yet Fie Hi'mfelf was forced to ailojif it in the tnaiity and alrnofi to fay the fame Thing* It- may be, Jay^ Flc-i that 1 hey erred in their Simphcity, or wrote jvith * f'TFO Tav oiKiiav i^iXxS-^rtvTOf. Sozom. p. 292. ■f Tat z-^o Tii^ sii^i^ssr^ft); iy Tt) iAKhY^Tiu. 7:^07-A^iJiiQ(ra\iTcoy C'.ij:(,~y-uAuv» Socr. p. 273. ?iiyu}i yii/eu^ivvi. So'iom. p. 29 2. ' 4 The P R E Ir A C E. xvii m ciijf^rmt MsAni»g* or that their Writings have been aorrr^fudhy Htcle and little, by unskilful Tranfcribers; or however, that before the Rile of the Meridian Dx- mon, Arimy They might fpeak fome Things innocent- ly, and incautioufly. The Pretended Confeffions out (?f Jcrom, reldtc chief] to Origen ; whofe Cafe will be confidered At Urge in the following Sheets : And fo 1 need not here fay more of it* The like may be faid of Theophilus. / We may now come down to St, Auflin, irho delivers /his Alind in the Words here following^ in his Treat tfe of the T rinny y finijjyd in the Tear ^i6. All the Catholick Interpreters of the Old , or New Teftament, that I could read, who have wrote before me on the Trinity which is God, intended to teach, in Conformity to Scripture, that Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft do by the infeparable Equality of one and the fame Subflance, make up the Unity divine f. Surely , St, Auftin my.ft have reckon d the Ante-nicene Dotiors among his Catholick Interpreters^ ef whom He gives this fill and plain Tejlimony, What He has faid of Origen, will be confdercd in Another Place. I pafs over Anaftafius, and Judinian'j pretended Con- feflions, as rejpe^ing none but Ori7 ayn willing to fpare. What then can be meant by '^The ft range Report made of the Athanafians, /r*?;^ the .-I^fs- of their Founder ? ^ Report without Truth ; and .#1^ /?^ Akas keen conteited; That ky hecaufe 'it is worth the Contending /c?r, Jf'th^ Ulaerate Vulvar be not competent fudges of This Branch of the JDi/pute ( as indeed They Jcarce are of any Difpute thro* its whole Compafsy tho' confined to Scripture alone ) yet there are Others , whom the Vulgar will take for their Guides in this Matter, (a^d they ought to do fo) who nan underfiand-i and judge of it. The Author had but little Reafon to be concern d ^ I4t* Whirton'i Folloiven boafiing of his Performance as ^ Vi6lory, in 7-egard to the Antients : It was natural for Them fo to do, either thro* Ignorance, or thro* Pre* judice, where They had no manner of Reafcn, Knowing and impartial Judges will eafily fee the Difference between obtaining a Viftory, and givirg the laft Word, / nitifi ^o my Lord Nottingiiam the Juftice to fay, that He (Jfc^lf^ally perform'' d his Part, with great Integrity, Learn' inTy and Acutenefs', with the Exalincfs of a Scholar, and the Judgment of a compkat Divine. Had Mr. Whi- ilon, in his Reply,, confined Himfdf, ( as He ought to b^ve dons, and as My Lord very jufllj had required of llim) to Thofe Points, and thofe Citations only, which 7vere before in Debate> inflead of pouring in new Imper- tinencies, and many foreign Matters, to conceal and co^ ver his Defeat ; the very 7neaneft Reader muji have feen plainly, on which Side th Advantage lies. But to return^ The low Notion 7vhich This Gentleman every where^ thro* Bofh his Letter's > appears to have conceived of thz Primitive the PREFACE. xxiii P'rimitive Saints, majy I hope, he corre^ed bj his more careftd pertijing Them , when difpojed to it. His Chief Argidment aguinft Them, (v\t. thai the yidverfaries kruc bem able t9 taife Cavils, and to perplex their Mem* \:tg) 'wiii carry Him farther thart He is well aware ; €veyi to the laying ajidcy not fime Texts only, and Thofe of the greateji weighty as it hath already done ,• bnt Thoje very Texts on whivh He ivoHldy at length have the whale Strefs of the Controverjy laid. If This Gentleman be of ^ opinion^ as H€ declares in his Preface, that the Gates of Hell (hould never prevail over That Foundation, over the Dodrine of Cnrift's Divinity ; And if He thinks it of fiich Moment that Later Ages have umverfally ad^ kered to it<, (A Point which would be dijputed with Him as 7vell as the other ^ were it of half the Aioment or Concern as the other) certainly He mtift thinks it of fome Importance to clear and vindicate the Faith of the mofi fare and primitive Churches in This Article', leaji other- wife what He calls the Foundation {if it cannot be pro- ved to have been conftantly uploeld ) appear at length not to be tlje Foundation, but rather Jo much Wood, Hay* or Stubble built upon it. To conclude, as I would not detratt from the Merit of whatever Tms worthy Gonle-" man has well urged in Proof of our Lord^s Divinity ; fo neither were it advifabk in Him, to detraEl from Thofe who in Defenfe of the fame Caufe , and to very excels lent Purpofe, have laboured in fearching both Scripture, and Antiquity. To the Law and to the Tcflimony let the Appeal be in the firfi Place ; and next to the united Suffrage of the Primitive Churches, as the befi and fafefi Comment upon the other » On Thefe Two Pillars will our Faith for ever fland, firm and immovable, againfi all Attempts; whether of vain Plulofophy, to batter the Do(5i'rine » or of vainer Criticifms to corrupt or flifle the Evidence : And the Gates of Hell Hiall not prevail ag.iinft it. • / jl.miild here advert ife the Reader, that in the follow* in^ I'apers I have endeavoured ahvay to cxprefs my felf fully. itxiv The PREFACE. fullj^ md partkularlyy in the mofi material Points : ^uf as to Incidental Matters of Jltghter Moment^ I have fome" times y fttrely for the Sake of Brevity ^ pafs'd them off in general Hints only ; fuch as will not he perfettlj under^^ fioad without looking into The Reply which I am- itn* fwerinq^ or fometimes into my former Defenfe'- I fmfofe-i the inqptifitive-^ and ftich as have Lei jure will not thinly it much Trouble to compare all the Three tO' gethefy as they read; ejfecially where any Thing occurs which may appear obfcure by reajon of its Brevity, ^s to others^ They will be content with a more confufe and general Perception of fuch Parts as are of leafi Con- cernment, and require a little more Paiiis and Care in the Examining than They have Leifure^ or Inclination to fpend upon them* ERRATA. Page 16. In Not. q. for h^xy^isov read hlu^oujivov. P. 2J. I. 16. for one of read one and. P. 30. 1. 14. read Ifai xlv. P. 61. in Not f read Page 48. P. 63. 1. 15. read i John. P. 116. 1. ult. for p. 45. read p. 50. P. 120. Not. §. Pag. qi. P. 136. Not. * read. p. 104. P. 264. 1. 6. for Word read World. P. 297. 1. 16. for 91. read. 96. P. 298. i. ult. for 6t, 90. read 66, 95. P. 300. 1. 7. for p. 156. read p. 161. P. 309. in Not. 1. 2. add o5r<|ti'^£»(^ for i%ilivyyji^<^. Vid. Baf contr. Eunom. 2. pi 267. P. 362. I. 25. {qx having x^2,^ha've. P. 374. 1. 17. read LukeiuAV. 52. P. 401. Not. * for 94. read 99. P. 402. Not. ** for 69, 109. read 74, 114. I*- 4^5- Not. * for. p. 202. read p. 207. P. 419. Not. * p. 57. P- 43^- 1- ^4- for p. 72. read p. ']'j. P- 444- 1. 28. Origination in. IP. 4(^5. in Not. 1. 7. for p. 213. read 218. P. 488. 1. 20. for Head read Ueadi. P. 494. 1. u . for ii read his. A N THE ANSWER T O T H E PREFACE "^ jp*** O U begin with big Words : You have, you 1^ (ay, clearly f^ewn, that Dr. W\s Notion is entinly JL contrary to ReOjOrt^ Scripture^ and all primitive AnticjHitj. Your Defign, no doubt, is to magnify your Work, and to help it forwards in the Opinion of the Reader. But wife Men will not exped much from a Performance that needs a Proclamation in the Entrance : Had your Arguments been Juft, and your Proofs clear; a Reader might have been trufted to find them out* You proceed to com.plain of my Iviaymer of Writings as being greatly fitted to deceive. You apprehend, it feems, thatitmay ftill have fome Influence, notwithflandingthat you have fo clearly^ and fo entirely confuted it : Which, if it does not betray a great Degree of Miftriifl-, is a very ill Compliment to the Underftanding of you'i Readers. After this general Charge, you go on to particular Complaints, drawn up in Form. I. The firft is, my Entitling my Book, u4 Flndicaticn of Chrifi's Divinity : Being fo rude as to inlinuate, than the Men I have to deal with, are Impugners of Chrifi's Divinity, I confefs the Charge ; and am fo far from thinking it a Fault, that I have afecond Time very deli- berately done the fame Thing , in This very Treatife- Till you give us a better Account of our Lord's Divinity than you have hitherto done, I mufl: perlid in it : Bccaiifb ic is very proper that the World be made juRIy icnfibk B of 1 ' The J N S TV E R of your Prevarication, and indeed iliameful Banter, in a monientous Article of the Chridian Faith. I uie the Word Divinitj in the plain and ufual Senfe of it, as the Chridian Church hath long done. I know of no DivU nitj, but fuch as I have here defended. The other, falfely (o called, is really none. While you maintain the Principles you do, I mull: look upon you as Impugnen of Chrift's Divinity ; well knowing, that the Chriftian Church in all Ages would have thought the fame of you, and that your Dodrine was condemned as Blafphemy^ long before u4ripis appeared ; and that, upon his fir il Ap- pearance, He and his Adherents were charged, as you now are, and very juflly, with denying the Divinity of their God and Saviour. ^ You have invented a very foft Name for it : It is not denying the Divinity of Chrift ; but is is differing about t\\Q particular Manner of Explication of l^toat DoUrine. p. 4. Which Pretence, like many others, has a great deal more of ^rr, than of Solidity in it. Explaining a Doctrine is one Thing, explaining it awaj, is quite another. There is fom.e Difference, for inPrance, between explaining the DoHrine of the Rcfr.rreciion of the Body, and explaining the Texts relating to it in fuch a Manner as to make void the very Doftrine it felf. W^hen Bajilides, Vdentinns^ Ccrdo and Azarcion, io interpreted Scripture, as wholly to dcftioy the Supreme Divinity of the Creator, or Godof y/r^2f/;.was This, think you, no more than differing concerning the particular Manner of Explication of his Divinity \ They acknowledged, indeed, his Divinity ftill; that is, in Words, and in Scripture- Words too j but in „ a Senfe peculiar to themfelves. The plain Truth is. You and We differ about the Senfe of Scripture-, in the Quedi- \ on of Chrift's Divinity, We find Chrift's Divinity in our Bibles : You find not the Dodrine there. Accor- dingly, wc affcrt Chrifl's Divinity y and you deny it; a T'/.v y:i'r,:^- t5 cTujTy^^- iii^Mj oir^vouS^oi. Alcxjnd. Eplft. apud Thcod. E. H. 1. 1. c. 4. p. 10. fc',-e 'A/ij/f ^ccy u.CT0Tl7n'/i-:ci7:iuv, y-K^', ^c. Arhan. ad Adelpli.p. 912 thr^t to the P R E F A C F. that is, you deny the Thi^g^ and retain nothing but the JVame. The Difference then is, not concernaig the Manner of explaining our DoHrine-, (which with you is no Docirme) but concerning the Manner of explaining the Texts which relate to it. You (peak of Chrift's Di- vinity however ; you have (ome Awe and Reverence for the Language of the Church, tho' you have left her Faith. Some Concern you have alfo for your own Characters, and for the Interell of the Caufc you are engaged in ; which can never prevail, no not with the Populace, but under the Benefit of a Mask. If it be asked why we have no fuch Dodrine as That of the Divinity of yhgels^ and of Alagi[iratesy (called Godsy in Scripture,) or why the Divinity of Chrilf fliould be aflerted, wdiile the other is abfolutely denied, I am perfuadcd, you will be much at a Lofs for any fatisfadory Anfwcr, upon your Principles. It will be a vain Thing for you to plead, that you alfert as much of Chrift's Divinity^ as Scripture hath aiferted. For, were the Fad really fo, ("as it certainly is not,) Then indeed Scripture might juflify you in youv Denial o£ Chrill's Divinity ; but it can never juRify you in calling Th^t Divinity which, according to the Language of the Church, and jull Propriety of Speech, you your felves, as well as we, know to be none. You tell me, that the ii^'hole and only Dejtgn of the Au- thors I oppofe^ has been^ fiber I) -^ and in the Fear of Gody to colUB: and conftder what it is that our Saviour himjelf and his u^poftles have in Scripture taught us 3 concerning Float DoBrine, fepar ate from the metaphyllcal Hypothejes of fallible, and contentious Men, Now, to pals by the extraordinary Civility of thefe Refledions upon others, and the Modejtj of affuming fo much to your felves; as if you had no HjpothefeSy no metaphyseal Fancies, were never contentious, fcarce fallible, like other Men : Waving This, yet give me Leave to fay, that be your Deligns ever (o goody your Intentions ever fo fiber, and your Searches diredcd in the Fear of God', if the Refult of all be, that you cannot find Chnft's Divinity (prcpei'ly (o called) in Scripture, B z yoi| 4 7%e ANSWER you ought not to pretend, either that you are Advocates ibr Chrid's Divimtjy or that Any Man is to blame for charging you as Impugners of it. You fay farther, that by the Divinity of Chrift, I mean my own particular w^^/^t/j/T^/c^/ Explication of it. A Suggeftion as falfe, as it is mean. For neither is my Senfe any particular Senfe, but the common Senfe of all Men, learned or unlearned, that know the Difference between God and Creature : Neither is there any thing of Metaphy^ ficks in it, more than there is in the Declaration of the God of I/rael, as often as He proclaimed Himfelf to be God, (in Oppofition to (uch as were no Gods,) on the Score of his Almighty Poiver, Wifdom-^ Grcatnejs, and o- ther divine Perfections. However, fuppofing my Account of the Son's Divinity to be metaphyficaU is not your Ac- count of the Father's Divinity as ?;^f^^/?/n'//W as the other ? And if you, thro' your falj'e Metaphyfkks, exclude the Son from the One Godhead, I ihall not be alliamed of ma- king U(e of true Metaphylkks to corred your Errors, and to eftablifh the Son's Divinity, upon the fame Foot whereon Scripture has fixed it. You might be alliamed to mention Metapioyfickl-, when every Body knows that you have little eUe to rely upon, for the Support of your novel Do6i:rine ^ . Who fees not what a Strefs has been laid upon a falfe Notion of the Sclf-exifience of the Father, to degrade and feperate his beloved Son from the One Tiu2 Godhead? What Batteries have you notraifeda- gainfl: a proper Sonjloip, from metaphjfical Reafonings, ihould I fay, or Reveries? That Generation implies iDivifiony and neceflary Generation outward C?^^/ me upon This Head. You go on, however, ferioufly to (hew, how you could have defended fo conceited ^ Title. You could have pleaded, that the denying the Far- ther to he alone Supreme in Authority and Dominion over all, (in which confiils the true Notion of his Divinity,) is denying his Divinity, That is to fay, you could have bcgr pa the main Qiieftion, and have thereupon founded a Charge 6 The A N S W E R Charge againft me, with the fame, nay, greater JujliC€y rhan 1 charge you with a plain Matter of Fad, no Part of the mam Qiieftion between us. The Queftion is. Whether the one true Godhead be common to Father and Son, ov proper to the Father only ? You have determined for the latter; therefore you have flruck the Son out of the one true Godhead, previoufly to our Difpute ; there- fore you have denied his proper Divinitj : And the Queftion now is, not whether you have denied it, (^which is out of Queftion,) but. Whether you have jnftly denied it? If you fee no Difference between the Two Cafes, I can only pity your ConluHon. Whether Divi- iiifj-i ftriclly fo called, can be common to more Perfons than one^ remains to be confidered. In the mean vv^hile, K is evident that you, by making it proper to the Father only, have denied the Divimtj of all belides. 2. A fecond complaint, is of a Motto in my Title Page : / am Jefm whom Thou perj cent eft ; it is hard for Thee to kicl^ againfi the Prickj. Now, I thought a Writer might be at Liberty to follow his Judgment, or Fancy, /in inch a Trifle as a Motto, without being fo folemnly cal- led to Account for it. But, it leems. This mud: be now brought to the Bar, and deliberately fcann'd. ^s if, fay you, the not receiving Dr. W'.^ Notions in Metaphjficksy was per fecti ting Chrifl, As if, fay I, the abuiing of Me- taphyfickl, to the Deflrudion of a plain Scripture- Dodrine, and the undermining the Chrijfian Faith, wei^ not, by a very eafy Figure, juftly called the perfecming of Chrifl y crucifying the Son of God afrefj?^ z^nd. putting him- to an open Shame. Since I am called upon, in this Cafe, I will tell you, fo far as I remember, what I principally intended by the A^otto. I. One Thing was, to intimate the great Awe and Dread which every Man ought to have upon his Mind, when he takes Pen in Hand to write in Oppofition to his Saviour's Godhead, and with a formed Defign to deprive him of that Worfjipy and thofe divine Honovirs, which have to the PREFACE, j have been conftantly paid him by innumerable Martyrs and ConfefTors, by the whole Church of Chrift for fourteen Centuries at leaft, I doubt not to fay feventeen. Whatever may be pleaded for difputing Points of an in- ferior Nature, and lefs fet by ; This particularly, is a Caufe not to be entered into without Fear and Tremhlingy by any pious Man j left haply he be found lo fight agamfi Cod. You may think, perhaps, you have no need of fuch Caution : But for That very Reaion, I fhould be apt to conclude, you have. 2. Another Thing intended by the Motto was, to in- finuate, how impradicable and vain (in all Probability) any Attempt muft be to defeat the Dodrine of our Lord's Divinity^ which has now ftood the Teft for a long Trad of Centuries, tho' all imaginable Endeavours and Artifices have been from the Beginning employed to overthrow it. A late Writer '^ very well obferves, that «' This Foundation has been fo upheld, that where the «« fir ft Inftitution were, as it were, lunk out of Memory, '« by the Weight of impure Mixtures, as in the Greeks «' Church ; and where every other Article of Faith " had received Wounds by the Innovations of Error, '' as in the Roman Church ; yet all of them have ad- « hered to, and preferved This main and Fundamental '^ Point to This Day. The fame is likewife true of all the Churches of the Reformation : And God has vi- fibly blafted and defeated All Attempts againft the eternal Godhead of our blelTed Saviour. It is hard for Thee to kkk^ againfl the Prickl* So faid a pious Father of the Church, applying it to this very Cafe '^ , (one would think with a prophetick Spirit,) thirteen hundred Years C Trpo Letters to the Earl of Nottingham, and Mr. Whifton. Pref. ^cycf cuvrov o(,Xi(nci^XoT(>AOi^ ot-ro -r 7S 7JOW X>^a4T(^y ffpij O'J rev 'ifOH flITd "ZTBlTpO^, OU^i TO TTiiZfi^ TC U}i^>' U7C i^itT^c^ t^ 'n;v. Epiph^n. Aacor. c, J4. p. 20. 8 An A N S W E R ago. Such were then the Sentiments of the wifeft and beil: Men of thofe Times. They were fallible^ They were Men: But if Pofterity, fallible as They, grow bold and daring, where the other would have trembledi let Them look to it. They had the fame Scriptures we have, and better Helps for the underftanding them : They had their Faculties of difcerning no lefs than we; and They fpared no Pains, or Care, in their Searches^ This is a Confideration of fome Moment, efpecially in a Fundamental Article. We Ihould not, at leaft, go rajhly into contraiy Sentiments, nor without flain Scrip- ture to warrant it. We may be apt to flatter our felves too much, and think we fee farther than Thofe before; us; when in Reality, perhaps, it is not that we have inore Senfi than They, but that we want their Pietj, You tell me how carefully the Men of your Way h^y Q Jiudied the Scripture, and how Jincereh They have made ZJfe of all the Helps God has given them, to under-^ jiand it rightlj. Be it fo: And I do not know any one that can lay it to the Charge of St. Patih that He had not, in fuch a Senfe, fincerelj ftudied the Scripture, or had not fincerelj made Ufe of the Helps God had given Him, tho' flill a Perfecutor of Chrifi, However fmccre you may have been, yet believe alfo that others, as fincere as you, have carefully ftudied the fame Scriptures; ^x\(^ that the mofl: eminent Lights of the Chriflian Church in all Ages, have as fincerelj thought it their indifpenfabls Duty to pronounce an Anathema upon the Dodrine you give U9, as you do that you ought to receive and follow it. We have nothing to do to inquire after your Sinceri^ tjy of which (j(?t^ is Judge. Neither Civil Judicatures, nor Ecclefiadical Courts, ever proceed upon That Bot- tom. Our Bufnefs is not to confider the Sincerity of the Men, bur the Nature, Quality, and Tendency of the Dodrine. There have been (incere Photinians, iinccre Samofatenians-i fincere Sahellians^ fincere Papifisi fjncere Jews and Mahometans, And indeed, what Seds are there that have nor fincere Men amongft them? Thef; mors to the P R E F A C E, 9 Vnoxzlt^cere you are, the better it will fare with you at the great D^ay of Account. In the mean while, give us leave to be Jmcere 100 y in condemning heartily, what we heartily difapprove. And let the Sincerity of each be tried by the Nature and Quality of the Caufe you and we are engaged in, and by the Strength of the Evidence on either Side, on v.-hich, as I conceive, cliiefly hangs the Proof of our Sincerity. You proceed to Inveftive. It concerns Thofe ivho thus affdt to Jit in the Seat of God, and to equal their own difputahle Notions with the exprejs Word of God, to conjider a little more feri^ oufljy what Spirit They are of But, laying afide childiih VVrath, let us argue this Matter coolly and fedately with you. Is it affeciing to Jit in the Seat of God, thac we are doing our bounden Duty, in condemning faljc Dodtrine, or what we take to be fuch ; and in contending earneftly for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints ? And how is it equalling our own diJpHtable Notions with the exprejs Word of God^ when we ftand up for the exprejs Word of God-, againft Thofe who appear to us to contradict and pervert it, in Favour of their metaphy^ fical Conceits, and ill-grounded Hypothecs \ Whac night have a few private Men to clami cxprcfs Scripture^ and to equal their own difputahle Notions with the txprefs Word of God^ in Oppofition to the Chrijiian Worlds as capable of judging what Scripture is, as They that fo vainly boafl: of it ? Charge us no more, io fondly, v/ith ajfetling^ to Jit in the Seat of Gody left ic be told you, in Return, that there appears to be infi- nitely more Pride, Vanity and Arrogance, in a few private Men fitting in judgment upon whole Churches, and throwing their hajly^ ill-grounded Cenfures upon Fathers, and Councils^ and all the greateft and w^ieil: Men that have lived in paft Centuries, than any can be imagined in Thofe v/hom you fo injurioufly refled: on; for no Caufe, bat for honeilly declaring their Ab- horrence of your novcU and J,angeroii$ Opinions. Surely we mav prefame, w^irhout ajfdiing to fie in th: Scar of C Q^d, 10 The A N S V/ E R Gad, to think fomc very fallible Men liable to Errors * And when in Fad it appears, that They are fo, we may pre ume, according to our bounden Duty, to take all proper Care to prevent fuch Errors fpreading. But eno'jgli has been laid in Vindication of a Motto, 3. A Third Complaint is of my unrighteom Ufe of the Term Ariayjs, and Arianijm. But that This Cenfure of yours is very pinrighteousy may appear fufficiently from what I have eifewhere demonilrared S and may again, as Occafion oixers. In Truth, it is compliment- ing you, to call you Arians \ for you really come lliort of the old Ari.v^s^ in more Points than one ('as I ihall obferve hereafter,^ and have not fo honoHrabU Thoughts of God the Son, as the Generality of the ancient Arians had. As to what you pretend about the particular Tenets of Aritis, I iliewed you long ago ^ :, thart yours differ not in any Thing material from them. You are piealed to fiy, tliat by my Wuj of confiqucmid De^ duciions the Fathers cf the Council of Nice, and all their Oithoitck^ PredeccJJorSy may with equal jtiftice be charged with Aiianifm. You mean, I fuppofe, provided in drawing Co'^fiqusnces, ro Regard be had to what is plain y ovobfci-irre'j rights or wrong; trtie-^ ox falfc. Such a con- Jcqtiential way s as This, never was r^iy Way ; and I hope, never v/ill be: Whether it hz yours ^ v/e fhall fee. You are to prove, that the Council of Nice is chargeable Vv'hh Arianifh?, upon my Principles. I perceive3 you are fanguine enough to undertake it ; we are now to examine how you peribrm. I muP: abridge your long tedious Train of Argument, to bring the Parts nearer together, and to fave my felf the Trouble of tranfcribing But I'll take Care that your Argument iluill not ioie a Tittle of its Force, or Strength i having indeed none to fpare. e Supflement to ihcC.'fe of kn2^nSubfcri^tio7i,^. 10. to ii, alfo p. 6j* f Defenje, p. xi6. Sec g S(;e ;//j/Sapplemeat, />. 20. where I jujlify my charging cur Ad- 'jjerfarles with Confcqucnces, and alfo intima: 2 in what Cafes fuch » Coiisliiii ii allowcbkt cr orhenvtfc, « Tlw to the P R E F A C E, II <* The Council of Nice^ by aflerting that the Son «' was, not (TTciyfiu^ l'^ owizvTcej) made ox formed out <« of nothings but (>^vy>;Sa5 gx, T>i^ ^oro^ toJ •vroLTp:^ * • generated from the Subftance of the Father con- " f'elledly, did not mean either, that the Son was " ('which is the firft of Dr. JK'sTwo Scnfes of the <' Term individual) the fame identical whole Snbflance «' with the Father — or (which is the Doctor's other *«■ Scnfe of the Term individual) that He ^^'^S'^homo^ *' geneoHS undivided Part of That infinite and infeparable i*' Subftance \vhich is the Father's—- Bat their * *^ Meaning evidently was, that as one Fire is lighted \ *« from another without any Divifion^ Ahfcijfon^ Di^ \ «« minution^ ^c. fo the Son was generated from the \ '* Father without any DivHiGn, yJbfcifflon, (yc. of the "" Father's Subfiancet or of his <^/ow iuprcme Amh^rity '* and Dominion over alL And this Notion of theirs, " becaufe it fuppofes the Son to be—— not the Sub- ** fance of the Father-, but from the Snbflance of the Fa-* " ther : And becaufe it fuppofes the Generation of the *' Son to be an Atl- of the Father and becaufe " it referves inviolably to the Father, his A'j^-evr/oc, '' his Alone Supreme Authority and Dominion over all, '' which makes Him to be in the abfolute Senfe, Tloe " One God: Therefore, I fay. This Notion Dr. W, *' is pleafed to rank, among other Things, under the *' Head of Arianifm. This is the confequemial Thing, which you have been pleafed to bring forth. The Sum is thus: If Dr. W, fuppofes the Son to be a Part of the Father's Sub- flancc, (which he does not,j and if the Nicene Council denies the Father and Son to be one undivided Subflance^ (which it doth not,) and if the Council iuppofes the eternal Generation to be an AEi, in the Scnfe of free Choice^ fwhich is 2i falfc Suppofition,) and if the Council fuppofes the Father <><:/(?;;^ to have fupreme Dominion over all (which is another falfe Suppofition,^ if Thefe feveral falfe and groundlefs Suppofitions be evidently true; C z thaj 12 7l:J€ A N S W E R then Dr. W. by charging fome Perfons with Ariamfm, who deferve it, has confeqpicntiaUj charged others alfo, who have not deferved it. That I may be certain of doing you [uftice, as to this marvellous Thread of Reaioning, I will come to Particulars. i.Tn the firft Place, Where do you find m.e lay- ing, that the Son is either xh^ jamc identical ('that is, iume, famej whole Subflance with the Father, or an un- divided Part of that Suhjlance which is the Father s f I leave Wmle and Parts ^ to Thofe GenrlemxCn of ftrong Imagination, who confider every Thing in a corporeal Way, under the Notion of Extenfion. All that I fay is, that Father and Son are one undivided Suhflanee ; which is alfo the Senfe of the Nicene Fathers. For, 2. Where do you find that the Nicene Council ever fuppofes the Father and Son not to be one and the fame undivided Suhflanee \ They fay, va. r b'^ct^, from the Suhflajjce of the Father : This is all you have to ground your Cavil upon. But the Council fup- pofes the Son to be both from the Subfiance of the Father, and of the Subftance of the Father, and but ione Subjlance in Both, becaufe of the infeparable Union -and Connexion of Both. The Dodrine is pLunly j 7'his, God of God, and Both one God; Light of Eighty land Both one Light ; Siibftance of Subflance, and Both lone Suhflanee . This is the Catholic k Dodlrine^ \\ Y^vctac, ^^?, ft'ozTsp f>uK £5J fjuf^^, o'JTU^ is^i oXov, l/nl re oXcv ttc f/jicar i?j. xocl cvk f^b xty^^ 'tttj ^uoilcc^ rcyjVi ttuti ^ov tlvcif Ix. f/ji^aiv, atiKOi'^y od ^'uvcctuj omf rx u.Xao(, yji^vi. Orig. COntr. Cclf. p. l8. i Quemadmodum Lumen dc LumlneScutrumque unum Lumen, fic intelligatur Sapienria de Sapientia, 8c utrumque una Sapientia: Ergo 8c una cflenria, quia hoc eft ibi efle quod lapere Pa- ter 8c Filius iimul una iapientia quia una cllentia, &c fingillatim fa- picntia de fapientia, ficut eflenria de eflentia. Auguji, de Trm. I, 7- c. I, 1. p. 85-5-. Confilium de Confilio, 8c voluntas de voluntate, ficut fubftantia de fubftantia, Iapientia dc fapientia. Io>iJ. I. i^.c. 20 p 994. See other Examples of the fame V/ay of /peaking, colleiied by Pe. tavius de Tiin. 1. 6. c, 10. p. 37 1. •" ••" '•* ' ^ whicji to the P R E F A C E. I| v/hlch it is much eafier to carp and cavil at , thaa to confute. I fliould take Notice of your Words, not "TTQiyiSfiL^ 6^ ovTC ovTccv ^ not made or formed out of no, thing. Why do you here infert -Troai^e/?, and pretend to give the Senle of the Council in a Way wherein They never expreffed it ? Is it not to infinuate, that the Council imagined the Son to be made, ox formed^ only not out of nothing \ One may believe that This was in your Head, by your (lily remarking, prefently after, that TertuUian^ Origen^ , and La^-anttus, affirmed the fame Thing of ^ngehy and Sotdsy as the Nicens Fathers did of the Son. Your Report of every one of them is utterly falfe, (as fhall be lliewn in a pro- per Place;) but were it true, what is it to the Nicene Fathers, who were wifer Men than to countenance any fuch dcteftable Dodrine \ What T hey meant by 6X, TY^^ ovcnois Tov TTctTpo^, is Very plam, from the Creed it felf, and has been fully explained and vindica- ted^ from Mifconftrudions. Th? Sum of what They intended was, that the Son was not from Nothing, nor from any extraneous Subftance, but from the Subftance ^/bf the Father ; as Light ftreaming out from Light, but without Divijion, or AbCciffiony or Diminution ; being k See Ov'xgtn fully vindicated, in Thts refpeci, by Huetius Oiige- nian. p. go, 9]. 1 Seem'f Defenfc, p. 464. Bull D. F. p. 1 14. Athanaf. p. 224, 895-. Eufebiusof Nicomedia may be an Evi^Ience of the Meaning of ty. rHi ehaiu^, (while he is endea'vouring to expofe it,) by what he tifes as parallel, and what as oppoiite to it. Parallel. Oppofi^c. cf.otc,. V).^U)f Tv.v ruv7zrt}Tx ryii ^u 'Ytt^ eC'jToZ y.yovcq. Eufeb, Nicomed. apud Theod. 1. i, c. 6. p. 24. • Some of iheje ExpreJJions which Eufcbius ufes as pa'-allcl, are put invidioufly, and injuriouQy. But Jiill, we may fee what in the main was the Catholick Senfe of the ?hrafe, thro' the falfc Colours where- by he ho^cd to expofe it. et-ernallj, 14 The A N S W E R eternally in the Father, as well as from Him, and in fepa- rably included with Him. Indeed, the Arians invidiouily charged Them with making the Son a Part of the Fathers Subjtance''^ t as you alfo are pleafed to charge me. Which is to me an Argument that my Notion is llill the fame with That of the Nkene Fathers, and yours not diirerent from That of the Arians. 5. Where do you find that the Council ever fuppofes the Generation of the Son to be an ^^c?, in your Senfe of A^ ? The Council has not a Word about AFi, that / i know of: Nor, if it had, v/ould it be at all to your Purpofe. The Qiieftion about Acl, will depend upon another Queftion, I'iz,, Whether the Council intended an eternaU or temforal Generation \ Upon either Sup- polition, I can allow the Generation to be an Ac\ ; but not in your novel Senfe of AcU in Both Cales. Suppofe it eternd^ then the Generation was an Acii but in the ancient Senfe of Atit and necejptry Agency : y As the Sun was fii^^pofed to abl in generating Rajs, Fountains to a^i in generating Streams, the Mind to ati in generating Thoughts, Trees to aii in generating Branches, Bodies to aft in generating Efiluvia, Va- poursj or Perfumes, the Earth to aEi in generating Fruits ; and the like. No matter whether, in ftricfrne s, thefe kind of Generations Ihould be called AEis : They are fuch as the Antients called fo ; and when we are interpreting the Antients^ we muft attend to the antient Senfe of Words. NecefTary AB:s were then called AU:s\ and therefore no Wonder if eternal Generation was looked upon as an eternal Ati, But, fuppofe the Council intended only tempral Generation, (^as fome have thought, and it feems not improbable^ then 1 readily sUow it to be an Ac^, even in your Senfe of Choice; as much as was the Son's Generation of the Blefled Virgin. But then I infiil: upon it, that the Nicene Fathers maintained the Son's eteraal and necelTary Ex- m See Arius'j Letter. Apud Thccd. E. K. 1. i. c. y. \^d Euiebiuc cf Nicop.icdia. Thcod. 1- c. 6., iftencc:, to the P R n F A C E. t$ iftencc: antecedent to the Generation; which is a Dodrine oppofire to yours, as Light to Darknefs. 4. In the laft Place, where do you find one Word of the Father's alone Supremacy of Dominion, in the Nicene Decrees \ This is purely a Fidion of your own* without the leaft Shadow of a Reafon for it. Do you find the Nicene Fathers teUing you of a Sovereign producing to himfelf a Sul^jecl^ or of a Lord and Mafter produ- cing 2L Servant I Is it SnhjeEi of Sovereign^ very Subjed efvery Sovereign; inftead of God of God, very God of very God ? You will fee that one is of the other, not than one is above the other. If the Father be there called Almight-y {TCcLVToxpircep) yet They underftood the Son to ht Almighty of Amighty, {'7rcLvro)ipa.ra>p h '^rajr- TOKpiro^^^) as well as 6^0^ 0/ Godt All Perfecflions common to Both, only not co-ordinately ; the Father havini^ his Perfedions from none, the Son having the fame PerfeSions from Him ; Equal in every thing, but ftill deriving That very Eq^^tality, If This be the'Au^e^TiX you (peak of, the Thing is tr-^e but not pertinent ; if you mean more, it may h^ pertinent, but it is not /r//^ ; nor have you a Syllable of Proof for it, eulier in Scripture, or Antiquity. . We have now feen how well you have acquitted your fclf in the conjeci%cntid Way, under This Article; not quite fo well, I thmk, as before in your Charge upon me as denying the Father's Divinity, I mud do you the Juftice to fay, that you can fometimes manage an Argument to greater Advantage: Or if you could not, I ihould have made it my Refolution not to ex- change a Word more with you. How you came to perform fo much below your felf, here in your Vreface, I know no- ; except it be that your Paffiom were more dee,jly engaged in This Part, than in the reft. To proceed. 4. A fourta 16 The A N S W E R 4. A fourth Head of Complaint is, that I have talki• 1006. Benecl. Fairem cum audis, Filii intcllige Patrem, qui filius rupradi^iv 'tf^w ol^^otUji^sVy tjui- Vv)'-ntav, yccl o'lxaiccuvlu), X.UI TU.9TCC ump ^vicf f/^£^a3-iiKfl6^-/Jv Tiv tfJf Tou '}i^Z, o'vTu i'^ Km Tov yty/;B-BvTX scTn rou roicurn Tm-T-^oq. Grig, con^r. Ccir. p. 587. Honor Filii dignitas lit Paterna j & gloriofus Audlor lit ex quo is qui tali Gloria lit digrius cxtitciij:. Hil.ir* p. 832. A^fcta^hj/fck^M to the P R E T A C E. 17 Metaphy/ickiy contrive to rob Him of That fuperktive Glory,' fhew the greater Zeal and Concern for the Honour of God the Father. The PagnnSy I know, thought it very mu^h for tlie Honour oi their fupreme God, to have other Gods under him. This they looked upon as an Article of Grandeur, and the very Top of Magnificence' . But ChrifiUns never talk'd at this Rate: They thought it moft for the Honour of the fupreme Father, to have a .Sow, eqml xoHim'mNatHrey and one God with Him. You go on to another Excep- tion : As if an ArticWs being Fundament al^ 71'as a Rea- fon why -^ even the mofl learned and able Aien fljould by m meojis be Jujfered to conjtdsr or inc^uire ivhat This Fundamental Article is. You have very little Reafon to ufe this kind of Talk with me , bccaufe, when I flrft entered into Conference with you, my whole De- fign and Defire was, to have the Thing amicably de- bated betwixt us, and with equal Freedom on Both Sides, in a private Way, without troubling the Prefs, And tho' the Article I am defendmg bt ql Fundamental one, yet it was never fuch to me, till I had well exa?mn'd it : Nor do I expefl it fhould be fuch to you, without the like Method. However, there is a great deal of Difference between fettling one's own private Faith, and undertaking to publifo and propamtc the fame among others. While a Man pretends no farther than to judge for himfelf he ought to reft un- molelled, to enjoy the Freedom of his own private Sentiments, wherein others are not concerned. But when He endeavours to draw Difciples after Him, the Cafe is altered ; and it then becomes the common Con- cern of all that have Truth at Heart, and more efpe- cially of Thofe who are the appointed Guardians of the Chriftian Faith, to be upon the Watch againft Seducers, and to interpofe their feafonable Offices to prevent the Growth ot any dangerous Error. There r Onatus apud Stob. Eccl. Phyf. c. 3, Plotinus Ena. 2. 1, 9. c. 9. p. 207, D mull !8 7%e A N S TV E R muH be fome pMkk^ Reftraints to hinder conceited Men from venting Crudities y as well as a juft and due Regard to the Interefts of Trfith, if Any Man, with Sobriety, and Modefty, has any new Thing to offer. Where to fix the true Aiedium between Liberty and Reftraint, is not my Bufinefs here to enquire : I think, our Governors in Church and State have already fixed it, beyond all reafonable Exception. But to re- turn. Let Thofe learned and able Men you fpeak of, con- fidcr and examine, that They may find out the 7>/^r^; and when they have done defend it. But if the Re- fult of their Enquiries, is the embracing, and propaga- ting of Errors; be They ever Co learned, or able. They muit be rebuked, and reproved for it. What if a learned Jewy or a Dcijl, after examining and confider- ing, thinks it right and jufl to rejeft, and openly to vilify the Chrijtian Revelation f Tvlay He not therefore be told that his Labours have been ill laid out, and that his Infidcliiy is a very great, a vtry unpardonable Ci ime ? And if Another, after Enquiry, fets himfelf publickly to oppofe any momentous Article of the Chriftian Faith ; it is the Duty, and the Bufinefs of Thofe that know better, and of Thofe that are in Authority, to fland up for the true Religion, and to uie all proper Means for its Prcfervation. What would have become of the Chrillian Faith, if fuch learned and able Men as Fraxeas, Noetus, Paul of Samofata^ Fhotintis, Arlns, Eunomius, u4pollinariHS, <^-c. had not been vigcvoufiy oppofed, and expelled the Chriflian Church ? Errors once entered have been fometimes kept in by the fame Methods, as Truth harh been preferved ; Jufc as the Banl^ intended to keep out the Waters, if once overflowed, ferve afterwards to keep them in : Which is yet no Argument, I luppofe, for having no Banki at all, or for throwing all open to In- undations. You add. As if takmg great Pains ^ to find out the Se':fi and Meaning of a DoUriney was calling in OuejlioH to the P R E F A C B. 1^ Chtepon the DoUrine it fclf: Which I have anfwered above. In your next Words, you betray an unbe- c-oming Heat, which fliould be avoided always, if you deiire to fee clear. WonderfuU you fay, that the very Foundations of all Religion, and of all Tnith^ foould be thm turned into Ridicule^ by Men of Learnings without their perceiving what they are doing \ A heinous and heavy Charge ; not upon me, not upon a few private Men, but upon the Church of Chriil in all Ages, and upon the befl: Men of it. For, what is it, I befeech you, that you are here fo fcverely declaiming againf}, under the opprobrious Name, of turnmg all Religion^ into Rcdicule I I fiy, what is it but the Church's ac- knowledging that there are Fundamentals in Religion, and her defending Thofe Fundamentals^ in fuch a Way as Chrift and his Apoftles have taught Her, againft all Oppofers? Be you ever fo able or fo learned^ (which I difpute notj yet we know, that iT an Angel from- Heaven comes to teach us any other Dotlrine than what we have received from Scripture, we have St. Paul's Warrant for pronouncing an Anathema upon That and Him. You will fiy, no doubt, that you have Truth and Scripture on your Side. Well: That is faying fomething, if you can make it good : It is the very Point which we are going to try. In the mean while, argue not againfl: the properell: Methods of de- fending and preferving the Truths (which are undoubted- ly right, and good, in the general^) but Hiew, if you are able, that there is fomething particular in the pre- fent Cafe, to put a Bar to the general Kule. 5. The lafl: Article of Complaint is, my artificially concealing from the Reader^ the true and indeed only ma- terial Point in Queftion, and amujlng him with Ajatters of a quite different Kind, In This afF^ded Charge, (which 1 am unwilling to fay, you do not believe one Word of,) I blame not fo much the Injurioufnefs of it, fince it is too weak to do Hurt, as the Indifcretion. Might you not have been consent to fee out upon a D z nnj 2.6 The J N S JV E JR. neiif Foot, and as it were filently and unobferved, to alter the Terms of the Queflion ; but you muft begin with laying your Sin at my Door, and charging me with the very Fault which you are, that Inftant, committing ? I will fhew you, firfl:, that my Man- ner of flating the main Queftion was right ; And I ihall afterwards tell you what 1 have to {zy to yonrs; which in Reality, (when ftripp'd of its Ambiguityy) is not different from mine. AH my Labour and En- deavour was, to bring the Difpute to This lliort Queflion, whether the Son of God be a precariofts Be- ing, that is, a Creature, or no ^. This was the onl Point I was concerned for ; being That upon wh all the reft turn. There therefore I laid the Strefs; making ir my Bufinefs to confute whatever I could find in Dr. Clarke's Pieces, tending to degrade the Son of Cod into precariofis iLxiftence, or to m.ake a Creature of Him. If This Point be but once fecured, that the Son is m Creature, bur neccjfarily'Exifimg', the Dod:or may go on talking of Supremacy and vv^hatever elfe he pleafcs ; They are incidental Points only, and muft either fall of Courfe, or elfe be underftood in a Senfe confftem with the Kcfolution of the other Queftion. You are fenfible of This your ielf ; And therefore you all the way, refolutely difpute with me the Point of the Son's Neceffarj-cxifteme, as much as the other Point of the Father's Supremacy : You are as refolute in denying the Son to be one God with the Father ', you are fcrupulous as to calling Him Creator, and never di- redly aflert his Creating of the World by his own / Power, or his Co-eternity » In fnort, you difpute every Thing with me that is pleaded to exempt Him from the Number of precarious Beings, or Creatures, Were it not for This, you fhould be permitted to talk of the Father's Supremacy as much as you pleafed, and ta f Sl'c my Su pplcment, tchere T have fiewn nine federal Ways, from I the Writings cf Dr. Ciarkc;, ani{ his Difciples, that They do by immediate and mcejfnry Confeqtiencs wake ;/-?^ 6"c;« ^ Creature. SiippL p. 20, 8cc. make to the P R E F A C E. 2t make Scnfe of it at Leifure. Indeed, the derermining of the Point of Supremacy^ and how it is to be held, depends intirely upon the other Queftionj which is therefore the main Quefiion betwixt us. Do but allow me, that the Son is no Creature, that He exids not frecarioujljy but necejfarilj, that He is one God with the Fa- ther, that He is properly Creator, and by his oii'n Power, with other the hke Things ; and you lliall then go on, without Lett, or Hindrance, in your Talk of the Supremacy. Now then, will you pleafe to anfwer me : Do you under iknd the Supremacy in a Senfe which you behcve conjiftem with the Points which I maintain^ viz,, the Son's JVecepiry-exijience, Vncreatednefs, ^c. ] If you do, the Difpute is ended, go on and profper with fo Catholick^z Notion of the Supremacy. Or do you un- derlland the Supremacy in a Senle not confiflent with Thofe other Points which I maintain ? If This be the Cafe, ("as I pre fume it is) then do not pretend that thofe o- ther Points are not material ; for, by maintaining Them, I overthrow your pretended Supremacy y as much as you by maintaining the Supremacy, deflgn to overthrow the Church's Faith : And fo it matters not, whether the main Queftion be put into your Terms, or mine; iince Both, in Reality, come to the fame Thing. Only, there is this Difference in the Cafe; my Way of ftating the main Que 'lion is plain and clear ; yours obfcure and ambiguous: Mine is fitted to infiru^i and inform ; yours to perplex and confound a Reader : Mine is proper to bring the Debate to a lliort and clear Iffue ; yours to protra(f^ and lengthen out a Difpute: In a Word, mine is fincere and open, like That of a Man that knows his Caufe is good; yours is fallacious and difguifed, as of one that's diffident of his Caufe, and is retiring behind the Curtain. You will have the Queftion put thus : TVhether the Father alone hath, fupreme u^uthority, Sovereignty and Dominion over all\ When This is llripp'd of Ambiguity and Chicane, I fuppofe it wi,U fall into mine. You determine in the ^fjirmative^ 22 The ANSWER uifftrmative. The Son then is naturally a StiljeH: of the Father, and the Father is his Sovereign Lord and Killer. He has an abfolute Right over Him, to call Him to Account, to reii^ard Him if He does well, to fumJJ:) Him if He does amifs. This all Men under- fland to be implied in jupreyr^e Domimon i a Right and Power over S^hjecis, to compel, conftrain, and punifh, as occafion Jerves ; and in Ihort, to bridle them at Pleafure. Is This your Meaning? Pray then, where is the Difference between faying it, and calling God the Son a Cr eat are ? And, do you imagine that you have any the leaft Syllable of Proof of fuch alone Dominion^ either in Scripture or Antiquitj ? Yet there is certainly no Medium between This, and what I alTert of the Equality of Father and Son. They are either naturally and ftrnftly equal', or elle one is infinitely luperior to the other, as God and Creature. Well ; be the Confequences what it will, you are attempting to prove your Point iyl- logifticaliy, after This Manner. "If the Father never ads in Subjedion to the Will •* of any other Perfon, and every other Perfon ads in '^ Subjedion to his Will ; then the Father alone is the *' one fupreme Governor of the Univerfe. " Ikit it is Fad that the Father never ads in Sub- '* jedion, ^c. and that every other Perfon ads in «* Subjedion. circ. Therefore, ^c. This is the wonderful Demonflration ; lame and deficient in evej y Part. To prove that the Father alone hath fupreme Dominion, &c, you fhould fhew, not only that all other Perfons all in Subjedion, (for an Equal may ad in Subjedion to an Equals or even to an Inferior^ as our Lord aded in Subjection to Jofeph and Mary^ and wajlxd his Difciples Feet^) but that They are really fubjed, and under his abfolute Power and Authority. Your Reafonings therefore on This Head, amount only to what the Schools call Ignoratio Elencbi; proving to the P R E F A C E. 2^ proving befide the Queftion, or talking wide of the Purpofe. And how eafy is it for a Man to fill a Book with Quotations, as you have done, that can be content with any Thing, however foreign to the Queftion \ You have proved, that the Son adecl fometimes a minijierid Part, or that He fubmittcd to an inferior O^CQi This is all that you have proved; and it is no more than I would have readily granted you, without quoting To much as a fingle Father for ir. You are not advanced one Tittle towards the Proof of what you intend, that the Father and Son naturally have not one common Do-minion. 1 affirm that They have; and that at the very fame Time that the Son is executing any inferior Office^ He is ftill Lord of tl^e whole Vniverfei in common with the Father ; and thac their Dominion over all, is one of the fame undivided Dominion, as They are one God-, and one Lord. You would gladly (lip upon us Siipremacj of Dofmnion^ in- ftead of Supremacy of Order, or Office. Inflead of faying that the Father done has his fupreme Dom.inioii from none-, you pretend that He alone has fupreme Dominion ; to make tvjo Dominions where there is but one. You play with the ambiguous Word Anthoritj^ that you may have fomething to blind the Readers with : While you quote Fathers who affirmed it in one Senfs, and you intend it in another, ^ucloritas is often no more than Paternitas, with the Latin Fathers, as Ancior is Pater : But you are wrefling it to the Senfe of Do^ minion. The like Ufe you make of the equivocal Word Dignity i which is of Order-, or Office, or Dominion, or Nature 'y and you artificially blend and confound all together. None, I hope, can be impofed upon by fuch weak Fallacies, but They that want their Faculties of difcerning. Let the Reader carefully diilinguifh Three Things, and he will then be able of Himfdi to unravel all your Pretences, and to throw off that fludied Confufion which you are labouring to introduce in a flain Thing. I. Supremacy 24- The A N S W JE R '■ I. Spipremacj o^ Nature^ or Supremacy of Perfefllo^i is to be poUefled of all Perfedion, and the hi^hefi Excel- lency polTible : And This is to be God. There is nothing of this kind but what is common to Father and Son , who are therefore one God Supreme, And as Supremacy of Dominion and Sovereignty (properly fo called^ over all Creatures Cas foon as they exift) is included in it, and confequent upon it ; Father and Son have one common and undivided Sovereignty over all ; the conftant Dodrine of Antiquitj, 2. Supremacy of Order , confifls in This; that the Father has his P erf e^ ions -^ Dominion^ ^c. from none i but the Son frotn the Father, All that the Son has, is re- ferred up to the Father^ and not vice verfa. This kind of Supremacy is of the Father alone : And the Son's Subor dinar iony thus underflood, is very confiftent with his Equality of Nature, Dominion^ Perfe^-ion, and Glory, y according to all Antiquity. 5. Supremacy of Ojfce. This, by mutual Agreement and voluntary Oeconomy^ belongs to the Father: While the Son out of voluntary Condefcenfion, fubmits to avfl minifierially, or in Capacity of Ajcdiator. And the Reafon why the condelcending Part became God the Son, rather than God the Father, is becaufe He is a Son^ and becaufe it beft fuits with the natural Order of Perfonsj which had been inverted by a contrary Oeconomy. Thefe Things being fixed and fettled, there will be no Difficulty m rt'^\y\i\^^ to any thing you have offered, or can offer in This Caufe. You may amufe us with Script ure, and Fathers: But every Man k^Sy before this Time, where the whole Pinch of the Con- troverfy lies : You think the Vnity of the Godhead, as we teach, is not confident with the Diflindion of Perjonsy Order, and Offices. While you pretend to be diiputing againfl Me, you are really difputing againfl the fcanding Dodrine of the Antient Churches-, from fome Conceffions which They made, and in which I a- gree with them. And your Way is to wreft and flrain to th PREFACE. 2S ftrain fbme Principles maintained both by Them and Me> to a Senfe repngnam with their other known Dodrines. If you can prove any Thing, we are ready to hear you : If you cannot, it is high Time to dcfift from an impradicable Attempt, that can bring nothing in the End, but Shame and Confufion to as many as ingage in it. I take no Notice of your Reflexions upon my Hardinefsy as you call it, ^in denying what no good Catholick ever affirmed^ and my metaphjficd Excnrjions, and my fixing Names of Reproach, h will be feen in the Sequel who are moft remarkable for Hardinefs-i who make Excurfions^ and who reproach^ not their Brethren only, and the whole Church of Chrift, but the Lord of Heaven and Eanh^ the living God ; to whom be Honour and Glory, now and for ever. That the Reader may not imagine our Difpute to be any Thing neu^, or that you have advanced any Thing beyond what the antient Arians and Eunomians vainly endeavoured in the fame Caufe j I fhall jufl: give Him a Specimen of what fome of the Fathers of That Time anfwered to the fame Pretences which you are now reviving. When Eummius had been magnify- ing, the Father, as done fubjed: to none, on purpofe to degrade and deprefs the Son, under the Notion of ?i Subjetlj the great Bafd rebukes him, for thereby reducing God the Son to the Condition of a Creature^ in thele Words : *•' Forafmuch as there are Two <' Things^ the CreMure, and the Godhead, and the *^ Creature is ordained to Subjection and Strvitnde, while <' the Godhead is regnant, and paramount; is it not " manifcfl:, that He that deprives {the Son) of the " Honour of ahfolme Dor/Pinion, {Si<7'7ror?AcLij and *« cafts Him down to the Meannefs of Servitude, " does at the fame Time rank Him v/ith the reft of " the Creation ? ' E Gregory 26 The A N S W E R Gregory NjjfeH thus more at large anfvvers t\\Q Ennd- mian Pretence, of the done Supremacy. I lliall give it in Englip only, becaufe of its Length, and to iave my felf Trouble. " He {Etiminiiis) fays, that the Father has no Sharer '* {(jL^^^rla.') in Glory with Him: Wherein he fays " the Truth, tho' he knows not what he fays. For " the Son doth not fhare (or divide) the Glory with " the Father; but He has the Father's 5/^/? in the Father: And as He hath the *« Father in Himfelf, He muft contain the whole Power «^ and Authority of the Father. For, He has the entire " Father in Himfelf, and not a Part only : Wherefore *« having the Father entire. He mufl: have his Autho- «« rity alfo entire. What then does Eunomim mean hoc ipfum quod in Deum Patrem dicit, ficut in eo veritatem naturalis Divinitatis, ita verita- tem naturalis quoque Paternitatisy &: ex hac veritatem naturalis etiam generationis oftendit. • Totum igitur in fc habet ilia generatio divina quicquid in fe habet Dei Patris seterna fubflantia. Fro'mde fufficie hat ut diceretur de Vatre folo, quicquid £qualiter itt- telligcndum ejfet in Ulio. Pater enim iic omnipoientem Filiupt ge- nu it, ficut elt ipfe Pater Omnipotens ; lie univerforum Creator em, ficut ipfe uni'verforum Creator eji^ lie Regem Sectdorum, ficut ipfe Rex SecHlorum cftj fic immortakm & invijibilemy ficut ipfe iw- monalU to the PREFACE. 29f becaufe what he fays is true and jufl, and vtry well exprefled, in his Comment on the Creedy written in Oppofition to the jirinns of That Time. The Sum is This, that whatever High Things are laid of the Father in the Creedy are to be underftood to belong equally to the Son : And there was no Need of any jnore particular Application, fince the very Name pf Son is fufficient. mortdis eft 8c invifibilis. Omnia igitur auae Deo Patri dantur ht Symbolo, ipfo uno Tilii nomine, naturaliter tribuuntur 6c Filio. lulgent. Irfigm. 36, />. in the fame Sermon, 2. I am next to obferve, that fuch Interpretation^ ill the prefent Cafe, has led you into Abfurdities which you have not been able to anfwer. For, if the Son be excluded at all, by thofe Texts of Ifaiahj and others of like Kind, He is entirely excluded* He cannot be Another God, all other Gods being ex- cluded by Thofe Texts ; and you will not admit that He is the Same God: Since therefore He is not Another God, nor the Same God, it follows, upon your Principles, that He is No God. That the Texts exclude not only all other fupreme Gods, but abfo- lutely all other Gods, I prove, not barely from the Force of the exdufive Terms, but from the Scope, Drift, and Intent of Thofe Texts ; which was to exclude inferior as well as fupreme Deities j and to leave no Room for Idolatry ; v/hich might be con- fident v/ith paying Soveraign Worfhip Ceo ufe youf Phrafej to the God of IfraeL You take a great deal of Pains to wind your lelf off; or rather, to fhew how much you can have to fay, when you have no- thing to reply. You tax me with Quibbling in thg Word Beings, as landing in the Query : VVhich is a Rebuke that comes lace, now you are anfwering* not my Oueries, but my Defen/e. However, fince all other Gods are by me fhewn to be excluded, and not all other Perfons, the Exprefllon is juft, and no other but what fhould be. You ob'erve, next, that the Son cannot be the fame God with the Father on any but Sabellian Principles: Which is begging the Qiieftion. It is fufficient to fay, that the Fathers iii general fas we fliall fee hereafter) acknowledged Both to be one God, and not one Perfon, You cite Eufe^ biti-s^ as your Voucher, that the Words of Jfai^ (Be* a Eufcb. Eccl. Thcol. 1. i.e. 19. p. 15^. Jsdes Qii. r. cffomeQUEB^IES, 33 Jides Me there is no God) denore one Perfon, When you look again into Eufeh'ms, you will lind thar the Words are Aiarcellns's^ not Eujcbitis^s : Hioiigh lit- tle depends upon them either Way. You have an- other Piece of a QLiotation from EafebitiSy p. 4, where he makes it Sal;eliiamjmy to fay that the Fa- ther and Son are sv 59 tolutqVj om and the fame Thing, Add, as £//y^<^///i there does? q'/O/UUct. /lS/j J^^^cf-cp-gci?, &c. U!7dcr different Names or.ly ; and then I condemn it for Sahelliamjmy as well as Eufebins, Your quoting Ter^ tHlliariy in This Cafe, is very exrrordinary ; when every Body knows that He makes Father and Son one God, in the very fame Treatife where he is con- futing the Sabellians ; that is, the Praxeans^ Men of the lame Principles with thole of Sahellius, Was Tertuliian then a Sahellian /* Ridiculous ! You have a farther Shift, (but ftill in the Way of retorting^ not anfivering-i) that I my felf, ivhcn I come to ex- plain, do not in Reality make the Son to be the fame God^ but only to be in his Subftance undivided. Add, from the Father as his Head, and conjubjlantial with Him, and then I infifl: upon it, that He is therefore the fame God with the Father, upon the certain and (landing Principles of all Catholic/^ An- tiquity. But what becomes of the Difficulty^ all this while, which it concerned you to anlwer^ You were to tell us, w^hether the Son (imcQ He is not the fa?m God) be another God, or no God. You fay, he is not another God, in That Se7ife wherein the Father is : That is your Meaning. But if He be received as an Objeft of Worfiip, He is then God in fuch a Scnfe as none but the God of Ifrael was, and mufl either be the fame God, or another God. By your Argu- ment, the Jews might have admitted as m^r.y inferior Gods as they plealed, conliftent with the Eirft Com- mandment ; for that would not have been admitting; other Gods, becaufe not Gods in the fame.Senfe. So you leave a Gap open to all manner of Idolatry, You F * fav ^4 ^ Second Defense Qu. I. fay farther, that the Texts do not exclude Mofei from being t God unto Pharaoh, nor A-iagiftrates-, x\ov u4ng€ls3 from being Gods, But the Texts do ex- , elude Adojes, and Angels, and Alagifiratcs^ and all / Cr^^///rfi whatever, from being adorable Gods: And V therefore they can be no more than nominal Gods; that is to lay, no Gods. The Jews might have had nominal Gods what they would: But They were to pay Worpip to one only; which comes to the fame as having no ether Gods but one. The receiving more adorable Gods than on^, is making another God. Well then, will you caft off the JVorjhip of God the Son, or will you frankly own that you make of Him another God: You difcover a great In- clination to o\\'n¥^\m£o]: another God : You do not fcruple in one Place, to call Him Another Lord^^ : And yet, when you come to the Pinch, you paufe, you hectare, you are at a Lofs what to refolve on : Another God, or two Godsy found very harlli ; no Scripture, no Fathers, ever ventured upon it ; and ; Chriftian Ears cannot bear it. What then muft be v' done ? You at length put on an Air of Affurance, and intimate to us, (p. 6.) that an inferior God befides the Supreme, is not another God] and that Two Godsy in the Nature of Language, muH iignify two Co-or^ dinate Gods, or Gods in the fame Scnje. But, as the Nature of Language hitherto has been always diffe- rent, and you can give no Examples in any Writings, facrcd or profane, of this new Kind of Languague; that any two Gods, and each of them received and adored as a God. were not two Gpds, as well as one God, and another God ; ^ you muft give us Leave to think that 1 his Kind of anfwering is really faying nothing. All the Heathens that acknowledged one ftipreme God, over many inferior Deities, will, by your Way of Reafoning, fland clear of the Charge a Page 197. h Sse the Preface to my Sermons, P. 33. &c» of Qu. I. of fome (QUERIES. 55 of admitting more Gods than one. Str^ge ! that you fhould appeal to the Nature of Language^ in a Cafe where the Language o^ Mankind, Jews, Pagans, and Chriftiansy harh been always contrary. You have two or three References at the Bottom of the Page ', which I pafs over, as not coming up to the Point in hand. If you have any Countenance from Eufehiusy it will amount to no more than That great Man's contradicting Himfelf, and the Catho- licks before him, as well as Thofe of his own Time : His Authority therefore, efpecially for a plain Blun- der and Solecifm in Language^ will be very inconfi- durable, and weigh little with us. As to my Argument, concerning Baaly and ^jl)- tarothy and the Pagan Deities ', you anfwer it by tel- ling me, you know not how to excufe it from Pro^ phanenefs. You Ihould have faid, (for That the Rea- der will fee to be plainly the Cafe,) that you kneiv not how to evade its Force. A Rebuke is much ea- fier than a folid Reply ; which was here wanted. Tell me plainly, if the firft Commandment excludes only other Supremesy and not inferior Deities j why Baaly or Afl?tarotk, or any Pagan Deity might not have been worlliiped along with the God of Ifiael, without any Violation of That Commandment ? The Law indeed fays, you fhall have no other Gods before, or befides Me ; that is, according to you, no other Supreme Gody or Gods. How then are inferior and fubordinate Deities, how many, or what foever, at all excluded by That Law ? Here lay the Pinch of the Difficulty ; which, bccaufe you could not take it off, you are pleafed to diffemble, and to run to ano- ther Point. You reprefent it, as if I had intended a Comparifon between Chrifty and the Pagan Deities ; and you remind me of the Difference betwixt Them ; which is only fblemn Trifling. I made no Compari- fony nor did my Argument imi.ly Any : But This is plain, that the Texts which exclude only fupreme Deities, do not exclude any that are not Supreme, or F z not 3^ A Second Defense Q. I, not confidered as Supreme : And fo you, by your In- terpretation of Tnofe Texts, have, in a manner, voided and fruflrated every Law of the Old Tefta- ment againft Idolatry, If the very Mention of This evident Confequence be a Thing fo prophage, what muft your Docftrine be, that involves This very Con- fequence in it ? I Ihewed you, in my Defenfe^ ?• 2- 37. how, upon your Principles, Any Man might eaiily have eluded every Law of the Old Teftament, relat- ing to Worflyip', or Sacrifice. One plain and dire(5l Anfwer to That Difficulty would have been more fatisfadlory to the Reader, tlian all your ftudied Di- ver fion% You proceed to a tedious Harangue about mediae torid Worfiip; which iliall be confldered in its Place, but is here foreign, and not pertinent. You fhould have ihewn how, by the Force of Thefe Texts (which declare the Vnitp and afcribe the Worfliip to God alonej wferior Deities can be excluded, but U"on This Principle, that the Texts are to be under- flood as excluding all other Gods abfolutely, and not with your Reflridion of all other Stipremes only. You have indeed contrived a Way, fuch as it is, to bring in the V/orfijip of Chrift: but it is by making fo wide a Breach in the Laws of the Old Teftament, that had it been difcovered by the Jejvs of Old, there had been Room enough to let in all imaginable Kinds of inferior Deities. They might eafily have pleaded, that the Texts were intended of one Supreme God ; and that He alone was to be worfhiped as fuch : But as to [uhordinate Deities, as the Texts did not reach Them, fo neither need they be fcrupulous about the Worfhip of Them. This is the preffing DifSculty, to which, after fufficient Time to confider, you have not been able to make any tolerable Anfwer. Wherefore it may fairly be concluded, that the Ar- gument is unanfwerable j and that This Query having bore the Tcft, will now ftand the firmer. You feem to think that you have done your Parr, when you have Qu. I. €f fomc QU E R I E S. 37 have found out a Reafon why Chrifl fliould be wor- fhiped : But the main Thing wanting, was, to give a Reafon (upon your Principles^ out of the Lcnv^ why An) inferior Deities, along with the Supreme, might not be worlhiped alfb. You do well to plead for the Worfliip of Chrifl: : It is a Dodrine of the Gofpel^ and I thmkof the Lmi>loo. But you had done blot- ter, if you had contrived to make the Laii^ and the Gofpel hang together; and had not entirely fruilrated the main Intent and Dcfign of one, in Order to main- tain the other. You have fome Obfervations, /?. 5>, lo, ii. which feem to me foreign to the Bufinefs of This Query: They may defer ve fome Notice in a more proper Place. Q^UERY. II. Tfhether the Texts of the new Tejiament (in the fecond ^ y Column) do not jheWi that He (Chrifl:) is not ex-' clfidedy and therefore muji be the fame God. THE Sum of my Argument is, that fince all other adorable Gods are excluded by the Texts of Ifaiah ; and yet it appears from the fame Scripture, that Chriil: is adorAbky and God, it muft follow, that He is not another God; but the fame God with the Father. This Scripture Argument I confirm from Teflimo- nies of Antiquifj, declaring, 1. That other Gods only, (not God the Son,) or Idolsy are excluded by the Texts which concern the Vnifj, 2. That God the Son is not jinother God, 3. That He is the fame God, or one God, with the Father. 4. That the one God of Ifiael (confeffedly God Supreme) was Chrifl:, fpeaking in his own P erf on; be- ing God, not as God's Reprefentative, but as God's Son, of the fame Snbfimce with the Father, %s A Second Defense Qu. II. This is the Sum of what I endeavoured to make <)Ut5 under the fecond Ojiery. I am firft to confider what you have to ofl-er, in order to take off the Force of my Evidence; and next, to examine any Countcr-EvideiAce which you may have produced to ballance mine. In This Method I defign to proceed : And let the Reader, who dciires to fee diftindly in- to the Merits of the Caufe, take it along with him. • My Script lire- Argument was formed upon the follow- ing Texts : Joh, i. i. Heh, i. 8. Rom. ix. 5. ?hil. ii. 6". \Hch. i. 3. Let lis now examine Tiiem in their Order. John i. i» My Argument here is, that the Aoy®*', Word^ is called God^ not in any im.proper, or loofe, figurative Senfe; but in the Proper, and ftrid: Senfe of the Word God. Therefore He is not excluded among xhtmm'tnd Gods ; therefore He is one and the fame Cod with God the Father. You reply, /?. 15. that God the IVord.^ is not God in as High a Senje as the Father Himjelf. The Rea- fon vv^hy He is nor, or can nor, you alTign, Becauie By Him, or Through Him, all Tioings were made; 7vhich cannot^ you lay, he trtdj affirmed of the one fmreme God and Author of all. On the contrary, I atnim. That fincc All Things ivere made hj Him^ He is not of the Number of the Things made ; there- fore no Creature \ therefore God in the flrid Senfe ^ and, fince God is cne^ the fame God, The moll: v/hich yon can juftly infer from the Fa- ther's creating all Things /?)» or Through Chrifl:, is only This ; that They are Tivo Perfons^ and that there is a Priority of Order betwixt Them ; not that the Son is not God in as high a Senfe, or in the fame Senfe as the Father. What you cite from Eufebius^ fignifies little i ex- cept it be to expofe the Weaknefs of a great Man : Whofe Authority is of no Value with me, any far- t:her than he js cpqfiftent with hirnfelf, and with the Catho- Qu. IL offome Q\J E R I E S. J9 Catholicks before, and in, and after his own Times. Not to mention that his Authoiity is late; and I may almoft as well produce AthnnaJiHs^ HtUry, and the eld:-r Cjril againil you, as you produce Eufcb'rxs ajjainit me : V\'ho, after all, is fo diilercriL from Him- felf, in different Places of his Works, that, u^on the whole^ it is extremely difBcult to know what Judg- ment to m?ke of Him. To return to Johnu i. In my Ijcfenfe^ p. it. I give the Reader a View of your reah and intended Conftrudion of St. Jofm, The Word was with the one jkpreme God, Another \ God initvlox to Him, a Creature of the great God, This Repreftnration, you fay, is unjufi, p. 45. It feems, your own real Senfe, when put into plain Terms, is too frightful for your felf to admit. You endeavour therefore to wrap it up, and difguife ir, in Thefe Words : 71?^ Word 7i^as with the one fupreme God and Father of all; and the Word was Himjelf a, divine Perfon, — in Subordination to the one fuprem.c God, —and By Him did the one fupreme God and Father of all make all Things. All the Difference be- tween This and mine is, that I fpoke out your whole Senfe, and you infmuate it, or mince it ; being a- iliamed to fay all that you mean. This divine Perfort you fpeak o\\ you ov/n to be God, neither dcire you lay otherv/ife , you do not allow Him to be the fame God ; therefore your Meaning is, and mud: be, that He is Another God : So f"ar my P^eprefentarion is ma- nifefUy juft. But £irther. This fame divine Perfon you, with your whole Party, deny to be neccffirilj^ exijiing ; therefore you make of Flim a precarious Be- ing, which is nothing but Another Name for Crea^ ture ; therefore He is, upon your Principles, a Crea- tPire of the great Godi And fo my Interpretation, or Reprefentation of your refer ved, and real Meaning, is true and juft to a Tittle. Your next Attempt is, not to reprefenty but to corrupt, and mangle my Con- flrudion of St. John. I refer the Reader to my Ser^ wous, for a full View of my Srnfein That Partjcular. Lee 40 ^ Second Defense Qu.II. Let us fee what you can rrake of it by the Help of Chicane, and Cavilling. The Word was with the one fiitreme God Himfelf the Jame one feipreme God-, {jet meaning Another fupreme God in the jcime undivided Subjlance) and by the fame one fupreme God, did the one fupreme God make all Things, That is to fay, ^"^ The Word was with the Fatxher the one God Su^ <« freme, and was Himlelf, tho' not the jame Perfiny ** yet one and the fame God"" Supreme, and by the *^ Son who is God Supreme, and Creator "^ , the Fa- *' ther, fupreme God alfo, made the Worlds." What is there abfurd, or contradidoiy in all This? I have given you three Ante-Nicene Writers (Iren£usy Cle- mens of Alexandria, and Hippolytus) interr reting St. JoKn in the fame Way as I do. Shew me one that ever interpreted him in your Manner. You are forced to diiguife the Matter, and to give your Meaning but by Halves; becaufe you know you have not one Ante-Niceney or Poft-Nicene Catholick Writer on your Side, fo far as concerns your Conftrudion of St. yohn. You pretend that I make of the Son Ano^ ther jupreme God \ not the jame God, But as This is only faid, not proved ; it mud pafs for nothing but a trifling begging of the Qiieftion. Prove you That, as plainly as I have proved that you make the Son Another God, a Creature-God ; or el(e acknow- ledge the Difference between a jufl Repreif;nration, and an injurious Mifreprefentation. So much for Joh. i. I. The fecond Text is. c D^ vevbum, imo rnagis ipfe Deus. Iren. p. 132. ^0? nv c Xcy^. Clem. Alex. p. 13)-. conf. p. 86. Et' ••) <.i)'j 0 /l67(^ T^foe, Tvv ^ov, ^ct^ iav, ri ciiv (pi(r£i2v ecu r,^ ^u» A«v«y B-ie'j-; ; ouo yj\.v »» f^5 ^iovc,, «sAA* ti hex,, TT^jZiT^a, ^ dt,o, 6CC. Hippo). Contr. Noet. c. 14. p. ly. d Mundi enim Fattor, vere verbum Dei cfl:. Iren.p, 152. ©fS5 (* di',y^kovpyc<,' ttuvtu yUp sV aunZ h/iViTV, ^ ;^'^'f<5 uurovy h.i'i'^ e'j^i &v. Gem. Alex. p. ij6. Qu. II. cf feme (^U E R I E S. 41 Hcb. i. 8. / My Argument here is, that ChriO: who in This Text is declared to be God, mult be the fime God with the Father^ bccaufe Scripture admits but one God', and exprcifly declares againfl every other God. To which you reply, p, 13. that the Apoftle fuffici- ently explains HimlelF by the Words, God, even thy God', Verfe the ninth: And tliat I onght not to have omitted it. But I had abundantly anfwered That Pre- tence', by interpreting the Words of Chrift confi- der'd in his human Capacity, referring to Dr. Bennet for a Vindication of it : Which is what you ought not to have omitted. This Text will come up again under ailL Rom, ix. 5. From This Text I form my Argument after ths fame Manner as in the two former. You pretend ic dubious 7vhether it may not pGjJibly be r/ieant of the Fa^ ther ; referring to Dr. Clarke's Script, BoB\ p, 75. zd Edit. On the contrary, I mam.tam, tli?t no reafon- able Doubt can be made of its being meant of Chrij? ; referring to fuch as have proved it'^ . But allowing the Words to be intended of Ch .ifi:, (which is no great Courtefy,) you have ftiil Tom. '^-.'ng farther to fay, viz,, that the Meaning of This Texc is diftin^ly explained^ i Cor, xv. 27. and Eph, i. 22. But how explained? fo as to make the Son Another God \ I lee nothing like it : Neither does God's be- ing the Headof Chrill, nor his putting all Tljings un* . 1. c. 5. Grabe'i Injinnces of Defects, 8cc. p. 24. Second Rewv^ of Doxolcg 'ss, p. If, 16s Dr. Calamy'jf Sermons y p. 38* G ' with 42 A Second DeI^ense Qu.II. with a Supremacy of Order, or Office, arc fufficient to account for all, upon my Principles. You remind me of Hippoljtus's Comment on This Text, in thefe Words : " ChriH: is God over all : For thus He <' Himlclf fays plainly. All Things are given me from «' the Fathers /« But why did you overlook the Words immediately following : ''- Who being over all God " bleffed, was begotten (of the Virgin) and becoming ^« Man is God lor ever." You iee, Hippoijtus fup- po'cs Kim to have been God before the commencing of his mediatorial Kingdom, before the Time when ^\\ Things v;ere faid to be given Him ; and therefore Hipfoljttis may reafonably be (uppofed to mean no fiiore, than that all Things were intrufted with Him, becaufe He, fo great and fo divine a Perlon, was the moll: proper to fufrain fo great a Charge. The Con- fiderarion thereof leads back to his antecedent D.gni- ty, and Excellency, wdiich qualified him for (ogreaty and fo endearlnj a Chai'^e. Wherefore it was ri^hc in HippolytPis to make Mention of it, in Order to con- firm vv'hat was (aid, Rom, ix. 5. that He is over all God hlejfed for ever. EpiphaninSy who cannot be fu- r.e6ied of ^rianiz^ing, fciuples not to argue upon the fame Text, ju;t as Hippcljtus does, and almoft in the fame Words ^' . And tney did not quote A:fatt, xi. 27. (or L'^ikt ^- ^-0 to ^^"icw how, or when, Chrifl was appointed Gcd ; They had no fuch Thoughts, believing Hiin to have been always God ; but to confirm ," v/hat was faid in Ro^n. ix. 5. fo as to Iliew withal, tliat He was difiinct from the Faiher, not the fame Perfon with Him, as Noetns pretended. g ' QvT^ i. hii Itt] 7:os.vrc-)i ^cq tV', Xiyst yup o'jrw y^ TTu^pmncti' t'"; ytyivv/.Tcii, y^ u<'B-(.(^"r:'^ y.t^.t/jii'^ B-id^ int £-'5 roui; ulccjxc,. Hip- poi. conrr. Noer. p. 10. h O a>v iTTt '7n>:v\ii>\i ^0? juv .ty{^iy.ij, uroc, »yo 9 ciiv, sr-v (7n Troiv 17^11 ')lo(,. s^tosiv ^ xuric, oidutTKi ijt^t;, ?iiyoJu' Trayrx f^i Tru^shjy} 'wx. i" x*i7fs^ i^w l::\ T^iDiTut tr. 5x4. Epiph. H»r. 57. p. 487 You ' X J 87.1 Qa. IL of fome QUERIES. 43 You bring up Hippolpus' again, to confirm, as you imagine, your Fancies upon i Cor. xv. 27. HippoUttts anfvvering the Objedion of Noetus, drawn from Rev^ i. 8. where Chrifl is ftiled '7ravT3x/)XTa)p, (and from whence Noetus inferred, that Chrift muft be the very Father Himfelf incarnate,) I fay, Hippoljtus, in his Anfwer, harh the Words which you recite. '• If <' therefore all Things are put under Him, excepting '' Him that did put all Things under Him, He hath " Dominion over all, and the Father over Him ; •' that in all Things may be made appear one God to «' whom all Things are iubjccl, together with Chrift, " to whom the Father hath fubjefled all Things, <' Himfelf only excepted.*^' Hippoljttis here fpcaks not of the Aay®^, but of God mcarnute^ Chrifl: Jefus ; fliewing that Chrijiy lince his Incarnation, has ht^n^Jubje^ to the Father, and will be io alfo, in his human Capacity, aftQ^He has dehvered up his mediatorial Kingdom. From whence it is manifefl:, againd Noetus, that the ivz- 7rzt.r;.c(. y.oin^^Jtj Z^/-^'' ttuvtu is^oTimKi^ cc-jtzS, ixjcq t5 UZJO' M T'^ TtxvTU. umritciSiraf u^^ X'^J^'f- ^ '^^ TracvTu. Tincr/p V/t/twIj ttk- fi'tl cxvTov. Hippolit. Contr. Noet. p. lo. Keel TTuXit (p/iO-lv iv rJ} A7i7>Ky,Aui'ei' 6 cov k?: ccpy,?^ yg^ o IfAuL'^ 5r«M'T3Xf/^7?y^. x«A&;? JcaraJ "^ooiu. urn* tcxXa^ ^ am, ttccvth fju-a Ttztci- curi TTotTi^oe,, 6cc. Epiph. Hxr. 5-7. p. j^^*^. O/nnlpotens Chriflus appclbtur. Si cnim omnia Patris Filii funt, &: ut iplc loquitur in Evangelio, dat,T. ejl m hi om-rJs potejias in caIo (^ in Terra, i^ omnia, mea tua ftmt, cur non criam Omnipotentisxxo' ipen refcratur ad Chriftum, ut iicutDeus Dei, & Dominus Domini, lie OmnipotemOmnipotentli Filius Ik? Hieronym. tn Ifd. Tom. 5,/). i 5. Ncc niirum li Chriftus dicatur Omnipotens, cui Tra.lita efi omnis Toteftas m caIo ^ in Term. Et qui dicit,- omnia qu£ Pains funt, mea fimt. Si autem omnia, id ell, Deus ex Deo, Dominus ex Do- mino, lumen de lumine^ ergo & ex omn'ipotente omnipotens : Ne- que enim fieri porcil ut quorum una natuia e2, diveria lit p"!oria, Hleron. in ZaJj. Tom. 3. p. 17 iS. G a tH 44 -^ Second Defense Qu. II. thsr Himfelf was not incarnatey was not Chr/Jl; for then whom could Chrift be fubjeB to, but to Him- felf^. Which is abfurd. This I take to be the Senfe of Hlppolyms^ and his full Senfe; his Argument re- quiring no more : Bei^des that, it is not confident with Hippolyius's other Writings, to make the Son, in his higheft Capacity, fubjeci to the Father, and under his Domimort, For, not to mention that Hip' foljtMs in This very Tract, plainly teaches that the Son is of the fame Subftance with the Father, and one God with Him, |as fliall be fhewn more fully hereafter,) he concludes his Treatife with afcribing Glory and DorrJmon to the Son 7vith the Father and the Holy Ghoft, Now, it would be very abfurd thus to join Sovereign and SubjeEi together, afcribing the fame Glory and Dominion to Both ^ . And in the Words going before, fpeaking of Chrifl, he fays, fie being God-, became Man for our Sai^s^ to whom the- Father fubjecled all Things^ . Which ihews that all his Dijcourfe before, relating to the Subjeciion of Things to the Son, and of the Son to the Father, is after his Incarnation ; and is to be undcrftood of the ^fcstvSp^-tJTT©-, the God-Jkan ; who, as God, h^id all Things under Him ', as Man, was Himfelf under the Father. To confirm v/hich, we may obferve that Hippolyttis interprets Chrift's praying to the Father, as being done or^ovojLLixcis. Ihefe are his Words : Chrifl made all theje Prajers (economically^ as Man, being Himfelf very God'^ . Does This look as if Hip' polytus believed God the Father to have fovereign Do- minion over Chriil, in his higheft Capacity \ Might not any Sabje^l of God have prayed to God, as fuch ? Hip':>ol. p. 20. KUT^o. Ibid. u\-A^iy'oq. AAA' a^ (pB-oi7Zi<; sitov, i) f/jop^ph toZ o'ov?^is v^v rxvTsc ^synTZC y.cfA 7:uj^\i. i^O that the DoEtrim which I alledge This Text ('Rom. ix. 5.) to prove, is a Contradiclion to the v^hok Stream of Antic^uitj. And here again you quote HipVoljtHS (iX'it fpHrioHS o^nd interpolated HippoljiHs^ accor- ding to youj as a juft Interpreter of the Antients. It feems, you are willing to admit him, when he fays Any Thing that looks for your Purpofe. The Words you chiefly value are TravTDx^Ttt'/) ro^^ 7raTpo$ ks^'h^ixS'ji %d;(9i>5. Chrifi was con flit med Ruler over all by the Father. On Occafion whereof, let me obferve a Thing to you which you are not aware of; that tho* the Antients fcrupled not to lay, that Chrifl was conflituted by the Father, Rnlery or Lord, or even Creator, (according to Prov. viiij or Any Thing coming under the Notion of Office, (the Father being ever looked upon as Firft'm Or- der, and in virtue thereof, die Fountain of every Office^ according to his own voluntary Appointment^ yet you will never find it faid by the Antients, that The Fa- ther conJiitHted Chrift a God, or appointed Him to be God. Which Obfervarion is highly deferving your fpecial Notice ; as it may difcover to you a funda-? mental Flaw in your Hjpothefis, and may fhew that you have took a great deal of Pains w^ith theAnrients, upon a very wrong View, and (give me leave to add) to very little Purpole. Had you found ever an antient Tef- timony, declaring that Chrift was conftituted God over all, you would have done fomething : The reft are impertinent, and come not up to your Point, TThe Word God was never looked upon as a Word /of Offlcey or Dominion, but of Nature and Stih;iance : And hence it is, that the Antients never (peak of Chrift's being conflituted God. One Ufe indeed you may make of your Obfervation from Hippolytus, tha; 7ravTo;t^T6)/)5 tho' it be often in the LXX the ren- dring of n'Nli: n^H^ Lord of Ho (is, yet the Fa-r thcrs fometimes ufed it in a lower Senfe, fuch as comes not up to the Strength of the Hebrew: And therefore I readily acknowledge -to you, that fuch Paflages 46 A Second Defense Qu. II, PafTages of the Fathers as ftile Chrifl TntyTDK^Ttip^ are not pertinently alleged to prove Him to be the Jehovah in the flrid Senfe of that Name, according to Thofe Fathers. But enough of This. Upon the whole, it may appear that you have not been able to takeoff the Force of Rom. ix. 5. PhiL ii. 6. My Argument from This Text runs thus. He that was in the Form cf God, that is, naturally Son of God, zwd God^ and as fuch e^ual with God" , is God in the fame high Senfe as the Father Himfelf is ; and fince God is one, the fame God. To This you only reply, (p, 14.} that nothing can be more direElly againfl me, than This Text, Wliich decretory Sentence, void of all Proof, and coming from a Man fallible as my feif, deferves no far- ther Notice. You have a great deal more npon This Text, from/7. 50. to p. 6^, but put together in fo con- f ufed a Manner, with a Mixture of foreign Matters, that I ill all not fpend Tim.e in purfuing you ; but refer the Reader to my fifth Sermon upon this very Text : Where all that you have material is already anfwered, or obviated. Your incidental Pleas and Pretences re- lating to Novatian, and other Antients, will be an- iv/ered in their Place. I proceed to another Text. Heb, i. 3. •^ My Argument here is, that He who is the Bright- vejs of his Father's Glory, and the exprefs Image of his Perfon^ cannot reafonably be fuppofed to be excluded among the nominal Gods. But if he be not excluded. He is included in the one fnpreme God, Therefore, ere. Now, in Page the fourteenth, you are content only to fay, which I can as eafily gainfay, that This Text is direcily againfi me. But you refume it again,;?. <^5. out of Method ; and thither I muft attend you. n S^i my fifh Sermon. Th^re Qu. II. tffome QV E R I E S. 47 There you talk much of Bj his Son, and By whom, and of the Father's being his God : Which kind of Reasoning I have fufficicntly anfwercd above. But you add, that the Itnage of the ons fupreme God cannot he Him/elf That one jptpreme God. whofe Image He is. But what mean you by the Words 71?^^ fnpreme God I Plainly, That fupreme Father, jvho is God : And thus I readily allow, that He cannot be Himfelf That very Per^ Jon whofe exprefs Image He is. But why do you thus perpetually quibble wuh the Phrafe That fupreme God ; as if there were two Gods, This and That^ and making the fupreme God a Name for one Berfon only ? This, you mud be lenfible, is taking the main Point for j^ranted ; and poorly beggmg of the Qiieftion : Which is a Thing beneath the Chara :ter of an able Difputant. To proceed: I had been prefs'd with a PalTage of Eufebius^ relating to This Text ; and I returned a clear and full Ajifwer to it in my Defenfe^ p. i8, ip. You bring another Paf- fage out of Eufebius^ in his Demo^firatia Evang, tho' you know that even Bifhop Bull^ who orherw^ife is a Defender of Enfehlus, yet makes no Account of what he wrote before the Nicene Council : As neither do r. I fhall not therefore give my felf the Trouble of attending you, as often as you fill your Margin with That Author. 1 had (aid however, what was true, in relation to the PalTage brought againft me before ; that by Juo ar^xf , Eufchius might mean no more than what Pierius, Methodius, Alexa-zider^ and Tertullian^ meant by the like ExprcOTions ; that' is, two Perfons. To which you reply, (p. 6%.) that I, h) adding what the Antient Writers confiantly difcLiim^ ed, (viz. an Equality of fupreme Authority in the Two Perfons) do neceffarily make^ 7vhat They never did. Two fupreme Gods, however inleparable or undivided, .^s to their Subfrance. But you are under a double Midake; firft, in imagining that the jjntients did not acknowledge an Equality of fupreme Authority as much as I do ; and uext, in fancying that Thev and I (for 4^ y^ Second Defense Qii. II. (for the Charge affeifls Both, or neither) thereby make two jupreme Gods. The jintientSy and I con- formable thereto, always fuppofe a Headflftp^ or Pri^ ority of Order of the Father, referring his confub" fi^intid Son to Him as his Head, And This Origin^" tion in the divine Paternity (as Biiliop Pear fin fpeaks" ) hath antientlj been looked upon as the u4jfertion of the Unity •• And therefore the Son and Holy Gho(t have been believed to be but one God with the Father ; (^N. B.) becanfe Both from the Father » who is one, a-ad Jo the Union of them. If you ask how the Authority y or Dommion^ (^for fo I underftand you here, and not as Authority fometimes fignifies Paternity^ and Aucior is Pater },) I fay, if you ask how it can be fupreme in Both, if it be original here, and derivative there ; I anfwer, becaufe it is the fame in Both, only exifting in a different Manner : Neither are there two Domi^ fjions or t7Vo Sovereignties ^ any more than Two Ef* fences -i Subflances, or Gods, The Que (lion, from whence the Son's Dominion is, is one Point, and ho7if greaty or how highy is quite Another, if you ask from 7phence the Son's Dominion is, I fay from the Fa^ ther, as his EJfence alfo is : If you ask from whence the Father's Dominion is, I fay, from none^ as J fay aU fo of his EJfence, But if you ask mie, ii^hat, or how great, or how high; I fay equals in Both, and indeed one o Pearfon on the Creed, p. 40. 'i>UT.q 3 TcTt, 7£/.iri /i^iXy ^05* t¥&)Jl', i) 0 iFOL^^i l\ i , t^ TTpoq OV, «* recyiTXf Tec liv,c. o-j^ a; ;ire autem, Unitatis xqualitatilquc Com- munio. Fulgent, ad Mon'im. /. 2. f. 1 i. />. 37. Tp JEqualem ergo Patri credite Filium, fed tamen de Patre YWlumf Parreni vero non de Filio. Ori^o apud Ilium, eqtialitas apud Ilium. Augitji. Serm. 140, Tom. f. p. 681. Qaod lidixeris, eo ipfo major eft Pater Filio quia ^/^ w?^//, 718. Cum {it gloria^ fempiterniiate, 'virtute. Regno, Por?/?^?^, hoc quod Pater eft ; omnia tamen hxc non fine Auciorey iicut Fater, Deus ex: Patre tanquam Filius, iine initio 6c .i)Aft» etX-Uo^fU' TtfuyfJUAret. ^uoy top yroCTi^ec f^ r *tf «», &C. p. 1 2 . Mtju^u vxTfo^ Kcti *^oZ evaiv — ^etoicc^(i?rBfJbii/o» c^tivif. p. 1 8. To yocp ctTrxu- tUaify sfi» Ud. p. 14. Z 'H 'tfoTTj? xuToZ KXToc ^un* Tvyx.Qctiint t?$ xxrfiiK^q ^oiijTeiy &C. p. 14. T^ KiUTotrnt X9i\ eif^Khf eivT9v 3-«977jt(^. p. 16. <« tfsrf 54 ^ Second Defense Qu. II. <* tnre of God the TVord, by whom the Father made •' all Things out of Nothing* ." I fee nothinif;' in This Pallaee, but what I can hear- tily affent to ; underilanding by Nature, Perfon^ as Alexander Himfelf underilood it ; which l/^defim obferves. One Thing the Rer.der may remark, that the main Principle upon which you and your Friends -' found all your Oppoiition to the Dodrine of a Co- fc^tial and Co-etemd Trinity, is no other than what you have borjowed from the ancient Arians ; and Avhich Alexander, in this Paffage, feverely condemns j namely, that God the Son cannot be God in the Ifridi: and proper Senfc, unlefs He be unorigmate and felf^ ^xififnty as the unhegotten . Father Himfelf; there be- ing, as you conceive, no Medium between Scif-cxif' tcnce^ in the higheft Senfe, and precarious Exiftence : That is, in plain Words, (tho* you love to difguife it) betv/een being mbegotten^ and being a Creature^ And thus we have done with Heh, i. 3. Some Po/?- Nicene Writers I had added, not to mah^ a Shewy as you frowardly and falfeiy fugged: ; but^ as you very well knew, to corred your Wonder^ and your repre- fenting it before as ftrangc^ and new^^ to offer This Text in Proof of Chrifl's Bivinitj, You have not been able, we fee? to invalidate the Force of Thofe few Texts, laid dov/n in This Query, with defign to prove that Chrift is not exclndedy by any Texts of the Old Teftament, or New, from being one God with the Father, but neceffarily in- cluded in the one God Supreme. To thefe I might xr.v ^j/o' cboTv B-oe.77Civ Xiyvjnc, hiv srrt/ ct clTTecihvroi, ^f'^ouK ovruvecu- eXu. it H^ I'vrm sVoiqcrsv 6 TTccT^p, '^' BioZ Xoytf, &c. Alexand. Epift. up. Thcod. 1. 1. c. 4. p. 17, 18. See Bull Scft. 3. c. ^. n. ii. Aniraad. in Gilb. Gierke, p. loij. ^ add Qu. II. cffome qjj E R I E S. $5 add many other Texts, fignifying that the Father Jind Son are one ; that the Son is in ihe Father, and the Father ;« Him ; that He who hath feen one, has thei-ein feen the other alfo ,* that the Son is in the Bojom of th^ Father, and as intimate as Tho^glot to Mind', that allThir.gs which the Father harh are the Sons; and that whatfoever the Father doth, the Son doth Ukewife ; that They are reprefented as oneTem^ 'pie. Rev. xxi. 22. and as \\diV\n^oneTlorone, Rev. xxii. !• and as making one Lights Rev, xxi. 23. Thefe and many other Confiderations, fuggeftcd in Scripture* ferve to confirm and illufttate the fame Thing. But it is now Time to examine your pretended Counter^ Evidence drawn from Scripture: After the Difcuffiori of which, we may come regularly to our Enquiry into the Senfe of Antiquity upon I his Head, You had produced Joh. xvii. 5. i Cor. viii, 6, Eph. iv* 6. which prove that the Father is ftiled, fometimes, the one God, or onlj true God ; and that He is God of the Jews, of Abraham, c^c. 1 asked, how thofe Texts proved that the Son was not I You fay, (p, 16.) very plainly. Let us hear how. You add, Can the Son of the God of Abraham, {Atis iii. i^,) be Himfelf That God of Abraham, who glorified his Son\ But why muft you here talk of That God, as it were in Oppofition to This God, iuppofing two Gods ; that is, fappofing the Thing in Queilion \ If I allow that there is a This God, and a Fhat God, or Tivo Gods; you can prove, it feems, that 77Po Gods are not One God. Ve- ry ingenious ! But if I tell you that 71?;; divine Per^ fin is not That divine Perfon, and yet Both are one God; the Qiiibble is anfwered. You are very often at this kind of Play : And therefore it may be here proper to fay fomething more to it. Let us make Trial of the like Argumentation in another Cafe. Ic is the Dodor's Principle, as hath been obfcrved, that the divine Subftance is infinitely extended, and yet the jame Suhflance, every where. Let us now argue much after the fame Manner as you do againft me; 56 ^ Second Defense Qo. II. This divine Sahftance here on Earth is not That divine SubjLmce which fills Heaven: For This and That can- not be the Same, it is but repeating the Argument, and one may prove that the Divine Bemg, according to the Dodor, coxififts of an infinite Number of different Sfth fiances^ no two Parts whatever being the fame Suh^ fiance. Such is the Force of your Logick, by the Help of This, and That. But if the Dodor, on the other Hand, can allow that the Subftance may be the fame^ where there is a Di.iinction of This and That ; then give us leave to take the Benefit of the Dodor*s own Principles ; and to conclude in the prefent Cafe, that Father and Son may be one Subfiance^ one Being, or one God, notwithilanding the Diftindion of Tiois Perfon, and That Perfon. Having once fully anfwered your Quibble, you will not, I hope, exped that I fhould do it again and again, as often as you get into this trifling Way. It will be fufficient, juft to hint to the Reader, that you are again playing, as ufual, with This, and That ; and (o to difmifs it. Now let us pro- ceed. You ask farther, upon u4dis iii. 13. Can the one Sfipreme God be exalted, or glorified by Another \ In Anfwcr to which I refer you to my fifth Sermon. You add, is it not true, that the Lefs is blejfed of the Greater % But what has Benedi^ion to do with Exaltation, and Glorification ? I am weary of anfwering fuch Things. You come to take off the Aniwer I had made to fuch Texts as flile the Father the only God, &c. I had faid. He was not fo ftiled in Oppofition to the Son,- or to exclude Hira> from being the one God. That is, fay you. The Father, tha" expreifly diftinguiihed, is ft ill both Father and Son. That is your Mi flake : We do not fay, that in thefe, or the like Inflances, Both Perfons are included in the Term Father-, but' that the exclufive Terms, alone, or only, are not to be fo rigorouily interpreted, as to leave no Room fot tacit Exceptions. To make this a little plainer to you* qii. IL cf/hmqVEKlI.S. $? Kev, xix. 12. It is faid of the Son^ He had a Name ^vritten, which s^tiSy no Perfon, knai> bftt Himfdf* This was not faid in Oppofiion to the Father, or as ex- eluding Him from that Knowledge ; For, it is ftill tacitlj fuppofed) that He k^ew as much as the Sons and no Queftion could be made of it. This is not includiyjg Father and Son under the Term Son ; but is /peaking of one only, abftraEling from the Confidera- tion of not excluding the other. I had faid that the Father is primarily^ not exclft/ively, the one true God* You do not underdand primarily : I am forry for it. Firfi in Order, Jirfi in Conception, God unbegotten and proceeding fron^ none, as diftinguifhed from God begotten^ and proceeding. You add, that when one Perfon is in any PKefpeEi declared to be the only, ^c. He mufi needs be fo, excluii vely of all others^ in That Senfe wherein He is declared to be the only, ^c. Otherwije there is no Certainty or \Jk in Language, That is to fay, iince no one k^oiveth the Father, but the Son, the Father muft be excluded from know^ ing in the fame, or in fo high a Senfe: And if no oni knoweth the Things of God but The Spirit, Both Father and Son are excluded from knowing in fo high d Senfe, or in the fame Senfe. And if no one knew the Nar/ie written but the Son Himfelf, Both the Father and the Holj Ghofl muft be excluded from knowing : Other* wife, there is no Certainty or Vfe in Language. And if Chrift be fliled by the primitive Fathers, aS He often is, (fee my Sermons, p. 141.) the only Jndge^ the only Lord, the only God, the only Kir.g; the Father muft be excluded from being Judge, Lord, King, or God, in fuch a Senfe as Thofe Authors intended of God the Son : Otherwife there is no Certainty or Vfk in Language, But I think, the \J(q of Language, and Cuftom of Speech, in all Authors I have met with, has gone upon This Rule, or Maxim, that ex^ clujive Terms are always to be underftood in Oppofi^ tion only to what They are oppofed to, and not in Oppofnim to what They are mt oppofed to : And there I is 58 u^ Second Defense Qu. II. is both Vfe and Certainty enough in Language^ in This Way, fo long as Men are blefTed with any tolerable Share of common Senfe, and are but capable of under- ftanding the Dciign, Drift, or Purport of any Speaker, or Writer. I iee where your Confulion lies: And if you will bear a while wirh me, I will endeavoiu* to , help you out of it. I confiderthe Matter thus : The God of IJrael (be it Father, or Son, or Both, or the whole Trinity,) is fiilcd the one God, God in the ftrid, and er^phatical Scnfe of the Word God^ in Oppofition to Creature-Gods ; which are none of them Gods in the fame Senfe of the Word God. Here, you will obferve that I lay the Emphajts upon the Senle of the Word God: And in This very higheji and moil emphatical Senfe of the Word, I fuppofe as well Son and Holy Ghoft, as the Father, to be God. A^ain the Father may be emphatically fliled the only God-, becaufe of his emphatical Manner of exift- ing. Here I lay the whole Emphafis upon the Man^ ner of exifiing^ exifting from none. Either Son, or Holy Gholl:, is God in the very higheft Senfe^ in the fame Senfe of the Word Goi, but not in the fame emphatical AUnner, If therefore the Emphafis be laid upon the Senfe of the Word God> every Perfon of the Three is emphatically God^ in OppoGtion to Crea- Mare-Gods : But if xht Emphafis be laid upon the Man^ \ner of exifling, the Father only is God in That em- phatical Manner, and for that very Reafon is mod frequently filled, in Scripture and Anticjuity too, the only God. 1 perceive, you do not di'linguiih between being God in a different Senfe of the Word God^ and being God in a different M annex '^ tho' in the fame Senfe of the Word : And hence arifes your Perplexity upon This Head. I will give you one Example, out of many, v/liich may help to illuftrate the Cafe. The Father is Spirit^ and the Son is Spirit ; but yet the ^tJoly Ghofi is emphatically the Spirit, ' Not that He is ' Spirit in any hi^hcry or any different Senfe of the Word Spirit y Qu. IL of feme QU E R I E S. ^-9 Spirit I But Upon other Accounts, the Name of Spi- rit is emphatically and more peculiarly attributed to Him. In hke Manner, the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy GhofI: God j yet the Father is emphatically the one God, Not that He is God in any higher^ or any different Senfe of the Word God: But upon other Accounts, ('either as Wq h firji known, or as being moR- univcrjally acknowledged"^, or chiefly as being Firft Per Jon t, and Head of the other two,^ the Name of God-, or only God., has been emphatically and more peculiarly appropriated to Him. Thefs Things being cleared, and fet right, let us now pafs on. What you have, p, 27, 28. about the Son's be- ing fent^ coniidered even in his divine Nature, I rea- dily admit, a^id never doubted of. Neither do I dif- pute but that He that fends^ is for That very Reafon greater than Him that is fent ; greater in refped: of Of- fice voluntarily entred into; and greater in refped of natural Order of Priority, which made it proper for one to fubmit to the inferior Office rather than the other. And therefore I have not fcrupled, after CV- prian, Novatian, Athanajiusy Bajil, and others, in my Sermons ^^5 to admit that the Son is greater than * Quin & illud obfervatione dignum eft, Judaeos per idtempus, uteranc rudes &: occcxcati j /o///w D.'«w agnoviile c^u^mPatrem fuum cfle Chriilus docuerat — idcirco foh, viii. fie illos Chriflus alio- quirur: Eft Tatermens. qui glorificat me^ quern vos dicitis qua Deus vefier ejiy ^ non cognovijiis eum. Itaquede Hoc ipfoDeo, qaem Ju- dsei animo Capiebant, necnon Judaizantes Haerctici plerique, ad quos dedocendos, vel refutandos y(?/AT««p; ifta fcribebat, loqui ficneceile habuit ut diceret verbum erat Tf;>'!;T6i'^ov, Hoc eftapud ///«»? Dp«ot, quem vos O Judaei ScHsereticI, folum noviftis. Vetav, Dogm, TheoL Tom.y.Parti.p.'^^ZyL i6. c.4.. f Salvo culm Filio, retle unicum Demn poteftdeterminafle, cujus eft Fiiius. Non enirn delink clTe qui liabet Filium ipfe unicus, ilio icilicet nomine, quoticns line Filio nominatur. Sine Filio autem norainatur cura/>r;/;a/';j///'^rdeterminatui' ut prima perfona, c^ux ante Filii nomen erat proponenda, quia pater ante cognofcitur, & poll patrem fiiius nominatur. Tertul. contr. Fr.uw c. iS, *^ Sermon 6. p. 19 i. to '^ Second Defense Qu.II. the Holy Ghofi ; of which, if you pleafe, fee a full and brief Account, in a Book refer'd to in the Margin ^. Your Teflimonies therefore upon That Head, might have been fpared, ss containing nothing con- tradic5loi-y to me : Unlcfs perhaps Ej^fehins^ or the Council of Sirm'mm ^neither of which are of any great Authority with me^ might ftrain the Notion rather too far ; as it is certain you do. You go on to I Cor, viii. 6y where you fay the Son is in the moft exprefs Words excluded. Excluded from being one Cod with the Father \ Where ? Shew me the exyrejs V/ords if you can. I fay, the Father is there emphatically fliled the one God; and the Rea- fon of it is intimated, becaufe of Him are all Things ; whereas in rcipcd of the Son, they are only by Htm : Which fhews a Difference of Order betwixt Them, in exifcing, and operating. And this is all you can make of i Cor, viii. 6. However, as all Things are by the Sor2y as well as of the Father ; it appears from That very Palfage, that They are Both one Crea- tor, one Joint-Caufe of all Things. But of This Text I have faid more in my Sermons-\, You won- der / jloould not fee in i Cor. viii. 6. that if the one Lord is included in the one God, (there fpokcn of you Ihould have added,) the -whole Reafoning of the u4poJlle is qmte taken away. But it is cafy to anfwer, that cne God there is taken perfonally : And fo I do not pre- tend that it there ftands both for Father and Son, but for Father only ; as one Lord is alfo taken there perfonally for the Son only. Neverthelefs, the giving the Name fometimcs to one fingly, is no Argument that the fame Name may not alfo juflly belong to Both together. On the contrary, it is certain, that if Both are joined in the fame one common Godheady ^ Leo AUatius his Notes upon Methodius, p. 102, «2? Fabricius'/ fecond Volume of Hippolytus. "' ■ t Serm. 2. p. 49. j-.}.. either Qu.II. offome Q^UERIES. 6i eiiher of them fingly has a Right to be called the oneGod* not excluding the other from the fame Right. What you add about SahdiUnifm^ I pafs over here as foreign. Your Quotation from Bp. Pear/on is fhamefuUy abufing your Reader, while you conceal what would have fhewn that the Bp.'s Notion was diametrically oppofite to yours. I have ftt down his Words above f. As loOrigens Way of folving the Vnitp it will be feen hereaTter to be dire(5^1y contra- ry to yours ; as are alfo the Antc-nkene Fathers in ge- neral, as will be feen prefently. Eufebins I reckon not with the Ante-nkenes ; unlefs you'll take in Athanafim too, who has Two I'reatifes written before any Books now extant of Etijebins, What I had faid of Nova" tian, flood corrected in my two later Editions of my Defenfe, which you might have been fo fair as to look into. I fay, if Novatian did not mean that Chrift was God in the fame Senfe with the Father, and onlf God as well as the Father, it will be hard to make out the Senfe or Connexion of his Inference^ from John xvii. 3. His Reafoning is plainly This'; that when our Lord faid, They might know Thee the only true Gody and Jcfas Chri[i -whom thou haft jent, his joining Ffimfelf to the Father in that Manner, fhews that He mufl: be God alfo. The Strength of his Ar- gument lies only in the Conjundion And: There are but two Conftrudions of it ; either thus, know Thee, Md alfo know Jefus Chrifl, (according to which there is nothing like an Argument, at leafl not according * Si noluilTet fe etiam Deum intelligi, cur addidit, Sc quem mi- fifti Jefum Chriftum, nifi quoniam 8c Deum accipi voluit: quoni- am ii fe Bemn nollet intelligi, addidiffet, & quem mifiili Hominera Jefum Chriftum i nunc aurem neque addidir, nee fe Homincm nobis tantummodoChriftus tradidit, fed Deo junxit, ut 8c Deum, per hanc conjundionem, ficuc eft, intelligi vellet. Eft ergo credendum in Dominum, unum verum deum, 8c in eum quem milir Jefum Chrif- tum confequenter: qui fe nequaquam patri, ut diximus, junxiflec aili Deum quoque intelligi vellet. Novaf. c. 14. !9 iSz 'A Second Defense Qu.IL to NovattAn) or elfe thus, Thee the only true God, md alfo Jefus Chrift. Thus indeed the Text does afford an Argument of Chrifl's being God-y and only Cod too. For it comes to This, that the Father, 4wd alfo Chrift, is the only true God. And thus Am^ brofe"^ reafons upon that Text, much after the fame Way with Novatian: As alfo do Athanafms\^ and Ah^ ft'm **. Wherefore I do not fee that I have at all mifrepre Tented the Scnfe of Novatian, What you farther pretend from other Parts of his Treatife, is by no means made out: All being eafily reconciled upon the Foot of the Son's Suboraination as a Son, or his vokiurary Condcjanfions-, without the leaft Diminution of his fupreme Authority, naturally and effentially adhering to Him. But Novatian Ihall be more di- ftindly and accurately confidered in the Sequel. You tell me^ fag. ^6. that the Nicene Creed profefTes the Father to be the one God-, as if any one queftion'd it, or thought it of any Weight in the Controverfy ! Do not I alfo profefs the fame Thing? You add farther, that even the Pofl-Nicene Writers refer'd the Title of o fiov!^ olAj^S.vJ^ ©gi$, the only true God., to the Father only (which is a Mif- tak'ettO ^^^^ what if They did ^. Then They referved Jome * Ut cognofcunt Te foliim 'vertim Deum, &> quern mi/ijii Jefum Chrijium; conjundtione ilia Patrem utique copulavit & Filium, ut Chriftjmverum Deuma rnajcftatePatris nemo fecernat: Nunquarn ^nim conjundlio Icparat. Ambr. de ltd. I. j*. c. i. Compare Hi- lary, p. 8 if. f Athanaf Orat. 3. p. ffS. ** Et quemtn'ijifti J-nfumChrlJlum. Subaudiendum eft, «««»; 've- rum Veum, &c ordo verborum eft, ut te 0> quern mijifii Jefunf^ Chrjjium cognofcant unum vtrutn Deum. Auguft. de Trin.l.d.c.p. p. 849. Pc^avius n-marks, tbat NovatianV mas the fame mth St. AuftinV. Petav. deTrin. 1. 2. c.4. ft I thh.k it not worth rph'de to fearch particularly for a Thing of lit- tle ornolVc'iglt, But [o far as I remember, the Title e/ only true God, ^s very often ai'^iied by the Poll-niceiic Writers to all the Ferfons together: j th»* Qii. IL offome QUERIES. 6i fome peculiar Titles to the Father, by Way of Emi^ nencjy to diftinguifh the firft Pcrfon of the Godhead: And That is all. And if the Pofi-nicene Writers, notwithllanding their referving fome peculiar and emi- nent Titles to the Father, yet believed all the three Perfons to be the one God ; why ihould the refer ving of the fame, or like Titles to the Father, among the uime-nkenesy be made any Argument -againfl: their having the fame Faith with Thofe that came after ? What you fay of Epiphamtis, (p, 3 7. j that He under- flood the Words t .ty©^ f/Jv^ ^o? iA-,5.9>}', ^10 xxi /.igvoysyvj? ^lu ri fj^y!^ £iv:^ Jioc ac 0 TiuTy,^. Athinaf! in Pial. Nov. Collect, p. 83. Efl: ergo folus o^ verus Dens Filius, Hxc enini cc Filio prseroga- tivadcfertur. Ambrof. de Fiii.l.^. c. i.p. SS^- As to thetVant of the Article, it is of no Moment, fiace the Words rpithout the Article are as full and exprejji-ue of the Catholifk Senfe of the Son's Divinity, as pofjiolc. * See the ^Uces refer' d to iSQvm^n ^ p. 2 ir, th«rs 6^ ^ Second Defense Qu. II* thors his Contemporaries. But it is as wild a Con^ feqiience as ever was drawn, that becaufe Epiphanitii did not infift upon This Text, where he had Occa- iion, therefore all the other Fathers, (tho' we have their own Words to vouch the contrary^ underRood that place of God the Father, Mr. Mloiflon^ whofe Zeal fometimes tranfports him, yet did not care to come up to your Lengths in This Matter; being con- tent only to fay, that Epiphamus was mterlj a Stranger to the Athanafian Expolition* : Which perhaps may be very true ; and to the Arian Expoiition alfo. For I will frankly own, I am inclinable to fufped:, that Epiphanitis made ufe of fome faulty Copy which had not the word 0icj^) but iAvjS'ivos only ; tho* I have not obfcrved that any other Greeks Writer had any fuch faulty Copy. But it is certain, that fome La- tms read. Hie eft V'erm-i & Vita aterna, Hillary f for one : and probably Eau^iinus, tho' the prefent Editions have Beus : And there is a Lasln Treatife among ahe fuppofititious pieces ascribed to Athana- fm'^'*', which reads the Text the fame Way. The Author, probably, Idatitts LemicenJtSy about the Year 458- You have fomething more to fay on i Cor, viii. 6. in Page 1 8. But, I think, I need not add Any thing to what I have before fiid, referring alfo to my Sermons, The next Text v/e are to confider is Eph. iv. 6^ One God and Father of all^ who is above ally and through ally And in yon all : A palfage, which, I faid^ had by the AntientSy been generally under flood of the whole Trinity. Upon which you fay, a Man mtifl have a flrange Opinion of the Amients, who cm thinly fo. Your Keafon is, becaufe He is there diftin- guifhed from the one Spirity and the only Lord, And * Whiflon'i Reply to lo^^ Nottingham, p. 35-. Append. p.47. f Milarius, p. 90S. Ed. Bcned. ** Arlunaiii Opera Suppof. p. 608. Ed. Bcned. what Qu. ir. (^ffome QV E R I E S. 6; what if the one Lord^ and one Spirit be there firfl diftindly nanried, I fee no Abfiirdity in afterwaids mentioning and fumming up the three Perfons in the cne God, under a threefold Con (i deration of above ally through ally and in all. But we are not now inquir- ing into the Senfe of the Text, but into the Senti- ments of the Anticnts upon ir, whofe Tedimonies I have now given in one view in the Margin '^. As to Irenaus^ you deny that He underftands the Text of the Trinity ; referring to Dr. Clarke's Reply to Mr. Neljonj />. 7 1 . In return for which I refer to True Scripture Ddchrine continued, p. 6jy 103. Nor is there any Thing more abiurd in this Conftruclion of Irenaus^ than there is in his often reckoning the Son and Holy Ghoft to the Father, as being his very Self in a qualified Senfe. Indeed, nothing is more com- mon than for the Head of a Family, fuppofe Abra- ham, to be underflood in a ftrider or larger Senfe ; either as denoting his own proper Perfon, or as de- iioting Himfelf and all his D^fcendents confidered as contained in Him, and reckon'd to Him. There is therefore nothing ftrangc or abfurd in it, if the An* "^ Unus Deus Pater oltcnditur, c]m c{}: fuper omnia, (3^peromri';a^ O" in omnibus. Super omnia quidem ?ater, & ipfe eft cipu*- Cliri- fli-. per omnia autcm Verbum, £c ipfc eft Caput Ecclelix : in om- nibus auiem ^oh'xs Spirit us, 8cc. Iren. p. 31-r. V^p XfAiC/'ft)'/ 7T»T)!p, 0 ^l WTTW^aaV 'ij:^: TO Oi (WV'c'n/^OV OfyiOV TTViZy^. 'O uv TTjtr/jp «Vi TTUv-n^t, e ■j 'vfcq 2jJ> '^ru-Tt.v, to -^ liytiv TTViZi^^ iv TTiinv^ ^AA&J? TT iVCt biiiV VOUuItZ^ f/jVi ^VVUlJtjij7X.y I'UV fJbr, OVTCrJ<; '^Tztrpi kJ 'tjSf, Hep i/.'/'.a 7:^i6(A^T> Tn^vjzoi/jiv, Kippol. contr. Ncet. p. 16. Ei; S-ffl? iv ry, iKyL^r.noc. Ki-e'jTisrcif^ 0 iTTi ':Tik-Tav, yJr-4 ^^a. Truvra.'*, iict rS Ac'/y, iv ^oir. -j h ttS r^vivfJi^Ti n^ dyio). Atbanaf. p. 676. Diveriitas autcm prsepolitionum, in quibus dicitur: iir.us Deus, (°r Pater oinnmm, qui fuper cmncs, o^ per cmnes, & in ommbii:, diverfam intclii gem iam lapit. Super omnes cnim eft Deus Vater, quia Auilem vitamy ipfa Trinitas intelligitur unus Dominus Deus noller, Augufl, Ep'jh 10. ad. Max. p, 609, You yo ^ Second Defense Qu. II. Youare often puzling your Reader, and your kU\ upon a very abftrufe and inii icate Queition ; whether Any Thing, or What, can make two Perions or more one God. The Short of the Caie is This; the Chriftian Churches have collected from Scripture^ that Three Perfons are one God: And beheving the Thing to he Fa5iy They have, according to the bett of their Judgment, rcTolv'd the V- nity into Coniubjiamiditj, Injcpcirabiiltj'^ and Unity of On- gination ; finding, (or at ieaft believing that They had Tound) that Scnptfire had alio l^gnifled the three Things now mcntion'd. This Account appears as probable as any; neither perhaps can human Wit invent any thing beyond it. But ftill it mull; be faid, thathttle depends upon Mating the Manner how the three Perfons are conceived to be one God: The FaFt is the one material Point. If Scrip- ture really niakes them exprefly, or by necelTary Con- iequence, one God; I knov/ not what Men have to do to ditpute about Intelligent Agents^ and Identical Lives^ Crc, as if they underitood better, than God himfelf docs, what one God is; or as if Philojophy were to di- red what fhall, or fhall not be Tritheijm, Jews and Pagans, and Heretics of feveral Denominations, have often charged the Chriflian and Catholic Dodrine of the Trinity with Tritheifm, The Fathers of the Church have as confianrly denied the Charge ; giving fuch Keafons as I have mentioned, why it is nor, and therefore fhould not be called, Tritheiji^^, One general Pveafon might have fufficed for all, viz.. Thar the Vnity of the Trinity is too {\.x\6t and clofe, to admit of the Name, or Notion of Tritheifm, This is ending the Difpute at once, without farther In- quiry into the Nature of Tli^i Vnity ; unlefs the Ad- verfary can fhew (which is impoffible) that no Vnity whatever, can be fufhcient to make more Perfons than one, one Bcinj, one Sub!}ance^ one God. If we are to build our Faith on Scripture, fuch an Vnity there may Ue, becaufe there really is. Philofopbjy falfely fo called, may reclaim againft it ; but having no certain Prinr* ciple Qu. IL of fomc (QUERIES. 71 ciple of Reafon to go upon, no Rule whereby to judge, whether the one God be one Perfon or more ; it is evident, that this Point muft at length be deter- min'd by Scripture alone; And that muft be the true Vnity of the Godhead, which Scripture (according to its moft reafonable, and natural Conftrudion^ has given us for fuch. But it is hii^h Time now to come to Ant '& qmtj ; which has been fo long ftavcd off, and yet muft make a great part of our Difcourie under this Qiiery. I fliaped out my Method into four Particulars, which may be feen above. I. The firft Particular is, that the Antients have ia accounting for the Texts relating to the Vnity j declared their Judgment, that Idols only, or other Gods are thereby excludedi and not God the Son, I cited IrcnAHs for this Parpofe, where he fays, that the holy Scriptures declare, that the done God, ex- cluding other s-i made all things by his Word^. That is, other Gods are excluded, not God the Son, who is not another God, according to frenaus; as we fhall iee under the next Article. I obferved farther, that The Son and Holy-Ghoft, are the very filf of the Fa- ther, according to Iremas ; as the Father is alfo the fi/f t of Them : Wherefore it can never be imagi- ned that either of thsm is excluded from the one God. Let us go on to Clemens of Alexandria^ who fre- quently teaches the fame Thing. He lays, that the * UnlvcrflTC Scripturie> unum Sc folam Deum, ad exclu- dendos alios, proedicent omnia fecilTeper vsrbum luum, O'C. Ircn.- L. 1. c. 7. p. Iff, f Si enim exiileas in Patre, cogaofcit Hunc in quo eH:, Hoc eft /c/netitfurn, non ignorer. Iren. p. 159. Fecit ea per femetipfum. Hoc eft per Vsrbum ^Sap'ientiam ftiam, p. 165. Fecit ca per fe7nefpf:im: Hoc eft ^qt Verlf'tm ^ Sapien^iam {uam. Adeft enim ei Temper Verhum 6c Sapieatia, Filius & Spriius, per c^uos 5^ laquibus omnia Ubere2> fponre fecit, p. 1/5 . F/ithtr fi A Second Defense Qu. It Father of all Things is alone perfecl y immediately ad* ding, FoTi in him is the Son^ and in the Son th^ Father'*', This Writer could never believe, that the exdtifive Terms were intended in Oppofition to God the Son. In another Place, He fays. He that is the alone God, is alfo the alone pft : And foon after , adds, that He, (the FatherJ confidered as Father, is call'd \j7tfat only which He is, good; hut as the Son^ who is his Word, is in the Father y He is filled jafi, on ac-^ count of the mutual Relation to each other f. A few Pages lower. He obferves that no one is good, but the Father 'y adding prelently after, that the God of the Vniverfe is one only, good, juft^ Creator^ the Son in the Father, to whom be Glory , &c. "^^ What a Stranger muil: Clemens \\^v^ been to your ;?o^'^/ Divinity, where- by you would exclude the Son from being one God with the Father ? Tertullians Dodrine in This Point is very well known, and that he exprefly interprets the exclujive Terms in Oppofition to Idols only, or falfe Gods, or other Gods ; not to God the Son, who is not another God tf. And fo now I may come to the Proof of my fecond Article. 2. That the ^ntients always declared againfl: ad- mitting another God, and denied conftantly that tlW Son was another God. yetp h 'y'C,, v^ oi> t'A 'ijM 6 TmTy.p. Clem. Alex. p. 129. Uiiv TTury,^ voii'rtt*, kycffo'^ aiv ccutv f/j^vov 0 i^j x-noXi^rcij oiyxB-oc^ xx^o j 'ij'S?, ejj 0 A070; ccuT^f tv tZ ttutq^ iet off the Charge of worihiping Amthcr God^ befides the Father, by taking both into ond and confidering Both as- one in the Worfliip. Wherefore He concludes, a little after, we therefore worffytp as before Jaid, one God, the Father md the Son. This was Origen s Re- folution of the grand Point in Debate, between Chrif- tians and Pagans, as to the Charge of Poljtheifm ; in anfwer to one of the fliarpeft Adverfaries the Chrif- tians ever had, in a folemn and accurate Treatife, wrote in the Name, and in Defenfe of the Church, ■ >iye,v (iii^?Mciv, iW ^^'^' On'i^. contr. Ce1f. p. 585-. ■j- 'Et UjU H y^rjivoc eiX>,cv i'heuTrsvov oZm '?r?'.ry ivct '^ot, i}v civ tic, uv- Toic. l(rti)i.>.iti taj 70 *% ■i^')c^ tifini^i'-'ov v-^o rev 'tjou §"^00 sv tzS, of^ tya ^ (rl) tv sV /-«-£>• i<<. u* cJ'stb ywoic, ycfj{ a.X>^cv '^iTocTrfjeip r/rsi^x -rev iTri TTu^ B-soK N, B. .After 'oiXXov ?77ufl be underfiood ^'ov : For On^ gen CQuld not pretend to fay, th.it the Chrifl'ians Tvorfhipedno other Per- fbn, befides the Father (wh27i immediately after he owns, that they ■xporfiiped both Father and Son,) but only that They vporfiiped not A- iiother Godi Son and F,ither being one God, as He a If 0 in the fame iHsice expr'fy ajjerts. I may here add a Fajfage out of the A£ts c/Pionius'j Martyrdom i which have the Appearance of being true, and genuine. Polemon (rogat) Qiicm Deum colis? Refpondet ( Afclepiades ) Chriftiirn. Polemon. Qiiid ergo? Ifle Alter cd} Rcfpondit : noni ed Tpfe quern £^ ipfi paulo anie coafefli funt. Rnimrt* Act. Mar* tyr.f. 144. wrote Qii. II. offome QUERIES. ^^ wrote by the Author then above 60 Years old; and (as Criticks now agree^ after He had been admonifhed by Fubian of Rome^ for his Want of Caution at other Times, and therefore was the more Ukely to keep, flridly up to the Senfe of the Church, in an Article efpecially of fo momentous Importance. He did not pretend that a Jubordinate God, purely becaufe fab- ordinate^ would not be Another God, or would not make two Gods : The Pagans, in that filly Way, might have clear'd Themfelves of the Charge of Po- lytheifm ; as Origen well knew. He did not pretend to fay, that the Father only was God, becaufe God in a high Senfe, (which the Pagans could alfo have faid of their one fupreme God, and fo have got clear of Poljtheifm) but he anfwer'd upon rhe true and ftand- ing Principles of the Chriftian Church, that Father and Son were one God, and the Son not another God, This acquitted the Chriftians of Poljtheifm, and left the Charge fixed, and unremoveable, upon the Pagans. We have (een then that the Antients never would own Another Goci, that They conftantly declared againft it ; and even in the particular Cafe of God the Son. It is to the fame Purpofe, that They as con- flantly denied Two Gods, or Three Gods : as m.ay ap- pear from many Teflimonies : Which being well known, I fliall only refer to one or two in the Margin *. Nay, it was a Principle lo fixed and rivetted in the Heart of every pious Chriflian, that They would ra- ther have died than have ever admitted Cjo^x, or Lords; as is plainly intimated by Tertulliani, L z Hitherto AfVf<>' S'^'t'i j ^'^^ i"'^'' ^^^ *f^ S"«if?, oiAA* vj zvcCy T('C(ru7izc a o'vo 8cC. Hipp, contr. Noer. p. 15-. V^id. Epift. S/rod. Antiocli. contr. Sa- niolat. Labbe Tom. i. p. 845-. f Coetcrum fi confcicntia iioftra qua fcimus Dei nomcn 8c Da- mini, 8c Patri, 8c Fiiio, 8c Spiritui San^lo con venire, D^(7^ &■ Doini- nos nominaremusi extinxilTemus faces noHras, etiam ad Martyria timidiorcs. 7(5 >^ Second Defense Qu. II. Hitherto, perhaps you tell me, that you and the uin-, tinits can agree, (that is, in Words) for neither do you aflert Aywther God, Or Another Lord, nor t7vo Oodsy or two Lords, To which I anfwer, that as to Another Lord, you have (aid it in Terms : And by neccffary Confequencc, you afl'ert Another God \ yea, two Gods, and two Lords, Nor have I ever met with a more deplorable Example of Self-contradiclion, and refolute Oj pofition to the mofl evident Truth, than 'your pretending that Father and Son are not two Gods, while you affirm each to be a God, and deny their being both together ofis God. But we will go on with the Antients j who, hke Wife and Honed Men, as tliey would not admit another God, or tii^'o Godsy fo, confidently, with Themfclves. 3. They as conftantly taught, that Father and Son were one God, or the fame God : And thus they fettled That grand Article of the Chriilian Faith. I will fliew This pluinly by clear and cxprefs Evidence, and lliall anfwer your Exceptions to every Writer, as I go along. I have, in feme Mcafure, anticipated my felf upon This Head, in my Scni^ons, and elfewliere : And therefore iliall fometinies content my (elf with Ivefe- r^nces. Let us take the Authors in Order of Time, fixing alfo the Time of their Writing, according to the lateft and befl Accounts. A. D, 145. Justin Martyr. As to Jufiin Aiartjr, I do not here produce Him as one, who, in exprefs Terms, has ever ftiled Father and Son one God. But that he believed the Thing, may be made out tvt^o Ways. i. As he declares tor the Worfhip of God done, at the fame Tim.e admitting the Woriliip of all the three Perfons : Which is tlmidiores, quibus cvadendi quoque pare: ct Occalio, jurantibus fta- tim per Deoi 8c Dom'moSy ut quidam I-li\;rctJci, quorum D/V/'/^r^;. Ten till, contr. Frax. r. i 3 . * -.S"** my Sermons, p. 299, u-cc* implicitely Qu. IL of fome QUERIES. Jy irnplicitely including all the Three in the alone God> ("The Pretence of injrrior Worfhip, fliall be aniwei'd in its Place J 2. As declaring thai God the Son is not ^wther God, befides the Maker of all Things* (that is the Father) as hath been remarked above"*. You have fome Things to obje^l to what I produce from JujJifjy under another Article : And there T lliall conlider Them as I come to them. ^. D» 170. LuciAN, a P^^^^7 Writer. The famous Teftimony out of Lticians Dialogue, infcnbed ^hAoTrcLTf-'^i I produced in my Eighth Sermon f to prove that, at That Time, the Chrif- tians belie v'd Three in one, and one in Three, Father, Son, and Holy-Gliofl:, one God Supreme. It is fo noted a Teflimony that I need not here repeat it. I'here has been fome Doubt, as I intimated in my Sermons, whether Lmian was the Author of the Dia^ logue ; but all agree, that it was either Lttcian Himfelf, or a contemporary, if not a more antient Writer ** ; Which ferves our Purpofe as well. ui. D. 177. Athenagoras* I produced alfo, in my Sermons f-f, this antient and excellent Writer, as a Voucher for the Truth of This Do^rine, that Father and Son are one God. I lliall not repeat what I there faid, or in my De- fenfe, pag. 16. but referring the Reader thither, Ihall proceed to anfwer your Objedions. You be- gin with lelTening the Credit of the Author, (pag.^ 105.) as being /W/ of very obfinre Notions-^ a Cha- rader you would give to any Writer that is fnii of * See my Anfwer to Dr. Whitby, p. 49, Sec, t Sermon 8. p. 503. ** Vid. Bull Def. F. p. 73. Jud. 32. Fabriciu- Bibl. Grsec. lib. 4. c. 16. p. 5-04. and Le Moyne. Varia Sacr, Vol. *, p. 187. tt Sermon eighth ^ />. joi. 7^ 'A Second Defense Qa.IL the Dodrins of a coeternal and confubftantial Trinity. You obje(5l, that He defer ibes Tlois very DoElrine m a "ivay directly condemn d hj Juftin Martyr, and even by Athanafias Himjclj\ for Gnoftick, or Sabellian ; ma." king the Holy Ghofl an Emanation^ like a Ray JJjot forth from te Sun ^ flowing from it, and returning to it. But uithcifdgoras's Doftrine is far from being the fame with That which Juflin condemns. He always fpeaks of the Son and Holy GfooJI as real ^nd perma- Twenty not as the Heretic/^ in Jf^flin did, wiio fup- pofcd Them to be dijjulved, and in a manner ex" linSl"*. And Athe7iagoras did not teach a nominal Diftindion only of the Perfons, but a real Diftinc- tion of Order t; which is diredly oppofite to the Tenets of thofe Hcreticks delcribed in Juftjn. Athe-^ nagoras always fpeaks of the Spirit as united with the Father and the Son : And as He took the Father and Son for real Perfons, He mull: of conlequence think the fame of the Holy Spirit ; fo that there is little or no Reremblance between the Two Notions. Befides that, if you had carefully obfcrved the Paflage on which you ground your Remark, you might have perceived that nothing more is meant, than that the Spirit was fometimes lent to the Prophets-, and again returned to Him that ient Him. As to the Ufe of the word 'Awoppoia, and the Dodrine of EmanatiifYty it was neither fimply approved, nor condemned in .the Chriftian Church, but according as it was un- derftood i juft as 'TrpoQohHy or Prolatio, was condemned by Iren£us and Tertulliany in one Senfe, admitted in * Juftin. M. Dial. pag. 102, 372. Jeb. Athen. p. 28. Tov ^io'j^ atTzc^piov, jc; iTcifx(pisof/vi¥ov aij oiKTiicc itXiiiy pag. 4,0. AwxtyV- ■ms ttv-n.,* KM T^t iv t} ivcoj^' i^-Jrxi^iVj kxI t^v h rv] Tvlli chxi^ia:v, pag^ 40. Vid. pag. 46, c^6, .^nothei: Qu. IL i)f fom Q^U E R I E S. 79 Another: And as the Notion of a Aoy©^ ciJlccSeJo^, or '7rpo;p0(^>cc^, was either approved, or condemned, according to its various Conftmdion and Accepta- tion; as I have remarked in my firft Sermon^, You find fault with my Conilruclion of vo^.c^ 7^' ^ tjoy f 0iW. Tor we underfland, or tacitly include, God's Son djOy in God before fpoken of t- That This is the true meaning, I prove \fi from the Words imme- diately preceeding. Athen^goras having declared, that the ChnlHans could not bQ ^theijls, becaufe They ac- knowledged o^e Gody who had made, adorned, and preferved the Univerfe by his LogoS) or Wordy imme- diately adds, v:^uvf 7S 3^ {\h v ©2»3 referring to the Xoy®^ He had jufl: before mentioned, as contained in God^ that did all things by Him. 2. This Senfe is alfo confirmed by what follows; wh^re He fays. Father and Son are one ; the Son being in the Father^ and the Father in the Sony by the Vnity and Power of the Spirit *'^. 3. The fame Thing is farther proved from Athana- goras's joining (when He is again anfwering the Charge of Atheifm) Father and Son togther : And as before He had the Phrafe of ©acv aly>n^s^ fpeaking of the Father fingly, now He applies the fame Phrafe to Bothff. 4. I farther vindicated This Conftrucflion, in my Defenfiy Cpag- 2<^J hy parallel Expreffions of Athana- Jttis and Tertiillian : Wherefore, I conceive, it may ilill fland. * Sermon i. p3g. S. -j- 'T^ >y. &C. ^ 7TZ(,Tpc<; h \a, ivoTKTt ,y^ oitoci/^c-i ^viwc/^tT®-, pig. 3S. ff 'Ovz ia-f^iv u'^toiy 3"3oy uyovn^ liv ,T6ii;77}i» rclh tcw TravTif, ^ T 9rt6p ccurou Xoyov ^io» not S-£S?. " We are not Athcifls, in as much a.9 we reccii-e the Maker of' «* the World as God, and alfo his ir^ir But ftd :^ Second Defense Qii. Hi Bur, tho* you feem to allow, that Athcmgoras com- prehends Both in one God, yet you Tay, He does not jo comprehend Both in the one God, as that one is as 7nttch the one fupreme God as the other: Which I cannot make Senfe of. Nor does Hcy fay you, anj where Jffppofi the Sony as f-uch, bpit oily the inter nd Keafon of the Father to be cl ic^^@^y eternal. But if Reafon or Wtfdom be only a different Name of the fame Per- ton, the Perfon of the Son, confidered in different Circumftances, and at Different Times (as Billiop Bull has fully demonftrated) then the Son is clVSi©^ according to This Writer. On the contrary^ you fay^ that Athenagoras exprefjly affrms the tinhcgotten God done to he eternal. But the Reading there fhould be' ^v>:%^, with fingle ^ as I fnall fhew hereafter, and in x)Litox\^ unmade, ox nece^ary-exifling God, is conraiii- ed God the Word *. You go on, {p(^g, 1 08.) to charge Athanagoras tvith the ridiculous Notion of the Son's being no thing (before his Generation) but the Father's /'«- ternal Reafon ; that is nothing but an Attribute, I hope, you do not expccL an anf\ver to thefe Pretence?, fo long as Bifnop Bull's Confutation of them ftands untouched. The E'^gHjh Reader may fee v/hat is fufficient on That Head, in my Defenfe f and Ser- mons'^'*'. Billiop Bull, you fay, acknowledges Athe- 'fiagoras meant that the Son is the fame with refpe^i to the Father, as the internal Reason is to the mind of Alen, Biiliop Bull fays no fuch thmg. How fliall \ve truil you in your Reports of the Father s^ when. '"' H;? TBI' /liyoTK iyaTjTPi', xai ;ri3ii» re- xf«rop«6 TCf Tar/^flc, vtiii h r» e 't?oV, Athanaf. Dccret. Syn. Nic. p^g. 136. icyiv.jTcv TToQc, rev \iv ip^et to CT;//>/>«/i/^efl, minimequcperfe cadit infeiifusj Sc /» J7>ente, undo procedit, mnnst, nee ab ea fejungitur, &c. i.«//, pag. zo^* f Sermons, pa^. 5-, Sec. ♦» Dcfciiic, pag. is'7, 2cc. M Worfiip, 82 A Second Defense Qu.1I. Wbrfljipi but afcribes every Thing the Son does to the fi4preme Authority and Wdl of the Father » But where do you learn, that Athenagoras ever excludes the Son from JHpreme Author it j (properly (o called j or from fupreme JVorjhip ? Aihcnagoras indeed is exprefs, that there is a Difference of Order among the Divine Per- ,fons : But where do you find a Difference of Domi- '^^ fiion, or Worfjip^. You could not have chofe an Au- thor more diredly oppofite to your Sentiments, or more favourable to mine, in the very Point of Vo^ minion; on which you are pleafed to lay fo much Strefs. For Athenagoras, addrelling Himlelf to the Emperors Afarcus Antoninus^ and his Son Lucius Comnio^ dus, ffiles them Both equally f^iyiqci ' hu^K^ro^coVy which I might tranflate jupreme Rulers. And He obferves, that all Things were under their com- mon Rule and Dominion * ; and from thence draws his Comparifon for the liluftration of the one common Rule and Government of God the Father, and the Son ; to whom, as being infeparable, all Things are fubjc5r. Is This making the Father a- lone fupreme Governor ? Or is it likely that a Creator and Creature lliould be thus familiar, and rule all Things equally and in common ? Where were your Thoughts ? To be iliort, all that you can pouibly gXtraft out of Aihenagorasy is no more than a Priority }ioyu 'v\cj voisiifjsva oiyjip^fo), tccv^ x^z^roTaraKrc^, pag. 64.. •' Before I enter uponDifcourfc, I befeech you, O yegreateftof *' Emperors, tobearwirh me, while I offer true Reaibnings • *' From your owa Iclvcs you may form a Norion of the Heavenly *• 'Empire. For like as ail things are in fubjedl-ion to you, being *♦ Farh?rand Son (having received your Empiie from above) fo alio " to the one God and to the IVord who is v/ith Him, conlidered as *♦ a Son inf-:-i)arable, are all Things iubjciS." Vide Le Moyne Var. Sacr, *• Net. w^x'fnVHomincm, pag. 311. Qjoniam autem in ventre fUfmat nos Verbum Dei, See, p. 3 1 2 . "• He who made ail Things, He alone with his Word, is juflly *« ftiled God and Lord. " He who was adored as the Living God by the Prophets, He is " The God of the Livings and his Word, who alio fpake to Mofes, «< gcf. — Chrift therefore Himfelr, with the Father, is the *' God of the Living that fpake to Mofes. " For This realbn our Lord minirelled both Himfelf OLnd theF;»- " iher to his Difciples, that They might not look tor any other God " but Him that formed Man -The PVord of God forms uS *' in the Womb, ^c." M I tcn^ 84 ^ Second Defense Qu. II rend your exceptions to the Evidence. To what I had obrerved from Irenam^ in my Defenfe^ (p. ^2. J you fay. The Sen je then of Irena^us according to joUy iSy The one and only God, the Father and Son, made all Things by his Wordy or Son : No; but, if you plcafe to leave off this vein of Cavilling, (which is below the Charader of a grave Writer) the Senfe is not that the Son was included under the Term Father, which undoubtedly there (lands for the Perfon of the Father fingly, (and therefore the Son is excluded from being the Perfon of the Father^ but that He is not excluded from doing what the Father alone is faid to do, or from being God, tho* the Father alone is faid to be fo ; becaufe the excluftve Terms are not intended in oppofhion to God the Son. You are often in^poiing This kind of Sophiftry upon us; wherefore I would once for all endeavour to fhew you the weaknefs and abfurdity of it. When our Saviour told his Difciples that They had left Him aloney He did not mean by This to exchde the Father, but others: Will you therefore fay, that Fa^ thcr and Son Both are meant by the Him left alone I When our Saviour is faid to have a Name given which no one knew but Himfelf, The Father is not exckded by the Term sSt>V will you therefore plead that He is included in the Perfon of the Son, and that Both are one Perfon"^. How ridiculous is it, that you cannot difiinguiih between being not excluded with refped to the Predicate of a Propofition, and being included in the Snl?je5i of it. In This Propo- fition, T^je Father is the only God', we fay the Son is not excluded : How \ Not with refped to the Predi- cate ', not from being only God, as well as the Father, becaufe the exclufive Term affects Him not. But we do not therefore fay that He is included in the StibjeEi of the Proportion ; or that Father means both Father and Son. So much in Anfwer to this Cavil, which had deferved no notice, but for your fo often repeating it. Nov/ to return j you pretend Qu. 11. cffome Q^U E R I E S. 85 it abfurd that All Things lliould be made Bj^ or through the one fupreme God. But you have not fhewn that all Mmifiration is inconilftent with any Sti(remacy, but a Supremacy of Order or Office ; which I admit. What you add from Irenaus, about the Father's commanding the Word, I have anfwer'd in my Sermons "^^ and fliewn it to be, as underftood by the AntientSy diredly oppofite to your Principles, You are next labouring to take off the Force of what I had pleaded in refped: of Iren£U5*s making the Son and Holy Ghoft the Self of the Father. But This was too hard a Task : I will truft the Reader with what you have faid, to compare it with mine ; and to fee if He can make fenfe of your immediate obedience : As if any obedience, mediate, or immediate, were a Reafon lufHcient for fliling the Perfon obeying, ones Self, You refer to Ire^ n£HS t faying, that by the Son and Spirit, (that is, fer femetipjum^ by Himfelf as He fays in the fame Chapter) He made all things freely-, and of his own 7vilL And fo He well might, when The Son and Spirit are fo much his felfy as to have but one and the fame Will with Him. Others might have con* trary WjUs : They could not. You mifconllrue his next immediate Words : He produced, you fay, the Stibjtance of the Creatures from Himfelf, i. e. from his own original under ived Power, But Himfelf means there, the Son and Spirit ; as is plain from exemplum Fa^iorum', ('which you took care to leave out :) God the Son being the exemplar by which Things were * Serra. 2, pag. 72, &c. f Ipfe eft qui per femetipfum conftituir, & elegit, & adornavif, & continet omnia -Adeft enim ei fcmper verbum Sciapientiai Filius & Spirirus per quos, 8c in quibus omnia libereSc fponte Fecit, yb. 4. c. io. p. 25-3. Vid. Bull, D. F. pag. 87. Ad quos & loquitur dicens, Faciamus Hominem ad Imaginetn <^ Stm'ditHdinem nojlram y ipCc a fe met ip/o fubftantiam creaturarum, &. ex- emplum ta£torum,& Figuram in mundq ornamentorum accipiens. Ibid, pag. ij-j. forpied. 86 A Second Defense Qu. II. formed ^. And TertulUan may ferve to explain Irenon Him, and wrought their Redemption fir Them. Uuv-fu aidb^iy iv rvj ;c^4 uutS I'v' ci>(rzip ^i ui^roZ rot ttwtu ysyoi'if, 4f7A»i cv fcuTu TO '^Txvm u.XKCMno^viVoui hr/i^v,. Athaa. Vol. i. pag. 104, * ^M^eh'ms's Accotmt of the fame Thing is not much d jferent. O (A S-jfl? lj'o;i, xctl ■Tnx.oio'la'ii e.ti lz>t?iTiacr:-i, y^\ u. 236. Cornp. p. 18;. " His own Qjf spring, and Figure, tliat is, the Son und Holy -Chc/r, *' The IVord, and IVifdom, to whom ail ijie Angels ate fubjefl, and *' do Obeyrance, Mimjler to Him (the Father) in all Things. 94 -^ Second Defense Qu.IL ' A^ D. 192. Clemens Alexandrin us» I have already produced one plain and exprefs PafTage, wherein Clemens includes the Father and the Son in the only God. He has more to the fame Purpofe, where He fays. Both are one, namely, God * ; and where He addrefTes Both as one Lord f? and the whole Trinity as one ^'^. Which I took Notice of in my eighth Sermon §. You are forced to confefs, (p* 80.) that in Cle^ mens's firfl: Writings, there are Jome [Mime Expref' Jionsy which, if taken liter ally -^ ivould favour either my Notion^ or the Sabellian. A pretty fair ConfeiTion; but it would have been ftill fairer to have faid, ('which is what the Reader muft feej fome ExprefjlonSy too plain and firong to admit of Any Evajion. All you have to fay is, that They are highly Rhetorical i which is faying nothing. You are next to oppofe other PaiTages of Clemens^ to take off their Force. Upon which, I may obferve, by the Way, how difinge- fjuous your Claim to the Antients is, in Comparifon with ours. You think it fufficient if you can but find any Paffages, which look at all favourable to your Scheme, however contradictory ('as you underlland them) to other clear and exprefs Te^imonies of the fame Author. On the other Hand^, we think our felves obliged to reconcile the feemingly oppofite Paffages, and to make an Author confijient with Himfelf : Which if we cannot do, we give Him up as Neu^ ter, and make his Evidence Nh\1\ unlefs there be Reafon to believe, that the Author, upon better Con- fideration, had changed his Mind, or that fome Parts of his Works are more certainly genuine than others. But to proceed, you begin with attempting to deprave, * '^Ei' v'aip ufjb(p&>, 0 9-M5. Clem. Alex. p. 13^. ** Clem. Alex. p. 311. •J- J Sermonsy p. 305-, &c. the Qu. II. tffome Q^U E R I E S. 95 the Senfe of a celebrated Place in CUmenSy which I fhall tranfcribe into the Margin^. In Endijl) it runs thus. " The divine Word, who is molt manifeftly «< true Gody who is equalized with the Lord of the «« Univerfe, becaule He was his Son, and was the <« Word in God:" This is a Paffage very little fa- vourable to your Invention of a fuperior Dominion of the Father, and a Suhje^iion of the Son : For, the Son is here faid to be equali^^edy that is, proclaimed Equal to the Lord of the whole Univerfe. You fay, eqpializ,ed implies an Exaltatiorty a Delegation, err. Ridiculous. Can any Thing, or Perfon, be made equal to God the Father, exalted to a Parity with Him \ But a Perfon may be procUdm'd equal ; which is only fhew- ing what He was before- And Clemens aiTigns two fubftantial Reafons, why the Son was thus proclaimed ; it was his natural and effential Dignity that deman* ded it ; For He was God*s own Son f, of the fame Nature with Him ; and he was the Word that exifted in God ^"^ Himfelf ; moft manifeftly therefore true God, and accordingly equaliz>ed with God, as He had a Right to be. You give us two or three Words of Etifebiusy as exprefling the Senfe of Clemens, But let Clemens fpeak for Himfelf, who is a plainer Man, and a more confident Writer, than Eufebius-y and of whom it is eafier to pafs a certain Judgment. S-«4* <>7J ^o 'if«« «wt5, iCj 6 Ao^?, ifv h Tu B-iZ. p. 86. Adm.adGcnt. Vid. Bull. D.F. p. 88. Anim. in Gilb. Cierke. p. loio. Admon. p. 78. Ttf» Xcyor TiX^of tK TtMiH ed in Honour and Glory, the Inference will reach to an Equality of Na- ture ; which alone could be any fufficient Reafon, or Foundation for honouring him fo liighly. You- would have it only, receiving Dominion^ (you do not care to fay equal Dominion) from the Father. But This comes nor up to Clemens his ftrong Exprellioa of equaliz^ing ; nor to his Reafons aflign'd for it ; the very Reafons which He elfewhere gives, why the Fa- ther and Son are the one God, o ©so?, ablolutely fo called, and jointly the one only God and Creator of all Thi ng-^. Next, you are to fearch out fome other ExprefH- ons cf Clemens, to be pleaded in the way of Abate- ment. Clemensy it feems, fays in the fame Page, that He fprnng from the Will of the Father, But let the Reader fee the whole Sentence, that He may be ap* prized of your unrighteous Method of citing Au- thors. " Being with urmoti celerity difFufed upon " all Men, rifing Iwifrer than the Sun, out of the " very Will (or Heart) of the Father, He moft '^ readily darted forth God upon us*.'* Would you have your Reader here deceived into an Opinion that Clemens is fpcaking of the Son's exifling by his Fa- ther's free choice and pleafure ? No doubt but That is your meaning, or 'omerhins^ very little better; tho* Clemens is only fpcaking of his /t/liffion to mankind. Elfen-hercj you fay» lie calls Him Infpedor of our Hearts by the Will of the Almighty f. But you are as unfortunate in this Place as in the other \ mifcon-^ 7Ci>.ci.(, t!c': 'Trv.T^iia:; (i^?.y,iyiue,^ {u^i^ viyAv iZi?,o!,txj'^i r B-iov. Clem. ftrucl-ing Qii. II. of fom (QUERIES. 97 ftriiing the Words, and perverting the Senfe ; as I have eliewhere ^ fliev/n. nowTo;cpa.7r)e>i}c&> ^eA'/i.u^'H ilgnifies by his own Soveraigny all'Contaming Will. That there is no impropriety in applying the Epi- thet TCCLVToxpxTDCAy.o^ to fVili, I ptovcd by parallel Inftances from other Authors j and Ihall now add one more of the like kind f. You ap[;ear very un- wiUing to have the Dr*s Criticifms on This Paflage taken from you : And therefore you endeavour, feebly, to prop them up again, in a Note, pag. iiy. You tell me, that the parallel Pallages I alicdged, do not fignify that God is omniprefent or omnifcient by his TFiiL but by his yi'oiive governing Wijdom, Be it fo : Then let the fame anfwer ferve for the Exprellion of Clemens \ and let Chriil be ommjcient by his active governing Wifdom^ and now all is right again. I am not contending for Goas^^ or ChniFs knowing all things by his Will^ in the Dr's Senfe : But why mufi; Clemens be tied up to the Dr's flrid Senfe of WdU in the Word dt\y}/U£i^, more than other Au- thors, who have likewife ufcd the Phrafe of dl-con* taining V/ilU as well as Ckmem\ The Dodor'i: fan- ciful Speculations againd the Phraie (Script. DoH:, fag, 294.) are of as much Weight agauift the Phrafe- in otiier Authors, as in Clemens ; that is, of no Weight at all, but to fhew the folly of interprenng Phrafes by Speculation, and Fancy, inftead of looK- ing into Authors, to fee hov/ they have been ufed# You was to fay fomerhing, it fcems, however wide^ father than give up a favourite Criticiim. You fay, Clemens calls the Son di^^Vi-^ -myTDXpcL" ^tAxlr which is true ; but it does not there fignify the fame as TrarexJccy di\y]fju^y but all-conuuring VAfi dom^ or Wdi again , as is plain from the very place * Defenfe^ v>iZ- no. Ed, 2, Sermons, pas. 266- ^!?«^ro5. PJfeudo Dionyi'. Aicop. deDivin. Nomin. c. lo.p.Bip. 95 A Second Defense Qu.1L itfelf, where Clemens alfo ftiles Him SitvoifJU^ Tnzyx^- TrSy all'COfitainiyjg Fower^. And it is the very rea- fon given by Clemem, why He may be known to ally even to thofe that have not acknowledged Him ; He is -miy-it^^^ryi^j and 7rzL^roy.p^.roejLyl^y prefent to all, or containing all. Had Clemens intended your Senfe. He would rather have exprefs'd it by 7ta.rtA-K.c€ ^thYfJuxTiy as urualt;or Bi\ii/M>Li:i rS TrxrpU -^^, or the like* Nor can you give any Inftance out of Clemens, of 'TtcviroxpxTo^ixoc^ but where it either mufh or how- ever may, bear the Senfe I have given. The Phrafc '7tca>ToxpcLroti^A)f ^hiXvifw., (pag. 857.) comes the neareft to the other. But it is there manifeft^ from the Context, that it ought to be interpreted in the fame v/ay as I have conftrued jgAvfca tcoAo' y,^loe^yu:v, I much queftion whether TVctvloKpxToejx.os is ever ufed for rS TrcLvroxpiro^©^, in the Way that Dr. C/^r^:^ contends for. It is certain, that the other which I contend for, is moft proper, and is moft ufual and cuftomary in Greeks Writers. This^ I hope, may be fufiicient to put an end to a weak Criticifm, which has nothing in it. Now let us go on. As to the Son's mimflring, I have before anfwer'd ; And as to the Paffages you have fclefted, one would think you had took Them out of Biiliop Bully only leaving out the BiHiop's Solutions ft : Which is a very unfair way of protracting a Controverfy. As to Second Caufe, you do not meet with it in Clemens \ afenreg©^ a!\'v.<^ § fignifies no more than fecondary Caufer, ri^u JeJTsg®-, fecond in Order in cailal xfUTociulp. Clem. pig. 647. t Vid. Clem pag. 99, 15-0. Comp. pag. S6, ny. ** Vid. Clem, pag, 1^-6, 7 to. tf Vid. Bull. Def. F. pag. 90. \ Clem. Alex. pao^. 710, Operation Qii. II. of feme QU E R I E S. jp Operations. Refides that, if it ftridly meant more, allowance muft be made for Clemens, while He is adapting the PUtonick^ to the Chriftian Trinity, if He ufes the Platomcl^ Terms; tho' They may not quadrate exadly. You next cite Clemcyis for ftiling the Father (Ajqw o^.cos 3ri0V) and introducing the Son as joining in Hymns of Praife to him. As to fio'^®^, or other the like exclulive Terms, Cle?ne/is made no Account of Them, in exclufion to the Son, as before feenj befidesthar, the Son is not only oncc^ d'coh truly Gody with Clemens^ very frequently^, but even /.t^v@« ^iU^ only God U and only jfidge'^^y and only A^ajler ff. All Authors I have met with, thus ufe excltijive Terms; it being a Rule of common Senfe, and cuftom of Language, that fuch exclufive Terms aie to be drained no farther than They are intended in op volition to fuch or fuch Things. As to the Son's joyning m Hymns o^ Praife^ you fliould have told your Reader, that He is fup- pofed by Clemens, in That very Place, to do it as in Capacity of High-PrieJ §. I can fcarce without Indignation find fuch Things as Thefc offered by Men pretending to Z/ffi^^rx, .ortheleail Ingenuity. You run on, about Clemens's flyling the Father the oiie God, Sptpreme over all ; tho* every body knows it never was intended in oppofaion to God the Son, * Clem. Alex. pag. 86,647, 690. f Clem. Alex. p. '04, 142. See alfo another Tajfage cf his Pseda^ gogue, where He feems to be freaking of God the Sm : The Words are» 6 onrii)^ B-io^y 6 av ec'JTVi ra Trsivm, (c" Truv-m 6 uu-n^, cu aun^ B-io^, 0 fj[^i>(^ Bioc,. p. ifo. Compare a Pallage of the Stromata, 1. 4. »u ** Clem. pag. 99. ft Qeni. p3g. 309. ^ ^ . , , ^ . . ./ ^ AM»4>t r etyinri-n^ (leg. oiyir/}TOt) r.ut uvuXtS-^aVy xoti yt^jrof o)» Q^i ip;^jiff?'u5 BsoZ Ti ho^y tow kvtoo '$ 7FUTfo<;, u7:ip AtB-^atTFOft tb^tTOft if^i 'Ai^-f^aeis iyxUsvsT^. Clem. Alex. pag. 92, 93. Q 2, bm 100 A Second Defense Qu. II. but to Pagan Deities : As is plain from what hath been faid. You next come to obferve that Clemens ftiles the Son ^pccwy.'n^c'f-. This indeed was worth remarking, and a Thing fit to be offered in the way of Objedion ; tho* Billiop B^ll had given a good / Anfwer to it long ago f. It is an allufion to Pro- V verbs S. ii. where Wifdom is faid to have been cre^t- ted, that is, appointed Head ovtv the Works o( God"^*; which I iliall fliew, in due Time and Place, to have been the ancient and Catholick Senfe of That Text : Nor can any Ante-nicene Father be produced for the other Senfe of Creation, in regard to That Text. The flale Pretence about Photius and the Hjpotjpofes, hath been anfwer*d over and over §. However, it is a meer fancy of your's, that Photius's Cenfure upon the Ilypotjpofesy was grounded upon a PafTage found in his Si romata. I have now faid enough in Vindication of Clemens ; and He mufl be a very Orthodox Writer indeed, when in fo large a Vd- lume, and wrote before the Arian Controverfy was flarted, He appears to have been fo well guarded, as to leave room only for very frivolous exceptions >• fuch, perhaps, as might moff of them be found even in many of the Pcjl-Nicene Writers, or in Athanafius himfelf. What you fay after in;?^^. 83. is worth the taking notice of, for the peculiar Turn of it , and becaufe it may let the Reader into the true State of the Difpute between us. You tell me, I am forced into the ahfurd Inconjiflencj of confounding a priority of mere Order (yvhich expreffes a perfeEi Co-ordination of Ferfons .equally Supreme in Authority) with a * Clem. pag. 6()C}, t Bu.l. D. F. pag. 90. c&/V«. Clem. pag. 833. § Bull. Def. F. pag. 91. GM^e Inflances of Defcifls, p. i3,8cc. Qu.II. ^//6';^^Q^UERIES. loi jHbordination of ^Hthority and Dominiotj, You are troubled, it feems, that I will not luifcrTwoof the Pcrfons to be thought really Suhjdh, or Servants, that is, CreatHres of the Firft, I am very earneft and (erious in it; nor will I yield That momentous Point to you, till you are able to prove it. As to Inconfiflencj , you ihall Tec that there is none of miney it is all your oTvn, 1 have fometimes wonder'd with myfclf, how I came to be charged by the modefi P leader y dzc. with making a Co-ordination of the Perlbns ', when I every where admit a Priority of Qrder in one, a Sfibordination in the other Two. But now the Secret is out : A Co-ordination is not a Co-ordination, and a Subordination is not a Subordi' nation y if it be only of Order ; tho* I was fo weak as to think, that the Words Co-ordination and Snb^ ordination, flriflly and properly, refpeifled Order, and expreffed an equality or inequality of Order^ But you have a mind to ufe the Word Co-ordination for what an accurate Mm would call Co-equality : And fo I am charged with holding a Co-ordination. I confers the Charge : 1 always held a Co-equality of the Perfons, tho' I never before knew that it .inufi: be called Co-ordination, And while I profefs a Subordination, ( as conftantly declare againft Inequa-^ lity. If This does not content you, I cannot help it: It is not my fault, nor indeed yours ffor you have done your utmoftj that your Arguments demand no more. I will ftill maintain a Priority of Order, to- gether with Co-equality. And if you infiil: upon ir> that Priority of Order is no Priority of Order^ but a Co-ordination ; every Reader, I fuppofe, may fee whofe is the Inconjiftencyy your's, or mine. Belides a Subordination of Order, which is natural) I have alfo allowed a Subordination in Offce, which is oeco* nomical. Is This alfo nothing more than a meer Po^ fnion and Order of Words ? True, it is not making the Father a Soveraign over the Son as his natural Subject, becaufe I never intended it : Nor will you ever loz A Second Defense QilIL e\^er be able to prove any thing like it. But let us proceed. A. D. 106. T.E RTULLIANr / TertulU.in is To full and clear for all the Three Per- fons being one God, that I need not again "^ produce Things lo well known. You yourfeU have confefled it : But now you come in to oiesd for Abatements ; which, if you have ever fo ^ood a right to them, will nor, however, make Teriallian an Advocate on your fide, but a Nsnter at moft, as being incon* fiftenr, and of no credit. But let us fee : Perhaps He may prove a confiftent Evidence for us j tho' it is utterly impoflTible He ever iliould for you* You re- mind me of his being a Aiontamji^ when He wrote agaiail: Fraxe^s ; which was fcarce worth your ob- ferving, when you allow in the fame Page that Tet^ tullian makes Father and Son one God-, even in his ^ologj t, wrote very proba[)ly before He was 2 Aion" tamji : And I iliould be content to try the Merits of the Caufe by That Trearife alone, v/hich would fiirniili you with few, or no Pretences againft his Orthodoxy in this Article. But to come to the Bu- fines. You firil fall upon Him for making the Son no more than a fmall fart of the Father s Subfiance. To which I anfwer, that if TertnUUn indulged his fancy too far in explaining the Dodrine, yet He may be a good evidence of the Church*s general Dodlrine, that Father and Son are one God, However, I think this Objedion has been well anfwer'd by Bifhop BhU ^*x * See TT.y Sermons, *,7f. ^od. ^ Parer 5c Fiiius Jk Spiiicus, Trcs crediti, Hnnm Deum iiftunt. ^irtnll. contr.Vrax, c 51. t Qaod de Dto profectum e^i Deus eft 5c Dei Filius, & unus (fuppL 'I>eui)in-\ho. Apol. c. zi,p. 20 2. ** Bull. D. F. p. ^^, Qu. II. tf fome Q\J E R I E S. 105 9in^ Le Nourry ^ ':, whither I refer the Reader. All I ill all add, is This, that if Tertullian» as I have iliovvii above, fometimes ufed the Term Father in a Jarge Senfe, {zs a Head of a Famtlj fomerimes ftands ior the whole Family together with their Head) then it is no wonder, if God the Son might be called Vortio totius, being but one Perfon of the Trinity^ not dl ; as He ftiles the Father, tinns omnia^ dum ex nna omnia f. This might be illuftrared from the Cafe of ^hrahMni confidered as the Father of many Nations^ and containing, in a certain Sen^". all his Delcen- dants. Thus was Abraha',n Tota Familia^ and Levi only Derivatio ©- Portio Totius ; that is, of Abraham^, confidered in capacity of Head and Fountain, I do not pretend to be confident, that Tertullian had This Thought in his Mind: But I propofe it as a probable conjecture, to be farther enquired into, to make Tenulllm appear the more reafonable and con- fident \ who was certainly no downright Idiot* fuch as your Reprefentation would make of Him. Al- lowing fuch a Suppofition as I have here offered, there will be no Difficulty in accounting for Tertnitians faying, that the Father is major FiltOy greater than the Son^ in the manner that He ddes. For it wilj. amount only to This, that the //tW, confidered as fuch, is major Singulis^ as containing all ; tho' ic /Cannot be faid of any but the Head, becaufe th.e refl are confidered only as fingk Perfons. In the other way, it is certainly downright Nonjenfe to fuppofe the Father in his own proper perfonal Capacity, to be the 71'hole : For, however fmall a Part you fuppofe * Nourrii Apparat. ad Bibl. Max. Vol. i. pag. 1505'. + The like "way of Speaking obtained among the Pagans ^ in reflect df their Supreme Jupirer, Father of the other GoJt. Jupiter omnipotens regain rerumque Deumc^us Progenitor, 2cnitrix4ue Dcum, Dcus unus ec omnis. Augutl. de C.D.I. 7.C.9. p! X70, »• to4 -^ Second Defense Qu. II, the Son to be, That Part muft go in to make up the whole ; and no fingle PeiTon, barely confidered as fuch, can be called the whole. But confider the Fa-* ther in Capacity of Head, in the Senfe before inti-* mated, and then the Notion is juft, and has nothing abfurd, or ftrange in it. I may farther argue againft Tertullians making the Son a Jmall pan, as you fay, of God's fubftance, from what He fays of the Om- niprefence of the Son, in as full and ample Terms as can be ufed of the Omniprelence of the Father Him- felf^. You go on, (pag» 77.) to {peak of the Son's ex- ercifing the Father s Power : Right ; becaufe the Father's and his are onef* You add, bj the Father's Will : Yes, and by his own too, for Both are the fame, becaufe their Subftance is one**. You ky in- deed * HabesFilium inTerris, habes Pafrcm in cs:lis: Non eft fepara- tio ifta, fed diioolitio divinaj csercrum Scimus Deum eciam intra AbylTos elTe, Scubique coniirterc. fed vi £<: Poteftate: Filium qiio- que, ut individuuin, cum iplb ubiquc. Tamen in ipfa Oeconomia, Pater voluit Filium in Terns haberi, fe vero in cxlis. TertuU. adv. Prax. c. 25. P' 5-14. " The Son you have upon Earth, and the Father you have " in Heaven. This is no Separation, but a divine Oeconomy. Fur- " thermore, we arc certain that God is even in the Abydes, and " preient every where, but in Virtue and Power j the Son alfb as " individual (or undivided) iswlllxWlmeverytohere. But, according " to t\\i^ Oeconomy y theFather would ib have it, that the Son ihould *' be conlidered as being upon Earth, and Himielf as being in the " Heavens." f Omnia, inquit, Tatris men funt. — Suo jure omnipotens,- qua Serrfio Dei omnipotentis, quaque omnium accepir potellatem. Parer omnia tradidit in manu ejus— —a primordio tradidit, ex quoaprimordio Scrmo erat apud Deum, 8c Deus erat Sermo, cui dataeftomnisPotcftasincxlo&inTerra omnem cnim diccns Poteftatem — -^ 8c omnia tradita in manu ejus, nuilara exceptionem Temporispermittitj quia omnia non erunt, ii non omnis Temporia^ fuerint. cap. 16. ** Quale eft ut Dcus divifionem 8c difperfionem pati videatur in Filiodc Spiritu San^-o t. ioo. Phxbadius. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. Prudentius. Hymn. 1 i. />. 44. Rupertus Tuitienlis. Pleud-Ambrof. de Fid. Orthod. c. i. p. 345^1. t Bull. D. F. Sea. 3. f. 10. io8 v^ Second Defense Qu. II. by denying rhe Coetermtj of the Son, aiid reducing Him to a Creature, Is the Divinityy fubfifting in Three, Similar with it felf, one onlj, and capable of no Degrees ('the cxpreis Do5trine of this Writer) and yet niade up of Eternal and Temporary -y Creator and Creature^ diflering infinitely I Is Eternity, and Immu- t ability contain'd in the Name and Notion of Gody and particularly as applicable to God the Son -^j and yet the Son have neither Eternityy nor Immutability % In a Word, can Tertullian pretend, that an inferior God is Non-fenfe and Contradidion f, and at the fame Time alfert a Creature, a Being of Yefterday, to be God^ nay, and one God with the Father f Thefe are luch glaring and palpable Abfurdities, that a Man of any tolerable Capacity, or Thought (and Terullian ^vas a Man of no mean Abilities) could fcarce have been capable of admitting Them. Wherefore They are to be commended, who have endeavoured to bring Tertullian out of Thefe Difficulties, and to reconcile:^ if poffiblc, the feeming Repugnancies. There was one Way left for it, which the excellent Bifhop Bully and after Him the learned Le Nourry has taken. Ter- tullian is known to have diftinguifhed between Ratio ^ and Sermo, Both of them Names of the lelf-fame A':7@^» conildercd at different Times, under different Capacities \ firft as jiknt^ and unoperating, alone with * Deum immu^abilem Sc Informabilem creJi necelTe efl:, ut in- ternum. Transfiguratioautemintercmptio eft Priftini. Omne enim quodcunque transfiguratur in aliud, definit elTe quod fuerat, 8c in- cipit cfTc, quod non erat. Deus autem neque definit efle, neque aliud poteft efle. Sermo autem T>eus'i & Sermo Domioi manet in jEvum, perfeverando icilicet in lua Forma, Adv. Trax.c. 27. Vid. Bull. p. 245-. f Neqce enim proximi erimus Opinionibus Nationura, quce fi quando coguntur Deum confireri, tamenSc Aliosinfra ilium volunt. Divinitas autem gradum non haber, utpote unica. Contr. Hermog. c, 7. Deus non erit dicendus, quia nee credendus, aili Summum magnum. Nega Deum quern dicis deteriorem. Contr, Marc. /. i. the Qu. 11. offome QV E R I E S, 109 the Father, afterwards froceeding^ or going forth from the Father ; to operate in the Creation. W ith this Procefr fion He fuppofes (as do many others) the Sonjljip properly to commence. So that tho' the Logos had always exifted, yet He became a Son in Time ; And in this Senfe there was a Time, when the Father had no Son-^ He had his Aoy©^, his living fubftantial Logosy his (nxpioiy with whom He converfed, as his Connfellor : But the Logos was not yet a Son^ till he came out to create. This Notion of a temporal Sonfhip, was what Tertuilian endeavour'd to make fome Ufe of in his Diipure with Hermogenesy who alTerted Matter to be eternal^ unmade, and unhegotten , in fhort, Self-exifient in the liigheft Senfe. Tertuilian thought it might be an Argument ad Homi-^ nem^ againft Hermogenes^ that He hereby made Mat- ter in Tome Senfe higher than even God the Son ; while he fuppofed it abfolutely undcrtved, and in no Senfe derived^ or begotten at all ; which was more than could be faid of God the Son, who was Begotten^ and proceeded of the Father. This appears to have been Tertuilian s real and full Meaning, However He hap- pcn'd, in the Profecution of the Argument, to run fome ExpreiTions rather too far ; as is often feen in the Heat of Difpute, in very good Writers. Allow- ing Him only the Favour of a candid Conftrudion, He may at length be made confiilent ; and his other Exprellions ftand without Contradidion : And He has the greater Right to it, upon the Principles of common Equity; fi nee one o^yc^/r^ Paffage ought never to be fet againft many-, and plain ones. You proceed to obviate a Paffage which we are wont to cite for the Equality, I have cited others ftronger and fuller, which you have not took Notice of. Your Corredion of Patrem for Parem^ is what I had met with before, and it ieems to me very juft. But your Quotation from his Book de Jejuniis^ to take off the Force of the Words, aquat ^ jungit-, does not fo well latisfy me : Becaufe there is a great deal of IlLo A Second Defense Qu.II? of Difference betwixt ^c^uAt when ufed abfolutely, and v/hen only in a certain refped. However, as I ne- ver infifltd upon the Force of the Word <£qHat ia that Place, nor have any Occafion for it, after fa H'lany oihcr more certain, and lefs exceptionable Evi- xjences of fertullians making Father and Son one God fti^reme\ lo I lliall not be at the Trouble to inquir(j farther about ir. Our next Author is, ^. p. Z40. HiPPOLYTUS. This Writer you bear fomewhat hard upon : Spn^, riotiSy and Interfolatcd are the Names you give Fiim. I mull; firft fee upon what Grounds ; and then proceed with Him, if we find Him genuine. In a Note ta p. 59, you are pleafed to favour me with your Rea- ions. We need fay nothing of Dr. A//7/, who I pre- fume had never feen the Greeli^ of Hippoljtus againft NoetHs, Neither need we lay any great Strefs upon Photim's calling the whole Piece againfl: Herel^es, /^iSAtj\6to;', a Little BooJ^ as you fay, lince we know •Rot by what Rules and Meafures Phot ins judged of the Greatnefs or Ltctlenefs of a Book, or to what Kind of Trads He confined the Name of ^tCAido.- ^cv. Thefe Things are flight, and fuch as Criticks would fcarce mention. I find that fome very good Judges, as Ttllemont and Fabricms (I do not know now many more) take the Piece to be genuine : And no Body can doubt but it is at leafl fo in Part ; as one may perceive by what is borrowed from it by Ej?iphamr-is. The only Qiieftion is about Interpolations. Mr. Whifton was fo fanguine, as to fay, He had evi-^ dently demonflrdted^'i that it was one half of it inter- folate d^ and by an Athanafian ; becaufe Theodorit and Pope Gelafius had Both of them quoted a PalTage out of it, which appears much lliorter there than in Hip^ * Mr, V/kiflonV Aafwer to herd Nottingham, t. lOo poljtm^ Qn. II. e/fme QJJ^ Kit $. tii pohtfis, as now publillied. You are fo wife as to drop Theodorit, being apprized, perhaps, that Theodorit's Qno» tation was not from This Treatife againffc Noetus^ but out of another Work of Hippol^tus^ upon the fe^ toyid Pfalm ^ : And what great wonder is it, if an Author, in Two diftind Trads, borrows from Him- felf ; cxprefling the lame Thought here more brief- ly, there more at large \ Gelajius, indeed, refers to the Aiemoria Hdrefium : But as his Quotation is exact- ly the fame with Theodorit'Si and probably taken from Him, at fecond Hand; Tloeodorit is the more to be depCx*ided on, as being the elder, and as being a Greeks Writer, and noted for his Accuracy; and his Works preferved with greater Care than GeUfiuss, Whether the Miftake of MemorU H or his TranfcriberSy an eafy Account may be given oF it ; fince Hippoljtfis*s Piece againft Hereftesy was x\\Si moft noted of Any, and was preferved entire for a long Seafon, and befides really had in it a Pafifage very like That other out of his Comments on the Pfdms ; And it might feem no great Matter, which of the Pieces they referred to. Thefe Confidera-, tions fhow how little your critical Cenfure of a Book is to be depended on : I will therefore flill continue to quote Hippoljtusy as genuine, till I fee (ome bet- ter Reafons againft it than you have here offered. What you hint of its being changed into a Hor/iily ia latter Times, is fufficiently anfwered by Fahrkipts, vol. 2. p. 6, Let us now fee what Hippolytus has to offer in relation to our Main Difpute. I produced the Paflfages, which I moft infift upon (to prove that Father and Son are one Cod) in my Dc- finfe* firft briefly, (p. 22) and afterwards more at large in my Sermons, p. 307 &c. whither, to fave my felf the Trouble of repeating, I be^^ Leave to refer * TS ay 48 \7r7z9h97w, ^.TKi tf/*i!»«<»? t5 i. •4'«>.^u»5, Tbeod. Dial. ii2 ^ Second Defense Qu. ir. • the Reader. You have fome pretended Comter-Evi" dence ro produce, as ufual, in order to evade the Force of what I offeied. You hy (p. ^o,) that tho" He feems to aim ac including the Son and Spirit', in fome Scnfc in the one God (it is well however thai he does not aim at excluding Them, having quite other Intentions than you have;) yet He exprcfiy afcrihei to the Faihen not a Priority of Order onlj^ but a real Supremacy of Atnhority and Dominion. Where are your Proofs ? The firfl is, that He talks of the Father's comman^ ding, the Son obeying : So did AthanafipiSi Bajil, Cy- YiU Hilary^ Marms T^tUorinus, and others *, who not- withfranding would have detefted your Notion : For They never fulpeded any Thing of Subjectiony or Servility in it, but only a diflferent Order or Manner of operating, fo far as concerns the Work of Crea-^ tion ; and a voluntary Condefcenfion, or oizovofiiuy as to other Matters. But Hippolytus fays, by This Tri- nity the Father is glorified. No doubt of it, (ince no- thing can be more for his Glory, than to have two fuch divine pnd glorious Perfons proceeding from Him, and ever abiding with Him : And they that lellen this Glory, leffen Him ; who in a certain Senfe, is the TQTCdL'U You addi as from Hippolytus^ that the Fa- ther begat the Son ('that is, fent or fhewed Him to the World, which is Hypolytus^ Meaning tj when He jvilled-) and as He 7villcd, Undoubtedly, in Hip- polytus" s Senfe, jufl: as He fent Him to be incarnate of the Bleded Virgin, ivhen He willed, and as He willed. All you have farther Material, I have anfwered above. You will never be able to lliew^ that either Subordination, or Minifirationy or the Son's See my Sermons, p. 72. Or Bull. D. F. p. 80. &: alibi. Or Peravius do Trin. /. ^. c. 7. tf:rdtf^ev7icy ^c. Hipp, coiitr. Nocc. p. 13. condefccnding Qa. II. p//^?^? QUERIES. 113 condefcending to become Man, and in that Capacity a ^ervayit to the Father, is at all inconfiltent with the Notion of Both the PeiTons being one God fhpremc. You make a Show of producing the Antien-s 2\]^:d\\^ me; whereas in Reality, you can pick nothing from them more than 1 am ready to allow, as well asl'hey : And you endeavour to turn what Tliey and I agree equally in, againll: Them, a§ well as Mc, by the imaginary Strength of two or three falfe Maxims, which you have hid down to your fclf, as fo many Principles of F^eafon. It might be pleafant to ob- ferve, what a Dance you are leading us through Scripture and Fathers, and all for Amufement ; while the true Se- cret of the Bulmefs is kept behind the Scenes. The Cafe lies here. Scripture and Fathers agree in thefe Three Things, as I alfo do. i. That the Son from the Time of his Incarnation, was rea'Iy fi'jjeci / in one Capacity or other, to Cod. 2. That before his Incarnation He mintftred to the Father ; as well in the Creation, as in all Trnnfadions between God and Man. 3 . That, as a Son, He is fubo-rdinate to the Fa- ther, referred to Him as his Heiid» Now your V/ay is to take one, or more of thefe Three Prtmif^s, and from thence to draw your Inference again il: the Son's being God (npre?ne. This Inference you d-aw froiti thefe Premifes^ tirfl:, as found in Scripture. The fame Inference you draw from the fame Frcmifcs, as found perhaps in Jufin /yUrtjr ; the f;^n^.e Inference again from the fame Premifesy as found in Ircnxus ; arid fo quite through the Fathers. But a 1^.1 an miay ask, fincc the Premifss arc taken for granted on both Sides^ might it not be a much fnorter, and clearer Way, to wave farther Proof of the Pre??jifcs from Scripture and Fathers^ and to lay all the Strefs upon making out the Infere}i:ey in a fet Diijertmio^t to that Purpofc •? Right : Bi'.c then every Body would fee (what is not to be told) th:.t it is not Script tires or Fathers you depend on, but Philofophy ; v^hivh, while you mix it all the the Way with Scripture and Arniqultv^ is wz C\ thoiigiiE 114 .^Second Defense Qu. H. thought to be, what it really is, the true fourceand Tpring of the Oppofition you make tons; and which, while it is behind the Curtain uiiperceived, is yet the only Thing that railes all the Difturbance. But to proceed. As D, 249. O RIG EN. Orige-ri, one of the nioft learned and confiderabte Vv'ritcrs of his Age, was Another Voucher I had produced for the Truth of the Dod;rine that Father cad Son are one God'*'. I have before vindicated the true Conflruclion of the P^iflage t) and have obferved, from the Circumllanccs, of what Moment juch a Re- folution as th^t of Origen^ in fo critical and nice a Point (on which depended the grand Qucflion of Po- htlKifm between Chnflians and Paga^ns) is and ougKt to be, when duly confidered. You pretend, p. 82. it \s not clear that Origens Words muft bear my Senfe. I do not wonder at your holding out, in fuch a Place as This : It muft trouble you to find your (elves condcmi\ed in the moft important Article of all ; and that by Or'igen too, whom you would have to hz a Favourer of you, as He is much a Fa^ ^o'ytrtte with you. But as to the Senfe of his Words, ir is fo exceeding clear-i from the whole Scope and Contexr, tliat noching can be more fo. See what I have fiid above. What th:^n mull be done next \ Still you fliV; aumirting my ConflrudHon, it is mt to mj p'jr-tofc, Wliar \ not to my purpoie that Fa- ther and Son are 0}7C. God i v/hich is what I quoted it for ? An J il Tliey are one Gody They are one Go4 Siiprcmc. You add, that Origen-^ in Tliat very Place, i^pUins at Lvrgey how the Father a.i;d Son are One, and aifo 7i'lj^it fort of woriliip/i to be paid the So^. * ' Fwat av ^'.y. ok; \rnci :uy.cf,yjiv, T 7n»7£^«>i tie/,] T 'ij'SV ^ieotrrfjr-i/.-if, 0-\2, Conrr. Oflli p. ^586. '' V/c the cro)c^, as wo have {licWn, worfiiip one God, the Fa- ** thcr and the Son. f 5, *. ^09. The Qu.ir. ^//^w^Q^UERIES. ir^ The Senfe, you pretend, is, that Chri/Ii^»s [}ill wor- Jhipped hut one God (The Father I fuppcTj you mean) becatife they luorfjipped the Father l>y or through the Sort. Ridiculous : For, fo Celftts a'nd all the wifer Pagans worlliipped but one God; becaufe they wor-- fhipped the one Supreme^ by and through all their other Deities. How then did This Anlwer clear the ChriJIians from the worfhip of ©£f^?, Gods, more than the Pagans ? Was Origen no wifer than to expofe Him fell- and his Cauie to ridicule, by fo weak a lie- ply I The Strength of his Solution refis intirely upon this ; that Father and Son are but one God; and therefore the Chriftians worfliipped not man^ : He takes in Bothy to make the ev the unmn^ the one Thing worfhipped : Otherwife there was no Occafioq for faying, that They were om ; One in nature^ (as I ijndcrfhnd by his Inflance of Believers^ who were all of the fame nattirct and as fuch equal) and One alfo in Concord^ Agreement, and Samenels of Will: Which is the very Account which Pojt-niccne Paihers al o give of the Vnitj \ as Hilary y Epiphanius^ Cyril oF yertifalem, Gregory Njjfeny and ^Hjitn^ referred to in rny Defenfe ^, I ihall here only cite the lalf of themf, who may fpeak for all the ref}, I ihall have occafion hereafter to difcourfe you fully upon the * Defenfe, pag. 565, 8cc. f Hi Tres, quia unius fubflantice funt. union funt; ^ fuwms unum ubi nulla Naturarum, nulla eft Jiverfitas Vclimtattwi, Siau- lQn\na,tHr£iunumQ\^cnx:, ^ Confen/ione nont;ib:nt i non fammc uniim eiTent: Si vero natura tlifparei eflcnt, unnmnon cfienr. Augullii^ contr. Max. 1. 2. pag. 6c))i. Ij^tiam nos (:\u\^'^cmcorc\^'^r2h\\cmConfenfum Voluntatis, atquein- dividuse Cariratis, Patris &: Filii 8c Spirirus Sandti, ConfircmuPi propter quod di\c\vs\MS, Hxc Trinitas k»«; ejl Dens. Auguft. contr, J4a5f. i- i. p- 720. S^*^ ?ny Defenic, pag. 7,66, 7,6j . To the fame purpo/e /peaks IMieodorit . or Miximas. }oyu r"^^ i«l. IV. ad Maced. ,Toc», -Avhen you fay (pag, 83.J that He is one who in his whole Works does moft fftlij, clear- Ijy and exprcjlj injifi on the dJreH contrary to jpy NO" * Bull Def. F. p. III. BiiVcTliim Orig. Eccl. 1. 13. c.i.p.4j'. J Bull. Def. F. p. 262. ** See Above, p. 4^. tion. Qu. II. of feme Q^UERIES. 117 tion. So far from it, that in his latcfl, bef}, and moft certainly genuine Work, He is all the way di- redly contrary to jQur Notionj and conformable ta mine ; as Billiop Bnil has abundantly dcmonflrated ; Nor have you fo much as pretended to cpniute what, the Bilhop has faid. A, D. 25^. Cyprian. I cited Cyprian in my Sermorjs^y in Proof of the three Perfons being one God, He does not ufe the very Words, but He fufficiently intimates the Thing. I Ihall not here repeat what I laid, but refer the Rea- der to it. A D. i5o. D I o N Y s I u s ^ Rome, -with his Clergy. This Author I alfo cited in my Sermons f. We have but ^ a fmall Fragment of Him, preferved by ^:hana,'i!is : But it is of admirable ufe for fnewing; the Dodrine of the Trinity as profefTed by the Church of Chrifl at That Time. Sabellimy who had frnrtcd up but a few Years before, gave occaHon to h e Church to re-confider, and to clear This Article. One may fee from Dionyjius^ not only what Spc* culations fome at That Time had, but alfo what were approved, and what not. We have no kfs than four Hjpothejes there intimated ; and all condemned but the one only true one. T. One was the Sabellian» making the Son the Father, and the Father the Son "^^ ; which Vionjfiat^ condemns. 2. A fecond was of Thofe who, in their extreme oppofition to Sahelliamfm^ made T/JgTj o.^X^'' '^^^^^ Fr'mcipksy and, of confequence, TpeTs '\jW)<;a(Tt^^ ^ivxi * Sermo)i 8. p. 5 1 1. f Sermon 8. p. j 1 3. ** 'O (A r^ (SotctAAjo?) fiXoLtr^Tiytii, ccir^ot 'rot *i^q» n,cu xiyuv rfl> •TTtri^u., t i,M/T«A<)'. p. 231. iis ^ji Second Defense Qu.H. cLAA^AiiJV TraKTXTraoi xiX^tAf^H'^voLS : Three independent fepurate Hjpoflafesy unatlied to each other, and noc united in one Head, This is condemned zsTritheifmy and as being near a-kin to the Marcionite Doclrine of three Principles ; (againfl: which I prefume the Canon that goes under the Name of u4po[Iolical'^, was fii'ft made) and which Dionjfius cenlures as diabolical f Dodlrine. Here it is obfervable, that we meet v/ith Three Hypoflojesy firfl: introduced in the third Cen- tury, in oppofition to the Noetian and SabelUan Do- iftrme of one HjpoflaJis ^■iVi, kccI 6 7ntTr,p, it ia-cOfj' xxi lyai iv rZ ttwt^*, xoci 0 'TUCTvp iv ijjjol' olreo yoer) av kxI v B-u'et Tfipir, kxi tt ccy.oi ky,- fvyytjcc. Ty.<; /-L^va^;^!*? ^Jot-ir^i^ejro. Dionyf. p. I32. ■j- 'tiv.^yup uvuyK-^ TM 3-tM ruv oXuv tvv S-sHsr Xoyor ly^OtX^'*- ^r* ^ Ta^iw Ku\ ivi^ciiToix^, d'iiTd aytiv 7rjfZ.{^' yiot xat tjiv B-etu* t^;;- i-occ iii, ti'x CiXTTTio fi'; y^cv^Ji? Tjyot, Tov ^tLt T c?t.uv Tj/ TeuToKftrrv^i, Ai'ya', (r-jyKiPiiX,i^(.Z^(^ Ti KXi c^.wxyi'X TT^:^ uvetyK^i, pag, 231. A- thau. Vol ;, Him t20 -^ Second Defense Qu.lf. Him ill) as one ivith the Father, incladed in Him, and reckoned ro Him. Thefe were true and Catholic k iPrinciples 6q Year before yirins was heard of ^ ani They will be fuch. while the World (lands. I 'migiic here add the other Dionjfus of the fame Age, and witnefs of the fame Faith. Bur, having produced M4m t^vice before, once in my Sermons ^'^j incf agaiii in Thefe Papers §, I ihall here pafs Hini over. v^. D. 318. LACTANTIUSi I had barely referred to This Author, as an evi- «!ence of the Church's Faith, that Father and Son are one Gody and that the Son is not excluded by the Texts of the Unity : And of This He is as full and plain an Evidence as it is polTible for a Man to be ; however Hs may differ in other Points ; as I never pretended to fay He did not. But here you exclaim^ (/?^|7-. 85O of the Jlrangc Ahafe made of QtiotaiioKSy and fccofzd-hand Rcprejentatiot:s, One would think you had had fbme fuch Book as ScriftHre-Doclrine^ before you ; which v/ould indeed have fUrniihcd you v/iih Kiriety of (ir.r/ige Ahitfes ^ ; And had you found one, by chance, in me, you might have fpared the Exclamation for the Doctor's fake. But to pro- ceed : We may learn This from LalUntitiSy that the common v/ay of anfwering the Charge of Trithctfm was, not by excluding the Son from b?ing one God with the Father, but by indudinr Both in the oyie God t, Wc learn farther^ that They are corfttbjUmid to ^^ Sermon Z pa[^. 314, § Pa.'.^ 46. * S',c :he Doctor's manner of quoting expofed in my DefcnlCf j- C.im dicimus Deum P.^trern. &: Dcum Filium, non diverftim di- fir.v.is n?.c. ut-rumque Iccernimus, quia nee Pater eff; fine Filio poreil, ncc Fdius u Patrc lecerni: iiqu idem ncc Pater iinc Fiiio nun- ciipari, luc Films po'.cl> ilae Parrc gencratri. Cam igiiur ^ Pater Filiuii>, Qu. IL of Jime QUE KllbS, jzt to each other, and to be adored together as one God. Keverthelefs, fince Z/ if I have been to blame, it has been on the modejl fide; not inlifting fo far upon LaEiantins^ as I might juftly have done. I fhall now examine whether you have not claimed a great deal too much, and I too little, in refpecl of this Author* It is certain, you can never make Him a confiftent Evidence on your fide. You can never reconcile his ConfHbjhmialitjy and his Dodrine of the Two Perfons being one God, to your Principles j (o thac you have little realon to boaft of an Evidence which at bed is not for you, but either againil you, or el e mil, and ^one : And could you have been content to have had Him fet afidei without infulting me upon it, I might perhaps have let you pafs. But now I Filium faciat, & Filius Patrem, ur,a utrique mens, unusSp:ritus, Sc ftna, S^bflantia eft. Sed lUe qaafi exuberans Fon? eft, Hictanquani dcfluens ab eo Rivus j il!e tanquam Sol, Hie tanquam Radius a fole porrc6lus: Qui quoniam fummo Patri & fiddis 8c Charus eft, non feparatur, ficut nee Rivus a For.te, nee Radius a fole, quia Sc^ij/^-j J''ontis in Rivo eji, £c Solis Lumen in Radio : xquc nee Vox ab ore fsjungi, jjec Virtus aut m.Vfius a Corpore D;i;eUi poteft. Gum igitur a Pro- pheris l(itm Manns "Dd, ^Virtus, ^Sermo dicarur, utiquc nulla diP cretio eft; Quia &: lingua fermonis miniftra eft, 8c Manus in qua eft Virtus, inciivij!i£ Cunt Corrioris portiones. La(5l. 1. 4. c. 19. Filius 8c Pater, qui unanimes incolunt mundum, Bens unus eji \ quia 8c unus tanquam Duo, cc Duo tanquam unus— ^j IJyium Deuni ClTe tarn Patrem quam Fiiium I.faiiis oftcndir, 8ce. Ad utramque per- sonam refcreus, intulit, prAter me non ejl Deus, cum pciiL-c dicerc fr^ter nos mcrito untis Detis uterque appellarur, quia'quicquid eft in Patre ad Fiiium transfluit, 8c quiccuid eft in Fiiio, a Patrc lieicendit. Lib.+. cap. zp. 122 y^ Se CON D Defense Qu. IL Aail examine what right you have to Him. You fay, (pa^. 5 5. J and again, pag, 86". that his Senfeof Vna Sub- Jiantiii 11; not clear, and iliat it might not perhaps be taken in the metuphjfkal Senfe^ Buc nothing can be clearer than his Scnle of ttnaStibflantU, both from his Similitudes^ Ca'5 that of the fame V/ater ini Fountains and SireafnSy and the (ame Light '\t\ the Sun and its Rays) as alfo from the Name of Many.i jr;iven to tlie Son of God, and his ob erviiig that the Tongue and Hands are indi'Viduvi Oic pr&c<.Mlit, $kc^ Lib. 4/ only for his including the Son and yl^igcls together under the general Name of Breaih'mgSy which may mean no more than Prodttctionsy and diffciing infi- nitely in kind, tho' agreeing in the common Name, ('as yiyy\T(X likewife is a Name cornprehendin-:> Things that proceecl by Creation gr Generation, in time or eternally) I fay, allowing only This, there appears nothing in LaBantins bur what may i airly iland with his other Principles, above recited "^^ For if, Recording to La^iami/is, God Breathed, tliat is, pro- duced his Son from his pwn St^bftance, but Breathed, or produced Angels not from his own Sulyftancey bun frprrJ nothings as he breathed into Man a Soul fj {Gtn, ii. J,) then there is no farther ground for your Cenfure upon Him. That This was really his mean- ing, and all his meaning, I incline to think, as fop feveral Reafons before hinted, fo alfo for This, thae in the very Chapter of the Epitome (cap. 42.J you re- fer to *^, He makes a manif.fi Difi\Tence between the produ-Mon of the S-^n and of u4n^cls. The Son w^as dp duternitatis fff^ Fonte, and de Spirit u fuo. There was not only Brcaihingy but breathing from the very FoHntain of his eternttjj that is, frorn his own S«^- fiance: Whereas Angels are only faid to be de Jnis Spiritibi45, from his Breathings. So He m.akes it the peculiar Privilege of God the Son, that He was breathr c4 out, tanqnam Rivas de Fonte, and ex Deo Dens § ; Which He never fays of Angels, any more than of is ViJ. Nourrium, Appar. ad Bibl. Vol. 2. pag. 7 98. f V:il. La6tarvr.lib. 2. c. 15. *♦ Deus in principio, an'equam mun(ium indimerct, dc Aterni- tMis ftiA lonte, dccucdivinqac pcrcnni /Jt7>'r//^/tt(?, filinmfibi progct cuit, incorruptum, fidelcm, virtutiacmajcftaiiparrix rcfpondentcni . Deniquc eX omnibus Angclisquos Idcrp Dcus de fuis fpiritibus. figuravir, So^us in Coufortium fummx porcllaris adlcitus ei^ lolus; Dcasnuncuparus. La6lant. Rpit. c. 41. p. 10.}-, \oj. S Laf^ant. Indit. I.4.. c. S. Quoniain p:eni Sc confummntl Boni Tons in ipfp erat, llcuf: elt Semper, utab CO Bono ranquamRvMi orirerur, longequ^ prolluQr.ci.w yrockiAi; limilcm fui ipirinim, qui elTcc Vtrious V,i:rs fr^Mtus, i 2. c.9 . B> 1 Hvrr,d-t 124 -^ Second Defense Qu. II^ Hiifnan Souls i which He alfo derives dc vitali Ton-* te j^erennis Spirhus ^5 from the Fotintain of his Brea" thixgs^ but not from his SHbftance ; as I have alfo re- mark'd of Tcrtuiiim above. Indeed moft of the Fathers laid great Strefs upon the Text in Genefis ii. 7. Cod's breathing into Man's Noftrils the Breath /of Life ', A Privilege pecuHar to Man above the Ani-^ mal Creation t : Something of God*s own infujin^ and infpiring, fomething of a purer and diviner SubUancej, Spiritual, and enduring ; The Breath of the Almigh- ty, a Refemblance, a Shadow, an imperfect Copy of the Dlvinitj it felf. Thus far the Fathers carried the Notion : And you feem to have miftaken it for the Marcionite and Manichaean Notion of Souls being the very Suhjlance of God : A Notion which the Fa- thers detefled ; and 1 doubt not, Ldlamius among the reR. * Ibid. /. i. f. li. p. iSi. Clem. Alex. p. loi. ' Ju^'xri^u.c, faViiis Tizi^iz roi ccXhu. t^cixA fjbhiuo^m. Clcni. Alex. p. 6518* Incorporalcs AnJma:, quantum ad Comparationem Mortalium Cor- porum. JnfupavH tnim in Facie n Hominis Dcus Fljtum Vits. « Fla'us aurem Vuge irxorporal:5. Scd nc mortalem quidem '^^\int diccreipium, lUtumVitA Qxiiicnicm. Iren^us f. ^oo. Animas fuc^ umbram, Spirirus fui auram, oris fui operam. Ter-* /«//. de ReJurr. Carn.f. 7. Infell'ge yJff.attim minorem Splritu efle; etfi dc Splritu accidit, ut (turuiam ejus, non tamen Spiritum -capit etiam Imagineru Sphims dicere Flat^m, nam & ideo Homo Imago Dei, id eftSpi- ntus. Deus enim Spritus . In hoc erit Imago minor veri- tatc, & Affiatus Spiritu inferior, h:ibens illas utique ImeetsDQXy qua tmmortalis hmmz, qu2. lil>era &c fui arbitrii.&c.tamcnin his fPTz^^o, & non uique ad ipjam Vim divinitatis. Tett. contr. Marc. I. 2. Your Qu. 11. cffonie Q^U E RI E S. 125 Your next Objedion againfl La^a»tius^ is, that He fuppofed the Son to be only mmtdly contain d in God» and afrerwards begotten into a Perfon. You ground your Conjeclure upon a Paffagc, which you cite p. 8S, and again p. 1 20. 1 have certainly a better Right here to fay. that the Senfe is not clear^ than you had with Relation to ma Subftantia : And the Liberty you take of tranflatinq, comprehcndit in Effigiem (or ad Ejfigiem^ as lome Editions have it J firrmedinto a red Perfon^ I'i pretty extraordinary. The learned Le Nottrry gives a quite different Ccnftru^ d:ion of That obfcure PafTage : And which to me ap- pears more probable than your's. But fuppofing liie Author to have exprelfed Himfelf fomewhat crudely in This Place, in Relation to the Son's Generation, (which He at the fame Time profcffes to be inexpli- <;able) you very w^ell know that the fame Author elfewhere fpeaks as crudely even of the Father Him- felf; whom he fuppofes to have had a Beginnings and to have made Himfelf* His Words are, " Smce it '' cannot otherwife be, but that whatever exifts njufi '' have fometime began to be, it follows, that {ince *' nothing was before Him, He muft have fprung '' from Himfelf, Dens ipje fe fecit, God made Him- *' felf. Laciant. I. i. c. 7. This is flrange Divinity. But the Author was a Novice 5 and He at other Times talks in a ioberer Manner. He ought therefore to be interpreted with Candor, and with fome Graii^ of Allowance. If You take Advantage of every obfcure or uncautious Jlxpreflion, you will make Him as Heterodox in refpedt of the real Divinity of the Father, as you fuppofe Him to be with Regard to the Son. But if you pleafe to interpret Him with Candor, and to explain any ob- fcure or incidental PalTagc, by what is plain, and is expreffed more at large ; He may then perhaps be found, upon the whole, found and orthodox in Re- Jation both to the Father and Son. You next fpeak (p. ^5),) of the Son's entire Subjedion and Obedience to. 116 A Second Defense Qu.IL to the Will and Commands of the Father: Yet ta- king no Notice of Laclantitis vindicating to Both the fame infeparable Honour^ as being one God^. The Sfih" jeElian you mention is intended only of what was fince the Incar/iinio», and therefore nothing to the Purpofe. And as to Chrift's not fctting Himlelf up for u^ywther God fy/hich appears to be Ldtamus's real and full Meaning in the Paffage you citef; I fuppofe it may be admitted without any Scruple. Or at mod, i^ can amount to no more than This, that in the Opi- nion of LaclcintiMS^ Chnft (during his State of Humi- liation) never called Hrmfelf God^ left He ihould there-p by give Offence, and be mifconftrued as preaching up uinother God. How otherwife lliall the Apoftles, or L^iclmtms Himfclf be juflified (by that way of Reafoning) in giving the Title and Character of God to Chrift ? I conclude with repeating what I before faid, that admitting iome Thmgs in LacUntifH (a Cateshume?^ only, and not fully intruded) to be ■^^ Duocflediccntur, mc^uihus Su^fiai^tia, Bii Voluntas, ^TiJesunA efl. ErgQ Sc Fit-'js per Putrem, Sc Pater per Filium. Uaus eft H(h %ds utriq^ue tribueodus, tanquam uni p^a, 8c ita dividendus eft per duos cultusutdiviiio ipfaCompage iixfeparabili vinciatur; neutrurq iibi reiinquit, qui aut Patrem a l-'ilio, aut Filium a Patre feccrnito laclant. Eftt.c.^p.p' 1:^0, 1^1, f Furifletenim hoc nonejus qui mifcrar, {edi fuum poprlum negom t:um gcrcrc, ac Co^o eo^ quern illuftratum ypnerat, je^arave, La^ Vid. Sor^rni Appav.:r. Vol. 2. />. 799. *♦ Solus hiberrerum omnium cum Filio liio poteftatem : Nee in Qa. IL effov^e QU E R I E S. 127 Author as not recomileablc to his Opinion : You (hould have faid, not reconcileablc, upon the oi'holc. For the Billiop lulpeded fome PaiTages to have been foiflcd in, being not reconcileable with others y or elfe that the Author Himfelf, being a very raw Divir.e, had fallen into grofs ContradiElions, But Billiop Btdi infifted upon it, that fome PafTages of LacUntius were diredtly oppofite to the Men of your Principles, and not re- ckon cileable with j^rianifm : As they certainly arc nor. -^. P. 555. EUSEBIUS. We now come to a Man that lived after the Rife 6? the u4rian Herefy ; and who is fuppofed by all Sides^ and Parties, to have hod a Tintfture of it more or lefs j and efpecially in his Writings before the Coun- cil of Nice, A Teftimony therefore from Him iii Proof of the Father and Son being o?ie God is the more conliderable ; fince nothing could extort it from Him, but either the force of Tr nth ^ or the Strength of Tr.i- dition, or tlie Cnrrencji and Prev^le72C€ of That Per- fwafion in his Time. And which foever of Thefe it were, it is very much to my purpofe, tho* Eiifibins. rhight at other Times contradict it. I cited Socrates ^ for the Truth of the Faft, that Eufebius Himfelf confeiTed one God in Three Hjpofiafes : Nor do I fee any Reafon to fufpeft his Credit. He had hi? Account, as He declares, from original Letters, which paffcd at That Time. And whatever Eptfebim might privately write. He might not have AfTurance enough, in ptiblic Debate, to gain-fay a Thing which all Ca- choiics allowed. Any one may fee, by Eufebius's O- ** The FAther alone, T»'tth his Soriy has 'Dominion ove^ (ill : ^orJoth- ^ any thing belong to the jingels, hut the Srcefjity &f Obeying. lIereL.i€x2.n\.'vdSp'ainh afcribes one comvion Domimon to the Father and the Son : And intimates, that God the Son is exempt from any Necsl- l^xyof Obedience, by theOppofttionTnade bitw^en H':mar,d Ar^jri^\r, TdtlOu t28 ^ Second Defense Qii.II, ration before Conftantiney how tender He was of drop«» pmg Any thing hke Anmijm in the Face of the Ci* thoitcsy who. He knew, would not bear it» He there {"^^eaks as orthodoxly of the Blefled Trbity as a ^\zx\ can reafonably delire. His Words are : '« The *' Ternary Number firfb Ihowed Juftice, teaching £« *^ qtulitj ; having ^^;/^/ Beginning, Middle, and End % *' And Thefe are a Reprcfentation of the myftical, «' mofi: holy, and Majefljc Trinity ; which compad*, «' ed of a Nature that had no Beginning, and is un- *« created, contains in it the Seeds, Keafons, and Caufes <' of all Things that have been made* And the I^ower *^ of the Number Three is rightly fliled the ig;!^'^> «' the Source of All Things '^. Thus far Eufeh'ius : And He that could fay This, (which is really (Irongerj may very well be fuppofed to fay the other, which Socrates reports of Him; Now, either Et-ifcbins was finccre in what He has here faid, or He was not. If He was, then He is Ax\ Evidence on my Side, and I have a Right to claim Him as fuch : If He was notg flill it iliows what the prevailht^ DoEirine v/as, and which Eufc* tim durfl: not but comply with, in his pf^l^iic Speech; And This is an additional Confirmation of Socrates* $ tvcport, which relates to v/hat Eufeh'ms acknowledged in Public Conferences, The fame alfo is confirmed by his lubfcribing the Nkene Faith, drav/n up upon the fame Principles which I am here defending. Let This fuffice in Proof of my Third Article, that the Antiems have all along believed and taughC, that * U^OfTti ^ r^iott^ ^iKcMrard-'lvj oivs^'ei^iv^ Itrv-r^rtc y,ciy^y/)(mfd^'.^' cot, \e,v itprvifjijivyi^ TY.c, raJv vf^'/jro^j* oi777^ T*i5 T t»A(yv y.vitr^iJi^ Father Qu. IL of fome QU E R I E S. 129 Father and Son are one God; and therefore God the Son was never thought to be excluded from the onc Cod-head by the Texts which concern the Vnity, I have waved all difputable Authorities : But bccaufe there are fome confiderable Teftimonies in Rmnart*s {eled Ads of Martyrs, which tho^ not fo certainly genmne^ as Thofe before given, have yet no certain Mark of Spuriotifrefsy I may throw them into -the Margin ^ for the Reader to judge of as He fees Caufe. There can hardly be any clearer, or lefs con- tefted Point than This I have been mentioning. It runs, in a Manner, quite through the Fathers down to the Times of Arm. The only Writer I have met with, within this Compafs, that can with any Show t>f Reafon be thought to make an Exception, is AV vatian^ Presbyter of Ri)me^ who, with Novatus of Carthage in the Year 251, began the Schifm, called after his Name; and in the Year 257, or thereabout, (it could not well be fooner by his mentioning Sabel- Uhs) wrote a Traft upon The Trinity , ilill extanr* That He was in the main, Orthodox, as to the Point of the Trinity, I think plain enough from the Tra6t it felf ; as has been ihown alfo by Le Moyne^ Gardiner^ Biilh and other great Men. But his Way of refolving the Unity of God-head into the Father alone^ (not very con- fiftently with his Comm.ent on John xvii. ^^ if it is to be made Senfe of) appears to me fomewhat par- ticular, and not very agreeable to the Catholics of * Chriftum cum Patre & Spiritu fanflo, Deum effe confitcor. Aci. Zpifodti Man. A. D. 178. Ruin. p. j6. Dominum enim Chriilum ccnfiteor, Filium AltifTimi Patris, uni- ci unicum. Ipfum cum Patre 5c Spiritu fandlo, UnufTj folum Denni efie profitcor. Aci. Vmcentii Mart. A. D. 304. apmi Ruinart. p. Patrcm Sc Filium & Spiriturrt fanftum adoro: Sanflam Trinita- tem adoro, prxtcr Quam non eft Deus. Acta EupliMart. A. D. 504. f.pud Ruin. p. 407. Adorem Trinitajcm infeparabilem, qux Trinitas Unitas Deiratis ,€fta IJ. p. 408. S That I30 A Second Defense Qii.lL That Time. He feems to me ('which I fpeak how* ever with Submiflion to better JudgiTients ) to have taken much luch a Method, in explaining the Dod- rine of the Trinity , as lome very worthy Men * amongft our felves did, about thirty Years ago, when the Controverfy was rife in England, It was to ad- mit of a higloer and a lower Senle of the Word God; the. higher llippofed to have nothing above the other but Scif-exifteyiC€f or Vnoriginatenefs : The Father then •was fuppofed to be God m the highell: Senfe as //«- originate^ but flill the Son and Holy Ghoft each God in a Senfe infinitely higher than any Creature can be; being neccffarilj-exijlmg^ and wanting nothing but Vn- originatenefs, This, I fay, was the Scheme which fome worthy Men amongft us at That Time took into; and which Dr. Clarke has endeavoured to make fome Advantage of, as falling partly in with his Schem.e ; tho' differing in the main Point of all, the necejfary Exiftence. This Method of fdlving the Vnity was thought the more plaufible, as moil eafily ac- counting for the Fathers being fo often fliled the onci or only God: And there was This Thing farther to recommend it, that it feem'd vqvj happily to (land clear of the moll: confiderable Di .^cullies raifed about one being Three, and Three one. The main Charge it lay liable to^ v/as that of Tritheifm : Which yet nei- ther Arians -y nor Socinians could with Any Face ob- )tdi to it; their rerpe(5«;!ve Schemes being equally li-* able to the hkeCharge; And whatever Evaficns They fhould contrive, 7 he fame would, with a very fmall Change, lerve as well This, or better. But after all, to fay the Truth, This Scheme can never be pcrfed- ly clear'd. Tritheifm m..iy be retorted upon an yirian, as Ditheifn upon a Sociman-, and fo they may throw the Cliarge back, one upon another; while a Sahellian^ a "Jew^ or a Pagan might maintain the Charge againft * Bp. 'EoifiUr and others, them Qii. IL offome Q^U E R I E S. i j i them all. Nor is their any Way of avoiding it, but the fame which the antient Church, in general, went into, vtz,. The including all the Three Perfons in the one God, I have Ihown however, what may be juftly pleaded for Novatians Orthodoxy, in the maia Point, the Ejfentid Divimty of all the Three Pcrfbns ; tlio' He other wife took a vVay fomewhac peculiar, and almod: drop'd the Vnitj : Unity of Godhead y I mean ; for as to Vnity of Spibjfance^ He is clear e- nough for it: And therefore He feems to have fup- pofed Father and Son to be t7vo Gods in one Sub" fiance ; tho* He never fo called Them, but endea- vour'd, in his Way, to fence off the Charge as well as He could , not very judicioufly nor confifbently. Upon the fame Scheme perhaps, EuJeb'tHs's Ortho- doxy fo far, may poifibly be defended, efpecially as to God the Son ; norv/ithfti^nding what the learned MontfAucon has objeded, in a Diilertation to That Pur- pofe. But This by the Way only; I lliall have a^ Eother Opportunity, low^r down, of faying more of Eujehim, Having cleai'd Three of the Points, v/hich I undertook, viz^. that the Antients in general, never thought the excluflve Terms to affed the Son, ne- ver admitted Another Gody or Two Gods ; but con- ftantly fuppofed Father and Son together o-4e God; there remains now only my fourth Article, to com- pleat the Demonftration of what I intend; namely, / 4. That the Antients applied fuch Texts of the /Old Tedament as undoubtedly belong to the one God ^ fiipremey to God the Son ; confidered in his own Perjon^ and as really being all that Thofe Texts in their fuUefl: Senfe imply. The Authors by me cite4 for This purpofe, in ,my Defenfe, fag, 28, &c. are Juflm MartjY , Theophtliis , Iren£HS , Clemens of Alex- andria, TerttiUiariy Jifippolytus ^ Origeny Cyprian^ No^ vatiany The Antiochian Fathers, LaclantiftSy and Eu^ pbitis. MoR- of thefe have been before confidered under the former A:r*icle, bxit muft now be tra- S \ yerfe^ i|2 ^Second Defense Qu. II. verfed over again upon this Article alfo, diflind froin the other. Before you come du'eflly to attack the general Ar- gument, you have fome previous Confiderations thrown in to prejudice the Reader againft it : Thefe I muft take fome ihort notice of, in the entrance, following your Method. 1. You fay, my alTerting Father and Son to be the CMC feipreme Gody not one in Perjon but in Suhjiancey ii direEi:ly affirming Two Supreme Gods in Perlon, tho* fubfifting in one undivided Suhfiance^ pag, 12 5. Tq which I anfwer, that This is diredly begging the Queftion. One Subftance , with one Head , cannot make two Gods, upon the Principles of the primitive Chnrches: Nor are your A^letaphyfaks flrong enough to bear up againfl their united Tefiimonies, with Scripture at the Head of them. 2. You ask, How comes it to pafsy that the ^ntients never fay, that Chrifi is the one 3 or only God \ Anfw. They do fay it fomctimes of Chrifi: fingly*, tften of Chrift w^ith the Father; as hath been fhown under the laft Article : Befides that the making Chrifi the God of Ifael, &c. is faying the fame Thing ,• unlefs there be Two Gods of IfraeL 5. You asli, Why do They exprejly condemn the ap" plying the Title of the one fupreme God CG od over all you meanj to Chrifi f ^njw. They never do condemn the applying thq Title of God over all to Chrifi, but the applying it in a wrong Senfe, and under a falfe Meaning f, as fome Hereticks applied it. Your References I have anfwered above. 4. You objed, that all the Texts, I alledge, ftyh the Son, uAngel, or Afejfenger, Right: And fo the uintients came to know tliat the Texts were not * See my Sermons fag. 141. f See my Anfwer to Dr. Whitby, fag. 13, 24. ineanf Qii. II. of feme (QUERIES. 131 jneant of God the Father. The Son is an ^figely and /Mejjenger ', not by Nature *, but by Office, and vo- luntary Condefcenfion. 5 You objed, that the Antients thought it ah-^ ftird and blajphemom to fuppofi that the Jupreme God fjofild appear y be ft tied an Angel y &c. Anjw. Blafphemous only for the fupreme Father to appear -, who could not fubmit to an inferior Pffice (as they thought^ without inverting the Or^r of the Perjons, See my Anfwer to Dr. JVmbjy pag. 75. And I may obferve, that the Poft-nicene Writers, who undoubtedly beUeved the effential Di- vinity of Chrift, yet talked the fame Way, upon That Head f. I m^y farther take notice to you, that the Catholicks in their Charge of Blafphemy upon the Sabellians, did not go upon any fuch Prin- ciple as you imagine, that the Difference of the NatHres of Father and Son made it Blajphrr^y to afcribe That to oney which might be innocently afcribed to the other, but upon quite another Foundation ; namely, that They thought it Blafphemy to afcribe any thing to the Father, feemingly derogatory, or "^ Diduseft:quidemM/5f^«iC^«/;/// ^«^?/«/,ideft Nuntiusj Officii, non nature vocabulo.— — Non ideo tamen {\cAngelus intelligendus ut Aliquis Gahiel, aut Michael. Nam & Filius a Domino Vincx mittitur ad Cultores, licut & Famuli, de Fru£tibus petitum. Sed non proptcrea unus ex E«w2«//\f deputabitur Filius, quia FumHlorum fuccedit p^(C/^. Tertull.de Carn.Clirill:. cap. 14. " He is called, indeed, the Angel of the grent Coimfel-, That is, " The Mejfengerj which is a Name of Office, not of Nature— Vie «* is not therefore to bethought an Angel, like zny GabrieL or M/- ** chael. For, even the Son is lent to the Husbandmen by the Lord '* of the Vineyard, as the Servants are, to gather the Fruits. But *' we muft not therefore reckon the 5'w as one of the Servants^ be- " caufe of his fucceeding to their Office." f Pater non dicitur mijptsi non enim habet quia nee Apoftoliis haecdicens Mafphemavii:» SJicutautein, dcquo quid capitdici, imc Bla/phcraia dicki^/r i itacuiod IKiQcapit,^i;/.'?/|=Afaf/^eft,lidicaUir. TertuU. ^onu.Prax. c ic^ C^. IL of fome Q^U E R I E S. ii% alwAjs mt from the Confidcration gf Paternity, bnt of the Father's Supremacy, his being the one fpt^remet Jelf-* exiftem, independent God of the Vmver/e, (pag. iz8.) ^nJii-\ This being 2ifecret piece of Hiftory which will Want Proof, we may pafs it over : You have told us what yoft would have faid in fuch a Cafe ; but iht ^ntients^, I think* had »ot fi teamed Chrifi, Let us now proceed to fee what Thofe good Men fay ; and how handfomely They can plead for the Divinity of their bleffed Lord, A. D. 145. Justin Martyr. !My Argument, from Jujiin^ (lands thus. (See mf ftefenfe, pag, i^.) The Jehovah mentioned G^;/, bcviii. I, 15. and Gen, xix. 24, 27. The God (0 ©eoV Speaking, Gen, xxi. iz. The Lord God o? jAbraham, and God of .//^j^c fpoken of, (7f». xxviii. 13* The God of Bethel (Gen. xxxi 13.; God (0 ©€oV? fabfolurely fo called. Gen. xxxv. i. God calling out . of the Bufh, and faying I am the God of Abraham^, ' &c. Exod, iii. 4, 6, and I AM That I AM, The Lord Cody &c. Exod. iii. 14, 15. God Almighty mentioned, Exod. vi. 3. Lord of Hojis-y Pial. xxiv. 8, 10. The Jehovah f, okcn of, Pfal. xlvii. 5. The God men- tioned, PJal. Ixxxii. 2. and xcix. !• is the one true God, the one eternal God of the Univerfe, fupreme. But, according to Jafiin Martyr, our Bkffed Lord is what hath been faid, and all that hath been" faid, in his own Perfoiu Therefore, c^c. Now let us confider vvhat you can have to except ggainfl: this plain and evident Demonftration. I have indeed already anfvvcr'd, or obviated all you have to fay, in another Place ^. And therefore Ihall be fo much ' the lliorter now. You plead, that according to juflin, if were pre^ fiimption to fiy, that the Aiaker and Father of the 'Vniverfe left the Sftper-celef^ial Ji-lanjicns, md ap^* * Anfsvsr tg Dr. Whitby, p.i^. f f , 8vC, pf^-fd J56 'A SEdoNi5 DeI^ense Qu.II. vured here in a little fart of the Earth, Right s be- caule the Father, upon their Principles, was never to be /ent', or to ad a mimfierial part, any more than He was to be incarnate i fo that the Appearing, even by vifible Sjmbolsy (which was the only kind of ap-* pearing They afcribed to God the Son) was not thought fuitable to the Firfi Perfon of the Trinity; who, as He is from none^ could not without invert- ing the Order of Perfons, be fent by Any. It was therefore proper, in That Oecommy ^ to alfign Hea^ ven as the Seat of Refidence to the Father, tho* fil- ling all Things, and the Earth to the Son, tho* at the fame tinoe filling all Things as well as the Fa- ther*. I muft farther remind the Reader,, that you have not a Syllable here to plead beyond what Biihop Bull had fully and compleatly anfwered long ago f- And therefore the fair way would have been , not to bring up again thofe obfolete, and now flale Things, fit only to be offered to very ignorant Readers, buc to have fet your felf to anfwer what the Billiop has faid; which might have been an Employment worthy of a Scholar* You pretend it to be undeniably certain , from / Jtifin, that the Divine Perfon appearing was not the ^ fupreme God y ^rc. whereas it is undeniably certain, that He was the fupreme God, only not the fupreme Father; Another Perfon from Him^ not Another God^ but the fame God. See above. You bid me take Notice, (pag. 134.) that the Be* ginning, and Conchtfion of every Argument is to f]joii> that Chrifl is not [ogTrl 'TthToo^ 0co?, 0 Kvej®^ Tciv ZAo)/, 0 7to:YiTy\c tSv 'cKcov'] bnt dvjajs fitbordinatcly Oics 3t5cl0eo^xctl;ti;e/@^- ^^o^ may fancy there is romething * See Tcrtallian above ^ P- 99- t Bull D. F .Scd. 4. c. 3. p. 267, 5cc, ,^f Qu.ir. vf feme QUEKl^S. I37 of Weight in what you fay : But all that know any thing of Jtiftin^ know there is nothing in it. Jftftin iifes the feveral Phrafes you have mentioned to de- note the Perfon of the Father; and They anioiint to no more than it He had faid 0 ^ar^Ap > only there was a Caufe, a very juft one, as I have elfewhere* intimated, why he chofe the other generally, rather than that of 0 TtoLT^/io, There was therefore good Reafon for Jptftin's form- ing his Conclufion in the Terms He did: And it had been ridiculous to do otherwife. Yet, you will find that the Titles given to God the Son in Thofc Texts which Juftin cites, are as high and flrong as the higheft you have mentioned, and are indeed the very fame, many of them, by which Scripture fets forth the fupreme Majefly, Dignity, and Peifedions of God the Father. What you fay of the Title of xij^®^ hscLixim^ Lord of Hoftsf applied to Chrift in Pfd. xxiv. by sjuftiny is rightly obferved* And therefore I have hinted above, that the Title is underflood by Jttjlm, _^ a Name of Office , not of Nature^ as in the He^ ^ hre^v Original : And fo we cannot draw fo cogent an Argument from that Title^ confidercd by jfi^iiny as we may from the fame Title as it fignifies in the Hehterw. This I allow, and alfo that every Office is juftly referred to the Father, as bemg firit in order, and therefore firfl confidered in every Oeconomj and Difpenjatiort. You farther ar^ue, that Chrid v/as made ':ra3>^r:^, faljlhle, by the V/ili of Gody for otir fakes. \(cYy true, becaufe He was made Man for our fakes : not that his Divine Nature was paffilde , any more than the /"Father^s. Such is Jaflins own Account of it> pajjible ^ "QiS, Manf. None of the Fathers ever thought Him * Anfyvcr to Dr. Whitby, />-j?^. ^\> 5^?ixA. J lift. Di.iI. p. i)-f. Sylburq. ' T faJJibU jjS >^ Second Defense Qli. II. pMle any otherwife. But I am afliamed to remind a Scholar of thofe kriown Thmgs. You come next to mifre ort Bp. BulL Ton fay^ Cpae. I 5 50 ^^^^ ^^ all the Places m Juftm'j Hnquejiio- nably qtnulne Writings^ which thus declare the Word to be the Aimifier of God's Wtll^ the learned Bipop Bull oppofes 0}w faigte Paffage out of an Epiftle to Dioc'netus judged to be Jpurious, Who would not froni hence imagine that the whole Caufe, in a man- ner, depended on a flngle Palfage, of a fpurious Epiftle^ But this is a moft nnjull; Reprefentation. Let that PalTage , or that Epiftle be fpunous, tho* if it be not Jaftin^, yet it is certainly very antient, and about the fame Age with Jpiftin-y and you your felf have quoted ir, without Scruple, as Jujiins own, (p, 11.) The Cau.e ftands very ee ^•oU D. F. p. Z69, *' The Qu. II. offomeqJJEKlES. 139 " The Sum of my Anfvver is This. Thofc Do- (flors of the Church who wrote before the Rile of Arias' s Herefy , as ol't as They reafon Thus.* It was not God the pLuher but the Son that ap- peared under the Old Telhniciit, and became tn- carnate in the Fulnefs of Tmic ; the Father is in" finite i and cannot be inckidcd in a PUccy is invi- fible and cannot be [ecn by Any; They did nor intend to deny the Son of God to be immenjc, and invijihle as well as the Father, but only (ignihed barely that both all thole Ai^pearences o'i God, and even the Incarnation itfeif iiad relation to the Occonomy which the Son of God had taken upon Him ; which Oeconowy could no way iuit with the Father becaulc of his having no Pri:l» *1 TflS T«»TOt CiXTUTCrtTOtf XXlti To B-i^Utec t5 7r«T^8?, y^ to %u* «i^ifu iietM^dy ciKXf/tUTotf i(guf ecr^urv ^vmfju^ Ttocnat, if^Jo^f*^, &c. Clem. Strom. 7. Se(^. 2. p. 8;;i. Ipokcii 142 ^ Second Defense Qu. IL fpokert of could not be the Father ; who never ^/j- pears becaufe never Jent^ and is never fent becaufe He ' has no Father to fend Him : Which is the fum of ■ what all the Antients thought in That matter. The Father was not to be in a PLice, even by vijible Symbols \ which yet the Son might be, becaufe a Son. You obcrve, that ^floeophilus fpeaks of the Father ^ not under the Character of Father of Chrifty but as h£\^n^ 0 ^ios 39 T^n^p 'mv o\m, the God and Father #f al Things, Right ; becaufe he was talking to a pagan', co whom therefore He adapted his Style> calling the FatUr by fuch a Name as Pagans gave ta their Supreme Father af Gods and Men. So Jtijlim Aiartyr, in his Apology -^ written to the Pagans^ gives the Father That Tiiie; but in his Dialogue he gene- rally gives Him Another, more proper to the fewsy hecauie He had then to dtal with Jews : And ic ^'ould not have been proper to give Him the Name ^f Father^ in the Chriftian Senfe> v/hile difpuring ?vf>cnnft Thofe, who would not yet own Him a Fa-> tiQtr in That Seufe ,• for it would have been begging \hQ. Quefl:ion*. You have therefore drawn ftrange Confequences from an Imnginarion of your own» '^'hich never entred info the Head of lloeophiltv^. But you oblerve farther, th.2t the Son (according to Theophiltis) affi4med the Perfon ( nQt of the Father merely) hnt of (rS BiS) God abfolmelj. Thst is again pot oi the Father, but of the Father: ior it is the J^athr he means, the Perfon of the Father j by t« 3e.?, the fame whom he had juit before called the Father and God cf the Vniverfey in compliance with ihe Pa^r-an Style, And what cuts off all your Criti- ^ifms at oncej, Theophilus. obferves tbere^ that the Soa ^ing God t a*» God's Son, appeared to Adam: As jnuch as to fay> that if the Son had not been Ge^, He • See %ny Anf-mer to Dr. Whitby, wg fi. ^ ^ •fc O^oc av m 0 >iey(^% H^ ^^ •9'«» 'ng5vy.fi>;, over* uv $iiXtTaf 0 TnA-* Qii. II. ^f fome QU E R I E S. J^A^ could not pretend to afftrrr, that He was the Pcilci filled in Genejis, icue^o, o 5cc$5 The Lord Ged, liuC being really Gody as God's Son, there was nothing in That Title, but what very well fuited his Perfon; And fo it was right to interpret Gen, iii. 8. of Him, This is evidently the Train and Courfe of Theoph'dus's Thoughts in that Place; gradually to introduce Au* toljchi4S to admit God's Son; and therewith t\\Q ChrtjU^ An Religion. This may farther fhow, that when Theophiius f^-eaks of the Logos' s alTuming the Per/on of Cody He means This, and only This; that He ad- ed in the Character and Capacity of the eternal Godi which he mig'ht very well do, being Himfelf very Gody as well as that other Per/on, his Father, called God and Father of the ZJmvcrfe : And it was under this very Characler , He appcar'd to Adam^ as his Creator y that is, as God and Father of all Things^ which is not a fbronger Expreflion than xudi©- o htl^y the Lord God applied to Him by Theophiltis, I iliall only add, that Theophiius certainly never intended to alfert Two Lord Gods, as your Hypotheils requires, but one only, The Father with the Logos: And fo all con- cludes in one God fttpreme"^; agreeably to m.y Principles," A. D. 187. I REN^U s. My Argument from Irenms runs thus. Jehovah jthat rain'd upon Sodom {Gen. xix. 24.) God calhng at [the Buili, and faying I am the Cod of Abraham^ \k^c, ( Exod, iii. 4. 6.) The mighty God fpoken of, *Pf. 1. The God known in JhUah, (Pf Ixxvi., i. ) J * Theophiius fpeak'mg of Woman being made from the Rib of I the Man, repre/ents it as an Emblem cf ti.e divine Uaity, m tiJije [. Words. Ov fvtv oiX>.cc it diet TifTtS ct<'^6'^i to fjbvnioisv r'vtc. i'.ovoe.fi}^:a(;t r^q oi )'^o iiq arcsKX f/j'ccv. Thcophil. p. I+f. '■ To liijniFy rhc Myftcry of the Unity (or Monarchy) of God, He nude for Hiui a Wife, (uy ing; «>W 'i/i?ej Ttpo fnall be one Flefh, 144 !/? Second Defense QuJI* 9 Sek M6[[itQ]y; God (o Srth) ftanding in the Con* gregacion ( Pj: Ixxxii. i.J The Jehovah reigning. Pf xdx* I. the God and Jehovah mentioned : Jf xiii 2 XXXV. 4. JoeL iii. id. Ames i. 2. Godj who has none like Him, Mich, vii. 18. God (0 3ec$) that came from Teman^ Hah, iii» 3. He that is all This, is the one God fupreme : But fuch is Chrifl, ac- cording to Irenaus, Therefore, cjTC. You have Httle here but Repetition of the fame Thread-bare Things : That Chrift was not the one fupreme God, that is, not the one fupreme Father, which you conftantly confound with the other; that He miniflred-, which I do not difpute, for He died too; That He fulfilled the Fathers Commands-, which I never queftion'd ; that the Son is never called by Ire- n£Hs The one God, which I much queftion, and have proved to be falfe tho* the Point is not material ; That the Son received Poiver to judge, that is, from whom He received his Fjfence, What Force is there in Thefe Trite Things ? You add (p. 14 lO ^h^t Exod, m, 4. 8. is applied by Iren^us to the Father only, I know not where; but I am fure that He applies Verfe the 8'^ to the Son Thrice"^. And if He has any where applied it to the Father alfo, the Keafon rnay be, that fince Both are ih.^ fame Coi, the Ap- plication may be proper to either; which may be likewife anfwer fufficient to what you obferve of £x\ iii 14, 15. As to what you have farther, p* 142. I refer to what hath been faid under a former Article, to prove that Father and Son are, (according to Ifenms) Both together one God, * LoquenteFilio ad hUyfemtDefcmilt, inquit, eripere Fopulmn HunSi IpicsnimcQ: q'didcicc'idn, ^c.In-n. p. 180, Nelcientes eum qui Figura loquurus eft humana ad Ai>rahanjT, tz itcrumadiVjfoy/e//;,diceiuein Vulensviui Vexationem, he. Yixc enim , Filius, qui eft Verbuin Dc!, ab initio prxftruebat, p. 17,6. \ Tpie eft qui dicit Moy/i, Videns "j'tdi, (jrc ab inicio alTuetus Vcr-' bum DeiarcendcieSvdciccndcre, f. i-j.*. Qii, IL offome Q^U E R I E S. 145 J[,D. 19Z. Clemens ALEXANDRirruS. My Argument fjom Clemens is to This EfFcd. He who is Jehovah y Almighty God (Gen, xvii. i; ^.) Lord God of Abraham {Gen, xxviii. 15.) God of jB^thel, 0 ^ec$ (Gen, xxxi. 13. J and Lord God (Exod, •xx. 2.) is the one God fupreme. But fuch is Chrift according to Clemens, Therefore, ^sc. Here you tell me (p. 144O o^ ^he Pedagogue be- ing a juvenile Piece (which is more than you know*) Or if it be, it is of never the lefs Authority, if not contradided by his riper Thoughts, as ic is not. You refer to what you had faid above; and I refer to what I have faid in Anfwer above. But you far- ther take, me to Task, for what I had faid in my De- fcnfi, p. 34. that Chrift fpoke the Words, I am thd Lord thy God, Exod. xx. 2, in his owfS. Perfon^ ac- cording to Clemens f. This Obfervation, which, ic feems tenderly afFecls you, you call ahfmd^ and per-'^ feBAj ridiculoHS, It is eafy to give hard Names ; let us hear your Arguments. All you have to plead is This, that Chrifl is there ohferved to fpeak^ in his own l^erfon, not in Oppojitir.n to his being the Reprefen- tative of the P erf on of the Father^ but in Oppofiio-d to his Being elfeivhere fpoken of in the Third Perfon. Now, I grant it was not intended in Oppofition to an Opinion which no Body at That Time was wild enough to hold: But whih He is aiming at another -*rhing. He might accidentally drop a Sentence, which tjuite overthrows That Opinion j which is the Truth of the Cafe. For what can be plainer than the Words, S\% u'iS "Tr^oaooTca in his own Pcrfon , and lavrh ouoXoyu He profcffes Himjelf to be 'Ttcfx-^or/jiyo^^ the header forth , bcc.mfe of his Saying , / am the Lord thy Gody who led forth Thee out cf the L^^nd o/iEgypt^ * See GrabeV Infiances of Defers, p. lo. ■f n«Pit7 J^; oru* Pi<7« atci 7ou I'^la TrpccrztiTTs, ioiurcv of/joP^oyH 7:oia- T I ti-art" 146 ^Second Defense QU. llj I tpanflate. Leader fortlh to make the Englijh anlwer, as the Greek, 'ttou^^^oj^v and l^ctyxyjc^t do. Is th?re any Senfe in \vhat Clemens fays, if the Pcrfori there fpcaking was the PeiTon of the Father^ or any other Perfon but the Son\ But you was to fay fomething to amufe^ and was to fill up the reft with hard Words. The Oppojition you have took Notice of, does not at all alter the Ccfe. For whether the Scripture fpeaks of the Son in the Thitd, or He of Himplf in the firfi Perfon, it is ftill the Perfon of Ghrifi. A. D. 106. T F. R T U L L I A N. My Argument from Tertullian ftands thus. The Lord God mention'd Gen. iii. 8, 5/. Jchoz'S) appearing to Abraham : Gen. xviii. i. 15. and xix. 1^4. Tne God of yibray,my Ip.ac, and Jacob, Exod. jiii. 4, 6. The I AM^ Ex. -iii. 14. The God fpokcn |of, IJ. XXXV. 4. The God^ befides whom there is m \God (If, xlv. 14, 15.3 He is the one true God fu^ Ipreme. But Thij is Chnft^ according to Tcrtullian : ^Therefore, c^c. You have here (p, 145.) Two or Three Httle Cs- vils, which I have anfwer'd above. You next tell me, that TertMan always declares Chrift to have ap' peard not in his own Narr.e, but in the Name of the one fipreme God. But where does Terttdlian fay, that He appear'd not, or convericd not in his own Namc\ He fays indeed in the Father s Name-, but in his own Na-me too , the Name and Nature of either being common to Both^. He took no Name but what He • had a Right to : Nor faid any thing of Himflf but Vv'liat was true of Himjclf, And therefore He never iaid / am the Father, tlu/ He ofren faid I am 6W, ^r Lord^ or Almi;^htj : Which deferves your fpecial Notice. I allow that He afled in the Father's Name^ '^ Omui;i, inquit Tatris y^ea funt : cur non 6c l\0t7:ina? TertpilL Qii. ir. of fome (QUERIES. 147 coming with all the Authority of the Godhead, com- inon to Both^ unonginately in the Father, derivative- *^Iy in the Son. This is coining in the Father's Name> and with his Authority, to exhibite in, and through Himfelf, all the jV/ajejly and Dignity^ and Perfections of the Godhead: Being Himfelf a full, perlet^, and adequate l^-anlcript or Image of all that the Father is. You would have ir thought rhat the Father was ahfolmely invijibk (^according to TeytuUian) on Ac* count of his jupr erne Aldjejlyy bnt the Son vijible^ as a comprehcnfible Part; A.nd yet you very well know, that TerttilUan did not allow even the Son to be vifi* ble in his divine Nature*, but only by vifible Sjm^ hols voluntarily chof^n. And all the peculiar Majeffy of the Father lay only in This, that He was not to be viftbie in any Way at allj becaufe He was not to minifiery or to be incarnate. But will you perfiff ir^ offering the moll; palpable Abufes upon your Kea- ^v^rs \ A, D, 240. FTippoLYTus. Hippoljtus I had cited for one Text only, his ap- ply in_^^ the Words , That flretcheth out the Heavens like a Curtain {If, xL 22.) to Chnii. Whoever looks into That Chapter, will fee that the Pcrfon, of whom thofe Words v/cre fppken, is defcribed all the Way in Characiiers peculiar to the one true God, That Per- fon therefore being Chrift, according to Hippo/jtusy the Coufequence is evident. You have little to fay * Dicimuscnim ScFilium ruonomineeatenus invifhslem, c^udiSermo, Sc Spsritus Dei: ex Subilantlie conditionc, jam nunc.Sc quaDcus, Sc Sermo, & Spiritus. Vfibilem autem fuille ante C^rncm eo modo quo dicit, c^f. TertulL contr. Vr.ix. c, 14. t " For we iay, that the Son aifo, in his own Perfon, was invi- i *\ fible, fotar as He WdS The H Ifaacj and yacoh ; Jeho- vahy and King of Glory. Tofi jee not^ it feems, hoiif 'This proves , tlmt Origen thought Chriji to be the om Jupreme God. It either proves That, or elfe that O- rigen thought there were two Gods of Abraham^ Tiva L^rds of Hods: Which yet Origen, as we have be- fore feen, abfolutely denies. So much for Origen^ A, v. 256". Cyprian. My Argument from Cyprim runs t|ius. He that is God of Bethel, Gen, xxxv. i. The Lord Iflrong and mighty y f^ord of Hofls, PfaL xxiv. 8. io« ,He that faid, / am God (Pfal. xlvi. 10.) and who is Iralled mighty God and our God, Pfal, 1, i, 3. The IGod arifing, Pj. Ixviii. i. God /landing in the Con- jgregation^ Pf Ixxxii. i. The God befide whom there vis none eljey If. xlv. 14, 15. He that faid, / am Gad„ hat Man : Hof xi. 9. The Jehovah fpoken of, Zech» < X. 12. The God in Cowparijcn of whom, none other ,fiall be accounted of. Barttch iii. 55. He that is all i This, is the one true God fuprems. But fuch is Chrill:, j according to Cyprian, Therefore, &c, ^ In Anfvver hereto you tell mc (p. i4<^0 that Cyprian has not one Word to my Purpofe, But let the Reader judge as He finds, and not give too hafly Credit to your blunt Sayings. You tell me of Cyprians ftihng the Father The one God , who, is Lord of all, of unequalled uMajefiy and Povjer : But you have not Ibown, that This was faid in Oppofition to, or exclufive of, God the Son. Nay, it is certain, it was not, becaufe Cj- prian^ in his Application of the Texts above cited to ChriR:, has really faid as high, and as great Things of Him. What can run higher, than that of Barach ? This Qu. II. cffom qV E R I E S. 149 7I7/J is OHr Godt and there (hdl mne other he accounted cfi in Comparifon of Him, You liave nothing far- ther to fay, Lmt that Chrifl^ (/. e. during his Humi- liation here on Earth ) called the Father his Lord and Cody by Him frayed to be glorified^ and the hke. Sure, you do not exped an Anfwer, as often as you bring up Thofe poor Things. ^. D, 270. Antiochian Fathers. The Texts which Thefe Fathers apply to Chrif}« are Gen. xviii. i. 13. Gen, xxxi. 15. Exod. iii. 4, 6, Ifa, XXXV. 4.- xlv. 14, 15, Hof, xi. 9. The Argument from Them will be much the fame as That of others before recited. You plead, that Thefe BiQiops are fo far from declaring the Son to bt the oyie fttpreme God, that They exprejljy on the contrary-. Jay, that He fulfilled the Will of the Father in the Creation of All Things, Wonderful ! Si far from de- claring it, that they fay nothing but what is very con^ Jiftent wi:h it, or what f^rves to confirm it. For 3 what is there contrary, in his fulfilling the Will of th$. Father in the Crctr^tionf Or what Creature could ever i>e able to execute fo high a Charge t ? But here ^gain, you difcover what it is you rely on ; not Scrips turey or Fathers -^ but two or three Fancies of your own, among which This is one: That the DoArine of the Vnity, as held by the Church, is not conflft* Cnt with a Diftinftion of Perfbm ^ Order , and Offl^ ces. Might you not therefore better plainly own tc the World, that there lies all the Difficulty, rather than amufe them with Scripture and Fathers, only to draw fuch Premifes as are readily granted; at leaft by me, who difpute only your Conclufion ? You re- peat fome Things about the Abfurdity of the Fa* ther*s appearing J the SoiVs being an Asgclt iand the * Labbe Tom . i . p. 84^. •j- «S"ee i»y Sermor,«, p.7 3> ^f, . . like i ISO A Second Defeistse Qu.II. like; which have been before anfwered, and need not any larthei Notice. A, D* I'yJ' NOVATIAN. This Author, according to Order of Time, fliould have corne in before : But I was willing to poftpone Him, as you had done; becaufe J rake Him to be fomewhat particular, and therefore of dill:m(5l Confii- derarion; as before hinted. My Argument, from this Writer, will fland thus. \ ^he Jehovah appearing to Abraham {Gen, xviii.) I 3nd rainmg upon Sodom (Geu, xix.) The God fpeakr . ing 10 Ajraham (Gen, xxi.J The God of Bethel (Gen, xxxi.; The Cod Handing in the Congregation (Pf. f Ixxxii.) The God mention'd, If. xxxv. 4. ThQ Jehovah from Sion (Joel. iii. Am, i.) He is the one trtie God, But fuch is Chrift, according to Novatlan: Therefore, ^c, I have intimated my Doubts of Novatian be- fore, as to his Way of folving the Vnity: In which He appears to be various, and not very confident ivith his own Principles; tho' Orthodox in the main, as to the Son*s ejfcntial Divinity. The Sabcl^ ^lan Abufe of the Phrafe one God, I iuppofej might ir^ake Him the more fcrupulous. I have fometimes wonder'd at it^ confuiering the knowyt Principles of Thar Age , appearing in the Authors above men- tioned. But he was none of the mod judicious, nor wit]i';ut his SinguUritics -, as is plain from the Schifm begun by Him. I fhnll now fee what you have to fay to this Writer. You bring up (p. 148.) the old Pretence of God the Father being immenfe, and co«- iajnd in no Place , whereas the Son might be con- taifid, G^c. A general Anfwer has been already given ?o this out of Biihop Bull; which Anfwer is fo full and certain, that you knov/ not how to gain-fay it. The Meaninrr uf the Fathers was no more than This^ That God tlie Father never appear'd in a Place, no, not by vifhle Symbols, which yet the Son did : And ic was by fuch vifible Sjml^Js qnly , that the Spn was Qu.ll. of fome QlJE Kins. 151 "was contain* J in a Place , and not in his divifse Nk* ture, Nov at tan Himfclf is a Proof of this Matter; for. He exprefly afTcrts the 0?)mipref€me^ or Immenfitj of God the Son^. Your other Objedion is, that Novatian fpeaks of the Son as being jubditus^ Jnbjecl to the Father," which is meant only of the Son's mi^ fiiftring to the Father by volunrary Condelcenfion* according to the Oeconomy entred into from the Crea- tion: So that This is far fiom proving the SubjeUi- on which you are aiming at, viz.. a natural, and ne- ceffary Subjedion of a precariom Being to his God and Creator. Novatian would have abhorr'd the Thought, He refer ves to the Father folely, and exclufively, the Title of the one God, on Account of his Supremacy of Order, and Office (which I think a falfe Way of fpeak^ ing) at the fame time allowing the Son to be oF the fame Nature, and Stibjiance ; which is plainly making the Son God fupreme, and God in the ftriEt Senfe, ac^ cording to juft Propriety of Speech. In Words then^ tie may feem in fome IMeafure to agree with you : But in Reality, He agrees more with me; differing only locjuendi modoy or citrA Myflerii .Subjiantiamy from the Catholic Dodrine, as Petavius Himfelf confefles of Him. Pref, in T, i.e. 5. u^,D. 318. L ACT ANT I us. There are only Three Texts cited from this A\U thor: Ifa, xliv. 6. Ifa, xlv. 14, 15. Baruch, iii. 35. But They are wonderful ftrong, and expreffive, / am the Jirfl and I am the Lifl, and hefides me there is no God\- This He underftands of the Father and Son to- gether. Surely God is in Tijce, and there is not another God befides Thee ( {o He exprefles it in his Epitome) * Si Homo ranrummodo Chriftus, quornodo adcft ub^ae invo^ catus i cum Hxc Hominis Nacura non fir, icJ Dei, ut adefle omni loco folVit? Novat. c. 14.. '• If Chrill: be only a Man, How comes He to be prefent as i«- '* voked every whcrei when it is not thcNftCurfr of ^^an, but oi *' God. to b^ piet^nt :q »J1 Flace*? t$z A Second Defense QUilL This He underflands of Chrift, And the other Texr^ out of Baruch, is as full and ftrong^. One Thing is evident, that LaEiantius never dream*d of that flii(5fc torce of exclujivje Terms, which you are ufed to in- fift upon. For, if He had, He muft have excluded the Father Himfelf from being God 3 in Virtue of The Text of Baruch, You have nothing of Moment td fay to Lalian^ tifis^s Citations, which are diredly oppofite to your Principles: But with your ufual Air, when you are entirely at a Lofs, you would feem to contemn, what you cannot aniwer. All you can pretend is, that LaC" tantitii ftiles the Father Dem fummHs\^ God fupreme : ^ Unum cde Deum tarn Patrem quam Ti\\\xm,'Efrias in illo ex- enDplo quod luperius poluimus, Oilendit cum diceret ; Adorabant 2>, (^ Te deprecabuntur, c^uontam m Te Deus eji^ 0> non efi alius ^r At er Te^ La(^. Infu. I-4. c. 19. Epirom. c.44. Scd & alio loco limiliter ait. Sic dicit Deus Rex Ifrael, ^qui e* ttut eum Deus Aternus : Ego primus ^ ego no'viJJimHS (^ prater me nof% ffi Dens. Cum duas pcrfonas propofuillet Dei Regis, id eft Chrifti, ^ Dei Patris—^- ad utramque perfonam refercns, intulit, & frAter me non efi Deus, cum pellet ciicere pr&ter nos : Sed Fas noi^ erat plurali numero Separatiouem tantis neceflltudinis fieri. L 4.^ ■c: 29. Item J-erem'ias. Hie Deus nofler ejl. ^ non depatabitur alius abfc^u^ illo, C'c. Ladarit. Epit. c 44. p. 116. f Unus eft enim iblus liber Deus, lummus, carcnsOriginej qui^ ipfe eft Origoverum, Sc in eo fin1ul& Filius Qi^ omnia conrinentur. Quapropter ciara i^Iens 8c Voluntas alrerius in altero lit j vel po- tius in mroqueunay mento unus Detds uterqueappcllarur: quiaquic- quid eft in Putre ad Filium transfluit, 6c quicquideft in FilioaPa^ trcdefcendit. The Words, Sc omnia, here feem to come in veryftrangely. L^cStantius miiji think the omnia to be contained in the F.ither much otherwi/e than the Son is: illfe how (l}ould He prove the Son one God with the Father , without pro vmg the Jame of evtry Thrr.g elfe, as well as of Him, by the fanje Argu.iicnt i Qii. Whether Rcrum and Omn\d., vtay not be un^ der flood of Things divine ? All thai is divme or adorable^ in fuch d 8enfe as '£> ;vtullian fpaaks : Unus o.nnia, dum ex uno C777nia, per Subftantlo: fcilicet unita- tcm. Hrre, o\x\nh ft aJids only for the divine Verfons, hxi\oh\^^fays. In Hoc emiic quv fd Colcndum clt Colimus, And yet it is cerrain, that He fappofcs the Son to have the Tame Nature and Subjlance with the Father, and to be one God with Him; which is what I call mak- ing the Son God ftiprc/Ke : and the Author cannot be more plainly oppolire to my Principles in the /or- 977rr Part, than He is to jo^i/s in the latter. If the Parts are not reconcileable/his Evidence is nhU, and of no Account on either Side. But I conceive, -the Au- thor may be reconciled by a candid Conftrudion of Vet^s ftimmtii ; either conlider'd as oppofed only to Pagan Deities , or as being an inaccurate Exprellioa for fummui Pater y the jupre^ne Fatheri by which the Author Himfelf interprets it, and meaning no more than that He is fupreme in Order ^ or Ojjice ; which i allow. See Le Nonrrj Apparat, Vol. 2. p. 353. A,D, 335. EusEBiuSi What yoii were deficient with refped: to LaElantinSi you endeavour to make up, in regard to Eufeh'ms^ Here you irifult unmercifully: A plain Si<^n that your forbearing to do the like, upon other TVritefs, is not owing to your Civility or Modefly, but to fome- thing eiie. The Learned World mufl be call'd in, and {land amaz^ed at my Prefurrtption : As if none of the learned World had ever taken Etifebius to have any thing Orthodox upon the Prinitj. I gave a Caution at the Bottom of the thirty firfl: Page of my Defenfe^ in Regard to Eufebius: And it fo ftood in Three Edi- tions before you publiihed your Piece. This was oa purpofe to intimate, that I did not pretend to claim Eufebius as entirely on my Side; but only fe far. And with the like Moderation, I have always fpoke of Eufebius, in my Sermons, and elfe where; becaufe I would not deceive my Reader, nor be confident where a Point is difputable. Learned Men know, how both Ancients and Moderns have differ 'd in their Opinions of This Man, Hilar j^ ^erom^ PhotiuSy Two Nke^ phorus's. The 2'^ Council o^ N'ue j Buronihs , Perron, PctaviuSy Norisy S^wdins, Pe Ckrc, and otiiers > and W at 154 ./^Second Defense Qu. If. at lengtli Montfafim^ have charged Him with yiria* n'lfm : On the other iiancl, Socrates^ Thcodorit^ GeU" Jius CjsiicenHS , Carrier arim , Chamier , Calovi^s, Peter dii AloHimt Florentines, falejms, Bull-, Cave, Fdbri^ ciHs"^ defend, or at leaft excuie Him. Athanafm ^ icems to have thought that He was once an Ariany but at length came over to the CathoUc Side. Epipha^ nius fays. He was too much inclrad to the jirian Way; And the learned ?^i^/ (as an ingenious Gentleman ^"^ , from whom 1 have borrowed Part of This Account, has obfervcd) coy^fcjfes lie l^f^ows not what to make of J{im» Now, in luch Cafes as thefe:, however firmly pcrfuaded a Man may be, on Ihis, or That Side; yet m pure Modcfty and Deference to Men of Name and Character in the learned World, one would fpeak with Caution and Referve: And there cannot "V^ be a furer Argument of a little Mind , than to be tnfulting , and confident on fuch Occafions. After all, the main Qiieftion is very little concerned in This other about Et4jeliui\ who cannot juftly be reckoned among the Ante-nceic Writers (to whofe indifferent Judgment we appeal) as living, and writing after the Time that Aritis had broached his Herejj, and raifcd a Fadion againft the Church; to which Eufehms, by Affinity^ and Party (and perhaps upon Principle too) appears to have leaned. He may however be a good Evidence of what the Church taught, in Thofe very . Points which He endeavour'd, by a novel Turn, or by fonu private Conflrudions of his own, to warp frcm tiicir antient Intendment and Significancy. And tho' I cannot pretend to fay, that He comes entire- ly into that Scheme which I defend, yet fure I am that He can never be reconciled, upon the whole ^ to yours. * Fabrici'js, BiWioth. Cvccc.Vol.6 ;'. jz. f V:cL Athan:iiiE;>. cut Afros, P. 896. "^Tc ^,ir. '^iliWiby Anpver to ^ir. Whiilon, ^. 79 It Qu. ir. of fom^ QUEKIES. 155 Ic would be tedious to run thro' all you have cited from Him : It might fill a Volume to difcufs This fingle Qiieftion about Eufihins, I Ihall content my felf therefore with a few Strictures, juil to abate your cxcelfive Confidence, I have admitted, that Enfe-^ bim did (as fome other very worthy Men have alio done ) niagnify the Glory of umrigwatenefs rather too fill" \ as if it were a dill:in6t Perfcttioriy and not a Relation only, or mode of Exi,iencc, as tlvc Catholick^ taught : Yet you will not find tliat Ef^Jebms denies the nccejfary exijlence ^ or etcrmtj of the Son ; how- ever not after the Nicene Council. If you have 3 mind to gain EnfebiHs to your fide, do not endeavour it by falje Reports, and manifefi: Vntrmhs ; lefl the Reader fufpe61: you even in what you may jujlly plead from Him. You fcruple not to fay (/>, 150.) as frorn Etifch'ms, that the Son is fllkd God and Lord on account of his having received all Power and yinthoriiy from the Eat her, arid Aiini firing to till his commands: which, in effeCl, is making a Photima-n, or Samofatenian of Him. He no where, that I know of, lays any fuch I'hmg : Nor do the Places you refer to, prove any thing like jc; unlefs faving that Chrifl: is God, as being our Creator^ be tne fame as faying He is God on account of receiving u4mhcritj^ &c. EufehiHs's conftant way of accounting for the Son's being GW, is by refolving it into his being God's Son-\, and his thereby copying out a perfeci Refemblance of the Father : And he makes Him ly Nature great OQd"^* on that very ac- count. In one place more befides That beforemen- Eccl. Theol. 1. 2. p. 1 1 1. t Eufeb. Deni. Evang, p. 146, 213, 127. Contra Marc. p. 7, 62, 68, 6^, 72, 111, 123, 127. Comm. in Plalm. p. f 34, 634. -^-k (J)Jo-« fjtjiyxi; (U* 3-ioc, yg^^ fjuiycce, Tvy^uvc-t B:ta-i,Xvjc^ 'ci,Ti W'-ya- Vi//j? i; r» ^itf ^p^5v EuTcb. in Pfalm. p^ Oaj?. W I tionsdi 156 -^f Second Defense Qu.II, tioned, he calls Him God, as being onr Creator, or M(ih^^ ' unlefs it be there meant of the lather; v/hich if it be, it fhows that Effjel^ius's lockiig up- on Chrift as God bccaufe Creator » was no l.iiening Confideration. The Reader may well wonder, after This, what could move you to make fo ftrange and fdlfe a FLcprefenraticn of an Author. 1 may farther hint, th:!!, according to EttfcbiHS, the Son could not be Gody if He were produced g^ ift ovrav, from no- things or did not participate of the Father's Dlvi- fiity f. How does this fuit with your Notion of his Godjhip being owing to his receiving of Authority ? You next produce a PaiTage where Eufebius is ar^uin" that the Father, or God over ail, could not have appeared , becaufe it is iiTifopts to Jay God 7i'as changed : and This you leave with your Reader. You add another Paflage of like kind to it : It can no %^ay be Jaid that the nnhegotten andy n/imntahle ejjence of God SuDreme was changed into the Form of a Ivlan, This alfo you have for any (imple Reader to imagine, that Chrili;, who rook upon Him human Form, is not , according to Eujcbius , of immutable eflence > but fabjeft to change. Yet Eufebim certainly meant no more than that it was not (0 fuitable to the Ma- jefly of the Firft Perfon, (whom He calls indeed ^^- frenie God, in contradiflinCtion to the Son) 10 fiibmit to take upon Hiin any f^j7ble Symbols, or to be in- carnate. As to the N.iture and E fence of the Son> He believed it to be abfolutely immtitable^^^ and lia- ble ■^ Kjg/jfl? -/.fiiZt t^tv a^ ^iiXuv, icu.1 S-£d? 0)5 TrXcc^^, Eufeb. Com. in Pfal. p. 64.5-. t Eufcb. Eccl. Th. p. 6<). See below, p. 161. ** WliVUV aUTC^ TTOihiV UvAfii; oloc, JC." Ttfo TiiTiS TTTXeci TzJ TFUT ^i i)V' C(7f Orat. Pancg. c. 14,. p. 761. >«*-> einii/Miuni oij t^ e6Tfi7pio^ A15 ^ik- Eufeb. in PiaU p. iSj". - He Qli.II. of fome QV^^ll^S. 157 ble to no chdnge^ as well as the Father's. Wherefore tho' Etifebius does infift on the Stiprcmacy of the Fa- ther, more than other Writers before Hini (which might bring Him under the Su 'pic ion of ^nam^jing) This is in a manner all He can be laid to agree with you in, being directly oppolite to you in the maia Points of your Scheme. Such Men as Dr. Cudwortfi^ Bp. Fowler , and Others , amongfl: us , might per- haps have claimed Eujehnis as their own : You and your Friends are quite of Another Stamp; tho* you are willmg to feek fome Cover and Countenance from the Few Things wherein they agreed with you. The next Palfage you cite ( p^g- 152.^ proves no more than that Enjehius llrained the Point of the. Father's Supremacy too high, in cal- ling the Son a Second Lord', which Second however was in his Opinion, in a manner infinitely higher an4 more excellent than your Scheme makes Him by depriving Him of necejfary exi/Jence , and reducing Him thereby to a Creatfire, which Et^fihias declaies ngainfl: more than once. And tho* I will not under- take to clear Eufcbins of Tritheifmy or Dttheifra , yet it appears plainly enough to me, that He was very far from Arianifm \ at leail, after the Nicene Council. As to the next Text , about wjiich I appeal, you pretend that Eajehim is exprcilly againfl me. Why \ becauf^ He fays that the Son is not 0 \in Tcii^Tco^y That IS, He is not the jitpreme Father : which is all you could make of many the like Places in Eufshim ; were there not others flill Ifronger elfewheie. I could fhow you where Enfebipis ftiles the Son ^toi He performed all Things by the Man He had aflumed- •' Continuing immaterial in Himfelf, luch as He had been before " This, with the Father, without any change of his Subftance. " Nor did he futier any thing in refpcfl: of his Sabftance, being •' impartible. " Being found in Fafhion as a Man, He might feem to undergo •' no fmail change, xh.o' HuchAngecibUdJX^HnvariAbU isGoJ, fjS l/f Second Defense Qu. IL TOK oA6JV^, and o ^iU tov *QXm-\y and might tranflatc fufreme Gody as you do o g'n Tm.'^TCd)/^ were there no- thing elfe to be ccnfidered in This Matter. But I will not deceive my Readers. Nor is there any fuch peculiar Force in the Words o Itti -milm Sfthy that £ufihiHS might not, as well as the Phrygian Martyrs, apply them to the Son ^^. But I attend to the Senfe, not to the Phrafe. To proceed ; You grow bolder in your next Page C154O pre- tending to tell me, from a Paffage in Eufebius, that the Antient Church worfhippcd Chrtfi , not as being th^ «-')fhiiii<;, Eufeb. Eccl. Hifl. lib. S. cap. II. 'O tV» raivTKr, y^ ^.'k Trxvnevt i(^j\ iv Ttar.v o^a) fjbsvoii tt xeti k^puH' envy i-;n7ropfuofd^oag. 719. 5uieb. Eccl. Hift. lib. 10. p. 468. y^d. EcjcI Thcolog. pag. 69, iiy. quoee4 3vi. IL offome QU E RI E S. 15^ 3^uoted that Text **, he is the only one that ever drew fo wild a Confequence from ir. But the Truth IS , Eufebius never had a Thought of what your Words infinuate of Him. Let Him but explain Himfeif, and all will be very right. It depends upon EiifebiHs's Notion of the Father's InLibitationy which he fully lays open in another Place ^ : where he tells us , that the Father in the Generation of the Son communicated of his Fullnefs , the Fullnefs of his Godhead^ without divifion or feparation ; and it is in This refped that in Him dwelleth all the Fullnefs of the Godhead: So that the worlhipping of Chriil as having the Father dwelling in Him, comes to the fame with worlhipping Him as being God of Gody eter- nally begotten ^ of the Father; which is EfifebiHs'% Doclrine. And thus Eufebius agrees well with Hi' larj'^t and other Catholick Fathers. You go in Triumph, (fag. 155.) in the mofl: ex- traordinary manner ; imputing to me whatever firfl comes into your Head. All I was to prove from Efifebius was, that the Texts there cited were ap- plied to Chrifl: ; determining nothing of his other Prin- ciples , as I expreilly noted at the Bottom of th« Page. Yet neither you, nor any Man elfe, can ever clear Eufebius of the Charge of Pohtheifm^ and Self* contradict ion^ if, notwithftanding the applying Thefe a Hippo\'tuscontr.Noet.c.4.p.8.Cyprianadv. Jud.l.i. c. 6, Terruiiian coiitr. Prax. c. i 5 . Patrcs Antiocheni, p/j^+y . LaflanriusEpit. Sc Inftitur.Hilarius, p. S49. Cyriili Catech. p. i ;-6. Athanalius 491, 6S<5. Hjeronymus in I.oc. Epiphanius Vol. i. p. 48^. Ambrof. de Fid. 1. i.e. 2. Marius Viftoriii. 1. i. p. i6%. Gregor. Naz'-.mz. p 7 3 5 . Zcno Vcronenf. ue Nativ. Chrilli. i i jo*. b Eufeb, conrr. Mircell. 1. i. c. 2. p. 62. c T/4 ccy(/f.)(,^ yr.'.^trsiiq. Euiebin Pial. p. ij*. i.Vi\oy ysvvyjr.),. Euleb. contr. Marc. p. 75. d Deus enim in eo ell: 6c in quo eft Deus, Deus efl:. Non enim Dcus in diverlse atque alieiuTafe natarx Habiraculo eft, fed in fuo, ttque ex ic genito manet, DeusiaDso, (^uiaex Dso Deus eft. Hilar, lie Trin. 1. y. c. 40, p, Sji, Texts t66 A SiBcoND Defense Qu. 1L ^'exts ro Chrift, He did not think Him the one trn^ God, And if He had learn'd of the Arians a Nov J' way of eluding an Argument which the CathoUcks before Him knew nothing of, nor ever ufed; He is flill a witncfs of the Church's Application of Thofe Texts^ ( which is what I cited Him for ) tho' it be againil: his own Principles. But I am not yet fatil- fied that EiiJcbiUs differed in any main Doctrine, ex- cept it were in the manner of expreffing the Vnitj ; Itill believing the elTential Divinity of God the Son. You Cite Ajomfamon as charging Eufehim with Aria-* ttijm; at the lame Time telling us, that he erroneoufly calls it Arianifin, But if That learned Man did not know what Arianifm is, he might more eafily miftake in determining of Eufebius's Ddrine ; which is a much more intricate Bufinefs. The Truth is. That learned and judicious Man undefftood very well what Arianifm is, and is guilty of no Error, in That re^ fpect: But as to his Judgment of EnfebiaSy it is not fo intirely to be depended on. After he has given us a Sketch of Eufcbias^s Dodrine, as being Arian^ he does not yet pretend to reconcile all EHJebius'% Doclrine to that Scheme, to make him, in the whole, a coyijiiUnt Writer: But He iiill feems to fufpecl that he may be found various, and repugnant j which at laft is rather making him a Neutral^ than clear for any fide"^* Nor do I think it would be difficult to acquit Eufibipts of the Charge of Arianifm y at leait from the Time of the Nicene Council. It is plain- enough that He does not ordinarily (for I muft except a Paflage before cited ) make Father and Son one Principle^ or one God; upon which chiefly /tjontfaucon founds his Chaige of Arianijm, He did not coniider that a Man might afferc the etemitji and necejfary exiftence of the Son, and yet throw the Sttpremacy and Vniiy of Godhead upon the Father *Quod li in \Y\sEufeblus lecum pugnare deprehenditur j id lane propujm Erroriscll, ur con iiftcre noa vaicar> iibiLpe ipliadverle^ lur. ]?r&iim.m 'Eh/co. p. z3 donej Qii. II. of feme Q^U E R I E S. i6t alone, as felf-cxijicnt and God in a hisjjcr Scnfe; which Others have done belides Eitfchius ; thc\ I think, not very judicioufly, or confillemly. Alcat' faucon takes too much Advantage of Eujtb'mss Dc- monflratio Evangelica , or other Pieces , wrote before the Council of Nice^ and contradicted or corrected m feveral Points afterwards by the fame Ei^jebiHs* I will give two or three Examples. In his Dcmon^ JhdtiOi he makes the Son to be ^^fJ-iH^y/iUcL ^. In his Difpute with Marcdius he plainly retrad:s and con- tradicls it '^^ In his Demonfiratio ^ ^ he pretends that nothing can be properly faid to be e^ »:< oJToo'ft with- out doubt to gratify the Arians, that They might in a certain Senfe deny the Son to be 6? »^ 'i^rm. But in his Piece againll Marcelhts^ he aflerts plainly that Creatures are g^ 8x oWv% meaning that They come from non ' exiftence into exifteyjce (which is the true Signification of the Phrafe) at the fame Time deny- ing that the Son is ex. //>i 'o^ro^j in the fame Senfe of the Phrafe ^ Wherefore the learned A4ont faucon does not do juftice to Enfehitis, when He imputes to Him the Opinion of the Arians, that the Son paf^'d b TfA«6v nMia oy, 15*0,15-2, 166. i Eofcb. eontriMarC. pag. 67, 68, 69, 15-0. 1 (JjaII here die one Fujja^e, oeinga pretty remarkable one, S^iiTuv, ivcc y^iJ B'iov v(^i5^i>Taf. 0 ii ''Jit", iiK It* ctwror?, >iOi y^vnynvt^ Ecd. TheoL 1. 1. c. 10. '« They that admit tv/o Hypojtafes, one unhego^rcn, nnd the *' other created rrorn nothing, do indeed make 0 eGodi .m'rin rh-.'ir " Scheme, TheSon Vv-iilbe noi'^w, nor O'./y begotten, no nr>r LuY'I, " nor Cod, having no communion of rbc^ Farhc'sGodliead bat U*- " ing bken'd to the rci't of liie Creatures, as having cxifted jVt///> ■ no: h ing, X frc-u 162 ^ Second Defense Qu.lL from mn-exiftence to exificnce : For Enfcbms plainly de- nits tlie Son to be ex. t» i^id ovro^^ in the fame Senfc that he aflftrms it of Creatures ; and therefore muft deny his paOfing out of mn-exiftcme to exiflence^ un- lefs He were the greatefl Prevaricator and Shuffler imaginable. If it be faid , that He intended that Creatures were not made out of any thing pre-exiflmg, he mull: tlien affirm that the Son was oftt of fomething ■pre-exifting: And then let any Man tell me, what he could mean by it; except it were that He exift:ed he^ fore his Generations having been eternally in, and with the Father , of the fame Homogeneous divine Sub- ftance that the Father is. But my Perfuafion is, that Ei'ifebit'is believed cternd Generation ; and if fo, it is plain enough what He meant by denying the Son to be ex. y)^ oir©^. It does not appear tome, that £«- fcbiits denied the Son to be k'\^%'j tho* I know Montfmcon charges Him with it ; and there are more Pailages than one* that fay fomething very like it. Eiifchifis vvas very earned in his Charge againfl Mar- cclUiSy and was ready to put any the mofl: invidious Conflrudion upon his Words. As often therefore as AlarcellHs had made the Son ctil;©^, Epifebins con- itrues it iyei/vjjT©", that he miight reduce Him to an j abfurdity ; and beheving perhaps that cL'ih®^ add i o^/g/VKT©^» upon Marcelhis's Hypothefis, went to* i: gether and refolved into one* In this Senfe only, I . conceive, Eafcbius to have denied the Son to be 1 d'ih®^. And if any one narrowly examines the Paf- !J iages, he may find good reafon to believe that This |j h real Facrh It may be queftioned, whether ever Marcellus affert- cd the Son to be ay^^vT^r©^. But Eufcbias charged it upon him as a Confcquence of his Hypothcjis ; and laid hold of cti'h©-, as implying it, and meaning as much with Alarcelltis, who denied any aritcmpmdm^s * Euicb. comr. Marccli. i<-, io6, L19. Gca«-. Qu. ir. of fome QIJEKIES. 163 feneration. But to return. To fliow mc how low an Opinion Eufehi^s had of God the Son, you quote part of his Comment on Pjdm cix. (which 1 cannot find there) intimating tliat by the La)ps of Na-- ture, the Father of every Son is his Lord; and therefore God the Fiither is Lord and God of the Son, Admit- ting this Rule, I fuppofe hy the fime Laws of A^2- turcy every Son is of the fkwe Nature with his Farher, and as fuch e^i^al; and fo let the Simihtude ferve e- qually, if you pleafe, for Both. But fmce you pro- duce one Teftimony , as you fay , from TiMt Book^y (from EufebtHs on the Pfdms) give me leave, in my Turn, to produce fome few of a very contrary Strain to what you v/ould wiili. 1, I Hiall firfl: remind you of Etifchitts^ account- ing for Chrifl's fraying, praying as A'ldn for Things which Himfelf could beftow, or difpofe of as God"^, This feems to run crofs to T^vo of your Principles. One of which is, that Chrift being a SuhjeEb is to refer all Grants intirely to his Sovereion: The other is, that the fpeaking of Chrift in Two Mlrin^ Capa- cities, in the manner Etifchius does, you would call abfurd, (as in fag. 253.) as '\i Part of Chrift prayed, and another Part did not pray ; which is your pro- phane way of ridiculing a Diftmction univerially made ufe of by the Primitive Churches, and held Sacred amongft them. 2. I muft next obferve to you, that, according to EufehtHS , Chrift is Creator of all Things ( 0 TTav- 'Tcty <}^|Utyg5J5f) not only fo hut 0 7toiyjy\$'^'^ alfo, and ■*■ 'AtreJ ti ya.0 lie, ^A^^owTroc, o'lahai d^ Ttjv untjcivi uc, S-jo^' suhK^vroi ^JjAoKOT* K, avvsfyS»ro;;i-— — ci; IthXv/^ iyn) ;j^'p £i_/x4 /.v^ioc, o ^ioc, (ri!,7rcif>iiUq Iccvni art «**« y.fv^;ei 0 Bs^ (ra, 6cc. Eufeb. m Plal. p. 505, 5-04. Vid. p.5'33u nru-i are 'ptut^^ ympecKiXs^Bro, Kcii svoiiJja ecTvo Tvrt, utto r» Uicivot;, y

,s(,ci\ ^cc^a^ Tu ':ea.T^i k^, sz:sl ^ dvTOi dTSo roZ. SODo. Qu. II. of fome dUERIES. i6s Son. For applying the Words of the xcii** ( dtai xciii*^ ) Pfalm. Thy Throne is eflabiijjjed cf oldy Tl-jou ^rt from everlafting^ to our Saviour Chriil:, he takes particular Notice of the Force of Thou arty ol eif, as denoting immutable exifience; agreeably to his ex- plication of the fame Phrafe elfewhere*. 5. 1 have above took notice of Eufebius's fliling God the Son , great God by Nature , which is a very high and ftrong Exprefl^on. I fliall here farther oblerve, how He interprets the Name of Hand ef God, given to the Son. Not after a low difparaging manner, as you are ufed to interpret it, but as Chrilt is the all-creative Power of God f. 6. I may add a few more Obfervations from Eufe- bius's Commentary on Ifaiah. His Comment on /fio x)ji. 8. is pretty remarkable ^^. I oiJill not give my ^iloYj to uinother. Where he takes notice, that it is not iaid, that / 'ivill give my Glory to no one^) for the Son, fays he, has the Father's Glory) but that it will not be given to Another, Now, tho' Efijebius here comes not entirely into the common and Catholick way of Conftruvftion, yet, he differs very much from you in feveral Particulars, as that the Father s Glory is alfo the Sons Glory , and that the exchtftve Terms do not afFed God the Son* I may alfo take notice liow magnificently Eufebius fets forth the Son's Om^ niprefence, both herett? and in his Comment upon the Pfalms §, in Words as exprellive and full as any can be. Here alfo Eufebius keeps clofer to the Senfe and Language of the Church, in relation to the cne God- heady than He has at other Times been obferved to. ^ vid. p. 5-84. •f X£('p Vfi^p TcZ 3-sow, ii 'TTCivmm ci,7rci9TUf ^votf/jif, tcuToUy euy^ *2?'f««» if/a TOW £)/ « jij^»£ tu, •^uvT» ToZ B-icZ Ac'vot/. Eufeb. in Plal. p. 701,. yup 9 «i05 rcuTFurfoc, '/j^er tjJi* S^lxv &c. Eufeb. Com. in Ifa. p. yio. ft Eufeb. Com. in Ifa. p. 428. § Eufeb. Cora, in Pfal, p, 70-;', 70S, - ' do; 166 A Second Defense Qu.1I. do; except in his Oration before Qonflmtim^ t3,ken notice of above. His Words are "^ : " Tiiere being f' but one Head, there will be no more than otie God-' *' head, with which is taken in what concerns the ♦^ Divinity of his only begotten,'* It is much to the fame purpofe with what He elfewhere fays, t that the Son is partaker of the Father's Godhead, and is, as it were, to be reckon'd to Him. Upon the whole, you will find Etifebms much iTiOre favouring my Principles than your's ; tho' not fully coming in to Either : And you ought hereafter either to reconcile fuch Things as I have here cited out of Him, befides many others, to your Hjpothejis (which can never be done) or to leave off boafting on That Head. It fhould be confidered that Euje^ bins hved and wrote at a Time when the Arian Pretences, being moftly new and untried, appeared therefore the more Ipecious and plauhble : And his familiar Acquaintance and Friendlliip with the Heads of the Party, contributed to give them the greater Force with Hun. They recei\eJ an additional Strength from the injudicious Solurions which liad been oifered by AfarcelUis, and other weak Defen- ders cf the Homoopijian Dodtrine. AthanaJiHS, Hilary, md other judicious Advocates of the Cathojick Faith, had not then wrote their Immortal Pieces, to clear the Dodriue frorn Miireprefentation, to fet it in a due Light, and to unravel the main Objedions brought agamft it. No wonder if, in ThefeCircum- flances, Eujehlas might incline too much towards xhc Ariari Caufe, and give top far into it. Yet, eve;i under Thefe Difadv^antages, He kept himfelf free from the groffer Tenets of the Arians i and He re- B^fo>,c^ss,. Eulcb. in Ha. p. fi^i^.. •|- TJi5 75U jreirfe^ ^Jcttjtcj, >(^w«>05, 2cC. Eufcb. in Pfal. p. 5*345. Qu. IL offome Q^U E R I E S. 1 67 tain*d fo much of CathoUck^ Principles, that had He but attended to the true and certain Confequences of many of his own Pofitions, in that behalf, He could not have failed of being entirely Orthodox, and Ga* tholick. He had not fo clear a Judgment as AthA-^ naJiHSy Hilarjf, Ba/ilj Gregory Na^ianz^en^ and other eminent Defenders of the Nicene Faith : Nor did He live to fee how eafily the Arian Sophiftry was de- feated and baffled, after it had pafs'd the Scrutiny of fuch mafterly Hands. In the mean while, He feems to have had no confftent Set of Principles, but a con- fufed mixture of Catholick^ and Arian Tenets ^, fuch as could not ftand with each other in true and jufl Reafoning. You have certainly no right to claim Him as your*s« If you would look among the Ayitients for your Scheme, it mufl: not be in EufebtHs, nor in any Jd^//c- nicene Father, or Pofl-nkene ; but in fuch Fathers as A^ rius, Aetius, Efimm'tHS^ or PhilofiorgtHS : And yet you come Ihort even of Them in fome Points; particulai-ly in the part you aflign the Son in the Creation of dl Things by the Father's Power ; (you do not yet fay by hi'^Owriy which feveral of the antient -^//^w woukl never have fcrupled) and in the Account you give of Chrift's being appointed God o'uer alU after his Re- furredion ; and your refolving his TVorjhlp into the Power then given Him : Doctrines proper only to a Samofitenian f, or Socima-a. Having fhown, from Father to Father, down to the Arian Times, that our Lord Jefus Chrifl: was fuppofed by Them to be the Jehovah, the Almighty, the one true God, God of Ahrahci'/n-i Ifaac and Jucohy acknowledged as the o?te true God-, and worfhipped by the Patriarchs as fuch: Having proved This to have been the anticnt Cathoiick Doflrine of the Church, * ^?s my Sermons, p. 109. t Sse T),y Defcace, p. 2,7/, £cc. with-* i6S A Second Defense Qu-IT; without any exception ; unlefs of Novatian^ who yet differs not from it in the main, but in Expretfion ra- ther ; not in the Dodrine of the Son's real and ejfen^ tial Divinity : This Foundation being laid, it remains now only to take off fome Pretences you have offer- ed to invalidate the Force of the Evidence. Your Pretence is, that tho* God the Son was God €f Abraham-, God of IfraeU ^c, yet He was fuch only in a jtihordmate Senfe-, becaufe He was Reprefen^ fative o£ God the Father, pa^, 159. To which I '*■ aniVer, that had the Antients fuppofed Him to be ftiled God, and Lord, purely in Virtue of fuch Repre^ Jentatiofiy there would then be fome Force in your reafoning : But that They did not, will appear moil evidently from the following Conliderations. I. None of the Fathers ever put the Godhead of the Son upon That Foot ; They never fay, nor infi^ nuare, that He is God on the Account of any fuch Reprcfimatio^^ i. They are fo far from doing it, that their whole Drift and Method of arguing fuppofes and implies the utmoil: Contradidion to it. For, if the Son . I^'were fuppofed to be God on the Score of the Re^ prefentatiun, then Any Angel might be God alfo on account of fuch Reprcfentation ; and then it could ne- ver be proved (in the way that the Fathers took^) that there was any God the Son at all j but the whole force of their reafoning would be vacated and null. On the contrary, They prefumed that none could either repreCent God, or perfonate God, or ufe the Stjle of God, that was not really God; And upon Tnis prciumption, Their whole reafoning turns. If there- fore They are any where to be underftood of a Re- prcfcntation^ They muft mean a full and adequate ReprcCenraiion, fuch as none could exhibit, or fuf- tain, vvho was not Himfclf every Thing that He rc" * See my Dcfcnfc, p, 3S, ^q, 4^z, ^refents^ I Qii. II. of fome Q^U E R I E S. \6^ prefents. For as nothing but Alan can fully and ad- equately reprefent Alan : So nothing but God can perfedly and fuitably reprefent God. 5. Add to This, the anticnt Fathers always rnppofe the Son to be God antecedcrf ly to The luppofed Reprefent at ion ; which is decilive in the Cafe. They fuppofe Him God as being God's Son, of the fame Nature and Subftance with God. This is v/hat all the Fathers exprejjly, or in Words equivalent, rcfolve the Son's Divinity into : Which Conlideration cuts off all your Pretences at once ; as I before intimated "*", and you take no Notice of it. The Reafon why you did not, muft be vifible to the meaneft Reader. In Proof of the Fad, that the Fathers did fb re- folve the Divinity of Chrift (tho' it be what no Scho- lar can be ignorant of) I lliall for the Sake of com- mon Readers, here recite their Teftimonies. Jtifiin Martyr^ in his firfl: u^pology, fays o( God the Son : Who being the Word, God's firft begot- ten, is alfo Godi, In his Dialogue^ He often repeats the fame Thing. He is God, on Account of his being his Son begotten before all Creatures **. In another Place, Had you but underftood ivhat is [aid by the Prp' phets, you cot/Id not have denied Him to bi God, be" ing the Son of the only , the uncreated, the ineffable God ft. To * Defence, ;>. 46. ■j- **0? KXi AJ705 7ZfWTtT0KC(i at T» .9^£6W, 1^ 3^<3(; VTUf}^^. ApOl. I. p. 113. Ox. ** QioZ ij iK T6I/ ^aoij TiKvov Trpunroy-ev tZv o/^uv x^.iu-UjccttlV. JufV. Dial. p. 364. ^ ^ , ^ ^ . , / iltoui i^iovy ToZ fASva, iCj uy.t^Tov, yl ei^itjTcv ^cu *ijov. Dial. p. ■^66. N. B. I read elyiVKTcv with iingle v, for a Reafon which will ap- pear more fully afterv/ard: And 1 underlland ^'»oy in Oppoiitioi to Creatures on'y, or falfe Gods, not to the Son who i; always to be tacitly underdood to bcionir to, and to be included in the ^lone Goil. And I take This.of y///r/» to he nearly ct^uivalcnt to Thefe other of Fhih, and Cyril of Mexandrifi. Y *©« I70 -i Second DtFENSE Qu.lL l^o the fame Puipofe, He elfewliere ftiles Him God; immediately adding, as being Son of God^» And ytij- tin is known to leprefent tlie Sun as begotten fromy or out of God t (c/A ,7^8 and it eauTb) without uSfcifion or Divijion ^"^y as one Fire from another, and as being firiillj and prefer ly ff {io\(£^y and xvo-^^^) Son of God. All whicii together exprefl'es the Con- JHbftamiditjy Samenefs of Nature^ and mofi: intire and perfect Unit) imaginable. Such is Juftin Martyr s Account of Chrift's Divimtj ; never Ipeaking of his being appomted God, or beinf^ God by I know nor wliat Reprefentraion ; but of his being Gody by par- taking of the one true Godhead, naturally Son of God. The fame Account, but more briefly, we have from TheophJIhs, Liihop of ^ntioch, a little lower in the fame Century ; Who (peaks of Chrift behrg God, as God's Son ^. \ he fame we have alfo from Clcmois of yilexandriay in a very remarkable Pafiage above cited. The fame alfo from Tertrtllhtn, ^vho fays. That ivhich is derived from God is God, and Son of Gody and Both one God ^. Novatian fpeaks as plain, in Thefe Words; yis Nature it ftif has made it a Ralcy that He mtifv he' accounted Aian^ vjho is of Alan : So the fame Rtde of Nature prefcribes^ that He mnjl be accounted Gody who is of God ^. '^ Oq mo cci^ia Pii'ya; m, «| uvatyKyic, yl ccSrvi; Ijiv lu-pja^rtc,, Phil. dc Conf. Ling. p. 326. Kxl uyiv/jTOK Cyril. Thefaur. p. 54. * Qiiiv oitruy 'ijov wjtov. p, 170. ^i5, ^oti 'ijiq vxaip^a-j. p. I7I. f ]uft. Dial. p. 183. Apol. p. 49. **" Jufl:. Dial, p. 183, 373. Pai.vn. p. 117. ft Juft. Apol. 1. p. 45-, 46. Apol.i. p. 13. a c-)jc? af uf-' o Aa^?, Kccl SK £)-iS /ne6>5 gcc. Thcoph. p. 136-. Ox. b Quod clc Deo ProfcctJm cl\ Deus eft, &: Dei Filius, & onus (Suppl. Deus) Amho. Tertull. ApoL c. ^\. c Uc ciiim prct-icriplic ipfa Natura Homimm credendum efle rjMiex Hoinine iir: Ita caJcm Natura prjcicribit <^; Dcum creden- liuni elk cui ex Deo lit, ^ovat. c. i\. I for- Qu. IL of fo?f^c QlJE HIES. 171 I forbear to cite more. It is a Ruled Cafe in An- tiquity, that Chnlt is Ood (not by Appoinnncnt, D^- ^/putation, Reprefcntation, or any thing of hke Kind) but by his Sou-Jhip -, deriving the lame divine Na- ture fi-om the Father, as is in the Father. Nor was , the Name of God ever thought -by them to denote , an Officey or any Relative Character^ but Nature and I Siibftancey as the Word Aian, It will now be eafy to 1 anfwcr tliofe little Pless and Exceptions, which you 1; have remaining. You have, in the main, but one Ar- 1} gument, vv^hicli you repeat over and over: f^iz.. I'hac 1; J^hrifl: cannot be fnprejniz Gody becaufc He was an yAniely or MeHenfzer of God : Which is as much I as to . (ay. That Peter , for Inftance, could not be li Aian^ if fent by M(u^, The whole Strength of I your Argument lies in the artificial Confulion of j Id^as, Chrift could not be fiipre?ne in Office, while i executing an infcriGr Office, That is very certain: Buc what has Supremacy of Office to do with the No- tion of fiipreme God ? God is a Word expreffing Na^ ture and SHhj}ance : He xs fapreme God, or God lu- preme, tint has no God of a fuperior Nature above Him, Such is Chrill:, even v/iiile He fubmirs, and conde/cends to aft mjnillcrialiy : And thus all your Speculations on This Head, ariling only from Con- , fufion of Ideas, drop at once. I fubm.it fometimes to I your Phrafeology, of fipreme God, tho' it be impro - {)er, and rather Pagan, than ChrijliAn. Supreme God , las generally a tacit Reference to an inferior God; j And fo it was ufed in the Pagan Theology. But Vchriflians, who acknowledge but one God, Ihould ne- I ver talk of a fupreme God ; the more proper Name ! being rather the one God, the true God, the God of \the Vniverfe, God fupreme, and the like. But you, to introduce your PAjtheifm, are perpetually telling us of the ffipreme God; And every Time you meet with iTTi Tcdji ^ic$, or 0 3tc<^ tt^"/ o\a!Vj you falfly 9Qd coixuprlv render it. TKq fupreme God, (inftead of Y 1 ^h^ 172 ^ Second Defense Qu. II, the God oftlj£ Vmvwfe) to feive your Hypothejis. I do nov hnd that the Fathers were uled to -uie God the Father fupreme God; except when di patmg with Pagans^ or the like, They a. commodate a Themfelves in lome Mealure, to their Styk, referving to Themfelves the ChrifHan Senfe. And it is out very rarely they u(e 'TcpocTOi 2c'^, or Dens PrrncepSy for the Father ; And when They do, it is, ss i iaid, to exprefs the fupreme Father in a Style nor prop;.r to Chriftiaa Principles, only in Condefcenlion to the Pagans, to be the better un» derdood. To return. I perceive, the S^'yordination is v/hat you ky the main Strefs upon? in oider to overthrow the Church's Dodrine of ChniVs red Diviniiy. You will now be reduced to This fini^le Maxim (which you are iei^fible you can never prove., but tvavy where feippofe) ./that the Vmtj or E^^alhy which we teach, is not con- fiftent Vv'ithany Diitindion of Order, or Offices, When- ever you are difpofcd to try the Strength of your^^*] taphjfics. That Point may be debated v.'ith you. Atprc-j ient you have thoiif^ht it the wifer way only to fpeak' your V/ipesy and to deliver out DitlaieSj inftead oi Proofs A Method v/hich may be thought rather too alTuming in private^ and withal very fallible Men ; to expect that their bare affirmation fhould have any Weight againll the united Verdid of all the Chriftian Churches, antient and modern. I fliall take but little Notice of the i-acidental Errors^ which you are pleafed to charge me with, p, 160. c^c. becaufe the Reader will have feen, before This Time, that they are imaginary only, founded upon your own Miflakes. I may juft obferve, that p. 16^, you give a C ha rafter, or Defcription of God the Father ^ calling it, very abfurdly^ the Signification of the Word God, when applied to the Father, You miight as well have given a Defcription, or Charafter of ^^^^^7, calling it the Signi- fication of the Word Man^ when applied to Adam, To fay, what the Father's Pfry'tgs\ p. ly^* To which I anfwer, that I leave out no Perfections at all. I fuppofe the Son^ with the Father^ to be- the one Caufe and Author of all Creatures ; and there IS no need of faying Firfi, where there is never a Se^ (ond. At the fame Time, I fuppofe the Father to be Father of his Son ; which expreilei a Relation of *^ Defer, fe, p. ^^, t ^)fenfe, p, 49, &c. Order^ <5u. Iir. offome QUERIES. 177 Order y and Mode of exigence ; not any DifFercnce in any effentid PcrfeElion. Neither is there any greater Perfection in being a Father, in this Cafe, than in be- ing a Son ; but Both are equally pcrfcci^ equally necef- farj in refpedl of Exiftence; all Things common but I the perfonal Charaders : And Self-exiftence, as diftinct [from Neccjfary-exiflencej is exprelTive only of iho. Order j land Manner in which the Perfections are in the Father, not of any diftinfl Perfection. With This Anfwer the Catholick Fathers baffled the Arians and Eunomi^ ansy objeding in the fame way you now do : And as you might have known This, it might have been more for your Credit to have fliown the Ayifwer to be infufficient, than barely to repeat a ftale Objedion. You have little elfe but Repetition in Pages 174, ^75. One Argument, in a manner, is to ferve quite through your Book. The Son cannot be fupreme God; no. He cannot, becaufe He is 2l Son, becaufeHe is fubordinate, becaufe He has aded, or ftill ads mi^ niperially. Repeat This ever fo often, it proves no- thing but a diftindion of Perfons^ Order and Offices ; X\o Difference of Natme. or Perfections , or Godhead, And what has the Qiieftion about Supreme Godhead^ relating to Nature and Suhftance (as God is a Word de- noting Subftancey and He is God fupreme, that knows no Nature fuperior to his own) to do with Order, or Offices i The Son is God fupreme, for That very reafon becaufe He is a Son, of the fame Nature, and the fame divine Perfedions with the Father. But you fay, the Word Nature is of very uncertain, various. Signification : And you return me the fame loofe Aniwer which Dr. Clarke gave to Mr. Nelfon *, which I fufficient- ly cxpofed in my Defence f. The plain Fad is, that you are pinched, and you fee where, and have nothing to retreat to, but infigniflcant Words. "*f Clarke Kefly, pag. 17, f DefenfC) p. 300. Z What 17S A Second Defense Qy.Iin Wh.at is there in the Words ec^ndity of Naturcy more than what every Pcafant, or Child may under- hand ? Alan is in nature equal to AJani, Angel to An^ qcU any hulividual to Another of the Jame kind : A very little MetaphjficJ^ may fufBce in fo plain a Thing. ^. This then is what I afiert, that a Supremacy of Or^^r / or cf Cffce is ccnfiflent \\'i\\\ Equality of Nature ; and if the Sen be in riature equal to the Father, he is alfo equal in CcdhcacU which is a Word expreffing Nature; And if equal in Godhead, equally God Japreme. Q. E. D, This I took to be found, and true reafoning before ; And you have been pleafed to confirm it, by your tacit Confellicn : while you avoid replying to it. To prove that Chrift is (jvd in the fame Senfe as the Father is, I appealed to his Name Jehovah ; as I have alfo elftwhere^a more at large. To This you have little to anfwer, befides v.' hat I have abundantly replied to above, about Chrift's being a Mefjcnger^ and Reprefentative^ &c. As to what you add o^ Inferior Angels fpeaking ia the Style of their Principals -^ you will confider, that it is a Notion dire(511y oppofite to all the Antients ; whofe general Argument for the Divinity of God the Son, drawn from the Appearances under the Old Teftamenr, would be intirely eluded, and fruflrated by it: Neither could They have proved, in That way, the cxiilence of God the Son, but upon a Sup- poiition dircdly contrary to you. This theiefore is one great Prejudice againfl your Notion, and fuch as ought to have Weight with you, while you make your Boafts of Amiqpiity, Befides, I thought you liad before allowed that God the Son was Jehnvahy God^ Lord, &c. in his own Pcrfcn^ tho* in a ffihordi- nate Scrife : And I think, you then gave me a Rebuke, pag. 155). for ff.ppcling the contrary. Are you now altered of a fudden, and become Another Man ? But be it (o. This neip Anfwer w ill fcrve no better than ^ Sermons t p. 33, £<:c. Qu. IIL of fyme QJU E R I E S. 179 the former : For, as to any pretended Inflance you can bring from the Old Teftjimcnt^ ic will be anfwcr'd, rhac the Angel was the Logos^ for that very reafon becaiiTe~He ufcd the Stjle of God', as it was cuilo- m^ry for Him to do. And as to your Inilance from ^^ev, xi. I, 5. I own, it fo runs in the Englijb\ bur a SchoUr fliouid have looked into the G^eel^j where He will not find ir. This you had notice of ionr^ ago ^. Your Example given of the E.Q7nnn Fccialis is as little to your purpofe as the other. For, in the Woidsj Ego fopahtfque Romarms^ I and the Rom,i.n Veoplc^ I does not denote the Senate^ as you imagine, but the Fecialis, the Herald himfelf coming in the Name of the Roman People confidered in their large collective Senfe comprehending nil the Romansj Senate and People. And fo you find, in P^ofintis^ the Herald faying, Ego [ttm puhlicus nnncipis Populi Romani : nor, ego fum popnlus RomaniiSy or ego f>im Senattis \ as your Suppofition would require. However, I. do not pre- tend that no Inilance can be "iven of fuch a Thinon being two Agents will be two Jehovahs : But That, you will remember, is begging the Qucftion. The Father is intelligent Subftance, and the Son in- telligent Subftance ; and Both one Subftancct one Je^ hovah, one God. You add, (pag i8o.) being Conjnb- fiantial with Jehovah jvilL no more make mother Perfon to he the fame Jehovah^ than being Confubflantial with the Father^ will make Him the fame Father, For want of Arguments^ I am forced to take your Sa^- ings^ where there is no Argument. I never put tne TJnity upon Confubftantiality alone f : One Man is Conftibfiantial to Another, and yet They are not one 'Man, nor one Sub fiance* But if the Son be not only ConjubjiantiaU but alio One Subftance with the Father, (filled Jehovah) as proceeding from Him, and infe- parabjy contain'd in Him ; then He is alfo one Jeho- vah with Him. You have a farther Pretence, that if the Son be Jehovah, or o avy He will be unbe^ gotten, ptnoriginate, &:c. But your reafoning is lame ; becaufe you have not proved that o m either fignifies unbegotteny or ever neceflarily implies it. The Fa- I ther indeed is o coVj and is unbegotten ; but not o aHy \ becaufe unbegotten^ but becaufe neceffarily-exifting. Page r8i, you come to inform the Reader what it is I mean by the Son's being fupreme God : It is, you fay, fupreme in the ftricl Senfe ; God in the fame Senfe, and in as High a Senfe as the Father Him- felf', and yet. Strange ContradiUion I referring all rt. the Father as Father^ Head, Fountain, Sec. Now, here is no Contradi^ion at all, but what you have made to your felf, through your Confufon of * See my Sermons, p. iif. f See my Dcfenle, p. 461, 4^2, Thoughri^ i«2 'A Second Defense Qu.III, Thought, and your want of diflinB: Perception. For, when I apply Supreme to the Word God^ I mean as I ought to mean, that the Son is God fupreme^ (know- ing no fipcrhr God, no divim Nature greater, higher, or more excellent than his own) not thac He is the fiipreme Father : Who, tho' fuperior in Order, is noc therefore oi fuperior Godhead ; For a fupremacy of Or^ der is oi>e Thmg, a fupremacy of Nature, or Godhead another. Thefe are plain Thmgs to all thac have ever dipp'd m This Controverfy. But you come a little clofer up to me, in your following Words, which will indeed deferve Notice; becaufe it is running your Argument up as far as it can pofTibly be carried. You fay, that upon my ]?rinciples, there is no imfoJpl^Uitj but the Father (if the Occorjomy had been Jo laid) might as 7vell have exercifed the Authority of the Son, executed his Or- ders) Sec, ?idy, and have been heijotten alfo of the Son, and from Him have received his Being, But do noc blend Things together which ought to be kept dif tinSr ; and then v/e iliall fee cleai^ly into This Matter, fo far as is necdfuL If you ask, Why that Perfon called thz Son, mighc noc have been Father; I have nothing to fay, but that in Fact He is not : So it is written, and fo we believe. The Father is Father, and the Son is Son ; And becaufe of this Relation of Father and Son^ there is a natural Priority of Order (I fay, Natural, not Occonomical) by v/hich the Son is referred up tQ the Father as his Head, and not vice verfi. As to the Son's acting a Mimfterial part, That in- deed is purely Oeconomical ; and there was no impof- Jlbility, in the Nature of the Thing, but the father \ Himfelf mighc have done the fame : But it was I more con^^ruous that He who is Firfi in Order, fhou'd be Firfi in Offce too: And had it b:en otherwife, Jt would have been inverting the Order of the F^r- foiisj ^vjiich^ I think, is rcafon fufficient againft it. Qu. 1!L of [owe (QUERIES. ifj To which purpofe, Bp. Pearfin very judly obferves : *' Upon This Pre-eminence (of the Father) as I con- «« ceive, may fafeiy be grounded the Congrtwy of the ^' divine AiijJiGn. We often read that Chrift was <* fciiti from whence He bears the Name of an *' ^poflle Himfclf, as well as Thofe whom He there- «' fore named fo j becaiile as the Father Jent Him, fa " fent He Them, The Holy-Ghofl: is alfo faid to be *' fenty fometimes by the Father, ibmetimes by the <« Son : But wc never read that the Father was fent *« at all ; there being an Authority in l^hat Name " which fcems inconliflent with this AiiJJion ^, '* All This is very right in the Bithop's Senfe of Aa^ thority ; not in yours as fignifying Power and Domi^ nion over a Sabjecl ; which is neither excellent ^ nor true t)ivinity, but falfe and blafphemous. You proceed to confidcr my Argument for one and the fame ftrict Senfe of the Word God, drawn from Johfi i. i. which Argument the Reader may lee briefly fumm'd up in my Firj^ Ssrmofj, P* 3 5* I argued, as is ufual t j from the Word God oc- curring twice in the fame P^erfe, without the leafV tint of any different Senfe. You pretend on the contrary, that for that very reafon^ it mufr bear a dif- ferent Seiife, hecaufe 'tis ujed in the very fame Sentence h) waj of ComradifiinElion^ p. 183. By what kind of f^o^iok^ you draw This ftrange Inference, I fee nor* Siippofe it were faid, Seth was with The A^an (i. e- Adam) and S^'ih was Aian : Doth k follow that the ^ Tearfo'z on the CreeJ, p. ^6, : Si evangclillaDcumalium majorem ^ p^premumWicin- alc^ty aiiam wQxor/iinorem t<. longet?i£^u'ale/ni incogitantcr adma- dum J^ohaKnss, ut ^it plerumo^uc Ai ha fiaf us, rcs^dcoi/i/pnrai^s, line . '1; diItin£lione, uno eode7nquevoca6iilo iitramqueCopulans, iigjiifi- it: ^VcrL'Hm, air, emt aptulDeum,^ Dem erat Verbum. Nam c;ais nonVocVDeus conjun(£lim repetitae candcm utrobicjue fignin- cationeni ftarim apta\'erit? Q^iis candem Vocem, bis codcm loco ^ untiatain tarn ^////•v':?v7r.7 iignilicare puravcrit? Mciitfancon, Pra:lim. \ . j"rt. in Euicb. Cojxutcik. in J^fmn. p. it. Word iS4 y^ Second Defense Qu. Ill; Word Man carries two Senfes \ Or God the Father was with The Spirit (meaning the Holy-Ghoji) and the Father was Spirit-, does it follow that the Word Spirit bears tv/o Senfes ? Would it not be rather ma- iiifefl: in Both Cafes, that the Words fo repeated, and fo near one another, are interpretative of each ether ! The Son^ you fay, is ftiled God the Word^ or Mejfcnger ; which is more than you know. See my Sermons as to the meaning of the Name Word ^. But luppofe Him fo ftiled by v/ay of Prolepjisy (being here confidered antecedently to the Creation) as one that was to be fent to create the World, and to revea! the Father to Mankind ; how is This at all repug- tiant to the Dodrine of his being the one God ftipreme'^ I have fo often anfwered This Pretence, that I am afraid of naufcating the Reader with Repetition. You fay, He is diflinguified from Him who of his own Origi- nal Supreme Authority fends the Mejfage. Very true ; He is diftinguiihed from the Perjon of the Father, who has his Authority from none : And yet the Son having the fame fapreme Authority (if you mean Power and Dominion) from the Father^ is one God fipreme with Himo He is diftinguifhed, you fay, from the fr/i Caufe of whom are all things^ becaufe Through Him are all things. He is diftinguillied in Perfon, and in the Aianner-i or Order of Operating ; but not as one Caufe from mother Caufe: For as all Things arc of one; and hy the other. Both together are one Caufe of all Things t ; their Operations undivided, their Nature, Power, Perfedions, and Glory one I had argued, that the Son w^as God before the , Creation. YoU fay, (pag. 185.^ This infers not ^S";;^- I fremacy. Yes it does : He was before all Creatures, I Therefore no Creature^ therefore no precarious Being, I therefore necejfarily cxijling, therefore equal in Nature "* Sermon T. p. 5*, 8cc. f Sse my Sermons, p. 74, &c. 78, 10^, lu, and Qu. III. iif fome QUERIES. 185 and Godhead with the Father; therefore Cod fupreme as well as the Father. The Link is never the worfe for its length, if it be but well connected. I had faid, that the Son could not be called God, in the Senfe of Domimofj, yoh, i. i. becauTe He is there confidered antecedently to the Creatmi, and j before any Dominion commenced. This, I think, i$ felf-evident. But you have a mind to difpure the Point. Your Argument is, that God was merciful^ gi)odi and juji^ before the Creation, therefore alfo He was /7Cj(/^W of Dominion, p^^. 183, 184^ That is to fay, He was difpofed to Ads of Good^ fiefs, Mercji and Jafiicey and likewife to have Domi^ nion in his own appointed Time; therefore He had Dominion before He had it. Does not every Body know, that Domimts and Servus^ Aiajier and Servant, are Relative!, as much as Father and Son^ Hmhaid and Wife, and always fuppofe and imply each other, commence and fall together ? Termllian therefore was very right and accurate in his Diftindion about God and Lord "^ ; that the Father was always God, God de- notinjf Nature y Stibjiancey and Perfections ; but became - Lord in Time, as foon as the Creation commenced ; Lord exprefling his Relation to his Creatures. To proceed : I had argued for Chrifl's real and fupreme Divi- nity, from his part in the Creation, according to John i. Here you have only the fame Thing over again, about tne DifUndion of of whomi and Bj whom ; which is nothing to the purpofe. ^ Dei nomen dicifflus fern per fuifle apud lemetip{um&; in femet- ipfo, Dominum vero non lemper. Divcvia enim utriuique Condi- tio. Dens fubflanti-JK if fius nomen, id eft, Diviniratis, Domnius ve- to' non fubftantias, fed Votefiatis: Subftantiam ilmper fuifle cum fuo nomine, quod eft Df«^ j poftea Domiaus, accidenris iciiicctrci mcntio. Nam ex quo eife cxperunt in qux Potcftas Domini age- ret, ex i!lo. per accellionem Porcftatis, t\. fadus Sc didtus eft Do- mittMs» Tertull. contr. Hermog. c. 3. A a I allow iS6 A Second Defense Qu. Ill; I allowi that the Father is pyhnarily Creator, and Son fecondariij, or fubordiftatclj ; and Both one Crca" tor. There is a Difference of Orders or Mmmry which yet makes no Difference of Power^ or God- head: So that This is mere triflnig; unlefs you could prove that the Vnitj of Godhead is not confident with the DiiHnilion of PcrfonSy Order, or Ofices ; which you have not done. I difpnite not whether ^i may exprefs the p'imary efficient Caufe ', it exprefles as much efficioicj as utto or f)c, which is all I am con- cerned for : And as to the diflxrent Order, or Manner of the Two Perfons concurring in the fame Thing, it neither malces them 7 wo Catifes^ nor T7U0 Creator.*, nor T7V0 Gods; nor is it any Argument agsinft the Son's being Catife^ Creator, or God, in the fime high> and full Seni'e of rhofe Words as the Father. You have fcmething to fay to two Infiances given, (Rom, xi. 36'. Hek ii. 10.) v/here ^'ict is applied to the Father. You interpret the Texts of his Providcntidl Care: Not that Things are created, but preferved , throfi^h Him. Allowing you This Conflrutflion, ( which is perfeiflly precarious ) yet you have only feem'd to fay fomething, as ufual, when, upon the Matter, you have really faid nothing. For if hcL may be applied even to the Father, who, with you, is the Original efficient Cattfe of the Prejervation of all Things , and whofe is the Origind Govern- ing Providence,* (a Wdrk and Bu'finefs r^ot lefs conii- /derable than the Work of Creation ) what can you infer m.erely from ^^cl bc-ing applied to God the Son ? He might, notwithflanding what you have here faid, be efficient, and even Originally too, either in Creation, or Conjervation ; for, They are near a-kin to each other : And \o Conjervaticn has been fcmcrimes fliled continued Creation , being a continuance of the fame Power. Might you not therefore have been content with my granting you more than you can fairly prove from the bare Force of think you, or the Son? To the third PafTage % you fay, that the o S'eo^ is not the Xoyosy hut a fanElified Chrifiian, But your better Retreat is to the various Legion; not only be- caufe your Conftrudion is at leaft Mims, but becauf© if it were certai^y it were ftill an Inflance of o ^iU applied by Clemens contrary to your Criticifm, To the fourth and fifth Paflages % you reply , that toj» 5eo)f and ro^ S^ea may be underfiaod of the Father, To which 1 need only fay , They cannot without ftraining, and making the Conftrudion forc'd, and unnatural. To the Jtxth s, you fay , the Limitations a Clemens Alex. p. 72,132, ij-i, 273,435, 832. b 'ihn'oTi x.e^^q 0 B-io^.^ Clem. p. 72. ^f«T(^. Clem. p. 132. • Aoy©-, &c. Clem. Ibid. ' e Clem. Alex. p. 2^-1. « f Clem. Alex. p. 273, /^y6. g Kymct ^ iiz U7TSTUJ $ ^fS, ^jT^ xflCTwCsAi?; t{$l*^tiu ^ TTAT^pu Clem. p. 832. 4ddei tpo A Second Defense Qu. IIL ^ded are ftrongly againft me. That is only a Fan^* cy of your own: But was not the Queflion, whether 0 iitoi was applied to Chrift by Clemens ? An inge- nuous Man would,. either have confefTed plain Fad^ or have faid nothing. None of the PalTages; you fay,, give to the Son the Title (o »'3'ec$) in the abfolute and unlimited CoyiftrnBion. And might you not have had This Referve, if 1 had produced a Thoufand Paffages with 0 Sfioi applied to Chrift? I do not expert you fliould grant them to be underftood in the unlimited Conftru6iion: you have refolved againft it: And if thei'e were as many Inftances in Scripture as in the Fathers, you might ftill have fome Pretence againft an ftnliTnited Conftrudion. In the mean while> wliae becomes of your Criticifms upon a Sec^, if we are to judge from other Rules, whether it is to be under-r ftood with Limitation, or otherwife ? Doth it not appear, even from your felf, that the infifting on the Article is very Trifling I I had likewife produced Clemens for fliling the Son, o TWLVTDKgcLTccp ■^. Here you tell me, it is not in an abfolute Conftrudion. And what if it is not^ The Inftance is fufficient to fliow that Chrift is true Gpd, upon Clcr^ens's Principles, becaufe He is o ^0LyTvy.^xTa!p -\ y for, Clemens makes r?o Diftindion about abfolute Conftrudion. But nei- ther can you prove that Clemm^ does not ufe the Words Tc/ 'jr^tvToxgxTo^a, in the Paflag'^ cited, in an abfolute Conftrudion (if one can know what you mean by abfolute) nor if you could, would it at all change the Senfe 9f the Word r^rixrToxgxTap » or make it fignify any thing lefs than when applied ever fo abfolutely. Clemens reafons from it in the fame Manner, as He^would have done from the fame Word, or Title, underftood in the fulleft and higheft Senfe «sT(j^-« jTflTf. Clei-p. p. Z77. '*ri <^flA«iys«5. Clem. p. j'4.S'. ' ■ ■' ' " th::- v^.IIL ef fomc q\J EKllc. S. 191 that ':ravro)tgiT^e or Almighty caft come up to. It is to little Purpofe for you to Ihow, that Clemens fome-* times ftiles the Father [x'jq^ 0 'TrctvTo^cgxTojp. It is not Clemens his Way to ufe the exdufive Terms, in fuch Inftances, in any Oppofitiott to God the Son, but quite the contrary; as harh been obferved above. As to Origen^ you will be able to make no more of the I Place cited '^, than This; that as the Koy©* excels i all other his inferiors, fo alfo the \oy(^'* is excelled by i/the Father; not m the fame Degree, but in a cer- i tain Senfc, as the Father is auTo9c65 God from none* ■ the Son God by partaking of the Father's Godhead. However, if Origgv^ or his I»terpoktors have any- where in Thefe Commeuti dropp'd anv unwaiy Ex- preffionsi you will remember that they are of no j Moment any farther thin they are confident with Origeif*% ceitain, well-weighed Doctrine, in his Trea-* tife agrinP: Celfas^ As to Ef*fil?msi youJT lafl: Authority for the Diflrn^ ^ion between 5w5, and 0 3"2o? (whatever his Prin-^ ciples were) ail tlie U(c He makes of the Diflinction is only to prove againft ^arcellusy that the Son was not the Fathgr, For, He perpetually charges Aiar-- tellus with Sabellianijm ; as making the Sin to be the Father, and vice verfa* His Words, literally and juftly rendred (not as you render them) run thus. '<« The Evangellft could have faid, the Word was 0 ^to^y <« .with the Addition of the Article, had He thought ^ the Father and Son to be one and the fime Things « and that the Word Himfelf was The God over allt- T^he Senfe of This Paffage will entirely depend upon .* AiKTiov yu^ u-JToTi 071 TVTS fji4\v uuTi^i^^ 0 B-ec; ITt - ■ -» vaj/ 5 TO Tizieli TO K'jroh^ fjusre-y"^ rtiq j.trVvy ^ioTyir<^ B-ioT^oUfMtoy, Gtnf, i^so;, uA>x6 B-ic<; Kvpi^-Tscot eiv ^iyeiro* Orig. ia Joh. p. 46,47. Viil. Iluetii not, p. 9;, 94. -j- ^vioi}Ati'/^ y5v drii?, tC 0 B-£o ?.o-£; 7 J; Im 7»mTiDf ^lov, Euicb, conti. Marc, p- »2.7- I a righc i0z ^ Second Defense Qu.iIL a right Confideration of what it was that Eufehius charged AlarccUm with ; or how He underflood Mar-^ eellm to affirm the Father and Son to be the fam6 Thing', ov fame God, Now, This will eafily appear from divers Places in Eufebiui's Treatife againft Him. He charges Af^r- cellns with making the Word a meer notiond Thing; fleeting and vanilhing, like a Human Word, nothing living and fahjifting'^^ He charges Him with taking it in a Jetvifj Senfe, and making no more than a no" mind Difference between the Father and his Wordf: One EJfence and one Hypoflajis looi in the Way of Sahdlius. He charges Him with taking away the very Exiflence as well as Hypoftajts of the Son ; with making one Hypoftajts with Three Names ^^^ having no more than a nominal^ not a real Diftindion. Hence it is plain what Eufehins, in the Palfage above citedj meant by W ^ •zaurcj', dne and the fame Thing; as alfo by making tlie Aoyoj to be Tov Ith -^itrm '^^o^ the God over all. It was making Father and Son one Perfon^ as we now term it; and fo confounding Both in one, as to take away all real Diflin^ion. You have therefore no Reafon to think I had partially re- prefented Eufehins^ when I faid, (Defenfe^ p. 6^.) that He made no farther Ufe of the Obfervation, about the Article, than to prove againft Marcellus, that the >07©- is a diftind real Perjon , and not the Father IHfimfelf. It is you that have partially reprefentcd Eufebifis-, either to ferve your HypotheJJs, or for want 6f conlidering the Drift and Scope of Enfebim's Trea- tife, and in what Senfe He ufes his Terms. What then is the refult of your Enquiries about the DffIin5Non hetwtm ^ios with the Article, and without it? I. You have not been able to prove that * Eufeb. p. 4, 19. p. f. f Eufeb. p. 35, 35-, 36.' **Eufcb; p. 167, 17/.' f^u.III. offoweQjJEKl'ES, 195 the ^nte-nkene Writers in general took any notice aC all of it : Two only are found, Ucrricns and Origen, The former never applies it at nil to the Text of St. Johny nor makes any ufe of it to iliow the Pre- eminence of the Father above the Son : So fir from it, that He gives the Title of 0 ^tog indiftrrcntly to Pather, or Son, or to Both together, according as bccafion offers. The latter has indeed, in an unaccii- rate Work, or perhaps ct>i'rupted, mentioned the Diftindion , and applied it to prove fom.e Pre-emii- nence of the Father as being God of Himfclf or un^ begotten. But in his later and mere certainly genuine Works, He has nothing of This kind, but refolves the Unity in a very different way from v/hat He had done in h.is Commentaries; anfwering the Objedion of Ditheifm upon quite Another Foot. 2. You have not been able to ihow, that the Fathers ever ima- fjincd the Scripture -Style to be at all conformiable to That DijlinBion: Nay, the contrary is evident from rhtir citing a miultitude cf Texts of the Old Tcfia^ Wicnt j and applying them to Chrifi as therein denr> ted by the Title of 0 S'eo^. 3. You have not been able to fhow , that the Fathers ever invariably, or ca-e- fully, followed any fuch Rule in tlieir own St\le (rho* you c«n{ldently affirm They did, pag, 188.) For^ beiides what Lath been fliown from Clemens^ exam- ples may be given to the contrary out of tlie other antient Writers^. 4. If it could have been prov d .that This DiftinlUon had been ever fo confiantly ol;- fervedj yet no certain Confequence in favour of ycur Principles could be dra'Nvn from it : Nothing but what (for the fake of iliortening a Difpure) I would Jiave admitted 5 without your producing any antient Writer for itj namely This, thai the Father is em- * Irenarus, p, ii i, ii f, 271. EJ. Bened. Hippolytus Vol. I. p. 167. Vol. ^. p. \j, 20. Meiito, cit. a Grab. Nor. in Bu":!. p. 86. 0;igGn?3cgntr. CeiC p. 8/, 162. B b phntically 19+ ^Second Defense Qu. III. phaticAily o 5tUy as firjl Perfon, rho' the Son be ^£0$ in the fame Senfc: almofl: in like manner ds the PIoly-Ghoil; is emphatically to nxnuiii-, tho' the Fa- ther, or Son be Tiyivixcty in as flrid and proper a Senfe of itrcui^cij as tlie other. You at length biiiig rrie a Quotation from nco' aorus uibpicara^ a vc:y Orthodox Man of the ^^^ Ccnriiry, allowing that in Script tire Stjk o ^jio^ is a Title ^fprc-priatc to the Father. This is more than tne ^^/? iC}2U would have allowed ; except the Obfer- wuion be confined to the Nc7i^ Teflamcra. However, )()u may perceive that, in the Judoii6JG-l<; TKi •:fU-h'. 6 ^UT^p i<^''i ae, ilmv 6 Bic^.o'^<^. PctaV. Tfill. h 4. C. i;-. p. / But to Adam confidercd merc- Hy as a Father , He was only Jubordinate , and not pbjcci. \ou add, that A.t^. 14, Sec. . Q^ U E R ¥ Qu. IV. of fern CLUERIES. 197 Q^ U K R Y IV. whether y fuppofmg the Scripture -Notion of God^ to be no more than Thftt of the Author and Governor of the Univerfe, or whatever it he, the admitting of Another to be Author and Governor ot the Univerfe, be not admitting Another God; contrary to the Texts before cited from \{i\'2^y and alfo to Ifa. xlii. 8. xlviii. II. 7vhere He declares^ He will not 2:iv his glory to another? O' 'C IN Defcnfe of This Ouerj^ I charged you v/ith. Dtthei/in , as profelTing one ^nthor and Governor to be a Gody and another Author ana Governor to be a God bkewifc: Not the y^w^ God with the other„ but u-hother ^ confcquently Tivo Gods', which is un-^ deniably evident in your Scheme. You fay, in anfwcr, that my Defcnfe of This and of the follawmg Qucrj is in reality (without intuidina- it ) an Attempt to expoje and render ridiculous the ex- prefs DoEhine of St. [ohn and St. Paul, a»d to inake it appear inconjijient ivith the Old Teflament^ p. ip5« The Reader, I doubt not, will be furprized at this high Flight of Extravagance. Hitherto, I thought I had to do with a fober Mm , however miftaken in many Things. But you are now giving your felf Liberties of fuch a kind as can fcarce be thought confiftent with that Charader. What I cxpefted of you was , that you fhould clear your Hypothefs of the Charge of Two Gods ; every Man taking it for granted, that neither St. John, nor St. Paul 3 neither Scripture nor Antiquity eyer taught ipS ^ Secoj^d Defense Qu. IV. Tivo Gods, But the Charge being fo full and plain, that you can no way evade it, you are refolved, it leems> to carry it off with an Air of AOurancc, and to^ charge even St. John , and St. Paul with the fame. You do well to put your Authorities very high, and flrong ; becaufc, I remember, yuftin A^lartjr and lrm£Hs have faid, that They could not have believ- ed even our Lord Himfelf, had He prcach'd up Another Ged befide the Maker of All Things. How- ever, if you are able to make your Point good from Scripiure-i I fiiall think it fufficient. And fufier me once more to difpute it with you ; not to expofe or render ridiculous St. Johyj^ or St. Pattl, (God forbid) but Men of a much lower Clafs ; who, when their Caufe is mod: dcfperate, are ufed to put on the great- e/l Confidence, for a Wind to the Readers. Let us hear what yo'u have to fay : And do not tell me, thst I am not ^rmluT analnil Dr. Clarke and yo^f, hat a-ainli j)lai?i ScripiHre ', As if Scrij^ture were plain for 7ji'(^ <3pds. You bccrin wirh your old Pretence, tliat the Texts .of IJa'uih are all cxprcjjij per/onal. Be it !o : So alfo sre many ExprelUons in Scripture, and Jlntiqmiy, in- deed in all VVrirers J wl^re yet the cxdtijive Jern^s exclude Thofe Pcrfons only wlicm They were ii:- tji^ndcd in oppofitlo;^ to. It is a Rule of Language, common to all kinds of Authors; whereas your ri- gorous Interpretation of the exdnfive Terms, has iibthing- in the Nature of the Thing, or in Cuftom of Speech to fupport it. You can fcarce dip into aiiy Writci;, bur you find exceptions again (1 it. You endeavour farther to fliift off the Charge of Ditkijm , by retorting it upon m.e. But how wide a Difference is there in the Two Cafes ? As I maintain that tlie Son is not another God, nor ■ Both Tii'9 Gods , fo I confidently teach that Both are One God: You maintain, that God can be a y -Name for no more than one Perfon, that each of the ^ Pcrloiis is a God^ and tliat They are r^ot toget;be,r one ONe arc Qii. IV. cf fon^e Q\J E R I E S. tP^ Cod. What is This but laying dircdiy that They two Gods ? I may miltake in my Hjpoihcjis (which ).t has not been ihown) but you are plainly /d-Zf-^o^- ci:,?med. You have recourfc to St. Paul (pag. 197.) who favours your Notions as little as I do. You nsk, wliether He u'as a Teacher of Pohtheifm f I ve- rily think not: And if your Dodrine Hands as clear as St. Paul's , all will be well with you. But do not father your Conceits upon the Blefled Apoftle. He direcls us, you fay, to the one Trtte God of whom are all Thinvj. Yes, He tells us that the Father, of wljom are all Things , is the one Gody in oppofition t') falfe ones, to nom'mal Gods, and Lords : And it is p!:.in, that He meant it not in oppofttion to God the Son, becaufe He reckons Him God to hs, j^Rom. ix. 5.) which none of the nominal Gods are. Now, lince the fame St. Paul fays > that there is no other -Cod but me, (i Cor. viii. 4.) it is manifell: *hat tho^ the Farhef be emphatically ililed One God ^ yet He and the Son together are not Two Gods, but 0ns God *. You -ask* VVhether \vhen St. Patii tells us, that, God onr S^n'iot^r ftved ns thromh Jefus Chrij} our Saiiiour, He does there'^y preach Tuo Saviours ?' TTit. iii. 4, 6.) Yes certainly, unlefs Both he one Sa^ ^iour. Wherefore you by denying Them to be One^ make Twa Saviomsy as you do alio Tira Gods, To )t)ur other Qucftion, 1 anfwer, that Jefr-is Chrifi is the fame God and the fame Saviotir^ tho* not the fame Per fan with Him filled Gvd our Saviour ^ Tit. iv. You go on : Bid our Saviour Himfdf introdtice Hea» then Pdjthcifm^ when Pie f aid (Mark xii. 29.) The Lord our God is one Lord, and yt immediately after mentions Another Lord, ver. 36"? But v. ho has taught you to call that Other^ Another Lord? This did not our Saviour : You are the Polfthcifi (and Ses my S^rmonj; fag. f\. not 500 ^Second Defe^jse Qu.1V. not He) by your flrain'd, and falfe Comments upon his Words. This is what you call producing exprefs Scripture* What you have farther, pag. 15)8. about Bp. Pcar^ fin, and Bp. Bull (who are Both diredly a,^ainfl: you) is marvellous ; as alfo your Account of Antiquity^ which has been anfwer'd. Your pretence, that no antient Writer ever argued againft Polythelfm , by alledging that Chrifl is the one fupreme God, or indi- vidually the fame'- God y is a Ihameful Mifreport, a manifefl Untruth; unlefs you have fome poor Equi- vocation in the Words. Tcrtullidn, Origen, HippolytuSi Laclantius, &c. as many as ■ refolve the Unitv of God" head into Vnity of Subftmce (-as th^ Antients in ge- neral do J are fo many Evidences of your falfhood. Eor if Chrifl: be one Sabftance with the Father , He is one God fptpremc , God being a Name of Sub- ^ftance. Your telling me , that I make one Suhjiance , but .never one Gody is jud as if you had faid, I make vne Gody but never make one God; or elfe it is a weak begging the Qiieftion. You pretend , the Unity of God is fecure by making one Original Caufe. Ivight, if you take in God the Father and God the Son into the one Godhead: otherwife, by excluding one of your Gods, you make a fapreme God^ and an inferior God, after the way of Pagan Poljtheijh ; and fo Dithcifm is unavoidable. 1 asked, where the facred Writers ever Imited the Senfe of the Texts relating to the Vnity , l^ the Word Supreme ? Where do They fay there is but onQ fupreme God, inftead of one God? You have not one Text to produce out of the Laws againft Idolatry : A plain (ign that Scrip-*' ture went upon quite other Principles than your's. And the reafon of it is evident, becaufe the Defign was to intimate that no other God, but the God of Tji-aely was to be admitted. To have m.ade Him fupreme God only, Wfould have Ic-ft room for any inferior Deities, to be taken in with Hmi Qu.lV. iffomvQlJEKlES. 201 JHim. The Place of the P/alms (Pf. xlvii. t.) decla- ring God to be tl-vf'''*^^? o^ ^^fi high, reacheth not the Point; unlefs it had been faid, yon Jljall have none other wojl high God bnt Him^ to leave room for lower Deities. There is a great deal of Difference be- tween faying, there is one mofl high God, and there is one God who is mofl high : as much as between [faying, there is one Jhpreme King of Great Bri- tain, and there is one King of Great Britain who ii fupreme. Your Inftance is the more unfortunately '; chofen, becaufe the very Perfon there fliled u-if^iv^s^ mofl High-i is by fome of the Antients (Jnflin Mar- I tjr particularly^ underftood to be God the Son ', which I I infer from their interpreting verfe the 5^S &c» of i Him. Your other Inftances are as little to your Purpofe : But it is pretty remarkable, that while you {are confidently glorying of nothing lefs than pUin^ and exprefs Scripture , you are talking in a Style : iinknown to Scripture^ but very well known to the Pa^ gansy that there is one only fupreme God ; intimating that there are inferior Gods, or one God at leaft, be- fides Him. As to your feveral What-ThinkcjoHSy rafj. 200. I refer you to my Sermons*. You tell me, that 0 ,^go$, in Scripture^ 8cc, iigni- fies the fupreme Gbd. Does it io ? Then accordmg to all Anticjtiityy applying 0 5c 05 to Chrift in their Cita- tions of the Old Teftamefit, Chrift is the fupreme God* But, I beg leave to fay, that it fignifies only God^ and there is no need of faying fnpreme Godi when there is no reference to an inferior God: And there- fore Scripture, and generally Antiquity, f^y nothing of a fupreme God ^ becauie They acknowledged no inferior God; to which fuch ExprelTions have a tacit reference. It was from the Pagans that fuch Lan^ : guage was at firft borrowed, and ufed at lengrh by fome Chriftian Writers, ('as Arnobiusy and Ldianifus) * S&mm VIL fug, aSo. G c ..- tha*' 20% A Second Defense Qu. IV* tho* by them very rarely ; and with fuch Cautions as might be fufficient to prevent Mifconftrudion. As St. Vdul was willing to adopt the Name of »«- \^oivn God^ in compliance with the Pa^an Phrafe, to lead them into a belief of the Gcd of the Chril- tians : fo feme of the Fathers were inclinable to take the Name of 'Tt^cir©^ BicSy or Princep Dcusy and to apply it, in a Chriflian Senfe, to draw the Pagans in- lenfibly to the worfliip of the True God^ under fuch a Name as They had given to a falje one. Other- wife This kind of Phrafes is nor properly ChriJIiany nor to be ufcd by Chrijiia^s, It is one Thing to fay God is ffipreme, is Trarir* ygxTa>p^ is over ally or the like, and quire another to fay, There is one [upremc God ; which, in propriety of Speech, implies that He has Another God under Him. We fay of the King that He is fupreme in his Dominions : But who ever talks of the Jtiprcme King of Great Britain^ as if there were any other King of Great Britain f Supreme A4odcrator and Governor 9 v/^ve fay, becaufe there are fubordinate Moderators and Governors, You do well ta quote NebHchadnez.z,ar for the Phrafe of God of Gods, Dan. ii. 47. It was a very proper ExpreiTion for an Idolatrous King to ufe; and was well fuited to a Pagan Pljpothejis. And if the like Phrafe occurs elfewhere*, in the facrcd Writers, the In- tent is not to f^gnify that any inferior God was admit- ted under the fnprewC'i but that the God of Jfrael was far fuperior to all the reputed Gods of the Nations. Your Comment upon Jfa. xlii. S. — xlviii. 1 1. is very extraordinary, that God will not give the Glory of being unclcrived (That is all your Comment amounts to) to Any. Certainly He will not do what He can- fict. But was it fuitable to the Divine Majeflry, to- acquaint His People, that He will not (with Re- verence be it fpoken) Do the mofi: Aaring Con-, tradidion , and palpable Abfurdity ? It is evident iluu his Glory is his WorHiip, all Religious Worlhip ^ Zldr. V. 8. Nchcm. viii. 6. Vid, Cleric, in Loc. Cwkich Qu. IV. offome QUERIES. 203 Cwhlch might be taken from Him, and placed upon falfe Gods) And He would not fufF^r it, wicii Im- punity, to be transferred from Him to other Objeds. As to your pretended mediate Worfhip, it lliall be confider'd hereafter. My laying that God has engrofTed all divine Ho- nour to Himfelf, you call a mo[l jtrefhrnptuoHS Con- tradition to the whole New Teftament, But as it \s no great Prefumptiort to Difpute with Men fallible as my k\^^ about the Senfe of the Neiv Teflament ; So I hope the Reader will not take you to be in earned, but will rather kindly excufe a iew palfionate •words, fuch as Men are apt to throw out in great Extremities. You appeal to yohn v. 22. to prove ^ that God has given Honour and Worlliip to Chrifl: as Son of Man. This will be didindly debated hereafter. At pre- fent , it is enough to fay, that Chrifi-, rather th:in the Father, is to execute Judgment upon A-Ian^ becaufe Mt Himfelf is AJa^t^ (which the Father is nor) and ^that fo high and great an Office is an evident To- Icen of what He is, very Gody as well as very Man ; And therefore all Men are to honour Him even as Thej honour the Father. You have taken a great deal of fruitlefs Pains to fhow, that the particular Glories belonging to the Son, on account of his Offices, are diftincl from the Glories belonging to the Father. You might, in the fame Way, have fhown, that the particular Glories due to the Father under This, or That Confiderarlon, are diflind from the Glories of the Father confidered under another Capacity. For Inftance, the Glory of the Father confider'd as King, is one Glory, as Judge y another Glory; as God of the Jeivs one Thing , as God of Chriftians another , as God of ^njrels another. And Thus you may mul- tiply the Worf]}ip of the Father into a Thoufand feve- ral WorJJjfps, JDy as many diftind- Confiderations. But as all thefe feveral Glories arife from the Difplay of his ^tribms of Wifdom, Juflice, Goodnefsj. c^c' and C c 2, aU 'ao4 ./^ Second Defense Qu.1V, all nis Attributes are founded in the Excellency of his Nature', fo all the particular Worjloips are reduced to o^e, as being an Acknowledgment of that one di^ vine Nature the Root and Source of all. The fame I lay ot Gcd the Son: All the particular Glories be- longing to Him on account of his Offices, relative to us 5 are buc partial Confiderations ot his Atnibutes, of his Goodnefs-i Mercy, Wifdom, ^c, which uittri^ hutes have their Root and Foundation in the Excel- lency of his Nature, which Nature is the fame, with the Father's; And thus all the particular Glories, or TVorpipSy refolve into one Glorj, or U^erfiip, paid to That Nature which is common to Father and Son. But of This I (liall treat more diflindly in the Sequel. To conclude This Article, you have not been able to ^lear your felf of the Charge of believing and pro- feffing Tijjo Gods: But after a great many big Words, and only Words, about St. yohn, and Sr. Paul, and flain Scripture; You appear to have been doing no- thing cMq but perverting Scripture, and depraving Chriftianity, and teaching us a new Language, as well as a new Faith, in aiTerting a fupreme God and an is*- ferior God, inflcad q£ one God. P.UEK. Y Qu. V. c/ Jon^^ QU E R I E S. 205; d U E R Y V. whether Br, Clarke*^ Pretence, that the \\xi\\onty of Father and Son being One, tho they are two^ diflinci BeingSy makes them not to he two Gods^ As a King upon the Throne, and his Son adminiftring his Father's Government, are not two Kings; be not trifling and ifuonjiflent ? For 3 if the Kings Son be not a King, he can- not truly he called King ; if he ts, then there are two Kings. So, if the Son be not God, in the Scripture-Notion of God, He cannot rru- ly be called God 5 and then how is the BoHor confiflmt -with Scripture, or with Himfelf? But if the Son be truly God, there are two Gods upon the Bo^lofs Hyfothefis^ as plainly as that one and one are two : And fo all the Texts. ^y" Ifalah cited above ^ be fides others, fiand full and clear again[i the Doclgrs Notim, you go on here in the fame confident Way fyour Confidence always rifing, as your Argu- |inents fall ) telling me that I condemn Scripture for giving the Son the Title of God: Becaufe, forfooth, I condemn you for giving Him the Titlcy and denying Him the Thim; while Scripture allows Him Both. :You have nothing to reply, but that there is one frfi Cau/e, c^c, and therefore but one God, If a Man were to admit This, you would ftill never be able to come at the Conclufion you intend. For fuppofc the Father were allowed to be one God, as the firfi Caufcy but God the Son God notwithftanding as ne- ceffarily-exifling ; This Hypothejis is every whit as de- fen fible as yours, or more fo : Only it is liable to the Chai'ge o£ Bitheifm^ as your's alfo is; and the like SolutioDS 2o6 A Second Defense Qu. Vi Solutions would ferve equally for Either, This I hint, that you may not imagine your Iclf ever able to gain your Point in That Way of Reafoning. But I proceed in my Charge of Ditheifm upon your Scheme. You own the Son to be a Gody tho* not included in the one God ; therefore you make Two Gods, You have no Hopes of evading the Charge your felf : But you think it may be fome Relief to bring me in to ihare with you in it ; and fo you feebly endeavour to retort it. I will not tranfcribe all you have trifled on This Head : Your Argument, or rather no Ar^ gument, but Calumny, is, that I make twa fupeme Gods. Show me how. You tell me they are tiva Gods (\n my Hypothejis) tho* undivided in Subfiance^ But this is a miferable begging of the main Queflion, that Two Perfins cannot be oie God: Whereas my Charge of Dirheijm upon you, is founded upon This plain Maxim> as plain a€ that two and two are four, that 0;7e God and yhother God are Two Gods : Or that two Perfons, each of which is a God, and not together one God, are t7i7o Gods, Learn at length to fubmit to a feif-evident Maxim, and either confefs TWO Gods, or throw out the Son from being God at al!. You talk, in your ufual deceitful Way^ of the Antient Chriltians making the Origination^ in the di- vine Pat entity ts be the yijjertion of the Vnity : Which is a Thing diredly and fully to rpy Purpofe, and as diredly contrary to yours. For, the Antients from This Principle concluded that all the Three Perfons are one God ( which Billiop Pear [on obferves ) and You, in Contradiction to the Attients, infer from the fame Principle, that they are net one God: Was there ever a more lliamekfs Abufe upon the ignorant Rea- ders ? I have recited the Paffage of Bifliop Pearfin , (which you refer to) once before, and lliall now again tif it be podible to make any Impreffions upon your Modelty) cite it to your Shame, for thus impofing on your Reader;!. <^ Th5S / Qu. V. of fom QIJEKIES. 207 *' This Origination in the divine Parernity hath <* antiently been look'd upon as the Ailertion of << the Unity : And therefore the Son and Holy *' Ghoft have been beheved to be but o»e God with «' the Father, becaufe Both from the Father, who •' is one, and fo the V^ion of Them *. This is a true account of the ^ntientsy worthy of That great Man; while yours is fo entirely falle, that were it not that you have the Privilege of writing witJi- but a Namey one might think, that pure Regard to your Character might deter you from thefe Liberties. How have you the u^JJurofjcc to reprefent my No- tion as different from Biihop Pearfons y when every Body that has feen my 'Books, knows that Bifhop FearfoH's and mine are exadly the fame ? Do not I every where aflert the Paternity, and refolve the Uni- ty, as the Billiop with all the Antients does, into Uni- ty of Stibllance and OriginAl ^ All the Three are one Cody becaufe Two are referred up to one Father to whom they adhere, and from whom They derive their Subdance, the fame divine Subflance with His. I had reduced you to This Dilemma, either to aflert Two Godsy or to make no God of the Son ; which I cali*d ttngodding Him. Inftead of an Anfwer, vou give me a Rebuke; as ufual, when fore preiFed. You. pretend, that you declare the Son to be God, as much as ScriptHre does: And fo will any Socinian or Samofatenian fay, whilp He fuppofes Him never ta have exidcd before He was Man. By the fame or the like Argument you may make a God of every Amel^ in as much as Angels are called Gods in Scripture. But while, notwithflanding, you deny the necejfary^ exiiience of an ui^jgel , and make his Title nominal y who fees not that you deny Him to be God\ And thus do you with God the Son. The Cafe is mani- feft : And an ingenuous Man would rather give up * Pcarfon 01 th% Creed, p, ^or ioS A SiECOND DEFENiSE ^. VJ fo plain a Point, than expofe Himfelf by inventing little Quibbles to make Things appear what They are not, and to keep up a Show of believing what He believes not. But I art! next to be charged as ungodding the Som Let us hear how : You have been hitherto very unhappy in the Way of retorting. I aflert Him to he God in as high a Senfe as the Father, Well, how is This uyigoddiyig Him? Here you are filent* But I acknow- ledge Him to be derived^ fent y to execute the Fa- ther's Orders, ^c» Show me then that either his being a Son^ or being fent'^ is any Way inconfiftenc with Eqnalit'j of Nature^ or Vnity of Godhead : Here you are loft again. But you come trembling to tell me, / ungod the Father. You ought to tremble at fuch faUe and unrighteous Accufations. Well, how do I do it ? By ajferting Another independent , Aao" ther fupremc Lord^ &c. Wonderful ; when my Buli- nefs is to maintain, that He is not Another independent fnpreme Lord^ but the fame Lord. I deprive Him y you fay, of his bri^inal independent Sftpremacy* What? of his Paternity ? But I own Him to be Father i and firft confider'd in every Thing common both to the Son and Him. You have made nothing out in the Way of retorting; Come we next to Tertuliiany and Athenagoras ; to fee whether They agree with Youi or Me, in refolving the Vnity, The Criterion is This : If They take Father and Son Both into the one God, They are mine ; if They fcparate the Son from the Father, msiking Another God, or no God of Him, then They are jours, Tertullian^ you fay, founds the \ZJnity of God upon the S-ipremacj of the Father alone i / in the Government of the Vniverje, That is falfe ; For / TertnUian makes all the three Perfons of one Author it ji / vne State, one Subfiancei becaufe one God. They arc Jiis very Words cited above f. Neither are you able to prove any Thing contrary to it , out of all his Works. I referred you to a Paffagc of Tcrttillian ; ivherg <^. V. of feme QJLJ E R I E S. :>09 where He rejeds the Notion of an inferior God, as a l^agan Dream*: And to fliow how confident He is with Himfelf , He makes the Son not an iyifcriot God, but the ftme God with the Father ; And He appUes the general Maxim to the particular Cafi of Father and Son ■[ >, as h.wing the fame Divinity^ fame Power y &:c. Your Pretence of Tertttllians making the Son frbordinate ^ is meanly equivocating upon a Word. He makes Him fubordinate, as I alio doy in Order ^ or O^ce, not in Dominion: And you arc very fenfible that while you are pleading Tertulhan's Ex- preflions in Favour of your Notions, you make Him all over incon0cnty and contradiEiory to his own plain and avowed Principles. You might at This Rate, quote all the Pofi-nicene Fathers j who allow of a SHbordination as much as Tertullian, You run out (p. 2 11.) upon the Hiftory of his Difpute \v\i\i Mar^ cion, as if That were any Secret. After a great many Words, you have nothing to elude his Teftimony againft an inferior God, but a precarious Fidion, or Conjedure, that He would not have own'd the Son to be SnmmHm magnnm-i the fufreme Being ; Tho* He plainly does own it in making his Sahflance the fame with the Father' s-i and afcribing the fame Divinity, F Oliver , and Quality (mius Status) To Him. Your Cavils about Derivatio , and Portio have been con(]- der'd above (p. 103.) But you lay great Strefs upon T'ertuUians fuppofing the Stimynum magnttmy the fupreme Being to be unbegott^n^ which }0u think mull: exclude ^ Ncque enim proximi erimus opirlionibus Nationum, qux ii <]uando coguntur Deum confircri, tamcn ik Alios infra ilium volunt. Divinitas autcm gradum non haber, utpote unica. Courr. Her^iog. c. 7. Deus non ciii diccndus, quia ncc credendus nili Summum magnum. Ncga Deum quern dicis dcteriorcm. Contr. Marc, i i. c. 6. t Tres au*em non ilaru {q(\ gradu, nee Subitamia led Formi, ncc Potedate led Specie: XJ/iius auteih SntJiantUi Junius Status, CT un'-us Pote/iatis, quia xmus Dsns. Com. Prax. c. 2. Triniras unius Divinitatis, Pater; Films, 6c Spiriius fanilus. Be Pudic, c. li, D d the 2IO ^Second Defense Qu. V* the Son» But, under 1 avour, it is never TertuUlans Way ro cxclucle the Son. Father and Son together^ 'jnpon his Principles, were the one unbegottcn eternal \Stibjtay}cc^ till the Generation of the Son : And then I the Son was he^otten^ the Father unhegottcn, and Both In ill the jdme Svihfiance as before, under a different \Oeconon';j, You would infinuate, as if the Son was •(according to Terttdlian ) begotten into a Perfon-, juft before the Creation, by the good Pleafure of the Fa- ther. I refer the Kcacier to Bp. Buli^ for a Confu- tation of this weak and groundlefs Charge. I may however take Notice of it , as a Thing very par- ticular ; thjt , till you have made the Antients the rnoft fia^id A: en that ever lived, you prelume not to claim them as Advocates for your Opinions. I? it a fair Way of dealing with Authors to ftrain and wreft their lixprefiTions to a Scnfe direvflly repugnant to their known, and {landing Principles^ Could not you do the fame by ylthanafiHs Himielf, if you were io dirpofed, and claim all the Pofl-nicene Fathers, as well as Ants-nicene 'i by the help of the like Chicane.^ The Qiicilion, you fay, is not whether Tertullian al- 7vaji fpea!^ conjijhntl) : And you ^re not , you fay , 'Vindicating Tertullian'; Reajoning, but fuch plainlj is his Notion, In this Way of talking, I know not why you fl^iould not put in your Claim to all the Orthodox Men that ever v/rote upon the Trinity. For, as you think Them all inconfficnt , it is only taking thofe Principles v/hich you may be able to flrain to a Senfe agreeable to your Notions; and then you may claim their Countenance and Authority ; much in the fame Way as Dr. CUrke has fliown you^ in refped: of our Creeds, and Litptrgy. The Reader , 1 hope, ices, by This Time, what yoiu Boafls of Antiquity amount to; Little more than the fame Came over again with the Antients -y' which the Do: or had before^ piaLlifed with cur Church's YOK QiT. V. of/omff QUEKIES. 2ti You are next finding fniilc with my Account of TcrtHllian^ pag. 82*^. of my Dcfenfe, The Objccflion I faid, 2sTcrtHliinn refolved ir, was, that the Antho^ ritj would not be one, I thought my putting in the Parenthelis ('as TcrtulUan rcfolves it) might have been hint I'ufficient to a Man of- ordinary Acumen. I knew what the Obje.Hors meant by Alonarchia'^ and I knew alfo, to what Senfe TcrtHllian turned it in Jiis Anfwer: Which, it feems you did not attend to. He tells you, from his Knowledge of OV^c"/^ and Latin ^ that MonanhiiJ ought to (^2^n\^Y fin^^uUre G" unlctim Ir/jperitim, one fingular Government or Authority : And under This View, he proceeds to an'wer Praxe.i},\ Objedion about Monorchia, But, you fay, This Injlance of TertHllian may ferve to fnow that Father and Sc^n are not T'^io Aionanhs, bat ilj^t the one Monarch ;•;>//// be He onlj m whom tlye Jlmhoriti is Original. But then you'll ccnfider that hereby you make the Son no Aion.rrch: And fo inftead of making the Father and the Son One God (which This Example was intend- ed to illuftrate) you m^ake the Son no God at all; or elfe you make a Juprcme God, and an infcnor God., rhac is Two Gods ^ which you pretend to dilown. Nor can you ever come off from fo evident a Di!c?7i:7-na. I f^y then, that Tcrtt^iliaus Similitude, iho' it r.n- fwered his pm-pofe, does not at ail ferve your's. And therefore, I obferved to you that TcriHilim refolved the Unity of God not into the Father's being folc Monarch, which would have been giving up the Di- vinity of Cod the Son, hut into Unity of Power, Suhflmce y Godhead ^^ common to Both; taking Both into the oyie Godhead, and one God. Had you done fo too, you had done wifely? and might then have claimed fome Countenance from Antiquity', which your Novel Scheme is directly oppollte to. ZJnitj of Subftance , you (ay , can never ma^^e two eijttally fupreme Monarchs one God. But it may make Two P^rfons, conlidered os equally fiiprcm,e over all, D d z tiO. Ill A Second Defense Qii.V, to be but One Monarchy and One God \ and that's as well. I had faid of Athenagoras ^ that He refolves the Unity of Godhead into Unity of ^ubflance and Ori- ginal. As if, fay you, Vmty of SubjimcCy and Unity of Original were the fame Thing, 1 do not fay they are precifely the fame: For then I need not have mentioned Both, But This I fay, that no Vmty of Stibfianccy unlefs the Original was one, lo as to make the Subftance as it were of the fame Stock, would be fufficient upon the Principles of the Antients. I very well knew what I was talking about. Two mo" Yiginate divine Pcrfons, however otherwife infepar abler w^ould be Tivo Gods, according to the Antients. But if one be not only Confubfiamial, but alfo of the other, and referred up to Him as a Head or Fountain, Two fuch Perfons were believed to be one God, This was theCathohck Method, not of making the Father /«- giyy but Father and Son, One God; which was their pious Care, and truly Chriftian Concern, and which They expreilld on all Occafions againft Jewsy Pa-^ gans, and Hcreticks- Your Obfer vat ions on Aihojagoras, are anfwered sbove. You have in This P^g^(pag, 116,) and the following one, the ilirewdeil way of talking I have yet met with. You have difcovered, it (eems, thit my Principles and yours are '■he ve^y fame ; and that we Kced not difpute longer. Indeed, I was wondring at your Dulinefs in not making the Difcovery fooner. For I very v/ell knew that you could never bring over the Antients to your Principles, but you muft at the fame Time take Me alfo along with Them: And the very fame Arguments which you make ufe of to draw them in as Advocates to your Caufe, muft of courfe draw Me in too; being inviolably attached to Them. You have therefore here done me Juftice ,. undcHgrjcdly. I am really on your fide, as much as ever the Antients were: And you are very confiftent in taking me in with Them. But the Misfortune is, that Qa. V. of fom QUE KIES. 213 tRat the pretty way you have of fetching any thing, or any Man you pleafc, into a lidc, and forcing them into your Service, is become greatly Contemptible; efpecially after the Attempts made upon fuch Men as Biihop Pearjon , and Bilhop Btdly and upon our Creeds, Articles, and Liturgy. You have carried the Wile too far: And now every Body fees through it. But let us hear, at length, how it is that I am brought over to countenance your Principles ; And let the Reader, from This Jnflance, make a Judg- ment of the reft. You proceed thus : If the Unity of the Godhead is to be refolved into one Head, Root, Fountain, and Father of all, the Son ivho is not the Head, Root, Fountain, &c, cannot be Himjelf That ^e ffipreme God ji^hich is the Father, Head, Root, and *^ Founiain of all. Thus , after you have fwelled your felf up with AfTurance , and your Reader with Ex- peflation, you produce nothing but the lilly Sophifm about This, and 71?^; which 1 before (/?. 5^.) promifed to difmifs, where-ever I fhould find it. My own Hands, you tell me, have intirely deflroyed my own Scheme, Happy for me, that 1 am here to anfwer for my feif; when with Bp. Vearfon, Bp. Bull, and almoft all the Anticnts^, I am called in to countenance fuch Notions as I had not only detefted, but formally con^ fnted. You tell me, had I xefted here (that is, in af- * Tou fcruple not, pag, i\%, to cite Athanafius, Hilary, and Ore- gory Nazianzen, as making the lather the Only God 3 as if They a ifo intended to exclude the Son from the One Godhead. Such as have ever looked into Thofe Writers themfelves, infiead of taking up Scraps at Second-hand, cannot vafit anAnfroer to fuch weak Preten- ces. I fljall think is fufficient to refer you to a few Vlaces cf thcfe Three IVriters, to give you a-jufl Notion ofthetr Vrintifles upon this Head^ Athanalius, p. fs6, 878. in Pial. p. 75-. Hiiarius, 856, 85-9. Grogor, Nazianz. Orat. 56. p. 5-86. As to your Pretence that you cannot find that any even of the To/t- nicenes of the 4th Century iaid that the Son was equal in Autho- rity and in all Perfeaionsj // is either a poor Quibble upon the- IVord Authority, or tlfe betrays your great want cf reading, fcrtii?^ 514 !/f Second Defense Qu. V^ ferting the Father to be Head^ Root, &c.) the Contro^ verfj had been at an end. Now, if it may contri- bute any thing to end one of the idlefl Difputes, to fay no worfe, that ever was begun amongft us, I beg leave to affure you that I do reji there: And, by fo doing, I have at once taken from you, as I humbly conceive", all your Pretences both from Serif ture, and Aniquityi leaving you nothing but your Metaphjficki to trull to ; which after repeated Experiments, you have found \try unferviceable, and lighter than Fanitj it/elf. After you had taken notice of what I had granted, as to the Father's being Root, Head, Fountain, &c. you fay , // this he trite as I have fully proved , &c. And you refer to what you had done above, adding fome other Authorities in the Margin. The Reader here cannot but obferve how unac^ countably you have fpent your Time and Pains in an elaborate Proof of Vv'liat I had readily before granted. This is what commonly, and very juftly, goes under the Name of Impertinence y and is a Method almoft peculiar to Thole v/ho having once efpoufed a bad Omfe, have an Afrer-game to play for their own Re-^ pmation, more than for the fike of the Cau:Je They are entred into, to carry on the Appearance of a Dil- pute, af^er the Difpute is really ended. What otha* Account can be given of your filling fo many tedU ous Pages with Qiotations from the Antients, really proving nothing but what I had ingenuoufly admitted before, leaving it to you to make all the Advantage you poffibly could of it ? The Reader here may again plainly fee, that your pretended Arguments again (i me, are not more igain'i me than againft iViQ Antients, by whofe Princi^ pies mine mud: either ftand or fall. And while you are charging me with Co^atradittions , the Charge falls. equnHy upon Them ; whofe Faith I follow , and whofe Prmciples I here maintain. It may be feen, with half an eye, that you deal with the Antients iud as you do with Mco You pretend firfl to fplit Qti, V. t)f fcm (QUERIES. iij their Notion into contradictory Principles ; and then you take one part of the pretended Contradi(ftion and play it againll: the other part; crying out, the ^«//^;i/j^ the AnticHts^ all the way; with rriuch the lamejufticc as you can, when you have a mind to it, cry out, The Creeds, The Articlesy The Liturgj, and what not? You tell me, (pag. 217.) of my perpetual Self-con^ tradiEiion, Now, it you are able to prove it, you'll do fomething ; If not, you only betray your own want of Judgment, or fairnefs, in making the Charge. As to the Perfe^ion you imagine in the Father as fuch, more than in the Son, I deny any, except whac is contain'd in a Mode of exifting^ or Relation of Or- der, You go on CavilHng, in a childiih manner, again ft Vnity of Sabfiancc » Individual, NHmericd-, dec, which kind of Cavils I abundantly anfwered again and again in my Dcfenfe, and iliall not repeats ^omogeneoHS Suhftance and infeparahditj amounts with ' you to Stibflances united. You lliould have avoided This, becaufe you hereby charge your Friend the Doctor with making the Divine Sul/jJance a Heap of Subflances united. If there cannot be Subftance and Subftance without Subftances^ the Do 51 or and you sre in a larhentable Cafe ; while you fuppofe the Di-f vine Sirbfrance to be extended: For you thereby fup- pofe Him compounded of innumerable Subjlances. Learn hereafter to have your Thoughts more about you, when you are charging ContradiVtions, I had faid in my Defenfe, p. 84. that the Fathers believed God to be a Word denoting Subjlancc ^ , not DominiGn only. You are unwilling to let This pafs, notwithftanding that you have changed your Mind in this Point of God\ denoting Domnion onlyy * See TertuMian ahove. p. iSo. t/^cfji. Bar Ep. 80. 'O »:•, 1^ 0 ^<5«; T»4 bir!x<; Ivo-^Tti. Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. p. 5"85; ©*>)f iVttfpf V J^^TT,<, TTvtoc^. rr,t icriew; Epiph. vol. 2« p. 11. tis -A Second Defense: i^u.V, jfince your lafl: Time of Writing. Now the Word, you fay, denotes the Perfon 'whofe the Suhjiance is : That is, the Subftance whofe the Subftance is ; For Perfon denotes Sahflance, As to ^^o'^y\^y which be- fore lignilied, with you, divine Dominion^ it now (ig- inifies divine Dignity and Authority, And it is plea- fant to obferve, how you can change the Senfe of a Word, and yet give the very fame reafon for the yie7i^ Senfe, as before for the old one. We v/ere be- fore told; that SfioTH^, like cLvBpcoTroni^ ^ and all ijther Words of the Itke formation, always fgnifies di- v/ne Dominion ^. Now, ^toTHS , like cLV^pcoTCoTA^ , find all other Words of like formation^ always fignifes ^''divine Dignity and Authority. That is to fay, once upon a Time, it always fignified an omward Relation^ exprefled by the Word Dominion : But now it ahvays iignifies fome intrinfick^ VerfeUion^ expreffed by the Word Dignity, I hope, the next Time you writer it will always fignify Divine Nature^ like 'AvSpdyTTo- 'nt^j (which fignifies the Htiman) and all other Words of like formation. I gave many plain Examples of This fignification, by References in the Margin, of my Dcfenfe f. One would think that you, in your reply, had a mind only to divert the Reader. You tell me, in the Paflfage of Melito^ ^ionrviij is exprellly oppofcd to iv3-pci)7roTj^?. I know it, and I chofe itj for That Very reafon; becaufe, as ivS'fOjTroTT^j there undoubtedly fignifies Human Nature-^ in concretot fo it determines the Signification of S'eoTJi? to the Divine Nature, Befides that your own Notion of Dignity^ (if you have any Senfe in it) falls in with mine otSmftance, For whatever exprefles intrinfick^Dignity (and not mere outward Relation) expreffes the Nature^ and Suhfanct^ the Seat and Ground of that /«rr/;^c;^ Dignity. You pafs over a Page or two of my Defenfe^ till you find fomething to carp at : And it is my laying that the * See Dr. Clarke'; Repliest p. 2.S3. f Dcfenfe, p. 8_j-. 394. SMlian Qu. V. ^ffowe QUEKIES. 217 Sabcllian Singularity coniJikci in making the Godhead ^yo7r/)5C7rt)7r@-, one fingle HjpoJJciJjs, To which you reply, that the contrary is m'lorioi^jlj true, that the Sa- htWuns ftippofed God to be f^ix ^\j^70L(JI^ t^'tt poena vn^. Now, ot all Things, there is nothing more con- temptible among Men of Scnfe, than Pedantry abouc Words. Men of Learning know that the Word fZcr(Z^7zc7n>v has been fomerimes ufed to fignify only an Appearance, or Manifeflation , or Chararter: In This Senfe, the SahdlUn Tenet is, that the Godhead h fJiU v7rlczLn$ rtiTrpoJCoTT'^, one Iljpo^afts under •rTliree Terfom, that is. Names, yippearances, Cha- raciers ; the fame being cither Father^ or Son, or Holy Ghojl, according to Jiis feveral Manifeflations, or different Appearances. But then the Word ^z^- cwTTov has been likcwife ufed to fignify tlie fame with Hypojlajis, a real Pcrfon "^ : In ilus Senfc, tlie Sabd- Uan Principle makes the Godlieid jJU^Q-Tcp-jotoT:©^^ or gy fZu^TOo'Tto^y one finpje Perfon t- But T am weary of inflrucling you in fuch hmji^yj Things as you ought * It is thus ufed z% early ns Ilippolytus. Contr. Noet. r. y.c. 14. in v/hi^h Scnfe alio TeriuUian freouciitly uies t!ic Latin Vv'ord Tcr- fona. Gregory Naaiaazen rrinkcGit indiftercnr whether to fay, Ittz^- ©■«<;. ov TTpcvzoTm, provided the mermingbc fecured. Orat. 59. p.630. By degrees the Woi\is ome to be indiiteienrly ufed. one For the other, as Damafcen has observed to have been tommon with the Tat hers. f/^'^ TO UUT9 l;UXi7iX1. TO y.'Xy iCi'JTi i^ in m tUtZ^ ', I'c iStr.U'i V^ OX'//yo:c5J.«(9- vziiF v^i^tif^pov, y^ oc^B-fJua ^^77c7stai^, and 'ten^^JZOTCOv, that the former may be ap- plied to inanimate or irrational Things, the latter to Rational only : When therefore I fay that they arc of the fame Import, I would be underllood to mean only when applied to rational or intelligent Things. You proceed to mention an incidental Thing, which, in common Prudence, you might better have omitted. In or-der to vindicate your Notion of there being but One God, while you fuppofe another God under Him, you had asked me whether Herod the Great was not King of Judea^ tho* the Jews had no King but Cxfar ? To which I civilly anfwer'd, that Herod the Great had been dead above Tloirty Tears be- fore the Time when it was faid^ that the Je^i^s had no Kini but Csefar. You had here committed a Chrono^ logical flip J fuch as ingenious Men, thro' hade, may be fometimes apt to fall into. But you are pleafed to quarrel with me for putting when the Jews, inftead of tho' the Jc^vs, I ov/n the Fact : for, I fuppofed you to mean, being a Man of Senfe, that the Two Kings were alive, when it was faid the Jeivs had n(f King but Ca/ar. For, otherwifeyou mufl: be fenfible of a great Inadvertency in your Argumen:; which was intended to prove that there may be Two Kings (as T7i^o Gods) at the fame Ti772e \ and yet the Name of King (or God) devolved intirely upon the fupcrior. Now, whether you'll fubmit to a flight Slip in Chro- nologj, or to a grofs Blunder in the Argument, is all one to me : But a prudent Man would have par!>'d a Matter over quietly, which could not be calkd up again but to his own Confufion. You tell me now, that Herod was King under Angtiflnsi Very right \ But how do you prove that, st That Time, the jews had no King but Cafar f There lay the Pinch of the Difficulty; which it is a wonder a Man of your Acu- men fhould not be able to ; erceive. We have nothing more, that i> material, under This Query* The Charge of profeffing Two Gods rt- tnains ftili unanl'wer'd : and muft remain till youti-.ink L € Z prni - 220 ^ Second Defense Qu.VL proper to difcard God the Son froin all Religious Wor- JJjip, Then indeed He will be no longer Uod ro us, anv more than A/tgels, or Magiftrates., or othe'r Nomi- ml Gods : And you may then reft confiftently in one God, and no more ; namely, in God the Father, du E R Y vr. whether the fame Char act eri flicks, efpecially fuch eminent ones, can re af on ably be under flood of Two diflinci Beings-, and of one Infinite and Independent, the other Dependent and Finite ? YOUR nnv Anfwer to This Qiiery is, I. That tlie Charaders can no more be under- flood of Two difiin^ Ferfons , than of Two diflinci 'Beings, To which I anfwer, that it may be proved from Scripture that the Charaders belong to Tii^o Perfons: it cinnot be proved that They belong to Two Beings, much lefs that they belong to Two fuch difparate > and unequal Beings, as you fuppofe Father and Son to be. 2. You anfwer, fecondly, that the CharaSlers are not the fame, becaufe Powers derived and uriderived are not the fame. This anfwer is very contrary to the Sentiments of wifer Men, who have argued the other way, that if the Powers had been equally underivsd, they had not been tliQ fame in the Two Perfons* : But as one of the * In duobus ingemUs diverfa Divinitas invenitur : in uno autem genito ex uno ingenito, naturalis anitasdemonftarur. Fulgent, contr. Arian. p. 5-9. Si ambo vocarentur Fatres, elTent profedio Natura dilTimiles. Unufquirqiic enim ex femetipfo conftaret, Sc communem iubftan- riam cum alrcro non haberct ; nee Deltas una efTet, quibus unana- tura non eilct. Idem, p. jz. Si Qu. VI. ef fome QU E R I E S. ill the Perfons is derived from the other, being Light of Lights God of Gody Subftancc of SHhfta?2cc-i Both to- gether are one Gody one Sfibjlancc, &c. And the fame Powers are common to Both ; as there is the fame Life in Root and Branches, the fame Light in the Sun and its Rays, the fame f^irtne in the Center and what proceeds from it. And tho* no Comparifons are fufficient to illuftrate Infinity, and there muft be a great deal more than we are able to conceive ,* yet there is no Principle of Reafon to contradid This Notion, that the fame Powers ^ Properties ^ PerfeEii^ ons may be diverfly confidered in the Fountain from whence they flow , and in the Streams to which They defcend. You your fclf cm give no tolerable Account how the fame Powers, u4nribfftes, dec. are equally diffufed to infinitely diftant Parts of the Divine Sftlfance^ as you conceive it under Extenfwn : Nor is our Notion of the fame Powers being common to Three Perfons, at all more unconceivable, or inexplicabie than your's is of the other ^. So that here let us be content to flop where it becomes us, and not pretend to mea- fiire Infinity, You fay, the Powers are no more the fame than the Perfons are : Nor , certainly , le(s the fame, than the Stthjlance is. All this will depend upon the fettling the Senfe of Samenefs^ and the fe- veral kinds of it. When you are able to explain to me how the IVf- dom redding in one fart of the Divine Subftancc (on your Hjpoihefs of Extenflon ) is the fame , and yen not the fame with the Wfdom refiding in any other Part'y I may then be able to account for the degree of Samenefs in the Powers belonging to the Tiirec Perfons. Si verus Dcus cfl:, Sc dc Patre non eft, Duo flint habcnte? fin- guli Sc voluntatcs Proprias 6c imperia diverfa. Greg. Na7,iauz,. p. 719. Pieud. Ambio£ p. j^tS. Oi/cr EugcniiConfelT. ap. Vnct. Vit. p. 37. ChSffi. * ^ii my Dticnfe, p, 171, 'Hz A Second Defense Qu. VI. 5. In the third Place, you tell me of an invidions Injmuiit'mi -t couched under the Words Finite and In* finite. This you borrow, as you do many other Things, from the Author of Modeft Plea^ &:c. conti- vticd, I return'd a brief Anfwer to it in the Preface in my Sermons f. There is nothing invidious in the Cafe/ But you ought, if you have none but fair and honeft Defigns, to come out of ambiguous Terms^ that we may fall diredly upon the Qiieftion. You are the lefs excufable for continuing your Difguifes \^4iile you write under Cover, and conceal your ■'Kame. It looks now, as if you were afraid only of having your Caufe expofed, while there is no Danger of your Perfons, Dr. Clarke y even in Books which he has fet his Name to, is hardly more referved than you are without a Name* What is the meaning of This, but to protrad a Controverfy, and to run from the Qiieftion ; being fenfible that your Caufe is not really Defenfible? But to proceed. You fay, yon fet no Limitations to the PerfeHions of the Son of God, more than the Scripture has done: Which is faying nothing; becaufe you tell us not what Scripture has doney according to your Senfe of it. But you add^ hj declaring them to He derived: Which in my Senfe of derived^ is no limi- - tation at all ; you fhould tell me, whether it be in yonrs. Self-exiftence you fay is a Perfe^Hony Prove from Scripture , or any other way, if you can, that Self'cxifience y as diflind from Necejfarj - exiftence y is any PerfeHion : It is a Relation of Order, a A'.ode of Lxifting ^^, and That is all. f Trefiite to my Sermons, />. 1 f . Eun. I. 4. p. 763. Fu/. Damafccn. Vol. i. p. t 35-, 140, 143, 210,409, Vol. 2. p. 817. Ficudo Juft. Expofit. Fid. Mich. PlcU apud Fabric. Vol. f, p. j6. Qu.VI. p//cw QUERIES, 225 Ay, but you fay, it denotes pjttivc Greatnefs (p* ^l6,) and you refer me to the modejl Pleader; who makes it the fame with neceffary-exijience'^ , If This be indeed your meaning, I own it, in that Senfe, tQ be as great a Perfection as pofliblc, and the Sum to- tal of all Perfedion : But then I afTert it to be com- mon to Father and Son, who are, in this Senfe, equally Self-exlftcnt. Only, the Father particularly is jinbegotten, and underivd', under which Conception, ^ Self-exifience^ as peculiar to Him, is negative, and re- lative. We had long been amufcd with Dr. ClarJ^'s denying the Self-exiftcnce of the Son and FIoly-Gholl: By which He was fuppofcd to mean no more than that They were -begotten and proceeding, which eveiy Body allows : But now, it leems. He meant to de- ny their Necejfary-exiftcnce ; which is directly reduc- ing Them to Great tires. You fee now what you have to do : Either prove, that the meer Charafter of un- derived expredes any pofiive Perfection; or that Ne- ceffarj-exiflence belongs not equally to all the Three Per-» fons : And then you'll fliow your felf an able Difputanr. You need not now be fcrupulous about dependent ^^ and independent: You have faid enough. Whatever is not necejfarilj^exi fling is precariotis , and dcpe-tident , as m.uch as any Greature , which is enough in all Reafon ; we underftand you. You fay, that you fup- pofe the Son dependent in no other Senfe than is im- plied in the Notion of being begotten. It may be fo, according to your Notion oi Begotten , (I fuppofe, very little differing from created) but you will have a hard Task to fliow that either Scripture or Antiqui- ty favours any fuch Notion of Begotten^ as to make /he Son precarious, or not necejfarily-exifting. The / volant ayy- generation mentioned by the primitive Wri- ters, will not ferye you at all in This Matter, as will be feen in the Sequel : And as to Scripture , you have not a fmgle Text to help you, but what mull: * ^Todpjl Vie A, p. 217. firft 224 ^ Second Defense Qu.Vf. f^rft be racked and tortur'd wirh Metaphjjtcd Glojfes^ to make it fpcak what it never meant. You have a furprizing Piece of Subtilty (p. 224.) to bring your felf off from the juif and Vv-ell-grounded Sufpicion of making the Son a precarious Beings It is a difficult Matter to force Logic againft common Senfe : But you are reolute enough to try. Your Words, fpeaking of the Son's exiting by the Father's free Afl, and 0mce (which is Dr. Clark^s known Senfe of This Matter) are thefe. Which yet no more implies the Son to be a precarious and mutable Being, than Thofi PerfeEiions of God, his Power, ^Hftice, Goodnefs^ Ve- racitjy and the liJ^ {The Exercife whereof always im-^ plies the Notion of Adion, and confequentlj depends wholly on the Will of the Agent) are therefore more precaiious, or uncertain in their Effects ^ than thofe otljcr Perfeflions ( which imply in rhem nothing of Aclion, and confequentlj have no Dependence upon the Will of the Agent) fucb as Eternity^ Omni^refence, Om-* mfcience^ or thi like* Here> if one may prefume to underfland fuch ob- fcure Reafoning , God the Son is proved to be na precarious Being, b^caufe the Ads of God's Jufiicey Goodmfsy c^c. are certain in their Effs^s : Which they undoubtedly are, whether God pleales to.^»w^/7^/f orto bring into Exi Hence. Therefore, moft evidently, the Son is no precarious Being: Nor is any Creature Vv"hatever at jiil precarious, or mutable, by the fame Way of Rea- foning. A mighty Honour done to God the Son> to n^ake Him no more precarious than the refl of the Crea- tion. Certain however it is that, upon your PiincipleSy there is w natural neceffity for his exifling : He might either never have exilled, or may even ceafe to exifl (as much as may be faid of any Creature) if it fliould plcafe God fo to order it. This is the prop7y Qu. VI. offomeQlJEKlES. 227 So^y not God the Father, He is at the fame Time, reprefentcd alfo as Gody an(i as Lordy Jehovuby er^. What Ufe you can make of this rrmar!^>hle Thini^S has been Hiown. I pafs over your Speculations on Dan, vii. 15, 14. as carrying no Argument in Them. You go on in fpeaking of Cf^rifi's receiving Domi- nion ; which relates only to the Oeco/Wfhyy (n- Dif- penjation : According to which God the Father will receive a Kingdom at the laft Day, and enlarge his Dominion over his Subjc(5i:s. As t.o Phil. ii. 6. I refer to my fifth Sermon; where I had obviated your Pretences before you made them. You inlid upon your Conflrudion of iAAx. Which if ad- mittedf, yet you can never afcertain your whole Con- fer u6lion C as I fliowed in my Sermon f ) but the Words will flill naturally bear a Meaning oppofite to yours. However, as 10 your Criticiuus, about the Ufe of aAAx ia that Place, they appear to me of no manner of Force. The Senfe is exceeding clear, and unbarralfed, running thus : Who being in the Form of God, thought it not Robbery to be equd with God ( See how great, how divine a Perfon He was. ) Tet not^ withftandingt He humbled Flir/ifelf^'^y ^c. You pre- tend that the Woi'ds, thought it not Robbery , v/ould be the Example propofcd. No; but They are Part of the Preface to it, to make the Example the ;"nore forcible, and the more endearing : So that I may re- turn you the Compliment of Inattention, In my Sermons^ you tell me, / raofl abfurdbj inter^ fret Gad's highly exalting ChriJ}^ in the fame Senfe as f Sermon, V. p. 167, -^■^ Clemens underftands it in the fame Way as I do. ^O^ h (j^sb- .oiKTij//,ui) ^fc?, iraruj t'cv avfl^wTrcv yin^utit^. Clem. Alex. p. 8. Ox. That Clemens here interprets the Place as I do, appears fron\ his changing u^^^a. into /se, from his making a Pauie after tju ^s/, and from his chufing a new Subject of his Propolition, 0 . 1S4. I See Suiccr's Thelaurus in va^^ and Tc^ii^at, Which QiT. VI. offowcQlJEKlES. 23i Which if truC) we would give you up Novathxn for a very filly Man, and withal a Hcretick. The Point of Chrift^s having a Human Soul was a Thing fo fettled in NoViitlans Time, and long before ; fo uni- verfilly maintain'd from the very Beginning of ChrifH- unity, by all the Fathers without Hxceprion ; that had Novatian taught otherwife, He could not have paded for a Schifmatkl^ only. You may fee what Socra:es ^ fiys to that Point, who was Himfelf of the Novatian Sefi:, and his Teflimony therefore the more material -, as Difciples feldom vary in any thing very confiderable from their Leaders. He de- clares; that all the Amkms (fure He did not exclude the Head of his own Party) believed that Clnill had a Human Souly and afferted it as a Doclrine Huivcr^ fallf received. He mentions IrcnxuSi Cle?nenSy ^polli- naris of Jlierapolis, Scrapion Bidiop of ^ntioch. The Synod that met about the Cafe of Beryllus , Origenj PamphiluSy and Eufebiui : And it is evident flill from their own Works, of as many as have left us Any. To Thofe He has named, may be added Clemens Ro- manus ^ , J^^fi^^^ Alartjr " , Aieliio ^ , Hippoljtus ^" , 7h'fuilian^ , and perhaps feveral more which may have efcapecTmy Notice. Now, what w^U Novati- ans fingle Tcflimony fignify, ag^-iinft fuch a Cloud of VVicnelTes I But the more Zhiiverjal the Doctrine was, the lefs probable is it, that Novatian fliould dif- lent from it. And indeed you have no Foundation for any fuch Sufpicion of Him, more than v/hat lies in tlie \]k of tltc Word Caroj Flejh ; which is a very common FxprelTion for Man , ( Body aiid Soul ) in Scripture it fclf, as well as in Ecckfiaftical Writers. Bcfidci that Novatian interprets CnrilVs being ??iadi a Socr;ites Eccl. H, I. 3. c. 7. p. 17S. b Gem. Rom. Epill. c. 49, p. 169. Cant. c Apol. 1. c. 10. p. 26. tl Mclico apud Oiv. H\(i. Lit. Tom. 2. p. 5;. c Hippo'ytus contr. Ncor. c. 1 7 . p. 1^. i Tcnullian coniT, PraA\ c. 16. ?o. dc Cam. Clirifli, c, 10. G g flep, 234 ^^ SEcoi^Tt) Defe^^se Qll.\L Flcflh by his afTuming of y^/^w, Hnnc Ilommcm^ ^This Alan: Which is a Nnme He would fcarce have given to mere Body or Flejh ; well knowing;, that Man is made up both of Body and SottL Your Pretence about Son of God , and Son of AI<^n being tivo FeV" jons (upon my Scljcme ) hinted only, without any Reafon to fuppoit it , may be paffed over. The clearing of that Matter will require a large Difcuf- fion of the true Notion and Definition of a Per/on ; Avhich you have not attempted: I, perhaps, may, in a proper Place. What you add farther , is of more Weight, that I feem to Juppoje that the Glorj which Chrijl bad before the World was^ is the very jame with nat Authority ami Power of "fudgmerd ( fo you ex- pj'efs it) whereiuith Pie was tfjvejhd after his Re^ur- rcciicn-. But 'i'hat uiwhoritj and Power of jtidging^ as you call it, is what our Lord had before his Rejur- reclioH^ as Himfeif declares, John v. 28, Qjrc. And what I pippojti is 71iis; that all x.\\q Powers, Glories^ Honours given to the Son, were nothini? but fo many Declarations, Indications, or Manifedatiorvs of the Dignity and Divinity of his Perfon : Which Dignity snd Divinity had been celebrated, in Pleaven before > and were now to be reco?niz.ed aftir his Jyicarnation nnd Htirmliatim: So that in the main, This was no more than receiving the fame Honours He before had., ai^d rcturnino", as it were, to the iame State or Glorj ; only now c loathed with Humanity, which before He A\a5 nor. You have fomething farther to obfen'e of Hcrmas, in rcfped of Co-heir. How can the divine Nature , iay you, be Heir of 2.ny Thing? But I hope a Son may without Oiftnce, be laid to be Heir to all hfs farher's Glories, in Allrdlon to what paffcs among Men, ihu' the Similitude may not anfwer in every * Cavo fir, 5c lialitat in nobis, hoc ell:, afiiKP.it hunrUominem, Qu. Vr. of fome QV EJII E S. 235 Circumujp.'.'C. Ir is a lively and elegant Way of conveying to us a Notion ot divme Things ; And is to be iinderftood, like many PafJages of Scripture , ^iOTt^inro:^, tho' fpokcn ivO^oj 7707^9^?. You conclude with a PalBge of- Iremus , which I have cited in my Sevrmns'*''^ whither, to fave my ielf Trouble, I refer the Reader; who may there alio find a fuilicient Ilxplication of it. What you infir frorp it is , tliat l\\l:s^ P.ir.ms , and Iriji.Lb. God's full Kingdojyi is not yet come; we pray {o\' it: And if the Father Hin-rftlf i:)e not yet compl::,rly /O-;/, in the fulled: Senfe, wiut Wonder is it, if we h'jur of our Lord's receiving a Kingdoniy or Domimon^ in Time. External Relations may accrue to any of the divide Perfons, fuch as Dominion^ err. But your great Misfortune is, that you can no where find Divinity , accruing to God the Son ( except it be by eternal ' Generation ) you can no where find , that He was ever conftituted God-]: (as He might be Lord) or thac '^Sermons, p. 175-. t Novation is the only antient Writer I have obfcrvcJ to fay any thing like it; in the Words UniverfA Creaiur.£ ^ Uommiii ^ Dim cohftltutm tjl'^ re^.'ntiirt N/n'. c. If. Yet his con.lant W^y, at other Times, is to rclol/e the Son's Divinity into his Son^ut^. G g z Hum 236 A Second Defense Qu.VI. that He became, by any new Acceflion, more truly> or more fully God rh^ He was ever before. This Coafi deration an once fliows the VVeaknefs of your Hjpthcjts (as I hinted above) and is alone fufficient; to unravel all your Fallacies. Deum creihndum ejfe qf4i ex Deajif. c. ii. Deus quia Dei Ft" hits comfrobatHr. c. i6. Hoc ipfufn tamen a Vatre prof rib confecu- ttis, t4t omnium Qr* Deus ejfet, (^ Dominus ejjet, ^ Deus ad formam, Dei Patris ex ipfo genitus atque prolatus. c. 17. Dens, fed qud Jilnis Dei natus ex Deo. c. 18. Deus ergo procejjit ex Deo, dum qui procejjit Sermo, Deus ejl qui procejjit ex Deo. c. ^^. Unum pO' tejl did, dum ex ipfo eji, ^ dum Jilius ejus efl, ^ du7n ex ipfo naf- citnr, dum ex ipfo procejjijfe reperitur, per quod ^ Deus efi. c. 23. ^uoni^.fn ex Deo <■/?, merit 0 Deus i quia Dei Filius dicius fit. c.i6i 'pTrforiA Chrifli convenit ut Qr> Deus /it, quia Dei films, c. 26. Efi ergo Deus, [eA in hoc ipfum genitus ut effet Deus. c. 31. Thcie PalTigcs conlidcrcd, it is manifeft that Novatian, in the former Place cited, cither ufed the Word ccnjlitutus improperly, tor p of it us, that is declaratus : fSee Chap. 12) or elfe, which ap- pears to me mofl: probab'e, that arguing there againit the Hcrc- ticks, who would not allow Chrifi: to be more than Man, He was content at firft, to bring them fo far, at leaH;, as to admit ChriH: to be God in a higher Senfe than Mofes, and fo by Di^ grees, to bring them iip to Catholic Principles. Q^U E R Y VII. Text To the one God. ThoH^ even Thou cnlj h? owe ft the Hearts of alt the children of Aierh^ i Kiugs 8. 35?. / the Lord Jenrch the HcT/t ; / try the Reins, Jcr. ly. lo. / am the fir [I , und I am the b.;}, and beftdes me there h no Gcd^ Ilh. 44. 6, > applied To the Son, He k?zew all Men^ '&C. Joh. 2. 24. Thou knoweft dl Things y |oh. 16. 30. which k7ioweft the Hearts of all Meii., Ads i. 24. lam He that fear cheth the Reins and the Hearty Rev. 2. ^l. J am the fir fly and 1 am {he laft, Rev. i. 17- / am Qu.VlL of fome QUERIES. 237 / am A and Q, the be- gmnmg and the end, Rev. I. 8. King oflCings^ a}2d hord of Lords y I Tim. 6. 15. The mighty Cod, If. 10. 21. Lord over ally Rom. ZO. 12. / anu A and D, z/:?^ ^^- ginning and the end, R e v. 22. 13. Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, Rev. 17. 14. -T* 15). 16. The mighty God, K, 9. 6. He is Lord of all. Ad. I o. 3 6. Over all God blef fed, &c. Rom. 9. 5. '♦^ H^^ether the Fathe/s Omnifcicnce and Eternity are not one and the fame with the Smis, bein^ alike defer ibed, and in the fame Fhrafes ? HERE you anfwer, that under ived and derived are nor the fame. To which I anfwer , that Wifdom of VVifdom is one Wijdom, Omnikience of Omnifcience one Omnifcience, jull as Siibllance of Sul)- ftance is one Shbftance, Light of Light one Light y and God of God one God; becaufe of the infep^rable Unity of the Peifons , and their mutually incliiding and containing each other. As to the Degree of Samenefs, I before intimated that it is inexplicable; and is no more to be accounted for than your fup- pofing the fame Wifdom , ere. to refide in innume- rable , infinitely diftant Parts of the fame Subftance. This Controverfy ( whatever you imagine ) is not ta be decided by Adttaphjficki^ but by Scripture and An^ tiqmty ; where we may find fome Footing, which we cannot in the other. Your next Anfwer therefore is more fobcr, could ic but be proved to be jufl. You deny, that the Son's * N.B. Xhefe Ttxts JlwtiU ha-ve been infer ted in Query VI. Omni' 23 S !/f Second Defense Qu.VIL Omnifcicuce: and Eternity are alike defcribed, and in the iame Phraic. It lies then upon you to fliow the Vijfercncei as I have fitown tlie Kefemblar.ce, It is HOC necellary, that every Phrafe v/hich is ufed of the rather be alio ufed of the Son. I Tingled out fonie ot the ilrongeft, fullcfl, and mod: exprelTive ,* fliow-^ iDg> that they are applied to Both: And if they were not x\it fimigeft, yet if They are fuch as Scripture has., declared fccpill^r to the one God; My Argument is julU and it v/ould have become you firil: to anfwei? iU and then tb call it a Otiiibls. You uitcrpreted the Texts wliich concern the Son^s Or?i'mfde?Ke of a relative Omnifcicnce : Upon which I bldmed you for fpeakmg of a Rcktivt Om- riiftience, indcad of faying plainly, that the Son was r^^ OfnfiifcicKt; that fo we might have ^ome dirc{f(-ly tQ the C>uell:ion. Here, by a peculiar Kind of Turn, proper to your fclf, you tell mc how ill I treat Scrip- Uive, Wliy fo? Are you to perfectly wrap'd up in i^crir-tnrc , that the iulte:! Rebuke imaginable cannot jFcach you , b'^-it through i;^ie Sides of the Scripture \ Our l2ord, you fay, t>yd his Apajiks^ that the Ildy^ Ohnjr jhoiild tench them all Things, and guide Thenft. ioro all Truth: Ad'ht Ili noi bitter have fnid ( fo you go on) that H:^ jhould P.ot tc.ich them all iMngSt^ (I'ld not (juidc T.vcji i;itG all Trpuh. Now, at knqth, k is oiiu : And thus I have mal- treated Scripture. Was there ever -a wilder Inference^; You iliould have. Coniidcrcd, that there was no Quedion raifed about the Apoftlcs and their Qmnifcictice : if there had, I doubt not, but our Lord would have readily faid , what was true^ that the Apoftles were not ommfcient. He w^ould not have difguifed his Sentiments, nor have deceived his Hearers with ambiguous Tt\-vc\s^\\\\tv\ They wanred to be refolvcd in an important Matterj^ and honeftly defired to have the Truth fairly exa- n^ined, and fcanned. And thcrc*fore your asking, Had^ tie not better have faid ^ and repeating it again, and* agiin, is nicr; TriRing \ uulels you can Paow^ tl}^r OLIV Qu.VII. cffme QUEKIES. ' 2^^ xmr Lord^ or the fured Jl] iters Ind been called upon (in fuch Manner, and in fiich CircumRanccs, as Dr. CLirke and you have been ) ro dechrc what They meant, and to let Truth have a fjiir Tr/J. But by this round about Way, you would indnuatc, 1 prc- fume (for flill you are lliifting, and do not care to fpeak out) that the Texts fpeaking of the So^*s Om^ nifciencey are of RO Force bccaufe foiriithing of like ■kind has been faid of the y^^ojlies, whom all allow not to be oin^ifcisnt^ To This I anfwer, i. That the Txpreflions relating to our Saviour are much (Ironger than the other : Such as kno^ving all A4eyiy knowing the Hearts of all A^fen, fearching the Reins is thus, mjuch the fame as I before gave in my Befenfe. " If one inquires into the Reafon v/hy she Fa- *' ther, tho* communicatinq; in all Thims to the Son, ^^ is yet kl forth by our Lord as alone knowing that *' V)iy and Hour; He cannot, at prefcnr, find any ''' fitter, or more decent, or indeed any other fafe ** Anfwer than this ( feeing our Lord is the only ^' Teacher of Truth) that \ve are to learn of Him a Bull. D. F. N. p. 81. Animadv. in G. Cler. p. ioj-jS". 1) Vi-fenfe, p. lo^. c Malliiet. Vixv. DUT, in Jrcn. p. n^. ^« th^t l^n VII. of fomc QUERIES. -4t *' that the Father is above all; For the F.uhery faich ^' He, /; greater than /. And therefore tlie Father *< is declared by our Lord to have the Preference in *' Knowledge, to the End that we alfo, while we *' live in this World, may refer the Perfcdion of '' Knowledge , and fuch intricate Queflions to *' God^ Now, that IrendLHss Defign was not to rcprefenc the Son as ignorant^ but quite the contrary, may ap- pear from This very PafTage duly confidered. For the Queftion, with Him, was not why the Father is more knowing, but why, fince Both are equals Ij Knowingy our Saviour made fuch a Declaration as gave the Preference to the Father as alone knowing. He puts the Qiieflion, why the Father tho* com- municating in all Things (abfolutely, not in all other Things) IS yet fet forth , or alone declared^ to l^ow* So that the Queftion is not about his Knowledge ^ but: about our Lord's Deckrationy why, or on what Ac- count He made it ^ feemingly contrary to Tncth ; fince all Things are common to Father and Son. What: then could be meant by fuch a Declaration f It mufl: be true fome Way or other, our Lord being a Teacher of Trmh ; what then is the Cafe f Irens.us tells us, that it is true in re;peft of the Father*s hav- ing the Prt' eminence in every Thing, and fo alone knowing every Thing in x\\t firfl Place ^ or pri???ari* I) : And therefore it was upon This -Account that our Lord gave Him the Preference, and referred that *Si quis e^'quiratCaufam propter quam in omnibus Pater com- jnuuicans Filio, folus fcire & Horam £c Diem a Domino manif'.- ftatus ell, neque aptabilcm magis, neque dccenrlorcm, arc line periculo altevam quam hinc invcniat in prxfentii (quoniam cnini Iblas vcrax MagiPtar eft Dominus) ut difcamus per ipium, fupcr omnia cfie Patrcm, Ercnim Pattr air, r/iajor tne ffi. Et iccun- dum Agnitionem itaque prxpofitus elie Pjircr annuntiatus eft a Domino nolbo, ad hoc, ut t\ nos, in quantum in Figura hajui mundi fumus, perfc6lam Scieniiam 5c nlcs Quxftioncs conceja- mus Deo, Jr:n. I, i. c. iS. f. if 8, 179. H h ' Knowledge 24.2 y^SEcoND Defense Qu. VII. Knowledge to Him folelj^ as the file Fountain of it^ which it well became Him to do, eipecially during the State of his Humiliation, \j\\\h in figura mundi, con" 'vcrjing below: tho' at the fame Time the Son alfo has the iamc Knowledge, but derived, all Things being communicated to the Son , as Ircndus had oblerved. B<^'ifd's and Na:^-ianz.ens Accounts of this Matter will clear it up farther, and will fx Ircnctas's real meaning beyond all reafonable exception. Ba/il in anfwer to the Doubt , about cur Lord's not knowing l^hat Day, fiys, He will give the So-* lution which from a Child had been taught Him by the Fathers before Him : and which Fie reprefents in thefe Words: '' As to what is faid, no one k^ows that '^ Daj^ we underlhmd it as afcribing to the Father *' the frimarj Knowledge both of Things prefent '* and Things to come ; and as fignifying to us that ** He is in all Things the primary Caufe ^. Na^J- a}:z.cn chules rather to refer Chrift's not knowing That Day to lis Hmnanitj'y yet He mentions alio this other Conilrudlion of Chrift's not knowing it originally^ or in that high manner, as the Father may be faid to know it. His Words are ro^ this effect. If the ^\t{[ Conflruclion be not fufhcient, we may give This for a lecond : "As every Thing elfe, io «* alfo i\\Q Knowledge of the greated: Things is xo " be referred up to the Canfe it felf) for the FIo- ^' nour ol- the Paihrf. Every one may fee that Iren.tus'% Conflrudion fails in with This oi Na:^i,mz,en and Bajil'-^ who perhaps might Both borrov/ it from Him : Nor is it pofli- Lie from Irenxus's Words to prove that He meant any thing more. Nay, the Words thcmfelves moft "^^ To, hs^iii ciai^ TijV 7::(tiT»:/ lini.ay tZv a Iituv tC rZv Woyjvjsiv Izi T*'/ 'Tm.—^Ci iCVUQ^VTOq. Kcif C'Si 7UVTUV 'ii'tV 7TCCt)T7i'l Oi.TiUV To'q UltCfi&)' rn ic u-maiix.i6irnc, HiW&yA 'jcy.i{!^ny>iv. Baill. Eo. 59 I. p. I I 68 y'iTiUv 6imfffSG-C&; ny^'i] rZ y.r,-/j»^o<. Greg. Mai. Oiat, 36. p. fS^. ealilj Qu. VII. of feme (QUERIES. 243 pfiiy and naturally rcfolve into This Senfe, as I had abundantly before proved from the Context , and from Iremtus's main Scope and Dehgn in the whole. You call it plea/ant for me to add, confeqMently in all Knowledge, where Ircnaim fays that the rather com- municates in ail Things to the Son. But is it not more fleajant of you to underftand by, all Things, all other Things, which Iren^us does not fny, nor does his Argument require ir, but the contrary ? 1 took notice of Dr. Clarke's flipping over fome Words thro' Inadvertency. Which V/ordb lie lias fmce added in his fecond Edition. And here , to Ihow your inclination to find any little Fault, you blame me for taking no notice of the u^^nendment. Indeed the Thing was very flight, fcarce worth rem?mbring. Yet in two later Editions of my Book, which you might have fcen, I v/as fo jufl: to the Docfcor as to leave my former Words our. And nov/, I think, you ouglit to have enquired before )ou took this needkTs Handle for Complaint, As to manifeflattis, which you conftrue expreJJIj declared^ I, fit forth, re- prefented , or faid (which you weakly call deceiving the Reader) it is not very material which be ta- ken, provided only the Qiieflion were v^'lty, or in what Senfe, our Saviour declared it -, nor, why the Father only hnew the Daj, Wliich Que H ion Iren((i4s refolves in faying, Frdpofitm ep Pater annantiatpis eft. It was in thi? Senfe He declared Him to be alons knowing , as declaring Him ?r<£pofitnm , fi:t before , preferred to the Son in Knowledi^c, on Account of His being alone Firfi in every Thing. So that the Sum of all is, that Iren.ttis does not fuppofe the Fa- /ther more k^07vingy but knov.'ing every thing in the highelt manner; as having \i primarily, and from none; which was alfo the Sen'e o^ Bajili znd Na^ianz^en, But enough of this. You go on to Origen ; whom I had cited, after IremvAS, Igj-tatinsy and Clemens of ^lex- mdyiaj to confute your round alTerdon, that All the H h 2 Atte^ 244 -^ Second Defense Qu.VlI. jinte-nicene Writers believed the Aoy©^ to have b^cn Ignorant y &:c. when you could not prove it of (o much as One, Iren^pts may now ftand ; as alfo Ig- natitiSy and Clemens, As to Origen, you have nothing to objed againfl >yhat I cited Him for, namely, that the Son knows as much as the Father, or all that the Father knows ; which is Ofnnifcience in the higheft and fulleft Senfe, not your relative Omni- fcience:> no where found among the Antients, But you oppofe another PafTage of the fame Comment , faying , that the Father is greater than the Truths ^ -that is, than the Son: Which no body doubts; greater '^ as Father, which is all that Qrigen means. And what is That to the purpofe 1 Your other Qiiotation out o? Jerora ^ (then a vehement ^nti-Origenifl , and Itrainini^ every Thing to the worft Senfe) is of very flight Moi-ncnt. Let the Reader confult Bp. J^alr in DefLnfe cf Orlzcn a<:rain]l: ^{erom% Inveflives: For I have no Inihnation to repCcU : Or kt hmi turn to Origens Treatife againft Cdjv^s^ whete Origen di- rectly contradids that very Do(5lrine which you :^ upon Jeromes Auihoritv , endeavour to afcribe to Him; He aHeits, that the Son knows the Father TLCLT cL^i'Vj I Hit ably to his Dignitj\. From tliC ilender Oppofition which, after long deli- beration, you have been able to make againft the Son's Omni/cierne, it ought now to pafs as a Thing concluded and determined; being fully fupporced by iS'cr/)?/«r^ and by All ^Aiquity. For belides the particular Teftimo- nies before mentioned, I gave you alfo a general Ar- ■ gument, to prove that the Son's Omnifcience muffc have been a ruled Cafe , a fettled Point with the ^nte-niccne Church : To which Argument you make not a Word of reply. Only you Imgle out an Ex« preffion cf mine, relating to Sabdlimijmy which you • Bull.Dcf. F. Nic. p. iji. f Qrigen. contr. Cdf. p. 1S7. think Qu. VII. offomeqlJEKlES. 245 think is not jufi:, and which you call ahnfing the Rea- der-, tho' you have not yet been able to produce any one Inftance where I have done it. I have difcover- cd many in you, and fhall many more as I pafs on. What you blame me for:, is lor fuppofing that the Greeks Word Hypoftafis^ lignified Perfon, during the Time of the Sabellian Controverfy. I do affert that it did, and could very eaiily prove it : But Jip. Bull has already done it to my Hands^. And it is fome- thing hard, that as often as you forget your felf, or happen to be ignorant of what every Scholar fliould know, I mufl be charged with abujing my Reader. As to the Sabelli.m Notion of (^i^ vrrog^cns TgiTrgo* crtDTTc?) I have before fhown how it is to be under- ftood : And that Etifebms Himfelf fo undcrflood it is plain to every Man that can read Him. But I fuppofe, the Jccret reafon of all This was for the fake of ^ Tranflation of your's, one Jungle individual Sub- ftance under three per fond DiftinEiions : Which the' literal, is a vevy falfe tranflation; as /ubfiance and per^ Jonal DiJiinEtions are now underiiood : And therefore this was meanly applying to the Popnlace, The true Senfe of the Words, as we fliould now expreis it, is , one Per [on under three Nominal DijlinEHons : which is manifeftly what Eujebins meant by it ; as may appear from the Account I have given of Him above, (j?. 192.) Your referring me to Dr. ddworth is pretty extraordinary ; when it is well known that That great Man was miftaken, and that his Ac- count of That Matter (efpoufed alfo by CnrcclUtis) has been at large confuted by Bp. Stillingfleet i ; not to mention what has been done alfo by Dr. Wiill'*-'*'^^ and others, fince That Time. * Bull. D. F. Sea. 2. c. o. p. 105. o^c. t Stillingfleet on the Trinity, p. 76, to p. 100. ^* Wall's Htfi. p/ Infant Baptifm, p. 337. to p. 35*4. TrHi Scripture Doclrine continued, p. 239, to ij2. Th; 2.^.6 A Second Defei^se Qa.VlI. The Truth is, had Dr. Cudworth but diflinguifi-ied between Suhftance of Suhjiance ( which luppoles no Divijion^ but o^ie Sabftance ) and faying StibjtanceSy or Ejfences y which imphes Divijion ^ his Account had been in the main, very juft : For the Fathers knew nothing oF a Trinity of ModeSy fuch as feems to have been taught by feme of the later Schoolmen, But I pafs on. , / The Eternity of God the Son comes next under ^''Condderation. You tell nic> it /; not alike defcnbedy with the Father's, becaufe the Father's is imoriginatc^ and undeyivcd: But where do you find tinoriginatc^ or ttnderived, at all mention'd in the Texts wherein the Father's Eternity is defcribed? You may collect it perhaps by Inference : But flill the Scripture- Phrafes for the Eternity^ whether of Father, or Son, are the fuTic ; Neither does the Diflindion of derived and tindcrived fignify any thing as to the Senfe of Eternity -i v/hich nnports neither more, nor lefs than ieginmnglcfs and eudlefs Duration. You r\ext endea- vour to find fome Difference in the manner wherein the Texts are applied to each Pcrfon, As to the Phrafe Eirfi and La'J^ it has been vindicated already. As to Rev, i. 8. which you underffand of the Father, if is to be interpreted (with all Antiquity) of God the Son^. J know how much it concerns you to contend for the Application of This Text to God i\\Q Father; And therefore it is that you plead fo fb-cnuoufly for it towards the latter end of Q^uery 17'''. It will be of fome fervice to fettle That Text here; and therefore I fiiall flop a while to 9Qnfider the Strength of your re - inforcement. lo iny Sermons. 1. I pleaded from the Context. 2. From Antiquity. ■* .9?^ piy Sermons, p. 227^ §cc* Qu. VII. cf fern Q^U E R I E S. 247 5. I fliowed the Weaknefs of the Dodofs Reafons for applying the Text to the Father. As to the Contexts you make no reply at all \ tho' it is certainly of very great Moment, for tlie afcer- taining the Conftrudion. As to Antiqmt^ , never were Men more unanimous than the Anticms were in This Matter ; there being no one Exception, oa Record, againfl: it. And tho' you may make flight of pofl-nicene Writers, { AthamJiaSy RnjfiniiS) Gre* gory Na^ianz^en , Phitbadins , Amhrofe , EpipLwius , Jerom^ Aufim^ Andreas Qtfarienjis ) yet their con- curring Voices in the Cafe are really very confidera^ ble ; and amount to a probable Proof, at lead, of the univerfal Senfe of the Ane-nicem Church; cfpe- cially where nothing can be brought to confront \x. I olDferve, it is pretty frequent with you, upon the citing of EufehiHs fingly, immediately to cry out the Antknt Church, even in Points wherein F.ufibiHS ftands alone, or runs coijnter to the Antients. I have cer- tainly a much better right to claim the Verdid of the Antient Churchy upon the Strength of fo many Evidences, (and few of them either much later, or Icfs confiderable than Eufchius) in a Matter which tlie Antients iiave no where contradicted. But, I ap- pealed alfo to Two Ante-nkenc Writeis {Hippoljnn and TertHWhWy to fiy nothing now of Origai ) and I obferved farther, that Their T^eftimonies in the Cafe were not to be looked upon merely as the private: )udgraent of Two Writers, but as ihowing that the Pr.txcms and No:tiam had all along taken it for grant- ed, that the Chiuxh applied Rev, i. 8. to God the Son; and that Ilippolytus and Tertulliany however preffed in Difpute, prefumed not to queflion if.. A Proof of this kind amounts to more than many Teflimonies of Single Fathers, in relation to their own Interpretation of a Text. As to Elippol)- tusy you call Mim ( p^'ig* 505). J as ufual, fi SpHi'Wfii or laterpGiiVed Author;" Your Pretences for which have been anf\yered. But we have Epi- - - - - pb,i;n'uf $4^ yf Second DEFfeistsB Qu.VIT. phartius ^ here ftepping in to confirm the fame Thing, viz., that Noetns urged that Text, as apphed to God the Son, againft the Catholicks: And He anfwers as Hippolytus had done , by admitting the Text to be imderflood of Chriil ; borrowing his Anfwer, (as will be plain by comparing) from This very piece of Hippolytus ^ which you call Spfirions ^ or ImerpGlated, It is therefore manifefl, that the Part we are now concerned in is no Interpok-- As to TenuWafj, you fay. He does mt fuppofe This Text to be fpoken of the Son, Cp. 508.) What does He not? Surely, you never looked carefully into Tertullian, He obferves of the Praxeans^ t (jull: as Hippolytus does of Noetus) that They had cited and urged This Text againll: the Catholicks ; applying it to God the Son: Kv\6.TertHlliaf7y in his Anfwer, admits that Ap- plication. Wherefore it is a clear Cafe that the jinte^ niccne Church univei Tally underflood This Text of the Son^ and not of the Fmher ; which I am now proving. What you throw in to lellen the Senfe of 'TTc/.vTDJcga'rap, when applied to the Son , I pafs over here> as not sfFeding our prefent Queftion. OrigcK I infill: not upon, becaufe of the doubtful Credit of his Tranflator. Yet, confidering that the Text was certainly fo applied before Origens Time, and con- ftaritly after, it is more than probable that That part at lead is Origcns own. However, I want not his •*■ Epiphan. Vol. 1. p. 488. -{■ Interim, hie mihi promotum fitRcfponfum adverfus id quod Cc cic Apocnlypii Joannis proferunt. Ego Ijom'miis qui eft, ^ qui Jwty c^ vcr/it Omnipotens ', &: iicubi alibi Dc^i omnipotentis Appcl- larioncm non purant filio convenirc. Qiiafi qui venturus eft, nori jir omnipotcns, cum & Filius omnipotentis tam omnipotens lit quam Dcus Dei Fiiius. TcrtuU. contr. Prax. c. 17. N.B. The Praxeans could not imagine that any fuch high Title coMid belong to the Son, unlefs the Son was the very Father Jlini- ic't": which tlicrefore They concluded Him to be trom This and ^ihe like Texts Tefti^ Qu. VIL offome Q^U £11 1 h S. 240 TeRimon)s having abundant Proof of what I aflTcrr, without Him. Since therefore the Context, and nil yl^ticjuity pleads on my Side for underftanding That lY'xt of Cjod the Son, I muft have ftrong Reafons for the other ^p- j^lication 3 before 1 admit it. Dr. Clarice's principal Rcafon drawn from Vzx^c the 4^'' of that Chapter^ I anfwered at large in my Sermons^. It is no more than This; that the Title, which is, and which was, and which is to come, is given to the Father, vcr. 4. therefore the fame Title, vcr. 8. muft belong to Him alfo : As if the fame Title were not often in Scripture, and in the u4pocaljpfe too, given to Both. I inftaacdd in the Title of Idlpha and Omega, &c. being applied by St. John, fometimes to the Father, and at other times to the Son. All you have to fay by way of reply, is that the Title of cc and on is indifputably giveri to the Son ih other Places ; whereas This other is never given to the Son any v/here elfe but here ; where k is difputable whether it be given Him. or no. To which I anfwer, that there is very little Force in This Argument, provided we have other good Reafons for underftanding the Text of God the Son in Tliis one place; as we certainly have both from the Con^ text, and from Jintiquitj: And there is ftill the Icfs force, if Scripture, and even St. John himfelf, has eKcwhere applied, if not This very Title, yet eqtnza- lent Titles to God the Son ; which He undoubtedly has. For brevity fake, I refer only to St. Johns applicci- tion of 7/^. ix. 5, 9, to God the Son t Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hofts: Which St. John exprefifes (Rev. iv, 8.) by yjj^ios 0 ^ih, 0 ^a^TDx-^irciip, much the fim^ with what we have Rev. i. 8. There is therefore no Force in your Rcafoning againft the Application of Rev. i. 8. to the Son. ■* Sermons, p. 2i3. t See mv Sermons, p, ;o. . . I » T! s 2 to the Father, is ridiculous; when we have plain pofitive" Proof that they imderfland this very Text of God the Son. Whatever ule may be made of the general Obfervntion, (as, there cannot much ^) it does not affecl the Qiiedion about the Application of This Text to the Son. Having fufficiently vindicated our Application of Revt i. 8. I may proceed , and make my proper Ufe of it, as occaiion may require. I may now venture, by your allowance, ro call God the Son Sa- frer/ie over all', which is your own rendring of 0 Tray/ox ^xTCt)/). And let us not prefume to deal par- tially and unequally between the Father and the Son, in this important Qucflion. We may now return to the Point of the Son's Eternitj, I obferved, in my I)eftnfe\^ that by eluding the Proof of the Son's Eternity, you had fcarce left your feif any for the Eternity of God the Father : 0\' if you had, I deHrcdyou to fhov/ in what Manner you could (cor- ■fldcnt with your Principles) prove the Eternity of the Father. You make a Doubt whether 1 intended it for joher Rcafonhig^ or Banter, You do well to put the Marter oft v/ith as good a Grace as you can : But I was very ferious in it ; that you had come very near defeating every Proof that could be thought on in the Cafe ; if you had not entirely cone fo. /ind indeed, J am hill of Opinion, that, thro* your imprudent Zeal againfc the Divinity of God the Son, you have really betrayed the clear- ed: and bed: Caufe in the World to the firft bold jVlarcionhc^ or Mayikhee , that fnall deny the cternd Qodhead both of Father and Son, and aflert fome wtk^iown Gcd above them Both. You will remem- ber, the Qiieliion was, whether Tlui j)artic^dar Per-' ■*■ Sep ;;;■)' Scrmori?, p. 25.0.. fcf§ Qu. VII. of feme QVEKIES. 251 fefiy called the Father, be the eternal God, or how you could prove it upon your Principles. His be- ini^ called God ever io often would amount to no- thing; That being no more than a V/ord of Office, His b^ing Creator was norhing. That you could elude. His being Jehovah was of no Weight, mean- ing no more than a Peri'on true and faithful to liis Promifes. As to his Ltcrmtj^ none of the Texts w=re ftrong enough for it , but might bear a li- mited Scnie. I may now add, that the Title of TiOL'i.CK^TLTag, Aiynightj^ or God over alU or the (IroHg- eil: Words of like kmd in the Old Tcfiamojt, (ignify nothing ; being capable of a fub'jrdi-.iate Senfe. Well then; what have you at length referved, to prove fo momentous an Article? Only This: that He is the Father, or Firft Canfe^ of ivhom are all Fhin^s, Euc own. Firfl Catije is no where faid, Tiiat is your All that is faid is, To us there is one God the Father y of who:n are all Thiiigs^ I Cor. viii. 6, And you know how to elude the Force of the Word yld Tlmv^Sy v/hen you are diputing againft God thi* S(jn : So that creating ^411 Things may niean no more than creating Sorr.c Things ; ns Chrift's knowing All Thiir-^^ according to you, means Sor>}e Things op.ly. '11 ic utraoft therefore of what you have provvd is no more than that He is Creator \ And being Creator •, you had told me long ago, did not imply Eterymy^ nor an infinite Subject ^. You have not then been able to prove, that the particular Perfon, called the Father , is the Firfi Cattje of all Things ; or that there is not Another God above Him ; who is really, and truly, and in the Metaphyfical Senfe, the ctcrnAl God, You may proceed as you think proper, to make up the apparent deficiency of your prctenJed Demonrtration. By loofening the Proof of Chrift's J)ivi»itjj you have loofen'd every Proof of the Di-^ ♦ See my Defcnfe, p. 117. I i z ninitj^ 2^z ^ Second Defense Qu.VIL 'viMity of God the Father alfo ; which perhaps yoa Nvas not aware of. For my Part, I fhall always thinks that his being i'o often called Gody and true God, and his being Creator, and Almighty, and yehovah, and He that is, and was, and is to come, are clear incontefta- ble Proofs that He is the one neceffarily-exifting God, whofe Exiftcnce my Reafon aflures me of: An3 when 1 am got thus far, I will prove, by the fame Topics, that God the Son is fo likewife : And thus the fame Artillery ftall ferve both againfl Mamchees, and Brians; while you by pleading the Caufe of one, have infen- libly given up a greater Caufe to the other. I mull: however do you thejuftipe to obferve, that flnce your fnfl writings you feem to be drawing off, with the Do3or, from fome of your former Prin- ciples. You do not now make the Word God to be Mwajs a Wo.'d oi Office: Nay, you alTert it to be very i???proper to (aj, that the fpipreme God has an Ojp:e (p. 2 20. ) Which makes a great alteration in your Scheme, and is jumping from one Extreme to Ano- ther ; over -looking, as ufcal, the Truth v»/hich lies jn the Mid-way. 1 do not know, Vvhcrher you can yet prove, That particular Pc. fon, called God the Fa- ther, to be the one eternal God. You fuppofe the Word Cod, when applied to Him, to denote his perjon] and you fuppofe That Per/on to be the one eternal God. But Suppojing ii one Thing, and prov- ing Another : And I do not fee how you have proved it, or ever can prove it ; unlefs you allow the Title of God to carry the Notion of Necefarj-exifience in it, allowing the fame alfo of Jehovah. Then indeed you may prove your Point as to the Divinity of God the Father: And as foon as you have done it, by the fame Arguments we will alfo prove the Divinity of God the Son. So, chufe you whether to take in Both, or give up Both : For, I fee no Remedy bu£ that the Divhiitj of Father and Son mufl fland, or" fall together. To Qu.VII. of /owe QUEJLl'ES. isi To proceed : You pretend now, that you was not AYgUin^ againfl the Eternity of the Sovt^ hnt jhoov'mg the TVeaknefs of fny Argptments to prove his independent Eternity. Yoli fhall have the Liberty of recanting and growing wifer, whenever you pkale. But the Truth of the Fad is, that you were then arguing^ againft the Eternity of the Son, in thefe VVord^ quoted in my Defenfe, p. 117. Thi^ Office and Cm^ racier (of a Redeemer) relative to us, prefnppofes not, nor is at all more perfect for^ the eternal pajt Dura-' tion of his Being, It was the Eternity^ you fee, not independent Hternity, againll: which you were difput- ing. I ask'd, hov/ you came to take for granted >vhat you knew nothing of; viz., that any Power lefs than infinite might be equal to the Work of Re- demption. And what do you fay to This \ ]V]y Ar- gument is, if you cannot fhow that it did not require infinite Power, you cannot iliow that it did not re- quiie an eternal Agent. You fay, thiQt an Office com-^ menctng in Tiryiey does not require an eternal Dura- tion of Him that executes. Right: Every Office docs not : but we are fpcaking of an Office which may (for ought you know) require infinite, and therefore j-eternd Powers, becaufe nothing infinite can be in Time, You fay , Infinity of Power is not a Confe'* qttence of eternal Duration, Suppofe it be not (which you know nothing of again) yet my Argument is vice verfh that eternal Duration is a Confequence of Infinity of Powers ; which you did not attend to. At length you are forced to give up the Point; not being hardy enough to pronounce that the Work of Redemption did not require infinite Powers. But you attempt to prove it another Way. A Mediatory you fay, cannot be Himfelf the one fa- ;f)reme God. You iliould have faid (for it is all that ■ you can prove) that a Mediator cannot be the fame Perfon whom He mediates to. And this is what Eufehitis fliows in the PaH^age produced by you ; which was very necdlciily brought to prove what every. j:54 ^ Second Defense Qu.VI^. every Man's common Senfe teaches. The whole Force of Eufehias's Reafoning lies only in This, that the Two Perfons could not be one Perfon : Or if He meant any Thing more (which I am not fenlible He did) his Arguing is low, and trifling. I had pleaded, that by your Reafoning, you had entirely fruftrated the Argument drawn from the Acls of Creation, to prove the Divinity of God the Father : For, the Of- fice of creating commenced in Time. You are pleafed to allow my Confequence (however fcandalous it- may appear upon you ) and to tell me, that the Per- fetlions of God the Father appear not barely and im- mediately from the Ath of creating.^ but from the Con- fideration of the Nature of a firji Caafe, I am glad to find you begin to be reconciled to that metaphy- seal Word, Nature^ which you will hardly allow us to u!e. But I muft tell you farther, that by weaken- ing, and deftroying fo many clear and undeniable Proofs of the Father's T>ivimiy, you have not \t\X. yourfslf enough to prove Him to be the FiTj] Cmfe^ This perhaps you was not av/are of, being entirely bent upon dcftroylng the Son's Dlvinitj ; and taking it for grantcd,^that the Father s would he admitted without Proof, It is a dark Bullnefs : But Diipu- tants will fometimcs overfaoot. Dr» Clar!^, I be- lieve, began to be lenHble of his Error in this refpect* as having unJermined every Scripture-proof of the JVe- icffary-exijlence of God the Father. By an After- thought, in tliQ ficond Edition of Scxiptfire-Dooirine ^ ; He was pleafed to allow that the Father's Self-exif- tence and indcpend.ent Fternity were taught in Rev.'x. 8» I am very glad He pitcned upc^n That Text, be- caufe we can eafily vindicate it to God the Son : And fo we (hjjl have an exprefs Proof of the JVeceJfary* cxiftence of the Son; and leave you, with Shame,^ to make out the Father s by fome other as ex- * C^:r/cj's Sc:;pt, Dod^ p. i^. Ed= i^. pref^ Qu.VIII. t^ffome QUERIES. 255 prefs Texts, or by Confcqucnce only. I have be- Ibre hinted, that i Cor. viii. 6. will do you no ^^^i- wicQ- directly y or by it fdf; becaufe all Things may mean fo/ne Things, and God to us, may not mean ab- folutely the God of the Vniverfe, But if the Son*s Neceffcirj -exijlence be once admitted, accordinj^ to Rev. i. 8. the Confequence will be clear and certain for the Neceffary-exifience of the Father alfo. Thus as you had once loil: the Proof of the Father s Divinity, by denying the Sons j fo by allerting the latter, you may again recover th^ former, and then all will be right. Q^U E R Y VIII. Whether Eternity docs not imply Neccflafy-cxif- tence of the Son 5 -which is inconfi[lent ivith the Doctor s Scheme ? And ivhethcr the Doc^ tcr hath not m;ide an elufivc, equivocating An- jwer to the objeciio?^ ; Si^ce the Sen m,%y kc a ncccdary Emanation from the Father ^ by the Will p.nd Power of th: Father, without any Conrradidion? Will is one Thing, and x\r. bitrary Will another. WE have many important Matters ro debate un- der This prefrnt Query, v/hich will require the Reader's moil; careful Attention. You begin with telling me, that ctirnd GcncrA- tion does not imply Necejfary-exi/knie, nay, that it i9 contradt^ory to it. Let us hear your Keafon. Ge- neration is an u^t, and all A(51:ions fpring from the Will only, and an Act of the Will (that is, Free Choice) cannot be necejpiry, p. 251. Your Argum.ent is un- doubtedly juii; according to you'; own ffovel Ssofs of ■-v- 256 J St:coND Defense Qp/VIU. the Word Acl. But it is ridiculous to imagine, that giving mw Names to old 'iTKPnhs can ever alter their JVatare, Either argue againft 'Generation being aa A^i in the old Senfe of uici,^ or confefs your Trifling in bringing the whole to a Dilpute about JVords, and Names ou\y. In the old Senfe oi yict i Generation is an Atl : In your novel Senie of u^I^t it is not : And where are you now, but where you at lirfl: fet out ? You tell me^ after the mGdeft Plcider (to whom I briefly replied in a Preface) that I have not been able to produce me Jingle Pajjage cm of any one Ante-nicene Writer Cyo'^ fiiould have added Poft-nkene too, it being equally true of all the Fathers) whsrein the Son is affirmed to have emaned, or been emitted, from the Father^ by Neceflity of Nature. Will you pleafe to fiiow me, where either Scrip- ture ^ or Fathers, (Poft-nicene^ or At^te-nicene) ever J^id, that God the Father exiflied by Neceffity of Na4 tare. They have never faid it ; tho' they have, in other Terms, aflerted the fame Thing, which we now mean by Nccclfitj of Nature : And This may alfo be the Cafe as to the neceffarj Generation of the Son : And it certainly is fo. To clear This momentous Point I fnail here fliow. 1, Why, neither Father ^ nor Son, w^ere ever faid, by the Antients, to exiil by Naejjity of Nature^ but the contrary. 2. I fliall fliow that the Anticrits, notwithflanding* believed the very fame Thing which we now diffe- rently exprefs ; namely the Neccffary-exiftence of God the Son, as well as of God the Father. 5. I fliall inquire in v/hat Senfe, or by whom, ne- c^ffary Generation, Or Emanation was held, and in what Words "Fhey exprefled . it : Where I ihall alfo account for the Son's being laid to be generated by the Will of the Father. I. I am to begin with obferving, why neither Father nor Son, were ever faid, by the Antients, to exifl: by A^^- tefjity of Nature^ but the contrary. None of the An- tients Qu.VIII. of fomc (QUERIES. 257 tients durfl have faid, that God exifts by Ncccjfity^ be- caufe it would have been the fame as to fay, rhac He was compelled by a fuperior Force, and againft: his Will (fuch was their Senfe of the Word Ne- ccjjity) to exiO. The Greeks 'Avotyx.)? had been much ufed among Philolbphers in This hard Scnfc. Some had made F8$ and * Aiiyxyj" , Alind and NcccJJityy the Two Caufe Sy or Sources of all Things. Some made N€C€J}ity alone the flrft and higheft Caufe^ , Plata meant the fame as u\y,y or firft Matter, by NeceJJity ^ , following therein Tlnidnus Locrus. Some made TW- cejfity the Mother of the Fates , and the Firfl among the Deities^ . Many made their Gods all fabjed to Neceffitj 'y as is particularly true of the Stoicl^^ I forbear to cite PafTages which might be given in great Numbers. Such being the Ufe of the Word Necefhji no Wonder, \i x\\Q Fathers forbore faying, that God exiiled by Necejfitj^ or if they even denied it. i Plottnus, a famous Phtonifl, of the third Century, denies that God exills uttd k^iiyxy^s I by Nccejfty^ being no other than what He would chufe to be. LaU:antiHs hints at the fame Thought •^. And upon the fime Principles , the Fathers were always very careful to remove every Thing of Necejfuy t from a Vid. Tbnmm Locrum de Anim. Mund p. 5-45. Amft. b Vid. I'hitrfiUtHm dc Natura Dcorum, p. 19. aJas i^f, c Vid. Vlatonis Tim&Hm. Chalc'ul. in Tim£u}?h p 377 Ed. Fabric. d Vid. Proclum. Theolcg.Vlaton. p. 405-, 406. rauCanA. 2.p. 93» Thcoilorit- de ProviJ. Dei Serm. 6. p. 5-62, f65. e Mc'ri til* iccvfu rl utifJCi-^x^ a<; uto uvxyK-r^ t»,-- ovhl^, t«77, t* iu/TO^ Second Defense Qu.VIIIJ from God ; and would never fay that He exifled^ or was God, by Neceffitj. Damajcen well exprefTes the Thoughts of them All in Theib Words. '' God being by Nature good, and by Nature in- <« ducd with creative Powers, and by Nature Gody is «' not any of thefe by NeceJJity : For^ who has laid *' any NeccJJitj upon Him f I render ^vifXiii^yos in- dticd 7vith creative Poivers, that being the Senfe of itj tho* othcrwife, literally, it is Creator, As low then as Damafcen, vv^ho lived in the eighth Century, we have no Inftance, that I know of, of the Ufe of necejjaryexifie-dcey or of NcceJJlty of Na- ture in the modern Senfe. They that would feek for it, muil; look among the later Schoolmen^ and not among the Fathers of the Church. When it fiifi: came in, is no great Matter, nor worth my Search: So I leave it to Thole who have Leifure. But I mufl: complain of it as a great Inllance of Vnfair/iefs ^ after I had given you the Hint of This in the Pre- face to my Sermons t ( v/hich you have read ) for you to bring up This Pretence again, that the ^nte- riicene Writers did not allow the Son to exifl, or to ht generated by NeceJJhy of Nature, Which Pre- tence amounts to no more than a poor Quibble upon an Expreflion ; And you might have ufed the very fam^e Argumxent sgainfl the Nece^arj-exiflence even of Non ex voluntate, nee ex neceflltote quia Deo nulla manet ne- fcflitas. Supra voluntatcm &: neccflitatem eft id quod eft Deltas. Vi^il, Txpr. dc Trin. 1. lo. p. 273. Conf. Toletan. Concil. xi. v oiyu&cc, 6 3-£05, k^ (j&t/ff « h-.fjt^nr^yoi,, »^ (pCa-^ ^^H, Ctno flyuy/^ rciVTtt i'n' 7*5 ^.p 0 7f}V ciiu'/Ki'jV iTlecyuv. Damafc. de Fid. Orth.'l. 3. p. 228. Bioc, a)c, ^ (rctpici, y^ ^'j'JULtUy «p' if iC, ecvTo^ «e»AKTa'? t^ aq £| u'voiyKn(i i^iv » * h'D Cyrill. Alex, ad Anathcm. 3, contr, Thcodor. p. 213. -}; Prejace t» Scrrr.cni, p. xi. 605J Qu. VIII of fame QIJEKIES. 259 God the Father. The antient Writers, I conceive, for eight Centuries (I know not liow much lower) would have denied, or did deny, that God was (jod liy NeceJJity : Well therefore might They deny, or ,never aJfTcrt that the Son was generated by AV- cejfity. Yet They affertcd the very fame Things which we do, in refpeifl of Father or Son^ ynder other Terms ; as I come next to lliow. 2. The Antients beheved and taught the Ncccjjurj- exiflence of God the Son j expreifrng it in fuch Aian- ner, and in fuch Phrafes as were fuitable to their own Times. The mod ufaal Way of exprelTing what we call Necejjary'sxifience^ v/as by faying, that Any Thing was This, or That, (^u(tu or ;coctx cpycrii', hy Nature : Another pretty common Way, was by 0 avy to cv, oyTCi)$ aVy and the like, exifting emphatically. Seve- ral other Ways of expretling the fame Thing will occur as I go along, in tracing the Sen fe of the Fatlicrs upon This Head, the Necejjary-exiftence of God the Son. A* D. 116, Ignatius. I begin with I(r>:.iiins , one of Sr. Johns Difci- pies, Whofe Words are thefe : " There is one Phy- " lician, both fleflily and 5pii itual, made and unmade^ ^' tho' la Flelli God ^ in Death true Life, both of <« Mary and of Gad\ lirll: pailible, then impaiTible, *' Jefus Chrift our Lord \ The Word which I here lay the Strefs on, in Proof of the Son's Nccclfary-exiftcnce^ is cLyir/\TO'; not made: A Word, but feldom, if ever, ufed, in this Manner, to fignify any thing lefs. Thus Athanafitis^i and Vope Gelajifis " , long ago, under- flood This Place of Ignatius : You pretend ( p., &£5, Traarot Trx^fiTD; ^ Tort ccttxJ})',, Ijjo-tfj ;;»«j55 o k-Js;^ i^a-a/fc Ign. Ep. ad Ephcf. c. 7. p. 14. Ox. b Athannf. de Synod. Arim. p. 761. C Gelajins de duabus naturi^. p. 690. Baf. ei; 260 ^Sec<5Nd Defense Qu. VIIL 295.) that the reading is dyiw^roi unhegotteny and that it is flamlj jet in Oppofttion only to Human Generation. ] Uir This which is fo flain to you, is by no Means plain to Any Man elie : The contrary is rather fo from many Confiderations. You mufb mean, I fuppole, that He was nnbegotteny as having no Human Father tnat the plain Senfe is that one was made, the v^ther //»- v^.ade: Unlefs you will fay, that as the Fkjh v/as be^ gotten, the Aoyi®^^ the God was unbegetten : Which can bear but two Senfes, one of which will not fuit with your Principles , nor the other v/ith CathoMch^ Principles, You will not fiy, that the Xoyo^ was imbegotren of xV^t Father, nor Vk^ould Ignatius, that Chiiil, as God, was not begotten of Mary. It being a Catholick^ Maxim, that Mary was ^toro^og: That is, the Dodrine was always jield, tho* differently exr preffed; and it is the exprcfs Dodrine • of J^»^//«; * himfelf. Since then Ignatius was undoubtedly fpeak- ing of what Chrift was in two diftinct Natures y cr Capacities , to one of which yi-iY^ro^ is applied , and c-ygcr/To^ to the others you may readily per- ceive, that your Conurudion of Him is entirely wide and foreign. 3. I fliall add thirdly, that I have fome llealon to doubt whether there was any fuch Word as A^exuiu* Ignat. ad l^m. c. 7. p. 40. dymyft^^ Qu. VIII- offome Q\J E R I E S. 261 ccy evyyir^ (o early as the Time of Jgnatm. This will lead me into a long but ufcful Inquiry ; ufeful upon jnany other Accounts befides the prefent. You are of Opinion that the antient ChrilHan Writers, where- ever they flile God ccygv^iTo^, meant the lame as iyeV- yj]TOj, unbegotteny p. 2^4. My Opinion is, that it v/as late before they ftiled Him iyevvyiTD^ at all* ; and thnt when They ftiled Him aygi/iiTD^, they never meanc precifely unhegotten , but either unmade , or unde^ rived abfolutcly. We mufl trace This Point up to the old Philofophers. Thales is the firfl: of Them : And He ufes the Word iyev^TtJs ^^ to fignify either unmade^ or eternal, Parmenides^ , about a hundred Years after, ufes the Word kymrov^ as is plain from the Metre ; and not in the Senfe of itnbegotteny becaufe He fuppofes the fame Thing to be jtavoyevg^, begotten, element underflands the PafTage of God: But £//- ^ebim and Theodorit more rightly of the PForld : tho' perhaps Both may be confident, as fome have ima- gined God and the IVorld to be the fame, and pro- ceeding from a Chaos» But I incline to underftand it gather of the TForld diftind from God, as the only be- gotten of God ; fJx,yoyir/\i being a Title given to the IVorld by Ttmaus Locrns ^, and PUto % who are imi- tated by Philo ^'. a Patri novum innafcibilitatis nomen Ecclefia impofuir. Cum enim Sabell'tana Hxreiis genitum ex virgine Patrem vcluifTct alTe- rere, ingenitum contra, Hanc confitendo Ecclelia tradidit Patrem, &: urique in divinis Scripturis tngenitum nunquam legimus Patrem. Vigil. Tapf. Difp. Not. 21. U HfitrtuTwrvi tuv o^ruv ^&?* U'^/ivwcv y^-f. Diog. Lacrt. 1. I. p. 21. T« TO '^'iov i TO [/jiflt eif^vt ix^v, yjKTi TiMvTfii. Thales apud Diog. Laert. p. 22. OuXcif fXjavoyiviq Tt, x»l uTf£fji/U, yi^' ecyivriro*. apu^ Clem. AiCiT. p. 716. Eufeb. Pr^ep. Ev. p. 43. Theod. Tom. 4, 5-04, jiS. d Timxus Locrus, p. 4. Gaie. alias p. y4j, Amft. e Plato Tim. c. 16. p. 239. Fabric. Vid. Orig. contr. Cell. p. 308. f Philo. p. 244. 2c^8. 876. Here 26z A Second Defense Qu.VIII.' Here then kymTo$ can only fignify mmade, etcr-» fial, or Neceffarily-exifling. Ocellm Lucanm ^ ufes it to exprefs hegimmglefs and endlejs Exiftence : or what we fhould call Necejjary' exiflence ; always, and un variably the fame. TimitB-pev xxl dsyiy^rov et« TS 'f> i}V <^ '/fWi. Ocell. Lu« can. p. 8. Gale. al. 5-06. AyiVviTeq Ksd ei^^fcpro^ 6 H^TfJU^^' UfXfX^i xxi »Ti^iuTn7<^. Id, p, 16, 28. f De Idea, TO t/j\v dyivxroD n xoil c6kivcct»v, kosX fjtjivov tj. Tinj» Locr» p« ^. dyivkru xp^m on oclZvec Trnuy 0^160 (Jtaq, p. 10. ** MU Kfx^ 7roiim.iv i^v olyitvijToq (Leg. dyivUToc,) it' ^ symra, aV «cv tfv \n d^xoCy dXX' Uuvx s| ^; d d^'/^alyinTo. Clem. Alcx. p. 7 18. TlatCy in his Ph&drns, applies This reafoning to the Soul. FhAiir, p. ^4^. Vid, Cker. Tu fc. i. p. 45-. T'l: Of My^mv ix. rev d^B-ov vcZv, xxi tjjv Ik tow vow "^vy^v, t(stiTft yvTi(, -TO. || m ua-iv, CVK ients, that They fHppofed the PVorld eternal, and not hy the Will of God. jf^a-yjoff ov^l yi^jri<^ 'Trzt.o kvtcu cvvi^a^Jtnm' «/*iA* olcfu ^yn I Arifloteliansy and Stoicks) all diflinguifhing between I Self-exiJIence and Ncceffary-cxiftence ] and all ufing the I Word aiymir(^ to exprefs the latter fingly, as oftert I as They applied it to Things produced. From the whole we may make this Obfervationj which will be ufeful to us in our reading the Fathers^ that there is nothing ftrange, or uncommon, in gi- ving the Tide of dyiyvir®* to what is fuppofed to have been produced-, or begotten. To the antient' In- fhnces already given from prophane Writers, I llial! add a few m.ore of fomething later date ,* one is from the HermakJ^ Books, quoted in Cjr'd'*'^y where the A0705 is fliled a.yviY{VQiy and yet yyy]aio$ 'q/^. JNIore ■* To (xI'tsov ^ ^eccvev ^Iv AjyA/y, tiy,a>i eiymrev xCtop VyrzhUvvtn, Cuciworth, p. z_f3. t Ibid. riASiiV 7rpoyGvo(;, v^ TiMioq, xxi ys'^J^oj yr^fj-ie', 't}e$. Apud Cyril, Alex., contr. Jul. 1. 1. p. 33. ^u. VliL liffome Q^U E R I E S, 2 ^ j may be cited from Plotimis ^5 and other PUtonifts i who call Things ctyevy^rcty Eternal and Necefari/y-- ^xifiing^ tho* proceeding from Another* All the while it is obfervable that (lymr@^ was fomctimeS ufed in a higher Sen^e, when applied to what Thofe; Philofophers called the Firji Canfe^ or Snpremc God: for it might then lignify both Neceffary-exijience and Self-exifience y that is underived abfolutely : Tho* it might often fignify no more than Necejfary -exigence, abliracling frorh the Confideration of Self- cxifience ; which may bell: be judged of by obferving what the Word is oppofed to. I meet not however with the Word z.p£T7tf, eyjj yiyoviV. -- xxl on itvotyK^ 6wc -rrr raZ ^ov dya%-nj'^ oiTO',rcl n^ry^ov dil n rov ^tov cij^Jvv iUxt^ ««« tov H^a-yof Salluft. de Maiid. c. 7. p. x5'6. f "Owrfi uytvatoc kx, 3-£o$ 4^, ciri yt%r,Te% a; h^i% tt?..\k fi-irv^ '?iy» ^Kfur^ ft^<^}^^r^fH', •lyjneiiKfi, Philo, p. fop, L ) «f 266 A Second Defense Qu. VIII; or by what degrees it came into ufe, is not eafy to determine. Hardly fb early as Ignatius ; or if it had, He would not have applied it to God the Sony in any Senfe: Wherefore it is highly improbable that d,ymv\i:(^ fhould be the Word in the Place cited. But cLy^n{tc^ was a common Word, and very appli- cable; and the more likely to be applied by Him to God the Son , whom He alfo fliles, as the Word, cti^Jl@^,* of like Signification with ctyevjir©--, and frequently join'd with it in antient Writers f. I have nothing farther to add, but that the ArUn In- terpolator well underftood the force of ciymr®^ iti That phce of Ignatius ; and therefore craftily enough altered the Pafl~age, applying it to the Father only ^ fuitably to ^rian Principles, which allow not either ctyimiri^y or ii en f/j7i ip^tt Tov oc,iTio», Kxi f/jciAXov xvroq TTXT'/jf {JjH i ^^oi ( not j 0 5^c$) is becaufe He is ctyei'jjT®-, Necejfarilj-exiftmgo ' Now fince Juftin every where expreffly ftiles the Son Seob, and fays that He is Sec?? God^ He muft of Confequence believe the Son to be Necejfarilj" <^xifii-/jg^ Here you are in a PaiTion 5 telling me, (p, ^5)6". ) that it is exaBly 0s ridiculous as if a Man fiould argue that fince ^ according to St. Paul, God*s he- iyjg the Father, of whom are all Things, is declared 0 be the Reafon of his being the One God; there- fore if the Son be not. the Fathtr^ He is not God at alL But have a little patiencf j and you will fee^th© ■* ^'fer^fe, p. 37, lS^> y-n^ fclearcri Qu. VIIL of feme QU E R I E S. £^9 clearer. Had Sr. Pml faid, that the Reafon of the Father's being God^ is becaufe He is the Father of whowj dec. It would be manifefl:, that, according to St. Paul^ no one could be God that was not alio the Father of ivhom-i dec. But as St. PanL has faid no fuch Thing, the Cafe is not parallel. Nor is the Father's being the Father of whoWi &c. the Reafon or Fotindation of his being the One God, but only a Reafon why He principally is ftiled the One God: £o that you have yet faid nothing to take off the Force of my Argument relating to Jnllin. You are extremely angry at my conftruing aiyi^y\TO<; in Juftiny eternal , uncreated , immutable , not unhegotten , or felfexiflciJt $ And you fay, (p. 292.) that I have not the leafl Ground for it, from' any ant lent Writer what- foever. Who would not imagine you were perfedly acquainted with every antient Writer , to talk of Them fo familiarly f I have fliown you from many antient Writers, that dymroi has been commonly applied to Things begotten, or proceeding ; where ic could not fignify unhegotten, I would farther hint to you, which perhaps may furprize you, that you cannot prove that ever Jnjfin Martyr ufed the Word aytm^roi with double v, or that He knew of any fuch Word, That He ufes dymToi is certain ; fometimes meaning by it underived abfoiutcly "^ ; fometimes Nece[[arily-exifting \, ' One Thing I will prefume to knoii^, and to be certain of, that in the Place by me cited. He ufed it in the Scnfe of N'ecef- farily-exiflingy and no other; becaufe it is oppofed TO precarious, ferijhable Being ; as I fhowed in my Defenfe : And this was the Senfe that the old Phi- lofophers mod commonly ufed it in , whether * Pag. 387, 408, 410. Ed. Thirll>y. I do net meet -with more Places where the Wordmufl neceffarily jig- Ti'ffy more. In the reft, I conceive, it mufty or may fignify no mors ^han Neceflary-exiftence. t Pa^. io, 37, 72, 78, ^14, iz8, I4f8. 149. ij-o, fpeak- €70 ^ Second Defense Qu.VIII. fpeaking of the fupreme Omfs^ or their incorm^tiblc Peities> as oppofed to the corrnptible Creation. You think ctytmrcd (for fo I read it) in his fe- tond Apology ^^ mull: fignify unbegotten. Far from it : it lignifies no more than Eternal^ or however Neceffarily-exiftingy in my Senfe of the Word. His Argument requires no more than This, that God fhbuld have none older than Himfelf to have given a Name to hxvo ; And becaufe He had not. He had no Name: whereiore alfo the Son (as Jufiin obferves) being co-exiftent with Him ((ru/ii') from the firft, and afterwards Begotten, had no Name, having none older than Himfelf. Thus the Connexion of JtijUns Senfe is plain and clear; and his Obfervation juft and natural. Oh, but you fay, Jufliny in this very Sen-^ tence-, fliles the Son yevva^^ei/osj in exprefs oppofition ta. elyim^o^. But, That I deny; yiviciiuir.s is oppofecj only to Vi his Temporal Generation to his Eter- n.il co-cxillence with the Father : For fo I interpret That PaOlige with the learned Dr. Grabe ; fo en- tirely void of all Foundation is every one of your Exceptions. To thofe already given I fhall add one Proof more of J-uftins profeiling the Neceptrjexijience of God the Son. It is from a Fragment only t ; But there appears no reafon to fufped: its being genuine. What I build my Argument upon, is Jaftins ftiling the Xoyo;^ Life by Nature y by which I underfland Necef-^ farily-exifting Life, no Phrafe being more commonly ufed to fignify Necejfary-exifience than (pvaeA, or JCS^Tol. (?u7iv,-by the Antients. This very Phrafe of Life hy Nature y is fo ufed by Cyril of Jlexandria^ anct * Juft. Apol. 2. p. 13. Grab. p. 114. Thirlb. Tra?f>t, p, 406. Jeb. Crai>e Spcil. Vol. 2. p. 172,. Others, others ". But what moft of all confirms This Senfe, is J«fim himfelf, or a venerable Perfon whom He produces in his Dialogue with approbation, arguing againll: the JVecejfarj'exiflence of the Soul, upon This Topick, that flie has not Life in her felf ^ but her Life is precarious, depending on the M^tll of Another. Now, in This Fragmenty "Juftin afTerts that the Aoyo^ is Life by Na^ turcy and inlivening whatever is joyn*d thereto : The very Defcription which the PlatoniJJs "" give of the To SliiOVy the divine Beings which emphatically ex- ifts. I might add farther Proofs, from Jufliny of the Son's Necelfary-exifience ; the fame that Billiop Bull has produced out of Him for the Confubftan- tiality ; For , whatever proves one > proves Both* But thefe are fufficient, and I may have occafion to IVmt more of This Matter, when I come to an- fwer the Obje»5lion made from the Temporal Gene- ration. ji, D. 177. AtHBN AGORA S. \AthenagoraSy our next in order, will be a powerful /Advocate for the JVccepiry-exijlence of God the Son. He declares Him to be « y^vof^ivo^^ not made-, the very fame Phrafe, whereby He cxpreflcs the Necef- frrj-exifience of God the Father = ; and which comes a Ketra (^vTiv l^ ^cjii x«< (^aoTPSicq 6 '^zhts:, iT^'iKUict. lou. Cyril. A- lex. conrr. Jul. 1. 7. p. 25-0. ^(ft/^ Kxrci (Pur.y 6 ^ilc,, u', ^e? Ik ^ow, kcc\ ^uk «* ^«>55. Cyril, in 1 Toh. p. 5-1. ^ ^ . O5 Aoyo5 ^/, Kcil (^a/j, xvA (py^, kx\ ciXyiBsici,, kx) '}f05, xoii ff»4*'*» * TTPivi^ 07ti jcstTEi (^'jjiv SJ7. Greg. Nyfl'. contr. Eun. Or. i. p. i- h Ou p^p <3t' ccuTiic, f5» TO ^y.v, 6»; r« ^iZ. Jult. Dial. p. ij- j^*^* ^ C Oy Y^ »; yjiri}^f>v too (^yiVy dXX' a; 7iusir.Ti-4^v ivst ^H'^'i ^^<5» ''"• S-j«>» ecB-oc'/xro9 lv, ctei m^ all Words^' or Phrafes, exprefling in Athenttgoras , Neceffary-^ exifience. It is ridiculous of you to plead in oppofitibn tome, (pi 29(^.) that u4themgoras calls the Son ytmi^JCL in the very fame Sentence. It is the Thing that we contend for, that He may be yimi^y and yet Necejfarilj'exift^ ing i nay, that He is fo, becaufe He is yevvj^/^ *, pro- perly To called ; every Son being of the fame Nature with his Father, And why might not Athenflgorai think the Son Necejfarily-exiftingy and begotten alfo ? No Philbfopher, nor Catholick Chriftiajt, ever ima- gined it at all inconfiflent for the fame Thing to be both yi^miJLim and irymrov^ as may appear, in i good meafure, froiii the Teflimonies I have given above. I have fomething farther to plead from Athem^ goras. He intimates, that Cod could never be without the Ao^sf^ any more than without Reafo^ *^r Wtfdom ; which is declaring his exigence as necef- far J as the Father* s exiftence is; See This Argument of the Antients explain'd, and vindicated in my Ser^ wons'^'^ : Befides that Bp. Bull has fo fully defended Athenagoras in particular, from the fenfelcfs Charge of his fuppofing the Son to be no more than an Attri" btite^ before his Generation, that an ingenuous Man fhould be afhariied to revive it, till He can make fome tolerable Anfwer to what the Biiliop has faido But I have mentioned This Matter once before. You objed, that Athenagoras fpeaks emphatically of the unoriginate under ived eternity of the Fat her , as the one unhegotten and eternal God, and again, that the mibegotten Cod is alone eternal. Had This been really faid by Him, yet no body that knows Athena^^ ■*^ Vul. Dionyf. Rom. ap. A than. p. 251. ^ov toi^iuc, ?^oyiKce, uv. Athen. p. 28. ** Ssrmonf, p. 243. &C. <)ii.VIir. of fome (QUERIES. 275 goras^ could ever rufpecl that He had intended any oppofitioH to the eternity of God the Son , includ..d in Him ; and therefore it were of no great Moment to difpute Tliis Point with you. But in regard to Trfith^ I think my felf obliged to obferve, that no Proof can be given of u4the»agoriUS ever ufing the Word dyimyosy but ct)4v>jTc^. It is under the con-i f ception of Neccffarj-exiftence y not as unhegotten, that He propofes the Father as the true God ; in oppofition to all the perijhing and feeble Deities of the Pagans : And while He docs This, He ftill bears in mind that This Father has a Son of the fame Nature with Himlelf; and forgets not to mention Him in his proper Place : Particularly , in Thofe very Pages (37, 122.) from whence you quote the two PalTages of the unhegotten Father (as you call Him) He take? care to bring in the mention of the Son^ as included in Him, and One God with Him. It is very flranga that an Antient Writer cannot be allowed to fpeak of the Father, in the firft place, as the One God y (which all the Churches in Chridendom have ever done, and flill do in their Creeds) but prefently He muft be charged with excluding God the Son: As if referving Him a while in m.ind , and forbearing to make mention of Him till it be a proper Time and Place, were the fame Thing with excluding Him from the one trtis Godhead, Upon a View of the Places * where jithenagoras iifes the Word c/^y^njo^^ V it is plain to me, from what I find it oppojed to, that V He means no more than » yiyotLm;, or (piau oiVy A^f- \€ejfarj-exiftence by it, ir; oppofition to the Pagan pc^ ^ifhine Deities. A. D. 187. iRENiEUS. Irendtus will be found to teath the NeceJ^ny-ex-* ijlence of God the Son many ways, with great Va- i' Athenag, p. 19, 17, ^7, ^3' ^7« ^**» M m nety 274 -^ Second Defense Qu.VIlI; riety of Lxpreffion ; fometimes declaring Him to be ipfc DcHs'-i God Himfelfi fometimes the Self ^ of the Father, Creator *= often ; which, with Ireyhtm^ is al- v/ays a certain Argument of immutable Exiflence*^ % and a mark of Diftindion between what is JVeceJJa- rily -exijimg-, and what npt : intimating alfo, that "whatfoever is a Creature could never create ^ I have Ihown alfo, above, that Iremm aflerts the Son not to be yirwther God, but the fame God with the Fa- ther; ficm whence it nnift follow', that He is alfo Necejfarily - exifling as well as the Father. He farther fuppofes Him Gad, in refpe^l of \m Suhftance ^, and co- exilling s always with the Father. By thefe and other the hke Charaders, too long and too many to be here cited at length, does this very early and judicious Father proclaim the N€ccjjarj'€xifte',7C€ of God the Son. I fliall over and above produce T^^o PafTages; one where Ire- r.dtMS ftiles the Son InfeElus, and Another where the Fa- ther and his Word are fo defcribed, as plainly to fiiew that They are one Neccjfury-cxlfling Being. The nrfl: runs Thus^; "Thou art not, O Man, Neceffarilj^ <' exiftwg, neither didfr thou always co-exiji with *« God as his own RVrd* I make no doubt of Infecim being the rendring of ocygyy/xc^, a Word often ufed by lremtis\ But whether He ever has kykmfco^ unhegotteny I am not politive : It does not appear to me that He has ^ . a Tren. p. 132. b Iren. p. 159, i^jg, 25-3. c Iren. 44. . 79, 190, 219, 307, 31J'. d lien. p. 169, 183, 240. e Iren. p. 288. f Cienerationem ejus quce efr ex Virgine, & Sidjlantlam quoni- am Deus. Iren. p. 217. g Iren. p. 15-5, 163, 209, 243. h Non enim infectus es, 6 Homo, ncque femper Co-exiflcbas Deo, ficiit proprium ejus Verbum. Iren. p. 15-3. i The Reader may tf.rn to the Pages here marked, if He is cTiffofed to exa.mlne. N. B. I nmhs no Account of the prejent Readings. Iren. p. 2, f, 11, 5-3, )-4. j(5, 67, 100, joi, 103, 1J3, 183. 484, 28/, 348. Bened. Ed. Now Qu. Vlir. offeree qlJ E R I E S. 275 Now as to the Scnfe of the place, it is certainly the moft natural to refer each Branch of the Sentence to the fame TFord of God. That is to fay. Neither art thoti unmade .^ as the JVurd is, nor didfl Thou ahuays co-extfl with God, as He, the fame Ifordlw^, But becaufe it is barely polFible for the Words to admic of another Conflrudion, I lliall not contend about it. One Thing however is certain, that the eternal co-exi/Ience of God the IFord is here plainly taui^ht ; which, among all lober Reafoners, will imply his Neceffarj-exijlence, as well as Eternity, The other Place of Iren^m runs thus. *' But in Him who is God over all, for as much " as He is all Mind and all Word, (as we have faid) ^' and having nothing fooner or later, or any thing <* of diverfity in Himfelf, but all equal, and like, '* and ever continuing one ; there can be no fucli '' order of Tmiffion {as the Gno.'licks pretend"^,) 7^0 This may be added another fach Pailige. *« For the Father of all is not a kind of compoimd <* SubHance (Animal) of any thing befides INlind, *' as we have (hown. But the Father is Mind, and <^ Aiind the Father. WhereiT>re it is neccfTary that " the Word, which is of Him, or rather the Mind <' it felf, i]nce it is Word^ iliould be perfecl and im- <' palTible, and the EmilTions therefrom, being of the ^^ fame Stibflance with Him, Ihould be perfed and '* impaiFible , and always continue like to Him that " emitted them t« TheTe * In CO autem qui fit fuper omnc5 Deus, Totus Nus, & Totus "Logos cum lit, quemadmodum pra:diximus, & ncc aliud Anriquiu?^, nee pofterius, aut aiiud Alterius habente in fc, fed roro arquali 8c Simiii & uno perfeverante, jam non talis hujus Ordinaiionis fe- quitur emifllo. Iren. p. ijz. f Non enim ut compolitum Animal quiddam efl: omnium Pa- ter prceter Nun, quemadmodum prx oftcndimusj fed Nus Pater, & Parer Nus. NecefTe eft itaque &: eum qui ex eo ell Logo';, imo magis autem ipfum Ngn,cum fit Logos , ^erfccium 8c im^ajjihdefn M m i eir^ 276 >^ Second Defense Qu.VIlI; I'hcfe two PafTages will not be perfedtly underftood by any that are not in lome Mealure acquainted with the Gnoftick^ Principles. Among other Conceits of theirs, this was one, that the IVhrd was remote from the Father in Nature and Perfections, and liable to Ignorance and Paffion : Which abfurd Tenet Iremjis I here confutes , by teaching that the Mind is Word , ' and the iVord Mindj Both of the fame Subjiance and Perfedions. It is plain that by Wordy in thofe Paf- iages, is not meant any Attribute of the Father, but the 'Perfon of the Son, by what follows in p. 13 2, where He fpeaks of the eternal Word under that Notion, and ftill continues the fame Thought of God Himfilf being Wordy or LogoSy as before. The Word therefore is perfeciy is impaffiblej is necejfiriljf exifiing, as the Father is, according to Irenoim % A,B. 1^2. C L E Pvl E N S A L E X A N D R I N U S. Clemens is another unexceptionable Evidence for the fame Dorhine. He ft lies the Son *o'iTOi><; 3eo$ ^ , read) God: A Phrafe, which He often applies, with particular Emphalls to God the Father "=, as being the one true God, in Oppofition to pretended Deities. I omit here, what 1 have before abundantly iliown, that The Father and Son together are the one Gody according to Clemens : I pals over alfo Clemens'^ Doc- trine of Chrifl being Creator, Almightyy Adorable, c^c» efie, £c cas quse ex eo funt EmiiTjones, eyiflem fubjlant'tA cum fint, cujiis & iple, perfc(5tas & irapalTibilcs Sc femper iimiles cum eo perfevcrare qui eas emifit. hen. p. 139. Co KK pare Qui generationem probtivi Hominum Vcrbi transferunt in Dei Aternum Verbum, 8c prolationis inirium dantes 6c Genelim, quem- admoHum ik; fuo vcrbo. Et in quo diftabit Dei Verbum, imo ma- gis ipfe Deus, cum fit Vtrbum, a Verbo Hominum, fi eandem ha- buerit Ordinationem Sc Emiflionem gcnerationis ? Iren. p. 132. a Vul, MafTuet. DifTert. Pra-v. p, 128. b Clemens Alex. p. 86. ^ Ciem. p. 4J-, j-j, 60, 61, 81, 92, t^Q^ from Qli. VIII. of fome QU E R I E S. 277 from whence, by certain Confcqucnce, it may be proved that his Subftance is truly divine, and ^iccejja- rily-exijUng, I Ihall licre infift only on fuch' Tallages, as more exprclHy, and dircdly lignify his NeceJJarj^ exiftence ; among which this is one. *' But This muft of Necetlity be took Notice of, «« that we ought not to think any Tiling wife hy *' Nature^ but the To ^ao^y the divine Being: Wheix- ^' fore alfo it is Wijdom^ God's Power^ that teaches *« Truth: And from thence the Periecfiiion of Know- <' ledge is received ^ ". Here Wifdom is plainly in- cluded in the To 3^aoVy the divme Being, laid to be wife l?y JVartire, that is, mccjfarUy wife. All that know elements Stile, will allow, that by Wifdom is meant the Son of God, the Teacher of Truth, as Cie^ mens Himfelf explains it in the f< allowing Page •= ; And a few Pages after, He gives Him the Titles of c-QpicLy Wifdom, and Suva,LU^ ^-ew. Poire r of God ^ as here. Wherefore Cod the Son is (pvau avpls, and alio TO Bnov, which fwlly exprefs Necefary-exijfence, Another PafTage of Clemens, proving the fame 7'hing, is as follows. " We are not as the Lord, and if v/e '' would, we cannot : For no Difciple is above his ^' Lord. It is enough, if v/e be made fuch as tlie " MaQer ; not in Ejfence, for it is impoiTiblc for '' That which is by adoption (or- ^^ppointwenr) to be " equal m EJfence, (or Exiflence) to what is by Na- *« ttire : Only we may be made eternal, and may be '* admitted to the Contemplation of Things that are, '' and may have the Title of Sons, and may fee the *' Father in what belongs to Him^ In C At » i(^jQ^uTeu TW, KcCT dXysB-etcctf xxXoc xxi clxxix. p. 45'5. f 'O Kugyt(^ AA>{3-«ef, Kxl (rD(piec, xxi ^vx/j(/iq !dioZ. p. 4^-7 17^ ^ Second Defense Qu. VIII,' In thefe Words it is cicnrly intimated, that our J Lord is ks^t »Jia/, ejfemially, and (pucre<, by Naturey f tternalj and knnving^ and Son of God: Which are the known Ways, by which the Antients exprcfs Ne- eeJfary-exijhNce^ (P'jctca, as oppofed to i:>go"c{ is a fami- liar and very common Expreflion for what is natural-' ly and necejjlmlp in Oppofition to voluntary appoint" went, or Defignation f. Clemens has Another celebrated Paffage, worth the Reciting. j " The Son of God never comes down from his I *' Watch-Tower, is never divided, never parted afun- f "*' der, and never pafTes from Place to Place; but is I *^ alwsys every where, and yet contained no where : ( « All Mind, all Light, all the Father's Eye, fees j ^' all Things, hears all Things, and knows all ' *' Things *. Here we find the principal elTential Attributes of God {Immiitabilitj , Immenfty , Omniprefence , and Omnljcience) afcribed to God the Son. And what can all This mean lefs than Neccjfarj-exlflence f Com- pare with it what 1 had juft before cited from Ire" nxm ; vv^ho in like manner defcribes God as being all MinAy all JVord^ a^c. And it is obfervablcj that x.etX'ic,' is KctT^ i(r'ew k^uvoltvi ^^ i(n>v slvui ar^o? ttjv oTrzfohv, to B-i.,/joq^ '}!i(,'i'^\ eexy. ttuv^ «x8»y, il^ai 7;-uv^i 2<;c. Clem, vju. VIII. vffome Q^U E R I E S. 279 This was a Way of fpeaking never applied to any but the eternal & necefl'ary exifting God. It is lo applied by Clemens Himfelt in another Place *. I'he Manner of fpeaking was indeed firft borrowed from the Philofophers ^, who applied it to none but the divine Nature as fuch : And they are herein followed by many ^ of the Fathers, before, or after Clemens, I fliall jufl point out one Place more of Clemens^ taken Notice of by M. Lequien, the learned Editor of Byimafcen ^, The Words are, '* Let us haften to *' Salvation, to (baptifmal) Regeneration, to be " united together m^ny of us, in one Love after the *' (Example of) the Unity of the one fmgular EJfence''. The Words are fuppofed to be an Allufion to John xvii. 21, 22, 25. Where Chriftian Unity is de- fcribed by our Lord, as refembling in (ome Meafure, the Union of Father and Son. This Conffrudion of that Place in Clemens, is extremely plaufible : Buc that the Words are ftridly capable of no other, I will not pretend; Let the Reader make his Judg- ment of it. Having traced the Dodrine of the Son's Necejlary-exijlenee down to Clemens ^ I need not go lower, where the Cafe is ftill plainer. As to Tertnl^ Urn, you allow, that He fuppofes the Son to be a Self-exiftent Part of God's Spibftance : Which is throw- ing his Seofe into invidious Terms to difparage ic \ buc 9i/o/L^^<7j, 6 B-ioc.. Clem. p. 85-3*. b Xenopha-nes, Tome hundred Years before Chrift, feems to ha\'c been the firil that ufed it. Vid. Biog. Laert. p. 5- 5*9. Tlinii Nat. Hill. 1. 2. c. 7. Sext. Empiric, contra Phyf. i. Sedt. 144.. c Ire/i£Hs. p. T30, 1^1, i_fi, 240. Novatianc. 6. La^antins dc Opif. c. 2. Cyrill. H:srof. p 91. Ed. Bened. Zcno Veron, in Pfat p, 139. Hicronym. in Pial. 93. p. 371. d Damafc. Op. vol. i. p. 132. 9livxx,^'i^*ca cl m>Xhe)y KetTU. 7?)» T>J5 f/^yK^UKi \ir,«ti ifWTif, Clcm. AleX, p. 72. Compare p. 146, is 28a A Second Defense Qu. Vlll^ is, in the main, confefling the Thing, that the Son is by Him fuppofed neceijcirilj'exifiing^ and but on& Perjon of the Trinity ; which Tcrtuilian might not perhaps exprefs in the befl Manner, tho' his Meaning is right and good. I might produce Vouchers for the iame Doctrine, as many Fathers * as have pleaded that God the Father could never have been without: the Wordy any more thail without Thought , Power , Trpithy Life, or the like : And thofe I have reckon'd up in another Place ^ whither I refer the Reader. I Ihall content my felf with particularly mention* ing one more only, and that is ^. D, 249. Or 1 GEN* I fhall begin with the famous PafTage in his Trea« ti'e againft Celfns^ where Fie expreflly ftiles the Son ccyevijT©^, unmadcy that is, as I under (land necejfari- h-exifimg. The whole Sentence runs thus ^ *« Our Saviour and Lord, the Word of God, kt" «« ting forth how great a Thing it is to know the *' Father, that He is comprehended and known prin-^ '' cipally, and, according to his Dignity , by Him- «« felf {the Son) alone, and in the fecond Place by «' Thofe who have their Minds enlighten'd by the <' very Word of God, fays, no one I^oii^eth the Son^ «' hat the Father^ neither the Father ht-u the Son^ and *■' He to 7vhomfocver the Son ft: all reveal Him, For^ «' no one can be able worthily to know Him. that was *« unmade, and begotten before all created Nature, as a HIppo]y*:us contr. Noct. c. 10. Dionyf. Roman. apudAthanaH 2.51. Dionyr. Alex, apud Athan. 250, 2 5- 3, 25-7. Alcxand. apud Theod. 1. I.e. 4, Add to thefe Methodius (op. Phot. p. 960.) and Theognoflus (ap. Athan. p. 250.) declaring the Son to be eternal and uncreated, that is, necej[arily- exijling. h SerfTJonSy p. 24.}., 245". <: O'jTt ^p rev cl'/i-YiTov, >^ T^oant^i yivnty,'', (pvcr^cji; ^fcorcrat^ov, jcur liii^x* tiSiiXt Ti', aovocrxi us, h yiv^/i'jixc uvrov Trocnlp, in 7ov Trxnfix u'q 6 'ifj^'^v'/^oc, xlyoc, Kni (n(p,'ci x-Jtovj Kxl UM^i'tX^ Origen. Contr. Cell. \.G. p. 287. <* the A Qii. Vlir. o//c??7e QlJEKIES. 281 * the Father who begat Him : Neither an any <« one (know) the Father, as (He is known by) his « living IVord, his Wifdvm^ and Trmh". I need /ay- nothing here in Defenfe of my Way of rendring 'Tey.av.i ytvy^Tpii (P'j(nco5 tc^cotztoy^^^ having rufliciently vindicated it in Another Place^. The Strefs of my Argument for the Son's Necejpiry-exiftcnce^ lies in the Word cLyinro'^, which you are very fcnfible of, and therefore endeavour all polFible Ways, tho' in vain, to elude it.. You kji (p. 295.) that the Place is evident !j cor- rupt. I fuppofe, becaufe it is evidently againll you. But where are your MSS? Or by what Aurliority dj you pretend to pronounce any Place corrupt, without the le.ift Shadov/ of a Reafon.** You plead the Term •7rg$ jctioto}?, on Pur- pofe to make it anfwcr the better to clyevy^To$ going before) arvd to preferve the Elegance of the Sen- tence. You urge yevyw^raj aorsK, as if the fame 7liing could not be faid to be ol7'£Vj;t:;, and yet begotten t Which all the PhUofophcrs had admitted , and no- thing more frequent (as the Teflimonies produced above fliow ) than the Application of Both to the fame perfon, or Thing: Not to mention that if 'Clirifl: was a Son, in the ftrid and proper Senfe (as all the Fathers have taught) He- muft have been unmade^ or necejfarilj-exifiing. Your laft Pretence is from (7^- * Sermo-as, p. 5-9. See alfo Le Moync, Nor. 5c Obfc-rv. p. 447. ff '"all's Dcfenfe, f. ?7. t Bionyfius, cf'thc fum yfjf, thus reafons isry remarLxbly up- on the Vhrafe TTfuroToKcc,, &c. r*i h. Dionyf. Rom. apud Athanaf. p. 131. 2^z A Second Defense Qu.VlII. Imius^ tlie Editor, rendiing itab dutcrno genitHs : Which is dercending low indeed. You might have urged the Authority of Dr. CUrke, if you had pleafed, •which would have fjgnified to me as much as Gele" nius's. To imagine that ctytrnTov /lands for cLibiy^nyiTDV is making any Thing fland for Any Thing: What Man that knows Greeks woul j ufe cLciyeyvy]T@^ foi* ietyevJi^, which is the proper Word in fuch a Cafe? To read ycmiToy, as you pretend, is flill worfC;, be- ing flat, and fcarce Senfe: Befides that Origen^ in- tending here to fay the Higheft Things that could be faid of the Son, would never ufe any fuch Ex- prcHion in This Place. Mr. Whilion ^, I think,' has two or three little Exceptions, more than you have mentioned. He appeals to Onge^i's known DQUrme and Language elfe^ 7i'here. But ncitJiCr has This Pretence any Weighty o^ Force in it. Origin s Do6Lrine can no way be bet- ter known than from this very Treatife i which is every where couformable with v^hat He has hae faidf. And I have produced fome Evidence of it above. There is Another Place, in This verV Treatife, where Origcn teaches the fame Doflrine implicitely, while Hs clearly diftinguiflies and exempts the -Son k.'Tto ^ttolvto^ yin.rS^"^, from, all created Being : Wliich comes to the fame Thing as the filling Him ayeViT©^. Mr. Whifton has one Plea more frorrf the Silente of Vrigens u^thanafian Vindicators. But This is vtvy flight, unlefs all tl;at v/as ever antiently pleaded for Vriqen^ were flill extant; whereas, we have very little, in Comparifon, remaining. But if Origey/'s Friends WQYQ Jilent on This Head, it may be, his Adverfa- lies may have fupplied the Dcfcd. Among the Heads. * V/hifton'j Rpply to Lord Nottingham, />. 15-. t Bull \y F. ^ctt. 2. c. 9. Ul', .^jct'VVj «,T» SMi -i-iM. Qrio;. CoiiCr, Gelf, 1- 3. p. i6o< 9f Qu. VIII. 'of fome QU E RI E S. 1 8 ^ of the Accufation drawn up againfl' Him, This was one, qtioA dixerit filiffm innattim^ that He aflerrcd the Son to be unbegotten ^. It is no improbable Conjec- ture of the learned Htutius ^, that They had xz'i^z(^ to this very PalTage; malicioufly and captioully con- flruing kyivyiToVy unbegottoi, inflead of unm^Je, But enough of This Matter. It appears from what harh been faid, that there is no Reafon ac all for imai^in- ing the Place corrupt. You have no MS. no variotis Le[fio», no Plea fiom the Context, none from Ori- ge^'s Dodrine in other Places (however not in this Treatife ) no Argument of any Kind, but what is mcer trifling: Nor have you been able to invent any Corre^Hof7, or Etnaidation, but what either is nor Greekji or makes the Sentence flat, and ev^n filly ia comparifon : fo unfortunate and unadvifed a Thing is it, to play the Critic!^ in a wrong Place. Orlgm^ as we have feen, has ftiled tli^e vSon ocyg- VJ^tG^, unmade^ or ttncrcatcd (for That is his own In-* terpretation '' of the Word iyevvtro^ :) And it is no Objeftion to This, that other Fathers have been fpa- ring of applying that Title to Chrifl. The Keafon \Si bscaufe the Word ctya-i^ro^ v/as ambiguous, and was not applicable to Chrift in every Scnfe of ir. For the like Reafon it is, that yiT,roi5 oiM^sisii cvrioi, 386. * • what Qu. VIII. tf fom QUERIES. 285 what is moft material, to take off your famous an4 almoft only Objedion drawn from what the I-uhcis have faid about Chrift's Generation being by the ///// of the Father. 3. I am here to inquire, in what ScnTc, and hv whom, necejfary Generation, ov E?mviation w a*; taught; and to account for the Son's being faid to be gene- rated by the Wtll of the Father. Here, in the fird place, we are carefully to diflin- guilli between Thofe who affertcd a Jhyipord GcuS' ration only, and thofe who afferted an Eternal 6Vw- ratioa. As to the former, it may be allowed that They fuppofed the Generation to be by the iVtll of the Father, even in your Senfe of Will: And all you now have to do, is to prove, if you are able, that Thofe Writers believed no red or fuhflantial exigence of the Son, antecedent to That Genera- tion. As to the latter, wlx) held eternal Generation^ your Bufinefs will be to lliow that They believed it to be an Aoh of the Wdl in your Senfe of Will, if poffi- ble to be done : Or without This, you do nothing. It were fufficient to Men of Senfe, and to Scholars, ro have pointed out a way of folving all that you have, or ever can advance upon This Head : But be- caufe fome Readers will want to fee fome Thjni^<; more particularly cleared, I fliall be at the Pains of tracing this Matter down, quite through the Fa- thers ; fhowing you your Midakes all the way. You will not exped I fhould take any. Notice of the Apof- tolical Conftit tit ions y fo often and (o unanfwerably proved * to be a patch*d, fpurious, and interpolated Work. Nor fliall I have any thing to do with Ig- vatiHs's interpolated Epiftles, till you have confuted jBp. Pearfony and Ddlle. I refer you to a learned Fo-_ ^ See Ittlgius de Pfeudcpigraphis Apoflolorum, p. ipo., Mr. Turner on the ^^oji. Conjiittttiom, Dr. SmalbrgkQ. reignet 2%6 A Secoiid Defense Qu. VIIL reigner ^, in the Margin, for the Senfe of wife and judicious Men in relation to Mr. Whifton% wild at- tempt to fubftitute the Urger inftead of the jtndl&r Epiflles. I proceed then to the genuine Ignatius, in the fmaller Epiftles. I allowed in my Defenje^, that Ignatius fuppofes the Son to be a Son hj the Will of the Father ; and I fhowed in how many Senfes it might be taken, without at all favouring your Prin- ciples. You imagine I was greatly puz,z.led ; which I takd*'to be an Argument only of your fmall Ac- quaintance with thofe Matters. You pretend that Three of the Senfes have no ciijlinci Senfe, But are you to fit down in your Study, and make Reports of the Antients out of your own Head, without looking into Them, to fee in what Senfe They ufed their Phrafes \ I was not inquiring what you, or I fliould now exprefs by the Word WdU but what Ideas the Antients had fometimes fixed to the Word : For, by That Rule we mufi go, in Judging of the Antients. What think you of Thofe that gave the Name of WiiU or tliQ Father sTFill) to the Ferfon of the Son* ^i* They * Qass ilVas genuinas efle, alteras vero illas quas Sinceras efl^ dixi, ab Athanaliodecurt2tas,inauditum&cincredibile^'^//^e//wi lV/.uf- tofUy novi Ariancrum in Anglia Promachi, Parado«Dneft, Singular! nuper Scripco proditum magis quam Demonllratum. FabriciiBibl. Gr- 1. J. c. I . p. 40. The lame learned Writer has alfo verylatelygipcn his Judgment of Mr. WhiftoriS Attempt about the Confiitutions. Quam parum feliciter Hoc ei SuccefTerit, evidenter expofuerunt "^ob. Turner us, Richardtis S?nc.lbroke, JcZmejluiGrabe: Confulen- dus eriam Simon Ockley. Licet vero ^^//?o««i identidem tueri fen- tentiam fuani conatus eft repetitis fcriptis adverfus Grabiumj adver- {usPetrumAllixium, :LdverC\is Turner um, vixquemquam tamen An- tiquitatis Eccleiiafticas peritum confido efle futurum, cui illius Ar- fumenta petita longius, & conjecturae leves, rem tantam perfua^ ere poterunt. Fabr. Bibl. Gr. Vol. xi. p. 11. f Defenje, p. 1 3 o . * ^ ** 'Aya3-oy TTxrpcz ci^%i l^iiXrijn^. Clem. Alex. p. 309^ &iXviUjcc ^oAfTtx'fUTo^u^ov. Scmers'Tgn Will, p. 647. Ipfe crat Voluntas & Potefks Patrjs. Terrul. de Orat. c. 4. Qu.Vm. offomeQlJEKlES. isj They -had a meaning, tho* not fuch a meaning as you or I now underftand the Word fViii in. They mull therefore be interpreted by the /^.tj which 77;nf, and not TFe, affixed to the Phrafe, or Name. And what think you of others who ufed the Phrafes of omyiipot€?Jt or aU-coyitaming PFill (as we have feen above) had not They fome different Idea of l-f^ill £rom That which you have ? And mufl: not They be interpreted accordingly ? You are very anorj at Thofe that have prefumed (without your leave) to fay the JVdl of God is God Hi'rnfelf, (pag. 2 55).) And yet, whe- ther the Saying be right or wrong, when you would interpret the Doclrine of fuch as made That their Maxim, you muft take their Words as They meant them, and according to their- Ideas, and not your 07i^^, For ought I fee. They fpake more properly than you do in fo often, mentioning ^cls of the JFdU Does any thing a^ but an ^goit ; and is the Will an ^gent I How abfurdly do you fpeak ? Not that I iliould blame you for ul7ng a common Phrsfe : only do not be fo ^ery fevere and fmart upon others; %vho knew how to fpeak as properly, or perhaps OsAi}^ rcZ zetr^U i5ii 'Imzv^ A^«f3j. Hippol. contr. Noet. c. ij* ?• If- Charitatem ex Charitare progenitam. Voluntas ex mente procedens — — Orig. -nxelA^xl^*- Pamph. ApoL p. zsj-. ^ Tr,i Tcy 7rx7(}^ ^ii>,-^ii. Cjnfant. apud Gelaf. Part, 3. Be'j?[yi Kxl^iXiiti^ ToZ TTXTo^. Arhanaf. p. 613. Sicut Sapientia, 5v Vcrbura, & Virtus Dei, 5c Veritas, &ReIur- reftio, 6c Via dicitur, ita ctiam Voiuntas. Hieronym. Com. ia Eph. I. p. 32?. Q2idim ne Filium coniilii vel voluntatis Dei dicerent unigcnitum Verbum, ipfiira Confilium, feu Voluntatem Patris idem Vcrbum eflc dixerunr. Sed melius, quantum cxiftimo, diiCMMxConfili^imdeCon^ filioj 5c Voluntas deVoluntate; Ikut fubftantia de (ubilaacii, Sipicn- tia de Sapientia. Augullin. Trin. 1. 15-. c. 38. p. 95)4. VtJ, Petav, Dogmat. Vol. i. p. 229. Gotelcrt No;, in Kecogn, p. 491. fn'?rc £SS J Second Defense Qu.VIII; irore properly than you ^. It feems to be owing only" to narrownels of Mind, and want of larger Views, that you would confine all Writers to your pat ticular Modes of Speaking. The Word Will has been ufed by fome of the ylmients to fignify any natural Toiv- crs of God f. Pf^ill in the Senfe of u4pprohation^ or ^^cqfiie/cencey is very common with antient Writers: Nor was it thought abfurd to fay, that God had Ii\'l!ed thus or thus, from all ctermtj^ and could not Wilt ether wife. Whether there be any Thing very edifying in thefe Notions or nor, is not theQueftion. But when wc are fearching into the Sentiments of the yintlcntSi we muft carefully obferve in what Senfe They underftood the lerms they made ufe of: other- wife we ihall be apt to make very grofs Miftakes in our lleports of them. To return to Ignatius, To cut off Difpure, I admiitted that Ignatius might un- derfland by Generation, a vohmtarj antemundane Ge- neration, or Manifeflationy w^ith feveral other Fathers* In anfwer to which, you tell me, that I ftiould have proved that He had Jome^vhere or other fpoke^n of Ano- ther higher Generation ; otheriulje I have given up the Queflion. What Queftion ? the Queftion ot the eternal or neceffary exiilence of the Logos ? Nothing like it. I admitted that m.any of the Fathers fpeak af no higher a Generation thsn that Ante-mundane one t But Hill I infifi: upon it, that Thofe very Fa- thers acknowledged the exigence of a real and living tVordt a Word of God, eternally related to the Fa- ther, wdiofe Viord He is : which relation to the Fa- ther as his Head^ is all that any Writers 'ever mean* ^ Sec PctaviusV Dogmata Theol. Vol. i. I. i. c. S. p. 6i, B<.c. !. J. c. 4. p. 21 1, c. II. p. ^159. frhere may bs fesn iifhat Fathers fad i\\'z V/ill of God was Goci Hinneif, and what Jhcy meant by it, t Oinnis Potent'a Naruralis {De!) eil Voluntas I\Iar. Viflorin, jk'h:.. Arium> 1. i. p. 199. Balii. Ed. Viii. Petavii Dogm. Vol. 1. p. 229. TuiiTvv voc^ >.yoZf'iy,v li'af. Athan. Orat. c,6fo «>. 613. by iQu. Vlir. of fame QJJEKIES. 2S9 by tternal Filiation, They therefore acknowlcJgcd the fame Thing , but under another Name : There was no Difference in DoElrincy but in the ExpreJJion^ and the manner of TFordin^ it ; as I obfcrved in my De- fet^Jc"^, Ignatius, of whom \vc are now fpeaking, owns nil eternal LogoSy and his Necejlary-exiflence; as I have ah'eady proved: which is fufficienr to mypurpofe; unlcfs yoft can lliow that He meant an Attribute only, by the Logos ^ I go on to jHJlin A'lartjr-i who,- as Fbefore al- lowed, fpeaks of no Generation higher than That voluntary Antemundane Generation , othcrwife calkd Manifeflation: And I iliowed both from Ji*fti'i nnd Aiethodiusy that a Adanifeftation y might be called a Generation f. To the fame purpofe, I quoted Hip" poljtus'^'^y who plainly makes a ALamfcflation to be the Son's Generation \ As do alfo leveral others tt» Now, certainly there is nothing amifs in fuppoflng Ijod the Son to Iiave been manifelred, in the proper ^Seafon, by the JVdl of the Father. 1 allow then , hat the Logos became a Son (according to yujlin) by ^olnntarj appoimmcnt : But I do not allow that He [became God. The latter is what you are endeavoLv^'- ■^ Befenfe, p. 15'7, Sec. 4- T(3T« y/i jcrsf stjrow Xiytfv yivs^ roTq kvhoixoi',^ f^iTtu i "/jvtk; KiJrcu i'/w/fAAs '/;yS33^. Juft. Mart. Dial. 270. llficovrx, n^^i TT^o ray Uia)vuv i» ravi Q^a.voi)> >^ r^j y^Tf^f '/ivvYiTc/yj^ 0 d^ i'^ irooirhv uyvaiiiA^ivov yvoj^io-cci, Mctiiod. apjd Phot. Cod. 237.P. 9C5^Ta [t'sXw^ andCJod becaufe i\ Svn^ He is not God fs-ztl /2^A/)!/, which I allerted. And now where is the Contradiction f Your obje.Hing {p, 255.) that the fnpreme God could not minifrer as an Angela has been often anfwered: So we may dif- mifs fuch quibbling for the future. As to Chrill: being 3C'j^@^ ^jvifjuco^ by the Father's Appointment, I have allowed it above, in yajiins Sen(e; which comes not up to the Senfe of the Hebrew. As to the Father's being Lord of the Son^ Jiijliu explaijis it by his being Caufe^ or Fountain of the Son : in which all Catholicks are agreed f. You objcti that ^ Bcfenfe, p. 131. See a!/b Reply to Dr. Whiib/. p. 78. t u.-l. Bull. D. F. Sea. 4. r. i.'p. 1^-9. O o 2 the 292 J Second Defense Qu.VIIL the Generation ( compared with one Fire lighted from Another) was yet S^v^jifiH )9 /SaAv) olutw. I do not well apprehend what you have been doing for a Page and a half. You feem to thmk that I have fome where denied the highefi Generation, fpoken of by jHfttrfy to be tempnil', v.herevis I have conOantly allowed it : And To you do not difpute againft me. The Son proceeded h who was Juftins Scholar, may come next. i allow Him to fpeak only of a Temporal Generation, or Proceflion ; in hke manner as Jufiin, If you caa do any thing here, it mufi: be to prove that the Word ^vas no more than an Attribute^ before the Procejjion. But Bp. BhU * is beforehand with you ; having de- monftrated the contrary. You have but little tq fay, and That fcarce worth notice. You obferve that Tdtian fays of the Wordy that He ^yas ci ccur^^^ (not '"ffiC^ cL^Wov) which jhows (as St. Bafil argues egainfl the Sabellians ), that by the Word is meant an, internal Power or Property ^ (p. 282.) But Bajil -^'as never fo weak as to argue that cV oivrSi muft necelTarily denote an Attrihpi.te ; but only that ^z^5 ci'jToir is a flronger Expreffion to lignify Perfona- kty ; as I have alfo my felf argued in anothei- Place t. ci o,\jT^ may indifferently ferve either lor Per [on, or Attribute : *u^s c/.vTcv will not. When Chrifl: fays, / am in the Father^ and the Father in mcy doth it follow that neither of them is a Perfon ? There is therefore no Force in your Remark about ci auT&), more than This, that the \oy@^ in Tatian liiighr be an Attribute agi-ecably enough to That Tx pre ill on ; were theje not other very cop^vincing lleafons to the contrary. The Words ofTatian (9"eA>?/.:a7i -?• cL7c\o'W7ni olvtS TrpoTTHj c6 0 \oy>$) you have rendred tJi^o fc veral ways, and * Bull. D F. N. Sea, 3. c. 6. p. io^, t Sermon 1. p. u. Botl> Qu. VIII. of fume CLlT E R I E S. 295 Both of them wrong. The firfl: you havc,('/7. 1 19.) By the fimple efficiency of his JViU This Reiifon-, or IVord^ proceeded forth : where I complain of vour putting in efficiency^ to ferve your Hypotlxjis. The fecond is, (p. ijo,) The JVord proceeded from the fimple IVdl of the fa- ther : where I complain of the Words from the fimple WUU to intimate to the Englifl? Reader, as if nothing but a fitnple A^t of the Hilt was concerned in That Matter. Let the Words appear as they lie in the Author, without the mean Artifice of giving them a falfe Turn. By the IVill of his fimpUcitjy the Word proceeded forth. I admit the fame Thing of Athenagoras, as of Jfifiin and Tatiar,^ tiiat He Ipeaks of no higher Ge- neration than the Proceffion : yet he believed the ex- igence, the eternal, and Neceffary-exiflence of the Ao- y^iy as before proved. Here you can have no pre- tence, except it be to imagine that the Xoyx; was an Attribute only, before the Proceffion ; As to which, Bp. Bull * has effedually prevented you : And as to v/hat little Obfervations you had to make, I have re- plied to them above. Theophilns comes under the fame Predicament with the Three Writers before mentioned. You have ibmething to except againft Bp. Buirs Reafons f for Theophilus's believing the Son to be a tcaI Perfoa be- fore the Proceffion. His Reafons were thefe. I. That ver}^ Logos wliich had been from all eter- nity cid^3t,7e705 ci KS^phoL, becomes afterwards '^^r^- (p;e>t^(55*^. If therefore He was ever a Perfofi (as is iiot doubted) He muil have ah-vays been i'o. 1. The Aoy^s who fpake to the Prophets, and wa? then undoubtedly a Perjon^ was the lame individual • Bull D. F. Sea. 3. c. 5-. t Bu'l D.F. Sect. 3. c. 7. p. ii>-. ^ ** 1 i<' n'r Tiy \vy9y tyim.Ti 7V^^^6Si*i^H, Tlicoph. p lip. Jl(;f6 ^ S E C O N D D E F E N S E Qu. Villi ^a^f'$ which was always with the Father octet av/A^Tnt' 3. He was the Father's CoMnfellor^ cvfx^sXos^ be- fore the ProceflTion ; and therefore a Perfon, 4. He is faid to have been ivith Him^ and to have tonverfed with Him, which arc ^erfinal Charaflers. 5. Lvcn after the Proceffion, He is flill fuppofed to be perpetually (5^a.7rai'TZ?$) in the Heart of the Father; not feparate from Him, but exerting Himfelf ad eX' tra, ia the Work of the Creation ; which is the meaning of Procefjiony and becoming ^Zi^(poeAx.Q$. 6. Thcophiifis goes upon the fame Principles with- er kw^.^or^j, Tatian-i and others; whatever there- fore could be pleaded for thofe Writers, in the Cafe, would be at the fame Time pleading for Theo- philns. Yuu pafs over all thofe Reafons, except the thirds and foHYih : iho Bp. Bull] principally infifls upon the fa'Jiy and fcco^d. And what you have to fay, (p. 116.) to the 3"^ and 4'^% reaches only th^ fourth. For Bp. Bull had allowed, that fometimes, in co^n- mon Speech, (fuch as Tatian fometimes ufes) a Perfoii may be faid to be with Himfelf But He allov/ed not that a Perfon might be faid to be Counfellor to Him- felf in the manner Theophilus fpeaks : Befides than tho' fometimes , and improperly , a Perfon may be faid to be li-'ith Himfelf'^ yet more generally being with, denotes two Perfons, as in John i. i. It may therefore be ufed as an Argument which in the main IS right and good, tho' admitting of fome few par- ticular Exceptions. I had almoft flip'd over your 284^'' Page, where "^'OU fay, that That Generation before which the PeVjOn. {generated was every Thi'^g He could be after it, is n& ^Generation. But it is imdoubtedly what Thofe Wri- ters, and many after Tliem, call Generation : And * Thcoph. p. 81, Si. i Bull D, F. p. ii6, i\y, there- Qu. VIII. ef fom QU E R I E S. 297 therefore this is difputing not ai^ainfl: Me^ but Thm- However, tho* The Logoi was the flime ejfhntialiy J^efore and after the Generation, He was not rhe *'fame in refpec^ of Operation ^ or Mamfeji.um't^ and •outward Oeconomy : which is what Thefu Fathci^ meant. Terttillian goes upon the fame Iljpothcjis , in the main, with Thofe before mentioned -, and fo need not have any diftind Confideration : He has beea before vindicated at large. Clemens of uilexandria^ whom I fhould have men- tioned before, may be hkewife allowed to fpeak of the ProceJJion, And when he fays the Word fprang, •or arofe, 6)c T'as TriiTgayt^ ^sAi)(ncd$y ''from the }VtU efthe Father^ it is plainly intended of his being fent out to Mankind, as obferved above, (p, 91.) Tho' I am of Opinion that Clemens there means the fame that o- t^ier Fathers have exprefled by fx. x.^g^'ix^j or h'. 7a9"§:?, and might be rightly rendred in St, Johns Phrafe, from the Bofom of the Father, John i. 18. Iren<£ns comes not under our Inquiry, having faid little either of eternal', or temporal Generation. Only from what Hincs we can gather. He feems to have "ertcd eternd Generation ^. And you cannot fhow that He has Taid any thiiig of its being by the Will of the Father. HippoljtHs was undoubtedly ia the Hypothcjjs of the temporal Generation, or ProceJJion. And if you can fhow that the Ao7®"> before That Proceilion, was an Attribute only, accordmg to Him ; you will then take That VVntcr from us. You do endeavour it, p, 119. Bp. BM Miad obferved, and I ^ after Him, that Hippolytm fuppofcs God, before the Pro- ceilion, to have hte-:^ vne, and manj^ becaufe He bad a Clemen!: Alex. p. Sd. b Sesi my Defenfe, p. \-x,6. c Pull. D, F. Scvft 3. c. S. p. 219. d Defcnie, p. x^S. Pp the 29S A Second Defense Qu.VlIl, the Son and Hoi) Spirit in Him and with Him ^ You fay , That learned Prelate Jeems not to have Jujji' cicmly confidered^ that ( hy the lame reaibning) the Power alio, and the Counfel mentioned in the fame Sentence muft have been Perfins. But That learned Prelate, having a J tt dam em equal to his Learnings was ufed to conjidcr Things with great exadnefs; and was not fo prone to miflake as Thofe that too haftiiy pafs their Cenfure upon Him. You have not confi- dered, (tho' 1 gave notice of it ^) that the Words aXofoSy c[(ro(po$) kS'jvxio^, aCaAeuJcs correfpond to Ao/o^, OD'^pUy ^\cLfXi^y and Cfe-AJt, Names of the Son and Spiriti and all fo applied, except f6s\y\ (for which ^iAy]!JicL is uted, c. 23.) in That very Treatife. And Ilipvo" IjtHs fpcaks there juft in the fame way as many other both Pofl-nicene and Atite-nizcne Fathers do upon the fame Subject; feveral Tellimonies whereof may be ieen in a Note elfewhere '^\ and their Senfe vindica- ted from fuch Exceptions as you have made to it. You add farther, that the Biiliop did not obferve that it is the one unbegotcen God , even the Father Oi^ho is here Jaid to be many. I know not why you pretend the Bifliop did not obferve what no body can doubt cf : Nor do I fee of what Service the Ob- fervation can be to You, or your Caufe. Allowing you . that by IJ.o'ios is meant the Father , who was manjy and tht to' Ttav : ftill it was the Father confidercd in the Comprehen/lve way, as a Flead of a Family containing all ; in fuch n Scnfe as I have explain'd above '^. It was not Flippoljttis's Way to exclude , or feparate from the alone God and Father, what was ejfential to dlvotroc, yrs ete^Astro? yjv. Hipp. COntr. NoCt. p. I5. Compare this c/ Gregory NazicDZcn. 'Of yu^ iiv oTi aiAoyot; iyj, cuh y,v 'm 06 ?r«7vp, cuh kv cts iitkXY,9i',r„ Oiat. :?5-. p. 5-74. b Defenfe, p. 148. c S:rmcri VII. p. 244, &:c. Qu. VIII. . of feme Q^U E R I E S. 299 Him, and contained in Him,* his Lo^os, or his o^(p his oivn Mind () aVccyxj): which I iliall prove by plain Teftimonies beyond Contradic- tion. Athanafim may be firft cited, who writes thus ^ : " They have another way of faying the <' Son is a Creature, by pretending IVtll, and arguing *' thus ; if He did not exifl: by PFill, then God h3d *' a Son by Necejjitj, and unwillingly. But who is <' it , you Mifcreants, that impoles Necejjity upon *« Him ? Epiphanius reprefents it Thus t : *^ They obje«5fc <* that He begat the Son willingly ^ or unwillingly .- *^ and if we fay unwillingly', then the divine Nature *^ is forced by Necejjity, and not by Freedom of Will. .^e concludes that the Generation was neither tviU ^ linglj, nor unwillinghy but naturally, St. Ambrofe'^'^y St. Aujlinify and others §, repre- fent the fame Cavil of the^^ri^i^^j, much in the fame way: Which being once well undcrftood, we may eafily deal with your pretended Authorities. The Firfl: is of the Council o^ Sirmium in the Year 351, which A than. p. 6 1 o. ■ ■ xirUf^Tcit Tvi^ovXyiTH tqtizc^x yvuuilu,', p. 6i I» UTOTizv «?i Aiy£jy tVt JioZ unuyKU/j. + ©sAft)j» oi/y lyi^vYim « /w<»j ^iAav 5 £aj» il-na^op ;//» ^iA«v ika'/yy «s%^tiA^o/W/jv TO ^ir/i.-is ; yet Athmafim and others rank them in the Clais of uirims; And it is certain, they ftand not perfectly clear in their Character againft fome very juft and weighty Objcdions. M. Tilleinont fays of them, that Thej ivere the declared Enemies of the Churchy the fame EulLoians Vt^ho had been condemned in the Council of Sardica ^ : A :A it feems that Hilary Himfelf, who had once judged very kindly and can- tlidly of them, faw reafon afterwards to alter his Sen- timents f. Having now fome Notion of the Men, let us next fee what They fay, in relation to our pre* fent Point. '* If any one fay that the Son was begotten, and «' the Father not wilHng, let Him be Anathema, '' For the Father did not beget the Son , as being *^ conflrained , or impelled by a phjfical Necejfity^ as *^ not willing; but He at once willed and produced *^ Him from Himfelf, begetting Him without Time, *« and without fujfering any thing*"^. The ExprcflTions here are cautious and guarded: And tho' perhaps the Men had fomething more ia their Hearts than They were willing to utter; yet (^ Tillemont, Hiftory of Arians, p. 144. 'a Bookt^hkh I tvould fctrttcularly commmd to the ferufal of the Englifh Readers, to give them m juft Notion both of antient and modern Arianifm. I f See Tillemont, p. 145-. *^t)' « yxf /3iuc-6ti.i¥ iysvti)cL(T:j^t; and (i^^^*^) i^p^^l^^ i their Dodrine may pafs. And io Hilary putting the mildefl:, and moll candid conflrudion upon it , explained it to mean only that the Generation ^'as not rwlente Patre, againfi the Will of the Father. And iiis Comment upon u^TD ot.i'at/)c>i5 (pyjrn-mi as not compelled by the command of a natural Laav, You ask me C p- ^57*) 'ivhcthcr the Fcrfons cen^ fired by the Council 0/ Sirmium , or any others y ever /ivere fo fiupidly fcnfelefs , as to thinks any thin^ that ts ^ necelTary, to be therefore againfl: the Will of God, as 7i'ell as without it? To which I anfwer, that the Arians, (whether fupidly, or mulicionfij^ I know nor) fo interpreted the Cntholick^ Senfe of natural and cter^ nal Generation ; allowing no Medium between free Choice y and fuch compulfive NecelHty^. And there is one Dr. Clarke^ who at this Day, (whether ftu- pidly or otherwife I know not ) charges the fame Dodrine with the fame Confequence (as I have fhown) allowing no Medium in this Cafe, between what He calls Wul, and extrinfic Neceiruy. You ask, //' God be omniprefent by ouf^'ard Coadion, or a^ainj} his Will, becaufe not by it\ I like-^our Argument very well: Pleafe to apply it to what I Have quoted above from Dr. Clarke: It may ferve as an Anfwer to Him, in refpccl of necejjary Generation. You are here ar- guing for me, and happen not to know it. You ask again, 4S not He omniprefent by (pucrjx^j cDixfy.y]^ At- *■ To the Teftimonies befcre cited, I (hall add one more, a veiy full and plain- one, from the 8'^^ Anathema of an ^-irum Coancy in the Year, 344., or 347. fjkii. Apud Athsinaf. Tom. i. p. 740. cefJty jfj^- ^ Second Defense Qu.VIII. cejjity of Nature \ He is omniprefent by NeceJJIty df Na^ /»r^, in the modern Senfe of the Phrafe: But (pvGixv) ol- vxyKYi never flood for what we call in this Cafe, Necejfity oi Nature. I know not whether there be one Inflance of it in all Antiquity : I have not yet met with any, no nor of the Word NeceJJity fo apphed. Certain however it is, that in the Places which we are nov/ concerned with, Cpuo-ijci) ivctyx.}) had no fuch Meaning, but That only which I have given. You go on arguing, and realoning, what NeceJJity of Nature muft fignify : Which is only talking without Book and guefling what Words antiently meant , without confulting the Antients to know the Fad. But at lengrh you come to ar^ue fomewhat more hke a Scholar: You obferve the Oppojition made by ^^iiX'A^Y\ on the one Side, and LTTa cucLy-A.YS i5 <^/(^3'2'^ on the other. That is well urged : But obferve alfo, ^iaOe<$ o ntcL- Ty\p. Can any Words bg ftronger? This determines ^vaiy.vi clycf.y>iyi to the Senfe I am pleading for ; And therefore e^8\-/\:y\ is rather to be interpreted by its Oppofiiion to This. So Hilary interprets it, and con- lirues ^; ix. vi'^gAgv, cum nollet. But I will frank- ly tell you what my Opinion is , which I ground <.hiefly upon the Confideration of the Men concerned in That Council, that They really meant by ebyArjS)] what you fay, and yet by <^\)(Ti)c/) ojcLy-i^^ what I fay; admitting no Medium-^ any more than Dr. Clarke has done in this Cafe, between NeceJJity in the hard com' fptljive Senfe, and Free Choice: And perhaps they in- tended, obliquely, to charge the Athanafian Doclrine (as the Arians ufed to do J with that hard NeceJJity ^ )uft as Dr. Clarke has been pleafed to charge it as a CoKjec^ueMce upon ours. Thus, I think, we may fair- ly ccjmpromife the Difpure about the Sirmian Synod. You next mention the Council of Sardica, meaning the falfe Sardkan Council, or Synod of Philopopclis^ in the Year 547 ; which condemned Athanafms^ HofmSi Julins ; As They themfelves had been condemned by the true S^rdwa/i Council. Hilary Qii. VIII. of fome QU ERIE S. 305 Htlarj "^ beflowcd the fame kind Pains here that I-]:; ufed afterwards with tlie Decrees oi x.\\c Sirmian S) nod, to interpret their ConfefTion to a CmIooUc Senfi, And coming to the Words, ex voluntate or coyijilio^ He un- derilands them, not in the Scnfe oi free Choice^ but in Oppoiition to corporalis l^ajjio^ ^orpor.il Pafjiotiy tliat is, extrirific NeceJJity, However, I am perfiiadcd (know- ing the Men) that Hilary was too kind in his Con- ftrudion ; tho* with a good Dclign, hoping by con- dtfcending towards the weak, to reduce them, by De- grees, and to gain them over to the true and iound Faith. He was forced to apologize afterwards for his good-natur'd and well-meant Lndeavours ,• which had rendred Him iufpeded with iome that were zealous for the Catholic Faith. But let us now come to fome better Inflances rhrin fuch as you have brought me from fufpedled Synods. Sure you do not expe6l I lliould take Notice of the Arian Council of Antioch, What if They condcmn'd fome Arian Tenets \ has it not been common for A- riamy being ailiamed of their Leader, to condemn fome of his Tenets in Words, at tlie fame Time profclTmg the fame Things in other Tei"ms? Give me Autho- rities from Men of Aeady Principles, known Catbolicf^^y and not from known Arians, You do pretend to Three fuch, Marias Vtcloririm, BaJiU and Gregory A^jf- fen. Let us examine Them. Marius Vitiorimn fays, that the Generation ivas not by Nccejjity of Nature ^ l?pit by the TVill of the father's jHajejly^. Such are his Words :. But when you en- quire whar. He mcai;t by IVdh and v/hat by Ncajji- -^ H'llarius de Synod, p. 1172. f Eft autcm Luniini 5c Spiritui Imngo, non a N^teUjtxte Xr.tu- r£, Ted volantare MagiiiriKiinis Patri^. Iple cnim icipiiiin ti:- cuir.rerminavir, 5^c. Filius ergo in Patre Imago, Sc Forma, JIc Aoy©-, cc Voluntas Vatr'is — ^Sic ig-.rur voiuniare Parris volun- tas apraruit ioic /.ly^, Filius. Mar. I'lcior. 1. 1. wAdv. Anum. p. iSS/Bafil. Ed. CLq /v, 506 -^ Second Defense Qa. VIII. rv, He is diredly againft yon. Will is with that WrircT a Name for any natural Vowcr ^ or for God Himrdf*; So that Generation by Wtll comes to the fame with Generation by Nature ^^(T^6>r, H cure fxit ci90'j?'.iircjt; TciZra i^i' B-iAit y^o livxk tovto oTTi? izcn^-^rue, t vtov irxyi'KB'f^' J*'"* ^ CZC, W-i f/.\r,Tl iKt:CiA?iiy 7H ^'■/yjUT(^ T>7V £577 TU Via (Zil>.''ii'jiiv (rvvu^stxv , ertiv hhu^v^Tctj TY; yiviiia-fi I3if?,7}irii. Grcg. Nyfi". Orat. 7. cont. Eunom. p. 206. Qu. VIIL of fame Q^U E R I E S, 309 «' the Will divide the Son from the Father, fo as to «' make any Diflance betwixt Them. Thus far Dr. Clarke quoted; lliaping his Tranfla- tion, with Hrtle Hints and Parenthefes, as near as He well could, to his oivri Senie ; however oppofite to the Author's. Let Gregory go on: " Let us neither *-' exclude from our Notion The Father's V/ill about " the Son, as if it were ftraiten'd (or btirthened) in *^ the Connexion of the Son's Unity with the Fa- '' ther; neither let us dilTolve the immediate Con- *' r^exion by confidering the Will in the Generation. Gregory proceeds to tell us, that to Will what is good is eflential to, and infcparable frofn the Nature; as alfo to enjoy the Thing will'd, and that it cannot poflibly be conceived without it. He farther illuftrates his meaning by the Inftance of ivVf, and Light flream- ing from it; that if the Fire be imagined to have Rcafon and V/ill^ it would chufe or will to fend forth its Streams of Light, according to its Nature, with more to That purpole. From hence it is manifefl:, that Gregory intended no more by IVtll than we mean w^hen we fay God wills his own Exifl-ence, or is what He w^ould chufe to be. Whether this be a proper Senfe of Will is not the qiiefHon : But it was Gregorys Senfe. And it IS plain He does not mean by C^wny.)) oLvxyx^y^ Ne^ cejjiiy of Nature in the Modern Senfe, but fuch a A/i:- cejjity as lays a Reftraiyity or Burthen upon the Will*, would be an ImperfecT:ion , or a pain and uneafincfs ro the Perfon. I might Iliow this farther by many * In fuch a Senfe Gregory ufes the Phrafe elferohere. ^unuq. Greg. NyfT. contr. Eun. 1. i. p. 4+. Parif. Vid. p. 49. 192. Avuyicj) (pvTuc^ is conftantly fpoken of as an Imperfection, or Mark of Subjedtion, or Servitude: for which rcaibn it was not thought applicable to God. NutHTANeceJJitds ufcd in That low Senfe, by Hilary, p. 07^* 985, 1116, 1117. And 3IO L^ Second Defense Qu.VIIL and exprefs Proof of the Neceffary- exigence of God the Son, occurring in this very Trearife, too tedi- ous to recite at length: I muft refer to feme in the Margin t Now for a Word or two of St. Atifi'm: And then we may fnut up our Enquiries into the Senfe of the Antienrs on this Head. You tell me a childijb QLiibble of St. Auftins, (p. 255.) I gave the Rea- der, m xht Appendix to my Dcfenfe^ an Account of what Dr. CUrke and you call a chiidiJJj Qnihble: By which it may fufficiently appear that the childipnefs is none of Sc. Anfi'mu It is no commendation of your Difcretion to revive the memory of a Thing wliich can ferve to no purpofe, except it be to ex- pole your unacquaintednefs with Antiquity. You pretend to tell me, that I repeat the fame Quibble in my Appendix, without attempting to anjwcr the Doclors Reajonmg, But the DcTign of my Appendix was to ihow that the Doflor had commirred an Error, in fuppoiing that St. Auftin was makifi^g an Anfwer to fuch TeiHrror^ies as the Dodoi had produced; when He wa^ ar/wering nothing but a mean Quibble of the ArimSi about ?^lens Folens, As the Dodor had there made a ilip , for v^-ant of knowing, or confider- ing what St. Auftin had been doing, and upon what Occaiion He had faid what He did; For the Doftor^s Credit, you Hiou'd have let it drop, and have faid no m.ore of it. The Colour you would now give to it, is, that my Anfwer to what was objedled of the Son's being generated by Willy was out of St. Anftin : Which is only heaping Miftake upon Miftake, and defending one Error by Another. Look again into my Defenfe^ (p. 125, ^r. ) and you will find, I was fliowing how necejfary Emanation might be, and had \^Qzr\ undcrftood confident with WtlL ii f?)ir.'i — Kce,ru (pus-iv^ p. i. rev ovreoe, ovt(^, underftood of all rfic Three Perfons, p. g. Uii I'vr®- o^sfi g'dv, of the Son; p, 4, ^^- s-fi siii-ftii, 0 m, p. 9. cVj^vj eJ-jW; p. 20/1 272, Qa. VIU. offome QUERIES. m St* jinfiin came in by the bye indeed, but He was not cited as admitting either Nolens , or rulem in the Cnfe; but as one who had contented Himfelf wirli retorting the Objetflion of the Arians upon Them- felves. I therefore palled on {^. 127.) to others, who had allowed the Generation to be bj Willi and I inti-^ mated in what Senfe They allowed it : Not in any fuch Senfe as Dr. Clarke intended, tho' He cited thofe very Men, {Alarim ViliorinHSy Bafd^ and Gre- gory Njlfen ) as favouring his Doctrine. He iliould not have oppofed Will to Neceffdrj-gencration , when citing Men that aflerted Both', and v/ho underftood by Wdl a quite different Thing from what He did. This was my Anfwer with refped to Citations of That kind. But as to other Authorities from Jpift'in Martyr , &:c. I allowed Will to be taken in the Dodtor's Senfe : And my Anlwer there v/as , that They intended it only of the TTg^gAeucn^, not of the-^ eternal Generation. Upon my faying in my Defcnfi^ (p. 12 (5.) that you could not but have apprehended my meaning i about the Difference between TVdl and arbitrary Will, had you retained in mind what you mull: hnve obfer- ved in the reading of the Anticnts\ I fiy, u|x^ii This you remark, that Thofe v4>y/;>«/; were really yJ.o- dcrnSy (p. 259.) and that I often exprcfs mj filf in T^is ambiguous^ and finfliir wanner. Yet you yoiu* felf take the liberty of calling the very lame Writers and Thofe of the fime Age, Antient Writers: fuch as The Sirmian Council, Hdary^ Bajd, A^arins f^tEiorinm^ and Gregory Nyjfcn ; to whom Dr. CLvli^ hid appeal- ed in His Scripture Docftrine'*'. It was to obvi.ue Thole Tediinonies, that I referred you to the Wii- ters of Tliat Time, calling Them Anticnts; as y( u your felf have ilnce done, tv/ice together: ( p, i<^C^ 257.) So eafy is it to condemn Another, and to do the fame Thing your felf. It feems, They are Ar.^ iie*its with you, while 1 hey iurniib you with Ob* • Pan i. Sect, ii> jiili0:*S : ^12 A Second Defense C^.VIII^ je^iions : But when the fame Writers, or their Con- temporaries, afford Solmiom alfo, then They become Modems » But to return. The Sum then of what hath been faid is This : All the Fathers believed the Neccffarj - exijicnce of God the Son: I have proved it of feveral, and might have done it of more, were it necelTary. But the material Thing w;3s to take off the Objection of the voluntary Generation, ' I have done it, by diftin- guilhing between Thofe that afferted only a Tern- ford Generation, (where I allow V/ill to be under- flood in the flrid Senfe) and thofe that afferted d-/^?^- nal. As to the latter, none of them ever allowed Generation to be by V/ilt , in your Senfe of the Word. They fomerimes admit it in the Senfe of y^pprokttion, and They always rejed: NeceJJity of Na- ttircy meaning by it exrrinfick Forccy FatCt or CoaU:wn^ never what we now underiland by ic when applied to God. Having thus cleared the main Point, it remains on- ly to take fome Notice of a {qw incidental Objefti- ons you have made ; which could not before be brought in, without breaking my Method, and diflurbing the Connexion. You obje3, (p. 253 .) that if this be the Cafe, that the Son Necejf^rily exifts ; then He is Self-exijknt : that if the Stin were Self-exiflent-y fo alfo ivonld be its Ea}Sy if a Tree , fo alfo its Branches : — the fame Thing pari tally ctnfidercd: Derivation^ Originat'iGn^ Cattja- litjy Generation^ in fuch a Cafe are figurative^ impropet Expreffons. hy This then, I perceive, I have been doing no- thing in fearching Antiquity: You have fome Max- ims to your felf that niuil over -rule all uimhoritiesi I Chail anfwer you what I think fufncient. i. Al- lowing your Plea, the Confequence then is, that the Son is Selfcxijleht as tvell as the Father : we change the Name ^ but retain the Thing, And, now we fh,!}] challenge you to prove en her from Scripture:, or Qu, Vill. cffome QU E R I E S. 315 or j^nti^Hityy that the Son is not Self-exijiem ; provi- ded you keep l^eadily to what you have (aid, that whatever is Necejpiry , is alio Sclf-exiftent, IF This Maxim be certain, then the Son is Sdf-exljicnt tho' referred up to Another, and I have proved it in prov- ing his Necelfary-exiftcnce. But, 2. I anfwer, you appear a hrtic too Luc to be a Corredor of the Language of all the AntimtSy Philoiophers , and Divines. They have condanrly didinguilhed the IdeAs\ and where ever there is a l)ifFerence of Ideas ^ there is a Reafon for alligning different Names. Who does not fee that the Queftion whence a Thing is, and the Qiieftion what it is, are very different Qtiertions \ Or that immuiMy exiiling, and exifting under This, or Thar rdatioyty as a FatlTCTy or as a Sony are quite different 1 hings \ And tho* we do not fay that Father and Son are the fame Thing" partially confider'd, where there are no I Parts : ycu we admit them to be the Ja.-^je Salpjlance f ^iverfly confidercd, under diftinct Rclationsy and Pcr- fonalities. You refer me, (p. 2 5 ij to Alodtfl Plea^ p. 173. where i find it objeded, that if Generation W€*re necej]arj/i thert ^ould be no limitation to doc Number of Perjons. YeSj the Number will be limited to fo many as are JVe- cejfary : And no more can be Neceffarj than there are found, in fad, to exifi. It is farther objecled, that in Script urcy the beget- ting of the Son is always mentioned as an A^ of the Father I and an Aci cannot be m cejfary. But faov/ me that Scripture ever makes it an ACt^ in ycur Scnie. I have heard of begotten ^ I never i.ad that it was a voluntary Ad j a iVlatrer o^ Choice x which is your Senfe of Acl, Scripture reprefents it by the rtucioa 'o^ Thought xo Mindly or by the k^Tztifxaud, the ihi- ning forth of Light t from the luminous Fountain: T*f See my Sermons, p f . f See my Sermons, p. i-rf- , R r and 314 A Second Defense Qti. VIII. And fo doe's all Antiquity, This anfwers to the oU Senfe of begetting ^ , and atiing : But do not invent 7wvel Senfes of them, and ftill pretend ScriptHre, and Antiquity^ In your ne^v Scnfe of begetting, and aEling^ there is no Proof either in Scripture or Antiquity ^ that the Father begat, or .^c7if^; And now what have you done, but altered Names., and left Things as be- iore \ Was there ever truer Pedantry about Words f You may call Generation, in oiir Senfe, Metaphorical, if you pkafe; tho* you have no Reafon to give, why it is not proper: But when you have done, fhow, if you can, that this Metaphorical Senfe was not the true and only Scnfe wherein it was underftood both by Scripture^ and Antiquity, You objed, that my Diflinciion befwccn WtlU and arbitrary Will-i is elufive and equivocating. But I pray, excufe it for the Doclor's fake , who makes the fame Diflindionf, in other Words, between Will of Approbation » and Will of Choice , wdiich is all that I mean. You objecfl", that the Doclrine of neceffary Emana^ tions was Gnojiick^ and Fklcntinian : Which you can never prove. But I mufl remind you that Athanajt- us chargd upon the Arians two Things as Gnofticl^ and Palentinian, v^hich undoubtedly are fo : One was their bringing in ^eM/xci'^'^ ^ IVUI, between thc^ "*■ A-;v«" vcvy«M,s». Jufl. M. Dh]. 185. Ncc dubiraverim Milium ulcere Z<. Pvadicis Fruticem, Sc Fontis fluvium, oc Soils Radium i quia om-rtis Ors^o parens eji, 6c omnc quod ex Origine profertur progenies ell. Fsnu fjijif iiv accl 6 i^Ai'^ Trjy dvy'^v, Eufcb. Eccl. TilCol. ]. 1, Lux Tplenc^orem ge^erat. Ambrof dc Fid. p. 5-40: 'A7ru.6'-/x\Oi/iri rou >.oyove father Qu.VlII. offome QUERIES. 3 15 Father and his Word: Another was thou' making a Creatfire Creator ^ . Phiiajlnas \ i'lrthcr clui'^cs them with borrowing another Principle from (he Infamous ^^^elics, (of the Alrrciofnre Tribe) which was the Making a Jecond God ^ a Creature niiil a StibjeEt of the firfi. Not to mention that Jiiihop Bfill had run up your Doctrines to the old G-.w]- ticlii'^'^, long ago; and was never yet confuted, nor ever will be. It might therefore have been more prudont in you, to have been lilent on Tins Head. Now we have mentioned the Matter of Necef- fary Emanations, it may be proper to hint bricily what has been the Church's conllant Dodrine in That Article. It occurs not indeed any where un- der Thofe Terms : Neither does the Nccejfary-exijl' ence of God the Fathei'. The Autiems cxpreCs'd not Either of the Doctrines in Thofe Terms : So tii^ Queftion muft be, not about the Natt^c y but the Tmng: And Emanation mud be diRinguimed accord- ^>ffg to its Two Senfesj as either llgnifying the Per- Jon emaning, or the emanin<^ it k\i. They that fpake only of a Temporal Erocejjlon, or Emanation^ could not mean that iuch Procejjlon was neccjfary. Only, as They held the Necejfary-exijhnce of tbe Perfon, pro- ceedmg in Time, but always exifling in the Father to whom He belonged , and to whom He is refer- red; their Do ferine, however expreffed, comes to the very fame that has been lince called eternal Generati- ony or Emanation. They that held eternal Generati- on were ail in the Principle o^ Neceffary-efnanation ^ diredly, ar;d plainly. Only the Word Emanation^ (if it frauds for XTTcppu) was eitlier approved, or * 'CcJ^ ^f c. kr^'jyaictfJLaL) were more peculiarly calculated to denote Coeter^ my\ abftrac]:ing from the Confideration of Confi^fian- tialitj. For, Thotigbt is not any thing Sptifcantial: And I knov/ not whether Li'jht , cLT^uyzLafjLct^ was ever taken to be fo by the anrient Fathers. It is certain that (ometimes it was looked upon as a meer Energy, or Qualiry "^'a I fay then, that Coetemity was mors fitly represented by Thole Two Simihtudes, than Con- J^hjl ant i alky. Indeed, Etifebius would not allow that f Coetcrfjity was ^gnificd in the fimilitude of Light and Splendor', or, I may' more properly fay. Luminous Body -Sind Light, for 7'hat is the meaning. But in This that' great Man was \^xy Singular. And tho* A/^;^(f^/zct?«'s Cenfure of Hims, as commonly wreding Scripture, and the Church's Dowlnne, to his own private Fancies ^"^5 may feem ra- * Juflin. Mirtyr. Dial. p. 372. Eufebius Dem. Evang. 1. 4. c. 3r Damafcen. Vol. i. p. i^j-, 137. Thcodour. ia Epift. ad Kebr. c. i. v, 3. Hser. Fab. 1. j. o 7. p. 2._^6. t Eufeb, Demonftr. Evang. 1. 4. c. 3. p 147. ** Nihil itaiue infblens li Etifebius, (\m plerumque Scripturaruna & EcclefMc Dogmata ex fen fa 8c opinione fua a^fbimare aufus eft^ in mulds iapfus lit. iVlontt prselim. in Eufeb, 6;c. p. 2^. ther Qii.VIir. cffomeQJJl^KlES. jr9 ther too fevere ; yet it is certainly true of Him m This Inftance: unlefs we could iuppofe That IKiren^ thefis^ or DigrcfTion (for fuch it fccms tO be) foiftcd into his Work by iome other Hand. No Catholick, before, or after Him, ever talked in That way; but quite the contrary. Origen -^ , Theognofius f, Diony- JiHS of Akxandr'uiy and Akx^irJery (to fay nothing of later Writers**) give a very different Account of that Similittide : And They are more to be regarded thaa Eufebiusy who (lands alone in his Account of it, di- redly thwarting the Senfe of all the Catholicks his Contemporaries, as well as of his Predeceflbrs that have ufed it. But to proceed. It is obfervable that Thofe who expreilly maintained the TerKporal Generation only, as ytiflin Martyr^ Hip^ polyt^Sy and feveral others. They alfo illuftrate it by Si- militudes ; not by (pcog and ct'Ttavlxc-fjiXy fo far as I have obferved, but by Light of Light, one Fire from another* Fotintai>3 and Streams, They have fometimes alfo tho Swa and its Rays^ which feems to me to amount nearly to the fame with )C7«5 7J5 ot^x^^ ^4 ^''''^H ^-^^ ^('oneov cffTc fi'»r3- j O^ig. ap. AtJuiial, i7rHv, U'-, Toy ^o>-ncy to ury.v *fxtru^x, ai ilsxr'^ octujIc,. Thcogn. ap. Athanaf. p. i^o. 'ATTzt'Jyxcrubo Ji m (pur'c^ eii's'td, t^ocvtuc, v^ xuTO(i uiitc^ t-n. DioHVl. Alex, apud Athan, p. ^^l. To yx^ ccTTKiiyxs'i/jiC Tyi.>\.cfjcjivov) tC, tTroiot l?rl Ttveoc,^ o^ai^iv TH 6iV7» f/jivovro', x^ ro £| ccutcZ acvct^fiv k. to ov (pxivsruf QTK sAotTTa- cixv iKiivo il 8 kvyi.)\.oa -zotvTU, fjuipi^cyjivsc ^ rifJi^vofXi'^JHf ou lot «i,uToi. i^v 06 Koti -^oiit r [/!jY-^hci4 . Juftin. p. 373. Tkyovi 01 Y.U.7CC yjiQ/.(r (yjovt cu kkt* "ttirzrD yy/y to yap cc'TrvTfA^B-iv tew JTfWTy Ki^wa ^tcj' TO 01 fiiio/i'^Xf cii[^vow[C'.c, T'/i» aicijiv 'jsistrXx'Zav, a« <^aloi T c^'iV ei ?\r)7f,oi,i m^rtii^Kiv^ aiCTTTip yap cItfo HjIolc, Jcihq dioc, tkv l^oc- ^o T -TFoXXm ouduv cok i>.u.'P,oZTtx>i rs (^u:^' obreo x«< o ?i6y(^ ■pt^iX- ^av z/ic TKi; Toy TraT^o^ d\)vuyjii>)q oCk ocMyov ^Ttvi'/jKi Tot y~'^.iViVi>'jTt£ ,' Tatian. p. 22. 17^9 yoip t\ yitiioj^ tzZtov «vj cuf/^'n'^XoyyJxiiToZ vcZv f^^ ^povij^jv cv^' h'Ttin Gi vi^iXr^tScV 6 ^cq crrUiOzij ojn sv?iiuaz>tTo, toZtov t Xo-j^v i'yii>py) that the Son fo came out from the Father, as Hill to remain in Him : It Was an oeconomical, not a red fe- ..paration. And fo the Father did not leave Himfclf ^ ewpticd, as it were, of his Son, by his fending Him out to create > and to tranfad all Matters between Him and the Creature. This, I doubt not to fay, is the certain^ and the full meaning of Thofe Fathers : And had it not been for Tome Perfons coming to read them with the No- tion of eternal Generation in their Heads, They could never have miftaken fo plain a Matter as This is, of the Son's being fent out oecommically from the Father, firft to make, and next to govern the Creatares : which Mijfwn^ Aianifeflation^ or Exertion^ is, with thofe Writers , his Generatitn : As it was alfo fo reckoned even by many of the Poji-niccnes, who may be feen in the Margin*. It muft be own'd, that ///- lary Ha?c erit Troboh veritatis, cullas unifatis, qua prolatum dici- rnus Filiiim, 5c non Icpararum. Tertull. contr. Prax. c. 8. Trinitas per confcrtos 6c conncxos gradus a Patre decurrens, H Monarchic nihil obftrcpit, 8c Osconomm ftatum protcgir. Terr, ibid. Habes FiHum in Terrisj habes Patrem in coelis. Non-tft/f/'a- ^At'io ifta, {^di (liipojitio divina. Tert. contr. Prax. c. 13. * Scirent Verbum in principio Deum, &; hoc a principio apud Deum, & natum cffe ex eo qui erat, & hoc in eo efie ^ui na- tus eft, quod is ipfe eft penes Queni erat anrequam nafceretur i eandein fcilicet seternitatem efte gignentis & gcniti. Hilar, in Mat. p. 742. Piocedit in Nativitatem, qui erat, ante quam nalcererur, in Pa- tre,—dujus ex ore prodivit unigenitus Filius, cordis ejus Nobi- lis Inquilinus: exindc vifibilis eftcdus, quia humanum genus Vili- taturus erit. Zen. Veron. apud Bull, p. 2.00. Onus habens initium in Navitate, in ftatu non habens. ThsSaJi Hoc initium habcat Sapientia Dei quod de Deo proceJJ:t ad cre- 5fida omnia tarn cxleftia quam Tcrrenaj non quo cxpcrit tXc ia Deo. Cresta eft ergo iapicntia, wao gznit^, non libi qux icmper i;rat, fed his q«« ab '•a fieri oportebat Picud. Ambrof. dc F.d. 322 ^Second Defense Qu.VIlL' Ury feems to have changed his Language, and Sentiments too afterwards : Or elfe He held a o-cns- ration prior to This, along with the 'Tr^osAr-'Joi?. It muft alfo be confefs'd that the Catholkks Themfelves were for fome time pretty much divided about the Quedion of eternal Generation ; tho* there was no quedion about the eternal exifience. Whether the Xoy>^ might be rightly faid to be begotten in refpeft of the State which was antecedent to the '^reoeA ut^, 'was the Point in qucdion. ^thanafms argued llrenit- oufly for it ^5 upon This Principle, that whatever is of another i and referred to that other as his Head , (as the A09.P?, confider'd as fiich, plainly was) may ^nd ought to be fliled Son , and Begotten : Befides , the Arians had objected , that there would be two unhegotten Perfons, if the >\cy^^ ever exifted, and was not in the Capacity of Son \ and the Church had never been ufed to the Language of two unbcgottens, Thefe Confiderations, befides the Teflimonies of" elder fathers who had admitted eternal Generation^ weigh'd with the generality of the CathoUch^: And fo eternal Generation came to be the more prevailing Language, and has prevailed ever fmce. There is nothmg new in the Dodrine more than This, the calling That eternal Generation v/hich others would have fiiled the eternal Exifience and Relation of the Ao/c^ to the Fa- ther: which at length amounts only to a Diiference in TUbrdsy and JVames, This appears to me a fair and full Account of that Matter , after the moft careful and impartial Search I have been able to 'EyiVi'/t^i^, fjbcih}\ov A TT^oy.^^Siv ocCroti, x.cn ttuvtcts iv 7m TtotTPi av, iTH 7J?v Tm v7i' otuToZ "j^yiy^f^iva/v iittn^s-fjijrjTtv. Conflantin. apud Gelaf. p. 5-8. Ex ore quamllbet Patris fis ortus, & verbo cditusj Tamen paterno in pedlore Sophia callebas prius. Prudent. Hymn, I J. p. 44,. Vere cnim Be fine Voce natum , 3c omnia porcntialiter conti- rens Verbum, turn Pater a^tualiter generavii, quado Caelum Sc T erram, quando Luccni h cxtcra fecit. Rupert. Tuiticnf. ■^ Atli*n*i*is contr. AfJAiws^ Orat. 4,- snakf Qa. VIII. of fome QUERIES. 323 make into the Anricnts upon it; that I mii^ht not de- ceive either my feir, or my Readers. In conclufion; fmce you have been pleafed to call upon me for Sathficiion^ (p. 297.) which I ihall be always ready to pay for any Injury I have really done to my Readers ; I now leave it to your Iwjienmty to (OfTfidery ii'hat Satisfaclion joh ought to make Toy.r Rea- ders^ for the following Particulars. 1. For carelefly palling over the qiany, and plain Tcftimonics I produced for eternal Cemration ,• from ^^Jren tween common^ and commnnicatcd. Having thus dif- patched the main Point, relating to the Principle of Individuation, ( which (lands jufl: where it did ) you will not expef> any farther Anfwer to fuch Objecli- ons as turn only upon the uncertain meaning of /«- dividual. I freely own my Ignorance , that I am not ycc got beyond the common School-definition : Indivi- daa funt qH£ dividi non poffttnt irJ plura ejiifdem m- minis ^ ^ nature fmgularis. Individual is iomcthing; undivided, in fuch refped as it is conceived to be me : And one is fomething fingle-^ and net mfdaplcx, in that refped wherein it is conceived to be one. I pretend not to make any Man wifer by fuch an Ac- count as This : But it is proper to confefs our Ig- norance where we know nothing. This, however, I pretend to be certain of, that every inUividt^al is, up- on your Principles, made up of Parts ; and that all Onenefs^ or Samenefs^ is by mion of Parts: Orhcrwilc there is nothing m the World that you c.mi _call one ■Stibliancey or jame Sabflance at all. Now, if Vnion p^akes Onenefsy or Samenefs^ you will be extremely /puzzled to find out any Vmon clofer, or Wronger, or ^higher than That Vnion which we conceive to be among the Three Perlbns. Why then may They iidt be one jW/W^^/ Subifance, Being, God/* Or T t the 530 ^ Se<:5i^d Defei^se Qu.IX- the jdme individual Subftance, Being, God ? I like what St. Bernard "^ has faid of this Matter; and leave you to confute it when you are able. 1 ntay here take fome Notice of the Author of the appeal to a Turk^ Sec* who thinks it ftrange we fliould pretend to know that Three Perfons are one Bein^, when, by our own Confeffion, 7i^e kno-w not \ preci/ely what makes one Beings nor can fix upon any I certain Principle of Individttation^ p. 54. Now, as to \ the Fad, thnt Three Perfons are one God, or one \ Being I we pretend to know it from Scripture: But as \ to the manner how They are united^ we know it not at '■ all. I fnppofe, we may know that Soul and Body are fo united as to make one Man; tho* we underiland not the Nature of the Vnicn : or that the Parts of Matter cohere , tho' we underdand not the Manner , or Ca^Je of their Cohcfwn. And if we are puzzled in accounting for the Vnion of Things fo famihar to us, and fuited to our Capacities j what v/onder is it if our Thoughts are loft in accounting for the divine Vnion of tlie tremendous Deity f It is one r^. Thing to know that Three Perfons are one God; another to know "ii^hat makes them one. If the Au- thor's objedion lies only againft calhng the Perions One Beingy as nor hcm^ fcriptHral; we fnall be con- tent if He admits Them to be one God, or one Jeho* vah, which is evidently Scripture - Do^rine. His rea- foning, p. 56". is of the fnme fizefor Acutenefs, and Pe- netration, with what He has, p, 54. If we have no \Idea of the manner Ho7i^ Two may be one, He will I infer, that 7i'e have no Idea either of Two Perfons, or I of one God. That is to fay, if we have no Idea of \ the m.anner how Soul and Body make one Man ; wc * Inter omnia quas recSle unum dicuiitur, arcem tenet Unitas Trinitaris; qua Perlonx tres una fubftantia funt: fecundo loco* jila praeccUit, qua, e convcrlb, Tres fubdantix una ivk Chriflo per** fona iunt. Bernards de Conf, i. /. c, S. ibavc Qu. IX. cffime qlJEKlES. sji Jiave no Idea of Souiy or Bo^^y or of o^e Aim. Now, the Cd.k is This ; we have an Idea of the Pcrfom u- nited, and we undcriland that Tiiey arc one-t having a confufe, general Idea of Vniij : But as ro the inter- nal Caufcj or particular yli'<^;7(fr of the Union; we have no Idea of it. What is there flrange, or liirprizing in This; unkfs it be ftrange ior igyjoram Creatures to know only in part, and to be able to underftand fomsthing without knowing every Thing i* But to return to you. I iliall now look back, to fee if there be any inci- dental Paflages, under Tiiis Qiiery, defcrving Notice, Page 305, I find you endeavouring to prop up tJie Doctor's Aphorifm , That Neceffary Agents arc no Agents, and Nccejfarji Caujes, no Caajcs, This is alio Strife about PJ^ords ; in \vhich the Caufe is nothinf^ concerned. For, admitting all you would have, it comes to This only ; that the Antienrs have im- fropcrlj called the Father an jigentt or Catife^ in re- fpect of the Gencrdtion : Tlie Dodrine will (land exa6lly as before, only in other 7>r//>'j. And you mull not pretend to change the Senfe of the ^^iritiaii-^^ refpecl of the Words -/^o/, or Caufe-, and ilill appeal to their Expreflions as countenancing your Novel Notions : That will be affronting the Readers in- deed. But let us enquire a httle into This Ne-iv Philofophy. I asked, whether an infinitely achve Being can ever ceafe to Ad? To which you anlvver not a Word. I asked, whether God's loving ILmfeif ( which is loving every Thing that is good , and which general Love, or natural Propenfny, feems to be the prime Aiover in all the divine Ads) be not aUing ? To which you reply nothing. I believe, we are almoft out of our Depth here, and might more modeftly leave the divine Ach to that divme Being who alone underftands the Nature of Them. But fince you pretend to be wife in fuch high Things, I may put a few Queftions to you concerning Tliem. You fay , The ejfence of Action is exerting of Power y " T t 2 anf 33^ ^Second Defense Qii. IX^ av'J. the Will is the OrifJ^al of all exerting of Power* WclL let u4Eiion be exerting of Power: Docs Gcd never na^.m'ally , or mcrffarilj , exert any Power ? Who can be wife enough to know thefe Things? lint, th: JViU is the Original: And is not the Wtll k IcU determined by eliential Wifdom , GoodncTs , nnd Truth? And why is not That as much the O- riglyid which determines , as That which is deter- mined f Hew is it that God cannot but ivill good, cannot but will happinefs : as, on the other hand, he cannot but nill evil , cannot but nill unhappi- ncTs ? Are approvimy and difa^proving^ the fame with knowing good and evil ? Or does He not rather ap" prcz'Sy and di/ approve, becaufe He k^^ioii^s why ? How hard a Thing then is^ it to diftinguifh between what; fliall be called ^(^/, or Aolions, and what not I Yqu have difcarded all that in common S:eech paffes under the Name of yiElion. Walking, riding, run- ning, are no Acts : They are bodily Motions follow- ing the impulles of fomething elle that moves and )' actuates. Human yitis muft be confined to what is ifizjifible , to what Pafles in the dark RecelTes of our Minds. And here our Ideas are very defcd-ive and ' obfcure ; and our Language almoll all improper, and metaphorical; taken from bodily Motions, which are fto A(5ls. We m^ay divide the Powers, or Facul- ties of the Mind into fcrceptive, and aBive : And we may call the latter by the Name of JVilL But flill •what is That perpetual AHivity of the Mind, that general pcrfuit of Happinefs, and avoidance of Mi- fery, which is not merely perceptive, and yet is ne- cejfary, and unavoidable? It will be faid , perhaps, that it is natural, refulting from our Nature ', that is, from God, who gave us our Nature: And fo herein we aB not, bur are aEled upon. Be it foj let us next go higher, to the firft Caufe of all Things : Are there lio natural and necejfary Propenfities There^ r,o natural or neccjjary Averfions; in a v/ord, no TVil- hngsj and NilUrgs , which are as necejfary as it is to exift f Qii.IX. of fo^e QUE KIES. 33J exift? Yet they are y^cis , imerrtal Ads; and the ground of all externrd : Or elfe we know not what ^tis are. Jiut enough of This Matter, which, as I before obferved, is enrircly foreign to the Caufc. You objefr, that the* Father is not alVi®^, (as Baftl ftilcs Him ) if the Son neccjfarily coexifts with Him. But He is ajTi©-, notwithftanding, in BuliL's Senfe of oi\n^t in the antient S:n('e of aiTi@*, when neccffary Cauics were ftilcd Cattfes ; And can d^ny Thing" be more ridiculous than to plead mticni: Phrafes, and not to rake them in their antient Senfe? Could not I, in This way, quote Dr. Clarke, Mr. iVhiflon t Mr. Emlyn, (and indeed whom nor?) as being perfedly in my Sentiments ; let me but put a Senfe upon their Words, as I plcafe, however con- trary to the known, certain Senfe of the Author's? Was there ever a v.ilder Method of fupporring an Hypothecs? ' You have fomething, ;>. 305, which is reafonably put, and deferves, ConGderation. I had prelTcd yon V\ath infuperablc DiOiculiies relaring to the Ommpre- jmccy and other undoubted Truths. To which you reply , that the Omni^refcncc is a Truth demon- Jiratcd by Reaon, and ^JJirmed in Scripture 'y which our Dodirine is not, at kaft not fo certainly: Th^c therefore tho* the Difficulties be equal , Here and There, yet the pfiivc Evidence is not. You'll forgive me, for putting your Argument fomewhat clearer, and ftronger than you had done. Now, to This I anfwcr, that our fojitive Evidence from Scripture is very great and full ; as hath been often iLewn. 1 will here men- tion but one Argument of it, viz.. Thar you have not been able to elude our Proof of the Sons Divinity, \\M:h- ouc eluding, at the fame Time, every Proof of the Fa- _^rier's Divinity alfo ; as 1 have fhown abovc^. Is not This a very (enfible, and a very affecting Demondration of the Streiigch of our Script fire -Proofs^ You add far- * Pag. X5:i, 2J2, ther^ Jjij; ;i^ Second Defjense Qu.IX: ther, that our Dodrine is impojjihlc to be underflood. A groundlefs Calumny, which I confured at large^. Js Omniprejence impoffible to be underftood, which you fay can be demonjiratedl or is our Dodrine more Iiard to be conceived than 'That is ? But you pre- tend an infuperahle Difficulty in our Scheme, that it jnakes more fupreme Gods than one : Which is ano- ther Calumny as groundlefs as the former. You ask, are not two fupreme Gods, tho* undivided, two lu- preme Gods ? Yes certainly ; but two fupreme Per^ Jons, that is Two equally lupreme in Nature^ ( tho* ^•not in Order ) and undivided in Subftance, are not Two Gods^ but One God, You add, that making one Subftance is not the fame Thing with making one God: To which it is fufficient to fay, How do you know ? Or how came you to be wifer, in this par- ticular, than all the Chriftian Churches early, and late f The Heathens^ you tell me, did not pretend that their iubordinare Deities, tho' Confubftantialy were equally fupreme. They were therefore the more filly In fuppofing them Cvnjubflantial, and not Supreme ; that is, of the Same Nature, and yet of a different Nature. But the Heathens were farther wrong in making more Deities than one, fupreme and inferior: Wherein you copy after Them, adopting their Poly theifm, and paganiz^ing Chriflianity as Dr. Cudworth ex- prefles it. You accufs me {p, 311.) ^% prefumptmufij calling my Dodlrine, the Boltrine of the BleJJed Trinity, in Op- pofition to yours. But why will you give your felf thefe afFeded Airs? Great Prefumptiony indeed, to be- lieve that the Catholick^ Church has kept the true Faith, while Eunomians, and Arims made Shipwreck of it. But it is high Prefumption in a few private Men to revive old Herefies, and to talk as confidently of thsm, as if they had never been confuted. A mo- deft Man would be apt to diftruft his own Judgment, * Pef(?nfe, Quer. irxi. p. 508, O'e^ whe^ Qu.lX. offomeqlJEKlES: jjj when it runs counter to fo many eminent Lights of the Chriilian Church, and has been fo often con- demned by the wifer and better Part of the Chriflian World. A becoming Deference would appear well in a Cafe of this Nature : Nor do I know any Thing lliort of InfaUibiliiy that can either warrant, or excufe this big way of talking which you affed to appear in. You intimate Cp. 311-) that it is not Reafoft, bur Scripture you appeal to; and that you will h^re jot» /Jp4c with mcy apart from Metaphyseal Hypothefes. Agreed : Difcharge then your Metaphyficks for the future ; let us hear no more of Self - exiftence , to divicie the Father from the Son ^ when Script nre tells us They are One. Let us no more be told, that Begetting is an yicl , and every yl^t is of the' JVill : This is all metaphjJicaL Wave all farther Difcourfe about Jpe- cifick^i and individual^ and intelligcr,!- j^gcnt y and the like , to hinder plain Chriltians from fecin.^ that Scripture makes no more Gods but one", never fnp- pofes the Son another God, nor admits Father and Son to be two Gods, Drop your Pretences about Subor- dination of Offices , as implying difrincfi: ^thoritiesy unequal Pov/cr, lyidependcnce on one Hand, Su'jetiion on the other : Such Keafonings are weta^hjficaL Led us hear no more, tiiat Three divine Peilons mud: be Three Verfonal Godsy Three Beings y Three Suhjiances ; and that there can be no Unity of Godhead, but /- denticJ perfonal Unity, confined ro one Pcrfon folely : Thei'e are Aietaphjficks ; deep, profound Metaphy- Jickl T^^^ ^^5 no more that Derived and underived powers cannot b? the fame Powers , nor any Equa- Uty {[Si^di with the dilHn.^ Relations or Offices of a Father and a Sen. Give up your famed Dilemma againfl: the Unity, that eac!^ Perfon muft be eiiher the fame^ whole, identical Subflance, or elfe an Homo- geneous undivided Part of That Subflance: And your Other Dikmm^, That the Perfons muft eithct have j3<5 ^ Second Defense Qu. IX. -^the fimt idem teal Lifey ordiftind identical Lives; neither cf which C you imagine) can ftand with our ;Prih- ciples. Thefe are abfirafl metaphyfical Speculations fuch as never difturbed the Churches of Chrill:, till many Years after They had profeffed their Faith in^ and paid tht'ir iForfjip to. Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft as the one true God. Wave thefe Things for the future, and we ihall readily join lillie with you upon Scripture alone; and fhall then believe that you mean what you fay, when you hereafter plead for the laying afide of Aietaphjficki' We defire no Metaphyficks bur in our ov/n neceflary Self-defenfe : If you begin in that Way , We muft alfo enter the Lifts in the fame Way, and oppofe fal/e Metaphyficks with true ; to fhow the World your Wandrings, and your In- confiftencies, even in what you moil: rely upon, and (tho* you v/ill not own it) almoft folely truft to. Q U E R T jQn.X. cffvmeQJJEKlES. 337 Q^U E R Y X. Whether y if they (the Attributes belonging to the Son) be not individually the Jhpe, they can he any th'mg more than faint Rejemhlances of them ^ differing from them as linhc from Infinite ; and then in what Senfe^ or ivith -what Truth can the Doctor pretend that all divine Powers, except abfolute Supremacy and In- dependency, are communicated to the Son? And whether every Beings hefides the one Supreme Beings mafi not necefjarily he a Creature and Finite 5 and -whether all divine Powers can he communicated to a Creature^ Infinite Verfc' ciion to a Finite Bcini ? I Find nothing in your farther Reply (which is no Re^i^) to This Querj-i but what I have fully ob- viated in my Defenfcy and now in my Anfwer to the other Queries above. All that the Reader can learn from what you have here faid, is, that if the Quef- tion be, v/hat it is not, viz. IVtoether the Son be the Father ; you have fomething to plead for the Nega^ tive : but if it be, as it really is, Whether the Son be a Creature and fimte ; you have nothing to (ay to ir. The Evidence is fo full and ftrong againll: you, that you dare not fubmit it to a fair Hearing. Allovv you but to wrap your felf up in ambigtiOHS Terms ^upre-- Trmcjy Self-exijhfjce, Individual, &c. and you aiv wil- ling to hold on a frivolous and tedious Difpute of no Benefit to the Readers : But bring you down to plain Senfe, and fixed Terms; then you draw off, and take your Leave. A Condul fuitable to fuch a Gaufe, but very unworthy of the Hands ingagcd in it. V V Q,u E R Y 33S ^fSEcoND Defense Qu. Xli Q^u E R y XL Whether if the DoBor means hy divine PcjverSy Fojvefs given by God (in- the fame Senfe as AfigelicaL Foivers are divine Powers) only in /? higher Degree thaii are given to other Beings ; it he not equivocatif^g , and faying nothing : Nothing that can come up to the Senfe of thofc Texts before cited^ or to thefe following .<* Applied to the one God rh on Tk even i mu , art Lord done ; Thou haji madt Heaven^ the Heaven of He a- *vens with all their Ho(li the £arth and all Things thai iire therein 3 8cc. Nell. 6. In the beginnings God created the Heavens and th £arihi Gen. i. I. IX. To God the Son* ^11 Things were made hy Him^ John i. 3. lij Hint were all Things created ; He is before all Things t and by Him allThingi confft, ColoiU i. 16, 17. ThoH^ Lord, in the Begin* ning^ hafl laid the Toundati* on of the Earth \ and the Hea^ yens are the Works of thy Handsy Heb, i. 10. TH E Qiieftions here were , what Dr. Clar^ meant hj Divine Powers , and whether his Meaning comes up to the Texts here cited. I am liow told, that the Divine Powers of the Son are not Q-nly in a higher Degree than Angelical Powers, but totally rf a different kind: For (let us obferve the lleafon) ^(i the Son is committed all Judgment p. 3 1 (j ; Well then , the Son's Divine Powers are at lafl dwindled into his OJf^?§ gi\m Him by God^ thciefote D^W;/ See Dr. Knighfc, firft Sermon Theoph. Antioch. 114. f ^ Origen. contr. Celf. p. 65. 25-7, Synod. Antioch. LabbeTom. p. 84^-. |te Qu.XI. cf fome QJJEKIES. ,41 the Text of Gemfi y Let us make Aian^ of all tlio ^ Three Perfons \ And whac did they mean by qivin^ the Son the Title of cruVCaA©^* Counfellor to the Father, in that Work I How much docs this come fhort of what I faid ? Nor can you make any thin^^ -more of oivJiVTU (a Word which rarely occurs) or of ^H^oritas'\i (which is ufed oftner) than the Pre-emi- nence of the Father as Father, his Priority of Order, When you wrote before, you were confident that the Son was not ftiled 'TCoiyiTyi^ rm c\m : And this you noted, to confirm your Fiction, that the Father only ^rWas ejficient Caufe, the Son inflrHmentaL You have ^ been lince convinced of your Error by plain Tcfli- monies given you in great Numbers*"^. But ftill you go on in your Pretence about efficient and inftrumentd^ notwithftanding '^oi>j7>i^) which you had before allowed to be exprelTive of the efficient Caufe. Now the DefecS: is, that the Son is not 0 '7CQi>]Tiis : And neither is That true, for I cited Eufebins for 0 '7toiy\Tys applied to God the Son. I have fpoke of ^i before, and fo here pafs it over. You are perfuading me that even Cjril of Jerufdem , whom 1 quoted in my Defcnje (p. 183.) is exprefsly againft me. Ridiculous to any that know Cyril : You can mean This only for fuch as do not read. If there is Any thing to be fufpedcd of Cyril y it is rather his excluding the Father from being Creator , than the Son from being efficient. But the late learned BenediEiine Editor has fufficicntly cleared up Cjril*% Orthodoxy on That Head ft. I * Ircn. p. 292. Clem. Alex. 769, 852." Tcrtullian. contr. Hermog. p. 18. Theoph. Antioch. p. 129. Hippolyt. Vol. 2. p. 15. t Inlinuatur nobis in Patre AucJorltas, in Filio Nativitas, in Spiritu Sandlo Patris Filiique CommunitftSt in Tribus JEqualitas* Auguft. Serm. 1 1 . ^■'f Defenfe p. 189. tfDiirert. 3,p. 139, d'^ , ,^ char£>ed^ '34a -4^8 EcoND Defense Qu. XT; charged ^ you with oppofing effcunt to mini rim Caule; either very unskilfully, or very unfairly. Now you would feem to come off by making the Father efEcient, by -way of Eminence, Why then did you not allow Both to ^be efficienti and leave the Eminence on- ly to the Father, that the Readers might underftand you, and that I might fave ray felf the Trouble of difputing That Point? Let but Both be equally ef^ fdent, and as to the Eminence of Order in the Effci-* ency (which is all you can make of it) I readily af? fenc to ir. You tell me of Origens making the Father 'ttpcctd^ i\)Uis^yUy the firfi and principal Creator: As if O- rigen admitted two Creators. But if you mean not to de- ceive your Readers, you lliould tell, them, that Origert never ufes the Phrafe of tt^Stc^ ^\^sgyo$^ but where He is retorting upon his. Adverfary Pagan Teftimo-^ Dies in the Pagan Stylet; as was proper to do. But when Origen fpeaks in the Chrijiian Style, and is de- livering his own Senfe ; it is then "ti^^cowos hijuui^^'p^ pimarilj Creator **. You have fomething miore ta Tirge from Origen , that the Son was oturyg^^j^ imnediate Worker in the Creation. Well then, I hope the Son was efficient , and, by your Reprefentation > more pjoperly lo than the Father, who only gave out Commands. Arc you fenfible of whg^t you are doing \ Or have you a mind, at length, thro' your great Zeal in attributing to the Father the Command-, ing Part only , to make Him properly no Creator at ali? If you ftrain the Expreilions of the j^ntients to the utmoll: Rigour , That muft be the Confe- quence. Be content therefore to allow a proper Latitude of Conftrudion, and ^. iignificant Myftery in Thefe Things. But I have obviated all you hav& •* DefenC 1B3. i Ovigen. contr. CelfT p. 508. ** Origcn. contr. Celf. p. 317.J /aid Qa. Xr; cffome Q^U E R I E S." 54^ faid upon This Topick, about the Rirhcr's com- manding, elfe where*. You quote Etijcbim again, his Demonflratio Ev,wgdka» which is of no Confi- derarion v/ith me at all. What if He ftiles the Son IfyavsK, does Ke not ftilc Him hfnb!^yy,f/.x too, in the fame piece, tho* He contradiffcd it again after- wards ? why mull: Enfebius be thought to fpeak the Senfe of the A^tients^ efpecially in Things where He manifeftly ran Counter to the anticnt Dodrine ? You may fee this very Notion of the Son*s being ogycjaat condemned by the famous Synod of Antioch f long before Eufehiui wrote. I value EHfchita in many Things; but not where He attempted to d;prave and corrupt the Dodrine of his CathoHck Predeccf- fors; perhaps to gratifie fom.e Novchfls, before He had well coniidered what He was doing. Hov/ever, if any one has a Mind to fee what mild Conftructi- on may be put upon That Exprellion of Eujcbhis^ He may confult Bp. Bull and Dr. Cavt ^*. For my own Part, I think, the beil: Defence ro be made for him is, that he feems to have grown wiftr afterwards. You charge Bafii with Weaknefs, for making Actiui the Inventor ft of the Diflindion between uttc and ^i. But w^here v/as %7/'s Miflake .? You fay, Origen^ Eh- febius , and Philo infift upon it. But Philo's is only general, Vv'ithout Application to This Cafe: And On- gin's and Enfebiuss amount to no more than a Vre^ eminence of the Father as fuch. They do not carrv it to a Difference of Natnre, as A'etins did § ; and you * Sermons p. 71. icrjTToTZiTii' yivt^ffzitrei; f/Af ra Tctr^o^ rot iiot o>^ i^^Kmr i«*'/rt«>, Mti itv^TZjUTiy, ivifySvrac TX 7rx*rcc i% Trunv. ** Bull. D. F. p. 2^6. Cav. Dilf. 3. p. 66. f\- BiHl. de Sp. Sindio p. 14.^, &c. 4 The Syncdicon Vetus agrees wirh B;ifil'i Account of Aetim. *0 ^p ^«xx^.r^5 'Ei?zi6i'^ A>T.o>^e/«?, ix. ^ ttxo uCt^ Ikt^I*- r^ ka-it^^ rifJijiSr ec^ofjuonv Myo-.r^ to i| «, ^ tf/ jj, re» uSi^* Fk- c-i^icv oiK^ty^t Kiti AtVwy, S^noj VeUi5. ap. Fabric, B. Gr. Vol. 544 ^ Second Defense Qu.XIIi aifo do : You do it indeed under other Terms, but as plainly, while you deny the Necejfary - exiflence of the Son. You will find none higher than Attius^ or Eufsb'iHS of Nicomedia, to countenance you in it. There is nothing more that is material, under This Query. You have not been able to take off the Force of what is urged from Scripture and uintiquity for the Son's creative Po-wers : And that creative Powers arc divine Powers, in quite another Senfe than the Dodor and you ufe the Phrafe, in the equivocating way, will be feen as we pafs on. i(^ U E R Y XIL whether the Creator of all Things was net Him^ felf uncreated*^ and therefore could not be g^ i)L 'L'^rmy made out of nothing ? AS to your complaint of m.y wording This Query , and my ftiling Chrift the Creator of all Things ; I refer to my Sermons * where I have proved the Thing, and to my Defcnfe f where I have Ihown that it is the Language of All Antiquity, to flile Him Creator ^ and not barely In your deceit- ful way, Him, by whom God Created all Things, while you inform us not what you mean by it. You fay* you alJirtn not (nay, you blame thoje that prefpime to (^Jfirm) that the Sua of God 7vas created^ ar that He ■ ■* Sermon 2.d and 3d. t Defenfe, p. 187, &^ Second Defense Qu.XII. mod: of them> as favouring thcfc Sentiments; which He is not ^fraiJ, nor ajhamed (while maintaining, as He believes, the Honour of ih^ great God) to call his own. After long and deliberate coniidering the Queftion of the Son's being a Creature or no Crea' ture^ the Argument He mainly depends on* with re- fped: to the Sentiments of the Anttents , is This : The univerfal Application of the Words in Prov, viii. 22. The Lord created me the Beginmng of his wajs, I ^c, by the anticnt Chriftians , to the Creation o£ I Chrift by God the Father. And indeed, hardly any ' thinj^ cdn be brought out of the Anrients, at all look- ing like it, but what is either the Application of, or allufion to This Text. The Argument then is This: The Text in the Proverbs has gV.Tjar, according to the Seventy : The Fathers, knowing little or no He- brew 3 followed That rendring: e;-c Tiers llgnifies crea- ted: Therefore the Fathers, lin general, believed and taught that the Son is a Creature, The Argument would be irrefragable, if the Word g/tiroi, as it might fjf^nify v/hat is pretended, could be lliown to have been fo underftood by the Fathers. But if created^ may fgnify appointed, or conjlitated (as in good Latin Authors, Conjpdsy Captains^ jViagifirates are faid to be eated, and we fometim>es ufe the Word in Englijlj creating a Peer, or creating any Officer) and it may be certainly fhov/n that fome Fathers fo underilood ir, and no Proof can be given that Any of them underftood it otherwife; then i\\zrQ will appear iud\ a Fhw in the Argument, as the Wit of Man will not be able to make up. We have it upon record , that This very Point csme to be confidered about the middle of the Third Century, by Dionjfns of Rome-[, (with his Clergy) who fearing, upon the nk of Sabeliia- nifm, left fome lliould run into the oppofite extrenie ©f making the Son a Creature^ fa-ft condemns all fuch * See Mr. \Vhi!lon'j Rpp^y to Lord Ncttir.g':r.m, p. iS. f A pud AtliiV.uf, p. ^}^■ DoctrinCj yxre ^of Qu.XIL offome QU E R I E S. 347 Doiftrine, as higheft Blafphcmj, and next anfvvers what had been urged by fome tvom This Texr, cx- prfiring Himfelf as follows : '« And what need 1 iiy *' more of thefe Things to you , Men full of the ** Holy-Ghoft, and well knowing what Ablurdicics " follow upon the fuppolltion of ihe Son's bcinr^ a ** Creature? To which the Leaders in Tiiat Opi- *' nion feem to me not to have well attended , and *^ fo they have very much eired from the I'ruth ; '' interpreting that place The Lord created me the Bt- A*^ ginning of hislfajs, not according to the meaning of /*^ the ciivine and facred Writ. For, as you know I <' iKTidi h a Word of more Senfes than one , ix.TiC^ ^*' created, here finnds for tTCc'T^,^ appointed, over ■** the Works (God; had made by riie Son Himfelf. " The Word ex. 77 75 is no: here to be undjrilood to ^' be the fame as iTvo^y^n : for Trj!-/icrxi and x,na-oci arc " very different". Here we find ho\y Tiiat Text was underfiood by the mioff conhderable Men of the Churcli about the Yesr 259. And let it not here be obiected, that the piece is of doubrful Credit, bccaufe extant only in yilhindftts : Tor no body that knows any thing of yitha:7Ajms, and is not llrangely bigotrcd to an Hypothc/is , can fufpefc any foul play in This Matter. It u the lefs to be fufpeded here, bccaufe, as I lliall ihow pre- fently, ^thanajius did not intirely approve of this ^•'Conftrudion of DioKjJins^ and would certainly n^ver have forged an Interpretation different from his own, Belldes, it is obfervable that EnfebtHSy in his famous Piece againfl: A'larcelhuy interprets That Tcxc in the very fai^e manner as Dionjfim had done; defen- ding it at large* by feveral parallel Places of Scripture, He interprets ex-Tiai by ;taTB ra^si' , and xaTccpjo-ei' , appointed^ or confiitHtcd, So that v/e have very great reafon to believe that This was the prevailing and % Eufeb. contr. Marcell. p. i5'o, i_)-f« X X 2 curreo; 348 -'^ Second Defense Qu.XIL current Conftrudion of Prov, viii. 22. in the -^»?e-r y;icc}ie Chinch. Wljat confirms it is, that They all iinderftood ^^^X'^'v ^^"^ ^^^^ u4tiive Senfe, for Htad or Principle, juft as DionjCius and EttjebiHi do : And fo ihe Senfe is, that the Father appointed the Son Head over dl his Worlds. That this was the Senfe of dtX^ ^11 along, may be proved ^ from Juftin^ ThcophiluSy Tatiany Clemens^ Orige>7^ and Methodius^ to name no more : Which Confideration is alone fiifficient in the Cafe, when there is no pofitive Proof en the other fide. Only I mufl: add farther, that clear and ftrong Paflages may be brought, h'om the Fathers in general, to prove that they believed the Son to be uncreated. Seeing then that This 1 cxt may bear fuch a Senfe as has been mentioned ; feeing it was certainly fo interpret- ed by forae, and no reafon appears lor Mr, Whiflons Interpretation at all ; but the Senfe of f, as un- derAocd by the Antients, is intirely againft Him, as alfo many ckar Tcllimonies of the Son's being un- crerited : Thefe Confideiarions put together are e- riough to fbiow that there is no Force in the Argu- men't drawn from the Fathers following the LXX, and reading g^tTio^ in That Text. But I farther promifed to give feme Account of Athanafms-i in relation to This Text ; becaufe Mr. Whifion "t has been pleafed to fay fome very hard, and indeed unjufl: Things of Him , in relation hereto. Athanafim could not be at a lofs to know the mean- ing of i^ncn, which had been fo well explained both by Dionjftus^ and Eufebius, He therefore clofed in with ,the common Interpretation, as fignifying u^ppointed, or ,/ Confiituted "^ ^. But then He underftood the appointing to be to the Work oi Redemption only , not the Work * See Bull, D. F. p. 210. f Reply to Lord Nottingham, p. 29. ** Athanaf. Orat. 2. p. fi2o Qu.XII. cffom QUERIES. 3^<^ of Creation : At IcaO, He makes no mention of the latter. He feems to have been apprehcnfive that the Notion of appomting to the Work of Creation might found too low : And indeed , many of tha Ariam fcrupled nor to fay as much, ac leaft, in Words. Athanafim thought the way of fpeaking not fo proper , his Notion being that the Father could no more create without the Son ^, than ex- ift without Him ; Both being alike necefTary : And therefore Appointing w^as not fo proper a Word for it. This Principle He lays down in the very fame Oration y where He at large comments upon Prov. viii. 22. Nevcrthelefs it may be faid, That this great Man might perhaps be too fcrupulous in This Mat- ter. Cyril t of Jerufalem ("whole Orthodoxy is un- queftionable) fcruples not to alTign a Rcafon why the Son was appointed to create : And it has been ufual with all the Chriftian Writers to reprcfent all O/- fices as defcending from the Father to the Son. Athanafitis Himfelf allows that God the Son wrought in the Creation, upon the Father's iifuing out his Fiat^ or Comrriand for it : As alio do feveral other Poji-nicene Writers* ''^. This in reality comes to the fame Thinij * 'Ovic vi^uvccro Ui\ Ji' ^^uToZ yivioj^ tx ^f/ttttpy^f/fCdTx. xxSunp yajp TO ^iiSfyi]!nv. Ivx t;}^^ ra Tmr^i 7>,f x6h*r^K^1 i^noiXfm td e iiOi; ^ TTxMt \^\n i^^aixr reiv iSiuf ^^ifJt^m^ijiMUTejr, &C. Theodorit's Account of This Matter, appears to be as juft, and accurate as Any. ''Or/n 0 TTxnip /3oy)6(ix^ o'icOjtvo^ xxf^e* e)ix viou, ifTi 6 iu^ j5o>)*}t.*< X^*iC"*> *^'C" ^^ ^ TToiOfJUX-nx;, a quam Terrcftria, non quvo cceperit efle in Deo. Croat a efi: ergo Sapientia, imo genitas non libi qu;^ kMnper efar, lei his qux ab ea fieri aportebar. Hilar. Diacon. apud Ambrof. p. 549. t Quod creat.% ell Sapientia, ad Myftcrium vel rerum Crean- iUnim, vel Humeri a Jyifpenfat'tonis inteilege: quam cum Dei Sa- pientia dignaater adfumit, creata, dicitur. Fauftin. contr. Arian. c. 6. p. 15-3. Sapicnna cum Create dicitur, non fabflantia ejus quafi qux non crjt, tacla eR ; lei ipu cxiilcns creata ejl Imtmrn Viarum in ope- /A C'HS. Ibid. He Qu.XII. cf feme qlJEKlES. 3^1 He was not indeed of Aritts's Notions. But what then? You pretend, that your Notions were not Anui'% : So you would Hill have your Reader ap- prehend that Thofe Fathers might have been in jour Notions; whereas Bp. i5;///, in his Confutation of thofe Scandals^ (nioft of them Alifre^ortSy and fome of them malicious Tales and Lies) has eife^/ually prevented their b:ing really ferviceable either to Arius's Caufe, or Yours: Which in reality (however you difguife the Matter ) are the very fame. The Conduficm you draw from this heap of Stuff, is pret- ty remarkable : It evidently fuoivs , that thofe amient Fathers had not entertained Jach a ccnftifed Notion as yopt are lalonring to introduce of the Creator of all Thingi : Whereas it is evident, to a Demonflration, that my confufed Notion (as you unrighteoufly call it) was the very Notion which all thofe Fathers had: Or, if you think otherwife, why did you not diftinct- ly iliow where They contradid it, inftead of producm^:^ a deal of Idle Tales, which, (tho' you would have your Pvcader lay fome Srrefs on) you your felf dare not undertake to defend ? Where is the Confequence to be drawn from fuch Premifes ? As let us fee, The Apojiolical ConJhtfition.fi which are fpurhns and intcrpolaied by fome Ariany have faid fomcthing ; Therefore CT'C. A^ehto is faid to have wrote 'tt^Ia x.Ti(Ji(e$ XtATBy which learned Men doubt of; and neither Rtifinus nor Jcrom would al- low ; Therefore C7c. Clemens lias been charged with fome Things of which He was very innocent; There- fore c^c. Bionjfiiis had Enemies that told Lies of Him, abufed rlim , and mifreprefentcd his Words and fome honefi: Men were deceived thereby ; Therefore err. Gregory jikewife met with fome that perverted his Words, (as many have perverted our Articles^ or LitHrgj ) Therefore 6^^. In fitort , fe- veral other very Orthodox Men have been either falfely charged, or wrongfully fufpe:ted : 7'herefore undoubtedly Dr. IVaterUnd is ir:iftaken in lu.po- isz ' A Second Defense Qu.XIL fing Them to have been Orthodox, I refer the Rea- der to Bp. Bfill, who has abundantly anfwered what relates to thefe trifling Accufations. Only, becaufe you Teem to infult and triumph the moft, m rerpe6b of Origeft; I lliall be at the Trouble of giving the Reader feme Account of that great Man and his Wri- tings, and their hard Fate in the World, Origeft was one that wrote much, and fometimes in Hafte: And it might be no great wonder if fome un- cautious Things might fometimes drop from Him ; or if his Vv^ritings, paffing through ignorant or ma- licious Hands, might be otherwife reprefented than He intended , or wrote. He complained of fuch Mifreprefentations in his Life-time ; and made an Apology for Things of that kind in a Letter to Pope Fabian, about the Year 248. The Dodrine of a coerernal and confubftantial Trinity could be no new Ti ing at That Time. It appears by the famous Cafe of DionyfiPis-, but about Ten Years afters that it was the fettled Faith of the Church; and that the generality, at leafl, were extreamly jealous of the Appearance of any thing that feemed to break in iicon it. Origens Works however were flill in great tfleem; and it does not appear that, for many Years after his Death, they were ever charged with Hete^ rodoxy in That Article. Gregory TbdumaturguSy and DiO" njfiHs of Alexandria^ whofe Orthodoxy in that DoCtrme has been abundantly vindicated by Bp. BnlU w^ere great Admirers of the Man, and of his Writings. Aietho^ dim, about the Year 290, (a Man of 01-thodox Prin- ciples) began to impugn fbme of Origens Doclrines • but laid nothing to his Charge in relacion to tlie 7r/-» nity. About the Year 308, He firft began to have Articles drawn up againft Him ; and among the fe* veral Charges, there were fome upon That Head* Pamphihis and Eufebius then undertook to apologize for Him; not by juflifying any thing that feemed to IclTen the Divinity of the Son or Holy-Ghofl:, but by ihowing from Origens own Writings , that Flis Do whine Qu. XII. cffo;?^eQlJEKlES. 355 bodrine was on the fide of ChriR's Divinity, and again!) the Holy-Ghofl's being a Creature, liiis ap- pears from the Remains we have of That Apolorit according to Rufpns Tranflation ; who profcflcs fo- lemnly that He did not add a Syllable, but made a juR and literal Tranflation. So that tho' Rti^^n% other Verfions, where He profefTcs to have taken a liberty, are the lefs to be depended on, This is cf ano- ther kind, and may more fecurely be coniiJcd in: From whence I would take notice by the way, that even Eujehius at this Time > before the Ilife of the Arian Conrroverfy, appears to have been very Oitho- dox. I know there is an Objcaion to be made out of Jercm : which the Reader may fee anlwcred in Bp. BhII"^. After PamphilHs , we find mention made of Ano- ther ^pologift t, a very orthodox JVlan himfclh i\\ jerpe(5l of tiie Trinity, even in the Judgment of Pho- tins I who was ufcd to judge too leverely fometimes of the Antients, comparing their Exprellions too n- gidly with thofe in ufe in his own Times. That Apolo(iifl acquits Origen as to any erroneous Doctrine in the Article of the Trinity: Only He allows that Origens Zeal againll: Sabcl'ii.uifat might fomctimci draw Him into ExpretTions that feemed to go too far the other way. Let us now come down to the Ari^tn Times. About the Year 3^0, or later, the Arians endeavour to gain fame Countenance from Origefi's Writings : And fome of the more zealous Catholicks of tlie Eufiathian Party, who were for pro- feiling one Hjpojtajis , had no Opinion of Origen, The Reafcn, I prefume^ was, becaufe Origen every where iniifts uoon the dlfii:^ci:iGn of Pcrlons very much, and feemed not very rcconcilcnble to the Eu- JiMhiait way of prot'^.^fn ng one IJjpnjlnJiS'. Origen ■* Bui: Def. F. p. iir. f rhotius, Co'J. U7. p. 2^5. y J there- 35,4- -^ Si'COND Defense Qu. XII, therefore was much out of flivour with That more ripid part of the Catholicks ,• who differed from the reil: in ExpreJJion rather than real meaning , as ap- p>eared fully afterwards^. Athanafms all the while flood up for Origen, and vindicated his own Docflrine from Or/>f«'s VVritings f- Gregory Naz.ianz.en , and Bafd were Both of them Friends of Origen-, defending his Orthodoxy againfl the Arians^"^, This was about the Year 2,60. And tho* Bajil thought Origcn's Notion of the Hoiy-Ghofi not to have been altogether found, yen He objecls nothing againfl Him in refpecl of God the Son : And as to the Holy-Chofl^ He yet quotes Paflages from Him where Origen fpoke conformably to the Dodrine and Tradition of tkc Church tf. And poffibly, the other fufpeded Paflages might not be Origen s own. Titt4s of Bojlra , another orthodox Man of that Time, was an Advocate of Origen, About 370, flourifhed Didjmusy v/ho is known to have been very zealous for the orthodox Dodrine of the Trinity, and zealous alfo for Origen i looking npon Thof'e as weak Men, and of fmall fagacity, that fufpe^ed Origen on That Head §. Hitherto we have found no coni^derahle Men thai condemned Origen as Heterodox in the Dodrine of the Trinity. The Ca- tholicks of greatefl Nam.e and Reputation alTerted the contrary. I.et us come a little lower, to the Year 380, and \ve fnali now perceive a Storm gatherings chiefly, I prefume, by the Means and the Intereli of the Et4^ flathiansy who had difliked Origen from the firfl, Epiphanius^ about this Time, was drawn m to be a ■^ Vid. Arhanalium ad Antiochenos, f. 773. Grcgor. Nazianz. Orar. 22. p, 596. Or. 51. p. j-it, + AchanaC de Dccret. Syn. N* p. 232. -■-* F/./. Socvat. i^crl. H. 1. 4. c. 26. p. 246. tf Balil. de S'r)' Sanfi:. c. 29. p. 219. § Vui. PJieror.vin, Tom-, 4* p* 347, ^^y, 409. Partjr Qii. Xir. of fome QU E 11 1 11 S. 355 Parry in the Qitarrel agajnfl: the Orljjnijh-y and laid fevere Charges againfl Origcn , even with rtfpcui: to the Docftrine of the Trinity. Rtijjhius , at the fame Time, was a zealous Advocate for Origcns ortho- doxy ; Himfelf, as is well known, a i\ntTi(^cB) may admit that Senfe of Appointh'ig, or Or- daining^ rather than Creating. And upon the Words jof the Pfalm, create in me a clean Heart, O God, He obferves, that this is not faid as if the Pfalmifi's Heart was then to begin to exifl, but what was before, fiiould be cleanfed. You will pleafe to remember how highly you refented my quoting Socrates for Eufcbius's Opi- nion, feemingly contradidory to Etifebius's other Te- nets, You have here quoted a fliort Sentence but of an Index of a Eook, not publifhed to fpeak for it (elf; and have given it a Conftrudion ffatly contrary ro. what Enfehius undoubtedly taught in his Piece againfl: A/arcell;is; namely, that Prov, viii. 22. was not to be iinderllocd of creating^ in the Senfe you pretend. As to what you cite from Him in refped of xhc Holj^Gho^y I know not whether it may admit of a candid f Conftruclion. He was certainly miflaken , if He took That Dotlrine, fuch as you underfland it, to be the Do'flrine of the Church. But it is out of my Compafs to treat of the Divinity of the Holy-Ghofh To conclude i I referred ^"^ you to Ignatitts, Athena^ ■* *Ei ^i Agyo' ««7/c^ oiu'ni, ^%cic> U^ ^.'n ovT'^eic, ro d-Jcif Ttzi^iX- hojv, t»t' itv fi'vTBj. «(^ ax; ofAQiUf, 'm<, XciT^Tq x^na-^crt, i^ uuroe, Ik y fj^n tW(^ JtycifiJ?, ^ tine, cux. c^S-Si; vrci>^yi(peCTiv, ecXX' ac, 'v(pi'^% ^jiv xKi C^av, iiatsoov rs Kobi TTftovTrocp^^av ry.^rS 'PIUvto^ HS^^f^^ avT'^nuc,", i'jcTiarv {•ATocZGx u'jtI J KurtTzn^f*, *) y.UTi. j-^. Sec. ** Defenfe, p. 191. gorasx Qu. X lir. of feme Q_U E R I E S. 359 ^oras, IrefhiUSy Origcn^ Dionyfius of Rome^ Diomfiui of Alexandria^ ThcogmfiHS, and AleihodJus ; as exprefs Au- thorities againft the Dodrine of the Son's being a Creature. As to confequential and indire^i Teflimonies againfl ir, They are numberlefs; and have been pro- duced by Bp. BhU^ Le Adojne^ NoHrrjy and many others, in this Controverfy. To This you have oppofed fuch Evidence as Bilhop 5//// has already anfwered, and You will not ftand by, or engage to defend; but have ra- ther own'd to be indefenfible. Only, you think fon^e Advantage you fhould make of it ; which feme Ad- vantage is yet very unfair^ and not regularly or di- Jiincilj laid down by any certain Confequence, but is meerly a confufed and precarious Conclufion. Upon the v/hole, every Honefi Reader will eafily perceive on what fide He ought here to determine* Q^U E R Y XIII. Whether there can be af^y Middle let-iveen lehig made out of nothing , and out of fomcthing ; that isy between bemg out cf Notbhig^ and out I of the Father s Siibflajice^ between being cfien- I tially God, and being a Creature; Whether^ confeqtientljy the Son niuft not be cither cllcn- tially God, cr elfe a Creature \ IF any Man %vanted an Inftance of the Power of AfFedions or Prejudice in holding out againft Co«- vlition-, or if there were not too many lamentable Examples of it in Hiftory, Sacred, and Profane; I v/ould recommend to Him the Pcrufal of what you have j6o ^ Second Defense Qu. XIIL have under this Qiiery, to give Him a very lively Example and Idea of it. You begin with telling nie> ther£ are many Dilemmas, in Metaphyiicks, PJiy- ficks, md Theology, whrcm it way be very pre^ fumptmus to determine ahfoltitely which part of the Dilemn^a is the Truth, Had you refted Neater in This Controverry, your Plea v/ould have appeared the better : But as you have determined on one fide> and in virtue of fuch Dilemmas as are neither half fo dear, nor half To certain as Tiiis is, you have no Pretence left of That kind. You Ihould therefore tell me, what Medium there js between being ejfentially God^ and being a Creature ; or elfe own the Son a Creatrrre. We do not thus fhifc and fliufflle with You, when you prefs us 'mth Dilem- mas, Derived or under ivedy we fay derived: Being pv mt Beings we (ay Being: NeceJJary or not necej- ^ Jary m Exiflence j we fay necejfary : fclf-exiftent or not felf-exifient ; we fay not felf-exiflent. Supreme God or ut.}Z Jupreme God: we fay fupreme God. And wliat- ever invidious Terms, or however liable to be mifun^ derflood, you put the Queftion in, flill w^e anfwer frankly, and difcover our Minds. And what can be the rcaibn ol: the Difrtrence betv/ecn your Conduct and ours, but that We deGre to be open, and plain j and You love difguifes? We have a Caufe which we know we can defend. You are confcious that you liave nor. We are jnftly fenlible what Advantage you every where make by putting the Queflion$ whether God the Son he the jupreme Gody or That fn^ preme God f I. The Expreffion is apt to inflnuate to the liea- der a Notion of Tvo Gods^ fupreme and inferior : On whJch fuppofition the Son certainly could not be the fupreme, z. It is farther apt to confound the Reader, as in- fJniuning eitlier that we fuppofe the Son to be the fupreme Father Himfelf, or elle that x.\\q fupremacy of Oraey-i or Office, belonged equally to Both, Yet we bear Qu. XIII. of fame Q^UERIES. 361 bear with your rlius unequally, and partially v/ordint; the Queftion ; b.nng content to admit it with proper Diftinftions, and to aflert that God the Son is ne fn- premc God^ or evea That jkpreme God, as you are plea- ied to word it for us. And why iliouki not you as pliinly own, th.u you make the Son a Creafwc; there being no imaginnbJe Medium between uncreated and created ^ between God and Creatm'e\ Yet .you pretend to be ai guinea only againil the Son's being ellentially God, or jnprcme God, and not to be arguing for his being a CVf^- ffire-/ tho' They come to the fame Thing dificr- ently expreffed. You tay, p, 2138, th.ere lies a Fal- lacy in my Words, cjfentidij Gcd. As Mow ^ Show v/here the Fallacy is. You fay , the Words ought to mean felf-exifieytt in fuch a Scnfe as the Fatlier 6lo>je is. Well then; if you xAt filf-exiflence and rteccjfa^ ry-exiflence to fignify the lame Thing, you of con/equence allow no Afedium , but that the Son mult either be the Father Him (ell 5 or ellb a Crea^ ttire. Why do you not therefore fay plainly He is a Creature I You will ask then, whether I would prove that the Son is the Father Hlmjdf, in proving Him to be no Creature^ No. But when I liavc prov- ed That Point (as is eafily done, and has been done a Thoufind Times) it will then be apparent how ab- furd and wild your Notion is tliat there is no Aie^ dmrn- between God t\\t Father , and a CreMnre, \ {\y then, that there neither is nor can be any Audi- 14m between being Nectjfarily - cxifthig, and being a Creature: And tlurerorc llncc you allow nothing to be Jieceffary but tlie Father, you plainly maW 1 Crea- ture oi: the Son. Indcnd of anfwcnng Ti.is plain Argument, you do nothing biit evade, and lliilt in fuch a manner, as Hiows only that you are afraid of coming to the Point, and of pikting the Ccntroverfy on a fair lHue: which is highly dilingenuous. Were I to abufe my Readers at This Rate, how would 5^ou infult) and look upon it as no better than giving Z z u) 362 A Second Defense Qii. XIII rp the CcUife. I told you before^, and now tell you rgain, that you affert evidently, and by immediate nccefiary Conlequence, " That the Maker, and Re- ^' deemer, and Judge of the whole World is a Creci-- *•' ture^ is mutable and corruptible, depending intire* •^ ly on the good pleafure of God, has a precarious «' Exiftence and dependent Powers, ignite and limit* *' ed ; and is neither fo perftd in his Nature, nor *' fo exalted in Priviledges, but that the Father may, *« when He pleafes, create Another, Equal, or even *< Superior to Him. 7'his is no unrightcoas Rcprefentation^ nor appealing to the Prejudices of the Ignormit Vulgar .* You know it is not : But it is laying down the plain naked Truth. And it ought to be founded in the Ears and rivetted in the Thoughts of all that come to read you; that They may be deeply fenfible what you are doing, and whether it is that you are leading Them. Thefe are not Things lliocking to xVo, Vulgar only, nor (o much to the Vulgar as to the wifePr, and moft confideratc, and moft rehgious Men. In fhort, they are fuch a Weight upon your Hjpcthejis^ as have ever funk and bore it down among the fober part of Man- kind : And they will ever do fo, as long as true Piety, and fobriety of Thought, having any Footing in the World. This you are fenfible of; and are therefore forced to wink hard. You are next endeavouring to retort ; which is your conflant Method when you are non-pluffed^ and have no dired: anfwer to give. I ajjerty you fay, mam fupreme Gods in one undivided Suh (lance* Ridi- culous : They are not manj Gods, for That very rea- fon, becaufe their Subftance is undivided. Is there no Difference between charging plje Confequences and iVfie ones? Make you out the Confequence which you pretend, at your Leifure : Mine is k\£' evident, and makes h ielf. You Qu. XIIL of fome Q^U E fe. I E S. 363 You run off (p. 341.) to fome foreign Thing; 'which have been anlwercd in their Place. You ta Jc of u^Hthority^ and Di^mty j not ^clhng us what you mean by them, whether of Order and Ofjiccy or of Nature 'y tho' it is «bout the lail only, that we ar: inquiring. I fuppofc, if there be ever f) many Tc- fiimonies in Antiquity, for the Son's Vncreatcdmfs y Conjfthftayjti.tlitjf y Eternit) y Nsccjfiry - exijlence y 0mm' frcjhjcey OmnipoHncey and other divine Attributes ; all mufl: yield to a few Equivocations, and (^ibbles, a- bout Authority and Dignity: Which if you had once defined and fixed to a determinate Meaning (as eve- ry ingenuous Man would have done) it would have been prefently feen whether Any Teftimony you produce were pertinent or no ; or rather, that none of them are pertinent. As to Bufih whom you pretend *o cite, it is certain he did not mean by k'^iosixcLif what you mean ; lor He a'Dfvjlutely denies, that the Father is greater in rcfpect of Dignity *, mcar.ing ejfential Dignity : And He particalarly excepts a- gainft your Notion of making the Soi Suhjaty rnd cenfures Etuaomitis fmartly , for taking from Him thi Dignity of Dominion, T>b' Sia-TCOTWi^ tj oL^iVax. In another Place, He fpends a whole Chapter in Confu- tation of that very Notion you are contendmg for; proving that God the Son is united in Natttrcy in Glory, in Dignity t With the Father, of equal Honour and Authority *^ . I had told you , that an eternal Stibflance, not divine y and a Son made out of />, was, 7vhat yoH mufl meany or mean nothingif. This you confute by calling it a Calumny y ridiculous y and ttn- •k *AAA«5 f/tjiyiH uiiv 6 ritr^ip tow lioS chc u> A«:f^H;j uuti^uf, i- czofjijoc'roq ycip • •kXh' o-jH ot^iOtijuxTi^ oi yip lysuTt o ctTK ii» ^ori. Balil. contr. Eun. 1. 4. & Lib. i. p. 236, ed. BcneJ. •\- Ta) ec^iQff/(jXri cwf/j/x/i/jsvov. •k-k ^u,&^ovov yj oyjortfjuov^ 'TO T?? tt^icCi oyjri'/jcy. Bifll. dc Sp. Sanfto c. 6. ft Defenfe, p. ii.*. 364 -^ Second Defense Qu. XIV^ jufl ; which is a very eafy way of Confutation. Let the Reader fee the Reafon why you had nothing to offer but hard Words. You deny the Son's being of x\\<^ fame div'me Stibftance that the Father is; you al- low Him not to be neceffarily-exifling ; you deny his being out of nothing. Let any Oedipus make other Senfe of This put together, than what I made of it^ (^U E R Y XIV. Uloether Dr. Clarke, 'yvho every -ivhere denies the Coijftihfta'ntifi'litj of the Son as abfurd a?id con^ iradiclory , does not of Con fe queue e affirm the Son to be a Creature , g^ ^x, tyrcov , and fo fall under his oivn Cenfurc , and is Self con^ dmmcd ? ERE, being confcious that This Charge is jufl, you can give no direct Anfwer ; but, as lu'ual, mult retreat to little Shifts, and poor Evafi- ons. I fufficiently explained the true Senfe, and my Senfe of Confuhfimtiality in my Defenfe ^ p. 4^1, 4(52. Yet now you pretend to complain you under- fiand not what I mean by Confubftantiality : Whereas, tlie Truth is, you underfland it fo well as to know * Qui Filium de Patris Subflantia natum denegant, debciit uti- cjuc diccre unde arbitrentur Dei Filium exftitifTe : utrum Je ni' hilo, an ex allquo? Si ile nihilo exfti'Lit, Creatura dicendus eft, non Creator. Si autem de aliqno dicatur, iic etiam id ipfum Deus t'ccit, unde Filium genuit. An forte co&ternurr^ dicitur aliquid h^- buille unde pofTet Filium generare ? ^ coaeternum aliquid scftimatur, unde genirus Filius creditur, Manichdorum error hac adfcrdone firmatur. lalgent. Refp. contr. Arian, objed. 4. p. f 8. that. Qu.XIV. cffme QUEKIES, 36s that This Query is unanfwcrable. Dut let us Iicar how you can cavil» where you cannot reply. Some- times, you tell me, / feem to mean , tkit the Father and Son are individtuilly the fame fingle , id^nttcal y 7vhole Stfhfiance. l^ut where do you ever f]nd me talking (o weakly, and crudely ? This you gather only from the Word individtial ; which is capable of a larger and ft rider Senfe, as 1 have often intimated. When you fuppofe That Part of God's Subftancc which fills the Snn, to be individually the fame with what fills the Moon ; do you mean that Both are /;/- dividtiiilly the fame fngle, identical, -whole StiOjiance f How often muft you be reminded of your une- qual Dealing in this Controverfy, that Arguments miifl: hold againfl the Trinity, which, in other Cafes, have no Force wirh you at all? I may fpeak of whole and Parrs, while I am arguing againft a Man that brings every Thing under Extenjiqn : But as to the Catholick Doctrine of tlie Church, which I here defend> the Words are not proper ; only this is certain, that one Perfon of the Trinity is not all the Perfons of the' Trinity. Yet becaufe the Perfons are undivided. They are one indi- vidual Subftancc; which is as far from Sabdlianifm as from Tritheifm, and can juftly be charged wirh Neither. You pretend that Dr. Clarke does not de- ny luch Confuhftantiality as was taught by the Nicene Fathers. If This be true, then He admits, or does not deny, that the Subftance of the Son is of the fame kind with that of the Father, as truly as Light anlwers to Light y V^ery God to Very God, uncreated to uncreated, and fo on * : That is, He admits all that I do, and there is no longer any Difpute be- tween us. For, I will eafily prove to him, after he is advanced thus far, that whatever is thus cc^ud ia '-^- See my Defenje, p. 4^2. JVature S66 A Second Defense Qu.XIV. Nature to the Father, cannot be unequal in any ef- fential Powers or Perfeciiom : And lo all that you have been doing, drops at once. If thefe be the Dodor's prefent Sentiments, I am very glad of it : They were not always fo. You fay, indeed, what- tvei' the Sons metaphjjfcal JVature , Ejfence, or Sub- fiance be, all the D odor's Propojitions ( fo far as you ferceive) hold mverthelefs equally true. Are you then (o very unperceiv'mg in a plain and clear Cafe \ Turn to five of the Do . or's Pr^/w//r/c«i (5^'S 12.^'', 14-'', ip^^', 23*^) where He denies the Subftance, or Perfon, of the Sony or Holy -G ho fly to be Self-exifieut : And com- pare your own "Conftrudlion of Self-exlftents by necej^ Jkrily-exiftingy with them ; and then tell me, whether che Dodor has detennined nothing about the Sub'- fiance of the Son. Doth He not make the Subftance of the Father necejfaj , the other precarious ; the one Self-jiifficienty the other depending'^ the one im- mutable^ the other mutable at Pleafure ; in a Word, the one infimteh perfetl, the other infimtelj fhortofit? All This fol ows by ftlf-evident Connexion from the Doflor*^s denying the Son's Necejfary-exifience* Now, certainly He has hereby deterramed their Subftances to be intirely different in Kind :■ Or elfe I fhould defpair of fhowing, that a Man and a Horfe, a Tree "^^ndi z Stone are not oiLosdicLy are not of the fame l:ind. For, what is it we denote and diftinguiih dif" ferent kinds of Subflances by, but by their different eifential Properties ? Do not therefore now bring m€ the lame Pretence, about the Doctor's Propojitions being the fame on Either Suppofition. I bore with it in the modafl Pleader"^ (tho' fenfible how little Sin^ cerity was in it) becaufe I was then doubtful whether the Dodor fliould be charged with denying the Ne- teffary-exifterrce. You have eafed me of That Doubt : And now the Plea is ridiculous, and will ferve no ^ $ee the Vreface to my Sermons » p. i?. longer Qii. XV-.. tffome QUERIES. s 67 longer. The Myftery is at length come out -, and Seif-exifienc€j wherewith we have been (o long amuf- cd, wants no unriddling* Q^U E R Y XV. Whether he alfo muji noty of Co?ifequencey afirm of the Sony th^t there was a Time when He was nor, fmce God muf exift before the Crea- ture 5 dnd therefore is again Self condemned^ (See Prop. 16. Script. i3o£lr.) And ivhether He does not equivocate in faying, clfeivherCy that the feeoiid Perfon has been always -with the Firfti, and that there has been no Time, inhen he was not fo: And lajilyy whether it he not a 'vain and weak Attempt to pretend to any middle way between the Orthodox a7id the Arians 5 or to carry the Sons Divinity the lecifl higher than They didy without taking in the Co?ifubflantiality r* IT has bsen fliown that the Son is, upon the Dodor*s Principles, a precarious Beings which is nothing but another Name for Creature : And now the Queftion is only whether a Creatme can be eter- nal. And This is of no great Moment to the Caufe it felf, but only to (how the Dorror's Self- condemnation ^ in blaming fuch as have faid Tl^ere was a Time ivlen the Son 7vas not. If, far the fake hereof, you will maintain that a Creatnre is eternal^ you fliali (difpute hy your felf> or elle acrainfl: Mr. ■ ^m.ijhn * i tjgS ^ Second Defense Qu.XV; Whifion ^ ; who juftly calls it a defpifed and abfitrd Tenet : Only He happened to have his Thoughts a little wandring, v^^hen He called it an Athanafim^ Mvflery> inftead of calling it an Arian one. For I never heard of Any One Athmafim but what defpifed and rejeded it. There were fome Arians who formed a new Sed about the Year 394, under the Name of Pfathyrians, who have been charged with That Principle by Theodorit t ; tho' I think Socrates' s and Soz^omens Account "^^ of them rather acquits them of it. Now, if you are inclined to main- tain fuch wild Dodrine, fay fo plainly: If not, let us know the Meaning of the Doctor's cenfuring Thofe that lliould preiume to fay of the Son, that Tlocre ivas a Time when He was mf\\ ; and of his faying that the fecond Perfon has been alwaji with the Firll. I am ilnlib'e there is foraerhing very mean and diffaraging in the Way of equivocating upon fo ferious a Sub- jed. A Man may well be alliamed to own it : So I prefs it no faither. You were to find a middle Way between the Or tho- dox and the Ariam : Which I called a vain and weak^ Attempt, and proved it to be fo. You do not care to own your Miftake here : But you fay> it is no^ material to determine. That is, you find it has beeii evidently determined 2^^m{k you j tho' you are very unwilling to confefs it. Next you come to your ufual Method of mifreprefenting my Notion , and * Nor do I quite defpair oF feeing fuch (hrewd and cunning AthamfianSi as Dr. W. driven to This Ufl Etafon, and of hearing Them broach This other gxG^i Athpinajian Myllery, how defpifed and abfurd an one focver, that Any Creature wharioever may be ftri6t!y Ipeiiking, in Point o^ Duration^ coeternal with its Creator, WhiJIon Reply to Lord Nottingham, p. 30. + Thcod. Hsret. Fab. 1. 4,. Compare the Suppofititious Difptt*- tatio centra Arium p. 211. Ed. Bened. ** Socrat. Eccl. Hid 1. y. c. 15. p. 300. Sozoro. Eccl. H. 1. 7. c. 17. p. ^^oj. •j-f Ciiirke'i Script. Do6tr. prop. \6, charging Qu. XV. cf fomc' QUERIES. 369 charging Tloree fupreme Cods: Which trifling has been anfwered oftrier than it delcrvcd. What loiluws, p. 548, 345> is fo exceeding low, that in pure Com- rni deration one would pals it over. P. 350, you come to dirpute the l^oint, whether the Doctt^r's Scheme was condemned near i-|.oo Years ago by the Council of Nice, You pretend that none of l:i> Propojttions were condemned. But I infift upon ir, that the DoJtor, in denying the Son's Neccfurj-fxilU c>7ce, evidently makes Him a Great nre : And there- fore all that is materid in the Doctor's Propojltionsy ail that v/e find Fault with , in relpecl of his Doc- trine of God the Son, flands fully condemned by the Nice-ae Council. And do not imagine that \\\z Point of DifTercnce betwixt us lies only in u^yjhor'itj^ or Office y and not in NMuve : You make the AVi- uire of the Son Vv' holly of a different ki^d frora the Father, as hath been fnown. I told you of our Do- Clrine, that it hz'i -prevailed for 1400 Tears: Upon \vhich you remind me of my Hying of the Aria^s, that the TVurid was cr.ce , in a Aianner ^ their own. In a Manner, that is , when they had got the Eir,^ perors of the World, in a Mamcr, on their fide. You return to your Quibble about individual EJJence. Pleafe to obfervc, EJfema de EJfentiay SHbfiantia de Sub^ jlantta^ was Carholick Dodrine all along : And This is the full IVieaning of individpid Ejfcnce. Not EJfcj:ces, uor.Spihftanccs^ uiv Beings: any more tl^.^n you'll fay Sub- fiances^ while yet you admit Siibj}a;2ce and Sahjl.iKce ; or Beinjs, where vet vou are forced to aliov/ Beina and Being^. You tell me, I acknowledge Pcrfn and intelligent A'^cni to be the [ame» I nev^r acknovvlcdgcd any fuch Thing ; bur always denied their being recipro- cal. But becau.'e this Word Pcrfin is a Matter of -^^ See tny Defsrife. i^;, 1^53, 299. And Reply to Vr. w:,i:i:, p. ij. A a a much 57b ^ Second DEFfeNst: (^u. XV much Difputc, I Hiall here endeavour, having no- thing fanlK^r vvoith Notice under This Query, to give the bell Account I am able of the true Notion o^ Pcrfoa, I fhall not here fearch into the Books ofphilofcphcrs , but into the common Apprchcnfions of Mankind, learned and unlearned; which appears to be the true Method of knowing what Ideas are affix- ed to the Word Perfon, Our Jderj arc at fiiH all of them particular, and borrowed from what we daily converfe with, from \vhnt we fee, and feci Our firft Notion of Perfon is the Notion we have of a A^ian^ a Wuman^ a Childy By Degrees we learn to abfiratl from the Differences of ^V^, SeXy Staiure-y dec. and (o we form a moie general Idea of an Ilmnan Perfon ^ meaning one of our '6wn Species: And this Idca^^ |;erh?.ps, a rude Country-man would exprefs, improperly, by the Word Chrifliayi, in Oppofition to Brute, or im'juwate Things. From the Idea of Ilimidn Perjcns thus formed , we proceed to make a more gcnerd Idea, by leaving out what is peculiar to our Specks, and keeping in what W'e conceive co?rr/r.on to us with Angels, Inptofe, or any intelligent Being. A.nd now we take in Ratio- TiM'ny only, or Intelligence: And a Pci frn is Some- thing Intelligent in Oppofition to the Brutal Creation. Indeed , there is lomething analogous to Perfon i even in Brutes : And fo it is common to fay, He^ or She of Them, in hke manner as we fpeak of Per- fons. But fiill the common Notion of Perfo» in-*- eludes Intelligence: And I think Damafcen"^ is \ay Hn^ gular in bringing in to\S'1 rtv 'l^Ttov, under t^'^ro'^.cri^^ and 'n^i^cc'TiOv , fignifying Perfon, But perhaps He meant it of viro^.ais only, and did not nicely di- iiinguilli. Thus far we are advanced, that Perfon is Something which is the Subject of Intelligence, But Hill we are net come far enough to fix the Idea >r DamA-fcen, D'fik-ft. e. 4.3. p. <^6, Qu.XV. of fome QUE Kl^.S, 371 ol -x fingle PerfoH : For an Army, a Council, a Sc- race is lomethin^ which is the Shbieci ol Ifift/Iijcnce, Somerhing ih:^i under flan ds and .it/j. VVc niufi: rJKTe- fore be more particular: And at length we may bring it to This : A Hngle Pcrlbn is an intclbjent Ajent^ having the dijlintiive Charallers of /, Thou ^ l[e\ and not divided, nor dilHngttijIjcd into more intclligc»t Agents capable of the fame Chardlers. This D.rt- nition, or Dcfcription, will, I think, nke in all the Ideas that Mankind have generally affixed to the Word Perfon y when underftood of a fmgle Pcrfon. I vrill Hiow this tiiO: ricgoiivcly-y and then poji- tivel^f, . I Negatively. An A<'mj^ a Senate^ &c. is nor a fingle Pqrfouy b^cnufe divided into more. The Trinity^ upon the Cath^ihck Plypothefi^ is nor a fingle Person, becaufe dijtinigtujijcd nico more mtclhg-nt Agents than one. . 2. PoHrivcly. A Alan is a Hnjle Perl^in by the Definition. An A'i(rel is a fingle Pcrfon by the fame. Father, ''S'yn, or IIulj-Ghoft, a hngle Pcifon by the lam- ppicd John^ Soul to have pre-exifted ^ it would be a [Perfon in that pre -cxiftent State as much as alter, ]-!<\ving all jthat belongs to the Definition of a Per- son.: And by .taking , a />o^ afterward, the Soul does i>)t-.i]^come f/iagis Perfoz'af but ?najor Perfona : That i->9wth€ Perfon \\ inlargcd by the Addition of a Uodj>^ hi\i ftill all together is confidered but as one S^i^je^r, with intelligence in it; and all is but one PQter^^ one John^ one /, //uito intelligent j^gent^ iadd, its not being divided, nor dijiingfiiJJjed into more /intelligent Agents having the fame diftindive Chara- Jders ; and then, as I conceive, you com pleat the No- tion of Perfon, according as it has commonly pafs'd with Mankind. I fuppofe not any of the Divine Perfons a Perfon in a Senfe different from the common meaning * ViJcmus duplicem Sratum, von confufam fed conjuiKftum in Una Ferfona, Deum & Hominem Jefnrn. Term!!, contr. Prax^ C. 27. T» ^a A/y^, ir#c-^', tj) ^etV vTc^ttcxi (fvcucy,, iit'^^fTO', tvj ffzu^Kiy 6cc. Irenxi Fragm. p. 547. Bened. of 374 ^ Second Defense Q4.XVI. of the Word Terfon : They are Perfom in the fama common Senfe of Perfon ; but Perlons of a different kiffdy and differently circumftantiated from what ///«- rnaMy or ylngelical^ or any other kinds of Perfom are. Thus Perfon^ like Triangle, appears to be the Name for an Ahjiraut Idea: And the Name is equally appli- cable to every kind of Perfon, as the Name of Tria^gls is to every kind of Triangle. Mwm^s^ Q^U E R Y XVI. JVhelhfr hy thefe (of the ^n^ CoIumn> and the like Texts, AdoratiGn a?:d Worf\:ip he not fo 0>p^ropri:ited to the One Gody as to. helong to linn only ? Divine VVorfnip dne To the One God, To Chr^d. / Tl2(ypt fl).dt have no other They 7Vorjl>ipfed Him:, Cods before j^is y Lxod. Luke xxiv. 2.. Let ail 5k x» 5. ""^ \the AngeU of God -ivorf^i^ \Himy Heb. i. (>. T'l'iOH JJjalt worf.ip the\ That all Men f.ould ho- Lord thj Gody and^ Him mar the Son^ even as they ^nlj jhalt thoji Jervcy M^t, honour the Father y John iv. 10. V. 23. UNDER This Query I fully proved, in my D?- . fes'ife, that, according to Scripture and Anti- qmtj. Adoration is due to God alone, in oppofition to 2II C'Cature-worfyip whatever. You enter very lit- tle, if at all, into the Particulars of the Evidence •which I produced : But you form two Objeftions agiinll the Thing* in gerreral^ leaving me the Part of Qlt. XVL tffime Q^U E R I E S 375^ a Refpondait^ inftcad of undertaking it your fel/, as was proper in anfwcr to Qttcries. Your Two Ob- jections arc Thcie ; i. That if my Arguments prove any thing, they prove too much, vi:c. That Chrift is the very Father Himfelf. 2. That They again prov-e too much in difallowing all mediatorial IVor^ pip; which, you think, is plainly warranted by Scrip- ture, and Antiquity. I. As to your firft Pretence^ it is founded only on ^-^e ferfoYial Charaders, /, Thou-^ He; fecmingly cx- ^ eluding all Perfons but one. To which it is an- fwered, that there is no NeceiTity arifing from any- pretended Force of the exdujive Terms, for exclu- ding all other Perfons ^ : But there is a Necefliry, from the very End and Dejign of the Law, for ex- cluding all other Gods ; and from the whole tenour of Scripture, for excluding all Creatures: So that my Argument proves what I intended to prove, and no more. And why have you not anfwered, after you have been fo often called upon, the Reafons T had offered, in my Defcnfi^ and Preface to my Scr^ monSi againd the receiving inferior Gods to any De- gree of religicHS Worfhip ? Surely, it lliould be your Buflnefs to rejpond fometimes, efpecially in reply to OHerieSf and not meerly to oppofe, 2. As to your fecond Pretence, about Alcdiatorial JVorfjipy fir/l borrowed from Pagans^ handed on by Arians-f and brought to our own Times by Papifls; I fliall give it a large and diflindl Anfwcr prefcntly. You have for fome time ( I mean you, and your Friends) amufed unthinking Perfons with a Phrafc, never yet diflinHly explained by you, but ferving to delude fuch as can be content with Sounds, inlkad of Senfe, I lliall endeavour to fearch This Matter to the Bottom, once for all ; And then ihow how eafy it is ,to unravel your Speculations on thii Head. *■ See njy 4rb Serraorj, J76 A Second Defense Qu.XVI. . By Aicd'mtorid Worfiip, you intend fome kind of Woriliip, to be paid to Chrift y fuch as you have been plcafcd to invent for Him, rather than none. I do not find that you have fecured Any worfliip ac all to the Hclj-Ghofl, (wlio is no Aiediator) tho' all Antiquity has paid Him worlhip. But you are fo confufed and undeterminate in your Account of me- diatorial Wcrft.ip, that it is not eafy to difcover what you precifely mean by it ; Or perhaps you ycurfelf do not yet know what you intend. There are but Two general Senfcs, fo far as I conceive, to be put upon It; tho* Thcfe again are divided , into manyy^^r- muUr ones. The Two I fpeak of, are either, i • The making Chrift the Aiedium of wordiip; or, 2. The worfhipping Him under the Charader of a Me- diator, We mutl examine Both Thefe: I . A Medium of PPorpip is a Phrafe of fome La- titude and Ambiguity. It mufl be explained by In- flances, and Examples; that confidering all Cafes which can well be thought of, we may at laft hit up- on v/hat you mean by mediatorial woriliip. An Image has been fometimes thought a Medium of Worfhip, when God is fuppofed to be worlhipped by, and through an Image ; as in the Inftance of the Molten Calf, and in the Golden Calves of Dan and Bethel. Such mediatorial VVorfnip as This, leaves very little Honour to the Afedi^??f : All is fuppofed to pafs thro*, to the ultimate Objed. Thus the EqyptianSy in worfliipping the facred Animals, furpo- f(dthe w^orfliip to pafs to the Prototype, to the Deiry whcreunto the Animals belonged. This, I prelume, is not your Notion of mediatorial Worfliip : If it be^ it is low indeed. There may be a fecund Senfe of making a Medium of worfhip : As, if we were to pray to Chrift, to pray for us. This is near akin to the Romijlo Doc- trine of praying ro Saints, and Angeh. If This be what you mean by mediatorial Woifnip, your Opi- nion of Chiift may ftill be very lov/, as of one that Qu. XVI. of fxime QUERIES. 377 that gives us nothing Kimfclf, but only a^ks Ano- ther to give us. But, bdidcs that there is no war- rant for praying to any thing Icfs than GW, an J fo fuch a Praclife muft be wholly unjuftifiablc; I con- ceive that This is not what you mean by mcdiaiori^ al jVorpjipy it being fo extremely low and diilionoiir- able to iiippok that lie can Himfelf do no;hing lor us, efpeciaily having declared the contrary, John xiv. 13, 14. There is a third Senfe of a Medin-m of Worfliip : As if we ask the Father any thing by , and thro* the Merits o£ Jcft4S Chrifi. If This be what you Jtiean by mcdiAtorid Worfhip, I am afraid it will .a- -^mount to no worlhip at ail upon your Princii-les* You will not fay that the fame Worfjjip is therein paid to Both : And unlefs you fiy Thar, you leave no worfliip at all for God the Son, in fuch Addre{l"es> or Applications. There may be a fourth Confideration of a Aiedinm of woriliip uippofing Chrill to b? diri^vfliy worlliip- ped, but to the Glory of the F<.ither : the Father be- ing imagined to be glorihsrd thro* Chrift as thro' a Aiedistm. Now here I mud ask, Whether the woriliip fuQpofed to be paid to Chrifi hz fupreme^ or inferior ^ You will not hj fuprcme : And if it be i^frior, ic cannot be prefumed to pafs on to the ftiprcme Objefl, who would not be honoured but affronted with /«/ (i Kings xiv. 9. 2 Chr. xiii. 11,) notwithftanding his Intention to ter- minate all the worfiiip in the true Jehovah, I may add, that when Sr. John was preparing to offer woriliip to an Angel, (whether out of a fudden Tranf- f)orr, or not then knowing that it was a meer Angel) I no doubt but He deligned the Glory of Gcd, and to f terminate all worfiiip there : and yet it is obfervable, I that the Angel, notwithftanding, bad Him worpip I God I intim.ating, that it is not worlliipping of GW, ^ unlefs the worfhip be diredly offered to God, Dr. Clarke* h^s a Fancy, that the Idolatry of fuch as worriiipped the trtte God through Mediums of their own inventing, lay only in their mjaking Idol-mediA^ torsy fuch as God had not allowed them to have. But This Notion is very peculiar, and has no Foun- dation in Scripture^ or Anticjuity. To pay religious \vorilii*p to any thing is, in Scnpture ftyle, makmg a God of it. This is true , even of what is called mediate, or relative woiiliip; as I have before in- ilanced in the Cafe of the golden Calf, and the Calves ()f Dan and Bethel, And Labans Teraphims , or Ima"G5, which were fuppofed to be no more than * CLirhs]^ Script. Do6^r. p' 344. Ed. a"^. Qu. XVI. offorrieQXJElllJLS. 370 ^^mbols, or Afediumi of the Worllvip of the Jehovah, /(for Laban worihippcd, as fome behcvc, the true God* ; are called CoiV -yivcu/svoi TTct^' olfJ(f (poTiecr.'i' ei^jt'x.'oaicc Tivu (fiAr,:pivaf, iVcc (pdv"^ A'o TT^cG-aTTUV f//i(rTij^. Hip- po!, vol. 2. p. 4,5-. HiG lequefter Dei atque Hominum appellatus; ex utriufque Par- tis dcpoluo commiilo libi. In another place, utriufque Subfti^nt ttA. Terrull, dc Refur. Car. c. 51. contr. Prax. c. 28. Deus cum Homine mifcetur. Hie Deus, Hie Chriftus eft-, qui Mediator duorum, Hominem induit quern perducat ad Patrem. Cypr. de Idol. Van. p. 15". Quoniam fi ad Hominem veniebat: ut Mediator Dei 8c Homi- num elTe deberet, oportuit ilium cum eo e0e, & Verbum Carnem fivrii ut in feraetipib Concord iam confibularet terrenorum pariter atque Cacleftium: Dum utriufque partis in fe connedtens pignora, &c Deum Homaii 3c Hominem Deo copularet. Novat. c. 18. Mediam inter Deum & Hommem iiibftantiam gerens Deum fuiire& Kominem, ex utroque genere per milium. Ladant. L 4. c. 13, ring Qu. XVI. of fome q\J E R I E S. 3 S r ring ro Petavitts, who has collcded their Tcdimo- nies t. Now, if you would but plcafe to underhand AJedi' atorial worfhip conformably to this true, and anticnc Senfe of Alediator ; we might not perhaps defpau* of coming to fome Terms oi Agreement. For, A^edi-^ atorial Woriliip, thus underftood, would nearly co- incide with what we call divine. It would be wor- fhipping Chriil: becaufe, with the human Nature, He is poflelTed alio ot the divine, and is therefore flriclly and properly adorable, as well as the Father. But Mediator may be confidered alio in refpccl of Office, without confidering the Nature at all : And This, I prefume, is the Senfe you contend for. Ac- cordingly, for the moll: part, by Mediatorial uorp:}ip^ you feem to intend fome inferior kind of worlhip payable to our Lord confidered as mediating, or as executing the Office of a Mediaror between God and Man. Now, we muft confefs that Chriil: is really Mediator by Office, as well as by Nature : But how this can ever jullify you in makmg a newy and an infe- rior worfliip, and calling it mediatorial, we underfland not. Fanciful Men will have their Peculiarities : And it is a wonder to me, you have not yet invented twenty feveral kinds of worlliip , fuperior and infe- rior, for God the Father, For the purpofe ; )ou may confider Him as King, and fo you may prefent Him with Regal worlliip ', or as King of Kings, and then it will be Super-regal, You may confider Him as Judge, your particular Judge, and fo prefent Him with judicial worfliip : But if you confider Him far- ther as judge of all Men, nay, and as judge of An- gels, or of the whole Syftem of Creatures, the wor- fhip will be then molt highly, and fuperlatively ;«^/- cial. You may next confider Him as creator, TtnyTr^^^ without an Article, and then you are to prefent Him (pardon the Novehy of the Phrafe) with creatoriJ -f Dogm. Th. Tom. ^, Part 2. Ti^orJJJp 382 'A Second Defense Qii.XVL worjhif : But if you confider Him farther as Tlje Creator^ o 'TTDkY.TY.^y with an Artick^ the worihip then becomes eminently creatorial. You may next confider Him as ProteElor , as Deliverer ^ or Defender ^ and each of Thefe in a higher, or a lower Senfe : And hence may arife as many fever al ivorflnps. Nay, when your Hand is in, every Attrihme you coniider Him under, will he a diftind Foundation of a fartlcHlat 'werfhip : And fo you will have worfhips innumerable, to pay to one and the fame Perfon. But you will fay, that Thefe many v:>orfmps are all but one worlliip of the One divine Father under variety of Concepti- ons. Right : And fo, tho' the Son be conlidered as Aicdiator^ as ^udge^ as Creator^ as IQngy &'C. in our woriliip of Him, Thde are all but one worfhip of the one divine Son, under variety of Conceptions. The worfhip then both of Father and Son centring in This, that They are Both djvine. This makes it divine wortliip : And divine worfhip being one with it felf, it is very manifeft that the worfliip of Both is Qne, Aye but, fiys the learned ^ Do(5^or, There is an Ado-^ ration due to Crifi as Mediator, which cannot poffihlj he ■^aid to the one fupr erne God '^ fupreme Father He means. And what is there in This, more than an afi^eded manner of expreiung what every body allows, that Father and Son have dillind perfonal CharaEierSy and Offices ? He need not have gone thus round about : The fhorter v/ay would have been to divide Adoration into two forts, Paternal and Filial ; and to plead that one of Thefe ivorfJnps can never be paid to the Son, any more than the other to the Father, becaufe the Son mufl: never be confidered as Father^ nor the Fa- ther as Son. But had the Doffor remembered that Both may be confidered as divine y and that divine ^ See Clavke*^ Script. Dcwar. p. 543. 2^ Ed. jNIodeft Pica, £cc. continned, p. 35- ' ' woriliip Qu. XVI. offowe QU E R I E S. 3 s 5 worfliip is but one, He might have perceived that there is no foundation for the Two ivorfitps which He is introducing : Unlefs He has a mind to bring in a Hundred worfliips as well as Two; which may be eafily done in the way He has taken. The Truth of the Cafe is this; Worfliip has an immediate refpe't to the Divinity of the Perfon to be worfliipped. That mufl: be prefuppofed in all religious worfliip : Other- wife fuch worfliip is Idolatry ; as hath been proved. This Foundation being laid, whatever perfonal Cha- raders, or Offices we confider the Perfon worfliippcd under ; Divine goes along with all : It is a divine Mediator, a divine Priefl, a divine Prophet, a divine King : And fo our worfliip of Him never wants its proper Objeft, never moves from its proper Foun- dation, but remains conftantly the fame. Our con- (idering the Son under the Charader, or Office of Mediator^ does not hinder us from confidering Him as God at the fame Time; (indeed Mediator^ in flriclnefs, implies it) any more than our confidering the Father as Ktng^ J^^^g^y Vreferver, or Rewardert hinders us from confidering Him alfo as divine. All the Ads and Offices of Chrifl:, relative to us, are only fo many manifcfl:ations of his Goodnefs, Power, Wifdom, and other u^ttribfttes^ which Attributes are founded in his divine Nature, which Nature is com- rmn to the Father and Him : Thus all our Acknow- ledgments center and terminate in one and the fame divine Nature ; and all the particular -worjljips amount to no more than one worpip, one divine worfliip be- longing equally to Both. Having thus far cleared my way, I may now pro- ceed to examine Vv'hat you have done under This Qiiery. But I fliould fnft obfTve to the Reader, what you have not done ; that He may be the more fully apprized of your manner of Difputation : v/hich is to anfwer Difficulties^ by flipping them over without notice, I urged J ^84 y^ Second Defense Qii. XVL I urged the great Defign of the Laiv, and of the Cofpely to exclude inferior j as well as other fupreme Deifies : You take no notice. I urged, that e^en Miracles could not fuffice for the introducing Ano- ther God: You are profoundly filent. I pleaded, that the Reajons of worlhip which God iniifts upon are fuch as exclude all Creatures : Not. a Word da you give in anfwer. I fhowed, (p. 258.) that Any JMan, with your diftinflion of Joveraign and inferior worihip, might have eluded every Law about facri* jicing to the true God only : You have nothing to fay to it. I pleaded the impropriety of ahfolme and relative Sacrifice"^, Vows, Oaths, &c. Not a Syllable do you reply. I pleaded feveral Texts of Scripture? and feveral Examples againfl: Creature'TvorfJip y and againH: your Diflinction made from the Intention of the worfhipper : All is pafs'd over. I farther preffed you with the Praf^ice and Principles of the primitive Martyrs ; of which you take no Notice. You have indeed fomething to oppoje in favour of the other fide of the Qiieftion : But is it mj Bufinefs only, to anfwer Objedions? I thought, you had undertook to anfwer Queries ; to clear fomething, and not to be always in the way of puz.z,ling. But let us (cq however what you have in the way of ObjeEiion. I have anfwered your two principal Pleas already : 1 am now ro feck for fome of the flighter Pretences. You find fault with me (/?. 357O for making the Nature of God, not the Perfony the object of v/or- * SiJc^-.jfe without di(^in£lion oi- abfolure and relative, fuprcme and inferior, the outward Adt of facrificing, was always looked upon as appropriate to God. Now, Vrayers were of the fame in^port with Saciihce, in the primitive Church, and eftccmed by Them as the pureft and bcft Sacrifices. See Juft. Mart. Dial. p. ^40, Jcb. Irenxus, 1. 4. c. 17 p. 249. Clem. Alex. p. 848. Tertuil. ad Scap. c. a. fliip Qu.XVr. of fom (:iVEKlES. 3S5 (hip. Bur, \v\ut if I make Three Pcrfim the ob- jed (which is the Truth of the Ca(c) on account of their divine Nuture^ ts there any tiling more ablurd in This, than in your making One Perjon, on account ^f his Perfeftions, that is of his NMuref And where is the Difference between You and Me, bur that you worfhip individual living Snbflance which "^'ou confine to One Perfon; and J, individual living Snb- flame , which I fuppofe common ro more Pcrfons \ You the ro SHov in one Perfon i I the to '^tr.v m more tlian one ? You fay, the Texts of the Old Teftament relate not to an indefinite Perfon^ but definitely to ihc Perfon of the Father, Yet many of them (in the judgment of all Antiquity) relare ro the Perfon of the Son, as we have {^(tn before : And rhat none of them are ever meanr indefinitely , is what you can never prove ^. However, if you could, you would flill be far from proving your Point. For, fuppofing God, or jfeho^ vah, to be always raken perfonalljy lomerimes deno- ring rhe Perfon of the Son, abftraciing from the Con- fiderarion of the Farher, and fometimes denoting rhe Perfon of the Farher, abflrafting from the Confidera- tion of the Son ; it might ftill be neverthelefs true that Jehovah is One, both Farher and Son. You attempr, (p. 360.) ro prove rhat the worfiiipi o^ x\\Q Son h fiibor dinar e-f mediate, relative. You quote Heb, i. 6, 2nd infer rhar rhe Angels are ro worlliip Fiim^ not as ftipreme , but by the command of the Father. Wonderful ! rhat if rhe Father has ever commanded any one to worlliip Himfclf (as He often has) his wor- fhip therefore is not fupreme. Has not our Saviour commanded us to worlliip the Father}, is his worAiip there;ore nor ftipreme f Sure, Arguments fnufl run very lov/ with you, or you would not nifle at rhis rare. As lo Heb, i. 9. I have anfvcred it above: And ■^ iff wy Scimons, p. 144.. ^^c. e e c as 386 u^Second Defense Qu. XVI. as to John v. 23. Chrift is not woriliipped becaufe God committed Judgment to Him : But God commit- ted it to Him for this End and Purpofe, that Men might be fenfible of the Dignity and Divinity of his Pcrfon, and thereupon worlliip Him. The Prophecy oi Daniel, (Chap. vii. 13,) Ipeaks of a Kingdom^ and a Dominion, in a particular Scnfe; as i Cor. xv. fpeaks of a Kingdc-m to be received by the Father: This is all Occonomical-i and makes nothing for your purpofe. But your Argument is calculated for the Socinian Hy- pothelis, rather than the Arian. The antient Arians would have condemned fuch Men as you, for their low Thoughts of our Saviour. They did not worfhip Him meerly as having a Judgfuent or a Kingdom com- mitted to Him, but as being Creator *^, You throw together, {f. 351, 3<52.) a multitude of Texts, pro- ving only that Chrift is Adcdiator, Does any Chrifti- an doubt of it \ There is not a Syllable about abfolute and relative-^ foveraign and inferior Prayer : Which is wharjyru were to fiiow. A Mediator may be a divine Mediator notwithflanding : And fo all your Pretences vanifh into Air. And what if it be faid, (Rev, v.p, 12,) Worthy is the Lamb that v^as Jlain to receive Poiver , and Riches y and lyijdo'm , and^ Strength ^ and Honour y and Glory : And if it be faid, tinto Him that loved uSy and 7vafljcd tts-, &c. he Glory and Dominiouy Rev. i. 5, 6. What are we to learn frcm thence? Here is nothing faid of the Foundation of worlliip : But the Per'on is described under his proper and peculiar Cha- raders, and fuch as may recommend Him to our Af" feElions, Not a word is there of A^ediatorial wor- fhip, or of any Thing like it. And if his being God^ or God ff'fpreme , be not affgned as the Reafon for wori"hipping Him, doth it therefore follow that He is not to be worfliipped as Godfeipremes' By the fame ^Chririum Colimus iit Creatorcm. Serm, Aiian, ap. Auguftin. ip, Auguic. p. 663. Argumentj, Qu. XVI. cffome Q^U E R I E S. 387 Argument, you might as well prove that neither is the Father to be woriliipped as Supreme God. VVe find it faid, (Eph. iii. zo, 21.) Vmo IH'^ that is able to do exceeding abundant Ij above all that we as/^ or thinl^'i according to the Ponder that wor/^th in m \ unto Him he Glory in the Church by Chrilt JefuSj (^c. The Reafon here aligned lor worlliipping the Fa- ther, is not his being fupreme God^ but only his be- ing able to do more than we can ash^ or Thinly So a- gain in the Book of Revelations (Ch. xix. i, z.) Sal- vatio'/jj and Glory^ and Honour-t and Power unto the Lord our God ; for true and righteous are his Judg- mentSi &c. Here the Rcafon afligned is not iiis being fupreme God, but iiis being true and righteous, Agam , in Chapter the iv^% Verie the ii''>, Tuou art worthy , O Lord-, to receive Glory, and Honour^ and Power : For Tloou hafl created all Things , and fur thy Pleafure They are, and were created. Here the Rea- fon sifigned for woriliipping tlic Father, is not that He is fupreme God, .but that He cretved alll Things for his Pleafure: Which Reafon, tho' not exprefsly applied in This manner to God the Son, is yet equally applicable in Virtue of H:h* i. 10. and Col. i. 16. 1 owa xlut fupreme God is implied in this lal1: Title of Creator : Which however is equally true, either of Father or Son, I obferved in my Sermons *, how frequent it is for the Father Himfclf to in lift upon what He had done for Men ; claiming their Worlliip upon Thofe moving Reafons , or Motives: And what Won- der is it, if fome much greater, and more endearing Works of God the Son be mentioned as Ahtives f o our Worfhip of Him f The Foundation ftill of fWorfhip flands as before ; which is wholly to be l-efolved into the infinite Excellency and Divinity of |iis Perfonf. You pretend to (diy ■, that the JVorfljip 'i^ Sermons y p. i-jC. \j-j. ^ See the Preface to my Serivons, p. 47. 4S. 388 A Second Defense Qu,XVL of the Father is founded principallj in his fkpreme, inde"- pendent^ underived Power -^ &c. If you mean any Thing contrary to Me, you mean, on his Self-exifience, or being Hnhegorttti -, as diftinct from Ncccjfary - extjfence. Show me one Text o^ Scripture for it, at your leifure. You do not pretend any: But you fpeak of all An- tiquity ; not knowing what yoii fay, nor whereof you affirm. You Hiould have fhowh me who, and what Antients ever founded his VVorHiip ia his being Father^ or unhcgotten \ and not in his being God. After jouiidince of trifling, you come at length to make Tome Reply to what I had urged from Ant. ticjuity^ : Only you Erfr take notice of my charging you t with flipfi^ig over a Dijjicpilty , by putting Hs- mar^ an ambiguous Word, inffead of Worpip and Adoration. The Rcafon I had for it, i?, that Wor- foipy and Adoration Hand for exterior Acls i whereas lionoptr may ffand for either interior or exterior, and is therefore more ambiguous. Exterior Acls have t!"!eir Signification fixed and determined by Circum- fiances, and do not depend upon tlie Intention of the Mind to make their Signification higher and lower \ as mental Flonour does. I'his therefore was the Reafon of my blamin*^ you loj' changing Worjhip into Ho- nour. The Difference of thefe Two is eafily feea in This Infrnnce : Ec^uality, and Inequality of Honour arc [.roper Expreifions : But Equahty or Inequahty of Sacrifice ( an outward Act ) is very improper. Now, our Difpute was about outward A5}s, I'he Foundation I went upon was This ; that in order to have God's Authority and fuperlative Excellency owned 5 there fliould be fome outward vifib.k A^s y whicli VvC call IVorpip, appropriated to God, to put ri t!j'ihie Difference between God and the Creature. for , herein lies th? A^apififfation of that inward Senfe v/e have of his fuperlative Excellencies snd ■*■ befenfe, p. 24S, <^c. •j- Vzfenfey p. 23/, ^ji. Perfections % Qfl. XVI. of fome QJJ^E R I E S. 5 S9 Perfeiftions : And the confounding This Dilfcrcncct by applying thefe pccuhar and appropriueU Ac^s 10 any Creattircy is the great Sin of Idolatry. Hie in- ^va^d Intention is of no Moment in this Cafe: For, if the omward AlIs be the fanK, how thca fhall God be ofitirardlj diRingLiiOied (as He ought to be) iix the Honours paid to Him, above the Creatures? This Confideration is alone fufficient to cut off every Plea and Pretence for oifering Religious Worjhip to any but God. You have firfl a Diftinclion of Sn^ preme and Inferior , of nltimaie and medimte Worjhip ; But That is utterly unferviceable^ becaufe it would not fo much as exclude the Woriliip even of Pagan Deities (if confidercd as inferior) along with the true God. You may next fay, that VVorihip lliould not be paid to any inferior Gods that ftand in Oppo^ Jition to the true and fupreme God : And yet nei- ther will This Reltriclion fufficiently anhver the Purpofe ; fince it does not exclude the Worfhip of Saints^ or A'Vjcht Friends of God, and not oppofic to Him. You may retreat to a farther Reftriction ,» that even inferior religious Worlliip mufl be paid tQ none but fuch as God has noininatcdy and allowed to^ be woiihipped: Which, yr,u may think, will effcc- tually exclude all but ChrijL Bur after yoi; have thus far followed your own Invenci-ons, in your fe- veral Reflridions , and Qualifyings of an dbfolutc Command; there is {Hll this invincible Reafon againlt them all, that, whereas there ought to be fome pe- culiar outward Acls (as S^Krifke was formerly) appro- printed to God, as exterior Acknowledgments of his infinite Excellencies and Perfedions a.bove his Cre.t^ tures; by thefe Reftridions and Limitations, all fuch Peculiarity of exterior Acknowledgments is taken away, and it is made impoifible even for God Himfeli to prefcribe any. Now you fee why I found Fault ; and that I had fome Reafon for it. But you ask me» why then did 1 found ChrijVs iVorjhip tipon John i.. 25. which fpcaks only of Honour^ The Reafon is plain: 390 A Second Defense Qu. XVI. plain : If I am to honour the Son , even as I honour the Father y I muft fignify it by the fame out^vard , ExprefTions, that is by Worflnp, The Text then is very much to my Purpofej tho* Honour and Wor- \ fnp are not the fame Thing, but differing as the \internal Thought and the outward Aianifeflation. Now let us come to the ^ntiemsy upon Ihis Head of Worfiip. I lliowed by plain Teflimonies, what their Doc- trine was; viz., to woriliip God alone ^ the Creator ^ in Oppofition to the Creature, You take no No- tice of the lail: particular; becaufe it was very ma- terial , and prelTed hard upon your Scheme. But you obferve, by the alone God is evidently meant 77;^ God and Father of all, I am perfuadcd you, in the main, are right in youi* Obfervation: And now the Queftion will be, whether v/hen They propofed the Father as the onlj Gody they intended it in Oppofition only to falfe Gods, and Creature-Godsj admitting a Latitude in the exclujive Terms; or whether They intended any Di- ftindion of TFbrfiip, making it fupreme and inferior ^ abfolute and relative ^ ultimate and mediate. This is a Qiieitioa which will admit of an eafy, and a certain Decifion , upon a due Confideration of Circum- flances. There are but two Ways of making This Matter out Either by admitting fome Latitude in the exchifive Terms , fo that the Father lliall be un- derftood to be the only God in Oppofition to Crea^ tures and falfi Gods: Or by admitting fome Diftinc- tion and Degrees of Worftiip , thai fupreme Wor- fliip may be due to the Father as the highefl God, and inferior to the Son as an inferior Deity. Now This, I fay, will be eafily decided. If, when the Antients fpeak of worfliipping one Gody the Father, They either fay, that He alone is to be Sovereignly, or dhfolutely worfhipped; Or if They found his Title to woriliip upon his being Father y or unbegotteny rather than upon his being Godi Or if They admit any in^. ferior God , or Any other God- befides the Father 5 then QU.XVL cffo?ne (QUERIES. 391 • then you will have fomething to plead from the ^«- tients for your Opinion. Bur, on the other Hand , if They never mention tivo Worjhips , or two Gods ; if They mean , when They fpeak of Worfhip as due to God alone , not fovcreign Worfhip only 9 but all religions Worfhip ; if They fiippofe the Son not to be another God, but one God with the Father; and if They intimate their Intention to be to ex- clude Creatures, or falfe Gods, not God the Son; then the Cafe will be manifeft, that They ufed the excltifive Terms, not with utmoft Stridnefs, but with a proper Latitude; and This will be the true Way of interpreting the Antients. That This latter 1$ really the Cafe, is evident to every Man that is an all converfant with the Antients : And He thac thinks otherwife mufi: either never have read them, or have read them with very little Judgment. Their Way was to fpeak of the One God in Oppofition to all falfe Deities ,* and by the One God They meant principally the Father, as firft in Conception, and firji in Order; but always with a Referve for the .S')v jcur^ TTf-trKWaticVt Athcn. p. j"^ If Tof5 0i'tioif/jei(; '^pccovTiq i}ieo(.7tivofJtjiv, ocXXoc TCP 7:cvr,7)i.v uur^v tyjf h^-Tsir/i't. p. ^6, -|- l\iot. ti » ;T^otr>ttiy«? Tci* $X(r.>isc ; 'on titt «'? to tt^otkuvhc^^.^ yiyovtv * . ■ — S-ioc, Y^ iiK i'^v, xXXcc avB^coTTO',, 5ic. Thcoph. p. go. y« icX/.m ilif ij\^ u.\\ h ^vc^ ^iZ. Theoph. p. 35. ** A-yiu-ntfiy'u.* niv It:* otiirS: y.y.vy\y^i Jvf X'^i^'* ''■f^^^ JT^ctrxyv..? rt; ^iXut. Tatiiin. p. 18. '7s'q:^cl tqv 'iTip ra vcs* li'ciS }C9CTDo To'j \v,sSy i^Sgoj-^y. And He afterwards gives the Name of ra .Seiy, to That very Divinity^ or divine Nature, which He fuppcfes in our Lord to- gether with the Manhood^, The hke may be faid of Clemem's ufe of the Phrafe, who likewife includes the Son in rlie to bao-j f, as obferved above '^^. Other Places tt cf C/f???(?;7/, where the Phrafe is alfo ufed, may be compared at leifure. To bmv , and o uils may fometimes indifferently fland for each other: But a judicious Reader may often obferve to SeTcy to be ufed where o ?jic^ would be very improper, and fo vice vcrfa. God confidered Jtibftantiallj , as Res divine ^ is the proper Notion of i)i -zmH [S?Toi'ygvc$ or S'ei:!' 'TTg^/i^aj] and not confi- dered accordin.^ xo^erjo-nd Characters, A(fts, or Offices. It would be improper to fay, for infi-ance, that the TO ^im begat ^ or [ent his Son, or did A6ts of Aler^ cj^ or the like. I need not give more Inftanccs : An intelligent Reader will eafily perceive, from the Cir- cumftances, where To bilyj is the more proper Phrafe, and wdiere o .^eo?. To return to Origen. You tranflate cl-) gyy,TC'V (pu(ri'i in Origen%, uncriginate Nature , infkad of tmcrcaied Nature : Which is the conflant Senfe of kymmv in That Treatife of Origen^ opcofed to 7?>7iTov, a Nam 3 for created, mutable, and periling Things. You have no Lifcance in all Catho- 7:rci-^J.vrx, ijjy; Xe^T-J £<> Jo^ctv 5ey THir^oiy may he judly rendrcd. The Lord Jefus Chrifi is ( or yejus Chrijl is Lord) in the Glory of God the Father: Which rend;ing, agree- able to the Itdicl^y and lome other Veriions, wou'd intirely defeat your Argument. But, allowing the common Conftrudion, and that the woriliip of God the Son terminates in God the Father; flill it is ma- nifeft, for that very Reafon, that it is not an inferior worfhip, becaufe then it could not terminate in the Father, being unworthy of Him. Nor indeed can any Afl of worlhip extend to Bothy unlefs Both * Mr. Wade'> f)ort Inquiry into the lyoclrine of the Trinity, />. yf . N. B, Cyprian, Novatian, Hilary, and other Latins, fa read and undsrjland Phil. ii. it. 'O cmc oiXXcTCAci^ 3-e^ uv; xX>^a. di co^^av ^iZ rrxrA.',. Epiphan. p. 972. coaf. 889^ r> d d z hi S96 A Second Defettse Qu.XVII. be one Ohje^, as before fhown. As to the fame A6t of worrtiip, being conlidered as ultimately refting in the Father, it is becaufe the divine Nature to which the worfhip is paid, is confidered primarily in the Fa- ther, tho* belonging equally to Bonj. You ob- jed that, by This Account, no worfhip is paid to the Father y but to the Suljiance or Ejfence of the Father. Ridiculous; as if worfhipping the divine Subflance as perfonaltz^cd in the Father, were not the fame thing with worlbipping the Father's P^r/o;?. Pray, v/hat is the Perfon of the Father but living, a'^ing, intelligent Snhiiance f Do you mean , by intelligent ■Agent-, intelligent and ading Nothing^ All ivorjbip, you fay, is perfonal : And I fay every Perlon is ^z/^- fiance : therefore woriliip may as well be. called y^^- Jlantialy ^s perfonal, amounting, in this Cafe, to the lame Thing, And if worlliip be paid to Three PeryjnSj is it not truly per/onaly as well as when paid to one? Your Quotation from Bp. Pearfon is nothing to the Point in hand, but wide and foreign as poifible. I had obferved, in my Befenje, that you had many things to fay, in hopes to ieflen the Honour attributed to the Son m Scripture. Upon This, you go folemn- ]y to Prayers ; / praj . God forgive yon the Injury you here do me, I thank you for your charitable Prayer, if really fuch. But had you put it up from your Clojet-, inftead of fending it from the Prefi\ there would have been lefs Suspicion either of Ajf'eciation or Malice in it. As keen a Satyr^ and as bitter a Pvevenge may appear in the fliape of a Prayer^ as in Any other Form. The great injury it feems, hes only in the word Hopes y an ExpreOion perhaps not fo exadly proper, or accu- rate: A candid C"onlfruc1:ion of it, would have been a much furer Token of a forgiving -, and charitable Temper, th.m this unuTual fally of Devotion thrown out upon fo night an Occafion. But let us pafs on» You tell me, (p» 371/ of building my Notion of re^ ligious vjorflfip upon Aietaphyfical /peculations: -Which is doing me a great Injury , and laying your own Faults Qu. XVIL of fome QU E R I E S. 597 Faults to my charge. I build my Notion upon plain ScriptfireSy the univeiTal fuifrage of Antiquity, {"till the Time that praying to Saints^ and Angels came inj and* upon the Principles and Pradices of the Jews before Chrid: ; who always looked upon Great ure^ Oi^'orfiip as Idolatrj. You build your di^ent to {uch a cloud of WitncfTes upon nothing, that I can yet perceive, but fome Metaphjjical Speculations about Self- exijlerjce , Generation being an A^l , Ads being all Ads of the Will, necellary Generation being Coaclion, and the like. And when, in the ftrength of thefe Speculations 5 you have difcarded God the Son from the one Godhead ; then you have recourfe to fuch Principles as Pagans firft, and Papifts fince, have made ufe of in favour of Idolatry , to bring in the worjhip of the Son, at a Back-door; inftead of fix- ini^ it where Scripture, and Antiquity, and all fober Chrtftians have ever fixed it. You ask me, if I really thinks that the worfJoip of the Father does as mptch terminate finally in the Son, as the Tvorjhip of the Son terminates final! j in the Father I But let me ask you; Do you really think that any Creature - JVarfijJp , any inferior worlliip terminates in the Father? I have iliown you that it does not, and cannot. Your own Argu- ment therefore turns upon yourfelf. Either the fup- pofed inferior woriliip terminates in the Son, and therx it is ultimate ; or it terminates in the Father, and then it is fupreme : Chufe which you pleafe. I fay, what I take lo be Senfe and Truth, that it terminates ^in the divine Nature^ confidered primarily in the Fa- ther, and derivatively in the Son: And now all is right. You ask, if the Son's glorifying the Father means the very fame Thing with the Father's glorifying the Son^. Yes, the very fame Thing: How can )ou doubt of it, when you read John xvii. i. And as to Phil, ii, p. I queftion not its meaning being the very fame. I allowed, that Prayers are generally to be offered rather through^ than to the Son , becaufe of his being Mediator. You ask, how This is confiflent with the allowing 59S A Second Defense Qii.XVII. allowing no diftindtion of mediate^ and uliimatc wor- iliip \ You iliouid have Ihown how it is inconfiflent: But yoLi chufe rather to amufe y6ur Reader wi h Words ^ vhere you give Him no diftin:t Ideas, 'Ei- ther the Son is not worUiipped m This Cafe, or He is woriliipped: If He is not, there is no r^udiate wor- ship ; if He is then in worfliipping the Father thra* Himy his Divinity^ and Cjjhitial VniGn with tne Father C which alone can render our feivices accepted , and unite us to God) are at the fame Time ncknowlcdged. And fo the worfhip of Both is One , being an Ac- knowledgment of the fame div'ms ExcellencKs under a diftindion o£ Per Jans ^ and Gjjiccs. Where do you find two dijfi^rent Worfnips, more than two different Natures in Thefe Cafcs \ Only the worjlnf, as the psuure-i being one, is confidered primarily in the Fa- ther, and fecondarily in the Son: This is all you can make of it. You will never prove any thing of in- j'erior worlhip, unlefs you can firft prove the Nature of the Son to be inferior to the Fath^.r. V/hy then do you not come to the pinch of the Quefiion, in- f^ead of amulnig us with litrle Cavils wide of the I'oint? You fdli to your ufual quibbling w"ith ahftrdi fffence, which has oeen often anfwercd. You pro- ceed to repeat your Pietence about derived and tr^de* lived; which indeed makes, in a manner, the fum total of your Reply ; having little eKe to re- treat to when prefs'd. Yet you love not Metaphjjt- (ol fpeculations. Let us fee, however, what Thefe curious Things are : That is , either derived and ^■/iderived are the fame , and, the Son has the unde^ rived Perfeclions of the Father derivatively : or elfi Selfexifte/^ce and under ived Self - fujficiency are no Per- fet'tion at all. Here is nothing in This Matter but quibbling upon the Word Same ; which muft ad- mit of a clofer , and larger Senfe : Or elfe there is PC fuch Thing as fame Spibltance , or fame PerfeEiion in the World : I am fure in your way of ccnfider-r ing every thmg as extcndcd^y chere is i\oc.. To aa-r (weir Qu.XVir. 0//0W QUERIES. ^99 fwer then more direc^y ; the Perfcdions of the Fa- ther and of the Son are ccjtud^ and the fame in kind tho* differing ifJ the manner of cxiiling, underivative^ ij, and derivarivdy : And They are a!fo the fame in Number , by reafon of then- inieparable Unity, and Co-exiftence. That Vmon is fufficient to make SAmcmfs^ numerical Samentfs, you mufl allow, as I have often hinted : Otheiwife How do you fuppofe innumerable extended Parts of Sublbnce to make one ritimerical Subftance? Or will you venture to fay, that they are the fame fpectficallj^ and no other wife, /iriaking r/ianj Subflances in nnmb^r^ tho' the fame ia kjy:d I Thefe A'JetafhyJical fubtleties therefore ought to be difmilTcd , as being of no ufe in our prefent Qiieftion. The fame Stibfiance^ or the fame Perfec- t-ions may be both derived and underived ', allowing fuch a Senfe of Sarr'.e as you admit, your felf, in o- ther Cafes. I charged you with begging the Qiieflion all the way , as confounding a Difiin^ioH of Perfons with Difference of Nature, You have nothing to fay to Nature, Bjt what is the meaning of This fhif*ring, but lliutring your Eyes a^ainft a neceflary Bifin^io»y which at once difcovers the Fallacy of your Reafon- ings, and leaves you utterly deftiture of any farther Reply ? It is not that you underfl-and not Nature : But you underlland it too well to be ever capable of getting over fo cl^ar and plain a Diflinflion. You have nothing further worJi Notice, till you come to confider Aittiquitj^ p. 375. I began with juflin Martyr , fhowing that He maintains the vJor[ljip of the Son ; and upon mj. Prin- ciples, not yours. You cite fome Paffages out of Him to prove the conrraiy, I fland amazed at your Note, p. :5 73. wherein you infinuate, as if Juftln were for the woriliip of yhgcls^ nay , and had let Them before the Holy-Ghofl:. I little thought you would fall in with BelLvrmine and other Roman - Catholicki >, in an Interpretation which has been fo often confu- ted 400 A Second Defense Qu.XVIL ted by learned Protefiants, I will not do over again what has been done to my Hands. Let the Reader confult the Authors in the Margin"^, upon That Paf- fagc of Jujlin, Jtifiin fpeaks of iionouring the Son in the fecond place : He does not fay with inferior' worihip : He lays exprefsly fecond in Order. He fays alfo, that the Wordy who is of the uncreated, or ne-^ cejfarj'exi fling God f ( intimating thereby, as I con^- ceive, The Neceflary • exigence alfo of the \oy@* Himfelf) we 7Vorjl:)ip^ and ive love next after God. Next in Order again. He does not fay with mferi^ or worfhip, or inferior love. He adds the reafon why we are to love Him, namely > on account of his Me* rits in our Redemption* Your next Quotation from Jttflin , proves only^ that God has commanded his Son to be vjorfoipped : And fo has Chrifl: commanded us to worfnip his Father. What is This to the Point of infetior wor- fhip r Your lafl: proves,, that we worfhip the Father thro* Chrifl ; which I readily admit. • What you fay to Athenagoras^ and TheophiUs, re- quires no farther Anfwcr than what I have given more than once. As to TertHlliany I have fliown bc-» fore, that He is diiedly againft inferior worfliip. You have nothing from Clemens , but that God is worfnipped through Chrifl ', which is wide of th^ * Le Moyne Var. Sacr. Not. p. i8o. Bull. D. F. p. 71. Op. Pofth. p. 96Z, 1037. Cierici Hiftor. Ecclef p. 616. Nourr. Apparat. ad Bibl. Max, p. 414.. As to Angels being taught by God the Son, fee Cem. Alex. p. 769. Iren. p. \0i. Cyril. Hierofol. p. 90. Ed.Bened. + To* 7«f ocTTO ac^tyvKTH (leg. xysy/iTis) k^ Uf^/.Tis ^£pu >Ki'/of f/>t^ tC^ t^ttmr TTtiH^Tcu. Apol. a. p. 3/. purpofco- Qu. XVIL cf fomt Q^U E R I E S. 40 r piirpofc. As to the Place cited by you out of his Protrepticum^ it has been conHdered above *. IrendLns is plainly on my fide of the Queftion, as never making any diftindion of fptpreme and inferior worlliip, never allowing worlliip to any Creature^ afferting Father and Son together to be One God, and teftifying that the fame Ads of Adoration t under the Old Teftnment were applied to Both. You have two Objeaibns to make againO: it, one that Ircndiui makes a Prayer to God through ^fejus Chrift ; which has no Difficulty: The other is, that every Knee, ac- cording to the good pleajHre of the Father, is to bov) to Chrijl; which fcarce carries the Face of an Ob- jecftion. For, why may not the Father, who, ac- cording to his good ple.ifure , makes known Himfelfi and demands worfhap to Hirrjelf^ do the like for his Son? Hitherto the Point in difpute is clearly determined on my fide, by Antiquity. Origens Principles appear more difputable: But when He is rightly underftood. He. will be alfo an Advocate on the fame fide. 1 ihall firft lay dov/n the Arguments on my fide, and vin- dicate the fame from your Exceptions: And then iliall confider what Counter-evidence you have pretended out of Him. 1. In the firfl: place, Origen declares fully againft the worlliip of all Cr^^rz/rw "^^^ whatever ; clearly di- flinj^uilliing the Son from the Crcainres* This you fay nothing to. 2. The Rcafons which Origen founds woriuip on, are applicable to the Son, as well as to the Fathir.- The uncreated Nature,, kyi^TQS (puai$^ is adorable as * Pag. 94. t Q^i igitur a Proplietis adorabatur Deus vi/usj Hic ell vivo- l-um Deus Sc Veibani ejus, qui & loquutus eft \ioYii. 8cc.- ' iple igitur Chriftus cum Patre vivorum eft Deus qui loqua:u5 eit jVloyfi, Sec. p. i; 2. *^ See m^ Dcknk, p. lyo, ajS. fc e e fuch : 402 A Second Defense Qu.XVlI. fuclv: But fuch is the Nature of C^od the Son: I have proved above, that He makes the Son iygvviT®^. The S^fJiinpyc^ t5 'TColvto^, creator of the Vmverfe is adorable as fuch; But fuch alfo is the Son. To this you obje(5i, {p. 580.) that the Father is primarily Crea- tor (fo you ought to have lendrcd 'Tr^^roj^ chf^<8g^y, and not primarily A faker) the Son only immediate Ma- ker ^ at the Fcirher's command. But a difference in Order, or A^lanner, makes no' difference in the Thing itfelf : Or if there be Any, the Son is more proper- ly Creator than the Father, according to the flridncfs of the Expreilion in Origen. Oriiens Doctrine is, that He who tfrade all Things is adorable, as fuch': And He afferts cxprefsly , that th^ Son made- all Things ^ the very Words'^. To which you again objei^t, that He made them at the Command of the Father : which I allow in fuch Senfe as the Anticnts m.eant ir, explained above. But the l^oint of ivorflfip is not put upon the primary manner of makingj nor upon the commanding to make, by O- ri{ren, but upon the makmg : fo that in This refpe(fl there is no difference. 5. T fartlier pleaded Origcns fuppoiing the Son to ht'ivorfiipped, becaufe God^, And I have above pro- ved*"^, that He is to be worfliipped as one God with the Father : Therefore their worfliip is one, nor tivo n^orpips, fupreme, and inferior. 4. I pleaded, lardy, that the worfl-iip of Father and Son is infeparablj , and undividedly one, accord- ing to Grigen. His Words are : " Now He has «' afcended to the God of the Univerfe, who ftnd:-^ « vi^cdlj , infeparablj , unp^.rtedly worlhips Him •« through the Son, the Wlrd snd Wifdom of Cod 5 * See r>jy Defcnfe, p. 25-9. t Origen. contr, Celf. p. 4<5« Qu. XVII. of fome Q^U E R I E S. 40? 'f feen in Jefiih who alone brings Thofe to Him tha^ You were fcnfible how {Irong this Padagc v/as a- g.iinflyour Principles; and thereft)re endeavoured to pervert the Senfe, by foiling in a Word into your Tranflation. You fay, 'ivith a-n undivided^ HndijhaEled, u}iparud JfeHion. Where do you meet with ^ffec- tionf Or how came it in here, where the Author is not talking of the undiftraciedyiefs of our ^jfeclions -, but the undivided worjhip of Father and Son < I L- is commenting on i Cor. viii. 9. where it is faid, one God 0/ Ji^hora are all Tloings, and alfo one Lord bj ^ or thromh whom are all thims : And This made Him bring in the Difcourfe of woiiliipping one by the other infefkirably. What follows in that Sentence , farther fliows, that This muft be his meaning ; where He obferves, that it is the Son only, who is the very Word and Wtfdora of God ( well therefore may He be undivided, irom God) that brings Men to God. This then may fhow you what woriliipping the Father r/jrc/^ 7/7 the Son means in OriJen : it is direct- ing the woriliip to the Father ; but fo t^ to look up- oi the Son as infeparabh worihipped in the fame A (ft. I illuflrared rhe Thought by a parallel place of th^ elder Cjrtl fj which you take no nocice of. y^ (ri\ioi<;^ xxl KX7KXf-*t'^^'^- Orig. contF. Cclf. 1. 5-. p. 135. . .-. Vic/ii. Bull D. F.-Scd. 1. c. g. p. 121 Bingham Origin. EdcI. 1. i^.c. 2. p. 4^-, (^c, Origea. Tn^l iu^, p. 78. in Notis. What Qu. XVII. cf fome Q^U E R I E S. 405 What I gather from This Paflagc, is, that Prayer in the moil: proper Senfe, is to be undcrftood of Pray- er direded immediately to the Father. This ha5 been the moH: iifiial and common Method of Praj^ ing: Wherefore this kind of Praying has obtained generally the Name of Prayer , and is v/hat the Word Prayer has been ordinarily ufed to mean» Origen does not fay, that the Prayers, Supplications ^ Intercejjions , and Thanksgivings , oiiered to God the Son, are -none of them properly To called; but He makes his Remark upon Prayer only : And He does not fay, that even Prayer, when directed to God the Son, is not proper divine Worflnp, or that it is u^no^ ther worlliip , or an inferior worfhip : Nor can any fuch Confequences be juftly drawn from his Words, All that we are obliged to grant, in virtue of This Paffage, is that one part of divine Worfhi]) called Prayer, is mo ft properly and emphatically Prayer, whea dire^ed to the firft Perfon of the God-head ; in as .much as That Method of praying has been mofl cuftomary and prevailing, and has thereby, in a manner, engrofled the Name of Prayer to it lelf : Tuft as yiddrejfes, by being mofl: commonly offered to a Prince, come at length, by ufe, to mean Addreffes of That kind only ; and then Addre^es to others are not {o properly AddreJJes. Prayer then, properly, or em- phatically fpeaking, is praying to the Father, to whoin all Prayer primarily belongs. Allowing This to be Origen s meaning (and it is the very utmofl that can be made of it. ) . how will you prove fupreme and /«- ferior Worfhip from it \ I have before obferved , that the worfhip of the Son, according to Origen, is properly divine -, being offered to Him as Creator, and as Necejfarily-exifling, and as God: And I obferved alfo, that Father and Son to- gether arc worfhipped as One God, I obferved farther, that even in Prayers direded to the Father through the Sony the Son is fuppofed, by Origen, to be woriliip- ped mdividedly in the fame Aci, How then do you iTiake 405 ^Second Defense Qu.XViK make out your Two worJJjips? Suppofe the Prayer to pafs throfigh, or hy the Son to the Father ; Ihll it IS one Prayer f one WorfAp ^ confidered as belong- ing to Both in a different manner. For, as the one J^r/^ of creating defcends, as it were, from the Fa- ther ^ the Son,* who are therefore One Creator: So the one ^vorflfip afcends, as it were, by the Son to the Father ; who are therefore One OIpjcB of worfhip. You lliould have proved two unequal worlliips : But you have proved no more than This, that one and the fame worjJ^ip^ diverfly confidered, is paid to Both, in the very fame Ad : To the Father diredly, as being primarily and eminently Creator, God, (^c. and Jh^ preme in Order and Office; to the Son obliquely, or interpretatively , as being equally God, Creator, ^c, but God of God , and mediating between God and Man. There is therefore no Difference in the wor- ship it felf, no fuperiority or inferiority^ no Acknow- ledgment of higher and lower Perfect ions ; But the fame worfhip, the fame acknowledgments of the fame infinite Perfections , admit of a different manner of Application, to keep up a Senfe of the Diftinftion of Perfons. Order, and Offices. You reprefent Bp. Bull (p. 58;?.) a> making a Diftindion of one imrfbip paid to the Son as God abfo- lutely, and Another worlliip paid to Him as God of Cod*. This is not a jufl Reprefentation of Bp. ^«//, as if He admitted one^ and another worfliip, Two 7i^orfiips, to God the Son; when He makes but one worfiip of all, due to Father and Son. This, I fuppofe, was to give fome Colour to your own Hy- pthefts. Bp. 5«//'s meaning is plainly This; that the Son is confidered as divine whenever we worfhip Him ; and that That alone is the Foundation of his vorfhip t. But we may confider Him barely as diviney * Vid. Bll D. F. Sea. 2. c'p. S. ij-. p. 120. t Vid. Bull Prim. Trad. p. 36. 1^. 4 The Defign of This Piece of Bp. BhIU fs to prove that- the Qii. XVII. ef fome QUERIES. 407 divine y abftrtfding from all relations of Order .^ and lOffjce; or divine in fuch an Order, or together with the OJjjce of Mediator. The divine Worjhip is the fame, under thefc Three Conceptions, becaule divine enters them all : But the additional Confideration of Order j and Office y in the two laft, makes a Difference, not in the worJJjip it felfy but in the Order, and manner of applying it. You proceed to cite another Paffage of Origen ^ , where arguing^ ad Hominem ( as the Schools call it) He pleads a command for the worfliip of Chrift, a- gainft Celfiis', who could plead no command for the worihip of the Pagan Deities. This was indeed fhowing a very great Difference in the Two Cafes, fuch as was worth infjfting upon: But it does noc fi-om hence follow, ( the contrary is very evident ) that Origen ever founded the worfliip of Chrift upon meer com-mandy without reference to the Dignity and real Divinity of his Perfon. What you faither cite from the Piece t^^i ^W?, whether Origen s own, or foifkd in by fome other Hand, is of no moment in the Cafe, being clearly contradicted in his Treatife againfl Celfusy which is certainly genuine, and con- tains Origcns laft and matureft Thoughts upon the Subjed. Do you ever find Or/^^;; placing the Son among the yt^fii:^ in his Book againft Celfiis? Doth He not conftantly diftinguifh Him from Them, and fet Him above Them, making Him iyevJiT©^, as I have proved \ Or does He ever deny that Chrift is to be prayed to at all; as This Author of the Piece 'TTkgx iv'^cyi^ doesf No, but He frequently, plainly, and fully afferts the contrary, the worfliip paid to Chrift is properly dh'me, and not merely Mediatorial. From whence let the Pvcader judge wirh what Truth, or falrnefst you rcprefenr Bp. Ball as differing from mc, in the allowing Mediatorial -nvorjjjp, p. l 20. ^ Orig, contr. CcIl p, 384. . What 4es y^ Second Defense Qli.XVII, What you add, (p. 38^.) about Doxologics, is low and trifling; elpecialiy after That Matter has been fo carefully and accurately difcuflcd by learned Hands; And your quoting the lying PhiloftorgiHs in a Matter of Fad of Flavians introducing a new kind of Do- xology, which He reports againil the Faith of all Hi- flory ^, is a great Affront upon your Readers, I might quote you a better Authority than Philom fiorgms, namely, Theodorit'\y to prove that j^rins in- troduced a change of the antient Doxologies. But learned Men know that neither of Thofe Accounts is true : but that Doxologies of Both forts were in ufe long before either Flavian on one fide^ or j4rius. on the other. / You go on to other Writers , endeavouring ta prove, as you lay, mediate and tikimate worJliip : That is your Phrafe now, inftead of inferior and ftt" freme ; becaufe you imagine the Reader may more ealily be deceived under Thofe Terms> than under Thefe. For if the Father be but worfhipped throtsgh Chrift ; prefently you cry out ;?^^^/^re worfliip; tho'^, it be all one divine worAip, not Twq.j, And either the Son is not worfliipped at all, in fuch a Cafe ; or, if He is, the fame worfliip is then offered to Both. The nature of the Worfliip is not altered by the Inianner of Conveyance <:, any more than a Prefent of \Gqldy made to 7 wo - Perfons, becomes Brafs to one, (and Gold to the Gather, only by being conveyed thro* lone to the, other. You will .never be able to prove lany Difference in the, nature, or kind,of the.WorAiipi. meerly fiom the Oecono?mcal manner of applying it. You begin with the u^poftolical CpnjJiirJions ; which you know are of no Authority ; And {o I iliall not trouble my felf to, ihow, that the Paf] ages, . were" they really genuine, are nothing to your purpofe^ You go on to Poljcarp ; v.'ho glories God ihrough * Bui! D. F. Se^. 1. c. 5. p. fi. f f iitod. Ilxict. lab. 1. 4, c. I. Chrlfl^ Qii. XVIL ofjhme QUERIES. 4®9 Chrift. Cjprhm fays, that the Father commanded his Son to be -worflnpved: Therefore his vorfliip is medi^ ate : Wonderful 1 Novatian fays, i^ C'hrift be a Alan only, why is He invoked as Mediator ? Therefore again hh worlliip is mediate. You did not con(ider Novatian % Notion o\ the AJediator, that He muft be both Godoind Man : And fo you loll: the whole Force of his Ar- gument ; which was to prove the Son to be God from the Invocationj and not Man only, as fonie He- reticks pretended. What you cite from LaFtantius, I have anfwered above : Or, if I had not, you mufl be fenfible thac very httle Strefs ought to be laid upon a few un- cautious ExprelTions of a Cafechnmcn^ not yet per- fectly intruded in the Doctrines ,of the Churchy which was the Cafe of LaUantias, He had, how- ever, learned fo much of the Church's Dodrine, as to determine . direcily againft you in the prefent Queffion; where He fays, one Honour belongs to Both as to one God, and that their worfhip is infe- f arable'^. As to Eufebitis, your laft Evidence, tho' I build little upon fo late, and fo fufpe^led an Authority, (which, as I have often hinted, you ought no more to urge againft- me, than I to urge yllexander^ Cyril; jithanafiui^ or Hiiarjy againft you ) yet neither had He any fuch mean Thoughts of God the Son , as you have: Nor did He found his worflyip upon any inch low Principles ; which I have fhown above. He is, however, the firfl you could find, among fuch as have been ever called Catholicity who pretended to fay, * that Father and Son arc not iVoTn^toi, the firff that durft: ever flatly contradi^!!: St. John, for rather" bOr Saviour Himfelf by St. Joh^) where He fays, * Tffius €(\: Honos utrique tribucndus tanqinm uni Deo: 8c in <)ividenilus eft per duos, cui'us, ut divilio ipfsCompage infcp/xrabV.i Vinciatur. Ncutrum fihi rclinquct, qui aur Patrcm a Fil'o. aus Filiuni a Patrc fecernit. Lact. Epit. c ^i; p, 141. Ed. C\nt. ^ i ( thd 4-IO A Second Defense Qu.XVIIL that aU AUn Jljotild honour the Son even as they ho' near the FathcVy John v. 23. I conclude with the fame Declaration I formerly made , that " 1 defire " only to have 1 hings fairly reprefented , as They *>' really are; no Evidence fmothered, or flified, on *' either fide. Let every Reader fee plainly what " may be jtdfily pleaded here, or there, and no " more". Had you attended to thefe good Rules, which you are pleafed to remind me of, and to fa- vour with your Approbation, you might have brought your Book into a lefs compafs; and perhaps have done as much real Service to your Caufe, and kfs Hurt to your Charader. '^e^' ^€^^.^^m^mi%'^^Vi^^^% ^iK& Q^U E R Y XVIII. Whether Worjhip and Adorattci^^ both from MeH and Jnoels ^ wm not due to him^ long before the Commencing of his Mediatorial Kingdonij as he IV as their Creator and Prefervcr , [fee Col. i. 16, 17.) And whether That be not the fame Title to Adoration^ -which Gcd the Father hath J as Author and Governor of the Univerfe^ upon the Doclors own Principles^ IT is proper the Reader fhould be let into the full Defign and Purport of This Querjj that He may be able to pafs a more certain Judgment of the Per- tinence > or Impertinence of your Anfwer. The Qiieflion is , whether the worfliip of Chrill be founded upon any Thing antecedent to his Incarnation and Exaltation, c>r only upon the PouJtrs then fuppo- kd to be given Him, If it was founded on Any ' thiiig Qu. XVIII. offome Q\J E R I E S. 411 thing antecedent, then the Doclor nnd you have very imperthiently cited Alatth, xxviii. 18. John v. 22, 25. Phil. ii. 10, II. and the ^hkc Texts, as car- rying in Them the folc Fotiyidiition of his worfhip, after the manner of the Socinians : If it was not founded on any thing antecedent, what Account can you give of Chrift's being Creator, of his being God before the Creation, Jolm i. i. of his having Glory before the World ii^as, and the like ? In iliort, the Do3or is here confounded between Two Schemes, Socinian and Arian, and very unskilfully endeavours to tack Both together ; which is utterly impracticable. Either let Him found the worfhip ol the Son u-pon what was antecedent to the Incarnation, and then He may tolerably go on upon the Arian Scheme: Or if He chufes to found it intirely upon the fubjC^Hent Powers He is all over Socinian, and does not' know it. My Defign is nor to fuffer you to take the Advantage of Both the Schemes, which are ut'erly inconfj Trent with each other. You mud: either drop your Arhm Principles, and fo fettle in Socinianifm: Or if you refolve 'to retain your Arian tenets, you muft di-op your Socinian Pleas, to be all of a piece. This is what you may eafily be driven to ; and That was the Defign of This Qtierj, If the Reader takes This along with Him, He will readily perceive how hard you are here prefs'd ; and how elufive, and infufiicient all your Anfwers are. You fay, whenever the Mediatorial Kingdom bcgjn, the worfloip however of Chrift was by the command of the Father. That I allow : And fo was alfo the worlhip of the Father firft introduced by the command of the Father. Hitherto you are only fliifting ; and come not to the pinch of the Ouejiion\ namely, when the worfhip began , or whereon it was founded^ What follows, (p. 392.) is ftill evading, and running from the Point in Queftion. What comes neareft to ir, is your faying, that He by ivhom God created ali F f f 2 Tmnui 412 A Second Defeistse Qu.XVUI. Things ^ has not the fame Title to ^oration "^'wh Him Tijho created all Things , by Him, Well : but has He any Title at all upon the Foot of his being Creator \ Or do you make Him a meer mrm- nd Crearor ? If, according to Heh, i. ip. He laid the Fomidaiion of the Eartij , and if the Heavens were the IVorks of his Hands: And if He was God before the Creation , (according to John i. i.) then (how Ifnc, tliat the pn^'cr of Ji^d^ing, or any thing of like nature fubfequent, ever c.ould be a higher ^ ox an equal Foundation of vvorihip with what ha^ been menti- oned. You cannot. ;ll\ow, that He was made a God, after his Rcfurretftion : But it is plain, and you can- not gainfay it, tliat He was God before the Creation. Wherefore I inlifl; upon it, that Fie had as clear and full a Title to Ji^orjfjip before his Incarnation, as any you can lliow after: And therefore it is.ftrangely in-^ confiftent of you to /£>/L^;;/ were flirewd Men, and lliowed fome Vml and*^Sagaciry jn the workinj^ up their Scheme. They founded the worfhip of Chrift upon the power * of judging y and his exaltation: But then They were f never fo (illy as to fuppofe Him God and Creator I before. The Ariai^s tounded the worlliip of Chrift I upon. his. being Creator » and God before the World: ^, B lit. t'lieri They, were not fo weak as to found it upon Ithe "povjer of judging^ Sec, Whereas you, to give a ISpecirnen of your great Dexterity in forming a f Scheme, have, marvelloudy tacked two parts toge*- I ther, one of which will fuic only with the Soeinian ' Scheme , the other only with the ylrian^ or Catho^ //V^; thereby betraying great unskilfulnefs, and want of Thought. Which of Thefe Parts you will at/ leni^th give up, I know not: But ail Men of Senfe,i atid common Difcernment, will kugh at you fctf^i holding Both* ■. ,: ^-m.^^ When Qu.XVIlI. o//^^ QUERIES. 4n When I wrote my Defenfi , the Dodoi had not determined that God the Father is ever called GoJ^ in Scripture, in the metaphjifical Senfe, VVor/hip even of Htm was to be founded only upon his Ojfice (God was then a Name of Office ) relative lo w^. I was therefore of Opinion, that if the Son was Creator, as great an Office as any, and as highly meriting of us. He muft then, upon the Dodor's own Principles , have the fame Title to Adoration as the Father Him- felf had : Nor do I fee, that you have yet been able to baffle This reafoning. You have been forced to allow (obliged thereto by the unanimous Cur- rent of Antiquity , Eujebim not excepted ) that the Son is immediate Artificer, or Creator^ of the Univerfe, This is meriting as highly of us as is pollible ; more, one would imagine, than meerly giving out Com" mands'y which is an Honour you refervc peculiar to the Father. If therefore worlhip be founded, not upon any Dignity and ExcelUrjcy of Nature, but upon relative Offices', it feems to me, that the Son's Title to our worfliip is as clear and full as polfible, upon your oivn Principles; fuch I mean as They were at That Time. My Argument there-, fore was good when I made it ; however you may have varied your Notions fincc. I add further, that my Argument, from the hand the Son had in creM- ing^ Will remain impregnable for an equality of wor- fliip, whatever Principles you take up in hopes to c- lude it : tho* That particular was not the fpecial Purport of This Qtiery. You had argued againft eteating being a juft Foun^ dation of worfhip, becaufe no jiti of Dominion : To which I replied, that the fame Argument would hold with refpeci to the Father alfo ; And fo his creating the World would be no foundation for worlliip.)ing Him, being no more an u^5i of Dominion than the Son*s creating is. To which you now reply, that the World was made by the Father's Original abfolHte Authority and Power, This is not defending your firft Anfwer, but retreat- ing 414 ^ Second Defense Qu.XVIIL ing to Another. However , This will not do , any more than the Firft. For, you will never be able to prove, that the Son is not as compleatly and fully Creator as the Father : And Scripture never founds worihip upon the original, underived manner of Cre- ating, which you fpeak of, but upon the creating it /'felf*. What you objed from ^^^'. iv. lo, ii. cre^ ated for his fleafure, has been anfwered above f. You go on upon This Argument of the Son*s having the fame Title that the Father ha?, tho' but a by-part of the Ojiery, Not a word do you fay to clear your felf of Socinianifm , not a Syllable to vindicate your inconfiftency in founding the Son's worjlnp upon his Alediatorial powers given after his Refurredion ; at the fame time admitting that He was God before the World, and created the World. This perhaps was too tender a Point to be touch'd. To purfue you in your own way. I pleaded, john xvii. 5, Glorify me with- the Glory, &cc. not to prove that the Son had the fame Title to worpip which the Father has ; but to fhow that the Glory He had after his Incarnation was mt greater than He had before : And therefore it was a weak Thing of you to overlook his former Glories equal to any, and to found his 7vorflytp upon what came after. 7 o This you reply, {p, 594.) His being reflored to the Glory He had before, does not prove that the Power of judgment -i 3c c, was not an additional exaltation. Yes, but it proves fomething more^ that even after all judgment was committed 4o Him, He was yet not in- vefted with That Glory, not with fo great Glory, (for why fhould He ask for kfs, if He had greater) as He had before the World was. But you add, that // the Son had the fame right to Glory that the Father had, {t could be no more proper for the Son to pray to the * See my Sermons, p. o?, Foiher* Qii.XVIII. offome (QUERIES. 415 Father^ to glorify Him, than for the Father to fray to the Son. But the Cafe is different, becaufe the Son was incarnate^ and not the Father : Therefore it be- came the Son to />w, but not the Father. Ay but, fay you, could not the Son Himfelf have given it by his own Authority? Yesj But as the Father did not difdain to receive Glory from the Son, v/hy fhould the Son refufe to receive Glory from the Father? As to Irenam's Teftimony, that the Son was of old wor- fliipped together with the Father it is a very plain one ; and I have given it above f. The Father and Son together are there exprefsly ftiled The God of the living: And it was the God of the living that the Patriarchs adored. You have a pleafant Remark (f* 142. ) on That Paffage of Iremms : You fay, I take no notice of the emphatical Words, RefurreBio autem ipfe Domi^ nm eft. Behold, now I have taken notice of them : of what ufe are They, I befeech you, in our prefent Debate ? How do They at all leffen the Force of my Argument \ Would you have it , that Chrift was adored by the Patriarchs of old, as God^ becaufe He was to be exalted to be God 2000 Years after? You fnould fpeak out plainly, that a Reader may underftand you : unlefs your Defign be to give a Hint as if you had fomething material to lay, when you have really nothing. It puts me in mind of the Modeft Pleader, who once thinking Himfelf obliged to quote, at full length, a noted Pal- fage of Bp. ^ Pearfon ^, which had been ufually cut into halves, ( The latter half beglr.s with, and there- fore) He claps This Note upon it: What That learn- ed Jh'itcr meant by the Word-, Therefore, / juhmit to the judicious Reader f. No doubt but He would have the judicious Reader imagine there is fomething t Pag, 401. ■^ See it above, p 204. t Msdeft Pica, p. x\%i wei ighty 4i6 ^ Second Defense Qu.XVIII. weighty in the Remark ; tho* He can neither fhow what, nor li^hy. But to proceed. I had referred to Eufebtus and Athanafitts ^ as Both agreeing that Gc^d the Son was worlLipped by Abra^ ham^ AloJeSy and the Jeji^ifh Church : It was there- foie the Senle of the Antients in general (as we may fafely conclude from Thefe Two Writers, and their Agreement ; were there no other Proofs ) that God the Son had diftind worfhip paid Him long before his Incarnation : And therefore his worjhip (whatever it were) could not be founded on the Commiflion to jptdge^ or the like, as you hive founded it. After your many boafts gf the Antimts , groundlefs and ihamelefs as I ever met with, here in a very impor- tant Point, the Point of IVorp/py wherein our Prac- tice is nearly concerned; here, I fay, you run coun- ter to all the Catholkks of the Primitive Church ; nay, to all the fober Arians^ who will hereafter rife up in Judgment, and condemn you, for founding Chrift's woriliip fo meanly ,, iipon I know not what Powers given after his Refurredion. They founded it upon Reafons Antecedent to his Incarnation, upon his being God before the World, and Creator of the WcH'ld by his own Pow^r*. You endeavour to Ihow that Epifehius^s Do(51:rine about the worfhip of Chrift runs not fo high as mine. Perhaps it do^s not : I did not cite Eufebius for That purpofe. But I cited Him as an Evidence,^ to prove that all Antiquity is diredly and fully againft }'our way of founding Chrifi's worfliip in the Power of judging^ &c. You have none of the antients, ex- cept fuch as PhotinuSi or Pofd of Samofata^ to coun- * Chriftum Col.imus ut Crtatorem. Serm. Arian. ap. Auguft, Antequam faceret univerfa, omnium Futurorum Deus & Do- /ninus, Rex &: Creator erat conftiturus. Voluntate & prjecepto" (Ptitris) Carlcftia & Terreftria, vifibilia & invilibilia, corpora Z<, fpirirus, e;«r w«///V exJlar:tibHs, ut eflenr, y5/« njirtMt fecit. Serni. Arianor. p. 6t2. tenance QU.XVIII. offome Q^U E R I E S. 417 ^cnance you in it : The ArUm^ at Icafl: the generali- ty of Them, would have been afhamed of ir. This ^s what I before prcfTed you with ; And you, in your Reply, diUemble and totally conceal it, leading your Reader off to quite other Thing*;. What you have from Fhilo is {Hll diverting, and running off from, the main Point : Nor are Philo's Notions, in This Cafe, of any "moment in th& Cbn- troverfy ; unlefs the Apoftles^ and Primitive Chrifti- ans had no better guide than Philo. Philo mrghc hit upon fome Truths, but fhaded with Errors, and not breaking out with full Luftre and Brightnefs. '' A clearer and fuller Difcovery was a Privilege referred for the Chriftian Church. Yoiir'*RemarJ\, (p' \^J-) ^bout the Ayigel which appeared *to Miinoah is'jufti' And had you looked into the lafi: Edition of m^^f- fenfe^i you would have found that pai't coH'ede'd.' 'For it is not my way, after. I perceiVe'anV lijillake; 'CO' perllft in it. -.AyJs u.y <^^'^A, !'[ y- To concludel The Reader' is defired to' obfefve, thit you had been charged whh taking in two incon- fiftent Schemes ( ^r/4;2 ^nd Soci^ian.) intd'fcn^V ^iind! tacking Them very abfurdly together; that' yc:'r^.,;''/e: been called upon to declare which of the disjl^mted Parts you will give up, or/clfe to lliow lioW it is polfible to make them ftand togethdt-; that after'l^^-' nrre Deliberation, you have m.acje no An^ver to the' Charge, but have palTed it ovei"in profound Silence' Thcfe are the Facfs ; let every lipnefl Reader" judge* what to wfer from them. ' ' ?t^^ "" '' '"' "''*• UJ9V!0i^ 41 8 ^Second Defense Qii. XIX, q^V E R Y XIX. whether the Vocior hath net given a very f ar- il d Account f^/^John v. 23. fonnSvg the Ho- nour due is the Son, en this only, that the Fa- ther hadi committed all judgment to the Sonj Ti^-he/^ the true Rca>jon ajjlgncd hy cur Saviour , arid lllujlrated hy [everd raftmces^ is, that the Son doth the fame things th^t the Father doth, hath the jame Fowey and Authority of doinrj 7i4jat he will ; and therefore has a Title to as or cat Honour^ Reverence ^ and Reg:\rd y .as the Father him f elf hath ? And tt is no Oh- jeclion to this, that the Son is there faid to do ncthuig of Himfelf, or to have all given Him by the Fa/ her ^ fince it is owned that the Fa- ther is the Fountain of all , from whom the Son derives , in an inefahle numner, his Ff- fence and Fcwers , fo as to be one with Htm ? THO' you have nothing under This' Query but what [ have before fully anfwercd , or obvi- ared ; yec becntiic you are pleafed to repeat, I Ihall repeat alfo. Dr. CLrlcc's Pretence is, that ChriiVs Honour is founded upon the ^ower of judgment com- mitted to Kim : I fay? his Honour is founded on the /;2/n>.}'7c^ excellency, and antecedent Dignity of his Perfon, whereof the Power of Judgment committed is only a farther Atteftation, ai:id a provifional Secu- rity for the payment of his due Honour. Tt did not nidie Him ivorrhy , but found Him fo : And it: was z^fl^d^ thcit fuch his high worth and dignify mighg Qii. XIX. of fame QUERIES. 419 might appear to Men , and be acknowledged by Tiiem. 71?^ Father hath cjommitted all judgment unto the Sony that all A fen fl^otdd honour the Su?jy even as T'hcy honour the Father. 1 his is not "ivincr us x\\q formal Reafon , or FoH'/idation ot his IIo?wur 4-24 y^ Second Defense Qu.XIX. ir, to make it a Trinity ; which is a Word that has long flood for a quire different Thing*. 1 had retorted upon you your own Arguments againfl: the received Dod:rine of the Trinity ; to iiiow the World how unequal and partial you have been in the handUng this Controverfy. You had fe- veral Maxims about Individual, about Samenejs , a- bout Suhftancc, about Being, which were to be urged as of great Force againft the Dodrine of the Trinity; tho* of no Force in another Subjed:, upon your ovvn Principles. You could allow Being and Being , where you could not fay Beings; Subihnce and Sub- fiance, where you could not lay Suhflantes; Individual Subftance, where yet you could diflinguifh betweea This and That; ^u^ fame Subflance, where it is not the fame in fuch a Senfe o^ famey as you urge againfl us. SameneQ by Vnion you can allow, where you have a mind: Only in our prefent DifpUte, no iuch Thing was to be admitted. This unreafonable^ and indeed fhameful Conduct, in To momentous an Af- fair , I endeavoured to expofe as it deferved. The Reader may pleafe ro look into my Defenfe, p. 292, &c, to fee what I had to fay on That Head : I have no mind to repeat. Prelfed with the Difficulties of the Omniprefence retorted upou you, you now tell me, that my Foundation was wrong, in fuppoiing the Subfiante of God to be God, This I ain a little^, llartled at : Let us hear what your Philofophy can produce in Defenfe of fo wild a Paradox , that the Subjiance of God is not God. I w^ill give the" Reader your Words at length, that He may marvel. Orat. 15. p. 211. t!'i'^ioTt]-m, }^ 7>)y TJJ5 tcT^V'^/iUi (peny. Atlianaf. Ep. i. ad Scrap. p. 678. God QKi. XIX. of fome Q^U E R I E S. 4:^ 5 / God is neither the Subfimce of God, nor the Attributes of God^ hut He is that intelligent Agent whofe Boih the SiibJIance and Attribmes are. And as Infinity^ for in^ fiance y fo every other Attrilute, Powers or Perfection, of the onmiprefent Being, is the ind'tvidkal Attribme, Powcr^ or Perfctiion , of That one individual intelligent Agent , ivhofe the omniprefent Subfiance isy p. 407. The Phi- lofopber that fixed the Earth upon an Elephant, and the Elephant upon a Tortoife , and knew not \Vher6 to go next, could not be more confounded than you appear to be here. The Subfdnce, it feems, is to be fixed upon the Perfon ( which is neither Snbllancey nor Aftribute i but fomething between Both; And thus all Difficulties are wiped off at once, by makii'g Perfon ftand for no body knows what; an Idea^ I fuppofe, or nothing. I have often fufpeded your Notion of Intelligent Agent to be very confufvd; but never thought" it fo wild and unaccountable as Thii comes to. Do you conlider that Intelligent , and Agent are two Adje^ives, which fuppofe a Subfian^ five y two Attributes that require Subfiance for their fupport ? Say that Perfon is the Subje6l : But then what is Perfon, but cither Subfiance, or Attribute, oi" Nothingf Refolve it into its feveral Ideas y and you /will find that Perjon always implies intelligent and ^ aBing Subfiance ; not intelligerit aLting jYothing. Now Intelligence, and Adivcn^fs, are Attributes on- ly of God, that is, of the divine Subfiance i which is God, and what we mean by Cod, as often as w^ fpeak of Him, confidered as the Subjetl of his owii Attributes. I know not whether you might not be led into the Miflake thro' the vulgar way of fpeaking about th^ Subjiance of God, or Siibfl^nce of the Father ; as if the Subftance were not God Himfelf, or not the Father Himfelf, but fomething belonging to Him. The fame ^ /t/ay of fptaking might be a^ good an Argument to J prove, that the Perfon of the Father is not the Father^ but fomething bdomrin^ to the Father* Such a "H h h Mods 426 A Second Defense Qu.XlX. Mode of Speech is very common in other Cafes 5 as when we fay the Body of the Aioon for the A.oon, or the A^attcr of the World for the World. Which Jcind of Language has its Reafon and Foundation in our Vv^ay ol: forming, and ranging cur Ideas for our more dlfUncl Perception. For, not content wirh a general confufe Idea of any Thing, we take ir, as ic were, into Pieces, or Parcels, for a more didind and particular View of it. The Idea^ fuppofe, of God the Father, we divide into two Ideas, SnhJ}ance and Attribute \ and Attribute again into many Ideas flill more diftind, and particular. And now Father (lands for the general confulc Idea , while Stib^ance and Attribute are conf dered as Parts of ir, and belonging to it. This, I take to be the true Account of That way of fpeaking; as well in this, as in the other Cafes above mentioned. So, tho* the Per fin of the Fa- ther be reallj nothing elfe but the Father; yet it is conGdered as fomething dijiinci^ after we have once parceli'd out the general corjufe Idea into feveral par- ticular lie as \ as into Ferjon, Foiver -^ Goodncfs, &c. for the greater DijimEHon, Then even Perjon is confi- dered as but Part of that confuje Idca^ for which the Word Father (lands ; and it is conceived to belong to it, as a Part to the whole* Hence, as I apprehend, arifes the v/ay of (peaking before mentioned; which is right and juft in refpeA of our Ideas, but very in- accurate in regard to the Tte^^* Themfelves, for which th'j Ideas (land : Becaufe indeed our Ideas are not adeqt^ate ; being formed in a way fuited to our own Infirmitjy rather than to the Truth y and StriElnefs of tIjw'Js* Q^ U E R Y Qii.XX. cffome QUERIES. 427 Q^U E R Y XX. Tfhether the Doclor needed have cited 500 Texts , 7inde of the parpoje^ to prove ivhat no Body denies^ n^imely^ a Subordination, in fome Senfey of the Son to the Father -^ could He have found hut oj^^e plain Text againfl his Eternity or ConlUbftamiality , the Points in ^ucftion F YO U hive lirrle under This Qiiery but Repeti- tion and Reference: which requires no farther Notice. As to the Form of Baptifm , which you mention in the Clofe, I have confidcred it in a di- i\\v\Ct Difcourfe *, which you had feen before you came to this Querj, You have nothing to objeft but a Paffa^e from the fpPirioHS Coyjflitutionsy of no value ; and another from Enleb'tHSy of very little. I conrenr my felf therefore with referring to my De^ fe-fife, and Sermons, '^ See my eighth Sermon. H h h i Q^U E R Y 428 >^ Second Defense Qu. XXL CL U E R Y XXI. Whetloer he be ?7ct forced to fupply his want of Scrtpture 'Proof by very framed and remote In- ferencei , md very uncerta'm pKeafonings from the N^iture of a thing, Confefedly O'fcure and above Comprehe-nfion ^^ and yet not more fo than Gods Eternity^ Ubiquity, Prcfciencc, or other Attributes^ which yet we are obliged to acknow- ledge for certain Truths ? YOU tell me, in the Entrance, that none of Dr. Clarke's Propoiitions , on which He lays any Strefs-i are drawn by mere Reafonings from ths incom- frehcnfihle Nature of Gcd, But what think you of jive of his PropofitiofjSy where He denies the Nccef- firy-exijlcme, ( ior fo you now underftand Sclf-exiji- s/e?ice) of rhe Son and Holy-Ghoft\ Elas the DoClor fo much as one Text in the Scripture for any of them \ Not a Syllable, eirhcr in Old or AT^ji^'Teflament , but what he pretends to infer from very obfcure and uncertain Reafonings about derived and under ivedy about Acls and no Acls, about necejfary Agency be- ing no Agency^ about Will^ Coaflion^ &c. profoundly Metaphjjieal^ and Fanciful, with nothing folid or certain m them. The like may be faid of the Dodrine con- tained in his 17^^ Propofition ; which has no Text of Scripture to ftand upon, tho* He lays great Strefs upon it. In fliort, I obferved in my Defenjcy and here repeat, that *« the main Strength of the Do- *' 6tor*s Caufe, lies fiift in his giving either a SabeU ^' li^n, or Tritheifiick^ Turn ( admitting no Medium ) «' to the Catholick Dodrine ; and then charging ic " with confujjon of Perfins ^ Polytheijht y Nonfenfe , «' Contradiction. Take away That (to which his «' con- Qa.XXI. cffome QUERIES. 429 *' conflant Rcfort is , whenever He comes to the *« Pinch of the Qiieftion ; and there will be htrle *' left conliderable." For the Truth and Juftice of This Report, or Ccnfure, I "appealed "^ to the Doc- tor's own Books, which is o^ fair Procedure: And if yoQ have any Thing to fay in Vindication of the Dodor, iLow that the Fa61: is orherwife than I rc- prcfented. Not being able to do Any Thing of this kind, you endeavour as ufual, to turn it off by retori^ ing'y and to put me upon the Defen/ivey having no- thing to plead in Defenfe of the Doctor, or your fclf. This may Terve to bliyid a Reader, and ro con- ceal your Shame : but it is not anfwering O tunes. You fall again upon i Cor, viii. 6, which has been an- fwered over and over. What is That to the Point now in Hand, the Dodor's making jirabud Infercaccs^ except it be giving one Example more, by his vvreft-i- in!!^ of That Text \ As ro God's Eternity^ Vblijuitj^ Vrcfcknce ^ you fay, They Thenijejves are the Suhjetl of our BcticK not parficnLtr A'j.ens philofophical Explications of ihe Ivlanncr of them. Well then, let it be the Subjert of our Belief, that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy-Ghofl: God ; and that they are the One God of the Chriftians. But as to the Mmner how They are Tloree^ or d^e^ let no body concern Himfelf about it. If any one, under Pre- tence of explaining the Mmner ^ changes the Sene of the Word God^ making the Son a mmind God on- ly, and theHoly-Ghoft fcarce fo much; v/har is This but doing the fame, as if under Pretence of explain- ing the Manner of Eternity , Vhicjuity^ or Prcfcieace , He fhould introduce the Doctrine of a nominal not real Eternity, a nominal Ubiquity, a nominal Prefci- ence ; undermining the Doftrines themfelves I Our Difpute is about the Se>tfe in which any of the Peribns is God: Let this be determined by Scripture * Sec my Dtfcnfey p. 303, 317, and 430 A Second Defense Qu.XXI, And Amiquity, and proper Rules of Crhicifm. Make no Obiedtion frora the Almmr how The Thing fhould be: Por all fuch Objedions are as improper, as it wc-uld be in the Qa-ftion of Prefcience"^ y Eterm- y, or Vhiquiij, to leave Scnpture, and fuch approv- ed Rules 'as ferve to determine the Senfe of it, and to retreat to philofophical Reafonings about the M.v,imr y\o\J thefc Things are. This is the very Fault which you have perpetually run into. And * A late Author, in his Ab^cd to a Turk or Indian, being pref- fed with the Inftancc about Frcfcirncs and free Agency , has no Way of coming olf, but by dc\\yh'i'{, that there is lb much as a Jeemuig Repugnaiicy between the Two Ideas, p. y. He is the firft 'Man ot- Tarts who, after conlidering the Subject, ever tiioughl: {o. I could name Him many of the clearefi: Heads, and finefl: Wits among Antienti and Modsms (fuch as Dv. Burnet oi x.\iq pnarter Hoaie, Mr. Lock?, t 76. Q.i. XXL x>f fome Q^U E R I E S. 4 3 r Nvhile we are bringing you plain Scripture Proofs for Chrifl's Divinity^ as plain as can be brought for the Divinity of the Father ; you are filling People's Heads with Tritheifm and SabelUamfm , with jpecijick^ and tndividptd y with identical wholes and undivided Parts ^ with ^tls and « plain it doth not, lince it means I exifting from no Catife, which is negative; tho' fach • Exi/lence implies all podrive Perfe:lions, Bp. Stil- lingfleet on the Trinity (p. 278.) f^ys, " To be from *' Himfelf, in the Senfe generally underftood , is a '5 meer negative Expreflion And. in This Senfe ^f;only, learned IMen have told us, that it is to be ** underftood by thofe antient and modern Writers, «^ who have ufed That Expreilion, as when St. J-c- '^ ram faith, that God is felf' originated, and Sr. ^^z- '' y?/>, &c. — Ail thefe andfuch like ExpreiTions are " only to be negatively underflood. "^To return, yiyou proceed to make two or three little Excep- tions C fcarce worth Notice ) to v/hat you met with in my Lefenfe, You declare that your Argument againft the Son's being God, in the Jiricl Senje , is not founded upon what can 3 or cannot be (which I am glad to hear) but upon i Cor. viii. 6, which I have often anfwered. You acquaint me farther, {p» 415.) that Two Supreme Gods cannot be On^ Supreme God; which I readily agree to : As neither can two Gods, fupreme and inferior, be one God, or ever fl:.ind with the Scripture Dodrine of One God. But two Perfons in Nature equal, and fo equally fupreme, may be one Supreme God* You affure me, that you did fet out upon the Foot vf Scripture , and do continue upon That Foot ft ill, I <^ See fearfon on the Creed, Art. i. p. 39. I i i 2 heartily 43 6 ^ S E C d N D D E F E NNjS E Qu.XXIl, heartily wifh you could mean^ as well as fAjy and not revoke all again prefently, by denying the Son and Holy-Ghoft to be necejfarily-exiflmg: Which you have not the leaH: Syllable of Scripture to counte- nance you in. And I willi you would not every where repreient a Diftindtion of Order, or Office to be in- confiftent with the divine Vnity : Which again you have no Scripture for, but meer fanciful Speculations. You have the le^s Reafon to blame me for mention- ing Office m Refped of God: Becaute, you know. There was a Time , when the Word God was thought to be always a relative Word of Office, As to Lucians Philopatris ^ I have given my Thoughts of It above (p. 72.) Your Hints about a Paffage of Irenausy which I had fufficiently explain- ed * by another of Novdtiayiy and a third of Tertullian, are very trifling. Thofc Herericks thought it mean and degrading for God to become yli^y? : Which made fome of Them deny Chri[l*s Divimtj , and others his Humanity, all, the Union of Both Natures^ in one Perfon. V^/hether You ^ or I give the mod Countenance to Thofe Hereticd Tenets> T-IiJea^e ihe Reader to judge. '\ ^-r W, ,^ 4 • Defenfe, p. 32)-. QUERY Qu.XXI. affomeQlJEV^lES. 4.17 Q^u F. R r XIX. Ifloether his the (the Dodor's) -u^hole Ferforrnmct^ 7vhe never He differs from us, Le a,ny thing more than a Repetition of This Ajjertion, th.it lic- ing and Perfon are the fame^ or that there IS no Medium between Trithcifm a7id Sabcl- lianifm ? -which is removing tie Caufe from Scripture to natural Reafon\ not very confifent. -ivith the Title of his Book, YO U begin with telling me, that If two or more Intelligent Agent i can he the fame Being , or ('dhftfl in the fame individual Sabftance (provided the Agents be not ail of Tmri^ Self-extjlent ) This will no way ^jfetl the Trmh of Dr. Clarke'/ Propoftions. The Header ii to know that by the fame Beings or SubfiaKce'-i in this cafe, is iinderftood the fame nccefjarilj-exifiing Subilancc : For necejfary and precarious, that is, nncrcated and creat- ed, cannot be called the fiime individual Suhflance. By Self-exiftent, as you have now explained your felf , you mean necejfarily -exijling. The Sum then of what you have here faid, amounts to This wife Sen- tence ; '• If Two or more intelligent Agents can */ be the fame necejfarily -exiftwg Beings or fubfift in <' the fame necejfarily-exifiing Subflance (provided the *' Agents be not ail of them neceffarily-exifiing) This ^' v/ill no way afFed the Truth of Dr. Clarl^'s Pro- " pofitions. What is This to the Purpofe ^ Do not you here plainly deny that two Perfons can be one necejfary Being, or Subftance? And This is what Dr. Clarke 43S r^ Second Defense Qu.XXII. Clarke has often denied ^ ; and could never give a fufB- cient Reafon for doing it. Indeed the Dodor ( or you for Him ) feems at length to have given up his general Principle, which he fii'ft indfted upon, viz., that Two Perfim cannot he ■ one Being ; which He chiefly grounded upon the Confideration of the imaginary Compojition implied in ir. I fay, He ap- pears to ha'v'e given This up ; being at length fenfi- ble that He has allowed, in another cafe, Spibftance aad Suhftance, Being and Being to make One Subfiance and Qne Beingt without any Comfofition, But what the Do6tor (or you) infills upon now, is, that Two fuch Perfons cannot be one nccejfary Being or Suhftance ; or that derived and underived cannot be Both in- cluded in one Necejfary fubjlance. Which tho* it be putting the Objedion upon a different Foot, yet wants to be proved as much as did the other : And is equally liable to the Charge I brought againR the Dortor in this Onery , his remc^'ing the Caufe from Scripture to natural Reafon ; to a philofophical Qiienion, whether the Ideas of Self - exijlence and, N'ecejfarj - exiftence l)e the fame or diferent , or whether underived expreffes an effential PeifecHon , all that Necejfarj -exiftence does, or only a Relation of Order, and Mode of Exirtence. After all your Pre- tences to Scripture, you really refolve the Difpute into This A4etaphjfcal Queftion ; And you cannoB " * Three intelligent Agents in one individual, identical Subftance, is fo feit-evider.t a Contradiclion, that I think no Reafoning can make it plainer than Intuition. Dr. Clarke's Three Letters, p. 5 u Two Perfons to be one Being. I think a manifeft Gpptradidion hi Terms. C/^r^e's Reply, p. 15-7. Two Perfons in one and the fame individual ttn compounded Be- ing, is an exprcfs Contradidtion. Ibid. p. 169. Two Individuals cannot, without an exprefs Contradi(5lion.> have an Identity of Nature, Reply, p. 1S4. '^' The Reafon why our Saviour could not affirm that He and his 'father were one Being, is becaufe he would thereby have affirmed \h^t they were One Perfon. Reply ^ 291. .^ advapc^ Qu. XXII. offome Q\J E R I E S. 439 udvance your Caufe at all by Scripture , but by the Help of your Aietapliyficki' You take your Rife from I. Cor, viii. 6, to come at umriginate : Thus far is "^commenting upon Scripture, The reft is Philofephy ^ falfe Philolophy, drawing Inferences from umriginate to Self- exigence , from Self-exiflence to Necejfary-exifi^ ence , from thence to the Father's being alone ne- ccllarily-exifting, from thence to the Exclufion of the Son from being necepirily - exijiing , from thence to the making Him a precarious Being (tho* in Words you deny it) and from thence to his being a Creature: This is the Courfe of your Reafoning. Your 'Tce^^rof •vj/EiJi'o?, or fundamental Error, lies in your Philofophji I confounding umriginaie ( as did the antient Euno^ J mians ) with JVeceJJary-exiJiefice ; which you have nd foundation for : Or if you be allowed to make JVeceJfa- ry-exiflence the fame with Self exi (fence ', you will then never be able to prove, that the Father alone is Self- exiftent ; or that the Selfexiftence of three Perfons (fo underftood) is at all inconllftent with a real Diftin- <^ion of Order-, and Office, It will be changing the Names of Things, and nothing more. It is ma- nJfeft, from what I have obferved , that Scripture is not the Thing you truft to, but Philofophj ; be- caufe when we have .'^ranted you all you pretend to have proved from Scyr^ture, viz,, that the Father is the firfi Perfoiij .^.".iveJ fro??! none, you are ftill but- > here you vvhere, '11 you call in Philofophy and Ai^e- t>-/rffick^ to make ou: the reft, and to determine the nain Queftioh. You are now plea'ed to put the Tviaiter upon This , whether tv/o fupieme Perfons can lye one fuj reme God. You /ay {p, 420. J Two eqUcHiy fupreme Perfons uniud may be in the complex Senf:, one Being, one Subilance ; iut They Ti'ill not confiqticntly k i-ie fupreme Governour , one Lord^ one God. Now , here in the firft Place , I very much blame your nor attending to the Dif^indion of fu- preme in Nature , and fupreme in Order, It is in the firflr Scnfe only > that v,e aflert I'wo, or Three Sispi;?/ie 440 y^ Second Defense Qu.XXII, Sfiprewc Per/oKs; fupreme in every Perfeflion, hav-^ ing no higher or lower , no (setter or 7i'orfe , no De- grees ot eflenti?.! Power , Wijdom , or any other Attribute. At the fame Time, Thofe Perfons> thus equally fupreme in Nature , are not equally fuoreme in Order^ but Two of Them are [tibordinate to One, the Head and Center of Unity. And, becaufe They are in Nature tindtvidcd^ and in Order referred up to That one Head and Fountain of all , They are there- fore, with Him, One Governor -^ One Lord^ and One Cod. And tho' tm Authority, the Dominion, the Power be confidered always primarily in the Fatheri yet is ic common to all ; only with this Order, that the Father has it from^ none^ They from the Father : So that all that remains peculiar to the Father , is a Pre-eminence, or Priority of Order, This is the C^//:?(?//V/^ Doftrine which you are endeavouring to confute: Bur, inftead of Arguments, you generally give us only ambiguous Words, and Names, to con- found and perplex what ought to be kept ckar and diftind. You tell me of running counter to Scripture and Antiqtiiuj , in making more than one ahjoiutely [ti* freme over dL Here you are only doubling upon , or trifling with, the Word Supreme. I make Three jupreme jn Nature \ I fuppoie One on\y Jupreme in Order, or Office: Show me either One Text of Scrip- ture , or oi\Q Jingle TeUimony of Catholick^ Antiquity (i allow not EujebtHS for fuch) that plainly contra- dids Either ot Thefe Pojitions. They appear to me , Both of them, true and jull Portions; founded in Scripture^ and confirmed by the univerfal Suffrage of x\\Q ylmients. If they appear not confident in your Philojophy, own it frankly and ingenuoufly, as an ho- fieil: Man vvould : But do not mii-rcport ScripturCf ti\d Antiquity, What follows in p. 4215 is only repeating your DVv'ii FtUiuns both of M.', and of the Anticnts. T hucj Qii.XXII. cf forne (QUERIES. 441 I had appealed to the ProphjCt Ifiiiah, as interpreted by St. ^fchyiy making Father and Son One Lord of Ilojis. ■^ You tell me blunrly, There is no f'nch Thing in the Texts \ referring me ro Dr. CLirkfs Script are- Docirine, I fay, there is in Thofe Texts all that I before af- kittd : And why do you now refer me to Dr. CLirl^r^ whofe Pretences I h^d before * confidcred, and, I think, confuted ^ You tcli me that neither the antient Writers, nor Bp. Bfilly arc at all of my Opinicn in the Point of cqiul Supremacy of Dominion, But fo iar as I appre- hend of tlie Aitients^ and of Bp. BnlL Tlvcy were exactly of my Opinion, as They are diredly oppo- f]re to yours : And J wonder at your Prefumprion in claiming any Acquaintance with Them., or Inrerell: ill Them. You have a pretty Argument (/?. 425.) to prove St. Paul a P.igany and an Jdohiicr^ upon my Princi- ples ; that IS, upon the Principles of the Catholick^ ChLM'ch in all Ages : For mine are no other. But hov/ is This wonderful Confequ:nce to be railed \ It is ftrll by fuppofing, that St. P.vtl excluded the Son from the One Godhead-, an im.aginary Confe- quence drawn from the i Cor. viii 6. Anci next by fuppofi ng, that St. PaHl allowed mediate and inferior Worfiiip ; another imAgmary Inference drawn from I Tim, ii. 6, Phil. ii. 11. After {porting your felf a while in to ridiculous an Argument, you come to invent fomcthing for me to iky : You fuppofe I ihaJl fay, , that our Lord is That One God men- tioned I Cor. viii. 6, Wliich you think highly ab- furd. But what .if I fiiould plead, that Tloat 0ns God is a filly lExprctfion, where there are not Twd One-Gods y and therefore faould rather fay, that our Lord is not 'That Perfin xh^rQ .fliled One God by way of Eminence, but Another Perfon, who is yen * SsnfionSi p. 30, 31. K k k iDfic 442 A Second Defense Qu.XXII. One God ^vuh Him. Your Interpretation of the ■Ci}ds mdny and Lords many , as alluding to the fupe^ Tiur and i}7Jcrior Deities of the Pagans, fiands upon the Aufl^.onty of Mr. Alede : Who, like a modelt r.nd learned Man , propoftd it only as a plar.Ijblc ■Co>7Jechire<, not with the Confidence you (peak of it. An ingenious Gcntlcnv.n * has very lately fuggefted fevcral Things on That Head, well deferving Conli- deraricn ; and iuch ss appear fufficient to rridke Mr.. yl4f^i;^'s Con^irudion prfs for precarious at lealf, if not ccrtanily f^ilfe. Tiure's one obvious Objedion to be f.irther uicd cgainft it; that to make the Gods many anhver in the Com pari fon (in your Way) They fhould be underilood to be many frprcme Gods; which yet the Heathens never allertcd, but the contrary : As Dr. Cfidiporth and other learned Men have abun- dantly ihown. To me it appears, that The many Gods and many Lords mean the fame Thing, un- der different Names ; and that St. P<^///, in Oppoii- tion 'o having many , ailtrts that all Things v^'ere of The One God, and by The One^ Lord, intimat- irg their perfect Vnity of Power, Perfedion , and Opcrarion, to as to be Eoth but One God and Ojje Lord ; the One Lord being One with the One God, and v^ce vcrja. To [;roceed : How well you have been ible to anfwer tJie Charge of Poljtheijm, has been feen before: ^And paiticularly sls xo Origcn, it has bren fiiown that his Anfwer to the Charge in his Piece againfl Ccljus ^ was nothing like yours, but directly contrary y affirming Father and Son to be One God, I pafs over ycur Repetitions in p. ^16, 427, which hnve been abundantly anfwered. Two Gods, One SHpreme and Another inferior t is fo manif^flly your Doiflrine, that you do but expofe your fclf to ridi- cule by flruggling to evade it. The Socinians, in This, * Mr. lV.uli*s ll-jor!: Inquiry into the Doiflrinc qf the Trinrty, wspe Qu. XXII. of J me Q^U E R I E S. 44j were plainer Men, niid did not fcruple to confcTs a clear Tiling. You pretended , before, to luring Aritc - nicetie and Tofl-nkene Writers againfl: me, as to tiie P(.iiit of charg- ing you with Polytheifm, Ikntw you Jnd none, but that ycu had unliappily deceived your felt' with a few fecond-hand Scraps o's yithanajms , Hilary^ and BaiU -^ which you underftood nor. 1 aniwercd your Pre- tences, and produced AiU and plain Teilimonies -^ againfl: you, both from Ante-nkeyie and Poft-niane An- tiquity. One was out of a Fragment of Dionylins Ro- raama^ preferved by y-hhanajitis ; a very valuable one, and fuch as no CVvV/V/^will ever doubt of, as ro its being genuine : Your Exceptions therefore againll it, as of doubtful Authority, are not worth the Notice ; be- flde that I have anfv/ered them above f. Another Te- flimony I produced from AchanAjuis Himl.lf for per- haps BiiiV,) who makes it Dithcijm eicli:r to fuppofe Two Principles t or to adnnt Ojc God un.krivcd and another God derived, Yo'jr Remark upon Him tor ir, is fo very furewd and fagacious, that ir is niry the Rea- der fhould lofe it : tie fnall have it in your ov/ii Words. Ton cite a Pajfage of Athanaiun, t Lit He who introdf'iccs a God under ived ^ and another who is a God derived^ mal^s two Gods : jV^ich is not verj cor,.ijie:it 7vith his own fo'Cgoing Words^ that He who introduces two original Principle^, preaches Two Gods : For^ that in This unoriginate Principality over all -i conjifls the ZJnity of God, was the exprefs Doflrine of all the Ante-nicene Writers, Now, are you really fo blind as not to have perceived, that That Origination (accord- ing to the Antients) was not fuppofed to m.-ke the Father One God exclufive of the other Perfons ? But becaufe Two of the Perfons were referred to One as their Head, undivided from Him ; Therefore alL T^ree together were the One God. This was the ufe They mad^ of the Origination : Not to throw out: the Son and Holj-GhoJ} , as you do , but to take ■^Vfenfe, p. 338. f p. 347. K k k 2 Jhem 444- -r^ Second Defense Qu. XXIL Them Boih in. Yet )ou src conftantly reprefen- ing that Grigmation in a quire different Light, and to a quite different Purpofe ; meanly quotmg Bp. pear/on for it : Who contradicts you in the very fame Sentence , and rcprefcnts the Cafe as it really flood among the u4micnts, being a learned, and a jt4- dk'wm Man. Upon This Occafion, I fhall here tranflate That Paflage of AikcinaJhiSy that the common Reader may fee what the Antients thought of Tritheifm, in a VQvy few Words. " He that introduces Two Principles ( or Heads ) *^ preaches up Two Gods : Such was the impious «« Do!:frine of Adarcion. /igain, He that afferts an »«- " created God , and another God created^ does alfo <' make Tivo Gods ; becaufe of the difference of Na- V ture (Ejfence ) which He blafphcmoufiy introduces. <' But where there is one Head, (or Father) and *' one Off'spring frr.m Him, there is but One God; <« the Godhead being perfed in the Father, and the *« perfed Godhead of the Father being alfo in the <* Son." I refer the Keader to my Defenle^ (p. 5:58.) for the Origtnd] where he will alfo find other Paf^ fages to the fame purpofe. what you produce next from ynflin-, Novtitiayit Hilary^ and Bp. Pearfon^ the Reader may judge of by the lafl: of Them; whom you quote as faying, Tljis Origi-yiation or the divine Patcrnitj , has antiently been looked upon as the y^jfcrtion of the Vmtj, Here you flop, as ufual. The very next Words of Bp. Pearfon are ; ^nd therefore the Son and PIolj - Ghofl hjive been believed to be bm One God with the Father^ becaufe both from the Father , who is One, and fo the Union of Therfi^ : Diiedly contrary to what you cited Him for. Such are your Reprefentations of Authors ; fiich your manner of ufing the common Reader. ' ^ Pearfon on thz CretJ, p. 4c. (^ U E R Y QiuXXIII. cffcme QUERIES. 445 ^*r Q^u E R y XXIII. whether the Doctor $ Notion of the Trinity he more clear find i7itelltgible th^i the other ? The Difficulty i'a the Conccftion of the Trinity is, how Three Verfotis can be One God? Does the Docior de?iy that every One of the Per- fo72Sj finely, is Godf No: Does he deny that God is One ? No : How then are Three One ? Does one and the fame yluthority^ exercifed by all make them one, ?iumerically or individually one And the fame God? That is hard to conceive how three di(iincl Beings^ according to the Do- ctor s Scheme^ can he individually one God, that " /i, Three Perfons One Perfon. If therefore One God necejjarily fignifies but One Perfon , the Confequencc is irrefiftiiU j either that the Father is that One Perfon^ and none elfe, which is downright Sabcllianifm , or that the Three Perfons are Three Gcds, Thus the Doctor's Scheme is liable to the fame -[ Difficulties with the other. T^oere is indeed one cafy way of coming off, and that is, hy faying that the Son a?wl Holy Spirit are neither of them Gody in the Scripture- fen fe of the Word, Bat this is cutting the Knot^ in- fie ad of untying it':, ^^d is in effeft to fay^ they are not fet forth as divine Perfons in Scripture, Does the Communication of divine Powers and At- tributes from lather-, to Son and Holy Spirit^ make 44^ A Second Defense Qu.XXIII. m^ke them One God, the Divinity of the Two latter being the Father s Divinity f Tet the ffime Difficulty recurs: For either the Son and Holy Ghojl have dijlinii Attribute Sy and a di- Jlmli Divinity of their own^ or they have 7iot: Jf they havey they are (upon the Dociors Trin- ciples) diflinci Gods from the Father ^ and as rauch as Finite from Infinite, Creature from Crem- ator 5 and then how are They One ? If they have noty then, fince they have no other Divi- ■ nity, but that individual Divinity, and thofe Attributes which are if^feparable from the Fa- thers EJfence , they can have no diftincl Efj'ence from the Father s 5 and fo (according to the Docior) will be One and the fame Perjon^ that iSj will be Names only. Q. whether this be ?ict as unintelligible as the .Orthodox Notion of the Tr'tnity , and liable to / the like Difficulties : A communication of di- vine Powers and Attributes , without the Subflsnce , being as hard to conceive , n<:iy^ much harder than a communication of Both to- gether ? YO U begiQ thus : The Difficulty in the Conception of the Trinity j is not ho7v Three Perfons can be One God. For, the Scripture no where exprejfes the DoElrine in thofe Words : And the Dificulty of under- fianding a Scripture Do^rine ought not furely to he wholly npon Words not found in Scripture, The Rea- der is to know that This is a new Turn^ intended to bring you off from the fiift ftate of the Queitioa where you happened to lofe your felf, in your firft Anfwer. However, tho* it may pafs for an ingeni- ous fhift in Dlftrefs , there is very little in it more '(haq in your firft Anrwa*. Only it is hard upoa me to Qu.XXIII. of feme QUERIES. 447 to have neiv Anfwers now formed to old Queries, and to be put upon changing my Method ©f De- fenfcy as often as you are pleafed to vary your Re- fponfes. Whoever taught you This new Turriy was a Man of no great Prudence, or Forefight : He did not confider how it inevitably recoils upon Dr. Clarke, For, the Scripture no where exprefles in Words, or in Senfe, his main Docirine that the Father alone is JVeceJjarUy-exiJiing^ that neither the Son nor the Holy- Ghofi is Necejlarily-exifiing : (fo you now confefledly underfland Self-exiftent ) Thefe are Tenets not found in Scripture exprelsly, not fo much as deducible by any Confequence , or Shadow of a Confequence. Why then did you not confider better, before you drew up a Charge upon others, which at length falls only to your own Friends ? You go on : '77j very flrange that a Man of your Abilities JJjoM "write a large Book^ without fo much as knowing, or ever once being able to exprefs what the true Queftion is. And it is very ftrange that a Man of your Abilities lliould perceive nothing of my mifiaking the OueJIion, whert you firft anfwered the Queries j but fhould be forced to learn This, at length, of the Adorleji Plcadery from whom you have been content to ccchoe it. Tho' my Abilities are very flender, yet This mean Sugf^eftion will hardly find Credit, even among the loweft Readers that can at all diftinguilh between a probable Untruth, and one that is plainly Roman- tickz VVhen you are again difpofed to abufe an Ad- virfa-ry^ do it a little more artfully ; if without any Truth, yet with a little Difcretion, But I cxcule you for being mifled by a Third Perfon, who was two v/ile to fet his Name, As to the QueJHon ^ I have not miflook it, but have kept clofe to it; while the Dodor and You have been either induftrioufiy di^[niifing it, or unfairly running Trom it. You might think it fufficient if your "ihifting, and l"huf- fling in fo momentous a Controverfy (which plain and honeft Men, on either fide, can but hardly ex- cufe; 44S A Second Defense Qu. XXIII. ciife) be par6'd over as tderahlc\ or may but admit of any candid-, aud flatijibic Colour, fiom the Circum- flanccs you are under. It becomes you not, in the tiitan I'jme, (o magi Serially to corred: others for Ha- ting the QiielHon rtght^ and as it ought to be ftated; Had you but had tiie Courage, and Spirit of your Fjiend Mr. Whijton^ i doubt not but you your felf would have ftated the Queftion as He, and i , and all Men of Senfe and undifguifed Ingenuity have ever done. But enough of This. You were liere to clear Dr. CUrke's Doclrine of the Charge of Three j you are finding I know not what Perplexities in a very eafy Thing ; which I have accounted for twice already, in Print ^. Intelligent u^^ent^ Ircing only two Adje;;ives, is to be underilood according to the Suhjdl to which the Attributes are applied. Put the Words to Subflance, and then we have Intelligent j4gent SuhftancCi whetJicr in Per^ fun^ or Perfonsy li the Subftance be thus, or thus ciicumdantiared , (as explained above) intelligent ^gcnt Subflance may be a Jmgle Perfon \ if otherwilc, ir may be more Perfon s : So that imelligcnt Agent is different in Senfe and Meaning, according as it m.ay be differently applied. Vv^hat you repeat about a Principle of Individuation t and your farther Specula- tions thereupon, have been fufficiently obviated ; or have nothing contradiflory to any thing I affert. I allow that Tl:ree Hands for Three , and Three Subf.anccs for Three Subuances , and Three Gods for Ihree Gods. Vvhat is ail This to Me? I do rot alTert that Tlyrce {lands for more, or lefs than Three; nor that Three Subftances , but that Three Perfons (who are not Three Subflances) are One Subflance; nor that Three Gods, but Three Perfons (vvho are not Three Gods) are One God. What you fay of SabellifiSi (p. 4421) has been anfwered above. And what you fay of the Church's holding one and the fame individual identical whole Subfance , affed'S not me, vv'ho never ex]>rers my Notion in I'uch uncouth * VnfxcB to Sermons, p. fi. Sii^fkmint to the Cafe c/Aiian SH^fcri^tH^n, p. 31. Terps* ?^.XXIIL of fome QU E;r I E S. ^51 Terms. The pime undivided Subftance is what I hold and maintain in oppofuion both to Stihftances and to the SMlian Notion of one Hjpofiajis, mmimillp and not really diftinguiilied. Origens Account of the SabcUiM Notion is very diftinrt and accurate, as I before obferved, vi^. That the Father and Son were One^ not in Ejfcnce only (or Subllance) but in StibjeEl (or fiippojittim) being called pMhcr and Son under different Conjidcrations , not really, or perfonally diftinguillied^. This is a juft account of Origens Senfe m That PalTage. And it is obfvTvable, that the Noetians of That Time would not have been blamed for fuppoling the Father and Son to be W 8cnc6, one in Ejfence^ ( ov what we call one in Stibflance ) had they not carried the Vnion fo high as to make one SHppofnumj or what we now call One Perjon of Both, without any real Diflinfiion. Your Account of it is very little different from mine : Only you are fond of the Phrafe, fngle exiflent Stib- fii^tnce, which ferves you to play with, and you know not what you mean by it. Do but define Vv^hat a Jingle exifient Subftance iSt and I will foon tell you whether the JVame belongs to every fingle Perfin, or to all together. Undivided Sfibftance , in Three Perfons, you fay, makes Three Suhftances, How do you prove it? I have often told you, that Dr. Clarki and you will not: admit This kind of Reafoning in Another Cafe ; for fear of dividing the divine Subftance into numberlefs Subftances. If you can admit Subftance and Sub^ flance, nay. This Subftance and That Subffance , where there are no Subftances\ why d^o you deal thus unequally with others f You mufl allow that Vnion itnoC eC,\Xc& l(Cfjf VTOK^l^iyM Ivy^UVOVTOCi klJl>'o(.JiJt>i Hcla.) applied in This Cafe. It is certain TertHlUan has it, and Ferjom too. And This became the ufual way of exprefling what had been all along believed, and profefled, tho* under other Terms. The Sabellians (by which I mean all of Sabellian Principles) charged the Catholicks with Three Gods, and thereby firft gave occallon to the Church to make ufe of the Word Per/on: l^or, their An- fwer was, that They did not profefs Tu^o Godf, or Threg Gods^ but One God and Two Pcrjons, or Three Perfons^. There being in the Trinity, a DijiinEiion y and an Vnion, there would naturally arife fome '' Difference about the ufe of feveral Ter/^s , to be either flurally or Jingularly predicated, accord- ing as the intent might be to fpeak of the Per" fins as dijlinguifhed into Tl.ree , or as united in One God, The fame Names either plurally or fin- gularly predicated fometimes ferved to exprefs both the Diflinclioft , and Vnion, Gregory Naz^ianz^en calls them Lights and Light, that is. Three Lights^ and yet but One Light ; and fo Three Lifes and yet but One Life I Three Goods , and yet but One Good', Three Glories, and yet but One Glory; the Mind conceiving the Three as DiflinB: y tho' in themfelves united and \ infeparablef. All the care to be taken in thefe Cafes Ecclefiam, neceflario in ufum prxdicationis ailumptum eft; ut qui femper tres crediti funt, 8c vocati. Pater, ^ Filius, 5c Spiri- tas San6his, uno quoque fimul 8c com muni Terfonarum nomine vocarentur. Deindc ctiam. 6c SuhfiJlentU didse lunr, quoniam Ec- cieliac: placuit, ad figr.ificandam Trinitatem, 6c hoc ncmen diflin- ^ioni pcribuali tribuere. Facun. Herm. 1. i. p. 8. See rokat I /jat;e /aid above, p. 213. * See Hippolytus contr Noet. and Tertull. adv. Prax. Grat 13. p. au. was, 45* >^ Second Defense Qu;XXIIL Was, not to make the Diftin&:ion too wide by the finral Expreflions, nor the Vniij too clofe by the fingular : And the Difputes that arofe in this Cafe were from Men's different Apprehcnilons about This or That Phrafi, or Exprejjion^ as being liable to abufe one way or other. Three Spirits was a Phrafe gene- rally thought to carry the DiOinction too far : And therefore One Spirit became the more common Lan- guage; tho' even Jerom Himfelf has been thought to have ufed the Phrafe of Three Spirits'^. But the greated Debate of all was about Three Hjpoftafes , begun at j4ntioch^ The Brians had ufed the Phrafe to fignify Three Subfiames , un- derftanding them to be dijferent in ki^d ( as GoUy Silver , Brafs , ) and feparate frofn each other. A- gain 5 the Sabellians had made ufe of One Hypofiajisy to fignify One Subflmce in fiich a Senfe as left no red Diffindion) but nominal only. Here was there- fore Danger on Either fide; either of dividing the Stth- ftance by making Three Hjpofiafesy or of confounding the Perfons by making One, This Difference was at length compromifed (A.D. l^i,) in a Synod at -^to- andria , where Athanajitts prefided : Either manner of ExpreiTion was left indifferent , fo long as They sgreed in one common Faith , meaning Both the fame Thing, under different Term.s. So that iJ-icn vTrigaai^ or T§£i»/^/w Spl- ritum Patrem appcllai: quia Filius ex Patre, Jic non Pater ex Fi- lio. ipirltum aurem rekiim, Veriratis aique juftin>, Chrifiuni Dominum Significat. Pojto Spiritum S^mcltim apcrto ncnime Tocat. Hieron. in Galat. c. 14. p. i6S. Torn. 4. fhort^ Qu.XXIIL Dffor?}e QUERIES. 457 Tjie Latins ^ could hardly bear the Phrafc of Tns SnyjlantU : It feemgd to carry more in it than the Greekis Three Hjpoftafes. It was utidcrllood to mean either Three Sabjances^ ( thnt is, a Divjf.on of Stih- fiance) or Three different kinds of Subdance ; * Neither of which could be bqrn : And therefore Vna Sub^ fldntiA became the common Language; but fo that the real Diftindion between Father, Son, and Holy- Ghoil: was kept up, to guard again'1: SabclHanifm, indeed, Hilary lifes Trcs Subfvanticc\ : And fo, no doubt, did fome other Latins who where zealous Ca- tholicks : But then They intended no Difference in the kind of Srdfiance, nor any Divifion in the fame kind: Which fecured the true Catholick Notion; and the Offence lay only in -the Expreffion. In fliorr, the main Thing They intended in all, was, that the Three Perfons were really, and more thaa nominally difl;in6l , and all but One God, And They admitted feveral ways of exprelling the Dijllnclion, or Vniony in fuch Modes of Speech as were thought * Et ciiiifquam, rogo, Ore Sacrilego Trss Subftantias praedica- blt? H'eron. Ep. aJ Damaf. Tom. IV. p. lo. Sub nomine Catholicse Fidei, impia Verba defendunti dicentes. Tns ejje Sttbfiantias, cuni fern per Cirholica Fides Unafn Subflan" tiam Patris 8c Filii & Spiritus Sandti contefla lit. Faujiifi. Fid. Theoclof. Mifla. Qjia- noftra loquendi coilfaemdo jam obtiniiir, ut hoc intelliga- tur cum d'lcimus ejft'nt: am quod mtcligitar cum dicimus Sithjlan- iiami non audcmus dicere unam Erfcntiam, Tres Subjiantias, led unam ejfentiam, vel Subflantium, Ties autem Ferfonas, Auguft. Trin. I. f. c. 9. p. 838. Sunt Tria qudtlam cocterna, confubftantiaiia, coeffcnrialia. Sed cum quxrcretur a Patribus, ut diccrctur, Quid T^ria,- nee EJJerf tias, nee Subflantlas, nee Natnras dicerc auli funt j ne alio^ua tbr- te diverfitas crcderetur ellenriarum, aut naturarum, aut lubihnti- arum: Sed dixerunt Tres Verfonas, unam elienriam j ut una efTcn* tia dcclararet Dsnm unnm, Tres aurem Pcribnx* SanClam Trinita' tern oHienderent. F^ilgcht. de Trin. cap. 5. p. 550. f Idcirco Tres fubjlantlas elTc dixerunt, fublift-cnrium Ver- fonas per SubfiantUs edocentes, non fubftanti^im Pa'ris & Fi- lii diverfuate dilTimilis eireatix fcparcntes. Hilar, dc S/nod. M fn m irioft 45^ A Second Defense QiuXXlII. mofl proper to ir. Provided both a red Di{lindion> q real Ttinity were kept up, and^at the fame Time ari ZJnity of Gcd'hcad ; the reft ainounted only to a 'ver- hal Difpure, or Strife about Words. I may here remark, that BajU^ Naz^lanz^en^ Aufliny and others, blamie the (cantinefs of the Latin Tongue* as being the lole Reafon of the perplexity of the Let" /tins , in relation to the Phrafe of Tres SubjUntU. ^ Yet we find , that for a long Seafon the Phrafe or TgcT$ u tt,cxkG\\^ was almoft as much a Bene of Contention amon^ the Gred^i as Tres SahfiantU , among the Latins', and that it was with grcdt Difficulty that it at length prevailed, and became the commiOn Langunge*: As it was alfo Vv'ith fome Difficulty that the other way of (peaking, viz.. Vn^ Stibftantia, obtained among the Latins, The true Ground of all was This, that Both Greeks and Latins wanted a Phrafe to cxprefs Subftance confidered as United ^ but Dijiinguifljed at the fame Time. Three Suhftance's (whether M'K'^c^a^i^^ /or Stihjlanti<& ) exprefl^ed , ordinarily, Three divided y Subftances ; and the latter. Three of different hinds: What therefore could They invent to exprefs Three Things (Tres res , or Tria) real and fubft.mtial, but undivided^ Here lay the Pinch of the Difficulty. Sub (} ami a de Subflantia exprcffed it tolerably well ; like as Lumen de lumine^ and Dcus de Deo: But flill what were they to put to the Word Three, in the plural way of Predication? Pcrfonsf But Sabellipfs had wrefted, and depraved the Senfe of the Word Terjon to an ambiguous, or finifter meaning. Sub- fiances\ But That was alfo hable to Mifconftrudion, and to be perverted to another Extreme. However, the Greeks uvijj^.^o-^i^, by degrees obtained, to fignify the fame as ^goazo?!^ iVUTngxiTcc, And fo long as no * Quamobrcm gratis Bafiims Romanis objiciebat, quod cum nominum Gr^cof-nm vim ignorarcnt, illavum duaruiu voccm lig- nficatior.cm ccnfundercnti c]uando,-;uidem aiii e Grdcss iiativa: pa- tvi:rqjc linguiK uon i^nari prorfus, earum dilcrimen non fatis m- tw'ili^L'baac. U ^. DiviJiOft t^u. XXIIL of fome QjJ E R I E S. 459 Divijwn be underftood, the Phrale may fcrve veiy well : And fo perhaps might the Latin Subjhrjtia: , had not Cudom carried it the other way. Tiie La- / tins have fince invented Tres fahjijientU , Tria fitppo- Jit a, in (lead o^ Tres fithjlAmhH ; tlio* the very SchooU ^ men have not fcrupled Tres Jnu/a^itU ^ with the addition of incommtimcabiUsy or reLuiv>£'^» to inti- mate that the Perfons arc not divided SHbjlayices, but ^that They are Vnitci^ x^d depending on Qid\ other, relative as to exigence , To that one cannot be with- out the other, or jeparan from the other: Under which Cautions. They can admit Tra pihjlantia^ and yet V^ii ftibjiantia in all; Hke as Tr^ j Res^ tho* all to- gether Vna ftimmii Res. Tne Truth is, every Perfon is Subflance ( but not properly A Sub.Unce) Sub glance in Vaion with S.Hbjta>ice^ and not divided: A Thing ea^/ to be under flood, but not eafy to be exprelled. You would find the hke Difficulty in expreffing the Parts of the diviyie Stib'Uince^ in your Hypothelis of exrenl]on. You cannot but admit that every Part is Siibjance (Subdjnce it muft be, or norliin^;) and yet becaule of their infeparablc Union, and tlveir makmg One S'Ab^ia-'Ke in the whole ; you v/ould nor dare to call one Part A SubJarirey or fcvcrul Paits feveral Subjiances. This 1 a^^ain inrimate, that you may not be to.o fevere upon others, merely about a Alode of Exprejjion (which is all the Cafe) when, in a pa- rallel Inibnce, the Objcdion may be as ftrongly re- * £1 cequivocum SubflantiA nomen, & fxpe figaificat ejfentiam •PoteH etiam {\gnu\c2i\c StippoJitHm-., £>: maxime li aJdarur J>rim^% Subftantia q\ih S.ippofrtum maKime per fe SubiiHiir. Unde in liac lignificationc adniicci poiVanc Tres Snhji,vii:x in Deo, non vero in priori. Ec propter hanc equivocacioncm virandam, mul- ti ex Antiquis Patribus negarunt hanc locutioncm, wz vidercnmF cum Ario lentire, qui eiTentias in Trinitatc multipiicabat— -& ira D. Thomas dicit juxta conluerudmem Ecclelix no:i eiTs abfoKire dicendas Ty-es Snbflantias i addcado vero quod dererininet Si^nifi- citioneni, dici poUe ■. ut Tres Suhjiantu incoramunica- biles, feu relative. Suarc?.. Mjtaph. Diip. 34. Sect. i. N. 6. ft. 1.77- Id mm?, tortej 460 A Second Defense (^u. XXIII. torred upon your felves. You admit Stibftance and Suhflance, where you think it not proper to fay Shbf fiances : And if you had not, yet you could never be able to tliow that Subftance and Subftance, confi- dered in Vmon , mud always make Subfiances, Yec a great part of what you have been endeavouring un- der This Query, as well as what Dr. IVhitbj has ur- ged in the Second Part of his Reply^ is founded chiefs ly upon a precarious, nay falfe luppofition, that, if every Perfon be Subflmce, Three Perfons mufl: be Three Subftances, and cannot be One Stibfiance, Now, to return, I muft here take notice of a Padage of Gregory Naz^ianz^en, produced firfl by Mr. Whifton ^ with great Pomp, as making fome notable Difcovery ; and now by you, 1 fuppofe, for the like purpofe. What Mr, Whijion profelledly, (and you covertly) intends from That Paflage, is, that Athanafins was the fiiTt Inven- tor, or Teacher of the Divinitj^ Con/ubfiamiii.li/y, Cqc- (jtiality, 2ud CocterKity of the Holy Spirit. This would be a great Difcovery indeed, had Gregory Naz.ianz.en really faid it. i But before we come to the remarkable PafTage, it will be proper to inform the Pleader what Grego- Yj had been faying before, and how This Sentence, which I lliall prefently produce at length, came in, The Oration is a Panegyrick upon Athanafim 5 wherein He runs through the mofl: remarkable inci- dents of his Life : his Sufferings , and his Services , his great Prudence , fervent Zeal , and undaunted Courage in the Caufe of Chrift. He obferves, how AthanaJlHi\y even in his younger Years, before the Nicene Council , had very jufl: and accurate Notions of the Dodrine of the Trinity \ keeping a Mean be- * Wliidon'^ K^ply tc Lard Nottingham, AiUL p. e Antum Do- ctrine, yet complied too far with the Arian Confef- fionst; which, Naz.ianz.en fays, He had often la- mented with Tears. And fuch was the violence of the PerfecHtiony that, excepting iome few Men that ftood out, and others whofe Station was lo low as to make them be overlooked , all yielded to the Times -, induced thereto either by Fear, or by In- terefl:, or elfe ignorantly circumvented by Fraud, During Thefe Storms, and in the mid ft of fo gene- ral an Apoftacy, Athanafim ftood firm, and unmoved; the main fupport of the true antient Faith. In 351, ConflantiHSy who had been the Strength of the Art* ans^ dies : and a worfe than He, Julian the Apoftate Emperor, fucceeds. Here was iome Peace to the Church, but it was yet miferably diftraded with He- refies, with variety of Seds and Parties, rearing one another. In 353, Julian being (lain, Jovian fucceed- cd : Still Things wei^in Conf ufion as to the flate of * Greg. Naz. p. 386. •j- Greg. Nai. Orat. p. 3S7, |t^0 4^z !^ Second Defense Qu.XXIII. the Church, The uirians, in fome Pisces, were many, snd powerful, and had been endeavouring, very early, to flir up the Emperor ^fovtan againft Athanafim and ail his Adherents. Ac T'his critical Time, in the midft of Danger, che great and good Man was not afraid to preach the Truth boldly, and to propofe it open and undifguiTed to the Emperor Himfelf in writing: Of which nobie Inftance, both of his Courage and Con^ flancy, Naz^ianz^m thus ipeaks. " And here particularly appeared the Integrity of " the Man (Athimaftm) and the firmnefs of his Faith *' in Chrifl. For when, of all the other Chriftians, *' divided into Three Parts , manj were unibun-d in ^' their Faith concerning the Son^ and more concerning *' the Holy-Ghoft ( where to be only kfi Impious was *' efleemed Pietj) and but ^ few were found in Both *' Articles; He was the /r/?, and only Man (or however ** with a very few) that had the Courage to profefs ^' the Truth , in v/riting , plainly and in exprefs ^' Words , The one Godhead and Eflence of ^' Three^ And what many of the Fathers before had ^' been divinely moved to confefs in relation to the ^' Sjon , He was afterwards inspired to confefs con- ^' cerning the Holy-Ghoft; bringing a Gift tru- *' ly royal and magnificent to the Majefty Royal, a " written Faith in oppofition to unwritten No- *' velry ^." Now, what is there in this Paffage of Naz^im^en more than This ; that at a Time when many had abandoned the Faith , and more had been Sneakers, * TZ'j fJLiv yasp liXXuv oL^asraVy ocrei ^ ««^' v.fJtici^ Aoyy, ^ft;^;^ «»"<- Teov TTifi TO TTViUt/jX TO ftjyjOV, iv6c& K^ TO TiTTOV CiTi^iiV, EwCTioStCt SVO- xoiAid^ (Tvv oXiyait;, cCToroXfji,^ r,;y a.X^6i'.otv (ra.p^c, irutrl y^ ^cipfyihit, T^av TPiZv f/itciv ^t'timzi. %^ iiaccit lyy^a^p^ oyjoheyyicreai' y^ o tu txbA- Aa» tci)* 7i:cirip'A}v usidf/jM jTi^* tr, according to what appears to me to be the true and full meaning of Naz.ianz.en: who in This very Ora- tion fpeaks of the Nicene Council^ as called together by the Holy -Ghofl^, that is, moved and incited by the Holy-Spirit to the Refolurions They made again li: drifts y and his Herejj. In like manner, He fappofes uithanaJiHS to have been ftirred up, by the fame Spi^ rit, to make that noble Confeffion of the Divinity of the Holy.Ghofl:, and in the like exprejjlve Words. All this well agrees with what Naz.ianz.en had faid, but a few Pages before, that notwithftanding the violence of tfie Perfecution, there were fome that had Courage to refift, and fl:and firm ; whom God preferved, that there might be ftill remaining fome Seed and Root for Llrael to reflourifh, and take new Life by the Infuxes of the Holy Spirit f. That This was all his meaning, m^ay appear farther, from his reprefenting the Doftrine of a coejfential Trini- ty, every where, as ^»//>«/ DoClrine; and his branding the contrary Do6rrine as Novelty^ in That very PafTage. Nor could a Man of Naz^ianz^ens good Senfe, and Piety, be fo ridiculous, and filly, as to build his own Faith (which This was) upon any fuppofed private Jnfpiration in the 4^^ Century, or any Century after the ^pnjlles, or indeed upon any thing but the fa- creel Writings. It is certain. He looked upon the Dodrine of the Godhead of the Hoij-Ghojfiy as one of thofe Truths , into the Knowledge whereof tkc * Greg. Naz. Orar. 21. £. 381. t Greij. Naz. p. 587, Jpcjlks 464 ^ Second Defense Qa.XXIIL jipojiks were led immediately after Chrift's Afcenfion^. All that was done aft?'i was the hxing it by Termt that could not h:- elndcu, I muft obferve, that where Gregory Naz.iayiz.eti fpeaks of the Smallnefs of the Number joining with ^Athanajim , and adhering to the Nicene Faith ; fome Allowance milft be made for his Oratorical manner of fetting forth AthamJiHs's fingular Courage and Conftancy : Or elfe He muft be underftood only of the Chnftians o^ jiilexandria^ or Conftantimple ', who had been, for the generality, perverted by the u4ri^ ans. For, as to orher Places, it is certain, that the Nicene Faith was, at That very Time, profefTed by almoft all the Churches, all the World over. For no fooner did the Cathohcks recover a little refpite from Perfecution, about the Year 3^2^ but They condemned all that had been done by the Brians in the Council of^rimitjumi; and profeffed their fteady Attachment to the Nicene Faith- Athanajius afl'ures the Emperor Jovian^ in That very Year 3(^5, that the Nicene Faith was univerfally received by all the Churches of Spam-^ England^ and Gaut\ by all Ital^i Dalmatian Dacia^ Myjui and Macedonia ; by all Greece and Africa i by the Iflands of Sardinia, Cyprus j and Candia-f by PanzphyliAy Lycia, IJai'yriay nAEgypty Libjai Pontusy Cappadocia, and the Eaji i that is, by all the Earth excepting a fmall Number o{ Arians. He de- clares, that He was afTured of the Faith of all Thofe Churches J and had their Letters, by Him to produce§i in teftimony of it. From hence I infer, that Naz,ianz,sn is to be un-» derftood only of fome particular Place at That Time over-run with Arianijm-^ moft probably. Con* Creg. Na7. Orat. 37 p. 609. t Sec Tillemont'i H'fiory of the Arian5. Se6l, 83. p. 279. &c. j Athaiiar Epilt. ad Jovian. /». 787. ftaminople^ Qu.XXIir. of feme Q^U E R I E S. ^65 fiaminople , where Euehms of Nicomcdia, MACcdonins , and Etidoxius had iuccelTively held the See ior above 20 Years ; and muft of Courfe have corrupted great Numbers: And it is cei'tain, that by the Sue- ceflion of Demophiltts, (another Ringleader of the ^- rias^s) the Cathohck Inrereft in That City was in a manner cppreffed and ftiiled, before N^iz^'uinz^cn came thither, about the Year 378. To return. I have nothing more to fay to your ^ng account of HjpofiaJtSy which does not at all af- fect Me: When you are once able to fix and fe'.tle the precife Meaning of individud-i identical Sul?jh»cey you may then know how to oppofe me. That Per- ion\s> Snb [lance ^ I have always alloyi H-CCj Si TCV liiV TOO S-£» SVV7T CfCCTdV, OiXXoi SI civrZ B-iM, aiirzsp ayA?4 -Z 6 SttoiAAtos* Scc Epiph. Hser. 6y, p. 69S. lli/.ZXee, 0 YccfJijoo-cCTii'c, ^i09 Ik rr.c TTcc^GivH ofJ(joXeyii, B'sh Ix, 'iHu^oC" f-7 o9 vvrei, ryi at vttu^Ijh Athanaf. contr. Apollinar. p. 642. ^Ov '■/up ^c'JiiXXici; Xsyi r^imvyjov, t^tov Evvof/,10^ ovowa'dje* oi'/mit-* Tov. Gicg. NylT contra Eunom. p. 676, alias 248. Utcrqv.e Ka^retJcoriim iftorum Smgularem in Deo ferfonam af- feruiti quod de SabfUio nemo pTorlus ignorat: de Faulo Samo- fnter.o tcilantcm Efiiha.ii^im audivmius. Fecav. Dorm. vol. fc >. 6. {^u.XXIII. of fome QUERIES. ^67 •how, where is the Difference between Them and You; except that They made the Perfon of the Father the done God^ under Three Names ; You make the fime one Perfon the alone God, under the one Name of the Self-exiftent God^ ? This 1 demonftratcd very di- flindly to you in my Defenfe ; and you take not the lead Notice of it. The Reader will rufpeifl you had a Reafon for flipping over fo material a Point. 1 retorted upon you your Plea from i Cor, viii. 6. asking, how you can make Two Gods, in Contra- diction to St. P.mly who fays there is i^nt one'i You diftinguidi between a Jupreme God, and an inferior God; which St. Panl does not : We diftinguifh upon the firici, or lar^e Intent of the exdnfive Terms: And I told you, that our Diftindion was much older, and better warranted than yours. I therefore defired you, no more to charge us with contradi/ling Sr. Patil; but either to condemn your feWes for doing it, or at leaft to acquit Both. To this you reply, that to fay the Son is, (an inferior) God, is no waj con^ trary to this Text, But it is contrary to the wh.ole Tenour of Scripture , and to the fourth Verfe of That very Chapter; which fays abfolutely, that there is none other God but one* St. Paul does not fay, no ^ See my Defenfe p. 35-5-, &c. Gregory Nyjfen\ Obfervation is worth the reciting: He fays thus, " To charge our Doctrine with Sabellianifm, or Montanifm, is ** much the lame as to impute to us the Blafphemy of Eunomius. ** For if any one carefully examines into the common Miilake of *' Thofc Herehes, He will find that it has a near Affinity to that *' of Euiiomias. Both judaize in the fame Doftrinci as not *' admitting the only -begotten to be God, nor receiving the " Holy-Ghoft into the Communion of the Godhead of Him «' whom they call the Great, an J the Firj'i God. For, whom *' Sabellius calls the trinom'mal God , the fame does Ennom\Hs " name Self-exifient : And neither of them looks upon the God- *' headzs common to a Trinity of Perfons. Let the Reader then " judge who it is that comes uearcft to Sabellins, G^cg. NylT. «' Orat. 9. p. 6-]6y alias 248. N n n 2, fupremi 468 ^Second Defense Qu.XXIII; Jupreme God only, but abfolutely, Nbfie, In Strid- nefs rhereiore you contradidt St. Pa^l, as directly as poffible : and you have no other way of coming off, but by a r2ov€l DifiinEiion, Now, fince it is eafy jfor us to come off from the Charge you make, by the Help of a Difiinction, and one much better war- ranted than yours; why are we blamed, and you freed? I have before fhown what we mean by fay- ing that the Son is tacitly included, tho* the Father be eminently filled the One God: Not that the Word God , or the Word Father » in fuch cafes, includes Father and Son ; but it is predicated of one only, at the fame time that it is tacitely underftood that it may be eaHly predicated of Either, or Both; ilnce no Oppofition is intended againft Either, but againfl: Creatures and falfe Gods. You have here pafled over fifteen Pages of mine, which contained Things of great Moment : I may pafs over two of yours, which contam nothing but Words. QU E R Y Qu.XXIV. cf fome (QUERIES, ^^69 •Q^u E R Y XXIV. whether Gal. iv. 8. may not be enough to dcr- termtnc the Difpite betwixt us 5 fmce it obliged the Doctor to confefs that Chrijl is by Nature truly God, as truly as Man is by Nature truly Man ? He equivocates there, indeed ^ as UfuaL ' For^ he -will have it to fignify, that Chri/l is God by Nature y on-y as having by that Nature which he derives from the Father, true Divine Tower ayid Dominion : That is, he is truly God by Na- ture, as having a> Nature difiinci from^ arid in- ferior tOy God'Sy lu anting the mod cHcntial Charafter of God , Self-exijience, What is this but trifling with Words, and flaying faji and loofe ? TH E Aiodcjl Pleader here flatids in the Front ; and, after his folemn way , gives me Rebukes y when He is at a Lofs for Anjweru He tells me of an exprefs Scripture -diftin^l ion that I am ridiculing; As if ridiculing what is really ridiculous y and what is very profanely called exprefs Scripture ; ( viz,* the Diftindion of Two adorable Gods, fupreme and infe- rior) were ridiculing Scripture. However, I was r/- diculing nothing in This Query ; but only laying before the Reader Two or Three Inftances of Dr, Clarke s equivocating, and trifling : Which, it feems, is relented as a high Affront, and is to be turned upon 470 ^ Second Defense Qu.XXIV: upon the Scripture it felf. And the Reader is to be gravely called to judge, whether it were a Zeal ac* cording to Kno-wledge^ &c. All This , becaufe one fdlihle Man, who has been charging whole Churchesj and whole Ages with ContradiEiion, and Nonfenfe, has been charged with trifling and contradi:iing Himfelf; and that in a cafe too, which is felf-evident and un- deniable. The Argument on which the Charge refls, is This, " He that has not the Nature of the tri4e and on^ *' Ij God^ or is not naturally and necejfarily God, is not '' Ij Nature truly God, as truly as Aia^i is by Na- •' ture truly Man. " Our Lord (according to the Doflor ) has not *' the Nature of the true and only God, nor is He " naturally and necejfarily God : Therefore He is not *« by Nature truly God, as truly as Alan is by Na- " ture truly Man. Let the Reader now judge whether the Doflor, in faying that Chriil: is by Nature truly God, &c. has not either grojsly contradi6l:ed Himfelf, or meanly equivocated. It might have become this ma- deft Pleader either to have confefTed the Charge , or to have fhown how to get clear of it. All He can fay is, that the Son has, by That Nature which He derives from the Father, true Dominion: And fo has every lawful Magiftrate true Dominion, in as juft a Senfe as is here underftood of Chrilt, a Dominion derived from God, Is This what according to ufe of Language, and Cuftom of Speech, has been un- derftood by the Phrafe God by Nature^ And how has Chrift, by Nature , true Dominion, when his Nature is fuppofed to have exided before any Do- minion commenced, and is fuppofed alfo to continue after the Dominion fliall ceafe ? Not to mention that the Dominion is alfo prefumed to proceed from Free €rant, and to be given or taken away at Pleafure. |s This to be as truly God by Nature, as Man is bi NttHYS QU.XXIV. offome Q^U E RI E S. 4^1 Nature truly Man? If This be not burlefquing Scrip- ture, ridicnlmg cwQry Thing ferious, and making a J eft of all Language, I know not what is. To divert the Reader from dwelling upon the Dodor's Mif- management, you charge me next with a Heap of u4b^ furdities : (p, ^6^*) As it is a very eafy Matter for a Man, when his Head is clouded, or his Paffions are up, to make Blmders for others, and then com- ment upon them. Let us hear. 1. The firft Pretence is, that I contradi(5^ my felf in making Self-exifience no ejfential Characler, and yet approving the putting it in a Definition of the fupreme Being, as an ejfential Charader. That is to fay, becaufe Self-exiftence often has, and ftill may be ufed in different Senfes, therefore the allowing in one Senfe, what I difallow in another, is contradiUing my felf. 2. The fecond Pretence is, that to call Self-exiftent an ambigHotis Term, and an equivocal Word, is ridi- ctiloHS, To which it is fuiEcient to fay, that to de- ny it is much more fo. 3. The Third Pretence is, that to call Self-exiflencs a Characler weerly negative^ is abfurd. That is ac- cording as it is underffcud : For, to make it pofitiv^^ in fome cafes, is infinitely abfurd j as hath been Ihown above. 4. A fourth Cavil is, that fhe diftinftion of Ef- fential and Perfonal has no place here, becaufe both I the Perfon and the Effence are ielf-exiftent. But this \ is begging the Queftion. The Effence belongs to I three Perlons; Sclf-exijlence, or Vitderivednefs^ to one ;only : Therefore tho' Necejfary-exijience be an ejfential |Chara6rer common to all, Self-exiflence is nor. 5. A fifth Cavil is againfl: my including fupreme in the Definition of the Divine Nature, abflrading from the Confideration of Perfon. yls if^ fay you^ Supremacy was a CharaEicr not of a livi/ig j^ger.t ^ but of an Abfratl Effence, Ridiculous enough: As if the living Subftance, common to dii*ee Perfons, were not as . 472 A Second Defense Qu.XXIV; truly livwg^i and Agents as when confider'd in one *• Let the Reader now judge to whom the heaf of Ah^ Jkrdiiies juftly belongs. You have invented lome ima" gmary ones lor Me, and betrayed real ones of your own I having a happier Talent at writing Nonjenje for others, than Serife for your Self. Your Argument to prove that a Perfon may be God on account of Dominion before any Dominion com- menced, has been already anfwer'd. As to the fenfc of Gal. IV, 8. I referred to what had been faid by a learned Gentleman t upon it. You, on the other hand, refer to Dr. Clarke's Pieces, and lo Aiodefl Plea, &'c. The Difpute is about the meaning of the' Phrafe roli fJLy\ cpocret Sgi S^toi^y or fhortcr, about (puan SgG?, God by Nature, what it ftiould flgnify ; whether fuhftantiallj and ejfentially God, or really God as having true Dominion. The Reafons for the former Interpretation are fuch as follow: 1. The common ufe of the Term (puai^, for ElTence, br Subf[-ance, 2. The ufe of (pdau dcc$ in That fenfe among Greek Writers'*^ : As particularly by Irenaus, and Athanajius i and by Gregory Nyjfen in relation to this very Text. 3. Worfhip is required to be given to God prin- cipally on account of his being 0 aJv, or Jehovah ; that is, on account of his being ejfentially, or fub- ffamially God. Nor is it of any moment what the Modefi Plea urges, that then Father and Son will be two Jehovahs^ if each of them is to be worfhipp'd as * See my Sermons, p. i2(5. + The Scripture Doftrine of the Trmity, ^-ci p. 19, ^c. True Scripture Do£lrine continued, p. 73. C^^r. BJwards's Critical Remarks, p. 18. ** Naturaliter Deus, in oppolition to one that only bears Do- minion, who is God verbo tenus. Iren^us allows the Diftindtion, but rejeds the Application. Irm. I. 4. £•. i. Qiov o:ru Kcirk rniv (pumv, 'oVi^ o TTotricp. Athan. Vol. 2. p. 45. r a Jew by Na- ture "niufl: \\ivt^That vshich-r/iahies' a Jnu to be a JejiJy and the jike*) And \v hat can That be, but his hav- ing the divine Perfelfi^^i, and confequcntly, the divine S^bfi.ih'ce , coevaf wixH'the Father, that is, from all r tern it y /* I may add, that whatever PafTages^ may be brought of the ufe of (pv<^et, yet They come not fully up to the Cafe ; unlefs (P'jo-u S^oj could be lliewn to bear fuch a Senfe as yoii would puf upon it. Many Ex- amples may be brought of Ours: Few, 01 perhaps * Naturam alirer dif^fmus cum proprie loquimur naturam Ho- n^inis, in qua primum in fuo genere inculpabilis faftus eft: aliter illam in t]ua, ex iliius damnari pofiu, &; mortales 6c ignari, iJc ca;ai iubditi nafcimuf. Auguil. de lib. Arbitr. 1. 3. c. ip, none Qu.XXIV, of fome QUERIES. 475 none, of yours. The Modefi PUader (p. 247.) thinks that the. PafTage cited out of E/e/ehius "^y where ty£milian the Roman Prxfcd makes mention of the ^rl^agan Deities , as being Gods by Natnrey is direcHy. contrary to our Notion; bccaufe the Romans did not look u[>on their Cods to be felf-exijlentt and ffipreme. This obfervation is to the purpofe, and is not with- out its weight. But, as the Pagans had feveral Schemes oi' Theology ^ and feveral Hypothefes in rc- fpecl of thiir Gods, and it cannot be certainly known what Hypothefis ^fViioi) eternaly2i\-\d necejf^ily €xifting\ which an- swers to 320i xari (PuiiV^ Gods by Nature f. Jkfides that, as many Pagans as fuppofcd tlie inferior Gods ro be nothing but the Poljonymy, of their one fupreme Qo^^ muft have thoutht them all to be Seoi y.'Jirk (pvaiVy Gods by Natnre, I may add , that it fcems highly probable that ^yEmiiian dcHgn'd what he laid, in anfwer to whac DionjfitiSy or otlier Chriftians had pleaded; z//^. that They worihipped one that was God bj Natnrey m oppofition to the Paq^an Deities, which were none of them fuch. I fay, in aniwer hereto. He pleads that their Deities were Gods by Nature alfo : And why then might not Chriftians worfnip both the Pagan *Tt5 r^ vu/Z^ icvXin x^ THTo*, «»■«/> «5J 3"*o?, fJSiirx ran y.»Tce, (^6- cnv ^lav 7reoa-)cvmv J Eufeb. 1. 7. C. Ii. p. 5^5*. t The Primary and Archical Beings, according to Frocluj, were the Pa£fi;i Deities. ATt'ivTsq is* oToi Tc^TTore 9"«iAaytflt$ eijiv ysyjfJt/ivoi, rot, xoair^ tcccrat (p-jjjv B-ihi; £Tovou,eC'^ovTii (^v(Tu ti as is plainly proved from This Father. To the iame Purpofe fpeak other Writers * of the Ebionites ( and of fuch others as the Ebionites) both before, and after the Nicene Council. The great Impiety of fuch IVlen was in their being apYm^ioi^ Denyers of Ch rift's D/'- vinityy Blafphemers againft his Godhead. Kow you can yet clear your Selves of the fame Charge, I fee not. It was not without Reafon that Alexander^ Bi- fhop of Alexandria^ charged the Arians^ upon their lirft Appearance, with reviving the Impiety of Ebion^ ArtemaSi and ParJ of Samofata. Theod. E. H. 1. i. c. 4. 2. The Modefi Pleader goes on to tell us that Ce- rimhtis was cenfured i who taught that the Son of God was not Himfelf wade Man^ but only united to a Adan. He thinks, he has here faid lomething fmart : Bur, becaufe every Body will not underfland the in- nuendo, and He durft not fpeak plainer for Fear of difcovering his whole Heart, we may pafs it over. He takes no Notice of Cerinthtis's being con- demned, as well as Ebion^ for denying cur Lord's X>/- vinity^*^ and the Eternity of the Word. He proceeds ^v e!<, t)v ^'cv^^iornro', uurov to TccMiTof ot^vcyyjtoi. Hippol. Fragn.l« vol. I. p. 2S1- Accedit his Thcocloins, Hasreticu.s Byzantius, qui Do(fi:rir.3m introdaxit qucc Chriftum Homincra tantiimniodo dicerer, Dcutn autem ilium negavct. Aucfor. Append, ad Tertull. de Praelcript, c, 68. eiC'ivjnGi^ otTTO'iV-irMq. Eufeb 1. 5*. C. 28. Taul of Samcfata, his Crime was denying bis God. Tb' JO Tfl" S"fcv ret iuvrS jcJ xu^-ot «.^vis[/^i*ii. Epilt. Syn. Antioch, -apud Eufcb. 1. 7. c. 50. He/iion Dilcipulus Ceriuthi, in multis ei {imilirer crrans, Salva- tovcai noftrum Horn mem de ^ojeph natum, c.irnaliicr xftimabar, .nihilque in eo Dlvimttitis fuiflc doccbat; led ficut omncs Prcphe- tce, lie & earn gratiam Dei habuific adierebar, r.on tamen Domi- num Majejidti:, & Dei Patris Fiuiwi cum Patre Scmpitcrnum cre- debat. Phiiaftr. H:rr. c. 37. ** See Bp. JinU D. F. p. 178. Jud. Eccl.. c. i. to QU.XXV. of fomt (QUERIES. 4»i to obferve, that the Vdentinians, and Cataphrjgims were cenfured; from whom arofe the Dodrine of Afecejfa- ry-emanations : To which weak Piece of Calumny I have anfwered above. He takes no Notice of the iQlentinia'^is denying the Eternity of the LogoSy nor of their making Cremtire-Creatorsj nor of feveral of tlieir other Principles, whereby They led the way to Ari- anifm^ as Athmafim hath ihown''^. 3. Sabellim^ it feems, was cenfured for reaching indi- ^vidud ConfubjimtialUy : That is, for Norjfenje, For ^Co'/ifeibflantialitj^ and Individual, (in the S.ibeHian Strtfo. (of Individual) are repugnant, and contradidory as pof- ?fible. Nor did Sabellius ever teach Con^ubjlantiditj ac allf. Whether the Aiodefi Pleader has here fhown a Zeal according to Knowledge, let any Man judge that knoips Antiquity. He takes no Notice of Sabelliui's being condemned for confining the Godhead to one real Perfon , (inftead of extending it to Three,) up- on the very fame Principles, on which Aritis after- wards founded a diiferenE Hcrefj'*''^', viz.. the appre- henfion of there being ao A/f^i/^j^ ft between makinq the Son to be the Jelf-exijient Father Himftlf, and f.v- clndinfT Him from the or:e Godhead, Arter a lame, partial, and falfe Account of the an- tient HcreHes condemn'd by the Church, the Aiodeji Pleader goes on to give as partial and falfe Accounts of the Dodrine ot the Fathers, But having obvia- * See MoKtfaKcon's Preface to the Firfl: Voljme of Athanajiust p. i.\. a-iii. Epiph. Ki^r. 69 n. 70. p. 797. ■*^* See my Dcfenfe, p. g^f, ^fj*. -j-^- S»csPvAto5 ^^ r^ "Zctfji/ca-ciTieifc, Uavha , iC. rm kcct' xjtov iTjtfi- KATctxiTTTUKi TzXa-fj^. Athanaf. contr. A poll. 1. 2. p. 9 j.z. B-fUt Tsj; cfS"^,', fliTiirs Tri'rtencj 7r^c(r^XTcv Bscv rtv iiot red ^iod li-yi/^c*- ti'^xu Socr. E H. 1. 4. c. 35. p. ij^. P p p tC^ 4^2 A Second Defense Qu.XXV. ted all his frivolous Pretences on that Head before^ I may now difmifs Him, and return to you. You are pleafed to fay , that my Defcnfe of This Ojtery is notioing but a confufed heap of Words relating to metappjjfical Subtilties, &c. The Reader, I fup- pofe, underftands by This time 'what Thefe and the like Complaints from you mean. I no fooner find you expatiating This way, but I conclude you had met with fomethmg you could not anfwer; it being your conftant Method thus to proclaim your Defeat. You durft not enter upon the main Queflion de- bated under this Qtiery. It was whether the Amc' nicene Writers, in general, taught a proper Confub- ihntiality. You were before of Opinion that it was a figurative^ or oratorical Confubfiantiality. I fuffer'd not the Fveader to go away with any fuch weak Pre- tence, inftead of a juft Anfwer. I laid before you ieveral Reafons to the contrary, fuch as, I thought, might be depended on : And I perceive now, by your manner oi: replying, (which is no replying) that you think fo too. I lliall repeat the Reafons once more : And where you have fcatter*d any loofe hints that any way relate to them, I ihall corifider them in their proper places. 1. I thought it ilrange and unaccountable that fo many Fathers fhould rhetor icate in a Matter of Faith y and of the greateft importance : And that none fliould be met with wife enough, or good enough to throw off the varnifh, and to tell us the naked Truth. 2. I thought it ftill flranger that they fhoud do it, not in popular Harangues, but even in dry Debates ; where it particularly concern'd Them to fpeak accurate* iy, and properly, out of Figure and Flouril'h. Hitherto you are pleafed to be filent ; not a fylla- ble of Reply. Let me go on. 3. I obferved, that one principal and (landing Ob- ;e(ftion of Hereticks againfl the Catholick, Dodrine, was that it infcrr'd a Diviffon of the Father's Sub- ftificei %.XX V. of fome QUERIES. A!^i Glance. I thought there mufl: have been at kail; fome colour for the Objection, as indeed there was, if the Catholicks profels'd a ^ro^er Confubdantiality : Other- wife there was none at all *. For , who could be nily enough to imagine that Angels or Arch -an- gels , or any Creature whatever, might not be created without a Divijwn or Abjcijjion of the Divine Subftance? You endeavour at foniething (/?. 47 a. ^ by way of Reply ; telling me that the Antients, hy denywg dl Divijion^ ^hjcijjion^ or Diminution did not mean to ajjirm that the Son was the individual identical Subftance of the Father. 1 would be glad to know what This Phrafe individual identical^ dec, means with you. I think it plain, that the Objectors, in inferring a Divi- Jion of Subftance, thought of i\\Q fame Subftance i and the Catholicks by denying Divifion, afferted the fame undivided Subftance, Whether This amounts to your individual Identical^ &rc. is no great matter; iince you do not care to fay, or rather do not yet knov/, what you mean by it. You pretend that the Antients in- tended only, to a\fert the abfolute immutabilitj of the Father ; and that He generated the Son , as one Fira lights another B without any Diminution of Himfeif, But what Pretence or Colour could there be for the Father's diminiftjing Himfelf, unlefs a proper Con- fubfta/jtiality was intended ^ And if one Fire be con- fubftantial to another , as I think the Fathers be- lieved ; That very inftance proves the Thing I am fpeaking of. I have however explained above what They meant by Diminutiony and what by denying it in This Cafe. 4. A fourth Argument I drew from Another no- ted Objection made to the Catholick Doclrine, viz,., Tritheifm: And I obferved both from the fenfe of the Objeciorsy and from the method taken in the An- fwers, what kind of Tritheifm was intended s fuch as 'f See my Defenfe, p. 384. P p p J wai 4^4 >^ Second Defense Qu.XXVj; was founded on the fuppoCtion of a proper Confithftan^- tiality. This Argument you have taken no notice of» but have left it in The Heap, undifturbed. 5. I added a fifth Reafon from the particular ftate of the Sabellian Controverfy, and the Arguments made ufe of in it ; quite different from what would have been, arid muft have been, had the Fathers been of the famc^ or liJie Principles, with you and Dr. Clarke^ To which you fay nothing. 6, Jn the fixth place, I threw in a Heap of RoaJom\ Reajons, I think, and not Words only : To one of which, relating to V/orfloip, you vouchfafe me a brief Aniwer, but fuch as I have anlwer'd in another place. Upon the whole, you appear to have been much dinrclTcd in This Query: For, othervvife who would believe that a Man of your Abilities, after fo long confidei ing , would leave any thing un- anfwer'd ^ Ay, but after all, you fay. Dr. Clarke's Proportions will remain tr^ie and Hnmnh'd^ which way foever any of thefe Points be determined, (p. 471.^ Indeed, They are wondei ful Tropofnkns : They feem to be nuich of the tS/o/c)^ Make and Conftitution; that if they be ever fo diftrels'd, or crulh'd, or even ground to pieces, yet they cannot be hurt. To be ferious ; ]f the Doctor's Propofitioyis have really nothing con- trary to the Son's Eternity , or Co'/^Jubjiantidiiyy or Ncceff'arj-'cxiftence 'y (which comes to the fam^e ) if 7"hey leave to God the Son That Homut, and That Worflytp which Thofe divine PerfeAions^ demand ; If They do not make Fiim precarious in Exiftence, or dependent on the good PUafure of Another; in ihort, if They leave to the Son the one true Godhead^ or divine Subflance, then let the Proportions pafs as very harmlefs , innocent , tripng Propofitions, con- taining nothing but old Truths under a novel and conceited way of Expreffion. But if the Propofi- tions really run counter to the Neceffary - exiftence^ the immmable Perfedions, the divine TVbrfhipi Sec. of Cod Qu.XX V. of feme Q^U E R I E S, 4^5 God the Son (as I conceive they do) then the Pro^ fojitions appear to be very nearly concern'd in what I have been proving. But you fiiy, the true and only material Queftioa is, iVho is the alone firji Caufiy the done Jkpreme Go- vernoY ? &c. Now as to l^his Matter , I will ba very frank and plain with you. Do but fincerely and plainly acknowledge that God the Son is coetet" nd y and confab ji ant ial wifh the Father, of the fama Aivine Stibliancc , necejfarily exijling , having the di^ vine P erf eB ions i Creator by his own Power j worthy of equal Honour, and of the fame kind of WorJJjip i Do but admit Thefe Things, and you fliall have the liberty of talking as you plcafe about the alone firfl Caufe-i and the aloAe fupreme Governor j Thar is, firJi in Order, and Office, But if you deny the Son's JVeceJfary - exifience , if you deny his divine Perfeclions flridly fo called, if you fcruple to admit Hun as Creator by his own Power ( which many Ariam allow'd ) and to worfhip Him as Creator ^ nay, to call Him Creator , which the very Eunomians never fcrupled : If you betray your DiOenc from us in fo ma- nji and fo material Poins as thefe arc ^ do not then pretend that the Supremacy is the main Point of Dif- ference , or tl>e only material Queflion : Becaufe it is pretending fomething directly /^i/^, and what you knom to be falie ; and therefore what ought not to be pre- tended by any honeft or good Man. It is polfjble you may underftand fupreme Governor in fuch a Senfe, that all the other Qiieftions may be reduced to That one : And fo may they alfo to This one Queflion ; Whether God the Son be a Creature, or no. If this be your Meaning , then there is no difference betwixt your ftate of the Quejftion and mine, except This,- that what You have put into ambiguous, equivocal, de- ceitful Words to confound the Readers, I have put into plain, clear, and difiinct Terms to in- ftrud and inform Them. And now the main Queflion will not be about the Stipremacy , whether to 0^ [A Second Defense Qu.XXV.^ to be afTerted, or denied; but about the Senfe and Meaning oi Supremacy : Whether Supremacy is to be afTerted in iuch a Se^fi as to make the Son a Creatnrey or in fuch a Senfe only as is confiftent with his being tjfentially God, and one God with the Father. For, you may pleafe to take notice that many other Que- llions muft come in, in order to give light into the Queftion about Supremacy : Or if you pretend to take the Supremacy in a Senfe peculiar to your felf, and then to argue from itj This is only begging the main Ouefiion^ and purfuing.your own Inventions, in oppofition both to Scripture and Antiquity, You have an odd Remark in the Clofe : You fay, to prejerve the Priority of the Father^ and imthal the Divinity^ the effential Divinity^ of the Son^ is no Diffi- cujty. This is News from you : I hope, you are fincere^ and have no double Meaning. For if Thefe two Things, the ejfential Divinity of the Son, and the ; Priority of the Father, . be admitted as confiftent, the j Difpute is at an end. But you add, that I pretend ■; fomething more, viz,, to preferve the priority of the Fa^ ; ther^ and withah the equal Supremacy of the Son in point of Authority and Dominion, Yes ; I do pretend t6 \ hold the Priority of the Father in Order (which is »^- J tural) and in Ojfce (which is oeconomical) as confifterA 5 with the Son's ejfential and equal Divinity: In a Sword, I hold any Supremacy confiftent with the Son's ' tffential Divinity. If you carry the Supremacy farther, ^you either contradi^ your felf, or equivocate in i I childiih manner in the word ejfential. Chufe you Ei- ' ther part of the Dilemma : It is all one to the Ar- gument whether the Fault lies in your Heart, or your flead* Q U E R X QU.XXVI. ofjome QUERIES. 4^7 (^ U E R Y XXVI. Uhether the DoEior did not equivocates or fre^ njaricMe (Ir.vagely in f^ytng^ The Generality of Writers before tiie Council of Nice^ were, in the whole, clearly on his fide : When it is mmtfefls they -were, in generd, no farther on his fide , th^in the allowing d Subordination ^motmts to \ no farther than our Church is on his fidcy -whtle in the main pints of dijference, the Eternity and Confubftantiality, they are •clearly againjl him: That is, they were on his fide ^ fo far as ive acknowledge him to kc rights hut no farther^ HERE I am told by the Modefl Pleader, (who was to redify your unwary Anfwers to my Ofteriesy after He had fcen my Defenfe) that Dr. Clarks did not eijiiivocate y or prevaricate ; becaufc the Ante^ nicene Writers agree with Him in all the Voints laid, down in his Propoittions, This is a fhameful Vntrmh, as hath been ofrcn proved : And lince you have now own'd that ftlf-exifiem is necejfarily - exiflent, I fhall point out to you what Iropofnions of the Do- , juil as you came on. You return to your Quibble about the Supremacy and Monarch"^ of the Fatlvcr. That is, all Dominion. over the Creatures (I know of no Dominion, proper- ly fo caU'd, over any thing elfe) is priri^arily in the Father , Jkcondarily in the other two Perlons , and commGri to all Thiec. The Domimon is not \n thp Fatlier alone: Only He alone ha?' it from none. They from Hirn ; This is the whole Truth. Dr, Clar!^ having made fome Pretence to Antiquity , I rhoughc it proper to hint, in eh-uefj ParticUiars, his Di 'agree- ment with It*. I mull iiere be forc'd to Me; eat Them, becaufe you have fomething to fiv zo '5very one of them. y^' I. The firfl was, in th.e Point of Cotij>^v;iayitiMity : in denying of which He runs conntrr to .ill rlie An- tients. In Reply, you (ay, you 'do not prejHm'e to jdl that the Son is not coj'ifftb'ffan.'Uil ; but, only rhar tf}j Father alone has fupreme Authority and Dttr^moa* Which is either faying the l.inie Thing in oriTei: Words , or laying nothing. Bur as you rrefurne to fay that the Son is not nscejfarily - cxUli^^g, I fuppofe , all Men of Senfe will fee that Thar is denying the Conftibftantiaiity \ or I know not wnac is fo. * See my Defcnfc, p. 39;. Q^q q li The 4P0 ^ Second Defense Qu.XXVI. / z. The fecond Charge was, that you do by ne- ceffary Confeqiiencc, deny the Son's Coetemitj, Here aqain you prcjumc not to fay the Son is not cterhal^ but the Father is fHprcme y &cc. I did not ask about the Father: However, what you intend, is, to df^ny the Eterniijy not dircdly, but implicitely, by aflerting the FathcJ- ^Jof^e to be KcceJfarilj'ExiJli?7g, Now, it is all one to us, whether you do it dire5llj, or by con/e^ qnence : Undermining the Faith in a Terpentine way, IS as pernicious as a more open attacking it. If you do not deny the Eternity ^ it is plain however that you do not afiert it j and therefore you come very ihort of the ^ntients. / 3. Another Article was, the Do(5Vor's Aflerting S'ac?, God, to be a relative Word. This I Hiew'd to be contrary to all Antiquity, a few Inftances excepted; your Reply to this Article hath been obviated above. p, zi6, _y- 4. You differ from all the Antients in pretending that the Father onlj was God of Ahraham^ &c. You plead, in anfwer hereto, that it is a Scriptftre Propofi- tion : Which is falfc, as hath been (hewn. However, the uintients ( about whom our prefent Queftion is ) never thought it to be a Scripture-FofiiQyt ^ but quite the contrary. 4^ 5. You differ from all Antiquity, in pretending that the Titles of one, only , &c. are exclufivc of God the Son. This you ridiculoufly call an cxprcfs Scripture Prcpojition, I have anfwer'd your Cavils on That Head : In the mean while it is evident, and you do not gainfay it, that the Antients never thought as you do. / 6, You again differ from all Antiifftity, in pretend- ing that the Son had not M:lin^ Worjhip p^d Him till after his RefHrre^ion, You here make References on,- ly, v/hich I may anfwer by References'^. * Brfenfe, p. 272, Sec See A Love en Qu. XVIU. 7, Ycu Qu.XXVI. offome Q^U E R I E S. 491 ^' y. You run counter to all Antiquity in pretending that Ttvo Pcrfins may not be, or are not, orie God, To this you re..!)', that the o}ie GocU you think, al- ways, in the Antc-nicene VVritc;-€> /jgpifics the Father. I have demonftrated the contrary. However, if Both together be ever called God^ or included in that fingu- lar Title, it comes to the fame thing, tho' the word One be away. ^•'8. You contradifl all the Antients^ in i^iy^ng, than the Title of God, in Scripture ^ in an abjoltite Conjiviiciion^ dwap fignijlcs the Father. Tiie Quotations of die An^ tients from the Old Teftament have been abundantly vindicated above. See Qii. 11. /' 9. You run counter to all Antiqtiitjy in admitting an inferior God befides the fnprcme ; and allowing re- ligious Worfljio to Both. You appeal to St. Paul, which 1 have often ihevv^n to be a weak Plcaj and it is here foreign. The Anticnts never undcruood St. Witd in any (uch fenfe, but the contrary. You have there- fore no plea from the Ame-niune Fathers, which was the Point in hand. 10. You conrradid -^X Aiitiqttity \\\ denying the Son to be ejfcier.t Ciinje of the Vmvcrfe, You now fay, you do not deny it; which I am very glad of: There is one Point gain'd. You did before, in oppofing ^efficient to' infirumentd; and referving the firft to the Father only. You now fiy, the Son is not the ori- ginal efficient Cauje, This is ill exprefi'd, and worfe meant: But do you ever find the Antients making Two Caujes ^ 11. You run counter to all Antiquity, in fuppo- fing ( not faying ) the Son to be a Creature. That you fuppofe it, and re^iily mean it, under other Terms, hath been fnewn"^. 12. You contradivfl all Antiquity in refolving the Foundation of the Son's Ferfonal Godhead into the Power and Dominion which you fuppofe Hini ad- * See m/ Stt^plement, ^c. p. 20. Q, q q 2i yanced 492 J Second Defense Qii.XXVII V2nced to after his RefurreSion. *Tis your exprefs I Dodrine. Colletl. of Queries, p. 75. /^ 13. You run counter to all i\\q. jinticnts in fuppo- llng the Logos to have fupplicd the place of a Hitman Soul 5 and making the Logosy as Inch, -pajjible. As to tliC former part of this Charge, you have given broad Hints, up and down, in This Reply : As to the lat- ter part, it is, or was, your cxprels Dodrine. Colletl. of OncrieSy p. 145. Let the Reader nov/ jutlge of your repeated Boafls of u^rjticjHity : Such as none could ever have made, but the f'jme that could efpy Arianlfm in our Liturgji j and our Ankles^ and brini^ the Creeds to the Church to fpeak tiifi Language of Herejj, Q^U F. R Y XXViL T^ij ether the Learned Doctor may ?tot reafcnably he Jupposd to fay, the Fathers are on his ildc •irtth the fame MoMung and referve as he pretends cur Church - Forms to favour him 5 that is^ provided he fn^y interpret as he pleaJeSy and ni^hke therrj' ffc.ik his Senfe^ however con- tradiclory to their cwn-^ And -whether the true Reafon 7phy he does not care to admit the Te* ftmiontes of the Fathers as Proofs, may not he^ kecmfe they arc againfc him ? YO U ask me whether I admit the Teflimomes of the Fathers as Proofs , ifince I difapprove of the Dodor's making Them Jlluftrations only. You think, it had been jull in me- to declare upon This Head. Verily, I thought I had declared"^ plain- i- Dcfcn fc, p. 4^-3. Qu.XXVIL x>f fome Q^UERIES. 49 J ly , that I admit their Teftimonies as Proofs , two I ways,- Certain Proofs, in many Cafes, oF the Church's f Dodrine in That Age ; probable J^rools oi what the ; Do(ftrine was from the Beginning, In rerpe6t of the latter. They are inferior additional Proofs, when com- pared with plain Scripture-Proof : Of no moment if Scripture is plainly contrary ; but of great moment where Scripture looks the fame way, bccaufe they help to fix the true Interpretation , in any difput- ed Tcxt<^. I build no Article of Faith upon the Fa- thers, bur upon Scripture alone. If the Senfe of Scripture be dif^uted, the concurring Sentiments of the Fathers in any Doctrine, will be, generally, the bed: ar.d fafefl: Comments upon Scripture, To far as concerns That Doctrine : Jufl as the Practice of Courts , and the Decifions of eminent Lnwjcrsj are the bed Comments upon an u4ci of Parliament made in, or near their ov/n Times : Tho' it be neverthelefs tru:, that the Obedience of the SubjcEi refls folelj upon the Laws of the Land, as its Rule, and rvjcafurc. You proceed to vindicate fome Tranjlations of the Dodor's, which I had found fault with. But you are firfl: wrapp'd up in Admiration of the Doctor's Performance,- that fo acute a Aian, d^c. could not find above i o PaJJages to cavil at, in a Book^ of near 500 Pages full of Quotations, Whether it was caviU ing, fhall be feen prefcntly. But you will remember, that, befides a general Charge of want of Pertinence in many , and of great Vnfairnefs "^ in the whole Courfe of them ; I had over and above taken norice of particular Faults, very great ones, in the Dodor's Verfions, And furely 20 Faults of This kind were enough for one Man to commit within the Compafs of about 300 Pages: For 1 examined no fartheif, ha- ving found and noted a fufficient Number for ray * Sec my Defcnfe, p. 445, &c. f The learned Reader will obfervc more Inr:anccs of like kind. mScrip. Doclr. p. 195-, 296. 297, 304, 5,2, 314, 322. 2^Edit. The inoft fliamcful of them, is a Verfion, in p. 212, of a Pillage ^ited at the bottom of p. 3 u, Purpofe 3 494 -^ Second DEFEusf Qu. XXVII, Purpofe ; which was to awaken the Reader's Caution, and to prevent his relying too implicitely upon the Dodor's Reprefentations. And you will conlider, that it was not merely for Inaccnracy in his Tranfla- tions that I blamed Him, (fuch as a Man may in- nocently commit, or fometime chufe, to fave Time or Pains, when the Caufe is not concern'd in it, or when it is not material whether a fcrupulous exadnels be obferved, or no) but it was for his mif-tranflat- ing fuch Parts of what he cited, as were of greatefi moment to the Queftion in hand, and is induftrioufly warping them to his own Hjpothejis^. You do well to labour This Point : For, indeed, the Dodor's In- tegritjj or Fidelitjy to fay no more, is pretty deeply concern*d in it; tho* my Delign was, not to expofe his CharaEicr, but to prevent the Deception of the Rea- der. They, who deiire to re-examine This Matter, may pleafe to look into my Defer^fe ; that I may not be at the trouble of repeating. I. In th^ firft Paffage, I complained of tv/o falie Rendrings; one of the words, «k, e'5 oLvaj'ggaij', ano- ther of the word k'TC-JMytiuixcL^ in Both which the Do:lor ferved his Hjpothcfis ^ obliquely, agai-^nfl the Senfe of the ^mhor. You cannot, you do not p! > tend that his Verlion was j:i[l : I cited as far as was ne- cefTary to ihow that it was not. What then? You pretend I leave out the oyily 7Vords for the fake of which the Dodor cited it. I left out no Words that were at all neceflary to fhew the Senfe of the Author, or to judge of the Dodor's Ferjion, It was undoubtedly the Do6lor*s Buiniefs either not to eke, or tranflate the Author at all, or to render his Words faithfully, fo far as He did pretend to tran- flate from Him. And tho* the Dodor's particular Delign, in That PafTage, might be to fliew that jithanafiHi allowed the Father to be ftiled the only God {Mark^xxx, 32.) yet He had a nioi'c general De- lign, running thro' his Performance, which was to keep the Reader in the Dark; as to the antient way of Qa.XXVlL cffme QUERIES. 495 of underftan^Ing it, in oppofition to falfc Gods, or Idols only : To ferve which general Dcfign, He per- verted the Scnfc of That Paflage in his Tranjlation of it. 2. The fccond PalTage * which the Dodor had mis- tranflated, you are willing to corred:, in fome mea- furc, by leaving our the word mofi. But you will flill have it ah/olutely and flriEily God, inllead of really God : Which might not be much amifs, had not the DoAor made fuch frequent ill ufc o£ ahjolutcljy in re- fped of the Father ; intending therein an oppoiitioti to God the Soft*s being abfolutely God. Tnis was not the meaning of AthanAjtuh who meant no oppofi^ ifofty but to Idols ■[. I obferved, that ^/?<^^/#i would have faid, or had faid, in other Words, as much of the Son 9 as He has there faid of the Father. To which you reply, that you will mt undertake to an* fiver what Athanafius would have faidy were I to indite for Him: But joh deny that He has faid it » I lliew- ed before what Athanafins had faid, in that very Trea- tife*"^, namely, that the Son is the ciV, fignifying tmphatical Exifience i which amounts to the fame Thiag He had before faid of the Father. And to fhew farther, what Aihanafius would have faid, I have quoted in the Margin what he really has faid, in a Treatife § annexed to the other, written at the fame Time, and being a fecond Part to it, fo that They may be juflly eilecm'd one Treatife. He there teaches ^ Tfli- kM^m^ ^ tvrcit, tiTot, ,>£ay, ra* t» Xl^'*^ TTsCTi^stt Athan. contr. Gent, p 9. t See my Defenfe, p. 418. a-uvStrocy a>):, B-iiv ,9-155 Aey^. p. 88. us 496 A Second Defense Qu.XXVll: us ro vJorfJyip the Son only, and He ftiles Him True God* Thele Things put together nmount to full as much as was faid of the Father "^ in the Paflage cited by the Do61or; namely, Toy oLAviOim 59 cfr:t>s crrcc Sitofy iignifying that He is the true God-^ and that He ex- ifts emphatically : And it is manifeft, that Athmafins intended no oppofition to the Son, in what He faid of the Father, but to Idols only^ 3. As to the third place v/hich I found fault with, you would perfuade us that the Dodor was very fa- vourable in his Tranfiation^ and took the leaft advan- tage poiTible. I blamed Him for his rcndring far a^ hove all derivative Being , intending thereby to in- clude the Son ; as if Athanajim meant that the Fa- ther was far above the Son: Whereas if it be ren- dred, as it ought to be, far above all created Being; it would then be plain that this Parage relates not to the Son at all, but to Creatures only. But the Doc- tor, you now fay, might have tranflated it far above aU Begotten Being, He might, indeed, have done fo, and have thereby fhewn Himfelf as ill a Criticl^, as before a partial Writer. For what if fome Copies read yevvnT)?^, with double v, inftead of fingle; is any thinj^ more common than Miilakes of that kind ? A little lower, in the fame Page, the Editions had yivyyiTccv inftcad of yify^ravj. The Senfe mufl deter- mine us in fuch Cafes, and a critical Judgment of the Principles laid down in th: fame Treariie. One Thing is cerrain, that however 7£^>iT>i$ be rcndred, the Dodor is intirely falfe in ranking the Son under ytiYlvis i-T^dij becaufe Athanaji/is, in the very Page, clearly exempts Him from the tdc yiVYiTcL, froili created * 'rart^tTTiicfifcc ToKTi}'; ytrJjT?? ^'tr.tti o rev xt^'^^ xscr-Af. Athanaf. contr. Gent. p. 59. ^ • v - ^ 1^ T.; k'/nt'Jv 57«Tfo? v^u^xi Ary®-, &c. p. 39. Ed. Bencd. comp. Orat. 1. c. 5-6. p. 460. &c. Which, if there be an/ doubr.will de.cnran- the meaning of the Phiafe «aa^ rif yi- irfTU'v, Sec. Q11.XXVIL of foinc QUERIES. 497 Beings, You may, if you plcafc, fay, from the begot- ten Beings, and Juftify it in the fame way as you pre- tend to juftify the other. Tlie late learned Editor of Athanafius, eafily perceiv'd that the word iliould be ycv>\T))5 in one place, and yivy,Tc^if in the other : And fo it Hands correded in his Edition. 4. I found fault with the Doctor's Tranflaiion of a place in Eufebius "^ , wherein he was doubly blame- able: Firfl:, for tripping in his Logick^^ by oppoiuig ef^ient to miniflerial Caufe, when the fame may be v^-^both efficient and minifierial ; and iecondly, for faul- tring in a momentous Article of Faith , excluding God the Son from being efficient Caufe of all Things. Upon this you are in a vehement Paffion : Ic is ^ Ci- vil, mofi ridicnloHSy ai 7vell as unjufi, I am not dif- pleafed to hear you fay fo ; becaufe now I may hz confident that what I faid was very right, jufr, and unanfv^'erable. It is an Obfcrvation the Reader ^may have made, v/hich will not be founc^ to fail \n any one Inftancc , that whenever you throw out this kind of Language, it is a certain Mark of your Di- ftrefs, and of your not bt^ing able to make any folid Reply. Let us (ee whether it does not hold true here, as well as in former Indances. The Docflor's Tranjlation , you fay , does not excly.de the Sor, from any proper efficiency , but from ftprerne fetf-a-iukoriia- tive Efficiency, You may be a better fudge than I, of what the Do^flor believes, or maintains upon fc" cond Thoughts : But I may prefume to judge of a rZf cXui 7roiJjr,K¥it row 3-^r^c5 Xi6s-jritx.v. Eufeb. Eccl. Thcol. 1. i. C. io. The Dovfloi's Tranjktion, or VarafhraCe. " Whereas He might luve cxprels'd it thus, A:i Things were I =' made by Him, as the ejfc'ient Caufe; He docs no: lb ex prclTs I " it, but thus; Ail Thi:igs were made by Him as the vjihijinng J " Caufe; that fo He might refer us to the S/ipreme Tov.-'er and '' Etuciency of the Father, as ihc ^LiUr of ill Tilings.'' Script. Dod. p. S9. alias tq. R r r written Aha 498 A Second Defense Qu. XXVII. written Tranflation. And, I fay, it is plain from his Qppoling efficient ( not fupreme efficient ) to f?2mifjerl^'t{$ that, unltfs his Wits were abfent. He intended as nriich to fay that the Son was not efficient Caufc, as that the Father was not mimfteriaL He continues the fame Thought all along, concluding the Father to be the A^aker ( not fupreme Maker only ) of all Things -y therein fnewing hxs Jttpnme Power , and Effi' cicncj. This is the obvious Senfe of the Doctor's Ver- fion. But I am not forry to find, that either the Do- dor, or you, are coming off from it, and approach- ing nearer to Catholic!^ Principles : Tho' it ftill looks a little fufpicious, that you are every where fcrupu- lous of filling the Son Creator y or Auker, and will never fiy that He created by his own Power, but by the Power of the Father. 5. I found fault with the Do61or's partial rendring a place of St. Chryfoftom^^ and cutting the Quotation ihcrr. You repeat (p. :\6i,) the fanie thing that the Dodor had pleaded tor Himfelf ; and which I iliew'd to be iniufficient , in my Appendix, As to Baffly the Doctor had dealt as partially by Him t» Baffl makes the Son*s inherent Power eqml to the Father's; and in That Senfe fays, that as to Power ^ He .is eciual and the firyjc. The Dodor means no more than tl^at the Son's Power (however unequal) is deriv'd from the Father, and in That Senfe They a'c one in Power. Now, I fay, BafiCs Idea and the Do(fror's aie very diffcient : And the Dodor was. fenfible of it ; dropping the word equal in his Ver- llon of BajiL Ba/d lliould not have been quo- ted) as agreeing in the Things when He agrees on- ly in the Name. You fay , Bafd could not mean ilut tliC Son's Power is co-ordinate. But He certain- J \y meant > and faid,. that the Sons Power is equal: J * Deienfej p. 368, 419, 48^. f Set my D^iknk, p. 425^/ Lfl Qii.XXVII. cffome Q^U E RI E S. 499 Let the Doctor fay This, and our Difpurc is ended. Ic is plain, that Bcijll's Rcafon for the Father and Sou hetKg one, is quite another than what the Dodor's is; and that the Doctor's Notion of one in Pow- er^ is not Bafd's Notion"*. Vv'hy th.en was he quoted , and mis - tranjliitcd , to confirm an Inter- pretation intirely diffircnt from, nay, contrary to his own ? 6, I found fault with the DoL%r's partial rendrin;? a noble PafTage of Iren^ai \, That Irend^ns was not fpcaking of the Son coniidi;r*d in a reprejcntative dt- paciijy ( which the Doctor, without any Warrant*'^', would exprefs by h ^ogCj)? Scb) is manifeft from Ire- ndim% referring to ^oh, i. i. which defcrib^s the Soa as God before that fiditious Reprefentation the Dodor /peaks of. Therefore \.\-\t ro ,^i.'ix.ov 59 hS^o^oVj in That place of IrenatHs^ is to be underflood of the antece- dent CbaraCler which belonged to God the Son, be- fore the World was ; and not of ^rrj fublcqucnt AV- p'cjentation. 7. I took notice ft of a Palfjge in J^fiin circd by the Dodor, and truly rendred, but fet in a falfe Li^ht to deceive the Reader ; as if God the Son were not Himfelf Creator, and God of ^br^iham, but one perfon- ating the Creator, and God of Ajraham, I oblerved, that the Do:for cou^d not have con- futed the Jews, as JtiXm did, while He goes upon the Suppolition of the Son's perfonating the Father : A plain and evident Token of the Dodor's Mi fun- derftanding , and mifreprelenting his Author, when * The Do<5lor, by Tower, fccms to mc2.n mprnl Power j fuch as Moral'Jis define to be That by which a Pcribn is Ciiabied to do a Thing Uv^fuUy and with moral Eftefl: But Bajd means natu- ral Power. Tne Doftor interprets the Text of Chrill's ajuming to Him/elf the Poyoer and Authority ofQoJs Reply, p. 147. See alio/ p. I 36, 2f4. f See my Defenie, p. ^^50, 490. ** See my Sermons, p. lyS. tt Defenie, p. 431. R r r i H? 500 ^ Second Defense Qu.XXVIL He makes a great part of the Dialogue Nonfenfe, ta bring it to his Hjpot hefts. For how fhould Juflm ever prove that there was a divine P'erfon, diflind: from Angels^ one that was really Gody God o{ Abra- ham^ &c. if the Perfon pretended to be fuch, was only verfondting the God of Abraham^ and was not Himfelf God -^ Might not the Jew infift upon it, that it v\as an Angel only, ferfonating God? Why mull it be Another, who was really God of Abraham as well as the Father*/ The whole drift of Jtifiins Arcjument is intirely defeated by fuch a Fidion of Perjonatia^ : Which makes it evident that Jnftin had no fuch Notion, but the quite contrary. You do r.nt pretend to fay that the Do5or, upon his Princi- ples, could have confuted the Jew in the fame way with Juftin: Only you fay, He never thought of con - :futin2 Him upon mine. But it is manifeil that He did confute Him upon this Principle, that there was a Perfon, beiides the Father^ God o^ Abraham » really fo> in his own Pcrjon-, becaufe fo defcribed in Scripture: And therefore there ex ids a divine Perfon, befides the Fnthcr, Son of That Father; which was to be prov- ed. Your we:ik Pretences jbour the Son*s miniftring^ and his not bQin^ frprhnQ God becaufe of That, have b.cn often anfwer'd. 8. I took notice of fome Things of a flighter kind; but fuch as betrayed too much leaning to an Hypothec jis, and tended to convey falfe Ideas to the common Reader f. And tho* the Alteration in fuch Cafes may appear flight, like the Change of a Figure, or a Cy- ^ For if He always fpake /« the name, ^c. of the Father, no Texts could be brought to prove Him Lord God, becaufe Lord God would exprefs the Terfon and Authority of the Father: But ir is evident that ^ujiin, Irendus, and others, do profefledly cite Paflagcs of Scripture to prove the Son to be Lord God: That Title or Name then, no leis exprefles the Perfon and Authori- ty of the Sony than of the lather. True Script. Dodr. conti- nued, p. 146. f DefeniCj p. 432. . ^ .... phcr Qu.XXVII. of fome QU E R I E S. 501 pher in an Account ; yet is it very mifchievous, and, if defignedly done, very dillionefl:. 9. I blamed the DovS:or ^ for skipping over fome very material Words of Novntian. Do you deny the Fad \ No: But you inlift upon it, thnc Novatim has a great deal which may look for your Purpofe. I al- lowed as much before: Only, as the Words were capable of a Catholic]^ Meaning , and mufl be deter- min'd to That Meaning if fome Paits of the Sentence are incapable of any orher ; I defir'd that the Words ^er Juhftantiit commnnioncm^ by Communion of Subflancee, ( which the Doctor had unfairly omitted ) might be brought in, to end the Difpute. As to Novatians real Principles, I have given you my Thoughts above. He rakes a particular way in the refolving the ZJnity, very like to your*s: Yet He maintains tJK Eternity f, and Confubftantiality of God the Son; wherein He differs as much from you, as He agrees with me. The Subordination He cxpreflls in very Itrong Words, but yet fuch as do not amount to an Inferiority of Nature, You intimate, that the Author intended an in- equality of Perfe5iions , and not merely an inequality in refpect of Original : Which is more than Nova", lians Words proves or, at leafl, than they appear to * Defenfe, p. 432. i As to Novatians fuppoUng the Father pr:or to the Son, I ac- counted for it in my Defenfe, p. 139, 14. i. I fliall here add a few parallel ExprcflloHs from other Catholick Writers, who un- doubtedly believed the Coeternity. Ex quo oftcnditur femfer fuiflc laporem iftum 'virttitis Dci> Nullum habentem initium nifi tpfum Deum: Neque enim dcce- bat aliud ci clVc initium nifi ipfum unde eft Sc nafcitur. Pamphil. Apolog. p. 130. Primitivus eft di(Slus quia prater Fatrem, cui etiam coAternm eft Divmitate, cum Spiritu Sando, ante ipfum nullus eft primus. Zen. Veronenf. Scrm. in Exod. ix. ni^ »" GWx »ir TV «| ocPX'^'i • ^ f^n^> ^Z*** TfiaSTTitoHfJbiter ixvTev, 7r^oTiTecyf/,ifov. Bafil. contr. Eunom. 1. 2. p. 735. " me 50^ A Second Defense Qu.XXVII, nie to prove. I fhall give the PafTage in the Mar- gin"^, which muft decide This Matter. Novatian there many ways exprelles the fame Thing, that had the Father and Son been equal in refpecft of Original , had Tiicy Both been under ived or unhegotten^ There might then have been juil Pretence for making thern Two Gods, He adds, that had They been Both wvifi- tie and incompreherjfd-^le. They had then been Two Gods. To underftand which, we are to remember that it was the general Dodrine of the Fathers, that God the Son might be viftble and appear in a place, per af- ftimptas fpeciesy by vtfible Symbols', but that God the Father might not , it being unfuitable to the Cha- rader of iht firfi Perfon to b^fent, and confequent- ]y to appear m That manner. Upon This Hjpothe- [is-, had the Son been invijible , and incomprehenjible > in fuch a Senfe as the Father was conceiv'd to be, it would have been the fame thing as if He had beca Another Father , or Another Firft Pafon ; and That would infer Two Gods. He is not therefore fpcak- - ing of any Diffe»-ence as to ejpntial Perfeciions, but I only of the Difference between a Firji and Second |Perfon; that one could not be fent, or become vifible ^'and connn'd to a Place in any fenfe : The other might in fuch a fenfe as hath been mention'd, viz... * Si cnim hiatus non fuiflet, innatus comparatus cum eo qui eCet immtHs, o^quarione in urroque often fa, duos taceret innatoj, Sc idco Jiios faccret Deos. Si non genifuj eilet, collatus cum eo (qui) gcnitus non cflcr, & cequalcs inventi, duos Deos merito reddidit- lent non gemti; atque idco Duos Chriflus reddidiifet Deos. Si fine Ortgme cfllt, ut Pater, inventus, 6c ipfe Principium omnium, ut Pater, duo faciens prlncipia, duos oflendilTet nobis coniequenrer Sc Deos. Aur li & ipie Fdius non efTet, fed Fater generans de fe alterum Filium, merito collatus cum Patre, 8c tantus denotarus, duos Vatres elTecillet, 8c ideo duos approbafiet etiim Deos. Si m- I'fibilis tuiflet cum invifibili collatus, par exprellus, duos inv'-Jibdei oftendiiTct, 8c idco duos comprobaflet 8c Deos. Si incomprehenjl- k'disy fi 8c castera qucecunque funt Patris; merito dicimus, duo- rum Djorum quam ifli confingunt controverliam fufcitaiTet. Nunc- autem qiiicquid eft, non ex fe eft, quia nee imatm ejl. No- vat. C. 2 1. by Qu.XXVII. offim Q^UEHIES. 50^ by Symbols cf his Prefence. Otherwife Novatian ad- mits the Son ki his own Nature to be omniprefent, as well as the father, as is plain from his Words*. See This Point more fully clear'd in Bp. Ball f. The V/hole Courfe and Tenour of Novatian s Difcourfc tends only to This, that there is but one Head^ viz. the Father^ to whom the Son Himfelf, his Subjiance, his ?ower, and Pertef^ions are referred, and in whom they center; that there is a Difference of Order be- caufe of That Headfhip ; and that, conformably there- to, the Son in all Things ads fubordinately , mmifleri to the Father, and executes inferior Offices under Him, as a Son to a Father, not as a Servant to his Lord. This is all that Novatian s Words flridly a- mount to : And tho* He fpeaks of the Subjection of the Son, it does not necefTarily mean any thing more than that voluntary oeconomj which God the Son un- derwent, and \yhich would not have been proper for the Father Himfelf to have fubmitted to, becaufe not fuitable to the Order of the Perfons. One Paffage I muft here give, becaufe we differ chiefly about what That Paffage contains. The lite- ral Verfion runs thus**. '< Whofe Godhead is fo dcliver'd, as not to ap- «' pear to make Two Gods , either by a Difa- ^' greemant^ or Inequality of Godhead. For, all Things " being * Si Homo tantammo^o Chriflus, quomodo adcft ubique invo- catus? Cura Hxc Hominis natura non iic led Dei, ut adeirsomai loco potlit. Novat. c. 15-. Sec True Script. Do6lr. continued, p. 170. t £«//D. F. Sea. 4. c. 3. *^ Cujus fie Divinitas traditur, ut non cur dljfonantla, aut in&- ^ualitate divinitatis, duo3 Decs rcddidillc videatur. Subjcftis c- nim ei, quali Filio, oranibus rebus a patre. dum iplc cum his qux illi fubjedla funt, Patri fuo ilibjicitur,- Patris quidem iui Fi- lius probatur, cxtcrorum autcm 8c Dominus &: Deus elfe reperi- lur. Ex quo dum Huic qui eft Deus, omnia rubflrada (leg. /ui- ftrata) traduntur, &. cunfta fibi fubjeda Filias accepta rcfcrr patri. t'Jtam diyiaiutis Auwtoritar^ni rur'ius patri rcniitt't,- unus Dcui oflendiiw 504 -^ Second Defense Qu.XXVir. «' being by the Father made fiibjeft to Him , as «« to a Son, while He Himl'elf, with thofe Thmgs «« which are made fubjed to Him, is fubjed to his *« Father : He is ihevvn indeed to be the Son of his «' Father; but is found to be Lord and God of ail *' Things elfe. And fince all Things are thus fub- *' jeded to Him (the Son) who is God, and fince «' He owes their being made fubjed under Him to '« the Father , He again refers back to the Father *' all the Authority of the Godhead : And fo the <« Father is iliewn to be the one true and eternal « God, from whom alone This Efflux of the God«* «f head being Tent out and communicated to the Son, <« revolves again to the Father by Communion of Sub- «' fiance. The Son is indeed ihewn to be God, as tc the Godhead is .communicated and delivei'd to '« Him : But at the fame time the Father is ne- *< verthelefs the One God, while That very Majefty «' and Godhead is, by a reciprocal Courle, return'dj *« and referred up again from the Son, to the Father « that gave ir." This IS, I think, a fair and true rendring of JVova- tian: Only I am now to juftify fuch Parts of it as you will be apt to except againfl. Inllead of Inequa' lit J, you chufe the reverfe, viz. Equality ; upon iome (lender Sufpicions of your own, againfl: the Faith of the Copies. ConjeEiural Emendations ought never TO be admitted , but upon the greated; Neceflity. For, it often happens that Men pleafe Themfelves a while with Reaions that look plaufible: But when the Thing comes to be well confider'd, lleafons as oP.enditur vcrus 8c ceternus Parer, a quo folo Hxc vis div'mitei,t'is tm'tjfa,, etiam in Filium tradita &: dircdla, rurlum ^cr ftdjlanti^ cofnmHnimem ad Patrem rcvclvitur. Deu5 quidcm oflcnditur Fi- lius CQi divinitas tradita &c porrcda confpicitur 5 5c tamen ni- hilominus unus Deus pater piobaturi duni gradatim rcciproco mcatu ilia iMajefias atque Dlviniras ad Patrem, qui dcdcrat earn,, furfum ab ilio ipib Filio inifl^ leveititur, ^.. iclurquecur. Nova^-,^ flaufible,. Qu.XXVII. offomc QUERIES. '505 plaufible, or more fo, tnay appear on the other fide. It has been urged, in this very Cafe, by a learned Gentleman "^5 that what you would make a Reafon for mn (sc^ualitate^ is fufficiendy anfwer'd by the words, fion Dijfo^a»n'a Divimtatis, For had the Father and Son been equally unorigtnate , there would have been iiiJfo»antia , according to Novattm \\ a Difagree- ment of two independent Deities, without any Son^ fhip which makes the Vnion **. Hence then Nova^ fta» excludes EcjiMlity of Oiiginal, by the words mit DijjoKantiai but at the fame time teaches an Equd'ttj of Nature, or Godhead, that He might avoid the op- poiite Extreme. And This is but fuitable to the very Tenour of his Difjourfe, there, and elfewhere. For how can there be a Coryjmtimcation of SubRance, and Godhead, without the Suppofkion of E(jpiaHty of Nature, and Godhead? A little before. He had f^id^ iht JVord was divme SHbllance ft : And He here fpeaks * True Scripture Doctrine continued, p. 171. t Dam non aliuildc ell- quam ex Parre, Patri ilio Or'^inem fuami iicbens, Difcordiam Di'vinitaiu de nuincro duorum (^corum raccre Don poiuir. Novat. c. 31. ** Si nmbo vocarentur Vsitres, cfTcnt profcif^o nnttira il'JJhn':lc-i unufquilcjue eiiim ex femeriplb conH-wer, 8c commun.-m lubrtkh- tiam cum altcro non habere" i ncc D/na,sunx cfrct, quibus uha na* Uira non ellcc. Fulgent. Rein coiut. Apian, p. fi Duos aureni Decs diccrc non pcffamus, ncc debemus: non quod Fi'iius Dei Deus non lit, imo vcrus Deus de Deo veio,- fed quia non aliunJe quam de ipib uno Pa're De; FiliL-m novimu"; proinde unum Deum dicimus. ■ Si verus Dw-us eil, & de Pa- trc non eft, duo funt, hahenres li'iguH & volunra-cs prop ias, tz impcria diverfa. Greg. Na^ianz. op. Vol. i. p. 72^- Ambrof. op. Vol. 1. p. 34-7. Qu^cquid extra cum efl:, cum confume'ia ei hor.o.a^^E viiturij A']iiab'ttur. Si enim aiiq'.iid quod ;;fl^; ex ipfo ef!, reperiri poveH: /7- 77:^ile ei, Sc virttitis ejifJemy amiiir prlvihgium D"! iilb Confbrrid CoA^.ualis: jamquc non erit Deus unut a quo inJiftcrens lit Dc/^s Ai'us. At vcro non habet C^mtumeiiam Vhi-r^ecath arquiiiros; quia Suum eil: quod fui limile eilj d: eX ft eft quo I fi'M ad iimiii- tudincm compararur} nee exrm fe eft, quod qua' fua Tunr poteft: Et Profcflus Dignlr.itls eft genuifle potcUs'-cm, nee alienafle i.'aror ram. Hilar. Je Triti. p 9VV- ft SnbJiiMu'tn fcilicctilia iininpi. cujus ftomcn ell STrbum. Novar;. 506 A Second Def^use Qu.XXVlI. of the Godhead being communicated , or imparted to the Son and revolving again to the Father as the Head or Fountain. Behdes that, Novatian is known to make the Son as truly of the fane Nature with the Father, as any Adan is of the fame human Nature with his Father^. What is This but, in other Words, declaring Equality of Nature^ or Godhead \ There is therefore no realon for altering Novatian s Text t : However pofitively you may expiefs your felf on That Head. . As to the Words accepta refcrt Patri , they really mean no more than that He received them from the Father, or acknowlcdg'd them to be received i Which comes not up to the Do'or's Expreffions (which I found fault with ) w Acknowledgment return d: Be- fides that the Dodor was not there tranflating accept ti refert^ but reciproco meatu rcvertitur. Sec. The words vis Divinitatis, I render Efflux of the podhead; which you render divine Power. I could not think of a better Expreflion than what I made ule of. That I have not mifs*d the Senfe I per- fuade my felf, becaufe Novatian is fpeaking of Co^- mumon of Sujjlance in the fame Sentence, and had fli- led the Word divine Subfance^ a httle before: And He is here plainly fpeaking of the divine Subflancc being porreUa^ and tradita, communicated from Fa* * Ut enim prxfcripHt ipia natnra Hominem credendum qui exr Homine lit: ita eadem narura pra^icribit ScDeum credendum efTc qui ex Deo fit. Novat. c. 1 1. f 1 may here cite a PaH-'ige of Hilary, which may ferve as a juft Comment upon This of Novatian-^ being extremely like it, and carrying the fame Thought, probably, in it. Inft.nt fibi invice??} , dum non ejl nifi ex Patre nativitas y dum hi Dcum alverum naturs. 'vel exterioi is, vet dilllmih's non fu&fi^ fit , clu?n Dens ex Deo mancns non efi aliunde quod Dem eft. Hi- lar. p.957 . Here arc the fame Pvcafonj given why Father and Son arc not Two God;: And HiUrfs ExprflTion ot' non nature cxtirioris, an- {Ivers to Koratian's oi non d:)Jbno:'jti.>'.i as alfo hi« no^t <»ijji)nili3 10 the othcj-'^ am in^i^^Ht^tf, thtt Qu.XXVII. of fome Q,U E R IE S. 507 then to Son, and recurring to the Father as Head. If y'ls anfwers to the Greek J^^/Kst^;?, as I conceive it here does, it means the fame as the liv'mg and fnb^ fiantial Power of God, the fame that we cxprefs by Efflux^ or EmanntioK. The Thought of No* vatian Teems to be the fame with that of Ti^rtHllian *, whom He loved to imitate in many Thmgs. To make it flill plainer that I interpret Him righr^y, pleafe to obferve the words, Dens c^uidem ojiendnur Films , cut Divinitar tradita (^ porre^la. coyiffaitur^ Here, He gives the Reafon why the Son is God: It is becaufe the Godhead extends to Him, or is com- municated to Him. Compare This with what the Author fays in Another placet; and you will fee how confident and uniform This Writer is in his Dodrine, that it is the Son's proceeding from the Fa- ther, or his partaking of the divine Snhj}ance that makes Him God, So little Pvcafon have you to ima- gine that the words, per fuhjlantide, communioyiem^ crept iYito the Text out of the Margin. Whether the Dodcr, or I, have purfued a wrong Scent in ex- plaining Nov. "at an y I now leave to the Reader to judge. 10. I had rcmark'd ** upon the Doflor's rendring a PaiTage o^ Athmafiis]]^ more to fcrve his Hjpo- * Cum Radius ex'fble porrigitur, portio qx fumma; fcj Solerit in Radio, quia Solis eft Radius, nee feparatur fubftantia, fed. ex- tenditur. Tertul. Apol. c. 21. Prolatum filium a patre, fed non icparatum. Contr. Prax. c. 8. f Qui idcirco unum poteft dici, dum ex ipfo eft, 6c dum filius ejus eft, & dum ex ipfo nafcitur, 8c dum ex iplb procejjijfe repe- ritur, per quod & Deus efi. Novat. c. 23. Si Homo tantummodo Chriftus , quomodo dicir, ego ex Deo •prodii ^ vent? cum conftet Hominem a Vico fhcium efle, non ex Deo procejjijfe Deus ergo procefllt ex Deo, dum qui procef- iit fermo, Deus efi qui procejjit ex Deo. Novat. c. 23. ** Defenfe, p. 433. ■j-f- 'O . » ■ ion yaf ^0 TT^otriuTra. Athan. Tom. 2. p. 39. f MitA JV is'ju ^(T.cc TiXe'ioc. p. 41. ** Mjat ^io'lv,^ "THxT^^ci; -Z viutj, p. 4,2. ^, ^ ^' -|-j- 'Ot rnw T^iLhx, f/joxik^a, rrtiouvni ^cSstav ifgi^'nt'ecTre^Mtf axTTCif. miv ynvyiTii, imx^^cvrir fJra v«/) cnu (patrl reZ ttxt^'o^ rov vio*y d^im ei(rfA/6f oci6p&7r^ ^yoc^t^., tuti^v, etvizv tiv hoc j^ f/^iot ^«fl>, uru^ k- But Qu.XXVIL •ffome QUERIES. 50^ But that it is always SabeUUn to apply the Phrafe to the Son iingly, or to Both together, is not faid nei- ther can you prove it. The Force of your Argu- ment lies only in the Article 0 : For as to (xoiog 3ec?, Orily Gody that it is often applied to the Son, cannoc be denied * : And this Confideration might be fuf- ficient to make the Author put in the reflriJlion of (ii i)Lilm (paiiv, to the latter Branch of the Sentence* Tfc'hich He did not to the former, where it is 0 Tian^pm For there is a Senfe wherein the Son is 0 fjLovos ^ios^ But he is not 0 ^xrrp in any Scnfe : Which lliows the reafon why the Author exprefs*d Himfelf as He did. 1 1. I took notice t of another PajGTage diredly con- trary to the Doflor's Purpofe, though cited by him. For the Doctor's Defign was to make the Father the Ofilj God exclufive of the Son: While That PaiTage makes Him the only God mcltiding the Son; directly the reverfe. Had the Dodor*s Intention been only tb prove that the Father is ftiled the Only Gad, the 'Method had been fair: But as his profels'd Defigii was to exciudf the Son from the O^ie Godhead; his, manner of citing Authors for it, who in thefe very Paf] ages, were direclly againft it, is an intohrable A- bufe upon the Readers. 12. The like may be faid of another Paflage takea notice of in my Defenfe ^*. You feem to forget the Do(5lor*s Note on Prop. IX. where He precautions his Reader to underftand it in fuch a Senfe as to ex- * Mff»» tZv TTociToit eti6^aTa>i B-tm, Clem. Alcxand. p. S4. Chriftus Jefus Solus cfict DetiJ. Ariftid. apud Petav. Ftxf. ad a Tom. Theol. Tow S-fsy Ao'v©" /n^*^ ^'h tc>^n^,f^ Athan. in Pial. p. 8j, nov. coiledt. 'Xiot fAs^o* ^0^% B-thr, &;c. Greg. Nax. Orat. 56, p. ^S6, 'EfAt a f^fot 3-«?r ufira^^ fitc Eufcb. in Pfal. p. ^03. f Pefenfc, p. 457. ** Defenfe, p. 497. elude ^10 A Second Defense Qu.XXVII. elude the Son from necejfary Exijience, {{o you inter- pret y^/f-^A://?^;?/^.) Now, can Any thing be more unfair, or fraudulent, than to cite Authors as fliling the Father the Only God, to countenance a Propofiti- on in fuch a Senfe as Thofe Authors deteftcd, and abhorr'd ? All the Apologies you can poflibly in- vent can never make fuch a Pradice righteous, or Honefl". 13. rremark'd ^ upon a Paflagc cited out of Na^ z,iaMz,e»; where the Doctor, by a Note, had moft fhamef Lilly flifled, and perverted the Author's Mean- ing. You fay not one Word of the Dodor's Note^ the only Thing I found Fault with : And which in^ d^^d csn admit of no colourable Excufe, except it were done through Careleflnefs, taking a Paffage at fecond Hand, and commenting upon it, without ever looking into the Author to fee what went before » or after. 14. As to the Paflage of Jnftin Martjr, enough hath been faid above. 15. I remarked f upon another Note of the Do- ctor's, on a PalTage in Iremus, and gave feveral Rea- ions to fhow the Unfairnefs and Falfenefs of it. You have here Nothing to fay in his Dcfenfe : So I pafs on. 1(5. I remark'd upon Another Paflage f, where the Dodor had read the Text of Iremus wrong ; which you civilly acknowledge, and thank me for the No- tice. But there are ftill Two Queftions betwixt us relating to That Place. Firft, whether it fhould be ayay/jT©^ or kyt^ri^y and next, whether the Son be included, by Iren^HSi in that Place, in the iyevJt' * Defenfe, p. 436. f Defenic, p. 437. y(^ tC^ iiulo',T(^, lien. 1. 4. c. 38. p. 285;. Qu.XXVII. effome Q^U E R I E S. 5 U TQi 3ioi, fuppofing that to be the Reading. It was ncedlefs for you to heap Padages upon me to prove, that none but the Father Ihould be filled a,yir/]T@*, Vnbegottcn, or Vaoriginate 'y which I readily allow. All the Queftion is about kyiiy\T@*y Vncr$ated, Vn^ made. Eternal , or Necejfarilj - cxijiing. The Reafons why I tjunk kymra to be the reading in Iren^us are thefe. I. The Tranflator's rendring it by mfeEli : Which however I acknowledge to be of Icfs Weight , be- caufe He is fometimes miftaken in fuch Cafes ; put- ting ingenitm for infeclns , and perhaps infeEius for ingenitHS-i or innattis* II. A much ftronger Rcafon is, that through that whole Chapter kyumroi is oppofed to Things made^ Things of tranfient , and precarious exiftence. The Oppofition runs between the Things madci and the Maker of them * : III. Another very weighty Reafon is drawn front the Oppofition between ymroi ay9§6iJTO^, and cLy^n" T» ,7e5 : That the Reading is yt^i^rli not with dou- ble y, is evident from the whole Chapter; where the Oppofition runs between Man made f, and God his Maker, And there is not the leaft Hint of Man confidered as begotten^ or as Son of God; as you would underftand it, referring to Luke 3. 38. Thefe Reafons convince me, that the true Reading of the Word is 0 yey/^rij £^:§5«J7r#'> and tb kyiv^ira SfcS, * TaJ itXi B-fu, «« xaroi 'rot. uvrx cvTt, ^ clytivW^ t>?Tcc^^oirt ^Sro r^ vrr^g-o.^ t>7 cIjtu. ri •n\7TtiY,»^t(^, i yap ii^tXYT$ tiyivvrtTei i>ya>i -rle. noj^. yi'Aninu.i*x. Iren. p. 283. Vo'.unt fimiles e(Te Farlori Deo, 8c nullam eflc difFcrentiam infe^ Hi Di'i &: nanc//ic7/ Hominis. p. 285*. -f- 'RKii"»£>- keri y.pra^, •vtu\nd what Occafion was there for the Doctor's faying EjfeUs , inftead of Thims ^Jf^'^^g ff(^'^ thewi * *0 Xry<^\ ii kcct' unlvic e esx^^u'TC^ ly.ylfi. *0 A/y(^- TTjr hy^vx %hki^iv dX/A (">>(■.> ccvrci reZro ytsofjjtioi c« rtf vi^ fiy^^av uvtQ. Iren. I. 5*. c. 16. p. 3 i 3. Qiiia jam adhserebat ilii Filius, SecurJn perlbna, fermo ipfius, 5c Terriay Spiritus in Sermone, ideo pluralitcr prcnuntiavit, Facia- 0nts, 2c nojlram. Tertull. adv. Prax. c. iz. Uiium cnim ftmr, quorum Imaginis 8c Similitudinis unum eft Homo fadlus cxemplum. Hiliir. de Trin. 1. j. c. 8.- f Dct'eniCt p. 441. blil Qa.XX VII. cffome Q^U E R I E S: 5 U but to favour an Hypctlxjis^ snd to hold out a Falic Li^ht to the Readers ? As to what you iay of i^iA'fi^, Dignity^ I have anfv/er'd it above. Youi* Rcafon for ^gmriy^iQU^ (ignifying more than Prisrity of Ordcr^ ts very peculiar, viz.. becaufe Bafd in anotlier Place has both TcLpii, and kria/ucLTi : Therefore when He mrikcfs mention of Or^^^/- only (as in the Word ^.r^:TcTzL'^^'yjl) He meant more than Order, You might perceive, by the Reafon given in Both Places, that ^epriTi'^c<.\ applied to the Father, and rct^et (^Vjt^^©- applied to the Son, anfwcr exactly to each other, and lirerally fignify Ordcr^ and nothing elfe ^. And had you at- tended to Bafd's Reafoning, where He allows i^{a)>6ct7i, as well as Tx£e<, you would have pcrceiv'd that it was rather ad Homincm^ or for Argu'^.ent Sake, than any Thing elfe. For, admitting that the Son or Ho- ly Ghoil were a^i^,aa.77) as well as TCL^Uy fcaorrd and third (as Eunomius pretended) yet He Ihows that na certain Confcquence can be drawn. from thence to T;?- feriority of Nature, Or hov.cvei', at r I.e. moil, aU you can make of it is, that the Father being. Sup/A^m^ivi Office i as well as in Order ^ Wf=s on Tb.at Acicpifnt ifio^LxxLTi 7iqaT@^, fir ft in Dignity : As one Ani^d (which is Bajir$ lUuilrarionj is. fupcrior to anodicr m RaKli2 or Office, rho* in Nature equal. BajJI, L^.-.p. j^, 19. The lail PaiTage I found f?ult wiih, y<>U arc content to throw off under the Nlnie of ^. _C^'//i^/f •; bccaufe you could not account for the Do^^r'r. foul Play in miilranHacing ir, aad warping it to his ovva Hjpothep, Why was not the Word^ SuLnn^yv.fj^rcL rendrexi Creatures^ as it ought to i.ave bee:-; ^^ ^And w'ly did the Dofror put ^J Things, vvhcn f^'enk'iirjf of Thing*? produc'd by the Father > and Tiihs^s (^rliy in RefpccT of ihz Son's producing, when He h.vi no Ground fi>r x\\q DiR'inCtion in Baftl? But cnor.gh of Thi?. The Dof^oi's Partiality in "♦ 5ce Anoibcr P^jlfuge oi" B.-.fl aho7«, p. 4.95. T t t msnv 5'r4- -^ Second Defense Qii. XXVIL many of his Quotations has been fufficiently manifeft- ed. And tho' you are pleafed to pr.Cs the Matter off with as good a Face as you can, (and it is your wi- feU: Way i'o to do) yet you will hardly find many Readers of Opinion with you, that thcfe Kind of Slips, in a Pvlan of Character, arc of flight Moment. Had Biiliop B^H been ever guilty of Things of this Kind, I well know wdiat Ufe would have been made of it. Mr. V/hifton "^ charged him with once unjnirly tranflating a Paflage of Or;>^?j; where yet the Bifhop was right, and Mr. Whijlon certainly wrong, as I have prov'd in my Defcrjjc-\: And This one pretend- ed Inllance of Vnfairmjs is brought up again, and aggravated, by another Gentknian*'^, with feme Kind or Infulr. A few Slips of this Nature, where a Charge is really Juft, are not eaflly pardon'd in any Writers of the higher Oafs : betraying either Vv^ant of Le^^rmng^ or Want of CarCy or, what is word of alh Want of Honeftj. You endeavour to throve off the Force of the next fiXQ or (ix Pages of my jDf/^^{/'s DoCiOrs QtMwns from the Fathers in general were Con ce ill ons cniy. fiom Writers, who -were Adverfarics in the 7i'-hc!e, But I made a Diilinclion tt> as the DotTtor himfelf had done§, between Ante-Islicene, and pojJ'NiccKs Wrireis. - As to. the latter. He laid claim to Nothing biTc Coyiccjjions : And as to the former. He did indeed claim more in Refped: of forr*e of Them, tho' I think without Rtafon, You are flill ianguine enough to fay, that much the greater Part of the ylmhors He cites., alh you think, af the three fir;} Cc'jr^/rics^ a^rce ii^ith Him in the fvAl Smfe of all - Piimiiivc Chrifllar.iry revived. Vol. 4 p. i_f4. ■ t Dc'cr:;e. p. \t)% &c. ' ** Piim. Ciirill:ianity revive. k'^^Qi^A. 2. p. 44. -ff ]>rcnlc, p. 42)'. ^ Pitncc to Script. Doflr. p. iS. i^^ Ed. Qu.XXVir. offowe (QUERIES. 515 hii Propof.tions, How wild, and indeed Romantick this Imagination of yours is, hath been fuitlcienrly fhown all the Way; firU, in My Dcfenfey and again in thefe Papers : particularly in the eleven Inilances above mention'd , wherein the Dodor runs counter to all Antiquity. As to Jifprcrr.e Dominion , wj^ich you lay fo much flrcfs on; ir is Demonitration that the Fathers held no Supremacy but what was thought confident with EqtiMtty of N^nare y and with the Unity of the fame Gjdhead common to Father and Son. If This be your Stiprer/jjcy y ail is right and wed. But it is ridiculous m you to quote ^iruieats for the Supremac}s and at th? fame time to throw out a 1 the Confideration'^ which ihould come in to qualify , fix , and determine the Notion of Sttpre^ macy ^ among the Antients. Are not all the o- ther Tenets, wherein the Ai-niems evidently contra- did the Doclor's whole Scheme, g that the Fathers were on your Side, but that They were Fools and mad, and are of no Account on either Side of the Controverfy* But, I hope, the Reader will eaiily f;e thro' the IMylfe- jy of the whole Deceit which yoti are puaing up- on Him, (and perhaps upon your fclvcs at rh.e fame Time) which is only This: The draining and pervert- ing the true and CatholJc!^ Notion of Saprefnacy ( held in all Ages of the Church, before and after the Ni- €ene Council ) ro an Arian and Heretical Senle ; that fo you may obliquely (what you caic not to do ^7/- ret'd)) reduce the Son and Holy Ghofl: ro the Rank of CreatHres, Your conflait Plea is. The Saprema^ cy y The Supremacy: T\\z Aatic^ts ^ it Itrms, were for Supremacy, amid I all their Kiriety of Mctapbyjt" T t t 2 Ciil 51(5 A Second Defense Qu.XXVII. cai SpccuLnions : So that every other Tenet, whereby the -uin'tiems plainly overturn your whole Scheme, mufl: be thrown ofF as a A\et^,phjficd Speculation ; and noihing but Suj^remacj iTiuft be founded in our Ears. Yer, after all, you can make nothing of This pretended Supremacy 'till you turn it into a AUta^ jihjfical Speculation upon Self-Exijhnce , and That a- gain into Necejjarj -Exiflence ', then adding fundry o- ther Metaphyficd Speculations to degrade , and fink God the Son into precarious Exiftence. This was rot the Way of the yintients; nor was This the Ufe they ever made, or intended to make of the Supre^ macj: If 1 hey had, you would have allowed Them, I luppole, in this fingle Inflance, to run into Meta- phj/kal Speculations. One Thing is evident, a'/nidj} all their Variety of AietapJjjfical Speculations in which you think They abounded, more than You, that what /kl'etaphyjicks They had in their ^re^u ylhundanccy They .employed them, all in Defenfe of our Lord's Divinity^ \ while You, on the contrary, employ the Little yoii have, in direcl Ofpoj7iion to it. Certainly, the ^n- ^isntSy being io much given to AUtaphftcliSi could .jhave been Aietaphyfical on vour Side cf tlie Queflion, -r^iAvell av You are now : But either They were .wife- enough to diftrnguifti Falfe Meraphylicks from ;^Qli.XXVII. of fome Q^U E R I E S. 517 .l\licene Catholicks, as He quotes in that Manner : And how many Ante-Nicems it oi;ght to be und^Tftood of, may appear from what I have ihown ot their bein» in very oppofice Sentiments to his, in the mofl ma- terial Points of our DKpute. Eii: allowing your F^lea, is it any Juilificarion of the DoctorS Merhod of Quoting? 1 charge Him witli Deceit : And you, in his Defenfiy reprefent Him as pradifing it not lo r/Jtich, or fo oftc^, as I might Imagme. But why did He praclife it at all? You next endeavour to retort fomething upon Me like to the Romanifts ; tho' entirely wide and foreign, and brought in moll: ftrangely. They have Recourse, you fay, to Tradition: You Ihould have find ro Oral Tra.ition, which is quire another Tiling from writ^ ten Tradition. And what Haim is there in having RecouiTe to the -written Tradition of Fathers for the Senfe of Scripture, more than in having Recourfe to a DiEHonary for the Senfe of Words ; or to the Pra- dice of Courts^ Refolutions of Jtidges, or Books of Reports, for the Senfe of La)rs^. All Helps, for the underftanding o[ Scripture , ought to be made ufe of: And Recourfe xo the Fathers is one, and a very conHderable one. The Romani,rs, you add, call their own Doctrine Cathoiick^: Yes, and without Reafon- The Fathers , long before Popery , called their Do- (flrine Catholicks and with good Reafon. What then? The Romanifts alfo call That Herejj , which is re-» ally none: May we not therefore call That Herejy^ v/hich really is fuch, and which has been ever fo ac- counted in all Ages of the Church ? What you have farther is Repetition : except your Speculations on Rev, i. 8. which have been moflly confider'd above\ There remain only a few incidental Matters ro be here taken notice of, very briefly, I had referred x^yitAciTi TTsCTpoi}. p. 852. ** Sec Bull D. F. ScS:. 2. c. 6. Nomrii Apparat. Vol. i. p. 9J4. Lord Nottingham's Anfwer ioWhiJlon. p. _f. Q.U E R Y Qu.XXVlII. of fo7nc QU E R I E S. 519 (^ U E R Y XXVill. whether it he at all probable, that the primitive church pjottld miftake m fo rnateri^il a Point as This is : or that the whole Stream of Chri- (iian Writers fhouU mifiake in telling us what the Senfe of the Church was: And whether fuch a cloud of Witnefjes can he fet afide without weakening the only Proof we have of the Canon of the Scripture, (tnd the Inte- grity of the Sacred Text ? TH E Modeft Pleader thinks it not material to inquire whether the u^nthnt Writers of the Church where better sklWd m Metaphyfical SpecMlationSy than We at this Day ^ This kind of Talk is what He affecls, and pleafes Himfclf in ; though He has no- thing but A/etaphj/icks to depend on, as I have often obferved: And I will venture to afTure Him, that the old and well-tried Aietaphyjicki of the Antients are fuch as He will find much iuperior to his own. Me- taphyfickl were indeed flrft brought in by Hereticlq^ /and were much encourag'd by Ariui^ EanomiuSy and the whole Se\\ Clarke's Writings from his Adverfiry's Accounts. I hope, the Reader will bear this Caution in Mind , as often as He reads Dr. Clarke"^ Account of the Ante-mcene, or Voft-nicenc Writers, to whom He is an utter Advcrfa» >'}' ; tho' a profefs'd one to the Latter only. As lo wiiac He fays about weakcni^ the Canon of Scri^rnre , i refer Qu.XXIX. cffomi Q^U E R I E S. 521 I rffer to my Defetjje ^ j w here that Matter is fair- ly, and fully ihted I now come to you. You repeat the Pretence oF Supremacy : which requires no farther Anfwcr but This ; that you mi (lake the alone Hnoriginatcncfs^ for .alone Dominion, The father is not the alone Govern- HHT : But He alone hath his Authority, and Domi- nion fronn none. '^s^^^m^min:mmm^ms^m(^^^ Q^U E R Y XXIX. tihether private Rc.ifoning , in a mztter above our Comprchcnjiofj , he a f.^ifcr Rule to go by y thmi the gena\i>l SenCe and Judgment of th^ primitive Church in the fir ft 300 Tears: Or, fuppoftng it doubif:d whdt the Senfe of the church IV ^s iviihm th:it time-, n'hcther wh^t :x'as detcrmind by a Council of 300 B/flicps foon after, 7vith the ^reatcH C^zre and Deli- heratiofi, and has J at i fed Men of the great eft Senfe ^ Piety and Learnings all over the chrijiiari Wcrld, for 1400 Tears fince, may 720 1 f^tisfj iriie and Qood Men noyv? I here meet with nothin|:^ hut v.'hrit has been sbnn- danrly anfwered, or obviated. Your former Pre- tences, were ; \ t. Thar the KTicvkc Council knew nothing of imll^ I vidaal Confulifijnri^liry. % 1. That tJiey underllood Confuhjlar.tid in a jj^ura- r tive Senfe. * pcfcriie. p. i*"'. J c. T r y >^ Thnf 522 A Skcond Defense Qii.XXX. 3. That if they intended any red Confubflantiali- ty, it was Specifick^ ox\\y, ■'" ^, Thar feveral Councils, more numerous than That of Niccy dctermin'd agaiiifl: the ofzcBcnov. 'AVI thefe Pleas were particularly examindy and cort- ffitcdj in my Defenfe : And you have been content to drop them , as indefeniible , without any Rein- forcement. i»3^'" Ycu have nothing farther but a few trifling Quib- bles about Indivichiali and IdcnticaL and Supreme Au- thority : Which m.ay now pa/s with the Readers fot Words of Courfe; fuch as you have accudom'd your felf to repeat, when you have no mind to be filenr. I mud deli re the Readcf to turn to my Defenfe of This Ouerjy and to compare it with your PKCply ; if He finds any thing in what you have iaidj that ieems to; require any Confideration. Q^ u K R y XXX. _,-y| U'hcther, f'ppojiiig the Cafe douhtfuU it he not a vjtfe Mans ^art to take the jafcr Side 5 ra- ther to think too highly, thm too 77ieanly of our blejjed S.^viour ••, rather to pay a r/iodeji deference to the Judgment of the Antieiit and ■ ■'^^odern Church, than to lean fU- ojfert^i^wn IJ'ader fan ding f Imuft take notice of wliat the Modejl Pleader her- pi-etends, that This Query n^ay be reioncd ivhh ir- rffphle Strength, After He has thus prepared hi$ Header, let us hear what his Words come to. Ir. is Thus, If tether it he not a 'wife Mans part, rather to thhi!^ tGQ highlj , ihan too r^'icanly of God the Fathr ; and to be tender of his incommunicable Honour. To %vhich I fenf^rvcr, that God the Tarh^T i^s. determined Qii.XXX. offome QUERIES. 523 This Queftion already, by his Commamls \^\di upon us to hoKOftr his Son even as Himfelf', and by his givinq no particular Cautions again (1: honouring Him too much. If we err on This part, in honouring rhe Son too highly (without the leaH: Thought of diilionourin<' the Father) we err on the r/Wj/ Side, as erring on I «rhe (ide of the Precept ; whc^rcas the other is erring -sp^againfl the Precept, This I urged bcfoie ; and nei- ther the Adodeft Pleader, nor your k\£ take the UaH: notice of it. However, I refted my Argument uo- on this farther Confideration, that the Aiodcfl Hde is the Safefi to err in: And I thought a Debt of AIo^ dejiy very proper to be paid to the ^mient Chptrch^ and to all tJie ^Wct;^ Clmrchcs\ unlefs you had plain Dcmonfiratisn for your Dillent. But tlie Modejt Pleader fays , a modeji Defere^ice /Ijo^ld be pAid to the exprefs Declarario;iS and Commayids ef Scripture , rather tifan to the ^ddirhfjs of any Hu- m^.n, and fallible "jitdrincnt. But v^ here- is his AuodeJIy to call his Hnfcriptural Inventions by the venerable Name o^ Scripture ^ The Queilion is nor, vvhether ex* prcfs Script itre ovxv^hi to be obeyed: Bur v/hether, what a few confident Men call exprefs Scriptttre, and all th? Churches of Chriflendom, early and late, rake to be . diredly contrary to exprefs Scripture, is to be admit- ted as an Article of Faith. It is very flrange that you fnould fo often fpeak of Pluman and fallible Judgment, and never confider that the Judgment you make is Human , and falli- hie, as well as the rcll:. Are you, in particular, pri- viledg'd from Errors., or blefi'd with the Gift of /«- fallibility^ Since we are com.aring Htimnn with A'//- man, and fallible ^yith fallible J'udgment ; Think it poflible that many , and great , and ivife Men may have judged rl^jf, and that a Few may have judged wrong. There is a Prefumption , a ftrong Probabi- lity., to fay no more, againft you: Nor will any tjiing lefs than Demonjlration be fufficient to fupport %9}\^ Pretences, in Oppolirion to the current J"ucfg- Y V V 2 meiy 524 ^ Second Defense Qu.XXX. jnerit of the Chriftian World, Tn Modefty, the Ncvellifts ought to pay a EXcfercnce to wifcr Men 'than Thcmfelves;' and nor prcfume that They have ' Scripture on their Side, 'till They are able to frov^ it. But of This I faid enough in mj Defenfe "^ ; and you make no Anfwer. You have nothing more, un- der This Query, bur Repetition of your Preface; '\i^hkh I have anfwer'd in i^s^Place. Only I muft take notice of one very peculiar Piece of grave Banter; your accufing Me as appealing to the PaJJions of the Re-aders^ only for retorting upon you your own De- clamation, in rome\vhaC Iboriger Word!? ; as I had a better Caufe to fupport them. Who was it that -^ firll Called upon us to confider, what to anfwer at the ''^^eat Day, &:c ? So folemn an Appeal, upon iuch trifling Pretences a? you had, obliged me to remind ^yoti ^of tlie infinitely greater Rifque you run, in un- ^^ccOuDtably Denying your Lovd and God, You tell li's aPfn of NsmS of Keproach ; st rj'ie fame time'Te- prdaching the -Church of God, and the moft Emi- JK^nt Lights of it in all Ages, as Trithcijh^ or Sabclli' ans^ or SchoLifkki^ or as Contentious Men, that builc their Faiih en Axctaph^ffcal Speadaticns. It feems, you can feel any thing that looks like a Reproach uporj. your felves ; at the fanse Time caufelefly dealing a;)0ut hard Names, and mod: injurious Refledtions lipon all around you. Learn to be Auodefr, or at leafr commonly Civil to Others; and you may meet with fuitable returns. We fliall not fuffcr you to run on v/ith your Charge of Sabclli anifm , Tritheifr/?, Scholaficli J^v^oDy .S:c, which you cannot make good againil: Us ; without letting the World know fome-» thing of a Charge of u^rianifm-, which we can make good agninll: You , having often done it with the Force and Evidence of Demonftration. As to the Charge I made (/?. 480.) relating to your refting * Defenfe, p. 45-8, 4^9. your Qu.XXX. cffome Q^U E R I E S, 5 M your Caiifc, in the lad: Refulr, lolely upon Metapf^j- Jicks, tho' you arc pleafcd to call it Caium^jiy there is not a Syllable of it but what is ftridly true, and inay be undeniably proved from Dr. Qarkes own Pieces, and yours. I except One or Two Particulars, which I remember to have met with only in Mr. Emlyns Trads*. I hope, you will not think Him an Ignorant Writer^ nc/T one that is ufed to alledge fuch ReaJG>i5 only as his Adverfaries fliould dcjlrc^ or wilh for. He has long ftudied This Controverly, and, as I conceive, underftands it better than Some who have fiicceeded Him in it, and who have been content • fometimes to borrow from Him. But That by the f AVay : I flill continue to affirm , having proved it fmore than once, that in the Uft Rcfdt your Dodrine f'ftands upon MeraphjJJcl:s only, and fuch Pretences as I mention'd in the Place above cited. They are what you conftantly retreat to, when prefs'd : And without ^^hem you cannot advance one confiderable Step to- .-iwards what you aim at, with all your Pretended Proofs. -^ftom Script are f or udnti^^uitji. ^^ ,* Emljns Trads : p. 1 6f, r,:oqr Q^U E R Y fl6 ^ Second Defense ^Qu.XXXI. iW^mmmmm^mm^^, Query XXXI. Whtther any thmg lefs than clear and evident De- mon]} ration on the fide ^/^ Aiianifm, ou^ht ta move a ivtje and good Man^ againjl jo great Jppearances of Truth, on the fde of Orthodoxy from Scripture, Rcafoii, and Antiquity : and 7vhether -xve may not wait long before 7ve find fiich Dcmonftration > ^* ^^^ iroY ^J'"'- i^}- ■ -iK- ainfr the Charge of Arianifm, has been abihn-^ w„ dandly anfwer'd more tha^n once*. And a'l to his Cavil ac^ainft charj^in^ Confeqncaces ia This Cafe^ I have diilinftly confiJerM it eirewlieretf.,^';^^^ '■"^" "J^ Among all the Charges I made, you will' haraly' meet with any fuch general Charge as is here brouglit againft IVle, of Jfil>vcriif^g all Science^ And all KclioioMy, without fhowing how , or ii'hy. When I make a; Charge, I lignify upon what I found it , and givej you the Li ::erry of defending your felves if you can^ This other Method of general Scandal, thrown out in fuch a Way as to bar a Man the Privilege of Self- defenfe ^ is of all, the mod: ungenerous, mean, and. detefluble. All I fliall fay to it is This; that I have Demonflration before me, that if the Man had had _ any thing He could have m^entioned without expofing- * In my Befenfe, and in this Second Defenfe, and particularly irt" my Supplement to the Cafe o^ Arian Subfcription. p. 20. 67. • -■- •j: Supplement^ 8cc. p. ii, &C. Him- Qu.XXXr. offome QUERIES. 527 Himfelf, He would certainly have produc'd it at full Length : And therefore, I prefume, his general Charge about no body knows what, may reafonably pafs for a Bounce extraordinary, Words and no more. After a deal of trifling Repetition, you are at length pleafed to eafe your Reader, and Me ; leaving me fome Words of my own, which fland better in their Place. You do well to return me back the good Advice I gave you, which you had made no ufe of. As to the Honeft Reader, I defire Him to take notice, that every Thing material in This Oiierj is intirely drop'd : No Demonllratioyt given of the Niw Scheme , nor fo much as pretend- ed ; no Anfwer to five Particulars which required Satisfadirion. As you begin, fo you end, with Eva* gy'^iions and Subterfuges, Shiftings and Difgaifes ; per- petually running olf from the true Point in Quefti- on, and wrapping your felf up in Clouds and Dark- nefs; ftudying and contriving all poflTiblc Ways to perplex rather than inftrufl , and fearing nothing fo much as to have the Iffue of the Caufe put upon a clear Foot, or left to a fair Hearing. It might reafonably have been expeded , while you write under Cover, that you would have taken quite another Method : and give me leave to judge fo jtijily^ or at leaft fo, kindly of you, as to believe you would have done ir, had you h'^-Vi left intirely to your own Counfels. I am hot fiich a Strhnoer to You, or fo unacquainted with your St-jU^ your yJte;?fr, your ViEiion^ (in many -private Vv^^'^^' 2!^ you v/ell know, beiides what you- have pHh^lfh*d) as not to perceive, that Many Things, which I liave here anfv/er'd as yours, yet never came from your Pen. I cannot indeed critically diRinguilh in all Cafes , where you begin to fpeak , or whero ' you end : ., But;, in the general , where there is any tiling thsc looks of a more ingenmm Srrain, and 1$ moft like what one v/ould expect from 2 pUint hor.ej} Mms; Tiur I conceive certajnlv to be all vour t?:^.*?. in- 52S A Second Defense Qu.XXXt indeed, ycu have interpretatively made the whole jc//r/> by lending your Name, I llio.uid rather fay your Per^- fo/iy to it : For you are perfomjted all the way through. You will therefore the more Q^C\]y excufe me for di- reding my felf generally to You, eveu in Tliofe parts where I am feiilible I have had to do with Another Man. Oae Thing I complain of, and That is of the dif^ ingenuous Ufe every where made of writing under Concealment, and without a Name. I Hiould have had a great deal lefs Trouble in examining the Reply ^ had it been to be oii'nd by any Man of Charadcr, and his N^me fet to it. He would have written very probar- bly, with more Care^ had his Reputation been flaked upon it ; He would have cut off many Imperti- nencies, would not have attempted to put fo many grofj> and palpable Abufes upon the Readers, nor have undertaken to defend what uas at iirft Sight plair.ly indefenfibki He would have felefted Such Things, and Such only, as might bear fome Colour at lead:, and appear of real Weight : Such, in a Word, as might become a Scholar' , a Man of Sefife, and a Man of Probiij', to urge, and nothing more. And then I am fure,- that both the Reply itfelf, and my Labour in examining it, would have' been very much Ihort- en'd: And our Readers would have been more agree- ably, and more ufefuliy cntcrtain'd. I ihall conclude with obferving, how eafy a Thing it may be to reduce This Controverfy into a hr.:.]I Comp'afs; if Men would but come dncercly to it, ■A\^d keep clofe to the principal Points in Qucdion. Ihe mOil: convenient Tviethod, and mori: natural Or- der of Enquiry, would, I conceive, be This iollow- I. Wljat the Doclrinc to be C7::ir.:r/d lu It. Whether it be pofjihlc ? I:h Wherhu- it be 7rw: i Tlic Qu.XXXL of fomt Q^UERIES. 529 The firil Queflion is, XVliat the DoHri'/ie is; which lies in Thcfe Pnrticiihrs. I. That the Father is God (in the ftrid Senfe of AV- ; cejfarily-exijling^ as oppofed to precarious Exiftcncc) and [the Son God, and the Holy-Ghofl: 6W, in the fi??jc I Senfe of rhe Word God, \' 2. That the Father is not the Son, nor the Soa ithe Father, nor the Holy-Ghofl either Father or loon: They are diffmciy (o that One is not the O- '^ther ; that is, as we now term ir. They are Three |diftin(5l Perfons-, and two of *em ctcrmlly referred up \to One, ] 5. Thefe Three, however diflinEl enough to be Three Perfons , are yet united enough to be Oni God, ir. The f:cnnd Qiicftion is, TVl:rther the DoElr'me be fojjihle^, All that relates to This Queflion, is refolvi-- ble into three other Queftions. I. Whether there can be Three Perfons Necejfarily^ lexifiing \ \ 2. Whether Three fuch Perfons can be One Gody I in the Nature of the Thing it felf, or upon the Fooc |of mere Natural Reafon ? / 3. Whether They can beO«^ Gody confidently with .; any Data in Scripture, any thing plainly laid down •; in Sacred Writ; as, (u^^oky Stibordinatiorit Alijf.or7^ Ge- \ tier at ion ? If any one of Thcfe Queftions can be determined in the Negative wirh fufficient Certainty ; then the Do'^frine, as here ^atcd, is not pojjil'h : But if none of Thefe Qiieftions can be with any Certainty c!:rer- min'd in the Negative, the Do(5trine then mud be al- lowed to be pojjlble, X X X !• 550 v^ Second Def£in'se Qii. XXXI; 1. The firil Quefiion cannot be determin'd in the Negative \ For, afxer. frequent Trials fo to determine it, no one hz'i been yet found able lo do it : All the -Pretended Piools of it are Scphi/lic^I', They may be, They have been, fliown to be fo. A^V 2. As ro the Second QHejiion ^ no one lias hi- therto been able to determine it in the Negative \ tho* often attempted. And there is this Realon to be given why it never can be'lbne; that no certain Principle ol Indi-^d^ativn ever has , or can be fix'd : Upon which alqne/the Refolution of That Que^ ftiun, ; on the ^OQt. df mtit J^ar^l. Reafon, intirely depend-. . iih mort ny/.iiib ioiqol' yi3V3 ic^dio: . . ; 5 # - As to the ^Thlrd Q^cftkn^ there is no dctermiri* ing it-in the NegAtive ^ bicaufe it is certain that Sub^ ordmatmi^..ot^jhtJfit)n^ rt^y. be coniiflent with Equality cy-NiL'^^re;- -ss :is fcen-even in yl^f;?. AndTf it be /f !cad«d, that fiich S^^ihordinatior» is not confident with ite Vimty-f ( tho'' it iTiight with xht Eqfi^lity ) ^tur IdcaSi of iht V mi y are^ too impcrfefl to reafon fohdly lipon : -Nor ca?nl.aF.y' .?>ian prove th?.c:idvery Kind of Tjnity.mu-ilibe.etiher/fjyc/cy'^ to admit of any- Suk- brdimiion, m-. dfe to&' loofi to make xshe -Per fans O^^ .Gc-d\ jiHow fiiaii it be lliown, that the DiftintJio^i »m)\vvJio^ • be- igreat enough to anfv/er the S^bGrdi:^^' thm, '-^/c. an<| '«yct the Vnlon clcf-^ enough to msks the Perrons One God? Our Facuhies are not fuffici- Vnt fqr Thefe Things.. If ctermil Gc;7eration be obje^'- ed^tOL as.^Tiv"^g ■^^(^^> the Objcdors Ihculd [how Xcmx\ tfejie 'Cannotvbe 'uioy eternal Reference or Relation of Qnej.td the Other, as Heady Fountain ^ or Center; Which is the Sum of what enrnal Genera/ ion amounts JO ^ and whicn, (though often attempted) could nevie? yet h?; proved to carry any thing comradi5lory in it.. Not to Wntipn that could it be really- proved to be abfurd^' br.contrr.di(^ory, yet the ?naiv Doctrine might •p(^}hbly fhnd in3cpendent of it ; a* xr.on^ fuch at lead as fcruple not to th'ow off the .dintisnti i and confins ths DiTpute to Script tire alone : Whkh Qa-XXXI. of fame QV FRIES. 551 Which is not fo clear or full for rlie eternal Gajera- tion^ as it is for the eternal Exijteme of the Son. Upon the whole, ilnce the Doflrine cxn never be proved to be intpoijlble ', it mufc be allowed to be voj-- fihk: And now, 111. The Third and ^ft Qijedlon is , whcchcr the Do. trine be Trtiei^ For the relolving of which, we Riuft: have Recourfe to Scripttire^ ■ x^d.A>1iicj:ihy. Whoever und:rtakes to d-bate This Qi,)eftion, Ihould forbear eve y Topick drawn from th: Natnre of the Thiyigi b:caiife luch Arguments belong only to the orhsr Qiicftion , JVixther the DoUrme be pofflule : And, in all Keafon, the Poljibilify ihould be pre- juppofcd in all our Difputes from Scrfpture^-ov fjt"> Thc-'S, .^■■■... ■ - "7 .b«'r . By what I have here obferved, it appears that the :dCon:roverry of the Trinity may be eaHly brou.^hc I to 'a lliort lilue, and be comprifcd in Two Sheers |of Paper. The Strength of the Adversaries moft cer- tainly lies in the Queftion of the PoJjlb'dUy : And if They have any thing confiderahle to urge, it may be difpatch'd in a very fev/ Words; One Dcmor.jlrd* tion ( if any one can be found ) being as good as a Hundred. If none can be found , I doubt not bur all rca- fonable Men \vill immediately give up the Point in refped" of Scripture -i and uintiqtihy', which have been fo often, and lo unanfwerably proved to be on our Side. My hearty Concern for Trmh , on whatever Side it may be conceived to lie, and my Dcfire to fnbmit every Dodrin^ (not excepting even Thofe which we call Fundamentd) to a free and fair Trial, makes me v/illmg to offer Thofe Hints ; which may be ufci al to our Adverlaries, if there be any real Strength m t})€ ^aufe They have undertaken. I am not afraid ^f 5 32 ^ Second Defense c^f. Qu.XXXI. pointing out to Them the fliorteft and readied way of Confuting us, if there be any Way of doing ir. Let Them try the Strength oi xh6r' Philofophjy or Metdphyficks, when They pleafe : I defire only to have the Caufe put upon clear and folid Reafon- ing, upon firm ]?rinciples purfued by regular, and juft Inferences, or Dcdu(5lions. And let the World fee whether any modern Improvements in Philofophy, Logick, or JVlernphyficks, can raife AriarAfm up, in Thefe latter Days, which never could be lupported, formerly, by all that Human Wit and ^earning. coul4 invent, or contrive for it. J 1 ,T ^' \ S\ AN ( Sii ) ANSWER T O T H E TOSTSCRITT. Comments. O U conclude with a Poflfcript relating to Dr. CiiUmy : Whom you tirfl: reproach very roundly, as one that has been throngh* Off I mijled , by trujing to my Ckrttions, ar.d You ought to beg his Pardon for This Hnrighteoas Report; Vvhich was not made in the Fcdr of God, nor under a fcnfe of the common Obligations oi Hiimanitp ox Jujikc towaids Man. If I lliould re- port that you had been freqHently^ (I do not fay throughout) mifled by Dr. Clarkc^s Citations, and Com- ments; I fhould fay no more than I have given a- bundant Proof of: But what Proof have you given that Dr. Calamy has been Throughout mifled by mi»e ? I know not whether you will be able to give a fin- gle Example of it. However it had been but jufl, rather to have faid that He had been mifled by trufr- ing to his owtt Judg7neyit^ concurring with mine. For, it is plain enough that the Doclor has examined for Himfelf: And if I-^ has fallen, in a great meafure, into 5 34 AN SWER to into the fame way of thinking with .Me; it is not as truji'mg to my Citations^ or Cotr^memsy but as approv- ing^ the Grounds upon which They fland. You had the lefs reason to reproach Kim. as having been troHghoHt , mijled by Me^ when tl?e main Deiigh qT your Pofifcript is to intimate to the World that He differs fVom mc in one part of his Scheme, which you think very confiderable : An Argument, fure, that He did not take Things uponTr///^ from others; but conlidered and examined carefully, before He gave in- to Them. - The fecond Citation which you produce from Him, t© intimate to me (as you pretend) the 'Conjeqnmce of my Notion^ relates not to mj Notion ; nor was it written with any fuch Vicw-i but with regard to quite am-, ther Notion ^. The unaccountable Part you have here aded, ip citing it and tacking it moft unrighteoufiy to the former, muft ma}ye your very Friends blufu for you, or frand aftoniOied at you. Whether it was done v/ith Dcfim^ or was purely Blmder, the Author €)f the Pofifcript (for I would gladly hope, it was not You) befl: knows. Suppofe it owing to Ilafie, and Careleffyjcfs ; yet even jvant of Care, m Charges of This kind, will be ap^t to caft fome Blemilli upon a Wri- ter's riojicfiy, or Probity, I lay hold on This Opportunity of thanking Dr. Calamy for his " learned , and ^ufeful Labours in Defenfe of our Common Faith : And it is with Plea- fure I take notice of the feafonable Stand which He and many Others (the moft eminent and mod con- iiderable Men of the Dtjfeming way) have made > .in. oppofition to the threatning DefeEiian, and to preferve their Flocks in Time of Danger. Jf He has any where differed from me, in lets material Points, hold- ing the Fotindation fttrey the Do(5lrine of a real and mciuai Trinity ; He is at liberty to follow his own * See Dr. C^hm^^ Sermons* J>. 3<^j. Judgment* //j^ P O S T S C It 1 P T. 5 3 5 Judgment, and to defend the ntmn uirtides in fuch a way as appears to Him moft reafonable, and freed from EmbaranTments. I will firft fuppofe that He really differs from me, in the Point of SHbordiKation (tho*, I conceive, He does not) yet what Advantage do you propofe to reap from it, that you fliould no\7 fo plume your felf upon it? Do not deceive your felf in This Matter : If Dr. Calamy has made any Cenceffion of This kind, beyond v;hat I have r bought proper to do ; He will ftiil be able to maintain his Ground againft Dr. Ciarke and his Adherents, both from Scripture , and ^tl^nitj. As to ScriptHre, al- lowing any natHral Subordination of Chrifl, as God^ to be inconliftent with his ejfe^tial Divinity; The QjL'.eflion then will be , whether your Proofs of any ,/uch natural Subordination (diftinguiilied from Oeco'^ / fiomical) ^rz plainer, ftronger, pr fuller than the Proofisi bf the fj^^^z/W Divinity. " Here, I conceive. He will have the Advantage very' evidently, both in the Number -i'm^ the Stren^^th q£ his Proofs. Your pretended vofiintary Generation He will rejecft as an unfiriptfirai Dream of human Invention: Your Scrip- ture Proofs of The Necejfary exijlcnce of the Father will flanJ upon no better a foot than his Scripture- Proofs of the NcceJJliry exiftence of theVScn. Your Pj-et'ences from the Prcpoifltions , 0/, i^, 'Through, or /«, He will rcfolve into Oeconomical Oidi^r i And you will not be able to' prove from t/'DrV viii. 6. that God the Son is "included in the W/ Thi;7jrs which are of the Father. A<[ctaphjjicks you will be afliamed to offer ; having fo often pretended to condemn Them in Us. All your little Qiiibbles about deriv^ cd and andcrivedy about dttife and Effcti^ about uicls of the JVtll^ about Identical Subftance, Identical Lives, *nnd the like, will drop at once. In fliort, when ^^-' tiqtiity is fet afide, you will find it extremely difficult to make it appear that the Scripture Account of Sub" ordination neceUarily infers'^iJny natural Subordination, ec vmj not poffibly be underilood of Oaonomical on- 5J6 ANSWER to \y ; ss fome Writers of Note feem to have underHoodii as high as the fixth Century "*', if not higher. As to ymiquitjy you will be able to prove a natH" jtal Suhordmation^ very plainly 5 from the earlicfl: Fa- thers : Bur not more plainly than Dr. CaUmy will be able to prove the Conjubfiayitiality ^ CGCtemiiy ^ Onmi^ fre.ence y Omm^ckucei and other divine Attributes of God the Son : Not more plainly than He will prove from the A)7tknts, that tJie Farher and Son are one Gody ( one God moft High ) tiiat CrcaturC'iPOYfiyip is IdoUtry^ that no inferior God muft be admitted, and the Uke. The Queftion then will be (hnce the An^ tientSy upon the prefent Hypothecs, mufi: be faid to have contradided Themfelves , and each other) I fay. the Qiieilion will be^ whether you have mere and Jironger Teftimonies for one part of the Contra* dttliojy than the. Dodor will have for the other part. Kere again He will maniftlll/ have the Advantage ever you, in the Nnmber and Strength of his Teiti* monies: And He may juflly pkad, cither to have the Evidence of Anticjuity ki aiide as mtll -, or that the ??iany Tenets, wherein the Fathers agree with his Schem.e, be admitted as more conliderable than the few Tenets vv herein They agree w^ith you. Thus* ib far as I apprehend, you and your Friends will l>e really no Gainers by Dr. Calan-^y's ConcelTions 5 or by throv/ing off the Subordination , as impojfibki snd contradictory, on Both iides, Neverthelefs, I am fully and unalterably peiTuaded,- that the true, and right way i<;, to adnut the Sabordina- / tion» and to nfferc the f/_/^;?//W Divinity of all the Three Perfons together v/ith it. Both Parts appear to be found- ed in Script fire^ and v/tre undoubtedly believed by the Antiems in general : And there is no Rcpptgna:icj be- tween rhem, moi^e th:ni what lies in miltaken Fancy i or Imagination. I Ivcov/ not whether Dr. CaUmf ■* Sue Joliius apud Pliotium. Cod, 222. p. 624, 62;-. I mighg /^^ P o s r S C R I P T. 5 3 7 might not pay too great a Regard to Dr. Clarke'i par- tial Reprefentation of this Matter; and lo lake Bp. Pear/ons and Bp. Biill\ Sentiments fomcrhing other- .wife than They intended them. I oblcrve, that He I 'Q.dmiis^ eternal Gencratioyii nscejj'dry Enja?iMimy and Na- turd Orders which is, in other Words, admitting all th.at is intended by priority of Order-, or Subor^ dinatien. The Son piocecds from the Father ; The Facher from none: This is the Difference of ncitn- ral Order which the ^ntients , and after Them Thofe Two excellent A.oderm, fpeak of; viz. that the Son is referred up to the Father as to a Head, or Foun- jtain, and not vice vcrja. This Reference, or Rela- tion of the Son to the Father , we call Subordina- tion : And This is all that is natural-^ the rcfl is oeco- nomicai If Dr. Clarke has reprefented Sabordinatioyj. otherwife, pretending Bp. Fearfons or Bp. Bull's Au- thority for it, He has done unfairly : And perhaps Dr. Calamy intended no more than to condemn the Notion fo reprefented t. Which is not condemning cither Bp. Fearfons , or Bp. Bull's -, or My Do- (flrine; but fomething elfe which others have invent- ed for us. I know not inciecd whether you'll allov/ me to put /my felf in ; bccaufe I am reprefented as teaching a /real Co - ordination ^ and a verhd Subordination only. But I am very certain that the fame Objcvflion, or rather Cavil , lies equally againll Bp. Pearfon, or * Serm. p. 20 . 49, 2<#3. f ** Wholbever will be at the Pains to compare the icvcra! ViC- " lages cited by Dr. Clarke, as they Hand \t\ the Pi:i:es whence " they are taken, with other clear and exprefs Patlagcs ol" our *vlearned Author ( Bilhop /?«//) and with the whole Scope, and *• Purport of his Reafjuings for the Tiurh of the K':cene Do- *• drinc, mull evidently peiccive that thefc arc all placed in quite " Another Light than in the BL>ok referred 10: Tiiat fomc iie ♦' direcily contrary to the Afithor's true Msru.ln^, 2nd To his l)e- *' lign inV/ritingj and more of the reft ificonjijleu*. at jeafl, wjitli ** the lame» as the D:-^^r very w:!l /:.;;:»', Iv:/>./: L'tb ot Bull, p. 326, 517. Y y y Bp, 53S ANSWER to the Postscript. Bp. Bfill'y and you are very fenfible of it: Only you are difpoled to ferve a Turn by making fome ufe of Thofe great Names. They Both alTerrcd a Coequali' /}', in as full and flrong Terms as I any where do : \ Which Coeqiiaitty you are pleafed to mifcall, in Me, I Co'ordwation 'y alluroing a ihange Liberty of altering the Senfe of Words, and affecfting to fpeak a neiv Lan- guage, to make way for a neiv Faith. To conclude. If Dr. Calami and I really differ, (as I think we do not) we a^rce however in the main Points, and much better than our late Revivers of ^- rianifm agree among Themfelves. And 1 doubt not but that by the united Labours of the true Friends of our Common Faith , (with God's Bleffi ng upon Them ) the vain Attempts of our new u4riansy and Etmomians, will be defeated and baffled, ^as were for- merly thofe of their Predeceffors ) and that the Ca- thoiick Dodrine of the Ever-BlefTed Trinity, That Sacred Ecj^cfitum of the Church of Chrifl: , will be preferved whole and entire, and handed down, as to Us, fo to our lateil: Poilerity, through all Genera- tions. F I K I S. TEXTS of SCRIPTURE Confiderd and Explahid. XXTV. 5(^. P R O V. Ch ) How they differ, and which of them ap' and \- flicable to Chrift, 2(^0,-267, 510, Alexander of Alexandiia cited and v'mdicated, 52, 299 Antienrs, ncccfjary to be referrd to in the pre/ent Con^ troverjj. Pref, xx-xxiv. , — /;^ what Cafes y and hoiv far their Tefiimonies are to be admitted, 493 -Ttjeir Words, in fome Cafes, not to be too rigo^ rofijly interpreted. 339, 342 I exclude not the Son from the one Godhead, ji 'deny that the Son is another God. jz 'teach that the Father and Son are the fame God. 7<^j 151 ■-^apply Texts meant of the Sptpreme God to God the Son. 1 3 i 'don't diftinguip between Supreme and inferior TVorfJjip. 19) -191 "in what Terms they exprefs'd the Trinity and Unity. 454' 4^^ The INDEX. ' Tf^-rnr the Modern Arians differ from them* Page 487-492. Antiochian Fathers cited and explain d. 149 Arians, ( Modern ) their u^rtificial Alanagement of the Controverjy, Pref iv. thinh^ wore meanly of Chrift than their Frede^ cejfors. 16 J y 38(^, 415 -p confound Being and Perfon 437 and Co-equality ivith Co-ordination. 10 r and Self - Exigence with NeceiTary Exiftence. 433-435 — deny the Stibftance of God to be God. 424 — — e^jHivocate in calling the Son God by Nature 470 i What Divinity they are 'willing to allow him. 338 fuppofe the Son a Creature. 359 — 3(^1, ^66 .. defeat every Argnment of the Father's Divinity. 250 - and yet make the Father and Son to be Two Gods. ipS, 206" • make Metaphyficks their lafl: Retreat. 4, 6^, 113, 335,430,439,489, 51^, 519, 525 .fix new Ideas to old Terms, 314, 331, 333, ^20 —Their Fundamental Error, what 439 Achanaiius cited and vindicated, 66", 301, 443, 444* 5955 507 Greg. iS^azianzcn's CharaUer of him. 43<^3j 515 Being and Perfon confounded, 437 Bull ( Bijhop) vindicated 138, 295, 298, 40^, 5 i^ C. Chara(51:ers of the one true God applied to the Son. 225 Clarke ( Dr. ) His Notion of individual Subftance. 325, 4^S The INDEX. ' U— of Idol Mediators. Page 578, 579 — His Dijimclion of Will of Approbation, and Will of Choice. 3 14 — — partial in his Quotatiom, 49 S ~~ 5 ^ 3 — - his Propofitions Novel, and falfe, 487 Clemens of Alexandria cited and vindicated, yi, 5>4, — 10:, 145, 275, 280, 297, 392, 394 Co-equality confounded wiih Co-ordination. 10 1 -^ — conjijient Tviih Priority (7y Order. 24 — 101 194 440 Creation, by or thro' ChriJIj hoiv to he underjlcod. 38, i85 " — [py the three Perfons in Concert, 340 • mtitles the Son to equal TVbrf:ip with the Father. Cyril of Alexandria cited and explain d, ^07 Cyril of Jerafalem cited and vindicated, 331 Cyprian cited and explain d. 117, 148 D. Deriv'd and Un derived, the CharaHcrs conJtder*d. 220 Dionyfius c/ Alexandria cited and vindicated, 51, 120, 209 3>ionyfia5 c/P^ome cited and vindicated, 117 — 120, 299, 34^ I>itheirm chargdupon the modern Arinns. 15)8, io(S J^omimon exprejs'd by Lord, and not bj God. 185, 215 'See Supremacy of Dominion. E. Emanation, fee Generation and NecclTary Exigence. Bpiphanius cited and explain d, 6 ^^ 7^01 Equality of Nature in the Godhead^ what it means, 178 l^ternsty afcrib'd to Father and Son in the fame Scrip- ture^i^hrafes. 1^6 Eufebius c;ted. 38, 127, 153, — 1^7, 343,409 n^ How far his Authority is to be receWd, 38,42.2, {.xclufive Teims fometime^ leave raum for tacit Excsp- tians . 31, ^6^> 84 The I N D E X. — ro be tifidcrftood onlj in Ofpojition to ivhat thej ays opposed to. Page 57, 5)5?, ipSj 390 F. Father {in the Godhead) exprejfes a Relation of Order and Mode of Exiftencc. 1^6^ i-jy ftippofcs him to have a Son eqtial to himfclf. iS is the Head of both the other Perfons, 6$ Father's T>\vin\iyy Every Argument for it defeated by the modern Arians. 250 Fathers (Ante-nicene) conflantly appeal' d to by the Catho" licks in the Arian Controverjy. Pref w, — xx. See Antients. Fundamental Article of Religion ; the controverted Arti^ cle fiich a one. 1 6 G. Generation of the Son, temporal and eternal, ajferted by the Antients. 285 A Three- fold Generation ajferted by the Antients, But neither of them implying Mutability or Change. T^oat thej underfiood by eternal Generation* 292 ^ — How they undcrftood it to be an Adi of the Father. How they f/nderjiood it to be by the Will of the Fa-. ther. 290 — 312 TTjey 7vho admitted not of an eternal Generation, yet ajferted an eternal Exiflcnce. 322 God, <« Name of Nature and Subftance, not (?/ Office or Dominion. 45, 2 15 denotes ahfohtte Peifeclion-^ whether 5, 71, ^^y^^^y 143, 240, 273,^ Zj6y 297, 393 Judgment, vjhj affland peculiarly to ChrifL 232 Juflin Martyr cired and explain d. 7$, 76*, 135, 141, 1^9, 258, 271, 289, 294, 391, 399 L. h^6iantms cited and explain d. 121 — 127, 151,409 Lucian cited and explain d. 77 M. Manifeftation exprefs'd by Generation,. 289 Marcellus, ho7)^ charg'd hy Eulebius. 192 Marius Vidorinus cited and explain d. . 305 Mediator by Nature, and Mediator by Ofiice, how di- (iingtiifjyd. 6ji 380 Mediatorial Worlliip conjldefd at large, ij6y dec. Medium The INDEX. Medium of Woriliip, hffw under jiood. Page 375, 377 See Woriliip Mediatorial. Metaphylicks — The principal Refuge and lafi Retrcdt ef the Alodern Arians. 4, 68, 113,125, 3 3 5> 450, 43^,489, 516, , . . 5JP>52.5 Methodius cited and vindicated, 29^ N. NecefTary - Exiftcnce to be diptjguip'd from Sclf-Ex- iftence. 175, 263, 2(^4 — — Allowing both to fignify the fame things it wottld make nothing for the Anans. 312 --^of the Son taught by the Fathers 259, 315 Neceffity, /;; -what Senfe m'd by the antient PhUoJophers. Neceflity of Nature, not us'd by the Antients in the modern Senfe. 2 5<^ Nice (Council of) cited and vindicated, ii Novatian cited and vindicated, 6iy 12^, 150, 232, 299, 502—507 O. O, the Article before 02o?, makes no Difference in the Signification, 187 — 194 Oeconomy and Order in the Trinity confide/ d iSz Omnifcience of the Son ajferted bj the Ante - nicenes. 238, &c. One p or j> God, in Tvhat Senfe Us'dby the A^tienfs, 390 Only S, Origen cited and vindicated, 49, 73, 114, 117, 148, 280, 284, 299, 342, 393,404,407 ~ Some Account of him and his Writings. 3 5 2. — 3 5 7 ^ f p. Pamphilus cited md vindicated, 299 Perfon, the Notion of it ftatedy J?! — 374 "^l^diftinguifiyd from intelligent Agent. 573 The I N D E X. *■ "-jVhfUt i^nd Hpon Tvhat OccafioK firjl Ui'd. iiS-* 455 ..- — -How ahns'd by the Sabclliaas. 218 Powers Divine, w what Scnfe afcrih'd to Chrifl hj the modern Avians. 5^8 Precarious Being, the fame thing with Creattire, 224 -The Son precarious tipu:i the modern Scheme, ibidL Prefcience and Free - Will more difficult to be reconciled than Trinity and Unity. 450 Priority of Order conjTfient with CoQqmMty, 10 1, 1^4 n§ccio77cy> what it figmpes ^ and Hqw it diffeYi from *T'?rr<;(Z(n5. 217, 21B .. IVhcn firji us'd by the Fathers in refpeti of the Trinity. :^i§;45!^ Redemption, whether it requires infinite Powers, confe-^ qiicml^ eternal Duration. 25;^ Sabelllans, their Ilerejy^ what, 217, ^6,6 Their Notion c/ Subfrance and Perfon, 218 Samenels /;? the Dcitj , the Degree «/ it inexplicably . A^ade by Union. 329, 55>p, 452 S ai'd i ca n Council falfcly fo called, 5 04 Sclf-exiftcnce to be dijiingmfy d from Neceffary-exift- cnce. 175, 166 ^-^ — -/?//? confounded by the Arians. ^66 ., — The one not a greater Perfe^ion than the other, 222 • Allowing both to Jignify the fame, wo^'d be no Jld- vantage to the Arians. 312 ■A Negative Idea, 435 Similitudes tnade ufe of to illufirate the Trinity, 3:^8 S i nn i 2 n Council explain 'd. 301 — 304 Soul (Human) ajjam'd by Chrifi. 232 Subftance> The INDEX. Subftancc, 'when and upon what Occafion the Wori wai firfi introduced into ihc Ccntroverjy. 454 Subftance individual. Dr. Clarke'/ Notion of it. 3 z6 — One and the fame in the Three Per fins. z'^z ^i- (Divine) if extended^ tkhJt have Parts, ibid. 452 (Singular, identical) confider'd, ibid. Subftantia, whether it anfivers to the Greeks tTiK^ciT.?. 457 In what Senfe us'd by the Latins. ibid. -Tres Subflantijp, when and hy whom us*d. ibid. Supremacy of Dominion, how' abus'd and perverted by^ the modern Arians. 48, 515, 520 •.I not the orAj material Qtiefiion. 20, 485 — (?/ Nature, Order ^«^ Office to he difringuiff d. 24 . of the Godhead^ wherein it conjijls, 171, 177, i8"l Supreme God, an Expreffion fcldom m*d in Scripture or u4nti(^Hitj. 201 i.^*- What Z/je made of it by the modern Arians ^60 T. Tatian cited and vindicated. 294—25)5* 3S>2' Ten ullian cited and vindicated. 72^73* 102, — no, x^C ^ ^ 208, 297, 59.2 : Theophilus of Antioch cited atjd vindicated, 141—143, 170,295,-297,3^2' -.^ (S)c:^ with or without the Article confidcr'd. 187 — 194 " 5 — .—•(inferior) terminates where offer d, 3^5, 35?^ J^ I N I S,