cerity nor sense; as he decently insinuates, p. 4, it is through "want of thinking" or "want of honesty," through "bigotry" or "indifference in matters of re

66

ligion," that Dr. Waterland's hypothesis, that is, the I catholic doctrine of the Trinity, has not "long since "been universally exploded." If churchmen must bear such insult and persecution as this without redress, they are to be pitied; if not-but I forbear. That churches have erred, and do err, our own acknowledges in her nineteenth article; and yet, without the least inconsistency, claims, in her next, "authority in matters of faith." Men (and churches are composed only of men) may easily err in what they define from their own fancies, but cannot err in what they prove from the "word of God." If the doctrine of the Trinity can be proved from this to be both true and important, a bare possibility of erring is no reason why they who oppose it should be received to communion. The apostles, this author intimates, p. 25, 26, infallibly knew that the heretics whom they "declared excommunicated from the "church of Christ, were all such as denied or "acted contrary to the express doctrine of Christ, "in points of the greatest importance." Well, and if the church certainly, though not infallibly, knows this, may not she follow the apostles' example in rejecting such heretics? Yes, our author expressly allows this; and to what purpose then all this idle talk about want of infallibility ? " Let then," says he, p. 26, 27, "every church (though not infallible as the apostles were) endeavour to follow their example, "in rejecting those only as heretics from her favour "or communion, who either by immorality of life or by wicked error contradict the plain express

66

"doctrine of the gospel." So far one would think we are tolerably agreed; but still he has his evasion at hand. He means by "the plain express doctrine "of the gospel" only the words and forms of scripture, p. 28. And if men do but retain these, whatever absurd or heretical meaning they affix to them, they must not truly be accounted or rejected as heretics. This silly pretence has been answered and exposed a thousand times. May not men, by defining their terms, and establishing a previous hypothesis, convey any doctrine in any expressions? Is any thing easier than to affix a novel and heretical sense to old and orthodox terms? What a jest is it then to say, that they who oppose them must lay down their doctrine in the language which they have thus perverted; and use no propositions but what the adversary has already distorted to a pernicious sense? If "the fathers of the church, in the "first and purest ages of it," [p. 28.] confined their creeds to scripture bounds, or to scripture terms, it was, I suppose, because heretics had not yet made it necessary for them to enlarge them. The council of Nice itself at first thought of doing the same: " But "the malignity of Arianism was not to be so restrain

a

"But if these (viz. the sacred books) be received as the rule “of our faith, it is certain it is not the sound of the words is so, "but the sense of them." Bishop Hare's Church - Authority Vindicated, in a Sermon preached at Putney, at a Visitation, May 5, 1719. Which sermon if the reader consults, he will receive full satisfaction as to an assertion of our author's, p. 18. viz. “that no "authority of the church in matters of faith is ever mentioned in scripture, nor are we ever commanded there to receive the doc"trine of the church." See also Dr. Waterland's Farther Defence, p. 64, 65, &c. Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Exposition, &c. p. 25, 26, &c. Importance, &c. p. 86, &c.

ed. Its patrons could apply the phrase to overturn the sense of scripture, and knew how to reconcile the most approved expressions with the most exe-crable blasphemies b." Hence arose the necessity making use of " the philosophical term," "the unscriptural word" [p. 29, 30.] μocúrios, or consubantial. But the doctrine and faith of the Nicene eathers may be seen in the learned authors here eferred to; and therefore I shall only make a reark or two upon this writer's account, as I pass long.

He seems to lay great stress upon a notion of his, of the Son's being like the Father; "altogether like unto the Father," p. 29; "the most perfect likeness of the Father," p. 31; "in all things like unto the Father," p. 33: which bare "similitude," he says, p. 29, was all the council meant by the word consubstantial; though literally taken, he owns it means more. I would not argue against any decisions of the council; but as this notion of similitude, in our author's meaning of the word, is entirely his own, he will give me leave to try if I can make any sense of it. They who acknowledge three Persons in the divine nature may properly enough say, that one is the perfect image or likeness of the other. They have each of them the same essence,

b Dr. Berriman's Historical Account, &c. p. 174. As to the article of Creeds, and the necessity of enlarging them, see the Historical Account, p. 27. et passim. Dr. Waterland's Sermons, p. 324, &c. Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, p. 285, &c. second edit. Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Exposition, &c. p. 33, 34. Importance, &c. p. 210, &c.

C

Dr. Waterland's Second Defence, p. 10, &c. Dr. Berriman's Historical Account, Serm. IV. Dr. Waterland's First Defence, p. 461, &c.

the same substance, the same infinite perfections The Son, in an ineffable manner, is begotten of the Father, and with his nature derives from him all the powers and perfections of the Godhead. Well therefore may he be said, in this sound sense, to be "the most perfect likeness of the Father;" or, in St. Paul's words, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. But as nothing can support this sense of likeness, but a sameness of nature, it is not, to be sure, what this author contends for. There is then another sense of the word likeness, according to which every good man may be said to be like God. Every virtuous and holy soul is a partaker of the divine nature, that is, of a like temper and resembling disposition. There is nothing in this peculiar to Jesus Christ, and therefore the similitude between Father and Son, which the author means, must be something more than this moral likeness will amount to. But what can that be? Suppose the Son a being separate from, and inferior to the Father, the only true and supreme God, as this writer all along supposes, and say what likeness other than moral can be conceived betwixt them? The heathen poet could say of their supreme god, Nec viget quicquam simile aut secundum, Nothing can be like or second to an omnipotent God. If Christ be not strictly and properly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and infinite in all perfections, it is inconceivable nonsense to talk of his being like (“ altogether like, like in all

d Heb. i. 3.

e

2 Pet. i. 4.

* Horat. Carm. 1. 12. Dr. Bentley's Sermons, p. 237. Remarks, &c. by Phil. Lipsiensis, part i. p. 53. Dr. Waterland's First Defence, p. 223, 224.

“things”) to a Being that is. There is no such thing as being half almighty, half omniscient, &c. or half or almost infinite in perfection. Either therefore allow that the Son has all these perfections in common with, though derived from the Father, and so consequently one God with him; or talk no more of his being like him in all things, where the very nature of the things themselves excludes all likeness. For, abstracting from the two other Persons in the Godhead, to whom will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him & ?

66

66

66

Again; he says, p. 29, that "the council explained what is meant by the word consubstantial, viz. that the Son was not consubstantial by "division of the Father's substance," &c. And again, p. 33, "the council took care to disclaim the literal metaphysical sense of the word, which implied a "division of the substance of God." Now it is, I think, universally agreed, and he himself allows it, p. 36, that the council defined that the Son was of, or from, the substance of the Father. Put then these two things together, that the Son was of, or from, the substance which cannot be divided, and all division of which the council took care to disclaim, and what can be the consequence, but that the Son had the whole divine substance communicated to him, and so, according to the decree of this council, is one God with the Father? It is in vain therefore for this writer to pretend that the Nicene council favoured his doctrine; and he has just the same right to it, that he has to the English convocation in 1714. I omit his unfair management and

g Isaiah xl. 18.