perfectly regardless what, and of whom he speaks; Fathers of the church shall be heretics, and heretics shall be Fathers of the church;

66

66

Nil intra est oleam, nil extra est in nuce duri.

"The modern scholastic Trinitarians," says he, "consist of two sects, one of which holds that the "Father, Son, and Spirit are the same numerical "being or agent, distinguished only modally, or nominally, by the appellations of Father, Son, and 'Spirit." He has certainly mistaken the meaning of the word; this must be a sect, not of Trinitarians, but of Unitarians. And where is this numerous sect to be found? I have heard of a gentleman who thought he had found it once; and very gravely wrote an answer to Mr. Nye, the noted Socinian, taking him all the while for the mouth of the orthodox. It is well if our author be not under the same mistake still, and so takes the Unitarian-Socinian brotherhood for a numerous part of the Trinitarians. The charge, so far as there is any sense in it, has been answered before h: and so likewise-has his other cavil, about the Son's not being styled "God supreme over all;" or, if it had not, he is so kind as to answer it himself. For he says, p. 57, that it was "the peculiar character of God the Fa"ther;" "to assert the Son to be God supreme over all, is the same as to assert, that he is the Father," p. 68, in note. And "it is the peculiar characteristic "of his Person, who is God over all, to be the Father," p. 103. If so, if the title of "God supreme over all" be the " peculiar characteristic" of the

66

66

"Person" of the "Father," we should refuse, as

h Dr. Waterland's Answer to Whitby, p. 7, 8.

much as he can do, to apply it to the Son; because we would not make them one Person, but two Persons; always keeping their personal character distinct. But the truth seems to be this, that "God "supreme over all," was denied, or attributed to the Son, just as it was understood: if the design was thereby to make him the same Person with the Father, in the Sabellian sense, or to set him above the Father, or above the Creator of the world, as some other heretics pretended; it was reckoned impious and heretical so to apply it. Otherwise, they made no scruple at all in the case; as is evident from their understanding Rom. ix. 5. of God the Son *.

"Another sect of the modern Trinitarians main"tains"-what? It comes out at last ;-" tritheism, "in the highest and strictest sense!" And now he is going to let his pen run mad again, and to throw a heap of calumny upon Dr. Waterland, which he knows is no conviction. The Son's being Son is not, cannot be founded on mere voluntary agreement, but is natural; and this natural Sonship made it proper and congruous that he should be sent and act the ministerial part m. Which, by agreement and

i See Dr. Waterland's Answer to Whitby, p. 23, 24. Eusebius himself allowed that title to God the Son, in a sound and good sense see Second Defence, p. 152, 153.

k See Dr. Waterland's Sermons, p. 221, &c.

1. See a full answer to this calumny, First Defence, p. 331, 332, 333. Sermon IV. How the ancients answered the like charge, see First Defence, p. 386, &c.

m Hæc sunt satis ad divini, de incarnatione Verbi, consilii probandam congruentiam. Quam non sic tamen interpretari debemus, tanquam alia Persona idem præstare nequiverit: potuit enim, si ita fieri placuisset, vel Pater homo fieri, vel Spiritus Sanctus. Quod magister sententiarum docet, in eoque suffragatores habet,

consent, he was graciously pleased to condescend to, his equality in nature exempting him from the necessity of submitting to it. This is Dr. Waterland's doctrine"; and I will venture to say, every man's that is a Christian. A change here affects the whole scheme of salvation, and makes a fundamental alteration in the new covenant; at once depriving Christ of his divine nature, and the merit of his undertakings and satisfaction for us, and us of our consolation and hope in his blood. Yet this writer wants to have it allowed him, that the Father could not, physically, be incarnate, &c. upon the account of the absolute perfection, or pure simplicity, of the divine nature: which would be to ungod the Son with a witness; and therefore Dr. Waterland will not allow it. Hinc ille lachrymæ. Still he goes on (p. 60.) to repeat and multiply scandal, intimating that Dr. Waterland holds the incarnation of the Son to have been not real, but in appearance only; "accordingly, in his explication of Phil. ii. 7. he” (Dr. Waterland)" says, that Christ emptied himself in appearance." Well, and what then? The doctor holds, at the same time, that Christ assumed human nature in reality; veiling, as it were, the glories of his divine nature, of which it was not possible for him really to divest himself. Does not this gentlecum scholæ principe, theologos omnes.-Veterum quam plurimorum opinio ista fuit, Patrem nullo modo hominem assumere potuisse, nec se oculis aspectabilem exhibere. Contra quam in primo et octavo de Trinitate disputavimus: est enim falsa, neque vero fundamento nititur. Petavii de Incarnatione, lib. ii. cap. 15. Dogm. Th. tom. iv. 192.

66

See Answer to Whitby, p. 73; Second Defence, p. 128, &c.; Third Defence, p. 37, 39, 69, 73, 74, 75.

• See Third Defence, p. 87, 88.

man know, that the catholic doctrine is, that Christ was God and man? which I am not able to see how he could be, if he "emptied" himself of his Godhead any otherwise than "in appearance," (for would not that be ceasing really to be God?) when he was made man in reality. However, though he cannot make Dr. Waterland deny the incarnation, he sets himself to argue against it in a most presumptuous manner; as if he had clear and adequate ideas with reference to this great mystery of godliness. His argument amounts to this, that since (according to the orthodox) the three Persons have all the same substance, if one of them (the second, for instance) be incarnate, the other two, Father and Holy Ghost, must be so likewise. Give me the credulity of a child, rather than the reasoning pride of a vain philosopher! What, is he certain that unity of substance infers unity of Person? Is he certain, that, if the substance be one, the Persons cannot be distinct, and so have distinct things predicated of them?? Is he certain, who in his former pages talked like a mere sceptic, as if there was no such thing as being certain of the right and reason of the cause, even in very plain and obvious matters, without infallibility? What new light has he received since, that he thus takes upon him to decide in the abstrusest points? But it is not his way to be consistent. We have had him before, and we shall doubtless have him again, haranguing against metaphysics 9, and the like; and

P See Third Defence, p. 21; Browne's Animadversions, p. 29, &c.; Second Defence, p. 324, 394, 447. or of the second edition, p. 329, 399, 452.

See his fifty-sixth page; and in order to see how consistently this cant comes from the mouth of an Arian, whose whole

yet he can condescend to produce such as he has, when he thinks he can serve a turn by them. And indeed this seems to be the Christian liberty they aim at, viz. a liberty to use false metaphysics, and make false interpretations of scripture, against the catholic faith; debarring, at the same time, the professors of it, from bringing true metaphysics and true interpretations in its defence and support.

In page 61, he quarrels with Dr. Waterland about little more than an expression, viz. that "the church "was at first put under the immediate conduct of "the Father"." He "would be glad," he says, "to "know, who first put under the Father," &c. "It "would be monstrous to hear or read, that the "church was put under the Father, as if he was capable of being put into an office, how high soever, "who is supreme over all." What tragical airs this gentleman can give himself now, at the mention of the Father's being put into an office, when, he knows, some years ago the word God, whether in Father or Son, was only a name of office. Well, but "who put things under the Father," who is "su

66

66

preme over all?" Supreme over all, I conceive, is a relative title, and could not be predicated even of God, when there were no creatures over whom he

scheme is supported by false metaphysics, see also Dr. Waterland's Defence, p. 300, 322, 480; Second Defence, p. 4, 63, 108, 144, 220, 330, 425, 434, 484, 511, 514, 520, first edit.; Importance, p. 33, 483.

See Importance, p. 65, 66.

With reference to what our author says of the doctor's hearing St. Paul, he may please to recollect that the doctor has heard and explained him, (viz. 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28.) in his Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Exposition, &c. p. 41, 42, &c. The reader may compare Farther Defence, p. 44, 45.