Page images

tion, in making the one God and Father of all include all the three Persons, I observe how Irenæus (one of the Fathers quoted) reckons the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father, as being his very self in a qualified sense. And I farther add, that “nothing is more common than for a head of a family, suppose Abraham, to be understood “ in a stricter or larger sense, either as denoting his own

proper person, or as denoting him and all his descend"ants considered as contained in him, and reckoned to “ him.” I show farther from the plain and express testimonies of Hippolytus and Tertullian, that they also, as well as Irenæus, sometimes considered the Father in that large sense before mentioned i.

These are the facts; which this gentleman should have confuted, instead of bringing against me railing accusations. If there be any force (as there is none) in the charge, it falls upon the Fathers; whose interpretation I defended no farther than by showing it not to be absurd, nor unsuitable to the language of the early times. As to myself, I did not so much as condemn the common interpretation, but was content to admit of it: and yet if I had condemned it, I should not, I conceive, have been therefore chargeable with condemning St. Paul.

This writer has a farther complaint, it seems, in relation to the present text. He is positive that the title of Father of all is very disagreeablek to me: and he insinuates, that pure decency here restrained me from finding fault with St. Paul, for choosing such a Pagan expression. A mean suggestion, and entirely groundless. For neither did I give any the least hint of dislike to St. Paul's expression, nor did I find fault with the Fathers for adapting sometimes their style to Pagans, but commended them rather for doing it, in the cases by me mentioned', as doing what was proper. And certainly it was commendable in St. Paul, and I acknowledged it to be som, to adopt the Pagan phrase of unknown God, and to apply it in a Christian sense, to lead the Pagans into a belief of the true God.

i See my Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 62, 96. k Observations, p. 18. · See Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 131.

Before I leave this article, I would take notice of this gentleman's affectation, (to call it no worse,) of loading every thing beyond measure, in a way uncommon; and pointing and edging his expressions to such a degree as to make them ridiculous. It is not enough, with him, to say, as another man would in such a case, that a text has been misconstrued, and its sense perverted, or misapplied ; no, that would sound flat and vulgar : but it is to be called corrupting the Apostle's assertion, not allowing him to write what he did write ; or, it is finding fault with him, or fairly telling us that he ought not to have writ thus as he did; or, it is an attempt to expose and render ridiculous the Apostle's doctrine, and arguing, not against Dr. Clarke, but against plain Scripture, and against the Evangelists and Apostles themselves. This it is to be elegant and quaint, and to push the satire home. I can pardon the pedantry, and the false sublime, in a man of such a taste : but I desire he may use it somewhere else ; and not where he is laying an indictment, or making a report, which requires truth and strictness.

V. “ The supreme authority and original independent “absolute dominion of the God and Father of all, who is " above all; that authority which is the foundation of the whole law of nature, which is taught and confirmed in "every page of the New Testament; which is professed " and declared in the first article of every ancient creed, “ in every Christian church of the world, and which is “ maintained as the first principle of religion by every Christian writer, not only in the three first centuries, “ but even in the following ages of contention and am“bition : this supreme authority, &c. Dr. Waterland in

m Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 186. See Reply, p. 195, 197.


« his last book (merely for the more consistent salving of

a metaphysical hypothesis) has, by a new and unheard “ of fiction, without any shadow of evidence from any

one text of Scripture, in direct contradiction to the first « article of all the ancient creeds, without the testimony « of any one ancient (I had almost said, or modern) writer,

very presumptuously (and had he himself been an op

poser of the hypothesis he defends, he would have said, Vlasphemously)-reduced entirely to nothing,” p. 23.

Here seems to be sometlaing of sounding rhetoric in this paragraph; which had it been intended only for an exercise, or by way of specimen, might have been tolerable : but it was wrong to bring it in here, in a grave debate, because there is not a word of truth in it.

To speak to the matter, all this hideous outcry against an innocent man means only this, as hath been above hinted; that I have been willing to think, and as willing to say, that God the Son and God the Holy Ghost have naturally no Governor, are not naturally subject to any Ruler whatever. This gentleman is here pleased to intimate that they are, and is very confident of it. Let me number up the many palpable untruths he has crowded into half a page. One about the foundation of the law of nature: a second, about the New Testament : a third, about every ancient creed: a fourth, about the first principle of religion, and every Christian writer : four

: four or five more, about Dr. Waterland. There is not a syllable of truth in any of the particulars of which he is so positive. For neither does any law of nature, nor any text of the New Testament, nor any ancient creed, nor any Christian and Catholic writer, early or late, ever assert, or intimate, that God the Father is naturally supreme Governor over his own Son and Spirit; or that they are naturally under his rule or government. And as to Dr. Waterland, it is no new or unheard of fiction in him, to assert one common dominion to all the three Persons, and to deny that either the Son or Holy Ghost is naturally subject to (that is, a creature of) the Father. He has full evidence for his


[ocr errors]

suasion, from innumerable texts of Scripture, from all the ancient creeds, as understood by the Christian churches from the beginning to this day: and be bas neither blasphemousły nor presumptuously, but soberly, righteously, and in the fear of God, stood up in defence of the injured honour of the ever blessed Trinity, grievously insulted and outraged by the Arians of these times; who when they have carried on their resolute opposition as far as argument and calm reasoning can go, and are defeated in it, rather than yield to conviction, come at length to such a degree of meanness, as to attempt the support of a baffled cause by the low methods of declaiming and railing.

VI. “ When Dr. Waterland says, that many supreme Gods in one undivided substance are not many Gods, for that very reason, because their substance is undivided, he "might exactly with the same sense and truth have af“firmed, that many supreme persons in one undivided “ substance are not many persons; for that very reason, “ because their substance is undivided.” p. 51.

Here I am charged with saying, that “ many supreme “Gods are not many Gods.” Let

appear as they stand. Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 331.

“I assert, you say, many supreme Gods in one undis vided substance. Ridiculous : they are not many Gods, "for that very reason, because their substance is undi• vided.” Is this saying, that many Gods are not many Gods ? No; but they, that is, the three Persons, supposed by the objector to be three Gods upon our scheme, are not three Gods, not many, but one God only. This gentleman appears to be in some distress; that, in order to form his objection, he is forced to invent words for me, and to lay them before the reader instead of mine. He seems however, in the same paragraph, to aim obscurely at an argument which the Author of the Remarks has expressed plainly, and urged handsomely enougho, though with too much boasting.

• Remarks, p. 36.

my own words

The answer, in short, is this : though the union of the three Persons (each Person being substance) makes them one substance, yet the same union does not make them one Person ; because union of substance is one thing, and unity of Person is another: and there is no necessity that the same kind of union which is sufficient for one, must be sufficient for the other also. There is no consequence from one to the other, but upon this supposition, that person and acting substance are equivalent and reciprocal: which the Author of the Remarks had acuteness enough to see, and therefore fixes upon me, unfairly, that very supposition. If he pleases to turn to my definition of person, he will find, that though I suppose Person to be intelligent acting substance, yet that is not the whole of the definition, nor do I ever suppose the terms or phrases reciprocal; any more than the asserting man to be an animal, is supposing man and animal to be tantamount, or to be reciprocal terms. I have taken this occasion of replying to the Remarks upon this head, to let the author see that I do not neglect his performance for any strength it bears in it. That which I have now answered is, in my judgment, the best and strongest argument in the whole piece : and I believe he thinks so too.

VII. " When the Doctor affirms that the one supreme “ God is not one supreme God in Person, but in substance : 56 what is this but affirming, that the one supreme God is “ two supreme Gods in Person, though but one supreme God in substance?" p. 51.

Let the reader see my words upon which this weak charge is grounded : they are in my First Defence, vol. i.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

p. 24.

“ Father and Son both are the one supreme God: not

one in Person, as you frequently and groundlessly' in“ sinuate, but in substance, power, and perfection.” I neither said, nor meant to say, not one supreme God in Person; but, not one in Person: the rest is of this writer's foisting in by way of blunder, first to make nonsense, and then to comment upon it, and add more to it. In the

« PreviousContinue »