nothing more certain than that that very text was understood, by the Ante-Nicene writers, in general, of God the Son: Catholics and Heretics both agreed in it. The text was urged against the Catholics, in the Sabellian controversy; and was as plausible a text as any in the New Testament, on the Sabellian side: yet the Catholics admitted that it was to be understood of God the Son; and readily allowed, in consequence of that text, that the Son was i avtoxράTwp, παντοκράτωρ, the Almighty, as well as the Father. See Tertullian, Hippolytus, and, probably, Origen, agreeing in this: the Doctor has not pretended to cite any Ante-Nicene, or any ancient writer, who understood the text otherwise; though he makes a show of having the ancients in general on his side, in this very particular, (Script. Doctr. p. 63.) without proving any thing more than that the Father was ordinarily or emphatically styled i Tarτongáτwp, which is true, but not pertinent; nor is it giving us the sentiments. of the ancients, with regard to this text; but his own. Joh. xii. 41. is another noted text, which the Doctor endeavours (Script. Doctr. p. 102.) to interpret in favour of his own hypothesis; and makes a show of authorities as countenancing him in it. But none of his authorities come up to this point: so far from it, that they are all against him; as I have sufficiently proved under Query the second, and elsewhere. The like may be observed of the authorities which he produces (p. 114, 115.) to confirm his interpretation of Acts vii. 30, 31, 32. And I have, above, shown you as much of Joh. x. 30. and other the like texts; where you pretend to have some countenance from the ancients, for your interpretation. In short, there is not a text which the Doctor can pretend to urge in favour of his main doctrine, and against ours; and at the

< Tert. contr. Prax. c. 17. Hippol. contr. Noët. c. vi. p. 10. Orig. 'Agx. l. i. c. 2. Vid. et Athan. p. 554, 684, 762. ed. Bened. Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxv. p. 573. Andreas Cæsar. in loc. Hieron. in Zech. c. ii. p. 1718. Epiph. vol. i. p. 488. That the Son is ravrongάrwę might be shown from other texts. Ps. xxiv. 10. Is. vi. 5. Zech. ii. 8. See Euseb. Dem. Ev. 1. vi. c. 16. Just. Mart. Dial. p. 107. Jeb. Hieron. vol. iii. p. 519, 1718. ed. Bened. See my Sermons, p. 228, &c.

same time show that the ancients agree with him. As soon as ever you interpret any text directly against the divinity of Christ, as understood by us in the strict sense, you go off entirely from the ancients, and go on by yourselves. But enough of this.

66

In answer to the latter part of the Query, you observe, that the reason why the Doctor doth not admit the testimonies of the Fathers as proofs, " is not because they are against him; but because, though they are clearly for "him, yet, in matters of faith, he allows of no other proof than the infallible testimony of the Word of "God."

66

One might be willing to believe this to have been the reason, why he would not admit them as proofs, if there were not another very plain one, why he could not; could not, without inevitable ruin and destruction to his whole hypothesis. An adversary need not desire any fairer advantage of the learned Doctor, than to have the issue of the cause put upon the Doctor's citations; taking in no more than is absolutely necessary to clear the sense of the authors in those very passages. But waving this, let me ask you farther, why the testimonies of Fathers may not be admitted as proofs, inferior or collateral proofs? If I can know from Church-writers, and from Scripture too, what was believed by the Church (in sundry articles) from the beginning; I have then two proofs of the same thing, though not both equally strong, or equally authentic. The proof from Church-writers is an additional, inferior proof; but still a proof it is, probable at least, of something, as to fact; and not barely an illustration of a dogma, or doctrine. Are we able to prove what were the opinions of several sects of philosophers from the books which are extant; and may we not also prove what was the faith of Christians, in the same way, from the books which they have left us? You add, "The authority of "the Fathers, could it be proved to be unanimous against "Dr. Clarke, ought not to determine any article of faith." No; but it is a strong presumptive proof, that his inter

pretation of Scripture is not the true one: a proof so considerable, that I know not whether any thing less than clear and evident demonstration ought to overrule it. For you must remember, that Dr. Clarke, or any moderns, as well as the ancients, are fallible men; and have only the same human reason to work with, which others had sixteen hundred years ago, in an age of miracles, and near to the days of inspiration. Moderns, at so great a distance off, may, at least, as easily mistake, in interpreting Scripture, as you suppose the ancient and universal Church to have done, in a momentous article of faith. Well then; supposing that we had been for some time debating this very point of the blessed Trinity, on the foot of Scripture: men's wits are so various, that several interpretations may be invented of the same texts; and perhaps none of them so manifestly absurd, but that they possibly may be true; nor so manifestly right, but that they possibly may be wrong. What can we do better, in such a case, than to appeal to those who lived nearest the times of the inspired writers? Their judgment, their decisions, and consequent practice, are at length the safest rule to go by; at least till you can show us a better. Scripture, you will say, is the rule; and so say I. You bring your Scripture proofs; and I produce mine. You have your solutions of such difficulties as I press you with; I have solutions too, and such, as I think sounder, better, and juster than yours: you think the very contrary. Thus far, it is combating text with text, criticism with criticism, reason with reason; and each side will think his own superior. Now, suppose I can farther produce a cloud of witnesses, a numerous company of primitive saints and martyrs, confirming my interpretation, concurring in my sentiments, and corroborating my reasons; and suppose I find also that those who took your side of the question were condemned by the generality as heretics, and corrupters of the faith of Christ; this will add such weight, strength, and force to my pretensions, that impartial men will soon perceive which is the most probable, which the safer side,

and which it behoves them to cleave to. This is so agreeable to the common sense and reason of mankind; and the advantage of having antiquity of one's side is so apparent, that I will venture to say, none ever talked against it, who did not suspect, at least, that antiquity was against them and this I take to be one of your greatest misfortunes in this controversy; that you are sensible how much it would weaken your cause to give up the Fathers; and yet, you are certain, in the result, to weaken it as much, by pretending to keep them.

:

QUERY XXVIII.

Whether it be at all probable, that the primitive Church should mistake in so material a point as this is; or that the whole stream of Christian writers should mistake in telling us what the sense of the Church was; and whether such a cloud of witnesses can be set aside without weakening the only proof we have of the canon of Scripture, and the integrity of the sacred text?

IN answer hereto, you admit that "the testimony of "the whole stream of antiquity is sufficient to determine, "in fact, what faith the Church hath always professed "and declared in her public forms." I am content to put the matter upon this issue; and let the point be decided from their professions in baptism, creeds, doxologies, hymns, which were public forms; and from public censures passed upon heretics, which are as clear evidence as the other of the Church's faith at that time. Only I would not exclude collateral proofs; such as the declared sentiments of eminent Church-writers, the interpretations of creeds, left us by those that recite them, (such as those of Irenæus, Tertullian, and others;) and ecclesiastical history, telling us what the tradition of the Church. was, down to such a time. From these put together, we have very clear and full proof that the Catholic Church did all along profess a Trinity of consubstantial, coeternal Persons, in unity of nature, substance, and Godhead. This,

the incomparable Bishop Bull has sufficiently shown in his Defensio Fidei Nicence, Judicium Ecclesiæ, and Primitiva Traditio. Bishop Stillingfleet pursued the same argument, with variety of learning, in his Vindication of, the Doctrine of the Trinity, chapter the 9th, which he concludes in these words: "Taking the sense of those arti"cles, as the Christian Church understood them from "the Apostles' times, then we have as full and clear evi"dence of this doctrine, as we have that we received the "Scriptures from them." Dr. Clarke's and Dr. Whitby's pretences to the contrary have been sufficiently answered; partly by the learned gentleman who wrote the True Scripture Doctrine continued, and partly by these sheets. You have little to object, but that the Fathers did not assert an individual consubstantiality, in your sense; which is true; and is no more than telling me, that they were not mad, when I contend that they were sober.

But you add; the question is, whether, supposing the Fathers had unanimously declared for our notion," whe"ther (in a question not of fact, like that concerning the "canon of Scripture, but of judgment and reasoning) such

a testimony would prove that those Scriptures reveal it; 66 or whether such an interpretation of Scripture. "would be as infallible as Scripture itself." But this is no question at all between us. What we pretend is, that we have as good proof of the doctrine of the Church, as of the canon of Scripture. Whether the Church, after the Apostles, was as infallible as the Apostles themselves, is quite another question. We think it very unlikely that the apostolic churches should not know the mind of the Apostles; or should suddenly vary from it, in any matter of moment. We look upon it as highly improbable that the faith of those churches should so soon run counter to any thing in Scripture; since they had the best opportunities of knowing what Scripture meant; were made up of wise and good men, men who would sooner die than commit any error in that kind wilfully. Upon this, we believe the concurring judgment of antiquity to be, though