if posterity, fallible as they, grow bold and daring, where the other would have trembled, let them look to it. They had the same Scriptures we have, and better helps for the understanding them: they had their faculties of discerning no less than we; and they spared no pains, or care, in their searches. This is a consideration of some moment, especially in a fundamental article. We should not, at least, go rashly into contrary sentiments, nor without plain Scripture to warrant it. We may be apt to flatter ourselves too much, and think we see farther than those before us; when in reality, perhaps, it is not that we have more sense than they, but that we want their piety.

You tell me how carefully the men of your way have "studied the Scripture," and how sincerely they have "made use of all the helps God has given them, to un"derstand it rightly." Be it so: and I do not know any one that can lay it to the charge of St. Paul, that he had not, in such a sense, sincerely studied the Scripture, or had not sincerely made use of the helps God had given him, though still a persecutor of Christ. However sincere you may have been, yet believe also that others, as sincere as you, have carefully studied the same Scriptures; and that the most eminent lights of the Christian Church in all ages, have as sincerely thought it their indispensable duty to pronounce an anathema upon the doctrine you give us, as you do that you ought to receive and follow it, We have nothing to do to inquire after your sincerity, of which God is judge. Neither civil judicatures, nor ecclesiastical courts, ever proceed upon that bottom. Our business is not to consider the sincerity of the men, but the nature, quality, and tendency of the doctrine. There have been sincere Photinians, sincere Samosatenians, sincere Sabellians, sincere Papists, sincere Jews and Mahometans. And indeed, what sects are there that have not sincere men amongst them? The more sincere you are, the better it will fare with you at the great day of account. In the mean while, give us leave to be sincere too, in condemning heartily what we heartily disapprove. And let the sin

cerity of each be tried by the nature and quality of the cause you and we are engaged in, and by the strength of the evidence on either side; on which, as I conceive, chiefly hangs the proof of our sincerity. You proceed to invective." It concerns those who thus affect to sit in the "seat of God, and to equal their own disputable notions "with the express word of God, to consider a little more "seriously what spirit they are of." But, laying aside childish wrath, let us argue this matter coolly and sedately with you. Is it "affecting to sit in the seat of God," that we are doing our bounden duty in condemning false doctrine, or what we take to be such; and in "contending "earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the "saints?" And how is it "equalling our own disputable "notions with the express word of God," when we stand up for the "express word of God," against those who appear to us to contradict and pervert it, in favour of their metaphysical conceits and ill-grounded hypotheses? What right have a few private men to claim express Scripture, and to equal their own disputable notions with the "ex66 press word of God," in opposition to the Christian world, as capable of judging what Scripture is, as they that so vainly boast of it? Charge us no more, so fondly, with "affecting to sit in the seat of God," lest it be told you, in return, that there appears to be infinitely more pride, vanity, and arrogance, in a few private men sitting in judgment upon whole Churches, and throwing their hasty, ill-grounded censures upon Fathers, and Councils, and all the greatest and wisest men that have lived in past centuries, than any can be imagined in those whom you so injuriously reflect on; for no cause, but for honestly declaring their abhorrence of your novel and dangerous opinions. Surely we may presume, without " affecting "to sit in the seat of God," to think some very fallible men liable to errors: and when in fact it appears that they are so, we may presume, according to our bounden duty, to take all proper care to prevent such errors spreading. But enough has been said in vindication of á motto.

3. A third complaint is of my unrighteous use of the term Arians, and Arianism. But that this censure of yours is very unrighteous may appear sufficiently from what I have elsewhere demonstrated, and may again, as occasion offers. In truth, it is complimenting you, to call you Arians; for you really come short of the old Arians, in more points than one, (as I shall observe hereafter,) and have not so honourable thoughts of God the Son, as the generality of the ancient Arians had. As to what you pretend about the "particular tenets of Arius," I showed you long ago, that yours differ not in any thing material from them. You are pleased to say, that by my "way "of consequential deductions the Fathers of the Council "of Nice, and all their Catholic predecessors, may with

equal justice be charged with Arianism." You mean, I suppose, provided in drawing consequences, no regard be had to what is plain or obscure, right or wrong, true or false. Such a consequential ways as this, never was my way; and, I hope, never will be: whether it be yours, we shall see. You are to prove, that the Council of Nice is chargeable with Arianism, upon my principles. I perceive, you are sanguine enough to undertake it; we are now to examine how you perform.

I must abridge your long tedious train of argument, to bring the parts nearer together, and to save myself the trouble of transcribing. But I will take care that your argument shall not lose a tittle of its force or strength; having indeed none to spare.

"The Council of Nice, by asserting that the Son was “not (woinDeìs é1⁄2 oùx övτwv) made or formed out of nothing, σε but (γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς) generated from the "substance of the Father-confessedly, did not mean "either, that the Son was (which is the first of Dr. W's

e

Supplement to the Case of Arian Subscription, vol. ii.

f Defence, vol. i. p. 154.

See my Supplement, vol. ii. where I justify my charging our adversaries with consequences, and also intimate in what cases such a conduct is allowable or otherwise.

"two senses of the term individual) the same identical "whole substance with the Father-or (which is the Doc"tor's other sense of the term individual) that he was a "homogeneous undivided part of that infinite and insepara"ble substance which is the Father's- -But their mean"ing evidently was, that as one fire is lighted from an"other without any division, abscission, diminution, &c. so "the Son was generated from the Father without any "division, abscission, &c. of the Father's substance, or of "his alone supreme authority and dominion over all. And "this notion of theirs, because it supposes the Son to be "not the substance of the Father, but from the sub"stance of the Father: and because it supposes the gene"ration of the Son to be an act of the Father--and be"cause it reserves inviolably to the Father, his audevría, "his alone supreme authority and dominion over all, which "makes him to be in the absolute sense, the one God: "therefore, I say, this notion Dr. W. is pleased to rank, "among other things, under the head of Arianism."

This is the consequential thing, which you have been pleased to bring forth. The sum is thus: If Dr. W. supposes the Son to be a part of the Father's substance, (which he does not,) and if the Nicene Council denies the Father and Son to be one undivided substance, (which it doth not,) and if the Council supposes the eternal generation to be an act, in the sense of free choice, (which is a false supposition,) and if the Council supposes the Father alone to have supreme dominion over all, (which is another false supposition,) if these several false and groundless suppositions be evidently true; then Dr. W. by charging some persons with Arianism, who deserve it, has consequentially charged others also, who have not deserved it. That I may be certain of doing you justice, as to this marvellous thread of reasoning, I will come to particulars.

In the first place, where do you find me saying that the Son is either the "same identical" (that is, same, same) "whole substance with the Father," or an "undi"vided part of that substance which is the Father's?" I

leave whole and partsh to those gentlemen of strong ima gination, who consider every thing in a corporeal way, under the notion of extension. All that I say is, that Father and Son are one undivided substance; which is also the sense of the Nicene Fathers. For,

2. Where do you find that the Nicene Council ever supposes the Father and Son not to be one and the same undivided substance? They say, ix Tis ovσlas, from the substance of the Father: this is all you have to ground your cavil upon. But the Council supposes the Son to be both from the substance of the Father, and of the substance of the Father, and but one substance in both, because of the inseparable union and connection of both. The doctrine is plainly this, God of God, and both one God; light of light, and both one light; substance of substance, and both one substance. This is the Catholic doctrine, which it is much easier to carp and cavil at, than to confute. I should. take notice of your words, not ποιηθεὶς ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, not made or formed out of nothing. Why do you here insert Tomes, and pretend to give the sense of the Council in a way wherein they never expressed it? Is it not to insinuate, that the Council imagined the Son to be made, or formed, only not out of nothing? One may believe that this was in your head, by your slily remarking, presently after, that Tertullian, Origen k, and Lactantius affirmed the same thing of angels and souls, as the Nicene Fa

* Κυρίως Θεὸς ὥσπερ οὐκ ἔτι μέρος, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὅλον, ἐπεὶ τὸ ὅλον ἐκ μερῶν ἐσι. καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖ λόγος παραδέξασθαι τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεὸν εἶναι ἐκ μερῶν, ὧν ἕκασον οὐ δύναται tæig rà äλλα μépn. Orig. contr. Cels. p. 18.

i Quemadmodum lumen de lumine, et utrumque unum lumen, sic intelligatur sapientia de sapientia, et utrumque una sapientia: ergo et una essentia, quia hoc est ibi esse quod sapere- -Pater et Filius simul una sapientia quia una essentia, et singillatim sapientia de sapientia, sicut essentia de essentia. August. de Trin. lib. vii. cap. 1, 2. p. 855.

Consilium de consilio, et voluntas de voluntate, sicut substantia de substantia, sapientia de sapientia. Ibid. lib. xv. cap. 20. p. 994.

See other examples of the same way of speaking, collected by Petavius de Trin. lib. vi. cap. 10. p. 351.

* See Origen fully vindicated in this respect by Huetius Origenian. p. 30,