Page images
PDF
EPUB

ferved a neutrality in this difpute; nor carried the point higher than the Antient Arians; but has really, and fully given into their Sentiments; and therein determin'd against the Catholick Church. The ufe which I make of this, at prefent, is to obferve to the Reader: 1. That the Doctor has not invented any new, or more excellent Scheme than was thought of, confider'd, and condemn'd, near 1400 Years ago, by a very wife, numerous, and unbyafs'd Council. 2. That He cannot justly cite any Catholick Poft-Nicene Writer, (nor perhaps Ante-Nicene) as certainly favouring his main Doctrine. 3. That his attempt to reconcile the Nicene and Athanafian Creeds to Arianifm, form'd in direct Oppofition to it, is endeavoring to bring Light and Darknefs, and the most irreconcilable Inconfiftencies to meet together. This for the prefent: The future use I fhall make of it, is to come directly to the point in Queftion for when it is certainly known what the drift defign and meaning of an Author is, much Pains may be fpared, and a Difpute fhortned.

I hardly know whether ftrict method would permit me to take notice of the latter part of your Reply, (contain'd in Pages 62, 63, 64.) it is fo wide and foreign. You must have had a great mind to fay fomething of eternal Generation: Otherwise you would never have introduced it in a place fo improper. The pretence is, that we equi

vocate in talking of eternal Generation; and therefore it is proper to retort it upon us, in answer to a charge of Equivocation. But wherein do we equivocate, or do any thing like it? Is it in the word, Eternal? But we undoubtedly mean it in the strict and proper Senfe. Is it in the word, Generation? That is a word of Latitude, capable of more Senses than one. We use it in the Senfe, which has prevail'd in the Church 1500 Years; and in a proper Senfe, according to the Rule of Tertullian, Omnis Origo Parens eft. And where then is the Impropriety, or Equivocation in the word, Generation, as used by us? True, it is not the fame with Human Generation. But who will pretend that Human is to be the meafure and standard of all Generation? Generation, you fay, implies Beginning; and yet we call it *Eternal. Admit that it did fo; yet till That can be made appear, we may be very fincere in calling it Eternal, intending no Equivocation: You have not proved that all Generation implies Beginning; and what is more, cannot. You endeavor to make the notion of it abfurd: But, unless you can demonstrate the abfurdity of it, how will you charge us with Equivocation, which was the Point? All you have to fay turns only upon

* Μὴ χρονικὴν ἀρχὴν τῇ '4οῦ καταδέξῃ τινὸς λέγοντος, ἀλλὰ ἄχρονον ἀρχὴν γίνωσκε τ πατέρα. ̓Αρχὴ γὰρ τοῦ ἄχρονα, ἀκατάληπτος, αναρ χος ὁ πατὴρ πηγή Ε τῆς δικαιοσύνης ποταμοῦ, μονογενοῦς ὁ Патир ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν, καθὼς οἶδὲν αὐτος μόνος. Cyril. Catech. 11. p. 145.

your

your misconstruction of, I fhould fay Equivocation in, the word Individual; which, you must needs know, we understand not in your Sense of it; unless we are weak enough to fuppofe Father and Son to be one Perfon. You make another Argument, by equivocating in the word, Production; which if we use at all, we always take care to explain to a good Sense; and never once imagine, that the eternal Generation is a temporal Production. You are very unhappy, to equivocate all the way, while you are retorting the charge of Equivocation; befides that, could you have retorted it in a handfomer manner, it would not have been pertinent, because it comes out of Place, For, your proper part here, is, not so much to object against our Scheme, as to defend your own: Please to clear your own Hypothefis first; and then we may hear what you can fay against ours. The Church of Chrift has been in poffeffion of the prefent prevailing Doctrines, at least, for 1400 Years: It concerns us, before we part with them, to fee that we may have fomething better in their ftead. What if the Catholick Doctrine has fome Difficulties? Has Arianifm none? Or muft we change the former for the latter? No, let us firft confider whether Arianifm has not more and greater; and then perhaps we may fee reason enough to keep as we are.

It is an ufual Thing with many (Moralifts may account for it) when they meet with

a difficulty which They cannot readily answer, immediately to conclude that the Doctrine is False; and to run directly into the oppofite Perfwasion: not confidering that They may meet with much more weighty Objections there, than before; or that They may have reafon fufficient to maintain and believe many Things in Philofophy or Divinity, tho' They cannot anfwer every Queftion which may be started, or every Difficulty which may be raised against them. As to the Point we are upon; while fome are confidering only the Objections against the Do&trine of the Bleffed Trinity (how Three can be One; how the Son could be generated; how Perfon and Being can be different; and the like) they imagine presently, that the World, in a manner, has been hitherto miserably mistaken; and that They are the happy Men, who fee clearly how, and why. Let but the very fame Men have patience a while, and not imbark in the oppofite Cause, till They are able to find out a truer and a jufter Scheme, and to clear it of all confiderable Difficulties; I fay, let Them but do thus, and then, I am perfwaded, They will be much lefs fanguine in their pursuit of Novelties. In the prefent Controverfy, there are three Schemes, which I may call Catholick, Sabellian, and Arian: One of the Three muft, in the main, be true. The way to know which, is, to weigh and confider the Difficulties attending each refpectively; and to ballance them one against another, The Advocates of

the

the Two latter have performed reasonably well, in the offensive part; and efpecially against each other: But have neither of them yet been able to defend tolerably their refpective Schemes; nor, I fuppofe, ever will be. But I proceed.

[blocks in formation]

Whether by thefe (of the first Column) and the like Texts, Adoration and Worship be not fo appropriated to the one God, as to belong to Him only?

HIS is a very material Enquiry, relating

TH

to the object of Religious Worship; than which nothing can be of greater Concernment. Here therefore, if any where, we might expect and demand of You a very full, clear, and fatisfactory Answer. I fhall examine your Anfwer, in due time and place. But, first, it will be

proper

« PreviousContinue »