follow, that Angels or Men, or even Things inanimate, are one God with the Father also. Indeed, to do you justice, you do not fo much as pretend, that Unity of Principle, or any Thing else can make Him one God with the Father. Which is enough to fhow, how very widely you differ from the Antients, in the main point of All. They thought it necessary to affert, that Father and Son were Both one God. So Irenæus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Lactantius, and even Eufebius Himself, after fome Debates upon it; as may appear from the Teftimonies before referr'd to: And of the Poft-Nicene Catholick Writers, in general, every body knows how They contended for it. They thought that the Divinity of the Son could not be otherwife fecured, and Polytheism at the fame time avoided, than by afferting Father and Son to be one God; and They thought right. But what do you do? Or how can you contrive to clear your Scheme? We ask if the Son be God, as well as the Father? You fay, Yes: How then is there but one God? Your Aufwer is, The Father is fupreme, and therefore He, fingly, is the one God. This is taking away what you gave us before, and retracting what you afferted of the Son. If Supremacy only makes a Perfon God, The Son is no God, upon your Principles: Or, if He is God notwithftanding, then Father and Son are two Gods. Turn this over, as often as you please, you'l

* Qu. 5. p. 22.

find

find it impoffible to extricate your self from it. You can fay only this; That you do not admit Two fupreme Gods. This is very true: No more did the Pagan Polytheists, nor the Idolatrous Samaritans, nor Others condemn'd in Scripture for Polytheism. You ftand pretty fair upon the Principles of Philofophy; and are not guilty of any manifest Error in Metaphyficks, upon this Article. But you are fuch a Tritheift, as, upon Scripture-Principles, and upon the Principles of the Catholick Church, both before and after the Nicene-Council, muft ftand condemn'd. Your Belief of the Fathers being for you, in this particular, is pure Fancy and Fiction; owing, I fuppofe, to your feeing only fome Pieces of Them in Dr. Clarke. You can find but very little among the Antients, which either directly or indirectly favors your Notion of a fupreme and a fubordinate God. They condemn'd it implicitely, in their Difputes with the Pagans, all along: And no fooner was it ftarted in the Church, but the Catholicks were alarm'd at it; and immediately condemn'd it, as reviving of Creature-Worship, and restoring Gentilism, and Pagan Polytheism. Two Gods, a greater and a leis, a Supreme and an Inferior, no Scripture, no found Reason, no good Catholick ever Taught; no Church would have endured. A feparate

*N.B. I do not fay that the Ante Nicene Writers would have called the Arian Doctrine Tritheifm; perhaps, Blafphemy rather. But They would have charg'd it with Paganism (fee Tertullian above, p. 54.) which comes to the fame with what the Poft-Nicenes faid of it.

God

God from the Supreme, an inferior created God, would not only have been look'd upon as Polytheism and Contradiction, confider'd in it felf; but as Herefy and Blafphemy, if underftood of God and Chrift.

、

To conclude this Head: If we understand the word, God, in the strict Senfe, it is ridiculous to charge the Arian Scheme with plurality of Gods. But, if it be understood in the loose popular Senfe, or in your own Sense of it, it is equally ridiculous to deny it. Mr. Nye, who, you know, has ftudied this Controverfy much and long, and is no Friend either to the truly Catholick Scheme, or your's, condemning Both as Tritheifm; is pleafed however fo far to give the Preference to the former, as to declare, that the Arian Herefy is only a more abfurd and less defenfible Tritheilin *. Of all the four Schemes which have been followed, the Sabellian, Catholick, Arian, and Socinian; The Sabellian only (which intirely ungods the Son, and annihilates the HolyGhoft) ftands perfectly clear of any Appearance of Polytheifm. The Catholick appears chargeable, but really is not fo: The Arian and Socinian both appear fo, and are fo; Whereforc a Charge of Tritheifm must come from Them, with a very ill Grace. For, was the Charge really juft, and were we weak enough to affert three Co ordinate Gods; yet even that could not be more repugnant to the * Explicat. of the Articles of Div. Unity, p. 91. whole

whole Drift, Scope, and Tenor of the Sacred Writ, than the admitting a plurality of Gods, a great and little, foveraign and inferior, infinite and finite, uncreated and created, to receive our Addreffes, and to be the Objects of our Love, Faith, Hope, Confidence, and religious Adoration.

QUERY XXIII.

Whether the Doctor's Notion of the Trinity be more clear and intelligible than the other? The difficulty in the Conception of the Trinity is, how three Perfons can be one God. Does the Doctor deny that every one of the Perfons, fingly, is God? No: Does He deny that God is one? No: How then are

Three one?

Does one and the fame Authority, exercis'd

by all, make Them one, numerically or individually one and the fame God? That is hard to conceive how three diftinct Beings, according to the Doctor's Scheme, can be individually one God, that is, three Per, fons one Perfon.

If therefore one God neceffarily fignifies but one Perfon, the Confequence is irresistible; either that the Father is that one Person, and none else, which is downright Sabellianism; Or that the three Perfons are three Gods. Thus the Doctor's Scheme is liable to the fame difficulties with the other. There

Qu.XXIII. There is indeed one easy way of coming off, and that is, by saying that the Son and Holy Spirit are neither of them God, in the Scripture-fenfe of the Word. But this is cutting the Knot, instead of untying it; and is in effect to fay, They are not fet forth as divine Perfons in Scripture. Does the Communication of divine Powers and Attributes from Father to Son, and Holy Spirit make Them one God, the Divinity of the two latter being the Father's Divinity? Tet the fame difficulty recurs: For either the Son and Holy Ghoft have diftinct Attributes, and a diftinct Divinity of their own, or They have not: If They have, They are (upon the Doctor's Principles) diftinct Gods from the Father, and as much as Finite from Infinite, Creature from Creator, and then how are They one? If They have not, then, fince They have no other Divinity, but that individual Divinity, and thofe Attributes which are inSeparable from the Father's Effence, They can have no diftinct Effence from the Father's; and fo (according to the Doctor) will be one and the fame Perfon, that is, will be Names only. Q. Whether This be not as unintelligible as the Orthodox Notion of the Trinity, and liable to the like Difficulties: A Communication of divine Powers and Attributes, without the Subftance, being as hard to con