ment; except it be to observe to you one pe culiar piece of Management, which I leave you to reflect on. The learned Examiner labours, for *two Pages together, to show that Clemens of Rome was far from fpeaking, or thinking to highly of our Blessed Lord, as St. Paul did. A little after, † He proposes Clemens to us as a very good Interpreter of Scripture; and commends Him highly, for laying Christianity before Us in its naked Simplicity. What can We think of this? The best Conftruction I can make of it is, that He intended in p. 14. 15, not St. Paul Himself, but St. Paul as now generally understood: And fo He was to infinuate fomething, which was not fit to be exprefs'd. But a Man of Art would have conducted better; would not have discover'd Himself fo foon, but have trusted more to the Sagacity of his Reader. This manner of proceeding, in an important Cause, is what I cannot account for. It seems to me, that if there be not Reasons of Confcience obliging a good Man to speak out, there are always Reasons of Prudence which should make a wife Man hold his Tongue.

You may perceive, by this Time, that Bifhop Bull's Book is like to ftand, till fomething much more confiderable appears against it,

Aliter plane D. Paulus loquitur:

Argumento potius eft Clementem de Chrifto aliter plane quam Paulum fenfiflemagnam fufpicionem injicit, eadem Clementem cum Paulo minime docuiffe. Whitb, difq. p. 14, 15.

f Solus Clemens Chriftianz Fidei Simplicitatem præ oculis Le Boris ponit. Whith. Difq. p. 19.

Several

Several attempts of this kind have been made before; but to as little purpose: And if there be ever fo many more, by ever fo good Hands, I'll venture to fay, They will fucceed no better. The Book will stand as long as clear Senfe, found Reasoning, and true Learning have any Friends left. The main Subftance of it is not to be confuted; any more than you can extinguish Truth, or put out the Light of the Sun. The Fathers have been tried and are found faithful: What They defended while living, The Divinity of our Bleffed Lord, against the Infults of Jews, Pagans, and Hereticks, They still maintain in their works: And their Works will be held in great Esteem, and Veneration; while every weak attempt to blast their Credit, will meet with what it justly deferves-I was going to fay what, but it may found fevere: I proceed to another Query.

QUERY

QUERY XXVII.

Whether the learned Doctor may not reafonably be fuppofed to say, the Fathers are on his fide, with the fame meaning and reServe as He pretends our Church-Forms to favour Him; that is, provided He may interpret as He pleafes, and make them speak bis Senfe, however Contradictory to their own: And whether the true Reason why He does not care to admit the Teftimonies of the Fathers as Proofs, may not be, because They are against Him?

N Answer to this, You tell me, that it contains only an invidious Suggestion; not any Argument. The Suggeftion, I do affure you, is juft, and argumentative too; and was kindly intended towards you; that you might not take Things implicitely and upon Trust from others, but might examine them first your Self; and then pass a Judgment of them. As to the invidious Appearance of it; had I ever intended, or in the leaft thought of making the Queries publick, you might, with a better Grace, have told me of it. But as I had not the liberty of revifing my Papers, nor fo much as any previous Apprehenfion of your Design (prefuming all along the very contrary, as I reasonably might) thefe Things confidered, I hope the invidious Part you'l take to your felf; the Ar

gument

1

C

gument (for an Argument it is, in its kind) you may leave to me. It is of fome moment to us, not only to have the primitive Writers on our fide (as we plainly have) but to have them thought fo too. The learned Doctor has made fome Pretences that way; and they are of Weight with fuch Readers, as are not duly apprehenfive of the Doctor's uncommon manner of letting Things off, with great advantage to his Cause, and as great detriment to Truth. Two Reasons are intimated, in the Query, why his claim to Antiquity ought to have the lefs Force with confidering Men: First, Because He lays claim to our Church's Forms; which every common Reader may fee, are directly against Him; And Secondly, Becaufe, notwithftanding his appeal to Antiquity, He is wifer than to put the Matter upon that Iffue. He endeavors to leffen the Efteem of the Antients, all the while that He prefumes They are on his fide (A fure Mark that He fufpects Them) and is fecuring a Retreat when They fail Him; as they certainly will, whenever ftrictly inquired into. I would leave it with any difcerning Man (who cannot examine farther into the Merits of the Caufe) to judge, whether it be at all likely that thofe who fpeak always contemptibly of the Antients, and endeavor to the utmost to abuse and expofe Them, can reafonably be prefumed to have a greater Interest in Them, than They who fpeak honourably and handfomly of Them; who defend their Chara

cter,

eter, and have, as it were, an affectionate Tenderness and Concern for Them. Thus much for the fecond Reason intimated in the Query. As to the first Reason fuggested, the Import of it is this. If the learned Doctor can efpy Arianifm in our Liturgy, or Articles, where it certainly is not; He may as reasonably be fuppofed to mistake as much, among the Fathers. He fees, in our Liturgy, the Doctrine of one God the Father, inclusive of Son and Holy Ghost; but does not fee one God exclusive of Both; which is his Doctrine. He finds a Subordination of Order taught in cur publick Forms; but does not find any Subordination or Inferiority of Nature; which is his Principle. And yet, upon these flight Grounds, He fcruples not to fay, that the *main Branches of his own Doctrine are exprefly affirm'd in our Liturgy; meaning, by a tacite Confequence of his own making. fince this Confequential, that is, Imaginary Countenance is all that He can claim from our Liturgy; and all that He really means, when He fays the Church's Forms are on his fide; poffibly He may mean no more, when He fpeaks of the Fathers. The generality of Readers, it may be, understand Him, as if He had intended to fay, that the Ante-Nicene Writers efpecially, had declared against the Co-eternity and Confubftantiality of the Son, the Points in Question: But I humbly conceive, He in*Script. Doctr. p. 379. firft Ed.

And

tended