The Arians, or Semi-Arians (for Both come to one at last) were fo fenfible that their Tenets would not bear the Light, that they were forc'd to difguife and conceal Them under Catholick Forms of Speech, with all imaginable Art and Subtlety; as was much complain'd of by the Catholicks, who abhorr'd fuch Artifices. The mystery of these Disguises has been already intimated. Had they ventured to speak out, they could not have deceived any great Numbers. The greater part of their deluded Followers were blinded and hood-wink'd; and hardly knew what their Leaders intended, or whither they were driving. These were the Arts, by which Arianifm prevailed; and yet hardly prevailed above Forty Years. Whether thefe, or the like prudential Reasons, determine fome now to proceed with the like Caution, and to avoid declaring, in Terms, that the Son of God is a Creature, I know not. But this I know, that every careful Reader ought to be well apprized of the Tendency of your main Doctrine. It should be told, that you affert, though not directly and plainly, yet tacitely and confequentially, that the Maker, Redeemer,

putant effe quod dicitur. Audiunt Filium Dei; putant in Dei Nativitate ineffe Dei Veritatem. Audiunt Ante Tempora, putant id ipfum Ante Tempora, effe quod Semper eft. Sanctiores Aures plebis quam Corda Sacerdotum. Hilar. pag. 1266. See alfo Sozom. E. H. 1. 3. c. 5.

* Athanaf. p. 235. 224, 895. Theod. E. H. p. 27. Socrat. E. H. l. 2. c. 45. Sozom. E. H. 1. 4. c. 29. Epiphan. Hæref. 73. p. 845. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 21. p. 387.

and Judge of the whole World, is no more than a Creature; is mutable, and corruptible; depends intirely upon the Favour and good Pleafure of God; has a precarious Existence, and dependent Powers, finite and limited; and is neither fo perfect in his Nature, nor fo exalted in Privileges, but that it is in the Father's Power, according to his own good Pleafure, to create Another equal, or even Superior, to Him. Thefe are your Tenets, if you please to speak out; and thefe, in the main, are what Arius, being a plain, open, and confiftent Man, at the beginning, very frankly profefs'd. But, if thefe Pofitions appear fo harfh and fhocking, that you your Selves, who admit Them, do not care to own them in plain Terms; it may be very excufable in Others to contradict Them; and to affert, upon fo great Evidences of Truth, from Scripture and Antiquity, that God the Son is infinitely removed from the Condition of a Creature; is really, truly, and essentially God.

You have, it may be, fome few fpecious Difficulties to urge against a Trinity in Unity, eternal Generation, or the like; points too fublime for Men, or, it may be, Angels to comprehend. But why must these be thought to weigh down the many and unanswerable Objections against your own Scheme; or be efteem'd fufficient to bear up against the united Voice of Scripture and Catholick Antiquity,

по

no where afferting that the Son of God is a Creature; but every where intimating, inculcating, proclaiming, that He is the Creator, Preferver, and Sustainer of all Things; very and eternal God. You'l Pardon me this Excurfion, neceffary to give the common Reader a juft Idea of the Dispute betwixt us; and of the true ftate of the Question. A Stranger in this Controversy, finding how near we come to each other in expreffion, might be apt to wonder wherein we differ, or what it is that we difpute about; not being aware of the Artifice you make use of, in giving an Uncatholick meaning to Catholick Expreffions. We fay, the Son is not Selfexiftent, meaning that He is not unoriginate: You do not only fay the fame, but contend for it; meaning, not neceffarily-existing. We fay, not unoriginate, meaning that He is not the Head or Fountain, not the first Perfon of the Trinity: You take up the very fame Word, and zealously contend that the Son is not unoriginate; understanding it in refpect of Time, or Duration. We fay, the Son is fubordinate, meaning it of a Subordination of Order, as is juft, and proper: You alfo lay hold of the word Subordinate, and feem wonderfully pleas'd with it; but understanding by it, an Inferiority of Nature. We fay, that the Son is not abfolutely fupreme nor independent, intimating thereby that He is Second in Order as a Son, and has no Separate, independent Existence from the Father,

P 4

Father, being co-effentially and co-eternally one with Him: you alfo take up the fame Words, interpret them to a low Senfe, and make the Son an inferior dependent Being; depending at first on the Will of the Father for his Existence, and afterwards for the continuance of it. This is the way you chufe to infinuate your Heterodoxy into weak Readers. In the mean while, notwithstanding our feeming or verbal Agreement, there is as wide a Difference between what You teach and We, as between finite and infinite, mutable and immutable, a dependent Creature and the eternal God. From what hath been faid, you may perceive what the Conceffions of Catholicks, which the Doctor often boafts of, amount to. The Catholicks have used fome Phrafes, in a good Senfe, which artful Men have perverted to a bad one: That is all the Cafe. But I return.

You was to find a medium between being effentially God, and being a Creature: or elle to declare in plain Terms, that the Son is a Creature. A medium you find not, nor indeed can there be any: And yet, inftead of frankly acknowledging fo plain and manifeft a Truth, you are pleas'd to fhift, double, and wind about, in a manner unbecoming a grave Difputant, or a fincere and ingenuous Writer. In the first place, you put on an Air of Courage, and give me one Caution, viz. not to Jay or attempt to prove, that every Being that is derived muft be, for that reason, a Creature, for fear of

making my own Notion, which fuppofes the Son generated, that is, derived, to favour the Arians: But, admitting the Son to be derived, as it may be understood in a Catholick Senfe, yet what is that to your Purpose? Does not my Argument turn upon the Words, out of nothing? Point me out any Being fo derived, a Being which now is, and once was not; and deny Him to be a Creature, if you can. But you go on; As to what is faid in the Queries, that either the Son of God must be the Individual Subftance of the Father, or else it con TY, with the Arians; I answer, if both Scripture and Reafon clearly demonftrate that the Son is not the Individual Subftance of the Father, who must look to that Confequence, if it be one?

Here, at a strait (as ufual) the word Individual comes in; a word capable of feveral meanings; and fo neceffary to help Invention, that you would often be at a loss what to fay, if you wanted that poor pretence for Equivocation. It is evident, that you all along ufe the Word in a Sabellian Senfe, different from what either the School-men, or more antient Catholicks intended by it. The thing which I affert is this; that you must either own the Son to be of the fame undivided Substance with the Father; or elfe declare Him a CreaIf you deny the former, you must, of Confequence, admit the latter the latter; and you really do fo. The confequence You are to

ture.

look