in 'tis undenyable thofe Words are not at all directly apply'd to that matter, and while there is fome Evidence therein for that ufe of even the Word made, and very good Evidence for that of the Words create and creature in the fame Acceptation. And while the principal Paffage in the Old Teftament, whence that Word begat feems to have been deriv'd to the first Chriftians in this Senfe, 'tis at least equally full and exprefs as to the Word create alfo; as appears in the Collection of Texts and Teftimonies under my Sixth Obfervation upon Dr. Clarkes Book; which matter I earneftly recommend to his and every good Chriftians ferious Confideration upon this Occafion. But to go on with my Narration.

Sometime before the Convocation rofe there was an Expectation that the Cenfure upon my Doctrine, as well as the Form for the Confecration of Churches, lately pafs'd, and laid before her Majefty, would be return'd, in order to be fign'd by the prefent Members of that Body; and that then both would be published by Royal Authority. But it feems fome Difficulties did arife, fo that the Expectation was not anfwer'd. The Form only camne, and was fubfcribed; and the Cenfure is left in the fame State it was in the laft Year.

Soon after this was published by Dr. Hickes, Dr. Grabe's pofthumous fmall Paper, ftiled, Inftances of Defects and Omifions in my Collection of Teftimonies, orAccount of the Primitive Faith; with a larger Difcourfe of Dr. Hickes before them.

In relation to both which I know not what here to fay. For fo many are the Mifunderstandings of my meaning, fuch remote Arguments are alledg'd, fuch extraneous matter is intermix'd, Objections already aniwered are fo much infifted on, luch Endeavors are us'd to divert Men from the origiual Teftimonies themselves, fuch a Number of late Diftinétions and Evafions are produc'd, and fo very little of real new Argument, or Evidence, appears, that I choose rather to leave the whole Matter ftill to the Reader's own Judgment upon the Evidence which Dr. Clarke and I have produc'd on one fide, with what Dr. Grabe, Dr. Hickes, and Mr. Knight have done on the other, than to go on any farther in the method of Replies and Rejoinders with them: Which rather ferve to divert Men from the Original Evidence, than affift them in paffing a right Judg inent on it. What I would defire of these Learned Men is this, that they would a little truft their Readers with their Texts and Teftimonies; and only add a few Notes of their own, as Dr. Clarke and I have done, and fo give them leave to pronounce of the Force of that Evidence themfelves, and not over-bear them with late Authorities and modern Distinctions perpetually.

When

When once they dare do this, we may conclude they have fome Dependance on thofe Authorities; while now the greatest part 1s made up of Reafonings of their own, with a few antient Palfages interfpers'd only; which is that fatal and pernicious Method by which all Parties are cheated, and ControverfyWriters impofe what they please upon the Minds of their incautious Readers. I fhall therefore only hint my Thoughts on the feveral Heads mention'd in thefe Papers, and fo leave all to the Readers Confideration. I own with Dr. Grabe, that our Church has feveral Advantages over others; and that it has great Defects alfo. I acknowledge the Eucharift to be a Sacrifice; and that the Form of Confecration hinted at by Dr. Grabe ought to be reftor'd. I ftill fully believe the Conftitutions genuine; and the more fo, by feeing the weak Hypothefes and Realonings of Dr. Grabe and others about them. I earnestly defire the Reftoration of Primitive Chriftianity, as it was in the First and Second Centuries; and heartily with that fuch good Men as Dr. Hickes, Dr. Lee, and Mr. Knight would join with me in promoting it; even without all Arian, as well as Athanafian, or other Innovations whatsoever. I believe proper Lay-Baptifm invalid; but cannot fay fo of that of Perfons lolemnly, tho' irregularly fet apart for the Miniftry; left the Baptifm of the Western Churches at least, if not of all Churches now in the World, elpecially when done by Deacons, be found invalid on one account or other. I own the Power of remitting and retaining Sins, or of excluding open Sinners, and readmitting the Penitent, belongs to the Church in their publick Ahemblies for the Exeicile of Difcipline; but not that of private Confeffion to a Piieft, and his Authoritative Abfolution. I fully own the Divinity of our Saviour in the antient Senfe; and readily pay that facred Worship of Prayer and Praile to him, which the first Chriftians did. I own the Oeconomy, myfterious Difpenfation, or Mystery of the Incarnation; but never heard in the oldeft Catholick Books of the Oeconomy, myfterious Difpenfation, or Mystery of the Trinity. That any before the latter part of the Fourth Century called the Holy Ghoft God, or pay'd him Invocation, I do not yet believe; nor indeed that in Two, or perhaps Three Centuries there was any publick Doxology directed immediately to him. When Clement's Fragment appears, (a) we fhall fee whether he ventur'd to call him God directly, as even Bafil long after durft not do; but till I fee it I fhall futpend my Opinion of that matter. I never rejected the Teftimonies of the Third Century; but have

(a) Grabe p. 17.

offered

offered to produce thence () Ten for one, if those that ftand on the alone Authority of Athanafius be excepted. I wonder, exceedingly wonder, at the Partiality of Dr. Hickes and others, who fince thofe plain and full Accounts I have given, with relation to Dr. Grabe's Effay about the Oxford Mis. and Mr. Thirlby's Vindication of Athanafius; and after it certainly appears Athanafius was that Perfon I took him for, do feem to triumph over me upon thofe Heads; as if they were to bear the World in hand that I were quite run down in points where the main of the Controverfy is fo evidently on my fide; and where the Evidence I have produc'd is fo direct, certain, and undenyable. This Procedure feems to me highly unfair, unjuft, and unreasonable, and what I cannot but greatly complain of upon this occafion. And as to the Reafons of my great Zeal and Earneftness, they were and are the intire Satisfaction I have received about thele matters; and the deep Concern I have for that grofs Impofition which the Church has been long under therein; together with my vehement Defire that original unpolluted Piety, Faith, and Charity may quickly prevail among Mankind; or, in the Words of the Beloved Ditciple, Apoc. 11. 15. that The Kingdoms of this World may loon and fuddenly become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Chrift; and that He may reign for ever and ever.

I fhall conclude this with a few Paffages out of fome Letters, I have received fince the Publication of my four Volumes; and they are from two worthy and honeft Clergy Men, who are not lefs obliged in Intereft to go on with the commonly eftablish'd Doctrines and Practices than their Brethren, but who are yet fo upright and unbyafs'd, as to give me their free Thoughts upon this occafion. The firft gives me this account of his Opinion. -You may naturally expect that I fhould fay fomething of your four laft Volumes, which the Learned World are fo terribly affrighted at; but indeed I cannot tell how to begin to fay any thing within the Compafs of a Letter. I only fay firft in general, that I find my Thoughts and Apprehenfions of the mumiwoogia, [the wonderful Wifdom] of the great God in the Work of Mans Redemption, not near fo much puzzled and perplex'd as they were, but marvellously clear'd up; and I cannot but hope that God in Mercy will not hereafter lay it to my Charge as a failing, that I cannot eafily believe, that my Bleffed Saviour the Word of God is either ftrictly us or ouraid [confubftantial or coeternal] to God the Father; becaufe, tho' I have thought fo heretofore, yet upon a ferious Examination of the Scripture, &c. I do not find it either directly afferted, or

(b) Animaduerf. on Dr. Smalbrook. p. 1, 2.

nece.fa

neceffarily inferr'd. Accordingly, because I find many wife and good Men in the Church, have taken the Liberty to lay alide the Athanafian Creed, I do not think to use it any more; at leaft till I have a better Opinion of the Authority for what it fays. And if there be fome other Parts of the Liturgy, in which I cannot heartily concur, yet I am inform'd, and do apprehend, that I have given my Affent and Conlent barely to the Ufe of them, without being fuppofed ftrictly to believe every thing therein contain'd. I do not think that I have yet so throughly ftudied and confidered these weighty Points, as to form an exact and fettled Judgment thereon; tho' I own my self in Bishop Bull's Cafe, when he fays (you know where and on what occafion) Fateor me ad hunc Lapidem, potorov offendere, I own that this Confubftantiality is a Stone of ftumbling to me. But I will freely tell you what Method I, who am deftitute of antient Authors, and far from any publick Library, have taken to be rightly inform'd in these matters. I place my felf daily betwixt Bishop Bull on the one hand, and Mr. Whifton on the other; concluding that each will fay the moft and make the beft of his Caufe: and because I am jealous and afraid of the Writers of Controverfy, I fufpect both. So in all Quotations and antient Authorities, I endeavour to fish out the true Senle and Meani g of the Author: and what upon the whole feems to make for one fide, I fet down upon one column of Paper, and what makes for the other in another. By this means I have a nearer and better view of the State of the Cafe. This Method as far as I have gone in it, (and I have read Bishop Bull once, and your Primitive Chriftianity twice over) has left me in the Condition I have already spoke of. And I muft do you the Juftice as to fay (however inconclufive I may think fome of your Arguments) that I do not find as yet any Unfairness in your Quotations, much lefs any thing like Bishops Bulls wrong Tranflation of Origen, [See Prim. Chrift. Vol. IV. p. 154] and one or two more I have my felf obferv'd. I will not pretend to be fo much a Critick, as to give my Judgment of your Differtation on Ignatius; tho' I have read it over twice. The larger I must needs fay feems to be moft pathetick, mcft fuitable to the Primitive Stile, being fo well back'd with Scripture; and your Reproof of the modern Preachers from thence pleafes me mightily, and is very juft. I have juft run over your Effay on the Conftitutions allo, and I cannot but fay with you there, that if it could not be proved that they are genuine; one cannot forbear wishing they were the Laws of Chrift for the Government of his Churchi. I fhould never have done if I fhould mention every Head I have to fpeak to on these Subjects. I will only add, that this Apollinarian Notion of the ao [Word] fupplying the Place of the area [Spirit or Rational Soul] wants to be fupported

with

with more and ftronger Authorities: And therefore 'tis pity that Book of Melito's fhould be loft, [See Prim, Chrift. Vol. IV. p.283.] which would doubtlefs have given us great Light into that very important Point. For indeed to me the whole Controverfy feems to turn upon it. And if it could once be made fully out that the aó [Word] was as ftriétly united to, and as much a Part of the human Nature in Chrift as the avea Spirit or Rational Soul] is in Men, fo as ftrictly to partake of Sufferings and Pain, there would be an end of the duo [Confubftan tiality] and all the unintelligible Jargon of the Schools about the Trinity.

Poftfcript. I am amaz'd at the Sticklers for and Defenders of Athanafius's Creed, how they can reconcile thofe Expreflions: None is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another, with Bishop Bulls Thefis of the Subordination of the Son; which they fay they can fo freely fubfcribe to and defend.

The fame Perfon adds, in a fecond Letter.

--I cannot but fay Bishop Buli does flubber over abundance of things very odly, and draws often very inconclufive Arguments. I muft lay I like your way better to fet down plain Texts and Teftimonies, which need no Comments. I find (as you fay) that the Bishop gives up the ordinary Interpretation of Phil. 2. 6. Not that I think there are not other Texts to prove our Saviours Divinity. Sure I am, I who know my own Wants of a Saviour and Redee mer had not need to deny or difpute any Prerogative of the Son of God, which might make him compleatly fuch. Only I' always defire to think, and write, and speak, of these great Points in the Language of Scripture and Antiquity: and it had been well for the Church of Chrift if they had kept to this Rule at the Council of Nice. I confefs I am amazed to find almoft all the antient Fathers before the Council of Nice, conftantly attributing all thofe vifible Manfeftations in the O. T. to the Mefliah, as the Angel or Meffenger of God the Father, and indeed fuch other Actions and Paffions of the Son of God, even in his divine Nature, as they own 'twould be wicked and impious to afcribe to the Father of the Univerfe, from the natural Immenfity and Invifibility of his Nature. They do not fay as Bifhop Bull would have them, that it was minus rete & incommode [not fo well and inconvenient to do fo. So but that it was impium & nefas [a Piece of Impiety and Wickedness.] I only add that I have now by me Two Serinons of Dr. Pain (Orthodox fhall I fay ?) printed juft before he dyed, which in exprefs terms fay the Word God is equivocal, and that it does not fignify the fame when applyed to the Son, as it does when applyed to the Father; and that when we fay the One God, the Scripture always means God the Father, which as it will fufficiently justify what you faid of Lim in your

Hift.