can do him no service. But I return to the writer of the pamphlet.

4. He is pleased, in his Preface, to condemn the method which I have taken in this controversy. But, I suppose, little regard is to be had to the judgment of an adversary, who will be apt to condemn such a method as he was most afraid of, and commend such as might be most advantageous to his own cause. The method which he has chalked out for me is as follows. Either,

66

66

1. "To show that Dr. Clarke had mistaken or misinterpreted all, or at least the principal texts of Scripture which he has cited." Or,

2. "To examine the truth of all, or the principal of his "propositions."

I have, in effect, done this, though in my own method. But, however, the gentleman should consider, that many of the Doctor's comments and propositions are purely wide and foreign to the dispute; excepting only that the more pernicious an error is, so much the more necessary is it to mix a great deal of truth with it, to make it go down with the readers. Many more of the Doctor's comments and propositions are general or ambiguous, looking two ways; having properly no one meaning, because no determinate meaning. Such being the case, I took the short and plain way, which is always the best when a man has a cause he can confide in: and that was, to cut off impertinences, and to come to the main question, laying all the stress there. Whatever I met with, in the Doctor's books, that appeared to make the Son of God a creature, or a precarious being, or not necessarily existing, (for these are all the same, without any difference, more than lies in the syllables,) I endeavoured to confute; and I hope I have done it. The learned Doctor may now open himself; or he may let it alone if he pleases: it matters not what his tenets are, provided the true Catholic tenets be preserved and maintained. If he had any ill meaning in his comments or propositions, I have used my best endeavours to

prevent any ill effects it might have among some readers: if he had not, I am very glad of it, and have done no more than explained his doctrine for him to an orthodox sense; which he ought himself to have done long ago, if he really had no design against the Catholic received doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity. But enough of this.

66

I must here take notice of this gentleman's doctrine about worship; though it be rather obscurely intimated, than plainly expressed: the innuendo way of writing, as I take it, is the art of imposing upon the vulgar, at the same time preventing, as much as possible, the examination of the learned. All worship, he says, should "be to the glory of God the Father," (p. 57.) Who doubts it? I hope the worship of the Son is to the "glory of God the Fa"ther:" why then does this writer find fault? or what is it he has a mind to say, and is afraid to speak out, " to the "glory of God the Father?" Has he some secret and reserved meaning? So it seems, or else it will be very hard to make out the pertinency or consistency of his observations. He directs us (p. 64.) "to worship uniformly "the one God, the Father Almighty, even our Father "which is in heaven, through the intercession of his only "Son our Lord Jesus Christ, in the manner the Scripture "directs." Do not all Churches, and our own in particular, do it uniformly, and in the manner the Scripture directs? What is it then that the writer aims at? I could perhaps point out what it is that offends him. Is it not. either that direct worship is paid to the Son at all; or that the Son is worshipped as God? But sure the author is not so rash or inconsiderate, as to advise us to any such dangerous innovation in worship, either to leave out the Son entirely, or not to worship him as God. What could a professed Eunomian or the rankest Socinian desire more? Can Dr. Clarke, (for, I suppose, he speaks for the Doctor and himself too,) can Dr. Clarke desire this? He that has not yet determined either against the consubstantiality or eternity of God the Son: he that has only a few scruples

about subordination, (owing to his mistake of Catholic principles, and his not attending to strict propriety of language,) hardly in the main differing from us, if this writer's pretences be real and sincere; would he have us ungod the Son in our practice, even before we see reason to alter our principles? or must we strike Christ's Divinity out of our public service, before we do it out of our articles of faith? It will be time enough for the Doctor to give this advice, after he has declared plainly against the eternity and consubstantiality of the Son; after he has not only declared against them, but disproved them, which he can never do; after he has made it as clear as the sun, that the Christian world have been in an error, have been idolaters, from the beginning downwards to this day. It is poor pretence to say that we are "not to build any prac❝tices, wherein the worship of God is immediately con❝cerned, upon metaphysical speculations, not mentioned "in Scripture," p. 64. The Divinity of Christ is a Scripture truth, as much as the Divinity of the Father ; and one is no more a metaphysical speculation than the other. Besides that it is strangely improper and absurd to call these principles pure speculations, which are of so great importance for the regulating our worship, that we can neither omit to worship Christ, if they are true, without the greatest impiety; nor perform it, if they are false, without being guilty of idolatry. In short, there is no sense in what this writer here says, but upon the supposition that Christ is really a creature; and that the dispute only were whether a creature might, in any forced improper sense, be said to be eternal, or consubstantial; which indeed would be both a fruitless and an impertinent speculation, after giving up the whole point in debate. But it is farther pretended, (p. 65.) that we should confine "ourselves to the clear and uncontroverted expressions of "Scripture concerning them (the Son and Holy Spirit) "and the honour due unto them; and this is undoubtedly, "upon all possible hypotheses, right and sufficient in

practice." But let this writer tell us, whether, in his. opinion, every thing controverted is to be set aside, or only what is justly controverted. The former would come properly enough from a Deist, who will make Scripture itself a controverted point; and an Atheist would still go farther. Let this gentleman show that the Divinity, or direct worship of Christ is justly controverted: till he has done this, he has said nothing. It is ridiculous to tell us, (if that be his meaning,) that to worship the Father only, leaving out the Son and Holy Ghost, is sufficient, "upon all "possible hypotheses;" when upon the hypothesis that all the three Persons are one God, (which is something more than an hypothesis,) no one of the Persons can be entirely omitted without manifest iniquity and impiety. It is in vain to think of any expedients in this affair, while our doctrine stands unconfuted. There is no room left so much as for a neutrality, in the present case. For I will be bold to say, and bound to make it good, that, all circumstances considered, there can be no reasons sufficient to make a man neuter in this point, but what would be sufficient to determine him on the opposite side.

I shall here take leave of this writer, having occasionally remarked upon some passages of his, by way of note to my Sermons; and designing, God willing, to consider every thing material (if I have here omitted any thing) hereafter; when I am favoured with a large and particular answer to my Defence of some Queries.

There is another writer who, in a sixpenny pamphlet, has drawn his pen against me. It is entitled, The Unity of God not inconsistent with the Divinity of Christ: (no minal Divinity he means:) being Remarks on the Passages in Dr. Waterland's Vindication &c. relating to the Unity of God, and to the Object of Worship.

The author is a grave, sober writer; and ingenuously speaks his mind, without any doublings or disguises. It is a satisfaction to any man, who has no concern for any thing but truth, to have such an adversary to deal with ;

for then it is soon seen what we have to do. Much time, much trouble, much wrangling is saved: we presently enter into the merits of the cause, for the ease and benefit of the reader. This writer takes the Arian hypothesis: for he supposes the Son to have been a distinct Spirit; (p. 7.) to have been God's instrument in the creation; (p. 26.) not to be true God; (p. 34.) to have been ignorant of the day of judgment, considered in his highest capacity, i. e. as the second Person of the Trinity. (p. 8.) Having seen his drift and design, let us next examine his performance. He does not undertake to show that the received doctrine cannot be true; or that his own (i. e. the Arian) must be true; one of which I might reasonably have expected of him, since he pretends to have drawn up an answer to the main parts of my Vindication &c. But he is content to show (so far as he is able) that his doctrine may be true, notwithstanding one or two arguments which I have made use of against it. In a word, he undertakes to prove that some of my arguments against Arianism are not conclusive. With what success, I come now to show; after taking notice to the reader, that, supposing he had really done what he intended, it does not follow that the Arian doctrine must be true, nor that there are not arguments enough to prove it cannot be true; but only that I have used an argument or two, which alone are not sufficient for my purpose. One considerable objection against the Arian scheme is, that it stands in opposition to the first and great commandment ; introducing two Gods, and two objects of worship; not only against Scripture, but also against the unanimous sense of the Christian Church from the beginning, and of the Jewish Church before; which together are the safest and best comment we can have upon Scripture. This is one considerable objection, among many, against Arianism; and is what this writer has undertook to an

swer.

He applies himself particularly to the English and unlearned reader, (p. 4,) whom he hopes to satisfy; the