to the orthodox also, to ask a few questions in their turn. If Christ be a creature, why is it not roundly asserted either in Old or New Testament? And if he and the Father be two Gods, supreme and inferior, why is not that also roundly asserted, in some part of Scripture at least? We have the more reason to expect it should, because otherwise the contrary doctrine hath so many and so plausible appearances of truth, that the most serious and conscientious persons are under inevitable danger of deception by them. And therefore, if we may be allowed to reason and argue with the tremendous Deity, upon the subject of his revelations, or dispensations towards mankind, none, we imagine, can with more justice, or with better grace, ask; why has not Scripture somewhere or other dropped a hint or two about Christ's being a creature, or about his being an inferior God, admitting two Gods, two adorable Deities, to prevent our falling into an otherwise unavoidable delusion? I doubt not, if that were the truth, but that our Lord himself, (whose humility is so justly celebrated,) and his Disciples after him, would have openly proclaimed it; and that we should have as plainly found it in the New Testament throughout, as now we find the reverse. Can we imagine that a truth of that moment (if it were a truth) should be left in obscurity, to be drawn out, at length, after more than 300 years, by Arius, Aetius, and Eunomius ; and that by the help chiefly of logical conceits and metaphysical speculations, far above the reach

b Clarissimis Scripturæ testimoniis argumentationes metaphysicæ argutiæ opponere, Eunomii est, qui ab Aetio magistro edoctus, essentiam divinam penitus ac perfecte scilicet cognitam sibi habere persuadebat. Tam perspicue Deum qualis sit novi, ac tantam illius notitiam sum consecutus, ut ne me ipsum quidam melius quam illum noverim. Aetius apud Epiphanium lxxvi.. p. 916, 989. Eunomius ipse, majore etiam insolentia apud Socratem, iv. 7. De sui ipsius essentia, Deus nihil amplius scit quam nos: nec illa ipsi quidem notior, nobis autem obscurior. Fabric. Bibl. Græc. lib. v. c. 23. p. 272.. Conf. Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. i. p. 224. Theodorit. Hæret. Fab. lib. iv. c. 3. Cyrill. Alex. Thesaur. p. 260. Chrysost. Hom. xxvii. tom. i. p. 307. Philostorg. lib. i. p. 468, 470. ed. Vales. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xxxiv. p. 539.

of common capacities? Certainly, Divine Wisdom could not be so much wanting to the bulk of mankind, but would have provided better for them, in a scriptural way; and by plain words, that so they might be more beholden to Christ and his Apostles for their faith, than to the Dialectics of Aristotle, or Chrysippus's subtilties. But I forbear to press this further: and having briefly run through all that the author of Sober and Charitable Disquisition had to urge in favour of the Arian interpretation, both of John i. and Hebr. i. I must now leave it to the impartial readers to judge, whether any thing has been offered on that side, which can be thought sufficient to counterbalance our plain and direct evidences brought from express words, fixed to a certain meaning by all the approved rules of grammar and criticism, and confirmed by the universal suffrage of the first and purest ages. Thus far I was obliged to enter into a small part of the other controversy, which affects the truth of the doctrine, rather than the importance; because, as I hinted in the entrance, the author I am concerned with, had mingled them in some sort together. But they who desire fuller satisfaction in that other question may please to consult those treatises which are professedly written upon it. What comes in here amounts only to slight touches, and so far only as related to the texts mentioned: which though justly reckoned definitive on our side, are yet but a very slender part of what the whole Scripture affords us in that cause.

c Vid. Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. i. p. 214, 221.

VOL. V.

A a

ADDENDA.

Additional Illustrations referring to the respective Pages above.

Page 14. IDEAS of intellect, &c. The distinction

between ideas of intellect and ideas of imagination is much insisted on by Des Cartes in his Metaphysics a, and is explained more clearly and to better advantage in a late judicious treatise written by Mr. Crousaz in French, and now rendered into Englishb.

P. 57. The same with denying his eternal existence. I should have omitted the word denying, or else have said, the same with denying the necessity of believing his eternal existence. All I meant to say was, that Episcopius (which is true also of Limborch) did not distinguish in that instance between the eternal generation of the Logos and the eternal existence; as some of the ancients did c.

P. 80. Such effects might last beyond the apostolic age. I might have expressed myself with greater assurance, and said, that they actually did last as far down as to the Cyprianic aged: nay, and if we may believe Paulinus, who reports it as an eye-witness, they con

■ Cartesii Meditat. vi. p. 36. Object. v. p. 45. Respons. v. p. 78. b Crousaz, New Treatise of the Art of Thinking, vol. i. p. 16, &c.

• See my Defence, vol. i. Q. viii. p. 116, 117. Second Defence, vol. iii. Q. viii. p. 296.

d See Dodwell. Dissertat. in Iren. ii. 54. p. 191-194.

• Quem cum interrogasset [Ambrosius] et deprehendisset autorem tanti flagitii, ait: Oportet illum tradi Satanæ in interitum carnis, ne talia in posterum audeat admittere: quem eodem momento, cum adhuc sermo esset

tinued down to the latter end of the fourth century. From whence may fairly be accounted for, the long continuance of the phrase of delivering over to Satan in excommunications f. Indeed, the use of the form remained afterwards, when such miraculous effects had entirely ceased: because the form had been customary from the beginning; and because it might still be understood in a sense not altogether foreign to its first intention, such as I have expressed above.

P. 90. He may be in some measure hurt in his reputation by it, and that is all. I would be understood here of the general case only, abstracting from particular cases and circumstances; as of ministers, suppose, whose maintenance also may be accidentally affected by it. An inconvenience common to ecclesiastical offices or civil, as often as men disable themselves from serving, either by refusing to give the legal securities, or by opposing the public measures.

P. 91. Or to pay them so much as common civilities. That is to say, when such civilities were likely to be interpreted as an approbation of the men and of their principles. But see this rule of the Apostle considered more at large, under its proper restrictions and limitations, by an able hand h.

P. 110. A wicked life the worst heresy, which is scarce sense, &c. At the best, it is a strong figure, or a turn of wit, and the thought not just upon the whole.

in ore sacerdotis, spiritus immundus arreptum discerpere cœpit. Quo viso, non minimo timore repleti sumus et admiratione. Paulin, in Vit. Ambros. p. 9.

f See Bishop Hare, Scripture Vindicated, p. 69, 70.

8 Denique bono aut æquo non contraria est excommunicationis pœna, qua nulla mansuetior. Non admovet flagra corporibus, non aptat vincula, non denuntiat mortem, non eripit bona, non abdicat dignitates; indignis abnuit sacramenta quibus in perniciem suam abuterentur. Itaque tota et ad Dei gloriam et ad peccantis salutem est comparata. Sam. Basnag. Annal. tom. ii. p. 481.

↳ Dr. Berriman's Sermon, in the Appendix to his Boyle's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 339.

But something of it may be traced up as high as to St. Bernard of the twelfth century, who argued that vicious persons were seducers by their bad example, and therefore were a kind of heretics in practice, corrupting more by their ill lives, than heretics, properly so called, could do by their bad doctrinesi: and he applies it particularly to vicious clergymen; not to extenuate the guilt of heresy, but to enhance the guilt of such bad example. The thought was not much amiss, if he had not carried it too far. He should not have suggested, that bad example is worse than heresy, properly so called. It is true, that bad example commonly will do more harm than sound preaching will do good; because such example runs in with corrupt nature, and the other is contrary: but if the doctrine be on the same side, it will do infinitely more mischief; and one loose casuist will debauch more than a hundred others shall do who are only loose in their lives. Bad example under the check and discountenance of sound doctrine taught by the same person, carries its antidote along with it.

But bad doctrine is a very dangerous snare: it is not merely breaking a law, but loosening the authority of all k.

i Multi sunt Catholici prædicando, qui hæretici sunt operando. Quod hæretici faciunt per prava dogmata, hoc faciunt plures hodie per mala exempla: seducunt scilicet populum et inducunt in errorem; et tanto graviores sunt hæreticis quanto prævalent opera verbis. Bernard. Serm. ad Pastores, p. 1732.

"Who will maintain that a prince would do better in changing the laws "according to his present passions, than to let them subsist, and breuk them "every hour? Nobody. For if he observes not the laws as he should, he "leaves them their authority however, with respect to his subjects and such "other princes as are willing to observe them; which is absolutely necessary "to society. If it be asked then, which carriage is most dangerous and "blameable, that of such as violate the laws of the Gospel which they believe "to be divine, or that of the incredulous who reject the Divinity of those "laws, because they have no mind to obey them; it is plain that the latter " is much worse than the former, supposing the laws of the Gospel to be be"neficial to society, which cannot be doubted." Le Clerc, Causes of: Incredulity, p. 88, 89.

The case which Le Clerc here puts is not precisely the same with the other, but the reason is the same for both.