Here it will be proper to obviate a difficulty which may naturally, upon the first thoughts, arise in one's mind. Why should the Catholics so often urge the texts relating to Christ's human nature only, against the Sabellians? For it may seem that, if they thereby proved two Hypostases, they proved only a divine and a human Hypostasis; and there might still be but one Hypostasis in the Godhead, as the Sabellians pretended. But it is to be considered, that both Catholics and Sabellians were agreed in one point, that God was incarnate, the divine nature personally united to the man Christ Jesus: and the main question between them was, whether the Father himself made one Person with Christ's human nature, or no. If the Catholics could prove the negative, (as they could easily do,) then the Sabellians must, of course, and upon their own principles, acknowledge another divine Hypostasis, besides the Father. The Catholics therefore urged all the texts, wherever Christ speaks of himself as a distinct Person from the Father; though many of these texts are meant of him in his human capacity only. Had our Saviour Christ spoke of the Aóyos, or Word, in the same manner as he does of the Father: had he prayed to the Aoyos, or Word, complained of being forsaken by him; or had he said, I know not the day of judgment, but he, the Aóyos, or Word, does; it could never have been presumed, that the I and HE, the Aóyos and Christ, made one Person. It appearing therefore, from that manner of expression, that the Father was not personally united with the human nature of Christ; this was sufficient against the Sabellians, who allowed that the man Christ Jesus was personally united with God: and if it could not be with the Father, it must of consequence be with another divine Hypostasis, a distinct and real Son of the Father. Thus you see the force and significancy of those texts (and of all texts which intimated a plain personal distinction between the Father and Christ) against the Sabellians. They showed that the Person speaking was not the Father. And yet the Person who spake, having (as both sides allowed) a divine and human nature, might speak of himself in different respects; in this or in that capacity. Thus, in regard to the Son's ignorance of the day of judgment, it is manifest that the Father and Son are there spoken of, as of two Persons; and one as knowing, the other as not knowing, though only in a certain respect: one ignorant in such a capacity, the other not ignorant in any capacity at all, as having never taken human nature, and therewith human ignorance, into a personal union with himself. Thus far to clear this point, and to acquit myself of a promise made you some time ago. i I shall proceed a little farther in remarking on your friend's performance. It is frequent with him to bring up old objections, neglecting and concealing the Bishop's I shall give a few instances only, that I may answers. not be tedious. Pag. 17. he pretends that the Bishop has not shown, that the Fathers of the second century resolved the unity into the same principle with the Nicene Fathers. Yet the Bishop has shown it, and Dr. Whitby allows as much in the very next page; and has nothing to retreat to but the miserable evasion about individual. Page 84. he refers to Basil as an evidence that Gregory Thaumaturgus believed the Son to be a creature. This he again repeats in the next page; and again in his Preface, p. 10. Yet the fact is evidently false; Basil himself a full witness on the contrary side; and this Bishop Bull had given notice of, and made clear to a demonstration. When a writer strains so hard to put a false sense upon another, there is no uncharitableness in believing that he gives us at least his own true meaning. Page 87. he revives an old objection, which the learned Prelate had ingenuously m set forth in its full force; and given it as full an answer. Your friend is here pleased i Qu. vii, p. 79. See Athanasius farther, upon the thing whereof I have been speaking, vol. i. p. 261. k Bull. D. F. sect. iv. c. 4. Ibid. p. 155, 156, 157, to speak with great contempt of the Bishop's answer; for no other reason, that I can see, but because he was not able to confute it. Being however resolved to say something, he stoutly denies a plain matter of fact. Oixovouía, says he, is never used by the Fathers, in the Bishop's sense. Please to turn to the places noted in the "margin, and judge whether the Bishop or he be the more faithful and accurate in this matter. If any thing farther be wanting in defence of Bishop Bull, in this article, let him speak for himself, in another work, in answer to Gilbert Clerke; who, it seems, was much offended at the oixovouía, grieved, as he well might, to see his most pompous and plausible pretences entirely baffled by it. I should weary my reader, and myself too, if I went on remarking every place, where old objections are brought up, and either none or very slight notice taken of the answers if you have a mind to compare, you may note some pages referred to in Pthe margin. I shall proceed n Tertullian. adv. Prax. c. 2, 3. Clem. Alexandr. p. 831, 955. Tatian. c. 8. ed. Ox. Hippolytus contr. Noët. p. 12, 15. Valesius had observed the thing long ago, and without any view to controversy. Vetus omnis Christianorum theologia Deo quidem Patri monarchiam attribuit, Filio vero et Spiritu Sancto oixovouiav, id est, administrationem et dispensationem. Vales. Not. ad Euseb. p. 5, 6. See also p. 90, 253. • Bull's Posth. Works, p. 1045, 1046, 1047, &c. no farther in this tedious and disagreeable employment; except it be to observe to you one peculiar piece of management, which I leave you to reflect on. The learned Examiner labours, for a two pages together, to show that Clemens of Rome was far from speaking or thinking so highly of our blessed Lord, as St. Paul did. A little after, The 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 construction 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 so he was to insinuate something, which was not fit to be expressed. But a man of art would have conducted better; would not have discovered himself so soon, 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 conscience obliging a good man to speak out, there are always reasons of prudence which should make a wise man hold his tongue. You may perceive, by this time, that Bishop Bull's book is like to stand, till something much more considerable appears against it. Several attempts of this kind have been made before; but to as little purpose: and if there be ever so many more, by ever so good hands, I will venture to say, they will succeed no better. The book will stand as long as clear sense, sound reasoning, and true learning have any friends left. The main substance of it is not to be confuted; any more than you can Aliter plane D. Paulus loquitur:-Argumento potius est Clementem de Christo aliter plane quam Paulum sensisse-magnam suspicionem injicit, eadem Clementem cum Paulo minime docuisse. Whitb. Disq. p. 14, 15. Solus Clemens Christianæ Fidei simplicitatem præ oculis lectoris ponit. Whitb. Disq. p. 19. 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 blessed Lord, against the insults of Jews, Pagans, and Heretics, 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 deserves-I was going to say what, but it may sound severe: I proceed to another Query. QUERY XXVII. Whether the learned Doctor may not reasonably be supposed to say, the Fathers are on his side, with the same meaning and reserve as he pretends our Church forms to favour him; that is, provided he may interpret as he pleases, and make them speak his sense, however contradictory to their own: and whether the true reason, why he does not care to admit the testimonies of the Fathers as proofs, may not be, because they are against him? IN answer to this, you tell me, that it contains only an invidious suggestion, not any argument. The suggestion, I do assure you, is just, and argumentative too; and was kindly intended towards you; that you might not take things implicitly and upon trust from others, but might examine them first yourself, and then pass a judg ment of them. As to the invidious appearance of it; had I ever intended, or in the least thought of making the Queries public, you might, with a better grace, have told me of it. But as I had not the liberty of revising my papers, nor so much as any previous apprehension of your design, (presuming all along the very contrary, as I reasonably might,) these things considered, I hope the invidious part you will take to yourself; the argument (for an argument it is, in its kind) you may leave to me. It is of some moment to us, not only to have the primitive writers on our side, (as we plainly have,) but to have them thought so too. The learned Doctor has made some pre |