"where; his being Oeds from the beginning; and his "preserving and upholding all things, (according to Coloss. "i. 16, 17. and Heb. i.c)"

66

"I say, his honour is founded on the intrinsic excel"lency and antecedent dignity of his Person; whereof the power of judgment committed is only a farther attesta❝tion, and a provisional security for the payment of his "due honour. It did not make him worthy, but found "him so: and it was added, that such his high worth and dignity might appear, &cd."

Is this founding it entirely upon what the author here pretends? As to his pleading, that his way of founding it iş scriptural, and mine not scriptural: both the parts of his pretext are abundantly confuted in my First and Second Defence, and in a preface to my Sermons.

MII. Another false charge is in these words, p. 11. "Here the Doctor directly corrupts the Apostle's asser"tion; not allowing him to say (what he expressly does 66 say) that to us there is one God, the Father, but only on "the reverse, to give the Father the style or title of the "one God." He grounds the charge upon what he finds in my Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 183, 393. In the first I have these words: "Yes, he (the Apostle) tells us, "that the Father, of whom are all things, is the one "God, (N. B.) in opposition to false ones, to nominal "gods and lords: and it is plain, that he meant it not in "opposition to God the Son, because he reckons him "God to us." Rom. ix. 5.

Now where, I pray, is the corruption of what the Apostle asserts? Or how do I refuse to allow him to say what he does say? This gentleman, it seems, will show it by this wise remark; It is one thing to say, that the one "God is the Father, of whom are all things; and another "thing to say, that the Father (though not the Father

Defence, vol. i. p. 195.

Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 381, 382.

* First and Second Defence, vol. i. and iii. Query xvi. xvii. xviii, xix, Preface to Eight Sermons, vol. ii.

only) is the one God. Now it is evident the Apostle "in this text is not reciting the characters of the Father, "and telling us that he may be styled the one God; "but he is declaring to us who the one God is, viz. the "Father." The difference then between us is only this that I suppose the Apostle to tell us who is the one God, he supposes him to tell us who the one God is. A notable criticism, to found such a charge, of directly corrupting and disallowing Scripture, upon! Especially considering that the Greek words (εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ) may bear either construction, (if they be really two constructions,) and either may equally suit with the context. For though the text is not reciting the Father's characters, not all his characters, yet the design was to point out who is the one God; and he fixes that character upon the Person of the Father, as being primarily and eminently, though not exclusively, the one God.

I have been considering (longer perhaps than it deserves) where the difference lies between asking who is the one God, and asking, who the one God is: and to me it appears so very small and imperceptible, that I can lay no hold of it. I have tried what I could do in another instance: let it be inquired, Who is the apostle of the Gentiles? The answer is, Paul of Tarsus, &c. Well, but inquire, Who the apostle of the Gentiles is? The answer is still the same, Paul of Tarsus, &c. Put the questions into Latin, we are still never the nearer, they are plainly tantamount: at least the difference to me is undiscernible; unless by who, in the latter case, be meant what: upon which supposition, the text we are concerned with should not be translated, To us there is but one God, the Father;" but thus; To us the one God is a Father, &c. Perhaps this ingenious gentleman may be able to clear up the matter to satisfaction: but since he has not yet done it, it is plain he was too hasty in charging me at all, but very injurious in running it up to such an extravagant height.

IV. "The doctrine of the Trinity delivered in these

"words (Eph. iv. 3, 5, 6.) by the Apostle, is so expressly "contradictory to Dr. Waterland's scheme, and so im"possible to be perverted even into any appearance of consistency with it, that the Doctor finds himself here obliged even fairly to tell us, that St. Paul ought not to "have writ thus as he did, &c." p. 17.

This is a charge so malicious and petulant, and withal so groundless, that I cannot well imagine what could transport the man into such excesses. For supposing I had misinterpreted St. Paul, and very widely too, would it amount to a declaration that the Apostle ought not to have writ what he did write? How hard would it be with commentators, if upon every misconstruction of a text, really such, they were to be thus charged with taking upon them to be wiser than the sacred penmen, and to correct the Spirit of God!

In

After all, if the reader pleases to look into my Defences, he will be surprised to find how innocent the words are, which have been wrought up into this high charge. my Defence, I say, "Ephes. iv. 6. has been generally "understood by the ancients of the whole Trinity: above "all, as Father; through all, by the Word, and in all, "by the Holy Ghost." I refer to Irenæus, Hippolytus, Marius Victorinus, Athanasius, and Jerome, for that construction: I conclude, "However that be," (that is, whatever becomes of that interpretation, be it just or otherwise,) yet "the Father may be reasonably called the one, "or only God, without the least diminution of the Son's "real divinity."

In my Second Defence, all I pretend is, that "I see no absurdity h" in the interpretation now mentioned: and I observe, that "we are not there inquiring into the sense "of the text, but into the sentiments of the ancients upon "it" and I exhibit their testimonies at large. And to take off the pretended absurdity of that ancient interpreta

tion, in making the one God and Father of all include all the three Persons, I observe how Irenæus (one of the Fathers quoted) reckons the Son and Holy Ghost to the Father, as being his very self in a qualified sense. And I farther add, that " nothing is more common than for a "head of a family, suppose Abraham, to be understood "in a stricter or larger sense, either as denoting his own "proper person, or as denoting him and all his descend"ants considered as contained in him, and reckoned to "him." I show farther from the plain and express testimonies of Hippolytus and Tertullian, that they also, as well as Irenæus, sometimes considered the Father in that large sense before mentioned i.

These are the facts; which this gentleman should have confuted, instead of bringing against me railing accusations. If there be any force (as there is none) in the charge, it falls upon the Fathers; whose interpretation I defended no farther than by showing it not to be absurd, nor unsuitable to the language of the early times. As to myself, I did not so much as condemn the common interpretation, but was content to admit of it: and yet if I had condemned it, I should not, I conceive, have been therefore chargeable with condemning St. Paul.

This writer has a farther complaint, it seems, in relation to the present text. He is positive that the title of Father of all is very disagreeable to me: and he insinuates, that pure decency here restrained me from finding fault with St. Paul, for choosing such a Pagan expression. A mean suggestion, and entirely groundless. For neither did I give any the least hint of dislike to St. Paul's expression, nor did I find fault with the Fathers for adapting sometimes their style to Pagans, but commended them rather for doing it, in the cases by me mentioned', as doing what was proper. And certainly it was commend

iSee my Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 62, 96.

k Observations, p. 18.

1 See Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 131.

able in St. Paul, and I acknowledged it to be so m, to adopt the Pagan phrase of unknown God, and to apply it in a Christian sense, to lead the Pagans into a belief of the true God.

Before I leave this article, I would take notice of this gentleman's affectation, (to call it no worse,) of loading every thing beyond measure, in a way uncommon; and pointing and edging his expressions to such a degree as to make them ridiculous. It is not enough, with him, to say, as another man would in such a case, that a text has been misconstrued, and its sense perverted, or misapplied; no, that would sound flat and vulgar: but it is to be called corrupting the Apostle's assertion, not allowing him to write what he did write; or, it is finding fault with him, or fairly telling us that he ought not to have writ thus as he did; or, it is an attempt to expose and render ridiculous the Apostle's doctrine, and arguing, not against Dr. Clarke, but against plain Scripture, and against the Evangelists and Apostles themselves". This it is to be elegant and quaint, and to push the satire home. I can pardon the pedantry, and the false sublime, in a man of such a taste but I desire he may use it somewhere else; and not where he is laying an indictment, or making a report, which requires truth and strictness.

V. "The supreme authority and original independent "absolute dominion of the God and Father of all, who is "above all; that authority which is the foundation of the "whole law of nature, which is taught and confirmed in "every page of the New Testament; which is professed "and declared in the first article of every ancient creed, "in every Christian church of the world, and which is "maintained as the first principle of religion by every "Christian writer, not only in the three first centuries, "but even in the following ages of contention and am"bition: this supreme authority, &c. Dr. Waterland in

Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 186. "See Reply, p. 195, 197.