judge for themselves at all, except it be as to the choice of some leader or leaders, whom they may suppose it safest to confide in. And it is among such as these, commonly, that new teachers seek proselytes; obtruding themselves as guides, and at the same time assuring them that they need no guides: which, in effect, is leading them about what way soever they please, artfully telling them that they go by themselves, when, in truth, they only change their leaders. To say all at once, the true and the whole meaning of the incredible pains which some persons have taken to set the Fathers aside, has been generally neither more nor less than this; to remove as much of the evidence which stands against them, as they can with any decency attempt to remove. They cannot, they dare not pretend to throw off Scripture itself, unless they were resolved to throw up Christianity with it, and to declare openly for infidelity: but there may be colours invented for throwing off the Fathers; and therefore thus far they can proceed, in opposing the ancient faith, and at the same time save appearances. There lies the whole of this matter, as I conceive, generally speaking: otherwise, it is manifestly against all sense and reason to make the least question either, of the use or the value of ecclesiastical antiquity.

:

The sum of what I have been endeavouring through this whole chapter is, that Scripture and antiquity (under the conduct of right reason) are what we ought to abide by, for the settling points of doctrine. I have not put the case of Scripture and antiquity interfering or clashing with each other because it is a case which never will appear in points of importance, such as that is which we are now upon. However, as to the general case, we may say, that those two ought always to go together, and to coincide with each other, and when they do so, they stand the firmer in their united strength: but if ever they clash, or appear to clash, then undoubtedly there is an error somewhere, like as when two accountants vary in casting up the same sum. In such a case, a wise man will not rest

satisfied, (if the thing be of moment,) till he finds out, if possible, the reason of the difference, and discovers where the error lies. For either it must lie on the Scripture side, (when a man takes that for Scripture which is not Scripture, or that for true interpretation which is not true interpretation,) or it must lie on the tradition side, through some misreport made of the ancients, or some mistake of the ancients themselves. Then the question will be, which of the two suppositions is most likely to be true in that instance and the resolution at length must turn upon a due weighing and considering all circumstances, with the reasons offered here and there, and then balancing the whole account.

CHAP. VIII.

Showing that what has been lately offered in favour of the Arian Interpretation of John i. 1, 2. and of Hebr. i. is of no Force or Validity.

THE author of Sober and Charitable Disquisition had been pleased to say, that "an honest mind, inquisitive "after truth, and willing to weigh the matter impartially, "and to examine the evidence on both sides thoroughly, "might be long in suspense before he could determine to "his full satisfaction: and that several men of equal

sense, learning, capacity, probity, and piety, may after "such examination make different determinations upon "the matter "." He refers to his appendix for proof, which appendix contains two opposite views of John i. 1. and of Hebr. i. I would here previously remark something of his manner of wording the thing, and then proceed. Might it not as well have been said, that there is as much reason on one side of the question, as there is on the other? Why should an invidious turn be given to what we are doing, that if we maintain our point, and insist upon it as true and just, it shall be interpreted to be

Sober and Charitable &c. p. 42, 43.

as much as saying, that our adversaries have not equal sense, learning, &c. with ourselves? We design not, we desire not to make any such comparisons: we leave persons out of the question, and desire only to come to the truth of things. It is natural for many to admire the founders of their sect, or the leading advocates of their partyf: and it might look like rudeness, to say a word reflecting on their sense, learning, capacity, or probity. Neither indeed is there any occasion for detracting from their general character, since it is certain that men of as great sense, learning, and piety, to all outward appearance, as any in their times, have sometimes fallen into heresy, (as they might into any other great sin,) and have perverted the Gospel of Christ: "Let him that thinketh "he standeth, take heed lest he fall." It is a wrong way to judge of faith by the men 5, rather than of the men by their faith and conduct. There is no sense however in going against truth, no learning in contradicting the wisdom of Heaven, no piety nor probity in departing from God. Persons must be tried by the rule, and not the rule by their character, be it otherwise ever so high or commendable h. Men may behave unworthy of themselves; and God permits even wise men and good men (as Solomon and David) sometimes to fall, when they grow secure or assuming, for a punishment to them, and

f Magnus profecto nescio quis significatur magister, et tantæ scientiæ qui sectatoribus propriis non solum quæ humana sunt nosse, verum etiam quæ supra hominem sunt prænoscere posse videatur; quales fere discipuli sui jactitant fuisse Valentinum, Donatum, Photinum, Apollinarem, cæterosque ejusmodi. Vincent. Lirinens. c. xv.

Solent quidem isti infirmiores etiam de quibusdam personis ab hæresi captis ædificari in ruinam: quare ille vel ille fidelissimi et usitatissimi in Ecclesia, in illam partem transierunt? Quis, hoc dicens, non ipse sibi respondet, neque prudentes, neque fideles, neque usitatos æstimandos, quos hæreses potuerint demutare. Tertull. Præscript. c. iii.

h Quid ergo si episcopus, si diaconus, si vidua, si virgo, si doctor, si etiam martyr lapsus a regula fuerit, ideo hæreses veritatem videbuntur obtinere? Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Nemo sapiens est nisi fidelis, nemo major nisi Christianus; nemo autem Christianus, nisi qui ad finem perseveraverit. Tertul. Præscript. c. iii.

for a trial to others i, and for a warning to all, that they may learn to be humble and watchful, and not to trust so much to their own worth or parts, as to their care and circumspection, and God's blessing upon it.

Thus much being premised for the taking off all undue admiration of any man's person, and for the preventing any invidious comparisons, (foreign and useless to the point in hand,) as well as for the putting the cause upon a right issue; I now proceed to examine the merits of the debate between the Arians and the Athanasians, so far as concerns John i. 1. and Hebr. i. 10.

I. The author of Sober and Charitable Disquisition undertook to represent the Athanasian and Arian constructions of John i. 1. fairly and impartially, as indeed common equity and justice required. He begins with the Athanasian: but how soon does he discover marks of partiality and unequal dealing. He smooths over the Arian construction with all affectionate tenderness, covering even its real and greatest faults, as we shall see presently but does he show any favour at all to the other? When he is interpreting for us, THE WORD WAS GOD, he presently throws in, the self-same Being with the Fatherk. He must have known how ambiguous and equivocal1 that expression of self-same Being is, and that in one sense of it, it is not our doctrine, but the Sabellian heresy. Might it not therefore have sufficed to have said, the same God with the Father, or one God with the Father? That is a doctrine which we inviolably maintain

i Luce clarius aperta causa est, cur interdum divina Providentia quosdam Ecclesiarum magistros nova quædam dogmata prædicare patiatur: ut tentet vos, inquit, Dominus Deus vester. Deut. xiii. 3. Et profecto magna tentatio est, cum illum quem tu Prophetam, quem Prophetarum discipulum, quem Doctorem, et adsertorem veritatis putes, quem summa veneratione et amore complexus sis, is subito latentes noxios subinducat errores; quos nec cito deprehendere valeas, dum antiqui magisterii duceris præjudicio, nec facile damnare fas ducis, dum magistri veteris impediris affectu. Vincent. Lirin. c. xv.

* Sober and Charitable Disquisition, p. 51.

1 See my First Defence, vol. i. p. 119, 232.

and adhere to, because Scripture forbids us to admit two adorable Gods. As to the question about calling them the self-same Being, it is a question about a name, or a phrase, and a scholastic question, invented several ages after our doctrine had stood secure, and independent of it. And when the Schoolmen undertook to consider this verbal affair, (for it is no more,) they either rejected or admitted the expression with proper distinctions; not scrupling to say tres res, or tria entia relativa, always meaning that the union was too close to admit of the name of Beings in the plural m, without a softening epithet and therefore Being of being, or Substance of substance, (not beings or substances,) has been the Catholic language. Let but those who object sameness of being, define the terms, and tell us what constitutes sameness, and then it will be very easy to tell them how far we suppose the three Persons to be the same Being. All the difficulties about sameness, or individual, or numerical, &c. resolve only into this, that we know not precisely, in all cases, what to call same, individual, numerical, and the like. The general notion of the Trinity is clear, but the meaning of those terms is loose, confuse, and undeterminate so that the perplexity (if there be any) lies not in the thing, but in some dark names, which many use without any certain meaning. Say but what those words or names precisely signify, and it will be very easy to determine how far they are applicable to the true notion of the Trinity. But to proceed:

I have observed how unfairly the gentleman has dealt with our doctrine: let us next take notice, how tenderly he deals with the Arian construction of the same words. The Word was God, viz. a divine Person, a most Godlike Being". He should have said, another God, a creature of the great God, which is their plain and certain meaning; though they are very reserved and bashful

m See my Second Defence, vol. iii. Query xxiii. p. 415–423.

n Sober and Charitable Disquisition, p. 54.

See my First and Second Defence, vol. i. and iii. Query v.