ment I respect and reverence. Now, that the reader may the better judge of this extraordinary paragraph of the Observator, I must take care to inform him how the case stands between him and me in regard to the supremacy. In the preface to my Second Defence, and again in the book, I intimated over and over, in as plain words as I could speak, that provided the Son's necessary existence be secured, that he be acknowledged not to exist precariously, or contingently, but necessarily, that his coeternity and consubstantiality be maintained, his creative powers, his infinite perfections, his being no creature, but one God with the Father, and the like; that then the supremacy shall be no matter of dispute with me. Any supremacy of the Father that is consistent with these certain, plain, Catholic tenets, always and universally believed by the churches of Christ; I say, any supremacy consistent herewith, I hold, assert, and maintain: any that is not consistent, I reject, remove, and detest, with all the Christian churches early and late.

The case then, betwixt this gentleman and me, lies thus:

It is agreed, I presume, on both sides, that God the Son is either strictly equal with God the Father, as to all essential perfections, or that he is infinitely inferior to him, as one that does not exist necessarily, must of course be infinitely inferior to another that does.

The equality of nature, it seems, is not consistent with this writer's supremacy; and he readily acknowledges that it is not: but he will maintain however the supremacy at all adventures; which is directly making God the Son naturally subject to the Father, who is therefore his sovereign Lord and Ruler, to reward him if he does well, to punish him if he does amiss, to do with him according to his will and pleasure, as with any other creature. The consequence is, making God the Son a creature; the Jehovah, the true God, and God blessed for ever, &c. a creature, a being that might never have existed, and might cease to exist, if God so pleased. These are the

plain certain consequences of this gentleman's scheme, and such the tendency of his doctrine about the supremacy. He urges the supremacy to destroy the equality : I stand by the equality, and insist upon it, that it is consistent with all the supremacy that either Scripture or Catholic Fathers taught. And I have this plain reason to offer, with respect to the Fathers, that while they maintained the supremacy, they maintained also the necessary existence, the coeternity, the consubstantiality of God the Son, and his unity of Godhead with the Father; which points once secured, I am very ready to admit any consistent supremacy. The consequences which Dr. Clarke and his adherents draw from the supremacy, I answer, as the Church of Christ has always done from the time such consequences were pleaded, by admitting a supremacy of order, which is natural, and a supremacy of office, which is economical. The consequences, on the other hand, which we draw against them, as destroying the equality, (so manifestly taught through the whole Scripture and by the primitive churches,) they have never answered, nor can they answer them: which they are so sensible of, that they do not care to have them mentioned, but perpetually disguise, conceal, dissemble them, and keep them out of sight.

I must therefore, in my turn, now tell the objector, that he is the blasphemer, upon the avowed principles of the Ante-Nicene churches; in making God the Father naturally sovereign Lord and Ruler over God the Son and God the Holy Ghost; in reducing both the divine Persons to the condition of creatures, or precarious beings; brought into existence at pleasure, and reducible to nonexistence again at pleasure. This is not the doctrine of Scripture or Fathers, but diametrically repugnant to both; is derived from ancient heresies, and is false, wicked, and detestable.

There may be some difficulties objected to the Church's way of reconciling (the Church's way I call it, for such it is, not mine) the equality and supremacy together: but

no greater difficulties than what occur in almost every other controversy. They that have seen into the heart of the controversy between Jews and Christians, or between Atheists and Theists, or between Papists and Protestants in some points, or between Calvinists and Arminians, must acknowledge the same thing in every one of them which is owing to this, that human capacity is finite, and our ignorance of wider compass than our knowledge; and that therefore it is much easier to raise doubts and difficulties, than it is to solve them. But difficulties are one thing, and demonstrations another: and it very ill becomes this gentleman, when he has such large scores of his own, and while he bends under the weight of many insuperable objections, to grow so exceeding flippant, and above measure assuming, upon the strength only of two or three stale cavils, borrowed from ancient heresies.

I should take notice of his wording the charge, about the natural and necessary supremacy of dominion. He gives it out that I have totally disowned and denied that the Father has any, asserting that he has none at all. I think there is a great deal of difference between saying, that the Father has a natural and necessary dominion over the creatures in common with the Son and Holy Ghost, and saying, that he has no natural supremacy of dominion at all. And this writer could not be ignorant with what iniquity he thus worded the thing, to leave room for a false construction, and to shock and astonish every careless and ignorant reader. However, thus much may be said, that, in strictness, no supremacy of domi nion can be natural and necessary, in such a full sense as God's attributes are natural and necessary, eternally and constantly residing in him. All supremacy of dominion supposes an inferior, and commences with the existence of that inferior; and is therefore so far, and so much vo luntary, as the creating of an inferior is. But upon the inferior's coming into being, then indeed commences the supremacy; which is an extrinsic relation, no essential attribute: only, thus far it may be called natural and ne

cessary, as being necessary ex hypothesi, or, upon that supposition, as being a relation founded upon the natural and necessary perfections of the Godhead, which set it above the creatures, and make an infinite disparity of nature between that and them. So that, after all, this superabundant eagerness and vehemence for a natural supremacy over God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, is only contending, in other words, for a disparity or inferiority of nature in those two Persons: and this is the sole meaning of appointing them a governor. The blasphemy I am charged with, is only the denying that they have naturally any ruler and governor. I venture once and again to repeat, that they have not, nor ever could have and this I maintain upon the clear and undoubted principles of all the ancient and modern churches.

This gentleman may call it, if he pleases, (words are free,) my wonderful fiction, p. 7. my new and unheard of fiction, p. 23. entirely of my inventing, p. 28. my own invention, p. 46, 52, 100. If he really thinks so, I should advise him to read the ancients; or if that be too much, to read only Bishop Pearson, or Bishop Bull, to inform himself better: or if he does not believe it, and yet says it, I should entreat him to correct that evil habit of romancing, that outrageous method of reviling, and to learn the due government of his mind. I have invented nothing, have coined no new notion, but have plainly and sincerely followed what the ancients, with one voice, have led me into, and the two excellent moderns, just mentioned, have taught and maintained upon the same bottom. Bishop Bull may be consulted at large: I shall quote one passage of Bishop Pearson, because short: "The Word, that is, Christ as God, hath the supreme " and universal dominion of the world a." Which is to all intents and purposes denying the Father's supremacy as much as I have ever done. But what a pass are things come to, that the known standing doctrine of all Christian

Pearson on the Creed, p. 151,

churches, ancient and modern, must be treated as a novelty, as a fiction or invention of mine! If the reader desires a specimen of the ancient doctrine in this point, he may turn to the quotations in my First Defence, (vol. i. p. 205, 206.) which express the Catholic doctrine, and to which all the Fathers are conformable. So much in answer to the charge of blasphemy.

Whether this gentleman can ward off that very charge, or prevent its returning on his own head, may deserve his consideration. The good Christians of old would have stopped their ears against such blasphemy as his tenets amount to. All reclaim against it: some directly and expressly, as often as they pronounce any two, or the whole three, to be one God, or one substance, of one dominion, of one power or glory: and the rest consequentially, by maintaining the necessary existence, consubstantiality, coeternity, or other divine attributes of the Son or Spirit.

I have now done with the first charge; which I have dwelt the longer upon, because it runs in a manner through the book; and the answering it here in the entrance will give light to what follows.

II. A second false charge upon me is in these words: "Neglecting therefore the reason upon which the Scrip"ture expressly founds the honour we are to pay to "Christ, the Doctor builds it entirely upon another foun"dation, on which the Scripture never builds it, viz. on "this, that by him God created all things," p. 7.

I shall say nothing here of the absurdity of founding the worship of Christ in the manner this author does, by tacking Socinianism"and Arianism together, though entirely repugnant to each other, as I have observed elsewhere but as to the charge brought against me, of founding Christ's worship as is here said; I must beg leave to confute it by producing my own words. "I "found the Son's title to worship upon the dignity of his Person; his creative powers declared in John i. and else

↳ Defence, vol. i. p. 195. Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 370.