the book referred to; that some are directly contrary 1685. to the author's true meaning, and to his design in writing, and most of the rest inconsistent at least with the same, as the doctor very well knew. And indeed he minceth not the matter, but frankly and ingenuously acknowledgeth, that he doth not cite places out of these authors, [meaning them who have written since the council of Nice,] so much to shew what was the opinion of the writers themselves, as to shew how naturally truth sometimes prevails by its own native clearness and evidence, even against the strongest and most settled prejudices. Nothing therefore would be more vain, than to expect to learn from him the opinion of any Christian writer whatsoever, later than the council of Nice, because quoted by him: and as for the writers before, and at the time of that council, he thinketh, that the greatest part of them were really of that `opinion, which he hath endeavoured to set forth in his propositions, which make the second part of his pretended Scripture doctrine. But though this be his thought, he cannot but own nevertheless, that they do not always speak very clearly and consistently. By which I suppose he meaneth, that they do not always plainly support his scheme. This charge however I do not find laid by him against our author, who hath spoken his mind clearly enough in the great points before us, and who will appear never to have contradicted his own assertions or theses concerning these mysterious truths. ticularly, One would indeed be almost tempted to believe, More parthat he had, from many passages that this learned the Defendoctor hath picked up out of him with much art, in Nicæna. order to support his own scheme, been altogether of sio Fidei 1685. his mind; or that at least his manner of writing must have been very perplexed, without any connexion or consistency with principles, and as holding forth frequently a double meaning. But that this is no part of his character, the very passages appealed to by the very doctor himself, to exemplify how naturally truth can prevail, as he will have it, by its own native evidence, are more than sufficient to prove; for which reason I have drawn up ay list y Clarke's Script. Doctrine. P. I. c. 2. §. 5. T. 830. p. 161. P. II. §. 9. p. 257. Bull's Def. Fidei Nica. of them, that equal and impartial examiners may be 1685. fully informed in the matter, as it shall be thought worth their while; and so be enabled to pass a right judgment, according as the evidence shall clearly cast the balance for the one or for the other of these writers. The very first passage of all is a remark of our author's upon the words of Origen, commenting on our Lord's answer to the person who called him good, which the learned Huetius, in his Origeniana, had charged with heresy. These Mr. Bull hath fully vindicated against that heavy charge, and shewn how Huetius mistook this Father, speaking of Christ as an exemplar in his human nature, and according to the economy of God, [Ad Christi oikovoμíav in assumpta natura humana susceptam,] as if he had spoken of him with respect to his divine nature: and not the least word is said that can justly be interpreted of the Son's inferiority to the Father in nature, but rather on the contrary. For he there sheweth, that Origen did hold and teach the Son to be very God, uncreated, immortal, immutable, impassible, infinite, omnipresent, and absolutely blessed and perfect, no less than the Father, by clear and undoubted testimonies, taken from his book Clarke's Script. Doctrine. P. II. §. 44. P. 358. Ibid. p. 359. Bull's Def. Fidei Nica. Sect. II. c. 9. §. 15. 1 Ibid. p. 360. Ibid. Ibid. p. 361. P. II. §. 45. p. 363. Ibid. p. 364. Ibid. Ibid. P. III. c. 2. p. 458. Sect. IV. c. 1. §. 7. Sect. IV. c. 4. §. 5. Sect. II. c. 3. §. 6. Sect. II. c. 9. §. 15. Ibid. Sect. II. c. 3. §. 6. Sect. II. c. 9. §. 15. 1685. against Celsus; and answereth all the objections or suspicions of Huetius, against the soundness of his faith in that article. The next passage cited by Dr. Clarke is no more for an inferiority of nature in the Son than the first is: the plain meaning of it being no other, than that, according to the constant doctrine of all catholic Fathers, Christ did actually subsist before his incarnation, in another and more excellent nature than that of man; and that appearing to the holy men under the Old Testament, he received from them divine honours, and was manifested to them by the most high name of God. Mr. Bull first proveth his preexistence, and his apparitions in a human form, as a kind of anticipation of his taking on him our flesh and this being proved, he then sheweth how he did eternally exist with the Father, in the same nature and substance. Now there is nothing in this whole method, nor in any particular argument under it, which doth tend in the least to favour such an inequality of nature in Father and Son, as is included in that scheme which it is brought to support. As for the third passage made use of, it is certainly no better applied than the former; the design of that whole chapter whence it is taken being to answer a principal objection, which had even shocked Mr. Bull himself for a good while, that would infer a difference in the divine nature of the Son from that of the Father, the one manifestable, the other not manifestable. The fourth passage seemeth indeed to be very much to his purpose, and every one that reads it as it is cited, and will not be at the pains to consult either what follows it, or what is there distinctly referred to, may be easily led to think, that our author was not a defender, but an underminer of the Nicene faith, by maintaining 1685. the Son, even as he is God, to be less than the Father which though it be most true in a certain sense which he hath explained, in conformity to primitive testimonies, and to the confession of the council of Nice itself, as he is God of God; yet is both most diametrically opposite to his plain meaning, and to what he defended for the catholic faith with so much strength, if thereby it be understood, that there is greater and less in the divine nature and essence. Which matter being fully and clearly handled in the second chapter of his fourth section, I shall say no more to it: but send my learned reader thither for satisfaction, as Mr. Bull himself hath done before me, in that very passage which the doctor hath here cited, but without taking notice of the reference. Whether it were the doctor's design, hereby to shew how easy and natural that notion must be allowed to be, which so learned a defender of the faith, in a treatise written for the cause of the council of Nice against the Arians, could not forbear expressing so clearly and distinctly even frequently, when at the same time he is about to affirm, and endeavouring something not very consistent with it, I shall not much inquire: it is enough to have shewn what manner of judgment we ought to make of his citations, for they are generally applied much after the same manner, and with the same views. And it were alike easy to shew, how his testimonies out of the ancient ecclesiastical writers are alleged in this very manner, teste seipso. But since he bringeth them only as illustrations of his propositions, not as proofs of them; it is certainly not worth the while to contend about what he himself |