as my Lord very justly had required of him) to those points and those citations only which were before in debate, instead of pouring in new impertinencies, and many foreign matters, to conceal and cover his defeat; the very meanest reader must have seen plainly on which side the advantage lies. But to return.

The low notion which this gentleman every where, through both his Letters, appears to have conceived of the primitive saints, may, I hope, be corrected by his more careful perusing them, when disposed to it. His chief argument against them (viz. that the adversaries have been able to raise cavils and to perplex their meaning) will carry him farther than he is well aware; even to the laying aside, not some texts only, and those of the greatest weight, as it hath already done; but those very texts on which he would at length have the whole stress of the controversy laid. If this gentleman be of opinion, as he declares in his preface, that the gates of hell should never prevail over that foundation, over the doctrine of Christ's Divinity; and if he thinks it of such moment that later ages have universally adhered to it, (a point which would be disputed with him as well as the other, were it of half the moment or concern as the other,) certainly he must think it of some importance to clear and vindicate the faith of the most pure and primitive churches in this article; lest otherwise what he calls the foundation (if it cannot be proved to have been constantly upheld) appear at length not to be the foundation, but rather so much wood, hay, or stubble built upon it. To conclude, as I would not detract from the merit of whatever this worthy gentleman has well urged in proof of our Lord's Divinity ; so neither were it adviseable in him to detract from those who, in defence of the same cause, and to very excellent purpose, have laboured in searching both Scripture and antiquity.

To the law and to the testimony let the appeal be in the first place; and next to the united suffrage of the primitive churches, as the best and safest comment upon the

other. On these two pillars will our faith for ever stand, firm and unmoveable, against all attempts; whether of vain philosophy, to batter the doctrine, or of vainer criticisms to corrupt or stifle the evidence: and " the gates of "hell shall not prevail against it."

I should here advertise the reader, that in the following papers I have endeavoured always to express myself fully and particularly in the most material points: but as to incidental matters of slighter moment, I have sometimes, purely for the sake of brevity, passed them off in general hints only; such as will not be perfectly understood without looking into the Reply which I am answering, or sometimes into my former Defence.

I suppose the inquisitive, and such as have leisure, will not think it much trouble to compare all the three together as they read; especially where any thing occurs which may appear obscure by reason of its brevity. As to others, they will be content with a more confuse and general perception of such parts as are of least concernment, and require a little more pains and care in the examining than they have leisure or inclination to spend upon them.

THE ANSWER

то

THE PREFACE.

You begin with big words: you have, you say, “clear"ly shown, that Dr. W's notion is entirely contrary to reason, Scripture, and all primitive antiquity." Your design, no doubt, is to magnify your work, and to help it forwards in the opinion of the reader. But wise men will not expect much from a performance that needs a proclamation in the entrance: had your arguments been just, and your proofs clear, a reader might have been trusted to find them out.

You proceed to complain of my " manner of writing," as being "greatly fitted to deceive." You apprehend, it seems, that it may still have some influence, notwithstanding that you have so clearly and so entirely confuted it: which, if it does not betray a great degree of mistrust, is a very ill compliment to the understanding of your readers.

After this general charge, you go on to particular complaints, drawn up in form.

The first is, my entitling my book "A Vindication of "Christ's Divinity:" being so rude as to insinuate, that the men I have to deal with, are impugners of Christ's divinity. I confess the charge; and am so far from thinking it a fault, that I have a second time very deliberately done the same thing in this very treatise. Till you give us a better account of our Lord's divinity than you have hitherto

done, I must persist in it: because it is very proper that the world be made justly sensible of your prevarication, and indeed shameful banter, in a momentous article of the Christian faith. I use the word divinity in the plain and usual sense of it, as the Christian Church hath long done. I know of no divinity, but such as I have here defended. The other, falsely so called, is really none. While you maintain the principles you do, I must look upon you as impugners of Christ's divinity; well knowing, that the Christian Church in all ages would have thought the same of you, and that your doctrine was condemned as blasphemy long before Arius appeared; and that, upon his first appearance, he and his adherents were charged, as you now are, and very justly, with denying the divinity of their God and Savioura.

You have invented a very soft name for it: it is not denying the divinity of Christ; but it is differing about the "particular manner of explication of that doctrine," p. 4. Which pretence, like many others, has a great deal more of art than of solidity in it. Explaining a doctrine is one thing, explaining it away is quite another. There is some difference, for instance, between explaining the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and explaining the texts relating to it in such a manner, as to make void the very doctrine itself. When Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, and Marcion, so interpreted Scripture, as wholly to destroy the supreme divinity of the Creator, or God of Israel; was this, think you, no more than differing concerning the particular manner of explication of his divinity?" They acknowledged, indeed, his divinity still; that is, in words, and in Scripture words too; but in a sense peculiar to themselves. The plain truth is, you and we differ about the sense of Scripture, in the question of Christ's divinity. We find Christ's divinity in our Bibles: you find not the

66

2 Thy diórnτa Tõu σwτñgos nμãv ågvoúμrvos. Alexand. Epist. apud Theod. E. H. lib. i. cap. 4. p. 10.

Αρνούμενοι τὴν θεότητα τα μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ πανταχόθεν ἄθεοι γεγόνασιν, ὥστε páte Deòv avròv ¿zıyiwoxen, und', &c. Athan, ad Adelph. p. 912.