to me, that, of all the things laid to your charge, whether general fallacies or particular mistakes, you have been able to take off so much as one. What you have done, or shall do, in the offensive way, may perhaps be considered hereafter. I think it best to postpone my second part, because you are still going on to supply me with new matter for it: and you have promised the public great things, to appear in due time. I am now pretty well acquainted with you; and may therefore presume to exhibit to the reader, or to yourself, a brief account of your chief materials, with which you are to work in this controversy, and upon which your cause is to subsist.

1. In the first place, you have a strong presumption, that "two or more persons cannot constitute one indivi"dual or numerical being, substance, or essence." You produce testimonies of Fathers in great numbers, proving nothing but a real distinction; and by virtue of the presumption laid down, (which stands only upon courtesy,) you persuade yourself, that those testimonies are of some weight, and pertinently alleged, even against those who admit a real distinction, as much as the Fathers do.

2. In the second place, you have another strong presumption, that no kind of "subordination is or can be "consistent with such equality, or such union as we "maintain." Hereupon you produce a farther cloud of testimonies from the ancients, proving nothing but a subordination: which testimonies, by virtue of this your second presumption, (standing only upon courtesy, as the former,) are conceived to be of weight, and to be pertinently cited, even against those who readily admit of a subordination, in conformity with the ancient Fathers. From what I have observed here, and under the former article, you may perceive that, at least, nine parts in ten of your quotations are entirely wide of the point; and it may save you some trouble for the future, to be duly apprized of it.

3. Besides this, you have some expressions of Origen, chiefly from those pieces which are either not certainly

genuine, or not free from interpolation, or wrote in a problematical way, or not containing Origen's mature and riper thoughts; published perhaps without his consent, and such as he himself afterwards disapproved and repented of2. And those you urge against us, notwithstanding that we appeal chiefly to his book against Celsus, which is certainly Origen's, and which contains his most mature sentiments; and from whence it is demonstrable that Origen was no Arian, but plainly AntiAriana.

4. You lay a very great stress upon Eusebius, as if he were to speak for all the Ante-Nicene writers: though we might more justly produce Athanasius (with respect to his two first tracts) as an Ante-Nicene writer; and his authority is, at least, as good as the others. Eusebius must be of little weight with us, wherever he is found to vary either from himself, or from the Catholics which lived in or before his time. Nothing can be more unfair than to represent antiquity through the glass of Eusebius, who has been so much suspected; besides that we can more certainly determine what the sentiments of the earlier writers were, (from their own works still extant,) than we can what Eusebius's were; whose writings are more doubtful and ambiguous; insomuch that the learned world have been more divided about him and his opinions, than about any other writer whatsoever.

5. Lastly, you bring up again, frequently, some concessions of Petavius and Huetius; such as they incautiously fell into, before this matter had been thoroughly canvassed, as it hath been since by Bishop Bull, and other great men. From that time, most of the learned men in Europe, Romanists b as well as Protestants, appear to have

× Vid. Ruffin. de Adulter. Librorum Origen. p. 240. ed. Bened. Huet. Origenian. p. 233.

y Vid. Pamph. Apolog. p. 221. ed. Bened. Phot. Cod. 117. Athanas. vol. i. p. 233.

z Vid. Hieron. de Error. Orig. ad Pammach. Ep. xli. p. 347. ed. Bened.

a Vid. Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. sect. ii. cap. 9.

b See Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, p. 345, &c. 388.

the same sentiments of the Ante-Nicene faith, which Bishop Bull had. It is therefore now much out of time, and very disingenuous, to lay any great weight upon the judgment of Petavius or Huetius, however valuable and learned, since this matter has been much more accurately inquired into, than it had been at that time. Huetius has lived to see Bishop Bull's works, (as we may reasonably presume,) and cannot be ignorant how highly they have been valued abroad: yet we do not find that he has ever complained of any injury done him by the Bishop, or that he ever thought fit to vindicate himself, or his great oracle Petavius; to whose judgment (as he himself laments) he had once dearly paid too great a deference c.

It may suffice, for the present, to have left these few general hints; by means of which an intelligent reader, without farther assistance from me, may readily discover the fallacy of your reasonings, and answer the most plausible objections you have to urge against the received doctrine of the blessed Trinity. If any thing more particular be necessary hereafter, I shall (with God's assistance) endeavour to do justice to the cause which I have taken in hand; and, as opportunity serves, shall proceed in detecting sophistry, laying open disguises, exposing misreports, misquotations, misconstructions, or any other engines of deceit, as long as there appears to me any probable danger from thence arising to honest well-meaning men, less acquainted with this momentous controversy. In the interim, I am with all due respect,

SIR,

Your most humble Servant.

• Vid. Huetii Comment. de Rebus ad illum pertinent, p.

70.

THE CASE

OF

ARIAN SUBSCRIPTION

CONSIDERED:

AND THE

SEVERAL PLEAS AND EXCUSES FOR IT PARTICULARLY EXAMINED AND CONFUTED.