proper for it, but they seldom undertake to defend and clear their own or if they do, they soon see reason to repent it. When the Socinian is to prove that Christ is a man only, or an Arian that he is a creature, and that Scripture can bear no other possible interpretation, they come off so indifferently, and with such manifest marks of disadvantage, that they do but expose themselves to the pity or derision of their adversaries.

It was proper to observe this, in order to give the common reader a just idea of the state of the present controversy, and of the method and management of the controvertists, on either side. The way to judge rightly, either of it or them, is to compare things carefully together, and to observe how they perform their several parts; which are reducible to these three: 1. To prove and establish their own tenets; 2. To disprove those of the adversaries; 3. To object to, or weaken, the adversary's proofs.

For the purpose: what have the Catholics to produce from Scripture in proof of their principles? And what has either an Arian or Socinian to produce in proof of his? Take their evidences together, set them fairly one against another, and then judge of them. What have the Catholics to urge in order to disprove the Arian or Socinian scheme? And what again has either Arian or Socinian to plead in order to confute the Catholic doctrine? Let these respectively be balanced one against another, and let the impartial examiner judge which has the advantage upon the comparison. Lastly, let it be observed what the Catholics have to say, to weaken the proofs brought either for the Arian or Socinian hypothesis; and again, what the Arian and Socinian has to plead, to invalidate the proofs brought for the Catholic persuasion. Upon the whole, I may remark, that the most difficult task of all is to establish a doctrine: the next hardest is to disprove or confute any tenet; because that, in some cases, (where one of the two must be true,) is establishing the

contrary: the lowest and easiest part of all is to object against the adversary's proofs, or to puzzle a cause among weak readers.

These things being premised, I may now proceed to take notice of two late pamphlets, wrote by way of Answer to my Vindication of Christ's Divinity. The first of them, indeed, is very modestly and properly called, An Answer to Dr. Waterland's Queries, otherwise, Modest Plea &c. Continued, by an anonymous hand. I was surprised at it, because the Queries had received an answer long ago; and the world expected an answer to my Defence, not a new' answer to the Queries. I will not say that the author was in hopes the common reader might not distinguish between an Answer to the Queries and an Answer to the Defence, but might be indifferently content with either; nor that he thought he might the more easily triumph over the Queries, after he had exposed them again naked and stripped of their guards and fences: I am unwilling to believe an author of any name or character, (as this seems to be,) could have, any such low aims and little views as those mentioned. But I must observe, that the author, in his performance, is religiously observant of his title: for he brings up frequently the very same pretences which I had fully, largely, and distinctly answered in my Defence, without taking the least notice of what I had said: for his intent was not to answer my Defence, it seems, but my Queries. Whether this be a proper method to clear a dispute, and to do justice to common readers, I leave to any man to judge. But I am promised, in an advertisement at the end, a large and particular answer to my Defence, &c. which I shall wait for with great impatience, being desirous of nothing more than to see this controversy fairly and thoroughly discussed on both sides. In the mean while, I shall content myself with a few remarks upon this late Answer to my Queries, not thinking myself obliged to go so far out of my way, as to draw up any more particular reply to a nameless writer, and one who does not appear to have

any desire or design to have the point distinctly debated and cleared; but only to throw a mist before the readers, and to fence off all fair trial or examination.

1. I must observe, that the author does not offer any particular scheme, for fear, I suppose, of being called upon to defend it. Yet if he at all knows what he is doing, or what he is aiming at, it is the Arian scheme or none he has taken up with. There are but three possible suppositions of God the Son, considered as a real distinct Person. Either he is a man only, which to say is Socinianism; or he is more than man, but yet a precarious dependent being, depending as much on the will of the Father as any creature whatever, and consequently a creature; which to say is Arianism, and the whole of Arianism, however variously expressed or differently disguised: the third supposition is, that the Son is necessarily existing, uncreated, and properly Divine, which is the Catholic doctrine.

Now this writer is evidently no Socinian nor Sabellian; and from the whole tenor of his performance it is plain he is no Catholic, in the sense before given: it remains only that he is either an Arian, or else hangs between two, floating and fluctuating between Catholic and Arian which is the most favourable opinion that can be conceived of him.

2. As this writer pretends not to maintain any particular scheme opposite to the Catholic doctrine, so it may be observed, that he constantly avoids coming to the pinch of the question between Catholics and Arians. He never so much as attempts any the least proof of God the Son's being a creature; never undertakes to justify creature worship; never endeavours to clear the Arian scheme of the difficulties which I had charged it with in several places of my Defence, vol. i. and particularly in p. 342. where I summed up the principal of them under five heads. He is so far from this, that he commonly turns opponent, though he had undertaken the part of respondent; and by his deep silence, in respect of the most considerable difficulties, seems tacitly to allow that they are not capable of

any just and solid answer. I had asked only a plain question, that I might come to the point in hand, "whe"ther the same characteristics, especially such eminent "ones, can reasonably be understood of two distinct "beings, and of one infinite and independent; the other dependent and finite?" Qu. 6. This gentleman desires to be excused from saying one word of dependent or independent; and calls it an invidious insinuation, to mention a syllable of finite and infinite, p. 13. This was coming to the question, and therefore the point was not to be touched. He runs off, and talks, somewhat confusedly, about some prime, greatest, incommunicable perfection, (objecting only, when it was his business to respond,) not telling me whether he means it of necessarily existing, or only of unbegotten. If he means it of the former, making necessary existence and self-existence the same thing, then I shall tell him, that he has no manner of ground for supposing that that perfection is not common both to Father and Son: and if that be also Dr. Clarke's notion of self-existence, I shall then observe, that the Doctor's propositions (particularly his 5th, 12th, 14th, 19th, 23d) are not so innocent as this writer would represent them, but are unscriptural, false, and dangerous. If he means it of unbegotten, I shall leave him to prove, at leisure, what real perfection, beyond a relation of order, or mode of existence, is contained in it. In the mean while, what becomes of the Query, which demanded a clear and determinate answer, whether the Son be finite or infinite, whether his existence be precarious, or independent on the will of any? A direct answer to this would soon have let our readers into the main debate, to be tried by Scripture, reason, and antiquity. I give this instance only for a specimen of the author's manner of evading and shifting, whenever he comes to the pinch of the question: the reader will observe many more such, in the perusal of the whole pamphlet. It is very plain then, that this writer never means to give us an opportunity of confuting his principles, if they happen to be contrary to ours; because he cares not to own them,

however invited or provoked to it. The most that he aims at is the safest, lowest, meanest part of a disputant, who happens to have a cause which he dares not confide in; and that is, to object, cavil, and find fault with something which he likes not, without ever so much as offering any thing better in its stead, or submitting what he has to propose to the examination and judgment of the learned.

3. It is worth observing what this writer says to the two main points in debate between the Catholics and the Arians, viz. the consubstantiality and eternity of God the Son. He speaks indeed of Dr. Clarke; but I suppose he, at the same time, gives us to understand what his own sentiments are. "There is nothing in any of the Doctor's "assertions, but what holds equally true upon all (the "possible) hypotheses concerning either the metaphy"sical substance or eternity of the Son," p. 29. "All his "propositions are equally true and certain both from rea"son and Scripture, whatever the substance, and how un"limited soever the duration of the Son be," p. 67. See also p. 23, 24, 27, 28, 43, 51.

It is some satisfaction to us, that, as this gentleman pretends not to hold any scheme of his own, so neither does he attempt to confute ours. All that we insist on and contend for may be true and right, for any thing he has to say to the contrary; which is very obliging, especially considering that he speaks both for Dr. Clarke and himself. For though we have no reason to apprehend any thing from the Doctor's arguments, yet his very name and character may do our cause harm, among many, if it be thought that he has declared plainly against us. This writer charges me with "palpable and direct calumny," p. 28. for saying that Dr. Clarke every where denies the consubstantiality. Softer words might have done as well, in one that professes "not to render evil for evil, nor railing for 66 railing." I had certainly no intention to calumniate the Doctor; I gave my reasons for what I said, which have not been answered; I did not lay any thing to his charge more than what the Country Clergyman, and Mr. Emlyn,