I fhall wave confidering Mr. Watts's account of Philo's fentiments; for let them be what they will, they are of no weight, when they are not agreeable to Scripture; efpecially fince our author grants, that he abounds in unreasonable allegories, and that his application of his opinions to particular Scriptures is very ridiculous. From what I have formerly read of this author, I am inclin'd to believe, that Mr. Watts has often mistaken him; but as I have had neither opportunity nor inclination of late, to read him, and as Mr. Watts has y "neither health nor leisure enough to throw away much of them in perufing fuch antient Jewish folios," I think we may both leave fuch an intricate matter, to be fettled and determined by abler hands than ours.

I might attend Mr. Watts in his difcuffion of the fentiments of the primitive writers; but that would take up more room than the bounds of this treatife will allow; befides, I do not fee any great neceflity for it.

It is certain that fome of the primitive writers held the eternal generation of the Son, as * Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, b Origen,

a

[ * Page 30, 31.

2

y P. 30.

Qui ait Verbum ejus effe hunc Nun, minus adhuc de Patre omnium fentiet, decentiora autem magis quam hi qui generationem prolativi hominum verbi transferunt in Dei aeternum Verbum, & prolationis initium donantes & genefin, quemadmodum & fuo verbo. Et in quo diftabit Dei verbum, imo magis ipfe Deus, cum fit Verbum, a ve: bo hominum, fi eandem habuerit ordinationem, & emiffionem generationis, Iraeneus, Lib. ii. C. 13. P. 132. Ed. Ben.

3 Ο Θείος Λόγος ὁ φανερώτατος ἔντως Θεὸς, ὁ τῷ δεσπότη ὅλων ἐξισωθείς· ὅτι ἦν ὑιὸς ἀντς· καὶ ὁ Λόγ @ ἦν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. Clemens Al. Protreptic. c. 10. p. 86. Ed. Oxon.

- ο Λέγεται πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ το Θεό ᾧ ἀεὶ ἐσι σήμερον, ο γδ ἑσπέρα Θεῖ· ἐγὼ ἢ ἡγοῦμαι ὅτι ἐδὲ πρωΐα· ἀλλ' ὁ συμπαρακτείνων τῷ ἀς γεννήτῳ αὐτοῦ ζωή, όν, ὅπως ἔπος, χρόνΘ ἡμέρα ἐτὶν αυτῷ σήμερον, c Gregory

2

с

C

• Gregory of Neocacharea, Novatian, e Dennis of Rome, f Dennis of Alexandria, & Methodius, h Pamphilus, and i Alexander of Alexandria. Others fay not any thing of the Son's eternal generation, but make his generation temporary, meaning by it, his coming forth from the Father to create the world. These authors are Juftin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch,

ως

ἐν ᾗ γεγέννηται ὑιός· ἀρχῆς γενέσεως αυτοῦ οὐκ ευρισκομένης, ὡς ἐδὲ τὸ ἡμέρας, Origen. Com. in Johan. p. 31. Ed. Huet.

· Εἷς κύριΘ. ιὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ πατρὸς καὶ εἴδιος ἀϊδές. Gregor. Neocaefar. Symbol.

4 Hic ergo cum fit genitus a Patre, femper eft in Patre, femper autem fic dico ut non innatum fed natum probem; fed quia ante omne tempus eft, femper in Patre fuiffe dicendus eft. Nec enim illi tempus, affignari poteft, qui ante tempus eft: femper enim in Patre, ne Pater non femper fit Pater------Qui in Patre fuit proceffit ex Patre; & qui in Patre fuit, quia ex Patre fuit, cum Patre poftmodum fuit; quia ex Patre proceffit. Noratian. de Trinitate, C. 21. p. 120, 121, 122. Ed. Oxon.

• Ἐι γέγονεν υἱὸς, ἦν ὅτε ἐκ ἦν, ἀεὶ ἢ ἦν· ἐι ἢ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ ἐςιν, * εἰ Λογὸς, καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις ὁ Χριστὸς ἐσ γέγονεν ὁ υἱὸς ἦν ὅτε ἐκ ἦν ταῦτα ἀτοπώτατον 5 τέτο, Dionyf. Roman. apud Athanafium de Decret. Syn. Nicen. Vol.

I. p. 276. Ed. Paris.

* Ουκ ἦν ὅτε Θεὸς ἐκ ἦν Πατήρ

ην

ὁ Θεὸς, εἶτα ἐπαιδοποιήσατο

οὐ γ ἢ τέτων ἄγοναν ὄντΘ γὰρ ἀεὶ τοῦ φωτὸς δῆλον ὡς ἔσιν ἀεὶ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα ὁ 5 γε Θεὸς ἀιώνιον ἐπὶ φῶς οὔτε ἀρξάμενον οὔτε ληξον ποτε· οὐκοῦν ἀιώνιον πρόκειται, καὶ σύνεσιν αυτῷ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα άναρχον καὶ ἀειγενές. Dionyf. Alex. apud Athanas. de Sent. Dionyf. Vol. I. p. 559, 560.

8 Παρατηρητέον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ μὲ υἱὸν εἶναι ἀορίσως ἀπεφήνατο, εἶ δ διὸς, αυτῷ ἔφη, καὶ δ, γέγονας, ἐμφάινων μήτε πρόσφατον ἀντὸν τετυχηκέναι τῆς υιοθεσίας, μήτε ἂν προϋπάρξοντα τέλΘ εχεκέναι, ἀλλ ̓ εἶναι ἀεὶ ὶ ἀυτόν, Methodius de caftitate apud Photium. Cod. ccxxxvii. p. 960. Ed. P. Steph.

Unigenitus filius falvator nofter, qui folus ex pitre natus est, folus natura & non adoptione filius eft, Pamphil. Apolog. pro Origene.

Quod coaeternus fit filius Patri, & extra ullum initium fit generatio Filii Dei. Idem ibid.

· Ποια προς τας γραφάς, ἐφευρόντες λαλοῦσιν ἐπὶ ταῦτα· οὐκ ἀεὶ Θεὸς πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ ̓ ἦν ὅτε Θεὸς πατὴρ οὐκ ἦν· οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος

Tatian, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. But all thefe writers afferted the co-eternity of the Word with the Father, tho' not confider'd under the notion of a Son; and they did not mean by the Word, any attribute, power, or virtue of the Father. This has been unanfwerably proved by two very learned men, k Bishop Bull, and Dr. 1 Waterland, whom I look upon to be vaftly better fitted to fettle this matter, than our author, who seems not to have made himself master of the Christian antiquity.

None of the ancients held the pre-existence of Chrift's human foul, except Origen, and perhaps one more. Our author m owns, "that the greatest part of the Fathers had no diftinct idea of a complex Logos." He fays, "if a man were to begin and read over the Fathers, with this very view and defign, to fearch for a complex Logos, 'tis probable he might find this opinion in many expreffions." I agree with him, that if a man were to read with prejudice in favour of Mr. Watts's fancy, he might perhaps imagine fome paffages in the ancients, who were far from being, in all cafes, the most plain and easy writers, to fall in with his fcheme; but there is not

åλλ' ¿1⁄2 oùx övtwv yeyeve. Alexander Alexand. Epift. apud Socratem. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. I. c. 6. p. 9, 10. Ed. Par.

Ασεβετάτης οὖν φανείσης τῆς ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων υποθέσεως, ἀνάγκη δ πατέρα ἀεὶ εἶναι 7 Πατέρα ἰδεῖν ἐσιν τώ υιότητα τοῦ σω σῆρος ἡμῶν οὐδὲ μίαν ἔχεσαν κοινωνίαν πρὸς τὴν ἣ λοίπων ὑιότητα ἡ ὑιότης αυτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν τυγχάνεσα τῆς πατρικῆς Θεότητῷ, ἀνέκτῳ ὑπεροχή αναφέρει δι' αὐτοῦ θέσει υιοθετηθέντων. Idem in epift. apud Theodorit. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. I. c. 4. p. 13, 14. Ed. Par.

* Defenf. Fid. Nicenae, Sect. 3. Cap. 5-10.

1 In his first vindication of Chrift's divinity, p. 134-163. and in his fecond vindication, p. 280-294. Pp. 120.

m p. 105.

the

the least footstep in them of a super-angelic Spirit being to Chrift inftead of a human foul, and therefore our author, in infinuating, that by his scheme many obfcure paffages of the ancients would be accounted for, gives only his own wishes, inftead of proofs. He fays, "the ancients had derived from Scripture, the Apoftles, and the traditions of apoftolical men, the doctrine of the Logos, who was the Son of God, the beginning of the creation, the firstborn of every creature, the only begotten of the Father, produc'd by his will and power, yet in fuch an immediate and superior way, as is rather called generation than creation in Scripture." If all who have dip'd into the writers of the firft ages, do not reckon this mere romance, I am extremely mistaken. P The contrary, I am well affured, is true; and were it neceffary, it might be evidently proved, that Mr. Watts's notion of the human foul of Chrift being a fuper-angelic Spirit, has as little to fupport it from catholic antiquity, as it has from the holy Scrip

tures.

• Page 105, 106.

P Mr. Watts (p. 104.) boafts of his having the concurrence of Mr. Baxter, as to the ancients holding the Son's fuper-angelic nature; but, by what he produces from Mr. Baxter, it appears that he was a very incompetent judge: were this matter fo clear, as he feems to reprefent it, it is ftrange that no body elfe ever ftumbled upon it.

CHAP.

CHAP. VI.

Short Strictures on fome unguarded paffages in Mr. Watts's books.

I

HAVE now finished my examination of the things that induced me to take fome notice of Mr. Watts's writings: which were, his defign of giving us a scheme of the Trinity, with clear ideas annexed to it, his denying the true real perfonality of the Son and Spirit, and his romantic account of the perfon of Chrift God-man. I have fhewed how he has entirely failed in his defign of furnishing us with clear ideas, I have proved from Scripture, the real perfonality of the Son and Spirit, and I have laid open the extravagance of his fancy, in fuppofing a fuper-angelic Spirit to fupply the place of a human foul in Chrift. There are many exceptionable paffages, in his writings, deferving remark, that have not fell under the former heads, which I do not care wholly to omit confidering; but I fhall content my self with giving fome fhort ftrictures on them. Hitherto I have been chiefly concerned with the second part of Mr. Watts's differtations, but now I hall take in, as occafion ferves, his first part, and his Christian doctrine.

I. Our author, in the beginning of his Chriftian doctrine, a fays, "God's own counsels and contrivances wrought powerfully for the falvation of the Patriarchs and the Jews, under those darker difpenfations, without the particular and

2 Page 1, 2.

explicit