of Chrift, as ftrongly and fully, as can be defired; but they do not treat upon this matter profeffedly, but only as the fubject fell in their way; for fuch herefies as were ftarted, as to this point, σε nemo Propter hoc Verbum Dei homo, & qui Filius Dei eft, filius hominis factus eft, commixtus Verbo Dei, ldem. ibid. c. 19. p. 112. Non alius erat qui cognofcebatur, & alius qui dicebat, cognofcit Patrem;" fed unus & idem, omnia fubjiciente ei Patre, & ab omnibus accipiens teftimonium, quoniam vere homo, & quoniam vere Deus. Idem. Lib. IV. c. 6. p. 234, 235. ην Ανακρινεί τους Ἡβιώνες· πῶς δύνανται σωθῆναι, εἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ των σωτηρίαν αυτῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐργασίμενο; ἢ πῶς ἄνθρωπο και βήσει εἰς Θεὸν, ἐἰ μὴ ὁ Θεὸς ἐχωρήθη εἰς άνθρωπον. Idem. Lib. V. c. 33. P. 271. Θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ· και ὁ ἄνθρωπο Θεός· και τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ μεσίτης ἐκτελεῖ· μεσίτης δὁ Λόγῷ ὁ κοινὸς ἀμφοΐν· Θεοῦ με υιος, σωτὴρ ἡ ἀνθρώπων. Clemens Αl. Paedag. Lib. I. c. 1. p. 251. Ed. Οxon. Utriufque fubftantiae cenfus hominem & Deum exhibuit; hinc natum, inde non natum; hinc carneum, inde fpiritalem ; hinc infirmum, inde praefortem; hinc morientem, inde viventem. Tertullian. de carne Chrifti, cap. 5. Filio mifcente in femetipfo hominem & Deum. Idem c. Marcionem. Lib. II. c. 27. Qui factus eft ex femine David, hic erit homo, & filius hominis: Qui definitus eft filius Dei, fecundum fpiritum, hic erit Deus & fermo Dei filius. Videmus duplicem ftatum, non confufum, fed conjun&tum in una Perfona, Deum & hominem Jefum. Idem c. Praxeam, c. 27. Οἱ Μάγοι ἧκον ἐπὶ τω Ιεδάιαν φέροντες με δώρα ἃ, τως ὀνομάσω, συνθέτῳ τινὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ και ἀνθρώπου θνητοῦ προσήνε[καν. Origen. c. Celfum, Lib. I. p.46. Ed. Cant. Ου χωρίζοντες τ' υἱὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ· ἐν δ μάλισα με τα οπο κονομίαν, γεγένηται πρὸς τ Λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ψυχὴ ἢ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ιησού, idem. Lib. II. p. 64. Ει ἢ τῷ τηλικέτῳ ὑιῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡνῶς φάσκοντες τῇ ἄκρα μετοχή τὴν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ψυχὴν, ἐκ ἔτι χωριζομένην ἀπ ̓ ἐκείνε αυτὴν· ἐδὲν θαυ ματόν· ἔίδασι δ' οἱ ἱεροὶ το θείων γραμμάτων λόγοι, και άλλα, δια τῇ ἑαυτῶν φύση τυγχάνοντα, εἰς ἐν ἀλλήλοις εἶναι λελογισμένα και όντα οὐκ εἰσι δύο ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκον Θεὸν λόγον. Idem Lib. VI. p. 309. Αμφότερα δεικνὺς ἑαυτὸν, δι' ὧν ἀμφοτέρως, θεικῶς δή φημι και ἀνθρωπίνως, ἐνέργησε κατ' αυτὴν τὴν ὄντως ἀληθῇ και φυσικά ὕπαρο ξιν. Θεὸν ἄπειρον ὁμοῦ καὶ τειγράπτον ανθρωπον ὄντα τε, και in the early ages, did not make much figure in the world. When the younger Apollinaris broach'd an error, on this head, in fuppofing the divine nature was to Chrift inftead of an human foul; and when Neftorius pretended, that the two natures, in Chrift, were two perfons, and Eutyches, on the contrary, made them to be but one nature, then it was, that this controverfy came to be carefully difcufs'd: and what zeal the true catholics fhew'd against all innovations, is known to every one who is verfed in church history. But it is time to return to Mr. Watts: I am forry, I was 8 forced to charge him with being guilty of feveral h felf-contradictions. I know it must νούμενον τὴν ουσίαν ἑκατέρε τελείως τελέιαν ἔχοντα, με τ' αυτῆς ἐνερ γείας ἤγεν φυσικῆς ἰδιότητα· ἐξ ὧν μένεσαν ἀεὶ κατὰ φύσιν δίχα τροπῆς τὴν αυτῶν ἴσμεν διαφοράν, ἀλλ' ουχ ̓ ὡς τινές φασι κατὰ oyxpo. Hippolytus c. Beronem fragment. I. Vol. I. P. 226. Ed. Fabric. vid. & p. 228, 229. Deus cum homine miscetur; hic Deus nofter, hic Chriftus eft, qui mediator duorum, hominem induit quem perducat ad patrem. Cyprian. de Idol. Vanit. p. 289. Ed. Pamel. Et Homo & Deus Chriftus ex utroque genere concretus, ut mediator effe inter nos & Patrem poffit. Idem Testimon. Lib. II. c. 10. p. 355: Tam enim Scriptura etiam Deum annunciat Chriftum, quam etiam hominem ipfum annunciat Deum : tam hominem defcripfit Jefum Chriftum, quam etiam Deum quoque defcripfit Chrif tum Dominum. Novatian. de Trinitate, cap. 11. Qui mediator Dei & hominum effectus exprimitur, in se Deum & hominem fociaffe reperitur, Idem, c. 16. Merito filius Dei per adfumptionem carnis, filius hominis, & filius hominis, per receptionem Dei Verbi, filius Dei effici poteft. Idem, c. 18. --- ex utro Chriftum Jefum Dominum ex utroque connexum que contextum & concretum --- hominem & Deum Scripturae--cognofcant. Idem, c. 19. vid. c. 20, 23. Page 115. al. 110. " I fhall here fet down, in two columns, fome paffages of Mr. Watts, which I know not how to reconcile. I will not fay, they are all of them express contradictions, because fome are be be grating to any one, to have fuch an accufation laid against him; because a man's talking inconfiftently with himself, argues him to have either undertook a matter which he did not un pretty obfcure, and I may mistake his meaning, but I believe none can fay they are clearly confiftent. 1. To vindicate this metaphorical fenfe in which the word perfon is attributed to the facred three, confider, &c. Diff. P. II. p. 194. 2. When we are endeavouring to explain the pure diftinctions of the divine nature, in a rational manner, and to form and adjuft our clearest ideas of them, I think we may ufe the term divine properties, p. 205. 3. We may fuppofe the faered analogy and ufe of this word [Spirit] to be derived both from the body and the foul of man. It is derived from the foul, as it fignifies an intelligent principle of action; it is derived from the body, as it fignifies breath, p. 118. 4. The chief knowledge we can attain to of the bleffed God, is by analogy to our own fouls, P. 224. The nature of our fouls teaches us to conceive the nature of God, p. 218. 1. The Father is properly call'd a perfon, an intelligent voluntary agent, with little or no alteration of the common fenfe of the word in human language, p. 187. 2. When I reprefent the Word and Spirit, by divine wisdom and power, I do not conceive them merely as two attributes of the divine nature, as juftice, goodness, eternity, infinity, &c. but as fuch distinct faculties, or more distinct, than the understanding and will are in human fpirits, which two are call'd powers rather than properties of the foul, p. 224 derstand, or not to have been fo careful, in reviewing his writings, as he ought to have been, tho' I could have been glad no occafion had 5. The term power denotes a diftinct principle of phyfical agency in the fubject, whereby it is render'd capable of acting in this or that manner. the faculty of moving the body, is properly call'd a power of the foul, p. 225. 6. When we have been accuftom'd all our lives to a particular fet of words and ideas, 'tis pretty hard to perfuade our felves to make any little change in our ideas or words, even tho' the greateft advantages might be gain'd by it towards the defenfe of the Gofpel; and tho' it might remove fome of the chief embarraffments which attend any particular article of faith, p. 176. 7. I readily grant and believe that the greatest part of them [the ancients] do not feem to have any diftinct idea of a complex Logos, or a double nature in Chrift before the incarnation, p. 104, 105. 8. Now 'tis evident concerning the Logos or Chrift, as he is the wisdom, mind, or reafon of the Father, that he must be truly and properly divine, &c. p. 62. 9. It is not evident that they [the authors of the Targums] believed, that he [the Meffiah] fhould be the true and the eter nal God, p. 29. creatures, for the most exalted ranks of creaturesthat we know are very poor imperfect shadows of the Creator, p. 235. 5. When a fpirit wills to move a body, it has no innate efficient power of its own, to put the least atom in motion, P. 139. 6. Perhaps an introduction of any new terms into our common and popular discourses on this doctrine, would give a greater uneafinefs and confufion to the minds of Chriftians, than would be eafily counterballanced by the advantages we might expect from any unufual words which might be introduced under a pretence of clearer ideas, p.206. 7. There appear plain traces and evident footsteps of the fame divine and inferior Logos, among the primitive Christian writers, p. 107. 8. It seems manifest that the Logos is a power of the divine mind, 63. 9. The learned Mr. R. Fleming feems to come nearer to these ancients, [the authors of the Targums and Philo,] and explains them more agreeably f been been given for fuch a charge, yet as it is well grounded, I have no reason to retract it. I think it agreeable to Scripture, to explain the perfonality of the Word in a figurative manner. Pref. p. xv. 10. The common explication of the eternal generation of the Son, was derived down to us, from the popish schoolmen their account of the generation and proceffion, that is, of the manner of the derivation of the Word and Spirit seems to me to be a fet of words, of which I can attain no clear ideas, invented by subtle and metaphyfical schoolmen, p. 157. 11. Another thing wherein religious worship feems to be paid to the holy Spirit, is this, viz. that the Apoftle prays for the bleffing to defcend from the holy Spirit on the Corinthians, in the fame way and manner in which the bleffing of the Father and Son are pray'd for, 2 Cor. xiii. 14. If this be a petition or prayer, 'tis a prayer to the facred three; and the Holy Ghoft is the object of this worfhip as well as the Father or Son. It seems evident also that the holy Spirit was worship'd in fome texts of the old Teftament, as Ifa. vi. Pfalm xcvi. &c. Chriftian Doctrine, p. 95, 96. 12. It may be charged upon me that I have not in these differtations,' exactly confined my felf, in every punctilio, to the fame fentiments which I had publifi'd fome years ago; that I to Scripture, when he supposes the eternal effential Logos to be a perfon in the Godhead, and to be united to the created Logos, p. 46. 10. The post-nicene writers fpeak more of the eternal genetation than the primitive anci ents did, p 75. 11. We cannot find in Scripture any fuch pofitive or exprefs precepts or examples of petition and praife, fo directly addrefs'd to the perfon of the holy Spirit, as there are to the Father, and to the Son. Christ. Doct. p. 219, 220. 12. I thought it proper to publifh it, [a fermon on the Doctrine of the Trinity and its ufe,] at this feafon [1727.] to let the world know, that tho' I have enter'd into fome further |