"

nothing in any Propofition against them; tho' I do not my felf believe them, as being plainly no Parts of the Chriftian Revelation. Nor were they by them pretended to be fuch; but propos'd as bare Human Deductions. I fuppofe you would not have me put fuch things into my Propofitions your felf: and therefore how this affects my main Scheme I do not understand. You alway's feem to imagine that the Antients had fome Notion that the Generation or Production of the Son was not voluntary but neceffary: of which I find no Footsteps, but always the contrary. Pray obferve this in the Antient Expreffions. You feem also to think that the Metaphyfick, or real Eternity of the Son was by the Antients, or by Ireneu at leaft, fuppos'd after his real Production or Generation; whereas it was always fuppos'd before it which I beg of you to obferve in the old Authors, and if you please, to ask Dr. Grabe alfo. These are the moft Material Points: and I hope you will confider them with Care accordingly. But when Irenæus fo plainly and exprefsly owns the Son inferior to the Father; and that he did not know the Day of Judgment, as not being reveal'd to him by the Father; that in his divine Nature he appear'd to the Patriarchs, entred really into the Virgins Womb, and really fuffer'd for us in human Flesh, I wonder you should once imagine that he, by that Expreffion you mention, fhould fuppofe him the fame Being with his Father. You have heard the Moderns talk mightily of these three Divine Perfons being One in Subftance and Divinity; So you carry that Notion in your Mind, and then the Expreffion looks that way to you: juft as the Ninth to the Romans looks plain for Calvinism to fome Modern Authors; whereas the Antients, who never dream'd of any fuch Opinions, could

not

not particularly guard against them in their Expreffions. Nither is it certain that Irenæus refers to the Son and the Holy Ghoft at all there; but perhaps to the Attributes of God, his Power and Wisdom only. However, you know and approve my Rule to admit nothing as a Doctrine of Chriftianity, which can be trac❜d no higher than the Philofophic Writers. Dr. Grabe in the Paffage refer'd to, fpeaks of the ars asinov Or Conftitutions of the Apostles, quoted by Epiphanius; which by a ftrange ungrounded Miftake he is ready to confound in Part with the διδαχὴ εὺ ἀποςόλων. Whereas Epiphanius has almott given us an Abridgment of the Book he means at the End of his own Book against Herefies ;which puts it with me past Dispute, that he means the Conftitutions we now have: and I wonder the Learned have not yet been fo fair to the World as to own fo plain a Truth from that Abridgment. The Additions to the Original Collections in Dr. Grabe's Words were, in Points wherein the Churches Practice afterward was alter'd ; exceptis, fays he, iis punctis quæ recentioris iftius evi confuetudini erunt adverfa, which has no Relation to the Arian Interpolations, but I believe will not excuse those of the Church, and of the Orthodox. You caution me against Printing, at least till I have Publifh'd the Effay on the Conftitutions. I thought I had already inform'd you of my Intention to the fame Effect. For I have found fo much more Evidence for the Conftitutions fince Dr. Grabe faw my Papers, that I almoft durft put the whole Iffue of the Caufe upon them; tho' indeed there is no Occafion for fo doing. I wish you would carefully read over that judicious Author Novatian de Trinitate, and fee how very near his Account of the Antient Doctrines is to mine, and yet mine was (€ 4) drawn

A

drawn up before I read that Book, and has been
little alter'd fince. However, I cannot
very
but think it the Duty of honeft Men to own
freely what is fo plain. (1.) That the One and
Only Supream God of the Chriftians, is no
other than God the Father. (2.) That the Ori-
ginal Supreme Worship is due only to him.
3.) That the Son is Inferior, as well as Subor-
dinate to the Father. (4.) That he is not equal
ly Omniscient with him. (5.) That the Holy
Ghoft is Inferior, as well as Subordinate to
both the Father and the Son. (6.) That he was
never exprefly called God or Lord by the first
Chriftians; nor was ever Invocated by them.
(7.) That the Son was begotten or created by
the Father only before the World, whatever fecret
Eternity he had before his Generation or Crea-
tion. These are Truths fo plain in the Scrip-
ture and firft Writers that any one may fee them;
and yet fo miferably perverted or deny'd by the
Moderns, that 'tis high time to attempt the re-
ftoration of the true Ancient Faith of Chrifti-
ans in these Matters. But why, instead of join-
ing heartily with me where we agree, and try-
ing to correct any occafional Mistakes in the
reft, and fo affifting in this Honeft and Chri-
ftian Defign, you ftill difcourage my Attempt,
and are afraid of being thought a Partner in it,
I do by no means underftand: However, I
moft heartily join in your Honeft and Chrifti-
an Petitions; and earneftly beg that God may pre-
ferve me and you and all good Chriftians, Humble, Mo-
deft, and Sincere; and make us to understand and
obey his Truth according to his own Revelation;
through his well-beloved Son Jefus Chrift our
Lord. I am in all fincerity,

Your affectionate Brother, and Servant,
W. WHISTON,

P.S.

P. S. I cannot but wonder that you ftill avoid our Saviour's Expreffion, The Father is greater than I, and chufe the Word Subordinate, as being Safer Doctrine at prefent. Till we are not afham'd of Scripture Language, we must never fay we are entirely impartial in thefe Matters. I do not know of any Authentick Teftimonies in Bishop Bull within my Period that are omitted in my Papers.

I

Dr. Bradford's Third Letter was in thefe Words.

Dear SIR, London, Mar. 5. 1708. Had reply'd to yours much fooner, but that my time last Month was not my own. I began it with waiting, and was all the reft of the Month taken up with one or other Business, which turn'd my Thoughts from what I would have engaged them in, the Subject of your Letter. I have feriously perufed and confidered what you offer; and as I do not charge you with defiring to impofe your Belief upon others, (as you seem to think in the beginning of yours) fo I cannot but ftill wonder at your fo full perfuafion, with refpect to what you profess your felf to believe. This was what I meant, when I told you, that I could no more fubfcribe your Eunomian Creed, than you could the Athanafiar. I have not feen Dr. Grabe fince I received yours; but I perceive you do find that you mistook him in that Paffage, which you defir'd me to read with my own Eyes, left you should be thought to misrepresent him. I farther think it ftrange, that, you should rank Irenæus amongst the Philofophick Writers, and that you should add that it is not certain that he refers to the Son and Holy Ghoft in that Paffage I cited. If fo, I fhall defpair of knowing what is certain in him, or of looking

for

for the Doctrine of the Apostles in any other of the Ancients, left Philofophy alfo fhould have perverted them. After all, as I conftantly ftand to the Two Things I conceded to you in my former Letter, fo I muft declare, that I cannot by any means approve your afferting the Arian Doctrine, either as the Doctrine of the Scriptures, or of the First Fathers, particularly of Justin and Irenæus, who, if I can understand them, have divers Paffages directly contrary, I cannot yet alter my Thoughts of the Constitutions. When I fee your Defence, I will endeavour to confider it as feriously and impartially as I have done what you have yet offer'd; and muft ftill challenge it as a Right, that you will no more charge me with Infincerity than I do you. I thank God I am neither afraid, nor afham'd to use the Scripture Expreffions in this Controverfie. The Dif pute between us is not about the Expreffions themselves, but the meaning of them. I am far from difcouraging any Attempt you shall make in reftoring the Ancient Chriftianity in its greatest Simplicity and Integrity, but I am not convinc'd, that the Method you take is right; however I perceive jacta eft alea; you have fent your Books as you intended, which will probably produce a Reply to them, the Refult of which I heartily with and pray may be the clear difcovery of Truth. In the mean time, unless I fee you in Town, I will not enter into farther Particulars, but continue to pray to Almighty God, that he will be pleas'd to Enlighten and Establish our Minds at present, and conduct us to the Regions of Light and Happinefs hereafter. I am with all fincerity,

SIR, Your affectionate Brother
and Servant

SAM. BRADFORD.

My