"

1

Middle of the Third Century; and after them by many other of the African Fathers. If you doubt whether thefe were the Words of the Apoftle, You may fee it prov'd by many Learned Writers, and particularly by Dr. Mills, in his various Readings on that Text. It is evident that not only those Fathers themselves did not doubt but that St. John wrote thofe Words, but that neither did thofe that they wrote againft question it. For thofe Fathers did not only quote thofe Words, but they argued from them; which had been ridiculous if there had been any doubt of the Text. Particularly Tertullian urges it against Praxeas, cap. 25. Qui Tres unum funt, non unus, as Praxeas would have it. This I take to be a fufficient Proof of the Unity of the Three Perfons in the Divine Nature: and I think there needs no other Proof of their Confubftantiality and Coequality. For the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, which you fay only ftands on one Letter of Pope Liberius or Damafus, I can't imagine whence you had this. For I know of no Letter of either of thofe Popes that has any thing of this Invocation. My ground for it is what I have fhew'd you: The Holy Ghoft is God, and therefore he is to be pray'd to. There can be nothing plainer than this. But if your would have Practice for it too, you may fee it in St. Paul the Apostle; who as he concludes his other Epiftles with a Prayer to our bleffed Saviour, The Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift be with you all; fo he concludes his fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians with a Prayer to the ever blef fed Trinity, 2 Cor. xiii. 14. The Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all, Amen. First, the Apoftle applies to our Lord Je Chrift, for the Grace of his Redemption and In

1

terceffion

terceffion. Then to our Heavenly Father, for his Love to us, as his Children by Adoption. Then to the Holy Ghoft, for his noraria, the communication of his Gifts. I know fome have faid that all this is only fo many Wishes. It is true and fo are commonly the Prayers of Superiors for them that are under their Charge. Such were the Bleffings of Jacob to the Two Sons of Fofeph. Gen. xlviii. 15. 16. Such were the Prieft's Bleffings to the People of Ifrael, Num, vi. 23, 26. They were Bleffings to the People, but they were Prayers to God. That Blefling of St. Paul to the Corinthians had Three Comma's in it; of which each was a Prayer, Specifying firft the thing that he defir'd, and then the Perfon from whom it was properly to be receiv'd. I have fhew'd this before in a fort of Paraphrafe on the Words, and therefore I think I need not fhew it again more particularly. What Forms of Prayer were usd in the Church in the Apostles Times we have no Account of: And indeed very little of any that were us'd in thofe Times which you call Genuine Antiquity. You perhaps may expect I fhould ask your Pardon for faying this, after you have told me that the Original Jewish and Gentile Liturgies are contained in the VIIth and VIIIth Books of the Apoftolical Conftitutions. But as to thefe you nuft give me leave to be of another Opinion, for Reasons that I fhall fhew you. I do a little wonder indeed why you fhould fo much concern your felf for them; for to me they seem to be plainly against you in this Point, of the InVocation of the Holy Ghoft. There are in the 8th Book before-mention'd, at least a Dozen Doxologies, to all Three Perfons in the Holy and Bluffed Trinity. In every one of these Three is exprefly given, to the Father, together (C3)

7

3

with

A

T

the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, all Honour, Glory, Praise, Thanksgiving, Worfhip, and Adoration, as, egonúvnois, as I remember are the Words. Could any one fay this without believing the Confubftantiality and Coequality of the Holy Ghoft with the Father and the Son? I am fure none can reasonably deny Invocation to one to whom thefe Things are due: Therefore they that made thefe Prayers were furely of the Faith that is profefs'd in the Creed of our Communion Service; where we fay, I beIlieve in the Holy Ghost who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorifyed. This Creed in common fpeaking is call'd the Nicene. But that has not the laft clause that I quote here; for this claufe was added to the Nicene Creed in the Second general Council, that of Conftantinople, AD 381. But for ought I know, that Second Council was Antienter than the Time of making thofe Forms, which you call the Original Jewish and Gentile Liturgies. As for thofe Liturgies we know no more when they were made, than we know who were the Authors or Compilers of them. Nor do we know any thing more of those pretended Apoftolical Conftitutions. Only this we know, that the Makers of thefe Conftitutions, were fuch as made no Confcience of abusing the Names and Authorities of the Apostles of Chrift. I cannot think of it without Indignation; how they made them their Puppets to fay whatfoever they were pleas'd to fay in their Names. Some indeed of the Things they made them fay, were fuch as the Apostles had faid in their Writings. Other Things they faid were agreeable enough to their Writings: Such Things they must take in for their own Credit; but other Things they made them fay, that were very difagreeable, and fome

plainly

plainly falfe, and inconfiftent with what we have in the Scripture. It is hard to guess what they fhoulddrive at in their writing of fuch Things. But, if it were only to get Money by Publishing fuch Books as they knew all Men would be ready to buy, there was a double Wickedness in it; The abufing thofe Sacred Names which they affum'd; and the cheating of them that bought their counterfeit Wares. It is plain that the Writers wêre in hafte to have their Books out, by the Blunders they made in many Places, where they wrote Things only out of Memory, and could not ftay to correct them by turning of Books. It were endless for me to go about to reckon up all the Inftances I could give you of this Kind. But I will lay two or three of them before you; by which you may judge of the reft. My first Inftance fhall be out of Conftit. Apoft. ve 14. There the Impoftor brings in St. John the Apoftle to give an Account what he faw, being pre fent all the Time of the Paffion of Chrift. You rightly obferve of St. John, Harm. 113 114 How studionfly and punctually in bis Gofpel be avoids, repeating what was in the other Gofpels; and yet fupplies their Omiffioas and Methodizes their Hiftories. Accordingly in his Hiftory of the Paffion of Chrift. John xviii. 13, &e he tells us diverfe Things which none of the other Evangelifts had written. He tells us how they took our Saviour, led him firftoto Annas, who fent him immediately to Caiaphas the High Priest le tells us how Piter follow'd him coCaiaphashisHonfe; and fo did Job the Apoftle himfelf, who being acquainted there, got the Door-Keeper to let in Peter. He tells as how this gave Occafion for Peter's thrice denying of Chrift: after which the Cock crew. All this St. John in his Gospel accounts for very particularly, He also tells us there how the (C4)

High

High Prieft having examin'd our Saviour concerning his Difciples and his Doctrines, Our bleffed Lord told him, that as to these Things, being fuch as were publickly known, there could not want Witneffes enough; and therefore there ought to have been Witnesses examin'd against him, and not he to be interrogated against himself. John tells us how thereupon one of the Officers buffeted our Saviour, who answer'd him with a moft fuitable reproof. Then St. John tells us how they led the bleffed Jefus from Caiaphas's Houfe to the Prætorium; and fo he goes on to other Things which I have no Occasion to repeat. All this exactly answers the Character you gave of St. John's way of writing in his Gofpel. But plainly this Impoftor never troubled himself to look into that Sacred Book, and to take things from thence into the Account that he pretends the Apostle to have given of our Saviour's Paffion; as he would certainly have done, if he had meant honeftly in it; but he makes the Apostle fay fuch Things as he had ready for him in his Memory. Some Little Rags he has out of St. John's Gofpel; to which he pieces Things out of the other Three Gospels; not regarding how they agree with one another. For example, He makes his St. John fay, That they that had taken our Saviour, brought him to the Houfe of Caiaphas. He has not a Word of Annas in this Place, where St. Fob first mentions him. But he goes on and tells us, how to Caiaphas's House the Sanbedrin came together; and how there they abus'd our Bleffed Saviour, fcoffing at him, reviling him, fpitting at him, boxing him, beating him, he tells us, thus they spent their Time Cafees, till it was broad day. (Not a Word of their