which occafion'd your Letter; which I look upon, not, I hope, as inconfiftent with, but however as no part of that Sincerity which you ought to fhew upon this, as you do upon other Occafions. I may now be run down with Noise and Number for a Time: but certain Truths, well attefted, have a fecret Force, and gradually gain Ground, especially in the growing Generation. And a great Day is coming, wherein I am perfuaded, that that open honeft Courage for the defpifed Truths of God which I fhew, will appear to have the Advantage of the prudential and political Management of the greatest part of Mankind. With humble Service to good Dr. Lucas and all Friends, I fubfcribe my felf,

P. S. Pray defire

Dr. Grabe to fend me the Vienna MS. if it be come.

Your affectionate Friend,

and Brother,

WILL. WHISTON

N. B. This Vienna MS. here mention'd, which Mr. Wilkins, as it were from Dr. Grabe's Mouth, affirms in his foregoing Letter would knock me down with one Shock, appear'd, when it came, to knock down Athanafius inftead of Me. It proving to be a part of thofe Ethiopick Conftitutions in Greek, (indeed I think the two first of the entire Eight Books,) with which Athanafius, or fomebody under him, cheated the poor Chriftians of Ethiopia; as I fhall prove in my Ef fay on those Conftitutions themselves. Dr. Bradford's Second Letter was this which follows.

London,

I

London, St. Thomas Apostles, Jan. 22. 1708.

Dear SIR,

Should have reply'd to yours fooner, but finding by the Manner of your expreffing your felf in it, you continu'd with full Affurance to adhere to your Scheme; even to the paffing no kind Cenfure on thofe that differ from you; I was willing to take another View of your Teftimonies and your Arguments, which I have done with all the ferious Application poffible. And after all, I cannot but ftill wonder, that you fhould be fo very pofitive in your present Perfuafion. I very well remember, how far Dr. Lucas and I agreed with you, and wherein we differ'd; and as we have not chang'd our Minds in the former,fo neither have we in the latter. I always did, and freely do affent to Bishop Bull's Thefis concerning the Subordination of the Son to the Father. I always did, and always fhall heartily wifh, and, if it were in my Power, I fhould endeavour that all the Liturgies of the Church were reduc'd to as great a Simplicity and Plainnefs as might be. Thus far I agree with you, But I can as freely and honeftly declare my felf no Arian, as you do that you are one. And it feems ftrange, that whilft you blame the Orthodox for adding new Articles of Faith to the Primitive ones, you fhould not be afraid at the fame Time to affert other new ones in direct Oppofition to thofe you account fo. You will underftand me fully, when I tell you that I could no more be perfuaded to fubfcribe your celebrated Eunomian Creed, than you would the Athanafian. If I am not much mistaken, many (e2)

of

of thofe Paffages you have cited from Irenæus, (too many to be here mention'd,) are directly against you. And indeed you feem to me to have improv'd all the Paffages that seem for you with much dexterity; whilft you pass over the other too flightly. I can by no means admit yo ur very Superficial and evafive Comment upon Irenæus's faying, that the Father made all Things per femetipfum. You fhould, according to my Apprehenfion, have taken equal Pains to anfwer to the Teftimonies alledg'd by Bishop Bull, and many of them by your felf, as to adorn those which you have added. I cannot in a Letter go over Particulars; but I have obferv'd many Things in the perufal of your Papers which deferve your Review; and which I ftill heartily wish you would forbear to publifh. At leaft your Defence of the Conftitutions ought to appear first, that you may fee what will be faid to take off fo confiderable a Part of your Teftimonies. I have not met with Dr. Grabe fince your Letter came; if I had I fhould not have made any difficulty to have put your Question to him, nor to have return'd his Anfwer, tho' upon a hafty Perufal of what he fays in his Spicil. It feems to me that he does not use those Words you produce of the Conftitutions, as we now have them, but of the Doctrine of the Apostles as first Publifhed. Pray read backward and forward a Page or two from that you mention; and you may poffibly agree with me herein. I have many Things to add, but am forc'd to write in haft, being call'd upon by other Bufinefs and therefore with my earnest Prayers that God may preferve us all humble, modeft, and fincere, and make us to understand and

obey

obey his Truth, according to his own Revelation, I fubfcribe my felf,

SIR, Your faithful Friend,

and bumble Servant.

SAM. BRADFORD.

To which I immedintely return'd the following Answer.

Dear SIR,

Camb. Jan. 23. 170. Received yours; and wonder you should think me defirous of any ones figning any Creed fo modern as Eunomius. I think his Creed true my felf: but abhor the Thoughts of impofing any other than an uncontefted one uponthe Church: fuch as is the largest in the Conftitutions. And if you, and Dr. Lucas, and fuch other honeft Men as are of the fame Opinion, would openly own the fame Thing, and actually leave off that of Vigilius Thapfitanus, it would much contribute to the Reformation defir'd. I also hope that you will own fo many of my Propofitions true as you are fatisfy'd in; and let me know which in your Opinion are not fufficiently warranted by the Teftimonies, that I may reconfider and alter them. For my design is to publish an Authentick Account of the Chriftian Faith in the earlieft Ages: and if any Mistakes be yet in the Propofitions, pray let me beg of you to help me to amend them. Becaufe Ireneus, Tertullian, and others, after Philofophy came in, ventur'd to affirm that the Son was in a fecret Manner in the Father before his Generation or Creation, and that he was made out of a Part of the Subftance of his Father, as Tertullian, afferts; whence afterward, in all probability, came the us, I have faid (e 3) ༣ nothing

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 always 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 alfo to think that the Metaphyfick, or real Eternity of the Son was by the Antients, or by Irenæu 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 pleafe, to ask Dr. Grabe alfo. Thefe 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