To novinov, the Governor of the reft, I found Justin's Teftimony not to imply what it seem'd to do before, but that it well agreed with the foregoing Notion. Nay, what was the principal Thing of all, upon the perufal of a noble Fragment of this Author, De Refurrectione, in Dr. Grabe's Spicilegium, I found that the very Self. 13.1. fame Justin, who affirm'd,That Chrift in his entire Perfon did include the ay, a lux and a

Tom. II.

191, 192.

Sect. 6.

, did as exprefly affirm, That Man does include juft the fame Number of Parts, a meua, a

, and a oa and that by confequence, the a62 in Chrift, fupply'd the place of the medua, or rational Soul in Man, without any other RatioAd Philad nal Soul at all,exactly according to the other Teftimonies. I found alfo that Ignatius, in his larger Epiftles, was exprefly of the fame Opinion; and that Athanafius himself, in his Book De Incarnatione Verbi, written before the Arian Controverfy, appears ever to have entertain'd no other Notion of that Matter. And indeed, I cannot but look on this Difcovery as one of the moft certain, and most important of all others; especially as to the Points I was engag'd in, the Trinity and Incarnation. But to go on with my Narrative. When I had made my felf an Index or Collection of the Places where the moft mate, rial Paffages relating to thefe Points were to be found, and had obferv'd all along my Reading, that the Teftimonies for Arianifm were vaftly fuperior in Number, Plainnefs, and Antiquity, to those which are commonly fuppos'd to be for the Athanafian Doctrine, I went to London, on purpose to fhew my Papers to, and converfe with fome worthy and learned Perfons of my Acquaintance there; who, as I knew, did already fhrewdly fufpect, if not know, that Part,at leaft, of the common Notions now current,

were

Dr Bradford, Mr Blny • Hoadley [She Wire Mr blocke [Drdan! ] & Mr Sigdal.

See whisting Hist. mem. Drs. Clarke.

were ungrounded and falfe; and were willing to examine and be affur'd, what were really the genuine Doctrines of Chriftianity in thefe Matters. Upon this I was advis'd to take the Pains to tranfcribe thofe Teftimonies themfelves at large, which I before did only refer to';' and was then promis'd a fair Examination and Correction of my Papers, when they fhould be fent up in a manner fit for the fame. Upon my return to Cambridge, I fet my felf immediately to perform my Promife, and wrote out above a thoufand Texts and Teftimonies at large; and afterwards, in a fecond Copy, added feveral Notes for farther Illuftration, and very much alfo for the obviating thofe falfe Reafopings or Colours which Bishop Bull had advanc'd. And now it was, and indeed not till now, that I had all my Evidence at once before me, and that I was able to affirm, and affuredly pronounce, that the Arian Doctrine was in these Points most certainly the Original Doctrine of Chrift himfelf, of his Holy Apoftles, and of the moft Primitive Chriftians: That that fort of Eternity of the Son of God, of which fome of the Fathers began to fpeak towards the latter Part of the fecond Century, after Philofophy was come into the Church, and of which the moft Doubt might arife, (the reft of the Particulars being almoft indifputable:) was plainly, not, as we have been made to believe of late, a real existence, as of a Son properly coeternal with his Father, by a true Eternal Generation; but rather a Metaphyfick Existence, in potentia, or in the like higher and fublimer Manner in the Father, as his Wifdom or Word, before his real Creation or Generation: (For both thofe Words are frequent in the earlieft Writers :) Which real Creation or Generation was then ever fuppos'd a little before the Creation of the World: (a 4)

That

Defens

Syn. Nican

Sect. III.

Cap. 9.

That accordingly, the Council of Nice it felf eftablish'd no other Eternity of our Saviour, as all the Original Teftimonies do fhew. And by the way, upon my asking the very learned Dr. Grabe, whether that feeming Eternity of the Son of God, of which fome of the Ancients speak,was not prior to his Creation or Generation? He readily own'd that it was fo: And accordingly had no other way to fupport the ordinary Notions, but by faying that by this Creation or Generation of Chrift was only meant his Emiffion, or Proceeding out of God his Father, and condescending to create the World; as Bishop Bull and Dr. Cave are alfo forc'd to fuppofe. Upon which I could not but think, that if our best Writers for Orthodoxy have nothing but fuch poor, unintelligible, ill-grounded Evafions as thefe to fupport 'Hiflor. their Faith withal, 'tis high time to lay them all Literar. afide; and to have our. Recourfe to the Origi Vol. II. nal Primitive Texts and Teftimonies themselves Differt. 3 2.65.66. for Satisfaction. However, I then alfo obferv'd, that Philofophical Notions, deriy'd generally from the ancient Hereticks, and propagated in the Weft, and at Rome, and thence to Alexandria, and the Eaft; and this chiefly in the Days, and by the Means of the famous, but unhappy Athanafius, were the, Caufe of that fatal Change which was afterwards made in the Church's Faith and Practice; and that this novel Faith and Practice was the Firft Branch of that Antichriftianifm which was begun by the old Hereticks themselves, and afterwards ftarted up under the Name of Orthodoxy and that this Orthodoxy was not fully eftablifh'd, nor did finally prevail over Chriftendom, but by the Means of the over bearing Tyranny of the See of Rome, and those that supported it. This difcovery made me reflect upon two Paffages which I well remember, tho' they hap

pon'd

pen'd many Years ago. The one of the very Learned Dr. Allix; who being in my Hearing ask'd by Dr. Pain, (who was then bufy in the Enquiry about thefe matters, & had discouered that the One God of the Chriftians was no other than God the Father; & therefore was fo far beginning to fee the falfhood of the common Opinions; nay was in great Danger of Suffering for his Boldness in fpeaking his Mind therein; whether there were any Inftance of Invocation of the Holy Ghoft in the three firft Centuries? He readily answer'd thatthere was not. The other Paffage was of an excellent Friend of mine whom I have not liberty to name, who difcourfing with my felf and another Perfon of great Eminence about fuch Matters, and particularly about the then fo much difputed Doctrine of the Trinity, He began with this Declaration of his Mind, That for his part, had it not been for "the Church's farther Determination, he had "been contented with the Arian Scheme. Which words at that time a little fhock'd us both: tho now I have examined that Matter to the Bottom, I am more fhock'd that the fame excellent Perfor does not more freely declare the Reasons of fuch his ancient. Sentiments, and more freely endeavour the Alterations of fuch Things in our Church, as he cannot but know or fufpect to be unfupported by the Chriftian Revelation in these Matters. About this Time it was alfo, as far as I remember, that I drew up fome Questions, proper to be propos'd to the Confideration of the Learned: which, because they are not elfewhere inferted, I fhall here fet down; and thereoffer them to fuch their Confideration.

Contr.

Celf. L.

PLAIN QUESTIONS.

I. Where are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft called One God, in the Scripture, or the moft primitive Writers? I defire but one plain Inftance.

II. Where is Chrift faid to be properly Equal to the Father, in Scripture, or the Moft Primitive Writers? I defire but one plain Inftance.

III. Where is Chrift called by any of the known Titles or Epithets of the Supreme God? fuch as, God the Creator; the Invisible God; the True God, (anbirds Oeds) the Bleffed, or the Blessed God; the Eternal God; the One God; the Only God; the Living God; the Good God; the God of Heaven; the God over all; the Wife God; the Immortal God; the Higheft, &c. either in the New Teftament, or the moft Primitive Writers? I defire a few plain Inftances.

IV. Where do the Scriptures or most Primitive Writers fay any thing of the Substance or Effence of God; and where. do they affirm the Father and Son to be Coeffential and Confubftantial? One plain Inftance is only defir'd.

V. By what new Revelation did the Council of Nice confecrate the Word us, when it had beed directly rejected by the Council of Antioch fo long before?

VI. Whether it be a Sign of the facred Authority of the fame but that it was therefore introduc'd, because it was known that a great Part of the Chriftian Church highly disapprov'd of it?

VII. How the Sameness or Equality of the Son with the Father, which in the days of Origen, Vill. p. was barely the mistake of a few rafh Chriftians,

387.

can