by the Figures at the end of the fecond Volume, and several large Quotations from the Works of Sir Ifaac Newton, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Halley, Dr. Derham, and the Philofophical Tranfactions of the Royal Society, make the Work, as it now appears, a complete Body of the most useful Branches of practical Mathematicks, and natural Philofophy. Befide the learned Perfons concern'd in, the Augmentation and Improvement of it, the Publick is farther affured of its Perfection, from the care taken in the Revifal and Correction of it by Dr. Shaw, to whom the learned World is obliged for al judicious Abridgment of the Philofophicat Works of the great Mr. Robert Boyle, and their Reduction to a. Method, which makes the Reading of them as eafy as inftructive.

"

ARTICLE II.

AN Anfwer to Dr. Clarke and Mrs Whilton, concerning the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. With a fummary Account of the chief Wri ters of the three firft Ages. By H. E. London: Printed for Thomas Meighan in Drury-Lane. 1729. in 8vo. p. 131. befide the Preface, which con

tains 21.

THE

TH

HE Arian and Socinian Controverfies, which have long disturbed the Peace of the Church, are fo well known, that it is needlels to give an account of their Rife and Progress in this Place. The late learned Dr. Clarke, and the prefent Mr. Whifton, have been looked on as the chief Champions on one fide, and have been encounter'd by thofe on the other, with great Vigor and Success. The Book before us is one of the last that appear'd against the Notions and Writings of those two Gentlemen; of which we venture to give the Publick fome account, because the Method obferved in it is different from that used by the other Defenders of the holy and undivided Trinity; and because an inexhauftible Fund of Learning, and a long Application to Enquiries of this fort, join'd to a folid and penetrating Judgment, have enabled the worthy Author to reafon with the utmost Exactness and Precifion, and given him fome Advantages, over the oppofite Party, which are in the Hands of very few. His defign is, not to confine himself, as fome modern Writers had done, to the bare Letter of Scripture, but confider the Senfe of the earlieft Antiquity in regard to the Doctrines in Queftion, or as he expreffes himself in his Preface, the Scripture in its original, and traditionary Senfe, and under the Lights of Faith. This Piece, as its learned Author tells us, was occafioned by a private Difputation at Dr. Clarke's own Houle, April 30. 1728. It is divided into five Chapters; in the firft of which the Queftion is ftated: in the fecond the Divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit proved: in the third we are fhewn how the Father alone is felf-exiftent: in the fourth Objcctions

B 4

Art. 2. jections are answered: the 5th is a judicious Collection of the Sentiments of the Writers of the three first Ages on the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

A

IN order to place the Queftion in its true Light, he begins with laying down feveral Orthodox Propofitions; firft, that the Father is not the Son that the Father is not the Holy Spirit; and that the Son is neither the Holy Spirit, nor the Father. Secondly, that neither the Son, nor the Holy Spirit is a Creature, i. e. a Being which God produced, and can deftroy at Pleasure. There are, as he justly obferves, fome Creatures, as Angels and human Souls, which will never be deftroyed, which is not the fame, as faying they cannot be defroy'd. From this Diftinction he concludes, that to fay God cannot deftroy all Creatures is Nonfenfe: but to fay he can deftroy either the Son or the Holy Spirit is Blafphemy. Thirdly, that there neither are, nor can be two Gods; for which he produces St. Paul, 1 Cor. viii. v. 4. There is no other God but one; and fupports this Principle, or Propofition by fome Texts of the Old Teftament. Deut. iv. v. 35. vi. v. 4 Ifaiah xliv. v. 6. xlv. v. 5. 18. From this, and the laft Obfervation, fays he, it manifeftly follows, that the Bleffed Trinity is neither one God, and two Creatures, nor three Gods; becaufe if two Gods are impoffible, three certainly are. His fourth Principle of Catholick Faith is, that the Son is truly God, and the fame may be faid of the Holy Spirit. For, if neither the Son, nor the Holy Spirit is created, and yet is indued with an intelligent Nature, each of them may be truly and properly called a Divine Perfon, i. e. each of them is truly and properly God. From which premised Principles he draws this Conclufion,

clufion, that either a real Plurality of Gods muft be granted, or we must believe that the Son and the Holy Spirit are really and frictly the fame God with the Father.

I'N regard to the word Perfon, our accurate Author fays that Term has a known, but different Signification, when applied to Creatures, and to the Bleffed Trinity. In the former Cafe it means an intelligent Being, or intellectual Agent, whofe nature is divided from that of any other. In the latter, it fignifies one, who has a common and individual Nature with another: or it is one, either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, who has the Godhead in common with the other two, and with each of them. This he calls the theological or religious Ufe of the Word, peculiar to the Chriftian Religion. This he obferves was the Language of the Primitive Chriftians in Reply to thofe who denied the Distinction of the Bleffed Trinity, viz. that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three diftinct Perfons. Though this is not a fcriptural Expreffion. Nor is the Word, Perfons taken in the fame Manner, as when it is faid that Socrates, Ariftotle, and Plato were three diftinct Perfons. For these were three Men, and confequently differ'd from each other both in their Perfon and Nature. But, as the Godhead cannot be multiplied, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three Gods, but only three Divine Perfons, and one God; whether they were called three Perfons by Chriftians from the Beginning, or have been fo called fince the End of the fecond Century, as Facundus Hermianenfis thinks. That Writer was an African Bishop, and lived in the Middle of the 6th Century; and the Paffage, which our Author quotes from him on this Occafion may be thus englished.

declared three (Perfons.) But the Name

The Church of Chrift, even before it used the Term Perfon, to express the Diftinction of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit; believed and of Perfons was not neceffarily employ'd in fpeaking of the Trinity, till Sabellius oppofed the Church. Thus, continues our learned Controvertist, the Use of the Word Perfon became very different from the vulgar Signification of it. For new Perceptions, as well as new Things require new Words; or at leaft new Senfes of the fame Words, by taking in more, or fewer Ideas, than they had before, Dr. Clarke's Syftem, as he well obferves, is chiefly grounded on this Argument, which he calls a wretched one, viz. Three Perfons, in Creatures are three intellectual Agents, therefore they must be fo in the Bleffed Trinity; from which Reafoning the Doctor concludes it a manifeft Contradiction to fay, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is individually one, and the fame God. To this purpose several Paffages from various Writings of the learned Doctor are produced, in which, proceeding on this Miftake and Confufion of Terms, he pronounces it a flat Contradiction to fay there are three Perfons in the Godhead, of the fame divine individual Effence, &c.

THE fifth Principle of Catholick Faith, here laid down, is, that, if the Scripture be underftood in the Senfe, in which it was written; it is clear in Scripture, that neither the Son, nor the Holy Spirit is a Creature, and that they are properly and frictly the fame God with the Father. This is immediately follow'd by a fhort Account of the Origin of Arianism; and the Reader is referr'd for farther Information and Satisfaction in this Point, to the fixth Volume of Monfieur Tillemont's