wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

of R A L ? H C U D W O R T H, D. D.' there has hardly been apamphJct or book written for ibme years about the" blcffed Trinity, elpecially in En^/anJy and in the hetciodox way, which' does not bring in Dr. Cud'-j^cr:h upon the ftage, and vouch his name and" quotations for its purpofe. VViiils on the other liand, the truly Orthodox" ('tho' often thro' a mifunderftanding of his fenfc) do aim at his Doftrine as" a mark of their Invcdives ; and others, who call themfdves alfo by that" name, entcitaining no little veneration for the very words iiftd by the an-" tient Fathers, cfpecially when repeated and revived by fo learned a perfon" as Dr. Cudwovth^ and refolving whatever fhould come of it, to ftand by"them, have unhappily fallen into a kind q{ Tritheijm." Mr. /r//^ thereforeendeavours, as much as poffible, to clear up and Jultify our Author's Doctrine.However, Mr. Robert Nelfon, in his Life of Bijfjop Bull *, declares, thatDr. Cud--jjorth\ Notion with regard to the Trinity was the fame with Dr. SamuelClarke's, and rcprefents it in tlie following terms ; That the three Perfons of theTrinity are three diftinSl fpiritual SiilftanceSy but that the Father alcne is trulyand properly God; that be alone in the proper fenfe is fupreme ; that ahfolutefupreme Honour is due to him only ; and that he, abfolutcly fpeaking, is the onlyGod of the Univerfe, the Son and Spirit being Gcd but only by the Father s concurrencewith them, and their fubordina^ion and fubjc5iion lo him. But to retui-n toMr. Wife; he next confiders our Author's opinion about the Refurrcition,who, as appears from' feveral pallages of his -/>;/f//t'^7«fl/6)y?f;;7, thought, thatthe Refurrcdion-body will not confift of the fime fubftance with that, whichXVwas buried ; and that it will not be a body of flefli, but an a;thereal one ;and that the prefent body is only a feed of the Refurredion. However Mr.IVife fliews from otlier paffages in his Works, that he has as plainly alfertedthe Refurredion of the llime numerical Body, as in fome places he has deniedit.In the year 1703, ^c. Monfieur Z,^ C/^rc gave large extradsofthe IntellenualSyftem in his Bibliotheque Choife, Tom. I. II. III. V. \'II. VIII. IX.whicli engag'd him in a difpute yvith Monfieur Bayle, concerning Dr. Cudworth'sNotion of Plajlic Natures. Monfieur Bayle, in his Continuation desPenfees diverfes fur les Cornetesf, had obferved, that " the Atheifts are very" much perplex'd, how to account for the Formation of Animals, which they" afcrib'd to a caufe, which was not confcious of what it did, and yet followed" a regular Plan, without knowing according to what laws it went to work." But Dr. Cudworth's Plajlic Nature, and Dr. Grezv's Vital Principle \\are" exadly in the fame cafe j and thus they take away the whole ftrength of" this objcdion againft the Atheifts. For if God could communicate fuch" a plaftic power, it follows, that it is not inconfiftent with the nature of*' things, that there' be fuch agents. They may therefore exiftof themfelves," will the adverlary fay ; whence it would alfo follow, that the regularity," which we obferve in the univerfe, may be the effed of a blind caufe,"which was not confcious of what it did." Mx.Eayle however own'd,that Dr. Cudworlh and Dr. Grejj were not aware of the confequence, which,according• §. LXI.p. ;-f),34C. ci,V. London. 1714. IISee Dr. .N^/'fwnj,?? Grip's Cofmolo^^ia Sacra^inoSl.ivo.\ 'iom. I. §. 21.'pnVirt^'.* Lo.ndon, \-oi. in folia.