excellent sense, and who knew how to talk pertinently,) easily contrived to baffle their adversaries with their own weapons. Tell us, say they to the Arians, whether the Father be God, nolens, or volens; against his will, or with his will. This quite confounded the men, and their dilemma; and they had not a word to say more. For, if they had said nolens, against his will; that was manifestly absurd: if they had said volens, with his will; then, by their own argument, they made the Father prior to himself. The Doctor perhaps might have helped them out. Let us see then: "The answer," he says, "is "clear." But what is clear? Does he imagine there was any difficulty in answering St. Austin's question, taken by itself? This required no Edipus; any man might readily answer it but the difficulty was for an Arian to make an answer, which should not recoil upon himself. Let us take the Doctor's answer, and observe whether it could be of use. "The Father," says he, "is God with the "approbation of his will, (volens,) not by an act of his "will." But if an Arian formerly had thus answered St. Austin, it would have made the good Father smile. For he would immediately have replied: Well then; so the Father had his Son (volens) with the approbation of his will, and not by an act of his will: and now what becomes of your dilemma, and your nolens volens? What could the Arian have pretended farther, except it were to persist in it, that the Son was God by an act of the will? To which it would be readily answered, that this was begging the question: and so the whole must have ended. Judge you now, whether the Doctor or St. Austin had the greater acumen in this matter; and which of them is most apt to be very unfair, and to confound distinct things.