But then the Divine Scripture fometimes calls the Son the First-born of every Creature, as in his own Perfon in that Text, The Lord Created me the beginning of his ways: Let them learn to read after a due manner alfo what is faid in the Proverbs, which it felf has a right meaning; for 'tis written, the Lord Created me the beginning of his ways, for his works. [This Text is most frequently cited and pretended to be answered by Athanafius.] See alfo the like in Hillary, L.IV. & XII. De Trin. &de Synod. Nazianzen. Ambrof. de Fide III. 4. Bafil. IV. adv. Eunom. Epiph. Haref. LXIX. Hieron. Cap. 2. ad Ephef. & Cap. 40. Job. Cyrill. Lib. V. Thef. Cap. 4. & alibi. Theodor. Hiftor. I. 6,7. II. 31. Socrat. II. IS. 17. Ithacius Arnob. jun. Conflict. Serap. Fulgent. Contr. Arian. Vigil. Lib. V. Contr. Eutych. qui etiam probat ex hoc loco Chriftum effe "Creatum. pon this View of the antient Testimonies, we may observe that this Doctrine and Language runs intire from the Days of Solomon, the Son of Sirach, and by Philo the Jew, to the Writers of the New Teftament, Peter, Paul, John, Hermas, the Conftitutions the first Century; and fo down to Ignatius, the Recognitions, Jakin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Melito, in the fecond Century; and from all these comes down to Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian, Dious of Alexandria, Theognoftus, and Methodius in the Third Cen (a) P. 214. Vid. c. 3. p. 221. (b) Orat. 2. Contr. Arian. Op. Vol. 1. §. 44. P. 512. B 3 tury; tury; and even to Lactantius and Eufebius himself in the Begin ning of the Fourth. And we may note withal, that we have no certain Evidence of any that contradicted the fame all this Time; nor indeed, that any were fo much as doubtful about it, unless it were Irenaus, and, as fome imagin, Justin: Of the former of whom I note, that when he avoided the Words, Create and Creature, he was forced to go contrary to other Chriftians in his Interpretation of the famous Place in the Proverbs, and to expound that Wisdom Created by God of the Holy Spirit: We may alfo obferve, that the great Eufebius, who comply'd fo far after the Council of Nice, as rather to omit the Words Create and Creature, yet did not fo before: So that his After-omiffion was not a Sign his Judgment diflik'd, but rather that his Prudence wav'd them at that time. As to Athanafius, whose Teftimony I have added in the laft Place; 'tis not to fupport this Doctrine or Language by his Authority; for he was the great Promoter of the contrary Herefy; but to fhew how univerfal this Notion and Language was in his Days, and how certainly all Chriftians interpreted that Text in the Proverbs of our Saviour's Creation, when He,in all his terrible Agonies about it, and vain Endeavors to get clear of it, could not but ever own it belong'd to our Saviour; and by confequence, that He by running down that Doctrine and Language, ventur'd to oppofe the Dictates of the Holy Spirit of God. For as to that Evafion which He is ever driven to, that this Text belongs not to the original Creation of our Lord before the World, but to his Incarnation afterward, 'tis fo grofs, abfurd, and ridiculous, that I can hardly believe any Man of Common Senfe, much lefs a Man of the Parts of Athanafius could believe himself in fuch an Expofition. And I beg of thofe that are Admirers of his Reafoning, to let me fee one Chriftian now in the World fo very weak, as in earnest to go into that Interpretation. We muft alfo note, that thefe Paffages ftill extant for the real Creation of our Saviour; confidering the fad Loffes and Interpolations of zhofe old Books that were against the Athanafians, are very many and very plain; efpecially if we review upon this occafion all the numerous Paffages before refer'd to, when the Word Generation is us'd, that it was ever own'd to be voluntary, after the Will, and Power, and good Pleasure of the Father were pre-fuppos'd, and not from all Eternity; and remember that even the Council of Nice, who durft fay(a)Chrift was not Made yet,durft not fay he was not Created; and that Eufebius, who feems to be unwilling after that Council, to ufe that Word himself, did yet ufe it before; (a) See Athanafius convicted of Forgery. and and did certainly not (a) own our Saviours proper Eternity. And now, upon this whole View, I dare appeal to every honeft and impartial Reader, who is willing to keep clofe to Chrift's Religion, and the old Chriftian expreffions in these Matters, whether it be not the original Chriftian Doctrine and Language, that our Saviour was really Created,immediately by the Father alone, as all the fubordinate Creatures were really Created by him mediately; or by the Ministration of the Son? And whether those that are afhamed of this certain Branch of our Religion, and choofe rather to follow one or two antient Chriftian Philofophers,do not corrupt the Simplicity of the Christian Faith? Which Faith yet is fuch a facred thing, that no one can ufe any Disguise or Prevarication about it, but he incurs an Apoftolick (b) Anathema, and is esteemed as one spoiled by (c) that Philofophy and vain deceit, which the fame Apoftle affures us is after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Chrift. And we must alfo note here, that the beft of the antient Writers do not, as Dr. Clarke p. 182. &c. infinuates, avoid faying, that Chrift was Created in general; but do fo only in the fame Sentence that they Speak of the ordinary Creatures under that Denomination; as it was proper to do, on account of the vast difference there was every way between them; and as the Arians and Eunomians did in another way, with the greatest Exactnefs; I mean when they faid he was κτίσμα, ἐκ ὡς ἓν ' κτισμάτων· ποίημα, ἐκ ὡς ἓν a T. A Creature, but not like one of the ordinary Creatures: A Being Made, but not like one of the ordinary Beings that were Made. This feems the true occafion of that fcruple that has arifed, whether our Saviour might be truly faid to be Created or a Creature. The way to cure which is not to lay afide the old Words and invent new ones of our own; but to use and confine our felves to thofe old Words; yet withal to take care to ufe them in the fame diftinct manner, as they were originally understood by the antient Chriftians, and not otherwife. But then, that he is really a Derivative, Begotten, Created Being, in oppofition to any proper Coeternity with the Father, I take to be very plain in Scripture and Antiquity, and an eminent part of that facred Depofitum which Chrift and his Apoftles deliver'd to the Church; and which, for the main, was ftill the Chriftian Doctrine, efpecially in all the Eaftern (d) Parts, till many Years after the Council of Nice: nay indeed was fo known and confefs'd a part of it, that Our Lord's Creation by the Fa (a) See Moufaucon pralim. ad Eufeb. Comment. in Pfaim C. 6. B 4 ther, 1 ther, was acknowledg'd in the publick Liturgy of the Jewish Churches; and what was equivalent thereto in that of the Gentiles, during all the firft Ages of the Gofpel, every Lord's Day, in the Offices for the Lord's Supper; as we learn from the plain Words of the Liturgies of the Apoftolical Conftitutions already fet down. One thing farther deferves here highly to be confider'd, that Dr. Clarke, who proteffes to build all on the Scriptures, does yet feem to endeavor to fet afide these Scriptural Terms Create and Creature; while himself ufes feveral Unfcriptural ones of his own in their ftead: And that he does this chiefly on the uncertain Authority of Irenaus; who, among the four Words made ufe of by him as to the Origin of our Bleffed Saviour, Prolationem, Generationem, Nuncupationem, and Adapertionem, has but one of them, that is, of certain and facied Authority, while the other Three are of uncertain, and human, or rather of heretical Original. I beg of Dr. Clarke to fhew us how this Procedure of his is confiftent with the main Defign and very Title of his Book. And he well knows, that if even Irenaus, or an (a) Angel from Heaven preaches any other Doarine than we have received from Chrift, he is to be accurfed. Nor does Ireneus's making this Generation of Chrift fo particularly unfearchable and myfterious feem to me well grounded; nor indeed other than a Weftein Prelude, towards that Scholaftick Myftery of Trinity; which the Apoftolick Age knew nothing of; which the later Ages have made fuch a Noife about; and which feems chiefly to have been fupported by that mifapply'd Text in (b) Ifaiah, Who fhall declare his generation? Which none who ever knew an Apoftle, as far as I obferve, did ever apply to that matter; no more than they did that of (c) Paul, God over all, bleffed for ever, to the Son of God: Both which Texts have fince that time been made fo useful towards the corrupting of our old Christianity in these matters. One thing farther, I muft here note alfo; That Dr. Clarke (d) gives up what I call the metaphyfick Eternity of our Saviour, before his Generation or Creation, as abfurd; which yet has great Authority for its Support; while he feems to allow of fomewhat like a real eternal Generation, or Cceternity with the Father: Which, abating the doubtful Opinion of Ireneus, is almoft wholly deftitute of all antient Authority whatsoever. So easily may the greatest Men be byafs'd by the prevailing Opinions of the Age they live in; and fo very difficult a thing it is to go exactly by (a) Gal. I. 8, 5. (b) Ifa. LIII. 8. (c) Ram. IX. 5. See Ignat. ad Taf. §. 6. (d) P. 287. & f original original Evidence, where Prudence, Intereft, and the Regards of this World are not utterly difcarded before-hand in our Enquiries. I Oblerve VII. That Dr. Clarke's (a) nice Obfervations, that the metaphyfick manner of the Son and Spirit's Generation or Creation by the Father are not defin'd in Scripture, and fo not to be explain'd by us, are of no great weight; fince the like metaphyfick manner of the Eternity of the Father, or of the Creation of the ordinary Creatures, or indeed of any thing elfe, is not fet down there. So that as we can thence tell that God has ever exifted; and the ordinary Creatures have not, without fuch Definitions; fo may we know that the Son is not coeternal with the Father, nor the Spirit ftrictly coeval with either the Father or the Son, from the obvious Paffages therein, and in the oldeft Authors relating to them, without the Expectation of fuch Definitions. I am content that my Chriftian Faith be fet down in plain obvious Words, as it is; and do not mightily defire nice metaphyfick Definitions; or if I did, I find by the mott antient Recognitions, and Eunomius from them, that the Opinions of the Moderns are contrary to thofe earlieft Traditions in the Church of Chrift which are delivered in Philofophick Language to us. Nor is there the leaft antient Authority for any proper (b) Eternity of the Holy Ghoft; nor indeed for any other Doctrine, as to his Origin, but that He was the (c) principal of thofe Beings, which God the Father made by the Miniftration of his Son; and when Dr. Clarke feems to depend on the Text in the Hebrews (4) avis dual Eternal Spirit, while he acknowledges, that feveral Copies have there die dual Holy Spirit, (Dr. Mills reckons about a dozen) and knows that the Word air does not properly fignify Eternal in our modern Senfe neither, I can only wonder at his Procedure, without being able to give any tolerable account of it. No more than I can give a good account, why the modern Word fubordinate to the Father is only put into his 34th Section (e) or Propofition, when fo many of the Texts and Teftimonies alledg'd for the Proof of it, do plainly fhew, that he is leffer than, and inferior to, the Father alfo. Í Obferve VIII. That Dr. Clarke's laft Chapter (f) is fo evidently forc'd, and unnatural; efpecially as to the Expofitions belonging to the Third and Fourth Petitions in the Litany, to the Athanafian Creed, and the proper Preface for Trinity Sunday, that (a) P. 272. &c. P. 290. &c. (b) P. 290. &c. §. 2, 3, 15. (See Account of the Primitive Faith Artic. XIX. Heb. IX. 14. (e) P. 304. &c. (d) p. 200. (1) P. 415. &c. I know |