and strictly so, maugre all the endeavours of weak and vain men to the contrary.

Seeing then that this passage is so full and clear, that neither Socinians, Sabellians, nor Arians, can any way work it into any of their schemes, what must be done next? Some of them have been willing to think, and bold enough to say, that these four verses were fraudulently added, and were not originally a part of this Epistle. But all the copies and ancient versions of this Epistle retain these four verses: so that any pretence of forgery or interpolation does but expose the man that makes it, and the cause that needs it. The last pretence is, that this passage is intended of God the Father, and not of Christ. But the whole context, and the whole scope and drift of the author, in citing these verses, are sufficient to confute that conceit": nor would any one, that has not an hypothesis to serve, ever suspect that the words were intended any other but Christ, to whom they are so manifestly applied. Thus was the passage understood (and never otherwise that I know of) in the fourth and fifth centuries, and cited in proof of Christ's being properly Creator; not only by * Athanasius, Ambrose, Austin, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria, but by the elder Cyril too, who has been generally thought a very moderate man, and not much a favourer of Athanasius, though he retained the same faith. But enough of this. From what hath been said it appears now plainly and undeniably, that God the Son is properly Creator of the world. It was he that laid the foundation of the earth," and the "heavens are the works of his hands." If there be any doubt in respect of the other texts, as not being full and explicit enough, there can be none in respect of this: so

of

X

t Judgment of the Fathers, p. 30.

u See Defence of some Queries, vol. i. p. 67.

Athanas. tom. i. p. 440, 461, 685. tom. ii. p. 10. Chrysost. in Joh. p. 44. Cyril. Alexand. Thesaur. p. 126, 205. Cyril. Hierosol. Cateches. p. 221. Pseudo-Justin. p. 296. ed. Sylburg. Ambros. de Fid. 1. v. c. 2. Augustin. contr. Maxim. 1. ii. p. 741, Greg. Nyss. contr. Eun. 1. iv. p. 542.

that, at length, we see Scripture itself has put an end to the disputes about the prepositions ev and dià, in, by, or through, and shows that all the criticisms of our adversaries about them, if intended to prove that God the Son is not properly Creator, are groundless and false. But if any thing else be intended, they are not pertinent to the cause in hand.

I may here observe to you farther, by the way, that those gentlemen who retreat to that subterfuge, that they may appear at least to have something to say, do not themselves know distinctly what they mean by it. Is it that God made the world by Christ, as he "wrought "special miracles by the hands of Paul?" (Acts xix. 11.) Is the Father in such a sense the efficient, and the Son the ministering Cause? They do not, y they dare not say it. For, besides this plain text, out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, directly against it, they cannot but know that the whole Catholic Church, down from Barnabas, (that is, from the days of the Apostles,) were of another mind; that even Origen and Eusebius, their two favourite authors, would condemn them; and that the soberer Arians themselves were so far orthodox, as to allow a proper efficiency to the Son, in the work of creation, Scripture and tradition running clear and strong for it. Since therefore a proper efficiency must be admitted, what can they pretend next? That the Son's efficiency reached not so far, . was not of the same extent, as the Father's? But here Scripture, express Scripture, comes in, and precludes every pretence of this nature. "All things were made by him, says St. John, (John i. 3.) not a single thing without him: all things, says St. Paul, (Eph. iii. 9.) and again, all things by the Son, the same, and therefore as many

y Dr. Clarke, indeed, says, (Script. Doctr. p. 269. 2d. ed.) that the Son created the world by the power of the Father: but he does not deny that he created it by his own power: that would be too plainly running, counter to Scripture and the whole Catholic Church; and betraying meaner thoughts of Christ than the generality of the ancient Arians appear to have had. See above, p. 25.

things as of the Father, (1 Cor. viii. 6.) and again, "all "things visible and invisible" &c. Coloss. i. 16. If therefore a proper efficiency, and of the same extent, must be allowed, what will our adversaries allege farther to lessen it? Will they say that it is not the same in kind? that the Father, for example, created; the Son only framed or modelled? But neither will this pretence serve any better than the former: for then it would not have been said that the Father made or created the world, or all things, by his Son, but framed and modelled only. And yet we have every word applied in this case, that can be supposed to carry any weight or significancy; πάντα ἐγένετο, says St. John, all things were made, not framed or modelled only. Or if xrige, to create, be stronger, Távta extion, all things were created, twice over by St. Paul, Coloss. i. 16. Or if To be imagined to signify something more, we have that word also, δι' ξ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίη σE", "by whom also he made the worlds," Heb. i. 2.

If then the Son's efficiency be proper, and of the same extent, and of the same kind with the Father's, let our adversaries tell us what they would have next? They will say still, the Son is subordinate. Right; and so long as they take the other considerations along with it, that he is efficient in a proper sense, in the same kind, and in the same extent, as the Father is, we shall not dispute the point of subordination with them. The Father is primarily Creator, as the first in order, the Son secondarily, as second in order; and they are both one Creator, as they are one in nature, in power, and in operation. This is the Catholic faith, which was before Arianism; and will be after it.

Thus far I have proceeded in the proof of my position from the New Testament: and there is no farther need of any other. But since the ancients have also made use of several texts of the Old Testament, it will be proper to take a short view of them also; not so much to confirm. what has been before proved and wants no confirmation, as to explain and illustrate it something farther, and withal

to give us a clearer idea of the sentiments of the primitive writers on this head.

In the first chapter of Genesis, ver. 26, God is introduced, speaking in the plural number, "Let us make (6 man in OUR image, after OUR likeness." This text has been understood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (or at least of Father and Son,) by the whole stream of Christian writers, down from the times of the Apostles. The Christians were not singular in thinking that the text intimated a plurality. The Jews before, and after, believed so too, as appears from Philo, and Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; only they interpreted the text of God and his angels, which the Christians understood of the Persons of the Trinity. Justin Martyr and others made very good use of it against the Jews, observing how absurd it was to suppose that angels could be joined in that manner with God the Father, and be able to create man, or any thing.

Thus far at least we may infer from their manner of using this text, and their reasonings upon it, that the Christian Church, in general, believed Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to create, as it were, in concert, and every Person of the Trinity to be properly Creator.

This will appear farther from another text of the Old Testament, which they cite very frequently, to the same purpose. It is Psalm xxxiii. 6. " By the word of the Lord "were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by "the breath of his mouth:" or, as it may be understood, by his WORD, and by his SPIRIT. This they interpreted of the Aóyos, or WORD, which St. John speaks of, and of the Holy Ghost. Which interpretation z obtained

Ꮓ

z Theoph. Antioch. p. 21. Ox. ed. Irenæus, p. 98, 183. ed. Bened. Hippolyt. contr. Noët. cap. xii. p. 14. Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. vii. p. 503. Origen. in Joh. p. 43. Euseb. Præp. Evan. lib. vii, cap. 12. lib. xi. cap. 14. in Ps. p. 125. Athanas. p. 694. Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. iii. p. 82, 110. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xliv. p. 714. Epiph. Ancorat. p. 29. Pseudo-Justin. Expos. Fid. p. 296. Sylb. ed. Pseud-Ambros. de Symb. Apost. lib. vi. p. 324. ed.

Bened.

very early in the second century, and was generally received afterwards. It must indeed be presumed that those early writers would not have entirely founded any doctrine of that moment on texts so very capable of another construction. But having already imbibed the principles of Christianity from the New Testament and Catholic tradition, they easily believed that those texts intended such a sense, when they knew from other evidences, that that sense was a truth, whether taught there or no.

Here again I must observe, that whether the text of the Psalms proves any thing or nothing to the point in hand, its being used formerly, in favour of such a doctrine, shows that that doctrine was then received, and was the faith of the Church.

There are two texts more out of Psalms, which I may put together, being both of the same import and significancy. Ps. xxxiii. 9. " He spake, and it was done; he "commanded, and it stood fast." The other is Ps. cxlviii. 5. "He commanded, and they were created."

These the a ancients understood of the three Persons; the Father being supposed to issue out his orders or commands for the creation, and the Son and Holy Ghost to execute or fulfil them. This notion obtained among the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene writers; and seems to have been grounded chiefly upon those two passages out of the Psalms, and some expressions in the first chapter of Genesis c. What led the Fathers to take the more notice of those places, was the singular use they might be of in their disputes with Jews and heretics. The Jews denied

Irenæus, p. 118, 183, 169, 288. Epist. Synod. Antioch. Labb. tom. i. p. 845. Orig. in Joh. p. 18, 61. Contr. Cels. p. 63, 317, 79. Euseb. Præpar. Evang. lib. vii. cap. 12. in Psal. p. 125. Athanas. p. 216, 499. Cyril. Catech. xi. p. 143, 147. Hilar. de Trin. lib. iv. p. 837.

b Irenæus, lib. iv. cap. 38. p. 285. Hippolytus contr. Noët. p. 16. Basil. de Sp. Sanct. cap. 16. Cyril. Hierosol. p. 146. Ox. ed. Hilar. p. 325, 837, 840, Athanas. p. 216, 499. See others cited in Petav. lib. ii. c. 7. p. 141.

• Vid. Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. xii. p. 506. Hilar. de Trin. lib. iv. p. 836. Athanas. Orat. ii. p. 499.