1685. vine nature with the Father, without any change or diminution, yet he is subordinate to the Father, as receiving the divine nature from him. This is in short the very sum of his doctrine, which hath been excepted against by some, and misapplied by others; as if such a subordination which he teacheth were in itself inconsistent with a natural or essential coequality of persons. But not to trouble ourselves here with any others, let us proceed to take a view at once of the doctrine of the Trinity, which Dr. Clarke hath advanced for the true Scripture doctrine of it; which is this, viz. "There is one first "and supreme cause, the Author of all being, and "sole origin of all power and authority, who alone "is self-existent, underived, unoriginated, indepen"dent, made of none, begotten of none, proceeding "from none; who is called the Father, and is abso“lutely supreme over all, and the one or only God "in the Scripture language. With whom there hath "existed from the beginning a second divine person, "who is called his Word or Son, deriving his being or essence, and all his attributes from him, as the 66 66 supreme cause; but whether by the necessity of "nature, or the power of his will only, the doctor "will not be positive: no more than he will be, "whether he existed from all eternity, or only be"fore all worlds; and whether he was begotten of "the same substance and essence with the Father, "or made out of nothing; because of the danger of "presuming to be able to define the particular me 66 taphysical manner of the Son's deriving his essence "from the Father. With whom also a third person "hath existed, deriving his essence in like manner "from him, through the Son; which person hath 66 66 66 higher titles ascribed to him than to any angel, or "other created being whatsoever, but is no where "called God in Scripture, being subordinate to the "Son, both by nature and by the will of the Father." This is the substance of the doctrine of the Trinity, as defended by this doctor, and from which he inferreth, "That absolute supreme honour is due to "the person of the Father singly, as being alone "the supreme Author of all being and power; and "that whatever honour is paid to the Son, who re"deemed, or to the Holy Spirit, who sanctifieth us, "must always be understood, as tending finally to "the honour and glory of the Father, by whose good pleasure the Son redeemed, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies us." According to this doctrine, it appeareth that the Son must not be God, strictly and properly speaking, much less still the Holy Spirit, but that God the Father alone is the true and supreme God: and therefore he asserts expressly, that the Scripture, when it mentions God absolutely, and by way of eminence, means the person of the Father; as likewise when it mentioneth the one God, or the only God; though he could not, after having read the Defence of the Nicene Faith, be ignorant that this was contrary to the mind of the catholic Fathers. Neither could he, of what the learned author of the Considerations on Mr. Whiston's Historical Preface, whom he cites, had said to this purpose; though he might not possibly have observed or remembered, that there is a whole chapter in St. Irenæus, purposely to shew, that Christ is in Scripture expressly and absolutely called God, and 1685. 1685. that he is the one and only God in the unity of the Father's substance or essence; and very God, in opposition to all those that are improperly called God in the sacred writings. However this might be, certain it is, that Dr. Clarke, who had so ample a collection of testimonies concerning the Trinity before him in this treatise, as well as in Petavius, hath not made that use of them, which this indefatigable and judicious collector did, or which might have been expected from a person of so great a character in the church and learned world, as Dr. Clarke. The doctor's artful For the plain and confessed truth is, that we are way of cit- not to depend much upon the quotations by him ing authors brought, for knowing the opinion or judgment of any writer since this was never so much as designed by him. Wherefore the reader must not wonder, as he himself fairly warneth, if many passages not consistent with (nay perhaps contrary to) those which are cited by him in this book, shall by any one be alleged out of the same authors. So we must not wonder if in above thirty citations, out of our author, according as this ingenious writer hath extracted and applied them, we can hardly find one in ten of them cited with any consistence with, or subservience to that, which we know for certain to have been our author's fixed opinion, and well weighed judgment. For whosoever will be at the pains to compare the several passages cited by Dr. Clarke, as they stand in the places whence they are taken, with other clear and express passages of our learned author, and with the whole scope and purport of his reasonings for the truth of the Nicene doctrine, must evidently perceive, that these are all placed in quite another light by the doctor than in the book referred to; that some are directly contrary 1685. to the author's true meaning, and to his design in writing, and most of the rest inconsistent at least with the same, as the doctor very well knew. And indeed he minceth not the matter, but frankly and ingenuously acknowledgeth, that he doth not cite places out of these authors, [meaning them who have written since the council of Nice,] so much to shew what was the opinion of the writers themselves, as to shew how naturally truth sometimes prevails by its own native clearness and evidence, even against the strongest and most settled prejudices. Nothing therefore would be more vain, than to expect to learn from him the opinion of any Christian writer whatsoever, later than the council of Nice, because quoted by him: and as for the writers before, and at the time of that council, he thinketh, that the greatest part of them were really of that opinion, which he hath endeavoured to set forth in his propositions, which make the second part of his pretended Scripture doctrine. But though this be his thought, he cannot but own nevertheless, that they do not always speak very clearly and consistently. By which I suppose he meaneth, that they do not always plainly support his scheme. This charge however I do not find laid by him against our author, who hath spoken his mind clearly enough in the great points before us, and who will appear never to have contradicted his own assertions or theses concerning these mysterious truths. ticularly, One would indeed be almost tempted to believe, More parthat he had, from many passages that this learned the Defendoctor hath picked up out of him with much art, in Nicænæ. order to support his own scheme, been altogether of sio Fidei 1685. his mind; or that at least his manner of writing must have been very perplexed, without any connexion or consistency with principles, and as holding forth frequently a double meaning. But that this is no part of his character, the very passages appealed to by the very doctor himself, to exemplify how naturally truth can prevail, as he will have it, by its own native evidence, are more than sufficient to prove; for which reason I have drawn up a y list y Clarke's Script. Doctrine. P. I. c. 2. §. 5. T. 830. p. 161. P. II. §. 9. p. 257. Bull's Def. Fidei Nica. Sect. III. c. 8. §. 8. P. II. §. 17. p. 282. P. II. §. 23. p. 295. Sect. III. c. 9. §. 8. Ibid. |