After Arius arofe; the Catholicks found it highly neceffary to infift much on the eternal Generation. For, the Arians, taking advantage of it, that the Temporary Condefcenfion of the Son, to create the World, had been often called his Generation, were for looking no higher; but artfully infinuated that this was the first production of Him; and that it was abfurd to talk of the Son's exifting before He was begotten: in oppofition to which pretence, we find the Nicene Fathers anathematizing fuch as fhould fay, that the Son exifted not before He was BEGOTTEN; meaning in the Senfe now explain'd. However, the Arians might have known that the eternal Existence of the Aby was univerfally Taught; and even by thole who afferted a Temporal Generation. Nor indeed were they ignorant of it; but † they contrived, for a Salvo, to maintain, that the Ay, or Word, which was held to be Eternal, was not the fame with the Aoy, or Word begotten; the former being only the Father's own proper Word, and no fubftantial Thing: the latter, a created Substance, directly contrary to all Antiquity which has nothing to countenance any fuch Notion of a twofold Aoy. Upon this, it became neceffary to explain in what Senfe any Temporal Generation had been afferted; and to keep up the true Catholick Doctrine, which had obtain’d

* Ην ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν Κυνηθῆναι στη ν

See Bull. Def. F. p. 198. Athan. Orat. 2; p. 507.

from

from the Beginning; namely, of the Eternal Aoy diftinct from the Father; Son of the Father, as partaking of the fame divine Subftance from all Eternity; * going out from the Father to create the World; and lastly condefcending to become Man: Son, in all thefe respects, but primarily and chiefly in respect of the firft. From the whole, we may remark, that an explicite Profeffion of eternal Generation might have been difpens'd with; provided only that the eternal Existence of the Aoy, as a real fubfifting Perfon, in, and of† the Father, (which comes to the fame Thing) might be fecured. This was the point; and this was all. In this, all found Catholicks agreed; and to difpute it, was accounted Herefy, and Blafphemy. If any one, difliking the Name, or the Phrase of eternal Generation, thinks it better to affert an eternal Word, instead of an eternal Son, (meaning thereby a diftinct Perfon, and confubftantial with God, whofe Word He is) and refers the Generation to his first and fecond Manifeftation, at the Creation and Incarnation; there feems to be no farther harm in it, than what lies in the Words, and their liablenefs to be mifconftrued,

*This is well exprefs'd by e Antiochian Fathers, against Paul of Samofata; and by Clement of Alexandria, Touro e o πατρὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα, εκπεπληρωκέναι τὸ πατρικὸν βάλημα, πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν * ὅλων. Labb. Conc. Tom. 1. p. 845. Τέκνον αὐτὸ γνήσιον, καὶ κληρονόμον, ὥσπερ ἐπί τινα ξενιτείαν ἐνταῦθα πεμπόμενον, ὑπὸ μεγάλης οίκος νομίας, καὶ ἀναλογίας ξ πατρὸς, δ ̓ οὗ καὶ τὰ φανερὰ καὶ τὰ ἀφανῆ & ngous didnwispy. Clem. Alex. Quis div. p. 955. Ox. † Vid, Athan. Vol. 1, p. 222. 619, 628,

of

or to give Offence. Here therefore every Man is left to his own Difcretion and Prudence: Only the fafer way feems to be, to follow the moft general and moft approved manner of Expreffion, together with the antient Faith; being, in all probability, the fureft means to preferve Both. I defignedly faid, first and last, not first or laft. For, fuch as interpret the Generation, of the laft only, ftand, I think, * clearly condemned by Scripture; many places whereof can never fairly be accounted for by the miraculous Conception folely: Befides that from Barnabas, and Clemens Romanus, down to the Council of Nice, all the Chriftian Writers fpeak unanimoufly of a higher, antecedent Sanship; and, generally, even found Worship upon it.

I fhall juft obferve to you, in the close of this Article, that, from what hath been said, you may know what Judgment to make of an Affertion of Dr. Clarke's, viz. That the learned'ft of the most Orthodox Fathers, who afferted the Eternal Generation of the Son, did yet nevertheless affert it to be an Act of the Father's eternal Power and Will. By which the Doctor feems to infinuate, that the good Fathers

Sane in ifta ex Maria Virgine nativitate Suprema & Singularis x atque excellentia Filiationis Domini noftri adeo non confiftit, ut ea ipfa Nativitas ad ejus fupendam yantam omnino referenda fit. Hoc nos fatis apertè docent, fi modo a Spiritu Sancto edoceri velimus, multis in locis, S. literæ. .Ita feinper credidit inde ab ipfis Apoftolis Catholica Chrifti Ecclefia. Bull. 1. p. 39. See also Dr. Fiddes Vol. 1. B. 4. Ch. 2.

Script. Dotr, p. 280. alias 247.

did not understand Eternal in the ftrict Senfe. If the learned Doctor can fhow, that Thofe, who maintain'd only the Voluntary and Temporary Proceffion of the Son, believed that the Aoy was eternally pre-existing in the Father, by an Act of his Will; or that Thofe who exprefly afferted an eternal Generation, believed alfo that it was an Arbitrary Thing, and might have been otherwise, (which I fuppofe is the Doctor's Sense of an Act of the Will) then He will do fomething. But, as none of his Authorities prove any thing like it; it would have been a prudent part, at least, not to have produced Them to fo little purpose. But enough of this Matter: I have, I hope, fufficiently explain'd my Self upon this Head; and have therefore the more reason to expect a diftinct Answer from You, whenever you think proper to reconfider this Subject.

QUERY

QUERY IX.

Whether the divine Attributes, Omniscience, Ubiquity, &c. Thofe individual Attributes, can be communicated without the divine Effence, from which they are infeparable?

TE

HE intent of this Query was to prevent Equivocations; and to make theNext clearer. You agree with me that the individuel divine Attributes cannot be communicated without the individual Nature in which they fubfift. You add, that Dr. Clarke, in the 230th page of his Replies, hath plainly shown, that individual Attributes, divine or not divine, cannot possibly be Communicated at all. Well then; we know what the Doctor means by all divine Powers, in his Scripture Doctrine, (p. 298.) which is one point gain'd: For when words are stripp'd of their Ambiguity, we may be the better able to deal with them. As to the Doctor's Aphorifm laid down (p. 230.) I may have leave to doubt of it, notwithstanding that it is fet forth to us, with the utmost Affurance. It is not unufual with the Doctor to lay down Maxims, in relation to this Controverty, which Himself would not allow, at another Time, or in another Subject. For Inftance; necessary Agents are no Causes,

Whatever proceeds from any Being, otherwife than by the Will off that Being, dork not in Truth proceed from that Being; but fam fome other Caufe or Neceffity extrinfick and independent of that