Abbildungen der Seite

contemned, two thousand two hundred and sixty-two, or rather two thousand two hundred and fifty-six. From the flood brought at that time upon the earth for the sins of men which polluted it, upon the birth of Abraham, the father of the faithful, not above ten generations, if so many, took up two hundred and ninety-two years according to the least, one thousand one hundred and thirty-two according to the largest account. Since which time the ages of men have been very much alike proportionably long; and it is agreed by all that there have not passed since the birth of Abraham three thousand seven hundred years. Now by the experience of our families, which for their honour and greatness have been preserved, by the genealogies delivered in the Sacred Scriptures, and thought necessary to be presented to us by the blessed evangelists, by the observation and concurrent judgment of former ages, three generations* usually take up a hundred years. If then it be not yet three thousand seven hundred years since the birth of Abraham, as certainly it is not; if all men who are or have been since have descended from Noah, as undoubtedly they have; if Abraham were but the tenth from Noah, as Noah from Adam, which Moses hath assured us: then it is not probable that any person now alive is above one hundred and thirty generations removed from Adam. And indeed thus admitting but the Greek account of less than five thousand years since the flood, we may easily bring all sober or probable accounts of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Chinese, to begin since the dispersion at Babel. Thus having expressed at last the time so far as it is necessary to be known, I shall conclude this second consideration of the nature and notion of creation.

Now being under the terms of heaven and earth, we have proved all things beside God to be contained, and that the making of all these things was a clear production of them out

By the Greeks called yeveal, which the sense of Homer. 'IX. A. 250. are successions of generations from Τώδ' ήδη δύο μέν γενεαι μερόπων father to son: as in St. Matt. i. 17. ανθρώπων Indeed sometimes they take it for 'Εφθίαθ, οί οι πρόσθεν άμα τράφεν other spaces of time: as Artemidorus ήδ' εγένοντο. observes, for seven years. Kar' évious And I conceive that gloss in Hesyμεν έτη ζ'. όθεν και λέγουσιν οι ιατρικοί, chius, Επί διαστήματος χρόνων των μη των δύο γενεών (not προ των, as Wol- κατ' αυτό βεβιωκότων, to be far more fius and Portus would correct it) un, properly applicable to that place. But, déva (not uni deiv, as Suidas) pleßoro- in the sense of which we now speak, μείν, τον τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτη (not τεσσα- it is taken for the third part ordinarily peoradékatov, as Suidas transcribing of a hundred years; as Herodotus, bim negligently) Aéyovtes. Sometimes mentioning the Egyptian feigned gethey interpret it twenty, twenty-five, nealogies: Kairoi tpinkóolai mèv åvor thirty years, as appears by Hesy- spôv yeveai duvéarai júpia érea• three chius. And by that last account they hundred generations equalize ten thoureckoned the years of Nestor : Κατ' sand years: γενεαί γάρ τρείς ανδρών ενίους δελ'. όθεν και τον Νέστορα βούλον- εκατόν έτεά εστι. Eiterp. c. 142. And Tai eis évvevíkovra črn yeyovévai. So after him Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. i. Artemidorus and the Grammarians. c. 21. p. 145. Els Tà ékardy čty speis Although I cannot imagine that to be εγκαταλέγονται γενεαί.

[ocr errors]

of nothing; the third part of the explication must of necessity follow, that he which made all things is God. This truth is so evident, in itself, and so confessed by all men, that none did ever assert the World was made, but withal affirmed that it was God who made it. There remaineth therefore nothing more in this particular, than to assert God so the Creator of the World as he is described in this Article.

Being then we believe in God the Father, makar of heaven and earth, and by that God we expressed already a singularity of the Deity; our first assertion which we must make good is, That the one God did create the World. Again, being whosoever is that God, cannot be excluded from this act of creation, as being an emanation of the Divinity, and we seem by these words to appropriate it to the Father, beside whom we shall hereafter shew that we believe some other persons to be the same God; it will be likewise necessary to declare the reason why the creation of the World is thus signally attributed to God the Father.

The first of these deserves no explication of itself, it is so obvious to all who have any true conception of God. But because it hath been formerly denied (as there is nothing so senseless but some kind of heretics have embraced, and may be yet taken up in times of which we have no reason to presume better than of the former), I shall briefly declare the creation of the World to have been performed by that one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As for the first, there is no such difference between things of the World, as to infer a diversity of makers of them, nor is the least or worst of creatures in their original, any way derogatory to the Creator. God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good,” (Gen. i. 31.) and consequently likely to come from the Fountain of all goodness, and fit always to be ascribed to the same. Whatsoever is evil, is not so by the Creator's action, but by the creature's defection.

In vain then did the heretics of old, to remove a seeming inconvenience, remove a certain truth; and while they feared to make their own god evil,* they made him partial, or but half the Deity, and so a companion at least with an evil god, For dividing all things of this World into nature substantially evil, and substantially good, and apprehending a necessity of an origination conformable to so different a condition, they imagined one God essentially good, as the first principle of the one, another god essentially evil, as the original of the other. And this strange heresy began upon the first spreadingt of the Gospel; as if the greatest light could not appear without a shadow.

'Inde Manichæus, ut Deum a + For we must not look upon Manes conditione malorum liberet, alterum as the first author of the heresy, though mali inducit auctorem.' S. Hier. in they who followed him were called Nahum, c. 3.

from him Manichæans. Nor must we

Whereas there is no nature originally sinful, no substance in itself evil, and therefore no being which may not come from the same fountain of goodness. " I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things,” (Isa. xlv. 7.) saith he who also said, “ I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no god besides me.” (Isa. xlv. 5.) Vain then is that conceit which framed two gods, one of them called Light, the other Darkness; one good, the other evil; refuted in the first words of the CREED, I believe in God, maker of heaven and earth. be satisfied with the relation of So- of Buddas, to whom Socrates and crates, who allots the beginning of that Suidas attribute them, but of Scythiheresy, jikpòv žut poogev tõv Kwvorav- anus, whom St. Cyril and Epiphanius Tivov xpóvwv, a little before Constan- make the author of them. Neither can tine; being, Epiphanius asserts, the it be objected that they were not Mafirst author of it, oréXEo9al Tiv Tropelav nichæans before the appearance of επί τα Ιεροσόλυμα περί τους χρόνους των Manes; for I conceive the name of 'ATOOTÓlwv, to have gone to Jerusalem Manes (thought by the Greeks to be even about the Apostles' times. Hæres. a name taken up by Cubricus, and Ixvi. §.3. Manes then, formerly called proper to him) not to be any proper or Cubricus, (not Urbicus, as St. Augus- peculiar name at all, but the general tin,) who disseminated this heresy in title of heretic in the Syriac tongue. the days of Aurelianus or Probus the For I am loath to think that Theodoemperor, about the year 277, had a pre- ret and the author in Suidas were so decessor, though not a master, called far mistaken, when they call Scythiafirst Terebinthus, after Buddas. For nus Manes, as to conceive Cubricus this Buddas left his books and estate and he were the same person: when to a widow, who, saith Epiphanius, we may with much better reason conibid. žuelve rollo to xpóvự outws, con- clude that both Scythianus and Cubritinued with his estate and books a long cus had the same title. For I conceive time, and at last bought Cubricus for Manes at first rather a title than a her servant. This Buddas had a for- name, from the Hebrew 19 or 98399 mer master called Scythianus, the first signifying a heretic. And although author of this heresy. Beside these, some of the Rabbins derive their quos between Scythianus and Cubricus from Manes, yet others make it more there was yet another teacher of the ancient than he was, referring it to doctrine, called Zaranes. 'Hv dè apò Tzadock and Bajethos, called 087 τούτου (Μάνητος) και έτερος της κακίας &iðáoxałoç raúrns, Zapávns óvóuari

, Dhan the first or chief heretics, who opóqpwv avtoŨ Ủnápxwv. If then we lived one hundred years before Christ. insert this Zaranes into the Mani- Wherefore it is far more rational to chæan pedigree, and consider the time assert, that he who began the heresy of the widow between Buddas and of the Manichees was called 799 as a Cubricus, and the age of Cubricus, heretic in the oriental tongues, and who was then but seven years old, as from thence Mávns by the Greeks (to Socrates testifies, when she resolved comply with uavia or madness in their to buy him, and discover the heresy language), than that Mávns was first to him; there will be no reason to the name of a man counted a heretio doubt of the relation of Epiphanius, by the Christians; and then made the that Scythianus began about the apo- general name for all heretics, and parstolical times. Nor need we any of ticularly for the Christians by the the abatements in the animadversions Jews. Which being granted, both of Petavius, much less that redargu- Scythianus and Cubricus might well tion of Epiphanius, who cites Origen at first bave the name of Manes, that as an assertor of the Christian faith is, heretic. However, the antiquity of against this heresy; for though he cer- that heresy will appear in the Marcio. tainly died before Manes spread his nites, who differed not in this particudoctrine, yet it was written in several lar from the Manichees. Duos Ponbooks before him, not only in the time ticus Deos affert tanquam duas Sym

But as we have already proved that one God to be the Father, so must we yet farther shew that one God the Father to be the Maker of the World. In which there is no difficulty at all: the whole Church at Jerusalem hath sufficiently declared this truth in their devotions. “Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together.” (Acts iv. 24. 27.) Jesus then was the child of that God which made the heaven and the earth, and consequently the Father of Christ is the Creator of the World.

We know that Christ is the light of the Gentiles by his own interpretation; we are assured likewise that his Father gave him, by his frequent assertion : we may then as certainly conclude that the Father of Christ is the Creator of the World, by the prophet's express prediction : “For thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out, he which spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” (Isa. xlii. 5, 6.)

And now this great facility may seem to create the greater difficulty: for being the apostles teach us, that the Son made all things, and the prophets that by the Spirit they were produced, how can we attribute that peculiarly in the CREED unto the Father, which in the Scriptures is assigned indifferently to the Son and to the Spirit ? Two reasons may particularly be rendered of this peculiar attributing the work of the creation to the Father. First, in respect of those heresies arising in the infancy of the Church, which endeavoured to destroy this truth, and to introduce another creator of the plegadas naufragii sui: quem negare torem scandali hujus, quo facilias non potuit, id est, creatorem, id est, duos Deos cæci existimaverunt. adv. nostrum; et quem probare non potuit, Marcion. I. i. c. 2. This Cerdon sucid est, suum. Passus infelix hujus ceeded Heracleon, and so at last this præsumptionis instinctum de simplici heresy may be reduced to the Gnoscapitulo Dominicæ pronunciationis, tics, who derived it from the old genin homines non in Deos disponentis tile philosophers, and might well be exempla illa bonæ et malæ arboris, embraced by Manes in Persia, because quod neque bona malos neque mala it was the doctrine of the Persian bonos proferat fructus. Tertull. adv. Magi, as Aristotle testifieth. 'AplotoMarcion. 1. i. c. 2. This Marcion lived réins tv TPÓTŲ Tepi Pilocopias cai #pein the days of Antoninus Pius, and as σβυτέρους (τους Μάγους) είναι τών ΑίγυEusebius testibeth, Justin Martyr πτίων, και δύο κατ' αυτούς είναι αρχάς, wrote against him. Hist. 1. iv. c. ll. åyadov daipova kai kakòv daipova. Irenæus relates how he spake with Laert, in Procemio, p. 2. And this dePolycarpus bishop of Smyrna, who rivation is well observed by Timowas taught by the apostles, and con- theus, presbyter of Constantinople, versed with divers who saw our Sa- speaking thus of Manes: Hapà viour, l. iii. c. 3. Neither was Mar- Mapciwvog kai Tūv apo treivov aloxpocion the first who taught it at Rome, ποιών και δυσσεβών και των κατά Περfor he received it from Cerdon. “Ha- σίδα μάγων αφορμάς λαβών δογματίζει buit et Cerdonem quendam informa- δύο αρχάς. .

World, distinguished from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. An error so destructive to the Christian religion, that it raseth even the foundations of the Gospel, which refers itself wholly to the promises in the Law, and pretends to no other god, but that God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; acknowledgeth no other speaker by the Son, than him that spake by the prophets : and therefore whom Moses and the prophets call Lord of heaven and earth, of him our blessed Saviour signifies bimself to be the Son, rejoicing in spirit, and saying, “ I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” (Luke x. 21.) Secondly, in respect of the paternal priority in the Deity, by reason whereof that which is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, may be rather attributed to the Father, as the first person in the Trinity. In which respect the apostle hath made a distinction in the phrase of emanation or production: To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. viii. 6.) And our Saviour hath acknowledged, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” (John v. 19.) which speaketh some kind of priority in action, according to that of the person. And in this sense the Church did always profess to believe in God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth.*

The great necessity of professing our faith in this particular appeareth several ways, as indispensably tending to the illustration of God's glory, the humiliation of mankind, the provocation to obedience, the aversion from iniquity, and all consolation in our duty.

God is of himself infinitely glorious, because his perfections are absolute; his excellences indefective, and the splendour of this glory appeareth unto us in and through the works of his hands. • The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” (Rom. i. 20.) For “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” (Jer. x. 12. li. 15.) After a long enumeration of the wonderful works of the creation, the Psalmist breaketh forth into this pious meditation, “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all.”(Psal. civ. 24.) If then the glory of God be made apparent by the creation, if he have“made all things for himself,” (Prov. xvi. 4.) that is, for the manifestation of his glorious attributes, if the “Lord rejoiceth in his works,” because" his glory shall endure for ever," (Psal. civ. 31.) then is it absolutely necessary we should confess him Maker of heaven and earth, that we

* 'Stabat fides semper in Creatore apud ipsorum ecclesias editur. Nulet Christo ejus.' Tertull. adv. Marcion. Jam autem apostolici census ecclesiam I. i. c. 21. Non alia agnoscenda erit invenias quæ non in Creatore chritraditio Apostolorum, quam quæ hodie stianizet.'' Ibid.

« ZurückWeiter »