Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

to the reason you assign for it, it is mere fancy and fiction: I hope, out of pure reverence to the sacred Writ, you will bethink yourself of some better. You add, on the other hand, that the Scriptures "never say that he is "uncreated;" forgetting what you had acknowledged, in the same page, viz. " that the Creator of all things "must be himself uncreated, is an unavoidable consequence in reason:" and that the Aóyos had created all things you admit, immediately after, as delivered in Scripture. Wherefore, if Scripture, by unavoidable consequence, does say, that he is uncreated; I hope Scripture does say it. The Scriptures, every where, carefully keep up the distinction between Creator and creature; and never confound both in one. They tell us not of any creature of the Father's, which is not a creature of the Son's also. They say, that "all things were made by him;" and to be more expressive and emphatical, "without him was "not any thing made that was made." How can this be, if he himself was made? "Si ipse factus est, non per "illum sunt omnia facta, sed cætera;" saith St. Austin. As to the sense of the Ante-Nicene writers, in this particular, it is well known that they do implicitly and consequentially, almost every where, declare the Son to be uncreated. You may see some a testimonies referred to in the margin, where they do it also directly, and in express words. I scruple not to put Origen amongst them: his orthodoxy has been effectually defended by the incomparable Bishop Bull, in the opinion of the ablest and most impartial judges. The learned Doctor, notwithstanding, has been pleased to revive the dispute about Origen's sentiments: with what success, shall be here examined, as briefly as may be. The words of Origen,

[ocr errors]

Athenagoras, Legat. p. 39. ed. Ox. Ignat. ad Ephes. c. vii. p. 14. ed. Ox. Irenæus, l. ii. c. 25. p. 153. ed. Bened. Orig. contr. Cels. 1. vi. p. 287. Dionys. Rom. apud Athanas. de Decret. Syn. N. p. 232. Dionysius Alexandr. apud Eund. 230, 253, 257. Theognostus apud Eund. 230. Methodius apud Phot. p. 960. Hippolytus (probably) de Theol. et Incarn.

p. 228.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Tüv Enμiovpynμáтwv, applied to the Son. Bishop Bull, like a skilful and a candid man, who did not care to set one ambiguous sentence against many plain ones, nor to make an author manifestly inconsistent, without as manifest a necessity, rendered the words, very rightly, "ancienter "than all creatures." The Doctor himself is forced to dadmit that the words might bear this construction: and yet * afterwards says, that "Origen expressly reckoned the "Son among the Snμoupyμata." But how expressly? This can never be proved merely from the force of peσπρεσ Cúτatov, as a superlative: unless fEusebius expressly reckoned the Son among times and ages; or & Justin Martyr expressly reckoned the Pentateuch among profane histories; or the same h Justin expressly reckoned Moses and the Prophets among the wise men of Greece: which is ridiculous. The superlative, we see, hath been used sometimes comparatively; and why not by Origen? He may only appear to say what he really does not. There is certainly a wide difference between verbally seeming to assert, and expressly asserting; as much as between being barely capable of such a sense, and being capable of no other sense. How then will the learned Doctor be able to make good his pretensions? He alleges the "whole "tenor of Origen's opinion;" in which he greatly mistakes for the whole tenor of Origen, especially in that

:

b Script. Doctr. p. 184, 278, 282, alias 164, 245, 249.

[blocks in formation]

* Παντὸς χρόνου καὶ πάντων αἰώνων πρεσβύτατος. De Laud. Constant. c. i. p. 501. Vales. Η καὶ αὐτῶν αἰώνων ἐσὶ τεχνῖτις καὶ χρόνου παντὸς τὸ πρεσβύτατον. Cyril. Alex. Dial. ii. de Trin. p. 446. Vid. contr. Jul. 1. i. p. 18. Et Theod. ad Græc. tom. iv. p. 462, 493.

5 Αρχαιοτάτην πασῶν τῶν ἔξωθεν Ισοριῶν τὴν Μωϋσέως Ισορίαν. Paren. c. xii. p. 70. ed. Oxon.

Η Πρεσβύτατος Μωϋσῆς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ προφῆται γεγόνασι πάντων τῶν παρ' ὑμῖν σοφῶν. Paran. c. xxxv. p. 118. Μωσής πάντων μὲν Ἑλλήνων πρεσβύτατος. Euseb. Præp. Evang. 1. xiv. c. 3.

i Script. Doctr. p. 184, alias 164.

treatise from whence the passage is taken, is altogether contrary; as the learned well know, and Bishop Bull hath clearly shown. But the Doctor has a farther plea from a passage in Athanasius, which he seems to be much pleased with; referring to it, once, and again, in his "Scripture Doctrine." The principal words are these: Τὸν καὶ τῆς κτίσεως κύριον, καὶ πάσης ὑποστάσεως δημιουργόν. The Doctor thinks he has here discovered a contradis1 tinction between τῆς κτίσεως (he neglects κύριον) and πάσης ὑποστάσεως δημιουργόν. We are to suppose πάσης υποστάσεως of larger extent and signification than πάσης κτίσεως would have been: and, because noupyòv goes along with it, we are to suppose that inuioúgynua was understood, by Athanasius, in a larger sense than xrios: lastly, we are to suppose that Athanasius is, in this instance, the best interpreter of Origen; though it does not appear from Origen's own writings, that he knew any thing of this peculiar sense of inμioúpynua, but the contrary. The bare recital of so many suppositions, advanced without proof, or any shadow of it, might suffice for an answer. But we may observe,

1. That if Athanasius, being then a young man and an orator, intended only to vary his phrase, either to be more emphatical, or to give the better turn and cadence to a period, (and this might be all, for any thing that appears to the contrary,) then the Doctor's criticism falls to the ground.

2. If any contradistinction was intended, it should seem, that the same must hold with respect to κύριον and δημιερ yóv: the consequence whereof is, that God the Father is not κύριος so far and wide as he is δημιουργός. It will be some satisfaction to us, that if the Son be inuoúpynua, he has no Lord over him.

3. The constant use of δημιούργημα and δημιουργός, in

* Τῶτον μόνον εἶναι Θεὸν ἀληθῆ, τὸν καὶ τῆς κτίσεως κύριον, καὶ πάσης ὑποφάσεως δημιουργόν. τίς δη ἦν ἐσιν ὗτος ἀλλ ̓ ἢ ὁ πανάγιος καὶ ὑπερεπέκεινα πάσης γενητῆς ovoías, ô TỸ Xgis warnę. Orat. contr. Gent. p. 39. ed. Bened.

1 Scriptr. Doctr. p. 184, alias 164.

other authors, and even in m Athanasius himself, and in this very n treatise, is another strong presumption against the Doctor's criticism.

4. The consequences following from the supposition of such a sense, as the Doctor would impose upon Athanasius, may be demonstrably confuted from the same treatise; nay, from the very same page where that remarkable passage is o.

For, you must know, that, if the Doctor understands him right, Athanasius included the Son under άons úжστάσεως, whereof the Father is δημιουργός : and so the Son must be inμoúpynua according to Athanasius. Not only so, but he must also come under πάσης γενητῆς οὐσίας; which, for the purpose, the learned Doctor took care to render "all derivative being," answering to his rendering of inμoupyna P afterwards. This might look fair and plausible, had we only that single sentence of Athanasius to form a judgment by: but it stands in a pretty large treatise; wherein we find that Athanasius is so far from supposing the Son to be noúpynua, that he makes him 4 ποιητής of all the invisible powers; nay, and η δημιουργὸς τοῦ παντὸς, which, I think, comes to as much as δημιουργὸς Kάoys úпOOTάσews; and that therefore the learned Doctor may almost as reasonably bring the Father in, among the Enμsoupynμata of the Son, as vice versa. To conclude; δημιουργήματα Athanasius, within a few lines of that passage which the Doctor makes use of, exempts the Son, clearly and ex

See Athanas. de Decret. Syn. Nic. pag. 235. where he expressly pleads that the Father cannot be said to be dnμiovgyòs, in respect of the Son.

* Τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐθεοποίησαν, τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα λατρεύοντες πράγμα πάσχοντες ἀνόητον καὶ δυσσεβές. Ὅμοιον γὰρ εἴ τις τὰ ἔργα πρὸ τῶ τεχνίτου θαν μάσεις, καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ πόλει δημιουργήματα καταπλαγεὶς τὸν τάτων δημιουργὸν καταπατοίη, p. 46. The words δημιουργήματα and δημιουργὸν answer, in the similitude and analogy, to zrísu and xrísavra, going before. Wherefore, I conceive, that, according to Athanasius, the two former, when understood with relation to God, are equivalent to the two latter.

[blocks in formation]

pressly, from the rank of such derivative beings, as the Doctor would place him with: s ̓́Αλλος μέν ἐστι τῶν γενητῶν, καὶ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως. So much for Athanasius, and the Doctor's criticisms upon him. Now, if you please, let Origen be ours again, till you can better make out your title to him. I do not know that the Doctor has said any thing considerable to weaken the evidence of any other of the authors, referred to in the margin. So we may leave them as they are, and proceed to another Query.

QUERY XIII.

Whether there can be any middle between being made out of nothing, and out of something; that is, between being out of nothing, and out of the Father's substance; between being essentially God, and being a creature ; whether, consequently, the Son must not be either essentially God, or else a creature?

HERE, again, I have run two Queries into one, (being nearly allied to each other,) for the conveniency of method. Questions of this kind you like not: "It is," you say, pressing you to "determine things not clearly re"vealed:" as if you had not determined already upon the points in question, or were at all afraid of doing it. Permit me to say, you have determined: but because the conclusion is too shocking to appear in broad terms, and too weak to bear; therefore you keep it under cover, and lay colours upon it, the better to deceive and draw in an unwary reader: this is what I complain of. Let every reader be apprised, that the only question between us is, whether his Creator and Redeemer be a creature, or no : and then the cause will be brought to a short issue; and it will soon be seen where the truth lies. It is not that I desire to draw you into danger of censure, of which you are apprehensive; I could not have a thought so mean:

[ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »