Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 .

For, you must know, that, if the Doctor understands him right, Athanasius included the Son under néons ÚNOστάσεως, whereof the Father is δημιουργός : and so the Son must be inusoúpynuce according to Athanasius. Not only So, but he must also come under πάσης γενητής ουσίας και which, for the purpose, the learned Doctor took care to render “all derivative being,” answering to his rendering of emploupynuce 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 onuevoúpynud, that he makes him 9 ποιητής of all the invisible powers; nay, and r δημιουργός του AQUTÒS, which, I think, comes to as much as Snusoupyos, πάσης υποστάσεως ; and that therefore the learned Doctor may almost as reasonably bring the Father in, among the Snesouprauata of the Son, as vice versa. To conclude; Athanasius, within a few lines of that passage which the Doctor makes use of, exempts the Son, clearly, and ex

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

η Τα μη όντα εθςοποίησαν, τη κτίσει παρά τον κτίσαντα λατρεύοντες πράγμα πάσχοντες ανόητος και δυσσεβές. Ομοιον γαρ εί τις τα έργα προ τα τεχνίτου θαυμάσεις, και τα εν τη πόλει δημιουργήματα καταπλαγείς τον τέτων δημιουργών καταπατoίη, p. 46. The words δημιουργήματα and δημιουργών answer, in the similitude and analogy, to xrios: and rriouTu, going before. Wherefore, I conceive, that, according to Athanasius, the two former, when anderstood with relation to God, are equivalent to the two latter.

• Script. Doctr. p. 4, alias p. 5.
P Script. Doctr. p. 278, alias 245.
9 Page 43

Page 29,

pressly, from the rank of such derivative beings, as the Doctor would place him with : 5 "Arnos dév Sori Tūv yemTôv, xai néons tñs xtiews. 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 :

Page 39.

besides that I intended, and desired, for the greater freedom of debate, to be private: and fyou, perhaps, may be so still, if you please. It concerns every honest man to have the cause fairly laid open. While you are endeavouring to expose the received opinion, as much as you are able, let your own be shown in its true colours, and then set against it; that so we may the more easily judge, which has the advantage upon the comparison. You are very sensible, I doubt not, that the arguments against the Son's being a creature bear upon you with such strength, force, and full light, that you had rather have the pinch of the question concealed from the reader, or disguised under other terms. The ancient Arians, the immediate successors of Arius, found it absolutely necessary to refine upon their leader, to refine, I mean, in language; for their faith was the same. When the world was in a manner their own; and when they were so far from fearing censure themselves, that they employed the secular power to a plunder, persecute, and destroy as many as opposed them; even then, those men durst not say directly, that the Son of God was a a creature. We have creed after creed drawn up by them; and Arius's positions bexpressly disclaimed by some of them; though, at the same time, they meant the same things. And what was the meaning of this wary proceeding; this walking in disguise, while they had nothing to fear from the powers in being? The reason is plain : their doctrine was new, and C shocking to Christian ears. It was not fit to appear in d clear and plain words. It was to be insinuated only in remote hints, and dark inuendos. People were to be decoyed, and gradually drawn into a new faith; which if they had fully understood, and seen

• See Athanas. vol. i. p. 110, 317, 321, 345, 362, 386. Hilar. p. 1291, Basil. Ep. 70, 71, 282. Greg. Naz. Orat. 20, 23, 25, 32.

6 Athanas, vol. i. p. 176, 275, vol. ii. p. 735. Socrat. 1. ii. c. 10. Sozom. E. Hist. 1. iii. c. 5. Epiphan. Hæres. Ixxiii. p. 845.

• Athanas. vol. i. p. 234, 283. Alexand. Epist. Theod. H. p. 26, 30.
d See Athanas, vol. i. p. 288.
VOL. I.

what it led to, they would immediately have detested. See to this purpose a f passage of Hilary worth remarking; which I have thrown into the margin.

The Arians, or Semi-Arians, (for both come to one at lasty) were so sensible that their tenets would not bear the light, that they were forced to disguise and conceal them under Catholic forms of speech, with all imaginable art and subtlety; as was much complained of by the Catholics, & who abhorred such artifices. The mystery of these disguises has been already intimated. Had they ventured to speak out, they could not have deceived any great numbers. The greater part of their deluded followers were blinded and hood-winked; and hardly knew what their leaders intended, or whither they were driving. These were the arts by which Arianism prevailed; and yet hardly prevailed above forty years. Whether these or the like prudential reasons determine some now to proceed with the like caution, and to avoid declaring, in terms, that the Son of God is a creature, I know not. But this I know, that every careful reader ought to be well apprised of the tendency of your main doctrine. It should be told, that you assert, though not directly and plainly, yet tacitly and consequentially, that the Maker, Redeemer, and Judge of the whole world, is no more than a creature ; is mutable, and corruptible; depends entirely upon the favour and good pleasure of God; has a precarious existence, and dependent powers, finite and limited; and is neither so perfect in his nature, nor so exalted in privileges, but that it is in the Father's power, according to his own good pleasure,

f Hujus quidem usque adhuc impietatis fraude perficitur, ut jam sub antichristi sacerdotibus Christi populus non occidat, dum hoc putant illi fidei esse quod vocis est. Audiunt Deum Christum; putant esse quod dicitur. Audiunt Filium Dei; putant in Dei Nativitate inesse Dei veritatem. Audiunt ante tempora, putant id ipsum ante tempora, esse quod semper est. Sanctiores aures plebis quam corda sacerdotum. Hilar. p. 1266. See also Sozom. E. H. 1. jii. c. 5.

& Athanas. p. 235, 224, 895. Theod. E. H. p. 27, Socrat. E. H. I. ii. c. 45. Sozom. E. H. 1. iv. c. 29. Epiphan. Hæres. lxxiji, p. 845, Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. 21. p. 387.

to create another equal, or even superior to him. These are your tenets, if you please to speak out; and these, in the main, are what Arius, being a plain, open, and consistent man at the beginning, very frankly professed. But if these positions appear so harsh and shocking, that you yourselves, who admit them, do not care to own them in plain terms; it may be very excusable in others to contradict them; and to assert, upon so great evidences of truth from Scripture and antiquity, that God the Son is infinitely removed from the condition of a creature ; is really, truly, and essentially God.

You have, perhaps, some few specious difficulties to urge against à “Trinity and unity, eternal generation,” or the like; points too sublime for men, or, it may be, angels to comprehend. But why must these be thoughť to'weigh down the many and unanswerable objections against your own scheme; or be esteemed sufficient to bear up against the united voice of Scripture and Catholic antiquity, nowhere asserting that the Son of God is a creature; but every where intimating, inculcating, proclaiming, that he is the Creator, Preserver, and Sustainer of all things; very and eternal God? You will pardon me this excursion, necessary to give the common reader a just idea of the dispute betwixt us, and of the true state of the question. A stranger in this controversy, finding how near we come to each other in expression, might be apt to wonder wherein we differ, or what it is that we dispute about; not being aware of the artifice you make use of, in giving an uncatholic meaning to catholic expressions. We say, the Son is not self-existent, meaning that he is not unoriginate : you do not only say the same, but contend for it; meaning, not necessarily-existing. We say, not unoriginate, meaning that he is not the head or fountain, not the first Person of the Trinity: you take up the very same 'word, and zealously contend that the Son is not unoriginate; understanding it in respect of time, or duration. We say, the Son is subordinate, meaning it of a subordination of order, 'as is just and proper: you also lay

« PreviousContinue »