« PreviousContinue »
meaning is lost and sunk in the Doctor's translation. You see then that this passage, when rightly understood, is entirely against the Doctor; and therefore ought not to be reckoned amongst concessions.
Let us go on to another, in the very same page, alias p. 4. (the passage you have in the " margin.) The Doctor renders it thus: “ The true God, who is most strictly and “ absolutely such, even the Father of Christ.” Here the English reader must needs think that, if the Father be most strictly, he is more strictly God than Christ is; especially when nothing appears in the passage to compare the Father with, but Christ. Under this view, indeed, the passage cited is a very great concession : but, in the Greek, there is no concession at all. The just and literal rendering of the passage is this: “ The true God, who in “ reality is such, namely, the Father of Christ.” You must know, that Athanasius is here exhorting the Gentiles to turn from their dumb idols, to serve the living God. In opposition to what he calls X oux Övta, things which have no real or but precarious existence, and y oủx Övta TO:AŪTA, things which were not such as the heathens imagined, i. e. not divine, he advises them to come over to the Father of Christ; whose property it is to exist in reality, and who is truly and strictly God. This is no more than Athanasius would have said of the Son; and 2 indeed has said, (in other words,) in that very treatise; and therefore you may please to strike this passage also out of the number of concessions.
The learned Doctor goes on in the same way (page 4.) and in another passage, instead of far above all created being, (which the Greek words signify, and which is the certain meaning of the author,) he chooses to say, "far
" Tày ảA.199ày xai đụrus Bvrd Đào, Tày Toũ Xperaũ gree. Atlam. con. Gent. p. 9.
* Vid. Athanas. ibid. p. 7, 8. y Ibid. p. 27.
z'o di Olos ģy isi, xai 8 oúvteros: did raù ó toúrou aóyos ūv işı, xaà où súvista; , αλλ' είς και μονογενής Θεός----ως αγαθός το εαυτού λόγω, και αυτό όντι Θεώ, την oúp tao ay diaxu@sgvã xai xadísnou. Athan. contr. Gent. p. 40.
in that vehg can be ruded under ing to his
" above all derivative being;” insinuating to his reader as if the Son were to be included under derivative being; than which nothing can be farther from the sense of the author in that very page; as I have observed a before, on another occasion. All the concession that is there, lies only in the Doctor's translation, and the turn he gives to it in the sequel: Athanasius himself has granted nothing that can do you any service; at least, not in that passage ; and therefore let that also return to us again.
Page 89. (alias 79.) the Doctor cites a passage of Eusebius, which, he says, “ expresses the unanimous sense “s of the Catholic Church :” and it may be true, as it lies in Eusebius. But, as it is represented in the Doctor's translation, excluding the Son from any proper efficiency in the work of creation, it is diametrically opposite to the unanimous sense of the ancients, and to Eusebius too; as hath been shown above b.
Page 100, 101. (alias 92.) the learned Doctor has two citations from Chrysostom and Basil; who interpret the texts, of power, as the Doctor also does of power. But if the Doctor means one thing by power, and they another, and the ideas be entirely different; their interpretation and his must be as different as the ideas are: and it is not fair to quote them as agreeing in the thing, when they agree only in the name. I have c before took notice how the Doctor dealt with Chrysostom, in order to conceal the good Father's true meaning. I shall here observe, how he perverts Basil's sense, by a small and seemingly slight turn in his translation. d Basil's words are 'oou xai TAUTOŨ Xata Súvapiv; that is, equal and the very same in respect of power. The Doctor drops equal, which would have discovered Basil's meaning; and renders it, “one “s and the same in power.” And thus Basil's words, which are utterly repugnant to the Doctor's hypothesis, are improved into a concession in favour of it.
* Qu. xii. p. 143. Qu. xi. p. 130. Qu. xxiii. p. 261. « Σαφώς το εν, αντί του ίσου και ταυτού κατά δύναμιν παραλαμβάνων. Βασil. contr. Eun. I. i. p. 35.
Page 102. (alias 94.) he gives us a low and lame construction of a noble passage in e Irenæus. The words κατά το θεϊκόν και ένδοξον he renders, « in a divine and glo“rious manner :" the true rendering is, in his divine and glorious character : namely, that which he had as God, and Son of God. Irenæus, in that chapter, is representing the Son as acting at different times in a different character or capacity. When he appeared to the Patriarchs, then he acted in his highest capacity, in his divine character. What that character is, f Irenæus explains, a little above, in the same chapter: it is, as he is the Word, the Framer (or Maker) “ of all things, who sitteth upon the
cherubims, and containeth all things,” who is the Son of God, and God. This shows what is meant by the Tò Seixòv xai žvôo&ov, and at the same time shows that, according to Irenæus, the Abyos, who is God, then acted in his own proper character, and not in the Person of the Father only, which the Doctor would infer from this passage. For it must be observed that the Son was sòs (Joh. i. 1.) before the time that he is supposed by the Doctor to have acted šv pogoñi so, as God's representative: and it is of that antecedent character Irenæus speaks; as is plain from his referring to Joh. i. 1.
Page 115. (alias 106.) he cites a place of Justin Martyr, where he renders the words which you see in the & margin thus :.“ It was not God the Creator of the uni
• Kai airas đồ ở Aoyes Toũ toũ Tais •y gạà Maugiao; TTgiáexans, karà và θεϊκον και ένδοξον ωμίλει τους δε εν τω νόμο, τιρατικής τάξιν απένεμεν μετά δε TRŪTe ürsgwros ysrópsvos, &c. Iren. 1. iii. c. 11. p. 191.
f “ο των απάντων τεχνίτης λόγος, ο καθήμενος επί των Χερουβίμ, και συνέχων τα Fávra. Iren. p. 190.
. 'Απο του πατρός ηγεμονικήν αυτού και ένδοξον γενεών. - Illam quæ est a Patre, principalem, et efficabilem, et gloriosam generationem ejus enarrat, dicens sic, “ In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud " Deum, et Deus erat Verbum," et " omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine - ipso factum est nihil.” Ibid. 191.
και ουχ ο ποιητής των όλων έσαι Θεός ο τω Μωσεϊ είπών αυτών είναι Θεόν 'Αβραάμ, xai Otor ʼlovèx, xai Osor ʼluxúc. Justin. Mart. Dial. 180. Jebb.
“ verse, which then said to Moses, that he was the God " of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of “ Jacob,” An uncautious reader might imagine from this passage, put into this view, that the Son is not God absolutely, nor Creator of the universe, according to Justin. But the meaning is, that that divine Person, who called himself. God, and was God, was not the Person of the Father, (whose ordinary character is that of Maker of all things) but another divine Person, viz. God the Son. The unlearned reader should be told, that what is here said by Justin was in dispute with a Jew, who would not acknowledge more divine Persons than one. It was Justin's business to show, that there was a divine Person, one who was God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was not the Father; and therefore there were two divine Persons. The learned Doctor, upon his principles, could not, in that way, have confạted the Jew; so far as I apprehend of Justin's argument: for the Jew might reply, that it was an angel speaking in the Person of God; and that therefore the Father only was God notwithstanding. But Justin insists upon it, that there was another Person, besides the Father, who was really “ God of Abraham," &c. If this is to be taken for a concession, it may be easily seen on what side it is. ,'. . .
Page 116. (alias 108.) the Doctor does not justice to Hilary. Instead of called Lord and God, which is diminutive, it should have been, declared to be Lord and God: but this may appear slight. Such another slight inaccuracy appears in his affecting to translate God his Father, instead of God the Father, (p. 104, 179.) which however shows too much leaning to a cause; and helps to convey a false idea to the English readers.
Page 251. (alias 218.) he has a long citation from No. vatian; in which all proceeds so fair and plausible, that a reader, already possessed with the Doctor's scheme, and carrying it in his head, may think that every thing falls in naturally with it. But, at length, the Doctor comes to h some cross: words, and such as, if suffered to appear, would have made the reader construe all backwards, and have given quite another light to all that goes before or after. Here he stops 'short, breaks off in the middle of a sentence, passes over the offensive words, draws a line, skips to the next sentence, and goes gravely on to amuse his reader. A writer is not to be blamed, in some cases, for taking what is to his purpose, and omitting the rest: but, as the case is here, the best, and indeed only light, to direct the reader to the true meaning of what is cited, is left out. The word divinity, for instance, (which óccurs twice in that passage;) an English reader will be apt to take in the Doctor's sense; and indeed can hardly do otherwise: but had the whole appeared, he could not but see how much the Doctor" is mistaken. 'I must oba serve to you, that (p. 336, 337.) the Doctor deals with Novatian, and this very passage, almost in the same manner, again; excepting that, growing a little bolder, he takes more freedom in his translation. Mind the words (p. 337.), by the Son in i acknowledgment returned; and compare per substantiæ communionem, a little before. Novatian, in this place, had no thought of acknowledgments, nor any thing like it: but was intent upon quite another thing; explaining and illustrating, as well as he was able, the union and communion of substance in Father and Son; and showing how all recurs to one head and fountain: on which account the Father might be reasonably styled the one God, inasmuch as the Son is so intimately one with him, as to be reckoned, in a manner, to him, and not another God from him. It is all but one divinity, or divine substance, of the Father in both. ei
h Unus Deus ostenditur verus et æternus Pater, a quo solo hæc vis divini. tatis emissa, etiam in Filium tradita et directa rursum per substantiæ communionem ad Patrem revolvitur. Deus quidem ostenditur Filius cui divinitas tradita et porrecta conspicitur, et tamen nihilominus unus Deus Pater probatur. Novat. c. 31.
i The Latin is, reciproco meatu illa majestas atque divinitas ad Patrem qui dederat eam rursum ab illo ipso Filio missa revertitur et retorquetur. Ibid.