Page 254. we may observe another turn, by way of translation. The Greek you may see in the margin, which the Doctor renders thus: "That Jesus Christ, our "Lord and God incarnate, is not the Father, nor, as the "Sabellians would have it, that same Person who is styled "the only God; this the Holy Scriptures everywhere "testify." The literal and plain translation is thus: That Jesus Christ, our Lord and God incarnate, is not the Father, nor (in the Sabellian sense) the only God, the holy Scriptures everywhere testify. This meaning, you see, is clear, plain, and easy, without the Doctor's embarassments; and is undoubtedly the true sense of the author. But such a hint as this might have made an unlucky discovery to the reader; namely, that a man may believe the Son to be the only God, without being a Sabellian.

In the same page, the Doctor has another quotation from Athanasius, (if that treatise be his,) which, had he gone on but a few words farther, would have appeared contradictory to the purpose for which it was brought. "There is but one God, because one Father; but the "Son also is God, having a sameness with the Father, as "a Son; not that he is the Father himself, but in nature "united with the Father; two indeed in number, but one "entire essence." This is the whole sentence literally translated; and the sense of it is clear. The cutting it into halves, only to represent one part under another view, is not giving the sense of a writer, but making one for him.

Page 255. (alias 222.) the Doctor cites another passage from Athanasius; and, by the turn he gives it, stifles the true sense of the author: " mThe Word has no other sort

κ Ὅτι δὲ ὁ σαρκωθεὶς Κύριος καὶ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησῆς Χρισὸς ὁ Πατὴρ οὐκ ἐστὶν, οὐδ ̓, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι φαῖεν, ὁ μόνος Θεὸς, ἅπασαι μαρτυροῦσιν αἱ θεῖαι γραφαί. Athan. contr. Sabell. p. 47.

1 Εἷς Θεὸς, ὅτι καὶ πατὴς εἷς· Θεὸς δὲ καὶ υἱὸς, ταυτότητα ἔχων, ὡς υἱὸς παρὸς πατέρα· οὐκ αὐτὸς ὢν ὁ πατὴρ, ἀλλ ̓ ἡνωμένος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τῇ φύσει· δύο μὲν ἀριθμῷ, μία δὲ ἔσω οὐσία τελεία. Ibid. p. 41..

τη Μίαν ἀρχὴν οἴδαμεν, τόν τε δημιουργὸν λόγον φάσκομεν οὐχ ἕτερόν τινα τρόπον

divinity, but that which he derives from the only d, as being begotten of him."

he true construction is this:

The Word has no other kind of divinity, but that of the

The winly God; because he is begotten of him." The plain

aning is, that the Godhead of Father and Son is all one: rectly contrary to what the Doctor cites the passage for. After I had wrote this, I found that the Doctor himself (p. 317, alias 285.) had translated the sentence in the very same words that I have done; excepting his putting derived, (instead of begotten,) which might convey a low idea to his reader. But, not content with that, for fear a sagacious reader should chance to discover the true sense of the author, he inserts a note upon divinity; interpreting it (divine power) in contradiction to the author's known ordinary sense of Jeórns, as well as to the con

text.

P. 256. (alias 223.) he cites n Gregory Nazianzen, and translates him thus: "There is but one God; the "Son and the Holy Ghost being referred to the one "cause." But then he adds a note, which confounds all: "namely," says he, "as being divine Persons by "whom the one God, or one cause and original of all

things, made and governs the world." Right; if we are to teach the Fathers how to speak: but what said Gregory Nazianzen? It is this: "We may, as I con"ceive, preserve (the doctrine of) one God, by referring "both the Son and Holy Ghost to one cause, without "composition or confusion; and by asserting (as I may "say) one and the same movement and will of the God"head, together with the sameness of essence." Here is

ἔχειν θεότητος, ἢ τὸν τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ, διὰ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πεφυκέναι. Athan. contr. Arian. Orat. iii. p. 564. ed. Bened.

* Τηροῖτο δ ̓ ἂν, ὡς ὁ ἐμὸς Λόγος, εἷς μὲν Θεὸς, εἰς ἓν αἴτιον καὶ υἱδ καὶ πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων· ἐ συντιθεμένων, οὐδὲ συναλειφομένων· καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἓν καὶ ταυτὸ τῆς θεός ἵνα οὕτως ὀνομάσω, κίνημά τε καὶ βέλημα. καὶ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ταυτότητα, Greg. Naz. Orat. xxix. p. 490. ed. Paris.

τητος,

not a syllable about the one God's governing the world by his Son and his Spirit; which, though a true notion, is not sufficient to account for the unity; nor is it Gregory's account of it, as the reader must have imagined from the Doctor's comment.

Page 323. (alias 292.) the learned Doctor, by wrong pointing and mistranslating, perverts a passage of Justin Martyr. But I have explained and vindicated the true sense of it elsewhere.

P. 325. (alias 293.) he produces an excellent passage of Irenæus, and translates it justly. But fearing it may be found too high, he subjoins a lessening note, to draw off the reader's thoughts. "This passage," says he, "is parallel to those wherein he calls the Son and Spirit "the hands of the Father; namely, executing his will as "perfectly as a man's own hands perform the will of the "man.' But why may it not be rather parallel to those passages wherein the author says, the Son and Holy Spirit are (in a qualified sense). the very self of the Father? They are here called his own offspring, and his own figure; and all the angels are said to serve and do obeisance to them. Does not this sound something higher than executing the Father's will, however perfectly? Or, than the low metaphor about a man and his hands, as the Doctor represents it? True, Irenæus, and many other of the Fathers, used that expression, which they took from Scripture; but they understood a great deal more by it; the same as by P dúvaus, or virtus, the mighty power of God, and God himself.

passage

of

In the same page he cites another excellent q Irenæus; and I am glad to have this opportunity of

Qu. viii. p. 93.

P Vid. Tertull. contr. Hermog. c. 45. Euseb. in Psalm. p. 701, 722. Athanas. p. 214, 880. ed. Bened. Hieron. tom. iv. p. 49. ed. Bened. Basil. contr. Eunom. 1. v. p. 111

4 Ὁ γεννητὸς καὶ πεπλασμένος ἄνθρωπος κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου γίνεται Θεοῦ· τοῦ μὲν πατρὸς εὐδοκοῦντος καὶ κελεύοντος, τοῦ δὲ υἱοῦ πράσσοντος καὶ δημιουργοῦντος, τοῦ δὲ πνεύματος τρέφοντος καὶ αὔξοντος. Iren. 1. iv. c. 38. p. 285.

setting before the reader, in its true light, so illustrious a testimony of a coeternal and coessential Trinity. The literal translation of the Greek may run thus: "Man "being created and fashioned, is made after the image "and likeness of the uncreated God: the Father designing "and giving out orders; the Son executing and creating; "the Holy Ghost supplying nutriment and increase.” Here you will observe, that the joint operations of the three divine Persons, concurring in the creation of man, are set forth in such a manner, as to intimate both the distinct personality and unity of essence. That Irenæus supposed the three Persons to be the one άyévvtos Oeds, or eternal God, here spoken of, may appear; 1. From his introducing the three Persons immediately after, as explanatory of it. 2. From his understanding Gen. i. 26. of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Let us make; and also, after OUR image; so that the image of any one is the image of all. 3. From Irenæus's other known principles; his asserting the Son to be infectus, or ȧyévvηtos, (uncreated;) and supposing the Son and Holy Ghost to be the tself of the Father; and speaking of Father and Son together, as one God. 4. From several hints in the same chapter, all confirming this sense. One character of the ἀγέννητος, there given, is τέλειος : the same character is, in the same chapter, " applied to the Son, in the same sense. All things but the ayévvтos are said to be in * subjection: among which things Irenæus can never be supposed to include the Son and Holy Spirit. And farther, every thing that is not ayévntos, comes short of

u

• Compare a passage of Hippolytus cited above, p. 16.

• Manus Dei ad quas Pater loquens, dicit, FACIAMUS hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem NOSTRAM. Iren. 1. v. c. 1. p. 293.

Idem ipse qui initio plasmavit Adam, cum quo et loquebatur Pater: FACIAMUS hominem secundum imaginem et similitudinem NOSTRAM, 1. v. c. 15. p. 312. Vid. et 1. iv. c. 20. p. 253.

* Lib. ii. c. 30. p. 163.

« Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τέλειος ὤν. p. 284.

* Τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ μένει τοῦ Θεοῦ. p. 285.

perfection, according to y Irenæus; who, at the same time, asserts the perfection of the Son, as before said. These things considered, the meaning of Irenæus, in this passage, appears to be, that the three divine Persons are one eternal, or uncreated God, as also one Creator. How then came the Doctor to cite such a passage, which threatens nothing but ruin and destruction to his principles? The case is this: the learned Doctor, by a strange oversight, read τοῦ μὲν Θεοῦ, instead of τοῦ μὲν Πατρὸς, though both the Greek and the old Latin agree in this last reading. This alteration, in the text, spoils all the elegance, and alters the whole turn of the sentence: besides this, the Doctor translates άyevvýrov, unbegotten, instead of unmade; not observing the antithesis, between γεννητὸς ἄνθρωπος, and ἀγεννήτου Θεοῦ, nor attending to infecti Dei, in the old translation; which might have set him right. Thus far I have gone on with some of the Doctor's quotations; but give me leave to step back for a few more, which I have overlooked.

Page 308. (alias 276.) the learned Doctor produces a passage of z Basil, which he renders thus, very surprisingly; "We affirm that, according to the natural "order of causes and effects, the Father must have the preeminence before the Son." Who ever heard before from any Catholic, that the Son was an effect of the Father? Could Basil say this? If the Doctor would but have suffered the very next immediate words, which make part of the sentence, to appear, they would have undeceived his reader. The literal construction of the whole sentence is this: "We do indeed allow that, in respect "of the natural order of (emanative) causes, and things issuing from them, the Father is prior in order to the "Son: but as to any difference in nature, or priority of ❝ time, we allow no such thing." Basil had just before

66

* Καθὸ δὲ μή ἐσιν ἀγέννητα, κατὰ τοῦτο δὲ ὑσερῶνται τοῦ τελείς. p. 283.

τ Ἡμεῖς δὲ, κατὰ μὲν τὴν τῶν αἰτίων πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν πατέρα φαμέν· κατὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς φύσεως διαφορὰν, οὐκέτι, οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ xgóvov úæegoxńv. Basil. contr. Eun. 1. i. p. 31.