« PreviousContinue »
a explained what he meant by the Father's being prior in order of causality, by the instance of fire, and light streaming from it.
Page 317. (alias 285.) the Doctor has another citation from b Basil, which he renders thus : “ Therefore our “ Lord saith, all mine are thine, as referring to the Fa“ ther, the original cause of all things; and thine are “_mine, as signifying that from the Father was derived "to him the power of producing things.” The true rendering is thus, very near the letter : “ Therefore our “ Lord saith, all mine are thine, inasmuch as the original “ of the creatures is referred up to the Father; and thine
are mine, inasmuch as the power of creating descends 66 from him to the Son :” that is, with his essence, as Basil explains it a little after. The Doctor, I presume, did not care that his reader should know how clearly Basil distinguishes the Son from the enucoupyhuata) creatures; and not only so, but supposes the creatures of the Father to be creatures of the Son likewise. The Doctor intended something by all things, in one place, and things only, in the other. But Basil is unconcerned in it.
I must just take notice, how particularly fond the learned Doctor is of the phrase, was produced, (see p. 275, 277, 281, 291.) which he uses frequently, without any warrant from the authors he translates; and for no other reason, that I can see, but because it is apt to convey a low idea (the idea of a creature, though the Doctor does not like the name) to the English reader.
I shall proceed no farther in this article, having given instances enough to show that some abatements and al
• "Έστι τι τάξεως είδος, ουκ εκ της παρ ημών θέσεως συνισάμενον, αλλ' αυτή τη κατά φύσιν ακολουθία συμβαίνον, ώς το πυρί προς το φώς έσι το εξ αυτού. Basil. contr. Eun. 1. i. p. 30.
και Διά τούτό φησιν ο κύριος, τα έμα πάντα σα έσιν, ως επ' αυτόν της αρχής των δημιουργημάτων αναγομένης, και τα σα έμα, ως εκείθεν αυτού της αιτίας του δημιθρgeiv xainnéons. Basil. de Sp. Sanct. c. viii. p. 161. It seems from what follows, that aurą, rather than aútoũ, is the reading.
lowances should be made us, for such concessions as are really no concessions in the authors themselves. Upon the whole, one might really wonder that the learned Doctor, who had so wide a field of antiquity to range in, and was only to pick out such passages as, running in general terms, or taken separately, might be made to appear under such a view as he intended, should produce no more; but be forced even to wrest and torture several of those he had found, by prefacing, commenting, and translating, to accommodate them at length hardly, and after great reluctance, to his purpose. You will say, perhaps, that the Doctor sets light by the Fathers, and lays no stress upon them; I shall believe you, when he fairly gives them úp. At present, it must be thought that they are esteemed of some moment, when a book is stuffed with quotations out of them, and so much pains taken to make them any way serviceable. One that sets so great a value upon the mere appearance and shadow of antiquity, can hardly be supposed to slight the thing itself :if the learned Doctor is so well contented with concessions only, snatched, in a manner, and extorted from the ancients; how would he have rejoiced to have found them come heartily, readily, and throughly into his scheme, as they do into ours !
II. But supposing all the Doctor's quotations from the Post-Nicene or Ante-Nicene writers had been at least real and full concessions ; yet there is something so pecu; liar in this new way of quoting concessions, without taking notice of what should come in to explain or balance them, that we have reason to except against it, as not a fair way of dealing .
1. Because, though the learned Doctor does give notice in his Preface, that we are not to take the opinion of the authors, in the whole, from those quotations; yet many may happen to read the book without considering or remembering a short hint in the Preface; and so may lay a greater stress upon those authorities than the Doctor intended.
2. Because the Doctor nowhere (in Scripture Doctrine) gives any marks of distinction for an ordinary reader to understand, where he intended a concession only of an author, and where his entire opinion; where he agreed with the Doctor in part only, and where in the whole. Instead of this, he rarely lets his English reader see more of any passage, than may appear to comport with and favour his own hypothesis; either striking out what might have discovered it to be a concession in part, or disguising it in his translation, or explaining it away, by his prefacing it, or commenting upon it. Besides, since authors have very seldom, if ever, been cited in this manner (by men of character) in favoar of such principles as they really disowned and rejected in the main; readers will be apt to carry that presumption and prejudice along with them; and a short advertisement in the Preface will not be sufficient to prevent it.
3. Another reason against this method is, that it gives a handle to many to boast of the numerous collections of Dr. Clarke against the received doctrine. See (besides others) “ the Dissuasive from inquiring into the Doctrine “ of the Trinity,” (p. 28.) where this very use is made of it. By this means, truth is darkened, evidences perplexed, and the common readers rather puzzled and confounded, than let into the true state of the fact; so far as relates to the judgment of the ancients.
4. It should be considered that the moral obliquity and turpitude of misquoting or misrepresenting authors consists in this; that it is a means to deceive the simple, to surprise the unwary and unlearned, (who must or will receive things upon trust;) it is taking advantage of the blind side of human nature, laying a snare for such readers, (perhaps ninety-nine in a hundred,) as read not with due care and thought. I do not see but this very method of the Doctor's (though he has endeavoured to lessen the scandal of it) is big with all this mischief. Hé has indeed given notice; and wise men and scholars would have been secure enough without it: others will will not be so with it: and therefore he is still to take advantage of the ignorance of one, the partiality of another, the forgetfulness of a third, the credulity, simplicity, haste, and inadvertency of as many as come unprepared and unfurnished to the reading his citations. The thing itself, you may perceive, is equally mischievous, however gilded over with specious pretences. And there is no more in it than this; misrepresentation practised, and, at the same time, seemingly defended : and (though the learned Doctor does not perceive it) it is really nothing else but contriving a way how to reconcile (if possible) a good name and an ill thing together.
5. It might be of ill example, should this method of citing authors (never before used by good and great men) grow into vogue. A Romanist, for instance, might, in this way, undertake to defend some of the Romish tenets. It would be easy for him to make a numerous collection of testimonies from the Fathers; and as much to the purpose as the Doctor's collection is. Two inconveniences he might foresee; one to his own character, upon discovery; the other to his cause, because his own citations might be turned against him. To obviate the former, he might declare beforehand, that “ he did not 6 cite places out of these authors so much to show what 66 was the opinion of the writers themselves, as to show “how naturally truth sometimes prevails by its own na“ tive clearness :” and to obviate the latter, he might say, he alleged the testimonies, not as proofs, but as illustrations only. Thus the writer might seem to come off pretty handsomely: but, in the meanwhile, the unlearned and unthinking might be led aside by the fair show of authorities; and all the remedy left for them is, Si populus vult decipi, decipiatur. These are my present sentiments of the nature and tendency of this new and extraordinary method of citing; which, however, I shall be very glad to alter, if I see any good reason for it. To me it seems that it ought never to be practised, though to serve the best cause in the world.
III. After all, I must observe to you, supposing the method to have been ever so fair, and the concessions both many and real, the Doctor has still failed in his main point, of making out the importance of those concessions, to the cause in hand. There the stress should have been laid: we did not want to know what concessions the Fathers, in general, had made; being ready at any time to make the same concessions : but show us the connection between these concessions and the Doctor's conclusion. This is the point which should have been laboured ; and which required all the learning and acuteness which the Doctor is master of. As thus : the Fathers asserted the first Person only to be begotten, or unoriginate; therefore they must of consequence make the Son no more than an inferior God, or no God. The Fathers supposed the Son subordinate, as a Son; therefore they must, by necessary consequence, deny his consubstantiality and coeternity. This was the conclusion which the Doctor was to draw out of those premises, and show to be just and true. But, instead of this, he drops the principal thing; repeats indeed the concessions, such as they are, over and over; and by a multitude of words (not to show any certain connection, but only a verbal resemblance) he at length slips his conclusion into their places. There is really nothing more, in this management, than interpreting ill what the good Fathers meant well; giving a low sense to words and phrases which they intended in a high one; and putting an Arian construction upon Catholic expressions. This is all that the learned Doctor hath really done by the help of those concessions. In the same way a man may quote all the concessions of the Fathers about a proper sacrifice, in favour of the sacrifice of the mass : or their concessions about a real presence, in favour of a substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. Only, if he would do it artfully and plausibly, he should take care to rest in generals; and supply what is farther wanting by intimations and innuendos. This seems to have been the very method which the learned