Page images

and you cannot prove. You go on to a new consideration; which, put into syllogism, stands thus.

Whatever has a principium is not eternal : the Son has a principium, the Father being principium Filii_Therefore, &c.

The middle term, principium, is equivocal, and bears two senses; wherefore the syllogism consists of four terms. If principium be understood in respect of time, the minor is not true: if it be taken in any other sense, the major is not true : so that both cannot be true. You might, in the same way, argue that the sun's light is not coeval with the sun; nor thought coeval with the mind, supposing the mind to think always. For in both cases a principium is admitted; but no priority in respect of time. You add, that there is a reasonable sense in which the Son may be said to be eternal. I hope there is : but not your sense; which is just as reasonable as to say, an angel is eternal, only because you determine not the time when he came into being. I should think it most reasonable to use words according to their obvious, and proper signification; and not to fix new ideas to old words, without any warrant for it. In this way of going on with the abuse of words, we shall hardly have any left full and express enough to distinguish the catholic doctrine by. It was once sufficient, before the rise of Arianism, to say, the Son is God: but by a novel sense put upon it, the word God was made ambiguous. To that were added, truly and really; to be more expressive: but the d Arians found out a sense for these terms too; and could gravely say, that the Son was truly, really God. God by nature, one might think, is full and strong enough: but you are stealing away the sense of that expression from us. We can add no more, but eternally and substantially God; and yet, I perceive, unless we put in simply, absolutely, metaphysically, or the like, even these words also may

See Socr. E. Hist. 1. ii. c. 19. p. 82, Theod. 1, i, c. 28.

lose their force and significancy. But to what purpose is all this? Might you not better say plainly, that the Son is not eternal; not by nature; nor truly God; in a word, not God? No; but Scripture reclaims; and the whole Catholic Church reclaims; and Christian ears would not bear it. So then, it seems, it is highly necessary to speak orthodoxly, whatever we think; to strip the words of their sense, and to retain the sound. But to proceed.

As to the latter part of the Query, I am to expect no clear or distinct answer: because “ what is meant by a “ necessary emanation by the will of the Father, you un“derstand not; nor what again by the difference of will, “ and arbitrary will,p. 52. Had you but retained in mind what you must have observed when you read the ancients, you could not have been at a loss to apprehend my meaning. You may please to remember, that one of the principal arguments made use of by the e Arians against the Catholics was this :

"f Either the Father begat the Son with his consent “ and will, or against his will and consent.” If the former, then that act of the will was antecedent to the Son's existence; and therefore he was not eternal : the latter was plainly too absurd for any Christian to own.

The Catholics took two ways of answering the dilemma. One, which was the best and safest, was, by & retorting upon the Arians the dilemma, thus : “ Was God “ the Father God, with or against his will ?" By this short question, that so famous objection of the Arians was h effectually silenced.

e See Athanas. Orat. contr. Arian. 2, 3, 4. Hilary, p. 1184. Greg. Nyss. p. 625. Petav. de Trin. p. 128.

f Interrogant (Ariani) utrum Pater Filium volens an nolens genuerit; ut si responsum fuerit quod volens genuerit, dicant, prior est ergo voluntas Patris ; quod autem nolens genuerit, quis potest dicere ? August. contr. Serm. Arian. 1. i. p. 626. Bened. ed.

8 Athanas. Orat. iii. p. 611. Bened. ed. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxxv. p. 565. August. de Trin. l. xv. c. 80. p. 994.

h Vicissim quæsivit ab eo, utrum Deus Pater volens an nolens sit Deus : ut si responderet, nolens, sequeretur illa miseria quam de Deo credere magna insania est; si autem diceret, volens, responderetur ei, ergo et ipse Deus est, sua voluntate, non natura. Quid ergo restabat, nisi ut obmutesceret, et sua interrogatione obligatum insolubili vinculo se videret. August. ibid.

But besides this answer, they had also another. They admitted that the generation of the Son was with the will and consent of his Father; in the same sense that he is wise, good, just, &c. necessarily, and yet not against his will. Some thought it reasonable to say, that the Father might eternally will the generation of the Son, and that he could not but will so, as being eternally good. See Petavius. This way of reasoning k Bishop Bull mentions, hardly approving it: and one would almost think that

Dr. Clarke was once inclinable to subscribe to it, understanding eternal, as we do. But he thought fit m afterwards to explain himself off into another meaning. There was another notion which n some of the primitive writers had; namely, this : “ That since the will of God is God 6 himself, as much as the wisdom, &c. of God is God “ himself; whatever is the fruit and product of God, is " the fruit and product of his will, wisdom, &c. and so " the Son, being the perfect image of the Father, is sub“ stance of substance, wisdom of wisdom, will of will, as 6 he is light of light, and God of God:” which is St. Austin's doctrine, in the ° place cited in the margin.

By this time, I presume, you may understand what I meant by the latter part of the Query. There is a sober, Catholic sense, in which the Son may be acknowledged to be by, or from, the will of the Father, and yet may be a necessary emanation also. And therefore Dr. Clarke did not do well in opposing those two, one to the other; as if they were inconsistent: especially considering that he produces several authorities to prove the generation to be by a P power of will, in opposition to necessity of nature, from writers who asserted both; and denied only such a supposed necessity as might be against, and a force upon the Father's will. This is manifest of his citations from the 9 Council of Sirmium, Marius Victorinus, Basil, and Gregory Nyssen; and hath been clearly shown by his learned ' antagonist. The sum of all is, that the generation of the Son may be by necessity of nature, without excluding the concurrence or approbation of the will. And therefore will (i. e. consent, approbation, acquiescence) is one thing; and arbitrary will (that is, free choice of what might otherwise not be) is another. You endeavour to prove, that the Son derives his being from the will of the Father, in this latter sense; which is the same thing with the making him a creature. You recite some scraps of quotations, as collected by Dr. Clarke and Dr. Whitby, in your Notes, p. 51. Not one of the citations is to your purpose, or comes up to your point. For instance; “ Ignatius says, s Christ is the Son of God, according to the will und power of God.Supposing this not to be meant of his t miraculous conception and incarnation, (which the context has been thought to favour, and which Bishop Pearson inclined to, in his Notes,) yet see how many several interpretations it may bear, besides what you would fix upon it.

See this farther explained in the Postscript. p. 491. i Pag. 591, 592.

k D. F. N. p. 222. I Script. Doctr. p. 280, &c. Reply, p. 113. Paper given in to the Bishops.

m Clarke's Lett. N. 8. in See the testimonies collected by Cotelerius, in his Notes upon the Re

cognitions of Clem. p. 492. and by Petavius, 1. vi. c. 8. 1. vii. c. 12. See especially, Athanas. Orat. iii. p. 613. Bened. ed. Epiphan. Hæres. 74. p. 895.

• De Trin. I. xv. c. 8.

p Script. Doctr. p. 281, &c. alias, 247, &c.
9 Script. Doctr. p. 285, 286. alias, 252, 253.

True Script. Doctr. continued, p. 119, &c. N. B. The Doctor manifestly perverts the sense of the Council of Sirmium, and of Hilary's comment upon it, by mistranslating them ; putting without his will, instead of against his will. See the Preface to my Sermons, p. 20.

και 'Αληθώς όντα εκ γένους Δαβίδ κατά σάρκα, υιον Θε8 κατά θέλημα και δύναμιν Osē. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. c. i. p. 1.

I can by no means think that the Son is here called vids Ofs, in respect of his incarnation ; which was really his nativity xutà oágra, to which this other is opposed, and which must therefore be understood of some higher sonship. The phrase of sarà rágua has been constantly so interpreted by the ancients; Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, the Synod of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Lactantius, all explaining Christ's being the Son of David according to the flesh, by his birth of the blessed Virgin; and the phrase xut' choxa as opposed to a prior Sonship, in his divine nature before the world was : in which respect he was Son of God before he became Son of man. That Ignatius intended the same is highly probable, not to say evident, from his own words elsewhere. I vióvely gage & Tai . Magnes. C. 6. Toũ T 18, xs isy củzoũ Asys; etuos. Ibid. c. 8. Xpisoő visā Osõ tê yeropévov, iy úsiew, in oriqueToS Aabid. Rom. c. vii. Compare Apostol. Constit. 1. viii. c. 1. Eudoxią Osõ ó apo aiúva povoysvas, šv úsieu xarem éx wapatévou yeyeyintan.'

1. The fruit and offspring of the will and power of God : signifying no more than God of God, in the sense intimated above. P. 9o.

2. By the eternal will and power of God, in a sense likewise before intimated, and owned by some of the PostNicene Writers.

3. With the approbation and acquiescence of God, in the same sense that he is pleased with, and acquiesces in, his own wisdom, goodness, and other perfections.

4. The passage may relate, not to the Son's generation in the highest sense; but to his manifestation, or coming forth, in order to create the world; which is a kind of x filiation mentioned by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Tatian, Novatian, and Hippolytus, and supposed as voluntary a thing as the incarnation afterwards; though the same authors asserted the eternity and consubstantiality of the Abyos, or Divine nature of Christ; of which more hereafter.

From these four particulars, you may perceive how little you can be able to prove from that passage in Ignatius. As to Justin Martyr, I have already hinted in what sense he made the generation voluntary. But why you should choose to do that good Father a double injury, first in curtailing his words, and next in misrepresenting his sense, you can best account. The whole passage is

u Clement of Alexandria seems to intend the same, (p. 654. ed. Ox.) expressing it by the word oposadúr. And it is extremely probable that Ignatius had the very same thought. Λόγος αΐδιος ουκ από σιγής προελθών. ad Magnes. cap. 8. “Eva oleous Xesày, Toy ảo ivos grass Rao:A9óc, is {Jvcd xe xwghoarta. Ibid. cap. 7.

« PreviousContinue »