it does not appear from Origen's own Writings, that He knew any thing of this peculiar Sense of nuga, but the Contrary. The bare Reδημιεργημα, cital of fo many Suppofitions, advanc'd without Proof, or any Shadow of it, might fuffice for an Answer. But we may obferve. 1. That if Athanafius, being then a young Man and an Orator, intended only to vary his Phrase; either to be more emphatical, or to give the better Turn and Cadence to a Period (and this might be all, for any thing that appears to the Contrary) then the Doctor's Criticifm falls to the Ground. 2. If any Contra-diftinction was intended, it fhould feem that the fame muft hold, with refpect to xveo and Suggyor: the Confequence whereof is, that God the Father is not xúel so far and wide as He is ugy's. It will be fome Satisfaction to us, that if the Son be Snμougua, He has no Lord over Him. 3. The conftant ufe of δημιούργημα and δημιερ yos, in other Authors, and even in* Athanafius Himself, and in this very †Treatise, is another ftrong Prefumption against the Doctor's Criticism. See Athanafius de Decret. Syn. Nic. pag. 235. Where He exprefly pleads that the Father cannot be said to be disprog, in respect of the Son. † Τὰ μὴ ὄντα ἐθεοποίησαν, τῇ κτίσὶ παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα λατρεύοντες πρᾶγε μα πάγοντες ἀνόητον καὶ διατεθές. Ὅμοιον γὰρ εἴ τις τὰ ἔργα προς τεχνίτη θαυμάσειε, ἢ τὶ ἐν τῇ πόλη δημιουργήματα καταπλαγείς τ τόπων δημιουρ γὸν καταπατείη, p. 46. The Words δημιουργήματα and δημιουργὸν an/wer, in the Similitude and Analogy, to xriod and xñoarte, going before. Wherefore, I conceive, that, according to Athanafius, the Two former, when underflood with relation to God, are equivalent to the Two latter. 4. The Confequences following from the Suppofition of fuch a Senfe, as the Doctor would impose upon Athanafius, may be demonftrably confuted from the fame Treatife; nay, from the very fame Page where that remarkable Paffage is. For, you must know, that, if the Doctor understands Him right, Athanafius included the Son under πάσης αποφάσεως, whereof the Father is ugyós: And fo the Son must be oúgna according to Athanafius. Not only fo, but He must alfo come under ons onts solas; which, for the purpose, the learned Doctor took care to render all derivative Being, anfwering to his rendring of gua bafterwards. This might look fair and plaufible, had we only that fingle Sentence of Athanafius to form a Judgment by: But it stands in a pretty large Treatife; wherein we find that Athanafius is fo far from fuppofing the Son to be δημιούργημα, that He makes Him ο ποιητής of all the invisible Powers; nay and Sugges To Tos, which, I think, comes to as much Ας δημιεργός πάσης αποφάσεως; and that therefore the learned Doctor may almost as reafonably bring the Father in, among the Snagyбириндуйjala of the Son, as vice versa. To conclude; Athanafius, within a few lines of that Passage which the Doctor makes ufe of, exempts the. Son, clearly and exprefly, from the Rank of d fuch derivative Beings, as the Doctor would place Him with: Αλλος μέν ἐς 7 *" náms & unioews. So much for Athanafius, and the Doctor's Criticifms upon Him. Now, if you please, let Origen be Our's again, till you can better make out your Title to Him. I do not know that the Doctor has faid any thing confiderable to weaken the Evidence of any other of the Authors, referr'd 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 fomething; that is, between being out of Nothing, and out of the Father's Substance; between being effentially God, and being a Creature? Whether, confequently, the Son must not be either effentially God, or else a Creature? H ERE, again, I have run two Queries into one (being nearly allied to each other) for the conveniency of Method. Queftions of this kind you like not: It is, you fay, preffing you to determine Things not clearly revealed: As if you had not determin'd already upon the Points in Question; or were at all afraid of doing it. Permit me to say, you have determin'd: But because the Con Pag. 39. It Conclusion is too fhocking 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 apprized, 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 fhort Iffue; and it will foon be feen where the Truth lies. is not that I defire to draw you into danger of Cenfure, of which you are apprehenfive; I could not have a Thought fo mean: Befides that I intended, and defired, for the greater freedom of debate, to be private: And You, perhaps, may be fo ftill, if you please. It concerns every honeft Man to have the Caufe fairly laid open. While you are endeavouring to expofe the received Opinion, as much as you are able, let your own be shown in its true Colours, and then fet against it; that so we may the more cafily judge, which has the Advantage upon the Comparilon. You are very fenfible, I doubt not, that the Arguments against the Son's being a Creature, bear upon you with fuch Strength, Force, and full Light; that you had rather have the pinch of the Queftion conccal'd from the Reader, or difguifed under other Terms. The Anticnt Arians, the immediate Succeffors of Arius, found it abfolutely neceffary to refine upon their Leader to refine, I mean, in Language; for their Faith was the fame. b When the World was, in a manner their own; and when They were fo far from fearing cenfure themselves, that they imploy'd the fecular Power to a plunder, perfecute, and destroy as many as opposed Them; even then, Thofe Men durft not say directly, that the Son of God was a Creature: We have Creed after Creed drawn up by Them; and Arius's Pofitions exprefly disclaim'd by fome of Them; tho', at the fame time, They meant the fame Things. And what was the meaning of this wary Proceeding; this walking in difguife, while they had nothing to fear from the Powers in Being? The Reafon is plain: Their Doctrine was new and chocking to Christian Ears. It was not fit to appear in d clear and plain Words. It was to be infinuated only, in remote Hints, and dark Innuendo's. People were to be decoy'd, and gradually drawn into a new Faith; which if they had fully understood, and feen what it led to, they would immediately have detefted. See to this purpofe a Paffage of Hilary worth remarking, which I have thrown into the Margin. 317. 321. 345. 362. 386. Hilar. a See Athanaf. Vol. 1. p. 110. p. 1291. Bafil. Ep. 70, 71. 282. b Athanaf. Vol. 1. p. 176. 275. c. 10. Sozom. E. Hift. 1. 3. c. 5. cAthanaf. Vol. 1. p. 234. 283. Alexand. Epift. Theod H. p. 26. 30. d See Athanaf. Vol. 1. p. 288. e Hujus quidem ufque adhuc Impictatis Fraude perficitur, ut jam fub Antichrifti Sacerdotibus Chrifti Populus non occidat, dum Hoc putant li Fidei effe quod vocis eft. Audiunt Deum Chriftum; The |