tended no more than this, that the Ante-Nicene Writers have declared fomething, which, He really believes, does by Confequence deftroy the Confubftantiality, &c. though, at the fame time, thofe Writers admitted no fuch ConSequence; but exprefly, and conftantly difowned it. This is all that He can mean, with refpect to our Liturgy; and therefore, probably, all He does mean, in refpect of the other; or, however, certain I am, that it is all He should mean. Now you fee the full of my Argument. It it look invidious, I cannot help it; I am perfwaded it is just; and I think it of as much Importance to our Readers to have the Matter fairly stated, as it is that Truth may not be fmother'd; nor any ftrefs laid upon the Doctor's Citations, beyond what They do really bear. The learned Doctor owns, as to Poft-Nicene Fathers, that They are, in the whole, against Him. And He fhould have own'd as much of the generality, at least, of the Ante-Nicene Fathers too, and then He has no claim to any thing but Conceffions; of which He endcavors to make the utmoft Advantage, three ways. First, by making more Conceffions than there really are: Secondly, by reprefenting those Conceffions in fo promifcuous and confufed a Light, that a common Reader cannot readily diftinguish when, or where the Doctor intended the full and intire meaning of an Author, or a Conceffion only: Thirdly, by flipping his own Conclufion upon thofe Conceffions, as if Ff They 1 They were the fame Thing; tho' there really is no Connexion between Them, no juft Confequence from one to the other. I would not be knowingly guilty of charging the Doctor falfely, in thefe, or in any other Particulars, for any Confideration; and therefore it may be expected of me, that I explain my self more at large; which accordingly I fhall do, in the Order and Method which I have already laid down. I. The learned Doctor has taken feveral Paffages for Conceffions, which are really none; but only as He has given Them fuch a parti cular Air and Afpect; either by prefacing Them, and holding out a falfe Light to the Reader; or by commenting upon Them; or by ill tranflating of Them. I fhall proceed to Particulars; and you must not take it amifs, if we call upon you to return us back what you have unfairly wrefted from us. Scripture-Doctrine, Pag. 3. The Doctor produces a Paffage of Athanafius, part of which, fo far as concerns us, you fee in the *Margin; with fo much farther as is neceffary to clear the Sense of the Author. The Doctor's Verfion runs thus: For He (the Father) is the one God, and the only One, and the First. And 66 * Εἷς γὰρ Θεὸς καὶ μένου καὶ πρῶτος ἐπιν οὐκ εἰς ἀναίρεσιν δὲ ξ λέγεται μη γένοιτο. ἐπὶ γὰρ σ' αὐτὶς ἐν τῷ ἐνὶ, καὶ πρώτῳ, καὶ μένῳ, ὡς τῇ Ἑνὸς καὶ Μίνα καὶ Πρώτες ἢ μόνο λόγω, και σοφία, ο απαύγασμα ἐν ἔτι δὲ καὶ πρῶτος καὶ αὐτὸς, πλήρωμα τῆς τοῦ πρώτο και μόνο Dróm Tos, 62 xai xarens av Osos. Athanaf. 3. Orat Contr. Arian. P. 556. Ed. Benėd. 2 " yet 66 66 yet thefe Things do not deftroy the Divinity of the Son. This rendring is flat and low; and neither anfwers the intent, nor Letter of the Author. Oux eis avaígeow, literally, is, not to exclude the Son: plainly meaning, not to exclude Him from being the one God, and the only One, and the First, together with the Father. And fo Athanafius interprets Himfelf, in the Words immediately following: For He (the Son) alfo is gar, the First, the fullness of the Godhead of Him who is the First, and only God. You'l obferve that the Doctor renders àraújoμa, as if it had been áæаúzaoμя тйs déns, Brightness of Glory: Which is again concealing and ftifling the Senfe of the Author. Athanafius intended to fignify the Son's issuing or ftreaming forth, as it were, from the Father's Subftance, as Light from the T Sun; which meaning is loft and funk in the Doctor's Tranflation. You fee then that this Paffage, when rightly understood, is intirely against the Doctor; and therefore ought not to be reckon'd amongst Conceffions. Let us go on to another, in the very fame page, alias p. 4th. (the Paffage you have in the *Margin.) The Doctor renders it thus: The true, "God, who is most ftrictly and abfolutely fuch, "even the Father of Chrift. Here the English Reader must needs think that, if the Father be most strictly, He is more ftrictly God than * Τὸν ἀληθινὸν καὶ ὄντως ἔντα Θεόν, τὸν τῇ Χριστοῦ πατέρα. Athan. Contr. Gent. p. 9. Ff2 Chrift Chrift is: Efpecially when nothing appears in the Paffage to compare the Father with, but Christ. Under this view, indeed, the Paffage cited is a very great Conceffion: But, in the Greek, there is no Conceffion at all. The juft and literal rendring of the Paffage is this: The true God who in reality is fuch, namely, the Father of Chrift. You must know, that Athanafius is here exhorting the Gentiles to turn from their dumb Idols, to ferve the living God. In oppofition to what He calls *cona, Things which have no real or but precarious Existence, or † con ÖVTA TO.ZÛTa, Things which were not fuch as the Heathens imagined, i.e. not divine, He advises Them to come over to the Father of Chrift; whole property it is to exist in reality, and who is truly and ftrictly God. This is no more than Athanafius would have faid of the Son; and indeed has faid, (in other words) in that very Treatife; and therefore you may please to strike this Paffage alfo out of the Number of Conceffions. The learned Doctor goes on, in the fame way (pag 4) And in another Paffage, instead of far above all created Being (which the Greek Words fignify, and which is the certain meaning of the Author) He chufes to fay far above all derivative Being; infinuating to his Reader as if the Son were to be included under derivative Being; than which nothing +Athanaf. p. 27; Vid. Athanaf. ibid. p. 7, 8. † Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς, ὢν ἐπι, και ο σύνθετο, διὸ ἢ ὁ τότε λόγος ὧν ἐπ, και ἐ σύνθετος, ἀλλ' εἷς & μονογενής Θεός ὡς ἀγαθὸς τῷ ἑαυ τοῦ λόγῳ, καὶ αὐτῷ ὄντι Θεῷ, τὴν σύμπασαν Διακυβερνά € καθίζηση Athan. Contr. Gent. p. 40. can can be farther from the Senfe of the Author, in that very Page; as I have obferved *before, on another occafion. All the Conceffion that is there, lies only in the Doctor's Translation, and the Turn He gives to it in the Sequel: Athanafius himself has granted nothing that can do you any Service; at least, not in that Paffage, and therefore let that alfo return to us again. Pag. 89. (alias 79.) The Doctor cites a Paffage of Eufebius; which, He fays, expresses the unanimous Senfe of the Catholick Church: And it may be true, as it lies in Eufebius. But, as it is reprefented in the Doctor's Translation, excluding the Son from any proper Efficiency in the Work of Creation, it is diametrically oppofite to the unanimous Senfe of the Antients, and to Eufebius too; as hath been fhown above †. Pag. 100, 101. (alias 92.) The learned Doctor has two Citations from Chryfoftom and Bafil; who interpret the Texts, of Power, as the Doctor alfo does of Power. But if the Doctor means one thing by Power, and They another, and the Ideas be intirely 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 before took notice how the Doctor dealt with Chryfoftom, in order to conceal the good Father's true meaning. I fhall here obferve, how He perverts Bafil's Senfe, by a fmall and feem Qu. 11. p. 201. † Qu. 11. p. 183. Qu. 23. p. 368. ingly |