to quibbling like this, to argue with them becomes useless; or, what is worse, no argument can be, with safety, committed to their management, It was made matter of complaint against the schoolmen, that their modes of reasoning, such as distinguo, et quoad hoc, et quoad illud,' and the like, tended only to involve and obscure any given subject. But surely neither scholastic disquisition, nor theological discussion ever afforded matter of complaint, more just, or more worthy of animadversion, than that, against which it has been my object in the present letter to complain; as exhibited in the discussions of those who, having taken a Plato, or a Philo, for their guide, have contributed so much to obscure, if not to corrupt the sound language of christian theology, on the subject of the Deity of Christ Jesus.

LET

LETTER XII.

IN the foregoing Letter, having briefly detailed the expositions contained in the writings of the Alexandrian Fathers, to whom, as favouring the same hypothesis, on the subject of self-generation (if I may be allowed the expression), Dr Waterland adds Tertullian, Novatian, Cyprian, and Lactantius, among the Latin Fathers, I have sufficiently proved how early something like ‘ genera

tion' was ascribed even to the Logos. I say not, that this was done as yet, in the passive sense of Plato's term yewna.' But I have no doubt, that the writers above noticed, by making Christ himselfyena, although in an active sense, had a reference to Plato's doctrine, and spoke a language equally intelligible. Yet, after all, it could not be divine, much less eternal generation,' which Justin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus had in view; nor could the term autou,' used by Origen, have the least affinity to the doctrine of eternal filiation, which was afterwards introduced, and which is asserted still.

I scruple not however, to say, that this is only asserted

asserted; and assertion, without proof, amounts to nothing in theological discussion. 'Almost all the philosophic Fathers,' says a Mr Samuel Hill, from Justin Martyr down to Tertullian, though they all own his (Christ's) personal co-eternity with the Father; and none of them, except Tertullian once, ever seem to deny an eternity of his Sonship, yet, for REASONS, HARDLY NOW TO BE REACHED, they ascribe a filiation to the Father's ' emission of the Logos, to the creation of the world, and providence over it, in their accounts hereof to Jews, heathens, and heretics, to whom they did ' not open the whole mystery of our theology, perhaps on account of their prejudice or incapacity, and went no higher than some strains of apocryphal theology, which seemed to them to warrant this notion. Here are assertions enough, but they are abundantly objectionable. For, I will ask, Who are the philosophic Fathers between Justin Martyr, and Tertullian ? and, What avails it, although these Fathers do not deny the eternity of the Sonship? Is it a logical conclusion, that, because they do not deny this eternity, they ought therefore to be held as affirming it? Tertullian, it is confessed, does deny" the eternity of the Son"ship." And in what manner does he deny it? Not in the manner in which one denies the unsupported averment of another; but he denies it

I See "Harmony of the S. S." by Mr Samuel Hill. p. 127.

by

by adducing, hypothetically, the “ non-eternity of "the relation between Father and Son," along with another received axiom-" the non-eternity of rela"tion between judge and crime;" whereby he confutes the impious absurdity of "matter being co"eternal with God." Instead therefore of proving what Dr Bull and his friends think that they have proved from Tertullian's denial of the eternal Sonship, I am of opinion, that the denial of Tertullian proves the direct contrary; viz. "that the non-eternity of the Sonship was, at that time, the "current belief of that part of the christian church, "with which Tertullian was best acquainted." The

66

16

as vi-always Son, for which Athanasius contended, and others to this day do contend, was not then in vogue; and I do not remember to have met even with a quotation, from any writer contemporary with Tertullian, which expressly asserts this eternity; unless something of this sort can be drawn from the creed (as it is called) of Gregory Thaumaturgus: a composition unknown for a hundred years after Gregory; and produced under such suspicious circumstances, as protestant writers think themselves bound to disclaim; although, to serve a favourite hypothesis, they have been known to admit the composition itself, and to argue from

its contents.

These contents bear, that there is" One God, "Father of the living word-perfect parent of one perfect, Father of the only begotten Son: and one

66

"Lord

66

"Lord μovos en pove, ex 8, one of one, God of μονος εκ μονά, ☺ と God, true Son of the true Father-aogar aogaτ8, και αφθαρτον αφθαρτο, και αθανατος αθανατ8, και αιδιος "ad-invisible of invisible, incorruptible of incorruptible, immortal of immortal, and eternal of "eternal." Here we have the character of the first and second persons of the trinity, summed up in language abundantly descriptive; yet, the composer of this creed, be who he may, has not had the courage to use the term, which I have before alluded to, as a necessary deduction from such premises, and directly to call the first person—“ THE FATHER "OF GOD."

66

It is also worthy of being remarked, that though the composer of this creed makes use of the prepoposition εx" 5 x 8,” as in the Nicene creed, God of God; in four of the Greek selections above made, he drops the preposition, and uses the genitive case, in regimine. To the Greek scholar this must necessarily suggest a difference of sense; and may, in some measure, justify the explication, which I have already offered' of that expression in the creed of Nice, upon which so much weight of authority, in behalf of the doctrine of eternal "generation,' is laid.

But admitting this wonderful composition to have

been

I See Letter V. p. 33. et seq.