Communication from him, of fome Created Subftance, as you fay in your Letter; and that Eufebius in this Paffage, by your quoting it, fupported that Opinion; yet this is far otherwife : For tho' it be true, that he is the only begotten Son of God, because he partakes of him that begat him; yet the Intent of Eufebius in this Place was not to prove that Propofition, but to give a Reafon why and how he was God of God, viz. by a Participation of God.

And therefore if you would allow Eufebius to fpeak for himfelf, and his own Senfe, it is plainly this: That God the Word is the only begotten of the Father; that he is truly God, for he partakes of him, and his Divine Nature and Effence; and becaufe he is anointed with all the Divine, Incommunicable, Paternal Attributes, he is ftil'd Chrift, and the anointed.

And though he that begat, is faid to be the First and the Greater; yet this must be understood, as others, who have us’d the like Expreffions, have explain'd them, viz. in Rank and Order, not in State and Dignity; and Eufebius, in this very Place, goes on and cites the 45th Pfalm, ver. 6, 7. Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever, &c. as St. Paul hath applied it, Heb.i. and a little after ftiles him (m) Copartner in the Throne with the God over all.

What I have to fay to your Quotation out of Justin, that Chrift is the First-born, will be more proper when I come to the Text cited by you out of the Coloffians.

Your Two firft Quotations out of his Dialogue with Trypho are right; only your Tranflation of weaivv, before the World, (which is indeed equivalent to the literal rendring, before the Ages) will not warrant what you mean by it, as if there were a Time when he was not, as will appear in the Sequel of this Letter, and indeed in this very Paffage: For when Trypho had fumm'd up Fuftin's Affertion, p. 267. which he had been proving, viz. That Chrift being God, præexifted before all Ages, was begotten and made Man; he adds, (1) This is not only a Paradox, but is also foolish. Which hews how he understood Juftin, viz. that he was truly God in the highest Senfe; for otherwife, a Jew, who believ'd that Angels had been often fent and appear'd in human Shape, would never have call'd it a Paradox and Folly to affert, that a Creature, tho' never fo excellent, fhould come into the World.

P. 12.

P. 13.

Your Third Quotation, Who was God before the World was Dial. made, must be readily agreed to, and 'twill by no Means be fubfervient to your Purpose. For

(ι) Σωθρονον τὸ ἐπὶ πάντων θεῖο

(*) Τὸ νὰ λέγειν σε προυπάρχειν θεὸν ὄντα πρὸ αἰώνων τέτον χρισόν, εἶτα καὶ γυνηθιώαι ανθρωπιν, γυόμβρον υπομείναι και ὅτι ἐκ άνθρωπο ἐξ ἀνθρώπε, ε μόνον αράδοξον δοκεί μοι τ ἀλλὰ καὶ μωρόν.

B 3

Juftin

P. 27.

Γνώμη

P. 25.

Juftin was proving, that One of the Three who appear'd to 'Abraham, and was call'd and written in Scripture to be God, and was God before the World was made, was another Person different from him who made all Things: I mean, fays he, in Number not in Will. And then he proceeds to several such other Proofs of this Doctrine out of the Scriptures.

[Here I must not let flip this Occafion to take notice of your very confident Affertion, That the Ancient Chriftians ever allow'd, that the Expreffions in the Old Teftament, whenever there was a vifible Perfon appear'd, were Jpoken by the Son, as the Image of the Invisible God, or as representing and personating his Father, as his Minifter and Vicegerent; and that they never book'd upon them as true in the higheft Senfe of the Son.' The contrary is most plain by the Inftances in Fuftin, who draws the fame Confequences from them, as do now the Moderns. And Dr. Hammond fays, That 'twas the general Opinion of the Ancient Fathers of the Church, that he, who appear'd of old to the Patriarchs, was not the Firft, but the Second Perfon in the Trinity, and that thefe his Appearances were Præludia Incarnationis. Adv. Ju- (8) And Tertullian fays, 'twas the Son of God who spoke to Moses. And Eufebius fays exprefsly, (h) it was Chrift who appear'd to Abraham; and he ftiles him God, and that Abraham worhipp'd him as God: And adds, That it was impious to say that thefe Appearances of God were only of Angels, the Minifters of God.

On the New Teftament, p. 820.

dæos, c. 9.

p. 142.

Eccl. Hift.

F, 6, 7.

P. 13.

Excufe this Digreffion; and I return to your Quotation out of Juftin, taken from p. 284, 285. And I ask,

Why did you ftop so unfairly by drawing a Line. after thefe Words, Begotten voluntarily by the Will) of the Father; for the very next Words are, (i) But not fuch as we fee begotten among us: And then he goes on to illuftrate the Generation of the Son of God by the Similitude of a Word spoken by us, and of Fire kindled by another Fire, which is not leffen'd by that which was kindled by it, but remains ftill the fame. (*) To me, fays he, will bear Witness the Word of Wifdom, himfelf being that God begotten of the Father of all things, and being the Word, and Wifdom, and Power, and Glory of • him that begat him, as Solomon says. And here is inferted a

(s) Qui ad Moyfen loquebatur ipfe erat Filius Dei.

(*) άφθαι κει ὁ Θεὸς α είρη) διά τις νάμοὶ ἄνθρωπ το Αβρααμ ὁ ἢ ὑποτετών προσκυνεῖ μὲν ὡς θεόν, ἱκετῶν ἢ ὡς κύριον καὶ μ' εδ' υποβεβηκότως ἀγγέλων καὶ λειτοργών θεός της αναγραφεῖσας Θεοφανείας ὑπονοεῖν θέμις.

♡

(1) Ἀλλ ̓ ὦ τοιῖτον ὁποῖον καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῷ οιόρθρου βρωμ

(*) Ματυρήση ἢ μοι ο λόγΘ ε σοφίας, αυτός ὢν ἔτι ὁ θεὸς ὑπὸ τὸ παρθ όλων γενηθείς και λόγΘ καὶ σοφία και δικία. μιας και δόξα τα φωνήσαντο υπάρχων.

ફે

great Part of the 8th Chapter of Proverbs, as a Proof of what Juftin had faid; and then, as a further Proof, he quotes the Ift of Genefis, Let us make Man, &c. which, he fays, was Spoken at least to the Son of God, (as Origen does alfo in his Comment on St. John, 1. 5. p. 257.) and makes it an Evidence of his Divinity, and expofes the abfurd Answers of the Jews; and then adds the other Text, Man is become like one of us, as full Proof of the Son's Divinity, faying, (') Does not the Saying, Like one of us, denote at least Two who fubfifted together with each other? And can the Doctors fhew it was spoken to Angels, and fo make Man's Body the Creature of Angels?

Then follows the latter Part of the Quotation, which you have rendred very differently from the Original, as will appear by comparing them.

Mr. WHISTON.

But the Production which really proceeded from the Father before all Creatures, was • with the Father, and to him did the Father speak, as the Word declares by Solomon; For in the Beginning, before • all Creatures, this very Off "Spring was produced by God; which by Solomon is ftil'd • Wisdom.

To this very ill Translation you add your own worse Comment. [Alluding to Prov. viii. 22, c. where 'tis faid, God created Wisdom the Beginning of his Ways for his Works.]

In the GREEK.

(m) But indeed this Begorten of the Father was with the Facher before all his Works, and with him the Father conferr'd, as the Word by Solomon has declar'd; For that he himfelf was begotten by God, both the Principle, before all his Works, and his Offspring, which is by Solomon call'd Wif dom.

Juftin does indeed quote the 8th of the Proverbs, as I have before obferv'd; but 'tis to prove the direct contrary, both of what by your Translation you wish him to fay, and of your

ท

(1) ἐκῖν εἰπών, ως εἷς ἐξ ἡμως, καὶ ἀριθμόν της αλλήλοις (ιόντων καὶ τὸ ἐλάχιστον δύο μερώνει. -ĥ oi dida Trades αποδείξαι διαν 9 ὅτι ἀγγέλοις ἔλεγεν ἢ ὅτι ἀγγέλων ποίημα μ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἀνθρωπειον.

(1) Αλλα τότο το τῳ ὄντι ἀπὸ τὸ παζός που βληθέν πώς να μα προ πάντων ποιημάτων ζωήν των παιδὶ καὶ στῳ ὁ πα τις προσομιλεῖ, ὡς ὁ λόγΘ Για το σολόμβο, ότι η αρχή πρό πάντων * ποιημάτων τὸν αὐτὸ καὶ γλύνημα ἀπὸ τὸ θεῖ ἐγυνητο ὃ σοφία ἀπὸ τὸ σολομο καλείται

B 4

Con

P. 13.

P. 30.

P. 15.

"

Confiruction of the 8th of the Proverbs;

and therefore you ufe

him and your Reader very hardly, to fay, he alludes to this Chapter for the Support of both.

And you have taken great Liberty in tranflating p, (nor dex) In the Beginning, for 'tis turning the Nominative into the Dative Cafe.

I think it is plain, by the whole Tenor of Justin's Difcourfe, that it is fo far from countenancing your Opinion, that it overthrows it; and therefore I will make no further Comment upon it, but what Trypho's Anfwer, which you quote, gives me Occafion to do: He fays, Let him be own'd by you, as Lord Chrift and God, as the Scriptures declare: But for us, who are the Worshippers of that God, who made him, we ftand in no need of fuch a Confeffion, or fuch a Worship.

From this Paffage it is plain, that Trypho acknowledges that the Scriptures declare Chrift to be Lord and God, and tho' he fays, p. 289. (a) That he was astonish'd with the many Texts cited by Juftin, and particularly knew not what to say to that of Ifaiah, I am God, and will not give my Glory to another; yet, with the Obftinacy of a Jew, he ftill ftiles him a made God, (and thus far you tread his Steps, tho' 'tis an odd Sort of Christianity that is learn'd from a few.) But then his Objection to this Notion is furely very juft, That they, who worship the God that made him, have no Need of fuch a God, or such a Worship; and it is incumbent on you, who profess this Doarine, to give fome Anfwer to it; for till you do, the Jews are not like to be your Profelytes, tho' you boaft against us, that 'tis our Doctrine which gives them Offence.

I proceed to your other Teftimonies, which you represent fo partially, and in fuch a manner, as, by the like Method, a Man may prove, even out of the Scriptures, any the moft abfurd and impious Propofition.

In your Quotation out of Athenagoras, in which the Son is faid to be the First Production of the Father, not as a Being made; you add of your own, (for 'tis not in the Book) out of nothing. Thus you qualify a plain and abfolute Propofition of your Author; and to refute his pofitive Affertion, that the Son was not a Being made, you would have him understood to mean, by impofing upon him your Senfe, not made of Nothing, leaving your Reader to chufe which of the contradictory Propofitions which I have before taken notice of) he pleafes, as to the Subftance of which he was made, provided he will agree with you that he was made.

(3) Ὑπὸ το τοσέτων γραφών δυσωπεμΘ εκ διδα τὸ φῶ σει Ο γραφῆς ἣν ἔφη Ησαίας καθ' μὲ ὁ θεG ἐδενὶ ἑτέρῳ δῆναι τὰ δόξαν ἀπὸ λέγει ὅτως εἴπων ἐγὼ κύριθ ὁ θεὸς τὸ τὸ με όνομα τίω διξαν με ἑτέρω κ μὴ δώσω.

Thus

Thus you treat Ireneus alfo, for you own that he fays Christ P. 26. was God's Eternal Word, unmade; and yet you fuppofe his Meaning alfo to be, not made out of Nothing. Ireneus further fays, that he always coexifted with the Father, and was ever with him: To which your Anfwer is very pretty, viz. and he avoided faying, that God created him: Pray how was it poffible for him to fay this laft, after he had faid the firft? Eternal, Unmade, and yet Created, could be faid by none, who knew what a Contradiction was; and only by one, who could have a Notion of a made God,

You quote out of Tertullian, What other Characteristick is P. 16. there of God than Eternity? I agree, that without it he would not be God; and therefore all your Quotations, and your own Affertions, that our Saviour is God, are vain, and ferve only to amufe or abuse the World, if you do not believe him to be Eternal,

But to return to Athenagoras.

Perhaps it may be too nice an Objection to your Tranflation of di Conte Cunσews, out of your Depth of Understanding, to tell you that Conn is Excefs, and may be not a Compliment, but a Reproof of their Curiofity in defiring to pry into Myfteries unfathomable. But let this pass.

() Why did you omit what immediately preceded your Quotation, viz.The Father and the Son being One; the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, in Unity and Power, of the Spirit; the Son of God is the Mind, or Wisdom, or Word of the Father.

And immediately after your Quotation follows:

(P) And we say that the Holy Ghoft working in the Prophets, is the Efflux of God flowing from and reflected back to him, as the Rays of the Sun: Who then would not wonder, that should bear them call'd Atheists, who acknowledge God the Father, • God the Son, and the Holy Ghoft, fhewing both their Power in Unity, and their Diftinction in Order?

Surely Athenagoras is a Chriftian Writer before the Days of Athanafius, and does here affert the Three Perfons to be One God; and yet in your Letter to the Bishop of London, you P. 19. challenge any Man to produce one that does fo; and I obferve, that you there allow Tertullian does fo, but you therefore

(9) Ἑνὸς ὄντΘ το πατρὸς καὶ τὸ με, ὅτα ἢ τὸ δ ἐν παρ ταὶ καὶ παλεὸς ἐν τῷ ἑνότητα καὶ διαμει πνεύματΘ : νῖς καὶ λόγ τὸ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς τὰ θεῖο

(P) Καὶ πι αὐτὸ ἐνεργῶν τοῖς ἐκφωνία προφητικῶς ε πνεῦμα ἀπόρροιαν ει φαμω το θες απορρέον και αναφερόμενον ὡς ἀκτῖνα ἡλίγ· τις αν ἐκ Σπῤῥησαι λέγοντας θεὸν πατέρα και ὑτὸν θεὸν καὶ πνώμα ἅγιον δεικνώντας καὶ ἐν ἑνώσει διίαμιν και τί ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν ακέσας απές καλομβίας.

doubt