next century, Theodoret of Cyrus, an ecclesiastical historian, having occasion to quote the words of Ignatius, and finding 'ayswr' applied to Christ, αγεννητο which, in the sense of unbegotten,' (admitted by himself to be the proper sense), he saw, would not comport with the current doctrine of the age, he is hardy enough to read the passage'ye ayev BEGOTTEN OF THE UNBEGOTTEN.' But at this the reader will cease to wonder, when he finds so accurate a writer as Bishop Pearson saying, "that "this sentence of Theodoret's is found in the epistle "to the Ephesians to this day '." In the same century with Theodoret lived Pope Gelasius, the first Latin writer perhaps, who, in conformity with Athanasian usage, if not in imitation of it, renders the Greek of St Ignatius, into the Latin factus et non factus-made and not made. And it would seem to me, as if his papal authority had granted warrant to all succeeding ages, to adhere to this rendering, as the true one. Be this as it may, it is easy to see, how prevalent the influence of Athanasius afterwards became, and how studiously all his writings are both composed and quoted, with a view to the scheme of eternal ⚫tion.' Yet, it is owned by Bishop Pearson, that Athanasius acknowledges Christ to be called ' ary89 genera ' by Ignatius, (why then did he quote ayeros, as his language?) but that others after Ignatius, * See Vindicia, p.12. spoke " spoke otherwise; and, that although Athanasius disputed much with the Arians about ay, he never himself quotes Ignatius in the argument, having laid it down as a fundamental position, that “ 'εν το αγεννητον, ο πατης-there is one unbegotten, " even the Father." Thus expressed, the position to every Greek scholar must appear not a little strange, more especially, when he takes into account the immediate design of it. Had this fundamental position been couched in the masculine gender, “ εις ο αγεννητος, ο πατηρ,” like the text in the gospel of St Mark, so eagerly claimed by our modern Arians " έδεις αγαθος, ει μη εις, ο Θεος—there is none good but one, that is God," it would have better served the purpose so much triumphed in, of restraining the unbegotten' to the person of the Father. But in the neuter form, in which the position is stated, Scripture authority warrants me to extend it beyond the person of the Father, "Eyw na ο πατηρ εν εσμεν ego et pater UNUM sumus I and my Father are one;"" nay even to the whole Trinity, if that other text of St John be acknowledged genuine, σε στο οι τρες 'ey Ho-hi tres UNUM sunt"these three are one." Nor is the extension, thus scripturally authorized, unwarranted by Athanasius himself, if credit be due to the following source of information. I have in my possession four dialogues, ascribed to Athanasius, and translated I See Vindiciæ, p. 126, 127. 2 St Mark x. 18. 4 1 St John v. 7, και lated by Beza, in which I find, among many quiddities, and perplexing distinctions of the schools, sundry things, which if I did understand, I cannot reconcile one with another. Yet, if the translation be just, (for which, as I am not inclined to give implicit faith to modern translations of the Fathers, I dare not vouch) in his first dialogue with the Anomæans, (a sect of Arians), on the he"retics asking, is not το αγεννητον—ingenitumun"begotten' proper to the Father?" Athanasius makes answer, "It is not," and adduces, for a proof, the Holy Ghost himself. But the time having now arrived, when the doctrine of eternal generation' had become the subject of much altercation and explication, there arose a curious question, which has occasioned no small controversy ever since. The question is this, " Un"de et quomodo fluit hæc generatio, an ex natura an ex persona?-Whence flows this generation? does it flow from nature or from person?" 66 66 Athanasius had laid it down as another fundamental position, that Father is the property of Father, Son of Son, and Spirit of Spirit'," of which, not to call it a mere gratis dictum, I shall only say, Quid explicat? From this position he argues, that the " property of the hypostasis of the Father, is Father," &c.; and that, by hypostasis, he means what we term Person, is plain, from his telling us, See the above quoted Dialogues, Dial. I. in the same place, that "Essence is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and therefore we sayOne essence, three hypostases." 66 66 But he had said before, and he repeats it again, and again, that the Son is Son, "by being genitus ex hypostasi-begotten of the hypostasis:" and even with this peculiar addition, "ex utero-from "the womb of the hypostasis." This idea he had derived from the Septuagint translation of the third verse of the hundredth and tenth psalm-" yasgos προ εωσφορά εγεννησα σε :”which translation Jerom has followed, "er utero ante luciferum genui te-from εκ the womb, before the morning, I have begotten "thee." Yet as the original gives no countenance to the active “ya," I cannot help thinking our English translation preferable to both-" the dew of thy birth is of the womb of the morning;" or, as in the new translation," from the womb of the morning, thou hast the dew of thy youth" -Yet upon the corrupt ren מרחם משחר לך טל ילדתך dering of the Septuagint, it is, that Athanasius reasons with his adversary; applying the . womb," to the hypostasis of the Father, without any warrant from Scripture whatever', Nay, he makes this application the great mark of distinction between the modus of the Son, and that of the Holy Ghost, G 1 In Psalm xxii. 9, 10. we find the Son speaking thus: "Thou art "he that took me out of my mother's womb;" but we nowhere read "of the womb of the Father;" nor does the Septuagint or Jerom make any such exclusive restriction in their translations of Psalm cx. 3. Ghost, that the Son is "ex utero-from the womb," and the Spirit, "ex ore—from the mouth;" with this, not very logical, explication, that " womb" expresses generandi vim-the power of generation" and mouth," "docendi facultatem-the faculty of teaching." All this however rests on the faith of Beza's translation, which must be my apology, if I shall be found to have done injustice to the great Athanasius. My reason for the above observations is simply to shew, that his solution of the question, “unde et quomodo fluit hæc generatio," &c. attributes generation,' to the hypostasis or person of the Father; although, in another place, he contradicts himself, and expressly says, "We therefore "believe him to be the only begotten Son-quia "unicus ipse, ut antea diximus, er essentia genitus est “—because he only, as we have before said, is be'gotten of the Essence." On the supposition therefore, that Beza has done him justice, it can be no injustice to Athanasius' memory, for me to say, that the unde et quomodo fluit hæc generatio, an ex "natura, an ex persona ?" is ascribed at one time, by him, to the essence or nature,' at another to the hypostasis or person;' and therefore that no authority whatever attaches to his solution. The case however is otherwise with one, who flourished › See Dial. II. |