Though Dr. Priestley's statement of what the early Fathers meant by the generation of the Son betrays, according to Dr. Horsley, gross ignorance of the Platonic philosophy; yet he allows that he is supported in it by two very respectable authorities. "It is but justice," he says, "to Dr. Priestley to acknowledge, what indeed he ought to have acknowledged for himself, that in this misinterpretation of the Platonic Fathers, he is not original: that he hath upon his side the respectable authority of two very eminent divines of the Roman church; Petavius and Huetius: which however is no more than a single authority; the pious bishop of Avranches, upon this subject, being but the echo of the very learned jesuit."* Huetius was a man well acquainted with the Fathers, the original editor of the Commentaries of Origen, and the author of an elaborate work on his life, his writings, and his opinions. It might not perhaps be easy to shew, why his opinion should be without weight, because it coincides with that of Petavius. To Petavius, Dr. Horsley attributes the design of lessening the reputation and lowering the authority of the early Fathers, because their writings were used by the protestants against the catholic church. This motive, he says, induced him "to belie his better knowledge," and to charge them "with errors, which he was too learned not to know no Platonist could entertain." This account of the motives of Petavius Dr. Horsley has borrowed from Bishop Bull, except that the latter, who is not often too modest either in assertion or invective, produces, as his conjecture, what Dr. Horsley affirms positively to have been the fact. With regard to Petavius, the reader may recollect the manner in which he is spoken of by Brucker in a passage I have quoted. Dr. Priestley mentions, in reply to Dr. Horsley, that he was quite ignorant of being supported by his authority or that of Huetius.

Charge iv. § 7.

† Quod si subdolo aliquo consilio, non ex solita tantum sibi audacia ac temeritate in sanctis Patribus censendis et notandis, ista scripsisse dicendus sit Petavius; putarim hominem, Jesuitum scilicet, Pontificia potius quam Arianæ causæ consultum voluisse, &c. Hoc autem nefario consilio ista scripsisse Petavium, non ausim certo affirmare, Deo zagdioyacry illud judicium permittens. Defens. Fid. Nic. Procemium, § 8.

These however are not the only authorities by which Dr. Priestley is supported. There is another of as high name in the protestant, as these are in the catholic church, I mean Whitby. He is an authority likewise, of which Dr. Horsley, who has borrowed so much of his learning from Bishop Bull, ought not to have been ignorant; for he has repeatedly expressed his opinion on this subject, in a short treatise, to which I have before referred, (his Disquisitiones Modestæ in Cl. Bulli Defensionem Fidei Nicena,) in which he will be thought by many to have given the work of Bull, on which Dr. Horsley relies, as satisfactory a refutation as any work ever received. One of the passages in which Whitby has explained, in the same manner as Dr. Priestley, what the Antenicene Fathers meant by the generation of the Son, is given in the margin, with references to others, where the same explanation may be found.*

The passage of Athenagoras is likewise understood by Brucker, in a similar manner as by Dr. Priestley, and by him also the notion it contains is affirmed to have been derived from the Platonic school. "Whether," he says, "the meaning of Athenagoras be always sound, and whether he have not followed Platonic subtleties more than the simplicity of scripture, is not here the place to determine. It belongs rather to the history of the theology of the ancient church. But it is easy for the reader to judge for himself, if he consider the doctrine of Athenagoras concerning angels, to say nothing of others, particularly his doctrine concerning the Logos going forth in time from God by emanation, to the work of creation; which, when Bull attempts to give it an orthodox sense, he rather shews what meaning the words of Athenagoras ought to have, than what

Semper enim in Deo Patre fuisse Aayor endiaberov sermonem in corde ejus insitum, eundemq; generatione #gopogov prolatum esse, quando Deus ea facere voluit de quibus deliberaverat, Patres Antenicæni docent; eumq; genuisse Patrem, sevžauerov ago TWY oλay, eum ex se eructando ante universa, disertim asserunt, et ex Psalmo 44, sive 45 probant. Hinc Filium à Patre προπηδαν, προελθειν, εξέλθειν, exsilire, progredi, exire, iidem Patres uno ore prædicant; Deumq; Patrem solum fuisse adusq; Filii generationem, ex Theophilo Antiocheno, Tatiano, et Tertulliano probavimus. Ipse deniq; Tertullianus, ad quem nos hic præcipue remittit Præsul, expresse agnoscit, immo contendit, Filium de Deo prolatum, et prolatione generatum, et à Patre emissum esse. pp. 196,197. edit. sec. Vid. et p. 49. seq. p. 56. p. 106. pp. 173, 174.

they really express." In a similar manner Brucker understands a passage of Theophilus, quoted by Dr. Priestley, and supposes, that Theophilus accommodated his explanation of the Christian Logos to the notions of the Platonist whom he was addressing. "He, as it is very probable," says Brucker, "thought it would be sufficient, if he should prove to Autolychus, what, agreeably to the principles of the later Platonism, he could not deny, that the Logos was from eternity in God, subsisting in him as essential reason, but that, when God conceived the design of creating the world, at. His command the Logos went forth from his essence, as the minister of his will, that is, the Word was prolated. Which notion is nearer to the system of emanation than to that of Christianity." In a similar manner likewise, Brucker understands a passage of Tatian, quoted by Dr. Priestley.t

Such are the authorities, which a very limited examination

• Utrum autem Athenagoras ubique saniorem sensum expresserit, et annon Platonicorum magis subtilitates, quam scripturæ simplicitatem secu. tus fuerit, nostri hoc loco non est definire, et ad historiam theologiæ veteris ecclesiæ pertinet, facile autem judicium ipse interponet lector suum, si doctrinam Athenagoræ de lapsu, operationeque angelorum expenderit, ut alia ipsamque de Aoy doctrinam ad creationem demum ex Deo per emanationem progresso taceamus: quam ubi ad orthodoxos sensus révocat Bullus, ostendit magis quam significationem verba ejus habere debeant, quam, quem sensum fundant. Tom. iii. p. 406.

† Qui, ut verisimile, sufficere putavit, si demonstraret Autolyco, quod Platonismum juniorem secutus negare non posset, Ayov ab æterno inesse Deo, tanquam rationem essentialem in eo subsistentem; ubi autem mundi condendi consilium Deus cepisset, eum væovgyor voluntatis suæ progredi ex essentia sua jussisse, id est, verbum hoc protulisse. Quæ emanationis systemati supra explicato magis affinia sunt, quam Christiano. Tom. iii. p. 401. * Vide p. 382. seq.

To these authorities, I might have added that of a name less known, but probably not unknown to some of my readers, John Jackson. In his edition of the works of Novatian he thus expresses himself in one of his additional notes:-"Observavi-authoris nostri animo, ut et aliorum veterum, insedisse opinionem, Verbum Dei primitus extitisse in Deo Patre AvÜKOSTATNS KAI Ayıvratwę, sine hypostasi et ingenito modo, sicuti Intellectum sive Rationem in mente humana; atq: postea ex virtute interna non personaliter existente, voluntate Dei processisse in propriam et distinctam a Patre personam." p. 391. The opinion which Dr Priestley has advanced on the subject in question appears to have very little novelty. It is however much more fully illustrated and supported by him than by any other writer whom I have consulted.

may enable one to produce, by which Dr. Priestley is partially or wholly supported, in his statement of what the early Fathers meant by the generation of the Son;-the very learned Jesuit, Petavius; Huetius, the author of the Oregeniana; Whitby, who tells us that he had read, and not carelessly, the Antenicene Fathers more than once;* and Brucker, the historian of ancient and modern philosophy. All these, except Petavius who belied his better knowledge, have to share with Dr. Priestley the disgrace of being patrons of that most absurd opinion which he has advanced, and are equally liable with him to the charge of "total ignorance of the genuine principles" of the Platonic school, and "gross misconstructions" of the language of the Fathers.

If, as there can be no doubt, considering the authorities which have been mentioned, the opinion which Dr. Priestley has advanced implies no ignorance; if it be probably the correct opinion, as it is that which men of great learning have drawn from the writings of the Fathers; and if especially it be supported both by the passage of Athenagoras (on which principally Dr. Horsley relies,) and by various other passages produced by Dr. Priestley, to which I must again refer the reader, whose meaning does not seem to admit of ambiguity; then the charge of ignorance and misconstruction recoils heavily upon his opponent. The latter has not lessened its returning force upon himself by any modesty or decency in charging it upon Dr. Priestley. If the case be as I have stated, the reader will learn from this example (not more however, it may be, than from many others I have adduced) how little reliance is to be placed on Dr. Horsley's most confident assertions, and how unfounded are sometimes his most arrogant claims to superior learning.

IF such as has been stated was the doctrine of the Antenicene Fathers respecting the generation of the Son, it follows, that they could not have believed in his proper eternity; but on the contrary, that they supposed the commencement of his personal existence to have immediately preceded the creation of -Mihi Patres Antenicænos non semel nec oscitanter legenti.-Diss. Mod. p. 196.

the universe, or what was the same thing with them, the creation of the world. The fact indeed of their not asserting, but on the contrary expressly denying his proper eternity, may be shewn from various passages, not directly relating to the subject of his generation. Such is the following quoted by Dr. Priestley from Clemens Alexandrinus. "He [God] shewed that he was righteous by the logos from of old, from the time he became a Father; for he was God before he was a creator, and he was good; and on this account he chose to be a creator, and a Father." Such likewise is the following quoted by him from Tertullian. "God," says Tertullian, "was not always a Father or a judge; since he could not be a Father before he had a son, nor a judge before there was sin; and there was a time when both sin and the Son, which made God to be a judge and a Father were not."*

To these and similar passages I do not know that any reply has been made by the opponents of Dr. Priestley. Nor do I find that any direct reply has been made to him, respecting a great body of other evidence that he has produced, to substantiate the fact, that THE INFERIORITY OF THE SON TO THE FATHER WAS THE DOCTRINE of all the ANTENICENE FATHERS. It would have been easy, he says, to have doubled the number of passages which he has brought forward; and of this no one can have any doubt, who has even but a slight acquaintance with the writings of these Fathers. The reader who is desirous of further investigating this subject may consult the work of Dr. Priestley, in which the passages I have mentioned are principally contained; his History of Early Opinions, B. ii. c. 4. or the Disquisitiones Modesta of Whitby, which I have before mentioned, and in which there is a larger collection. I will add however a few passages, as specimens of the manner in which the ancient Fathers expressed themselves, without confining myself to those given by Dr. Priestley.

To begin then with Justin Martyr. A great part of his Dialogue with Trypho is occupied in proving Christ to be a God; but another God from him who is the Creator of all things and God over all; generated by His volition; the minister of His will; His angel or messenger, and apostle; and de• Hist. Earl. Opp. B. ii. c. 3. sec. 4.