LETTER

XII.

Of the Perfonification of the Logos.

REV. SIR,

You ftill deny that the chriftian Fathers were acquainted with any fuch thing as the perfo nification, that is, the making a real intelligent perfon of the logos, or wisdom of God; whereas, abfurd as I acknowledge the notion to be, it was, moft indifputably the real doctrine both of Philo, the platonizing Jew, and of those who were called orthodox chriftians, who platonized likewife. I fpeak within compafs, when I fay that I can produce hundreds of paffages which prove in the clearest manner, that the divinity which they afcribed to Chrift was the very fame principle which had conftituted the wisdom, and other powers, of God the Father; and that the generation of the Son was the commencément of the state of actual perfonality of the logos, whether in time, as fome thought, or from all eternity, as others, which latter was afterwards received as the established doctrine.

This was evidently agreeable to the principles of thofe platonifts, from whom Philo and thofe christian Fathers derived their opinion, and if you deny this, a child as you call me in platonism, P. 15. (which however does not, I hope, prevent

me from being a man in christianity) I shall be able, as you will fee in my larger work, to teach you what you are at prefent ignorant of with refpect to it. If this kind of literature be your bome, p. 163, I must say that you have been a confiderable time from bome, and that you are at prefent unacquainted with feveral apartments in your own house. I fhall then wait upon you at this houfe of yours, and endeavour to point them out to you.

With respect to my quotation from Athenagoras, and my account of his meaning, you are pleased to say, p. 124, "it only finishes the "proof, if it was before defective, of your in

66

competency in the fubject. It fhews that you "are fo little acquainted with platonism, that 66 your mind cannot readily apprehend a platonic "notion, when it is clearly fet before you. What

you take for my mere conjecture, viz. that "the external difplay of power, is the thing that is "called generation, is the express affertion of Athenagoras, in the very paffage which you "have quoted."

On the contrary, I maintain that, if your external display of power be any thing different from what I have called the perfonification of the logos, or his becoming a proper person, so as to be God, in himself confidered, it is contradicted by Athenagoras in this very paffage, as well as by all the christian writers who treat of the fubject. In this paffage

paffage he calls the Son" the first production of "the Father, not that he was ever properly made," (that is, out of nothing)" for God being an "eternal mind, had logos always in himself, "being always Aoy" that is, being always a reasonable intelligent being. Now, Sir, what could any man mean by this expreffion, but that before this circumftance, or event (which I call the personification of the logos, and you the external difplay of his powers) took place, there was no more a proper trinity of perfons in God, than there is in man; for God, like man, was then fimply 207, an intelligent being; wifdom, or intelligence, being one of his attributes. Many of the Fathers afe this comparison, fuppofing the logos in God to have been originally exactly fimilar to logos, or reafon in man. Now are there, think you, or was it ever imagined that there were, proper diftinct perfons in the mind of man, merely because that mind was λoyi rational ? The very expreffion excludes this idea, and must have been intended to exclude it.

But according to all the orthodox Fathers, after this generation of the Son (who before was nothing more with refpect to the Father than reafon is with refpect to man) he affumed a proper diftinct perfonality; and this generation was with a view to the production of material beings, and not the production itself, or the display of powers in that production. For this generation was reprefented as the proper act of the eternal Father, whereas

the

the difplay of powers in the production of material beings (if I must adopt your quaint language) was according to them, the proper act of the Son. According to them it certainly was the Son, and not the Father, who was the immediate maker of all things. In my opinion Athenagoras's notion was, that this generation of the Son took place in time, and not from all eternity; because he fays that from the beginning, or from eternity, God was fimply ves, a mind, having logos in himself, as being always λoyın☞, reasonable, or intelligent.

Athenagoras, however, as appears from this very paffage, the beginning of which I quoted, was very far from having a notion of three diftinct perfons in the trinity. For though he thought, with Juftin Martyr, that the logos, from the time of his generation, affumed a permanent perfonality, the holy fpirit did not, but was like a beam of the fun, fometimes emitted from the Father, and fometimes drawn into him again, agreeably to the philosophy of those times concerning the fun and his light. This was alfo the kind of perfonal exiftence that Justin Martyr faid that fome perfons in his time afcribed to the Son, and which was allo faid to have been the doctrine of Marcellus of Ancyra.

cr

You fay, p. 123, that "Tertullian, to prevent "the very conclufion which you draw from this. analogy, that the logos was at fome time or "another a mere attribute, remarks that nothing, 66 empty or unsubstantial can proceed from God.

For

"For the divine nature admitting neither quality "nor accident, every thing belonging to it muft "be substance." This argument," you add, "is << ably stated in the Dialogues of the learned Dr.

"Leflie."

This indeed, Sir, is an argument that requires both an able ftating, and an able defence; for, in itself, nothing can be more weak. What, think you, could the Fathers mean by saying that, after the emiffion of the logos, the original divine mind was not deftitute of logos? Did they not mean that he was not deftitute of reafon, or understanding? Is there not then neceffarily implied an identity of nature between the logos emitted, and logos retained? Does it not follow, from hence, and from its being faid that the father was ftill win, rational, that they were both originally what we call reafon? Nay, do not fome of the Fathers compare the emiffion of the logos from God to the emiffion of reason from man, in difcourfing with one another?

You fay, for it is you that fay this (I have met with nothing fo very abfurd in Tertullian) that "the divine nature admitting neither quality nor "accident, every thing belonging to it must be "fubftance." The divine being then has no properties, no attributes, no perfections at all, which is, in fact, denying his very being; for what is being without properties? Pray, Sir, has the Son or the Holy Spirit, any attributes? In all my reading I do not remember to have met with

any