Question II
Why Does He Call the Supreme God, Father and Maker of All Things (Timaeus 28C)
1. Is it because he is (as Homer calls him) of created God and men
the Father, and of brutes and things that have no soul the maker? If Chrysippus may be
credited, he is not properly styled the father of the afterbirth who supplied the seed,
although it springs from the seed. Or has he figuratively called the maker of the world
the father of it? In his Convivium he calls Phaedrus the father of the amatorious
discourse which he had introduced; and so in his Phaedrus he calls him 'father of noble
children,' when he had been the occasion of many excellent discourses about philosophical
matters. Or is there any difference between a father and a maker? Or between procreation
and making? For as what is procreated is also made, but not the contrary; so he that
procreated also did make, for the procreation of an animal is the making of it. Now the
work of a maker-- as of a builder, a weaver, a musical-intrument maker, or a statuary-- is
altogether distinct and separate from its author; but the principle and power of the
procreator is implanted in the progeny, and contains his nature, the progeny being a piece
pulled off the procreator. Since therefore the world is neither like a piece of potter's
work nor joiner's work, but there is a great share of life and divinity in it, which God
from himself communicated and mixed with matter, God may properly be called Father of the
world-- since it has life in t-- and also the maker of it.
2.And since these things come very near to Plato's opinion, consider, I
pray, whether there may not be some probability in them. Whereas the world consists of two
parts, body and soul. God indeed made not the body; but matter being provided, he formed
and fitted it, binding up and confining what was infinite within proper limits and
figures. But the soul, partaking of mind, reason, and harmony was not the only work of
God, but part of him: not only made by him, but begot by him.