66

66 humanity; and he has a name given him, as it were a "matter of favour, which is above every name, as the "blessed (Apostle) Paul expresses it. But in truth and "reality, this was not the giving him any thing, which "he naturally had not from the beginning: so far from it, that we are rather to esteem it his returning to what " he had in the beginning essentially and unalterably; on "which account it is, that he having condescended, oixovo"μxas, to put on the humble garb of humanity, said, Fa"ther, glorify me with the glory which I had, &c. For "he was always invested with divine glory, having been "coexistent with his Father before all ages, and before all "time, and the foundation of the world k."

I hope this may suffice to convince you how much you mistake; and how contrary your sentiments are, both to Scripture and catholic antiquity, if you imagine that the Aoyos, or Word, then first began to be Lord over all, when that honour was conferred on the Man Christ Jesus.

QUERY VII.

Whether the Father's omniscience and eternity are not one, and the same with the Son's, being alike described, and in the same phrases? See the text above, p. 63.

YOUR answer, with respect to the Son's omniscience, is, "that he hath a relative omniscience communicated to "him from the Father; that he knows all things relating "to the creation and government of the universe; and that "he is ignorant of the day of judgment."

ὁ Οὐσιωδῶς καὶ ἀναποβλήτως.

k I may add a passage of Novatian. Ac si de cœlo descendit Verbum hoc, tanquam sponsus ad carnem, ut per carnis adsumptionem Filius Hominis illuc posset ascendere, unde Dei Filius, Verbum, descenderat: merito, dum per connexionem mutuam, et caro Verbum Dei gerit, et Filius Dei fragilitatem carnis adsumit; cum sponsa carne conscendens illuc unde sine carne descenderat, recipit jam claritatem illam, quam dum ante mundi constitutionem habuisse ostenditur, Deus manifestissime comprobatur. Novat. c. 13.

1 Page 48.

The Son then, it seems, knows all things, excepting that he is ignorant of many things; and is omniscient in such a sense, as to know infinitely less, than one who is really omniscient. Were it not better to say plainly, that he is not omniscient, than to speak of a relative omniscience, which is really no omniscience; unless an angel be omniscient, or a man omniscient, because he knows all things which he knows? What ground do you find in Scripture or antiquity for your distinction of absolute and relative omniscience? Where is it said, that he knows all things relating to his office, and no more? Or how can he be so much as omniscient, in this low sense, if he knows not, or knew not, the precise time of the day of judgment; a thing which, one would imagine, should belong to his office as much as any? Matt. xxiv. 36. as well as Mark xiii. 32. is plainly meant only of the human nature; and is to the same effect with Luke ii. 52. "That ❝he increased in wisdom," which cannot be literally understood of the Ayos with any tolerable consistency, even upon the Arian hypothesis m.. You tell us farther, that "all the Ante-Nicene writers understand by these two "texts, that our Lord as the Ayos, or Son of God, did "not then know the day of judgment," (p. 49.) This is very new indeed; if you have read the Ante-Nicene

A late writer acquaints us, in the name of Dr. Clarke and the Arians, (I presume, without their leave,) "that the Word really emptied itself, and "became like the rational soul of another man, which is limited by the "bodily organs; and is, in a manner, dormant in infancy; and that the "Word may be deprived of its former extraordinary abilities—in reality, "and grow in wisdom, as others do." This is making the Abyss, that greatest and best of beings, (upon the Arian scheme,) next to God himself, become a child in understanding; though once wise enough to frame and govern the whole universe. The author calls it, (I think very profanely,) "the true and great mystery of godliness, God manifest in flesh." One would think, instead of manifest, it should have been, confined, locked up in flesh; which is the author's own interpretation of this mystery, (p. 16.) What design he could have in all this, I know not; unless he considered what turn Arianism took, soon after its revival at the Reformation. See Exam. of Dr. Bennet on the Trin. p. 15, 16.

writers, you must know better: if you have not, how unaccountable a thing is it to talk thus confidently without book? If what you say was true, we should, without delay, give you up all these writers to a man; and never more pretend to quote any Ante-Nicene Father, in favour of the present orthodoxy. But as the point is of great moment, we must require some proofs of it: for writing of history by invention is really romancing. You cite Irenæus from n Dr. Clarke, who could find no other or else we should have heard of it from the first hand. And yet you cry out, all; which is more than the learned Doctor pretended to say; who had his thoughts about him, and would not have let slip any fair advantage to the cause which he espouses.

But has the Doctor really proved that Irenæus meant so? Perhaps not and then your all, which was but one, is reduced to none. Two things the Doctor, or you, should have proved: first, that Irenæus understood those texts of the Aoyos, or Word, in that capacity: and secondly, that he supposed him literally ignorant of the day of judgment. The Doctor knew full well what solutions had been given of the difficulty arising from this passage. Yet he barely recites Irenæus's words; and neither attempts to prove that such was his sense, nor to disprove it. You indeed do observe, from some learned person, that this passage of Irenæus "will admit of no evasion. "For he evidently speaks not of the Son of man, but of "the Son of God; even of that Son with whom, as it "follows, in omnibus Pater communicat." Let this have its due weight: the argument may look so far plausible on that side but let the other side be heard also, before we determine. Bishop Bull has given some reasons, and weighty ones too, to show, that if Irenæus attributed any ignorance to Christ, he did it in respect of his human nature only. His reasons are,

:

• Def. F. N. p. 82. Comp. Brev. Animadv. in G. Cl. p. 1056.

1. Because Irenæus, in the very same chapter, ascribes absolute omniscience to the divine nature of Christ.

2. Because he everywhere else speaks of the Son, as of one perfectly acquainted with the nature and will of the Father.

3. Because the same fIrenæus upbraids the Gnostics for their folly, in ascribing any degree of ignorance to their pretended Sophia, or wisdom. How then could he imagine that the true Sophia, wisdom itself, could be ignorant of any thing?

4. Because the same Irenæus 5 uses an argument against the Valentinians, who pretended to know all things, which plainly supposes that Christ is omniscient. The argument is this. You are not eternal and uncreated, as the Son of God is; and therefore cannot pretend to be omniscient, as he is.

It might have concerned you to answer these reasons, and to make the good Father, at least, consistent with himself, before you lay claim to his authority for your side of the question. However, I am persuaded, that as Bishop Bull is very right in determining that Irenæus could not mean to ascribe any degree of ignorance to the Aoyos, or divine nature of Christ; so you are right so far in the other point, that Irenæus is to be understood of the Aóyos, in what he says. And now the question will be, whether he really ascribes ignorance to him, or only seems to do so, to an unattentive reader.

• Spiritus Salvatoris, qui in eo est, scrutatur omnia, et altitudines Dei. L. ii. c. 28. p. 158.

f See 1. ii. c. 18. p. 140. Iren. Quomodo autem non vanum est, quod etiam Sophiam ejus dicunt in ignorantia fuisse? Hæc enim aliena sunt a Sophia, et contraria- -ubi enim est improvidentia et ignorantia

utilitatis, ibi Sophia non est.

Iren. l. ii. c. 25. p. 152. ed. Bened. In quantum minor est, ab eo qui factus non est et qui' semper idem est, ille qui hodie factus est et initium facturæ accepit: in tantum, secundum scientiam et ad investigandum causas omnium, minorem esse eo qui fecit. Non enim infectus es, O homo, neque semper coexistebas Deo, sicut proprium ejus Verbum: sed propter eminentem bonitatem ejus, nunc initium facturæ accipiens, sensim discis a Verbo dispositiones Dei, qui te fecit. The whole passage is fuller to the point.

Irenæus's words, I conceive, will most naturally bear this following interpretation, or paraphrase. h" If any 66 one inquires on what account the Father, who commu"nicates in all things with the Son, (and consequently in "all knowledge, and particularly in that of the day of "judgment,) is yet here set forth as the only Person 66 knowing that day and hour, he cannot, so far as I at “ present apprehend, find any fitter or more decent, or "indeed any other safe answer than this, (considering "that our Lord is a teacher of truth, and must mean "something by it,) that it was to instruct us, as from "himself, that the Father is above all, according to what "he says elsewhere, for the Father is greater than I.' "And therefore the Father is declared to have the prio"rity and preference in respect of knowledge, by our "Lord himself, for an example to us; that we also, "while we live and converse here below, may learn to "refer the perfection of knowledge, and all intricate "questions to God."

The design of Irenæus was to check the vain presumption and arrogance of the Gnostics, pretending to search into the deep things of God. And the argument he had used was this; that our Lord himself was pleased to refer the knowledge of the day of judgment to the Father only, as it were on purpose to teach us, that while we converse

h Si quis exquirat causam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio, solus scire et horam et diem a Domino manifestatus est; neque aptabilem magis, neque decentiorem, nec sine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat, in præsenti, (quoniam enim solus verax magister est Dominus,) ut discamus per ipsum super omnia esse Patrem. Etenim Pater, ait, major me est. Et secundum agnitionem itaque præpositus esse Pater annuntiatus est a Domino nostro; ad hoc, ut et nos, in quantum in figura hujus mundi sumus, perfectam scientiam, et tales quæstiones concedamus Deo: et ne forte quærentes, &c. Iren. 1. ii. c. 28. p. 158, 159.

He had said before;

Dominus, ipse Filius Dei, ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem, manifeste dicens: "De die autem illo et hora nemo scit, ne"que Filius, nisi Pater solus." Si igitur scientiam diei illius, Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem, sed dixit quod verum est; neque nos erubescamus, quæ sunt in quæstionibus majora secundum nos, reservare Deo, p. 158.