Page images
PDF
EPUB

quences too shocking to be admitted in plain and express terms. But to proceed. You seem to be much offended at the Querist for asking, “ whether all divine powers can 6 be communicated to a creature, infinite perfection to a “ finite being ?” This, you say, is “ an evident contra“ diction, which ought not to have been put by one scho“lar upon another.” But, after this rebuke, you will please to hearken to the reason of the case. The difficulty, you know, with the Querist was, how to come at the Doctor's real sense, couched under general and ambiguous expressions ; that so the controversy might be brought to a point; and it might be seen plainly what was the true state of the question: which, as appears now, is only this; whether God the Son be a creature or no. The Doctor talked of the Son’s having divine powers, and all divine powers. It was very proper to ask you, whether he hereby meant infinite powers or no; and withal to show, if you should not answer directly, that he could not mean it, consistently with the Arian hypothesis ; which he seemed, in other parts of his performance, to espouse. You will not yet say directly, that the Son's perfections are finite, nor deny them to be infinite : $0 hard a thing it is to draw you out of your ambiguous terms, or to make you speak plainly what you mean. All you are pleased to say is, that the powers or perfections of the Son are not absolutely infinite: as if infinity were of two sorts, absolute and limited; or might be rightly divided into infinity, and not infinity. Instead of this, I could wish that words may be used in their true and proper meaning. If you do not think the perfections of the Son are infinite, and yet are unwilling to limit them; let them be called indefinite, which is the proper word to express your meaning; and then every reader may be able to understand us, and may see where .we differ. We are both agreed that the Doctor, by divine powers, did not mean infinite powers. Now let us proceed to the next Query.

QUERY XI. Whether if the Doctor means by divine powers, powers

given by God (in the same sense as angelical powers are divine powers) only in a higher degree than are given to other beings; it be not equivocating, and saying nothing: nothing that can come up to the sense of those texts before cited, a or to these following ? Applied to the one God. To God the Son.

Thou, even thou, art Lord | All things were made by him, alone; thou hast made heaven, | John i. 3. By him were all things the heaven of heavens, with all Il created : he is before all things, their hosts, the earth, and all || and by him all things consist, things that are therein, &c. Neh. || Coloss. i. 16, 17. ix. 6.

Thou, Lord, in the beginning In the beginning God created || hast laid the foundation of the the heaven and the earth. Gen. || earth; and the heavens are the i. 1.

Il works of thine hands, Heb. i. 10. IF the Doctor means, by divine powers, no more than is intimated in this Query, I must blame him first for equivocating and playing with an ambiguous word; and next for restraining and limiting the powers of the Son of God; not only without, but against Scripture; and consequently for giving us, not the “ Scripture Doctrine of “ the Trinity,” but his own. That there is no ground, from the texts themselves, for any such limitation as is now supposed, is tacitly implied in the Doctor's own confession, that the Son is excluded from nothing but absolute supremacy and independency: “ So naturally does, “ truth sometimes prevail, by its own native clearness “ and evidence, against the strongest and most settled “prejudices." Indeed the thing is very clear from the texts themselves cited above; especially when strengthened with those now produced under this Query. That the Son was and is endowed with creative powers, is plain from these texts, and others which might be added;

· Query V. p. 63.

VOL. I.

and is confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of Catholic antiquity. And that the title of Creator is the distinguishing character of the one supreme God, is so clear from 5 Scripture, that he who runs may read it. Now let us consider what you have to except, in order to elude the force of this argument.

“ The Son of God,” you say, “is manifestly the Fa6 ther's agent in the creation of the universe;" referring to Ephes. iii. 9. and to Heb. i. 2. from whence you infer, that he is subordinate in nature and powers to him.” This you have, (p. 58.) and in your Notes (p. 55.) you insist much upon the distinction between £i' aŭtõ and Út' attē, explaining the former of an instrumental, and the latter of an efficient cause; of which more in due time and place. As to the Son’s being agent with, or assistant to the Father, in the work of creation, we readily admit it; and even contend for it. The Father is primarily, and the Son secondarily, or immediately, Author of the world; which is so far from proving that he is inferior, in nature or powers, to the Father, that it is rather a convincing argument that he is equal in both. A subordination of order, but none of nature, is thereby intimated. Eusebius, whom you quote (p. 55.) out of Dr. Clarke, and d mistranslate to serve your purpose, does not deny the proper efficiency of the Son in the work of creation. All he asserts is, that the creation is primarily and eminently attributed to the Father, because of his at tertia, his prerogative, authority, supremacy, as Father, or first Person; not denying the Son's proper efficiency, but only (if I may so call it) e original efficiency; that is, making him the

*Nehem. ix, 6, Isa. xl. 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, &c. Isa. xli. 5, 8. Isa. xlili. 1, 10, Jer. x. 10, 11, 12, See Serm. iii, p. 94, &c.

c See Euseb. contr. Marcel. I. i. ç. 20. p. 84.

d The learned Doctor, and, after him, you construe, úr vurg, and di' avri, by efficient and ministering cause. · As if a ministering cause might not be efficient, or must necessarily be opposed to it.

e This is excellently illustrated by the elder Cyril. II&Teds Brandintos tà πάντα κατασκευάσθαι, τώ τε πατρός νεύματι ο υιός τα πάντα εδημιέργησεν ίνα το jèv vsõpuce oneñ rã targi anu audsvrixny iğsoíav, raù ó viòs dè ráan izn iğerías são

.

second and not the first Person; not Father, but Son. Indeed, the f general opinion of the ancients centered in this; that the Father, as supreme, issued out orders for the creation of the universe, and the Son executed them. And this was asserted, not only by the Ante-Nicene writers, but & Post-Nicene too; and such as strenuously defended the Catholic faith against the Arians. I have before observed, that the ancients had a very good meaning and intent in assigning (as it were) to the three Persons their several parts or provinces in the work of creation: and let no man be offended, if, in this way of considering it, the Son be sometimes said úningstív, or Útoupyeiv, or the like h. This need not be thought any greater disparagement to the dignity of the Son, than it is, on the other hand, a disparagement to the dignity of the Father to be represented as having the counsel and assistance of two other Persons; or as leaving every thing to be wisely ordered, regulated, and perfected by the Son and Holy Spirit. These things are not to be strictly and rigorously interpreted according to the letter; but oixovojix@c, and SEOT RETĀ. The design of all was; 1. To keep up a more lively sense of a real distinction of Persons. 2. To teach us the indivisible unity and coessentiality of all Three, as of one i Creator. 3. To signify wherein that unity consists, or into what it ultimately resolves, viz. into unity of principle, one 'Apxù, Head, Root, Fountain of all. As to the distinction between di' aútê and 'n' auto, per quem and ex quo, or the like, it can be of very little

ιδίων δημιουργημάτων και μήτε πατήρ απαλλοτριωθή της δεσποτείας των ιδίων δημιουργημάτων, μήτε ο νιος των υπ' άλλου δημιουργηθέντων βασιλεύη, αλλά τών υπ' autou. Catech. xi. p. 160. ed. Bened.

See Irenæus, p. 85. Tertullian. contr. Prax. c. 12. Hippolyt. contr. Noet. c. 14.

& See Petavius de Trin. I. ii. c. 7. Bull. D. F. p. 80, 111.

1. Vid. Cotelerii Not. ad Herm. Mandat. v. p. 91, et ad Apost. Const. I. v. c. 20. p. 326.

So Origen, who makes the Father anpeisgyòs, and the Son omper8gyòs, contr, Cels. p. 317. yet, in the very same treatise, denies that the world could have more Creators than one. Mà duvapívou útrò gondãy önpusaugy@o yeyovévas, p. 18. service to your cause. The preposition &à, with a genitive after it, is frequently used, as well in Scripture, as in ecclesiastical writers, to express the efficient cause, as much as únò, or éx, or apòs, or any other. So that the argument drawn from the use of the prepositions is very poor and trifling, as was long since observed by k Basil the Great, who very handsomely exposes its author and inventor, Aëtius, for it. Please but to account clearly for one text, out of many, (Rom. xi. 36.) “Of him, and " through him, (ài' aurë,) and to him, are all things : to 6 whom be glory for ever.” If you understand this of the Father; then, by your argument from the phrase di attē, you make him also no more than an instrumental cause : if you understand it of more persons, here is an illustrious proof of a Trinity in Unity. If it be pretended, which is the Doctor's last resort, that although the use of those prepositions singly be not sufficient, yet when they are used “in express contradistinction to each other," they are of more significancy; I answer, first, that I desire to know of what significancy they are in Rom. xi. 36. where they seem to be used in express contradistinction to each other; and secondly, admitting that they are of sig. nificancy, they may signify only a real distinction of Persons, as m St. Basil well observes; or some priority of order proper to the first Person: this is all the use which any Catholic writer ever pretended to make of the distinction. However, to countenance the distinction between the Father as the efficient, and the Son as the instrumental cause, you are pleased to say farther, (p. 56.) - it is remarkable, that (according to the sense of the “ foregoing distinction) though Christ is frequently styled «by the ancients Τεχνίτης and Δημιεργος, yet Ποιητής των 66 6aw is (to the best of my remembrance) always con“ fined by them to the Father only.

Had your remark been true and just, yet it would not

1 See Scriptr. Doctr. p. 90.

* De Spir. Sanct. p. 145, &c. m De Spir. Sanct. p. 148.

« PreviousContinue »