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 "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: so 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, or to these following?

a

Applied to the one God.

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts, the earth, and all things that are therein, &c. Neh. ix. 6.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. i. 1.

To God the Son. All things were made by him, John i. 3. By him were all things created: he is before all things, and by him all things consist, Coloss. i. 16, 17.

Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the 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;

[blocks in formation]

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 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 Fa"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 di' aur and un' aure, 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. c 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 audevría, his prerogative, authority, supremacy, as Father, or first Person; not denying the Son's proper efficiency, but only (if I may so call it) original efficiency; that is, making him the

e

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

See Euseb. contr. Marcel. I. i. C. 20. p. 84.

d The learned Doctor, and, after him, you construe, vz' «vrê, and di' avrî, by efficient and ministering cause. As if a ministering cause might not be efficient, or must necessarily be opposed to it.

* This is excellently illustrated by the elder Cyril. Πατρὸς βεληθέντος τὰ πάντα κατασκευᾶσθαι, τῷ τῷ πατρὸς νεύματι ὁ υἱὸς τὰ πάντα ἐδημιέργησεν· ἵνα τὸ μὲν νεῦμα τηρῇ τῷ πατρὶ τὴν αὐθεντικὴν ἐξεσίαν, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς δὲ πάλιν ἔχῃ ἐξεσίαν τῶν

second and not the first Person; not Father, but Son. Indeed, the 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 ὑπηρετεῖν, oι ύπουρ yev, 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 oixovoμixões, and Jeorgeπs. 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 'Apxǹ, Head, Root, Fountain of all. As to the distinction between δι' αὐτῷ and ὑπ' αὐτό, per quem and ex quo, or the like, it can be of

very little

ἰδίων δημιουργημάτων· καὶ μήτε πατὴρ ἀπαλλοτριωθῇ τῆς δεσποτείας τῶν ἰδίων δημιουργημάτων, μήτε ὁ υἱὸς τῶν ὑπ ̓ ἄλλου δημιουργηθέντων βασιλεύῃ, ἀλλὰ τῶν ὑπ' aurou. Catech. xi. p. 160. ed. Bened.

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

See Petavius de Trin. 1. ii. c. 7. Bull. D. F. p. 80, 111.

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

So Origen, who makes the Father Snuggyòs, and the Son dnμwggyòs, contr, Cels. p. 317. yet, in the very same treatise, denies that the world could have Μὴ δυναμένου ὑπὸ πολλῶν δημιουργῶν γεγονέναι, p. 18.

more Creators than one.

66

service to your cause. The preposition did, 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 ex, or xpòs, 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, (di' aŭtẽ,) and to him, are all things: to "whom be glory for ever." If you understand this of the Father; then, by your argument from the phrase ' aure, 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 significancy, 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 Δημιεργός, yet Ποιητὴς τῶν wv is (to the best of my remembrance) always con"fined by them to the Father only."

66

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

De Spir. Sanct. p. 145, &c.
De Spir. Sanct. թ. 148.

I See Scriptr. Doctr. p. 90.

« PreviousContinue »