Page images
PDF
EPUB

QUERY VII.

Whether the Father's Omnifcience and Eternity are not one, and the fame with the Son's, being alike defcribed, and in the fame Phrafes? See the Text above. p. 89.

You

OUR Answer, * with refpect to the Son's Omniscience, is, that He bath 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 Fudgment.

The Son then, it feems, knows all Things, excepting that He is ignorant of many Things; and is omnifcient in fuch a Sense, as to know infinitely lefs, than one who is really omnifcient. Were it not better to fay plainly, that He is not omniscient, than to speak of a relative Omniscience, which is really no Omnifcience; unlefs an Angel be omniscient, or a Man omniscient, becaufe He knows all Things which He knows? What Ground do you find in Scripture, or Antiquity, for your Diftinction of abfolute and relative Omnifcience? Where is it faid, that He knows all Things relating to bis Office, and no more? Or how can he be fo much as omniscient, in this low Senfe, if He knows not, or knew not, the precife time

Pag. 48.

of

of the Day of Judgment; a Thing which, one would imagine, fhould belong to his Office as much as any? Matt. 24, 36. as well as Mark 13. 32. is plainly meant only of the human Nature; and is to the fame effect with Luk. 2. 52. That He increas'd in Wisdom, which cannot be literally understood of the Aoy with any tolerable confiftency, even upon the Arian Hypothefis*. You tell us farther, that All the Ante Nicene Writers underfland by these two Texts, that our Lord as the Nor&, 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 Writers; you must know better: if you have not; how unaccountable a thing is it to talk thus confidently without Book? If what you fay was true, we fhould, without delay, give you up all thefe Writers to a Man; and never more pretend to quote any Ante-Nicene Fa

[ocr errors]

66

• A late Writer acquaints us, in the Name of Dr. Clarke and the Arians, (1 prefume, without their leave)" that the word really emptied it felf, 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 Wifdom, as others do. This is making the Aoy, That greatest and best of Beings, (upon the Arian Scheme) next to God Himself, become a Child in understanding; tho' once wife enough to Frame, and Govern the whole Univerfe. The Author calls it, (I think, very profanely) The true and great Mystery of Godliness, God manifeft in Flefh. One would think, inftead of manifeft, it should have been, confin'd, lock'd up in Flesh; which is the Author's own Interpretation of this Mystery. (p 16.) What defign He could have in all This, I know not; unless He confider'd what Turn Arianifm took, foon after its Revival at the Reformation. See Exam. of Dr. Bennet on the Trin. p. 15, 16.

ther,

[ocr errors]

You

ther, in favour of the prefent Orthodoxy. But as the Point is of great Moment, we must require fome proofs of it: For, writing of History by Invention, is really Romancing. cite Irenæus from Dr. Clarke,, who could find no other: or else we fhould have heard of it from the first Hand. And yet you cry out, All; which is more than the learned Doctor pretended to fay; who had his Thoughts about Him; and would not have let flip any fair advantage to the Caufe which He efpoules.

But has the Doctor really proved that Irenaus meant fo? Perhaps not: And then your All, which was but one, is reduced to none. Two Things the Doctor, or you, fhould have proved: First, That Irenæus understood those Texts of the Aoy, or Word, in that Capacity. And Secondly, That He fuppofed Him literally Ignorant of the Day of Judgment. The Doctor knew full well what Solutions had been given of the difficulty arifing from this Paffage. Yet He barely recites Irenæus's Words; and ncither attempts to prove that fuch was his Senfe, nor to disprove it. You indeed do observe, from fome learned Perfon, that this Paffage of Irenaus will admit of no Evafion. 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 fo far plaufible on that

Script. Doctr. p. 146. alias. 132.

fide: But let the other fide be heard alfo, before we determine. a Bishop Bull has given fome Reasons, and weighty ones too, to show, that, if Irenæus attributed any Ignorance to Chrift, He did it in refpect of his Human Nature only. His Reasons are.

1. Because Irenæus, in the very fame Chapter, bafcribes abfolute Omnifcience to the divine Nature of Christ.

2. Because He every where cife fpeaks of the Son, as of one perfectly acquainted with the Nature, and Will, of the Father.

3. Because the fame Irenæus upbraids the Gnofticks for their Folly, in afcribing any Degree of Ignorance to their pretended Sophia, or Wisdom. How then could He imagine that the true Sophia, Wisdom it felf, could be ignorant of any Thing?

4. Because the fame Irenæus dufes an Argument against the Valentinians, who pretended

a Def. F. N. p. 81. Comp. Brev. Animadv. in G. Cl. p. 1056. b Spiritus Salvatoris, qui in eo eft, Scrutatur omnia, & Altitudines Dei, l. 2. c. 28. p. 158.

c See l. 2. c. 18. p. 140. Iren. Quomodo autem non vanum eft, quod etiam Sophiam ejus dicunt in ignorantia fuiffe? Hæc enim aliena funt a Sophia, & contraria — ubi enim eft Improvidentia & Ignorantia utilitatis, ibi Sophia non eft.

d Iren. 1. 2. c. 25. p. 152. Ed. Bened. In quantum minor est, ab eo qui factus non eft & qui femper idem eft, ille qui hodie factus eft & initium facturæ accepit: in tantum, fecundum fcientim & ad investigandum caufas omnium, minorem effe eo qui fe cit. Non enim infectus es, O Homo, neque femper co-exiftebas Deo, ficut proprium ejus Verbum: Sed propter eminentem Bonitatem ejus, nunc initium Facturæ accipiens, fenfim difcis a Verbo difpofitiones Dei, qui Te fecit. The whole Paffage is fuller to the

Peint.

to

to know all Things, which plainly fuppofes that Chrift 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 concern'd you to answer these Reasons, and to make the Good Father, at least, confiftent with Himself, before you lay claim to his Authority for your fide of the Question. However, I am perfuaded, that, as Bishop Bull is very right in determining that Irenæus could not mean to ascribe any degree of Ignorance to the Ay, or divine Nature of Chrift; fo, you are right fo far, in the other Point, that Irenæus is to be understood of the Aoy, in what He fays. And now the Question will be, whether He really afcribes Ignorance to Him, or only seems to do fo, to an unattentive Reader.

Irenæus's Words, I conceive, will most naturally bear this following Interpretation, or Paraphrafe. "* If any one inquires on what "Account the Father who communicates in

* Si quis exquirat caufam, propter quam in omnibus Pater communicans Filio, folus fcire & Horam & Diem a Domino manifeltatus eft; neque aptabilem magis, neque decentiorem, nec fine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat, in præfenti, (quoniam enim Solus Verax Magifter eft Dominus) ut difcamus per Ipfum fuper omnia effe Patrem. Etenim Pater, ait, Major me eft. Et fecundum Agnitionem itaque præpofitus effe Pater annuntiatus cft a Domino noftro; ad hoc, ut & nos, in quantum in figura hujus mundi fumus, perfectam fcientiam, & tales quæftiones concedamus Deo: & ne forte quarentes &c. Iren. 1. 2. c. 28. p. 158, 159.

He had faid before.

Dominus, ipfe Filius Dei, ipfum Judicii Diem & Horam con" all

« PreviousContinue »