Page images
PDF
EPUB

his Father's Glory, and the exprefs Image of his Perfon; and to uphold all Things by the word of his Power, (v. 2, 3.) Strong and lively Expreffions of his divine, eternal, uncreated Nature; fuch as might give Him the justest claim to the Worship and Adoration of Men and Angels. In the clofe, you have a Remark about the error of Arius; which, you fay, did not confift in making the Son diftinct from, and really fubordinate to the Father (for that was always the Chriftian Doctrine.) Here you come upon us with general Terms, and es quivocal Expreffions; Leaving the Reader to apprehend that the Chriftian Church believed the Son to be a diftinct, separate, inferior Being; in fhort, a Creature; as Arius plainly, and you covertly affert: Whereas there is not an Author of Reputation, among all the Antients, before Arius, that taught or maintain'd any fuch Thing. A Subordination, in fome Senfe, They held; and that is all; not in Arius's Senfe, not in Your's. Well, but you proceed to tell us, wherein his Error confifted, viz. in prefuming to affirm, upon the Principles of his own uncertain Philofophy, and without warrant from Scripture, that the Son was it & övtav, and that ἦν ποτε ὅτε ἐκ ἦν. Arius had fo much Philofophy, or rather common Senfe, as to think; and fo much Franknefs and Ingenuity. as to confefs; that there neither is, nor can be any Medium between God and Creature. He was not fo ridiculous as to imagine that God

firft made a Subftance, and then out of that pre-existing created Substance made the Son; Befides that, even this way, the Son had been, in the last refult, in vrav: Nor was He weak enough to believe that any thing, ad extra, had been co-eval, or co-eternal with God Himfelf. If He had, He need not have scrupled to have allow'd the like Privilege to the Son; the first and best of all Beings, except God Himfelf, in His Opinion.

But fince you think your own Philofophy fo much better than Arius's, will you be fo kind as to tell us plainly whether the Son be of the fame divine Subftance with the Father; or of fome extraneous Subftance which eternally pre-exifted; or from nothing. The firft you deny directly, as well as Arius; and the fecond alfo, by plain neceffary Confequence: And why then fhould you differ upon the third, which is the only one left, and must be true, if Both the other be falfe? If Arius was rafh in affirming This, He was equally rafh in denying the Son's Co-eternity with the Father, and again in denying his Confubftantiality; and fo your cenfure of Him recoils inevitably upon your felf. Then, for the other Error of Arius, in afferting that the Son once was not; as having been produc'd, or created, by the Father; in your way, you correct it thus*: True, the Son was produc'd, brought into existence, had a beginning, and was not, metaphyfically, eternal; but yet, for all that, it was an Error, in Phi

Pag. 51. 63.

losophy

lofophy, for Arius to fay, that He once was not. Unhappy Arius! detefted by his Adverfaries; and traduced by his own Friends, from whom He might reasonably have expected kinder Ufage. Let me intreat you, hereafter, to be more confiftent: Either value and refpect the Man, as the great Reviver and Restorer of primitive Christianity; or renounce his Principles, and declare Him a Heretick, as We do.

QUERY XVIII.

Whether Worship and Adoration, both from Men and Angels, was not due to Him, Long before the commencing of his Mediatorial Kingdom, as He was their Creator and Preferver (See Col. 1. 16, 17.) And whether that be not the fame Title to Adoration which God the Father bath, as Author and Governor of the Universe, upon the Doctor's own Principles?

answer, that tho' the World was

You created by the Son, yet no Adoration

was due to Him upon that Account, either from Angels or from Men; because it was no Act of Dominion, and He did it merely ministerially (p, 94.) just as no Adoration is now due from us to Angels, for the Benefits they convey to us; because they do it merely inftrumentally. This is plain dealing; and however I may diflike the Thing, I commend

T 2

the

[ocr errors]

the frankness of it. You are very right, upon thefe Principles, in your parallel from Angels: Had the Antients thought the Office of the Son minifterial, in your low Senfe, They would have paid Him no more refpect than they paid to Angels; and would certainly never have worship'd Him. But I pafs on: Creation, you fay, is no Art of Dominion; and therefore is not a fufficient Foundation for Worship. The fame Reason will hold with refpect to the Father alfo for, Creating is one thing, and Ruling another. Yet you'l find that Scripture makes Creation the ground and Reafon of Worship, in fo particular and diftinguishing a Manner, that no Perfon whatever, that had not a hand in Creating, has any right or title to Worship, upon Scripture-Principles; to which Catholick Antiquity is intirely Confonant, as we have obferved above. I did not found his Right of Worship on Creation only, but Prefervation too; referring to Coloff. 1. 17. By Him all Things confift; to which may be added Heb. 1. 3. Upholding all Things by the word of his Power. The Titles of Creator, Preferver, Sustainer of all Things found very high; and exprefs His fuper-eminent Greatnefs and Majefty, as well as Our Dependence; and therefore may feem to give Him a full Right and Title to Religious Worfhip; efpecially if it be confider'd, that they imply Dominion, and cannot be underftood without it. Befides that Creator, as hath been fhown, is the Mark, or

Cha

Characteristick of the true God, to whom all Honour and Worship is due. Add to this, that by Job. 1. 1. the Son was es before the Foundation of the World; which implies, at least, Dominion, upon your own Principles: And when He came into the World, *He came unto his own, (Joh. 1. 11.) having been their Creator, v. 20. and, as is now explain'd, Governor from the first. Wherefore, certainly, He had a juft Claim and Title to Adoration and Worship from the Foundation of the World, even upon your own Hypothefis. As to his creating minifterially only, I have faid enough to that Point, under the Eleventh Query, whither I refer you. From what hath been obferved, it may appear fufficiently, that the divine Aóy was our King, and our God long before; that He had the fame Claim and Title to religious Worship that the Father Himfelf had; only not fo diftinctly reveal'd; and that his Enthronization, after his Refurrection, was nothing more than declaring the Dignity of His Perfon more folemnly, and investing Him as † God-Man, in his

Unus Deus Pater fuper Omnes, & Unum verbum Dei quod per omnes, per Quem omnia facta funt, & quoniam Hic Mundus proprius ipfius, & per Ipfum factus eft Voluntate Patris, &c. -Mundi enim Factor vere verbum Dei eft. Iren. p. 315.

Verbum autem Hoc illud eft, Quod in fua venit, & fui Eum non receperunt. Mundus enim per Eum factus eft, & Mundus Eum non cognovit. Novat. c. 13. p. 714.

Si Homo tantummodo Chriftus, quomodo Veniens in hunc Mundum in fua venit, cum Homo nullum fecerit Mundum? Novat. P. 715. Vid. & Hippolyt. contr. Noet. c. 12. p. 14.

то

+ Εἰ δὲ ὑψεως λέγεται, ε εν τάξὶ χαρίσματα τὸ ὑπὲρ τῶν ὄνομα δέχεσθαι, εἰς ἐκεῖνο δηλονότι με σαρκὸς ἐπανάγειν, εἰς ὅπερ ἦν καὶ εἶχα Tags Cyril. Alex. Thef. p. 130.

T 3

whole

« PreviousContinue »