Images de page

s In another place, the same Cyril says, "The Father "has not one glory, and the Son another, but one and "the same." So little countenance had the alone supremacy of dominion, or natural subjection of two divine Persons at that time.

358. HILARY.

Hilary's doctrine on this head is, that the subjection of the Son is voluntary, and not by constrainth; that is to say, it is economical, not natural. In another place he directly denies that either the Son is servant to the Father, or the Father Lord over him, save only in respect of the incarnation of God the Son: where he expressly again denies any natural subjection of God the Son as such.

360. Zeno Veronensis's doctrine, to the same purpose, may be seen in my First Defence k.

370. Basil's also, no less full and express against the pretended natural dominion on one hand, and subjection on the other, is shown in my Second Defence'.

375. Gregory Nazianzen's testimony I shall throw into the margin m: the same will be a confirmation of the creed of Thaumaturgus.

Ε Οὐ γὰρ ἄλλην δόξαν πατὴρ, καὶ ἄλλην υἱὸς ἔχει, ἀλλὰ μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτήν. Catech. vi. p. 87.

Subjectio Filii naturæ pietas, subjectio autem cæterorum creationis infirmitas. Hilar. de Synod. p. 1195.

i Servus enim non erat, cum esset secundum Spiritum Deus Dei Filius. Et secundum commune judicium, ubi non est servus, neque Dominus est. Deus quidem et Pater nativitatis est unigeniti Dei: sed ad id, quod servus est, non possumus non nisi tunc ei Dominum deputare cum servus est: quia si cum ante per naturam non erat servus, et postea secundum naturam esse quod non erat cœpit; non alia dominatus causa intelligenda est, quam quæ exstitit servitutis; tunc habens ex naturæ dispensatione Dominum, cum præbuit ex hominis assumptione se servum. Hilar. de Trin. lib. xi. p. 1090. k Vol. i. p. 206. Bull. D. F. p. 266.

1 Vol. iii. p. 24, 332, 465.

τὰ Θεὸν τὸν πατέρα, Θεὸν τὸν υἱὸν, Θεὸν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τρεῖς ἰδιότητας θεότητα μίαν, δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ καὶ οὐσίᾳ καὶ βασιλείᾳ μὴ μεριζομένην, ὡς τις τῶν μικρά πρόσθεν θεοφόρων ἐφιλοσόφησεν. Οrat. xxxvii. p. 609.

Οὐδὲν τῆς τριάδος δοῦλον, οὐδὲ Aiyovros. Orat. xl. p. 666.

κτιστὸν, οὐδὲ ἐπείσακτον, ἤκουσα τῶν σοφῶν τινός

380. Gregory Nyssen's doctrine may be seen in my Defences n, very full to the purpose.

382. I conclude with Ambrose, having thus brought the doctrine low enough down. No doubt can be made of the Catholics all the way following to this very time.

These, after Scripture, are my authors for that very doctrine which the Observator every where, without the least scruple, charges upon me as my fiction and invention. Such is his great regard to truth, to decency, and to common justice: such his respect to the English readers, in imposing upon them any the grossest and most palpable abuses. Let him, when he is disposed, or when he is able, produce his vouchers from Catholic antiquity, for the natural subjection of God the Son, or the natural superiority of the Father's dominion over him. He may give proof of a superiority of order (which I dispute not) or of office, which I readily admit: but as to there being any natural rule, or natural subjection among the divine Persons, or within the Trinity itself, none of the ancients affirm it; all, either directly or indirectly, reclaim against it. He may run up his doctrine to Eunomius, and so on to Arius, where it began. He, I believe, is the first man upon record, that ever allowed the preexistence and personality of the Logos, and yet made God the Son, as such, naturally subject to the dominion of the Father; appointing him a Governor, another God above him: which was really Arius's sense, and is the plain sense likewise of his successors at this day.

■ Vol. i. p. 206. Vol. iii. p. 25.

• Non sunt enim duo Domini, ubi Dominatus unus est; quia Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre, et ideo Dominus unus. Ambros. de Sp. S. 1. iii.

[blocks in formation]


I HAVE nothing now to do, but to take my leave of these gentlemen for this time. If they are disposed to proceed in the way they have now taken, it will be no great trouble to me (while God grants me life and health) to do myself justice, as often as I see needful; and to support, with God's assistance, the cause I have undertaken, as well against calumnies now, as against arguments before. But I think, since the argument is in a manner brought to an end, it is time for these gentlemen to put an end to the debate too; lest, after exposing the weakness of their cause, they may meet with a more sensible mortification, by going on to the utmost to expose their own.

They have done enough for Arianism; and more a great deal than the best cause in the world (though theirs is a very bad one) could ever require. They have omitted nothing likely to convince, nothing that could be any way serviceable to deceive their readers. They have ransacked the Socinian stores for the eluding and frustrating the Catholic interpretation of Scripture texts. They have gone on to Fathers and whatever they could do there, by wresting and straining, by mangling, by misinterpreting, by false rendering, and the like, they have done their utmost to make them all Arians. And, lest that should not be sufficient, they have attempted the same thing upon the ancient creeds, and even upon modern confessions; upon the very Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England. To complete all, having once found out the secret of fetching in what and whom they pleased, they have proceeded farther to drag me in with the rest a, into the very doctrine that I had been largely confuting.

a See Reply, p. 116. Second Defence, vol. iii, p. 195.

They have spared no pains, or art, to disguise and colour over their wretched tenets, and to give them the best face and gloss that they could possibly bear. They will not call the Son a creature; nay, it was some time before they would say plainly, that he is not necessarily existing, till the course of the debate, and some pressing straits almost forced it from them; and that not till after some of the plainer and simpler men of the party had first blabbed it out. At last, they would seem not so much to be writing against the divinity of God the Son, as for the honour of God the Father. They do not care to say, they are pleading for the natural subjection and servitude of the Son, but it is for the natural dominion of the Father over him: and they do not commonly choose so much as to say that in plain and broad terms; but they hint it, and mince it, under the words "alone supremacy of "the Father's dominion." And for fear that that should be taken hold on, and wrested from them, in due course of argument, they clap in authority with dominion; that they may have something at least that looks orthodox, something that may bear a colour upon the foot of antiquity, as admitting of a double meaning. And they have this farther view in confounding distinct things together, to make a show as if we admitted no kind of authority as peculiar to the Father when we deny his alone dominion; or that if we assert one, we must of course, and at the same time, assert both. To carry on the disguise still farther, they represent their adversaries as teaching that the Father has no natural supremacy of authority and dominion at all; without taking care to add, (what they ought to add,) over the Son and Holy Ghost, to undeceive the reader; who is not perhaps aware what subjection they are contriving for two of the divine Persons, while they put on a face of commendable zeal for the honour of the first. Such is their excessive care not to shock their young, timorous disciples; not to make them wise at once, but by degrees, after leading them about in their simplicity for a time, with their eyes half open.


Besides giving a fair gloss and outside to their own scheme, they have next studiously endeavoured to expose and blacken the faith received. It is Sabellianism, it is Tritheism, it is scholastic jargon, it is metaphysical revery, nonsense, absurdity, contradiction, and what not: contrary to Scripture, contrary to all the ancients, nay, contrary even to moderns also: and, to make it look as little and contemptible as possible in the eyes of all men, it is at length nothing more than Dr. Waterland's own novel fiction and invention.

Now I appeal to all serious and thinking men, whether any thing can be done, that these men have not done, in favour of their beloved Arianism; and whether they may not now fairly be excused, if they should desist, and proceed no farther. A great deal less than this, though in ever so good a cause, might have been sufficient: and had they sung their liberavi animam some twelve months backwards, I know not whether any truly good and conscientious Arian could have thought them deserters, or have condemned them for it. Let the cause be ever so right, or just, yet who hath required it at their hands that they should pursue it to such hideous lengths? Their design, suppose, is to promote truth and godliness: let it then be in God's own way, and by truth, and truth only. There can be no necessity of deceiving, of betraying, of beguiling any man even into truth, (though this is not truth,) by disguises, by misreports, by making things appear what they are not, or not suffering them to appear what they really are. This is going out of the way, wide and far, and defending truth, (were it really truth,) by making fearful inroads upon simplicity and godly sincerity, upon moral honesty and probity.

In conclusion, I must be so just to myself as to say, that considering how I was at first forced, in a manner, into public controversy, and what kind of a controversy this is, and how often, and how anciently before decided by the churches of Christ; I was civil enough in engaging the men so equally as I did, and upon so fair terms.

« PrécédentContinuer »