Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the Son, had, in his idea, commenced also, you would perhaps have contented yourself with fmiling at his notion, or at least have abated of the feverity of your cenfure.

[ocr errors]

Conftantine, whom you quote, p. 127. as in your favour, is directly against you. Taking your own words, he fays, "the Son was begotten, or rather he himself came forth (being " even ever in the Father) for the fetting in or "der of the things which were made by him. "Here," you fay, "the emperor expounds ge"neration by coming forth." But then, Sir, he does not say that this generation, or coming forth, was the fame thing with the fetting in order the things that were made by him; but it was evidently fomething that took place previous to this setting in order, and with a view to it; so that this myfterious generation preceded what you quaintly call the projection of energies, and was not the fame thing with it.

You ftill, likewife confound the doctrine of Arius, p. 116. with that of the perfonification of the Logos, than which no two things were more different, having always been opposed to each other, as you must have known, had you been fo well read, as you pretend to be, in the ancient ecclefiaftical writers, fince a great proportion of their works is occupied in the difcuffion of this fubject. The Arians maintained that Christ was a being

K 2

ון

a being created out of nothing, as other creatures were, notwithstanding the vastnefs of his powers, which were equal to the creation of all other things, visible and invifible; and not believing an eternal creation, they likewife faid that there was a time when the Son did not exift. Both thefe propofitions were denied by the orthodox of that age, who maintained that Chrift was not made out of nothing, for that he was the Lagos, the wisdom, the power, &c. of the Father, and that he had always exifted in the Father as reafon does in man, though his perfonality was by fome fupposed to have commenced in time. You must give me leave to fay you are but little acquainted with the principles even of platonifm, and especially those of the later platonists, from whom the chriftian Fathers more immediately derived their notions, if you are not able to enter into this idea.

This perfonification, or the commencement of an actual perfonality of what was an attribute of God, is a ftrange idea, but, ftrange as it is, it nevertheless actually took place in the minds of thoufands, and was in truth all the orthodoxy of the earlier ages. This incipient orthodoxy grew immediately out of platonism, and is certainly abfurd enough. The orthodoxy of the later ages, and of the prefent, grew out of that, and is infinitely more abfurd. Their doctrine was mere nonfenfe, yours the plainest of all

contra

contradictions, as I fhall clearly fhew in my next letter.

"What difference there may be," you fay, p. 118. "between a making out of nothing, and "the converfion of a mere attribute into a fub"stance, or how a perfon made out of an attri"bute may differ from a perfon made out of no

[ocr errors]

thing, I would rather, Sir, that you, than I "should take the trouble to explain." I have explained it as well as fuch an absurdity can be explained, but it behoves you to explain it much more than it does me; for, abfurd as the notion is, it certainly prepared the way for the still more abfurd notion of three equal divine perfons in one godhead.

[blocks in formation]

LETTER

XIII.

Confiderations relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity.

REV. SIR,

Own I was particularly defirous of hearing what you could poffibly say on the subject of my Seventh letter, in which I advanced fome general confiderations relating to the doctrine of the trinity; but, unfortunately, you "con"tent yourself," p. 136. "with giving only a

[ocr errors]

general reply to fome parts of that letter. A "particular answer," you fay, "to the feveral objections which it contains, would lead me " into metaphyfical difquifitions, which I wish to "decline, because in that fubject I foresee that "we should want common principles and a com"mon language."

Now I make no doubt, Sir, but that, if it had been possible for you to have given any plausible answer to the difficulties ftarted in that letter, you would have found fome principle, common or uncommon, on which to found it, and fome language alfo, which might have been intelligible to me and your readers. But as you profess that you do not expect to convince me, it would have been quite fufficient for your purpose, if you

could

'could have found common principles, and common language for others.

I am the more concerned at your filence, as I was in hopes of having fome farther account. of your own peculiar notion of the necessary origin of the Son from the Father's contemplation of his own perfections; but, to my great mortification, I find not one gleam of more light on this curious fubject. You faid that this doctrine was agreeable to the notions of all the Fathers, as well as to the facred writers, and I challenged you to produce any authority for it, except what exifts in your own imagination. In my opinion, nothing can be conceived more abfurd than the idea of the neceffary production of an intelligent being, poffeffed of actual fubftantial perfonality, equal in all refpects to the original intelligent being, from the mere self-contemplation of that original being's perfections. I faid that nothing in the Jewish Cabbala could be more abfurd. You intimate, p. 149. that I may know but little of the Jewish Cabbala; but for my purpose it is quite enough, that it is a known proverbial expreffion to denote the extreme of abfurdity; and if fo, whatever the Jewish Cabbala may really be (of which I may perhaps know as much as yourself, and of which we may each of us foon learn enough from Bafnage) the phrafe could not be mifapplied.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »