by Christ our Saviour, &c. that we firmly believe she cannot err in those things which are necessary to salvation.-A.D. 1431. Respons. de authoritate concilii generalis.

The learned Protestant Dr. Grabe declares, "that it is certain that Irenæus and all the Fathers, either contemporary with the Apostles or their immediate successors, whose writings are still extant, considered the Blessed Eucharist to be the sacrifice of the New Law, and offered Bread and Wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that this was not the private opinion of any particular Church or Teacher, but the public doctrine and practice of the Universal Church, which she received from the Apostles, and they from Christ, is especially shewn in this place by Irenæus, and before him Cypestin the martyr, and Clement of Rome."—(Nota in Irenæum, p. 323.)

LETTER VIII.

ON ARIANISM.

TO THE REV. CHARLES LE BLANC.

REV SIR,

I assert that the Arian hypothesis is equally indefensible. On a superficial survey of the Arian system, it seems much more plausible than that of Socinus, because it preserves entire the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, which is a doctrine most expressly and repeatedly mentioned in the New Testament; and, indeed, were we to stop here, the former would undoubtedly have the advantage. But when we more closely consider the subject, we find that the Socinian hypothesis is free from several capital difficulties which attend that of the Arians, those ancient enemies to the cause of truth and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. This will appear if the following things be considered.

The term God, must necessarily be understood either as a name of Office, or of Nature; as denoting external qualities and trusts, or intrinsic excellence and essential perfections. The Arians, therefore, cannot defend themselves when they are urged with the consideration of the name God, which is given to Jesus Christ, by saying: "It is a name of office, and Christ only bears it as an ambassador of the Most High;" which is the evasion of the Socinians. For as the disciples of Arius confess that Christ existed, not only before his appearance in the world, but also before the creation, they cannot deny but he was, in some sense, God before the formation of the universe. Those passages of Scripture which they explain of his pre-existence, are very express in this respect. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." But if they allow that the Word was with God in the beginning, and that he was God before the formation of the world, they ought also to grant that he was "in the form of God;" that he is "the true God; the mighty God; the great God; God blessed for ever." For there is no more reason to allow the one, than there is to acknowledge the other.

But, as they deny this consequence, they will permit me to ask, how the names and praises which are appropriated to the Great Supreme, can belong to Christ in his first estate, in which he neither represented God, nor acted in his name, nor was his ambassador to men? For if he were a mere creature, however exalted and glorious, it could not be lawful to express his essence and attributes by the name God. Can it be said, without impiety, of the most excellent creature, "He exists in the form of God, and thinks it not robbery to be equal with God?" Though the Logos, in his pre-existent state, possessed a Divine glory in comparison with us, can we, on the Arian hypothesis, attribute

a Divine glory to him when considered as being with God? What, must he bear the name of that incomprehensible Being, who is infinitely more exalted above him, than the most excellent creature is above the meanest insect, or the smallest atom! Instead, therefore, of saying, “He was in the form of God" before he humbled himself, we must affirm, that he was always in the form of a servant, in the form of a creature; and that much more in heaven, than when upon earth; much more before the creation of the world, than when he conversed with men. For with what perfections soever a creature may be endued, it is much more in the form of a servant, when in the immediate presence of God, than when among men. Instead, therefore, of the sacred writers informing us that Christ in his first estate, and when with his Father, was God, they should have said, that he was then comparatively nothing. As a Nobleman, whose grandeur is very considerable when in a country village, loses much of his splendour when at the King's Court and in the royal presence.

Again: Jesus Christ, considered in his first estate, and as with God, bears the name God, either because he is God, or because he acts as God, or because he represents God. Not the first; for, on the Arian principles, he is a creature ; and, therefore, how excellent soever he be, he cannot, without falsehood, be described by a name consecrated to the Creator. Nor the second; for in his first state, before the creation, he did not act at all; or, if it were supposed that he did, it was only as the minister of God, and consequently he ought not to bear a name appropriated to the first cause. Nor can it be the last; for he could not represent God to the inhabitants of the heavenly world before they had an existence. Nor, when the angels were formed, had they any need of such a representation. For they see God face to face; that is, as much as is necessary to the plenitude of

their holiness, happiness, and glory. Nor could he represent him to men; for at the time supposed, they were not created. Besides, why, inorder to represent God, must he bear his name? May not a superior be represented without the person bearing his peculiar character? Here the Arians are greatly embarrassed; which embarrassment is much increased by considering that Jesus bears the name God, with distinguishing and sublime epithets. For he is called the True God; the Mighty God; the Great God; and God Blessed For Ever.

Rev. Sir, another difficulty attending the Arian hypothesis is this: they cannot explain those passages of Scripture which assert that Christ "made the world; " that he "created all things, visible and invisible;" that he “laid the foundations of the earth, and that the heavens are the works of his hands; and that he upholds all things by the word of his power;" they cannot, I say, explain these and similar passages without contradicting themselves, by acknowledging his Divinity, properly so called, after they have denied it, or without running on the most evident absurdities. For as they understand those passages literally which declare that God "made all things by Jesus Christ," and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," they are obliged to attribute to him the creation of heaven and earth with all their inhabitants. It therefore necessarily follows, that the Word either made all things by his own power, as the sun enlightens the earth by his beams, or, having no inherent power for such a work, was the mere instrument by which the infinite power of God exerted itself; as the Apostles, who had no power of their own by which to work miracles, were only instruments in the hand of Omnipotence, to control the course of nature, and to astonish and bless the world. If the latter, we have reason to complain of being deceived by the language of

Scripture, which says expressly: "All things were made by him." How unaccountable it is, that he should be called God, if he be only the instrument by which Divine power and wisdom display themselves! And considering the care which the Apostles take to guard against a supposition that they wrought miracles by their own power, we cannot but think it exceeding strange, and as tending greatly to mislead our conceptions in matters of the highest importance to the glory of God and the salvation of men, that they are not equally careful to inform us, that it was not by his own power that Jesus formed the universe, and wrought his wonderful works. But, so far from it, they repeatedly declare, that their Divine Master is he "by whom and for whom all things are;" that he "laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of his hands;" that he "created all things visible and invisible," from the loftiest angel that surrounds the throne, to the meanest worm that crawls in the dust. Now these and such like expressions, it must be acknowledged, are very extravagant, if Jesus contributed no more to the production of the universe than the Apostles did to the miracles wrought by their instrumentality. But if it be said : "Jesus formed the creatures by his own power, which he received from the Supreme Being; " then it follows, that the Father communicated to him the power of creating. But that is an infinite power; for it surmounts the infinite distance which is between being and nothing. Now infinite power is an infinite perfection; and it is manifest, that an infinite perfection cannot be communicated to a creature which is and must be finite in its powers and capacities. The supposition of the contrary is absurd, as it involves a contradiction: because it implies that such a creature is both finite and infinite.

Again if Jesus Christ, being only an exalted creature,