for subordination, as used by them, why did he not form such a term of the materials, which they at least could not fail to furnish? The Latin verb "ordino,' is acknowledged by Greek lexicographers, to be the leading sense of Tacow;' and 'subordino' of 'UπTOTασow;" the noun derivative from which is υποταξις, i. e. “ SUBORDINATIO.” Moreover, υποταξις would have been a scriptural title to his section, which the three other titles are not; and for this reason they have been much exposed to heretical clamour. The sacred writers do frequently use this Greek verb 'υποτασσω. Let every soul," enjoins St Paul, « be subject-vπoraσσsow-to the higher powers'." And again, "WivesToTσσ-submit yourselves, &c." Nay, should these, and such like examples be thought unappropriate to the present case, by reason of the too extended sense here given to the term, there are two texts of Scripture directly in point of Dr Bull's “ Subordinatio Filii”—“ He went "down with them," says St Luke, "and-oraσ00per was subject unto them 3." While St Paul is still more precise_" then shall the Son also himself υποταγήσεταιbe subject unto him that put "all things under him "." But alas! this is a text which bears heavy indeed upon a present subordi'nation' of the Son, which is the sense that Dr " " υποτασσα Bull Romans xiii. t. 2 Ephes. v. 22. 3 St Luke ii. 4 I Cor. xv. 28. Bull contends for. It speaks of a change, a mighty change, in the present system of divine œconomy: and it even makes this one distinguishing sign or effect of this mighty change, that the Son shall "THEN" become subordinate:' whereas if he be 'subordinate' already, and has been subordinate from all eternity, where is the propriety, or even sense, in the apostle's postponing such subordination to a future period? I am under no obligation to attempt an explication of what St Paul had authority to reveal to the christians at Corinth. It is unquestionably a passage hard to be understood." It is however, for my purpose, enough to observe, that as a man of Dr Bull's biblical research could not but know, that such a Greek term as 'THFOW EXisted; yet being equally acquainted with the context of the different passages in Scripture, where the term occurs, and fearing to build, upon these passages, his favourite hypothesis, he satisfied himself with the Latin term, subordino,' instead of it, as one which subjected him to neither danger nor alarm. Yet, all the while, there is, in Scripture, a ⚫ subordination' recommended, which I should have no scruple to admit, mutatis mutandis, in Deity, where Dr Bull labours hard to place itsubmitting yourselves 'UTоraσσoμvo-being subordi"nate one to another'." And again, "all of you "be subordinate-voтaσσμevo-to one another." " In In both places something is implied, as a duty in christian society, which may be conceived, but which cannot well be expressed. It is that, however, which, with becoming reverential modification, constitutes the only subordination' which, in my humble opinion, ever can, with propriety, be ascribed to any of the Three who exist in the unity of Jehovah. In this opinion Dr Bull is none of those who are likely to coincide. His second Thesis is, on the contrary, thus expressed: "The "catholic writers, both before and after the Coun"cil of Nice, have unanimously declared Deum "patrem, quoad divinitatem, majorem filio esse. "God the Father to be greater, even according "TO HIS DIVINITY, than the Son." Now this is that which forms the point of partition between the espousers of Dr Bull's creed, and those who, like myself, cannot even for one moment suppose, much les declare, the terms greater or less," applicable to Deity. If Scripture be competent to decide on a subject, which ought to depend on scriptural authority, and none other-Deity is unsusceptible of degrees. "Divinitas gradum non habet, utpote 66 unica," asserts Tertullian, in strict conformity with what is written for our learning in the word of God himself. Aware of this, Dr Bull has qualified the "greaterness," which, according to him, the "catholic writers both before and after the Council of Nice, have unanimously ascribed to the Father, by telling us, "that "that it is not by nature, but only by Fatherhood." To me this seems to be a metaphysical distinction, not altogether comprehensible; a distinction which, if minutely examined, might be found liable to more difficulties than your edification requires me to mention. And therefore, at the risk of exposing myself to the censure of Dr Bull and his followers, for thus daring to question the truth and validity of his strange Theses," De Subordinatione Filii," I must reject a Paternity and Filiation, which appear to me burdened with such incumbrances; and I am content to rest my belief on the clear evidence of Scripture, which points out to me a subordinas tion and inferiority of a different sort--not only ad missible, but, in the wonderful œconomy of man's salvation, highly satisfactory and highly beneficial. Of his structure Dr Bull has laid the foundation, as we have seen, on the following ground: "The "catholic writers, both before and after the Coun "cil of Nice, have unanimously declared, that God "the Father, even as to his divinity, is greater than "the Son." How he has made this position good, is open to every reader. But granting, for a mo ment, that the position has been fully established by the Doctor; yet, in a point of such high impor tance to christians as the nature of that God in whom they believe, what is the declaration of all the 'writers,' catholic or anticatholic, in the world, if not supported by the declaration of the Holy Ghost himself," who spake by the prophets ;" and who, as the the Spirit of truth, guided the apostles into all truth? In matters of ecclesiastical order and discipline, I am ready to pay "the catholic writers, both before and "after the Council of Nice," all due respect and attention. In these instances, the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus-that which has 'been always, everywhere, by all received,' is the rule which I would have every christian implicitly to adopt. In that which revelation only can teach, I think myself warranted in demanding that revelation only be appealed to. I therefore would have every christian, more especially every candidate for the holy ministry, to mark " quod dicit Dominus," not "ut loquitur Athanasius." It is true, there are many texts in Scripture, which, by inference and deduction, do not merely in appearance, but in reality denote an inferiority in the Son. But Bishop Pearson, in his Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, has given us a key that will open up their true and proper interpretation. Indeed, in all the extensive code of divine revelation, there is only a single text, which directly, and in terminis, points to the " greaterness," for which Dr Bull has shewn himself so keen an advocate. It is the text, of which the Arian tribes have, in every age, so much availed themselves—“ My Father is greater than I'” Yet Dr Bull has not had the hardihood to say, that, respect 1 St John xix. 28. |