B. Theory of Entire Dependence. Another theory, the very opposite of the one just mentioned, is founded on the principle that absolute dependence includes the idea that God is the only cause. This principle has been widely adopted, even in the Church. It has been strenuously advocated by many theists, not only among the schoolmen, but by some of the Reformers, and by a large class of modern theologians. There was a class of the scholastic divines who were virtually pantheistic in their philosophical views. John Scotus Erigena had taught, in the ninth century,^ that " omnis visibilis et invisibilis creatura theophania, ^. e., divina apparitio recte potest appellari." He had his followers, even in the thirteenth century.^ Those who did not go the length of asserting that " Deus est essentia omnium crea- turarum et esse omnium," still maintained that He so operated in all as to be the only efficient cause. According to Thomas Aquinas, they argued, " Nulla insufficientia est Deo attribuenda. Si igitur Deus operatur in omni operante, sufficienter in quolibet operatur. Superfluum igitur esset quod agens creatum, aliquid operaretur." Again, " Quod Deum operari in quolibet operante, aliqui sic in- tellexerunt, quod nulla virtus creata aliquid operaretur in rebus, sed solus Deus immediate omnia operaretur : puta quod ignis non calefaceret, sed Deus in igne. Et similiter de omnibus aliis."^ Of all the Reformers, Zwingle was the most inclined to this extreme view of the dependence of the creature on God. " Omnis virtus," he says,* " numinis virtus est, nee enim quicquam est quod non ex illo, in illo et per illud sit, imo illud ipsum sit — creata inquam virtus dicitur, eo quod in novo subjecto et nova specie, universalis aut generalis ista virtus exhibetur. Deus est causa rerum universa- rum, reliqua omnia non sunt vere causae.^ Constat causas secundas
non rite causas vocari Essentiam, virtutem, et operationem
habent non suam sed numinis. Instrumenta igitur sunt.^ Yici-
1 De Divisione Naturce, lib. iii. 19, edit. Monast. Guestphal. 1838, p. 240.
2 See Rixner's Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. ii. § 40, p. 72.
« Summn Theologim, part I., quest, cv., .irt. 5, edit. Cologne, lli40, pp. 192, 193. 4 Be Providentia Dei; W(yrks, edit. Turici, 1832, vol. iv. p. 85. « Ibid. Page 95. ^ ^6ic?. Page 96.