Page images
PDF
EPUB

Creation cannot be meant by the Apostle in the place produced out of the Epiftle to the Coloffians, then it must be interpreted of the first. For there are but two kinds of Creation mentioned in the Scriptures, and one of them is there expreffly named. But the place of the Apostle can no way admit an interpretation by the new Creation, as will thus appear: The object of the Creation, mentioned in this place, is of as great latitude and univerfality as the object of the firft Creation, not only expreffed, but implied, by Mofes. But the object of the new Creation is not of the fame latitude with that of the old. Therefore that which is mentioned here cannot be the new Creation. For certainly if we reflect upon the true notion of the new Creation, it neceffarily and effentially includes an oppofition to a former worse condition, as the new man is always oppofed to the old; and if Adam had continued still in innocency, there could have been no fuch distinction between the old man and the new, or the old and new Creation. Being then all men become not new, being there is no new Creature but fuch whofe faith worketh by love, being fo many millions of men have neither faith nor love; it cannot be faid that by Chrift all things were created anew that are in heaven and that are in earth, when the greatest part of mankind have no fhare in the new Creation. Again, we cannot imagine that the Apostle should speak of the Creation in a general word, intending thereby only the new, and while he doth fo, exprefs particularly and especially thofe parts of the old Creation which are incapable of the new, or at least have no relation to it. The Angels are all either good or bad: but whether they be bad, they can never be good again, nor did Chrift come to redeem the Devils; or whether they be good, they were always fuch, nor were they fo by the virtue of Chrift's incarnation, for he took not on him the nature of Angels. We acknowledge in Mankind a new Creation, because an old man becomes a new; but there is no fuch notion in the Celestial Hierarchy, becaufe no old and new Angels: they which fell, are fallen for eternity; they which stand, always ftood, and fhall stand for ever. Where then are the regenerated thrones and dominions? Where are the recreated principalities and powers? All thofe Angels of whatsoever degrees were created by the Son of God, as the Apostle expreffly affirms. But they were never created by a new Creation unto true holiness and righteousness, because they always were truly righteous and holy ever fince their firft Creation. Therefore except we could yet invent another Creation, which were neither the old nor the new, we must conclude, that all the Angels were at firft created by the Son of God; and as they, fo all things elfe, especially Man, whofe Crea*Ad hoc Do- tion *all the first Writers of the Church of God exprefly attribute unto the minus fuftinu- Son, afferting that those words, Let us make man, were spoken as by the it pati pro a- Father unto him.

nima noftra,

cum fit orbis Terrarum Dominus, cui dixit die ante conftitutionem Seculi, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem & fimilitudinem noftram. Barnabæ Epift. c. 4. And again, Aild gồ` i reapù dei nμar as λild to "Yim, Пeinowμh xx7' eixóva, &c. ε. 5. Ἐγκελάριμ ἐν Ἰσδαίοις τότον μὴ νομίσασι Θεὸν ὑπὸ Ἡ προφητῶν πολλαχε μεμαρτυρημρίου ως μεγάλίω ἄντα διαύαμιν καὶ Θεόν, κα τ ' ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα· τατον γδ φαρὺ ἐν τῇ και Μωσέα κοσμοποιία προςάττοντα τ πατέρα ειρηκέναι τὸ, Γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ Γενηθήτω σερέωμα καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ, ὅσα προσέταξεν ὁ Θεὸς γυέως· καὶ τάτῳ εἰρηκέναι το, Ποιήσωμῳ ἄνθρωπον καλ ̓ εἰκόνα καὶ insiwon ineligger. Orig. adu, Celfum, 1. 2.

Nor need we doubt of this Interpretation, or the Doctrine arifing from it, Joh. 1. 1,2,3. feeing it is fo clearly delivered by S. John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The fame was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Whereas we have proved Chrift had a being before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, because he was at the beginning of the world; and have alfo proved that he was at the beginning of the world, becaufe he made it; this place of St. John gives a fufficient testimony of the truth of both the last together. In the beginning was the

Word

1

Mofes ;

flation,

ברשות

Word; and that Word made flesh is Chrift: therefore Chrift was in the beginning. All things were made by him therefore he created the World. Indeed nothing can be more clearly penn'd, to give full fatisfaction in this point, than these words of S. John, which feem with a strange brevity defign'd to take off all objections, and remove all prejudice, before they teach fo ftrange a truth. Chrift was born of the Virgin Mary, and his age was known to them for whom this Gospel was penned. S. John would teach that this Chrift did make the world, which was created at least four thousand years before his birth: The name of Jefus was given him fince at his Circumcifion, the title of Chrift belonged unto his Office, which he exercised not till thirty years after. Neither of these with any fhew of probability will reach to the Creation of the World. Wherefore he produceth a name of his, as yet unknown to the World, or rather not taken notice of, though in frequent ufe among the Jews, which belonged unto him who was made man, but before he was fo. Under that name he fhews at first that he had a being in the beginning; when all things were to be created, and confequently *Evex, the were not yet, then in the beginning was the Word, and fo not created. This first word of is the first step, the Word was not created when the World was made. The whence the next is, that the fame Word which then was, and was not made, at the fame Syriack Trantime, was with God, when he made all things: and therefore well may we conceive 'tis he to whom God faid, Let us make man in our image, so Solomon after our likeness; and of whom those words may be understood, Behold, the man is become as one of us. After this, left any should conceive the To ylu woinCreation of the World too great and divine a Work to be attributed to the Word; left any fhould object, that none can produce any thing out of no- 23. In princithing but God himself; he addeth, that the Word, as he was with God, fo pio erat Serwas he alfo God. Again, left any fhould divide the Deity, or frame a false principio fciconception of different Gods, he returns unto the fecond affertion, and joins licet Deus feit with the firft, The fame was in the beginning with God: and then delivers terram. Terthat which at the firft feemed strange, but now, after those three propofitions, tul. adv. Hermay easily be accepted; All things were made by him, and without him mog. c. 20. was not any thing made that was made. For now this is no new Doctrine, that is, but only an interpretation of thofe Scriptures which told us, God made all, that is, by God. As things by his word before. For God faid, let there be light; and there was Nonnus, Пalight. And fo & By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all logs the anter the hofts of them by the breath of his mouth. From whence we understands, arignon CuútgrC that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Neither was it a den. As wifnew interpretation, but that which was most familiar to the Jews, who in dom speaketh, their Synagogues, by the reading of the + Paraphrase or the Interpretation of Prov. 8. 30. the Hebrew Text in the Chaldee Language, were conftantly taught, that the him Word of God was the fame with God, and that by that Word all things were made. Which undoubtedly was the cause why S. John delivered fo great a Chald. M

d

с

b

[ocr errors]

מראש

cm, Prov. 8.

mo; in quo

cit cœlum &

then I was by

ăulo אצלו

παρ' αὐτῷ.

ny & eram

in latere ejus. Μofchopulus, εὶ χεδῶν πρὸς ἢ Θεὸν, τετέςι, με το Θεό. As Mat. 13. 16. Αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτῇ ἐχὶ πᾶκαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσι, Mar. 14. 49. καθ' ἡμέραν ἡμίω πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 1 Cor. 16. 6. πρὸς ὑμᾶς 5 τυχόν αρθρώ. πεπις συμπρος alaxoviar "Inos Xersy. is any aiavor wαng Пaleil, cu riad ipán. Ignat. ad Magnef. a Gen. 1.26. b Gen. 3.22. of the Jews of that Age, as being their publick interpretation of the Scripture, Wherefore what we find common and frequent in it, we cannot but think the vulgar and general Opinion of that Nation. Now it is certain that this Paraphrast doth often use the word of God, for God himself, especially and that with relation to the creation of the world. As Ifa. 45. 12. NY Nuys, I made the earth, and created man upon it, faith the Lord, the Holy One of Ifrael; which the Chaldee tranflateth y ay ma a I by my word made the earth, and created man upon it. In the same manner, Jer. 27. 5. I made the earth, and men and beafts

c Gen. 1. 3. d Pfal. 33. 6. e Heb. 11. 3. 2 Pet. 3. 5. I conceive this Chaldee Paraphrafe to represent the fenfe

My hand אף ידי יסודה ארץ .13 .48 .And Ifa אנא במימרי עברה ית ארעא on the face of the earth; The Targum

alfo founded the earth: The Chaldee y Etiam in verbo meo fundavit terram. And most clearly Gen. 1. 27. we read, Et creavit Deus hominem: the Jerufalem Targum, Verbum Domini creavit hominem. And Gen. 3. 8. Audierant vocem Domini Dei: The Chaldee Paraphrafe pypu Et audierunt vocem verbi Domini Dei. Now this which the Chaldee Paraphrafe called the Hellenifts named Aólov as appeareth by Philo the Jew, who wrote before S. John, and reckons in his Divinity, firft Пalleyrar, then doregov tov, ös isn creve Aóso. Quaft. & Solut. Whom he calls ogov e Absov, wewlósover you, De Agricult. He attributes the creation of the world to this Aól, whom he terms glavov to, di & (ò xórμ) narxdara, De Flammeo gladio. Exa * Θεό

Ο Θεός ὁ Λόγος αὐτῷ ἐσιν, ὁ καθάπες ὀργάνῳ προχρησάμθρο κοσμοποίς, Idem Allegor. 1. 2. Where we must obferve though Philo makes the Aof of whom he speaks as inftrumental in the creation of the world; yet he taketh it not for a bare expreffion of the will of God, but for a God, though in the second degree, and exprefly for the Son of God. Nor ought we to look on Philo Judæus in this as a Platonist, but merely as a Jew, who refers his whole Doctrine of this Aofos to the first Chapter of Genefis. And the rest of the Jews before him, who had no fuch knowledge out of Plato's School, ufed the fame notion. For as Ifa. 48. 13. the hand of God, is by the Chaldee Paraphraft tranflated the Word of God: fo in the book of Wisdom, i wavlodíanós Co xę nτicarα & xorμov. Sap. 11. 17. is changed into i waloduúapós C8 Aólos á væv, 18. 15. and Siracides 43. 26. Ev λów auto Cófnes) warla. Nay, the Septuagint hath changed Shaddai, the undoubted name of the omnipotent God, into Aofos, the Word, Ezek. 1. 24. quafi vox fublimis Dei, quod Hebraicè appellatur & juxta LXX. Davy to λófs, id eft, yex verbi, ut univerfa quæ prædicantur in mundo vocem Filii Dei effe dicamus. S. Hieron. And therefore Celfus writing in the Perfon of a Jew, acknowledgeth that the Word is the Son of God. Eye Aofos isiv vμïv ÿòs to Oe8, μss Tanõu. Orig. adv. Celfum, 1.2. And although Origen objects that in this Celfus makes the Jew Speak improperly, because the Jews which he had converfed with, did never acknowledge that the Son of God was the Word; yet Celfus his Few did fpeak the language of Philo: but between the time of Celfus and that of Origen, (I guess about threescore years,) the Jews had learnt to deny that notion of Aolos, that they might with more colour reject S. John. If then all the Jews, both they which understood the Chaldee Expofition, and those which only used the Greek Tranflation, had such a notion of the Word of God; if all things by their confeffion were made by the Word; we have no reason to believe S. John should make use of any other notion than what they before had, and that by means whereof he might be fo easily understood.

John 1.31.

mystery in so few words, as fpeaking unto them who at the first apprehenfion understood him. Only that which as yet they knew not was, that this Word was made flesh, and that this Word made flesh was Jefus Chrift. Wherefore this expofition being fo literally clear in it self, fo confonant to the notion of the Word, and the apprehenfion of the Jews; it is infinitely to be preferred before any fuch interpretation as fhall restrain the most universals to a few particulars, change the plaineft expreffions into figurative phrafes, and make of a fublime truth, a weak, ufelefs, falfe difcourfe. For who will grant that in the beginning must be the same with that in S. John's Epistle, from the beginning, especially when the very interpretation involves in it felf a con1 John 1. 1. tradiction? For the beginning in S. John's Epiftle is that in which the Apostles faw, and heard, and touched the Word: the beginning in his Gospel was that in which the Word was with God, that is, not feen nor heard by the Apostles, but known as yet to God alone, as the new expofition will have it. Who will conceive it worthy of the Apostle's affertion, to teach that the Word had a being in the beginning of the Gofpel, at what time John the Baptift began to preach, when we know the Baptift taught as much, who therefore came baptizing with water, that he might be made manifeft unto Ifrael? When we are fure that S. Matthew and S. Luke, who wrote before him taught us more than this, that he had a being thirty Years before? when we are assured, it was as true of any other then living as of the Word, even of Judas who betrayed him, even of Pilate who condemned him? Again, who can imagine the Apostle should affert that the Word was, that is, had an actual being, when as yet he was not actually the Word? For if the beginning be when John the Baptift began to preach, and the Word, as they fay, be nothing elfe but he which fpeaketh, and fo revealeth the will of God: Christ had not then revealed the will of God, and confequently was not then actually the Word, but only potentially or by defignation. Secondly, 'tis a strange figurative fpeech, the word was with God, that is, was known to God, efpecially in this Apostle's method. In the beginning was the Word; there was muft fignify an actual exiftence: and if fo, why in the next fentence (the Word was with God) fhall the fame verb fignify an objective being only? Certainly though to be in the beginning be one thing, and to be with God, another ; yet to be in either of them is the fame. But if we should imagine this being understood of the knowledge of God, why we should grant that thereby is fignified was known to God alone, I cannot conceive. For the Propofition of it felf is plainly affirmative, and the exclufive particle only added to the expofition, maketh it clearly negative. Nay more, the affirmative sense is certainly true, the negative as certainly false. For except Gabriel be

2.

[ocr errors]

God,

ceive

God, who came to the Virgin; except every one of the heavenly host which appeared to the Shepherds be God; except Zachary and Elizabeth, except Simeon and Anna, except Jofeph and Mary be God; it cannot be true that he was known to God only, for to all these he was certainly known. Thirdly, to pass by the third attribute, and the word was God, as having occafion fuddenly after to handle it; feeing the Apoftle hath again repeated the circumftance of time as moft material, the fame was in the beginning with God, and immediately fubjoined those words, all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made; how can we reany expofition which referreth not the making of all these things to him in the beginning? but if we understand the latter part, of the Apostles, who after the Afcenfion of our Saviour did nothing but what they were commanded and impowered to do by Chrift, it will bear no relation to the beginning. If we interpret the former, of all which Jefus faid and did in the promulgation of the Gospel, we cannot yet reach to the beginning affigned by the new Expofitors: For while John the Baptift only preached, while in their fenfe the Word was with God, they will not affirm that Jefus did any of thefe things that here are spoken of. And confequently, according to their grounds, it will be true to fay, In the beginning was the Word, and that Word in the beginning was with God, infomuch as in the beginning nothing was done by him, but without him were all things done which were done in the beginning. Wherefore in all reafon we fhould stick to the known interpretation, in which every word receiveth its own proper fignification without any figurative distortion, and is preferved in its due latitude and extenfion without any curtailing reftriction. And therefore I conclude from the undeniable teftimony of S. John, that in the beginning, when the Heavens and the Earth and all the hosts of them were created, all things were made by the Word, who is Chrift Jefus being made flefh, and confequently, by the method of Argument, as the Apostle antecedently by the method of Nature, that in the beginning Chrift was. He then who was in Heaven and defcended from thence before that which was begotten of the Virgin afcended thither, he who was before John the Baptist and before Abraham, he who was at the end of the firft world; and at the beginning of the fame; he had a real being and exiftence before Chrift was conceived by the Virgin Mary. But all these we have already fhewed belong unto the Son of God. Therefore we muft acknowledge, that Jefus Chrift had a real being and existence before he was begotten by the Holy Ghoft: Which is our firft Affertion, properly opposed to nians were the * Photinians.

*The Photi

Hereticks, fo called from

Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, but born in Gallogræcia, and Scholar to Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra. Photinus de Gallogræcia, Marcelli difcipulus, Sirmii Epifcopus ordinatus, Hebionis Hærefin inftaurare conatus eft. S. Hieron. Catal. Eccl Photinus Sirmienfis Epifcopus fuit à Marcello imbutus. Nam & Diaconus fub eo aliquandiu fuit. Hilar. Frag. Wherefore when Epiphanius fpeaketh this of him, & quáтo & Liquis, it hath no relation to the original of his Perfon, but his Herefy; of which S. Hilary, Peftiferè, natum Jefum Chriftum ex Maria, Pannonia defendit. De Trin. He was a man of fingular parts and abilities, Drews Exwv eû xéter, x weiben ixavòs, says Sozom. I. 4. c. 6. Félove 3 st i Balervòs λáλα το τρόπον, καὶ ὠξυμπρου τ' γλώτταν, πολλὲς ἢ διωάρθρον ἀπατᾶν τῇ τὸ λόγω προφορᾷ καὶ ἔτοιμολογία. Epiphan. Har. 7 I. Erat & ingenii viribus valens, & doctrinæ opibus excellens, & eloquio præpotens, quippe qui utroque fermone copiosè & graviter difputaret & fcriberet. Vincent. Lirin. c. 16. He is faid by fome to follow the Herefy of Ebion. Hebionis Hærefin inftaurare conatus eft, fays S. Hierome; and S. Hilary ordinarily understands him by the name of Hebion, and fometimes expounds himself, Hebion, qui eft Photinus. But there is no fimilitude in their Doctrines, Hebion being more Jew than Chriftian, and teaching Chrift as much begotten by Jofeph, as born of Mary. Philafter will have him agree wholly with Paulus Samofatenus in omnibus. Epiphanius with an arò μigus, and ixixewa. Socrates and Sozomen, with him and with Sabellius: whereas he differed much from them both, especially from Sabellius, as being far from a Patripafian. Marcellus Sabellianæ hærefis affertor extiterat: Photinus verò novam hærefin jam ante protulerat, à Sabellio quidem in unione diffentiens, fed initium Chrifti ex Maria prædicabat. Severus Hift. Sacr. Wherefore it will not be unneceffary to collect out of Antiquity what did properly belong unto Photinus, because I think it not yet done, and we find his Herefy in the propriety of it to begin and spread again. Photinus, mentis cæcitate deceptus, in Christo verum & fubftantiæ noftræ confeffus eft hominem, fed eundem Deum de Deo ante omnia fæcula genitum effe non credidit. Leo de Nativ. Chrifti Serm. 4. Ecce Photinus hominem tantum profitetur Dei Filium; dicit illum non fuiffe ante beatam Mariam. Lucifer. Clarit. Si quis in Chrifto fic veritatem prædicat animæ & carnis, ut veritatem in eo nolit accipere Deitatis, id eft, qui fic dicit Chriftum hominem, ut Deum neget, non eft Chriftianus Catholicus, fed Fhotinianus Hæreticus. Fulg. ad Donat. l. 16. Φωτεινός ψελὸν ἄνθρωπον λέγει 7 γελυνερθρου, Θεῦ μὴ λέγων εἶναι ἢ τόκον καὶ τ εκ μήτρας προελε 98174

τα

Diva ävezamov volite dingyuyor D. Theodot. Homil. de Nativ. Ephef. Concil. p. 3. c. 10. Anathematizamus Photinu m, qui Hebionis Hærefim inftaurans, Dominum Jefum Chriftum tantum ex Maria Virgine confitetur. Damafus Profeff. Fiδεί. Φάσκει ἢ ὅτω, ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς Χρισὸν μὴ εἶναι, ἀπὸ ἢ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο αὐτὸν ὑπάρχειν, ἐξότε, φησὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπῆλθεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐπυνήθη ἐκ πνεύματα ἁγία. Epiphan. Ἔλεγε ἢ ὡς Θεός μαζί ἐτι παντοκράτως εἷς ὁ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ τὰ πάντα δημιουργήσεις· τ ή προ αιώνων χρησιν τε καὶ ὕπαρξιν τὸ τὰ ὁ προσίετο, ἀλλ' ἐκ Μαρίας γενικώς Χρισον εἰσηγείτο. 5030men. 1. 4. c. 6. Photini ergo fecta hæc eft. Dicit Deum fingulum effe & folitarium, & more Judaico confitendum. Trinitatis plenitudinem negat, neque ullam Dei verbi, aut ullam Spiritus Sancti putat effe perfonam. Chriftum verò hominem tantummodo folitarium afferit, cui principium adfcribit, ex Maria; & hoc omnibus modis dogmatizat folam nos perfonam Dei Patris, & folum Chriftum hominem colere debere. Vinc. Lirinenfis adv. Haref. c. 17. In the difputation framed by Vigilius out of the feventh Book of S. Hilary, as I conceive, Photinus rejecting the opinion of Sabellius (whom Socrates and Sozomen faid he followed) as impious, thus declares his own: Unde magis ego dico, Deum Patrem Filium habere Dominum Jefum Chriftum, ex Maria Virgine initium fumentem, qui per fanctæ converfationis excellentiffimum atque inimitabile beatitudinis meritum, à Deo Patre in Filium adoptatus & eximio Divinitatis honore donatus. And again, ego Domino noftro Jefu Chrifto initium tribuo, purumque hominem fuiffe affirmo, & per beatæ vitæ excellentiffimum meritum Divinitatis honorem fuiffe adeptum. Vide eundem lib. 2. adv. Eutych. Ignorat etiam Photinus magnum pietatis, quod Apoftolus memorat, facramentum, qui Chrifti ex Virgine fatetur exordium: Et propterea non credit fine initio fubftantialiter Deum natum ex Deo Patre, in quo carnis veritatem confitetur ex Virgine. Fulg ad Thrafim. 1. 1. Greg. Nazianzen, according to his cuftom, gives a very brief, but remarkable expreffion; les * κάτω Χρισὸν καὶ ἀπὸ Μαρίας ἀρχόμθμον. Orat. 26. But the opinion of Photinus cannot be better understood than by the condemnation of it in the Council of Sirmium; which having fet out the Confeffion of their Faith in brief, addeth many and various Anathemas, according to the feveral Herefies then apparent, without mentioning their names. Of these the fifth aims clearly at Photinus. Si quis fecundum præfcientiam vel prædeftinationem ex Maria dicit filium effe, & non ante fecula ex Patre natum apud Deum effe, & per eum facta effe omnia, Anathema fit. The 13, 14, and 15. also were particulars directed against him, as S. Hilary hath obferved: but the last of all is moft material. Si quis Chriftum Deum, Filium Dei, ante fecula fubfiflentem, & miniftrantem, Patri ad omnium perfectionem, non dicat, fed ex quo de Maria natus eft, ex eo & Chriftum & Filium nominatum effe, & initium accepiffe ut fit Deus, dicat, Anathema fit. Upon which the observation of S. Hilary is this: Concludi damnatio ejus Hærefis propter quam conventum erat, (that is, the Photinian) expofitione totius fidei cui adverfabatur, oportuit, quæ initium Dei Filii ex partu Virginis mentiebatur. S. Hilar. de Synod. contra Arianos. Thus was Photinus Bishop of Sirmium condemned by a Council held in the fame City. They all agreed fuddenly in the condemnation of him. Arians, Semi-Arians, and Catholicks; ««tãλον εὐθὺς, fays Socrates, καὶ τότε μὲ ὡς καλῶς καὶ δικαίως λεόρθρον πάντες ἐπίθεσαν καὶ τότε καὶ μὲ ταῦτα. 1. 2 c. 29. And because his Hiftory is very obfcure and intricate, take this brief Catalogue of his Condemnations. We read that he was condemned at the Council of Nice, and at the fame time by a Council at Rome under Sylvefter: but this is delivered only in a forged Epilogus Concilii Romani. He was then first condemned with Marcellus his Mafter, as Sulpitius Severus relates, probably by the Synod at Conftantinople; for in that Marcellus was deprived. Sozom. 1. 2. 33. Socrat. l. 1. 36. Secondly, his Herefy is renounced in the fecond Synod at Antioch. Athanaf. de Syn. Socrat. l. 1. 19. Thirdly, he was condemned in the Council of Sardes. Epiphan. and Sulpitius Severus. Fourthly, by a Council at Milan. S. Hilar. Fragm. Fifthly, in a Synod at Sirmium he was depofed by the Western Bishops; but by reason of the great opinion and affection of the people he could not be removed. S. Hilar. Fragm. Sixthly, he was again condemned and depofed at Sirmium by the Eaftern Bishops, and being convicted by Badil Bishop of Ancyra, was banished from thence. S. Hilar. Epiph. Socr. Sozom. Vigil. Indeed he was fo generally condemned not only then, but afterwards under Valentinian, as S. Hierome teftifies, and the Synodic Epifle of the Aquileian Council, that his opinion was foon worn out of the world. "Hồn gồ x dicoxidán eis dailov Xograr ǹ T&TH TO & aeris, fays Epiphanius, who lived not long after him. So fuddenly was this opizion rejected by all Chriftians, applauded by none but Julian the Heretick, who railed at S. John for making Chrift God, and commended Photinus for denying it; as appears by an Epiftle written by Julian unto him, as it is (though in a mean Tranflation) delivered by Facundus. Tu quidem, O Photine, verifimilis videris, & proximus falvare, bene faciens nequaquam in utero inducere, quem credidifti Deum. Facun. ad Justinian, l. 4.

Heb. 3. 4.

The fecond Affertion, next to be made good, is that the being which Chrift had before he was conceived by the Virgin was not any created, but the Divine Effence, by which he always was truly, really and properly God. This will evidently and neceffarily follow from the last demonstration of the first Assertion, the creating all things by the Son of God: from whence we inferred his pre-existence, in the beginning affuring us as much that he was God, as that he was, For he that built all things was God. And the fame Apostle which affures us, All things were made by him, at the fame time tells us, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Where In the beginning muft not be denied unto the third propofition, because it canProv. 8. 23. not be denied unto the second. Therefore in the beginning, or ever the earth. was, the Word was God, the fame God with whom he was. For we cannot with any fhew of reafon either imagine that he was with one God, and was another, because there can be no more fupreme Gods than one; or con*And that ceive that the Apostle fhould fpeak of one kind of God in the fecond, and of upon fo poor a another in the third propofition; in the fecond, of a God eternal and indeground as the pendent, in the third, of a * made and depending God. Efpecially, first conArticle, be fidering that the eternal God was fo conftantly among the Jews called the

want of an

cause in the

first place it is legs or, in the fecond, tos i xó♫☺, not ¦ Œèòç from hence to conclude, i sòs is one God, that is, nalox, the fupreme God, is another, not the fupreme, but one made God by him. Indeed they are beholden to Epiphanius for this obfervation, whole words are thefe: Ἐὰν εἴποιόν Θεός, ἄνου τὸ ἄρθρο, ἢ τυχόντα ἀπορθμ Θεὸν ἢ ἐθνῶν, ἢ Θεόν τ όντα (or rather &χ όντα) ἐὰν ἡ εἴπομίμ ὁ Θεός, δῆλον ὡς ἀπὸ τὸ άρθρο, τ όντα (ημαίνεθα ἀληθῆ τε καὶ γινωσκόμενον. Samart. Heref. But whosoever shall apply this rule to the facred Scriptures will find it most fallacious. In the beginning

11

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »