Page images
PDF
EPUB

Creation cannot be meant by the Apostle in the place produced out of the Epistle to the Colossians, 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 expressly 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 universality as the object of the first Creation, not only expressed, but implied, by Mores. But the object of the new Creation is not of the same 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 necessarily and essentially includes an opposition to a former worse condition, as the new man is always opposed 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 such whose faith worketh by love, being so many millions of men have neither faith nor 'love ; it cannot be said that by Christ all things were created anew that are in heaven and that are in earth, when the greatest part of mankind have no share 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 so, express particularly and especially those 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 Christ come to redeem the Devils; or whether they be good, they were always fuch, nor were they so by the virtue of Christ'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 such notion in the Celestial Hierarchy, be

cause no old and new Angels: they which fell, are fallen for eternity ; they - which stand, always stood, and thall stand for ever. Where then are the P ri regenerated thrones and dominions ? Where are the recreated principalities

and powers ? All those Angels of whatsoever degrees were created by the Son of God, as the Apostle expressly affirms. But they were never created by a new Creation unto true holiness and righteousness, because they always were truly righteous and holy ever since their first 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 first created by the

Son of God; and as they, so all things else, especially Man, whose Crea*Ad hoc Do- tion *all the first Writers of the Church of God expressly attribute unto the minus fuftinu- Son, asserting that those words, Let us make man, were spoken as by the it pati pro 2- Father unto him. nima nostra,

There cum fit orbis Terrarum Dominus, cui dixit die ante constitutionem Seculi, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem v similitudinem noftram. Barnabæ Epif. 6. 4. And again, sild 75 caj regeran med sjpão as aíld oud ', Noinowele xee?' sixóvz, oc. c. 5. 'E/zengus gu'lydanois T8TON MS various Ocon was weg ontwv wodnexió de mare Tvenelpon as perealia vs drusce was my Θεόν, τή όλων Θεών και Παλέρα" τετον δ φαμνώ τη Μοσία κοσμοπολία σe9σάτονα η Παλέρα κρηκέναι το, Γενηθήτω Φώς, Γενηθήτω σερίωμα και τα λοιπά, όσα προσέταξεν ο Θεός νέα και τότε αρηκέναι η, Ποιήσωμεν άνθρωπος και εικόνα και quoiwas smalé egon Orig. adu. Cellum, l. 2.

Nor need we doubt of this Interpretation, or the Doctrine arising from it, Joh. 1. 1,2,3. feeing it is so 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 Christ had a being before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, because he was at the beginning of the world, and have also proved that he was at the beginning of the world, because 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

His Moses;

[ocr errors]

Word; and that Word made flesh is Chrift: therefore Christ 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 satisfaction in this point, than these words of S. John, which seem with a strange brevity defign'd to take off all objections, and remove all prejudice, before they teach fo ftrange a truth. Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, and his age was known to them for whom this Gospel was penned. S. John would teach thar this Christ did make the world, which was created at least four thousand years before his birth : The name of Jesus was given him since at his Circumcision, the title of Christ 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 vet unknown to the World, or rather not taken notice of, though in frequent use among the Jews, which belonged unto him who was made man, but before he was fo. Under that name he shews at first that he had a being in the * beginning; when all things were to be created, and consequently * 'Ey dęxạ, the were not yet, then in the beginning was the Word, and so not created. This firsie word of is the first step, the Word was not created when the World was made. The whence the next is, that the same Word which then was, and was not made, at the fame Syriack Trantime, t was with God, when he made all things : and therefore we

Nation,

ni we conceive 'tis he to whom a God said, Let us make man in our image, so Solomon after our likeness; and of whom those words may be understood, b Bebold, use the man is become as one of us. After this, lest any should conceive the cazzo weg

r8 rhu aoinCreation of the World too great and divine a Work to be attributed to the Word; left any should 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 Ser

mo; in quo was he also God. Again, lest any should divide the Deity, or frame a false principio fciconception of different Gods, he returns unto the second assertion, and joins licet Deus feit with the first, The same was in the beginning with God: and then delivers terram. Teras that which at the first feemed strange, but now, after those three propositions, tul. adv. Hero may 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, agora but only an interpretation of those Scriptures which told us, God made all T” Osợ, that things by his word before. For God said, let there be light; and there was annonce light. And so d By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all legsiko'sinéerthe hosts of them by the breath of his mouth. From whence e we understand ; etiqmore

Guébegro that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Neither was it a Some As wif new interpretation, but that which was malt familiar to the Jews, who in domn Speaketh, their. Synagogues, by the reading of the Paraphrase or the Interpretation of row:

then I was by the Hebrew Text in the Chaldee Language, were constantly taught, that the him 771 Word of God was the same with God, and that by that Word all things were 15y imler made. Which undoubtedly was the cause why š. John delivered so great a Chaldin in latere ejus. Moschopulus, més quedão aegis Oiò, ixtisi, kes Oxf. As Mat. 13. 16. Ai údex@ch autó óxi săom wegs sincés cioi, Mar. 14. 49. kadonnéegev äpelu oregs vnäs, 1 Cor. 16. 6. weg's exão s tuzón a Saepifc. Merisopetas Alexovimo plnoš Xersg. as wegaciów w czego nalej li, og í riad ipuun. Ignat. ad Magnes. Gen. 1.26. Gen. 3:22. c Gen. 1. 3. Pfal. 33. 6. Heb. 11.3. 2 Pet. 3:5. I conceive this Chaldee Paraphrafe to represeæt the sense of the Jews of that Age, as being their publick interpretation of the Scripture, Wherefore what we find common and free quent in it, we cannot but think the vulgar and general Opinion of that Nation. Now it is certain that this Paraphrast dosh often use 199 and the word of God, for T1 To God bimself, especially and that with relation to the creation of the world. As Isa. 45. 12. '1N2, Toby OMNI Pose inwy JJN, I made the earth, and created inan upon i:, saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel; which the Chaldee translateth yn r ay a NIN 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 beasts

erain & צרוי

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

;
The Targum

[ocr errors]

also founded the earth: The Chalder NyoN

naina 98 Etiam in verbo meo fundavit terram. And most clearly Gen. 1. 27. we read, Et creavit Deus hominem : the Jerusalem Targum, Verbum Domini creavit hominem. And Gen. 3. 8. Audierant vocem Domini Dei : The Chaldee Paraphrafe 117 ND n ynui Et audierunt vocem verbi Domini Dei. Now this which the Chaldee Paraphrase called Noon the Hellenists named aólov. as appearesh by Philo the Jew, who wrote before S. John, and reckons in his Divinity, firt riallage en lain, then do regor Olov, og iso črevo sóla. Quaft. o Solut. whom he calls ógoor Ofő sólov, wewóróvon vor, De Agricult. He attributes the creation of the world to this sólo, whom he terms oefavoy Olő, de Å (o kóru@) wc?erxbcasa, De Flammeo gladio. Exico još i sola ww iso, o xedeetup óyouw w 99%zno clue 'roquoroid, Idem Allegor. I. 2. Where we must observe though Philo makes the sólo of whom he speaks as instrumental in the creation of the world; yet he taketh it not for a bare expression of the will of God, but for a God, though in the second degree, and expresy 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 nótos to the first chapter of Genesis. And the rest of the Jews before him, who had no such knowledge out of Plato's School, used the same notion. For as Ifa. 48. 13. the hand of God, is by the Chaldee Paraphraft transated the Word of God: so in the book of Wisdom, j w Ky7oducerós Co xorię x} xtirata * xóomov. Sap. II. 17. is changed into ó Warloducerós Co nóros ár vegevãšv, 18. 15. and Siracides 43. 26. 'Ev dów autã Cófres 7 wévce Nay, the Septuagint haih changed Shaddai, the undoubted name of the omnipotent God, into sólos, the Word, Ezek. I. 24. 170 172 quafi vox sublimis Dei, quod Hebraicè appellatur 170 & juxta LXX. Dari tô nós, id eft, ycx verbi, ut universa quæ prædicantur in mundo vocem Filii Dei efle dicamus. S. Hieron. And therefore Celsus writing in the Perfon of a Jew, acknowledgeth that the Word is the Son of God. Eye Ablos isiv upã ojos Okš, rj musis asv õpefu. Orig. adv. Celsum, l. 2. And although Origen objects that in this Celsus makes the Jew speak improperly, because the Jews which he had converred with, did never acknowledge that the Son of God was the Word; yet Celsus his Few did speak the language of Philo: but between the time of Celsus and that of Origen, (I guess about threescore years,) the Jews had learnt to deny that notion of Aólos, that they might with more colour reject s. Johin. If then all the Jews, both they which understood the Chaldee Exposition, and those which only used the Greek Translation, had such a notion of the Word of God; if all things In their confesion 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 be might be so easily understood.

z ors

mystery in so few words, as speaking 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 Jesus Christ. Wherefore this exposition being so literally clear in it felf, fo consonant to the notion of the Word, and the apprehension of the Jews; it is infinitely to be preferred before any such interpretation as shall restrain the most universals to a few particulars, change the plainest expressions into figurative phrases, and make of a sublime truth, a weak, useless, falfe discourse. 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 self a con1 John 1. i. tradiction? For the beginning in S. John's Epistle is that in which the Apo

stles faw, and heard, and touched the Word : the beginning in his Gospel was that in which the Word was with God, that is, not seen nor heard by the Apostles, but known as yet to God alone, as the new exposition will have it. Who will conceive it worthy of the Apostle's assertion, to teach that the Word had a being in the beginning of the Gospel, at what time John the Baptist be

gan to preach, when we know the Baptist taught as much, who therefore John' 1, 31. came baptizing with water, that he might be made manifest unto Ifrael?

When we are sure 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 affured, 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 assert that the Word was, that is, had an actual being,

en as yet he was not actually the Word ? For if the beginning be when John the Baptist began to preach, and the Word, as they say, be nothing else but he which speaketh, and so revealeth the will of God: Christ had not then revealed the will of God, and consequently was not then actually the Word, but only potentially or by designation. Secondly, 'tis a strange figurative speech, the word was with God, that is, was known to God, elpecially in this Apostle's method. In the beginning was the Word; there was must signify an actual existence: and if so, why in the next sentence (the Word was with God) shall the same yerb signify 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 signified was known to God alone, I cannot conceive. For the Proposition of it self is plainly affirmative, and the exclusive particle only added to the exposition, maketh it clearly negative. Nay more, the affirmative sense is certainly true, the negative as certainly false. For except Gabriel be

God,

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 fofeph and Mary be God; it cannot be true that
he was known to God only, for to all these he was certainly known
ly, to pass by the third attribute, and the word was God, as having occa-
fion suddenly after to handle it; seeing the Apostle hath again repeated the
circumstance of time as most material, the same was in the beginning with
God, and immediately subjoined those words, all things were made by him,
and without him was not any thing made that was made; how can we re-
ceive any exposition 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 Ascension of our Saviour did nothing but what they were command-
ed and impowered to do by Christ, it will bear no relation to the beginning.
If we interpret the former, of all which Jesus said and did in the promulga-
tion of the G

he Gospel, we cannot yet reach to the beginning assigned by the new Expositors: For while John the Baptist only preached, while in their sense the Word was with God, they will not affirm that Jesus did any of these things that here are spoken of. And confequently, according to their grounds, it will be true to say, 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 reason we should stick to the known interpretation, in which every word receiveth its own proper signification without any figuTative distortion, and is preserved in its due latitude and extension without any curtailing restriction." And therefore I conclude from the undeniable testimony 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 Christ Jesus being made flesh, and consequently, by the method of Argument, as the Apostle antecedently by the method of Nature, that in the beginning Christ was. He then who was in Heaven and descended 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 first world; and at the beginning of the same; he had a real being and exiItence before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary. But all these we have already shewed belong unto the Son of God. Therefore we must acknowledge, that Jesus Christ had a real being and existence before he was be

* The Fhoti gotten by the Holy Ghost: Which is our first Assertion, properly opposed to nians were the * Photinians.

Hereticks, so

called from Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, but born in Gallogræcia, and scholar to Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra. Photinus de Gallogræcia, Marcelli discipulus, Sirinii Episcopus ordinatus, Hebionis Hærefin instaurare conatus eft. S. Hieron. Catal, Eccl. Photinus Sirmienfis Episcopus fuit à Marcello imbutus. Nam & Diaconus sub eo aliquandiu fuit. Hilar. Frag. Wherefore when Epiphanius speaketh thies of him, Šr wignato de Esgueio, it hath no relation to the original of his perfon, but his Heresy; of which s. Hilary, Pestiferè, natum Jefum Christum ex Maria, Pannonia defendit. Dc Trin. He was a man of singular parts and abilities, Dúrews Pray fú aftev, rj wh@es ixovòs, says Sozom. 1. 4. c. 6. rétove ä sro ó Ownervös néaos torov, xj wžuperelainen yrão?ev, Woddo's ä diwe pluc c?ta aóss og egpogão sejftolkodovia. Epiphan. Hær. 71. Erat & ingenii viribus valens, & doctrinæ opibus excellens, & eloquio præpotens, quippe qui utroque sermone copiosè & graviter disputaret & scriberet. Vincent. Lirin. 6.16. He is said by fome to follow the Heresy of Ebion. Hebionis Hærefin instaurare conatus est, Says S. Hierome; and S. Hilary ordinarily understands him by the name of Hebion, and sometimes expounds himself, Hebion, qui est Photinus. But there is no fimilitude in their Doctrines, Hebion being more Jew than Christian, and teaching Christ as much begotten by Joseph, as born of Mary. Philafter will have him agree wholly with Paulus Samosatenus in omnibus. Epiphanius with an ano mieds, and it éxea. Socrates and Sozomen, with him and with Sabellius: whereas he differed much from them both, especially from Sabellius, as being far from & Patripastian. Marcellus Sabellianæ hæresis affertor extiterat: Photinus verò novam hærefin jam ante protulerat, à Sabellio quidem in unione dissentiens, sed initium Christi ex Maria prædicabat. Severus Hift. Sacr. Wherefore it will not be unnecessary to collect out of Antiquity what did properly belong unto Photinus, because I think it not yet done, and we find his Heresy in the propriety of it to begin and spread again. Photinus, mentis cæcitate deceptus, in Chrifto verum & substantiæ noftræ confeffus eft hominem, sed 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 fuifle ante beatam Mariam. Lucifer. Clarit. Si quis in Christo fic veritatem prædicat animæ & carnis, ut veritatem in eo nolit accipere Deitatis, id est, qui sic dicit Christum hominem, ut Deum neget, non eft Christianus Catholicas, sed Fhotinianus Hæreticus. Fulg. ad Donat. 1. 16. Ow7evos yeasy Br@gwrov aéte regluve peftov, Oiš minh négwv bivant Tókov se te 'n mitogeç 77 9984

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Javien cv@swton 1207108.9 dinga ubor Osg. Theodot. Homil. de Nativ. Ephef. Concil. p. 3. c. 1o. Anathematizamus Photinu m, qui Hebionis Hærefim inftauráns, Dominum Jesum Chriftum tantum ex Maria Virgine confitetur. · Damasus Profef. Fidei. Φάσκει και έτG-, απ' αρχής Χρισόν μη είναι, από και Μαρίας και δεύρο ωτον υπάρχειν, εξότε, φησί το ΓΠνεύμα το άγιον itüdev wron, sej ég prófn 'n Tlubunal ayir. Epiphan. "Edele ä ws Oids refusést a wyloxecto es o idiw dóyw od vlc

192!8grácus. Q weg 7 waren zfón civ te wy Taggar og ý õ ý wegrito, ára i'r Muebas yegforiat * Xerson songő to. Sozomen. l. 4. c. 6. Photini ergo secta hæc est. Dicit Deum fingulum esse & folitarium, & more Judaico confitendum.

Trinitatis plenitudinem negat, neque ullain Dei verbi, aut ullam Spiritús Sancti putat efle personam. Chriftum verò hominem tantummodo solitarium afferit, cui principium adscribit, ex Maria; & hoc omnibus modis dogmatizat fo· lain nos personain Dei Patris, & solum Christum hominem colere debere. Vinc. Lirinenfis adv. Heref. c.17. In the dif

putation framed by Vigilius out of the seventh Book of s. Hilary, as I conceive, Photinus rejecting the opinion of Sabellius (whom Socrates and Sozomen said he followed) as impious, thus declares his own : Unde magis ego dico, Deum Pauremn Filium habere Doininum Jesum Chriltum, ex Maria Virgine initiuin sumentem, qui per sanctæ conversationis excellentifimum atque inimitabile beatitudinis meritum, à Deo Patre in Filiuin adoptatus & eximio Divinitatis honore donatus. And again, ego Domino nostro Jesu Christo 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, sacramentum, qui Chrifti ex Virgine fatetur exordium: Et propterca non credit fine initio substantialiter Deum natum ex Deo Patre, in quo carnis veritatem confitetur ex Virgine. Fulg. ad Thrasiin. l. 1. Greg. Nazianzen, according to his custom, gives a very brief, but remarkable expression; Dw? Hvə e verw Xesco xero Macías de cópfuar. Orat. 26. But the opinion of Photinus cannot be better understood than by the condemnation of it in the Council of Sirmium ; which having set out the Confession of their Faith in brief, addeth many and various Anathemas, according to the several Herefies then apparent, without mentioning their names. Of these the flih aims clearly at Photinus. Si quis secunduin præfcientiam vel prædestinationem ex Maria dicit filium efle, & non ante ficcula ex Patre natum apud Deum effe, & per eum facta esse omnia, Anathema fit. The 13, 14, and 15. also were particulars directed against him, as S. Hilary hath observed: but the last of all is most material. Si quis Christum Deum, Filium Dei, ante secula subsistentein, & miniftrantem, Patri ad omnium perfectionem, non dicat, fed ex

quo de Maria natus eft, ex eo & Chriftum & Filium nominatum esse, & initium accepiffe ut fit Deus, dicat, Anathe.ma 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 adversabatur, 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 suddenly in the condemnation of him. Arians, Semi-Arians, and Catholicks; xeber Mov oülus, says Socrates, xj ŠTO ws xadãs doxahwa globulwer to éves in besar a Títe se k taw ta. 1. 2.6.29. And becausc his History is very obscure and intricate, take this brief Catalogue of his Condemnations. We read that he was condemned at the Council of Nice, and at the same time by a Council at Rome under Sylvester : but this is delivered only in a forged Epilogus Concilii Romani. He was then first condemned with Marcellus his Master, as Sulpitius Severus relates, probably by the Synod at Conftantinople ; for in that Marcellus was deprived. Sozom. 1. 2. 33. Socrat. I. 1. 36. Secondly, his Heresy is renounced in the second Synod at Antioch. Athanas. de Syn. Socrat. I. 1. 19. Thirdly, he was condemned in the Council of Sardes. Epiphan. and Sulpitius Severus. Fourthly; by a Council at Milan. s. Hilar. Fragm. Fifihly, in a Synod at Sirmium he was deposed 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 deposed at Sirmium by the Eastern Bishops, and being convicted by Bafil Bishop of Ancyra, was banished from thence. S. Hilar. Epiph. Socr. Sozom. Vigil. Indeed he was so generally condemned not only then, but afterwards under Valentinian, as S. Hierome testifies, and the Synodic Epifile of the Aquileian Council, that his opinion was foon worn out of the world. "Hån 75 xj deoxedcban eis onitor xegvoy jj 7678 h laufe's aizeris, says Epiphanius, who lived not long after him. So suddenly was this opinion rejected by all Christians, applauded by none but Julian the Heretick, who railed at S. John for making Christ God, and commended Photinus for denying it; as appears by an Epistle written by Julian unto him, as it is (though in a mean Transation) delivered by Facundus. Tu quidem, O Photine, verifimilis videris, & proximus salvare, bene faciens nequaquam in utero inducere, quem credidisti Deum. Facun. ad Justinian. 1.4.

The second Assertion, next to be made good, is that the being which Christ had before he was conceived by the Virgin was not any created, but the Divine Essence, by which he always was truly, really and properly God. This will evidently and necessarily 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 assuring us as much that he was God, as that he Heb. 3. 4. was, For he that built all things was God. And the same Apostle which assures

us, All things were made by him, at the same time tells us, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Where

In the beginning must not be denied unto the third proposition, 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 shew of reason either imagine that he was with one God, and

was another, because there can be no more supreme Gods than one; or con* And that ceive that the Apostle should speak of one kind of God in the second, and of upon so poor a another in the third proposition; in the second, of a God eternal and indeground as the pendent, in the third, of a * made and depending God. Especially, first conwant of an Article, be- lidering that the eternal God was so constan

Jews called the cause in the first place it is lub w og's i Oddy, in the second, Odos ligo sólo, not Odds from hence to conclude, o osos is one God, that is, xc7" iconin, the supreme God, Odds another, not the supreme, but one made God by him. Indeed they are beholden to Epiphanius for this observation, whose words are thee: 'E dy e Topid Odds, ovsu äod pe, ý tux6074. Toplo Otin e ldv wv,

cor övre (or rather 8% ovce) iar ä t toutes secos, därav wg árò r8 col38, ou la Czuerérople dantñ te syroworáfifuss. Samart. Heres. But whosoever mail apply this rule to the sacred Scriptures will find it must fallacious. In the beginning

ito arse

C

« PreviousContinue »