Page images
PDF
EPUB

Christ, but of his Church and if we under the Gospel had been called fo.
it could have received no other interpretation in reference to us. But being
It is not ours, but our Saviour's name, it bears no kind of fimilitude with
thofe objected appellations, and is as properly and directly to be attributed to
the Meffias as the name of Jefus. Wherefore it remaineth that Chrift be
acknowledged God with us, according to the Evangelical interpretation,
with an expreffion of that excellency which belongeth to the fupreme Deity.
Again, He to whom S. Thomas faid, My Lord and my God, or rather, John 20. 19:
The Lord of me, and the God of me, he is that God before whose name
the Greek Article is prefixed, which they require, by way of excellency.
But S. Thomas fpake these words * to Chrift. For Jefus pake unto Tho-* Indeed it
mas, and Thomas anfwered and faid unto him, My Lord and my God, bath been an
And in these words he made confeffion of his Faith; for our Saviour repli- these words
And let him are not to be
ed, Thomas, because thou haft feen me, thou haft believed.
be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God ofreferred to
an Apostle.

Chrift, but te
God the Fa-
ther. So The-

odor. Mopfueftenus in his Commentary on S. John; Thomas quidem, cùm fic credidiffet, Dominus meus & Deus meus
dicit, non ipfum Dominum & Deum dicens (non enim refurrectionis fcientia docebat & Deum effe eum qui refur-
rexit) fed quafi pro miraculofo facto Deum collaudat. Syn. V. Collat. 4. As if Thomas had intended only to have prai-
fed God for raifing Chrift. But first, it is plain that Thomas answered Chrift; fecondly, that he spake unto him, that
is to Chrift, and confequently that the words which he spake belong to Chrift; thirdly, that the words are a Confeffion of
his Faith in Chrift, as our Saviour doth acknowledge. And whereas Francifcus Davidis did object, that in a Latin Te-
ftament he found not & dixit ei, but & dixit without ei, it is fufficiently discountenanced by Socinus in his Epistle, af-
firming that all the Greek and Latin Copies had it, except that one which he had found: and therefore the omiffion must be
imputed to the negligence of the Printer. +10 xverós μ8 x Otos us. Either in these words there is an Ellipfis of Cù,
Thou art my Lord, Thou art my God: or an Antiptofis, the Nominative Cafe used for the Vocative, as 'Exwi, 'Exwi, i
Oεós μ8, ó Õεós μ8, Mark 15. 34. 'Abba i walng, Mark 14. 36. and Xaïge & Bacino's & 'Ixdaiwv, John 19. 3. If it be
an Ellipfis of the Verb &, fo frequent in the Scriptures, and of the Perfon fufficiently understood in the preceding Pronoun,
then is it evident that Oros is attributed unto Chrift, for then S. Thomas faid unto him, Thou art sós μ8. If it
be an Antiptofis, though the conftruction require not a Verb, yet the fignification virtually requireth as much, which is
equivalent: for he acknowledgeth him as much God while he calleth him fo, as if he did affirm him to be fo. Neither can
it be objected that the Article & ferveth only in the place of e, as fignifying that the Nominative is to be taken for the
Vocative Cafe; because the Nominative may as well ftand vocatively without an Article, as 'Iwong yos Aaßid, Mat. 1.20.
and 'Exércov vμäs, Kvesi, ÿòs Aaßid, Mat. 20. 30, 31. and therefore when the Vocative is invefted with an Article, it is as
confiderable as in a Nominative.. And being these words were an expreffion of the Apoftle's Faith, as Chrift understood and
approved them, they must contain in them, virtually at least, a Propofition; because no act of our Faith can be expreffed,
where the Object is not at least a virtual Propofition. And in that Propofition, Oeds must be the predicate, and Chrift,
to whom these words are spoken, must also be the Subject. It cannot therefore be avoided, but that S. Thomas did attri-
bute the name of God to our Saviour with an Article. Indeed to me there is no doubt but S. Thomas in these words did
make as true and real a Confeffion of his Faith concerning the Perfon of Christ, as S. Peter did, when he answered and
faid, Thou art Chrift, the Son of the living God, Mat. 16. 16. and confequently, that Kieros, and Oeds do as properly
belong unto him, as S. Peter's Xessos and o yos. As therefore Chrift faid to his Difciples, Vos vocatis medidonaros
Kúsos, & bene dicitis, fum etenim, John 13. 13. So he might have replied to Thomas, You call me i Kiews, and o
Eos, and you say well, for I am fo. As for the objection of Socinus, that though Otos be here spoken of Chrift, and
that with an Article o, yet that Article is of no force because of the following Pronoun us it is most groundless: for the
Article ὁ cannot have relation to the following Pronoun με. Ἐπεὶ πῶς ἡ ἀπαράδεκτος αντωνυμία ἢ ἄρθρων εν χυικῇ πλώσεις
Lidéias äglogy Dadexe as that great Critick Apollonius Alexandrinus obferves, l. 1. de Syntax. c. 30. And if for us,
it were o imos, yet even that Article would belong to Osos, for in these words, Deòs à iuòs, neither Article belongs to
ἐμὸς but both tο θεός for, as the fame Critick obferves in the fame cafe, τα δύο ἄρθρα εἰς μίαν ἢ εὐθεῖαν ἀναφέρε· ἐκ άρα
εν τι, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς, καλενάγκασαι τὸ ἕτερον ἢ ἄρθρων ἐπὶ τ' ἀντωνυμίαν φέρεις. So that if ὁ Θεὸς be the fupreme God,
then i dies us must be my fupreme God: as when David fpeaks to God & Deòs, & Deos μ8, weys Ce ógleisw, Pfal. 62. 1. the
latter is of as great importance as the former. So again, Pfal. 42. 5. ouodoynowμm ev xilága o Deo's, o deos μ8 and 49. 3.
I dare not therefore fay to any per-
ὁ θεὸς ἐμφανῶς ἡξει, ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν· and 70. 13. ὁ Θεὸς μὴ μακριώης ἀπ' ἐμᾶ, ὁ θεός με.
fon that he is dros μ8, except I do believe that he is à Deos. Wherefore I conclude that the words of S. Thomas, xve-
ός με καὶ ὁ θεός μs, are as fully and highly fignificative as thofe of David, Πρόχες τῇ φωνῇ ε δεήσεώς με, ὁ βασιλούς με καὶ ὁ
Θεός με, Pfal. 5. 2. or thofe, ο Θεός με καὶ ὁ κύριός με, εἰς τ' δίκίω με, Pfal. 35. 23. or thofe, Τὰ θυσιαςήριά (8, κυρίε
Suwania o Baciasús us, & à déós pe, Pfal. 84.3. or thofe of S. John in the Revelation, as they lie in the Alexandrian
and Complutenfian Copies. "Ağ c, ó xúeros xj o deos iμãv o agios, λaber, &c. or that lastly in the most ancient Hymn.
Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνὸς τὸ Θεό ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

Nor have we only their required teftimony of Chrift's fupreme Divinity, but also an addition of verity afferting that Supremacy. For he is not only termed the God, but, for a farther certainty, the true God: and the fame Apoomiffion ftle, who faid the Word was God, left any cavil fhould arife by any of an Article, tho' fo frequently neglected by all, even the most accurate Authors, hath alfo affured us that he is the true God. For, we know, faith he, 1 John 5. 201 that

S 2

[ocr errors]

ἀληθινὸς Θε

lùm de vero

Deo, ut arti

Racov.

8.26.

ἀπὸ Ιερυσα

μos, quæ eft

deferta.

a

that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his *Ouris isw• Son Jefus Chrift. This is the true God, and eternal life. As therefore we read in the Acts, of the Word which God fent unto the children of IfLavies. Hic a- rael, preaching peace by Jefus Chrift; he is Lord of all where it is acgitur non fo- knowledged that the Lord of all is by the Pronoun † he joined unto Jefus Deo, fed de Chrift, the immediate, not unto God, the remote antecedent: fo likewife illo uno vero here the true God is to be referred unto Chrift, who stands next unto it, not culus in Græ- unto the Father, fpoken of indeed in the Text, but at a distance. There is co additus in- no reafon alledged why these last words fhould not be referred to the Son of dicat. Catech. God, but only this, that in Grammatical conftruction they may be afcribed Atts 10.36. to the Father. As, when b another King arofe which knew not Jofeph, the toros for os, fame dealt fubtilly with our kindred; the fame referreth us not to fofeph, as Acts 8. 26. but to the King of Egypt. Whereas, if nothing elfe can be objected but a A is ragav poffibility in refpect of the Grammatical conftruction, we may as well fay auth isivier that Jofeph dealt fubtilly with his kindred as the King of Egypt; for whatfoever the incongruity be in Hiftory, it makes no Soloecilin in the Syntax. Acts 7. 18, Wherefore being Jefus Christ is the immediate Antecedent to which the Relative may properly be referred; being the Son of God is he of whom the Apoftle chiefly speaketh; being this is rendred as a reason why we are in him that is true, by being in his Son, to wit, because that Son is the true God; being in the language of S. John the conftant Title of our Saviour is eternal life; being all these reafons may be drawn out of the Text it felf, why the Title of the true God fhould be attributed to the Son, and no one reafon can be raised from thence why it fhould be referred to the Father: I can conclude no lefs, than that our Saviour is the true God, so styled in the Scriptures by way of eminency; with an Article prefixed, as the first Christian WriXesters which immediately followed the Apostles did both speak and write. Dev. Ignat. Epif. ad Smyrn. Ἐν θελήμα]ι το Πατρὸς, καὶ Ἰησο Χριςὰ τὸ Θεῷ ἡμῶν. Id. Ep. ad Eph. Ο δ θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησᾶς ὁ Χρισὸς ὁ Σκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας. I. Ο γδ θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησᾶς Χρισὸς ἐν Πατρὶ ἂν μᾶλλον φαίνε). Ep. ad Rom. Τι Θες λόγες τα λου gixa whoμala nμes. Cl. Alex. adv. Gentes. And it was well obferved by the Author of the Ming Aabúenbos, written about the beginning of the third-Century, that not only the ancienter Fathers before him, as Juftin, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, Irenæus, Melito, &c. did fpeak of Chrift as God, but that the Hymns alfo penned by Chriftians from the beginning did exprefs Chrift's Divinity. Ψαλμοὶ ἢ ὅσοι καὶ ᾠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ' ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πισῶν γραφεῖσαι τ λόγον το Θεό 7 Xessor vursor Dodoyles. And the Epifle of Pliny to Trajan teftifies the fame. Quod effent foliti ftato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Chrifto quafi Deo dicere.

19.

Η Δοξάζω 1η

But, Thirdly, were there no fuch particular place in which the Article were expreffed, yet fhall we find fuch Adjuncts fixed to the name of God when attributed unto Chrift as will prove equivalent to an Article, or whatsoever may express the fupreme Majefty. As when S. Paul doth magnifie the Jews, out of whom, as concerning the flesh, Chrift came, who is over all, God blessed for *The fome ever, Amen. First, It is evident that Christ is called * God, even he who God out of came of the Jews, tho' not as he came of them, that is, according to the flesh

Rom. 9.5.

Tho'

would leave

the Text, upon

this pretence, because S. Cyprian, in lib. 2. adv. Judeos, citing this place, leaves it out. But that must needs be by the negligence of fome of the Scribes, as is evident. First, becaufe Manutius and Morellius found the word Deus in their Copies, and both the MSS. which Pamelius used acknowledge it. Secondly, because S. Cyprian produceth the Text to prove quod Deus Chriftus; and reckoneth it among the rest in which he is called exprefly God. Thirdly, because Tertullian, whofe Difciple S. Cyprian professed himself, did both fo read it, and fo ufe it. Solum autem Chriftum potero Deum dicere, ficut idem Apoftolus: Ex quibus Chriftus, qui eft (inquit) Deus fuper omnia benedictus in ævum omne. Adv. Praxeam. And again in the fame Book; Hunc & Paulus confpexit, nec tamen Patrem vidit. Nonne, inquit, vidi Jefum? Chriftum autem & ipfum Deum cognominavit : Quorum Patres & ex quibus Chriftus fecundum carnem, qui eft per (vel fuper) omnia Deus benedictus in ævum. Novatianus de Trinitate, ufeth the fame Argument. And another ancient Author very exprefly; Rogo te, Deum credis effe Filium, an non? Sine dubio, refponfurus es, Deum; qui etfi negare volueris, fanctis Scripturis convinceris, dicente Apoftolo, Ex quibus Chriftus fecundum carnem, qui eft fuper omnia Deus benedictus in fecula. So also S. Aug. Non folum Pater Deus eft, ficut etiam omnes Hæretici concedunt, fed etiam Filius; quod, velint nolint, coguntur fateri, dicente Apoftolo, Qui eft fuper omnia Deus benedictus in fecula. De Trin. l. 2. c. 13. & contra Fauftum, l.16.c.15. As for the objection, that S. Chryfoftom doth not fignify in his Commentaries that he read eos, in the Text: I answer, that neither does he fignify that he read i izì návlwv, for in his expofition he paffeth over wholly i izi war?wv deòs, but it doth not follow that he read not in wavlov in the Text. But when he repeats the words of the Apoftle, he agrees wholly with the Greek Text, è av ini wavlov Dròs dones and Theodoret, who lived not long after him, doth not only acknowledge

the

the words, but give a full Expofition of them: "Hend un rỡ x Cázna weg Dhen Dadnλards to deaóry Xessy 7 Jeórnlæ ἀλλ' ώασες ἐν τῷ προοιμίω ειρηκώς, το πλυομώς εκ απέρμα ο Δαβίδ και ζάρκα, ἐπέδαξε, τῷ ὀριθέντων με θες εν δυνάμει ὅπως ἐνταῦθα εἰπὼν τὸ, και βάρκα, προσέθεικε τὸς ὢν ἐπὶ πάν]ων θεὸς ἐυλο[ητὸς εἰς τὰς αἰῶνας. As for the omifion of Deus in S. Hilary on the Pfalms, it must of neceffity be attributed to the negligence of the Scribe, not to the reading of the Father. For how he read it he hath clearly expreffed in his books de Trinitare: Non ignorat Paulus Chriftum Deum, dicens, Quorum funt Patres, & ex quibus Chriftus qui eft fuper omnia Deus. Non hic creatura in Deum deputatur, fed crea turarum Deus eft, qui fuper omnia Deus eft. The presence therefore of Erafmus from the Fathers is vain; and as vain is that of Grotius from the Syriac Tranflation, which hath in it the name of God expreffly, as well as all the Copies of the Original, and all the rest of the Tranflations; by nba T

oppofed unto τὸ καὶ πνεῦμα

where Cas

xx is ufed

ua, to which

But here being

[ocr errors]

which is here * distinguished from his Godhead. Secondly, He is so called God as * Cászá not to be any of the many Gods, but the one fupreme or moft high God; for he is God over all. Thirdly, He hath alfo added the title of blessed, which of it felf As Rom. 1. 3. elsewhere fignifieth the ‡fupreme God, and was always used by the Jews to exprefs that one God of Ifrael. Wherefore it cannot be conceived S. Paul without an fhould write unto the Chriftians, most of which then were converted Jews Article, beor Profelytes, and give unto our Saviour not only the name of God, but also cause i add that title which they always gave unto the one God of Ifrael, and to it is oppofed, none but him; except he did intend they fhould believe him to be the fame followeth, and So the oppofiGod whom they always in that manner, and under that notion had ádored. tion is of it As therefore the Apostle fpeaketh of a the God and Father of our Lord Je-self apparent. fus Chrift, which is bleffed for evermore, of the Creator, who is blessed for και πνεῦμα ἐς ever, Amen; and thereby doth fignifie the fupreme Deity, which was fo not to be exglorified by the Ifraelites; and doth alfo teftifie that we worship the fame pressed in the God under the Gofpel which they did under the Law: fo doth he fpeak of words, the following Chrift in as fublime a ftyle, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen; Article Tò figand thereby doth teftifie the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity. If we a distinnifying of it confider the scope of the Apostle, which is to magnifie the Ifraelites by the etion or exenumeration of fuch privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chofen Nation, ception, shew(the most eminent of which was contained in the Genealogy of our Saviour) be understood. we shall find their glory did not confist in this, that Chrift at first was born tov iñì márof them a man, and afterwards made a God, for what great honour could Tv. Not in accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whofe Godhead is referred not Erafmus, nor to his birth, but to his death? whereas this is truly honourable, and the fuper omnes, peculiar Glory of that Nation, that the most High God bleffed for ever reference to hould take on him the feed of Abraham, and come out of the Ifraelites as the Fathers, concerning the flesh. Thus every way it doth appear, the Apoftle fpake of which should Christ as of the one eternal God.

των.

omnibus, as

as Beza, with

have been ini πάντων αὐτῶν·

but, as the

vulgar Tranflation, and the ancient Fathers before that, fuper omnia, ixi for ixávw, as John 3. 31. ò avader exóu wave warlar ist, which fignifieth no less than by the ordinary name of God,, the moft High, as it is taken for the fupreme God by it felf, Acts 7.48. and is defcribed, Pfal. 97. 9. Ori Cue Kuent, & iis ini wärav I'yli, Cpóδρα υπερυψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τες θεός. + As Mark 14. 61. Σὺ εἶ ὁ χρισὸς ὁ ὑὸς τῷ ἐυλο[ητα; Art thou the Chrift the Son of the Bleffed? where the vulgar attribute is taken for God himself, which is ufually added to the name of Ged, as 2 Cor. II. 31. Ὁ Θεὸς, ο ὧν ἐυλο[ητὸς εἰς τὰς αἰῶνας• or to any defcription of him; as ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κλίση τα τ κλίσαντα ὃς ἐςὶν iUλofNTOS His Tas aiavas 'Aμlú. And thefe expreffions of S. Paul are confonant to the ancient cuftom of the Jews, who, when the Priest in the Sanctuary rehearsed the name of God, were wont to answer, Bleffed be his name for ever. fomuch as the Bleffed One did fignifie in their language as much as the Holy One, and both, or either of them, the God of Ifrael. Hence are fo frequent in the Rabbins, npn the Holy Bleffed One, and in the bleffed One, that they are written by abbreviation, or Tap and the infinite blessed one, be God for ever, Amen and Amen, IN and 15''n a2 Cor. 11. 31. Rom. 1. 25.

He then who was the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God; he whofe Glory Ifaias faw as the Glory of the God of Ifrael; he who is ftiled Alpha and Omega without any restriction or limitation, he who was truly fubfifting in the form of God, and equal with him before he was in the nature of man; he who being man is frequently called God, and that in all those ways by which the fupreme Deity is expreffed; he had a being before Chrift was conceived by the Virgin Mary, and the being which he had was the one erernal and indivifible Divine Effence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. But all these are certainly true of him in

whom

In

′′N, Blessed

whom we believe, Jefus Chrift, as hath been proved by clear teftimonies of the facred Scriptures. Therefore the being which Chrift had before he was conceived of the Virgin was not any created, but the Divine Effence; nor was he Creature, but the true eternal God: which was our fecond Afferwas fo called tion, particularly opposed to the * Arian Herefie.

*This Herefie

from two who

any

bare the fame name, aud fell at the fame time into the fame opinion; one of them being a Prefbyter, and Rector of a Church in Alexandria, the other a Deacon: as Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epiftle extant in Theodoret : Εἰσι ἢ οἱ ἀναθεμαλιπέντες αἱρεσιῶν, ἀπὸ πρεσβυτέρων μ, "Αρεια απο εακόνων, ̓Αχιλλάς, Εὐζώνω, "Αρειος ἕτερος, &c, In the Epiftle of the Arians to Alexander, he is reckoned amongst the Prefbyters; "AgHos, "Acbeans, "Axiaλãs, KagTúvns Zagualas, "AgHos, "#RECSÚTENgi. Of these two Phoebadius contra Arian. Patrem & filium effe non unam perfonam, ut Sabellius, aut duas fubftantias, ut Arii, c. 25. The Herefie is fo well known, that it needs no explication: and indeed it cannot be better defcribed than in the Anathematism of the Nicene Council. Tós j' défovlas li wÓTE őre in lis δεν κυνησαι ἐκ ἰ, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ ἐκ ὄντων ἐγγύετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποτάσεως ἢ ἐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ κλισὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιω]ὸν, ἢ τρεπτὸν ἳ ὑὸν τὸ θες, τέτες ἀναθεματίζει ή Καθολικὴ καὶ ̓Αποσολικὴ Ἐκκλησία. Thus tranfated by S. Hilary ; eos autem qui dicunt, erat quando non erat, & antequam nafceretur non erat, & quod de non extantibus factus eft, vel ex alia fubftantia aut effentia, dicentes effe convertibilem & immutabilem Deum, hos anathematizat Catholica Ecclefia.

"Eva Soi

τον, καὶ μίαν τ

πάντων

Κυρία ἡμῶν

78.

Theodore

tum.

a

Πάντα ὅσα ἔ

με τὸ παρὸς

a

The third Affertion, next to be demonstrated, is, That the Divine Efδαμου εἰύνη fence which Chrift had as the Word, before he was conceived by the dex Virgin Mary, he had not of himself, but by communication from God waling the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one EfIn Kess. fence properly Divine, and fo but one God of infinite Wisdom, Power and S. Bafil. Ep. Majefty; That there can be but one perfon originally of himself fubfift"Ev avlov, ing in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more perfons fo fubfiftHang. Alex. ing would neceffarily infer a multiplicity of Gods; That the Father of our Ep. apud Lord Jefus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other. Wherefore it neceffarily followeth that Jefus Chrift, who John 16.15. is certainly not the Father, cannot be a perfon fubfifting in the Divine Naχει ὁ πατὴς, ture originally of himself, and confequently, being we have already proved T48 is, as that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have TAIN TOT the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eterdiy vidio, nally, but originally God. All things what foever the Father hath are mine, Txova, ie faith Christ; because in him is the fame fulness of the Godhead, and more than καινὸν καὶ ὁμός that the Father cannot have: but yet in that perfect and abfolute equality TIMOV, there is notwithstanding this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not 44 as To from the Son, or any other, whereas the Son hath it from the Father: Chrift S. Greg. Naz. is the true God and eternal life; but that he is fo, is from the Father: For Orat. 2. de Fi- as the Father bath life in himself, fo hath he given to the Son to have life in bjohn 5. 26. himself, not by participation, but by communication. 'Tis true, our Saviour Hoc dixit, vi- was fo in the form of God, that he thought it no robbery to be equal with tam dedit Fi- God: but when the Jews fought to kill him because he made himself equal eam in femer with God, he answered them, Verily, verily, I fay unto you, the Son can do noipfo, tanquam thing of himself, but what he feeth the Father do: by that connexion of his qui eft vita in' operations, fhewing the reception of his Effence; and by the acknowledg femetipfo,ge- ment of his power, profeffing his fubftance from the Father. From whence nuit, Filium he which was equal, even in that equality confeffeth a priority, faying,

καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι

[ocr errors]

lio.

lio ut haberet

diceret, Pater,

qui effet vita

in femetipfo.

b

Pro eo enim quod eft genuit, voluit intelligi dedit, tanquam fi cuiquam diceremus, dedit tibi Deus effe. S. Aug. Et paulo poft, Quid ergo Filio dedit? dedit ei ut Filius effet; genuit ut vita effet; hoc eft, dedit habere ei vitam in femetipfo, ut effet vita non egens vitâ, ne participando intelligatur habere vitam. Si enim participando haberet vitam non in femetipfo, poffet & amittendo effe fine vita: hoc in Filio ne accipias, ne cogites, ne credas. Manet ergo Pater vita, manet & Filius vita. Pater vita in femetipfo, non à Filio; Filius vita in femetipfo, fed à Patre. So again, de Trinit. l. 1. c. 12. Plerumque dicit, dedit mihi Pater; in quo vult intelligi quod eum genuerit Pater: non ut tanquam jam exfiftenti & non habenti dederit aliquid, fed ipfum dediffe ut haberet genuiffe ut effet. John 5. 18, 19. Tanquam diceret, Quid fcandalizati eftis quia Patrem meum dixi Deum, quia æqualem me facio Deo? Ita fum æqualis, ut non ille à me, fed ego ab illo fim. Hoc enim intelligitur in his verbis, Non poteft Filius à fe facere quicquam, c. hoc eft quicquid Filius habet ut faciat, à Patre habet ut faciat. Quare habet à Patre ut faciat? quia à Patre habet ut poffit, qui à Patre habet ut fit. Filio enim hoc eft effe quod poffe. S. Aug. in locum. Paulo poft, Hoc eft, Non poteft Filius à fe quicquam facere, quod effet, fi diceret, non eft Filius à fe. Etenim fi Filius eft, natus est, si natus eft, ab illo eft de quo natus eft,

L...

4

*The

a

Τ' αιτίας τὸ ἢ

rat. 2. de Filio.

*The Father is greater than I: The Son equal in refpect of his nature, the Fa- * Ažňov öti Tò ther greater in reference to the Communication of the Godhead. I know him, μew is! faith Chrift, for I am from him. And because he is from the Father, there- ours. fore he is called by thofe of the Nicene Council, in their Creed, God of God, S. Gr.Naz. 0Light of Light, very God of very God. The Father is God, but not of God, John 7. 29. Light, but not of Light; Chrift is God, but of God, Light, but of Light. So s.Auguit. There is no difference or inequality in the nature or effence, because the fame ved, Ab ipfo, in both; but the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift hath that effence of himself, inquit, fum, from none; Chrift hath the fame not of himself, but from him.

a

a

hath obfer

which is co

were a part of

Οὐαλεντίνος

quia Filius de Patre,& quicquid eft filius, de illo eft cujus eft filius: Ideo Dominum Jefum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, fed tantum Deum: Et dicimus Dominum Jefum lumen de lumine; Patrem non dicimus lumen de lumine, fed tantum lumen: Ad hoc ergo pertinet quod dixit, Ab ipfo fum. From hence then did the Nicene Council gather those words of their Creed, Θεὸν cκ Θιδ καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεῖ ἀληθινό. But not immediately, for they were partly in Some of the Oriental Creeds before; as appeareth by that Confeffion which Eufebius prefented to the Council, as containing what he had believed and taught ever fince his Baptifm, in which he had these words, es va Kierov 'Inov Xięsov· & tÿ de dólov, DEON in DEX, Oãs in Owràs, (why In (was.. And as Eufebi is calls him Life of Life, fo others Power of Power, and Wisdom of Wisdom. Ideo Chriftus virtus & fapientia Dei, qui de Patre virtute & fapientia etiam ipfe virtus & fapientia eft, ficut lumen de Patre lumine, & fons vitæ apud Deum Patrem utique fontem vitæ. S. Aug. de Trin. l. 7. c. 3. And not only fo but effence of effence. Pater & filius fimul una fapientia, quia una effentia; & fingillatim fapientia de fapientia, ficut eflentia de effentia. And being the Divine Nature, as it is abfolutely immaterial and incor-*Op poreal, is alfo indivifible, Chrift cannot have any part of it only commu- effential or nicated unto him, but the whole, by which he must be acknowledged confubftanco-effential, of the fame fubftance with the Father; as the Council of tial, is not to be taken of a Nice determined, and the ancient Fathers before them taught. Hence ap- part of the Dipeareth the truth of those words of our Saviour, which raised a second mo- vine Effence, tion in the Jews to ftone him; I and the Father are one: where the as if the Son plurality of the Verb, and the neutrality of the Noun, with the diftinction the effence of of their perfons, fpeak a perfect fpeak a perfect identity of their effence. And though the Father, faith, fame nature and fo of the Chrift fay, the Father is in me, and I in him; yet withal he faith, I came out from the Father: by the former fhewing the Divinity of his ef- with him, fence, by the latter the origination of himself. We must not look upon the which was the opinion of Divine Nature as † fteril, but rather acknowledge and admire the fecundi- the Manity and communicability of it felf, upon which the creation of the world chees. On s προβολώ το πλύνημα τα παρὸς ἐδογμάτισεν· ἐδ ̓ ὡς Μανιχαία μέρα ομούσιον τῷ Πατρὸς τὸ χύνημα εἰσηγήσατο as Arius in bis Epistle to Alexander; by the interpretation of S. Hilary. Nec ut Valentinus, prolationem natum Patris commentatus eft; nec, ficut Manichæus, partem unius fubftantiæ Patris natum expofuit. De Trin. l. 6. Quod Hilarius ita Latinè reddidit, tanquam uosio id fignificaret quod partem fubftantia habet ex toto refectam, fays Dionyfius Petavius, without any reafon; for S. Hilary clearly tranflates duosion barely unius fubftantiæ, and it was in the Original μiz oμosolov, which he expreffed by partem unius fubftantiæ. Under this notion firft the Arians pretended to refuse the name question, as Arius in the fame Epiftle fignifieth, left thereby they should admit a real compofition and divifion in the Deity. Ei to cu γαυρὸς, καὶ τὸ ἐκ Παρὸς ἐξῆλθον, ὡς μέρᾳ τῇ ἐμουσία καὶ ὡς προβολὴ ὑπό τίνων νοεί) σεώθε ο ἔται ὁ Πατήρ, καὶ διαιρετός, καὶ geos. And S. Hierom reftifies thus much not only of Arius and Eunomius, but also of Origen before them. Habetur Dialogus apud Græcos Origenis, & Candidi Valentinianæ Hærefeos defenforis. Quos duos Andabatas digladiantes fpectaffe me fateor. Dicit Candidus, Filium de Patris effe fubftantia, errans in eo quod ego afferit: E regione Origenes, juxta Arium & Eunomium, repugnat eum vel prolatum effe vel natum, ne Deus Pater dividatur in partes. Apol. 2. in Ruffin. And therefore Eufebius Bishop of Cæfarea refufed not to fubfcribe to the Nicene Creed, being fo interpreted as that objection might be taken away, τὸ ἐκ δ ἐσίας, ὁμολο δηλο προς αὐτῶν δηλωτικὸν εἶναι τῶ, ἐκ μὲ τὸ Πατρὸς εἶναι. i μ is μéçC iwágxe To Bαlegs. Upon this Confeffion he fubfcribed to that claufe, begotten of the fubftance of the Father, which was not in his own Creed. And again, OUTW TO OMOSCIO cives to walegs & you, ¿¿ε75 μ : àó@ Γεωίςησιν & * * (ομάτων τρόπον, ἔδε τοῖς θνητοῖς ζώοις ο δαπλησίως, ὅτε δ καὶ διαίρεσιν ὁ ἐσίας, ὅτε και διπλομβώ, &c. Upon this acknowledgment he was perfuaded to fubfcribe to the other clause alfo (added to that Creed which he himself gave in to the Council) being of one fubftance with the Father: which claufe was inferted by the Council at the inftance of Conftantine the Emperor. Now as the Manichees made use of the word ouse to express their errors concerning the nature of God, and the person of Chrift; fo the ancient Fathers before the Nicene Council had used the fame in a true Catholick fenfe, to express the unity in effence of the Father and the Son: as appeareth by the confeffion of the fame Eufebius; ἐπὶ καὶ ἢ παλαιῶν λογίας τινας, καὶ ἐπιφανῶς ἐπισκόπες, και συγγραφέας ἔγνόμῳ, ἐπὶ ἢ τὸ παρὸς καὶ μὲ θεολογίας τῷ τῷ Sportis Cotxensaries vonals. Wherefore the other Eufebius of Nicomedia, understanding the ancient Catholick fenfe, confeffed that if they believed Chrift to be the true begotten, and not created, Son of God, they must acknowledge him ouoov, which the Arians endeavoured to make fo odious, and therefore the Council in oppofition to them determined it, Quid eft aliud cur Homoufion Patri nolint Filium dici, nifi quia nolunt verum Dei Filium? ficut Author ipforum Eufebius Nicomedienfis Epiftola fua prodidit, dicens, fi verum, inquit, Dei Filium & increatum dicimus, Homoufion cum Patre incipimus confiteri. Hæc cùm lecta effet Epiftola in Concilio Niceno, hoc verbum in Tractatu fidei pofuerunt Patres, quòd id viderunt adverfariis effe formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipfis gladio ipforum nefandæ caput hærefis amputarent. S. Ambrof. l. 3. de Fide, c. 7. De voce 'Ouori, vide Dionyf. Petav. de Trin. 1. 4. c. 6. a John 10.30. † Αδικίατον γδ τ θεὸν εἰπεῖν ἔρημον ἡ φυσικής γονιμότητα. Damnaf. l. 1. c. 8. † Εἰ ἢ μὴ καρπογόνῷ ἐςὶν αὐτὴ ἡ θεία εἰσία, ἀλλ' ἔρημο, κατ' αυτές, ὡς φως μὴ φολίζον, καὶ πηγὴ ζηρα πως δημιουργικὸ ἐνέργειαν αὐτὸν ἔχειν λέγοντες εκ αἰσχύνον, S. Athan. Orat. 2.

dependeth

« PreviousContinue »