Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

[ocr errors]

mam & Deum dicens (non enim resurrectionis friana

Christ, but of his Church : and if we under the Gospel had been called fo.
i could have received no other interpretation in reference to us. But being
& 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 Messias as the name of Jefus. Wherefore it remaineth that Christ be
acknowledged God with us, according to the Evangelical interpretation ,
with an expression of that excellency which belongeth to the supreme Deity.

Again, He to whom S. Thomas said, My Lord and my God, or rather, Jolinio tiga 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 spake these words * to Christ. For je fus pake unto Tho- * Indeed it mas, and Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. báth been an.

·swered, that And in these words he made confession of his Faith ; for our Saviour répli-1

Il- these words ed, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou haft believed. And let him are not to be be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God of repeater an Apostle.it

God the Fa

ther. So Theodor. Mopsueftenus in his Commentary on S. John; Thomas quidem, cùm fic credidiffet, Dominus meus « Deus meus dicit, non ipsum Dominum & Deum dicens (non enim resurrectionis fcientia docebat & Deum esse eum qui resurrexit) sed quafi pro miraculofo facto Deum collaudat. Syn. V. Collat.4. As if Thomas had intended only to have praia sed God for raising Christ. But first, it is plain that Thomas answered Chrift ; secondly, that he spake unto him, that is to Christ, and consequently that the words which he spake belong to Christ; thirdly, that the words are a Confesion of his Faith in Chrift, as our Saviour doth acknowledge. And whereas Franciscus Dayidis did object, that in a Latin Tee ftament he found not & dixit ei, tut & dixit without ei, it is sufficiently discountenanced by Socinus in his Epistle, affirming that all the Greek and Latin Copies had it, except that one which he bad found : 'and therefore the omission must be imputed to the negligence of the Printer. t 'O rúesós por ó Ollós u8. Either in these words there is an Ellipfis of cus Thou art my Lord, Thou art my God: or an Antiptosis, the Nominative Cafe used for the Vocative, as 'Envi, 'Elwi, o Océs res, Orós p8Mark 15. 34. 'ACCà o aulas, Mark 14. 36. and Xaüge Baondoos ñ 'Is daw, John 19. 3. If it be an Ellipsis of the Verb ki, so frequent in the Scriptures, and of the Person sufficiently understood in the preceding Pronoun, zhen is it evident that Oeds is attributed unto Chrift, for then S. Thomas said unto him, Thou art ó Océs M8. If it be an Antiptosis, though the construction 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 so, as if he did affirm him to be fo. Neither can jt be objected that the Article è serveth only in the place of ti, as signifying that the Nominative is to be taken for the Vocativé Cafe; because the Nominative may as well stand vocatively without an Article, as lwong yas Aaßid, Mat. 1.20. and 'Exércov spās, Kúeri, yos Arbid, Mat. 20.30, 31. and therefore when the Vocative is invested with an Article, it is as considerable as in a Nominative.. And being these words were an expression of the Apostle's Faith, as Christ understood and approved them, they must contain in them, virtually at least, a Proposition ; because no act of our Faith can be exprefed, where the object is not at least a virtual Propofition. And in that Proposition, ó Oids 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 attribute 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 Confession of his Faith concerning the Person of Christ, as S. Peter did, when he answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, Mat. 16. 16. and consequently, that Kieros, and > Osos do as property belong unto him, as S. Peter's ó Xersos and 5 yos. As therefore Christ said to his Disciples, Vos vocatis me ó diddorados maj Kúesos, & bene dicitis, sum etenim, John 13. 13. so he might have replied to Thomas, You call me ó Kúeres; and . Beds; and you say well, for I am so. As for the objection of Socinus, that though obos be here spoken of Christ, and that with an Article o, yet that Article is of no force because of the following Pronoun use it is most groundless: for the Article ó cannot have relation to the following Pronoun us. 'Ere wās v úradecédexlos avwvoría dzagwe cv fuixen alark Odcios celegy agadex g: as that great Critick Apollonius Alexandrinus observes, l. 1. de Syntax. c. 30. And if for us, it were ó frós, yet even that Article would belong to Osos, for in these words, ó feos ó épos, neither Article belongs to έμος but both το θεός· for, as the fame Critick obferves in the fame cafe, τα δύο άρθρα ας μίαν ή δθλαν αναφέρε3· έκ άρα cm, o walis o fuos, xalevéynasau tó TE egy ñ Belew & em ávaronicus pigeat. So that if á Deds be the supreme God, then ó 9.09 MB must be my supreme God: as when David speaks to God o gros, ó Jeós M8, wegs Ce opbersw, Psal. 62. 1. the latter is of as great importance as the former. So again, Pfal. 42.5. i bouodoyhowrecue xidées o Seos, ó feos H8 and 49. 3. • Gros imparūs žu, o Joos inpeão and 70. 13. • Geos in uangwúns eng, ó Geós us. I dare not therefore say to any person that he is ó Gros us, except I do believe that he is o Teós. Wherefore I conclude that the words of s. Thomas, o riera ós my wej • Deós us, are as fully and highly significative as those of David, 1ebzes zñ ourñ s dehcous us, o Bacoidou's Mes rj • 9cós , Psal. 5.2. or those, Jeós Me sy • zúexós po, eis op die bw M8; Psal. 35.23. or those, Tai Juosasiese Co, xvere swójecany • Baciasus us, rj Jebs ro, Psal. 84. 3. or those of S. John in the Revelation, as they lie in the Alexandrian and Complutenfian Copies. "Agra , • xúesos ej • Şeos neeão é bylos, 106 ciu, oror that laftly in the most ancient Hymn. Kuere ó oeos, o duros Otő- idénooy nuãs.

Nor have we only their required testimony of Christ's fupreme Divinity, but also an addition of verity asserting that Supremacy. For he is not only termed the God, but, for a farther certainty, the true God: and the fame Apostle, who said the Word was God, lest any cavil Thould arise by any omission of an Article, tho' fo frequently neglected by all, even the most accurate Authors, hath also assured us that he is the true God. For, we know, faith he, i John 5. 20,

S2

that

that the Son of God is come, and bath given us an understanding that we

may know him that is true : and we are in him that is true, even in his *olves inn i Son Jesus Chrift. *This is the true God, and' eternal life. As therefore la novos we read in the Afts, of the a Word which God fent unto the children of Il

wios. Hica- rael, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; he is Lord of all: where it is acgitur non fo- knowledged that the Lord of all is by the Pronoun | he joined unto Jesus lùm de vero Deo, fed de Christ, the immediate, not unto God, the remote antecedent : fo likewife illo uno vero here the true God is to be referred unto Christ, who stands next unto it, not Deo, ut articulus in Græ- unto the ratner, poken of indeed in the

oken of indeed in the Text, but at a distance. There is co additus in- no reason alledged why these last words should not be referred to the Son of dicat. Catech. God, but only this, that in Grammatical construction they may be ascribed Racov. a Acts 10. 36. to the Father. As, when b another King arose which knew not 7ofeph, the tolros for os, fame dealt fubtilly with our kindred; the fame referreth us not to Jofeph, as Acts 8. 26. árò 'leggoa- o

8:26. but to the King of Egypt. Whereas, if nothing else can be objected but a anime cis réseen possibility in respect of the Grammatical construction, we may as well fay aurn isivier that yoseph deale subtilly with his kindred as the King of Egypt; for whatpos, quæ eit deferta. foever the incongruity be in History, it makes no Solæcism in the Syntax. 6 Acts 7.18, Wherefore being Jesus Christ is the immediate Antecedent to which the Re

lative may properly be referred; being the Son of God is he of whom the Apostle 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 constant Title of our Saviour is eternal life; being all these reasons may be drawn out of the Text it self, why the Title of the true God should be attributed to the Son, and 110 one reason can be raised from thence why it should be referred to the Father: I can conclude no less, 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 Wri4 106á? w 'lya to centers which immediately followed the Apostles did both speak and write. Jsov. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. 'Ey Feaýuceni 1a7egs, saj 'lncô Xeisa' og Oið hjar. Id. Ep. ad Eph. 'O gS geo's speão Inošs ó Xersos ó crvo pognon wwó Maelds. Ib. ogs Deos ruão 'incós Xersos á lalei av mäanov Qasvs 7. Ep. ad Rom. aófo ta noyoxa whorala npeis. Cl. Alex. adv. Gentes. And it was well observed by the Author of the Mixed nesúenbos, written about the beginning of the third Century, that not only the ancienter Fathers before him, as Justin, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, Irenæus, Melito, &c. did speak of Christ as God, but that the Hymns also penned by Christians from the beginning did exprefs Chrif's Divιnity. Ψαλμοί και όσοι και ωδαι αδελφών απ' αρχής σε σισών γραφεσαι ή λόfoν το Θεό : Xeisov vurğor Jeodog gv7es. And the Epistle of Pliny to Trajan testifies the same. Quod essent oliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quafi Deo dicere.

But, Thirdly, were there no such particular place in which the Article were expressed, yet shall we find such Adjuncts fixed to the name of God when at

tributed unto Christ as will prove equivalent to an Article, or whatsoever may Rom.9.5. express the fupreme Majesty. As when S. Paul doth magnifie the Jews, out of

whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for * Thi? some ever, Amen. First, It is evident that Christ is called * God, even he who would leave God out of came of the Jews, tho'not as he came of them, that is, according to the flesh the Text, upon this pretence, because s. Cyprian, in lib. 2. adv. Judæos, citing this place, leaves it out. But that must needs be by the negligence of some of the Scribes, as is evident. First, because 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 Christus; wnd reckoneth it among the rest in which he is called expresy God. Thirdly, because Tertullian, whofe Disciple S. Cyprian professed himself, did both fo read it, and so use it. Solum autem Chriftum potero Deum dicere, ficut idem Apoftolus: Ex quibus Chriftus, qui est (inquit) Deus super omnia benedictus in ævum omne. Adv. Praxeam. And again in the same Book; Hunc & Paulus conspexit, nec tamen Patrem vidit. Nonne, inquit, vidi Jesum Christum autem & ipsum Deum cognominavit : Quorum Patres & ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui eft per (vel super) omnia Deus benedictus in ævum. Novatianus de Trinitate, ufeth the same Argument. And another ancient Author very exprefly; Rogo te, Deum credis esse Filium, an non? Sine dubio, responsurus es, Deum ; qui etsi negare volueris, fanctis Scripturis convinceris, dicente Apoftolo, Ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula. So also S. Aug. Non folum Pater Deus est, sicut etiam omnes Hæretici concedunt, fed etiam Filius; quod, velint nolint, coguntur fateri, dicente Apoftolo, Qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula. De Trin.l.2.6, 13. o contra Faustum, 1.16.6.15. As for the objection, that s. Chryfoftom doth not signify in his Commentaries that he read Seos, in the Text : I answer, that neither does he signify that he read ini avar, for in his exposition he passeth over wholly o ffi Wywne geos, but it doth not follow that he read not fri v Tour in the Text. But when he repeats the words of the Apostle, he agrees wholly with the Greek Text, ö av iri wév7.00 350s 6chon?os and Theodoret, who lived not long after him, doth not only acknowledge

the

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

the words, but give a full Expofition of them : "Ήρας η τυ και Cάρκα προσθήκη οδο δηλώσει τα δεσπότε Χρισ8 ' θεότητα: árat wie dv ow Wegoria signals, rõ gloomfio ex asigual Aabid xem Cágra, építult, öest év7G geð ús duwepes. štws Clase Bitay to, Ceprise, wegsédere to, ayoni Wov70v Jeos ivdolatos HS Ty's aíñvas. As for the omlion of Deus ini s. Hilary on the Psalms, it must of necessity be attributed to the negligence of the Scribe, not to the reading of the Father. For hové he read it he hath clearly expressed in his books de Trinitare: Non ignorat Paulus Christum Deum, dicens,

xorum funt Patres, ex ex quibus Chriftus qui eft fuper omnia Deus. Non hic creatura in Deum deputatur, fed creaturarum Deus eft, qui fuper omnia Deus est. The pretence therefore of Erasınus from the Fathers is vain; and as vain is that of Grotius from the Syriac Translation, which hath in it the name of God expressly, as well as all the Copies of the Original, and all the rest of the Translations; • sya 2018 1771.77947

which is here * distinguished from his Godhead. Secoridly, He is so called God as *ts x Cázrai not to be any of the many Gods, but the one supreme or moft high God; t for he opposed unto

TO JEūnce is God over all. Thirdly, He hath also added the title of blessed, which of it felf as Rom. 1. 3: elsewhere signifieth the supreme God, and was always used by the Jews to where we Céza

xz is used express that one God of Ifrael. Wherefore it cannot be conceived S. Paul without an Thould write unto the Christians, most of which then were converted Fews Article, beor Profelytes, and give unto our Saviour not only the name of God, but also caule en

ouest, to which add that title which they always gave unto the one God of Israel, and to it is opposed, , none but him; except he did intend they should believe him to be the same followeth, and God whom they always in that manner, and under that notion had adored. tionis content

īso the opposiAs therefore the Apostle speaketh of a the God and Father of our Lord Je- self apparent. sus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, of the Creator, who is blessed for But here being

"ewra öka is ever, Åmen; and thereby doth signifie the fupreme Deity, which was so not to be exglorified by the Israelites; and doth also testifie that we worship the same pressed in the God under the Gospel which they did under the Law : so doch he speak of Twins Christ in as, fublimè a style, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen ; Article figa and thereby doth testifie the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity. If we nifying of it

self a distinconsider the scope of the Apostle, which is to magnifie the Ifraelites by the etion or exte enumeration of such privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chosen Nation, ception, shew(the most eminent of which was contained in the Genealogy of our Saviour) le inderfect

eth that is to we shall find their glory did not consist in this, that Christ at first was born to winia úvof them a man, and afterwards made a God, for what great honour could "w. Not in

omnibus, as accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whose Godhead is referred not Erasmus, 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 blessed for ever as Beza, witho

CF reference to Thould 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 Apostle spake of which floould

* have been é78 Christ as of the one eternal God.

7 év?wy ow'rão

but, as the vulgar Translation, and the ancient Fathers before that, super omnia, ini for érávw; as John 3. 31. o dvadev iexóda i zew wv7wv ési, which lignifieth no less than by the ordinary name of God, i viso, the most High, as it is taken for the Supreme God by it self, Acts 7.48. and is described, Pfal. 97.9. 'Oti Cú á Kúeri, o bisoft wūruv myli, coó-, deg variqulcons za is a keyles Ty's gegs. As Mark 14.61. Eu e o ressos o vos rõ éviolntô; Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed ? where the vulgar attribute is taken for God himself, which is usually added to the name of God, as 2 Cor. 11. 31. O feos, av ivmolyzós eis ad's añrces or to any description of him; ás indre our av rõ x?iod ayg' xlicav7ce os isin iurofaròs sis ti's añves 'Aple. And these expressions of s. Paul are confonant to the ancient custom of the Jews, who, when the Priest in the Sanctuary rehearsed the name of God, were wont to answer, Blessed be his name for ever. Iná fomuch as the Blesled One did signifie in their language as much as the Holy One, and both, or either of them, the God of Israel. Hence åre so frequent in the Rabbins, N17 Tha 09727 the Holy Blessed One, and N17 th the blessed One, that they are written by abbreviation, : 7277 or tapi and the infinite blessed one, , 72 O'N, Blessed be God for ever, Amen and Amen, N 12 and 1319 22 Cor. 11. 31. Rom. I. 25.

He then who was the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God; he whole Glory Ifaias saw as the Glory of the God of Israel; he

s stiled Alpha and Omega without any restriction or limitation, he who was truly subsisting 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 supreme Deity is expressed; he had a being before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary, and the being which he had was the one èrernal and indivisible Divine Essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. But all these are certainly true of him in

whom

whom we believe, Jefus Christ, as hath been proved by clear testimonies of the facred Scriptures. Therefore the being which Christ had before he was

conceived of the Virgin was not any created, but the Divine Essence; nor *This Herefie

he was he any Creature, but the true eternal God: which was our second Áffer: was so called tion, particularly opposed to the * Arian Heresie. from two who bare the same name, aud fell at the same time into the same opinion ; one of them being a Presbyter, and Rector of a Church in Alexandria, the other a Deacon : as Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle extant in Theodoret : Eico ä ai ovcebeucliat éves aięrriãg, dio argerbulégwv , "Agua do 2lg.xóvwy 3, 'Ariadãs, Evçuic, "Aghios preços, &c. In the Epistle of the Arians to Alexander, he is reckoned amongst the Presbyters ; "Aghos, ’Aubearis, 'Axiadós, KapFürng Eciguecläs, "ASKOS, 'WECCóteegi. Of these two Phæbadius contra Arian. Patrem & filium esse non unam persónam, ut Sabellius, aut duas substantias, ut Arii, c.25. The Heresie is so well known, that it needs no explication; and indeed it cannot be better described than in the Anathematism of the Nicene Council. Tós ä réformees lie wote Öte c're wis sa wenye afound lüce on his, sjötoit ose v7wv égfótlo, â igitées uwoscrews j scias Deoxoylas eivas y xpsor, ä сakoswór, hoger lov jör og gez, táros avecdereli&o Keboarxon xj 'Arasoaixa 'Erxanoide. Thus translated by S. Hilary ; cos autem qui dicunt, erat quando non erat, & antequam nasceretur non erat, & quod de non extantibus factus est, vel ex alia substantia aut eflentia, dicentes effe convertibilem & immutabilem Deum, hos anathematizat Catholica Ecclefia.

[ocr errors]

*"Evæ q8 The third Assertion, next to be demonstrated, is, That the Divine Efoseule cessivetov, rj ti ces to IC

A fence which Cbrift had as the Word, before he was conceived b to cho? wo się xhe Virgin Mary, he had not of himfelf, but by communication from God

wq76gge, iš the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one EfΚυρία ημών *Inc8 Kersti fence properly Divine, and so but one God of infinite Wisdom, Power and S. Bafil. Ep. Majesty , That there can be but *one person originally of himself subsift78...

En de slóver, ing in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons fo fubfift• Melóg. Alex. ing would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods; That the Father of our FR: apud Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being Theodoretuin. from any other. Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ, who a John 16. 15. is certai

ly not the Father, cannot be a person fubsisting in the Divine NaTlcv7ee cutze di come me ture originally of himself, and consequently, being we have already proved To isiv, as that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have Xurada ta iš the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only etera de vidroy nally, but originally God. a All things whatsoev

whatsoever the Father bath are mine, öre xoivà, irei faith Christ; because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead, and more than tej wito ridvor recen sy oues

e that the Father cannot have : but yet in that perfect and absolute équality TIMOV, A S T there is notwithstanding this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not yų ar Pad 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 : b For Orat. 2. de Fi- as the Father bath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in lio. tomobne. bimself, 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 sought to kill him because he made himself equal lio ut haberet eam in femet- with God, he answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto jou, the Son can do noipso, tanquam thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: by that connexion of his diceret, Pater, operations, Thewing the reception of his Essence; and by the acknowledgqui est vita in femetipfo,ge- ment of his power, professing his substance from the Father. From whence nuit, Filium he which was equal, even in that equality confesseth a priority, faying, qui esset vita in semetipso. Pro eo enim quod eft genuit, voluit intelligi dedit, tanquam fi cuiquam diceremus, dedit tibi Deus esse. S. Aug. Et paulo poft, Quid ergo Filio dedit ? dedit ei ut Filius effet; genuit ut vita eflet ; hoc eft, dedit habere ei vitam in femetipso, ut esset vita non egens vitâ, ne participando intelligatur habere vitam. Si enim participando haberet vitam non in semetipfo, poffet & amittendo esse 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 semetipso, sed 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, sed ipsum dedisse ut haberet genuisse ut effet. John s. 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 potest Filius à se facere quicquam, wc, hoc est 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 sit. Filio enim hoc est esse quod pofle. S. Aug. in locum. Paulo poft, Hoc est, Non potest Filius à se quicquam facere, quod effet, fi diceret, non eft Filius à fe, Erenim fi Filius eft, natus eft, fi natus est, ab illo est de quo natus est,

* The

[ocr errors]

*The Father is greater than I: The Son equal in respect of his nature, the Fa- * sýnov ört to ther greater in reference to the Communication of the Godhead. a I know him, " Bu gelos isso

και σ αιτίας το 5 faith Christ, for I am from him. And because he is from the Father, there-toor of Quoras. fore he is called by those of the Nicene Council, in their Creed, God of God, S. Gr.Naz. O

rat. 2. de Filio. Light of Light, very God of very God. The Father is God, but not of God, 140hn55 20: Light, but not of Light; Christ is God, but of God, Light, but of Light. so s.Auguft. There is no difference or inequality in the nature or essence, because the same hath obser-,

ved, Ab ipso, in both; but the Father of our Lord Jefus Christ hath that essence of himself, inquit, fuin, from none; Christ hath the same not of himself, but from him.

quia Filius de

Patre,& quicquid eft filius, de illo eft cujus eft filius : Ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, fed tantum Deum: Et dicimus Dominum Jesum lumen de lumine; Patrem non diciinus 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, oson o'ri Qeš s os cx Ownos, teor danbevor er Feð ó Anouvē. But not immediately, for they were partly in fome of the Oriental Creeds before; as appeareth by that Confeffion which Eusebius presented to the Council, as containing what he had believed and taught ever since his Baptism, in which he had these words, rj His ivce Kúexon 'Izoőr Xigsöveg 78 De ô nótov, 9sov d's 988, pã, ch Ontas, (wl in (wñs., And as Eu'ebi us calis him Life of Life, so others Power of Power, and Wisdom of Wifitum. Ideo Christus virtus & fapientia Dei, qui de Patre virtute & fapientia etiam ipse virtus & fapientia ett, ficut lumen de Patre lumine, & fons vitæ apud Deum Patrem utique fontem vitæ. S. Aug. de Trin.l.7.4. 3. And not only to bui essence of elince. Pater & filius fimul una fapientia, quia una effentia; & singillatim sapientia de fapientia, ficut eflentia de eflentia. 9. And being the Divine Nature, as it is absolutely immaterial and incor- * 'Onošs105, poreal, is allo indivisible, Christ cannot have any part of it only commu- who

me which is co

mit essential or nicated unto him, but the whole, by which he must be acknowledged consubftan* co-effential, of the same substance with the Father ; as the Council of tial, is not to Nice determined, and the ancient Fathers before them taught. Hence ap- part of the main

be taken of a peareth the truth of those words of our Saviour, which raised a second mo- 'vine Essence, tion in the Yews to stone him: a)

to stone him; a I and the Father are one : where the ", " our plurality of the Verb, and the neutrality of the Noun, with the distinction the elence of of their persons, fpeak a perfect identity of their essence. And though the Father,

and so of the Christ say, the Father is in me, and I in him ; yet withal he faith, 140

same nature came out from the Father : by the former Thewing 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 f steril, but rather acknowledge and admire the fecundi- the Mania ty and communicability of it self, upon which the creation of the world chees. Oix 's

Ουαλεντίνος προβολω τη βύνημα το σαρος έδoμάτισεν' εδ' ως ΜανιχαίG- μέρG- ομοέσιον τύ Παίρος το μύνημα Ασηγήσαήο· 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 subftantiæ Patris natum exposuit. De Trin.l. 6. Quod Hilarius ita Latinè reddidit, tanquam ovościo id fignificaret quod partem fubftantiæ habet ex toto resectam, says Dionysius Petavius, without any reason; for S. Hilary clearly translates ovostioy barely unius substantiæ, and it was in the Original pipa muodorov, which he expreffed by partem unius subftantiæ. Under this notion first the Arians pretended to refuse the name omościov, as Arius in the same Epistle fignifierh, left thereby they should admit a real composition and division in the Deity. Ei só csi yasegs, rj to in flamegszagov, wis még cuorria xj Ws weghors' ó tivw volig Cube7a Tainie, re diasgenos, se

perlos. And S. Hierom teftifies thus much not only of Arius and Eunomius, but also of Origen before them. Kabetur Dialogus apud Græcos Origenis, & Candidi Valentinianæ Hæreseos defensoris. Quos duos Andabatas digladiantes spectáffe me fateor. Dicit Candidus, Filium de Patris effe fubftantia, errans in eo quod ue96onli 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 Eusebius Bishop of Cæsarea refused not to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, being so interpreted as that objection might be taken away, to c're on yoias, óvonółno aegis ou tür ontwixòv sivaus tô, o'r u 1alegs ever. ý ng wis még indgxev Fő telegs. Upon this Confession he subscribed to that clause, begotten of the substance of the Father, which was not in his own Creed. And again, Oőta ö By cò opościon civas walegs yjov, igéjasoula ó no Γωίσησιν * Coμάτων τρόπον, έδε τούς θνηοΐς ζώοις λαπλησίως, ότε δε διαίρεσιν τ εσίας, έτε και λιγομίω, &c. Upon this acknowledgment he was persuaded to subscribe to the other clause alfo (added to that Creed which he himself gave

in to the Council) being of one substance with the Father: which clause was inserted by the Council at the instance of i Constantine the Emperor. Now as the Manichees made use of the word ougócio to express their errors concerning the nature of God, and the person of Chrift; so the ancient Fathers before the Nicene Council had used the fame in a trne Catholick fenfe, to express the unity in essence of the Father and the Son : as appeareth by the confession of ihe same Eusebius; itin pa waraão Rogixs Tiras, eg cveis iniezór85, rj Curregoías [vopste, émi R rs walegs vej fronovias to to Onosols Culxenocepiféos érópa76. Wherefore the other Eusebius of Nicomedia, understanding the ancient Catholick Penje, confessed that if they believed Christ to be the true begotten, and not created, Son of God, they muft acknowledge him ono

clov, which the Arians endeavoured to make so odions, and therefore the Council in opposition to them determined it, Quid eft aliud cur Homousion Patri nolint Filium dici, nifi quia nolunt verum Dei Filium? ficut Author ipsorum Eufebius Nicomedienfis Epistola sua prodidit, dicens, li verum, inquit, Dei Filium & increatum dicimus, Homousion çum Patre incipimus confiteri, Hæc cùm lecta effet Epiftola in Concilio Niceno, hoc verbum in Tractatu fidei posuerunt Patres, quòd id viderunt adverfariis esse formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipforum nefandæ caput hæBesis amputarent. S. Ambrof. l. 3. de Fide, c.7. De voce 'Oposrio, vide Dionyf. Petav. de Trin. 1.4.c. 6. a John 10.30.

t'Adwalor gS À Seotein ognuor oppe puoins yovemórn@. Dampas. 1. 1. 6. 8. Ei ġ men xaeteráv ésie auta si fría eria, magnuo, xe7 autos, as pēs un policov, sy woord Speg' wa Smaraglorbi cvégleau cu Torixes aérovies x aigónov, S. Athan. Orat, 2. t humbna

dependeth

« PreviousContinue »