« ZurückWeiter »
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 was, “For he that built all things was God.” (Heb. iii. 4.) And the same ex Deo Patre, in quo carnis veritatem Council of Nice, and at the same time confitetur ex Virgine.' Fulg.ad Thra- by a Council at Rome under Sylvester: sim. I. i. c. 6. Gregory Nazianzen, ac- but this is delivered only in a forged cording to his custom, gives a very Epilogus Concilii Romani. He was brief, but remarkable expression: own then first condemned with Marcellus τεινού τον κάτω Χριστόν και από Μαρίας his master, as Sulpitius Severus reåpxóuevov. Orat. 26. But the opinion lates, probably by the Synod at Conof Photinus cannot be better under- stantinople; for in that Marcellus was stood, than by the condemnation of deprived. [circ. A. D. 344.] Sozom. it in the Council of Sirmium; which !. ii. 33. Socrat. I. ii. 36. Secondly, his baving set out the confession of their heresy is renounced in the second faith in brief, addeth many and various Synod at Antioch. . Athanas. de Syn. anathemas, according to the several Socrat. I. ii. 19. Thirdly, he was conheresies then apparent, without men- demned in the Council of Sardes. tioning their names. Of these, the S. Epiphan. Hares. 71. §. 1. and Sulpififth aims clearly at Photinus : * Si tius Severus, p. 240. Fourthly, by a quis secundum præscientiam vel præ- Council_ at Milan. [A. D. 347.] s. destinationem ex Maria dicit Filium Hilar. Fragm. ii. 9. 19. Fifthly, in a esse, et non ante sæcula ex Patre Synod at Sirmium, he was deposed by natum, apud Deum esse, et per eum the western bishops; but by reason of facta esse omnia, Anathema sit.' The the great opinion and affection of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, people, he could not be removed. also were particulars directed against (A.D. 349.) S. Hilar. Fragm. ibid. him, as St. Hilary hath observed: but §. 21. Sixthly, he was again conthe last of all is most material: “Si demned and deposed at Sirmium by quis Christum Deum, Filium Dei, the eastern bishops, and being conante sæcula subsistentem, et mini- victed by Basil, bishop of Ancyra, strantem Patri ad omnium perfectio- was banished from thence. [A.D.351. nem, non dicat, sed ex quo de Maria S. Hilar. ibid. §. 22. et de Synod. c. 37. natus est, ex eo et Christum et Fi- S. Epiph. Socrat. Sozom. Vigil. Inlium nominatum esse, et initium ac- deed, he was so generally condemned cepisse ut sit Deus, dicat, Anathema not only then, but afterwards under sit.' Upon which, the observation of Valentinian, as St.Jerome testifies, and St. Hilary is this : Concludi damna- the synodic Epistle of the Aquileian tioejus hæresis, propter quam conven- Council, that his opinion was soon tum erat, (that is, the Photinian) ex- worn out of the world. 'Hen ydp kai positione totius fidei cui adversabatur, διεσκεδάσθη εις ολίγον χρόνον η τούτου oportuit, quæ initium Dei Filii ex ToŨ ÝMatnuévov aipeous, says Epiphapartu Virginis mentiebatur.' S. Hilar. nius, who lived not long after him. de Synod. contra Arianos, c. 61. Thus So suddenly was this opinion rejected was Photinus bishop of Sirmium con- by all Christians, applauded by none demned by a Council held in the same but Julian the heretic, who railed at city. They all agreed suddenly in the St. John for making Christ God, and condemnation of him ; Arians, Semi- commended Photinus for denying it; Arians, and Catholics: ka0€īlov súlòs, as appears by an Epistle written by says Socrates, kai toĪTO MÈY Úg kalūs Julian unto him, as it is (though in a και δικαίως γενόμενον, πάντες επήνεσαν mean translation) delivered by Fakai tóre cai uerà raõra. lib. ii. c. 29. cundus: "Tu quidem, 0 Photine, veAnd because his history is very ob- risimilis videris, et proximus salvare, scure and intricate, take this brief ca- bene faciens nequaquam in utero intalogue of his condemnations. We ducere, quem credidisti Deum.' Faread that he was condemned at the cun, ad Justinian. I. iv. c. 2. p. 163.
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.” (John i. 3, 1.) Where “In the beginning" must not be denied unto the third proposition, because it cannot be denied unto the second. Therefore “in the beginning, or ever the earth was, the Word was God," (Prov.viii. 23.) the same God with whom
For we cannot, with any show of reason, either imagine that he was with one God, and was another, because there can be no more supreme Gods than one; or conceive that the apostle should speak of one kind of God in the second, and of another in the third proposition; in the second, of a God eternal and independent; in the third, of a made and depending God.* Especially, first considering that the eternal God was so
* And that upon so poor a ground cle? This criticism of theirs was first as the want of an article, because in the observation of Asterius the Arian: the first place it is, ήν προς τον Θεόν, Ουκ είπεν ο μακάριος Παύλος Χριστόν in the second, θεός ην ο Λόγος, not o κηρύσσειν την του θεού δύναμιν, ή την θεός" from hence to conclude, ο θεός του θεού σοφίαν, αλλά δίχα της προσθήis one God, that is, κατ' εξοχήν, the κης, δύναμιν θεού, και θεού σοφίαν άλsupreme God, θεός anotlier, not the λην μεν είναι την ιδίαν αυτού του Θεού supreme, but one made God by him. δύναμιν την έμφυτον αυτό και συνυπάρIndeed, they are beholden to Epipha- xovoav åyevvhtws, anpúrowy. These nius for this observation, whose words are the words of Asterius recorded by are these: 'Edv citwjev, Okos, ävev To✓ Athanasius, Orat. 2. contra Arianos, üpopov, Tòv tvxóvta citrouev Okòv tūv Ş. 37. In which place, notwithstandtovūv, û Oedy tòv övta (or rather oủk ing, none can deny but OkoŨ is twice όντα): εάν δε είπωμεν, ο θεός, δήλον ως taken without an article for the true από του άρθρου, τον όντα σημαίνομεν and supreme God. Thus Didymus of å neñ te kai yıvwokójevov. Samarit. Alexandria de Sp.S. would distinguish Hæres. ix. $.4. But whosoever shall between the person and the gift of the apply this rule to the sacred Scrip- Holy Ghost, by the addition or defect tures, will find it most fallacious. In of the article: * Apostoli, quando inthe beginning, étroingev ó Osos Tèv où- telligi volunt personam Spiritus Sanρανόν και την γήν,undoubtedly belongs cti, addunt articulum, το πνεύμα, sine to the true and supreme God: but it quo Spiritus Sancti dona notantur.' does not thence follow, that aveõua Inter oper. S. Hieronym. And Athaθεού έπεφέρετο επάνω του ύδατος, should nasius objects against his adversaries be understood of the spirit of another denying the Holy Ghost to be God, or inferior God. Certainly St. John that they produced places out of the (i. 6.) when he speaks of the Baptist, prophets to prove him a creature, εγένετο άνθρωπος απεσταλμένος παρά where πνεύμα had not so much as an Okoũ, meant, he had his commission article prefixed, which might give from beaven; and when it is spoken some colour to interpret it of the Holy of Christ, (ver. 12.) iEwKEV avrois éčov- Spirit: Oudè yàp oůd' av tò äpypov exo σίαν τέκνα Θεού γενέσθαι, and again, το παρά του προφήτου λεγόμενον νύν (ver. 13.) εκ θεού εγεννήθησαν, it must πνεύμα, ίνα κάν πρόφασιν έχητε. Εpist. be understood of the true God the ad Serapionem, i. §. 7. Whereas we Father. In the like manner,(ver. 18.) find in the same place of St. Joha, the θεόν ουδείς εώρακε πώποτε, if it were same Spirit in the same sense mentaken tvgóvtws of any ever called God; tioned with and without an article. 'Eàv nay, even of Christ Jesus as man, it us rig yevvngõ és üdaros vai avevpatos, were certainly false. How can then John iii. 5. and, tò yeyevvnuévov či TOV any deny the Word to be the supreme aveúuatos, ver. 6. So 1 John iv.-1. God, because he is called simply θεός, Μή παντί πνεύματι πιστεύετε, αλλά δοκιwhen St. John in the four next places, pásete Tà Aveúpara. And again, (ver. in which he speaketh of the supreme 2.) 'Ev TOÚTY YIVOKETE TÒ Tveõua toū God, mentioneth him without an arti- Otoữ. nãv hvēõua, &c. And beside,
constantly among the Jews called "the Word,” the only reason which we can conceive, why the apostle should thus use this phrase: and then observing the manner of St. John's writing, wbo rises strangely by degrees, making the last word of the former sentence the first of that which followeth as, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not: so, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word,” (John i. 4,5.) which so was in the beginning, “was with God, and the Word was God;" that is, the same God with whom the Word was in the beginning. But he could not be the same God with him any other way, than by having the same divine essence. Therefore the being which Christ had, before he was conceived by the Virgin, was the divine nature by which he was properly and really God.
Secondly, He who was subsisting in the form of God, and thought himself to be equal with God (in which thought he could not be deceived, nor be injurious to God), must of necessity be truly and essentially God; because there can be no equality between the divine essence, which is infinite, and any other whatsoever, which must be finite. But this is true of Christ, and that antecedently to his conception in the Virgin's womb, and existence in his human nature. For, “being (or rather subsisting)* in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but emptied himself, and took úpon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Phil. ii. 6, 7.) Out of which words naturally result three propositions fully demonstrating our assertion. First, That Christ was in the form of a servant, as soon as he was made man. Secondly, That he was in the form of God, before he was in the form of a servant. Thirdly, That he was in the form of God, that is, did as truly and really subsist in the divine nature, as in the form of a servant, or in the nature of man.
it is a vain imagination, that our Saviour then first appeared a servant, when he was apprehended, bound, according to that distinction, το πνεύ- ευαγγέλιον Θεού, and του ορισθέντος υιού μα certainly stands for the gift of the θεού εν δυνάμει, Rom. 1.1.4. ΑπόστοSpirit, 1 Thess. v. 19. TÒ TVEūMa us) los 'Indoũ XplotoŨ dià Jelýjaros Ocoû, oßÉVVUTE. In the like manner, it is so 1 Cor. i. 1. 2 Cor. i. 1. Eph. i. 1. Col. far from truth, that the Scriptures ob- i. 1. And if this distinction were serve so much the articles, as to use ó good, our Saviour's argument to the Deòs always for the true and supreme Pharisees were not so : Eỉ dè éyùs įv God, and Jeòg for the false or inferior; avevuarı DeoŐ xxßálw rà davuóvia, åpa that where the true is professedly op- έφθασεν εφ' υμάς η βασιλεία του θεού, posed to the false, even there he is Matt. xii. 28. For it doth not follow, styled simply Okos. As: 'Allà rote that if by the power of an inferior or μεν ουκ ειδότες Θεόν, έδoυλεύσατε τοϊς false god he cast out devils, that thereuij púoel oữoi Jeois vũv dè yvóvreç Deòv, fore the kingdom of the true and suμάλλον δε γνωσθέντες υπό θεού. Gal. preme God is come upon them. iv. 8,9. And where the supreme is * "In'effigie Dei constitutus.' Terdistinguished froin him whom they till. adv. Marcion. l. v. 20. et adv. make the inferior God, he is called Prax. c. 7. 'In figura Dei constitulikewise Oeds without an article, as: tus. S. Cyprian. Testim. I. ii, adv. Acūlos 'Ingoũ Xplotoữ, áowplouévos eis Jud. §. 13. et I. iii. ad Quirin. §. 39.
scourged, crucified. For they were not all slaves which ever suffered such indignities, or died that death; and when they did, their death did not make, but find them, or suppose them servants. Beside, our Saviour in all the degrees of his humiliation never lived as a servant unto any master on earth. It is true, at first he was subject, but as a son, to his reputed father and undoubted mother. When he appeared in public, he lived after the manner of a prophet, and a doctor sent from God, accompanied with a family as it were of his apostles, whose master be professed himself, subject to the commands of no man in that office, and obedient only unto God. “The form” then “ of a servant” which he “ took upon him," must consist in something distinct from his sufferings, or submission unto men; as the condition in which he was, when he so submitted, and so suffered. In that he was “made flesh,” (John i. 14.) sent “.in the likeness of sinful flesh,” (Rom. viii. 3.) subject unto all infirmities and miseries of this life, attending on the sons of men fallen by the sin of Adam: in that he was “made of a woman, made under the Law,” (Gal. iv. 4.) and so obliged to perform the same; which Law did so handle the children of God, as that they differed nothing from servants : in that he was born, bred, and lived in a mean, low, and abject condition; “as a root out of a dry ground, he had no form nor comeliness, and when they saw him, there was no beauty that they should desire him; but was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief:" (Isa. liii. 2, 3.) In that he was thus made man, he “ took apon him the form of a servant.” Which is not mine, but the apostle's explication; as adding it not by way of conjunction, in which there might be some diversity, but by way of apposition, which signifieth a clear identity. And therefore it is necessary to observe, that our translation of that verse is not only not exact, but very disadvantageous to that truth, which is contained in it. For we read it thus: “ He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” Where we have two copulative conjunctions, neither of which is in the original text,* and three distinct propositions, without any dependence of one upon the other; whereas all the words together are but an expression of Christ's exinanition, with an explication shewing in what it consisteth: which will clearly appear by this literal translation, ‘But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. Where if any man doubt how Christ'emptied himself,' the text will satisfy him, “by taking the form of a servant;" if any still ques
* 'AM' ¿aJTÓVÉKÉVWOE, poporiv doúlov similitudine hominum factus, where λαβών, εν ομοιώματα ανθρώπων γενό- γενόμενος is added by apposition to MEVos, which is also exactly observed Aaßion, and have both equal relation by the Vulgar Latin, Sed semetipsum to ékévwoe: or, which is all one, ékávwoe exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in daßwv, haße yevópsvos. Phil. ii. 7.
tion how he took the form of a servant, he hath the apostle's resolution, “ by being made in the likeness of men.” Indeed, after the expression of this exinanition, he goes on with a conjunction, to add another act of Christ's humiliation; “ And being found in fashion as a man,” being already by his exinanition in the form of a servant, or the likeness of men, “ he humbled himself, and became (or rather becoming), obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. ii. 8.) As therefore his humiliation consisted in his obedience unto death, so his exinanition consisted in the assumption of the form of a servant, and that in the nature of man. All which is very fitly expressed by a strange interpretation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. For whereas these words are clearly in the Psalmist, “ Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears hast thou opened:” (Psal. xl. 6.) the apostle appropriateth the sentence to Christ, “When hé cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” (Heb. x.5.) Now being the boring of the ear under the Law, (Exod. xxi. 6. Deut. xv. 17.) was a note of perpetual servitude, being this was expressed in the words of the Psalmist, and changed by the apostle into the preparing of a body; it followeth that when Christ's body first was framed, even then did he assume the form of a servant.
Again, it appeareth out of the same text, that Christ was in the form of God before he was in the form of a servant, and consequently, before he was made man. For he which is presupposed to be, and to think of that being which he hath, and upon that thought to assume, must have that being before that assumption; but Christ is first expressly said to be in the form of God, and, being so, to think it no robbery to be equal with God, and notwithstanding that equality, to take upon him the form of a servant: therefore it cannot be denied but he was before in the form of God. Beside, he was not in the form of a servant, but by the emptying himself, and all exinanition necessarily presupposeth a precedent plenitude; it being as impossible to empty any thing which hath no fulness, as to fill any thing which hath no emptiness. But the fulness which Christ had, in respect whereof assuming the form of a servant, he is said to empty himself, could be in nothing else but in the form of God, in which he was before. Wherefore, if the assumption of the form of a servant be contemporary with his exinanition; if that exinanition necessarily presupposeth a plenitude as indispensably antecedent to it; if the form of God be also coeval with that precedent plenitude; then must we confess, Christ was in the form of God
• Εταπείνωσεν εαυτόν, γενόμενος first exinanition, or έκένωσε, and his Únikoog. For in both these verses farther humiliation, or étaneivwok : the there is but ono conjunction, joining rest are all particles added for explitogether two acts of our Saviour, his cation to the verbs.