Χριστοῦ τὴν θεότητα· ἀλλ ̓ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ εἰρηκώς, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, ἐπήγαγε, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει· οὕτως ἐνταῦθα εἰπὼν, τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, προστέ θεικε τὸ, ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς siç rovs aivas. t. iii. p. 74. As for the omission of Deus in St. Hilary on the Psalms, it must of necessity be attributed to the negligence of the scribe, not to the reading of the father. For bow he read it, he hath clearly expressed in his books de Trinitate: 'Non ignorat Paulus Christum Deum, dicens, Quorum sunt Patres, et ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus. Non hic ereatura in Deum deputatur, sed creaturarum Deus est, qui super omnia Deus est.' l. viii. c. 37. The pretence therefore of Erasmus 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 translatious, by NOİN 'MINT. the Jews, though not as he came of them, that is, according to the flesh, which is here distinguished. from his Godhead.* Secondly, he is so called God as not to be any of the many gods, but the one supreme or most high God; for he "is God over all." Thirdly, he hath also added the title of blessed, which of itself elsewhere signifieth the supreme God,‡ and was aland Morellius found the word Deus in their copies, and both the MSS. which Pamelius used acknowledge it. Secondly, because St. Cyprian produceth the text to prove quod Deus Christus; and reckoneth it among the rest in which he is called expressly God. Thirdly, because Tertullian, whose disciple St. Cyprian professed himself, did both so read it, and so use it: 'Solum autem Christum potero Deum dicere, sicut idem Apostolus, Ex quibus Christus, qui est (inquit) Deus super omnia benedictus in ævum omne.' Adv. Prax. c. 13. And again in the same book: Hunc et Paulus conspexit, nec tamen Patrem vidit. Nonne, inquit, vidi Jesum? Christum autem et ipsum Deum cognominavit: Quorum Patres et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est per (vel super) omnia Deus benedictus in ævum.' c. 15. Novatian de Trinitate, c. 13. useth the same argument. And another ancient author very expressly: 'Rogo te, Deum credis esse Filium, an non? Sine dubio, responsurus es, Deum; quia etsi negare volueris, sanctis Scripturis convinceris, dicente Apostolo, Ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula.' So also St. Augustin: 'Non solum Pater Deus est, sicut etiam omnes Hæretici concedunt, sed etiam Filius; quod, velint nolint, coguntur fateri, dicente Apostolo, Qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula. De Trin. l. ii. c. 13. et contra Faustum, 1. xvi. c. 15. As for the objection, that St. Chrysostom doth not signify in his commentaries that he read lɛòg in the text: I answer, that neither does he signify that he read ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, for in his exposition he passeth over wholly ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Oɛòs, but it doth not follow that he read not ò éπì πávrov in the text. But when he repeats the words of the apostle, he agrees wholly with the Greek text, ò ŵv ¿ñì távtwv Deòs evλoynróg: and Theodoret, who lived not long after him, doth not only acknowledge the words, but give a full exposition of them: Ηρκει μὲν ἡ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα As Mark xiv. 61. Eù el ó Xploròs προσθήκη παραδηλῶσαι τοῦ δεσπότου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ; “ Art thou the P * Τὸ κατὰ σάρκα opposed unto τὸ кarà πVεvμа. As Rom. i. 3. where кarà σáрka is used without an article, because karà πvɛvμα, to which it is opposed, followeth, and so the opposition is of itself apparent. But here being katà πve~μa is not to be expressed in the following words, the article rò, signifying of itself a distinction or exception, sheweth that it is to be understood. † Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων. Not in omnibus, as Erasmus, nor super omnes, as Beza, with reference to the fathers, which should have been ἐπὶ πάντων αὐτῶν: but, as the Vulgar translation, and the ancient fathers before that, super omnia, ἐπὶ for ἐπάνω, as John iii. 31. ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστὶ, which signifieth no less than by the ordinary uame of God, & fioros, the most high, as it is taken for the supreme God by itself, Acts vii. 48. and is described, Psal. xcvii. 9. "Orɩ où el Κύριος, ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, σφόδρα υπερυψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς couc ways used by the Jews to express that one God of Israel. Wherefore it cannot be conceived St. Paul should write unto the Christians, most of which then were converted Jews or proselytes, and give unto our Saviour not only the name of God, but also add that title which they always gave unto the one God of Israel, and to none but him; except he did intend they should believe him to be the same God whom they always in that manner, and under that notion, had adored. As therefore the apostle speaketh of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore;" (2 Cor. xi. 31.) of "the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen ;"(Rom. i. 25.) and thereby doth signify the supreme Deity, which was so glorified by the Israelites; and doth also testify that we worship the same God under the Gospel, which they did under the Law: so doth he speak of Christ in as sublime a style, "who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen ;" (Rom. ix. 5.) and thereby doth testify the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity. If we consider the scope of the apostle, which is to magnify the Israelites by the enumeration of such privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chosen nation (the most eminent of which was contained in the genealogy of our Saviour), we shall find their glory did not consist in this, that Christ at first was born of them a man, and afterwards made a God, for what great honour could accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whose Godhead is referred not to his birth, but to his death? whereas this is truly honourable, and the peculiar glory of that nation, that the most high God blessed for ever should "take on him the seed of Abraham," and come out of the Israelites "as concerning the flesh." Thus every way it doth appear, the apostle spake of Christ as of the one eternal God. He then who was the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God; he whose glory Esaias saw as the glory of the God of Israel; he who is styled 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 Christ the Son of the blessed?" where Blessed be his name for ever. Insothe vulgar attribute is taken for God much as the Blessed One did signify himself, which is usually added to the in their language as much as the Holy name of God, as 2 Cor. xi. 31. 'O Jɛòç, One, and both, or either of them, the ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· or to God of Israel. Hence are so frequent any description of him, as: kλárpevov in the Rabbins, NT TIDE WITT τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, ὃς ἐστιν the Holy Blessed One, and N 11 Evλoyntòs eis Touç alŵvaç, 'Aμýv. Rom. the Blessed One, that they are written i. 25. And these expressions of St. by abbreviation or and Paul are consonant to the ancient the infinite Blessed One, ′′N, custom of the Jews, who, when the Blessed be God for ever, Amen and יילאו and ביילאו,priests in the sanctuary rehearsed the Amen name of God, were wont to answer, eternal and indivisible divine essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. But all these are certainly true of him in whom we believe, Jesus Christ, as hath been proved by clear testimonies of the sacred Scriptures. Therefore the being which Christ had before he was conceived of the Virgin, was not any created, but the divine essence; nor was he any creature, but the true eternal God: which was our second assertion, particularly opposed to the Arian heresy.* The third assertion, next to be demonstrated, is, That the divine essence which Christ had as the Word, before he was conceived by the Virgin Mary, he had not of himself, but by communication from God the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one essence properly divine, and so but one God of infinite wisdom, power, and majesty; that there can be but one person originally of himself subsisting in that infinite Being,+ because a plurality of more persons so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity of gods; that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being from any other. Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the divine nature originally of himself; and consequently, being we have already proved that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally, but originally God. "All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine," (John xvi. 15.) saith Christ; because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead, and more than that the Father can οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν, ἢ τρεπτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ Καθολικὴ καὶ ̓Αποστολική Εκκλησία. Thus translated by St. Hilary: Eos autem qui dicunt, erat quando non erat, et antequam nasceretur non erat, et quod de non exstantibus factus est, vel ex alia substantia aut essentia, dicentes esse convertibilem et immutabilem Deum, hos anathematizat Catholica Ecclesia.' de Synod. c. 84. * This heresy was so called from two who bare the same name, and 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: Eloi de oi ávalɛματισθέντες αἱρεσιῶται, ἀπὸ πρεσβυτέρων μὲν,"Αρειος, ἀπὸ διακόνων δὲ, ̓ΑχιλAãs, EvLwios, "ApεLog Tεpos, &c. Eccl. Hist. 1. i. c. 3. fin. In the epistle of the Arians to Alexander, he is reckoned amongst the Presbyters: "Apeioc, Αειθαλής, Αχιλλᾶς, Καρπώνης, Σαρματᾶς, Άρειος, πρεσβύτεροι. Of these two Phoebadius contra Arian. c. 25. Patrem et filium esse non unam personam, ut Sabellius, aut duas substan- † Πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ, τοῦ υἱοῦ tias, ut Arii. The heresy is so well ἐστὶν, ὡς ἔμπαλιν τὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ παknown, that it needs no explication: τρός· οὐδὲν οὖν ἴδιον, ὅτι κοινὰ, ἐπεὶ καὶ and indeed it cannot be better de- αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι κοινὸν καὶ ὁμότιμον, εἰ καὶ scribed than in the anathematism of r vi waρà Tоv ṇarρóç. S. Greg. Naz. the Nicene Council: Tous dè Aéyovruç, Orat. 2. de Filio. ἦν ποτὲ ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι "Eva yàp didaμev åyévvntov, kai μίαν τῶν πάντων ἀρχὴν τὸν πατέρα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. S. Basil. Ep. 78. "Ev ȧyέvvηтov, d Пarýp. Alex. Ep. apud Theodoretum. not have: but yet in that perfect and absolute equality there is notwithstanding this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not from the Son, or any other, whereas the Son hath it from the Father: Christ is the true God and eternal life; but that he is so, is from the Father: "for as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," (John v. 26.)* not by participation, but by communication. It is true, our Saviour was so in the form of God, that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God: but when the Jews sought to kill him because he "made himself equal with God," he answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do:" (John v. 18, 19.)+ by that connexion of his operations, shewing the reception of his essence; and by the acknowledgment of his power, professing his substance from the Father. From whence he which was equal, even in that equality confesseth a priority, saying, "The Father is greater than I." (John xiv. 28.) The Son equal in respect of his nature, the Father greater in reference to the communication of the Godhead. "I know him (saith Christ), for I am from him." (John vii. 29.) And because he is from the Father,§ 6 † Δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μεῖζον μέν ἐστι τῆς airias, rò dè ioov rñs púoews. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. de Filio, object. 3. & 4. p. 582. ed. Par. 1630. * 'Hoc dixit, Vitam dedit Filio ut ut faciat. Quare habet a Patre ut fahaberet eam in semetipso, tanquam di- ciat? quia a Patre habet ut possit, ceret Pater, qui est vita in semetipso, quia a Patre habet ut sit. Filio enim genuit Filium qui esset vita in semet- hoc est esse quod posse.' S. August. ipso. Pro eo enim quod est genuit, Tract, 20. in Ioan. §. 4. Paulo post: voluit intelligi dedit, tanquam si cui-Hoc est, Non potest Filius a se quicquam diceremus, dedit tibi Deus quam facere, quod esset, si diceret, esse.' S. August. Tract. 19. in Ioan. non est Filius a se. Etenim si Filius §. 13. Et paulo post : Quid ergo Filio est, natus est; si natus est, ab illo est dedit? dedit ei ut Filius esset; genuit de quo natus est.' Ibid. §. 8. ut vita esset; hoc est, dedit habere ei vitam in semetipso, ut esset vita non egens vita, ne participando intelligatur habere vitam. Si enim participando haberet vitam non in semetipso, posset et amittendo esse sine vita: hoc in Filio ne accipias, ne cogites, ne credas. Manet ergo Pater vita, manet et Filius vita. Pater vita in semetipso, non a Filio; Filius vita in semetipso, sed a Patre.' Ibid. So again, de Trinit. 1. i. c. 12. Plerumque dicit, dedit mihi Pater, in quo vult intelligi quod eum genuerit Pater; non ut tanquam jam exsistenti et non habenti dederit aliquid, sed ipsum dedisse ut haberet, genuisse ut esset.' + Tanquam diceret, Quid scandalizati estis quia Patrem meum dixi Deum, quia æqualem me facio Deo? Ita sum æqualis, ut non ille a me, sed ego ab illo sim. Hoc enim intelligitur in his verbis, Non potest Filius a se facere quicquam, &c. hoc est quicquid Filius habet ut faciat, a Patre habet § So St. Augustin hath observed : Ab ipso, inquit, sum, quia Filius de Patre; et quicquid est filius, de illo est cujus est filius. Ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantum Deum. Et dicimus Dominum Jesum lumen de lumine; Patrem non dicimus lumen de lumine, sed tantum lumen. Ad hoc ergo pertinet quod dixit, Ab ipso sum.' Tract. 31.in Ïoan. §. 4. From hence then did the Nicene Council gather those words of their Creed: Oɛòv έk Oɛoỡ, kai pãs ÈK OWτòs, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. But not immediately, for they were partly in some of the Oriental Creeds before; as appeareth by that confession which Eusebius presented to the Council, as containing what he had believed and taught ever since his baptism, in which therefore he is called by those of the Nicene Council, in their Creed, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. The Father is God, but not of God, light, but not of light: Christ is God, but of God, light, but of light. There is no difference or inequality in the nature or essence, because the same in both; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ hath that essence of himself, from none; Christ hath the same not of himself, but from him. And being the divine nature, as it is absolutely immaterial and incorporeal, is also indivisible, Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated unto him, but the whole, by which he must be acknowledged coessential,* of the same he had these words: καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς. Aud as Eusebius calls him Life of Life, so others, Power of Power, and Wisdom of Wisdom. 'Ideo Christus virtus et sapientia Dei, quia de Patre virtute et sapientia etiam ipse virtus et sapientia est, sicut lumen de Patre lumine, et fons vitæ apud Deum Patrem utique fontem vitæ.' S. August. de Trin. 1. vii. c. 3. And not only so, but Essence of Essence. Pater et filius simul una sapientia, quia una essentia; et singillatim sapientia de sapientia, sicut essentia de essentia.' Ibid. c. 2. 'Oμoovolos, which is coessential or consubstantial, is not to be taken of a part of the divine essence, as if the Son were a part of the essence of the Father, and so of the same nature with him; which was the opinion of the Manichees. Οὐχ ὡς Οὐαλεντῖνος προβολὴν τὸ γέννημα τοῦ πατρὸς ἐδογμάτισεν· οὐδ ̓ ὡς Μανιχαῖος μέρος ὁμοούGLOV TOU Пarρos rò yέvvnμa εionynoaro as Arius in his epistle to Alexander; by the interpretation of St. Hilary: 'Nec ut Valentinus, prolationem natum Patris commentatus est; nec, sicut Manichæus, partem unius substantiæ Patris natum exposuit. De Trin. 1. vi. c. 9. • Quod Hilarius ita Latine reddidit, tanquam ὁμοούσιον id significaret, quod partem substantia habet ex toto resectam,' says Dionysius Petavius, without any reason; for St. Hilary clearly translates ouoovolov barely unius substantia, and it was in the original μipos dμoovorov, which he expressed by partem unius substantiæ. Under this notion first the Arians pretended to refuse the name ouoovolov, as Arius in the same epistle signifieth, lest thereby they should admit a real composition and division in the Deity: Εἰ τὸ ἐκ γαστρὸς, καὶ τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐξῆλ- |