« ZurückWeiter »
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 bath also added the title of blessed, which of itself elsewhere signifieth the supreme God, and was aland Morellius found the word Deus Χριστού την θεότητα αλλ' ώσπερ εν τω in their copies, and both the MSS. a poojuiw eipnews, ToŨ yevouévov-ék onépwhich Pamelius used acknowledge it. ματος Δαβίδ κατά σάρκα, επήγαγε, του Secondly, because St. Cyprian pro- oplodévtos vioũ Deoũ v Ovvážec. ourwg duceth the text to prove quod Deus ενταύθα ειπών, το κατά σάρκα, προστέChristus ; and reckoneill it among θεικε το, ών επί πάντων θεός ευλογητός the rest in which he is called expressly εις τους αιώνας. t. iii. p. 74. As for the God. Thirdly, because Tertullian, omission of Deus in St. Hilary on the whose disciple St. Cyprian professed Psalms, it must of necessity be attribimself, did both so read it, and so use buted to the negligence of ihe scribe, it: 'Solum autem Christum potero not to the reading of the father. For Deum dicere, sicut idem Apostolus, bow he read it, he hath clearly exEx quibus Christus, qui est (inquit) pressed in his books de Trinitate: Deus super omnia benedictus in ævum Non ignorat Paulus Christum Deum, omne.' Adv. Prax. c. 13. And
again dicens, Quorum sunt Patres, et ex quiin the same book : ‘Hunc et Paulus bus Christus qui est super omnia Deus. conspexit, nec tamen Patrem vidit. Non bic ereatura in Deum deputatur, Nonne, inquit, vidi Jesum? Christum sed creaturarum Deus est, qui super autem et ipsum Deum cognominavit: omnia Deus est.' I. viii. c. 37. The Quorum Patres et ex quibus Christus pretence therefore of Erasmus from secundum carnem, qui est per (vel su- the fathers is vain; and as vain is that per) omnia Deus benedictus in ævum.' of Grotius from the Syriac translation, c. 15. Novatian de Trinitate, c. 13. which hath in it the name of God exuseth the same argument. And an- pressly, as well as all the copies of the other ancient author very expressly: original, and all the rest of the trans* Royo te, Deum credis esse Filium, latious,'5 byt xab8771787. an non? Sine dubio, responsurus es, Το κατά σάρκα opposed unto το Deum; quia etsi negare volueris, san- kard. Teveõua. As Rom. i. 3. where ctis Scripturis convinceris, dicente katù cápka is used without an article, Apostolo, Ex quibus Christus secundum because Kard Tveữua, to which it is carnem, qui est super omnia Deus bene- opposed, followeth, and so the oppodictus in seculu.' So also St. Augustin: sition is of itself apparent. But here • Non solum Pater Deus est, sicut being karà aveõua is not to be exetiam omnes Hæretici concedunt, sed pressed in the following words, the etiam Filius; quod, velint nolint, co- article tò, siguifying of itself a distincguntur fatcri, dicente Apostolo, Qui tion or exception, sheweth that it is est super omnia Deus benedictus in se- to be understood. cula.' De Trin. I. ii. c. 13. et contra t 'o ūv trì mávrwv. Not in omnibus, Faustum, l. xvi. c. 15. As for the as Erasmus, nor super omnes, as Beza, objection, that St. Chrysostom doth with reference to the fathers, which not signify in his commentaries that should have been επί πάντων αυτών: he read deos in the text: I answer, but, as the Vulgar translation, and the that neither does he siguify that he ancient fathers before that, super omread o ếni návrwv, for in his exposition nia, éri for énávw, as John iii. 31. • he passeth over wholly και επί πάντων άνωθεν ερχόμενος επάνω πάντων εστί, Deos, but it doth not follow that he which signifieth no less than pooby the read not o ếtri návrwv in the text. But ordinary wame of God, ò óbiotos, the wben he repeats the words of the apo- most high, as it is taken for the sustle, he agrees wholly with the Greek preme God by itself, Acts.vii. 48. and text, ò ūv étè Távrwv Deos &úloyntos: is described, Psal. xcvii. 9. "Orl où ei and Theodoret; -wbo lived not long Kúplos, ó 6lotos étrì tão av tnv yñv, after bim, doth not only acknowledge opódpa tepufons nèp Trávras' tous the words, but give a full. exposition geoús., of them: "Ήρκει μεν ή του κατά σάρκα
I As Mark xiv. 61. Eù ci ó Xplotos προσθήκη παραδηλώσαι του δεσπότου ο υιός του ευλογητού και " Art thou the
ways used by the Jews to express that one God of Israel.
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 Cbrist 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 geos, One, and both, or either of them, the ο ών ευλογητός εις τους αιώνας" or to God of Israel. Hence are so frequent aby description of him, as: kárpevouv in the Rabbins, 897 7172 WITPOT τη κτίσει παρά τον κτίσαντα, ός έστιν the Holy Blessed One, and N53 T52
úhoyntös eis tous alõvas, 'Auýv. Rom. the Blessed Onė, that they are written
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,"I (John xvi. 15.) saith Christ, because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead, and more than that the Father can
* This heresy was so called from oủk ñv, kai őrı ŠE OUK ÖVTWV ÉyÉVETO; Û two who .bare the same name, and fell ετέρας υποστάσεώς ή ουσίας φάσκοντας at the same time into the same opi- είναι, ή κτιστόν, ή αλλοιωτόν, ή τρεπτών nion; one of them being a presbyter, τον υιόν του θεού, τούτους αναθεματίζει and rector of a church in Alexandria, η Καθολική και Αποστολική Εκκλησία. the other a deacon: as Alexander the Thus translated by St. Hilary: • Eos bishop of Alexandria, in his epistle autem qui dicunt, erat quando non extant in Theodoret : Eloi dè oi ávaðɛ- erat, et antequam nasceretur non.erat, patio butec aipeolwra!, åtò peoBuré- . et quod de non exstantibus factus est, ρων μεν, "Αρειος, από διακόνων δε, 'Αχιλ- vel' ex alia substantia aut essentia, Nãs, Eulážos, "A peloç - érepos, &c. Eccl. dicentes esse convertibilem et immuHist. 1. i. c. 3. fin. In the epistle of tabilem Deum, hos anathematizat Cathe Arians to Alexander, he is reck- tholica Ecclesia.'de Synod. c. 84. oned amongst the Presbyters: "Apaloc, Η "Ένα γαρ οίδαμεν αγέννητον, και 'Αειθαλής, Αχιλλάς, Καρπώνης, Σαρμα- μίαν των πάντων αρχών τον πατέρα του τάς, "Αρειος, πρεσβύτεροι. Of these two Κυρίου ημών Ιησού Χριστού. S. Basil. Phoebadius contra Arian. c. 25. Pa- Ep. 78. “Ev åyévvntov, Ó Ilarnp. trem et filium esse non unam perso- Alex. Ep. apud Theodoretum. nam, ut Sabellius, aut duas substan Τ Πάντα όσα έχει ο πατήρ, του υιού tias, ut Arii.' The herosy is so well totiv, wg žumali. Tà Toở vioũ ToŨ naknown, that it needs no explication: τρός" ουδέν ούν ίδιον, ότι κοινά, έπει και and indeed it cannot be better de- αυτό το είναι κοινόν και ομότιμον, ει και scribed than in the anathematism of ra viqə tapà To tarpós. S. Greg. Naz. the Nicene Council: Tosc dè Néyovtus, Orat. 2. de Filio. ήν ποτέ ότε ουκ ήν, και πριν γεννηθήναι
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,
* `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 quicqnam 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 patus est, ab illo est dedit? dedit ei ut Filius esset; genuit de quo natus est.' Ibid. §. 8. ut vita esset; hoc est, dedit babere ei 1 Δήλον ότι το μείζον μέν έστι της vitam in semetipso, ut esset vita non airias, tò dè loov rūs púoews. S. Greg. egens vita, ne participandointelligatur Naz. Orat. 2. de Filio, object. 3. & 4. habere vitam. Si enim participando p. 582. ed. Par. 1630. haberet vitam non in semetipso, pos So St. Augustin bath observed : set et amittendo esse sine vita: hoc in ' Ab ipso, inquit, sum, quia Filius de Filio ne accipias, ne cogites, ne cre- Patre; et quicquid est filius, de illo est das. Manet ergo Pater vita, manet et cujus est blius. Ideo Dominum JeFilius vita. Pater vita in semetipso, sum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non a Filio; Filius vita in semetipso, non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tansed a Patre.' Ibid. So again, de Trinit. tum Deum. Et dicimus Dominum Je1. i. c. 12. • Plerumque dicit, dedit sum lumen de lumine ; Patrem non dimihi Pater, in quo vult intelligi quod cimus lumen de lumine, sed tantum eum genuerit Pater; non ut tanquam lumen. Ad hoc ergo pertinet quod jam exsistenti et non habenti dederit dixit, Ab ipso sum.' Tract. 31. in Ioan. aliquid, sed ipsum dedisse ut haberet, §. 4. From hence then did the Nicene genuisse ut esset.'
Council gather those words of their + «Tanquam diceret, Quid scanda- Creed: Ocòv és Okoð, kai gūs éx DWTÒS, Jizzati estis quia Patrem nmeum dixi θεόν αληθινόν εκ θεού αληθινού. But Deum, quia æqualem me facio Deo? not immediately, for they were partly Ita sum æqualis, ut non ille a me, sed in some of the Oriental Creeds before"; ego ab illo sim. Hoc enim intelligitur as appeareth by that confession which in bis verbis, Non potest Filius a se Eusebius presented to the Council, as facere quicquam, &c. hoc est quicquid containing what he had believed and Filius habet ut faciat, a Patre habet 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: και εις ένα Κύριον Ει το εκ γαστρος, και το εκ Πατρός εξήλ. 'Ιησούν Χριστόν, τον του θεού λόγον, θεόν θον, ως μέρος του ομοουσίου και ως προεκ θεού, φώς εκ φωτός, ζωήν εκ ζωής. Αud βολή υπό τινων νοείται, σύνθετος έσται as Eusebius calls him Life of Life, s0 ο Πατήρ, και διαιρετός, και τρεπτός. others, Power of Power, and Wisdom And St. Jerome testifies thus much of Wisdom. Ideo Christus virtus et not only of Arius and Eunomius, but sapientia Dei, quia de Patre virtute et also of Origen before them: Habetur sapientia etiam ipse virtus et sapientia Dialogus apud Græcos Origenis, et est, sicut lumen de Patre lumine, et Candidi Valentinianæ Hæreseos de fons vitæ apud Deum Patrem utique fensoris. Quos duos Andabatas difontem vitæ. S. August. de Trin.l. gladiantes spectasse me fateor. Dicit vii. c. 3. And not only so, but Essence Candidus, Filiuni de Patris esse subof Essence. “ Pater et filius simul una stantia, errans in eo quod apoßolnu sapientia, quia una essentia; ct sin- asserit: E regione Origenes, juxta gillatim sapientia de sapientia, sicut Arium et Eunomium, repugnat eum essentia de essentia.', Ibid. c. 2. vel prolatum esse vel natum, pe Deus
* 'Quoououos, which is coessential or Pater dividatur in partes.' Apol. 2. in consubstantial, is not to be taken of a Ruffin. col. 757. And therefore Eupart of the divine essence, as if the sebius, bishop of Cæsarea, refused not Son were a part of the essence of the to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, Father, and so of the same nature being so interpreted as that objection with him; which was the opinion of might be taken away: td łw tñs oủoias, the Manichees. Ουχ ώς Ουαλεντίνος ώμολόγητο προς αυτών δηλωτικών είναι προβολήν το γέννημα του πατρός έδογ- του, εκ μέν του Πατρός, είναι, ου μεν ως μάτισεν ουδ' ώς Μανιχαϊος μέρος ομοού- μέρος υπάρχειν του Πατρός. Ιnter Op. Olov toũ llarpos to yévvnua sionynoato' Athanas. de Decret. Nic. Syn. §. 5. as Arius in his epístle to Alexander ; Upon this confession he subscribed to by the interpretation of St. Hilary: that clause begotten of the substance. • Nec ut Valentinus, prolationem na- of the Father, which was not in his tum Patris commentatus est; nec, si- own Creed. And again: Oőtw dè kai cut Manichæus, partem unius sub- TÒ Òpooúolov Eival toŨ tarpòs. Tòv viòv, stantie Patris natum exposuit. De εξεταζόμενος ο λόγος συνίστησιν ου κατά Trin, J. vi. c. 9. «Quod Hilarius ita των σωμάτων τρόπον, ουδέ τούς θνητούς Latine reddidit, tanquam ομοούσιον id ζώοις παραπλησίως, ούτε γάρ κατά διαίsignificaret, quod partem substantia ha- prou tñs ovoias, oőt xarà drotourv, bet ex toto resectabı,' says Dionysius &c. Ibid. §. 7. Upon this acknowPetavius, without any reason; for St. ledgment he was persuaded to subHilary elearly translates òpooúolov scribe to the other clause also, (added barely unius substantiæ, and it was in to that Creed which he himself gave the original pépog ouoouolov, which he in to the Council) being of one subexpressed by partem unius substantiæ. stance with the Father: which clause Under this notion first the Arians pre- was inserted by the Council, at the intended to refuse the name ouoououov, stance of Constantine the emperor, as Arius in the same epistle signifieth, Now as the Manichees made use of lest thereby they should admit a real the word ouoououos to express their composition and division in the Deity: errors concerning the nature of God