Christ, were baptized, both men and women." (Acts viii. 12.) For as in the Acts of the Apostles there is no more expressed than that they baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ:" (Acts ii. 38. viii. 16. x. 48. xix. 5.) so is no more expressed of the faith required in them who were to be baptized, than to believe in the same name. But being the Father and the Holy Ghost were likewise mentioned in the first institution, being the expressing of one doth not exclude the other, being it is certain that from the apostles' time the names of all three were used; hence upon the same ground was required faith, and a profession of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Again, as the eunuch said not simply, I believe in the Son, but "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;" as a brief explication of that part of the institution which he had learned before of Philip: so they who were converted unto Christianity were first taught not the bare names, but the explications and descriptions of them in a brief, easy, and familiar way; which when they had rendered, acknowledged, and professed, they were baptized in them. And these being regularly and constantly used, made up the rule of faith, that is, the CREED. The truth of which may sufficiently be made apparent to any who shall seriously consider the constant practice of the Church, from the first age unto this present, of delivering the rule of faith to those which were to be baptized, and so requiring of themselves, or their sureties, an express recitation, profession, or acknowledgment of the CREED. From whence this observation is properly deducible: that in what sense the name of Father is taken in the form of baptism, in the same it also ought to be taken in this Article. And being nothing can be more clear than that, when it is said, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, the notion of Father hath in this particular no other relation but to that Son whose name is joined with his; and as we are baptized into no other son of that Father, but that only-begotten Christ Jesus, so into no other father, but the Father of that only-begotten: it followeth, that the proper explication of the first words of the CREED is this, I believe in God the Father of Christ Jesus.

In vain then is that vulgar distinction applied unto the explication of the CREED, whereby the Father is considered both personally, and essentially: personally, as the first in the glorious Trinity, with relation and opposition to the Son; essentially, as comprehending the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For that the Son is not here comprehended in the Father is evident, not only out of the original, or occasion, but also from the very letter of the CREED, which teacheth us to believe in God the Father, and in his Son; for if the Son were included in the Father, then were the Son the Father of himself. As therefore when I say, I believe in Jesus Christ his Son, I must necessarily understand the Son of that Father whom I mentioned in the first Article; so when I said, I be

E

lieve in God the Father, I must as necessarily be understood of the Father of him whom I call his Son in the second Article.

Now as it cannot be denied that God may several ways be said to be the Father of Christ; first, as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary (Luke i. 35.); secondly, as he was sent by him with special authority, as the King of Israel (John x. 35, 36. i. 49, 50.); thirdly, as he was raised from the dead, out of the womb of the earth unto immortal life, and made heir of all things in his Father's house (Acts xiii. 32, 33.): so must we not doubt but, beside all these, God is the Father of that Son in a more eminent and peculiar manner, as he is and ever was with God, and God (John i. 1.): which shall be demonstrated fully in the second Article, when we come to shew how Christ is the only-begotten Son. And according unto this paternity by way of generation totally divine, in which he who begetteth is God, and he which is begotten the same God, do we believe in God, as the eternal Father of an eternal Son. Which relation is coeval with his essence: so that we are not to imagine one without the other; but as we profess him always God, so must we acknowledge him always Father,† and that in a far more proper manner than the same title can be given to any creature. Such is the fluctuant condition of human generation, and of those relations which arise from thence, that he which is this day a son, the next may prove a father, and within the space of one day more, without any real alteration in himself, become neither son nor father, losing one relation by the death of him that begot him, and the other by the departure of him that was begotten by him. But in the Godhead these relations are more proper, because fixed; the Father having never been a son, the Son never becoming father, in reference to the same kind of generation.§

* Pater cum audis, Filii intellige Patrem, qui filius supradicta sit imago substantiæ.' Ruff.in Sym. §. 4.

† "Αμα γάρ ἐστι Θεὸς καὶ ἅμα πατήρ οὐχ ὑστερίζουσαν ἔχων τοῦ εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν· ἀλλ' ὁμοῦ τῷ εἶναι πατὴρ καὶ vpεoris Kai voovμεvoc. S. Cyril. Álex. Dial. de Trin. 2. Πατὴρ ἀεὶ πατὴρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν καιρὸς ἐν ᾧ οὐκ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ παThp. S. Epiphan. Hares. Ixii. §. 3. Sicut nunquam fuit non Deus, ita nunquam fuit non Pater, a quo Filius natus.' Gennad. de Eccles. dogm. c. 1. Credimus in Deum, eundem confitemur Patrem, ut eundem semper habuisse Filium nos credamus.' Chrysol. Serm. 59. Inest Deo pietas, est in Deo semper affectio, paternitas permanet apud illum; semper ergo Filium fuisse credas, ne Patrem semper

non fuisse blasphemes.' Id. Serm. 62. 'Advertite, quod cum Dei Patris nomen in confessione conjungit, ostendit quod non ante Deus esse coœperit et postea Pater, sed sine ullo initio et Deus semper et Pater est.' S. August. de Temp. Serm. 132.

Deus solus proprie verus est Pater, qui sine initio et fine Pater est; non enim aliquando coepit esse quod Pater est, sed semper Pater est, semper habens Filium ex se genitum.' Faustinus lib. contra Arianos. Ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος μόνης ὁ πατὴρ κυρίως ὁ πατήρ ἐστι, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς κυρίως υἱός ἐστι, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων δὲ μόνων ἕστηκε τὸ πατὴρ ἀεὶ πατὴρ εἶναι, καὶ τὸ υἱὸς ἀεὶ υἱὸς εival. S. Athanas. Orat.i. contra Arianos, §. 21.

§ Επὶ μόνης τῆς θεότητος τὸ πατὴρ

A farther reason of the propriety of God's paternity appears from this, that he hath begotten a Son of the same nature and essence with himself, not only specifically, but individually, as I shall also demonstrate in the exposition of the second Article. For generation being the production of the like, and that likeness being the similitude of substance ;* where is the nearest identity of nature, there must be also the most proper generation, and consequently he which generateth the most proper father. If therefore man, who by the benediction of God given unto him at his first creation in these words," Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth," (Gen. i. 28.) begetteth a son "in his own likeness, after his image;" (Gen. v. 3.) that is, of the same human nature, of the same substance with him, (which if he did not, he should not according to the benediction multiply himself or man at all,) with which similitude of nature many accidental disparities may consist, if by this act of generation he obtaineth the name of father, because, and in regard, of the similitude of his nature in the son, how much more properly must that name belong unto God himself, who hath begotten a Son of a nature and essence so totally like, so totally the same, that no accidental disparity can imaginably consist with that identity?

That God is the proper and eternal Father of his own eternal Son is now declared: what is the eminency or excellency of this relation followeth to be considered. In general then we may safely observe, that in the very name of father there is something of eminence which is not in that of son;† and some kind of priority we must ascribe unto him whom we call the first, in respect of him whom we term the second person; and as we cannot but ascribe it, so must we endeavour to preserve it.‡

Now that privilege or priority consisteth not in this,§ that the essence or attributes of the one are greater than the essence or attributes of the other (for we shall hereafter demonstrate them to be the same in both); but only in this, that the Father

καὶ τὸ υἱὸς ἕστηκε καὶ ἔστιν ἀεί· τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώπων εἰ πατὴρ λέγεταί τις, ἀλλ' ἑτέρου γέγονεν υἱὸς, καὶ εἰ υἱὸς λέω γεται, ἀλλ' ἑτέρου λέγεται πατήρ. ὥστε ἐπ' ἀνθρώπων μὴ σώζεσθαι κυρίως τὸ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ὄνομα. S. Athanas. tom. 1. Πατὴρ κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ υἱός. ὥσπερ καὶ υἱὸς κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ πατήρ. τὰ γὰρ ἡμέτερα οὐ κυρίως, ὅτι καὶ ἄμφω. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 35.

* Etiamsi Filius hominis homo in quibusdam similis, in quibusdam sit dissimilis Patri; tamen quia ejusdem substantiæ est, negari verus Filius non potest, et quia verus est Filius, negari ejusdem substantiæ non potest.'S. August. 1. iii. cont. Max. c.15.

hath that essence of himself, the Son by communication from the Father. From whence he acknowledgeth that he is" from him,” (John vii. 29.) that he "liveth by him," (John vi. 57.) that the "Father gave him to have life in himself," (John v. 26.) and generally referreth all things to him, as received from him. Wherefore in this sense some of the ancients have not stuck to interpret those words, "the Father is greater than I," (John xiv. 28.)* of Christ as the Son of God, as the second person

in the blessed Trinity; but still with reference not unto his essence, but his generation, by which he is understood to have his being from the Father, who only hath it of himself, and is the original of all power and essence in the Son. "I can of mine own self do nothing," (John v. 30.) saith our Saviour, because he is not of himself;* and whosoever receives his being, must receive his power from another, especially where the essence and the power are undeniably the same, as in God they are. "The Son then can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do," because he hath no power of himself, but what the Father gave:† and being he gave him all the power, as communicating his entire and undivided essence, therefore" what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise," (John v. 19.) by the same power by which the Father worketh, because he had received the same Godhead in which the Father subsisteth. There is nothing more intimate and essential to any thing than the life thereof, and that in nothing so conspicuous as in the Godhead, where life and truth are so inseparable, that there can be no living God but the true, no true God but the living. "The Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King," saith the prophet Jeremy (x. 10.): and St. Paul putteth the Thessalonians in mind, how they " turned from idols to serve the living and true God." (1 Thess. i. 9.) Now life is otherwise in God than in the creatures: in him originally, in them derivatively; in him as in the fountain of absolute perfection, in them by way of dependence and participation; our life is in him, but his is in himself: and as "the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;" (John v. 26.)‡ both the same life, both in themselves,

* Quicquid Filius habet ut faciat, a Patre habet ut faciat. Quare habet a Patre ut faciat? quia a Patre habet ut Filius sit; quia a Patre habet ut possit; quia a Patre habet utsit.' S. August. Tract. 20. in Ioan. §. 4.

+'Non alia potentia est in Filio, et alia substantia; sed ipsa est potentia quæ et substantia; substantia ut sit, potentia ut possit. Ergo quia Filius de Patre est, ideo dixit, Non potest Filius a se facere quicquam ; quia non est Filius a se, ideo non potest a se." Ibid. Totum quod est, de Patre est; totum quod potest, de Patre est; quoniam quod potest et est, hoc unum est, et de Patre totum est.' Ibid.§. 8. 'Non potest Filius a se facere quicquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem: quia de Patre est totus Filius, et tota substantia et potentia ejus ex illo est qui

genuit eum.' Id. Tract. in Ioan. 21. §. 2. 'Et primum Filium cognosce, com dicitur, Non potest Filius a se facere quicquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem. Habes nativitatem Filii, quæ ab se nihil potest facere nisi videat. In eo autem quod a se nihil potest, innascibilitatis adimit errorem. Ab se enim non potest posse nativitas.' S. Hilar. de Trin. 1. vii. c. 21. 'Dum non a se facit, ad id quod agit secundum nativitatem sibi Pater auctor est.' Ibid. 1. xi.c.12. 'Auctorem discsevit cum ait, Non potest a se facere: obedientiam significat cum addit: Nisi quod viderit patrem facientem.' Id. de Syn. c. 75. :

Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso: ut hoc solum intersit inter Patrem et Filium, quia Pater habet vitam in semetipso quam nemo ei de-, dit, Filius autem habet vitam in semetipso quam Pater dedit.' S. Au• Ingust. Tract. 19. in Ioan. §. 11.