Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

For by these titles it appeareth clearly, First, That they made a considerable difference between the person of the

the Latins only principium: yet the very Latin fathers in the twenty-fifth session of the same Council have these words: μίαν γινώσκομεν τὸν πατέρα αἰτίαν, καὶ ῥίζαν, καὶ πηγὴν τῆς θεότηTOC and we have before cited Victorinus Afer, p. 68. col. 2. who says: 'Pater causa est ipsi Filio ut sit.' So St. Hilary: 'Deum nasci, non est aliud quam in ea natura esse qua Deus est; quia nasci cum causam nativitatis ostendat, non disproficit tamen in genere auctoris exsistere.'

De

Trin. I. 11. c. 11. Ex Spiritu enim Spiritus nascens, licet de proprietate Spiritus, per quam et ipse Spiritus est, nascatur, non tamen alia ei præterquam perfectarum atque indemutabilium causarum ad id quod nascitur causa est; et ex causa, licet perfecta atque indemutabili nascens, necesse est ex causa in causæ ipsius proprietate nascatur.' Id. l. 12. c. 8. 'Qui ex eo qui est natus est, intelligi non potest ex eo quod non fuit natus esse, quia ejus qui est ad id quod est causa est, non etiam id quod non est origo nascendi est.' Ibid. c. 17. 'Deus omnium quæ sunt causa est. Quod autem rerum omnium causa est, etiam sapientiæ suæ causa est, nec unquam Deus sine sapientia sua. Igitur sempiternæ suæ sapientiæ causa est sempiterna.' S. August. lib. de div. Quast. Ixxxiii. quæst. 16. And as they called the Father the cause of the Son, so they accounted it the propriety of the Father to be without a cause; as appears out of Alexander the bishop of Alexandria's Epistle before produced.

+We have cited Phoebadius speaking so before, p. 69. col. 1. to which may be added: 'Si quis igitur adhuc et de Apostolo requirit dominicum statum, id est, singularis substantiæ dualitatem, quæ per naturam auctori suo jungitur:' p. 110. et paulo post: 'Sed cum refertur ex ipso, certe ad Patrem, ut ad rerum omnium respicitur auctorem.' St. Hilary is known to speak frequently of the authority of the Father, as of the author of his Son; and several places have been already collected, especially by Petavius, to which these may be added, besides what have been already produced. 'In ipso quod Pater dicitur, ejus

quem genuit auctor ostenditur.' De Trin. 1. 4. c. 9. Cum potius honor Filii dignitas sit paterna, et gloriosus auctor sit ex quo is, qui tali gloria sit dignus, exstiterit." Ibid. c. 10. 'Aliud est sine auctore esse semper æternum, aliud quod Patri, id est, auctori, est coæternum. Ubi enim Pater auctor, ibi et nativitas est. At vero ubi auctor æternus est, ibi et nativitas æterna est: quia sicut nativitas ab auctore est, ita ab æterno auctore æterna nativitas est.' Ibid. 1. 12. c. 21. 'Quod vero ex æterno natum est, id si non æternum natum est, jam non erit et Pater auctor æternus. Si quid igitur ei qui ab æterno Patre natus est ex æternitate defuerit, id ipsum auctori non est ambiguum defuisse.' Ibid. 'Natum non post aliquid, sed ante omnia; ut nativitas tantum testetur auctorem, non præposterum aliquid in se auctore significet.' Ibid. c. 51. 'Natus autem ita, ut nihil aliud quam te sibi significet auctorem.' Ibid. c. 52. ‘Ip、 sius tamen auctor est Pater generando sine initio.' Ruff. in Symb. §. 9. 'Si propterea Deum Patrem Deo Filio dicis auctorem, quia ille genuit, genitus est iste, quia iste de illo est, non ille de isto; fateor et concedo. S. August. contra Maxim. 1. 3. c. 14.

[ocr errors]

'Nec dubitaverim Filium dicere et radicis fruticem, et fontis fluvium, et solis radium.' Tertull. adv. Praxeam, c. 8. Nec frutex tamen a radice, nec fluvius a fonte, nec radius a sole discernitur; sicut nec a Deo Sermo. Ibid. Ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τέλειον ἔχων τὸ εἶναι καὶ ἀνενδεὲς, ῥίζα καὶ πηγὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύparos. S. Basil. Homil. 26. 'Dominus Pater, quia radix est Filii.' S. Ambros. in Luc. 1. 10. c. 1. ut et de Fide, 1. 4. c. 5. St. Cyril of Alexandria speaking of the baptismal institution: Týv μὲν γὰρ ἀνωτάτω ῥίζαν, ἧς ἐπέκεινα τὸ σύμπαν οὐδὲν, ἐννοήσεις τὸν πατέρα τὸν δέ γε τῆς ἀνωτάτω ῥίζης ἐκπεφυκότα καὶ γεγεννημένον παραδέξῃ τὸν υἱόν. De S. Trin. Dial. 2.

§ ̓́Αναρχος ὁ πατὴρ πηγὴ τοῦ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ποταμοῦ, τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὁ Tarno. S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 11. 'In hac ergo natura filius est, et in hoc originis fonte subsistens processit ex sapiente sapientia, ex forti virtus, ex

[ocr errors]

Father, "of whom are all things," and the person of the Son, by whom are all things." (1 Cor. viii. 6.) Secondly, That the difference consisteth properly in this, that as the branch is from the root, and river from the fountain, and by their origination from them receive that being which they have; whereas the root receiveth nothing from the branch, or fountain from the river: so the Son is from the Father, receiving his subsistence by generation from him; the Father is not from the Son, as being what he is from none.

Some indeed of the ancients may seem to have made yet a farther difference between the persons of the Father and the Son, laying upon that relation terms of greater opposition. As if, because the Son hath not his essence from himself, the Father had; because he was not begotten of himself, the Father had been so; because he is not the cause of himself, the Father were. Whereas, if we speak properly, God the Father hath § neither his being from another, nor from him

lumine splendor.' Vigil.Taps. Disp. p. 702. Ὡς πνεῦμα θεοῦ καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πεφηνὸς,αἴτιον αὐτὸν ἔχον, ὡς πηγὴν ἑαυτοῦ, Kakεilεv πnyálov. Basil. Homil. 28. Λέγει περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ θεία γραφή, Κλίνει, φησὶν, ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ὡς ποταμὸς εἰρήνης ἐκπορευόμενος δηλονότι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθοῦς πηγῆς τῆς ζωῆς, τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς θεότη Toc. Act. Concil. Nic. 1. ii. c. 22. And St. Cyril of Alexandria, who often useth this expression, gives us the full signification of it in these words, upon the first chapter of St. John, p. 12. 'Αδικήσει δὲ ὅλως οὐδὲν τὸ, ὡς ἐν πηγῷ, τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὑπάρχειν ἐννοεῖν· μόνον γὰρ τὸ ἐξ οὗ τὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἐν τούτοις ὄνομα σημαίνει, Patrem quidem non genitum, non creatum, sed ingenitum profitemur; ipse enim a nullo originem ducit, ex quo et Filius nativitatem, et Spiritus Sanctus processionem accepit, Fons ergo ipse et origo est totius divinitatis.' Concil. Tolet, can. 11. 'Quanto magis Dei vocem credendum est et manere in æternum, et sensu ac virtute comitari, quam de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de fonte traduxit?' Lactan. de ver. Sap. 1. 4. c. 8. et rursus, c. 29. Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat, et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est; sed ille quasi exuberans fons est, hic tanquam defluens ex eo rivus; ille tanquam sol, bic tanquam radius a sole porrectus.'

Caput, quod est principium omnium, Filius: caput autem, quod est principium Christi, Deus.' Concil. Sirm. accepted and expounded as

[ocr errors]

Orthodox by St. Hilary: ( Caput enim omnium Filius, sed caput Filii Deus.' de Synod c. 60. Cum ipse sit omnium caput, ipsius tamen eaput est Pater.' Ruff. in Symb. §. 9. Tu capitis primique caput, tu fontis origo, S. Hilar. ad Leonem, v. 9. Ovte δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαῖ, ἀλλὰ κεφαλὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ πατὴρ, μία ἡ ἀρχή. S. Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 11. Caput Filii Pater est, et caput Spiritus Sancti Filius, quia de ipso accepit.' S. August. Quæst. Vet. Test.9. St. Chrysostom is so clearly of the opinion that 1 Cor. xi. 3. is to be understood of Christ as God, that from thence he proves him to have the same essence with God: Ei yàp κɛpaλὴ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνὴρ, ὁμοούσιος δὲ ἡ κεφαλὴ τῷ σώματι κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ θεὸς, ὁμοούσιος ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρί. So likewise Theodoret upon the same place, t. iii. p. 171. 'H dè yvvǹ où noínμa roỡ åvδρὸς, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ἀνδρός. οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς ἄρα ποίημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ. So St. Cyril: Κεφαλὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν γεγέννηται γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρός. Ad Regin. Εp. 1. *Lactan. 1. i. c. 8. S. Hilar. l. ii. Zach. Mitylen. p. 214. seqq.

Laetan. ib. Synes. Hymn. ↑ S. Hieron. in c. 3. ad Eph.

§ ̓́Αναρχος οὖν ὁ πατὴρ, οὐ γὰρ ἑτέ ρωθεν αὐτῷ, οὐδὲ παρ ̓ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ εἶναι. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 30. 'Q áyévvηtog οὐ γεγέννηται, οὔθ ̓ ὑφ ̓ ἑαυτοῦ, οὔθ ̓ ὑφ' iripov. S. Athan. Si rursum quod a semetipso sit accipias, nemo sibi ipse et munerator et munus est.' S. Hilar, de Trin. 1. 2. c. 7. 'Qui putant

And

self, nor from another, that were repugnant to his paternity; not from himself, that were a contradiction in itself. therefore those expressions are not to be understood positively and affirmatively, but negatively* and exclusively, Deum ejus potentiæ esse ut seipsum ipse genuerit, eo plus errant, quod non solum Deus ita non est, sed neque corporalis neque spiritualis creatura. Nulla enim omnino res est quæ seipsam gignat ut sit. Et ideo non est credendum, vel dicendum, quod Deus genuit se.' S. August.

This appeareth by those expositions which have been given of such words as seem to bear the affirmation; ἃς αὐτογένεθλος, αὐτοφυής, αὐτόγονος, αὐτογενής, &c. Αὐτογενὴς, αὐτογένεθλος, οὐκ ἔκ τινος γεννώμενος. Hesych. And Αὐτολόχευτος, Θεὸς ἀγέννητος, αὐτ τογέννητος. Idem. And after him Suidas: Αὐτολόχευτος, αὐτογέννητος, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἀγέννητος. And if αὐτογέννητος be not αὐτόθεν γεννητὸς, no more is αὐτόθεος to be taken for αὐτόθεν, οι ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ Θεός. Eusebius in his Panegyrical Oration gives this title to the Son : Οἷα τοῦ καθόλου Θεοῦ παῖδα γνήσιον καὶ αὐτόθεον προσκυνεῖσθαι. Hist. l. x. c. 4. And in his Evangelical Demonstration calls him: avroνοῦν, καὶ αὐτολόγον, καὶ αὐτοσοφίαν, καὶ ἔτι δὲ αὐτόκαλον καὶ αὐτοάγαθον. l. iv. c. 2. and in the thirteenth chapter of the same book with relation to the former words: τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος αὐ τοζωὴ τυγχάνων, καὶ αὐτοφῶς νοερὸν, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα προκατείλεκται. Theodoret terms him : αὐτοδύναμον καὶ αὐτοζωὴν καὶ αὐτοσοφίαν. contra Anathem. 4. Cyrilli. St. Basil: αὐτοζωὴν, in Psal. xlviii. et de Spiritu Sancto, c. 8. and αὐτοδικαιοσύνην, Ep. 141. St. Chrysostom: αὐτοαθανασίαν, αὐτομακαριότη

τα.

St. Athanasius gives him them, and many more to the same purpose. And before all these Origen: “Ov μèv νομίζομεν καὶ πεπείσμεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεὸν, καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ, καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία, καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια.

[blocks in formation]

the Godhead : because all the attributes of God are really the same, not only with themselves, but with the essence. But in what sense it ought to be understood, when thus used by the fathers, it will be necessary to inquire, lest it be so attributed to the Son, as it prove derogatory to the Father. St. Basil, I confess, may seem to speak, as if the Son were therefore αὐτοζωή, because he hath life of himself, not from the Father (and consequently he may be termed αὐτόθεος, as God of himself, not from the Father), for he denieth those words, "I live by the Father," (John vi. 58.) to be spoken of Christ according to his divine nature, and that only for this reason, that if it were so understood he could not be called αὐτοζωή : Εἰ διὰ τὸν πατέρα ὁ υἱὸς ζῇ, δι' ἕτερον καὶ οὐ δι ̓ ἑαυτὸν ζῇ, ὁ δὲ δι' ἕτερον ζῶν αὐτοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται from whence he concludeth: εἰς τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν οὖν καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὴν θεότητα, τὸ εἰρημένον νοεῖν δεῖ. contra Eunom. 1. 4. p. 290. But because the authority of that book is questioned, I shall produce the same author upon the same Scripture, speaking to the same purpose, in his 141st epistle, al. 8th, §. 4. which is unquestionably genuine: Ενταῦθα δὲ τὸ ῥητὸν οὐκ αὐτὴν προαιώνιον, ὡς οἶμαι, ζωὴν ὀνομάζει· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δι' ἕτερον ζῶν αὐτ τοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται. Το which testimonies I answer, first, that those words of his, ὡς οἶμαι (as I think) shew that he doth not absolutely deny these words of Christ to be understood of his Divinity, of which the rest of the fathers quoted before did understand it; and not only they, but St. Basil himself, in his book de Spiritu Sancto, c. 8. §. 19. bath delivered a clear resolution of this point according to that interpretation, wholly con- sonant to his doctrine of the Trinity in other parts of his works: "Όμως μέντοι, ἵνα μήποτε ἐκ τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἐνεργουμένων περισπασθῶμεν εἰς τὸ φαντασθῆναι ἀναρχον εἶναι τὸν κύριον, τί φησὶν ἡ αὐτοζωή; Ἐγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα. καὶ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ δύναμις; Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν. καὶ ἡ αὐτοτελὴς σοφία; Ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον, τί

that he hath his essence from none, that he is not begotten of any, nor hath he any cause of his existence. So that the proper notion of the Father in whom we believe is this, that he is a person subsisting eternally in the one infinite essence of the Godhead; which essence or subsistence he hath received

εἴπω καὶ τί λαλήσω; Christ therefore as αὐτοζωὴ spake those words, “I live by the Father," and by them shewed his origination from him, from whom he received his life, power, and wisdom, as receiving his Essence, which is the same with them: wherefore those former passages are to be looked upon, as if avròç in composition did not deny origination, but participation, or receiving by way of affection. And that he understood it so, appears out of the places themselves: for in the first, after ὁ δι ̓ ἕτερον ζῶν αὐτοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται, immediately followeth, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ κατὰ χάριν ἅγιος αὐτοάγιος: and in the second, after πᾶν τὸ δι' ἕτερον ζῶν αὐτοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται, followeth likewise, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸ ὑφ' ἑτέρου θερμανθὲν αὐτοθερμότης εἶναι. The meaning then of St. Basil must be this, that he which receiveth life from another merely as a grace or favour, as the saints receive their sanctity, cannot properly be termed αὐτοζωή, no more than they αὐτοάγιοι: or if he receive it by derivation or participation, as water receiveth heat from fire, he deserveth the same name no more than water heated to be called αὐτοθερμότης. And this is fully consonant to the expressions of the rest of the ancients: as particularly Athanasius, contr. Gent. §. 46. Οὐ κατὰ μετοχὴν ταῦτα ὢν οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν ἐπιγινομένων τούτων αὐτῷ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοῦ μετέχοντας, καὶ σοφιζομένους δι' αὐτοῦ, καὶ δυνατοὺς καὶ λογικοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ γινομένους" ἀλλ' αὐτοσοφία, αὐτολόγος, αὐτοδύναμις ἰδία τοῦ πατρός ἐστιν, αὐτοφῶς, αὐτ τοαλήθεια, αὐτοδικαιοσύνη, αὐτοαρετή. And to the same purpose: Ότι οὐ μεθεκτὴν ἔχει τὴν δωρεὰν, ἀλλ' αὐτοπηγὴ καὶ αὐτόῤῥιζα πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν, αὐτοζωὴ, καὶ αὐτοφῶς, καὶ αὐτοαλήθεια· in the MS. Catena in the King of France's Library. Petav. de Trin. I. vi. c. 11. All therefore which these compositions signify, is either a negation of a derivative participation, or an affirmation of a reality and identity of substance, as yet farther appears by St. Epiphanius: αὐτοουσία ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦ

μα, καὶ οὐχ ἑτερουσία ̇ and Origen himself upon St. John: ἡ αὐτοδικαιοσύνη ἡ οὐσιώδης Χριστός ἐστι, as also ἡ αὐτ τοαλήθεια ἡ οὐσιώδης, καὶ ἵν' οὕτως εἴπω, πρωτότυπος τῆς ἐν ταῖς λογικαῖς ψυχαῖς ἀληθείας. Το conclude, there is a catholic sense in which the Son is termed αὐτόθεος, αυτοσοφία, &c. by the ancient fathers; and another sense there is in which these terms are so proper and peculiar to the Father, that they are denied to the Son. Indeed αὐτόθεος, in the highest sense, ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ θεὸς, positively taken, belongeth neither to the Son nor to the Father, as implying a manifest contradiction; because nothing can have its being actually from itself, as communicated to itself, and that by itself: but in a negative way of interpretation, by which that is said to be of itself, which is and yet is not of or from another, αὐτόθεος belongs properly to the Father, neither generated by, nor proceeding from another; and in that sense it is denied to the Son, because he is generated by the Father, as: k Θεοῦ θεὸς, ἐκ σοφοῦ σοφία, ἐκ λογικοῦ λόγος,καὶ ἐκ πατρὸς υἱὸς, saith St. Athanasius cont. Ar. Or. iv. §. 1. from whence he thus proceeds: ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἄν τις εἴποι αὐτοσοφίαν εἶναι καὶ αὐτολόγον τὸν θεὸν, ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τοῦτο εἴη ἂν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πατὴρ καὶ υἱός. Ibid. §. 2. And again: εἰ δὲ αὐτοσοφία ὁ θεὸς, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτου ἄτοπον εἴρηται παρὰ Σαβελλίῳ. Lastly, in another sense in which avròs in composition is taken not in obliquo, but in recto, αὐτόθεος, that is, αὐτὸς ὁ Θεός, God himself, and αὐτοζωή, αὐτὴ ἡ ζωή, life itself: so all these terms are attributed to the Son as truly, really and essentially, as to the Father. And that the Fathers took it so appears, because they did sometimes resolve the composition: as when Eusebius calleth Christ αὐτόθε

ον,

, in the Panegyric before cited, presently after he speaketh thus, l. x. §. 4. p. 469. Τί γὰρ καὶ ἔμελλε τοῦ παμβασιλέως καὶ πανηγεμόνος καὶ αὐτοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἐνστήσεσθαι τῷ πνεύματι ; where αὐτοῦ θεοῦ is the same with αὐτ τοθέου.

from no other person, but hath communicated the same es sence, in which himself subsisteth, by generation to another person, who by that generation is the Son.

Howsoever, it is most reasonable to assert that there is but one Person who is from none; and the very generation of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost undeniably prove, that neither of those two can be that Person. For whosoever is generated is from him which is the genitor, and whosoever proceedeth is from him from whom he proceedeth, whatsoever the nature of the generation or procession be. It followeth therefore that this Person is the Father, which name speaks nothing of dependence, nor supposeth any kind of priority in another.

From hence it is observed that the name of God, taken absolutely,* is often in the Scriptures spoken of the Father; as when we read of "God sending his own Son;" (Rom. viii. 3.) of "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God;" (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) and generally wheresoever Christ is called the Son of God, or the Word of God, the name of God is to be taken particularly for the Father, because he is no Son but of the Father. From hence he is styled "one God," (1 Cor. viii. 6. Eph. iv. 6.) "the true God," (1 Thess. i. 9.) "the only true God," (John xvii. 3.)" the God+ and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. i. 3. Eph. i. 3.)

Which, as it is most true, and so fit to be believed, is also a most necessary truth, and therefore to be acknowledged, for the avoiding multiplication and plurality of gods. For if

* "Οθεν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, καὶ πᾶσα σχεδὸν ἡ ἁγία γραφὴ, ὅταν εἴπῃ, ὁ Θεὸς, οὕτως ἀπολύτως καὶ ἀπροσδιορίστως, καὶ ὡς ἐπίπαν σὺν ἄρθρῳ, καὶ χωρὶς ἰδιώματος ὑποστατικοῦ, τὸν πατέρα δηλοῖ. Theod. Abucara Opusc. 42.

+ 'Unxit te Deus, Deus tuus. Id enim quod ait, tuus, ad nativitatem refertur; cæterum non perimit naturam. Et idcirco Deus ejus est, qui ex Deo natus in Deum est. Non tamen per id quod Pater Deus est, non et Filius Deus est. Unxit enim te Deus, Deus tuus; designata videlicet et auctoris sui et ex eo geniti significatione, uno eodemque dicto utrumque illum in naturæ ejusdem et dignitatis nuncupatione constituit.' S. Hilar. de Trin. 1. 4. c. 35. 'Deo enim ex quo omnia sunt Deus nullus est, qui sine initio æternus est. Filio autem Deus Pater est, ex eo enim Deus natus est.' Ibid. c.37. Cum autem ex Deo Deus est, per id Deus Pater Deo Filio et nativitatis ejus Deus est, et naturæ Pater, quia Dei nativitas et ex Deo est, et in ea generis est natura qua Deus est. Id. l. xi. c. 11. So St.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. xi. Oɛòçò γεννήσας, Θεὸς ὁ γεννηθείς· Θεὸς μὲν τῶν πάντων, Θεὸν δὲ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν πατέρα ἐπιγραφόμενος.

† Μή μοι εἴπητε, δύο θεοὺς κηρύττει, πολυθείαν καταγγέλλει, οὐ δύο θεοὶ, οὐδὲ γὰρ δύο πατέρες· ὁ μὲν ἀρχὰς εἰσάγων δύο, δύο κηρύττει θεούς. S. Basil. Homil. 26. 'In duobus ingenitis diversa divinitas invenitur ; in uno autem genito ex uno ingenito naturalis unitas demonstratur.' Fulgen. Resp. contra Arian. ad Obj. 5. Si quis innascibilem et sine initio dicat Filium, tanquam duo sine principio, et duo innascibilia,et duo innata dicens, duos faciat Deos, Anathema sit.' Concil. Sirm. [Vid. p.74. col.1.]' Deus utique procedens ex Deo secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud Patri quod unus est Deus. Si enim natus non fuisset, innatus comparatus cum eo qui esset innatus, æquatione in utroque ostensa, duos faceret innatos, et ideo duos faceret Deos. Si non genitus esset, collatus cum eo qui genitus non esset, et æquales inventi, duos Deos merito reddidissent non

« ZurückWeiter »