*

the beloved, the first-born, the only-begotten, the Son after a more peculiar and more excellent manner; the rest with relation unto, and dependance on, his Sonship; as given unto him, "Behold I, and the children which God hath given me;" (Isa. viii. 18. Heb. ii. 13.) as being so by faith in him, "For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; (Gal. iii. 26.) as receiving the right of Sonship from him, "For as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." (John i. 12.) Among all the sons of God there is none like to that one Son of God. And if there be so great a disparity in the filiation, we must make as great a difference in the correspondent relation. There is one degree of sonship founded on creation, and that is the lowest, as belonging unto all, both good and bad: another degree above that there is grounded upon regeneration, or adoption, belonging only to the truly faithful in this life: and a third above the rest founded on the resurrection, or collation of the eternal inheritance, and the similitude of God, appertaining to the saints alone in the world to come: for "we are now the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him." (1 John iii. 2.) And there is yet another degree of filiation, of a greater eminency and a different nature, appertaining properly to none of these, but to the true Son of God alone, who amongst all his brethren hath only received the title of his "own Son," (Rom. viii. 32.)+ and a singular testimony from heaven, "This is my beloved Son," (Matt. iii. 17. xvii. 5.) even in the presence of John the Baptist, even in the midst of Moses and Elias (who are certainly the sons of God by all the other three degrees of filiation), and therefore hath called God after a peculiar way "his own Father." (John v. 18.) And so at last we come unto the most singular and eminent paternal relation, "Unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore ;” (2 Cor. xi. 31.) the Father of him, and of us, but not the Father of us as of him. Christ hath taught us to say, Our Father: a form

Ergo nemo in filiis Dei similis erit filio Dei. Et ipse dictus est filius Dei, et nos dicti sumus filii Dei: sed quis erit similis Domino in filiis Dei? Ille unicus, nos multi. Ille unus, nos in illo unum. Ille natus, nos adoptati. Ille ab æterno filius unigenitus per naturam, nos a tempore facti per gratiam.' S. August. in Psal. lxxxviii.

Ut magnificentia Dei dilectionis ex comparationis genere nosceretur, non pepercisse Deum proprio filio suo docuit. Nec utique pro adoptandis adoptato, neque pro creatis creaturæ ; sed pro alienis suo, pro connuncupandis proprio. S. Hilar. 1. vi. de Trin. c. 45.

non hoc significari videtur, Alios quidem cognominatos ab eo in filios, sed hic filius meus est? Donavi adoptionis plurimis nomen, sed iste mihi filius est.' Ibid. c. 23.

§ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν Θεὸν, as Rom. viii. 52. ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο.

Non sicut Christi pater, ita et noster pater. Nunquam enim Christus ita nos conjunxit, ut nullam distinctionem faceret inter nos et se. Ille enim filius æqualis patri, ille æternus cum patre, patrique coæternus: nos autem facti per filium, adoptati per unicum. Proinde nunquam auditum est de ore Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cum ad discipulos loqueretur, dixisse illum de Deo summo Patre suo, Pater noster; sed aut Pater meus

of speech which he never used himself; sometimes he calls him the Father; sometimes my Father, sometimes your, but never our: he makes no such conjunction of us to himself, as to make no distinction between us and himself; so conjoining us as to distinguish, though so distinguishing as not to separate us. Indeed I conceive this, as the most eminent notion of God's paternity, so the original and proper explication of this Article of the CREED: and that not only because the ancient fathers deliver no other exposition of it; but also because that which I conceive to be the first occasion, rise, and original of the CREED itself, requireth this as the proper interpretation. Immediately before the ascension of our Saviour, he said unto his apostles, "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. xxviii. 18, 19.) From this sacred form of baptism did the Church derive the rule of faith,* requiring the profession of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, before they could be baptized in their name. When the eunuch asked Philip, "What doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest:" and when the eunuch replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; he baptized him." (Acts viii. 36, 37.) And before that, the Samaritans, "when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 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

dixit, aut Pater vester. Pater noster non dixit, usque adeo ut quodam loco poneret hac duo, Vado ad Deum meum, inquit, et Deum vestrum. Quare non dixit Deum nostrum? et Patrem meum dixit, et Patrem vestrum ; non dixit Patrem nostrum? Sic jungit, ut distinguat; sic distinguit, ut non sejungat. Unum nos vult esse in se, unum autem Patrem et se.' S. August. in Ioan. Tract. 21. §. 3.

Arius and Euzoius, in their Creed delivered to Constantine: Ταύτην τὴν πίστιν, παρειλήφαμεν ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων εὐαγγελίων, λέγοντος τοῦ κυρίου τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς, Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτ τοὺς εἰς ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ȧyíou TVεúμaтos. Socrat. 1. i. c. 26. And upon exhibiting this Confession of Faith, they were restored to the Communion of the Church by the Synod of Jerusalem. Sozom. 1. ii. c. 27. In the same manner

Eusebius delivered his Creed unto the council of Nice, concluding and deducing it from the same text: καθὰ καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς, εἶπε, Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε, &c. Socrat. 1. i. c. 8. Theodor. 1. i. c. 12. The same is also alleged by the council of Antioch, under the emperor Constantius and pope Julius. Socrat. 1. ii. c. 10. Vide S. Athanas. in Epist. ad ubique Orthod. Orat. contra Gregales Sabellii, et contra Arianos ex Deo Deus, §. 1. Vide Basil. de Spirit. S. c. 12. So Vigilius Tapsensis, Dial. 1. i. §. 3. makes Arius and Athanasius jointly speak these words: Credimus in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus, Dominum nostrum, et in Spiritum S. Hæc est fidei nostræ regula, quam cœlesti magisterio Dominus tradidit apostolis, dicens, Ite, baptizate, &c.'

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 believe 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

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

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.‡

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

* Αμα γάρ ἐστι Θεὸς καὶ ἅμα πατήρ· οὐχ ὑστερίζουσαν ἔχων τοῦ εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν· ἀλλ ̓ ὁμοῦ τῷ εἶναι πατὴς καὶ ὑφεστὼς καὶ νοούμε1. S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trin. 2. Πατὴς ἀεὶ πατὴς, καὶ οὐκ ἦν καιρὸς ἐν ᾧ οὐκ ἦν i wanne warhe. 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 cœperit et postea Pater, sed sine ullo initio et Deus semper et Pater est.' S. August.

E

de Temp. Serm. 132.

+ · Deus solus proprie verus est Pater, qui sine initio et fine Pater est; non enim aliquando cœpit esse quod Pater est, sed semper Pater est, semper habens Filium ex se genitum.' Faustinus lib. contra Arianos. Ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος μόνης ὁ πατὴς 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 εἶναι, S. Athanas. Orat. i. contra Arianos, §. 21.

† Ἐπὶ μόνης τῆς θεότητος τὸ πατὴς καὶ τὸ υἱὸς ἕστηκε καὶ ἔστιν ἀεί· τῶν μὲν γὰρ ἀνθρώ πων εἰ πατὴρ λέγεταί τις, ἀλλ ̓ ἑτέρου γέγονεν υἱὸς, καὶ εἰ υἱὸς λέγεται, ἀλλ ̓ ἑτέρου λέγεται πατής. ὥστε ἐπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων μὴ σώζεσθαι κυρίως τὸ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ὄνομα. S. Athanas. tom. 1. Πατὴς κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ υἱός, ὥσπερ καὶ υἱὸς κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ πατήρ. τὰ γὰρ ἡμέ τερα οὐ κυρίως, ὅτι καὶ ἄμφω. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 35.

that likeness being the similitude of substance;* where is the nearest indentity 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 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

Xiyovras. Alex. apud Theod.l. i. c. 4.

§ Ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὴν τῶν αἰτίων πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν πατέρα φαμὲν, κατὰ δὲ τῆς φύσεως διαφορὰν οὐκέτι. S. Basil, contra Eunom. 1. i. §. 20. || Μείζων, εἶπεν, οὐ μεγέθει τινὶ, οὐδὲ χρόνῳ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατέρος γέννησιν. S. Athanas. contra Arianos, l. i. §. 58. Λείπεται τοίνυν κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον ἐνταῦθα τὸ μεῖζον λέγεσθαι. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ τῷ υἱῷ, κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ὁ πατὴρ, ὡς αἴτιος καὶ ἀρχή. διὸ καὶ ὁ κύριος εἶπεν, Ο πατήρ μου μείζων μου ἐστὶ, καθὸ πατὴρ δηλονότι. τὸ δὲ πατὴρ τί ἄλλο σημαίνει, ἢ οὐχὶ