Chaldee language, were constantly taught, that the Word of God was the same with God, and that by that Word all things were made. Which undoubtedly was the cause why St John delivered so great a mystery in so few words, as 118 speaking unto them who at the first apprehension understood him. Only that which as yet they knew not was, that this Word was made flesh, and that this Word made flesh was Jesus Christ. Wherefore this exposition being so literally clear in itself, so consonant to the notion of the Word, and the apprehension of the Jews; it is infinitely to be preferred before any such interpretation as shall restrain the most universals to a few particulars, change the plainest expressions into figurative phrases, and make of a sublime truth, a weak, useless, false discourse. For who will grant that in the beginning must be the same with that in St John's Epistle from the beginning, especially when the very interpretation involves in itself a contradiction? For the beginning in St John's Epistle, is that in which the apostles saw, and heard, and touched the Word: the beginning in his Gospel was that in which the Word was with God, that is, not seen nor heard by the apostles, but known as yet to God alone, as the new ex Word of God: so in the book of Wisdom, ή παντοδύναμός σου χεὶρ καὶ κτίσασα τὸν κόσμον, Sap. xi. 17, is changed into ὁ παντοδύναμός σου Λύ yos áπ' ovpav@v, xviii. 15, and Siracides xliii. 26. ἐν Λόγῳ αὐτοῦ σύγκει Taι Távтa. Nay, the Septuagint hath changed Shaddai, the undoubted name of the omnipotent God, into Aoyos, the Word, Ezek. i. 24. Twpɔ 'quasi vox sublimis Dei, quod Hebraice appellatur SADDAI (7) et juxta LXX. vox verbi, ut universa quæ prædicantur in mundo vocem Filii Dei esse credamus.* S. Hieron. [ad loc. vol. v. p. 20 B.] And therefore Celsus, writing in the person of a Jew, acknowledgeth that the Word is the Son of God. Et γε ὁ Λόγος ἐστὶν ὑμῖν υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ nueîs éπаivoûμev. Orig. cont. Celsum, 1. ii. [§ 31. vol. 1. p. 413 c.] And although Origen object that in this Cel sus makes the Jew speak improperly, There appears to be an error here. The clause in question, pwrn roû Aóyov, (which does not occur in the Vatican MS., though it does in the Alexandrian MS., and is apparently derived from Theodotion's version), is not the translation of at all, but of as though the rendering of the former clause being þwvŋv ikavoù. : misread position will have it. Who will conceive it worthy of the apostle's assertion, to teach that the Word had a being in the beginning of the Gospel, at what time John the Baptist began to preach; when we know the Baptist taught as much, who therefore came baptizing with water that he might be made Jolni. 31. manifest unto Israel? when we are sure that St Matthew and St Luke, who wrote before him, taught us more than this, that he had a being thirty years before? when we are assured, it was as true of any other then living as of the Word, even of Judas who betrayed him, even of Pilate who condemned him? Again, who can imagine the apostle should assert that the Word was, that is, had an actual being, when as yet he was not actually the Word? For if the beginning be, when John the Baptist began to preach, and the Word, as they say, be nothing else but he which speaketh, and so revealeth the will of God; Christ had not then revealed the will of God, and consequently was not then actually the Word, but only potentially or by designation. Secondly, it is a strange figurative speech, the Word was with God, that is, was known to God, especially in this apostle's method. In the beginning was the Word; there was must signify an actual existence; and if so, why in the next sentence (the Word was with God) shall the same verb signify an objective being only? Certainly though to be in the beginning be one thing, and to be with God, another; yet to be in either of them is the same. But if we should imagine this being understood of the knowledge of God, why we should grant that thereby is signified, he was known to God alone, I cannot conceive. For the proposition of itself is plainly affirmative, and the exclusive particle only added to the exposition, maketh it clearly negative. Nay more, the affirmative sense is certainly true, the negative as certainly false. For 119 except Gabriel be God, who came to the Virgin; except every one of the heavenly host which appeared to the shepherds, be God; except Zachary and Elizabeth, except Simeon and Anna, except Joseph and Mary, be God; it cannot be true that he was known to God only, for to all these he was certainly known. Thirdly, To pass by the third attribute, and the Word was God, as having occasion suddenly after to handle it; seeing the apostle hath again repeated the circumstance of time as most material, the same was in the beginning with God, and immediately subjoined those words, all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made; how can we receive any exposition, which referreth not the making of all these things to him in the beginning? But if we understand the latter part of the apostles, who, after the ascension of our Saviour, did nothing but what they were commanded and empowered to do by Christ, it will bear no relation to the beginning. If we interpret the former, of all which Jesus said and did in the promulgation of the Gospel, we cannot yet reach to the beginning assigned by the new expositors: for while John the Baptist only preached, while in their sense the Word was with God, they will not affirm that Jesus did any of these things that here are spoken of. And consequently, according to their grounds, it will be true to say, 'In the beginning was the Word, and that Word in the beginning was with God, insomuch as in the beginning nothing was done by him, but without him were all things done, which were done in the beginning.' Wherefore, in all reason we should stick to the known interpretation, in which every word receiveth its own proper signification, without any figurative distortion, and is preserved in its due latitude and extension, without any curtailing restriction. And therefore I conclude, from the undeniable testimony of St John, that in the beginning, when the heavens and the earth and all the host of them were created, all things were made by the Word, who is Christ Jesus being made flesh; and consequently, by the method of argument, as the apostle antecedently by the method of nature, that in the beginning Christ was. He then who was in heaven, and descended from thence before that which was begotten of the Virgin ascended thither, he who was before John the Baptist and before Abraham, he who was at the end of the first world, and at the beginning of the same; he had a real being and existence, before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary. But all these we have already shewed belong unto the Son of God. Therefore we must acknowledge, that Jesus Christ had a real being and existence before he was begotten by the Holy Ghost: which is our first assertion, properly opposed to the Photinians 1. 1 The Photinians were heretics, so called from Photinus, bishop of Sir mium, but born in Gallogræcia, and scholar to Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra. 120 The second assertion, next to be made good, is, that the being which Christ had, before he was conceived by the Vir-X=hi mate gin, was not any created, but the divine essence, by which 'Photinus de Gallogræcia, Marcelli discipulus, Sirmii Episcopus ordinatus, Hebionis hæresin instaurare conatus est.' S. Hieron. [de Viris Illustribus c. 107. vol. II. p. 937.] 'Photinus, Sirmiensis Episcopus, fuit a Marcello imbutus. Nam et Diaconus sub eo aliquandiu fuit.' S. Hilar. Frag. [ii. § 19, p. 1295 D.] Wherefore when Epiphanius speaketh thus of him, οὗτος ὁρμᾶτο ἀπὸ Σιρμίου, it hath no relation to the original of his person, but his heresy; of which St Hilary: Pestifere, natum Jesum Christum ex Maria, Pannonia defendit.' De Trin. [1. vii. c. 3. p. 916 E.] He was a man of singular parts aud abilities: Φύσεως ἔχων εὖ λέγειν, καὶ πείθειν ἱκανός, says Sozomen, 1. iv. c. 6. Γέγονε δὲ οὗτος ὁ Φωτεινὸς λαλος τὸν τρόπον, καὶ ὠξυμμένος τὴν γλώτταν, πολλοὺς δὲ δυνάμενος ἀπατᾷν τῇ τοῦ λόγου προφορᾷ καὶ ἑτοιμολογίᾳ. S. Epiphan. Hær. 71. § 1. [Vol. 1. p. 829 B.] 'Erat et ingenii viribus valens, et doctrinæ opibus excellens, et eloquio præpotens, quippe qui utroque sermone copiose et graviter disputaret et scriberet.' Vincent. Lirin. adv. Hares. c. 16. [Common. c. 11.] He is said by some to follow the heresy of Ebion. 'Hebionis hæresin instaurare conatus est,' says St Hierome; and St Hilary [De Trin. vii. 3, p. 916; c. 7, p. 919] ordinarily understands him by the name of Hebion, and sometimes expounds himself, 'Hebion, qui est Photinus.' But there is no similitude in their doctrines, Hebion being more Jew than Christian, and teaching Christ as much begotten by Joseph, as born of Mary. Philaster will have him agree wholly with Paulus Samosatenus 'in omnibus.' [Philastrius, Lib. de Hæresibus. § 65.] Epiphanius [Hares. 18. Vol. 1. p. 600 d. 603 4.] with an ἀπὸ μέρους, and ἐπέκεινα. Socrates [Hist. Ecclesiast. Lib. ii. c. 19, 29.] and Sozomen [Hist. Eccles. Lib. iv. c. 6.] with him and with PEARSON Sabellius: whereas he differed much from them both, especially from Sabellius, as being far from a Patripassian. 'Marcellus Sabellianæ hæresis assertor extiterat: Photinus vero novam hæresim jam ante protulerat, a Sabellio quidem in unione dissentiens, sed initium Christi ex Maria prædicabat.' Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacr. 1. ii. c. 37. Wherefore it will not be unnecessary to collect out of antiquity what did properly belong unto Photinus, because I think it not yet done, and we find his heresy, in the propriety of it, to begin and spread again. 'Photinus, mentis cæcitate deceptus, in Christo verum et substantiæ nostræ confessus est hominem, sed eumdem Deum de Deo ante omnia sæcula genitum esse non credidit.' Leo, de Nativ. Christi Serm. iv. [c. 5. Vol. I. p. 81.] 'Etiam Photinus hominem tantum profitetur Dei Filium; dicit illum non fuisse ante beatam Mariam.' Lucifer Caralit. [de non parcendo in Deum deling. p. 972.] Si quis in Christo sic veritatem prædicat animæ et carnis, ut veritatem in eo nolit accipere Deitatis, id est, qui sic dicit Christum hominem, ut Deum neget, non est Christianus Catholicus, sed Photinianus Hæreticus.' Fulg. ad Donat. c. 16. [p. 206.] Φωτεινὸς ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον λέγει τὸν γεγενημένον, Θεοῦ μὴ λέγων εἶναι τὸν τόκον, καὶ τὸν ἐκ μήτρας προελθόντα, ἄνθρωπον ὑποτίθεται διῃρημένον Θεοῦ. Theodot. Homil. de Nativ. Ephes. Concil. p. iii. c. 10. [Labbe, vol. 1. p. 1010 c.] 'Anathematizamus Photinum, qui Hebionis hæresim instaurans, Dominum Jesum Christum tantum ex Maria confitetur.' Damasus, Confess. Fidei, Epist. iv. Φάσκει δὲ οὗτος, ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς τὸν Χριστὸν μὴ εἶναι, ἀπὸ δὲ Μαρίας καὶ δεῦρο αὐτὸν ὑπάρχειν, ἐξότε, φησί, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπῆλθεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν καὶ ἐγεννήθη ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου. S. Epiphan. Hæres. 71. § 1. [Vol. 1. p. 829 a.] 15 he always was truly, really, and properly God. This will evidently and necessarily follow from the last demonstration Ἔλεγε δέ· ὡς Θεὸς μέν ἐστι παντοκράτωρ εἷς, ὁ τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ τὰ πάντα δημιουργήσας τὴν δὲ πρὸ αἰώνων γέννησίν τε καὶ ὕπαρξιν τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐ προσίετο, ἀλλ' ἐκ Μαρίας γεγενῆσθαι τὸν Χριστὸν elonyeiтo. Sozomen. 1. iv. c. 6. 'Photini ergo secta hæc est. Dicit Deum singulum esse et solitarium, et more Judaico confitendum. Trinitatis plenitudinem negat, neque ullam Dei Verbi, aut ullam Spiritus Sancti putat esse personam. Christum vero hominem tantummodo solitarium adserit, cui principium adscribit ex Maria; et hoc omnimodis dogmatizat, solam nos personam Dei Patris, et solum Christum hominem colere debere.' Vinc. Lirinensis adv. Hares. c. 17 [Common. c. 12]. In the disputation framed by Vigilius out of the seventh book of St Hilary, as I conceive, Photinus rejecting the opinion of Sabellius (whom Socrates and Sozomen said he followed) as impious, thus declares his own: 'Unde magis ego dico, Deum Patrem Filium habere Dominum Jesum Christum, ex Maria Virgine initium sumentem, qui per sanctæ conversationis excellentissimum atque inimitabile beatitudinis meritum, a Deo Patre in Filium est adoptatus et eximio Divinitatis honore donatus.' [Dial. 1. i. § 4. p. 122.] And again; 'Ego Domino nostro Jesu Christo initium tribuo, purumque hominem fuisse affirmo, et per beatæ vitæ excellentissimum meritum Divinitatis honorem fuisse adeptum.' [Ibid. § 10. p. 128.] Vide eundem 1. ii. adv. Eutych. 'Ignorat etiam Photinus magnum pietatis, quod Apostolus memorat, sacramentum, qui Christi ex Virgine fatetur exordium. Et propterea non credit sine initio substantialiter Deum natum ex Deo Patre, in quo carnis veritatem confitetur ex Virgine.' Fulg. ad Thrasim. 1. i. c. 6. [p. 74.] Gregory Nazianzen, according to his custom, gives a very brief, but remarkable expression: Φωτεινοῦ τὸν κάτω Χριστὸν καὶ ἀπὸ Maplas ȧpxóμevov. Orat. 26. [Orat. 33. § 16. Vol. 1. p. 614 D.] But the opinion of Photinus cannot be better understood, than by the condemnation of it in the Council of Sirmium; which having set out the confession of their faith in brief, addeth many and various anathemas, according to the several heresies then apparent, without mentioning their names. Of these, the fifth aims clearly at Photinus: Si quis secundum præscientiam vel prædestinationem a Maria dicit Filium esse, et non ante sæcula ex Patre natum, apud Deum esse, et per eum facta esse omnia, Anathema sit.' [S. Hilar. de Synod. c. 38. p. 1175 D.] The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, also were particulars directed against him, as St Hilary hath observed: but the last of all is most material; 'Si quis Christum Deum, Filium Dei, ante sæcula subsistentem, et ministrantem Patri ad omnium perfectionem, non dicat, sed ex quo de Maria natus est, ex eo et Christum et Filium nominatum esse, et initium accepisse ut sit Deus, dicat, Anathema sit.' [S. Hilar. de Synod. c. 38. p. 1177 c.] Upon which, the observation of St Hilary is this: 'Concludi damnatio ejus hæresis, propter quam conventum erat, (that is, the Photinian) expositione totius fidei cui adversabatur, oportuit, quæ initium Dei Filii ex partu Virginis mentiebatur.' S. Hilar. de Synod. contra Arianos. [c. 61. p. 1185 D.] Thus was Photinus bishop of Sirmium condemned by a Council held in the same eity. They all agreed suddenly in the condemnation of him: Arians, Semi-Arians, and Catholics: καθεῖλον εὐθύς, says Socrates, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ὡς καλῶς καὶ δικαίως γενόμενον, πάντες ἐπῄνεσαν καὶ τότε καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα. 1. ii. c. 29. And because his history is very obscure and intricate, take this brief catalogue of his condemnations. We read that he was condemned at the Council of Nice, and at the same |