« FöregåendeFortsätt »
doth signify the supreme Deity, which was so glorified by the Israelites; and doth also testify that we worship the same God
under the Gospel, which they did under the Law: so doth he Rom. ix. 5. speak of Christ in as sublime a style, who is over all, God
blessed for ever, Amen; and thereby doth testify the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity. If we consider the scope of the apostle, which is to magnify the Israelites by the enumeration of such privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chosen nation (the most eminent of which was contained in the genealogy of our Saviour), we shall find their glory did not consist in this, that Christ at first was born of them a man, and afterwards made a God, for what great honour could accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whose Godhead is referred not to his birth, but to his death? whereas this is truly honourable, and the peculiar glory of that nation, that the most high God blessed for ever should take on him the seed of Abraham, and come out of the Israelites as concerning the flesh. Thus every way it doth appear the apostle spake of Christ as of the one eternal God.
He then who was the Word which in the beginning was
for ever, Amen and Amen, 15") and
two who bare the same name, and
the Holy הקרוש ברוך הוא ,IRabbins
and the injinite ;הב"ה or הקב"ה viation
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”, saith Jolin xvi. 15. Christ; because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead, and more than that the Father cannot have: but yet in that perfect and absolute equality there is notwithstanding
fell at the same time into the same opinion; one of them being a presbyter, and rector of a church in Alexandria, the other a deacon: as Alexander the bishop of Alexandria, in his epistle extant in Theodoret : Eloi oè ol αναθεματισθέντες αιρεσιώται, από πρεσβυτέρων μεν, 'Αρειος, από διακόνων δε, 'Αχιλλάς, Ευζώϊος,-'Αρειος έτερος, &c. [Eccl. Hist. 1. i. c. 4. fin.] In the epistle of the Arians to Alexander, he is reckoned amongst the Presbyters: 'Αρειος, Αειθαλής, 'Αχιλλάς, Καρπώνης, Σαρματάς, 'Αρειος, πρεσβύτεροι. Of these two Phabadius contra Arian. (c. 13.] Patrem et Filium non esse unam personam, ut Sabellius, aut duas substantias, ut Arius.' The heresy is so well known, that it needs no explication : and indeed it cannot be better described than in the anathematism of the Nicene Council : (Labbe, Vol. 11. 28 c. Socr. Eccl. Ηist. 1. 8.] Τους δε λέγοντας, ήν ποτέ ότε ουκ ήν, και πριν γεννηθήναι ουκ ήν, και ότι εξ ουκ όντων εγένετο, ή
εξ ετέρας υποστάσεως η ουσίας φάσκον-
1 "Ένα γαρ οίδαμεν αγέννητον, και
2 Πάντα όσα έχει ο Πατήρ, του Υιού εστίν, ώς έμπαλιν τα του Υιού του Πατρός: ουδέν ούν ίδιον, ότι κοινά. έπει και αυτό το είναι κοινόν και ομότιμον, ει και τω Υιώ παρά του Πατρός. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. de Filio. [Orat. 30. § 11. Vol. 1. p. 547 A.)
John y, 26.
this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not from
kill him because he made himself equal with God, he anJohn v. 18, swered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can
do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do*: by
was equal, even in that equality confesseth a priority, saying, John xiv. 23. The Father is greater than l'. The Son equal in respect of his 135
nature, the Father greater in reference to the communication John vii. 23. of the Godhead. I know him, saith Christ, for I am from him.
And because he is from the Father, therefore he is called by
1.Hoc dixit, Vitam dedit Filio ut 2 "Tamquam diceret, Quid scandahaberet eam in semetipso, tanquam lizati estis quia Patrem meum dixi diceret, Pater, qui est vita in semet Deum, et quia æqualem me facio Deo? ipso, genuit Filium qui esset vita in Ita sum æqualis, ut ille me genuerit; semetipso. Pro eo enim quod est ita sum æqualis, ut non ille a me, sed genuit, voluit intelligi dedit, tanquam ego ab illo sim. Hoc enim intelligitur si cuiquam diceremus, dedit tibi in his verbis, Non potest Filius a se fa. Deus esse. S. August. [ Tract. 19 in cere quicquam, &c. hoc est, quicquiil Ioan. § 13. Vol. ii. part 2. p. 443 p.] Filius habet ut faciat, a Patre habet Et paulo post : 'Quid ergo Filio dedit? ut faciat. Quare habet a Patre ut dedit ei ut Filius esset; genuit ut vita faciat? quia a Patre habet ut Filius esset; hoc est, dedit ei babere vitam sit. Quare a Patre habet ut Filius in semetipso, ut esset vita non egens sit? quia a Patre habet ut possit, quia vita, ne participando intelligatur lia a Patre habet ut sit. Filio enim hoc bere vitam. Si enim participando est esse quod posse.' S. August, in haberet vitam, posset et amittendo locum. [Tract. 20. in Ioan. § 4. Vol. esse sine vita : hoc in Filio ne accipi III. part 2, p. 450 c.) Paulo post : as, ne cogites, ne credas. Manet ergo *Hoc est, Non potest Filius a Pater vita, manet et Filius vita. Pater quicquam facere, quod esset, si dicevita in semetipso, non a Filio; Filius ret, non est Filius a Etenim vita in semetipso, sed a Patre.' [Ibid.] si Filius est, natus est; si natus est, So again, de Trinit. 1. i. c. 12. [Vol. ab illo est de quo natus est.' [Ibid. VII. p. 766 E.] • Plerumque dicit, $ 8. p. 452 c.) dedit mihi Pater, in quo vult in 8 Δήλον ότι το μείζον μέν έστι της telligi quod eum genuerit Pater; non αιτίας, το δε ίσον της φύσεως. S. ut tanquam jam exsistenti et non Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. de Filio. [Orat. habenti dederit aliquid, sed ipsum 30. $ 7. Vol. 1. p. 514 v.] dedisse ut haberet, genuisse est ut 4 So St Augustine hath observed : esset.'
'Ab ipso, inquit, sum, quia Filius de
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
Patre; et quicquid est filius, de illo est cujus est filius. Ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantum Deum. Et dicimus Dominum Jesum Lumen de Lumine; Patrem non dicimus lumen de lumine, sed tantum lumen. Ad hoc ergo pertinet quod dixit, Ab ipso sum.' [Tract. 31. in Ioan. § 4. Vol. III. p. 521 F.] From hence then did the Nicene Council gather those words of their Creed: Ocov ék θεού, και φως εκ φωτός, θεόν αληθινόν ÈK Ocou aanowoû. [Soc. i. 8.] But not immediately, for they were partly in some of the Oriental Creeds before: as appeareth by that confession which Eusebius presented to the Council, as containing what he had believed and taught ever since his baptism, in which he had these words: kai eis ένα Κύριον Ιησούν Χριστόν, τον του θεού Λόγον, θεόν εκ θεού, φως εκ φωtós, swiv ek gwñs. [Soc. i. 8.] And as Eusebius calls him Life of Life, 80 others, Power of Power, and W'is. dom of Wisdom. “Ideo Christus vir. tus et sapientia Dei, quia de Patre virtute et sapientia etiam ipse virtus et sapientia est, sicut lumen de Patre lumine, et fons vitæ apud Deum Pa. trem utique fontem vitæ. S. August. de Trin. 1. vii. c. 3. (8 4. Vol. viii. p. 856 c.) And not only so, but Essence of Essence. “Pater et Filius simul una sapientia, quia una essentia; et singil. latim sapientia de sapientia, sicut es. sentia de essentia.' Ibid. c. 2. (S 3. p. 855 E.]
l'Ouoouolos, which is coessential or consubstantial, is not to be taken of a part of the Divine essence, as if the Son were a part of the essence of the Father, and so of the same nature with him; which was the opinion of the Manichees. Ούχ ως Ουαλεντίνος προβολήν το γέννημα του Πατρός έδογμάτισεν ουδ' ως Μανιχαίος μέρος ομοούσιον του Πατρός τό γέννημα εισηγήσατο 28 Arius in his epistle to Alexander
Epiph. Hær. lxix. § 7. Vol. 1. p. 732 D.); by the interpretation of St Hilary: 'Nec ut Valentinus prolatio. nem natum Patris commentatus est; -nec, sicut Manichæus, partem unius substantiæ Patris natum exposuit.' De Trin. 1. vi. c. 9. (p. 883 A. 884 B.) Quod Hilarius ita Latine reddidit, tanquam ówooúolovid significaret, quod partem substantiæ habet ex toto re. sectam,' says Dionysius Petavius (de Trin. 1. iv. c. 5. § 8.) without any reason; for St Hilary clearly translates Ouoouolov barely unius substantiæ, and it was in the original μέρος ομοούσιον,
, which he expressed by partem unius substantia. Under this notion first the Arians pretended to refuse the name ομοούσιον, as Arius in the same epistle signifieth, lest thereby they should admit a real composition and division in the Deity: Eί το εκ γαστρός, και το εκ ΙΙατρός εξήλθον, ως μέρος του ομοουσίου και ως προβολή υπό τινων νοείται, σύνθετος έσται ο Πατήρ, και διαιρετος, και TPETTós. [Epiph. ib. p. 733 c.] And St Hierome testifies thus much not only of Arius and Eunomius, but
John X. 30.
substance with the Father; as the Council of Nice determined, and the ancient Fathers before them taught. Hence appeareth the truth of those words of our Saviour, which raised a second motion in the Jews to stone him; I and the Father are one : where the plurality of the verb, and the neutrality of the noun, with the distinction of their persons, speak a
perfect identity of their essence. And though Christ say, John x. 38. the Father is in me, and I in him; yet withal he saith, I Jolin xvi. 28; xvii. 8. came out from the Father: by the former shewing the
Divinity of his essence, by the latter the origination of himalso of Origen before them: ‘Habetur instance of Constantine the emperor. Dialogus apud Græcos Origenis, et Now as the Manichees made use of Candidi Valentinianæ Hæreseos de. the word ομοούσιος to express their fensoris, in quo duos Andabatas di. errors concerning the nature of God gladiantes inter se spectasse me fa and the person of Christ; so the anteor. Dicit Candidus, Filium de cient fathers, before the Nicene CounPatris esse substantia, errans in eo cil, had used the same in a true catholic quod apoßolu id est, prolationem, sense, to express the unity in essence asserit: E regione Origenes, juxta
of the Father and the Son; as appearArium et Eunomium, repugnat eum
eth by the confession of the same Euvel prolatum esse vel natum, ne Deus sebius: Eπει και των παλαιων τινάς Pater dividatur in partes.' Apol. 2. λογίους, και επιφανείς επισκόπους, και in Ruffin. (8 19. Vol. 11. p. 512 A.] And συγγραφείς έγνωμεν, επί της του Παtherefore Eusebius, bishop of Cæ τρός και Υιού θεολογίας, τω του ομοουsarea, refused not to subscribe to the σίου συγχρησαμένους ονόματι. Ιbid. $ 7. Nicene Creed, being so interpreted as [p. 241 A.] Wherefore the other Eusethat objection might be taken away : bius of Nicomedia, understanding the το εκ της ουσίας, ώμολογείτο προς αυτών ancient catholic sense, confessed, that δηλωτικών είναι του εκ μέν του Πατρός if they believed Christ to be the true είναι, ου μην ως μέρος υπάρχειν του Πα begotten, and not created, Son of God, Tpós. (apud Athanas. de Decret. Nic. they must acknowledge him ομοούσιον, , Syn. § 5. Vol. I. p. 240 B.] Upon which the Arians endeavoured to make this confession he subscribed to that so odious; and therefore the Council clause begotten of the substance of the in opposition to them determined it: Father, which was not in his own "Quid est aliud cur óuocúolov Patri Creed. And again; Oűtw gè kai tò nolint Filium dici, nisi quia nolunt ομοούσιον είναι του πατρός τον υιόν,
, verum Dei Filium confiteri? sicut aucεξεταζόμενος ο λόγος συνίστησιν ου κατά tor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediensis τον των σωμάτων τρόπον, ουδέ τούς θνη epistola sua prodidit, dicens, Si verum, τοις ζώοις παραπλησίως, ούτε γάρ κατά inquit, Dei Filium, et increatum diciδιαίρεσιν της ουσίας, ούτε κατά απο
mus, ouooúslov cum Patre incipimus τομήν, [αλλ' ουδε κατά τι πάθος, η confiteri. Hæc cum lecta esset epis. τροπής ή αλλοίωσιν της του Πατρός tola in Concilio Niceno, hoc verbum in oủolas te kai duvánews. Ibid. & 7. p. tractatu Fidei posuerunt Patres, quod 240 E.] Upon this acknowledgment id viderunt adversariis esse formidini, he was persuaded to subscribe to ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio the other clause also, (added to ipsorum nefandæ caput hæresis amthat Creed which he himself gave putarent.' S. Ambros. 1. iii. de Fide, in to the Council) being of one sub c. 15. (S 125. Vol, 11. p. 518 e.] De stance with the Father: which clause voce 'Ouoouolos, vide Dionys. Petav. was inserted by the Council, at the de Trinit. l. iv. c. 6.