Sidor som bilder

hath that being which is originally and eternally of itself, and of which all other beings do essentially depend: that by

the right of emanation of all things from him, he hath an 157 absolute, supreme, and universal dominion over all things

as God: that as the Son of man he is invested with all power in heaven and earth; partly economical, for the completing our redemption, and the destruction of our enemies, to continue to the end of all things, and then to be resigned to the Father; partly consequent unto the union, or due unto the obedience of his passion, and so eternal, as belonging to that kingdom which shall have no end. And though he be thus Lord of all things by right of the first creation and constant preservation of them, yet is he more peculiarly the Lord of us who by faith are consecrated to his service : for through the work of our redemption he becomes our Lord both by the right of conquest and of purchase; and making us the sons of God, and providing heavenly mansions for us, he acquires a farther right of promotion, which, considering the covenant we all make to serve him, is at last completed in the right of a voluntary obligation. And thus I believe in CHRIST OUR LORD,




THESE words, as they now stand, clearly distinguish the conception of Jesus from his nativity, attributing the first to the Holy Ghost, the second to the blessed Virgin; whereas the ancient Creeds made no such distinction; but without any particular express mention of the conception, had it only in this manner, who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; or, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary'; understanding by the word born, not only the nativity, but also the

1 Deum Judæi sic prædicant so quomodo Dei Filius incarnatus est de lum, ut negent filium ejus; negent Spiritu Sancto et ex Maria semper simul cum eo unum esse, qui natus est Virgine.' Capitul. Carol. 82. [c. 81: de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine.' 789 A.D.) and Alcuinus de Trinitat. Novatianus. 'Qui natus est de Spiritu 1. iii. c. 1. Dicitur in Symbolo Sancto ex Maria Virgine.' Ruffinus in Catholicæ fidei, quod Christus de Symbolum, § 9. [p. 71.] 'Natus de Spiritu Sancto et ex Maria Virgine Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine,' S. sit natus.' In the ancient MS. tranAugust. Ench. ad Laurent. c. 34. 37. scribed by the learned Archbishop et 38. [Vol. vi. pp. 209–211.) As of Armagh: Tòv yevvno évra ek hveúalso the Council of Francford in ματος αγίου και Μαρίας της παρθένου. . Sacrosyllabo. [Labbe, Vol. vii. p. So Paulus Samosatenus in his fifth 1027 c.] Natus est per Spiritum proposition: Ίησούς και γεννηθείς εκ Sanctumex Virgine Maria.' S. August. πνεύματος αγίου και Μαρίας της παρθέde Fide et Symb. c. iv. § 8. [Vol. vi. vov. [Labbe, Vol. 1. p. 869.] These p. 155 c.] ‘Nonne de Spiritu Sancto words, omitted in the Nicene Creed, et Virgine Maria Dei filius unicus were put in by the Council of Con. natus est?' Idem, de Prædest. Sanct. stantinople, (see Labbe, Vol. iv. pp. c. 15. [8 30. Vol. x. p. 810 A.] Et 339, 342.) upon the occasion of the paulo post [8 31.] 'Quia natus est de Apollinarian heresy, as was observed Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine.' by Diogenes bishop of Cyzicum in Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et the Council of Chalcedon: Oi yap Maria Virgine.' S. Leo Epist. x. c. 2. άγιοι πατέρες οι μετά ταύτα, το εσαρ[Ep. 28. c. 2. Vol. 1. p. 803.] Maxi κώθη, δείπον οι άγιοι εν Νικαία πατέρες, mus Taurin. (Homil. 83.] Chrysologus έσαφήνισαν είπόντες, εκπνεύματος αγίου [Serm. 57.] Etherius Uxam. [ad και Μαρίας της παρθένου. [Labbe, Elipand. 1. i. c. 21. p. 906.] Auctor Vol. iv. p. 136 d.] In the several Symbol. ad Catechum. So also l'e expositions among the Sermons de nantius Fortunatus. [Miscell. 1. xi. Tempore, falsely attributed to St Auc. 1.] From whence Fulgentius de gustine: 'Qui conceptus est de Spiritu Fide ad Petrum Diaconum: "Natum Sancto natus ex Virgine Maria.' So de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, EusebiusGallicanus, Symin Symbolo acceptum, et corde ad bolo, [p. 554 D.) And from thence it justitiam credit, et ore ad salutem hath so continued, as we now read it, Sancta confitetur Ecclesia. [c. 2. Which was conceived by the Holy $ 9. p. 505.] 'Item prædicandum est Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.

conception and generation. This is very necessary to be observed, because otherwise the addition of a word will prove the diminution of the sense of the Article. For they which speak only of the operation of the Holy Ghost in Christ's conception, and of the manner of his birth, leave out most part of that which was anciently understood under that one term of being born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.

That therefore nothing may be omitted which is pertinent to express the full intent, and to comprehend the utmost signification, of this Article, we shall consider three persons mentioned, so far as they are concerned in it. The first is he who was conceived and born; the second, he by whose energy or operation he was conceived; the third, she who did conceive and bear him.

For the first, the relative in the front of this carries us clearly back unto the former Article, and tells us that he 158 which was thus conceived and born was Jesus Christ, the

only Son of God. And being we have already demonstrated
that this only Son is therefore called so, because he was be-
gotten by the Father from all eternity, and so of the same
substance with him ; it followeth that this Article at the first
beginning, or by virtue of its connexion, can import po less
than this most certain, but miraculous, truth, that he' which
was begotten by the Father before all worlds, was now in the
fulness of time conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of
the Virgin Mary. Again, being by the conception and birth
is to be understood whatsoever was done toward the produc-
tion of the human nature of our Saviour; therefore the same
relative, considered with the words which follow it, can speak
no less than the incarnation of that person. And thus even
in the entry of the Article we meet with the incarnation of
the Son of God, that great mystery wrapt up in that short
sentence of St John, the Word was made flesh.

Indeed the pronoun hath relation not only unto this, but
to the following Articles, which have their necessary connex-
ion with and foundation in this third; for he who was con-
ceived and born, and so made man, did in that human nature
suffer, die, and rise again. Now when we say this was the

John i. 14.

1 Huic enim quem dudum de Patre natum ineffabiliter didicisti, nunc a Spiritu Sancto templum fa

bricatum intra secreta uteri Virgi-
nalis intellige.' Rufin. in Symb.
§ 9. [p. 72.]

Word, and that Word was God, being whosoever is God cannot cease to be so; it must necessarily follow that he was made man by joining the human nature with the divine. But then we must take heed lest we conceive, because the divine nature belongeth to the Father, to which the human is conjoined, that therefore the Father should be incarnate, or conceived and born. For as certainly as the Son was crucified, and the Son alone; so certainly the same Son was incarnate, and that Son alone. Although the human nature was conjoined with the Divinity, which is the nature common to the Father and the Son; yet was that union made only in the person of the Son. Which doctrine is to be observed against the heresy of the Patripassians', which was both very

i The heresy of the Patripassians esse dicit, hunc crucifixum passumseems only to have relation to the suf que contendit et mortuum; præterea fering of our Saviour, because the word seipsum sibi sedere ad dextram suam, signifies no more than the passion of cum profana et sacrilega temeritate the Father. But it is founded in an proponit.' After Praxeas, Noetus error concerning the incarnation, it taught the same: 'Ετόλμησε λέγειν being out of question that he which Tdu matépa tetovéval, says Epiphawas made man did suffer. Epipha nius, and being questioned for it, he nius observes, Noetus was the first answered: Τί γάρ κακόν πεποίηκα; ένα which taught this heresy, who lived θεόν δοξάζω, ένα επίσταμαι, και ουκ one hundred and thirty years before άλλον πλήν αυτού, γεννηθέντα, πεπονhim, more or less, and when he was Obra, åtobavóvta. Hæres. lvii. § 1. questioned for it, he denied it: did to (Vol. 1. p. 479 D. 480 B.) He thought μηδένα προ αυτού εξεμέσαι ταυτην την

the Father and the Son to be the — tikplav. Heres. Ivii. & 1. [Vol. 1. p. same person, and therefore if the 480 A.) But certainly this heresy was Son, the Father to be incarnate: ancienter than Noetus: for the Patri. Υιοπάτορα τον Χριστόν εδίδαξε, τον passianiarenamed by St Cyprian*, Ep. αυτόν είναι πατέρα και υιόν και άγιον 73. [8 4. p. 781] and Tertullian his TT veüua. S. Epiphan. Anaceph. [§ 11. master chargeth it upon Praxeas: Vol. 11. p. 145 c.) After the Noetiani ‘Duo negotia Diaboli Praxeas Romæ followed the Sabelliani. So Philasprocuravit, Prophetiam expulit, et trius, c. 54: "Sabellius-discipulus Hæresim intulit; Paracletum fugavit, ejus, similitudinem sui Doctoris itidem et Patrem crucifixit.' Adv. Prax. c. 1. secutus est, et errorem, unde et SaAnd expressing the absurdity of that belliani postea sunt appellati, qui et opinion: “Itaque post tempus Pater Patripassiani et Praxeani a Praxea, natus et Pater passus, ipse Deus Do et Hermogeniani ab Hermogene, qui minus Omnipotens Jesus Christus fuerunt in Africa, quiet ita sentientes prædicatur.' c. 2. And De Præscr. abjecti sunt ab Ecclesia Catholica.' adv. Hæret. [adv. omn. Hær. c. 8.+] So St Augustine: 'Sabelliani dicti Post hos omnes etiam Praxeas quidam sunt quidam hæretici, qui vocantur Heresim introduxit, quam Victorinus et Patripassiani, qui dicunt ipsum corroborare curavit. Hic Deum Pa Patrem passum fuisse.' Tract. 36. trem Omnipotentem Jesum Christum in Ioan. [8 8. Vol. 111. part 2. p. 548 a.]

* According to Hippolytus (Ref. ix. 2), the Noetian heresy existed at Rome, during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, so that there can be no doubt that Noetus preceded Cyprian.

This treatise is certainly not Tertullian's. No good MS. recognizes it, though in the inferior oncs it is prefixed or affixed to the de prescriplione.

ancient and far diffused, making the Father to be incarnate, and becoming man to be crucified. But this very CREED was always thought to be a sufficient confutation of that fond opinion', in that the incarnation is not suljoined to the first,

This, I confess, is denied by Epiphanius, who acknowledged Sabellius to have followed Noetus in many things, but not in the incarnation or passion of the Father: Σαβελλιανοί οί τα όμοια ανοήτως (1. ανοήτοις, id est, Νοητιανούς, vel ανοήτω, id est, Νοητό, as St Augustine, Novato) δοξάζοντες παρά τούτο μόνον λέγουσι γάρ μή πεπονθέναι TÒV Tatépa. Anaceph. (8 16. Vol. II. p. 146 A.] This St Augustine wonders very much at in Epiphanius: 'Sabelliani, inquit, similia Noeto dogmatizantes, præter hoc quod dicunt Patrem non esse passum; quomodo de Sabellianis intelligi potest, cum sic innotuerint dicere Patrem passum, ut Patripassiani quam Sabelliani crebrius nuncupentur?' S. August. Hær. 41. [Vol. viii. p. 12 c.] Indeed, the Latin fathers generally call the Sabellians Patripassians; and not only so, but Theodoret doth so describe them as professing one person: 'Ev uèr maλαια ως Πατέρα νομοθετήσαι, εν δε τη καινή, ως Υιόν ενανθρωπήσαι. Heret. Fab. l. ii. c. 9. [Vol. iv. p. 335.] After the Sabelliani succeeded in the same heresy the Priscillianistæ, as appeareth by Pope Leo, who shews they taught but one person of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: 'Quod blasphemiæ genus de Sabellii opinione sumpserunt, cujus discipuli etiam Patripassiani merito nuncupantur; quia si ipse est Filius qui et Pater, crux Filii Patris est passio, et quidquid in forma servi Filius Patri obediendo sustinuit, totum in se Pater ipse suscepit.' Ep. 93. c. 1. [Ep. 15. c. 1. Vol. 1. p. 697.] Thus the Patripassian heresy, beginning from Praxeas and Hermogenes, was continued by Noetus, Sabellius, and Priscillianus, and mingled with all their several heresies, the sum and substance of which is thus well set down by Victorinus Afer: “Illi (Patripassiani)

Deum solum esse dicunt quem nos patrem dicimus; ipsum solum exsistentem et effectorem omnium, et venisse non solum in mundum, sed et in carnem, et alia omnia quæ nos Filium fecisse dicimus.' Adv. Arium, 1. i. c. 44.

It appeareth plainly that Tertullian confuted Praxeas, by reducing him to these words of the Creed. For when he had first declared : 'Nos...unicum quidem Deum credimus (which was the objection of Praxeas) sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam olkovoulav dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil,' then he subjoineth: ‘Hunc missum a Patre in Virginem, et ex ea natum hominem et Deum, filium hominis et filium Dei, et cognominatum Jesum Christum. Hunc passum, hunc mortuum, et sepultum, secundum Scripturas, et resuscitatum a Patre, et in cælo resumptum sedere ad dextram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos.' And that we may be assured that he used these words out of the Creed, it followeth: 'Hanc Regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, &c.' [adv. Prax. c. 2.] This is yet farther evident out of Epiphanius, who tells us the Eastern doctors confuted Noetus in the same manner, by reducing him to the words of the Creed: "Eva θεόν δοξάζομεν και αυτοι (

just as Tertullian: “Nos unicum quidem Deum credimus.) αλλ' ώς οίδαμεν δικαίως δοξάζειν" και ένα Χριστόν έχομεν, αλλ' ως οίδαμεν ένα Χριστόν υιόν θεού,

, παθόντα καθώς έπαθεν, αποθανόντα καθώς απέθανεν, αναστάντα, ανελθόντα εις τον ουρανόν, όντα εν δεξιά του πατρός, ερχόμενον κρίναι ζώντας και verpoús. Hares. 57. § 1. [Vol. I. p. 480 c.] And when the argument of Tertullian against Praxeas, and the

« FöregåendeFortsätt »