v 85602050 [921 8 UN Ne 3D3TIOO S.TAVHOIN ‘LS SO ALISHAAINN a eo Sha tee Ae PL ie HOLS < Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2006 with funding from Microsoft Corporation httos://archive.org/details/defensiofidei02bulluoft Shey ~~ shan, Co 4 Shey Saf SY Nar bias See Fir DEFENSIO FIDEI NICANA. A DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED, OUT OF THE EXTANT WRITINGS OF THE CATHOLICK DOCTORS, WHO FLOURISHED DURING THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; IN WHICH ALSO IS INCIDENTALLY VINDICATED THE CREED OF CONSTANTINOPLE; CONCERNING THE HOLY GHOST. BY GEORGE BULL, [D.D.,] A PRIEST OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH, [AFTERWARDS LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S. ] 4A NEW TRANSLATION. OXFORD: JOHN HENRY PARKER. M DCCC 111. ow τ ‘Se ’ » vee Reh mor” % 5 “ ᾿ i : 4 lores! “ΟἹ Σ tie t ΠῚ ᾿ Χ ΒΝ oy ers Υ i 4 Erg : HS, rod Ξ ᾿ τ "δὸς ἵ ae ae i ι \ a wih παν : oe es ἣ = ‘ ἐκ δ᾿ Ἂ = 4 af , oe Sree, ες 7 οὖ τ z= wid ia) bin F. ζ τ τς dl on -- bee , ate ΡΥ τ κι Ψ the » β Δ. ὶ > Agar Ἢ ἀπο oe +4 ) 4 J . τ να uJ Senet BS oye ᾿ ν᾿» ὁννοῦ ἡ ἕν ἈΦ: ΤΣ ΤΡ © Fetes | = oe ar - “aa to Og ᾿ ἌΣ, τῆς δ ἂν = ς;, 2, ie LAD x β : ν ὧν : Sut ᾿ δὰ... “ es -ἰ se ba . eo . = < ae ‘fond : Log z ν t- Fd «ἘΣ : ma ἧς με : Say : wy . sa + ba τ + Ὁ ; ul hire ~ : ς - 3 ᾧ $a te ‘ Υ͂ κυ" Ἵ ween «2; ~ ἴ ρ 3 : ων be'e ¢ δον - ve . --; τῇ he “. ΄ . ρα » - ΠΩ ἈΠ “ . =. 7 bot ἃ -“-αὶ “ὧν ‘ f oe ster ng ad ».. or ᾿ς ς ow , os) ἢ recs DEFENSIO FIDEI NICANA. A DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED, OUT OF THE EXTANT WRITINGS OF THE CATHOLICK DOCTORS, WHO FLOURISHED DURING THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; IN WHICH ALSO IS INCIDENTALLY VINDICATED THE CREED OF CONSTANTINOPLE; CONCERNING THE HOLY GHOST. BY GEORGE BULL, [D.D.,] A PRIEST OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH,’ [AFTERWARDS LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S. | A NEW TRANSLATION. — OXFORD: JOHN HENRY PARKER. M DCCC LII. i eats M2. \3 a on? Gf A : ) Η Gkiiees bat ἘΠ rey Bien ei : eatery ὌΝΤΑ Trae ΤΣ Rpm teat mee Pt Paes ἘΣ Phebe aay | ὰ τ 0 ATS | ΠΡΟΜ tae CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS OF EACH BOOK. INTRODUCTION. In which the occasion, design, and division of the entire. work are set forth . ; : : fe BOOK 1. ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON BEFORE [HTS INCARNATION oF] THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, NAY RATHER BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, AND ON THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE THROUGH HIM, CHAPTER I. The Proposition stated: and the former part of it, viz. the pre-existence of the Son before [His incarnation] of the blessed Virgin Mary, demon- strated . ᾧ Σ ᾧ é a ὑφ . ὶ CHAPTER II. T he second part of the proposition is established, respecting the pre-existence of the Son before the foundation of the world, and the creation of all things through Him. . . . . BOOK II. ON THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON, CHAPTER I. The subject proposed. The word ὁμοούσιος, “of one substance,” explained at length. The Nicene fathers cleared from the suspicion of em- ploying new and strange language, in using this word to express the true Godhead of the Son. The opposition between the council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and the council of Nice against Arius, reconciled. Proof that the term ὁμοούσιος was not derived from heretics. A brief review of the heads of the arguments by which the Antenicene doctors confirmed the consubstantiality . . BULL. c Page 15 36 55 XVili CONTENTS. CHAPTER Ii. The doctrine of the author of the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, of Hermas, or the Shepherd, and of the martyr Ignatius, concerning the true Divinity of the Son, set forth A : ὶ Eee CHAPTER III. Clement of Rome and Polycarp incidentally vindicated from the aspersions of the author of the Irenicum, and of Sandius . , > δ CHAPTER IV. Containing an exposition of the views of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch; with an incidental declaration of the faith of Christians respecting the Holy Trinity, in the age of Lucian, out of Lucian himself . ° ) » ; Ὰ CHAPTER V. Setting forth the doctrine of Irenzus, concerning the Son of God, most plainly confirmatory of the Nicene Creed. . ‘ “ : CHAPTER VI. Containing exceedingly clear testimonies out of St. Clement of Alexandria, concerning the true and supreme Divinity of the Son, and, further, concerning the consubstantiality of the whole most Holy Trinity ᾿ CHAPTER VII. Wherein the doctrine of Tertullian, concerning the consubstantiality of the Son, is shewn to coincide altogether with the Nicene Creed CHAPTER VIII. The Nicene Creed, on the article of the consubstantiality of the Son, is con- firmed by the testimonies of the presbyter Caius, and of the celebrated bishop and martyr St. Hippolytus . ‘ . . ς CHAPTER IX. Wherein it is shewn fully and clearly that the doctrine of Origen concerning the true Divinity of the Son of God was altogether catholic, and per- fectly consonant with the Nicene Creed, especially from his work against Celsus, which is undoubtedly genuine, and most free from cor- ruption, and which was composed by him when in advanced age, and with most exact care and attention . ‘ : ° : 86 104 135 160 . 108 206 217 CONTENTS. xix CHAPTER X. Page Concerning the faith and views of the martyr Cyprian, of Novatian, or the author of a treatise on the Trinity among the works of Tertullian, and of Theognostus . ° . ο 4 ; ς . 285 CHAPTER XI. In which is set forth the consent of the Dionysii of Rome and of Alex- andria with the Nicene fathers . . . . . *, 802 CHAPTER XII. On the opinion and faith of the very celebrated Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neoczsarea in Pontus . . . . . 822 CHAPTER XIII. Wherein the opinion, touching the consubstantiality of the Son, of the six bishops of the council of Antioch, who wrote an epistle to Paul of Samosata, as well as of Pierius, Pamphilus, Lucian, Methodius, mar- tyrs, is shewn to be catholic, and plainly consonant to the Nicene Creed , ° . ‘ ‘ ‘ ° ᾽ . 336 CHAPTER XIV. The opinion and faith of Arnobius Afer and Lactantius, touching the true divinity of the Son is declared. The second book on the consubstantiality is wound up with a brief conclusion, ° ° ° . 858 BOOK III. ON THE 00O-ETERNITY OF THE SON, OR HIS CO-ETERNAL EXISTENCE WITH GOD THE FATHER, CHAPTER I. ‘The connection of this book with the preceding. The first proposition stated respecting the eternity of the Son; confirmed first by the most explicit testimonies of the apostolic father, Ignatius. A notable pas- sage in his epistle to the Magnesians clearly explained and illustrated. The Gnostics parents ofthe Arians. ; . ᾿ . 8609 XxX ‘CONTENTS. CHAPTER II. Page The doctrine of Justin Martyr, Irenzus, ,and Clement of Alexandria, re- specting the eternity of the Son, unfolded : . ° - 402 4 δ CHAPTER III. Very clear testimonies of Origen respecting the co-eternity of the Son ad- duced . Se ‘ . . . ° . . 411 CHAPTER IV. The decree of the Nicene fathers concerning the co-eternal existence of the Son with His’ Father, confirmed by most express testimonies of Cy- prian, Dionysius of Rome and of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the six bishops who wrote from the council of Antioch to Paul of Samo- sata, Theognostus, Methodius, Pamphilus the martyr, and Arnobius . 420 CHAPTER Υ. The second proposition stated, concerning those fathers, who, though they may appear to have denied, did yet in reality acknowledge, the eternity of the Son, The opinion of Athenagoras respecting the co-eternity of the Son accurately explained . . . . . - 433 CHAPTER VI. The doctrine of Tatian respecting the eternity of the Son fully set forth . 448 - CHAPTER VII. The views and belief of Theophilus of Antioch respecting the eternity of the Son clearly shewn to have been, in the main, sound, catholic, and agreeing with the Nicene Creed > . ᾿ . . 459 CHAPTER VIII. The doctrine of St. Hippolytus the martyr respecting the co-eternity of the Son, and that of Novatian, or the author of the book concerning the Trinity among the works of Tertullian, declared Ξ Ξ . 470 CHAPTER IX. The third proposition stated, respecting the co-eternity of the Son; in which the view of those Antenicene fathers who have been treated of in the CONTENTS. Xxi Page four preceding chapters, is more fully illustrated by testimonies of catholic doctors who lived after the rise of the Arian controversy . 484 CHAPTER X. The doctrine of Tertullian and of Lactantius respecting the eternity of the Son examined. Conclusion of the third book . ° δ . 508 BOOK IV. ON THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER, AS TO HIS ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLE. CHAPTER I. The first proposition touching the subordination of the Son to the Father as to His origin and principle, stated. This is also confirmed by the unanimous consent of the ancients. It is shewn, that that expression of certain modern writers, by which they designate the Son, αὐτόθεος, that is, of Himself God, is quite repugnant to the judgment of the Nicene council itself, and also to that of all the catholic doctors, both _ those who wrote before, and those who wrote after, that council . 556 CHAPTER II. The second proposition stated and confirmed, wherein it is shewn, that the ancients taught with one consent, on the one hand, that God the Father, in that He is His origin and principle, is greater than the Son; and on the other hand, that in respect of nature the Son is equal to the Father 571 CHAPTER III. A full answer is given to the objection against what has been argued in the preceding chapter, derived from those passages of the ancients in which they seem to have denied the immensity and invisibility of the Son - of God ict ° ° . . . . 594 CHAPTER IV. The third proposition is stated, in which the use of the doctrine of the sub- ordination of the Son is set forth ὃ ᾿ . ᾿ . 627 Tue CONCLUSION OF THE ENTIRE WORK ῷ ὲ ‘ ᾿ . 655 XXii CONTENTS. APPENDIX. Dr. Grase’s Norzs. " ON BOOK I. Page CuHaptTer i. ὃ 2. Of St. Barnabas ; : . ; . 669 ὃ 6. Of δι. Hermas. ξ 2 ; ; . 675 ON BOOK II. CuapTer i. ὃ 1, &c. Of St. Barnabas . . Ἶ : . 676 § 2, &c. Of St. Hermas ; - Ξ ‘ . 682 ὃ 6. Of St. Ignatius | ; Ἂ ; . . 684 CuarTeEr ul. § 8, &c. Of St.Clement of Rome. : : . 685 Testimonies to the Divinity of Christ from the testaments of the twelve patriarchs . ° ° ° ° : . . 694 ~Cuapter tv. ὃ 1, &c. Of St. Justin Martyr : 3 : . 695 § 10. Of Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch . : . 698 CuapTer ν. Of St. Irenzeus ᾿ ° ° . ° . 699 Of Melito ᾿ ‘ τς ° : . . 708 CuarTer Vi. ὃ 2, &c. Of St. Clement of Alexandria , ‘ . 705 CuarTeER vill. ὃ 1. Of Caius ; ; , ; : . 707 § 2. Of Hippolytus ° ὃ ς : . 708 CuapTer x. § 1, &c. Of St. Cyprian, and his citing of the words of St. John, 1 Epist.v.7 . ° . ° ‘ ἃ , . 712 § 6. Of Novatian P ἃ ᾿ ‘ é . 719 CuapTeEr ΧΙ. ὃ 5, 6. Of St. Dionysius of Alexandria ° ᾿ . 721 CHAPTER XII. ὃ 4. Of Gregory Thaumaturgus’ Confession of Faith . 728 CHAPTER ΧΙ. ὃ 4, &c. Of St. Lucian the Martyr A . . 724 § 9, &c. Of St. Methodius . : . : πο: Of St. Peter, Bp. of Alexandria and Martyr : . . . 126 CONTENTS. Xxill ON BOOK III. Page CuapTer 11. ὃ 1, &c. Of St. Justin Martyr ᾿ : : . 127 § 4, Of St. Irenzus . , ‘ ; . . 729 ON BOOK IV. CuapTer 1. ὃ 10. [On the word αὐτοθεός} . . é " . 731 Cuapter 111. ὃ 5, &c. [Of St. Justin Martyr] : ὁ ° . 732 . Sapa By st ee Ca fete hea ea Nica, FS Ati) Mae BOOK IIL. ON THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON, OR HIS CO-ETERNAL ᾿ EXISTENCE WITH GOD THE FATHER. CHAPTER I. 173 : [473] THE CONNECTION OF THIS BOOK WITH THE PRECEDING. THE FIRST PROPO- SITION STATED RESPECTING THE ETERNITY OF THE SON ; CONFIRMED FIRST BY THE MOST EXPLICIT TESTIMONIES OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHER, IGNATIUS. A NOTABLE PASSAGE IN HIS EPISTLE TO THE MAGNESIANS CLEARLY EX- PLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED. THE GNOSTICS, PARENTS OF THE ARIANS. 1. Tue doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son having been established by the suffrages of the Antenicene fathers, His co-eternity follows from it by a consequence absolutely necessary. For He who is truly and properly God, and is begotten of the substance of God, must necessarily possess all the peculiar attributes of God, infinity, immensity, eter- | nity, omnipotence, the being uncreated, and unchangeable’, ! τὸ ar with those other properties, without which true Godhead 4,2; ih ἄτρεπτον, cannot subsist. There is scarcely one of the writers who pa τὸ ag came after the council of Nice, who has not made this ob- tem, ut sic servation in opposition to the Arians. But Cyril, in the au ὅο, ninth book of his Thesaurus, sets forth this point at large, and shews that it follows especially with respect to eternity. Among others which bear on this subject, the following [474] words of his are particularly plain and express*; “ And as, had it appeared that He was additionally brought into being’, ἢ εἰ προσ- ; ‘ «γεγονὼς He had not been consubstantial*®: even so, this not being ἐφαίνετο. 3 ὁμοούσιος. ἃ καὶ ὥςπερ εἰ προσγεγονὼς ἐφαίνετο, ἔσται καὶ duoovo.us.—([Cyril. Alex., οὖις ἂν ἣν ὁμοούσιος, οὕτως ἐπεὶ μὴ τοῦ: vol. v. p. 67. ] τό ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἣν del σὺν αὐτῷ, πάντως BULL. B b ON THE . CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 ἐξ αὐτοῦ φυσικῶς. 3 ἀρχὴν. 8 σύνδρο- μον τὸ elvat.. 4 ἀνόμοιος. 5 ἐξ, 8 ἐπιγένη- τον * ad- ventitium in tem- pore.” 174 870 The Consubstantiality implies the Co-eternity of the Son. the case, but He having been always with Him, assuredly | He must be consubstantial also.” And again, a little after®; “ For nothing will be co-eternal with the Father which is not naturally of Him!; lest we should say that that belongs to the creatures also, which belongs to the divine nature alone. Therefore, although the Son hath His own Father as a principle”, yet inasmuch as He is of the principle, and hath His being concurrent® with It, He will not be dissi- milar* to It in substance. For since He is οὐ" the principle, He is on that account of one substance also with the prin- ciple; but that which is of one substance with the Father, is not an after-addition®; lest Himself be found to be so too.” 2. But because some self-complacent persons have thought the Antenicene fathers so dull and absolutely stupid as not to have perceived a consequence so manifest, and to have advanced in consequence opinions on this article no way consistent, but simply repugnant to each other, I have thought that it would be worth while to put before the reader a distinct and separate explanation of their doc- trine respecting the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father. Some, indeed, of the testimonies of the ancients, establishing the eternity of the Son, I have already, when engaged on another subject, adduced in the preceding book ; but the argument deserves to be handled again, and that specially. Since, however, on this subject the ancient doc- tors of the Church have made use, not of different state- ments, but of a different mode of expression, this third book of ours cannot, like the preceding two, be completed in one proposition only, but will have to be drawn out, as the case requires, in several conclusions. Let the first of these con- clusions or propositions be as follows: b ov γὰρ ἔσταί τι συναΐδιον τῷ Πα- σύνδρομον αὐτῇ τὸ εἶναι ἔχων, ἀνόμοιος τρὶ, μὴ ὃν ἐξ αὐτοῦ φυσικῶς" ἵνα μὴ καὶ τοῖς κτίσμασι τοῦτο προσεῖναι λέγωμεν, ὃ μόνῃ πρόσεστι τῇ θείᾳ φύσει. οὐκοῦν κἂν ἀρχὴν ὃ υἱὸς ἔχῃ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πα- τέρα, ἀλλὰ καθὸ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐστι, οὖκ ἔσται κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῇ. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐστι, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁμοούσιος τῇ ἀρχῇ" τὸ δὲ ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ ἐπιγένητον οὐκ ἔστι" ἵνα μὴ τοῦ- το dv εὑρίσκηται καὶ αὐτόΞ.---ἰ Ibid. ] Ignatius ; the Son above and independent of time. 37 1 THE FIRST PROPOSITION. THE more authoritative’ and larger part of the doctors who lived before the Nicene council, unambiguously, openly, clearly, and perspicuously taught and professed the co-eter- nity (τὸ cvvaidiov) of the Son, that is, His co-eternal exist- ence with God the Father. 3. In the front rank of these fathers we may justly place Ignatius, a most abundant witness to the catholic doctrine which obtained in the Churches in the very age of the Apo- stles. In his epistle to Polycarp® he thus addresses his most BOOK III. CHAP. I. § 1—3. IGNATIUS. 1 potior. holy brother bishop ; “ Look for Him who is above [all] time’, * ὑπέρκαι- Him who is independent of time*, Him who is invisible, Him who for our sake was visible, Him who is impalpable, Him who is not liable to suffermg, Him who for our sake be- came liable to suffering, Him who for our sake endured in every way.” He is manifestly speaking of the Son of God, ascribing to Him, in addition to other divine attributes, this also, that He is' above -[all] time*, independent of time δ᾽ that is, eternal. For such was the simplicity of this aposto- lical man, that he must by no means be supposed to have played upon the word time, as the crafty Arians afterwards did. Of the authorship of this epistle, the illustrious Isaac Vossius has in few words, in his notes on the title of the epistle, stated enough to satisfy impartial minds. But our very learned Pearson, in the introduction to his Vindicie Epist. 5. Ignatii*, im treating at large on this subject, has refuted the singular opinion of Ussher, in such a way as to leave now no room for doubt, that this epistle ought to be counted amongst those which were held to be Ignatius’s in the time of Eusebius. Further, the same Ignatius, in his epistle to the Magnesians, most explicitly declares the eter- nity of the Son, in these words*; “There is one God, who © σὸν ὑπέρκαιρον προσδόκα, τὸν ἄχρο- © εἷς Θεός ἐστιν, ὃ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν γον, τὸν ἀόρατον, τὸν δι᾽ ἡμᾶς ὁρατὸν, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς τὸν ἀψηλάφητον, τὸν ἄπαθῆ, τὸν δι’ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀΐδιος, οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς ἡμᾶς παθητὸν, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον προελθών.---Ῥαρ. 84. [ὃ 8. p.19. Bp. δι’ ἡμᾶς brouclvavra.—Pag. 12. [ὃ 8, Bull adds before the Latin which he p. 40. ] . gives, “juxta versionem veteris inter- 4 ¢, 6, p. 21, &e. pretis Usseriani, quem ubique fere se- Bb2 pov. 3 ἄχρονον. 4 ὑπέρκαι- pos. 5 &xpovos. [476] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [477] 1 acceptam. 175 372 The Word not having come forth from Silence ; to manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, wo 15 His ETeRNAL WorpD, NOT HAVING COME FORTH FROM SI- LENCE.” 4. I am aware that there are some who contend from this passage that these epistles are not Ignatius’s; seeing that, as they think, those words, “not having come forth from 81- lence,” glance at the peculiar error of Valentinus, which had not arisen in the lifetime of Ignatius. To this objection, however, our right reverend Bp. Pearson, (after Ussher, Vos- sius, and Hammond, whose statements had not satisfied Daillé and others, that were too much influenced by party spirit;) purposing to reply at length, proposes to himself to prove the four following propositions: 1. That the words, “not having come forth from silence,” strike at the heresy of the Ebionites; 2. That they do not at all refer to Valentinus ; 3. That the heresy which is supposed to be aimed at in these words is older than Valentinus, and was derived' [by him] from the ancient Gnostics; 4. That it cannot be proved for certain that the actual errors of Valentinus were alto- gether unknown to Ignatius. And in treating of these points he so developes his erudition of all kinds, and especi- ally his very great acquaintance with ecclesiastical antiquity, that he is on this account deservedly held in honour and admiration by all men of learning and piety; and moreover, what he advances, especially in proof of his third proposition, is abundantly sufficient to refute all the cavils of Blondel and Daillé. I am compelled, however, to dissent in some points from this very learned father, whom I honour and reverence in the highest degree; and I humbly entreat his kindness and candour to allow me frankly to put forward my opinion on this famous passage of Ignatius; especially since it is of very great importance that I should do so, in order to establish that most momentous truth, which we are engaged in unfolding. I am persuaded that in the words adduced, and in the whole passage to which those words belong, Ignatius had an eye neither to the Valentinians nor to the Ebionites, but that his censure altogether refers to quor,” (i. e. “accayding to the ver- The Latin here exactly represents the sion of the.ancjent translator given by Greek. ] Ussher, which I almost always follow.’ ee Oe Ἢ ee ee wee what heretics these words refer: context quoted. 878 those judaizing Gnostics, of whom Cerinthus was chief, who Book πὶ. lived long before Valentinus, and was contemporary with the $35. Apostles themselves, and whose heresy disturbed the Churches [onarius. of Asia most of all in the time of Ignatius. Before I bring forward my reasons for this opinion of mine, I think it well, in order that the subject may be more clearly laid open, to quote the context of the passage from Ignatius entire. 5. Thus, then, doth the holy man speak to his Magnesians' ; “Do ye then all run together as unto (one) temple of God, as unto one altar, as unto one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is and hath returned! into one. Be' χωρή- not deceived with the strange doctrines”, nor with the old; tas fables, which are unprofitable ; for if we still up to this time δοξίαις. live according to the law (of Judaisms,) we confess that we [478] have not received grace. For the most divine prophets lived according to Christ Jesus; for this cause also were they per- secuted, being inspired by His grace, in order that they that believed not might be fully convinced that there is one God, who manifested Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, who is His eternal Word, not having come forth from silence, who in all things was well-pleasing to Him that sent Him. If, then, they who lived under an old state of things® came ὅ ἐν παλαι- [nevertheless] to the newness of hope, no longer observing μασιν ἀνα- the sabbath, but leading a life suitable to the Lord’s day, on στραφέν- which also our life arose through Him and His death, which “*” [death] some deny, (through which mystery we have been brought to believe, and do therefore endure, in order that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher,) how shall we be able to live apart from Him, of whom the prophets also being disciples, did through the Spirit look for ἢ πάντες οὖν ὡς εἰς (Eva) ναὸν συν- τρέχετε Θεοῦ, ὡς ἐπὶ ἕν θυσιαστήριον, ὡς ἐπὶ ἕνα Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς Πατρὸς προελθόντα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα ὄντα καὶ χωρήσαντα. μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις, unde μυθεύμασιν τοῖς πα- λαιοῖς ἀνωφελέσιν οὖσιν. εἰ γὰρ μέχρι νῦν κατὰ νόμον ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸν ζῶμεν, ὅμο- λογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι. οἱ γὰρ θειότατοι προφῆται κατὰ Χριστὸν *In- σοῦν ἔξησαν᾽" διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐδιώχθησαν, ἐμπνεόμενοι ὑπὸ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, εἷς τὸ πληροφορηθῆναι τοὺς ἀπειθοῦντας, ὅτι εἷς Θεός ἐστιν, ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν: διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀΐδιος. οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθὼν, ὃς κατὰ πάντα εὐηρέστησεν τῷ πέμψαντι αὐτόν. εἰ οὖν οἱ ἐν παλαι- οἷς πράγμασιν ἀναστραφέντες εἰς καινό- τητα ἐλπίδος ἤλυθον, μηκέτι σαββατί- ζοντες, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶν- τες, ἐν ἢ καὶ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ὅν τινες ἀρνοῦνται, (δι᾽ οὗ μυστηρίου ἐλάβομεν τὸ πιστεύειν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑπομένομεν ἵνα εὑρεθῶμεν μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου διδασκάλου ἡμῶν") πῶς ἡμεῖς δυνησόμεθα ζῆσαι χωρὶς αὐτοῦ; οὗ καὶ οἱ προφῆται μαθηταὶ ὄντες, τῷ πνεύματι ὡς διδάσκαλον αὐτὸν προσεδόκουν, καὶ ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [479] 1 καλεῖν [leg. Aa- λεῖν.7 3 γλῶσσα. 3 ἄγκιστρα, hamos. 874 Passage from St. Iynatius’s Epistle to the Magnesians. Him as their teacher? and for this cause, He whom they righteously waited for did on His coming raise them from the dead. Let us not, then, be insensible to His goodness ; for if He shall imitate™ us, [acting] according as we act, we shall no longer be in being. Wherefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to Christianity ; for whosoever is called by any other name beyond this, is not of God. Lay aside, then, the evil leaven, which hath become old and sour, and be ye changed into new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you be corrupted, for! by your savour shall ye be proved. For it is absurd to profess' Christ Jesus, and then to judaize. For Christianity believed not in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity ; that [people of] every tongue”, having be- lieved, might be gathered unto God. These things, my beloved, [I write unto you,] not because I know that any of you are in this condition, but, as the least among you, I am desirous to put you on your guard, that ye fall not into the snares® of vainglory; but that ye may be fully persuaded of the birth, and the passion, and the resurrection, which things took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, [who is] our hope, from which may it not happen to any one amongst you to be turned aside.” διὰ τοῦτο ὃν δικαίως ἀνέμενον, παρὼν ἤγειρεν αὐτοὺς ex νεκρῶν. μὴ οὖν ἄναι- σθητῶμεν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ. ἂν γὰρ ἡμᾶς μιμήσεται καθὰ πράσσομεν, οὐκ ἔτι ἐσμέν" διὰ τοῦτο μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ γενόμενοι, μάθωμεν κατὰ Χριστιανισμὸν Civ. ὃς γὰρ ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι καλεῖται πλέ- ον τούτου, οὔκ ἐστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὑπέρ- θεσθε οὖν τὴν κακὴν ζύμην τὴν παλαιω- θεῖσαν καὶ ἐνοξίσασαν, καὶ μεταβάλεσθε εἰς νέαν ζύμην, ὅ ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός. ἁλίσθητε ἐν αὐτῷ, ἵνα μὴ διαφθαρῇ τις. ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐπεὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς ἐλεγχθή- σεσθε. ἄτοπόν ἐστιν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν καλεῖν, καὶ ᾿Ιουδαΐζειν. 6 γὰρ Χριστι- ανισμὸς οὐκ εἰς ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸν ἐπίστευσεν, ἀλλὰ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸς εἰς Χριστιανισμὸν, ὡς πᾶσα γλῶσσα πιστεύσασα εἰς Θεὺν συ- νήχθη [1. συναχθῇ |. ταῦτα δὲ, ἀγαπη- τοί μου, οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τινὰς ἐξ ὑμῶν - οὕτως ἔχοντας, ἄλλ᾽ ὡς μικρότερος ὑιιῶν, θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς, μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς. τὰ ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλὰ πεπληροφορῆσθαι ἐν τῇ γεννήσει, καὶ τῷ πάθει, καὶ τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλά- του, πραχθέντα ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, js ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ὑμῶν yévorro.—Pag. 84, 8. [ὃ 7. p.19. The Latin trans- lation given by Bishop Bull is the old version as edited by Ussher; he intro- duces it with the words, “ juxta versio- nem interpretis Usseriani veteris.”’ ] ® Read ἰουδαισμοῦ, or omit the word altogetuer. See the notes of Vossius in locum. [Bishop Bull’s conjecture is followed in the translation, more recent editors would omit νόμον. μιμήσεται. The learned author in the margin observed that the reading should be τιμήσεται, ‘‘ estimate us, ac- cording as we act,’’ following the con- jecture of Vedelius and Isaac Vossius. But suppose you restore μωμήσεται, ‘*‘censure,”’ from the Codex Nydprucci- anus of the interpolated copy of this epi- stle, or μισήσεται, “hate,” after Clement Indications that the Gnostics are referred to in this passage. 375 6. Here the context most plainly shews that altogether soox m1. the same heretics are intended from the beginning to the Ὃ 5, 6. end of the passage. But who were these heretics? That toyarius. the Valentinians are not the persons treated of (as Blondel [480] and Daillé dreamt) is most certain; since it is clear from the 176 passage taken as a whole, that the heretics whom Ignatius is aiming at, were professors of Judaism, which no one of the ancients has asserted, nor any of the moderns (so far as I know) has ever heard, of the Valentinians. Of-the heretics, however, of whom he is speaking, Ignatius declares that [481] “they lived according to Judaism, that they observed the sabbath, and that, whilst they professed Jesus Christ, they nevertheless judaized.” To this argument, which was ad- vanced by Bishop Pearson, the author of the Observations* on his work made no reply; nor, indeed, will he ever be able to make any reply that is solid. Now as respects the Ebion- ites, although the mark of Judaism agrees with their case, still every other part of the description suits the Gnostics more exactly; whilst some parts cannot be understood of any others than they. For, in the first place, the words in which Ignatius exhorts the Magnesians, “to run together unto one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is and hath returned unto one,” are plainly aimed against the Gnos- tics, especially the Cerinthians; for the Cerinthians did not believe in one Jesus Christ, but taught that Jesus was one, Christ another,—who came down from the supreme power! ! ἃ summa upon Jesus after His baptism, and returned again from Jesus πρίονος before His passion, back to His own pleroma. Nor did they acknowledge one Father of Jesus Christ ; but professed, as I shall hereafter shew from Irenzus, that the Father of Jesus was the Demiurgus or creator of the world, and that a higher power was the Father of Christ. Next, when Ig- natius afterwards says that the prophets of the Old Testa- ment “were inspired by the grace of Christ to convince the unbelievers that there is one God, who hath manifested —- - Joey eee ee of Alexand., Pedagog. i. 8. p. 113. [p. σεται is now the received reading. ] 135, | where he writes, in evident imi- i (The Latin here is, qui redargue- tation of this passage of Ignatius, εἴ tr: mini; Grabe’s is quia instead of qui. | ἄρα μισεῖ ὃ λόγος, βούλεται αὐτὸ μὴ * [Matt. Larroque; see above, p. εἶναι, (if the Word hate any thing, He 51. wishes it not to exist.) —GRaABE. [μιμή- ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [482] 1 de Verbi prolatione. ? nihil phi- " losophati sunt. 376 Evidence that the Cerinthian heretics are intended ; Himself through Jesus Christ His Son:” in these words again the Gnostics are evidently glanced at. For they all, and they alone, taught, that the God who created the world was one, the God who manifested Himself to man- kind through Christ His Son, another. Moreover, as to the clause itself of Ignatius, about which we are enquiring, although I should readily grant that the words, “ not having proceeded from silence,” were added by way of explana- tion, to explain (i. e.) what was said before concerning the eternity of the Word; still I think it is manifest that by that explanation Ignatius intended to meet some erroneous no- tion of the heretics whom he is glancing at, respecting the putting forth of the Word'. Now about this putting forth the Ebionites did not frame any theory? ; whereas the Gnosties in general, and particularly the Cerinthians, conceived a very absurd opinion concerning it ; for the refutation of which, as we shall see hereafter, these wovlld of Ignatius are most appo- site. And what is more, I am altogether of opinion that the ancient Ebionites did not at any time even use the name or word Aoyos [in speaking] of Christ; forasmuch as they ab- solutely rejected the Gospel of St. John, in which Christ is called ὁ Adyos, using only the Gospel according to St. Mat- thew, as Irenzeus expressly testifies, i. 26. Furthermore, when Ignatius,—after he had reminded them that Chris- tians “ought not to observe the Sabbath,” but “live suitably to the Lord’s day, on which also our life arose, through Him (Christ) and His death ,’—immediately subjoins, “ which certain deny,” he intimates in no obscure way, that those judaizing heretics whom he is censuring, had joined to their error about the necessity of observing the law of Moses, another also that was much worse, that is, the denial of the real passion and death of Christ. This, however, cannot be truly asserted of the Ebionites; but of the Cerinthian Gnos- tics it is, as we shall presently shew, most truly affirmed. Lastly, the conclusion of this passage from Ignatius most plainly establishes our view; “These things, my beloved,” he says, “ [I write unto you,] not because I know that any of you are in this condition, but, as the least among you, I am desirous to put you on your guard, that ye fall not into the snares of vainglory, but that ye may be fully persuaded of ie who denied the reality of our Saviour’s sufferings. 377 the birth, and the passion, and the resurrection, which things 800k 1m. took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, τ ie being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ [who Tae, is] our hope; from which may it not happen to any one of you [483] to be turned aside.” From these words, I say, it is perfectly clear that the heretics against whom Ignatius is warning the Magnesians in what goes before, were not Ebionites, but Gnostics. For he exhorts the Magnesians not to fall into the snares of the heretics, and prescribes this as. an antidote! against their poison, that they be fully persuaded ! ἀλεξιφάρ- μᾶκον. that Jesus Christ was truly born and suffered, and truly rose again from the dead in the times of Pontius Pilate, and that they permit not themselves to be drawn aside from that persuasion. But, I repeat, this surely had no reference to the Ebionites; whereas to the Gnostics, and especially to 177 © the Cerinthians, it was most pertinent; forasmuch as all the Gnostics, of whatever denomination they were, did in reality deny the true nativity, passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, although not all in the same way. This is a learned observation of Irenzeus, who was a most careful investigator of the doctrine of the Gnostics, (book iii. chap. 11 :) where, after shewing how the Apostle John, in the very beginning of his Gospel, glances at the Cerinthians and the Nicolaitans, (we shall quote the passage a little further on,) he proceeds presently to those words in chap. 1. 14, and demonstrates, that neither the Cerinthians nor any other sect of the Gnostics, did sincerely acknowledge the mcarna- tion, the passion, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ: these are his words!; “But according to them, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour, who was? [i. e. out made of them 8112, For they maintain that the Word and ° the per fections of Christ did not even come into this world [at all] ; and again, all the Ὁ that the Saviour was neither incarnate, nor suffered; but; 5, δ. that He descended like a dove upon that Jesus who had P. 13. been made according to the dispensation’; and having de- ,°* GsP™ clared? the unknown Father, ascended again into the ple- [484] : (Cf. iii. 16, 1 Secundum autem illos, neque Ver- Salvatorem vero non incarnatum, ne- J, p, 204; bum caro factum est, neque Christus, que passum; descendisse autem quasi and j, 7, 2. neque qui ex omnibus factus est, Salva- columbam in eum Jesum, qui factus es- ᾿ς 33] tor. Etenim Verbum et Christum nec _ set ex dispositione, et cum annuncias- , ey advenisse in hunc mundum volunt; set incognitum Patrem, iterum ascen- aunt ON THE €O-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 regulas, [i. q. ὑπό- θεσις, i. 20. 3. p. 93. ] 3 quemad- modum hominem transfigu- ratum. Saliquando, 378 ‘Gnosties all agreed in denying the real Incarnation. roma. But He who was incarnate and suffered, some of them affirm was that Jesus who is of the dispensation, who, they say, passed through the Virgin Mary, as water through a tube; others, however, that He [who suffered] was the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom that Jesus descended, who is of the dispensation ; others again say, that Jesus was indeed born of Joseph and Mary, and that upon Him Christ de- scended who is from above, being without flesh and in- capable of suffering. According, however, to no view enter- tained by these heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if one carefully search into the theories’ of them all, he will find that there is introduced a Word of God, and a Christ, that is on high, without flesh and incapable of suffering. For some of them think that He was manifested as transfigured into the form of man’, but say that He was neither born nor incarnate; whereas others suppose that He did not even assume the form of man, but descended as a dove upon that Jesus who was born of Mary. The Lord’s disciple, therefore, shewing that they are all false witnesses, says, ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.’” Thus Irenzeus: respecting the Cerinthians, however, Philas- trius, Epiphanius, and Augustine, state this as their pecu- liar tenet, that they taught, “that even Jesus had not yet risen [from the dead,| but would rise at some future time® ;” that is, asI imagine, when the millennium of the reign on earth, of which they dreamt, was about to begin. To this you may add, that those words of Ignatius, “that ye fall not into the snares of vainglory,” seem altogether to refer to the Gnostics ; for they were the slaves of vainglory, in- carne et impassibilis ab omnibus illis inducitur Dei verbum, et qui est in superioribus Christus. Alii enim pu- tant manifestatum eum, quemadmo- disse in pleroma. Incarnatum autem et passum quidam quidem eum, qui ex dispositione sit, dicunt Jesum, quem per Mariam dicunt pertransisse, quasi aquam per tubum; alii vero Demiurgi Filium, in quem descendisse eum Je- sum qui ex dispositione sit; alii rur- sum Jesum quidem ex Joseph et Maria natum dicunt, et in hune descendisse Christum, qui de superioribus sit, sine carne impassibilem existentem. Se- cundum autem nullam sententiam he- reticorum Verbum Dei caro factum est. Si enim quis regulas ipsorum omnium perscrutetur, inveniet quoniam sine dum hominem transfiguratum ; neque autem natum, neque incarnatum di- cunt illum; alii vero neque figuram eum assumpsisse hominis, sed quem- admodum columbam descendisse in eum Jesum, qui natus est ex Maria. Omnes igitur illos falsos testes osten- dens discipulus Domini ait, Ht Verbum caro factum est, et inhabitavit in nobis. co 257, 258. edit. Feuard. [p. 188. How far the charge of Judaizing attached to the Cerinthians. 379 asmuch as they wished, by reason of their marvellous theo- 300K 1. . CHAP. I, ries about zons, to be thought more accomplished’ than the ς 6, 7. rest ; and despised other Christians as more unlearned? ; and Ienarws. hence they took to themselves the name of Gnostics. Thus : senile far, I believe, all is clear. 8 cadidres. 7. But what, you will ask, is to be said of the Judaism, with [485] which Ignatius reproaches the heretics of whom he is speak- ing throughout the whole passage? Was not this the peculiar mark of the Ebionites, or the Nazarenes? Surely this mark does not fit the Gnostics ? My answer is, it does altogether ; for the Cerinthian Gnostics, although, as it seems, they did not in reality hold the law and the rites of the Jews in much esteem, and even secretly entertained unworthy notions of the author of the law; still, to avoid the cross, they judaized with the Jews, so long as the power of the Jews in any de- gree continued, and was the occasion of most severe perse- cutions every where against the Christians; that is, until the final destruction of the Jews under Adrian, at which period the remnant of the Jews were brought into extreme odium and contempt amongst all people, through the influence of that emperor, who, not without reason, was most inveterate? * infensis- against them. At any rate, Epiphanius on Heresies, 28,° Philastrius on Cerinthus, and Augustine on Heresies, c. 8, expressly assert, that the Cerinthians taught “that it was necessary to be circumcised, and to keep the law of Moses.” But Epiphanius, in the passage referred to, expressly notes that Cerinthus, whilst he himself observed‘ the law, was so ‘ coleret. far from worshipping the angel or lawgiver of the Jews, that he rather said™ that he was evil, and abhorred him; although _ he did not dare to teach and profess this openly, as Marcion afterwards did. It follows, then, that Cerinthus, as we have ' just now observed, did not judaize from his heart; but pre- tended a zeal for the law of Moses only for his own ad- vantage, in order to ingratiate himself with the Jews, and to escape the persecutions which they raised.. Hence most of the Cerinthians, although they enjoined circumcision on [486] others, yet remained uncircumcised themselves ; and hence ( ™ φάσκει γὰρ τὸν νόμον δεδωκότα οὐκ τὸν ἀγαθὸν νόμον δέδωκεν ;—Epiphan. ἄγαθὸν, οὗ τῷ νόμῳ πείθεσθαι δοκεῖ, δῆ- Heres. 28, [p. 111.] λον δὲ ὅτι ὧς ἀγαθῷ. πῶς οὖν ὃ πονηρὸς ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 Epunvedy. 178 -Judaism from one who is uncircumcised.” 380 The Judaizing of the Cerinthians shewn ; their devotion — Ignatius, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, glances at them in these most remarkable words"; “If ahy one ex- ᾿ pound! Judaism unto you, hearken not unto him, for it is better-to hear Christianity from one who is circumcised, than It is, I mean, clear from these words, that at the period at which this epistle was written, (so that you may recognise its antiquity to be such as agrees with the age of Ignatius,) there were some who, although they were themselves uncircumcised, yet professed the Jewish religion, and persuaded others to adopt it. And it is of these, as it appears to me, that our Lord Himself also speaks, in the epistle which He sent to - the same Philadelphians, through John, the teacher of Ig- [487] 2 τὸ δόγμα. natius, Rev. iii. 9, where mention is made of those “who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.” See likewise Rev. ii. 9. In both passages these men are called, not Jews, but the synagogue of Satan; and that because, whilst they professed to worship the God of Israel and of the law, they did nevertheless, by the instigation of Satan, in reality de- test and blaspheme that same God. But who were these persons? The Ebionites? certainly not ; for all the Ebion- ites were circumcised, and most religiously observed all the law of Moses. It follows that they are the Cerinthian Gnos- tics whom Ignatius points at in these words, concerning whom also he is evidently treating in the words immediately preceding in the same place; for the words which meet us at the very beginning of the passage plainly aim at them®: “For many wolves, that are” (i. 6. that seem to be) “ trust- worthy, do by means of wicked pleasure lead captive those who run in the course of God.” For of Cerinthus the great Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, (Eccl. Hist. vii. 25,) de- clares that? “this was the chief article? of his teaching, that the kingdom of Christ will be on earth; and he dreamed that it would consist in those things which he himself, being a lover of the body and wholly carnal, desired, in the grati- ie ἐὰν δέ τις ᾿Ιουδαϊσμὸν ἑρμηνεύῃ ὑμῖν, μὴ ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ" ἄμεινον γάρ ἐστιν παρὰ avdpds περιτομὴν ἔχοντος κακῇ αἰχμαλωτίζουσι τοὺς θεοδρόμου»“.--- Pag. 40. [i. 6. in Epist. ad Philadelph. § 2. p. 31.] Χριστιανισμὸν ἄκούειν, ἢ παρὰ ἄκρο- βύστου ᾿ΙἸουδαϊσμόν.---ἰ ὃ 6. p. 31.] © πολλοὶ γὰρ λύκοι ἀξιόπιστοι ἡδονῇ P τοῦτο [γὰρ] εἶναι τῆς διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ τὸ δόγμα, ἐπίγειον ἔσεσθαι τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βασιλείαν, καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς Le ee to evil pleasures ; doctrine of a carnal millennium. 381 fications of the belly and of the lower appetites, that is to say, BooxK mt. in eating and drinking, and marrying, and things whereby Ὃ 7.8. % he thought these are supplied, under a more specious name, ines in feasts and sacrifices, and the slaughter of victims.” The same was attested long before the time of Dionysius, by a celebrated man, Caius the presbyter, in Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. 11. 28,) where he thus speaks of Cerinthus4: “ He in- troduces wonderful stories to us, as though they. had been shewn to him by angels, speaking lies, saying, that after the resurrection the reign of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh will inhabit Jerusalem, and again be enslaved to lusts and pleasures; and—being an enemy to the Scriptures of God—wishing to mislead men, he declares that there will be a period of a thousand years of a marriage feast!” By [488] this bait, it seems, of his (so to call it) Epicurean millennium, ! ἐν γάμῳ which Ignatius justly designated “ wicked’ pleasure,” this Noh, Cerinthus drew many disciples to him, or, as Ignatius again ἡδονὴ. says, “led captive those who were running in the course of God.” I proceed with what Ignatius writes to the Phila- delphians. . Certainly these words also of his, which follow in the same place, “If any man walk after the opinion of others* [than the Church], he agrees not with the passion ° coy [of Christ]:” these words, I say, designate not Ebion, but Per Cerinthus ; who, with all the Gnostics, (ay has been already observed out of Irenzeus,) did in peeliyy deny the passion of ᾿ Christ our Lord. 8. I come at length to the chief point of my subject, being about to shew clearly, in what way those words also of Igna- tius, in his epistle to the Magnesians, ‘‘ Who is His eternal . Word, not having come forth from silence,’ have reference to the doctrine of the Cerinthians. I assert, then, that Cerin- thus entertained entirely the same view as Valentinus with respect to the putting forth* of the Word, and preceded him ‘ produc- tione, τοῦ Adyou. ὠρέγετο φιλοσώματος dv καὶ πάνυ cap- κικὸς, ἐν τούτοις ὀνειροπολεῖν ἔσεσθαι" γαστρὸς καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ γαστέρα πλησμο- vais, τουτέστι σιτίοις καὶ ποτοῖς καὶ γά- pos, καὶ δι’ ὧν εὐφημότερον ταῦτα φήθη ποριεῖσθαι, ἑορταῖς καὶ θυσίαις καὶ ἱερεί- ὧν σφαγαῖς.---ἰ ἘΣ. Ἡ, vii. 25, and iii. 28. 4 τερατολογίας ἡμῖν ὡς δι’ ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ δεδειγμένας ψευδόμενος, ἐπεισάγει λέγων, μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐπίγειον εἶναι τὸ βασίλειον τοῦ Χριστοῦ" καὶ πά-" Aw ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ἐν Ἵερουσα- λὴμ τὴν σάρκα πολιτευομένην δουλεύειν" καὶ ἐχθρὸς ὑπάρχων ταῖς γραφαῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀριθμὸν χιλιονταετίας ἐν γάμῳ ἑορτῆς, ϑέλων πλανᾷν, λέγει γίνεσθαι. 2 (Ibid. iii. 28. paul. sup. ] ON THE €£O-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. ἃ vulsio, [i. 6. ἀπό- σπασμα.] [489] 2 fabrica~ toris, [i 6. the Demi- urgus.] 3 Tor, ‘is the begin-— ning.’ ] 4 que est secundum nos. § circum- scribere, [i. q. περι- γράφειν, i. e. de- lere. ] 382 The doctrines that Cerinthus taught, as recorded by in that heresy: which also I prove from a very express testi- mony of Irenzus, iii. 11", where the most learned father, being about to shew how the words of John, in the begin- ning of his Gospel, strike at the vain inventions of the Gnostics, especially of the Nicolaitans and the Cerinthians, writes thus; “John, the Lord’s disciple, in declaring this faith, wishing, by means of the declaration of the Gospel, to take away that error, the seed of which had been sown among men by Cerinthus, and even much earlier by those who are called Nicolaitans, who are a section! of that which is falsely called knowledge; in order to confound them, and convince men that there is one God, who made all things through His Word; and not, as they assert, that the Creator is one, and the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator’ is one, and Christ who is from above is another, who also continued impassible, when He descended upon Jesus the Son of the Creator", and again flew back into His own pleroma; and tHat tHE ONLY-BEGOTTENS HATH A BEGINNING’, and THAT THE WoRD IS THE TRUE SON OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN ; and that the creation, to which we belong’, was not made by the first God, but by some power placed very far below, and cut off from all communication with those things which are invisible, and incapable of being named :— the disciple of the Lord, therefore, wishing to set aside? all such [dogmas] and to establish in the Church the rule of truth, r Hance fidem annuntians Joannes valde deorsum subjecta, et abscissa ab Domini discipulus, volens per Evan- gelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem, et multo prius ab his qui di- cuntur Nicolaite, qui sunt vulsio ejus que falso cognominatur scientia, ut confunderet eos, et suaderet, quoniam unus Deus, qui omnia fecit per Ver- bum suum; et non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem Fabricato- rem, alium autem Patrem Domini; et alium quidem Fabricatoris Filium, al- terum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et impassibilem perseverasse, de- scendentem in Jesum Filium Fabrica- toris, et iterum revolasse in suum ple- roma; et initium quidem esse mono- geni [1]. monogenem]; logon autem ve- rum filium unigeniti; et eam condi- tionem, que est secundum nos, non a primo Deo factam, sed a virtute aliqua eorum communicatione, que sunt in- visibilia et innominabilia, Omnia igi- tur talia cireumscribere volens disci- pulus Domini, et regulam veritatis constituere in ecclesia, quia est unus Deus omnipotens, qui per Verbum suum omnia fecit, et visibilia et invisi- bilia; significans quoque, quoniam per Verbum, per quod Deus perfecit con- ditionem, in hoe et salutem his qui in conditione sunt prestitit hominibus ; sic inchoavit in ea que est secundum evangelium doctrina, In principio erat Verbum, §c.—Pag. 257. edit. Feuard. [p. 188. ] 5. Read monogenem. Grae. [This is also the reading of the Benedictine edition—B. That*is, “the Only-be- gotten is the beginning ;’’ Bishop Bull argues from the other reading.] Ireneus, agree with those of Valentinus ; of Silence. 888 that there is one God Almighty, who made all things through soox m1. His Word, both visible and invisible ; signifying likewise that, $8, og through the Word, through whom God perfected the creation, [gyarius. in Him He also gave salvation to mankind, who are included in the creation:—thus he began in that doctrine which 15 - according to the Gospel, ‘In the beginning was the Word, ” &c. Here, reader, observe the agreement of the Cerinthians with the Valentinians ; in the first place, the Cerinthians, no less than the Valentinians, set many powers, many beings invisible” and “incapable of being named,” i. 6. many geons, between the first God and the Creator of the world. Secondly, they both alike classed the Word among their sons. Furthermore, they both derived the Word not im- mediately from the first God, but from the Only-begotten, or Mind!. Lastly, they both alike denied the eternity of the ' Mono- Word. In the case of the Valentinians this is certain, whilst ἔτι “- of the Cerinthians it is here expressly asserted by Irenzus | that they attributed a beginning even to the Only-begotten, whom they called the Father of the Word. § 9. As for Silence, who would not readily believe (even [490] without distinct testimony), that, as the Cerinthians, along with the Valentinians, deduced their Logos from the Only- begotten, so they also derived their Only-begotten from Silence? especially when Irenzeus expressly declares that Cerinthus attributed a beginning even to the Only-begotten Himself; for hence it follows, according to Cerinthus, that some other zon, or rather sons, preceded the Only-be- gotten. Now who should those zons be, but Depth? and ? Bythus. Silence*. It is at any rate evident (whatever the Observer 3 Sige. on Pearson put forward on the contrary) that the Only- begotten had this appellation, Only-begotten, given to Him by all the Gnostics, who classed Him among their ons, on this account, that He alone was begotten of the first pair* ὁ συζυγίᾳ. of them all, immediately and without intervening beings. Then, this very passage of the author of the epistle to the Magnesians, (whom from other sources the learned have proved by the strongest arguments to be none other than Ignatius himself,) may suffice in the estimation of fair judges, to prove this point. For by these véry words of his, “Who is His eternal Word, not having come forth from - ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. ? nomina- tim. 2 produc- tus fuit. [491] 384 Silence preceding the Word; would be taught by Cerinthus. Silence,” we have already shewn, as I think, clearly enough, that it is not the Valentinians at all, but altogether the Cerinthians, who are glanced at’. Some other, then, be- sides Valentinus taught, and specifically Cerinthus, who was more ancient than Valentinus, that the Word came forth from Silence. Besides, the Gnostics, who placed the Word among their later eons and denied His eternity, (as Ire- nus, in the passage we have quoted above, expressly testifies that the Cerinthians did,) must all be regarded as teaching, by necessary consequence, that the Word proceeded from $i- © lence. For what else, I ask, was the Word, in the judgment of all the Gnostics, than the vocal word of Gop? Now if the vocal word' of God did not come into existence, nor was put forth? till after infinite ages now passed, it must follow, that during those infinite ages now passed, God was silent; in other words, Silence was with God; and at last the vocal word of God did, as it were, burst forth. This, however, 3 τῇ σιγῇ. is the very thing which Ignatius rejects, when he denies that “the Word came forth from Silence.” Whosoever will examine this argument more closely and attentively, will readily see that it is irrefragable. Lastly, that the Cerin- thians reckoned both Depth and Silence amongst their eons, is expressly declared by Gregory Nazianzen, an author of very great credit, Orat. xx111.": “There was a time,” he says, “when we enjoyed quiet from heresies, when Simons and Marcions, and Valentinus’s, and Basilides’s and Cerdons, CrRINTHUS’s and Carpocrates’s, with all their trifling and in- vention of prodigies, when they had for a very long time cut in pieces the God of the Universe, and waged war for the good against the Creator, were engulphed, as they deserved, IN THEIR OWN Depru, and delivered over to [THEIR own] Sitence’.” You observe, the Cerinthians are reckoned by name amongst those Gnostics who had their Depth and their Silence. 10. I am ashamed to mention the cavil by which it has ὅς t See the testimony of Irenzeus, book ii. c. 48, quoted below in ὃ 13. ἃ ἣν ὅτε γαλήνην εἴχομεν ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων, ἡνίκα Σίμωνες μὲν καὶ Μαρ- κίωνες, Οὐαλεντῖνοί τέ τινες καὶ Βασι- λεῖδαι καὶ Κέρδωνες, Κηρινθοί τε καὶ Καρποκράτεις, καὶ πᾶσα ἡἣ περὶ ἐκείνους φλυαρία τε καὶ τερατεία, ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν τεμόντες, καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τῷ δημιουργῷ πολεμήσαν- τες, ἔπειτα κατεπόθησαν τῷ ἑαυτῶν βύ- θῳ, καὶ τῇ σιγῇ παραδοθέντες, ὥσπερ ἦν ἄξιον. ---- Tom. 1, p. 414. [Orat. xxv. 8. pp. 459, 60.] Nazianzen’s words imply that Cerinthus held this doctrine. 385 been attempted to elude this clear testimony of Nazianzen, as soox m. quoted by Pearson, on the part of the author of the Observa- τ 10. tions upon his Vindicie. “There is no one,” says he*, “ who [onavus, does not perceive, that Gregory only meant that the here- _ 5165 which he mentioned had at length vanished, and were 180 causing the Church no further disturbance whatever; and [492] therefore he writes, ‘ they were engulphed in Depth, and were delivered over to Silence,’ in evident allusion to the Depth and Silence of Valentinus, to whom, with his followers, these last words of Nazianzen apply, and not to the other heretics whose names he mentions.” It is, however, manifestly false, that these last words of Nazianzen apply only to the Valenti- nians. For Nazianzen, after he had mentioned by name not Valentinus only, but also Simon, Marcion, Basilides, Cerdon, and Cerinthus too, and Carpocrates, says of them all, that they were engulphed together with all their trifles and in- ventions of prodigies, in THEIR own (observe the expression THEIR OWN) Depth, and delivered over to Silence; an allusion which would be simply absurd and utterly unworthy of this very elegant writer, had not the other heretics also, whom he named, had their Depth and Silence as well as Valentinus. Besides, if Nazianzen had only meant that the heretics he mentions had at length vanished, without any allusion to the _ Depth and the Silence, which formed a part of the theories of them all, why, I ask, does he not speak in the like man- ner of the other heretics, whom he enumerates in the same passage? Why does he not place them also in the same category (so to speak) with Simon, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerinthus, &c.? For these words immediately follow in Na- _ aianzen’, “The evil spirit of Montanus, and the darkness of ' Manes, and the audacity, shall I call it, or the purity! of No- 1 καθαρό- _ vatus, and the evil maintenance of the monarchia by Sabel- 7” _ hus, have given way and withdrawn. have been delivered over to their own Depth and Silence? The _ reason is obvious. These heretics, whom he mentions apart from the others, did not at all venerate Depth and Silence, _as did the former, Nazianzen certainly did not write these [493] 2) Why does he not say, ; * Pag. 194. [Concerning this au- θρασύτης ἢ καθαρότης, Σαβελλίου τε 4 _ -thor see above, p. 51.] κακὴ συνηγορία τῆς μοναρχίας elite καὶ Υ Μοντανοῦ δὲ τὸ πονηρὸν πνεῦμα, ὑπεχώρησεν.---ἶ 1014.] καὶ τὸ Μανοῦ σκότος, καὶ ἣ Ναυάτου BULL. ce ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 386 Confirmed by the comments of Elias Cretensis. words thoughtlessly or unadvisedly, but with attention, ob- servation, and more than ordinary care, attributing to each several heresy its peculiar characteristics. ΤῸ Simon, Mar- cion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, to Cerinthus also and Car- pocrates, whom he brings together in the first sentence, he ascribes their own Depth and Silence, inasmuch as they all in reality recognised Depth and Silence as the first pair of τ all [the zeons.]| How appositely Nazianzen wrote of Mon- 1 statuebat. [494] 3 malam. tanus and of those others whom he afterwards enumerates separately, Elias Cretensis will shew you in his commentary on the passage’: “ Montanus,” he says, “an impious and sacrilegious man, leading about with him a fanatical and prostitute woman, broke out into such a height of presump- tion as to call her the Holy Ghost; whom this great man most justly designated as an evil spirit rather; inasmuch as a wicked and impure spirit had taken up his abode within her. Manes, again, maintained that matter and darkness were uncreate and co-eternal with God. Novatus, moreover, a presbyter of the Church of Rome, would not at all admit to penance those who had fallen into an abjuration of the faith. Nay, he contended that those likewise who had lapsed after baptism ought not to be received, when they betook them- selves to penance; likewise he refused to receive those who had married twice. This man the orthodox fathers first de- graded, and then removed from the Church, as one who re- jected penance, and taught that he himself was pure and free from guilt. Also, it has already been said of Sabellius in the Oration de Dogmate*, that he contracted the three Persons into the one Person of the Father, and did not maintain! a unity of the Godhead in three Persons.” Thus Elias. As therefore, in the latter passage, Nazianzen rightly attributes to Montanus his own evil spirit, to Manes his darkness, to Novatus his feigned purity, and lastly, to Sa- bellius his false? [doctrine of the] monarchy; so does he no less appositely assign their own Depth and Silence to Si- mon, Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, and the other heretics, whom he had in the preceding clause combined in one group. 11. But the chief reason (if I mistake not) which induced z Tom. ii. col. 851. [Appended to 1660. See p. 396, note y. } the works of S. Greg. Naz. ed. Paris. * [Orat. xxi. § 13. p. 3938.] Marcion held the same doctrine about Afons as Valentinus. 387 the author of the Observations to contend that Nazianzen’s soox m1. last words, “were delivered over to their own Depth and ; 10, ἢ, Silence,” properly belonged to the Valentinians alone, and Icxamis. not to the rest of the heretics also who were named along with them, in opposition to the manifest mind and mean- ing of Nazianzen himself, is this; that if these last words ‘be made to apply to each of the heretics before enumerated, it must then be allowed that Marcion also had his Depth and Silence ; but the author of the Observations takes it as a settled point, that Marcion, at any rate, did not dream of Depth or Silence, nay, did not recognise any eons at all. This however is a mere assumption of the Observer, inas- much as in his forty-fourth Oration’ the same Nazianzen expressly attributes to the Marcionites not merely zons, but thirty eons, a number equal to that which the Valen- tinians venerated!. For he writes as follows in that place; !coluerunt. “The Hebrews honour the number seven, from the law of Moses, as afterwards the Pythagoreans honoured the number four, by which also they used to swear, and the Simonians and Marcionites the numbers eight, and thirty; giving names to, and honouring, certain eons corresponding to 181 these numbers.” Who can doubt that Nazianzen took this [495] out of some works of Marcion, or of his followers? especially as similar statements respecting the Marcionites have been made by Elias Cretensis and Nicetas°, who wrote commen- taries on Gregory of Nazianzum. But here the author of the Observations, with his usual modesty, charges both Nazian- zen himself with want of caution, and his two commentators with the grossest ignorance, for having attributed to the Marcionites what really belonged to the Valentinians. As if, forsooth, the same theories could not have been held in common by both Marcionites and Valentinians; or as if Nazianzen, Elias Cretensis, and Nicetas were not aware that Valentinus was the first indeed who venerated thirty ons, but that Marcion afterwards embraced those ravings of his. » τὴν ἑβδομάδα τιμῶσιν Ἑβραίων παῖ- αἰῶνας ἐπονομάζουσι καὶ τιμῶσιν. --- δες, ἐκ τῆς Μωύσέως νομοθεσίας, ὥσπερ [Orat. xli. 2. p. 782. οἱ ἸπΤυθαγορικοὶ τὴν τετρακτὺν ὕστερον, ¢ [A deacon of Constantinople, who ἣν δὴ καὶ ὅρκον πεποίηνται, καὶ τὴν by- flourished A.D. 1077. See his Com- δοάδα καὶ τριακάδα οἱ ἀπὸ Σίμωνος καὶ mentaries at the end of the works of _ Μαρκίωνος, οἷς δὴ καὶ ἰσαρίθμους twas 8. Greg. Naz. ed. 1680.] 2 ee σοφῷ ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [496] 1 juniores Nazian- zeno, 388 Silence of the ancient writers on Marcion and Nay, Elias Cretensis expressly informs us of this, and observes | that Nazianzen was cognizant of it, for in his notes on Na- zianzen’s thirty-third Oration, after speaking of the first og- doad of zons, he goes on to write’; “The Marcionites, how- ever, with increased madness, reverenced the number thirty on account of the thirty zons whom they used to venerate ; for these insane men affirmed that, out of those zons which were found in the system of Simon, the Word and Life had in their turn produced ten more zons; and Man and the Church twelve other zons; and these added to the eight, whom we before enumerated, make up the number thirty. Their names also it would be superfluous to write, they are so old-womanish and contemptible. Tux LIKE To THIS DID VALENTINUS ALSO TEACH, ἃ point which this great man has made clear in his Oration against the Arians.” 12. Still the Observer will not yet yield to this great autho- rity, nor believe that the Marcionites venerated thirty zons. Why, I ask? Because, forsooth, there is a profound silence on this point among the more ancient heresiologists. I grant, indeed, that Irenzeus (who was followed by Tertullian, — to say nothing of Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and other writers on heresiology, who came after Nazianzen’), in his first book, where he professedly recounts the tenets of the ancient heretics, in treating of Marcion, attributes no- thing of this kind to him in c. 29°; and from this the Ob-. server boldly concludes that the great Nazianzen and his commentators were completely mistaken. It is the Observer himself, however, who is altogether wrong; for Irenzus, in the same book, in treating of Cerinthus (c. 25‘), and of the Nicolaitans (c. 278), does not mention any ons of theirs, as neither does Tertullian say any thing at all about zeons of theirs. But is it to be concluded from this that neither the Cerinthians nor the Nicolaitans recognised any eons? This is absurd; for Irenzus himself, incidentally, in another passage, which we have already quoted, asserts the direct contrary. The fact is this; in that first book of his, Irenzeus accurately- describes all the doctrines of the Valentinians alone, (as it was against them especially that 4 Pag. 819. f [eap. 26.] ¢ [cap. 27. 2, p. 106. ] 6. [cap. 26. 3.] Cerinthus holding the doctrine of Afons, accounted for. 389 he wrote, and it was they who most of all interpolated and βοοκ 11. added to the ravings of the earlier Gnostics;) but when § 11-13. he treats of the other heretics, he generally mentions only [enatius. the opinions which were peculiar to them. Hence the pro- found silence (of which I spoke) in this passage respecting the zons of the Nicolaitans and the Cerinthians, (who yet, as Irenzus himself in another passage attests, taught that the Word is the Son of the Only-begotten, and, further, that the Only-begotten Himself had his origin from some other ; [zeon']:) because, that is, this dogma of theirs they held in? aliunde. common with other Gnostics. Nay, of Cerinthus it is parti- [497] cularly worthy of remark, that Irenzeus did not there mention even his most notorious error, touching the observance of the law of Moses; no doubt for the same reason as before, because he shared this error along with Ebion. It is exactly in the same way that, when he comes to Marcion, c. 29, he is altogether silent about his eons, enumerating only his peculiar dogmas; of which this was the chief, that that God who was declared by the law and the prophets, was not only distinct from the supreme God, and far inferior to Him, (as all the earlier Gnostics taught,) but was both evil, and the author of evil, as Irenzus states in the context. At the end of this chapter he also says that Marcion™ “was the only one who openly ventured to mutilate? the Scriptures, and 3 circumci- shamelessly, above all others, to vilify God.” on: 13. This, however, must be added, that Irenzus himself elsewhere not obscurely intimates that Marcion so far agreed with Valentinus in opinion as to hold altogether the same view with him respecting the bringing forth? of the Word 3 produc- from Depth and Silence. For in book ii. 48.i the holy and “"™ learned man thus addresses the Gnostics; “The prophet in- deed saith concerning Him,” (i. 6. the Son of God,) “* Who shall declare His generation?’ You, however, who divine His generation from the Father, and appLy to THE Worp oF GoD THE PUTTING FORTH OF THE WORD OF MEN MADE BY » Solum manifeste aususest cireum- enarrabit? Vos autem generationem cidere Scripturas, et impudorate super _ejus ex Patre divinantes, et vERBI HO- omnes obtrectare Deum.—[c. 27. 4. MINUM PER LINGUAM FACTAM PROLA- p- 106. ] TIONEM TRANSFERENTES IN VERBUM 1 Propheta quidem ait de eo,(nem- Det, juste detegimini a vobis ipsis, pe de Filio Dei,) Generationem ejus quis quod neque humana nee divina nove- ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, -------.- --- -----. 182 [498] 1 majora secundum nos. 3 prolatus, 3 nuncupa- tionem. 4 prolati- ones. 390 Evidence that Marcion agreed with Valentinus respecting THE TONGUE, are of your own selves justly convicted of know- ing neither human things nor divine. But being unreason- ably puffed up, you audaciously say that you know the inex- plicable mysteries of God, seeing that even the Lord Himself, the Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knoweth .the very day and hour of the Judgment, plainly saying ‘of that. day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only.’ Since therefore the Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father, so neither are we ashamed to reserve to God those things in questions which are too great for our measure’; for no one is above his master. If any one, therefore, shall say to us, ‘How then was the Son put forth? from the Father? we tell him, that that putting forth, or generation, or constitution®, or revelation, or by whatever other name one shall call! His generation, which is inexplicable, no one, neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides, &c., knoweth. Since therefore His generation is inexplicable, all who at- tempt to explain generations and puttings forth‘ are beside themselves, for they attempt to explain those things which are inexplicable. For, as is plain, all men know that a word is sent forth From THOUGHT AND SENSE.” Here Irenczeus is manifestly attacking [all] heretics whatsoever, who ventured to explain the inexplicable generation of the Word by com- parisons taken from common-place objects; saying, for in- stance, that the Word of God is begotten of the Father, just as the word of man put forth by the tongue; and that the Word of God, just like the word of man, is sent forth from ritis. Irrationabiliter autem inflati, au- daciter inenarrabilia Dei mysteria scire vos dicitis ; quandoquidem et Dominus ipse Filius Dei ipsum judicii diem et horam concessit scire solum Patrem, manifeste dicens, De die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque Filius, nisi Pater solus. Si igitur scientiam diei illius Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem; neque nos erubescimus (alii melius, erubescamus), que sunt in questioni- bus majora secundum nos, reservare Deo; nemo enim super magistrum est. Si quis itaque nobis dixerit, Quomodo ergo Filius prolatus a Patre est? dici- mus ei, quia prolationem istam, sive generationem, sive nuncupationem, sive adapertionem, aut quomodolibet (al. melius, quolibet, GRABE), quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejus inenarra- bilem existentem, nemo novit, non Va- lentinus, non Marcion, neque Saturni- nus, neque Basilides, &c. Inenarrabilis itaque generatio ejus cum sit, quicum- que nituntur generationes et prolatio- nes enarrare, non sunt compotes sui, ea que inenarrabilia sunt enarrare pro- mittentes. Quoniam enim ex cogita- tione et sensu verbum emittitur, hoc utique omnes sciunt homines.—[cap. 28. 5. p. 157.] k [ Another and better reading is eru- bescamus, “‘ neither let us be ashamed.” 1 Another and better reading is quo- libet.—GRABE. the putting forth of the Word, and other doctrines. 391 thought and sense!,—by which words it is certain that the soox m. translator of Irenzeus was accustomed to express ἔννοια or “Ὁ 18. avy}, (thought or silence,) and νοῦς, (mind.) But of the sci... Gnostic heretics, who fell into such folly, he reflects, by 1 ex cogita- name, not only on Valentinus, Saturninus, and Basilides, '°"° οὗ but on Marcion also, whom he also connects most closely with Valentinus; and that, doubtless, because he not only entertained the same opinions as Valentinus with regard to the first four cons, (as did Cerinthus, Saturninus, Basilides, and other Gnostics who lived before Valentinus,) but also embraced and reverenced* his whole pleroma of thirty zons, [499] as Gregory of Nazianzum and his learned commentators ex- ἢ veneratus pressly testify. This, at least, is clearly gathered from this pris passage of Irenzeus, that Marcion, equally with Valentinus, held and taught that the Word of God is generated of the Father, just like a human word put forth by the tongue, and that the word of God is sent forth, like the word of man, from thought and sense, (1. e., from ἔννοια or συγὴ, and νοῦς.) For, if it were not so, no reason could be de- vised why Irenzus, in this censure of heretics indulging in this kind of dotage, should mention Marcion by name, and even should connect him, as I have already said, most closely with Valentinus. The thing speaks for itself. Moreover, Irenzeus in another passage informs us clearly enough that Marcion acknowledged Depth, and his -Pleroma, to be su- perior to the Demiurge. For in book u. ὁ. 1™ (the argu- ment of which runs thus, “that neither is the God of the universe external to* the pleroma, nor does there exist any- 3 extra. thing external to His fulness, nor yet are there two gods, removed from each other by an immeasurable interval,” &c.) he thus applies to the Marcionites what he wrote especially against the Valentinians"; “In like manner these things,” he says, “also applied against those who are of the school of Marcion. For his two gods also will be held in and bound- ed by the immeasurable interval, which separates them one ™ Quod neque extra pleroma sit uni- Ὁ Similiter autem hee et adversus versorum Deus, neque extra plenitu- eos, qui sunt a Marcione, aptata sunt. dinem ejus esse aliquid, neque quidem Continebuntur enim et circumfinientur duos esse Deos, immenso intervallo ab οἵ duo dei ejus ab immenso interyallo, invicem distantes, &c.—[p. 114. cap. i. quod separat eos ab invicem. Si autem Argumentum. ] id, excogitandi est necessitas secundum ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 Lor, ‘* Thus 890920ι: Marcion and Valentinus agreed respecting from the other. But° if so!, there is a necessity for imagin- ing many gods in every direction removed from each other by an immeasurable interval, beginning from, and ending in, one another; and by the argument, by which they endeavour there is.”] to shew that there is a pleroma or God above the Creatar of [500] 2 pelagus. 183 heaven and earth, by the same may any one prove that there is another pleroma above the pleroma, and again another above that; and above Depth another ocean? of God; and that on the sides also, in like manner, there are the same; and thus the thought passing off into infinity”, there will always, be both a necessity to imagine other pleromas and other Depths, and never at any time to stop, continually seeking others, besides those that have been named [be- ἴον. ἢ Thus Irenzus. But how (I pray you) would these absurdities press on the Marcionites, how would this reason- ing of Irenzeus,—By that argument, by which they endea- vour to shew that there is a pleroma or God above the Crea- tor of heaven and earth, by the same argument may one affirm that there is another pleroma above the pleroma, and again another above that; and above Depth another ocean of God ;—how, I repeat, would this reasoning strike at the Marcionites, unless they had entertained the same opinions as Valentinus respecting Depth and his. Pleroma, as su- perior to the Demiurgus [or Creator]? At any rate it is clearly evident from this passage of Irenzeus that Marcion acknowledged not only Depth, but his pleroma also; and likewise taught that the Demiurgus, or that God who created the world, existed external to the pleroma of Depth, very far distant and separate from Him, which certainly were the very opinions of Valentinus. And now, when Irenzus so evidently intimates that Marcion, equally with Valentinus, omnem partem multos Deos immensa separatione distantes, ab invicem qui- dem inchoantes, ad invicem autem fi- nientes; et illa ratione, qua nituntur docere, super Fabricatorem cceli et ter- re esse aliquod pleroma aut Deum, eadem ratione utens quisque adstruet super pleroma alterum esse pleroma, et super illud rursus aliud, et super Bythum aliud pelagus Dei; et a late- ribus autem similiter eadem esse; et sic in immensum excidente sententia, - et semper necessitas erit excogitare al- tera pleromata, et alteros Bythos, et nunquam aliquando consistere, semper querentes alios preter dictos.—[p. 114.] ° Read, Sic autem ad excogitandum est necessitas, &c.—GraBe, [and ed. Bened. | P Excidente. The very learned bishop observed in a marginal note that exce- dente is a better reading. , Concerning this conjecture I refer the reader to my own annotation on the passage of Ire- nzus.—GRABE. the Pleroma, and Creation by the Demiurgus. * 393 reverenced the pleroma of Depth, who will not readily be- soox m1. lieve Nazianzen, when he testifies that the same Marcion “618. likewise agreed with Valentinus in worshipping thirty cons? [gnarius. For this was the number of eons, inclusive of Depth himself, which Valentinus reckoned in the pleroma of Depth. Lastly, whereas Valentinus placed beneath the pleroma of Depth a certain middle! region, which he also called Vacuum, out of ' locum which arose the Demiurgus, who was placed in the lowest re- “4“"* gion, the same Irenzus expressly attests that Marcion agreed [501] with him in this point also, ii. 34; “ Inconsistent? therefore,” ? instabilis. says he, “is that Depth which they hold, which is his ple- ine roma, and Marcion’s God; seeing that (as they say) it has something below, external to itself, which they call Vacuum and Shade; and this Vacuum is shewn? to be greater* than ὃ ostendi- their pleroma. And it is inconsistent® also to say this, that ‘| whilst it contains all things within’ itself, the creation’ was , Pag. ia wrought by some other. For they must needs acknowledge ὁ conditio. something without form and void®, in which this universe was ΤΣ created, below the spiritual pleroma,” &c. There it is plain beet enough that the words “(as they say)” refer to all those of whom he was speaking in the preceding words; but there not only are the Valentinians spoken of, but Marcion is ͵ also alluded to by name. It follows that Marcion, with the Valentinians, asserted that there is beneath the spiritual pleroma something without form and void, in which this universe was created, and that by a creator other than the Most High God. The fact is, most of Marcion’s doctrines (whatever certain of his disciples and followers may have laid down, who in various ways interpolated, changed, and in some instances openly denied his opinions) were altogether derived from the insanities of the earlier Gnostics, and espe- cially of Valentinus, who lived before Marcion. The pecu- liarity of Marcion was this, that he was the first who ven- tured to assail with open blasphemy the Demiurgus, or Crea- tor of the world, by saying that he was himself evil and the 4 Instabilis igitur qui est secundum eos Bythus, id quod est hujus pleroma, et Marcionis deus. Siquidem (quem- admodum dicunt) extra se habet sub- jacens aliquid, quod vacuum et um- bram vocant; et vacuum hoc majus pleromate ipsorum ostenditur. Insta- bile est autem et hoe dicere, infra se omnia continente eo, ab altero quodam fabricatam esse conditionem. Oportet enim illos necessario vacuum aliquid et informe confiteri, in quo fabricatum est hoc quod est universum, infra spi- ritale pleroma, &c.—[p. 118. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [502] 894 Nazianzen’s testimony as to Cerinthus thus confirmed. author of evil. In a word, Marcion publicly taught that there | were two gods, namely, Depth, the head of the spiritual ple- roma, and Demiurgus, who existed external to that pleroma ; and called the former the good, the latter the evil god. He seized a handle for this impious doctrine from his master Cerdon, of whom Irenzus writes thus, i. 28°; “He taught that the God who was proclaimed by the law and the pro- phets is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; for that the one is known, but the other unknown; and that the one is just, but the other good; and Marcion of Pontus 1 ηὔξησε τὸ having succeeded him, extended his school, unblushingly! διδασκα- λεῖον, adam plia- vit doctri- nam, Lat. Vers. [503] blaspheming,” [&c.] Cerdon, although he denied that the God of the law and the prophets was good, yet confessed that He was just; whilst Marcion went further’, “ assert- ing that He was a doer of evil, a lover of wars, and incon- stant likewise in His purpose, and inconsistent with Him- self,” as the same Irenzus attests at the beginning of the following chapter. Notwithstanding, therefore, this cavil of the author of the Observations concerning Marcion, the great Nazianzen’s authority remains unshaken, when he tells us that both Cerinthus and the other Gnostics, prior to Valen- tinus, worshipped a Depth and a Silence of their own. 14, The learned Pearson‘, however, has proved by other, — and those most clear, testimonies of the ancients, that Silence was recognised by Gnostics anterior to Valentinus amongst their eons. On the other hand, no man who loves Chris- tian candour and sincerity can read without anger and in- dignation the answers which the author of the Observations makes to those passages. We will here bring forward one of those testimonies, and vindicate it from the exceptions of that sophist, and then conclude this discussion. Respecting Silence, as recognised by Simon himself, the leader of the Gnostics, there is a clear testimony of Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. 11. 95, “ What Marcellus,” he says, “ presumed to * ἐδίδαξε τὸν ὑπὸ Tod νόμου καὶ mpo- φητῶν κεκηρυγμένον Θεὸν μὴ εἶναι Πα- τέρα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" τὸν μὲν γὰρ γνωρίζεσθαι, τὸν δὲ ἀγνῶτα εἶναι" καὶ τὸν μὲν δίκαιον, τὸν δὲ ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχειν. διαδεξάμενος δὲ αὐτὸν Μαρ- κίων ὃ Ποντικὸς, ηὔξησε τὸ διδασκα- λεῖον, ἀπηρυθριασμένως βλασφημῶν.---- [ς, 27. p. 105.] * Malorum factorem, et bellorum concupiscentem, et inconstantem quo- que sententia, et contrarium sibi ipsum dicens.—[Ibid. These words follow immediately on those last quoted, com- pleting the sentence. } t Vindic. Part. Post., pp. 63—65. " ἃ δὲ Μάρκελλος ἐτόλμα ὑποτίθε- σθαι, πάλαι μὲν λέγων εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν, A Silence co-eternal with God taught by Simon Magus. 395 suggest, when he alleged that God existed of old, and ima- soox mt. gined to himself a certain stillness, [as existing] with God, ¢13°14. according to that prince of the godless heretics himself, who [gyarivs. framing his godless doctrines proclaimed, saying, ‘ There was God and Silence,” &c. To this the Observer in the first place: replies*; “These words are not of such importance as Pearson supposes; for Eusebius is speaking, as Blondel remarks, of God, not of Depth. Iam aware that the Va- 184 lentinians, and perhaps some other heretics, deemed their fabulous Depth to be a god, that is, a divine person, and of the nobler sex; but I do not see that they ever distinguished him by the name of God.” Who would not be surprised at this reply? For let it be granted that Eusebius is here speaking of God and not of Depth; yet he is expressly speak- ing of Silence, yea, of Silence as most intimately conjoined with the God of all, and co-eternal with Him. But from other passages we learn most distinctly, and have already clearly demonstrated, that Gnostics who preceded Valentinus, and were contemporary with Ignatius, reckoned the Word! * Logon amongst their later eons; which is enough for our purpose. For neither does the author of the epistle to the Magnesians say any thing expressly concerning Depth; he only tacitly reprehends the heretics of his age for having declared that the Word came forth from Silence. But, surely, if it be only certain that the Gnostics who preceded Valentinus acknowledged Silence, and that as placed in the highest grade [of sons], and if it be at the same time certain that [these same] Gnostics, previous to Valentinus, recognised the Word also amongst those of their zons who were placed in an inferior order; who does not see that the argument [504] of Blondel and others is of no weight whatever, who infer from this mention of the Word coming forth from Silence by the author of the epistle to the Magnesians, that that epistle is not Ignatius’s, on the ground, that is, that no one before Valentinus, who lived subsequent to the time of Igna- tius, taught that the Word was derived from Silence? In the next place, when the author of the Observations says, kal τινα ἡσυχίαν ἅμα τῷ Θεῷ ὕπογρά- καὶ σιγή" x.7.A—{[p. 114, ad calc. Eu- φων ἑαυτῷ, κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον τὸν τῶν seb. Demonst. Evang. ed, Par. 1628. ] ἀθέων αἱρεσιωτῶν ἀρχηγὸν, ds τὰ ἄθεα = Pag. 192. δογματίζων ἀπεφαίνετο λέγων, Ἦν Θεὸς ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 suo se gladio jugulat. [505] 2 κρησφύ- ETOP. 396 Depth held as a God by Simon Magus and Marcion. that, although the Valentinians regarded their fabulous Depth as a god, that is, as a divine person and of the nobler sex, still he does not find that they ever distinguished him by the name of God, he destroys his own argument’. For from this it follows that Eusebius in this passage is not speaking of Valentinus, which yet he himself immediately afterward affirms [that he is doing.] If the Observer were willing to trust Elias Cretensis—who was certainly a very learned writer, and had also the assistancey of many records of the ancients, which have now perished—rather than his own vain conjectures and guesses, which rest on no founda- tion, he would easily learn from him [Elias] that the Gnostics in general indeed acknowledged Depth as the supreme prin- ciple of all things; but that they were not all alike accus- tomed to distinguish him by the name of God; and that the frequent use of this mode of speaking was almost confined to Simon and Marcion. For Elias, in his Commentary on the twenty-third Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, after men- tioning the various names of the Gnostics who theorised about Depth and Silence, then makes this remark about Si- mon and Marcion in particular’; “ For certain of them used to say that Depth was a God, and likewise that Silence was a God, as Simon and Marcion.” And this I suppose was the cause why Irenzus, in the passage which we have already cited out of Book 11. c. 3, after speaking of the Valentinians and Marcion together, has carefully observed this distinc- tion ; “ Inconsistent, therefore, is the Depth which they hold, (i. e. the Valentinians), which is his pleroma, and Marcion’s God.” The Observer, however, has yet another way of es- cape’; “ Besides,” he says, “let us allow that the God [men- tioned] in Eusebius is the same as the Depth of Irenzeus, and of others who have written about the Gnostics; it will not thence follow, that the pairing of Depth and Silence made one of the figments of those Gnostics who were earlier than Valentinus: for that prince of impious heretics [of whom Eusebius speaks] will be Valentinus himself; who, accord- ing to Blondel, was the first to dream of this pairing of Depth and Silence.” But, besides that we have already fully y Eta Ail metropolitan of Crete, and flourished in the year 787. Cave.—B. ] ” col. ‘ ; ea ΟΣ Arianism anticipated and refuted in Gnosticism. 397 shewn that it is not Valentinus who is treated of in this Βοοκ τη. passage, if any one doubt who it is that Eusebius designates g 14, 15. by the leader of impious heretics, let him hear Eusebius Ienarws. explaining himself, Eccles. Hist. ii. 134, “We have had it handed down, that Simon was the first leader of all heresy.” Nor was this way of speaking peculiar to Eusebius. For among the ancient ecclesiastical writers, the leader, or prince, of heretics means Simon Magus’, as invariably as the prince of poets in profane Latin authors designates Virgil. And with respect to the passage of Eusebius under discussion, I know not in truth if any more emphatic words than the phrase, “according to that very prince of impious heretics,” could have been used to designate some individual’ heretic, * singula- who was the most notorious leader and prince of all impious ~” heretics: and this, Simon certainly was, not Valentinus. 15. I have dwelt the longer on these points, both because [506] I thought it worth the while in passing to illustrate this noble passage of Ignatius, and also principally because they are of great use in refuting the heresy of Arius and esta- blishing the Nicene Faith. For from hence the Arian fana- tics may learn their pedigree’, hence recognise their parents ” prosa- and progenitors. The impious Gnostics were the first who?“ separated the Word® from the supreme God: the Arians also ὃ τὸν Aé- do the same. The Gnostics were the first among Chris- ”” tians to deny the eternity of the Word‘; for they said that “ τοῦ Aé- Silence preceded the Word, and therefore that there was ”” [a time] when the Word was not; and the Arians say the same respecting the Word and Son of God, in that cele- 185 brated saying’ of theirs, Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, “There was ἢ effatum. a time when He was not.” The opinion of the teachers of the apostolic age was altogether opposed to these insani- ties, as is attested by Ignatius, a most ample witness; for in opposition to the Cerinthians, Ignatius—the disciple of the Apostles, and who was appointed by the Apostles themselves bishop of Antioch, where the name of Christians first origi- nated—taught that Christ, the Son of God, is the Word of the Most High God Himself, not begotten by any inferior ® πάσης μὲν οὖν ἀρχηγὸν αἱρέσεως b See Irenzus, i. 20 and 30. [ο. 28. πρῶτον γενέσθαι τὸν Σίμωνα mapeiAh- 2 and 28.] and Constit. Apostol. vi. 7. gauev.—E. H. ii. 13. ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, * sym- myste. [507] 2 Nu, sive Monogene. 3 Adyos, Reason. 4 (or, “ any thing of another.’’ } 5 ordina- tionis, q. d. succession. 398 Passages from Ireneus shewing that Arian views were zeon; moreover, also, “the Eternal Word” of the supreme God Himself, “not having come forth from Silence,” the Eternal Word, whom no Silence preceded, who never was not, who was coeval with God the Father Himself. So also Irenzeus, the hearer and disciple of Polycarp, who was the fellow disciple’ of Ignatius, censures this in Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, that they attributed a beginning to the Only-begotten® Himself, whom they called the Father of the Word: and what is more, he asserts, as we have already shewn, that the Apostle John expressly impugns this heresy of theirs in the opening of his Gospel. The same Irenzus throughout vehemently attacks other Gnostics, who suc- ceeded Cerinthus, on account of the same heresy. I shall here only quote one or two of the more remarkable passages of this kind. In book ii. c. 18°, the bishop and martyr of Lyons writes as follows of the generation of the Word, in opposition to the Valentinians and such as held with them ; “For from Him,” (i. e. from Mind, or the Only-begotten?,) “they say that Logos and Zoé, (Word and Life,) the creators of this pleroma, were sent forth; both understanding this sending forth of Logos, that is, of the Word, from what happens in the ‘case of men; and making conjectures con- trary to God, as though they were discovering some great matter in that which they say, that Word was sent forth from Mind; whereas all of course know that in regard of men oer this is said consistently ; but in regard of Him who is God over all, seeing that He is all Mind and all Word*, as we have said before, and has not in Himself any other thing earlier or later, or any other thing anterior‘, but ever continues wholly equal, and alike, and one, it fol- lows that no such sending forth in this order® will follows.” © Monogeni ipsi. [The words are addivinantes adversus Deum, quasi ali- given | according to the reading of the edition of Feuardentius, although in our own edition, p. 218. col. 1. line 21, the genuine reading, monogenem, is found.—Grase. [And such is the reading of the Benedictine edition ; see above, p. 382.—B. * Ab hoe enim (nempe a Nu, sive Monogene) Logon et Zoen fabricatores hujus pleromatis dicunt emissos; et Logi, id est, Verbi, quidem emissionem ab hominum affectione accipientes, et quid magnum adinvenientes in eo quod dicunt, a Nu esse emissum Logon; quod quidem omnes videlicet sciunt, quoniam in hominibus quidem conse- quenter dicatur; in eo autem qui sit super omnes Deus, totus Nus et totus Logos cum sit, quemadmodum pre- diximus, et nec aliud antiquius nec posterius, aut aliud anterius [ ed. Bene- dict. alterius| habente in se, sed toto zequali et simili et uno perseverante, jam non talis hujus ordinationis se- entertained by the Gnostics and denied by Catholics. 399 And after a few words he censures those “ who apply to the soox 11. eternal Word of God, the putting forth’! of the uttered’ “πε 16. word of men, attributing to Him both a beginning on being fenanvs. put forth’, and a production‘, just as to a word of their 'lationem. own. And in what respect” (he asks) “will the Word of ssa God, nay, rather God Himself, since He is the Word’, dif- 3 prolatio- — fer from the word of men, if He had the same order® and pepe sending forth [in the mode] of [His] generation?” You Seddon observe, reader, that Irenzus expressly teaches here, that ὁ ordina- in God there is nothing earlier or later, and, moreover, “°"°™ that He sharply rebukes the Gnostics, for having applied the putting forth of the uttered word of men (Lationem prolativi hominum verbi, thus did his faithful but unclas- sical translator turn the Greek of Irenzus®) to. the eter- nal Word of God, attributing to Him a beginning of pro- duction, just as they do to a word of their own. And to this we have a parallel passage in chap. 47. of the same - book, near the end®, where Irenzeus thus addresses the Gnos- tics; “ But this blindness and folly of yours proceeds from : this, that you make no reserve’ for God, but wish to set 7 nihil Deo forth the nativities and puttings forth both of God Him- ***v*"* self and of His Thought® and Word and Life, and Christ; 8 Enncee. and that, taking [the idea of] them from no other source than from what happens in the case of men; and you do not perceive, how that in a human being indeed, who is a compound animal, it is allowable, as we have already re- marked, to speak in this way of the mind , and thought ”’ of ® sensus man; and that from mind [proceeds] thought, from thought [vods, 10 ennoea. [508] quetur [al. sequitur] emissio.... [de- centiora autem magis quam hi] qui lationem [generationem ed. Benedict. ] prolativi hominum verbi transferunt in Dei xternum Verbum, et prolationis initium donantes et genesin, quemad- modum et suo verbo. Et in quo dis- tabit Dei Verbum, imo magis ipse Deus, cum sit Verbum, a verbo homi- num, si eandem habuerit ordinationem et emissionem generationis ?—[e. 13. 8. p- 131.] © Sequetur. quitur.—B. | f [Lationem. The Benedictine edi- tion reads generationem.—B. | 8 [Bp. Bull probably refers to Bil- Another reading is se- lius’ conjecture, that St. Irenzeus wrote, οἱ τὴν φορὰν τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων λόγου προφορικοῦ ἀναφέρουσιν εἰς τὸν aldioy τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον. h Hee autem cecitas et stultilo- quium inde provenit vobis, quod nihil Deo reservetis; sed et ipsius Dei, et Enncee ejus, et Verbi, et Vite, et Christi nativitates et prolationes an- nuntiare vultis; et has non aliunde accipientes, sed ex affectione homi- num; et non intelligitis, quia in ho- mine quidem, qui est compositum ani- mal, capit hujusmodi dicere, sicut pre- diximus, sensum hominis et ennceam hominis; et quia ex sensu ennca, de enncea autem enthymesis, de enthy- ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE sON. 1 enthy- mesis, 2verbum. 3 subminis- trare. [509] 400 Ireneus contrasts the Divine Word, and the word of man. conception!, and from conception a word; (but what word? for among the Greeks the word (λόγος), which is the primary principle which thinks, is one thing, the instrument through which that λόγος is uttered, is another ;) and that sometimes a man is still and silent, at other times speaks and acts. But whereas God is all Mind, all Reason, and all operative Spirit, and all Light, and always the same, and existing in the like state, (as both it is profitable for us to conceive con- cerning God, and as we are taught out of the Scriptures,) it is not therefore becoming towards Him [for us to suppose] that such affections and divisions will follow in His case. For in men the tongue, inasmuch as it is of flesh, is not suffi- cient to minister to the rapidity of the mind, on account of its spiritual nature; whence our [mental] word? is choked! within, and brought forth not all at once, as it is conceived by the mind, but in parts, according as the tongue is able to minister® to it.” In these words, whilst refuting the dreams of the Gnostics- respecting the generation of the Son, Irenzeus notices two differences especially between the putting forth of the divine Word, and that of man. In the first place, the word of man is preceded by silence, that is to say, man is first silent, then speaks; neither is the word of man co- existent with his internal conception ; but concerning God we must have a far different philosophy: since He is pure Mind, always the same, and existing in the like state, nei- ther is He the subject of affections and divisions of this kind; consequently He is not first silent and then speaks; but His Word is co-eternal with Himself. This was just the meaning of Ignatius, when, glancing at the Cerinthian Gnostics, he says of Christ, “who is His eternal Word 4, not having come forth from Silence.” In the next place, the word of man is not brought forth once for all’, but im- mesi autem Logos; (quem autem Lo- gon? aliud enim est secundum Gre- cos Logos, quod est principale quod excogitat; aliud organum, per quod emittitur Logos;) et aliquando quidem quiescere et tacere hominem, aliquando autem loqui et operari. Deus autem cum sit totus mens, totus ratio, et to- tus Spiritus operans, et totus lux, et semper idem et similiter existens, sicut et utile est nobis sapere de Deo, et sicut ex Scripturis discimus, non jam hujusmodi affectus et divisiones decen- ter erga eum subsequentur. Velocitati enim sensus hominum propter spiritale ejus non sufficit lingua deservire, quip- pe carnalis existens; unde et intus suf- focatur verbum nostrum, et profertur non de semel, sicut conceptum est a sensu; sed per partes secundum quod lingua subministrare prevalet.—[c. 28. 4, Pp: 157. ] Suffocatur, others read suffugatur. —GRABE. Arius condemned by anticipation in the Apostolic Church. 401 perfectly and by parts; whereas from the perfect God there soox m1, proceeds no other than a perfect Word, and that, so to say, ε 16, 16. in the one moment of eternity. δον νὰ: 16. This infamous parentage of the Arian heresy was more- over perceived by the great Athanasius, who also often up- braided the Arians with it. Thus in his fourth Oration against the Arians*, he censures them as “emulating the doctrines of Valentinus.” And shortly afterwards! he exe- crates them for disjoining the Son from the Father, and for saying that He is not the Word of His Father, but rather a creature, in these words; “‘ May the impiety of Valentinus perish together with you™.” Now what he designates the impiety of Valentinus we have already clearly shewn to have been common to that heretic with other Gnostics, who were anterior to him, and even coeval with the Apostles them- selves. The question, then, whether the faith of the Nicene fathers or of Arius is to be held, will issue at last in this; Whether the doctrine of the Apostles is to be preferred to the inventions of those impious Gnostics, who troubled the Apostolic churches, or not? Now I suppose that no Chris- tian will long deliberate which party he ought in this case to follow. In a word, from what we have thus far discussed, it is plain that the question respecting the true godhead and eternity of the Word, which was in dispute between the fathers of Niczea and Arius, was the subject of contro- versy even in the primitive Church, yea, in the Apostolic age itself; that is to say, between the Gnostics, the most wicked of men, and the Catholics, who adhered consistently to the doctrine of the Apostles; the former maintaining the cause of Arius, (to the eternal infamy’ of that heretic ' honorem, _ be it spoken) ; the latter strenuously defending the faith of “tmice-] _ [510] κ τὰ Οὐαλεντίνου (nrdcavres.—p. 515. [Οταῖ, iii. 60, 64. vol. 1, pp. 608, 613.) 1 ἡ ἀσέβεια Οὐαλεντίνου σὺν ὑμῖν εἴη ᾿ εἰς ἀπώλειαν.---Ὀ. 516. [65. p. 614.} m And likewise in Orat. ii. contra Arianos, tom. i. p. 179. edit. Com- _ melin, [Orat. i. 56. vol. i: p. 461]; αἰσχυνθήσονται Mev ...... ὡς τὰ Οὐ- αλεντίνου καὶ Καρποκράτους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἱρετικῶν ζηλοῦντες καὶ φθεγ- youevor’ ὧν ὃ μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους ὅμο- BULL. γενεῖς εἴρηκε τῷ Χριστῷ" 6 δὲ Kap- ποκράτης ἀγγέλους τοῦ κόσμου δη- μιουργοὺς εἶναι φησί. “ They will be put to shame as emulating and utter- ing the views of Valentinus and Car- pocrates, and the other heretics; of whom the former declared the angels to be congenerate with Christ, (duorye- vets τῷ Xplor@,) whilst Carpocrates affirms that angels were creators of the world.” —GRABE, pd 402 Justin Martyr : passage from his Apology on tue Nicea. “At their own peril then, let the Arians follow these leaders of theirs; we will be content with the faith of CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. the Apostles. 187 CHAPTER II. THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIN MARTYR, IRENZUS, AND CLEMENT OF ALEXt ANDRIA, RESPECTING THE ETERNITY OF THE SON, UNFOLDED. 1. Arter Ignatius comes Justin. From him the Jesuit Petavius could not, or at least did not, produce a single passage opposed to the co-eternity of the Son; whereas Wwe shall cite testimonies from his writings, such as most plainly establish the co-eternal existence of the Word or Son of God, with His Father. A remarkable passage of this kind occurs in that Apology which is called the first m the com- [511] mon editions. In it Justin® thus writes concerning God the Father and the Son; “ But to the Father of all things, inas- much as He is unbegotten, no name is given', for by whatso- ever name fany one] is called he hath one older than him- self, who hath given him the name; but the words Father, and * ὀνόματα. God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names’, but appellations® derived from His benefits and His works. His Son, on the other hand, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who before all created things was both in being : ig ἄν: with Him and begotten [of Him], when‘? in the beginning He created and set in order all things through Him, is, on Jusrin Μ. 1 θέτον. 3 προς- ρήσειΞ. asmuch as,” Bull.] the one hand called Christ, because He hath been anointed, and God set in order all things through Him; a name which ἄγνωστον. itself also includes an unknown® meaning; just in the same “δόξα. way as the appellation God is not a name, but an idea® im- ἢ ὄνομα δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετὸν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν. & γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὀνόματι προσαγορεύηται, πρεσβύτερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα. τὸ δὲ πατὴρ, καὶ @eds, καὶ κτίστης, καὶ κύριος, καὶ δεσπότης οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐστιν, GAN ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων προσρήσεις. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου, ὃ μόνος λεγόμενος κυ- ρίως υἱὸς, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτι [ὅτὲ, edd.] τὴν ἀρχὴν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, Χριστὸς μὲν, κατὰ τὸ κεχρίσθαι, καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸν Θεὸν, λέγεται" ὄνομα καὶ αὐτὸ περίεχον ἄγνωστον σημασίαν" ὃν τρό- mov καὶ τὸ Θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ ὄνομά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος δυσεξη- γήτου ἔμφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξα. ᾿Ιησοῦς δὲ καὶ ἀνθρώπου καὶ σω- τῆρος ὄνομα καὶ σημασίαν ἔχει.---Ὁ. 44. [ΑΡο]. ii. 6. p. 92. ] ® {See Grabe’s annotations on this passage.—B. (In the Appendix. )] setting forth the co-eternity of the Son. 403 planted in the nature of man, of something that cannot be soox nr. expressed in language; and on the other hand Jesus has the ‘ie name and signification of both man and Saviour.” In these Justin M. words Justin teaches that there is properly no name belong- [512] ing to God the Father and the Son, but that certain appella- tions only, derived from Their benefits and Their works, are assigned to them by us. And the reason which he gives for this assertion is this; that God the Father is unbegotten and eternal, and that the Son is co-existent with Him as His Word, and consequently that neither of Them has any one existing prior to Himself', to give Him a name. Moreover’ se anti- Justin assigns the name of Christ to His godhead, as though, τον that is, the Word and Son of God, being co-existent with God the Father, and begotten? of Him from everlasting, (as being, ? nascens. that is, the eternal brightness of eternal light,) obtained the name Christ at the time when the Father through Him formed* and ordered all things. I do not indeed venture to 3 confor- maintain this etymology of the name Christ; but I adduce ΤΣ the passage to illustrate Justin’s view respecting the di- vine, eternal, and (if I may so call it) unnameable* nature of ¢ innomi- Christ. There are, however, other of the ancients who re- 7?” ferred the appellation Christ to His divine nature; the pres- byter Caius, for instance, in Photius, cod. 48, and Gregory Nazianzen in his thirty-sixth oration?. 2. But these words of Justin, which we have cited out of his Apology to the emperors, will receive clearer light by comparing them with a remarkable passage in his Horta- tory Address to the Greeks, where Justin, wishing to shew that Plato learned his [doctrine of the] τὸ ὃν (That which Is) from Moses, thus argues4; “For having heard in Egypt that God had said to Moses, ‘I am He that Is,’ when He was about to send him to the Hebrews, he knew that God ᾿ did not declare to him any proper name of Himself. For it is not possible that any name can be applied in its proper sense’ in the case of God ; for names are applied to designate § κυριολο- and distinguish their subjects, which are many and various ; 77" P [Orat. xxx. 21. p. 555.] ὄνομα ἑαυτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔφη. οὐ- 4 ἀκηκοὼς γὰρ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τὸν Θεὸν δὲν γὰρ ὄνομα ἐπὶ Θεοῦ κυριολογεῖσθαι τῷ Μωῦσῇ εἰρηκέναι, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ὧν, δυνατόν. τὰ γὰρ ὀνόματα εἰς δήλωσιν καὶ ὁπηνίκα πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους αὐτὸν ἄπο- διάγνωσιν τῶν ὑποκειμένων κεῖται πραγ- στέλλειν ἔμελλεν, ἔγνω ὅτι οὐ κύριον μάτων, πολλῶν καὶ διαφόρων ὄντων. Θεῷ pd2 ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [513] 1 ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα. [ Isaiah xliv. 6. LXX.] 188 2 τινὸς μετοχῆ». [514] 3 6, 4 apud. 5 nascens. 404 Self-existence and eternity ascribed to the Word by Justin. but in the case of God there was no one previously existing to give a name to Him, nor did He think it needful to give a name to Himself, being One and Alone; as He Himself also testifies by His own prophets, saying, ‘1 am God, the First, and I am the Last', and besides Me there is no other God’ Wherefore, as I said before, God, in sending Moses to ‘the Hebrews, made mention of no name; but by a certain parti- ciple? (ὁ ὧν) mystically teaches that He is the one and only God, saying, ‘I am He that Is.’””?, And what the force of this participle, whereby God, who has no proper name, designated Himself to Moses, is, Justin afterwards most plainly states. For after stating that the 6 ὧν (He that Is) of Moses is just the same as the τὸ ὃν (That which Is) of Plato, he subjoins', “and each of these expressions is evidently suitable to the ever-existent God, for He alone is He that ever Is (ὁ ἀεὶ ὧν). Now Justin himself, in his Dialogue with Trypho, ear- nestly contends’ that it was the Son of God who appeared to Moses from* the bush, and said, ‘I am He that Is... The fact is, That appellation of God in the book of* Moses, “1 am He that Is,” equally belongs to God the Father and the Son, as one God, saving always the distinction of Persons. This is admirably explained by Justin, in the passage which was first quoted from his Apology, in this way; God the Father is He that Is, as ever existing of Himself; while the Son is He that Is, as being co-existent with the Father, and everlastingly begotten of Him. But in other passages the Son of God is expressly called by Justin “ He that ever ex- ists®,’ I mean in his epistle to Diognetus, near the end‘; where the Christian philosopher thus speaks concerning God the Son being sent into the world by God the Father ; “, ... who being accounted faithful by Him, came to know the mysteries of the Father. δὲ οὔτε ὁ τιθεὶς ὄνομα προὐπῆρχεν, οὔτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὀνομάζειν φήθη δεῖν, εἷς καὶ μόνος ὑπάρχων" ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ προφητῶν μαρτυρεῖ, λέγων, ᾿Εγὼ Θεὸς πρῶτος, καὶ ᾿Εγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα, καὶ πλὴν ἐμοῦ Θεὸς ἕτερος οὐκ ἔστι. διὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν, ὡς καὶ πρότερον ἔφην, οὐδὲ ὀνόματος τινὸς ὃ Θεὸς ἀποστέλλων πρὸς τοὺς Ἑβραίους τὸν Μωῦσέα μέμνη- ται, GAAG διὰ τινὸς μετοχῆς ἕνα καὶ μό- νον Θεὸν ἑαυτὸν εἶναι μυστικῶς διδάσκει. For this cause He sent His Ἐγὼ, γάρ φησιν, εἰμὶ ὃ év.—Orat. Pa- renet. ad Grecos, p. 19. [8 20. p. 21.] τ ἑκάτερον δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων τῷ Gel ὄντι Θεῷ προσήκειν φαίνεται. αὐτὸς “γάρ ἐστι μόνος 6 ἀεὶ Sv.—p. 20. [ὃ 22. p. 28. "ἢ 282. [ὃ 59. p. 156.] See also Apol. ii. pp. 95, 96. [Apol. i. 68. p. 81.] τ of πιστοὶ λογισθέντες ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔγ- νωσαν πατρὸς μυστήρια. οὗ χάριν ἀπέ- στειλε λόγον, ἵνα κόσμῳ φανῇ" ὃς ὑπὸ ‘He who was from the beginning, appearing recently. 405 Word, that He might be manifested to the world ; who having been dishonoured by the people, [and] preached by Apostles, was believed on by Gentiles. This is He who was from the beginning, who has appeared [as] recent, and being found Bee. «is evermore being born new in the hearts of saints. This is He that ever exists, being this day accounted Son.” The real meaning of this passage, if I mistake not, is as follows; The Son of God has certain new and recent nativi- ties, as it were, (for He was first born to the world when He came forth from the Father for the creation of all things; He was a second time born in a wonderful manner, when He descended into the womb of the most holy Virgin, and was most closely united to His own creature, as Irenzeus ex- presses it*, and was brought forth of the Virgin herself into the light of this world; and, lastly, He is being daily born in the hearts of the godly, who embrace Him by faith and charity ;) still He was never in reality new or recent, but always and from everlasting hath existed as the Son of God the Father. For with this passage there ought by all means to be compared another of Justin in the Dialogue with Try- pho; where, on those words of God the Father [spoken] through David, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” he makes this comment’; “Affirming that His gene- ration then took place! unto men, from the time that the knowledge of Him was about to take place?.” But here the reader will observe with me in passing, that in the first words of the passage which has been cited from the epistle to Diog- netus, Justin manifestly alludes to the celebrated passage of Paul, the last verse of 1 Tim. iii., and that he interprets it of the Son of God incarnate, just as modern Catholics do. Compare the passage of Hermas which we have quoted above, book ii. 2, 3%. 3. But it is now time to wipe off the calumnies with which Sandius* hath aspersed this most learned writer and most λαοῦ ἀτιμασθεὶς, διὰ ἀποστόλων Knpvx- * Unitum suo plasmati.—[Iren., lib. Gels, ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν ἐπιστεύθη. οὗτος 6 ἀπ’ [1]. c. 18. 1. p. 109.] ἀρχῆς, ὃ καινὸς φανεὶς, καὶ... εὗρε- Υ τότε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ λέγων γίνεσθαι θεὶς, καὶ πάντοτε νέος ἐν ἁγίων καρδίαις τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἐξότου ἣ γνῶσις αὐτοῦ ᾿ γεννώμενος. οὗτος ὃ del, σήμερον υἱὸς ἔμελλε γίνεσθαι.---Ὁ. 316. [ὃ 88. Ρ. 186. ] ΜΞ λογισθείς.---ἶ δ 11. p. 239.] 7 [p. 90, note t. } " [Some word is lost here. ] 8. Enucl. Hist. Eccles., p. 77. BOOK III. CHAP. II. § 2; 3. Justin M. [515] 1 γίνεσθαι. ? γίνεσθαι. ON THE Co-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. pot inten atte: 1 spreta conscien- tia. [516] 189 IRENZUS, 406 Sandius’s objections ; from treatises known to be spurious. holy martyr. He says that Justin taught “ that there was a time when that which is begotten did not exist; (than which,” he says, “what comes nearer to the trite saying of the Arians, ‘there was a time when the Son was not?) that ‘begotten’ and ‘made’ do not differ in reality, but only in word; for every thing which is begotten is made, and vice versa.’ But from this and from many other indications it appears that Sandius has cited testimonies of the ancients either without any judgment, or in despite of conscience’. For first, he has taken the latter statement, “that ‘ begotten’ and ‘made’ do not differ in reality,” from the Questions and Answers to the Greeks? ; a work, which by the consent ofall the learned, as Sandius° himself intimates, is decided not to be Justin’s. The former words, “there was a time when that which is begotten did not exist,” are found only in the Confutation of the Opinions of Aristotle, chap. 20; a work which by the generality of learned men is rejected as spu- rious. See Rivet, Crit. Sac. ii. 5. But then (and this is the chief point) neither of these passages makes any thing for - the purpose of Sandius; for in both of them the author, whoever he was, is not treating of the Son of God, but is disputing against philosophers who asserted the eternity of the world. Against these he contends with the following argument, The world is begotten and made (γεννητὸς καὶ δη- μιουργη τὸ) ---ον he uses these words promiscuously, accord- ing to the custom of the Greeks—therefore there was a time when the world was not. Certainly all this is nothing to the purpose. And this will be sufficient respecting Justin. 4, Irenzeus comes next; and him indeed we but now heard, together with Ignatius, openly assailing the Guostics who denied the eternity of the Word. To what we there adduced may be added also the following clear testimonies of Irenzeus. In book iii. c. 20°, he thus writes respecting the eternal existence of the Son; “ All their contradiction is excluded who say, ‘If then Christ was born at that time, it follows that He did not exist before ; for we have shewn that the Son of God did not then begin to be, [who was] EVER υ ς Ε ec Serj © Exclusa est omnis contradictio di- ag . is cript. Eccles., p. 20. centium, Si ergo tunc natus est, non erat ee this book, ο. 1. § 15. [p. 398.] ergo ante Christus; ostendimus enim, Treneus on the eternal co-existence of the Son with the Father. 407 EXISTING with the Father; but when He became incarnate soox τ. and was made man, He summed up in Himself the length- °'3""5" ened series’ of mankind, procuring salvation for us [as] in Ipenxus. epitome.” Parallel to this is what he had said in book ii. ' exposi- chap. 55, at its conclusion’; “The Son, EVER co-EXISTENT “TS17] with the Father, of old and from the beginning is ever re- vealing the Father.” But Irenzeus declares the eternity of the Son most openly in the forty-third chapter of the same book, where he beats down the Gnostics’ proud and arro- gant profession of knowledge, by drawing a comparison be- tween man and the Word or Son of God. We quoted the entire passage before®, when treating of another point, and therefore shall here recite only a part of it, according as our present purpose requires"; “ For thou art not,” he says, ‘‘uncreated, O man, NOR WAST THOU ALWAYS CO-EXISTENT with Gop, ti1kE His own Worp; but on account of His eminent goodness now receiving a beginning of created ex- istence, thou art gradually learning from the Word the dis- pensations of God who made thee!” This was the un- varying doctrine of Ireneus. For I will venture to pledge myself that if you read over all his books with care, you will not find one iota opposed to the co-eternity of the Son; 1 cannot therefore sufficiently express my wonder at the effron- tery of Sandius and others, who have unblushingly classed even Irenzeus himself amongst the arianizing fathers. 5. Clement of Alexandria must be placed next to Irenzeus ; Crement he also repeatedly and most openly declares the eternity of ““™* the Son; thus in his Exhortation to the Gentiles* he says, “This Jesus is eternal, [being] one, the great High-Priest of {Him who is] one God, and also His Father.” At the end of his Pedagogus (in a passage which we have quoted above! quia non tune cepit Filius Dei, Exis- TENS SEMPER apud Patrem; sed quan- do incarnatus est et homo factus, lon- gam hominum expositionem in seipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salu- tem prestans.—[c. 18. 1. p. 209.] * SEMPER autem COEXISTENS Filius Patri olim et ab initio semper revelat Patrem.—([c. 30, 9. p. 163. ] & See above, book ii. ch. 5. § 5. [p. 167. ) h Non enim infectus es, Ὁ homo, NE- QUE SEMPER COEXISTEBAS DEO, sicuT PROPRIUM EJUS VERBUM; sed’ propter eminentem bonitatem ejus nunc ini- tium facture accipiens, sensim discis a Verbo dispositiones Dei qui te fecit. —([c. 25, 3. p. 153.] i [This passage is more fully ex- plained and defended in the Reply to G. Clerke, § 10.] k ἀΐδιος οὗτος "Inoods, εἷς ὃ μέγας ἂρ- χιερεὺς Θεοῦ τε ἑνὸς τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ Πα- tpds.—pp. 74, 75. [pp. 92, 98.] 1 Book ii. ch. 6. § 4. [p. 186.] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, [618] 1 θεολο- γοῦντεξ. 2 secu invicem. [519] 408 Primitive hymns setting forth the co-eternity of the Son. in full) he says that the Father and the Son are one God, “through Whom is eternity,” (δ ὃν τὸ del,) a statement which is not true, unless the Son Himself, equally with the | Father, be eternal. Moreover at the end of the Pedagogus is subjoined a Hymn of St. Clement to Christ, which, although omitted in some manuscripts, is found in the greater num- ber, and was certainly added by Clement himself, as is most evident from the concluding words of the Pedagogus™. In this hymn, besides other divine attributes ascribed to Christ, His eternity also is magnificently set forth in the following words" ; Aoyos aévaos, Word everlasting, Αἰὼν ἄπλετος, Age unbounded, Φῶς ἀΐδιον. Light eternal. This hymn, however, seems to me to have been taken by Clement from the sacred songs used in the primitive Church, or, at least, to have been composed in imitation of them. Respecting these psalms there is a remarkable passage -of Caius, in Eusebius, H. E. v. 28. Artemon had shamelessly enough objected that the doctrine of the eternity of the Son was not received in the Church before the time of Victor. Caius, in reply, makes this statement amongst others, “ All the psalms and songs of the brethren, written by the faithful from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, setting forth His divinity°'.” Respecting the same hymns Pliny also, in a letter to Trajan, Epist., lib. x. 97, makes this statement from the confession of Christians who had apostatized ; “And they affirmed that this was the sum of their fault, or error, that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day, before it was light, and to sing by course, one with another”, a hymn to Christ as God.” That is to say, in the very age of the Apostles the eternal and divine majesty of the Son used to be celebrated by the faithful, even in their public liturgy ; as also (God be praised) it is at the present day; yea, and will be (I certainly foretell) even to the end of the world, in m : p. 267. [p. 312.] γον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι θεο- (This hymn, as every one must Aoyotvres.—[ Euseb. Εἰ. H. v. 28. See see, is to be thrown into an anapestic also vii. 24. p. 3850; and 80. p. 362. aystem—B.} : Dr. Routh (Rel. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 3) Ls aduol δὲ ὅσοι καὶ @dal ἀδελφῶν questions whether the words quoted am ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι, τὸν Ad- are Caius’s.—B. ] : Other passages expressing His eternity and infinity. 409 spite of the vain efforts to the contrary, of Socinians, Arians, ΒΟΟΚ τη. and all other maintainers of what the same Caius calls the "E56. * God-denying apostasy”.” But I return to Clement. eee 6. There is a famous passage of his on the infinity and 44®* eternity of the Son in the fourth book of his Stromata’; “ He is,” he says, “beyond explanation’ as regards the idea of each ' ἀπαρέμ- one of His powers; and indeed, the Son is not absolutely’ ¢ ses one [thing] as one [thing*], nor many [things] as parts*, but 3 ἐν ὡς ἐν. one [thing] as all [things®], whence also He is all [things]. ὁ πολλὰ ὡς For He, the same, is the cycle of all powers, rolled up and; ;"., united into one [thing*®]; on this account the Word is called ἕν. Alpha and Omega, of whom alone the end proves to be a be- . si ginning, and [who] ends again in’ the original® beginning, ; 2) having no interval’ anywhere.” These words, notwithstanding ὃ ἄνωθεν. some obscure statements, yet seem to contain the following ἡ διάστασιν. plain meaning; In the existence of the Son there is no inter- val!°; there never was a time when He was not, nor will there “ distantia. ever be a time when He will not be; but He Himself is like a circle, infinite, having neither beginning nor end. But in Strom. vii.’ does this same Clement most openly acknowledge the eternal existence of the Son; for not far from the opening of that book he expressly calls the Son of God, “the begin- ning and the first-fruit’’ of all things that exist, without time and without beginning.” Again, in the same book, two pages after, he proves that Christ the Lord is the common Saviour of all who are willing to be saved, from this, that neither want of power nor envy is a hindrance to His procuring the salvation of man; not want of power, because none but the Father could hinder Him, whose power and will is one with His own; not envy, because to Him, as being impassible and eternal, an affection of that kind is not incident: these ᾿- are his wordss; ‘“ Neither could the Lord of all ever be hin- dered by any other, and that especially as He ministers to [520] Ἰ ἀρχὴν καὶ ἀπαρχὴν. Ρ τῆς ἀρνησιθέου ἀποστασία-.---ἰ Caius apud Euseb. E. H. ν. 28,7 1 ἀπαρέμφατος- δέ ἐστι, τῆς περὶ Exd- oTns αὐτοῦ τῶν δυνάμεων ἐννοίας. καὶ δὴ οὐ γίνεται ἀτεχνῶς ἕν ὡς ἕν, οὐδὲ πολλὰ ws μέρη 6 vids, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πάντα ev" ἔνθεν καὶ πάντα, κύκλος γὰρ ὃ αὐτὸς πασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων εἰς ἕν εἱλουμένων καὶ ἑνουμένων. ia τοῦτο A καὶ 2 ὃ λόγος εἴρηται; οὗ μόνου τὸ τέλος ἀρχὴ γίνε- ται, καὶ τελευτᾷ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄνωθεν ἀρχὴν, οὐδαμοῦ διάστασιν λαβών.---Ὀ. 537. [p. 635.] ¥ τὴν ἄχρονον καὶ ἄναρχον ἀρχήν τε καὶ ἀπαρχὴν τῶν ὄντων. ---ἰἶ ». 829. 1 8 οὔθ᾽ ip ἑτέρου κωλυθείη ποτ᾽ ἂν 6 πάντων Κύριος, καὶ μάλιστα ἐξυπηρετῶν τῷ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ παντοκράτορος θελή- ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [521] 410 The writers already cited were close on the Apostolic age. the will of the good and Almighty Father ; neither yet does envy affect the Lord, who without any beginning was made impassible.” Thus speaks Clement, and this was his uniform | teaching, nor in his genuine writings does there occur any — thing inconsistent with it. ¥. Now when I look back upon the four witnesses who have been already cited, in this and in the preceding chapter, Ignatius, Justin, Irenzeus and Clement of Alexandria, and when I reflect of what character and how great they were, I seem to myself to have sufficiently established the eternity of the Son by the authority of the ancients, even though I were not able to bring forward any thing from the re- maining fathers in proof of our position: for Ignatius was a hearer of the Apostles themselves, especially of St. John, who seems to have been kept alive after all the other Apostles, by the divine counsel, that he might maintain the divinity of Christ against the heresies that were springing up. Justin received the crown of martyrdom some years before Polycarp finished his course; whence also in his epistle to Diognetus, he calls himself, as we have above observed‘, “a disciple of the Apostles,” (that is to say, of those of the lower order, the teachers who were appointed in the Church by the original Apostles themselves). Irenzus professes himself [to have been] a hearer of Polycarp, who also himself had derived his theology from St.John. Lastly, Clement of Alexandria gloried in the far-famed Pantznus as his master, who, after Bartholomew, was the apostle of the Indians; and who also himself, as certain of the ancients say, had been a disciple of the Apostles, and at any rate, it is certain, had lived with apostolic men. But God be praised, we are not reduced to such straits; there still remains a cloud of witnesses, and they catholic teachers prior to the synod of Nice, who have delivered in their writings the self-same doctrine respecting the eternity of the Son. Their evidence we shall produce in order. pate Πατρός. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἅπτεται τοῦ alleged as an argument that the Epi- Κυρίου ἀπαθοῦς dvdpxws γενομένου φθό- 5116 to Diognetus was not written by Spies τ 703. [p. 832. ] Justin Martyr. ] i, 2. 8. [p, 52. This passage is CHAPTER ΤΙ. VERY CLEAR TESTIMONIES OF ORIGEN RESPECTING THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON ADDUCED. 198 [525] 1. Arrer Clement of Alexandria, the master, comes the soox 11. disciple, Origen. And though he is almost the only one of “ὅπ 1. Ὁ the Antenicene fathers whom Jerome and others have ac- Oricen. _ cused of the contrary error, yet does he throughout set forth the eternity of the Son in words clearer than the sun. Thus in the fifth book of his work against Celsus he calls the Wis- dom of God, by which in this place he evidently means the Son of God, “"the brightness of the everlasting light.” Now the brightness of the everlasting light must itself be ever- lasting; and that this was what Origen actually meant by this simile is clear from his other writings. There is a re- markable passage of his which Athanasius quotes in his trea- tise on the decrees of the council of Nice*; “If,” says he, “the Son is an image of the invisible God, it is an invisible image; but I would make bold to add that, as being also a likeness of the Father, there is not a time when He was not. For when had not God, who, according to St. John, is called light, (‘For God [says he] is light,’) the brightness! of His ! [ἀπαύ- own glory? that any one should presume to ascribe a begin- dens Ἐς εἰ ning of existence to the Son, as if before He was not. And ἢβθ. 1. 3.] when did not that image of the Father’s ineffable, and name- less, and unutterable hypostasis, the express Image’, the ?[xapacrip Word, who knoweth the Father, not exist? For let him Τὴ ὕπο. who dares to say, There was a time when the Son was not, Heb. i. 8.1 well understand that he is saying this also, once Wisdom was not, and Word’ was not, and Life was not.” λέγεται πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ᾧ ἀεί ἐστι τὸ σήμερον" οὐκ ἔνι γὰρ éo- πέρα Θεοῦ, ἐγὼ δὲ ἡγοῦμαι ὅτι οὐδὲ πρωΐα. ἀλλ᾽ ὃ συμπαρεκτείνων τῇ ἀγε- νήτῳ καὶ ἀϊδίῳ αὐτοῦ ζωῇ, ἵν᾽ οὕτως εἴπω, χρόνος, 7 ἡμέρα ἐστὶν αὐτῷ σήμερον, ἐν ἣ γεγέννηται ὃ υἱός" ἀρχῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ οὕτως οὐχ εὑρισκομένης, ὡς οὐδὲ THS ἡμέρας. .—Ed. Huet., p. 81. [ὃ 32. vol. iv. p. 33. ] " ᾿Ωριγένης συναΐδιον πανταχοῦ ὅμο- λογεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί.----ἰ Ἐ), H. vii. 6. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 omnite- nens [παν- ToKparwp. | ? aliquo. [530] 414 Petavius, that Origen held the eternity of things created ; 3. But at last Petavius’ endeavours to weaken these clear testimonies of Origen to the eternity of the Son, in this way; « These things,” he says, “are indeed of force against the Arians and the sacrilegious formula of Arius, which asserted that there was a time when the Son was not; but they do not amount to an affirmation of the consubstantiality. For Origen was of opinion that the creatures also existed from eternity with God; forasmuch as otherwise the Father could not have been Creator, nor Almighty, that is, the holder of all things from eternity; but this [attribute] would have accrued to Him in time; which doctrine we even at this day read expressed by Origen, in the first book Peri Archon.’ Thus writes Petavius. I might however allege that the text of Origen in the first book Peri Archon has been corrupted, or that Origen, in what he there writes respecting the eternity of the creatures, either reported the sentiments of others, or proposed it (as he was in the habit of doing) as a mere con- jecture of his own, without asserting it as a doctrine; and this latter supposition will readily be believed by any one who shall have weighed the context of the passage entire. I might also have adduced many places in which the true Origen plainly teaches that the very primal matter of the universe was created by God, from a definite’ beginning, and that out of nothing. At all events that dissertation which is contained in the twenty-third*® chapter of the Philocalia, is professedly directed against the error of those who asserted that matter is co-eternal with God. Now, that this chapter is really extracted from a genuine dialogue of Origen against the Marcionites, is attested by two most credible authors, Basil the Great, and Gregory Nazianzen ;—men whom we ought to believe in preference to Huet, although he be a most learned man; especially since in charging very great men with errors he has himself fallen into manifest error, as we have clearly shewn elsewhere. Besides, it was a very well known doctrine of Origen, that the Son of God was be- gotten of the Father before all creatures, and was therefore more ancient than they; thus, (to omit a thousand other passages,) in the fifth book against Celsus‘, he says; “ For 9 De Trin. i, 4. 7 t-3 lois δὰ Rede he γάρ τοῦ Θεοῦ vids, ὃ πρωτότοκος © [Εά. Paris, 1618, cap. 24. ed. Can- πάσης κτίσεως, εἰ καὶ νεωστὶ ἐνηνθρω- tab. 1668. πηκέναι ἔδοξεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι γε διὰ τοῦτο the fact questioned, and the inference from it denied. 415 the Son of God, the first-born of every creature’, although soox 11. He seemed to have recently become man, yet is He by no “\'3" 4)" means on this account recent; for the Holy Scriptures re- Opicey. cognise Him to be more ancient than all the creatures.” ! πρεσβύ- Now how can this be consistent with the view which makes jcuorem. the creature to have existed from eternity with God. 4. But, suppose we grant to Petavius that Origen’s ge- nuine doctrine is stated in the passage which has been quoted from the first book Pert Archon, it is still certain that a very wide distinction is there made by him between the Son of God and the creatures; for he teaches that the creatures were from eternity with God, as made by Him; but that the Son existed with God from eternity as begotten of Him, and, further, as His Only-begotten. He teaches that the creatures were from eternity subject to God as their Lord, but that the Son exercised power? over them from eter- 195 nity, as one God, Lord, King and Prince with the Father, ? potenta- with one and the same omnipotence. Lastly, in the same ae passage he distinguishes the Son of God from every created interpres.) nature, in such wise as expressly to teach that the one ad- [531] mits of change and alteration, but that the Other is wholly unchangeable and unalterable; and that the glory of the One is most pure and clear, that of the other neither pure nor clear; and lastly, that justice, wisdom, and other vir- tues are mere accidents in created beings, but in the Son of God (as also in God the Father) they are His very essence. These, reader, are the very words of the passage from which Petavius constructs his calumnious charge against Origen. In the second chapter of his first book Pert Archon, in ex- plaining the words of the author of the Book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon, who says, touching the Wisdom of God, that it is “the breath of the power of God, and a most pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty,” [c. vii. 25;] he thus writes®; “As one cannot be a father if there be not a son, nor can one be a lord without a possession, or without a servant, so God cannot be called almighty even, if there be νέος ἐστί. πρεσβύτατον γὰρ αὐτὸν πάν- esse quis, si filius non sit, neque do- τῶν τῶν δημιουργημάτων ἴσασιν οἱ θεῖοι minus quis esse potest sine posses- Néyou.—p. 257. [ὃ 37. p. 606.] sione, sine servo; ita ne omnipotens 8 Quemadmodum pater non potest quidem Deus dici potest, si non sint 416 Words which seem to teach the eternity of created beings. on tHE not those over whom He may exercise power; and therefore ery or in order that God may be shewn to be almighty it is necessary _tHe son. that all things should be subsisting. For if any one will have | it, that there elapsed any ages or spaces, or by whatever other name he will call them, during which the things which have been created had not yet been created, he will unquestionably prove this, that in those ages or spaces God was not almighty, but afterwards became almighty, from the time that He‘be- gan to possess those over whom to exercise power, and by this 1 for “ad- means He will seem to have received a certain perfection’, Bert ed. and to have progressed from an inferior state to a better ; see- ing that it is not doubted that for Him to be almighty is het- ter than not to be so. And how will it not then seem absurd [532] that, when God [once] had not some of those things which it [ Wisd. vii. 24. ] 2[ or“ glory of omnipo- tence,’’ ed. Ben. ] was yet seemly that He should have, He should, in process of time, by a kind of advancement, come to have them? But if there never was a time when He was not almighty, those things also must necessarily be subsisting by means of which He is called almighty, and He must always have had those things upon which to exercise power, things to be governed by Him as King or Prince. But inasmuch as he has said that there is a glory of the Almighty, of which glory Wisdom . is the effluence, we are hereby given to understand that even in the omnipotence of glory”, through which God is called Almighty, Wisdom is associated. For by Wisdom, which is in quos exerceat potentatum; et ideo do non omnipotens fuerit, necessario ut omnipotens ostendatur Deus, omnia subsistere oportet etiam ea per que subsistere necesse est. Nam si quis est qui velit, vel secula aliqua, vel spatia transisse, vel quodcumque aliud nominare vult, cum nondum facta es- sent, que facta sunt; sine dubio hoc ostendet, quod in illis seeculis vel spa- tiis omnipotens non erat Deus, et post- modum omnipotens factus est, ex quo habere ccepit in quos ageret potenta- tum; et per hoc videbitur perfectio- nem quandam [profectum quemdam, ed. Bened.] accepisse, et ex inferioribus ad meliora venisse. Siquidem melius esse non dubitatur, esse eum omnipo- tentem quam non esse. Et quomodo non videbitur absurdum, ut cum non haberet aliquid ex his Deus, que eum habere dignum erat, postmodum per profectum quemdam in hoc venerit ut haberet? Quod si nunquam est quan- omnipotens dicitur, et semper habuerit in quibus exercuerit potentatum, et que fuerint ab ipso vel Rege vel Prin- cipe moderata. [The Greek of a por- tion of this passage is preserved; it is as follows; πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἄτοπον τὸ, μὴ ἔχοντά τι τῶν πρεπόντων αὐτῷ τὸν θεὸν, εἰς τὸ ἔχειν ἐληλυθέναι; ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε παντοκράτωρ οὖκ ἦν, det εἶναι δεῖ ταῦτα δι’ ἃ παντοκράτωρ ἐστὶ" καὶ ἀεὶ ἦν ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κρατούμενα, ἄρχοντι av- τῷ χρώμενα... . Sed quoniam gloriam dixit esse omnipotentis, cujus glorie aporrhoea est Sapientia, hoc intelligi, datur, quod etiam in omnipotentia glo- riz [omnipotentie gloria, ed. Ben. | societatem habeat Sapientia, per quam Deus omnipotens dicitur. Per Sapien- tiam enim, que est Christus, tenet Deus omnium potentatum, non solum do- All the attributes of the Father belong to the Son. 417 Christ, God possesses power over all, not only by the autho- soox 11. rity of a sovereign', but by the spontaneous service? of those "e's" 4. that are subject [to Him.]| Now THar you MAY ΚΝΟΥ͂ Oaicen. THAT THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON Is? dominan- ONE AND THE SAME, AS HE IS ONE AND THE SAME GoD AND pie Lorp with THE FarHer, hear John in the Apocalypse speak- ing on this wise, ‘These things saith the Lord God*, which * [Apoe. i. is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.’ For Peed τῆν He which is to come, who is He but Christ? And as no sone by one ought to be offended, that the Father being God, the editors of Saviour likewise is God; so, also, the Father being called ae Almighty, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God likewise is called Almighty. For so that will be true which He Himself says unto the Father, ‘ All that is Mine* is Thine, and Thine is Mine, and I am glorified there- 4 omnia in*’ Moreover it is fitly said, ‘the most pure and most πο ap x7? * ae . - in eis. clear glory of Wisdom,’ to distinguish it from that glory wy. yi which is not called glory purely and without alloy. But as 25. to every nature which admits of change and alteration, even [533] though it be glorified in works of righteousness or of wis- dom, still from this very circumstance, that it has righteous- ness or wisdom as an accident, and that what is an acci- dent may also cease to be attached’, its glory cannot be δ decidere unalloyed and most clear. But the wisdom of God, which °°" is His only-begotten Son, 1nasMucH as HE Is IN ALL THINGS UNCHANGEABLE AND UNALTERABLE, AND IN HIM ALL GOOD EXISTS AS suBSTANCE’', which plainly is not at any ἢ substan- tiale in eo omne bo- num est. minantis auctoritate, verum etiam sub- mea, et glorificatus sum in eis..... Pu- jectorum spontaneo famulatu. Ut au- TEM UNAM ET EAMDEM OMNIPOTEN- TIAM PatRis Ac FILII ESSE COGNOS- CAS, SICUT UNUS ATQUE IDEM EST CUM Patre Devs et Dominus, audi hoc modo Joannem in Apocalypsi dicen- tem, Hee dicit Dominus Deus, qui est, et qui erat, et qui venturus est, omnipo- tens. Qui enim venturus est, quis est alius nisi Christus? et sicut nemo de- bet offendi cum Deus sit Pater, quod etiam Salvator est Deus; ita et cum omnipotens dicitur Pater, etiam nullus debet offendi, quod etiam Filius Dei omnipotens dicitur. Hoe modo nam- que verum erit illud, quod ipse dicit ad Patrem, quia omnia mea tua sunt, et tua BULL. Ec rissima vero ac limpidissima gloria Sa= pientiz, satis convenienter dictum est ad distinctionem ejus gloriz, que non pure, nec sincere gloria dicitur. Om- nis vero natura que convertibilis est et commutabilis, etiamsi glorificatur in operibus justitiz vel sapientiz, per hoc ipsum tamen quod accidentem habet justitiam, vel sapientiam, et qued hoc, quod accidit, etiam decidere potest, gloria ejus sincera ac limpidissima esse non potest. Sapientia vero Dei, que est unigenitus Filius ejus, @UONIAM IN OMNIBUS INCONVERTIBILIS EST ET IN- COMMUTABILIS, ET SUBSTANTIALE IN EO OMNE BONUM EST, quod utique mus tari atque converti nunquam potest, id+ ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, 196 1 omne quod. [534] 2 intimum, 418 Passages cited by Athan. prove both the consubstantiality time susceptible of change or conversion, on this account is His glory declared to be pure and unalloyed.” 1 have thought it worth while to make this quotation, notwith- standing its length, in order that the reader may the more thoroughly see the temper of Petavius; although we have abundantly proved in another place that “— held the consubstantiality of the Son. 5. Indeed the very passages of Origen adduced by Atha- nasius, (whatever Petavius may say,) are sufficient to affirm, not only the co-eternity, but likewise the consubstantiality of the Son, if we look to the thing itself, not to the bare word. For in them Origen teaches plainly enough, thatthe Son is all that! the Father is; and therefore from the fact that the Father is invisible, he infers, that the Son also is invisible. In the next place he asserts that the Son knows the Father absolutely, which certainly belongs not to any created nature. Besides, when he calls the Son the bright- ness of the Father’s light, there is clearly intimated by that simile the communion of nature, which exists between the Father and the Son. Lastly, in affirming that the Son of God is the very Wisdom and Reason of the Father, subsist- ing in Him, he signifies plainly enough that that Son of God is in no wise any thing extraneous to God the Father, as created beings are; but something altogether within? and co-essential with Him, which He can no more be without, than He can be destitute of His very Wisdom, Reason, or Life. Surely, whoever will open his eyes, will at once see that Origen in this passage does altogether infer the co- circo pura ejus ac sincera gloria preedi- catur.—Oper. Origenis Latin., part i. p. 673. edit. Basiliens. 1571. ‘Tvol. i. p. 57. i To have in Himself good as sub- stance, is elsewhere, in this very first book Peri Archon, laid down by Origen as a certain characteristic note of that true divinity, which belongs to the most holy Trinity alone, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and can- not apply to any created being. For thus he writes in chap. 5. (p. 679.) [§ 8. p. 66;] ‘Touching the good and holy powers, we are compelled to ac- knowledge that in them good does not exist as substance, which we have shewn clearly to be the case in Christ alone and the Holy Ghost, as unquestionably in the Father also. For the nature of the Trinity has been shewn not to have any thing that is compounded, as that these things should seem by conse- quence to be attached to 1{.᾿ De bonis sanctisque virtutibus cogimur [ similia ] confiteri, {id est,] quia non substantiale sit in ipsis bonum, quod utique in solo Christo et in Spiritu Sancto evidenter esse ostendimus; sine dubio utique et in Patre. Non enim Trinitatis natura habere aliquid compositionis ostensa est, ut hee ei consequenter videantur accidere. and co-eternity. Huet answered, as to the eternity, &c. 419 eternity of the Son from His consubstantiality, which he takes for granted. 6. Now, as to the statement of Huet™, that Origen was of opinion, that “the matter out of which the world was made,” not only existed from eternity with God, “ but also emanated from the substance of God ;” (in such sense, that is, as that he laid it down, that the matter of the world is in no respect in- ferior to the nature of the Son of God :) it is indeed as far re- moved from the truth as can be, nor can the illustrious writer produce a single passage out of the writings of Origen, how- ever corrupted they be, which even in appearance sanctions so detestable a blasphemy. Nay, Origen expressly teaches the contrary, as well in his first book Peri Archon, where he ap- pears to assert the eternity of the world, as in other passages throughout his works. For instance, in his sixth book against Celsus, (in a passage which we have already adduced',) he so distinguishes between the Son of God and all created nature, as to declare Him to be not made!, and it to be made”. But how will this distinction hold good, if, as the Son of God, so the primal matter of created things both existed from eter- nity with God, and emanated from the very substance of God? So in the very opening of the first book Pert Archon, from which this accusation was taken, im enumerating those things which are necessary to be believed by all, he puts these two points in the first place™ ; “ First, that there is one God who created and put in order all things, and who, when nothing existed, made all things to exist, &c. Next, that Jesus Christ was born of the Father before all creatures.” You observe a manifest distinction by which the Son of God is laid down to be born of God the Father Himself, and that before all creatures, whereas all the creatures [are said] to have been made out of nothing. And it is easy to pro- duce a hundred similar passages. But Origen’s sentiments touching the eternity of the Son have already, as I think, _ been sufficiently explained. I now go on to other Ante- κ᾿ Origenian. ii. Ὁ. 44, versa, &c....tum deinde quia Jesus 1 See 11, 9. 9. [p. 230.] Christus [ipse qui venit] ante omnem m Primo, quod unus Deus est, qui creaturam natus ex Patre est.—p. 669. omnia creavit atque composuit, qui- [tom.i. pp. 47, 48.] que, cum nihil esset, esse fecit uni- Ee2 BOOK 11], CHAP, ITl. § 4—6. ORIGEN. 1 ἀγένητον. 2 γενητὴν. [535] 420 St. Cyprian held the co-eternity of the Son. on tHe nicene writers who have confirmed the same doctrine by CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 197 CyPRIAN. © [536] their testimony. CHAPTER IV. * THE DECREE OF THE NICENE FATHERS CONCERNING THE CO-RTERNAL ἘΧ- ISTENCE OF THE SON WITH HIS FATHER, CONFIRMED BY MOST EXPRESS TESTIMONIES OF CYPRIAN, DIONYSIUS OF ROME AND OF ALEXANDRIA, GREGORY THAUMATURGUS, THE SIX BISHOPS WHO WROTE FROM THE COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH TO PAUL OF SAMOSATA, THEOGNOSTUS, METHODIUS, PAMPHILUS THE MARTYR, AND ARNOBIUS. \ 1. Cyprran, in the second book of his Testimonies against the Jews, c. vi., among other testimonies of Scripture to es- tablish the supreme divinity of Christ, cites also that pas- sage of the Apocalypse, chap. xxi. 6, 75, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. ‘He that overcometh shall. possess these things and the inherit- ance of them®, and I will be his God, and he shall be My son.” Every one sees that in these words the true God, who is the same from everlasting to everlasting, is most plainly described. Nor can you expect more from Cyprian ; for, though (as we have shewn above) he throughout declares the true divinity of the Son, from which His eternity also follows by a most manifest consequence, still in no passage (so far as I remember) does he directly treat of the co-eter- nity of the Son. However, from the circumstance of his alleging in proof of the divinity of the Saviour a passage of the Apocalypse, in which the absolute eternity of the supreme God is so clearly depicted, and interpreting it of Christ, we certainly conclude that the holy martyr altogether shrunk from that blasphemous saying of the Arians respecting the Son of God, “There was a time when He was not.” Ps Ego sum Alpha et Omega, initium ο The Greek words are κληρονομή- A ge Ego sitienti dabo de fonte aque σει πάντα; Cyprian’s, possidebit ea et vite gratis ; qui vicerit, possidebit ea et eorum hereditatem. [Some MSS. read eorum hereditatem, et ero ejus D oer te a ie crit wiht Fillns—Ep ἌΓ ee ee ΠῈΣ Dion. R.; the contrary statement the greatest blasphemy. 421 2. Next to Cyprian we must place Dionysius, pope of soox mt. Rome, as he lived in the time of Cyprian. There is a re- wits markable passage of his respecting the co-eternity of the Diony- _ Son, which Athanasius has transcribed in his treatise on the 3103 ®- decrees of the council of Nice, out of an epistle against the Sabellians?; “It is a blasphemy, and no ordinary one, but rather the greatest, to say that the Lord is in some sort! ἃ 1 τρόπον handy-work. For if the Son was brought into being, there *” 2 was a time when He was not; but He was ever in being, if at least He is in the Father, as He Himself says, and if Christ is Word, and Wisdom, and Power; for the divine Scriptures assert that Christ is these, as ye yourselves know, and these are powers of God; if then the Son was brought into being, there was a time when these were not; therefore there was a time when God was without them; but this is most un- reasonable*.” From this remarkable testimony it is evident? ἀτοπώ- that the dictum of Arius concerning the Son of God, “ There 7” was a time when He was not,” had been spread abroad by (587) other heretics long before the time of Arius. Compare what we have observed in the preceding chapter in treating of Origen, . ὃ 2. [p. 412, 413.] Here you also see that Dionysius, who was the chief* prelate of the whole Christian world, regarded 3 prima- that statement as most blasphemous and most unreasonable, ἦν Besides, it must also be observed, that these words contain the sentiments not merely of Dionysius alone, but also of the whole clergy of the city of Rome. For Dionysius wrote that epistle, as was the practice of the age in which he lived, not without the consent of his clergy assembled in a regular? sy- 4 legitima. nod. Lastly, it will be not foreign to our subject to note this in passing, that Dionysius here proves the co-eternal existence of the Son of God with His Father, from this, that He is the 198 Word existing in God the Father Himself. For he argues thus; If the Son be in God the Father Himself, and exist as His Word, Wisdom, and Power, then it cannot, without the P βλάσφημον od τὸ τυχὸν, μέγιστον μὲν οὖν, χειροποίητον τρόπον τινὰ λέ- yew τὸν Κύριον. εἰ γὰρ γέγονεν vids, ἦν ὅτε οὐκ tv" ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν, εἴ γε ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ἐστὶν, ὧς αὐτός φησι, καὶ εἰ λόγος καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις 6 Χριστός" ταῦτα γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν αἱ θείαι λέγουσι γραφαὶ, ὥσπερ ἐπίστασθε ταῦτα δὲ δυ- νάμεις οὖσαι τοῦ Θεοῦ τυγχάνουσιν" εἰ τοίνυν γέγονεν ὃ vids, ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ταῦτα. ἦν ἄρα καιρὸς, ὅτε χωρὶς τούτων ἣν 6 Θεός: ἀτοπώτατον δὲ τοῦτο.--- ΟΡ. Athanasii, tom. i. p. 276. [§ 26. p. 232.] ON THE 422 Dionysius R. identified the Son with the eternal Word ; — greatest blasphemy and the gravest absurdity, be said of co-ETER- Him, “there was a time when He was not ;” but the Son of NITY OF THE SON. [538] 1 procre- atum. 2 abusive. ὃ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. 4 , ποίημα. God is in God the Father Himself, and exists as His Word, &e.; therefore, &c. Dionysius justly took for granted the cor- rectness of the major premiss; for it depends upon these first principles of theology, “ Whatever is in God is God;” and ' again, “ Whatever is God is eternal.” The minor premiss he proves from the Scriptures, especially from the words of ‘our Saviour Himself, “I am in the Father.” We have a little above heard Origen arguing in this way, and similar reason- ing was employed by the Antenicene fathers in general, to say nothing of those who wrote subsequently to the council of Nice. Now this kind of argument gives a death-blow to the Arian heresy. For the Arians laid down that there were two Words, as well as two Wisdoms; one residing in the Father Himself, His natural and proper Word, through whom He made both the universe and another Word; the other produced by the Father and the indwelling Word, who is named the Word improperly’, as being neither His genuine Word nor co-eternal with Him, but made out of nothing? by God when He was about to create this world ; and this latter Word they called the Son of God. This is attested by Alex- ander, bishop of Alexandria, in his epistle to the bishops of the Catholic Church, as given in Socrates, where, enume- rating the original dogmas of the Arians, he writes thus*; “ But the kind of things which they have invented and talk of, contrary to the Scriptures, are these; God was not always a Father, but there was a time when God was not a Father ; the Word of God was not always, but He came into being out of what was not; for the God who Is, made Him, who was not, out of what was not; wherefore also there was a time when He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work#; and He is neither like the Father as to substance, nor is He the true and natural Word of the Father, nor is He His true Wisdom; but is one of the things made and brought into * ποῖα δὲ παρὰ τὰς γραφὰς ἐφευρόντες λαλοῦσιν, ἐστὶ ταῦτα' οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἣν ὅτε ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ οὐκ ἦν. οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, ἄλλ᾽ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονεν. ὃ γὰρ dy Θεὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος πε- ποίηκε. διὸ καὶ ἣν ποτε, ὅτε οὖκ ἦν. κτίσμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ποίημα ὃ υἱός. οὔτε δὲ ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τῷ Πατρί ἐστιν, οὔτε ἀληθινὺς καὶ φύσει τοῦ Πατρὸς λό- γος ἐστὶν, οὔτε ἀληθινὴ σοφία αὐτοῦ ἐστί: ἀλλ᾽ εἷς μὲν τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ differing from the Arians ; vindicated from Sabellianizing. 423 being!; and He is improperly? [called] Word and Wisdom, 8oox 11. inasmuch as He was Himself brought into being by the m8 2. 2 proper Word of God and the Wisdom that is in God, by* pyony- which also* God made both all | other] things and Him [also. ] 5:08 R. Wherefore also as to His nature, He is capable of change Pe goose and alteration, as all rational creatures likewise are; and τῶν. the Word is foreign and alien to, and separated from, the ἢ καταχρ og! substance of God.” In like manner Athanasius also writes [539] in his first and third Orations, and in his treatise on the ὁ β Views of Dionysius; Cyril of Alexandria likewise on John, ὁ ” book i. chap. 4, and other fathers. You will say, It is in- deed clear from this that Dionysius of Rome and the other fathers who used the same kind of reasoning, have kept clear enough of the Charybdis of Arian blasphemy; but who can rescue them from the Scylla of Sabellian heresy? For Dio- nysius seems to have thought that the Reason itself, i. e. the Aoyos [Word or Reason] by which the Father Himself is λογικὸς [rational], which we conceive of as the form, as it were, in His essence, was the Son of God. I reply, It is no way credible that Dionysius maintained Sabellianism in that very epistle which he wrote professedly against the Sabel- lians, and in which, moreover, he expressly charges* Sabel- lius with blasphemy for having asserted that the Son is the Father Himself, and, conversely, that the Father is the Son. In what sense, however, the ancient Catholics spoke of the Son as the very Word of God the Father, and at the same time acknowledged this same Son of God to be really a dis- tinct Person from the Father, we shall clearly shew here- [540] after‘. In the meanwhile I proceed to confirm the eternity of the Son by the suffrages of the other Antenicene fathers. 3. Dionysius of Alexandria comes next, who was of the Drony- same age as well as of the same name [with Dionysius of ἢ — Rome.| Of the heads of doctrine on which his opponents falsely accused him before Dionysius of Rome, this was one, γενητῶν ἐστι καταχρηστικῶς δὲ λόγος ἀπεσχοινισμένος ἐστὶν ὃ λόγος τῆς τοῦ καὶ σοφία, γενόμενος καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ τῷ Θεοῦ ovolas.—Hist. Eccles. i. 6. ἰδίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγῳ καὶ τῇ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ 8 See the testimony of Dionysius σοφίᾳ, ἐν Kal τὰ πάντα Kal αὐτὸν we- which we have quoted above, book ii. ποίηκεν 6 Θεός. διὸ καὶ σρεπτός ἐστι καὶ ch. 11. ὃ 1. [p. 303.] ἀλλοιωτὸς τὴν φύσιν, ὡς καὶ πάντα τὰ t Of this section, ch. 5. § 5, 6. λογικά, ξένος τε Kal ἀλλότριος, καὶ 424 Dionysius Alex. declares that he always held and on run (as stated by Athanasius in his epistle on the Views of Dio- eon Hysius of Alexandria" ;) “ God was not always a Father; the rue sox. Son was not always [in being], but God was [in being] without the Word; and the Son Himself was not [in being] before He was begotten, but there was a time when He was 199 not; for He is not eternal, but came into being afterwards.” For Athanasius expressly asserts that Dionysius defended himself with reference to these points*. Now from this ac- cusation itself it is clear that that proposition which affirms that there was a time when the Son was not, was regarded by Catholics in the age of Dionysius as heterodox and un- reasonable. But how does Dionysius defend himself? Does he confess that he had ever written or believed these things? By no means. He professes that he does from his heart acknowledge, and ever has acknowledged, the co-eternity of the Son. For in the first book of his Refutation and Apo- logy he says’, “There never was a time when God was not a Father ;” and, a little afterwards, he writes thus of the Son of God; “ Being the radiance of eternal light, He must needs Himself be eternal; for, the light ever existing, it is [541] manifest that its radiance also ever exists.” And again’, “But God certainly is everlasting light, that hath not had a beginning and will never come to an end; therefore the * προκεῖται. radiance is eternally present before!, and co-exists with Him without beginning and ever begotten.” And again, “But the Son alone, being ever co-existent with the Father, and full of co Him that Is’, is Himself also in being*® from‘ the Father.” Iam.”] The same Dionysius has passages parallel to these in an epistle [ree still extant, which he wrote against Paul of Samosata, and in 4 '~ his Replies to the questions of Paul, appended to his epistle. In the epistle he writes thus of Christ*; “Christ is one, He ‘ > εκ, 5 οὐκ ἀεὶ ἣν ὁ Θεὸς πατήρ" οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν 2 ὃ δέ ye Θεὸς αἰώνιόν ἐστι φῶς, οὔτε 6 vids, ἀλλ᾽ ὅ μὲν Θεὸς ἦν χωρὶς τοῦ ἀρξάμενον, οὔτε λῆξόν ποτε. οὐκοῦν ai- λόγου" αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεν. ώνιον πρόκειται Kal σύνεστιν αὐτῷ τὸ νηθῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν" οὐ yap ἀπαύγασμα ἄναρχον καὶ ἀειγενέςΞ... .. ἀΐδιός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὕστερον ἐπιγέγονεν.----ὀ μόνος δὲ 6 υἱὸς ἀεὶ συνὼν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ tom. 1, p. 559. [§ 14. vol. i. p. 253.] τοῦ ὄντος πληρούμενος, Kal αὐτός ἐστιν͵ x ἀπολογούμενος πρὸς éxeiva.—Ibid. ὧν ek τοῦ Πατρός.---». 560. [§ 1ὅ. p. 7 οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅτε 6 Θεὸς οὐκ ἦν Ma- 254. | Thp’... ἀπαύγασμα δὲ dv φωτὸς ἀϊδίου, ® εἷς ἐστὶν 6 Χριστὸς, 6 ὧν ἐν τῷ πάντως καὶ αὐτὸς Gidids ἐστιν. ὄντος Πατρὶ, συναΐδιος Adyos.—Bibl. Patr., γὰρ ἀεὶ τοῦ φωτὸς, δῆλον ὥς ἐστιν ἀεὶ tom. xi. p- 276. [Opera 8. Dion. Alex., τὸ ἀπαύγασμα.---Τὰ the same passage p. 211.] as before, [ὃ 15.] : taught the co-eternity of the Son. Passages from his works. 425 who exists! in the Father, the co-eternal Word.” In His soox m. Replies, (Reply to Quest. iv.,) he introduces Christ speak- “e's 4." ing thus out of Jeremiah”; “I, the personal”, ever-existing Diony- Christ, who am equal to the Father in respect of the un- 5105 Avex. varyingness of His hypostasis®, being co-eternal also with pid γὲ the Lord the ϑρι τ. Here he acknowledges the entire co- oraros ἀεὶ. equal and co-eternal Trinity of Persons. Also, in his Reply ieee ὸ to Quest. v.4, he rebukes Paul of Samosata for having refused λακτον τῆς to call Christ “ the co-eternal impress of the hypostasis*” of ig God the Father. Also in this same reply he sets forth the [542] eternity of the Son thus®; “Just then as we perceive that, * xapax- if any one take from the material fire which we use, and adsl ag causes not either injury or division, in kindling light from ae light, but it remains; thus in a manner incomprehensible is the generation from eternity of Christ from the Father.” In short that this was the constant opinion which he always held, and every where preached and professed, he thus ex- pressly affirms in his Reply to Question x.‘; “1 have written and do write, and confess, and believe, and preach, that Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word of the Father, is co-eternal with the Father.” Let Sandius now lay all shame aside®, and still boast that the great Dionysius of Alexan-s perfricet dria was of the same opinion as Arius. frontem. 4. Next to Dionysius of Alexandria comes Gregory Thau- Garcory maturgus, who was contemporary with the two Dionysii, of T#4umar. Rome and of Alexandria, and in conjunction with those two luminaries shed wonderful light upon that happy age. In his Confession of Faith (which I have transcribed above’ and shewn clearly enough to be his genuine work) Christ is called “the eternal impress®” of God the Father, and “the ὁ χαρακτὴρ ἀΐδιος. 1. 3. b γὼ... 6 ἐνυπόστατος del ὧν Xpi- παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ὑλικοῦ πυρὸς λάβη τις, καὶ Ὕ ρ ρ ρ ; στὸς, ὃ ἴσος τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀπαράλ- λακτον τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ὧν συναΐδιος καὶ τῷ Κυρίῳ πνεύματι.---». 284. [p. 232. © Observe, in passing, the title 6 Kuplos, “the Lord,” applied to the Holy Spirit by Dionysius, before the fathers of Constantinople. 4 [οὔτε yap ἀνέχεται εἰπεῖν) Xapar- τῆρα συναΐδιον τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως τὸν Χριστόν.---». 287. [Op., p- 240.1 9 ὥσπερ οὖν ἐννοοῦμεν, ὅτι εἰ ἐκ τοῦ πάθος ἢ τομὴν οὐ ποιεῖ, ἐν τῷ ἀναλάμ- Wor φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, ἀλλὰ μένει [al. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν] τοῦτο οὕτως ἀκαταλήπτως ἐξ ἀϊδίου γέννησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ Πατρός. —[Op., p. 241.] t ἔγραψα, καὶ γράφω, καὶ ὁμολογῶ, καὶ πιστεύω, καὶ κηρύττω συναΐδιον τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Χριστὸν, τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν καὶ λόγον τοῦ Πατρός.---». 299. [p. 271.] g ii, 12. 1—3. [p. 323, where the passage is quoted at length. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [543] 1 vids ἀΐδιος eo/ ἀϊδίου πατρός. CouNcIL oF ANTI- OCH. 2 ex, 200 3 in actum. 4 in po- tentia. 5 ἐνυπό- στατον, per se existen- tem, Bull. [544] 426 The six Bishops of the Council of Antioch. eternal Son of the eternal Father’.” Moréover, in the same Confession, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are called® “a perfect Trinity, not divided, nor alien, in glory and eternity and dominion.” 5. In the time of this Gregory, six,of the most celebrated bishops from the council of Antioch, which was convened against Paul of Samosata, wrote an epistle to Paul, (no doubt in accordance with? the common sentiments of the other bi- shops,) in which they speak thus respecting the Son of God'; “We believe that He, existing always with the Father, fulfilled His Father’s will with regard to the creation of the universe.” In these words they expressly teach that the Son of God\not only existed before the creation of all things, (forasmuch as by Him were all things made,) but, also, was ever co-existent with the Father, that is, was co-eternal with Him. However, concerning even these bishops Sandius says*, that they “ not obscurely hinted that the Son, befere He was begotten of the Father into act*, existed only potentially*.”. But 1 ask him in what words of the epistle do they hint this? I have no doubt that he had an eye to those words where the holy prelates say', “that the Father begat the Son (¢anquam ac- tum (ἐνεργείαν) viventem) as a living and personally existent” energy, working all in all.” For I am acquainted with a writer™, from whose works Sandius has pilfered, who has deduced the same conclusion from these words. If, however, that trifler had not delivered a judgment on these bishops, ᾿ as is his wont, on the faith of others, if he had with his ‘own eyes inspected the very words of their epistle, and had compared them attentively with what goes before and fol- lows, he would readily have perceived that those words have nothing to do with the question of the eternity of the Son. That is to say, the fathers are there censuring the heresy of Paul and Sabellius, who agreed in this point, that they be- lieved that the Word or Son of God, through whom all " πριὰς τελεία, δόξῃ καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ k Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 124. βασιλείᾳ μὴ μεριζομένη, μηδὲ ἀπαλλο- 1 [γεννήσαντος μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν τριουμένη.---ἰ Ibid. ] υἱὸν ὡς ζῶσαν ἐνέργειαν, καὶ ἐνυπόστα- . {QUT πιστεύομεν σὺν τῷ Πατρὶ τον, ἐνεργοῦντα τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι.--- αἰεὶ ὄντα ἐκπεπληρωκέναι τὸ πατρικὸν Ibid., Ῥ. 469.1 βούλημα πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν τῶν ὅλων. .-- ™ See p. 66 of the Irenieum Ireni- Bibl. Patr., tom. xi. [in Routh’s Reliq. corum. : Sacr., vol. ii. p. 468. ] Theognostus of Alexandria, and Methodius. 427 things were made, was “an unsubsisting energy!’ of God Βοοκ ut. the Father. In opposition to them the holy men teach that + sda God the Father begat His Son as “a living and subsisting? qj. energy.” To the same point also the following words of AS theirs in the same plaee, respecting the Son of God, refer; ,°”?%” “Through whom the Father made all things, not as through τον, [“an an instrument, nor yet as through an unsubsisting know- eee ledge*.” They are the very same heretics that Gregory suber Thaumaturgus, writing at the same period, had in view when ence.” he thus began his confession, “There is one God, Father na "ὦ i of the living Word, the subsisting Wisdom*’.” The thing [for ἐνυπό- surely speaks for itself. But to proceed. res bat 6. Theognostus of Alexandria, a very great man, in that re- ally sub- markable fragment of his Hypotyposes, which Athanasius has pen : preserved to us, (and which we have before? adduced entire,) ἀνυκοῦται not obscurely confirms the co-eternity of the Son, when he eo thus writes concerning Him‘; “The substance of the Son is σνοβτυβ. not any one that was brought in‘ from without, nor was it 4 ἐφευρε- superinduced® out of nothing; but it sprang® from the sub- rac stance of the Father, as the radiance’ of the light.” In these ἤχθη. words he first denies that the Son was superinduced unto [545]) the Father, and by consequence acknowledges that He is co- ° ἔφυ. eternal with Him. For if there ever was a time when the ee Son was not, and He afterwards accrued to the Father, then certainly the Son is rightly said to have been superinduced unto the Father. Then, again, he intimates this same thing when he declares that the Son was so begotten of the sub- stance of the Father, as radiance is emitted from light; for it must be that the radiance of eternal light be itself eternal. And we have still surer evidence that this was altogether the opinion of Theognostus, in the circumstance that he was the disciple of Origen, who throughout his writings illustrates the eternity of the Son by the same simile. 7. Methodius, whom Sandius, after Petavius, also classes Meruo- amongst those Antenicene fathers who agreed with Arius, in ΤΣ " δ οὗ 6 Πατὴρ πάντα πεποίηκεν, [p. 298.] οὐχ ὡς δι’ ὀργάνου, οὐδ᾽ ὡς δι᾽ ἐπιστήμης a οὐκ ἔξωθέν τίς ἐστιν ἐφευρεθεῖσα 7 ἀνυποστάτου.---ΤΌϊα. τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία, οὐδὲ ex μὴ ὄντων ἐπει- © εἷς Θεὸς, Πατὴρ λόγου ζῶντος, σο- σήχθη᾽ ἄλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὺς οὐσίας φίας iperrdons.—Ibid. See above, ἔφυ, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα.---- book ii. ch. 12. § 1. [p. 829.] [S. Athan., vol. i. p. 230. ] P See above, book ii. ch. 10. ὃ 7. ON THE cCO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. aks SEES ἃ 1 ἀχρόνως. PAMPHI- LUS and PIERIUvs. 2 omni- modam. [546] 8 [i.e. Origen. } 4 extra. 201 ARNOBIUS. 428 Pamphilus the Martyr, and Pierius, the extracts given by Photius from his book Of Chastity, declares the eternal generation of the Son from the Father in words written as with a sunbeam. For upon the passage | of the Psalmist, “Thou art My Son, this day have I be- gotten Thee,” he has this note"; “ For it is to be observed, that He declared Him to be a Son indefinitely, and without respect to time'; for He said to Him, ‘Thou art My Son,’ not, Thou hast become [My Son]; clearly shewing that ‘He had neither recently obtained His Sonship, nor, on the other hand, having previously been, had afterwards come to an end; but that having been previously begotten, He both will be and is ever the same.” ἢ 8. That Pamphilus the Martyr believed the eternity ὁ the Son in every sense”, is most certainly evident from the fact that he strenuously defended Origen as being catholic in that article. For in his Apology for Origen he endeavours to prove, against his calumniators, and gives substantial proof, that Adamantius? in his writings throughout asserted these doctrines’, “that the Father exists not before the Son, but the Son is co-eternal with the Father, and that the genera- tion of the Son of God is independent of* all beginning.” Refer by all means to the Apology itself. And from Pam- philus’s doctrine one may form a conjecture respecting the views of his master Pierius, namely, that he also was catholic in this article of the faith; and this conjecture is more fully established by the fact that Pierius likewise was a careful follower of Origen, who (as we have abundantly proved) has in his writings most uniformly asserted the co-eternal ex- istence of the Son with the Father. To which you may also add, that Photius himself (as we have shewn abovet) em- phatically asserts of the renowned Pierius, that he believed religiously respecting God the Father and the Son. 9. Lastly, Arnobius, the same who acknowledged (if any r / ,| παρατηρητέον γὰρ ὅτι τὸ μὲν υἱὸν “~ => > ‘ αὐτοῦ εἶναι ἀορίστως ἀπεφήνατο, καὶ ἀχρόνως" Ef γὰρ υἱὸς, αὐτῷ ἔφη, καὶ ov, words included in parentheses are not in the text of Bekker’s edition of Pho- Téyovas* ἐμφαίνων, μήτε πρόσφατον αὖ- τὸν τετυχηκέναι τῆς υἱοθεσίας, μήτε αὖ προυπάρξαντα(μετὰ ταῦτα) τέλος ἐσχη- κέναι. ἀλλὰ (προγεννηθέντα καὶ ἔσεσθαι καὶ) εἶναι ἀεὶ τὸν αὐτόν.----οοᾷ, 237. Ὁ. 959. [Sympos. Orat. γι]. p. 112. The tius, Berl. 1824. ] * Quod non sit Pater antequam Fi- lius, sed cozternus sit Filius Patri,... extra ullum initium est generatio Filii Dei.—[Op. Origenis, iv. App., c. 3. pp. 24, 25.] t ii, 13. 2. [p. 338.] and Arnobius, on the truly Divine Attributes of Christ. 429 one of the ancients did) a truly divine nature in Christ, and soox m. (as we have shewn above) professed repeatedly and in the 79. plainest terms, that the Son of God is in the most proper agnosis, ‘sense of the word', and without any ambiguity in the expres- 1 maxime sion, most true God; this same Arnobius, I say, does through- P*°P"* out, in terms no less express, affirm that every truly divine nature is in all respects eternal, that is, as well as regards the period antecedent (a parte ante, as they express it) as the future (a parte post.) I can establish this by very many passages of Arnobius; but I shall be content with one or two testimonies. In his third book this illustrious rhetorician treats thus of the divine natures, in accordance with? the? ex. common sentiment of Christians*; “Our opinion on this subject is, that every divine nature, which neither had at any time a beginning, nor will at any time come to an end of life, ‘is without corporeal lineaments,’ &c. In the seventh book, not far from the beginning, he thus addresses the Gentiles respecting their gods’; “We have been accustomed to hear from you that there are very many gods, and that they are reckoned in a series of names: now if these exist any where, as you allege, and are real, as Terentius’ believes, it follows that they are like their name, that is, such as we all perceive they ought to be, in order to be called by the appellation of such a name; nay, rather, in brief, such as is the Lord of the universe, and the Almighty Himself, whom we all know to call God, and understand to be true [God], whenever we come to the mention of His name. For [one] God, in that He is God, differs in nothing from another [God], nor can that which is one in kind exist in a less or greater degree in its parts, preserving the uniformity of its proper quality. And [547] ἃ 1, 14. 1, 2. [p. 359, &e.] * Nostra de hoe sententia talis est; naturam omnem divinam, que nec esse ceeperit aliquando, nec vitalem ad ter- minum sit aliquando ventura, linea- mentis carere corporeis, &c.—[ p. 107. ] y Ex vobis audire consuevimus, De- os esse quamplurimos, et nominum in serie computari; qui si sunt, ut dici- tis, uspiam, verique, ut Terentius cre- dit, eos esse consequitur sui consimi- les nominis, id est tales, quales eos universi debere esse conspicimus, et nominis hujus appellatione dicendos, quin imo, ut breviter finiam, qualis Dominus rerum est, atque omnipotens ipse, quem dicere nos omnes Deum scimus atque intelligimus verum, cum ad ejus nominis accessimus mentio- nem. Deus enim ab altero, in eo quo Deus est, nulla in re differt; nec quod unum est genere, suis esse in partibus minus aut plus potest, qualitatis pro- priv uniformitate servata. Quod cum dubium non sit, sequitur, ut geniti nunquam, perpetuique ut debeant esse, —lp. 211.) - Terentius Varro, of whom Arno- bius had been speaking just before. 430 Arnobius’s statements drawn out. on tun since this is undoubted, it follows that they were never pro- ‘rr or duced’ and that they must needs be everlasting.” From this, Pek son. according to the view of Arnobius, the following argument re- 1 geniti. gults: Whosoever is true God, He is in no respect dissimilar to God the Father and Lord of all, and therefore must needs 9 ingenitus, be unproduced, in otber words, not made’, and eternal: but a Christ the Son of God is most true God : therefor’: Christ the Son of God is in no respect dissimilar to God the Father ‘and Lord of all, and therefore He must needs be unproduced, in other words, not made, and eternal. The major proposition is expressly asserted by Arnobius in the words which we have quoted; the minor, as was just now stated, we have Sp proved above from most express passages of Arnobius. But I have no doubt that Arnobius, in the words, “ For [one] God, in that He is God, differs in nothing from another [God], nor can that which is one in kind exist in a less or [548] greater degree in its parts, preserving the uniformity of its proper quality,” had his thoughts directed to the most au- gust mystery of the Trinity believed by Christians. For i in that most holy Trinity one Person differs in no respect from another, in that He is God, that is to say, so far as the divine nature which is common to each is concerned; nor does [the Divine nature] exist in a greater or less degree in one Person than in Another; but the uniformity of the quality proper to God, in other words, of the divine properties, is preserved in Hach. Wherefore since God the Father, whom Arnobius calls the Lord of all, is uncreate and eternal, it follows that the Son of God likewise, seeing that, as has been said, Arnobius altogether believed Him to be most true God, is uncreate and eternal. Arnobius, it is true, has herein ex- pressed himself improperly, in that he calls the Divine Per- sons parts; but this may readily be forgiven in a person who was still comparatively uninstructed in the Christian sys- tem, and had not yet been regenerated by holy baptism; and who, lastly, was addressing his oration to persons who were Gentiles, and altogether profane; especially as, in the same passage, and as it were with the same breath, he expressly declares that the whole Godhead must reside in any part whatever of the Godhead. 10. Thus much, then, concerning the catholic Antenicene Petavius’s charges contrasted with facts. 431 writers, who openly, clearly, and perspicuously, and without soox 111. : ᾿ . CHAP. Iv, any appearance of inconsistency’, taught and professed the ς 9 10. co-eternity of the Son. From all this it is clear, that what guywary. the Jesuit Petavius has written, On the Trinity, book i. ¢. v. 1 ἐναντιο- § 7, is manifestly false; where (as we have already remarked Ὁ at the beginning of this work) in setting forth the views of the ancients, who preceded the council of Nice, respecting the Son of God, he thus writes; “ They said that the Word’? Filium, was put forth by the supreme God and Father at the time τόρ when He determined on creating this universe, in order that He might use Him as His assisting minister. This opinion [549] some intimate more clearly, others more obscurely. But these may be specially mentioned*®, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theo- 3 sed isti philus, Tertullian, and Lactantius. Both these authors, how- ®'* ever, and the rest whom I have mentioned,” (and he had mentioned nearly all the Antenicene fathers,) “as Origen, thought that the Father is superior to the Word in Α68, dig- nity, and power; and, although they asserted that the Son was of the substance or nature of the Father, (in which point alone they made His mode of existence* to differ from ¢ conditio- that of all other beings, which are properly called creatures,) "°"” still they conceived that He had a beginning no less than the creatures; in other words, that He by no means had been a distinct Person’ from eternity.” For so many early Ante- ὁ hyposta- nicene writers, whose views I have unfolded severally and ay accurately in the preceding chapters, all expressly denied that the Father is superior to the Son in age, and that the Son had a beginning. And as regards Origen, whom chiefly Petavius charges with this blasphemy, we have abundantly proved that he strenuously maintained the co-eternity of the Son. But even from this the truth of our first proposition clearly appears; which was this: “The more authoritative and larger part of the doctors who lived before the Nicene council, unambiguously, openly, clearly, and perspicuously taught and professed the co-eternity of the Son, that is, His co-eternal existence with God the Father.’ For Ignatius, 8. [See what we have saidin the In- have mentioned, thought,” to, “and » troduction, ὃ 7.[p.9,] for neither there some, as Origen, thought.’’ See the nor here are Petavius’ words quoted by table of Corrigenda at the end of this Bull fairly or fully.—B. Petaviusal- volume. | tered the words, “and the rest whom I ON THE CO- ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [550] 432 The true doctrine connected with Apostolic teaching. Justin ‘Martyr, Ivenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Dionysius pope of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, the six celebrated bishops who wrote to Paul of Samosata from the council of Antioch, Theognos- tus, Methodius, Pierius, the martyr Pamphilus, Arnobius, (who certainly constitute by far the greater and the better part of the Antenicene writers,) these, I say, did all most plainly acknowledge the co-eternity of the Son. And you may add to them (one whom I omitted to mention in his proper place in this book) the presbyter Caius, a celebrated — man and very ancient writer, who is said by Photius (cod. 48>) in his work on the Universe, “to describe irreprehen- sibly the ineffable generation of the Son from the Father.” And this Photius certainly would not have said of him un- less he had acknowledged that eternal generation. Lastly, it is evident from this that the view, which laid down that the Son of God is co-eternal with God the Father, not only approved itsclf to most of the Antenicene doctors, but-was also the received, approved, and settled faith and view of: the Church of the first ages. For Ignatius, an apostolic writer, blames the Cerinthian Gnostics on this account, that in ~ opposition to the faith of the Apostolic Church, they attri- buted a beginning to the Word; and the same is very fre- quently done by Ivenzeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp. From the history of Dionysius of Alexandria it is evident that all, at that time, who denied the eternity of the Son, were re- garded as heterodox by the rulers of the Church. Dionysius, the pope of Rome, delivered not only his own faith and view, out that of the whole Roman clergy, when he condemned as the greatest blasphemy that saying of Arius respecting the Son of God, “There was a time when He was πού. Lastly, it was by the authority of the whole synod of Antioch (which consisted of very many bishops, and the judgment of which, according to Eusebius, E. H. vii. 29, was approved by the whole Catholic Church under heaven) that the six bishops, whom we have already. enumerated, wrote to Paul of Samo- sata the epistle, in which they clearly asserted the eternity of the Son of God in every sense. * [See above, book ii. chap. 8. § 1. p. 207.] CHAPTER V. THE SECOND PROPOSITION STATED, CONCERNING THOSE FATHERS, WHO, 203 THOUGH THEY MAY APPEAR TO HAVE DENIED, DID YET IN REALITY ac- [551] KNOWLEDGE, THE ETERNITY OF THE SON. THE OPINION OF ATHENAGORAS RESPECTING THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON ACCURATELY EXPLAINED. 1. I now proceed to those doctors who, though they seem 00x 11. to have denied the co-eternal existence of the Son of God with “ἘΠ God the Father, did yet in reality acknowledge it. Concern- Arnena-— ing these, let this be our second proposition ; GORAS. PROPOSITION II. There are some catholic writers more ancient than the council of Nice, who seem to have attributed to the Son of God, even in that He is God, a certain nativity, which began at a certain time, and immediately preceded the creation of the world. And yet they were very far removed from the opinion of Arius. For if their expressions be more accu- rately weighed, it will appear that they spoke not of a true and properly so called nativity, in which, that is, the Son _ received the beginning of His hypostasis and subsistence, but of a figurative and metaphorical [one]; that is, they merely intended this, that the Word, who before all ages (when nothing existed besides God) did exist in and with God the Father, as the co-eternal offspring of the eternal mind itself, went forth in operation! from God the Father ! κατ᾽ ἐνέρ- Himself at the time when He was about to form the world, 7” and proceeded to create the universe, and to manifest both . Himself and His Father to the creatures; and that, in conse- quence of this going forth’ and manifestation, He is called in " προέλευ- the Scriptures the Son of God, and the First-born’, righ 3 e ὁ πρωτο- τοκὸς. They who thus explained the sacred doctrine, were, I may say‘, the following ; Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of An- ‘ fere. tioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian or the author of the treatise [552] on the Trinity, published among the works and under the name of Tertullian. We will treat of these in order, BULL, Ff ON THE 434 Athenagoras ; the charges against him most easily 2. And let Athenagoras first stand forth. He is enu- cO-ETER- merated by Petavius, as we have observed a little before®, NITY OF THE SON. 1 que phi- losophan- tur Chris- tiani. amongst those Antenicene fathers who expressed more clearly, and taught more openly, the blasphemous view of Arius, which affirms that the Son was then first produced by the Most High God, when He had determined to create the uni- verse, and that the Son, no less than the other creatures, had a beginning. The learned Huet’, relying, as usual, too much on the authority of Petavius, classes Athenagoras with those writers who “devised false and absurd notions about the Trinity.’ The defence of Athenagoras, however, will not be very difficult, if only the passage, from which these learned men seized a handle for this false charge, be produced entire and carefully weighed. Athenagoras, then, in his Apology, or Legation, for the Christians, addressed to the emperors Mar- cus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, in setting forth the faith professed by Christians respecting the most holy Trinity, after he had treated of God the Father, comes to the second Person, asserting that God has a Son. In order, however, that this may not appear ridiculous to the philosophers whom he is addressing, as though, forsooth, the Christians had dreamed of figments like the fables of the poets, about the sons, that is, and daughters, and grand- children of Jupiter, he shews that the views which the Chris- tians entertain’ concerning the Son of God, must altogether be explained in a far different way, that is to say, in a spiritual sense, and in a manner worthy of God: so that the Son of God be understood to be the Word of the Father, ‘namely, that which stands in the same relation to the [553] 2 paternze ipsius mentis. Father as the inner word of a man to the human mind, which [inner word] is both spiritual, and in itself no way falls under the [cognizance of the] senses, and also remains in the mind, from which it proceeds, and is not separated from it; from which circumstance the ἔννοια itself of a man, [1. 6. his thought or conception], is often called his mind. For that altogether in this way the Word of God the Father is also the offspring of the mind itself of the Father 2, born of It, and remaining in It, and so intimately united to It, that © See this same section, chap. 4. § 10. 4 Origenian. ii. 8, 6. p. 187. [p. [p. 431.] . 2 253.) Ὁ ᾿ : γὸ moved by citing the passages from his works entire. 435 He may be simply called the very mind! of the Father, and soox m. so the Father and the Son may rightly be called One. He “κῶς ‘adds, moreover, that the Son of God is His Word in idea pail and operation, (λόγος ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ,) Inasmuch, that is, pe as He Himself both is the pattern, and (if I may so say) the jouer art divine, according to which God the Father, when He ?unum dici willed, formed all things; and by Him and through Him pean were all things created. These are the very words of Athen- agoras®; “ And let no one, I pray, think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For we have not conceived notions either of God the Father or of the Son as the poets fable, who exhibit their gods as no better than men. But the Son of God is the Word of the Father, in idea and opera- tion ; for by Him®‘ and through Him were all things made, ὅ [or, “ac- the Father and the Son being One; and, the Son being in Sg "Ἢ 5 the Father, and the Father in the Son, by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the Mind and Word of the Father.” And what he had said respecting the Son or Word of God in idea and operation, he explains more clearly in these words, which immediately follow; “ But if from greater power of apprehension you wish to consider what is meant by ‘the Son’ [of God], I will explain it in a few words; He is the First-offspring* of the Father, not as having 4 πρῶτον been brought into being? (for from the beginning God, be- pif ing eternal mind, Himself had within Himself His Logos, hese 0c [Word or Reason,| being eternally possessed of Reason®,) ὁ ἀϊδίως (α- but, when all things material were lying like unformed na- paar’ ture and useless® earth, the heavier mixed with the lighter, as having gone forth upon them to be an idea and an energy.” 204 [554] καὶ μή μοι γελοῖόν τις νομίσῃ, τὸ μενον, (ἐξ ἀρχῆς γὰρ ὃ Θεὸς, νοῦς ἀΐδιος υἱὸν εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ. οὐ γὰρ, ws ποιηταὶ μυθοποιοῦσιν, οὐδὲν βελτίους τῶν ἀνθρώ- πων δεικνύντες τοὺς θεοὺς, ἢ περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, ἢ περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ πε- φρονήκαμεν" ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ" πρὸς αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ δ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο, ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ “Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ. ὄντος δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν Πατρὶ, καὶ Πατρὸς ἐν υἱῷ, ἑνότητι καὶ δυνάμει πνεύματος, νοῦς καὶ “λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. συνέσεως σκοπεῖν ὑμῖν ἔπεισιν, ὃ παῖς τί βούλεται, ἐρῶ διὰ βραχέων" πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ Πατρὶ, οὐχ ὡς γενό- εἰ δὲ OV ὑπερβολὴν. ὧν, εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν λόγον, ai- δίως λογικὸς ὧν,) ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τῶν ὑλικῶν ξυμπάντων, ἀποίου φύσεως, καὶ γῆς, ὀχείας ὑποκειμένων δίκην, μεμιγμένων τῶν παχυμερεστέρων πρὸς τὰ κουφό- τερα, ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ἰδέα καὶ ἐνέργεια εἶναι mpocd0av.—A pol., p. 10. [δ 10. p. 286. ] # [See above, p. 153, note h. } § [“ The whole difficulty of this pas- sage vanishes if (instead of γῆς, ὀχείας, the old reading) we read γῆς axpelas, and remove the bad punctuation of the preceding editions.” —Ed. Ben.— B.] » See Conrade Gesner’s note on this passage. Ff2 436 He asserts (i.) that the Word is not made ; (1.) that on tue I assert that this explanation of Athenagoras is as far re- co-ETER- moved as possible from the blasphemies of Arius, and, more rHE son. than this, is quite catholic, if we regard the substance itself of the doctrine respecting the Son of God. The Christian philosopher does indeed allow that the Word of God the Father is called by Christians His first-offspring, because of 1 προέλευ- ἃ certain going forth!, by which He proceeded forth from? ‘ane -~«Ss od. the Father Himself, at the time when He was about to 2 ex, create the world, and that in order that the world might be created through Him; on which point we shall have to speak repeatedly in what follows. Nevertheless he explains 3 προέλευ- this going forth® in such a way, that it seems to me manifest piace enough that he himself entertained no view respecting the Word and Son of God which is unbecoming His unchange- able Godhead and eternal majesty. For | 3. First, he expressly excepts the Word or Son of God [555] from the class of the things which were brought into being (τῶν γενομένων). Him, he says, we call the “ First-offspring * non quasi of the Father, not as having been brought into being*.” This ae excellent man was truly anxious that such an impious thought Bull. should not steal on the mind of any one. But what could have been said more plainly opposed to the blasphemy of Arius? I wonder therefore what could have entered into the | mind of Petavius, when he suggested a suspicion against Athenagoras, as though he had believed that the “ going * προέλευ- forth®” of the Word, of which he was speaking, was the pro- τῷ νὰ duc. Θυοδοπ" of Him. For surely the most learned father could tionem. not have met this calumny in clearer terms than those which he has employed. Secondly, Athenagoras asserts no less expressly the eter- nity of the Word or Son of God; nay, he proves that the 7factum Son of God was not brought into being’, from the fact that quiddam. He existed from everlasting in and with God the Father. His words are express; ‘ Not as though He were brought into being, for from the beginning God being eternal mind, Him- "λόγος. self had within Himself His Logos, [Word or Reason®,] be- 9 λογικὸς, ing eternally possessed of Reason.” For afterwards, in the same Apology', Athenagoras lays down this as an undoubted 1} ἀγέννητόν τι, καὶ ἔστιν ἀΐδιον, ἢ ὃν, τὸ αἰσθητὸν, γεννητόν"] ἀρχόμενον γεννητὸν, φθαρτόν ἐστι"... [τὸ δὲ οὐκ εἶναι καὶ παυόμενον.. .. [ei δὲ]. .. ἀδύνα- He is eternal ; (iii.) and that as a distinct Person. 487 axiom ; “ [Every thing] is either not-made! and eternal, or soox mt. made* and corruptible.” And what ‘the corruptible’ is he 2 κ΄ presently explains in these words of Plato; “That which Aryexa- beginneth to be, and ceaseth,” (τὸ ἀρχόμενον εἶναι, καὶ παυό- 6ORAS: μενον) Moreover, in this place the word γεννητὸν means 7) the same as γενόμενον, made [or brought into being] ; hence, ὅ γεννητὸν, a few words after, Athenagoras explains the former by the latter term; “It is impossible,” he says, “that the world should remain in the same condition, [inasmuch as it has been] made (γενόμενον). And again; ‘ How is their con- stitution permanent,” (i. 6. the heathen gods’,) “seeing they do not exist by nature, but are made (γενομένων.) The [556] sophist Sandius*, therefore, must be put aside, who from this and other similar passages has inferred that Athena- -goras believed that even the Son, of God began to exist at a definite time, on the ground, forsooth, that the Son Himself is also in a certain sense γεννητὸς, (1. 6. genitus, “ begotten”). For when Athenagoras says that every thing that is γεννητὸν 205 began to exist at a definite time, it is manifest that the word γεννητὸν, according to his usage of it, signifies the very same as γενόμενον, “made.” But that the Word or Son of God is γενόμενον, “made,” Athenagoras expressly denies in the pas- sage of which we are treating; and, moreover, in the same place he explicitly affirms that He existed from eternity with God the Father. But let us go on with Athenagoras. 4. In the third place, it is plain that Athenagoras be- lieved that the Word did in such wise exist from eternity with God the Father, that He was no less a distinct hypos- tasis [Person] from the Father from eternity, than after His going forth*. This is inferred with certainty from the ὃ προέλευ- following reasoning; Athenagoras says that the Word was 7” not made or produced (γενόμενον, [brought into being]) at the time that He proceeded from God the Father; or, in other words, that He did not then at length receive a begin- ning of His subsistence [substantive existence]. And from this we argue thus; The Word according to Athenagoras was a distinct hypostasis [Person] from God the Father, τον δέ ἐστι, [ καὶ προνοούμενον ἐπὶ rav- —The Benedictine edition reads ayévn- τοῦ μεῖναι τὸν κόσμον γενόμενον" πῶς ἢ τον and γενητόν. τούτων μένει σύστασις, οὐ φύσει ὄντων, k Nucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 88. ἀλλὰ γενομένων ;—p. 18. [δ 19. p. 294. ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 hyposta- sis. 2 per se et actu. 3 δυνάμει. 4 in actum. 5 subsis- tentia. [667] 6 e potentia in actum educitur. 7 per se. 8 non nisi unicam. 438 That Athenagoras believed the Word to be either before His going forth, (and so from eternity), or never. The reasoning is clear. For, if Athenagoras thought that the Word or Son of God before His going forth, indeed, was not a distinct Person’ from God the Father, nor subsisted in Himself and in act’, but was only contained virtually® in the essence of the Father; but that through that going forth He was at length brought forth imto actual being‘, and endued with substantive existence’; then indeed he [must have] believed that the Word or Son of God; by means of that going forth, was made and produced (γενόμε- vov, [brought into being]); which yet, he himself expressly denies. The case is clear. For if that which is brought out from virtual into actual being®, which not having previously a subsistence in itself’, is afterwards endued with an actual and distinct subsistence, must not on this very account be said to be brought into being, (γενόμενον, I ask you what can possibly be said to be brought into bemg? And hence it is that Petavius at last charges Athenagoras with Sabellianism, as if he had believed that there is, and ever has been but one Person® of the Father and the Son. — This, I repeat, Petavius does, the very same who, both > in the very passage in which he does it and elsewhere throughout, traduces the same Athenagoras as being an ~ Arian; thus fixing on the learned father two heresies which are diametrically opposed to each other. I would, how- ever, entreat the reader (if he be a lover of the truth, and possessed by any kind of reverence for this most ex- cellent writer of a most excellent age), to peruse with his own eyes the words of Athenagoras which follow shortly after those which we have already brought forward. For thus does the Christian philosopher proceed a little after!; “ Who would not think it strange to hear us called atheists, who speak of God the Father and God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, shewing both Their power in unity and Their distine- tion in order?” I also may be permitted to exclaim here, Who does not wonder that Athenagoras, when he had put forth this confession so express of the Three Persons subsist- 1 τίς οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι, λέγοντας Θεὸν δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν Θεὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους ;-». 11. δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει [p. 287. See above, ii. 4. 9. p. 168.1 a distinct Person from all eternity ; shewn at length. 489 ing in one Divine Nature, could have been traduced as a Sa- βοοκ m. bellian by any man who has even a grain of candour left? "4 ” But elsewhere also, in many passages of the same Apology, aryena- Athenagoras distinguishes God the Father from the Son of 6°R4s. God in such a manner, that it is most evident that he did [558] not by any means entertain the same opinions as Sabellius. Let it suffice to adduce a single passage. Directing his dis- course more closely to the emperors, Marcus Aurelius Anto- ninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus his son and colleague in the empire, and wishing to defend the religion of Chris- tians who profess the religion of one God, and at the same time together with the supreme Father of all adore His Word or Son, he says that there is an image of the heavenly kingdom shadowed forth, as it were, in their own earthly kingdom: in that the government of both being monarchical, still there are in each government two per- sons ruling; but that as one of these refers his authority to the other as received from him, and both administer their empire with united' minds, the monarchy is preserved unim- ! conjunce- paired. His words are these™; “For as all things are in- ἣν trusted to you, a father and a son, who have received your kingdom from above, (for the soul? of the king, saith the ἢ ψυχή. : prophetic Spirit, is in the hand of God,) so are all things iT Be subject to one God and to the Word [which came forth] from Him, whom we understand to be His Son insepa- rable [from Him]*.” But what disciple of the school of * νοουμένῳ Sabellius would argue thus? Surely any Sabellian would ““??"* have defended the religion of Christians in a very dif- ferent manner, that is, by saying openly, that absolutely only one Person was acknowledged by them in the God- head, namely, the Father; and that the Son was held to be a divine energy only. Indeed this very illustration, which Athenagoras uses, is that wherewith the Catholics were ac- eustomed to meet the Monarchians. For thus (to pass by others) Tertullian, in his treatise against Praxeas, c. 3"; [559] ** We hold the monarchia*, say they. And so articulately° do ; povapxia. vocaliter. m ὡς γὰρ ὑμῖν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ πάντα νοουμένῳ ἀμερίστῳ πάντα ὑποτέτακται. κεχείρωται, ἄνωθεν τὴν βασιλείαν εἰλη- —p. 17. [ὃ 18, p. 293.] φόσιν, (βασιλέως γὰρ ψυχὴ ἐν χειρὶ 8 μοναρχίαν, (inquiunt,) tenemus. Θεοῦ, φησὶ τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα,) o§- Et ita sonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam τως ἑνὶ Θεῷ καὶ τῷ wap αὐτοῦ λόγῳ vig Latini, etiam opici, ut putes illos tam ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 pree- cerpsi. 2 singulare et unicum imperium. 206 3 ita unius sui esse. 4 preinde. 5 princi- paliter. 6 tam unicis. 7 rationem. 440 Anti-Sabellian illustrations used by Athen., as by Teriul. even Latins, even the ignorant, enunciate the sound, that you would suppose they understood monarchia as well as they pro- nounce it. But monarchia Latins take pains to pronounce: economia even Greeks are unwilling to understand. But for myself, if I have gleaned any knowledge! of either language, I | know that monarchia means nothing else than single and indi- vidual rule’; yet still that monarchy does not on that account, because it is [the rule] of one, preclude him whose [rule] it is, either from having a son, or from having made himself a son to himself°, or from administering his own monarchy by whom[soever] he will. Nay more, I say that no dominion is in such sense that of one, as his own’, in such sense single, in such sense a monarchy, as not also to be administered through other persons most near [to it], whom itself has looked out for as officials to itself. Moreover, if he, whose the - monarchy is, have a son, it does not forthwith become divided and cease to be a monarchy, if the son also be taken as a sharer in it; but it is on this account* in its original? his, from whom it is communicated unto the son; and so long as it is his, it is on this account a monarchy, in that it.is held together by two who are so individual®.’ And a little after, in chap. 4?, he adds; “The same I would wish said also with respect to the third degree ;” signifying that the case’ of the Holy Spirit is the same, and that in conse- quence a true and entire Trinity may be maintained without impairing the divine monarchy. And this did not escape Athenagoras, as is plain from the passage which we just be- fore quoted and from other places, which, had there been need, we could readily have produced. "δ. But let us see what induced Petavius to fasten this bene intelligere μοναρχίαν, quam enun- tiant. Sed μοναρχίαν sonare student Latini; οἰκονομίαν intelligere nolunt etiam Greci. At ego si utriusque lin- gue precerpsi, μοναρχίαν nihil aliud significare scio, quam singulare et uni- cum imperium; non tamen prescri- bere monarchiam ideo, quia unius sit, eum cujus sit aut filium non habere, aut ipsum se sibi filium fecisse, aut monarchiam suam non per quos velit administrare. Atquin nullam dico do- minationem ita unius sui esse, ita sin- gularem, ita monarchiam, ut non etiam per alias proximas personas adminis- tretur, quas ipsa prospexerit officiales sibi. Si vero et filius fuerit ei, cujus monarchia sit, non statim dividi eam, et monarchiam esse desinere, si parti- ceps ejus adsumatur et filius: sed pro- inde illius esse principaliter, a quo communicatur in filium; et dum illius est, proinde monarchiam esse, que a duobus tam unicis continetur. —[p. 502.] ° | This was a notion of Praxeas; see Tertullian’s treatise adv. Prax., c x. p- 505. ] P Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit.—f[Tertull. ibid. ] Petavius’ misapprehension of his view of the Logos. 441 charge of Sabellianism on the venerable writer. ‘He seems,” Βοοκ ur. he says, “to have thought, that the reason, i. e. the λόγος 4, 5. itself, whereby the Father Himself is rational, (Aoyoxos,) and jyaowa- which we conceive of as the form in His essence, is the Son of ¢oRas. God.” But whence this seems, whence this fancy, by which the Jesuit was so grossly deceived, as to believe that a man, by the confession of all the learned most learned, was so foolish, so absolutely devoid of understanding and even of common sense, that he supposed that the very mind itself of God the Father, or that reason itself which is, as it were, the form of God the Father, and by which He Himself is rational, (λογικὸς,) came forth, or proceeded, from Him, just before the framing of the world, in order to frame the world? No doubt it arises from these words, “‘ From the beginning God, being eternal Mind, Himself had within Himself His Logos, [Word or Reason,] being eternally possessed of rea- son,” (λογικὸς,) 1. 6. rational; im which words indeed he is proving the co-eternal existence of the Word with God the Father by this argument; God the Father is eternal mind, and possessed of reason (Aoyixds) from eternity, therefore the Word (ὁ Adyos) existed in and with Him from eternity. Now who would conclude from this, that the Word in the opinion of Athenagoras, was the actual mind or reason of the Father? Nay, who would not conclude the very contrary? For if this had been the view of Athenagoras, he would have been simply trifling, proving the conclusion from itself' in this way ; God ! idem per is eternal mind: therefore from eternity He had mind in ‘™ Himself. In truth, although Athenagoras a little before called the Son of God “the mind* of the Father,” (that is, in the sense which we there explained,) nevertheless in this passage (where he is speaking more properly and strictly) he clearly distinguishes the Word (Adyos) or Son of God from the divine mind itself, and not obscurely teaches, that the latter is the cause of the former. But in order that the reader may be extricated from this labyrinth, it is to be ob- served that Athenagoras, with almost all the ancients, held that the Divine Person whom we call the Word and Son of God, was in an ineffable and altogether imcomprehensible 4 [i. 3. 4.) 435, and Bp. Bull’s observations, p. ~ * [See the passage quoted above, p. 434. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [561] 2 ordinem. 3 loquen- tem in- terne. 4 Zyvo.a. 5 signi. Sexperitur. 7 cum ser- mone. 8 sensus [i. q. ἔννοια. f.iii,10.5. ] 9 pateris, 442 The Logos understood to correspond primarily with manner born from eternity of! the mind and thought of God the Father. And there are many considerations to lead us to believe, that this mystery was handed down from the Apo- stles themselves. Andrew Rivet, in his Exercitation iii. on Genesis, chap. i., near the end, affirms that this is certain from the Scriptures: “ We hold it,” says he, “to be certain from the Scriptures, that there exists such a relation’ between the Father and the Son, as between him who speaks within [himself*], and the λόγος or inward speech of him’ who {so] speaks.” Be that however as it may, it is clear that most of the ancients were altogether of this opimion. For they laid it down that the Word of God the Father was so called, from a comparison made, primarily, not with the external speaking of man, but with the internal thought* and notion of the human mind, which philosophers call the word of the mind, verbum mentis; wherefore as that internal word ne- cessarily flows forth from the mind of man, and exists simultaneously with it, so from God the Father, who is eternal mind, His Word is necessarily produced®, and is co- eternal with Him; and lastly, as man, the image of God, when he is thinking, is conscious® of another person, as it were, within him, holding converse with him; so in God, (who is the archetypal image, of whom whatsoever is more — obscurely shadowed forth in man, is in Himself beheld most perfectly,) His Word is in very deed another than Him- self, and a Person altogether distinct. To this effect Tertullian elegantly unfolds this mystery in his Treatise against Praxeas, c. 5, in the followimg words’: “ Observe that when thou thyself art silently conversing with thyself, this very process is carried on within thee by reason, she meeting thee together with a word’ at every movement of thy thought, and every impulse of thy conception®. Whatsoever thou thinkest, there is word; whatsoever thou conceivest, there is reason. It cannot be but thou must speak that in thy mind; and when thou [so] speakest, thou hast? a word con- versing with thee, in which [word] there is that very reason, z Vide quum tacitus tecum ipse con- _taveris, sermo est; quodcumque sen- grederis,ratione hoc ipsum agi intra te, _ seris, ratio est. Loquaris illud in ani- occurrente ea tibi cum sermone adom- mo, necesse est; et dum loqueris, con- nem cogitatus tui motum,et adomnem _locutorem pateris sermonem, in quo sensus tui pulsum. Quodeumque cogi- _inest hac ipsa ratio, qua cum eo cogi- thought in man, but having a real subsistence in God. 448 whereby in thinking thou speakest with that [word], through soox 11. which [word] in speaking thou thinkest. So in a certain way “Ὁ δ, δι the word is a second [person] within thee, through whom in Ayyena_ thinking thou speakest, and through whom in speaking thou Rs. thinkest. The word itself is another [than thyself.] How [562] much more fully then is this carried on in God, of whom thou also art counted’ as the image and likeness, in that He 1 censeris. has within Him reason even in silence, and in reason a word.” Now every one must see that the argument of Athenagoras proceeds correctly upon this hypothesis. The meaning of Athenagoras, however, has been expressed more clearly by his contemporary Tatian, who spoke of the co-eternal existence of the Father and the Son in these words': “ With Him, through a rational power (λογικῆς δυνάμεως) the Word (λόγος,) who was in Him, subsisted".” And a little after- wards [he speaks of] “the Word (Aéyos) from out the rational power (λογικῆς δυνάμεως). Observe here that the Word (λόγος) is plainly distinguished from the rational power (λογικῆς δυνάμεως) of God the Father, and the latter is plainly laid down to be the cause of the former: this will be more fully demonstrated when we come to Tatian. 6. Certainly, if those who employ this reasoning of Athe- nagoras in proof of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father, are to be accounted Sabellians, almost the whole of antiquity, prior to the council of Nice, was Sabellian; nay, the Catholics who lived at the time of that council, and after it, must also be classed as Sabellians, seeing that they used the self-same argument. I could here adduce several wit- nesses, but the great Athanasius will be in the stead of them all; who thus argues in his second oration* against the Arians : *‘God is eternally in being; since then the Father is ever in being, His effulgence also, which is His Word, is also eternally in being. And again, God, who is [self-]existent?, 25 gy θεὺς, 207 tans loquaris, per quem loquens cogi- tas. Ita secundus quodammodo in te est sermo, per quem loqueris cogitando, et per quem cogitas loquendo; ipse sermo alius est. Quanto ergo plenius hoc agitur in Deo, cujus tu quoque imago et similitudo censeris, quod ha- beat in se etiam tacendo rationem, et in ratione sermonem ?—[p. 503. ] t Orat. contr. Grecos, pp. 145, 146. [§ 5. p. 247. See below, p. 448. ] ἃ [See our note below at p. 448, where this passage is more fully quoted. —B.] * ὥν ἐστιν didiws ὃ Θεός" ὄντος οὖν ἀεὶ τοῦ Πατρὺς, ἔστι καὶ ἀϊδίως καὶ τὸ τούτου ἀπαύγασμα, ὕπερ ἐστὶν ὃ λόγος αὐτοῦ. καὶ πάλιν 6 ὧν Θεὸς ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ 444. This view approved, and explained by Petavius himself. ox roe has from Himself His Word also [self-|existent!, and neither ©0-ETER- hath the Word come afterwards into being, not being pre- aa con viously in existence, nor was the Father at any time without [563] ἃ Word?.” But why need I say more? Petavius’” himself in | | ὄντα τὸν another place judges this kind of argument to be sound and - a substantial, and sets it forth admirably: “ With respect to without those ancients,” he says, “who argue thus, that the Son is pea Ἵ ΟΣ therefore co-eternal with the Father, because the Father never existed without His wisdom and power, nor the light with- out its brightness, and other things of the same kind; they rightly use these [illustrations], if they be taken, not in what is called a formal, but in a causal or illative sense. For al- though the Son, so far forth as He is the Son, is not that very wisdom, whereby the Father is wise; still He is necessarily conjoined with it, and arises from it. For the wisdom or in- telligence which is in the Father, yea which is the Father, is a simple act, not a habit or faculty. Moreover, every act of ὃ sapiendi. thinking* and understanding necessarily involves an express ‘expressam NOtion* or thought’, i. 6. a word, nor can it even be con- pang ceived in the mind without it. Justly therefore do the tan fathers infer the eternity of the Word from the eternity of the Father. ‘For never’ (says Cyril’) ‘will there be mind without word, nor can word be conceived of, unless it have 6mentem formed mind® in it.’ This he more fully explains in the fifth formatam. book of his Thesaurus. And as we rightly conclude that the wisdom, whereby the Father is formally wise, existed from eternity in the Father, from this, that the Father never ex- isted without wisdom ; so do we also prove, by no less neces- [564] sary consequence, that the Wisdom which was produced from 7 expres: that and made express’, existed from all eternity, inasmuch ΕΣ ,, 88 He could not in very act® be wise, that is to say, [He could οἷν sili ore NOt] understand’, without an express notion and Word ; espe- non potuit. Clally when as for the Father to be wise, in that very respect — that He is the Father, (i. e. as respects what is peculiar to Him, and as respects His personality,) is nothing else than for Him to be speaking; which cannot even be conceived ντα τὸν λόγον ἔχει" καὶ οὔτε ὃ λόγος ς [ἄλογος yap ove ἔσται ποτὲ νοῦς ἐπιγέγονεν, οὐκ ὧν πρότερον, οὔτε ὃ ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ λόγος οὐκ ἔχων ἔν αὐτῷ μορ- Πατὴρ ἄλογος ἦν wore.—tom. i. p. 881. φωθέντα vodv.—Cyril. Alex. iv. in Joan. [ Orat. i. 25. p. 429. Op., tom. i . 418. Υ De Trin, vi. 9. 44 βἰεὐλιρύφονν τς (iv.) that this going forth of theWord was in operation only. 445 of without an express notion and word, as it were a term; 300K m1. so that in this way the Word may be called, as it were, an 368. extrinsic form, by means of which the Father hath this, that Ayurna He be speaking and understanding’ in act. ... Thus those — points which the ancients establish in their disputations one ae touching the eternity of the Son are most true, that the Father never was without Word (ἄλογοϑ), or without Wisdom (ἄσοφος). For in very truth He would have been without Reason or Word and Wisdom, if He had not from eternity been understanding in act’; which cannot be without a? actu ipso Word.” So far Petavius with his accustomed erudition and ee acuteness. Let us now proceed in our explanation of this famous passage of Athenagoras. 7. Fourthly, Athenagoras clearly teaches, that the Word, by means of that going forth? of which he is speaking, is in 3 προέλ- no wise separated from God the Father, nor exists externally ‘’”'*. to Him; but, as before His going forth and from eter- nity He was in God the Father, so afterwards and even to eternity does he abide in the Father. For He asserts that the Father and the Son are even now in such wise one, that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. There- fore, according to Athenagoras, that going forth of the Word was only [a going forth] im operation*; which he also him- 4 évepyr- self expressly intimates, when he declares that He proceeded 7” forth in order to be the active power of the creation®. In ‘utenergia a word, according to the mind of Athenagoras, the Word piel: before His going forth differs in this respect alone from rum. the Word such as He was after His going forth, in that before His going forth the Word was with the Father as it were quiescent, whereas afterwards He was λόγος ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ, the Word in operation: so that in both states the Word is altogether one and the same, and aia abiding in the same God the Father. 8. Fifthly and lastly, from all this it follows, that although [565] Athenagoras may have thought that the Word was called the first-offspring® of God the Father, because of His going ὁ πρῶτον forth, yet he by no means meant that that procession was 7” the generation, true and properly so called, of the Word Himself. For that alone is to be called the true and proper generation of any thing or person, by which it is brought into ON THE 446 (v.) that this going forth was not the proper generation being (γίγνεται) or produced ; but Athenagoras expressly de- CO-ETER- niog that the Word and Son of God was brought into being’, NITY OF THE SON. 1 γίνεσθαι. 2 fieri. 3 ostensi- onem. 208 [566] or produced, by the going forth of which he is speaking. But as a thing is often said then to be, or to be brought into being’, when it appears, so the Word and Son of God, who without any beginning existed from God the Father and with Him, as the co-eternal offspring of the eternal mind, is said to have been then, as it were, born, when in the crea- tion of all things He was manifested to the creatures, hoth Himself, and God the Father through Him. Read again our observations on Justin in chap. 2. § 2. of this book, near the end, [p. 405.] Hence, as we shall hereafter see, certain of the ancients called this going forth of the Word the reve- lation and shewing® of the Son of God, and said that thence- forth He became, as it were, visible to the world; so that it is clear that they understood a generation which is figurative and metaphorically so-called. ΤῸ sum up the whole subject in a few words. The true and proper generation of the Son is that alone whereby from eternity He existed of * God the Father as the production of the eternal mind Itself. It is, I repeat, on account of this His eternal origination and existence from the Father, that He is truly called the Son of God; so far forth, that is, as, in the language of Tertullian, “ Every ori- gin is a parent, and every thing which is produced from an origin is an offspring.” With Tertullian agrees Athanasius’, in his fifth Oration against the Arians; “For if,” he says, “the Word be not of God, they would with reason have de- nied that He is a Son; but since He is of God, how is it they do not see at once that that which is from any one is the son of that from which also it is??? And afterwards in the same Oration‘ he writes; “The Word then is the Son, not lately made to be or called the Son, but ever the Son; for if He be not the Son, neither is He the Word; and if He be * Omnis origo parens est, et omne quod ex origine profertur, progenies est.— Adv. Prax., c. 8. [p. 504.] » εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὔκ ἐστὶν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ λόγος, εἰκότως ἂν αὐτὸν ἀρνοῖντο εἶναι υἱόν" εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι, διὰ τί μὴ συνορῶσιν, ὅτι τὸ ἔις τινος ὑπάρχον vids ἐστιν ἐκείνου, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἔστιν ;—Oper., tom. 1, p. ὅ80, [Orat. iv. 15. vol. i, p- 628.] © ἔστιν ἄρα ὃ λόγος vids, οὐκ ἄρτι γε- γονὼς, ἢ ὀνομασθεὶς υἱὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ υἱός" εἰ γὰρ μὴ vids, οὐδὲ λόγος" καὶ εἰ μὴ λό- γος, οὐδὲ υἱός. τὸ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς vids ἐστι τί δέ ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς, εἶ μὴ ὃ [ὃ om. ed. Ben. ] λόγος, ὃ ἐκ καρ- δίας προελθὼν, καὶ ἐκ γαστρὸς γεννη- θείς ;—p. ὅ89, [ὃ 24. p. 636. ] of the Word. His mode of expression justified. 447 not the Word, neither is He the Son. For that which is of soox m1. the Father is the Son; and what is of the Father except the Word, which proceeded from His heart, and was begotten of His womb!?” But was Athenagoras ignorant of this? Certainly not. For we have already fully shewn that he acknowledged the eternal production of the Word from the divine mind. Therefore when all things are duly weighed, it seems that one point only admits of censure in this state- ment of Athenagoras, that he calls the Word the First-off- spring of the Father, on account of the going forth of which he is speaking. But whoever shall bring this charge against Athenagoras, will evidently be himself convicted of useless and vain logomachy. For to what purpose is it to wrangle about words and modes of speaking when we are agreed about the thing itself? Again, as we shall clearly prove hereafter, the catholic fathers who lived after the rise of the Arian controversy, and among them Athanasius himself, laid down that the. Son of God is called the first-born, πρωτό- toxos, (which certainly means the same thing as Athenagoras’ πρῶτον γέννημα,) in consequence of His going forth from God the Father to create the universe, and hence con- ceived that going forth to be, as it were, a kind of genera- tion of the Son. I would however intreat the reader, who loves and is anxious about the truth, firmly to keep in memory this explanation of the most learned Athenagoras, (in which he himself a little after* professes, that he is speak- CHAP. V. 8 8. ATHENA- GORAS. 1 ἐς γα- στρὸς γεν- νηθείς. [667] ing very exactly’ respecting the Christian doctrine ;) and, if ? ἀκριβο- he do this, I venture to pledge myself that he will be more successful in arriving at the mind of the other ancient fathers, who meant the same as Athenagoras, although their expressions were generally more obscure. And so much for Athenagoras¢. 4 p. 11. [8 11. p. 287. See chap. xi. thor has more in his reply to G, Clerke, of this book. ] § 26, 27.—B. ] e [Concerning Athenagoras the au- λογεῖσθαι. 209 CHAPTER VI. THE DOCTRINE OF TATIAN RESPECTING THE ETERNITY OF THE SON FULLY SET FORTH. ΟΝ ΒΞ 1, Arrer Athenagoras comes his contemporary Tatian. ΡΤ He also is classed by Petavius, and by the author of the THE SON. Jrenicum, and by Sandius, amongst those fathers who agreed with Arius in denying the eternity of the Son. I might indeed allege that this Tatian, after the death of his master Justin, lapsed into heresy; and that, in consequence, he is of no authority. But we have no need of this answer. The words of Tatian, from which Petavius, and after him the others whom I have mentioned, inferred that (alleged) heresy of his, seem to me only to require an attentive and candid interpretation. For thus he writes in his Oration against the Greeks‘; “ But I will set forth,” he says, “our doctrines with greater clearness. God was in the beginning, and ‘the beginning, as we have received, was the power of the Word'. For the Sovereign Lord of all, being Himself that where- ὁ ἡ ὑπόστα- in the universe subsists”, was indeed, in respect of the λόγου δύναμιν. aide creation, which had not -as yet been brought into being, ὁ μόνο. alone®; but in that He Himself was all power, [and] that wherein both visible and invisible things subsist, with Him were all things. For with Himself, through rational power‘, [568] there subsisted Himselfs and the Word which was in Him". 4 ὃ ὰ λ sad : . . . 7 ἃ s Kis δυνά. ‘nd by the will of His simplicityi®, the Word bounds forth ; pews. βιὸς aarnd- Bh age ees φανερώτερον δὲ ἐκθήσομαι τὰ ἧμέ- τοῦ κόσμου τὴν &pxhv.—p. 145. [ὃ 4, 5. τοῦ. τερα. Θεὸς ἣν ἐν ἀρχῇ" τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν p. 247 & αὐτὺς καὶ ὃ λόγος. [So translated by Bp. Bull; vid. infr., p. 455, sqq. } h [These words (see note p. 443,) are differently pointed and interpreted by the Benedictine editor, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα (σὺν αὐτῷ γὰρ) διὰ λογι- λόγου δύναμιν παρειλήφαμεν. 6 γὰρ δε- σπότης τῶν ὅλων, αὐτὸς ὑπάρχων τοῦ παντὸς ἣ ὑπόστασις, κατὰ μὲν τὴν μη- δέπω γεγενημένην ποίησιν μόνος Fv" καθὸ δὲ πᾶσα δυνάμις ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις ἦν, σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. σὺν αὐτῷ γὰρ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὃ λόγος, ὃς ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε. θελήματι δὲ τῆς ἅἃπλό- τῆτος αὐτοῦ προπηδᾷ λόγος" ὃ δὲ λόγος οὗ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας ἔργον πρωτότο- xov τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται. τοῦτον ἴσμεν κῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ 6 λόγος ὃς ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπέστησε, omnia cum eo per rationalem potentiam sustentabat ipsum etiam illud Verbum, quod erat in eo. . . .. “with Him did the very Word Himself also, who subsisted (ἦν) Passage from Tatian quoted and explained. 449 but the Word having gone forth not in vain!, becomes the Βοοκ τη. First-born work of the Father; Him we know [as] the “ἘΠ δι 4 Beginning of the world.” Of this passage I will set be- Τατιανοῦ fore the impartial reader an explanation which, when he * κατὰ κε- has understood, I expect that he will readily of his own pier judgment acquit Tatian of heresy, at least in this article ; and clearly perceive his agreement with the Nicene fathers on the main point of the matter which is now in question. 2. The following words, then, require first to be considered : “God was in the beginning, and the Beginning, as we have received, was the power of the Word.” Here it is of the greatest importance for us rightly to understand, what Tatian means by the power of the Word, (λόγου δύναμις.) Peta- vius* thought that by λόγου δύναμις was meant the same which Tatian soon afterwards calls λογικὴν δύναμιν, rational power, by which again, in his opinion, nothing else is to be understood than “the force and power of reason, according to which God is able to produce all things.” I am myself, however, quite persuaded that by λόγου δύναμις we must here certainly understand the power of the Word, that is to say, the Word of God Himself, who is also called the Son of God. And I proceed to establish this by what are, if I mistake not, most evident reasons. In the first place, λόγου δύναμες is uniformly found used in this sense in other places in Tatian. It is thus used twice in the next page, where Tatian, after he had said that the Word, or Son of God, created man after the angels, goes on to speak of the provi- dence of that Word with regard to man now created in the [669] with Him, uphold all things through rational power.’’ In the expression τὰ πάντα ὑπέστησε, Tatian perhaps had in view Col. i. 17, τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συν- έστηκε.---Β. The Benedictine editor considered the clause σὺν αὐτῷ γὰρ to be spurious, and referred to the words of Tertullian against Praxeas, c. 5, quoted below, c. x. § 5, as an imitation of this passage. Bp. Kaye (Justin M. ed. 2. pp. 160—162) retains the usual read- ing, and translates the words thus; ‘For with Him also by a Rational Power subsisted the Word, who was in Him.” On this he says, “1 have fol- lowed Petavius, thinking his transla- tion more agreeable botk to the con- struction of the sentence and. to the BULL, whole scope of the passage, being fur- ther confirmed in this opinion by a corresponding passage of Tertullian,’’ &c.; that is, the passage just referred to: he adds, “ The Oxford editor’’ (Worth, Oxon. 1700) “suggests very plausibly that we should read” (rather that Tertullian read) “ αὐτοῦ instead of αὐτός.᾽᾽] i [Βρ. Kaye (ibid.) translates these words “by the unity of His will;’’ adding in the note, ‘ By ‘the will of His simplicity’ I conceive that Tatian meant to express the simplicity of the Divine Nature, and the consequent unity of His Divine Will.’’ | k De Trin. i. ὃ. 5. ας ON THE cCO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 γνώμῃ. 2 ἀπαγορεύ- σεων. 8 ἐγκωμι- αστὴ. 4 διὰ τὸ πρωτόγο- vov [scil. Satan; cf. Job xl. 19.] 210 [570] 450 Power of the Word elsewhere in T. the Word Himself. following words'; “ And the power of the Word, foreknowing in Itself what was about to come to pass,—not by fate, but through the determination’ of the choice of beings possessed of freewill,—foretold the issues of the future; and became the restrainer of wickedness, by means of prohibitions’, and an encourager through praise* of such as should™ be good. And when they went out together after one that was more subtle than the rest, as being the first produced’, and men set up as God even him who had risen up against the‘law of God, then the power of the Word rejected from inter- course with Himself, both him who had begun the folly, and those who had followed along with him.” Here every one sees that the power of the Word is nothing else than the Word Himself, or the Son of God. Hence also in the latter part of the sentence, the nominative ἡ δύναμις, (the power,) although of the feminine gender, has yet a masculine pronoun αὐτῷ, (him) referring to it; no doubt because ἡ δύναμις Tod λόγου (the power of the Word) is in sense ὁ λόγος, the Word, Himself. And hence Tatian immediately after expresses “the power of the Word” in terms which more explicitly designate a Divine Person. “And he,” (he says,) “who was made after the image of God, when the more powerful Spirit has been separated from him, becomes mortal.” Here, as I would remark in passing, it is after the manner of the ancient writers that Tatian calls the Word a Spirit, which he had also done before, saying"; “ For the heavenly Word, begotten a Spirit from the Father,” &c. There is only one other place, if I remember rightly, where ‘the expression, “the power of the Word,” occurs exactly in the same sense; namely, where in the same Oration®, the 1 ἡ δὲ τοῦ λόγου δύναμις, ἔχουσα wap ... καὶ ὃ μὲν Kar’ εἰκόνα τοῦ Θεοῦ γε- ἑαυτῇ προγνωστικὸν τὸ μέλλον ἀποβαί- νειν, οὐ καθ᾽ εἱμαρμένην, τῇ δὲ τῶν ai- ρουμένων αὐτεξουσίων γνώμῃ, τῶν μελ- λόντων προύλεγε τὰς ἀποβάσεις. καὶ τῆς μὲν πονηρίας κωλυτὴς ἐγίνετο “δι᾽ ἀπαγορεύσεων, τῶν δὲ μελλόντων ἄἂγα- θῶν ἐγκωμιαστής. καὶ ἐπειδή τινι φρο- νιμωτέρῳ παρὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ὄντι διὰ τὸ πρωτόγονον συνεξηκολούθησαν, καὶ Θεὸν ἀνέδειξαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὸν ἐπανιστά- μενον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τότε ἣ τοῦ λόγου δύναμις τόν τε ἄρξαντα τῆς ἀπο- νοίας, καὶ τοὺς συνακολουθήσαντας τού- τῳ, τῆς σὺν αὐτῷ διαίτης παρῃτήσατο. γονὼς, χωρισθέντος ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πνεύ- ματος τοῦ δυνατωτέρου, ϑνητὸς γίνεται. —p. 146. [ξ 7. p. 249.] m [ Bp. Bull read μελλόντων, ( such as should be,’’) probably by conjecture. All the editions and MSS. have μενόν- των, (“of such as persevere” in good- ness. )—B. | BD λόγος yap ὃ ἐπουράνιος πνεῦμα γε- γονὼς ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρός-.---ἰ 1014. ad init. cap. 7.} © [λόγου δυνάμει κατακολούθησον. |— p- 157. [ὃ 18. p. 259. ] So here; identified with the Beginning, i, 6. the Word. 451 Christian man is said to “follow the power of the Word,” 300K u1. that is, as is clear from the context, the Word Himself, or “82, igs Son of God. 3 TATIAN. 8. But this interpretation of ours is strengthened also by this second reason. With Tatian “the power of the Word” is manifestly the same as “ the Beginning ;” but he himself a little after interprets ‘the Beginning” by “the Word,” or Son of God. If you compare the words of Tatian which are found at the beginning of the passage which we have quoted, with those which conclude it, you will see this more clearly. In the former there is, “the Beginning (ἀρχὴν), as we have received, is the power of the Word ;” in the latter, “ Him” (τοῦτον, namely τὸν λόγον, the Word or Son of God, of whom he had before spoken), “we know to be the Beginning of the world.’ Who can doubt that [571] Tatian in both places was speaking of the same Beginning? Nor is it a conceit of his own, which the Assyrian doctor here delivers to us, but the general! opinion of Christians: 1 commu- as he not obscurely intimates by the words, “we have re- ceived,’ and “we know.” For very many of the ancients designated the Word or Son of God the Beginning, that, namely, wherein God was before the creation of the world, and so from eternity, and wherein God created the world. So Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of Tatian, in his first book to Autolycus enumerating the names of God, says?, “If I should speak of the Word I speak of His Beginning’*.” * τὴν ἀρ- This same Theophilus, in his second book’ to Autolycus, re- Ke ee specting the Son of God, says, “He is called the Beginning®.” * ἀρχὴ. And presently after in the same passage; “ He, therefore, being the Spirit of God, and Beginning, and Wisdom, and Power of the Most High.” So Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vii., calls the Son of God both “ Him that is without begin- ning” and “the Beginning'.” So again Origen, Homil. i. on Genesis, at the very outset, on the [opening] words’, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” makes these observations; “‘ What is the Beginning of all things, P εἰ λόγον εἴπω, ἀρχὴν αὐτοῦ Aéyw.— 355. ] p- 71. [§ 8. p. 339.—B. But see the ¥ [τὴν ἄχρονον καὶ ἄναρχον ἀρχὴν τε note of the Benedictine editor. | καὶ ἀπαρχὴν τῶν ὄντων, τὸν vidy.—p. 4 οὗτος λέγεται ἀρχή"... οὗτος ody 829; quoted above, ch. 2. ὃ 6. p. 409.] ὧν πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀρχὴ, καὶ σοφία, 5. In principio creavit Deus coelum et καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου.---». 88. [ὃ 10. p. terram. Quod est omnium principium, ag2 ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 περὶ τῶν γενητῶν. [679 3 διαβλη- T€0S. 211 452 The Beginning understood by the ancients to be the Word. but our Lord and the Saviour of all, Jesus Christ, the First- born of every creature? It was in this Beginning, there- fore, that is, in His Word, that God created the heaven and the earth.” And thus, finally, (to pass by other Antenicene fathers,) Methodius, in the extracts from his treatise on the Creation', preserved in Photius, cod. 235°, writing on the same passage of Genesis says; “If by ‘the Beginning’ any one should understand Wisdom Herself,” (that is to say, the Son of God,) “he would not err.” And the catholic fatlfers, who wrote after the rise of the Arian controversy, treated the subject in a similar way. For Gregory Nazianzen in his thirty-second Oration", which he delivered in the second cecumenical council, of one hundred and fifty bishops, thus distinguishes the three Persons of the Godhead; “That which is without beginning, the Beginning, and that which is with the Beginning, one God.” And afterwards’ he says, “The Name of that which is without beginning is the Father; of the Beginning, the Son; and of that which is with the Beginning, the Holy Ghost; but the nature of these three is one, [i. e.] God.” Moreover, Augustine*, Jerome, and many others so expound the words of Moses, “In the beginning God created,” &c., as to interpret “the Beginning” of the Son of God. Now by these arguments I think it has been ~ sufficiently proved that by the expression, “the power of the Word,” Tatian altogether meant the Word Himself, or Son of God. But to what purpose, you will ask, did Tatian say, that God the Father was in the Word, as in the Beginning, before the foundation of the world, and so from eternity ? I answer: Tatian had said concerning God in the words immediately preceding’, ‘‘He who is in want of nothing ought not to be traduced? by us, as if He were in want ;” now this he further states in the words next following, which we nisi Dominus noster et Salvator om- nium, Jesus Christus, primogenitus omnis creature? In hoe ergo prin- cipio, hoc est, in Verbo suo, Deus ce- lum et terram fecit.—[vol. ii. p. 52.] " ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν σοφίαν λέγων τις, οὐκ ἂν audpror.—p. 939. [quoted above, book ii. chap. 18. § 10. p. 356. note Ζ.} ἃ ἄναρχον, καὶ ἀρχὴ, καὶ τὸ μετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, εἷς @eds.—p. 519, [Orat. xlii, 15. p. 758. | Υ ὄνομα δὲ τῷ μὲν ἀνάρχῳ Marhp τῇ δὲ ἀρχῇ υἱός" τῷ δὲ μετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, πνεῦμα ἅγιον" φύσις δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μία, Θεός.---». 520. [1014.1 * August. Conf. xi. 9. [vol. i. p. 199.] and xii. 19, 20, 28. [p. 218.] Hieron. Quest. in Genes. [vol. iii. p. 305.] y ὃ πάντων dvevdehs ov διαβλητέος by’ ἡμῶν, ὡς évdehs.—[ubi supr., ο. 4. Ῥ. 247.] The meaning of Tatian in using this term, explained. 453 have up to this point been explaining, saying, that from eter- soox ut. nity, before any things were created, and apart from them, ike God was self-sufficient ; not wanting place, nor any habita- Tariay. — tion, wherein to dwell; nor was He without One with whom [573] to communicate}, or in whom, as it were, to delight Himself’; ' sese com- inasmuch as from everlasting He was in His Word, and held ™™"°"™ converse? with Him. ‘Thus is the co-eternal existence of the ? versaba- Word with God His Father clearly taught in this passage. bass But Tatian also wished to intimate this, that, before the creation of the world, the world itself was in a certain sense present to God; forasmuch as there was really present with Him the Word, the Beginning® of the world, who is also the princi- idea and exemplar, or (in other words) the art divine, where- ?!™™- by the Father, when He willed, formed the universe; as Pe-. tavius himself has elsewhere explained the word Beginning (Principium) correctly and according to the meaning of the ancients. That this was altogether the meaning of Tatian, in the words adduced, will be still further evident from what follows in him ; to the consideration of which I now proceed. 4. Thus then Tatian goes on: “For the Sovereign Lord of all, being Himself that wherein the universe subsists, was indeed, with respect to the creation, which had not as yet been brought into being, alone; but in that He Himself was all power, [and] that wherein both visible and invisible things subsist, with Him were all things. For with Him, through rational power, there subsisted Himself, and the Word, which was in Him.” The meaning of Tatian is clearly this ; The world and all things that are therein were (to use a scholastic phrase) potentially * (δυνάμει) with God from ‘ in poten- eternity. But how does he prove this? By this argument, si that there subsisted from all eternity, not only God the Father, but also with Him, His Word, who is the Beginning (Principium) of the world, by whose power’, after He had, as ὅ cujus it were, leaped forth and proceeded from God, all things "™™* were made. This, I say, was Tatian’s meaning; The world was with God from eternity in its Beginning, that is to say, in the Word, who from everlasting subsisted together with God the Father. That this may appear more clearly the [574] following words must be more carefully weighed; Σὺν αὐτῷ γὰρ διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ds ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ, 454 The Word and the Father subsisting διὰ λογικῆς Suvdpews. ΟΝ τὴ ὑπέστησε. (“For with Himself through rational power, Coon there subsisted Himself and the Word which was in Him.”) THE SON. [ maintain that in these words the co-eternal and actual ex- istence of the Word with God the Father, and that as of a Person distinct from Him, and the eternal cause of that ex- istence, are plainly enough declared. For, first, with respect to the eternal existence of the Word with God the Father, Tatian clearly and expressly states, that, before the founda- tion of the world, and when God was as yet alone, (that is to say, when as yet no creature had been formed,) the Word was in God, and existed with God, as long, that is, as God Himself had existed. Secondly, he intimates that that exist- ence of the Word was [an] actual [existence,]| in that he at- tributes the same mode of existence both to God the Father and to His Word, expressing the existence of both by the same word; “There subsisted (ὑπέστησε),᾽) he says, “ both Himself” (namely, God the Father) “and His Word.” This, however, will be more clearly shewn against Petavius by and by’. Thirdly, Tatian teaches us in more ways than one, that the Word existed from eternity with God the Father, as a Person distinct from Him. For he both says that He existed “with” God the Father, which can properly be said only of two; and, speaking of God the Father and His Word, he says, “both Himself and the Word which was in Him ;” intimating plainly enough that the Word was not God the Father Himself. Again, that no one should suspect that the Word here is simply the same as the rational power of God the Father, that is, His mind and reason, he openly dis- tinguishes the Word (ὁ λόγος) from the rational power, (λο- γικὴ δύναμις.) In the last place, with regard to the eternal cause of the co-eternal existence of the Word with God the Father, Tatian teaches that the Word from eternity subsisted ' διὰ λογι- With God the Father “through rational force'”’ or “ power ;” eer that is to say, that from eternity He sprung from the mind of the Father, the co-eternal offspring of the eternal mind; which we have explained above in speaking of Athena- [575] goras. But you will say, how then does he say, that God the Father also subsisted through rational power? The answer is easy; God the Father, according to Tatian, sub- * [But see above, pp. 448, 449, note h.] Petavius’ translation and interpretation of the words. 455 sisted through rational power, as through His form, that is, soo m1. He Himself was reason and eternal mind; whilst God the “τα δι, Son, or the Word, subsisted together with God the Father, through rational power, as through an efficient cause, that is, He was from all eternity born of the mind of the Father, the co-eternal offspring, as we have repeatedly said, of the eternal mind. This statement of Tatian does indeed appear absurd, that before the foundation of the world there exist- ed with God the Father not only His Word, but Himself also*. But in ordinary language, such as Tatian occasion- ally uses, there is a common way of speaking by, which it is said that one is with himself. Thus for instance we commonly say, “ There was no one with me but myself.” 5. But we must now meet [the arguments of] Petavius. “Tatian,” he says>, “seems to have thought that the Word was produced by the Father from eternity, not actually!! actu. and in Himself, but only in rational power and potentially? ; ἢ potestate. just as in the same [power] there existed also all things that were afterwards created.” But, I say, no one who gives a little more attention to his words can possibly think that Tatian entertained this opinion. For if, according to Tatian, to exist by* rational power be not actually, but potentially 8 διὰ. to exist, we must suppose that Tatian was of opinion that God the Father Himself also existed from eternity poten- 9219 tially only, and not actually; since he says alike of God the Father and of His Word, that they subsisted from eter- nity by rational power. But see here the spirit of Peta- [576] vius ; in order to make out what he wished, he distorted the text of Tatian, in itself plain enough, by thus translating the words, διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὃς ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπέστησε: “ By rational power the Word Himself also, who was in Him, subsisted*.”” But who that has even a slight acquaintance with Greek would not have thought that the words should rather be rendered as the transla- TATIAN. 8 [The whole of this argument of reading of the Benedictine editor is a Bp. Bull is out of place with regard to mere conjecture, and is not noticed by the eternal existence both ofthe Father Bp. Kaye. | and of the Son, if we take the verb ὑπέ- » [i. 3. 5.] στησε, as the Benedictine editor does, ¢ [Petavius appears to have trans- in a transitive sense. Still the pre- lated the passage correctly. See Bp. existence of the Son is clear enough CKaye’s observations above, p. 449, from this passage of Tatian.—B. The note h,] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 in poten- tia. [577] 456 The eternity of the Word follows even on Petavius’ tion has it; “per rationalem potentiam tum ipse tum λόγος, qui in ipso erat, substitit 2” (‘Through rational power there subsisted both Himself and the Word which was in Him.”) But even if we receive the absurd version of Petavius, he , will gain nothing by it. For I ask the Jesuit, what is to be made of the words, “the Word which was in Him,” (6 λόγος, ὃς ἣν ἐν αὐτῷ) Ὁ Let him tell us how, according to Tatian, the Word was from eternity in God the Father. He must needs say, that He “was” then in power of reason, not in act. But see the gross solecism which would in this way arise from Tatian’s words. For his statement would come to this: The Word, which existed in God the Father, not actually, but by power of reason, through the power of reason only, not actually, subsisted with God the Father ; and what can be more absurd than such a statement? Be- sides, what sensible person can persuade himself that the words διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως (through rational power) have no other meaning than ἐν δυνάμει, (potentially!,) so far, that is, as this expression is used of things which do not yet 6χ- ist in act, but may come into existence from certain given causes? Surely λογικὴ δύναμις in this place altogether means ‘rational power,’ or ‘faculty,’ so to speak; and when the Word is said to have subsisted before the creation of the world, and even from eternity with God the Father, through His rational power, there is clearly intimated the cause of the co-eternal subsistence of the Word with God the Father. So that Tatian’s meaning is plain; As in man his internal word necessarily flows forth out of his rational power, and co-exists with it, so through the rational power of God, which was eternally in Him, the Word hath subsisted with Him from eternity. Besides, Tatian said before, as we have seen, that God was from eternity in His Word. But how so? Was God in one who Himself as yet existed not, save only potentially ? Moreover he asserts that before the foundation of the world God was in the Word in such sense as on that account not to lack one with whom to communicate. Could he have affirmed this of the Word, who was not as yet in actual existence? Lastly, that passage of Athenagoras which we adduced in the preceding chapter, [p. 435,] should by all means be referred to and compared with the words of translation. Tatian and Athenagoras illustrate each other. 457 Tatian, inasmuch as these two writers mutually throw light soox πα. on each other. Athenagoras denies that the Word or Son ὁ δ. δ΄ of God was “brought into being';” adding this reason, be- πασαν cause God the Father, being eternal mind, and from eter- 1 γενόμενον. nity rational, (Aoyixos,) that is, possessing? what Tatian calls *pollensin. ‘rational power,’ (λογικὴ Svvayts,) necessarily had the Word within Himself from eternity. But how, according to Athe- nagoras, did God the Father have the Word within Himself from eternity? Was it potentially only? Absurd! For in this sense the learned writer might with equally good reason have affirmed that throughout nature there was nothing “ brought into being*:” inasmuch as all things existed from eternity in *yevduevor. the divine power. Athenagoras, therefore, certainly meant an actual existence of the Word, and Tatian the same. And, indeed, who does not perceive the exact agreement between them both, in what they say respecting the eternity of the Word? Athenagoras argues that God the Father had the Word in Himself from eternity, because He was from eter- nity rational (λογικὸς) ; Tatian in like manner declares that the Word subsisted with God the Father, before the creation of the world and so from eternity; but how? διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως, “ by* [means of] rational power.” The thing ‘22. surely speaks for itself. Let us go on in our explanation of Tatian’s text. 6. The following words come next in Tatian; “And by [578] the will of His simplicity the Word bounds forth; but the Word having gone forth not in vain becomes the First-born work of the Father; Him we know as the Beginning of the world.” Here Tatian’s τοῦ λόγου προπήδησις, “the bound- ing forth of the Word,” is plainly the same as Athenagoras’ προέλευσις, “the going forth” of the same [Word.] Tatian, however, manifestly intimates that that self-same Word, who from eternity subsisted in God the Father and together with Him, “ bounded forth” from God, when God willed to create the world. But how did He bound forth? Surely in opera- tion ", or, in other words, in order to be the active principle ὅ ἐν évep- of the creation’, as Athenagoras explained the matter; or, as aah Tatian himself presently, in order to be the Beginning (or creanda- Principle) of the world (ἀρχὴ τοῦ κόσμου). Tatian’s First- 7g? born work, πρωτότοκον ἔργον, is evidently the same (al- ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 rursus. 213 [579] ἢ σὐμπηξιν ἐξ ὕλης accepisse. 458 Tatian held the Word to be uncreate and Divine. though rather harshly expressed) as Athenagoras’ πρῶτον γέννημα, First-offspring. Both writers alluded to the Apo- stle’s words, Col. i. 15, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “ the First- born of every creature.” But Tatian calls the Word a work, ἔργον, not considered in Himself, (for he had just before de- clared that He subsisted from eternity,) but with respect to His “bounding forth” (προπήδησι5) ; so that his meaning is; When God willed to create the world, He first caused that His Word should bound forth from Him; in other words, His first work was the sending forth of the Word, in order that through Him in turn! this universe might be constituted. It is, indeed, most certain that Tatian did not conceive the Word to have been a work (épyov), that is, a creature, or any thing made; for his doctrine was manifestly this, that between matter, and God the Creator of matter, there is nothing intermediate; that, therefore, every creature what- soever (not even excepting angelic nature itself) is composed of matter; that it is the property of matter to have a begin- ning; lastly, that the One Creator of matter is God. Now he who taught this, at the same time entirely distinguishes the Word from matter, and manifestly lays down that ‘the former is Maker of the latter. This will appear most clearly from a comparison of some passages of Tatian; “The case,” says he’, “ stands thus; we may see that the whole fabric of the world and the entire creation is both made out of mat- ter, and that matter itself put forth by God.” A little after, in the same passage, he lays down in course that the very demones, as the heathens called them, that is to say, the angels, received their constitution, that is, were compacted, out of matter®. The same writer, in a passage a little after that which we have been thus far examining, both distin- guishes the Word of God from all matter, and expressly de- clares Him to be the Creator of matter. For the Word is there said by Tatian® “to have Himself created matter for Himself ;”’ then, after a short interval, these words follow, “For matter is not without beginning, as God is, nor yet, * ἔχει δὲ οὕτω" πᾶσαν ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν τοῦ [8 12. p. 253.] κόσμου τὴν κατασκευὴν, σὐμπασάν τε © αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τὴν ὕλην δημιουργή- τὴν ποίησιν, καὶ (om. ed. Ben.) γεγο- ocas.... οὔτε yap ἄναρχος ἡ ὕλη, καθά- νυῖαν ἐξ ὕλης, καὶ τὴν ὕλην δὲ αὐτὴν περ ὃ Θεὺς, οὐδὲ διὰ τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ αὖ- ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ προβεβλημένην.---. 151. τὴ ἰσοδύναμος τῷ Θεῷ" γεννητὴ δέ καὶ He applies to Him the name of God. . 459 from being without beginning, is it of equal power with 8oox 1. God; but it is produced'!; and not brought into being’ by 8 reo ἯΙ. any other, but put forth® by the Maker of all things alone.” Tartan. Hence Tatian, whilst he invariably used the most sacred " γεννητὴ. name of God cautiously and most religiously, nowhere attri- , phe buting it to any other but the true God, yet did not hesitate βλημένη. expressly to call the Word, God‘, “For,” he says, “we do not talk foolishly, O Greeks, nor narrate fables to you, when we declare that God was made in the form of man.” And in other places he frequently expresses himself to the same [580] purpose ; I would not, however, undertake altogether to vin- dicate the similes which Tatian employs, after the passages which we have hitherto explained, to illustrate, as he might, the mystery of the eternal production, or “‘ bounding forth” of the Word. There are very few similitudes, if, indeed, there are any, especially such as are applied to explain things pertaining to God‘, (seeing that these are matters concerning ‘tes divi- which we can but speak with stammering lips,) which do not τος fail in some one point or other. We have now, I think, given a sufficient explanation of Tatian’s doctrine touching the co-eternity of the Son. CHAPTER VII. 214 THE VIEWS AND BELIEF OF THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH RESPECTING THE ETER- NITY OF THE SON CLEARLY SHEWN TO HAVE BEEN, IN THE MAIN, SOUND, CATHOLIC, AND AGREEING WITH THE NICENE CREED. 1. TuEoruitus follows, the sixth bishop of the Church of nag Antioch, after the Apostles. Petavius® placed him also in” the list of those Antenicene fathers who sanctioned by their approval the blasphemous saying of Arius respecting the Son of God, There was a time when He was not. Let The- ophilus, therefore, come forth in person on the arena, to con- ovk ὑπὸ τοῦ ἄλλου γεγονυῖα, μόνου δὲ οὐδὲ λήρους ἀπαγγέλλομεν, Θεὸν ἐν ay- ὑπὸ τοῦ πάντων δημιουργοῦ προβεβλη- θρώπου μορφῇ γεγονέναι καταγγέλλον- μένη. —p. 146. [p. 248. ] Tes.—p. 159. [§ 21. p. 262.] f οὐ γὰρ μωραίνομεν, ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, 9 De Trinitate, i. 3, 6. Η ' ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [581] 1 ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. 2 ἑαυτοῦ τόπο. 8 ὑπερέχων πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων. 4 ἐνδιάθε- τον. ὅ ἐξερευξά- Mevos. 6 ἄρχει. 7 κυριεύει. [682] 460 Extracts from Theophilus of Antioch ; what he meant by tend strenuously for his own orthodoxy; but let him come forth unmaimed, fully accoutred and protected by his own armour, not despoiled of his arms and mutilated, as Petavius introduces him. In his second book to Autolycus, after saying that the prophets had spoken what was consonant [with fact] concerning the past and the present, so that there can be no reason for doubting about the future, but that they also will all in due season come to pass, he thus proceeds*; “ And first of all they taught us with one accord, that He made all things out of nothing’; for nothing is cozval with God; but He being a place unto Himself’ and in need of nothing, and rising above prior to all ages*, willed to create man, by whom He might be known; for him therefore did He prepare the world beforehand; for he that is created is also in need [of other things] besides; whilst the uncreate is in want of nothing besides [ Himself.] God, therefore, having His own Word indwelling‘ in His own bowels, begat Him together with His own Wisdom, having breathed Him forth® before all things. This Word He had as the minister of the things which were brought into being by Him, and through Him hath He made the universe. He is called the Beginning (ἀρχὴ,) because He is the Principle ὃ and Lord’ of all things which were created through Him. He accordingly, being the Spirit of God, the Beginning, the Wisdom, and the Power of the Most High, descended imto the prophets, and through them spake the things that con- cern the creation of the world and all the other things; for the prophets were not in being, when the world was made, but the Wisdom which is in Him, being the Wisdom of God, [was in being,] and His Holy Word, who is ever present © καὶ πρῶτον μὲν συμφώνως ἐδίδαξαν ημᾶς, ὅτι ἐξ οὐις ὄντων τὰ πάντα ἐποίη- σεν. ov γάρ τι τῷ Θεῷ συνήκμασεν᾽" ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ τόπος ὧν, καὶ ἀνενδεὴς ὧν, καὶ ὑπερέχων πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, ἢθέ- λησεν ἄνθρωπον ποιῆσαι ᾧ γνωσθῇ" τού- τῳ οὖν προητοίμασε τὸν κόσμον. ὃ γὰρ γενητὸς καὶ προσδεής ἐστιν ὃ δὲ ἀγέ- vnTos οὐδενὸς προσδεῖται. ἔχων οὖν ὃ Θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγχνοις, ἐγέννησεν ad- τὸν μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἐξερευξά- μενος πρὸ τῶν ὅλων. τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἔσχεν ὑπουργὸν τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγενη- μένων, καὶ 80 αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα πεποίη- κεν. οὗτος λέγεται ἀρχὴ, ὅτι ἄρχει καὶ κυριεύει πάντων τῶν δι’ αὐτοῦ δεδημι- ουργημένων. οὗτος οὖν ὧν πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, καὶ ἀρχὴ, καὶ σοφία, καὶ δύναμις ὑψί- στου, κατήρχετο εἰς τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῶν ἐλάλει τὰ περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων" ov γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ προφῆται ὅτε ὃ κόσμος ἐγί- νετο, ἀλλὰ ἣ σοφία ἣ ἐν αὐτῷ οὖσα ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ὃ λόγος 6 ἅγιος αὐτοῦ, 6 ἀεὶ συμπαρὼν avtg.—p. 88. [ὃ 10. p. 355. ] i That is, [together with] the Holy Ghost. See book ii. 4. 9. [p. 153.] the generation of the Word just before the Creation. 461 with Him.” ‘To this should be added another passage of soox 11. Theophilus in the same book ; where, after calling the Word °(*" 7" the Son of God, in order that the heathen might not en- τηπορμις- tertain any absurd notion respecting the Son of God, (in “vs. imitation, as it would seem, of Athenagoras,) he carefully subjoins an explanation of the mystery in the following words): “ Not as the poets and fablers speak of sons of the gods begotten by [sexual] intercourse, but as the truth sets forth, the Word that is evermore indwelling! in the heart of} διαπαντὸς God. For before any thing was made He had Him as His δ διάθετον. Counsellor, being His own Mind and Wisdom’. But when? φρόνησιν. God willed to make whatever He had determined on, He begat this His Word [so as to be] put forth’, the First-born 8 προφορι- of every creature; not that He had Himself become emptied "δ᾽" of His Word, but having begotten the Word, and evermore holding converse with His Word; whence the Holy Scrip- tures teach us, and all the inspired writers, [one] of whom, John, declares; ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; shewing that at the first God was alone, and in Him [was] the Word. Then he says; ‘And the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and with- out Him was not any one thing made.’” 2. In these places I confess that Theophilus attributes a certain generation to the Word and Son of God, a little before* the creation of the world. But what sort of gene-‘ paulo. ration did he mean? Certainly not that of a person who before was not actually existing; but, with Athenagoras, “the generation of one [who was] not brought into being®,” 5 γέννησιν who from eternity was with God the Father; and therefore ed oF a generation not true and proper, (such, I mean, as that is, by which any thing or person is made or produced,) but so called figuratively and metaphorically. God the Father, 215 [583] J οὐχ ὡς οἱ ποιηταὶ καὶ μυθογράφοι λέγουσιν υἱοὺς Θεῶν ἐκ συνουσίας γεν- νωμένους, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀλήθεια διηγεῖται, τὸν λόγον τὸν ὄντα διαπαντὸς ἐνδιάθε- τον ἐν καρδίᾳ Θεοῦ. πρὸ γὰρ τὶ γινέ- σθαι, τοῦτον εἶχε “σύμβουλον, ἑαυτοῦ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν ὄ ὄντα. ὅπότε δὲ ἢθέ- λησεν 6 Θεὸς ποιῆσαι boa ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησε προφορικὸν, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως" ov κενωθεὶς αὐτὸς τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλὰ λόγον γεννήσας, καὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ διαπαντὸς ὁμιλῶν. ὅθεν διδάσκουσιν 7 ἡμᾶς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ, καὶ πάντες οἱ πνευματοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν Ἴω- ἄννης λέγει, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὃ λόγος, καὶ 6 λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν᾽ δεικνὺς ὅτι ἐν πρώτοις μόνος ἣν 6 Θεὺς, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ὃ λόγος. ἔπειτα λέγει, Καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὃ λόγος" πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χω- pls αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.---». 100. [§ 22. p. 365. ] 462 Theophilus held the eternal existence of the Word, on raz he says, at a given time begat that very Word whom from co-nrrt eternity He had had within Himself, as His Counsellor, and THE SON. even now has, and shall have to eternity, as being “ evermore 1 gadde- indwelling'” in His heart. But how did He beget Him? i a By “breathing Him forth’,’ as it is in the former passage, 2 ἐξερευξά- oF, a8 in the latter, by “ putting Him forth*,” in the begin- per. ning of the creation. What else, I ask, can this mean but xlv.l. that “going forth in operation (προέλευσιν ἐνεργητικὴν}" of epeey” Athenagoras, of which we have already spoken? In‘ the in the word game way he says that God the Father, when He was about er to create the world, breathed‘ forth or put forth His Wisdom 4 eructasse. also, that is, the Holy Ghost. For the Son and the Holy Ghost are “that ample and ineffable ministering power’, (to [584] use the words of Ireneus*, almost the contemporary of The- ophilus), which was ever present with God the Father, He Himself “not standing in need of angels, nor” of any other Saliove “ministering power® for the formation of these things which ministert0. were made!” These, therefore, when He so willed, He sent 6 ἐνεργείᾳ. forth in operation® to create the universe. But let us. ex- amine more accurately the words of Theophilus in each of the passages which we have brought forward, in order that, constructing out of them, as it were, a kind of summary of his doctrine respecting the Word or Son of God, we may at length make it manifest to all, that the venerable patriarch was quite catholic on the chief point of the doctrine. First, Theophilus clearly teaches that the Word co-existed with God the Father from all eternity. The words of the former passage are express; ‘ [lis Holy Word, which was ever pre- 76a ‘sent’ with Him.” And in the latter passage, Theophilus oven? says, that before the putting forth of which he speaks, and so from eternity, the Word was present with God the Father, as His Counsellor. What shall we say to the fact, that in the same place he expressly takes care (even as Athenagoras did) that no one of the heathen should attribute a beginning to the Son of God, as to some progeny of Jupiter, or con- ceive of Him otherwise than as “the Word evermore in- dwelling in the heart of God the Father.” k : ; na ae et enarrabile ministe- neque rursus indigente ministerio ad -—lv. 17. [e. 7. 4. p. 236; quoted fabvicationem eorum quz facta sunt.— before, book ii. c. 5. § 7. p.173. not i 1 Non” indigouts Ee μήνα τ =e [Ibid., quoted above, p. 172.] and that as a Person distinct from the Father. 468 8. Secondly, it is manifest that Theophilus was of opinion ook m1. that the Word, in that He was from eternity in God the “ἰὴ 3'" Father, and with Him, was a living and subsisting’ Word, puropur- that is to say, a Person, and that distinct from God the — Father. For whereas he says in the latter passage, that the Peyitde Word, before the putting forth of which he is speaking, and so from eternity, was the Counsellor of God the Father, the very term Counsellor clearly designates—not a thing (if one may so speak) in the Godhead, but—a Person. Now it is [585] clear that he who is the counsellor of any one, is a different person from him, whose counsellor he is. In the next place, what can be more clear than those words in the former pas- sage, in which the Word, together with the Holy Ghost, is said by Theophilus to have been “ever present? with” God " ἀεὶ ovp- the Father? For it is a true rule laid down by Athana- ”“?°” sius™, “That which is co-existent is not co-existent with it- self, but with another.” Lastly, what is said in the latter passage looks the same way, that God the Father “ ever- more” (that is, both before and after His putting forth) “holds converse with® the Word ;” for all converse is be- δδιαπαντὸς tween two at least. I cannot indeed but wonder at the dul- τ ness‘ and the absolute wrong-headedness® of Petavius, in 4 levam supposing that Theophilus believed that the Word, whom he ba map declares to have existed from eternity in God, was the same felishinges with God the Father, i. e. was the very essence of the Father, nines or His Mind and Intelligence, whence it 155 that He is called , Fee Rational’. What we have said above on Athenagoras and bet ut. Tatian is quite sufficient to confute this dream. But the’ λογικὸς. Jesuit infers that in the opinion of Theophilus, the Word before His putting forth was not a distinct Person from the Father, but was His very Mind, from this, that Theophilus says that the Word was then ἐνδεάθετος, that is, set in and shut up in the bowels of God*. A frivolous argument indeed, " insitum and utterly unworthy of so great a man. And yet this so- ca rie phism is continually used by Petavius, who, if he reads in Visceribus. any ancient writer, that the Word before the creation of the universe existed in God, in the heart, breast, bowels, of God, at once infers from this, that according to the opinion of [586] τὸ γὰρ συνύπαρχον οὐχ ἑαυτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ Arianos, Orat. ii. tom, i. p. 338. [Orat. ἑτέρῳ ouvundpxet.—Athanasius contra 1. 82. p. 486.] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 unde ha- bet. 2 in visce- ribus suis. 3 insitum, []. 6. ἐνδιά- θετον.} 4 παρὰ Πατρὶ. 464. The expressions of Theophilus imply distinct Personality. that writer, the Word was then simply identical with God the Father, that is to say, was His very Mind or Reason, whence it is’ that He is called rational. But, so far as Theo- philus is concerned, there is no difficulty in freemg him from suspicion. He had said in the former passage, that, before the creation of the universe, when as yet none of the things which are made were in existence, God was a place to Him- self; from which it follows, that, whatever then co-existed with God, must be said to have been and to have existed in God, and, as it were, in the heart and bowels of God. Hence, when he afterwards describes the co-eternal exist- ence of the Word with God the Father, he says, that God, before the foundation of the world, and so from all eternity, had the Word in His bowels’; which in the latter passage he expresses by the Word perpetually existing and set in*® the heart of God. Although I would not deny that Theo- philus had regard also to the comparison of the divine Word with the human, which being first conceived and shut up in the heart, is afterwards brought forth externally by means of speech—a comparison, which as it holds good in some points, so does it failin more. By this expression, however, The- ophilus wished chiefly to intimate the same as Ignatius®, his predecessor in the see of Antioch, when he said that the Son before all ages was “with the Father*;” and also the same as the Apostle John himself intended, who ex- presses the existence of the Word with God the Father be- fore the creation of the world, in these words; “In the be- _ ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” In- 5 insitum. [587] deed Theophilus himself expressly quotes these words of the evangelist with the view of proving from them what he had asserted, namely, that the Word was from everlasting set in? and existent in the heart of God. Now he who says that the Word is set in the heart of God the Father, does by this very expression sufficiently distinguish that Word from the heart, i.e. from the Mind of God the Father; so that even from this one may conclude, that Theophilus by no means thought, as Petavius dreamt, that the Word was the Mind Itself of God the Father, from which He is called Rational ; but the Word flowing forth from the divine Mind, and yet never " Ignatius Epist. ad Magnes., p. 33. edit. Vossii. [δ 6. p. 19.] As before, so after, His putting forth, He is ἐνδιάθετος. 465 disjoined or separated from It; which is in truth the very actual doctrine of Catholics of this day. But why need we say more in a case which is manifest? Petavius, who brought Theophilus under suspicion, as if he had thought that the Word before He was put forth was in no wise a distinct Person from God the Father, on this ground, that he said that He then “existed in the heart and bowels of God ;” the same Petavius, I say, might with equal justice and on precisely the same grounds, have gone on to accuse the vene- rable patriarch of the grossest Sabellianism, that, I mean, which lays down that the Person of the Father and of the Son always was, and even now is, the same. For Theo- philus expressly calls the Son of God, “the Word evermore! being and set in? the heart of God;” but the expression “evermore” (διαπαντὸς) is equivalent to through all time’, and consequently embraces all time, past, present, and to come. So that, according to Theophilus, the Word, who is called the Son of God, as He was from eternity, so is He still, and will be for ever set in the heart of God. That Theophilus however was no Sabellian, is most manifestly clear. Nay, throughout his writings he has so manifestly distinguished the Word from God the Father, that Peta- vius has seized a handle from this, to accuse him of Arian- ism; as though forsooth he had put too great an interval between God the Father and His Word. These points, how- ever, will become yet more evident, from the further obser- vations which we shall make upon the passages of Theophilus that are before us. } 4. It is, then, in the third place carefully to be observed, that Theophilus explicitly teaches, that the Word who was from eternity with God the Father and in Him, and the Word whom the Father, when about to create the world, put forth from Himself, are altogether the same. Our defence ‘of Theophilus against Petavius principally hinges on this. The Arians, I mean, equally with the Catholics, acknow- ledged that there was in God the Father from all eternity a Word; the point at issue between the two parties was this; whether the Word, who is called the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation, be the same Word that was in God from eternity ; or another Word, produced and made BULL. Hh BOOK 111, CHAP. VII. § 3, 4. THEOPHI- LUS. 1 διαπαν- Tos. 2 insitum, 3 διὰ παν- τὸς χρόνου. [688] 217 ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, 1 statuere. 2 λογικὸὺς. 3 τοῦτον τὸν λόγον. 4 genuit prolatum, [589] 466 (iii.) Theophilus taught with the Catholics that the Word (as were all other things,) by that eternal Word ; the Catho- lics laid down the former doctrine, the Arian fanatics the latter, as we have already observed®. Therefore, if Theophi- lus thought that the indwelling Word, λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, and the [Word] put forth, προφορικὸς, were two different Words, he was on the Arian side; but if he thought them both the same Word, he is on our side. And Petavius indeed does say that Theophilus “seems to make’ two Words, one ἐνδιάθετος, set in the Father Himself, which was with Him and in Him from eternity, and is the very essence of God, in other words, His mind and understanding, whence it is that He is calledrational’; the other λόγος προφορικὸς, (put forth,) whom God the Father put forth as the Minister of His works.” But this is a mere dream of the Jesuit, of which not a trace or vestige is found in Theophilus; nay, this notion is manifestly opposed to his most express words. For, in the latter passage, after he had said that God the Father from eternity had in Himself the Word as His Counsellor, he immediately subjoins; “ He begat this Word® [so as to be] put forth*;” where the de- monstrative pronoun “this” manifestly refers to that same Word, of which he had been previously speaking, namely, the Word whom God the Father had in Himself as His_ Counsellor from eternity. Again, when in the same passage Theophilus expressly reminds us that we are by all means to understand by the Son of God, the Word that is ever- more ἐνδιάθετος, set in the heart of God, how can this be consistent with the opinion which Petavius fastens on _ Theophilus, namely, that the Word who is called the Son of God, is quite another than the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the in- dwelling Word of God? Surely there is here a manifest contradiction between Theophilus and his interpreter Peta- vius. Petavius says that Theophilus thought that the Word or Son of God, through whom God made the universe, was another than that Word that from eternity was ἐνδιάθετος, indwelling in God; but Theophilus himself expressly says that that Son of God is the very Word that was eternally ἐνδιάθετος, indwelling, set in, and existent in God. Lastly, | in the former passage, Theophilus, after he had said that the Word came down into the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and other subjects, n See what we have said in chap. 4. § 2. of this book [p. 422.] indwelling, and the Word put forth, is one and the same. 467 immediately subjoins these words; “For the prophets were soox mr. not in being when the world was created, but the Wis- ἫΣΖ 5. dom of God, which is in Him, [was in being,] and His Tuyropnr- Holy Word, who is ever present with Him.” Therefore, *”* according to Theophilus, the Word who came down into the prophets, (who was without doubt the Son of God,) was the same Word which from eternity was present with God the Father. Petavius, however, in order any how to establish his own conceit, observes that Theophilus interprets the former words of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the indwelling Word; but the latter, “and the Word was God, all things were made by Him,” of the λόγος προφορικὸς, the Word put forth. But Petavius groundlessly infers from this, that in the view of Theophilus, the Word put forth was another than the indwelling [Word.] For as John in both clauses of his sentence is manifestly treating of one and the same Word, so also does Theophilus interpret both clauses of the same Word, with this distinction only, that he understands [590] the former words, “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” of the Word existing from eternity with, and, as it were, quiescent in, the Father; but the latter, “The Word was God, all things were made by Him,” of the same Word, proceeding forth, as it were, from the Father to create the world; or, as Athenagoras expresses it, of the Word in operation!, or acting. Let the reader call to mind : τῷ λόγῳ what we have said above on Athenagoras. ihe Las 5. Fourthly, in the last place Theophilus clearly teaches that the Word was no ways divided or separated from God the Father, by that putting forth of which he speaks—as if prior to His being put forth, He existed within Him, and afterwards externally to Him—but that He subsists in the _ Father eternally. For, in the latter passage, he says that God the Father, after He had put forth His Word, was by no means “emptied of the Word ;” but that He “ evermore holds converse with His Word,” even as He had done from everlasting. And, in the former passage, he distinctly says, that the Son of God is “the Word evermore indwelling (διαπάντος ἐνδιάθετοΞ) set in the heart of God.” Now from all this it certainly follows, that by the putting forth or Hh2 ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 ἐνεργη- τικὴν. [091] 2 προελθὼν. 218 8 ἐπιβέβη- κεν. 4 γενητῶν. 5 ῥευστὴ. 6 θνητὴ. 468 (iv.) The generation he speaks of is a putting forth only in generation of the Word, Theophilus in this passage meant no other than [a putting forth] in active operation’, whereby, that is, God the Father put forth [exerted] the Almighty power of the Word, who subsists in Him from everlasting to ever- lasting, for the bringing into being all things out of nothing, and preserving® them in their being. For that active opera- tion of the Son or Word, which at the first went forth ad extra, to use the language of the schools, when God the Father willed, even now continues and will never cease. This going forth of the Word from the Father is beautifully set forth by Athanasius in his Oration against the heathen, in the following words’: “God,” he says, “is [self] existent and not compounded, wherefore His Word also is [self] existent and not compounded, but one and the only-begotten God, who also, having gone forth? from the Father, good as from a good fountain, sets in order and holds together all things. Now the cause for which the Word, the Word of God [1 mean |, hath come upon’ the things that are made, is truly wonderful, and evidences that it was not fitting that it should be done otherwise than as it is. For the nature of created. beings‘, inasmuch as it subsists out of what existed not, is unstable® and weak, and liable to dissolution®, when consi- dered in itself. But the God of all is good and of surpassing excellence in His nature; whence also He is full of loving- kindness towards man; for with a being that is good, no envy can exist as to any thing; hence neither does He envy any his being, but wishes all men to be, in order that He may be able also to exercise loving-kindness towards man. When ‘therefore He saw that all created nature, so far as it is con- 7 κατὰ τοὺς 3 » ἰδίους αὖ- τοῦ Adyous, 8 διαλυο- μένην. sidered in itself’, was unstable and on the way to pass into dissolution®, in order that this might not be the case, nor ° See Hebrews i. 2, 3. P ὃ Θεὸς dv ἐστι, καὶ od σύνθετος. διὸ καὶ ὃ τούτου λόγος ὧν ἐστι, καὶ οὐ. σύνθετος, ἄλλ᾽ εἷς καὶ μονογενὴς Θεὸς, 6 καὶ ἐκ Πατρὸς, οἷα πηγῆς ἀγαθῆς ἀγα- Os προελθὼν, τὰ πάντα διακοσμεῖ καὶ συνέχει. 7 δὲ αἰτία δι’ ἣν ὃ λόγος, ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, τοῖς γενομένοις ἐπιβέ- βηκεν, ἐστὶν ἀληθῶς θαυμαστὴ καὶ γνω- ρίζουσα, ὅτι οὐκ ἄλλως ἔπρεπεν, ἢ οὕτω γενέσθαι ὥσπερ καὶ ἐστί. τῶν μὲν γὰρ γενητῶν ἣ φύσις, ἅτε δὴ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑποστᾶσα, ῥευστῆ τις, καὶ ἀσθενὴς, καὶ θνητὴ, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν συγκρινομένη τυγ- χάνει. ὁ δὲ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς ἀγαθὸς καὶ ὑπέρκαλος τὴν φύσιν ἐστί" διὸ καὶ φι- λάνθρωπός ἐστιν. ἀγαθῷ γὰρ περὶ od- δενὸς ἂν γένοιτο φθόνος" ὅθεν οὐδὲ τὸ εἶναί τινι φθονεῖ, ἀλλὰ πάντας εἶναι βού- λεται, ἵνα καὶ φιλανθρωπεύεσθαι δύνη- ται. ὁρῶν οὖν τὴν γενητὴν πᾶσαν φύσιν, ὅσον κατὰ τοὺς ἰδίους αὐτῆς λόγους, ῥευ- στὴν οὖσαν καὶ διαλυομένην, ἵνα μὴ τοῦ- To πάθῃ, καὶ πάλιν εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ava- λυθῇ τὸ ὅλον, τούτου ἕνεκεν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἀϊδίῳ λόγῳ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα, καὶ operation, and is continuous ; illustrated from St. Athan. 469 the universe be again resolved into non-existence, on this soox τι. account, having by His own eternal Word made all things, age Te: and given substantive existence’ to the creation, He left Tyropur it not to be borne along and tempest tost? by its own nature, Vs lest it should be in danger [of falling back] again into non- ‘haat existence; but, as being good, He governs and stablishes καὶ χειμά- all things by His own Word, who Himself also is God; that Bits the creation being enlightened, by the guidance, and provi- dence, and disposal of the Word, might be able to continue firm.” Here you have the very expression, “having gone [592] forth’, which Athenagoras used in speaking of the same ὃ προελθὼν. subject. The same meaning however was expressed by The- ophilus, in the words “breathing forth*,’ and “ putting 4 ἐρεύγειν. forth®,” which, when referred to God the Father, signify ὃ προφέρειν. His sending forth the Word to create the universe. God the Father did, as it were, breathe forth, and put forth the Word; the Word Himself, on the other hand, went forth from the Father for the creation of all things. Now, as Theophilus said that the Word, notwithstanding that put- ting forth, continues evermore indwelling‘, set in the heart 6 ἐνδιάθε- of God, just in the same way Athanasius treats respect-7°* ing that going forth of the Word from the Father of which he is speaking’. For in the same passage, after some sen-7 sua, tences, he has these words’; ‘“‘ He Himself remaining un- moved with the Father, yet moving all things by His own arrangement, just as in each particular instance it seems good to His Father.” In conclusion, as Theophilus called [593] the putting forth of the Word His generation, so I have undertaken above to shew, that the Word is for the same reason called the First-born® by Athanasius, and other catho- 8 πρωτότο- lic fathers who wrote after the Nicene council; nor have I “” any doubt but that, if God will, I shall make good my pro- mise. Meanwhile, let this be sufficient in explanation of the _ opinions of Theophilus respecting the co-eternity of the Son. οὐσιώσας τὴν κτίσιν, οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὴν τῇ ἑαυτῆς φύσει φέρεσθαι καὶ χειμάζε- σθαι, ἵνα μὴ κινδυνεύσῃ πάλιν εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι" ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀγαθὸς τῷ ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ kal αὐτᾷ ὄντι Θεῷ τὴν σύμπασαν διακυ- βερνᾷ καὶ καθίστησιν" ἵνα τῇ τοῦ λόγου ἡγεμονίᾳ καὶ προνοίᾳ καὶ διακοσμήσει φωτιζομένη ἣ κτίσις βεβαίως διαμένειν duvnO7.—tom. i, p. 45. [ὃ 41. vol. i. p. 40. ] 4 αὐτὸς μὲν ἀκίνητος μένων παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ, πάντα δὲ κινῶν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ συστά- σει, ὡς ἂν ἕκαστον τῷ ἑαυτοῦ Πατρὶ δοκῇ.---». 46. [§ 42. p. 41.] THE SON. 1 219 ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF ὁ κόσμον ἐννοηθεὶς ἐποίησεν. 2 πολὺς multus, 3 sine ratione ἄλογος (λόγῳ), Lat. Vers. Bull. 4 τὼ πᾶν. [694] CHAPTER VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS THE MARTYR RESPECTING THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, AND THAT OF NOVATIAN, OR THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK CONCERNING THE TRINITY AMONG THE WORKS OF TERTULLIAN, DE- CLARED. ἢ 1. Tue views of the martyr St. Hippolytus have now to be explained by us in a few words. Sandius* affirms that he taught, that the Son began to exist a short time before the creation of the world. The passage, which I suppose San- dius had in view, occurs in the Homily respecting God, Three and One, and the Mystery of the Incarnation, against the heresy of Noetus*; where Hippolytus thus speaks; “God being alone in existence, and having nothing coeval with Him, was pleased to create the world; having con- ceived an idea of the world, having willed and spoken, He created it’; and immediately there was present with Him that which was brought into being as He willed. This, then, alone, is sufficient for us to know, that there existed - nothing coeval with God besides Himself. But He Him- self being alone was many’, for He was not without Reason [ἃ Word’,|] nor without Wisdom, nor without Power, nor without Counsellor. And all things were in Him, and He Himself was all*. When He willed, as He willed, He mani- -fested, in the times appointed with Himsélf, His Word, through whom He made all things. When He wills, He creates; when He conceives, He accomplishes; and when He speaks, He makes manifest; when He forms, He shews forth wisdom. [For all things that were made He contrives by His Word and Wisdom, creating them by His Word and * Enucl. H. E. i. p. 98. _* Deus solus cum esset, nihilque sibi cozvum haberet, voluit mundum efficere, et mundum cogitans, ac vo- lens, et dicens effecit; continuoque ex- titit ei factus, sicut voluit, perfecit.... Satis igitur nobis est scire solum, nihil esse Deo coevum. Nihil erat preter ipsum; ipse solus multus erat. Nec enim erat sine ratione, (&Aoyos,) sine sapientia, sine potentia, sine consilio. Omnia erant in eo, ipse erat omnia. Quando voluit, et quomodo voluit, os- tendit Verbum suum temporibus apud eum definitis, per quem omnia fecit. Qui cum vult facit; quando cogitat, perficit; quando loquitur, ostendit ; quando format, sapientiam edit. Fecit Passage speaking of a generation of the Word in time. 471 setting them in order by Wisdom.| He therefore made soox m1. [things that were made,] as He willed, for He was God. ἭΝ -~ But of the things which were made, He begat the Word to on be the Prince, and Counsellor, and Artificer ; and this Word, 7°* having within Himself, and invisible to the created world, He makes visible; uttering His voice first’, and begetting ! προτέραν Light of Light, He sent forth [Him] as Lord for the Crea- ὅν tion; His own Mind, who was before visible to Himself alone, and invisible to the created world; [Him] He makes visible, that through His appearing, the world, having beheld Him, might be saved. And thus there stood by Him Another: but when I say Another, I do not say [that there are] two Gods, but [I say that He is Another] as light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For the Power from the Whole is one?; the Whole however is the? δύναμις Father, from whom the Word is the Power ; and this [Word] 74? μία ἡ is the mind (or sense*), which, going forth in the world, was παντὸς. manifested [to be] the Son of God. All things, therefore, vo lve sen- are (made*) through Him, and He Himself alone is (be- sus, Lat. Vers. Bull 5 » Ε gotten’) of the Father. ‘facta, Lat Vers, Bull. τον : : Β 5 genitus igitur sicut voluit; Deus enim erat. σαι. 6 κόσμον ἐννοηθεὶς, θελήσας τε καὶ τῇ V ’ Eorum autem que facta sunt, ducem, φθεγξάμενος ἐποίησεν, ᾧ παραυτίκα πα- ay nape consiliarium, et operarium generabat Verbum; quod Verbum cum in se ha- beret, essetque mundo creato inaspec- tabile, fecit aspectabile, emittens prio- rem vocem, et lumen ex lumine gene- rans, deprompsit ipsi creature Domi- num, sensum suum: et qui prius ipsi tantum erat visibilis, mundo autem in- visibilis, hune visibilem facit, ut mun- dus, cum eum, qui apparuit, videret, salvus fieri posset. Atque ita adstitit ei alius. Cum alium dico, non duos Deos dico, sed tanquam Jumen ex lu- mine, et aquam ex fonte, aut radium a sole. Una enim virtus ex toto; totum vero Pater, ex quo virtus, Verbum; hoc vero mens, sive sensus, qui pro- diens in mundum ostensus est puer Dei. Omnia igitur per eum facta sunt, ipse solus ex Patre genitus. — Bibl. Patr., tom. xv. p.622. [The Greek is given by Fabricius in his edition, vol. ii, p. 13. c. 10. B.—It is now added, having been followed in the transla- tion, in which the words omitted in the Latin are within brackets. Θεὸς μόνος ὑπάρχων καὶ μηδὲν ἔχων ἑαυτῷ σύγχρονον, ἐβουλήθη κόσμον κτί- ρέστη τὸ γενόμενον ὡς ἠθέλησεν. αὐὖ- ταρκὲς οὖν ἡμῖν ἐστιν μόνον εἰδέναι ὅτι σύγχρονον Θεοῦ οὐδὲν, πλὴν αὐτὸς, ἦν. αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος dv πολὺς ἦν, οὔτε γὰρ ἄλογος, οὔτε ἄσοφος, οὔτε ἀδύνατος, οὔτε ἀβουλευτος ἦν. πάντα δὲ ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ" αὐτὸς δὲ ἣν τὸ πᾶν. ὅτε ἠθέλη- σεν, καθὼς ἠθέλησεν, ἔδειξε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καιροῖς ὡρισμένοις παρ᾽ αὐτῷ, δὲ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν. ὅτε μὲν θέλει, ποιεῖ, ὅτε δὲ ἐνθυμεῖται, τελεῖ, ὅτε δὲ φθέγγεται, δεικνύει, ὅτε πλάσσει, σο- φίζεται. πάντα γὰρ τὰ γενόμενα διὰ λόγου καὶ σοφίας τεχνάζι εται, λόγῳ μὲν κτίζων, σοφίᾳ δὲ κοσμῶν. ἐποίησεν οὖν ὡς ἠθέλησεν, Θεὸς γὰρ ἦν. τῶν δὲ γε- νομένων ἄρχηγον καὶ σύμβουλον καὶ ép- γάτην ἐγέννα λόγον, ὃν λόγον ἔ ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀόρατόν τε ὄντα τῷ κτιξομένῳ κόσμῳ, ὁρατὸν ποιεῖ, προτέραν φωνὴν φθεγγόμενος, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φώτος γεννῶν, προῆκεν τῇ κτίσει Κύριον, τὸν ἴδιον νοῦν, αὐτῷ μόνῳ πρότερον ὁρατὸν ὑ ὑπάρχοντα, τῷ δὲ γενομένῳ κόσμῳ ἀόρατον ὄντα, ὁρατὸν ποιεῖ, ὅπως διὰ τοῦ φανῆναι ἰδὼν ὃ κόσμος σωθῆναι δυνηθῇ. καὶ οὕτως παρ- ίστατο αὐτῷ ἕτερος. ἕτερον δὲ λέγων οὐ δυὸ Θεοὺς λέγω, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς φῶς ἐκ φω- 472 The generation spoken of not one whereby the Word began ον τ 9.1 own indeed that Hippolytus here attributes to the co-ETER- Word or Son of God a certain generation, immediately an- THE SON. tecedent to the creation of the world; but I altogether deny that Hippolytus is speaking of a generation properly so called, such, that is to say, as was a production of the Word, or by which the Word Himself, having had no previous exist- ence, began to exist. The whole context of Hippolytus is opposed to this imagination. For he teaches that,God was 1solum. in such sense alone! from eternity, as that at the same time 3 multum, he affirms that He was many’. But how? surely, because = God the Father never was without Reason [Word*], and ratione (τῷ Wisdom, that is, without the Son and the Holy Ghost; and, ate) Lae therefore, not without Counsel, inasmuch as He had Both as His Counsellors. I have no doubt that this is the genu- [595] ine meaning of those words of Hippolytus: “ Nothing ex- 4multus, isted besides Himself; He Himself being alone was many’, natnide for He was not without Reason [Word*,]|” (without doubt tione, Gr. Hippolytus had written in the Greek τῷ λόγῳ, “the Word,’’) ἄλογος. nor without Wisdom, nor without Counsellor.” For the very title of this Homily shews that Hippolytus acknowledged ‘Trina. that God is One and Many, that is, Three’; one in essence, three in Person. But Hippolytus designated by the name of Wisdom the third Person of the Godhead, after the example of Irenzus, (of whom he is said to have been a hearer,) and according to the custom of those times". Hippolytus then goes on to say that God begat the Word, which from eter- nity He had had within Himself. But how? “ Him,” he says, “ He manifested in the times appointed with Himself; Him He sent forth as Lord for the creation; Him, in fine, who before was known to Himself alone, He made visible to the world.” It follows that the generation of which Hip- Ν polytus is speaking, is not the production of the Word, but Se pean ει a shewing, bringing forth’, and manifestation of Him who from eternity was co-existent with the Father, such as had relation to created beings. So that the most blessed mar- T ds, ἢ ὡς ὕδωρ ἐκ πηγῆς, ἣ ὡς ἀκτῖνα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος ἐκ warpds. | ἀπὸ ἡλίου. δύναμις γὰρ μία ἣ ἐκ τοῦ " See above, book ii. chap. 4. ὃ 10. παντὸς, τὸ δὲ wav Πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ δύναμις [pp. 155, 156;] and chap. 5. § 7. [p. λόγος. οὗτος δὲ νοῦς ὃς προβὰς ἐν κό- 174.] σμῳ ἐδείκνυτο παῖς Θεοῦ. πάντα τοίνυν to exist ; clear from the context, and his other works. 473 tyr meant precisely the same as we have before shewn to soox πη. have been the teaching of Athenagoras*. ie tg 3. Indeed the very words of the passage quoted lead us fippory-. to understand Hippolytus in this sense; but his other TY writings absolutely compel us to it; for in them he de- 56 clares, in words written as with a sunbeam, the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father. Thus, in his short treatises against Bero and Helixy in the Collectanea of Anastasius the Librarian, fragment lx.; (which we have vindicated above from the cavils of Sandius and others’) [596] he attributes to the Son altogether the same divine nature as is in the Father, and the same properties; that is to say, “the being without beginning, uncreatedness, unbounded- ness, eternity, incomprehensibility ;” (Anastasius’ version is correct, though unclassical*). Huippolytus, therefore, held that the Son, equally with the Father, is without beginning and eternal. 4. Furthermore, there is still extant under the name of Hippolytus a short treatise on the End of the World, on Antichrist, and the Second Coming of Christ; which, if it be genuine, manifestly shews his orthodoxy on this article. Now Jerome, Catalog., c. 61°, expressly attests that Hip- polytus wrote a work on Antichrist and the- Resurrection. Photius also has given his testimony to the same work, (Bib- lioth., cod. 202,) where, after mentioning an interpretation of Daniel, published by Hippolytus, and marking it with his censure, he subjoins the following words*: “ We also read another treatise of his on Christ and Antichrist ; in which both the same kind of style and expression is conspicuous, and the thoughts are of simple and primitive character!.”’ There ! ἀρχαιό- are, however, amongst the moderns, certain learned men who *?°"*” deny this work to be by Hippolytus, confidently enough, but in my judgment, on very slender grounds; nay, such x Compare also the words of Justin διότητα, ἀκαταληψίαν, inprincipalita- Martyr, which we have before quoted tem, infactionem, infinitatem, sempi- in chap. 2 of this book, ὃ 2, near the ternitatem, incomprehensibilitatem, ut end, [p. 405.]—GRraBE. vere, licet barbare, vertit Anastasius. ] y Apud Anastasium Bibliothec. in > [vol. ii. p. 887. ] Ἶ Collect., fragm. lx. p. 228. [Hippol. “ συνανεγνώσθη αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕτερος λό- Op., vol. i. p. 229.] γος περὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀντιχρίστου" ἐν ᾧ z [See above, bookii. chap.8.§3—5. ἥτε αὐτὴ τῶν λόγων ἰδέα διαπρέπει, καὶ pp. 208, sqq. ] τὸ τῶν νοημάτων ἁπλούστερόν τε καὶ 8 [ἀναρχίαν, ἀγενησίαν, ἀπειρίαν, ἀϊ- ἀρχαιότροπον.---ἰ Phot, cod. 202. | ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [697] [698] 474 Work on Antichrist attributed to St. Hippolytus. as, if more accurately examined, militate against themselves. In the first place, the style of the Greek is displeasing to them, and the fact that the book begins with ἐπειδὴ yap4. This objection, however, Philip Labbe* justly derided as “a novel and unheard-of charge.” Indeed, besides that those who are acquainted with this kind of literature well know that it is vain to expect a very polished style of Greek from all the ecclesiastical writers in that language, Photius, who had read the undoubted writings of Hippolytus, expressly informs us (cod. 121‘) “that his style does not affect the Attic turn.” And in another passage (cod. 2028), he says, speaking again of the style of Hippolytus, “ He pays no great regard to the Attic rules.” Besides, these critics are offended that in this work there are to be found many vain conjec- tures about the birth and the life of Antichrist; for instance, that Antichrist will not be a man, but a demon endued with human form. But who knows not that the writers of those times taught many very absurd things about Anti- christ, as [they well might] on [so] obscure a subject? And of Hippolytus, Photius expressly testifies, in the codex last cited, that in his interpretation of Daniel, where he also treats of Antichrist®, “he states many things after the ancient fashion and not according to what was afterwards more accurately defined.” Nay, further, in speaking of this very work, on Antichrist, Photius in the same passage, as we have heard, notices that there is in it “a great simplicity and a primitive character of thought,” where τὸ ἀπλοῦν, “ sim- plicity,” is opposed as is usual with the Greeks, to τὸ axps- Bés, “accuracy.” Besides, it was the more usually received opinion of the doctors in the ancient Church, that Antichrist would be conceived by the evil spirit. Accordingly, this very thing was taught as an undoubted and settled point by the truly admirable St. Martin, [as recorded] in Sulpicius Severus, Dialog. ii. 16. And the author of the Treatise on Antichrist*, _4 [This is the argument of H. Gro- tius and And. Rivet.—B. ] 5 De Script. Eccles., tom. i. p. 471. t [τὴν δὲ φράσιν σαφής ἐστι καὶ ὑπό- σεμνος, καὶ ἀπέριττος, εἰ καὶ] πρὸς τὸν Ἀττικὸν οὐκ ἐπιστρέφεται λόγον. --- [cod. 121.1 ὃ τοὺς ᾿Αττικοὺς ὄντι [ qu. οὔτι) μάλα θεσμοὺς δυσωπεῖται.----[οο. 202. h πολλὰ ἀρχαιοτρόπως, καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸ ὕστερον διηκριβωμένον, καταλέγει. ---- [ Ibid. ] i [ τε αὐτὴ τῶν λόγων ἰδέα διαπρέ- πει, καὶ] τὸ τῶν νοημάτων ἁπλούστερόν τε καὶ ἀρχαιότροπον.---ἶ Ibid. ] * Diabolus simul introibit in uterum Objection to its genuineness, replied to. 475 in Augustine, writes thus of the conception of Antichrist; soox m1. “The devil will at the same time enter into the womb of his λει τὴ mother, and will fill her wholly, encompass her wholly, hold Hpoiy- her wholly, and possess her wholly, within and without.” Tvs. What shall we say to the fact’ that Irenzus (of whom, as! quid? has been said, Hippolytus is reported to have been a hearer) aes τῷ delivered the same opinion? For he makes the following &c. statements concerning Antichrist, book v. 25'; ‘ For he shall come, receiving all the power of the devil, not as a just king, nor as a lawful one in subjection to God; but im- pious, and unjust, and without law, as an apostate, and unrighteous, and a murderer,.as a thief, summing up in himself’ the apostasy of the devil’ These things, there- ? in se re- fore, afford no slight proof that this is a genuine treatise P77 of Hippolytus. Lastly, they object that the writer affirms that the souls of men existed from all eternity®; which ὃ aszculis. was an invention of Origen’s. But even from this I seize on an argument of no small weight, to prove that Hip- polytus is really the author of the book. For that Origen was at one time a hearer of Hippolytus, is certain from Jerome™, who says that Hippolytus himself in a certain homily “intimates that he is speaking in the Church, in the presence of Origen.” It is no wonder, therefore, if Hippolytus and Origen had some opinions in common. But the ancient ecclesiastical writers have also with great unanimity handed down that Hippolytus was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. Now it appears from Strom., book i., and more clearly from book iii., as Huet also has observed, that Clement favoured that doctrine of Plato re- specting the pre-existence of the soul. From this Clement, 221 therefore, Hippolytus and Origen, who both were his disci- ples, (although Hippolytus was the senior in that school,) [599] alike derived that dogma. ‘To say all then in one word; matris ejus,...et totam eam replebit, legitimus; sed impius, et injustus, et totam circumdabit, totam tenebit, et totam interius exteriusque possidebit. [This treatise some ascribe to Alcuin, others to Rabanus Maurus. See Au- gust. Op. Append, vol. vi. pp. 242, 243.—B. | 1 Tle enim omnem suscipiens dia- boli} virtutem, veniet non quasi rex justus, nec quasi in subjectione Dei sine lege, quasi apostata, et iniquus, et homicida, quasi latro, diabolicam apostasiam in se recapitulans.—[§ 1, p- 322. ] m Catal., c. 61. [wposomAtay de laude Domini Salvatoris, in qua, ] presente Origene, se loqui in Ecclesia significat. [vol. ii, p. 887. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. τ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων. 3 ἀναρχίαν. [600] 8 γενόμενος ἀνάρχως. Nova- TIAN. 476 Extract from the treatise on Antichrist. every thing in the treatise on Antichrist does so well agree with Hippolytus, that, even if the title did not intimate it, those of keener perception might easily of themselves dis- cern that it was really the production of Hippolytus™, © ) 5. Let us now hear out of this book a most express tes- timony to the co-eternity of the Son. In it then Hip- polytus introduces the saints thus addressing the Lord Christ® in the last judgment; “Terrible One, when saw we Thee naked, and clothed Thee? Immortal One, when saw we Thee a stranger and took Thee in? Thou Lover of man, when saw we Thee sick or in prison and came unto Thee? ‘Thou art the ever existing: Thou art He that with the Father hast no beginning, and with the Spirit art co- eternal: Thou art He, that out of nothing!’ hast created all things!’ Here you see that Hippolytus expressly attributes to the Son also the same [property to be] without begin- ning’, which the Father has; just as in the fragments in Anastasius, and by Hippolytus’ master, Clement? of Alex- andria, the Lord Christ is declared to have been made with- out beginning’. You may also observe in this passage the full and perfect Trinity described, namely, Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, co-existent from eter- nity. It is, therefore, manifest that Hippolytus, however he might have entertained wild notions in other respects, was perfectly free from those of Arius. 6. Of the Antenicene fathers, whom we mentioned, as appearing to deny the eternity of the Son, ‘when in reality they did not deny it, there now remains but one, Novatian, or the author of the treatise on the Trinity published among the works of Tertullian. As this author is of no great au- thority in the Church, there is no need that we trouble our- © selves much about him. Let us, however, hear what he has " [Nearly all critics are now agreed that this treatise, De Consummatione mundi et de Antichristo, §e., must ab- solutely be decided not to be a work of Hippolytus, (see his works, vol. i. Ap- pend., p. 3;) and that what Jerome and Photius attest, that a book, On Antichrist, was really written by Hip- polytus, must be understood of another treatise, which has been published by Fabricius, vol. i. p. 4, &c., and which excites no doubts as to its real au- thor.—B. ] ° φοβερὲ, πότε σε ἴδομεν γυμνὸν, καὶ περιεβάλομεν ; ἀθάνατε, πότε σε ἴδομεν ξένον, καὶ συνηγάγομεν ; φιλάνθρωπε, πότε σε ἴδομεν ἀσθενῆ ἢ ἐν φυλακῇ, καὶ ἤλθομεν πρὸς σέ; σὺ εἶ ὃ del Sv" σὺ εἶ ὃ συνάναρχος τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ συναΐδιος τῷ πνεύματι: σὺ εἶ 6 ἐκ μὴ ὄντων τὰ πάντα ποιήσαΞ.---Β10]. Patr., tom. xii. p. 605. [vol. i. Append., p. 26. ὃ 43. ] P [See above, ch. 2. § 6. p- 409, notes f, g. | / Novatian on the generation of the Son. 477 written on this subject in chap. 31 of his book on the Trinity. Βοοκ m1. In that place, then, after speaking of God the Father, he Ἵν subjoins these words respecting the Son of God4: “ΟΥΝονα. whom,” (that is of God the Father,) “when He Himself *4*- willed, the Word, the Son, was born; who is not taken in [the sense οἵ] a sound of stricken air, or a tone of voice forced from the lungs; but is acknowledged in [the sense of] the substance of a power put forth by God. The secrets of His sacred and divine nativity neither apostle hath learned, nor prophet ascertained, nor angel perceived, nor creature known; to the Son alone are they known, who knows the secrets of the Father. He, therefore, being begotten of the Father, is always in the Father; I say ‘always,’ however, in such sense as to shew that He was not unborn but born. Yet He who is before all time, must be said to have been always in the Father. For time cannot be assigned to Him who is before all time. For He is always in the Father, lest the Father be not always the Father. Since also the Father in a certain sense is antecedent to Him, because it is neces- sary that He should be in some sort prior, in that He is the Father ; since He who knows no origin must needs be in some way antecedent to Him who has an origin.’ After a few words there follow; ‘‘ He, therefore, when the Father willed, proceeded from the Father ; both He, who was in the Father, proceeded from the Father; and He who was in the Father, because He was from the Father, was afterwards with the Father, because He proceeded from the Father, that is to say, that Divine Substance, whose name is the Word, through whom all things were made and without whom [601] 4 Ex quo, (Deo Patre,) quando ipse qui ante tempus est. Semper enim in voluit, Sermo Filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aéris, aut tono coacte de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolate a Deo virtutis ag- noscitur. Cujus sacre et divine na- tivitatis arcana nec apostolus didicit, nec prophetes comperit, nec angelus scivit, nec creatura cognovit; Filio soli nota sunt, qui Patris secreta cognovit. Hic ergo cum sit genitus a Patre, sem- per est in Patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum, sed natum pro- bem. Sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in Patre fuisse dicendus est. Nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, Patre, ne Pater non semper sit Pater. Quia et Pater illum etiam quadam ra- tione precedit, quod necesse est quo- dammodo prior sit, qua Pater sit. Quo- niam aliquo pacto antecedat necesse est eum qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit.... Hic ergo, quando Pater voluit, processit ex Patre; et qui in Patre fuit, processit ex Patre; et qui in Patre fuit, quia ex Patre fuit, cum Patre postmodum fuit, quia ex Patre processit; substantia scilicet illa di- vina, cujus nomen est Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, et sine quo fac- tum est nihil.—[p. 729. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [602] 222 478 Novatian asserts that the Son always existed in the Father; nothing was made.” This writer, whoever he was, does in- deed express himself in a most perplexed manner ; but still he not obscurely makes such statements, as to shew that his view was the same as that of the writers whom we have just before mentioned. | 7. He says that the Son was in a certain sense born from some beginning. But, in the first place, he calls that na- tivity a procession (mpoédevots, a going forth), as’ Athena- goras called it, a going forth and a procession of One who was in the Father before He proceeded from the Father; moreover, a procession of One who was in such wise always in the Father as that we must on that account say posi- tively that the Father has always been a Father, and con- sequently He Himself always a Son. His words are clear; “He, therefore, being begotten of the Father, is always in the Father ;”’? and, “for He is always in the Father, lest the Father be not always a Father;” and, again, “ He who was in the Father proceeded from the Father.” ‘The procession, therefore, of which the author is speaking, does not hinder but that the Father has always, and:so before that procession, been a Father, and in consequence, the Son always a Son; but Father and Son necessarily make two persons. In the second place, he expressly says, that, “the Son was before all time,” as also a little after in the same chapter, he says’, “ He who received the beginning of His nativity before all time from Him who hath no origin.” By time, however, the author did not at all understand that succession of moments which begins and is measured from the motion of the heavenly bodies; nor consequently did he mean to say merely, that the Son was before all time, be- cause He proceeded from the Father before every creature, and therefore before the sun, and moon, and other lights of heaven ; but when he says, that the Son was before all time, he attributes to Him a duration which has neither begin- ning nor end. For it is manifestly in this sense that he asserts that the Son existed before all time, because even before His very procession from the Father, and always, He was in the Father; and that in such sense as that r Qui €x 60 qui originem non habet, principium nativitatis ante omne tempus accepit.—[p. 730.] he held a twofold nativity, eternal and also in time. 479 the Father even then and always was a Father, and Him- soox 11. self consequently a Son, as has been just now observed. ge 6, δὰ Hence, he does not say, (observe') that the Son proceeded Nova. from the Father, but that He was (that is to say, [was] ΤΊΑΝ. in the Father), before all time. For he places the pro- ic cession of the Son, of which he is speaking, in time, but His existence before all time. But yet, you will say, he asserts that the Son received the beginning of nativity from the Father before all time; and he calls the proces- sion of the Son His nativity. I answer, that this author, together with Tertullian, whom he almost always follows, seems to lay down a twofold nativity of the Son, m that He is God; one, whereby He existed from eternity in God the Father and from Him, as the co-eternal offspring of the eternal Mind; the other, that whereby He went forth from God the Father when He willed, to create the world, and that going forth of His this author, following Tertullian, calls a procession. For, as he says that the Son by reason of this procession was in a certain sense born, so did he ac- knowledge another nativity of the Son prior to that, a [nativity] true, and properly so called, and so eternal. © This I gather from those words; “ He, therefore, being be- gotten of the Father, is always in the Father; I say al- ways, however, in such sense as to shew that He was not unborn but born;” and again; “ For He is always in the Father, lest the Father be not always a Father.” Now, that the Son always was in the Father, he affirms im this sense (as I have already observed), that He was in the Father before His procession ; which is clear from the words which presently follow; “He who was in the Father pro- ceeded from the Father.” From which I infer that according [603] to our author, the Son, even so far forth as He existed in the Father, before His procession and always, was born of the Father, and was His Son. For when He says that the Son was always in the Father, even before His procession, not as unborn but as born, he shews that the Son was born even before His procession. And when he proves that the Son always, even before His procession, was in the Father, on this ground, that otherwise the Father would not always have been a Father; he manifestly intimates that, even ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. μ5:....... ὄὍὄὅϑδδ συ με ς 1 cum voce. [604] 480 The Father anterior to the Son in causation, not in time. before the procession of the Son, the Father was always a Father; which surely He could not have been, without a Son born of Him. And this very thing the author seems also to teach a little further on in the same chapter, where he thus writes’; ‘“‘ Whatsoever He (the Son) is, He is not of Himself, because neither is He unborn, but He is of the Father, because He is begotten ; whether as He is the Word, or as He is Power, or as He is Wisdom, or as He is Light, or as He is the Son.” The meaning of this is; the Son of God, whatever notion you conceive of Him, is of God the Father and begotten of Him; therefore He is begotten of the Father, not merely in that He is the Word of God, put forth, that is to say, with vocal utterance! in the beginning of the world,.(in the sense in which, as we shall by and by see, the author ex- plains himself in another passage,) but even in that He is the Wisdom of God, such as it was eternally. Now he says that the Son received of the Father the beginning of His first nativity before all time; but not so that of the latter. Consult by all means what we have said below upon Ter- tullian. This, however, seems to be contradicted by those — words, “ Because the Father also is in a certain sense antecedent to Him.” But there the author means the antecedence not of time but of origin. This he intimates clearly enough, when he subjoins, “ because it is necessary that He should be in some sort prior, in that He is the Father ; since He who knows no origin must needs be in some way antecedent to Him who has an origin.” Upon which words Pamelius rightly makes this note; “ From this it is certain that when he says the Father precedes, is prior, and antecedent to [the Son,] he simply means this, as he subjoins, ΓΝ THAT Hu 1s THE Farner.” And thus does Pe- tavius himself understand Novatian, De Trinit. ii. 2, 17, and we: 15 1 8. But I candidly confess that this passage of the author admits of being explained in another way, so that even the procession, of which he is speaking, should be understood of the eternal nativity of the Son from the Father; an expla- * Quicquid est [Filius], non ex se bum est, sive dum virtus est, sive dum est, quia nec innatus est, sed ex Patre sapientia est, sive dum lux est, sive est, quia genitus est; sive dum Ver- dum Filius est.—[Ibid., p. 730.] Or, it may be understood of the Eternal Generation. 481 nation which Pamelius and others adopt. And according to soox m. this interpretation, when the Son is said to be born of the “’7" "9" Father when He willed, that willing of the Father must be ον). understood to have been eternal. And then these words, 74. “ He, therefore, being begotten of the Father, is always in the Father; I say, always, however, in such sense as to shew that He was not unborn but born”... “because also the Father in a certain sense is antecedent to Him,” &c., must be thus explained: the Son, although He is begotten of the Father, is yet co-eternal with the Father; yet is He not in ‘such sense co-eternal with the Father as to be unborn, like the Father, but He derives His origin from the Father; in which respect the Father is antecedent to Him, and prior to Him, seeing that He who begets is, in our way of viewing!’ ratione. and conception, prior to Him whom He Himself has begotten. Lastly, the words, ‘He who was in the Father proceeded from the Father,’ must be thus explained: He who pro- ceeded from the Father must be conceived by the mind?’ to ? ratione. have existed in the Father before He proceeded from the Father ; although, as He was eternally in the Father, so from eternity did He proceed from the Father. But I think the former explanation preferable, both for other reasons, and especially because it is more in conformity with the notions of Tertullian, which the author has almost every where ex- pressed. But in whatever way you explain the procession, {still,] inasmuch as the author expressly teaches that the Son was in the Father always, before any time which can be assigned or conceived, and that in such sense as that the [605] Father has always been a Father; and accounts it a mani- fest absurdity [to suppose] that the Father has not always been a Father; it is most certain that he altogether shrunk from the Arian blasphemy respecting the Son of God, “ there _was a time when He was not.” 9. And in order that this may appear still more clearly, 228 it should be especially observed, that this author expressly says that the Son in such wise proceeded from the Father, as that He was equally* in the Father, as well before as after 8 pariter. that procession. These are his own words; “ He, therefore, when the Father willed, proceeded from the Father; He who was in the Father proceéded from the Father; and He BULI, 1i ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, 1 ex. 3 eructavit cor meum verbum bonum. [606] 8 otiose. 482 The Son was in the Father alike before and after Mis who was in the Father, because He was from the Father, was afterwards with the Father, because He proceeded from the Father ; that is to say, that Divine Substance, whose name is the Word, through whom all things were made.” And here we must in the first place observe the reasoning by which this author proves that the Son, as well before as after the procession of which he is speaking, was in the Father, and so was eternal. ‘“ He was in the Father,” he says, “ because He was from’ the Father ; and again, “ He was afterwards with the Father, beeause He proceeded from the Father.” For, it seems, he reasons thus; whatsoever is of God Himself is co-eternal with God Himself; as It was in God from eternity, so will It abide in Him to eternity; inasmuch as the divine essence and nature is always the same and unchangeable. Hence also in a preceding chapter (c. 23) he proves that the Son was not made, but was eternal with God, from this, that He proceeded from Godt; “If “Christ,” he says, ‘‘ be merely man, how is it that He says, ‘I came forth from God, and am come,’ since it is certain that man was made by God, and did not proceed from God? But ina manner in which man did not proceed from God, in such wise did the Word of God proceed, of whom it is said, ‘My heart hath breathed forth a good Word’; which, since it is of God, is also justly [believed to be] with God; and which, because it was not put forth to no purpose’, is justly [believed to be] Maker of all things.” Here the ex- pression ‘to proceed (or come forth) from God,’ which He attributes to the Word, he manifestly contrasts with ‘to be made, which is applicable to men and to all other created beings; now that is said to be made, which, when before it was not, has received from another that it should be and ‘ut esset et exist*, According to our author, therefore, the Word which existeret. 5 apud, 8 in. proceeded from the Father, and, because He proceeded from the Father, never was not in being. By the same reasoning he proves that the Word is and abides with® God, that is, in* t Si homo tantummodo Christus, quo dictum est, Eruetavit cor meum quomodo dicit, Ego ex Deo prodii et Verbum bonum; quod quoniam ex Deo vent; cum consiet hominem a Deo fac- est, merito et apud Deum est; quod- tum esse, non ex Deo processisse? Ex que quia non otiose prolatum est, me- Deo autem homo quomodo non pro- __rito omnia facit.—[p. 721.] cessit, sic Dei Verbum processit, de going forth. That which is in God, is in Him eternally. 483 God, eternally, because, I mean, He is from’ God. “ Since,” soox u1. he says, “He is from® God, He is also justly [believed to be] “"4°9"""" with God.” In short, this is the meaning of the author; —— that which is and has proceeded from God, cannot be made, ° TIAN, but has always been in God; and that which has proceeded , © as from God, always is, and will be, with God; or, in other ~ words, whatsoever is and has proceeded from God Himself, has been in God Himself; but whatsoever has been in God Himself has always been and will always be in Him. Of this reasoning, as [ have said, the foundation is, the eternity and unchangeableness of the divine nature. But I could wish the reader to pause*® with me awhile on these words ; ὃ hereat. ‘And which (Word,) because it was not put forth to no purpose, is justly [believed to be] Maker of all things ;” where the author seems to have meant that the Word, which always was in God, was put forth from God at a certain time, almost like a human word, which being first conceived in the heart is then put forth by the tongue. But to what purpose was the Word of God put forth? Not without pur- pose, he says, not in vain; but that He might make all things. That Divine Substance, therefore, whose name is the Word, (to use our author’s expressions,) always was with God; but according to this author, He was not the Word (Verbum, sive Sermo) of God before He was put forth from God with that Almighty Fiar by which this universe was created. Nor yet was [that substance] so put forth from God at that time, as not always to remain with God and in God. You will understand this better when we come to [607] Tertullian, whom our author, as it were, aped. Meanwhile let us proceed to other points. 224 ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. } progres- sionem. CHAPTER IX. ry sata THE THIRD PROPOSITION STATED, RESPECTING THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON ; IN WHICH THE VIEW OF THOSE ANTENICENE FATHERS WHO HAVE BEEN TREATED OF IN THE FOUR PRECEDING CHAPTERS, IS MORE FULLY ILLUSTRATED BY TESTIMONIES OF CATHOLIC DOCTORS WHO LIVED ΑΥ̓͂ΤΕ THE RISE OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 1. In the four chapters immediately preceding, we have laid open the views of certain Antenicene fathers, which, although they seem to be repugnant to the approved and received doctrine of the primitive Church respecting the co- eternity of the Son, are yet in no way really repugnant to it. In the present chapter, in order that a clearer light may be thrown on what we have already said, we propose to demonstrate the following proposition. PROPOSITION III. Certam Catholic Doctors, who lived after the rise of the Arian controversy, and resolutely opposed themselves to the heresy of the Arian fanatics, did not shrink from the view of the primitive fathers, whom we last mentioned, or rather the mode in which they explained their view. For they them- selves also acknowledged that going forth! of the Word, who existed always with God the Father, from the Father, (which some of them also called His συγκατάβασις, that is, His con- descension,) in order to create this universe; and confessed that, with respect to that going forth also, the Word Him- self was, as it were, born of God the Father, and is in the [Col.i.15.] Scriptures called the First-born of every creature. [608] 2. This proposition receives no obscure confirmation from the anathema of the Nicene Creed itself, in which the holy fathers condemn the Arians for teaching concerning the Son of God", that “there was a time when He was not, and before He was begotten He was not.” Often before now " ἣν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, οὐκ ἦν.---ἰ 866 above, p. 13.] Meaning of the words, ‘ Before He was begotten He was not.’ 485 (frankly to confess the truth) has wonder arisen in my mind, βοοκ m1. as to what the Arians meant by that saying of theirs, “The “fj? 3" Son before He was begotten was not.” That it is not to be ae explained of the nativity of Christ of the most Blessed Vir- gin, is clear; for the Arians never denied that the Son of God was in being before [His birth of] Mary; nay, they always of themselves confessed that He existed before the creation of the world ; they are speaking, therefore, of a nativ- ity of the Son which preceded the creation of this universe. What then, I ask, is the meaning of this saying,—‘ The Son was not, or existed not, before He was begotten of the Father, antecedently to the creation of the world?” I have indeed now no doubt whatever, that this statement of the Arians was made in opposition to the view of those Catholics, who taught that the Son, indeed, a little before the creation of the world, proceeded forth in a certain inexplicable manner from the Father, for the creation of the universe; and that in respect of this going forth also, He is called in Scripture the Son of God, and, the First-born; but that He did not then first begin to be, but had always existed with the Father as His Word, and so as the co-eternal offspring of the eternal mind. As many of the fathers who were present at the Nicene council had eagerly embraced this explanation of the doctrine, and the rest were well aware that there was a catholic sense contained in it, they all with one consent condemned the Arians who condemned it. 3. Eusebius, indeed, in an Epistle to his church, pre- served in Theodoret, towards the conclusion, adduces both [609] the interpretation which I have rejected, as his own, and another by Constantine*; “Moreover also,” he says, “it was not thought unreasonable that the proposition, ‘ Before He was begotten He was not,’ should be anathematized, because it is indeed acknowledged by all that He was the Son of God, even before His generation after the flesh. And al- 1 Ὁ λόγῳ ready our emperor most dear to God was establishing! by sag argument His being before all ages, even in respect of His ~ 995 ΣΧ ἔτι μὴν τὸ ἀναθεματίξεσθαι τὸ, Πρὸ κατὰ σάρκα γεννήσεως. ἤδη δὲ ὃ θεοφι- τοῦ γεννηθῆναι, οὐκ ἦν, οὐκ ἄτόν)ν ὁ ἐνο- λέστατος ἡμῶν βασιλεὺς τῷ λόγῳ κατε- μίσθη, τῷ παρὰ πᾶσι μὲν ὁμολογεῖσθαι, σκεύαζε, καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἔνθεον αὐτοῦ γέν- εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ τῆς νησιν τὸ πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων εἶναι αὐτόν" 486 Two explanations in a passage attributed to Eusebius ; ox tue divine generation, seeing that even before He was actually’ cerry or Degotten, He was virtually? in being in the Father, in a man- rue son. ner unbegotten®; the Father being always a Father, as also 1 ἐνεργείᾳ. always a King and Saviour, and being all things virtually, Lee and ever existing in the same respects and in the same sere manner4” But this passage appears to be spurious, and to Jae have been inserted in Eusebius’ epistle by some impostor, ratione. (if would seem an Arian.) For in the first place, the whole Pi ων μενον of this passage is wanting in Socrates, an historian of the ὡσαύτως greatest credit, and earlier than Theodoret ; nor is it found in i Epiphanius Scholasticus. In the next place, although two interpretations of the words of the Nicene Creed are stated here, yet both are simply absurd and foolish, and unworthy of so very learned a man as Eusebius; whilst the latter ex- planation, (which the writer of the passage delivers as Con- stantine’s, not without a tacit approbation of it,) namely, 5 potentia. that the Son was in being virtually® in the’ Father before 6 ex, He actually came into existence from® the Father, is not only absurd, but even heretical, and utterly overthrows the [610] eternity of the Son. For all created beings also, before they were produced actually, were virtually in being in God; yet are they not on that account said to be eter- nal. But it is abundantly evident from all his writings, that Eusebius always acknowledged the actual subsistence (as they express it) of the Son of God from eternity, hold- ing, as he did, most closely to the teaching of Origen. Hence Socrates speaks thus with confidence of the ac- cusers of Eusebius’; “ For they cannot shew,” he says, ‘that Eusebius attributes a beginning of existence to the " καταχρώ- Son of God, although they find him using’ in‘ his writings bic tothe ‘he expressions which belong to the economy*.” I may μα ὃν. here remark, in passing, that in these words Socrates also ’ indicates one, and that not the least, of the causes from which persons in general have regarded Eusebius as an Arian, although in other respects, in his writings, he ἐπεὶ καὶ πρὶν ἐνεργείᾳ γεννηθῆναι, δυνά- Υ οὔτε γὰρ ἔχουσι δεῖξαι, ὅτι Εὐσέ- μει ἦν ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ ἀγεννήτως, ὄντος Bios ἀρχὴν τῆς ὑπάρξεως δίδωσι τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀεὶ Πατρὸς, ὧς καὶ βασι- τοῦ Θεοῦ, κἂν ταῖς τῆς οἰκονομίας λέξε- λέως Gel καὶ σωτῆρος, καὶ δυνάμει πάντα σιν ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις εὑρίσκουσιν αὐτὸν ὄντος, ἀεί τε καὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ᾧ- καταχρώμενον.--- ἘΠ ο01. Hist, ii. 21, near σαύτως €xovros.—Eccl, Hist. i, 12. the end. [p. 40. ] _ (Eusebius not an Arian ; improbability of the statements ;) 487 throughout acknowledges the true and eternal divinity of soox m1. the Son. For in his works he so urges against the Sabel- weer lians, of whom he was a most energetic opponent, and re- peats and inculcates again and again, till one is almost weary of them, those things which relate to the economy of the Son, (and, I add, to His subordination to the Father as His author and principle,) that he appears to have slipped into the opposite impiety of Arius, from which in fact he was always far removed. And this every one will acknow- ledge to be most true who shall study the writings of Huse- bius with care, and in an uncontroversial temper; and, if he be careful to observe this, he will also be able to give a ready answer to all those passages, which Petavius, on the Trinity, book i. 6. 11, has largely heaped together to prove that Eusebius was an Arian. Accordingly, Eusebius him- self, im an Apology which he sent to all the orthodox bishops, openly professed (as Gelasius Cyzicenus, on the [611] Nicene Council, book ii. ch. 1, relates) that if he had ever put forth or written anything which savoured ever so little of the doctrine of Arius, he had put it forth and written it’, “ not according to his (Arius’) impious notion, but through a eareless and unguarded! simplicity,’ being wholly intent, ' ἀπερεέρ- that is, on attacking the Sabellian heresy. But I return 7” to the point from which I have slightly digressed. Fur- ther, what person in his senses can believe that the Em- peror Constantine openly established that interpretation by argument in the council of Nice, and that consequently he wished the words of the anathema to be received in that sense? Certainly the council of Nice would have ef- fected nothing against the Arians by their anathema, if they had allowed the terms of it to be understood and subscribed to in such a sense. Nay, the fathers would have openly gone over into the Arian camp, if they had admitted this meaning, that the Son of God had existed from eter- nity, not actually, but only virtually*. For the doctrine of the consubstantiality, as sanctioned by those fathers, would have been of no service at all to the catholic cause, ov μὴν κατὰ Thy ἀσεβῆ ἐκείνου ἔν- adopted by Theognis, a thorough-paced νοιαν, GAN ἐξ ἀπεριέργου ἁπλότητος. Arian, according to Philostorgius, Hist. [Gelas. Cyz. de Syn. Nic.,lib.ii.¢c.1.] eel. ii. 15. ἃ Indeed this very interpretation was ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [612] 226 1 epilogi. 488 It seems interpolated, yet in part known to St. Athanasius. seeing that the true divinity of the Son cannot stand with-. out His eternity. Some one perhaps may say, that Constan- tine argued for that particular meaning for the sake of the Arian bishops who were present at the council, and that they accordingly subscribed to the anathema as thus explained, but that the far greater part of the council protested, and resolutely maintained the true and catholic sense. This idea, however, is inconsistent with the express testimony of Eusebius himself, in his undoubted work, the Life of Con- stantine, iii. 18, where he says that the bishops of the coun- cil were at length, by the influence of Constantine, made” “of one mind and of one consent on all the controverted points ;” that is, that, at least as far as profession went, they embraced the same meaning in every particular. Last- ly, whoever will attentively read what goes before in Euse- bius’ epistle, will readily perceive that the passage in ques- tion does not well agree with it. For in that place Kusebius manifestly appears to have said all that he had to say on the subject of the anathema; and, consequently, to have quite finished his explanation of the Nicene Creed. The addi- tional matter therefore which is subjoined, [treating] again of this same anathema, down to the conclusion! of the epi- stle, appears to have been attached to it by another hand. Nevertheless, that the former part of this passage was extant in the epistle of Eusebius, even in the time of Athanasius, is gathered, not obscurely, from his words respecting Eusebius, and that epistle of his, in his book on the Decrees of the council of Nice; where, after stating that Eusebius, in an epistle to the Church of Czsarea, had declared his agree- ment on the consubstantiality, and thus had openly confessed that he and his party had previously been in error, he adds‘, “And he fell into a difficulty; for, as if excusing himself, he went on to charge the Arians, because, having made the statement, ‘the Son was not before He was begotten,’ they would not allow that He was in being, not even before His birth after the flesh.” In these words it » ὁμογνώμονας καὶ ὁμοδόξους αὐτοὺς ρειανῶν, ὅτι γράψαντες, οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀμφισβητουμένοις ἅπασι κατε- πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, οὐκ ἤθελον αὐτὸν εἶναι orhoaro.—| Vit Const. iii. 13. ] οὐδὲ mpd τῆς κατὰ σάρκα γενέσεω-.--- καὶ πέπονθέ τι δεινόν" ὡς γὰρ ἄπο- Ὁ. 251. [§ 8. νο]. ἱ. p. 211.] λογούμενος κατηγόρησε λοιπὸν τῶν ’A- Evidence for Bp. Bull’s interpretation of the clause, 489 must be clear to any one that Athanasius glances at and βοοκ τ" notes as absurd, the interpretation of Eusebius which is con- "93,4 tained in the very beginning of this passage. And this he also does in his treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia*. But there will be no absurdity in it, if we say that Athanasius himself might have been deceived by some interpolated copy of Eusebius’ epistle, such as Theodoret afterwards followed. Although in neither of the passages [613] which we have cited, nor in any other place, so far as I remember, does Athanasius touch on that latter heretical interpretation; which he certainly would not (I think) have passed over in silence, if he had met with it in the epistle of Eusebius. Let the learned, however, judge of these points. This is most certain, that, whether Eusebius himself or some other be the author of that passage, both the explanations contained in it are utterly alien from the meaning of the Arians on the one hand, who alleged “that the Son of God was not before He was begotten,” and of the Nicene fathers on the other, who anathematized the Arians for making that statement. 4. But that our interpretation is the true one is clear from the epistle of the Arian presbyters and deacons to the bishop of Alexandria, written before the council of Nice, which is extant in Athanasius and Hilary’. In it these Arians reckon amongst the heterodox such as said of the Son‘, that “He who was before!, was afterwards begotten ! τὸν ὄντα [so as to be] a Son.” They then go on to explain their” Print own view in opposition to this assertion, in the following manner’; “God indeed, being the cause’ of all things, is? αἴτιος. alone® [in an absolute sense] without beginning; but the * μονώτα- Son, having been begotten by the Father independently of oo time, and created and founded before the worlds, was Not BEFORE He was BEGOTTEN, but having been begotten before all things independently of time, He alone subsisted* by the Father. For neither is He eternal, or co-eternal, or co- ὑπέστη. ~ 4 p. 882. [p. 727.]' χάνων ἔστιν ἄναρχος μονώτατος" ὃ δὲ € Athan. de Synod. Arim. and Se- υἱὸς ἀχρόνως γεννηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, leuc., p. 885. [ὃ 16. pp. 729-30.] Hilar. καὶ πρὸ αἰώνων κτισθεὶς καὶ θεμελιωθεὶς, de Trin. iv. 36. [ὃ 12. p. 883. ] ove ἢν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι, ἀλλ᾽ axpd- { τὸν ὄντα πρότερον, ὕστερον yevyn- νῶὼς πρὸ πάντων γεννηθεὶς, μόνος ὑπὸ θέντα εἰς υἱόν.----ἰ Athan. ibid., p. 729.] τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπέστη. οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἀΐ- & 6 μὲν Θεὸς αἴτιος τῶν πάντων τυγ- διος, ἢ συναΐδιος, ἢ συναγένητος τῷ Πα- ON THE CO- ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 συναγέ- νητος. 2 ἅμα. 3. μονας. [614] [616] 227 490 i. From the express statement of the Arians ; ingenerate! with the Father; neither has He His being simultaneously? with the Father, as some say [that] cor- relatives [have],” (Father and Son, that is, of whom, the one being supposed, the other is of necessity supposed also,) “introducing two ingenerate principles; but as being One® only and the principle of all things, so is God before all things; wherefore also He is before the Son.’”’ Here you see that statement respecting the Son of God which the Nicene fathers condemned, “ He was not before He was begotten,” is made and asserted in express terms by the Arians, by those same [Arians] who confessed in the same breath that the Son of God was begotten and created before the worlds; and that in opposition to those who maintained that, “He who was before, was afterwards begotten [so as to be] a Son;” that is, who, whilst they attributed to the Son of God a certain nativity, immediately antecedent to the creation of the world, yet denied that the Son then first began to exist, nay, rather strenuously contended that He had been in being, and had existed with His Father from everlasting. See also the Epistle of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia in Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, i. 5, and Athanasius’ Orations against the Arians, ii. p. 3298. 3 5. There are extant in the great Bibliotheca Patrum cer- tain sermons bearing the name of Zeno, bishop of Verona, who is commonly said to have suffered martyrdom under the Emperor Gallienus, about the year of Christ 260%. But the learned at this day are well nigh agreed, and facts them- selves shew, that these sermons were written after the coun- ‘cil of Nice; at which period likewise certain learned men have affirmed that Zeno himself flourished, and that not without very strong reasons, which you may read in vol. ii. of Philip Labbé, on Ecclesiastical Writers, under Zeno. They are moreover of opinion that he was called a martyr because he manfully endured much amid the storms of per- secution raised by the Arians under Constantius. Three τρί' οὐδὲ ἅμα τῷ Πατρὶ τὸ εἶναι ἔχει, h [See the Dissertations prefixed to ὥς τινες λέγουσι τὰ πρός τι, δύο &yevh- the edition of his works by the Balle- “ous ἀρχὰς εἰσηγούμενοι: ἀλλ᾽ ὡς μονὰς τῇίηξ, Verona, 1739, Diss. ii. in which καὶ ἀρχὴ πάντων, οὕτως ὃ Θεὸς πρὸ πάν- it is shewn that the writer of the τῶν ἐστί" διὸ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστιν.--- ‘Tracts lived between A.D. 360 and _ [Ibid., p. 780.] 391.) 8 [ Orat. 1, 22. vol. i. p. 427. ii. From the writings of Zeno, bishop of Verona. 491 of these discourses are entitled, ‘On the Eternal Gene- 800x m1. ration of the Son. In the third of them the author writes poe Pg thusi; “The. Beginning!, my brethren, is unquestionably: princi- our Lord Christ ; who has been embraced before all ages by P'U™ the Father,—still, in whatever sense’?, God within Himself, ?utcunque. of blessed eternity,—by the undivided fulness of His Spirit ; veiled under some mysterious ἡ consciousness of His own; not without the affection, but without the distinction* of a Son. But with the view of drawing out the order of the things which He had devised, ineffable Power and incomprehensible Wisdom breathes forth the Word, from the region of His heart; Omnipotence propagates Itself. Of God God is born, having the whole of the Father, taking away nothing from the Father, &c. But how He who went forth was begotten, it were madness to conjecture. For the Son attempers Himself on account of the nature of the creatures’, lest the mean estate of this world should be unable to sustain the Lord of eter- nal Majesty.” creature because of His condescension to the creatures, that is to say, because He descended from* the Father in order to create them, and exalted the reasonable creatures themselves, ~ after they were created, to the adoption of sons of God. Now, who that is not dull of understanding but must perceive, that the theology of Athanasius in this place exactly agrees with the teaching of the ancient writers, whom we have already mentioned? But if these words seem to any one not explicit enough, Athanasius shortly afterwards explains himself still more clearly, thus; “ For it is plain to all, that, neither be- eause of [what He is in] Himself, as though He were a crea- ture, nor yet because of His having any kinship in respect of Πατρός" καὶ yap ὥσπερ ἔμπροσθεν εἴρη- ται, οὗ μετά τινος συμπεπλεγμένης αἰ- τίας, ἀλλὰ ἀπολελυμένως εἴρηται ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ, Ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὃ dv εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρός. τὸ δὲ πρωτό- TOKOS, συμπεπλεγμένην ἔχει πάλιν τὴν Ths κτίσεως αἰτίαν" ἣν ἐπήγαγεν 6 Mad- λος λέγων, Ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα. εἰ δὲ πάντα τὰ κτίσματα ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη, ἄλλός ἐστι τῶν κτισμά- των, καὶ κτίσμα μὲν οὔκ ἐστι, κτίστης δὲ τῶν κτισμάτων, οὐ διὰ τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἄρα πρωτότοκος ἐκλήθη, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὴν κτίσιν. καὶ ὥσπερ πρὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἣν αὐτὸς 6 vids, δι’ οὗ γέγονεν ἣ κτίσις, οὕτως καὶ πρὸ τοῦ κληθῆναι πρωτότοκος πάσης τῆς κτί- σεως, ἣν οὐδὲν ἧττον αὐτὸς ὃ λόγος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἣν ὁ Adyos.— p- 433. fp. 530.] 2 Πᾶσι γάρ ἐστι δῆλον, ὅτι οὔτε δὲ ἑαυτὸν, ὡς κτίσμα ὧν, οὔτε διὰ τὸ συγ- γένειάν τινα Kar οὐσίαν πρὸς πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν ἔχειν, πρωτότοκος αὐτὸς [ἃ]. a key to Athenagoras’ meaning ; compared together. 499 essence with the whole creation, was He called the First-born! ; soox m1. but because both at the beginning the Word, in making the Η 9. 10. creatures, condescended to the things made, in order that it ' for, might be possible for them to be brought into being; for Pst they could not have borne His nature, being the unmixed it.”] brightness of the Father’, unless having condescended with ? ἄκρατον the Father’s loving-kindness He had taken hold of them, Oe and having taken hold of them had brought them into ex= τρότητα. istence; and again, secondly, in that by the condescension of the Word the creature itself also is through Him adopted into sonship; in order that also of it, as has been before | stated, He might in all things become the First-born, both in creating it, and in being brought into the world for’ all.” ἠὅ ὑπὲρ. 10. In these passages of Athanasius, I affirm that there is contained an exact and clear explanation of the theories propounded by Athenagoras, and other fathers whom I have [625] before adduced, respecting a nativity of the Word shortly before the creation of the world. But since of all the Ante- nicene writers Athenagoras has treated this subject with the greatest clearness and accuracy, I have thought it well to compare his statements especially with those of Athanasius. In the first place, then, Athenagoras had called the Word, the First offspring of the Father, cautiously adding, that this must not be so regarded, as if the Word were something brought into being, (γενόμενόν ti,) inasmuch as He existed from everlasting with God the Father. Athanasius in like manner reminds us expressly, that, when in the Scriptures the Word is called the First-born of every creature, this phrase must by no means be so explained, as if He were the first among the creatures, or had an essence akin to created beings; seeing that He was the Word with God, and God the Word, before He became the First-born of every creature, and so from hagoras called the Word the airijs.--B. | ἐκλήθη" ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ κατ᾽ dp- χὴν μὲν δημιουργῶν ὃ λόγος τὰ κτίσματα συγκαταβέβηκε τοῖς γενητοῖς, ἵνα γενέ- σθαι ταῦτα δυνηθῇ" οὐκ ἂν γὰρ ἤνεγκεν αὐτοῦ τὴν φύσιν, ἄκρατον καὶ πατρικὴν οὖσαν λαμπρότητα, εἰ μὴ φιλανθρωπίᾳ Bice puch συγκαταβὰς ἀντελάβετο, καὶ “Kparhoas αὐτὰ εἷς οὐσίαν ἤνεγκε" καὶ everlasting. Secondly, Athe- First Offspring of the Father, δεύτερον δὲ πάλιν, ὅτι συγκαταβάντος τοῦ λόγου, υἱοποιεῖται καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις δι αὐτοῦ" ἵνα καὶ αὐτῆς, καθὰ προείρη- ται, πρωτότοκος κατὰ πάντα γένηται, ἔν τε τῷ κτίζειν, καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσάγεσθαι ὑπὲρ πάντων εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην.---Ὀ. 485. [§ 64. p. δ82.] ἕ Kk2 ΗΝ ‘3 . 5 1 “| ON THE CO-ETER-~ NITY OF THE SON. 1 progres- sione. [626] 500 Athanasius’ ‘condescension’ is the same as Athenagoras’ 3 in consequence of that going forth (προέλευσις,) whereby He went forth from the Father to be the idea and energy of the | future creation. So Athanasius understood that the Word | Himself is called the First-born, because of his condescension | (cuyxaraBaors) to the creation; where the going forth (προέ- λευσι5) of Athenagoras is no doubt equivalent to Athanasius’ | condescension (συγκατάβασι5), except that the latter term more clearly expresses the cause of that which is signifjed by both. However in the passage which I have* adduced above, - Athanasius, as well as Athenagoras, has used in this matter the very expression προελθὼν, (having gone forth). Lastly, those Antenicene fathers, whose view I have explained in the four preceding chapters of this book, agree in explaining that passage of the Apostle, in which Christ is called the First-born of every creature, of the going forth’, as it were, of the Word from the Father, for the creation of all-things ; and Athanasius does the same. And this interpretation the author of the old Latin version seems also to have fol- lowed, for he paraphrases the words of Wisdom, respecting herself, in Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 3, “Icame forth out of the mouth of the Most High, and like a cloud I covered the earth,” thus»: “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High, the First-born before every creature; I made an un- failing light to arise in the heavens ;”’ I call this translation a paraphrase, because in the Greek text, as also in the Syriac and the Arabic versions, these clauses, “the First-born be- fore every creature, I made an unfailing light to arise in the heavens,” are wanting. Now from this paraphrase of the 2 primige- nia. author, (whose version both we ourselves recognise as very ancient, and the doctors of the Roman Church hold to be authentic,) it is clear that, in the opinion of the translator, by Wisdom is there meant the Word or Son of God, and that the Word is called the First-born before every creature, because in the beginning He came forth, as it were, from the mouth of God the Father, to create the universe, together with the utterance of that almighty word, “ Frat,” which we read that God used also in the creation of the primal? light. Nor is there any ground for fear, that in this passage of Ecclesi- * Sce this Book, c. v. § 5. [Ρ. 468.] fect in coelis ut oriretur lumen indefi- > Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi, pri- ciens. [Ecclus. xxiv. 3. ed. Lat. Vulg.] mogenita ante omnem creaturam; ego going forth of the Word to create: need of thisinterposition. 501 asticus if by Wisdom we understand the Son of God, as all the ancients understood it, the co-eternity of the Son of God will be endangered; seeing that Wisdom is frequently in the same chapter said to be created and made. For it is clear, as Grotius rightly observes, that the word created (xr ifec Oat) there signifies, “to be brought forth to light, that is, by works.” But this by the way. Let us proceed with Athanasius. | 11. In the passages adduced he plainly declares that that going forth of the Word from! the Father to create all things, on account of which He is called in Scripture, the First-born of every creature; was a kind? of condescension of His. And he also alleges this cause of that condescen- sion, that otherwise, and unless the Word had so humbled Himself, the creatures could by no means have borne and sustained His nature, and the unmixed® splendour of the Father, (that is, that glory, equal to the Father’s, which He had from everlasting with the Father.) Exactly the same was said, as we have just now seen, by the author of the Sermons attributed to Zeno of Verona, on that nati- vity of the Son, which was immediately followed by the cre- ation of the world, when he thus writes®; “ But how He, who went forth, was begotten, it were madness to con- jecture. For the Son attempers Himself on account of the nature of the creatures, lest the mean estate of this world should be unable to sustain the Lord of eternal Majesty.” And no other meaning (as it seems to me) was intended by BOOK III. CHAP. IX. 8 10, 11. 1 ex, 2 quandam. [627] 3 indilu- tum. _ the learned Eusebius Pamphili, when in his Panegyric on. Constantine, chap. ii., he thus wrote’; “ We ought exceed- ingly to be overawed at the hidden and invisible Word, the same who both formed and set in order* the universe, being the Only-begotten of God; whom the Maker of all things, who is beyond and far above every essence, Himself begat of “ Himself, and appointed as Prince and Governor of this uni- _ verse. For inasmuch as it was not possible that the fleeting _ substance of bodies, and the nature of the rational creatures ¢ [See above, p. 491, note 1.7 ons ἐπέκεινα καὶ ἀνωτάτω οὐσίας, αὐτὸς 4 τὸν ἀφανῆ καὶ ἀόρατον λόγον, τὸν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ γεννήσας, ἡγεμόνα καὶ κυβερ- δὴ τοῦ παντὸς εἰδυποιόν τε καὶ κοσμή- νήτην τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς κατεστήσατο. _ Topa, ὑπερεκπληκτέον, ὄντα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπεὶ γὰρ μὴ οἵόντε ἣν, τὴν ῥευστὴν τῶν _ μονογενῆ" ὃν ὃ τῶν ὅλων ποιητὴς, ὃ πά- σωμάτων οὐσίαν, Thy τε τῶν ἄρτι γενο- 281 4 εἰδοποιόν τε καὶ κο- σμήτορα. ON THE ΟΟ- ETER= NITY OF THE SON. 1 προσομι- λοῦσαν. 3 τῶν ἀπο- ῥῥήτων. 8 συγκα- _ σιοῦσαν. 4 ἀμωσγέ- πως συσχη- ματιζομέ- νΉν. [628] [629] 4 502 Eusebius; the Word a mean between God and created beings; but just brought into being, should approach to the all-ruling God, through the exceeding degree wherein they fell short — of His supreme power, (for He indeed was unbegotten, far | above and beyond, all things, ineffable, incomprehensible, | unapproachable, ‘dwelling in the light which no man hath — access unto,’ as the Holy Scriptures say; whereas the nature © which was put forth out of what was not, is most widely — distant and far removed from the nature which is unbe- gotten,) with good reason the All-good and God of the uni-— verse, interposes as a mean the divine and Almighty power of His Only-begotten Word, which has indeed the most perfect and intimate intercourse’ possible with the Father, . and enjoys, within Him, His ineffable secrets? ; and which condescended? in great meekness, and was, in a certain man- ner‘, conformed to those that fall short of the supreme. For in any other way it would not have been either pure or holy, to connect Him who is beyond and far above all, with cor- ruptible matter and body.” Here, the word ovyxarvévat, which Eusebius uses, has precisely the same meaning as that used by Athanasius, συγκαταβαίνειν, that is to’ say, to condescend ; and both authors assign the very same Cause and reason for that condescension of the Word. But Euse- bius manifestly says that the power of the Word is a mean. between God and the creatures, not viewed in Itself, but on account of that condescension of which He is speaking. Nay, he expressly declares in this place, that the power of the Word, even whilst lowering Itself thus, has a most per- fect and intimate intercourse with God the Father, and re- maining within Him enjoys, His ineffable secrets; exactly in the same sense as Athanasius asserts, that the Word Himself does not so condescend, but that He ever remains the unmixed splendour of the Father. As to the remark, μένων λογικῶν φύσιν τῷ πανηγεμόνι Θεῷ πελάζειν, δι᾽ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος ἐλλείψεως" (6 μὲν γὰρ ἦν ἀγέννητος, ἀνωτάτω τε καὶ ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὕλων, ἄρρητος, ἀνέφικτος, ἀπρο- σπέλαστος, φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, ἣ φα- oly οἱ ἱέρειοι Adyou ἡ δὲ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων προβεβλημένη, πορρωτάτω τε διεστῶσα, καὶ μακρὰν τῆς ἀγεννήτου φύσεως ἄἂπ- εσχοινισμένη") εἰκότως 6 πανάγαθος καὶ Θεὸς τῶν ὅλων μέσην τινὰ παρεμβάλλει τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ λόγου θείαν καὶ παναλκῆ δύναμιν" ἀκριβέστατα μὲν ὡς ὅτι μάλιστα καὶ ἐγγύτατα τῷ Πατρὶ προσομιλοῦσαν, εἴσω τε αὐτοῦ τῶν ἄπορ- ρήτων ἀπολαύουσαν, πρᾳότατά γε συγ- κατιοῦσαν, καὶ ἀμωσγέπως συσχηματι- ζομένην τοῖς τῆς ἄκρας ἀπολιμπανομέ- νοις. ἄλλως γὰρ οὔτ᾽ εὐαγὲς, οὔθ᾽ ὅσιον, τὸν τῶν ὅλων ἐπέκεινα καὶ ἀνωτάτω ὕλῃ . φθαρτῇ καὶ σώματι συμπλέκειν.----Ὀ. 635, 636, ed. Vales. [p. 746. ] must be understood of His ‘condescension’ not of His nature. 503 therefore, of Valesius on this passage (the same who rightly, nook m1, vindicates Eusebius from the charge of Arianism), to the eric πὴ effect that these words of Eusebius are very well refuted by — Athanasius, in his third Oration against the Arians“, herein that most excellent man (I would say it with all deference. to him) is quite mistaken. The error, which Athanasius there refutes, was that of the Arians, or rather of the semi- Arians, who used to teach, that the very nature of the Son in itself is a mean between God and the creatures; that is to say, is far removed' from the supreme nature of God, and ' distare. yet is altogether unlike the rest of created beings. That Eusebius altogether shrunk from this error, this passage, upon which Valesius made that annotation, affords proof enough. But that matter is put beyond all risk of contro- versy by the words of Eusebius in the sixth chapter of this very Panegyric on Constantine®; where, after speculating somewhat subtlely on the number three, he says that thereby is signified the most holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whose nature is equal, and alike uncreate and without all beginning. His words are these; ‘“‘ The number three (τριὰς) first exhibited justice, introducing equality; as having received beginning, middle, and end equal ; and these are an image’ of the mystical, and all-holy, and sovereign ? εἰκὼν. Trinity ; which, depending on the nature that is without beginning*® and ingenerate, has received the seeds and the ὃ ἀνάρχου. proportions and the causes of the being of all created things.” What, I ask, was ever said by any catholic more [630] effectual; or more express than this, against Arius and the other anti-Trinitariansf? Again in chap. ii. of the same Panegyric, at the beginning, he expressly attributes to the Son of God specifically, a divine empire absolutely co-eternal with God the Fathers; “The Only-begotten Word of God,” he says, “ reigning with His own Father from ages that are 282 without beginning, unto ages that are without limit and ἃ p. 396, and following. [Orat. ii. τὰ σπέρματα καὶ τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰς 26. vol. i. p. 494. ] αἰτίας ἀπείληφε.---». 318. edit. Vales. © πρώτη δὲ τριὰς δικαιοσύνην ἀνέδει- [p. 730. - tev, ἰσότητος καθηγησαμένη" ὡς ἂν ἀρ- £ [See Reply to G. Clerke, ὃ 15 B.] χὴν καὶ μεσότητα καὶ τελευτὴν ἴσην κ ὃ μέν γε τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενὴς λόγος, ἀπολαβοῦσα: εἰκὼν δὲ ταῦτα μυστικῆς τῷ αὐτοῦ Πατρὶ συμβασιλεύων ἐξ ἀνάρ- καὶ παναγίας καὶ βασιλικῆς τριάδος: ἣ χων αἰώνων εἰς ἀπείρους καὶ ἀτελευτή- τῆς ἀνάρχου καὶ ἀγενήτου φύσεως ἤρτη- τους αἰῶναΞ5.---». 607. [p. 719. ] μένη, THS τῶν γενητῶν ἁπάντων οὐσίας ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 principii expertis. 2 tanquam recoctum Arianum. 3 μεσίτην. [681] 4 ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. 5 τοῦ ὄντος. 6 ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. 504. Alexander used the same words in the same sense. without end.” But that the Son of God, who existed with His Father from everlasting, as being of the same nature with Himself, uncreate and without beginning’, did, when His Father willed, go forth (as it were) from Him to create and govern the universe, and condescended, and attempered (as it were) His own power; this view, I say, not only has Athanasius no where refuted, but he has himself in the very explicit words which we have quoted, taught it and marked with his approbation. Now, if Petavius,—who would have it thought that there is nothing in the writings of the fathers which he has failed to understand,—had understood this, surely never would the very learned Eusebius, who has de- served so well of the Catholic Church, have been attacked by him (as he is in all his writings) for an utter Arian”, because he called the Son of God “a mediator® between God and the creatures,” and said other like things; much less with Jerome, [would he have attacked] him as a standard-bearer of the Arian faction’ ; and even Jerome the excellent Valesius® has ventured to blame severely on this account. What is to be said of the fact, that even Alexander, bishop of Alex- andria, who first raised the standard against the impious heresy of Arius, said exactly the same as Eusebius: and that too in the very epistle which he wrote to Alexander! of Con- — stantinople, wherein he most sharply impugns the blasphemies of Arius; “ Not knowing,” he says, “in their want of good learning, that there must be a wide interval between the un- begotten Father and the things, both rational and irrational, which were created by Him out of what was not*; interven- ing between which [is] an Only-begotten nature/, that of the Word of God, which was begotten of the Father Himself who Is*, by which the Father made all things out of what was nots.” Here the meaning of Alexander was, without doubt, the same as that of Athanasius his successor in the see of Alex- 8. (‘Ariane quondam signifer fac- tionis.”? S. Jerome, adv. Ruffin. i. 8; “Eusebii, Arianorum principis.” Ib., ii. 15.] » De Vita et Scriptis Eusebii, near the end. [Prefixed to his edition of the Eccl. Hist. ] ὲ ἀγνοοῦντες οἱ ἀνάσκητοι, ὡς μακρὸν ἂν εἴη μεταξὺ Πατρὸς ἀγεννήτου, καὶ τῶν κτισθέντων ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, λογικῶν τε καὶ ἀλόγων' ὧν μεσιτεύουσα φύσις μονογενὴς, 5 hs τὰ ὅλα ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν ὃ Πατὴρ, τοῦ Θεοῦ λό- you, ἣ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος Πατρὸς γε- γέννηται. --- Αρυᾷ Theodorit. Eccl. Hist. i. 4. p. 16, 17. ed. Vales. fp. 17, 18. Vite uses Nature for Person; for he means Nature in Person, φύσιν ἐν ὑποστάσει, as he had just before ex- pressed himself. Valesius in loc. This ‘condescension’ of the Word to create, a mystery. 505 * andria; for presently after in the same place he goes on to 800K m1. write thus‘; “No one knoweth who the Father is but the § 11,12. Son; and no one knoweth who the'Son is, but the Father ; [of] Him we have learnt that He is incapable of change or alteration, even as the Father, a Son wanting nothing and perfect, like unto the Father, inferior to Him only in [this that the Father 15} unbegotten: for He is the most exact | μόνῳ τῷ and unvarying image of the Father.” These words, at any sip rate, are so clear and distinct as to require no comment. He who wrote them could not have meant to say, that the Son of God intervenes? between God and the creatures, in ? μεσι- the same sense as Arius. basis 12. Perhaps you will ask me, what was the nature of that condescension of the Word for the creation of the universe of which the holy fathers speak? But what if I should simply answer, that I do not know? I am not on that account at liberty to despise and set at nought as an un- meaning subtilty, this notion of the venerable fathers; for their modesty and reverence for the holy mystery was too great to allow us to suppose that they fabricated it out of their own brain. Do you tell me, what was the nature of that emptying of Himself* and condescension of the Word ° κένωσις. and Son of God, whereby for us men and for our salvation He came forth from the Father, descended from heaven, and was incarnate; and I will endeavour to explain to you that other condescension; that is, supposing us both to act as mad- men, in attempting to scrutinize the mysteries of God. And who are we that are to do this? they that cannot know, as Gregory of Nazianzen' long ago well said, even those things which lie before our feet. For my own part, indeed, I would not venture to scrutinize this mystery; (although I think that I see what might not unwisely be said concerning it ;) 1 return, therefore, to Athanasius, who manifestly attributes a threefold nativity to the Son. The first is that, whereby, as the Word, He existed from everlasting of the Father and with the Father, as the co-eternal offspring of the eternal k οὐδεὶς οἷδε τίς ἐστιν ὃ TMarhp, εἰμὴ νον ἐκείνου. εἰκὼν γάρ ἐστιν ἄπηκρι- 6 vids’ καὶ οὐδεὶς οἷδε τίς ἐστιν ὁ vids, βωμένη καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος τοῦ Πατρός. εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ. ἄτρεπτον τοῦτον καὶ —([Ibid., p. 18.] ἀναλλοίωτον, ὡς τὸν πατέρα, ἀπροσδεῆ, ' Orat. xxxvii, [Orat. xxxi. 8. p. καὶ τέλειον υἱὸν, ἐμφερῇ τῷ Πατρὶ με- 561.] μαθήκαμεν, μόνῳ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ λειπόμε- ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 12x Πατρὸς. [ 633] 2 subsis- tentie. 3 imperite admodum. [684] δ06 Athanasius on the Nativities of the Son. mind of the Father. This alone is the true and properly so- called nativity of the Word, in so far forth as He is the Word of God and God. It is by reason of this nativity, Athanasius thought, that He is called in the Scriptures the Only-begotten; | and it is in this respect alone that he thought also that the Son is of the Father’, that is to say, has derived the begin- | ning and origin of His subsistence? from the Father. The second nativity consists in that condescension, whereby the Word went out from God the Father to create the universe. Athanasius held that it is in reference to this that He is called in the Scriptures the First-born of every creature. From this nativity no accession was made to the Divine Person of the Word; seeing that, as he says, it was rather a humiliation and condescension on His part. Lastly, His third nativity then took place when the same divine Person came forth from the bosom and glory of the Father, and entered into the womb of the blessed Virgin; and thus “the Word was made flesh,” or was born man, in order that through Him we men might re- ceive the adoption of sons. Call to mind what we said ii. 8, 5, [p. 214] on Hippolytus. Take care, however, not to think lightly of this interpretation of the great Athanasius; inasmuch as it furnishes you with the best key to the mind and view of certain of the ancients, whose expressions the Arians afore- time most ignorantly* dragged in to support their heresy, and certain modern theologians not less ignorantly (I ven- ture to say so, although they fancy themselves wiser than every one else) have charged with Arianism. 13. To finish this chapter at last.. From all this it is evident, that Petavius! groundlessly censured that most ex- cellent and (looking to the age™ in which he lived) most learned writer, Rupertus Abbas Tuitiensis, (the abbot of Tu,) for having written as follows in the first of his Commentaries on Genesis, chap. x."; ‘ What then? what are we to under- stand as implied in the words, God said, but the generation of the eternal Word, the Word consubstantial with God, from the effect of which both we and the angels are endued 1 De Trin. i. 5. 9. Ὁ Quid ergo? quid in eo, quod dic- ™ He sent out his Comments on tum est, dixit Deus, nisi generationem the Scripture in the year 1117, Cave. Verbi eterni, Verbi Deo consubstan- Bowysr. [His whole works were _ tialis, de cujus effectu et nos et angeli published at Paris, 1638.—B. ] rationales sumus, significatum intelli- Rupertus Abbas on this ground unjustly blamed by Petavius. 507 with reason? For the Word, which was truly born without soox mt. speech [vocal utterance’], and virtually contained all things, $12, so the Father then actually begat when He created the heaven 7 30 voce and the earth, when He made the light and all other things.” natum. In these words, whilst He plainly acknowledges both the con- substantiality and co-eternity of the Word or Son of God, and that He was truly, and without speech [vocal utterance], born from everlasting, (which he does in a hundred other places,) he nevertheless attributes to Him a kind of? generation, 2 quandam. immediately preceding the creation of the world, in respect _ of which He was said to have been actually*® born of the 8 actuali- Father ; inasmuch as He then proceeded from the Father, to ἴτ᾽ become the energy? of the creation, and to produce actually * * * ἐνεργεία. all those things which from everlasting He had virtually within Becks Himself. Now, why could not Petavius allow Rupertus with impunity to use the same language as the Catholic fathers, both the Antenicene and those who wrote after the council of Nice, and who were most strenuous opponents of the Arian heresy? The truth is, that writer, from being very well versed in the records of the primitive Church, as he in many points freely asserted the ancient and catholic faith against the novelties of the Roman Church [then] in process of degene- racy®, so especially he ventured to impugn openly that great δ degene- idol of the papists, the dogma of transubstantiation, which sag in his age, to the amazement of the learned and the pious, had begun to prevail every where, and to be obtruded as an all- but catholic doctrine. Hence that hatred of the Romanists against Rupertus; nay, for this reason, the remains of that excellent writer would have been doomed to eternal obscurity, had not some learned reformed divines brought them out to light against the wish of the papists. This even Bellarmine® himself candidly allows in the following words; “This,” 6. says, (namely, the fact that the dogma of the change of the eucharistic bread into the Body of Christ is refuted throughout his writings,) ‘‘is evidently the cause why the works of Ruper- [635] tus Tuitiensis, although in other respects neither bad nor un- gere debemus? Vere enim sine voce quando lucem et cetera fecit.—[Op., natum, et omnia potentialiter continens vol. i. p. 4. Ven. 1748. ] Verbum tunc Pater actualiter genera- ° De Script. Eccl. on Rupertus Tui- vit, quando ccelum et terram creavit, tiensis. [Op., vol. vii. p. 140.] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 234 [686] 508 Tertullian and Lactantius apparently deny the Co-eternity. learned, have lain for about the space of four hundred years, without light or honour, in the shades of oblivion ; for in our own days have they first begun to see the light. ” But enough on these matters. CHAPTER X. BES THE DOCTRINE OF TERTULLIAN AND OF LACTANTIUS RESPECTING THE ETER- NITY OF THE SON EXAMINED. CONCLUSION OF THE THIRD BOOK, 1. Or those Antenicene writers who have been charged by certain learned men with denying the co-eternal ex- istence of the Son of God with God the Father, we have hitherto omitted two; I mean Tertullian and Lactantius: and since their case appears to be peculiar, we have thought it best to treat of them separately and in a distinct ae yi sition. Let our proposition be this : ¢ ᾿ PROPOSITION IV. Tertullian, indeed, has in one passage ventured to write expressly, that there was a time when the Son of God was not. But, in the first place, it is certain, that that writer, though in other respects a man of great ability and equal learning, fell off from the Catholic Church to heresy; and it is very uncertain which books he wrote when a catholic, which when inclining to heresy, and which, lastly, when a decided heretic. Se- condly, Tertullian appears to have used that expression in a controversial way, and in disputation with his adversary, playing on the Word “ Son :” so that, although he seems to ἡ have absolutely denied the eternity of the Son, still he really meant no more than what those fathers meant whom we have cited in chap. 5—8 of this book; namely, that the Divine Person who is called the Son of God, although He always existed with the Father, was then first declared to be the Tertullian’s words; Bellarmine’s explanation ; rejected. 509 Son, when He went forth from the Father to make the uni- soox m. verse. Certainly the same Tertullian has in many other CHAP. X. § 1, 2. passages treated of the co-eternity of the Son in a clearly 7 catholic sense, if we regard the main drift! of his doctrine. As tray. for Lactantius, who also in one passage attributes, not ob- ois ὑπέρε- scurely, a beginning of existence to the Son of God; his estimation and authority is but of little weight in the Church of God, inasmuch as he was almost entirely uninstructed in Holy Scripture and Christian doctrine. And, secondly, it must necessarily be held, either that those passages in the writings of Lactantius, which seem to make against the eternity of the Son, have been corrupted by some Manichezan heretic ; or, at any rate, that Lactantius himself was infected with the heresy of Manes. Lastly, he has himself in other passages expressed a more sound opinion concerning the eternity of the Word. | 2. To begin with Tertullian; the passage in which he states that absurd opinion occurs in his treatise against Her- mogenes, chap. 111.5, where he thus writes; “ Because God is a Father and God is a Judge, it does not on that account follow, that, because He was always God, He was always a Father and a Judge. For He could neither have been a Father before the Son, nor a Judge before transgression. But there was a time when there was no transgression and no Son, the one to make the Lord a Judge, and the other a Father.””? On this place Bellarmine replies on behalf of Ter- tullian to the following effectP, (and he has been recently followed by a certain reverend writer of our own‘;) “The Son,” his words are, “of whom Tertullian says in his trea- tise against Hermogenes, that He did not always exist, is not the Word of God, but a Son by adoption, that is, any other holy man whatsoever, or angel. For it is not Christ that is here treated of, but the creature that partakes of reason, which has come into being? from without, and has given unto God the name of Father in time.” But nothing is more ο Quia et Pater Deus est, et judex minum faceret.—[p- 234. ] Deus est; non tamen ideo Pater et P Controv., tom. i. de Christo i, 10. judex semper, quia Deus semper. [p. 341.] Nam nec Pater potuit esse ante Filium, 4 (Dr. Samuel Gardiner; Catholicz nec judex ante delictum. Fuit autem circa SS. Trin. Fidei Delineatio; pp. tempus, cum et delictum et Filius non 203, 204, Lond. 1677. ] fuit, quod judicem, et qui Patrem Do- [687] 2 accessit. ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 235 1 in sensu Dei. [638] 510 17 Tertullian really meant this, he was heterodox ; certain than that this answer is altogether foreign to the mind of Tertullian. For besides that in the passage adduced he is speaking of the Son of God absolutely, and without any limi- tation, and denies simply that God was always a Father, he also in another passage in this very book clearly explains his own meaning. For, in chap, xvii., he writes thus of the Son of God, under the name of Wisdom‘; “For if,” he says, “within the Lord, that which was of Him, and in Him, was not without beginning, that is to say, His Wisdom, born and framed, from the time that It began to be agitated in the mind of God’, to set in order the works of the uni- verse; much more is it impossible that any thing should have been without beginning, which was external to the Lord.” From this, I say, it is manifest, that’'Tertullian, when he wrote those words, was in no wise thinking of adopted sons of God, the holy angels, that is, or men; but that he was speaking of that Son of God, who is also called Wisdom, through whom God created this universe. 3. Others, therefore, frankly and roundly answer, that Ter- tullian in this place, as in many others, through over confi- dence in his own great ability, manifestly deviated from the path of catholic truth: and that we need not to give much heed to what he taught, since his heresy, as Hilary" expresses it, “has taken away the authority from such writings as were [otherwise] to be approved.” That the Antenicene fathers, as well those who wrote before Tertullian as those who wrote after him, agreed in recognising the co-eternity of the Son, we have already abundantly proved. So that, if Ter- tullian did in truth deny the eternity of the Son, he was heterodox. ΤῸ this you may add, that, after Tertullian had in his writings published that absurd statement, “There was a time when the Son of God was not,” the catholic fathers who lived after him, very soon in a united body, ai it were, openly impugned that blasphemy, and stated it in their writings in express terms with the view of refuting it. We _ ὃ Sienim intra Dominum quod ex fuisse, quod extra Dominum fuerit.— ipso et in ipso fuit, sine initio non fuit, [p. 239.] Sophia Scilicet ipsius, exinde nata et tr... detraxit scriptis probabilibus condita, ex quo in sensu Dei ad opera auctoritatem.—Comment. on Matth. v. mundi disponenda ceepit agitari; multo [p, 630.] magis non capit sine initio quicquam but the content and argument ΕΝ inate explanation. 511 _have in the previous chapters shewn that this was done by soox m. Origen, the two Dionysii, of Rome, and of Alexandria, Gre- 9 ak: gory Thaumaturgus and Pamphilus the Martyr. Moreover Trrrut- also, the author of the Treatise on the Trinity amongst the 14": works of Tertullian, though in other respects he almost always imitates Tertullian and follows his opinions, (from which circumstance that work has been attributed to Ter- tullian himself,) nevertheless on this point openly departs from him. For whereas Tertullian had expressly taught that the Father was not always a Father, he, on the other hand, plainly affirms in his last chapter, that we must set it down, that the Son always was in the Father’, “lest the Father be not always a Father.’ And this reply is quite sufficient to shut the mouths of the Arians who boast of Tertullian as their patron. At any rate Jerome, against Helvidius, chap. ix. when pressed by the authority of Ter- tullian, replies, thus in one word*, “Of Tertullian I say no more, than that he was not a man of the Church.” 4. Meanwhile it seems to me that on this poimt another answer should be made; for I think that Tertullian put forth those words which we have quoted out of his book against Hermogenes, not as if he really and from his heart believed! them, but by way of disputation and in argument, ! haud bona with the view of any how mastering his opponent. It is known προ Bog ἽΝ to all who have even a slight acquaintance with the writings , of Tertullian, that it is usual with him to seize on argu- ments from every quarter in support of his own hypothesis, and those arguments too not seldom such as he himself even was aware were of little or no force. I am persuaded that in this place he acted in his usual way. Hermogenes [639] contended that matter existed from eternity and without beginning, on the ground that otherwise God would not have been Lord from eternity, seemg that He would not have had any thing to obey Him. ‘To this Tertullian replies that God is also called Father in the Scriptures, although He was not always a Father, but begat unto Himself a Son from a definite beginning”. And that the Son was begot- 3 ab aliquo ten from a definite beginning, he seems to have concluded ™" 8 [See above, ch. 8. ὃ 6. p. 477. ] plius dico, quam ecclesize hominem t De Tertulliano quidem nihil am- non fuisse.—[§ 17. vol. ii. p. 225.] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [640] 1 nunquam non. 236 2ex Deo. 3 aliquan- do. 4 ex Deo, 512 Bp. Bull’s explanation of Tertullian’s words. from this, that He went forth from the Father to create the universe, not from eternity, but at length, after infinite ages, when the Father willed; which going forth of His some doctors of that age called by the name of genera- tion. Now, though Tertullian was not ignorant that that going forth was not the generation or production properly so called, of the Son, (seeing that He existed from everlasting with the Father,) he yet, to serve his hypothesis, thought proper to suppress this. By a sophism not unlike thig a person might say of the Creator of the universe, there was a time when the Creator was not, understanding that is, so far forth as He is called Creator. For God, the Creator of all things, was then at length called, and as it were made, the Creator, when He formed all things out of nothing; and there was a time when no made or created being existed, from which God should be denominated Creator. In the meantime, he who argues thus must not by any means be regarded as denying that God, to whom the name of Creator accrued at a definite time, is absolutely eternal. In some such way as this, I repeat, Tertullian here argues about the Word, who is also called the Son of God; ‘ There was,” says he, “a time when the Son was not ;” i that is, so far forth as He is called the cn, For Tertullian thought that the Word was herein especially declared to be the Son of God, in that, when God the Father willed, He went forth from Him, and issued forth, as it were, from the womb of the mind of the Father, and was, as it were, born, in order to create the universe. But there was a time when the Word had not as yet thus gone forth from God. At the same time it is clear from other passages that Tertullian well knew that the Word, who is called the Son of God, always! was in being and. existed with God. But Tertullian’s artifice in con- tending with this argument, appears in a clearer light from that other passage, in the 18th chapter of the same book, which we quoted a little before. He there says that that Wisdom of God which is within God Himself, and which is of God? Himself, and which therefore previously ex- isted in God Himself, had a beginning at a definite time®. ‘Strange! what Cidipus can solve this enigma for us? Surely, what is of God* Himself, and in God Himself, is God. But Tert.is speaking of the actual Personal existence of theWord. 513 there is nothing belonging to God! which is not eternal, as soox m1, Tertullian himself elsewhere acknowledges. How then, I ae M ask you, could that which even before was in God Himself, teardae afterwards have had a beginning? If any one say that Ter- *14%- tullian conceived, that Wisdom, who is also called the Son of God, existed virtually* only in God, previously to that begin- i ? in aD sec ning of which he speaks, he is plainly trifling. For in this“ sense all created beings likewise existed in God from everlast- ing; yet Tertullian in such wise distinguishes these from the Wisdom of God, as clearly to teach that the latter subsisted eternally in God Himself*4, the former are and ever were ® in ipso external* to Him. What shall be said of the fact, that, just snl before in that very chapter, he had expressly said, that in the Deum. stead of matter, which Hermogenes held to be eternal, there had been present with God His own Wisdom, and that as the Spirit subsisting in Him, which alone knew His mind, and was to Him a counsellor, (which manifestly mtimate the distinct personality of God the Father and His Wisdom,) and also as equal to Him, and of the same condition® or nature ὅ status. with Him‘? “If matter,” he says, “is necessary to God for the works of the world, as Hermogenes thought, God possessed matter of far greater worth and fitness, not to be judged of in the schools of philosophers’, but to be understood in the * apud phi- schools of the prophets’, even His own Wisdom. This, in are see fine, alone had cognizance of the mind of the Lord; for who, δ a ue knoweth the things of God, and what are in Him, save the phetas. Spirit who is in Him? Now Wisdom is the Spirit; She was His counsellor; She is the way of understanding and know- ledge. ..... Who would not rather commend her as the fount and origin of all things, and the matter of all matter, not subjected to Him, not different in condition® [or nature]” * statu. &c.? The Wisdom of God, therefore, which existed always actually? in God, Tertullian says was then, as it were, born ° actu. _ and made, “when It [Wisdom] began to be moved to and * Si necessaria est Deo materia ad opera mundi, ut Hermogenes existi- mavit, habuit Deus materiam longe digniorem et idoneiorem, non apud philosophos stimandam, sed apud prophetas intelligendam, Sophiam suam scilicet, Hec denique sola cognovit sensum Domini: quis enim scit que sunt Dei, et que in ipso, nisi Spiritus BULL. qui in ipso? Sophia autem Spiritus; hee illi consiliarius fuit, via intelli- gentize et scientie ipsa est.... Quis non hance potius omnium fontem et originem commendet, materiam vero Materiarum, non sibi subditam, non statu diversam, &c.—[ Adv. Herm., c. XViii. p. 239.] Ll ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 quendam, [642] 514 The Word being bornis His being put forth at the creation. fro in the mind of God, for the purpose of setting in order the works of the world;” that is to say, when, at the will of the Father, It [Wisdom] began, as it were, to call up, to exercise and to exert Its energy and power in the creation of all things; or, according to Athenagoras, when the un- create and eternal Word (the same who is also called the Wisdom of God, as Tertullian himself, as we shall presently see, allows) “went forth from God to be the idea and energy of creation.” Tertullian does indeed explain this mystery in a gross and almost impious way, if you look at his words [only] ; as if, indeed, the Wisdom of God had gone forth to create the universe, not without some agitation, and, as it were, moving of the Divine Essence, going before. But it is Tertullian’s usual way fearlessly to attribute corporeal affections to God. Hence certain learned men have thought that Tertullian really believed that God was of a corporeal nature ; with whom how- ever I do not myself agree. But it ought not to seem strange to any one that Tertullian here speaks so disrespectfully of the Wisdom of God, as if It had been agitated within God, before It issued forth to make the creatures, seeing that in another passage in this same book he attributes even to God the Father a kind of! exertion, effort, and labour in the forma- tion of the universe. For when Hermogenes, chap. 44, alleges” that God made this world simply by “appearing to and drawing near to matter",’ Tertullian (as though he cared little what he said about God, proyided only he could con- tradict his adversary) replies thus in chap. 45’: ‘ Do not,” he says, “‘so flatter God as to suppose Him to have produced so many and great substances by mere sight and mere ap- proach, and not to have created them by His own proper strength. For thus does Jeremiah also set it before us*, ‘ God making the earth in His might, preparing the world by His understanding, hath stretched out the heavens also by His ligentia sua, et suo sensu extendit coelum. « ([facit mundum ... solummodo He sunt vires ejus, quibus enixus to-. adparens et adpropinquans ei... ad- parendo et adpropinquando materie,”’ p. 248.) * Noli ita Deo adulari, ut velis illum solo visu et solo accessu tot ac tantas substantias potulisse, et non propriis viribus instituisse, Sic enim et Hie-~ remias commendat; Deus faciens ter- ram in valentia sua, parans orbem intel- tum hoc condidit. Major est gloria ejus, si laboravit. Denique septima die requievit ab operibus. Utrumque suo more.—[p. 249. ] x [Jeremiah li. 15, also x.12; where the last clause is rendered “by His discretion ;’’? the old Latin version, used by Tertullian has, suo sensu. ] In what sense Tert. attributes corporeal affections to God. 515 Mind.’ This is His strength, by exerting which He made this Βοοκ m1. universe. Greater is His glory in that He laboured. Lastly, 4 5. on the seventh day He rested from His works. Both [labour Tgxrun-— and rest] after His own proper manner!.” But is it really P'4*- so? did God exert His strength to create this universe? iis will God’s glory really be the greater if He be said to have laboured in the creation of the world? is any thing difficult for God? But here is the writer’s cunning’. He meant? astutiam. these considerations to be of force, so far as they could be of force, against his adversary, cautiously reserving to him- self meanwhile, the refuge, as it were, of a catholic sense. God, he says, laboured in creating the world, He rested after creating it, “both after His own proper manner.” Now he knew that, if he had candidly and ingenuously explained this “ manner,” almost the whole force of his reasoning would have fallen to the ground; and therefore he abstained from such an explanation in this place. In other passages, how- ever, he clearly unfolds his really catholic view concerning God; for instance, in his treatise against Praxeas, c. x.¥ “ Absolutely nothing,” he says, “is difficult to God.” And afterwards in the same passage; “with God to be able is to will; and not to be able is not to will’ So when he says that, when God was about to create the world, His Wisdom was agitated within Him, without doubt he meant “ after ‘His own proper manner.” For in very deed that exertion and labour of God in order to create the universe, of which Tertullian speaks in the one passage, is just the same as that [648] agitating of the Divine Wisdom for the setting in order the works of the world, whereof he treats in the other. 5. That this reply of ours is most true I shall further clearly prove from certain other passages of Tertullian, in which he teaches that the Hypostasis or Person itself of the Logos, Reason, Word, Wisdom, and Son of God, (for he applies 237 _all these names to the same Person,) existed from everlasting with*® God the Father and in* Him; and moreover, that that * cum. Divine Person, when the Father willed, went forth from* : a Him for the creation of the universe; and in consequence Ἢ of that going forth was called the Word®, and Son of God, © Sermo. ¥ Plane nihil Deo difficile. ... Dei posse, velle est; et non posse, nolle.— Ep. 505.] L12 516 Passages shewing that Tertullian held the distinct on tus Before I bring forward these passages, I think it right to CO forewarn the reader, not to expect [to find] in them the ortho- ux son. dox doctrine delivered by Tertullian, in a manner. perfectly pure, sincere, and irreprehensible. Rather he will there find golden veins, as it were, of catholic tradition mixed with some dross. ‘Tertullian holds the foundation itself of the doctrine, at the same time building upon it, as his manner is, wood, hay, stubble. Having premised this, I proceed to the passages themselves. In chap. v. of his treatise against Praxeas he proves that the Father is distinct in Person from the Son, from the reasoning of certain persons who asserted that in the beginning of Genesis it is thus written in the Hebrew; “In the beginning God made unto Himself a Son.” But however weak that argument be, he says that 1 disposi- there are others supplied from that disposition! of God, music sa sa which preceded the generation, or going forth of the Son tions in the from the Father’. “For before all things,” he says, “ God Godhead.” was alone, Himself [being] unto Himself universe and place and all things; and [He was] alone, beeause there was nothing else external [to Him] besides Himself. Yet not ~ even then [was He] alone; for He had with Him that which He had within Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. ; For God is rational, and Reason was in Him first, and so all ?sensus, things were from Him; this Reason is His thought?; this ni 19, the Greeks call λόγος, which term we use also for Word® ssermo, [Discourse.}| And therefore it is now usual with our peo- [644] ple, owing to the simplicity of the translation, to say, that the Word* was in the beginning with God, whereas it is more suitable to regard Reason as more ancient; be- δ non ser- cause God had not Word’ from the beginning, but He had ase Reason® even before the beginning; and because Word Itself also, consisting of Reason, shews It [Reason] to be * sermo, 2 Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus, et locus, et omnia; solus’ autem, quia nihil aliud extrin- secus preter illum. Czeterum ne tune quidem solus; habebat enim secum, quam habebat in semetipso, Rationem suam scilicet. Rationalis enim Deus, Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, Sermo- nem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse, cum magis Rationem competat antiquiorem haberi; quia non sermo- nalis a principio, sed rationalis Deus etiam ante principium: et quia ipse et Ratio in ipso prius, et ita ab ipso omnia; que ratio sensus ipsius est. Hane Greci λόγον dicunt; quo voca- bulo etiam Sermonem appellamus. quoque Sermo Ratione consistens, pri- orem eam, ut substantiam suam, osten- dat. Tamen et sic, nihil interest. Nam etsi Deus nondum Sermonem suum Personal Subsistence of the Word with God from eternity. 517 prior, as [being] Its substance. However, even this makes soox m1. no [real] difference. For, although God had not yet sent His “"g™ Word’, [yet] on that account He had Him within Himself, tary, together with, and in His Reason Itself, silently planning ΤΙΔΝ. and disposing with Himself, what He was afterwards about Pi to speak through His Word’. For devising and disposing to- 3 Sermo- gether with His own Reason, He was causing that to become "*™™ Word [Discourse], which He was dealing with in the way of Discourse*®. And in order that thou mayest the more easily * Sermo- understand this, consider first from thine own self, as from an” image and likeness of God, that reason which thou thyself also hast in thyself, thou that art a rational animal, being, that is to say, not only made by a rational artificer, but even ani- mated from His substance. Observe*, that when thou thyself art silently conversing with thyself, this very process is car- ried on within thee» by reason, she meeting thee together with a word‘ at every movement of thy thought, and every impulse 4 cum ser- of thy conception®. Whatsoever thou thinkest, there is word, yeahs whatsoever thou conceivest, there is reason. It cannot be but thou must speak that in thy mind; and when thou [so] speakest, thou hast® a word conversing with thee, in which ὁ pateris. [word] there is that very reason, whereby in thinking thou. speakest with that | word], through which [word] in speaking thou thinkest. So in a certain way the word is a second [person] within thee, through whom in thinking thou speak- est, and through whom in speaking thou thinkest. The word itself is another [than thyself.] How much more fully then [645] is this carried on in God, of whom thou also art counted? as’ censeris. miserat, proinde eum cum ipsa et in ipsa Ratione intra semetipsum habe- bat, tacite cogitando et disponendo se- cum, que per Sermonem mox erat dicturus. Cum Ratione enim sua co- gitans atque disponens, Sermonem eam efficiebat, quam Sermone tractabat. Idque quo facilius intelligas ex teipso, ante recognosce, ut ex imagine et simi- litudine Dei, quam habeas et tu in temetipso rationem, qui es animal ra- tionale, a rationali scilicet artifice non tantum factus, sed etiam ex substantia ipsius animatus. Vide quum tacitus tecum ipse congrederis, ratione hoc ipsum agi intra te, occurrente ea tibi cum sermone ad omnem cogitatus tui motum, et ad omnem sensus tui pul- sum. Quodcumque cogitaveris, sermo est; quodcumque senseris, ratio est. Loquaris illud in animo, necesse est; et dum loqueris, conlocutorem pateris sermonem, in quo inest hec ipsa ratio, qua cum eo cogitans loquaris, per quem loquens cogitas. Ita secundus quo- dammodo in te est sermo, per quem loqueris cogitando, et per quem cogitas loquendo; ipse sermo alius est. Quanto ergo plenius hoc agitur in Deo, cujus tu quoque imago et similitudo cense- ris, quod habeat in se etiam tacendo Rationem, et in Ratione Sermonem? possum itaque non temere preestrux- isse, et tunc Deum ante universitatis constitutionem solum non fuisse, &c.— [pp. 502, 503. | * Quoted above, p. [561,] and be- low, p. [649. ] > See section ii. 9. 21. [p. 275.] 518 i. God alone, only in respect of beings external to Himself. oxtue the image and likeness, in that He has with Him reason, cre op even in silence, and in reason a word. I may therefore. THE SON. without rashness’ first lay down, this [as a settled prin- 1 possum ciple’, that, even then, before the. creation of the universe, non te- ; mere. God was not alone,” &c. After a few words about that: * prestrux- agitating of the Reason or Wisdom. of God, which I ex-. sas plained a little above, and of what he calls the separation. of the same, he proceeds further, in chap. vi., in these words‘; ‘‘ When, first it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had set. in order within Himself, together with the Reason of Wisdom. and the Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having: 3indivi- within Him His own inseparable® Reason and. Wisdom, in. duas suas. Oder that, all things. might be made, through Him, through. whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already. made, so far forth as in the mind:of God. For this was [still]: wanting to them, that they should be also. openly known, and: apprehended in their own forms.and substances. Then there- ‘speciem fore the Word Himself also assumes His own form and garb4, εὐ omnaiu™ sound, and voeal utterance, when God saith, ‘Let there be. hght.’ This is the perfect, nativity, of the Word, when He proceeds from God,” &c. ; 6. In these words: of Tertullian very many things. are- to be noted, In the first. place, Tertullian teaches. that: in. that. “ disposition,” as he. is. fond of calling it, in which He, was before the foundation of the world, up to the generation of the Son, (that [generation], I mean, of which he: after-. wards treats,) God was.“ alone” in. this, sense only, ““ because, there was nothing else external [to Him] besides. Himself ;” that is to say, there existed’ not as yet any created: being. In another respect. He affirms that. God “ was not. even then alone,” since He had with Him, but within Himself, another with whom to hold converse, Him, that is, who is called His Reason, in Greek, λόγος. Secondly, from this it clearly follows, that when Tertullian says that God had from ever- © Ut primum Deus voluit ea que eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis cum sophie ratione et Sermone dispo- _ speciebus atque substantiis cognosce- suerat intra se, in substantias et species rentur.et tenerentur. Tune igitur etiam suas edere, ipsum primum _protulit ipse Sermo speciem et ornatum suum Sermonem, habentem in se individuas sumit, sonum et. vocem, cum dicit suas, Rationem et sophiam, ut per Deus, fiat lux. Hee est nativitas per- ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant fecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit, cogitata atque disposita, imo et. facta &e.—[p. 503.] Jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim ii, The Logos which was with Him was not mere Reason. 519 lasting with Him and in Him Reason or Logos, he by no Βοοκ mt. means understood that very Reason', from [having] which Ἔ δ, “ὦ God the Father is called rational?, in other words that Trexrut-— very Reason which we conceive of in God, (who is eterna “eX Mind,) as His form*, that is to say, the very mind of the, Sei Father ; although Petavius will in every case have this to be [646] the meaning of expressions of this sort in the ancients. For ὃ velut how frivolous, how unmeaning, how absolutely nought, is ieee this mode of proof; God was not alone before the creation 568 of the world; because even at that time He was rational ! It follows that Tertullian, together with those fathers whose views I have explained above, most certainly meant in this place the Logos which existed eternally in and with God the Father ‘through His rational Power’;” and conse- quently was not His rational Power Itself. This he him- self intimates not obscurely in those words; “ For God is rational, and Reason was in Him first ;” which words are: quite parallel to those of Athenagoras, [speaking] of God the Father before the foundation of the world : “ He Himself had within Himself His Logos [Word or Reason], being eter- nally possessed of reason‘.” The expressions of neither of “ λογικὸς. these two writers can without manifest tautology be explained: otherwise than in this way: God, before the foundation of the world, and: so from everlasting, was possessed of °ra- ὅ pollebat. tional Power ; therefore the Logos [Word or Reason] was in and with Him eternally, as necessarily flowing forth from that rational Power of God. And what follows a little after in Tertullian has the same bearing; “ And this Reason is His thought*’.” For in this place sensus is the ἔννοια of the “ que ra- Greeks, whom Tertullian every where imitates, which is dis- Gains a tinguished from the mind itself. So afterwards in his com- parison of man with God, he says, “ Whatsoever thou con- ceivest there is reason.” But he means a really subsisting? 7 ἐγυπόστα- ἔννοια, as we shall presently see. In the third place, Ter- 7” tullian observes that the Logos, which is the name of the | Son of God, signifies both Reason*® and Word®, and that both ° Ratio. 9 Sermo. 4 διὰ λογικῆς δυνάμεως. [Tatian,. mind must needs have in it from eter- Orat. cont. Grecos. ὃ 5, p. 247; see nity an ἔννοια or λόγος, ‘a notion or above, ch. 6: αὶ 1.] conception of itself,’ which the Schools © for ‘ consciousness.” See Bp. term verbum mentis ; nor can it be con- Bull’s Discourses, i. p.5. ‘An eternal ceived without it.’’] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. [647] 1 aliquan- do. 2 voce, 520 iii., iv. Reason & Word of God distinguished, yet the same. meanings are applicable to the Son of God; inasmuch as He is both the Reason of God, eternally sprung from and be- gotten of the rational Power of God; and the Word of God, as having been put forth from Him at a definite time! in vocal utterance’ for the creation of the universe; and in ~ the former sense he allows that it is truly said, that the Logos was in the beginning with God; but not so in the latter sense. At the same time, whilst he makes this re- mark, Tertullian himself admits, that “It is usual with qur people,” (i.e. the Christians,) “through the simplicity ‘of 3 Sermo. 4 Deum non sermo- nalem a principio, sed ratio- nalem. 5 Sermo- nem. 6 Sermo. 7 Sermoni., [648] the translation, to say, that the Word® was in the be- ginning” (that is, from everlasting) “with God.” It ap- pears then, that the great mass of Christians, in the time of Tertullian, both said and believed simply, that the Word existed eternally with God. Would that this great man had not in this matter been wise above the common mass οἷ, Christians! Would that he had_been content with that simplicity of translation! Meanwhile Tertullian, wise above the mass, agrees with the mass in the thing itself; conse- quently the cause is uninjured. For, in the fourth plaee, although he does thus distinguish between Reason and Word, as to lay it down that Reason is prior to Word, and that God had not a Word from the beginning, but only had Reason‘; yet he forthwith corrects himself, as it were, and all but confesses that this distinction is a vain subtilty and a mere contest about words; seeing that he says that it makes no difference, whether one say that the Word® was in the beginning with God, or Reason. He adds, however, this as a ground for what he had said, that in reality the Word® Himself, namely the inner Word, was in the begin- ning with God, although He was then at last sent forth by God, when He went forth from Him for the creation of the universe. So that that generation, immediately preceding the creation of the world, which Tertullian attributes to the Word’ or Son of God, was not the production of Him who previously existed not, but only His mission, or sending forth from God to produce the creatures. 7. In the fifth place, Tertullian expressly says that the Word consists of Reason, and that Reason is the substance of the Word; namely, that [Reason] which, as I said, was v. Relation of the Names. vi.Eternal personality of the Word. 521 eternally begotten of the rational Power of God. Now by soox m. the substance of the Word, as we shall most evidently 6.7. shew hereafter, Tertullian meant the very Hypostasis® or pinru.._ Person of the Word. The Word of God, therefore, was a LAN. substance or hypostasis, subsisting from everlasting in God. But, you will say, how then does: Tertullian say that Reason, as the substance of the Word, was anterior to [the Word] Itself? was the Word a Person before the Word existed? Yes, certainly, according to Tertullian’s mind ; this very thing was precisely what Tertullian meant; the Word existed in _ His substance or hypostasis before He became the Word, that is to say, before He proceeded forth from God with vocal utterance and sound for the creation of this universe. In the sixth place, Tertullian no less clearly teaches that the Word, even anterior to that His mission and going forth from God the Father, existed with! the Father as a Person ' apud. distinct from Him. This indeed follows from our first and second observations; for when Tertullian proves that God the Father was not alone before the creation of the world, by this reasoning, that even then He had with Him His Logos, he manifestly intimates that that Logos was even then an- other Person”, though not another thing’, from God the *alium. Father ἢ, whose Logos He was. For he only is properly *@liud. said not to be alone, with whom there is another person present; and if through all that eternity, so to speak, which preceded the creation of the world, God was unipersonal *, * μονοπρό- and there was not in the Divine Essence one and another‘, 5 peta cae then indeed God must be said to have been at that time alto- que alius. gether alone, not only externally, in that there was not any other thing® external to Him, which Tertullian allows; but ὁ aliud. also internally, in that there was not another Person’ in Him, 7 alius. which the same Tertullian decidedly denies. But it is unneces- sary for us to treat it as a matter of inference; for Tertullian presently after teaches expressly that the Word ὃ before the ὃ Sermo- creation of the world, and so before His mission, was another "6 49) Person from® God the Father, whose Word He was. This he , alium ἃ, e [Substantia corresponding etymolo- and unum in Tertullian, adv. Prax., c. gically to hypostasis; see above, book 20, p. 515, quoted above by Grabe on ii. ch. 8. § 7. p. 347. | book ii. ch. 7. § 8, p. 205, note t.] f [See the like distinction of unus ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 239 1 alius. 2 alius a. [650] 522 The Word existed as another Person from the Father. explains by an illustration derived from man, the image of God, who whilst he is thinking, before he utters and puts’ forth his word, has it within in his mind, as it were one’ conversing with him ; and that in such a manner as that the word seems to be, in a certain sense, another and a second person from the man himself. “The word itself,” he says, “ig in a certain way a second [person] within thee, through’ whom in thinking thou speakest, and through whom in speaking thou thinkest. The word itself is another [than thyself””] And: he immediately subjoins®, “ How much more fully then is this carried on in God, of whom thou also art counted as the image and likeness"?” as though he should say, That, of which a kind of shadow is seen in thee, a man, is found in God in very deed; the inner word of man is, as it were, another person’ from the man himself; but the Word of God is absolutely, entirely, and in very deed another Person from? God the Father, whose Word’ He is. But that all that he had up to this point been say- ing respecting the Word of God, refers to the Word Him- self in so far as He existed in God before the creation of the world and eternally, Tertullian explicitly declares in the . following words: “1 may, therefore,” says he, “ without rash- ness, first lay down this [as a settled principle], that even then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone,” &c. In these words, I repeat, he intimates that all that he had said before refers to this point, to shew that in that state,. if it is allowable so to speak, in which God existed until the’ going forth of the Word from Him to create the world, He was not solitary; forasmuch as He had with Him from everlasting that same Word existing in Him, with whom to hold con- verse, and, as it were, discourse. 8. Seventhly, Tertullian proceeds clearly to intimate that’ = & See above, p. 518. * “ God willed that traces of Himself should be visible in man, and if the nature of man had retained its primal light, it would have been no obscure mirror of the Divine nature. And yet even now in this darkness, some traces may be marked. The mind of man in thinking presently paints the image of the object of its thoughts; we, however, do not transfuse our own essence into those images, and’ those thoughts are? sudden and evanescent acts. But the eternal Father, contemplating Himself, begets the thought of Himself, which is the image of Himself, and that not evanescent, but subsisting, [His Own] essence being communicated to it.’’— Melancth., Loc. Theol. de Filio, [Op., vol. i. p. 152.] vil. The Word sent forth is the eternal Logos in God. 523 the Word, which existed with God under the name of βοοκ m. Reason from eternity, and the Word. which was sent, or “s 7.8. sent forth, or proceeded forth from God, when He willed, Terrut-— to create the universe, is altogether one and the same Word ΠΑΝ" of God in Person’; a position which, as I have often re-! κατ᾽ ὑπό- marked, strikes a death-blow at. the Arian heresy. For he °**’™ declares, as I have just: before: observed, that the: Word con- sists of Reason, of that [Reason], namely, which eternally flowed forth from ‘the rational power of God,” in other words, from the Divine: Mind; and that that very Reason is the substance of the Word, that is, of Him: who at a definite time? ?aliquando. went forth with vocal utterance from God. to create the world. But that by the substance of the Word. (which he also calls body, corpus') Tertullian: meant the very Hypostasis. or Per- son of the Word, I again pledge myself to. shew. clearly in, its proper place. But that very thing, namely, that the Word, and Reason, of God are the same Person, Tertullian most explicitly affirms. in the following words*, [which: occur] after those I cited from the seventh chapter: “'The Son, in His own Person, under the name of Wisdom, acknow- ledges the Father; ‘The Lord created, Me the beginning of His ways, for His works; and before all,the-hills did He beget Me.’ For: if indeed; Wisdom in this. place. seem to say that She, was created. by the Lord, for His, works. and. ways, and it is elsewhere shewn, that by the Word®* ‘all: things: were? [John made, and: without. Him was, not. any thing made;’ as also * *J again, ‘by His Word: were the heavens established, and. all the host* of them, by His: Spirit, that, is. to say®, by. that;‘ vires. Spirit which was in-the, Word. it. appears. that. it is one and’ “que the same Power, one while under the name. of Wisdom, an- other while under the appellation. of. Word, which, received the beginning of His ways for the works of God; and. which established the heavens, by which. all things were made and) i [Ut ita dixerim, Sermonis corpus est Spiritus.—Ady. Prax., c. viii. p. 504, quoted below, ὃ 13; p. 533.3 k Filius ex sua persona profitetur Patrem in nomine Sophie; Dominus condidit me initium viarum in opera sua ; ante omnes autem colles generavit me. Nam si hie quidem Sophia yidetur di- cere conditam se a Domino in opera et vias ejus, alibi autem per Sermonem ostenditur omnia facta esse, et sine illo . [651] nihil factum; sicut:et rursum, Sermone: ejus cocli confirmati sunt, et Spiritu ejus omnes vires eorum, utique eo Spiritu qui Sermoni inerat; apparet unam ean- demque vim esse nunc. in nomine So- phiz, nune in appellatione Sermonis, que initium accepit viarum in Dei opera, et que ccelum confirmavit, per quam omnia facta sunt, et sine qua. ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 240 [652] * 524 Same Divine Person called Reason, Wisdom, Word, Spirit. without which nothing was made. Nor need we dwell longer upon this, as if He were not spoken of under the name both of Wisdom, and of Reason, and of all the Divine Soul and Spirit,” &e. Here, I say, he clearly teaches that in those passages of Scripture in which mention is made either of Wisdom, or of Reason, or of the Word, (for by the term Logos he had already remarked that both Reason and the Word are meant in the Evangelist John,i.1,) He, I mean, the Son of God, is spoken of; and that by all these names the same Divine Soul and Spirit οὗ God is designated. Parallel to these are the words you read in his treatise on Prayer, at the very beginning}, “ The Spirit of God,” he says, “and the Word of God, and the Reason of God, and the Word of Reason, and the Reason and Spirit of the Word, are both Jesus Christ our Lord,” &c.; where the expressions, “the Word of Reason, and the Reason and Spirit of the Word,” indicate that the Word is the operation of Reason and Spirit; and that Reason and Spirit are the very substance and hypostasis of Him, who is called the Word, as we shall afterwards see. But under both appellations, namely, that of the Reason or Spirit of God, and that of the Word of God, he expressly affirms that the same [Person}, our Lord, is designated. See, however, what we have said in book i. chap. ii. § 5. [p. 47,] on the appellation Spirit of God, as used by the ancients for the Godhead or Divine Per- son Itself of the Son of God. 7 9. And in all this Tertullian has treated the subject in a catholic and orthodox manner: nevertheless, both in the passages which we quoted above, and in other places of his treatise against Praxeas, he has interspersed some state- ments which appear to be quite repugnant to these observa- tions of ours, and of which we must now proceed to treat. In the first place, in chap. vi., he expressly teaches that the Wisdom of God, the second Person, was then created, when It began to be agitated in God, and afterwards went forth with vocal utterance from God, to create the universe. My answer is, the Logos is said by Tertullian to have nihil factum est. Nec diutius de isto; - ! Dei Spiritus, et Dei Sermo, et Dei quasi non de ipso sit sermo, et in Ratio, Sermo Rationis et Ratio Ser- Sophie, et in Rationis, et in omnis monis et Spiritus, utrumque Jesus $03.7 animi et Spiritus nomine—[p. Christus Dominus noster.—[ p. 129. ] i. Word created ; i.e. manifested in distinct Personality. 525 become, by His going forth, second from the Father, not βοοκ ut. as though He did not subsist previously, and so from ever- ἜΣ" lasting, as a Person in the Divine Essence distinct from the Τεατυμς.. Father; (for all that we have hitherto treated of is opposed 114%: to such an idea;) but because by that going forth, His dis- tinct Personality, so to speak, was manifested. For most - true is the comment of the very learned Andrew Rivet, to- wards the conclusion of his third dissertation’, on that pas-! Exerci- sage of Genesis, ‘ God said, Let there be light;’ “ For,” he νὰ says, “as the visible mission of the Son in time argues His mission made by generation from everlasting, so the speak- ing? of the Father in time, that is, His manifestation by ? locutio. effect*, argues the Word begotten from eternity. That eet effec- speaking * therefore in time is not begetting the Son, but s gicere, producing things which existed not as yet, through the Son begotten from everlasting of the Father; according to that declaration of Scripture which attributes the produc- tion of all things that were made to the uncreated Wisdom and eternal Word, Prov. vii. 22, 23; John i. 1, passages in which the eternity of that, Word is asserted. The Son of God, therefore, was the Word from eternity, not that God from eternity spoke through Him, but because it was always fit- ting® that through Him the Father should speak, and com- ὅ aptum ut mand whatever He would have done.’’ Indeed Tertullian ex- ac plains himself in the same way in another passage in this very queretur. book, chap. 12™. “ But,” he says, “ how is it written in re- spect of the previous works of the world? At the first indeed, the Son not yet appearing [it is written], ‘And God said, Let there be Light, and there was Light,’ [viz.] the Word Him- self forthwith, the true Light, which lighteneth [every] man that cometh into this world, and through Him [was there] the light, that is, of the world also. But from that time God [653] willed that it should be made in Christ the Word, standing by Him, and ministering unto Him, and God made it.” Here, observe, he does not say the Son “not yet existing,” but not “yet appearing.’ Now when he says in the same m Sed in antecedentibus operibus hominem venientem in hunc mundum, mundi quomodo scriptumest? Primum et per illum mundialis quoque lux. quidem, nondum Filio apparente, Kt Exinde autem in Sermone Christo ad- dixit Deus, Fiat lux, et facta est,ipse sistente et administrante Deus voluerit statim Sermo lux vera, que illuminat fieri, et Deus fecit.—[p. 506. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. ' hypostasi. 2 σκοτεινοῦ. 3 Sophia et Sapientia. [654] 4 Exerci- tatio. 526 He existed before the time when He is said to be created. © place, that the Word Himself was made then, when God said, “Let there be Light,” we must understand, in so far as He was Word, that is, in so far as He went forth from the Father with vocal utterance, as Tertullian thought. For if you do not thus interpret Tertullian, you will fasten on him a no- tion too absurd, and one which is altogether repugnant to what he has himself said in other places. For God said not “Let there be Light,” before He had created that rude and unordered mass of things. First He made that original material of all things; then He said, “ Let there be Light.” So that if the Word was then at length in very deed made, that is, began to exist in His own substance and Person!, when God said, “Let there be Light,” He was younger and later than that original matter. But this Ter- tullian always, even in his treatise against Hermogenes, em- phatically denied; this is too well known to require me to quote the actual passages. But, you will ask, How is it that Tertullian says that the Son of God did then at length appear, when God said, “‘ Let there be Light?” I reply, Although it may be very difficult to explain clearly all that is said by this obscure and truly “ dark?” author, (as He raclitus was called of old,) Iam yet disposed to put before the reader a conjecture of myown. The Son of God, so far forth as He is the eternal Reason and the eternal Wisdom of God, then first began to appear, when He undertook wisely, and with reason, to arrange, to set in order, and to adorn that matter which was yet unordered, and lying in a confused _ mass. From out of that miscellaneous heap of things, called chaos, the Wisdom and prudence* of God had not yet shone forth, which did afterwards beam forth most clearly, when that primal light (an image, as it were, of the Son of God, who is the brightness of the Eternal Light) shed lustre upon matter, and afterwards each several thing was clothed in form and as it were in vesture of its own. Thus indeed does Rivet, whom I have just mentioned, at the conclusion of the said dissertation‘, interpret this very passage of Genesis. For in answer to the question, why Moses then first intro- duces God as speaking, when he is treating of light, although the eternal Word acted together with the Father in creating that mass [chaos]? he says, “ Moses then made mention of Matter itself held by Tert. to have been created by Him. 527 the Word, because it is in reducing chaos into order’ that soox τι. His Wisdom is most conspicuous.” Hence, as we have ee rt shewn above", some of the ancients attributed in a special Type. sense to God the Father the creation of matter out of nothing, ΤΑΝ: and to the Son the adorning of it: at the same time allowing πὶ τόση that it was through the Son? that the Father had made the tione. original matter itself, and together with the Son? set in order ;,°% Εἰς and adorned matter. Hence also by Athenagoras “the going 5 cum Fi- forth of the Word,” on account of which He is called “the ἴδ" First offspring of God,” is laid down as posterior to the pro- duction of matter; inasmuch as it was for the purpose of adorning it that the Word is said to have gone forth from God, Yet the same Athenagoras allows both that matter was made by God, and that all things were created through the Word, see chap. v. § 2. of this book, [p. 435.] But, however this may be, it is certain that Tertullian was of opinion that the Logos subsisted in the Divine Essence, as a Person distinct from the Father, and another+ than the Father, even before ‘ alium. His going forth from the Father to produce created beings, and so from everlasting; this is evident, I say, not only from the observations which we have put before the reader above, but also from the most explicit testimony of Tertul- lian himself, which you may read in the thirteenth chapterof 241 the same booke. ‘That is still more important’,” he says, ὅ plus. ‘which you will find in the Gospel in so many words: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;’? He who was is One, and He [655] with® whom He was is Another.” It is most certain that ° penes. Tertullian understood those words of John, ‘In the begin- ning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” (as he ought,) of that condition of the Word in which He existed before His going forth from God, and so from everlasting ; as indeed we have already heard Tertullian explain himself, But in chap. viii. he lays open his view on this passage of John, if it be possible, with still greater clearness”. “The Word, therefore,” he says, “was both in the Father always, as He Ὁ See book ii. 13. 10. [p. 354. ] penes quem erat.—[p. 507.] ° Ipsum plus est, quod in evangelio P Sermo ergo et in Patre semper, totidem invenies; In principio erat Ser- sicut dicit, Ego in Patre; et apud mo, et Sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus Deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Εἰ erat Sermo. Unus, qui erat, et alius, Sermo erat apud Deum.—[p. 504. | ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 alius. 2 secun- dum a Pa- tre. [656] 3 separa- tionem quandam. 528 Passages shewing his belief that They are Two Persons. says, ‘I am in the Father ;’ and with the Father always, as it is written, ‘and the Word was with God.’” Now from a comparison of these passages it is plain that Tertullian believed that the Word, so far as He always was with the | Father, was another [Person'] than the Father. ‘The Word,” he says, “ was always with God ;” but he continues, “ He who was is One, and He with whom He was is An- other.” But one and another, I say, make up two;- whence it follows that, according to Tertullian’s view, the Logos was always, and from everlasting, a second [Person] in relation to the Father?. Just in the same way should Novatian be explained, or whoever was the author of the treatise on the Trinity, amongst the works of Tertullian, who certainly was an imitator of Tertullian. He distinctly teaches in chap. 314, that the Word was always in such sense in the Father, as that the Father was always a Father, and regards the con- trary assertion as an extreme absurdity; whence it neces- sarily follows that the Son was always a Son, inasmuch as of two correlatives if one be allowed, the other is allowed also; and it is certain that a Father and a Son constitute two Per- sons. ‘The same writer, however, having spoken presently afterwards in the same chapter of the going forth of the Son to create the universe, subjoins these words; “ God indeed, proceeding from God, making a second Person.” Now after what we have said about Tertullian, we shall require no Cidipus to aid us to the right understanding of these words of Novatian. This, however, is by the way; I proceed to explain the remaining paradoxes of Tertullian. 10. In the second place this seems open to blame in Tertullian, that he makes the going forth of the Word from the Father to have been a kind of separation* of Him from the Father. For in chap. 6 of his treatise against Praxeas, after treating of that agitaticn of Wisdom within God Himself, of which I have spoken above, applying to Him the words of Wisdom, as they are found in Solomon, “The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways, for His works,” he presently subjoins these words"; “know by the very separation that from this time [Quoted above, chap. 8. ὃ 6. p. _paratione cognosce, Cum pararit, inquit, coelum, aderam illi simul.—[p. 503. | q 477. Dehinc adsistentem eam ipsa se- ii. ‘ Separation’ of the Word a going forth in operation. 529 She! was standing by, ‘When He was preparing the hea- soox m. vens, She says, I was present together with Him,’” &c. 59. 11. Tertullian seems to have conceived in his mind, a kind qppryt- of severing and separation? of the Son from the Father, ri fhe having previously been, as it were, shut up in and within wisdom.] the Father, such as that of the fetus from the mother’s ° secre- womb. This, however, is his old practice. He is arguing with Fee ee Praxeas, who denied that the Son is distinct in Person from pea the Father; and in opposition to him, in order to assert the distinction of Persons, he seems to introduce a separation of Them. But did Tertullian then believe that the Son ever was in very truth separated from the Father? Far from it; in very many places of this treatise he expressly maintains the contrary; for instance, to omit other passages, in chap- ter 8, in arguing against Praxeas, he says’, “The Son [the Word] was always in the Father, and never separated from the Father ;” and shortly afterwards‘; “This will be the putting forth? of [i.e. taught by] the truth, whereby we say, ? probola, that the Son was put forth from the Father, but ποὺ sepa- Τρ βολὴ. rated.” In a word, according to Tertullian, the Son of God in His substance and hypostasis eternally was, is, and will be in God His Father; notwithstanding, He the same [Being], when the Father willed, went out, as it were, and issued from Him, in operation (κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν), [mean ; (which going out of His Tertullian imagined to be, as it were, a kind of sepa- ration;) that is, He exerted His almighty power and strength externally, ad extra,—as the schools say,—in the creation of [657] _ the world. Thus Tertullian explains himself in another place, where he says, that that Spirit of God, which is eternally in God, is the substance of the Word; whilst the Word Him- self, so far, that is, as He is the Word, is only the operation of that Spirit; but this passage we shall adduce, hereafter, in a more suitable place". 11. But, you will ask, what is to be made of those words of Tertullian, in which he expressly teaches, that the Word, at the time when He went forth from God to frame the 5 Sermo in Patre semper, et nun- a Patre, non separatum.—[p. 504. quam separatus a Patre.—[p. 504. Bp. See above, book ii. ch. 7. ὃ 2. p. 195, Bull substituted Filius for Sermo. | note p. | t Hec erit probola veritatis, [custos " [See below, ὃ 13. p. 533.] unitatis, ] qua prolatum dicimus Filium BULL. Mm ON THE CO-ETER- ‘NITY OF THE SON. ’ ornatum. 242 [658] 530 iii. The words ‘ assuming His form ; how to be understood. creatures, “assumed His own form and garb!?” I answer, that Tertullian therein indeed expressed himself absurdly enough ; but yet, if you look to his meaning and view, with- out any suspicion of heresy. For he states immediately after, that by the “form and garb” of the Word he meant nothing else than sound and vocal utterance. “At that time therefore, the Word Himself also,” he says, “assumes His own form and garb, soUND and VOCAL UTTERANCE, when God saith, ‘ Let there be light.’”” Excellent form indeed, excellent garb of the Word! But thus, it seems, this great man thought it well to sport, as it were, and to follow after trifles in the case of the most august of all mysteries. At the same time he does not say—as of created beings—that the Word then assumed His substance ; inasmuch as by the name Word he quite under- stood, as will be shewn hereafter, that the operation only, not the very substance or hypostasis, of the Son of God is desig- nated. Nor indeed could Tertullian have believed, as we remarked a little before, that the Son of God assumed His substance and hypostasis at the time when God said, “ Let there be light ;’ seemg that God said not, “Let there be light,” until He had created the primal matter of the ‘uni- verse ; and it is the well-known view of Tertullian, that the hypostasis of the Word, or Son of God, was more ancient than that primal matter; and, further, that matter was created through the Son. In like manner, when Tertullian speaks of that going forth of the Word, as His “ perfect nativity,” we must understand so far forth as He was the Word. He was from everlasting the perfect Spirit of God, the ! perfect Reason of God; but only then, as Tertullian thought, did He become the perfect Word of God, when by vocal utterance and sound He went forth from the Father to create the universe. Was it indeed possible that there should be any accession of real, and, so to speak, intrinsic perfection, to the eternal Reason of God? Surely not. For, as Tertullian, in the opening of the 6th chap., says*; “ What more wise than the Reason of God?” so I, too, would say; What can be more perfect than the eternal Reason of God? 12. With regard to those words of Tertullian, “by go- ing forth from whom He became the Son,” they are to be * Quid sapientius Ratione Dei.—[p, 503.] iv. ‘Became the Son;’ yet T. held His eternal origination. 531 explained in precisely the same way, as we have a little be- 800K 1. fore interpreted his statements respecting the distinct per- § 11,12. sonality of the Son; that is to say, that going forth of the Terrut- Word out of * God the Father, together with the vocal sound, *!4*- “ Let be,” to form the creatures, was the manifestation of His Ὁ eternal Sonship and going forth out of the Divine Mind. In that He was the eternal Reason of God, He was of God’, and ? ex Deo, the co-eternal offspring of the eternal Mind; and since by this going forth out of the Divine Mind, He, by Tertullian’s confession, received His substance, it follows that that His eternal going forth was His generation, or production pro- perly so called; and that the other going forth was only a manifestation, as I have said, of the former. Nor are we here bringing forward far-fetched or strained interpretations, but the very genuine sense of Tertullian himself. For that is Tertullian’s own axiom, which we elsewhere’ adduced; ““ Hvery origin is a parent, and every. thing which is brought forth from* an origin is an offspring.” But it is certain, 3 ex. that, according to Tertullian’s view, the Word, so far as He is — the eternal Reason of God, had His origin as respects His [659] substance from* God; in that He is the Reason of God, there- 4 ex, fore, He was the offspring of God, as God also was His parent. Accordingly, this same Tertullian, chap. xv. of the same treatise, declares? that the Word was “ God of God,” inas- much as He was with God in the beginning, that is to say, always, as Tertullian himself, as we have seen, interprets it in another place. “The Word of life,” he says, “ became flesh, who before [that He became] flesh® was only the Word δ ante car- in the beginning with® God the Father, not the Father τορος with the Word. For, although the Word was God, yet was ey fo He with’ God, because He is God of God, because joined ἐοϑ 7 apud. the Father with® the Father’’.”” Here he also concludes that * ¢™™-. the Word, so far as He was always with God, was God of God oe ? 10 guiacum from the circumstance that the Word is said by John to Patre apud ΜΟΝῊΝ have existed with" the Father, not the Father with the Word. ; ade Υ Omnis origo parens est, et omne quod ex origine profertur progenies est. _—[Adv. Prax. c. 8. p. 504,] See this Book, chap. 5. ὃ 8. [p. 446.] ° ᾿ Sermo vitze caro factus, eee Qui ante carnem Sermo tantum in primor- dio apud Deum Patrem, non Pater apud Sermonem. Nam etsi Deus Ser- mo, sed apud Deum, quia ex Deo Deus, quia cum Patre apud Patrem.— [p. 509. ] Mm 2 532 Tertullian held the eternal existence of the Son. on tue And the argument is indeed excellent, seeing that the words co-eTex’ “and the Word was with God,” indicate not obscurely, that tue sox. the Word always subsisted both with God and in God the Father, as [with and in] His author and principle. Again, in the 21st chap. of the same treatise, he thus comments on the same words of John®; “ For, if these words may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt 1 alius. | shewn to be One! who was from the beginning, and Another’ : alius. with whom He was; the Word of God one, another the Lord*” — (I suppose it should be read God»); “although the Word also is God, but in that He is the Son of God, not in that He is the Father.” He here manifestly shews that the Word of God is said by John to have been in the beginning with God, and to have been God, in that He, as the Son, is distinguished from the Father. But that the words of John, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” are to ‘statu. _ be understood of that condition’ of the Word in which He 5 adusque. existed from everlasting, up to® His going forth from the [660] Father to create the universe, Tertullian himself has, as we have shewn above, openly acknowledged. Hence in’ the same chapter, a little after, he says in express terms that the Word, the Son of God, always existed; ‘“ Certainly,” he says’, “He was always the Son of God; but not He® Sipse. Himself whose Son He is.” 13. That all this may appear in a still clearer light, it is most carefully to be observed, that Tertullian looked to two things in the Son or Word of God; I mean His substance or hypostasis itself, which he also calls His body: and that 7ipsius Which is, as it were, accidental to Him’. The substance or hy- peti dag postasis itself of the Word and Son of God he stated to be the “Reason of God,” and the “Spirit of God ;” whereas that ex- ternal putting forth, whereby with vocal utterance and sound He went forth from the Father to adorn the universe, and on account of which He is most properly called the Word of * Nam si hec non aliter accipi licet, b [The editions of 1664 (instead of quam quomodo scripta sunt, indubi- alium Sermonem Dei, alium Dominum, ) tanter alius ostenditur, qui fuerit a read alium Sermonem esse, alium Deum ; principio, alius apud quem fuit; alium “that the Word was one, God an- Sermonem Dei, alium Dominum; (pu- οἴμοι." ---Β. to legendum Deum, Bull ;) licet et Deus © Certe Filius Dei semper; sed non Sermo, sed qua Dei Filius, non qu i j t filius—[pp. 511, 512. Pater.—[p. 511.] ’ qua ipse cujus est filius.—[ pp ; J The Hypostasis distinguished from what is accidental. 533 God, he imagines to be, as it were, a sort of accident to Him; βοοκ m1. and the substance indeed and hypostasis of the Word, in that Ὁ 10, 18. He is the Reason and Spirit of God, he freely admits to be pipruL- eternal, although he affirms that He was made the Word of τᾶν. God from a definite beginning. His words in chap. 8. are clear: he there quotes the passage of Scripture, “ For who knoweth the things that are in God, but the Spirit, which is in Him?” and immediately adds‘, “But the Word was framed! by the Spirit, and, if 1 may so say, the Spirit is | structus. the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, ‘I am in the Father ;? and always with God, as it is written, ‘And the Word was with God.” Where, from these two hypotheses, namely, that the Spirit of God, which is in God, is the. body of the Word, and that this Spirit of God was in God always and was everlasting, (which latter hypothesis, although’ not expressed, he yet manifestly implies,) he concludes that the Word was always with God; and this, as we shall presently see, in opposition 248 to the Valentinians, who denied the eternity of the Word. [661] The Spirit of God, however, which he here designates the body of the Word, he elsewhere calls the substance of the Word; I mean in his Apology, chap. 21°: “ We,” he says, “attribute the Spirit, as Its proper substance, to the Word, and Reason, and also Power’, whereby, as we have declared, ? itemque. God created all things.”' But that, by the body and sub- stance of the Word, Tertullian understood the very hypos- tasis or Person of the Word, is most evident from his ex- press words immediately preceding the passage which we have adduced, in his Treatise against Praxeas, at the conclu- sion of chap. 7. “For who,” he says, “will deny that God is a body, although God be a Spirit? For Spirit is body of its own kind in its own form®. Nay, even the invisible things, ὃ spiritus whatever they be, have with God both their own body and aan ie generis in sua efligie. 4 Sermo autem Spiritu structus est, et, ut ita dixerim, Sermonis corpus est Spiritus. Sermo ergo et in Patre sem- per, sicut dicit, Ego in Patre; et apud Deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et Sermo erat apud Deum.—{[p. 504. ] ὁ [Et] nos [etiam] Sermoni atque Rationi, itemque Virtuti, per que om- nia molitum Deum ediximus, propriam substantiam Spiritum inscribimus,— p- 36. [p. 19.] f Quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus Spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. Sed et invisibilia illa, quecumque sunt, habent apud Deum et suum cor- pus et suam formam, per que soli Deo visibilia sunt. Quanto magis quod ex ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, 1 seeun- dum a. 2 solidam. [662] 3 aliquan- do. 534 The Hypostasis or Body of the Word eternal ; called their own form, by means of which they are visible unto God alone. How much rather, then, shall That which was sent forth from His own substance, not be without substance? Whatever therefore the substance of the Word was, THAT I caLt A PERSON, and claim for It the name of Son; and while I acknowledge the Son, I maintain Him to be second in relation to! the Father.” Here by body Tertullian under- stands a substance, abiding’® and subsisting of itself, so as to differ most widely from those accidents, which are fleet- ing and pass away by a continual flux and succession; as Petavius himself has rightly observed. Thus in chap. 35. of his book against Hermogenes, Tertullian allows not that there is any thing incorporeal®, “seeing that the very sub- stance of each thing is its body.” From these passages, then, you may know for certain, in what sense Tertullian above called the Reason of God;—which was always with God, as being eternally born from the Divine Mind,—the substance of the Word. That is to say, by the substance of the Word Tertullian certainly meant (aecording to his own interpretation of his own meaning) the hypostasis or Person of the Word. So that that is most plainly false which Petavius' confidently affirms, namely, that Tertullian was of opinion, that God the Father “then put forth out of Himself, and, as it were, embodied the Word, that is to say, gave unto Him a substance and Person of His own, at the time when He framed all created things out of no- thing, and employed the Word for that purpose.” I wonder what spectacles the Jesuit used in reading Tertullian: cer- ‘tainly Tertullian expressly teaches the very contrary, viz., that the body, substance, and very hypostasis of the Word was the eternal Reason of God, the eternal Spirit of God; to which at a definite time® the appellation of the Word was added; that is to say, at the time when the Divine Hypos- tasis Itself with vocal utterance went forth from God to create the universe. . 14, However, as in the passage quoted from the treatise ᾿ ipsius substantia missum est, sine sub- _Patre defendo.—[p. 504. ] stantia non erit? _ Quecumque ergo h Cum ipsa substantia corpus sit rei substantia Sermonis fuit, ILLAM DICO — cujusque.—T[p. 246. ] PERSONAM, et illi nomen Filii vindico; i De Trinitate i. 5. 8. et dum Filium agnosco, secundum a by Tertullian the Spirit ; distinct ideas of the Names. 535: ‘against Praxeas, chap. 8, Tertullian asserts that that Spirit soox τη. of God, which is the body and hypostasis of the Word, ex- § 13, 14, isted eternally with God: so he in another place most dis- Terrut- tinctly teaches that the Spirit of God Himself is an hypostasis “4%: distinct from God, whose Spirit He is; and that, in that He is the Spirit of God; the passage occurs in the 26th chap. of the treatise, where he intimates that the one and the same Person of the Son may be regarded in a twofold point of view; so far forth as He is the Spirit of God, or [in other words] a Divine Person having His origin from everlasting from God, who is a Spirit also and subsisting in God; and so far forth as He is the Word: he also expressly says that the Word is nothing else than the operation of that Spirit; and that the Spirit Himself is the substance and hypostasis of the Word. For, in explaining that place in Luke, chap.1., where mention is made of the Spirit of God coming upon the most Blessed Virgin (after Justin) and some other ancient authors), he thus writes of the Son of God*: “The Spirit of God, in this place, will be the same Word. For, just as when St. John says, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ we under- stand the Spirit also in the mention of the Word; so like- [668] wise here we acknowledge the Word also under the name of Spirit. For both the Spirit is the substance of the Word, and the Word is the operation of the Spirit, and the Two are One!.” Here when he says that the Spirit is the substance ' unum. of the Word, and that the Word is the operation of the Spirit, and that the Two are One, the meaning is plain from what has been said before, that the Word is nothing else than that eternal Spirit of God, so far forth as It is regarded as proceeding from? God with sound and vocal utterance to? ex. create the primal light, and the other works of the universe ; that is, that the selfsame Person is understood under the _ appellation both of the Spirit and of the Word, with this difference only, that He is called the Spirit of God, so far forth as He is a divine Person, eternally subsisting in God, [who is] a Spirit, and of Him; and the Word, so far forth as He is the Spirit in operation’®, that is, so far forth as He ὅ operans. ὁ [Apol. i. c. 33. p. 64.] Sermonem quoque agnoscimus in no- k Hic Spiritus Dei idem erit Sermo. mine Spiritus. Nam et Spiritus sub- Sicut enim, Joanne dicente, Sermo caro stantia est Sermonis, et Sermo operatio factus est, Spiritum quoque intelligi- Spiritus, et duo unum sunt.—[p. 515.] mus in mentione Sermonis; ita et hic ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 ipse. 2 ex ipso. 3 tale quid quale. [664] 4 talis qualis. 244: 5 alius a Deo Patre. 536 Spirit, or Substance of the Word a Person eternally distinct. came forth (for so Tertullian thought) with sound and vocal utterance from God, when He willed, to set in order this entire universe. But that the Word of God, so far forth as He is the Spirit of God, is a Person distinct from God, whose Spirit He is, he expressly affirms in the same passage, shortly after the words we have cited'; “ As therefore,” he says, “the Word of God is not He! whose [Word] He is, SO also the Spirit, although He is called God, yet is not He whose [Spirit] He is said to be. Nothing which is another’s is that same thing whose it is. Clearly, when any thing is of another’, and so is its [property], seeing it is of it, it may be such as® it is, of which it is, and whose it is. And, therefore, the Spirit of God is God, and the Word of God is God, be- cause He is of God, yet [is] not He of whom Heis. But if He be God of God, as a substantive thing, He will not be God Himself; but thus far God, because He is of the substance of God Himself, whereby also He is a substantive thing, and as it were a portion of the whole.” Here, I repeat, Tertullian clearly teaches that the Spirit of God is a substantive thing, that is to say, τὸ ὑφιστάμενον [that which subsists]; and moreover, that the Spirit of God, whilst He is such as* God the Father is, whose Spirit He is, (i.e. is of the same substance with Him,) is yet distinct in Person from the Father. But there is a distinction to be observed in these words, “ As there- fore the Word of God is not He whose He is, so also the Spirit,...is not,” &c., for this is just the same as if Tertullian had said, He who is called the Son of God is another than® God the Father, not only in that He is the Word, but also in that He is the Spirit of God, such as He was before He be- came the Word, and so from eternity. But in what sense Tertullian called the Son of God, the Spirit and the Word, “a portion of the whole,” namely, of the divine essence, we have explained above in the second book, chap. vii. § 5 [p. - 199.] But let the reader, as he desires to understand clearly * Sicut ergo Sermo Dei non est ipse, Deus, et Sermo Dei Deus, quia ex cujus est, ita nec Spiritus, et si Deus Deo, non tamen ipse ex quo est. Quod dictus est, non tamen ipse est, cujus est dictus. Nulla res alicujus, ipsa est cujus est. Plane cum quid ex ipso est, et sic ejus est dum ex ipso sit, potest tale quid esse, quale et ipse ex quo est, et cujus est. Et ideo Spiritus Dei si Deus Dei tanquam substantiva res; non erit ipse Deus; sed hactenus Deus, quia ex ipsius Dei substantia, qua et substantiva res est, et ut portio aliqua totius.—[p. 515.1] Tertullian’s language, not his meaning, like Valentinus’. 537 the true mind and view of this obscure teacher, carefully bear 300K m1. in mind what Tertullian has said of the twofold mode of con- ξ 14, 15, sidering the Son of God, namely, as He is the Spirit and Terrut- Reason of God, and as He is the Word of God. For from “4™ the careful observation of this distinction he will easily per- ceive the meaning of very many expressions of Tertullian, which otherwise would certainly be a great difficulty! to him. ἡ crucem. 15. To say the truth, Tertullian has in this place to a certain extent spoken the language of the Valentinians, and of the rest of the Gnostic herd; and yet in very deed he quite agreed in opinion with the catholics. Let not the reader take this on my authority, but on that of Tertullian himself, who, in the 8th chapter of his treatise against Praxeas, both repudiates the wild notions of the Valentinians re- specting the Word, and asserts the orthodox doctrine in the following express terms™; “If any man from this shall think that 1 am introducing some probole’, i.e. a putting forth ? προβολὴν of one thing out of another, as Valentinus does, bringing “"4" forth zon from zon, one after another; this is what I shall first say ; The truth does not refrain from the use of that word, and the reality and meaning of it*, because heresy also ὅ censu uses it: nay, heresy" has rather borrowed it from the truth, ὍΣ to frame it into her own counterfeit. Was the Word of [966] God put forth*, or not? On this ground take your stand ‘ prolatus. with me. If He was put forth, recognise the putting forth m Hoc si qui putaverit me προβολὴν Filius Patrem novit, et sinum Patris aliquam introducere, id est, prolatio- ipse exposuit, et omnia apud Patrem nem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, alium atque alium AZonem de Aone producens; primo quidem dicam tibi, Non ideo non utitur et ve- ritas vocabulo isto, et re ac censu ejus, quia et heresis utitur; imo heresis potius ex veritate accepit, quod ad mendacium suum strueret. Prolatus est Sermo Dei, an non? hic mecum gradum fige. Si prolatus est, cognosce probolam veritatis; et viderit heresis, si quid de veritate imitata est. Jam nune queritur, quis quomodo utatur aliqua re, et vocabulo ejus. Valentinus probolas suas discernit et separat ab auctore, et ita longe ab eo ponit, ut Eon Patrem nesciat; denique deside- rat nosse, nec potest; imo et pene de- voratur et dissolvitur in reliquam sub- stantiam, Apud nos autem solus audivit et vidit, et que mandatus est a Patre, ea et loquitur. Nec suam, sed Patris perfecit voluntatem, quam de proximo, imo de initio noverat. Quis enim scit que sint in Deo, nisi Spiritus qui in ipso est? Sermo autem Spiritu structus est, et, ut ita dixerim, Sermonis corpus est Spiritus. Sermo ergo et in Patre semper, sicut dicit, Ego in Patre ; et apud Deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et Sermo erat apud . Deum: et nunquam separatus a Patre, aut alius a Patre, quia, Ego et Pater unum sumus.—[p. 504. | ἢ [Quia et heresis utitur: imo he- resis potius ex veritate accepit, &c. The words utitur; imo heresis ave omitted in the editions of 1664 and 1675.] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 reliquam substan- tiam. 2 sinum. 3 de prox- imo. 4 alius. 5 sermo- nalis non fuit. [666] 588 Tertullian’s expressions on the putting forth of the Word, of [taught by] the truth; and let heresy look to it whether she hath copied any thing from the truth, The question now is, in what sense each uses a given thing and the word which expresses it? Valentinus divides and sepa- rates his probole from their author, and places them so — far from Him, that the won does not know the Father; he even longs to know Him and cannot; nay, he is almost swal- lowed up and dissolved into the rest of matter'. But with us the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself get forth the bosom? of the Father, and has heard and seen all things with the Father, and what He hath had in charge from the Father, that also doth He speak. And it is not His own, but the Father’s will which He hath accomplished, which He has known immediately *, yea from the beginning. For who knoweth what things are in God, save the Spirit — which is in Him? But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and, if I may so say, the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as he says, ‘I am in the Father; and always with God, as it is written, ‘And the Word was with God: and never separated from the Father, or another than‘ the Father, since ‘I and the Father are one.’”- The wary man had perceived that what he had argued above respecting the vocal putting forth of the Logos, was not the common opinion of Catholics; in- deed, as has been said, he almost confessed this very thing himself in the same passage. He had foreseen that there would be some who would reject this discussion of his as heterodox, and not far different from the Valentinian fables ; and accordingly he adopts this defence. And truly one egg scarcely looks more like another, than that saying of Ter- tullian, “ God was not possessed of Word’ from the begin- ning,” resembles the wild fancy of Valentinus, when he asserts, that Sige, or Silence, was in the beginning with God; but that afterwards the Logos, as it were, burst forth, the sound and voice of God. "Whence Irenzus°, who was (as Tertullian himself allows) a most careful searcher out of all doctrines, utterly rejects as a mere fable of Valentinus, [the statement] that the putting forth of the Word of God is similar to the putting forth of a human word by means of the ° Lib, ii, 48. [eap. 28. 5. p. 157.) seem like Valentinus’ ; the distinctive views of Valentinus. 539 tongue. Yet doubtless the Valentinian error respecting the 00x 11. putting forth of the Word of God by means of voice and § 15, 16. sound, had such an appearance of truth, (favoured as it seem- Texrut- ed to be both by the primary meaning of the appellation “4™ the Word, given in the Scriptures to the Son of God, and especially by the passage in Genesis i. 3,) that it is not very wonderful that some readily conceded this to the Valenti- nians, and even embraced it themselves; who, at the same time,. would not so readily have allowed themselves to be led away by them from the beaten path of catholic tradi- tion in respect to the substance of the doctrine touching the Son of God. I decidedly consider Tertullian to have been of this number. 16. For certainly in the passage cited he openly professes, that, as regards the chief point of the matter, he utterly ab- horred the heretical inventions of Valentinus. In order to shew this, he sets forth the view of the Valentinians, and opposes to it hisown. The Valentinians separated most of their ons, and specially the Word, and set them at a great distance from the supreme Father of all, in nature, in know- ledge, and lastly in time. First, in nature: for of all the eons that were generated by Depth and Silence, they made Mind (Nis) alone a perfect eon. For (according to Irenzus, i. 1, near the beginning) they asserted that Silence, having conceived and become pregnant, brought forth Mind? “ simi- lar and equal to Him who had put Him forth, and alone containing the greatness of His Father.” But as regards the Logos or Word, whom they made later than Mind, and 24 [made Him] as Irenzeus expresses it, the third order of [667] generation, they expressly affirmed that He was an im- perfect xeon, nay, even that He was blind. For this is also ‘attested by Irenzus, ii. 244, “Going,” he says, “round and round the Truth, away from right reason, so far as to affirm, that He who was produced as the Word from the Mind of their First Father was produced unto degradation’: for that 1 in demi- the perfect Mind begotten of the perfect Depth could not ?°‘te- nem emis- sum. P [ταύτην (σιγὴν) ὑποδεξαμένην τὸ 4 A recta ratione circumeuntes circa σπέρμα τοῦτο, καὶ ἐγκύμονα γενομένην, veritatem, in tantum uti eum qui est ἃ ἀποκυῆσαι Νοῦν, ὅμοιόν τε καὶ ἴσοντῷ Nu propatoris ipsorum emissus Sermo, προβαλόντι, καὶ μόνον χωροῦντα τὸ μέ. in deminorationem eum emissum di- γεθος τοῦ Narpds.—[p. δ. cant. Nun enim perfectum, a perfecto ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 emissio- nem. [668] 540 Valentinus’ doctrines; Tertullian opposes them go on to make the emanation’ which cometh of it perfect, but blinded in respect of the knowledge and greatness of the Father; and that the Saviour shewed a symbol of this mystery in the case of him who was blind from his birth.” : And afterwards in the same passage, “‘ How is it, ye most — vain sophists, that the Mind of the Father, nay, even the Father Himself, seeing that He is Mind, and perfect in all respects, sent forth His Word an imperfect and blind zeon, seeing He is able immediately to send forth with Him the knowledge also of the Father?” In the second place, the Valentinians asserted, as a natural consequence, that most of their eons were far removed in knowledge also from the supreme Parent of all. For their doctrine was, that each zon knew only his own immediate parent, and in conse- quence that Mind alone, as being His only immediate off- ᾿ spring, could attain to a knowledge of the Parent of all. For thus Irenzus speaks in the chapter which we have quoted’; “They say that they (the zons) were produced, and that each one of them knew him only who produced him; and knew not him who is before that one.” And what these heretics taught respecting the ignorance of the Word, specially, we have already shewn. In the third place; the Valentinians, lastly, separated almost all their eons in age also from the supreme God. For they taught that the first pair alone, namely, [that] of Depth and Silence, is eternal. Following herein their fathers, the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians, as we have already shewn® out of Irenzus, they attributed a be- ginning to Mind itself, or the Only-Begotten, whom they called the Father of the Word. Now Tertullian, with Irenzeus and all Catholics, rejects all these doctrines as heretical, and shews under each separate head, that his own doctrine re- specting the putting forth of the Word is directly contrary to the inventions of the Valentinians. We, he says, maintain, Bytho progeneratum, jam non potuisse eam, quz ex eo est, emissionem facere perfectam, sed obccecatam circa agni- tionem et magnitudinem Patris; et Salvatorem symbolum mysterii hujus ostendisse in eo qui a nativitate ccecus fuit....Quemadmodum, o vanissimi sophiste, Nus Patris, imo etiam ipse Pater, cum sit Nus et perfectus in om- nibus, imperfectum et ccecum AZonem emisit suum Logon, cum possit statim et agnitionem Patris cum eo emittere? [eap. 17. 9. p. 189. ] ; τ Dicunt quoniam emissi sunt unus- quisque illorum, [Monum,] et illum tantum cognovisse, qui se emisit, ig- norans autem eum qui ante illum est. —[Ibid.] * [See above, iii, 1. 8. p. 382. ] all; and therein contravenes the Arian view. 541 1, that the Word or Son of God is in nature and substance soox 11. not other than the Father, but one with Him; 2, with respect to knowledge, that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, CHAP. Χ, § 16, 17. TERTUL- and therefore that He alone knows the Father immediately |, μιὰν. and has laid open His bosom’; 3, lastly, as to age, that that - 1 de prox- imo. Word in His own hypostasis always was in being with God the ? sinum Father, seeing that the body, substance, and hypostasis® itself pale g, τες of the Word is that Spirit of God, who eternally subsists in 3 gubstan- God and of Him; who at a definite time came forth from [ἃ εἴ by-— God with the word, “ Frat,” to form created things, and that on this account He was called the Word of God. For the Valentinians taught, that the Word was so put forth in vocal utterance and sound, as that, previous to that putting forth, He did not exist at all κατ᾽ ὑπόστασιν (as a Person,) even if He ever were at any time a Person. Tertullian, on the con- trary, teaches that the Word has His own body, or [in other words] substance and hypostasis, and that eternal; namely, that Spirit of God, who is and always has been in God. But who does not of himself perceive that these propositions of Tertullian are opposed, as so many counter- statements, to the blasphemies alike of Arius and of Valen- tinus? That is to say, these three statements, that the Word or Son of God is alien from the nature and substance of the Father ; that therefore He cannot perfectly know the Father ; and, lastly, that He was not always in being and subsisting with the Father; these, I say, are the primary heads of the Arian heresy; and all these Tertullian, together with the catholic Church, has here expressly condemned in the Valen- tinians. Let the frantic Arians, therefore, desist in future from glorying in Tertullian as their patron. 17. To the testimonies which have been adduced, and they are certainly most clear, we will further add two besides ; with which we will at last bring to an end this lengthy but very necessary disquisition on the faith and views of Tertul- lian. One occurs in the 27th chapter of the same treatise against Praxeas‘. ‘ For the rest,” he says, “ we must needs postasis. [669] believe God to be unchangeable and incapable of form‘, as ¢immuta- being eternal. But transformation is a destruction of that >iem ° Ὁ Czteram Deum immutabilem et eternum. Transfiguratio autem in- informabilem credi necesse est, ut teremptio est pristini) Omne enim bilem. ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. ) preroga- tiva. [670] 2 omni- moda. 246 3 census. 4 et vice versa. 542 The Word declared by Tert. to be absolutely eternal and which previously existed ; for whatsoever is transformed into something else ceases to be that which it had been, and begins to be what it was not. But God neither ceases to be [what He is], nor can He be any thing else [than He is]. But the Word is God.” Here Tertullian expressly teaches that the Word of God, in that He is God, is absolutely un- changeable and eternal, who neither ceased to be what He had been, nor ever began to be what He was not. But surely if the Son of God, from the prerogative! (to use a phrase of Tertullian’s) of His unchangeableness and eternity, in that He is God, never could have begun to be what He was not, much less could He have begun to be simply, when previously He existed not at all. Besides, if any one en- deavour to elude the force of this testimony by asserting that the eternity here meant is of such a kind as that the thing, though it has a beginning, yet has not an end of exist- ence, he may be easily refuted from the following consi- deration. Tertullian is expressly speaking of such an eter- nity as is a necessary attribute of the Divine Nature, as such ; [in other words,| that which must necessarily be attri- buted to God, as God; and this eternity he ascribes to the Word, because He is God. “We must needs believe,” he says, “that God is unchangeable, as being eternal. But the Word is God.” Now the eternity of God is an eternity in every sense of the word’ and absolute, such as Tertullian describes in his treatise against Hermogenes, chap. iv.": “For what other estimate? is there of God,” he asks, “than eternity? what other condition of eternity, than ever to have been, and [ever] henceforward to be, by the special privi- lege of [having] no beginning and no end?” Lastly, Ter- tullian’s argument in the passage quoted is most manifestly grounded on this general supposition, that all the essential at- tributes of the Godhead, all which belong to God the Father, as God, and do not in any wise indicate the relation of the Father to the Son, and of the Son to the Father ¢, are common quodcumque transfiguratur in aliud, desinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod non erat. Deus autem neque desinit esse, neque aliud potest esse. Sermo autem Deus.—[See the whole passage quoted above, book ii. ch. 8. ὃ 4. p. 211.] ἃ Quis enim alius Dei census, quam zternitas? quisalius zternitatis status, quam semper fuisse et futurum esse, eX prerogativa nullius initii et nullius finis. unchangeable ; this shews the true sense of his other words. 543 to the Father and the Son. Now all admit that to have βοοκ m. existed always and always' henceforward to exist, is an ab- § 17, 18. solutely necessary attribute of the Divine essence, considered Trprut-_ in itself. But, eternal God! how diametrically opposed 414. again, is all this, to the Arian doctrines, with which Tertul- Be, ess: lian is by some said to have agreed! For the rest, we learn for certain from this passage also, that, when Tertullian said, that the eternal Reason of God, the eternal Wisdom, and the eternal Spirit, began to be agitated? in God for the ? agitari. works of the world, (just as he said that God the Father also exerted Himself with might? and laboured in the work of ὅ viribus creation,) that He went forth from God with vocal utterance creases and sound, and the like; it is, I say, plain from this passage, that all these statements were made by him in a sense no- ways inconsistent with* the eternal unchangeableness of the “ minime. Divine Person whom he designated by those names; that is to say, so as that it is in nowise to be supposed that the Reason, Wisdom, and Spirit of God either ceased to be what It had been, or begun to be what It had not been, or either lost or acquired any thing of what I may call Its internal perfection. In the beginning of the world there accrued indeed to the Divine Person of the Son of God, according to Tertullian, the appellation of the Word; moreover, He was then declared to be the Son of God; and there likewise accrued to God the Father the title of Creator. The Son wrought externally, [671] that things which were not might begin to be; and with the Son and through Him the Father also wrought. But nothing intrinsic was either added to or taken from either of the two, seeing that Each is the same God eternal and unchangeable. 18. The other testimony is to be found in the books’ οἵ carmi- Verses against Marcion. These books, in the judgment of ™ αὐτί: Pamelius*, are most certainly the work of Tertullian; nor have I seen any thing that is of any weight brought by others in opposition to this opinion of Pamelius. Read his Argument to the first book. Indeed any person of critical powers, who is not quite a stranger to Tertullian’s other * Preface to Tertullian’s Works, vol. these Poems are altogether unworthy iv. [See, however, p. 296, edit. 1664, οἵ Tertullian, and could not have pro- where arguments such as can hardly ceeded from him.—B.] be overthrown are given to prove that ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON, * Epistola Respon- soria. [672] “544 Verses against Marcion; Light from Light. writings, will be able easily of himself to discover every where in these Poems, both the thoughts and expressions of Ter- tullian. Thus then the author of the Verses speaks respecting the Son of God, in Book v. chap. ix.’ at the very outset, “He is God, He is also true man, and spoke the truth; From the Father the Beginning; begotten Light from Light; The Spirit and the Word, the power under the Image of the Father, With the Father He ever was, united in glory and in age.” Here, as in his treatise against Praxeas, he expressly says, that the Spirit and Word (whether we say Verbum or Sermo) of God always existed with the Father; adding, that He was united to the Father both in glory and in age. This testimony, however, which has been also quoted by a writer of our own, Dr. Gardiner?, Sandius®, in what he calls his “ Letter in reply!” to him, thus attempts to escape from. ‘ These verses,” he says, ‘‘appear to have been written after the council of Nice, because the author a little before had said ‘begotten Light from Light.’”? But did this sophist wish to persuade us that no one before the Nicene fathers had said that the Son was begotten from the Father, as Light from Light ? Why there is scarcely any one of the ancient catholic writers who preceded the Council of Nice, in whose works this illustration does not occur, as is clear from what we have brought forward in the second, and this third book; and of this Sandius could not have been ignorant. But with Tertullian especially this form of expression is familiar. To omit other passages, he thus speaks in his Apology, chapter xxi.’, “ We also attri- bute the Spirit, as His proper substance, to the Word, and Reason, and Power likewise, whereby God, as we have stated, made all things.” He presently adds in the same passage, ‘Thus is Spirit from Spirit, and God from God, as Y Hic Deus, hic et homo verus, verumque locutus, De Patre principium, genitum de lumine lumen, © Spiritus et Verbum, Patris sub imagine virtus, Cum Patre semper erat, unitus gloria et zvo. p. 639. edit. Pamel. [ 638. ] * (Dr. Samuel Gardiner, in a work itemque Virtuti, per que omnia moli- entitled, Catholice circa SS. Trini-. tum Deum ediximus, propriam sub- tatem fidei delineatio, p. 93. Lond. stantiam, Spiritum inscribimus. ... 1677. ] Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus, ab Append. ad Nucl. Hist. Eccles., p. ut lumen de Jumine accensum.—(p. . 19. ] > Nos etiam Sermoni atque Rationi, The same views in these Verses and in Tertullian: 545 Light kindled from Light.’”? Surely from the comparison even ΒΟΟΚ m1. of these passages you may easily discover that the same man § 18-20. was the author of the Apology and of the Poems. In the pepe, _ Apology the Son of God is called both God and the Word’, ais (whether Sermo or Verbum,) and Light, and Power’, and ρα τοὶ Spirit; and all the same names (which you would not easily ie find in any other author thus heaped together on the same τα Person of the Son) come together in that passage of the Poem. In the Apology you read “ Light kindled from Light ;” in the Poem, “ Light begotten from Light.” Thus at last, we have, as I hope, laid open fully, and, so far as the author’s obscurity permitted, clearly, the opinions of Tertullian respecting the eternity of the Son. From all which 247 it is clear how rashly, as usual, Petavius has pronounced’, “So far as relates to the eternity of the Word, it is plain that — Tertullian did not at all acknowledge it.” To myself indeed, and, as I suppose, to my reader also, after so many most clear testimonies adduced by me, the very opposite is evident ; un- less indeed (which I do not believe) Petavius played on the [673] expression, the Word. For Tertullian does indeed teach that the Son of God was made, and was called the Word, (Verbum or Sermo,) from some definite beginning; i. e. at the time when He went out from God the Father, with the voice, “ Let there be light,” in order to arrange the universe. But yet that he believed that that very hypostasis, which is called the Word (Sermo or Verbum) and Son of God, is eter- nal, I have, I think, abundantly demonstrated. 20. Lactantius alone remains to be consulted on this ques- Lacran- tion. Since his opinion is of no great account, (as we have ™°* already remarked in our Proposition and elsewhere‘“,) we shall need to say less about him. He was a rhetorician, not a theologian, and never at any time had a place amongst the doctors of the Church. Moreover, if we may give an opinion ‘from his writings, as they have come down to us at this distance of time’, he was very little acquainted with the Holy 3 ad nos Scriptures and the doctrine of the Church. In consequence eatec. he fell into the most serious and absurd errors, not only on this question, but also on other primary heads of our re- ligion, such as would scarcely be excusable in a catechumen ; © De Trin. i. 5. 4. * [See book ii. ch. 14. ὃ 4. p. 363.] BULL. Nn ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 metapho- ricam. [674] 546 The writings of Lactantius corrupted by heretics ; which it would be tedious to enumerate here. No wonder, therefore, if he very wrongly understood that figurative’ ge- neration of the Son, whereby He proceeded from and was, as it were, born of the Father, for the creation of the universe, (about which he had read something in the Christian writers,) to be His true production and procreation. Besides, I think it must be said, either that those passages of Lactantius re- specting the generation of the Son in Book ii. chap. 9, and Book iv. chap. 8, which, with good reason, have been espe- cially blamed by Petavius and other learned men as absurd and impious, were corrupted by heretics ; or, at any rate, that Lactantius himself was misled by some heretic. Certainly, as regards the latter passage, Xystus Betuleius, in his notes on the chapter, at the end, expressed his suspicions that 2 Deus bone. 3 genuit. 4 genuisse. His Father, one who once was not. * singulare. Lactantius had fallen into the hands of some falsifier. At any rate this is certain, that there are now extant in that chapter some statements which are utterly at variance with the doctrine of the chapter next following, and also with those statements which we have elsewhere alleged out of Lactantius, as we shall shew afterwards. But in Book 1]. chap. 9, good heavens’, how inconsistent is what Lactantius has written, if indeed it were Lactantius who wrote it. In the edition of Betuleius*, in that of Geneva and others, the following words occur near the beginning of the chapter®: ‘‘As the mother in an unexampled manner produced® her Maker; so must we believe that the Father, after an in- effable manner, produced‘ one co-eternal [with Himself]. Of His Mother was born one who was already in being; of Let faith believe this ; let not understanding search into it; lest either not finding it she deem it to be incredible, or discovering it believe it not to be unparalleled®.” Here Betuleius informs us that in the Roman edition, which had been published seventy years’ before he wrote, and which he says was very accu- _ * (Basil. 1563. The passage occurs, in brackets, with a marginal note, at p- 108. ] * Sicut mater sine exemplo genuit auctorem suum; sic ineffabiliter Pater genulsse credendus est coxternum. De matre natus est, qui jam ante fuit; de Patre, qui aliquando non fuit. Hoc fides credat, intelligentia non requirat ; ne aut non inventum putet incredibile, aut repertum non credat singulare.— [ This passage is not in the text of the edition of Le Brun and Dufresnoy, Paris, 1748, but is given in a note at Ρ. 143, with a statement of the grounds for rejecting it. | f That is to say, in the year 1475. [In the Roman editions of 1465 and wild opinions often expressed in his works. 547 rately edited!, instead of aliguando non fuit (once was not) βοοκ m1. the reading is, aliquando non defuit (once was not wanting). ¢ 99, 9]. But let any one who can, reconcile this with what follows. Excran-_ In some MSS., indeed, that whole passage is wanting. But ae elsewhere also Lactantius plays, as it were, with this mystery, cats ade in a way not unlike this; namely, in book iv. chap. 13, *™- where there is no suspicion of interpolation’: “ For God the Father Himself,” he says, “ who is both the origin and prin- ciple of [all] things, in that He is without parents, is most truly called by Trismegistus ‘without Father (ἀπάτωρ,) and without Mother (ἀμήτωρ,}᾽ because He is procreated? of none. 3 procrea- Therefore, it behoved that the Son also be born twice, that He ™*: also might come to be without Father, and without Mother. For in His first nativity, the spiritual, He was without Mother, because He was generated of God the Father alone, without the office of a mother. Whilst in the second nativity, the carnal, He was without Father, inasmuch as He was procreated [675] of the Virgin’s womb, without the office of a Father.” 21. There follows in that ninth chapter of the second book a long discussion on two principles, the one that of good, the other that of evil, which manifestly savours of Manicheism. For he says there", that God in the begin- ning made [a] good and [an] evil [being]; that “ He framed the world so that it should be made up of things which are contrary to one another and discordant; and that, there- fore, before all things, He made two fountains of things adverse one to another and at war together; that is to say, two Spirits, a good and a bad, of which the one is, as it were, the right hand* of God, the other, as it were, His® dexter. left‘; that He constituted the Devil as the inventor of evil ‘ sinister. CHAP. X. ͵ 1468, the words are aliquando non fuit, in those of 1470 and 1474, aliquando non defuit. No edition of 1475 is known. | 5. Ipse enim Pater Deus, et origo et principium rerum, quoniam parentibus caret, ἀπάτωρ atque ἀμήτωρ a Trisme- gisto verissime nominatur, quod ex nullo sit procreatus. Idcirco etiam Filium bis nasci oportuit, ut et ipse fieret ἀπάτωρ atque ἀμήτωρ. In prima enim nativitate spiritali ἀμήτωρ fuit, quia sine officio matris a solo Deo Pa- tre generatus est. In secunda vero carnali ἀπάτωρ fuit, quoniam sine Pa- tris officio virginali utero procreatus est.—[vol. i. pp. 302, 3.] » [Deum in principio fecisse bonum et malum; Fabricaturus mundum, qui constaret in (vel ex) rebus inter se con- trariis et discordibus; ... constituit ante diversa fecitque ante omnia duos fontes rerum sibi adversantium, inter seque pugnantium, illos videlicet duos Spiritus, rectum atque pravum, quo- rum alter est Deo tanquam dextera, "Ὁ alter tanquam sinistra;... constituit [Diabolum] malorum __inventorem, quem cum faceret, dedit illi ad mala excogitanda ingenium et astutiam, ut Nn2 ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 bdporum. 248 [676] 2 Produxit. 3 indoles divine stirpis. 548 Manichean doctrines found in the works things, and that, when He made him, He gave him wit and subtlety, to contrive what is evil, that so there should be in him both an evil will and consummate wickedness; that He willed that from him there should arise what are con-. trary to His own virtues, and that he should contend with Him, whether He Himself should cause more good, or he [the other] more evil; lastly, He of His own accord as- signed to the Devil a power over His own good'.” All this, I say, if it contain not the very dogma of Manes, still mani- festly savours of Manicheism. Sure I am, that the author, whoever he was, did not learn this from any doctor of the Catholic Church, (for the Catholic Church has ever con- demned blasphemies of this kind,) but took it from heretics. And, I ask, from what heretics if not from the Manichean ? Indeed these words also are wanting in some MSS.; but in all the copies there are found in this place statements which are not so very far removed from Manicheism, but are as far removed as can be from the doctrine of the Catholic Church. For after the author had said that he would lay open the cause and origin of evil, there follow these words, (accord- ing to all the MSS.) “‘Seeing that God was most full of foresight to contrive and of skill to execute, before He en- tered upon the work of [creating] the world, forasmuch as in Him there was, even as there ever is, a fountain of full and perfect good, in order that good might spring up from it as a stream, and flow forth afar, He produced? a Spirit like unto Himself, who should be endued with the powers of God the Father ....Then He made another, in whom the in-born® characteristics of his divine original did not continue. And thus was he infected with his own envy as with poison, and in eo esset et voluntas prava, et per- fecta nequitia; et ab eo contraria vir- tutibus suis voluisse oriri, eumque se- cum contendere, utrum ne ipse plus bonorum daret, an ille plus malorum; denique bonorum suorum potestatem illi ultro assignavit.—[ These passages are not received into the text of the edition of 1748.—B. but are given in the note, p. 144, with the grounds for rejecting them. } * Cum esset Deus ad excogitandum providentissimus, ad faciendum soler- tissimus, antequam ordiretur hoc opus mundi, quoniam pleni et consummati boni fons in ipso erat, sicut est semper, ut ab eo bonum tanquam rivus orire- tur, longeque proflueret, produxit simi- lem sui Spiritum, qui esset virtutibus Dei Patris preditus.... Deinde fecit alterum, in quo indoles divine stirpis non permansit. Itaque suapte invidia tanquam veneno infectus est, et ex bono ad malum transcendit, suoque arbitrio, quod a Deo illi liberum datum fuerat, contrarium sibi nomen adscivit. νον Invidit enim illi antecessori suo, qui Deo Patri perseverando cum pro- of Lactantius as we have them. Variations of MSS. 549 passed over from good to evil, and of his own will, which soox mt, had been given him free by God, took unto himself the con- ,'5;* trary name. For he envied that Being who was made before |, .4,y__ him', who by persevering was both approved of God the tvs. Father, and dear to Him. Him therefore, who thus from Reid os being good made himself evil, the Greeks call διάβολος, we the accuser, (criminator,) because those sins, unto which he himself tempts us, he reports unto God.” Then, omit- ting what we said is wanting in some MSS., these words are subjoined; ‘“‘ God, therefore, when He began the creation of the world, appointed over the whole work that His first and greatest Son,” &c. Here he teaches, first, that the Son of God and that Spirit, who became evil presently after his crea- tion, were both alike produced by God, before God began the work of [creating] the world; although he allows that the Son of God was prior to that evil spirit both in dignity and time. In the next place, he not obscurely intimates, that the great angel, who is called the devil’, is excepted from 2 Diabolus. the class of things created by the Son; that is to say, that both, the Son of God and the devil, were produced by God ᾿ alone, neither of them by the other or through the other; that the devil had in the Son of God, one made before him®, ὃ anteces- indeed, but not his Creator. But which of the catholic *”°™ doctors before his time taught thus? Lastly, when, with the view of laying open the cause of good and evil, he says, that [677] God, most full of foresight to contrive and of skill to ex- ecute, produced that first Spirit with this intent, that He should spring up like a stream from the fountain of good, and flow down afar, that is to say, to the creatures; and then that God made the other spirit, who is called the devil; he seems to me to intimate, that this other spirit was made by God with the very contrary intention, namely, that a river of evil also should flow forth from that spirit, as from a fountain, inasmuch as God knew that, although He had bestowed on him freedom of will, he yet would turn aside from good unto evil. Now what, I ask, is this but Manicheism, and that, so batus, tum etiam carus est. Hune _ ipse illicit, ad Deum deferat. Exorsus ergo ex bono per se malum effectum igitur Deus fabricam mundi, illum Greeci διάβολον appellant, nos crimina- primum et maximum Filium prefecit forem vocamus; quod crimina, in que _operi universo, &c.—[pp. 143—145. ] ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 cerussa- tus et in- fucatus, 2 delicato itinere. 3 bonorum suorum. [678] 550 Further instances of absurd opinions to speak, ingrained, and of the deepest dye'? However, even of those impious statements which we have said are wanting in some MSS., some are found in other places in Lactantius where there is no variation of the copies. Amongst them we read this ; “(God)* when intending to make man, before whom He was about to set virtue as his rule of life, in order that through it he might attain to immortality, made good and evil, in order that it might be possible for virtue to exist.” Quite parallel to this are the statements which we havé in his treatise, De Opificio Dei, chap. 20.! “For God willed not that man should arrive at that undying blessedness by a luxurious journey”. When, therefore, He was about to give virtue, He gave first an adversary to introduce into the minds of men desires and vices, to be the author of errors, and the contriver of all evils; that, since God calls men to life, so he, on the contrary, might hurry and lead them to death.” There is also the following found among them™; “ Seeing that the supreme God cannot be resisted, He hath of His own accord assigned unto him (the devil) power over His own good*.” The same thing is said in his Institutes book a: chap. 15, at the very beginning, namely that God?, “ from the first had given the devil power over the earth.” Anda little after, in the same passage the accuser is called, “that most deceitful governor of the earth.” 22. But in the eighth chapter of the fourth book, how silly, how ridiculous, how impious, are the passages we read®! “The Holy Scriptures,” he says, “ teach that the Son of God is the Word of God, and, that the other angels likewise are spirits (breath) of God. For a word is breath put forth with signi- * Facturus (Deus) hominem, cui virtutem ad vivendum proponeret, per quam immortalitatem assequeretur, bo- num et malum fecit, ut posset esse vir- tus.—[Part of the passage rejected as spurious, vol. i. p. 144; see above, p. 546, note e. } 1 Noluit enim Deus hominem ad immortalem illam beatitudinem deli- cato itinere pervenire. Daturus ergo virtutem, dedit hostem prius, qui ani- mis hominum cupiditates et vitia im- mitteret, qui esset auctor errorum, ma- lorumque omnium machinator; ut quoniam Deus homines ad vitam vo- cat, ille contra, ut rapiat et traducat ad mortem.—[ These words also are part of a passage which is rejected from the text of the edition of 1748; it is in the notes of chap. xix. vol. ii. p. 123. ] ™ Quoniam Deo summo repugnari hon potest, bonorum suorum potesta- tem illi (Diabolo) ultro assignavit.— [ Rejected, vol. i. p. 145, note. } Ὁ Diabolus cui ab initio terre dede- rat potestatem, ... dominator ille terre fallacissimus.—T[ vol. i. pp. 178, 174. ] © Sanctz liter docent, [in quibus cautum est] illum Dei Filium Dei esse Sermonem, [sive etiam Rationem, ] itemque ceteros angelos Dei spiritus esse. Nam sermo est spiritus cum ᾿ found in the writings of Lactantius. 551 ficant articulation. But yet since breath and word are put soox τη. forth by different parts, breath proceeding from the nostrils ς 9], 99. and word from the mouth, there is a great difference be- [Lacran-_ tween this Son of God and the other angels. For they ™* issued forth from God as silent breathings, inasmuch as they were created not to deliver the doctrine of God, but to minister. Whilst He, although He Himself be a Spirit, (Breath,) yet He came forth out of the mouth of God with vocal utterance and sound.” Here, as is plain, he teaches that the nature of the Son and of the other angels is [one and] the same; that is, that both He and they are Spirits of God, sent forth from the very substance of God, with this differ- ence, that the one went forth from the mouth, the other from the nostrils of God; the former with voice and sound, the latter in silence; and all this again savours of Mani- cheism. For the Manichees asserted that not only the angels but also the souls of men, at least of the good, ema- nated from the substance of God, as Augustine testifies, Of Heresies, c. 46. But did any one of the catholic doctors prior to Lactantius entertain such a theory? Surely no one. Nay, Lactantius might have learned more sound teaching from Ter- tullian himself, whom he had read. For thus he writes in his Treatise against Praxeas, chap. iii. ‘“ Albeit,” he says, “the divine Monarchia is administered by means of so many legions and hosts of angels, as it is written, ‘thousand thousands stood beside Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand were before Him?;’ yet did it not on that account cease to be [the rule] of one, so as no longer to be a monarchy, because it was ad- ministered by means of so many thousand powers; how then is it that God should be thought to undergo division and dis- severing in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, who hold the [679] 249 voce aliquid significante prolatus. Sed tamen quoniam spiritus et sermo di- versis partibus proferuntur, siquidem spiritus naribus, ore sermo procedit, _ magna inter hune Dei Filium et ce- teros angelos differentia est. Ili enim ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt, quia non ad doctrinam Dei tradendam, sed ad ministerium creabantur. [116 vero cum sit et ipse Spiritus, tamen cum voce ac sono ex Dei ore processit.— [vol. i. p. 189. ] P Si [et] monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum admi- nistratur, sicut scriptum est, Millies millia adsistebant ei, et millies centena millia apparebant.ei; nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta millia virtutum procu- ratur; quale est ut Deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in. Filio et in Spiritu Sancto, secundum et ter- tium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantie Patris, quas non patitur in ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. 1 consortes. 552 Some traces of sounder doctrine in Lactantius ; second and third place, partaking so of the substance of the Father, when He does not undergo this in such a number of angels, and that too when they are so alien from the substance of the Father? ?”” He teaches that the Son and the Holy Ghost indeed are partakers' of the substance of God the Father; but the angels, how great soever they be, are utterly alien from the divine substance. We must, therefore, as I said before, certainly conclude, either that those passages in the writings of Lactantius have been corrupted by some Here- tic, or that Lactantius was himself infected with heresy. If the former be your conclusion, the passages cannot fairly be attributed to Lactantius; if the latter, his — is with good reason to be sejadioll 23. At the same time we may discern some traces of soil and catholic doctrine respecting the eternity of the Son in Lactantius, in passages, where all the copies printed and MSS. agreeing, we have his own words; as for instance, in book iv. chap. 9. For there at the very beginning of the chapter, having at the end of the preceding chapter quoted the text of St. John’s Gospel, i. 1, 2, according (as is probable) to the Latin version in general use at that time, he goes on to write thus!; “ But the Greek term Logos is better than our term Word (whether Verbum, or Sermo.) For Logos signifies both Word and Reason, because He is both the Voice and the Wisdom of God.” Here Lactantius evidently imitates the expressions and thoughts of Tertullian, to whose writings, as was clear, he was no stranger. Tertullian, as we have seen", had before noted the double sense of Logos, which Lactantius here observes. Tertullian, on that passage of John where it is written, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,” had said that the Greek word Logos is better rendered in Latin Ratio (Reason), than Sermo (Word); and Lactantius says the very same. Ter- tullian acknowledges that the Logos, as He is the Reason of tot angelorum numero, et quidem tam alienorum a substantia Patris? [(Al. et quidem tam a substantia alienis ?)—p. 502. | P (“Et quidem tam alienorum a substantia,’ another reading is, “Et quidem tam a substantia alienis.”’—B. The meaning seems to be the same, alienis agreeing with the plural under- stood in numero. | a Sed melius Greci λόγον dicunt, quam nos Verbum sive Sermonem; λόγος enim et Sermonem significat et Rationem, quia ille est et Vox et Sa- pientia Dei.—[vol. i. p. 291.] τ (See above, ὃ 5. p. 516.] strange statements about the eternity even of the Father. 553 God, existed in the beginning, and so from everlasting, with soox 11. God the Father. And who would not readily believe that § 22, 23, Lactantius, in using the distinction, meant the same thing? ; παν... The Son of God, he says, is both the Word of God, and the tvs. Reason of God, both the Voice and the Wisdom of God; and, [680] in the passage of John, it is better to say, that Reason and Wisdom was in the beginning, and was with God, than that Word and Voice was so. For his meaning is, that the Son was not the Voice and Word of God before He went forth with vocal utterance from the Father, to set in order the universe ; whereas He was the Reason and Wisdom of God eternally. All this, however, is clearly inconsistent with the statements made in the preceding chapter, whether their author be Lactantius himself or some other. For, if the Greek term Logos better express the name of the Son than the Latin Verbum or Sermo, inasmuch as Logos signifies both Word and Reason ; if the Son ef God be not merely the Word, but the Reason also of God, and not only the Voice of God, but ᾿ the Wisdom of God likewise; moreover, if He ought rather to be defined the Reason and Wisdom of God, than His Voice or Word, (be it Sermo or Verbum ;) then surely the whole of the preceding discussion falls to the ground, wherein the Son of God is described as the mere vocal! Spirit of vocalis. God, [who was] formed into a Person at the time when He was put forth. Lastly, if the Son be the very Reason and Wisdom of God the Father, then is He eternal, (if at least, we are to say that God the Father Himself is eternal;) be- cause God the Father never was without His Reason and Wisdom; (up to what point this argument is sound and valid, we have shewn above’). But it was not without reason that I said ; ““Τ at least [we are to say that] God the Father Him- self is eternal ;” seeing that Lactantius seems to have spoken in dangerous, if not impious, language of the eternity even of the Father Himself, in his Institutes, i. 7, where he teaches, that the beginning of the existence of God, the Parent of all, cannot indeed be comprehended by us; still that we must certainly lay it down that God Himself had a beginning. His words are these‘; “Of whom (God the Father) neither can [681] 5. See ch. 5. § 5, 6 of this book. eestimari potest, nec magnitudo per- * Cujus, (Dei Patris,) nec virtus spici, nec principium comprehendi; ON THE CO-ETER- NITY OF THE SON. ) ἀπέφυγον studiose cavisse. [682] e 554 Certain evidence that in the 4th century the Ante-Nicene the power be estimated, nor the greatness seen clearly, nor the beginning comprehended; when the intent application and acuteness and memory of the human mind hath arrived unto Him, as if all paths were come to an end" and with-. drawn, it pauses, stands still, and fails; neither is there any thing beyond, unto which it can go forward. However, since it cannot be but that that which is must at some time have begun to be, it follows that since nothing was before Him, He Himself was procreated from Himself before all things.” Who would expect any sound opinion at all respecting the eternity of the Son, from one who had written so foolishly on the eternity of God the Father Himself? It may more than suffice to have said thus much on the doctrine of Lactantius. 24. Thus then have we at length investigated, not without diligent attention, the doctrine of the writers who preceded the Nicene council, on the co-eternity of the Son, and, further, (unless my judgment greatly misleads me) have abundantly demonstrated the several theses or propositions of this third book. From all this it is clear that that is most true which the learned Sisinnius declared of old concerning the doctors of the Church who flourished before the division in the Church, i.e., before the rise of the Arian controversy: as it is stated in Socrates*, (Eccl. Hist. v.10.) ‘The ancients studiously avoided! attributing a beginning of existence to the Son of God; for they understood Him to be co-eternal with the Father.” For we have adduced more than twenty catholic and approved doctors of the first three centuries, who all dis- tinctly and openly acknowledged the co-eternity of the Son. Moreover, we have shewn that the contrary doctrine was condemned by the synod of bishops assembled at Rome in the case of Dionysius of Alexandria. Setting aside Lactan- tius, (whose judgment on this question we have proved to be of no account,) the other Antenicene writers are six in all; Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, No- cum ad illum mentis humane intentio, et acumen, et memoria pervenerit, quasi consumptis (al. consummatis) et subductis omnibus viis, subsistit, heret, deficit; nec est aliquid ulterius, quo progredi possit. Verum quia fieri non potest, quin id quod sit, aliquando esse Ceeperit, consequens est, ut quando nihil ante illum fuit, ipse ante omnia ex se- ipso sit procreatus.—[ vol. i. p. 32. ] ἃ Consumptis [84]. consummatis; Jinished or exhausted. | Σ ὡς οἱ παλαιοὶ ἀρχὴν ὑπάρξεως τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ δοῦναι ἀπέφυγον" κατει- λήφεισαν γὰρ αὐτὸν συναΐδιον τῷ Πατρί. [Soc. H.E. v. 10. See the entire pas- sage quoted below in the Epilogus. | Fathers were allowed to have held the eternity of the Son. 555 vatian, or the author of the treatise on the Trinity among the works of Tertullian, and Tertullian himself. Of these the five former, although they regarded the going forth of the Son from the Father to create the universe, as being in some sense His generation, did yet themselves also carefully avoid attri- buting to the Son of God a beginning of subsistence ; and all openly professed that the Word existed eternally with God the Father. Lastly, Tertullian fell away from the Church into heresy; and is on that account justly to be classed among heretics, rather than among the doctors of the Church. And yet even he, after much going about, and after various and utterly frivolous subtleties, settled down at last and acquiesced in what he called “the opinion of the mass',” that is to say the catholic opinion; and in opposition to the Valentinians, the precursors of Arius, expressly affirmed’, that the Word had alway been in being and subsisted with God the Father. With respect, however, to Sisinninus, (of whom Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. vii. 12”, testifies, that, besides a knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, ‘‘ he possessed a manifold acquaintance with the investigations of those who had thought deeply both among the heathen and in the church »’) he had, no doubt, seen and read many other monuments of the ancient doctors, of Quad- ratus, for instance, Aristides, Miltiades, Melito, &c., which at this day are lost. Now he, the same who was prepared by such manifold study of the ancients, confidently asserted against the Arians, what he was prepared also to prove, that those ancients agreed in teaching that the Son of God was co-eternal with His Father. Thus far on this subject: let us now, with the help of the eternal Word and Son of God, proceed to what remains. Y To the testimonies of the Ante- ram, in toto Salvatore οὐσιῶσθαι id est, nicene Fathers, cited in defence of the co-eternity of the Son, add the fol- lowing quotation from Malchion’s Dis- putation against Paul of Samosata, given by Leontius, against Nestorius and Eutyches, Book iii., near the end: “ΙΔ I not long ago say, that you do not allow that the Only-begotten Son, who existed (from eternity) before all creatures, was substantially [οὐσιῶ- σθαι,} in the ‘one’ entire Saviour ?’’ GraBe. [The Latin words cited by Grahe are; Nonne ante dicebam, quod non concedas, Filium unigenitum, qui est ex eternitate ante omnem creatu- unitum esse secundum substantiam. Bibl. Patr. Max. vol. ix. p. 705. Lugd. 1677. The Greek was first printed by Dr. Routh, Relig. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 576, (ed. i.) from a MS. in the Bodleian Library, thus; οὐ πάλαι τοῦτο ἔλεγον, ὅτι οὐ δίδως οὐσιῶσθαι ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ σω- τῆρι τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως ὑπάρχοντα. 5. [καὶ τὰς ἐξηγήσεις τῶν ἱερῶν Bl- βλων ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστάμενον καὶ πολυ- μαθῆ] τῶν ἱστορημένων ὑπὸ τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ φιλοσοφησάν- rwv.—[p. 292. ] BOOK III. CHAP. xX. § 23, 24. ConcLu- SION. >! vulgi. [683] 251 [686] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 sectione. [686] BOOK IV. ON THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER, AS TO HIS ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLE. ͵ CHAPTER I. 4 THE FIRST PROPOSITION TOUCHING THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER AS TO HIS ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLE, STATED. THIS IS ALSO CON- FIRMED BY THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE ANCIENTS. IT IS SHEWN, THAT THAT EXPRESSION OF CERTAIN MODERN WRITERS, BY WHICH THEY DESIGNATE THE SON, αὐτόθεος, THAT IS, OF HIMSELF GOD, IS QUITE RE- PUGNANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE NICENE COUNCIL ITSELF, AND ALSO TO THAT OF ALL THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS, BOTH THOSE WHO WROTE BE- FORE, AND THOSE WHO WROTE AFTER, THAT COUNCIL. : 1. Resprctine the subordination of the Son to the Father, as to His origin and principle, we have incidentally, and when engaged on other points, spoken not a little in the preceding books; it is, however, an argument not unworthy of a more careful discussion by itself i a separate book'; especially as at the beginning of our work we put it forward as a distinct head of doctrine delivered in the Nicene Creed, and which we proposed to establish by testimonies out of the ancients. Respecting this subordination, then, let the fol- lowing be our first proposition : THE FIRST PROPOSITION. Tat decree of the council of Nice, in which it is laid down that the Son of God is ‘God of God, is confirmed by the voice of the catholic doctors, both those who wrote be- fore, and those who wrote after, that council. For they all with one accord taught, that the divine nature and per- The Subordination clearly held by the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 557 - fections belong! to the Father and the Son, not collaterally Βοοκ ιν. CHAP. I. or co-ordinately, but subordinately ; that is to say, that the ς 9. Son has indeed the same divine nature in common with the 1 compe-_ Father, but communicated by the Father; in such sense, ἴτε: that is, that the Father alone hath the divine nature from Himself”, in other words, from no other, but the Son from 3 ἃ se. the Father; consequently that the Father is the fountain, origin, and principle, of the Divinity which is in the Son. 2. To prove that part of our proposition which relates to 262 the doctors who preceded the Nicene council, there is no need that we should spend much trouble; forasmuch as it is already sufficiently established by most of the testimonies respecting the generation of the Son, which we have adduced from them in our second and third books. What shall be said to the fact, that® the very words themselves, Son, and Genera- 3 quid? tion, which the same doctors use throughout, do on their very _ : first notion‘ manifestly suggest the subordination of the Son tu. οἷ to the Father, who begets? Him. Certainly the common sen- ὅ Patrem timent of these ancients is that which is expressed by Nova- rei. tian, or the author of the Treatise on the Trinity among the works of Tertullian, in a passage which we have already cited more than once, from chap. 31%, “ Whatsoever He (the Son) is, He is not of Himself, because neither is He unborn, but He is of the Father, because He is begotten; whether as He is the Word, or as He is Power, or as He is Wisdom, or as He is Light, or as He is-the Son, and whatsoever of these He is, He is from no other source than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father.” Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho®, expressly says that the Father is to the Son the cause of His being, αἴτιον τοῦ εἶναι. Hence it is usual with Justin and the other Antenicene writers, to call God the Father, by way of _ distinction ὅ, sometimes God absolutely, sometimes the One ὁ διακριτι- God, sometimes ‘the God and Father of all,’ (as it is in the 7687) Scriptures 1 Cor. viii. 4; Ephesians iv. 6; John xvii. 35) because, that is, the Father alone is God of Himself’, whilst 7 ase Deus. the Son is God of God*. For this cause, also, those writers, 8 Deus de as often as they mention the Father and the Son together, P® generally apply the name of God to the Father, and desig- ® [See above, iii. 8. 7. p. 480. ] b p. 858. [ὃ 129. p. 222.] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. ! pariter. ” potero. 3 statim. * ἀρχὴ. [688] ° ἐν ταὐτῃ τῇ ἀρχῇ. 558 The teaching of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. nate the Second Person by the title either of Son of God, or Saviour, or Lord, or by some other similar appellation. On this subject Tertullian well says, in his treatise against Praxeas, chap. 13”, “I shall follow the Apostle,” these are his words, “so that if the Father and the Son are to be men- tioned together}, I shall call the Father God, and name Jesus Christ Lord. But Christ [when mentioned] alone, I shall be able’ to call God, as the same Apostle says, ‘Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.’ For a ray of the sun also, [spoken of] by itself, I should call sun; but if I were speaking of the sun, of which it is a ray, I should not forthwith? call the ray also sun.” 3. However, as relates to the doctors who lived before the council of Nice, no person, as I said, can have a doubt, that they acknowledged the subordination of which we are speak- ing. It remains for me to shew that the fathers who wrote after the council of Nice, and who were the most resolute defenders of the faith defined and laid down in it, delivered the same doctrine; that no one, that is, may think that we have taken the words of the Nicene Creed in a wrong sense. They then also fearlessly call the Father the begin- ning (or principle*), cause, and author of the Son, and they even call the Father Himself the One God. First, they call the Father the ἀρχὴ, beginning, or principle, of the Son; that is to say, in so far as that term signifies the principle from which, in what manner soever, any thing arises, whether in time or from eternity; but not in so far as it denotes a beginning of existence, when a thing which before was not ‘begins to exist. Athanasius, near the beginning of his fifth Oration against the Arians*, expounds the words of John, “In the beginning was the Word,” as if the evangelist had writ- ten, In the Father was the Son; “for according to John,” he says, “in this Beginning® was the Word, and the Word > Apostolum sequar, ut si pariter nominandi fuerint Pater et Filius, Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum Christum Dominum nominem. So- lum autem Christum potero Deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus, Ex quibus Christus, qui est (inquit) Deus super omnia benedictus in evum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum solem vocabo ; solem autem nominans, cujus est ra- dius, non statim et radium solem ap- pellabo.—[p. 504; quoted above, book 11, ch. 7. § 2. p. 195. ] © κατὰ γὰρ τὸν ᾿Ιωάννην, ἐν ταὐτῃ τῇ ἀρχῇ ἣν ὃ λόγος, καὶ ὃ λόγος Fv mpos τὸν Θεόν" Θεὸς γὰρ ἐστιν ἣ ἀρχὴ, καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἐστι, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὃ Adyos.—[ Orat. iv. 1. vol. i. p- 617.] i. The Father the ἀρχὴ of the Son; in what sense. 559. BOOK iV. CHAP. I. § 2, 3. was with God. For God is the Beginning ; and, forasmuch as the Word is of It, the Word also was God.” The idea, how- ever, of the term beginning, or principle, and how the Son has the Father as His ἀρχὴ, (beginning or principle,) and how, on the other hand, He is at the same time without a beginning, is accurately explained by Gregory Nyssen, in his first book against Eunomius‘; “ But,” he says, “see- ing that the term ‘beginning’ has many meanings, and in! ἄρχη. its [various] senses is applied to many different things, we assert that in some respects the appellation ‘He who is with- out beginning?,’ is not inapplicable even to the only-begotten Son. For when, indeed, by the word ‘without beginning’ the notion of not having its subsistence from any cause® is implied, this we confess is the property of the Father alone. But when the enquiry is with respect to the other things which are signified by the term ‘beginning;’ seeing that there is conceived also a ‘ beginning’ of creation, and of time and of order; in these respects we attribute to the Only- begotten also to be above all beginning; so as to believe that He, through whom all things were made, is beyond all beginning of creation, and idea of time, and sequence of order, so that He, who is not without beginning, [1. 6. not without cause,| in respect of His subsistence, is acknow- ledged by us in all the other senses to be without begin- [6891 ning; and that the Father indeed is both without beginning 953 and unbegotten*, whereas the Son is, in the aforesaid sense, 4 for “in- without beginning, though not also unbegotten®.”’ In like aes manner, Gregory Nazianzen, in his thirty-fifth Oration, the generate.” } first of those entitled, “On the Son,’ explains in what sense® the Three Divine Persons are all alike without begin- 2 τοῦ dvdp- χου. 8 αἰτίου. 6 quatenus, 4 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ πολύσημος ὃ τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγος, καὶ εἰς πολλὰ ταῖς ὑπονοίαις φε- ρόμενος, ἔστιν ἐν οἷς φαμὲν καὶ τῷ μο- νογενεῖ υἱῷ μὴ ἀπεμφαίνειν τὴν τοῦ ἀνάρχου προσηγορίαν. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ τὸ μὴ ἐξ αἰτίου τινὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἀνάρχου νοῆται, τοῦτο μόνον τοῦ Tlatpbs ἴδιον ὁμολογοῦμεν. ὅταν δὲ κατὰ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς σημαινομένων h ἐξέτασις ἢ, ἔπει- δὴ καὶ κτίσεώς τινος ἐπινοεῖται ἀρχὴ, καὶ χρόνου, καὶ τάξεως, κἂν τούτοις καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ προσμαρτυροῦμεν, τὸ ὑψη- λότερον ἀρχῆς εἶναι' ὡς ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν κτίσεως ἀρχὴν, καὶ χρόνου ἔννοιαν, καὶ τάξεως ἀκολουθίαν εἶναι πιστεύειν, τὸν δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο᾽ ὥστε τὸν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ὑποστάσεως μὴ ἄναρχον, ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενον ἔχειν τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ τὸν μὲν Πατέρα καὶ ἄναρχον, καὶ ἀγέννητον' τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἄναρχον μὲν κατὰ τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον, ov μὴν καὶ ayévyntov.—Edit. Grets. p. 118. [vol. ii. p. 382; ἀγένητον is the reading of the edition of Paris, 1638, but the version is innascibilem. | ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 συνάναρ- χα. 2 συναΐδια. 3 ἐκεῖθεν. 4 πάντως. 5 τῷ αἰτίῳ. [690] 8 κατὰ μό- "Ὅν τὸ eg + ΄ wv λέγεται. 7 causa. 8 causata. 9 αἰτιατόν. 560 ii. The Father the Cause of the Son ; ning, and in what sense the Father alone is so, in the following words®; “How then are they not alike with- out beginning!, since they are alike eternal’? Because they are from Him’, although not after Him. For that. which is without beginning, is also eternal; but that which is eternal, is not in all cases* without begining, so long as it be referred to the Father as a beginning. ‘They are not, then, without beginning in respect of cause *.”. And in the thirty-sixth Oration he says‘; ‘“ Father is the pécu- liar designation of Him who is without beginning; but Son, of Him who was begotten without beginning.” Lastly, Cyril of Alexandria, at the opening of the first book of his Commentaries on John, teaches, that the Father is the be- ginning of the Son’, “only so far as it is used for that out of which one is°.” 4. Allied to the term ‘beginning,’ is the term αἴτιος or αἰτία in Latin, causa. Justin Martyr, as we observed a little before, said that the Father is ‘‘ the cause” of the Son ; and a similar mode of expression is used by catholic writers, who lived after the rise of the Arian controversy. for they also say, that one Person in the Trinity, that is, God the Father, is the cause”; and that two, namely, the Son and the Holy Ghost, are caused*. Thus Constantine the Great, in his Oration to the sacred council, in Eusebius, says", “The Father is the cause of the Son, but the Son is caused®.” So Athanasius (or some other writer, whoever he was, who at any rate was orthodox in this doctrine,) in the Second Questions, chap. 11 and 12, says'; “The Son is not the cause, but caused.” Basil, in his first book against Eunomius, writes thus*; “ But, in regard to the relation of © πῶς οὖν οὐ συνάναρχα, εἰ συναΐδια ; ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν, εἰ καὶ μὴ μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄναρχον, καὶ ἀΐδιον᾽ τὸ δὲ ἀΐδιον οὐ πάντως ἄναρχον, ἕως ἂν εἰς ἀρχὴν ἀναφέρηται τὸν πατέρα. οὐκ ἄναρχα οὖν τῷ aitiw.—p. 562. [Orat. xxix. 3. p.525.] f ἴδιον δὲ τοῦ μὲν ἀνάρχου, πατῆρ' τοῦ δὲ ἀνάρχως γεννηθέντος, vids.—p. 590. [Orat. xxx. 19. p. 553.] 8 [αὐτός τε dv ἐν πατρὶ, καὶ ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν πατέρα τὴν ἄναρχον τῆς οἷ- κείας φύσεως οἷονεί πως ἀρχὴν], κατὰ μόνον τὸ ἐξ οὗ λέγεται, διὰ τὸ ὑπάρ- xew ἐϊς marpds.—vol. iv. p. 12.] h αἰτία μὲν υἱοῦ 6 Marhp: αἰτιατὸν δὲ ὁ vids.—p. 581. edit. Valesii. [c. 11. p. 688. ] i ὃ δὲ vids οὐκ ἔστιν αἴτιος, GAN ai- τιατός.---ἰ Op. Athanas., vol. ii, p. 339. On these questions the Benedictine editor remarks, “* No one will suspect Athanasius of being the author of such trifling.”’—B. ] k ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ μὲν Thy τῶν αἰτίων πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν πατέρα ayév.—Basil. tom. i. p. 720. [ὃ 20. vol. i. p. 232. ] the Father distinguished as Cause, Uncaused. 561 _ causes to the things which proceed from them, we affirm that soox tv. the Father is placed in order’ before the Son.” And in the 3k same book he says'; “What else does the word Father sig-1z,57<. _ fify, than this, that He is the cause and beginning’ of Him 74x. who was begotten of Him?” In like manner, Gregory Nazi- 1091] anzen, in his twenty-ninth Oration on Doctrine*, more than s ἃς pog- once declares the Father to be the cause of the Son and of ™@te. the Holy Ghost™; “ For,” he says, “ He would be the begin- ning* of small things [only,| and of things unworthy of Him, * ἀρχὴ. were He not the cause of the Godhead, which is contemplated in the Son and in the Spirit.” And, afterwards, in the same passage, he adds"; “There is one God, both the Son and the Spirit being referred to one cause;” and a little after he says that God the Father is the “ beginning®, as cause, and * ἀρχὴν. as fountain, and as eternal Πρ.) Damascene also in his third book, on the Orthodox Faith, chap. 5, writes thus? : “We acknowledge a difference of the Persons® in their three ¢ τῶν ὑπο- properties alone, of being uncaused, and what belongs to a 77” Father; being caused, and what belongs to a Son; and of being caused and proceeding.” Likewise, in his first book, on Images, not far from the beginning, he says?: “The Son is the (living, natural, and unvarying) image of the invisible God, bearing in Him the Father entire, having [692] His identity with Him in all respects, and differing from Him only in this, that He is caused; for the Father is by nature a cause, and the Son caused.” And amongst the Latins, Marius Victorinus, in his first book against Arius, has used just the same language, saying’; “ But the Father is greater, because He Himself has given all things unto Him, and is to tiw καὶ πατρικῇ, καὶ τῇ αἰτιατῇ καὶ διϊκῇ, καὶ τῇ αἰτιατῇ καὶ ἐκπορευτῇ ἐπι- γινώσκομεν. ----ἰ νο]. i. p. 210.] 1 [1 do not know why the original 1rd δὲ Πατὴρ τί ἄλλο σημαίνει, ἢ οὐχὶ τὸ, αἰτία εἶναι καὶ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ yevvndevtos.—p. 724. [ὃ 25. p. 286.1 m μικρῶν γὰρ ἂν εἴη καὶ ἀναξίων ἀρχὴ, Soe ee τ Mh θεότητος ὧν αἴτιος τῆς ἐν υἱῷ καὶ πνεύματι θεωρουμένη “.----ἴοτη. i. p. 490. [Orat. xx. 60. p. 379. ἃ εἷς μὲν eds, εἰς ἕν αἴτιον καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων.---ἰ Ibid. | ° ... ἀρχῆς δὲ ὡς αἴτιου, καὶ ὧς πηγῆς, καὶ ὡς ἀΐδιου φῶτος-.---ἰ Ibid.] Compare Οτἴαΐῖ. xxiv. p. 429. A. [Orat. xxxiv. 10. p. 624.] and Orat. xxxvii. p. 601. _B. (Orat. xxxi. 14. p. 565.) Grape. P [τὴν δὲ] διαφορὰν τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν μόναις ταῖς τρισὶν ἰδιότησι, τῇ ἄναι- BULL, Greek is not quoted here; it is as fol- lows: Εἰκὼν τοίνυν (ζῶσα, φυσικὴ καὶ ἀπαράλλακτοΞ) τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ ὃ υἱὺς, ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ φέρων τὸν πατέρα, κατὰ πάντα ἔχων τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ταυτότητα, μόνῳ δὲ διαφέρων τῷ αἰτιατῷ. αἴτιον μὲν γὰρ φυσικὸν 6 Πατὴρ, αἰτιατὸν δὲ 6 vids. —Orat. i. 9, νοὶ]. 1. p. 311.—B. The words enclosed in parentheses are omit- ted by Bp. Bull, who gives the Latin only of this passage. | τ Sed major Pater; quod ipse dedit 00 ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 preecau- sam. 254 2 in cause ipsius pro- prietate. 3auctoritas, [693] 4 [The Son can do no- thing of Himself, &c. | 562 iii. In the same sense, the Latin fathers call the Son Himself the cause of His being, [and] of His being in this particular mode.” Just before, the same Victorinus had said’, that the Son, indeed, is “the principal cause of all things, but that the Father is a prior cause!’ in that He ie the cause of the Son. Hilary, in his eleventh bookt, on the Trinity, calls the Father, ‘‘the cause of the nativity of the Son.” And in the twelfth book", speaking of the eternal generation of the Son, he says, ‘‘ And being born of a cause, [althqugh that cause be] perfect and unchangeable, it must needs be that He be born from the cause, in the property of the cause 1561, Lastly, Augustine also speaks to the same effect in his book of Eighty-three Questions, Question xvi.*: “God,” he says, “is the cause of all things that exist. Now, in that He is the cause of all things, He is the cause also of His own Wisdom ; and [yet] God never was without His own Wis- dom; consequently He is the eternal cause of His own eter- nal Wisdom, nor is He prior in time to His own Wisdom.” 5. Of the same signification is the word Author, which the Latin doctors also frequently attribute to God the Father in His relation to the Son. HilaryY, in his ninth book on the’ Trinity, thus writes, on the passage of John v.19. “Since what He does by authority® of the Father’s nature which is in Him, He performs through the Father doing it, who ‘worketh hitherto’ on the Sabbath; the Son is out of blame for a work in which the authority of the Father’s working is put forward. For ‘can do nothing+, He referred not to want of power, but to authority.” And in the same book he says’, “For since the unbegotten God is [in the relation of] author to the only-begotten God, unto the per- ipsi omnia, et causa est ipsi Filio ut sit, ut isto modo sit.—[i. 13. Bibl. Patr. Galland., vol. viii. p. 156.] 5 [Causa principalis et sibi et aliis causa est, potentia, et substantia. Causa existens. Przcausa autem pater. c. 3. Ibid., p. 153. ] Ὁ [... masci cum] causam nativitatis [ostendat ].—[§ 11. p. 1089.] ἃ Et ex causa licet perfecta atque indemutabili nascens, necesse est ex causa in cause ipsius proprietate nas- catur.—|§ 8. p. 1116.] * Deus omnium que sunt causa est. Quod autem omnium rerum causa est, etiam Sapientie sue causa est; nec unquam Deus sine Sapientia sua. Igi- tur sempiterne Sapientiz suze causa est sempiterna; nec tempore prior est, quam sua Sapientia.—[vol. vi. p. 4. ] Υ Si paterne in se nature auctori- tate quod gerit, gerente Patre agit, qui usque modo operatur in Sabbato; ex- tra crimen operis est Filius, in quo paternz operationis prefertur aucto- ritas. Non enim ad infirmitatem re- tulit, non potest; sed ad auctoritatem. —l[ix. 45. p. 1014.] 7 Cum enim innascibilis Deus ad perfectam divine beatitudinis nativi- tatem unigenito Deo auctor sit, aucto- rem nativitatis esse, sacramentum pa- the Father, the Author of the Son. 563 fect begetting of divine blessedness, to be the author of the begetting is the mystery that belongs to the Father. How- ever, it is no derogation from Him, who, by a genuine be- getting, fully makes Himself to be the image of His author.” - Further, the same writer, in other places throughout his works, employs the word author; for instance in the fourth book, expounding those words from the forty-fifth Psalm, “Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee,” he says*, “‘ Thy, is in reference to the author; Thee, is to inti- mate Him who is from the author. For He is God of God.” Likewise in the seventh book he says”, “ He is in such wise’ an image as that He differs not in kind, but suggests! an author.” So in his book on the Synods, in a passage which we have already quoted in another place, he says®, “He is subject to the Father, as to His author.” tine also, in his eleventh Sermon on the words of our Lord in St. Matthew‘, observes with his usual acuteness?; “In the? Father is suggested to us authorship, in the Son nativity, in. the Holy Ghost the communion of the’ Father and the Son, in the Three equality.” Of the same force are the words, root, fountain, head, which also the ancient Catholics attri- bute to God the Father in His relation to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. Thus Basil in his twenty-seventh Homily, against the Sabellians, writes®, “ For the Father indeed has His being perfect, and wanting in nothing, being the root and fountain of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” In like manner Am- brose, in his tenth book on Luke‘, says, “The Father is Lord, because He is the root of the Son;” and in his fourth book on Faith, chap. 58, he observes, “The Father is the fountain of the Son; the Father is the root of the Son.” ternum est. Czterum non habet con- ritas, in Filio nativitas, in Spiritu Augus- tumeliam, qui se auctoris sui esse imaginem genuina nativitate consum- mat.—[Tbid., c. 31. p. 1003.] * Tuus relatum est ad auctorem; te vero ad ejus, qui ex auctore est, signi- ficationem. Est enim Deus ex Deo. -- Liv. 35. p. 848. ] > Ita imago est, ut non differat ge- nere, sed significet μος θῶες —[ vii. 37. p. 941.] © Patri subjectus at ut auctorl.— [69. p. 1189. ] 4 Insinuatur nobis in Patre aucto- Sancto Patris Filiique communitas, in tribus zqualitas.—| Serm. Ixxi. 18, vol. v. p. 892. | © ἔστι μὲν yap 6 Πατὴρ τέλειον ἔχων τὸ εἶναι, καὶ ἀνενδεὲς, ῥίζα καὶ πηγὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου mvedpatos.—tom. i, p. 606. ed. 1618. [Hom. xxiy. 4. vol. 193. ] ii. ἀνμέε μιν Pater, quia radix est Fi-, lii—t{_x. 5. vol. i. p. 1505. ] ..- Fons Pater Filii est; ... ra- dix Pater Filii est,—[iv. 10, 126. vol. ii. p. 545.] 002 BOOK IV. CHAP. I. § 4, 5. 1 sipnificet. argute, pro more suo. [694] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 caput. 2a Dei veritate. 3 Deus ve- rus. 4 in con- junctione succedit, [695] 564 iv. Hence the Father is called the One, and the Only God. And Ruffinus, on the Creed, calls the Father the head! of the Son; saying, “ And, whilst He is the Head of all things, yet is the Father the Head” of Him.” 6. Lastly, the ancients did not shrink from calling God the Father the one and only God, as being the principle, cause, author, and fountain of the Son. For thus the Nicene fathers themselves commence their creed: “We believe in one God the Father Almighty,” &c. and then subjoin, “ Ahd in one Jesus Christ,.... God of God.” And the great Atha- nasius, than whom no one better understood the mind and view of the Nicene synod, in his Oration against the Sabel- lians, not far from the beginning, allows that the Father is rightly designated! “the only God, because He alone is unbegotten, and alone is the fountain of Godhead.” To his testimony, passing by others whom I might quote, I will only add that of Hilary, who in the third book of his work on the Trinity, setting forth the passage of the evangelist John, xvii. 8, where the Father is called “ the only true God,” writes as follows*: “Due honour is rendered by the Son to the Father, when He says, ‘Thee, the only true God ;’ the Son however does not separate Himself from the truth of God- head?, when He adds, ‘And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.’ The confession of the faithful puts no interval [between Them], because in Both is the hope of life; nor is true God[head*] wanting to Him, who, when They are put together, comes second in order*. When therefore it is said, ‘That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,’ under this meaning, that is, that of Sender and Sent, the truth and Godhead of the Father and of the Son, is not » Et cum ipse sit omnium caput, ip- sius tamen caput est Pater. The Bene- dictine editor of the works of Cyprian, to which this exposition of Ruffinus is appended, p. excvii. reads “ Ipsius ta- men auctor est Pater,’’ (“‘ yet the Father is the author of Him.’’) See p. eciv.— B. The older editions gave the passage as above; the Bened. edition is accord- ing to the MSS. and does not add the citation of 1 Cor. xi. “and the Head of Christ is God,” which follows in -the older editions. ] ' ὅτι μόνος ἀγέννητος καὶ μόνος πηγὴ θεότητος, [διὰ τοῦτο φάσκοντες αὐτὸν εἶναι μόνον @cdv.—vol. ii. p. 37.] * Debitus Patri a Filio honor red- ditur, cum dicit, Te solum verum Deum ; non tamen se Filius a Dei veritate se- cernit, cum adjungit, Et quem misisti Jesum Christum. Non habet interval- lum confessio credentium, quia in utroque spes vite est. Nec Deus ve- rus ab eo deficit, qui in conjunctione succedit. Cum ergo dicitur, μέ cog- noscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum, sub hac signifi- catione, id est, mittentis et missi, non Patris et Filii veritas et divinitas sub aliqua aut significationis aut dilationis, diversitate discernitur; sed ad gignen- tis et geniti confessionem fides religio- nis instruitur.—[§ 14. p. 815. ] This doctrine of Origination denied by some moderns. 565 distinguished under any difference of meaning or extent, but soox ιν. the faith of [our] religion is instructed unto the confessing of S57. the Begetter and the Begotten.” And now to all these testi- monies I will add this, by way of conclusion’; that the doc- 1 goronidis. trine that in the Trinity there is only one Beginning without Beginning’, even the Father, was so fixed, decreed and esta- 5 jc. cause, blished in the primitive Church, that in the forty-ninth of ae what are called the Apostolical canons, he is condemned who shall baptize into “three [Persons] without beginning,” εἰς τρεῖς ἀνάρχους. On which canon Zonaras has made this com- ment!: “For the Church has received to worship One without beginning, even the Father, because of His being uncaused ; and One Son, because of His ineffable generation; and One Comforter, the Holy Ghost, by reason of His procession.” 7. But this proposition is especially worthy of attention on account of certain moderns, who obstinately contend that the Son may properly be called αὐτόθεος, i.e. God of Him- self*. This view is inconsistent both with the hypotheses of 8 seipso those who maintain it, and with catholic consent. They say, ?°*- I mean, that the Son is from God the Father, as He is Son, ἰὸς: and not as He is God; that He received His Person, not His essence, or Divine Nature, from the Father. But this is self-contradictory ; for, as Petavius™ rightly says, “The Son of God cannot be begotten by the Father, unless He receive from Him His nature and Godhead.” For what else is it ‘ to be begotten,’ than to be sprung from another, so as to have a [696] like nature*+? he who is begotten must necessarily have [his] ¢ in simili- nature in such wise communicated by him [who begets, | emmy. as in it to be like him who begets [him.] Unless indeed* s fnisi yero Christ, in that He is the Son of God, is not God; or receives beh sues a relation only from the Father without [receiving] Godhead. Deus.] I add, that in this case Person cannot be conceived of without essence, unless you lay down Person in the Godhead to be nothing else than a mere mode of existence’, which is simple ὁ τρόπον Sabellianism. Hence in another place Petavius" justly pro- ὑπάρξεως. nounces the error of those who hold that the Son is of Him- self God, to be “not only an error of a word, or of a mode of 1 va γὰρ ἄναρχον ἣ ἐκκλησία σέβειν διὰ τὴν exmdpevow.—t[vol. i, p. 33. ed. παρέλαβε, τὸν πατέρα, διὰ τὸ ἀναίτιον᾽: Oxon. 1672 } καὶ ἕνα υἱὸν, διὰ τὴν ἄῤῥητον γέννησιν" m De Trinit. iti. 8. 8. καὶ ἕνα παράκλητον, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, " De Τυϊηϊ, vi. 11. 10. ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 alicujus rei. 3 οὐσιώδη, id est, sub- stantialis. [697] 566 This is inconsistent with their own views, with Catholic expression, as Bellarmine thinks, but altogether one of reality, and a very grave one too.” He adds this reason, that “it entirely does away with and overthrows in the Trinity, that which in other ways it seems openly to profess, that the Son © is begotten by the Father. For,” he says, “the mind cannot conceive of generation without [the idea of] the communi- cation of something’; and, further, of no other thing than nature, essence, substance: forasmuch as it is a substen- tial? production; and in this respect generation differs from all other kinds of propagation, which take place in regard of quality and quantity. But if essence is communicated to the Son by generation, He plainly has His essence from the Father, not from Himself; otherwise either He would not be begotten, or He would not. be begotten by another. Hence Damascene, on the Orthodox Faith, i. 10, rightly observes, “‘ All things which the Son and the Spirit severally have, They have of the Father, even being itself°*.” 8. And in what way this opinion of theirs is repugnant to catholic consent, I have shewn a little before. The council of Nice itself certamly decreed that the Son is God of God; He, however, who is God of God, cannot, without manifest con- tradiction, be said to be God of Himself. But for what pur- _ pose should I endeavour to bind by the authority of the coun- 3 βαττολό- για. cil of Nice those who seem not to consider ‘the authority of that synod worth a straw? For the champion, who stands in the first ranks of those who maintain this opinion, has not shrunk from calling the holy and venerable fathers of the Nicene council “ fanatics,” and to designate the formula of their Creed, “ God of God, Light of Light; Very God of Very God,” as harsh, and containing a manifest “‘ vain repetition®,” and, further, as being rather a song fit to be set to music than a formula of confession of faith. I shudder as I repeat ° πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἔχει ὃ υἱὸς; καὲ τὸ πνεῦμα, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἔχει, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ elvat. [Petavius, and after him Bull, have scarcely weighed these words of Damascene sufficiently. For he is here specially treating of the Holy Ghost, and, after marking the distinction between generation and pro- cession, he thus concludes, “All things, therefore, which the Son hath, the Spirit also hath from the Father, and so even His-very being.” For thus is this sentence better rendered in the edition of 1712.—B.. Bp. Bull and Petavius followed the old Latin trans- ὁ lation, “Omnia, quecunque habet Fi- lius et Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre habet, etiam ipsum esse;’’ the version of Le Quien, ed. 1712/is, “ Omnia igitur que Filius habet, Spiritus etiam a Patre habet, atque adeo hoc ipsum quod est.’’ ] consent, with the teaching of the first Reformers. 567 these words, and therefore I earnestly exhort pious and studi- βοοκ ιν. ous youths to beware of a spirit from which such things have $79. proceeded. Wedo indeed owe much to that man, for the good Ἢ service which he rendered in purging the Church of Christ from the superstitions of popery; God forbid, however, that we should regard him as our master, or bind ourselves to him, or hesitate, whenever occasion shall require it, freely to censure his plain errors and novel tenets, departing from ca- — tholic consent. Whosoever, how great soever in other respects he be, despises the authority of the ancient Catholic Church, so far forth he will obtain no trust nor authority with 118}. That song, which this great man so much derided, was sung by [698] the sacred choir of about three hundred bishops, and presby- ters and deacons without number, gathered together in the first and most august of cecumenical councils. The same strain was, with wonderful harmony, chanted by the catholic doc- tors who lived before that council; as is manifest from the tes- timonies which we have brought forward in our second and third books. In a word, that the Son of God is God of God, is the voice and song (if any there be) of the whole Catholic Church of Christ; in harmony with the voice of God Himself, in the sacred oracles, which no one has dis- turbed without awful danger to himself. 9. I will add this one further observation. from Petavius4, that this opinion is also manifestly opposed to the doctrine of the first reformers, that is to say, of Luther and Melanc- thon. For, “ Luther, in his book on the Captivity of Babylon’, among many other erroneous decisions of a corrupt Church, enumerates that decree of the Lateran council, that ‘The Divine Essence neither is begotten, nor begets.’” (Who then can doubt, that he would also have regarded as a palpable error, the opinion of those who openly deny that God is begotten of God, and teach that the Son is God, not of the Father', but of Himself’?) ‘ Philip Melancthon, in his Expo- 1 4 patre, sition of the Nicene Creed, thinks that it is truly said that? 4 Seipso. ‘the Essence, which is the Son, is begotten; as it is said in 256 - P In like manner Saravia, in the 4 De Trinit. vi. 12. 1. Prologue of his Defence against Beza, τ Tom. ii. Op. fol. 70. [The words [says]: “This I frankly say, who- quoted are in vain looked for at the soever takes away all authority from place here referred to, or indeed in any the fathers leaves none at all for him- part of the work. Bull follows Peta- self.” GRABE. vius.—B.] ; ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [699] Ἰ ἀντιλογία. 2 prejudi- casse. 568 — Difference of view among some earlier writers. the Creed, God of God, Light of light.’ Then to the argu- ment which is alleged in opposition, that ‘the same thing does not beget itself; and that therefore, since the essence is the same, essence cannot beget essence ;’ he replies, ‘ that the same thing, so far forth as it is incommunicable, does not beget itself; but that the same, which is communicable, is communicated to that which is begotten; now essence is communicable, therefore it is communicated to that whith is begotten’.’” At the same time, the self-complacency with which Petavius in this passage speaks of the conflict of the heretics, as he calls them, is extremely ridiculous; as if, for- sooth, there were no conflict among the theologians of the Church of Rome. Indeed on this very point there is a palpa- ble contradiction in terms' between the Master of Sentences and Richard of St. Victor, (to say nothing of the Abbot Joachim,) the latter asserting, with Augustine and the rest of the fathers, that “substance begets substance, and wis- dom wisdom ;” whilst the former contends on the other hand that “essence does not beget essence.” For it is in vain that Petavius in that chapter attempts to reconcile these utterly opposite opinions. He himself allows that “nearly all the schoolmen and divines think that the Lateran Council had passed judgment? against the doctrine of Victor, in favour of the tenet of the Master.” The Jesuit, how- -ever, must pardon us, if we agree with nearly all the school- men and divines rather than with one single person, Peta- vius. I will go further, and say, that by the same subtleties by which Petavius endeavours to whitewash the view of the Master and of the Lateran Council, he might have excused the error of Calvin itself, against which he so vehemently inveighs; as will be plain to any one who considers the matter closely. I wish, however, that at this point, out of reverence for this most august mystery, both sides alike would now at length abstain altogether from scholastic trifling, and that we might all, with holy simplicity of faith, embrace the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which lays ‘down that the Son is “ God of God, Very God of Very God.” 10. For the rest, the objection which one writer ὧς [In this case also Petavius is not _thon,asmay beseen by referring to Enar. faithful in citing the words of Melanc- Symb. Nic., vol. i., Op. p. 398.—B. } ᾿ Meaning of αὐτόθεος applied to the Son by Origen. 569 has advanced ‘, that Origen, in his third book" against 800K tv- Celsus, (a passage which we have already* quoted,) calls 49, "0. the Son αὐτοσοφία, αὐτοαληθεία, αὐτοδικαιοσύνη, (very Wis- [700] dom, very Truth, very Righteousness,) is of no weight what- ever. For it is certain that in these words the prefix! αὐτὸ " prono- only means the veriest® trueness of the thing, not the cause * ipeigaiaces or origin; so that Origen intended nothing more, than that 7 the Son is the veriest®, that is, the most perfect Wisdom, ὃ ipsissima. Truth, and Righteousness, such as the Father Himself is; at the same time not denying, that the Son received all these perfections of the Divine Nature from another, that is to say, from His Father. For thus the same Origen in another passage designates Christ, not only as avrocodia (very Wis- dom), but also as αὐτουιὸς (very Son), in his commentary on John, tom. xxxii.¥, where it is manifest that He is called αὐτουιὸς, not as being Son of Himself, (for what could be more absurd than such an expression?) but as being the veri- est‘, that is, the true, genuine, and real® Son of God. In this ‘ ipsissi- sense Athanasius, likewise, in a passage which we have also ""~ quoted above’, applies the same words to the Son of God; eerer and in this sense no Catholic would deny that the Son both may and ought to be called αὐτοθεὸς, that is to say, true and veriest God. Hence, even Eusebius, who (if any one) acknowledged the subordination of the Son to the Father, as to His origin and principle, yet still did not hesitate to declare, that the Saviour* is “ worshipped, and rightly wor- shipped, as the genuine Son of the supreme God, and avto- θεὸς (very God).” Where by the word αὐτοθεὸς, is clearly meant, not one who is God of Himself*, but one who is truly 6 a seipso God; as may be gathered both from the fact that it is the is Son of God, who is here called αὐτοθεὸς, as well as from the fact that in the same breath the Father is designated the [701] supreme God’; as also from the word αὐτοθεὸς being mani-? τοῦ κα- festly used as explanatory of the preceding expression, “the Saat genuine Son;” and, lastly, from what follows in the same Deus., τ Chamier. Corp, Theolog. iii. 19. p. 5. οἷα τοῦ καθόλου Θεοῦ παῖδα γνήσιον 106. τς καὶ αὐτοθεὸν προσκυνεῖσθαι, καὶ εἰκότως. u [4. 1. p. 478-4. Oration spoken at the Consecration of x ii. 9. 6. [p. 224, note u.] the Church of Tyre, inserted in the Υ p. 416. edit. Huet. [ὃ 18. p. 449. Eccles. Hist. x. 4. edit. Vales. p. 375. vol. iv. ] [p. 468. ] 2 [ii, ch. 9. 13. p. 253. note d.] 570 Origen and Eusebius by αὐτόθεος mean “ truly God.’ Oration. For a little after, having spoken of the kingdom and supreme dominion of our Saviour, Eusebius says”, “ For what was there that could stand against the will of the Word, [who is] universal King, and universal Ruler, and God Himself (αὐτοῦ Oecd)?” the Son, that is, is called by Eusebius αὐτοθεὸθ, as being αὐτὸς Θεὸς, truly God, or God Himself. Perhaps, however, it may be worth while, in passing, to quote the note of the distinguished Valesius on this passage®; “This place,” he says, “ought especially to be observed, since in-it Eusebius calls Christ αὐτοθεὸς, that is to say, in Himself! and truly God. For, in my judgment, this single passage is sufficient to refute all the calumnies of those who have supposed that Eusebius was infected with the stain of Arian doctrine.” The learn- ed father, then, is abundantly cleared from the charge of Arianism by those very marked testimonies, which we quoted? from him above. But I return to Origen. He affirms in express terms that the Father alone can and ought to be called αὐτοθεὸς, that is, of Himself God. .See his commentary on John, tom. ii.*, where he thus replies to those who, to avoid the appearance of denying one God, maintained, either that the Father and the Son were the | same Person, or that the Son was different in essence from the Father’; “For we must say to them, that God (ὁ Θεὸς, with the article,) is then indeed αὐτοθεὸς (i.e. of Himself God); wherefore also the Saviour, in His prayer to the Father, says, ‘that they may know Thee, the only true God;’ and every thing except that which is αὐτοθεὸς, is made God by a participation of His Godhead.” At the same time in this very passage Origen explicitly condemns‘ “ those who deny the divinity of the Son, and make His property and peculiar substance® to be different from that of the Father.” Origen, ριγραφὴν. therefore, acknowledged that the Father and the Son are 4 Adaman- ὃ tius, ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 257 2 alienum a Patris essentia. [702] 8 οὐσία τί γὰρ καὶ ἔμελλε τοῦ παμβασι- ᾿ Θεόν. πᾶν δὲ τὸ παρὰ τὸ αὐτόθεος με- λέως, καὶ πανηγεμόνος, καὶ αὐτοῦ Θεοῦ τοχῇ τῆς ἐκείνου θεότητος θεοποιούμε- λόγου ἐνστήσεσθαι τῷ νεύματι.---Ὀ. 876. Lp. 469.] * In notes on Eusebius, p. 191. 4 See above, iii. 9. 11. ' © λεκτέον γὰρ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι τότε μὲν αὐτόθεος ὃ Θεός ἐστι" διόπερ καὶ 5 σω- The φησιν ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα εὐχῇ, ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν νον.---Ὁ. 47. edit. Huetii. [ὃ 2. p. 50.] § [παραπίπτοντας“ ψεύδεσι kal ἀσέβεσι δόγμασιν, ἤτοι... ἢ] ἀρνουμένους τὴν θεότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ, τιθέντας δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἰδιότητα καὶ Thy οὐσίαν κατὰ περιγρα- phy τυγχάνουσαν ἑτέραν τοῦ Marpés.— [1014.1 | | | | | In what sense the Father is greater than the Son. 571 of the same substance, and, consequently, that the Son is true God equally with the Father; this, I say, he acknow- ledged in the same breath with which he pronounced that the Father alone could be called αὐτόθεος ; so that it was without reason that Petavius carped at this view of Origen. Consult Huet, if you will, on this passage; we must proceed to other subjects. CHAPTER II. THE SECOND PROPOSITION STATED AND CONFIRMED, WHEREIN IT IS SHEWN, THAT THE ANCIENTS TAUGHT WITH ONE CONSENT, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT GOD THE FATHER, IN THAT HE IS HIS ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLE, IS GREATER THAN THE SON; AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT IN RESPECT OF NATURE THE SON IS EQUAL TO THE FATHER, 1. We have, I think, shewn clearly enough, in the preced- ing chapter, that the ancients agreed in acknowledging the subordination of the Son unto the Father as unto His origin and principle; now, with the view of shewing what the same writers taught in consequence of this, I propose to illustrate and confirm the following proposition. THE SECOND PROPOSITION. Tue catholic doctors, both those who preceded, and those who lived after, the Council of Nice, with unanimous con- sent determined that God the Father, even in respect of His Divinity, is greater than the Son; that is to say, not in nature indeed, or in any essential perfection, as being in the Father, and not in the Son; but in authorship alone, _ that is to say, in origin; forasmuch as the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. In this proposition we assert two things; first, that the ancients laid down that God the Father, even in respect of Godhead, is greater than the Son ; secondly, that they taught, - nevertheless, that the Father is greater than the Son, only BOOK Ivy. CHAP. I. δ 10. τι. § 1. [708] . 258 [704] 572 Justin M. taught that the Son is second on THE as regards origin, but that in respect of nature Both are suzorPl equal. We will shew that the ancients taught both these NATION OF THE son. doctrines with consentient voice, beginning with those fathers who wrote before,the Arian controversy. | : JusTIN 2. Of these Justin, who was well-nigh the earliest of them MARTYR. 4}], manifestly lays down a certain order, and, as it were, degrees of dignity, in the most Holy Trinity. For in the Apology, called in the ordinary editions the Second‘, he says, that Christians “do with reason worship the Son of God, holding Him in the second place.” And immediately after, he says again, “that the Christians rightly assign to Jesus Christ “the second place after the unchangeable and [705] ever-existing God and Parent of all.” In the. same Apo- logy he also writes®; “‘ Now after God the Father and Lord of all, the first power, and the Son, is the Word.” Parallel to this is the passage in the same Apology", in which he calls the Son “The Power next after the first God.” Lastly, in his dialogue with Trypho', he designates the Son as “God, who is the Minister of God the Maker of all things.” Yet the same Justin elsewhere, namely in his epistle to Diognetus, distinctly denies that the Son of God is a Minis- 1 ὑπηρέτην. ter', callmg Him Himself the Maker and Creator of all thidgs. You will find the remarkable passage quoted at length in book ii. 4. 7. [p. 146.] But how, you will ask, can these things be reconciled? My answer is, easily. When the Son is said to be the next and second after the Father, and the Minister of the Father, the subordination of the Persons is expressed, so far forth as One has His origin from the Other, not any difference or inequality of nature in the Divine Per- sons. The Father, as Father, is first in the most Holy Trinity, the Son is second after the Father. In all the divine operations the Son is the Minister of the Father, in 2a Deo that He works from’ God the Father, (who is the fountain Patre. f [υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ μαθόν- tes, καὶ] ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες, [πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει, ὅτι] μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν, [ἀποδείξομεν" ἐνταῦθα γὰρ μανίαν ἡμῶν καταφαίνον- Tat,|] δευτέραν χώραν μετὰ τὸν ἄτρεπ- τον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα Θεὸν καὶ γεννήτορα τῶν ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπῳ σταυρωθέντι διδόναι ἡμᾶς r€yovres.—p. 60. [Apol. i. 13. Ῥ. 61 Πα ἡ δὲ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ τὸν πα- τέρα πάντων καὶ δεσπότην Θεὸν, καὶ υἷὸς, 6 λόγος éoriv.—p. 74. [ὃ 32. p. 63. ] h τὴν μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον Θεὸν δύναμιν. —p. 98. [§ 60. p. 79.] Θεὸν ὑπηρέτην ὄντα τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων Θεοῦ.----». 279. [ὃ 57. p. 154.] to the Father in point of origin, not of nature. 573 and origin, as of the [ Divine] Essence, so also of all the Divine βοοκ 1v. operations,) and God the Father [works] through! Him; “6 1,2.. not God the Father from Him, or He through the Father. τύοτιν yy. Accordingly, Clement of Alexandria, than whom no one en- ' per ip- tertained more catholic views on this article [of the faith], ἢν yet did not hesitate to write thus respecting the Son of God*: “Every operation of the Lord is to be referred to 259 the Almighty,.and the Son is, so to speak, a kind of opera- tion of the Father.” At the same time Justin, in most of [706] those places, where he calls the Son the Minister of the Father, has respect to that dispensation which the Son Him- self voluntarily undertook, not for the first time from ‘His incarnation, but from the very fall of man, to procure the salvation of mankind, as I shall shew hereafter. Yet does he with good reason deny that the Son is the. Minis- ter of God the Father, in respect of that same Divine Nature, which He has in common with the-Father, though commu- nicated from the Father; that is, so far forth as He is not one of the creatures of God, which are said, in the proper sense of the words, to minister to and to serve the supreme God, but is very God equally with the Father. With good reason also does he designate the Son Himself equally as the Father, the Maker and Creator of all things; so far forth as —although it was from the Father that He received His Divine Nature and omnipotence, yet—He created the uni- verse by power and omnipotence not of another, but His own, that is, innate in Him? and natural [to Him]. Some ’ sibiinsita. indeed of the ancients have even said, that the Father made this world by His Son, as by an instrument, but they meant, no doubt, as Grotius has somewhere well observed, not an extraneous, but a con-natural instrument. Hence Irenzus affirmed that the Son! was the Minister of the Father even in the very creation of the world; though he, if any one, acknowledged the equality of the Father and the Son con- sidered in respect of nature, as I have already clearly shewn, and shall soon shew again still more clearly. The whole subject is fully and accurately embraced in a few words, by k πᾶσα δὲ ἡ Tod κυρίου ἐνέργεια ἐπὶ γεια ὃ vidsx—Strom. vii. p. 703. [p. | τὸν παντοκράτορα τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἔχει, 888. καὶ ἔστιν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, πατρική τις ἐνέρ- 1 [See above, p. 173.] ΄ ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 see Gen. xix. 24, [707] 2 So Bp. Bull, see note below. 3 κατ᾽ pad κα αἰτίαν. * κατὰ φύ- σιν. [708] 574 The Son of the same absolute Divine Nature as the Father ; — Justin himself, in another place, namely, in his Dialogue with Trypho™; where, on that passage of Genesis, ‘The Lord rained' fire from the Lord out of heaven, he thus comments; “The prophetic word intimates that there were Two in num- ber; Qne being on earth, who says that He had come down to see the cry of Sodom; the Other being in the heavens, who is the Lord even of the Lord on the earth, as being [His] Father and God", and [as being] to Him the cause (of His being, and)? of His being both mighty, and Lord,*and God.” In this short sentence, 1 say, we have presented to us a key, wherewith to open the meaning of Justin in those passages in which he seems to speak less honourably of the | Son of God. He teaches here, that God the Father is the God and Lord of His Son. But how? Even so far forth as He is the fountain of Godhead, and the cause of being to the - Son. But yet, in the same breath, he no less openly teaches that the Son is God, and Lord, equally as the Father ; in other words, that the Father gave unto the Son to be what Him- self is, even [to be] God and Lord. The Son therefore is less than the Father as respects causation*, but the Son 15. equal to the Father as respects nature*, The Son is God and Lord equally as the Father, and in this alone does the Son differ from the Father, that He is God and Lord, from a Father [whois] God and Lord; that is, although He be God of God, yet is He true God of true God, as the Council of Nice itself defined. And that this was the very mind of Justin (ifin words so express there can any how appear to any one to be any thing obscure) we conclude yet more certainly from this, that, in the words immediately preceding, in describing the generation of the Son from the essence of the Father, he had said that the Son was begotten of the Father, not by division of the essence of the Father, but by simple commu-: nication, such as is between the fire which kindles and that which is kindled. The kindled fire is just the same in ™ δύο ὄντας ἀριθμῷ μηνύει ὃ λόγος ὃ προφητικός" τὸν μὲν ἐπὶ γῆς ὄντα, ὅς φησι καταβεβηκέναι ἰδεῖν τὴν κραυγὴν Σοδόμων" τὸν δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρ- χοντα, ὃς καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ γῆς κυρίου κύριός ἐστιν, ὡς Πατὴρ καὶ Θεὺς, αἴτίος τε αὐτῷ τοῦ εἶναι, καὶ δυνατῷ, καὶ κυρίῳ, καὶ @cG.—p. 358. [8 129. p. 222.1 » [Bp. Bull incorrectly puts a stop after εἶναι; translate, “the cause to Him of His being mighty and Lord and God.’’—B. The words inserted in parentheses in the text make the ver- sion adopted by Bp. Bull, and argued on by him.]} . being inferior only in respect of causation. 575 nature with that from which it is kindled, as Justin himself 800k 1v. elsewhere® expressly reminds us, and differs from it in CHAP. Il. § 2, 3. nothing except that it is thus communicated. Thus, as is jygquy M. clear, the Son is true Divine Light equally as the Father; and in no respect is He inferior to Him, except in that He is Light of Light, as again the Council of Nice decreed. And indeed, to suggest this once for all to my reader, whosoever acknowledges the Son to be of one substance! with the Father, (which, as I have shewn above, Justin and all the primitive fathers without exception did acknowledge,) he does thereby as a consequence necessarily confess that the Son is, as respects nature, equal to the Father. For how, I pray, can any one believe that the same Divine Nature is common to the Son with the Father, who supposes that the Son lacks any one essential property of the Divine Nature, and on that account is inferior to the Father? Since Christ is the Son, and the true Son, of God, that is, begotten of the very essence of the Father, He must necessarily be equal to Him that begat Him, as respects nature; that is, in those 1 ὁμοούσιον. things which belong? to the Father in that He is God. It is ? compe- the very same which we observe in the propagation of all — living creatures, and specially of men; for all men are as to their nature alike and equal, and differ only in acci- dents; and these are not incident to the Divine nature. Nay, further, no substance admits of more and less: but amongst things which admit not of more and less, there cannot possibly be any question about dissimilarity or greater or less perfection. But this by the way. From Justin I pass on to other fathers. 3. Irenzeus, book 11. chap. 49, expressly pronounces the Irenzus. Father to be greater than the Son; “The Lord,” he says, “is the only true Teacher, so that we may learn through Him that the Father is over all things. For ‘My Father,’ He says, ‘is greater than I”” I have, however, already 4 shewn that the holy writer in that place referred especially to the human nature of Christ. But in book iii. chap. 8°, he states that the Father commanded the Son to create the ο See above, ii. 4. 3, [p. 138.] 4 [See above, ii. 5. 8. p. 175.] P [c. 28, 8. p. 158, quoted above, * [ὃ 3. p. 188, quoted above, p. p- 175.] 168. } 260 [709] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. ! capit. [710] 576 Ireneus; the Son less than the Father, yet equal to Him. world; and in book iv. chap. 17. he says that the Son “ministers to the Father in all things ;’ words which mani- festly imply a certain pre-eminence of the Father over the Son, even so far as He is most properly the Son of God. Yet , the same Irenzeus elsewhere (namely, in book iv. chap. 8.") says that “the immeasurable Father is measured in the Son, for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also con- tains' Him.” In which passage, as we have already* abun- dantly shewn, there is clearly declared equality, in respect of nature, between the Father and the Son. Consequently, ac- cording to Irenzus, the self-same Son, who, with respect to His origin from the Father, and the economy which He undertook, is less than the Father, is equal to Him in regard of that Divine Nature, which He has in common with the Father; so, I mean, that He wholly contains and compre- hends the immeasurable Father Himself, how great soever He be. Likewise in that remarkable passage, in book ii. chap. 43, where he institutes a comparison between the — Word and created beings, he distinctly notes this principal difference, that no creature is equal to his Creator, that is, to God the Father; clearly intimating by this very state- ment that the Word and Son of God is altogether equal to God the Father. The reader will find the passage of Irenzeus quoted entire, book ii. 5, 5. [p. 167.] But why say so much? Let any one who doubts on this matter read Ireneus ii. 24.” In that place the holy man is wholly engaged in shewing, against the Valentinians, that it cannot be maintained, with- out extreme absurdity, nor without blasphemy, that the Word was put forth imperfect from the perfect Father. In the same place he sharply rebukes those same heretics, who, though they laid down that their Mind [Nus] was a perfect zeon, and altogether equal to the Father of all, did yet be- lieve that the Word, the offspring of Mind, was imperfect, and made lower, as the translation expresses it, in demino- ratione positum. Of the many statements in that chapter which bear on this point, we will here cite these few: “ For ‘ [c. 7, 4. p. 236, quoted above, p. Y [6. 25, 3. p. 153, quoted above, p. 173. | 167. " [ς, 4. 2. p. 231, quoted, p. 164.] {Ὁ 17. Tip. 189.) * See above, ii. 5. 4. [p. 166.] * Non enim ut compositum animal: St. Ireneus, and St. Clement of Alexandria. 577 He who is the Father of all except Mind,” he says, “is not, as we have already shewn, as it were a kind of compounded BOOK IV. CHAP. II. § 2—4. animal, but Mind is the Father, and the Father is Mind. {pen xvs. It necessarily follows, therefore, that He also who is from Him, the Word, nay rather that Mind itself, seeing It is the Word, be perfect and impassible.” And again he writes ; “It is not therefore [the case] as they teach, that the Word, as though holding the third [place in the] order of genera- tion, was ignorant of the Father. For in the case of the gene- ration of men, indeed, this will perhaps be thought some- what probable!, in that they are often ignorant of their ' verisimi- parents ; but in the Word of the Father it is absolutely im- possible.’ Afterwards in the same passage he confidently pronounces that they are “blindly going round and round the Truth, away from right reason, so far as to affirm that the Word was produced unto degradation.” It is therefore more than certain, that Irenzus held the equality between God the Father: and His Word, or Son, as respects the nature of both. Jen, 1118. 4. Clement of Alexandria, in a passage from his Strom., Crem. book vii., which we have already quoted in book ii. 6. 6, [p. 187, 188,] is thought by some? to have taught that the Son of God is the next power after His Father. The same Cle- ment, however, Peedag. i. 6, (and this passage also has been already quoted, [p. 184,]) calls the Son “The perfect Word, born’ of the perfect Father ;’ that is, a Son not inferior to’ His Father, by whom He is begotten, in any kind of perfec- tion. But he speaks yet more expressly, in a passage which also we have already quoted, from his Admonition to the Gentiles°: “The divine Word, who truly is the most manifest God, made equal to the Lord of all; because He was -His quiddam est omnium Pater, preter Nun, quemadmodum prezostendimus ; sed Nus Pater, et Pater Nus. Necesse ‘ est itaque et eum qui ex eo est Logos, imo magis autem ipsum Nun, cum sit Logos, perfectum et impassibilem esse. .. Non igitur jam Logos, quasi tertium ordinem generationis habens, ignora- vit Patrem, quemadmodum docent hi. Hoe enim in hominum quidem gene- ratione fortasse putabitur verisimilius [ἃ]. verisimile. ] esse, eo quod sexpe ig- norant suos parentes; in Logo autem BULL. Patris omnimodo impossibile est... . a recta ratione ccecutientes &c. [c. 17. 8. p. 189. See the last part of the pas- sage quoted above at iii. 10. 16. p. 539, note q; it is to be observed that where the Bened. edition reads circumeuntes, Bp. Bull had the old reading eeeuti- entes in both places. Dr. Burton had altered it there but not here. } > [By Petavius; see above, p. 188.] © [ii. p. 86, quoted above, ii, 6. 3. p. 84. | ἘΡ ALEX. natum. [711] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 pre. 2 διακριτι- KOS. 3 diversa ratione. 4 entis uni- wersi, Bull. [712] 261 578 The relation of Son to Father involves sameness of nature, Son, and [because] the Word was in God.” Observe! the Word, or Son of God, whom in respect of origin He had m another place declared to be next unto, and second to, the Father, he here expressly pronounces to be made equal to the Father ; and that too on the ground that He is His Son, that | is, begotten of Him, and of the self-same nature and essence with Him; and because the Word is in God, that is to say, subsists in the Divine Essence itself, in which is nothing im- perfect. It is, however, to be especially observed, that @le- ment, in the same breath, as it were, in which he lays down that the Son is equal to the Father, yet recognises a certain pre-eminence and prerogative of the Father over’ the Son, in that he calls the Father the Lord of all. We are to under- stand that God the Father is called by way of distinction? the Lord of all, because He is the cause and origin, not only of all creatures, but also (although in a different way‘) even of His Son Himself; of the latter, that is, He is the cause by eternal generation out of His own essence itself; of the former, by a production out of nothing, which took place m time. Saving, therefore, this prerogative of the Father, that He is the Father and origin of all that is, (rod dvros*,) Clement teaches — that the Son is equal to Him; forasmuch, that is, as He has the same Divine Nature in common with the Father. But strange indeed is the answer which Sandius makes to this re- markable passage of Clement, “It appears,” he says, “to be corrupt.” Is it so indeed? Let Sandius then produce even one single manuscript in which the passage is read other- wise? He cannot. But, as is plain, the sophist is prac- tising his old device. Whenever he is pressed by the testi- mony of any ancient writer, the force of which he cannot elude in any other way, his custom is to cut the knot which he is unable to untie; unblushingly asserting, in spite of the consent of all MSS. to the contrary, that the passage is cor- rupt, that the author thought and wrote otherwise. But who gave to the trifler this authority over ancient authors, to reject as spurious whatever in them is displeasing to him? “ But,” he says, “it appears to be corrupt, from the reason which is alleged, for Clement immediately subjoins, Because He was His Son. From which reason it was natural for Gentiles to deduce a conclusion quite opposite; for it and, in the Godhead, coeternity ; against Sandius. 579 had never entered into their minds, to suppose that the soox ιν. Son was equal to, and coeval! with, the Father.” But for yarn what purpose did Sandius add here the words “and coeval Crem. with?” For the word does not occur in the passage cited, At®*- nor is Clement in that place treating directly of the co- eg. eternity of the Son, (that he asserted in other passages, which we have elsewhere adduced,) but rather of His being equal in nature to the Father; which he infers most cor- rectly from His being the true and genuine Son of the Father, begotten of His substance, and subsisting in Him. This in- ference, I say, is by universal consent firm and solid. For, as I remarked a little before, a human father and a human son are alike, and entirely equal in respect of the self-same human nature which is common to them both. But if Clement had concluded from the same reasoning that the Son is likewise coeval with the Father, he would not have been wide of the mark. The co-eternity of the Son neces- sarily follows from His consubstantiality, as we have shewn in another place®. For although in the case of mankind it is necessary that the son should be posterior to his father in point of time, reason itself teaches us that it must be laid down to be wholly otherwise in the case of God. No Person, who was not before in being, can begin to exist of and in the Divine Essence itself, consistently with the unchangeableness of the Divine Nature. But that God is unchangeable, is the common sentiment’ of all mankind. Therefore, if the Son [713] be the true and genuine Son of God the Father, that is, Peters having His origin of the substance of the Father, and sub- sisting in Him, it necessarily follows that He must be not only equal in nature to the Father, but likewise co-eval and co-eternal with Him. Sandius, at last, thus concludes his reply, “I do not see,” he says, “in what way Clement could make the Son equal to the Father, when he calls Him the _ minister of the Father’s will.’”? However, if Sandius did not yet see this, when he wrote that, he may now at length see it, from what we have said in this chapter. Indeed, to speak frankly, the arguments of the Hnucleator, both here and in what follows, savour of one who is not only estranged from © [See book iii. chap. 1. § 1.] Ppe2 ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. TERTUL- LIAN, 580 Tertullian held the Divine Persons to be of one power the Catholic faith, but also destitute of right judgment. May God bring him to a more sound mind‘. 5. After Clement we must place Tertullian; who, in seve- ral passages, manifestly attributes to the Father a superiority over the Son, as is known to almost all, through [the writings of] Petavius, Sandius, and others; so that I should waste ‘both time and trouble in citing the passages themselves. 1 nondum in scirpo queerit. [714] 2 pariari, ut loquitur, et parem esse. 3 eequari. - 4 unica. But the same Tertullian—a point on which these writers have generally remained silent—does also often, and {πα no less openly and expressly, lay down that the Son is in nature equal to the Father. For instance, in book iv. of his Treatise against Marcion, chap. 25%, he teaches, that “the Father delivered all things to Him who is not less than Himself— to the Son: all things, [I say,] which He created by Him.” Sandius’ reply to this passage deserves rather to be laughed at than answered. He looks out for difficulties where none exist’. The same Tertullian expressly declares, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not only of one substance, but also [of one] power; that all the names and attributes of the Father belong also to the Son; that the Son is on a par’ with God the Father; that God the Father and the Son are joined and made equal*. These express passages, which allow of no escape, we have already adduced, in book 11. 7. 4. [p. 198, 199.] To these passages, however, you may add the following: Tertullian, in his Treatise on Chastity, chap. 21", acknowledges, as we have before observed, “a Trinity of One Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” By these words he evidently meant to signify, that all the Three Persons of the Godhead are by nature alto- gether equal. For thus he expresses himself in chap. 7.' of his Treatise against Hermogenes; “ Nor shall we approxi- mate to the opinions of the Gentiles, who, if at any time they be forced to confess God, yet will have other gods below Him. The Godhead, however, has no gradation, for It is only one*.” And presently afterwards, he says‘, “The God- f [See these words of Clement ex- amined and explained again in the author’s reply to G. Clerke, § 7.] & [p. 440, quoted above, p. 198.] h [p. 574, quoted above, ii. 7. § 6. p. 203.] ' Neque enim proximi erimus opi- nionibus nationum, que si quando co- guntur Deum confiteri, tamen et alios infra illum volunt. Divinitas autem pome non habet, utpote unica.—[p. 235. k Minor se (divinitas) nusquam po- terit esse.—[ Ibid. ] and substance ; equal, yet with gradations of order. 581 head can in no case be less than Itself.” Accordingly, in ΒΟΟΚ tv. chap. 18. of the same Treatise, he expressly teaches that Re Ἐν ve God from eternity had His Wisdom co-existent with Him- Trrrut- self, as being! “not set under Him, nor in state! different ρα from Him.” Here he manifestly infers that Wisdom, or the Son of God, is equal and on a par with God, whose Wisdom He is, from this, that He is not different from Him in state, that is, is of one substance’? with Him. When, 3 ὁμοούσιος. therefore, in his Treatise against Praxeas, chap. 2™, Tertul- lian says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three, ““ποῦ in state but in gradation,” he altogether means by gradation, order, but not greater or less Godhead. For whom he acknowledges to be three in gradation, Them he denies to be different in state. But with Tertullian, as we have seen, for a thing not to be different from another in state, means, not to be set under? it, but to be on a par and 5 subditam. equal to it. Hence in the same passage, presently after, he expressly says, that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are all of one power; and consequently that no One of Them is more powerful or excellent than Another. Therefore the [715] _ Godhead “ has no gradation,” that is, “is in no case less than Itself,” as Tertullian distinctly explains himself; yet there are gradations in the Godhead, that is, a certain order of the Persons, of whom One derives His origin from Another; in such wise that the Father is the first Person, existing of Himself; the Son second from the Father, whilst the Holy Ghost is third, who proceeds from the Father through the 262 Son, or from the Father and the Son. It is therefore with- out just ground that certain learned men have charged Ter- tullian with holding the heresy of Apollinaris, who main- tained that in the divine Persons there are “ gradations of dignity,” (βαθμοὺς τῶν ἀξιωμάτων, as the Greek theolo- gians express it;) and as Theodoret states", that in the Trinity there were “ great, greater, greatest, the Holy Ghost being great, the Son greater, the Father greatest.” Cer- Non sibi subditam, non statu di- μα7 τὸ μέγα, μεῖζον, uéyiorov’ ὡς pe- versam.—T[p. 239. ] γάλου μὲν ὄντος τοῦ πνεύματος“, τοῦ δὲ m [p. 601. υἱοῦ μείζονος, μεγίστου δὲ τοῦ Πατρός. " [ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ] βαθμοὺς ἀξιωμάτων —Theodoret. de Heer. fab., f. 107. [iv. [ wploaro’ ἑαυτὸν διανομέα τῆς θείας χει- 8. vol. iv. p. 240. ] ροτονήσας νομῆς. αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐστιν εὕρε- ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 minorita- tem istam. [716] ἢ ἐξοχὴν. ΟΕΙΘΕΝ. 582 Novatian held the equality, with the subordination, of tainly the very learned author most openly rejected this wild notion. And with Tertullian agrees Novatian, or the writer of the Treatise on the Trinity, inserted among the works of Tertullian; for he likewise, whilst he maintains that the Son. is less than the Father, so explains himself, as to refer that being less [of His]! (so to call it) to the relation of origin alone. His words are express in chap. 31?: “The Son,” he says, “ must needs be less than the Father, because He knows that He is in the Father, having an original, because He is begotten.” With respect however to the Divine Nature Itself, the same author plainly teaches that the Father and the Son are one. For towards the end of chap. 23, in explaining the words of our Lord to the Jews, ‘I and the Father are one,’ he thus writes’; “Thus with regard to the charge of blasphemy, He calls Himself the Son, not the Father; with respect, however, to His own divinity, by say- ing,‘ I and the Father are one,’ He proved that He is the Son and also God. Therefore He is God, but yet in such a way as to be the Son, and not the Father.” The author’s mean- ing is plain; Christ, in His discourse to the Jews, preserved unimpaired both the pre-eminence’ and prerogative of the Father, and at the same time His own true divinity, equal to that of the Father; the former, in that He acknowledged the Father, but confessed Himself to be the Son; the latter, by saying that He and the Father are one. Whence the author infers, that the Son is very God, equally with the Father, with this only difference, that the one is the Father, the other the Son. 6. Origen, in book 8. of his work against Celsus, of set purpose maintains this prerogative of the Father in com- parison with the Son’; “ But suppose it to be the case,” he says, “as [may be expected] in a numerous body of per- sons who believe, and admit of difference of opinion, that. some from their precipitancy put forth [the view] that our Saviour is the God who is over all; still we do not say any such thing, [we] who believe Him when He says, ‘ The Father, P Necesse est ut hic minor sit,dum _sius, Προ et Pater unum sumus dicendo, in illo esse se scit, habens originem, Filium se esse et Deum probavit. Deus quia nascitur.—[ p. 729. | est ergo, Deus autem sic, ut Filius sit, 1 Ita quod ad crimen blasphemie non Pater.—[p. 722. ] pertinet, Filium se non Patrem dicit; τ [ὃ 14. p. 752, quoted above, p. quod autem ad divinitatem spectet ip- 260, note r.] 583 the Son. Origen taught the same doctrine. who hath sent Me, is greater than 15." He is, as we have nook ιν. already observed, reflecting on the Noetians, who said that 55,6. our Saviour is God the Father Himself, who is called the Lord op jcry. of all. In opposition to them he shews, that our Saviour is in such wise another than the Father, that He is in a cer- tain way ' even less than He. And this profession of his he ' ratione. delivers as the common doctrine of the Church, classing those who taught otherwise among the heterodox. A little after in the same book, when Celsus alleges against the Christians, as their common received view, the heretical doctrine of Marcion, who taught that Jesus, who is from God the Father, is superior to God the Creator of the world, (as we learn from Irenzus, 1. 29, Justin Martyr, Apol. ii. p. 70°, Tertullian against Marcion, i. 14, and Theodoret, book i. on the Fables of πὸ. Heretics, on Marcion*,) he thus replies’, ‘ For we, who say that the sensible? world also is His who made all things, dis- 2 αἰσθητὸν. tinctly affirm,” (for so must Origen’s Greek be translated, not as Gelenius has rendered it, not at all understanding the meaning of the passage,) “that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this we maintain, persuaded by Him who said, ‘the Father, who sent Me, is greater than I.’” Lastly, this same Origen, in his fifth book against Celsus’, calls the Son, “the second God” (τὸν dev- τερον Θεόν). Notwithstanding, this very Origen himself manifestly teaches, in more than one place, that the Son is equal to and on a par with the Father. For in his sixth book against Celsus, when the Epicurean makes the Chris- tians say, that “because God is great and difficult to con- template, therefore He sent His own Spirit into a body like ours, and sent Him down to us, that we might be able to hear and learn of Him,” Origen answers him as follows*; “ According to our doctrine not the God and Father of all alone is great, for He has imparted of Himself and His greatness to the Only-begotten and First-born of every [717] 5 [τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεόν᾽ The Benedic- tine editor reads τὸν μέγιστον ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεὸν, as we have intimated above, in ii. 9. 12, p. 250.—B. ] t [ς, 27. ii. p. 106. ἃ [i. 26. p. 59.) x fi. 24. p. 209.] Υ σαφῶς yap ἡμεῖς, of λέγοντες τοῦ πάντα κτίσαντος καὶ τὸν αἰσθητὸν κό- σμον εἶναι, φαμὲν τὸν υἱὸν οὐκ ἰσχυρό- Tepov τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑποδεέστερον" καὶ τοῦτο λέγομεν, αὐτῷ πειθόμενοι εἰ- πόντι τὸ, ‘O Πατὴρ, 6 πέμψας μὲ, μείζων μου ἐστί.----ἰ ὃ 15. p. 753. ] “ p. 258. [ὃ 39. p. 608, quoted be- low. | 8 οὐ μόνος δὲ μέγας καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐστὶν ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς καὶ Πατήρ' μετέδωκε ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [718] 268 1 ἀρετὴν. [719] ® ipsissi- mus. 584 Origen interpreted by himself. creature; in order that He being the image of the invisible God, may even in His greatness preserve the image of the Father. For it is not possible that there should be, so to speak, a proportionate and beautiful image of the unseen God, unless it represent the image of His greatness also.” Here you see, that [very] Origen, who elsewhere says that the Son is less than the Father, expressly affirming in this place that the Father communicated even His great- ness with the Son, in such wise that the Son entirely tor- responds in greatness with His Father. How then may you reconcile these statements? The thing is clear; the Son is less than the Father in respect of His origin, but He equals the greatness of the Father, in so far as, being begotten of Him, He has the same Divine Nature in common with Him. The Son is as great as God the Father; but this very thing, that He is as great, He refers to the Father [as] received [from Him]. Moreover, the same Origen, in the passage which we quoted a little before from the fifth book against Celsus, pre- dicates of the Son, that He is “the second God,” in such wise as that he expressly subjoins this caution, that it must not be understood of any divine perfection, as being in the Father and not in the Son. These are his words”; “ Albeit, then, we call Him second God, let them know, that by the second God we mean nothing else than the Power’ which embraces all Powers.” Immediately afterwards he calls the Divine Person of Christ® “the very Word, and the very Wisdom, and the very Righteousness.” Origen then most clearly inti- mates, that he and other catholic Christians, in calling the Son of God the second God, in no way meant to ascribe an imperfect divinity to the Son; but, on the contrary, acknow- ledged that the Son is in such sense second God, as that He is Himself veriest? God, and not less than He, who is called the supreme God, that is, than God the Father, in any per- fection of the Godhead ; and, therefore, that the Son is called yap ἑαυτοῦ καὶ τῆς μεγαλειότητος τῷ μονογενεῖ καὶ πρωτοτόκῳ πάσης κτίσεως" ἵν᾽ εἰκὼν αὐτὸς τυγχάνων τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ μεγέθει σώζῃ τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ Πατρός. οὐ γὰρ οἷόντε ἦν, εἶναι σύμμετρον, iv’ οὕτως ὀνομάσω, καὶ καλὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου Θεοῦ, μὴ καὶ τοῦ / “a + μεγέθους παριστᾶσαν τὴν eixéva.—p. 323. [§ 69. p. 684. ] > Kav δεύτερον οὖν λέγωμεν Θεὸν, ἴστωσαν ὅτι τὸν δεύτερον Θεὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι λέγομεν, ἢ τὴν περιεκτικὴν πασῶν ἀρετῶν ἀρετήν.---ἰ p. 608. } ὁ ['Incod. .. μόνου τελείως χωρῆσαι δεδυνημένου τὴν ἄκραν μετοχὴν Tov av- τολόγου, καὶ τῆς αὐτοσοφίας, καὶ τῆς αὐτοδικαιοσύνη».--- 14, Dionysius Alex. ; his express orthodox statements. 585 second God, on this ground only, in that He is God of God; Βοοκ ιν. CHAP. 11. that is, has His origin from God the Father. In a word, ΄ς 6,1. Origen called the Son second God, in no other sense than Oriczn. that in which Basil, in a passage which we shall presently quote, called Him second in order from the Father. When, however, I read these statements in Origen, how am I grieved at those calumniators, who have attributed to this most learned and holy father the heresy of teaching “that the Son in com- parison with the Father is a very small’ God!” For, unques- ! perpar-. tionably, there is scarce any one of the primitive fathers who *"™ has rejected this blasphemy more distinctly than he. 7. Dionysius of Alexandria, in his Replies subjoined to his Dronys. Epistle against Paul of Samosata, in the Reply to Quest. 4°, 4¢®*: introduces Christ as thus speaking, in Jeremiah; “1, the personal, ever-existing Christ, who am equal to the Father in respect of the unvaryingness of His hypostasis,” [or according to the Latin version used by Bp. Bull, “in that I am in no- thing dissimilar to Him.”] You may read the whole passage quoted also in Greek in book 11]. 4. ὃ. [p. 425.] Now what can be clearer than these words? He says expressly that the Son is equal to the Father; which he also proves by this rea- soning, that the Son is in nothing dissimilar to the Father, in other words, has the same Divine Nature in common with the Father. And this is the very point which we maintain, viz. that the ancient doctors, who preceded the Nicene Conn- cil, acknowledged the Son to be in respect of nature equal to the Father. Dionysius again, in these same Replies, says'; “This is He, unto whom all things were put in subjection by [720] the Father; not being inferior to the Father, He prayed in our behalf.”” Here he explicitly denies that the Son is inferior to the Father. Lastly, in his Apology as quoted by Athana- sius, he confesses “‘ the Trinity undiminished,” ἀμείωτον τὴν Τριάδα ; by this he can mean nothing else than that the God- head is not diminished or less in One Person of the most holy Trinity than in Another ; but that there is in Each Person en- tire, full, and perfect Godhead. See the passage quoted in full 4 [See above, book ii. c. 9. § 18; f αὐτός ἐστιν ᾧ ὑπετάγη τὰ πάντα the-charge is St. Jerome’s, except that παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐκ ὧν ἐλάττων τοῦ Bp. Bull here substitutes ‘God’? for Πατρὸς, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσηύΐξατο.----Β10]. * Light.”’ ] Patr., tom. xi. p. 300. [ Resp. ad. Quest. © [p. 232, see above, p. 425. ] ult, p. 275.] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [721] 1 κενώσας. 264 586 St. Greg. Thaumaturgus, and the Council of Antioch. in book ii. 11. 5, at the end®. [p. 309".] In like manner, the Creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus distinctly declares the Trinity co-equal also, even as co-eternal. For he clearly asserts, “a perfect Trinity, not divided nor alien in glory, [and eternity, , and rule,| and dominion.” And specially as respects the Son, the same confession teaches that God the Father is “the Per- fect Begetter of the Perfect ;” afterwards it designates the Holy Ghost “Image of the Son, Perfect of the Perfect.” See book ii. 12.1.'[p. 823.] In his panegyric on Origen, which, as all allow, is his genuine work, the same Gregory, as he teaches, that the Son honours and praises the Father, (which shews alike the pre-eminence of the Father, as the Father, and the economy undertaken by the Son,) so does he expressly affirm that the Father “honoured the Son, with a power every way equal to” His own,” and “that He circumscribed! His own infinite majesty in the Son.” See the same book and chapter § 4. [p. 330.] With this agree the six bishops who wrote an Epistle to Paul of Samosata in the name of the whole Council of Antioch. These are their express words in that Epistle* re- specting the Son of God; “Throughout the whole Church under heaven is He believed to be God, having humbled’ Himself from being equal with God; and man also, and of the seed of David according to the flesh.” In this place they profess that they delivered the consent of the Catholic Church, and they interpret the famous passage of the Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Philippians 11. 6, just as Catholics at this day do. Further, even the Creed of Lucian the martyr, which the Arians made so much boast of, distinctly teaches that the Son is not only God of God, but also “ Whole of Whole,” and “ Perfect of Perfect ;” which words altogether excluded that partial and imperfect divinity of the Son, such as heretics have dreamt of; see book ii. 13. 5. [p. 344.] Lastly, there is an express statement of the same Arnobius, who often declares that the Son of God is true and veriest God,—a statement which we quoted above'—that “ [one] God, in that k ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν πάσῃ πεπίστευται Θεὸς μὲν, κενώσας 8. Compare my notes on that chapter. GRABE. h [note r.] ' [These words are not used by 8. Gregory; see the passage referred to, and Bp. Bull’s paraphrase, in which the words, “ as it were, circumscribed His own infinite Majesty,” occur.] ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἶναι ἶσα Θεῷ, ἄνθρωπος δὲ καὶ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ τὸ κατὰ odpxa.— Bibl, Patr., tom. xi. p. 800. { Reliq. Sacr., vol. 11, p. 473. ] 1 (Lib. vii. p. 212, quoted above, iii, 4.9. p. 429. ] : Views of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 587 He is God, differs in nothing from another [God] ; nor can that which is one in kind exist in a less or greater degree in its parts, preserving the uniformity of its proper quality.” According to Arnobius, therefore, the Son of God, in that He is God, differs in nothing from God the Father; nor is there more in the Father than in the Son; but in both of these Divine Persons there is an uniform Godhead; that is to say, God the Father and the Son are in respect of nature abso- lutely equal. For Arnobius thought with Tertullian, that “the Godhead has no gradation, and can in no case be less than Itself.” Yet the same Arnobius does, in more passages than one, designate God the Father the supreme God, in tlie sense, that is, which we have often explained. 8. Thus far we have set forth the views of those of the ancients who flourished within the first three centuries; we must now proceed to shew that the catholic doctors who wrote after the rise of the Arian controversy, and were the most resolute defenders of the faith established by the Nicene fathers, agreed with them. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, who was the first to repress the heresy of Arius as it was springing up, in an Epistle, which he wrote to his namesake, the bishop of Constantinople, accurately un- folds the catholic doctrine of the pre-eminence of the Father compared with the Son in the following words"; “We must therefore carefully preserve unto the unbegotten Father His own proper dignity, saying that no one is to Him the cause of His being. Whilst unto the Son we must assign the honour that befits [Him], attributing to Him His generation from the Father which is without beginning, and, as we said before, giving Him worship; only in His case using reverently and religiously [the expression| ‘He was,’ and ‘always,’ and ‘before all ages ; not however avoiding the acknowledg- ment’ of His divinity, but ascribing to [Him who is] the ' Image and Impress of the Father, a likeness? in all respects ™ οὐκοῦν τῷ μὲν ἀγεννήτῳ Πατρὶ οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα φυλακτέον, μηδένα τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ τὸν αἴτιον λέγοντας. τῷ δὲ υἱῷ τὴν ἁρμόζουσαν τιμὴν ἀπονεμητέον, τὴν ἄναρχον αὐτῷ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς γέν- νησιν ἀνατιθέντας, καὶ ὡς ἐφθάσαμεν, αὐτῷ σέβας ἀπονέμοντες, μόνον εὐσεβῶς καὶ εὐφήμως τὸ ἦν, καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ, καὶ τὸ πρὸ αἰώνων λέγοντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν μέντοι θεότητα αὐτοῦ μὴ παραιτούμενοι, ἀλλὰ τῇ εἰκόνι καὶ τῷ χαρακτῆρι τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀπηκριβωμένην ἐμφέρειαν κατὰ πάντα ἀνατιθέντες" τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον τῷ Πατρὶ μόνον ἰδίωμα παρεῖναι δοξάζοντες, BOOK-IV. CHAP, Il. § 7, 8. Dionys. ALEX. [722] 1 μὴ παραι-, τούμενοι. 3 ἐμφέρειαν. ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [723] 1 κρείττων. [724] 588 SS. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, most exact; but holding that the property of being un- begotten belongs only to the Father, seeing that our Saviour Himself says ‘My Father is greater than I?” These words need no comment; and with Alexander agrees his successor in the see of Alexandria, Athanasius, who in his second oration against the Arians", in expounding our Saviour’s words “The Father is greater than I,” writes thus: “The Son did not say, the Father is better! than I, lest any,one should conceive that He was foreign to the nature of the Father; but He said ‘is greater,’ not indeed in any magni- tude nor in time, but on account of His being begotten of the Father Himself.” 9. Basil the Great, in his first book against Eunomius, lays open the matter lucidly in these words®: “ For, masmuch as the Son has His beginning from the Father, the Father is in this respect greater, as being the cause and beginning; wherefore also our Lord said thus, ‘My Father is greater than I;’ that is, in that He is the Father. And what else does the word Father intimate than this, to be the cause and beginning of that which is begotten of Him? But in all cases, even according to your own philosophy, substance is not said to be greater or less than substance.” Again, in the third book, near the beginning?: “The Son,” he says, “is indeed in order second to the Father, because He is of Him ; and in dignity, because the Father is the beginning and cause of His being.” In like manner Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. xxxvi.1; “The being greater belongs to the cause, the equality to the nature.” And presently, in the same passage, he refutes the interpretation of those who would have it said ° dre δὴ καὶ αὐτοῦ φάσκοντος τοῦ σωτῆ- pos, ὁ Πατήρ μου μείζων pov ἐστί.---- Apud. Theodorit. E.H., i. 4. p. 18. edit. Valesii. [p. 19. ] ἢ 6 υἱὸς οὐκ εἴρηκεν, 6 Πατήρ μου κρείττων μου ἐστὶν, ἵνα μὴ ἕένον τις τῆς ἐκείνου φύσεως αὐτὸν ὑπολάβοι" ἀλλὰ μείζων εἶπεν, οὐ μεγέθει τινὶ, οὐδὲ χρόνῳ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πα- τρὸς yévynowv.—Oper., tom. i. [ Orat. i. 58. p. 462. ] ° ἐπειδὴ yap ἀπὸ τοῦ Tlarpbs ἣ ἀρχὴ τῷ υἱῷ, κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ὃ Πατὴρ, ὡς αἴτιος καὶ ἀρχή. διὸ καὶ ὁ Κύριος οὕτως εἶπεν' 6 Πατήρ μου μείζων μου ἐστὶ, καθὺ Πατὴρ δηλονότι. τὸ δὲ, Πατὴρ, τί ἄλλο σημαίνει, ἢ οὐχὶ τὸ αἰτία εἶναι, καὶ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντος ; ὅλως δὲ οὐσία οὐσίας καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὑμετέραν - σοφίαν μείζων καὶ ἐλάττων οὐ λέγεται. Oper., tom. i. p. 724. [ὃ 25. vol. i. p. 236. ] P 6 vids τάξει μὲν δεύτερος τοῦ Πα- τρὺς, ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου" καὶ ἀξιώματι, ὅτι ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία τοῦ εἶναι αὐτοῦ ὃ Πατήρ. —([p. 272. for αἰτία τοῦ εἶναι αὐτοῦ 6 Πατὴρ, the Benedictine editor reads τῷ εἶναι αὐτοῦ πατέρα. 4 τὸ μεῖζον μὲν ἐστὶ τῆς αἰτίας" τὸ δὲ ἴσον, τῆς φύσεως.---". 582. Orat. xxx. ἤ. ». δ44.1 Cyril Alex., and Damascene, concur in the same view. 589 that the Father is greater than the Son as man, by this reason, which is no despicable argument’; “ For to say forsooth that He is greater than the Son, considered in His human nature, is indeed true, but is no great [matter]; for what wonder is it, if God be greater than man?” Lastly, he thus writes in his fortieth Oration’: “ ‘ Greater’ is not said with respect to the nature, but to the cause, for of things that are of one substance none is greater or less in [point of] substance.” On which passage Nicetas makes this comment, “Since the Son has His cause from the Father, in this sense the Father is greater, as being the cause. In no way, however, is the essence of the One greater or less than the essence of the Other.” Chrysostom in Homily lxxii. on John, says‘, “ But if one say that the Father is greater, in that He is the cause of the Son, we will not contradict him on this point.”” Cyril of Alexandria like- wise, in book xi. of his Thesaurus, affirms that the Father is called greater, in so far forth as He is the cause; in the following words": “Therefore, although the Son with respect to His essence is equal to the Father, and like Him in all things, He yet calls Him greater, as being without beginning, He Himself having a beginning only in that He is of the BOOK IV. CHAP. II. 88,9. 265 [725] Father’, although He has His existence concurrent with Him.” ! κατὰ μό- Lastly, John Damascene, in his work on the Orthodox Faith i. 6’, says: “ But if we say, that the Father is the beginning of the Son and greater, we do not imply that He is prior’ to νον τὸ ἐξ ov, [ ‘only in the sense of origin.”’ | 2 προτε- the Son, in time or in nature, (for through Him He made the ρεύειν. worlds,) or indeed in any other respect, except that of cause ; that is, in that the Son is begotten of the Father, not the Father of the Son; and that the father is physically the cause of the Son.” ᾿ τὸ yap δὴ λέγειν, ὅτι τοῦ κατὰ τὸν ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, μείζονα αὐτόν φησιν, ἄνθρωπον νοουμένου μείζων, ἀληθὲς μὲν, οὐ μέγα δέ' τί γὰρ θαυμαστὸν, εἰ μείζων ἀνθρώπου Oeds.—[p. 545. ] 8 οὐ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τὸ μεῖζον" τὴν αἰτίαν δέ. οὐδὲν yap τῶν ὁμοουσίων τῇ οὐσίᾳ μεῖζον ἢ ἔλαττον.---». 669. [Orat. xl. 43. p. 725.] τ εἰ δὲ, λέγοι τις μείζονα εἶναι τὸν πατέρα, καθ᾽ ὃ αἴτιος τοῦ υἱοῦ, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἃἁντεροῦμεν.---ἰἸχχν. 4. vol. viii. p. 448. ] ἃ Yoos τοιγαροῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον ὑπάρχων ὃ υἱὸς τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὡς ἄναρχον, ἔχων ἀρχὴν κατὰ μόνον τὸ ἐξ οὗ, εἰ καὶ σύνδρομον αὐτῷ τὴν ὕπαρ- ξιν ἔχει.---- vol. v.] p. 85. Υ ef δὲ λέγομεν τὸν Πατέρα ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ μείζονα, οὐ προτε- ρεύειν αὐτὸν τοῦ υἱοῦ χρόνῳ ἣ φύσει ὑποφαίνομεν" δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γὰρ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν᾽ οὐδὲ καθ᾽ ἕτερόν τι, εἰ μὴ κατὰ τὸ altiov’ τουτέστιν ὅτι ὃ vids ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐγεννήθη, καὶ οὐχ ὁ Πατὴρ €x τοῦ υἱοῦ" καὶ ὅτι 6 Πατὴρ αἴτιός ἐστι τοῦ υἱοῦ φυσικῶ».---- 1. 8. p. 136. ] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 aut nun- quid.. non. [796] 5 nativitas. 3 nativita- tis. 4 in 5686, 590 Latin fathers; the Father greater in respect of causation, 10. We will now bring forward a few out of many witnesses of the Latins. We have already quoted in our last chapter* the words of Marius Victorinus to the same effect, from his first book against Arius. Hilary, in his ninth book’, acutely explains that passage of John, “ My Father is greater than I,” in these words: “Is the Father greater'? Certainly the Father is greater, seeing that He is the Father; but the Son, seeing that He is the Son, is not less. The Son’s being begotten*® makes the Father greater, and yet the nature of begetting*® suffers Him not to be inferior.” And a little before he had observed’; “The Father therefore is greater than the Son, and plainly greater, to whom [i.e.] He gives to be as great as He Himself is; to whom by the mystery of His be- getting He imparts to be the image of His own ingenerateness; whom He begets of Himself [so as to be] in His own form.” Again, in his eleventh book®*, “ In this that They are in Each Other*, understand the Godhead of [Him who is] God of God; but in that the Father is greater, understand it as an acknow- ledgment of the Father’s being the Author.” The author of the Questions on the two Testaments, which are appended to the fourth volume of the works of Augustine, in Question cxxii. near the end”, says, ‘‘in no respect at all does He differ in substance, because He is a true Son; He differs however in degree, [in respect] of causality, because all power in the Son is from the Father: and in substance the Son is not less [than the Father], yet in being Author the Father is greater.” And Augustine himself asserts, in his treatise De Fide et Symbolo, chap. 9, that the Father is said to be greater than the Son, not only because of the human nature, which the Son assumed, but also because of His eternal generation: he x § 4. [pp. 561, 562.] Y Aut nunquid Pater major non est? Major itaque [utique, Bull.] Pater est, dum Pater est; sed Filius, dum Filius est, minor non est. Nativitas Filii Patrem constituit majorem; minorem vero Filium esse, nativitatis natura non patitur.—[ix. 56. p. 1022.] * Major itaque Pater Filio est, et plane major, cui tantum donat esse, quantus ipse est; cui [qui, Bull] innascibilitatis esse imaginem sacra- mento nativitatis impertit; quem ex se in formam suam generat.—[§ 54. p. 1020.] δ In eo quod in 5686 sunt, Dei ex Deo divinitatem cognosce. In eo vero quod Pater major est, confessionem paterne auctoritatis intellige.—[§ 12. p. 1089. ] > Nihil plane differt in substantia, quia verus Filius est; differt autem in causalitatis gradu, quia omnis potentia a Patre in Filio est; et in substantia minor non est Filius; auctoritate ta- men major est Pater,—T[ vol. iii. part 2. Append. p. 132. ] not of nature; Hilary; Augustine; Council of Sardica. 591 there says that the words in John are spoken‘ “ partly because Boox tv. of the ministry of the manhood which He assumed, partly be- Ὁ 10 11, cause the Son owes to the Father that He is [i.e. His being], ὃ owing indeed this also to the Father, that He is equal to or on a par with the Father; whereas the Father, whatever’ He ! quicquid is, owes it to no one.” But why should I thus enumerate “ one by one the opinions of individual doctors? The catholic council of Sardica, consisting of about two hundred bishops of the east and west, (two hundred and fifty according to Theodoret,) explicitly delivered the same doctrine in their symbolical Epistle’: ‘‘ Nor does any one,” say the fathers, “ever deny that the Father is greater than the Son, not [indeed] on account’ of another substance, or on account of τα δ : any other difference; but because the very name of the setts Father is greater than that of the Son.” ie 11. This therefore was the uniform view of catholic anti- quity, that unto God the Father indeed, as the alone unbe- gotten, “ His own proper dignity” (οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα), as we just now heard Alexander of Alexandria call it, must be re- ligiously preserved ; in such a way, however, as that the true Godhead of the Son be not in any degree impaired. For it appertains even unto the glory of God the Father, that we entertain worthy sentiments respecting His Son; and, on the contrary, that man in reality does an injury and dishonour to the Father, who imagines that He begat an imperfect Son, or maintains that there is any diminution in the Divine Nature, The former Hilary well sets forth in book iv. of his work on the Trinity, in the following words*: “But being 266 about to speak of the most perfect* majesty and most full 3 absolu- Godhead of the only-begotten Son of God, we do not suppose aig that any one will imagine that the whole of this discourse, upon which we are about to enter, tends to the disparagement of God the Father, as though, if any of these things be ascribed [727] ¢ [sed illa posita sunt] partim prop- ter administrationem suscepti hominis ..+ partim propter hoe quia Filius Pa- tri debet quod est; hoc etiam debens utique Patri, quod idem Patri equalis aut par est; Pater autem nulli debet quicquid est.—[§ 18. tom. vi. p. 159. ] 4 οὐδέ τις ἀρνεῖταί ποτε Thy Πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ μείζονα" οὐ δι’ ἄλλην ὑπόστα- σιν, οὐ δι’ ἄλλην διαφοράν' ἄλλ᾽ ὅτι αὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς μεῖζόν ἐστι τοῦ viov.—Apud. Theodorit. E. H., ii, 8. p. 82. edit. Valesii. ὁ Dicturi autem de absolutissima majestate et de plenissima divinitate unigeniti Dei Filii, non existimamus quenquam arbitraturum, omnem hunc sermonem, quo usuri erimus, ad Dei ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 in honore, [128] 2 decore subjicitur, 3 diminu- tiva. 4 religiosa. ὃ cujus to- tum habet. 592 Zeno; to detract from the Son, is to detract from the Father. to the Son, the dignity of the Father be diminished ; whereas, rather, the honour of the Son is the dignity of the Father, and the Author is glorious, from whom He, who is worthy of such glory, has proceeded. For the Son has nothing but what. is begotten, and admiration of the honour of that which is begotten, is to the honour’ of Him who begat it. The notion ‘then of disparagement falls to the ground, when, whatever of majesty shall be shewn to be in the Son, shall redound to ‘amplify the power of Him who begat such an One.” The latter position is no less clearly set forth by Zeno Veronensis, or whoever was the author of the discourse ascribed to him’, upon these words, “When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ;” ‘The Father,” he says, “possesses the whole, the Son [possesses] the whole; what belongs to Both belongs to One; what One possesses, belongs to Each, as the Lord Himself says, ‘All things which the Father hath are Mine;’ because the Father abideth in the Son, and the Son in the Father. To Him is [the Son] sub- ject as is seemly’, by affection not by condition, by love not by necessity; He throuhg whom the Father is always honoured. Lastly He says, ‘I and My Father are one;’ the Son, therefore, is subject to the Father, not by a disparaging®, but, as I said, a dutiful* subjection ; together with whom there is retained [by Him] one possession of an original and everlasting kingdom, one substance of co-eternity and omnipotence, one equality, one power of august majesty, one dignity in united light. For whatever you take from the Son will go to injure the Father, of whom He has the whole®; nor is there in Him any- Patris contumeliam pertinere, quasi ex Pater, omnia mea tua sunt, et tua om- ejus dignitate decedat, si quid eorum referatur ad Filium; cum potius honor Filii dignitas sit paterna; et gloriosus auctor sit, ex quo is, qui tali gloria sit dignus, extiterit. Nihil enim nisi na- tum habet Filius, et geniti honoris ad- miratio in honore generantis est. Ces- sat ergo opinio contumeliz, cum quic- quid inesse Filio majestatis docebitur, id ad amplificandam potestatem ejus, qui istiusmodi genuerit, redundabit.— Ρ. 35. [§ 10. p. 832. ] _f Totum Pater, totum possidet Fi- lius; unius est, quod amborum est; quod unus possidet, singulorum est; Domino ipso dicente, Omnia quecunque habet Pater, mea sunt; [et iterum; nia mea: | quia Pater in Filio, et Filius manet in Patre. Cui affectu, non con- ditione, charitate, non necessitate, de- core subjicitur; per quem Pater sem- per honoratur. Denique inquit, Ego et Pater unum sumus; unde non dimi- nutiva, sed religiosa, ut dixi, subjec- tione est Filius Patri subjectus ; cum quo originalis perpetuique regni una possessio, cozternitatis omnipotenti- gque una substantia, una equalitas, una virtus majestatis auguste, unito in lumine una dignitas retinetur. Si quid enim Filio detraxeris, ad Patris, cujus habet totum, injuriam pertinebit; nec est in illo aliquid, quod sit infe- rius; quia sicut Pater, nec plus potest Story of the old bishop and the emperor Theodosius. 598 thing which is inferior; because, like the Father, He can have soox wv. neither more nor less; for the one is infused into the fulness 11,12. of the other; so that the blessed God is all in all, the Father ~~ in the Son, and the Son in the Father, together with the Holy Ghost. Amen.” 12. This striking passage of Zeno recalls to my memory a remarkable story, which may be found in Sozomen, Eccles. Hist. vii. 6, with which I shall conclude this chapter. In the reign of Theodosius the Great, on the occasion of a visit of his to Constantinople, the bishops who were in that city went to the palace, as was usual, to salute the emperor; among them, it is said, there was a certain old man, the bishop of an ob- scure city; simple indeed, and unversed in the business of the world, but endued with the understanding of Divine things. [729] The other bishops saluted the emperor with all courtesy and respect; and in like manner did the old bishop also salute the emperor; but the son of the emperor, who was seated | with his father, he by no means treated with the like honour ; but coming near him, said to him, as to a boy!, ‘God bless ! salve, fili. thee, my boy,” and began to stroke him with his hand. Upon this the emperor being indignant, and resenting it as an injury done to his son, in that he had not been treated with equal honour to himself, commanded the old man to be thrust out with disgrace: but, as they were putting him out, he turned and said’, “Do you, Ὁ emperor, consider that thus is our Heavenly Father also angry with those who honour not His Son as they honour Himself?, and who presume to say, that 2 ἄνομοιως. He is less than He who begat Him.” The holy man in these words glanced at the Arians, who, being still numerous, owing to the patronage of the emperors Constantius and Valens, used to assemble freely, and discuss about God and His sub- stance; and persuaded those who favoured their belief at the court to make trial of the emperor’s disposition? ; as Sozomen 8 animum. ‘relates at the beginning of the chapter we have referred to. The emperor, however, was struck with the words, and re- habere, nec minus; alter enim in alte- & οὕτω δὴ νόμισον, ὦ βασιλεῦ, καὶ rius plenitudinem infusus est. Ut sit τὸν οὐράνιον πατέρα ἀγανακτεῖν πρὸς omnia in omnibus Deus benedictus, τοὺς ἀνομοίως τὸν υἱὸν τιμῶντας, καὶ Pater in Filio, Filius in Patre, cum ἥττονα τολμῶντας ἀποκαλεῖν τοῦ γεν- Spiritu Sancto, Amen.—Bibl. Patr., νήσαντο».---ἰ Socrates, H. E., vii. 6.] tom. ii. coll. 424. i BULL. Q 4 ON THE SUBORDI- 594 The early fathers seem to speak as if they thought that the calling the bishop, asked his forgiveness, and confessed that nation or What he had said was true. THE SON. 267 [780] 1 nodus, 2 immen- sam. 3 cancellis, CHAPTER III. : A FULL ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE OBJECTION AGAINST WHAT HAS BEEN ARGUED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER, DERIVED FROM THOSE PASSAGES OF THE ANCIENTS IN WHICH THEY SEEM TO HAVE DENIED THE IMMEN- SITY AND INVISIBILITY OF THE SON OF GOD. 1. Tue testimonies of the ancients, which we have quoted in the preceding chapter, respecting the absolute equality of the nature of the Father and the Son, saving the pre- eminence of the Father in that He is the Father, are indeed most clear. Such statements of theirs, on the other hand, as seem to be opposed to these testimonies, we have, for the most part, noticed and explained, when we were setting forth their — teaching one by one, respecting the consubstantiality of the Son in the second book, and His co-eternity in the third. There remains now, if I remember aright, but one difficulty! to be solved, and that well worth the trouble. We have re- served the solution of it until now, because it does not occur in one or two ancient writers only, but runs through the remains of nearly all the primitive fathers. I confess that this was at one time a stumbling-block to myseif, and there- fore I think it my duty to attempt to remove it out of the way of others. Nearly all the ancient Catholics, then, who lived before the time of Arius, appear not to have been aware of the invisible and immeasurable’ nature of the Son of God. For they repeatedly speak of the Son of God as if, even in His Divine Nature, He were finite, visible, comprehended in some definite space, and circumscribed, as it were, by certain limits*. For, when they would prove, that He, who in former times appeared and spoke to the patriarchs and holy men under the Old Testament, being distinguished by the name of Jehovah, was the Son of God Himself, they commonly employ the following disjunctive argument ; that He who appeared was Son was included in a limited space and visible. Justin M. 595 either the Son of God, or a created angel, or God the Father. That it was not a created angel [which appeared] they infer from this, that He is called by the Holy Spirit Jehovah and God. Again, that it was not the Father they prove from this, that He is immeasurable, filling all places, and compre- hended in none; and therefore that it were impious even to imagine that He Himself had appeared in some definite place, or narrow corner of the earth; as if, forsooth, that very thing might be predicated rightly and without danger of the Son of God. By a like process of reasoning they also teach that the Son of God is visible, 2. In this way, certainly, Justin Martyr, almost the earliest of the fathers, [argued] in his Dialogue with Trypho®. Where, when Trypho denies that the angel who appeared to Moses in the burning bush was God Himself, and asserts that an angel indeed appeared in the flame of fire, but that God, (that is to say, the Father,) conversed with Moses, so that in the vision there were then two at the same time, both the angel and God, Justin replies thus: “ Even if this did happen then, my friends, that both an angel and God were together in the vision which was made to Moses; as also has been shewn to you in the preceding words; [yet] it does not follow that it was God the Creator of all things who said to Moses, that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; but He who, as has been before shewn to you, was seen by Abraham and Jacob, ministering to the will of the Creator of all things, and who in the judgment of Sodom in like manner ministered to His counsel and will'. So that, even if it be, as you say, that there were two, both an angel and God, still no one, who possesses ever so little understanding, will venture to say that the Maker of all, and Father, left all above the heavens, h [ei καὶ τοῦτο γέγονε τότε, ὦ φίλοι, ὡς καὶ ἄγγελον καὶ Θεὸν ὁμοῦ ἐν τῇ ὀπτασίᾳ τῇ τῷ Μωσεῖ γενομένῃ ὑπάρξαι ὡς καὶ ἀποδέδεικται ὑμῖν διὰ τῶν προγε- γραμμένων λόγων, οὐχ ὃ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων ἔσται Θεὸς ὃ τῷ Μωσεῖ εἰπὼν αὐτὸν εἶναι Θεὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ Θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Θεὸν Ἰακὼβ, ἀλλ᾽ ὃ ἀπο- δειχθεὶς ὑμῖν ὦφθαι τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ τῷ ᾿Ιακὼβ, τῇ τοῦ ποιητοῦ τῶν ὅλων θελή- σει ὑπηρετῶν, καὶ ἐν τῇ κρίσει τῶν Σο- δόμων τῇ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ ὁμοίως ὑπηρετή- cas’ ὥστε κἂν, ὡς φατὲ, ἔχῃ, ὅτι δύο ἦσαν, καὶ ἄγγελος καὶ Θεὸς, od τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων καὶ πατέρα καταλι- πόντα τὰ ὑπὲρ οὐρανὸν ἅπαντα, ἐν ὀλίγῳ γῆς μορίῳ πεφάνθαι πᾶς ὁστισοῦν, κἂν μικρὸν νοῦν ἔχων, τολμήσει εἰπεῖν.---- § 60. p. 167. Qqg2 BOOK IV. CHAP. III. § 1, 2. [7817 1 βουλῇ, consilio et voluntati. ON THE SUBORDI-= NATION or passage occurs in another place in the same Dialogue. THE SON. [782] 268 1 extrema linea. 2 decucur- risse. 596 Tertullian and Novatian: hence they argue that He who | and appeared in a narrow portion of the earth.” A parallel A similar mode of reasoning is also employed by Theophilus of Antioch, in his second book to Autolycus‘, and in like man-' ner argue Irenzus, Origen, and those six bishops who wrote the Epistle from the Council of Antioch to Paul of Samosata, in passages which we shall quote below. 3. Among the Latins, again, Tertullian in his Treatise against Praxeas, chap. 16", has the same argument; “ But what a thing it is,” he asks, “ that the almighty invisible God—whom no man hath seen nor can see, He who dwelleth in light un- approachable, He who dwelleth not in [temples] made with hands, from before the sight of whom the earth trembles, and the mountains melt like wax, who holds the whole world in His hand like a nest, whose throne is heaven, and the earth His footstool, in whom is all place, Himself not in place, who is the uttermost bound! of the universe, the Most High—that He should walk in paradise in the [cool of the] evening in search of Adam, and shut up the ark after Noah had entered it, and at Abraham’s tent refresh Himself under an oak, &ce. Surely these things would not have been to be believed even of the Son of God, unless they had been written; per- haps they would not have been to be believed of the Father, even though they were written, [the Father] whom these men! bring down into the womb of Mary, and set before Pilate’s judgment-seat, and shut up in the tomb of Joseph. Their error, then, appears from this; for being ignorant that from the beginning the whole order of the Divine ad- ministration has had its course’ through the Son, they believe ip. 100. [ὃ 22. p. 365.] &e. Scilicet et hac nec de Filio Dei Czterum quale est ut Deus omni- potens ille invisibilis, quem nemo vidit hominum, nec videre potest, ille, qui inaccessibilem lucem habitat, ille, qui non habitat in manu factis, a cujus conspectu terra contremiscit, montes liquescunt ut cera, qui totum orbem manu adprehendit velut nidum, cui celum thronus, et terra scabellum, in quo omnis locus, non ipse in loco, qui universitatis extrema linea est, ille Al- tissimus, in paradiso ad vesperam de- ambulaverit, querens Adam, et arcam post introitum Noe clauserit, et apud Abraham sub quercu refrigeraverit? credenda fuisse, si scripta non essent; fortasse non credenda de Patre, licet scripta; quem isti in vulvam Marie deducunt, et in Pilati tribunal impo- nunt, et in monumento Joseph conclu- dunt. Hine igitur apparet error illo- rum; ignorantes enim a primordio omnem ordinem divine dispositionis per Filium decucurrisse, ipsum cre- dunt Patrem et visum, et congressum, et operatum, &c.—[p. 510.] 1 {The Noetian or Patripassian here- tics, whose views, as held by Praxeas, Tertullian is refuting. ] came down and was seen under the O. T. was the Son. 597 that the Father Himself was both seen, and held converse, 800x 1v. and wrought,” &c. He is followed, as usual, by Novatian, br pry, or the author of the book on the Trinity, among the works of Terjullian, near the end of chap. 25™; “But if the same Moses,” he says, “ every where represent God the Father as immeasurable and infinite, not such as to be inclosed in space, but Himself inclosing all space; not as one who is in [any] place, but rather in whom all place is; in such wise con- [733] taining all things and embracing all things, as that. properly! * merito. He neither ascends nor descends, inasmuch as He does Him- self both contain and fill all things; and yet, notwithstanding, introduces God as going down to the tower, which the sons of men were building, considering, enquiring, and saying, ‘Come,’ and then, ‘Let Us go down,’ &c., Who will they have it, was the God who here came down to the tower, and at that time visited and enquired of those men? Was it God the Father? Then is He now inclosed in space; and how doth He Himself embrace all things? or is it an angel with [other | angels who, he says, went down and said, ‘ Come,’ &c. In Deuteronomy, however, we perceive that it was God who spake these words, &c. It was not the Father, therefore, who went down, as the fact shews; nor an angel who gave those commandments, as the fact proves. It follows then, that He descended of whom the Apostle Paul says, ‘He that de- [Ephes. scended is the same also that ascended,’ &c., that is, the Son ἢ bis of God, the Word of God.” | 4. Who, indeed, but must be utterly amazed at these sur- prizing statements of the fathers? Are we to suppose that these writers were so dull and inconsistent as to suppose that the Son of God, whom they every where else declare to be very ™ Quod [quid] si idem Moyses ubi- δὲ homines tune illos visitare queren- tem ? que introducit Deum Patrem immen- sum atque sine fine, non qui loco clu- datur, sed qui omnem locum cludat; nec eum, qui in loco sit, sed potius in quo omnis locus sit; [sic] omnia con- tinentem et cuncta complexum, ut merito nec descendat, nec ascendat, quoniam ipse omnia et continet et im- plet; et tamen nibilominus introducit Deum descendentem ad turrim, quam eedificabant filii hominum, considerare quzrentem, et dicentem, Venite, et mox, descendamus, &c., quem volunt hic Deum descendisse ad turrim illam, Deum Patrem? ergo jam loco clauditur; et quomodo ipse omnia complectitur? aut numquid Angelum cum angelis dicit descendentem, et di- centem, Venite, &c. Sed enim in Deuteronomio animadyertimus, retu- lisse Deum hee, &c. Neque ergo Pater descendit, ut res indicat; neque Angelus ista precepit, ut res probat. Superest ergo, ut ille descenderit, de quo apostolus Paulus, Qui descendit, ipse est qui ascendit, &c., hoc est, Dei Filius, Dei Verbum.—[p. 723. ] 598 Their view explained ; why the being manifested by visible on tHE God of very God, was at any time circumscribed within the Δα or Harrow bounds of one and that a small space, or that He was THE SON. jn His own actual nature visible? Far be it from us to think so of men so distinguished. By what clever expedient then, — you will say, can such words of theirs be set right? I am quite of this opinion, that those ancient writers, who have expressed themselves somewhat harshly on this subject, stated a view in other respects most true, though in a manner unsuitable and incorrect. For they were in controversy with adversaries who obstinately denied that the Person of the Son is distinct from the Father ; and being carried away with too great a desire of contradicting these men, they fell into unguarded expressions. [734] It will be apparent to any one who looks into the authors them- selves, that the words of Justin, Tertullian, and Novatian, © which we have just quoted in full, are certainly of this stamp. But these and the others, whom I have mentioned, did in reality mean nothing else by such expressions, than, that the Son of God, who is everywhere present with His Father, and is in His own nature invisible equally with the Father, was 1 κατ᾽ oixd- yet, by way of an economy’, seen in certain definite places, that γομίαν. — is, shewed Himself to men by means of certain outward sym- bols of His presence, for them to behold Him, when convey- ing to them the commands and will of God the Father Him- self. But, you will say, if, when those fathers affirm, or at any rate insinuate plainly enough, that the Son of God was at certain times inclosed in the narrow compass of a definite place, and seen by men, they meant nothing else than that He exhibited in certain definite places sensible symbols and tokens of His presence; why were they so anxious to re- move this very thing from God the Father, as if it were un- worthy of His supreme majesty? For it would seem that God the Father also might have manifested Himself to men in exactly the same way, without any lowering of His majesty. My answer is, that the primitive doctors were of an exactly opposite opinion; forasmuch as, in their view, God the Father never was seen, or could be seen of any man, not even through assumed forms. He had not originated from any beginning, nor was He subject to any one; nor can He be said to have been sent by another, any more than to have been begotten of another. On the contrary, the Son of God, symbols belongs to the Son, and not to the Father. 599 in that He is begotten of God the Father, on that ground at Βοοκ 1v. least is indebted to the Father for all His authority, and it “ἘΔ δι΄ is no less honourable to Him to be sent by the Father, than ~~ to be begotten of the Father. He is of the Father; through Him the Father created all things which are in the world; moreover through Him He afterwards revealed Himself to the world. In the most holy Trinity, although there is no disparity of nature between the Father and the Son, yet is there certainly a kind of! order, according to which the * quidam. Father is the principle and head of the Son; which order [735] would be inverted, if the administration of the universe were effected by the Son through the Father, not by the Father through the Son. To come more closely to the objection proposed; the primitive fathers used to refer those manifes- tations of God which were made to holy men of old, in all cases, to the economy or dispensation of human salvation ; which dispensation they thought that the Son of God had undertaken, not then for the first time when He came in the flesh, but from the very fall of the first man, as has been shewn above"; but that same dispensation they thought altogether alien from* God the Father. For on the same ? alienam ground that, in opposition to the Patripassians, the Catho- “ 269 lic Church of Christ ever acknowledged that the incarna- tion, which the Son took on Him, became not God the Father ; on the same ground those ancients asserted, that the manifestations of which we speak, were suited to the Son, and not to the Father, inasmuch as they were in reality preludes of the incarnation. That this was the very meaning of those ancient writers two things prove; first, they all in many other passages allow that the Son, as well as the Father, is in His nature, indeed, immeasurable and invisible; in the next place, most of them do themselves expressly interpret those statements of theirs of the economy. We will, how- ever, confirm this our answer, by examining individually the passages of the ancients which we have adduced, and com- paring them with other expressed sentiments of theirs. 5. Justin Martyr, who in his dialogue with Trypho con- tends that the [Divine] Person who appeared to Moses in the bush was the Son of God, on the ground that it would be » See i, 1. 12. [p. 24. ] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [736 | 1 τὸν ὄντα Θεὺν. ὁ ὥν. [737] 600 They held that He who appeared was true God, but God absurd to say that God the Father appeared in a narrow corner of the earth; as if, indeed, that very statement could without absurdity be made of the Son of God; this same Justin, I say, speaks in other passages with extreme honour of this same [Divine] Person. For instance, in his Hortatory Oration to the Greeks®, he thus writes: “ For it was fitting, I think, that He who was to be the ruler and captain of the Hebrew race, should first of all know the [self] existent God'. Wherefore having appeared to him first, so FaR AS IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO APPEAR TO MAN, He said unto him, ‘I am He that Is*’ ” God, therefore, who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, appeared in no other way than became God; that is, not by passing from place to place, or so as to be inclosed within the narrow limits of any place; but- by framing a visible form and an audible voice, He manifested Himself to the holy prophet. A little after in the same pas- sage he says, as we have observed already, that that descrip- tion, whereby the [Divine] Person who appeared to Moses in the bush designated Himself to him, “‘ I am He that Is,” was “suitable to the ever-existent God,” (τῷ ἀεὶ ὄντι Θεῷ προσή- xew.) No one, however, can doubt that Justin acknowledged the ever-existent God to be in His own nature immeasurable and invisible. What, therefore, Justin has elsewhere said of the Divine Person who was seen by Moses, that He appeared, *“‘inclosed, as it were, in a narrow corner of the earth,” must be referred to the economy, of which I spoke, that was under- taken by the Son. But the same Justin explains the matter more clearly in the Apology for the Christians, which is entitled the Second?; where he again contends, that it was our Saviour, who spoke with Moses out of the burning bush, and said, ‘‘ Take off thy shoes [from off thy feet], and come near and hear.” Moreover a little after’ he clearly teaches, that it was Christ who in His own Person spoke those words, “Tam He that Is, the God of Abraham,” &c. ‘“ What was spoken,” he says, “out of the bush to Moses, ‘I am He that is, the God of Abraham, and the God of [Isaac, and © ἔδει γὰρ, οἶμαι, τὸν ἄρχοντα Kat φανῆναι Θεὸν, ἔφη πρὸς αὐτὸν, Eyed εἶμι στρατηγὸν τοῦ τῶν Ἑβραίων γένους 6 év.—p. 20. [§ 21. p. 22.] ἔσεσθαι μέλλοντα, πρῶτον ἁπάντων τὸν P p. 95. ΓΑΡΟΙ. i. 62. p. 80.] ὄντα γινώσκειν Θεόν" διὸ καὶ τούτῳ 4 τὸ δὲ εἰρημένον ἐκ βατοῦ τῷ Μωσεῖ, πρώτῳ φανεὶς, ὡς ἣν δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ ᾿Ἐγώ εἰμι ὃ ὧν, 6 Θεὸς ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ ὃ the Son, being as Son, sent by and ministering to the Father. 601 the God of Jacob,] and the God of thy fathers,’ nificant of this, that though dead they yet remain, and are ᾿ς 5 the people! of Christ Himself.” But what kind of manifes- Justin M. tation is there, which could possibly have been suitable to ' ἀνθρώ- the Son of God, seeing He is the [self-Jexistent, the God of "ἢ Abraham, &c., which yet would be unbecoming to God the — Father? This difficulty Justin had himself solved in the same passage thus; Though Christ, as the genuine Son of God, be the ever-existent, and the God of Abraham, &c., equally with the Father ; still He is also the Angel" and Apostle of God the Father, as Justin expresses it, appointed by the Father for this purpose, of announcing His will to men. In executing this office He does nothing unworthy of Himself; for (as I said before) it is not less honourable to the Son to be sent by the Father, than to be begotten of the Father. These are Justin’s words’; “The Word of God is His Son, as we said before, and He is also called Angel and Apostle?. For ? ἀπόστο- He announces whatsoever is necessary to be known, and is *”* sent to shew us whatsoever is announced.” That all this, however, pertains to the dispensation which the Son of God [788] undertcok from the first springing of the Church’, and ful- 3. nascente filled* at last by His incarnation, the blessed martyr shortly ‘ona afterwards‘ intimates explicitly. “This discourse,” he says, vit. “is intended to shew that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Apostle; being previously the Word, and having ap- peared sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of incorporeal beings; and now by the will of God having become man for the sake of the human race.” To the same effect is an observation which Justin makes, in his Dialogue with Trypho, when, after enumerating the names and appellations given to our Saviour in the Scriptures, such as, The Glory of the Lord, the Son, Wisdom, the Angel, is sig- BOOK Iv. 270 CHAP. III. . Θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ 6 Θεὸς Ἰακὼβ, καὶ 6 Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων σου, σημαντικὸν τοῦ καὶ ἀποθανόντας ἐκείνους μένειν, καὶ εἶναι αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀἄνθρώπου-.--- p- 96. [§ 68. p. 82.] * Compare what we have transcribed below from Novatian, ὃ 8, and from Hilary, § 14. 8 ὃ λόγος δὲ Tod Θεοῦ ἐστὶν ὃ vids αὐτοῦ, ὡς προέφημεν' καὶ ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται, καὶ ἀπόστολος. αὐτὸς γὰρ ἀπαγγέλλει ὅσα δεῖ γνωσθῆναι, καὶ ἀποστέλλεται μηνύσων ὅσα ἀγγέλλεται. —95. [p. 81.] t ἀλλὰ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν γεγόνασιν οἵδε of λόγοι, ὅτι vids Θεοῦ καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοὺς 6 Χριστός ἐστι, πρότερον λόγος ὧν, καὶ ἐν ἰδέᾳ πυρὸς ποτὲ φανεὶς, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ ἐν εἰκόνι ἀσωμάτων, νῦν δὲ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείοι γένους ἄνθρωπος yevouevos.—p. 96. [p. 91.) ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. loixovoulay. [739] 602 It belonged to the Son to be the dispenser of the God, the Lord, and the Word, he immediately subjoins", “For He has all these appellations, both from His ministering to the Father’s will, and from His being begotten of the Father by [His] will.” name Angel in reference to His administering to the Father’s will, that is, to the dispensation’; even as [He used] the appellations, Glory of the Lord, Son, Wisdom, God, Word, [in reference] to His divine generation fronrthe Father. Moreover, that Justin acknowledged the omni- presence of the Son of God is clear, both from other pas- sages and from his own express words in what is usually called his First Apology’, “ [He (the Saviour)] was and is the Word, which is existent in all things.” Here he teaches that the Word, who is also called the Son of God, permeates and pervades, as it were, the whole compass of created nature, and is present in all things; and cannot therefore be circum- scribed in any place, much less within a narrow corner of the earth. For, as it seems, in the same sense God the Father Himself also is called in Scripture, He who is “ through all and in all,” Eph. iv.6. But as regards the Son of God} in so far as He is in the most proper sense the Son of God, the same Justin thought that so far is He from falling under the cognizance of our eyes, that He cannot be comprehended by the mind even of man or of angel. For in a remarkable passage, which I have already* quoted from his Epistle to Diognetus, he calls the Son of God Himself, “the Truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word.” ‘Thus far con- cerning Justin. 6. The matter will appear yet more clear from Irenzus. In book iv. 87.) he says, “The Word became the dispenser of the Father’s grace for the benefit of mankind, on whose behalf He wrought so great dispensations, shewing God to men, and exhibiting man to God; preserving indeed the in- visibility of the Father, that man should not any time become Now without doubt he used the ἃ ἔχει γὰρ πάντα προσονομάζεσθαι ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς θελήσει γε- γενῆσθαι.---Ῥ. 284. [ὃ 61. p. 158.] Υ λόγος ἦν καί ἐστιν ὃ ἐν παντὶ ὥν. ---- [Apol. ii. § 10. p. 95.] x ἢ, 4. 7. [p. 146.] y Verbum Dispensator paterne gra- tie factus est ad utilitatem hominum, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones ; hominibus quidem ostendens Deum, Deum (lege Deo, Bull; ita legit, ed. Ben.—(B.) et Grab.) autem exhibens hominem; et invisibilitatem quidem Patris custodiens, ne quando homo fieret contemptor Dei, et ut semper Β c —_— Pa Father’s grace to mankind, from the time of the fall. 608 a despiser of God, and that he might ever have somewhat ΒΟΟΚ rv. towards which to make progress; again, on the other hand, 55.6. by many dispensations shewing God unto men to be seen of Inenzus. them, lest man wholly falling away from God should cease to be.” In these words he teaches us, as Petavius himself has observed, that the Father indeed has never appeared, not even under the disguise of an external form; but that the Word manifested Himself to the ancients, not indeed in Himself, and according to His proper substance, but under some image. ΤῸ this I add that Irenzus here expressly says, that, in all the manifestations of God the Father through His Word, the Word was made the dispenser of the [740] Father’s grace for the benefit of mankind; that is, that all the manifestations! of the Son of God pertained, as I have ' ἐπιφα- said, to that dispensation”, which from the beginning He re. a Himself undertook for the salvation of men. Parallel to μίαν. this is the following passage, which is found in the same chapter’; ‘“ Therefore,’ he says, “if neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, saw God, though they saw many of the heavenly things; and what were seen by them were si- militudes of the glory of the Lord and prophetic of things future ; it is evident, that the Father indeed is invisible, of whom the Lord also said, ‘No one hath seen God at any time ;? but His Word, according as He Himself willed, and for the benefit of those who beheld Him, shewed the glory of the Father, and set forth His. dispensations*; as_ the ὃ disposi- Lord also has said, ‘The Only-begotten God, who is in the oe bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.’” And that all those appearances of the Son of God, under the Old Testament, were preludes, and, as it were, specimens of His future incarnation, and had reference to the dispensation of man’s salvation, undertaken by the Son, Irenzeus himself haberet ad quod proficeret; visibilem autem rursus hominibus per multas dispositiones ostendens Deum, ne in totum deficiens a Deo homo cessaret esse.—p. 371. [c. 20. 7. p. 255. ] Tgitur si neque Moyses vidit Deum, nec Helias, nec Ezechiel, qui multa de celestibus viderunt; que autem ab his videbantur, erant similitudines cla- ritatis Domini, et prophetie futuro- rum; manifestum est, quoniam Pater quidem invisibilis, de quo et Dominus dixit, Deum nemo vidit unquam; Ver- bum autem ejus, quemadmodum vole- bat ipse, et ad utilitatem videntium, claritatem monstrabat Patris, et dispo- sitiones exponebat ; quemadmodum et Dominus dixit, Unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit.—p. 372. [§ 11. p. 256.] ON THE SUBORDI- [44 5 Nation or “© Lt 18 THE SON. [741] 271 4 604 Ireneus held the Son to be invisible equally with the Father, — expressly teaches us, in chap. 26." of his fourth book, saying, — He Himself, who says to Moses, ‘I have seen, I have — ὃ 3 seen the affliction of My people which are in Egypt, and I | have come down to deliver them ;’ [viz.] the Word of God, — who from the beginning was accustomed to ascend and de- — scend for the salvation of such as were afflicted.” But that the Son of God is, in His own nature, invisible equally with the Father, the same Irenzus distinctly asserts: again, in chap. 41." of the same book. For he says that through the ~ Christian religion we are taught “that there is one God, ‘who is above all principality and dominion, and power, and every name which is named,’ and that His Word, being © by nature invisible, became palpable and visible among men, ~ and condescended ‘even unto death, and that the death of © 393 the cross. Here also Irenzeus (as it may perhaps be worth while to observe in passing) in these words, “ His Word being ~ by nature invisible, became palpable and visible among men, and condescended even unto death,” seems to me to have — certainly had in view the remarkable passage of Ignatius, in — his epistle to Polycarp‘, Irenzeus’s master; in which the apo- — stolic man calls Christ the Son of God, “ Him who is inyi- sible, Him who for our sake was visible, Him who is impal- pable, Him who is not liable to suffering, Him who for our sake became liable to suffering.” You may read the passage of Ignatius entire in book iii. 1, 3, of this work, [p. 371.] To proceed: in the fourteenth chapter of the aforesaid book Irenzus gives a clear exposition of the whole matter, teach- ing that the Father, indeed, and the Son are alike incompre- hensible by the creatures, [but] equally comprehensible One by the Other; but that, nevertheless, every manifestation of the Father is made through the Son; accordingly that the Father sends, and the Son is sent. His words are these‘; “ But forasmuch as from the one God, who both made this * Ipse est qui dicit Moysi, Videns vidi vexationem populi mei qui est in Aigypto, et descendi ut eruam eos; ab initio assuetus Verbum Dei ascendere et descendere, propter salutem eorum qui male haberent.—[c. 12. 4. p. 241.] > [nova doctrina]... esse... unum Deum, qui est super omnem principatum, et dominationem, et potestatem, et omne nomen quod nominatur; et hujus Ver- bum naturaliter quidem invisibilem, palpabilem et visibilem in hominibus factum, et usque ad mortem descendisse, mortem autem crucis.—379. [6. 24, 2. p- 260. ] © [8 3. p. 40.] ἃ Sed quoniam ab uno Deo, qui et hune mundum fecit, et nos plasmavit, but to become visible for us; his clear statements. 605 world and formed us, and holds together and administers Βοοκ tv. all things, the Only-begotten Son came to us, summing up! SS, are into Himself what He had Himself formed, my faith in Him fpey gus. is firm, and my love to the Father immovable; both being * recapi- given to us by God®. For no one can know the Father un- —_— less by the Word of God, that is, unless by the Son revealing Him ; nor the Son, without the good pleasure of the Father. Now it is the good pleasure of the Father that the Son fulfils, for the Father sends; but the Son is sent and comes. And [742] the Father indeed—who is invisible and illimitable, so far as we are concerned—His own Word knoweth, and though He be inexplicable”, yet doth He reveal* Him to us. Again the ? inenar- Father alone knows His own Word. But that both these aS things are so the Lord has made manifest ; and for this rea- son, the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father by the manifestation of Himself; for the manifestation of the Son is the knowledge of the Father; since all things are mani- fested by the Word.” ‘This certainly is a sufficient proof, that the views of Irenzus were perfectly sound and catholic. 7. But the statements of Clement of Alexandria on this Cremenr subject are clearer than light itself*. For he distinctly joins mE. together the immensity and the omnipresence of the Son of luce, : God with the dispensation® which He undertook, in the very ὁ ccono- remarkable passage which you may read in his Strom. νὴ]: ™™ “For,” he says, “the Son of God never quits His own watch- tower; not being divided nor severed, nor passing from place to place; but being every where at every time, and not con- tained any where. [Heis| all mind, all light of the Father, all eye, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, et omnia continet, et administrat, uni- genitus Filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, firma est mea ad eum fides, et immo- bilis erga Patrem dilectio, utraque Deo nobis preebente. Neque enim Patrem cognoscere quis potest, nisi Verbo Dei, id est, nisi Filio revelante; neque Fi- lium, sine Patris beneplacito. Bonum autem placitum Patris Filius perficit ; mittit enim Pater; mittitur autem et venit Filius. Et Patrem quidem in- visibilem et indeterminabilem, quan- tum ad nos est, cognoscit suum ipsius Verbum, et cum sit inenarrabilis, ipse enarrat eum nobis. Rursum autem Verbum suum solus cognoscit Pater. Utraque autem hee sic se habere ma- nifestavit Dominus; et propter hoc Filius revelat agnitionemn Patris per suam manifestationem; agnitio enim Patris est Filii manifestatio; omnia enim per Verbum manifestantur.—[e. 6. 2. p. 234. | ὁ [Thus far the words are a quota- tion by Irenzus from the book of Jus- tin Martyr against Marcion.—B. } f οὐ yap ἐξίσταταί ποτε τῆς αὐτοῦ περιωπῆς ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ" οὐ μεριζόμε- νος, οὐκ ἀποτεμνόμενος, οὐ μεταβαίνων éx τόπου εἰς τόπον, πάντῃ δὲ dv πάν- Tote, καὶ μηδαμῇ περιεχόμενος" ὅλος ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [748] 1 dispositio. 606 Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Novatian: by His power searching out the powers. To Him the whole host of angels and of gods is subject, [even] to the Word of the Father, who has taken& upon Himself the sacred dispen- sation, because of Him who has subjected [them to Him.]” Observe, he clearly teaches that the Word, or Son of God, is not divided nor severed, passes not from place to place, is always every where, and no where contained. Nevertheless he allows that the Son of God Himself undertook the sacred dispensation which the Father laid upon Him; that is to say, as well under the Old Testament, when He appeared to the prophets and holy men, having assumed either a hu- man, or other corporeal appearance, as also especially under — the New Testament, when, having taken very man into the unity of His Person, He conversed with men upon earth. Surely nothing can be more explicit than this. That shame- less writer, Sandius, however, when he impudently denies, in opposition to the testimony of all the MSS., that Clement wrote these words", deserves no answer, certainly, but rather universal scorn. ' 8. We have heard Tertullian, in his Treatise against — Praxeas, speaking to this effect, that it was the Son, not God the Father, who of old appeared to holy men, and in the fulness of time became incarnate; because He [i. 6. God the Father] is invisible, and cannot be included in space; this same Tertullian, I say, afterwards, in chap. 23. of the same Treatise, expressly teaches us, that this is by no means to be understood as implying any disparity in the nature of the Father and the Son, since They are inseparable the One from the Other, and are Both alike immeasurable and omni- present ; but [it is to be understood] of the dispensation, which the Son, not the Father, undertook. For on the passage of Matthew xvii. 5. he thus writes in the same place'; “You have the Son on earth, you have the Father in heaven; this [however] is not a separation, but a divine arrangement}. vous, ὅλος φῶς πατρῷον, ὅλος ὀφθαλμὸς, πάντα δρῶν, πάντα ἀκούων, εἰδὼς πάντα, δυνάμει τὰς δυνάμεις ἐρευνῶν. τούτῳ πᾶσα ὑποτέτακται στρατιὰ ἀγγέλων τε καὶ θεῶν, τῷ λόγῳ τῷ πατρικῷ τὴν aylay οἰκονομίαν ἀναδεδεγμένῳ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα.---Ῥ. 702. [p. 831. | & ἀναδεδεγμένῳ. [A conjectural e- mendation for the common reading, avadederyuévy.—B. The ancient Latin version has suscepit. | h See Append. ad Nucl. Histor. Eccles., p. 90. i Habes Filium in terris, habes Pa- 607 But we know, that God is even in the bottomless depths’, soox mv. and exists every where, but [then it is] by power and autho- “(’7"3"" rity ; that the Son also, being indivisible [from Him] is every Trerrot-_ where with Him. Nevertheless in the economy itself, the ies Father willed that the Son should be held? on earth, and abyssos. Himself in heaven; whither the Son Himself also look- ἦ baberi. ing up, both prayed, and made supplication of the Father, whither also He taught us to raise ourselves up and pray, ‘Our Father, which art in heaven,’ although He be also pre- sent every where.” The case® is the same with respect to the ὅ ratio. divine dispensation which preceded the incarnation of the Son, and, indeed, with respect to all those appearances of God which _ took place under the Old Testament. For, as Tertullian him- self had very well remarked, in a passage quoted above, out of the sixteenth chapter* of the same treatise, “ the whole order of the divine administration* from the beginning had its * disposi- course’ through the Son.” In like manner Novatian, after oe proving (in the passage referred to above) that it was the Son rit. who descended to the tower of Babel, &c., by this argument, that God the Father is immeasurable, and is not inclosed in space ; as if, forsooth, the Son were not equally immeasurable and omnipresent ; nevertheless in another place in the same treatise, expressly attributes to the Son of God that immen- sity and omnipresence which is peculiar to the Divine Nature. For in chap. 14.! he thus maintains the true divinity of Christ against the heretics; “ If Christ,’ he says, “be only man, how is it that He is present every where when invoked? seeing that this is not the nature of man but of God, to be able to be present in every place?” How, then, are those appearances of God which were aforetime made to holy men, to be regarded as belonging’ to the Son, and not to the ὁ conve- Father also? The author himself appears to me to solve this το difficulty, not obscurely, in chap. 26, where he thus speaks their explicit statements on this point. [744] 272 trem in ceelis; non est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina. Czterum sci- mus, Deum etiam intra abyssos esse, et ubique consistere, sed vi et potes- tate; Filium quoque ut individuum cum ipso ubique. ‘l'amen in ipsa οἶκο- νομίᾳ Pater voluit Filium in terris ha- beri, se vero in ccelis; quo et ipse Filius suspiciens et orabat, et postu- labat a Patre, quo et nos erectos doce- bat orare, Pater noster qui es in coelisy cum sit et ubique.—[p. 513.] k [p. 510; quoted above, § 3. p. 596. } 1 Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo adest ubique invocatus? cum hzc hominis natura non sit, sed Dei, ut adesse omni loco possit —(p. 715. ] 608 The Son acts as Angel or Messenger of the Father. on tue Of the angel who appeared to Sarah’s handmaid™; “ Let the © Sunonpr heretics consider what they have to say’ on this passage ; THE son. was He the Father, who was seen by Agar, or not? for it is — ltractent. get down ‘God.’ Now far be it from us to call God the ?altei Father an angel, lest He be set under another’, whose angel subditus. Hebe. But they will say that it was an angel; how then will it be God, if it was an angel, since this name is never — conceded to angels? unless [it be], that [pressing us] on ether — side, the truth shuts us up [and forces us] into the view that we must understand, that it was the Son of God; who, since — He is of God, is justly [called] God, because He is called the * subditus. Son of God; [and] since He is set under® the Father, and is — 4adnun- the announcer‘ of the Father’s will, He has been designated vee ‘the Angel of great counsel’.’?”? Where the sum of the — 6; LXX.] argument® comes to this: He, who appeared to Agar, was — Sea either a created angel, or the uncreated God. That He was tions, not a created angel, he proves from His being called God — and Jehovah, which is the incommunicable name, and has — never been conceded to any creature, not even to the angels themselves, the highest order of created beings. That it'was — the true God, then, who appeared is clear; but what God, if I may so speak? Was it the Father or the Son? That it was not the Father he proves from this, that the name angel ~ indicates a mission from another, and therefore a kind of subjection ; but God the Father is subject to none, as having His origin from none. It remains, therefore, that He who — appeared was the Son of God, who, because He has His origin from God the Father, is on that ground, at any rate, subject to the Father; nor is the office itself of an angel or an- nouncer of the Father’s will unbecoming’ Him. In a word, God the Father could not have become an angel consistently with® His prerogative as Father; for then He would have been sent by another, who yet is indebted for His authority [745] 7 dedecet. 8 salva. ™ Querant, quid in presenti loco heretici tractent; Pater fuit iste, qui ab Agar visus est, an non? quia Deus positus est. Sed absit Deum Patrem Angelum dicere, ne alteri subditus sit, cujus Angelus fuerit. Sed Angelum dicent fuisse ; quomodo ergo Deus erit, si Angelus fuit, quum non sit hoc no- men angelis unquam concessum? nisi quoniam ex utroque latere nos veritas in istam concludit sententiam, quia [qua] intelligere debeamus, Dei Fi- lium fuisse; qui quoniam ex Deo est, merito Deus, quia Dei Filius dictus sit; quoniam Patri subditus et adnun- tiator paterne voluntatis est, magni consilii Angelus pronuntiatus est.—|p. 724.) Hence the Son is called in Scripture the Angel of God. 609 to no one. To the Son of God, however, both the name of βοοκ ιν. God altogether belongs, as being most true God; and also the fy ἐὰν appellation of Angel, forasmuch as He is in such wise very Trrtun-_ God, as to be God of God, and was, therefore, capable of re- “'4%- ceiving and undertaking, consistently with the dignity of His Person, the mission and dispensation committed to Him by God, of' whom He is. This, without doubt, was the very ' ex. thing which the fathers meant, who wrote the synodical epistle from the council of Antioch to Paul of Samosata; who contend that He, who in the Old Testament from time to time appeared to the fathers and conversed with them, was the Son™; “Being attested sometimes as an angel, some- [746] times as the Lord, and sometimes God; for it were im- pious to suppose that the God of all is called an angel; but the angel of the Father is the Son, being Himself Lord and God; for it is written [of Him], ‘the Angel of great coun- 561", Here the holy bishops clearly teach that the name of God and Lord are applicable to the Father, and to the Son alike”, but that the appellation of Angel, as indicating ἃ 2 proinde. mission from another, is by no means suited to the Father, who can no more be said to be sent than to be born of another; but to the Son, as being begotten of the Father, it may rightly be applied; and on that account He is called in the Scriptures ‘the Angel of great counsel.’ 9. In the same way must we explain Tertullian, when in the same Treatise against Praxeas, chap. 14°, he distin- guishes the Father from the Son by this characteristic, that the Son is visible, the Father invisible. He is followed, as usual, by Novatian, or the author of the book on the Trinity, chap. 26. But what [need I say]? Is there any one who would suspect that Tertullian and his follower, (men cer- tainly not altogether devoid of sense,) believed that the Son of God, in that He is God, and begotten οὐδ᾽ the invisible 3 natus ex, God, is capable of being perceived by sight? Without doubt, when they said that the Son was visible, it was not in His mM πρτὲ μὲν ws ἄγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ ws λῆς Uyyedos.—[See Relig. Sacr., vol. Κύριος, ποτὲ δὲ Θεὸς μαρτυρούμενος. τὸν ii. p. 470. ] μὲν γὰρ Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων ἀσεβὲς ἄγγελον " Tsaiah ix. 6, according to the Sep- νομίσαι καλεῖσθαι. ὃ δὲ ἄγγελος τοῦ tuagint. GRABE. Πατρὸς 6 υἱός ἐστιν, αὐτὸς Κύριος καὶ ° [p. 507, 508. ] Θεὸς dv. γέγραπται γὰρ, Μεγάλης Bov- BULL. Rr ON THE SUBORDI- NATION oF W 610 Tertullian; that the Son is in His own nature invisible. own Divine Nature itself!, but according to that economy hich we have been explaining; I mean that in which He THE soN. Himself from the beginning shewed Himself from time to time 1 non ipsa natura sua divina. [747] 2 suo no- mine. 3 ante car- nem. 273 to men, by means of certain external and visible symbols of His presence. If you are in doubt about this, hear Tertul- lian himself once more, and that in the very same book and chapter, (namely, in his Treatise against Praxeas, chap. 145) thus explaining himself in words the most express ; “ For we affirm,’ he says, “that the Son also, considered in Himself? [i.e. as Son], is invisible, so far forth as He is already, from the condition of His substance, the Word and Spirit of God, and in that He is God, and Word, and Spirit; but that He was visible before His incarnation® in that manner in which He says to Aaron and to Miriam, ‘ And if there shall be a prophet among you, I will make Myself known to him in a vision,’ ”? &e. What-can be more clear? Sandius then and others ought to be ashamed of having so confidently attri- buted to Tertullian this absurd view, of believing the Word and Son of God to be in His own Divine Nature finite and visible. For, if they had ever attentively read through the treatise of Tertullian from which they have inferred this, they could not have been ignorant that that most learned writer did in express terms reject that view. And if they were aware of this, and nevertheless wished to fix on Ter- tullian a blasphemy of this kind, they are deservedly to be regarded as egregious sophists and prevaricators. But if they never read through that treatise, or did so only negli- gently and superficially, they certainly were rash in pro- nouncing on the view of Tertullian from it. 10. I come at last to Origen. In book v. of his treatise against Celsus, he teaches that God the Father conde- scends to men, not locally, tomas, but by providence, mpovontixas; but that the Son conversed on earth locally, τοπικῶς, also, as of old by means of assumed forms, so in the last times, in that true manhood which He assumed; but yet in such a way as that neither was He Himself at any ° Dicimus enim et Filium suo no- ante carnem eo modo, quo dicit ad mine eatenus invisibilem, qua Sermo Aaron et Miriam, Eé si fuerit prophetes et Spiritus Dei ex substantia condi- in vobis, in visione cognoscar illi, &c.— tione Jam nunc, et qua Deus et Sermo [ςῥρ. 508.] et Spiritus; visibilem autem fuisse Origen; the Son omnipresent equally as the Father. 611 time included in space, but equally with the Father ever soox tv. was and is present every where. The words of Origen are “a 9, 10. theseF; “ God, therefore, according to His goodness, con- Ogican. descends to men, not locally, but by providence’; and the ! προνοη- Son of God, not only then,” (that is, when having been made 4 748] flesh He was dwelling among men,) “ but also always, is with His own disciples, fulfilling that [promise of His], ‘Lo, I am with you always, unto the end of the world’ And, since a branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in the vine, it is Clear that the disciples of the Word also, the spiritual? ? νοητὰ. branches of the true Vine, the Word, cannot bring forth the fruits of virtue, except they abide in the true Vine, the Christ of God, who is also locally with us below upon earth; who, being present with those who in every place are joined ἰοῦ ὅ προστε- Him, is also at once* every where present with those even la who know Him not. And this is what John the writer of the Gospel declares in the person of John the Baptist, saying, ‘There standeth one among you, whom ye know not, He it is who cometh after me.’” From this Origen, immediately afterwards in the same passage, infers that prayers and vows are to be made not to the sun, the moon, and the stars, but to God the Father and the Son, as being every where pre- sent. Thus in book 1.4, (in a passage which we have men- tioned above,) he proves by the same testimonies of Scriptures [749] that the Son of God was in nowise circumscribed by the body which He assumed, but is every where present®. But " φθάνοντα he reconciles the comings down of the Son of God to men*”””*°” with His immensity and omnipresence most clearly in book iv. of the same treatise; where, when Celsus objects against the incarnation of the Word of God, that, if God comes down to men, we should have to fear lest He should quit His P Θεὸς οὖν κατὰ Thy χρηστότητα αὖ- τοῦ οὗ τοπικῶς, ἀλλὰ προνοητικῶς συγ- καταβαίνει Τοῖς ἀνθρώποις" καὶ ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ παῖς οὐ τότε μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ge} μετὰ τῶν ἰδίων μαθητῶν ἔστι, πληρῶν τὸ, Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. καὶ εἴπερ κλῆμα καρπὸν οὐ δύναται φέ- ρειν, ἐὰν “μὴ ἐμμείνῃ τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ οἱ τοῦ λόγου μαθηταὶ, τὰ νοητὰ τῆς ἀληθινῆς ἀμπέλου τοῦ λόγου κλή- ματα, οὐ δύνανται φέρειν τοὺς καρποὺς τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἐὰν μὴ μένωσιν ἐν τῇ ἀλη- θινῇ ἀμπέλῳ, τῷ Χριστῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τοπικῶς κάτω ἐπὶ vais τυγ- χάνοντι" ὃς μετὰ τῶν πανταχοῦ προσ- πεφυκότων αὐτῷ ὧν, ἤδη δὲ καὶ μετὰ τῶν οὐκ εἰδότων αὐτὸν πανταχοῦ ἐστὶ. καὶ τοῦτό γε ὃ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γράψας Ἰωάννης ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ Ἰωάννου δηλοῖ, λέγοντος, Μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν, ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, αὐτός ἐστιν ὃ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος. —p. 239. [§ 12. p. 586] p. 63, [§9. p. 398. ὡς δ § 5. p. 228.] See book ii. Rr2 ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON, [ Wisd. i. 7.] [ Jer. xxiii. 24. | [ Acts xvii. 28. ] 1 οὐκ ἔξε- ὃρος γίνε- ται. [760] 274 2 migra- tione. 612 The Son’s coming down consistent with Omnipresence ; throne; Origen" thus replies, (not only in his own name, but in that of all Christians,) ‘ For he knows not the power of God, and that ‘the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, and that which containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice.’ Nor can he understand what is written, ‘Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.’ that, according to the doctrine of Christians, ‘in Him we all live and move and have our being,’ as Paul also teaches in his address to the Athenians. Whether, therefore, the God of all by His own power descends with Jesus into the life of men, or whether the Word, who was.in the beginning with God, being Himself also God, comes to us, He is not re- moved from His place’, nor does He quit His own seat, so as for one place to be void of Him, and another filled [by Him] which before had Him not; but the Power and Divinity of God is present through whomsoever He wills, and in whom- soever He findeth a place, without change of locality, or leav- ing one place void of Him and filling another.” Will San- dius say, just as a little before he cavilled about Clement, that the passage is supposititious, and not written by Origen himself? Let him say so. Surely no one of sound mind will value at a straw the judgment of so rash and trifling a per- son, especially when Origen states the same doctrine in that very fourth book, and in many other places’. Let the wretched man, however, learn at last from Origen himself,— whom by mistake he praises and admires above all others, as of the same opinion as Arius,—his own ignorance, in openly averring* that he cannot be persuaded that the Son of God came down unto the earth without moving’ from place to place, so as that even then, when having been made man Iie was sojourning among men, He was present in heaven, Neither doth he see * ob yap olde δύναμιν Θεοῦ, καὶ ὅτι πνεῦμα Κυρίου πεπλήρωκε τὴν οἰκουμέ- νην, καὶ τὸ συνέχον τὰ πάντα γνῶσιν ἔχει φωνῆς" οὐδὲ συνιέναι δύναται τὸ, Od x! τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πλη- ρῶ; λέγει Κύριος. οὐδὲ βλέπει ὅτι κατὰ τὸν Χριστιανῶν λόγον of πάντες ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν, καὶ κινούμεθα, καί ἐσμεν" &s καὶ Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους δημηγο- ρίᾳ ἐδίδαξε. κἂν ὃ Θεὸς τοίνυν τῶν ὅλων τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει συγκαταβαίνῃ τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὸν τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίον, κἂν ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν λόγος, Θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ὧν, ἔρχηται πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἔξεδρος γίνεται, οὐδὲ καταλείπει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἕδραν ὥς τινα μὲν τόπον κενὸν αὐτοῦ εἶναι, ἕτερον δὲ πλήρη, ov πρότε- pov αὐτὸν ἔχοντα. ἐπιδημεῖ δὲ δύναμις καὶ θεότης Θεοῦ δι᾽ οὗ βούλεται, καὶ ἐν ᾧ εὑρίσκει χώραν, οὐκ ἂμείβοντος τόπον, οὐδ᾽ ἐκλείποντος χώραν αὐτοῦ κενὴν, καὶ ἄλλην πληροῦντος-.---». 164. [ὃ ὅ. Ρ. 504. | 5. See p. 168—170, 324, 825. [p. 509—511, 686, 687.] * Append. ad Nucl. H.E., p. 99. reply to Celsus on the supposed inferiority of the Son. 618 and so every where; and, moreover, in condemning such ἃ soox 1Vv. doctrine as impious and blasphemous. For the holy man CHAP. Ill. § 10, 11. pronounces him, in the person of the epicurean Celsus, to Onycen. be altogether ignorant of the Divine power. 11. I will subjoin the following by way of addition. From the modes of expression used by Christian writers who have taught, that the appearances of God recorded in the Old Testament are by no means to be understood of the Father, inasmuch as He can be seen of no man, but are to be re- ferred to the Son; and that Incarnation was befitting the Son, not the Father; from these expressions, I say, wrongly understood, it is very probable that Celsus seized on a handle for objecting against the Christians, that they taught that God the Father, being Himself great and hard to be contem- plated, sent His Son unto men, as being easy to be contem- plated; as we have already observed in the preceding chap- ter out of Origen’s treatise against Celsus, book vi.", where we also gave Origen’s reply in part. The remaining portion is most apposite in this place ; for thus he goes on to say in the same passage, “ Be it [allowed], then, that God is hard to be contemplated; but yet not He alone is so, but His only- begotten Son likewise. For God the Word is hard to be contemplated, and in like manner is Wisdom also, in which God created all things. For who is able to contemplate, in each particular of the universe!, that Wisdom in which? God made even each particular of the universe? It is not, there- fore, because God [is Himself] hard to be contemplated, that He sent God the Son as easy to be contemplated, as Celsus not understanding has said, speaking as in our per- son. But, as we have stated, the Son, being also hard to be contemplated, as being God the Word, through whom all things were made, also dwelt among us.” In this passage again Origen professes, in the name of all catholic Chris- tians, that the Father did not send the Son into the ἃ ἔστω δὴ καὶ δυσθεώρητος ὃ Θεός. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μόνος δυσθεώρητος. ἐστί τινι, ἀλλὰ καὶ 6 μονογενὴς αὐτοῦ. δυσθεώ- pntos γὰρ 6 Θεὸς λόγος, δυσθεώρητος δὲ οὑτωσὶ καὶ σοφία ἐστὶν, ἐν ἣ τὰ πάντα πεποίηκεν ὃ Θεός. τίς γὰρ δύναται καθ' ἕκαστον τῶν πάντων τὴν σοφίαν, ἐν ἣ 6 Θεὸς καὶ ἕκαστον τῶν πάντων πεποίηκε, θεωρῆσαι; od διὰ τὸ δυσθεώρητος οὖν ὃ Θεὸς εἶναι, ὧς εὐθεώρητον τὸν Θεὸν τὸν υἱὸν ἔπεμψεν'" ἅπερ μὴ νοήσας ὁ Κέλσος εἶπεν ὡς ἐκ προσώπου ἡμῶν. ... ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀποδεδώκαμεν, καὶ ὃ υἱὸς ᾿δυσθεώρη- τος ὧν, ἅτε λόγος Θεὸς, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν.---Ὀ. 323. [§ 69. p. 686. [761]. ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [762] 1 ortus. 614 Wisdom, why the Son and why the Spirit is so named. world as being more easy to be contemplated than Him- self; seeing that Both are alike incomprehensible, as he taught in other passages also*. Why then [was the Son sent]? We have given the cause and reason repeatedly in this chapter; namely, that God the Father, as being sprung’ of none, could have been sent of none; whereas it was not unbecoming the Son of God, as being begotten of the Father, to be sent by Him. It should, however, be observed in passing, for the information of such readers as are not much versed in the writings of the ancient fathers, that, in those words, ‘‘ Wisdom is also hard to be contemplated,” by Wisdom the Holy Ghost is designated, as we have already shewn was done by Theophilus of Antioch and Irenzus.. Of the causes why those ancient writers so expressed themselves Petavius writes thus’; ‘‘We must reckon,” he says, “ that they called the Holy Ghost Wisdom, because from Him the gift of wisdom is diffused amongst angels and men; just as the Logos is said by some to have been so called, because, as we - have shewn in a former book, He makes men rational, Xoy.- 2 efficien- tiz pro- prium. 3 metony- mice. [768] 4 cognitio quzdam. 5 peculia- ris. xovs. Thus, inasmuch as that excellent and heavenly gift of — wisdom—so far forth as it is a gift, and is imparted to us by God of His singular bounty and charity—belongs pecu- — larly to the effectual working’ of the Holy Ghost; on this account the fountain Itself of wisdom, as well as of all other gifts, is sometimes, by a transferred use of the word’, called by that same name [Wisdom]. There may be other reasons also for that appellation, as, for instance, because wisdom, which is the gift of God, and is opposed to human wisdom; such as was that of the Gentile philosophers, is (as St. Thomas explains it) joined with the love of God and charity. Where- fore the Holy Ghost is named Wisdom on the same ground as [He is named] Love and Charity, But if you consider the nature itself and the peculiar properties of wisdom, as it relates to the intellect and is a kind of knowledge’, it is an appellation peculiarly belonging to® the Son and Word of God; and to the Spirit not otherwise than extrinsically, and, so to speak, causatively.”” And, further, this also will perhaps deserve our notice, that those words of Origen, * See ii. 9. 9. [p. 302.] 225. ] Υ See ἢ, 4, 10, and 5. 7. [p. 202 and 2 De Trin. vii. 12. 16. a The Post-Nicene Fathers agreed with these views. 615 “God is hard to be contemplated ’, the Word is hard to soox w. be contemplated, and in like manner Wisdom also is hard Sil, a to be contemplated,” are quite parallel to those clauses sa of what is commonly called the Athanasian Creed; “The: δυσθεώ- Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and ?77°% the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.” But I return to my course. 3 19, From all this it is most manifest, that, whenever those doctors of the Church who wrote before the rise of the Arian heresy, argue’, that it was not God the Father, but the Son, ? ratioci- who appeared under the Old Testament, and in the fulness τον of time became incarnate, on the ground that the Father is immeasurable, and is not included in space, and is in- visible, so that He can be seen of none; they by no means meant to deny that the Son of God, equally with the Father, is in His own nature immeasurable and invisible; but merely intimated this, that all such appearances of 975 God, and also the incarnation itself, had reference to the economy which the Son of God undertook ; which economy is by no means suited* to the Father*, inasmuch as He had ’conveniat. not His origin from any beginning, and is indebted for His authorship to none*. And that in this point most of the ‘ nullique catholic fathers, who lived after the council of Nice, agreed κέρμει με υεῶ with them, we will now proceed to shew. That Eusebius was acceptam catholic, and removed® from the Arian heresy, we have be- "4 ¢ J 5 alienum. fore proved” by the clearest evidences quoted from his own writings. Now in the first book, chap. ii., of his Ecclesias- tical History, (a work which it is clear that he published after all his other writings, and so after the Nicene council,) he [754] offers this argument in proof that the Angel, who was wor- shipped by Abraham as the God and Judge of all, was not the Father but the Son’; “If all reason refuse to allow that the unbegotten and unchangeable essence of the Almighty God should change into the form of man®, or, again’, should ὁ ἀνδρὸς deceive the eyes of the beholders with the [mere] semblance Shi of any created being®, or yet that the Scripture should falsely 8 γεννητοῦ. ® [The reader will find more on this © εἰ γὰρ μηδεὶς ἐπιτρέποι λόγος, τὴν point in the reply to G. Clerke, ὃ 24.717 ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄτρεπτον οὐσίαν Θεοῦ > See book iii. 9. 11. [p. 503] and τοῦ παντοκράτορος εἰς ἄνδρὸς εἶδος με- chap. 1. 10 of this book, [ p. 570.] ταβάλλειν, μηδ᾽ αὖ γεννητοῦ μηδενὸς ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON, [755] 1 πάλιν. 2 ἀφανι- obelons. 3 [ preesen- . tia sua, added in Lat. vers, ] 616 Eusebius; on the Father being incapable of Incarnation ; invent such things; who else (if it be not allowable to say that it was the First Cause of all things) could be declared to be the God and Lord, who judgeth the whole earth, and being seen in human form doeth judgment, but His pre-_ existent Word alone?” Eusebius had used the same reason- ing in the fifth book of his Evangelical Demonstration, p. 147; yet on account of these and similar expressions the jesuit Petavius‘ has not hesitated to call this venerable bishop, who has deserved most highly of the Church of Christ, “ impious” and “ profane.”’ He, however, could scarcely have been igno-. rant, that Eusebius in nowise meant, what his words at first seem to carry on the face of them, that the Son of God, who formerly appeared in a visible shape, was in very deed of a nature alien from the Father, that is, [of a nature] finite and mutable, much less that He underwent any actual change through these appearances. For m a hundred passages (one of which Petavius has himself adduced) Eusebius most ex- plicitly rejected that blasphemy ; indeed, in his Panegyric on Constantine, which is appended to his Ecclesiastical History, he expressly teaches that the Word of God, even after He had taken true manhood into the unity of His Person, con- tinued the same unchangeable, immeasurable, and omni- present God; for thus he writes in the fourteenth chapter of the said Oration’; ‘‘ And herein did He minister to the Father’s counsels, Himself on the other hand’ continuing immaterial, such as before this He had been with the Father ;. not having changed His substance at all, nor having His own nature annihilated’; not yet having been confined by the bonds of the flesh; nor, again, making His sojourn there [only], where the human vessel [of His flesh] was, and hin- dered from being in other places of the universe; for, on the contrary, even at the very time that He was sojourning among men, He was filling all things [with His presence’, ] φαντασίᾳ τὰς τῶν ὁρώντων ὄψεις ἐξαπα- TGV’ μηδὲ μὴν ψευδῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα πλάτ- τεσθαι τὴν γραφήν" Θεὸς. καὶ Κύριος 6 κρίνων πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, καὶ ποιῶν κρίσιν ἐν ἀνθρώπου δρώμενος σχήματι, τίς ἂν ἕτερος ἀναγορεύοιτο, (εἰ μὴ φάναι θέμις τὸ πρῶτον τῶν ὅλων αἴτιον,) } μόνος 6 προὼν αὐτοῦ Adyos.—[H. E. i. 2. p. 6.] * De Trin, viii. 2. 6. p. 792. © καὶ ταῦτα ταῖς πατρικαῖς βουλαῖς διηκονεῖτο, μένων αὐτὸς πάλιν ἄῦλος, οἷος καὶ πρὸ τούτου παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ ἦν" οὔ τι μεταβαλὼν τὴν οὐσίαν" οὐδ᾽ ἄφα- νισθείσης τῆς αὐτοῦ φύσεως" οὐδέ γε τοῖς τῆς σαρκὸς δεσμοῖς πεδηθείς" οὐδ᾽ ὧδε μὲν, ἔνθα ἣν ἀνθρώπειον σκεῦος, τὰς διατριβὰς ποιούμενος, ἐν ἑτέροις δὲ εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς κεκωλυμένος" ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ implied no inferiority of nature in the Son. St. Cyril H. 617» and was with the Father, and was also’ in Him; and at soox rv. that very time He was taking care of all things at once’, 812, j τὰς both things in heaven and things on earth, being by ΠΟ Ὶ καὶ... γε, means, like ourselves, excluded from being present every- ἢ ἀθρόως. where :”’ and a little afterwards he says; “ He was not then defiled* when His body was brought forth; nor did the ὅ ἐμολύ- Impassible suffer in His essence when on the other hand [766] His mortal body was torn asunder.” What statement was ever made more catholic than this? It is, then, beyond all doubt, that Eusebius in the passages before cited (unless, indeed, with Petavius, we choose—and far be this from us— to call this most learned man a person devoid of acuteness ἢ) ae meant nothing else than what the fathers before him. did, pe whose opinion we have been explaining; namely, that to God the Father, as being unbegotten, the economy was by no means suitable; nor that He should appear as if He were sent by another, or under assumed forms; although it was not unseemly for the Son of God to have undertaken that very economy at the will of the Father, of whom’ He was *a quo. begotten ; and that on this account not the Father, but the Son had shewn Himself aforetime to the patriarchs in the form of man; just as, also, in the last times, not the Father, but the Son took true manhood into the unity of His Person. But let us proceed from Eusebius to other fathers, whom all allow to have been catholic. 13. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his. fourteenth Catechetical 276 Lecture, supposes that it was the Son whom Isaiah beheld ©¥®™ Η. sitting on the throne, “For no man,” he says’, “hath seen the Father at any time; He who at that time appeared to the prophet was the Son.” Basil, in the second book of his Treatise against Eunomius, proves that it was the Son who appeared to Moses in the bush, from this, that it is written, that “‘the Angel of the Lord appeared in the bush ;” and soon ἐν τῷ τότε καθ᾽ ὃν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπολι- τεύετο, τὰ πάντα ἐπλήρου, καὶ τῷ Πατρὶ συνῆν, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ γε hv’ καὶ τῶν πάν- τῶν ἀθρόως ἐν τῷ τότε, τῶν τε κατ᾽ οὖ- ρανὸν καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἐπεμέλετο" οὐδα- μῶς τῆς πανταχόσε παρουσίας ὁμοίως ἡμῖν ἀποκλειόμενοΞ. .. . οὐκ οὖν ἐμολύ- VETO τικτομένου τοῦ σώματος" οὐδὲ τὴν οὐσίαν ἔπασχεν ὃ ἀπαθὴς, τοῦ θνητοῦ πάλιν αὐτῷ διαιρουμένου.---- ΟΥαῖ. de Laud. Constant., p. 650. edit. Valesii. [p. 761.] f roy πατέρα μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε" ὁ δὲ τῷ προφήτῃ τότε φανεὶς, υἱὸς ἦν.---ἰ ὃ 27. p. 219. | ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [757] 1 adminis- ter. 3 famulus. [758] 618 Statements of St. Basil and Theodoret. after that the Angel Himself said, “1 am the I am,” &c., For from this he argues as follows; ‘“‘Who then is He who is at the same time an Angel and God? Is it not He of whom we have learnt that His name is called the Angel of great counsel?” For no doubt Basil thought, as those an- cients whom I have mentioned above, that the name God is equally suited to the Father and to the Son, but not so the appellation Angel; this being peculiar to the Son, whe in each age has been sent from the Father to reveal His will to men. And presently after in the same passage Basil thus concludes"; “It is, then, evident to every one that where the same Person is called both Angel and God, the Only-begotten is plainly meant; who manifests Him- self in each generation to mankind, and announces the will of the Father to His saints.”” Theodoret also, in his fifth book against Heresies, chap. 1, affirms that the Father is alike invisible, and shews that He neither hath been, nor can be seen. And. in his fifth question on Exodus he con- tends that the Angel, who appeared to Moses in the bush, : and said that He was God, was not the Father, who can- not be the messenger of any, but the Son; not an inferior minister' or servant® (vtrovpyédv). 14. Of the Latin fathers we produce the following wit- nesses. Hilary, a most holy man and most keen opponent of the Arian heresy, states the same doctrine throughout his works, and most explicitly, For in book iv. on the Trinity‘, he proves that the Angel, who stood by Hagar, was the Son of God, from the fact that the same Person is called as well God and Lord, as Angel of God; but that to none, ex- cept the Son of God, can both these names properly be given ; for He alone is both, in His own nature, very God, and, in respect of office and dispensation, the Angel of God, that is, the announcer of the Father’s will; a function which is not unbecoming His dignity, inasmuch as He Himself has His ® rls οὖν ὃ αὐτὸς καὶ ἄγγελος καὶ h παντὶ οὖν δῆλον, ὅτι ἔνθα καὶ ἄγ- Θεός; ἄρα οὐχὶ περὶ οὗ μεμαθήκαμεν, γελος καὶ Θεὸς 6 αὐτὸς προσηγόρευται, ὅτι καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, μεγάλης ὃ μονογενής ἐστι δηλούμενος, ἐμφανί-- βουλῆς ἄγγελος.---᾿. 742 of the Paris: fwv ἑαυτὸν κατὰ γενεὰν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, edition of 1688, {§ 18. vol. i, p. καὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ. Πατρὸς τοῖς ἁγίοις 288.} ἑαντοῦ διαγγέλλων. ---ἰ ». 254, | 7 St. Hilary on the Son, not the Father, becoming visible. 619 origin from the Father. For in that passage, amongst other things, he writes as follows‘; “He who is called the Angel of God is also Lord and God. But, according to the pro- phet, the Son of God is ‘the Angel of great counsel.’ That the distinction of Persons might be complete, He is called the Angel of God; for He who is God of God, is Him- self also the Angel of God. However, that due honour might be given Him, He is declared to be both Lord and God.” Accordingly, towards the end of the same book, he contends that the Son alone has been seen of men, that the Father is invisible; for commenting on a passage of Jere- miah*, he thus writes in that place'; “ You therefore have Gop seen on earth, and conversing among men. And 1 ask, how you think that must be understood, ‘No man hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, when Jeremiah speaks of a God, who was both ‘seen on earth, and conversed among men? The Father certainly is not visible, save to the Son only. Who then is He, who was seen and conversed among men'? Rec Surely it is our God, God both visible in manhood”, and: ;, μο. capable of being handled’®.” Then afterwards he adds, “ ‘ He mine. was seen on earth, and conversed among men.’ For there is hone) one Mediator between God and man, [being both] God and man; a mediator both in the giving of the law‘, and in the ‘ legisla- taking unto Himself of a body. [*‘ And therefore no other is ie τ accounted of in comparison of Him.’] For He alone was be- iii. 35.] gotten of God, so as to be God®, through whom all things ὅ in Deum. in heaven and on earth were created, through whom the BOOK IV. CHAP, III. § 18, 14. ΗΠ κυ. i Qui Angelus Dei dictus est, idem mes, Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi uni- Dominus et Deus est. Est autem se- genitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris ; eundum Prophetam Filius Dei magni consilit Angelus. Ut personarum dis- tinctio absoluta esset, Angelus Dei est nuncupatus; qui enim est Deus ex Deo, ipse est et Angelus Dei. Ut vero honor debitus redderetur, et Dominus et Deus est predicatus.x—[§ 23. p. 841. x that is of Baruch, iii. 34—36, which was attached to the end of Jere- miah in the Septuagint and ancient Latin version. | 1 Habes ergo Deum in terra visum, et inter homines conversatum. Et re- quiro, quomodo intelligendum existi- cum Hieremias Deum predicet, qui et visus et terris est, et inter homines conversatus est? Pater certe non nisi soli Filio visibilis est. Quis ergo iste est, qui est visus et conversatus inter homines? Deus certe noster est, et visibilis in homine, et contrectabilis Deus... . Super terram visus est, et in- ter homines conversatus est. Unus-est enim Mediator Dei et hominum, Deus et homo; et in legislatione, et in cor- poris assumptione Mediator. [ Alius igi- tur ad eum non deputatur.| Unus est enim hic in Deum ex Deo natus, per quem creata sunt omnia in ccelo et in 620 St. Hilary; on the Son appearing as an Angel ; ΟΝ ΤῊΒ times and the worlds were made. For whatsoever is, sub- SUBORDI- . . . ᾿ nation or SiSts wholly of His operation. He therefore is one, making THE SON. covenant with’ Abraham, speaking to Moses, witnessing to Sg rs Israel, abiding in the prophets, born through the Virgin of the Holy Ghost,” &c. Here, in passing, we must note, in direct opposition to Bellarmine and other papists, that Hilary expressly affirms (as it is clear that the ancients taught in common) that our Saviour was a Mediator even in the giving of the Law, and previous to the Incarnation; and, therefore, is not a Mediator merely in respect of His human nature, seeing that He had not as yet assumed it; and yet this is what they have earnestly maintained. But, in his fifth book', the same Hilary, speaking again of the Angel, who appeared to Hagar, says; “An Angel of God speaks to Hagar, and that same Angel is God. But per- haps He is not true God, seeing that He is the Angel of God; for this name seems to belong to an inferior nature ; and where the name given is that which belongs to a dif- *nuncupa- ferent kind’, in that case it is supposed that the truth of the pad aly same kind is not. And indeed our former book has already 277 shewn the emptiness of this question; for in [the name] Angel there is the idea of office suggested, rather than that of nature.” And after a few intervening words [he adds, | “The law, therefore, or rather God through the law, wishing to intimate the personality of [scil. expressed by] the name 3[Bp. Bull of Father, spoke of God the Son’ as the Angel of God, that [769] τοι πο is, the Messenger of God. For in [the name] Messenger God.”] He witnesses the intimation of His office; and, on the other hand, he established the truth of His nature in the Name, when He called Him God. But this is now an order of dis- ‘generis. pensation, not of kind*; for we set forth nothing else than terra, per quem tempora et secula facta sunt. Totum enim quicquid est, ex ejus operatione subsistit. Hic ergo unus est, disponens ad Abraham, lo- quens ad Mosen, testans ad Israel, ma- nens in prophetis, per virginem natus ex Spiritu Sancto, &c.—[§ 42. p. 852.] 1 Angelus Dei ad Agar loquitur, et idem Angelus Deus est. Sed forte id- circo non Deus verus est, quia Ange- Jus Dei est; inferioris enim nature videtur hoc nomen; et ubi nuncupatio est generis alieni, ibi existimatur veri- tas ejusdem generis non inesse. Et quidem jam superior liber inanitatem hujus questionis ostendit; in Angelo enim officii potius quam nature intel- ligentia est... . Volens igitur lex, imo per legem Deus, personam paterni no- minis intimare, Deum [Dei, Bull] Filium Angelum Dei loquuta est, id est, nuntium Dei. Significationem enim officii testatur in nuntio; nature autem veritatem confirmavit in nomi- ne, cum Deum dixit. Hic autem nune dispensationis est ordo, non generis ; His being seen and sent implies no inequality of nature. 621 Father and Son; and we do in such wise make co-equal the BOOK IY. nature of [scil. expressed by] the names, that the generation "V4" 15. of the Only-begotten God from the Unbegotten God main- qirary. tains the truth of [His] Godhead. The intimation, how- ever, of sent and sender, in this place, suggests nothing else than a Father and a Son; but takes not away the truth of the nature, nor destroys in the Son the property of begotten! Godhead.” Lastly, the same writer in the ' nativa. same book thus discourses concerning God, [as] seen by Isaiah™; “For Isaiah saw God, and, although it is written, ‘No man hath seen God at any time, save the Only-be- gotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,’ yet the prophet saw God and beheld His [760] glory, even so as to draw on himself envy for the dignity vouchsafed to him as prophet?. For on this very account * usque ad he was by the Jews brought to trial and sentenced to death. dt God, therefore, whom no man hath seen, the Only-begotten dignitate. Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared :” and presently he says; “Prophecy speaks, the gospel testifies, the apostle interprets, the Church confesses, that He who was seen is very God, whilst yet no one admits that God the Father has been seen.” Here he asserts that the doc- trine, that the Father has not been seen at any time by any one, was in his time so catholic, that no Catholic at that day ventured to maintain the contrary. From Hilary I pass on to other doctors of the Church. 15. Augustine himself, in chap. 9 of his treatise against Aveus- Adimantus", infers from the words of John, “No man hath ™*™ seen God εὐ any time; the Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” that “ the non enim aliud quam Patrem et Filium predicamus; et ita naturam nominum / cowquamus, ut veritatem Dei teneat ex innascibili Deo Dei unigeniti nati- vitas. Missi autem et mittentis signi- ficatio hic non aliud quam Patrem et Filium docet; caterum veritatem non adimit nature, neque in Filio perimit native divinitatis proprietatem.—[v. 11. p. 859. m Esaias enim Deum vidit, et cum scriptum sit, Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit, Deum tamen propheta vidit, et gloriam ejus usque ad invidiam prophetice dignitatis as- pexit. Nam in judicium mortis ob hance causam ἃ Judzis actus est. Deum itaque nemini visum unigenitus Filius, qui in sinu Patris est, enarravit;... Prophetia loquitur, evangelium testa- . tur, apostolus interpretatur, ecclesia confitetur Deum verum esse, .qui visus sit; cum tamen Deum Patrem visum nemo fateatur.—p. 58. [v. 33. p. 873. ] " Filius, quod est Verbum Dei, non solum novissimis temporibus, cum in carne apparere dignatus est, sed etiam ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [761] 622 St. Augustine ; whether the Father could have been visible, Son, who is the Word of God, made revelation respecting the Father to whom He would, not only in the last times, when He vouchsafed to appear in the flesh, but even before, from the foundation of the world, either by speaking or appear- ing, whether through some angelic power, or through some. creature, whoever it might be.” Now this conclusion is of no force unless it be assumed as settled that the words of the evan- gelist intimate, that God the Father Himself never shewed Himself to be seen of any one. Augustine therefore con- tradicts himself, as he is often wont to do, and says what Hilary thought that no Catholic would presume to say, when in another place, that is, in chap. 17, book 11.5 of his work on the Trinity he affirms, “That it is too rash to say that God the Father never appeared through any visible forms to the patriarchs or to the prophets.” This dictum of Augus- tine’s Petavius inconsiderately approves as certain. Under the New Testament, indeed, we know that God the Father has Himself spoken to man; at the baptism of Christ, I mean, and again at His transfiguration, when He said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;’ and again in those words, ‘I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again’ Petavius, with the view of proving from these passages of Scripture the assertion of Augustine, namely, that God the Father Himself sometimes appeared to the prophets, reasons thus?, “For it is not more unworthy of the supreme and most excellent majesty of God, to meet in whatever way the ears of men, by some sensible form of sound, than to reveal Himself to their eyes by using for a time the likeness of a body.” Here, instead of the words which the printer has presented to us “it is not more unworthy,” (non enim indignius est,) the Jesuit, I imagine, wrote, or at any rate ought to have written, “for it is not more worthy,” (non enim dignius est), for other- wise his reasoning will hang very ill together. But, I affirm, this is not so certain as Petavius thought. For according to the view of the ancients, as I have often stated, those appear- ances of God, in a visible, bodily shape, were preludes and prius a constitutione mundi, cui voluit, ° [Ut] nimis temerarium sit dicere, de Patre annuntiavit, sive loquendo, Deum Patrem nunquam Patribus aut sive apparendo, vel per angelicam ali- prophetis per aliquas visibiles formas quam potestatem, vel per quamlibet apparuisse.—[§ 32. vol. viii. p. 791.] creaturam.—[vol. viii. p. 120. ] P [De Trin. viii. 2. 18. p. 801.] _ as He spake audibly; of the suitableness of the Son’s being sent.623 figures of the future incarnation, which [incarnation] was im no way suited to the Father. But let it be certain; at any rate, the passages quoted are not to the point, inas- much as Augustine, whom Petavius undertook to defend, expressly spoke of the manifestations of God under the Old Testament, those, namely, which were made of old to the patriarchs and the prophets. Besides, it was out of the usual course, and necessary, in order to confirm the mission of the Son from the Father, when He was now beheld on earth as a mere man, that God the Father Himself should then utter those words respecting His Son. This however by the way. Moreover, whereas those appearances of God under the Old Testament had respect to the mission of One from Another, or the function committed by One to Another; (whence also He who appeared is generally styled not only God, but also Angel, that is, One sent ;) Augustine himself distinctly allows that the being sent is certainly inapplicable to God the Father; for in the fourth book, chap. 204, of his treatise on the Trinity, he thus writes; “ As, therefore, the Father begat, the Son was begotten, so the Father sent, the Son was sent.” Again; “As to be begotten is to the Son, to be of the Father ; so to be sent is to the Son to be known to be of! Him.” And at the end of this fourth book" he declares “that it would be most absurd to say that the Father is sent either by the Son, whom He begat, or by the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from Him [sc.the Son],” even though “ He were pleased visibly to appear by means of a subject creature.” But he speaks most clearly in his book against the doctrine of the Arians, chap. 4.5. “Of the Father alone we do not read that He is sent, since He alone has not an author, of whom He was begotten, or from whom He proceeds. And therefore not on account of diversity of nature, which exists not in the Trinity, but 4 Sicut ergo Pater genuit, Filius genitus est: ita Pater misit, Filius missus est....Sicut...natum esse est Filio, a Patre esse; ita mitti est Filio, cognosci quod ab illo sit.—[§ 29. vol, viii. p. 829. ] τ (St. Augustine’s words are; , Etiam si voluisset Deus Pater per subjectam creaturam visibiliter apparere, absur- dissime tamen aut a Filio, quem ge- nuit, aut a Spiritu Sancto, qui de illo procedit, missus diceretur.—[c. xxi. ὃ 82. p. 832. ] 8. Solus Pater non legitur missus, quoniam solus non habet auctorem a quo genitus sit, vel a quo procedat. Et ideo non propter nature diversita- tem, que in Trinitate nulla est, sed propter ipsam auctoritatem solus Pa- ter non dicitur missus. Non enim BOOK IV. CHAP. III, § 15. AvuGus- TINE. [762] ab illo. 278 ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 singulari, [763 | 2 modum excessisse, 3 Kum qui est, ‘I AM.” 624. When it was God, when only an Angel, that appeared. simply, because of origination, of the Father alone it is not said, that He is-sent. For it is not brightness or heat that sends forth fire, but fire that sends forth brightness or heat.” A passage parallel to this you may read in the third book of the work of the same writer, against the Arian Maximinus, chap. 14'; “‘ For,” he says, “it behoved not that He who begat should be sent by Him whom He begat, but that the begotten should be sent by Him who begat Him. This how- ever is not inequality of substance, but order of nature; not that the One was prior to the Other, but that the One was of the Other.’ However as regards the manifes- tations under the Old Testament, we agree with Augustine, whom Petavius follows, thus far, that God was not always pre- sent in the angel by a special’ presence, but wrought much by means of angels alone. Moreover we do not deny that on this question some of the ancients have gone too far’. Be- sides, we freely admit, that it is often difficult to conjecture when it was a mere angel, or when it was God that appeared in the angel. Furthermore, we join Petavius in embracing as probable the rule of Alphonsus Tostatus; namely, that some events are recorded in the Scriptures, which are either of less importance, or relate to some one or a few persons; whereas. others are marked and distinguished, or pertain to the use of the whole people; that in the former case, mere angels were the ministers, and that Scripture has so described them, as not to give any intimation of [the presence of} any divine Person; but that events of the latter class were transacted by God, and are accordingly so described as to make it appear, that not a mere angel intervened, but that through him God did, or spoke, what it pleased Him. And this we hold to be the surest indication of the Divine pre- sence, when He who appears and speaks openly professes that He is God, or He that 155, or the God of Abraham, &c., or the God of their fathers, and requires worship and the adoration due to God to be given Him; which, as we know, was done by Him who spoke to Moses out of the bush, and splendor aut fervor ignem, sed ignis oportebat. Verum hee non est inz- mittit sive splendorem sive fervorem. qualitas substantia, sed ordo nature; -ἰ νο]. viii. p. 627.] non quod alter prior esset altero, sed * Non enim genitorem ab eo quem quod alter esset ex altero.—[ii. 14, 8, genuit, sed genitum a genitore mitti vol. viii. p. 707.] Prudentius and others ; the Son is visible, not the Father. 625 — to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai. At the same time soox tv. we firmly maintain that wherever it is evident that God § 1: δ᾽ τς Himself, and not a mere angel, appeared, there is to be υυ. ΄ὦὮὃὮὃὮὃὦὦὃὦὋὦὋὦὋ derstood not the Father but the Son; herein religiously fol- lowing the consentient judgment of primitive antiquity. But to return from this digression. 16. In addition to the testimonies which I have adduced, Petavius himself has furnished us with others. Prudentius, in his Apotheosis, most fully demonstrates against the Pa- tripassians, that it was the Word only who appeared to the ancients,—not in His proper form, but under a corporeal image, —because the Father can be seen by none. Amongst other things he writes' in this strain"; “Is God passible? whose [764] form and image was never seen by any, for that Majesty is not ! canit. easy to be comprehended by thought’, or eyes, or hand. The ? sensu. famous saying of the great St. John is an evidence, which wit- nesses that God could not have been seen at any time.” (ver. 6.) Again*; “ What man soever is said to have seen God, hath seen the Son sent down® from [the Father] Him-® infusum. self. For the Son it is which, shining forth from the Father, has presented Itself to be beheld by means of forms such as human sight can comprehend.” (ver. 22.) Afterwards he says that it was the Son alone who was seen by Abraham and Moses under a bodily form, and in no wise the Father’; * Believe me, no one hath seen God, believe me, no one. God {who is] from the fountain [of Godhead] is visible, the very fountain of God[head] is not visible. He who is begotten‘ ‘ nascitur. may be discerned, but the unbegotten® cannot be discerned,” ὅ innatus. &c. (ver. 77.) Cassian also, in his fourth book on the Incar- ἃ Passibilisne Deus? cujus species et imago Nulli visa unquam, nec enim comprendier illa Majestas facilis sensuve, oculisve, manuve. Joannis magni celebris sententia presto est, Haud unquam testata Deum potuisse videri.—Ver. 6. * Quisque hominum vidisse Deum memoratur, ab ipso Infusum vidit gnatum; nam Filius hoc est Quod de Patre micans se prestitit inspiciendum Per species, quas posset homo comprendere visu.—Ver. 22. Υ Credite, nemo Deum vidit, mihi credite, nemo. Visibilis de fonte Deus, non ipse Dei fons Visibilis. Cerni potis est qui nascitur, at non Innatus cerni potis est, &c.—Ver. 77. ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [766] 1 δακριτι- K@S. 279 2 censura. 626 “Invisible, impassible?” added to “the Father Almighty” nation, chap. 97, says, “ He, therefore, is One who speaks unto the patriarchs, dwells in the prophets, was conceived of the Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,” &. Again, “ For surely the Father, who is said to be visible to no one except the Son, was not at any time either seen on earth, or put forth in the flesh, or conversed among men; Certainly not.” Lastly, Isidore, in his treatise on the Nativity of our Lord, chap. 12, says, “ For it is the Son Himself, who on every occasion being sent from the Father, appeared visibly to men. From His very mission, therefore, He is rightly named Angel.” Whoever desires more [testimonies] should consult Petavius aforesaid on the Trinity, book vii. chap. 2. 17. I will add this one remark of my own as worthy of ob- servation; that anciently the very creeds of some Churches professed God the Father, by way of distinction', to be invisible and impassible ; in the sense, that is, which we have explained. Ruffinus, at any rate, in his explanation of the Creed called the Apostles’ Creed, expressly testifies that the Creed of Aquileia in his time, in the article on God the Father, after the word “ Almighty,’ had “invisible and impassible.” Hence also, in the epistle of Auxentius, archbishop of Milan, — in Hilary’, the first article of the creed is to this day read as follows; “1 believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible, impassible, immortal.” Erasmus‘, in his reply to the cen- sure’ of the divines of Paris, declares that the Churches of the East also had received the same addition, and this Vossius® himself also thought probable. That addition, however, was without doubt made in opposition to the heresy which at first certain persons‘, whose names are lost, and afterwards one * Hic ergo unus est ad patriarchas bentur: constat autem apud nos ad- loquens, in prophetis manens, ex Spi- ritu conceptus, natus ex Virgine Maria, &c.... Nunquid enim Pater unquam, qui non nisi Filio tantum visibilis esse legitur, aut in terris visus est, aut in carne editus, aut inter homines con- versatus est? non utique.—[p. 1009, 1010. ed. 1628. | @ Ipse est enim Filius qui semper a Patre missus visibiliter apparebat ho- minibus. Ex ipsa ergo missione recte Angelus nuncupatur.—{[ p. 367. ] > [His additur invisibili et impassi- bili. Sciendum quod duo isti sermones in ecclesia Romane symbolo non ha- ditos, hzereseos causa Sabellii, &c.—e. 5. Ῥ. cciii. | ¢ Credo in... Deum Patrem omni- potentem, invisibilem, impassibilem, immortalem.—[Lib. contra Auxent. 14. p. 1270.] 4 [Declarationes ad censuras fac. theol. Paris. tit. xi. Decl. 36. Op., tom. ix. col. 869. ] © De tribus Symbolis, p. 26. [vol. vi. p. 511.] f See Justin’s Apology, ii. p. 96. [ Apol. i. 63. p.81.] and Dialogue with Trypho, p. 358. [ὃ 128. p. 221.] ΝΣ ἀν a κἀς ϑὼ in some Creeds. The uses of this doctrine of Subordination. 627 Praxeas, and then Beryllus and Noetus, and lastly Sabellius, βοοκ 1v. maintained; who all taught that it was not the Son of God, 16 Vy 14. but God the Father Himself, who was seen of men under the Old Testament, and who at last in the fulness of time became incarnate and suffered. And thus much on this subject. CHAPTER IV. 280 THE THIRD PROPOSITION IS STATED, IN WHICH THE USE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON IS SET FORTH. 1. AttuoueH in the foregoing chapters we have explained at so great length the opinions of the ancients respecting the subordination of the Son to the Father; yet still it remains that we say something of the excellent use of this doctrine, [767] which those same ancient writers have noticed. Let the following, therefore, be our third proposition, and the last of this concluding book : THE THIRD PROPOSITION. Tas doctrine respecting the subordination of the Son to the Father as to His origin and principle, was regarded by the ancient doctors as very useful and absolutely necessary to be known and believed, for this reason, that by means of it, especially, the divinity of the Son is so asserted, as that the unity of God, and the divine monarchy, is, nevertheless, preserved unimpaired. For although the name and the na- ture be common to the two, namely the Father and the Son of God; still, inasmuch as the One is the principle of the Other, from which He is propagated, and that by an internal, ‘not an external production, it follows that God is rightly said to be only One. This reason those ancients believed to be equally applicable to the divinity of the Holy Ghost. 2. According to the opinion of the ancients, with which common reason agrees, if there were two unbegotten or self- ss2 ON THE SUBORDI- 628 The doctrine of the Divine Unity is hereby guarded ; dependent principles in the Godhead, it would follow, not nation or Oly that the Father would be deprived of His pre-eminence’, THE SON. * ἐξοχῇ. 2 a seipso. 3 τριθεό- TNT Oe [768] whereby he has His divinity from Himself?, that is, from no one else, (of which point we have already treated largely ;) but also that there would necessarily be two Gods supposed. On. the other hand, by laying down a subordination, whereby it is taught that the Father alone is God from Himself, and the Son God of God the Father, those doctors thought that both that pre-eminence of the Father and the divine monarchy would be secured. This same they thought should be extended to the third Person also of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, who, inasmuch as He Himself has His origin from the Father through the Son, they supposed in no wise to bring in a Tritheism®, or three Gods. There are many things on this subject most worthy of being read, which you will find in the fathers, those especially who wrote more fully on the doc- trine of the Trinity. We will select some out of so great a number. 3. Athenagoras, as we have already heard‘, inferred that there is one God,—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, —from this, that there is one only fountain of the Godhead, namely, the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost derive each His own origin. Tertullian, however, explains the subject at very great length in his treatise against Praxeas, chap. 2—48, where, in opposition to the Praxeans, who, under the pretext of the unity of God, denied all dis- tinction of persons in the Divine Essence, he thus learnedly argues; “Some room must also be given for reviewing [the statements of the heretics], were it only that it may not seem that each perversion is condemned without examination, and prejudged ; especially that [perversion] which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one can believe in one only God in no other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very same Per- son. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One,—by unity, that is, of substance,—whilst, nevertheless, f See book ii. 4. 9. [f. 153.] existimat meram veritatem possidere, & Dandus est etiam retractatibus lo- dum unicum Deum non alias putat cus; vel ne videatur unaqueque per- credendum, quam si ipsum eundemque versitas non examinata, sed prejudi- et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanc- cata damnari; maxime hee, que se tum dicat. Quasi non sic quoque unus the Monarchia does not exclude plurality of Persons. 629 the mystery of the economy is guarded, which distributes the soox ιν. Unity into a Trinity.” Then a little afterwards, he thus goes °¢'""3\" on; “They now give it out that we preach two and three; τ [Gods]; and assume that they themselves are worshippers win. of the one God; as if it were not the case, both that an unity brought together’ contrary to reason makes heresy, and that ! collecta. a Trinity drawn out’ in conformity with reason constitutes 2 expensa. the truth. We hold the monarchia’, say they. And so ar- ὩΣ ticulately* do even Latins, even the ignorant®*, enunciate the 4 vocaliter. sound, that you would suppose they understood monarchia *Seep.631. as well as they pronounce it. But monarchia Latins take [769] pains to pronounce: @conomia even Greeks are unwilling to understand. But for myself, if I have gleaned any know- ledge® of either language, I know that monarchia means no- ὅ pre- thing else than single and individual rule®; yet still that τι tare monarchy does not on that account, because it is [the rule] et unicum of one, preclude him whose [rule] it is, either from having 7°" a son, or from having made himself a son to himself, or from administering his own monarchy by whom[soever] he will. Nay more, I say that no dominion is in such sense that of one, as his own’, in such sense single, in such sense a mo-? ita unius narchy, as not also to be administered through other persons “ “** most near [to it|, whom itself has looked out for as officials to itself. Moreover, if he, whose the monarchy is, have a son, it does not forthwith become divided and cease to be a monarchy, if the son also be taken as a sharer in it; but it is on this account in its original? his, from whom it is com- ὃ proinde. municated unto the son; and so long as it is his, it is on this eee account a monarchy, in that it is held together by two who apres sit omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per sub- stantie scilicet unitatem; et nihilomi- nus custodiatur οἰκονομίας sacramen- tum, que Unitatem in Trinitatem dis- ponit. ... Duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis predicari; se vero unius Dei cultores presumunt; quasi non et uni- tas irrationaliter collecta hzresim fa- ciat, et Trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Μοναρχίαν, in- quiunt, tenemus. Et ita sonum voca- liter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam opici, ut putes illos tam bene intelli- gere μοναρχίαν quam enuntiant. Sed μοναρχίαν sonare student Latini; οἶκο- νομίαν intelligere nolunt etiam Greci. At ego, si quid utriusque lingue pre- cerpsi, μοναρχίαν nihil aliud significare scio, quam singulare et unicum impe- rium; non tamen prescribere monar- chiam, ideo quia unius sit, eum cujus sit aut filium non habere, aut ipsum se sibi filium fecisse, aut monarchiam suam non per quos velit administrare. Atqui nullam dico dominationem ita unius sui esse, ita singularem, ita mo- narchiam, ut non etiam per alias proxi- mas personas administretur, quas ipsa prospexerit officiales sibi. Si vero et filius fuerit ei, cujus monarchia sit, non statim dividi eam, et monarchiam esse desinere, si particeps ejus adsumatur et filius; sed proinde illius esse prin- cipaliter, a quo communicatur in filium; ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 tam unicis. 2 [ Dan. vii. 10. ] 3 dispersio- nem, 4 tam con- sortibus. 5 pignora. 6 censum. [770] 7 de fide’ destruere. 630 The Trinity not inconsistent with the Unity. are soindividual!, Therefore if the Divine monarchy also is ad- ministered by so many legions and hosts of angels,—according as it is written, ‘Thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him? ;"--- and it hath not on this account ceased to be [the rule] of One, so as to be no longer a monarchy, because it is administered by so many thousands of powers; how is it that God should be thought to suffer division and severance® in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, to whom are assigned the second and the third places, being so participant* in the substance of the Father, which [division and severance] He suffers not in the multitude of so many angels, and those, too, so alien from the substance of the Father? The members, and the pledges’, and the instruments, and the very power, and entire system® of a monarchy, you deem to be its overthrow; in this you err. I would you would exercise yourself on the sense of the thing, rather than on the sound of the word. For that you are to understand to be the overthrow of a monarchy, when another dominion that has a frame-work of its own, and a state peculiar to itself, and is thereby a rival, is brought in over and above it; when some other God is introduced in opposition to the Creator; then is it ill done, when more [gods than one are set up| after the manner of the Valentini and Prodici; then it goes to the overthrow of the monarchy, when it goes to the destruction of the Creator. But I, who derive the Son from no other source, but from the Father’s substance, [and represent Him] as doing nothing without the Father’s will, having received all power from the Father; how can I be doing away with the monarchy from the faith’, when I pre- et dum illius est, proinde monarchiam bra, et pignora, et instrumenta, et ip- | esse, que a duobus tam unicis conti- netur. Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est, Mil- lies millia adsistebant ei, et millies cen- tena millia apparebant ei; nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta millia virtutum procuratur; quale est ut Deus divisio- nem et dispersionem pati videatur in Filio et in Spiritu Sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam con- sortibus substantia Patris, quas non patitur in tot angelorum numero, et quidem tam alienorum a substantia (al. tam a substantia alienis) Patris? Mem- sam vim, ac totum censum monarchie, eversionem deputas ejus; non recte. Malo te ad sensum rei, quam ad sonum vocabuli exerceas. Eversio enim mo- narchiz illa est tibi intelligenda, quum alia dominatio sue conditionis et pro- prii status, ac per hoc e2mula superdu- citur; quum alius Deus infertur ad- versus Creatorem; tune male, quum plures, secundum Valentinos et Pro- dicos; tune in monarchie eversionem, quum in Creatoris destructionem. Ce- terum qui Filium non aliunde deduco, sed de substantia Patris, nihil facien- tem sine Patris voluntate, omnem a Patre consecutum potestatem; quo- The Unity preserved by the oneness of origin. 631 “serve it in the Son, delivered unto the Son of the Father? βοοκ ιν. The same I would also wish said with respect to the third de- “Ὁ 5. 4." gree'; because I believe the Spirit [to proceed | from no other pyre. source than from the Father through the Son. Look to it, "ΑΝ. therefore, lest it be you rather who are doing away with the es monarchy, when you overthrow the disposition and dispensa- tion of It, which is established in so many Names’, as it hath ? nomini- pleased God.” Thus far Tertullian with very great learning. se 4. Similar statements are found in Novatian’s treatise on Novartan. the Trinity, chap. 31‘, where he writes thus respecting God the Father and the Son; “ God indeed proceeding from God, making a second Person; but not taking away from the Father this, that He is one God. For if He had not been originate*, being unoriginate, on being compared with Him ὅ natus. who is unoriginate, an equality being declared in each, He would have made two unoriginate; and on that account He would have made two Gods, if He had not been begotten, on being compared with Him who was not begotten; and having been found equal, they would with good reason have made two Gods, being not begotten, and therefore Christ would have made two Gods, if He had been found, like the Father, to be without original, and, like the Father, Himself the principle of all things; by making two principles, He would by consequence have shewn to us two Gods also.” Then a little after he adds; ‘‘ But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself; because He is not unbegotten; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten; whether in that He is Word, or in that He is Power, or in that He is [771] modo possum de fide destruere monar- chiam, quam a Patre Filio traditam in Filio servo? Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit ; quia Spiritum non aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. Vide ergo, ne tu potius monarchiam destruas, qui dispositionem et dispen- sationem ejus evertis, in tot nominibus constitutam, in quot Deus voluit.—[p. 601-2, ] h (Opici;] that is rustic, uncivilized, barbarous people, who also speak a bar- barous language. The true ground of the meaning is that the Opici (who are the Osci) were of old a rude and un- civilized people of Campania. Deus utique procedens ex Deo, se- cundam personam efficiens; sed non eripiens illud Patri, quod unus est Deus. Si enim natus non fuisset, in- natus, comparatus cum eo qui esset in- natus, equatione in utroque ostensa, duos faceret innatos; et ideo duos face- ret Deos, si non genitus esset, colla- tus cum eo qui genitus non esset; et zequales inventi duos Deos merito red- didissent non geniti, atque ideo duos Christus reddidisset Deos, si sine ori- gine esset, ut Pater, inventus, et ipse principium omnium, ut Pater; duo faciens principia, duos ostendisset no- bis consequenter et Deos.... Nune autem quidquid est, non ex se est, quia nec innatus est; sed ex Patre est, quia genitus est; sive dum Verbum est, sive dum virtus est, sive dum sapientia est, sive dum lux est, sive dum Filius est; et quicquid horum est, dum non aliunde est, quam, sicut diximus jam superius, ex Patre, Patri suo originem ON THE SUBORDI- 632 The Unity guarded by the doctrine of derivation. Wisdom, or in that He is Light, or in that He is Son; nation or 20d whatever of these He is, in that He is from no other THE SON. 1 nascendo. 2 unus. 3 porrecta. * gradatim reciproco meatu. HiIppo.y- TUS. 282 5a, 6 de, 7 ex. source than, as we have already said, from the Father, owing His origin to His Father, He could not produce any discord in the Godhead about the number of two Gods, inasmuch as, by being sprung‘ [from Him] He derived His origin from [Him who is] one God. In which way, since He is both Only- begotten, and First-begotten of Him who has no original, one [Person*] is both the principle and the head of all things.” And then near the end of the book he thus expresses ‘him- self; “The Son, indeed, is shewn to be God, to whom divinity is seen to be delivered and communicated’; and yet, nevertheless, the Father is proved to be one God, inasmuch as, in due order, by reciprocal: course*, that majesty and divinity [which had been given to the Son], being again sent out from the Son Himself, reverts and is returned to the Father, who had given it [to Him.]” 5. We have elsewhere adduced Hippolytus*, arguing thus in his treatise against Noetus; “ When I say that He is an- other,” (that is, the Son from the Father,) “I do not say that there are two Gods, but [I say that He is another] as light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For the Power from the Whole is one; the Whole, how- ever, is the Father, the Power from whom is the Word.” In that place I observed that Hippolytus proves that the Father and the Son, though distinct in person, are yet one God, by this argument, that the Son is not God of® Himself, but God f° God, and that He comes forth from’ the Father, as light from light, and water from the fountain, and the ray from the sun. Lastly, (to omit very many others, whom I could cite,) Origen! on the Epistle to the Romans ix. 5, has this note; “Of them, therefore, ‘is Christ also according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever.’ That Christ is one Pater probatur, dum gradatim reci- proco meatu illa majestas atque divi- suam debens, discordiam divinitatis de numero duorum Deorum facere non potuit, qui ex uno Deo (al. qui ex illo qui est unus Deus) originem nas- cendo contraxit. Quo genere dum et unigenitus est, et primogenitus ex illo est qui originem non habet, unus est omnium rerum et principium et caput. ..- Deus quidem ostenditur Filius, cui divinitas tradita et porrecta conspici- tur; et tamen nihilominus unus Deus nitas ad Patrem, qui dederat eam, rur- sum ab illo ipso Filia missa revertitur, et retorquetur.—[ p. 729. ] k Book ii. ch. 8. § 5. [p. 214.] 1 Ex ipsis ergo est et Christus se- cundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in secula. Christum aliud secundum carnem esse, et aliud secundum Spiritum, jam et in priori- The Divinity of the Son consistent with the Divine Unity. 633 thing according to the flesh and another according to the soox ιν. Spirit, he has already intimated in the former parts also of “πὰ δ this epistle, where he says, ‘Who was made of the seed of Ojicun. David according to the flesh; who was ordained’ the Son of [772] God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness.” And ' destina- how He is the Son of God according to the Spirit, and the pet ag Son of David according to the flesh, we there more fully ex- oat i. plained to the best of our power. Him, therefore, whom he ’ © there called the Son of God according to the Spirit, here, as the course of his teaching advances, according to the progress of his hearers, he pronounces to be Himself ‘God, who is over all blessed.’ And I wonder how some persons, when they read what the same Apostle says in another passage, ‘ There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,’ deny that they ought to confess the Son of God to be God, lest they should seem to say that there are two Gods. And what will they make of this passage of the Apostle, in which it is plainly written that Christ is? ‘God over all? They, how-? [or ever, who entertain these sentiments, do not observe that, as Piiicies 2 he did not declare the Lord Jesus Christ to be in such sense dae to one Lord, as that on this account God the Father should not be called Lord; so also he did not affirm God the Father to be in such a sense one God, as that the Son should not be believed to be God. For the Scripture is true, which says, ‘ Know ye that the Lord Himself is God.’ Both, how- ever, are one God, because the Son hath no other beginning of His Godhead than the Father; but the Son, as Wisdom bus hujus epistole partibus designavit, duos Deos dicere videantur. Et quid ubi dicit, Qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem; qui destinatus est Filius Dei in virtute, secundum Spiritum sanctificationis.. Et quomodo secun- dum Spiritum Filius Dei sit, et secun- dum carnem Filius David, ibi plenius pro viribus exposuimus. Quem ergo ibi secundum Spiritum Filium Dei dixit, hic procedente doctrine ordine, proficientibus utpote auditoribus, De- um, qui est Super omnia benedictus, ip- sum esse pronuntiat. Et miror quo- modo quidam legentes, quod idem apostolus in aliis dicit, Unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia, et unus Dominus Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, negent Filium Dei Deum debere profiteri, ne de hoc loco apostoli facient, in quo aperte Christus super omnia Deus esse perscribitur [perhibetur, ed. Bened.]? Sed non advertunt, qui hec ita sen- tiunt, quod sicut Dominum Jesum Christum non ita unum esse Dominum dixit, ut ex hoc Deus Pater Dominus non dicatur, ita et Deum Patrem non ita dixit esse unum Deum, ut Deus Filius non credatur. Vera est enim Scriptura, que dicit, Scitote, quoniam Dominus ipse est Deus. Unus autem uterque est Deus, quia non est aliud Filio divinitatis initium, quam Pater; sed ipsius unius paterni fontis, sieut Sapientia dicit, purissima est manatio Filius.—[lib. vii. 13. vol. iv. p. 612.] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [778] 1 plures Deos. 2 veriti sunt, 3 ψιλὸν ἄν- θρωπον. 634 Passage genuine; some even then thought that the catho- saith, is the most pure effluence of the one fountain of the Father itself.’ I am aware that Erasmus", (in order, no doubt, the better to defend his own absurd interpretation of the remarkable passage of St. Paul, Romans ix. 5,) pretended that this paragraph was altered by Jerome, or whoever else was the translator; and that he endeavoured to prove this — very point by the following argument, namely, “that it was strange, that Origen should here intimate that there were at that time persons who did not venture to call Christ God, lest they should seem to make a plurality of Gods!” But, I ask, why is this so strange? The doctrine of the Arians, forsooth, is here glanced at, (so Erasmus presently explains himself,) who were condemned many years after Origen. But who but must wonder that the great Erasmus should either not know or not remember, that there were many persons, not only in the time of Origen, but many years be- fore him, who shrunk?’ from acknowledging the Son to be a Divine Person distinct from the Father, lest they should seem to be introducing two Gods? Did not the Praxeans before Origen, (according to the testimony of Tertullian in the passage just now cited,) under pretext of the mon- archy, deny that God the Father had a Son personally distinct from, and of the same nature with, Himself? And did not Noetus, a contemporary of Origen, main- tain the same heresy? And did not Beryllus teach the very same, with whom Origen himself disputed — publicly in a synod of bishops? There were others besides, both in the time of Origen and before it, who wholly and ab- solutely denied the distinct subsistence of the Son in the Divine Essence, and so His Godhead, lest, forsooth, they should make two Gods. Had this learned man never heard of the Ebionites, who, professmg themselves to be worship- pers of one God the Father, affirmed Christ to be a mere man*’; and who are mentioned by name in more passages than one by Origen himself, in his treatise against Celsus? And did not Theodotus the tanner®, a long time before Origen, teach that very same doctrine? Lastly, that you ™ In his notes on Rom. ix. 5. ; Christ, consult [ Bp. Bull’s] Judgment ο΄ Concerning all theheretics hitherto of the Catholic Church, chap. 2, 3. enumerated, as denying the divinity of GRABE. lic doctrine implied Ditheism: other similar passages. 635 may not suppose that the passage cited was interpolated by Book tv. Jerome or any other translator, you may see the same heresy "54" pierced with the same weapons in Origen’s Commentary on Opgicen. | St. John, as edited by Huet in the Greek?. Further, this [774] same Origen, in his first book on Genesis, after saying that the Son is the everlasting brightness of the everlasting Light, subjoins?; “ But He was not, as’we have said of the eternal Light, unborn’, lest we should seem to introduce two prin- ! innatus, ciples of Light; but as the brightness of the unbegotten pit PP: Light, having that very Light as His beginning and foun- tain.” Lastly, in book viii. of his unquestioned work against Celsus, he contends that the Christians are by no means chargeable with treason against God the Parent of all, albeit they adore with divine worship His Son also together with Himself. And this he proves by the argument, that all 288 honour paid to the Son’ redounds to God the Father, who? Filii begat Him. His words are these"; “And Celsus cannot” charge us with any insubordination in regard of the Son of God. Yea and we do indeed venerate the Father whilst we admire His Son, [who is] Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, and whatsoever else we have learned the Son of God to be; thus also [we venerate the Father, in ad- miring| Him who is begotten of such a Father.” 6. Lest any one, however, should class these also amongst Aruana- the dangerous sayings, as they are called, of the primitive *"™ fathers, I add that the same doctrine was delivered by the fathers who lived after the Nicene council, and who were unwilling to depart a hair’s breadth from its decisions. We have the most ample witness of this in the great Athanasius, the keenest defender of the Nicene faith. For thus he speaks in his Oration against the followers of Sabelliuss ; “ But where the Principle is one and the Offspring from It one—an image most exact and natural, because It is also be- [776] P [See above,] chap. i. 10, of this book, near the end. [p. 570. ] q Erat autem, non sicut de eterna luce diximus [innatus], ne duo prin- cipia lucis videamur inducere; sed sicut ingenite lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium habens ac fontem. —[This passage is from Origen’s com- mentaries on the Epistle to the He- brews, (Works, vol. iv. p. 697.) It is a fragment only preserved in Pamphilus’ Apology, (c. iii. p. 25), in which it im- mediately follows an extract out of the first book on Genesis; hence the error in the text. ] τ pp. 386, 387. § 13. p. 751. [quoted above, book ii. c. 9. ὃ 15. p. 258. note 1. ] 5 ὅπου δὲ μία μὲν ἡ ἀρχὴ, ev δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὐτῆς γέννημα, εἰκὼν ἀκριβεστάτη καὶ φυσικὴ, διότι καὶ γεννητὴ ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 ὑπαρχού- ons. 2 μονάδα. ὃ ἀρχὴ. 4 κυρίως. ὅ μοναρχία [unity of rule or of principle. ] 6 τῇ ἕτε- ρότητι. 7 δυαρχία. 8 πολυαρ- χία. [776] , 636 SS. Athanasius, Basil, Greg. Naz., Cesarius, Damascene, gotten of Him,—there is one God; the Godhead being con- ceived of as perfect in the Father, and the Godhead of the Father subsisting’ perfect in the Son also.” But in his fifth Oration’ against the Arians, near the beginning, he states the matter more fully; “ Since Christ,” he says, “is God of God, and the Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power of God, on this account is one God announced in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the one God, is referred to Him, of whom also He is; so that Father and Son are indeed Two, but the unity ’ of the Godhead is indivisible and unseverable. And in this way also there would be said to be one prin- ciple* of Godhead, and not two principles, whence there is strictly speaking* a monarchy® also. And of the principle Itself is the Word by nature Son, not subsisting by Himself, as if another principle, nor having come into being from a source external to this principle, lest from its being an- other ὁ there should ensue the rule of two’, or the rule of several®; but of the one principle He is own Son, own Wisdom, own Word, subsisting from It.” These state- ments surely are clear. 7. Basil likewise defends the unity of God against the Sabellians by the same reasoning, in his twenty-seventh. Oration"; [he says,] “There are not two Gods; for neither are there two Fathers. Whosoever, indeed, introduces two Principles proclaims two Gods.” Gregory Nazianzen, in his thirty-second Oration, beautifully calls the Father ἕνωσις, ‘union ;’ because, (as Petavius rightly observes,) the cause of the unity in the Trinity is the putting forth and proces- sion of One Person from Another, or, in other words, the εἷς @cds* τελείας μὲν ἐν Πατρὶ τῆς θεό- τητος νοουμένης, τελείαι δὲ καὶ ἐν υἱῷ Ths πατρικῆς θεότητος ὑπαρχούση».---᾿. 656. [νο]. ii. p. 42. The Benedictine editor rejects this oration as not written by St. Athanasius.—B. Bp. Bull, after quoting the Greek of this passage, in- troduces the Latin translation of it with the words, Que verba, ut solet, nonnihil obscuravit interpres. | t ἐπειδὰν ἐκ Θεοῦ Θεός ἐστι, καὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, σοφία, vids, καὶ δύνα- pis ἐστιν ὃ Χριστός" διὰ τοῦτο εἷς Θεὸς ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς καταγγέλ- λεται. Τοῦ ἑνὸς yap Θεοῦ υἱὸς ὧν 6 λόγος εἰς αὐτὸν, οὗ καί ἐστιν, avapé- pera’ ὥστε δύο μὲν εἶναι πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν, μονάδα δὲ θεότητος ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἄσχιστον. λεχθείη δ᾽ ἂν καὶ οὕτως μία ἀρχὴ θεότητος, καὶ ov δύο ἀρχαί: ὅθεν κυρίως καὶ μοναρχία ἐστίν. ἐξ αὐτῆς δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐστι φύσει υἱὸς ὃ λόγος οὐχ ὡς ἀρχὴ ἑτέρα καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ὑφεστὼς, οὐδ᾽ ἔξωθεν ταύτης γεγονὼς, ἵνα μὴ τῇ ἑτερότητι δυαρχία καὶ πολυαρχία γένη- Tat’ ἀλλὰ τῆς μιᾶς ἀρχῆς ἴδιος υἱὸς, ἰδία σοφία, ἴδιος λόγος, ἐξ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχων. .--- [Οταΐ. iv. vol. i. p. 617.] ἃ οὐ δύο θεοί: οὐδὲ γὰρ δύο mardpes. 6 μὲν ἀρχὰς εἰσάγων δύο, δύο κηρύττει Θεούς.---ἰ Hom. xxiv. 4. νο]. ii. p. 192. Hilary, on the oneness of origin as a guard of the Unity. 637 he says*, “to Book ιν. CHAP. Iv. § 6, 7. unity of principle. ‘There is one nature,” the Three, God; and the Father is union, from whom and to whom are referred what follow.” Again, in the twenty- ninth Oration’, he says; ‘The unity of God’, as I think, ! εἷς Θεὸς. would be preserved, if both the Son and the Spirit are re- ferred to one cause, without being compounded or confused.” Cesarius’, in his first Dialogue on Question IV., says that Moses wrote’, ‘The Lord thy God is one Lord;’ in order [777] that he might raise us to the μοναρχία and Θεογνωσίὰ, that is, “to the profession of one Principle and the know- ledge of God.” Which one Principle indeed is the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit have their origin. Damascene, in book i. chap. 11°, of his work, On the Ortho- dox Faith, says, “ Wherefore we do not say three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather one God, the Holy Trinity ; the Son and the Spirit being referred to one cause, without being Koss asco or confused, accord- 284 ing to the contraction? of Sabellius.”” Here any one can see * oe that Damascene employed the very words of the Divine’, ὁ Theolos that is, of Gregory Nazianzen. Of the Latins we shall only quote one or two writers. Hilary, in his fourth book on the Trinity, says°; “ For [the fact] that the Son also is God does not take away from the Father that He is one God. For He is God of God, One of One; on this account one God, because God of Himself+. But, on the other hand, the Son ‘ ex se is on this account not the less God, because the Father is tape one God. For He is the only-begotten Son of God, not unoriginate’, so as to take away from the Father that He is ἢ innasci- one God; nor is He Himself any thing else than God, be- sie * φύσις δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ pla, Θεός. ἕνωσις δὲ 6 πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ καὶ πρὸς ὃν ἀνά- γεται τὰ ἑξῆ5.---᾿». 520. [Οταῦ, xlii. 15. Ῥ. 768.} y τηροῖτο δ᾽ ἂν, ὡς ὃ ἐμὸς “λόγος, εἷς μὲν Θεὸς, εἰς ev αἴτιον καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ πνεύ- ματος ἀναφερομένων" od συντιθεμένων, ., οὐδὲ συναλειφομένων.---». 490. [Orat. xx. 7. p. 379.] [Brother of Gregory Nazianzen, —B.] ® [rota δὲ φησὶν, eis μοναρχίαν δὲ καὶ Θεογνωσίαν ἀνάγων ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον .--- Bibl. Patr. Paris. 1624. vol. i. p. 551.] b διὸ, οὐδὲ τρεῖς Θεοὺς λέγομεν, τὸν πατέρα, ‘eal τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα" ἕνα δὲ μᾶλλον Θεὸν, τὴν ἁγίαν τριάδα, εἰς ἐν αἴτιον υἱοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ἄναφε- ρομένων" οὗ συντιθεμένων, οὐδὲ συναλει- φομένων, κατὰ τὴν Σαβελλίου συναίρε- ow.—(c. 8. vol. i. p. 140.] ¢ Non enim Patri adimitur, quod Deus unus est, quia et Filius Deus sit. Est enim Deus ex Deo, unus ex uno; ob id unus Deus, quia ex se Deus. Contra vero non minus per id Filius Deus, quia Pater Deus unus sit. Est enim unigenitus Filius Dei, non innascibilis, ut Patri adimat, quod Deus unus sit; neque aliud ipse quam Deus, quia ex Deo natus est.—p. 37. [8 1ὅ. p. 836.] ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. [778] 1 ἄναρχον, ἀρχὴν. * ἀμέσως. [779] 638 These doctrines guarded against the perversions of the cause He is begotten of God.” In like manner Fulgentius, in his Reply to the objections of the Arians, Obj. V.4, writes, “For in two unbegotten [Persons] a different Godhead is found; but in One Begotten of One Unbegotten a natural unity is shewn.” 8. Two points, however, should especially be observed with respect to this reasoning of the ancient Catholics, by which they prove the unity of God. First, that, so far as regards the words, it was embraced by the Arians also. For, the bishops of the Arian faction, at the council of Sirmium, having, in the beginning of their Confession, professed with the Nicene fathers that the Son of God is “ God of God, Light of Light,” towards the end define thus*; “If any one say that the Son is unbegotten and without beginning [or principle], as if saying that there are two without beginning and two unbegotten, and making two Gods, let him be anathema ; for the Son is the head and principle of all; but the head of Christ is God. For in this way we religiously refer all things through the Son to one principle of all, who is Himself with- out a principle’.” It is however certain that they wrote these things insincerely, and with their usual sophistry. For the Arians believed that the Son of God was produced from God the Father, as His principle, in the way of creation, as all other things were; and the only difference that they put between the Son of God and the rest of the creatures was this, that the Son was produced at first and immediately by the Father out of nothing, then afterwards the other things through the Son; which even the bishops of the council of Sirmium themselves plainly indicate in those words, “ we religiously re- fer all things through the Son to one principle.” For by these words they shew plainly, that they refer alike both the Son and all other things to God the Father, as a prin- ciple; the Son immediately’, and all other things through the Son. But it would be vain and altogether absurd for any one to endeavour to prove that the Father and the θεμα ἔστω. κεφαλὴ γάρ ἐστι καὶ ἀρχὴ 4 In duobus enim ingenitis, diversa / ¢ X a} a“ πάντων ὃ υἱὸς" κεφαλὴ δέ ἐστι τοῦ divinitas invenitur; in uno autem genito ex uno ingenito naturalis unitas demonstratur.—[ p. 59.] © ef τις ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄναρχον λέγοι τὸν υἱὸν, ὡς δύο ἄναρχα καὶ δύο ἀγέν- νητα λέγων, καὶ δύο ποιῶν Θεοὺς, ἀνά- Χριστοῦ ὃ Θεός. οὕτω γὰρ εἰς μίαν ἄναρ- χον τῶν ὅλων ἀρχὴν δι’ υἱοῦ εὐσεβῶς τὰ πάντα avdryouev.—See Socrat. Hist. Eccl., ii. 30. [p. 126. ] Arians & Semiarians; by i. the doctrine of consubstantiality. 689 Son are one God, from the fact that the One exists from! the Other as His principle, unless he understand a principle BOOK Iv, CHAP. IVs § 7—9. homogeneous and consubstantial. For, I repeat, unless this 1 ας. be supposed in the argument, it will take no more trouble to prove, what is most absurd, that all created beings are one God with the Father; inasmuch as all creatures have their origin in what manner soever from God the Father, as their principle. But that is a strange “God of God” of the Arians, who is no otherwise of God than in the way of creation, in which way all things that exist are of God. But you will say that these remarks are at any rate inapplicable to the Semi- Arians ; for that they held the Son to have been produced out of God the Father Himself, and not out of nothing’; and yet ? ἐξ οὐκ they altogether denied that He was begotten of the substance of the Father. I allow that there were men who of old time taught this doctrine, whose views I have explained already‘; but they always appeared to me to be of all men the most ir- rational. For before the creation, as there was nothing inter- mediate between the substance of God and nothing, so there could not at that time have been any production intermediate between a production out of the substance of God, and a pro- duction out of nothing. A Semi-Arian, therefore, as well as a semi-God, and a semi-creature, are alike monstrosities and prodigies, which all sensible and pious men with good reason abhor. The Son of God must of necessity be laid down to be either altogether true God, or a mere creature; it is an axiom of eternal truth, that there is nothing intermediate be- tween God and the creature, between the unmade and the made. The catholic fathers therefore employed this argu- ment with altogether better right; forasmuch as they all with one consent acknowledged the consubstantiality of the Son. 9, The second point which I put before the reader as neces- sary to be observed is this, that this reasoning drawn from the unity of the principle, even though a consubstantial principle also be understood, is not, if it be regarded absolutely and uni- versally, in all respects apt and suited to shew forth and prove the unity of God the Father and the Son. For, as Petavius ὄντων. [780] also rightly suggests, it has a general conclusive force®* in all ὅ genera- lem con- cases, especially in the case of such beings as are endowed with ¢jydenai f See Book ii. 9. 11. [p. 242. ] vim. 640 ii. by the production being internal, not external. on tHe life and animal being, in whom generation properly so called nation or 8 Seen to take place. These [beings], however, although THE SON. they be of the same nature with the principle from which they spring, do yet constitute several individuals having a distinct and separate subsistence. I purposely added, there- | fore, in the proposition®, that the Father is the principle of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and that both are propa- gated from Him, “by an internal not an external produc- £85 tion;” from which it results, that They not only are of the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in Them; and that in the Holy Trinity, one Person cannot be separated from 1 supposita, another as three human persons, or individuals! of any other species, are divided one from another. For they who hold the notion that the three hypostases of the Godhead are in this way separate, are rightly called Tritheists ; of whose very: gross error Hieronymus Zanchius has thus learnedly written in his treatise De tribus Elohim, v. 1,2; “This, however,” he says, “they have imagined, because they also dreamed that the Son is begotten of the Father in such a way as to be ex- ternal to His essence, even as our children are. For they do - not perceive how one thing may be generated of another, and be its son, in such wise as yet to remain in that from which it is generated. And this results from their supposing that 2 fiori, all generation is” as the schoolmen express it, ad extra®, (ex- ὃ ποὺς ἔξω. ternal), and none ad intra‘, (internal). The same observa- ἡ πρὺς ἔσω. tion 1 make with respect to the procession of the Holy Ghost [781] from the Father and the Son. And the cause of their devis- ing these notions was, that, contemplating the Divine Essence with their own finite mind, they could not set It before their eyes as any other than finite: and they could not distinguish the Persons [of the Godhead] from Each Other, without also separating the essence of Each from the essence of the Other.” And, when this very error was formerly objected by the Sa- bellians against the Catholics, who said that the Son, equally yerse. as the Father, subsisted by Himself® [i. 6. as a distinct Per- son], the bishops of the East, assembled at Antioch in the year 345, replied in their Confession of faith, called Macros- tich, in a way which I shall venture to designate as no less (That is, in the proposition at 627.] the beginning of this chapter. See p. h [vol. i. p. 518, ed. 1605.] Mutual inexistence called περιχώρησις: Circumincession. 641 catholic than beautiful‘, although it appears that not a few βοοκ ιν. of those bishops favoured the Arian heresy, and although Be a the word consubstantial is omitted in the confession itselfi. “ But neither when we say that the Son is, and lives, and subsists of Himself!, just as the Father [does], do we on this? καθ᾽ éav- account sever Him from the Father, imagining certain spaces ™” and intervals? to intervene in Their conjunction’, after a bodily 3 διαστή- fashion. For we believe that They are conjoined‘, without ““™™ . ς ΣΌΣ 3 : 6 . μεταξὺ any thing intervening® or any interval®, and that They subsist τῆς συνα- inseparably from Each Other ; the whole Father embosoming’ + at the Son; and the whole Son hanging upon® and cleaving fast ¢ ἐπισυνῆ- to’ the Father, and alone continually reposing in His Father’s oO ; bosom.” It would indeed have been strange that the Arians Feb: eae. who were present at that council should have subscribed [782] these statements, had they not confirmed with their sub. ἀδιαστά- scription, in the same formula, other assertions also which are; ἐγεστε. diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy. Of that kind ρισμένου. especially is the clause, that the Son of God “is by nature Ws * perfect and very God*.” The fact is, those lovers of darkness”? 9 προσπε- were ready to approve any confession of faith whatever, pro- ee vided only that it did not include the word “of one sub- "seine stance",” even though other words were inserted in it, which " vocem in the judgment of all men of sound mind had altogether the apenas same meaning. I return however to my subject. The Father and the Son, then, are in such sense One, as that.the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son; and that the One cannot be separated from the Other. This mode of union the Greek theologians call περιχώρησιο', and the Latins, i.e. the schoolmen, some circumincession, others, circuminsession. The word is thus explained, besides other writers, by Gene- brard, in his second book on the Trinity™, ‘ περιχώρησις i Valesius, in his Annot. on So- ἑαυτῶν" ὅλου μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐνεστερ- crates’ Eccles. Hist., p. 24, pronounced the whole of this confession of the Eastern bishops to be most learned _and beautiful, (“doctissimam atque elegantissimam.”’ ) J °AAN οὐδὲ τὸν υἱὸν Kal ἑαυτὸν εἶναι, ζῇν τε καὶ ὑπάρχειν ὁμοίως τῷ Πατρὶ λέγοντες, διὰ τοῦτο χωρίζομεν αὐτὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς, τόπους καὶ διαστή- ματά τινα μεταξὺ τῆς συναφείας αὐτῶν σωματικῶς ἐπινοοῦντες. πεπιστεύκαμεν γὰρ, ἀμεσιτεύτως αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀδιαστάτως ἐπισυνῆφθαι, καὶ ἀχωρίστως ὑπάρχειν BULL. Tt νισμένου τὸν υἱόν" ὅλου δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐξηρ- τημένου καὶ προσπεφυκότος τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ μόνου τοῖς πατρῴοις κόλποις ἄνα- παυομένου Sinvex@s.—See Socrat. Hist. Eccles., ii. 19. p. 100. edit. Valesii. [p- 102.] : κ θεὸν κατὰ φύσιν τέλειον εἶναι καὶ ἀληθῆ. [Ibid., p. 100.] 1 [Concerning this περιχώρησις the, author says more in his reply to G. Clerke. See his Animadversions on the Preface, ὃ 4.—B. | mp. 103. ON THE 642 Circumincession defined. This union acknowledged, i., by and eircumincession,”’ he says, “ may be said to be that union Εν by which one thing exists in another, not only by participa- rue son. tion of [its] nature, but also by a full and intimate presence. [788] 1 premio et sinu.. 2 insitum [ἐνδιάθε- TOV. | 286 3 ex, probola veritatis, This kind of inexistence, so to speak, our divines call circum- incession ; because by it certain things, however much they may be mutually distinguished from each other without being separated, do [yet] exist in each other without confusion, and as it were flow into each other.” 10. I shall now shew that the ancients agreed in acknow- ledging a union of this kind in the Persons of the Godhead, beginning with the doctors who preceded the Nicene council. At this point, however, I would request my reader to recur to the store of testimonies which we accumulated in our for- mer books. He will there find passages cited from the fathers separately, which teach that the Son of God subsists in God, or abides in the bosom! of the Father, or that the Word is evermore set in’? His heart; and, on the other hand, that the Father, on His part, is and exists in the Son; all which ex- pressions indicate not obscurely the union of which we are treating. Indeed, this idea is so clearly expressed in all the writings of, I may almost say, all the ancient authors, and is | so repugnant to the Arian hypothesis, that I have often won- dered how men of sense, and well acquainted with eccle- siastical antiquity, could seriously charge those writers with Arianizing. For my part I think they might with greater appearance of truth have fastened on them the charge of Sabellianizing ; although that too is easy to be refuted, as we have elsewhere shewn. This also bears on the same point, that the same ancient writers do likewise with one consent profess, that the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father, without any cutting or division; and that He is put forth from*® the Father in such sense as that He is in no way separated from the Father. This is the teaching of Justin, and Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian, and Novatian, in short of them all. Accordingly Tertullian, in chap. 8 of his treatise against Praxeas", says ; “This will be the putting forth of [scil. taught by] the truth*, the guard of the Unity, whereby we” (that is, all who are catholic on the article of the Trinity) “say that the Son was put " (Quoted above, p. 194. ] the Antenicene fathers, as cited before ; special testimonies. 643 ‘forth from the Father, but not separated [from Him.”] What, ook tv. however, can be clearer than that passage of Athenagoras τ 91 ᾿ν which I have adduced in my second book, in chap. 4, 8 99... at the very beginning [p. 152.]? For there the learned writer, after stating that the Father and the Son are One, immediately declares the mode of Their union in these words ; “The Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, by the unity and power of the Spirit.” You will find state- ments clearly parallel in Clement of Alexandria, quoted in the same book, chap. 6, ὃ 4, [p. 186.] And Tertullian ex- [784] ‘pressed the same [truth] with no less clearness than suc- einctness, in chap. 12 of his treatise against Praxeas°®, where he says that the Holy Trinity is “one substance in three coherent { Persons],’’ and therefore not diverse substances in Three | Persons} mutually divided One from the Other, and subsisting apart. Tertullian again, in chap. 25 of the same treatise?, writes ; “‘ The connection! of the Father in the Son, ' connexus. and of the Son in the Comforter, produces three [Persons] co- herent one to another. These three [Persons] (tres) are one thing (unum), not one Person (unus.)’? And again, at the end of chap. 84, “The Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps’, does not at all dis- * consertos turb the monarchy.” Lastly, at the end of chap. 2. in the same woh gre. treatise, he observes that in the Trinity there is™ “number 455: without division.” Very clear also is the passage from Origen, which also we quoted in our second book, chap. 9, § 19, at the very end [pp. 268, 269]; where Origen professedly im- pugns the error of those “who cut the Divine Nature into parts, and, so far as lies in them, divide God the Father.” “Whereas,” he says, “to entertain such an idea, even in a slight degree, respecting a nature which is incorporeal, is [a mark] not only of extreme impiety, but also of the last de- gree of folly; nor is it at all congruous, even as a matter _ of conception®, that a substantial division of an incorpo- ὅ velad in. real nature should be imaginable. But rather as will pro (28 ceeds from mind, and yet neither cuts off any portion of qens. the mind, nor is separated or divided from it, in some such © [See above, p. 195, note t.] τ [Quomodo autem] numerum sine }{ See above, p. 205, note t. | divisione [patiuntur, procedentes re- 4 [See above, p. 132, note a. | tractatus demonstrabunt.—p. 502.] Trt 2 ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON, [786] 644 Dionysius of Rome and Alexandria on the περυχώρησις. way is it to be supposed that the Father begot the Son.” Again, although in his undoubtedly genuine work against Celsus, Origen throughout teaches that the Divine Nature and essence is common to the Son with the Father, as we have already abundantly proved, yet in the fourth® book of that treatise he expressly asserts that the nature of God is “in- corruptible, simple, uncompounded, and indivisible.” Where also he immediately adds, that the Son of God subsists in the form or nature of God; and that, therefore, the self-same attributes of the Divine Nature belong to Him. Yea, and shortly afterwards, in the same passage, he calls the Son of . God ', “God the Word, who is in Him (the Father).” Cer- tainly, whoever shall duly weigh that remarkable passage of Origen, will see that therein it is distinctly taught that Two hypostases, the Father and the Son, subsist without any division in the same Divine Essence. See book ii. 9, 14. [p. 255.| You will find a remarkable testimony of Dionysius of Rome of similar import in chap. 11. § 1. of the same book, [pp. 302, 303;| im which that great man sharply rebukes those “ who divide, and cut up, and destroy that most sacred — doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchy, dividing it into three powers (so to say), and divided hypostases, and Godheads three.” In opposition to their heresy he shortly _ after states the catholic doctrine, saying; “For the Divine Word must needs be one with the God of all; and the Holy Ghost must needs repose and habitate in God; and further, thus the Divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought to- gether into One, as into a point,—the God (I mean) of all, © the Almighty.” ‘These words of Dionysius are no small confirmation of the definition of the περιχώρησις which the very learned Bellarmine" embraced, saying that the zrepr- χώρησις is the intimate and perfect inhabitation of one per- son in another.” Lastly, (not to say too much on so plain a matter,) in § 5 of the same chapter, [p. 809,7] you will find a passage quoted from Dionysius of Alexandria, in which that celebrated writer remarks on the ignorance of those * [§ 14. p! 510. Quoted above, p. —§ 15. p. 511.] 6. | ἃ Bellarmin, de Christo ii. 5. [Op., ὃ δὲ τραύματα τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν vol. i. p. 383.] θεραπεύων διὰ τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ λόγου Θεοῦ. 22 οι, by the fathers who lived after the rise of Arianism. 645 who “know not, that neither is the Father, in that He is Βοοκ ιν. the Father, separated from the Son; for the name is calcu- ὁ 10, ἮΝ lated to introduce [the idea of] the union; neither is the [786]. Son removed from the Father; for the designation ‘ Father’ manifests the communion; and in Their hands is the Spirit, which is not capable of being severed either from Him that sends, or Him that conveys Him.” ‘This same writer also makes this statement, that “the Trinity is gathered up into a Unity* without being divided or diminished.” Lastly, in 287 his reply to quest. iv. of Paul of Samosata’, he speaks thus of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity; “The Two hypostases ” (that is, of the Father and of the Son) “are in- separable, and also the insubsisting hee of the rin which was in the Son.” 11. It remains for me to shew that the fathers who wrote after the rise of the Arian controversy agreed with these [whom I have mentioned.] And, inasmuch as the! passages ' sententiz. in those fathers which bear upon this point are innumerable, we will bring forward a few testimonies from them, which may be taken as a specimen of the rest. Alexander of Alexandria, in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople writes thus” on that passage of John the evangelist; ‘The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” ‘For the divine teacher, purposing to shew that the Father and the Son are two things? inseparable from one another, ὁ χρόγμανῃ spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father.” The δ΄ same writer afterwards, in the same epistle*, says that the saying of Christ, ‘I and My Father are one,’ “is a statement significative of His natural glory and high birth*, and of His ὃ εὐγενείας. abiding with the Father.” In like manner Athanasius, in [787] his fifth Oration against the Arians, says; “But as he who says that the Father and the Son are two, says [that there 15] one God; so let him who says [that there 15] _ one God, regard the Father and the Son as Two [ Per- * [Quoted above, p. 309.] See An- αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ Πατρὸς notations on chap. τι: [of book ii] ὠνόμασεν.---᾿Αρτὰ ~ Theodorit. Eccl. p- 150. [folio] σαν 1. [οἵ Grabe’s edi- Hist.,i. 4. p. 11. edit. Valesii. [p. 12.} tion, in the appendix to this volume. ]— - [τῶν δὲ] τῆς φυσικῆς αὐτοῦ δόξης GRABE. τε καὶ εὐγενείας, καὶ παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ Υ [p. 280; quoted above, p. 238. 1 μονῆς σημαντικῶν λόγων. —?. 15.[p.16.] 2 προνοούμενος γὰρ ὁ θεῖος δεικνύναι b ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ὃ λέγων Πατέρα διδάσκαλος ἀλλήλων ἀχώριστα πράγ- καὶ υἱὸν δύο, ἕνα Θεὸν λέγει, οὕτως ματα δύο, τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν, ὄντα ὃ λέγων ἕνα Θεὸν, δύο φρονείτω Πατέρα x 646 Pseudo-Dionysius Areop. ; illustration of the περυχώρησιο. on tue sons,| being One (ἕν) in Godhead, and in that the Word eer oe from! the Father is incapable of being parted, divided, THE son. or separated from Him.” So far, however, as it is possible 1 ἐκ, for divine things to be shadowed forth by corporeal, the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite sets forth the mutual in- 2 ἐνύπαρξιν. dwelling? of the Divine Persons in each other in an admi- rable similitude, (with which Genebrard was wonderfully pleased,) in his treatise on the Divine Names, chap. 2. These are his words’; “ United indeed ... and conimon {to the Trinity of one original] is the abiding and resting’ in One Another, if one may so express it, of the Hypostases that are of one original’, [an abiding and resting] more than united, integrally, and in no part confused, as the lights of torches, (to use sensible and familiar examples,) that are in one room, [i.e. the light proceeding from each respectively, | are both entire in entire, each in the other, un- mixed, and have in all exactness their distinction from each other subsisting in each separate’ light ; being united in their distinctness and distinguished in their union. Thus, for ex- ample, when there are several torches in a room, we see the [respective] lights of all united so as to become® one light, and lighting up one indivisible radiance; and, as 1 think, no one would be able to distinguish, out of the air which in- cludes all their respective lights, the light of this particular torch from the rest, and to see one [light] without another, they being combined without being mixed, entire in entire, But further, if one should withdraw one of the torches out of the room, there will go away along with it the whole of its own light, [yet] not drawing along with it any thing of the other lights, nor leaving any of its own to the others ;. 3 {Spvots. 4 évapxi- κῶν. 5 ἰδικῶς. 6 πρὺς. [788] καὶ υἷὸν, ev ὄντας τῇ θεότητι, καὶ τῷ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀμέριστον, καὶ ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ ἀχώριστον εἶναι τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πα- τρός.---ἰ Orat. iv. 10. vol. i. p. 624. © ἡνωμένον μέν ἐστι [τῇ ἑναρχικῇ Τριάδι, καὶ κοινὸν .. . ἣ ἐν ἀλλήλαι», εἰ οὕτω χρὴ φάναι, τῶν ἑναρχικῶν ὑποστά- σεων μονὴ, καὶ ἵδρυσις, ὁλικῶς ὑπερηνω- μένη, καὶ οὐδενὶ μέρει συγκεχυμένη, κα- θάπερ φῶτα λαμπτήρων, ἵνα αἰσθητοῖς καὶ οἰκείοις χρήσωμαι παραδείγμασιν, ὄντα ἐν οἴκῳ ἑνὶ, καὶ ὅλα ἐν ἀλλήλοις ὅλοις ἐστὶν ἀκραιφνῆ, καὶ ἀκριβῆ τὴν ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων ἰδικῶς ὑφισταμένην ἔχει διάκρισιν, ἡνωμένα τῇ διακρίσει, καὶ τῇ ἑνώσει διακεκριμένα. καὶ γοῦν δρῶμεν ἐν οἴκῳ πολλῶν ἐνόντων λαμπτήρων, πρὸς ἕν τι φῶς ἑνούμενα τὰ πάντων φῶτα, καὶ μίαν αἴγλην ἀδιάκριτον ἀναλάμποντα. καὶ οὔκ ἄν τις, ὡς οἶμαι, δύναιτο τοῦδε τοῦ λαμπτῆρος τὸ φῶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἐκ τοῦ πάντα τὰ φῶτα περιέχοντος ἄέρος διακρῖναι, καὶ ἰδεῖν ἄνευ θατέρου θάτε- pov, ὅλων ἐν ὅλοις ἀμιγῶς σνγκεκραμέ- νων. ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰ τὸν ἕνα τις τῶν πυρσῶν ὑπεξαγάγοι τοῦ δωματίου, συνεξελεύσε- ται καὶ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἅπαν φῶς, οὐδέν τι τῶν ἑτέρων φώτων ἐν ἑαυτῷ συνεπισπώ- μενον, ἢ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς ἑτέροις κατα- λεῖπον ἣν yop αὐτῶν, ὕπερ ἔφην, ἡ St. Basil and St. Cyril of Alexandria. 647 for, as I said, their [union] was the perfect union of wholes to wholes, absolutely unmixed, and in no part confused: and this truly in a corporeal substance, the air, and so as that the light was depending on material fire; whereas we say that the super-substantial union has its place not only above those unions that exist in bodies, but also above those that exist in souls themselves, and in minds themselves.” It is most certain that he who wrote this splendid passage was not Dionysius the Areopagite; it is clear, however, that he was a very early writer. The very learned and right reverend Pearson‘, with whom I gladly agree, thinks that he wrote not long after the beginning of the fourth century. 12. Basil sets forth this subject remarkably well in several places, especially in his forty-third epistle*’, where he treats thus of the Persons of the Godhead ; “ For it is not possible to conceive of section or division in any way; so as that either the Son should be conceived of as apart from the Father, or the Spirit be severed from the Son. But both the commu- nion and the distinction in Them is apprehended as being an ineffable and inconceivable one; the difference of the Per- sons not rending asunder! the continuity of their nature; nor the community in the essence confounding what is peculiar in their characteristics?.” In what follows in the same place of Basil there is more well worth reading. Cyril of Alexan- dria, in the seventh book of his Thesaurus‘, designates the Father “the natural place” (τόπον ducixdv,) of the Son. Euthymius, in his Panoply 8, briefly but accurately explains the whole notion of the περιχώρησις [circumincession] in these words; “‘ And we say that These [Persons of the God- head] are in Each Other, both because of Their mutually ὅλων πρὸς ὅλα παντελὴς ἕνωσις ἀμιγὴς καθόλου, καὶ οὐδενὶ μέρει συμπεφυρμένη. καὶ ταῦτα ὄντως ἐν σώματι, τῷ ἄερι, καὶ ἐξ ἐνύλου τοῦ πυρὸς ἠρτημένου τοῦ φω- τὸς, ὅπουγε καὶ τὴν ὑπερούσιον ἕνωσιν ὑπεριδρύσθαι φαμὲν οὐ τῶν ἐν σώμασι μόνον ἑνώσεων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐν ψυχαῖς αὐταῖς καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς νόοις, κ.τ.λ.---ἰ ὃ 4. p- 818.] 4 Vindic. Epist. Ignat., part i. [c. 2.] p- 7. [p. 70. ed. 1852.] and ο, 10 throughout. © ob γάρ ἐστιν ἐπινοῆσαι τομὴν, ἢ διαίρεσιν, κατ᾽ οὐδένα τρόπον" ws ἢ υἱὸν χωρὶς Πατρὸς νοηθῆναι, ἢ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ διαζευχθῆναι. ἀλλά τις ἄρρητος- καὶ ἀκατανόητοΞς ἐν τούτοις καταλαμβάνεται καὶ ἣ κοινωνία καὶ ἣ διάκρισις" οὔτε τῆς τῶν ὑποστάσεων διαφορᾶς τὸ τῆς φύ- σεως συνεχὲς διασπώσης, οὔτε τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν κοινότητος τὸ ἰδιάξον τῶν γνωρισμάτων avaxeovons.—tom., iii. p. 67. [ Ep. xxxviii. 4. vol. iii. p. 118.] ἐ [ἵν᾽ οὕτως εἴπω, τόπος αὐτῷ φυσικὸς 6 πατήρ.---νο]. v. | p. 51. Ε ἐν ἀλλήλαις δὲ ταύτας φαμὲν διά τε τὴν ἀλληλουχίαν αὐτῶν, καὶ τὸ φε- ράλληλον, καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀπερίγραπτον καὶ ἀχώρητον τόπῳ᾽ ἔτι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὴν μίαν τούτων θεότητα.---Ῥατί i. tit. 2. BOOK Iv. CHAP. IV, § 11, 12. [789] 988 1 διασπώ- ons. 2 τὸν ἰδιά- Ὃν τῶν γνωρισμά- των. ‘ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON. 1 ἀλληλου- χίαν. 2 τὸ φεράλ- ληλον. [790] 3 supposita. 4 > ἀπεριγ- ράπτου. ὅ ἔχεσθαι. 6 ἐν μεμε- ρισμένοι5. 7 ἄνεκφοι- THTOUS. 8 ἀδιαστά- TOUS. 9 περιχω- povoas. [791] 10 καθ᾽ éav- τήν. "' διάφορον. 648 John Damascene, on the περυχώρησιξ. having! and bearing each other?, and because of Their being incapable of being circumscribed and contained in place ; and further, because of Their one Godhead.” Damascene in more than one passage treats of this subject, and explains it admirably. In the first book of his work on the Orthodox | Faith, chap. 11, after he had said that in [the case of] things created, individuals’ are not mutually in each other, but exist separately, and that accordingly we speak of two or three men, and of many [men], he goes on to shew that the case of the Persons in the most Holy Trinity is altogether different ; “For neither,” he says, “can we speak of local interval, in the case, ‘of the uncircumscribed*‘ God- head, as we do in the case of ourselves; for the Persons exist in Each Other; not so as to be confused, but attached ἰοῦ [One Another], according to the words of our Lord, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” And a little after he adds ; “‘ For the Godhead is, to speak concisely, indi- visible in divided® [Persons]; and, as in the case of three suns that join on to each other, and have no interval between them, there is one commixture and conjunction of Their light.” Here he employs almost the same similitude which we just now shewed that the pseudo-Dionysius used. Again, in book iii. ὁ. 5*, treating of the Divine Persons, he says, “ We know, that They cannot go forth from’, or be set apart® from Each Other, and that they are united, and mutually eontained®, without being confused, One in the Other; and [that They are] united without being confused,—for They are Three, although They be united—and distinguished with- out interval. For although each [Person] subsists by Him- self, that is, is a perfect hypostasis, and has His own pe- culiar property, in other words, His mode of existence, dif- ferent" [from that of the Others] ; yet They are united both h οὔτε yap τοπικὴν διάστασιν, ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν, δυνάμεθα ἐπὶ τῆς ἀπεριγράπτου λέγειν θεότητος. ἐν ἀλλήλαις γὰρ αἱ ὑποστάσεις εἰσὶν, οὐχ ὥστε συγχεῖσθαι, ἄλλ᾽ ὥστε ἔχεσθαι, κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Κυ- ρίου λόγον, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὃ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. ... . ἀμέριστος γὰρ ἐν μεμε- ρισμένοις, εἰ δεῖ συντόμως εἰπεῖν, 7 θεό- Ts, καὶ οἷον ἐν ἡλίοις τρισὶν ἐχομένοις ἀλλήλων, καὶ ἀδιαστάτοις οὖσι, μία τοῦ φωτὸς σύγκρασίς τε καὶ συνάφεια.--- [ς. 8. vol. i. p. 140.] k ἀνεκφοιτήτους δὲ αὐτὰς καὶ ἄδια- στάτους ἀλλήλων, καὶ ἡνωμένας, καὶ ἐν ἀλλήλαις ἀσυγχύτως περιχωρούσας ἐπι- στάμεθα" καὶ ἡνωμένας μὲν ἀσυγχύτως" τρεῖς γάρ εἶσιν, εἰ καὶ ἥνωνται" διαιρου- μένας δὲ ἀδιαστάτως.. εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἑκάστη καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ὑφέστηκεν, ἤγουν τελεία ἐστὶν ὑπόστασις, καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν ἰδιό- τητα, ἤτοι τὸν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόπον δι- άφορον κέκτηται, ἄλλ᾽ ἥνωνται τῇ τε. Synesius, Marius Victorinus, and St. Ambrose.” 649 in Their essence and in their natural properties!; and, in soox 1. that They are not removed by an interval, nor go out from ἘΠ2 13. ς the Father’s hypostasis*, They both are, Sete and are said t0 1 isuaor be, al God only.” ΤῸ these testimonies of eps, e, also, one God only. o these testimonies of the Greeks 3 τῆς πα- I shall add, to refresh the reader, a verse from Synesius, 77 °° στάσεως. bishop of Cyrene, who flourished at the commencement of the fifth century. In his third hymn he thus sings!: Thee I sing, O Trinity ;— Unity Thou art, being Trinity ; Trinity Thou art, being Unity ; And intellectual? division 3 νρερὰ δὲ Holds yet unrent Tome, That which is separated. The same also occurs in his fourth hymn. 13. Among the Latins, Marius Victorinus, at the begin- 289 ning of his second book against Arius, thus speaks of God the Father and the Son™; “ But whilst we acknowledge Two severally, we yet say that there is one God, and that Both are one God, because the Father is in the Son, and also the Son in the Father.” In like manner Ambrose, on Luke, book x. chap. 20, says"; “ Both the Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord; ‘the Lord said unto my Lord;’ and not two Lords, but one Lord; because both the Father is God and the Son is God, but yet one God; because the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.” Again, in book ii. on Faith, chap. 2°, he says; “The Father and the Son have distinction, as Father and Son; but they have no separation of Godhead.” Again, in his treatise on the Dignity of Man’s Creation, chap. 2”, he thus connects together in a brief and acute statement, both the unity of principle and the circum- incession; “ He is called God the Father on this account, [792] οὐσίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς φυσικοῖς ἰδιώμασι, καὶ τῷ μὴ διίΐστασθαι, μηδὲ ἐκφοιτᾷν τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως", καὶ εἷς Θεὸς εἰσί τε καὶ λέγονται.---ρ. 210.] i, ‘Turd σε τριάς. Movas εἶ, τριὰς ὥν᾽ Τριὰς εἶ, μονὰς ὥν. Νοερὰ δὲ τομὰ Ασχιστον ἔτι Τὸ μερισθὲν ἔχει..----[ Ὁ. 324. ] m Sed cum fatemur singulos duos— [an legendum Deos ?—B. ] unum tamen Deum dicimus, et ambos unum Deum, quod et Pater sit in Filio, et Filius in Patre.—[ Bibl. Patr. Galland., vol. viii. p. 175.j » Et Pater Dominus, et Filius Do- minus; Dixit Dominus Domino meo; et non duo Domini, sed unus Dominus; quia et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, sed unus Deus; quia Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre—([x. 4. vol. i. p. 1504. ] © Pater et Filius distinctionem ha- bent, ut Pater et Filius; separationem divinitatis non habent.—[ii. 3. vol, ii. p. 476.] P Ideo autem dicitur Deus Pater, ania inse est ex quo; et sapientia est, 650 Onthe union of the Divine Persons ; Pseudo-Ambrose on tHe because He is that from which [all things spring]; and natron or Lthe Son is] Wisdom, by which all things are ordered; and tHE son. [the Spirit is] Love, whereby all things will to continue so as they were ordered. He therefore from whom [They are], and He who is from Him, and He by whom the Two love Each Other, are Three ; and these Three are therefore One, because the Two are so from One, as that They are yet not * ex. separated from Him; They are, however, of' Him, because ? a. not from* Themselves; and in Him, because not sepagate ; ‘ipsum moreover, They are the very same which’ He [is]; and He pase the very same which* They [are]: and They are not the very seal. same which’ He is, and He is not the very same which® They PR ers are.” Here, I repeat, he joins together the unity of prin-. δ ipsa que. Ciple and the circumincession, shewing that the Son and the Holy Ghost not only are of the Father, but are in Him, and are not in any degree separated from Him ; and, consequently, that all the Three are one God; one and the same in nature and essence ; but three in subsistence. Hilary, on the Trinity, [793] book viii., says4, that “the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, by the unity of an inseparable nature; not confused, but undivided; not mixed, but without difference; not cohering, but existing; not unconsummated, but perfect. 7 nativitas. For there is begetting’, not division ; and a Son, not an adop- | tion ; and God, not a creation, ἕο. The Apostle therefore holds this faith of the Son abiding in the Father, and of the Father in the Son, declaring that to him ‘there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Christ.’ When Hilary here says that the union of the Father and the Son is not cohering, he only excludes such coherence as exists in things formed out 8 alioqui. of matter. For in another view®, the catholic doctors, as we 4 [Una igitur fides est] Patrem in Filio, et Filium in Patre, per insepara- bilis nature unitatem [confiteri]; non qua ordinantur omnia ; et dilectio, qua se volunt omnia ita manere, ut ordinata sunt. Ex quo ergo, et qui ex eo, et quo se diligunt ipsa duo, tria sunt, et illa tria ideo unum, quia sic sunt ex uno illa duo, ut tamen ab ipso non sint separata; sed ex ipso sunt, quia non a se; et in ipso, quia non separata; et ipsum ipsa, quod ipse; et ipsum ipse, quod ipsa; et non ipsum ipsa qui ipse, et non ipsa ipse que ipsa.—t[ This treatise is wrongly ascribed to Am- brose. See Op., vol. ii. Append., p. 611.—B.] confusam, sed indiscretam ; neque per- mixtam, sed indifferentem; neque co- herentem, sed existentem; neque in- consummatam, sed perfectam. WNati- vitas est enim, non divisio; et Filius est, non adoptio; et Deus est, non creatio, &c. Tenet hance itaque ma- nentis in Patre Filii, et Patris in Filio fidem, unum Deum Patrem, et unum Dominum Christum sibi esse aposto- lus predicans,—[ viii. 41. p. 972. ] and St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and Fulgentius. 651 have seen, did not hesitate to assert that the Father and Βοοκ τυ. the Son mutually cohere. Jerome, on the third chapter of CHAP, IV, § 13. Ezekiel", writes, “ The Son is the place! of the Father, as the oq. Father, likewise, is the place of the Son; as our Lord and Saviour says, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.’ ” Lastly, Fulgentius, in his third book to Monimus, chap. 75, shews that one human being exists with’ another human ? apua. being, by whom he is most beloved, in one sense, and the Word with the Father in another sense, in these words; *‘ For [one] man is with® [another] man in such sense, as that * apud. it is not only possible for him not to be* with him, but impos- ‘ non esse sible to be® in him substantially, even when he is with him, For he who is in this sense with another, is in reality exter- posit. nal to him ; because when he is with him in the sincerity of love, he is separated from him in place, how great soever may be the affection with which they are bound each to the other, But the Word is with God, as a word is in the mind, or possit. 5 esse non a purpose in the heart. For when the mind has a word with® ὁ apud. itself, it has it of course by [the act of] thinking, because to speak with’ one’s-self is nothing else than to think with one’s- 7 apud. self. When therefore the mind thinks, and by thinking gene- rates within itself a word, it generates the word of* its own sub- ὃ de. stance; and in such wise does it generate that word of itself, as that when begotten it has it with itself. Nor is the word, which is the offspring of the mind, any thing 1655" than the mind from which it springs; because as great as is the mind which generates the word, so great also is the word itself, For as the word is born of the whole mind, so does it, when born, continue within the whole [mind]. And _ because, when the mind is engaged in thought, there is not any part t Filius locus est Patris, sicut et Pater locus est Filii, dicente Domino Salvatore, Ego in Patre, et Pater in Me. —[i. 8. in Ez. iii, 12. vol. v. p. 31.] 8 Homo enim apud hominem 510 . est, ut non solum apud eum non esse possit, sed etiam cum apud eum est, in ipso substantialiter esse non possit. Vere enim qui sic apud alium est, ex- tra illum est ; quia cum est apud illum sinceritate dilectionis, loco discernitur, quantolibet affectu invicem sibi uter- que jungatur. Sed sic est Verbum apud Deum, sicut est in mente ver- bum, sicut in corde consilium. Cum enim mens apud se verbum habet, utique cogitando habet, quia nihil aliud est apud se dicere, quam apud se cogi- tare. Cum ergo mens cogitat, et cogi- tando verbum intra se generat, de sua substantia generat verbum; et sic illud verbum generat de se, ut genitum ha- beat apud se. Nec minus aliquid ha- bet verbum, quod ex mente nascitur, quam est mens, de qua nascitur; quia quanta est mens, que generat verbum, tantum est etiam ipsum verbum, Si- cut enim de tota mente nascitur ver- bum, sic intra totam permanet natum.. Et quia cogitante mente non est ejus [794] 9 nec mi- nus aliquid habet. ‘ON THE SUBORDI- NATION OF THE SON, 1 apud illam; scil. mentem, 652 i. In what sense predicated of the two Natures in Christ ; of it in which the word is not, therefore the word is as great as is the mind itself, of which it is; and when it is with 10}, it isin it; and what the mind itself is, that the word is, which is of it and init; and as great as it [the mind] is, so great is the word also, because it is of the whole, and in the whole [mind], and the word itself is as great as is the ‘mind itself also together with the word. For the word is 2 εἰς ἀλλή- λας περι- χωρεῖν. 3 minus proprie. * usque- quaque. 290 [795] 5 intra abyssos. not so born from it [the mind] as to be locally separated from it.” : : 14. For the rest there are three points which we have to observe, on the περιχώρησις, (circumincession,) of the Persons in the most Holy Trinity. First; when some of the ancients also attribute circumincession to the two natures in Christ, which they say interpenetrate each other?, we must under- stand them to use the expression in a less proper sense*. For inasmuch as περιχώρησις (circumincession), properly speak- ing, is the union of those things which mutually enter each other throughout*, (as the preposition περὶ indicates,) it is re- quired unto it that neither of the things thus united be exter- nal to the other; but that wherever one of them is, there also does the other exist. Now in Christ, the Divine Nature indeed does throughout enter into the human, but the human does not in its turn enter into the Divine ; forasmuch as the human ~ nature is finite and circumscribed, the Divine infinite and immeasurable; whence it is impossible that the former be wheresoever the latter is. But in the Trinity the circum- incession is most proper and perfect, forasmuch as the Per- sons mutually contain Each Other, and all the Three have an immeasurable whereabouts ; (immensum ubi, as the school- men express it;) so that wheresoever one Person is, there the other two exist; in other words, They all are every where. Whence Tertullian says, in his treatise against Praxeas, c. 23; “We know that God is even® in the depth below, and that He every where subsists; and that the Son aliquid, ubi in ea verbum non sit, ideo verbum tantum est, quanta est mens ipsa, de qua est; et cum apud illam est, in illa est; et quod ipsa mens est, hoc est verbum, quod de illa et in illa est, et quanta illa est, tantum etiam verbum est, quia de tota, et in tota est. Tantumque est ipsum verbum, quanta simul est et mens ipsa cum verbo. Neque enim sic de illa verbum nasci- tur, ut ab ea localiter secernatur.— [iii. 7. p. 49. ] τ Gregor. Naz. Orat. li. Ὁ. 740. [Ep. ci. t. ii. p. 87. ed. Par. 1840.] Dainas- cen. de Orthod. Fide, iii. 5. [p. 210, 211. ] 2 ii. precludes Sabellianism ; iii. is most mysterious. 653 also, as inseparable from Him, is every where with Him.” In soox wy. the next place, I would remind the reader, that this doctrine "Is" 14, of the circumincession of the Persons in the Trinity is so το τ΄ from introducing Sabellianism, that it is of great use (as Peta- vius has also observed) for [establishing] the diversity of the Persons, and for confuting that heresy. For in order to that mutual existence [in each other], which is discerned in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is absolutely neces- sary that there should be some distinction between those who are thus joined together! ; that is, that those that exist mutu-' copula-' ally in each other, should be different in reality, and not in bea mode of conception only. For that which is simply one is not said to exist in itself, or to interpenetrate itself. This is touched on by Cyril of Alexandria also, in his Thesaurus, book xii.", where he says; “In order that by the [statement] that This [Person’] is seen [to exist] in That, and That in This, ? τοῦτον. He may shew the identity of the Godhead, and the unity of the substance: and by the [statement], that one is in an- other, it may not be conceived to be one in number.” Refer also to the passage of the pseudo-Dionysius, which we have already quoted in this chapter. Lastly, this is especially to be considered, that this circumincession of the Divine Per- sons is indeed a very great mystery, which we ought rather religiously to adore, than curiously to pry into. No simili- [796] tude can be devised, which shall be in every respect apt to illustrate it; no language avails worthily to set it forth; seeing that it is an union which far transcends all other unions, as we just now heard that most learned writer say, who is commonly called Dionysius the Areopagite. In the midst of this darkness which involves us, we both conceive and speak, or rather lisp, like children, concerning this and other Divine mysteries. While we are in this life, we behold our God as it were in a glass darkly®, but the time will come, 8 jn enig- or rather, eternity, which is beyond all time and period, will ™** - come, wherein we shall see Him face to face. The beatific vision of God will then chase all darkness from our minds. Let us earnestly and humbly supplicate the Divine mercy . ἃ Ἵνα διὰ μὲν τοῦ, τοῦτον ἐν ἐκείνῳ, ἑνότητα δείξῃ" διὰ δὲ τοῦ, ἕτερον ἐν κἀκεῖνον ἐν τούτῳ φαίνεσθαι, τὴν ταυ- ἑτέρῳ εἶναι, μὴ ἕν τι ὃν ἐν ἀριθμῷ νοη- τότητα τῆς θεότητοΞ, καὶ τῆς οὐσίας τὴν θῇ.---ἶ νο]. v. p. 109.] 654 Knowledge of this mystery desired, rather than possessed. on tae night and day, to make us worthy of this at the last. Mean-— camox or While, so long as we are on our way’, we rather desire to know, tue son. than do [actually | know clearly, “what” (to use the words of 1 viatores. the learned Athenagoras*) “is the Oneness of the Son with the Father; what is the communion of the Father with the Son; and what the Spirit is; and what is the union of These that are so great, and [what] the distinction of Them united ; the Spirit, the Son, and the Father.” x τίς ἡ τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα τοῦ πνεύματος, τοῦ παιδὺς, τοῦ Πατρός. évdrns* τίς ἣ τοῦ Tlarpds πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν —Legat. pro Christianis, p. 12. [§ 12. kowwvia’ τί τὸ mvedua τίς ἣ τῶν το- p. 2891] σούτων ἕνωσις, καὶ διαίρεσις ἑνουμένων, THE CONCLUSION 291 OF THE ENTIRE WORK. [797] THRovuGH a boundless ocean, so to say, of ancient writers, Conciv- the grace of God prospering our voyage, we are at length suc- ΟΝ cessfully, as I hope, reaching our port. For I think that I have fulfilled the promise which I made when I began this work; in- asmuch as I have shewn, by many and clear testimonies, the consent of primitive antiquity with the fathers of the council of Nice, on these four heads; first, that Christ our Lord in His higher nature existed before [His birth of] the most blessed Virgin Mary, and, further, before the creation of the world, and that through Him all things were made; secondly, that im that very nature, He is of one substance with God the Father, that is, [that] He is not of any created and mutable essence, but of a nature entirely the same with the Father, and consequently very God; thirdly, which is a consequence of this, that He is co-eternal with God the Father, that is, a Divine Person co-existing with the Father from everlasting ; lastly, that He Himself is, nevertheless, subordinate to God the Father, as to His Author and Principle. The first article, indeed, I touched on lightly and briefly', because the Arians ' strictim, of their own accord conceded it, although by this very con- cession, that God the Father, I mean, created all things out of nothing through the Son, they appear to me to have simply given up their own cause. For I am quite of opinion with the more sound of the schoolmen, that to a creature made out of nothing, such as the Arians imagined the Son of God to be, the power of producing other things out of [798] 1 disposi- tive. 2 virtutem. 3’ potentia. 4 ex nulla potentia. 656 To be instrumental in creation implies Divine Nature. nothing can in no measure be communicated. One of these, Estius*, says, “It is impossible for a creature to be raised by supernatural power to a capacity of acting of such sort, as that he should co-operate as a physical instrument in the work of creation; imasmuch as it pertains to the proper nature of an instrument of this kind to operate by means of something belonging to itself in the way of disposing’ towards the effects of the principal cause. Wherefore a creature cannot be employed, even by Divine power, as a Mees, in- strument, for creating, supposing the proper nature of an instrument of this kind to continue unimpaired.” The ground of the argument he had previously set forth in the same passage”; “Nothing,” he says, “can be a principal cause of creation unless it possess infinite power’; for the more remote the form to be produced is from its state of potential existence’, the greater power is required in the agent; and consequently, in order to produce a form where there is no potential existence‘, as is the case in creation, an infinite power is required; but this it is impossible to com- municate to a created being.” Hence from the work of creation [being] common to the Father and the Son, the © ancient catholic writers, even those who wrote before the Nicene council, inferred the common Divinity of both. Nay, Origen himself, in his second book against Celsus, expressly teaches that nothing except the Word of God Himself, that is to say, nothing external to God Himself, could have had power to effect the creation of the universe. For on Gene- sis i. 26, “Let Us make man,” &c., and on the passage of David, Psalm exlviii. 5, “ He spake the Word and they were made,” &c., he thus comments in that place; “ For if God commanded and the creatures wére made, who else must He be, who, according to the mind of the prophetic ~ ® Non potest creatura supernaturali virtute elevari ad hujusmodi actionem, qua tanquam instrumentum physicum cooperetur creationi; eo quod ad pro- priam hujus generis instrumenti ratio- nem pertineat, per aliquid sibi proprium operari dispositive ad effectum cause principalis. Quare nec divina virtute poterit assumi creatura ad creandum, tanquam instrumentum physicum, sal- va manente propria ratione hujusmodi instrumenti.—In lib. ii. Distinct. i. 4. > Nihil potest esse causa principalis creandi, nisi virtutem habeat infinitam. Nam quanto forma producenda remo- tior est a potentia, tanto major requi- ritur virtus in agente; et proinde ad producendam formam ex nulla poten. tia, quod fit in creatione, requiritur vir- tus infinita; hane autem impossibile est creature communicare.—[ Ibid. ] Passages from the Fathers clearly teaching this. 657 Spirit, was able to execute so great a commandment of the Concuv- - Father, other than He, who is, so to call Him, His living ics. πὶ Word and the Truth®?” Moreover the most ancient fathers did, with one consent, sharply rebuke the Gnostics on this ground, that they taught that this world was made by’ | angels, and by* powers inferior to God and alien from Him. ς oe Most explicit, especially, are the passages of Irenzeus, which we have already quoted in book ii. 5, 7. [p. 173.] “ There is One only God the Creator,” he says in book ii. 554; “even He who is above all principality, and power, and dominion, and might; He is the Father, the God, the Founder, the Maker, the Creator, who made these things by* His own self, ὅ per. that is to say, by His Word and His Wisdom,—the heaven and the earth and the seas, and all things which are therein.” He says again in book iv. 37°; “The angels, then, neither formed us, nor fashioned us; nor were angels able to make the image of God: nor any other [being] except the Word of God, nor any power far removed from the Father of the uni- verse. For God had no need of these, to make those things 292 which He had fore-ordained within Himself to be made, as if He Himself had not hands of His own. For there is ever present with Him His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through whom and in whom‘ He made all things ¢ per quos freely and spontaneously ; unto whom also He speaks, when ve a He says, ‘ Let us make man in Our own image and likeness ;? He Himself receiving from Himself the substance of the creatures, and the pattern. of what was made, and the figure of the embellishments which are in the world.” In these passages Irenzus clearly teaches that God the Father neither made, nor either needed to make, or could have made, this universe by any thing external to Himself; and at the same time teaches no less clearly, that He Himself created all things through the Son and the Holy Ghost. The second article respecting the consubstantiality of the ' Son I have proved most copiously, because on that the hinge of the whole controversy manifestly turns. If in this point primitive antiquity be found to be on our side, the other [800] points which have been called in question by the Arians will © See the Greek of this passage 4 Te. 30. 9. p. 163. (see p. 173, note e.) ] quoted in book ii. 9. 5. [p. 222, note r. ] 6 [c. 20. p. 253. (see p. 174, note f.) ] BULL. Uu CoNcLu- SION. 1 potiorem. 658 The judgment of the Antenicene Fathers was appealed to be easily decided. For if this hypothesis be granted, namely, that the Son is of the same nature and essence with God the Father, the whole structure and framework of the Arian heresy is utterly overthrown. But not a single Antenicene doctor can be named by the Arians who did not confess this | very point. With respect to the third article, I have evidently shewn that the greatest and most authoritative! portion of the primitive fathers openly and unambiguously professed the eternity of the Son; and that the smaller number of doctors of the Church, who attributed to the Son a generation com- mencing from some definite beginning, however much they ' may have differed from the former in words, did yet in reality [801] agree with them. In the last place, I have shewn with no less clearness, that the Antenicene doctors attributed to the Son no other subordination to the Father, than what has been ac- knowledged by Catholics who wrote. after, and in opposition to, the heresy of Arius; and, moreover, I have clearly shewn that those expressions of theirs which are somewhat harsh in appearance, not only admit, but actually require a catholic interpretation. From all which it is manifest that Petavius was too liberal in giving up to the Arians the suffrages of the — Antenicene fathers; and that Sandius and others are alto- gether wrong, who, relying on the authority of the Jesuit, have confidently affirmed that the doctors of the first three centuries held with Arius. Certainly very far other was the mind and judgment of — the catholic fathers, who in former days engaged in conflict with the Arians. So far were they from dreading the judg- ment of the primitive fathers, that they willingly appealed to it. Thus Athanasius in his treatise on the Decrees of the council of Nice, after having quoted the testimonies of some ancients in defence of the Nicene Creed, thus at last addresses — the Arians‘; “ Lo, we, for our part, prove that a view of this — kind has been transmitted from fathers to fathers; whilst you, modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom have you © to shew as the fathers of your statements? There is not one — of the wise and prudent whom ye can name; for all reject — f ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐκς πατέρων εἰς maré- καὶ τοῦ Καϊάφα μαθηταὶ, τίνας ἄρα τῶν pas διαβεβηκέναι τὴν τοιαύτην διάνοιαν ῥημάτων ὑμῶν ἔχετε δεῖξαι πατέρας; — ἀποδεικνύομεν᾽ ὑμεῖς δὲ, ὦ νέοι Ἰουδαῖοι ἀλλ᾽ οὐδένα τῶν φρονίμων καὶ σοφῶν ἂν f ‘by the Catholics, and the novelty of Arianism asserted. 659 you, except the devil alone; for he alone has been to you the father of such an apostacy as this.’ Many writings of the ancient fathers had been seen by Athanasius, which have now perished, to the great detriment of the Church. Out of all, however, whom he had read, he confidently asserts, and that not in a discourse addressed to the peo- ple, but in a written disputation against the Arians, that the heretics could not produce even one approved doctor who maintained their blasphemies. And indeed we in this work have abundantly proved, that there is no one among the primitive catholic fathers, whose writings have been rescued as it were out of a wreck, by the providence of God, for us their late posterity, who was not on the side of the Nicene bishops. Nay, the Arians themselves, although before the ignorant multitude they boasted that they held the faith transmitted by the fathers, and were even able to give a colour to their heresy from certain expressions of some of the fathers wrongly understood, (as we have shewn in for- mer chapters,) did yet, when pressed in controversy, entirely decline the judgment and authority of the ancients. The account of Sisinnius is remarkable, which is related by So- erates, Eccles. Hist. v. 10, and which I have already touched ong; “The emperor (Theodosius) then, having sent for the bishop Nectarius, deliberated with him what means could be devised, in order that Christianity might be freed from dis- cords, and the Church be made one. He declared, moreover, that the question which was dividing the Churches ought to be discussed, and that, having removed discord, they should bring about concord for the Churches. On hearing this Nectarius was thoughtful and anxious; and sending for Agel- lius, who was then the bishop of the Novatians, as being of one mind with himself in respect to the faith, he disclosed to him the emperor’s purpose. And he, though in other re- «εἴποιτε πάντες yap ὑμᾶς ἀποστρέφον- σαι, πλὴν μόνου τοῦ Διαβόλου" μόνος γὰρ ὑμῖν οὗτος THs τοιαύτης ἀποστασίας πατὴρ γέγονεν.---ἰ ὃ 27. vol. i. p. 233. ] Β μεταπεμψάμενος οὖν ὃ βασιλεὺς Νεκτάριον τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, ἐκοινολογεῖτο πρὸς αὐτὸν, τίς ἂν γένοιτο μηχανὴ, ὅπως pn διαφωνοίη ὃ Χριστιανισμὸς, ἀλλ᾽ Evw- θῇ ἢ ἐκκλησία. ἔλεγέν τε δεῖν γυμνα- σθῆναι τὸ χωρίζον τὰς ἐκκλησίας ξήτη- μα, τήν τε διαφωνίαν ἐκποδὼν ποιήσαντας, ὁμοφωνίαν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐργάσασθαι. τοῦτο ἀκούσας ὃ Νεκτάριος, ἐν φροντί- ow hv" καὶ μεταστειλάμενος τὸν τηνι- καῦτα τῶν Ναυατιαυῶν ἐπίσκοπον ᾿Αγέ- λιον, ὡς κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὄμόφρονα, φανερὰν αὐτῷ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως καθί- στησι γνώμην. ὃ δὲ, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ἦν vuu2 ConcLu- SION. [802] ConcLu- SION. 293 1 ἀπέφυγον δοῦναι. 3 προΞξαρ- μοσάντων, leg. προ- ᾿ακμάσαν- των. Vales. [808] 3 διαλέξει μόνῃ, καὶ οὖκ ἀρ- χαίων ἐκ- θέσει. 660 Appeal to the preceding Fathers declined by the Arians ; spects a religious man, yet being unable to dispute argu- mentatively about the doctrine, put forward a reader under him, called Sisinnius, to undertake the discussion. But Si- sinnius, a man of learning and practical experience, and ac- © curately acquainted both with the interpretation of Holy Scripture and the doctrines of philosophy, was conscious that argumentative disputations not only do not heal divisions, but rather make heresies even more contentious; and ac- cordingly suggested a plan of this kind to Nectarius. Well knowing that the ancients shrunk from attributing’ to the Son any beginning of existence, seeing that they considered Him to be co-eternal with the Father; he advises him to avoid dialectic discussions, and to adduce as witnesses the expositions [of faith] of the ancients, and that the emperor should enquire of the leaders of the heresy whether they make any account of the doctors who flourished® in the Church before the division, or whether they reject them as aliens from the Christian religion. For if indeed they do reject them, then let them be bold enough to anathematize them; and if they make them venture on this, they will be driven out by the people; and on this being done the victory of the truth will be manifest. If on the other hand they do not repudiate the ancient doctors, it will be our business to produce their writings.” Socrates goes on to state, in the same passage, that Nectarius communicated this advice of Sisinnius’ to the emperor, who eagerly em- braced it, and, after he had made the experiment, per- ceived at length, that the heretics relied ‘‘on dialectic skill 3 9) alone, and not on the exposition of the ancients*,’ since ἐλλόγιμος, καὶ πραγμάτων εὐλαβής" συστῆναι δὲ λόγοις περὶ τοῦ δόγματος οὐκ ἰσχύων, ἀναγνώστην ὑπ᾽ αὐτῷ Σισίννιον ὄνομα, πρὸς τὸ διαλεχθῆ- ναι προεβάλλετο. ΣΣισίννιος δὲ, ἀνὴρ ἔμπειρος, ἀκριβῶς τε εἰδὼς τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν ἑρμηνείας καὶ τὰ φιλόσοφα δόγματα, συ- νοιδεν ὡς αἱ διαλέξεις οὐ μόνον οὐχ ἑνοῦσι τὰ σχίσματα, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ φι- λονεικοτέρους τὰς αἱρέσεις μᾶλλον ἄπερ- γάζονται: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοιάνδε τινὰ συμβουλὴν τῷ Νεκταρίῳ ὑπέθετο, εὖ ἐπι- στάμενος ὡς of παλαιοὶ ἀρχὴν ὕπάρξεως τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ δοῦναι ἀπέφυγον, κα- τειλήφεισαν γὰρ αὐτὸν συναΐδιον τῷ πατρὶ" συμβουλεύει φυγεῖν μὲν τὰς δια- λεκτικὰς μάχας᾽ μάρτυρας δὲ καλέσειν τὰς ἐκδόσεις τῶν παλαιῶν, καὶ πεῦσιν παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως τοῖς αἱρεσιάρχαι5 προσάγεσθαι, πότερον λόγον ποτὲ ποι- οὔνται τῶν πρὸ τῆς διαιρέσεως ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφξαρμοσάντων (leg. προ- ακμασάντων, Vales.) διδασκάλων, ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτρίους τοῦ Χριστιανισμοῦ παρα- κρούονται. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τούτους ἀθετοῦσιν, οὐκοῦν ἀναθεματίζειν αὐτοὺς τολμάτω- σαν᾽ καὶ εἰ τοῦτο τολμῆσαι ποιήσωσιν, ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους ἐξελαθήσονται. καὶ τούτου γενομένου, προφανὴς ἔσται ἣ νι- κὴ τῆς ἀληθείας. εἰ δὲ μὴ παρακρούον- ται τοὺς ἀρχαίους τῶν διδασκάλων, ἡμέ- τερόν ἐστι παρασχεῖν τὰς βίβλους τῶν παλαιῶν.----ϑοοταῖ. H.E., v. 10. p. 272.] } they trusted to argument ; and despised the Fathers. 661 they all refused to stand by the judgment of the primitive doctors. The same account is handed down by Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. vii. 12; to which may be added, that Alex- ander, bishop of Alexandria, asserts that the original de- fenders of the Arian heresy held the early fathers in no esteem, and, like the fanatics and enthusiasts of our days, shamelessly boasted that they themselves had been taught by revelation. For thus he writes in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople contained in Theodoret®. ‘They do not deign to compare with themselves any even of the ancients, nor suffer themselves to be put on a level with those teachers, with whom we have been familiar from our boyhood. Nor do they think that any one of those, who are now our bre- thren in the ministry throughout the Church, has attained unto any measure of wisdom; saying that they alone are wise and ‘possessing nothing,’ and discoverers of doctrines, and that there have been revealed to them alone things which were not of a nature to enter into the thoughts of any other person under the sun.” In these words Alexander also inti- mates that the Arian view was contrary to the doctrine, not of the primitive doctors only, but of his own immediate prede- cessors, and, moreover, of all the bishops who governed the Church at the time when Arius first raised his unhappy con- troversy. But, you will ask, if the opinion of Arius was so completely heterodox, how could .it, in so short a time after it arose, prevail to such an extent, as that, as Jerome complained, nearly the whole world had become Arian? My answer is; if to become Arian means to embrace the genuine dogmas of Arius, it is not true (with all deference to Jerome be it said) that the greater part of Christians ever became Arian. In the time of Constantius, indeed, and for some time after, very many, especially in the East, received the Arians, but very few, comparatively, embraced Arianism itself. For those most deceitful men, except where they found hearers suited h οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχαίων τινὰς συγκρίνειν δογμάτων εὑρέται λέγοντες εἶναι, καὶ ἑαυτοῖς ἀξιοῦσιν, οὐδὲ οἷς ἡμεῖς ἐκ παί- αὐτοῖς ἀποκεκαλύφθαι μόνοι», ἅπερ οὐ- δων ὡμιλήσαμεν διδασκάλοις, ἐξισοῦσθαι devi τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον € ἑτέρῳ πέφυκεν ἀνέχονται. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τῶν νῦν πανταχοῦ ἐλθεῖν εἰς ἔννοιαν ..---Η. E. i. 4. p. 16. συλλειτουργῶν τινὰ εἰς μέτρον σοφίας edit. Valesii. [p. 17.} ἡγοῦνται μόνοι σοφοὶ καὶ ἀκτήμονες καὶ ConcLu- SION. [804] ConcLu- SION. 1 fraude. 662 Arians were received and accounted Catholic, because to their purpose, concealed their impious doctrines, and generally professed their faith in terms which bore the sem- blance of the ancient and catholic view; the consequence of which was, that they were almost everywhere accounted to be catholic, and recognised as such even by those who other- | wise detested from their heart their genuine tenets. By this fraudulent conduct! they gained the favour, not only of the Christian laity, but also of many over-credulous bishops. - Read the Arian Confessions transcribed by Athanasius and [805] 2 plebs innocua. 3 miseris-_ que cre- dendum. 294. 4 ante se- cula, ** be- fore the worlds.”’ others; they are for the most part couched in phrases so catholic that you would believe the parties to be simply catholic. They call Christ God, very God, yea, very and perfect God by nature; [the statement,] that He is a creature, they abominate as impious; and they profess that He existed before all worlds. And what do they not say, which Catholics have said, except that they omit that one expression, “of one substance?” Hence Hilary, who lived when this antichristian system was dominant, congratulated the truth, [on the fact,| that the people of Christ remained catholic under the Arian bishops, with whom they continued in communion. For the laity, in their innocent simplicity’, accepted with all reverence the prelates whom Constantius set over them, little aware of the impiety which these cherished in their bosom; that is to say, they admitted the heretics, but their heresy they never embraced, seeing that they knew it not to be their heresy. Hilary’s words are worthy of being quoted here‘; “ For the purpose; indeed, of bringing in Antichrist with less ill-will, and of recommending him to the unfortunate people’, they attribute to Christ the name of God, because this has been attributed to men also. They acknowledge Him to be truly the Son of God, because in the sacrament of baptism every one is made truly a son of God. They confess [that He is] before times and ages‘, which may not be denied of the angels and of the devil. Thus they attribute to Christ our Lord those properties only, which belong either to the angels, or to ourselves. But that i Verum ad antichristum minoriin- mento baptismi vere Dei Filius unus- vidia introducendum, miserisque cre- quisque perficitur. Ante tempora et dendum, tribuunt Christo Dei nomen, secula confitentur, quod de angelis quia hoc et hominibus sit tributum. atque Diabolo est non negandum. Ita Fatentur vere Dei Filium, quia sacra- Domino Christo sola illa tribuuntur, they professed that they were so,and used Catholic language. 663 ConcLu- SION. which is the legitimate and true [attribute] of Christ [as] God, [namely, that] Christ [is] very God, or, in other words, that the divinity of the Son is the same as that of the Father, is absolutely denied. And by the fraudulence of this impious system it is up to this time! brought to pass, THAT NOW UNDER! usque THE PRIESTS OF ANTICHRIST THE PEOPLE OF Curis? po Nor θυ: FALL, WHILST THEY SUPPOSE THAT TO BE OF THEIR FAITH WHICH Is [THE MEANING] OF THEIR words”, They hear that ? vocisesse. Christ is God; they think that He is what He is said to be: they hear that He is the Son of God ; they suppose that in the being begotten of God 155 involved the being true God‘: they ° in Dei hear [that He was] before [all] times; they think that that; μεδόραευ: is before [all] times, which is always. THE EARS OF THE tatem. PEOPLE ARE MORE HOLY THAN THE HEARTS OF THE PRIESTS.” These are the admirable words of Hilary. Further, Alexan- der, bishop of Alexandria, in the epistle to his namesake of Byzantium *, which I mentioned just now, witnesses that Arius and his first disciples, after they had been condemned by the bishops of Egypt in a council at Alexandria which pre- ceded the Nicene council, betook themselves to other catholic bishops; and, by pretending that they also were Catholics, procured from them commendatory letters, which they em- ployed from time to time to confirm in error the miserable men whom they had deceived. “They attempted,” he says, “travelling about to create a prejudice’ against us, to go out ἢ [m«pidpo- of their way® to our brethren in the ministry, who are of one Ae bg a mind with ourselves, professing, indeed, in pretence, to ask for stele peace and unity, but in reality using all endeavours to carry excursions away some of them by fair speeches to their own poisonous mil ρῳ error ; requesting also from them wordy letters’, in order that ὁ παρεκ- βαίνειν. ᾿ Ἴ στωμυλώ- ante tempora esse, quod semper est. τερα γράμ- SANCTIORES AURES PLEBIS, QUAM ματα. [806] que sunt vel angelorum propria, vel nostra. Czterum quod Deo Christo legitimum et verum est, Christus Deus verus, id est, eadem esse Filii que Patris divinitas, denegatur. Et hujus quidem usque adhue impietatis fraude perficitur, UT JAM SUB ANTICHRISTI SACERDOTIBUS CHRISTI POPULUS NON OCCIDAT, DUM HOC PUTANT ILLI FIDEI ESSE, QUOD vociIs EST. Audiunt Deum Christum; putant esse quod dicitur: audiunt Filium Dei; putant in Dei nativitate inesse Dei veritatem: audi- unt ante tempora; putant id ipsum CORDA SUNT SACERDOTUM.—Lib. cont. Arian. et Auxent. p. 215. [ὃ 6. p. 1266.] k ἐπεχείρησαν δὲ περιδρομαῖς χρώμε- νοι καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, παρεκβαίνειν πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόφρονας συλλειτουργοὺς, σχήματι μὲν εἰρήνης καὶ ἑνώσεως ἀξίωσιν ὑποκρινό- μενοι" τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς, συναρπάσαι τινὰς αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν νόσον διὰ χρηστο- λογίας σπουδάζοντες. καὶ στωμυλώτερα γράμματα παρ᾽ αὐτῶν αἰτοῦντες, ἵνα πα- ραναγινώσκοντες αὐτὰ τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ConcLu- SION. 1 ἀμετανοή- TOUS. 2 ἐπιτριβο- μένους. 3 βωμολό- χοις. [807] [808] 604 The arts used by the Arians to pass themselves for Catholics. by reading these to such as they had deceived, they may make them obstinate! in their errors, and hardened? in im- piety, as though they had bishops who took the same side, and were of one mind with them. For they do not con- fess to them what they wrongly taught and practised amongst | us, on account of which also they were put out of our com- munion; but either pass them over in silence, or by veiling them in feigned sayings and writings mislead men. Their pernicious doctrine they cloak under plausible and winning ὃ speeches, and so carry away with them whosoever lies exposed to their fraud, not abstaining from calumniating our religious belief to all; whence it happens that some have subscribed their letters, and admitted them into the Church.” Should any of the Arian tribe, however, doubt the good faith of the excellent Alexander, let him hear two very noted partisans of Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis. These men, in their Recantation contained in Socrates', write that they had indeed subscribed the Nicene Creed, but had been un- willing to subscribe the anathema; and immediately add this as their reason; “ Not,” say they, “that we find fault with the Creed; but because we believe that the accused party is not such | as he is represented ;] being fully persuaded that he is not such, from his private communications: to us, both by letters, and by personal discussions.” And what Valesius has observed is worthy of notice, that this Eusebius of Nicomedia retained communion with the Church of Rome, even to the time of his death. From which one of these conclusions must needs follow, either that Eusebius was not really an Arian, but had joined himself to that side simply from excessive credulity, which induced him to credit the professions of the Arians; or that, being an Arian, he had ἠπατημένοις, ἀμετανοήτους ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐσφά- λήσαν κατασκευάζωσιν, ἐπιτριβομένους εἰς ἀσέβειαν, ὧς ἂν συμψήφους αὐτοῖς καὶ ὁμόφρονας ἔ ἔχοντες ἐπισκόπου“. οὐχ͵ ἅπερ γοῦν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν πονηρῶς ἐδίδαξάν᾽ τε καὶ διεπράξαντο, ὁμολογοῦσιν αὐτοῖς, δι᾽ ἃ καὶ ἐξώσθησαν" GAN ἢ σιωπῇ ταῦτα παραδιδόασιν, ἢ πεπλασμένοις λόγοις καὶ ἐγγράφοις ἐπισκιάζοντες ἀπατῶσιν. πει- θανωτέραις γοῦν καὶ βωμολόχοις ὁμιλίαις τὴν φθοροποιὸν αὐτῶν διδασκαλίαν ἐπι- κρύπτοντες, συναρπάζουσιν τὸν εἰς ἀπά- τὴν ἐκκείμενον, οὐκ ἀπεχόμενοι καὶ τοῦ παρὰ πᾶσι συκοφαντεῖν τὴν ἡμετέραν εὐσέβειαν" ὅθεν καὶ συμβαίνει τινὰς τοῖς γράμμασιν αὐτῶν ὑπογράφοντα, εἰς ἐκ- κλησίαν eicdéxec0a1.—A pud Theodorit. E. H. i. 4. p. 10. edit. Valesii. 1 οὐχ ὡς τῆς πίστεως κατηγοροῦντες, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀπιστοῦντες τοιοῦτον εἶναι τὸν κατηγορηθέντα, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίᾳ πρὸς ἡμᾶς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ διά τε ἐπιστολῶν, καὶ τῶν εἰς πρόσωπον διαλέξεων, πεπληροφορημένοι μὴ τοιοῦτον εἶναι.---ἰ Hist. Eccles. i. 14. p. 48.] So rr οι Arius’ deceitful subscription. deceived the Church of Rome by the same arts as the other Arians used. That the latter is by far the more probable will be the opinion of every one who attentively reads the letter of Arius to Eusebius, and that of Eusebius himself to Paulinus of Tyre, contained in Theodoret™. But every one must be horror-stricken at the history which Socrates relates of Arius from an authentic letter of Constantine in his Ec- cles. Hist., 1.38"? ‘The emperor,” he says, “ wishing to make trial of Arius, sent for him to his palace, and asked him whether he agreed with the definitions of the Nicene eoun- cil. Thereupon he, readily and without any hesitation, sub- scribed, in the emperor’s presence, what had been defined re- specting the faith, sophistically. Then the emperor, surprised, administered an oath to him; and he also took this sophis- tically. Now the way in which he craftily subscribed, as I heard, was this; Arius, it is said, wrote down the opinion which he held on paper, and carried it under his arm; he then swore that he really believed just as he had written. It is from report that I write that it was done in this way, but that he added an oath also to his subscription I have read in the emperor’s letters.’ Surely it ought to surprise no one that such detestable perjury was soon followed by that signal in- stance of Divine vengeance, which Socrates relates in the same passage. The account is given by other ecclesiastical writers also, though with some difference of circumstances. Athanasius, in his work on the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, asserts that George, bishop of Laodicea, was the first to advise the Arians to cloak their heresy under the same phrases which the Catholics employed. Of this George he says°, ‘‘ He wrote to the Arians, Why do you find fault with the Pope Alexander, when he says that the Son is of the Father? Since you yourselves also need not be afraid to 665 - m H. E. i. 5 and 6. " ὃ βασιλεὺς δὲ ἀπόπειραν ᾿Αρείου ποιήσασθαι βουληθεὶς, ἐπὶ τὰ βασίλεια αὐτὸν μεταπέμπεται, ἠρώτα τε, εἰ τοῖς ὅροις στοιχεῖ τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ συνόδου. ὃ δὲ ἑτοίμως μηδὲν μελλήσας ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὑπέγραφε τὰ περὶ τῆς πίστεως δρισθέντα σοφισάμενος. καὶ ὃ μὲν βασιλεὺς θαυ- μάσας καὶ ὅρκον ἐπέφερεν" ὃ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο σοφιζόμενος ἐποίει. τίνα δὲ τρό- πον ἐτεχνάζετο γράφων, ὡς ἤκουσα, ἔστι ταῦτα καταγράψας, φησὶν, ὃ “Apes ἐν χάρτῃ ἣν εἶχε δόξαν, ὑπὸ μάλης ἔφερεν" ὥμνυ τε ἀληθῶς οὕτω φρονεῖν, ὡς καὶ γεγραφηκὼς εἴη. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν οὕτω γεγενῆσθαι, ἀκοῇ γράψας ἔχω" ὅτι μέν- τοι καὶ ὅρκον ἐπέθηκε τοῖς γραφεῖσιν, ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν τοῦ βασιλέως ἀνελεξά- μην.---ἰ Socrates, H. E. i. 88.} © πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ᾿Αρειανοὺς ἔγραφε, Ti μέμφεσθε ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ τῷ πάπᾳ λέγοντι ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν υἱόν ; καὶ γὰρ καὶ ConcLu- | SION. 295 [809] ConcLu- SION, 1 ἐξ obk ὄντων. [810] 666 Those who, holding the true doctrine, objected to enforcing say that the Son is of God. For, since the Apostle has written, that all things are of God, and it is plain that all things are made out of nothing’, and the Son also is a created being and one of the [things] made, the Son also may be said to be of God, just as all things are said to be of God. From him then the Arians learned to use hypocritically the expression ‘of God,’ and to utter the expression indeed, but not to mean aright.” Their most specious pretext, however, the Arians ‘appear to have derived from the expression “of one substance” (ὁμο- ovavos), which the Nicene fathers sanctioned ; for it was the complaint of these sophists, that they had been condemned by the Nicene fathers for refusing to admit one single word, which was nowhere to be found in Seripture, and which also admitted of dangerous meanings; though in other respects they had m nothing departed from the ancient and catholic faith. This profession of theirs was readily believed by many, not only of the laity but of the catholic bishops, who there- upon freely gave them the right hand of Christian fellowship and communion ; and even turned away from those catholic bishops, who, being aware of the treacherous conduct of the Arians, adhered closely to the expression “of one substance,” regarding them either as contentious men, given to dispute about words, who had for a slight cause disturbed the peace of the Church; or even as heterodox, who were concealing an heretical opinion under the word. But yet all, who, for whatever reason, rejected the expression “ of one substance,” were commonly classed without exception among the Arian party, even although they from the heart allowed (as the large majority of them did) the catholic meaning which the Nicene fathers intended by the expression. It was for this reason chiefly, I conceive, that Eusebius of Caesarea was by most persons taken to be an Arian ; namely, because, although he never absolutely disallowed the expression “of one sub- stance,” but rather always approved of it in the sense in ὑμεῖς μὴ φοβηθῆτε εἰπεῖν, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν υἱόν. εἰ γὰρ ὃ ἀπόστολος ἔγρα- ψε, Τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐστι δῆλον, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων πεποιῆσθαι τὰ πάν- τα, ἔστι δὲ καὶ ὃ υἱὸς κτίσμα, καὶ τῶν 7 2 , ε πεποιημένων εἷς, λεχθείη ἂν καὶ ὃ υἱὸς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὕτως ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ πάντα λέγεται ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ. ἐξ ἐκείνου γοῦν ἔμαθαν οἱ τὰ ᾿Αρείου φρονοῦντες ὑποκρί- νεσθαι τὴν λέξιν, τὴν, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ λέγειν μὲν τὴν λέξιν, μὴ φρονεῖν δὲ κα- A@s.— Oper. Athan. i. p. 887. [ὃ 17. vol. i. p. 781. ] > the expression “of one substance” were classed with Arians. 667 _ which it was used by the Nicene fathers, yet he publicly Conciv- _ opposed Eustathius and other Catholics of great reputation, ———~— who he thought employed the expression in support of Sa- bellianism. See what we observed before out of Socrates fi. 8.], in book ii. 1. 8. [p. 63.] What is to be said of the [811] fact, that the emperor Constantius himself, who was a most inveterate enemy of those who maintained the homoousion, is expressly declared by Theodoret, Eccles. Hist. 11. 3, to have been always in reality catholic. ‘‘ For although,” he says?, “« Constantius, deceived by those who influenced him, did not admit the expression ‘ of one substance,’ yet he sincerely! ac- Ἰἀκραιφνῶς. knowledged the sense of it, for he called God the Word? the 3 τὸν Θεὸν genuine Son, begotten of the Father before all worlds, and λόγον. plainly condemned those who dare to say He was a creature.” This testimony of Theodoret about Constantius receives no little confirmation from the high encomiums which are be- stéwed on the same emperor by Gregory Nazianzen in his first Invective against Julian, where, amongst other appellations, he calls him? “a most divine prince and most full of love 296 for Christ.” These commendations surely would never have been heaped on Constantius by Nazianzen, who was a man most catholic, and an avowed enemy of the Arians, if he had thought that the emperor had really imbibed the Arian heresy. To this it may be added, that the confessions of faith, which the Arians published in their councils*, under ὅ concilia- Constantius, most of them contain the same faith, as far pone as words go, which the Nicene council had sanctioned, ex- cept that they omit the expression “of one substance.” No " doubt the sophists well knew, that the pious and catholic feelings of the emperor would never have been able to en- dure their impious conceits, if they had been put forward simply and without colouring. Thus he who was the chief [812] patron of the Arian party, always from his heart abhorred the genuine tenets of Arius; and again he who was the most bitter persecutor of the Catholics, always himself re- P εἰ γὰρ καὶ rod ὁμοουσίου τὸ πρόσ- λόγον ὠνόμαζε, Kal τοὺς κτίσμα λέγ- pnua βουκοληθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγόντων εἰν τολμῶντας ἄντικρυς ἀπεκήρυττε. --- αὐτὸν ὁ Κωνστάντιος ov προσίετο, τὴν [Theod. H. E. iii. 3. p. 124.} γοῦν τούτου διάνοιαν ἀκραιφνῶς ὡμολό- 4... ᾧ θειότατε βασιλέων, καὶ φιλο- yet. γνήσιον γὰρ υἱὸν πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων χριστότατε.--». 63. [Orat. iv. 84. p. ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεγεννημένον τὸν Θεὸν 98. | ConcLvu- SION, Jud. ver. 3. [813] 668 The emperor Constantius not himself an Arian. tained a belief and opinion truly catholic. The appearance indeed of this so great a prodigy in the Christian world was produced by the fraudulent conduct of the Arians, which good men can never sufficiently detest. This fraud is in some measure exposed by Elias Cretensis in his commentary on the orations of Gregory Nazianzen in the following words"; “The emperor, drawn away by heretics, gave full license to the impious against the pious, and enacted laws against the orthodox doctrine; for when the Arians jith » craft and malignity introduced the expression equisubstan- tial,’ (for thus Elias renders the Greek word ὁμοιούσιος, ‘like in substance,’) ‘‘instead of consubstantial, the emperor himself gave in to their opinion, and wrote to the effect that equisubstantial was identical with consubstantial, and that it caused no detriment to godliness. This indeed is certainly no way alien from right doctrine, (for that which is like, is not the same as that unto which it is like, but is partly equal and partly unequal,) provided it be piously un- dérstood, that is, in such a way that together with the word © [equisubstantial,] there be also understood these words, ‘without any diversity at all.’ Hence the heretics hav- ing obtained a free opportunity reject the word consub- stantial,” &c. If, however, 1 were to set forth fully the crafty artifices which the Arians employed to propagate their heresy, this conclusion of my work would swell into another book. Therefore I make an end here: From all that we have discussed in this treatise it is clear that the Nicene Creed is “the faith which was once delivered to the saints,” and therefore, evermore, to be religiously preserved in the Catholic Church of Christ. For this faith, therefore, let’ us earnestly contend, as becomes men inflamed with zeal for God; and in it let us continue with unwavering perse- verance to the last breath of life. And this may God grant. To THE MOST HOLY AND UNDIVIDED Trinity, To GoD THE Fatuer, THE Son, AND THE Hoty Guost, BE ALL PRAISE, AND GLORY, AND HONOUR, FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN. rp. 823. APPENDIX. DR. GRABE’S NOTES. ON BOOK I. CHAPTER II. § 2. p. 36. On St. BARNABAS. 1. Tue pre-existence of the Son of God before the foundation of the world is firmly established by Dr. Bull in this chapter, by several testimonies of Barnabas and Hermas. He has, however, found an op- -ponent in a writer, who, under an assumed name, if I am not mistaken, published a treatise in London in the year 1697, in 8vo., entitled ὃ, “The faith of the primitive Christians, demonstrated out of Barna- -bas, Hermas, and Clement of Rome, in opposition to ‘The defence of the Nicene Creed, by Dr. George Bull;’ by Luke Mellier, V.D.M.” As he endeavours in this work to evade the several testimonies, which are adduced out of the afore-mentioned apostolical fathers, in this and the succeeding book, and the arguments founded on them, it will not, I trust, be unwelcome to the reader, if I examine his principal answers, and shew briefly how frivolous most of them are. 2. As respects, then, the passage first quoted above (§ 2)” out of the Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 5,in which he states that it was said to Christ our Lord “on the day before the foundation of the world, Let Us make man after Our own image and likeness,” Mellier advances . three arguments against it. 1. That Barnabas quoted these words only in a mystical sense, in respect of that new creation made through Christ in the last times. 2. That he attributed these words, not to God conversing with His Son, but to the scripture prophesying re- specting Christ. 8. Granting that Barnabas represented God Him- « [“ Fides primorum Christianorum Nicenz, Ὁ, Georgii Bulli opposita, ex Barnaba, Herma, et,Clemente Ro- Auctore Luca Melliero, V. D. M. mano demonstrata, Defensioni Fidei b [See above, p. 37, note i.] 21 [60] [61] 670 The words, Let Us make man, &c., refer to the visible Arrenvix. self as saying those words to His Son in the old creation, that yet GRABE’S Notes. [62] 1 non in- juste [οὐκ «7 ἀδίκως, LXX.] he explained them only in a prophetic sense, as referring to the future Christ, and by no means as applying to the Son then really existing and present [with God.] The first point Mellier supports out of chap. 6, where he contends that these words are explained only of the new creation, and, therefore, will have it that they are to be mys- tically understood in the preceding chapter also. But supposing this, without, however, allowing it, his conclusion by no means follows: for Barnabas may certainly have quoted the same passage in one place in a literal, and in another in a mystical sense; and that he has tone this, I gather from the fact that in chap. 5, about which the question is raised, Barnabas does not simply say that the words, “ Let us make man after our image,” &c., were spoken to the Son, but that this was done ‘‘on the day before the foundation of the world.’’ But it was the old, not the new creation, of which he was then treating. Iam therefore fully persuaded that Barnabas had the former, not the latter, in view. But though I admitted a mystical signification in this place also, yet this is founded on the literal sense ; and, therefore, Barnabas could not have expounded the text in question as applying to the Son, as it were in respect of the new creation, unless he supposed that they had been spoken by God the Father to Him at the old creation. 8. “By God the Father,” I say; for the exception which Mellier makes in his second argument, that it was not God but the Scrip- ture, which said these words to Christ, is altogether frivolous; ‘nd one may well set against him his own words, p. 5; “It is manifest that God spoke these words on the sixth day, before the completion of the world, which took place on the seventh day.” Let us, however, hear his argument; “For thus,” says he, “does [Barnabas| write before, in chap. 4, p. 16”, ‘For the Scripture saith, Woe unto them that be wise in their own con- ceits.” And in chap. 5, p. 20°, ‘It’ (meaning the same Scrip- ture) ‘says thus, He was wounded for our iniquities.’ Again ‘It’ (clearly the same Scripture) ‘ declares, Not unjustly’ are the nets spread for the birds.’ And then immediately ‘To whom [it] (meaning of course the same Scripture) ‘said before the foundation of the world,’” &c. But this is what I deny utterly; for the pre- ' ceding passages are not parallel, inasmuch as they contain declara- tions made by the prophets concerning others in the third person, (to use the grammatical term,) and not the words of one person to > Dicit enim Scriptura, Ve illis, qui propter iniquitates nostras. ... Dicit sibi solis intelligunt, cap. 4. p.16.—[p. autem, Non injuste tenduntur retia avi- 59, 60. | bus. ... Cui dixit ante constitutionem © Dicit autem sic, Vulneratus est seculi &c. cap. 5. p. 20.—[p. 60.] creation ; were spoken by God the Father to the Son. 671 ‘another in the first person; as is this of God the Father to the Son, ΟΝ Book 1. which is cited, not “ immediately,’”’ or consecutively, but after an in- “35.8.5 terval of two sentences,—‘‘ Let Us make man,” ἅς. Now that these mi oe words were said by the Scripture, to the Son, and that on the sixth day of the creation of the world, would have been, if not a most ab- surd, yet a most inexact expression; and [even] granting this,—-still that passage would altogether have to be explained from the'sixth chap- ter‘ of this same epistle, where he says ; ‘‘ For the Scripture says con- cerning us, as He” (namely God the Father) “‘ says to the Son, ‘ Let Us make man in Our own image and after Our own likeness.’”’ Mellier indeed supposes in p. 8, that the words, as λέγει τῷ υἱῷ, “As He says to the Son,” which are wanting in the old Latin translation of Barnabas, ‘‘ were introduced into the Greek text by some sciolist, and that they are clearly superfluous ; because Barnabas, after quoting other words, ‘Be fruitful and multiply,’ himself adds, ‘these words [ He spake] to the Son.’ What need then,” he asks, ‘‘ was there for his here say- ing, ‘As He says to the Son?’” But I reply, that those words also, [63] ταῦτα πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, “‘ ‘ these words [ He spake] to the Son,’ do not ap- pear in the old translation,” as he himself remarks at p. 9; and that they ought certainly to be expunged, as well on the authority of the old translation as from the case itself requiring it. For the words “‘ Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,” Moses declares, Gen. i. 28, were spoken by God to our first parents, as the plural number of itself shews. Who then would suppose that Barnabas was so ab- surd as to say that the words in question were addressed to the Son, a Person of the singular number? And indeed the expression, ‘‘these words to the Son,” (ταῦτα πρὸς τὸν vidv,) is very much like a marginal note, whereby some one wished to remind us, that Barnabas referred to the Son the words which God spoke, ‘‘ Let us make man,”’ &c., Moses not having expressly stated to whom they were spoken. Afterwards this gloss was by some ignorant scribe introduced into the text, and that in the wrong place. - But allowing that Barnabas had actually himself subjoined to the Divine blessing on our first pa- rents, which has been quoted, “ Be fruitful, and multiply,” the words, «These words [He spake] to the Son,” ταῦτα πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, yet that other clause, ὡς λέγει τῷ vid, “as He says to the Son,” placed before those other words of God, “‘ Let Us make man in Our own image,” quoted in another paragraph, would not have been at all superfluous. For St. Barnabas writing this epistle against Jews, (on whom you may ἃ χέγει yap ἣ γραφὴ περὶ ἡμῶν, ds tinues, καὶ εἶπε κύριος, ἰδὼν τὸ καλὸν λέγει τῷ υἱῷ, ποιήσομεν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα, καὶ πλάσμα, ἄνθρωπον" αὐξάνεσθε, κ-τ.λ. καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμῶν τὸν ἄνθρωπον" [kal Ταῦτα πρὸς τὸν vidy.—p._19. ] ἀρχέτωσαν, «.7.A.; the passage con- APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. [64] 672 The correct readings of the text of St. Barnabas. consult Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, p. 285¢,) declared that God the Father spoke those words to the Son. And when, after introducing a sentence of his own, he quoted another of the sayings of God in this wise, “ And the Lord beholding our form that it was good, said, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply,’”’ &c., there was no reason why he should not add the observation, that these words also, though spoken to our first parents, pertained notwithstanding to the Son. But, as I have already observed, this would have been absurd in St. Barnabas to do; and, consequently, it must be absolutely laid down, that the words, ταῦτα πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, have crept into the Greek text, from the circumstance which we have suggested, or some other. But on the contrary, the clause ὡς λέγει τῷ vid does not seem to have been added to the Greek by a sciolist, but to have been left out of the Latin, either by the translator, or an ignorant transcriber, because the repetition of the verb ‘says’ in so short a sentence, “ for scripture says of us, as He says to the Son,” seemed to hima tautology. Let it then be considered a settled point, that Barnabas was not so ab- surd as to attribute the words, ‘‘ Let Us make man in Our own image,” to the Scripture speaking to the Son, but to God the Father, (by whom Moses in his account of the primitive creation makes them to have been spoken,) although he did not make express mention of His name, leaving that to be understood by his reader as a very well-known ~ point, just as he has done in other passages. But after all, suppose, Mellier, that Barnabas in both places did write, that the ‘‘ Scripture said to the Son, ‘ Let Us make man after Our own image,’”’ yet no ~ person, unless he either be himself, or imagine Barnabas to have been, a very foolish person, would take it as meaning any thing else, than that “ Scripture records that God the Father said to the Son, ‘Let Us make,” &c. For his explanation that Scripture spake to the Son concerning the Son, is so strained as to be unworthy of re- futation; and by reason of the former clause, where it is said to have taken place the day before the completion of the world, is so absurd, that a man must be supposed to be mad, who should say that Scrip- ture proclaimed any thing concerning the Son, at a time when it was not as yet in existence. Having then dismissed this second objection, I proceed to the discussion of the third. 4. Our opponent then, allowing that Barnabas represented God as addressing the words, ‘‘ Let us make man,”’ &c., to His Son, pre- tends nevertheless that he believed that they were addressed to Christ as future, and not as then actually existing; so that the clause, . “To whom God spake,” simply denotes, ‘Whom having in His ὁ [8 62. p. 159.] The words could not have been said typicaily to Christ. 673 mind and thinking on, He said,”’ as he explains in p. 13. “For,” on Boox 1. he says in that passage, ‘“‘{Barnabas] at the end of chap. 6, asserts © ?-§ ?- that God spoke the words, ‘ Be ye fruitful and multiply, and have Banas dominion over the beasts of the field,’ to us Christians as well. But who will suppose that Christians were present and existing when God spoke these words to them?” Our opponent, however, who is accustomed on all occasions to quote the very words of St. Barnabas, has here somewhat artfully omitted them. They are the following‘; “ And He had said before, ‘Let them be fruitful, and have dominion over the fish of the sea.’’’ In these words the Apostle does not assert that God said to us Christians, “ Be fruitful, and multiply ;” but that He foretold of us that we should increase and have dominion over the creatures. And these are two very different things. But even if St. Barnabas had written, that God in blessing our first parents’ had said to us, ‘‘ Be ye fruitful and ys multiply,” yet even that would not have made any thing for the point. For our first parents were a type of us, and consequently [65] whatever God spoke to them, might well have been said to have been typically said to us. But there was no one in the primitive creation that represented Christ, to whom the Father in respect of the new creation could say in a figure, ‘‘ Let us make man,” &c. ; and therefore Barnabas believed that Christ Himself was then pre- sent with His Father, otherwise it would have been unsuitable, nay, most absurd, for him to have written, that God said to Him, ‘ Let us make man,” &c. Nor are the other passages, which Mellier, p. 14, has quoted from Barnabas, of the same kind with the passage in ‘question. For the commands which God uttered through the prophets altogether pertained, not only to those who were then present, but to others also who should come after them, and ‘‘ were written for our use,” Romans xv. 4; and therefore Barnabas might with truth say, that God had spoken them ¢o us. But every one must perceive that the case of the words, ‘“‘ Let us make man,”’ &c., is wholly dif- ferent. I pass over the other examples, which are adduced before and after by Mellier, for the sake of brevity; for they either make little or nothing for his purpose, or are undeserving of a reply. 5. I proceed, therefore, to vindicate from the charge of corruption ‘the following passage of Barnabas, which is cited by Dr. Bull8, in which he states that the Sun is “‘ the work of His hands,” (ἔργον χειρῶν adrod,) that is of the Son’s, of whom he is there speaking. Mel- lier, p. 18, objects, that the old Latin translator rendered the words ξ προείρηκε δὲ ἐπάνω, ὅτι αὐξανέσθω- s [See the passage cited above, p. σαν καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν τῶν ἰχθύων.---ἰ». 87. note k.] 20.] BULL. x x APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. 1 mentcm. [66] 2 insulsum foret. 24 8 extra carnem. 674 The Son “ the work of His hands ;’ Reading genuine; opus manus Dei, (‘‘ the work of God’s hand,”’) and that accordingly he had read in the Greek χειρὸς Θεοῦ. But, 1. supposing that the old [Latin] translator had read it thus, still it does not follow that St. Barnabas wrote so; since it is clear, from many passages, that he used a corrupt and defective copy, or that his own work is shame- fully corrupted and mutilated. Why then may not this have also happened in the place before us? Nay indeed, 2. Mellier himself admits that the Latin version in this place is mutilated. Why then does he not rather correct and restore to integrity his own most cor- rupted opinion!, and the imperfect Latin version at the ‘same time, from the perfect text of the [original ]Greek. Moreover, that the Latin version, ‘‘ the work of God’s hand,” (opus manus Dei,) is corrupted, rather than the Greek text, [‘‘ the work of His hands’’], I prove from the circumstance, that ‘‘ the work of God’s hands”’ is frequently found in Holy Scripture, whereas “‘ the work of God's hand,” in the singular number, scarcely occurs there: and that in the place of manuum eus, (the syllable us being either written over the word in an abbre- viated form, or erased,) manus Dei might have been read more easily and afterwards written, than χειρῶν αὐτοῦ made out of χειρὸς θεοῦ. But, 3. and lastly, supposing for argument’s sake, without how- ever allowing, that Barnabas wrote θεοῦ not αὐτοῦ, still even thus a very strong argument for the Divinity of Christ might be formed . out of his words. For in that case his reasoning would be as fol- lows: If men have not power to gaze on the light of the sun with their eyes, though it be but the work of God’s hands, or ἃ. creature, much less would they have been able to endure the sight of Christ, if He had not come in the flesh. But this argument would have been without any pointe, if Christ, just as the sun, had been the work of God’s hands, or a creature. Not as a creature then, but as the Creator, did St. Barnabas regard Christ, apart from the flesh®. And perhaps our opponent saw this, and on that account in the pre- ceding words of this passage he substitutes βλέποντες Θεὸν (seeing God) for βλέποντες αὐτὸν (seeing Him [Christ]), and insists, page 19, that it is God the Father who is here to be understood, and that not only without any reason or authority, (for the Latin version does not help him in this place, being mutilated, and having nothing answering to these words, ) but even contrary to all reason and to St. Barnabas’ own meaning. For in those words, “ How could men be healed when they looked on Him?” he manifestly intimates, that it is of seeing the Son, not the Father, that he is there speaking, and specially has in view the figure of the brazen serpent, which he had explained more fully in chap. 12, expressly calling it ‘‘a type of the Saviour,” (τύπον rod Ἰησοῦ) ; inasmuch as, ‘although it was ilustrated by other passages. | 675 itself without life,’ as Christ became upon the cross, yet ‘‘ could it on soox 1. heal others,’ and ‘‘ he would immediately be healed” (kai παραχρῆμα mae. σωθήσεται), i.e. whosoever looked upon it: just as here “ How could aa men have been healed who looked upon Him?’ (Πῶς ἂν ἐσώθη- σαν ἄνθρωποι, οἱ βλέποντες ad’rév;). Mellier therefore was wrong in changing the last word of this sentence into Θεὸν, and the charge of corrupting the words of St. Barnabas, which he has, page 20, in- considerately brought against the othodox, recoils upon his own head. I might have shewn at greater length the absurdity of the reading and of the interpretation which Mellier brought forward in that place, but I refrain for brevity’s sake; and on that account with respect to another passage of St. Barnabas, chap. 12, viz.: “all things are in Him and unte Him,” that is Christ, (ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν), I answer in three words only, that the exposition of it brought forward by our opponent in page 22 is altogether forced; viz. ‘‘ That all types and prophecies of this sort were fulfilled in Him, and unto Him and for His sake were instituted.” In confirmation of this view he has not adduced a single passage either of Barnabas or of any other sacred writer; I, however, in explanation of Barnabas’ text touching “the creation and preservation of all things by and unto Him,” [67] allege the words of St. Paul, which are completely parallel, Coloss. i. 16: ‘By’ Him were all things created ;’’ and again, ‘ All things 1 ἐν. were created by Him and for® Him:” and in verse 17, ‘‘ By® Him all? εἰς. things consist.” Thus splendid and full “have you the glory of ὃ ἐν: Jesus,” which the insidious Socinian impiously obscured and re- strained within more narrow limits than it behoved. ON SECTION 6. Or St. HerMaAs. Wirtu a view to pervert the passage of Hermas, wherein he says that “the Son of God is more ancient than every creature',” Mellier, after the example of Zwicker, adduces other words of the-same writer in book i. vision 2; where he says of the Church, that “she was created first of allj;” that is, according to his own explanation, ‘‘ she ' was at the first decreed and predestined by God:” in which sense he conceives that Christ also is said to be “more ancient than every h (Referring to the words of St. Et dixit mihi: ‘ecclesia Dei est.’ Barnabas, c. 12. p. 40. ἔχεις καὶ ἐν Et dixi ad illum: ‘quare ergo anus τούτῳ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ.] est?” ‘Quoniam,’ inquit, ‘ omnium i [See the passage quoted above, p. prima creata est, ideo anus; et propter 46, note o.] illam mundus factus est,’ ὃ 4. p. 78.] ὁ [The passage referred to is this: xx2 676 Christ said.to be earlier than the world; not figuratively. APPENDIX. creature.” But whatever be determined respecting this passage, it is _GRABE’S Nores, 1 species. [68] (124) 44 certain, that in our author we are to understand not a Son of God predestinated, but already actually existing, for Hermas adds that ** He was present in council with His Father, to frame the creation.” ‘Was He, however, present as a Counsellor with God the Father in the creation of the world, who as yet was not, nor existing in re- rum natura? Absurd! And what Mellier, page 31, imagines, is altogether removed from the meaning of Hermas, and forced, that the Son is therefore said to. have been present in council with the Father for the creation of the world, ‘‘ because the Father, af the time when He set Himself to create all things, had His future Son in His mind and all-wise counsel.’’ But the genuine meaning of those words of Hermas respecting the Church, that ‘she was created first of all, and is therefore an aged woman; and for her sake the world was made,” seems to me to be suggested by a passage quite parallel in book i. § 28, of the Recognitions of the pseudo- Clement; ‘But after all these,” (the works of the five days,) ‘‘ He made man, for whose sake He had prepared all things: whose inner nature’’’ (i. 6. his soul or spirit) “is more ancient, and on whose account all things which are were made.’ Here, as Co- telerius has rightly remarked, he suggests the pre-existence of souls before the formation of the body. And Hermas also seems to have believed this, and on that account to have said that the Church, as being a congregation and communion, not so much of bodies, as of faithful souls, is more ancient than every creature. But this is — enough about this writer at present. ON BOOK II. CHAP. 2. § 1. Or Sr. BaRNABAS, AS A WITNESS OF CuRist’s Divinity. 1. Luxe Metuter, whom we have before referred to in these notes, with the view of destroying the force of the argument derived by Dr. Bull from St. Barnabas’ epistle, chap. vi.}, in defence of the Divi- nity of Christ, contends, in page 22, &c., that by “ the Lord,’”’ whose holy temple the habitation of our heart is there said to be, we are to understand, not Christ, but God the Father, and accordingly he quotes the preceding words of the epistle, to this effect™ ; ‘‘ The Lord saith, * [Post hac autem omnia, hominem facta sunt.—p. 499.] fecit, propter quem cuncta preparave- 1 [The passage is cited above p. rat; cujus interna species est antiquior, 86, note 1.7 et ob cujus causam omnia que sunt, [λέγει Κύριος" ἰδοὺ ποιήσω τὰ ‘The Lord,’ in St. Barnabas, cited by Bull, is the Son. 677 ‘Behold I make the last as the first.’ With a view to this, therefore, ΟΝ BOOK II. the prophet proclaimed, ‘ Enter ye into the land, which floweth with beso wee milk and honey, and have dominion over it.’ Behold, then, we are Baan formed anew, as He saith again in another prophet: ‘ Behold, saith the Lord, I will take from them (that is, from them whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw,) hearts of stone, and I will put into them hearts of flesh,’ because He was about to be manifested in the flesh, and to dwell in us.” In these words Mellier all along understands God the Father under the title of the Lord, and ac- cordingly in what immediately follows also, ‘for the habitation of our heart is a temple to the Lord,’ explains the word Lord of God the father. This interpretation however is absurd in both cases. For the very connexion of the text and the particle γὰρ will suggest to any unprejudiced reader, at the very first sight, that the habitation (κατοικητήριον) of our heart is said to be the temple of the same per- son, who before, without one intervening word, was declared to be about to dwell in us, (ἔμελλεν ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικεῖν.) But that this is Christ manifest in the flesh is most clear, and is not denied by our oppo- nent. Hence, to make the text, when explained in his sense, cohe- rent, he inserted between the clause, ‘about to dwell in us,’ and the words next following, ‘a holy temple for the Lord,’ &c., these words by way of paraphrase; ‘‘ And by that appearing of His in the flesh, and by His indwelling in us, about to make out of us a temple and sanctuary for God the Father.” But for one to dwell any where himself, and to prepare a dwelling for another, are altogether different things, which Mellier in his paraphrase wrongly confounds; and, whereas Barnabas is only speaking of the former, Mellier, of his own devising, puts the latter in addition, nay in actual opposition to the former. By using such license as this, any context whatever, which treats of one and the same person, may be rent asunder and divided between two. 2. But that by the “ Lord,” whose oracles, uttered through the prophets cited in the preceding passage, Barnabas understood the Son of God, not God the Father, is evident from these words: «« Because He was about to be manifested in the flesh, and to dwell in us.” Who was this? Surely He of whom the words immediately ' preceding treat. And our opponent clearly seeing this, again by a rash stroke added of himself in this place the word Christ, so that, [126] ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ πρῶτα. εἰς τοῦτο οὖν λέγει" ἰδοὺ, λέγει Κύριος, ἐξελῶ τούτων, ἐκήρυξεν 6 προφήτης" εἰσέλθετε εἰς γῆν ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι, καὶ κατακυριεύ- σατε αὐτῆς. ἰδοὺ οὖν ἡμεῖς ἀναπεπλάσ- μεθα, καθὼς πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ προφήτῃ τουτέστιν ὧν προέβλεπε τὸ πνεῦμα Κυ- ρίου, τὰς λιθίνας καρδίας, καὶ βαλῶ σαρ- κίνας αὐτοῖς" ὅτι ἔμελλεν ἐν σαρκὶ φα- νεροῦσθαι, καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικεῖν. p. 19.] APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. 45 [126] 1 nobis. 2 figuram. Lat. δευ- τέραν πλά- σιν. 678 Other arguments that by the Lord, whose temple our according to his hypothesis, there would seem to have been πὸ mention made of Christ in the preceding words. As if indeed πο penalty awaited those who thus add to, and thus corrupt the sense — of holy men. The same thing is clear, 2, from what follows: the Greek is this, Λέγει yap πάλιν Κύριος, καὶ ἐν τίνι ὀφθήσομαι τῷ Κυρίῳ, τῷ Θεῷ μου καὶ δοξασθήσομαι : λέγει, ᾿Εξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν μέσῳ ἀδελφῶν pov. “ΕῸΓ the Lord saith again, Wherewithal shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified. He saith, I will confess unto Thee in the congregation in the midst of my brethren.” But, inasmuch as the Lord, who here speaks, is "most — certainly the Son of God, the same must also necessarily be under- stood in the passages of the prophets cited before. Mellier objects — indeed that the word “the Lord” is here wanting in the Latin, and ~ thence he infers that Κύριος did not occur in the old Greek copy of Barnabas. But supposing, without however conceding, that the © Greek text of Barnabas is to be mutilated in this passage on the authority of the Latin version, instead of this latter being filled up — from the former, the word “again”’ (πάλιν), clearly proves that the — selfsame person, viz., the Son of God, ought to be regarded as speaking in the earlier texts, who here speaks through the prophet ; | and our opponent is not to be listened to, when he pretends that they were spoken by the Spirit of God the Father, having assumed the 4 person of the future Christ. 3. However, although this be clear enough, let us, notwithstand- ing, see by what arguments our opponent was induced to under- — stand God the Father under the designation of ‘the Lord” through- out the whole of the fore-cited passage of St. Barnabas. His first argument is, because God the Father is introduced in what goes before as blessing man, in these words; “‘ Be ye fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth;’’ therefore the following must also be understood of Him; ‘Thus saith the Lord, ‘ Behold I make the last as the first,’”’ &c. But between these passages there inter- vene other words of St. Barnabas, in which he professes that he is about to treat of a new subject. ‘‘ Again,” he says, “1 will shew thee how with respect to us! He hath in these last times made a second or new creation’. The Lord saith, Behold I make the first,” &c. He does not here say “the same Lord saith,” or “the Lord saith, again,” as we just now observed him afterwards express- ing himself; but simply “ἴῃς Lord saith.” Wherefore there is no necessity for understanding it in this place also, of the same person who spoke in the former passages, especially when, as we have just — shewn, the words which follow do not admit such a construction. Mellier seems to insinuate a second argument in explaining those _ hearts are, Christ, not God the Father, is strictly meant. 679 words, ‘‘ Behold, saith the Lord, I will take from them (that is, ΟΝ BooK 1. from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw,” &c.;) where he Seas adds, ‘‘ the Spirit of God the Father foresaw them; but not the Son a of God, who as yet had no existence, and therefore could not then foresee any thing.”’ But this is begging the question most grossly, and is besides confuted not only by Barnabas himself, but by the Apostle St. Peter; by the latter in his first Epistle, i. 11, in these words respecting the company of the prophets, ‘they prophesied, searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow;” and by the former in chapter v. of his Epistle, writing thus"; ‘“‘ The prophets receiving their gift from Him, prophesied of Him’.” [I shall have more to’ inillum. say of these words by and by. 4. A third argument is derived from parallel passages, where Barnabas called the faithful the temple of God, not of Christ. For instance, he says, in chap. iv., ‘‘ Let us be spiritual, let us be a finished temple unto God;” compare chap. 16. But these statements agree very well, because.God the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Ghost, abide in the same dwelling; as our Saviour Himself in- structs us, John xiv. 23, “If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and will make Our abode with him.” And St. Paul, as in his Epistle to the Corinthians he calls them the temple of God, so Eph. iii. 17, he [127] writes, “ that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” But our opponent, page 24, objects, ‘‘that Christ dwells in us indeed by faith, but that we are never called His temple; as also the priest is said to dwell in the temple, but yet the temple is not called the priest’s, but God’s;” but this objection is simply out of place and false. For one may often hear priests call the temple wherein they officiate, theirs, but scarcely ever is it said of them, that they dwell in the temple, since temples are the dwelling-places of God, and not of the priests. But whatever be the case with regard to external tem- ples, it is certain that the hearts of the faithful are the temples of Him who dwelleth in them. For the Apostle, 2 Cor. vi. 16, proves that the Corinthians are the temples of the living God, from this, that God said, (Levit. xxvi. 12,) “1 will dwell in them, and will walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Compare the words of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians, which have been quoted in this chapter, § 6°, where, if I mistake not, with an eye to this very passage of the Apostle, he expressly wrote not only " Prophet, ab ipso habentes do- 60.] num, in illum prophetaverunt,—[p. ° [Quoted above, p. 95, note ο.} APPENDIX. GRABE’S Nores. } in ipsum. [128] 46 * Christi causa. 3 ex ob- jecto. 680 Mellier’s attempts to evade the force of St. Barnabas’ that Christ dwells in us, but that we are His temples, and He is our God. 5. And now, passing by any discussion about the words of Bar- nabas, chap. xi., concerning ‘the body of Christ,” as the “vessel of the Spirit,” by which Mellier understands the human Spirit of our Saviour, and Dr. Bull, not without very probable reason, His Divine Nature, (although he did not frame a distinct argument for his proposition out of that place, but only cited it by the way to explain Hermas ;) passing by this discussion, I repeat, as not necessary, I proceed to vindicate from Mellier’s depraving process, another statement of Barnabas respecting the prophets, which I quoted just now in § 3, and which is of especial use in proving the divinity of Christ.. For he conjectures that these words in the Latin, ‘“‘ the prophets hav- ing a gift from Him prophesied about Him',” were derived from Greek words to this effect, of προφῆται ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες τὴν χάριν, which the translator ought therefore to have turned thus; ‘‘ the prophets having their gift for Him, (or for His sake,) prophesied about Him.” But how does he prove his conjecture? ‘We read,” he says, ‘‘in the same old translation, chap. 7. ‘ Because He must suffer from them’ (αὖ illis), where in the Greek it is ‘ because He must suffer for them’ (ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν). But he must be blinder than a mole, who does not see at once that the old translator there read ix αὐτῶν, and therefore in this place also had ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ in the original Greek. And it seems that Irenzeus also read thus in Barnabas, and copied from him what he has in Ὁ. iv. c. 37. p. 331. col. i. line 33. of my edition? : “‘ The prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same Word, proclaimed beforehand His coming after the flesh.”” Compare chap. xvi. of the same book p. 303, col. 1. line 94, and the note num. 2. on the same passage. ‘‘ But,’’ continues Mellier, “let us even grant, that the ancient translator here read ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες τὴν χάριν, and was therefore right in rendering it ab ipso habentes donum, ‘re- ceiving their gift from Him,’ yet we have a good answer already provided by Grotius, who says on 1 Peter i. 11: ‘The Spirit that signified before the things of Christ, and which was given to them on account of Christ?, he calls from the object* the Spirit of Christ. Thus Barnabas in the end of his epistle, Prophete ab ipso habentes donum, ‘the prophets, receiving their gift from Him, prophesied _ about Him,’ &c.’? According to Grotius, therefore, the phrase Pro- phete ab ipso habentes donum, (having their gift from Him,) is in ° [See p. 679, Κι The Greck of caverunt ejus secundum carnem ad- this part of the epistle is lost. ] ventum.—c. 20, 4. p. 254. ] P [Prophete ab eodem Verbo pro- 4 [c. 7. 2. p. 285. ] pheticum accipientes charisma, predi- words, against the laws of language. — 681 meaning no other than Prophete ipsius causa habentes donum, (having on Boox τι. their gift on His account). And rightly; for the Son of God, I mean “* 3 4 δι. Him who was to be the Son of God’, the Son, I repeat, of God, the BA®¥4- ; ; : ΒΑΒ. man Christ Jesus, although He Himself as yet existed not, sent: pins ii and impelled those prophets; and they may be said to have had futurus. the Spirit from Him, who was the cause of their having it; and which they would not have had, were it not that He was to come into the world.” But, I insist, if these words may be used in this sense, any thing may be said instead of any thing. Our adversary ought to have produced, if not out of Barnabas, at least out of other authors, sacred or profane, some examples in proof of this unusual mode of expression; and no doubt he would have produced such if he could. But no man who wished to express that a thing has been given or received pro altero, for the sake of another, because of another, ever yet wrote that it had been given or received ab al- tero, from another: nor did any one, I suppose, ever yet so play with words as to say, as Mellier has done, that a person not as yet having a real existence sends or impels other persons to the discharge of any office. As to Grotius, it is certain that he has done violence to the words of St. Peter, and introduced a meaning which does not belong to them; whether he has on Barnabas’ also is not so clear; since [129] he seems to have deduced the presignification of the things of Christ from the latter clause, ‘‘they prophesied of Him,” rather than from the former, “receiving their gift from Him.” But whatever be our view of the meaning of Grotius, I set against him the judgment not of Irenzeus only, but of every one who reads the text of Bar- nabas without prejudice, under the firm persuasion that no one, Gentile or Jew, if [only] a believer, would take the words of Bar- nabas in any other sense, than that in which we, according to the ordinary mode of speaking, take them. 6. Lastly, the words of Barnabas", chap. 12, are worthy of notice : “ Behold again Jesus, not the Son of Nun, (or rather ‘Son of Man,’ in the Greek vids ἀνθρώπου,) but the Son of God, appeared in the flesh.”? He existed, therefore, as the Son of God, before He was manifested in the flesh; in the Greek, ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς. From the evident agreement of these words with St. Paul’s expressions, 1 Tim. Hii. 16, Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, “God was manifest in the flesh,” it is very probable that Barnabas had them in view. ‘Barnabas, how- ever, goes on to say, “ Since then they will hereafter say that Christ is the Son of David, David dreading and perceiving the error of the r [The Greek is ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς, few lines before), ἀλλ᾽ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ’ οὐχ ὃ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου (filius Nave in the τύπῳ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς.---Ὁ. 41. | old Latin version, which words occur ἃ APPENDIX. GRABE’S Nortss. [130] 47 1 δξ, 682 Bp. Bull's citations from Hermes vindicated ; wicked, says again, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord’,’” ἄς. By which saying of David our Saviour had Himself already insinuated the Divinity of His own Person to the Jews, Matth. xxiii. 43 seqq. Barnabas moreover adds some other words from Isaiah, and thus concludes; “See how the prophets call Him Lord and Son of God*,”’, (that is, according to the Greek, καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ,) ‘ not Son merely.” ON SECTION 2. Or St. Hermas. 1, In opposition to the title ‘‘ Counsellor of God,”’ which our re- verend author applies to the Son of God", after the doctrine of the Shepherd, in Similitude ix., Mellier, in page 32, inaptly alleges the authority of St. Paul, who denies, Rom. xi. 34, that any one has been a counsellor to God; since it is only of a mere man or of any creature that the Apostle denies this, not of the Son of God, amongst whose titles this particular one is mentioned, in Isaiah ix. 6. that He is ‘Counsellor, [the mighty] God.” His next exception, in page 33, to these words of the Shepherd, ‘‘The name of the Son of God is great and immense*,”’ to the effect that such things as are great and wonderful are often called immense, is not sufficient; because we are compelled to understand those words of the Divine immensity by what immediately follows, “And the whole world is sustained by Him ;’”’ and again, “Every creature of God is sustained by His Son.” Most justly, therefore, is this called by our author “a truly ” and on the contrary his opponent absurdly teaches that Christ, a mere man, even while He was in the flesh, sustained all things by the word of His power. Holy Scripture, indeed, is so far from asserting this, that it rather represents to us Christ subject, as man, to infirmities in the flesh, and strengthened at the time of His passion by a created angel, and lastly crucified ‘‘ through! weak- ness.” 2 Cor. xii. 4. 2. As to the passage of Hermas in Book iii. Similitude v.¥, I shall Divine work; 5. [ἐπεὶ οὖν μέλλουσι λέγειν ὅτι 6 Χρισ- τὺς υἱός ἐστι Δαβὶδ, φοβούμενος καὶ συ- νίων τὴν πλανὴν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν λέγει" εἶπεν 6 Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου, k.T.A.— Ibid. ] « * [The words of St. Barnabas are: ἴδε, πῶς λέγει Δαβὶδ αὐτὸν κύριον καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ (p. 41.) Grabe follows the old Latin version, “ Videte quomodo illum prophete Dominum et Filium Dei, non tantum Filium dicunt.”—p, 46. ] [See above p. 87, and p. 46, note o. ] { Quoted p. 87, note ].} {§ 6. p. 107, quoted p. 87, note his arguments confirmed by other passages. 683 not press those words, wherein the Son of God is said ‘‘ to be placed, oN Boox 11, not in the condition of a servant, but in great power and command ;”’ pind ead ood nor shall I keenly contend with our opponent about the sense of HE®™4*- the words in ὃ 5, ‘‘ Now the Son is a holy Spirit,” in which the most ; learned Bull, understanding the word “Son”’ of the second Person of the Trinity, determines that of Him it is predicated, that He is “a holy Spirit!,”’ i.e., God, who is a Spirit, and likewise most holy. } Sanctus Mellier, on the contrary, in page 42, thus explains the expression: rhe πω ** He who is called in the parable or similitude Son, even the Son of ΕΞ the Lord of the farm, is in reality nothing else than the Holy Spirit, that is, the breath or power of God the Father.’ Indeed the opinion of our reverend author seems to be confirmed, and the exposition of his opponent overthrown, not only by the fact that this Person is designated “the Son of God,” (which our opponent himself allows to be ‘‘ spoken very improperly, and by a misapplication of terms’, of ?catachres- the Holy Ghost,”) but also because it is added, ‘‘ whom He also had — as His heir and beloved;” and that the man Christ Jesus “‘ was made co-heir with Him?,” which are scarcely, indeed not at all, suitable to be said of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person [of the Trinity,] or, to use our opponent’s phrase, to the power of God the Father; but do most suitably apply to the Word or Second Person. In the next place, the forementioned* Son is in this parable represented as being ὃ iste. taken into counsel by God*. But in Similitude ix. 12°. the Shepherd teaches the same respecting the Word, as follows; ‘‘The Son of [131] God, indeed, is more ancient than any creature, so that He was pre- sent in counsel with His Father for the creation of the world.” For that Jesus Christ is to be understood here, is not only most plainly shewn by what follows in the same place, but is freely allowed by Mellier, p. 28, as by Zwicker, who is forced to submit on this point. To this must be added, that in the same Similitude ix. 1, it is said of that Spirit, which spoke to Hermas®, “The Son of God is that Spirit ;” in which place also our opponent, page 42, understands Christ to be meant, although he very wrongly takes Him to be a mere man, and thinks that He is honoured with the appellation “Spirit” in this passage from the circumstance that He “ was made a quickening Spirit,” according to 1 Cor. xv. 45. These arguments, I repeat, and other such, I might urge in defence of the opinion of our excellent author. z [Adhibito itaque filio, quem cha- b [p. 118, quoted above, i, 2. 5. p. rum et heredem habuit, ὃ 2. p. 106. 46, note 0. | ᾿ς Volo eum filio meo facere coheredem. ¢ [Ille enim Spiritus Filius Dei est. Ibid. | δ 1. p. 114.) @ [8 6. p. 107.) APPENDIX. GRABE’S Nores. 1 §uoov- σιον. [132] 3 ἀνθρωτπί- vOS. 684: Additional testimonies out of St. Ignatius. 3. But, passing by this discussion, let it be assumed, that the Son, who is called Holy Spirit in Similitude v., is not the Word, or the second Person of the Holy Trinity, still I conceive that no slight argument for His Divinity may be derived from other words of that passage. For in ὃ 6.4 the Shepherd says of that Holy Spirit, that | “Ἧς was first of all infused into the body (of Christ) in which God would dwell.” Where, since the infusion of the Holy Spirit is ex- pressly distinguished from the in-dwelling of God, and the one is put first as preparatory to the other, it is taught clearly enough, that not only the Holy Spirit, or the power of the Most High, sanctified*the | body of Christ, but that another Person also dwelt within Him, whom the Shepherd calls by the name of God, even the Son of God, as our adversaries must themselves allow; since they, as well as we, deny that God the Father was personally united to the human nature of Christ ; and they cannot say that He was in Christ merely through the Spirit, or, in other words, through the power of the Godhead, consistently with the words of Hermas; seeing that he makes this distinct from the in-dwelling of God. There are, indeed, several points which call for animadversion in Mellier’s long discussion re- specting the meaning of Hermas, especially those parts, in which he ineffectually contends against the subsistence of the Holy Ghost distinct from God the Father, which is frequently intimated by the Shepherd ; since however our present object is only to maintain the consubstantiality! of the second Person, we will not digress to other matters. ON BOOK II. CHAP. 2. § 6. Or Sr. Ianattivs. To the testimonies which were alleged out of St. Ignatius, in support of the Divinity of Christ, in § 6. of this chapter, the follow- ing may be added; in his Epistle to the Ephesians, § 18°, “For our God, Jesus Christ, was borne in the womb by Mary according to the dispensation of God.” A passage which you may find quoted word for word in the first dialogue of Theodoret. In the same epistle, § 19f; “God being manifested after the manner of man? [i. 6. in 4 [p. 107, quoted above, p. 90. @cod.—[p. 15.] note {.7 ἢ Θεοῦ ἀνθρωπίνως φανερουμένου εἰς ε ὃ γὰρ Θεὺς ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς 6 Χριστὸς. καινότητα ἀϊδίον ξωῇ5.---ἰἶ ». 16. ] ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν eee ee Oe Passages in δέ. Clement like St. Paul’s to the Romans. 685 human flesh] unto the renewal of eternal life.” Again, in § 20%; on Book. “Tn Jesus Christ, who is of the family of David according to the SEE flesh, the Son of Man, and Son of God.” In the inscription of the laneyinee epistle to the Romans", Jesus Christ is twice called ‘‘ our God,” and in the epistle itself, p. 141, these words occur; ‘‘ For our God, Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is the more manifested.” Although I must confess that this passage is not recognised either by the translator or the interpolator *. Lastly, at the end of his epistle to Polycarp!: “I pray that you may always be strong in our God Jesus Christ.” Compare my notes in the following chapter, (chap. 3,) on Clement of Rome, ὃ 2. [168] 60 ON CHAP. III. § 3. ὅσο. &e. Or St. Chement or Rome. 1. In reply to Zwicker, who rashly put out the statement, that Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, scarcely acknowledged any other than the human nature in Christ™, our very learned author, in § 8. of this chapter alleges against him the fact, that St. Clement, in § 32, in describing those great gifts, ra μεγαλεῖα τῶν δωρεῶν, which were granted by Godto the family of Abraham because of his faith, writes thus; “From him [came] our Lord Jesus according to the flesh!;” “where” as he well observes, by ! ἐξ αὐτοῦ the limitation, ‘‘ according to the flesh,’ is manifestly intimated : ee > that there was another nature in Christ besides the human, or the κατὰ odp- flesh, which He derived from the loins of Abraham. And this ob- ** servation, I think, derives no slight confirmation from the fact, that Clement being bishop of Rome, and writing his epistle to the Corinthians in the name of that Church, seems to have derived, nay, copied, the limitation in question, from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans ix. 5, “ Of whom, Christ [came] according to the flesh ;” (Ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.) Now, as in this passage there is im- Πατρὶ dv μᾶλλον oalverou.—[p. 14. of the Spicilegium; § 3. p. 27. ed. Co- tel. Πρ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ γένους Δαβὶδ, τῷ υἱῷ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ υἱῷ Θεοῦ.---[1014.] h [κατὰ ἀγάπην Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν. ... ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν.---». 25. Dr. Grabe refers to his own Spicilegium Patrum, vol. i. szec. ii. p. 13.] i ὃ γὰρ Θεὺς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν k’fi.e. it is not contained either in the old Latin version, or the interpo- lated copies. ] 1 ἐῤῥῶσθαι ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς ἐν Θεῷ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ εὔχομαι.---ἰ ». 42. ] m [Quoted above, p. 106.] 686 Passage from St. Clement omitted by Bp. Bull, in which Appenpix. mediately added a mention of His Divine Nature, as if to account for GRABE’S NorTes. [169] the foregoing limitation, in these words, ‘‘ Who is over all, God blessed for ever,” (Ὁ dy ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.) so I doubt not that Clement too, in using St. Paul’s limitation, also had in his mind the words [ of the Apostle] which follow, respecting the Godhead of Christ. For Clement borrowed, or at any rate imitated, other expressions also out of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. I quote a single verse as an instance, (the last verse of the first chapter,) which is thus cited in Clement’s epistle, § 35”: τ For they who do these things are hated of God; and not only they who do them, but they likewise who take pleasure in them.”’ And from this, I may observe in passing, the question respecting the various readings of this passage of the Apostle, is decided; for St. Clement, - no doubt, had in his hands the very autograph of Paul’s Epistle®, which was still preserved in the Roman Church in the time of Ter- tullian, and copied his words from it. 2. But what if a passage be found in the epistle of St. Clement now quoted, in which Christ is expressly called God. It may in- deed seem incredible ; not only because Photius, cod. 126?, observes that ‘“‘[Clement], in calling our Lord Jesus Christ, High-Priest and Defender, does not employ concerning Him those expressions which are of a higher character and suitable to God;”’ but also be- cause no theologian, so far as I know, has hitherto alleged any such passage against the opponents of the Divinity of Christ. Such a passage, however, there is in § 2. of this epistle, though perhaps — not obvious at first sight, in which the Corinthians are graced by such an eulogium as this; ‘‘ Being satisfied with the portion God had given to you, and giving good heed to His words, ye were em- braced in His bosom, and His sufferings were [present| before your eyes4,.”” Observe the expression “‘ His sufferings,” παθήματα αὐτοῦ" i.e., clearly His of whom mention was made in the clauses immedi- ately preceding, even God, rod Θεοῦ", who can be none other than Jesus Christ, the Son of God: for to God the Father sufferings can in no wise be ascribed. Nor ought this mode of expression to be " ταῦτα γὰρ of πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ τῷ Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν οὐ μόνον δὲ οἱ πράσσοντες αὐτὰ, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ συνευδο- κοῦντες αὐτοῖς.---ἰ Ὁ. 168. ] 9 [Grabe refers here to the words of Tertullian, which occur in the treatise De Prescript. Heret. 36. p. 215, where he is speaking of the authentice apo- stolorum litere, ‘‘the originals of the Apostles’ epistles.” But the learned writer is mistaken.—B. Dr. Burton did not think, as Grabe did, that by authentice litere the originals were meant. | P [See the Greek above, p. 105, note m. | 4 τοῖς épodlois τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀρκούμενοι, καὶ προσέχοντες τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ ἐπι- μελῶς, ἐστερνισμένοι ἦτε τοῖς σπλάγ- χνοις, καὶ τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ ἦν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν.---ἰ ». 148.] τ [ Cotelerius had remarked this be- fore Grabe, according to Bowyer.—B. ] Christ is expressly called God. Parallel passages. 687 thought inconsistent with the apostolic faith, or the age of Clement. ον βοοκ 1. For as St. Paul in his discourse at Ephesus, Acts xx. 28, attri- 95- 2: ὃ ὅ. butes to God “ His own blood,” ἴδιον αἶμα, and after him Ignatius, Cum. R. near the commencement of his epistle to those same Ephesians, speaks of them as “‘ being followers of God, having re-kindled [you] by the blood of God’,” so also, in his epistle to the Romans, the latter thus writes‘; ‘‘ Permit me to be a follower of the suffering of my God;” ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ pov, as the ancient commonly received Latin version also reads, and translates. ** Sinite me imitatorem esse passionis Dei mei.’’ Of Tatian, and some other fathers more recent than Clement, who used the same expres- 61 sion, I say nothing in this place. 3. I do not forget the conjecture of Patricius Junius, in a note on this passage, that instead of παθήματα we should perhaps read μαθή- para. But this conjecture is deservedly thrown aside, as it tampers _ with the text unnecessarily, and without the authority of any MS.; and also because in another passage of this very epistle of Clement, “the sufferings of Christ” are said to be “placed,” or ought to be placed “‘ before the eyes of the faithful.”” Thus in § 7. he says"; ‘« Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious His blood is in the sight of God; which being shed for our salvation has offered the grace of repentance to all the world.’ Similarly in § 21, he says*; “Let us reverence our Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us.” And in that place, without one word intervening, St. Clement goes on to this effect; ‘‘ Let us respect those who are set over us; let us honour our elders; the young let us school in the discipline of the fear of God; our wives let us guide aright to that which is good; let them exhibit the amiable character of chastity,’ &c. I have quoted these words here, to shew the reader how exactly they correspond to what occurs four or five lines before the passage respecting the sufferings of God, παθήματα Θεοῦ, set forth before the eyes of the Corinthians ; which are as follows’; “ Being [170] subject to those who have the rule over you, and giving becoming 5. μιμηταὶ ὄντες Θεοῦ, avalwruphoay- τες ἐν αἵματι Θεοῦ.---ἰ 8 1. p. 12.] τ [8 6. p. 29.] ἃ ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς Td αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἴδωμεν ὡς ἔστι τίμιον τῷ Θεῷ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ, τι διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκχυθὲν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ μετανοίας χάριν ὑπήνεγκεν.--- ὃ 7. p. 152.] is * τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, οὗ τὸ αἷμα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη, ἐντραπῶμεν. τοὺς προηγουμένους ἡμῶν αἰδέσθωμεν, τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους ἡμῶν τιμήσωμεν, τοὺς νέους παιδεύσωμεν τὴν παιδείαν τοῦ φόβου τοῦ Θεοῦ" τὰς γυναῖκας ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν διορθωσώμεθα, τὰ ἀξια- γάπητον τῆς ἁγνείας ἦθος ἐνδειξάσθω- σαν, K.7.A.—§ 21. [pp. 160, 161.} Υ ὑποτασσόμενοι τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν, καὶ τιμὴν τὴν καθήκουσαν ἀπονέμοντες τοῖς παρ᾽ ὑμῖν πρεσβυτέροις, νέοις τε μέτρια καὶ σεμνὰ νοεῖν ἐπετρέπετε" γυ- ναιξίν τε ἐν ἀμώμῳ καὶ σεμνῇ καὶ ἁγνῇ συνειδήσει πάντα ἐπιτελεῖν παρηγγέλ- λετε, K.TA.—[§ 1. p. 147.} 688 Mellier’s objection against an argument from St. Clement. _ Arrenpix. honour to the elders that are among you, ye charged the young GRABE’S ΝΟΤΕΒ. [171] to be grave, and sober-minded; and exhorted the women to do all things with an unblameable, and grave and pure conscience,” &c. He must be blind who does not at the first glance observe the parallelism of these passages, and perceive that St. Clement in the former passage commends the Corinthians for these so excellent acts, which they had before fulfilled; and in the latter exhorts them to repeat simply these former works, which they had discontinued; and to return to their good fruit. As therefore, in the one, he ad- monishes them that the Lord Jesus, whose blood was shed for the faithful, ought to be reverenced; in the other he appears to have actually commended them, for that they had kept in mind and duly prized the sufferings of God made flesh. 4. I proceed to the words of Clement in § 16, which our most learned author has adduced above § 4. [p. 107.] in proof of the Divine Majesty of Christ, but which his adversary, under his feigned name of Luke Mellier, has distorted, so as to make Christ not only a mere man, but also liable to sin, although not sinning actually. For, from the statement of Clement, that Jesus Christ ‘‘ came not in the pomp of pride and arrogancy, though He might have so come?”,” he draws this conclusion: “ Here he expressly allows, that, although Jesus Christ came not in the pomp of pride and arrogancy, yet He might have come in the pomp of pride, i.e. that He might have sinned, if He had willed. Now, he who asserts such things as this of Christ, does, by that very assertion, most manifestly deny that He was united ~ in one person with the supreme Godhead, or consisted of the Divine and the human nature joined together personally; for [the Divine nature| would have rendered the human perfectly incapable of sin.” What censure this assertion deserves, supposing it were false, the author himself proclaims to his own condemnation, when he afterwards adds, ‘“‘ As he would be a blasphemer, who should say that the Most High God could sin, so he would be no less a blasphemer who should utter the like of human nature, when conjoined with the Divine by an indivisible and personal union.”” Why then, O weak man, have you so recklessly uttered those words, nay, written and published them, [and] made yourself a blasphemer against Christ, and a slanderer of His servant St. Clement? For he did not write that Christ might have come ἐν ἀλαζονείᾳ καὶ ὑπερηφανίᾳ, “in pride and arrogancy,” and thus have sinned; but that He did not come ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας καὶ ὑπερηφανίας, ‘in the pomp of pride and arrogancy,”’ that is, in noise, and with such pomp, as the proud and 5 [Cited above, p. 107, note t.] Further cavils of Mellier refuted. 6 689 arrogant (of ἀλάζονες καὶ ὑπερήφανοι) are used to exhibit, when they on Boox 11. appear in public. But Christ might have come with such external £H#-3-§ 3. accompaniments and splendour, if He had willed, and yet He would ae ΒΕ. not on that account have incurred the charge of arrogancy, or sinned through pride: even as He will not sin, when He shall come here- after, ‘‘ glorious in His apparel, travelling in the greatness of His strength,” Isaiah xiii. 1, or when He “shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him,” when He “‘shall sit upon the [172] throne of His glory,” Matt. xxv.31. This being so, there is no need to interpret the words καίπερ δυνάμενος by quamvis potens sit, (‘although He be mighty :”’) or to adopt Jerome’s paraphrase, cum possit omnia, (‘although He be Almighty :”) though this is not so absurd as Mellier imagines. That is also a foolish cavil, with which this writer attacks Bull for writing of Christ, that, “in His advent, He did not demean Himself as the sceptre of the Majesty of God4.” This is indeed most true, if you rightly interpret ‘the sceptre of the Majesty of God.” For no Socinian, I apprehend, 62 denies that this denotes that regal power of Christ, which the Father gave to Him, in order that, as ‘‘ King set upon Mount Zion,’ He should rule the Jews in His name. But when certain of the Jews came to Jesus ‘‘to take Him by force and make Him a king, He departed,” John vi. 15, and at length ‘‘ He went into a far country, to receive for Himself a kingdom, and to return,” Luke xix. 12. But He did not receive it in His first advent, for “the kingdom of God” did not ‘immediately appear,’ because ‘ His citizens hated Him, and said, We will not have this man to reign over us.” ibid., 11 and 14, But it is tedious to delay any longer on these topics. 5. Out of the second epistle to the Corinthians, which bears the name of Clement, Dr. Bull in § 5, [p. 110,] has alleged two pas- sages witnessing to the Divinity of Christ: to the former of which, wherein we are bidden so to think of Jesus Christ, ὡς περὶ Θεοῦ, “as of God,” his adversary makes no reply, satisfied perhaps with thinking himself, and leaving others to think, that the author of the epistle meant the “ made,” or rather the pretended!, “ God” of the ' factum sive potius Socinians. The latter passage, however, he has wrested to a meaning’ gotum entirely different from that which the words present to the reader at Deum. the very first glance. The Greek text stands thus: ‘0 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος, ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, dv μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα; ἐγένετο σάρξ, κιλ. Which Patricius Junius thus translated into Latin: ‘‘ Jesus Christus Dominus, qui nos servavit, cum primum esset Spiritus, caro factus est.”” 4 [See p. 108.] BULL. = § 690 Our Lord “ being at first Spirit, became flesh ;’ Arrenpix. ‘‘ Jesus Christ the Lord, who saved us, being at first Spirit, became GRABE’S Notes, [173] 1 potuit esse. 2 rapuisse. flesh,’ &c. The version, however, or rather perversion, of this pas- sage upon which Mellier insists, is: ‘‘ Jesus Christus Dominus, qui nos servavit, qui quidem est primarius (seu precipuus) Spiritus, erat caro ;’’ (‘* Jesus Christ, the Lord, who saved us, who is the primary (or principal) Spirit, was flesh;’’) understanding, that is, by “the primary or principal Spirit,” Christ the exalted man. But let us see how he goes on to prove this his interpretation and exposition : “Christ, the exalted man,” he says, “we have seen designated ‘a Spirit’? in Hermas, a contemporary of Clement.” He reftrs no doubt to the ninth Similitude™ of Hermas, where the Shepherd says to him, “1 will shew thee whatsoever things the Spirit shewed thee, who spake with thee under the figure of the Church, for that Spirit is the Son of God.” But in this place it is not the Son of God, much less the man Christ Jesus, who is called a Spirit; but on the contrary, the Spirit who appeared to Hermas is said to be the Son of God; which, as every one sees, are quite different things. Nay, Mellier himself saw this; and accordingly, after he had said, page 45, “It is perhaps! Christ, the human Son of God, whom here in Similitude ix. he calls Spirit;’’ he immediately adds, [as 1] dis- trusting that explanation, “‘or rather, that Spirit, who is said in book i, to have caught away? Hermas, &c., whom he called the Son of God.” It isthen evidently to no purpose to adduce Hermas on this point, Then as to the word πρῶτον, Mellier is in error in sup- posing that it is used by Clement in his first epistle to the Cor- inthians, § 47, as meaning “ primary” ΟΥ̓“ principal.” For πρῶτον in this place does not signify precipue (“principally”) but primum (“first”), or time past, as is altogether clear from the additional phrase ἐν ἀῤχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “in the beginning of the Gospel,” or of the preaching of the Gospel; and also from the fact, that the cen- sure, which Clement there points against the Corinthians on account of their different followings after Peter, Paul, and others, 1 Cor. i. 11, &c., was not the principal subject on which Paul wrote to the Corinth- ians ; for there are other matters of greater importance contained in his Epistle, such as the proof of the resurrection of the faithful, &c. I grant that in ὃ 3 of this latter epistle [of Clement, | the word πρῶτον may be rendered precipue (principally) ; but then, on the other hand, in § 11 it manifestly means primo, or prius (at first), in the following words: Λάβετε ἄμπελον᾽ πρῶτον μὲν φυλλορροεῖ, εἶτα βλαστὸς γίνεται, κιλ. “Take a vine; at first it puts forth leaves, then branches,’ &c. The * Volo ostendere tibi, quaecumque clesia locutus est tecum; ille enim Spiritus tibi ostendit, qui in effigie ec- Spiritus Filius Dei est.—{ Init. p. 114.] Mellier’s attempts to evade the force of these words. 691 point therefore is at issue between Junius and Mellier; and I have on ΒΟΟΚΊΪ. quite as much right to say on the side of the former that dy τὸ πρῶτον “85. 5 Ὁ πνεῦμα is rightly translated cum primum esset Spiritus (‘‘ being at first Creme th Spirit’), as Mellier has to say that τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα most properly denotes precipuum Spiritum, (‘the principal Spirit;”’) but he adds imo debet, “‘ nay it ought”’ [to be so translated.] Be it so; letit be [174] supposed, though not allowed, that τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα here does mean “the principal Spirit ;” how will he then prove that Clement applies this designation to “ Christ the exalted man?’ Certainly not from [Clement] himself, nor from any other of the apostolic writers. Certainly if τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα must be taken to mean “ the principal”’ or “first Spirit,” I should then understand Christ to be so designated according to His Divine Nature, which was afterwards clothed with flesh; inasmuch as He is, and ever from the beginning has been, the Captain of the angels and holy spirits of God, Joshua v. 14, and after- wards was made man, “‘ that, as the Word of God is Prince among the super-celestial and spiritual, and invisible beings, so He may have the pre-eminence also among the visible and corporeal,” according to the doctrine of Irenzeus, iii. 18, p. 241, col. 1%, which the Arians anciently accepted, although it is impiously rejected by the Socinians of the present day. But I could never bring myself to interpret the words πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ὃ ἐγένετο σὰρξ, that Christ who had before ‘‘ been flesh,”. afterwards became ‘‘the principal Spirit.”’ 6. But the audacious adversary proceeds; “This sense is abso- lutely required by the subject of which Clement is treating.” For he pretends that this holy father, after he has affirmed that “‘ the faith- ful will in the flesh enter” into the kingdom of God, meets a tacit objection on the part of such as should say; ‘‘ nay, rather, in the kingdom of God we shall be spiritual, why do you say therefore that we shall in the flesh enter,” &c. ? and answers it to this effect; ‘‘Be- 63 hold, Christ our Lord, who saved us, who has been given to us for an example, who is now Spirit, yea the principal Spirit, was previously fiesh. These things therefore are not inconsistent with one another. You will also be capable of becoming immortal spirits or spiritual beings, although you be flesh, and in the flesh shall enter,” &c. And after this he thus concludes; ‘‘ You see how well these things are connected together, and in this view how apposite is the example of Jesus Christ, which Clement adduces.” I however simply see how ill these things hang together, and in this view how apposite is the example of Christ, not indeed to solve, but to confirm the objection * [c, 16, 6. p. 206.] yy2 APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. [175] 1 consistere. 692 Mellier’s way of understanding the words, absurd ; - of the [supposed] gainsayers. And do you attend, in order that you may see italso. The author of this epistle is contending against those Corinthians, who denied that there was a resurrection of that flesh which we carry about with us on earth, on the supposition that it is incapable of eternal life, and cannot possibly consist! with the Spirit, the author of immortality. ‘‘ Let none of you,” he says, ‘‘ say that this flesh is not judged, nor rises again. Acknowledge Him in whom you have been saved, and in whom you have received sight, only being yet in this flesh ;”’ then after a short interval occur the words in question, “‘ Jesus Christ the Lord, who saved us, dy μὲν τὸ Ὡρῶτον πνεῦμα; ἐγένετο σὰρξ x. Ἀ., “ being at first Spirit became ἤθβῃ," &c. If Clement in these last words had meant that Christ, when He had previously been flesh, afterwards became Spirit, his opponent pressing upon him might have slain him with his own weapons, by making this retort ; Just as Jesus, being flesh, became Spirit after death, so we also, after we have laid aside our flesh through death, shall be wholly spirit; and rise again without this flesh. For the heretics were so far from denying that those who had been formerly in the flesh, might become spirit, or from rejecting these things as inconsistent (as Mellier pre- tends), that this was their very hypothesis. Why then should Clement have gone about to prove it? ‘ But,” he proceeds to say, when about to assail our exposition, ‘‘if you suppose him’’ (the author of the epistle) “‘ to speak of the Incarnation, what this most ancient Christian writer has here expressed will surely be cold and unmeaning words. Does he not, when he says*, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς κιλ., ‘In like manner we also’ &c., evidently compare us with Christ in that particular which he is asserting of Christ δ᾿ Certainly not, I reply, and thus do I blow away all the folly which is built up as a superstructure on this question. The phrase οὕτω ἡμεῖς, [οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς | “In like manner we also,” has reference to the words immediately preceding, οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν, “thus He called us;’? and the argument of the passage is as follows ; «Tn whatsoever state we have been called by Christ, and have been obedient to His calling, in the same shall we also be glorified and receive our reward. But it is in this flesh that we have been called by Christ, and have been obedient to His call; therefore in this flesh shall we be glorified and receive our reward.” For the following words immediately precede those about which we are disputing, ‘‘ For just as you have been called in the flesh, so in the flesh shall we come.” And thus also in the following clause; ‘‘ Thus,” i.e. in the flesh, ‘‘ He called us; in like manner also shall we receive our re- ward in this flesh;’’ for, according to Romans viii. 30, “whom He t [See p. 110.] the true interpretation shewn to be required by the context. 693 called them He also glorified.” It is only incidentally that Clement on soox 1. introduces the mention of our having been called in the flesh by CH ὅ- ὃ ὃ: Christ, who was also Himself clothed with flesh, though afore- ΟΡ: ® time He was only Spirit: by which He indirectly extols the dignity [176] of the flesh, which his adversaries declared to be incapable of [re- | ceiving} the Spirit, and therefore of immortality, and strikes them with a new weapon. For why should not our flesh be capable of being clothed upon with Spirit in another life, and of consisting together with it’, when Christ, who is Spirit as touching His Godhead, did not ? simul disdain to put on flesh, and to unite it intimately with Himself? ©%™.°Ss : ΡΣ “ 7 consistere. For this is the genuine and also the suitable meaning of the phrase, by which Christ ‘the Word,’ as John calls Him, and ‘ Spirit’ as. Cle- ment, is said ‘to have been made flesh;’ it is therefore neédless to answer the cavil, which Mellier has out of this passage aimed against _ the orthodox doctrine. As to.the reading εἷς instead of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς in the Alexandrine MS.®, although it will not help him at all, yet; to be more certain on the point, I should like to examine that MS. myself, and to state how it really stands. I have not however the opportunity of doing this, because-the very learned Dr. Bentley, the royal librarian, is absent at Cambridge on public duty. Jor the same reason I-am unable to prove the falsity of another conjecture which is added in.the postscript about reading νῦν for μέν. A convenient opportunity will however be presented to me for doing so, please God, δῇ another time. 7 7. Lastly, with respect to the words of Clement, which. Basil the Great, and out of him our reverend author, has adduced above, §:5, [p. 110,] since they have been called in question by Mellier, I add for the purpose of confirming them a parallel passage out of his first: epistle to the Corinthians’; to the following effect; Οὐχὶ ἕνα Θεὸν ἔχομεν, καὶ ἕνα Χριστὸν; καὶ ἕν Πνεῦμα, “‘ Have.we not one God, and one Christ, and one Spirit?” where he names the three Persons of the Godhead together; although to the first, as. the principle? of the ? princi- [other] two, he gives κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the appellation, God. But I must Ἐν refrain from further comment. ἃ [In which MS, O12 often occurs for 5 Ἰησοῦς. ]; % ['§ 46.] APPENDIX. (GRABE’S Notes. [176] 64 [177] 2 ἐν αὑτοῖς. 8 infernum. 4 ὁβλαστός. 694: The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. — TESTIMONIES TO THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. TAKEN FROM THE TESTAMENTS OF THE XII. PATRIARCHS. - Since the Testaments of the twelve patriarchs were, in the opinion of some learned men, written in the first century after Christ”, and for that reason are inserted in my Spicilegium Patrum Seculi I., 1 wish to adduce here the following remarkable testimonies to the Divinity of Christ, gathered from them. In the Testament of Simeon, p. 156, we read these words*; “The Lord, the great God of Israel, appearing on earth as a man, and saving Adam therein! ;” and afterwards, in p. 1577, “God taking a body, and eating with men, saved them.” A little while afterwards he calls the Messiah, Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον, ‘God and man.” In the Testament of Levi, p. 159, an Angel addresses Levi in these words”; ‘Through thee and Judah shall the Lord appear among men, in them? saving the entire race of mankind:” next, p. 160, Levi says, “that hell® shall be despoiled,” ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει τοῦ ὑψίστου, “on the suffering of the Most: High.” In the Testament of Judah, p. 187, mention is made “ of the coming [or advent] of the God of justice,” (παρουσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς Sixaoovvns,) from Jeremiah xxiii. 6, and xxxiii. 16, if I mistake not: and in p- 188 it is said of the Messiah, οὗτος ὁ βλαστὸς Θεοῦ ὑψίστου" “‘ This is the offspring4 of God Most High,” from Isaiah iv. 2. In the Testament of Zebulon, p. 203, [it is written]: Μετὰ ταῦτα ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν αὐτὸς Κύριος, φῶς δικαιοσύνης" “ After this there shall arise upon you the Lord Himself, the Light of Righteousness :” καὶ ὄψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου, ‘and ye shall see God in the form In the Testament of Dan, p. 208%; ‘*No longer does Jerusalem endure desolation, nor is Israel in captivity, because the Lord shall be in the midst of her, associating with men: the of a man.” w About the year 190. — Cave. Bowyer. χα κύριος ὃ Θεὸς μέγας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ φαινόμενος ἐπὶ γῆς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, καὶ σώζων ἐν αὐτῷ τὸν ᾿Αδάμ. Υ ὃ Θεὸς σῶμα λαβὼν, καὶ συνεσθίων ἀνθρώποις, ἔσωσεν αὐτούς. 2 διά σου καὶ ᾿Ιούδα ὀφθήσεται Κύριος ἐν ἀνθρώποις, σώζων ἐν αὐτοῖς πᾶν γέ- νος ἀνθρώπων. ® οὐκ ἔτι ὑπομένει Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐρή- μωσιν, οὐδὲ αἰχμαλωτίζξεται Ἰσραὴλ, ὅτι Κύριος ἔσται ἐμμέσῳ αὐτῆς, τοῖς ἄνθρώ- ποις συναναστρεφόμενος, ἅγιος καὶ Ἴσ- ραὴλ βασιλεύων ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐν ταπεινώ- σει καὶ ἐν πτωχείᾳ. Christ called God, Lord, the great God, δ. 695 Holy [One of] Israel also being king over them in humility and poverty.” I refer the reader to my note on this passage at the end of the Spicilegium, p. 358, seg. In the Testament of Nephthalim, p. 216: Διὰ rod σκήπτρου αὐτοῦ ὀφθήσεται Θεὸς, κατοικῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις “Through his sceptre [the sceptre of Judah] shall God appear, dwelling amongst men upon earth, to save the race of Israel.” In the Testament of Asher, p. 228, &c., it is thus written»; “Τῆς Most High shall visit the earth, coming Himself also as a man, eating and drinking among men, and in stillness bruising the head of the dragon through water. He shall save Israel and all the Gentiles, [even] God assuming the semblance of aman.” Lastly, in the Testament of Benjamin there is the following prophecy respecting the times of Messiah ὃ: ‘* Then shall we also rise again, each one of us to? our sceptre, sdeth the King of heaven, who appeared on earth in the lowly form of a man. He afterwards adds that the Israelites shall be judged, ὅτι παραγε- G νόμενον Θεὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐλευθερωτὴν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν, * because they did not believe God their deliverer when He came in the flesh.” Behold how Christ is called, God, Lord, the great God, &e. 2 A a a A , > ae ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, σῶσαι τὸ yevos ‘Iepand NOTES ON CHAPTER IV. § 1, Ere. Or Sr. Justin Martyr, 1. Our reverend author has taken his first argument for the true Divinity of the Son, from those passages of Justin Martyr where Christ is, on this account, said to be God, because He was generated of God the Father Himself, as His first-born and His Word: these passages occur in the Apology presented to Antoninus Pius, p. 96, and in the Dialogue with Trypho, pp. 355, 357. But [Justin] in a Ὁ 6 ὕψιστος ἐπισκέψεται τὴν γῆν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλθὼν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἐν ἧσυ- χίᾳ συντρίβων τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ δρά- κοντος 3: ὕδατος. οὗτος σώσει Toy’ 1σ- ραὴλ καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, Θεὸς εἰς ἄνδρα ὑποκρινόμενος. © τότε καὶ ἡμεῖς ᾿ἀναστησόμεθα, | ἕκα- oros ἐπὶ σκῆπτρον ἡμῶν, προσκυνοῦντες τὸν βασιλέα τῶν οὐρανῶν, τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς φανέντα ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου ταπεινώ- oews.—p. 251. 4 [See above, p. 135, notes ἢ, i; p. 136, note k.} TESTA- | MENTS OF PATRI- ARCHS. [178] 1 ἐπὶ σκῆπ- »» τρον, in Piha [208] 75 APPENDIX. GRABE’s Notes. 1 ex se ipso. 3 ἀρχὴν. 8 δύναμιν τινὰ λογι- κὴν. Virtu- tem quan- dam ratio- nalem. [209] * nude ap- pellari. 5 revera esse. 696 The Son God, because the Son: called Lord and God : preceding passage also, p. 354°, asserted this in the following very clear terms: ‘‘ Jacob wrestled with Him who was visible in- deed, because He ministered to the will of the Father; but who was God, because He was the Son, the first-born of all creatures.” Compare p. 267. D.f It is also worthy of remark, that Justin did not simply teach that God generated the Word; but that He begat Him, out of His own self}. Thus in the Dialogue with Trypho, p. 284. Α.8, he undertakes to prove from Scripture, “That in the be- ginning”, before all® the created beings, God begat from out of Him-. self a certain rational power®, which is also called by the Holy Ghost the Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, and sometimes Wisdom, and sometimes Angel, and sometimes God, and sometimes also Lord and Word.” 2. But although the two latter names, Lord and God, Kupios and Θεὸς, are peculiar to God, Justin very often applied them, according to the guidance of Scripture, to the Word or Son of God; and he believed Him not barely to be called*, but truly to be® God and Lord, as is clear from the following passages out of his Dialogue with Trypho. Thus when he had, in p. 246. C.+, called Him Lord of Hosts, (Κύριον δυνάμεων,) he afterwards, in p. 254. D.i, sets himself to prove, “that Christ is both God and Lord of Hosts,’’ (ὅτι καὶ Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων ὁ Χριστὸς :) and he establishes this from Psalms xxiii., xlvi., ἅς. Moreover, in p. 275. C.*, he says; “1 will endeavour to con- vince you, who know the Scriptures, that Another is, and is called, God and Lord, under Him! who is the maker of all things ;” just as in p. 281. D.™, he says concerning Him, ‘ He is called God, and is God, and shall be,’” (Θεὸς καλεῖται, καὶ Θεός ἐστι, καὶ ἔσται). And proofs [of this doctrine] Justin derived from the appearances which were made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, [and] Moses, to whom, (as Justin insists to Trypho, in passages so many as to be almost innu- merable,) it was not God the Father, but the Word, who appeared. edit. Bened.—B.] _ © ἐπάλαισεν ᾿Ἰακὼβ μετὰ τοῦ φαινο- μένου μὲν, ἐκ τοῦ τῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς βουλῇ ὑπηρετεῖν, Θεοῦ δὲ, ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων. ---- [§ 125. p. 318. f [§ 48. p. 143.] & ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμά-- των ὃ Θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμιν τινὰ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικὴν, ἥτις καὶ δόξα Κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ υἱὸς, ποτὲ δὲ σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ ἄγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ Θεὸς, ποτὲ δὲ Κύριος καὶ Adyos.—[§ 61. p. 157.] h [This I conceive ought to be ren- dered, not ‘‘in the beginning before all,’’ but ‘as the beginning before all.” i [§ 29. p. 126.] i [§ 86. p. 133.] Κ΄ πειράσομαι ὑμᾶς πεῖσαι νοήσαντας τὰς γραφὰς, ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὲρ (1. ὑπὸ) τὸν ποιη- τὴν τῶν ὅλων.---ἰ 8 56. p. 151.] 1 [The reading introduced by Ste- phens, without MS. authority, was ὑπὲρ; this Grabe followed, translating it “ preter,’’ besides; but, as Dr. Bur- ton noticed, instead of ὑπέρ the Bene- dictine editor restored ὑπὸ from the MSS. This is followed in the transla- tion. ] m [§ 58. p. 156.] yet distinguished as another than the Father. 697 3. When, however, in most of these passages, and [particularly | in that very one which I have just quoted, [Justin] says, that He who appeared to Abraham and to Moses was another God, (érepos Θεός,) he does not mean that the Son is of an essence alien or dif- ferent from the Father, but only indicates His distinct subsistence!. This is evident on a comparison of p. 283. A., and p. 227, &c. For in the former passage he says"; ‘The Creator of the universe will not be that God who spake to Moses, [saying] that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; but He who has been shewn to you to have appeared to Abraham and to Jacob, ministering to the will of the Creator of the universe’’—that is, the Word or Son of God. Whilst in the latter passage he speaks on this wise®: ‘‘Trypho, there never will be, and from the begin- ning of the world there never has been, any other God except Him who made and set in order this universe: nor do we believe our God to be one, and your God another, but Himself who led your fathers out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and stretched out arm; and in no other do we put our trust, (for there is none else,) but in Him in whom you also trust,—the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” In the opinion, therefore, of Justin, God who made the world is the same as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; and yet is not the same: that is to say, He is the same in essence, but is not the same in person. I quit this argu- ment for the consubstantiality of the Son derived from the name of God, after having simply noted one more passage out of the afore- mentioned Dialogue, p. 340. D.?, in which Justin says concerning Joshua, that he distributed to the Israelites an inheritance, which was not eternal but only temporal, dre od Χριστὸς ὁ Θεὸς ὧν, οὐδὲ vios Θεοῦ, “forasmuch as He was not Christ [who is] God, nor yet the Son of God.” These words I have added, to stop the mouth of any Arian or Socinian who should deny that Christ is designated God, 6 Θεὸς, by Justin, on the ground of the distinction which has been derived from Clement of Alexandria, Strom., book iii. p. 460. C.4, between Θεὸς, without the article, and ὁ Θεος, with it. . 2 οὐχ 6 ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων ἔσται Θεὸς 6 τῷ Μωσεῖ εἰπὼν αὐτὸν εἶναι Θεὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ Θεὸν ᾿Ισαὰκ, καὶ Θεὸν Ἰακὼβ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἀποδειχθεὶς ὑμῖν ὦφθαι τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ τῷ ᾿Ιακὼβ, τῇ τοῦ ποιη- τοῦ τῶν ὅλων θελήσει ὑπηρετῶν.--ἰ ὃ 60. p. 157.] © οὔτε ἔσται ποτὲ ἄλλος Θεὸς, ὦ Τρύ- φων, οὔτε ἦν ἀπ’ αἰῶνος, .. . πλὴν τοῦ ποιήσαντος καὶ διατάξαντος τόδε τὸ πᾶν" οὐδὲ ἄλλον μὲν ἡμῶν, ἄλλον δὲ ὑμῶν ἡγούμεθα Θεὸν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον τὸν ἐξαγαγόντα τοὺς πατέρας ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ, καὶ βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ" οὐδ᾽ εἰς ἄλλον τινὰ ἠλπίκαμεν" ov γὰρ ἐστιν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τοῦτον, εἰς ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς, τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶ Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Ἰακώβ.---ἰ ὃ 11. p. 111.} Ρ [§ 113. p. 206.] 4 [p. 548.] ON BOOKII. cH. 4 § 1, &e. Justin M. 1 ὑπόστα- ow. 76 [210] APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes, 1 passim. Ps. xlv. xliv. LXX.] 11. [211] TATIAN. *itidem. 698 Justin teaches that Christ is to be worshipped, i.e., is God. 4. But lastly, besides this, Justin has in many passages" in the same Dialogue taught out of the Scriptures, that Christ is God [who is] to be worshipped: thus in p. 287. B.*, after quoting these words of the forty-fourth Psalm; ‘“‘ He is Thy Lord, and thou shalt wor- ship Him,” he suggests that they imply, ὁτὶ καὶ προσκυνητός ἐστι, καὶ Θεὸς, καὶ Χριστός" that “ He is to be worshipped, and is God, and Christ.”” And in p. 293. B, C.8, when he asks Trypho, whether he knew of any other in the Scriptures designated as ‘to be worship- ped, and Lord, and God,” except Him who created this universe, and Christ ;” he implies that the latter is so designated as well as the former. In the following page, p. 294. C.*, he again makes mention of the Scriptures, ‘which in express words demonstrate Christ to be both liable to suffering, and the object of worship, and God.” Lastly, in p. 302. B.*, he shews from the Scriptures that “Christ is God, mighty and to be worshipped.” That none, however, is an object of worship except the true God, is most clearly taught by Justin, Apol. I. p. 81. lin. 5, and p. 32. 1. 30 of my own edition; or p. 63 and the following ones’ of the Paris edition. ‘Therefore he believed Christ to be such. ON § 10. Or TaTIAN AND THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH. THERE are two passages of Tatian wherein he calls Christ God, which it will not be foreign to our purpose to notice. Thus in sect. 22. p. δά. lin. 8, of the latest edition*, which my excellent friend Mr. Worth has so well edited, he calls the Holy Ghost “‘ the Minister of the God who suffered, {τὸν διάκονον τοῦ πεπονθότος Θεοῦ.) And in sect. 35. p. 77. lin. 9, &c.%, he has the following words; “We are not fools, ye Greeks, nor do we propound to you silly fables, when we declare that God was born in the form of man.” And to the passages, which in this same section? were quoted from * [§ 63. p. 160.] νυ [§ 16. p. 53.] 5. προσκυνητὸν, καὶ Κύριον, καὶ Θεὸν, x [The edition at Oxford, 1700.1 [μή τι ἄλλον τινα.--- 68. p. 165. ] Υ [§ 13. p. 255.] * at διαῤῥήδην τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ παθη- 2 ob γὰρ μωραίνομεν, ἄνδρες “Ἕλληνες, τὸν, καὶ προσκυνητὸν, καὶ Θεὸν ἅἄπο- οὐδὲ λήρουΞ ἀπαγγέλλομεν, Θεὸν ἐν ἂν- δεικνύουσιν.--- ὃ 68. p. 166. ] θρώπου μορφῇ γεγονέναι καταγγέλλον- ἃ" Θεὸν ἰσχυρὸν καὶ προσκυνητὸν τεΞς.---ἰ ὃ 21. p. 262.] Σριστὰὸν ὄντα [ ἐδήλωσε.----ᾧ 76. p. 174. ] Additional passages from Tatian and Theophilus. 699 Theophilus of Antioch, I add two out of the third book to Autolycus. on soox1t. In p. 122. D.*, he says; ‘‘ For our lawgiver we have Him who is in- ©! * ὃ 10. deed God,” bc ucla ἔχομεν τὸν ὄντως Θεόν.) But that He who ap- Tae peared to Moses on mount Sinai and gave the law, was not God the = Father, but the Son, Theophilus undoubtedly believed, with the en- tire body of the fathers of that age, as he clearly enough indicates in book ii. p. 100. A.» Again, at the very end of book iii. he says, that the heathen decreed rewards and honours for such Christians, “as with sonorous voice revile God” (τοῖς εὐφώνως ὑβρίζουσι τὸν Θεόν). The Christians*, however, were not compelled by the heathen to deny or revile the supreme God, the first cause of all things, but Christ, whom they used to confess to be the Son of God, and one God with [212] the Father. Him, therefore, Theophilus appears to point out here by the designation of God. ON CHAPTER V. [233] 84 Or Sr. Ingen avs, 1. To the testimonies which have been adduced in proof of the Divinity of Christ out of the writings of Irenzeus it will not be out of place? to add the following. In book i. chap, 2. p. 45, of the last 1 abs re. edition4, (which I shall always quote here,) in reciting the confession of faith? which the Catholic Church received from the Apostles and 3 symbo- their disciples, he sets forth Christ in the following words, as our lum fidei. Lord and God, who, even after the future resurrection, is to be worshipped by all, according to the will of God the Father, line 15, &e.©: “That every knee should bow to Christ Jesus our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father.” Again, in book iii. chap. 10. p. 113. col. 1, [284] explaining the meaning ὃ of those gifts which the wise men brought ὃ rationem. to > Christ then just born, he says, in line 32‘, that the frankincense 8 [§ 9. p. 386.] © ἵνα Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, δ [ὃ 22, Ρ. 866.}] ’ καὶ Θεῷ, καὶ σωτῆρι, καὶ βασιλεῖ, κατὰ ¢ {It does not appear {πῇ Christians τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ ἀοράτον are meant, but rather Gentiles, who τᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ.---ἰ ο. 10. p. 48. ] obtain prizes for singing such things f Quoniam Deus, qui. et notus in of God as are really an insult to Him.] Judea factus est, et manifestus eis, qui ἃ [That is Dr. Grabe’s own edition, non queerebant eum.—[c. 9, 2. a Oxford, 1702. j 184. ] 700 Explicit testimonies to the Divinity of AprreNnDIx. was offered unto Him “inasmuch as [He was| God, who was both GRABE’S Nores. 1 δικαίως. 3 οἰκειότη- τος. [3250 made known in Jewry, and was manifested unto them who sought Him not.” In the same book, chap. 18. p. 242. col. 1. line 10, &c.‘, he teaches concerning Christ, that He is ‘the Saviour of them that are saved, and the Lord of them that are under [ His} dominion, and the God of those things that are created, and the Only-begotten of the Father.”” That is also worthy of observation which he ad- vances respecting the union of the Godhead and the Manhood in the person of Christ, and the reason of it, in a following chapter (2Q.) p. 247, last line, and p. 248, line 1, &c.8, in these words; ‘‘ Therefore He united, as we have said before, man with God. For unless man had overcome the adversary of man, the enemy would not have been duly! overcome. And again, unless God had given salvation, we should not have had it securely. And unless man had become united with God, he would not have been able to be a partaker of incorrup- tion. For it behoved the Mediator between God and men, to bring them both together into amity and concord, by His own relation- ship? with the two.” Further on, in chapter 28, col. 2, line 88, he teaches, that the prophets had intimated that “the Son of God, who is God,” should come. And afterwards, in line 16, [he says ;] ‘‘He, (Habakkuk,) manifestly intimating that He is God, and that His coming should be to Bethlehem.”’ Whence, in line 22, he con- cludesi; ‘“‘ God therefore became man, and the Lord Himself saved us.” And in chap. 26, p. 2573, after quoting the words of Isaiah respecting Christ, the Immanuel, he subjoins the following words of his own, col, i. line 6, “ Studiously therefore did the Holy Ghost signify by these words His generation, which is of the Virgin, and His substance, that He is God; for the name Immanuel signifies this,” And in col. ii. line 5*: ‘* And this, that He shall refuse the evil to choose the good, is characteristic of God, in order that we may not, f Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et Dominus eorum qui sunt sub dominio, et Deus eorum que. constituta sunt, et unigenitus Patris.—[c. 16, 7. p. 206. ] & ἥνωσεν οὖν, καθὼς προέφαμεν, τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ Θεῷ. Ἐἰ γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησεν τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὃ ἐχθρός. πάλιν τε, εἰ μὴ 6 Θεὸς ἐδωρήσατο τὴν σωτὴη- ρίαν, οὐκ ἂν βεβαίως ἔσχομεν αὐτήν. Καὶ εἰ μὴ συνηνώθη 6 ἄνθρωπος τῷ Θεῷ, οὐκ ἂν ἠδυνήθη μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀφθαρ- σίας. Ἔδει γὰρ τὸν μεσίτην Θεοῦ τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων, διὰ τῆς ἰδίας πρὸς ἑκατέ- ρους οἰκειότητος, εἰς φιλίαν καὶ ὁμόνοιαν τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους συναγαγεῖν.----ἰ ο. 18, 7. p. 211.1 4 Filius Dei, qui Deus est... τηᾶ- nifeste significans quoniam Deus, et quoniam in Bethleem adventus ejus.— [c. 20, 4. p. 214.] 1 ὃ Θεὸς οὖν ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο, καὶ αὐτὸς Κύριος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶ.---ἰ ο. 21. p. 215. ] i Diligenter igitur significavit Spi- ritus S. per ea, que dicta sunt, gene- rationem ejus que est ex Virgine, et substantiam, quoniam Deus; Emma- nuel enim nomen hoc significat.—[e. 21, 4. p. 217.] k Quod autem non consentiet nequi- tiga, ut eligat bonum, proprium hoc est 701 : by the words ‘ butter and honey shall He eat,’ understand Him to be on soox τί. barely man, nor again by the name Immanuel suppose Him to be God —°™ se without flesh.” Moreover, from this same passage of Isaiah and 1*=82U- those other words of the same prophet, in ix. 6, ‘“‘ And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, the mighty God,” Irenzus in the same work, book iv. chap. 66. p. 363}, shews it to have been predicted, ‘that the Word shall be flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man; and [although] made that which we ourselves also are, He is [still] the mighty God, and has an ineffable generation!.” ! genus. Lastly, in book v. chap. 14. p. 421, &c.™, the holy father thus ad- dresses him to whom he sent his books: ‘‘ Remember then, most beloved, that thou art redeemed by the flesh of our Lord, and re- stored by His blood; both confessing [Him to be] God, and firmly accepting His human nature,” &c. Also chap. 17, p. 426. col. i. line 19, &c.®, he says; ‘‘ (Jesus) therefore, by forgiving sins, on the one hand healed the man (the paralytic), and on the other clearly shewed who He Himself was. For if no one can remit sins but God alone, and yet the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is manifest that He was the Word of God become the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remitting sins, because He was man and be- cause He was God; in order that, whilst as man He suffered with us, as God He might pity us, and remit us our debts, which we owe to God our Creator.” But that Christ is one and the same God with the Creator, against whom we had sinned, Irenzeus plainly intimates in what goes before, in p. 425, col. 1, line 36°, in arguing as follows against the heretics: ‘“‘ Well therefore does His Word [the Word of God] say to the man, ‘thy sins are forgiven thee ;’ He, against whom we had sinned at the beginning, is the same who gives re- mission of sins at the end. But if we have transgressed the pre- cept of One, and it was Another that said, ‘thy sins are forgiven thee,’ our Lord out of St. Ireneus. 85 [286] Dei, uti non per hoc, quod manducabit nifeste ostendit, quis esset. Si enim butyrum et mel, nude solummodo eum hominem intelligeremus, neque rursus per nomen Emmanuel sine carne eum Deum suspicaremur.—[ Ibid. ] 1 Quoniam Verbum caro erit, et Fi- lius Dei filius hominis, et hoc factus, quod et nos, Deus fortis est, et inenar- rabile habet genus.—[c. 33, 11. p. 273. ] τι Memor igitur, dilectissime, quo- niam carne Domini nostri redemptus es, et sanguine ejus redhibitus, et Deum confitens, et hominem ejus firmiter ex- ’ eipiens.—[p. 311.] " Peccata igitur remittens hominem quidem curavit, semetipsum autem ma- nemo potest remittere peccata, nisi so- lus Deus, remittebat autem hee Do- minus, et curabat homines, manifes- tum, quoniam ipse erat Verbum Dei, Filius hominis factus, a Patre potesta- tem remissionis peccatorum accipiens, quoniam homo, et quoniam Deus; ut quomodo homo compassus est nobis, tanquam Deus misereatur nostri, et re- mittat nobis debita nostra, que Factori nostro debemus Deo.—[p. 314. ] © Bene igitur Verbum ejus ad ho- minem dicit, remittuntur tibi peccata ; idem 1116, in quem peccaveramus in initio, remissionem peccatorum in fine donans. Aut si alterius quidem trans- 702 The Divinity and human nature of our Lord in a strict Arrenprx. Such an one is neither good, nor true, nor just. For how can he be GRABE’S Nores. 1 modicum. 2 adest. 3 functus est. 4indecorus. good, who gives what is not his own? or just, who takes what be- longs to another? and how are sins truly remitted, unless He Him- self, against whom we have sinned, has given the remission?” For unless Christ be one God with the Father, this argument, which was alleged against heretics who held two Gods, recoils on the head of Ireneeus, and he had shamefully contradicted himself. To these are to be added the passages, in which Ireneus refuted the Ebionites, who denied the Divinity of Christ: these however I now.omit, as our reverend author has adduced them, in opposition to Episcopius, in his Judgment of the Catholic Church &c. chap. i. § 3. 2. Nor was it in an improper sense that Ireneus attributed Deity to Christ, as kings and priests used to be called gods: on the con- trary, he believed Him to be truly and essentially God, as is plain from the following passages. In book iii. chap. 21°, arguing against the heretics, who said that Jesus was “‘ only a mere man begotten of Joseph,” after other things he has the following, p. 249, col. 2, line 19, &c.: ‘* But it is obvious to all, who have attained but to a mo- derate’ knowledge of the truth, to see? that He (Christ), beyond all men who then lived, is declared by all the prophets, and apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, to be proprrty God, and Lord, and King eternal, and Only-begotten, and the Word incarnate. But the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if He had been merely man like all others. But that He had in Him a gene- ration illustrious beyond all men, even that which is from the Most High, His Father; and likewise underwent® that excellent genera- tion which was of the Virgin, both these do the divine Scriptures testify of Him: and that He is man without comeliness4, and passi- ble, &c. ; and that He is the holy Lord, and the wonderful Counseller, and glorious in His appearance, and the mighty God, coming on the clouds as the judge of all, all these things the Scriptures prophesied gressi sumus preceptum, alius autem erat qui dixit, remitiuntur tibi peccata tua, neque bonus, neque verax, neque justus est hujusmodi. Quomodo enim bonus, qui non ex suis donat? aut quomodo justus, qui aliena rapit? Quomodo autem vere remissa sunt peceata, nisi ille ipse, in quem pec- cavimus, donavit remissionem.—[p. 313. ] P Nude tantum hominem dicunt ex Joseph generatum... quoniam autem ipse proprie preter omnes qui fuerunt tunc homines, Deus, et Dominus, et rex eternus, et unigenitus, et Verbum incarnatum, predicatur et a prophetis omnibus, et apostolis, et ab ipso Spi- ritu, adest videre omnibus, qui vel modicum de veritate attigerint. He autem non testificarentur Scripture de eo, si, similiter ut omnes, homo tan- tum fuisset. Sed quoniam preclaram preter omnes habuit in se eam que est ab altissimo Patre genituram, pre- clara autem functus est et ea, que est ex Virgine, generatione, utraque Scrip- ὖ turze divine de eo testificantur: et quoniam homo indecorus et passibilis, &c. et quoniam Dominus sanctus, et mirabilis Consiliarius, et decorus spe- cie, et Deus fortis, super nubes veniens universorum Judex, omnia de eo Scrip- ture prophetabant.—[ce. 19, 2. p.212.] sense set forth by St. Ireneus. | 703 of Him.” In like manner iv. 14, p. 302, col. i. line 114, he says con- on Booxn. cerning the Saviour, that He is one, “* who receives testimony from all, Be ν that He is rruLy MAN, and that He is rruty Gop, from the Father, oe from the Spirit, from the angels, from creation itself, from men, and Ed from apostate spirits,” &c. On these words in my recent edition I have with good reason added the following note: “So clearly does he here express the truth of the Divine, as well as the human nature of Christ, that no place of escape is left for adversaries.” Lastly, in addition to all this, there are in proof of the true Divinity of Christ the Divine attributes, which Irenzeus expressly ascribes to Him, and indeed those [very attributes] which Arians and Photinians alike, both ancient and modern, have denied to Him, I mean eternity and incom- prehensibility, if 1 may use such a word. Now the former, [eternity ], is treated of separately in book iii.; with respect to the latter, [in- comprehensibility |, let it suffice to adduce here the remarkable! words ! egregia. in which the incarnation of the Son of God is described, book iii. c. 18, p. 241, col. 11. line 167. ‘‘ The Invisible became visible, and the Incomprehensible became comprehensible, and the Impassible pas- sible, and the Word man, summing up? all things into His own ? recapitu- , lans. self.’ Or MeEttiTo. 1. Wrru Ireneus I join Melito’, as a marked witness of the Divinity 86 of Christ, following herein the example of the anonymous author of a book against the heresy of Artemon, written at the beginning of the third century, a fragment of which has been preserved in Euse- bius, Eccles. Hist. v.28, where among other things we read‘; ‘‘ For who is ignorant of the writings of Irenzus, and of Melito, and of the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man?” Of the works of Melito, indeed, there is extant in our days scarcely any thing more than the titles, as they are enumerated by Eusebius E. H. iv. 26, and by Jerome, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers. Now as one of these titles is περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ, “concerning God incor- porate,” theologians have interpreted this “ of God incarnate,” that 4 Abomnibusaccipienstestimonium, bum homo, universa in semetipsum re- quoniam VERE HOMO, et quoniam VERE capitulans,—[c. 16, 6. p. 206. | DEUS, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab angelis, ab 5. Melito flourished about the year ipsa conditione, ab hominibus, et ab 170.—Cave. Bowyer. apostaticis spiritibus.—[c. 6, 7. p. 235. ] * χὰ γὰρ Εἰρηναίου re καὶ Μελίτωνος ® Invisibilis visibilis factus, et in- καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία, Θεὸς comprehensibilis factus comprehensi- καὶ ἄνθρωπον καταγγέλλοντα τὸν Χρισ- bilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et Ver- τόν..--- [Η, Εἰ, v. 28.} APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. [238] 1 cedro. 2 ἀφάν- Ταστον. [289] 704 Testimonies from the extant fragments of Melito. is, of Christ, and have used it in proof of the Divinity of the Saviour. But that Melito in that work treated not of God incorporate", but corporeal (the word ἐνσώματος having both significations), Cotelerius, among others, has satisfactorily proved, (in a note on the seventeenth of the Clementine Homilies, ) from the words of Origen in Theodoret, Question 20, on Genesis, and of Gennadius of Marseilles, in chap. iv. of his work on the Doctrines of the Church. © 2. Passing by this title, therefore, let us see whetlier, no¢with- standing that the entire works of Melito are lost, some fragments of them cannot be found somewhere, in which the Divinity of Christ is asserted; and two such fragments most worthy to be noted came in my way some time ago in reading the Hodegus of Anastasius, for in that work, chap. xii. p. 217, the Theodosians and Gaianites adduce the following words out of an Oration of Melito of Sardis on the passion of Christ*: Ὃ θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξιᾶς ᾿Ισραηλίτιδος" God suffered by the right hand of Israel”’ And Anastasius himself, chap. xiii. pp. 258 and 260, quotes from the third Sermon of Me- lito, ‘ concerning the Incarnation of Christ,’ (περὶ σαρκώσεως Χριστοῦ,) in which the author is arguing against the heresy of Marcion, who denied the true Divinity of Christ, the following words worthy of all - preservation’ Y; ‘“ There is then no necessity, for those who may have understanding, to prove the truth and reality’ of His soul and body, of that human nature which we have, by what He did after His baptism; for what Christ did after His baptism, and especially His mira- cles, did, he [ Melito| says, manifest and prove to the world, His God- head hidden in the flesh. or the same Person, being at once God and perfect man, proved to us His two natures, on the one hand His Godhead, by His miracles during the three years after His baptism, and, on the other, His manhood in the thirty years prior to His bap- tism, during which on account of His imperfection in respect to the flesh the signs’ of His Divinity were hidden, although He was very God before the worlds.” On a comparison of this passage with that which I have quoted from the anonymous writer, § 1, in which he testifies, that Melito declared Christ to be alike both God and man, ἃ [“incorporato ;’’? Cotelerius’ word is “ incarnato.’’ ] x [Reliq. Sacr., vol. i. 116.] Υ ὡς οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη, τοῖς νοῦν ἔχου- σιν, ἐξ ὧν μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ Χριστὸς ἔπραξε, παριστᾷν τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀφάν- ταστον THS ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώμα- τος τῆς Kal’ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως. τὰ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, φησὶν, ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ πραχθέντα, καὶ μάλιστα τὰ σημεῖα, τὴν αὐτοῦ κεκρυμμένην ἐν σαρκὶ θεότητα ἐδήλουν καὶ ἐπιστοῦντο τῷ κόσ- pw’ Θεὸς γὰρ ὧν ὁμοῦ τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος τέλειος ὃ αὐτὸς, τὰς δύο αὐτοῦ οὐσίας ἐπιστώσατο ἡμῖν, τὴν μὲν θεότητα αὖ- τοῦ διὰ τῶν σημείων ἐν τῇ τριετίᾳ τῇ μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, τὴν δὲ ἀνθρωπότητα αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς τριάκοντα χρόνοις τοῖς πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, ἐν οἷς διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀπεκρύβη τὰ σημεῖα τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος, καίπερ Θεὸς ἀληθὴς προαιώνιος ὑπάρχων.---ἰ Relig. Saer., vol. i. p. 116.] Wrongly placed among the adversaries of the Nicene faith. 705 I can hardly doubt, that he had these very words of Melito in view. on Boox 11. In conclusion I add the following passage, which occurs in the Pas- __°:®: chal Chronicle, on the years of Christ 164 and 165, as cited from the Metro. Apology of Melito”. In this passage I conceive that the preposition ἐπὶ before rod Χριστοῦ ought to be omitted, and the words to be translated, “‘ and of His Christ.” ‘* We are not worshippers of sense- less stones, but of God only, who is before all things, and over all things, and over Christ Himself, (καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ,) [who is| truly God the Word before all ages.”” The reasons for this con- jectural emendation I shall give in the second volume of my Spicile- gium, of the fathers of the second century, which, if it please God, will be published shortly. Meanwhile I here submit to the reader how frivolously the author of the English work entitled ‘‘ The judg- ment of the fathers concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, opposed to Dr. G. Bull’s ‘Defence of the Nicene Faith*,’” p. 4, has enu- ‘merated Melito amongst the adversaries of the Holy Trinity, being led to do so simply by the title of his book, ‘‘ Of the creation and production! of Christ,” which Eusebius mentions, iv. 26. The an-! γενέσεως. swer to be made to this is abundantly shewn by Valesius in his note, on the passage, so that I need not enlarge on it. ON CHAP. VI. § 2, &e. [253] 92 Or CLEMENT oF ALEXANDRIA. 1. To the passages adduced from Clement of Alexandria in sup- port of the Consubstantiality of the Son I add the following, which were omitted by our reverend author, as it seems, for the sake of brevity. In the Protrepticon, p. 5. D. occur these words’; ‘ Now at length hath appeared unto men this Word Himself, who alone is both, both God and man, the author to us of all good.” Andina subsequent page, 8. C., these®; ‘‘ John, indeed, the herald of the Word, in some such way as this exhorted [men] to become ready for [254] 2. οὐκ ἐσμὲν λίθων οὐδεμίαν αἴσθησιν ἐχόντων θεραπευταὶ, ἀλλὰ μόνου Θεοῦ, τοῦ πρὸ πάντων καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντως Θεοῦ λόγου πρὸ αἰώνων ἐσμὲν θρησκευταί, [Dr. Routh, Relig. Sacr., i. p. 126, maintains, as others had done, that for ἐπὶ we should read ἔτι, “ and also of Christ.”—B, ] * [4to. Lond. 1695. ] BULL. Ὁ νῦν δὴ ἐπεφάνη ἀνθρώποις αὐτὸς οὗτος ὃ λόγος, ὃ μόνος ἄμφω, Θεός τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ἁπάντων ἡμῖν αἴτιος aya- θῶν.---ἰ». 7.} ς ὃ μὲν Ἰωάννης ὃ κῆρυξ τοῦ λόγου ταὐτῃ πῃ παρεκάλει ἑτοίμους γίνεσθαι εἰς Θεοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν.---[ Ὁ. 9.] ZZ APPENDIX. GRABE’S NorTes. 1 Λόγος Θεός. 3 παιδαγω- γῶν. 3 ἐπώψατο [or, ac- cording to Sylburg, exw aro. | [255] 3 ἐλεημο- σύνην. LXxX. 5 παρὰ Θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ. 6 ἁπλῶς. ἤ “ a Τῇ του τάξει. 706 Additional testimonies from Clement of Alexandria. the advent of God, [even] Christ.” In the first book of the Peeda- gogus, c. 2. p. 80, A., Christ, the Instructor of the faithful, is said to? be “ God in the form of man, undefiled, ministering to the will of the Father, God the Word *, who is in the Father, who is at the right hand of the Father, [being] God together with His [visible] form also.”” He is God even as the Father [is God], although He is called the Minister of the Father, whom He follows in order; just as the deacon is the minister of the priest, and yet is truly both a man and a clergyman, just as the priest is. The third chapter of the same book begins with these words®; “In every thing does the Lord give benefit and succour, both as man, and as God: as God, forgiving our sins; as Man, instructing? us, that we may not sin.” In chap. 3. of the second book of the Pedagogus, p. 161, Ὁ. he says‘: “See, the Lord ate foods in a mean dish, and made His disciples sit down on the ground upon the grass, and girt Himself with a towel and washed their feet, the God and Lord of all things, void of all pride.” Fur- ther also in Strom. vi. p. 684, A.8, [Clement] calls Christ ‘God in the flesh,” (Θεὸν ἐν σαρκίῳ) ; and throughout this treatise of the Stromata frequently calls Him “the Saviour God,” (Σωτήρ Θεὸς,) having in view the words of David in Psalm xxiv. 5, “ He shall re- ceive blessing from the Lord, and mercy‘ from God His Saviour >.” In book vii. of the Stromata, p. 733, he quotes these words, and adds the following of his own"; “ David, as it seems, shewed to us, in passing, that the Saviour is God.” See how often Clement has given to Christ the title of God, which he would not have done, un- less, with the Nicene fathers, he had believed that He was very God of very God. 2. Nor can any one object that Clement, in book iii. of the Stro- mata, p. 460, C.i, makes a distinction between God (Θεός) simply®, ᾿ [i. 6. used without the article], and with the article prefixed’, that ἄρθρου mpo- - 15, ὁ Θεὸς, and in the same passage teaches that in the latter mode the Almighty or supreme God is indicated; whereas in all the passages which have been now cited, Christ is called God (θεὸς), without the article prefixed. For here are other passages, where He is called 6 Θεός. In book i. of the Pedagogus, c. 5. p. 92, A.k, we ἃ Θεός ἐν ἀνθρώπου σχήματι, ἄχραν- τος, πατρικῷ θελήματι διάκονος, λόγος Θεὸς, 6 ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, 6 ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρὸς, σὺν καὶ τῷ σχήματι Θεός.--- [p. 99.] © πάντα ὀνίνησιν 6 Κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠφελεῖ, καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὡς Θεός" τὰ μὲν ἁμαρτήματα ὡς Θεὸς ἀφιείς" εἰς δὲ τὸ “μὴ ἐξαμαρτάνειν παιδαγωγῶν ws ἄνθρωπος-.---ἰ ». 101. f ὁρᾶτε, ὃ Κύριος τρυβλίῳ ἐπώψατο εὐτελεῖ, καὶ κατέκλινεν τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐπὶ τῆς πόας χαμαὶ, καὶ τοὺς πόδας ἔνιπτεν αὐτῶν σαβάνῳ περιζωσάμενος 6 ἄτυφὸς Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος τῶν ὅλων.---- [p. 190.] ; & [ρ. 812.] 4 " κατὰ παραδρομὴν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἡμῖν Θεὸν εἶναι τὸν σωτῆρα ἀπέδειξεν ὁ Aa-— Bis.—-[p. 866. ] q ὁ [p. 548. ] ; k [p. 112. ] Testimonies from a treatise ascribed to Caius. 707 read of “God the Word, who became man for us;” (τὸν Θεὸν τὸν on BOOK II. λόγον, τὸν δὶ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον") and in a following chapter, _°* 6. 7. p. 110, C. D.1, of “the Lord God” and “the Divine Word,” ὁ Ct=™ At : Θεός Κύριος, and ὁ Θεὸς λόγος. In like manner in book 11. of the same work, c. 8. p. 182, C.™, he twice calls Christ ““God,” and, “God loving unto man,” τὸν Θεόν and τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεόν. Lastly, in book vii. of the Stromata, p. 703, B., he has the following words, which are remarkable, not only on account of the article prefixed, but also on account of the attribute of ommiscience ascribed to Christ, and other titles"; ‘‘ Ignorance does not attach to the God (rod Θεοῦ), who before the foundation of the world was the coun- sellor of the Father. For this was the Wisdom in which Almighty God delighted. For the Son is the power of the Father, inasmuch as before all things that were made He was the most principal!’ ἀρχικώ- Word of the Father, and His Wisdom,” &c. On the omniscience besshipac of the Son of God, whereby He scrutinizes the innermost thoughts of the hearts, and His omnipotence also, see the preceding page, 702, A. B., and the following one, 704, B., to say nothing of other passages. ON CHAP. VIII. 8 1. [279] 102 OF Calvs. ΝᾺ WE no longer possess the treatise of Caius here cited, περὶ παντὸς, (On the Universe,) entire: we have however a large fragment of it, that portion in which he treated “ of Hades, in which the souls both [280] of the just and of the unjust are contained,” edited first by He- schel, and not very long ago inserted by Le Moyne in his collection of various sacred writers ; although he makes Hippolytus the author of it. Now we there read the following®: ‘‘ And all, both just and unjust, shall be brought into the presence of God the Word; - for unto Him hath the Father committed all judgment. And He, whom we call Christ, comes as Judge, accomplishing the Father’s 1 [p. 131, 2.] m [p. 214] Ὁ ἄγνοια οὐχ ἅπτεται τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου συμβούλου γενο- μένου τοῦ Πατρός. αὕτη γὰρ ἣν σοφία ἣ προσέχαιρεν ὃ παντοκράτωρ Θεός᾽ δύνα- μις γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὃ υἱὸς, ἅτε πρὸ πάν- τῶν τῶν γενομένων ἀρχικώτατος λόγος τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ σοφία αὐτοῦ. KA [p. 882.] 9 πάντες δὲ δίκαιοι τε καὶ ἄδικοι ἐνώ- πιον τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἀχθήσονται" τούτῳ γὰρ Πατὴρ τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκε. Καὶ αὐτὸς βουλὴν Πατρὸς ἐπιτελῶν κρι- τὴς παραγίνεται, ὃν Χριστὸν προσαγο- ρεύομεν.----[ Le Moyne, Var. Sac., p. ὅ9.] ZZ2 APPENDIX. GRABE’S Nores. 1 ex Ora- tione. 2 ced γειτνιᾷν. 8 τὸν Θεὸν. 4 τὸν ἄν- θρωπον. 5 πεφαντα- σιωκέναι. 6 φορέσαν- τα ἄνθρω- πον. [281] 7 δόκησίν τινα φα- σματώδη. 108 708 Additional testimonies from Hippolytus. will.” I have no doubt that it is to these last words that Photius referred, in the passage which was quoted in § 1. of this chapter, where he says, ‘‘ declaring the appellation itself of Christ.’ Con- cerning this appellation Christ see below, p. 187, col. 2. [ book iii. chap. 2. § 1. p. 403.] Moreover, he seems to have had the words ‘into the presence of God the Word,” (ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ Adyov,) in his mind, when he wrote, ‘‘ however, respecting the Divinity’ of Christ our true God, he treats most accurately :” although no doubf there existed in this treatise many other passages, even more express, con- cerning the Divinity of Christ and His ineffable generation from God the Father. ON § 2. Or HIppoLytvs. 1. Oruer very clear testimonies of Hippolytus to the Divinity of Christ are contained among several of his sayings cited by Theo- doret, Dialogue ii. tom. iv. p. 88, &c., and in the fifth of the Acts Lateran Council, in Labbe’s Councils, tom. vi. Thus in the fore- mentioned 88th page [οὗ Theodoret, | the following passage is quoted. from his discourse! on the Distribution of Talents®: ‘‘One might say that these and the heterodox approach very near? each other, being both in error in a similar way. For they also either hold that Christ was born into life a mere man, denying the talent of His Di- vinity ; or, acknowledging the Godhead’, they on the other hand take away the manhood‘, teaching that He set a phantom® before the eyes ‘of those who beheld Him as man; not having borne manhood °, but rather having become a phantomlike appearance’; as, for instance, Marcion and Valentinus, and the Gnostics, by separating the Word off from ‘the flesh, throw away the one talent, the incarnation.” The words of the same Hippolytus in a comment on Psalm ii., which also we adduce on the authority of Theodoret, who cites them in p. 89P, are likewise worthy mention: ‘‘ This is He who, having come Opwrov, ov φορέσαντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ 9 τούτους δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἑτεροδόξους φή- σειὲέν ἄν τις γειτνιᾷν, σφαλλομένους παραπλησίως. Καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνοι ἤτοι ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον ὁμολογοῦσι πεφυκέναι τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν βίον, τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ τὸ τάλαντον ἀρνούμενοι" ἤτοι τὸν Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦντες ἀναίρονται πάλιν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, πεφαντασιωκέναι διδάσκοντες τὰς ὄψεις αὐτῶν τῶν θεωμένων ὡς ἄν- δόκησίν τινα φασματώδη μᾶλλον γεγο- νέναι, οἷον ὥσπερ Μαρκίων καὶ Οὐαλεν- Tivos, καὶ οἱ Tyworikol, τῆς σαρκὸς ἄπο- διασπῶντες τὸν λόγον, τὸ ἕν τάλαντον ἀποβάλλονται, Thy ἐνανθρώπησιν.----ἰ vol. i. p. 281.] P οὗτος 6 προελθὼν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη. Καὶ τὸν Further extracts testifying the true Divinity of Christ. 709 Now His human on poox 1. ἃ CH. 8. § 2. ‘into the world, was manifested as God and Man. ‘nature! we may easily perceive, when He hungers, and is weary, an ‘thirsts through fatigue, &c. His Divinity® on the other hand we pi ὌΡᾺΡΣ may evidently see, when He is adored by angels, and beheld by; ee. ae shepherds, and expected by Simeon, and witnessed to by Anna, θρωπὸν and sought by the Magi, and pointed out by a star; and [when] > ΣΝ, at the marriage He makes water wine, and rebukes the sea, tossed αὐτοῦ. by the violence of the winds, and walks upon the sea, and makes one blind from birth to see, and raises Lazarus, four days dead, and performs various mighty deeds, and forgives sins, and gives authority to His disciples.” The same father, in a sermon on Elka- nah and Hannah, quoted in p. 88, called Christ God, speaking thus4; *« There were three seasons in the year which typified the Saviour ‘Himself, in order that He might accomplish the mysteries which were prophesied of Him: at the passover, that He might shew Himself to be Him that was to be sacrificed as a Lamb, and be manifested as the true Passover, as the apostle says; (1 Cor. v. 7,) ‘Our Passover is sacrificed for us, [even] Christ, [who is] God3.’” He ascribed the s Χριστὸς attribute of Divine omnipresence also to Christ in his treatise on the Θεὸς. Passover, from which the following words are quoted in the fore- mentioned volume of the Councils, col. 287, 288: “δ was en- tire in all and in every place, and, though He filled the universe, He disrobed Himself naked‘ before all the principalities of the 4 ἀνταπε- air, and for a little while he cries that the cup might pass [from δύσατο. Him, | in order that He might truly shew that He was man also.” Observe the phrase ‘man also;’ because, that is, He had another nature besides, and was God. 2. Besides the above, there are other statements of Hippolytus out of a commentary of his on the Book of Genesis. That com- mentary indeed is lost: still some fragments of it have been pre- served in what are commonly called the Catenas of the fathers on [282] μὲν ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ εὐκόλως ἐστὶ νοεῖν, bre πεινᾷ, καὶ κοπιᾷ, καὶ κάμνων διψᾷ K.A. Τὸ δὲ θεϊκὸν αὐτοῦ πάλιν φανε- , ρῶς ἐστιν ἰδεῖν, ὅτε ὑπ᾿ ἀγγέλων προσ- κυνεῖται, καὶ θεωρεῖται ὑπὸ ποιμένων, καὶ προσδοκᾶται ὑπὸ Συμεὼν, καὶ ὑπὸ “Avyns μαρτυρεῖται, καὶ ζητεῖται ὑπὸ Μάγων, καὶ σημαίνεται δι’ ἀστέρος, καὶ ὕδωρ ἐν γάμοις οἴνου ἀπεργάζεται, καὶ θαλάττῃ ὑπὸ βίας ἀνέμων κινουμένῃ ἐπιτιμᾷ, καὶ ἐπὶ θαλάσσης περιπατεῖ, καὶ τυφλὸν ἐν γενετῆς ὁρᾷν ποιεῖ, καὶ νεκρὸν Λάζαρον τετραήμερον ἀνιστᾷ, καὶ ποικίλας δυνάμεις τελεῖ, καὶ ἅμαρ- τίας ἀφίησι, καὶ ἐξουσίαν δίδωσι μαθη- tais.—[vol. i. p. 268. ] 4 τρεῖς καιροὶ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ προετυπ- οὔντο εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν σωτῆρα, wa τὰ προφητευθέντα ἐπὶ αὐτοῦ μυστήρια ἐπι- τελέσῃ" ἐν μὲν τῷ πάσχα, ἵνα ἑαυτὸν ἐπιδείξῃ τὸν μέλλοντα ὡς πρόβατον θύεσθαι, καὶ ἀληθινὸν πάσχα δείκνυ- σθαι, ὡς ὃ ἀπόστολος λέγει' τὸ δὲ πάσ- χα ἡμῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐτύθη, Χριστὸς ὃ Θεός.----ἰ vol. i. p. 267.} τ Ὅλος ἦν ἐν πᾶσι καὶ πανταχοῦ, γε- μίσας δὲ τὸ πᾶν πρὸς πάσας τὰς deplous ἀρχὰς γυμνὸς ἀνταπεδύσατο, καὶ πρὸς ὀλίγον βοᾷ παρελθεῖν τὸ ποτήριον, ἵνα δείξῃ ἀληθῶς, ὅτι καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἦν.--- [vol. ii, p. 45.) APPENDIX. GRABE’S Nores. 1“ fruitful branch.”’ Engl. Vers. 2 καὶ ev χάριτος μοίρᾳ. 8 κατὰ τὸ ἀληθὲς. 4 φυσικῶς. 5 ἀναφοί- τησις. [288] 6 ἀναδρομὴ. 7 [ver. 28. LXX.] 8 γέτοι. 9 κατά τινα. 104 10 κατὰ ἀλήθειαν πεφῃνὼς. 710 Testimonies out of fragments of Hippolytus ; the fore-mentioned book of Moses: some of which were transcribed at Rome by Isaac Vossius and were sent by him to the very learned Dr. John Mill, who out of his especial kindness towards me obligingly communicated them to me. Now amongst these fragments there occur the following words on ch. xlix. ver, 22, vids ηὑξημένος ᾿Ιωσὴφ, ‘«‘ Joseph is a grown son!*;” “For since the only-begotten Word of God, being God of God,” (observe the phrase of the Nicene coun- cil itself, as above p. 101. col. 1. [p. 215,] “ Light of lHght,”) “emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures, voluntarily lowering Himself to that which He was not, and put on this inglorious flesh, and appeared in the form of the servant, having become obedient to God, even the Father, unto death, on this account also is He said to be thenceforth highly exalted; and as if, by reason of His human nature, He almost had it not, and as if it were of grace*, He receives the name which is above every name, according to the words of the blessed Paul; but in reality® the thing was not a gift, as of that which existed not in Him naturally‘ at the beginning, far from it; it should rather be deemed a going back®; and a recurrence® to that which belonged to Him in the beginning, and essentially, and inseparably.” And a little afterwards, on the words, εὐλογίας πατρός καὶ μητρός, “the blessings of [thy] father and [thy] mother’,” he comments as follows‘; ‘There is clearly and manifestly intimated the generation of the Only-begotten both from God even the Father, and through the holy Virgin, according as He is understood and has been manifested as man. For being both naturally and truly the Son of God, even the Father, He endured for our sakes the birth which is through woman and the womb, and sucked the breasts. He did not assuredly®, as some will have it®, become man in appearance [only]; but having been manifested as, in truth!, that which we our- _ selves, following the laws of nature, are, He partook of food, although 5. ἀπειδὴ γὰρ ὃ μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, Θεὸς ὑπάρχων ἐκ Θεοῦ, κεκένω- κεν ἑαυτὸν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς, καθεὶς ἐθελοντὴς ἑαυτὸν εἰς ὅπερ οὐκ ἦν, καὶ τὴν ἄδοξον ταύτην capKa ἠμπέσχετο, καὶ ἐν τῇ τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ πέφῃνε, γεγονὼς ὑπήκοος τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρ μέχρι θανάτου, ταὐτῃ τοι λοιπὸν καὶ ὑπερυψοῦσθαι λέγεται" καὶ ὡς οὐκ ἔχων διὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον μονονουχὶ, καὶ ἐν χάριτος μοίρᾳ, λαμβάνει τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου φωνήν" GAN ἦν τὸ χρῆμα κατὰ τὸ ἀληθὲς οὐ δόσις ὡς ἐν ἀρχῇ τῶν οὐκ ἐνόντων αὐτῷ φυσικῶς, πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ νοοῖτο δ᾽ ἂν μᾶλλον ἀἄναφοίτησις καὶ ἀναδρομὴ πρὸς τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ καὶ οὐ- σιωδῶς καὶ ἀναποβλήτως ὑπάρχον αὐτῷ. ---ἰνο]. ii. p. 29, but less complete than in Grabe.—B. Grabe’s text is that which is printed here. ] t σαφῶς τε καὶ ἐναργῶς ἥ τε ἐκ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς γεννήσις τοῦ μονογενοῦς, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου σημαίνεται, καθὸ νοεῖται καὶ πέφῃνεν ἄνθρωπος. Υἱὸς γάρ ὑπάρχων φυσικῶς τε καὶ ἄλη-- θῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, δὲ ἡμᾶς ἀνέ- TAn τὴν διὰ γυναικὸς τε καὶ μήτρας γέννησιν, καὶ μαστοὺς τεθήλακεν. Οὐ γέ τοι κατά τινας δοκήσει γέγονεν, ἄν - θρωπος, ἄλλ᾽ ὡς τοῦτο κατὰ ἄλήθειαν πεφῃνὼς ὅπερ ἐσμὲν αὐτοὶ τοῖς τῆς φύσεως ἑπόμενοι νόμοις, καὶ τροφῆς ἠνέσχησεν. καὶ τοὶ ξωὴν αὐτὸς τῷ κόσ- py διδούς.---[ΤῊ18 fragment is omitted by Fabricius.—B.]_ . from the Treatises on Antichrist, of doubtful authority. 711 ‘He Himself giveth life to the world.” Lastly, Leontius, in his first book against Nestorius and Eutyches", has cited a passage from a commentary of Hippolytus on Balaam’s blessings, which I here give only in Latin, intending, if it please God, to add the Greek text out of a MS. in the Bodleian Library, in my Spicilegium of the third century, to the following effect; ‘‘ That it might be shewn that He had in Himself both, [viz., | the substance of God and that which is of! men; as the Apostle also says, ‘a Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.’ But a mediator is not of one man, but of two. It was therefore necessary that Christ, becoming a Mediator between God and men, should receive some earnest” from both, that He might appear a mediator between two persons *.”’ 3. But perhaps the reader who is well versed in the remains of the holy. fathers will wonder, why I have not adduced any testimonies to the Divinity of Christ from the writings of Hippolytus on Anti- christ. For in his treatise on the End of the world and Antichrist and the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ’, not far from the ON BOOK II. cH. 8. ὃ 2. Hipro.ty- TUS. [284] 1 ἐξ, 2 ἀῤῥαβῶ- νά τινα. 8 δύο προ- σώπων. [ Lat. Vers. ““ duarum natura- rum.” | beginning, in p. 3 of the Greek edition of Paris, 1556, we read¥,. “86 sojourning of God through the flesh.”” And in p, 14, he says, “Peter the rock of faith, whom Christ our God pronounced blessed.” Further on, in p. 30, he speaks of ‘‘the proper* power of His God- headY;” afterwards again”, “for our God sojourned among us in the flesh.” Lastly, in p. 40, he mentions the heathen [thus] exhort- ing the Christians*, ‘‘ Deny thy crucified God.” Similarly in his De- monstration of Christ and Antichrist, which, after Gudius, Combefis published in the last Auctarium of the Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, the sixth section thus begins”; ‘Since therefore the Lord Jesus Christ, [who is] God, by reason of His royal majesty and glory was proclaimed before as a Lion,” &c.; in the 44th section of the same ἃ [ This Spicilegium of Fathers of the Third Century, which Grabe was preparing, was interrupted by the death of the very learned author, and Hippolytus. See vol. i. Append. p. 3. —B.] W τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιδημίαν. --ἰᾷἝα i. p. 5.] was never published.’”’ So says Fa- bricius, who, in his own edition [of Hippolytus,] vol. ii. p. 45, supplies the Greek ; “Iva δὲ δειχθῇ τὸ συναμφό- τερον ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ τήν τε τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐσίαν καὶ τὴν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, ὡς καὶ 6 ἀπόστολος λέγει, μεσίτην Θεοῦ καὶ ἀν- θρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. Ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ γίνεται, ἀλλὰ δύο. “Ede: οὖν τὸν Χριστὸν Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων μεσίτην γενόμενον παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων ἀρραβῶνά τινα εἰληφέναι, ἵνα φανῇ δύο προσώπων wecirns.—B. } Υ [It is now quite settled by the learned, that this treatise is not by * ὃ Πέτρος, ἣ πέτρα τῆς πίστεως, dv ἐμακάρισε Χριστὸς 6 Θεὸς ἡμῶν. x. A.— [c. x. p. 9.] Υ ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος. --ἰἝο. xxii. p. 15.] * 6 γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῶν σαρκικῶς ἡμῖν ἐπεδήμησε.----[Τ014.] 8 ἄρνησαι τὸν Θεόν σου τὸν ἐσταυ- ρωμένον.---ἰ ς, xxviii. p. 19.] τοῦ μὲν οὖν Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὸ βασιλικὸν καὶ ἔνδοξον ὡς λέοντος προκεκηρυγμένου, k.A.—[ vol. i.p. 7. This treatise is held by Fabri- cius to be a genuine work of Hippo- lytus, ] 4 ἰδίᾳ. [285] APPENDIX. _ GRABE’S ΝΟΤΕΞΒ. 1 aliter ex- arata. [381] 137 712 Treatises on Antichrist ascribed to Hippolytus. work he speaks® ‘of God the Word who was conceived in the Virgin’s womb.”’ And in section 61. he speaks of ἃ “ Christ the Son of God, God and man.” I do not, however, think it advisable to’ set about proving a certain truth by uncertain and doubtful testi-: monies, as I frankly confess those to be which have been now adduced,’ — at least the greatest part of them. For as regards the former trea- tise, more than one of the passages cited from it, viz. those out of pages 3 and 30, are either entirely omitted or are written differently? in the Codex Baroccianus, as will be clear to the learned world from the various readings of that MS.°, which, if it please God, will be published in my Spicilegium of the fathers of the third century. In like manner the quotation from the 6th section of the Demon-: stration of Antichrist, in a parallel passage of the second treatise, (for the two passages agree word for word,) is thus expressed in p, 25' of the before-mentioned edition’; ‘Since therefore our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by reason of His royal majesty &c.” The remaining passages are (it is true) more eertain, but yet even they are not free from all doubt whatever; because both works of Hippolytus, especially the former, seem to be interpolated, as I shall shew at length in the Spicilegium. For in this place I am un- willing to go into a digression respecting these points, ON CHAP. X. 8 1, &e. Or Str. CypRIAN, AND HIS CITING OF THE WORDS OF St. JOHN, 1 EPIST. V. 7. 1. In the treatises of St. Cyprian himself there occur no more® proofs of the Divinity of Christ than what have been quoted by Dr. Bull. We may, however, add to them the testimony of Euchratius of Thenze, in the council of Carthage, over which St. Cyprian presided, and the acts of which, or the judgments of the © gov ἐν κοιλίᾳ τῆς παρθένου συνει- λημμένον Θεὸν λόγον.----ἰ sect. 45. p. 22. ] 4 Χριστὸν παῖδα Θεοῦ, Θεὸν καὶ ἄν- θρωπον.----ἰ Ὁ. 30. ] 6 [You have the various readings from the Codex Baroccianus, in the margin of the new edition of this tract, contained in the Appendix to vol. i.” Fasricius.—B. | £ τοῦ μὲν Κυρίου καὶ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἴησου Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τὸ βασιλικόν, &e.—[vol.i. p.7, and vol, ii. (sect. xviii.) p. 12.] ¢ [On the contrary, in very many other passages we read such phrases as the following, or similar, ‘our God and Lord Jesus Christ.’ It will be sufficient to mention the pages [ where they occur]: pp. 15, 35, 61, 92, 94, 99, 104 (twice), 109, 118, 189, 140, 158, 235, 349.—B. } Whether St. Cyprian cited 1 John v.7: denied by Facundus. 713 bishops, are contained among his works, in which, num. 29, the on Βοοκτι. _ following words of Euchratius are extant»: “Our God and Lord “π΄ 10: ὃ 1» Jesus Christ fully completed’ our faith, and the grace of baptism, and — the rule of the Church’s law, when He taught His apostles with His : as ᾿ ? perim- own lips, saying, ‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in Plevit. the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ ” Wherefore he rejected the baptism of heretics, “ from whose mouth poison, not life, not the grace of heaven, but blasphemy against the Trinity, is expressed.” Here the word Trinity, and the title of our God and Lord ascribed to Jesus Christ, occur just as in the epistles of St. Cyprian. But against the observation of our most learned author in § 2, to the effect that St. Cyprian, as well as Tertullian, quoted the words of St. John, Epist. i. 7, about the three Witnesses in heaven, there might be alleged as an objection the authority of a later African bishop, Facundus of Hermiane', who in the first book of his Defence of the three chapters, has the following4; “‘ The apo- stle John in his Epistle speaks thus concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, ‘There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood: and these three are one.’ By the Spirit signifying the Father, as the Lord says to the woman of Samaria, according to the Gospel of John himself; ‘ Believe Me that the hour is coming, &c.... God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him, must worship Him in spirit and in truth.’ By water signifying the Holy Ghost, as again he expounds in that same Gospel of his the words of the Lord, when He says; ‘If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink: He who believeth on Me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water :’ where he afterwards added; ‘ This He said concerning the Spirit, which they who should believe on Him should receive,’ &c. And by blood he means the Son, since He, of? the blessed Trinity, partook of flesh and [382] ex. h Fidem nostram et baptismatis gra- tiam, et legis ecclesiastice regulam Deus et Dominus noster Jesus Christus suo ore apostolos docens perimplevit, dicens, Ite et docete omnes gentes, bap- tizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. ... [Heretici] de quorum ore virus, non vita, nec gratia ceelestis, sed blasphemia Trinitatis ex- primitur.—[p. 333. ] i (Facundus flourished circa 540. Cave.—B. | i Joannes apostolus in Epistola sua de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu S. sic di- cit, Tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ; et hi tres unum sunt. In Spiritu significans Patrem, sicut Dominus mulieri Sama- ritane secundum ipsius Joannis evan- gelium loquitur, dicens, Crede mihi, quia veniet hora, §c. Spiritus est Deus, et eos qui adorant eum, in Spiritu et ve- ritate oportet adorare. In aqua vero Spiritum S. significans, sicut in eodem suo evangelio exponit verba Domini, dicentis, Si quis sitit, veniat ad me, et bibat. Qui credit in me, sicut dicit Scriptura, flumina de ventre ejus fluent aque vive ; ubi subsecutus adjecit, Hoc autem dicebat de Spiritu, quem accepturi erant credentes in eum, §c. In san- guine vero Filium significans, quoniam ipse ex S. Trinitate communicavit car- ni et sanguini, .. . Quod Joannis apo- stoli testimonium B. Cyprianus Car- thaginensis antistes et martyr in Epi- APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. [383] ! confitetur. 2 halluci- natus. 3 prorsus. 138 714 That St.Cyprian cited 1 John v.7. asserted by Fulgentius. blood.” And a little after he says ; ‘This passage of the apostle John the blessed Cyprian, bishop of Carthage and martyr, in an epistle, or book, which he wrote concerning the Trinity, understands to be said of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; for he says; ‘Thus saith the Lord, I and My Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, ‘ and these Three are One.’”’ These are the words of Facundus, from which we may gather, that Facundus not only did not himself acknowledge the words of St. John about the three heavenly Witnesses, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but did not even suppose that* they were quoted by Cyprian ; but on the contrary, [supposed] that, in the passage just cited from him, where he says “It is written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, ‘and these Three are One,’” he had in view the verse concerning the three witnesses on earth, expounded in a mystical sense. Against Facundus of Her- miane, however, I set another African writer, somewhat earlier and not less learned, Fulgentius*, bishop of Ruspe, who not only himself cites the controverted passage of St. John, in his book on the Trinity [addressed] to Felix Notarius, chap. 4!, but also states that it was quoted by St. Cyprian in the very passage which we are considering ; writing as follows, near the end of his answers against the Arians™: ** For the blessed apostle John testifies, saying, ‘There are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and [these] Three are one.’ Which the most blessed martyr Cyprian also, in his epistle on the Unity of the Church, acknowledges},” &c. From which epistle he quotes the words of St. Cyprian, and that more correctly than Facundus, who was certainly mistaken, when he quoted a book or epistle [of Cyprian’s] on the Trinity. In the opinion therefore of Fulgentius, Cyprian certainly? acknowledged St. John’s words about the three Witnesses in heaven; as indeed he most clearly indicates that he himself read those words in the African copies [οὗ the epistle.| Now the case of Tertullian is the same as that of St. Cyprian. 2. But whatever be decided with regard to the African copies of stola sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 5, dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Do- minus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu 8. scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt. [See in Sirmond. (Op. Paris. 1696.) vol. ii, p- 409, 10.—B. ] κ᾿ [Fulgentius flourished about A.D. 507. Cave.—B.] | [p. 881.] ™ Beatus enim Joannes apostolus testatur, dicens, Tres sunt qui testimo- nium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus; et tres unum sunt. Quod etiam beatissimus martyr Cyprianus in Epistola de Unitate Ecclesiz confite- tur, ἄς. [B. Fulgentii contra objec- tiones Arianorum Liber unus, ad de- cem objectiones decem responsiones continens.—p. 68. ] _ Reasons for believing that the verse was written by St. John. 715 the New Testament, which Tertullian and St. Cyprian used, I am on ΒΟΟΚΊΙ. _ still of opinion that St. John wrote those words about the three ©! 10: ὃ" Witnesses in heaven in his autograph; and I take this occasion of τς offering to the consideration of those who think differently on the subject, the arguments by which I have been brought to this opinion. 1. The controverted clause contains nothing which St. John has not expressly taught elsewhere, I mean in his Gospel, or rather recorded that Christ Himself taught. He names Three who bear record con- cerning Christ—the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and adds, that these Three are One. Now respecting the first of these three Witnesses, St. John relates in his Gospel the following words [384] of our Saviour, ch. v. ver. 37; ‘‘ The Father, who sent Me, hath Himself borne witness of Me;” namely, by that voice which came from heaven at the baptism of Christ, “‘ This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt. ili. 17. And of the first conjointly with the second Witness, St.John has again recorded the following saying of our Lord, viii. 18: “1 am one that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me.” Lastly, of the third Witness, the Holy Ghost, our Saviour says, John xv. 26, ‘‘ He shall testify of Με. And that these three Witnesses are One, the beloved disciple in the same book had before taught out of the mouth of his Master, who says, John x. 30, ‘‘ I and the Father are One.” From this it is plain, that not only the sense, but the very words of the controverted passage are found in the Gospel of St. John himself, although in different places. Why, then, should he not have also written them in his Epistle? Indeed I cannot by any means bring myself to think that the holy apostle, in a passage where he is expressly treating of those that bore witness to Jesus Christ, should have named the three earthly witnesses, but passed over in silence the three heavenly ones, being of greater, nay, of the greatest and absolutely infallible authority—God the Father Himself, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, to whose testimony he well knew that Christ had appealed. 2. My second reason is, that St. J ohn himself in the words immediately following, (ver. 9,) intimated that he had adduced the witness of God the Father concerning His Son; “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God, which He hath testified of His Son.” But if the controverted clause be removed out of the text, no witness of God the Father has gone before in the passage for him to urge in the verse just quoted. For with regard to the three witnesses, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, if, with some commentators, you understand by them the Spirit which Christ commended to the Father when dying on the cross, and the Blood. and the Water CYPRIAN. 716 The text, ν. 7, required by the context. Aprenprx. which flowed from His side after He was dead, and afforded proof GRABE’S Norss. [385] of the reality of His human nature, it is clear that their witness can- not be called the witness of God the Father. But if, (which is my own opinion, as 1 shall in another place set forth and prove at length",) St. John in this verse adduced the threefold testimony in confirmation of the truth, not of the human nature of Christ, but of His divine doctrine, and signified by this the threefold baptism, of which theologians are wont to speak, of the Spirit, Water, Blood, ( flaminis, fluminis, sanguinis ;) that is to say, the gifts of the Spirit, which were then poured out on believers, especially the spirit of το- phecy, which is expressly termed by the angel (Apoc. xix. 10) “ the testimony of Jesus ;” next, the baptism of water, which they who receive in the name of Christ, thereby publicly bear witness to Him ; lastly, the shedding of blood for the name of Jesus, which from the very beginning of the Church has been called witness, (μαρτύριον,) those also who bore such testimony being called wit- nesses, (uapripes;) (see Acts xxii. 20:)—if, I say, this opinion be accepted, then again these are not the witness of God, but of men. For they are men, although led by the Spirit of God, who whether by prophecy, or by the Sacrament, or by blood, established their own faith, and thence the faith of others, in Christ. When, therefore, the Apostle pressed the testimony of God, he seems clearly to have referred to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whom he had a little, or rather immediately, before mentioned as witnesses. 3. My third and last reason is this : the words ‘‘ on earth,”’ which are added to the three witnesses, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, would be quite superfluous, unless the mention of other witnesses in heaven had gone before or followed. And hence, I suppose, it is that in certain copies, in which the three Witnesses in heaven are wanting, the words “ on earth” are also left out. 3. The principal, indeed almost the only thing, which is alleged against the words of the apostle, is the paucity of the MSS., and especially of earlier ones, in which the passage was written and is still found. For it was wanting in the copy of the Syriac translator, and in several others, which were used by the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries after Christ, as we gather from the fact, that it is not found quoted any where in their genuine writings against the " [Grabe has nowhere in his pub- lished writings, so far as I know, treated of these words of 1 St. John v. 7, at length and expressly. Among his MS. papers, however, which are preserved in the Bodleian Library, there are se- veral pages on this subject, in the hand- writing of his father Sylvester Grabe, which this Sylvester Grabe copied in the years 1675—77 into certain in- troductory matter composed by him on the canonical authority of this text.—B.] The early loss of the verse accounted for; parallel cases. 717 heretics who denied the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. on soox 1. Nor is it extant at this day in the Codex Alexandrinus, and in others “™ oe 1, of highest character: and in those MSS. which do contain it, there ΣΊΞΞΩΣ: is some difference! in the reading, and generally also in the order: paulo di in which it is placed, being put after the other verse about the versum. three witnesses on earth. But my reply is, that all this does not 189 amount to a proof that those words respecting the three Witnesses in heaven were not written by St. John; it only proves that not long after they were omitted by some negligent or hasty transcriber, and that the text thus mutilated was thence transferred into many copies. And this omission in this text was evidently occasioned in the same way as the omissions by which the writings of almost all authors, both sacred and profane, have been mutilated, namely, by the repe- tition of the same words, τρεῖς εἰσὶν of μαρτυροῦντες, (“there are three [386] that bear witness,’’) or of those which finish the clause, ἕν εἰσὶν, (“ are one.”) But, that the reader may clearly see that exactly the same has happened in other passages of holy Scripture, and those too of St. John, I adduce two similar instances from St. Cyprian him- self and Tertullian, out of whose writings the genuineness of the controverted passage, of which we are speaking, is proved. In the council of Carthage, in which St. Cyprian presided as primate, we read in num. v., at p. 231 of St. Cyprian’s works, in the Oxford edition, the following words of Christ quoted from John iii. 6°; Quod natum est de carne, caro est ; et quod natum est de spiritu, spiritus est ; quia Deus Spiritus est, et de Deo natus est ; ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, because the Spirit is God, and is born of God.” In the same way Tertullian also quoted them in his work On the flesh of Christ, cap. 17}. If, then, we may form our judgment from the copies which these ‘fathers used, and from others, the following words, “Or: Θεὸς πνεῦμα ἐστι, καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ γεγεννημένον ἐστι, were written in the gospel of St. John, after the words, τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος, πνεῦμα ἐστι, and were afterwards omitted owing to the repetition of the word ἐστι. In like manner St. Cyprian, in book i. of his Testimo- nies against the Jews, chap. 15, at the end of p. 254, alleged the following words of the Saviour in the gospel, Non relinquetur in templo lapis super lapidem, qui non dissolvatur ; et post triduum aliud excitabitur sine manibus : ‘‘ There shall not be left in the temple one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down; and after three days another shall be raised up without hands.” This passage ο [p. 331.] $21.] p {(De Carne Christi, can. 17.) p. 4 [p. 280.] 718 Passages supposed by Dr. Grabe to have been lost in most APPENDIX. as a Whole you will in vain look for in any'of the editions of the GRABE’S Notes. [387] holy Gospels. The former clause, indeed, you may see in Mark ΧΙ, 2; οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ, ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλύθη, “there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down ;” but the latter, so far as I know, you will find only in the Cambridge Greek MS., (Codex Cantabrigiensis:) expressed thus; Kat διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλως (ἄλλος) ἀναστήσεται ἄνευ χειρῶν, ‘and after three days it shall be raised up in another way, (or, another shall be raised up,) without hands.” That these words, however, proceeded from the very hand of St. Mark, I can scarcely — doubt from the history of the same Evangelist concerning the false witnesses against Christ, in which (in the very next chapter, xiv., ver. 58.) he relates that certain testified that they had heard from the mouth of Christ the following words; “1 will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.” Which last are the very words be- fore cited, nowhere else committed to writing in the holy Gospels, except in that place of St. Mark*; and omitted in it very long ago by negligent or hasty copyists owing to the repetition of the par- ticle καὶ (kai διὰ, and καὶ καθημένου), and accordingly preserved in but few MSS. 4, For the satisfaction, however, of those persons also, who do not allow that the controverted words of St. John were quoted even by Tertullian and Cyprian, or any other ancient father, I will ad- duce two more verses of the New Testament, which are wanting in° the published copies, and in most MSS., and those of the greatest antiquity, and are not quoted by the fathers; but which, notwith- standing, I am convinced were written by the blessed apostles them- selves, because there is no reason for their being added, whilst there is just the same cause of their omission as we have observed in the passages just referred to. For instance, after these words in John Vi. 56, ὁ τρώγων . . .. Kaya ἐν αὐτῷ, “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood dwelleth in Me and I in him,” you have the following subjoined in the ancient Codex Cantabrigiensis ; Καθὼς ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ Πατὴρ, κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ. ᾿Αμὴν, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ λάβητε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὡς τὸν ἄρτον τῆς ζωῆς, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, ‘as the Father in Me, and I in the Father. Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye take the body of the Son of man, as the bread of life, ye have not life in Him.” In like manner in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, between the 23rd and 24th τ [And in a few codices of the Italic 5 [See however St. John ii. 19.—B.] version in Griesbach.—B. } MSS. of the N. T.; these not of essential importance. 719 verses of chap. xi., the following clause, according to Curcellzus, is oN Book 1. found interposed in some copies‘; πίστει μέγας γενόμενος Μωῦσῆς ἀνεί- ““" 10.81, | se ὲ : Aero τὸν Αἰγύπτιον, κατανοῶν τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ" “ By | faith Moses, when he was come to years, slew the Egyptian, per- CxEREA ceiving the affliction of his brethren.” Now who does not see that the former of these clauses was dropped out [of its context | owing to the recurrence of ἐν αὐτῷ or καθώς, and the latter from the repeti- tion of the words, πίστει Μωῦσῆς μέγας γενόμενος ? why then should not the same thing have happened in the controverted passage of St.John? Nor do those instances of defects in certain copies of the Holy Scriptures, which I have adduced, detract from the provi- dence of God in the preservation of those Scriptures, seeing it is sufficient that there are extant some MS. copies or books, by the aid of which we may amend those defects. Not to say, that these passages are either not all concerned with, or not needed, for con- firming the necessary articles of the faith, because the truth of these articles can be proved by many other passages of Holy Scripture, which are unquestionably genuine’. prorsus illibatis, ON SECTION VI. 140 -"..- Or NovaATIAN. Arter Novatian had in chap. 11. clearly stated the Divinity of Christ, in the words which were quoted by the Rev. Dr. Bull, [988] he proceeds in chap. 12. and 13. to prove it at length out of the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testaments. From these chap- ters it will not be out of place to transcribe the following particular passages, since it will be manifest from them, that with the very same weapons wherewith we now contend against heretics, the fathers of the Church of old time pierced through the wild beasts of their own age, and also, that they regarded this doctrine of the Divinity of Christ as necessary to salvation. Novatian then thus commences his twelfth chapter": “Why then should we hesitate to say what Scripture does not hesitate to express? Why should the truth of our faith falter on a point whereon the authority of Scripture never faltered ? t [The Codex Beze and Basil. Vid. Scriptura non dubitat exprimere? cur Griesbach.—B. j hesitabit fidei veritas, in quo Scrip- ἃ Cur ergo dubitemus dicere, quod ture nunquam hesitavit auctoritas? APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. { Hos. i. 7.] 1 repro- mittit, [389] 720 Additional testimonies from Novatian. For behold the prophet Hosea says in the person of the Father; ‘I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by horses, nor by horsemen, but I will save them by the Lord their God.’ If God says that He saves them by God, and God does not save except by Christ; why should man hesitate to call Christ God, when he sees that He is in the Scriptures declared to be God by the Father? Nay, if God the Father save not but by God, no one will be able to be saved by God the Father, unless He confess that Christ is God, in whom and through whom the Father again and again promises’ that He will give salvation: so that whosoever ac- knowledges Him to be God, will deservedly find salvation in Christ f who 15] God: and whosoever does not acknowledge Him to be God, will lose that salvation which he can find no where else except in Christ {who is] God.” Presently after, quoting the words of Isaiah, chap. vii., about Immanuel, and deducing thence an argument for the Divi- nity of Christ, he thus proceeds, ‘‘ The same prophet [xxxv. 87] says, ‘Be strong, ye weak hands, and, ye feeble knees, be confirmed; be strong, ye that are of a fearful heart, fear not. Behold, our God will recompense judgment, He will come and save us. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear,’ &c. If the prophet says, that at the coming of God there shall be these signs, which have come to pass, let them either acknowledge Christ, at whose coming and by whom these signs of healing were wrought, to be the Son of God; or, overcome by the truth of Christ’s Di- vinity, rushing into the other heresy, in their unwillingness to ac- knowledge Christ to be the Son of God, and God, they will acknow- ledge Him to be the Father. For being constrained by the words of the prophets, they cannot any longer deny that Christ is God.” He argues in like manner from what Habakkuk says, [iii. 3,] “ God Ecce enim Osee prophetes ait ex per- sona Patris, Jam non salvabo eos in arcu, neque in equis, neque in equitibus, sed salvabo eos in Domino Deo ipsorum. Si Deus salvare se dicit in Deo, non autem salvat nisi in Christo Deus; cur ergo homo dubitet Christum Deum di- cere, quem Deum a Patre animadver- tit positum per Scripturas esse? imo si non salvat nisi in Deo Pater Deus, salvari non potuerit a Deo Patre quis- -quam, nisi confessus fuerit Christum Deum, in quo se et-per quem se re- promittit Pater salutem daturum; ut merito quisquis illum agnoscit esse Deum, salutem inveniat in Deo Christo; quisquis non recognoscit esse Deum, salutem perdiderit, quam alibi nisi in Christo Deo invenire non pote- rit.—[p. 713.} Y Idem prophetes, [xxxv. 3.]. Con- valescite manus dissolute, et genua de- bilia consolamini, pusillanimes sensu convalescite, nolite temere. Ecce Deus noster judicium retribuet, ipse veniet, et salvabit nos. Tunc aperientur oculi ca- corum, et aures surdorum audient, &c. Si in adventu Dei dicit prophetes hee futura signa, que facta sunt, aut Dei Filium agnoscant Christum, in cujus adventu et a quo hee sanitatum signa facta sunt, aut divinitatis Christi veri- tate superati, in alteram heresim ru- entes, Christum dum Filium Dei et Deum confiteri nolunt, Patrem illum esse confitebuntur. Vocibus enim pro- phetarum inclusi, jam Christum Deum negare non possunt.—[Ibid., p. 714.] Evidences of our Lord’s Divinity from the New Test. 721 shall come from the south!, and the Holy One from the dark and onsoox 11. dense mountain.” Out of the thirteenth chapter, which contains CH 108%: the passages of the New Testament, and the arguments derived ἐγένρώναρ: _ from them, I shall add only the following”: “But if, whilst it is” “""°* the attribute of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, [yet] Christ sees the secrets of the heart; and if, whilst it is the attribute of none but God to remit sins, [ yet] the same Christ remits sins; and if, whilst it is not the property of any man to come down from heaven, [yet] He descended and came down from heaven; and if, whilst this saying cannot be that of any man, ‘I and My Father are One,’ [yet] Christ alone utters this saying, out of the conscious- ness of Divinity; and if, lastly, the apostle Thomas, supplied with all the proofs and facts of Christ’s Divinity, making answer to Christ, says, ‘My Lord and my God!’ and if the apostle Paul also in his Epistles, says, ‘Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever ;’ and if the same [ St. Paul] declares that he was appointed ‘an apostle, not by men, or through man, but through Jesus Christ ;’ and if again he maintains, that ‘ he had learned the Gospel not of men,’ or through man, ‘but that he had received it through Jesus Christ ;? we have good reason [to say] that Christ is God.” Compare also what he has afterwards in chapter 30. ON BOOK II. CHAP. 11. 8ξ 5, 6. [414] 160 Or Sr. Dionystus ΟΕ ALEXANDRIA. Dr. Butt at the end of § 5. quotes the statement of Dionysius of Alexandria, asserting, as Athanasius relates, ‘‘that the Trinity is gathered up into a unity, without being divided or diminished.” meus et Deus meus dicit; quod si et apostolus Paulus, quorum, inquit, pa- w Quod si cum nullius sit, nisi Dei, cordis nosse secreta, Christus secreta conspicit cordis; quod si, cum nullius sit, nisi Dei, peccata dimittere, idem Christus peccata dimittit; quod si, cum nullius sit hominis de ccelo ve- nire, de ccelo veniendo descendit; quod si, cum nullius hominis hee vox esse possit, Ego et Pater unum sumus, hance vocem de conscientia divinitatis Chris- tus solus edicit; quod si postremo, omnibus divinitatis Christi probatio- nibus et rebus instructus apostolus Thomas, respondens Christo, Dominus BULL, tres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus bene- dictus in secula, in suis literis scribit; quod si idem se apostolum non ab homi- nibus, aut per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum constitutum esse depromit ; quod si idem evangelium non se ab ho- minibus didicisse, aut per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum accepisse contendit ; merito Deus est Christus,—[Ibid., p. 715, A, B.] 3A APPENDIX. πὰρ α SR ene - oe cee ae | GRABE’S Notes. 1 πλατύ- VOVTG. 2 ras ὗπο- στάσεις. 3 εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν. [416] 4 ἄμουσατω. δ προσγέ- γραπται. 722 Dionysius of Alexandria; quotations given from Greek But the very words of Dionysius, which up to this time were wanting in the Greek in all the editions, have been most happily restored entire from MSS.* in the most recent edition, by the very learned Montfaucon, to whom all praise is due, in tom. i. part i. p. 255: they are to this effecty; ‘‘Thus indeed do we extend the Unity undivided into the Trinity, and again gather up the Trinity undi- minished into the Unity.’’ This statement of Dionysius was evidently in the mind of Isidore of Pelusium, when, in book ii. epist. 143, he wrote’: “It is a most correct and true doctrine, when extenging ! the hypostases? into the Holy Trinity, to gather Them into one sub- stance*,’’ In like manner, in the second passage which was quoted above, ὃ 6, [p. 310,] out of Dionysius, Ρ. 144. col. 2. line 6, after these words, ὅτε μὴ αὐτοὶ εἶεν τὰ τέκνα, (“ that they [parents] are not themselves the children,”) the following clause must be added, ἢ μήτε γονεῖς ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν εἶναι, μήτε τέκνα, (‘ otherwise it must needs follow that there are neither parents nor children®.””) For in this form does the passage occur entire both in the treatise on the Decrees of the Synod of Nice, tom. i. p. 231. of the last edition, [page 255,] and in the treatise on the synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, p. 758. Then again a little after, instead of ἐκεῖνο καθέ- στηκεν ὁμοιοφυὲς, (“It [the plant] is of a similar nature with it [the seed],”) we should read ἐκείνῳ ὁμοφυὲς καθέστηκεν, (“is of one nature with it,”) as again is evident from the forementioned treatises of Athanasius». But after that passage of Dionysius, Athanasius adds presently other words out of the third book of the same author's Apology, which also well confirm the consubstantiality of the Son‘; “Τα was begotten of life, and flowed as a river from a fountain, and was kindled bright light from light [which meanwhile was] not extinguished.”’ Neither are those statements unworthy of observa- tion which are quoted a little afterwards in p. 257, C.4, out of the second book of the Apology of Dionysius*: ‘‘ Now if any slanderer should suppose that, since I have called God the Maker and Creator of all things, I assert that He is [the Creator] also of Christ ; let him observe 4 that I had previously called Him Father, in which [word] the Son also is by implication expressed®. For after calling Him * [It is all the MSS. Montfaucon.— B.] Υ οὕτω μὲν ἡμεῖς εἴς τε τὴν τριάδα ᾿ χὴν μονάδα πλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα πάλιν dpelwrov εἰς τὴν μο- νάδα συγκεφαλαιούμεθα. 5 τὸ δὲ πλατύνοντα eis τὴν ἁγίαν. τριάδα τὰς ὑποστάσεις εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν συνάγειν, ὀρθότατόν ἐστι καὶ ἀληθέστα- τον δόγμα. [p. 190, D. ed. Par. 1638.] * [See above, p. 310, note u.] b [See above, p. 310, note v. ] © Cwh ἐκ ζωῆς ἐγεννήθη, καὶ ὥσπερ ποταμὸς ἀπὸ πηγῆς ἔῤῥευσε, καὶ ἀπὸ φωτὸς ἀσβέστου λαμπρὸν φῶς ἀνήφθη. 4 [Grabe quotes from the same edi- tion as we do.—B.] © ἐὰν δέ τις τῶν συκοφαντῶν, ἐπειδὴ τῶν ἁπάντων ποιητὴν τὸν Θεὸν καὶ δη- μιουργὸν εἶπον, οἴηταί με καὶ τοῦ Χρισ- τοῦ λέγειν, ἀκουσάτω μου πρότερον πα- τέρα φήσαντος αὐτὸν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὃ vids corrected, and additional testimonies cited. 723 ‘Father,’ I added ‘Maker.’ Now neither is any the Father of that on soox 11 of which He is the Maker, if Father be used in its proper sense, [to 5’ il. express Him] who has begotten; for the extent of the appellation = τᾶς IONYS. of Father, we shall enquire into in what follows; nor is the Father Arex. a Maker, if by Maker is simply meant a Fabricator!.”” The reader ! χειροτέχ- may find other passages of Dionysius in page 259 of the same book. ””™ ON BOOK II. CHAP. 12. § 4. [433] 157 Or Grecory THAUMATURGUS’ CONFESSION oF FAITH. HoNnovuRABLE mention is made of Gregory by Eusebius in three places of his Ecclesiastical History. In book vi. ch. 30, he says con- cerning the disciples of Origen’; ‘those whom we know to have been the most illustrious of them are, Theodorus, who was the same person as Gregory, the most famous of the bishops of our age, and his brother, Athenodorus.’’ And in book vii. ch, 14, and 28, he men- tions him among the principal bishops of that period: but he does not name any works of his, or any books written by him. To supply this defect however, Ruffinus in this last passage, Eccl. Hist. vii. 26, (according to his division,) has mentioned [them, | in the following words: ‘‘ But since the text of the history has made mention of the blessed Gregory, I think it very proper to insert into this narrative, for the remembrance of posterity, the deeds of so great a man, which are celebrated in the discourse of all throughout the east and the north, but have been, from what chance I know not, omitted [here. |”’ Then after narrating some of his miracles, he adds the following about his writings": ‘ But he has also bequeathed to us in a small compass very great monuments of his genius. For the same Gregory wrote a very noble paraphrase” on Ecclesiastes. He has also left behind him ? meta. phrasin : ; .. magnifi- ‘ Nae Verum quoniam beati Gregorii contissime προσγέγραπται. μετὰ γὰρ τὺ εἰπεῖν ) Historie textus attulit mentionem, dig- scripsit. πατέρα, ποιητὴν ἐπαγήοχα' καὶ οὔτε πατήρ ἐστιν ὧν ποιητὴς, ei κυρίως ὃ γεν- νήσας πατὴρ ἀκούοιτο᾽ τὴν γὰρ πλατύ- τητα τῆς τοῦ πατρὺς προσηγορίας ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς ἐπεξεργασόμεθα᾽ οὔτε ποιητὴς ὁ πατὴρ, εἰ μόνος 6 χειροτέχνης ποιητὴς λέγοιτο. ἴ ὧν ἐπισήμους μάλιστα ἔγνωμεν, Θεόδωρον, ds ἦν αὐτὸς ὃ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἐπι- σκόπων διαβόητος Τρηγόριος᾽ τόν τε αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὸν ᾿Αθηνόδωρον. [p. 294.} nissimum puto, tanti viri gesta, que sub orientali et septentrionis axe cunc- torum sermone celebrantur, omissa, nescio quo casu, huic narrationi ad memoriam posteritatis inserere. [p. 171, B. ed. Basil. 1528.] h Sed et ingenii sui nobis in parvo maxima monumenta dereliquit. In Ec- clesiastem namque metaphrasin idem Gregorius magnificentissime scripsit. * 724 On St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, and St. Lucian. ἌΡΡΕΝΡΙΧ. an exposition of the Catholic Faith briefly expressed; which I have Grase’s thought it well to append here for the edification of the Churches.” N ; sos Hereupon follows the very confession of Gregory, which has been already recited in this chapter, p. 151, [p. 323.] [165] ON BOOK II. CHAP. 18. § 4, &e. ¢ Or St. Lucian tHe Martyr. In confirmation of Lucian’s orthodoxy the following words of Suidas respecting him are of no slight importance’; ‘‘ You will find 1 τῶν θείων the purity of the divine doctrines! most exactly guarded by this man δογμάτων. yore admirably than by any of that time; for he also put forth most 3 ἀμέλει excellent? epistles, from which one may very easily detect? what Lo eags opinion he maintained touching the things of God‘.”” ‘To this testi- 3 φωράσαι. Mony of Suidas the greater weight is due, inasmuch as he proves his [459] statement? out of the very epistles of Lucian, which he mentions ® ; Beli τῶν from which, had they been still extant, we might have received yet 5fidem greater assurance on the point. But they have all perished: nor — facit. has any, as far as I know, been preserved, except a single fragment laudat. of one of them by the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, on the year 303. 4 ON CHAP. 18. 8 9, &e. Or St. Mretuopivs. Wuitst reading Methodius’ Banquet of the Virgins, in vol. ili. of the Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, where it is found only in Latin", I met with the following statements respecting the true Di- Et catholice fidei expositionem brevi- [Suide Lexicon sub voc. Λουκιανός. ter editam dereliquit; quam pro edifi- k [Besides the edition mentioned eatione ecclesiarum sociare his com- ΒΥ Bull in p. 357, the Greek is extant modo duxi. [p. 175, B.] in Combefis’ Auctarium of the Bib- i τὴν καθαρότητα τῶν θείων δογμάτων liotheca Grecorum Patrum, published παρὰ τούτῳ τὶς ἂν κάλλιστα τῶν Kar? at Paris, 1672.—B. The edition re- ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον γενομένων ἐπ᾿ ἄκρον ferred to seems to be the Greek ex- εὕροι φυλαττομένην. ἐξέθετο γὰρ καὶ tracts in Photius. The Greek original ἐπιστολὰς ἀμέλει γενναιοτάτας, ἐξ ὧν is given here, as in Dr. Burton’s edition, φωράσαι τις ἂν εὖ μάλα ῥᾳδίως, ἣν 6 from Combefis, and is followed in the ἀνὴρ περὶ τῶν θείων ἔσωζε γνώμην. translation. } - Additional passages from St. Methodius. 725 vinity of Christ and the mystery of the Holy Trinity. In Oration on soox πι. i. p. 678, F., he thus speaks concerning the Word!; “ For this cause ©# 13: § 9, did He, being God, choose to clothe Himself with human flesh, that = beholding, as it were in a picture, a divine model! of life, we might prus. ourselves also be able to imitate Him who delineated it?.’’ In Oration ! θεῖον éx- ii. p. 681, G. H.™, he calls Christ “ἃ Man filled with pure and per- 7", fect Deity, and God contained® in Man.” And shortly afterwards Pie és he says"; “For since He Himself, being in the beginning with God, * κεχωρη- most truly4 both was and is the chief captain and shepherd of those Hes ie in heaven.” In Oration v. p. 686, B., he says°; “ Which he called dais, a symbolically an heifer, and a goat, and a ram of three years old, as it were suggesting the correct notion of the Trinity.”” Lastly, in Ora- tion viii. p. 693, G. H.?, after mentioning those heretics who “ erred concerning one of the numbers? of the Trinity, sometimes concerning ὅ ἕνα τῶν that of the Father ..., and sometimes that of the Son ..., and some- ὁρμῶν. times concerning that of the Spirit ;” he adds the following words respecting the orthodox faith of the Catholic Church, mystically sig- nified, according to the view of Methodius, by the 1260 days in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse‘; “Moreover, the 1260 days, during which we are here on our pilgrimage, is the correct, exact, and most excellent knowledge concerning the Father and the Son and the Spirit, in which our Mother rejoices as she increases.” For the rest, there exist besides one or two treatises of Methodius, out of which several, and those very clear testimonies might be alleged in support of the consubstantiality of the Son and the Catholic confession of the Holy Trinity: but I abstain from them, because these treatises ap- pear to be either spurious or interpolated. I shall speak of them, if it please God, in my Spicilegium of the fathers of the third century. [460] 1 frabrn γὰρ ἡρετίσατο τὴν ἄνθρω- πίνην ἐνδύσασθαι σάρκα Θεὸς ὧν, ὅπως ὥσπερ ἐν πίνακι θεῖον ἐκτύπωμα βίου βλέποντες ἔχωμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸν γρά- ψαντα μιμεῖσθαι.---Ὁ. 70.1 m [τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν, ἄν- θρωπον ἀκράτῳ θεότητι καὶ τελείᾳ πε- πληρωμένον, καὶ Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ κε- χωρημένον.---Ὁ. 79. | n [ἐπειδὴ yap αὐτὸς ὡς ἀληθῶς ἦν “σε καὶ ἔστιν, ἐν ἀρχῇ dv πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, 6 ἀρχιστράτηγος καὶ ποιμὴν τῶν κατ᾽ ovpavdv.—p. 80. } ο [ἃ συμβολικῶς δάμαλιν ἔφη καὶ αἶγα καὶ κριὸν τριετίξζοντα, οἱονεὶ τὴν γνῶσιν ἀκακέμφατον τῆς τριάδος ἐπανῃ- ρημένα.---ῬὉ. 92.} P [περὶ ἕνα τῶν ἀριθμῶν τῆς Tpiddos διεσφαλμένοι, ὅτε μὲν τὸν τοῦ Πατρὸ----- ὅτε δὲ τὸν τοῦ viod—ére δὲ περὶ τὸν τοῦ πνεύματος.---Ὁ. 118.} 4 [αἱ δὲ χίλιαι καὶ διακόσιαι ἡμέραι καὶ ἑξήκοντα, ἃς ἐνθάδε ἐσμὲν εἰς ἐπιδη- μίαν, ἣ περὶ τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν ἀκριβὴς καὶ ἀρίστη σύνεσις, ἣ γέγηθεν ἡμῶν ἥ μήτηρ αὐξανομένη.---Ὁ. 114.} APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. [470] 172 1 σχήματι. 2 κεχαρι- τωμένη. [471] 8 \ 4 παρὰ τὴν ἀνδρὸς ἀπουσίαν. 4 ἐνανθρω- πήσαντα. 5 γέγονεν. 720 Testimonies from St. Peter, Bp. of Alexandria. Or St. Peter, ΒΡ. or ALEXANDRIA AND Martyr. [APPENDIX TO BOOK ii. 6. 14.] To the Antenicene fathers whom our very learned author has brought forward as witnesses of the true Divinity of Christ, I will add Peter, bishop of that very church of Alexandria, out of which Arius afterwards went; who suffered martyrdom for the Christian faith about the year of Christ 311. For from his work concerning the Godhead, the following words amongst others are quoted in the first Act of the council of Ephesus, vol. iii. of Labbe’s Councils, col. 507r, ** The Word having become flesh by the will of God, and having been found in fashion! as a man, was not deserted by the Godhead.” And shortly after: ‘‘ Whence also the evangelist speaks truly, when he says ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us;’ from the time namely when the angel saluted the Virgin, say- ing, ‘ Hail, thou that art highly favoured”, the Lord is with thee ;’ for we may now hear from Gabriel the words, ‘The Lord is with thee,’ for, God the Word is with thee.’”’ (Which passage is again quoted in the seventh Act of the same council, col. 835.) And again, in the same book a little after, he says*; ‘“‘ God the Word by the will of that God who is mighty to effect all things, became flesh in the Virgin’s womb, in the absence of a man3, for He required not the instrumentality or presence of a husband.” Indeed that Peter believed Christ to be truly and essentially God, taking the designa- tion God in its proper sense, is manifest from a Homily of his on the Advent of our Saviour; from which the following passage is quoted by Leontius, book i. against Nestorius and Eutyches; “ And He said to Judas, ‘Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?’ These things, and such as these, and all the miracles which He wrought, and the mighty deeds, shew Him to be God made man*. Both [truths] then are shewn, that He was God by nature, and became* man by naturet,” * [See also Routh’s Rell. Sacr. iii. p. 344, The words are: ] θελήματι Θεοῦ 6 λόγος σὰρξ γενόμενος, καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, od κατελείφθη [οὐκ ἀπελείφθη, Routh, e MS.) τῆς θεότητος"... ὅθεν καὶ ὃ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἀληθεύει λέγων, Ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν" τότε δηλονότι, ἀφ᾽ οὗ 6 ἄγγελος ἠσπάσατο τὴν παρθέ- νον, εἰπὼν, Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη, ὃ Κύ- ριος μετὰ σοῦ. τὸ γὰρ, ὃ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ, νῦν ἐστιν ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ Γαβριὴλ, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ὃ Θεὸς λόγος μετὰ σοῦ. 5. ὃ δὲ Θεὸς λόγος παρὰ τὴν ἀνδρὸς ἀπουσίαν, κατὰ βούλησιν τοῦ πάντα δυ- ναμένου κατεργάσασθαι Θεοῦ, γέγονεν ἐν μήτρᾳ τῆς παρθένου σὰρξ, μήτε δεη- θεὶς τῆς ἀνδρὸς ἐνεργείας ἢ παρουσίας. t [The Greek is thus given by Dr. Routh, Rell. Sacr., p. 346, from a MS. copy of Leontius of Byzantium, pre- served in the Bodleian Library. Kat τῷ Ἰούδα φησὶ, Φιλήματι tov υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδως ; Ταῦτα, τά τε τού- Passages from Justin M. examined and explained. 727 For the rest, to the testimonies which have been thus far adduced out of the Antenicene catholic doctors, to the consubstantiality of the Son of God, might be added the statements of some of the heretics also of that period: of such, I mean, as, whilst they denied the reality _ of Christ’s human nature, still allowed His divine nature. I abstain, however, from enumerating them, on the ground that they appear to be of no such great moment, and also because some of them held only a fictitious Christ' or Son of God, and others maintained an imaginary Divinity? of the Father and the Son. ON BOOK III. CHAP. 2. § 1, &e. Or St. Justin Martyr. As atestimony to the co-eternity of the Son of God, the learned au- thor, in the first place, adduced the words of St. Justin from his first Apology (as it is commonly called,) in which amongst other things he says": “The Word, who before all created things was both in being with Him and begotten [of Him,] when (quando, not guoniam ‘inasmuch as,’’ as it is printed in all the editions, and even the most recent at Oxford’), in the beginning He created and set in order all things through Him, is on the one hand called Christ,” &c. For it is to be observed that the reading is ὅτε (when) not ὅτε (inasmuch as); and that the clause, “when in the beginning,” &c., is, as it seems, to be connected with the preceding word, ‘‘ being begotten,” not with what follows, ‘‘is called Christ*,” &c. For otherwise the blessed Martyr will scarcely escape the charge of tautology, when he immediately adds, in order to explain the etymology of the name Christ, ‘because He hath been anointed, and God set all things in order through Him.” Accordingly some time ago I ob- served on this passage Y, that Justin expressed two ideas by the two Grabe argues is this, “‘ The Word, who τοις ὅμοια, τά τε σημεῖα πάντα ἃ ἐποίησε, before all created things was both in καὶ ai δυνάμεις, Secxviow αὐτὸν Θεὸν εἶναι ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. Τὰ συναμφότερα τοίνυν δείκνυται, ὅτι Θεὸς ἦν φύσει, καὶ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος φύσει. « [The Greek is quoted at p. 402. γ᾽ [8vo. Oxon. 1703; the volume was edited by H. Hutchin, but Grabe sup- plied the notes &c. which he had pre- pared for the edition. ] * [The construction against which being with Him and begotten of Him, is called Christ, inasmuch as in the beginning He created, and set in order all things by Him, because He hath been anointed, and God set all things in order through Him.”’] y [Note on the passage, p. 13, ed. Oxon, 1703.] ON BOOK It. cH. 14, Perer AL. 1 fictum hristum. 2 commen- titiam dei- tatem, [521] 191 APPENDIX. GRABE’S Nores. 1 forte προσω- μίλει. [523] 2 ἀρχὴν (or ἀρχὴ.) 728 Other like passages from Justin, Theophilus, and Tatian. different words συνὼν and γεννώμενος, and the repetition of the par- ticle καὶ, καὶ, ‘‘ both in being with, and begotten ;”’ by the former, His eternal existence in and with the Father, by the latter, His gene- ration of the Father, or His going forth before the world was created, and in order to the creation of it; on which see what our distinguished author has said at the end of § 2. of this chapter. Quite parallel to these words of Justin, and especially fitted to illustrate them, are those of Theophilus of Antioch to (or against) Autolycus, book ii. p. 1002, where he says that the Son of God is.‘‘ the Word, that is evermore indwelling in the heart of God,” and presently adds, “* But when God willed to make whatever He had determined on, He begat this His Word,” (which he had said was evermore, in other words, from eternity, in existence within the heart of God,) “ [so as to be| put forth, the first-born of every creature.”’ And from what has been so far said, those passages are to be explained which occur in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho respecting Christ, where p. 267, B.®, Trypho, aceording tothe mind of Justin, says that He ‘ pre-existed, being God before [all] ages,’’ (προὔπάρχειν Θεὸν ὄντα πρὸ aidvor,) and Justin himself, p. 276, D.», [says] ‘‘ who is God even before the creation of the world” (τὸν καὶ πρὸ ποιήσεως κόσμου ὄντα Θεόν.) In like manner, p. 285, D.°, he says, “‘ This Offspring, that was in very deed put forth from the Father, was [in being | with the Father before all created things, and with Him the Father converses,” (per- haps we should read ‘ conversed! ;”) ‘as the Word through Solomon hath revealed, that also in the beginning? before all the creatures, this very Offspring was by the Father begotten.” For that ἀρχὴν should be read here instead of ἀρχὴ (i. 6. “in the beginning” instead of “as a beginning’’) I am persuaded not only by the words already quoted from the first Apology, but also by what comes a little before in this very Dialogue, p. 284, A.4: ‘In the beginning before all the creatures, God begat from out of Himself a certain rational power.” That is to say, this “rational power” existed from eternity in the Father ; and in the beginning of the creation of all things went forth from the Father, and was manifested externally®; as Tatian also, the disciple of Justin, p. 20‘. of the excellent edition lately pub- * [§ 22, p. 365, quoted in book iii. ch. 7. § 8. p. 461.] a [8 48. p. 143, 144.] b [§ 56. p. 152.] © πτρῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ τούτῳ ὃ Πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ, (forte προσωμίλει,) ὡς ὃ λόγος διὰ τοῦ Σολομῶνος ἐδήλωσεν, ὅτι καὶ ἀρχὴ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ γέννημα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεγέννητο.---ἰ ὃ 62. p. 159. ] ἃ ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμά- των ὃ Θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμιν τινὰ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν.--- δ 61. p. 1567.} ¢ [The Benedictine editors maintain in opposition to Grabe that ἀρχὴ not ἀρχὴν should be read; for the Word is said to be begotten not “ in the begin- ning,’ but rather ‘‘as a beginning” and “‘ principle.” —B. } £ [§ 5. p. 247, quoted above, book Testimonies to the eternity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. 729 lished at Oxford, says, “ For with Himself, through rational power, on soox there subsisted also the Word Himself!, which was in Him. And 1 55. 2 Ξ es ce "ΞΕ : § 1, Χο. by the will of His simplicity, the Word bounds forth,” (i. 6. “ when it oar wee ὍΣ: a Ξ Justin M. pleased His simplicity ;” for so I translate it, rather than, ‘when ; et ipsum He willed the Word bounded forth from His simplicitys.’’) verbum. Lat. ON BOOK III. CHAP. 2. § 4. 192 Or St. [nen zvs. To the testimonies which the reverend author has adduced from Irenzeus for the co-eternity of the Son of God, I add the statements of the same writer, book iv. chap. 37, in which he asserts at the same _time the eternity of the Holy Spirit. For in that place, at page 330, col. ii. line 18, sqq. of our edition, we read®, ‘There is ever pre- sent with Him (God the Father) His Word and Wisdom, Son and Spirit, through whom and in whom He made all things freely and spontaneously, whom also He addresses saying, ‘ Let us make man after our image and likeness.’” And a little after, page 331, col. i. line 86, sqq.'; “That! (quoniam [in the Latin Version,] i. 6. quod, from the Greek ὅτι) the Word, that is the Son, ever was with the Father, we have proved by many arguments. And that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was with Him before all creation, He says by Solomon, ‘God in Wisdom founded the earth,’” &c. You will say that Irenzeus himself explains ‘ always’ by the words, ‘ before all creation,’ in other words, before the creation of the world, but not from eternity; and that this is also evident from the proof which he refers to when he says, ‘“‘ we have proved by many arguments ;” for that he has in view book iii. chap. 11, and 18, as is gathered from the parallel passage, book iii. chap. 20*, which begins thus: “ Seeing that it has been clearly shewn, that the Word who was in the be- ginning with God, through whom all things were made, who also was ever present with the race of mankind, that He in the last days, [624] iii. ch. 6. § 1. p. 448. Grabe refers to Worth’s edition, Oxon. 1700. ] 8 [These words and those that pre- cede them are differently pointed by the Benedictine editor, from which a very different meaning results, See book iii c. 6. § 1, &.—B.] h Adest ei (Deo Patri) semper Ver- bum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, per quos et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit, ad quos et loquitur, di- cens, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.—({c. 20, 1. p. BULL. 253. ] i Quoniam (i.e. quod, ex Greeco ὅτι) Verbum, id est Filius, semper cum Patre erat, per multa demonstravimus, Quoniam autem et Sapientia, que est Spiritus, erat apud eum ante omnem constitutionem, per Salomonem ait, Deus Sapientia fundavit terram, &c.— [ib. § 3.] k Ostenso manifeste, quod in prin- cipio Verbum existens apud Deum, per quem omnia facta sunt, qui et semper aderat generi humano, hune in novis- 5B 730 His expressions imply the eternal existence of the Word. — ArPeNpIxX. according to the time fore-ordained by the Father, being united to GRraABE’s Nores. [626] 1 genera- tionem. bo og enesim. that which was created by Himself, was made man liable to suffering, all the opposition is precluded of those who say, if then Christ was born at that time, it follows that He was not in being before. For we have shewn that the Son of God did not then begin [to be], seeing 4 . 3 ' He was ever in being with the Father.”” But from the doctrine οὗ the preceding chapter 18, and also of chapter 11, nothing more can be — elicited than that Christ, the Word and only-begotten Son of God, was in being before His incarnation, and even before the-creation of the world; which, although it was denied by the Ebionites in the time of Irenzus, and by the Socinians at this day, still was not denied by the Arians, but only His eternal co-existence with the eternal God the Father. I reply, that when, in the passages cited, Trenzeus declares the pre-existence of Christ before [His birth of ] the blessed Mary His Mother, and even before the creation of the world, he supposes His eternity; and that he sufficiently declared this his meaning, when in the passages cited he says, that “ He was EVER present with God His Father,” and co-existed {with Him ;] which would have been false, if the Arians’ assertion had been true, that God the Father at any time existed, when the Word or Son of God was not yet in being. But just as from the words of Irenzeus, which we have now quoted, in which he asserts that Christ ‘‘ was ever present with the race of mankind,’ you would correctly infer, that the race of mankind was not in being at any time when Christ was not also in being; so also from the other passages, in which he teaches again and again, that the Word ever was with God the Father and co-existed [with Him,] you would with good reason con- clude, that God was not in being at any time when His Word was not also in being, and that therefore the Word is eternal and without beginning. And this very thing Irenzus in another passage teaches in the clearest terms, namely in book ii. chap. 18, p. 138, col. 2, line 181, when he refutes the Valentinians, “who apply to the eternal Word of God, the putting forth’ of the uttered word of men, (the words in the Greek, according to the conjecture of Billius, Observ. Sacr., book i. c. 33, are, of τὴν φορὰν τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων προφορικοῦ λόγου ἀναφέρουσιν εἰς τὸν ἀΐδιον τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον,) attributing to Him both a beginning of being put forth, and a production?, just as to ἃ simis temporibus secundum prefinitum num verbi transferunt in Dei eternum tempus a Patre, unitum suo plasmati, Verbum, (Grace ex conjectura Billii passibilem hominem factum, exclusa 110. i, Observat. Sacr. cap. 33.) et pro- est omnis contradictio dicentium, Si lationis initium donantes et genesin, ergo tunc natus est, non erat ergo ante quemadmodum et suo verbo.—[e. 13. Christus.—[c. 18. 1. p. 209. ] 8. p. 132. ] ' Qui generationem prolativi homi- On.the two senses of the word αὐτοθεός. 731 word of their own.” But he contends that this is absurd, seeing on Booxtv. that the Word is God Himself. If then Irenzeus had laid down that °#:?:§* there is a beginning of the existence of the Word, or had denied !®£N2US. His eternity, his charge would have been returned on himself: and far be it from us to attribute so discreditable a mistake to the holy doctor. 257 ON BOOK IV. CHAP. 1. § 10. [702] [ON THE WORD αὐτοθεός.] To the passages of Origen, Athanasius, and Eusebius, alleged for the mode of expression, by which the Son of God is called αὐτοθεὸς, the authority of Epiphanius (Heres. lxxvii.) may be added™; ‘God the Word, having in Himself entire perfection, being very! Per- ξέναις εἰι05. fection, very” God, very Power, very Mind, very Light.” And in what sense these expressions were used by them and are to be un- derstood by us, is admirably set forth in the words of Athanasius near the end of his Hortatory [ Address to the Heathen, ] p. 51. tom. i. edit. Par. 1627": ‘ And these He is, not in the way of participation, nor do these accrue to Him from without, as in the case of those who partake of Him, and are made wise through Him, and in Him are endued with power and reason; on the contrary, He is very Wisdom, very Word, and very Power, the [very] own [ Power ] of the Father.” That is to say, the word αὐτὸ prefixed to nouns generally indicates that the thing signified by the noun is such properly, essentially, and by force of its own nature; as Suidas instructs us in his Lexicon in the following words®: “ Philosophers called αὐτὸ that which was so called in the proper sense of the term; and also expressed the Idea by the word αὐτὸ, saying αὐτοάνθρωπος, man himself, [the idea of man, } and αὐτοδοξαστὸν, [i, e.] that which is properly and rather to be opined [than any other],” and no catholic will deny that in this sense Christ is designated αὐτοθεὸς, as our great author truly observes, and no less truly denies that He is to be called αὐτοθεὸς, so far forth as the prefix αὐτὸ denotes that this or that thing is such from itself, and has not its substance or quality derived from another. For it is certain that Christ received Godhead and divine attributes from the Father. 2 αὐτοθεὺς. [703] m 6 Θεὸς λόγος ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχων τὴν πᾶσαν τελειότητα, αὐτοτέλειος ὧν, αὖ- τόθεος ὧν, abrodivauis, αὐτονοῦς, αὐτο- φῶς. \(§ 46. p. 46.) The passage is quoted by Bp. Bull above, book ii. ch. 9. ὃ 13. p. 253, note ec. ] 2 ov κατὰ μετοχὴν ταῦτα ὧν, οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν ἐπιγινομένων τούτων αὐτῷ, κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοῦ μετέχοντας καὶ σοφιζομένους δι’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ δυνατοὺς, καὶ λογικοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ γινομένους, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοσοφία, αὐ- τολόγος, αὐτοδύναμις ἰδία τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν. ° αὐτὸ ἔλεγον οἱ φιλόσοφοι τὸ κυρίως λεγόμενον" καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν διὰ τοῦ αὐτὸ ἐδήλουν, αὐτοάνθρωπος λέγοντες" καὶ αὐτοδυξαστὸν τὸ κυρίως καὶ μᾶλλον δο- ξαστόν. : APPENDIX. GRABE’S Notes. [765] 279 [766] On the omnipresence of the Son. ON BOOK IV. CHAP. 3. § 5, &c. [Or Sz. Justin Marryr.] To what the reverend author has said of Justin Martyr, § 5, I add this only, that if our opponents would conclude that Justin denied the immensity and omnipresence of the Son of God, from the fact that he has said that He appeared in a narrow portion of the earth, having, as it were, left the heavenly places ; we might by like reason infer that Justin Martyr denied the immensity and omnipresence of God the Father also, because he seems to confine Him, as it were, to the places that are on high. For against Trypho page 275, A.P he speaks of God the Father as, “ ever abiding in the highest heavens,” ἐν τοῖς ὑπερουρανίοις ἀεὶ μένοντα. And page 357, A.4, he says, “In His own place where He ever abides, seeing acutely, hearing acutely.” As however God the Father is said to be in heaven, because “the angels in heaven behold His face,” (Matt. xviii. 10,) so is the Word said to have been on earth, because He appeared on earth under a visible form to patriarchs and other holy men; whilst yet Each fills heaven and earth alike, according to Jeremiah, xxili. 24. For the rest, to the passages which have been adduced out of Irenzeus in behalf of the invisibility, and, so to say, incomprehensibility of the Son of God, there is to be added the truly remarkable passage, book iii. chap. 18, p. 241, col. 2", to this effect. ‘‘ Therefore summing up into Himself man also, He the Invisible was made visible, and the Incomprehensible made comprehensible, and the Impassible passible, and the Word man, summing up all things into Himself; so that as in the supercelestial, and spiritual, and invisible, the Word of God is chief, so also in the visible and the corporeal He may have the pre- eminence, assuming the chief place unto Himself, and setting Him- self the Head unto the Church, may in due time draw all things unto Himself.” Read Clem. Alex. Strom., book vii. p. 704, A.§, and p. 711, A. B.t Of the other fathers I add nothing, for the sake of brevity. P [§ 56. p. 150.] 4 ἐν τῇ αὐτοῦ χώρᾳ ὅπου ποτὲ μένει, ὀξὺ ὁρῶν, καὶ ὀξὺ ἀκούων.---ἰ ὃ 127. p. 220. * Et hominem ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visibilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehensibilis, et impassibilis passi- bilis, et Verbum homo, universa in semetipsum recapitulans; uti sicut in superceelestibus, et spiritalibus, et in- visibilibus princeps est Verbum Dei; sic et in visibilibus, et corporalibus principatum habeat, in semetipsum primatum assumens, et apponens semetipsum caput ecclesiz, universa attrahat ad semetipsum apto in tem- pore.—[c. 16. 6. p. 206. ] 5 [p. 833. ] Ὁ [p. 840.] OXFORD: PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON. RAS Beak 4 ἢ si ve Ὄς BT 999 Β55 1851 v.2 SMC Bull, George, 1634-1710. Defensio fidei Nicaenae = a defence of the AKL-6595 (sk) ἘΠῚ μὰν re Dine ΗΜ high vti io Ἐν ee iets ᾿ ΤΗΝ woe ἣν SIE ES ἢν ΠΤ ΜΉΝ Bite ἜΗΝ igs ; : pyar. haga pints eat. eae Bey sheet RAY ‘ bers v Ζ Μ eae τ ἘΣ ΠῚ ἀν ΤῈΣ hry! hei 4) ni Peery τ a τ ΝΜ " a ters ἶ WT ἔτ: Pree 4 MAL baa? Be we PER PETE ἰὴ ἷ i nis Gres i ἢ ΤΣ ἐν Ἢ ΓῈ τ ny hy ἐν ΤῊ : ae ἐν Fopy ys f ΔΡΎΕΣ ΣΐΝ τ Ἂς Ὑ γεν Pee pe το Ca + rr Rlspdheed: τ μ text ἂν Seen ἘΝ ΠΝ ΝΕ tg tate ath to " ᾿ ae 3 AL ers Hivectarnernaesce aT tress ai ο ρα ἐν τε ie Lakers ae Ἢ “τ : εἰς ΠΝ Megs ¢ ἢ ALE πῇ S| Me) Ἶ . r 4} Η εν : γν ΠΣ ¥h Mu is” μι Mere vier (Maes } popu. ᾿ ΝΣ 4 I pty a st ete SAA Eh Py CtSRETEEY : SLA Rt ᾿ Σ Op ett Tet / FUR i ᾿ i ee fendi ΡΝ if EAR ΜΉΝ oat ect ἘΠ δ ΝΑ τ ἐν τ a res ah An : ENP ΒΝ tt Ne 4 { Ἂν ὃς Mayhew) ix a Baraca ΣΤΥ ὁ ati rer ἈΜΠΕΝ Υ etree vA ᾿ τ ac alee LAY nS ἊΝ ae ἊΣ ΠΝ ait Verviers) J Was ἐν ΣῈ γα εὐ Pv yy ΤΥ see Whore ates ὍΣ AUP Ral yeaa ig. EAM ee ὗς vee ᾿ Heats Raat δὴ τ ἢ ef ft % hex if ie 9 ᾧ ᾿ Ἔν ath ices ii . ad t Ἢ ἘΠ eat it Bunch ΤῊΝ τὸ ὯΝ At Srey UGC Eun Ora EH ea ἮΝ pat LPS Pees thins ΤῊ κεν ἢ oo Aion rest hal He ote τὺ ἘΠ ἫΝ ῃ ieee νὴ Ἢ ONT te ΤῊΝ at Uy alee ey ¥ ἘΠῚ EEE Pea ape Saye. oak ais Pe ἀν τος τ Ἧ PURE ALE Hay I ehwcvrayt ᾿ ΤῸ υν “isnt ͵ i κύσε τας tas (ys ve pupete ῃ ge Ne one Ebene ab raat : as re si ore eine ἫΝ ts SuSE es Ha art 2 tans et ee ΩΣ Cat ANA AEX Nis πὰ HD PLUG ERS any aan ee SAVES ECL ANC ἡ} At da SU) ἜΝ τὰ * sit r ΣΎΡΩΝ "ἡ ἃς ἐγ ι os ee ie } LH si [ ἐπ πη Ἔν a . ὕει a Pia ὅπη ἘΝ ΜΕ 7: Sis a an ΤΥ eae τῆς ΔΗ Henleys fa eh if Ver δ τῇ ΤΥΥΣ ΠΈΝΗΣ i an +h ᾿ Peyenele TEC γε τ ΟΡ ΣᾺ s le Ξ ~ et per γε. Te ‘ CORTES ‘ ἢ fy, set ‘ as) ΠΡ] ᾿ i a 4 Ky tay ‘ Peete - ~ σ΄ τῷ Ξ - που τς 2 Pr SR = ae 7 -᾿ Sate Se ES ὡς “ΡΟΣ . ti » it ’ bent λ ty sh hae a vay τ tye ‘ ἜΣ ἰὴ Ξε Ξ oe ; “Ὁ ἐν τος ct a τ αν OLE oy τῇ BR ae) rig sey ares th { ἐδ ᾿ πεν Bits Weds ‘ +e