Christ, but of his Church: and if we under the Gospel had been called so.
it could have received no other interpretation in reference to us. But being
* is not ours, but our Saviour's name, it bears no kind of fimilitude with.
those objected appellations, and is as properly and directly to be attributed to
the Meffias as the name of Jefus. Wherefore it remaineth that Christ be
acknowledged God with us, according to the Evangelical interpretation,
with an expression of that excellency which belongeth to the fupreme Deity.

Again, He to whom S. Thomas faid, My Lord and my God, or rather, John 20. 18, The Lord of me, and the God of me, he is that God before whose name the Greek Article is prefixed, which they require, by way of excellency. But S. Thomas spake these words * to Christ. For Jefus Spake unto Tho-* Indeed it mas, and Thomas answered and faid unto him, My Lord and my God. bath been an And in these † words he made confeffion of his Faith; for our Saviour repli- these words ed, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. And let him are not to be be the Lord of me, and the God of me, who was the Lord and the God ofreferred an Apostle.

fwered, that

to

Christ, but te God the Father. So The

odor. Mopsuestenus in his Commentary on S. John; Thomas quidem, cùm fic credidisset, Dominus meus & Deus meus dicit, non ipsum Dominum & Deum dicens (non enim refurrectionis fcientia docebat & Deum esse eum qui resurrexit) fed quafi pro miraculofo facto Deum collaudat. Syn. V. Collat. 4. As if Thomas had intended only to have praifed God for raising Christ. But first, it is plain that Thomas answered Christ; secondly, that be spake unto him, that is to Christ, and consequently that the words which he spake belong to Christ; thirdly, that the words are a Confession of his Faith in Christ, as our Saviour doth acknowledge. And whereas Francifcus Davidis did object, that in a Latin Testament he found not & dixit ei, but & dixit without ei, it is sufficiently discountenanced by Socinus in his Epistle, affirming that all the Greek and Latin Copies had it, except that one which he bad found: and therefore the omission must bé imputed to the negligence of the Printer. † Ὁ κύριός με κὶ ὁ Θεός μ8. Either in these words there is an Ellipsis of el Cu, Thou art my Lord, Thou art my God: or an Antiptosis, the Nominative Cafe used for the Vocative, as Ἐλων, Ἐλωΐ, ὁ Θεός με, ὁ Θεός με, Mark 15. 34. ̓Αββά ὁ πατὴς, Mark 14. 36. and Χαῖρε ὁ βασιλούς 7 Ιεδαίων, John 19. 3. If it be an Ellipsis of the Verb &, so frequent in the Scriptures, and of the Person sufficiently understood in the preceding Pronoun, then is it evident that ὁ Θεός is attributed unto Chrift, for then S. Thomas faid unto him, Thou art ὁ Θεός με. If it be an Antiptosis, though the construction require not a Verb, yet the fignification virtually requireth as much, which is equivalent: for he acknowledgeth him as much God while he calleth him so, as if he did affirm him to be so. Neither can it be objected that the Article & ferveth only in the place of ei, as fignifying that the Nominative is to be taken for the Vocative Cafe; because the Nominative may as well stand vocatively without an Article, as Ἰωσὴφ κος Δαβίδ, Mat. 1.20. and ̓Ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, Κύριε, φὸς Δαβίδ, Mat. 20.30, 31. and therefore when the Vocative is invested with an Article, it is as confiderable as in a Nominative. And being these words were an expression of the Apostle's Faith, as Christ understood and approved them, they must contain in them, virtually at least, a Proposition; because no att of our Faith can be expreffed, where the Object is not at least a virtual Proposition. And in that Proposition, ὁ Θεὸς must be the predicate, and Christ, to whom these words are spoken, must also be the Subject. It cannot therefore be avoided, but that S. Thomas did attribute the name of God to our Saviour with an Article. Indeed to me there is no doubt but S. Thomas in these words did make as true and real a Confession of his Faith concerning the Person of Christ, as S. Peter did, when he answered and faid, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, Mat. 16. 16. and consequently, that ὁ Κύριος, and ὁ Θεὸς do as properly belong unto him, as S. Peter's & Xessos and ὁ yos. As therefore Christ said to his Disciples, Vos vocatis me ὁ διδάσκαλος, καὶ ὁ Κύριος, & bene dicitis, fum etenim, John 13. 13. So he might have replied to Thomas, You call me ὁ Κύριος, and s Θεὸς, and you say well, for I am so. As for the objection of Socinus, that though Θεός be here spoken of Christ, and that with an Article o, yet that Article is of no force because of the following Pronoun us it is most groundless: for the Article & cannot have relation to the following Pronoun με. Ἐπεὶ πῶς ἡ ἀπαράδεκλος ἀντωνυμία ἢ ἄρθρων ἐν ψυικῇ πλώσει συθείας ἄρθρον ταραδέχε). as that great Critick Apollonius Alexandrinus observes, 1. 1. de Syntax. c. 30. And if for με, it were ὁ ἑμὸς, yet even that Article would belong to Osos, for in these words, ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμὸς, neither Article belongs to ἐμὸς but both to θεός for, as the same Critick observes in the same case, τὰ δύο ἄρθρα εἰς μίαν τ' σύθεῖαν ἀναφέρε)· ἐκἄρα ἐν τῷ, ὁ πατὴς ὁ ἐμὸς, καζενάγκασαι τὸ ἕτερον ἢ ἄρθρων ἐπὶ ἢ ἀντωνυμίαν φέρεπζ. So that if ὁ θεὸς be the fupreme God, then ὁ θεὸς με must be my supreme God: as when David Speaks to God ὁ θεὸς, ὁ θεός με, πρός σε ὀρθείζω, Pfal. 62. 1. the latter is of as great importance as the former. So again, Pfal. 42.5. ἐξομολογήσωμαι ἐν κιθάρα ὁ θεὸς, ὁ θεὸς μ8 and 49. 3. ὁ θεὸς ἐμφανῶς ἤξει, ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν· and 70. 13. ὁ θεὸς μὴ μακριύης ἀπ ̓ ἐμᾶ, ὁ θεός με. I dare not therefore say to any perfon that he is ὁ θεός με, except I do believe that he is ὁ θεός. Wherefore I conclude that the words of S. Thomas, ὁ κύρι ός με τῷ ὁ θεός μs, are as fully and highly fignificative as those of David, Πρόχες τῇ φωνῇ ὁ δεήσεώς με, ὁ βασιλούς με κὶ ὁ θεός με, Pfal. 5. 2. thofe, ὁ θεός με κὶ ὁ κύριός με, εἰς τ δίκίω με, Pfal. 35.23. or those, Τὰ θυσιατήριά (ε, κυρίε δυνάμεων ὁ βασιλούς μ8, κὶ ὁ θεός με, Pfal. 84.3. or those of S. John in the Revelation, as they lie in the Alexandrian and Complutensian Copies. "Αξια εἶ, ὁ κύριος κὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ ἅγιος, λαβεῖν, &c. or that lastly in the most ancient Hymn. Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνὸς τῷ Θεᾶἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

or

Nor have we only their required teftimony of Christ's fupreme Divinity, but also an addition of verity asserting that Supremacy. For he is not only termed the God, but, for a farther certainty, the true God: and the fame Apostle, who faid the Word was God, lest any cavil should arife by any omiffion of an Article, tho' fo frequently neglected by all, even the most accurate Authors, hath also assured us that he is the true God. For, we know, faith he, 1 John 5. 201

S2

that

ἀληθινός Θε

ός, εκὶ ἡ ζωή

de vero

Deo, ut arti

Racov.

ἀπὸ Ἱερεσα

that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his * Οὗτός ἐσιν : Son Jefus Christ. * This is the true God, and eternal life. As therefore we read in the Acts, of the Word which God fent unto the children of Ifαίωνιος. Hica-rael, preaching peace by Jesus Christ; he is Lord of all where it is acgitur non fo- knowledged that the Lord of all is by the Pronoun † he joined unto Jefus Deo, fed de Christ, the immediate, not unto God, the remote antecedent: so likewife illo uno vero here the true God is to be referred unto Christ, who stands next unto it, not culus in Græ- unto the Father, spoken of indeed in the Text, but at a distance. There is co additus in- no reason alledged why these last words should not be referred to the Son of dicat. Catech. God, but only this, that in Grammatical construction they may be ascribed Atts 10. 36. to the Father. As, when another King arose which knew not Joseph, the † οὗτος for os, fame dealt fubtilly with our kindred; the fame referreth us not to Jofeph, as Acts 8. 26. but to the King of Egypt. Whereas, if nothing else can be objected but a λήμ εἰς Γάζαν poffibility in respect of the Grammatical construction, we may as well fay αύτη έσιν έξη that Jofeph dealt fubtilly with his kindred as the King of Egypt; for whatfoever the incongruity be in History, it makes no Solcæcifim in the Syntax. 6 Afts 7. 18, Wherefore being Jesus Christ is the immediate Antecedent to which the Relative may properly be referred; being the Son of God is he of whom the Apostle chiefly speaketh; being this is rendred as a reason why we are in him that is true, by being in his Son, to wit, because that Son is the true God; being in the language of S. John the constant Title of our Saviour is eternal life; being all these reasons may be drawn out of the Text it self, why the Title of the true God should be attributed to the Son, and no one reason can be raised from thence why it should be referred to the Father: I can conclude no less, than that our Saviour is the true God, so styled in the Scriptures * Δοξάζω 1 by way of eminency; with an Article prefixed, as the † first Christian Wrixesorters which immediately followed the Apostles did both fpeak and write.

μος, quæ eft deferta.

19.

Θεόν. Ignat.

Epift. ad Smyrn. Ἐν θελήμαζι το Πατρός, κὶ Ιησε Χρισὰ τὸ Θεῦ ἡμῶν. Id. Ep. ad Eph. O γδ θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησᾶς ὁ Χρισός ὁ ἐκυοφορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας. 10. Ὁ γὸ θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησᾶς Χρισὸς ἐν Πατρὶ ὧν μάλλον φαίνε). Εp. ad Rom. Τῷ Θεῷ λόδα τὰ λο γικὰ πλάσματα ἡμεῖς. Cl. Alex. adv. Gentes. And it was well observed by the Author of the Mine Λαβύρινθος, zuritten about the beginning of the third-Century, that not only the ancienter Fathers before him, as Justin, Miltiades, Tatianus, Clemens, Irenæus, Melito, &c. did speak of Christ as God, but that the Hymns also penned by Christians from the beginning did express Christ's Divinity. Ψαλμοί ἢ ὅσοι κὶ ὠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πισῶν γραφεῖσαι * λόδον τῷ Θες Χρισὸν ὑμνᾶσι θεολογῶντες. And the Epistle of Pliny to Trajan teftifies the same. Quod effent foliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quafi Deo dicere.

Rom. 9.5.

* Tho fome God out of

But, Thirdly, were there no fuch particular place in which the Article were expressed, yet shall we find fuch Adjuncts fixed to the name of God when attributed unto Chrift as will prove equivalent to an Article, or whatsoever may express the fupreme Majesty. As when S. Paul doth magnifie the Jews, out of whom, as concerning the flesh, Chrift came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. First, It is evident that Christ is called * God, even he who came of the Jews, tho' not as he came of them, that is, according to the flesh

the words, but give a full Exposition of them: "Hend ἡ τε και (άρκα προθήκη πραδηλῶσαι τῷ δεασότε Χρισῦ τ' θεότητα· ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ εἰρηκώς, το γλυομθύς ἐκ απέρμαζα Δαδίδ κε, (άρκα, ἐπήδαδε, τῶ ὁριθέντα ἡς θεῦ ὦ διωάμει· ὕτως ἐνταῦθα εἰπὼν τὸ, κ' (άρκα, προσέθεικε τὸ, ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς ἐυλοΓητὸς εἰς τὸς αἰῶνας. As for the omission of Deus in s. Hilary on the Psalms, it must of neceffity be attributed to the negligence of the Scribe, not to the reading of the Father. For how he read it he hath clearly expressed in his books de Trinitare: Non ignorat Paulus Chriftum Deum, dicens, Quorum funt Patres, & ex quibus Christus qui est super omnia Deus. Non hic creatura in Deum deputatur, fed crea turarum Deus eft, qui fuper omnia Deus eft. The pretence therefore of Erasmus from the Fathers is vain; and as vain is that of Grotius from the Syriat Translation, which hath in it the name of God expressly, as well as all the Copies of the Original, and all the rest of the Translations; ראיהוהו אלחא בעל כל

or

κ πνεῦμα·

where Cás xx is used

και πνευ μα, to which

which is here * diftinguished from his Godhead. Secondly, He is so called God as *Th Σάρκά not to be any of the many Gods, but the one fupreme or most high God; † for he opposed unto is God over all. Thirdly, He hath also added the title of blessed, which of it felf As Rom. 1. 3. elsewhere signifieth the fupreme God, and was always used by the Jews to express that one God of Ifrael. Wherefore it cannot be conceived S. Paul without an should write unto the Christians, most of which then were converted Jews Article, beProfelytes, and give unto our Saviour not only the name of God, but also caufe add that title which they always gave unto the one God of Ifrael, and to it is opposed,, none but him; except he did intend they should believe him to be the fame followeth, and So the opposiGod whom they always in that manner, and under that notion had adored. tion is of it As therefore the Apostle speaketh of the God and Father of our Lord Fe-self apparent. fus Chrift, which is is blessed for evermore, of the Creator, who is blessed for there bein But here being ever, Amen; and thereby doth signifie the fupreme Deity, which was so not to be exglorified by the Ifraelites; and doth also teftifie that we worship the fame preffèd in the God under the Gospel which they did under the Law: so doth he fpeak

following of words, the

Article to fig la distinnifying of it etion or exception, sherw

eth that is to

Chrift in as fublime a style, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen; and thereby doth teftifie the equality, or rather identity, of his Deity. If we confider the scope of the Apostle, which is to magnifie the Ifraelites by the enumeration of such privileges as belonged peculiarly to that chofen Nation, (the most eminent of which was contained in the Genealogy of our Saviour) be understood. we shall find their glory did not consist in this, that Christ at first was born to ἂν ἐπὶ πάν of them a man, and afterwards made a God, for what great honour could rwv. Not in accrue to them by the nativity of a man, whose Godhead is referred not Erafmus, nor to his birth, but to his death? whereas this is truly honourable, and the fuper omnes, peculiar Glory of that Nation, that the most High God blessed for ever reference to should take on him the feed of Abraham, and come out of the Ifraelites as the Fathers, concerning the flesh. Thus every way it doth appear, the Apostle spake of which should Chrift as of the one eternal God.

omnibus, as

as Beza, with

have been ἐπὶ πάντων αὐτῶν· but, as the

vulgar Translation, and the ancient Fathers before that, fuper omnia, ἐπὶ for ἐπάνω; as John 3. 31. ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμθυο ἐπάνω πάντων ἐςὶ, which signifieth no less than עליון the ordinary name of God, ὁ ὕψις, the most High, as it is taken for the supreme God by it self, Acts 7.48. and is described, Pfal. 97. 9. Ὅτι ζύ εἶ Κύριε, ὁ ὕψικο ἐπὶ πᾶσαν – γιῶ, (φό δρα υπερυψώθης ὑπὲρ πάντως τὸς θεῶς. † As Mark 14.61. Συ εἰ ὁ χρισός ὁ φὸς τῷ ἐυλοΓητῶ; Art thou the Chrift the Son of the Bleffed? where the vulgar attribute is taken for God himself, which is usually added to the name of God, as 2 Cor. 11. 31. Ὁ θεὸς, ὦ ὧν ἐυλοΓητὸς εἰς τὸς αἰῶνας· or to any description of him; ὡς ἐλάτρωσαν τῇ κλίση αρὰ τ κλίσαντα ὃς ἐσὶν ἐυλοδητὸς εἰς τὸς αἰῶνας ̓Αμιώ. And these expressions of S. Paul are consonant to the ancient custom of the Jews, who, when the Priest in the Sanctuary rehearsed the name of God, were wont to answer, Blessed be his name for ever. Infomuch as the Blessed One did fignifie in their language as much as the Holy One, and both, or either of them, the God of Ifrael. Hence are so frequent in the Rabbins, הקרוש ברוך הוא the Holy Blessed One, and ברוך הוא the blessed One, that they are written by abbreviation, הב"ה or הקב"ה and the infinite blessed one, א"ס ב"ה Blessed be God for ever, Amen and Amen, בי"לאו and וי"לאו a2 Cor. 11. 31. Rom. 1. 25.

He then who was the Word which in the beginning was with God, and was God; he whose Glory Ifaias saw as the Glory of the God of Ifrael; he who is stiled Alpha and Omega without any restriction or limitation, he who was truly subsisting in the form of God, and equal with him before he was in the nature of man; he who being man is frequently called God, and that in all those ways by which the fupreme Deity is expressed; he had a being before Christ was conceived by the Virgin Mary, and the being which he had was the one eternal and indivisible Divine Essence, by which he always was truly, really, and properly God. But all these are certainly true of him in whom

:

ン

* This Herefie

whom we believe, Jesus Christ, as hath been proved by clear teftimonies of the facred Scriptures. Therefore the being which Christ had before he was conceived of the Virgin was not any created, but the Divine Essence; nor

was he any Creature, but the true eternal God: which was our fecond Afferwas so called tion, particularly opposed to the * Arian Heresie.

from two who

bare the same name, aud fell at the same time into the same opinion; one of them being a Presbyter, and Rector of a Church in Alexandria, the other a Deacon: as Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle extant in Theodoret: Εἰσι ἢ οἱ ἀναθεμαλιθέντες αίρεσιῶς, ἀπὸ πρεσβυτέρων μ, "Αρειο από Αλακόνων 5, ̓Αχιλλᾶς, Ευζώϊθ, "Αρειος ἕτερος, &c. In the Epistle of the Arians to Alexander, he is reckoned amongst the Presbyters; "Αρειος, ̓Αειθελής, ̓Αχιλλᾶς, Καρπώνης Σαρμαζᾶς, "Αρειος, πρεσβύτεροι. Of these two Phœbadius contra Arian. Patrem & filium effe non unam perfonam, ut Sabellius, aut duas substantias, ut Arii, c. 25. The Heresse is so well known, that it needs no explication: and indeed it cannot be better described than in the Anathematism of the Nicene Council. Τός ἢ λέδοντας Ιὦ πότε ὅτε ἐκ ἰὦ κὶ πείν χυνηθίσαι ἐκ ἰω, κὶ ὅτι ἐξ ἐκ ὄντων ἐλλύελο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποςάσεως ἢ ἐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ κλισὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτόν, ἢ τρεπλὸν ἢ τὸν τῶ θεῦ, τέτες ἀναθεμαλίζει ἡ Καθολική κὶ ̓Αποςολικὴ Ἐκκλησία. Thus translated by S. Hilary; eos autem qui dicunt, erat quando non erat, & antequam nafceretur non erat, & quod de non extantibus factus eft, vel ex alia substantia aut essentia, dicentes esse convertibilem & immutabilem Deum, hos anathematizat Catholica Ecclefia.

*"Ένα γδ οϊ

τον, κὶ μίαν τ

Κυρίε ἡμῶν

78..

Ep. apud Theodore

Πάντα ὅσα ἔ

The third Assertion, next to be demonstrated, is, That the Divine Efda fence which Chrift had as the Word, before he was conceived by the πάντων ἀρχὴ Virgin Mary, he had not of himself, but by communication from God τ πατέρα το the Father. For this is not to be denied, that there can be but one EfἸησ8 Keisă, fence properly Divine, and so but one God of infinite Wisdom, Power and S. Bafil. Ep. Majesty; That there can be but *one person originally of himself fubfiftἘν ἀλλύνηλον, ing in that infinite Being, because a plurality of more persons so subsist• Παζής. Alex. ing would necessarily infer a multiplicity of Gods; That the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is originally God, as not receiving his eternal being tum. from any other. Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Chrift, who * John 16.15. is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the Divine Naχει ὁ πατὴς, ture originally of himself, and confequently, being we have already proved τῷ ἡ ἐσὶν, ὡς that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have ἔμπαλιν τὰ τὸ the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eter·ἐδὲν ἐν ἴδιον, nally, but originally God. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine, ὅτι κοινὰ, ἐπεὶ faith Christ; because in him is the fame fulness of the Godhead, and more than κὶ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι κεινὸν καὶ ὁμό that the Father cannot have: but yet in that perfect and absolute equality τιμον, εἰ καὶ τῷ there is notwithstanding this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not ἡῷ τὰ τῶ from the Son, or any other, whereas the Son hath it from the Father: Chrift S. Greg. Naz. is the true God and eternal life; but that he is so, is from the Father: For Orat. 2. de Fi- as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in John 5. 26. himself, not by participation, but by communication. 'Tis true, our Saviour Hoc dixit, vi- was fo in the form of God, that he thought it no robbery to be equal with tam dedit Fi- God: but when the Jews fought to kill him because he made himself equal eam in femet- with God, he answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do noipfo, tanquam thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: by that connexion of his qui eft vita in' operations, shewing the reception of his Effence; and by the acknowledgfemetipfo, ge- ment of his power, professing his substance from the Father. From whence nuit, Filium he which was equal, even in that equality confesseth a priority, faying,

πατρός.

lio.

b

lio ut haberet

diceret, Pater,

qui esset vita

in femetipfo.

Pro eo enim quod est genuit, voluit intelligi dedit, tanquam fi cuiquam diceremus, dedit tibi Deus esse. S. Aug. Et paulo poft, Quid ergo Filio dedit? dedit ei ut Filius effet; genuit ut vita effet; hoc eft, dedit habere ei vitam in femetipfo, ut esset vita non egens vitâ, ne participando intelligatur habere vitam. Si enim participando haberet vitam non in femetipfo, poffet & amittendo esse sine vita: hoc in Filio ne accipias, ne cogites, ne credas. Manet ergo Pater vita, manet & Filius vita. Pater vita in femetipfo, non à Filio; Filius vita in femetipfo, fed à Patre. So again, de Trinit. 1. 1. c. 12. Plerumque dicit, dedit mihi Pater; in quo vult intelligi quod eum genuerit Pater: non ut tanquam jam exfiftenti & non habenti dederit aliquid, fed ipsum dedisse ut haberet genuiffe ut effet. John 5. 18, 19. Tanquam diceret, Quid fcandalizati eftis quia Patrem meum dixi Deum, quia æqualem me facio Deo? Ita fum æqualis, ut non ille à me, fed ego ab illo fim. Hoc enim intelligitur in his verbis, Non poteft Filius à se facere quicquam, c. hoc eft quicquid Filius habet ut faciat, à Patre habet ut faciat. Quare habet à Patre ut faciat? quia à Patre habet ut poffit, qui à Patre habet ut fit. Filio enim hoc eft effe quod pofle. S. Aug. in locum. Paulo post, Hoc eft, Non poteft Filius à se quicquam facere, quod esset, fi diceret, non eft Filius à se. Etenim si Filius est, natus est, si natus est, ab illo est de quo natus eft.

* The

τ' αἰτίας τὸ

rat. 2. de Filio.

*The Father is greater than I: The Son equal in respect of his nature, the Fa- * Δῆλον ὅτι τὸ ther greater in reference to the Communication of the Godhead. a I know him, μάζον μθύ έσι faith Chrift, for I am from him. And because he is from the Father, † there- ἴσον ὁ φύσεως. fore he is called by those of the Nicene Council, in their Creed, God of God, S. Gr. Naz. OLight of Light, very God of very God. The Father is God, but not of God, a John 7. 29. Light, but not of Light; Christ is God, but of God, Light, but of Light. † So S. Auguit. There is no difference or inequality in the nature or effence, because the fame bath Ab ipfo, in both; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Chrift hath that essence of himself, inquit, fum, from none; Christ hath the fame not of himself, but from him.

obfer

quia Filius de Patre,& quic

quid eft filius, de illo est cujus eft filius: Ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, fed tantum Deum: Et dicimus Dominum Jefum lumen de lumine; Patrem non dicimus lumen de lumine, fed tantum lumen: Ad hoc ergo pertinet quod dixit, Ab ipso fum. From hence then did the Nicene Council gather those words of their Creed, Θεὸν ἐκ Θες κὴ φῶς ἐα φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεῦ ἀληθινό. But not immediately, for they were partly in some of the Oriental Creeds before; as appeareth by that Confeffion which Eufebius presented to the Council, as containing what he had believed and taught ever since his Baptism, in which he had these words, κὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησῶν Χιρςὸν· ἢ τῷ θεῷ λόδον, θεὸν ἐκ θες, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωιὼ ἐκ ζωῆς. And as Eufebi is calls him Life of Life, so others Power of Power, and Wisdom of Wisdom. Ideo Chriftus virtus & fapientia Dei, qui de Patre virtute & fapientia etiam ipse virtus & fapientia est, sicut lumen de Patre lumine, & fons vitæ apud Deum Patrem utique fontem vitæ. S. Aug. de Trin. 1. 7. c. 3. And not only so but effence of effence. Pater & filius fimul una fapientia, quia una effentia; & fingillatim fapientia de fapientia, ficut effentia de effentia.

which is co

be taken of a

Council of tial, is not to Hence ap- part of the Disecond mo- vine Effence, where the as if the Son

were a part of

And being the Divine Nature, as it is absolutely immaterial and incor- * Ὁμούσιος, poreal, is alfo indivisible, Chrift cannot have any part of it only commu- which nicated unto him, but the whole, by which he must be acknowledged confubftan* co-essential, of the same substance with the Father; as the Nice determined, and the ancient Fathers before them taught. peareth the truth of those words of our Saviour, which raised a tion in the Jews to stone him; a I and the Father are one: plurality of the Verb, and the neutrality of the Noun, with the distinction the effence of of their perfons, fpeak a perfect identity of their essence. And though the Father, Christ say, the Father is in me, and I in him; yet withal he faith, I same nature came out from the Father: by the former shewing the Divinity of his ef- with him, fence, by the latter the origination of himself. We must not look upon the which was Divine Nature as † steril, but rather acknowledge and admire the fecundi- the Manity and communicability of it felf, upon which the † creation of the world chees. Ούκ ὡς

and so of the

the opinion of

Οὐαλεντίνος

προβολιὼ τὸ γλύνημα τῦ πατρὸς ἐδοΓμάτισεν· ἐδ ̓ ὡς Μανιχαϊ μέρα ὁμούσιον το Πατρὸς τὸ χύνημα εἰσηγήσαλο as Arius in bis Epistle to Alexander; by the interpretation of S. Hilary. Nec ut Valentinus, prolationem natum Patris commentatus eft; nec, ficut Manichæus, partem unius substantiæ Patris natum expofuit. De Trin. l. 6. Quod Hilarius ita Latinè reddidit, tanquam όμούσιον id fignificaret quod partem fubftantia habet ex toto refectam, says Dionyfius Petavius, without any reason; for S. Hilary clearly translates ὁμούσιον barely unius substantiæ, and it was in the Original μέρο ὁμούσιον, which he expreffed by partem unius fubftantiæ. Under this notion first the Arians pretended to refuse the name ὁμούσιον, as Arius in the same Epistle signifieth, left thereby they should admit a real composition and division in the Deity. Εἰ τὸ ἐκ γατρός, κὶ τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον, ὡς μέρου τῷ ἐμογσία κὶ ὡς προβολή υπό τίνων νοεῖ) (κύθεζα ἔσαι ὁ Πατήρ, κὶ διαιρετός, κα τριπλός. And S. Hierom teftifies thus much not only of Arius and Eunomius, but also of Origen before them. Habetur Dialogus apud Græcos Origenis, & Candidi Valentinianæ Hærefeos defenforis. Quos duos Andabatas digladiantes spectasse me fateor. Dicit Candidus, Filium de Patris esse substantia, errans in eo quod προβολώ afferit: E regione Origenes, juxta Arium & Eunomium, repugnat eum vel prolatum esse vel natum, ne Deus Pater dividatur in partes. Apol. 2. in Ruffin. And therefore Eufebius Bishop of Cæfarea refused not to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, being so interpreted as that objection might be taken away, τὸ ἐκ isσίας, ὁμολόΓηλο πρὸς αὐτῶν δηλωτικὸν εἶναι τῦ, ἐκ μ τῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι. * μὡς μέρα υπάρχειν το Πατρός. Upon this Confession he subscribed to that clause, begotten of the substance of the Father, which was not in his own Creed. And again, Οὕτω ἢ καὶ τὸ ὁμούσιον εἶναι τὸ πατρὸς τὸν, ἐξεταζόμμα ο λόα (ανίσησιν &&* (ομάτων τρόπον, ἔδε τοῖς θνητοῖς ζώοις ουραπλησίως, ὅτε γδ κ διαίρεσιν ὁ ἐσίας, ὅτε και απολομεν, &c. Upon this acknowledgment he was perfuaded to subscribe to the other clause also (added to that Creed which he himself gave in to the Council) being of one substance with the Father: which clause was inserted by the Council at the instance of Constantine the Emperor. Now as the Manichees made use of the word όμισι to express their errors concerning the nature of God, and the person of Chrift; so the ancient Fathers before the Nicene Council had used the same in a true Catholick sense, to express the unity in essence of the Father and the Son: as appeareth by the confession of the same Eufebius; ἐπὶ κὶ παλαιῶν λογίας τινὰς, κὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκόπες, κὶ (υγΓραφέας ἔΓνομπῳ, ἐπὶ ἱ τῷ πατρὸς κὶ ἐὲ θεολογίας τῷ τ ὁμουσία (υίχξησαμθύες ὀνόμαζι. Wherefore the other Eufebius of Nicomedia, understanding the ancient Catholick sense, confeffed that if they believed Christ to be the true begotten, and not created, Son of God, they must acknowledge him όμοέσιον, which the Arians endeavoured to make so odious, and therefore the Council in opposition to them determined it, Quid est aliud cur Homoufion Patri nolint Filium dici, nifi quia nolunt verum Dei Filium? ficut Author ipforum Eufebius Nicomedienfis Epiftola fua prodidit, dicens, si verum, inquit, Dei Filium & increatum dicimus, Homoufion cum Patre incipimus confiteri. Hæc cùm lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Niceno, hoc verbum in Tractatu fidei pofuerunt Patres, quòd id viderunt adverfariis esse formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipfis gladio ipforum nefandæ caput hærefis amputarent. S. Ambrof. l. 3. de Fide, c. 7. De voce Ὁμούσιο, vide Dionys. Petav. de Trin. 1. 4. c. 6.

a John 10. 30. † ̓ Αδικύατον γε το θεὸν εἰπεῖν ἔρημον ὁ φυσικής γονιμότητα. Damaf. l. 1. c. 8. † Εἰ ἢ μὴ καρπογόνο ἐσὶν αὐτὴ ἡ θεία εἰσία, ἀλλ ̓ ἔρημο, και' αὐτὸς, ὡς φῶς μὴ φολίζον, κὶ πηγή ζηρά πῶς δημιυρδικίὼ ἐνέρδειαν αὐτὸν ἔχειν λέδοντες ἐκ αἰσχύνον, S. Athan. Orat. 2.

dependeth

: