Full text of "Defensio fidei Nicaenae = a defence of the Nicene Creed : out of the extant writings of the Catholick doctors, who flourishsed during the three first centuries of the Christian Church"

See other formats

v €960c0S0 [928

3D3T109 S.TAVHOIN “LS AO ALISHSAINN

DEFENSIO FIDEI NICANA.

DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED,

OUT OF

THE EXTANT WRITINGS

OF THE

CATH Ont tk D0 C10 hs:

WHO FLOURISHED DURING THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES
OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ;

IN WHICH ALSO
IS INCIDENTALLY VINDICATED

THE CREED OF CONSTANT ει:
CONCERNING THE HOLY GHOST.

GEORGE BULL, [D.D..,]

A PRIEST OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH,
[AFTERWARDS LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S. |

A NEW TRANSLATION.

OXFORD :
JOHN HENRY PARKER.

MDCCC LI,

OXFORD:
PRINTED BY 1. SHRIMPTON.

ADVERTISEMENT.

THE circumstances which led to the composition of this
Work, and the history of its completion and publication, are
fully narrated by Bp. Bull in the Preface to the Reader, pp.
1. &c., and by Nelson in his life of Bp. Bull, pp. 239, &c.,
in which there is also a valuable review of the state of the
controversy at that time. An account of the successive edi-
tions will be found in Dr. Burton’s Preface to the 8vo. edition
of the Works, first published in Oxford in 1827. The text of
that edition has been followed in the present Translation, and
the additional notes which it contains have also been trans-
lated ; those of Dr. Burton being distinguished by the letter
B. His notes, and the references added by him, as well as
the few additional references and observations which are
introduced in the notes to this Translation, are included in
brackets. Grabe’s longer Annotations are removed from the
places which they occupy in the Oxford edition, at the ends
of the several chapters, to an Appendix at the end of the
Work, in order not to interrupt the continuity of the original
Treatise. The paging of the folio edition of Grabe, and of
the 8vo. of 1827, are retained in the margin, the latter
being included in brackets.

The passages quoted from the fathers are preserved in

1v ADVERTISEMENT.

the original language as notes, and in a few places the con-
text has been added.

There was a translation of this and of Bp. Bull’s other
Works on the Trinity by Dr. F. Holland, in two volumes
8vo. A.D. 1725. This has been consulted by the trans-
lator, but so little use has been made of it, that the present
must be considered as an independent version. ;

The Indices and List of Authors for this and the other
Works on the Holy Trinity, will be placed at the end of the

volumes, as in Dr. Burton’s 8vo. edition of the originals.

TO THE MOST LEARNED AND HOLY
PRELATE,

THE CHOICEST ORNAMENT OF OUR CHURCH, UNIVERSITY, AND AGE,
THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER AND LORD IN CHRIST,
JOHN,

LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD,

AND
DEAN OF THE
MOST NOBLE COLLEGE AND CATHEDRAL CHURCH
OF CHRIST CHURCH IN OXFORD ;

THIS
VINDICATION OF THE NICENE FAITH
IS DEDICATED AND CONSECRATED,

AS A PLEDGE AND MEMORIAL SUCH AS IT IS
OF GRATITUDE AND OF THE UTMOST RESPECT,
BY THE MOST DEVOTED ADMIRER OF HIS VIRTUES,

GEORGE BULL

BULL. b

εν

sagt
aan

aes
ven
a

ee
ee
ee
ΤῊΣ

Ἢ

aa ΝῊ
πον"

=a
a ae
ὍΣ αὐτῷ
oe

ae
ae

i aa
oe
:

hw ie : ee ae
ee ΝΕ τ ἢ ᾿ it
᾿ ἌΣ :

tes

ΤΗΝ : one

aera ce.

i ee
aes ᾿ a ἐδ ον

ὑπ το a et. ee σα εν
as eo ᾿ Bed, = ᾿ :
eee

᾿ ᾿ Cae ᾿ τ 2 oe
: : : : : Se τ
: πο Εν ; : ee
᾿ : jee . 7 = ᾿ 2 ee ᾿ ;
ἘΠῚ Re ae τὶ ᾿ ᾿ ἌΠ Ἵ :
o ae ee ee Tae τ τ᾿ ᾿
ον Riese wie Ὁ 2

εἶ
ee :
ne Ca ae ec een δ,
oe ie Pe thr ᾿ ΝΠ
es ΣΝ ee Pte
' cs Fe τ mae

mle

ree =
ΠΥ ἀν
ΠΝ

a τ
patie ἐν :
ny Scorer he ue.
ra ant
fe trae

ἐπε Ὁ

τ αν
ae

.
:.

ee
Pete
᾿

ya ae
sy te

ek
ΠΟΥ Ἢ
coun Ἀπ

ν᾿ =
ee cee
ae en
ie

ee
ee re

τ
Le
i eee

Sire

ene
a ee

oe
ye

ΤῸ is Ae A) ek,

In the Apology’, which I sent out in defence of a work
entitled the Harmonia Apostolica, the first-fruits of my theo-
logical studies, I said’,—being forced to do so by a very grave
and unjust calumny of my opponents,—“ that I had drawn
out certain historico-ecclesiastical propositions concerning the
divinity of the Son, in which, as I trusted, I had clearly shewn¢
the agreement of the ancient doctors, who preceded the Nicene
council, with the Nicene fathers, as well concerning the con-
substantiality of the Son of God as His co-eternity, the tra-
dition having been derived from the very time of the Apostles;
but that, owing to ill health, and other cares and business
of sundry kinds, it had not yet been in my power to put
together my scattered sheets, and bring to a completion my
imperfect work.” Upon this I was assailed on all sides
with entreaties from learned friends, that I would apply both
mind and hand, to finish, as speedily as possible, a work
which was absolutely needed. For they gave me to under-
stand that EO yeaah Sas Christopher Ch. Sandius* were

Pa WD pa Ὁ
4 [Apologia pro Harmonia, W&e. tice, exhibitus in Historia Arianorum,
tribus libris comprehensa: Quibus pre-
tina est Tractatus de Veteribus Scrip-
toribus Ecclesiasticis, secunda editio ab
Authore locupletata et emendata. Co-
loniz apud Joannem Nicolai, 1676.
Prefixed is a Prefatio ad Lectores,
by Christophorus Philippi Sandius the
father of the writer. The volume con-
tains 432 pages (besides Addenda and
Index) ; of these 49 pages are occupied
by the tract de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasti-
cis: the heading of the pages of the rest
is Enucleate Historie Ecclesiastice, lib.
i, &c., though the title-page, as has
been said, bears the name Nucleus
H. E. exhibitus, ὅς. Bp. Bull through-
out refers to both these tracts, and to
the Nucleus under both titles. ]

Lond. 1676. |

01, 8. [p. 317. See Bp. Bull on Jus-
tification, Pt. ii. and iii,: Anglo-Cath.
Library, p. 238. ]

ὁ [Bp. Bull here omits the words
‘‘against Petavius and others’? which
occur in the Apologia. The calumny
to which he refers was a charge of So-
cinianizing on the doctrine of justifi-
cation. |

4 Of the treatise of Christopher
Christopher Sandius: the first edition
had been sent out A.D. 1668, the se-
cond—so much enlarged and corrected
as, except from its retaining the origi-
nal title, to be a new work, (ibid.,)—
was published A.D. 1676, with the fol-
lowing title, Christoph. Christophori
Sandii Nucleus Historia Ecclesias-

cw)

Vill TO THE READER.

’-every where in the hands of our_ students of theology ant and
others, a writer who openly and _unblushingly maintains the
blasphemy of Arius as the truly catholic doctrine, and as
supported by the voices of all the ancients tial averedad the
council_of Nice. Overcome HSE by their reiterated re-
quests, (although I had not even then sufficient leisure, nor
was my health strong enough for so arduous a task,) I again
read over the works of the primitive fathers; the testimonies
out of them, bearing on my subject, which I had collected
into my note-books, I again submitted one by one to a fresh
and most searching examination; I added several others to
them; the passages alleged by Sandius and others in sup-
port of the opposite side I weighed with increased care ;
and lastly, I put in order the whole of this, as it were, rude
and confused mass of my observations, disposing and arrang-
ing them in the easiest and clearest method that I could;
and it is now more than five years since I finished the work,
in the state in which it now comes out.

If you ask, why then has the publication been so long
delayed? I will tell you plainly. As soon as I had put the
finishing hand to my MS., I immediately offered it to three
booksellers in succession, for publication, on the fairest
terms: they all, however, on different grounds, declined to
undertake the care and expense of printing the work ;
apprehensive, I suppose, that few would be found to buy a
book, of which the author was little known, and the subject
difficult, and which very few indeed would care to bestow
pains in examining. Nor was I myself,—a person of narrow
income and with a large family,—able to bear the expense
of the press.

In consequence, I brought home again my neglected work,
to be laid up on the shelves of my bookcase ; content to have
had the will at least to do something for the defence of divine
truth, and to have complied, so far as lay 1 in my power, with
the wishes of my friends.

After I had for some time consoled myself with these re-
flections, at length, at the suggestion of a friend, I sub-
mitted my papers, raised as it were from the grave, to the
judgment of a most distinguished man and consummate
theologian, Dr. William Jane, the very worthy Regius Pro-

TO THE READER. ΙΧ

fessor of Divinity in Oxford, who, with his usual kindness,
did not decline the trouble of reading them through, and
when he had read them through, and honoured them with
his approval, he further recommended them to the favour and
patronage of the great bishop of Oxfords, and easily obtained
from his singular kindness and zeal for catholic truth, that
this Defence of the Nicene Creed should at last come out
from the press at the Sheldonian Theatre, which the bishop
had fitted up at his own expense. But as that press was
occupied with different works of other writers, there was for
a considerable time no opportunity whatever, and afterwards
only occasionally, for mine; and hence delay has arisen in
bringing this treatise through the press.

If I could have foreseen that it would have been so long
before this treatise of mine was published, you should have
certainly had it much more carefully finished, more polished,
and more rich in matter. But, as I have already said, I
completed this work at the request of friends, who were
keenly pressing and unceasingly spurring me on, to revise
and enlarge the collections which I had by me in defence
of the catholic faith, made from the reading of ancient
authors, and, having enlarged them, to publish them as
speedily as possible, as an immediate antidote to the poison-
ous writings of Sandius. When, however, I had lost all
hope of publishing it through the booksellers, what object
was there for further enlarging and improving a work, which
was now condemned to the moths and worms? And at last,
when an unexpected opportunity was afforded for my papers
being printed, and I had placed them in the printer’s hands,
they were no longer under my controul.

It were, indeed, to be wished, that this most important
subject had been treated by some one very much more
learned than myself, on whom the providence of God had
withal bestowed more uninterrupted leisure, a better fur-
nished hbrary, and all requisites in more abundant measure.
Very many such persons our English Church has, and such
I pray Almighty God that she may ever continue to have.
But no one hitherto, so far as I know, has undertaken to
work out this subject with the care it deserves. Do not,

* (Bp. Fell, to whom the work is dedicated. ]

Χ TO THE READER.

therefore, disdain to use and profit by what I have done,
till such time as one appears, who shall have brought out
from a more ample store a better and more complete work.
You have here all that it was in my power to do, a man of
moderate abilities and learning, the possessor of a limited
store of books, in poor health, hindered by domestic cares,
and, whilst writing this work, tied to the cure of souls in a
country parish, and lastly, living far from the society of
learned men, an exile, as it were, from the literary world.
This one thing, however, I may venture to assure you of,
and most solemnly to declare, that in the whole course of
this work I have observed the utmost good faith. Not a pas-
sage have I adduced from primitive antiquity in support of
the decisions of the council of Nice, which, after a careful
examination both of the passage itself and its context, I did
not seriously think really made for the cause which we are
maintaining; not a passage have I garbled, but have put be-
fore you all entire. The opinions of the Greek fathers 1 have
cited not only in Latin, but in the Greek also, in order that
those who know Greek may be able themselves to form a
surer judgment of their genuine meaning. Of those passages
which the modern defenders of Arianism have adduced from
the ancient doctors in support of it, I have not knowingly
and designedly kept back any; nor have I ever attempted
any how to salve over the harder sayings of the ancients by
cunning artifices; but have endeavoured, by observing the
drift and purpose of each author, and by adducing other
clearer statements from their several writings, to establish on
solid grounds that they not only admit, but actually require,
to be understood in a catholic sense. To end the matter in
one word,—while I willingly confess that it is indeed possible
that I may be mistaken, I resolutely deny that I have wished
to deceive any one.

As regards the chief point, of which I wish to persuade
others,—I myself am quite convinced, and that on no hasty
. view, that, What the Nicene fathers laid down concerning
the divinity of the Son, in opposition to Arius and other
heretics, the same in effect (although sometimes, it may be,
in other words, and in another mode of expression) was
taught, without any single exception, by all the fathers

TO THE READER. x1

and approved doctors of the Church, who flourished be-
fore the council of Nice, even from the very times of the
Apostles.

I pray you kindly to excuse the mistakes “of the printer,
and the occasional slips of a careless corrector of the press.
It has been my misfortune, that I have had the opportunity
of examining and correcting, in person, one sheet only, and
that the last, of this work, as it passed through the press.
As the only thing I can do, you will find that all the errors
of the press that are of any moment, are carefully brought
together and set down in a table prefixed to the work‘.

And now, reader, whose object is truth and piety, if these
labours of mine are of any service towards confirming your
faith on the primary article of the Christian religion, there
will be good cause both for you and myself to give thanks
to Almighty God. This only do I ask of you as a recom-
pense for my labours, (and this I earnestly request,) that in
your prayers you would sometimes remember me, a sinner,
and mine.

Farewell in Christ our Saviour, our Lord and our God.

‘ [There was a table of errata prefixed to the first edition of the original work. ]

A N= IN DEX

OF THE

PROPOSITIONS DEMONSTRATED IN THIS WORK.

BOOK.E

ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD.

THE PROPOSITION.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS OF THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES ALL WITH ONE
ACCORD TAUGHT THAT JESUS CHRIST, THAT IS, HE WHO WAS AFTER-
WARDS CALLED JESUS CHRIST, (BEFORE HE WAS MADE MAN, THAT IS,
BEFORE HIS BIRTH, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF THE MOST BLESSED
VIRGIN,) EXISTED IN ANOTHER NATURE FAR SURPASSING THE HUMAN ;
THAT HE APPEARED TO HOLY MEN, AS A PRELUDE TO HIS INCARNA-
TION ; THAT HE ALWAYS PRESIDED OVER AND PROVIDED FOR THAT
CHURCH, WHICH HE WAS AFTERWARDS TO REDEEM WITH HIS OWN
BLOOD ; AND THAT THUS FROM THE BEGINNING THE “‘ WHOLE ORDER
OF THE DIVINE ADMINISTRATION” (AS TERTULLIAN EXPRESSES iT)
‘““HAD ITS COURSE THROUGH HIM ;” AND THAT, MOREOVER, BEFORE
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAID HE WAS PRESENT WITH
GOD HIS FATHER, AND THAT THROUGH HIM THIS UNIVERSE WAS
CREATED.

BOOK II.

ON THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON.

THE PROPOSITION.

IT WAS THE SETTLED AND UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS,
WHO FLOURISHED IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, THAT THE SON OF
GOD WAS OF ONE SUBSTANCE, OR CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH GOD THE
FATHER : THAT IS, THAT HE WAS NOT OF ANY CREATED OR MUTABLE

_ ESSENCE, BUT OF ALTOGETHER THE SAME DIVINE AND UNCHANGEABLE
NATURE WITH HIS FATHER, AND, THEREFORE, VERY GOD OF VERY
GOD.

XIV

AN INDEX .

BOOK LE.

ON THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON.

THE FIRST PROPOSITION. -

THE MORE AUTHORITATIVE AND LARGER PART OF THE DOCTORS, WHO

LIVED BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICE, UNAMBIGUOUSLY, OPENLY,
CLEARLY, AND PERSPICUOUSLY TAUGHT AND PROFESSED THE cO-
ETERNITY OF THE SON, THAT IS, HIS CO-ETERNAL EXISTENCE WITH GOD
THE FATHER.

THE SECOND PROPOSITION.

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 ACCURATELY WEIGHED,
IT WILL APPEAR THAT THEY SPOKE NOT OF A TRUE AND PROPERLY SO
CALLED NATIVITY, IN WHICH, THAT IS, THE SON RECEIVED THE BE-
GINNING 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 HIMSELF, AT THE TIME WHEN HE
WAS ABOUT TO FORM THE WORLD, AND PROCEEDED TO CREATE THE
UNIVERSE, AND TO MANIFEST BOTH HIMSELF AND HIS FATHER TO THE
CREATURES ; AND THAT, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS GOING FORTH AND
MANIFESTATION, HE IS CALLED IN THE SCRIPTURES THE SON OF GOD,
AND THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN,

THE THIRD PROPOSITION.

CERTAIN CATHOLIC DOCTORS, WHO LIVED AFTER THE RISE OF THE ARIAN

CONTROVERSY, AND RESOLUTELY OPPOSED THEMSELVES TO THE HERESY
OF THE ARIOMANITES, DID NOT SHRINK FROM THE VIEW OF THE PRI-
MITIVE FATHERS, WHOM WE LAST MENTIONED, OR RATHER THE MODE
IN WHICH THEY EXPLAINED THEIR VIEW. FOR THEY THEMSELVES
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 CONDESCENSION ), IN ORDER TO CREATE THIS
UNIVERSE; AND CONFESSED THAT, WITH RESPECT OF THAT GOING
FORTH ALSO THE WORD HIMSELF WAS, AS IT WERE, BORN OF GOD THE

FATHER, AND IS IN THE SCRIPTURES, CALLED THE FIRST-BEGOTTEN OF
EVERY CREATURE,

OF THE PROPOSITIONS. XV

THE FOURTH PROPOSITION.

TERTULLIAN, INDEED, HAS IN ONE PASSAGE VENTURED TO WRITE EX-
PRESSLY THAT THERE WAS A TIME, WHEN THE SON OF GOD WAS NOT.
BUT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT 15 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 HERE-
TIC. SECONDLY, TERTULLIAN APPEARS TO HAVE USED THAT EXPRES-
SION IN A CONTROVERSIAL WAY, AND IN DISPUTATION WITH HIS AD-
VERSARY, PLAYING ON THE WORD SON ; SO THAT, ALTHOUGH HE SEEMS
TO 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 SON, WHEN HE WENT FORTH FROM THE FATHER TO MAKE THE
UNIVERSE. CERTAINLY THE SAME TERTULLIAN HAS IN MANY OTHER
PASSAGES TREATED OF THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE SON IN A CLEARLY
CATHOLIC SENSE, IF WE REGARD THE MAIN DRIFT OF HIS DOCTRINE.
AS FOR LACTANTIUS, WHO ALSO IN ONE PASSAGE ATTRIBUTES, NOLZOB=
SCURELY, A BEGINNING OF EXISTENCE TO THE SON OF GOD, HIS ESTI-
MATION 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 NE-
CESSARILY 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 MANICHHAN 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.

BOOK IV.

ON THE SUBORDINATION OF THE SON TO THE FATHER.

THE FIRST PROPOSITION.

THAT 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 BEFORE, AND THOSE
WHO WROTE AFTER, THAT COUNCIL, FOR THEY ALL WITH ONE AC-

XV1

AN INDEX OF THE PROPOSITIONS.

CORD TAUGHT THAT THE DIVINE NATURE AND PERFECTIONS BELONG TO
THE FATHER AND THE SON, NOT COLLATERALLY OR CO-ORDINATELY,
BUT SUBORDINATELY; THAT IS TO SAY, THAT THE SON HAS INDEED
THE SAME DIVINE NATURE IN COMMON WITH THE FATHER, BUT COM-
MUNICATED BY THE FATHER; IN SUCH SENSE, THAT IS, THAT THE
FATHER ALONE HATH THE DIVINE NATURE FROM HIMSELF, IN OTHER
WORDS, FROM NO OTHER, BUT THE SON FROM THE FATHER; CONSE-
QUENTLY THAT THE FATHER IS THE FOUNTAIN, ORIGIN, AND PRIN-
CIPLE OF THE DIVINITY WHICH IS IN THE SON.

THE SECOND PROPOSITION.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS, BOTH THOSE WHO PRECEDED, AND THOSE WHO

LIVED AFTER, THE COUNCIL OF NICE, WITH UNANIMOUS CONSENT DE-
TERMINED 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, SO THAT IT SHOULD BE 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.

THE THIRD PROPOSITION.

THIS 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 ESPE-
CIALLY THE DIVINITY OF THE SON IS SO ASSERTED, AS THAT THE UNITY
OF GOD AND THE DIVINE MONARCHY, IS NEVERTHELESS PRESERVED UN-
IMPAIRED. FOR ALTHOUGH THE NAME AND THE NATURE BE COMMON
TO THE TWO, NAMELY THE FATHER AND THE SON OF GOD, STILL, INAS-
MUCH AS THE ONE IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE OTHER, FROM WHICH HE
IS PROPAGATED, AND THAT BY AN INTERNAL, NOT AN EXTERNAL, PRO-
DUCTION, 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.

CONTENTS

OF THE

CAT Aer eth See Bab AC Ha BOOK.

INTRODUCTION. Σ
age
In which the occasion, design, and division of the entire
work are set forth . ; ; : : ἜΣ
ΒΟΟΚ 1.

ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON BEFORE [HIS 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 . : . . . . : . 1d

CHAPTER II.

The 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 . : : : : : <2 80

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 : : 55

Xvi CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IL.

Page
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 : ; : : " δῦ
CHAPTER III.
Clement of Rome and Polycarp incidentally vindicated from the aspersions
of the author of the Irenicum, and of Sandius . : : . 104

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 . : : : 1386

CHAPTER V.

Setting forth the doctrine of Irenzus, concerning the Son of God, most
plainly confirmatory of the Nicene Creed . . . . 160

CHAPTER VI.

Containing exceedingly clear testimonies out of S. Clement of Alexandria,
concerning the true and supreme Divinity of the Son, and, further,
concerning the consubstantiality of the whole most Holy Trinity : 181

CHAPTER VII.

Wherein the doctrine of Tertullian, concerning the consubstantiality of the

Son, is shewn to coincide altogether with the Nicene Creed. 09
°

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 S. Hippolytus : j : ° . 206

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 . 5 : ὃ 1

CONTENTS. ΧΙΧ

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 . : : : : : : . 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 Neocesarea in Pontus k : : : . 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 . : : : . 308

DEFENCE

OF THE

ἌΟΡ On BD. ac.

INTRODUCTION. ΠῚ
IN WHICH THE OCCASION, DESIGN, AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE
ENTIRE WORK ARE SET FORTH.

1, Tue first Gicumenical Council, which was held at Nice*, :rrop.
has ever been regarded by all Catholics as of the highest ὃ"
authority and esteem, and indeed deservedly so. For never,
since the death of the Apostles, has the Christian world be-
held a synod with higher claims to be considered universal
and free, or an assembly of bishops and prelates more august
and holy. “For at that council,” as Eusebius says”, “ there
were assembled out of all the Churches, which had filled the
whole of Europe, Asia, and Africa, the very choicest! from! τὰ axpo-
amongst the ministers of God: and one sacred building, *”™
expanded as it were by the divine command, embraced at
once within its compass both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoe-
nicians and Arabians, and Christians of Palestine; Egyp-
tians too, Thebans and Libyans, and some who came out
of Mesopotamia. A bishop also from Persia was present
at the council, and even Scythia was not wanting to that
company. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia and Cap-

2 A.D. 325. Cave, Hist. Lit. Sec.

Arian.— Bowyer.

> [Bp. Bull only gave the Latin of
this extract; and the translation has
been made according to that Latin;
but it is thought best to add the Greek
original. τῶν γοῦν ἐκκλησιῶν ἁπασῶν,
al τὴν Εὐρώπην ἅπασαν, Λιβύην τε καὶ
τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ἐπλήρουν, ὁμοῦ συνῆκτο τῶν
τοῦ Θεοῦ λειτουργῶν τὰ ἀκροθίνια εἷς

BULL.

τὲ οἶκος εὐκτήριος, ὥσπερ ἐκ Θεοῦ πλα-
τυνόμενος ἔνδον ἐχώρει κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ
Σύρους ἅμα καὶ Κίλικας, Φοίνικάς τε καὶ
᾿Αραβίους καὶ Παλαιστινοὺς καὶ ἐπὶ τού-
τοις Αἰγυπτίους, Θηβαίους, Λίβυας, τούς
τ᾽ ἐκ μέσης τῶν ποταμῶν ὁρμωμένους"
ἤδη δὲ καὶ Πέρσης ἐπίσκοπος τῇ συνόδῳ
παρῆν" οὐδὲ Σκύθης ἀπελιμπάνετο Tis
χορείας Πόντος τε καὶ Γαλατία καὶ
Παμφυλία, Καππαδοκία τε καὶ ᾿Ασία καὶ

2 Number and character of the Nicene Council.

istrop. padocia, with Asia and Phrygia, contributed the choicest

[2]

of their prelates. Moreover Thracians, Macedonians, Achai-
ans and Epirotes, and inhabitants of still more remote dis-
tricts, were, notwithstanding their distance, present. Even
from Spain itself, that most celebrated man, [Hosius, |
took his seat along with the rest. The prelate of the im-
perial city°” (of Rome, that is,) “was indeed absent on
account of his advanced age, but presbyters of his were
present to supply his place. Constantine is the only emperor
from the beginning of the world, who, by convening this vast
assembly, an image, as it were, of the company of the Apo-
stles, presented to Christ his Saviour a garland such as this,
twined and knit together by the bond of peace, as a sacred
memorial of his gratitude for the victories which he had
gained over his foreign and domestic enemies. ... In this com-
pany more than two hundred and fifty bishops were present 4,”’
(Athanasius, Hilary, Jerome, Rufinus, Socrates, and many
others, assert that three hundred and eighteen bishops sat in
this council,) “whilst the number of the presbyters who
accompanied them, with the deacons, acolytes, and crowds of
others, can scarcely be computed. Moreover of these mi-
nisters of God some were eminent for their wisdom and
eloquence, others for their gravity of life and patient en-
durance of hardships, whilst others again were adorned with
modesty and gentleness of demeanour. Some also among
them were held in the highest honour from their ad-
vanced age; others were young and vigorous in body and
mind,” &e. |

2. The subject treated of in this council concerned the

Φρυγία τοὺς παρ᾽ αὐταῖς παρεῖχον ἐκ-
κρίτους. ἀλλὰ καὶ Θρᾶκες καὶ Μακε-
δόνες ᾿Αχαιοί τε καὶ ‘ Ἠπειρῶται τούτων
θ᾽ οἱ ἔτι πορρωτάτω οἰκοῦντες ἀπήντων.
αὐτῶν τε Σπάνων ὁ πάνυ βοώμενος εἷς
ἣν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἅμα συνεδρεύων᾽ τῆς δέ
γε βασιλευούσης πόλεως, ὃ μὲν προεστὼς
ὑστέρει διὰ γῆρα5" “πρεσβύτεροι δὲ av-
τοῦ παρόντες τὴν αὐτοῦ τάξιν ἐπλήρουν.
τοιοῦτον μόνος ἐξ αἰῶνος εἷς βασιλεὺς
Κωνσταντῖνος Χριστῷ στέφανον δεσμῷ
συνάψας εἰρήνης, τῷ αὐτοῦ “Σωτῆρι THS
κατ᾽ ἐχθρῶν καὶ πολεμίων νίκης θεοπρε-
πὲς ἀνετίθει χαριστήριον" εἰκόνα χορείας
ἀποστολικῆς ταύτην καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς συστη-
σάμενος. . » «. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς παρούσης

χορείας, ἐπισκόπων μὲν πληθὺς ἦν, πεν-
τήκοντα καὶ διακοσίων ἀριθμὸν ὑπερ-
ακοντίξζουσα' ἑπομένων δὲ τούτοις πρεσ-
βυτέρων καὶ διακόνων ἀκολούθων τε πλεί-
στων ὅσων ἑτέρων, οὐδ᾽ ἦν ἀριθμὸς εἰς
κατάληψιν. τῶν δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ λειτουργῶν
οἱ μὲν διέπρεπον σοφίας λόγῳ' οἱ δὲ
βίου στερρότητι καὶ καρτερίας ὑπομονῇ"
οἱ δὲ τῷ μέσῳ τρόπῳ κατεκοσμοῦντο.
ἦσαν δὲ τούτων οἱ μὲν χρόνου μήκει τε-
τιμημένοι" οἱ δὲ νεότητι καὶ ψυχῆς ἀκμῇ
SiaAdumovtes.—Vit. Const. iii, 7---9,
[pp. 579—581. ]

4 Τρία,

Early opponents ; answered by Socrates. 3

chief doctrine’ of the Christian religion, namely, the dignity
of the Person of Jesus Christ our Saviour; whether He is to
be worshipped as true God, or to be reduced to the rank and
condition of creatures and of things subject to the true God.
If we imagine that in this question of the very utmost
moment the whole of the rulers of the Church altogether
erred, and persuaded the Christian people to embrace their
error, how will the promise of Christ our Lord hold good,
who engaged to be present, even to the end of the world,
with the Apostles, and consequently with their successors ?
For, since the promise extends to the end of the world’, and
yet the Apostles were not to continue alive so long, Christ
must most certainly be regarded as addressing, in the per-
sons of the Apostles, their successors also in that office.

3. I cannot but feel indignation, nay even a degree of
horror, so often as I reflect on these things, and consider
the amazing ignorance, or rather the impious madness of
those writers who have not shrunk from openly raving
against the venerable fathers, as if they had, with settled
evil purpose’, or, at all events, through ignorance and rash-
ness, corrupted the catholic doctrine respecting the Per-
son of Jesus Christ, which had been taught by the Apo-
stles and preserved in the Church during the first three
centuries, and had obtruded a new faith on the Christian
world. Not to mention the early Arians, the most notorious
enemies and calumniators of the Nicene Creed,—it was on this
account that Sabinus was infamous in former times, a fol-
lower of the faction of Macedonius, whose rash and shameless
judgment concerning the Nicene council is mentioned and
refuted by Socrates‘. That excellent Church historian, after
saying that he had related the history of the Nicene council,
in order that, if any persons should be disposed to condemn
that council as having fallen into error in a matter of the
faith, we should give them no heed at all, subjoins these
words&; “Let us not believe Sabinus, the follower of
Macedonius, who calls those who assembled in that council
unlearned and simple men. For this Sabinus, bishop of the

©. Matt. xxviii. 20.—Bowyer. Bull: the Greek is; μηδὲ πιστεύσωμεν
‘ Ecc). -Hist., 1. 8. Σαβίνῳ τῷ Μακεδονιανῷ ἰδιώτας αὐτοὺς
® (The translation is based on the καὶ ἀφελεῖς καλοῦντι τοὺς ἐκεῖσε συν-
Latin, which alone was given by Bp. ελθόντας. Σαβῖνος yap 6 τῶν ἐν ‘Hpa-

8.1...

1 capite.

[3]

3. malitia.

[4]

4 Securities that the Council did not err.

_ivtrop. Macedonians at Heraclea, a city of Thrace, who collected into
Isynodo- one work the acts of different synods!, treated with derision

rum acta.

2 ἰδιώτην.

the prelates of the council of Nice as unlearned and simple
men, and perceives not that he is herein charging as unlearned?
even Eusebius himself, who after a long and searching enquiry
embraced that Creed. There are some things which he has
purposely passed over, and others which he has perverted and
altered, but still he has drawn all to his own purpose and views:
and yet he praises Eusebius Pamphili® as a most trust-worthy
witness, and also bestows encomiums on the emperor himself,
as one who was exceedingly well acquainted with the doctrines
of the Christian faith; at the same time he finds fault with
the Creed, which was set forth at Nice, as if it were compiled
by ignorant and unlearned men ; and thus does he knowingly
despise and neglect the express declaration of an author
whom he acknowledges to be a wise man and a truthful wit-
ness; for Eusebius declares, that of the ministers of God who
were present at the Nicene synod, some were eminent for
their eloquence and wisdom, others for the firmness and for-
titude of their life; and that the emperor himself, who was pre-

sent, by leading all to concord, made them to be of one mind

and of one consent.” At the same time, however, Socrates’,
in the ninth chapter of the same book, censures Sabinus, be-
cause he did not also reflect, “that, even if the members of
that council were unlearned men, and yet were illuminated
by God and by the grace of the Holy Ghost, they could by
no means have erred from the truth.” For Socrates seems
to have thought that the illuminating grace of the Holy
Ghost is always present with a council of bishops truly uni-

κλείᾳ τῆς Θράκης Μακεδονιανῶν ἐπίσκο- καὶ ὃν ὡς σοφὺν καὶ ἀψευδῆ καλεῖ μάρ-

aos συναγωγὴν, ὧν διάφοροι ἐπισκόπων
σύνοδοι ἐγγράφως ἐξέδωκαν ποιησάμενος,
τοὺς μὲν ἐν Νικαίᾳ ὡς ἀφελεῖς καὶ ἰδιώ-
τας διέσυρε, μὴ αἰσθανόμενος, ὁτὶ καὶ
αὐτὸν Εὐσέβιον, τὸν μετὰ πολλῆς δομι-
μασίας τὴν πίστιν ὁμολογήσαντα ὡς ἰδιώ-
/ \ \ 2% /
τὴν διαβάλλει. Kal τινὰ μὲν ἑκὼν παρέ-
ἢ \ \ i, , \
Aurev? τινὰ δὲ παρέτρεψε. πάντα δὲ
> ΄“ ‘ aA > 4
πρὸς Tov οἰκεῖον σκοπὸν μᾶλλον ἐξείλη-
φεν. καὶ ἐπαινεῖ μὲν τὸν Παμφίλου Εὐ-
σέβιον ὡς ἀξιόπιστον μάρτυρα᾽ ἐπαινεῖ
δὲ καὶ τὸν βασιλέα ὡς τὰ Χριστιανῶν
, ἢ " 7 \ a
δογματίζειν δυνάμενον μέμφεται δε τῇ
ἐκτεθείσῃ ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστει ὡς ὑπὸ ἰδιώ-
Vd
των καὶ οὐδὲν ἐπισταμένων ἐκδεδομένῃ"

τυρα, τούτου τὰς φωνὰς ἑκουσίως ὑπερ-
ope φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Εὐσέβιος, ὅτι τῶν παρ-
όντων ἐν τῇ Νικαίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ λειτουργῶν
ΦΟΡΥ ͵ ᾿ ¢ sk
of μὲν, διέπρεπον σοφίας Ady" οἱ δὲ
βίον στερρότητι. καὶ ὅτι ὃ βασιλεὺς
παρὼν πάντας εἰς ὁμόνοιαν ἄγων, ὁμο-
γνώμονας καὶ ὁμοδόξους κατέστησεν.---ῬὉ.

1.1

b [The friend of Pamphilus. ]

τ." > πε. A = ε a

ὡς εἰ καὶ ἰδιῶται ἦσαν of τῆς συνό-

δου, κατελάμποντο δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ
τῆς χάριτος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὐ-
δαμῶ: ἀστοχῆσαι τῆς ἀληθείας ἐδύναν -
ro.—Ibid., p. 81.

Socinus’ statements on the faith of the early Church. ὅ

versal, to keep them free from error, at least in the necessary
articles of the faith. And if any one is unwilling to admit
this supposition, the argument of Socrates may still be stated
and presented to him thus; suppose the Nicene fathers to
have been unlearned and unlettered men, still they cer-
tainly were for the most part men of piety; and it is in-
credible that so many holy and approved men, meeting
together out of all parts of the Christian world, could pos-
sibly have dishonestly conspired for the purpose of making
an innovation on the received faith of the Church, respect-
ing the primary article of Christianity ; especially as, what-
ever may have been their lack of learning in other respects,
they could not have been ignorant of the elementary doc-
trine of the most holy Trinity, which was wont to be taught
even to catechumens, nor of what they themselves had re-
ceived from their fathers concerning that subject.

4, But to come to more modern writers; within the memory
of our fathers, Faustus Socinus of Siena, in his second letter

to Radecius*, asserts, that the knowtedge of the true doctrine

concerning God, namely, that the Father alone is very God,

continued down to the time of the council of Nice. ‘This

knowledge',” he says, “without any controversy ceased not
to exist even until the period of the council of Nice, and for
some time afterwards, among those who professed the name
of Christ. For throughout the whole of that period, as is clear
from the writings of all who then lived, the Father of Jesus
Christ alone was believed to be that one true God, of whom
the Holy Scriptures every where make mention.” In this pas-
sage, when he says, that this was the belief of all the ancients
down to the council of Nice, “ that the Father of Jesus Christ
alone is the one true God,” if it be understood of that special
prerogative of the Father, by which He alone is of Himself’
very God, then we acknowledge it to be most true. But this
does not make any thing in favour of Socinus ; and it is certain
that the knowledge of this doctrine not only “ continued
until the time of the council of Nice, or some time after,” but
has ever continued in the Church of Christ. But if, on the

k [ Opera, ed. 1656. vol. i. Ὁ. 375. ] whom He had sent,” S. John xvii. 3,
' [The knowledge of the Father, as according to the Socinian interpreta-
‘the only true God, and Jesus Christ tion.]

§ 3, 4.

[5]

1 ipse solus
a seipso.

[6]

INTROD.

initio na

6 Episcopius’ calumnies against the Council ;

other hand, this proposition, ‘‘The Father of Jesus Christ
alone is the one true God,” be taken altogether exclusively,

so as to take away from Christ His true divinity, and to

scentis ec

clesie.

[7]

a A

deny what was defined by the Nicene council, namely, that
the Son is very God of very God, (and it is but too evident
that this was what Socinus meant,) then we contend that
it is manifestly false, that “all the ancients, down to the
council of Nice, did so believe ;” nay, we shall shew that
they all taught that the Son is of the same nature with the
Father, and therefore is very God, equally with the Father.
Accordingly even Socinus himself in another place, i.e. in his
third letter to this same Matthew Radecius™, (contradicting
himself, as he is apt to do,) confesses, “that almost from the
very earliest period of the existence of the Church’, even to
our own times, so many men most distinguished for piety
no less than for learning, so many most holy martyrs of
Christ, as to be past numbering, have followed that error,
in other respects most serious, that Christ is the one true
God, who created all things, or, at least, was begotten of
His proper substance.” But surely, that the Son of God
was begotten of the proper substance of God, and is, there-
fore, very God of very God, is the sum and substance of the
doctrine, which the Nicene fathers asserted against Arius.

5. M. Simon Episcopius, a most learned theologian in all
other respects, but an utter stranger to ecclesiastical anti-
quity, although he held different views from those of Socinus,
and even publicly maintained, in opposition to him, the pre-
existence of the Son, not only before [His birth of] the blessed
Virgin, but also before the creation of the world, still has
spoken in his works in a way altogether shameful and in-
tolerable concerning the Creed authoritatively put forth by
the Nicene fathers. For he inveighs (whether with greater
want of learning or of modesty is not easy to say) against
the Nicene Creed, and those, framed and composed after
the third century, which agreed with it; “As regards the
other Creeds” (he says") “ which followed after, which were
framed at so-called general councils, as they are of more re-
cent date, they are not worthy to be compared with these’—

™ Thid., p. 391. ἢ Tnstitutiones Theologice, iv. 34, [sect. 2.1

answered by statements of Constantine and Eusebius. 7

that is, with the creeds and confessions of faith, by which, as _ ¢ 4, 5.
by marks and watch-words, Christians and Catholics, during

the first three centuries, used to be distinguished from un-
believers and heretics—“ And if the truth must be spoken,

they ought to be regarded as precipitately framed from ex-
citement, if not fury, and a maddened and unblessed' party 1 malefe-
spirit, on the part of bishops who were wrangling and con- neo
tending with one another with excessive rivalry, rather than

as what issued from composed minds.” And that you may
understand that the Nicene Creed, especially, is glanced at

by him in this passage, he presently adds, “ Who does not
know, what keen contests, and obstinate bickerings, were
raised amongst the bishops at the Nicene council?” Nay,
rather I would say, who is there that does not perceive that

all this issues from a mind far from sound or composed ?

Was it so clearly the part of a sober and moderate man, to

tear and rend with revilings the venerable prelates of that
most august council? But to proceed to the matter itself.

He is not ashamed to say that the Nicene Creed was “ pre-
cipitately framed by the bishops out of fury and maddened

and unblest party spirit.” Yet Constantine the emperor,

who himself presided as moderator in the Nicene council,
expressly testifies of it, in his Epistle to the Churches, that

in his presence® “every point had there received due exami-
nation.” Again, in the letter which he specially addressed [8]
to the Church of Alexandria, he says, that being present
amongst the bishops assembled at Nice, as though he were

one of their number, and their fellow-servant, he had under-
taken the investigation of the truth, in such a way, as thatP

‘all points, which appeared to raise a plea either of ambi-
guity”,” (for it is clear that this is the true reading from the " ἀμφιβο-
same clause being soon after repeated by Socrates,) “ or ee
difference of opinion, were tested and accurately examined.”

On this letter of Constantine, Socrates makes these observa-
tions?; “This account the emperor wrote to the people of

ο ἅπαντα τῆς προσηκούσης τετύχηκεν menting on the letter, p. 31,] ἢ διχο-
eferdoews.—Euseb, de Vita Constant. νοίας πρόφασιν ἐδόκει γεννᾷν.--- ϑοογαῖ,
rr age be Eccl. Hist. i. 9. p. 80. ed. Vales.

» ἠλέγχθη ἅπαντα, καὶ ἀκριβῶς ἐξή- 4 ὁ μὲν δὴ βασιλεὺς τοιαῦτα ἔγραφε
τασται, ὅσα ἢ ἀμφιβολίαν, [Bull read τῷ ᾿Αλεξανδρέων δήμῳ, μηνύων ὅτι οὐχ᾽
ἀμφιβολίας, as Socrates has itin com- ἁπλῶς, οὐδὲ ὡς ἔτυχε γέγονεν 6 ὕρος τῆς

INTROD.

1 ἁπλῶς.

® πρὸς σύσ-
τασιν τοῦ
δόγματος.

3 ἁπλῶς.

[9]

4Nucleus
Eccl. Hist.

8 Statements of Zuicker and Sandius,

Alexandria, to inform them that the definition of the faith
had not been made lightly’ or carelessly, but that they had
put it forth after much discussion and strict testing; and
it was not the case that some points had been mentioned at
the council, whilst others had been passed over in silence,
but that all things, which were meet to be alleged for esta-
blishment of the doctrine’, had been mooted, and that the
matter had not been hastily * defined, but had been first dis-
cussed with exact accuracy.” Nay, Eusebius himself, an
author of the utmost integrity, and of temperate disposition,
and not unfair towards the Arian party, and who seems to
have had the chief place next to the emperor in the Nicene
council’, expressly states, that all the bishops subscribed with
unanimous agreement to the creed drawn up in that council,
οὐκ ἀνεξεταστῶς, “not without examination,” not hastily and
inconsiderately, but after an exact, deliberate, and careful in-
vestigation, in presence of the emperor, of each separate pro-
position, (and, as he specifies by name, of the clause relating
to the homoousion, “ of one substance.”’) See Eusebius’ letter
to his own diocese, in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 8. [pp. 22, 23.]
At the opening of the council, indeed, there were considerable
disputes among some of the bishops, but, as Eusebius also in-
forms us, they were soon and easily settled and lulled by the
pious and mild address of the emperor.

6. The anonymous authors of a book published some time
ago under the title of ‘ Irenicum [renicorum,’ &c., boldly pro-
claims, that the Nicene fathers “were the framers of a new
faith ;’ and this he labours to prove, throughout his work,

by heaping together such testimonies, out of the remains of

the ante-Nicene fathers, as have the appearance of being
inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. This book is said by

Stephen Curcelleust to contain “irrefragable testimonies

and arguments.” The like web has been woven over again,
very lately, by Christopher Sandius, in what he calls his
‘Kernel* of Ecclesiastical History,’ now in the second edi-

πίστεως" ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μετὰ πολλῆς συζητή-
σεως καὶ δοκιμασίας αὐτὸν ὑπηγόρευσαν"
καὶ οὐχ᾽ ὅτι τινὰ μὲν ἐλέχθη, τινὰ δὲ
ἀπεσιγήθη, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ὅσα πρὸς σύστασιν
τοῦ δόγματος λεχθῆναι ἥρμοζε, πάντα
ἐκινήθη" καὶ ὅτι οὐχ᾽ ἁπλῶς ὡρίσθη, ἀλλ᾽
ἀκριβῶς ἐξητάσθη mpdtepov.—Ib., p. 31.

t Vid. not. Vales. ad Euseb. iii. de
Vita Const., ce. 11.

8 Page 84. [Daniel Zuicker. See
the Introduction to the Primitive and
Apostolical Tradition, ὃ 2.—B.]

and of Petavius, on the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 9

tion, and enriched by a very copious addition of fables and _§5—7.
contradictions. In this book, the shameless author is en-
tirely bent upon persuading such readers as are unlearned,
and have very little acquaintance with the writings of the
ancients, that the ante-Nicene fathers, without exception,
simply held the same doctrine as Arius.

7. There is, however, one great man _fully furnished with ae
learning of every kind ἃ, Dionysius Petavius, αὖ whom I can-
not sufficiently wonder; for, whilst he professes the utmost
reverence for the Nicene council, and on all occasions de-
clares that he receives the faith therein affirmed against the
Arians, as truly catholic and apostolic, still he freely gives up_
to the Arians, that which (if true) would very greatly tend to
confirm their_heresy, and to disparage, nay, rather, utterly
to overthrow, the credit and authority of the council of
Nice; I mean, that almost all the bishops and fathers before
the coundll o of Nice held precisely the same opinions as Arius.
For thus he writes, (Of the Minty i 7) * Accordingly
there was this settled opinion in the minds of some of the -
ancients, touching the Godhead and the diversity of Persons
in It, viz., that there is One supreme, unbegotten, and in-
visible God, who put forth, without, from Himself, as vocal
and sounding, that Logos", that is, that Word, which He
had laid up within (ἐνδιάθετον), yet not, like a voice or
sound, passing away and capable of being dissipated, but
of such sort, as that, as though embodied and _ subsist-
ing, It might in turn afterwards create all other things.
Moreover, they said, that the Word was put forth by the
Supreme God and Father at the time when He determined
on creating this universe, in order that He might use Him
as His assisting Minister. This opinion some intimate more
clearly, others more obscurely. But these may be specially
mentioned’; Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Tertullian, and !sed isti
Lactantius. Both these authors, however, and the rest*, whom στ

(10]

" [Qui λόγον, id est, Verbum, vel Ser- Origenes, “some others, as Origen. "

monem, quem ἐνδιάθετον, intus inclusum
tenebat, ex sese foras produxerit, voca-
lem et sonantem.—Petay. de Trin. i.
δ: 7..]

x [Instead of the words, reliqui, quos
commemoravi, ‘the rest, whom I have
mentioned,’’ Petavius, at the end of
the volume, substituted aliqui alii, ut

And the passage thus amended is cited
by Bp. Bull, 111. 4. 10.—B. It is so
amended in the later editions of Peta-
vius. Bp. Bull, however, in the pas-
sage referred to, cites only part of Pe-
tavius’ correction. See iii. 4. 10. and
Dr. Burton’s note on it. ]

10 ~~ Petavius’ statements tend to encourage Arianism ;

mTRop. J have mentioned,” (and which of the primitive fathers had he
not before mentioned?) “thought that the Father was superior

to the Word, in age, dignity, 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 exist-

‘ conditio- ence’ to differ from that of all other beings, which are properly
a called creatures ;) still they conceived that He had a begin-
ning no less than the creatures; in other words, that He had

?hyposta-, by no means been a distinct Person? from eternity.” But in
une the second section of the eighth chapter of the same book he
speaks still more plainly. ‘It is most clear,” he says, “ that

[11] | Arius was a genuine Platonist, and that he followed the
opinions of those ancient writers, who, while as yet the

Snondum point had not been developed and settled’, had fallen into
patefseta the same error. For they also taught that the Word was
quere. produced by God the Father, yet not from eternity, but be-

fore He formed the world, in order that He might use Him
as His assisting Minister for the accomplishment of that
work. For they conceived that He had not created all
things by Himself, and without the intervention of any
4sineinter- one*; a doctrine which Philo also followed in his book on
ae ali the Creator of the World. And therefore I take it to have
been in a rhetorical and exaggerated way of expression, that
Alexander, in his epistle, and others of the fathers, who wrote
against this heresy, complained that Arius had been the
Sarchitec- author of that opinion ®, the like to which had been unheard
tum ¢°8- of before his time; inasmuch as we have brought forward a
great number of cele writers who previously taught the
same doctrine as Arius.”

8. If, therefore, reliance is to be placed on Petavius, we shall
have to_lay down, first, that the heresy of Arius, which was
condemned by the Nicene fathers, agreed, in the most im-
portant point, with the commonly received view οἱ the
ancient Catholi s, who preceded him; secondly, that

e doctrine concerning the true divinity of the Son was not
5 constitu- se wa tripe ee sel of Nis τος
ete that Alexander, and the other Catholics, who accused Arius

‘as the author of a doctrine which was new and unheard of
previously in the Catholic Church, said this in a rhetorical
and an exaggerated way; that is to say, (if the thing is to be

from a wish to establish the authority of the later Church. 11

more plainly stated,) that they uttered a notable falsehood, 8 7, 8.
I suppose in the Jesuit fashion, to subserve the Catholic

cause. Unlucky Arius! that Petavius was not yet born,

to become the patron and advocate of his cause in the
conflict at Nicea. It is not, however, easy to say, what |
Petavius had in view when he wrote thus. Some suspect ‘[12]
that in his heart he cherished the Arian heresy himself, and
wished craftily to pass on the cup to others. This was the
opinion of Sandiusy, whom I have just before mentioned,
who thus remarks of Petavius; “ But when I recollect that |
Petavius asserts, that the ante-Nicene fathers taught the
same doctrines as Arius, and, also, that the articles of the
faith are to be proved by traditions, I think it impossible
but that Petavius must have been persuaded of the truth of
the conclusion, which infallibly follows from these premises,
namely, that the Trinity which the Arians hold, and not the
consubstantial Trinity’, is an article of the faith. And as to 'Trinita-
his wresting the argument to a contrary conclusion, ¥~pre- ΤῊΣ ΟΣ
‘Sume he did this with a twofold view; 1. To escape the in- |
conveniences? which commonly fall on those who secede from ?adversa.
the Roman Catholic to the Arian party; 2. That the Arians —

might be able to derive a stronger proof of their doctrine |

from a father of the Society of Jesus, as from an adversary ; |
especially since it is sufficient to prove premises, from which
any person of sound mind can draw such a conclusion, as
will make it plain what his opinion is about the Trinity.”
These are the words of Sandius; in my opinion, however, it
. ὁ ἢ τὸ pa «δι τείας

is most _clear from the writings of Petavius himself, that {Π6
conjecture of this most vain writer is entirely false. Ifindeed 5
it must be said that Petavius wrote thus withany sinister |
purpose, and not merely from that_bold_and reckless temper.
which is his wont in criticising and commenting on the holy |
fathers, I should say that, being a Jesuit, he wished to pro-
mote the papal, rather than the Arian, interest. For, from
the fact (for which Petavius contends) that almost all the
Catholic doctors of the first three centuries fell into the self-
same error which the Nicene council afterwards condemned
as heresy in the case of Arius, these two things will easily
follow; 1. That little authority is to be assigned to the |

Y Sandius’ Nucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 156. last edition [1676.]

a Eee

12 Petavius discredits the authority of the Primitive Fathers.

_introp4 fathers of the first three centuries,—to whom Reformed

[13] | Catholics are wont to make their chief appeal,—as being
persons to whom the principal articles of the Christian faith

‘satis per- were not as yet sufficiently understood and developed’ ;
es 2. That cecumenical councils have the power of framing’, or,
2condendi. as Petavius says, of settling and developing*® new articles
oe. of faith ; by which. principle it may seem that sufficient pro-

tefaciendi.) vision is made for those additions, which the fathers of Trent
patched on to the rule of faith, and thrust upon the Christian
world; though not even in this way will the Roman faith
stand good; since the assembly at Trent is to be called any
thing rather than a general council.

But so it is: the masters of that school have no scruples in
building their pseudo-catholic faith on the ruins of the faith
which is truly catholic. The divine oracles themselves, must,
forsooth, be found guilty of too great obscurity, and the most
holy doctors, bishops, and martyrs of the primitive Church be
accused of heresy, in order that, by whatever means, the faith
and authority of the degenerate Roman Church may be kept
safe and sound. And yet these sophists (of all things) exe-
crate us as if we were so many accursed Hams, and deriders
and despisers ofthe venerable fathers of the Church; whilst they
continually boast that they themselves religiously follow the
faith of the ancient doctors, and reverence their writings to the
f utmost. That Petavius, however, wrote those passages with
| this wicked design, I would not venture to affirm for certain,
leaving it to the judgment of that God who knoweth the hearts.
At the same time, what the Jesuit has written, as it is most
pleasing to modern Arians, (who on this account with one con-
sent look up to and salute him as their patron,) so we confi-
q dently pronounce it to be manifestly repugnant to the truth,

and most unjust and insulting to the holy fathers, whether

those of the council of Nice, or those who preceded it.
9. For this is the plan of the work which I have undertaken,

—to shew clearly that what the Nicene fathers laid down
[14] concerning the divinity of the Son, in opposition to Arius

and other heretics, was in substance (although sometimes
perhaps in other words and in a different mode of expres-
sion) taught by all the approved fathers and doctors of the
Church, without a single exception, who flourished before the

The Nicene Creed. 13

period of the council of Nice down from the very age of
the Apostles.

And, O most holy Jesus, the co-eternal Word of the eternal
Father, I, the chief of sinners, and the least of Thy servants,
do humbly beseech Thee that Thou wouldest vouchsafe to
bless this labour of mine, undertaken (as Thou, O searcher
of hearts, dost know) for Thine honour and the good of Thy
holy Church ; and to succour and help mine infirmity in this
most weighty work, for Thine infinite mercy and most ready
favour towards them that love Thee. Amen !

10. The Nicene Creed, as it is quoted by Eusebius? in his
epistle to his own diocese of Ceesarea, by Athanasius in his
letter to Jovian* De Fide, and by other writers, is as follows :

Πιστεύομεν εἰς Eva Θεὸν Πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, πάντων
ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν" καὶ εἰς τὸν ἕνα Κύριον
᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πα-
τρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός" Θεὸν ἐκ
Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννη-
θέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ, d¢ οὗ τὰ πάντα
ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" τὸν δι ἡμᾶς
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα,
καὶ σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, ἐρχόμενον
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς" καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα 76" Aytov. Τοὺς
δὲ λέγοντας, Ἦν ποτε, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, οὐκ
ἣν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ
οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν, ἢ τρεπτὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀπο-
στολικὴ ἐκκλησ ἴα" 1. 6., “ We believe in one God the Father,
Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the
Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Fa-
ther; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by
whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and
which are on earth; who, for us men and for our salvation,
came down, and was incarnate, and was made Man, and
suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into

« Socrates Eccles. Hist. i. 8. pp. [21, 22.]
4 [ἢ 3. vol. i. p. 781. Bp. Bull follows Athanasius.—B. ]

§ 8—10.

[15]

INTROD.

τες
sui aucto-
rem ac
princi-
pium.

[16]

14 Bp. Bull’s Propositions.

the heavens, who cometh to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost. But as for those who say, There
was a time when He was not; and, Before He was begotten
He was not, and, He was made out of what existed not;
or who assert that the Son of God is of another hypostasis
or essence, or that He was created, or is capable of change
or alteration, them the Catholic and Apostolic Church doth
anathematize.”

11. The doctrine respecting the Son of God, contained in
this Creed, so far as it concerns our present design, may be
reduced to these heads.

Tue First; concerning the προύπαρξις, or Pre-existence,
of the Son of God, before [His Incarnation of] the blessed
Virgin Mary, nay, rather, before the foundation of the
world; and concerning the creation of the universe through
the Son.

Tur Seconp; concerning the ὁμοούσιον (“of one sub-
stance’) or Consubstantiality, of the Son; that He is not
of any such essence as is created or subject to change ;
but of a nature altogether the same with His Father, that
is, that He is very God.

Tue Tuirp; concerning the συναΐδιον, the Co-eternity of
the Son; that is, His existence co-eternal with His Father.

Tur Fourtru; concerning the subordination of the Son to
the Father, as to Him who is His author and principle’, which
is expressed by the Nicene fathers in two ways, in that, first,
they call the Father “ One God ;” and then, in that they say
that the Son is “ God of God, Light of Light,” &c.

On all these points we shall make it manifest, that the
faith of the ante-Nicene fathers is quite in harmony with the

“Nicene Creed; going through each particular in the order in

which we have just proposed them.

BO 0 i.

ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD; BEFORE [HIS INCARNA-
TION OF] THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, NAY RATHER, BEFORE THE
FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD; AND ON THE CREATION OF THE UNI-
VERSE THROUGH HIM.

CHAPTER I.

THE PROPOSITION STATED; AND THE FORMER PART OF IT, NAMELY, THE PRE-
EXISTENCE OF THE SON BEFORE [HIS INCARNATION | OF THE BLESSED
VIRGIN MARY, DEMONSTRATED.

1. Wuart the opinion of the Catholic fathers, who preceded
the council of Nice, was concerning the Pre-existence of the
Son of God, we will unfold in the following

PROPOSITION.

The Catholic Doctors of the first three centuries all with
one accord taught that Jesus Christ, that is, He who was
afterwards called Jesus Christ, (before He was made man,
that is, before His birth, according to the flesh, of the most
blessed Virgin,) existed in another nature far surpassing
the human; that He appeared to holy men, as a prelude
to His Incarnation; that He always presided over and pro-
vided for that Church, which He was afterwards to redeem
with His own blood; and that thus from the beginning
the “whole order of the divine administration'”’
expresses it*) “ had its course through Him ;” and that more-
over, before the foundations of the world were laid He was
present with God His Father, and that through Him this
universe was created.

5 [A primordio omnem ordinem divine dispositionis per ipsum decucurrissc.
—Advy. Prax., Cc. 16. Ρ. 510. |

[17]

(as Tertullian ! disposi-
tionis.

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE

* quasi per
incremen-
tum quod-
dam.

[19]

Λόγος.

16 Appearances of the Son under the Old Testament.

Though this was never denied by the Arians, it may still
perhaps be worth while to demonstrate it briefly against other
opposers of the catholic doctrine concerning our Saviour.
In this proposition we assert two things (in a kind of chi-
max’) concerning the primitive fathers, namely, that they be-
lieved and taught, I. That Jésus Christ, before He became
man, existed, appeared to holy men, &c. : 11. That He was
present with God the Father before the foundations of the
world were laid, and that through Him this universe was
created.

2. As to the former part of the proposition, the fathers of
the first centuries agree in teaching, that the Son of God
frequently appeared to holy men under the Old Testament ;
and further they expound of the same Son of God Himself all
those appearances, in which the name of Jehovah and divine
honours are attributed to Him who appears, although at other
times perhaps He is called an angel. One who is ignorant
of this, is a stranger to the writings of the fathers. For the
sake, however, of students in divinity, who perhaps have not
yet advanced to the reading of the fathers, (with whichcertainly,
next after the holy Scriptures, they ought to have commenced
their theological studies,) I wish to produce here some testi-
monies out of the writings of those ancient authors.

3. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, shews at
length that it was Christ who appeared to Abraham at the
oak in Mamre?; that He was that Lord, who received from
the Lord in Heaven, ἐκ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων, that is, from the
Father of all, to send down upon Sodom a shower of fire and
brimstone’; who appeared in dreams to Jacob, wrestled with
him in the form of a man, comforted him in his exile; who,
lastly, appeared to Moses in the burning bush*.

4. Irenzeus held the same opinion as Justin concerning
Him who appeared to Moses and Abraham: for he thus
writes®; “ He, therefore, who was worshipped by the prophets
as the living God, is the God of the living, and His Word’,

b Page 275. [56. p. 150. ] Verbum (Adyos) ejus, qui et locutus
¢ Page 277. |p. 152. ] est Moysi, qui et Sadduceos redarguit,
d Page 280—282. (58, 59. pp.155, qui et resurrectionem donavit.—Adv.
156. ] Heres. iv. 11. ed. Paris. 1639. [c. 5.

e Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur pp. 282.]
Deus vivus, hic est vivorum Deus, et

According to Justin, Ireneus, Theophilus, & Clem. Alex. 17

who also spake unto Moses, and confuted the Sadducees,
and also bestowed [the gift of] resurrection.” And in the
twelfth chapter of the same book, he says of Abraham; “In
Abraham man had before learnt and had been accustomed
to follow the Word of God. For Abraham according to his
faith, following the command of the Word of God, with a
ready mind yielded up his only-begotten and beloved son as
a sacrifice to οὐ". And a little farther on he writes, “ The
‘Lord therefore, whose day he desired to see, was not unknown
to Abraham ; nor again was the Father of the Lord [unknown
to him], for he had learned from the Word of the Lord and
believed in Him,” &c. &c.

5. Theophilus of Antioch (writing to Autolycus, book 1.0)
asserts, that it was the Son of God who appeared to Adam
shortly after the fall, and that “assuming the person of the
Father and Lord of all, He came into paradise in the person
of God and conversed with Adam.” I confess that in this
passage Theophilus seems to speak less honourably than he
ought of the Son of God; but this I shall notice elsewhere 8,

6. Clement of Alexandria teaches almost the same as Justin,
(Pedag. 1. c. 7)"; where he asserts, that the Instructor’ (by ! pedago-

BOOK I,
CHAP. I.
ἃ 1—6.

whom he every where means Christ) appeared to Abraham, δον
was seen by Jacob, with whom also He wrestled, and lastly
shewed Himself to Moses. He also in another place teaches, [20]

that Christ gave to the world the written law of Moses as
well as the law of nature, (Strom. vii.)i; “Wherefore the
Lord” (here also he means Christ, as is evident from what
goes before) “gave His precepts, both the former and the
latter, drawing them from one fountain, neither through neg-
γίνετο eis τὸν παράδεισον ἐν προσώπῳ

τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ὡμίλει τῷ ᾿Δδάμ.---Αἀ
eale. Justin. Martyr., ed. Paris. 1615.

¢ In Abrahamo predidicerat et as-
suetus fuerat homo sequi Verbum Dei.
Etenim Abraham secundum fidem

suam secutus preceptum Verbi Dei
prono animo unigenitum et dilectum
filium suum concessit sacrificium Deo.
“ον Non incognitus igitur erat Dominus
Abrahe, cujus diem concupivit videre :
sed neque Pater Domini: didicerat
enim a Verbo Domini, et credidit ei,
&c.—Ibid. [A few of these words are
extant in the Greek, προθύμως roy ἴδιον
μονογενῆ καὶ ἀγαπητὸν παραχωρήσας Ov-
σίαν τῷ Θεῷ.---Β.]

f ἀναλαμβάνων τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ Τα-
τρὺς καὶ Κυρίου τῶν ὅλων [οὗτος παρε-

BULL.

p. 100.

8 [Book iii. ch. 7. sect. 1 sqq. ]

» Edit. Paris. 1641. p 110.

1 διὸ καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς ἃς ἔδωκεν, τάς
τε προτέρας τάς τε δευτέρας ἐκ μιᾶς
ἀρυττόμενος πηγῆς 6 Κύριος, οὔτε τοὺς
πρὸ νόμου ἀνόμους εἶναι ὑπεριδὼν, οὔτ᾽
αὐτοὺς [αὖ τοὺς Sylburg.] μὴ ἐπαΐοντας
τὰ βαρβάρου φιλοσοφίας ἀφηνιάσαι συγ-
χωρήσας. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐντολὰς, τοῖς δὲ
φιλοσοφίαν παρασχὼν, συνέκλεισεν τὴν
ἀπιστίαν εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν κ. τ. λ.---

[cap. ii. p. 834. ]

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE
OF THE
SON.

1 ordinem

suum pre-

struens.
[21]

2 or “ prac-

tising.”’

3 fidem
sterneret.

18 Tertullian and the rest on the Appearances of the Word ;

ligence allowing those who lived before the law to be without
law, nor yet permitting those who heard not the teaching of
barbarian philosophy to be without restraint, for having given
precepts to the one, philosophy to the other, He shut up their
unbelief unto His coming.”

7. In like manner Tertullian writes, (Against the Jews’,
chap. 9;) “He who used to speak to Moses, was the Son of
God Himself, and it was He that at all times appeared *.””
But he speaks most openly and fully on this point in his
treatise against Praxeas, chap. 16'; “It is,” he says, “ the
Son who hath executed judgment from the beginning, throw-
ing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punish-
ing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon
Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, ‘the Lord from
the Lord’ For He Himself it was, who also at all times
came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to
the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in
mirror, in dark saying; ever from the beginning laying the
foundation of the course [of His dispensations'], which He
meant to follow out unto the end. Thus was He ever learn-
ing’, and the God who conversed with men upon earth
could be no other than the Word, which was to be made
flesh. But He was learning, in order to level for us
the way of faith’, that we might the more readily believe
that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we
knew that in times past also something similar had been
done.”

8. Let it suffice, as I am anxious to be brief, simply to refer
to the remaining testimonies. See Origen against Celsus, 111."

ji Qui ad Mosen loquebatur, ipse erat
Dei Filius, qui et semper videbatur.—
Cont. Jud., p. 194.

k See also his book de Carne Christi,
c. 6. [p. 811;] and his Treatise against
Marcion. ii. 27. [p. 895;] and 11]. 6. [p.
400 ;] and his Treatise against Prax. ὁ.
14. [p. 507. ]

ι Filius est qui ab initio judicavit,
turrim superbissimam elidens, linguas-
que dispertiens, orbem totum aquarum
violentia puniens, pluens super Sodo-
mam et Gomorram ignem et sulphu-
rem, Dominus a Domino. Ipse enim
et ad humana semper colloquia descen-

dit, ab Adam usque ad patriarchas et
prophetas in visione, in somnio, in spe-
culo, in enigmate, ordinem suum pre-
struens ab initio semper, quem erat
persecuturus in finem. Ita semper
ediscebat, et Deus in terris cum homi-
nibus conversari non alius potuit, quam
Sermo, qui caro erat futurus. Edisce-
bat autem, ut nobis fidem sterneret, ut
facilius crederemus Filium Dei de-
scendisse in seculum, si et retro tale
quid gestum cognosceremus. — Adv.
Prax., p. 509.
m Ed. Cant. 1658. [ὃ 14. p. 456. ]

belief in His Pre-existence implied in this view. 19

p. 119, and vi. p. 329"; Novatian on the Trinity, cc. 25-— ποοκ 1.
27°; Cyprian, Tract 8. De Simplicitate Prelatorum?. The ἐγὼ Ay
Cathotic Doctors of the Church after the council of Nice agree ———
on this point with the ante-Nicene Fathers. See Athanasius,
(Orat. iv. against the Arians;) Hilary, (books iv. and xii. on
the Trinity ;) Philastrius, (Heresy 84;) Chrysostom, (Homily
to the people of Antioch, chap. 8, and on the seventh chapter of
the Epistle to the Hebrews ;) Ambrose, (book i. On those who
are Initiated, chap.3 ;) Augustine, (Epistles 99,111,112 :) Leo,
(Epistle 17 ;) Theodoret, (Question 68. on Genesis, &c.)

9. 1 am aware that there are some who ridicule these
views, as the mere dreams and dotings of the good fathers,
and who are too self-satisfied, laying it down as certain,
that the Angel who appeared of old to the patriarchs and
holy men and was worshipped by them, was only a created
angel, fulfilling the office of an ambassador in behalf of' ! pro.
the most high God, and bearing His name and character’, ? personam
To such I answer; 1. Supposing that the fathers were eee
in error on that ἜΗΙ still this remains fixed and certain,
that they themselves believed that our Saviour Jesus really 9
existed before His birth, according to the flesh, of the
most blessed Virgin; which is enough for our purpose.
But it will be said, it is very likely that they, who erred in [22]
their premises, were also deceived in their conclusion. I grant
it, if they had built their conclusion only upon these pre-
mises, which are supposed to be false. But in this in-
stance the case is quite different. For the fathers, although
they sometimes establish the pre-existence of the Son of God
by this argument, do yet throughout their writings* intimate 5 passim. |
that they were led to this view from other very plain testi-
monies of Scripture, as well as from the tradition of the Apo-
stles; this we shall hereafter shew clearly in its own time and
place. But, 2ndly, I have, and always shall have, a religious
scruple in interpreting the Holy Scriptures against the stream
of all the fathers and ancient doctors, except when the most
evident proofs compel me to do so; this, however, I do not
believe will ever happen. For certainly the consentient judg-
ment of antiquity, especially of primitive antiquity, ought

" [§ 78. p. 691.] p [This treatise is not believed to be

° [Page 723, &c.] Cyprian’s.—B. |

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE
OF THE
SON.

[29]

1 speciem.

2 per assis-
tentiam
singula-
rem.

20 The statement that an Angel appeared consistent

to outweigh the force of many probabilities and reasonings
from likelihood. But it will be said, there are in this instance
the most evident reasons for thinking otherwise. Well then,
let us see.

10. The first objection they urge is, that in Exodus 11]. 4
we read, that God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush ;
and, in Exod. xix. 20, and xx. 1, that God gave him the
law; whilst yet it is clear from other passages of Scripture,
that it was a created angel, who in each case appeared and
spoke to Moses. For by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, ii. 2, the law is called “the word spoken by an-
gels,” with which compare Gal. ii. 19. Stephen also, Acts
vii., clearly says that an angel appeared to Moses in the
bush, ver. 30, and that the law was ministered by the dispen-
sation of angels, ver. 53. They add, that in that well-known
appearance to Abraham in Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1,2, although
one of the three is distinguished by the name of Jehovah, yet
it is certain that all the three were angels; since the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews expressly says, that they were
angels whom Abraham and Lot hospitably entertained, xin. 2.

11. My answer is; when the fathers agree in asserting,
that the angel who appeared to Abraham and Moses, and to
whom the name of Jehovah and divine honours are attributed,
was the Son of God, their statement admits of two senses ;
namely, either that it was God, (that is, the Son of God,) de-
signated by the name of an angel, inasmuch as He assumed
a body or visible appearance such as angels are accustomed
to use; or that the Son of God was in the angel ; that is, that
it was an angel who assumed the bodily shape, and that the
Son of God was in the angel ; I mean, by a special mode of ac-
companiment’ and presence. On the former hypothesis, the
objection alleged is met by saying that the Son of God is called
an angel also, that is to say, “ the Angel of the covenant ;” and
that in these appearances He is called an angel, because He
imitated the manner and way in which angels used to appear
to men; moreover, that it is not true that it was a created
angel who spoke to Moses in the bush and on mount Sinai;
nor is this proved from its being said both by Stephen and
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the law of
Moses was “ given by angels,” in the plural number ; because

with the appearance of the Word, in two ways. 21
nothing hinders but that God might have been Himself soox r.

present on Sinai, although, to set forth His majesty, He ¢~-17.
was attended by a multitude of angels: nay, from Deut. ———_
xxxill. 2, and Ps. Ixvii. 17, it most certamly appears that
God Himself was present by a special presence on mount
Sinai amongst those myriads of angels. And in the case
of the appearance of the three, who turned aside to [visit]
Abraham, [we should say] that two of them indeed were
created angels, and that this is quite enough to preserve
the truth of the Apostle’s words in Heb. xiii. 2; but that
the third was the Son of God, since even Abraham recog-
nised in Him the marks of the Divine Majesty, and therefore
interceded with Him as with the supreme Judge, that, if it
were possible, He might delay the destruction of the five
cities [of the plain]. And very much in this way does
the celebrated Andrew Rivet (among others) answer the ob- [24]
jection in his Commentary on Hosea xii. 4—6. The second
hypothesis, however, is adopted by many ancient writers,
both Jewish and Christian. Trypho the Jew, in Justin‘,
cowtends, that in the appearance to Moses in the burning
bush, two were present together, God and an angel; that it
was the angel which appeared in the flame of fire, whilst it
was God, (that is to say, in the angel,) who spoke with
Moses. Justin answers him, that this may be allowed with-
out affecting the truth of his hypothesis—that it was the
Son of God, I mean, who spoke to Moses; although he
afterwards tries to shew that the Son of God alone appeared
to Moses. And indeed the view of Trypho seems to have
been received and approved amongst the more ancient Jews.
For even Stephen himself clearly teaches that it was an angel
which appeared to Moses in the bush, Acts vii. 80, but that
it was God Himself who spoke these words to Moses, “I am
the God of thy fathers,” &c., Acts vii. 31, 32. Compare
Exod. 11. 2, with verses 4—6. Clement of Alexandria, the
same who affirms that He who was over the children of
Israel in the wilderness, was the Instructor ', that is, the Son 1 pedago-
of God, expressly teaches, and that in the very same passage’, 8°

4 Dialog. cum Tryphon., pp. 282,283. στήσας τοῦ λόγου δύναμιν,. . . τὸ

[c. 60. p. 156, &e. | ἀξίωμα τὸ κυριακὸν puddttwv.—Peda-
τὴν εὐαγγέλιον καὶ ἡγεμόνιον ἐπι- gog.i. 7. pp. 110, 111, [p. 133.]

22 The joint Presence of the Word and of the Angel.

on tus that He who conducted Moses was an angel, “setting over

PRE-PX” him the evangelizing! and guiding power of the Word,” and
a “reserving the dignity of the Lord.” And a little after-
pera wards he adds, that, under the Old Testament, “the Word
λιον was an angel*,” that is, appeared to men by means of

angels. In which sense also he, by and by, calls the Son
10 “the mystic Angelt,” as concealing, as it were, at that period,
His divine majesty under the guise of an angel. The same
view was entertained by many of the fathers who wrote
after the council of Nice. Thus Athanasius (Orat. iv. against
the Arians®), speaking concerning the angel which appeared
to Moses in the bush, says, “ He who appeared was an angel,
but it was God who spoke in him.” Jerome (on chap. 111.
of the Epistle to the Galatians) says*, “ But in that he asserts
that the law was ordained by angels, this is what he would
have understood, that, whenever throughout the Old Testa-
ment an angel is first said to appear, and afterwards God, as
it were, is introduced speaking, it is really an angel, one of
many ministering spirits, whoever he is, who appears, but it
is the Mediator who speaks in him, who says, “1 am the God
of Abraham,’” &c. Augustine (against Maximinus, book 11].
near the end’) says, “ Who was it, I ask, that appeared to
Moses in the flame, when the bush is burning, but was not
consumed? Although Holy Scripture itself declares, that
in this case also it was an angel which appeared, in the
words, ‘But there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord
in a flame of fire out of the bush, yet who doubts that
God was in the angel?” Gregory (Preface to Job, i1.”) says,

[25 |

batur et non urebatur? quanquam et
illic angelum apparuisse Scriptura ip-
sa declarat, dicens, Apparuit autem illi
angelus Domini in flamma ignis de rubo ;
in angelo autem Deum fuisse quis du-
bitat ?—[Lib. ii, 11. vol. viii. p. 742.]

5. λόγος ἄγγελος Hv.—[Id. ibid, ]

t μυστικὸς ἄγγελος.---ἰ Id. ibid. ]

u ὃ μὲν φαινόμενος ἦν ἄγγελο" 6 δὲ
Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ eAddrez.—Tom. i. p. 467.
[ Orat. iii, 14. p. 563. ]

x Quod autem ait, lex ordinata per

angelos, hoc vult intelligi, quod in om-
ni Veteri Testamento, ubi angelus pri-
mum visus refertur, et postea quasi
Deus loquens inducitur, angelus qui-
dem vere ex ministris pluribus, quicun-
que sit, visus; sed in illo Mediator lo-
quatur, qui dicat, Hgo sum Deus Abra-
ham, &c.—Ed. Par. 1627. [tom. vii. p.
441. ]

Υ Quero, inquit, quis apparuerit
Mosi in igne, quando rubus inflamma-

z Angelus, qui Mosi apparuisse de-
scribitur, modo angelus, modo Do-
minus memoratur; angelus videlicet
propter hoc, quod exterius loquendo
serviebat; Dominus autem dicitur, quia
interius presidens loquendi efficaciam
ministrabat. Cum ergo loquens ab in-
teriori regitur, et per obsequium an-
gelus, et per inspirationem Dominus
nominatur.—[ Greg. M. vol. i. p. 8. |

a mere angel would not receive Divine Honour. 23

“The angel which is described as appearing to Moses, 15. soox 1.
sometimes mentioned as an angel, at other times as the Lord ; Te LL. ὦ
as an angel, that is, as it seems, by reason of his doing service
by outward speech; but yet he is called the Lord, because it
was He who, presiding within, supplied the power ἡ of speech ; 1 efficacia.
as then he who speaks is guided by Him who is within, he hath
both the name angel by reason of his service, and the name
Lord by reason of His inspiration.” With these agree Ful-
gentius (against Maximus) and other writers ; and this opinion
of the ancients seems to me to receive complete confirmation
from that passage in Exodus xxii. 20, where God, that is, the
Son of God, according to the opinion of all primitive anti-
quity, speaking to Moses, promises that He will send His [26]
angel before His people, through the wilderness, and that “ His
Name shall be 1273, in the midst of him’.” It was, there- 3 in medio
fore, in very truth an angel who went before the people of *"”
Israel to the promised land; but yet an angel in whom the
Son of God placed His name, that is, His own divine virtue
and power; in whom, that is to say, He was Himself pre-
sent in some peculiar manner. However, from the words of
Trypho in Justin, which we have just now quoted, it is clear
that that notion never entered into the minds of the
ancient Jews, which in our age has been entertained by
certain learned men among Christians; namely, that He
who appeared and spoke to Moses in the bush and on
mount Sinai was a mere angel, who called himself the God
of Abraham, and willingly permitted divine worship to be
paid to him under the name of God. Surely such an opinion
is too absurd, and is simply horrible. For it is impious to
suppose that angels ever practised the art of actors, and
that God ever communicated to them His incommunicable
Name, or such a representation as that by it a creature
should take to himself*® all that belongs to God. Rightly ὅ sibi at-
also does the learned Cameron remark?; “It is true advo- ruuer:
cates do often personate their clients; but it has never been
even heard of that any ambassador, in setting forth the
mandates of his prince, spoke in any other than the third
person, ‘ My sovereign says this.’ Of which usage we have
a remarkable testimony in the prophets, with whom, as it is

* In Annot. ad Heb, ii. 2.

24 Principle on which this interpretation is based.

on tue well known, the customary formula of expression is, ‘Thus

Isteveg saith the Lord.’ Nay, even in visions angels acknowledge

ortHe that they are sent”.” Hence Grotius himself allows in one

tee place’, that he, who promulgated the ancient law on Sinai,

1 singula- Was indeed a special’ angel, accompanied by a retinue of

tam others; not however a mere angel, but one with whom the
Word was present.

12. Let it be granted then, you will say, that it was God
who by an angel, or under the figure of an angel, appeared
and spake to holy men in the Old Testament ; yet by what
reasoning, we ask, were the (ancient) doctors led to believe
that this was the Son of God? I answer, by the best of
reasoning, if I am not mistaken, which they had learnt from
apostolical tradition. I mean this; God the Father, as He
at first framed aud created the world through His Son, so
through the same Son did He afterwards manifest Himself to
the world. Therefore the Son of God, although in the last
times, through the dispensation of His incarnation, He has
at length held familiar intercourse with mankind, still al-
ways, even from the very earliest period of its existence, pre-
sided over the Church; and even under the Old Testament,

*ingessit though bya hidden and secret dispensation, shewed Himself?
a to holy men. Clement of Alexandria (Pedagog.i. 11°) says;
ὃ ἐπαιδαγώ- “Of old time,then, the Word performed the office of instructor’
through Moses, and afterwards also through the prophets.”
Origen (against Celsus, lib. vi.°) writes thus ; “It was not as if

God had awaked out of a long sleep, and sent Jesus to the

la ee human race; for although He (for good reasons) assigned unto*
| this time the dispensation of the Incarnation, yet had He

[28] always been a benefactor to mankind; for nothing of what is
good among men was ever done, except by the Word of God

visiting the souls of those who, even for a little while, were

capable of receiving such influences of the Divine Word.”

Ὁ Vide Athanas. Orat. iv. cont, Ari- αἰτίας ἐπικληρώσαντα [πληρώσαντα,
an., Ὁ. 466. [ Orat. i1i.12. vol.i. p. 561.] 64, Ben.], del δὲ τὸ γένος τῶν ἀνθρώ-

© Ad Gal. iii. 19. πων εὐεργετήσαντα᾽ οὐδὲν yap τῶν ἐν
4 πάλαι μὲν οὖν διὰ Μωσέως ὃ λόγος ἀνθρώποις καλῶν γεγένηται, μὴ τοῦ
ἐπαιδαγώγει, ἔπειτα καὶ διὰ προφητῶν..---- - θείου λόγου ἐπιδημήσαντος ταῖς ψυ-
Pag. 182. [p. 155. | χαῖς τῶν κἂν ὀλίγον καιρὸν δεδυνημέ-
e ovx’ ὥσπερ ἀπὸ μακροῦ ὕπνου δια- νων δέξασθαι τὰς τοιάσδε τοῦ θείου λό-

ναστὰς ὃ Θεὸς ἔπεμψε τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τῷ γου ἐνεργείας. —Pag. 329.[§ 78. p. 691. |
γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Thy μὲν κατὰ τὴν Vide et lib. iii. p. 119. [§ 14. p. 456. ] et
ἐνσωμάτωσιν οἰκονομίαν viv δι’ εὐλόγους 110. iv. p. 165. [ὃ 6. p. 506.]

Apparent opposition to Heb. i. 2 explained. 25
Tertullian, however, expresses himself most plainly and fully Book i.
(against Praxeas, c. 15. [p. 509*]); “It was the Son who was § 11 oe
always seen, and the Son who has always worked by the er,

authority and will of the Father, for ‘the Son can do nothing
of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do,’ &c....Thus, ‘all
things were made by the Son, and without Him was not any
thing made.’ And think not that only the works which per-
tain to the [creation of the] world were made through the
Son, but also whatever since that time has been done by
God.” Afterwards, c. 168, follow the words which we have
quoted above; “The God, who conversed with men upon
earth, could have been no other than the Word, which was
to be made flesh.”

13, There remains a second objection, which is held up by
certain very learned men as unanswerable’, and it shall be !invictam.
discussed by me in but few words. They urge then, that this
opinion of the fathers is diametrically opposed to most ex-
press words of Holy Scripture. For, say they, the inspired
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 1, 2, plainly says that
“God, who in divers manners spake in times past unto the
fathers and prophets, hath at length in the last days spoken
[unto men] through His Son:” but it is evident that by the
last days is meant the age of the Gospel; therefore before
that time the Son of God had never spoken, or God through
His Son; otherwise, the author would not have been correct
in opposing the last days of the Gospel to the early period
of the ancient law, if the Son of God, or God through the
Son, has appeared and spoken in both. |

14. Ludovicus de Tena proposes this objection, and an-
swers it in words to the following effect®; “Paul only

[29]

makes a difference between

f Filius visus est semper, [Filius
conversatus est semper] et Filius ope-
ratus est semper, ex auctoritate Patris
et voluntate, quia Filius nihil a semet-
ipso potest facere, nisi viderit Patrem
facientem, &c... . Sic omnia per Fili-
um facta sunt, et sine illo factum est
nihil. Nec putes sola opera mundi per
Filium facta, sed et que a Deo exinde
gesta sunt.—Tert. adv. Praxeam, ο. 15.
p. 509.

§ Deus in terris cum hominibus con-
versari non alius potuit, quam Sermo,

this last appearance of the

qui caro erat futurus.—[ Ibid. c. 16.]

h Respondeo Paulum solum ponere
discrimen inter hanc ultimam appari-
tionem Filii Dei, et priores V. T. quia
iste fiebant in creatura corporali, non
hypostatice unita Filio Dei; et ita me-
dio supposito creato corporeo, imo et
angelico, loquebatur Filius Dei. At
vero in illa apparitione Verbi incarnati,
de qua asserit, novissime locutus est no-
bis in Filic, non mediat aliquod suppo-
situm creatum, heque corporeum, ne-
que angelicum; sed Verbum divinum

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE
OF THE

1 supposito.

2 ver seip-
sum.

[30]

26 The Word Incarnate spoke without any intervening Person.

Son of God, and the earlier ones of the Old Testament,
in that those were made in a created body, not united
hypostatically to the Son of God; and so the Son of God
spoke through the medium of a subject’, created, corpo-
real, nay rather angelic. But in that appearance of the
incarnate Word, of which he asserts, ‘He hath in these
last days spoken unto us by His Son,’ no created subject
intervenes, either corporeal or angelic, but the Divine Word
immediately, without the intervention of any subject, spoke
unto men. Nor is it any difficulty that this had been done
through the medium of His human nature, because that na-
ture was without any subject of its own, and was immediately
united to the Word as its subject. Now this is the legitimate
sense of the words, and thus the contrast spoken of, when
rightly explained, holds good, and the superiority of the gos-
pel over the ancient law.” This answer of the very learned
writer, though barbarous so far as the expressions are con-
cerned, (after the fashion of the schools,) 1s nevertheless
sound and solid in sense, and, as is evident from the testi-
monies adduced a little above, in agreement with the mind
of the ancient fathers. ΤῸ this may be added the following :
Justin Martyr in the Apology for the Christians, which in
the common editions is called the first, though in reality it
is the second, speaks thus of the Word or Son of God’;
“ For He was and is the Word, who is in every thing ; who
foretold what should come to pass, both through the pro-
phets, and through Himself, when He had become of like
passions with us, and had taught us these things.” In this
passage Justin teaches, that the Word or Son of God under
the Old Testament manifested Himself to the prophets in a
certain manner, and through them to others; but that in
the last days, having taken our nature unto Himself, He
by Himself* delivered unto us His heavenly doctrine ; and
that herein especially consists the excellence of the gospel
over the old law. To this agrees Clement of Alexandria,

immediate immediatione suppositi lo- gelii supra legem veterem.—In cap. i. |
quebatur hominibus. Neque obstat, Epist. ad Heb. difficult. 2. § 2. [p. 32.]
quod hoc fuerat media humana natura, i Adyos γὰρ ἦν καί ἐστιν ὃ ἐν παντὶ
quia hee caruit proprio supposito, et dv, καὶ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν προειπὼν τὰ
immediate fuit unita supposito Verbi. μέλλοντα γίνεσθαι, καὶ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ ὅμοιο-
Et hic est legitimus sensus horum ver- παθοῦς γενομένου καὶ διδάξαντος ταῦτα.
borum, et sic manet recte explicata -—Pag. 48, 49. [Apol. ii. 10. p. 95. |
dicta contrapositio, et excellentia evan-

Scripture evidence for the truth of this view. 27

(Pedag. i. 7* ;) “For the Lord was, indeed, the Instructor’ μβοοκ 1.
of His ancient people by means of Moses, but by Himself § 14, 15.
is He the guide of His new people, face to face.” And a eee
little after; “‘ Previously indeed for the elder people there gus.
was an elder covenant, and the law schooled the people with
fear, and the Word was an angel; but now unto His new
and younger people a new and younger covenant has been
given, and the Word has come to be [unto us], and fear
has been turned into love, and that mystic Angel is born,
even Jesus.” And no other was the meaning of Tertullian,
when, in the passage which we have quoted a little above!,
he teaches, ‘‘ That the Son of God came down to converse
with men, from Adam to the patriarchs, in vision, in dream,
in mirror, in dark saying,” &c.

15. Thus no solid objection can be brought out of Holy Scrip-
_ture against this opinion of the ancient fathers. Let us now
enquire, whether the Holy Scriptures do not plainly enough
favour this view. Concerning the angel who led the people of
Israel in the wilderness, (of whom it is written, “ Beware of Exod.
His face, and obey His voice, provoke Him not, for He will. 20,
not spare thee, nor pardon thy transgressions; for My name
is in Him,’’) St. Paul expressly teaches, that He was the Son
of God, who afterwards was called Christ. ‘“ Neither let us 1 Cor. x. 9.
tempt Christ,” he says, “as some of them also tempted, and [31]
were destroyed of the serpents™.” At least these words shew
that Christ was present with the children of Israel in the
wilderness, and was tempted by them. The heretic Socinus,
indeed, here objects, that it is written by St. Paul, “ Let us
not tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted,” but that it 12
is not written, ‘as some of them tempted Christ;” and
therefore that the sentence may be very suitably filled up with
another word, for instance “ God ;” but this is clearly futile.
For very many instances of this elliptical mode of expression are

to be found in the Scriptures ;

kK καὶ γὰρ ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς διὰ μὲν Μω-
σέως παιδαγωγὸς ὃ Κύριος τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ
παλαιοῦ" δι’ αὑτοῦ δὲ, τοῦ νέου καθηγε-
μὼν λαοῦ, πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον.
... τὸ μὲν οὖν πρότερον τῷ πρεσβυτέρῳ
λαῷ πρεσβυτέρα διαθήκη ἦν, καὶ νόμος
ἐπαιδαγώγει τὸν λαὸν μετὰ φόβου, καὶ
λόγος ἄγγελος Hv" καινῷ δὲ καὶ νέῳ λαῷ
καινὴ καὶ νέα διαθήκη δεδώρηται, καὶ 6

thus St. John viii. 56, “ Abra-

λόγος γεγένηται, καὶ ὃ φόβος εἰς ἀγά-
πην μετατέτραπται, καὶ 6 μυστικὸς ἐκεῖ-
νος ἄγγελος Ἰησοῦς τίκτεται. --- Pag.

110, 111. [p. 139
1

m unde ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Χριστὸν,
καθὼς καί τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν, καὶ ὑπὸ
τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλοντο. 1 Cor. x. 9.

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE
OF THE
SON.

{ Massah. ]

[32]

1 omnino.,

2 vetus La-
tinus.

28 It was Christ whom the Israelites tempted.

ham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw ;” there is no repeti-
tion of “and he saw My day,” but that is understood. But
we have a most apposite instance of this kind of expression
in Deut. vi. 16; “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,
as thou temptedst in the place of temptation ;” where it 1s
obvious that the latter clause refers to Him, whose name
was just before mentioned, “the Lord thy God,’ without
any repetition of it. Besides, we might ask the heretic in turn,
why it was not added, “as some of them tempted God" ?”
Surely, if that be the sense of this verse, which the heretic
fixes on it, no reason can be given for the ellipsis; but, if
the meaning of the passage be that which we give it, as it
certainly is, the reason for the ellipsis may most easily be
given. For it would have been a much more unusual form
of expression if the name of Christ had been repeated.
Lastly, the particle καὶ, “ also,” in this place is of great force ;
as shewing that the words of the Apostle must necessarily
be so taken, as if he meant, “that Christ was tempted
in the wilderness by the Israelites.’ For to what purpose
would it have been for him to have said, “as also,” when in
the former clause there was no mention made of God, but
only of Christ? Accordingly Grotius®, perceiving with his
usual acuteness that this quibble of the Socinians is clearly
absurd, himself cast about for some other way of escaping
[the force of the words.] “ The clause,” he says, ‘ must ne-
cessarily' be read μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν Θεὸν, ‘neither let
us tempt God.’” Is it really so? must it be so read “ neces-
sarily?” Let us have a reason. “ Because,” he says, “that
most ancient MS.” (the Alexandrine?) ‘so reads the pas-
sage.” But surely those most ancient MSS., which were
used by the Syriac, Arabic, and the old Latin? translators,
and by Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Theophylact, all have

Χριστὸν, (Christ,) not Θεὸν,

Ὁ Vide Cameron in loco.

P And the Ethiopic version of the
New Test. (Mill in loco.) Certainly as
there agree with the printed text, not
only Ireneus, Theodotus in ἐπιτο-
pats, and very many Greek and Latin
writers, but also all the manuscript
copies without exception, and particu-
larly the Codex Claromontanus and the

(God :) and this reading too

Codex Germanensis, both Greek- Latin
MSS., and that Vulgate which seems
to have been earlier than the time of |
Marcion; I am quite of opinion that ἡ
the Apostle himself wrote Χριστὸν,
which was altered into Θεὸν by some
daring critic, who could not see the
truth of the common reading, that the
Israelites tempted Christ in the wil-
derness. 14. ib,— Bowyer.

Critical objections answered. 29

is followed by all those other copies which are presented
to us in the Polyglott Bibles, except that the Lincoln has
Κύριον, which also is in the New Testament a name of
Christ’. And the Codex Alexandrinus is not of so great au-
thority as that it should be set against so general an agree-
ment. This very distinguished man, however, adduces an-
other reason; “Christ,” he says, “is the name of a man,
who, it is certain, did not exist at that time.” The answer
is most easy. Christ is here put for the Son of God, who
afterwards in the fulness of time, when He had taken unto
Him human nature, was called Christ; so that there is here
a synecdoche, as it were, of the whole, as in other passages of
Scripture’. By the same sophism, Grotius also eludes the
force of a most express testimony to the divinity of the Son
of God, that in Col. i. 16. [‘ By Him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers ; all things were created by Him, and for Him.”]
“Tt is certain,” he says, “that all things were created by the
Word; but the preceding context shews that the Apostle is
speaking of Christ, which is the name of a man. So that it
would be more correct to render the word ἐκτίσθη, ordinata
sunt—were placed in a new condition.” But if these words
of the Apostle do not speak of a creation, properly so called,
I should believe that Holy Scripture laboured under inex-
plicable difficulty, and that no certain conclusion could be
deduced from its words, however express they might seem
to be.

16. From these things, however, it is clear, that, what the
primitive fathers taught concerning the appearances of the
Word, or Son of God, to the patriarchs and saints under the
Old Testament, were no vain imaginations of their own, but
derived from the very teaching of the Apostles. There is this
further (which I put before the reader as especially useful for
him to observe) that neither were the Apostles of Christ the
first to teach these truths, but that they derived them from the
ancient cabala or tradition of the Jews; or, at least, that those

4 MS. in the possession of Dr.J.Co- shews that Κύριον is found in several
vel; Theodoret and Epiphanius have MSS.—B.]

Κύριον. —Bowyer. [The Slavonic ver- τ See Vossii Instit. Orat. iv. 7,
sion confirms Θεὸν; and Griesbach

BOOK I,
CHAP. 1,

§ 15, 16.

[88]

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE
OF THE
SON.

1 δίκην.

[34]

2 ὄρθον λό-

yov.

Ex. xxiii.

20.

80 View of the Jews, that it was the Word who visited

things which the Apostles were taught on this subject, by the
[inspiration of] the Holy Ghost, agrees well with that tradi-
tion. Thus Philo the Jew, just like St. Paul, explains the angel,
who led the children of Israel in the wilderness, of the Word
and first-begotten Son of God, through whom God directs
and governs the universe. In his book Of Agriculture’ there
is a most express passage; “ For God as a shepherd and king
guides by a certain order ἡ and law, as if they were a flock,
earth and water, air and fire, and again whatsoever they con-
tain, plants and living beings, whether mortal or divine ; the
nature of the heavens too, and the circuits of the sun and
moon, as well as the turnings and harmonious movements of
the other stars; having set over them His true Word’, even His
first-begotten Son, to undertake the care of this sacred flock,
as some vicegerent of a powerful king; for in a certain place
it is said, ‘Behold I am, and I will send My angel before thy
face to keep thee in the way.’” Philo also understands, as
the ancient Christians did, that God, who appeared to Adam
in paradise after his fall, to Moses in the bush, and also to
Abraham, was the Word. For thus he writes in his work
Of Dreams‘; “The sacred Word to some enjoins as a king
with authoritative command what they ought to do; whilst
others He instructs in what will profit them, as a teacher his
intimate disciples; to others as a counsellor suggesting the
best advice, He greatly aids such as of themselves know
not what will be for their good; again, to others as a friend,

8 καθάπερ γάρ τινα ποίμνην, γῆν, καὶ
ὕδωρ, καὶ ἄερα, καὶ πῦρ, καὶ ὅσα ἐν τού-
τοις φυτά τε αὖ καὶ ζῶα, τὰ μὲν θνητὰ,
τὰ δὲ θεῖα, ἔτι δὲ οὐρανοῦ φύσιν, καὶ
ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης περιόδους, καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων ἀστέρων τροπάς τε αὖ καὶ χορείας
ἐναρμονίους, as ποιμὴν καὶ βασιλεὺς ὁ
Θεὸς ἄγει κατὰ δίκην καὶ νόμον, προστη-
σάμενος τὸν ὀρθὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον πρωτό-
ονον viby, ὃς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τῆς ἱερᾶς
ταύτης ἀγέλης, οἷά τις μεγάλου βασι-
λέως ὕπαρχος διαδέξεται. καὶ γὰρ εἴρη-
ταί tou" ᾿Ιδοὺ ἔγώ εἰμι, ἀποστελῶ ἄγγε-
λόν μου εἰς πρόσωπόν σου τοῦ φυλάξαι
σὲ ἐν τῇ 659.—De Agric., p. 195. edit.
Par. 1640. [vol. i. p. 308. }

t ὃ ἱερὸς λόγος τοῖς μὲν ws βασιλεὺς
ἃ χρὴ πράττειν ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος παραγ-
γέλλει" τοῖς δὲ ὧς γνωρίμοις διδάσκαλος
τὰ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν ὑφηγεῖται᾽ τοῖς δὲ ws
σύμβουλος γνώμας εἰσηγούμενος τὰς

2 7 \ te » ε cas
ἀρίστας. τοὺς τὸ συμφέρον ἐξ ἑαυτῶν
> 3 é / > Co an \ ε
οὐκ εἰδότας μέγα ὠφελεῖ" τοῖς δὲ ὡς
φίλος ἐπιεικῶς καὶ μετὰ πειθοῦς πολλὰ
καὶ τῶν ἀρρήτων ἀναφέρει, ὧν οὐδὲν av-
τῶν ἀτέλεστον ἐπακοῦσαι θέμις" ἔστι δ᾽
ὅτε καὶ πυνθάνεταί τινων, ὥσπερ τοῦ

3 Ἂ \ “A > > Ν id
Addu τὸ, ποῦ εἶ; ... ἐπειδὰν μέν τοι
πρὸς τὸ τῶν φίλων ἔλθῃ συνέδριον, οὐ
πρότερον ἄρχεται λέγειν, ἢ ἕκαστον av-
τῶν ἀνακαλέσαι καὶ ὀνομαστὶ προσει-
-“ yg XX & > id 2 “
πεῖν, ἵνα τὰ ὦτα ἀθροίσαντες, [ ἀνορθιά-
σαντες MSS. et Potter,] ἡσυχίᾳ καὶ
προσοχῇ Χρώμενοι, τῶν θεσμωδουμένων
εἰς ἄληστον μνήμην ἀκούωσιν" ἐπεὶ καὶ
ἑτέρωθι λέγεται, σιώπα καὶ ἄκουε" τοῦ-
τον τὸν τρόπον ἐπὶ τῆς βάτου Μωσῆς
ἀνακαλεῖται. ὡς γὰρ εἶδε, φησὶν, ὅτι
Ἵ ἰδεῖν, ἐκά ὑτὸν ὃ Θεὸ
προσάγει ἰδεῖν, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὸν εὸς
> ΄- 4 th Ἂς oe “~ oe Loar 6
ἐκ τῆς βάτου, Aeywv' Mwian, Μωῦση
δὲ ele’ τί ἐστίν; ᾿Αβραάμ. δὲ, κ.τ.λ.---
De Somn., pp. 593, 594. [ν0]. 1. p. 649.]

the world under the Old Testament; from Philo. 31

with gentleness and persuasion, He communicates many ποοκι:
even of His secrets, none of which is it lawful for the un- § 16, 17,
initiated to hear; at times also He enquires of some, as He
did of Adam, saying, Where art thou?... But when the Word
has come into the assembly of His friends, He does not begin
to speak, until He has called each of them, and addressed him
by name, that with ears intent and with quietness and atten-
tion they may lay up His oracles in never-failing memory ;
as in another place also it is written, ‘ Be still, and listen.’ In
this way Moses is called at the bush, ‘For when the Lord,’
he says, ‘saw that he drew near to see, God called him out [35]
of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses; and he answered, What
is it?’ ὅζο. So also Abraham,” &c.

In the same book" also he was of opinion?, with the holy 1 sensit.
fathers of the Church, that the Lord who rained brimstone
and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah was the Word ; for after
quoting those words out of Genesis, “The sun was risen upon
the earth when Lot entered into Zoar?, and the Lord rained 5 Segor.
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire ;’” he
immediately adds, “For when the Word of God visits our
terrestrial system, He gives help and succour to such as are
akin to virtue and incline to it, so as to afford to them a [36]
refuge and complete security; whilst upon His enemies He
sends irremediable destruction and ruin.”

17. This testimony is not weakened by the observation,
which Grotius has made, that the created angels themselves
are called by Philo throughout, the Words, τοὺς λόγους;
doubtless because they also are, according to their measure,
the messengers and interpreters of God’s will to men. For
although this is most true, still it is evident that Philo,
in the passages quoted, (to which it would be easy to add
many others,) designates as the Word, one certain individual
being®, so called by way of pre-eminence, who is the first-be- 5 singula-
gotten Son of God, superior to all the angels, and even to pee
the whole universe. And if this same Philo has, in some
instances, used expressions concerning the Word and first-
begotten Son of God, which are not worthy of His majesty,

u ὃ γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, ὅταν ἐπὶ τὸ ταφυγὴν καὶ σωτηρίαν αὐτοῖς πορίζειν
γεῶδες ἡμῶν σύστημα ἀφίκηται, τοῖς παντελῆ" τοῖς δὲ ἀντιπάλοις ὄλεθρον καὶ
μὲν ἀρετῆς συγγενέσι καὶ πρὸς ἀρετὴν φθορὰν ἀνίατον ἐπιπέμπει.---ὰρ. 578.
ἀποκλίνουσιν ἀρήγει καὶ βοηθεῖ, ὧς κα- [Ρ. 633. ]

ON THE
PRE-EX-
ISTENCE
OF THE
SON.

1 γενικώτα-
TOV.

[37]

2 πλατωνί-

ζειν.

3 φιλωνί-

ζειν,

89. Philo’s statements confirmed by the Book of Wisdom.

this is easily to be excused in an age in which the mystery
of the most Holy Trinity had not, as yet, been fully revealed
to the Jews. Nay, it is rather to be wondered at that a man
should have seen so clearly in so great a darkness. For in
Book ii. Of the Allegories of the Law *, he says, that this Word
of God is “above the whole world, the oldest and most uni-
versal of all things which have been made.” And in his work
Of the Creation of the World’, he calls the same being “ the
Word of God that created the world.” And, afterwards’, he
speaks of “the divine Word, and the Word of God, invisible
and perceived by the mind, a supercelestial star, the fountain
of the stars which are perceived by sense.” Also in his book
On the Confusion of Tongues*, he calls Him not only “the
most ancient and the most sacred Word of God,” but like-
wise “ His eternal image.”

18. Lest, however, any one should suspect that Philo
Platonizes” in these expressions, (an opinion which many have
entertained who are not acquainted with Jewish literature,
whereas it should rather be thought that Plato Philonizes’,
that is, that he derived his notions concerning the Logos
from the doctrines of the Jews, which were, I may say, the
mother tongue of Philo,) the Jewish author of the book in-
titled “the Wisdom of Solomon,” (who it is certain from
most evident proofs, was much more ancient than Philo, and
not, as some have imagined, Philo himself,) propounds the
same doctrines concerning the Word. For in xviii. 15, speak-
ing of the Angel who smote the first-born of the Egyptians,
he says, “Thine almighty Word leaped down out of heaven
from off Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the

x ὑπεράνω παντὸς τοῦ κόσμου, Kal
πρεσβύτατον καὶ γενικώτατον τῶν ὅσα
yéyove.—Leg. Allegor. p. 93. [110, ii.
vol. i. p. 121.] .

Υ Θεοῦ λόγον κοσμοποιοῦντα.---1}6
Opif. Mundi, p. 5. [vol. i. p. 5. So
quoted by Bp. Bull; Dr. Burton says;
‘* In citing these words this great man
has made a slight mistake, Philo’s
words are: εἰ δέ τις ἐθελήσειε γυμνο-
τέροις χρήσασθαι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐδὲν
ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον
ἢ Θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος.᾽᾽]

: τὸν ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν θεῖον λόγον,
καὶ Θεοῦ λόγον, ὑπερουράνιον “ἀστῆρα,
πηγὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀστέρων.----Ἰ Ὀ1α,., p.

6. [So quoted by Bp. Bull; Dr. Burton
says; “ He here also cites Philo’s words
inaccurately: τὸν δὲ ἀόρατον καὶ νοητὸν
θεῖον λόγον καὶ Θεοῦ λόγον εἰκόνα λέγει
Θεοῦ, καὶ ταύτης εἰκόνα τὸ νοητὸν φῶς
ἐκεῖνο, ὃ θείου λόγου γέγονεν εἰκὼν τοῦ
διερμηνεύσαντος τὴν γένεσιν αὐτοῦ" καὶ
ἔστιν ὑπερουράνιος ἀστὴρ, πηγὴ τῶν
αἰσθητῶν ἀστέρων.) :

ἃ [The whole passage is, καὶ γὰρ εἰ
μήπω ἱκανοὶ θεοῦ παῖδες νομίζεσθαι γε-
γόναμεν, ἀλλά τοι τοῦ ἀϊδίου εἰκόνος αὖ-
τοῦ, λόγου τοῦ ἱερωτάτου" Θεοῦ γὰρ εἰ-
κὼν, λόγος 6 πρεσβύτατος. |—De Conf.
Ling., p. 841. [vol. i. p. 427. ]

And by the use of ‘‘ The Word” in the Jewish Paraphrases. 33

midst of a land of destruction ;’ where it is clear that the
author is speaking of a personally-subsisting Word'. And it
is no less evident that it is not some ministering angel, as
Grotius would have it, but a Divine Person, that is designated
in this place; for the author calls this Word’ “ Almighty,”
and also assigns to Him “a royal throne in heaven.” We
may further add what he afterwards says of the same Being
in the 16th verse ; ‘‘ And standing up, He filled all things with
death ; and He touched the heaven, but He walked upon
the earth ;” im these words are signified the greatness and
power of Him who filleth all things, and displays His power
in heaven and on earth. The author possibly erred in this
point, (I say, possibly, for I will not venture to assert cer-
tainly that he has erred,) in expounding the destroying angel
of the Word, inasmuch as learned commentators in general
have thought that he was a mere angel. However, it is
clear from this passage that this ancient and venerable
writer believed that the Word Himself, being sent by God
the Father, sometimes came down from His royal throne in
heaven unto men in the form of an angel, and that on this
account He is in Scripture called by the name of an Angel.
For the same view Masius quotes, out of the Jewish Rabbis,
the very ancient book Tanchumah, and the Rabbi Gerun-
densis; whose words he cites at some length in his com-
mentary on Joshua v. 18, 14.

19. It is, however, to be especially observed here, (as has
been long ago remarked by learned men,) that almost always
in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, when God is men-
tioned as speaking to us, assisting us, or in short holding any
sort of intercourse with us, the Chaldee Paraphrases render
the name of God by sno or wp», Verbum, the Word; no
doubt signifying hereby, that in such passages it is the Son
of God who is spoken of, who is called the Word, and whose
peculiar office it is to hold converse with us. Thus in
Gen. 111. 8, instead of “They heard the voice of the Lord
God,” the Targum of Onkelos, and the Targum ascribed to
Jonathan, have, “They heard the voice of the Word of the
Lord God.” In the same chapter, verse 9, instead of, “ And
God called unto Adam,” the Jerusalem Targum has, “ And
the Word of the Lord called unto Adam ;) just as we have

BULL. D

BOCK I.

CHAP. L
PS17, 19:
Adyos év-
υποστάτος.

2 Sermo-
nem.

[38]

ON THE
PRE-EXIST-
ENCE OF

THE SON.

[39]

1 Dei Do-
mini sui.

2 loqui.

[40]

34. Attempt to explain this usage otherwise ; fruitless.

before seen that Philo understood the passage. In Gen.
xxi. 20, instead of, “ And God was with him,” Onkelos has,
“And the Word of the Lord was with him, to help him ;”
and in the 22nd verse, instead of “ God is with thee,” Onkelos
has, “The Word of the Lord is with thee for a help.” Soin
Hosea i. 7, instead of, “ And I will save them by J ehovah
their God,” the Targum of Jonathan has, “TI will save them
by the Word of the Lord theirGod'.” This passage the ancient
Christian writers also agreed in explaining of the salvation of
God’s people to be obtained through Christ. To elude the
force of these places, (similar ones to which are contained in
the Targums throughout?,) some writers remark, that xno
or WD is occasionally used for αὐτὸς, “himself*.” But this
is to no purpose, for though we should allow the fact, we yet
on good grounds deny that that mode of expression applies
to the passages before us. For, besides that it is plain from
the evidence alleged above out of Philo and the book of Wis-
dom, that the ancient Hebrews recognised a certain Word of
God the Father, [as] a Person really distinct from God the
Father Himself, who used to come down [from heaven] to
men and converse? with them; there are also in the Chaldee
Paraphrases some passages which altogether refuse to admit
the interpretation in question. In Gen. xx. 3, where the
Hebrew text has, “ And God came to Abimelech,” the Tar-
gum of Onkelos (with which the Targum of Jonathan agrees)
translates it, “And »pspyp 1p the Word from the face of
God came to Abimelech ;” which cannot, certainly, be under-
stood to mean, “ And God Himself came from the face of
God,” &c. So, according to the testimony of Petrus Gala-
tinus, iii. 28, and that writer of very great learning and inte-
grity, Paulus Fagius, on Deut. v., the Targum of Jonathan,
on Ps. cx. 1, (for the part of that Targum which is on the
Psalms has now either altogether perished, or at all events is
not extant in print,) paraphrases the words thus, “ The Lord
said προ, unto His Word, Sit Thou on My right hand ;”
which cannot possibly be understood to mean, the Lord —
said unto Himself, &. But enough on this point.

Ὁ On this see more in Poole’s Synop- 866 Jacob. Capellus in his Annotations
sis on Joh. i. 1.—Bowyer. on John i. 1.
* For the reason of this expression

These considerations also establish His Consubstantiality. 35

20. From all that has been said, it is now manifest on Βοοκι.
how great authority the ancient doctors of the Church § 19, 20.
affirmed that it was the Son of God who in former times, ὃ
under the Old Testament, appeared to holy men, distin-
guished by the Name of Jehovah, and honoured by them
with divine worship. But the attentive reader will observe,
that here, whilst I have aimed at proving by the testimo-
nies adduced the pre-existence of the Son before [His birth
of] the Virgin Mary, I have at the same time furnished no
inconsiderable confirmation, also, of His consubstantiality.
Inasmuch as from what we have thus far said, it is most
evident, that the ante-Nicene fathers, with one consent,
taught, (in accordance with the Holy Scripture of the
Old Testament, and the teachers of the ancient Jews,) that
He who appeared and spoke to Moses, in the burning bush
and on Mount Sinai, who manifested Himself to Abraham,

&c., was the Word, or Son, of God. It is, however, certain,
that He who appeared is called Jehovah, I am’, the God of} Eum qui
Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, &c., titles which clearly ee
are not applicable to any created being, but are peculiar to
the true God. And this is the very reasoning which the fathers
all employ to prove, that in such manifestations it was not

a mere created angel, but the Son of God, who was present ;
that the Name of Jehovah, namely, and divine worship are
given to Him who appeared; but that these are not com-
municable to any creature, and belong to the true God
alone; whence it follows that they all believed that the Son
was very God. This, however, I must simply pass over, until

I come to the proof of the second proposition. Meanwhile
let us proceed to what remains bearing on the division

already before us.

ON THE
PRE-EXIST-
ENCE OF
THE SON.

lin prima
apostolo- ἡ
rum διαδο-

xn.

15
[41]

[49]

CHAPTER II.

THE 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.

1. I pass to the second portion of our Proposition, that
is, to shew that the Doctors of the first ages of the Church
believed that the Son was begotten of God the Father be-
fore the foundations of the world were laid, and that this
universe was created through Him. It will not be neces-
sary to spend much time on this; since in the following
books we shall adduce many passages out of these writers,
which declare far more excellent things of the Son of God.
At present, therefore, I shall be content with a few testi-
monies from such writers as flourished either in the very age
of the Apostles, or in that of their first successors’; during
which times especially, our modern Photinians impudently
aver, that their tenets obtained in the Church of Christ.

24, An Epistle is extant, which was printed* for the first
time in our own days, bearing the name of St. Barnabas.
That the Apostle Barnabas was the author of it, was the
opinion of our own very learned Hammond, the illustrious
Isaac Vossius, and others‘; and chiefly on the ground that
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other ancient writers,
frequently quote it under his name. Nor have the patrons of
the opposite opinion® any thing else to advance against them,
except that the author of the Epistle appears to have inter-
preted some passages of the Old Testament too mystically.
A probable reason for this, however, is given by Hammond
in his first Dissertation against Blondel ; where, after having,
in the preceding chapters, drawn the character of the Gnos-
tics, he says, “The Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas, which was
published not long ago, will admit of easy explanation from

4 [Grabe’s annotations on this sec- * [Pearson, Cave, Du Pin, Wake.—
tion will be found in an Appendix αὐ B.]
the end of the work. | g [ Basnage, Jones (on the Canon of

ὁ [Paris. 1645, cum notis Menardi_ the N. T. q. v.)—B.]
et Dacherii—B.] h Chap. 7. §§ 4, 5, pp. 22, 23.

The Epistle of St. Barnabas ; testimonies from it. 87

this one characteristic of the Gnostics: whereas otherwise (as a
complicated and lengthy riddle) it will most certainly create
a difficulty to its readers.
arrogating to themselves knowledge (γνῶσιν), that is, the
power of interpreting Holy Scripture mystically, were in the
habit of accommodating many mysteries of the Old Testa-
ment to their own impure uses. Hence Barnabas, almost
throughout the whole of this Epistle of his, opposes to the
doctrines of the Gnostics very many passages, also mystically
and cabalistically interpreted.” And in the following chap-
ters he shews how well the whole Epistle serves to refute the

wild notions’ of the Gnostics. Be that however as it may,
“at any rate he is proved to have been an author of the very
earliest antiquity, by the testimonies of the ancients cited
above, by his use of expressions which are peculiar to the apo-
stolic age, by the simplicity of his style, and lastly, by the
heresies which he opposes, and which are such only as sprung
up’ in the time of the Apostles themselves. Now this author,
not far from the beginning of the Epistle, according to the
old Latin translation, (for the Greek original in that part is
lost,) thus speaks of our Saviour, chap. 5‘; “And for this
end the Lord endured* to suffer for the salvation of our souls,
though He is the Lord of all the earth, to whom He said on
the day” (perhaps we should read “to whom God said”)
[Deus for die] “before the creation of the world, ‘ Let us
make man in our own image, and after our own likeness.’”

BOOK f.
CHAP. 11.

εν ων

Those disciples of Simon (Magus) Barnanas.

! deliriis.

2 pullula-
runt.

3 sustinuit.

And a little afterwards he calls the sun the handy-work* of ¢ opus ma-

the Son of God. It is a remarkable passage in the same
chapter, which runs thus‘; “He at that time manifested
Himself to be the Son of God; for if He had not come in
the flesh, how could men have been saved by looking on
Him? For in looking on the sun, which will one day cease
to be, and which is His handy-work, they cannot endure to
fix their eyes full upon its rays.” Lastly, in chap. 12 he

i Et ad hoc Dominus sustinuit pati
pro anima nostra, cum sit orbis terra-
rum Dominus, cui dixit die (forte le-
gendum, Deus) ante constitutionem
seeculi, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem
et similitudinem nostram.—Pag. 217,
218. ed. Voss. ad calceem Ignat. Lond.
1680. [p. 60. ]

Κ τότε ἐφανέρωσεν ἑαυτὸν υἱὸν Θεοῦ
εἶναι" εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἦλθεν ἐν σαρκὶ, πῶς ἂν
3 v / 9
ἐσώθημεν ἄνθρωποι βλέποντες αὐτόν;
ὅτι τὸν μέλλοντα μὴ εἶναι ἥλιον, ἔργον
χειρῶν αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχοντα, βλέποντες οὐκ
ἰσχύουσιν εἰς ἀκτῖνας αὐτοῦ ἀντοφθαλ-

μῆσαι.---Ῥὰρ. 218, 219, [p. 16.]

nuum.,

[43]

ON THE
PRE- EXIST-
ENCE OF
THE SON.

[44]

88 The Shepherd of Hermas ; its antiquity and authority ;

speaks thus of our Saviour’; ‘ Herein also you have the
glory of Jesus, because by Him and for Him are all things.”

3. Hermas, or the author of the book entitled the Shep-
herd, most expressly delivers the same doctrine concerning
our Lord. If you enquire about the antiquity of this au-
thor, hear the opinion of Grotius™; “ Hermas,” he says,
‘whatever his authority may be, is certainly of the highest
antiquity, as is evident from Ireneus and Clement, who
quote his words.” Indeed it is clear that this author was
contemporary with Clement of Rome®; for im his second
Vision®, towards the end, the old woman thus addresses him ;
“You shall then write two books, and send one to Clement,
and the other to Grapta; and Clement will send it to the
foreign cities, for it is permitted him,” το. But as to
the credit and authority which are due to this author,
Blondel”, indeed, as if stung with madness, raves against
him and his writings in a strange way, calling them “the
dreams of an insane prophet,” and the author himself “ an
impure dogmatist, the fountain-head of the Novatians and of
the Pelagians, and the sink of Montanist superstitions.” If
you ask what made him so angry, I imagine that it will
be found that the man was vexed, (though he avow it
not,) because in more than one place the Shepherd? has ex-
pressly acknowledged that the order of bishops is above [that
of] presbyters, contrary to what Blondel wished. The primi-
tive. Church, however, thought very differently of both, and
in comparison of her judgment, we justly consider the criti-
cism of Blondel, notwithstanding his very great learning, as
of little weight, or rather of none. By Ireneus’ the tract
called the Shepherd, is quoted as Scripture; “Well, then,” he

1 ἔχεις καὶ ἐν τούτῳ τὴν δόξαν τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα καὶ εἰς αὐτόν.
—P. 238. [p. 40. ]

m Annot. ad Mare. ii. 8.

n Dodwell conceives that Clement
occupied the see of Rome from the
year 64, or 65, to the year 81. The
bishop of Chester [Pearson] from the
year 69 to 82. Cave, Hist. Lit. in
Herm.—BowyYer.

© Scribes ergo duos libellos; et mit-
tes unum Clementi, et unum Grapte.
Mittet autem Clemens in exteras civi-
tates; illi enim permissum est, &c.

[ Lib. i. p. 78.]

p Apol., pp. 16, 17. .

a See Hermas, Vis. iii. et Simil. ix.
five. lib. i. Vis. iii. 5. p. 80. et lib. iii.
Sim. ix. 15. p. 119.}

r Bene ergo, inquit, pronuntiavit
Scriptura: Primo omnium crede, quo-
niam unus est Deus, qui omnia con-
stituit et consummavyvit, et fecit ex eo
quod non erat; &c. [c. 20. p. 253.
The Greek is given by Eusebius, v. 8,
and others: καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ,
ἡ λέγουσα, πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον,
δὁτὶ εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς, ὃ τὰ πάντα κτίσας
καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ
ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα.---Β.]

referred to by Ireneus, Clement. Alex., and Tertullian. 39

says, “has the Scripture spoken, which says, ‘ Before all oer
things believe that God is one, who created and perfected all 89, 8..
things, and made them out of that which did not exist,’” &c, Hexmas.
Where by Scripture Eusebius (E. H. v. 8) observes, that

the treatise called the Shepherd is meant: and the pas-

sage quoted by Ireneus is found, word for word, in the
writings of Hermas, which are now extant, (Book ii. Mand. 1 ;)

and on this Bellarmine appositely remarks, that “ Irenzus

would not have given the title of Scripture simply’ to the ! absolute.
book of an author of his own age, who had neither been an

Apostle, nor a hearer of the Apostles*.”’” Hermas is also

quoted frequently by Clement of Alexandria, who also in

express terms acknowledged “the power, which spoke by
revelation to Hermas, as speaking divinely.” (Strom. 1. near

the end'.) Tertullian, whilst yet a Catholic, in the twelfth

chapter of his treatise On Prayer, |p. 134,] replies to certain

men who alleged the writings of Hermas in favour of a cus-

tom of which he himself disapproved, in such a way as by no

means to reject the authority of the writing’, but to endeavour 3 scripture.
to evade the force of his words by a suitable explanation of [45]
them, as is usually done in weighing the sense of other Holy
Scriptures. Nay more, in his treatise On Chastity, c. 20,

[p. 572,] after he had fallen into the heresy of Montanus,
although he is somewhat bitter against the Shepherd, and,
therefore, with want of modesty enough calls him “an
apocryphal shepherd of adulterers,” (because in accordance
with the whole of Scripture he allowed a second repentance
to the adulterer and fornicator,) and consequently denies his
canonical authority, he yet does it in such a way that all per-
sons of sound judgment must think that he bestows on it no
despicable character. He says"; “'The Epistle of Barnabas”
(meaning the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he attributed
to Barnabas) “is a more received book in the Churches
than that apocryphal Shepherd of adulterers.” Well, indeed,
will it be for the Shepherd, if the second place after the

5. Bellarm. de Script. Eccles., con- «.7.A.—[P. 426. ]

cerning the author of the book called u [ Et utique receptior apud Ecclesias
the Shepherd, [vol. vii. p. 25. Op., ed. Epistola Barnabe illo apocrypho Pas-
1601—1617. ] tore meechorum.—Tert. de Pudicitia,

t θείως τοίνυν ἣ δύναμις ἣ τῷ Ἕρμᾷ cc. 10. p. 572.)
kar’ ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα... φησὶ

ON THE
PRE-EXIST-
ENCE OF
THE SON.

ladulteram.

2 instru-
mento.

3 scriptu-
ram.

[46]

40 Origen, Athanasius, Ruffinus and Jerome, on Hermas.

Epistle to the Hebrews be given it! When, therefore, Ter-
tullian (in the tenth chapter of the same book*) calls the writ-
ing of the Shepherd “ false and spurious’,” he must certainly
be so understood as to be thought only to deny that that
treatise “‘ was worthy to be inserted in the divine Canon’;” as
indeed he explains himself in so many words in that very
passage. The Shepherd is also very frequently quoted by
Origen, who (on Rom. xvi.’) even pronounced it to be not
only a “very useful writing’,” but also “divinely inspired.” It
is also quoted by Eusebius, out of Irenzeus, Eccl. Hist. v. 87;
also by Athanasius*, On the Incarnation of the Word, who
likewise calls it a “ most useful” treatise; and this judgment
of the great doctor will be readily assented to by any one who
peruses the work attentively and without prejudice. Rufinus
(On the Creed, c. 38”) allows to the Shepherd the same place
in the New Testament which the books of Tobit, Judith, and
the Maccabees, had in the Old. Lastly, Jerome in his Pro-
logus Galeatus [to the book of Kings*] reckons the treatise,
called the Shepherd, among the ecclesiastical books, with the
book of Judith and Tobit: and in his treatise On the Ecclesias-
tical Writers¢, he says, “The Shepherd is at this time publicly
read in some of the churches of Greece ; it is a really profitable
book; and many of the ancient writers have employed testi-
monies out of it.” Whoever would know more concerning
the antiquity and authority of this book, may consult the
Vindication of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, by the very learned
J. Pearson, the present most worthy bishop of Chester®.

4. As however I think it of no small moment, that the
authority and estimation with which this apostolic writer
was regarded in tle ancient Church should be maintained,
I have deemed it fit, in passing, briefly to weigh the princi-

x [Sed cederem tibi, si scriptura Χριστὸν πίστις ... φησὶ διὰ Μωσέως...

Pastoris, ... divino instrumento me-
ruisset incidi, si non ab omni concilio
Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter
apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, adul-
tera et ipsa, &c.—c. 10. p. 563. ]

y (Puto tamen quod Hermas iste sit
scriptor libelli illius qui Pastor appel-
latur, que Scriptura valde mihi utilis
videtur, et ut puto divinitus inspirata.
ov Or iv. p. 683. ]

* [See p. 38. note r. |
« [ἡ δὲ ἔνθεος διδασκαλία, καὶ ἡ μετὰ

διὰ δὲ τῆς ὠφελιμωτάτης βίβλου τοῦ
ποιμένος᾽ πρῶτον πίστευσον, K.T.A.—De
Incarnatione Verbi, ὃ 3. vol.i. p. 49. ]

> [Opusc., -p. 189. ]

¢ (Vol. ix. p. 454. |

4 Pastor, inquit, apud quasdam Gre-
ciz ecclesias jam publice legitur: re-
vera utilis liber, multique de eo scrip-
torum veterum usurpavere testimonia.
—[e. 10. vol. ii. p. 833. ]

€ Pearson, Vindic., part i. [c. 4.]
p. 39, &c.

Objections against Hermas ; 1. as teaching Purgatory. 41

pal reasons which have influenced certain modern theolo-
gians, especially amongst the reformed, to cast him out en-
tirely from the catalogue of approved doctors of the Church,
and to drive far off from the fold of the Church that very excel-
lent Shepherd, as if he were a wolf and an enemy to the flock
of Christ. They allege as objections against him sundry
doctrines, little befitting one who was a disciple of the Apo-
stles. What then are these doctrines? First, says Scultetus,
who is followed by Rivetus, “ Purgatory is brought forward
by a certain old woman in the third Vision.” But (let me
say it, with all deference to men so great) they are very
much mistaken. Let the words of the passage be produced.
Hermas is enquiring, whether the grace of repentance and
a place within the tower can be again accorded to such as in
the vision had been cast forth out of the tower into the fire ?
The aged woman replies‘, “‘ They have [the grace of ] repent-
ance, but they cannot meet in this tower’; but they shall
be put into another place, much lower, and this after they
have been tormented, and have fulfilled the days of their
sins. And for this cause shall they be transferred, because
they have known the Word of righteousness. And then it
shall befall them to be transferred from their punish-
ments, if the evil deeds which they have done shall arise
up in their hearts; but if they do not arise in their hearts,
they shall not be saved, by reason of the hardness of their
heart.” Precisely akin to this is a passage at the end of
the sixth Similitude, [lib. 111.1; “For the passionate man,
gratifying his habitual feelings, receives therein his pleasure ;
the adulterer also, and the drunkard, and the slanderer, and
the liar, and the covetous man, and the fraudulent, and
whosoever commits any thing like unto these, yielding to
his disease”, derives pleasure from what he does*®. ΑἹ] these
delights and pleasures’ are hurtful to the servants of God

f Habent pcenitentiam; sed in hac
turre non possunt convenire. Alio au-
tem loco ponentur multo inferiore, et
hoc, cum cruciati fuerint et impleve-
rint dies peccatorum suorum. Et prop-
ter hoc transferentur, quoniam perce-
perunt Verbum justum. Et tunc illis
continget transferri de pcenis, si ascen-
derint in corda ipsorum opera, que
Operati sunt scelesta. Quod si non as-

cenderint in corda ipsorum, non erunt

BOOK I.
CHAP. 11.
§ 3, 4.

HERMAS.

1 convenire
in hac
turre.

17
[47]

2 morbo,

. 2 ex ea re.
74

πράξεις,

dulcedines

salvi propter duritiam cordis sui.[§ 7. 2° volup-

p- 80.]

§ Etenim iracundus satisfaciens mo-
ribus suis percipit voluptatem suam
(τρυφᾷ); et adulter, et ebriosus, et
detractor, et mendax, et cupidus, et
fraudator, et quicunque iis simile ali-
quid admittit, morbo suo parens, per-
cipit ex ea re voluptatem (τρυφῶσι ἐν

tates.

ON THE
PRE-EXIST-
ENCE OF
THE SON.

[48]

1 verberi-
bus, δερό-

μενα.

42 The words of Hermas alleged as implying Purgatory,

on account of them therefore they are tormented and endure
punishments. There are, moreover, pleasures which bring
salvation unto men. For many in performing good works
find pleasure in them, being drawn on by the sweetness
thereof. Such pleasure, then, as this, is profitable to the ser-
vants of God, and procures for such persons life; but those
hurtful pleasures, which were before mentioned, produce
torments and punishments. And, whosoever shall continue
in them, and not repent of what they have done, shall bring
death upon themselves.” I regard it as certain that, in
these passages, the thing spoken of is not the popish pur-
gatory,(that is a mere figment of the monks, which none of
the ancients who flourished in the three first centuries even
dreamed οὔ") but only to those cleansing punishments, or
afflictions, which God, in His mercy, is wont to send upon
sinners, for their amendment, in this present life. For so
the Shepherd most clearly explains himself in the same sixth
Similitude’, in a passage before that just cited. Hermas there
relates, that he saw some sheep, which a certain shepherd
“was driving into a place full of precipices, and thorns, and
briars, so that they could not extricate themselves from the
briars and thorns; but they fed there, entangled, as they
were, in the briars and thorns, and were grievously tortured
with his lashes’; for he continued to drive them about, and
allowed them neither space nor time to rest.” Hermas then

τῇ πράξει αὐτῶν). Hz omnes dulce- b [Dr. Burton here refers to his note

dines ac voluptates noxiz sunt servis
Dei: propter has itaque cruciantur et
patiuntur poenas. Sunt etiam volup-
tates, salutem hominibus afferentes.
Multi enim opera bonitatis facientes
percipiunt voluptatem, dulcedine sua
tracti. Hee ergo voluptas utilis est
servis Dei, et vitam parat hujusmodi
hominibus. Ile vero noxiz, que su-
pra dicta sunt, tormenta et poenas pa-
riunt. Quicunque vero permanserint
in illis, nec admissorum suorum ege-
rint peenitentiam, mortem 5101 acqui-
rent. [ὃ 5. p. 110. The text of the old
Latin version is given, being that which
Bull used. Of some portions only has
the original Greek been recovered, and
that since he wrote: it has been used
in this translation to determine the
sense of the Latin, and in one instance
to correct it. The variations do not
affect any doctrinal point. ]

on Bp. Bull’s first Sermon, (Works,
vol. i. p. 83,) which is as follows ;
‘For the opinion of the ante- Nicene
fatherson this passage, (i.e. 1 Pet. iii, 19,
20,) see Hermas, 111. sim. 9. ©. 16;
Ireneeus, iv. 27; Clem. Alex. Strom.
iii. 4. p. 526, vi. 6; Excerpta, Theod.
ad fin. Clem. Alex., p. 973; Tertull.
de Anima, 6. 7. 55; Origen, c. Cels. ii.
43; In Exod., § 6; In Reg. Hom. ii.
vol. ii. p. 497; in Psalm., p.553; Hip-
pol. de Antichristo, ὃ 26, 45.’ ]

i Visa sibi pecora, que pastor qui-
dam compellebat in precipitem locum
quendam ac spinosum, tribulisque con-
sertum, usque adeo ut de spinis et tri-
bulis se non possent explicare ; sed im-
plicita ibi pascebantur spinis et tribulis,
et graves cruciatus experiebantur ex
verbis (s. verberibus) ejus (Sepdueva ὑπ᾽
αὐτοῦ) : agebat enim ea, et nec consis-
tendi eis locum ante (s. aut.) tempus

shewn to refer to chastisements inflicted in this life. 48

goes on to say; “ When, therefore, 1 saw that they were ook.
thus lashed, and sufferimg such misery, I was grieved for ee
them, because they were greatly tormented, and no rest was
given them, and I said to the Shepherd’ that was with me,
Who, Sir, is this shepherd that is so unmerciful and cruel,
and is not at all moved by compassion towards these sheep ?
He answered, This shepherd is indeed the angel of vengeance,
and he is one of the righteous angels, but is appointed over the
punishment [of sinners]. To him, accordingly, are handed
over those who have strayed from God, and served the de-
sires and pleasures of the present world. For this cause
doth he punish them, as they have each deserved, with
varied and cruel punishments. Sir, was my reply, I would
fain know of what sort are these various punishments? Hear
then, said he; these are the various penalties and torments
which men suffer daily In THEIR LIFETIME”. For some suffer “ἴῃ vitasua
losses, others poverty, and others divers sicknesses. Some oe
of them suffer from unsettledness*, others suffer injuries at Κι

the hands of unworthy men, and many other trials and i ica
inconveniences. When, therefore, they shall have en-

dured every vexation and discomfort, then they are deli-

vered over to me for good instruction, and are strength-

ened in the faith of the Lord, and serve Him the rest

of the days of their life with a pure mind. And when

they have begun to repent for their sins, then their deeds

HERMAS.

1 τῷ ἀγγέ-
λῳ pastori.

permittebat (καὶ ὅλως ἀπάπαυσιν αὐτοῖς
οὐκ ἐδίδου, οὐδ᾽ ἵσταντο.) Cum viderem
ergo sic ea flagellari, et miscrias expe-
riri, dolebam pro eis, quia valde crucia-
bantur, nec ulla requies eis dabatur. Di-
co ad Pastorem illum, qui erat mecum
(τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῷ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ λαλοῦντι). Quis
est, Domine, hic pastor tam implaca-
bilis, et tam amarus, qui nullo modo
miseratione movetur adversus hee pe-
cora? Hic, inquit, Pastor pro justis
quidem nuntius est, (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄγ-
γελος τῆς τιμωρίας ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων
δικαίων ἐστὶ,) sed prepositus poene.
Huic ergo traduntur qui a Deo aber-
raverunt, et servierunt desideriis ac
voluptatibus seculi hujus. Punit ergo
eos, sicut meruit unusquisque eorum,
Sevis variisque poenis. Vellem, in-
quam, nosse, Domine, varias has pe-
nas, cujusmodi sunt. Audi, inquit ; va-
riz pene atque tormenta hec sunt, que

homines quotidie IN VITA suUA_ pati-
untur. Alilenim (βιωτικαί εἰσιν βάσα-
νοι, ἐπὰν γὰρ ἀποστῶσι τοῦ Θεοῦ, νομίζον-
τες ἐν ἀναπαύσει εἶναι καὶ πλούτῳ) de-
trimenta patiuntur ; alii inopiam alii di-
versas egrimonias(aoOevelas). Quidam
inconstantiam (ἀκαταστασίαι5), alii in-
jurias ab indignis patientes, multaque
alia exercitia et incommoda ... Cum
igitur perpessi fuerint omnem vexatio-
nem etomneincommodum, tunc tradun-
tur mihiad bonam admonitionem, et fir-
mantur in fide Domini, et per reliquos
dies vite serviunt Domino mente pura
(καὶ λοιπὸν αἰτιῶνται τὸν κύριον καὶ οὐκ
ἀνέχονται τὰς λοιπὰς ἡμερὰς αὐτῶν ἐπι-
στρέψαντες δουλεῦσαι τῷ Θεῷ ἐν καθαρᾷ
καρδίᾳ). Et cum coeperint delictorum
agere pcenitentiam, tune ascendunt in
precordia eorum opera sua, in quibus
se nequiter exercuerunt (τότε συνιῶσι,
ὅτι διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν τὰ πόνηρα οὐκ

ON THE
PRE- EXIST-
' ENCE OF

THE SON.

[49]

1 pariter.

44. Statements opposed to Purgatory. Obj. 2. taught Free-will.

in which they have wickedly exercised themselves, rise up
in their hearts; they then give honour to God, confessing
that He is a just judge, and that they have deservedly
suffered all according to their doings. And for the time to
come they serve God with a pure mind, and have success in
all they undertake, obtaining of the Lord whatsoever they
ask. And then they give thanks to the Lord, that they have
been handed over unto me; and do not henceforward suffer
any thing of cruelty,” ἕο. ὅθ. Now what can be clearer
than this explanation? Nay, you may read statements in
our Hermas which utterly overthrow the popish purgatory.
For he writes thus in his third Vision‘; “They, therefore,
who have yet to repent, if they shall have repented, will be
strong in the faith; that is, provided they shall repent Now,
whilst the tower is in building. For if the building shall
have been finished, from that time no one hath a place left
wherein he may be put, but he will be a reprobate. That man
alone will have this, who is aLREADy placed on the tower.”

Another objection of these same learned persons, that
free-will is asserted by Hermas, is a frivolous one. For a
free-will, acting with and under divine grace, which alone
Hermas maintains, is equally! asserted both by Holy Scrip-
ture, and by all the Catholic doctors of the first ages.

There is a graver charge which is made against him both by
reformed and popish theologians, to the effect that he allows
but one repentance to such as have lapsed into the more
heinous sins, after receiving the grace of the Holy Ghost in
baptism. But let us once more hear the very words of the
Shepherd; thus then does he write (in the second book, in
the fourth Mandate, near the end!;) “I tell thee, if any one,

evodouvro). Et tune dant Deo hono-

fide, si NUNC pcenitentiam egerint, dum
rem, dicentes justum Judicem eum

eedificatur turris. Nam si consummata

esse, Meritoque se omnia esse perpessos
secundum facta sua. In reliquum vero
serviunt Deo mente pura, et successum
habent in negotiis suis omnibus, acci-
pientes a Domino quecunque poscunt.
Et tune gratias agunt Domino, quod
sint mihi traditi, nec jam quidquam
crudelitatis patiuntur, &c.—[§ 2. p.
109. See the Greek in ed. Coteler.—
B.]

« Qui ergo poenitentiam acturi sunt,
si egerint peenitentiam, fortes erunt in

fuerit structura, jam quis non habet lo-
cum, ubi ponatur, sed erit reprobus.
Solummodo autem hoc habebit, qui
JAM ad turrim positus est.—[§ 5. p. 80.]
1 Dico tibi, quod post vocationem
illam magnam et sanctam siquis ten-
tatus fuerit a Diabolo, et peccaverit,
unam pcenitentiam habet. Si autem
subinde peccet, et poenitentiam agat,
non proderit homini talia agenti; dif-
ficile enim vivit Deo.”’”—[§ 3. p. 91.]

Obj. 3. allowed but one repentance ; his words explained. 45

after that great and holy calling, shall have been tempted of
the devil, and shall have committed sin, he hath one repent-

BOOK I.
CHAP. IT.

§ 4,

ance. But if from time to time’ he sin and repent, it shall Heras.

not profit the man that doeth so; for hardly will he live unto |
God.” The Shepherd seems to be speaking of such as, after
receiving the grace of regeneration, having fallen away, and
having been restored through repentance, again relapse, sud-
inde, that is, often, into the same or similar grievous sins,
and, as often, repent. That this desultory repentance, so to
call it, profits a man nothing, he does with good reason affirm.
He does not, however, altogether despair of the salvation of
such persons, he only declares that “it is difficult” for men
of such a character, who thus, as it were, sin and repent by
turns, “to live unto God;” and this is most true. So also in
an earlier part of the same chapter™ the Shepherd opposes
to one repentance the “sinning often.” For shewing how a
husband ought to behave towards a wife, who has been put
away because of adultery, and who repents of her sin, and
seeks to be received back again by her husband, he says, “ He
ought to receive the offending woman who has repented, but
not often; because to the servants of God there is but one re-
pentance.” But if you interpret subinde by deinde, [from
time to time” by “afterwards,” see above, | and so understand
the mind of the Shepherd as if he meant indeed to allow
repentance to such as had only once lapsed, after they had
received the grace of the Holy Ghost, but not to those who
had fallen a second time, (i. 6. into the more grievous sins,)
then the Shepherd must be regarded as speaking of the pen-
ance to be performed before the Church, and of the absolu-
tion consequent upon it, which the severer discipline of that
age in many places used to allow once only to such lapsed
persons; although, at the same time, it did not entirely
exclude such as had repeatedly lapsed, from the hope of ob-
taining remission with God. In this way Acesius in Socrates
explains the opinion of the Novatians themselves concerning
such as had once only after baptism fallen into sin which is
unto death"; “ How that it is not fit that they who, after bap-

m [§ 1. pp. 88, 89. ] θάνατον καλοῦσιν αἱ θεῖαι γραφαὶ, τῆς
ε > MI \ \ “ at
" ὡς ἄρα ov χρὴ τοὺς μετὰ τὸ βάπ- κοινωνίας τῶν θείων μυστηρίων ἀξιοῦ-
c ε
τισμα ἡμαρτηκότας ἁμαρτίαν, ἣν mpds σθαι; ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ μετάνοιαν μὲν αὐτοὺς

subinde.

[50]

[51]

ON THE
PRE-EXIST-
ENCE OF
THE SON.

[52

46 Hermas’ testimony to the Pre- existence of the Son;

tism, have committed a sin which the Holy Scriptures call ‘a
sin unto death,’ should be admitted to the participation of the
divine mysteries ; still they ought to be exhorted to repent-
ance, and to look for the hope of remission, not from the
priests, but from God, who is able and has full power to
forgive sins.’ Indeed, in whatever other way you interpret
the passage of the Shepherd, this is certain, that the lapsed,
of whom he is speaking, are not by him wholly shut out from
the hope of living with God; forasmuch as he only says, as
I have remarked already, that “it is difficult for them to live
unto God.” On account of a similar passage, however, it was
a long time before the Epistle to the Hebrews was received
into the canon by the Church of Rome. See the learned
annotations of Grotius on the fourth and following verses of
the sixth chapter of that Epistle. I thought that I ought,
by the way as it were, once for all, to say thus much in de-
fence of Hermas, whose authority we shall hereafter use in
contending against the Arians.

5. Let us now hear the very remarkable testimony of this
venerable and apostolic writer respecting the pre-existence
of the Son. In the ninth Similitude*, then, he thus speaks
concerning the Son of God; “The Son of God indeed is more
ancient than any creature, so that He was present in counsel
with His Father, in order to the creation of the world.”
This passage of Hermas is allowed by the author of the Ireni-
cum Irenicorum, who agrees with me respecting the antiquity
and authority of the writer. For the purpose, however, of de-
fending his own most absurd opinion, (by which he lays down
that it was Justin who first introduced into the Christian
Churches, out of the school of Plato, the doctrine of the pre-
existence of the Son before the formation of the world, and of
the creation of the world through Him,) he endeavours to elude
the testimony of Hermas in this manner; “It is altogether
uncertain,” he says’, “whether by the Son of God he means
Christ, when, in the ninth Similitude, he says that the Son of
God was more ancient than any creature.” What? Is it un-

προτρέπειν ἐλπίδα δὲ τῆς ἀφέσεως μὴ ο Filius quidem Dei omni creatura
παρὰ τῶν ἱερέων, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ antiquior est, ita ut in consilio Patri
ἐκδέχεσθαι, τοῦ δυναμένου καὶ ἐξουσίαν suo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam.
ἔχοντος συγχωρεῖν ἁμαρτήματα.---ϑο- —| Lib. 11]. § 12. 1. την tx 12. py 118: |
crates, EK. H. i. 10. P Iren. Irenic., p. 21.

Oljection ; that the Holy Spirit is referred to; answered. 47

certain? Is it altogether uncertain? Then, say I, sceptics are Βοοκ 1.
the wisest of men, and there is nothing certain in human τ γιὰ a
affairs! “Nay,” says this anonymous author, “the Holy Spirit Hermas.
is called by Hermas the Son of God, both in the fifth Simili-

tude, and in other places.” Here, however, the heretic is

wholly mistaken, and but too manifestly displays, as is his

wont, his ignorance of “ primitive antiquity, and of the faith

of the early Christians,” which, nevertheless, he boasts4 of
“having set before men’s eyes, more clearly than it ever was
before.” Hermas nowhere calls the Holy Spirit, the third
Person of the Godhead, the Son of God. The words of his

in the fifth Similitude’, to which the anonymous author re-

fers, are as follows; “The Son of God is the Holy Spirits.”
Where, it is true, the Son of God is called the Holy Spirit ;

but the Holy Spirit, if you understand the third Person of

the Godhead, is not called by the title of the Son of God,

which will be easily seen by one who examines the passage.

The truth is, the whole discourse of Hermas in that place

relates to the Son of God, who for our salvation became a
servant, and assumed a body, in which He’ conversed as ἃ 1 quod.
servant. You will, however, ask on what principle Christ,

the Son of God, is by Hermas called the Holy Spirit? I
answer, in respect of His divine nature?, or Godhead ; inas- ae θεῖος
much as He, being Himself a most Holy Spirit, hath His Φύσεως.
being from God the Father, who is a most Holy Spirit.
In which sense the designation of Holy Spirit may be ap-
plied to each Person of the most Holy Trinity. The appel-
lation of Holy Spirit is given, indeed, peculiarly to the
third Person of the Godhead, not in regard of nature’,
(for in this respect both the Father is a Holy Spirit and
the Son also,) but by reason of that ineffable spiration‘,
whereby He" proceeds from the Father, through the Son.
The ancient ecclesiastical writers, however, did not always so

[53]

3 φύσεως.

* spiratio-
nis.

4 10.151 consult the passage.—B. ]

τ ἐδ. Ὁ. 107}

5 (Hermas’ words are, Filius autem
Spiritus Sanctus est. Servus vero ille
Filius Dei. Whoever reads the entire
similitude, will perceive that “the
Son” and “the Servant’ are two per-
sons. Hermas therefore does not say
that “the Son of God is the Holy
Spirit.” The reader, however, should

‘+@ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ κατὰ Td ἴσον
ἥ τε τοῦ πνεύματος καὶ ἣ τοῦ ἁγίου κλῆ-
σις παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἐφαρμόζεται.--- Gre-
gor. Nyssen. Orat. i. contr. Eunom. p.
07. ed. Paris. 1615. [Orat. ii. vol. ii.
p. 4865. }

u [“Ipsa” 561]. tertia Divinitatis ὑπό-
στασις, the third Person of the Godhead
just mentioned. ]

ON THE

PRE- EXIST-

48 The Divine Nature of our Lord frequently called the Spirit.

accurately keep’ up this distinction between the generation

uncrow of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit by the

_THE SON,
1 tenue-
runt.

2 spiratio-
nis.

3 διὰ τὸ
ἀσώματον.

4 emanati-
onem.

5 secundam
Deitatis
hyposta-
sin.

[54]

mode of spiration?; as the great Grotius has most truly re-
marked, in his notes on Mark ii. 8; “The divine nature in
Christ is called Spirit, not merely on account of its incorpo-
reality’, in the sense in which that name is suitable to the
Father, but also because they used to designate that which,
for the purpose of distinguishing between the Word and the
Holy Ghost, is expressed by the word generare, and sometimes
among the Greek fathers by the word ἀπαυγάζειν also, by
the more wide expression spirare ; meaning by this word
an emanation‘ of whatever kind, or, as Tertullian designates
it, προβολὴ ; for in his treatise against Praxeas he has spoken
of the Son as ‘ proceeding,’ no less than as ‘derived.’” Be
that, however, as it may, it is most certain that the Son of
God, the second Person of the Godhead’, is in the writings
of the Fathers* throughout called by the title of “ Spirit,”
“ Spirit of God,” and “ Holy Spirit.” If there be any one so
much a stranger to the works of the ancients as not to know
this, he may consult the author I have just quoted, Hugo
Grotius, in the passage referred to, where he will find this
very point demonstrated by many most evident testimonies ;
and in that numerous collection of quotations our Hermas is
expressly mentioned as one who had sanctioned this mode of
expression. To the passages adduced by Grotius, I will my-
self add two remarkable passages out of the most ancient
writers of the Church, viz., the author of the Epistle attri-
buted to Barnabas, and Ignatius. The former in the seventh
chapter of his Epistle, [p. 21,] thus speaks concerning Christ’;

6 σκεῦος τοῦ “ He Himself was about to offer up the vessel of the Spirit”

πνεύματος.

as a sacrifice for our sins.” Where “the vessel of the
Spirit” is the human nature of Christ, in which His Divi-
nity, which is called Spirit, was received as in a vessel. For
the author afterwards expressly expounds this vessel of the
flesh of Christ. Whence (to remark it in passing) may be
easily gathered, if it were not otherwise clear, the meaning
of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 1x. 14,

x With which agree the Holy Scrip- pared with 56.
tures. See Mark ii. 8; Rom. i. ὃ, 4; Υ αὐτὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτιῶν
1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. 111, ἤμελλε σκεῦος τοῦ Πνεύματος προσφέ-
18---20. See also John vi. 63, com- pew θυσίαν.

The passage and context of Hermas examined. 49

wherein Christ is said to have offered Himself without spot nook τ.
to God, “through the eternal Spirit’.” That is to say, the “gig
meaning of the words is that the eternal Godhead of Christ, Hxrmas,
or the Divine Person of the Son of God, offered up to God ? διὰ Πνεύ-
on the altar of the cross, the human nature, which was per- ΣΥΝ
sonally* (as they express it) united to Himself. Ignatius again, ? persona-
in the very inscription of his Epistle to the Smyrneans’, wishes oe
to them “fulness of joy through the immaculate Spirit, the tically.”
Word of God.” Where the Word, who is the Son of God, is
plainly called the “immaculate,” or holy, “ Spirit®.”

6. But what need is there of many words on a point which
is clear? If any one is moved by this most perverse difficulty,
raised by this anonymous writer, so as still to doubt what Her-
mas meant, in the passage quoted, by “the Son of God, who
is more ancient than every creature,” let him consult the
passage itself, as it occurs entire in the ninth Similitude,
[δ 12;] and if I am not mistaken he will at once lay aside all
doubts. Near the beginning of that Similitude, Hermas’s shep-
herd had exhibited to him a very large plain, surrounded by
twelve mountains; and in the midst of the plain a huge and
very ancient rock, higher than those twelve mountains, which
had a new gate, that seemed to have been lately hewn out,
and exceeded the sun in brightness. When the shepherd
had finished the entire similitude, Hermas at last asks for
the interpretation, and first enquires concerning the rock and
the gate; “ First of all, Sir,’ he says, “shew me what this
rock and gate are?” “This rock and this gate,’ answered
the shepherd, “is the Son of God.’ Hermas proceeds in his
enquiries, ‘“ How is it, Sir, that the rock is old, but the gate
new?” ΤῸ whom the shepherd replies”, “ Hear, O simple one!
and understand. The Son of God, indeed, is more ancient
than any creature, inasmuch as He was present in counsel
with His Father in order to the formation of all created
things. But the gate is therefore new, because at the end

[55]

* [p. 33.]

* [See infra, ii. 10. 2.]

ἡ Primum omnium, domine, inquam,
hoc mihi demonstra; petra hee et por-
ta quid sunt? Audi, inquit, petra hee
et porta Filius Dei est. Quonam pacto,
inquam, domine, petra vetus est, porta
autem nova? Audi, inquit, insipiens, et

BULL.

intellige. Filius quidem Dei omni crea~
tura antiquior est, ita ut in consilio Patri
suo adfuerit ad condendam creaturam.
Porta autem propterea nova est, quia
in consummatione in novissimis die-
bus apparuit, ut qui assecuturi sunt
salutem, per eam intrent in regnum

Dei.—[§ 12. p. 118.]

ON THE
PRE-EXIST-
ENCE OF
THE SON.

[56]

50 The Son of God, spoken of by Hermas, is Christ.

[of the world,] in the last days‘, He hath appeared, that they
who shall attain unto salvation, may by it enter into the
kingdom of God.” Then, to illustrate the similitude of the
gate, he proposes the example of a city surrounded by a wall,
and having only a single gate; and adds¢; “As, therefore,
one cannot enter into that city but by its gate, so neither can
one enter into the kingdom of God, otherwise than by the
name of His Son, who is most dear unto Him ;” and a little
afterwards; “ But the gate is the Son of God, who is the only
way of access unto God; for no man shall enter in unto God
otherwise than by His Son.” Immortal God! is it possible
that in so clear a light any one can fail to see! Is there any
one who bears the name of Christian, who knows not who
is that Son of God, most dear to His Father, who has ap-
peared in these last days, who is the only gate through
which there is open to us sinners an access unto God the
Father, and an entrance into the kingdom of heaven? And
yet many other expressions follow presently in the same
similitude, which also most plainly shew who that Son of
God is, of whom the Shepherd is speaking. For imstance,
the Shepherd shews that upon the rock—the Son of God
—the tower, which is the Church, is built. And having
spoken concerning the various gifts and graces of the Holy
Spirit, (which he had in the similitude® shadowed forth under
the figure of virgins,) he says, “They who have believed in
God, through His Son, have put on this Spirit ;” where also
he plainly distinguishes the Son from the Spirit of God,
that is, from the third Person of the Godhead. He then, a
little after, makes mention of the Apostles and doctors (re-
presented in the similitude by stones) who preached the
coming of the Son of God. Lastly, concerning the Gentiles
converted to the faith of the Son of God, (whom he had in
the similitude symbolised by mountains,) he speaks in these
words‘; “ All the nations, which are under heaven, have heard

. Heb. ix. : ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντε- carissimus;... a vero Filius Dei
e [Cf. Heb. ix. 26: ἃ ἐπὶ Porta vero Fil D

λείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων semel in consumma-
tione seculorum.—Vulg. Once in the
end of the world hath He appeared,
&c. |

4 Sicut ergo in illam urbem non po-
test intrari, quam per portam ejus; ita
nec in regnum Dei potest aliter intrari,
nisi per nomen Filii ejus; qui est ei

est, qui solus est accessus ad Deum;
aliter ergo nemo intrabit ad Deum, nisi
per Filium ejus.—[§ 12. p. 118. ]

e Ji, qui crediderunt Deo per Filium
ejus, induti sunt Spiritum hune.—[§
13. p. 118. ]

f Universe nationes, que sub ccelo
sunt, audierunt et crediderunt, et uno

The testimony of St. Ignatius. δ]

and believed, and have been called by the one name of the Son
of God.” Who is there then, I ask again, so blind as not to

BOOK I.
CHAP. IL
§ 6, 7.

see at once that all this is spoken of that Son of God which Hermas.

is Christ? Surely there can be no one of any piety, but
must from his heart detest the extreme shamelessness of
the anonymous writer, when he asserts, that “It is alto-
gether uncertain whether Hermas, when he says, in the
ninth Similitude, that the Son of God is more ancient than
any creature, by the Son of God means Christ.” Thus much
of the testimony of Hermas. |

7. After Hermas let Ignatius come, who was appointed Icnarivs,

bishop of Antioch& by the Apostles themselves. That the
seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius,—which were first
published in Latin by the most reverend Abp. Ussher, from
two MSS. discovered here in England, and afterwards in
Greek by the very learned Isaac Vossius from the Medi-
cean MS., (with the single exception of the Epistle to the
Romans,)—are his genuine remains, has been sufficiently
proved against Blondel by Vossius and Hammond; and the
bishop of Chester®, whom I have mentioned above, has so
very clearly and fully demonstrated the fact in reply to Daillé,
that in the view of fair judges the question about the writ-
ings of Ignatius and the whole controversy is considered to
be settled. For no lover of truth, who is even moderately
versed in this sort of learning, will be in the least degree
induced to doubt respecting those Epistles, by the sophis-
tical “Observations” which an anonymous authori, in the
year 1674, published at Rouen in reply to Pearson. Alto-
gether useless is the attempt of this writer to rally and put
again in array the broken and scattered forces of his friend
Daillé. Ignatius, then, in his Epistle to the Magnesians,
having before spoken of Christ, adds as follows; “Who was
with the Father before all ages, and in the end appeared.”
nomine filii Dei vocati sunt.—[§ 17.

pp. 120, 121.]

& About the year 67. Cave in Ignat.
— Bowyer.

1074. The anonymous author was for
atime unknown; Dr. Allix was after-
wards suspected, as appears from a copy
in the Bodleian library. Placcius, how-

" [Bp. Pearson, in his “ Vindicie
Ignatiane.”’

[The title of the book is, “ Obser-
vationes in Ignatianas Pearsonii Vin-
dicias, et in Annotationes Beveregii in
Canones S. Apostolorum, Rothomagi,

ever, (1. p. 149,) has sufficiently proved
that the true author was Matthew Lar-
roque.—B.]

* ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ Πατρὶ ἦν, καὶ ἐν
τέλει ἐφάνη.---». 38, [§ 6. p. 19.]

[57]

ON THE
PRE-EXIST-
ENCE OF
THE SON.

jllustri-
ora.

2 primam
apostolo-
rum διαδο-
χήν.

[58]

3 ἀποστό-
λων μαθη-
τήν.

52 The testimony of St. Justin Martyr.

We shall, however, adduce from Ignatius in a later part of
the work more numerous and more marked! testimonies.

8. Justin the philosopher lived and wrote! and was crowned
with martyrdom™ some years before the close of the gene-
ration immediately succeeding that of the Apostles’. For the
generation immediately succeeding that of the Apostles, as
the distinguished Hen. Valesius" has justly observed, extends
as far as to the times of Marcus Antoninus ; as it was under
that emperor that Polycarp, the disciple of John the Apostle,
(now more than a hundred years old,) obtained the crown of
martyrdom, that is to say, according to the Roman Martyro-
logy, on the twenty-sixth of January, A.D. 167. But Justin
addressed both his Apologies to Antoninus Pius®, who died
in the year 161 of the Christian era; and under the same
emperor shed his blood for the Christian religion, as the
same ValesiusP maintains. All, however, are agreed that
that holy man met death for the faith of Christ before the
year 167. Hence in his Epistle to Diognetus, Justin calls
himself “a disciple of the Apostles*.” Now this most an-
cient father and glorious martyr freely throughout his writ-
ings professed and strenuously maintained, both against Jews
and Gentiles, the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Son
before the foundation of the world, and of the creation of
the universe through Him, and that as the common and re-
ceived view of the Church in his time. It will be enough
here to adduce two passages; in the Apology, which in the
editions of his works is called the first, having spoken of
God the Father, he goes on to speak thus concerning the
Son’; “ His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word,
who, before all created things, was both in being with Him,
and begotten [of Him],—when in the beginning He created
and set in order all things through Him,” ἕο. In his Dialogue

P Notes on Eusebius, pp. 66, 67.
[iv. 16.]

1 6 δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου, ὃ μόνος λεγόμε-
νος κυρίως υἱὸς, ὁ Adyos πρὸ τῶν ποιημά-
τῶν καὶ συνὼν, καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν
ἀρχὴν δι’ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκό-

1 He presented his first Apology to
Antoninus Pius about the year 140.
Cave in Just. Mart.— Bowyer.

m About the year 164.— Bowyer.

Ὁ In his notes on Eusebius, p. 34.

[ii. 23. ]

© [His first Apology was presented
to Antoninus Pius A.D. 140; his second,
some years afterwards, to Marcus An-
toninus.—LARDNER.—B.]}

σμησε, K.T.A—p. 44. [Apol. ii. 6. p.
92. See the rest of the passage below,
lie Zod)

Testimonies of Tatian and Athenagoras.

with ‘Trypho he thus writess ;

* But this His offspring’, that Βοοκ τ.

CHAP. ILI.

was in very deed put forth from the Father, was in being ὃ 7—11.
with the Father before any created things, and Him the aise M.
Father addresses ;” that is, in the words which he had pre-
viously quoted, “ Let us make man,” &c.

9. Tatian', the disciple of Justin, in his Oration against Tartan.
the Greeks, in setting forth the opinion held in common by
the Christians of his time, concerning the Son of God, says"
“We know that He was the Beginning’ of the world.” And “τὴν ἀρχήν.
a little afterwards*; “For the heavenly Word, having come
forth a Spirit from the Father, and a Word from out of the
Intellectual Power, in imitation® of the Father that begat 8 κατὰ τὴν

Him, made man an image of His immortality.”

And again,

after a few intervening words; ‘The Word, then, before the
formation of man, becomes the creator of the angels.”

10. Athenagoras the Athenian, almost contemporary with Arnena-
Justin’, a very learned philosopher, and a distinguished or-
nament of the Christian profession, in his Apology* for the
Christians, which he addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoni-
nus and his colleague in the empire, putting forth the con-
fession of Christians concerning the most holy Trinity, after

having spoken of God the Father, subjoins’ ;

“By whom,

the universe was made through His Word, and set in order,

and is now held together.”

He also, a little after, calls the
Son ‘the first offspring® of the Father, as having come forth ὅ

{from Him] to be the idea and energy of all things.”

11. Lastly, Irenzeus* (who in his youth was an attentive’®
hearer of Polycarp, and is therefore justly said by Eusebius?
to have reached’ to the first succession after the Apostles)

S ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ
Πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα πρὸ πάντων
τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ
τούτῳ ὃ Πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ.---». 285,
[Ibid., § 62. p. 159.]

t Flourished about the year 172.
Cave in Tat.—Bowyer. [He wrote
about the year 165.— Larpner.—B. ]

α τοῦτον ἴσμεν Tov κόσμου τὴν ἀρχήν.
p. 145. ad calcem Just. Martyr. Par.
1615. [§ 5d. p. 247.)

Χ λόγος yap ὃ ἐπουράνιος, Πνεῦμα
γεγονὼς ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ λόγος ἐκ
τῆς λογιικῆς δυνάμεως, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ
γεννήσαντος αὐτὸν Πατρὸς μίμησιν εἰ-
κόνα τῆς ἀθανασίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐποί-

noe.... 6 μὲν οὖν λόγος πρὸ τῆς τῶν
ἀνδρῶν κατασκευῆς ἀγγέλων δημιουργὸς
γίνεται.---Ὀ. 146. [ὃ 7. p. 249.]

7 He flourished about the year 177.
Cave in, Athen. —Bowyer.

* ὑφ᾽ οὗ γεγένηται τὸ πᾶν διὰ τοῦ
αὐτοῦ λόγου, καὶ διακεκόσμηται, καὶ συγ-
κρατεῖται. ... πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ Πα-
τρὸς, ws [τῶν ὑλικῶν) συμπάντων... ..
ἰδέα καὶ ἐνέργεια εἶναι προελθών.---Αα
calcem Just. Mart. Par. 1615. p. 10.
[δ 10. p. 286.]

@ Born A.D. 97, wrote his treatise
adv. Hereses A.D. 175. Cave.—Bow-
YER.

b Hist. Eccles. v. 20.

1 γέννημα.

59]

μίμησιν.

GORAS.,

4 Lega-
tione.

γέννημα.

[60]
IRENEZUS,
6 diligens.
7 conti-

gisse, Ka-
TELANPEV AL.

ON THE
PRE-EXIST~
ENCE OF
THE SON,

Ἐ preestrue-
bat.

2 tradidisse.

54: Testimony of St. Ireneus.

has these words concerning the Word, or the Son of God*;
“Nor yet can any one of those things, which were consti-
tuted, and are [now] in subjection, be compared to the Word
of God, thréugh whom all things were made, who is our Lord
Jesus Christ. For that, whether they be angels or arch-
angels, or thrones or dominions, they were both constituted
and created by Him, who is God over all, through His Word;
John has thus declared. For after he had said, concerning
the Word of God, that ‘He was in the Father,’ he added,
‘all things were made by Him, and without Him was not
any thing made”” <Again*; “ For these things did the Son,
who is the Word of God, prepare beforehand' from the be-
ginning; the Father standing in no need of angels in order
to effect the creation, and to form man, for whom also the
creation was made.”

That the other fathers of the first three centuries taught’
the self-same doctrine concerning our Saviour, all are well
aware who are acquainted with their writings; let those
who are not versed in them rely on my assurance, until
with their own eyes they shall have seen the testimonies
of those writers themselves, which declare far greater things
than these respecting the Son of God, which I have to quote
in the following books. Thus far, then, respecting the pre-
existence of the Son.

ς Sed nec quidquam ex his, que
constituta sunt, et in subjectione sunt,
comparabitur Verbo Dei, per quem
facta sunt omnia, qui est Dominus nos-
ter Jesus Christus. Quoniam enim
sive angeli, sive archangeli, sive throni,
sive dominationes, ab eo, qui super om-
nes est Deus, et constituta sunt et facta

per Verbum ejus, Joannes quidem sic
significavit. Cum enim dixisset de
Verbo Dei, quoniam erat in Patre, ad-
jecit, Omnia per eum facta sunt, et sine
eo factum est nihil.—Lib. iii, cap. 8.
[p. 183. ]

ἃ Idem iv. 17. [cap. 7. p. 236. ]

BOO ko,

ON THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE SON. [69]
69

CHAPTER I.

THE SUBJECT PROPOSED, THE WORD ὁμοούσιος, “OF ONE SUBSTANCE®,” EX-
PLAINED AT LENGTH. THE NICENE FATHERS CLEARED FROM THE SUS-
PICION OF EMPLOYING NEW AND STRANGE LANGUAGE! IN USING THIS WORD ! Katvopw-
TO EXPRESS THE TRUE GODHEAD OF THE SON. THE OPPOSITION? BETWEEN Η εις
THE COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH AGAINST PAUL OF SAMOSATA, AND THE COUN-
CIL 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 ANTE-NICENE DOCTORS CON-
FIRMED “THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY.”

1. On the question of the Consubstantiality of the Son
of God we shall dwell longer, since it is the hinge on which
the whole controversy between the Catholics and the Arians
turns. On this subject, then, we propose, for very copious
illustration and confirmation, the following Proposition.

PROPOSITION.

It was the settled and unanimous opinion® of the Catholic ὃ constans
Doctors, who flourished in the first three centuries, that the ee
Son of God was of one substance‘, or consubstantial with 4 ὁμοούσιος
God the Father; that is, that He was not of any created inal
or mutable essence, but of altogether the same divine and lis.
unchangeable nature with His Father; and, therefore, very

God of very God.

Before, however, we proceed to the proof of the proposi- [70]
tion, it will be necessary to premise some observations on
the true meaning and ancient use of the word ὁμοούσιος,
“of one substance,” which was placed by the Nicene fathers

@ [The Greek word ὁμοούσιος has used ejusdem substantia, or essentia, and
been translated by the English words “of one substance.” The last has been
“ consubstantial,” ‘‘of the same sub- preferred, as being that to which we are
Stance, or essence,’ (when Bp. Bullhad accustomed in the Nicene Creed. |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 χογομα-
χία.

2 ejusdem
essentia.

3 ejusdem
essentiae
sive natu-
re,

4informari.

5 ejusdem
essentie.

[71]

56 The meaning of the word ὁμοούσιο 9,

in their Creed. The followers of Arius in old time spoke in
a way so strangely tragical about that term, that at length
not a few, even amongst the Catholics, wearied out by
their imp®rtunate clamours, in their love of peace began
to disapprove of the word, as we learn from Hilary, in his
book On the Synods, and from other writers. That im-
pious and restless faction pretended, at one time, that
the phrase ὁμοούσιος favoured Sabellianism; at another,
by reasoning altogether opposite, that it set up a divi-
sion of the divine essence; and, lastly, what was mere
trifling, that it introduced a substance prior both to the
Father and the Son, of which afterwards the Father and
the Son were equally partakers. I shall clearly shew, how-
ever, that this contest about words’ was raised by them
without any just grounds.

2. By approved Greek writers, that is styled ὁμοούσιον,
«‘ consubstantial,” which is of the same substance, essence, or
nature with some other”; a sense which the very etymology
of the word carries on the face of it: Porphyry, On Abstinence
from Animal Food, book i. n. 19, says; “Since the souls
of animals are ὁμοούσιοι, of the same essence? with ours.”
The anonymous author of the celebrated Opinions respecting
the Soul, published with the Piilocahu of Origen, quotes a
passage of Aristotle, wherein he says; “All the stars are
ὁμοούσια, of the same essence or nature*.” In the same
sense Irenzeus frequently uses this word in explaining the
doctrines of the Valentinians ; for instance, (in book 1. chap.
1¢,) he says that those heretics taught that, “ whatsoever is
spiritual could not by any means have been formed* by Acha-
moth, since it was ὁμοούσιον, of the same essence’ with her.”
And presently afterwards he says; ‘In the first place [they
say that] she (Achamoth) out of living substance formed the
parent and king of all things, both of those things which are
of the same essence with him, (τῶν τὲ ὁμοουσίων αὐτῷ,) and
of those which were engendered of passion and matter.” Again
in the same chapter after some interval ; that ἃ “ Hylicus was
in image very like unto God, but not of the same essence with

b [But see the concluding words of αὐτὴν) μορφῶσαι, ἐπειδὴ ὁμοούσιον ἦν
the extract from St. Basil, p. 62: ] αὐτῇ. |—p. 22. [c. 5. p. 28.]

e (The words of Irenzus are, ἀλλὰ dp, 24, [§ 5. p. 27. ]
τὸ πνευματικὸν μὴ δεδυνῆσθαι αὐτῇ (5.

“of one substance ;” as used by Greek writers. 57

Him, (παραπλήσιον μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον TO θεῷ.) And xsooK π΄’
after a few intervening words; ‘‘ Not even the Demiurge Ν᾽ ΡΝ
knew of the offspring! of the mother Achamoth, which she Homoov-
brought forth through the contemplation of those angels by iach
whom the Saviour is surrounded, in that it was a spiritual off- κύημα.
spring of the same essence with its mother, (ὁμοούσιον ὑπάρχον

τῇ μητρὶ πνευματικόν.) The same word, used in the same sense

by the Gnostics, is also found in the extracts from Theodotus,

at the end of the works of Clement of Alexandria®. And here,

(to mention it by the way,) I am quite of opinion that these
heretics accommodated this word, which was at that time in

use among the Catholics in speaking of the most Holy
Trinity, to their ons, as they did many others. And this

view receives no slight confirmation from the circumstance,

that the author of a book entitled Ποιμάνδρης, a very early
Christian writer’, and (whatever else his madness may have

been) far enough removed from the mad dreams of the Gnos-

tics, expressly called the Word, or Son of God, ὁμοούσιος, “of

one substance” with the Father, as we shall afterwards shew.

But to return from our digression. ‘The author of the trea-

tise which bears the title of Questions of the Greeks to the
Christians, published amongst the works of Justin, thus writes
concerning the soul’; ‘‘ We say that the reasonable soul is

a spirit endued with thinking powers, vital and possessing

the power of self-motion; with which, we say, that both the

angels and the demons are consubstantial?.”. Where the [72]
word ὁμοούσιους is joined with a genitive case, as in the ex- ? ἧς ὁμοου-
tracts from Theodotus ; though it more frequently governs fen ene
the dative case. et eee in Photius (Bidliothec. Cod. clxxix.) Llp
is said to have taught amongst other i impious doctrines, “ that δαίμονας.
the soul is consubstantial with God*.” Afterwards in the °7%» ψυχὴν
same place Photius says concerning this same Agapius}; “With ee
shameless irreverence he descants of the sun and the moon °*:

as of divine things, and proclaims them to be consubstantial

with God.” Lastly, Theodoret, in his dialogue “ ἀσυγχυτὸς,᾽

6 p. 796, 797. [c. 42. p. 979. andc. not a Christian, but flourished in the

50. p. 981. ] reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus.—B. ]
{Who seems to have flourished 8 p. 208. [p. 538. ]
about the year 120. Cave in Herm.— Ἀ ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην ἀναισχύντως

Bowyer.—| The editor of the works of θεολογεῖ, καὶ ὁμοούσια κηρύττει Θεῷ.
Dionysius of Alexandria, preface, p. —[Phot. Bibl. ο. 179.]
XXXvli,, contends that this writer was

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA~
LITY OF
THE SON.

! ὁμοούσιος.

2 ἐκ τῆς οὐ-
σίας.

3 Θεὸν ἐκ
Θεοῦ, κιτ.λ.

[78]

4 ἐξ ἑτέρας
ὑποστά-
σεως ἢ οὐ-
σίας; K.T.A.
5 τρεπτὸν ἢ
ἀλλοιωτόν.

6 alienze.

58 The sense in which the term was used by

adduces a passage from Apollinaris, where he saysi; “ Men
are of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) with brutes, as touch-
ing their irrational body; but of another substance (ἑτερού-
oo) so far as they are rational.”

3. That this was the very sense in which the bishops at Nice
called the Son “of one substance'” with the Father, will be
manifest to all men who are fair minded and not of a temper
thoroughly contentious, from the very terms of the Nicene
Creedi. For after saying that the Son of God is “begotten of the
Father, only-begotten,” the fathers immediately add the words,
“that is, of the substance’ of the Father;” and then they shew
the meaning of that expression in the words which follow ;
“God of God’, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten,
not made.” Lastly, they subjoin ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ, “of one
substance with the Father,’ as if it comprised all that had
been before said of the Son. Again, at the end of the Creed
they shew plainly enough what they meant to be understood
by the word ὁμοούσιος, when they anathematize the Arians,
“who assert that the Son of God is of another substance or
essence‘, or that He was created, or is capable of change or
alteration®.” It is evident, then, that the Nicene bishops
called the Son of God “of one substance” with the Father,
in a sense opposed to the blasphemies of the Arians; that
is to say, that He is not of any essence that is created, or
other than {παι of the Father, or changeable; but altogether
of the same divine and immutable nature as His Father. In
this way entirely the word ὁμοούσιος was interpreted by
those Catholic doctors, who (it is reasonable to suppose) best
understood the mind and view of the Nicene fathers. For
thus speaks the great Athanasius, when disputing against
those Arians, who falsely pretended that they embraced the
Nicene Creed in all other respects, and only shrunk with
dread from the term ὁμοούσιος, as new and dangerous*:
“Now if even after all this—even after both the testi-
mony of the bishops of former times, and the subscrip-
tion of their own fathers, they pretend (as if in ignorance)

i of ἄνθρωποι τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζώοις ὅμο- kK εἰ δὲ καὶ μετὰ τοσαῦτα, μετὰ καὶ
οὐσιοι κατὰ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἄλογον" ἑτερού- τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀ alwy ἐπισκόπων
\ \ \ \ Ie/ Fes

7, ΄
σιοι δὲ, καθὸ λογικοί. : καὶ μετὰ τὴν ὑπογραφὴν τῶν ἰδίων πατέ-

} [See the Greek of the Creed above, ρῶν, προσποιοῦνται, ὡς ἀγνοοῦντες, τὴν
Ῥ19:) λέξιν φοβεῖσθαι τοῦ ὁμοουσίου, εἰπάτω-

the Fathers of Nice; shewn from St. Athanasius. 59

to dread the word ὁμοούσιος, let them in simplicity and soo 1. |
truth confess and believe that the Son is Son by nature; § 25.
and let them also anathematize (as the council enjoined) Homoov- |
such as say that the Son of God was made or created'; or eae
that He was made out of what existed not; or that there 1 ua A
was a time when He was not; and that He is liable to ποίημα.
change and alteration, and is of another substance’; and 2 2 ἑτέρας
thus let them flee from the Arian heresy; and we have full ὑτοστά-
confidence that in sincerely anathematizing these things
they do therein® confess that the Son is ‘cf the substance 3 εὐθύς. q. ἃ.
of the Father,’ and ‘of one substance’ with Him‘. For on ae oir
this account it was that the fathers, after having asserted σίας καὶ
that the Son is ‘of one substance,’ immediately added, eee ΩΣ
‘Those who say that the Son is made or created, or that υἱὸν τῷ Πά-
He was made out of what existed not, or that there was arr]
time when He was not, the Catholic Church anathematizes ;’
in order that they may make it known hereby, that this is
what the expression ὁμοούσιος, ‘of one substance,’ signifies ;
and the force of the word ὁμοούσιος is ascertained from [the
assertion that] the Son is ‘neither created nor made;’ and
that whosoever says that He is ‘of one substance,’ does not
believe the Word to be a creature; and whosoever anathema-
tizes the before-mentioned propositions, does at the same time
believe the Son to be ‘of one substance’ with the Father ;
and whosoever says that He is ‘of one substance,’ acknow-
ledges the Son of God to be the real and true [Son,] and
whosoever calls Him the real [Son,] understands that saying,
“1 and the Father are one.’ ”

5. In the same manner Hilary also, in his treatise On

Synods against the Arians!, says; “Is any one displeased

5 ἅμα,

σαν καὶ φρονείτωσαν ἁπλούστερον μὲν ovk ἦν, ἀναθεματίζει ἣ καθολικὴ ἐκκλη-

καὶ ἀληθῶς τὸν υἱὸν, φύσει υἱὸν, ἀναθε-
ματισάτωσαν δὲ, ὡς παρήγγειλεν ἡ σύ-
vodos, τοὺς λέγοντας κτίσμα ἢ ποίημα, ἢ
> > BA a ε > 5 ¢
ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἢ ἣν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἣν ὃ υἱὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ" καὶ ὅτι τρεπτὸς καὶ ἀλλοιωτός
ἐστι, καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως" καὶ οὕ-
τως φευγέτωσαν ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Αρειανῆς aipé-
σεως, καὶ θαρροῦμεν, ὅτι γνήσιως ταῦτα
ἀναθεματίζοντες ὁμολογοῦσιν εὐθὺς, ἐκ
τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν
τῷ Πατρί. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ οἱ πατέρες
; 4
εἰρηκότες ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ἐπή-
γαγον εὐθὺς, Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας κτίσμα,
ἕ 3 > ” 5 a
ἢ ποίημα, ἢ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἢ ἣν ποτε ὅτε

σία" ἵνα διὰ τούτων γνωρίσωσιν, ὅτι ταῦ-
Ta σημαίνει τὸ ὁμοούσιον᾽ καὶ ἣ τοῦ
ὁμοουσίου δύναμις γινώσκεται ἐκ τοῦ μὴ
εἶναι κτίσμα ἢ ποίημα τὸν υἱόν καὶ ὅτι
ὁ λέγων ὁμοούσιον οὐ φρονεῖ κτίσμα εἶἷ-
ναι τὸν λόγον' καὶ ὁ ἀναθεματίξων τὰ
προειρημένα ὁμοούσιον ἅμα φρονεῖ εἶναι
τὸν υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί: καὶ ὃ ὁμοούσιον λέ-
γων, γνήσιον καὶ ἀληθινὸν λέγει τὸν υἱὸν
τοῦ Θεοῦ" καὶ ὃ γνήσιον λέγων νοεῖ τὸ,
᾿Εγὼ καὶ ὁ ἸΠατὴρ ἕν éouev.—In Epist.
ad African. Episcop., vol. i. p. 940.
edit. Paris. 1627. [§ 9. vol. i. p. 898.]

' Displicet, inquit, cuiquam in sy-

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 «had in
view.’ ed.
Ben.

60 From St. Hilary. His statement as to what is implied

that the term homoousion [‘ of one substance’] was adopted
in the Nicene council? If so, he must necessarily be pleased
that the Arians refused to admit it. For they refused to
admit the homoousion, that it might be said of God the
Son, not that He is begotten of the substance of God the
Father, but that He was formed out of nothing, after the
manner of created beings. It is nothing new that I am
saying; the faithlessness of the Arians is published in many
works, and witnesses against itself. If on account of the
irreligion of those who denied [the homoousion], the mean-
ing put on it by those who confessed it at that time was re-
ligious, I ask why at this day it is sought to do away with
that which at that time it was religious to adopt, because Ὁ
was irreligious to refuse to admit it. If it was religious to
adopt it, why has an appointment of religion come to be
matter of accusation, which religiously extinguished irreligion
by the very means by which irreligion was caused? Let us
see then what the Nicene council laid down’ in confessing the
homoousion, that is the [article] ‘of one substance: not
surely to bring to the birth that heresy which is conceived of
an erroneous notion of the homoousion. They will not, I
imagine, say this, that the Father and the Son divided by
partition one anterior substance so as to form their own sub-
stance.” Then after reciting the Nicene Creed, he thus pro-
ceeds; “Surely in these words the most holy council of re-
ligious men is not introducing a prior substance, one knows
not what, such as to have been divided into two; but the
Son begotten of the substance of the Father. And do we
at all deny it? or [if we do] what else do we confess?

nodo Niczna homoousion esse suscep-
tum? hoc si cui displicet, necesse est
placeat, quod ab Arianis est negatum.
Negatum enim idcirco est homoousion,
ne ex substantia Dei Patris Deus Fi-
lius natus, sed secundum creaturas ex
nihilo conditus predicaretur. Nihil no-
vum loquimur: pluribus edita literis
ipsa Arianorum perfidia sibi testis est.
Si propter negantium impietatem pia
tum fuit intelligentia confitentium,
quero cur hodie convellatur, quod
tum pie susceptum est, quia impie
negabatur? Si pie susceptum est, cur
venit constitutio pietatis in crimen,
quz impietatem pie per ea ipsa, qui-

bus impiabatur, extinxit? Videamus
igitur, quid Nicena synodus statuerit,
[ed. Benedict. 1. studuerit,] homoou-
sion, id est, unius substantiz, confi-
tendo: non utique hzresim parturire,
que de homoousii vitiosa opinione con-
cipitur. Non, opinor, illud loquentur,
quod unam anteriorem substantiam
Pater et Filius in substantiam suam.
pa:tiendo diviserint.. .. Non hic sanc-
tissima religiosorum virorum synodus,
nescio quam priorem, que in duos di-
visa sit, substantiam introducit; sed
Filium natum de substantia Patris.
Numquid et nos negamus? aut quid
aliud confitemur? Et post ceteras

in the expression “ of one substance.” 61

Further, after setting forth those other statements of our
common faith, it says, ‘begotten, not made; of one sub-
stance with the Father,’ which they express in Greek by the
word ὁμοούσιος. What opening is there here for an errone-
ous meaning? ‘The Son is declared to be begotten of the
substance of the Father, not made, lest the begetting of
the Godhead be accounted a handy-work of creation. And
therefore it is, ‘of one substance,’ not as though He sub-
sist singly and alone, but to express that [the Son], being
begotten of the substance of God, hath not His subsist-
ence from any other; nor yet that He subsists in any differ-
ence of [a] diverse substance. Or will it be said that our
faith is not this, that His subsistence is not from any other
[than the Father,] and that it is not a dissimilar subsist-
ence? Or does the homoousion here witness to any thing
other than that there is one essence of the two, and that
no way dissimilar, according to natural propagation, because
the essence of the Son is not from any other [than the
Father]: and masmuch as it is not from any other, it will
be correct to believe that both are of one essence; because
the Son hath the substance which was begotten from no other
original than from the nature of the Father.”

6. The great Basil, in his three hundredth Epistle”, arguing
against such as embraced the Nicene Creed in all other par-
ticulars save that they were unwilling to admit the expression
“of one substance’',” after other things, which will be brought
forward hereafter in a more suitable place, thus writes"; “And
forasmuch as there were still at that time some who affirmed
that the Son was brought into being out of what existed not,

communis fidei expositiones ait, Natum,
non factum, unius substantie cum Patre,
quod Grece dicunt ὁμοούσιον. Que
hic vitiose intelligentiz occasio est ?
natus esse de substantia Patris Filius,
non factus, predicatur; ne nativitas
divinitatis factura sit creationis. Id-
circo autem unius substantiz; non ut
unus subsistat, aut solus, sed ut ex
substantia Dei natus non aliunde sub-
Sistat; neque ut in aliqua dissidentis
substantia diversitate subsistat. Aut
humquid non hee fides nostra est,
ut non aliunde subsistat, neque quod
indissimilis subsistat? Aut aliud hic

testatur homoousion, quam ut una
atque indissimilis duum sit secun-
dum nature propaginem [ed. Bene-
dict. 1. progeniem] essentia, quia
essentia Filii non sit aliunde; que
quia aliunde non est, unius recte esse
ambo credentur essentie; quia sub-
stantiam nativitatis Filius non habeat
nisi de paternz auctoritate naturz ?—
pp. 241, 242. ed. Basil. 1570. [ὃ 83.
p. 1197.]

ep. 11 ἢ}

n καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι
παρῆχθαι τὸν υἱὸν ἔτι τότε ἦσαν οἱ λέ-
γοντες, ἵνα καὶ ταύτην ἐκτέμωσι τὴν

BOOK 11.
CHAP: «i
ἃ 5, 6.

Homoou-
SION.

[76]

' ὁμοούσιος.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ἀδιάστα-
τος,“ unin-
terrupted.”’

[77]

2 ἄδελφα.

[78]

62 From St. Basil; the Semiarians at Antioch.

to cut off this impiety also [the fathers of Nicza] used in ad-
dition the words ‘of one substance ;’ for the union of the
Son with the Father is without time or interval’. The pre-
ceding words, indeed, sufficiently prove that this was their
meaning; for after they had said ‘light of light,’ and that
the Son was ‘begotten of the substance of the Father, not
made,’ they introduced after this the words ‘ of one sub-
stance; shewing, as by an example, that whatever defini-
tion of light one would give in the case of the Father, the
same will apply also in the case of the Son; inasmuch as
true light compared with true light (as respects the mere
notion of light) will allow of no difference. Since, therefore,
the Father is light, without original, and the Son is light,
begotten; and both of them are severally light, [the fathers]
justly used the term ‘of one substance,’ in order to set forth
the equal dignity of their nature: for not those things which
are near akin? to one another, are said to be ‘of one sub-
stance,’ as some have conceived; but when both the cause,
and that which has its being from the cause, are of the
same nature, they are [in that case] said to be of one sub-
stance.”

7. Moreover, that this is the true meaning of the expression
“of one substance,” the semi-Arians themselves at length ad-
mitted, in the council of Antioch, [held] under the emperor
Jovian ; instructed, it would seem, by Meletius, who presided
in that council; for that he was a true Catholic is abundantly
certain from Basil’s statement in his fifty-second, fifty-third,
and following Epistles®, and in his three hundred and twenty-
fifth? to Epiphanius. For they in their synodical letter to the
excellent emperor have these statements respecting the Nicene
council’; ‘“ Whereas also that which seems to some to be a

ἀσέβειαν, τὸ ὁμοούσιον προσειρήκασιν.
ἄχρονος γὰρ καὶ ἀδιάστατος ἣ τοῦ υἱοῦ
mpos τὸν Πατέρα συνάφεια. δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ
τὰ προλαβόντα ῥήματα, ταύτην εἶναι
τῶν ἀνδρῶν τὴν διάνοιαν. εἴποντες γὰρ
φῶς ék φωτὸς, καὶ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
Πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν γεγεννῆσθαι, οὐχὶ δὲ
πεποιῆσθαι, ἐπήγαγον τούτοις τὸ ὁμοού-
σιον᾽ παραδεικνύντες, ὅτι ὕνπερ ἄν τις
ἀποδῷ φωτὸς λόγον ἐπὶ Πατρὸς, οὗτος
ἁρμόσει καὶ ἐπὶ υἱοῦ. φῶς γὰρ ἀληθινὸν,
πρὸς φῶς ἀληθινὸν, κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τοῦ φωτὸς
τὴν ἔννοιαν, οὐδεμίαν ἕξει παραλλαγήν.

ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐστιν ἄναρχον φῶς ὁ Πατὴρ, γεν-
νητὸν δὲ φῶς ὁ vids, φῶς δὲ καὶ φῶς ἑκά-
τερος, ὁμοούσιον εἶπαν δικαίως, ἵνα τὸ THS
φύσεως ὁμότιμον παραστήσωσιν. οὐ γὰρ
τὰ ἀδελφὰ ἀλλήλοις ὁμοούσια λέγεται,
ὅπερ τινὲς ὑπειλήφασιν" ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν καὶ τὸ
αἴτιον, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου τὴν ὕπαρξιν
ἔχον, τῆς αὐτῆς ὑπάρχῃ φύσεως, ὁμοού-
gia λέγεται. --- vol. iii. p. 292. edit.
Paris. 1638. [vol. 111. p. 145. ]

° (Ep. Ixix., xxv.]

p (Ep. cclviii. |

ᾳ ὁπότε καὶ τὸ δοκοῦν ἐν αὐτῇ τισὶ

The expression not new ; testimony of Eusebius. 63

[new and] strange term in it, we mean that “of one sub- xoox π.
stance,” hath received a safe interpretation among the fathers, § 68.
intimating that the Son was begotten of the substance of the Homoov.
Father, and that in substance He is like unto the Father ; ΟΝ.
and the term substance is not taken [by the fathers of the
council] as if there were any idea of passion! with respect to | πάθους
that ineffable generation, or according to a certain Greek 7%
use of the word; but for the purpose of overthrowing the
impious doctrine, which was presumptuously ventured on by
Arius, of the Son being out of what existed not.” I ap-
prehend that by this time all sufficiently understand what is
the legitimate sense of the expression “of one substance,”
as it stands in the Nicene Creed.

8. But further, that this word was not first invented by
the Nicene fathers, nor yet used by them in a new sense in
the question about the Godhead of the Son (as many have
thought), but that it had been passed on from the genera-
tions which preceded to those which followed, is expressly tes-
tified by Eusebius in his Epistle to his own diocese of Caesarea.
_ His words are as follows" ; “We were aware that some learned
and distinguished bishops and writers [even] among the an-
cients made use of the term, ‘Of one substance,’ in treating
of the Godhead of the Father and the Son.” There is [79]
no doubt that Eusebius had access to many monuments of
primitive antiquity, which are not now extant any where,
but have long ago perished, from which he could have
most fully established this assertion of his; for even we
(notwithstanding the great and deplorable wreck of ancient
writers) are not without testimonies such as may sufficiently
prove it. Tertullian, at the beginning of his treatise against
Praxeas®, expressly says that the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost are “of one substance ;” and affirms? that this is 2uniussub-
moreover contained “in the rule of faith” and “the mystery *™t#.

ξένον ὄνομα, τὸ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου φαμὲν, τολμηθέντος ᾿Αρείῳ. --- Apud Socrat.
ἀσφαλοῦς τετύχηκε παρὰ τοῖς πατράσιν ἩΊ, E, iii. 25; et Sozom. H. E. vi. 4,
ἑρμηνείας, σημαινούσης ὅτι ἐκ τῆς οὐ- T [ἐπεὶ καὶ] τῶν παλαιῶν τινὰς λογί-

σίας τοῦ Πατρὸς ὃ υἱὸς ἐγεννήθη, καὶ ους καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ συγ-
7 na a “

ὅτι ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν τῷ Πατρί: οὔτε γραφέας ἔγνωμεν, ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς

\ / “ a a

δὲ ὡς πάθους τινὸς περὶ τὴν ἄρρητον yév- καὶ υἱοῦ θεολογίας τῷ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου συγ-

νησιν ἐπινοουμένου, οὔτε κατά τινα χρῆ- χρησαμένους dvduati.—Apud Socrat.
σιν ἑλληνικὴν λαμβάνεται [Tots πατράσι] H. ΚΕ. i. 8. [p. 25. ]
τὸ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας" εἰς ἀνατροπὴν δὲ 5 [See below, ch. vii. 8.6, where the

τοῦ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀσεβῶς words of Tertullian are quoted. }

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 sacra-
mento
οἰκονομίας.

2 dum.

3 opere.

4 natum.

[80]

5 ecommu-
nionem.

δ aporrheea.

7 sententia.

64 “Of one substance” used by Tertull., Origen, Dionys. Alex.

of the dispensation',” which was observed and kept by the
Catholics. But what, I pray you, does the Latin expression
unius substantia denote, but the same as the Greek ὁμοούσιος
nor have I any doubt that Tertullian, as he almost every
where studiously imitates the Greek ecclesiastical writers
(as learned men are well aware',) so here also translated the
word dp0ovc10s—which he had found used with respect to
the most holy Trinity, in writers of that class, of earlier date
than himself—by the words of his mother tongue, Unitus
substantie. Rufinus (On the Adulteration of the Works of
Origen) testifies that this word was often met with in the
writings of Origen; when’ he says", “ Is it possible that he
could have forgotten himself in the same portion’ of the same
book, sometimes (as we have said) in the very next chapter?
For example; after he has declared the Father and the Son
to be of one substance, (which in Greek is expressed by
ὁμοούσιος,) could he possibly, in the very next chapters,
pronounce Him to he of another substance and created,
whom he had just before asserted to be begotten’ of the
very nature of God the Father?” Pamphilus adduces an in-
stance [of his use of it] in his Apology’, where he sets before
us the following words of Origen, out of his Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; “These illustrations most plainly
shew, that the Son hath a communion® of substance with
the Father. For an effluence’ seems to be consubstantial
(ὁμοούσιος,) i. 8. of one substance with that body from
which it is either an effluence or vapour.” Athanasius, in
his treatise On the Views’ of Dionysius of Alexandria, in
opposition to the Arians, states that this Dionysius, (who
was a disciple of Origen,) in an Epistle to his namesake
Dionysius of Rome, said that Christ was “of one substance”
with God, ὁμοούσιος τῷ Θεῷ"; and that Dionysius of Rome

t B. Rhenanus says of Tertullian,
that from his constant reading of Greek
authors he had imbibed so much of
Greek forms of speech, as to be unable
to forget them even in writing his La-
tin.

α Numquid in eodem opere ejusdem
libri, interdum, ut diximus, statim in
consequenti capitulo oblitus sui esse
potuit? V.G. ut qui Patrem et Filium
unius substantia, quod Greece ὁμοού-
σιον dicitur, designavit, in consequen-

tibus statim capitulis alterius esse sub-
stantie et creatum poterat dicere eum,
quem paulo ante de ipsa natura De
Patris pronuntiaverat natum ?

Y Que similitudines manifestissime
ostendunt, communionem substantie
esse Filio cum Patre: aporrhcea enim
ὁμοούσιος videtur, id est, unius substan-
tiz cum illo corpore, ex quo est vel
aporrhoea vel vapor.—([c¢. 5. p. 33. ]

x [Vide Dionysii Opera, p. 90. ]

Further evidence of its use prior to the Nicene Council. 65

had required of him to state this in plain terms. Now it is sooxn.

clear, from this statement of Athanasius, that even in the “ΝΒ, :

time of these Dionysii the term ὁμοούσιος was in frequent Homoov-
. . . . SION.

use; and that such as rejected ' it (which was falsely laid to the ; .4,,..

charge of the Alexandrian Dionysius) incurred the censure of ruisse.

the Church. 1 am therefore astonished at the ignorance or

impudence of Sandius, whichever it be, in saying’, that even

Athanasius was amongst those who acknowledged that the

term ὁμοούσιος was ultimately? fabricated in the Nicene coun- ? demum.

cil. Nay, in another passage also, this very Athanasius says

expressly, that this word, as it stands in the Nicene Creed,

was “approved by the testimony of the bishops of former

times,” 1. e. of those who were anterior to the council of Nice.

Look back at the passage which we quoted a little above

from Athanasius, out of his letter to the bishops of Africa.

But if any doubt the good faith of the great and excellent

Athanasius, there is extant at this day an epistle of that very

Dionysius of Alexandria against Paul of Samosata, in which

he expressly says, that” “the Son was declared by the holy

fathers to be of one substance with the Father.” These [81]

words of Dionysius also plainly shew that the holy fathers

who preceded him had used the term ὁμοούσιος of the Son;

and thus they remarkably confirm the testimony of Eusebius,

which I just now quoted. In short, from the circumstance

that the martyr Pamphilus in his Apology for Origen, (which,

as we shall afterwards shew, rightly bears the name of Pam-

philus,) contends that Origen expressly said that the Son

was “of one substance” with the Father, and therefore was

catholic in the article of the Godhead of the Son; from this

very circumstance, I say, it is most evident that the word

ὁμοούσιος was in use among Catholics even prior to the

Nicene council, and employed in explaining the doctrine

concerning the Godhead of the Son; for this Pamphilus

received the crown of martyrdom* some years before the

council of Nice, in the persecution, that is, under Maximin,

as Eusebius, On the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 7, and Jerome,

in his Catalogue, expressly testify. After this, perhaps it may

Y De Script. Eccles., pp. 89, 40. edit. tom. xi. p. 277. [Opera, p. 214]
secund. et pp. 121, 122. 4 In the year 309. Cave in Pam.—
* ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ Bowyer.
τῶν ἁγίων marépav.—Biblioth. Patr.,

BULL: F

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ὁμοούσιος.
2 solide.

3 circulato-
rem,

[82]
4de hac...
ἀντιλογίᾳ

laborarunt.

5 unicam
substan-
tiani«. 2 δ᾽
οὐσίαν.

66 The expression had been repudiated by the Council of

be worth while to observe, that the author of the book entitled
Ποιμάνδρης, and attributed to Mercurius Trismegistus, in
the first chapter, expressly says that “the Word of God is of
one substance’ with the Father.” It is true that Petavius
has proved on solid’ grounds that the writer was an im-
postor, that is, not Trismegistus himself, but a Christian
falsely assuming his name; yet Petavius also acknowledges,
that that forger® was of very early times, and lived shortly
after the Apostles ; which is also clearly shewn by testimonies
being cited from him by Justin Martyr. |
9. Some persons, however, have thought that there is a very
strong presumption against the term ὁμοουσίος (“ of one sub-
stance”) in the fact, that the council of Antioch, which was held
against Paul of Samosata about sixty years before the Nicene,
expressly repudiated the term. Theclogians, both ancient
and modern’, have been at pains‘ to account for the contra-
dictory language of these councils. In accordance with my
design, I shall speak only of the ancients. Hilary, towards
the end of his book On the Synods, against the Arians, states
that Paul of Samosata confessed that word ὁμοούσιος in a
bad sense, and that, on this account, the fathers of the coun-
cil of Antioch rejected the term. ‘The Samosatene,” he
says 4, “did ill when he confessed the homoousion. But did
the Arians do better in denying it?” In what sense, how-
ever, could the Samosatene have confessed it ? Petavius gives
the following answer®: “ He might have admitted the term
in the same sense as Sabellius, with whom he coincided in
opinion on the doctrine of the Trinity ; that is to say, by
laying down the substance and essence’ of the Godhead to
be singular, which involved the entire separation of Christ

consentaneus erat; uti scilicet unicam

b De Trin. i. 2. § 3, 4

e [The editor of the works of Diony-
sius Alex. (Pref. p. xl. &c.) proves by
many arguments that the fathers of
Antioch did not by any means repu-
diate the word ὁμοούσιος.---Β. See Dr.
Burton’s view fully stated in Mr. Fa-
ber’s Apostolicity of Trinitarianism,
vol. ii. p. 302. ]

ἃ Male, inquit, homoousion Samosa-
tenus confessus est; sed numquid me-
lius Ariani negaverunt ?—[ Hil. de Sy-
nod., ὃ 86. p. 1200.

e Ea ratione potuit admittere, qua
Sabellius, cui in Trinitatis dogmate

substantiam divinitatis et οὐσίαν pone-
ret, a qua plane separandus esset Chris-
tus; qui ne ὅμοούσιος Deo constitue-
retur, in tempore Deus esse ccepisset.
Quod enim eodem sensu ὁμοούσιον
Verbum esse Samosatenus affirmarit,
quo Sabellius, ibidem Hilarius [de Sy-
nod., § 81. p. 1196.] ostendit, cum il-
lum dicit ὁμοούσιον esse Filium do-
cuisse, quod in Antiochena synodo Pa-
tres usurpari vetuerunt, quia per hance
unius essentie nuncupationem solitarium
atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium
predicabat.—De Trin, iv. 5. 2.

Antioch, not because it was expressive of Sabellianism. 67

from it; who, that He might not be set down as of one sub- zoox π.
stance ar: God, must have had His beginning as God in Soe ede
time. For, that the Samosatene asserted the Word to be of Homoov-
one substance in the same sense as Sabellius, is shewn by *°™
Hilary in the same passage, when he says, that Paul had

taught that the Son is of one substance! [with the Father, ] ' ὁμοούσιος.
a statement which the fathers in the council of Antioch for-

bad to be used, ‘inasmuch as by this use of the term ‘ of one
essence,’ he pronounced the Father and the Son to be one

only single and solitary Being ’.’” But this,and I say it with all ? solita-
deference to the venerable Hilary, does not seem to me to be ΤΠ stare
by any means likely. For, granting that the Samosatene here- sibi.

tic held precisely the same opinion touching the Son of God as
Sabellius, (a position, however, which might with good grounds

be questioned,) yet surely Sabellius himself would never have
willingly affirmed that the Son is consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος)

with the Father, but rather identically-substantial (tavtoov-

owos.) Besides, if the Sabellians before the council of Nice 30
had used the word ὁμοούσιος in order to spread their heresy,

it is no way credible, that the fathers of Nice,—who certainly [83]
abhorred the Sabellian, no less than the Arian, heresy,—would

have inserted that word in their Creed. Sandius‘, however,
confidently maintains “that the followers of Sabellius em-

braced the term ‘ of one substance *,’” that is, of course, before ° homoou-
the Nicene council, for if this be a his meaning, his assertion τοὶ
would be nothing to the purpose. Hence in another place

he expressly says, that Sabellius himself used the word “ of

one substance.” Let us see by what evidence he proves this
assertion of his: “ For they,” his words are, “ who repudiated

the term ‘of one substance,’ affirmed that those who ap-

proved of it, were introducing afresh the opinions of Monta-

nus and Sabellius, (observe their agreement in doctrine,) and
accordingly they called them blasphemers. Socrat. Eccl.

Hist. 1. 23, and Sozom. 11. 18.” My reply is, that Socrates

and Sozomen, in the places cited, do, it is true, relate that

after the Nicene council there were great contentions con-
cerning the word ὁμοούσιος amongst the very bishops who
subscribed to the Nicene Creed, especially between Eusebius
Pamphili and Eustathius of Antioch; the former with his

‘ Enucl, Histor. Ecclesiast. i. p. 112.
F 2

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-~

LITY OF

THE SON,

[84]

® propi-
nare.

3 purum
putum.

* in fla-
granti
gratia.

68 Evidence that the expression ‘ Of one Substance”

party charging Eustathius and his party, who asserted the
article “of one substance,” with Montanism and Sabelli-
anism ; the latter, again, objecting against them [that they
introduced] the polytheism of the heathens; both sides in
the meantime professing their belief to be this?; ‘‘ That the
Son of God has a proper subsistence and being; and that
there is one God in three persons'.” For this we have the
express testimony of Socrates, and that derived from a care-
ful reading of the tracts and letters which those bishops wrote
(in answer) each to the other. It must however be especially
observed, that Eusebius and his party no way pretended that
the word ὁμοούσιος in itself, or according to its proper signifi-
cation, went to confirm the heresy of Sabellius, much less that
the Nicene fathers wished, by its use, to give the Christian
world to taste [the cup οὔ 27] Sabellianism; but that he merely
said this, that Eustathius and his party, who embraced the
term “of one substance,” wished to introduce Sabellianism ;
that is, so interpreted the word as to make it altogether to
favour the Sabellian heresy. Indeed it is expressly said by
Socrates", that Eusebius, in the very letter in which he ac-
cused Eustathius of Sabellian error in his use of the word
ὁμοούσιος, openly professed that “he himself did not trans-
gress the Creed of Nica.” Whether Eusebius charged
Eustathius justly with Sabellianism, there is no need for us
to enquire anxiously. Certainly, however, Marcellus, who was
the teacher of Eustathius, maintained pure® Sabellianism
in his writings, as is perfectly clear from the books of Euse-
bius, which he composed against him. Therefore Hilary, (in
his book to Constantius,) and Basil the Great, (in his letters
52,74, and 78',) and others, expressly class Marcellus amongst
heretics. The circumstance of his being, at least for a con-
siderable time, in very warm favour * with the great Athana-
sius, must, I think, altogether be ascribed to his cunning and
hypocrisy, and to the zeal and ardour which he displayed
against the Arians. With regard to Kustathius himself, (al-

8 ἐνυπόστατόν τε καὶ ἐνυπάρχοντα
τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἕνα τε Θεὸν ἐν
τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν εἶναι. I am per-
suaded that Eustathius did not use the
very word ὑποστάσεσι: but some other
term which Socrates considered equi-

valent to it.

: [Εὐσέβιος μὲν, τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πί-
στιν οὔ φησι παραβαίνειν" δι Βάλλει δὲ
Εὐστάθιον ὡς τὴν Σαβελλίου δόξαν εἰσ-
άγοντα.----ϑοοταῖ. E. Η. i, 23.]

* (Ep. lxix., cclxiii., and cxxv. ]

was not a characteristic of Sabellianism. 69

though I should be unwilling without due grounds at all to poox τι.
detract from the reputation or estimation of a man who was “ey ™
held in much esteem by very many Catholics, and who was jjomoou__
also ennobled by the friendship of the great Athanasius,) still 510 Ν.

I candidly confess that I do not know how it could have come

to pass, that the bishops assembled at Antioch, although they

may have been—the greater part of them—Arians, singled

him out from all those who asserted the article “ of one sub-
stance,” for the charge of “ holding rather the opinions of Sa-
bellius, than those which the council of Nice decreed ;” and [89]
on that account deposed him from the see of Antioch, (which
Socrates witnesses to from the relation of others, although he
expresses, on very slender grounds indeed, his own doubts of

their trustworthiness, i. 24,) unless he had himself given them

at least some handle and occasion for a charge of such a na-

ture. What is to be said to the fact, that Cyrus, bishop of
Bercea, who, (according to the relation of George of Laodicza,

the Arian, in the same passage of Socrates,) was the man

who accused Eustathius* of Sabellianism before the council,

was a Catholic, and was afterwards himself deposed by the
Arians on account of his maintaining the Catholic doctrine,

as Athanasius testifies in his letter To those who were living

in Solitude? George indeed, says, that this Cyrus also was
deposed for his Sabellian doctrine ; but by Sabellian doctrine

the heretic in that place had no other idea than the doctrine

“of one substance,” as Valesius has correctly observed! ;

and this observation easily reconciles the apparent discre-

pancy ‘in the statement of George, which perplexed Socrates, 1 ἐναντιο-
But how does all this make for the purpose of Sandius ? ?#”*
What sort of conclusion, I ask, is this? Eusebius Pamphili
accused Eustathius of Antioch, of so interpreting the expres-

sion ‘‘ of one substance,” which was correctly understood by 91]
the Nicene fathers, as to subserve the introduction into the
Church of the heresy of Sabellius ; therefore the followers of

ΚΊ am quite of opinion that Eusta- called Eustathians, were shunned by
thius was an over-pertinacious main- other catholics as Sabellians: and
tainer of the one hypostasis (μία ὕποστά-ἠ thence followed a great schism at An-
ois) in the Godhead; at the sametime tioch. See Petavius, de Trinit. iv. 4.
that perhaps he meant by the term hy- 1[0, &c.
postasis nothing else than essence or ' See the note of Valesius on So-
substance (οὐσίαν) : on which account crates, p. 14. [i. 24. p. 58. ]
also the party, which after him were

70 Athanasius’ account of the grounds on which

Ὁ ΤΗΣ Sabellius, before the council of Nice, employed and embraced

srantia- the very expression “ of one substance.” The incidental ob-
tunsoe, servation of Sandius, on the agreement of Montanus and Sa-
[86] _ bellius in their doctrine respecting the most Holy Trinity,
we will consider by and by, in a more suitable place. I there-
fore say again, that it seems to me by no means probable that
the Sabellians ever used the expression “ of one substance” of
their own accord and willingly ; although, after the word had
been sanctioned by the authority of the Nicene council, they
lobtorto endeavoured to drag it (as it were) by force’ into the service
quasi coll? of their own heresy. For the expression “ of one substance”
in itself is so far from agreeing with the Sabellian heresy,
that it is plainly repugnant to it; as was excellently observed
by the great Basil (Epistle 300) in these words™; ‘This ex-
pression corrects also the evil of Sabellius; for it takes away
2 τὴν rav- the identity of the personal subsistence ἢ, and introduces the
pate ae idea of the persons as complete; since a thing is not itself
σεως. ‘of one substance’ with itself, but one thing with another.”
I therefore conclude that Paul of Samosata, as agreeing
with Sabellius on the doctrine of the Trinity, did not use the
words “of one substance” for the purpose of expressing his
heresy : and that the fathers assembled at Antioch did not

on that account reject it.

10. No one could have understood this question better than
the great Athanasius ; for he was himself present at the coun-
cil of Nice, where, when they were most carefully examining
all points respecting the article “of one substance,” this main
objection (concerning the definition of the fathers in the
council of Antioch) must without any doubt have been among
the first to be discussed. He declares in his book, On the
Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia, that Paul of Samosata did
not acknowledge the article “of one substance,” but rather,
out of that term, which had been employed by the Catholics
in explaining the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son, con-
trived a sophism, for the purpose of overthrowing that doc-
trine; and that it was for this reason that the fathers at

‘suppri- Antioch decided that the word should be suppressed*. We

mendam,
m αὕτη δὲ ἣ φωνὴ καὶ τὸ τοῦ Σαβελ- οὐ γὰρ αὐτὸ τί ἐστιν ἑαυτῷ ὁμοούσιον,
λίου κακὸν ἐπανορθοῦται᾽ ἀναιρεῖ γὰρ ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερον érépy.—[Ep. 111. 3. vol. iii.
τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς ὑποστάσεως, καὶ εἰσ- ν. 140.}
dyer τελείαν τῶν προσώπων τὴν ἔννοιαν"

the expression “ Of one Substance” was rejected at Antioch. 71

will quote his own words, which most clearly explain this whole
subject, but only in Latin, contrary to my custom, because the
extract is along one®. Athanasius then, in that work, after
shewing, that, prior to the synod of Antioch, the phrase “ of
one substance” had received the sanction of Dionysius,
bishop of Rome, and of a council of bishops assembled
under him at Rome to consider the case of Dionysius of
Alexandria, and had further been acknowledged also by that
Dionysius of Alexandria himself, afterwards proceeds to
treat fully of the discrepancy between the councils of

BOOK Il.
CHAP. I.
§ 9, 10.

[87]

Antioch and Nice®; “If, then, any one blames; the Nicene ! culpat.

bishops as having spoken contrary to what their predeces-

sors had decreed, he may also with (equal) justice? blame the ? εἰκότως

seventy (bishops)”” who were assembled at Antioch against
Paul of Samosata, as not “having kept to the statements of
their predecessors ; for such were the two Dionysii and the
(other) bishops, who were assembled on that occasion at Rome.
But it is not right to blame either these or those; for they

pari jure.

all cared for the things of Christ *, and all directed their zeal 3 ἐπρέ-

against the heretics. One party, indeed, condemned the
Samosatene, and the other the Arian, heresy; but both
these and those defined rightly and well according to the
matter before them. And as the blessed Apostle, in his
Epistle to the Romans, said, ‘the law is spiritual, the law is
holy; and the commandment holy and just and good;’ and
yet a little after added, ‘for what the law could not do, in
that it was weak,’ &c. . . . and yet no one would charge the
saint, on this account, with writing what was inconsistent
and contradictory, but would rather admire him as writing

" [The Greek is here supplied, see
the next note. |

° εἴπερ οὖν μέμφεταί τις τοῖς ἐν Ni-
καίᾳ συνελθοῦσιν, ὡς εἰρηκόσι παρὰ τὰ
δόξαντα τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, {The old read-
ing was ws εἰρηκόσι πάντα τὰ δόξαντα
τοῖς πρὸ αὐτῶν, which Bp. Bull, not
without cause, seems to have corrected
to ὡς μὴ εἰρηκόσι, x.7.A. The Bene-
dictine reading however is better, ὡς
εἰρηκόσι παρὰ τὰ δόξαντα.----Β. This has
been followed in the translation. Some
of the words added in the Latin version
of this extract given by Bull, are re-
tained in parentheses.} 6 αὐτὸς uéu-
Wait’ ἄν εἰκότως καὶ τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα,
ὅτι μὴ τὰ τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν ἐφύλαξαν' πρὸ

αὐτῶν γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ Διονύσιοι, καὶ οἱ ἐν

σβευον τὰ
Χριστοῦ
quee
Christi
sunt cura-
vere.

Rom. vii.
‘wa

Rom. viii.

Ῥώμῃ τὸ τηνικαῦτα συνελθόντες ἐπί- —

σκοποι. ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τούτους, οὔτε ἐκεί-
vous ὕσιον αἰτιάσασθαι" πάντες γὰρ ἐπρέ-
σβευον τὰ Χριστοῦ, καὶ πάντες σπουδὴν
ἐσχήκασι κατὰ τῶν αἱρετικῶν: καὶ of
μὲν τὸν Σαμοσατέα, οἱ δὲ τὴν ᾿Αρειανὴν
αἵρεσιν κατέκριναν. ὀρθῶς δὲ καὶ οὗτοι
κακεῖνοι, καὶ καλῶς πρὸς τὴν ὑποκειμένην
ὑπόθεσιν γεγράφασι. καὶ ὥσπερ ὃ μακά-
ριος ἀπόστολος Ῥωμαίοις μὲν ἐπιστέλ-
λων, ἔλεγεν, ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν"
καὶ 6 νόμος ἅγιος" καὶ, ἣ ἐντολὴ ἁγία,
καὶ δικαία, καὶ ἀγαθή καὶ μετ᾽ ὀλίγον,
τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει"
εἷς καὶ οὖικς ἄν τις αἰτιάσαιτο τὸν ἅγιον ὡς
ἐναντία καὶ μαχόμενα γράφοντα, ἀλλὰ

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 diversi-
mode.

2 Siavolay
mentem ac
senten-
tiam.

3 ἐκλαμβά-
VOVTES.

4 προηγου-
μένην.

ὅ γέννημα
ἐκ τῆς οὔ-
σιαξ.
ae

αὐτοαλη-
6ys, verum
undecum-
que.

7 ἐκ αὐτοῦ.

72 St. Athanasius on the apparent opposition of the

unto each suitably to the occasion, &c....; so also, if the
fathers of the two councils used different! expressions in
speaking of the term ‘of one substance,’ still we ought not
for that reason by any means to dissent from them, but to
search out their meaning and view’; by doing which we shall
certainly discover that both councils agree in opinion. For
they who deposed the Samosatene, apprehending * ‘ One sub-
stance’ in a corporeal sense ;—Paul (that is) wishing to so-
phisticate, and saying, ‘If Christ did not of man become
God, then is He of one substance with the Father ; whence
it necessarily follows, that there are three substances, one
which is prior‘, and the other two which have their origin
from it —on this account with good reason, guarding against
sophism such as this on the part of Paul, they said that Christ
was not ‘of one substance;’ for the Son is not so related to
the Father as he imagined. They, however, who anathema-
tized the Arian heresy, having perceived the craft of Paul,
and having considered that the expression ‘ of one substance’
has not this meaning, when applied to things incorporeal, and
especially to God; knowing, moreover, that the Word 15 not
a creature, but an offspring of the substance " [of the Father, |
and that the substance of the Father is the origin, root and
fountain of the Son; and He was the very true® likeness of
Him that begat; not as of separate growth, as we are, is He
parted from the Father: but as of Him’, a Son, He exists un-
divided ; as the radiance is to the light; and having likewise
before their eyes the illustrations of Dionysius, that of the foun-
tain for instance, and (what else is contained in) his Apology

καὶ μᾶλλον θαυμάσειεν ἁρμοζόντως πρὸς ρήκασι, μὴ εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμοούσιον.

ἑκάστους ἐπιστέλλοντα, K.T.A., .«. οὕτως
εἰ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν συνόδων οἱ πατέρες δια-
φόρως ἐμνημόνευσαν περὶ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου,
οὐ χρὴ πάντως ἡμᾶς διαφέρεσθαι πρὸς
αὐτοὺς, ἀλλὰ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐρευ-
νᾷν, καὶ πάντως εὐρήσομεν ἀμφοτέρων
τῶν συνόδων τὴν ὁμόνοιαν. of μὲν γὰρ
τὸν Σαμοσατέα καθελόντες, σωματικῶς
ἑκλαμβάνοντες τὸ ὁμοούσιον, τοῦ Παύ-
λου σοφίζεσθαί τε θέλοντος καὶ λέγον-
τος, εἰ μή ἐξ ἀνθρώπου γέγονεν ὃ Χρι-
στὺς Θεὺς, οὐκοῦν ὅμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ
πατρὶ, καὶ ἀνάγκη τρεῖς οὐσίας εἶναι,
μίαν μὲν προηγουμένην, τὰς δὲ δύο ἐξ
ἐκείνης. διὰ τοῦτ᾽ εἰκότως εὐλαβηθέντες
τὸ τοιοῦτο σόφισμα τοῦ Σαμοσατέως, εἰ-

3 PA nt “ 3
οὐκ ἔστι yap οὕτως ὃ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν πα-

/ ε 2 ~ > « \ \ >
τέρα, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἐνόει. οἱ δὲ THY ᾿Αρεια-
νὴν αἵρεσιν ἀναθεματίσαντες, θεωρήσαν-
τες τὴν πανουργίαν τοῦ Παύλου, καὶ
λογισάμενοι μὴ οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄσω-

U U > ”~ ς ,
μάτων, καὶ μάλιστα ἐπὶ Θεοῦ τὸ ὅμοού-
σιον σημαίνεσθαι, γινώσκοντές τε μὴ
κτίσμα, GAN ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας γέννημα
εἶναι τὸν λόγον, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πα-
τρὸς ἀρχὴν, καὶ ῥίζαν, καὶ πηγὴν εἶναι τοῦ
υἱοῦ: καὶ αὐτοαληθὴς ὁμοιότης ἣν τοῦ
γεννήσαντος, οὐχ ὡς ἑτεροφυὴς, ὡσπὲρ
ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν, χωριζόμενός ἐστι TOU TATpds,
ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ υἱὸς ἀδιαίρετος ὕπαρ-
χει, ὡς ἔστι τὸ ἀπαύγασμα πρὸς τὸ φῶς"
ἔχοντες δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ Διονύσιον παρα-

Councils of Antioch and Nice. 73

for the words ‘of one substance,’ and especially * that saying Βοοκ m.
of the Saviour, expressive of unity’, ‘I and the Father are ΣΥΝ
one,’ and, ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen My Father also ; Homoov-
on these grounds they also, with good reason, were led to 189]
declare? that the Son is ‘of one substance.’” He then after eee
a few words goes on to say; “ For since the Samosatene held τῶν impri-
that the Son was not before Mary, but received from her the eae
beginning of His being, on this account the assembled bishops cem, —
condemned the man as a heretic and deposed him; but touch- “eee
ing the Godhead of the Son, writing in simple fashion, they sunt ut di-
did not busy themselves about the exact meaning of the ex- ων
pression ‘of one substance ;’ but, as they apprehended? the

‘One substance,’ so did they speak of it; for they were only

intent on overthrowing what the Samosatene had devised,

and on setting forth that the Son was before all things,

and that He did not become God from being man, but being

God, He put on the form of a servant; and being the Word,

He became flesh, as St. John said. And thus was the blas-

phemy of Paul dealt with. But when the party of Euse-

bius and Arius taught that the Son was indeed before all

time, yet that He was made, and was one of the creatures ;

and as to the expression, ‘Of God,’ did not believe it in the

sense that He was the true Son of the Father, but affirmed

that to be ‘of God’ held good of Him in the same sense as

_of the creatures; and, as to the oneness of likeness of the

Son to the Father, did not confess that it is in respect of es-

sence” or nature, that the Son is like the Father, but is on ὅ οὔσιας
account of the agreement of doctrines and of teaching; nay ον

4 ἐξειλή-
φασι.

δείγματα, τὴν πηγὴν, καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ
ὁμοουσίου ἀπολογίαν" πρὸ δὲ τούτων τὴν
τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἑνοειδὴ φωνήν ἐγὼ καὶ
6 πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν᾽ καὶ, ὃ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ,
ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα τούτου ἔνεκεν εἰκό-
τως εἰρήκασι καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν υἱὸν
νον ἐπειδὴ yap ὃ Σαμοσατεὺς ἐφρόνει
μὴ εἶναι πρὸ Μαρίας τὸν υἱὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπ’
αὐτῆς ἀρχὴν ἐσχηκέναι τοῦ εἶναι, τούτου
ἕνεκεν οἱ τότε συνελθόντες, καθεῖλον μὲν
αὐτὸν καὶ αἱρετικὸν ἀπέφῃναν᾽ περὶ δὲ τῆς
τοῦ υἱοῦ θεότητος ἁπλούστερον γράφον-
τες, οὐ κατεγένοντο περὶ τὴν τοῦ ὁμο-
ουσίου ἀκρίβειαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ὡς ἐξειλή-
φασι περὶ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου εἰρήκασι τὴν
φροντίδα γὰρ εἶχον πᾶσαν, ὅπερ ἐπενό-
σεν ὃ Σαμοσατεὺς, ἀνελεῖν, καὶ δεῖξαι,

πρὸ πάντων εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν, καὶ ὅτι οὐκ
ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γέγονε Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ Θεὸς ὧν,
ἐνεδύσατο δούλου μορφήν᾽ καὶ λόγος ὧν,
γέγονε σάρξ, ὡς εἶπεν ᾿Ιωάννης᾽ καὶ οὔτω
μὲν κατὰ τῆς βλασφημίας Παύλου πέ-
πρακται. ἐπειδὴ δὲ οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον καὶ
Αρειον, πρὸ χρόνων μὲν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν
ἔλεγον, πεποιῆσθαι μέντοι, καὶ ἕνα τῶν
κτισμάτων αὐτὸν ἐδίδασκον, καὶ τὸ, ἐκ
τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐχ ὡς υἱὸν éx πατρὸς γνή-
σιον, ἐπίστευον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὰ κτίσματα,
οὕτω καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι
διαβεβαιοῦντο, τήν τε ὁμοιώσεως ἑνότητα
τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, οὐκ ἔλεγον
κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, οὔδε κατὰ τὴν φύσιν,
ὡς ἔστιν υἱὸς ὅμοιος πατρὶ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν
συμφωνίαν τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τῆς διδα-

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA=

LITY OF
THE SON.

1 συναγά-
yovTes.

[90]
2 χευκότε-
ρον &ypa-
wav.

3 γενητὰ.

4 ὑφαρπά-
Covel.

5 de preco-
ΠΟ F, N.
promul-
gato.

74. Importance of adhering to the term “ Of one Substance.”

and also severed off, and made entirely alien the substance of
the Son from the Father, devising for Him another origin of
being, and bringing Him down to the number of the crea-
tures: on this account the bishops who assembled at Nice,
having perceived the craftiness of those who held this opinion,
and having brought together’ the sense out of the Scrip-
tures, used the phrase ‘of one substance’ to express it more
clearly 2, in order that by this the truth and genuineness of
His Sonship might be known, and that created beings * might
have nothing in common with Him. For the precision of
this term both detects their hypocrisy, if they use the formula
‘of God,’ and also excludes all their plausible arguments,
whereby they seduce‘ the simple-minded. At any rate, they
are able to put a sophistical construction upon, and to change
the meaning of all other words as they please; this phrase
only, as detecting their heresy, they dread; which very phrase
the fathers set down as a bulwark against all their impious
speculations.” Thus far the great Athanasius.

11. He is, moreover, supported in his views by the great
Basil, in his three hundredth Epistle; where, having spoken
of the publication’ of the Nicene Creed, he subjoins the fol-
lowing words‘; “Of this the other portions indeed are alto-
gether incapable of being assailed by calumny; but the
word ὁμοούσιος, having been used in a wrong sense by
some, there are persons who have not yet accepted it.
These one might with justice blame, and yet again, on
second thoughts, they might be deemed excusable; for, al-
though a refusal to follow the fathers and to consider the
word adopted by them, as of more authority than one’s own

σκαλίας, ἀλλὰ γὰρ Kal ἀπεσχοίνιζον καὶ
ἀπεξενοῦντο παντελῶς τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ
υἱοῦ arb τοῦ πατρὺς, ἑτέραν ἀρχὴν
αὐτῷ τοῦ εἶναι ἐπινοοῦντες, καὶ εἰς τὰ
κτίσματα καταφέροντες αὐτόν᾽ τούτου
χάριν οἱ ἐν Nixaig συνελθόντες, θεωρή-
σαντες τὴν πανουργίαν τῶν οὕτω φρο-
νούντων, καὶ συνάγαγοντες ἐκ τῶν γρα-
φῶν τὴν διάνοιαν, λευκότερον γράφοντες,
εἰρήκασι τὸ ὁμοούσιον" ἵνα καὶ τὸ γνή-
σιον ἀληθῶς ἐκ τούτου γνωσθῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ,
καὶ μηδὲν κοινὸν ἔχῃ πρὸς τοῦτον τὰ γε-
νητά-' ἢ γὰρ τῆς λέξεως ταύτης ἀκρίβεια,

τὴν τε ὑπόκρισιν αὐτῶν, ἑὰν λέγωσι τὸ
€k τοῦ Θεοῦ ῥητὸν, διελέγχει. καὶ πάσας
αὐτῶν τὰς πιθανότητας, ἑν αἷς ὑφαρπά-

ζουσι τοὺς ἀκεραίους, ἐκβάλλει. πάντα
γοῦν δυνάμενοι σοφίζεσθαι καὶ μετα-
ποιεῖν, ὡς θέλουσι, ταύτην μόνην τὴν λέ-
tiv, ὡς διελέγχουσαν. αὐτῶν τὴν αἵρεσιν,
δεδίασιν" ἣν οἱ πατέρες, ὡσπὲρ ἐπιτεί-
χισμα κατὰ πάσης ἀσεβοῦς ἐπινοίας ad-~
τῶν, éypapov.—Athan., tom. i. pp. 919,
920. edit. Paris. 1627. [ἢ 45. vol. i. p.
758. |

4 οὗ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα παντάπασιν ἐστὶν
ἀσυκοφάντητα, τὴν δὲ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου
φωνὴν, κακῶς παρά τινων ἐκληφθεῖσαν,
εἰσί τινες of μήπω παραδεξάμενοι. ovs
καὶ μέμψαιτ᾽ ἄν τις δικαίως, καὶ πάλιν
μέν τοι συγγνώμης αὐτοὺς ἀξιώσειεν.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ πατράσι μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν, καὶ

St. Basil on the prejudice against the phrase. 75

opinion, be deserving of blame, as fraught with wilfulness; soox n.
still on the other hand, the suspecting it, in consequence o § 10-12,
its having had an ill name given it! by others, seems in some Homoov,
measure to exonerate them from that blame. For, in truth, ἜΤΕΙ

A διαβλη-
they who were assembled in the matter of Paul of Samosata, ρείσαν.
did give an ill name? to this word, as not conveying a good ? διέβαλον.
meaning’; for they said that the term ὁμοούσιος, ‘of one 3oax εὕση-
substance,’ suggests the idea of a substance and the things “”
which are formed from it; so as that the substance being
divided into parts, gives the appellation ‘of one substance’
to the things into which it is divided. And this notion
has some force’ in the case of metal, and the pieces of
money made from it; but in the instance of God the
Father and God the Son, there is not contemplated any
substance elder than or overlying‘ both; for to think or 4 πρεσβύ-
assert this were something beyond impiety.” You per- Ha
ceive that in these words Basil expressly testifies, that #7-
the word ὁμοούσιος was rejected by the fathers of Antioch [91]
only so far as it seemed to denote a certain divine sub- 99
stance anterior to the Father and the Son, which was sub-
sequently divided into the Father and the Son. Now it
is most clear, that neither Paul of Samosata nor Sabellius
confessed the doctrine “of one substance’ in this sense.
It therefore follows, that the assertion of Athanasius is
quite true, that Paul framed an argument for impugning
the divinity of Christ out of the word ὁμοούσιος, which he
was aware was in use among Catholics, (and possibly so ex-
plained by some of them, as to give occasion to its being
spoken ill of,) and that the fathers, accordingly, determined
on the suppression of it altogether.

12. And this view of the case receives no little confirma-
tion from the history of the Nicene council. It is, I mean,

[92]

τὴν ἐκείνων φωνὴν κυριωτέραν τίθεσθαι προσηγορίαν τοῖς εἰς ἃ διῃρέθη. τοῦτο δὲ

τῆς ἑαυτῶν γνώμης, ἐγκλήματος ἄξιον,
ὡς αὐθαδείας γέμον᾽ τὸ δὲ πάλιν ὑφ᾽ ἑτέ-
ρων διαβληθεῖσαν αὐτὴν ὕποπτον ἔχειν,
τοῦτό πως δοκεῖ τοῦ ἐγκλήματος αὐτοὺς
μετρίως ἐλευθεροῦν. καὶ γὰρ τῷ ὄντι οἱ
ἐπὶ Παύλῳ τῷ Σαμοσατεῖ συνελθόντες
διέβαλον τὴν λέξιν, ὡς οὐκ εὔσημον.
ἔφασαν γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι, τὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου
φωνὴν παριστᾷν ἔννοιαν οὐσίας τε καὶ
τῶν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς, ὥστε καταμερισθεῖσαν
τὴν οὐσίαν παρέχειν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου τὴν

ἐπὶ χαλκοῦ μὲν καὶ τῶν an’ αὐτοῦ νομι-
σμάτων ἔχει τινὰ λόγον τὸ διανόημα"
ἐπὶ δὲ Θεοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ Θεοῦ υἱοῦ, οὐκ
οὐσία πρεσβυτέρα οὐδ᾽ ὑπερκειμένη ἀμ-
φοῖν θεωρεῖται" ἀσεβείας γὰρ ἐπέκεινα
τοῦτο καὶ νοῆσαι καὶ φθέγξασθαι.--- ΟΡ.
Basilii, tom, iii, p. 292. [Ep. lii. 1.
p. 145.]

τ Hoe quidem verissimum est, &c.,
is the Latin translation.

ΟΝ THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[93]

1 Kata τὰ
τῶν σωμά-
των πάθη.
2 ὑποστῆ-
ναι.

8 κατὰ.

76 Confirmed by Eusebius’ account of the discussions at Nice,

altogether probable, that the word ὁμοούσιος was rejected
by the fathers of Antioch for the very same reason, for
which it was also disliked by certain catholic bishops at the
council of Nice, that is to say, at first, before the other
bishops and Constantine himself explained the word more
distinctly. Now what was that reason? Was it because
the word in question favoured the opinions of the Samo-
satene or Sabellius; or that those two heretics had em-
ployed it in explaining their heresy? Nothing is further
from the truth. The actual reason was, because, on the
contrary, the word appeared to some to imply that partition
of the divine essence, which I just now mentioned; this is
expressly declared by Eusebius Pamphili, in his letter to
his diocese of Cesarea, respecting the Nicene council, in the
following words® ; “After they had dictated this formula,” (i.e

the formula of faith now called the Nicene Creed,) ‘“ we did
not pass over without examination their expressions, ‘of the
substance of the Father,’ and ‘of one substance with the
Father’ In consequence many questions and answers arose
on these points, and the meaning of the terms was tested by
discussion; and in particular it was admitted by them, that the
expression ‘of the substance,’ was intended to signify that
the Son is indeed of the Father, but yet does not exist as a
part of the Father. And as to these points it seemed to us also
right to assent to the meaning.” Previously, in the same let-
ter, Eusebius had said that Constantine himself satisfied some
of the bishops who raised a question about the expression, “ of
one substance,” by these words‘; that “he did not use the
words ‘of one substance’ with reference to what takes place
in the case of bodies', nor yet that the Son subsisted 2, either
by way of? division or any kind of abscission from the Father ;
inasmuch as it was not possible that the immaterial, intel-

. καὶ δὴ ταύτης τῆς γραφῆς ὑπ᾽ ab-
τῶν ὑπαγορευθείσης. ὅπως εἴρηται αὐτοῖς
τὸ ἐκ THs οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τὸ τῷ
Πατρὶ ὁμοούσιον, οὐκ ἀνεξέταστον αὐ-
τοῖς καταλιμπάνομεν. ἐπερωτήσεις τοι-
γαροῦν καὶ ἀποκρίσεις. ἐντεῦθεν ἀνεκι-
νοῦντο, ἐβασάνιζέν τε ὃ λόγος τὴν διά-
νοιαν τῶν εἰρημένων" καὶ δὴ καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς
οὐσίας ὡμολόγ NTO πρὸς αὐτῶν δηλωτικὸν
εἶναι τοῦ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι, οὐ μὴν
ὡς μέρος ὑπάρχειν τοῦ Πατρός. ταῦτα δὲ
καὶ ἡμῖν ἐδόκει καλῶς ἔχειν συν κατατί-

θεσθαι τῇ διανοίᾳ [ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς διδασκα-
λίας, κ.τ.λ.7-- Apud Socrat. Eccl. Hist.
1 8: ΠὈ 2 A

* Ort μὴ κατὰ τὰ τῶν σωμάτων πάθη
λέγοι τὸ ὁμοούσιον, οὔτε οὖν κατὰ διαί-
ρεσιν, οὔτε κατά τινα ἀποτομὴν ἐκ τοῦ
Πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι. μήτε γὰρ δύνασθαι
τὴν ἄῦλον, καὶ νοερὰν, καὶ ἀσώματον φύ-
σιν σωματικόν TL πάθος ὑφίστασθαι" θεί-
ois δὲ καὶ ἀπορρήτοις ῥήμασι προσήκει.
τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν.---ἰ Ibid. |

as to the words “ Of one Substance.” Views of Sabellius. 77

lectual, and incorporeal nature should be the subject of any
corporeal affection; but of divine and mysterious terms it
is fit that we conceive in like manner,” [1. 6. in divine and

BOOK II.
CHAP. I.
12.

Homoou-

mysterious thoughts.] Lastly, before the time of Paul of *'°™

Samosata, Sabellius also had himself denied the genera-
tion of the Son, into a distinct Person, of God the Father
Himself, i.e. His being “of one substance,” for the same
reason, namely, that there would thence follow a division,
and a cutting asunder, as it were, of the Divine Substance ;
as Alexander informs us, not obscurely, in a letter to his
namesake, the bishop of Constantinople, given in Theodo-
ret; where he says that the Son" “was begotten, not out
of what is not’, but of the Father who Is; not after the
likeness of [material] bodies, by cuttings off, or by stream-
ings off, which imply division, as Sabellius fancies.” These
words of Alexander admit plainly of a twofold meaning.
Hither, first, that Sabellius himself supposed that the Son
was begotten of God the Father, after the manner of [ma-
terial] bodies, by a cutting into or partition of the Father’s
substance; or secondly, that that heretic thought that such
a partition of the Father’s substance necessarily resulted
from the view of the Catholics, who taught that the Son
was so begotten of the very substance of the Father as to be
a distinct Person? from the Father, and that on that account

he rejected that catholic doctrine. The former of these

senses is altogether absurd, since it is known to every one
that Sabellius taught that God is one Person only*; and that
he recognised no real distinction of Persons in the Divine
Essence, much less a partition thereof. It remains, then,
that we must certainly take the words in the other sense.
And indeed the earliest forerunners of Sabellius, whose
heresy is stated and refuted by Justin Martyr, (in his Dia-
logue with Trypho,) opposed a distinction of Persons in the
Godhead by the same argument, as we shall afterwards shew*,
where we treat of the doctrine of Justin. Nay, it is certain
that all the heretics who have ever denied a distinct sub-
sistence of the Son of God in the Divine Essence, (whether

a γεννηθέντα οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος, αβελλίῳ Soxet.—Eccl. Hist. i. 4 p.
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος Πατρὸς, οὐ κατὰ Tas 17. edit. Valesii. [p. 18.
τῶν σωμάτων ὁμοιότητας, ταῖς τομαῖς ἢ x See chap. iv. sect. 4. of this Book.
ταῖς ἐκ διαιρέσεων ἀπορροίαις, ὥσπερ

1 > > a
οὐκ ἐκ TOU
μὴ ὄντος.

[94]

2 hyposta-
sis.

3 μονοπρόσ-
ωποϑ.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[95]

1.
εναντιο-

paveias.

78 Bp. Bull’s opinion as to the true way of reconciling the

they were Sabellians, followers of the Samosatene, or, lastly,
Arians,) have invariably placed the chief support of their
cause on this very sophism. And I have no doubt that the
Nicene fathers wished to counteract this wrong conception
of the doctrine of the “ consubstantiality” of the Son, when
(after saying that the Son is “begotten of the substance of
the Father”) they subjoined immediately, “ God of God, light
of light.” For by these words they signify that the Son of
God is so begotten of God the Father, God of God, as light
is kindled of another light; not by a partition or diminution
of the Father’s essence, but by a simple communication, such
as (if any illustration of so great a mystery may be derived
from things material) is the communication of light from
another light, without any division or diminution of it.

13. And thus after carefully weighing every thing, we are
led to the decided opinion, that the following is the most sim-
ple way of reconciling this apparent contradiction! between

‘the councils of Antioch and Nice. The Catholics before the

time of Paul of Samosata, and the council convened at An-
tioch against him, were accustomed to say, in discoursing of
the Godhead of the Father and the Son, that the Son is “ of
one substance” with the Father; as is abundantly proved by
the testimonies of the ancient authors prior to the council of
Antioch, which we have alleged before. Paul, however, in
striving by every means to overthrow the received doctrine
of the divinity of the Son, employed a sophistical argument,
derived from a wrong understanding of the meaning of the
expression “ of one substance :” as thus: Ifthe Son be of one
substance with the Father, as you (Catholics) say, it will fol-
low, that the Divine Substance is, as it were, severed into
two parts, whereof one constitutes the Father, and the other
the Son; and thus that there existed a certain Divine Sub-
stance, anterior to the Father and the Son, which afterwards
was distributed into those two. The fathers of the council
of Antioch with good reason abhorred this interpretation of
the word; and therefore, not carimg much about words in
a question of such moment, they were content to suppress |
the term itself in silence, in order to cut off all occasion
for the cavils of the heretics, provided only that the thing
was agreed on, i.e. the true divinity of the Son. When,

apparent opposition of the two Synods (Antioch and Nice.) 79

however, the Arians afterwards denied the thing itself, which xoox m.
is really represented in the word, that is to say, the true § 12, 13.
divinity of the Son, and adduced (as is probable) the de- Homoov- -
finition of the fathers of Antioch to screen their heresy, the ΜΝ" 6]
bishops assembled at Nice with good reason formally re-

called (as from exile!), and inserted in their Creed, this most ' quasi_
fittmg expression, which, as they were aware, had been re- tug
ceived and approved by holy fathers prior to the council of
Antioch, and which Catholics had then had taken from them,
simply on account of the absurd cavils of the impious Sa-
mosatene; such an explanation being added in the Creed

itself, as no one but an heretic could reject. This will

be sufficient before fair judges to vindicate the venerable
fathers of Nice for adding the word ὁμοούσιος to their Creed ;

an additional reason, however, is given by Athanasius, in

the fore-cited passage, and that with great truth; to the

effect that the most holy fathers were by a kind of neces-

sity, driven to place that word in their confession of faith,
(although it nowhere occurs in the Scriptures, and even

had, on somewhat slight grounds, been rejected by some of

their predecessors,) driven that is to say, by reason of the

“ unprincipled cunning’®” of the Arians, such as can hardly ? τὴν πα-
be believed, and such as all good men must simply detest, or ”°”?7'™
(to use another expression of Athanasius’) “the wickedness ? ? τὴν ka-
and evil artifice of their impiety.” For those eminent mas- a ae
ters of pretence and dissimulation did not reject any one form Ae oe
of speech, which the Catholics had adopted and used, either out τεχνίαν.
of Scripture or from tradition, with the sole exception of the

word ὁμοούσιος ; as being a word of which the precision and
exactness precluded all attempt at equivocation. When they

were asked whether they acknowledged that the Son was
begotten of the Father Himself+? they used to assent, under- ‘ ex ipso
standing, as is plain, the Son to be of God in such sense as 74"
all creatures are of God, that is, have the beginning of their
existence from Him. When the Catholics enquired of them
whether they confessed that the Son of God was God, they
forthwith answered, Most certainly. Nay more, they used of 5 ultro
their own accord openly to declare® that the Son of God is ea ah
true God*®. But in what sense? Forsooth being made true ° ἀληθινὸν

' ᾿ Θεὸν.
) Y [Epist. ad Afric. § 7. vol. i. p. 93.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[97]

1 δία τοῦ
λόγου.

80 Confirmed by statements of Athanasius and Ambrose.

[God], He is true [God]; that is, He is true God who
was truly made God’. Lastly, when they were charged by
the Catholics with asserting that the Son of God is a creature,
they would repel the charge not without some indignation : ᾿
with the secret reservation of its being in this sense, that the
Son of God is not a creature, as all other creatures are; they
being created by God mediately through the Word ', not im-
mediately, as the Word Himself. ‘The word ὁμοούσιος, “ of
one substance,” was the only expression which they could not
in any way reconcile with their heresy. Read by all means
what Athanasius has written on this subject, in his letter to
the African bishops, given by Theodoret, (Eccl. Hist. 1. 8 ;)

where this is especially to be observed, that Athanasius asserts

that the Nicene fathers had designed to construct the con-
fession of their faith from passages of Scripture exclusively ;
and that they would have carried this into effect, had they
not been diverted from their purpose by the impious and
abominable cunning of the Arians in perverting and wrest-
ing the words of the sacred oracles, of which they had full
proof before their eyes. As to the observation of Atha-
nasius, that the expression ὁμοούσιος, “ of one substance,”
was the one word upon which the Arians could not put any
false colour, it is remarkably confirmed by Ambrose, (in his
treatise On the Divinity of the Son, c. 4,) in these words ®:
“Tn short, even now they might (so far as the word is con-
cerned) use the phrase ὁμοούσιος, as they have all others
also, if they knew how to pervert it to another meaning by
putting a distorted sense on it; but perceiving themselves to
be shut up by this word, they wished that no mention at all
should be made of it [inthe Creed.”] And, in fact, the com-
plete truth of this declaration of Athanasius and Ambrose is
abundantly attested by the various and manifold confessions
of the Arians, (as they are recorded by Athanasius himself in
his treatise On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, and by
Hilary in his fork On the Councils against the Arians, and

* γενόμενος ἀληθινὸς, ἀληθινός ἐστιν. _telligentiam sczvo sensu perverterent.
i.e. Verus est Deus, qui vere factus est Sed cum viderent, se in hoc verbo con-
Deus. cludi, nullam omnino hujus mentionem

@ Denique et nunc possent ὁμοούσιον, _fieri voluerunt.—[ Several critics deny
sicut et cetera, verbo tenus nominare, that this work is by Ambrose. Vol. il.
si haberent quomodo illud ad aliam in- Append., p. 851.—B.]

The Nicene Bps. not ignorant of the decision at Antioch. 81

by other writers ;) inasmuch as in these confessions the word Βοοκ 11.
ὁμοούσιος, “ of one substance,” is uniformly omitted, although Ἢ 13,1 *
well-nigh all the other statements’ of the Catholics concern- Yoyoou-
ing the Son of God are found in them. So that the Arian fana- 510 Ν.
tics, in burning with such excessive fury against that word, ee
seem to me to act like mad dogs, that snarl at the iron chains
by which they are confined, and attempt in vain to break
them with their teeth.

14. For the rest; we are by no means to listen to Stephen
Curcellzeus”, who could affirm without a blush, that “ the in-
sertion of the word ὁμοούσιος into the confession of faith by
the Nicene bishops, as a watchword of orthodoxy, after it had
been excluded from it as heretical by the council of Antioch
sixty years before, happened through an oversight, in that the
bishops who met at Nice had heard nothing of the decree of
Antioch; and that afterwards when it came to their know-
ledge, after the council was dissolved, it was no longer open? ?integrum.
to them to make any alteration.” For what man that is in
his senses, and (to use an expression of Curcelleus’) that
has not been possessed by a spirit of dizziness, would think
it likely, that out of three hundred and eighteen bishops,
of whom some (as we have before seen from Eusebius)
were remarkable for learning, and others also venerable from
their advanced age, there should not be one who knew what
had been decreed in a very celebrated council, of which the
remembrance was yet fresh. But even supposing we were
to allow as a concession to Curcelleus, that all the rest of the
prelates were so ignorant of the history of the Church, it was
at any rate quite impossible that Eusebius, bishop of Ce-
sarea, should have been unacquainted with this fact ; seeing
that he was a man, beyond all controversy, most thoroughly
acquainted with ecclesiastical matters. What is to be said
to the fact that Athanasius, who, as it has been said before,
was himself present and taking a part in the Nicene council,
expressly testifies, in the passage above quoted, that the
fathers assembled at Nice thoroughly understood the craft [99]
of Paul’, that is, of Paul of Samosata, in procuring by his ὃ τὴν παν-
sophistry, among the bishops at Antioch, the throwing aside VOT".
of a most apt expression, which had been of old in use among λον.

> Quatern. Dissertat., Dissert. i. p. 188. [δ 71. p. 852. Op., ed. 1675. ]
BULL. G

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

! figmen-
tum.

2 Historie
Ecclesias-
tice

enucleate.

[100]

82 The assertion, that the word was derived from heretics,

the Catholic doctors ; and that, in consequence, they had re-
called it again into the use of the Church. Nothing could
have been said more express than this against the fabrica-
tion ' of Curcelleus.

15. But before we bring to a close our enquiry respecting
the word “of one substance,” we must once more briefly meet
a statement of Sandius, who in the first book® of his “ Ecclesi-
astical History laid open?,” maintains, that the word ὁμοού-
σιος was first fabricated by heretics, that is to say, by the
Valentinians and other Gnostics; from whom the phrase was
afterwards taken up by Montanus, Theodotus, Sabellius,
Paul of Samosata, and the Manichees; and alleges that this
is witnessed to by Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, and
others. I ask him what his meaning is, when he says
that this word was first fabricated by the Valentinians and
other Gnostics. Does he mean this, that the Gnostics were
the first to devise the Greek word, and to bring it into use?
I suppose he was not so utterly foolish as this. At any rate,
as has been already shewn, the heathen writers among the
Greeks used the very same word. Or did he mean that the
Gnostics used that word respecting some of their Hons? We
allow that they did; and no more than this is attested by
Irenzus and other Catholic writers®. But what of that?
Surely these same Gnostics also applied to their Mons the
words λόγος, σωτήρ, TapaKAynTos, and very many others
which were in use among the Catholics in speaking of the
divine Persons. Are we then, on this account, to say, that the
Gnostics were the first to invent them? and are the words,
on this ground, to be excluded from use in the Church?
Certainly not. The remark of Tertullian is to the purpose,
(against Praxeas, chap.8°;) “ The truth does not refrain from
the use of a word, because heresy also uses it. Nay, heresy
has rather borrowed it from the truth, to frame it into her own
counterfeit.” Lastly, was this what πὸ meant, that the Gnos-
tics were the first to teach that the Word, or Son of God, was

a p. 122.

> See above, § 2.

© Non ideo, inquit, non utatur et veri-
tas vocabulo [isto (sc. προβολὴν) et re
et censu ejus, } quia et heresis (utitur,
imo heresis] potius ex veritate accepit,
quod ad mendacium suum strueret.

[p. 504. The Latin is given in full;
the words in brackets were omitted by
Bp. Bull, and “ utatur’’ altered to “ uti-
tur; the words “utitur, imo heresis’’
have been restored in the translation, to
complete the sense. ]

refuted ; Montanus orthodox on this doctrine. 83

of one substance with God the Father? He must surely Βοοκ n.
allow, either that this was his meaning in the passage I have 5 4 1 5.
cited, or that his observations were not at all to the point. qomoouv-
Now, this is entirely false; neither Irenzus, nor any one of 5195.
the ancient writers makes such a statement. On the contrary,

it is most certain that the Gnostics (I mean, the Cerinthians,
Valentinians, &c.) entirely denied the consubstantiality of

the Logos, i. e. of the Word, or Son of God; and were on

that account condemned by the Catholics who wrote against

them, as guilty of heresy. Indeed they separated the Logos

so far from the essence of the most high God, the Father

of all, that that Alon was totally ignorant of that his first
parent; as we learn from Irenzeus, Tertullian, and others.

So they also denied the coeternity’ of the Word, affirming ! τὸ cwat-
that Silence preceded the Word; and that, consequently, ie
there was a time when the Word did not exist at all; and

from this cause also they were vehemently opposed by the

most ancient Catholic doctors of the Church. In a word, the

heresy, which was afterwards called the Arian, had the Gnos-

tics for its first authors and parents; as we shall most clearly

prove in a subsequent portion of the work*. Of Sabellius

and Paul of Samosata, I have already said what may suflice.

With regard to Montanus, by what argument will Sandius

prove that he was heretical on the article of the most holy
Trinity ? His authorities are Socrates, i. 23, and Sozomen,

1. 18. They associate Montanus with Sabellius, as thinking

alike on the doctrine of the most holy Trinity. But let us [101]
hear what the excellent Valesius® has observed on the pas-

sage in Socrates; “It is not clear,” he says, “‘why Socrates

joins Montanus and Sabellius together; for we have the 36
testimony of Epiphanius, (On the Heresy of the Montanists,)

and of Theodoret, (in his third book On the Fables of the
Heretics,) that Montanus himself made no innovation in

the doctrine of the Trinity, but adhered to the faith of the
Catholic Church; some of his followers, however, did away

with the distinction of persons, with Sabellius, as Theo-

doret in the passage cited above expressly writes‘, ‘Certain

4 See book iii. 1. § 15, 16. olws ἠρνήσαντο, τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι λέγοντες
¢ Notes on Socrat., p. 14. [p. 57.] καὶ πατέρα, καὶ υἱὸν, καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.
f τινὲς δὲ αὐτῶν τὰς τρεῖς ὑποστά- —Theodoret. Heret. Fab. iii. 2. vol. iv.

σεις τῆς θεότητος Σαβελλίῳ παραπλη- . 227.
9
α

84 Various statements of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,

ΟΝ ΤῊ of them, almost in the same way as Sabellius, denied the
srantia. three Persons of the Godhead, alleging that the Father, the
caulaba Son, and the Holy Ghost are the same person'’.’” ΤῸ the
Pores observations of Valesius I will add this also; Tertullian in his
εἶναι. treatise against Praxeas, (a work which was certainly written

by him after he had become a Montanist,) most strenuously
? scilicet. assailed the heresy which Sabellius embraced ; for’ Praxeas
entertained the very same opinions as Sabellius afterwards
[did.] It is, therefore, more than certain, that neither Mon-
tanus himself, nor his earliest followers, entertained the same
views as Sabellius on the doctrine of the Trinity. If San-
dius had understood this, he might easily have corrected his
many mistakes in the first book of his Hist. Eccl. Enucl., in
which he treats of Montanus and his heresy. But what, 1
ask, is the meaning of Sandius, in enumerating Theodotus
among the upholders of the word “of one substance.” Does
he mean Theodotus the Tanner, who in the time of Pope
3 ψιλὸν ἄν- Victor taught that Christ was a mere man*? But what an-
Speer. cient writer, nay what human being, before Sandius, main-
tained that Theodotus ever dreamt of the consubstantiality of

[102] the Son? Then, with respect to the Manichees, Augustine in-

deed states, (as Sandius afterwards quotes him, when he is
treating of those heretics,) that they acknowledged the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be of a nature not unequal.
Be it so. But what then? Sandius may sooner draw water
from a pumice-stone, than hammer out of these facts any
thing to suit his purpose! Meanwhile, it is no great merit
in the Manichees to confess that the three Persons of the
Godhead are of a nature not unequal ; for (according to San-
dius’ own statement) they thought that angels also, and the
souls of men had their existence of the divine substance.
And thus far of the word ὁμοούσιος, “of one substance.”
Let us now deal with the thing itself.

16. We affirm that it was the concordant and uniform
view of the Catholic doctors, who flourished in the first three
centuries, that the Son of God is, in the aforesaid sense, of
one substance with God the Father; that is, that He is
not of any created or mutable essence, but of altogether the
same divine and unchangeable nature with His Father; and

4tradunt, therefore is true God. The ancient writers, indeed, teach +

which all imply the doctrine ‘ of One’ Substance.’ 85

this doctrine in many different ways. 1. They teach the doc- Βοοκ τι.
trine “of one substance,” so often as they affirm that the ἢ 15, 16.
Son of God is put forth and begotten, not only by the Fa- Homoov-
ther’, but of Him. For that is a most certain axiom, Τὸ ἜΠΗ
ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθὲν, Θεός ἐστιδ, “What is begotten οἵ sed οχ ipso,
God, is God.” 2. They teach the same, so often as they eee
declare that the Son is the true, genuine, proper, and na-

tural Son of God the Father. 3. The very same do they
declare by the similes with which they are accustomed, as

best they may, to illustrate the generation of the Son.

They say that the Son is begotten of? the Father, as a2 generari
tree proceeds out of the root, a stream out of the foun- “ἧ᾿
tain, a ray out of the sun. But the root and the tree, the
fountain and the stream, the light in the disc of the sun and

that in the ray, are clearly of the same nature; so are the

Father and the Son of altogether the same substance. But

you will find no simile, in which the fathers take more [103]
delight, than in that of ight out of light, as when fire is
kindled οὐδ fire, or the beam put forth* out of the sun. ex.
Hence the Nicene prelates in their creed inserted that ex- : Lege
pression φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, “ Light of Light,” in illustration of

the article ‘‘ of one substance.” 4. They most openly confirm

the doctrine “of one substance,” when (as they all do) they

except the Son of God from the number of created beings,

and expressly deny that He is a creature; for there is nothing
midway between God and a creature. 5. They affirm the

same, so often as they ascribe to the Son of God attributes

which belong to the true God only. 6. Lastly, they teach

this very truth, so often as they explicitly pronounce the Son

of God to be not only God, but true God also, God by na-

ture, one God with the Father. In most of the fathers all

these arguments for the consubstantiality may be found;

whilst most of them occur in all. But let us now hear them

speak for themselves.

5. [Irenzeus, i. 8. 5. p. 41.]

ON THE
" CONSUB=
STANTIA-

LITY OF
THE SON.

1 cecono-
miam.

2 per ipsum
et propter
ipsum.

[104]

3 in ipsum.

86 Testimony of St. Barnabas.

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.

I wixu begin with the apostolic writers. The author of the
Epistle which bears the name of Barnabas, in the passages
which we have cited before" in proof of the pre-existence of
the Son of God, remarkably declares His true Godhead also.
For therein he calls the Son of God “ Lord of the whole earth ;”
and that antecedently (as they express it) to that dispensa-
tion’, which He vouchsafed to undertake for our salvation ;
he says also, that the glory of Jesus is so great, that “through
Him and for Him are all things” :” that is, by Him, as the effi-
cient cause, all things are made, and to Him’, as their end, all.
things are referred; which certainly cannot, without blas-
phemy, be said of any creature. To this may be added a
remarkable passage in the sixth section of the same Epistle ;
where he teaches that the Lord, who foreknew all things,
for this reason said that He would take away from His peo-
ple their heart of stone, and would put into them a new
heart of flesh; “ because! He was about to be manifested in
the flesh, and to dwell in us; for the habitation of our heart,
my brethren, is a holy temple to the Lord;” where he is
speaking expressly of the Lord, who manifested Himself in
the flesh, or the nature of man, that is, of the Son of God;
and declares that He is the Lord, who hath His dwelling
in the hearts of the saints, as in temples consecrated unto
God. Now these expressions so clearly set forth the divine
majesty and omnipresence of the Son, as to require no expla-
nation from me; and there are several other passages of the
like import, which you may read throughout the same Epistle.

2. Hermas,a writer whose antiquity and authority we have

h i. 2. 2. [p. 86.] ἀδελφοί μου, τῷ Κυρίῳ τὸ κατοικητήριον

i ὅτι ἔμελλεν ἐν σαρκὶ φανεροῦσθαι, ἡμῶν τῆς καρδία“.---». 222. [p. 19.]
καὶ ἐν huiv κατοικεῖν. ναὸς γὰρ ἅγιος,

Testimonies from the Shepherd of Hermas. 87

already * abundantly established, delivers most plainly the soox n.
same doctrine. For besides teaching, in the ninth Simili. “ΕἼ, 2΄
tude, (as was shewn above,) that the Son of God was in fpamas.
being before any creature, and was present with His Fa-

ther, and that as His counsellor’, at the creation of all! σύμβου-
things, (statements which, with all men of sound mind, ***
suffice to declare the true divinity of the Son; for who

can suppose that the counsellor of God is not Himself God ?)

in the same Similitude also, a little after, he expressly attri-

butes to the Son of God the upholding of the whole world,

and of all the creatures that are in the world, (a truly divine

work,) and immensity, which in like manner belongs to [105]
the true God alone. His words are; “The name of the

Son of God is great and immeasurable; and the whole world

is sustained by Him!” And afterwards; “Every creature

of God is sustained by His Son ;” wherein also he most ex-
plicitly distinguishes the Son of God from every creature

of God. Hermas also expressly denies that the Son of God

is put in the place or condition of a servant. There is a proof

of this in his third book, Simil. v., where upon Hermas’ en-
quiring ™, “ Why is the Son of God, in this similitude, put in

the place of aservant Ὁ the Shepherd returns answer; “ The

Son of God is not put in the condition of a servant, but in

great power and rule.” Now the expressions, “to be put in

the condition of a servant,” and “to be a creature,” are equi-

valent ; forasmuch as every creature stands in the relation

of a servant to God, the supreme Lord of all. And rightly

doth the author of a treatise, entitled An Exposition of
Faith, (ἔκθεσις πίστεως,) ascribed to Justin, say"; “For if

any thing is among the number of things existing, its na-

ture is either created or uncreated. Now that nature which

is uncreate is sovereign and free from all necessity; whilst

k See book i. 2. 3. [p. 38.] n εἴ τι γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν, ἢ
' Nomen Filii Dei magnum et im- ἄπτιστος φύσις ἐστὶν, ἢ κτιστή. ἀλλ᾽ ἡ
mensum est, et totus ab eo sustentatur μὲν ἄκτιστος, δεσποτικὴ καὶ πάσης ἀνάγ-
orbis. . . . Omnis Dei creatura per ns ἐλευθέρα' ἡ δὲ, δουλικὴ καὶ νόμοις
Filium ejus sustentatur.—[§ 14. p. δεσποτικοῖς ἑπομένη. καὶ ἡ μὲν κατ᾽
119.: ἐξουσίαν ἃ ἂν βούλεται, καὶ ποιοῦσα, καὶ

m Quare Filius Dei in similitudine δυναμένη" ἡ δὲ τὴν διακονίαν μόνην, ἣν
hae servili loco ponitur? respondet παρ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς Θεότητος εἴληφε, καὶ δυ-
Pastor: In servili conditione non po- γναμένη, καὶ ποιοῦσα.---». 374. [ὃ 4. p.
nitur Filius Dei, sed in magna potes- 422. |
tate et imperio.—[§ 5, 6. p. 107.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

38
[106]

1 ἐξηγητι-
κῶς.

3 sublestze
fidei.

3 doctores.

4 anonyme.

88 The assertion that Hermas is speaking of a power

the other is servile and subject to the laws of a master.
And the former, with full power, doeth, and can do, what-
ever it will; the latter only can do, and only doeth, that service
which it hath received from the Godhead Itself.” Whence
the holy Apostle himself also, in his Epistle to the Philippians,
11. 6,7, (which single passage, if rightly considered, is enough
to refute all the heresies against the Person of our Lord
Jesus Christ,) opposes “the form οἵ ἃ servant” (μορφὴν δούλου)
to “the form of God” (μορφὴν Ocod): by the form of a ser-
vant understanding (not that condition of wretchedness, which
the Lord endured for our salvation, when He was beaten with
scourges, spitted upon, and at last nailed to the cross, for of
that, as a further degree of humiliation, he afterwards in the
same passage speaks distinctly; but) that very nature of
man, in likeness of which Christ is said (in the words im-
mediately following, which are manifestly added by way of
explanation’) to have been made: for of a truth every man,
of what condition soever he be, nay, every creature, when com-
pared with God, holds altogether the relation of a servant.

3. Petavius himself adduced this remarkable passage of
Hermas, in support of the true Godhead of Christ; although
the Jesuit is, in consequence, charged by the author of the
Irenicum Irenicorum with a want of good faith’. It is thus he
addresses him®; “ But if it had been your wish, not to de-
ceive, but to inform others, you ought here, Petavius, to have
added what power, and what dominion that was, of which the
Shepherd spoke; not, it is plain, of a power and a dominion
equal to the Father’s, but of a power delivered to Him by
the Father after His death, and a dominion over His own
people, whom in like manner the Father had given Him,
and over whom Christ Himself placed teachers*?. And on
this account he says that Christ both is, and is introduced,
not as a servant, but as the Lord of His people.” But in this
instance, O nameless one*, the charge recoils on yourself; for
had you not wished to deceive, rather than to inform others,
you ought here to have added what is necessarily connected

° Trenic. Iren., Ὁ. 20. ligo. Quoniam, inquit, eis quos Filio
p [The words of Hermas following _ suo tradidit, Filius ejus nuntios prepo-
those last quoted are; Ei dixi, Quo- suit ad conservandos singulos.—§ 6. ]

modo, inquam, domine? Non intel-

- conferred on Christ by the Father, untrue. 89

with the words which you have alleged, and thus presented ook 11.
to your reader the text of Hermas entire. The matter stands Wits
thus: in this fifth Similitude the Shepherd had represented Heras.
Christ our Saviour under a twofold condition!, as Son of} σχέσις.
God, and as servant of God. For this is his own explicit [107]
interpretation of the parable of the Son and the servant;

“The Son,” he says, “is the Holy Spirit; but the servant

is the Son of God.” For as is plain, the Son of God whom he

calls the Holy Spirit, is one and the same as the Son of God

whom he had in the similitude represented as a servant.

By both he certainly means our Saviour, whom he desig-

nates both as Son of God, and as a servant; but in a differ-

ent view in each case. He calls Christ the Son of God, be-

cause of that Holy Spirit, that 15, the divine nature’, or the τὴν θείαν
Word, (as was observed above',) which was united to the See
man Christ in one person, by a most intimate and ineffable
connexion. On the other hand he introduces that same

Christ as the servant of God, in respect of that body, (as the
Shepherd soon after speaks,) or that human nature, which

the Son of God put on, and in which in very deed He assumed

the form of a servant. Nor is it unusual with our Shepherd,

by reason of Christ’s twofold nature, to attribute to Him, in

the same similitude, a twofold condition also. In the ninth,

for instance, he had represented Christ under the figure alike

of an ancient rock, inasmuch as He is Son of God, being

before all creatures with the Father; and of a new gate, in-
asmuch as in these last days He the same [Person] became

man, and appeared [on earth]; as we have also shewn before.
Hermas, however, not yet understanding this, and being un-

able to comprehend in what way He, who is the Son of God,

is also the servant of God, asks this question of his Shepherd ;

“ Why is the Son of God in this similitude put in the place

of a servant*?”” In answer to this question, the Shepherd does

indeed say those words which the author of the Jrenicum just

now quoted, of all power being given to Christ by the Father,

&e.; but this does not make up the full answer of the Shep- [108]

~- eee

4 Filius autem, inquit, Spiritus sanc- T Vid. i. 2. 5. [p. 46.]
tus est: servus vero ille Filius Dei.— 8 Quare Filius Dei in similitudine
[§ 5. p. 107.] hac servili loco ponitur? [ὃ 5. p. 107.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 σὴν θείαν
φύσιν.

2 in quo
habitaret
Deus.

3 in quo
subsisteret.

[109]

90 Hermas to be understood with reference

herd; since, shortly after, other statements are subjoined by
him, which contain a more full and distinct solution of the
question put to him, and which are not so much in accord-

-ance with the wish and the view of this anonymous author.

The Shepherd, as is plain, again distinguishes between the
Holy Spirit, or the divine nature! in Christ, and the body, or
human nature of Christ ; and states in express terms that the
condition of a servant, in which the Son of God had been
represented in the similitude, is to be referred solely to the
flesh, or that human nature. For, after he had said respect-
ing this Holy Spirit, that “It was first of all infused to the
body, in which God would dwell’;” he adds presently after-
wards; “This body, therefore, into which the Holy Spirit
was brought, served that Spirit, walking in modesty, uprightly
and purely, nor ever at all defiled that Spirit. Seeing, then,
that the body had at all times been obedient to the Holy
Spirit, and had laboured righteously and chastely with It, nor
had given way at any time, that wearied body lived indeed
the life of a servant, but being mightily approved together
with that Holy Spirit was reccived by God'.” In these words
it is quite clear, that the Shepherd is speaking of the body,
or the human nature of Christ; and that it is of that body
alone that he affirms that it lived the life of a servant; and
that after, and by reason of, that life of a servant finished on
earth, being approved together with the Holy Spirit, or Word,
in which it subsisted ὅ, it was received by God, that is to say,
was raised to the right hand of the Divine Majesty in the
highest. Hence [it seems, that] the Shepherd had shadowed
forth the exaltation of the man Christ in the similitude, by
the figure of the servant whom the Lord of the farm, that
is, God the Father, by reason of the good service which He
had performed, willed to make fellow-heir with His own Son.

τ Qui infusus est omnium primus in
corpore, in quo habitaret Deus,....
Hoc ergo corpus, in quod inductus est
Spiritus Sanctus, servivit illi Spiritui,
recte in modestia ambulans et caste,
neque omnino maculavit Spiritum il-
lum. Cum igitur corpus illud paruisset
omni tempore Spiritui Sancto, recte at-
que caste laborasset cum 60, nec suc-
cubuisset in omni tempore, fatigatum

corpus illud serviliter conversatum est,
sed fortitercum Spiritu Sancto compro-
batum, Deo receptum est.—An allusion
is here evidently made to the words of
Paul, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ‘justified
in the Spirit; and ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ,
“received up into glory,” 1 Tim. iii. 16.
See a similar passage of Justin, ob-
served on iii, 2. 2.

to the two Natures in Christ. 91

For by the servant he means the body, or human nature of βοοκ τι.
Christ ; and by the Son, the divine nature in Christ, as we “¢’3" 4."
have more than once intimated to the reader. The servant, Herwas,
therefore, became fellow-heir with the Son, at the time when
the body, or human nature of Christ, after His resurrection,
was set on the right hand of God, and was made associate
and partaker, as far as it was capable of it, of the same glory
and honour which the Son of God (or the Word) possessed
with His Father even before the foundation of this world. The
same was the meaning of the author of the so-called Epistle
of Barnabas, who was undoubtedly contemporary with Her-
mas, when, in the eleventh chapter, after citing the words
of Christ by the prophet, ‘‘ Jacob" is to be praised above all’! super
the earth,” he after his manner thus interprets it’; ‘“ By this Ἦν 2
He means the vessel of His Spirit,” (that is, of His divinity,)
which He was about to glorify.” Any one who shall have
carefully perused the fifth Similitude of Hermas, will at once
perceive that I have here given the true meaning of the
Shepherd. And from all these proofs it is now most clear, that
according to the doctrine of the Shepherd, the Son of God,
as Son of God and as God, in no wise hath, nor ever had, even
in respect of God the Father, the relation of a servant; and
that in no other way, than on account of the dispensation of
His incarnation”, which He voluntarily undertook, was He > incarna-
at any time the servant of God; which is the very point we ean
had to prove. But of a truth, in this case, the words with which nem.
the author of the Jrenicum* twitted Petavius may very fairly
be turned against himself; “These and other statements of
the same kind are made by our author concerning the Son;
which are widely different from what thou, hiding thy name,
representest unto us.” 7

4. Iam ashamed and grieved to state what the author of
the Jrenicum and Sandius have adduced, in support of their [110]
heresy, in opposition to these testimonies of Hermas so clear
and express for the Catholic doctrine ; but, lest I should seem

to shrink® from meeting them, I will notwithstanding bring ° tergiver-
Sarl.

" (Bp. Bull’swords are; Jacoblauda- it is not identical with the LXX ver-
bilis super omnem terram. The original _ sion. ]
is; καὶ ἣν ἡ γῆ τοῦ ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐπαινουμένη ν τοῦτο λέγει τὸ σκεῦος τοῦ Πνεύ-
παρὰ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, and the passage ματος αὐτοῦ ὃ δοξάζει.---». 235. [p. 38. ]
probably refers to Zeph. iii. 19; though * Tren. Irenic., p. 21.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-~
LITY OF
THE SON,

éuoovciwy.

2 dum.

3 impru-
dentes et
idiote.

Hermas’ assertion, that there is One God, does not

them forward. In the first place, then, they both’ allege
as an objection the words of the Shepherd in book ii., (which
is especially entitled the Shepherd,) Mand. 1"; “Believe that
there is one God, who [created and] constituted all things,
and caused them to be, who is able to comprehend all things,
and is not comprehended of any.”’ But what the sophists
would extract from these words in furtherance of their cause,
I cannot even divine: unless indeed they imagine that it
is impossible for any one, who acknowledges a Trinity of
divine Persons of one substance’, to believe that there is
one God. But if this is what they think, they are greatly
deceived ; seeing that at this day all Catholics believe both.
And the primitive Catholic Church professed the same also in
her rule of faith, as Tertullian testifies at the opening of
his book against Praxeas, where he says, “ We believe in
one only God indeed, but yet under this dispensation,
which we call ‘economy,’ that there is of this one only
God, the Son also, His Word, who proceeded from Him,”
&e. And a little after; ‘One is all, in that’ all are of
one, by unity, that is, of substance; and nevertheless the
mystery of the economy is guarded, which distributes the
unity into a Trinity, placing in their order three [ Persons, |
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The author of
the Lrenicum, however, and Sandius plainly appear to have
entertained the same notions as those “ unwise and simple
men*,’ whom Tertullian presently after mentions in the
same place’, who, “forasmuch as the rule of faith itself
transfers [them] from the many gods of the world, unto one
only and true God, not understanding that He must be be-

Y Irenic., p. 19; Sand. Enucl. Hist.
Eccl., p. 55.

» Crede quoniam unus est Deus, qui
omnia constituit et fecit, ut essent om-
nia, omnium capax, et qui a nemine
capitury.—[p. 85. The Greek is; πρῶ-
Tov πάντων πίστευσον 67) εἷς ἐστὶν ὃ
Θεὸς, 6 τὰ πάντα κτίσας καὶ καταρτίσας
καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι
τὰ πάντα. Bp. Bull follows Irenzus,
who quotes the words of Hermas, iv.
20, 2. p. 253.—B. |

@ Nos unicum quidem Deum credi-
mus, sub hac tamen dispensatione,
quam οἰκονομίαν dicimus, ut unici Dei
sit et Filius, Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso

processerit, [per quem omnia facta sunt
et sine quo factum est nihil.]....
{Quasi non sic quoque] unus sit [est
Bull,] omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per
substantiz scilicet unitatem : et nibil-
ominus custodiatur οἰκονομίας sacra-
mentum, que unitatem in Trinitatem
disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem, [et]
Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum.—[2. p.:
501.]

> Quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a plu-
ribus Diis szculi ad unicum et verum
Deum transfert, non intelligentes uni-
cum quidem, sed cum sua οἰκονομίᾳ
esse credendum, expavescunt ad vixo-
νομίαν. Numerum et dispositionem

exclude a Trinity of Persons. 93

lieved to be indeed one only, but yet with His own [proper] δβοοκ 1.
economy’, are startled at that economy. They assume that ὅκα δι
number and mutual relation*® in the Trinity is a division of Herwas.
the unity: whereas the unity, deriving the Trinity out of} οἰκονομίᾳ.
itself, is not destroyed, but rather ministered unto, by it.” Yet [111]
whatever these modern dogmatisers may think, it is at any seas
rate clear and certain, that our Hermas, who wrote in the
apostolic age, was not ignorant of that most sacred economy.
For, we may observe, his Shepherd did himself believe, and
taught others to believe, that there is one God, in such sense
as at the same time to confess, that the Father of all things
hath His Son, who was in being with Him before all crea-
tures ; and who was also present with Him in the framing
of all things as His counsellor and fellow-worker ; who, even
as His Father, is infinite, and sustains the universe by His
almighty word*®; who, lastly, in Himself and in His own na- 3 «the
ture hath no way the relation of a servant to God the Father ; ΤΣ of
as has been shewn from the very words of Hermas himself, power.”
which have been already quoted.

5. The passages, however, which the author of the Lrenicum
adduces besides out of Hermas, against the Catholics, are in-
deed astonishing*; “‘ Whatis to be said to the fact,” says he,
‘that it evidently appears from his (Hermas’) fifth Similitude,
that he either acknowledged the Son of God as man only, or
at least believed Him to be much inferior to the Father, nay
and to the Holy Spirit. For in the passage which has been
quoted he introduces the Son not only as the servant of the
Father, but also as the servant of the Holy Ghost, and obe-
dient to Him. His words are‘; ‘And on this account the body
of Christ, that is, of the Son of God, into which the Holy Spirit
had been infused, was subservient to this Spirit,’” &. And
here I am myself well-nigh stupified at the stupidity of the
heretic. For first, were we to grant him, that by the Holy
Spirit, in this passage of Hermas, the third Person of the
Godhead ought certainly to be understood, what will the un-
happy man gain thence in support of his impious and desperate [112]

Trinitatis divisionem prasumunt uni- *-drenic., p:-21.

tatis: quando unitas ex semetipsa de- d Et propterea corpus Christi, seu
_ Yivans Trinitatem non destruatur ab Filii Dei, cui infusus erat Spiritus
illa, sed administretur.—[p. 6.] Sanctus, huic Spiritui servivit, &c.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 adheeret.

94 Of the Human Nature in Christ being subservient

cause? Surely nothing whatever! For can any one be found so
blind as not at once to see, that Hermas is there expressly
speaking only of the body, or human nature, of Christ? And
what wonder is it, if this, being a creature, be said to be sub-
servient to the Holy Spirit, who is God? But, secondly, I
have already at some length and most clearly proved, that
Hermas, in this passage, under the designation of the Holy
Spirit, understood the Word, or divine nature in Christ,
which is most properly called the Son of God. This is so
obvious from the tenour of the whole parable, that it 15 strange
that Petavius himself did not perceive it. That very learned
man was, I suppose, misled by the circumstance that Her-
mas, soon afterwards in the same passage, says that the Holy
Spirit dwells in our bodies likewise. But in that place it
must either be said, that the Shepherd abruptly passed to
another signification of the Holy Spirit; or it must be un-
derstood (as I should rather think) in the sense in which
every true Christian is said to be a sacred dwelling-place
and temple of the whole most holy Trinity. [It is] at any
rate [true that] the Word, who is joined! to the man Christ
Jesus “by a communion supreme and not to be surpassed,”
(ἄκρᾳ καὶ ἀνυπερβλήτῳ κοινωνίᾳ,) as Origen somewhere “
expresses the hypostatic union, as He Is every where by
His influence and power, so does He fix for Himself a place

- and an habitation, by a peculiar mode of presence, in the

[113]

hearts of the godly’. Hence Ignatius in his Epistle to the
Ephesians £, speaking of the Son of God, exhorts the saints
in this manner; “ Let us then do all things as having Him
dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and that He
may be within us, [who is] our God.” And, above, Barnabas
called our heart a habitation (κατοικητήριον), and a temple
(ναὸν) of the Son of God. Thus also Justin Martyr says’,
that God the Father has firmly fixed within our hearts the
holy and incomprehensible Word, whom He had sent down
from heaven to men. And indeed even from this it is evi-
dent that those most ancient doctors of the Church believed

* (Contra Celsum, vi. 48. p. 670. ] h [αὐτὸς am οὐρανῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ
* See Apocalypse iii. 20, and John τὸν λόγον τὸν ἅγιον καὶ ἀπερινόητον ἀν -
xiv. 23. (Add Ephes. iii, 17.— θρώποις ἐνίδρυσε, καὶ ἐγκατεστήριξε ταῖς
GRABE.) καρδίαις avt@y.|—Epist. ad Diognet.,

to the Spirit. Testimonies of Ignatius. 95

the Son of God to be true God, and that in the very highest noox τι.
sense *. CHAP. II,
8 5, 6.
Of Hermas I shall say no more, after I have informed the See
reader, that even Petavius, who is in other cases, at least on 1 ipsissi-
this question, a most unfair critic of the fathers, expressly pon
allows‘ that this Hermas “was never accused by any,” that
is by any ancient catholic writer, “ of heresy or false doctrine,
specially * concerning the Trinity :”” which is indeed most'true 2 maxime.
and worthy of remark. As to what that modern and most
trifling writer, Sandius, further objects to him, that he taught
that “the Holy Spirit converses‘with man, not when He wills,
but when God wills,” any one will clearly see that it is utterly
frivolous, who weighs carefully the actual words of Hermas
on that subject; (book 11. Mand. 12%.) For he will perceive
that the words, “not when he wills,” refer, not to the Holy
Spirit Himself, but to the man to whom the Holy Spirit
speaks.
6. After Hermas we have next to speak of Ignatius.
his genuine Epistles, edited by Isaac Vossius', (and these
alone, I may once for all inform my reader, I shall employ
in this work,) he throughout declares the true divinity of the
Son of God in the clearest terms. His Epistle to the Smyr-
neans begins with these words™; “TI glorify Jesus Christ, the
God who has given unto you such wisdom.” In the salutation
of the Epistle to the Ephesians", he styles them predestined
and chosen, “by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ,
our God.” And in the Epistle itself he writes®; “There is [114]
nothing hidden from the Lord’, but even our secret things ὅ τὸν Κύ-
are nigh unto Him. Let us, therefore, do all things as?”
having Him dwelling within us, that we may be His temples,

In Icenatius.

i Pref. in tom. ii. Dogm. Theol., ec.
2. § 6.

* [§ 1. p. 100. Spiritus, qui desur-
sum est, quietus est et humilis—et
hemini respondet interrogatus, nec sin-
gulis respondet: neque cum vult ho-
mini loquitur Spiritus Dei, sed tune
oquitur cum vult Deus. ]

1 A.D. 1646.

m δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν bpd

τὸν οὕτως ὑμᾶς copicavta—p. 1. [p.

ἐν θελήματι τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.---». 16. [p.
ΤΡ

ο οὐδὲν λανθάνει τὸν Κύριον, ἀλλὰ
καὶ τὰ κρυπτὰ ἡμῶν ἐγγὺς αὐτῷ ἐστίν.
πάντα οὖν ποιῶμεν, ὡς αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν
κατοικοῦντος, ἵνα ὦμεν αὐτοῦ ναοὶ, καὶ
αὐτὸς ἢ ἐν ἡμῖν Θεὸς ἡμῶν" ὅπερ καὶ
ἔστιν καὶ φανήσεται πρὸ προσώπου ἡμῶν,
ἐξ ὧν δικαίως ἀγαπῶμεν αὐτόν.---». 20.

L$ 15. p. 15.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON,

1 Tor “ be-
gotten and
not begot-
ten,”’
(scil.) after
the flesh;
but see
what fol-
lows. }

[115]

2 Instead
of γεννη-
τὸς καὶ
ἀγέννητος.

96 Remarkable passage from Ignatius considered ;

and that He may be within us, [who is] our God; which
indeed is so, and will be manifested before our face, where-
fore we justly love Him.” That Ignatius in this passage
is speaking of Christ, there can be no doubt, not merely
from the word Κύριος (Lord), by which he always desig-
nates Christ, but also from the whole context of his dis-
course, which treats only of Jesus the Saviour. Again, in
his Epistle to the Romans’; “Permit me to be an imita-
tor of the suffering of my God.” But there is a most re-
markable passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians; where
Ignatius thus speaks of Christ’; “There is one Physician,
both fleshly and spiritual; made and not made’; having
become God incarnate,” ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεὸς, (instead
of which Athanasius, Theodoret, and Gelasius have ἐν av-
θρώπῳ Θεὸς, “God in man,’ which comes to the same
thing,) “true life in death,” ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀληθινὴ, (for so,
not ἐν ἀθανάτῳ, “in the immortal,” ought it to be read, as
Athanasius, Theodoret, and Gelasius agree in reading, and
as the sense certainly requires,) “ both of Mary and of God.”
Here we rightly translate γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, “ made and
not made,” as did Gelasius, since the sense requires it, and
it is very well known that by the Greeks the words γενητὸς
and γεννητὸς were used promiscuously ; although the Catholic
writers of the Church for the most part, especially such as
lived after the third century, distinguished more accurately
between them, in the question of the divinity of the Son.
Theodoret, indeed, (Dial. i.,) reads γεννητὸς ἐξ ἀγεννήτου",
(“begotten of the unbegotten;”’) the reading, however,
which I have followed, is confirmed not merely by the
Greek MS. of the Medicean library, and by the ancient
Latin version of Ussher, but also by Athanasius, On the
Synods, and Gelasius', On the two Natures; and it is also
absolutely required by the manifest antithesis, which is car-
ried on throughout the passage, between the two natures of
Christ and the attributes peculiar to each, “ fleshly and

P ἐπιτρέψατέ μοι μιμητὴν εἶναι [rod] ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεὸς, ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ
πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ wov.—p. 60. [§ 6. p. ἀληθινὴ, καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Ocov.—p.
20: 21. [§ 7. p. 13.]

4 εἷς ἰατρός ἐστιν, σαρκικός τε καὶ τ Tertullian too read the passage in
πνευματικὸς, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, this way. Seechap.7. § 3. of this book.

Twofold meaning of ἀγένητος or ἀγέννητος. 97

spiritual,” &c., which is broken off by the reading of Theo- soox τι.
doret. I make no doubt that Theodoret herein followed a a
copy transcribed by some smatterer, who, thinking that dyév- [enarius,
yntov necessarily meant “ unbegotten,” that is, one who hath

the principle of his being from none but himself, (in which

sense the word is applicable to God the Father alone,) pre-
sumed to alter ἀγέννητος into ἐξ ἀγεννήτουις And for the

same reason the interpolator of his works has entirely omitted

this clause of the sentence in Ignatius, γεννητὸς καὶ ayévyn-

Tos: just as, inthe Epistle to the Trallians, he has pronounced
accursed all who say that the Son of God is ἀγέννητος, (in

the sense, namely, in which that is the peculiar property of

God the Father,) on those, that is, who make no distinction
between the Father and the Son. Hence also, before the
passage of Ignatius which we are now considering, he in-

serts some remarks of his own concerning God the Father,

in which he says that He alone is ἀγέννητος. If Sandius

had understood this, he would never have wearied himself

and his reader so uselessly, about the condemnation of the

word ἀγέννητος by the pseudo-Ignatius, as he does inthe first [116]
book of his “ Ecclesiastical History laid open,” where he treats

of Ignatius. The genuine reading of the passage being thus
established, every one must perceive that these words of Igna-

tius are a death-blow to the Arian blasphemy ; inasmuch as

Christ is herein not only acknowledged as God, truly im-
mortal, in flesh which at one time was mortal, but is also
expressly declared to be not-made, that is, uncreate. And

so the great Athanasius has admirably expressed the mean-

ing of Ignatius in the following passage, in which he has

also accurately distinguished the twofold acceptation of the

word ὠγένητος or ἀγέννητος, as we find it used by the ancients:

“We are persuaded,” he sayst, “ that the blessed Ignatius also

wrote correctly, when he designated Him [the Son of God]

as generated because of His flesh, for Christ ‘ was made flesh ;’

yet withal ingenerate, inasmuch as He is not of the number

of things made and generated, but Son from Father. And

ΞΡ ΠΣ ἐγένετο" ἀγένητον δὲ, ὅτι μὴ τῶν ποιη-
' πεπείσμεθα ὅτι καὶ ὃ μακάριος Ἴγ.τ μάτων καὶ γενητῶν ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ υἱὸς ἐκ
νάτιος ὀρθῶς ἔγραψε, γενητὸν αὐτὸν λέ. Πατρός. οὐκ ἀγνοοῦμεν δὲ, ὅτι καὶ οἱ
γων διὰ τὴν σάρκα' ὃ γὰρ Χριστὸς σὰρξ εἰρηκότες ἕν τὸ ἀγένητον, τὸν Πατέρα

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 oenitum

(hoe est
factum. )
2? omnia
genita
(hoc est,
que facta
sunt. )

[117]

3 τῷ συναΐϊ-
δίῳ.

4 maxime.

98 The objection, that Ignatius was mistaken in the

we are aware also, that such as have asserted that the inge-
nerate is One, meaning the Father, wrote this, not as though
the Word were generate! or made, but because [the Father]
has not any who is to Him a cause [of being], and rather
Himself is Father of Wisdom, and by Wisdom hath made all
things which are generated?".” We shall, however, adduce
more out of Ignatius afterwards, in the third book*, concern-
ing the Co-eternity® of the Son.

7. And now we must have a few words with the author of
the Jrenicum and Sandius. The remarkable passage of Ig-
natius, which I have quoted, had been also brought forward
by Petavius, out of Theodoret and Athanasius, with some
others in addition out of Theodoret only. But what does
the author of the JrenicumY say in reply to them? listen,
and you will be surprised at his effrontery! “The passages,”
he says, “which Petavius has quoted from Theodoret, and
which he supposes to be quite‘ genuine, may be understood
of the man Christ only, as born through the Spirit of God.”
Is it indeed so? in that case, say I, any words may be made
to mean any thing. And so the author of the Jrenicum
himself, not venturing to abide by this answer, devises an-
other most suited to his desperate cause! His words are;
“The passages alleged out of Theodoret are not of force to
shew that the profession of a twofold nature in Christ was de-
rived from the tradition of Christ and the Apostles. For
even allowing this profession to have existed at that time also,
why may it not have been a tradition from some false Christ
or false apostle, and not necessarily ὅ a tradition of Christ and
the Apostles ; just like some other strange ® and even absurd
notions of Ignatius or of other ancient writers, which even
Petavius himself does not admit?” With what knot are you
to hold this Proteus? With what argument to bind such an
opponent? He affirms that Justin first originated the notion
of the divine nature of Jesus Christ; we prove against him,

λέγοντες, οὐχ ὧς γενητοῦ καὶ ποιήματος α {Concerning the words γενητὸς
ὄντος τοῦ λόγου οὕτως ἔγραψαν, ἀλλ᾽ and γεννητὸς, compare Suicer on the

- ὅτι μὴ ἔχει τὸν αἴτιον, καὶ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς words ἀγένητος and γενητός. Huet.

Πατὴρ μέν ἐστι τῆς σοφίας, τὰ δὲ γε- Origen.ii. 2. 2. ὃ 23. Waterland, Works,
νητὰ πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ πεποίηκε.----1)6 Sy- vol. ili. pp. 239, 260.—B. }

nod. Arim. et Seleuc., tom. i. p. 922. x [See book iii. chap. 1.]

[vol. i. p. 761. ὃ 47.) Y Jrenic., p. 27.

doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity, shewn to be unreasonable. 99

that Ignatius, who was earlier than Justin, nay even contem- nook n.
porary with the Apostles, held the same opinion. He next εἰ ΘΠ
miserably wrests the words of Ignatius! and at last, distrust- Tenant
ing this his own interpretation, comes to such a pitch of
madness as not to shrink from asserting that it is by no means [118]
improbable, that even Ignatius himself was deceived by some
false apostle! I suppose, if at last we were to adduce as a wit-
ness some Apostle in person’, we should effect nothing with 1 ipsissi-
him. Indeed experience has by this time shewn, that persons 7"
of this party toss about [as worthless] the very writings of
the Apostles, (which certainly speaks no less clearly of the
divinity of Christ than do the remains of the fathers ;) and
by their glosses, so strangely alien from the evident mean-
ing of the words, pervert and misinterpret them, at the same
time that they omit no contrivance or labour whereby to 42
depreciate their trustworthiness and authority. If these
heretics would at length openly make profession of their
unbelief, and publicly aver that the doctrine of the divine
nature of Jesus Christ, which has been delivered by the
Apostles and all the Doctors of the Church, is in their opi-
nion repugnant to sound reason; (in their opinion, I say,
mere weak men as they are, that crawl upon the ground, and
are unable to explain perfectly the nature of even the little
worm, “who is their brother,” much less to comprehend in
the narrow limits of their minds the infinite essence of the
most high and holy God, and of the effluence? of His mind !) 2 ἀποῤῥοίας.
and [would say] that on that account they call into question φΦ
the whole of the Christian religion, (confirmed though it be
by miracles so many and so great, and, further, fully approv-
ing itself to us by its own innate light and authority, in all
those points which do not go beyond our powers of compre-
hension, especially in those which relate to virtue and mo-
rality ;) [were they to do this,] they would exhibit, I think,
not much greater impiety, and certainly far more can-
dour and ingenuousness! But, says the author of the Jreni-
cum, Ignatius entertained some notions not only strange ἦ 3 incom-
but even palpably absurd, which you yourselves even do not ™°4*
admit. Where, I ask, doth he state them? Produce a pas-
sage, thou nameless one, out of the genuine Epistles of Ig-
natius, and we willat once yield you the victory. Certainly no

H 2

ON THE
CONSUB=>
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[119]

1 Larro-
que, see
above, i. 2.

2 prorsus
dissimulat.

[120]

100 Sandius quotes the spurious and interpolated Epistles.

one of all those adversaries who have been most opposed to
Polycarp’s Collection’ [of those Epistles], neither Blondel,
nor Salmasius, nor Daillé, nor Daillé’s recent anonymous
champion’, have yet produced any thing of this kind out of
that collection, but what very learned men, Ussher, Vossius,
Hammond, and Pearson, have clearly proved to have been
blamed without cause. Besides, if we were to allow that
Ignatius in certain more minute points had turned aside
a little from the doctrine of the Apostles, can it, on that
account, seem probable to any one that he was thus
shamefully mistaken in so momentous an article of the
Christian faith? Is there any one, that would even harbour
a suspicion, that he, who had conversed so familiarly with
the true Apostles of Jesus Christ, and whom the tradition
of all antiquity has declared to have been a martyr for the
apostolic faith, was deceived by some false apostle in a pri-
mary doctrine of Christianity ?

_ Non ego

Credat Judeus Apella,

8, I now come to Sandius, who in book i. of his Hist.
Eccl. Enucl., in treating on Ignatius*, is altogether silent?
on the testimonies which we have adduced out of the genu-
ine Epistles of Ignatius in favour of the Catholic doctrine ;
whilst from the interpolated Epistles of Ignatius, as well
as from those which have been falsely ascribed to him, he
brings forward several passages, and endeavours by them
to establish the blasphemies of Arius. One would suppose
that he had never seen the editions of Ignatius by Ussher
and Vossius, nor ever read what these same learned men, and
Hammond and Pearson, have written concerning the Epistles
of Ignatius. And yet he mentions Ussher’s edition in this
same place; and elsewhere, I mean in his book on the Eccle-
siastical Writers, where also he treats of Ignatius, he men-
tions the editions both of Vossius and Ussher; and we cannot
doubt that he was even at that time acquainted with Ham-
mond’s Dissertations, and still more with Pearson’s Vindicie,
which latter was published in the year 1672, that is, four

- [i 6. the collection of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, sent by St. Polycarp to
the Philippians, with his own Letter still extant ]
a p. 70.

Of the seven genuine Epistles of St. Ignatius. 101

years previous to the second edition of his Hist. Eccl. Enucl. ποοκ τι.
For the sake of such of my readers as are not familiar with ΤῈ ὦ
ecclesiastical antiquity, I will add a brief and fair statement τον nus.
of the whole subject. Besides the Epistles bearing the name

of Ignatius, which are extant only in Latin, and which at

this day all critics, whether Roman Catholics or belonging to
ourselves, unanimously reject, there are twelve Greek Epistles,

of which seven are mentioned by Eusebius, but not the
remaining five. The seven mentioned by him are; 1. That to

the Ephesians; 2. To the Magnesians; 3. To the Trallians ;

4. To the Romans; 5. To the Philadelphians; 6. To the
Smyrneans; 7. To Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. The other

five are; 1. That to Maria Cassobolita; 2. To the people of
Tarsus ; 3. To the people of Antioch; 4. To Hero, the dea-

con; 5. To the Philippians. Further, of the seven Epistles

which were known to Eusebius, the Greek editions are of

two classes; one which has been long extant, the other that

which was first edited by Isaac Vossius from the Medi-

cean MS. Of the five Epistles on which Eusebius is silent,

the very learned Pearson thus most truly writes*; “A dis-
tinction seems to be correctly drawn between those seven
Kpistles which are mentioned by Eusebius, and which the

rest of the most ancient fathers frequently quote, and five
others, which were not acknowledged by any Greek writer,

until after several centuries, and on that account are, with

good reason, either called in question, or even entirely re-
jected: and that, not only because it is unlikely, that if they

had been extant in his time, they could have been un-
known to Eusebius, or could have been passed over by him,

if he had known them; but also from the circumstance that,

both in style’, they appear to be very different from those ! modus
enumerated by Eusebius; and, in subject matter, are more Brae
in harmony with the doctrine, the institutions, and the cus- eae
toms of the later Church, and resemble the Ignatian Epistles
mentioned by Eusebius only through imitation and that ex-
cessively affected.” As to Sandius’ assertion’, “that the

style of the five Epistles,” which were unknown to Eusebius,

“so agrees with the former undoubted Epistles, that it is

» [Euseb. E. H., lib. iii. c. 36.] Tgnat., c. 4.
* In Procemio ad Vind. Epist. S. ἃ De Script. Eccles., p. 18.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 vulgatee.

2 incrusta-
vit.

3 defeeca-
tas.

4 impor-
tune.

5 sorex pro-
datur.

6 auctori-
tas.

[122]

7 eleganter.

102 Sandius’ arguments for the genuineness of the spurious

absurd to doubt of Ignatius being their author,” it was reck-
lessly made, as his way is. Certainly if by the former un-
doubted Epistles he means the seven mentioned by Euse-
bius, as they were published! prior to the edition of Vos-
sius, it is certainly true that there is a very great simi-
larity of style between them and the other five. And what
wonder? It was the judgment of Ussher® (and the thing
speaks for itself) that it was the same forger ‘ who interpo-
lated? the genuine Epistles of Ignatius, and increased them
by adding as many more’.” Let any one, however, compare
the seven Epistles, when the interpolated passages are taken
out ὃ, as edited by Vossius, with the remaining five, and he will
certainly admit, if he is able to judge of the case, that there
is a very wide difference between the two, in respect both of
style and of doctrine. In this one particular alone is there
an apparent resemblance; in that the impostor, who patched
together the five Epistles, employs sundry forms of construc-
tion, and expressions which are in familiar use in the genuine
Ignatius;’ but these too are so studiously affected by the
forger, and so thrust in out of place‘, that from this evi-
dence alone the imposture may be detected’. In the same
place Sandius further argues in this way; “ Origen, in his sixth
Homily on St. Luke, quotes some words from the Epistle to
the Philippians,” (one, that is, of the five which we reject,)
“from which its genuineness’ is evident.” But here the sophist
writes with his usual shamelessness. The words of Origen
(in his sixth Homily* on Luke) concerning Ignatius and his
Epistle, are as follows ; “I find it well” remarked in a letter of

a certain martyr,—I mean Ignatius, who was bishop of An-—

tioch next after Peter, and who, in a persecution, fought with
beasts at Rome,—that ‘the virginity of Mary was unknown
to the prince of this world.’” Not a word is here said about
the Epistle to the Philippians ; whilst in that written to the
Ephesians, (one of Eusebius’ seven,) we now read as follows? ;
ἔλαθε τὸν ἄρχοντα Tod αἰῶνος τούτου ἡ παρθενία Μαρίας,
“the virginity of Mary was unknown to the prince of this

€ Proleg. ad Epist. Ignat., c. 5. dico, episcopum Antiochiz post Pe-
[Ussher rejected the Epistle to trum secundum, qui in_persecutione
Polycarp, thus making the number of Rome pugnavit ad bestias, Principem
the spurious and genuine equal. ] seculi hujus latuit virginitas Marie.—
g Eleganter in cujusdam martyris [vol. ili. p. 938. ]
Epistola scriptum reperi, Ignatium a (10: Ὁ. 101]

and interpolated Epistles of St. Ignatius; refuted. 108

world.” Granted, that this sentence is repeated by the im- δβοοκ τι.
postor who aped Ignatius in the spurious Epistle to the “εν
Philippians, what follows? In order, however, that the impos- [ey arjus,
ture of the author of this Epistle to the Philippians may be
more clearly seen, even out of Origen himself, we must ob-
serve that the passage of Ignatius, which he cites, is indeed
found, word for word, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, thus,
“the virginity of Mary was unknown to the prince of this
world ;” whereas in the Epistle to the Philippians it has been
altered, a ridiculous apostrophe being made to the devil, thus;
“For manythings are hidden from thee; the virginity of Mary,
the strange birth,” &c. But for the present leaving Sandius,
a writer who deserves the detestation of all lovers of truth and
fairness, let us return to the right reverend Pearson, who
further sets forth his own judgment, and that of other very
learned men, concerning the seven Epistles, known to Euse-
bius, as they existed in the Greek text prior to the edition
of Vossius. His words are; “ It has been correctly observed
by very many persons, that even the seven most ancient and
most genuine Epistles, in the Greek edition of that period,”
(i.e. before the edition of Vossius,) “were interpolated and
corrupted; and this is plain from the passages adduced by
the ancient fathers, which in that edition either do not appear,
or are not correctly given, as well as from many other pas- [123]
sages, which agree neither with antiquity, nor with the senti-
ments of Ignatius, and are inserted in a way that does not
harmonize with the general tenour of the Epistles.” The
worthy prelate has also, throughout his very lucid work, proved
on sure grounds, and to the satisfaction of all learned men,
who are not biassed by excessive party-spirit, the genuineness
of the seven Epistles of Ignatius, enumerated by Eusebius, as
they have been edited by Vossius. Now if, out of these seven
Epistles, (as they were published after the Medicean MS..,)
agreeing as they do with the quotations made from them by
Athanasius, Theodoret, Gelasius, and others of the ancients,
Sandius can produce one single iota, which is repugnant to
the Nicene creed, we will no longer refuse to admit, that Ig-
natius, an apostolic bishop, and most celebrated martyr, de-

: εἶ “ a“ 4
᾿ πολλὰ γάρ σε λανθάνει" ἡ παρθενία Μαρίας, 6 παράδοξος τοκέτος, κ-τ.λ.---[8. p.
115. }

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 ante
Greecas
calendas.

48
[132]

[133]

® obtorto

quasi collo
protra-
hente.

104 The spurious Epistles, however, opposed to Arianism.

serves to be classed with the forerunners of the impious heresy
of Arius. This, however, we are perfectly certain that he never’
will be able to do. We are-not therefore by any means to
account Ignatius an Arian, but Sandius, rather, an egregious
calumniator of a most holy father. It must also in the mean-
time be observed, that even in the spurious and interpolated
Epistles of Ignatius, (such as Sandius employs,) very many
things are found diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy ;
and that the passages which have been brought forward by
Sandius out of these same Epistles, will for the most part
easily admit of a catholic construction; this it would not
have been difficult (had we now leisure for it) to demonstrate.
But enough of Ignatius*. And thus far have we heard the
venerable triumvirate of apostolic writers confirming by their
witness the creed of Nicza.

CHAPTER III.

CLEMENT OF ROME AND POLYCARP INCIDENTALLY VINDICATED FROM THE
ASPERSIONS OF THE AUTHOR OF THE IRENICUM, AND OF SANDIUS.

1. Or the writers of the apostolic age, besides those whose
views we set forth in the preceding chapter, there remain
in all two others, Clement! of Rome and Polycarp. I have
not mentioned them, hitherto, amongst the witnesses of the
catholic tradition in the apostolic age, both because very few
genuine remains of them are extant at this day, and because,
even in those which exist, they touch sparingly and with less
clearness on the doctrine of the divinity of the Son, as being
intent upon other subjects. Since, however, the author of
the Irenicum and Sandius have laid hold of this very circum-
stance as a handle for making false charges against them,
(the one dragging forward these most holy fathers by force
and against their will’, into a sanctioning of the Socinian
blasphemy, the other of the Arian,) I have thought it best, in

* (For other testimonies to the Ni- 1 Clement succeeded to the Roman
cene faith from the genuine Epistles of _ see in the year 64 or 65, and occupied
St. Ignatius, see Grabe’s notes on itto the year 81 or 83, Cave in Clem.
this chapter in the Appendix. ] — Bowyer.

Photius’ statement respecting St. Clement of Rome. 105

passing, to say a few words in opposition to their fallacies. soox τι.
I will first treat of Clement. Seagal
2. Both the author of the Jrenicum and Sandius (on the Grey RR
suggestion of Petavius') observe, that Photius long ago sus- ' Petavio
pected him of heresy against the divinity of Christ. Photius, "°°
it would seem, in treating of Clement and his Epistles, after
mentioning certain other things in his first Epistle as deserv-
ing of censure, remarks this also™ ; “ That in calling our Lord
Jesus Christ a high-priest and defender*", he does not em- ? προστά-
ploy concerning Him those expressions which are of a higher 7”
character and suitable to God; not however that he any where
openly utters blasphemy against Him in these respects.” But
Photius, who is too severe a critic of the ancients, must
himself bear the disgrace of his own rashness; and let no
one blame me for expressing myself freely respecting a com-
paratively recent patriarch of Constantinople 9, who, wantonly
and without any cause, brings under the suspicion of heresy
a Roman patriarch appointed by the Apostles themselves.
Those persons, indeed, have always appeared to me very ab-
surd, who, upon reading an epistle or short treatise of an [134]
ancient writer, (and that perhaps the only undoubted relic
of the author which has been preserved,) and finding there
some doctrine of the Christian faith either altogether un-
touched, or not explained with sufficient clearness, (because
the author, as his subject requires, is intent on some other
point,) at once suspect him of some heresy or other. It is,
however, enough for our purpose, that Clement nowhere
in his Epistle, (on Photius’ own admission,) blasphemes our
Lord Christ. |
3. Leaving Photius, then, I come to the author of the
Irenicum, who thus argues against the received catholic
doctrine*, from the first Epistle of Clement?; ‘It is cer- ὅ traditio-
tain that Clement, upon examination, will be found to"
speak continually in such wise as to leave‘ and attribute ‘ relinquat.
to the Father a superiority® over Christ, by calling Him ὅ preroga-

tivam pre

on all occasions Almighty God, the One God, the Crea- Ghisists:

™ ὅτι ἀρχιερέα καὶ προστάτην τὸν " [Photius refers to S. Clem. ad Cor.
Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐξονομά- i. ὃ 36, 58; pp. 168, 181.]
ζων, οὐδὲ Tas θεοπρεπεῖς καὶ ὑψηλοτέρας ὁ Elected patriarch in the year 858.
ἀφῆκε περὶ αὐτοῦ φωνάς: οὐ μὴν οὐδ᾽ Cave on Photius.—BowyYeEr.
ἀπαρακαλύπτως αὐτὸν οὐδαμῇ ἐν τούτοις p Irenicum, pp. 28, 24.

Brac pynmet.—Cod. exxvi.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 vix,
? ἐξοχῇ.

[135]
3 splendi-
dum.

4 ψιλὸν ἄν-

θρωπο.

106 Testimonies from St.Clem. R. to the Consubstantiality ;

tor of all things, and God, &e. Whereas, on the other hand,
he describes Christ, (as I have also remarked of Hermas,) in
such a manner only as to seem scarcely’ to have acknow-
ledged in Him any nature other than the human.” What
he here alleges concerning the pre-eminence? of the Father
being so religiously observed by Clement, does not excite in
me the very slightest difficulty ; inasmuch as I well know, and
recollect, that the Apostle Paul also did the same, (though to
my mind it is beyond all controversy, that he both believed
and taught the true Godhead of the Son,) and that the same
expressions were employed respecting God the Father by all
the fathers, even by the Nicene fathers themselves, and by
those who wrote subsequently to that council. The reason for
this, indeed, we shall clearly explain below, in the fourth book,
On the Subordination of the Son, &c. And now to those words
of the anonymous writer, in which he says that Clement, as
also Hermas, “describes Christ in such a manner only, as that
he scarcely seems to have acknowledged in Him any nature
other than the human,” I reply, that what he says of Hermas
is a glaring? falschood, as I have already most clearly proved.
And as regards Clement, the heretic was cautious in adding
that word ‘scarcely ;” for it would have been too great effron-
tery to have said, that nothing could be found in the Epistle
of Clement, to indicate that there was in Christ any other than
a human nature. Of this kind, for instance, is the passage
in which, describing the magnificent gifts (τὰ μεγαλεῖα τῶν
δωρεῶν), which were of old bestowed by God on the family of
Abraham on account of his faith, the author says?; “ From
him [came] our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh ;”
where by the limitation, “ according to the flesh,” it is plainly
intimated, that there was in Christ another nature besides the
human, or that flesh which He derived from Abraham. Be-
sides, it is very unlikely that Clement should have entertained
notions of Christ so mean and low, as to regard Him as a
mere man‘, when he dignifies Him with titles so exalted.
For he styles Christ’, “The effulgence of the Majesty of
God (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ) ;” and soon
after teaches us, that the superiority of Christ over all

4 ἐξ αὐτοῦ 6 Κύριος Ἰησοῦς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα.---». 72. [ὃ 32. p. 166.]
r p, 82. [§ 36. p. 168.]

parallel to those in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 107

the angels consists in this, that they are ministers (NesTovp- ποοκ τι.
you), that is, servants of God, the Lord of all creatures; wey rae
whilst He is not a servant, but the Son of God. Here, oR
however, Clement agreed in expression with the author of

the Epistle to the Hebrews, and indeed the learned Junius
discovered in many passages such a resemblance, both of
thought and expression, between that Epistle and this of
Clement, that (following Jerome and other ancient writers)

he imagined that the same person was the author of both.

Now he must be blinder than a mole, who does not perceive

that by the words ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης τοῦ Πατρὸς, “ the
effulgence of the Father’s glory,’ Heb. i. 3, is meant that

divine nature and majesty of the Son, in which, before the

world was’, He existed with God the Father, in which He [136]
Himself made the worlds’, and in which also, by His own ‘ante sx-

. Cula.
almighty power, He even now upholds and governs the fa- 9 tiie
bric of the universe. ie condi-

4, Klsewhere*, in the same Epistle, Clement had also“
called our Saviour, “The sceptre of the Majesty of God;”
(τὸ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ Θεοῦ) Now if this
passage be brought forward entire, and the scope and con-
text of the author be considered, it will sufficiently shew
what the view of this apostolic writer was concerning
Christ. In it he is exhorting the Corinthians to humility
_ or lowliness* of mind, from the amazing example of Christ, * modes-
in these wordst; “The sceptre of the Majesty of God», asp
our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of pride
and arrogancy, though He might have so come, but with
lowliness of mind+.” JI consider it certain, that Clement in ‘ ταπεινο-
these words meant to express the divine nature and majesty °°”
of the Saviour, in which He subsisted before His birth of
the most blessed Virgin. Nor is there room for doubt on
this point, when it is observed, that Clement calls Christ
“the sceptre of the Majesty of God,” in that state in which
He existed before His coming into the world. For if Christ
were not the sceptre of God’s Majesty prior to His advent

* p. 86. (§ 16. p. 156. ] ταπεινοφρονῶν᾽" K.T.A.—[ Ibid. ]

τ τὺ σκῆπτρον τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τοῦ u i.e. the power of God, (1 Cor. i. 24,)
Θεοῦ, ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, by ἃ metonymy of the sign for the
οὐκ ἦλθεν ἐν κόμπῳ ἀλαζονείας, οὐδὲ thing signified.
ὑπερηφανίας, καίπερ δυνάμενος' ἀλλὰ

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 συγκατά-

Baots.

[137]

2 purum
putum ho-
minem.

3 commen-
dat.

4 suam
cum Deo
ἰσοτιμίαν.
5 οὐχ ap-
παγμὸν
ἡγήσατο.

[138]

108 Passage in St.Clem. R. parallel to St. Paul’s, Phil. τι. 6.

among men, of what nature, I ask, will be that condescen-
sion’ of His, which Clement so greatly celebrates; in that,
during the period of His advent, He did not demean Him-
self as the sceptre of the Majesty of God? Besides, Clement
in this passage proposes Christ as an example of infinite
condescension, which, in our own small measure, we may
and ought to imitate indeed, (just as we should the perfect
holiness of God, Matt. v.48; 1 Pet. i. 15, 16,) though we shall
never be able to equal it. For thus, after quoting the words
of Isaiah and David, predicting the humiliation of Christ,
the holy man goes on to say’; “Ye see, beloved, what that
pattern is which has been vouchsafed to us. For if the Lord
was so lowly in mind, what shall we do, who have come
beneath the yoke of His grace?” Where, however, is that
infinite disparity, if you conceive Christ to be merely and
simply man’? This passage of Clement is clearly parallel to
that of St. Paul to the Philippians, ii. 6, &c.: for whereas there
it is, “being in the form of God,” here it is, “the sceptre of
God’s Majesty ;” and whereas there it is, “ He thought it
not robbery to be equal with God,” here it is, “ He came not
in the pomp of pride and arrogance, though He might have
so come.” And even as Paul commends’ the infinite con-
descension of Christ from this circumstance, that, being in
the form of God, He made no display of His equality‘ in
honour with God, (for this is what is signified by the words
“Tle thought it not robbery® to be equal with God,’’) so
Clement teaches, that Christ, though in very deed the sceptre
of the Majesty of God, still concealed His greatness when
He came [to sojourn] among men; i.e. a stress should be laid
upon the words, “although He might have so come:” (καίπερ
δυνάμενος.) Lastly, Paul’s expression, “He made Himself
of no reputation,” (ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν,) is evidently tantamount
to that of Clement, “ He was lowly in mind,” (ἐταπεινοφρό-
νησε.) If the reader wants an interpreter to open more clearly
the meaning both of Paul and Clement, let him by all means
consult the noble passage of Justin, which we shall adduce be-
low, out of his Epistle to Diognetus, chap. iv. § 7 of this book.

Υ ὁρᾶτε, ἄνδρες ἀγαπητοὶ, τίς ὃ bro- μεν ἡμεῖς, of ὑπὸ τὸν ξυγὸν τῆς χάριτος
γραμμὸς ὃ δεδομένος ἡμῖν. εἰ γὰρ ὁ Κύ- αὐτοῦ [δὲ αὐτοῦ] ἐλθόντες.---». 40. [ὃ
οιος5 οὕτως ἐταπεινοφρόνησεν, τί ποιήσο- 16. p. 187.

Of the second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome. 109

5. But there is extant another Epistle under the name of. βοοκ 11.

Clement in a mutilated condition, which, Eusebius says*, “ was
not known equally with the former one.” Without doubt,
the first Epistle of Clement, whether you look to the abund-
ance of matters treated of in it, or to its vigorous style, is far
superior to the second; and accordingly, as it deserved, was
held in greater esteem, and was more frequently quoted by
the doctors of the Church. From this circumstance it was
that Jerome and Ruffinus, in this instance not very happy
interpreters of Eusebius, have stated, that the second Epistle
was absolutely rejected and disallowed by the ancients as
altogether spurious. But it has been truly said by an excel-
lent man, “ Reliance ought to be placed on the author, not on
the interpreters.” But that this Epistle was called in ques-
tion by some persons, even in ancient times, seems to me to
have arisen from the fact that the first alone, for the reasons
I have mentioned, was judged worthy of being read in the
public assemblies of the Church ; whilst the other, not being
thus honoured, was by degrees neglected, as if it were not
really the writing of Clement. On this account also other
Epistles of his (for it is, in my opinion, beyond doubt, that
the holy man wrote others also) have been utterly lost’.
At any rate the second Epistle, as it is called, was circulated
in Clement’s name before the time of Eusebius; it was ad-
dressed to the Corinthians ; like the first, it was engaged in
refuting their error concerning the resurrection of the body ;
expressions and phrases familiarly used by Clement occur
throughout it; and in short there is in it nothing strange or
unworthy of Clement, so as to warrant us in suspecting it
to be the forgery of an impostor. An additional argument
in its favour may be found in the fact, that both the Epistles
of Clement are equally received in the Apostolic Canons,
(in the last canon,) and are acknowledged by Epiphanius and
others. Now, in the very beginning of this second Epistle
we ready; “ Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ
as of God.” And afterwards; “It behoves us not to en-

* οὐχ ὁμοίως τῇ προτέρᾳ γνώριμος.---- κρῶν] .... καὶ οὐ δεῖ ἡμᾶς μικρὰ φρο-
Eccl. Hist. iii. 38. νεῖν περὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν" ἐν τῷ γὰρ

Y ἀδελφοὶ, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμᾶς [1]. ὑμᾶς] φρονεῖν ἡμᾶς μικρὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ, μικρὰ
φρονεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὡς περὶ καὶ ἐλπίζομεν λαβεῖν.--- ὃ 1. p. 185ὅ.]
Θεοῦ, [ὡς περὶ κριτοῦ ζώντων καὶ νε-

CHAP, III.
8 4, 5.
Crem. ΕΒ.

1 copiam.

2 intercide-
runt:

[139]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 σωτηρίας.

[140]

2 mantissee
loco,

3 adeoque.

110 Passage out of St. Clement preserved by St. Basil.

tertain low views of our salvation!; for whilst we think little
of Him, little have we to hope to receive [of Him].” No
doubt the allusion here is to the heresy of Cerinthus, which
was not unknown either to Clement or the Corinthians. It
is, however, especially to be observed, that Clement herein
instructs us, that we ought not only to call Christ God, (which
neither the Arians nor the Socinians refuse to do,) but to
think of Him in very truth as God; that is to say, we must
conceive that idea of Christ in our minds, as of Him who is
God, not a mere creature; and that they who think other-
wise of Christ endanger their salvation. There is a remark-
able passage concerning the twofold nature of Christ, in the
ninth chapter’ of the same Epistle, (according to the division
of the last Oxford edition, and, as I hear, of Cotelerius’ also,)
in which the author, in treating of the resurrection of the
body, writes thus; “Jesus Christ the Lord, who saved us,
being at first spirit, became flesh, and thus called us. In
like manner we also shall receive our reward in this flesh.”
He here calls the divine nature of Christ, in which He sub-
sisted before His assuming flesh, spirit (πνεῦμα) ; as do also
his contemporaries, the author of the Epistle ascribed to Bar-
nabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and the divinely inspired writers of
the New Testament, as I have already shewn*. Besides these
passages it may be mentioned, (by way of addition?,) that
Basil (in his work, On the Holy Spirit, c. 29) brings for-
ward a remarkable testimony of Clement of Rome, on the
doctrine of the most Holy Trinity. The passage of Basil
stands thus’; “ But Clement also, in more primitive style,
says, ‘God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Ghost ; ” where there is no doubt that Clement said “ God
liveth” in the same sense in which in Scripture God is called
“the living God;” that is, in contrast with the idols, and
dead and feigned gods of the heathen. He declares, there-
fore, that God the Father, and Jesus Christ, (that is to say,
in so far forth as He is spirit, subsisting even before His
assumption of our flesh, nay* from everlasting,) and the

* [ὡς] (ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς) Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος, b ἀλλὰ καὶ ὃ Κλήμης ἀρχαϊκώτερον"
6 σώσας ἡμᾶς, dv μὲν τὸ πρῶτον Πνεῦμα, Ζῇ, φησὶν, ὃ Θεὺς, καὶ ὃ Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς
ἐγένετο σὰρξ, καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν᾽' Χριστὸς, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.--ἰογη.
οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ σαρκὶ ἀπο. ii. p. 858. edit. Paris. 1637. [vol. iii. p.

ληψόμεθα τὸν uicOdv.—| p. 188. ] 61. § 72.]
@ [Book i. chap. 2. § 5.]

Sandius quotes the Apost. Constitutions as St. Clemeni’s. 111

Holy Ghost, are that living and true God, whom alone, re- soox τι.

nouncing idols, we ought to worship and adore. Now I am ἐν τὴν

well aware that these words of Clement are nowhere to be Ty

found either in the first® Epistle to the Corinthians, or in

that fragment of the second which is extant: whether they

occurred in that part of it which is lost, I know not. But

the credit due to the great and excellent Basil plainly re-

quires us to believe that Clement, that very early father,

somewhere wrote to that effect’. 1 talia
scripsisse.

6. I now come to Sandius, who brings the charge of Arian-
ism against the holy Clement of Rome‘, out of the books of
the Constitutions. One would think that the man, after hav- [141]
ing made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience, had lost
all shame too. For all the reformed divines agree in say-
ing, that those Constitutions are not the work of Clement, nor
is it denied at this day by the more learned among the Ro-
man Catholics, indeed the facts of the case speak for them-
selves*. And who can endure a man, who, whilst boasting
that he has brought out the very kernel? of ecclesiastical 2 nucleus.
history, obtrudes such wares upon his reader? Meanwhile
most, if not 8115, the passages, which he has adduced out of 8 pleraque
the Constitutions, as making in favour of the Arians, can °™nia.
without difficulty be accounted for‘, on the ground that they 4 exeusari,
are said by the author in reference to that pre-eminence? of s
the Father, which He has as the fountain of Deity, and that he
wished to distinguish the Son from the Father, in opposition
to that heresy which Sabellius embraced; as will at once be
plain on examining the passages themselves. There is, indeed,
one statement objected against the author of the Constitutions
by Sandius, which admits of no defence; it is to this effect,
that “the Son of God was created out of® (or from) nothing, δ ex (vel
and once did not exist.” But I do not remember ever hay- 49) mhilo.
ing read this in the books of the Constitutions; nor do I think

ἐξοχήν.

« Enucel. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 67.

€ The eight books of the Constitu-
tions, which were written at about the
same period as the Canons, (i. 6. to-
wards the close of the second century, )
appear to have been originally com-
piled out of the various instructions

(Sidacnadrtu)andrules (διατάξεις which
apostolic men of that time used to issue.
It is most clearly certain that these
Constitutions, which had been seriously
corrupted by heretics in the time of
Epiphanius, are very different from
those which previously existed; as
might easily have happened in conse-
quence of additions, mutilations, and in-
terpolations. Cave in Clem.—Bowyer,

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON,
LT

[142]
1 condito-
rem et opi-
ficem.

? σοφῷ
φαρμάκῳ.

3 unum
mundi
architec-
tum.

4 μεθ᾽ ov.

5 δοξολο-
γία,

112 Passages in the Apost. Const. opposed to Arianism.

that any such thing is any where to be found therein. At any
rate the author expressly teaches the contrary in the forty-
first chapter of book vii., which very chapter is enumerated
by Sandius amongst those, in which [he says] Clement Arian-
izes. For setting forth there the profession of faith which
had to be made by the candidate for baptism, he thus explains
the belief concerning God the Father!; “I believe, and am
baptized, into One Unbegotten, Only True God Almighty, the
Father of Christ, the Creator and Maker! of all things.” You
see here that God is distinctly said to be the Father of Christ,
not His Creator or Maker, whilst of all the creatures He is
distinctly called the Creator and the Maker. Then, after-
wards, the author thus paraphrases the article on the only-be-
gotten Son of God £; “ Andin the Lord Jesus Christ, His only-
begotten Son, .... begotten, not created, by whom all things
were made.” Words, which by no clever charm’, (except
such as would deserve to be laughed at, rather than re-
futed,) can be made to agree with the Arian doctrine. Again,
in book vi. chap. 11, he teaches that the faith of the Apo-
stles was that by which we believe ἢ, that “there is one God,
the Father of one Son, not more; of one Paraclete through
Christ ; the Maker of all other orders; one Creator*; Maker,
through Christ, of the various creatures.” In this place,
also, he clearly excepts the Holy Spirit from the class of
things created by God. To these passages may be added
the frequent occurrence, whenever this author recites the
liturgy of the ancient Church, of this form of doxologyi;
“With whom* (that is, the Son) to Thee (God the Father)
be glory, honour, praise, glorification®, and thanksgiving ;
and to the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever, Amen.” It is so
in book vii. chap. 38; whilst in the fifteenth chapter of the
same book, near the end, the same doxology is expressed in
these words); “Τὸ Thee (the Father) be glory, praise, majesty,

[πιστεύω καὶ βαπτίζομαι εἰς ἕνα
ἀγέννητον μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν παντο-
κράτορα, τὸν πατέρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, κτι-
στὴν καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν andvtwy.—
[Δροϑβί. Const. vii. 42. p. 447.]

ε καὶ εἰς τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Xpi-
στὸν, τὸν μονογενῇ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν,. ..
γεννηθέντα, οὐ κτισθέντα, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάν-
τα ἐγένετο, [κ.τ.λ.--- 14. ΄

ἃ [καταγγέλλομεν] ἕνα Θεὸν, ἑνὸς
υἱοῦ πατέρα, οὐ πλειόνων' ἑνὸς παρα-

κλήτου διὰ Χριστοῦ; τῶν ἄλλων ταγ-
μάτων ποιητήν" ἕνα δημιουργόν" διαφόρου
κτίσεως διὰ Χριστοῦ ποιητήν.----ἰ Ibid.
vi. 11. p. 383. ]

i μεθ᾽ οὗ σοι δόξα, τιμὴ, alvos, δοξο-
λογία, εὐχαριστία, καὶ τῷ ἀγίῳ Πνεύ-
ματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.---ἰ 1014. viii.
38. p. 503.]

i σοὶ δόξα, alvos, μεγαλοπρέπεια, σέ-
Bas, προσκύνησις" καὶ τῷ σῷ παιδὶ Ἴη-
σοῦ τῷ Χριστῷ σου, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, καὶ

The Father glorified with and through the Son. 118
worship, and adoration ; also to Thy child Jesus, Thy Christ, soox τι.

CHAP. 111.

our Lord, and God, and King; and to the Holy Ghost, § 6.
both now, and ever, and world without end. Amen.” See Crem. RO
also, chapp. 16, 18, 20—22, 29, 39, 41, of the same book. [143]
Now in this ascription of glory, the same honour, the same

glory and majesty, is evidently given to the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Ghost, conjointly. But on this point there

is an excellent remark of the Pneumatomachi in Basil‘ ;

“We maintain that connumeration’ (to be reckoned together) 1 συναρίθ-
is suitable to such as are equal in honour; but subnumer- “”””
ation” (to be reckoned after) to such as differ so as to be? ὑπαρίθ-
inferior®.” Hence the Arians never willingly used this form aos =
of doxology, but changed the μεθ᾽ οὗ (with Whom), into χεῖρον πα-
δι᾿ οὗ, or ἐν ᾧ (through Whom, or, in Whom), with the design, eee
of course, τ intimating, that in nature the Son is inferior to,

and therefore alien from the Father‘. On the other hand®, ¢ adeoque
several, even of the Catholics, prior to the Council of Nice, (as ; pane
also the author of the Constitutions in other places,) em-
ployed the phrase δι᾿ οὗ (through Whom), and others again
combined the two δι᾿ οὗ and μεθ᾽ οὗ ; understanding, that is,

that it is through the Son that the glory of the Father is
manifested, and that all the glory of the Son redounds to the
Father, as the fountain of deity: and that the Son, never-
theless, ought to be adored together with the Father, as a
partaker of the same divine nature and majesty. To speak

more plainly, the ancient Catholics, when they glorified the
Father through the Son, meant to express the subordination

of the Son, in that He is the Son, and the pre-eminence® of δ Patris
the Father in that He is the Father; and on the other hand, ἐξοχήν.
by worshipping the Son with the ΗΝ they meant to express

His consubstantiality, and His subsistence” with the Father 7 subsis.
in the same divine essence and nature. That the Arians *=ta™.
however altogether disliked the expression μεθ᾽ οὗ, and ac- Biss
cordingly, whenever they were in power, changed that re-

ceived formula of doxology in the public Liturgies into δι

ov, is testified by ecclesiastical history’. Nay, Philostorgius

Θεῷ, καὶ βασιλεῖ" καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύ- τὸ χεῖρον παρηλλαγμένοις τὴν ὑπαρίθ-

ματι, νῦν, καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν μησιν.---Τὴρ. de Spirit., c.17. [§ 42. p.

αἰώνων, ἀμήν. 36. |

K ἡμεῖς τοῖς μὲν ὁμοτίμοις φαμὲν ' See Socrates ii. 21. and Sozomen
τὴν συναρίθμησιν πρέπειν" τοῖς δὲ πρὸς iii. 8; and Valesius’ notes on both.

BULL. 1

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

δ2

1 conco-
quere.

[145]

114 Antiquity of these Doxologies.

himself, the Arian historian, ili. 18, states that Flavian of
Antioch, an upholder of the Nicene Creed, having collected
a multitude of monks™, “first raised the acclamation, Glory
to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost ; for
that of those before him some, indeed, said, Glory to the
Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost; (and that this
was the form of acclamation most in use;) but that others
said, Glory to the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.”
This assertion, however, is altogether false, that Flavian was
the first to introduce into use in the Church the form of dox-
ology, ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,’ (or, with
the Son,) ‘and to the Holy Ghost,’ the expressions, ‘through
the Son,’ or ‘in the Son,’ having alone been in use before him.
For in the ancient formule of prayers which obtained in the
Church prior to [the time of] Flavian, and even of the
Nicene Council, the same doxology was in use, as is evident
from the Constitutions. We shall afterwards" shew, that
the same doxology is found in the writings of certain of the
ante-Nicene Fathers, and in particular of Clement of Alex-
andria (who moreover paraphrases that formula in such a
way as no Arian could digest!). Lastly, the fact that the
words μεθ’ ov (with Whom), were approved and employed
by writers even of the apostolic age, will appear presently,
when we come to treat of Polycarp. In the meantime,

_ you may learn from this, how unpalatable the words μεθ᾽

ov, (with Whom,) and the form, “ Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,” &c. were to the Arians. I return to San-
dius, who attempts to prove, out of the books of the Recog-
nitions also, that Clement was an Arian. But that these
Recognitions are the work of Clement, no one who is in
his right mind will seriously affirm ; they have accordingly
been disallowed and rejected°, as spurious and certainly forged

™ πρῶτον ἀναβοῆσαι, Δόξα πατρὶ, καὶ
υἱῷ, καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι. τῶν γὰρ πρὸ
αὐτοῦ, τοὺς μὲν, Δόξα πατρὶ δι᾽ υἱοῦ ἐν
ἁγίῳ πνεύματι λέγειν καὶ ταύτην μᾶλ-
λον τὴν ἐκφώνησιν ἐπιπολάζειν" τοὺς δὲ,
Δόξα πατρὶ ἐν υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι.----
[Philost. E. H., iii. 18. p. 495.]

» Cap. 6. § 4.

° 'The books (of the Recognitions) are
spurious (pseudepigraphi) and apocry-

phal, composed in the second century
by a learned and eloquent man, who
was however more of a philosopher and
philologist than a theologian, and by no
means skilled in the invention and
arrangement of fictitious narratives.
Cotelerius, Judicium de libris Re-
cogn. [Patr. Apost., tom. i, 490.]—
Bowyer.

St. Polycarp. Futility of arguments from omissions. 115

by most, if not all’, the learned, both of our own and_ δβοοκ 1.

the papal communion. And thus far concerning Clement of ras
Rome. 1 plerisque

7. I now proceed to PolycarpP. Of him Sandius4 only omnibus.
POLYCARP.

observes in a summary way, that “In his Epistle to the
Philippians, he frequently distinguishes Christ from God.”

The author of the Irenicum, however, urges this at greater
length, and wrests him to the support even of the Socinian
heresy. He writes to this effect"; “Nothing of his (Poly-
carp’s) writings has been left to us, except his Epistle to

the Philippians, and a few fragments preserved by Eusebius.

But the Epistle to the Philippians contains nothing whatever

to prove the divinity of Christ ; nay, Christ is not only always
distinguished from the Almighty, or supreme, God, (who is

also called the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,) but is con-
tinually introduced, (as in the previously-mentioned? Epistle 2 superiori.
of Clement of Rome,) merely as a man, and as one who has [146]
come in the flesh, having been constituted, that is, the ser-

vant* of all, and at length raised up [from the dead] and ex- 3 minister.
alted by God, and Who [now] is our Lord and High-Priest for

ever, in Whom therefore, all men ought to believe, &c.”’

Let us, then, first consider about the Epistle of Polycarp ;

and to begin; What though we granted to our anonymous [ ob-
jector], that that Epistle “contains nothing to prove the
divinity of Christ?” it certainly would not therefore by any
means follow, that Polycarp did not acknowledge the divinity

of Christ. For is it necessary that one who believes that
Christ is God, should profess that belief of his as often as he
writes any letter? Ridiculous! How many lengthy epistles

may you read of ecclesiastical writers, who from their hearts
believed the divinity of the Son, in which notwithstanding

you will not find even the least word? to prove the divinity of 4 ne γρὺ
Christ. Take, for example, the epistle of Cyprian to Anto- 4°"
nianus, the fifty-second in Pamelius’ edition; it is a pretty

long one, yet Cyprian doth not make any express statement

in it respecting Christ as God; nay, he throughout “ dis-
tinguishes Christ from God.” Suppose now, that this alone

P Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle Polycarp.—Bowyer.
John, was appointed bishop of Smyrna 4 Enucl. Hist. Eccles., i. p. 75,
by him, about the year 94. Cave in {pe 285]
9

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

[147]

116 Direct evidence of St. Polycarp’s Faith in our Lord’s

had been extant of all Cyprian’s letters: might not the
spirit of that most blessed martyr with justice complain
of very grave injury done to him, by the man who should
thence conclude that Cyprian did not acknowledge the
divinity of Christ? Most certainly he might. For from
many other writings of the same Cyprian still extant, we
gather assuredly that he most thoroughly held the divinity
of Christ. So likewise of Polycarp; Irenzeus testifies (in an
epistle to Florinus, in Eusebius’ Eccles. History, v. 20,) that
beside his Epistle to the Philippians, he wrote others, both
to the neighbouring Churches, and also to certain of the
brethren, from which the purity of his doctrine might be
gathered. What if in these he declared more explicitly
his faith in the divinity of Christ? Indeed Jerome actually
enumerates Polycarp amongst the ancient and apostolic wri-
ters, who by their works refuted the heresy against the
divinity of Christ, which Ebion was the first to maintain
of the Jewish, and Theodotus of Byzantium of the Gentile
Christians. His words, against Helvidius, are as followss;
“Can I not bring forward against you the entire series of
ancient authors, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenzeus, Justin Martyr,
with many other apostolic and eloquent men, who wrote
volumes full of wisdom against Ebion and Theodotus of
Byzantium (and Valentinus‘), who held these same opinions ?
If you had ever read these, you would be a wiser man.”
And it is extremely probable, that out of the other epistles
of Polycarp, now lost, were taken those five fragments by no
means to be despised, which Feuardentius first published (at
the end of his notes on Ireneus, |. iii. 6. 31.) from a MS.
in very ancient characters; as they are quoted in it by Vic-
tor, bishop of Capua, eleven hundred years ago. Now in
the third of these fragments the following words of Polycarp

s Numquid non possum tibi totam
veterum scriptorum seriem commovere,
Ignatium, Polycarpum, Ireneum, Jus-
tinum Martyrem, multosque alios apo-
stolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adver-
sus Ebionem et Theodotum Byzanti-
num (et Valentinum) hee eadem senti-
entes plena sapientia volumina con-
scripserunt? que si legisses aliquando,
plus saperes.—Chap. ix. [§ 17. vol. ii.

p- 225. ]

t Marianus Victor observes that this
[i.e. the reference to Valentinus] is
wanting in most copies; indeed the
thing speaks for itself, that the name
of Valentinus was inserted into the text
by some sciolist; for it is plain, that
the heresy of Ebion and Theodotus was
widely different from the views of Va-
lentinus concerning Christ.

Divinity ; intimations of it in his Epistle. 117

occur"; “John who was settled at Ephesus, where, being so0o0x 1.
Gentiles, they’ were ignorant of the law, began his Gospel v8 7, a
with the cause of our redemption; which cause is apparent porycanp,
from this, that God willed His own Son to become incar- ! qui.
nate for our salvation. Luke, on the other hand, commences
with the priesthood of Zacharias, that by the miracle of his
son’s nativity, and by the office of so great a preacher, he
might manifest to the Gentiles the divinity of Christ.” In
this passage the very holy man most distinctly avows and ac-
knowledges a Son of God, who was such before He was made
man, and who afterwards became incarnate, in other words,
was made man, for the salvation of mankind, at the time
and in the manner that God the Father willed; and further
he expressly teaches, that John meant to describe a Son of
God of this kind, in the beginning of his Gospel. He affirms,
moreover, that Luke’s purpose also at the commencement of
his Gospel was, to proclaim to the Gentiles, by the wonder-
ful birth of the forerunner of Christ, and by his preaching,
the divinity of Christ Himself.

8. But, secondly, there are some things even in Polycarp’s
Epistle to the Philippians which imply (and that not ob-
scurely) the divinity of Christ. Of this kind is that very
passage referred to by the author of the Jrenicum, the words
of which in the Latin version (for the Greek of that part is not
extant) are as follows*; “The God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the everlasting High-Priest Himself, the
Son of God, Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth,
and in all meekness and freedom from wrath, in patience also,
and long-suffering, and endurance, and chastity, and grant
unto you a lot and portion amongst His saints,” &e. In
these words Polycarp invokes Christ, the Son of God, along
with God the Father, as the Giver of grace in this life, and
of glory in a future life. Now that an invocation of this _

[148]

" Joannes ad Ephesum constitutus,
qui legem tanquam ex gentibus ignora-
bant, a causa nostre redemptionis evan-
gelii sumpsit exordium; que causa ex
eo apparet, quod Filium suum Deus
pro nostra salute voluit incarnari. Lu-
cas vero a Zachariz sacerdotio incipit,
ut ejus filii miracalo nativitatis, et tanti
predicatoris officio, divinitatem Christi
gentibus declararet.—[p. 205, ed. Co-

teler. |

* Deus autem et Pater Domini nos-
tri Jesu Christi, et ipse sempiternus
Pontifex, Dei Filius Jesus Christus,
wedificet vos in fide et veritate, et in
omni mansuetudine et sine iracundia,
et in patientia, et longanimitate, et to-
lerantia, et castitate; et det vobis sor-
tem et partem inter sanctos suos, ὅσο,

—Page 23. [p. 191.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 obgan-
niant.

[149]

[150].

118 Fragments of Polycarp preserved by Eusebwus ;

kind is suited to God alone, and not befitting to any creature,
(however the Arians and the Socinians may fret against
it',) Holy Scripture, right reason, and the unanimous epi-
nion of the ancient catholic doctors agree in teaching us.
Especially cleary, again, are the words of Polycarp, con-
cerning Christ as the Overseer and the Judge of all men;
“For we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and
must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ and
give account every one for himself. Thus then let us serve
Him with fear and all reverence, as He hath Himself com-
manded, and the Apostles, who preached the gospel unto
us, and the prophets, who foretold the coming of our Lord.”
In this passage Polycarp either is speaking concerning Christ —
alone, calling Him both God and Lord, (as indeed he seems
to be speaking of a single Person,) or, at any rate, he joins
with God the Father Christ His Son, as equally the uni-
versal Overseer, παντεπόπτης, unto whose eyes all things
are subjected: as also the universal Judge, TAVTOOLKAGTNS,
at whose tribunal all men, without exception, will have
to stand: and by this argument he exhorts the faithful
to serve the same Lord Jesus with fear and all reverence.
And the sense of this passage of Polycarp is made clear
by a parallel passage of the blessed Ignatius, in his Epistle
to the Ephesians, “There is nothing hidden from the Lord,”
&e., which we adduced in the preceding chapter’.

9. But let us at length pass to the fragments of Polycarp,
which are preserved by Eusebius. Amongst them is espe-
cially memorable that prayer of Polycarp*, now on the
point of suffering martyrdom, preserved in Eusebius’ Eccl.
Hist. iv. 15; it concludes with this remarkable doxology? ;
“Wherefore also for all things I praise Thee, I bless Thee,
I glorify Thee, through the eternal High-Priest, Jesus Christ,
Thy beloved Son, through whom, unto Thee, with Himself,

Υ ἀπέναντι yap τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ὃ He suffered A.D. 175. Cave.

Θεοῦ ἐσμὲν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ πάντας δεῖ
παραστῆναι τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ
ἕκαστον ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον δοῦναι. οὕ-
> U 3 a \
τως οὖν δουλεύσωμεν αὐτῷ μετὰ φόβου
\ / 3 / \ > 2
καὶ πάσης εὐλαβείας, καθὼς αὐτὸς ἐνε-
τείλατο, καὶ οἱ εὐαγγελισάμενοι ἡμᾶς
ἀπόστολοι, καὶ of προφῆται, of προκηρύ-
ἔαντες τὴν ἔλευσιν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν.---
§ 6. p. 188. ]
* Ὁ ii, § 6. p. 95. |

Bowyer.

b διὰ τοῦτο Kal περὶ πάντων σὲ αἰνῶ,
σὲ εὐλογῶ, σὲ δοξάζω διὰ τοῦ αἰωνίου
ἀρχιερέως Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἀγαπη-
τοῦ σοῦ παιδός" δὲ οὗ σοι σὺν αὐτῷ ἐν
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ δόξα καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς
μέλλοντας αἰῶνας" ’"Auhy.—[Euseb. Εἰ.
H., iv. 15, Mart. Polyc., § 14. Patr.
Ap. ii. 201.]

His prayer before death; its genuineness. 119

in the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” βοοκ 1.
You perceive that here God the Father is glorified not only wre i
through, but also together with the Son, one and the same Poxycare.
glory being attributed to them both “in the Holy Ghost.”

And I have already in this chapter in part shewn, how alto-

gether opposed is this form of doxology to the heresy of those

who deny the true divinity of Christ. Indeed Petavius him-

self had alleged this passage, in proof ofthe doctrine of the

most holy Trinity. But what answer does the author of the
Irenicum make to him? “ With respect,” he says‘, “to the

short prayer’ ascribed to Polycarp, and which Petavius ' precati-
adduces in confirmation of his [opinion concerning the] aie
Trinity’, it is more to the prejudice than to the support of ? pro Trini-
his cause: inasmuch as in it he manifestly calls the Father asia
of Jesus Christ alone the true God and Creator of all things, tione.
and invokes Him through the Son, whom he merely names
High-Priest. Task, therefore, what does this mode of speech
indicate, nay, what can it indicate, other than that Polycarp

held and regarded (as in his Epistle also) the Father alone 54
to be the supreme God ?” In these words, I think, that the

man’s craft is worthy to be noted first, in that he wishes to
suggest to his reader a suspicion that this prayer of Polycarp

is not really his, but only “ascribed” to him. Yet certainly

there is scarcely any fragment of primitive antiquity, pre-

served by Eusebius, which is worthy of more credit than this

last prayer of the dying Polycarp. It is extracted from an
Epistle written by the brethren of Smyrna, who had been
eye-witnesses of the suffering of the blessed Polycarp, to the
Church at Philomelium, on their request to be put in posses- [151}
sion of all the particulars of the martyrdom of that most holy.
man. Of this Epistle no man of learning up to this time has
entertained a doubt, nor is it possible for any one hereafter

to do so with any reason, inasmuch as even before Eusebius’

time it was read among the public acts of the martyrs, and
breathes throughout the spirit of the first Christians, that is,

their purity of doctrine, their piety and their simplicity. Re-
specting these acts of Polycarp and of the martyrs of Gaul,

hear the judgment of the great Joseph Scaliger4; “So af-
fected,” he says, “is the mind of the pious reader by their

¢ Page 29. 4 Animadvers. in Eusebii Chron. num, 2183.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 conscien-
tiz modo.

3 non am-
plius meus,

3 cramben
decies re-
coctam.

4 aliquo
respectu.

> a seipso.

[152]

6 proprie.

120 Jn what sense the Father alone is the supreme God.

perusal, as never to leave them with feelings of satiety ; and
that this is indeed the case, every one may perceive in pro-
portion to his intelligence and his measure of inward sense!.
For my own part, I certainly have never met with any thing
in ecclesiastical history, from the reading of which I rise
more moved, even to such an extent as to seem to be no
longer master of myself?.”

10. But this most illustrious monument of the faith of
Polycarp has greatly vexed the author of the Jrenicum, not-
withstanding his pretences to the contrary. I scarcely know
how he had the effrontery to assert that this prayer “ told
more against than in favour of Petavius,” when he argued
from it in defence of [the doctrine of] the most sacred
Trinity. Nay, he says it is manifest that Polycarp in this
prayer calls the Father of Jesus Christ alone the true God
and Creator of all things; and invokes Him through the
Son, calling the latter only High-Priest ; and, in fact, he so
speaks as that he seems to have acknowledged the Father
only to be the supreme God. But here the heretic only
serves up to our disgust, for the tenth time, the self-same
dish?, We confess, we freely confess, that the Father alone
is, in one point of view‘, the supreme God; I mean, in that
He Himself is (as Athanasius expresses it) “the fountain of
Deity,” (πηγὴ θεότητος,) that is, He alone is God of Him-
self>, from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost receive their
Godhead; and on this account also it is, that the appella-
tion of “the true God” is frequently assigned, in a peculiar
sense®, to the Father, both in the Holy Scriptures and in the
writings of the ancients, especially when the divine Persons
are mentioned together. Notwithstanding, at the same time
we, with the fathers of Nice, do also firmly maintain that
the Son is “ Light of Light, God of God,” and consequently
“very God of very God.” And the anonymous author might
on like ground have alleged their confession of faith in op-
position to the doctrine concerning the divinity of the Son
and concerning the most holy Trinity; for thus do they
begin their creed; “ We believe in one God, the Father Al-
mighty, the Maker of all things, visible and invisible.” 10
is, however, worth while here to put before the reader the
words of Polycarp in the opening of his prayer, which ap-

Polycarp’s opening words indicate the Divinity of the Son. 121

peared to the author of the Jrenicum to be so very favourable 3800x πὶ.
to his heresy: they are as follows®; “[O Lord God,] the τ τον
Father of Thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through porycanp.
whom we have received the knowledge of Thee; God of

angels, and powers, and of the whole creation,” &e. Now I

affirm that utter darkness must envelope the mind of that

man who does not perceive that in these words the death-

blow is struck at Socinianism, and at Arianism too. For
Polycarp here teaches that God is the Father of His blessed

Son, but the God (that is, the Creator) of angels, and
powers, and of the whole creation ; so'as thereby most clearly

to distinguish and most widely to separate the blessed Son

of God from angels, and powers, and the whole order of
created beings; and, consequently, to take Him out of the

class' of creatures, and to teach that God is in quite a differ- ! creatura-
ent relation? to His blessed Son, from that in which He πανία,
stands to the angels and the host of other created beings.

Added to this, the epithet εὐλογητὸς, (blessed,) applied by
Polycarp in this passage to the Son of God, was by the [153]
ancient Jews employed in a peculiar application’ in the cele- 8 proprie.
bration of the divine name; for (as the learned are well

aware) own 12, “blessed be the Name,” was the accus-

tomed formulary in their doxologies. And they have been
imitated by the writers of the New Testament, whenever

they wished to speak in terms of special reverence of the

divine Persons, and to celebrate more clearly their supreme

glory and majesty. Compare Mark xiv. 61; Luke i. 68; |

Rom, 1.20); 1%.°0 5 se Cor. x1. 31+ Ephes; 1,3 >" 1>Pet. t Ὁ,

_with Genesis ix. 26; xiv. 20; xxiv. 27, &c. That is untrue,
therefore, which the anonymous author asserts, that Poly-

carp here gives merely the appellation of High-Priest to

Christ, and therefore it is to no purpose, that he after-

wards observes, that the appellation of High-Priest, which is

applied to Christ, denotes that He is man. [or suppose it

be so, what will follow? that Christ is man as well‘ [as ‘etiam ho-
God], which we likewise firmly believe. Therefore, supposing “""°™
that the title of ἀρχιερεὺς, (High-Priest,) implies that He is

© [Κύριε 6 Ocbs...] ὁ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ σιν εἰλήφαμεν" ὃ Θεὸς ἀγγέλων καὶ δυ-
καὶ εὐλογητοῦ παιδός σου Ἰησοῦ Χρι- νάμεων καὶ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως" K.T.A—
στοῦ πατὴρ, δι’ οὗ τὴν περὶ σὲ ἐπίγνω- [ὃ 14. p. 200.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 festivum.

2 Quid,
quod,

[154]

3 bipe- .
dum.

4 ineptissi-
mum.

5 splendido.

122 The doxology in Polycarp’s prayer evidences His Divinity.

Son of man, yet at any rate the designation of ὁ παῖς θεοῦ,
ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ὁ εὐλογητὸς, “the Son of God, the beloved, the
blessed,” most certainly sounds like something more than
man; especially when such a description of the beloved and
blessed Son of God is added, as puts that Son into a condi-
tion separate from and above that of creatures.

11. But the charge which the heretic’ brings against Pe-
tavius is quite amusing’, namely, that “The prayer of Poly-
carp, as it is adduced by him, is very different from that
which Scultetus brings forward in his Medulla Theologie
Patrum, xi. 1. A> grave charge indeed! As if Petavius
had not done right in giving the prayer in the precise
words in which it was reported by the brethren of Smyrna
in their letter extant in Eusebius! What will you say of the
fact that? Scultetus in the alleged passage does not recite
the very words of Polycarp’s prayer, but only summarily
gives the sense of it? From this, however, and many other
indications, you will be right in conjecturing that this anony-
mous writer, for the most part, did not derive the ancient
testimonies, which he has heaped together in his Jrenicum,
by his own industry from the original sources, but tran-
scribed them into his own book from Scultetus, Petavius,
and others. So that of all creatures® he was the most unfit’
to undertake “to lay before the Christian world, more clearly
than had ever been done before, the true monuments of pri-
mitive antiquity and of the faith of the first Christians ;”
which he most foolishly boasts of having done in the impos-
ing? title which he prefixes to the third section of his Norma
Reconciliatrix’,—his rule of reconciliation,—as he calls it.

12. But let us now, at last, consider what may be gathered
from the doxology with which Polycarp’s prayer concludes, in
confirmation of the Godhead of the Son, and therefore of the
consubstantiality of the Trinity. We maintain, then, that the
embracing of the Three in the same formula and participa-
tion of glory, indicates unity of nature and of Godhead, and
in that respect the equality of the Persons. For most truly
does Athanasius say, in his third oration against the Arians’, .

f Trenic., p. 30. τὸν κτίστην; ἤ διὰ τί τὸ πεποιημένον
δ Irenic., p. 18. συναριθμεῖται τῷ ποίησαντι.---ἰ ΟΥδί, il
© ποία γὰρ κοινωνία τῷ κτίσματι mpds pp. 11. vol. i. p. ὅ08.]

The joining the Son with the Father implies Their equality. 123

in treating of the form of Baptism: “ For what fellowship is
there between the creature and the Creator? or wherefore
is that which is made classed! with the Maker?” Well, too,
is it said by Gregory Nazianzen, in his thirteenth Orationi;
“The Trinity is really a Trinity’, my brethren; a Trinity
however is not a numbering up of things unequal; else
what hinders but that we should give It the name? of de-
cade, century, or myriad, if taken together with so many ?
for there are many things that may be counted, and more
than these; but it is a taking together’ of things equal,
and of the same honour.” And indeed, if in the Christians’
doxologies the Son and Holy Ghost were joined unto God
the Father, not as of one substance with Him, but only as
created beings of a higher class, why should not other
superior creatures also be numbered together with Them,
in their own order, in the’ same [doxologies] ἢ Why should
we not say, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to
the Holy Ghost, and to Michael, and to the rest of the
archangels and angels? And so, forsooth, that blasphem-
ous formula of the papists would at last have to be ac-
counted legitimate, Praise be to God and to the Virgin
Mother of God. But far otherwise was it that the dis-
ciples of the Apostles were taught.

18. Let us consider what the author of the Irenicum
alleges in reply to these considerations. He first takes
occasion for cavil from the circumstance that Polycarp in this
formula does not say, “ with the Holy Ghost,” or “and to the
Holy Ghost,” but “in the Holy Ghost.” “Nay but,” he
says, “the expression ‘in the Holy Ghost’ does not in itself ®
imply an association into the same fellowship of glory.
For in Eph. vi. 18, we are taught to pray in the Spirit,
without any intimation of equality between the Spirit and
the Father.” But what is trifling in a grave matter and
openly playing the sophist, if this be not? By the phrase
“an the spirit,” in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is not

meant the Holy Ghost, but our own spirit, assisted in-

i τριὰς ὧς ἀληθῶς ἡ τριὰς, ἀδελφοί: ἴσων καὶ ὁμοτίμων σύλληψις. [ ἑνούσης
τριὰς δὲ οὐ πραγμάτων ἀνίσων ἀπαρίθ- τῆς mposnyoplas τὰ ἡνωμένα ἐκ φυσέως
μησις᾽ ἢ τί κωλύει καὶ δεκάδα, καὶ ἑκα- καὶ οὐκ ἐώσης σκεδασθῆναι ἀριθμῷ λυο-
τοντάδα, καὶ μυριάδα dvoudtew, μετὰ μένῳ τὰ μὴ λυόμενα. |—Page 211. ed.

τοσούτων συντιθεμένην ; πολλὰ γὰρ τὰ Par. 1630. [Orat. xxiii. 10. p. 431.]
ἀριθμούμενα, καὶ πλείω τούτων ἀλλ᾽

ΒΟΟΚ 11.
CHAP. TE.
δ. 10:13.

PoLycarRp,

1 συναριθ-
μεῖται.
2 σριάς.

3 ὀνομάζειν.

τ σύλληψι: τι

[155]

5 adhuc.

124 Evidence from the language of the Christians of Smyrna.
ΟΝ ΤῊΣ deed by the grace of the Holy Ghost. So that to “pray

coe. in the spirit,” is the same as the expression “in your

Lity OF heart,” that is, with sincere affection of heart, in chap. v.
THE SON. : y A :

τ" ver. 19. of the same Epistle. But this very thing induces

me to suspect that this anonymous author belongs to the

number of the Pneumatomachi, [fighters against the Spirit,] _

who deny not only the divinity, but also the personality, as :

they express it, of the Holy Ghost. Yet whatever this weak

Ihomun- man, who is but of yesterday, may think about the Holy

I 156] Ghost, it is certain that blessed Polycarp, and the Catho-

lics his contemporaries, believed that the Holy Ghost is a

Person distinct from the Father and the Son, and at the

same time divine, that is to say, a partaker of the same

majesty, dominion, and honour with the Father and the Son.

Here is a testimony of this, which is above all exception,

the confession of the brethren of Smyrna, who at any rate

knew very well the mind both of Polycarp and of the

Catholic Church of that time. For thus do they con-

clude their letter respecting the martyrdom of Polycarp?:

“Our prayer for you, brethren, is that ye may be strong,

walking in the word of Jesus Christ, which is according to

His gospel; with whom be glory and honour to God both

? τῶν ἁγίων Father and Holy Ghost, for the salvation of the elect saints ’.”

ἐκλεκτῶν. Ty these words divine glory and honour is expressly attri-

buted to the Holy Ghost, together with the Father and the

Son; nor is the Son more clearly distinguished from the

Father than the Holy Ghost is from both. Altogether

parallel to this is the doxology of the companions of Igna-

tius, towards the conclusion of the Acts of the Martyrdom of

that saint*: ‘Glorifying in his (Ignatius’) venerable and

sacred memory, our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and

with whom to the Father be glory and power, with the Holy

i ἐρρῶσθαι ὑμᾶς εὐχόμεθα, ἀδελφοὶ, per quem et cum quo Patri gloria et
στοιχοῦντας τῷ κατὰ Td εὐαγγέλιον Ad- _potentia eum Spiritu Sancto in sancta
ye, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" μεθ᾽ οὗ δόξα τῷ ecclesiainswcula seculorum. Amen.”
Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, ἐπὶ The concluding words of the Greek
σωτηρίᾳ τῇ τῶν ἁγίων ἐκλεκτῶν. κιτιλ. original, ὑμνοῦντες τὸν Θεὺν, τὸν δο-
See Valesius’ notes on Euseb., ρ. 78. τῆρα τῶν ἀγαθῶν, καὶ μακαρίσαντες τὸν ἡ
[p. 171.]} dyiov.... ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ

k (The Latin of this passage given ἡμῶν, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ μεθ᾽ οὗ τῷ πατρὶ ἣ δόξα
by Bp. Bull is, “ Glorificantes in ipsius καὶ τὸ κράτος σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι εἰς
(Ignatii) venerabili et sancta memoria αἰῶνας. ἀμήν. § 7. Patr. Ap. ii. 161.]
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum :

Force of the words “ with the Holy Ghost,” in the Doxology. 125

Ghost, in the holy Church, for ever and ever. Amen.” soox τι.
Wherein also you will observe by the way that both phrases ἐν τῶ τῳ
“through whom” and “with whom” are employed respect- Porycarr.
ing the Son, just as in the prayer of Polycarp; the reason of δ6
which 1 have mentioned above. However, it appears to me
that the ancients in their doxologies used not only the forms
~ “with the Holy Ghost,” or “and to the Holy Ghost,” but also
sometimes “in the Holy Ghost,” for the very purpose of
signifying that the Holy Ghost, insomuch as He proceedeth! [157]
from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through ! quatenus
the Son, constitutes the communion and unity of them both; aie
and thus is as it were the bond of the most holy Trinity, as
indeed He is expressly called by some of the ancients!. This
is more distinctly expressed in that very ancient formula:
“Glory be to the Father and to the Son in the unity of the
Holy Ghost.” Accordingly a very early writer, Athenago-
ras, (in his™ Apology? for the Christians,) calls the Father ? legatio.
and the Son one ἑνότητι Πνεύματος, “by the unity of the
Spirit.” Synesius, in his hymns, elegantly expresses this
mystery in more than one passage; for instance, in his
third hymn, he thus addresses the Holy Ghost :

“Ὅρος εἶ φυσέων,

Thou art the boundary of the natures ;

Tas τικτοίσας,

Of the begetting [nature, ]

Καὶ τικτομένας,

And of the begotten.

and in his fourth hymn after celebrating the praises of God
the Father and the Son, he proceeds to sing:

Mecdtav ἀρχὰν,
The intervening principle ;
᾿Αγίαν πνοιὰν,
The Holy Spirit ;
Kévtpov γενέτου,
Centre of the Father,
Κέντρον δὲ κόρου,
And centre of the Son.
14, I return, however, to the author of the Zrenicum, who

1 See Petav. de Trin. vii. 12. 8.
™ P. 10. [§ 10. p. 287. B. The passage is quoted at length, ii. 4. 9.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[168]

1 juxtim
cum.

2 Domi-
numque
factum.

126 Divine worship offered to Christ : not as to a glorified man,

thus proceeds with his cavils: “ Besides, the earlier writers,
when they praised the Son together with the Father and the
Holy Ghost, nevertheless did not (as is now being fully shewn

in this place, and will afterwards be shewn in the case of Justin

Martyr and others) either lay down, or believe, that either the
Son or the Holy Ghost is equal with the Father: nay, they
did not even venture to designate the Holy Ghost, God.” My
answer is this; What these earlier writers thought concern-
ing the equality of the Persons, (I mean of the Father and of
the Son,) we*shall shew at length in our fourth book ; where
it will be made clear, that those earlier writers laid down no
other inequality between the Persons of the Father and of the
Son, than was recognised by the fathers who flourished after
the council of Nice, by Catholics of the present day, and fur-
ther, by the very schoolmen themselves. Meanwhile, this is
certain, that the fathers of the first three centuries, without
exception, taught, that the Son is of the same nature with the
Father, and therefore is very God; and that it was under no
other conception [of Him] that they glorified Him together
with God the Father. We have already proved this in the
case of the author of the Epistle attributed to Barnabas, of
Hermas, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome; we are now shew-
ing the same respecting Polycarp, and, finally, shall shew it
of Justin Martyr and all the other fathers who preceded the
council of Nice, one by one, in the course of this book. With
respect to the Holy Ghost, we shall in this work incidentally
shew that the same earlier fathers confessed His consub-
stantiality also, and by consequence, His divinity ; nay, that
by some of them the Holy Ghost is expressly called God.

15. At last the heretic essays to explain how it is that we
are bound to offer divine worship to Christ, notwithstanding
that He is in His own nature a mere man. “In truth,” he
says, “both angels and men are bound to adore the man
Christ, and to worship and to glorify Him with and next to!
God, according to the divine prediction, Jer. xxx. 9; Ezek.
xxxiv. 23, 24, yet only as the servant and the ambassador of
God, and made Lord’. Compare Phil. ii. 9—11; Acts 11. 36.”
To which I reply ; Christ is proposed for our worship in the
Scriptures, not only as the servant and ambassador of God,
who afterwards was made Lord, but as the Son of God, begot-
ten of the Father before the worlds, who out of His infinite

᾿ but as to one to whom glory was due as God. 197

love to the human race, having taken upon Himself that office Book 1.
of ambassador to man, earned for Himself, as it were by a new G1. τῇ ᾿ : te
title, that divine honour should be paid to Him by men; in porycanp.
other words, by a new and amazing act of kindness He bound [159]
men to worship and to serve Him. At any rate, in that pas-
sage to the Philippians, (which the anonymous author and
his crew’ especially put forward?,) it is shewn that He, who’ gregales.
after His death is declared to have been very highly exalted ’ venditant.
by God, did also before He assumed the form of a servant,
that is, (as Paul interprets himself,) before He was made man,
exist in the form of God, and was equal with God. The in-
terpretations by which both Arians and Socinians endeavour
to elude the force of that passage are manifestly absurd, as
any one will easily perceive who carefully weighs the context
of the whole passage. So also in the Epistle to the He-
brews i. 2, 3, He, who, after “ He had by Himself purged our
sins, sat down at the right hand of the majesty in the highest,”
the same is declared to be the Son of God, “ through whom the
worlds were made, and the brightness of the Father’s glory,
upholding all things by the word of His power.’ We do not,
however, deny that the human nature of Christ, so far
forth as it was capable *, came into a participation of glory * pro suo
and honour with the Divine Person of the Son of God. “?™
Certainly* this 15 what Paul plainly teaches as does the ‘ scilicet.
author of the Epistle, called that of Barnabas, when he says,
that Christ willed “the vessel of His spirit to be glorified,”
as we have observed already". And Hermas means no other
when (in the passage which we also quoted above®) he says, 57
that “the servant,” that is, the man Christ, “‘ by reason of
the good service which He had performed, was made co-heir
with the Son of God.” This passage of Hermas also com-
pletely overthrows the notion of the anonymous writer. For
in it there is made a most manifest distinction between
that divine honour which Christ, as Son of God, (that is,
according to Hermas’ own interpretation,) existing before all
creatures, had previously with the Father, and that honour
which was given to Christ, the servant, that is, the man “who [160]
became obedient to death, even the death of the cross,” as
a reward after His death. Meanwhile the human nature of
Christ, being exalted after death, has become a partaker of

n Chap. 2. § 3. of this book, p. 91. Ὁ (Ibid. p. 90.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

2 in perso-
nam ter-
minetur,
non in
naturam.

3 tendat in
Creatorem.

4 μακρύ-
VOMEV.

5 ov κτί-
σματι προ-
σκυνοῦ-
μεν.

128 Christ’s human nature glorified by union with the Divine.

the divine dominion and honour, not of itself’, but by reason
of the person of the Word, by which it is sustained, and to
which it is united; so that that honour properly has its
object in the person and not in the nature’; and accord-
ingly it is plain, that when the manhood of Christ is wor-
shipped, the creature is not in such wise worshipped, but
that the act [of worship] properly tends to the Creator*, Who
has joined a created nature unto Himself in unity of person.
This subject is well explained by the truly great Athanasius,
in an Epistle to the Bishop Adelphius, against the Arians,
in these words®: “It is not a creature that we worship,
God forbid! for to the heathen and the Arians does such
error belong; but it is the Lord of the creation, incarnate,
the Word of God, whom we worship; for although the flesh
taken by itself is a portion of created things, yet it has been
made the body of God. And neither do we worship such
a body as this by itself parting it from the Word, nor
wishing to worship the Word do we separate it from the
flesh‘; but knowing, as we said before, what is written, ‘the
Word was made flesh,? Him we acknowledge to be Goa,
even when He has come to be in the flesh.” And afterwards
in the same Epistle? he says, “ Let them,” that 1s, let the
Arians, “know, that when we worship the Lord in the flesh,
we do not worship’ a creature?, but the Creator, who hath
clothed Himself in the created body.” Lastly, he concludes
his epistle with these words‘, which are especially worthy of
being observed: “The faith of the Catholic Church knoweth
the Word of God as Maker and Creator of all things; and we
know that ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God;’ and Him, having become man also for our salva-
tion, do we worship: not asif He had come to be in the body

ο οὗ κτίσμα προσκυνοῦμεν, μὴ γένοιτο.
ἐθνικῶν γὰρ καὶ ᾿Αρειανῶν ἡ τοιαύτη
πλάνη" ἀλλὰ τὸν Κύριον τῆς κτίσεως
σαρκωθέντα τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον προσκυ-
νοῦμεν. εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἣ σὰρξ αὐτὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυ-
τὴν μέρος ἐστὶ τῶν κτισμάτων, ἀλλὰ
Θεοῦ γέγονε σῶμα’ καὶ οὔτε τὸ τοιοῦ-
τον σῶμα καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ διαιροῦντες ἀπὸ τοῦ
λόγου προσκυνοῦμεν, οὔτε τὸν λόγον
προσκυνῆσαι θέλοντες μακρύνομεν αὐτὸν
ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκός ἀλλ᾽ εἰδότες, καθὰ
προείπομεν, τὸ, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο,
τοῦτον καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενον ἐπιγινώ-
σκομεν @cdv.—Tom. i. p. 157. [vol. i.

Ῥ. 912. ὃ 3.]

p γινωσκέτωσαν ὅτι τὸν Κύριον ἐν
σαρκὶ προσκυνοῦντες οὐ κτίσματι προ-
σκυνοῦμεν, ἀλλὰ τὸν κτίστην ἐνδυσάμε-
νον τὸ κτιστὸν σῶμα.---Ῥρ. 161, 162. [p.
916. This (κτίσματι) is the reading of
the Benedictine editor even, following _
all others: but it should be corrected
to κτίσμα T1.—B. ]

a ἡ πίστις τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας
κτίστην οἷδε τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον καὶ δη-
μιουργὺν τῶν ἁπάντων" καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι
ἐν ἀρχῇ μὲν ἦν ὃ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. γενόμενον δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ
ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν
προσκυνοῦμεν, οὐχ᾽ ws ἶσον ἐν ἴσῳ γενό-

Glory ascribed to Christ, as in Himself the Son of God. 129

as one of two equal things may be in another!, but as a Master Bo0ox τι.
having taken to Himself the form of a servant, and as Maker 8 1: 5, ; ee
and Creator, having come to be in a creature, that in it pun
having set all things free, He might bring near? the world 1 οὐχ’ ὡς
unto the Father, and make at peace all things, both those he ἐμ
that are in heaven and those that are on earth. For thus do “ ᾧ σώματι.
we both acknowledge His Godhead which He has from the Bele aie
Father, and we worship His presence in the flesh, even though
the Arian madmen burst with rage’. * διαρρηγ-
16. I return to Polycarp and the brethren of Smyrna. It Ὁ
is evident that they glorified Christ together with God the
Father, not as a servant who afterwards was made Lord, but
as the “beloved and blessed Son,” the only-begotten of the
Father ; as will easily be seen by any one who reads the Epi-
stle of the Smyrneans. And that by these titles the divine na-
ture, glory, and majesty of the Son of God are expressed, we
have already shewn in part from the consent of the ancient
Church, and shall elsewhere demonstrate more fully. But
the Smyrneans also, in assigning a reason, why, at the same
time that they adored* Christ, a man, and that crucified, 4 adora-
they yet did not worship® the martyrs, the followers of the suf- ὦ ee
ferings® of Christ, thus speak’ distinctly concerning Christ’; ¢ jmitantes
“For Him indeed we worship as being the Son of God,” passiorem.
(not as a mere man;) presently after, respecting the martyrs oe
they add, (and O that the papists would mark their words,)
“The martyrs however we love, as is their due*®, as disci- 8 ἀξίως.
ples and followers® of the Lord, for their affection” to their 9 μιμητάς.
own King and Master, an affection which cannot be sur- " εὐνοίας.
passed.” Besides, these same Smyrneans, as we have seen,
ascribe divine honour unto the Holy Ghost also, together with
God the Father. But, I ask, on what ground? Is it as having
been made Lord? Let the author of the Jrenicum tell us, when

and how the Holy Ghost from being a servant was made Lord ?

[162]

μενον τῷ σώματι, GAN’ ὡς δεσπότην προσ-
λαβόντα τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν, καὶ
δημιουργὸν καὶ κτίστην ἐν κτίσματι γε-
vouevov’ ἵν᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἐλευθε-
ρώσας τὸν κόσμον προσαγάγῃ τῷ Πατρὶ,
καὶ εἰρηνουποιήσῃ τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν οὐρα-
νοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ
τὴν πατρικὴν αὐτοῦ θεότητα ἐπιγινώ-
σκομεν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον αὐτοῦ παρου-
BULL.

clay προσκυνοῦμεν, κἂν ᾿Αρειομανῖται
διαρρηγνύωσιν éavtovs.—pp. 161, 162.
[p. 916.]

8 τοῦτον μὲν γὰρ υἱὸν ὄντα TOD Θεοῦ
προσκυνοῦμεν. . .. τοὺς δὲ μάρτυρας ὡς
μαθητὰς καὶ μιμητὰς τοῦ Κυρίου ἀγαπῶ-
μεν ἀξίως, ἕνεκα εὐνοίας ἀνυπερβλήτου
τῆς εἰς τὸν ἴδιον βασιλέα καὶ διδάσκα-
Aov. [§ 17. Patr. Ap. ii. 202. ]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[163]

1 Pneuma-
tomacho-
rum.

2 virtutem.

3 persona.

4 natura
Deum.

5 scilicet.

6 sua ab
eodem
Filio.

180 Glory ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as in Himself God ;

Or is it, as being a created spirit, more excellent than the
other spirits, or angels? But all admit that divine worship is
not due to any created being, per se, be he never so exalted.
Besides, the sacred Scriptures every where‘ most clearly
teach, that the Holy Ghost subsists in God Himself, and that
His mind and all His secret things are intimately known
and perceived by Him, that He is every where present, &c. ;
nor have they any where delivered one iota to lead you
to suspect that He is placed in the rank of created beings.
Hence the greatest and more sagacious portion of those who
contend against the Holy Spirit’ have at all times thought
it better roundly to deny the personality itself of the Holy
Ghost, and to assert that He is nothing else than the in-
fluence? and power of God the Father Himself, and not
distinguished from Him, than to affirm that He is a crea-
ture, against so many and such clear testimonies of Scrip-
ture. But they also are as nothing: for in the Scriptures
the Holy Ghost is not less clearly distinguished from the
Father than is the Son Himself, (an assertion which, if that
were the matter in hand, might very easily be proved;) and
the whole Catholic Church has ever believed and taught that
the Holy Ghost is a person distinct from the Father. It re-
mains, therefore, that we confess that the ancient Christians
worshipped the Holy Ghost under this conception, that; He is
the Spirit of God, subsisting in God Himself, and conse-
quently Himself God; but yet personally* distinct from God,
whose Spirit He is. Now if this be true, as indeed it 15 most
true, it will follow that these same ancients either worshipped
the Son as being in His nature (οα΄, or regarded Him as
inferior to the Holy Ghost; for, without doubt, it is a greater
prerogative of honour to be worshipped as being in nature
God, than as one that has been made God and Lord. But
that the Son is inferior to the Holy Ghost was never dreamt
of amongst Catholics; seeing that® in the Scriptures the Holy
Ghost is said to be sent by the Son, and to have received from
Him what He hath of His own’; and in all the doxologies of
the ancients, wherein the divine Persons are enumerated in
their order, the Son has assigned to Him the second, (δευτέ-

* See especially 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.

It follows from this that the Son is God, a fortiori. 131

pav,) whilst the Holy Ghost has the third place or rank, soox τι.

(τρίτην χώραν ἢ τάξιν,) to use the words of Justin". $16, Ti
17. This [last consideration] is indeed a most irrefragable Porycanp.

argument for the divinity of Christ; and so the ancients

judged. For thus Novatian, or the author of the Book on

the Trinity amongst the works of Tertullian, writes, chap.

24°; “If Christ be only man, how is it that He says that

the Comforter shall take of His! what He is about to 46- 1 de suo.

clare’ [unto men*]? For the Comforter does not receive voto

any thing from man, but [rather] the Comforter communi- sit,

cates knowledge to man; neither does the Comforter learn

from man the things that shall come to pass, but [rather]

the Comforter instructs man respecting what shall come to

pass. It follows, therefore, either that the Comforter did not

receive from Christ, a [mere] man, what He has to declare,

since it will never be in the power of man to give any thing

to the Comforter, from whom it behoves man himself to re-

ceive, and [in that case] Christ in this passage misleads and

deceives by saying that the Comforter shall receive from

Him, a [mere] man, what He has to declare ; or [this is the

alternative, that] He does not mislead us, (as neither indeed

does He deceive us,) and the Comforter did receive from

Christ that which He has to declare. But if [it be so, that]

He did receive from Christ what He has to declare, then it

follows at once that Christ is greater than the Comforter,

since the Comforter would not receive from Christ if He

were not less than Christ: but the Comforter [being] less

than Christ, does from this very fact prove Christ also to be

God, from whom He received what He declares. So tHat 17

DIVINITY oF Curist, that the

[164]

IS A GREAT TESTIMONY TO THE

" [Apol. i. § 16. pp. 60, 61.) sicut nec fallit, et accepit Paracletus

vy Si homo tantummodo Christus,
quomodo Paracletum dicit de suo esse
sumpturum, que nuntiaturus sit? ne-
que enim Paracletus ab homine quic-
quam accipit, sed homini scientiam
Paracletus porrigit; nec futura ab ho-
mine Paracletus discit, sed de futuris

- hominem Paracletus instruit. Ergo

aut non accepit Paracletus a Christo
homine quod nuntiet, quoniam Para-
cleto homo nihil poterit dare, a quo
ipse homo debet accipere, et fallit in
presenti loco Christus et decipit, cum
Paracletum a se homine accepturum,
que nuntiet, dicit; aut non nos fallit,

a Christo, que nuntiet. Sed sia Christo
accepit que nuntiet, major ergo jam
Paracleto Christus est; quoniam nec
Paracletus a Christo acciperet, nisi mi-
nor Christo esset ; minor autem Christo
Paracletus, Christum etiam Deum esse
hoc ipso probat, a quo accepit que nun-
tiat. UT TESTIMONIUM CHRISTI DI-
VINITATIS GRANDE SIT, dum minor
Christo Paracletus repertus ab illo su-
mit que ceteris tradit.—[Pag. 722.]

x [John xvi. 14. ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται
καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. ‘ He shall receive
of Mine, and shall tell it unto you.’’]

K 2

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
MITY OF

THE SON.

1 sua om-
nia.

[165]

1382 In what sense the Holy Spirit is said to be

Comforter being found to be less than Christ, takes from
Him what He delivers unto all else.” With regard to what
he here says of the Holy Ghost being less than the Son, it 15
to be understood exactly in the same way as we shall explain
the subordination of the Son with reference to the Father,
in the fourth book; that is to say, in such sense as that the
Holy Ghost be said to be less than the Son, not in respect of
nature, but of origin ; inasmuch as He is derived from the Fa-
ther through the Son, as Tertullian says in his treatise against
Praxeas, chap. 4’; and, accordingly, receives all that He has!
from the Father through the Son, agreeably to the declara-
tion of Novatian’. Tertullian, again, in the same book,
(chap. 84,) more clearly explains this subordination of the
Holy Ghost in the following words; “ For the Spirit is third
from God and His Son, just as the fruit out of the tree is
third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third
from the fountain, or the point out of the ray is third from
the sun. NorHING, HOWEVER, IS ALIEN FROM THAT ORI-
GINAL SOURCE WHENCE IT DERIVES ITS OWN PROPERTIES. In
like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father
through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all dis-

y [Page 502. |

z To the same purpose the author
of the Constitutions (vi. 11.) says;
“‘There is one God, the Father of one
Son, of one Paraclete through Christ;
ἑνὸς υἱοῦ Πατέρα, [ov πλειόνων" ἑνὸς
Παρακλήτου διὰ Χριστοῦ. Gregory
Nyssen (in his epistle to Ablabius,
tom. ii. p. 459, [ vol. iii. Ὁ. 27.]) thus de-
clares how from the same principle, i. e.
from God the Father, both the Son and
Holy Ghost have their origin in man-
ner diverse; ‘‘ For the One is from the
First immediately, the other from
the First through that which is imme-
diately [from Him];’’ τὸ μὲν γὰρ προ-
σεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦ προ-
σεχῶς ἐϊς τοῦ πρώτου. Cyril (book i. on
the Adoration &c.) has the words : *‘ The
Spirit poured forth from the Father,
through the Son;’’ ἐκ πατρὸς δι᾽ υἱοῦ
προχεόμενον πνεῦμα. νο]. 1. [p. 9.1 See
moreover his Letter to the Empresses,
[καὶ γάρ ἐστιν ἐκ πατρὸς φυσικῶς, προ-
χεόμενον δι᾽ υἱοῦ τῇ κτίσει. “ for He is
naturally from the Father being poured
forth to the creation through the Son,”
vi. p. 44.] Damascene (book i. on the
Orthodox Faith, chap. 18. [cap. 12.
vol. i. p. 148.]) says: ‘‘And [He is]
the Spirit of the Son also, not as pro-

ceeding from Him, but as through
Him, from the Father;” καὶ υἱοῦ δὲ
πνεῦμα, OVX’ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς Be av-
τοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον. Hila-
ry, (lib. xii. [8 ult. p. 444] on the Tri-
nity,) prays thus; “ Preserve untainted,
I beseech Thee, this religion of my faith,
that what I professed in the creed of
my regeneration,... I may always hold
fast; viz., that I may worship Thee
who art our Father; and together with
Thee Thy Son; and likewise may at-
tain unto Thy Holy Spirit, who is from
Thee, through Thine Only-begotten.”’
Conserva hance, oro, fidei mez incon-
taminatam religionem, ut quod in reli-
gionis mez symbolo...professus sum,
semper obtineam, Patrem scilicet te
nostrum, Filium tuum una tecum ado-
rem, Sanctum Spiritum tuum, qui ex
te per unigenitum tuum est, promerear.

a Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo
et Filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus
ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex
flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio.
NIHIL TAMEN A MATRICE ALIENATUR,
A QUA PROPRIETATES SUAS DUCIT;
ita Trinitas per consertos et connexos
gradus a Patre decurrens et monarchiz
nihil obstrepit, et οἰκονομίας statum
protegit.—[ P. 504.]

subordinate to the Father and the Son. 133

turb the monarchy, [and yet] guards the state of the eco-
nomy?.”” In these words he declares the Holy Ghost to be
third in reference to! the Father and the Son, in such sense
as at the same time to profess distinctly that He is of the
same essence and nature with the Father and the Son, and
in no degree alien from the divinity of the Father. If, how-
ever, any one should suspect that the ante-Nicene fathers
alone employed this reasoning, let him know that the most
approved doctors of the Church, who flourished after the coun-
cil of Nice, also established the Godhead of the Son by the self-
same argument; which I could have abundantly proved, if the
nature of my design had permitted a digression of this kind.
Let it suffice here to adduce the testimonies of two fathers
who beyond all controversy held most firmly to the Nicene
Creed. Athanasius, in his second Oration against the Arians,
says°; “ But to the disciples, shewing His divinity and His
majesty, and no longer [allowing them to think] that He
was inferior to, but intimating that He was greater than,
and equal to’ the Spirit, He gave the Spirit, and said, ‘ Re-
ceive ye the Holy Ghost,’ and ‘I send Him,’ and ‘ He shall
glorify Me.’”” Augustine (in his fifteenth book on the
Trinity, c. 26,) says®; ‘“ How is it possible that He is not
God who gives the Holy Spirit? Nay, rather, how great a
God is He who giveth God!” Thus much, then, concerning
Polycarp’s short prayer and the form of blessing’ of the
brethren of Smyrna, which I have on this account followed
out more fully, that all may perceive how ancient and clearly
apostolic is that form of doxology which is used even at the
present day in the Catholic Church, “ Glory be to the Fa-
ther, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost:” and what a
firm and fixed monument and bulwark of the apostolic tradi-
tion concerning the consubstantial Trinity it presents against
all the attacks* of heretics.

18. As concerns Polycarp, however, I will subjoin by way

δ [See above, p. 92. ]

© τοῖς δὲ μαθηταῖς τὴν θεότητα καὶ
τὴν μεγαλειότητα δεικνὺς ἑαυτοῦ, οὐκέτι
δὲ ἐλάττονα τοῦ πνεύματος ἑαυτὸν, ἀλλὰ
(μείξονα καὶ) ἴσον (ὄντα) σημαίνων, ἐδί-
δου μὲν τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ ἔλεγεν, Λάβετε
τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον καὶ, Ἐγὼ αὐτὸ ἀπο-
στέλλω" κακεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει.--- [Οταί.
1, 50. vol. i. p. 454. |

4 Greater, in respect of causation
(κατ᾽ αἰτίαν); equal, in respect of nature
(κατὰ φύσιν.) [The words μείζονα καὶ,
‘* greater than, and’’ are omitted in the
Benedictine edition.—B. ]

* Quomodo Deus non est, qui dat
Spiritum Sanctum? imo quantus Deus
est, gui dat Deum ?—[ Vol. viii. p. 999. ]

BOOK II.
CHAP. ΤΥ:
§ 17, 18.

PouycaRi->
la,

[166]

2 εὐλογία.

3 machinas.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 mantisse
loco.

2 abhor-
ruerit.

3 vigentes.

[167]

4 vel latum
unguem.

134 Further evidence of the Catholicity of Polycarp.

of addition! two considerations besides, from which it will be-
come still more manifest, how much he shrunk from? both
the Samosatene and the Arian views respecting the Son of
God. First then, if you would know what was the belief of
Polycarp respecting the Son of God, consult Ireneus. He,
in his youth, was a most attentive hearer of this apostolic
bishop, and even in old age retained his discourses firmly
fixed in his memory; (those especially in which he set forth
what he had himself heard from the Apostles concerning the
Lord Jesus ;) Irenzus, moreover, was able to refute the
heresies which prevailed® in his own time, by the analogy
of the faith which was held by Polycarp, even calling God
to witness to the truth of the tradition, as he testifies him-
self in the fragment of an Epistle to Florinus, which is
extant in Eusebius, (Eccles. Hist. v. 20;) so that it is most
unlikely to be true, nay, is absolutely incredible, either that
Irenzus should have been ignorant of Polycarp’s sentiments
respecting the primary doctrine of Christianity, or that (know-
ing them) he should willingly depart from them even by a
hair’s breadth*. Now I would venture to affirm, that no
one of the upholders of the Nicene faith (Athanasius him-
self not excepted) has any where put forward statements
more exalted respecting the Son of God, or more express
against the Arian blasphemy, than those which Irenzeus has
made in his writings respecting that very Son of God. This
one point I except, that Ireneus does not use the word ὁμο-
ovowos itself. Any one who shall attentively read what will
be adduced in this and the next book out of Irenzeus will say
that I have not made this statement at random. The second
consideration, from which one may with certainty gather the
belief and opinion of Polycarp concerning the Son of God,
is this; Eusebius testifies that Polycarp in his Epistle to
the Philippians recommended to them Ignatius’ Epistles as
most worthy of being read, and‘ “as containing faith, and
patience, and all edification, that pertaineth unto our Lord.”
Polycarp then by his testimony expressed his approval of the
whole doctrine of the Epistles of Ignatius. Now in the
seven Epistles of Ignatius, which were edited by Vossius,

f ἊΝ aA
περιέχουσι πίστιν Kal ὑπομονὴν, καὶ πᾶσαν οἰκοδομὴν, Thy εἰς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν
avjKkovoay.—Eccles. Hist. 111, 36.

Testimonies from St. Justin Martyr. 185

(and which, as no sound-minded person will deny, are the soox τι.
same with Polycarp’s collection of them, known to Eusebius,) “eg.
the true divinity of our Saviour is again and again taught in porycanp.
the clearest terms, as I have already shewn.

And thus far have we set forth the faith and opinion of
those doctors of the Church, who were taught immediately? ' viva voce.
by the Apostles themselves, on the doctrine that the Son is of

one substance [with the Father. ]

CHAPTER IV. 65
[178]
CONTAINING AN EXPOSITION OF THE VIEWS OF JUSTIN MARTYR, ATHENAGO-
RAS, TATIAN, AND THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH ; WITH AN INCIDENTAL DE-
CLARATION OF THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANS RESPECTING THE HOLY TRINITY,
IN THE AGE OF LUCIAN, OUT OF LUCIAN HIMSELF,

1. Justin Martyr must be placed in the class next after Justin M.
the Apostolic writers, if not actually enumerated with them ;
and his works are almost all replete with so many and so clear
testimonies to the consubstantiality of the Son, that I cannot
but feel indignant when I read the calumnies, with which
certain presumptuous writers of this day? have essayed to 2 neoterici.
stain® the memory of that most holy father and martyr, as [179]
though he agreed in opinion with the impious Arians. ὃ conspur-
In the Apology, which is called the second, (although it ey
is really the first’,) Justin censures those* who deny “ that
the Father of all things has a Son, who, being also the
first-born Word of God, is also God.” Here he plainly in-
fers that the Son, equally with the Father, is really God,
from the fact that He came forth from, and was generated
of God the Father Himself, as His Word and First-born. In
a similar way in his dialogue with Trypho', he reproves the
blindness of the Jews, for denying that Christ “is God,
[being the] Son of the only and unbegotten and ineffable
5. He wrote his first apology about pp. 81.]
the year 140. Cave.—Bowyenr. * εἶναι Θεὸν, τοῦ μόνου καὶ ἀγεννήτου
h ὅτι ἐστὶν vids τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων" καὶ ἀρρήτου Θεοῦ vidy.—p. 8δδ. [§ 126.

ὃς καὶ λόγος πρωτότοκος ὧν τοῦ Θεοῦ p. 219.]
καὶ Θεὸς ὑπάρχει.---᾿. 96. [Apol. i. 63.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 ὑπάρ-
XOVT A.

? germa-
num.

3 Kowwos.

[180]

4 ἰδίως.

ὅ Ἰδίως.

6 ἰδίως.

1386 St. Justin Martyr on the Divine Generation of Christ.

God.” And shortly afterwards in the same book, be pro-
nounces* Christ to be “ Lord and God, being! the Son of
God.”

2. Justin, accordingly, every where declares Christ to be
the true, genuine, real? and properly-so-called Son of God ;
which the Arians never did or could have acknowledged from
their heart. Thus, in the first (or rather the second) Apo-
logy!, “ And His Son, who alone is properly called Son.” In
the second Apology™, according to the common editions,
he says: “The Son of God, who is called Jesus, even if He
had been man only in a sense common to all’, would yet on
account of His wisdom have been worthy to be called the Son
of God, for all writers call God ‘the Father of men and
gods;? but if further we say that He, the Word of God,
was generated of God In a PrecuLIAR way ἡ, beyond the
generation common to all, as we said before, let this be
common to us and you.” A little afterwards" in the same
work he says; “Jesus Christ alone has been in a peculiar
way® generated [85] Son unto God, being His Word and
First-born and Power.” Lastly, in his Dialogue with Try-
pho, he calls Christ “the Only-begotten unto the Father of
all, in a peculiar way® generated of Him, [as His] Word and
Power, and afterwards made man through the Virgin.”
Athanasius has admirably expressed the meaning of Justin
in these passages, as well as that of Holy Scripture when it
calls Christ the proper and only-begotten Son of God, in
these few words’; “ For that which is naturally begotten of
any one, and not taken to one’s-self from without, nature
recognises as a son, and this is the signification of the name
[son.”] See Petavius, On the Trinity, 11. 10, throughout.

κ Κύριον καὶ Θεὸν, Θεοῦ υἱὸν ὑπάρ-
xovra.—p. 357. [§ 128. p. 221. ]

| § δὲ vids ἐκείνου, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος
κυρίως vids.—p. 44. [Apol. ii. 6. p. 92. ]

m vids δὲ Θεοῦ, 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς λεγόμενος,
εἰ καὶ κοινῶς μόνον ἄνθρωπος, διὰ σοφίαν
ἄξιος υἱὸς Θεοῦ λέγεσθαι: Πατέρα γὰρ
ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε πάντες συγγραφεῖς
τὸν Θεὸν καλοῦσιν. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδίως παρὰ
τὴν κοινὴν γένεσιν γεγενῆσθαι αὐτὸν ἐκ
Θεοῦ λέγομεν λόγον Θεοῦ, ὡς προέφημεν,
κοινὸν τοῦτο ἔστω ὑμῖν.---». 67. [Apol.
1, ΠῚ

2 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ

Θεῷ γεγένηται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων
καὶ πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις.---Ὀ. 68. [ 23.
p- 57.]

© μονογενὴς [γὰρ ὅτι ἣν] τῷ Πατρὶ
τῶν ὅλων, [οὗτὸς ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος
καὶ δύναμις γεγενημένος, καὶ ὕστερον
ἄνθρωπος διὰ τῆς παρθένου γενόμενος.
p. 882. [§ 105. p. 200.]

Ρ τὸ γὰρ ἔκ τινος φύσει γεννώμενον,
καὶ μὴ ἔξωθεν ἐπικτώμενον, υἱὸν οἷδεν ἢ
φύσις, καὶ τοῦτο τοῦ ὀνόματός ἐστι τὸ
σημαινόμενον.---1)6 Decret. Nicen. Sy-
nod. [§ 10. vol. i. p. 217. ]

His illustrations proves the Consubstantiality. 137

3. Besides this, Justin throughout explains the divine 800k π,
generation of the Son in such a manner, and illustrates it by Ἕ Fela
such similes, that it is very clear that he himself entirely γχύρτιν yy.
acknowledged His consubstantiality. There is a passage in [181]
his Dialogue with Trypho especially remarkable, where he
declares the mode of the generation of the Son in these
words?; “ [It has been shewn] that this power, which the
word of prophecy calls both God, (as has been in hke manner

shewn at length,) and angel, is not, hike the light of the

sun, numbered’ [as another] merely in name, but is also 1 ἀριθμεῖ-
numerically another thing; and in what was said before 17
examined the reason in few words, when I said that this

power was generated from the Father by His power and
counsel; yet not by way of abscission, as though the essence
of the Father was divided off, even as all other things being
severed and cut, are not the same as they were before they
were cut; and 1 took as an example the fires which are lit as
from a fire, which we see are other, and yet that fire from
which many may be lit is in no way diminished, but remains
the same.” In these words Justin expressly teaches that
the Son is indeed “ numerically another thing,” (ἀριθμῷ ére-
pov τι,) another, that is, than the Father in number, or (in
other words) in person’, but by no means different from Him ? numero
in nature; inasmuch as He was begotten® of the very essence 3);,P°"°"*
of God the Father, and therefore is His Son, consubstantial Patre.
with Him. For having attempted up to a certain point to a
unfold the mode of the generation of the Son, he says the [182]
Son is begotten of the Father “not by way of abscission, as

if the Father’s essence were divided off,” (οὐ κατ’ ἀποτομὴν,

ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας.) To what purpose,
however, would this assertion be, if the Son in His genera-

tion have nothing in common with the substance of the

Father? In the next place the simile by which Justin here

4 [ἀποδέδεικται ὅτι δύναμις αὕτη, ἣν
καὶ Θεὸν καλεῖ ὃ προφητικὸς λόγος, Ϊ ὧς}
διὰ πολλῶν ὡσαύτως ἀποδέδεικται, καὶ
ἄγγελον, οὐχ᾽ ὡς τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνό-
ματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριθμῷ
ἕτερόν τι ἐστὶ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις
διὰ βραχέων τὸν λόγον ἐξήτασα, εἰπὼν
τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην γεγενῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ
Πατρὸς“, δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ" ἀλλ᾽

οὐ κατ᾽ ἀποτομὴν, ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης
τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας, ὅποῖα τὰ ἄλλα
πάντα μεριζόμενα καὶ τεμνόμενα οὐ τὰ
αὐτά ἐστιν ἃ καὶ πρὶν τμηθῆναι" καὶ
παραδείγματος χάριν παρειλήφειν τὰ ὡς
ἀπὸ πυρὸς ἀναπτόμενα πυρὰ, [ἃ] ἕτερα
ὁρῶμεν, οὐδὲν ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου, ἐξ
οὗ ἀναφθῆναι πολλὰ δύνανται, ἀλλὰ ταὐ-

τοῦ wevovtos.—p. 358. [ὃ 128. p. 221.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

! pari ra-
tione.

ὁ Deum
ipsissi-
mum.

[183]

,
8 τὸ ὁμού-
σιον.

4 fere,

ὅ prove-
nientem,

138 Illustration of Light kindled from Light.

illustrates the Catholic doctrine, manifestly confirms the con-
substantiality of the Son. For he says that the Son is begotten
of the Father, just as fire is kindled of fire. But who will re-
fuse to allow that the fire which is kindled of another fire is of
the self-same nature and substance as it? as Justin himself
elsewhere in the same Dialogue, in shadowing forth by the same
metaphor the mode of the generation of the Son, had distinctly
reminded his reader. These are his words’; ‘ Just as, in the
case of fire, we see another produced, that from which the kin-
dling was made being not diminished, but remaining the same
as it was; whilst that which has been kindled of it, itself
also is seen to exist, without having diminished that of which
it was kindled.” When he says here that what is kindled of
fire itself, is itself fire also, he clearly means to imply that,
in an analogous way’, the Son of God, who is begotten of
God Himself, is also God in the most absolute sense”. So
bright is the light which shines forth from these passages,
that Petavius, (the very same who accused Justin of Arian-
ism,) after quoting them in part, subjoins these remarks’ ;
“ What can be added to this profession of the faith and of
the Trinity ? or what has been set forth more express, more
significant, or more effectual, in the assembly of the fathers
at Nice itself, or after it? For the formula which was there
settled, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
was anticipated so long before by this sentiment of Justin:
from which the consubstantiality® also is established, that is,
the communion and identity of substance without any par-
tition.

4. We must, however, carefully observe, that Justin, in
the first passage which we adduced in the preceding para-
graph out of his Dialogue with Trypho, (and which occurs in
the 858th page of the work itself,) is professedly impugning
the heresy of those who were at that time teaching very
nearly‘ the same as was afterwards maintained by Sabellius ;
namely, thatt “The Power which came forth*® from the Fa-
ther of all things, and appeared to Moses or Jacob or Abra-

r ὁποῖον ἐπὶ πυρὸς ὁρῶμεν ἄλλο γινό- 5. Prefat. in tom. ii. Theolog. Dog-
μενον, οὐκ ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου ἐξ οὗ % mat.,c. 3. u. 1.
ἄναψις γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ TOU αὐτοῦ μένον- t [The Greek words are: γινώσκω

an “ x fe
τος, καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀναφθὲν, καὶ αὐτὸ τινας... φάσκειν τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ
ὄν φαίνεται, οὐκ ἐλαττῶσαν ἐκεῖνο ἐξ οὗ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων φανεῖσαν τῷ Μωῦ-

ἀνήφθη.---». 284. [ὃ 61. p. ὅ8,] σεῖ ἢ τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ ἢ τῷ Ἰακὼβ ἄγγελον

Views similar to Sabellianism impugned by Justin. 189

ham, is called an angel when He goes forth unto mankind, Book u.
inasmuch as through Him the Father’s commands are an- egies
nounced unto them ; but [He is called] Glory, when at any jyscry Μ,
time He is manifested in an incomprehensible splendour’ ; 1 gavta- _
and again, [He is called] Man and Human being’, when He ay
is beheld in such forms as the Father wills; and He is called 3 ἄνδρα καὶ
the Word, inasmuch as He conveys to men the communica- ee
tions that are from the Father’. But that that Power 15 3 τὰς παρὰ
indivisible and inseparable from the Father, in the same σιν ΠΤ ἦμεν
manner as they say that the light of the sun upon the

earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun which

is in the heaven; and when that sets, the light is carried

away along with it; in such wise [they say that] the Fa-

ther, when He wills, causes His power to go forth from
Himself, and, when He wills, He withdraws it back into
Himself.” Now these heretics, as it appears, strove to con-

firm their heresy by an argument derived from the con-

fession of the Catholics, who were in the habit of teaching? docerent.
that the Son is of the same essence with God the Father.
From that, as it would seem, they framed this sophism ; Either
the Son is the same with the Father, and not personally dis-
tinct from Him, or we must say that the divine essence is
divided into two parts, of which one constitutes the Person of
the Father, the other that of the Son. This we gather from
this passage of Justin, by the following very® evident reason-
ing. There were no Catholics who asserted that the divine
essence is divided ; indeed Justin utterly rejects that notion
as blasphemous: neither did the heretics against whom he
is arguing assert it, but on the contrary, they laid down
that the nature of God is unipersonal δ, with the very view § μονοπρό-
of escaping from such a partition of the divine essence. It ae
remains, therefore, that those forerunners of Sabellius loaded

[184]

5 satis.

καλεῖσθαι ἐν TH πρὸς ἀνθρώπους προόδῳ,
ἐπειδὴ δι’ αὐτῆς τὰ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις ἀγγέλλεται" δόξαν δὲ, ἐπειδὴ
ἐν ἀχωρήτῳ ποτὲ φαντασίᾳ φαίνεται"
ἄνδρα δέ ποτε καὶ ἄνθρωπον καλεῖσθαι,
ἐπειδὴ ἐν μορφαῖς τοιαύταις σχηματιζό.
μενος φαίνεται, αἷςπερ βούλεται ὁ πατήρ"
καὶ λόγον καλοῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὰς παρὰ
τοῦ πατρὸς ὁμιλίας φέρει τοῖς ἀνθρώποις"
ἄτμητον δὲ καὶ ἀχώριστον τοῦ πατρὸς
ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν, ὅνπερ τρό-

πον τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φασὶ φῶς ἐπὶ γῆς εἶναι
ἄτμητον καὶ ἀχώριστον ὄντος τοῦ ἡλίου
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ᾽ καὶ, ὅταν δυσῇ, συναπο-
φέρεται τὸ pas’ οὕτως ὃ πατὴρ, ὅταν
βούληται, λέγουσι, δύναμιν αὐτοῦ προπη-
dav ποιεῖν" καὶ, ὅταν βούληται, πάλιν
ἀναστέλλει εἰς ἑαυτόν. The Latin ver-
sion only is given by Bp. Bull; it has
been followed in part in the transla-
tion.—§ 128. p. 221.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 πόρισμα.

8 essentia.

4 ἄλογον,
without
Adyos.

[185]

140 Unity of Substance compatible with distinctness of Person.

the Catholic doctrine that the Son is begotten of the sub-
stance of the Father, so as to be a distinct Person from the
Father, with the weight of this invidious consequence’,
namely, that it would follow from it that the divine sub-
stance is, as it were, cut asunder and divided into two
parts. Nothing is more certain. Now to meet this piece
of sophistry, Justin does not deny that the Son is pro-
duced of? the substance of the Father; nay, he rather re-
gards that as an undoubted truth; but he shews that the
Son is generated of the Father Himself, and that in such
a manner as to be a distinct Person from the Father; not
by a cutting off from the Father’s essence, (according to
the cavils of the heretics,) but by a simple communication
of essence®; such, almost, as is between fire, which, with-
out any loss or diminution of itself, produces other fire,
and the fire itself [thus] produced. This mode of explana-
tion is also employed by Tatian, the disciple of Justin, (in
his Oration against the Greeks,) in the following words";
“ Tle was generated, however, by division*, not by abscission.
For that which is cut off is separated from the original, but
that which is divided in voluntarily taking its part in the
economy, does not impoverish Him from whom it is taken.
For as from a single torch many fires are kindled, yet the
light of the first torch is not diminished by reason of the
many being kindled from it, so also the Word, [or Reason, |
proceeding forth from the Power of the Father, did not
cause Him who generated It to be without Word* [or Rea-
son.” | Now from all that has been said the result is clearly
this, that the doctrine relating to the consubstantiality of
the Son, that is, His being produced of the very essence and
substance of God the Father, was, in the time of Justin, the
received, fixed, settled, and established doctrine in the Ca-

ἃ γέγονε δὲ κατὰ μερισμὸν, οὐ κατ᾽
ἀποκοπήν᾽ τὸ γὰρ ἀποτμηθὲν τοῦ πρώ-
του κεχώρισται" τὸ δὲ μερισθὲν οἰκονο-
μίας τὴν αἵρεσιν προσλαβὸν οὐκ ἐνδεᾶ
τὸν ὅθεν εἴληπται πεποίηκεν. ὥσπερ
γὰρ ἀπὸ μιᾶς δαδὸς ἐνάπτεται μὲν πυρὰ
πολλὰ, τῆς δὲ πρώτης δαδὸς διὰ τὴν
ἔξαψιν τῶν πολλῶν δαδῶν οὐκ ἐλαττοῦ-
ται τὸ φῶς, οὕτω καὶ ὃ λόγος προελθὼν
ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς δυνάμεως οὐκ ἄλογον
πεποίηκε τὸν γεγενηκότα.---". 145. [ὃ
5. p. 247, 248.1

x [κατὰ μερισμόν. Bp. Bull trans-
lates the words “participatione sive
communicatione,”’ by participation, or,
in other words, by communication. It
has been thought better to adopt the
same English term as in the transla-
tions from Justin: though the word
μερισμὸς is obviously used by Tatian
in a different sense, as appears by its
being opposed to κατ᾽ ἀποκοπήν. Bishop
Kaye translated it by ‘‘division.’’ See
his Just. Martyr, p. 162. ed. 1836. ] ,

Justin’s testimonies to our Lord’s Divinity from the O. T. 141

tholic Church: and that the heretics of those days opposed βοοκ n.
this doctrine by the very same cavils as were afterwards rea Pes
employed by the Arians and other heretics; and, lastly, that Justin M.
the Catholics of Justin’s age refuted! that sophistry with 1 diluisse.
precisely the same answer as the Catholic doctors used in
silencing the Arians, after the controversy had been raised
by Arius touching the doctrine “of One Substance.” I
would have you by all means call to mind what we said
above in this book, chap. 1. δὲ 10, 11, 12.

5. Moreover, this same Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho’,
shews at great length that Christ, in the Scriptures of the Old
Testament, is called “God” and “Lord,” “the Lord of hosts’,” ? Domi-
“the God of Israel ;’ that it was He who appeared to Abra- (uu ΥΤΠΙΣ
ham, Moses, and the patriarchs, whom they worshipped as
their God, and who is by the Holy Ghost dignified* with the? honesta-
four-lettered name”. Further, those things which are spoken
in these same Scriptures, and especially in the Psalms, of
the supreme Lord and God of all things, these he proves to
belong to Christ. Thus, for instance, after quoting that pas-
sage of David, Psalm xlv. 6, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever,’ &c., he applies it to Christ, agreeing herein with
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the most
ancient Jewish teachers; and thence concludes that our [186 ]
Saviour, καὶ προσκυνητὸν, καὶ Θεὸν, “both is to be wor-
shipped and is God.” That conceit had never entered into
the mind of Justin, (nor indeed of any among the ancient
Catholics,) by which Erasmus, and after him Grotius, seeks
to evade the sense of the Psalmist’s words,—both of them,
I know not by what fate, born to disturb‘ all the more‘ convel-
remarkable passages of Scripture which make for the divi- °°’
nity of the Son, whilst at the same time themselves ap-
pear to have acknowledged that doctrine. For Erasmus
says*, “It may be read*,’” and Grotius insists that “It 5 legi
ought to be read’®,” not, “O God, Thy throne is for ever ee ἜΣ
and ever,” but, “God Himself is Thy throne for ever and bere.
ever ;” that is to say, God will uphold Thy throne for ever.
What argument (unhappily’) could have induced these? malum,
learned men to try to bring darkness over this clear testi-

Y p. 286, 287, [§ 63. p. 160.], M997, or Jehovah. ]
« [‘ Nomine tetragrammato;’ that is, 4 In Not. ad Epist. ad Heb. i. 8.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA~

LITY OF

THE SON.

1 anceps.

2 per.

3 charac-
terem 685
sentie,

4 verbo suo
potenti.

5 frigida.

[187]

142 Erasmus’ and Grotius’ exposition of Heb. i. 8, refuted.

mony against the Jews and judaizing Christians? “The
Greek expression,” says Erasmus, “is capable of two con-
structions'».” Be it so. Still the meaning and object of the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is certain and clear,
from the second and third verses, in which he calls Christ
the Son of God, through? whom the worlds were made, the
Brightness of the Father’s Glory, the Express Image of His
Essence’, who upholdeth all things by the word of His power’.
This divine glory and majesty of Christ, and His infinite pre-
eminence above all angels and the highest orders of created
beings, (in opposition, that is, to the Gnostics and other here-
tics, who commonly made their AJons and angels and powers
equal to the Son of God‘, which ought to be particularly ob-
served, otherwise the comparison made with so much pains, be-
tween Christ [who is] God, and the angels, who are creatures,
would seem altogether without point’,) is what the inspired
author wished to prove in the following verses, down to the
end of the chapter. If, however, the passage quoted from
the Psalmist (verses 8, 9) be understood according to the in-
terpretation of Erasmus and Grotius, how, I ask, does it make
for the purpose of the author of the Epistle ? And what man
of sound mind doubts but that, in the verses immediately fol-
lowing, (i.e. the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth,) the author meant
to shew, out of the same Psalmist, that Christ is that Lord
who in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and
with His own hands formed the heaven, who also, when the
whole fabric of this world fails, will continue to eternity the
same unchangeable God? Again, suppose that the words
admit of two constructions, yet certainly the authority of
the ancients ought to have turned the nicely-balanced scale.
For Justin does not stand alone on this point; he is encom-
passed as it were by the whole host of the holy fathers, who all
with one consent take 6 Θεὸς (God) in this passage as a vo-
cative 4, as it is frequently employed by the LXX in the Psalms,
and it is besides a familiar usage in Greek, especially in Attic
Greek, to put the nominative case for the vocative. The more
ancient Jews also (however the modern rabbis may trifle) in-
terpreted this passage of the Psalmist just as we Christians do ;

> Vid. Poli. Syn. Crit. in Heb. i. 8. ς Cf, Coloss. ii. 8—10, 18,19.
—Bowyer. ἃ [Vid. Luce. xviii. 13. ]

Justin’s exposition of Is. xi. 2. 143

Aquila, at any rate, according to the testimony of Jerome, soox 1.
rendered the original pbs by the vocative Θεέ. And what ee a
Origen® relates is worthy to be remarked, that he once Tuscan
pressed a Jew, who was esteemed a wise man amongst his
people, closely with this testimony; and that he, being un-
able to escape from the difficulty, answered as became a J ew,
that is to say, that these words, “ Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness! is the sceptre of ' direc-
Thy kingdom,” referred to the God of the universe; whilst ‘™*
the passage, ‘Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated ini-
quity,” &c., referred to the Messiah. That learned J ew, you
see, though fully prepared and ready to escape by any other
way whatever, never even dreamt of the conceit of Erasmus
and Grotius, that God is the throne of the Messiah. At the
same time we accept from Grotius his concession, that “for ὁ [188]
Θεὸς the Hebrew is onby; a name which is wont to be ap-
plied both to angels and judges, when more than one; but
when it is applied to one only, as here, it belongs to God
alone, because it is then an elliptical expression or oss ody
God of gods.” This however is a digression. I return to
Justin.

6. There is another passage of our author well worthy of
notice ; it occurs later in the same dialogue’. Trypho here
interprets the testimony of Isaiah, “There shall come forth a
Branch out of the root of Jesse, and the Spirit of God shall
rest upon Him,” of Christ, as indeed he was bound to do, and
then puts this question to Justin on the subject of that testi-
mony ; “You both affirm that He was previously in being as
God, and also affirm that according to the counsel and will? ἢ
of God, having been made flesh, He was born man through the juntate.
Virgin ; how [then] can He be proved to have been previously
in being who is being fulfilled through the powers of the
Holy Spirit, which the word enumerates through Isaiah, as
though He were wanting in these?” To this question Justin
replies thuss; “Your enquiry is most sensible and intelli-

* Contr. Cels. i. p. 48. [§ 56. p. 371.] καταριθμεῖ ὃ λόγος διὰ Ἡσαίου, πλη-

καὶ Θεὸν αὐτὸν προυπάρχοντα λέ- ροῦται, ὡς ἐνδεὴς τούτων ὑπάρχων.---
γεις, καὶ κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ σαρ- p. 314. [8 87. p. 184.]
κοποιηθέντα αὐτὸν λέγεις διὰ τῆς παρ- 8 νουνεχέστατα μὲν καὶ συνετώτατα

θένου γεγενῆσθαι ἄνθρωπον, πῶς δύναται 2 ὦτησας᾽ ἀληθῶς γὰρ ἀπόρημα δοκεῖ
γενῆ θ , , ἠρώτη ηθῶς γὰρ Σ

ἀποδειχθῆναι προυπάρχων, ὅστις διὰ τῶν εἶναι" ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἴδῃς καὶ τὸν περὶ τούτων

δυνάμεων τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, ἃς λόγον, ἄκουε ὧν λέγω. ταύτας τὰς κατη-

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

' ἀπόρημα.

[189]

2 verus
Deus.

3 et in me-
lius profi-
cere potu-
isse.

144 Exposition, though erroneous, evidences his right belief.

gent; for, in truth, there does appear to be a difficulty’.
Hear, however, what I have to say, in order that you may see
the account to be given of these points also. With respect
to these powers of the Holy Spirit which are enumerated,
the word says that they have come upon Him, not as imply-
ing that He was wanting in them, but that they were about
to make their rest on Him, that is, to terminate in Him, so
that no longer, as in the days of old, were prophets to arise
in your nation. Which you may sce even with your own
eyes, for after Him hath no prophet at all arisen amongst
you.” I own that Justin’s interpretation of the prophet’s
words is a strange one; for it is obvious to all that they are
to be explained as referring to the man Christ, enriched, be-
yond all others, with the gifts of the Holy Ghost. At the
same time it is clear from this place that Justin held that
this was to be taken as a certain and settled point, that the
Son of God, as being [Himself] very God, is, in His own
nature, most complete and perfect, wanting in nothing, and
having no need at any time even of the gifts of the Holy
Ghost Himself. For Trypho’s argument is plainly this; He
that is very God’? cannot possibly be wanting in any thing ;
but Christ, according to the testimony of Isaiah, was wanting
in the gifts of the Holy Ghost; therefore Christ is not very
God, as you, Justin, maintain. Justin admits the major
premiss, but denies the minor, and that on good grounds ;
for the dispute between himself and Trypho was concerning
Christ as God; although, as I have already said, he inter-
prets the passage of Isaiah incorrectly. If, on the other
hand, Justin had held the same view as Arius, he might most
easily and without any trouble have replied to Trypho, that
there is nothing absurd in laying down that the Son of God
was wanting in the grace of God; and was capable of im-
provement*, inasmuch as He is a,creature, and made God by
adoption. Certainly Arius did not hesitate to say openly
that the Son of God was liable to change and alteration, and

ριθμημένας Tod πνεύματος δυνάμεις, οὐχ θαι, τοῦ μηκέτι ἐν τῷ γένει ὑμῶν κατὰ
ὡς ἐνδεοῦς αὐτοῦ τούτων ὄντος, φησὶν ὃ τὸ παλαιὸν ἔθος προφήτας γενήσεσθαι.
λόγος ἐπεληλυθέναι ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ὅπερ καὶ ὄψει ὑμῖν ἰδεῖν ἐστι" μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον
ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνον ἀνάπαυσιν μελλούσων ποιεῖ- γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὅλως προφήτης παρ᾽ ὑμῖν γε-
σθαι, τουτέστιν, ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ πέρας ποιεῖσ-ὀ γένηται.---[1014.}

The Epistle to Diognetus ; written by Justin. 145

was, by reason of' the freedom of His will, capable of virtue βοοκ n.

and vice; as is manifest from the epistle of Alexander ad-

CHAP. IV,

§ 6, 7.

dressed to his brethren, catholic bishops? throughout the Justin M.
world", and from the synodical letter of the Nicene fathers, [190]
and lastly, from the Nicene Creed itself. If, however, Justin ἔνι -epis-
had made this reply, he would have completely overthrown °P°

his own previous argument ; inasmuch as in that he is wholly
intent on proving, that our Saviour is very God, and to be
worshipped.

7. In another place also, I mean in the Hortatory Address
to the Greeks’, Justin observes, that He who appeared to
Moses in the bush, (whom he uniformly declares to have
been the Son of God,) speaks of Himself as the “I am,” (τὸν
ὄντα), and then he expressly remarks, that this designation
“belongs to the ever-existing God,” (τῷ del ὄντε Θεῷ προσ-
nxew). We shall adduce the passage entire in a more fitting
place, that is, in the following book, concerning the co-eter-
nity of the Son. To this we must add a very illustrious
passage of Justin, contained in his admirable epistle to Dio-
gnetus. That this epistle is a genuine work of our author, is

not doubted (so far as I am aware) by any learned man of

the present day; hence Scultetus classes it amongst those
writings which are by common consent attributed to Justin.
The objection raised by Sandius‘, that Bellarmine did not
even enumerate this epistle in the list of Justin’s works, is

_ altogether frivolous ; forasmuch as it is plain that Bellarmine

followed Robert Stephens’ edition of the works of Justin,
printed at Paris in the year 1551, in which the Address
to the Greeks, and the Epistle to Diognetus are omitted.
Afterwards, however, in the year 1592, these works were
edited separately by Robert Stephens’ son, Henry, ac-
companied with a Latin version of his own and copious
annotations. Hence the Address to the Greeks too, as
it was wanting in Robert Stephens’ edition, is also omit-
ted in Bellarmine’s catalogue. Its genuineness, however,
will not be doubted of by any one who shall read it atten-
tively, and compare it with Justin Martyr’s other writings.
But with respect to the epistle to Diognetus, Frederick

" Vide Socrat. H. E., i. 6, and 9. length iii. 2. 2.]
* pp. 19, 20. [§ 21. p. 22. quoted at k De Script. Eccl., p. 20.
BULL. ἐν

[191]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON,

146 Testimony from the Epistle to Diognetus, distinctly

Sylburg' has justly remarked, that, when compared with his
other works, it will be found to breathe the spirit of Justin, and
to have many points in common with the rest of his writings.
But what need is there to say much? Sandius himself in
another place (Hnuel. Hist. Eccl. p.76,) recognises this epistle as
the genuine work of Justin. Let us now recite the very full
testimony which we undertook to produce out of this epistle. It
is as follows™: “The Almighty and all-creating and invisible
God Himself hath Himself from heaven established” the Truth
and the holy and incomprehensible Word amongst men ; and
hath fixed It in their hearts; not, as one might suppose, by
sending unto men A MINISTER—either angel, or prince, or any
one of those who order things on earth, or any of those to
whom hath been entrusted the administration of things in
heaven; but THE VERY FRAMER AND Creator of the universe
Himself; by Whom He founded the heavens, by Whom He
shut in the sea within its proper bounds; Whose mysteries
all the elements do faithfully observe ; from Whom [the sun]
hath° received to observe the due measures of the course of
the day; Whom the moon obeys when He bids her shine by
night; Whom the stars obey as they follow the course of the
moon; by Whom all things have been arranged, and deter-
mined, and placed in due subjection, the heavens and all that
is in the heavens, the earth and all that is in the earth, the sea
and all that is in the sea, fire, air, and the abyss; all that is
in the heights above, all that is in the depths beneath, and all

1 In a note to page 501, v. 43. of the
works of Justin.

™ αὐτὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ καὶ παντο-
κτίστης καὶ ἀόρατος Θεὺς, αὐτὸς ἀπ᾽ οὐ-
ρανῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὸν λόγον τὸν
ἅγιον καὶ ἀπερινόητον ἀνθρώποις ἐνίδρυ-
ται, καὶ ἐγκατεστήριξε ταῖς καρδίαις av-
τῶν" οὐ καθάπερ ἄν TIS εἰκάσειεν, ἂν-
θρώποις ὑπηρέτην τινὰ πέμψας, ἢ ἄγγε-
λον, ἣ ἄρχοντα, ἢ τινὰ τῶν διεπόντων τὰ
ἐπίγεια, ἢ τινὰ τῶν πεπιστευμένων τὰς
ἐν οὐρανοῖς διοικήσεις ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν
τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων" ᾧ
τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἔκτισεν᾽ ᾧ τὴν θάλασσαν
ἰδίοις ὅροις ἐνέκλεισεν. οὗ τὰ μυστήρια
πιστῶς πάντα φυλάσσειτὰ στοιχεῖα" παρ᾽
οὗ τὰ μέτρα τῶν τῆς ἡμέρας δρόμων εἴς-
ληφε φυλάσσειν᾽ ᾧ πειθαρχεῖ. σελήνη,
νυκτὶ φαίνειν κελεύοντι" ᾧ πειθαρχεῖ τὰ
ἄστρα, τῷ τῆς φελήνης ἀκολουθοῦντα
δρόμῳ ᾧ πάντα διατέτακται καὶ διώρι-

σται καὶ ὑποτέτακται, οὐρανοὶ καὶ τὰ ἐν
οὐρανοῖς" γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ" θάλασσα
καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ: πῦρ, ἀὴρ, ἄβυσσος.
τὰ ἐν ὕψεσι, τὰ ἐν βάθεσι, τὰ ἐν τῷ με-
rath’ τοῦτον πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπέστειλεν᾽ ἄρά
γε, ὡς ἀνθρώπων ἄν τις λογίσαιτο, ἐπὶ
τυραννίδι, καὶ φόβῳ, καὶ καταπλήξει; οὔ
μενοῦν' ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ) πραὔτητι,
ὡς βασιλεὺς πέμπων υἱὸν βασιλέα ἔπεμ-
Ψψεν᾽ ὡς Θεὸν ἔπεμψεν" ὡς πρὸς ἀνθρώ-
πους ἔπεμψεν" ὡς σώζων ἔπεμψεν᾽ κιτ.λ.
—Justin, Epist. ad Diog,, Ρ. 498. [ὃ 7.
p- 297.

ἢ ἐνίδρυται, otherwise read évidpuce.

° Stephens remarks, that the word
ἥλιος (the sun) is wanting before εἴληφε,
or after φυλάσσειν. Perhaps, however,
instead of εἴληφε φυλάσσειν, (hath
received to observe,) we ought to read
ἥλιος φυλάσσει, (the sun observes. )

emplying our Lord’s Divinity; compared with Phil. ii.6. 147

that is in the region that lies between. This One sent He unto βοοκ τι.
_them. Was it then, as any one of men might suppose, for are a
despotic sway, and fear, and terror? In no wise; but rather, Just M.
in clemency and meekness; even as a King sending His

Son, a King, He sent Him; as God? He sent Him; as unto

men He sent Him; as willing to save He sent Him.” Α [192]
passage most worthy of all attention, as admirably describ-

ing the profound mystery of the redemption of man, and as

also affording the means of setting right? all the passages in! medelam.
which the holy writer may seem to speak with too little [193]
honour of the Son of God. So far, however, as relates to

our present purpose, what could have been said more distinct

than this in defence of the true divinity of the Son against

the blasphemy of Arius? Justin expressly denies that the

Word, or Son of God, is a minister (ὑπηρέτην), or creature,

(for these two words are equivalent, as I have several times
‘observed, and as, indeed, is of itself evident enough ;) call-

ing Him incomprehensible and the very Framer and Creator of

all things, on whose will depends, and by whose power is

upheld the whole fabric of the universe, whether of heaven or

of earth; and to whom all creatures, of what rank soever, 70
are in subjection and obedience, as unto their Author, their

God, and their Lord. He says also that He was sent into

this world as a King by a King, as God by God; that is in

effect, the Son, a King, [sent] by the Father, a King; the

Son, God, [sent] by the Father, God’. I have observed

above’, that the passage of S. Paul to the Philippians, ii. 6, &c.,

and a parallel passage’ in Clement’s epistle to the Corin- 3 οἱ gemi-
thians, receive very clear light from this passage of Justin ον
Martyr, as they in turn throw light on it; whether I made

that assertion rashly® or not, the intelligent‘ reader will now 3 temere.
be able to judge. What is said by Paul concerning Christ ἡ ¢°™44tus.
before His humiliation’, that He then subsisted “in the ὅ κένωσιν,
form of God,” and by Clement, that He was “the sceptre ane By
of the Majesty of God,” this Justin so sets forth, as to Himself’
say that Christ in that state was “not a minister of God,”

® That is to say, who is beneficent _[* God is love.’’]
and kindly in His nature, and full of 4 [There is more on this passage in
love to mankind. See Clement of Alex- Bp. Bull’s reply to G. Clerke, § 20.—
andria, Padag. p. 109. [p. 131.] p. :
118, [185.] and compare 1 John iv. 8. ¥ See of this book ch, 8. § 4.

τ
tees

148 Passage from Justin on the objects of Christian worship ;

on tue (inasmuch as He had not yet assumed the form of a servant,

ceextia. OF in other words, a created nature,) but “the Lord and

tity oF Creator of the universe Himself.’ What Paul says, that

ue“ Christ afterwards “took the form of a servant, and was made

man ;” the same is [in effect] said by Justin, when he de-

clares that the Word, or Son of God, being sent from heaven,

[194] “was placed amongst men.” Lastly, what Paul teaches, that

Christ, when He came into the world, “ did not make a dis-

1 non ven- play of! His equality with God the Father, but emptied Him-

ditasse. 66]; what Clement also says, that ‘Christ came not in

the boasting of pride and arrogancy, although it was in His

power [so to have come], but in humility;” the same is

meant by Justin, when he adds that the Word and Son of

God was not sent into the world by the Father “in despotic

sway, and fear, and terror:” that is, not with a display of the

?tremende dreadful majesty of His Godhead’, but “with clemency and

vee din Meckness, as one who was sent unto men.” Certainly no
vine. more apt comparison of passages can be imagined.

8. I will conclude my citations out of Justin with a pas-
sage taken from his second Apology, so-called, in which the
holy martyr explicitly acknowledges a perfect Trinity of
divine Persons, who ought conjointly to be adored with
the same religious worship, and who alone, to the exclu-
sion of all created beings, are worthy of that kind of adora-
tion. For in this passage Justin replies to the heathen,
who accused the Christians of atheism for repudiating the
worship of idols, that they are not atheists, forasmuch as,
though they do despise and set at nought the gods of the
Gentiles, falsely so called and accounted, yet they do most

3unum et religiously worship and reverence One true*® God, in three
eae distinct Persons*. His words are these*: “ We confess, in-
personis deed, that in respect of such supposed gods we are atheists,
distinctum. }ut not in respect of the most true God, the Father of righte-
ousness and temperance and all other virtues, in Whom is
no admixture of evil. But we worship and adore both Him,
and His Son, Who came from Him, (and hath taught us

8 καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν τῶν τοιούτων νομι- Kal διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα Kal τὸν
/ “ τ. » 1. > > “ a ε ΄ > /
Coudvwv θεῶν ἄθεοι εἶναι" GAN οὐχὶ τοῦ τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων Kal ἐξομοιουμένων
ἀληθεστάτου, καὶ Πατρὸς δικαιοσύνης ἄγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατὸν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ
καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀρετῶν, προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσκυνοῦμεν,
ἀνεπιμίκτου τε κακίας Θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖ- λόγῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντε5. -- p. 46.
νόν τε, καὶ τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθοντα, {Apol. i. 6. p. 47. ]

wrongly understood to emply the worship of Angels. 149

|respecting]‘ these things and [respecting] the host of the soox τι.
other good angels, who follow Him and are made like unto ere ἣν
Him,) and the prophetict Spirit, honouring Them in reason? Justin Μ.
and truth.” From this passage, indeed, Bellarmine endea~ Sanctum,
vours to establish the religious adoration of angels ; Which αὐ τε πεν
inference of his, (if it be valid,) will entirely subvert the argu- Lt. vers.
ment which I have derived from this place, in favour of the [195]
true divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost. That is to say,
Bellarmine, after the words, διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, (“ Who
hath taught us [respecting] these things,”) inserts a stop’, and 3 distine-
reads; “ But we worship and adore both Him and His Son, ee co
who came from Him, and hath taught us these things, and
the host of the other good angels, who follow Him and are
like unto Him, and the Holy Ghost,’ &c. But Scultetus"
kindled with just indignation‘, meets him with this severe and ‘ ardore.
acute reply : “ But what reason,” he says, “ does he adduce for
this little note of punctuation, devised in the Roman Ly-
ceum? He adduces none; therefore we reject the sophis-
tical comma’ of Perionius. Justin uniformly teaches, that δ incisum.
the Son hath revealed all things, and even God Himself, to
us; in this passage he adds, that by Him we have also been
instructed concerning the ministry of angels. Was then
this to be dissevered from its context by the jesuitical
clause", that so by the suffrage of Justin also the supersti- 5 articulo
tious worship of angels might be established? You did not 7°™e
perceive, sycophant, that if your little stop were admitted,
the Holy Ghost would (contrary to the uniform tenor of [196]
Justin’s views’) be made inferior to the angels, inasmuch 7 perpe-
as He would have to be worshipped only in the fourth place. eroe aie
Had you turned over a single page, you would have seen sum.
the clouds which obscure the present passage, dispelled by
the very clear light of another place*, where he teaches,
that the Father is worshipped by Christians in the first place,
the Son in the second, and the Holy Ghost in the third;
not that the angels are worshipped in the place next to the
Son, nor even in the fourth place, nor in the fifth. You should
have consulted the Dialogue with Trypho, as it is entitled,

Ὁ [In translating this passage Bp. dium of Justin Martyr’s doctrine, chap.
Bull’s rendering has necessarily been 18.

adhered to. | * [See § 13. pp. 60, 61.]
" Medulla Patrum, in the compen- . 3

150 Bp. Bull’s construction and explanation of the passage.

on THE and you would have found it proved from the divine wor-
stantia. Ship! paid to Him, that the Angel who appeared to Lot was
Boer ἀπὸ Son of God; which proof would have had no force,
eeqrete 0M tbe supposition of worship*® being paid to angelic crea-
rationis. tures.” ΤῸ this you may add, what indeed ought to be espe-
* adoratio. cially noticed, that in those very words of Justin, from which
; 71 Bellarmine wished to educe® the adoration of angels, angels
ἐξεῦα are expressly called following or attendant‘ spirits’ (τοὺς ἑπο-
4 sequentes vous), (he calls them ministers, (ὑπηρέτα5), in the passage
Ab ancyng just now adduced from the epistle to Diognetus, wherein also
he excepts from the number and rank of ministers, the Son

of God, as he does both the Son and the Holy Ghost, in this
passage,) whence it follows that they are in no wise to be

5 adoran- worshipped®. But, you will ask, with what view is the men-
he tion of our being taught respecting the ministry of the good
angels by the Son of God, parenthetically inserted when he

is speaking of the Son? My reply is, that the parenthesis

has reference (and I wish the reader to note this carefully) to

what had immediately preceded in the same passage of

Justin; Justin had asserted that Socrates was put to death by

wicked men, at the instigation of the devil, as being an

atheist and an impious man, because he maintained that we

are to worship the One true God alone, putting away the idols

of the Gentiles as demons, that is, as evil spirits, enemies to

God; then he adds, that precisely the same had happened

[197] to Christians. His words are*?: “ And in like manner in
our case do they effect the same; for not only among the

Greeks were these things proved [against them], by a

word, through Socrates, but among barbarians also, by the

Word Himself, having assumed a [bodily] form, and become

man, and been called Jesus Christ. In Whom believing, we

declare that the demons, who did such things, not only are

not upright beings”, but are evil and unholy spirits, who in

2 That is, a metaphorical expression καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κληθέντος. ᾧ πει- |
derived from the servants (pedissequi, σθέντες ἡμεῖς τοὺς ταῦτα πράξαντας δαί-
‘“Jackeys,”’) who are accustomed to fol- μονας οὐ μόνον μὴ ὀρθοὺς εἶναι φαμὲν,

low their masters. ἀλλὰ κακοὺς καὶ ἀνοσίους δαίμονας, οἱ
ἃ καὶ ὁμοίως ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ αὐτὸ ἐνερ. οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀρετὴν ποθοῦσιν ἀνθρώποις

γοῦσιν' οὐ γὰρ μόνον Ἑλλησι διὰ Σωκρά- τὰς πράξεις ὁμοίας €xovor.—{ Ibid. |

τους ὑπὸ λόγου ἠλέγχθη ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ Ὁ Grabein his Adversaria reads θεούς.

καὶ ἐν βαρβάροις ὕπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου Bowyer.
μορφωθέντος καὶ ἀνθρώπον γενομένου,

Divine worship not to be given to any created beings. 151

their actions are not even like such men as are seeking Βοοκ τι.
after virtue.” Now, after he had said that by the faith of care a
Christ we had been instructed to shun the worship of wicked Justin M.
angels, he most appositely adds immediately after, in the
parenthesis we are speaking of, that by the same Christ we
have also been instructed concerning other, that is, good,
angels, as concerning spirits, who along with ourselves do
service to God, and consequently are not by any means to
be worshipped; so that the words in the parenthesis are
altogether to be construed and expounded to this effect ;
“Who hath taught us these things, namely, what had gone
before, about not worshipping the wicked angels, and also
about the host of holy angels, which do service to God and
imitate His goodness.” The sum of the matter is this; We
have been instructed by Christ as well respecting wicked as
good angels; of the wicked [we have been taught] that they
are evil spirits and rebels against God, and therefore worthy
rather of execration than of adoration; of the good, that
they are spirits which serve and obey God, and after their
own poor measure imitate His goodness; and so not even
they are to be worshipped*. This passage, consequently, is
so far from making at all in favour of Bellarmine and the
Papists, that, on the contrary, it furnishes an invincible argu-
ment against the religious worship of angels ; and most clearly
shews, that, according to the mind of the primitive Chris-
tians, a worship' of that kind ought not to be paid either to! cultus.
angels or to any order of beings who serve and wait upon

God, (that is to say, to any order of created beings,) but unto

the most Holy Trinity alone, Who created all things, and

[198]

which have thus far been explained, [ by
Bp. Bull in the text,] rather means
that Christ manifested, or more clearly
revealed, to the angels, as well as to
men, the justice and the other attri-
butes of God the Father; as I have
said in my notes on this passage of Jus-
tin, p. 11. of my edition, and proved
from parallel words out of Irenzus.
GraBE. |The Benedictine editor re-
jects both these interpretations—Bull’s
and Grabe’s—and strongly contends
that Justin’s words speak of the worship
of angels. Bull has more on this point
in his answer to G. Clerke, § 20.—B.]
[Le Nourry and others agree with Bp.

Bp. Kaye (On Justin Martyr, p. 52.
note 7,) construes the clause as Bel-
larmine does, and suggests that the
heavenly host are mentioned subordi-
nately, and that the words καὶ τὸν...
στρατὸν are equivalent to μετὰ ToD...
στρατοῦ, Justin having in his mind
the glorified state of Christ, sur-
rounded by the host of heaven; and he
quotes, in confirmation of this view,
passages from Justin. Others, who
adopt the mode of construction which
Bull mentions as Bellarmine’s, shew
that it does not involve the assertion
that the angels were worshipped with
the worship given to God. |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 Lega-
tione.

[199]

2 χόγος

ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ
ἐνεργείᾳ.
3 πρὸς αὖ-
τοῦ.

* νοῦς καὶ
λόγος.

5 consensu.

152 Testimonies from Athenagoras, on the relation

unto Whom all things are subject, the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost; a statement which entirely overthrows the inventions
of the Arians also, and of all other anti-trinitarians. For the
rest, those passages of Justin, which some have imagined to
be inconsistent with these, we shall afterwards consider in
our own fourth book, on the subordination of the Son to the
Father. I fear however that I may there omit one passage
objected by Sandius, that, 1 mean, in which Justin is said to
have taught, that the Son of God is “a created angel!”
Let the reader, however, be assured that such a passage is
no where found in the writings of Justin; but that Sandius,
shamelessly, as his way is, has falsely attributed it to the
most holy martyr. I now pass on from Justin to other
fathers.

9. Athenagoras*, in his Apology! for the Christians,
most explicitly acknowledges the community of nature and
essence which exists between the Father and the Son; for,
with the view of explaining to the heathen philosophers, who
that Son of God is, whom the Christians worship, he says*:
“But the Son of God is the Word? of the Father, in idea and
in operation. For by Him* and through Him were all things
made, the Father and the Son being One ; and, the Son being
in 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 God.” What Arian ever spoke thus of the Son of
God? He says, that the Father and the Son are one; and
that not only by an agreement of will’, as the Arians con-
tended; but by a mutual περιχώρησις, “ circumincessione,” as
the schoolmen express it, so that the Son is in the Father and
the Father in the Son. He says, that the Son is the very Mind
and Word of God the Father; in what sense this is to be un-
derstood we shall explain afterwards? ; meanwhile it is certain
that it cannot in any sense be reconciled with the Arian
doctrine. Nor must we overlook the fact that Athenagoras,
in treating of the work of creation, which in the Scriptures

ἃ Athenagoras flourished about the
year 177. Cave.—Bowyer.

© ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ὃ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος
τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἰδέᾳ καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ. πρὸς
αὐτοῦ γὰρ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο,
ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ" ὄν-
τος δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν πατρὶ, καὶ πατρὸς ἐν

υἱῷ, ἑνότητι καὶ δυνάμει πνεύματος, νοῦς
καὶ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ὃ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ.---
p- 10. ad calcem Just. Mart. edit.
Paris. 1615. [§ 10. p. 286, 287. ]

f [The words are so understood by
Bp. Bull, ii. 3, 14.]

® Book III. 5. ὃ 4—6.

of the Word to the Father, explained and commented on. 153

is attributed to the Son of God, teaches, that the universe soox 11.
was created, not only δι᾿ αὐτοῦ, “through” the Son, which ore δά
the Arians were willing to allow, (understanding, of course, 7 ay
‘through Him’ to mean, through Him as an instrument, 6°45.
which of itself has no power to do any thing,) but also πρὸς

αὐτοῦ", “by Him,” that is, as, conjoined with the Father,

the primary efficient cause; and that with the addition of [200]
this reason, that the Father and the Son are one!, in ESSENCE, Fai g
that 15 to say, and nature, and consequently in power? and ope- ἘΠῚ
ration; which is diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy.
Presently after, however, in the same passage, Athenagoras
distinctly denies, that the Son in the beginning came forth

from the Father to create all things “as made,” (ὡς γενόμε-

vov) or created by God, [a denial] which aims a deadly blow® jugulum
at the Arian blasphemy. We shall hereafter bring forward {P"™ ?&
the passage entire, in our third booki. A few words after

he makes a full confession of the consubstantial‘ Trinity, in “τῆς éuoov-
these words*; “Who then would not think it strange, to ei cea
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 distinction in order?” Parallel to this is the
exposition of the view of Christians touching the most holy

Trinity, which he advances elsewhere in the same! book,
conceived in the following terms: “We speak of God, and

the Son His Word, and the Holy Ghost, being one® indeed 5 ἐνούμενα,
in power, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit®: in that the ὁ spiritum
Son is the Mind, Word, Wisdom, of the Father, and the ae
Spirit an effluence’, as hight from fire.’ Where he Very 7 ἀπύρροια.
plainly enough infers that the Father, the Son, and the Holy

Ghost are one God, from this, that there is one only foun-

h [“T dislike this reading very much.
For it is not (as the learned Bull
thought) equivalent to ὕπ᾽ αὐτοῦ: nor
can any instance be brought forward in
which all things are said to have been
created πρὸς τοῦ λόγου, instead of, what
is very often used, ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου. Tf,

“however, we read πρὸς αὐτὸν, a very
good meaning will come out, that is to
say, that all things were created ‘after’
the Word, that is, after the pattern
delineated in the Word; ‘omnia secun-
dum Verbum, sive secundum exem-
plar in Verbo descriptum creata esse.’ ”’

Edit. Benedict.—B. ]

' Chap. v. 2.

K τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι, λέγοντας
Θεὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν Θεὸν καὶ πνεῦμα
ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ
ἑνώσει δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαί-
ρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένου-.---Ὀ.
Tope 287.)

1 Θεὸν φαμὲν, καὶ υἱὸν τὸν λόγον ad-
τοῦ, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἑνούμενα μὲν κατὰ
δύναμιν, τὸν πατέρα, τὸν υἱὸν, τὸ πνευμα"
ὅτι νοῦς, λόγος, σοφία υἱὸς τοῦ πατρὸς,
καὶ ἀπόρροια, ὡς φῶς ἀπὸ πυρὸς, τὸ

πνεῦμα.---Ὀ. 27. [8 24. p. 802.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON,

? ex cujus
essentia.

201

? ex ipso
Deo Patre.

3 2 ,
ἀμέσως“.

4 longis-
sime,

5 [or “ di-
vision,”’
see above,
p- 140.]

[202]

154 The Word and Spirit distinguished from the Angels.

tain of Deity, namely the Father, from whose essence! the
Son and the Holy Ghost are derived, and that in such wise,
as that the Son is the λόγος, [Word or Wisdom,]| from ever-
lasting existing and springing out of the very mind of the
Father, (for that this was Athenagoras’ meaning we shall
clearly prove hereafter,) and that the Holy Ghost also flows
forth and emanates from God the Father Himself’, (through
the Son, that is to say, as we have shewn above,) as light
proceeds from fire. In passing you may observe, how com-
pletely Athenagoras acknowledged the consubstantiality of
the Holy Ghost, equally with that of the Son. This divine
philosopher, however, immediately*® proceeds in the same
passage to mention the angels, whom he styles ἑτέρας duva-
pets, “powers, other and different from” the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost; inasmuch as they are very far*
removed from that uncreated nature in which the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost have their subsistence. On this
account he soon after expressly says, that the angels were
“made” by God (γενομένους). As for those passages which
Petavius, Sandius, and others have produced out of Athe-
nagoras as favourable to Arianism, we shall afterwards (in
the third book ™ on the co-eternity of the Son) shew, that
they have been alleged by them to no purpose. And indeed,
respecting the other Fathers of the first three centuries, I
once for all inform my reader, that whatever passages alleged
out of them by sophists in support of Arianism, I have passed
over in this book, these I have carefully weighed elsewhere,
either in that third book, or in the fourth, on the subordi-
nation of the Son, and, if I mistake not, have given a clear
account of them. And thus much concerning Athenagoras.

10. We have already” heard Tatran declaring, that the
Son is begotten of God the Father, οὐ κατ᾽ ἀποκοπὴν, “ not
by an abscission,” ἀλλὰ κατὰ μερισμὸν, “but by a participa-
tion’,” or communication of the Father’s essence, just as

one fire is lighted from another; now this, as we at the time

shewed, clearly shews the consubstantiality of the Son.
Turopuitus of Antioch® in his books addressed to Autoly-

m Chapter v. throughout. Ὁ ° Theophilus was promoted to the ;
" See the fourth section of thischap- Bishopric of Antioch, circa an. 168.
ter, [p. 140.] Cave.—Bowyer.

Theophilus’ distinct testimony of the Trinity. 155

cus, which alone out of his numerous writings are extant at Βοοκ u.
this day, has some passages which remarkably confirm the “g 9. 10.
catholic doctrine. Thus in the second book?; “The Word Turopni.
being God, and’ born of God,” (Θεὸς ov ὁ λόγος, καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ eee
πεφυκώς 1) in which words he infers that the Son is God, ‘as being.”
from the circumstance that He is born of God Himself4; that Bul!

is, according to the rule which I have elsewhere" given from
Trenzus*; “ Whatsoever is begotten of God, is God,” (τὸ ἐκ

Θεοῦ γεννηθὲν Θεός ἐστι.) Theophilus had shortly before
informed us, that by the Son of God we must doubtless
understand “the Word, which exists perpetually laid up in

the heart of God,” (τὸν λόγον, τὸν ὄντα διαπαντὸς ἐνδιάθετον

ἐν καρδίᾳ Θεοῦ,) manifestly implying, that the Son has an

eternal subsistence in the very essence of God the Father.

That Theophilus also recognised the entire most Holy Trinity,

is clear from those words of his in which he teaches, that the

three days, which preceded the creation of the sun and the

moon, were types “of the Trinity, that is, of God, and of His

Word, and of His Wisdom,” (τῆς τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ

λόγου αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ") It is true that Peta-

vius, who seems to have read the writings of the primitive

fathers for the very purpose of finding or making blemishes’? nevos,
and errors in them, endeavours from these very words of
Theophilus to construct a charge against that excellent father.

His words are theset: “Theophilus’ explanation of the

Trinity is widely different from what the Christian confession

of It allows; seeing that he calls those three days, which, at

the beginning of the world, preceded the production of the [203]
sun and of the moon, a figure ‘ of the Trinity, that is, of God, 738
and of His Word, and of His Wisdom.’ He makes no men-

tion there of the Spirit, Whom he appears to have con-
founded with the Word; for we have before shewn that he

called the same Being the Word and Spirit of God, and truly

[His] Wisdom.” Now to this I reply, that, as well on
account of Their common nature, as of Their common deri-

P Θεὸς dv 6 λόγος, καὶ ἐξς Θεοῦ πεφυ- lation.}
kws.—p. 100. [§ 22. p. 9505. r [p. 102.]
4 [The Latin version of Bp. Bull is 41D, Ps 99. GRABE. -{ ly SO. Ρ:
Deus existens sermo, utpote ex Deo 41.] .
progenitus; this particular portion of t p. 94 [§ 15. p. 360.)
his argument is grounded on that trans- " Petay. de Trin. i. 3. 6.
.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-~
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ab eadem
πηγῇ Θεό-
THTOS.

156 The Names not the Persons of Son and Spirit confused.

vation from one and the same fountain of Godhead', the
ancients used to make the names also of the second and the
third Persons [of the Trinity] common. Hence, as the name
“Spirit of God,’ which more frequently marks the third
divine Person, is (as I have shewn already’) sometimes applied
by them to the second Person; so the name Wisdom, though
it is used for the most part to denote the second Person, is
occasionally employed to designate the third. And, besides
Theophilus, we shall elsewhere” have to observe that this was
done also by Irenzeus and Origen; and yet these holy fathers
must not on that account be regarded as confounding the
second and the third Persons of the Trinity; forasmuch as
it is most manifest from their writings, and that from those
very passages in which they interchange the names of either
[Person,| that they did themselves account the Son and the
Holy Ghost to be Persons really distinct from each other.
And with respect to Theophilus, every one must see that his
words are of themselves sufficient for their own vindication ?
For how it is to be supposed that he confounded the Holy
Ghost, the third Person of the Godhead, with the Word,
when he expressly confesses τὴν τριάδα, the Trinity? What?

_ Can the Father and the Son, without the Spirit, or a third

LucIAN.

[204]

Person distinct from both, constitute a Trinity? It is clear,
therefore, that Theophilus confused the names only, not the
Persons, of the Son and the Holy Ghost. But concerning
Theophilus of Antioch, this is enough at present.

11. And here I entreat the reader to allow me to turn aside
for a moment from the remains of the holy fathers to the
writings of a heathen. The author of the dialogue, ascribed
to Lucian, which is entitled Philopatris, toward the conclu-
sion® by way of ridicule introduces a Christian catechising
a heathen, (whom, on that account, he somewhere in the
Dialogue expressly calls a catechumen,) and amongst other
subjects explaining to him the mystery of the most Holy
Trinity. Upon the heathen asking the Christian, “ By whom
then shall I swear?” ‘Triephon, who sustains the part of
the Christian, replies’, “‘ By the God who reigns on high,

Y (i. 2. 5. p. 48.) hus. |
z See c. v. § 7. of this book, ae iv. " Ὑψιμέδοντα Θεὸν, μέγαν, ἄμβροτον,
38—11. ovpaviwva,

* (Vol. iii, p. 596. ed. Hemster- υἱὸν πατρὸς, πνεῦμα ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευό-

Indirect testimony to the Catholic Doctrine out of Lucian. 157

great, immortal, celestial, the Son of the Father, the Spirit soox τι.
Who proceeds from the Father, One of Three’, and Three § 10, 11.
of One’: believe These to be Jove, and esteem Him God.” Lucan.
To which the heathen after some other matters thus retorts? ; } ἕν ἐκ
“T know not what thou sayest; One Three, Three One®!” 2 pla ἐξ
Truly he must have bad sight, who does not perceive, ee
that in these words is most clearly taught a Trinity of one "8°"
substance*, or one God subsisting in three Persons. And “ ὁμούσιον.
there is no doubt but that the author derived this from the

system of teaching’ of the Christians of his own age. Now ‘disciplina.
if this Dialogue was written by Lucian, he flourished under

Marcus Antoninus, (as the great I. Gerard Vossius has

most clearly proved,) that is about the year of our Lord 170,

a little after the time of Justin; so that he was contempo-

rary with Tatian and Athenagoras, whose doctrine we have

just been explainmg. But James Micyllus in his Introduc-

tion® says, there is ground for doubt, whether this Dialogue ὁ in Argu.
be Lucian’s; since, though in its matter it be not unlike his τ τ
characteristic genius and wit, yet its style, and indeed its

general construction, are quite unlike the rest of Lucian’s [205]
writings ; and some other learned men besides have followed

this opinion of Micyllus. That writer, however, adds as

follows ; ‘ Whoever,” he says, “was the author of this Dia-

logue, it seems to have been his special object to offer con-
gratulation to the Emperor Trajan on a victory obtained in

the east, in opposition to those persons who at that period
forboded dangers and ruin either to Rome herself, or to some

other place (for he only calls it their country’): these from 7 patriam.
the first he calls sophists, but at last he describes them in

such a way, that he almost seems to mean the Christians.

For this is the bearing of what he says at the end about

Persian pride, Susa, and the whole region of Arabia. For

all these were at that time conquered by Trajan and reduced
beneath the power of Rome, as may be seen in Dion, Eutro-

pius, and the other historians of that period.” Now, if this

view of the case be a true one, we may then easily gather

hence, what the faith of the Christians was, touching the

μενον, ἕν ἐκ τριῶν, καὶ ἐξ ἑνὸς τρία' ταῦτα —[Ibid.]
νόμιζε Ζῆνα, τὸν δὲ ἡγοῦ Θεόν. © De Histor. Gree. ii. 15.
4 Οὐκ οἶδα τί λέγεις" ἕν τρία, τρία ἕν.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

[206]

158 Date of the Dialogue calied Philopatris.

most Holy Trinity, even in the reign of Trajan, long before
the age of Lucian. I should, however, rather believe that
the allusion at the end of the Dialogue is to a victory over
the Persians gained by Marcus Antoninus, in whose reign,
as we have already said, Lucian flourished. For thus Sextus
Aurelius Victor’ writes of him: “Under his conduct, the
Persians, though at first victorious, at last yielded up the
palm.” Just so the author of the Dialogue hkewise, towards
the conclusion, introduces one Cleolaus, hurrying and panting
to bring these joyful tidings, Πέπτωκεν ὀφρὺς ἡ πάλαι Bow-
μένη Περσῶν, καὶ Σοῦσα, κλεινὸν ἄστυ: “The long vaunted
pride of the Persians is fallen ; and Susa, that noted city |”
There is, however, a further, and that no obscure, indication
of the age of Marcus Antoninus, in the circumstance, that in
this Dialogue certain persons are remarked on, who lamented
the very heavy and unwonted calamities, with which the
Roman state was then afflicted, and forboded in consequence
still worse evils. Now hear what Aurelius Victor in his
Epitome says respecting the commencement of this emperor’s
reign. His words are; “ Marcus Antoninus reigned 18 years.
He was a man endowed with all virtues and a heavenly cast
of mind, and was stationed as a living outwork against the
miseries of the state. For had he not been born for those
times, surely all parts of the Roman empire must have fallen,
as with one crash. For nowhere was there any repose from
arms. ‘Throughout the entire east, Illyricum, Italy, and
Gaul, wars were raging. There were earthquakes, with de-
struction of cities; rivers overflowed their banks, pestilences
were frequent, and a sort of locusts infested the lands; so

f Ejus ductu Perse, cum primum ΔΏΠΟΒ 18, Iste virtutum omnium ΘΟ -

superavissent, ad extremum triumpho
cessere.—lIn libro de Czsaribus in M.
Aurel. Antonino. [Marcus Antoninus
did net go in person to the Eastern wars.
The antecedent, to which the words
of the historian as quoted in the text
refer, is undoubtedly his colleague Lu-
cius Verus, to whom the command was
entrusted: ‘ Lucium Verum in socie-
tatem potentie accepit. Ejus ductu
Perse, cum primum superavissent, ad
extremum triumpho cessere, Rege Vo-
logese.”’—Aur. Victor. de Casaribus.
16. p. 260. ed. Schott. |

¢ M. Antonius, inquit, imperavit

lestisque ingenii extitit, erumnisque
publicis quasi defensor objectus est.
Etenim nisi ad illatempora natus esset,
profecto quasi uno lapsu ruissent om-
nia status Romani. Quippe ab armis
nusquam quies erat; perque omnem
orientem, Illyricum, Italiam, Galliam-
que bella fervebant; terree-motus non
sine interitu civitatum, inundationes
fluminum, lues crebrz, locustarum
species agris infeste ; prorsus ut prope
nihil, quo summis angoribus atteri
mortales solent, dici seu cogitari queat,
quod non illo imperante sevierit.—

[ Ibid. ]

The Catholic, not heretical, doctrine exhibited by Lucian. 159

that one may almost say, that no one thing, which is wont Βοοκ 1.
to afflict mankind with the heaviest suffering, can be men- “Κ΄
tioned or conceived of, which did not rage during this σον.
emperor’s reign.” The dialogue in question therefore was
written, either by Lucian himself (as I am inclined to think),

or at any rate by a contemporary of Lucian; and that is

just as suitable for our present purpose. Let us now hear

what Sandius advances in opposition to this testimony ; his

words are, “I should say for my part", that Tryphon” (he

ought to have called him Triephon, or Triepho) “ represents

that class of men, concerning whom we read in Clement of

Rome, (Constitutions vi. 25,) Ignatius to the Trallians, Tar-

sians and Philippians, and also in Justin, against Trypho,

who are earlier than Lucian.” The fact is, he has himself

no scruple in saying, devising, inventing any thing, if only

it ministers anyhow to his impious cause. For any one may
perceive, that the author of the Dialogue is not exhibiting for

ridicule merely a particular and obscure sect of Christians,

but the Christian religion itself! Besides, the heretics, who [207]
are mentioned in the Pseudo-Clement, in the interpolated
Ignatius, and in Justin, affirmed the Son to be Him who

is God over all things, that is to say, God the Father Him-

self. Whereas, in this brief confession of the Trinity, “the

God who reigns on high,” that is, the Father, is first mentioned

as the fountain of Godhead; then the Son of the Father is
subjoined, as a Person distinct from that supreme God and

Parent of all; nevertheless He, with the Holy Ghost, is repre-

sented as so intimately conjoined in nature with God the

Father, as that the Three constitute but One God, and yet

in very deed continue Three; a doctrine which is, and ever

has been, held by Catholics; but which differs entirely from

the opinions of those heretics of whom Sandius was dream-

ing. Furthermore Critias, the counterfeit catechumen, de-

rides this doctrine as incomprehensible!; “I do not under- ! ἀκατά-
stand,” says he, “what thou affirmest; One, Three; and
Three, One!” But the heretics alluded to by Sandius,
avouched an opinion wherein is nothing incomprehensible ;
for they made God unipersonal (μονοπρόσωπον), that is, one * unam et

3 : . Ϊ la-
only and singular Person”; called merely, according to His }.)°'p.,-

h Enucl. Histor. Eccl. i. p. 88. sonam.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

' φάσις.

77
[212]

100 Treneus.

threefold aspect! (so to say) sometimes the Father, sometimes
the Son, and sometimes again the Holy Ghost. Lastly,
Critias, afterwards in the same Dialogue, (taught, you will
observe, by Triephon,) scoffingly swears by the Son after
this manner: “ By the Son, Him who is of the Father, this
shall in no wise be;”’ Νὴ τὸν υἱὸν tov ἐκ Πατρὸς, ov τοῦτο
γενήσεται. Now the Catholics acknowledged the Son to be
Him who is of? the Father; not so those heretics whose
opinion Sandius pretends is set forth in this dialogue. The
whole point admits of no doubt. From the profane author I
return to the holy doctors of the Church.

CHAPTER V.

SETTING FORTH THE DOCTRINE OF IRENZUS CONCERNING THE SON OF GOD,
MOST PLAINLY CONFIRMATORY OF THE NICENE CREED.

1. Ler us now carefully attend to what that holy bishop
and martyr, Irenzeus', both learned of his apostolic instructor,
Polycarp, and himself taught to others, concerning the true
divinity of the Son of God. I have already pledged‘ myself
to adduce marked testimonies out of this writer against the
Arians; whether I have, in this present chapter, fulfilled my
promise, let the reader whose mind is not altogether preju-
diced, judge. In his third book, chap. 6', Irenzeus is wholly
occupied in proving this pomt; that “ Neither the Lord, nor
the Holy Ghost, nor the Apostles, ever gave to him who was
not God, the name of God definitely and absolutely, if he were
not very God. Nor called any one Lord in his own person,
but Him, who is Lord of all, God the Father and His Son.”
He soon after quotes that testimony out of the forty-fifth

* He was born A.D.97, and wrote
his work Adv. Hereses, A.D. 175.
Cave.—Bowyer.

* [p. 134.] .

1 Neque Dominus, neque Spiritus
S. neque apostoli, eum qui non esset
Deus, definitive et absolute Deum no-

minassent aliquando, nisi esset verus
Deus; neque Dominum appellassent
aliquem ex sua persona, nisi qui domi-
natur omnium, Deum Patrem et Fili-
um ejus, &c.—Chap. 3, ὃ 18. GRABE.
Pp 167.)

Lhe Name of God applied absolutely only to the true God. 161

Psalm, cited also by Justini, « Thy throne, O God, is for
ever,” &c.; and thus comments on iti; “The Spirit hath sig-
nified both under
anointed, the Son, as Him who anoints, i.e. the Father.”
From which we construct an argument to this effect ; Who-
soever in the Scriptures is absolutely and definitely called
God, is God in very deed; but the Son, equally with the
Father, is in the Scriptures absolutely and definitely called
God; therefore the Son, equally with the Father, is God in
very deed. The premises are Irenzeus’s; therefore also is the
conclusion which necessarily follows from them. He subse-
quently remarks that*, “when the Scripture names those [as
gods] that are not gods, it does not set them forth as gods
altogether’, but with some addition and intimation by which
they are set forth as not being gods.”

ὦ. To this must be joined a passage in book iv. chap. 11],
“For our Lord and Master,” he says, ‘in the answer which
He made to the Sadducees, (who say that there is no resur-
rection, and thereby dishonour God and detract from the
law,) both shewed the resurrection, and also revealed God ;
declaring to them; ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures
nor the power of God. For, He said, ‘as touching the
resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was
spoken by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? And added, ‘ He is
not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto
Him.’ By these words He has made it clear that He, who
spake unto Moses out of the bush, and manifested Himself
to be God the Father, He is the God of the living. For who

* [See chap. 4. § 5. of this book. }

: Utrosque Dei appellatione signifi-
cavit Spiritus, et eum qui ungitur Fili-
um, et eum qui ungit, id est, Patrem.
—[Tbid. ]

* Cum eos, qui non sunt dii, nomi-
nat, non in totum scriptura ostendit
illos deos, sed cum aliquo additamento
et significatione, per quam ostenduntur
non esse dii.—[§ 3. p. 181.]

' Dominus enim noster, et Ma-
gister in ea responsione, quam _ha-
buit ad Sadduczos, qui dicunt resur-
rectionem non esse, et propter hoc in-
honorantes Deum atque legi detra-

BULL.

hentes, et resurrectionem ostendit, et
Deum manifestavit, dicens eis, Erra-
tis nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem
Dei. De resurrectione, inquit, mortuo-
rum non legistis quid dictum est a Deo
dicente, Ego sum Deus Abraham, et
Deus Isaac, et Deus Jacob? et adjecit,
Non est Deus mortuorum, sed viventium ;
omnes enim et vivunt. Per hec utique
manifestum fecit, quoniam is qui de
rubo locutus est Moysi, et manifestavit
se esse Deum Patrem, hic est viven-
tium Deus. Quis enim est vivorum
Deus, nisi qui est super omnia Deus,
Super quem alius non est Deus?....

BOOK II.
CHAP: V.
§ 1, 2.

the appellation of God, as well Him who is ΠΕ ΘΈΡΟΣ

[213]

lin totum.

162 Christ, being God, spoke to Moses in the bush.

on tus is the God of the living, but He who is God over all'™, over

CONSUB-
STANTIA-

whom there is no other God?” And a little afterwards; “ He,

“ITY OF therefore, who was worshipped by the prophets as the living

THE SON.

Δ super
omnia.

[214]

2in termi-

nis,

God, He is the God of the living, and His Word, who also
spake unto Moses, who also refuted the Sadducees, who also
was the Giver of the resurrection.” Then after a short space
he thus concludes: “Christ, therefore, Himself with the
Father is the God of the living, who spake unto Moses, and
was manifested also to the fathers.’ What can be more plain
than this? I mean that, according to Irenzus, He who spoke
to Moses out of the bush and revealed Himself to the patri-
archs, is the living God, the God of the living, God over all,
and over whom there is no other god: but, according to the
same Ireneeus, it was Christ Himself with the Father, who
spake unto Moses and was manifested to the fathers. Now
what follows from these things? What, but that Christ Him-
self with the Father is the living God, the God of the living,
God over all, and over whom there is no other God; which is
also affirmed by Irenzeus in so many words’.

3. This is more fully confirmed by the fact, that Irenzeus
also, iii. 18", cites the testimony of the Apostle (Romans 1x.
5) in the same words, and in the same sense, as Catholics of
the present time receive them. For, with the view of prov-
ing against the heretics, “that Jesus was not one, and Christ
another, but one and the same;” after other things he thus
adduces that passage of Paul": “And again, writing to the
Romans concerning Israel, he says; ‘ Whose are the fathers,
and of whom according to the flesh [is] Christ, who is God
over all, blessed for νοι. Erasmus, however, (whom some
others have followed,) has endeavoured to render uncertain
even this irrefragable evidence for the true divinity of the
Son; for he has devised three constructions of these words, of
which one only acknowledges the Godhead of the Son. The
very ancient father Ireneeus, however, recognised none other

Qui igitur a prophetis adorabatur Deus
vivus, hic est vivorum Deus, et Verbum
ejus, qui et locutus est Moysi, qui et
Sadduceos redarguit, qui et resurrec-
tionem donavit..... Ipse igitur Chris-
tus cum Patre vivorum est Deus, qui
locutus est Moysi, qui et Patribus ma-
nifestatus est.—[cap. v. 2. p. 282. |

m (The words ‘ super omnia’ are re-

jected by the Benedictine editor.—B.] |

" Neque alium [quidem ] Jesum, al-
terum [autem] Christum [suspicare-
mur | fuisse, sed unum et eundem [sci-
remus] esse... et iterum ad Romanos
scribens de Israel, dicit; Quorum Pa-
tres, et ex quibus Christus secundum
carnem, quiest Deus super omnes bene-
dictus in secula.—[cap. xvi. 3. p. 205.}

The Fathers understood Rom. ix. 5. as we now do. 163

than the received reading and construction. And with Ire- soox n.
nus agree Tertullian in his Treatise against Praxeas, c. xiii. oe
[p. 507.], &c.; xv. [p. 509.] Novatian on the Trinity, c. xiii. Inunmus.
and xxx.°; Cyprian, Testimonies against the Jews, book ii.?,
(although Erasmus stated the contrary, being misled by a
faulty copy of Cyprian) ; Origen on Romans ix.54; Athana- [215]
sius, Orations 11. and v. against the Arians, and in his work
on the Common Essence’; Gregory Nyssen against Euno-
mius, book x.*; Marius Victorinus against Arius, book iets
Hilary, books iv. and viii."; Ambrose, on the Holy Spirit, book
1.c. 3%; and on the Faith, book iv. c. 6"; Augustin on the Tri-
nity, book 11. c. 18 χ, also against Faustus, book xii. c. 3 and 6Y "
Cyril, in book i. of the Thesaurus”; Idacius against Varima-
dus‘, book i.; Cassian on the Incarnation, book iii., near the
beginning”; Gregory the Great in his Eighth Homily on Eze-
kiel®; Isidore of Seville in his book on Difference, num. ac
and almost all the other fathers, “who” (as Petavius® says)
“convict Erasmus of unthinking rashness, in that he hesitat-
ed not to declare ; ‘They who contend that from this passage
there is evident proof that Christ is expressly called God,
appear either to place little reliance on other testimonies of
Scripture, or not to give the Arians credit for any ability, or
to consider with little attention the words! of the Apostle.’ ” ! sermo-
This, as Petavius adds, is a false and shameless assertion of 7°
his, for which he was reproved even by Beza. But I return
to Irenzeus.

4. There is a very illustrious passage of his, in book iv. c. 8,
in which he says‘; “God maketh all things in measure and [866 Wisd.

order, and nothing is not measured with Him, because nothing Ἦ 20-1

° [pp. 715, and 729. ] § 37. p. 970.]

P [c. vi. p. 286. ] v [§ 46. t. ii. p. 609.]

4 [Vol. iv. p. 612. To these Ante- * [c. xi. § 133. t. ii. p. 546.]
nicene testimonies add Hippolytus, * [§ 23. t. viii. p. 785. ]

(cont. Noet. 2. vol. ii. p. 7, &c., 6. p. y [t. viii. pp. 228, 229. ]

10.) Dionysius of Alexandria, (p. 246. £. | tvs pid.

and 248; Epist. Syn. Concil. Antioch. ) 8. [Bibl. Patr. Max, t. v. p. 728. ]
—B.] » Le. 1. p. 984.)

* [Athanas, Orat. i. 11. vol. i. p. 415; © [Lib. i. Hom. 8. § 3. tom. i. p. 1236. ]
Orat. iv. 1. p. 617; Epist. ii. ad Serap. 4 [De different. Spirit., § 2. p. 185. ]
11. p. 684; Epist. ad Epict. 10. p. 908; © De Trin. ii. 9. 2.

De communi essentia, 27, vol. ii. p. 16. ] * Omnia, inquit, mensura et ordine

§ [Vol. ii. p. 693. ] Deus facit, et nihil non mensum apud

‘ [Ap. Bibl, Patr. Max. Lugd. 1677, eum, quoniam nec incompositum [ἅπαν-
t. iv. p. 258.] Ta μέτρῳ καὶ τάξει ὁ Θεὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ οὐ -

" [De Trin. iv. § 39. p. 850; viii. δὲν ἄμετρον παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι μηδὲν ἀνα-

M 2

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ἀναρίθ-
μήητον,
incom-
positum.
? capit.

3 quantus
quantus
Sit.

[216]

4 apud
Patrem.

5 mox.

6 per.

104 The Son is said to measure and contain the Father.

is unnumbered’, and [he spoke] well, who said, that the 1m-
measurable Father Himself is measured in the Son. For the
Son is the measure of the Father, since He also contains?
Him.’ What can be clearer than this? He teaches that the
Son is commensurate with the immeasurable Father, and that
He contains and comprehends Him wholly, how great soever
He be®; consequently that the Son is equal to the Father in
all things, with this single exception, that He is from the
Father. For with Irenzus, to contain the greatness of the
Father is the same as to be equal to the Father, as is evident
from another passage in his works (i. 1,) where he relates
the fable of Valentinus, namely, that Bythus (Depth) begat
Nus (Mind)8, “similar and equal to him, who had put him
forth, and alone containing the greatness of his father.” It
is, moreover, to be observed, that this is not a single testi-
mony, nor that of Ireneus alone, but that it declares the
mind of another catholic writer, earlier than he, or, at all
events, his contemporary, whose words he here quotes. But
see how the author of the Irenicum endeavours to evade
this invincible testimony of Ireneus. He replies forsooth? ;
“Trenzeus does not here speak of every measure, by which
the Son may measure the Father; but either of that measure
of which he had just been treating, namely, the Son’s fulfil-
ling, perfecting, and comprehending such things in the law,
as had hitherto been measured and determined with the
Father*; or, if he speaks of any other measure besides, that
of knowledge for instance, he means that it is perfect of its
kind, but not therefore’ absolutely supreme.” ΤῸ this I an-
swer: In the first place, what the heretic says in reply con-
cerning the fulfilment, perfection, and comprehension of the
law by® Christ, is mere sophistry. For those words of the
passage on which our proof rests, namely, ‘the immeasur-
able Father Himself is measured in the Son,” &c., are not
immediately connected with what Irenzus had stated re-
specting the law, at the beginning of the chapter. I mean, he
there affirms, that the ancient ritual law had had its own time
measured and defined by God, so, that is, that it should begin
ρίθμητον. Et bene qui dixit, ipsum im- Ε ὅμοιόν τε καὶ ἶσον τῷ προβαλόντι,
mensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum. καὶ μόνον χωροῦντα τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Πα-

Mensura enim Patris Filius, quoniam τρός.---ἰ ἢ. ὅ.]
et capit eum.’’—[e. iv. 2. p. 231. ] h Trenic. p. 46.

The context of Ireneus explained ; against Sandius. 165

with Moses and terminate with John [the Baptist.] Andthen , 44. τι.
passing from the particular to the universal, he incidentally cuar. v.
teaches, that God made all things whatsoever in measure Ξ
and order,and that there is nothing that is not measured with ee
God’. Whilst, however, he is thinking on these things, as if aes
his mind was by a sudden flight uplifted, (a transition, which [217]
is by no means uncommon on other occasions in writers

of this character,) the Saint perceives that God so loves mea-

sure and proportion, that not even to Himself would He

choose to have measure lacking, whereby His own infinitude

and immensity should be, as it were, circumscribed and
contained. And this he confirms by this remarkable and
excellent saying of a certain catholic writer; “The immea-
surable Father Himself is measured in the Son,” &c. But

soon recollecting himself, and, as it were, quitting that sub-

lime flight, he returns to his subject, shewing that the entire
dispensation of the Old Testament? was temporal. Any one 2, 4am v.
will easily see that this is a correct analysis of the chapter, Test. ad-
who reads it with any attention whatever®. Besides, who is so one
foolish as seriously to suppose that the words, “ the immea- *non osci-
surable Father Himself is measured in the Son,” &c., merely conte
mean this; that God willed that the ritual law of Moses should

have its own definite time, and that, as it commenced with

Moses, so at length being fulfilled through Christ, it should

cease and be abolished? For in this passage Irenzeus is evi-

dently treating, not of the moral law, which is perpetual and
everlasting ; but of what is called the ceremonial law, even of

that which! “ began with Moses,” and “in due course termi-

nated in John,” and of that ‘ giving of the law*,” which “was 4 ¢ de Ie-
to come to an end, at the revelation of the New Testament.” gisdatione.
Secondly, as to the other interpretation of the anonymous

writer, [renzeus expressly speaks not of a measure which is
perfect in its own kind, whatever that be, but of a supreme? s Jima,
and adequate measure, such an one, that is, wherein the im- 79
measurable Father Himself, how immeasurable soever He be,

may be measured. ‘There is certainly a marked emphasis on

the word ipsum, (Himself); so that the sentence, 7psum zm-

i [Ireneus’ words are; Lex] ἃ plens tempora sua legisdationis | finem
Moyse inchoavit,.... consequenter in oportuit habere, caper ae Novo Tes-
Joanne desivit ; _ [Hierusalem adim- tamento.—[iv. 2. p. 231. |

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[218]

1 ἐκπερι-

ἵεναι.

2 aliquate-
nus.

3 incapa-
bilis.

4et quod
omnia pos-
sit.

166 In what sense God is comprehensible by man.

mensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum, &c., (‘‘ the immeasurable
Father Himself is measured in the Son,”) can have no other
meaning than that the Father, in so far as He is immeasur-
able, i.e. in so far as He cannot be contained by any creature,
is yet comprehended by the Son. Gregory Thaumaturgus has
given the sense of the passage, and I am inclined to think he
had the passage itself in his view, in his panegyric oration
on Origen, at the place where he says, that God the Father
by His Son, “ goes forth and surrounds!” Himself; an expres-
sion, which he presently explains by saying, that the Son
enjoys “that power [which is] in all respects equal to the
Father's ;” (τῇ ἴσῃ πάντῃ δυνάμει τῇ αὐτοῦ.) We shall give
the entire passage afterwards/. Thirdly, the sophist’s endea-
vour to elude the force of this passage of Irenzeus by means
of that other, not far from the beginning of the fifth book, is
altogether vain. For Irenzeus does not there say, that man
contains the greatness of the Father, or that the immea-
surable Father Himself is measured in him; and again, in
another passage, (book iv. chapter 37), he clearly explains in
what manner a pious man is said up to a certain point? to
contain the Father. His words are* ; “ For the prophets signi-
fied beforehand, that God should be seen by men, as the Lord
also says, ‘ Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God.’ But in respect of His greatness and His wonderful
glory, no man shall see God and live; for the Father 1s in-
comprehensible*; in respect, however, of His love and mercy,
and because He can do all things’, He does grant even this
to such as love Him, that is, to see God.” Here Irenzeus ex-
pressly asserts, that the pure in heart do not see God, or com-
prehend Him in respect of His greatness and wonderful glory,
since in this respect God is incomprehensible, that is to say,
by [mere] man or any other creature; (on which account
also he had said in the same passage, a little before, that
God! “in His greatness is unknown to all those, who have

j Chap. 12. § 4.

« Presignificabant enim prophete
quoniam videbitur Deus ab hominibus,
quemadmodum et Dominus ait, Beati
mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum vide-
bunt. Sed secundum magnitudinem
quidem ejus, et mirabilem gloriam,
nemo videbit Deum et vivet ; incapabilis

enim Pater; secundum autem dilec-
tionem et humanitatem, et quod omnia
possit, etiam hoc concedit iis qui se
diligunt, id est, videre Deum.—p. 370.
[e. xx. 5. p. 254.}

1 Secundum magnitudinem ignotus
est omnibus his qui ab eo facti sunt.—

[Ibid.]

Man contrasted with the Uncreated and Eternal Word. 167

been made by Him;”’) yet in the passage of which we are
treating, he clearly teaches, that the Son of God compre-
hends His Father even according to His greatness; viz., in
such a manner, as that the immeasurable Father Himself is
measured in His Son. On a subject evident to all men
there is no need to say more.

5. It would be well nigh endless, were I to adduce all the
passages of Irenzeus, which go to confirm the consubstantiality
of the Son. I shall therefore be satisfied when I have added
to the testimonies of the blessed martyr already brought for-
ward one or two more, which quite give a death blow to the
Arian heresy. In book ii. c. 43. he represses and beats down
the monstrous pride of the Valentinians, who arrogated to
themselves a sort of omniscience, by drawing a most excellent
comparison between a [mere] man and the Son of God: his
words are these™: “ But further, if any one be unable to
discover the cause of all the things which are sought after,
let him reflect that man is infinitely inferior to God, and [is
a being] that has received grace [only] in part, and that is
not yet equal, or like unto his Maker, and that cannot possess
acquaintance with', and power of reflecting upon all things as
God does. For in proportion as he, who is a creature of to-
day, and has received a beginning of created existence, is
inferior to Him, who is not made and who is always the
same,—just in the same proportion is he inferior to His
Maker in knowledge, and in [the capacity of] investigating’
the causes of all things. For THov aRT NoT UNCREATED, O
MAN}; NOR WAST THOU ALWAYS COEXISTENT WITH GOD, LIKE
His own Worp; but on account of His eminent goodness,
now receiving a beginning of created existence, thou art gra-
dually learning from the Word the dispensations of God, who
made thee. Keep therefore the place® of thy knowledge, and

m Si autem et aliquis non invenerit
causam omnium que requiruntur, co-
gitet quia homo est in infinitum minor
Deo, et qui ex parte acceperit gratiam,
et qui nondum equalis vel similis sit
factori, et qui omnium experientiam et
cogitationem habere non possit ut Deus:
sed in quantum minor est ab eo qui
factus non est, et qui semper idem est,
1116 qui hodie factus est et initium fac-
ture accepit, in tantum secundum
scientiam, et ad investigandum causas

omnium, minorem esse eo qui fecit.
NON ENIM INFECTUS ES, O HOMO, NE-
QUE SEMPER COEXISTEBAS DEO, SICUT
PROPRIUM EJUS VERBUM; sed propter
eminentem bonitatem ejus, nunc ini-
tium facturze accipiens, sensim discis
a Verbo dispositiones Dei, qui te
fecit. Ordinem ego serva tuz scien-
tiz, et ne ut bonorum ignarus super-
transcendas ipsum Deum.—([c. xxv. 3.
Ῥ. 153.]

BOOK It.
CHAP. V.
§ 4, 5.

IRENZUS.

[219]

1 experien-
tiam.

2 ad inves-
tigandum.

3 ordinem.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

[220]

1 consti-
tuta.

2 consti-
tuta.
3 per.

4 nomina-
tim.

Ps, exlviii.

δ.

Ps. xxxiii.

Pss Cxxxy.

δ.

ὅ consti-
tuta.

168 Contrast between the Son of God and created beings.

do not, as one ignorant of what is good, seek to transcend
God Himself*.” These words shine forth with so clear a light,
that they require not any commentary whatever or inference
of mine. There is, however, another passage parallel to this,
book ui. 6. 8, in which Irenzus in like manner institutes a
comparison between the Word, or Son of God, and the crea-
tures; it is as follows®; ‘“ None of all the things, which were
created’ and are in subjection, must be compared to the
Word of God, through whom all things were made, who is
our Lord Jesus Christ. For whether they be angels or
archangels, or thrones, or dominions, that they were created?
and made by Him, who is God over all, through His Word,
John for his part has thus intimated: in that, when he had
said concerning the Word of God, that He was in the Father,
he added, ‘ All things were made by* Him, and without Him
was not any thing made.’ David also, after he had enume-
rated His praises—all the things severally‘ which we have
mentioned,—both the heavens and all the powers thereof,—
added, ‘For He commanded, and they were created; He
spake, and they were made.” Whom then did He com-
mand? His Word surely, through whom, he says, ‘the
heavens were established, and all the host of them by the
Spirit of His mouth.’ But that He made all things freely
and after His own will, David says again, ‘Whatsoever things
He would, them did our God make in the heavens above,
and in the earth also.’ But the things which were created’,
are different from Him who created them, and the things
which were made, different from Him who made them.

" [See these words quoted again in

mus, et ccelos, et omnes virtutes eorum,
1 Ὁ Nee be

adjecit, Quoniam ipse precepit, et creata

° Sed nec quidquam, ex his que
constituta sunt, et in subjectione sunt,
comparabitur Verbo Dei, per quem
facta sunt omnia, qui est Domi-
nus noster Jesus Christus. Quoniam
enim sive angeli, sive archangeli, sive
throni, sive dominationes, ab eo, qui
super omnes est Deus, et constituta
sunt et facta per Verbum ejus, Joannes
quidem sic significavit. Cum enim
dixisset de Verbo Dei, quoniam erat in
Patre, adjecit, Omnia per eum facta
sunt, et sine eo factum est nihil. David
quoque, cum laudationes enumerasset,
nominatim universa quecumque dixi-

sunt ; ipse divit, et facta sunt. Cui ergo
precepit? Verbo scilicet, per quod, in-
quit, Coeli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris
ejus omnis virtus eorum. Quoniam au-
tem ipse omnia fecit libere, et quemad-
modum voluit, ait iteruam David, Deus
autem noster in ccelis sursum, et in terra,
omnia, quecumque voluit, fecit. Altera
autem sunt que constituta sunt ab eo
qui constituit, et que facta sunt ab eo
qui fecit. Ipse enim infectus, et sine
initio, et sine fine, et nullius indigens,
ipse sibi sufficiens, et adhuc reliquis
omnibus, ut sint, hoc ipsum prestans:
que vero ab eo sunt facta, initium

The Name of God only applicable to the Uncreated. 169

For He Himself is uncreated, without either beginning or soox 11.
end, wanting nothing, Himself sufficient unto Himself, and, ne ee
besides, bestowing on all others this very gift of being’; toe
but the things which have been made by Him have had 1 et adhuc
a beginning; but whatever things have had a beginning, ae
are capable of dissolution, and have been made subject, and ut sint hoc
stand in need of Him Who made them; it is [therefore | nee
absolutely necessary that they should have a different appel- 80
lation, even amongst those who possess but a slight power of
discrimination in such subjects; so that He who made all

things is, rooeTHER witH His Worp, justly called God and

Lord alone; but those things which are made, are thereby? ? jam.
incapable of sharing this same appellation ; nor ought they in [221]
justice to assume that name which belongs to the Creator.”

In this passage Irenzeus plainly teaches, that the Word, or

Son of God, is separated by an interval so infinite from all

things which are created, made, and placed in subjection,
(though they be creatures of the highest order, whether, that

is to say, they be angels or archangels, or thrones, or domi-

nions,) that they are not worthy in any way to come into
comparison with Him, even for this very reason that they

are created, made, and placed in subjection. He teaches,

that the Son of God also is, just as His Father, uncreate

and eternal, wanting nothing, self-sufficient, and further-

more conferring on all creatures the gift of being. He more-

over expressly declares, that the Word, or Son of God, inas-

much as both He Himself is uncreated, and all things were

made through Him, ought to be admitted to partake of the

Divine Name together with His Father; whilst as respects all

other beings, which have been created and made, it is alto-

gether by a misapplication and an improper use of the word® ὅ abusive
that we give to them the appellation, Lord, or God, which See
belongs peculiarly to the Creator. In fine, he asserts all thig omnino.
with so great earnestness, as to declare that those who cannot

in this manner distinguish and discriminate an uncreated

sumpserunt; quzecumque autem ini-
tium sumpserunt, et dissolutionem pos-
sunt percipere, et subjecta sunt, et in-
digent ejus qui se fecit; necesse est
omnino, uti differens vocabulum ha-
beant, apud eos etiam, qui vel modicum
sensum in discernendo talia habent;

ita ut is quidem, qui omnia fecerit,
CUM VERBO SUO, juste dicatur Deus et
Dominus solus ; que autem facta sunt,
non jam ejusdem vocabuli participa-
bilia esse, neque juste id vocabulum
sumere debere, quod est Creatoris,—

[p. 183.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ὑπουρ-
γίαν quan-
dam et
ministri
functio-
nem.

[229]

2 scilicet.

3 sui obli-
tus.

170 Petavius’s objection ; answered by himself; he shews that

nature from created things, are absolutely devoid of common
sense. I question, indeed, whether any thing more effectual
than this against the Arian blasphemy was ever uttered or
advanced by any one of the Catholic doctors, who wrote after
the council of Nice.

6. Yet not even this passage of Irenzus could escape
the criticism of Petavius; for from the circumstance that
this excellent father, after he had quoted the words of
the Psalmist, “For He commanded and they were created,”
&e.; added “Whom then did He command? His Word
surely ;”” the Jesuit infers’, that a subordinate operation and
ministerial function! [only] in the creation of the universe, is
attributed by him to the Son of God, such as he intimates in
book iv. chap. 174. But who can fail to feel the want of
fairness and candour here exhibited by Petavius? How easy
was it for him, to give a sound interpretation to Irenzeus’s
words from the very context itself! As thus?; God gave com-
mandment to His Word for the creation of the world, not as
a master to a servant, (for Irenzeus, in the very same pas-
sage, distinctly excepts the Son of God from the class of those
things which are created, and made, and put in subjection,)
but as the Father to the Son, of the same uncreated nature
as Himself, and a partner of the divine dominion and power.
God, moreover, gave commandment to His Son that the
world should be made, in other words, He willed that the
world should be created by His Word, the will of the Word
Himself concurring thereunto. Accordingly, Petavius him-
self in another place, as if forgetful of his own declaration’,
acknowledges that Irenzus’s statements in this passage are
catholic, and that some ancient writers, who lived after the
Nicene Council, and were most energetic opponents of the
Arian heresy, used the same way of speaking without giving
any offence. For in his work, on the Trinity, book u.', he
writes thus; “There are some writers, who have used the
same way of speaking, without any offence whatever, taking
the words (‘Let us make man,’ &c., Genesis 1. 26) to imply a
command and precept of the Father. For so Irenzus says,

P Petavius de Trinit. I. 3. 7. See 4 {¢, 7. 4. p. 236. ]
also Sandius, Enucleat. Hist. Eccles. ΤΟΣ ΠΣ ἢ
i. p. 91.

the fathers speak of the Father as commanding the Son. 171

that the Word is uncreated and eternal, and that God gave soox 1.
unto Him commandment to create all things. And else- reer
where*, that man was created, ‘the Father willing and com- Fav ευς.
manding, the Son executing and creating.’ Basilt also speaks

both of the Lord as commanding (προστάσσοντα), and of the

Word as accomplishing the creation (δημιουργοῦντα λόγον) ;

so Cyril again, in the twenty-ninth Book of his Thesaurus"; [223]
and Athanasius, in his treatise on the decrees of the Council

of Nice’, explains the words of the thirty-second Psalm, ‘ He
commanded, and they were created,’ in such a manner, as to
understand that the Father gave command tothe Son. Ma-

rius Victor likewise, in his first book on the Creation of the
World, thus speaks ; ‘Which, when the Almighty Son filled

with His Father’s mind created at the commandment of

God.’ The author, moreover, of a treatise on the Incarnation

which is extant in the fourth volume of Augustine’s works”,

says, that the Son ministered to the Father in all the work

of creation’, inasmuch as through Him all things were made. ! in omni
To the same effect are the words of Prosper in his commentary ae
on the one hundred and forty-eighth Psalm*. ‘He com-
manded and they were created ;’ ‘for what God speaks, He

says unto His Word, and the Word, through whom all

things were made, accomplishes the command of Him who
speaks.’”? Thus, it seems, Petavius himself has given the

very best reply to himself! But whereas in the passage of

which we are treating, Irenzus says, that God Himself made

all things with entire freedom, proving his assertion by David’s

words, “our God hath made all things whatsoever He would,

in the heavens above and in the earth ;” on this the author of

the Irenicum proceeds to argue as follows’; “As much as

to say, the Word indeed made all things, according to the
mandate of the Father; but God Himself made freely what-

soever He would; an opposition which indicates that the
Father is spoken of as greater than the Son.” If, however,

8 Patre volente ac jubente, Filio v[§ 9. vol. i. p. 216.] See also
vero exsequente et efficiente. Iren.iv. Athanasius Orat. contr. Gentes., tom.
75. [The Greek words are; τοῦ μὲν i. p. 51. [ὃ 46. vol. 1. p. 45.]

Πατρὸς εὐδοκοῦντος καὶ κελεύοντος, τοῦ Ὑ [ Lib. i.c.1. tom. viii. Append. p. 51.]
δὲ υἱοῦ πράσσοντος καὶ δημιουργοῦντος-. x [Quod enim Deus dicit, Verbo di-
c. 38. 3. Ῥ. 285.—B. ] cit; et Verbum per quod facta sunt
Ὁ Basil. lib. de Spirit. S.,c. 16. [vol. omnia, mandatum dicentis exequitur.
lil. p. 32, ] P, 529. Op. Prosp. Aquit. Par. 1711.]

* [tom. v. p. 254.] y P. 46.

ON THE
CONSUB=>
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[224]
81

1 preter
senten-
tiam.

ὃ suam pro-
geniem.

3 suas
manus.

4 sententia.

5 consulto
et liber-
rime.

6 ipsissi-
mam men-
tem.

7 extra-
neum.

8 ὁμοούσιον.
® connatu-
ralem.

10 prestru-
ebat.

172 Ireneus was engaged in opposing Gnostic doctrines.

this heretic had ever read Irenzeus with attention, it is certain,
that he would have refrained entirely from so silly a cavilling ;
for doubtless, when Irenzeus asserts, that God the Father
made all things of His own uncontrolled will, through His
Word or Son, he is opposing the Gnostics, who taught that
the world was made by inferior powers, and that indepen-
dently of the mind! and will of the Most High God. Against
them the holy bishop, everywhere in his writings, affirms and
proves these two points; First, that this world was in no wise
created by inferior powers, alien from the essence and nature
of the Most High God; but was made by the Most High God
Himself, through “ His own offspring’,’ and through “ His
own hands’,” (to use the very words’ of Irenzus,) that is to
say, through the Son and the Holy Ghost. Secondly, that this
world was not fashioned by any powers “ cut off from the mind*
of God,” (as he expresses himself in a passage, which we shall
quote by and by from his first Book, ch. 19?,) that is to say,
which acted independently of His mind and will, but that it
was produced by God Himself, through the Son and the Holy
Spirit, advisedly and with absolute freedom’. I repeat it, he
either cannot have read the writings of Irenzeus at all, or at
best but carelessly and superficially, who does not perceive that
this is the very mind® and view of that most excellent father.

7. With respect to the other passage, (in book iv. chap.
170.) at which Petavius carps, and in which Irenzus seems to
attribute to the Son, as also to the Holy Ghost, the function
of a minister in the creation of the world, I reply, that Irenzeus
does not there mean,(as the Arians would have it,) a minister
extraneous’ to the Father, but of one substance® and of the
selfsame nature’ with Him; or rather he merely meant, that
God the Father accomplished that work of creation through
the Son and the Holy Ghost, which the heretics used to
attribute to ministering angels or inferior powers. Hear
Trenzeus’s own words’; “For the Son, who is the Word of
God,” he says, “ was preparing '° these things from the begin--
ning ; for the Father stood in no need of angels to effect the
creation, and to form man, for whose sake also the creation

z [See iv. 20.1; and v. 1 and 28.] indigente Patre angelis, uti faceret

a [c. 22, p. 98; see next page. ] conditionem, et formaret hominem,

b [c. 7, 4. p. 236. ] propter quem et conditio fiebat ; neque

¢ Hee enim Filius, inquit, qui est — rursus indigente ministerio ad fabrica-
Verbum Dei, ab initio prestruebat, non — tionem eorum que facta sunt ad disposi-

In what sense the Son and Spirit are ministers.

173

was made; nor yet did He lack ministering power for the soox τι.

formation of those things which were made for the dispos-

CHAP. V.

δ. ἢ:

ing of those matters which concerned man’, but possessed Jen aus.
an ample and ineffable ministering power; seeing that to [225]

Him there ministereth in all things, His own progeny and

1 que se-
cundum

image’, that is, the Son and the Holy Ghost, His Word and hominem

Wisdom, to whom all the angels are subservient and sub-
As much as to say; The Father of all things had et figuratio

jected.”

erant,
? progenies

no need of ministering agents to effect the creation, whether *"™

angels, or other inferior powers, separated from His own
essence and nature, as ye, heretics, have rashly and even
impiously imagined; inasmuch as both for this and for all
things, His own progeny was fully sufficient, which was of
Him and in Him, namely, the Son and the Holy Ghost,
who are so far from being servants that they have in very
deed all creatures, and even the angels themselves, minister-
ing, serving, and subject unto Them. O! how far is all this
from Arianism! To set the subject, however, in a clearer
light I will add to this a few other passages of Irenzeus. In
book i. chapter 19°, near the beginning, he thus speaks con-
cerning the creation of all things through the Son and the

Holy Ghost; “* All things were made through Him, and
without Him was not any thing made.’
nothing is excepted; but through Him did the Father make «

From ‘all things,’

3 sive sen-
sibilia sive
intelligibi-
ia, i.e.

‘ cognisant

all things, whether visible or invisible, perceptible or intel- by the
ligible*, whether temporal for some special purpose’, or ever-
lasting and without end’, not through angels or any powers 2”

cut off from His mind’; for the God of all stands in need of ,

nothing; but through His Word and His Spirit making,

ordaining, governing, and giving being to all things.”

senses or
by the

[226]
propter
quandam
dispositio-
nem.

teaches the same doctrine in book ii. chap. 55, towards thes sempiter-
end, in the following words’; “There is One only God the

tionem eorum negotiorum, que secun-
dum hominem erant, sed habente co-
piosum et inenarrabile ministerium.
Ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua pro-
genies et figuratio sua, id est, Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus, Verbum et Sapien-
tia; quibus serviunt et subjecti sunt
omnes angeli.—T[ Ibid. ]

Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine
ipso factum est nihil. Ex omnibus au-
tem nihil subtractum est; sed omnia
per ipsum fecit Pater, sive visibilia,
Sive invisibilia, sive sensibilia, sive in-

telligibilia, sive temporalia propter
quandam dispositionem, sive sempi-
terna et zonia, non per angelos, neque
per virtutes aliquas abscissas ab ejus
sententia; nihil enim indiget omnium
Deus ; sed et per Verbum et Spiritum
suum omnia faciens et disponens et
gubernans, et omnibus esse prestans.
—l[c. 22. p. 98.]

* Solus unus Deus Fabricator, hic,
qui est super omnem principalitatem
et potestatem et dominationem et vir-
tutem ; hic Pater, hic Deus, hic Con-

na et zonia
(aidvia. )

6 abscissos
ab ejus
sententia.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

per quos
et in qui-
bus.

2 οὐσίας
TAVTOTNT Oe

3 per seme-
tipsum,

[227]

174 The Son and Spirit One with the Father.

Creator; 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 5381}, that is to say, by His Word and His Wisdom,—
the heaven and the earth and the seas, and all things which
are therein.” A passage parallel to this we have in book ἵν.
chap. 37, near the beginning" ; “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
universe. For God had no need of these, to make those
things 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 freely and spontaneously ; unto whom also
He speaks, when he says, ‘Let us make man in Our own
image and likeness ;?’ He Himsetr ΒΕΟΕΙΨΙΝΟ rrom Himsetr
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 Irenzeus asserts such an identity
of essence? (saving always the distinction of persons) between
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, (whom with The-
ophilus of Antioch and others, he designates under the name
of Wisdom,) as to say, that the Father, in creating the world
through the Son and the Holy Ghost, made it through His
own self*. From all these places, however, it at length be-
comes most evident, that Irenzeus entirely abhorred the
Arian dogma, and altogether held that faith which was after-
wards set forth by the Fathers of Nicza.

8. The objection, which is made against the venerable
writer by the author of the Irenicum, by Sandius and others,
that he attributes to the Son of God, even as God, an igno-

ditor, hic Factor, hic Fabricator, qui
fecit ea per SEMETIPSUM, hoc est, per
Verbum et per Sapientiam suam, coe-
lum et terram et maria, et omnia que
in eis sunt.—[e. 30, 9. p. 163.)

£ Non ergo, inquit, angeli fecerunt
nos, nec nos plasmaverunt, nec angeli
potuerunt imaginem facere Dei, nec
alius quis preter Verbum Domini, nec
virtus lunge absistens a Patre univer-
sorum. Nec enim indigebat horum

Deus ad faciendum que ipse apud se

prefinierat fieri, quasi ipse suas non —
haberet manus. Adest enim ei semper
Verbum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus,
per quos et in quibus omnia libere et
sponte fecit, ad quos et loquitur, dicens,
Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et simi-
litudinem nostram; IPSE A SEMETIPSO
substantiam creaturarum, et exemplum
factorum, et figuram in mundo orna-
mentorum accipiens.—[c. 20, p. 253.]

Of Christ’s being ignorant of the Day of Judgment. 175

rance of the day and hour of the final judgment, we shall soox 1.
easily prove to be a mere senseless cavil. In book ii. chap. 498, “o7. Be
indeed, he thus writes; ‘For if any one were to search out κεν κῦξ.
the cause, wherefore the Father, communicating with the Son 82

in all things, has [yet] been declared by our Lord alone to

know the hour and the day, he will not find a reason more

fitting, or more becoming, or less dangerous, than this in this

present time, (since the Lord is our only true teacher,) that

we may through Him learn that the Father is over all things.

For ‘ My Father,’ He says, ‘is greater than I;’ for this cause,
therefore, does our Lord declare the Father to be pre-emi-

nent in respect to knowledge also', that we also, in so far as we! secundum
are in the fashion of this world, may yield up to God perfect αὶ Νιονβίνεην
knowledge and such enquiries [as this] ; and may not per-

chance in seeking to investigate the transcendent greatness

of the Father, fall into so great peril as to enquire, whether

there be another God higher than God?” I admit that?an super
these words do, at the first glance, seem to attribute igno- το eee
rance to the Son of God, even in that He is, most properly
[speaking], the Son of God. If, however, these sophists had

found leisure to read the whole of that chapter of Irenzeus,

they would easily have seen, that the holy father’s mind and

view was quite otherwise. For in that very chapter he had a

little before written concerning Christ our Lord to this

effect"; “For albeit the Spirit of the Saviour, which is in

Him, ‘searcheth all things, even the deep things of God’ still

im our case®, there are diversities of gifts, and diversities of : bec
administrations, and diversities of operations; and we, who

& Etenim si quis exquirat causam,
propter quam in omnibus Pater com-
municans Filio solus scire horam et
diem a Domino manifestatus est, ne-
que aptabilem magis, neque decentio-
rem, nec sine periculo alteram quam
hance inveniat in presenti, (quoniam
enim solus verax Magister est Domi-
nus,) ut discamus per ipsum, super
omnia esse Patrem, Etenim Pater,
ait, major me est; et secundum agni-
tionem itaque prepositus esse Pater
annuntiatus est a Domino nostro ad
hoc, ut et nos, in quantum in figura
hujus mundi sumus, perfectam scien-
tiam et tales questiones concedamus
Deo; et ne forte querentes altitudi-

nem Patris investigare in tantum peri-
culum incidamus, uti queramus, an
super Deum alter sit Deus.—[e. 28, 8.
Ρ. 158.]

h Etsi enim Spiritus Salvatoris, qui
in 60 est, scrutatur omnia, et altiludines
Dei; sed quantum ad nos, divisiones
gratiarum sunt, et divisiones ministerio-
rum, divisiones operationum, et nos su-
per terram, quemadmodum et Paulus
ait, ex parte quidem cognoscimus, et ex
parte ‘prophetamus. Sicut igitur ex
parte cognoscimus, sic et de univer-
sis questionibus concedere oportet ei,
qui ex parte nobis prestat gratiam.

—[Ibid. }

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[228]

1 neque Dei
Spiritus
remanebat.

? unitus.

3 pro tem-
porum ra-
tione.

4 pro tem-
pore sue
ἀποστολῆ».

5 Sophiam
et Mono-

genen Pa-
tris.

176 Ignorance ascribed to Christ, only as man.

are upon the earth, ‘know’ (as St. Paul says) ‘in part, and
prophecy in part.’ As, therefore, our knowledge is [but]
partial, so we ought also in all questions whatsoever to
yield unto Him, who bestows on us [this] grace in part.” Here
by the Spirit of the Saviour is clearly meant His divine
nature. For so in other places also, along with other ancient
writers, whom I have mentioned above, he calls the Godhead
of Christ, Spirit; for instance in v. 1', “If He [merely] ap-
peared to be man, when He was not man, neither did He
remain that which He really was, the Spirit of God';” and
shortly afterwards he says in the same place; “At last the
Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having united Him-
self? to the ancient substance of Adam’s creation, made a living
and perfect man.” It is, therefore, manifest, that Irenzus at-
tributed ignorance to Christ only as man; whilst to His Spirit,
that is to say, His Godhead, he allowed the most absolute
omniscience. For surely it will not appear absurd to any one of
a sound mind [to say] that the divine Wisdom impressed its
effects on the human mind of Christ according to times’; and
that Christ, in that He was man, “increased [made advance]
in wisdom,” (as it is expressly asserted in Luke ii. 52,) and,
consequently, for the time of His mission* [on earth], when
He had no need of such knowledge, might have been
ignorant of the day of the general judgment; although the
reformed are strangely attacked by the Papists for this
opinion, and especially by Feuardentius, who uses the very
foulest language, and on this very passage of Irenzeus, calls us
“the modern Gnostics, who differ not a hair’s breadth from
the ancient ;”’ and “a generation of vipers,’ being himself
the most virulent viper of all. But to return to Irenzus.
This is certain, that the holy doctor, wherever else he speaks
of the Son of God, ascribes to Him, as Son, the most perfect
knowledge bothof the nature and will of His Father. Further-
more he, throughout his work, charges the Gnostics with im-
piety, for making the Wisdom and the Only-begotten of the
Father’ subject to the affections of ignorance. Especially clear

i Si hominis tantum speciem pre- antique substantie plasmationis Ade,
bebat, cum homo non esset, sane ne- viventem et perfectum effecit homi-
que id quod vere erat, hoc est Dei nem, [Ei δὲ μὴ ὧν ἄνθρωπος ἐφαίνετο
Spiritus, remanebat; ... In fine Ver- ἄνθρωπος, οὔτε ὃ ἦν ἐπ’ ἀληθείας ἔμει-
bum Patris et Spiritus Dei adunitus ve, πνεῦμα @cov.—p. 53. |

Treneus elsewhere implies the Omniscience of the Son. 177

are his words concerning Wisdom, ii. 25*, at the very open- Βοοκ 11.
ing; “ But how is it not a vain thing that they say, that “8 re
even His Wisdom was in ignorance, diminution, and passion? Irenzvs.
For these things are alien from Wisdom, and contrary to her ;

they are no affections of hers; for wheresoever there is want

of foresight and an ignorance of what is useful, there is not
Wisdom. Let them not therefore any longer give the name of
Wisdom to a passible zon; but let them relinquish either

its name or its passions.” Now can any one suppose that
Treneus would have objected to these heretics their as-
cribing to their fictitious Wisdom the affection of ignorance,

if he had himself attributed to the true Wisdom, that is, to

the Son of God, the very same imperfection ? Besides, it

is Ireneus whom we have heard declare, that the immeasur-

able Father is measured in the Son; that the Son contains

and embraces the Father. Is it credible that he who wrote

thus should have himself supposed that the Son of God was

in any respect ignorant of the will of the Father? In short,

if any one is doubtful in this point, let him read over again

the words of Irenzeus! which we have already quoted in this
chapter, §5. For there, in instituting a comparison between

man and the Son of God, he attacks the omniscience which

the Valentinians impiously arrogated to themselves, on this
ground, that no man, no created being, “is equal to, or like

the Creator, nor has been for ever co-existent with God,

as His own proper Word has.” It is therefore certain, that
Irenzus did allow a most absolute omniscience to the proper

Word of God the Father, as equal to, and eternally co-ex-
istent with Him”,

9. But inasmuch as some writers, with whom Sandius
leagues himself, charge Irenzus also with this, that he no-
where in his writings acknowledges the divinity of the Holy
Ghost, I have thought it well in this place, in passing, to
vindicate the most holy martyr from this calumny likewise.

* Quomodo antem non vanum est, phiam passum eonem vocent; sed aut

quod etiam Sophiam ejus dicunt in ig- vocabulum ejus aut passiones preter-
norantia, et in deminoratione, et in mittant.—[c. 18. p. 140. ]

passione fuisse? Hzc enim aliena sunt PGs 20, Bip, 108.

a Sophia et contraria, sed nec affec- ™ [See Bp. Bull’s Reply to G. Clerke
tiones ejus sunt; ubi enim est impro- [28], where he speaks more at length
videntia et ignorantia utilitatis, ibi concerning this passage of Irenzus.
Sophia non est. Non jam igitur So- —B.]

BULL. N

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[231]

1 ab eterno.

178 Evidence (against Sandius) that St. Ireneus believed

I shall therefore shew, briefly indeed, but most clearly, that
Ireneus believed that the Holy Ghost is, 1. A Person dis-
tinct from the Father and the Son, not a mere unsubsist-
ing energy of the Father™; 2. A divine Person, that is to
say, of the same nature and essence with God the Father
and the Son. The former proposition is sufficiently proved
from the following passages, not to mention very many
others. In book iv. chap. 14%, he thus speaks concerning
the Son; “ Receiving testimony from all, that He is truly
man and that He is truly God, from the Father, from the
Spirit, from the angels,” &c.; where the Father is mani-
festly one witness, and the Holy Ghost another, and both dis-
tinct from the Son, to whom they bore witness. He refers,
it is plain, to the baptism of Christ, in which all the three
Persons of the most Holy Trinity distinctly shewed themselves
at the same time, the Father in the voice which sounded
from heaven, the Holy Ghost in the dove which descended
from above, the Son in human flesh. Shortly after, in this
same passage, he says again ; “ There is one God the Father,
and one Word, the Son, and one Spirit.” Here “ one,” and
“one,” and “one,” necessarily make three Persons ; and it is
likewise clear that the Holy Ghost is by Irenzus called one
in the same sense as the Son also is called one; but
the Son, as all allow, was held by Irenzeus to be a Person
distinct from the Father. But most explicit is the passage
from the 37th chapter of the same book, the whole of which
I have quoted above; I will however again cite a portion of

itk; “For there is ever present with Him (the Father) His

Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through
whom and in whom He made all things freely and sponta-
neously; to whom also He speaks, when He says, ‘ Let us
make man in Our own image and likeness.’”” Observe, both
the Son and the Holy Ghost were ever, i. 6.» from eternity’,
present with the Father; yet neither of them was the Father

h Non meram Patris ἐνέργειαν ἀνυ-
πόστατον, [i.e. not a mere energy of
the Father, without a distinct perso-
nality or subsistence. |

i Ab omnibus accipiens testimo-
nium, quoniam vere homo et quoniam
vere Deus, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab ange-
lis, &c. ... Unus Deus Pater, et unum
Verbum, Filius, et unus Spiritus, &c.

—[e. 6, 7. p. 235. ]

K Adest enim, inquit, ei (Patri) sem-
per Verbum et sapientia, Filius et
Spiritus, per quos et in quibus omnia
libere et sponte fecit, ad quos et loqui-
tur dicens, Faciamus hominem ad ima-
ginem et similitudinem nostram.—(c. 20.

p. 253. See above, p. 174. ]

the Personality and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. 179

Himself; and if in the words, “Let us make man,” &c., the βοοκ m
Father addressed not only the Son but the Holy Ghost like- “"s'5’™
wise, then the Holy Ghost, equally with the Son, is a Person
distinct from the Father. Besides, from this passage the
divinity also of the Holy Ghost is certainly inferred ; for He is
said to have existed from eternity with the Father and the
Son; nothing however is eternal, at least in the judgment of
Irenzeus, except God. Next, He is associated with the Father
and the Son in the work of creation; the work of creation
however, according to Irenzus, (and indeed according to all
of sound mind,) is the peculiar attribute of God alone. For in
book iii. chap. 8, (a passage which we have already adduced',) ! [p. 168.]
he teaches that He who makes and creates other things, is

so distinguished from what is made and created, that He

who creates is Himself uncreated, eternal, self-sufficient ;

whilst they on the other hand have a beginning of existence,

are susceptible of dissolution, depend upon their Creator,

and do service, and are subject to Him. Whence also,

in the same passage, from the fact that God the Father

created all things through His word or Son, he infers that

the Son Himself is, equally with the Father, uncreated,

eternal, and Lord of all. But in other places also Irenzus
expressly asserts the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Thus in a

passage also quoted already, in book iv. chap. 17!, the Son

and the Holy Ghost are called the very offspring and image? ? ipsa pro-
of God the Father; and that for the purpose of distinguish- ἐπῆγον ον
ing them from ministering angels, created by® God the®a.
Father through‘ the Son and the Holy Ghost, which are all ‘per.

in consequence declared to do service and to be subject

to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, equally as to God the

Father, that is, as to their Creator. But beyond all exception

is that passage of Irenzus in book vy. chap. 12, wherein he

teaches that the Holy Spirit differs from that breath’, or ὁ afflatus.
spirit, whereby Adam was made a living soul, inasmuch as_ [222]
the Holy Spirit, being uncreated, is the Creator and God

of all things, whereas that breath was created. The passage

is most worthy of being quoted entire; ‘The breath of life,”

he says™, “which also makes man a living being, is one thing,

TRENZUS.

fe. 7, 4. p. 236. See above, p.172.] οἱ animalem efficit hominem; et aliud
" Aliud est, inquit, afflatus vite, qui Spiritus vivificans, qui et spiritalem

N 2

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 [Isaiah
xlii. 5. |

2 [Isaiah
lvii. 16. ]

3in Deo
deputans.

180 Ireneus’s interpretations, though incorrect, prove that

and the life-giving Spirit, which also makes him spiritual, is
another thing; and on this account Isaiah’ says; ‘ Thus saith
the Lord, that created the heaven and fixed it, that made
firm the earth, and all that 15 in it; that giveth breath to
the people that are upon it, and [the] Spirit to them that
tread thereon ;’ declaring that breath is bestowed in common
upon all the people that are on the earth; but the Spirit
peculiarly to such as tread under foot earthly desires. Where-
fore Isaiah’ himself says again, distinguishing the things
we have spoken of, ‘ For the Spirit shall go forth from Me,
and I have made every breath ;? reckoning the Spirit indeed
to be peculiarly in God’, who in these last times hath shed
It forth on the human race through the adoption of sons ;
but the breath in common on the creation, declaring it also
to be a created being. Now that which is created is a
different thing from Him who created it; the breath accord-
ingly is temporal, but the Spirit is eternal”.”” We do not
now trouble ourselves with this awkward interpretation of
the prophet’s words, for we are not consulting Irenzus as
at all times the happiest expositor of Holy Scripture, but as
a most trustworthy witness of the apostolic tradition, at
any rate so far as concerns a primary point of Christian
doctrine. Nor is it our present concern to enquire how valid
the Scripture testimonies are by which he has established
catholic doctrine, (although generally even in this respect he

efficit eum. Et propter hoc Esaias ait,
Sic dicit Dominus, qui fecit coelum, et
fixit illud; qui firmavit terram, et que
in ea sunt; et dedit afflatum populo, qui
super eam est, et Spiritum his, qui cal-
cant illam; afflatum quidem commu-
niter omni, qui super terram est, po-
pulo dicens datum; Spiritum autem
proprie his, qui inculcant terrenas con-
cupiscentias. Propter quod rursus ipse
Esaias distinguens que predicta sunt
ait, Spiritus enim a me exiet, et afflatum
omnem ego feci. Spiritum quidem pro-
prie in Deo deputans, quem in novis-
simis temporibus effudit per adoptio-
nem filiorum in genus humanum;
afflatum autem communiter in condi-
tionem, et facturam ostendens illum;
aliud autem est, quod factum est, ab
eo qui fecit; afflatus igitur ternporalis,
spiritus autem sempiternus. {ἕτερόν
ἐστι πνοὴ ζωῆς, ἡ καὶ ψυχικὸν arrep-
γαζυμένη τὸν ἄνθρωπον᾽ καὶ ἕτερον

πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, τὸ καὶ πνευματικὸν
αὐτὸν ἀποτελοῦν. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Ἡσαΐας
φησίν" οὕτω λέγει Κύριος ὃ ποιήσας τὸν
οὐρανὸν, καὶ στερεώσας αὐτὸν, ὁ πήξας
τὴν γῆν, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ Kal διδοὺς
πνοὴν τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, καὶ πνεῦμα
τοῖς πατοῦσιν αὐτήν τὴν μὲν πνοὴν
παντὶ κοινῶς τῷ ἐπὶ γῆς λαῷ φήσας δε-
δόσθαι" τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἰδίως καταπατοῦσι
τὰς γεώδεις ἐπιθυμίας" διὸ καὶ πάλιν ὃ
αὐτὸς "Hoatas διαστέλλων τὰ προειρη-
μένα φησί: πνεῦμα γὰρ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐξε-
λεύσεται, καὶ πνοὴν πᾶσαν ἔγὼ ἐποίησα,
τὸ πνεῦμα ἰδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξας τοῦ
ἐκχέοντος αὐτὸ... διὰ τῆς υἱοθεσίας
ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα: τὴν δὲ πνοὴν
κοινῶς ἐπὶ τῆς κτίσεως, καὶ ποίημα ἂνα-
γορεύσας αὐτήν" ἕτερον δέ ἐστι τὸ ποιη-
θὲν τοῦ ποιήσαντος. ἣ οὖν πνοὴ πρόσ-
καιρος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἀένναον.---Ο. 7, 4.
p. 800.1

" See also Tertullian adv. Marcion.
ii. 4, almost throughout.

the Holy Ghost was held to be Uncreated and Eternal. 181

has remarkably approved himself to all men of learning and Βοοκ τι.
piety,) but rather what he held to be catholic doctrine. In ἘΝ ἐν
this place therefore, I say, Irenzeus manifestly declares, that Irexxus.
the Holy Ghost is both God and Creator. For, as Petavius [233]
has very well remarked, the phrase, the Spirit being reckoned

to be in God (in Deo deputari), which in Greek would be

ἐν Θεῷ, or eis Θεὸν λογίζεσθαι, means the same as to be
reckoned to be God (Deum deputari)° ; just as when he im-
mediately adds, “declaring the breath [to belong] in com-

mon to the creation, and to be created,” what he says is

the same as, that it is held to be created and made. Then

he clearly asserts, that what is made, that is to say, the
breath, is different from the Spirit, that is, from Him who

made it; and that the latter is eternal, whilst the former is

but temporal. According to Irenzus, therefore, the Holy

Ghost is neither a thing created, nor made, but is God, pro-
ceeding forth from God’, and the Creator, and Eternal. And ! Deus ex

thus much at present is enough concerning Irenzus. te
87
CHAPTER VI. [289]

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.

1. I now proceed to St.Clement of Alexandria, the con- Crem. At.
temporary of Irenzus, and the genuine disciple of the cele-
brated Panteenus, who, as Photius, [Bibliotheca] cod. 118, [240]
relates on the testimony of others, had for his masters those
who had seen the Apostles; nay, and who had also himself
been a hearer of some of them. Of him even Petavius"
allows, that he adapted the Christian doctrine concerning
the Word and Son of God to the views of Plato, for the
most part without being at all suspected of error; and that

° The Greek in John Damascene is, p [Thus understood by Petavius ;
τὸ πνεῦμα ἱδίως ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τάξας,τὴν Afflatum in conditionem, et facturanr
δὲ πνοὴν κοινῶς ἐπὶ τῆς κτίσεως, καὶ ostendens. ]
ποίημα ἀναγορεύσας αὐτήν. The last 4 Clement flourished from the year
words confirm the explanation of the 192. Cave-—Bowyer.
most learned Bp. Bull.—Grase. t De Trinitate, i. 4. 1.

ON THE
CONSUB~
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 satis.

2 ποίημα.

[241]

182 Petavius’s and Huet’s charges against Clement.

his statements relating to the Son of God are correct, and in
harmony with the catholic faith. In the same passage, how-
ever, and almost with the same breath, (that none of the
ancients might slip through his hands without. being branded
by him with the stigma of error on this article,) he finds
fault with certain things, even in Clement, as savouring, for-
sooth, of the character of the doctrine of Plato and Arius; of
these we shall treat in their proper place. But I am beyond
measure surprised at Peter Daniel Huet, a very learned, and,
(so far as one can judge from his writings,) an extremely
candid man; in that, when Bellarmine defends Origen on
the ground that the opinions of his tutor Clement, and of
his pupils Dionysius of Alexandria, and Gregory Thauma-
turgus were sound and orthodox on the mystery of the most
holy Trinity, Huet in his Origeniana makes this reply’;
“ Nothing, certainly, could he have said more prejudicial to
the cause of Origen; for not one of the three entertained
very’ pure and sound views respecting the Trinity. For
whilst Clement separates the substance of the Son from that
of the Father, in such a way as to make it inferior ; Dionysius
of Alexandria affirmed that the Son was a creature’ of the
Father, and dissimilar to Him, and ‘uttered expressions
altogether unsuited to the Spirit,’ saith Basil (Epist. xli.)*,
who also animadverts on Gregory Thaumaturgus, for having
openly declared the Son to be a created being.’ By and
by we shall have to speak of the illustrious pair of Origen’s
pupils, as well as of Origen himself. At present our enquiry
relates to Origen’s teacher, Clement. I have, certainly, with
no small diligence, examined all the genuine writings of Cle-
ment of Alexandria which are now extant, and that with the
especial view of ascertaining his sentiments on this article
[of the faith.] The result of this examination is my convic-
tion, that of the catholic doctors who preceded the Nicene
Council, and even of those who succeeded it, no one has
inculcated the true Godhead of the Son more clearly, dis- ©
tinctly, and significantly than the Clement of whom we are
treating. In truth this writer’s pages are full on both sides
with this doctrine. Accordingly Ruffinus (on the corruption

§ Huet. Origeniana. ii. 2. quest. 2, t ἀφῆκε φωνὰς ἥκιστα πρεπούσας τῷ
n. 10. [p. 122. } πνεύματι. [Ep. ix. § 2. t. ili. p. 91.]

His writings full of testimonies to the Godhead of the Son. 183

of the books of Origen) wrote thus of Clement"; ‘Clement, soox τι.
a presbyter of Alexandria and catechist! of that Church, in “Ὁ 1,2.
almost every one of his books declares the glory and eternity Gypsy. AL.
of the Trinity to be one and the same.” Out of this so great ' magister.
store we will select some of the more marked passages.

2. Not far from the opening of his Protrepticon, or Ex-
hortation to the Gentiles, Clement cites* that notable pas-
sage of Paul, out of his Epistle to Titus, 11. 11—13: “The
grace of God, that bringeth salvation, hath appeared’ unto all 3 ἐπεφάνη.
men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts,
we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this pre-
sent world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
appearing’ of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ : 8 empd-
and understands by the designation of ‘the great God, in”
this passage, our Saviour Christ to be meant; subjoining
these most beautiful words; “This is the new song, the
Epiphany‘, which hath now shone forth amongst us, of that ὁ ἐπιφάνεια.
Word, who was in the beginning, and who was before; and
now of late hath He appeared, the Saviour who was before ;
He who is in Him that is hath appeared, in that the Word,
who was with God, by whom all things were made, hath ap-
peared our Instructor; the Word, who at the first gave unto
us life, when He had moulded us as Creator; manifesting
Himself as our Instructor, hath taught us good life, that [242]
afterwards, as God, He might bestow upon us eternal life.’ 88
Here Clement recognises our Saviour Christ as eternal, “ ex-
isting,” that is, “in the beginning and before [the begin-
ning] ;” as consubstantial with the Father, as being “ Him
that is in Him that is,” that is to say, subsisting in the very
essence of God the Father ; and, lastly, as “ God, the Giver of
the present life and of everlasting life.” In the same book
he exhorts the Gentiles to believe in the Son, in these’

u Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter
et magister illius ecclesiz, in omnibus
pene libris suis, Trinitatis gloriam at-
que eternitatem unam eandemque de-
signat. [ p. 50. ]

“ ό 2 + Ἐῶ; 4 ε

x τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ Goua TO καινὸν, ἣ
ΓΙ / ε “a > / > cen a
ἐπιφάνεια, ἢ νῦν ἐκλάμψασα ἐν ἡμῖν τοῦ
ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος καὶ προόντος λόγου. ἐπε-
φάνη δὲ ἔναγχος ὃ προὼν σωτήρ' ἐπε-
φάνη ὃ ἐν τῷ ὄντι ὧν, ὅτι 6 λόγος, ὃς ἦν
πρὺς τὸν Θεὸν, διδάσκαλος ἐπεφάνη, ᾧ
τὰ πάντα δεδημιούργηται. λόγος, ὃ καὶ

τὸ ζῇν ἐν ἀρχῇ μετὰ τοῦ πλάσαι παρα-
σχὼν ὡς δημιουργὸς, τὸ εὖ ζῇν ἐδίδαξεν,
ἐπιφανεὶς ὡς διδάσκαλος, ἵνα τὸ ἀεὶ ζῇν
ὕστερον ὡς Θεὸς xopnyhon.—p. 6. [p.
(ee

Υ πίστευσον, ἄνθρωπε, ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ
Θεῷ᾽ πίστευσον, ἄνθρωπε, τῷ παθόντι,
καὶ προσκυνουμένῳ Θεῷ ζῶντι: πιστεύ-
care, οἱ δοῦλοι, τῷ νεκρῷ" πάντες ἄν-
θρωποι πιστεύσατε μόνῳ τῷ πάντων ἂν-
θρώπων @cG.—p. 66. [p. 81.}

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON,

lhalluci-
natur,

[243]

2 Verum
Deum ma-
nifestissi-
mum.

[Isaiah
ἴχ. 6.

ϑφυντα.

4 natus.

184 The Word called God, and, very God.

words; (in the translation of which Hervetus’, as is usual
with him, blunders’ miserably; the passage ought to be
turned thus ;) “ Believe, O man, in [Him who 15] man and
God; believe in Him that suffered and is worshipped, the
living God; ye slaves, believe in Him, who was dead ;
all ye men believe in Him, who is the only God of all
men.” In these words he pronounces Christ to be God as
well as man, the living God who is worshipped, (which is
a manifest circumlocution for the true God,) and [who 15]
in short, the only God of all men.

3. What again can be more noble than those words which
we read in the same book, in the next page but one? there
Clement calls our Saviour?, “The divine Word, who truly
is the most manifest God, made equal to the Lord of all;
because He was His Son, and [because] the Word was in
God.” He employs words so emphatic that he seems to
have used his utmost endeavour to express fully the supreme
Godhead of the Saviour. He calls Christ the divine Word,
very God, very God most manifest”, equal to God the Father ;
and he subjoins this as a reason, that He is the Son of God,
that is, true Son born of Himself; and that He is the Word,
subsisting in God Himself. Again, in his Pedagogus, 1. 5,
near the end, after observing that the greatness of the Son of
God is declared by Isaiah, namely, in these words, “ Wonder-
ful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the
Prince of Peace,” he immediately subjoins*; “Ὁ the mighty
God! O the perfect Child! the Son in the Father, and the
Father in the Son.” Afterwards in the sixth chapter of the
same book he speaks of the Son as* “the perfect Word,
born® of the perfect Father,” that is to say, the Son corre-
sponds to His Father, of whom He was begotten‘, in every
kind of perfection. The reader would find it worth while to
weigh attentively this entire aaa in Clement’s own book.

2 [Hervetus (Gentianus), Canon of
Rheims, is the author of the Latin
translation, which Potter has retained
in his edition of Clement’s works. ]

a ὃ θεῖος λόγος 6 φανερώτατος ὄντως
Θεὸς, ὁ τῷ δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθείς"
ὅτι ἣν vids αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὃ λόγος ἦν ἐν τῷ
Θεῷ.---Ὁ. 68. [p. 86.]

» [See these words again quoted in
Book iv. 2. 4. B.—Bp. Bull translated
these words, (6 φανερώτατος ὄντως Ocds, )

‘ qui est manifestissime verus Deus,”
τε Ἔκ: is most manifestly ‘the true
God ;’’ (as did also Dr. Burton in his
Testimonies to the Divinity of Christ,
p. 148.) ]

d τὸν λόγον τέλειον, ἐκ τελείου φύν-
τὰ τοῦ πατρός-.---». 92. [p. 113. ]

The attributes of God assigned to the Word and Holy Ghost. 185

After a considerable interval, he in the same chapter utters Ββοοκ τι.
a full and perfect confession of the most holy Trinity in these 2 αι
words¢; ‘ One, first, is the Father of all things; and one σεν AL.
also is the Word of all things; and the Holy Ghost is one

and the same in every place.” Observe, how to each several

Person of the Holy Trinity he attributes divine energy, such [244]
as to pervade all things’; the first Person being the Father !rerum_
of all things, the second being in like manner the Word of tite.
all things’, and, lastly, the third being present every where ? univer-
and in all. Furthermore, in the seventh chapter of the S°™™
same book, he thus speaks concerning Christ the Instructor
(Pedagogus)' ; “ But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus,
the Word who is the Guide of the entire human race ;
Himself, the God who loveth man, is our Instructor.”

4. Also throughout the eighth chapter of the same book,
he is taken up in proving that all the attributes of God the
Father, (those, I mean, which are absolute’,) are common to
Him with the Son, by reason of the divine nature which
belongs to both alike, and that whatsoever is predicated of
the Father is also applicable to the Son. The whole chapter
indeed deserves to be read, but it may be enough for me to
point out a few passages to the reader. He proves that Christ
hates no man, but rather desires the salvation of all, by the
following argument"; ‘If therefore the Word hates any
thing, He wishes that it should not exist; there is, however,
nothing of which God doth not afford the cause of its exist-
ing; nothing therefore is hated of God, nay, nor yet of the
Word; for Both are One’, [that is,] God.” Then, after treat-
ing fully out of the Scriptures concerning the primary attri-
butes of God, that is to say, goodness and justice, and after
shewing that they equally belong to the Father and the Son, he

ὁ εἷς μὲν ὃ τῶν ὅλων Πατήρ᾽ εἷς δὲ
καὶ ὃ τῶν ὅλων Λόγος" καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα
τὸ ἅγιον ἕν, καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πανταχοῦ.
[Bp. Bull translated these words, “ et
Spiritus Sanctus unus, qui et ipse est
ubique,” ‘‘and the Holy Ghost one,
who Himself also is every where,” and
it will be seen argues from that trans-
lation. ]—p. 120. [p. 123.]

1 6 δὲ ἡμέτερος παιδαγωγὸς ἅγιος
Θεὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὃ πάσης τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος
καθηγεμὼν λόγος" αὐτὸς 6 φιλάνθρωπος

Θεός ἐστι παιδαγωγός.---᾿.- 109. [p.
151}

ὃ [Because some are relative, e.g.
to be the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, &c. ]

h ef τι ἄρα μισεῖ ὃ λόγος, βούλεται
αὐτὸ μὴ εἶναι" οὐδὲν δὲ ἔστιν, οὗ μὴ τὴν
αἰτίαν τοῦ εἶναι ὃ Θεὸς παρέχεται" οὐδὲν
ἄρα μισεῖται ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ" ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ
ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου" ἕν γὰρ ἄμφω, 6 Oeds.—
p- 113. [p. 135. ]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ταῖς ἀλη-
θείαις.

2 θεὸν λό-
γον ἔχων.

8 δι’ ὅν.
4 δι’ ὅν.
ὃ τὸ ἀεί.

6 αἰῶνες.

[246]

186 Acknowledgment of the Son, and of the whole Trinity.

thus at length concludes'; “So that in very truth? it is evi-
dent that the God of all is one only, good, just, the Creator, the
Son in the Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
And here the reader who has any sense whatever will not need
any one to suggest it in order to perceive, that the Son, in »
the Father, and with the Father, is declared to be God of all,
who alone is good, and just, and the Creator of all things,
and to whom accordingly should be ascribed glory for ever-
more. Again he makes use of these very magnificent ex-
pressions concerning the Son of God*; “For he that hath
tHe Aumicuty Gop tHe Worp’, is in need of nothing,
and never is at any time without supply of that which He
wants; for the Word is a possession that needeth nothing,
and the cause of all abundance!.” Lastly, at the end of his
Pedagogus, he thus prays to the Word or Son of God,
together with the Father™; ‘Be Thou merciful to Thy
children, O Instructor, Thou, O Father, charioteer of Israel,
Son and Father, Both One, O Lord; and soon afterwards
pours forth praises to the most holy Trinity in the following
form: “ Let us give thanks,” he says, “to the alone Father
and Son, Son and Father, the Son our Instructor and
Teacher, together with the Holy Ghost also; all things to
the One; in whom are all things; through whom® all things
are one; through* whom is eternity’ ; whose members all
are; whose glory are the ages”®; all things to the Good,
all things to the Lovely, all things to the Wise; all things to
the Righteous; to Him be glory both now and unto all ages.
Amen.” ‘That man is blind in mid-day hight, who does not

i , Ἢ , Ait efi 3 HELE ON , Η
πνεύματι" πάντα τῷ ενῖ᾿ ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα

« > a
ὡς εἶναι ταῖς ἀληθείαις καταφανὲς
δι ὃν τὰ πάντα ἕν᾽ δι᾽ ὃν τὸ ἀεί" οὗ

“ /
τὸ τῶν συμπάντων Θεὸν ἕνα μόνον εἶναι,

ἀγαθὸν, δίκαιον, δημιουργὸν, υἱὸν ἐν πα-
τρὶ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώ-
νων, ᾿Αμήν.---Ὀ. 119. [p. 142.]

k ἀνενδεὴς γὰρ ὃ τὸν παντοκράτορα
Θεὸν λόγον ἔχων, καὶ οὐδενὸς, ὧν χρή-
ζει, ἀπορεῖ mote’ κτῆσις γὰρ ὃ λόγος
ἀνενδεὴς, καὶ εὐπορίας ἁπάσης atrios.—
Pedagog. iii. 7. p. 236, 237. [p. 277.]

1 [Bp. Bull quotes this passage of
Clement again in his answer to G.
Clerke, ὃ 8.—B.]

mM ἥλαθι τοῖς σοῖς, παιδανωγὲ, παι-
δίοις, πατὴρ, ἡνίοχε Ἰσραὴλ, υἱὲ καὶ
πατὴρ, ἕν ἄμφω, Κύριε.... τῷ μόνῳ
πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, υἱῷ καὶ πατρὶ, παιδαγωγῷ
καὶ διδασκάλῳ υἱῷ σὺν καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ

μέλη πάντες" οὗ δόξα, αἰῶνες᾽ πάντα τῷ
ἀγαθῷ, πάντα τῷ καλῷ, πάντα τῷ σοφῷ,
τῷ δικαίῳ τὰ πάντα ᾧ ἡ δόξα καὶ νῦν
καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ᾿Αμήν.---». 266. [p.
311.]

n [ Cujus sunt gloria et secula, ‘ whose
are the glory and the ages,’ is Bp.
Bull’s version of this clause; on this:
GRABE observes; “I think it should
rather be translated cujus gloria sunt |
secula; whose glory are the celestial
spirits, or the angels. For which sig-
nification of the word αἰῶνες, see what
I have noted on Ireneus, p. 9. numb.
2." (p. 32. Var. Annot. in edit. Bene-
dict. ) }

Testimonies from the Stromata. 187
clearly see that in this doxology is contained a full and per- βοοκ τι.
fect acknowledgment of the Trinity of one substance, that “(4G

is to say, of one God subsisting in three Persons, the Father, Gye. AL.
the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
5. But that I may not appear to have altogether neglected
the books of: the Stromata, I shall here adduce one or two
passages out of them. In the fourth book he thus speaks con-
cerning Christ®; “Thus the Lord draws near unto the righte-
ous, and nothing is hid from Him of our thoughts, and of
the reasonings which we entertain? ; the Lord Jesus, I mean,
who, according to His almighty will, is the inspector! οὔ! ἐπίσκοπον.
our hearts.” These words need no comment. In the
seventh book, in treating of the divinity of the Word, or Son
of God, every where present, and having a care for all things,
even the least, he illustrates it with this most apposite and
elegant similitude4; ‘ For even as the sun not only enlightens
the heaven and the whole world, shining both on land and
sea; but also sends its light through windows and the little
crevice into the innermost recesses of the house; so the
Word, shed abroad everywhere, looks upon the most minute
portions of the actions of life.” There are, indeed, many more
passages from Clement, which I might have added to these ;
but one who is not satisfied with these, nothing will satisfy.
6. Let us now see what Petavius and the other over-
critical censurers of the holy Fathers, (not to call them by
a worse name,) have brought forward out of Clement, in
opposition to these so clear and express statements, in order
to prove that he was infected in some degree with the taint
of Arianism. The first passage which Petavius' alleges is
from the seventh book of the Stromata, in which Clement
writes thus concerning the Son of God‘: “ Most perfect, in-
deed, and most holy, and most lordly, and most command-
ing, and most royal, and most beneficent is the nature of

[247]

ο οὕτως ἐγγίζει τοῖς δικαίοις ὁ Κύ- 1 ὅνπερ γὰρ τρόπον 6 ἥλιος οὐ μόνον

ριο5, καὶ οὐδὲν λέληθεν αὐτὸν τῶν ἐν-
νοιῶν καὶ τῶν διαλογισμῶν ὧν ποιούμεθα"
τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν λέγω, τὸν τῷ παντο-
κρατορικῷ θελήματι ἐπίσκοπον τῆς καρ-
δίας ἡμῶν.---Ῥ. 517. [p. 611.]

P [The words ἐγγίζει (ἐγγύς ἐστι in
S. Clement of Rome) τοῖς δικαίοις 6
Κύριος, kal οὐδὲν λέληθεν αὐτὸν τῶν ἐν-
voiwy καὶ τῶν διαλογισμῶν ὧν ποιού-
μεθα, are taken from Clement of Rome,
c. 21.—B. ]

τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον φωτίζει,
γῆν τε καὶ θάλασσαν ἐπιλάμπων, ἀλλὰ
καὶ διὰ θυρίδων καὶ μικρᾶς ὀπῆς πρὸς
τοὺς μυχαιτάτους οἴκους ἀποστέλλει τὴν
αὐγήν" οὕτως ὁ λόγος πάντῃ κεχυμένος
καὶ τὰ σμικρότατα τῶν τοῦ βίου πράξεων
ἐπιβλέπει.---". 711. [p. 840. ]

¥ De Trin. i. 4. 1. p. 702.

5. τελειωτάτη δὴ, Kal ἁγιωτάτη, Kal
κυριωτάτη, καὶ ἡγεμονικωτάτη, καὶ βα-
σιλικωτάτη, καὶ εὐεργετικωτάτη ἢ υἱοῦ

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 conjunc-

tissima.

2 conjuncta
cum re et

causa im-

mediata.

3 citimam
esse.

[248]

4 Filii ὑπό-
στασιν.
5 scilicet.

7 ἐξοχὴν
quandam.

8 Princi-
pium Filii.

188 Passages objected to by Petavius explained, and their

the Son, which is most closely conjoined! with the alone.
Almighty.” For thus I conceive the word προσεχεστάτη [in
the last clause] should be translated; in the sense in which
things which are most near to, and conjoined with, any thing,
and immediate cause’, are called προσεχῆ by philosophers’.
Petavius makes this remark, however, on the passage: ‘‘ He
says the nature of the Son is most near® to Almighty God ;
which savours of the spirit of the Platonic and the Arian
dogmas. But the nature of the Son is not most near to, but
identical with the Father.” And I suppose Huet had this
passage, cited by Petavius, in view, when he declared “ that
it was laid down by Clement that the substance of the
Son is inferior to that of the Father.’ The answer, how-
ever, is easy. In this passage the divine nature of the Son
is viewed by Clement not absolutely, but relatively, or per-
sonally, as they express it, [i. e.] so far forth as it con-
stitutes the Person‘ of the Son; for® the word φύσις, as
also the word οὐσία, is sometimes used by ancient writers to.
signify Person. (See chap. ix. sect.11, of this book.) So
that Clement is to be regarded as having meant nothing else
than that the Son is most intimately conjoined with His
Father. And what harm, I ask, is there in this? At any rate
Gregory Nyssen in his Epistle to Ablabius, without imcur-
ring any blame, designated the Son as “ that" which 1s προ-
σεχῶς, most nearly, continuously, or (in other words) im-
mediately [derived] from® the first [cause],” that is, from
God the Father. But even if you were to understand
Clement in this passage to attribute the first place to the
Father, and the second to the Son—what is there new in
this? Indeed that there is a certain eminency’ appertain-
ing to the Father, inasmuch as He is the fountain of Deity
and the principle of the Son’, the Scriptures throughout
testify, and the fathers acknowledge with one consent, both
ante-Nicene and Nicene, and those also who wrote subse-
quently to that council; as we shall afterwards shew in its
proper place*. It is certain, however, that Clement did not
at all mean that the substance of the Son is inferior to that

φύσις, ἣ τῷ μόνῳ παντοκράτορι mpoce- quod proxime, continenter, sive im-
χεστάτη.---ἰ Ὁ. 831. | mediate est ex primo.—Oper., tom. 11.

t [See the answer to Gilb. Clerke, ρ. 459. [vol. 111. p. 27. See above, p.
§ 19. ] 232, note z. |

" 7d προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, id * [Book iv.]

Catholic sense shewn by the context and other passages. 189

of the Father. The many passages which we have already
adduced, in which he (if any ancient writer whatever) most
openly acknowledges the consubstantiality of the Son and
His true divinity, are inconsistent with this notion; indeed,
the context of this passage itself is inconsistent with it. For
in the words which immediately follow, Clement speaks with
exceeding honour’ (as Petavius himself observes) concerning
the Son of God, attributing to Him these primary attributes
of Deity, indivisibility, unchangeableness, eternity, omnisci-
ence, and omnipresence. But especially is it to be remarked,
that in the self-same passage, the Son is designated by
Clement, as being “entirely the mind’, entirely the light of
the Father ;” which words certainly do plainly declare the
common nature of the Father and the Son’.

7. Furthermore, Petavius alleges the following words of
Clement, occurring after a short interval, in the same book? ;
“Nor could the Lord of all be ever restrained by another, es-
pecially in ministering to® the will of His good and almighty
Father :”’ but what darkness has this very learned man here
made in a clear sky! Let every lover of truth peruse the
words of Clement which precede and follow, and he will
wonder, I am sure, what has here come into Petavius’s mind.
Throughout the passsage Clement is intent upon shewing
that Christ is the common Saviour, and promotes the sal-
vation of all men, so far as in Him lies, saving always the
liberty of the human will. Now he says that no crea-
ture is able to hinder Christ in bringing about the salva-
tion of mankind, since He is Lord of all; moreover that
the Father, who is also together with the Son the Lord of
all, wills not to hinder Him; inasmuch as in this work the
Son is fulfillimg the Father’s will. Clement asserts the
same, (and the expression is approved of by Petavius
himself,) when he calls? the Son “the true Comrade *
with the good-will of God towards man.” Lastly Petavius
alleges a passage of Clement, Strom. iv.”: “God, then,

Y [See this passage of Clement again
quoted and defended in Bp. Bull’s Re-
ply to G. Clerke, § 24.—B. ]

2 οὔθ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρου κωλυϑείη ποτ᾽ by ὃ
πάντων Κύριος, καὶ μάλιστα ἐξυπηρετῶν
τῷ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ παντοκράτορος θελή-

ματι Marpés.—p. 708. [p. 8382.]

8. τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ φιλανθρωπίας συνα-
γωνιστὴς yvhows.—Pedagog. i. 8. p.
114. [p. 136.]

νυ 6 μὲν οὖν Θεὸς ἀναπόδεικτος ὧν
οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιστημονικός᾽ ὃ δὲ vids σο-

BOOK iI.
CHAP. VI.

$657.

Crem. AL.

1 perquam
honorifice.

[249]

2 dos νοῦς,
ὅλος φῶς
πατρῷον.

8 καὶ μά-
λιστα ἐξυ-
πηρετῶν.

4 συναγω-
νιστὴν
γνήσιον.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.
1 ἀναπό-
δεικτοϑ.

2 οὐκ ἐπι-
στημονικὸς.
[260]

3 ἀπόδειξιν

ἔχει καὶ
διέξοδον.

4 cognosci,
5 per se.

6 per.

7 existendi.

8 πρωτόκ-
τιστον σο-
φίαν.

{251 |

190 Further objections answered ; twofold usage of κτίζειν.

as not being within the range of demonstration!, is not
within that of knowledge?; but the Son is wisdom, and
knowledge, and truth, and whatsoever else is akin to this;
and especially also admits both of demonstration and expli-
cation’.” It is, however, manifest, that Clement in these
words meant nothing else than that God the Father can-
not by any be found out* and known immediately and by
Himself’, but is revealed by® the Son, who, as the Word of
God made flesh, hath revealed both Himself and His Father
to men, aceording to their capacity. Now if this be Arianism,
I fear that the Apostle John himself, will at last be called
an Arian; for, in his Gospel, i. 18, he has written thus,
“No man hath seen God at any time; the Son, who is in
the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed Him.” Nay
more, in the same passage, in the very next words, Clement
with a single stroke, as it were, gives a death-blow to all
the Arian blasphemies, when he says of Christ, that He is
an infinite circle, comprehending within Himself alone all
the virtues and powers of the Godhead, immense, and, in
fine, eternal, having neither beginning nor end of being’.
We shall quote the passage afterwards in the third book.
You see how frivolous are the poimts which Petavius has _
alleged against our Clement.

8. Others also have censured him for having somewhere-
called the Son of God “the first created Wisdom*¢4.” But
this likewise is altogether to no purpose. For in that
passage of Clement it is evident that the word κτιστὸς
(created) means the same as γεννητὸς (begotten) ; as also in
Latin the word creare (to create), is put for gignere (to
beget) ; as ‘Sulmone creatos,’ i. e., ‘progenitos.’ Certainly
from what has been already brought forward out of his
own writings, it is clearer than noon-day that Clement did
not believe the Son of God to be a creature. I shall here
subjoin the words of that great man Hen. Valesius ; “ At all

gla τε ἐστὶ, καὶ ἐπιστήμη, καὶ ἀλήθεια,
καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τούτῳ συγγενῆ, καὶ δὴ
καὶ ἀπόδειξιν ἔχει καὶ διέξοδον.----». 537.
[Ρ. 635. ]

¢ Strom. v. p. 591. [699.] |

4 No doubt he had in view that pas-
sage in Proverbs viii. 22; where Wis-
dom says; Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν

ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ, “The Lord
created me in the beginning of His
ways, before His works of old (LXX);”’
as Clement cites these very words in his
Hortatory Address, and explains them
of the Word, or Son of God.—p. 52.

B. C.—[p. 67. ]—GRABE.

Sandius’s objections fromthe Hypotyposes—a spurious work. 191

events the ancient theologians,” he says®, ‘and especially 800K τι.

those who wrote before the time of the council of Nice, § 7 9. ὴ

understood by the word κτίζειν, not only the act of creation Crem. AL.

which takes place out of nothing, but generally all pro- 91

duction, as well that which is eternal as that which takes

place in time.” In precisely the same way must that pas-

sage be expounded which Clement cites from the Apocryphal

books of Peter, in his Stromata vi.£ “For God is in truth

one, who made the Beginning of all things, meaning His first-

begotten Son.” That is, it was usual with the Greeks, as it

seems, (whom we also imitate in our English,) to say ποιεῖν

τέκνα, facere liberos for liberos generare; and thus does the

author of this last passage explain himself by immediately

subjoining, “meaning His first-begotten Son!'.” erie
9. Lastly Sandius$ reproaches Clement with a work which bese

was formerly extant but is now lost, entitled Hypotyposes, υἱόν.

in which, according to the testimony of Photius, cod. 109,

there were many germs of Arian heresy”, especially in that ?perfidie.

he numbered the Son of God amongst created beings. But this

is nothing worth®, and is unbecoming ἃ man who has under- ὅ nauci.

taken to give us the very kernel‘ of ancient ecclesiastical his- ‘nucleus.

tory. For learned men of the present day (and amongst them

Petavius himself) allow that those blasphemous statements [252]

[in the Hypotyposes] were by no means Clement’s own,

but foisted on him by some impostor; and this judgment of

theirs is abundantly confirmed out of Photius himself; since

Photius in the same place declares that in these books of

Hypotyposes it is taught, that matter is eternal; that ideas

are introduced’ as it were by determinate decrees ; that souls ὅ induci.

pass from body to body ; that many worlds existed previous

to Adam; that Eve came forth from Adam not in the way

the sacred Scriptures relate, but in some unclean way; that

angels had connexion with women and raised up children of

them: moreover, that there were two Words of the Father,

of which the lesser was seen by men, nay, not even that.

How contrary all these statements are to the teaching of

e In his notes on Eusebius, p. 8. [i. τὸν πρωτόγονον vidv.—p. 644. [p. 769. ]
Bp. 9.] ε Sandius de Script. Eccl., p. 24;

‘els yap τῷ ὄντι ἐστὶν ὃ Θεὸς, ds and Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 94.
ἀρχὴν τῶν ἁπάντων ἐποίησεν, μηνύων

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[253]

1 magister.

192 This and other adulterated writings objected to by Ruffinus.

Clement, as expressed in his genuine and undoubted writings,
it is needless to say. Added to which the same Photius,
who otherwise was easily led to entertain the worst sus-
picions of Clement, as being the preceptor of Origen, inti-
mates plainly enough that he did not at all believe these
statements to be really Clement’s, in that he shortly after-
wards adds}, ‘‘ and a thousand other blasphemies and follies
does he utter, either himself, or some other person assuming
his name.” Lastly, Photius himself, cod. 110, when treating
of the three books of the Pedagogus and the Exhortation to
the Gentiles, which all allow to be genuine works of Clement,
observes that, whether you look to doctrine or style, these
works are very unlike the Hypotyposes; his words are';
“These discourses have no resemblance to the Hypoty-
poses, for they are both altogether free from their foolish
and blasphemous opinions, and the style is flowery, and
elevated to a becoming dignity, combined with sweet-
ness, and the manifold learning is befitting.’ For my
own part I have no doubt that it was mainly these books
of the Hypotyposes that Ruffinus had in view, (and per-
haps also the eighth book of the Stromata in the corrupted
state in which it appeared in some of the copies of his time,
as Photius has also noticed in the place cited before, cod. 110,)
and that it was these which he was comparing with all the
other undoubted writings of Clement, in which the catholic
doctrine of the most blessed Trinity is uniformly maintained,
when he used the words (in part cited by me before) con-
cerning him*, “Clement also, presbyter of Alexandria, and
catechist! of that Church, in nearly all his books speaks of
the glory and eternity of the Trinity, as one and the same,
and yet sometimes we find certain chapters in his books in

bh καὶ ἀλλὰ δὲ μυρία βλασφημεῖ καὶ
φλυαρεῖ, εἴτε αὐτὸς, εἴτέ τις ἕτερος τὸ
αὐτοῦ πρόσωπον ὑὕποκριθείς. ---- | Phot.
cod. 109. ]

i οὐδὲν δὲ ὅμοιον ἔχουσι πρὸς Tas
ὑποτυπώσεις οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι. τῶν τε γὰρ
ματαιῶν καὶ βλασφήμων ἀπηλλαγμένοι
δοξῶν καθεστήκασι, καὶ ἢ φράσις ἀνθηρὰ,
καὶ εἰς ὄγκον ἠρμένη σύμμετρον μετὰ
τοῦ ἡδέως, καὶ ἣ πολυμάθεια ἐμπρέ-
πουσα.---ἰ Phot. cod. 110. ]

k Clemens quoque Alexandrinus
presbyter, et magister ecclesiz illius,

in omnibus pene libris suis Trinitatis
gloriam atque eternitatem unam ean~
demque designat ; et interdum inveni-
mus aliqua in libris ejus capitula, in
quibus Filium Dei creaturam dicit,
Numquin credibile est de tanto viro,
tam in omnibus catholico, tam erudito,
ut vel sibi contraria senserit, vel ea,
que de Deo non dicam credere, sed
vel audire quidem impium est, scripta
reliquerit ἢ — Ruffinus de adult., lib,
Origen.—[p. 50. ]

Tertullian plainly asserts the Consubstantiality of the Son. 193

which he calls the Son of God a creature. But is it credible soox τ.
respecting so great a man, who was so catholic in all points, Sun ΕΝ
and so learned, that he either held self-contradictory opi- ὦ
nions, or left behind him in writing statements which it
were impiety, I will not say to believe respecting God, but
even to listen to?” And thus far concerning St. Clement

of Alexandria.

CHAPTER VII. 93
[2561
THE DOCTRINE OF TERTULLIAN CONCERNING THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF
THE SON IS SHEWN TO COINCIDE ALTOGETHER WITH THE NICENE CREED.

1. We have now come to Tertullian. Although this Terrvt-
writer has been supposed by some to have denied the eternity “"*™
of the Son,—by such, that is, as either have been unable, or
have not cared to investigate the meaning of an obscure
author, for I shall hereafter shew that Tertullian, how-
ever he may in some places have expressed himself, did in
reality acknowledge the eternal existence also of the second
Person of the most holy Trinity,—still has he every where
uniformly and in the most express terms confessed the con-
substantiality of the Son. Read only his single work against
Praxeas, in which he treats fully and professedly of the most
holy Trinity ; he there asserts the consubstantiality of the
Son so frequently and so plainly, that you would suppose the
author had written after the time of the Nicene council. We
shall exhibit to the reader some of the more striking passages
both out of this book and out of other writings of Tertullian.

In the twenty-first chapter of his Apology, he says™: “We
have been taught concerning Him as concerning one put
forth! from God, and by [that] putting forth? generated’, and ' prolatum.
consequently called the Son of God and God, from untry peprele-
OF sUBSTANCE, for God also is a Spirit.”” Here he plainly 3 genera-
infers that the Son is of one substance with the Father, τ
that is to say, is ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) with Him, from

1 Tertullian embraced the Christian mus, et prolatione generatum, et id-
religion about the year 185. Cave. οἶτοο Filium Dei et Deum dictum, ex

—Bowyer, UNITATE SUBSTANTIZ: nam et Deus
™ Hune ex Deo prolatum didici- Spiritus.—[p. 19.]

BULL, ΠῚ

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
BETA OR
THE SON.

1 ex Patre.

2 proprie.

[257 |

3 materize
matrix.

4 traduces
qualita-
tum.

5 alterum.
6 modulo.

7 gradu
non statu.

8 illustris.
9 προβολὴ,

probola.

10 species.

194 Tertullian’s illustrations of the Divine Generation of

the circumstance that He has been generated of the Father!.
His meaning is the same, when, in his book against Praxeas,
chap. 7, he thus writes concerning the Son of God”; “ He
is the First-begotten, as begotten before all things; and the
Only-begotten, as alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar
to Himself’, from the [very] womb of His heart.”

2. Let us, however, consider the similes, by which Tertul-
lian has attempted, up to a certain point, to explain the gene-
ration of the Son; [for] these manifestly prove His being
of one substance [with the Father.] In the Apology, after
the words already quoted, these also follow®; “ And when a
ray of light stretches forth from the sun, [it is] a portion
from the whole, but the sun will be in the ray, because it
is a ray of the sun, and the substance is not separated, but
extended: so is Spirit from Spirit, and Gop rrom Gop, as
LicHt kindled rrom LicgHt: the original source of matter®
remains entire and unimpaired, although you borrow thence
many derivations of [scil. possessing its] qualities*; so also
what has proceeded from God is God and the Son of God,
and Both are One: so also [is] Spirit from Spirit, and Gop
FRoM Gop: [This] has made a second® in mode®, not in
number; in gradation, not in state’; and It has not gone
away from, but has gone forth from Its original source.”
Here you have the very words of the Nicene Creed and a
meaning also exactly the same. There is also a remarkable’
passage in the book against Praxeas, chap. 8°; “ This,”
says he, “will be the putting forth? of [scil. taught by] the
truth, the guard of the Unity ; whereby we say, that the Son
was put forth from the Father, but not separated. For God
put forth the Word, as the root the plant, and the fountain the
stream, and the sun the ray. For these forms’ also are put-

n Primogenitus, ut ante omnia geni-
tus; et unigenitus, ut solus ex Deo
genitus, proprie de vulva cordis ipsius.

+ —[p. 508. |

° Et cum radius ex sole porrigitur,
portio ex summa, sed sol erit in radio,
quia solis est radius, nec separatur sub-
stantia, sed extenditur: ita de Spiritu
Spiritus, et DE DEO DEUS, UT LUMEN
DE LUMINE accensum: manet integra
et indefecta materiz matrix, etsi plures
inde traduces qualitatum mutueris; ita
et quod de Deo profectum est, Deus
est et Dei Filius, et unus ambo; ita et

de Spiritu Spiritus, et DE DEO DEUS:
modulo alterum, non numero, gradu,
non statu fecit; et a matrice non re-
ee sed excessit.—Apol. c, 21. [p.
19.

a Patre, sed non separatum. Protulit
enim Deus Sermonem, ... sicut radix
fruticem, et fons fluvium, et sol radium.
Nam et iste species probole sunt
EARUM SUBSTANTIARUM, eX quibus
prodeunt.—[p. 504, ]

. Ὁ Hecerit probola veritatis, custos
unitatis, qua prolatum dicimus Filium

the Son imply His Consubstantialhty. 195

tings forth! or THOSE sUBSTANCES, Out of which they come βοοκ u.
forth.” Parallel to this is another passage of the same book, “g7". 3)"
chap. 134; “TI shall follow the Apostle,” he says, “so that, if turruL__
the Father and the Son are to be mentioned together’, I shall 114%.
call the Father God, and name Jesus Christ Lord. But eet
when Christ is [mentioned] alone, I shall be able to call Him ? pariter.
God, as the same Apostle says, ‘Of whom is Christ, who Rom. ix. 5.
is over all, God blessed for ever.’ For a ray of the sun also,
[spoken of ] by itself, 1 should call sun; but if I were speak-
ing of the sun, of which it is a ray, I should not forthwith
call the ray also sun. For although I make not two suns,
still I should reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much
two things, and two forms® of ONE UNDIVIDED SUBSTANCE, as 3 species.
God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.” In these [258]
words he affirms, that Christ is called by the Apostle, “God
over all, blessed for ever,” and distinctly teaches that the
Father and the Son are of one, and that an undivided, sub-
stance *. So also in his third book against Marcion, chap. 6°, 4 unius et
he expressly declares, that ‘ Christ is both the Spirit and rox aban τοὶ
SUBSTANCE Of the Creator,” and that “such as knew* not the 5 agnove.
Father, could not know® the Son, by reason of His being or ™™
THE SAME SUBSTANCE’.” This, indeed, was the invariable ese
teaching of Tertullian, as he testifies himself, in his treatise 94
against Praxeas, chap. 4, where he says‘, “I derive not the pecs re
Son from any other source, but from THE SUBSTANCE OF THE Stantie
Fatuer.” So also in the twelfth chapter of the same book‘, ere
“Still,” he says, “1 every where hold one substance in three
coherent [Persons].”

3. Hence also in his Treatise “ On the Flesh of Christ,”
[in] distinguishing the twofold nature in Christ, the divine
Sermonem ejus, quam Patrem et Fi-
lium.—[p. 507. ]

r (Non negans enim filium] et Spi-
ritum et SUBSTANTIAM Creatoris esse

4 Apostolum sequar, ut si pariter
nominandi fuerint Pater et Filius,
Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum
Christum Dominum nominem. Solum

autem Christum potero Deum dicere,
sicut idem apostolus, Ex quibus Chris-
tus, qui est, inquit, Deus super omnia
benedictus in @vum omne. Nam et ra-
dium solis seorsum solem vocabo; so-
lem autem nominans, cujus est radius,
non statim et radium solem appellabo,
Nam etsi soles duos non faciam, tamen
et solem et radium ejus tam duas res
et duas SPECIES UNIUS INDIVISE SUB-
STANTIZ numerabo, quam Deum et

[Christum ejus], eos qui Patrem non
agnoverint, nec Filium agnoscere po-
tuisse, per EJUSDEM SUBSTANTIZ con-
ditionem [concedas necesse est. |—[p.
400. ]

s Filium non aliunde deduco, sed de
SUBSTANTIA PATRIS,—[p. 502. |

τ Ceterum ubique teneo unam sub-
stantiam in tribus coherentibus.—[p.
506. |

0 2

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ex,
2 pariter.

3 utriusque
substantiz
census,

4 non
natum.

5 preefor-
tem.

6 dispuncta
est.
7 fide.

[269]

8 multum
profecit.

196 Tertullian’s statements on the Two Natures of Christ ;

and the human, in opposition to those who denied the reality
of the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian also expressly teaches that
the same Christ, in respect of His more excellent nature,
is truly God, and of! the substance of God; and also, in
regard of His other nature, is in like manner’ truly man,
and has truly taken unto Himself the substance of man;
and, moreover, declares that in the former nature He was
not born, that is to say was uncreate or not made; in the
latter, was born and made. ‘These are his own express state-
ments in the fifth chapter of the forementioned treatise";
“Thus His being classed under each substance® exhibited
Him as man and God; on the one hand born, on the other
not born‘; on the one hand fleshly, on the other spiritual ;
on the one hand weak, on the other of surpassing strength? ;
on the one hand dying, on the other living; which peculiar
properties of these conditions, the divine and the human, are
distinguished® by the equal reality of each nature, by the
same certainty’ [of the existence] both of the Spirit and
of the flesh.” In this passage a countryman of ours inter-
prets the words “not born” thus, “that is, [not born] of a
human mother ;” but altogether wrongly; for by parity of
reasoning, Christ might, even as man, be said to be not born,
i.e., [pot born] of a human father. I am, however, quite per-
suaded that Tertullian (who gained much® from [the study
of] the Greek ecclesiastical writers) here had in view, and in
great measure transcribed, the celebrated passage of Ignatius,
out of his Epistle to the Ephesians, which we have before
quoted*: “ There is one Physician,” &c. For Ignatius’s ex-
pression in that place, γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος, is rendered
by Tertullian natus et non natus (“ born and not born”) ; so
also Ignatius’s capxixos καὶ πνευματικὸς is in Tertullian
hine carneus inde spiritalis (“on the one hand fleshly, on the
other spiritual’); what Ignatius expressed by ἐν σαρκὶ or
ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ Θεὸς, (“ God in flesh,” or “in man,’”’) that Ter-
tullian expresses by et Deus et homo (“both God and man’’) ;
and lastly, what Ignatius expressed by ἐν θανάτῳ ζωὴ, (“ life

ἃ Ita utriusque substantia census ventem. Que proprietas conditionum,
hominem et Deum exhibuit; hinc na- divine et humane, zqua utique nature
tum, inde non natum; hine carneum, _ utriusque veritate dispuncta est, eadem
inde spiritalem; hine infirmum, inde _ fide et spiritus et carnis.—[p. 310. ]
prefortem; hinc morientem, inde vi- x See chap. 2. ὃ 6 of this Book, [p. 96. ]

probably derived from St. Ignatius. 197

in death,”) that Tertullian expressed by hine moriens, inde
vivens (“on the one hand dying, on the other living”) ; so that
Tertullian seems to have translated the Greek text of Igna-
tius almost verbatim into Latin. And, indeed, several con-
siderations induce me to believe, that in this place Tertullian
used the words of another, (I mean, of Ignatius,) not his own.
First, it might justly be thought very strange, if Tertullian
had by mere chance fallen upon so many of the very words
of Ignatius, and that just as they were arranged by him in
continuous antithesis. Secondly, Tertullian, when he uses
his own mode of expression, uniformly speaks of the Father
alone, as not born (non natum) ; understanding that alone to
be properly called ‘not born,’ which has not sprung from any
original. But, doubtless, Ignatius’s expression ἀγέννητος, had
to be rendered with verbal precision non natus ; and Tertullian
perceived, from the antithesis, that nothing else was meant
by Ignatius than that Christ, in that He is God, is uncreate ;
and this he himself also acknowledged. And to this we must
also add the fact, that that sentence of Ignatius in his Epistle
to the Ephesians seems to have been regarded as a remark-
able saying, and of great use against heretics who taught
blasphemous doctrines respecting the Person of Christ ; so
that it became of very frequent use! amongst the doctors
of the Church. Accordingly Athanasius, Gelasius, and Theo-
doret have all employed it. Hence too, (I may observe in
passing,) there is a clear refutation of the sophistical argu-
ment of Daillé against the Epistles of Ignatius derived from
the silence of Tertullian; “Tertullian,” he says, “ remarks,
that the Marcionites were ‘premature abortions’2, in that
they called Christ a phantom; and this he proves from
the Apostle John. But Ignatius censures their doctrine, so
that, if Tertullian had had any knowledge of him, he would
have added his testimony to that of John.” To this it is
replied by that right reverend and most learned prelate of
ours, Bp. Pearson’, that in the extant writings of Tertul-
lian, he has never quoted, in the exact words, any passage
from any ecclesiastical author, with the mention of his
name; and this I think is most true. And I add this, that
nevertheless in the passage cited, Tertullian has adopted the
¥ Vind. Epist. Ignat. Part I. c. xi. p. 102.

BOOK II.
CHAP. VII.
§ 3.
TERTUL-

LIAN,

[260]

1 celebrem.

2 preeco-
quos et

abortivos.

198 All that the Father is, the Son likewise is.

on tue thoughts of Ignatius, and to a great extent his very words,
coxsu8- suppressing all mention of his name; and that against those
LITY OF

who maintained that Christ was a phantom, the same whom
Ignatius also impugned. I leave this to the judgment of
the learned, and myself return to the course of my subject.
4. In harmony with all this is the fact, that Tertullian, in
more than one place, explicitly declares that the Son, in that

THE SON.

1 ἰσότιμον. He is God, is of like honour: with God the Father, and equal
2ipsum. to Him. Presently we shall hear his own words? asserting,
that all the three Persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son,

and the Holy.Ghost, as they are of one substance, so are they

ene also OF ONE STATE®, AND OF ONE POWER. And as respects
"the Son, he confesses, in his book against Praxeas, chap.

17, that all the names and attributes of the Father belong

also to the Son, so far forth as He is the Son of God.

[261] His words are?; “The names of the Father—God Almighty,

the Most High, the Lord of Hosts, the King of Isracl, He
4 quatenus. that Is—inasmuch as‘ the Scriptures so teach, these we say
belonged also to the Son, and that in these the Son has come,
and in these has ever acted, and thus manifested them in
Himself unto men. ‘All things,’ He says, ‘that the Father

. vista hath®, are Mine.’ Then why not His names also? When
[ ohn __ therefore you read Almighty. αοά, and Most High, and God
xvi. 15.) of Hosts, and King of Israel, and He that Is, consider
whether the Son also be not indicated by these, who 1N
His own ricut is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of
God Almighty.” There is a still more explicit passage in his
treatise against Marcion, iv. 25°; ‘“‘All things,’ (He saith,)
‘are delivered unto Me of the Father.’ Thou mayest believe
Him, if He be the Christ of the Creator, to whom all things
6siCrea- belong’; since [in that case] the Creator hath [but] de-
toris <«t,_livered all things to Him who is not less than Himself—to
eujus om- the Son :—all things [I say] which He created by Him, 1. e.

nia.

x Nomina Patris, Deus omnipotens,

Regem Israelis, et Qui est, vide ne per
Altissimus, Dominus virtutum, Rex

hee Filius etiam demonstretur, suo

Israelis, Qui est, quatenus ita Scrip-
ture docent, hee dicimus et in Filium
competiisse, et in his Filium venisse, et
in his semper egisse, et sic ea in se
hominibus manifestasse. Omnia, inquit,
Patris mea sunt. Cur non et nomina?
Cum ergo legis Deum omnipotentem,
et Altissimum, et Deum virtutum, et

JURE Deus omnipotens, qua Sermo
Dei omnipotentis.—[p. 510. |

ἃ Omnia sibi tradita dicit a Patre.
Credas, si Creatoris est Christus, cujus
omnia, (; ed. Par. 1674.) quia NON MI-
NORI se tradidit omnia Fit1o Creator,
que per eum condidit, per Sermonem
scilicet suum.—[p. 440. ]

«.

Illustrations of the Divine Relations ; hold good in part. 199
by His own Word.” You may add to these passages the ex- nook τι.

press words of Tertullian in his treatise on the Resurrection wee
of the Flesh, chap. 6°; ‘For the Word also is God, who Try.
being! in the form? of God, thought it not robbery ΤῸ BE ἀρ τ Ὁ
EQUAL with God;” and also those in the seventh chapter of tus, [ὑπάρ-
his treatise against Praxeas®; “ Thenceforth making Him ae
EQUAL witH Himself, from whom by proceeding, He became ~~ ©
His Son ;” and also those words of the same Tertullian in
the twenty-second chapter of the same work4; “In saying
“1 and My Father are One’, He shews that they are Two 4, #unum.
whom He ΜΑΚΕΒ EQUAL’ and joins together.” eee

5. And by these statements should be explained those nes
expressions which occur in the writings of Tertullian, in
which he says, that the Son stands in the same relation to
the Father as “a part®” to “the sum’,”’ or whole, from ὁ portio.
which it is taken, and, as it were, plucked off 8, That is to say, ; ἀκυρ ῤῥσύυον
metaphorical expressions of this sort ought not to be pressed tele
too closely’, but to be interpreted with candour, in a fair and 9 non ad
good sense, with attention, that is, to the mind and views ἡ δε κῖνου
of the author, as they are elsewhere explained with greater [262]
clearness and in unmetaphorical language”. In some respects propriis
the analogy holds good ; in others, however, it 15 unsuitable". Ra
In the following respects it corresponds; 1. In that, as a part veniens.
does not, alone and of itself, constitute the whole, so the
Son also is not the whole of that which is God ”, but, besides 12 non est
the Son, other Persons’ also subsist in the divine essence, dae
namely the Father and the Holy Ghost. 2. In that, as a Deus.
part is taken out of the sum or whole, and the whole is natu- es
rally prior to its portions or parts, so the Son also is derived ces.
from the substance of the Father, and the Father, as Father,
is, as it were, naturally prior to the Son. The analogy
however fails in the following respects; 1. We understand
by “a portion” that which is divided and separated from the
whole: the Son, however, is, and ever was, undivided from
the Father. And this Tertullian uniformly and on all occa-

sions affirms. Thus in a passage already adduced out of his

Ὁ Et Sermo enim Deus, qui in effi- [p. 503.]
gie Dei constitutus non rapinam exis- d Unum sumus, dicens, Ego et Pater,
timavit PARIARI Deo.—[p. 328, 329.] — ostendit duos esse, quos MQUAT et
¢ Exinde eum ΡΑΒῈΜ sibi faciens, jungit.—[p. 513.]
de quo procedendo filius factus esi.—

200 In what respect these illustrations fail.

on tHe treatise against Praxeas, chap. 8°: “The Son, we say, was
stantis, put forth from the Father, but not separated from [Hin] ;
tity or and chap. Θ΄: “Keep in mind on all occasions, that I pro-
aa“ fess this rule [of faith], by which I testify, that the Father,
ond es the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable! from each other ;”
and chap. 198; “ We have hkewise shewn that in Scrip-
ture two Gods are spoken of, and Lords two; and yet, that

they may not be offended at this assertion, we explained

how that they are not said to be two, in that they are Gods,

nor yet in that they are Lords; but two, in that they are

@nonex Father and Son: and this not by separation of substance’,
Separatione ut from their mutual relation’; since we declare the Son

substan-

tie. to be indivisible and inseparable’ from the Father.” 2. A
$ νὴ . . . ᾿
ἜΤΟΣ part is less than the whole from which it is taken; the Son,
tione, however, is in all respects, (excepting that He is the Son,)

ues like, and equal ἰοῦ the Father, and has and possesses all
‘paret thatthe Father has. This also Tertullian plainly teaches in
equals. the several passages which we have just now adduced®. ΤῸ
these may be added an expression in book iu. chap. 6! of

his treatise against Marcion, where, after saying, that the

[263] Son is a portion out of the fulness of the divine essence, he
soon after expressly adds, that that portion is “ co-sharer of

δ νη the fulness®.”’ When, however, Tertullian, in his treatise
sortem, against Praxeas, chap. 14*, compares together the Father
and the Son by an analogy derived from the sun, (that is, as

he expresses it, from the “ sum itself of the substance,” which

is in the heavens, the excessive brightness whereof cannot be

looked on, and its ray, whose brightness is endurable, ‘ tem-

7 protem- pered as it is by its being only a portion ",᾽ it must be under-
De stood (unless you are disposed to charge Tertullian with the
grossest contradiction) of that economy! which the Son of

e Prolatum dicimus Filium a Patre, tum Filium a Patre pronuntiamus.—

sed non separatum.—T[p. 504. ] [p. 511.
f Hanc me regulam professum, qua » See also iv. 2. 5.
inseparatos ab alterutro Patrem et Fi- ' [p. 400. ]
lium et Spiritum testor, tene ubique. * [Tertullian’s words are; ‘“Sicut
—( Ibid. ] nec solem nobis contemplari licet,

8 Ostendimus etiam duos Deos in quantum ad ipsam substantiz sum-
Scriptura relatos et duos Dominos; et mam, que est in ceelis, radium autem
tamen ne de isto scandalizentur, ra- ejus toleramus oculis pro temperatura
tionem reddidimus, qua Dei non duo _ portionis, que interras inde porrigitur.”’
dicantur, nec Domini, sed qua Pater p. 508.]
et Filius, duo; et hoc non ex sepa- 1 These words of Tertullian may
ratione substantive, sed ex disposi- also be referred to that condescension
tione, quum individuum et insepara- of the Son, wherein from the [time of ]

Further extracts from Tertullian. 201

God, out of His great love to the human race, voluntarily
undertook; by which, that is to say, ever since the fall
of the first man, He condescended!, and made Himself,
so far as might be’, visible to holy men in every age,
and in the fulness of time became man, and held familiar

BOOK II.
CHAP. VII.
§, 6.

TERTUL-
LIAN.

1 se demi-

sit.

intercourse with mankind. Nay, I shall hereafter, in the ?utcunque.

fourth book, most evidently shew, that this was indeed the
very mind and view of Tertullian and of the rest of the
fathers, in those passages in which they prove that He who
appeared to the patriarchs, was not God the Father Himself,
but His Son—on this ground, that the Father is invisible,
and cannot be inclosed in space; whereas the Son is visible,
and is found to have a local presence ὅ,

6. But why dwell on this? Tertullian throughout his writ-
ings explicitly confesses the entire Trinity of one substance and
of one majesty*. Thus in the second chapter of his treatise
against Praxeas, having recited the rule of faith’, he thus
proceeds™; “ But keeping that prescription inviolate”, still
some opportunity must be given for reviewing [the statements
of the heretics], with a view to the mstruction and protection
of certain persons; were it only that it may not seem that
each perversion is condemned without examination, and
prejudged ; especially that [perversion,] which supposes it-
self to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot
believe in one only God in any other way, than by saying,
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very
same Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in
that All are of One, by unity, that is, of substance, whilst
nevertheless the mystery of the economy is guarded, which

creation itself He stooped and accom-
modated Himself to the things created ;
on this point see iii. 9. § 10, 11.

m Sed salva ἰδία prescriptione, utique
tamen propter instructionem et muni-
tionem quorundam, dandus est etiam
retractatibus locus; vel ne videatur
unaquzque perversitas non examinata,
sed prejudicata damnari; maxime
hec, que se existimat meram verita-
tem possidere, dum unicum Deum non
alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum
eundemque et Patrem et Filium et
Spiritum S. dicat. Quasi non 516 quo-
que unus sit omnia, dum ex uno om-
nia, per substantize scil. unitatem, et

nihilominus custodiatur οἰκονομίας sa-
cramentum, que unitatem in Trinita-
tem disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem,
Filium et Spiritum S.; tres autem non
statu, sed gradu; nec substantia, sed
forma; nec potestate, sed specie; UNIUS
AUTEM SUBSTANTIZ, ET UNIUS STA-
TUS, ET UNIUS POTESTATIS; quia unus
Deus, ex quo et gradus isti, et forme,
et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritus S. deputantur.—[p. 501. ]

n [That is, the principle by which a
position that is contrary to the creed is
thereby determined to be false, without
further examination. |

3 et in loco
reperiatur.

4 ὁμοούσιον
et ὁμότι-
μον.

ὅ reoulam

fidei.
[264]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.
! statu.
2 specie.
96
3 status.
4 species.

5 prodeat.

6 procedat.

7 diversos
τρόπους
ὑπάρξεως.

ϑόμοουσίους
et ὁμοτί-
μους.

9 defini-
mus.

10 facit.

11 traditum.

[265]

202 Three Persons of One Substance and One Majesty.

distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order
three [Persons], the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;
three, however, not in condition!, but in degree; not in sub-
stance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect?°: YET ΟΡ
ONE SUBSTANCE, AND OF ONE CONDITION *, AND OF ONE POWER ;
inasmuch as it is one God, from whom these degrees, and
forms, and aspects‘ are reckoned, under the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Where, if
I mistake not, by the word gradus (degree) he would have
us understand that order, whereby the Father exists of Him-
self, the Son goes forth® immediately from the Father, and
the Holy Ghost proceeds ° from the Father through the Son ;
so that the Father is rightly designated the first, the Son
the second, and the Holy Ghost the third Person of the
Godhead. And by the expressions forme (forms) and spe-
cies (aspects), he seems to have meant to indicate the dif-
ferent modes of subsistence’, whereby the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost subsist im the same divine nature. Be
that however as it may, itis manifest that in these words all
the three Persons of the Godhead are laid down to be of one
substance and one dignity®. And to this should be added
another passage of the same treatise, chap. 13; where he
says’; “ We do indeed distinguish 9 two, the Father and the
Son, and again Three, with the Holy Ghost, according to
the principle of the [divine] economy, which introduces 10
number, in order that the Father may not (as you per-
versely infer) be Himself believed to have been born and to
have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it
hath not been so handed down". Still never do we utter from
our mouth [the words] two Gods, or two Lords, not as if it
were not true that the Father is God, and the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but foras-
much as in earlier times there were two Gods and two Lords

represented by “aspect ;᾽᾽ see the use of
it in the passages quoted above, from
this Treatise, p. 194, note p, and p. 195,
note q. |

rp Duos quidem definimus, Patrem
et Filium, et jam tres cum Spiritu S,
secundum rationem Ciconomiea, que
facit numerum, ne (ut vestra perver-
sitas infert) Pater ipse credatur natus
et passus, quod non licet credi, quo-

men Deos et duos Dominos nunquam
ex ore nostro proferimus; non quasi
non et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et
Spiritus S. Deus, et Deus unusquis-
que; sed quoniam retro et duo Dii et
duo Domini preedicabantur, ut, ubi ve-
nisset Christus, et Deus agnosceretur,
et Dominus vocaretur, quia Filius Dei
et Domini.—[p. 507.]

Sandius says that these doctrines were learnt from Montanus. 203

spoken of, in order that, when Christ came, He might both soox τι.
be recognised as God, and be called Lord, being the Son of ee ee
[Him who is] God and Lord.’ Where, by the way, you py, aru.-
may observe that Tertullian expressly pronounces the Holy tay.
Ghost also to be God, equally with the Father and the Son.
This I remark in opposition to an inconsiderate assertion of
Erasmus‘, to the effect, that for a considerable time, that
is, until the times of Hilary, the ancient writers never ven-
tured to give the name of God to the Holy Ghost. I might, if
that were now the question, refute this allegation of Erasmus
at great length; but the reader, if he please, can consult Pe-
tavius on the Trinity, ii. 7.1, &e. 1 return to my subject,
only adding to the passages which have been already cited
one quotation more from Tertullian, which may be found in
his tract de Pudicitia, c. 21, where he expressly acknow-
ledgest “The Trinity of ΤῊΝ one Gopueap, the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

7. Before, however, we pass from Tertullian to other ec-
clesiastical writers, we must detain the reader a short time,
whilst we refute a strange notion! of Sandius. He says it is! com-
plain that Tertullian, prior to his falling into the heresy of ie aay
Montanus, entertained the same opinions as those of Arius,
concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And
then on this most idle assumption he argues thus; “ Hence, if
any thing is found in the writings of Tertullian in favour of the
doctrine of consubstantiality, the Arians have much more right
to detract from his authority by alleging his Montanism [as an
objection to it],” (that is, he means to say, than the Catholics,
who employ that argument for the purpose of correcting cer-
tain statements of Tertullian respecting the Son of God, which
appear to them unsound), “as though he had only at last, on [266]
adopting the views of Montanus, begun to believe in a con-
substantial Trinity.” But on this point this most frivolous
person is convicted of error by the following very evident
arguments. First, it is certain that the Catholic doctors who
preceded both Montanus and Tertullian, whose writmgs have
come down to us, did universally hold the consubstantiality
of the Son, as also of the Holy Ghost,—it is certain, I say,

ΗΝ In his preface to Hilary. ter, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.—
Trinitas untus Divinitatis, Pa- [p. 574.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

1 demum.

® deducto-
rem.

3 unicum.

[267]

204. Tertullian held these doctrines as a Catholic.

from the very clear testimonies which I have already quoted
from them one by one. Tertullian, therefore, first learnt
the doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity from the Catho-
lic Church, in whose communion he remained for a con-
siderable time, and not “at last!” from Montanus, to whose
party he afterwards fell away. Again, in all the works of
Tertullian, both those which he wrote previously to, as well
as those which he wrote after, his defection to the heresy of
Montanus, statements are found which most plainly esta-
blish the doctrine of the Trinity of one substance, as all
are well aware who have studied his writings, and as the
passages which have already been adduced fully evidence.
Furthermore, Tertullian himself, after he became a Mon-
tanist, although he makes a very ridiculous boast, that he
had been more assured concerning the mystery of the holy
Trinity, as also concerning the other heads of the Christian
religion which appertain to the rule of faith, by the spirit of
Montanus, than he had previously been through the letter of
Scripture and the tradition of the Church, still expressly
allows that he had ever held the self-same belief and view
concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. His
words in the second chapter of his treatise against Praxeas
are clear‘; “ We indeed,” he says, “have ever believed, and
much more now,—as being better instructed by the Paraclete,
who is the bringer down’ of all truth,—do we believe, that
there is indeed one only* God, but yet under this dispensation,
which we call the economy, that of the one only God, there
be also the Son His Word, who came forth from Him,” &c.
Then having recited the rule of faith, he affirms that the
Trinity of one substance is therein taught. Now that by the
Paraclete, Tertullian meant the Paraclete of Montanus, (to
whose guidance, after having deserted the Church, he had
now surrendered himself,) the learned are agreed, and the
thing speaks for itself. In conclusion I would have the
reader at this place to turn again to what has been already
said concerning Montanus in the first chapter, ὃ 15, of this
book [pp. 83, 84]

5. Nos vero et semper, etnunc magis, tamen dispensatione, quam οἰκονομίαν
ut instructiores per Paracletum, de- dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius
ductorem scilicet omnis veritatis, uni- Sermo ejus, qui ex ipso processerit,
cum quidem Deum credimus, sub hac &c.—[p. 501. ]

Sandius’ s strange mistakes about Tertullian’s works. 205

8. But the reader should observe the wonderful acquaint-
ance of Sandius with the writings of the ancients, which he
has undertaken to criticise. To prove his hypothesis he
makes use of this argument, that those doctrines which
savour of Arianism, are mainly to be discovered in those
works of Tertullian, “which Jerome does not enumerate
amongst those which he wrote in defence of Montanus!,
yea, which he must necessarily have written before he lapsed
into Montanism, such as are his treatises against Praxeas
and Hermogenes.” But, in the first place, we have shewn
above‘ that in his book against Praxeas the consubstantiality
of the Son, which‘is opposed enough to the Arian heresy, is
taught most frequently and most explicitly. Secondly, so far
is it from being necessary, that it is manifestly untrue, that
Tertullian wrote his treatise against Praxeas before he lapsed
into Montanism. For Tertullian himself expressly professes,
and that in this very treatise against Praxeas, that even at the
time he was writing, he was already dissevered from “the car-

nal’,” as he called them, that is from the catholics, and had :

joined himself to the party of Montanus. For not far from the
opening of his treatise, he thus writes": “For when the bishop
of Rome was on the point of acknowledging the prophecies
of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and in consequence
of that acknowledgment was introducing peace among the
Churches of Asia and Phrygia, this verysame man (Praxeas), by
false representations about the prophets themselves and their
assemblies, and by upholding the example of his predecessors
as an authority’, induced him both to recall the letter of peace!

ὁ To the very many testimonies of
Tertullian which have already been
quoted in this chapter from the treatise
against Praxeas, in support of the con-
substantiality of the Son, I add a pas-
Sage, out of the same treatise, c. 25.
[p. 515}, concerning the Holy Trinity,
which is especially worthy of attention:
“Thus the connection of the Father in
the Son, and of the Son in the Com-
forter, produces three [Persons] co-
herent one to another. These three
[Persons] (tres) are one thing (unum),
not one Person (unus); as it is said, I
and My Father are one (unum); with
respect to unity of substance, not sin-
gularity of number.’’ (Ita connexus

Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto,
tres efficit cohzrentes, alterum ex al-
tero. Qui tres unum sint, non unus ;
quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater
unum sumus ; ad substantiz unitatem,
non ad numeri singularitatem.) Com-
pare also what is adduced in the fol-
lowing chapter, 8. § 4.—GRABE.

" Nam idem (Praxeas) tune epi-
scopum Romanum agnoscentem jam
prophetias Montani, Prisce, Maxi-
milla, et ex ea agnitione pacem ec-
clesiis Asiz et Phrygize inferentem,
falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis
eorum adseverando, et pracessorum
ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit et
literas pacis revocare jam emissas, et a

BOOK II.
CHAP. VEIL.

§ 7, 8.

TERTUL-
LIAN.

1 pro Mon-
tano.

2 psychi-
is.
[ 268 |

3 praces-
sorum auc-
toritates.

4 literas
pacis.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 recipien-

206 Truths held in common by Mentanis and the Church.

which he had already issued, and to desist from his inten-
tion of recognising the gifts. Thus did Praxeas manage at
Rome two affairs of the devil; he thrust out prophecy, and
brought in heresy; he put the Paraclete to flight, and cruci-

dorum cha- fied the Father.” Tertullian, you observe, was so incensed |

rismatum.

with Praxeas, as to say, that he had herein been managing
the devil’s business, in advising the bishop of Rome to re-
pudiate Montanus with his followers, and their prophecies.
Tertullian, then, was not only at that time a Montanist, but
zealot for that sect. And in the same treatise you may read
shortly after* ; “ And the recognition and defence of the Para-
clete dissevered us also from the carnally-minded.” As to the
allegation that Jerome does not enumerate the treatise against
Praxeas amongst the works which Tertullian wrote in de-

pro Mon- fence of Montanus?, my answer is, that a clear distinction

tano.

98
[269]

CaIus.

must be made between those works which Tertullian, when
already a Montanist, wrote specifically in defence of Mon-
tanus against the Church, and those which he composed, as
a Montanist indeed, yet not in defence of Montanus against
the Church, but rather in defence of the common doctrines
of the Church and of Montanus, in opposition to other here-
tics. In the former list Jerome puts the treatises de Pudi-
citia, de Jejuniis, de Monogamia, de Ecstasi; we have given

the clearest proofs, that the treatise against Praxeas belongs

to the latter class. This, however, is enough for the present

: ]
concerning Tertullian.

Aare Vila ἴω,

Sees neath taal eas

CHAPTER VIII.

THE NICENE CREED, ON THE ARTICLE OF THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE
SON, CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PRESBYTER CAIUS, AND OF
THE CELEBRATED BISHOP AND MARTYR ST. HIPPOLYTUS.

1. I nowcome to those ecclesiastical writers who lived near=
est to the age of Tertullian. There was extant in the time of)

proposito recipiendorum charismatum fugavit,et Patrem crucifixit—[p. 501.] |
concessare. Ita duo negotia Diaboli x Et nos quidem agnitio Paracleti
Praxeas Rome procuravit; prophetiam atque defensio disjunxit a psychicis.—-
expulit, et hzeresim intulit; Paracletum [Ibid. }

Testimonies from Caius and St, Hippolytus. 207

Photius a work entitled, περὶ τοῦ Παντὸς, (On the Universe,) soox τι.
which some persons very absurdly attributed to Josephus ag: 1 es
the Jew, others to Justin Martyr, and some again to Irenzeus, Caius. _
Photius’ also reports. Photius, however, correctly followed the

view of those who handed down a tradition that the work was

really written by the presbyter Caius,—who was the author

of a celebrated treatise called the Labyrinth, and flourished:

chiefly in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome,—as Caius

himself at the end of the Labyrinth has left it on record, that

he was the author* of a book on the Nature of the Universe.
However, how consistently in all respects with the catholic
doctrine this author wrote concerning the true Godhead of

Christ, Photius informs us in the following terms”; “ How-

ever, respecting the Divinity of Christ our true God, he treats

most accurately’, both declaring the appellation itself to be- 1 ὡς ἔγ-
long to Christ, and describing irreprehensibly His ineffable Κορε a
generation from the Father.” But Caius certainly would not [270]
have been regarded, at least in the judgment and under the
criticism of Photius, as treating most accurately? and irre- 2 aptis-
prehensibly of the true Divinity of our Saviour, and of His °™*
ineffable generation, if any thing had fallen from him which

would make for the Arians, or would be inconsistent, even

in appearance, with the consubstantiality of the Son. It is
therefore on most just grounds that we class this writer
amongst those who assert and maintain the catholic faith

of Niczea.

2. After the presbyter Caius we must place next* St. Hippo- Hrrroty-
lytus the martyr‘, and bishop of Portus, (as we learn from, hee
Anastasius the librarian), who flourished during the reign of riandus.
the Emperor Alexander, the son of Mammea, i. e., about the

¥ In his Bibliotheca, cod. 48. > περὶ μέν τοι Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ
* Caius flourished about the year θεοῦ ἡμῶν ὡς ἔγγιστα θεολογεῖ, κλησίν
210. Cave.—Bowyer. τε αὐτὴν ἀναφθεγγόμενος Χριστοῦ, καὶ

ἃ Caius wrote ἃ work ‘On the Na- τὴν ἐκ Πατρὸς ἄφραστον γέννησιν ἀμέμ.-
ture of the Universe,’ (Περὶ τῆς τοῦ πτως ἀναγράφων.---ἰ Biblioth. cod. 48.]
παντὸς ovalas,) as he has himself left ὁ [Jerome and Theodoret mention
on record, at the conclusion of his Hippolytus as a martyr; and it has
book entitled ‘the Labyrinth’, as tran- been supposed, that he suffered either
scribed by Photius. Whether, however, in the Decian persecution in 250, or in
that work is the same as that which that of Maximus in 2365. According
bears the title, Περὶ τοῦ παντὸς, ‘On _ to either of these dates we may safely
the Universe,’ and is commonly ap- follow Lardner, in considering him to
pended to the writings of Hippolytus, have flourished about the year 220.
is uncertain. Cave-—Bowyer. [See Dr. Burton, Test., vol. 1. 244. ]

Routh, Relig. Sacr. ii. p. 31,—B. ]

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON,

1 ἄπειρον.

208 Sandius objects to the genuineness of the tract of Hippolytus.

year of Christ 220. He in his Opuscula, written against
Beron and Helix‘, which are found in the Collectanea of Ana-
stasius, accurately distinguishes the twofold nature in Christ,
and shews that His divine nature is absolutely the same as
that which is in the Father. For he says, that® “ Christ
both is, and is conceived to be, as well infinite! God as cir-

* περιγραπ- cumscribed’ man, possessing perfectly the perfect substance®

τὸν.
3 οὐσίαν.
4 illustris.

5 +d Θεῖον.

ὃ ὑφεστὸς
οὐσιῶδες.

[271]

7 ὡς ἔγ-
γιστα θεο-
λογεῖ.

of each.” To the same author belongs the following noble*
confession touching the natures of Christ, the divine and the
human, than which none more express or significant was ever
put forth by any one, even after the Nicene council. “ For
the Godhead’,” he says‘, “as it was before His incarnation, is
also after His incarnation, by nature infinite, incomprehensi-
ble, impassible, incapable of being compounded, unchangeable,
unalterable, self-powerful, and in a word, having a substantial
existence®, alone a good of infinite power.” Nor will any one
wonder that Hippolytus should have put forth these so clear
and magnificent statements concerning the Son of God, if he
recollects that he was, as the ancients have handed down,
the disciple of Clement of Alexandria, who treated most
accurately’ of the divinity of Christ, the true God; as we
have shewn above.

3. And as these testimonies are so clear and express, San-
dius could discern no other way of evading them, than by
boldly pronouncing*, as is forsooth his practice, that “the
treatises on the Divinity and the Incarnation, against Beron
and Helix, Serm I. in the Collectanea of Anastasius, are not
works of Hippolytus.” But let us see by what reasoning he
defends this his authoritative decision, in opposition to the
judgment of that ancient and great librarian, who was es-
pecially versed, as his office implied, in the MSS. of the
earlier Fathers; ‘“ Neither Eusebius,” he says, “nor Jerome
have mentioned any treatise of that kind.” As if, for-
sooth, Eusebius and Jerome had made particular mention

4 Hippolytus, Sermon I. in Anasta-
sius’s Collectanea, p. 210.

© Θεὸν ἄπειρον ὁμοῦ, καὶ περιγραπτὸν
ἄνθρωπον ὄντα τε καὶ νούμενον, τὴν
οὐσίαν ἑκατέρου τελείως τελείαν ἔχοντα.
-κἰ νο]. i. p. 226. ]

f τὸ γὰρ θεῖον, ὡς ἦν πρὸ σαρκώσεως,
ἔστι καὶ μετὰ σάρκωσιν κατὰ φύσιν

ἄπειρον, ἄσχετον, ἀπαθὲς, ἀσύγκριτον,
ἀναλλοίωτον, ἄτρεπτον, αὐτόσθενες, καὶ
τὺ πᾶν εἰπεῖν, ὑφεστὸς οὐσιῶδες, μόνον
ἀπειροσθενὲς ἀγαθόν. --- [ Hippolytus,
Serm. I. apud Anastas. in Collect.
p. 211.]

& De Script. Eccl., p. 27.

His statements are neither Sabellian nor Eutychian. 209

of all the writings of all the ancient doctors. Nay further, soox n.
Eusebius expressly declares, that he had not by any means “@' δος
given a full catalogue of the works of Hippolytus, as, ioe
after enumerating certain of his writings, he adds!; “and tvs.

you will find very many others, and those preserved by

several persons.” And Jerome added very few writings of
Hippolytus to Eusebius’s catalogue. Indeed with no less sem-

blance of truth might Sandius have contended that Hippoly-

tus never was bishop of any church, seeing that both Euse-

bius and Jerome were wholly ignorant of the place of which

he was bishop, and we learned it at last from Anastasius. [272]
Here too is another trifling argument of his; “The author of

those Hxcerpta™ must necessarily have been either a Sabel-

lian or a Eutychian, because of these words of his: Ὅ ταυ-

τόν ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ, γενόμενος ταυτὸν τῇ σαρκὶ διὰ τὴν Ké-

νωσιν, ‘in which He is the same with the Father, having be-

come the same with the flesh through His emptying of Him-

501. But both forms of expression are heretical in the + [cr Phil.
judgment of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians, when he ee Ht
says that heretics teach" ταυτὸν εἶναι πατέρα, καὶ υἱὸν, καὶ τόν.
πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ‘that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy

Ghost are the same,’ and afterwards® οὐδὲ yap ταυτὸν Θεὸς

καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ‘for neither is God and man the same.’ For

if ταυτὸν be said to denote identity of subsistence’, it is most ?subsisten-
clearly Sabellianism ; if it mean unity of essence and nature, pee
it is palpable Eutychianism.” To this I reply, that ταυτὸν in %™ person.
the former clause of the passage, [i. e. of the quotation from
Hippolytus,] does certainly denote unity of essence or nature,

and not identity of subsistence; which latter sense alone the
Pseudo-Ignatius’, whom Sandius quotes, attacked. Still it * spurius
must not on this account be conceded, that the phrase rav- seer oes
τὸν τῇ σαρκί (“the same with the flesh’’) establishes Eu-
tychianism. .In order that you may perceive more clearly

the insufferable ignorance or dishonesty, whichever it be,

of the objector, see here, reader, the passage of Hippoly-

tus entire?: “The Word or Son of God,” he says, “ under-

πλεῖστά Te ἄλλα Kal παρὰ πολλοῖς " {S. Ignat. Interp. Ep. ad Trall.,
εὔροις ἄν owSdueva.—[Hist. Eccles. vi. c, vi. p. 62. ]

22. | ° [Ibid., c. ix. p. 64. ]
Ὁ [The treatises of Hippolytus just P χροπὴν οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν, μηδ᾽ ἑνὶ παν-
spoken οἵ, τελῶς, ὃ ταυτόν (ταυτό ed. Cotel.) ἐστι

BULL. Ῥ

ON THE
GONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 ταυτὸν τῇ
σαρκί.

[273]

9 >
ἀγεννη-
σίαν.

3 barbare.

4 ex,

> de per-
mixtione.

ὁ demum.

210 The doctrines of Eutyches condemned by anticipation

went no change, not in any one point, in which He is
the same with the Father, having become the same with
the flesh! through His emptying of Himself. But just as
He was when apart from flesh, so did He continue, free
from all circumscription.” You see that Hippolytus does not
here affirm, but expressly denies, that the Word or Son of
God, after His Incarnation, became in any respect whatever
the same with the flesh. Surely nothing could have been
said more expressly opposed to the madness of Kutyches. But
Sandius still presses the point; “It is, moreover,” he says,
“abundantly clear that the author was a Sabellian, from his
words in Anastasius, in which he attributes to the Son the
quality of being ἀγέννητος; ; for Ignatius, in the passage re-
ferred to4, writes, that the heretics (the followers of Simon,
who were the precursors of Sabellius) thought that Christ
was ἀγέννητος." Surely the sophist is here in sport, and
wishing to make sport of his reader through the palpable
double-meaning of the word ἀγεννησία. I have already shewn
that the words ἀγένητος and ἀγέννητος are used indiscrimi-
nately by ecclesiastical writers, especially those who were
prior to the council of Nice; so that ἀγέννητος, as well as
ἀγένητος, indicated that which is uncreate or not made; in
which sense the true Ignatius expressly declared that the Son
is ἀγέννητος. See what we have already said in chapter ii.
§ 6. of this book, [pp. 96, 97.] | Anastasius, therefore, has
correctly, though barbarously’, translated ἀγεννησία, the
word used by Hippolytus, by infactto. I am sorry to have
so often to remind the reader of such trite and well-known
points.

4, More specious is the objection of those who attempt to
prove that these Hwcerpta are not the writings of Hippolytus,
on the ground that they contain a clear refutation of the
heresy of Eutyches, who lived long after Hippolytus. Pos-
sevin, after* Canisius, replies to them in his Apparatus", by
saying that “the érror” respecting the mixture’ of the natures
in Christ, “against which Hippolytus is disputing, was not
for the first time® originated and introduced by Apollinaris

τῷ Πατρὶ, γενόμενος ταυτὸν τῇ σαρκὶ p. 226.]

διὰ τὴν κένωσιν. GAN ὥσπερ ἦν δίχα Ἦν ΕἸ πον ΝΡ. Ὁ».

σαρκὸς, πάσης ἔξω περιγραφῆς μεμένηκε. * [p. 768. ed. 1008. Cf. Canisii Lect.
—Anastas. in Collect., p. 210..[vol. i, Antiq., tom. i. p. 11. ed. 1725.]

by St. Hippolyius, as by Tertullian. 211

and Eutyches, but was very much earlier, since Justin Martyr soox 1.
makes mention of it in his Exposition of the Faith.” Perhaps ay a gk
Canisius and Possevin were wrong, in attributing the Ex- yyppory_
position of the Faith to Justin Martyr; still it is very certain 7
from other sources, that the error respecting the mixture of
the natures in Christ was earlier than Apollinaris and Euty-
ches; and moreover, that it was opposed by doctors of the
Church who lived before Hippolytus. I might make good
this statement by many testimonies, but I shall be content
with a single passage out of Tertullian ; in his treatise against
Praxeas, which is of unquestioned genuineness, chap. 27°,
he thus speaks concerning the Incarnation of the Word;
“This we must enquire into, how the Word became flesh,
whether [by] having been as it were transformed in flesh’, 1 transfigu-
or having put on flesh? Surely, having put on [flesh.] For (λιν Τὰ
the rest, we must needs believe God to be unchangeable,
and incapable of form’, as being eternal. But transforma- ? informa-
tion is a destruction of that which previously existed*®; for pee
whatsoever is transformed into something else, ceases to be tio pris-
that which it had been, and begins to be what it was not. coe
But God neither ceases to be [what He 15,7] nor can He be
any thing else [than He is.] But the Word is God, and
the Word of the Lord abideth for ever, by continuing, that

is, in His own form. Now if He admit not of being trans-
formed, it follows, that He be in this sense understood to
have been made flesh, when He comes to be in the flesh, and

is manifested, and is seen, and is handled by means of the
flesh; inasmuch as the other points also require to be thus
understood. For if the Word has been made flesh by a
transformation and change* of substance, it follows at once‘ demuta-
that Jesus will be one substance out of two substances, a"

kind of mixture’ [made up] of flesh and spirit, just like 5 mixtura
quedam.

[274]

100

* De hoc querendum, quomodo Ser-
mo caro sit factus, utrumne quasi
transfiguratus in carne, an indutus car-
nem? Imo indutus. Ceterum Deum
immutabilem et informabilem credi ne-
cesse est, ut eternum. Transfiguratio
autem interemptio est pristini; omne
enim quodcumque transfiguratur in
aliud, desinit esse quod fuerat, et in-
cipit esse quod non erat; Deus autem
neque desinit esse, neque aliud potest
esse. Sermo autem, Deus; et Sermo

Domini manet in zvum, perseverando
scilicet in sua forma. Quem si non
capit transfigurari, consequens est, ut
sic caro factus intelligatur, dum fit in
carne et manifestatur, et videtur, et
contrectatur per carnem: quia et ce-
tera sic accipi exigunt. Si enim Sermo
ex transfiguratione et demutatione sub-
stantize caro factus est, una jam erit
substantia Jesus ex duabus, ex carne
et spiritu mixtura quedam, ut elec-
trum ex auro et argento; et incipit nec

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 tertium

quid.

2 usque-
quaque.

3in sua
proprie-
tate.

[275]

4[ Rom. i.

3.]

212 Tertullian might seem to be opposing Eutyches.

electrum [made up] of gold and silver; and there begins
to be neither gold, that is to say, Spirit, nor silver, that is,
flesh ; the one being changed by the other, and a third
substance! produced. Jesus, therefore, will neither be God;
for He who is made flesh has ceased to be the Word; nor
will He be flesh, that is, Man; inasmuch as He who was
the Word is not properly Flesh. Consequently, [being
made up] of both, He is neither; [but rather] He is a third
substance very different from either. But now we find Him
expressly set forth as both God and Man... clearly in all
respects? the Son of God, and the Son of Man, as being God
and Man, without doubt according to each substance dif-
fering in what is peculiar to itself*, because the Word is
nothing else but God, and the Flesh nothing else but Man.
Thus does the Apostle also teach concerning His twofold sub-
stance; ‘ Who was made,’ says he, ‘of the seed of David? ;’
here He will be Man and Son of Man: ‘Who was declared
to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit ;) here He will
be God, and the Word of God, the Son. We see the two-
fold state, which is not confounded, but joined in one Person,
Jesus, God and Man.” These are the words of Tertullian,
who was earlier than Hippolytus, than which nothing was
ever said more express or effectual against the heresy of
Eutyches. Yet, who would not regard that man as an egre-
gious sophist, who should conclude from this that the treatise
against Praxeas was not Tertullian’s, but the work of an
author who wrote subsequently to the time of Eutyches?
But forsooth as in the world, so in the Church, the same
play is ever acted over again, and the heresies which a later
age calls new, are in truth nothing but ancient errors re-
vived, and recalled from the shades.

aurum esse, id est, spiritus, neque ar~
gentum, id est, caro, dum alterum al-
tero mutatur, et tertium quid efficitur.
Neque ergo Deus erit Jesus; Sermo
enim desilit esse, qui caro factus est:
neque caro, id est, homo; caro enim
non proprie est, qui Sermo fuit. Ita ex
utroque neutrum est; aliud longe ter-
tium est, quam utrumque. Sed enim
invenimus illum directo et Deum et
hominem expositum... . certe usque-
quaque Filium Dei et Filium hominis,
cum Deum et hominem, sine dubio se-

cundum utramque substantiam in sua
proprietate distantem ; qu‘ neque Ser-
mo aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud
quam homo. Sic et apostolus de utra-
que ejus substantia docet; Qui factus
est, inquit, ex semine David; hic erit
homo et filius hominis: qué definitus est
Filius Dei secundum Spiritum ; hic erit
Deus et Sermo Dei, Filius. Videmus
duplicem statum, non confusum, sed
conjunctum in una persona, Deum et
hominem Jesum.—[p. 516. ]

Other arguments against these works refuted. 213

5. But what does the author of the Irenicum" mean, by βοοκ τι.
rejecting these fragments of Hippolytus as “very recently mel Hai
brought forward'?” Is Anastasius himself very recent, who fyppo.y,
flourished eight hundred years ago? yet in his Collectanea, eae
these Excerpta are extant, and are brought forward as (beyond ἜΡΩΣ
controversy) the genuine works of Hippolytus. Or does he ¢ducta.
suspect that those Collectanea, which Sirmond edited in the
year 1620, are not the production of Anastasius the librarian ?

And yet Anastasius himself, in the preface to his undoubted
work, the Ecclesiastical History, or Chronographia tripartita,
expressly professes himself to be the author of those Collecta-
nea, and mentions (as P. Labbe has observed) some of the
tracts which he had translated into Latin and inserted in
that collection. As to this anonymous writer’s further ob-
jection, that certain statements are found in those Excerpta
touching the eternity of the Son, which are inconsistent with
the doctrine of Hippolytus in his undoubted work against
the heresy of Noetus, I shall clearly shew how frivolous it is,
when I come to the third book, on the coeternity of the [276]
Son. It is also to no purpose that he adduces out of this
same treatise against Noetus the following passage, as incon-
sistent with the theology of the Hxcerpta*: “For neither was
the Word without flesh, and of Himself, perfect Son, whilst
yet He was the perfect Worp, [being] the Only-begotten :
neither could the flesh apart from the Word subsist of itself,
forasmuch as it had its ὑπόστασις in the Word, (that is to
say, it subsisted in the Word).” For surely Hippolytus was
not so insane as to say (what our anonymous author would
have him say) that aught of intrinsic perfection really ac-
crued to the Word, or Only-begotten, from His assuming
flesh; nay, he plainly teaches the contrary. For, in the
first place, he expressly declares, that our Lord was the per-
fect Word, and Only-begotten, previous to His incarnation.
And then he clearly teaches, that so far was the Word or
Only-begotten from being bettered by? the human flesh, ? meliora-

tum ex.

ae ay στασιν ἔχειν. vol.ii. p. 17. Both Bp.

* [The Greek is, οὔτε yap ἄσαρκος Bull and the author of the Irenicum,
καὶ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ὃ λόγος τέλειος ἣν vids, from want of care, substitute in the
kal τοι τέλειος λόγος ὧν μονογενὴς, οὐ Latin ὑπόστασιν for σύστασιν.---Β. The
ἣ σὰρξ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν δίχα τοῦ λόγου bwo- words added in the Latin version are
στάναι ἠδύνατο, διὰ τὸ ἐν λόγῳ τὴν ob- enclosed in parentheses, |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 filiationis
genere de-
functum.

2 scilicet.

3 ex.

4 ex hac
nativitate
extitit.

5 accessit.

6 nempe.
[277]

7 κατ᾽ ἐνερ-

γείαν.

8 seque
demisit.

9 ex hac
dependent,
atque ex
ipsa con-
sequuntur,

101

10 s/
,δύναμις͵

μία ἢ ἐκ

τοῦ παντάς.

214 Of the threefold Sonship of our blessed Lord.

that that flesh owes its very subsistence to the Word. What
then, you will say, did Hippolytus mean, by saying that the
Word and Only-begotten was not, without flesh, a perfect
Son? I reply, his meaning manifestly was, that, previous to
the Incarnation, the Word had not, so to speak, fulfilled every
kind of sonship’; or in other words, was not, as yet, the Son
of God, in every way in which the Father willed Him to be.
What I mean’ is this; the ancients attributed to our Lord a
threefold nativity and sonship. The first is that whereby, as
the Logos, He was from eternity born of* the mind of the
Father. From this nativity there has existed‘ a perfect Divine
Person ; nor has any thing subsequently been added* to Him β
but the remaining nativities have been rather συγκαταβά-
σειϑ, or condescensions of the Son of God. For® the second
nativity is that by which the Word came forth in operation’
from God the Father, (with whom He had been, when as yet
there was nothing in being besides God, and consequently
from eternity,) and proceeded forth from His womb, as it
were, and lowered Himself® for the creation of the universe.
The third and last nativity took place at that time, when the
same Word became flesh, and descending from the bosom of
the Father into the womb of the most blessed Virgin, was born
Man of her, through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost.
This was that extreme condescension of the Word, (eternally
to be adored by us men, aye, and by the very angels,) on the
completion of which He became the perfect Son of God, that
is, as I have already said, He fulfilled every kind of sonship ;
inasmuch as the other sonships, which regard the human na-
ture of Christ, depend upon this, and follow from it®. This
we shall explain more at length in the third book, concern-
ing the coeternity of the Son; in the meantime this is to be
observed, that among the passages, which the author of the
Lrenicum has adduced from Hippolytus’s book against Noetus,
as contrary to the Catholic, i. e., the Nicene faith, there are
some which singularly confirm that very faith. Such is the |
following passage; “ When I say that He is another,” (that is,
the Son from the Father,) “I do not say that there are two
Gods, but [I say that He is another,] as hight from light,
and water from a fountain, or a ray from the sun. For the
Power from the Whole is one”; the Whole, however, is the

Passages from St. Hippolytus against Noetus, explained. 215

Father, the Power from whom is the Word.
[Word] is the mind or sense!, which, going forth into the ee δ.
world, was manifested to be the Son of Gody.

But this

All thin es νει τ

BOOK II.
Vill,

Hiprouy-

therefore, were (made*) through Him, but He Himself alone 7¥*-

is (begotten’) of* the Father.”

In this passage he proves that

1 νοῦς
mens sive

the Father and the Son, though distinct in Person, are yet sensus.

one God, by this argument, that the Son is not God of Him- ,

[278]

acta,

8615, but God οἵ" God, and that He comes forth from’ the at. Υ.
Father, as light from’ light, and water from’ the fountain, and * rl
the ray from® the sun; at the same time he most distinctly « 1
excepts the Son from he number of things made by God, in * : ae
that He declares Him alone to be begotten from God the’
Father Himself, [statements] which entirely agree with fee ᾿ Ἢ

Nicene Confession.

Nor ought it to cause the slightest

difficulty to any one, that in the same passage Hippolytus

ealls the Father the Whole

inasmuch as He is the fountain of Godhead (πηγὴ Θεό-
TnTos), seeing that the Godhead which is in the Son and in

Y In the Greek text, which has been
lost through the lapse of time, the
reading no doubt was, ΓΟ προελθὼν εἰς
τὸν κόσμον ἐφανερώθη 6 παῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ.
For this same writer’s words, in his in-
terpretation of the second Psalm, are
to a similar effect, which I quote from
Theodoret, in p. 103. col. 1. init. [i.e.
of Grabe’s folio edition of Bp. Bull’s
works; see Append. on this passage. ]
Ὁ προελθὼν εἰς τὸν κόσμον Θεὸς καὶ
ἄνθρωπος ἐφανερώθη. [The entire pas-
sage is given by Fabricius, (who first
published this work in Greek,) thus;
(Bibl. Gree.) vol. 11, p. 18. τερον δὲ
λέγων od δύο θεοὺς λέγω, GAN ὡς φῶς
€x φωτὸς, ἢ ὡς ὕδωρ ex πηγῆς, ἢ ὡς ἂκ-
τῖνα ἀπὸ ἡλίου. Δύναμις γὰρ μία ἣ ἐκ
. Τοῦ παντὸς, τὸ δὲ πᾶν Πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ δύ-
vous λόγος. οὗτος δὲ νοῦς, ὃς προβὰς
ἐν κόσμῳ ἐδείκνυτο παῖς Θεοῦ. Πάντα
τοίνυν δὲ αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος ἐκ Πα-
tpés.—B. The Latin version in Bp.
Bull is; 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, prodiens in
mundum, ostensus est Puer Dei. Om-
nia igitur per eum facta sunt; ipse so-
lus ex Patre genitus.] But that it was

usual also for Hippolytus to call Christ
τὸν παῖδα τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Child, or ra-
ther the Son, of God, (puerum sive
potius filium,) is evident from his trea-
tise called ‘Demonstratio de Christo
et Antichristo,’ inserted in the last
Auctarium of the Bibliotheca Patrum
of Combefis, Paris, 1672. For there,
not far from the beginning, [3. vol. i.
p- 5,] he propounds this question :
‘You enquire how, in old time, the
Word of God, Himself again the Child
of God, who of old indeed was the
Word, made a revelation to the blessed
prophets ? 2’? (Πῶς ἂν πάλαι τοῖς Μμακα-
ρίοις προφήταις “ἀπεκάλυψεν 6 τοῦ Θεοῦ
λόγος, αὐτὸς πάλιν ὃ τοῦ Θεοῦ παῖς, ὃ
πάλαι μὲν λόγος, τυχεῖν ἐπιζητεῖς.) And
after a short interval, εἷς yap καὶ 6 τοῦ
Θεοῦ παῖς, κιτ.λ.; ‘ For the Child of
God also is one,’? &c., &c. Compare
also his expression in section 61, cited
Ῥ. 104. col. 2. [ed. fol. see Appendix.
‘Christ the child of God, παῖδα Θεοῦ,
both God and man.” ] Hippolytus and
some other of the ancient fathers gave
this appellation to Christ from Isaiah
xlii. 1, and other passages; where God
says of Him; ᾿Ιδοῦ 6 παῖς μου" although
mais there means servant. This how-
ever is by the way.—GRABE.

9. and the Son the Power from 9 totum.
the Whole”. For the Father is rightly designated the Whole, *

virtutem
ex toto.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

Ἰ συνάγεται

εἰς ἕνα

Θεὸν.
[279]

2
super.

3 ἐξοχὴν
illam.

4 trino et
uno.

5 trinum
et unum.

216 His statements in harmony with the Nicene Faith.

the Holy Ghost is the Father’s, because it is derived from the
Father. In like manner the statements are especially catho-
lic, which the sophist soon afterwards produces from the same
work of Hippolytus; I mean these; “The Father commands,
the Word performs; and the Son is manifested, through whom
the Father is believed on. The economy of agreement is
gathered up into One God'; for God is One; for He who com-
mands [15] Father, He who obeys [is] Son, that which teaches
wisdom [is] Holy Ghost. The Father who is above all, the
Son through all, and the Holy Ghost in all’.” Here, as you
see, Hippolytus plainly teaches, that the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost are one God, and attributes to each Person
of the Trinity omnipresence, and divine power such as to
pervade all things; and in saying of the Father that He
commands, and of the Son that He obeys, he has other or-
thodox fathers agreeing with him, and using similar expres-
sions, not only such as lived before, but also such as flourished
after the Nicene Council. Refer by all means to what we
have before said on Irenzus, in chap. v. § 6. of this book,
[pp. 170, 171.] In like manner what he says of the Father,
that He is in a peculiar sense over’ all things, is altogether
to be referred to that pre-eminence’ of the Father, as the
Father, which all catholics acknowledge. But why need I
say more? The very title of the book against Noetus suffi-
ciently shews, how utterly vain is the attempt of the author
of the Zrenicum to build up from it the Arian blasphemy ;
for the book is thus entitled: “A Homily respecting God,
Three and One*, and the mystery of the Incarnation, against
the heresy of Noetus*.” But, certainly, no Arian can, with-
out sophistry and deceit, acknowledge that God is Three and
One®. And thus much concerning St. Hippolytus.

“ [The Greek is, Πατὴρ ἐντέλλεται,
λόγος ἀποτελεῖ, υἱὸς δὲ δείκνυται δι’ οὗ
πατὴρ πιστεύεται. Οἰκονομία συμφω-
vias συνάγεται εἰς Eva Θεὸν, εἷς γάρ
ἐστιν 6 Θεός ὃ γὰρ κελέυων πατὴρ, ὃ
δὲ ὑπακούων vibs, τὸ δὲ συνέτιξον ἅγιον
πνεῦμα. ὋὉ ὧν πατὴρ ἐπὶ πάντων, ὃ δὲ
υἱὸς διὰ πάντων, τὸ δὲ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν
πᾶσιν. Vol. 11. p. 15, 16.—B. The
Latin as given by Bp. Bull is Pater
mandat, Verbum perficit; Filius au-
tem ostenditur, per quem Pater credi-

tur. CMiconomia consensionis redigitur
ad unum Deum. Unus enim est Deus,
qui mandat Pater, qui obedit Filius,
qui docet scientiam Spiritus Sanctus.
Pater, qui est super omnia, Filius per
omnia, Spiritus Sanctus in omnibus.
The Greek has been followed in the
translation. |

@ [Homilia de Deo Trino et uno et
de mysterio Incarnationis contra he-
resim Noeti. }

Great difference of opinion with respect to Origen. 217

BOOK II.
ὲ CHAP. VIII.
δ. 12944:

CHAPTER: TX: ORIGEN.

WHEREIN IT IS SHEWN FULLY AND CLEARLY THAT THE DOCTRINE OF 105
ORIGEN, CONCERNING THE TRUE DIVINITY OF THE SON OF GOD WAS ALTO- [286]
GETHER CATHOLIC, AND PERFECTLY CONSONANT WITH THE NICENE CREED,
ESPECIALLY FROM HIS WORK AGAINST CELSUS, WHICH IS UNDOUBTEDLY
GENUINE, AND MOST FREE FROM CORRUPTION, AND WHICH WAS COM-

POSED BY HIM WHEN IN ADVANCED AGE, AND WITH MOST EXACT CARE
AND ATTENTION.

1. Next after Hippolytus should come his rival!, who! zmulus.
also, in that rivalry, proved to be far his superior, I mean
Origen”. It is astonishing how much theologians, both of
ancient and modern times, have been divided into parties,
and how very keenly they have contended, about the doctrine
of this celebrated? man. To treat only of the ancients, * πολυθρύλ-
in conformity with my design; of these, some praise and *""**
extol Origen to the skies, others anathematize him as the
worst of heresiarchs, nay, as the fountain and spring of
almost all heresies, especially of those which relate to the
Church’s faith concerning the most Holy Trinity. As re-
spects the catholic doctors, however, who were nearer to the
time of Origen, the larger, and by far the more weighty? *!onge

potior.
portion are ranged on his side*, Alexander of Jerusalem, ¢ jpg; aa-
Theoctistus of Czesarea, Dionysius of Alexandria, Firmilian sub τὰ
of Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Athenodorus, con-
temporaries of Origen, always held him in the highest
estimation ; whilst the whole of Palestine, Arabia, Phcenicia
and Achaia defended his cause against Demetrius of Alex-
andria. Afterwards Pamphilus the Martyr, and Eusebius of
Ceesarea, in an Apology containing six books, whereof one
only is extant, maintained the same cause. Again, Pho-
tius informs us, Cod. 118, that several other men of great
name in the times of Eusebius, had written Apologies
for Origen. Moreover, the great Athanasius, in his trea-
tise concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nice, com-
mended Origen as a strenuous supporter of the Catholic
faith, against the heresy which was afterwards called Arian. [287]

> He was born in the year 186. Cave.—Bowyer.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

' sequior,

implying
inferiority.

2 chalcen-
terus ille.

3 neutri
parti ad-
dicti.

4 maleferi-
atis.
5 aliena
prorsus.
[288]
106

§ tenebrio-
nes.

218 The weight of authority is strongly in his favour.

With these must be classed Didymus of Alexandria, (a cele-
brated man, whom Jerome often boasts‘of having had for his
teacher,) who published an apologetic discourse for Origen,
and Titus, bishop of Bostra, and the noble pair of Gregories,
of Nazianzum and of Nyssa, with John of J erusalem, who is
on this account assailed with continual reproaches by Epi-
phanius and Jerome. Methodius too, who wrote long be-
fore the rise of the Arian controversy, though he was at
first a most determined adversary of Origen, after a time
laid aside his enmity, and in the end was not ashamed to
profess himself one of his admirers. Finally, Ruffinus (who,
whatever a later! age may have thought of him, is called by
Cassian, in his seventh book on the Incarnation‘, “a Chris-
tian philosopher, holding no contemptible place among the
doctors of the Church,” and whose sanctity was at one time
commended in the highest terms, even by Jerome himself,
as appears from his fifth Epistle’ to Florentius) was a very
earnest champion on the side of Origen; to say nothing
of the numberless monks, scattered throughout Egypt, who
engaged in the warmest conflicts with Theophilus of Alex-
andria, in his cause.

2. In this so great difference of opinion among men so great,
it were to be wished, that of the innumerable writings which
this unwearied author’ composed, a greater number had come
down to us entire and uncorrupted, from which we, who do
not belong to either party®, might have been able to judge for
ourselves with more certainty about his doctrine. But, alas,
some of Origen’s works were corrupted and interpolated, even
in his own lifetime, by worthless and idle* men, and some
writings no way his own’, but altogether spurious, were pub-
lished under his very celebrated name, as he himself com-
plained in a letter® to certain persons in Alexandria. So that
you may easily conjecture with how much greater boldness
those dishonest men® would perpetrate such forgeries after
his death. It is certain that by far the greatest portion of
the works of Origen have now entirely perished ; whilst those
which still remain, with the exception of his Treatise against

¢ Christiane philosophie vir, haud ὁ [Epist. iv. 2. vol. i. p. 14.—B.]
contemnenda ecclesiasticorum docto- e Extant in Ruffinus, de Adulter,
rum portio.—[c. 27. p. 1125.] libb. Origen. [pp. 51, 52. ]

Es works corrupted, and differing much in value. 219

β Celsus, and certain extracts from his writings, called Philo- βοοκ n. '

calia, were extant only in Latin, and that much interpolated “Ὁ Ἴ 3

and altered by translators’, as is certain from positive evi- oe

dence, until the famous Daniel Huet recently published in !interpre-

Greek several of his exegetical works from the MSS.; and"

on this account, that very learned man has deserved well of

all lovers of antiquity, as will be acknowledged by every

one who is not influenced by ill-will. Yet Huet’ himself

declares, that he thinks it probable, “that all the works of

Origen, which fortune has transmitted to us, have been cor-

rupted, and those especially which, besides the errors of

copyists and the adulterations of heretics, have also suffered

from the mistakes and dishonesty of translators.” Un-

less I am mistaken, he ought to have excepted the books

against Celsus; for no one, to my knowledge, has hitherto

suspected that they have suffered any other injury worth

notice, beyond the errors of transcribers*, from which none ? librario-

of the works of the ancients are altogether free. pa fas
3. But if all the writings of Origen were now extant, and

that in a pure and uncorrupted state, they still would not all

be of equal service for shewing his true and genuine opi-

nions; inasmuch as the purport’ of the various compositions 8 ratio.

of a voluminous author would be different. For some of his

works were written privately® to friends, which he never ex-

pected to see the light; in these he discussed subjects freely [289]

and almost sceptically, and generally propounded not so much

his own fixed and definite views, as either the reasonings of

others, or little difficulties* and slight doubts of his own, for 4 scrupulos

the clearer elucidation of the truth. Others he himself pub- 9%°s4™-

lished, either against unbelievers, or in opposition to heretics,

or, lastly, for the instruction of Christians in general’; in 5 Christia-

which, proceeding along the beaten and safe road, he studi- reat ee

ously taught the doctrine received in the Catholic Church.

Then again, some he dictated® hastily, others he wrought out ὁ dictitavit.

with more diligent care. And, lastly, some things (to use the

* Origenian. p. 233. such things; and threw back upon
& Respecting these, Jerome, Epist. Ambrose [his contemporary and friend]
Ixv. ad Pamm. et Ocean. [Ep. Ixxxiv. the charge of inconsiderateness in hav-
10. vol. i. p.527,] testifies that Origen, ing made public what he had sent out
in a letter written by him to Fabian, ἴῃ private.
expressed regret for having written

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON,

’ suffra-
gium.

2 instruc-
tissimum.

[290]

3 impoten-
ter.

4 debac-
chatus.

220 His work against Celsus of most authority.

words of Huct) Adamantius, now grown old, revised when his
genius was somewhat tempered by age; others he poured out
with the profusion which puts itself forth in the heat of youth.
Concerning these works Jerome beautifully said in the Pro-
logue to his Commentaries" on Luke, that in some of his trea-
tises Origen was “ like a boy playing at dice; that the works
of his middle life are different from the serious productions
of his advanced age.” Now it cannot be denied, that the
expression of Origen’s judgment! on Catholic doctrine ought
to be derived chiefly from those works which he himself
designed for publication, which he wrote thoughtfully and
attentively, and which, lastly, he composed in advanced life,
and after he had been instructed by long practice and expe-
rience. Of this sort, as all are agreed, are his eight books
against Celsus the Epicurean; inasmuch as in them he de-
fends the common doctrine of Christians against a very well
armed? enemy of our religion; these were wrought out with
the utmost care on the part of the author, and with the
greatest learning, and that when he was now more than
sixty years of age, as is expressly declared by Eusebius,
(Eccl. Hist. vi. 36.) Accordingly it will be from these books
chiefly that I shall allege my testimonies to shew the catho-
licity of Origen on this article [of the faith] ; adding only a
few passages out of his other writings, such as are supplied
me by catholic doctors who lived nearer to the age of Origen,
and so best knew how to distinguish his genuine writings
from what were spurious. From all this I trust that the
intelligent reader will at length clearly perceive, how wildly ὃ
Petavius raved‘ against Origen, when he was not ashamed
to write thus of a most holy and learned father, as even his
enemies allow him to have been!; “As to Origen, it is cer-
tain,’ he says, “that he entertained impious and absurd
opinions concerning the Son and the Holy Ghost ;” and
again“, a little after, “ Origen, as he preceded Arius in time, so
was he his equal in impiety; nay, he taught him his impious
doctrine.” And throughout his work he constantly casts asper-

* Quasi puerum talis ludere; alia surdeque sensisse.—De Trin. i. 12. 9.
esse Virilia ejus, et alia senectutis seria. k Origenes ut etate Arium anteces-
—([vol. vii. p. 247.] ; sit, sic impietate par, imo impii dog-

* De Origene, inquit, constat, eum matis auctor illi fuit.—Ibid. § 10.
de Filio ac Spiritu Sancto impie ab-

Origen’s doctrine on the Trinity not condemned by the Church, 221

sions such as these on Origen. Perhaps the Jesuit thought
that his religion bound him thus to malign the venerable

BOOK II,
CHAP. IX.
§ ὃ, 4.

father, because, forsooth, Origen and the Origenists, together Oricen.

with their doctrines, were condemned and anathematized in
the fifth [general] council!. But there have not been want-
ing illustrious men of the Church of Rome, (I mean John
Picus of Mirandula, James Merlin of Victurnia, Desiderius
Erasmus of Rotterdam, Sixtus of Siena, Claudius Espenceus,
Gilbert Genebrard, and Peter Halloix,) who, having no fear
for themselves from the anathemas of the fifth council, have
had the courage not merely to mention Origen without re-
proaches, but even to take his part openly and avowedly.
No doubt they judged rightly, that it was not so much
Origen himself, or his genuine opinions!, that were anathe-
matized, as those very pernicious dogmas concerning a 'T'rinity
of different substance’, and an imaginary® resurrection of the

107

placita.
[291 ]
2de Tri-

Nnitate ére-

body, which were contained in the adulterated writings ΟΥ̓ ρουσίῳ.

Origen, or which certain Origenists, as they are called, used
to advance under the sanction of his great name. It is true
that the council condemned, along with these, paradoxical
speculations concerning the pre-existence of souls, the ani-
mated nature of the stars and of the elements, &c., which
were really Origen’s own; but these were condemned only
as false and very absurd, not as heretical, unless there were
in addition an inflexible obstinacy of mind, and that con-
tempt of catholic opinion, which, as it was quite alien from
Origen himself, so did it display itself to excess in most of
the Origenists. But let us now approach the subject itself.
4. In his books against Celsus, Origen™ so frequently de-
clares the nature of the Word and Son of God to be truly
divine, that is to say, uncreate, infinite, incomprehensible,
and unchangeable, that were I disposed to adduce all the
statements which bear on this subject, I should be obliged
to transcribe a great part of his treatise. I shall, therefore,
bring forward only some more select passages out of that
rwork. In the first book, treating of the Magi, who came
from the Hast to Judea, to see the King, whom the unwonted

Or rather in another synod held at Evagrius, p. 111. [iv. 38. note 6. ]
Constantinople prior to the fifth coun- ™ Written about the year 247. Cave.
cil. See the notes of Valesius on —Bowyenr.

3 phantas-

tica,

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 συνθέτῳ
τινὶ,

[292]

2 John viii.
40.

3 σύνθετόν
τι.

4 θειότερόν
τι.

ὃ ὃ κυρίως

222 Origen expressly asserts the Divinity of the Son; and that

appearance of the star pointed out, he thus speaks"; [They
came] bringing gifts, which they offered as symbols to One,
who was, so to say, a compound’ of God and mortal man; the
gold as to a King, the myrrh as to One who was to die, and
the frankincense as to God.” Here, in the Person of Christ, he
recognises both mortal man and the immortal God, to whom
is due divine honour, which used formerly to be exhibited
by the offering of frankincense. A passage exactly corre-
sponding to this occurs in the same book a few pages after ;
where, when Celsus jests at the blood of Jesus shed upon

the cross, and says, “that it was not such blood as the

blessed gods are wont to have,” Origen thus answers him?:
“We, believing Jesus Himself, when He says of the God-
head which is in Him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the
life,’ and whatever else there is to the like effect; and, on the
other hand, when He thus speaks’ of the fact of His being in
a human body, ‘ Now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath
told you the truth,’ we say that He became something com-
pounded’.” Afterwards he says that Christ had? “ some-
thing more divine? within the manhood which was seen,
which was He that is properly’ the Son of God, God the
Word, the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God.” And
then after some considerable interval, he designates Christ —
asi “God, who appeared in human body for the benefiting
of our race.”

5. In the second book, citing Gen. i. 26, “ Let us make
man in our image and after our likeness ;” and that passage
of David, Ps. exlviii. 5, “ He spake and they were made, He
commanded and they were created ; he collects, that it
was the Son and Word of God unto whom the Father thus
spake and gave commandment, by the following argument’ ;

3. ἂψ

D φέροντες μὲν δῶρα, ἃ (ἵν᾽ οὕτως ὄνο- ἀποκτεῖναι, ἄνθρωπον ὅστις τὴν ἀλή-

udow) συνθέτῳ τινὶ ἐκ. Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώ-
που θνητοῦ προσήνεγκαν σύμβολα μὲν,
ὡς βασιλεῖ τὸν χρυσὸν, ὡς δὲ τεθνηξο-
μένῳ τὴν σμύρναν, ὡς δὲ Θεῷ τὸν λιβα-
νωτόν.---Ῥ. 46. ed. Cantab. 1658. [ὃ 60.
vol. i. p. 375. ]

ο ἡμεῖς δ᾽ αὐτῷ πιστεύοντες ᾿Ἰησοῦ,
περὶ μὲν τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ θειότητος λέγοντι,
Ἐγώ εἰμι ἣ 650s, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἢ
ζωὴ, καὶ εἴ τι τούτοις παραπλήσιον"
περὶ δὲ τοῦ, ὅτι ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῳ σώματι
ἦν, ταῦτα φάσκοντι, Νῦν δὲ ζητεῖτέ με

θειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα σύνθετόν τι χρῆμά
φαμεν αὐτὸν γεγονέναι.----ἰ ὃ 66. p. 880-
81.]

P θειότερόν τι ἐν τῷ βλεπομένῳ ἀν-
θρώπῳ, ὅπερ ἦν 6 κυρίως vibs Θεοῦ,
Θεὸς λόγος, Θεοῦ δύναμις, καὶ Θεοῦ σο-
gpla.—p. 52.

4 [κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ] Θεὸν [ εἶναι],
ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῳ φανέντα σώματι ἐπ᾽ εὐερ-
γεσίᾳ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν.---ἰ ὃ 68. p. 383. ]

τ εἶ γὰρ ἐνετείλατο ὃ Θεὸς, καὶ ἐκτί-
σθη τὰ δημιουργήματα, τίς ἃν, κατὰ τὸ

He is the Creator, and distinct from all creatures. 223

“For if God commanded, and the creatures were made, who soox τι.

must He be, who, according to the mind! of the prophetic as

Spirit, was able to execute so great a commandment of the Onionn.

Father, other than He who is, so to call Him, His living? Word [298]

and the Truth?” In these words he most explicitly distin- ee a

guishes the Son of God from all created things; and more- ire

over clearly teaches, that the work of creation, which had

been committed to that Son of God by His Father, was so

great, (as being peculiarly that of divine omnipotence,) as that

it could not any way have been accomplished but by Him,

who is the very Word of God the Father, and the Truth.

Now all who have any eyes® perceive, how far removed this? oculati

reasoning is from the mind of the infatuated Arians, in their °™™°

misapplication of these passages of Scripture, and how ex-—

actly it accords with the sentiments of the Catholics, who

vindicate the Godhead of the Son from the work of creation.

In the same place Origen teaches that the Godhead of the

Word of God was by no means so circumscribed by the In-

carnation, as not to exist any where external to the body

and soul of Jesus, but that It is, and has ever been, every

where present*. Lest, however, any one should apply this to 4 φθάνοντα

sanction the heresy of Cerinthus, he presently adds*; “ We ™7%x°.

say this, not as separating the Son of God from Jesus halon

after the Incarnation’ the body and the soul of Jesus have 5 μετὰ τὴν

become in the highest degree one with the Word of God.? οἰκονομίαν.

Now could any one set forth, in more catholic terms than 108

Origen has done in these passages, the twofold nature of

Christ and the hypostatic union of these two natures? Pre-

sently afterwards he calls the body of Christ‘ “that which

is truly the temple of God the Word and Wisdom; and [294]

Truth,” which the Jews despised, whilst they venerated more

than enough the material® temple of God. δ lapideum.
6. In the third book, on Celsus objecting to the Chris-

tians, “that they believe Jesus, consisting of a mortal body,

to be God, and imagine that they act piously in so doing,”

ἀρέσκον τῷ προφητικῷ πνεύματι, (juxta υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ" ἕν γὰρ

mentem prophetici Spiritus,) εἴη ὁ τὴν μάλιστα μετὰ τὴν οἰκονομίαν γεγένηται

τηλικαύτην τοῦ πατρὸς ἐντολὴν ἐκπλη- πρὸς τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἣ ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ

ρῶσαι δυνηθεὶς ἢ ὁ (ἵν᾽ οὕτως ὀνομάσω) σῶμα ᾿Ιησοῦ.---». 64. [p. 894.}

ἔμψυχος λόγος καὶ ἀλήθεια τυγχάνων. ‘ τὸν ἀληθῶς ναὸν Θεοῦ τοῦ λόγου

—p. 63. [§ 9. p. 898.] καὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς &Andelas.—[§ 10.
" ταῦτα δέ φαμεν οὐ χωρίζοντες τὸν pp. 894.]

224 Origen on the Divine and Human Natures in Christ ;

on tue Origen meets him with this reply"; “Let those who bring
ἘΝ ae this charge against us know, that He, who, we believe and are
LiTy or persuaded, was God and the Son of God from the beginning,
a is also the very Word’, and the very Wisdom, and the very
αὐτολό- : A :

γος, ἡ αὐ. Truth: whilst of His mortal body and the human soul with-
ee in it, we say that it has by its—not communion only, but—
θεια. union also and intimate commingling’ with Him, received the
ee greatest [gifts],and by partaking of His divinity has passed*
8 εἰς Θεὸν into God.” Now (if I have any insight [into it]) the manifest
μεταβεβη- sense of this reply is as follows; Does this trouble you, O ye
philosophers, that we Christians call our Saviour Christ God,
‘ringamini though He consist of a mortal body? Nay, snarl as ye will’,
ee we still affirm that He is, in the truest sense, very God? ;
mum that is to say, very Word*, very Truth, very Wisdom; nay,
Deum. is so far forth God, that we scruple not to say, that His human
nature even, through its union with the divine, has been

in a certain manner deified. In this passage we ought to

note the expressions αὐτολόγος, αὐτοαλήθεια, which are tho-

[295] roughly Platonic. For Plato called that which is truly and
6perse. in itself’ good, αὐτοαγαθὸν, applying that epithet to the true
and most high God alone, from whom he widely separated the

Logos. Origen, however, as though correcting the philosophy

of Plato by the Christian, declares that the Logos also, or

Son of God, has just claims to be called very Wisdom, very

7 αὐτοαγα- Truth, and by consequence very Goodness’. But there is
ou not any ground for our Lutheran brethren, who maintain a
kind of ubiquity of the human nature in Christ, to suppose

that there is any support for their cause from these words of

Origen. For in the passage which we just now adduced out

of the second book, Origen plainly teaches, that the Word is

so conjoined with the human nature of Christ, as to exist

even externally to the soul and body of Jesus; and that the

8 τὸ ubique attribute of ubiquity® pertains to the Godhead alone. More-

eas over, in this very passage, not long after the words quoted,

ἔστωσαν οἱ ἐγκαλοῦντες, ὅτι ὃν μὲν ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει, τὰ μέγιστά φαμεν
νομίζομεν καὶ πεπείσμεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι προσειληφέναι, καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θειότητος
Θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὃ αὐτυλόγος κεκοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν μεταβεβηκέναι.
ἐστὶ, καὶ ἣ αὐτοσοφία, καὶ ἣ αὐτοαλή- —p. 135, 186. [ὃ 41. p. 478-74.}
θεια᾽ τὸ δὲ θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶμα, καὶ τὴν * [Ipsam Rationem, &c., equivalent
ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐτῷ ψυχὴν, τῇ πρὸς to Origen’s 6 αὐτολόγος, K.7.A. |
ἐκεῖνον οὐ μόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ

difficulties raised by Celsus about the Incarnation. 225

Origen himself distinctly explains what he had said of the
commixture' of the human nature in Christ with the divine,
in such a way as to declare that he had no other meaning
than this, that the glorified flesh of Jesus, by a change of its
qualities, was made such as to be fitted to dwell in the highest
heaven’, retaining nothing of that infirmity of the flesh which
was born with it®. If you have leisure, peruse what follows
in Origen ; 1 return from this digression to my subject.

7. In the fourth book, Celsus the Epicurean is intro-
duced disputing against the doctrine of the Christians re-
specting the coming down upon earth of the Son of God
and His Incarnation, in the following manner ; “God is good,
beautiful, happy, of the best and fairest form; were He
to descend to the condition of man+, He must undergo a
change; but the change will be from good to evil, from beauti-
ful to base, from happy to unhappy, from the best to the worst.
Who would wish to be thus changed? It is true that a
change and transformation of this kind is incident to mortal
man; but it befits an immortal being, that he continue ever
to exist in the same state. God, therefore, could never be-
come the subject of such a change.” Now if Origen had
entertained the same view concerning the Son of God which
Arius subsequently did, how easily might he have overthrown
the very foundation of this argument—by saying, I mean,
in one word, that neither he himself nor the catholic Chris-
tians of his time believed the Son of God to be in very deed
the unchangeable God; but simply held Him to be a crea-
ture of a nature different from the divine, and altogether
capable of change. Far otherwise, however, and without doing

BOOK If.
CHAP. IX.
§ 6, 7.
ORIGEN.
1 de per-

mixtione.

2in sum-
mo ethere.

3 conge-
nite.

4 πρὸς τὰ
3 vA
ἀνθρώπινα.

[296]

any violence at all ὑοῦ the hypothesis of catholics, concerning > salva

the truly divine and unchangeable nature of the Son of God,
does Origen reply, in the following words’: “ Now I con-
ceive that I shall have returned a sufficient answer to this, if
I set forth that descending® of God unto the condition of
man’ which is spoken of in the Scriptures; for which He
has no need of change, as Celsus supposes that we maintain,
nor of passing from good to evil, or from beautiful to base,

an a na a “ /
Σ δοκεῖ δή μοι πρὸς ταῦτα λέγεσθαι τῷ δεῖ, ds Κέλσος ἡμᾶς οἴεται λέγειν,

a a a a \
πὰ δέοντα, διηγησαμένῳ τὴν ἐν ταῖς οὔτε τροπῆς, τῆς ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ εἰς κακὸν, ἢ

σῷ 4 J ~ d > Aa 9 \ > ὺδ Η
γραφαῖς λεγομένην κατάβασιν Θεοῦ πρὸς ἐκ καλοῦ εἰς αἰσχρὸν, ἢ ἐξ εὐδαιμονίας
4 n n~ > >
τὰ ἀνθρώπινα' εἰς ἣν ov μεταβολῆς αὐ- εἰς κακοδαιμονίαν, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ ἀρίστου εἰς

BULL. Q

omnino,

6 κατά-
βασιν.

7 πρὸς τὰ
> vA
ἀνθρώπινα.

ON THE
CONSUB>
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.
1 rots ἀν-
θρωπίνοις
πράγμασιν.
4 [Pa cit

ἐπὶ τῇ συ-
στάσει
ἀνάλυτοι.
5 πραγμα-
τεύονται
ἀποσεί-
εσθαι.

δ ἤγεμο-
νικὸν.

7 τρανῶσαι
τὴν φυσι-
κὴν ἔννοιαν.

109

8 ἐκένωσεν
ἑαυτὸν.

[ Phil. ii.6.]
[297]

9 λόγος.

10 οὐδὲν
πάσχει.

996 Origen, in his statements respecting the Incarnation,

or from happy to unhappy, or from the best to the worst ;
for, remaining unchangeable in His essence, He condescends
to the circumstances of men' by His providence and dispen-
sation. Yea, and we allege also the divine Scriptures, which
declare that God is unchangeable, both in the words, ‘ But
Thou art the same’;’ and, ‘I change ποῦ; whilst the gods

_ of Epicurus, being compounded of atoms, and [consequently |,
‘so far as depends on their constitution, capable of dissolu-

tion’, have enough to do to shake off® the atoms that cause
corruption from themselves; nay, the god of the Stoics also,
as being corporeal, has sometimes the whole substance [turned
into] mind‘, when the conflagration happens; and sometimes
becomes [only] a part of the same, when a re-arrangement
happens. For these [philosophers] could not even clear our
natural conception’ of God, as [of a Being] every way incor-
ruptible, simple, uncompounded and indivisible. That how-
ever which came down unto men, was in the form of God,
and out of loving-kindness unto man He emptied Himself®,
in order that He might be comprehensible by men; but yet
certainly there was no change from good‘ to evil in Him,” &c.
&e. Shortly afterwards Adamantius subjoins these words" ;
‘Now if Celsus thinks that the immortal God, the Word,
in having assumed a mortal body and a human soul, un-
dergoes change and transformation, let him learn that the
Word, remaining Word? still in His essence, is not affected
by any” of those things by which the body and the soul are

affected; but condescending

τὸ πονηρότατον. μενων γὰρ τῇ οὐσίᾳ
ἄτρεπτος, συγκαταβαίνει τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ
τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις πράγμα-
σιν. ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ θεῖα γράμματα
παρίσταμεν, ἄτρεπτον λέγοντα τὸν
Θεὸν, ἔν τε τῷ, Σὺ δὲ 6 αὐτὸς εἶ" καὶ ἐν
τῷ, Οὐκ ἠλλοίωμαι" οἱ δὲ τοῦ ᾿Επικού-
ρου θεοὶ, σύνθετοι ἐξ ἀτόμων τυγχάνον-
τες, καὶ τὸ ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ συστάσει ἀνά-
Avro, (ex atomis constantes hoc ipso
dissolvi possent; Bened.) πραγματεύον-
ται Tas φθοροποιοὺς ἀτόμους ἀποσείεσθαι"
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ τῶν Στωϊκῶν θεὸς, ἅτε σῶμα
τυγχάνων, STE μὲν ἡγεμονικὸν ἔχει τὴν
ὅλην οὐσίαν, ὅταν ἣ ἐκπύρωσις ἢ᾽ ὁτὲ
δὲ ἐπὶ μέρους γίνεται αὐτῆς, ὅταν ἢ δια-
κόσμησις. οὐδὲ γὰρ δεδύνηνται οὗτοι
τρανῶσαι τὴν φυσικὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἔννοιαν,
ὡς πάντῃ ἀφθάρτου, καὶ ἁπλοῦ, καὶ
ἀσυνθέτου, καὶ ἂδιαιρέτου. τὸ δὲ κατα-

at a particular time to that

βεβηκὸς εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ
ὑπῆρχε, καὶ διὰ φιλανθρωπίαν ἑαυτὸν
ἐκένωσεν, ἵνα χωρηθῆναι ὑπ’ ἀνθρώπων
δυνηθῇ. οὐ δήπου δ᾽ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν | Forte
ἀγαθοῦ, ut paulo ante. GraBeE. Ita
ed. Bened.—-B. | εἰς κακὸν γέγονεν av-
τῷ μεταβολή" K.A.—p. 169,170. [ὃ 14.
p- 510. ]

4 ἐξ ἀγαθῶν εἰς κακὸν, K.T.A.: instead
of ἐξ ἀγαθῶν, Grabe conjectured ἐξ
ἀγαθοῦ, as it occurs in the context.
[This is the reading in the Benedic-
tine edition.—B. |

τ εἰ δὲ Kal σῶμα θνητὸν καὶ ψυχὴν
ἀνθρωπίνην ἀναλαβὼν 6 ἀθάνατος Θεὸς
λόγος δοκεῖ τῷ Κέλσῳ ἀλλάττεσθαι καὶ
μεταπλάττεσθαι, μανθανέτω ὅτι ὃ λόγος
τῇ οὐσίᾳ μένων λόγος οὐδὲν μὲν πάσχει
ὧν πάσχει τὸ σῶμα ἢ ἣ ψυχή" συγκατα-
βαίνων δ᾽ ἐσθ᾽ ὅτε τῷ μὴ δυναμένῳ αὐτοῦ

teaches the true Divinity and Consubstantiality of the Son. 227

which cannot look upon His brilliancy!, and the splendour .oox τι.

of His Godhead, becomes as it were flesh, being spoken of πὰ τῷ
after a bodily fashion?.” Let any intelligent person say, Οπκισεν.

whether these are the words of one who “surpassed Arius in [298]
impiety, and even originated for him his blasphemous dogma.” * 745 μαρ-
μαρυγὰς.

For surely in this passage Origen clearly teaches, that {Π|6 2 σωματι-
Word, or Son of God, is the immortal God, unchangeable κῶς λαλού-
in His substance, and, so far as He subsists in the form of ae
God, equally with the Father, of a nature every way incor-
ruptible, simple, uncompounded and indivisible. A little
after, when about to answer another objection which Celsus
had urged, akin to the former, he thus begins*: “ A reply
might be made to this by distinguishing between the nature
of the Divine Word, who is God, and the soul of Jesus.’
Here you see it is expressly said that the nature itself of the
Word is God, or in other words, that the Word is by nature
God. A passage similar to this is quoted in the Catena of
Balthasar Corderius, on John i. 1, in which the Son of God
is called by Origen, “ The Maker? of the universe, being in ° 6 δη-
essence God the Word't.” What Arian, however, would have HS:
said, that the Son is in His own very essence and substance
God? Surely this is the very pomt which the Nicene Fathers
decreed in opposition to Arius, namely, that the Son of God
is of one substance with God.

8. In his fifth book, in giving a reason why Christians
worship the Son of God, but not the sun, the moon, or the
stars, he says", “It were not, then, reasonable that those, who [299]
have been taught to ascend in nobleness of nature* above 4 μεγαλο-
all created beings®, .... who are in training to attain peels
to the bright and unfading Wisdom, or have even already vew.
attained to it, being, as it is, a radiance from Light eternal, ee τὰ
should be so far overpowered by the sensible® brightness of γήματα.
the sun and the moon and the stars, as, because of their’ %7877

τὰς μαρμαρυγὰς καὶ τὴν λαμπρότητα τῆς
θειότητος βλέπειν, οἱονεὶ σὰρξ γίνεται,
σωματικῶς λαλούμενος.--- Ὁ. 511. ]

° πρὸς τοῦτο λέγοιτ᾽ ἂν πῇ μὲν περὶ
τῆς τοῦ θείου λόγου φύσεως, ὄντος Θεοῦ"
πῇ δὲ περὶ τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆ».---». 171.
[18. p. 512.]

* ὃ δημιουργὸς τοῦ mayTds,... τυγ-
χάνων Θεὸς λόγος κατ᾽ ovoiav.—[p. 7.

ed. Antw. 1620. ]

« ov τοίνυν hv εὔλογον τοὺς διδαχθέν-
τας μεγαλοφυῶς ὑπεραναβαίνειν πάντα
τὰ δημιουργήματα... ἀσκοῦντας ἔχειν
τὴν λαμπρὰν καὶ ἀμάραντον σοφίαν, ἢ
καὶ ἀνειληφότας αὐτὴν οὖσαν ἀπαύγασμα
φωτὸς ἀϊδίου, καταπλαγῆναι τὸ αἰσθητὸν
ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης, καὶ ἄστρων φῶς ἐπὶ
τοσοῦτον, ὥστε διὰ τὸ αἰσθητὸν φῶς

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 νοητὸν.

110
[300]

228 The Son classed above created beings, the true

sensible light, to suppose themselves to be in some inferior
position, and to offer them adoration, seeing that they them-
selves have so great a light perceptible by thought’, the
Light of knowledge, and the true Light, and the Light of
the world, and the Light of men.” Here Origen expressly
says, that the Wisdom, or Son of God, is that true Light,
the Light of the world, the radiance of the eternal Light,
which Christians, neglecting the sun and the moon and tlie

other luminaries of heaven, do on this account worship, be-

cause they have been taught nobly to ascend above all created
things in their worship. From this it is most manifest, that
Origen by no means dreamt, with Arius, that the Son of God
is to be classed among created beings (τὰ δημιουργήματα). This
point he sets forth still more plainly a little afterwards, in these
words*: “ And just as those, who worship the sun, and moon,
and stars, because their light is sensible and celestial, would
not worship a spark of fire or a lamp on the earth, seeing,
as they do, the incomparable superiority of the luminaries
which they deem worthy to be worshipped, above the light
of sparks and lamps; so likewise they who have perceived
how God is Light, and have comprehended how the Son of
God is the ‘true Light, which lighteneth every man that
cometh into the world,’ and who understand also in what
sense He says, ‘I am the Light of the world,’ would not act
reasonably in worshipping what, in comparison with that
Light, which is God, is as it were a little spark of the true
Light, in the sun, the moon, or the stars. And we speak thus
concerning the sun, and moon, and stars, not as at all dishon-
ouring such vast works of God, nor, like Anaxagoras, saying
that the sun, and moon, and stars are heated masses ; but as

Σ τ
ἐκείνων νομίσαι ἑαυτοὺς κάτω που εἶναι, φῶς ἐστι, καταλαβόντες δὲ, πῶς ὅ υἱὸς

ἔχοντας τηλικοῦτον νοητὸν γνώσεως
φῶς, καὶ φῶς ἀληθινὸν, καὶ φῶς τοῦ
κόσμου, καὶ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κἀκεί-
vols προσκυνῆσαι. —P- 237. [ 10. p. 584. ]

* καὶ ὥσπερ of διὰ τὸ φῶς αἰσθητὸν
καὶ οὐράνιον εἶναι προσκυνοῦντες ἥλιον,
καὶ σελήνην, καὶ ἄστρα, οὐκ ἂν προσκυ-
νήσαιεν σπινθῆρα πυρὸς, ἢ λύχνον ἐπὶ
Vis, ὁρῶντες τὴν ἀσύγκριτον ὑπεροχὴν
τῶν νομιζομένων ἀξίων προσκυνεῖσθαι
παρὰ τὸ τῶν σπινθήρων καὶ τῶν λύχνων
φῶς" οὕτως οἱ νοήσαντες, πῶς 6 Θεὸς

τοῦ Θεοῦ φῶς ἀληθινόν ἐστιν, ὃ φωτίζει
πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσ-
μον, συνιέντες δὲ καὶ πῶς οὗτός φησι τὸ,
Ἐγώ εἶμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου" οὖις ἂν
εὐλόγως προσκυνήσαιεν τὸν οἱονεὶ βρα-
χὺν σπινθῆρα, ὡς πρὸς φῶς τὸν Θεὸν,
ἀληθινοῦ φωτὸς, ἐν ἡλίῳ, καὶ σελήνῃ,
καὶ ἄστροις. καὶ οὐκ ἀτιμάζοντές γε
τὰ τηλικαῦτα τοῦ Θεοῦ δημιουργήμα-
τα, οὐδ᾽ ᾿Αναξαγορίως μύδρον διάπυρον
λέγοντες εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, καὶ σελήνην,
καὶ ἀστέρας, τοιαῦτά φαμεν περὶ ἡλίου,

Object of worship, and ever present everywhere. 229

having some perception of the divine nature of God, which
transcends with ineffable superiority, and besides also of that
of His only-begotten Son, who transcends all 6156. What,
I ask, could be said more express than this to set forth the
true Godhead of the Son? For here Origen explicitly teaches,
that the Son, with the Father, is that true Light, which is
God, in comparison of which the very light of the sun is as a
little spark; and, further, distinctly attributes to the Son,
equally as to the Father, “a Divinity excelling with ineffable
superiority, which immeasurably surpasses all created beings!.”
Lastly, from this he again draws the conclusion, that God
the Father and His only-begotten Son alone, (in the unity,
that is to say, of the Holy Ghost, which Origen himself else-
where acknowledges,) are to be honoured with divine worship;
setting at nought, so far as adoration is concerned, the sun,
moon, and other luminaries of heaven. In the same pas-
sage, after a few words, he says, that God the Father, of His
goodness, condescends unto men, not locally (τοπικῶς), as
being infinite and not included in space, but by way of
providence (προνοητικῶς) ; whilst the Son of God is present
with His disciples at all times, and not simply during His
sojourn amongst men; and although, out of His infinite
love to the human race, He vouchsafed to dwell locally
also with us, in the human nature which He assumed, still

BOOK II.
CHAP. IX,

§ 8.

ORIGEN.

[301]
1 [see
note x. ἢ

is He altogether present every where (πανταχοῦ). Having ? omnino

laid down these positions, he proceeds to argue thus
worship of God the Father alone, and of His only-begotten
Son, in opposition to the adoration of the heavenly bodies*¥
“Seeing that He who has filled heaven and earth, and has said,
‘Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,’ is with us and
near unto us, (for I believe Him, when He says, ‘I am a God

καὶ σελήνης, καὶ ἀστέρων' ἀλλ᾽ αἱ-
σθανόμενοί γε τῆς ἀφάτῳ ὑπεροχῇ ὕπε-
pexovons θειότητος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔτι δὲ καὶ
τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ ὑπερέχοντος τὰ
λοιπά.---[11.. ὅ8δ. Bp. Bull translated
the concluding words, “ Dei et Filii
ejus unigeniti inenarrabili prestantia
precellentem divinitatem, que cetera
omnia longe post se relinquit,” “ the
Divinity of God and His only-begotten
Son excelling with ineffable superiority
which leaves all other things far be-

hind.”’ ]

Υ ἄτοπον δ᾽ ἐστὶ, rod πληρώσαντος τὸν
οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ εἰπόντος, Οὐχὶ
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ;
λέγει Κύριος, ὄντος μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ πλη-
σίον ἡμῖν τυγχάνοντος, (πιστεύω γὰρ
αὐτῷ λέγοντι, Θεὸς ἐγγίζων ἐγώ εἰμι,
καὶ οὐ Θεὸς πόρρωθεν, λέγει Κύριος,) ζη-
τεῖν εὔχεσθαι τῷ μὴ φθάνοντι ἐπὶ τὰ
σύμπαντα ἡλίῳ, ἢ σελήνῃ, ἤ τινι τῶν
aorépwy.—p. 239. [12. p. 586. ]

πανταχοῦ
for the presen-

tem,

> 8 luminum.

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[302]

1 ἀγένητον,
qui factus
non est.

2 γενητῆ".
facte.

3 οὐδὲ ποιη-
τὸν, οὐδὲ
κτιστὸν.

4 γενητὸν.
Deum.

5 sententia.
[303]

6 τῶν δη-
μιουργη-
μάτων.

111

230 The Son declared by Origen to be ἀγένητος ;

near at hand, and not a God afar off, saith the Lord,’) it is
absurd to seek to pray to the sun, which is not present to
all things, or to the moon, or to any of the stars.”

9. In the sixth book, he proves the absolutely divine and
uncreated nature of the Son in these words, which are clearer
than any light?; “For no one can worthily know Him who
is ingenerate' and the first-born of all generated’ nature, as
[can] the Father who begat Him, nor [can any one know] the
Father as [can] the living Word, [Who is] both His Wisdom
and Truth.” In these words, I say, Origen, as if he had him-
self even now been sitting in the assembly of the fathers at
Nice, distinctly pronounces, in opposition to Arius, that the
Son of God is neither made* nor created, (for the word
ἀγένητος (ingenerate) embraces both these within its com-
pass ;) moreover he distinctly teaches, that the Father and
the Son are alike reciprocally comprehensible by each other,
but absolutely incomprehensible by all creatures. Sandius,
however, in order to evade the force of this remarkable pas-
sage, pretends that the text of Origen in this place has
been interpolated and corrupted: ‘Petavius,”’ he says,
“ proves, on the Trinity, book i. chap. 3, n. 5 and 6,” (or
rather, chap. iv. n. 6 and 7,) “that the passage of Origen, in
which, in his sixth book against Celsus, he calls the Son ayévn-
τον, ‘ingenerate,’ is interpolated, on the ground that Epipha-
nius, ‘On the heresy of Origen,’ censures him for having called
the Son, in his Commentary on the [first] Psalm, ‘a generated
God‘.’” But Petavius does not there say, much less does he
prove, that this passage of Origen is interpolated; nor if the
Jesuit had so said, would his criticism have been worth much ;
for all the Greek MSS. which have been discovered any
where*, agree with the printed copies in this place; and the
tenor’ of the passage is altogether in accordance with the
uniform teaching of these books against Celsus, in which
Origen throughout expressly excepts the Son of God from
the class of created beings®, as is clear from the testimonies
which we have already adduced. And as to the objection which

οὔτε yap τὸν ἀγένητον Kal πάσης Ῥ. 287.[17. p. 643. |

γενητῆς φύσεως πρωτότοκον Kar’ ἀξίαν a [In the Benedictine edition it is
εἰδέναι τις δύναται, ὧς 6 γεννήσας αὐτὸν mentioned that the reading τὸν yevyn-
Πατὴρ, οὔτε τὸν Πατέρα, ὡς ὃ ἔμψυχος τὸν occurs in one MS, alone, the second
λόγος, καὶ σοφία αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀλήθεια.---- English one. ]

difficulties from a contrary statement of Epiphanius. 231

BOOK II.
CHAP. IX.
§ 8, 9.

ORIGEN.

Petavius brings from Epiphanius, that Origen in his Commen-
tary on the first Psalm had called the Son of God γενητὸν
Θεὸν (a generated God), Sandius could not have been ignorant,
that the great Huet had given a luminous reply to it in his
Origeniana ii. p. 43%. “Origen,” he says, “in calling the
Son γενητὸν Θεὸν, should be taken to mean, ‘one that has
a principle of His being and an origin of existence’. It is * qui prin-
common, indeed, to the Son with created beings to have ayer
principle and origin of His being; but the mode’ of emana- existendi
tion and going forth from that principle is quite different ; oe
for the Son goes forth by an eternal generation ; created

beings go forth by creation in time. .... And thus the Son

may be called ἀγένητος, one who has not His being from any

other, that is, as a work, or a thing made, or as a thing cre-

ated; and also γενητὸς, one who has His being from another,

that is, as a thing begotten and a Son. Thus Origen, who is

charged with having called the Son γενητὸς Θεὸς, . . . . yet in

his sixth book against Celsus calls the Son ἀγένητος.

A little afterwards Huet subjoins these words; ‘“ When

he (Origen) called the Son γενητὸς, he meant to say, that

He has a principle of His being: Jerome, on the contrary,
interpreted [him as meaning] that the Son was made.

For he loved thus to interpret the words of Origen in the

worse sense. In the same way Epiphanius says, that he

would approve the use of the word γενητὸς in others, but

that he condemned it in Origen.” Much more may be

read on this subject in Huet, in the same place. I return

to the books of Origen against Celsus. In this same sixth

book, when Celsus says, that God is not even comprehen-

sible by reason, Origen replies*: “I make a distinction as [804]

> Origenes, inquit, cum Filium ap-
pellat γενητὸν Θεὸν, sic accipe, qui prin-
cipium sui habet et existendi initium.
Filio quidem commune est cum creatis
rebus sui principium ac originem ha-
bere; emanandi autem ex illo principio
ac prodeundi ratio plane diversa est ;
prodit enim Filius per generationem
zternam ; prodeunt create res per
temporariam creationem. ,. . Atque ita
Filius dici potest ἀγένητος, qui ab 4110
non habet ut sit, nempe tanquam opus
seu res facta, vel tanquam res creata;
et γενητὺς, qui ab alio habet ut sit,

nempe tanquam res genita et Filius.
Sic Origenes, qui γενητὸν Θεὸν appel-
lasse Filium insimulatur. . . Filium
tamen ἀγένητον vocat lib. vi. contra
Cels.... Cum Filium dixit (Origenes)
γενητὸν, id 5101 voluit, habere ipsum sut
principium ; contra Hieronymus expo-
suit, esse factum. Nempe sic verba
Origenis in pessimum sensum tra-
here amabat. Ita Epiphanius vocis
γενητὸς usum in aliis probaturum se
dicit, in Origene damnare.—[ Lib. ii.
Quest. ii. § 23.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.
1 ἐνδιαθέτῳ.
2 προφο-

ρικῷ.
8. ἐφικτὸς.

4 ἐξιχνιά--
σαι.

5 λόγος.
[806]

232 The Son alone able to comprehend the Father.

to what is meant, and say, if [it be meant, comprehensible]
by reason (Aoyos) that is in us, whether abiding in [the
mind’,| or also put forth [in sound’,] we will also say that
God is not comprehensible* by reason (λόγος), but if [we
use the expression λόγος) having in mind, ‘the Word
(Aoyos) was in the beginning, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God,’ then we declare that by this Adyos
God is comprehensible.” As much as to say, God cannot be
comprehended except by God, nor what is infinite except by
what is infinite; from which it follows that the Word (ὁ Adyos),
imasmuch as He is able to comprehend God, is Himself God,
which also Origen, together with John the Evangelist, affirms
in express terms. Every one then must perceive how dia-
metrically opposed this declaration of Origen is to the blas-
phemy of Arius. For Arius, in a work entitled Thalia, (as
Athanasius states, in his work on the Synodss®,) said, “It is
not possible for the Son to trace out* the Father, Who He is
by Himself, for the Son Himself does not know His own sub-
stance.” A passage precisely similar follows, in the same
book [against Celsus vi.], after some interval‘; “And who
else is able to save the soul of man, and to bring it to God
who is over all, but God the Word? who being in the be-
ginning with God, on account of those who have been joined
unto the flesh, and have become the very same as flesh, became
flesh, in order that He may be comprehended by those who
were unable to behold Him, in that He was [the] Word’,
and was with God, and was God.” Lastly, Origen, soon
after, in the same passage, calls the Son, equally with the
Father, great and incomprehensible; and moreover affirms
that the Father had made the only-begotten Son a partner

even of His own greatness.

We shall quote the passage

entire in a more suitable place hereafter.

φημι, εἰ μὲν λόγῳ τῷ ἐν ἡμῖν, εἴτε ἐν-
διαθέτῳ, εἴτε καὶ προφορικῷ, καὶ ἡμεῖς
φήσομεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἐφικτὸς τῷ λόγῳ
ὃ Θεός" εἰ δὲ νοήσαντες τὸ, Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἦν
ὃ λόγος, καὶ ὃ λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν,
καὶ Θεὸς ἣν ὁ λόγος, ἀποφαινόμεθα, ὅτι
τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ ἐφικτός ἐστιν 6 Θεός.----
p- 320. [65. p. 682."

€ ἀδύνατα yap αὐτῷ (ἀδύνατον vig,
Bull) τὸν Πατέρα ἐξιχνιάσαι, ὅς ἐστιν
ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ" αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ

οὐσίαν οὐκ ofdev.—[ 15. νο]. 1. p. 729.1

f τίς 8 ἄλλος σῶσαι καὶ προσαγαγεῖν
τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεῷ δύναται τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώ-
που ψυχὴν, ἢ ὃ Θεὸς λόγος; ὕστις ἐν
ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὧν, διὰ τοὺς κολλη-
θέντας τῇ σαρκὶ καὶ γενομένους ὅπερ
σὰρξ, ἔγένετο σὰρξ, ἵνα χωρηθῇ ὑπὸ
τῶν μὴ δυναμένων αὐτὸν βλέπειν καθὸ
λόγος ἦν, καὶ πρὸς Θεὸν ἦν, καὶ Θεὸς
ἦν.--- 08. p. 684.]

Of the Father’s creating all things through the Son. 2383

10. You see, reader, how repeatedly and most openly noox 1.
Origen asserts the true Divinity of the Son, in his books “9. 10.
against Celsus, which are universally allowed to be the oO uy.
most genuine, pure, and uncorrupted of all his writings.

Who now would suspect that out of these very writings any

thing could be gathered, to shew that Origen was favourable

to the Arian blasphemy? And yet Petavius? alleges against
Origen, as savouring of Arianism, a passage out of his sixth

book against Celsus, in which he wrote, that® “the Son of

God, the Word, was the immediate Creator’, and, as it were, ' τὸν προ-
the actual framer® of the world; whilst the Father of the nee
Word was primarily* Creator, by reason of His having given 2 αὐτουρ-
commandment to His Son, the Word, to make the world.” tae
I have, however, already shewn how these words are to be
understood, in chap. v. § 6. [p. 171.] of this book, in
treating of the doctrine of Irenzeus, to which I refer the
reader. It is, indeed, so far from being an Arian tenet, that

all things were created by the Father issuing, as it were, His
mandate as the Supreme Maker, through the Son per-
forming the Father’s commandment and will, that even
catholic doctors, who lived after the council of Nice, and [306]
who were the keenest opponents of the Arian heresy, did

not hesitate to affirm it throughout their writings, as we
shewed in the same place out of Petavius himself. To the

writers there adduced, I would here add one other, Hilary ;

who, in his fourth book on the Trinity, treating of the words

in Genesis i., “ Let us make man in our image,” &c. speaks

thus, “ By that which is said, ‘ Let us make man,’ [it appears,

that] the origin is from Him, from whom the Word also

hath His beginning’; but in that ‘God made man after‘ οαρίι.
the image of God,’ He also is signified through whom the

work [of creation] is accomplished.” Then again a little

after; “In that it is said, ‘Let us make,’ both the commanding

and the execution are made’ equal.” And again, presently * exequa-

after, concerning Wisdom, or the Son of God, rejoicing with τὶ Dies
roa alt commands
& De Trinit. i. 4. 5. 678. | and He who

h τὸν μὲν προσεχῶς δημιουργὸν εἶναι i Per id quod dictum est, Faciamus executes

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, καὶ ὡσπερεὲ hominem, ex eo origo est, ex quo ccepit are made
αὐτουργὸν τοῦ κόσμου; τὸν δὲ Πατέρα et Sermo; in eo vero quod Deus ad equal.
τοῦ λόγου, τῷ προστεταχέναι τῷ vig imaginem Dei fecit, significatur etiam

ἑαυτοῦ λόγῳ ποιῆσαι τὸν κόσμον, εἶναι is, per quem consummatur operatio.. . .

πρώτως δημιουργόν.---ο. 817. (60. p. In eo quod dicitur, Muciamus, et jussio

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

qui velut
per se ipse
fabricarit.

Lat. Vers.

[307]

2 partibus.

3 ἐξ ob.

4 δι᾽ οὗ.

234 Origination attributed to the Father, Ministry to

His Father in the works of creation, he has these words:
“ Wisdom hath taught [us] the cause of Her rejoicing; She
was rejoicing because of the Father’s joy, who joyed in the
completion of the world and in the children of men. For it
is written, ‘And God saw that they were good.’ She [Wis-
dom] is glad that Her works, wrought through Herself
at His command, are well-pleasing to the Father.” These
last words of Hilary express fully the meaning of the pas-
sage in Origen at which Petavius cavils. This is further
to be observed, that Origen expressly softened down his
assertion, lest it should seem harsh to any one, by the
adverb ὡσπερεὶ, ‘as it were.’ “The Son,” his words are, “is
the immediate Creator of the world, since He was, as it were,
Himself the actual framer of it;” by which caution he meant,
without doubt, to meet the error of those who refused to
admit the undivided operation of the Father and the Son in
the same work of creation. But what is to be the end of this
bold and reckless temper of scholastic theologians in passing
their censure on the statements of the ancients? Certainly, if
he, who has said that the Father, as the Father, is the pri-
mary Creator of the world, who made the universe through
His Son, is to be accounted an Arian, scarcely will Paul
himself be pure from the stain of Arianism; seeing that
in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, viii. 6, he thus treats
of the shares”, so to say, which the Father and the Son had
respectively in the creation and renewal of all things: “To us
there is one God, the Father, of whom? are all things, and we
in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom! are all
things, and we through Him.” For it is evident that the ex-
pression ἐξ οὗ, ‘of whom,’ denotes the primary cause. Hence
also, Theodore Beza makes this annotation on the passage :
“ Whensoever the Father is distinguished from the Son, ori-
gination is attributed to the former.” All these statements,
I mean, are to be referred altogether to that subordination
of the Son, by which He is subjected to the Father “as His —
Author,” (I here again use the very words of Hilary,) of

exeequatur, et factum....Causamle- est enim, Et vidit Deus quia bona sunt.
titize suze Sapientia docuit; letatur ob Placere Patri opera sua gaudet, PER SE
letitiam Patris, in perfectione mundi Ex PRECEPTO EJUS EFFECTA.—p. 39,
et in filiis hominum letantis. Scriptum 40. [ὃ 20, 21. p. 839, 840. ]

the Son; true and false senses of this statement. ὠθῦ

which we shall treat more at length in the fourth book. Βοοκ τι,
But what is to be said of this, that in the Nicene Creed §¢ 10,11.
itself we are commanded to believe, first, “In one God Onicey.
the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and in-
visible:” secondly, “in one Lord Jesus Christ, &c., by’? per.
whom all things were made?” I suppose, that if the
Nicene Fathers had not been assembled in an cecumenical
council, which it is an act of impiety to contradict, they
would hardly have escaped the severe censure of the J esuit
Petavius, for these expressions. To sum up the whole subject
in few words; Whosoever affirms, that God the Father, as the
fountain of Godhead, and, therefore, the origin of all the
divine operations, created the world from Himself? through 3 a seipso.
His Son, and that He is in consequence the primary Maker
of all things, he surely is no way to be charged with Arian
heresy, unless indeed we be ready to fasten the charge of
Arianism on all the ancient fathers of the Church, and even
on the divinely inspired writers themselves. But this would
certainly be characteristic of Arian blasphemy, if any one
should teach, that the Father created all things through the
Son, as through an instrument extraneous to Himself, or ἃ5 [308]
through some power created before all other things, and
alien from His own essence,—an impiety which never en-
tered the mind of Origen even in a dream, as is evident from
the passages we have adduced above.

11. But there are some other statements in these very
books against Celsus, which even Huet notes as wrong, and
marks with condemnation®; the principal of which we shall ὁ atro cal-
discuss. In the first place, Huet! adduces, as very difficult of emincs
explanation, these words of Origen*: “ But if any one from transfigit.
these words shall be distracted with fear, that we are deserting
to those, who deny that the Father and the Son are two hypo-
stases‘, let him give heed to that saying, ‘And of all them that 4 δύο ὑπο-
believed the heart and the soul was one,’ in order that he may στάσεις.
understand those words, ‘I and My Father are one.’ ”’ And
again', “We therefore worship the Father of the Truth, and

j Origeniana ii. 32. [Quest. 2. 3.] στευσάντων ἡ καρδία καὶ ἣ ψυχὴ μία,

k εἰ δέτις ἐκ τούτων περισπασθήσεται, ἵνα θεωρήσῃ τὺ, ἐγὼ καὶ 6 πατὴρ ἕν
μή πη αὐτομολοῦμεν πρὸς τοὺς ἀναιροῦν-. ἐσμεν.---Τ 10. ν111, contr. Cels., p. 386.
τας δύο εἶναι ὑποστάσεις TaTépakalvibvy, [12. p. 750. |

J. Ἅ

τ ἡ “A ‘4 “
᾿«ἐπιστησάτω τῷ, Ἦν δὲ πάντων τῶν πι- 1 θρησκεύομεν οὖν τὸν πατέρα Τῆς

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON,
1 δύο τῇ
ὑποστάσει
πράγματα.
2 duo.

[309]

4 usiz et
nature.

> alioqui.

236 Different senses of the word ὑπόστασις in early times;

the Son [who is] the Truth, being two things in hypostasis’,
but One in unanimity, and agreement, and identity of will.”
Upon these passages the learned writer observes thus ape ἘΠῸ
says that ‘the Father and the Son are two? in hypostasis,
one in agreement and unanimity.” But ὑπόστασις in early
times was ordinarily used for οὐσία (substance) by heathen
and Christian writers. Jerome, in his 57th Epistle to Damasus
says, ‘The whole school of secular literature knoweth of no
other sense of ὑπόστασις than that of οὐσίαι. In this sense
the Nicene fathers understood it, in this sense did those of
Sardica; in this sense also is it probable that Origen under-
stood it.” I reply first: The words ὑπόστασις and οὐσία
were variously employed in early times, at least by Christians.
I mean that ὑπόστασις was sometimes taken by them for
what we call οὐσία (substance), and, vice versa, the word
οὐσία for that which we call ὑπόστασις (person): sometimes
ὑπόστασις was used by the ancients, even by those who pre-
ceded the council of Nice, for that which we at this day
designate person or subsistence. That the word ὑποστάσις
is occasionally* used by the ancients to signify that which
we call οὐσία is not only confessed but contended for by
Huet; although (candidly to confess the truth) I do not
remember that I ever found the word thus used by any
catholic writer, in treating of the most Holy Trinity, before
the Nicene council, or for some time after it. It is however
most certain that the word οὐσία was sometimes taken by
these very writers, for what we call ὑπόστασις. Thus Pierius,
martyr and presbyter, the teacher of the martyr Pamphilus,
though his views concerning the Father and the Son were
catholic, yet made the statement, (as is related by Photius™,)
that the Father and the Son are two οὐσίαι and φύσεις,
meaning by the words ousia and nature*, hypostasis; as is
evident, Photius likewise says, from what precedes and
follows. We have observed above", that the word φύσις
was used by Clement of Alexandria in this sense, though,
like the term οὐσία, it has in other cases® a wider appli-

ἀληθείας, καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὄττα [Epist. xv. vol. i. p. 39. ]

δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα, ἐν δὲ τῇ ™ Biblioth. Cod. 119. [See Routh.
ὁμονοίᾳ, καὶ τῇ συμφωνίᾳ καὶ τῇ ταντό. Relig. Sacr., vol. iii. p. 212.—B.; see
τητι τοῦ BovAnuaTos.—[p. 751. ] the whole passage quoted below, 13.

' Tota secularium literarum’ schola Fai
nihil aliud ὑπόστασιν nisi οὐσίαν novit. " (ch, vi. § 6. p. 118.1

used for a thing subsisting per se, or a Person. 287

cation. And that this word was taken in the same sense ΒΟΟΚ 1,
by Gregory Nyssen, Epiphanius, and even by Athana- “"?{))~

sius himself, is shewn by Petavius, de Trin. iv. 1. n. 2, 3. Opigan,
Lastly, (which bears more nearly on our subject,) it is cer-

tain from many instances that the word ὑπόστασις was at

times used by the primitive doctors of the Church, even those

who preceded the council of Nice, to signify a subsistence’, ' subsisten-
or a single thing subsisting per se, which in things endued “T310]
with intelligence is the same as person. Tertullian, in his

treatise against Praxeas, wishing to assert the personal sub-
sistence” of the Son in opposition to those who denied that subsisten-
He was a distinct Person from the Father, affirms of the ““”
Son of God, that He is “a substance” and “a substantive

thing.” Thus, in the seventh chapter®: “Do you then,

(you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance’, con- 3 aliquam
structed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom ‘4? tee
Certainly Ido. For you are unwilling to hold Him to be Spiritu
substantive in reality’, by having a substance of His own‘, aH ee
so as that He may be regarded as a thing and a person’, δ substan-
and so, being constituted second to God [the Father], be aay Fe
able to make two’, Father and Son, God and the Word. © per sub-
For, you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound see!
of the mouth, or (as grammarians teach) air struck against?, tem.
intelligible on being heard, but, for the rest, a sort of void ve
and empty’® and incorporeal thing? 1, on the contrary, 8 qyos,
contend, that nothmg empty and void could have come ὃ offensus.
forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that οἱ ΕΝ
which is empty and void; nor could that be devoid of sub-

stance, which has proceeded from so great a substance,” &c.

Again, in the 26th chapter, treating of the distinction be-

tween the Father and the Son, he speaks to this effect;

{But if He be] God of God, as a substantive thing, [He] will

° Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substan-
tiam esse Sermonem, Spiritu et sophiz
traditione constructam? plane. Non
vis enim eum substantivum habere in
re, per substantiz proprietatem, ut res
et persona quedam videri possit, et ita
capiat secundus a Deo constitutus duos
efficere, Patrem et Filium, Deum et
Sermonem. Quid est enim, dices, ser-
mo, nisi vox et sonus oris, et (sicut
grammatici tradunt) aer offensus, intel-

ligibis auditu, ceterum vacuum nescio
quid, et inane, et incorporale? At ego
nihil dico de Deo inane et vacuum pro-
dire potuisse, ut non de inani et vacuo
prolatum; nec carere substantia, quod
de tanta substantia processit, &c....
[ Quod si] Deus Dei tanquam substan-
tiva res, non erit ipse Deus; sed hacte-
nus Deus, quia ex ipsius Dei substantia,
qua et substantiva res est, ὅζο.--- Ὁ. 503,
504. |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 alioqui,

[311]

2 ἐνυπό-
στατον.

3 εἰς τρεῖς
μεμερισ-
μένας ὕπο-
στάσεις.

298 Instances of ὑπόστασις used in the sense of Person,
* -

not be God [the Father] Himself; but thus far God, be-
cause [He is] of the substance of God Himself, whereby also
He is a substantive thing.” He goes on to say, that wisdom
and providence are not “substantive things” or “substances,”
that is, hypostases (ὑποστάσει5). For this form of expression
Tertullian, the known imitator of the Greeks, seems alto-
gether to have derived from the Greek Fathers, translating
the Greek word ὑπόστασις by the Latin substantia and res
substantiva; though the Latins had, besides*, a word of their
own, even in the time of Tertullian, for expressing a sub-
sistence in the divine essence, namely, the word persona,
which is sometimes used by Tertullian himself in the same
treatise. Hippolytus, who was next to Tertullian in date,
and earlier than Origen, in a passage which has been already
quoted? by us, says that the flesh or human nature in Christ_
does not subsist by itself, but has its subsistence (τὴν ὑπό-
στασιν)ὴ in the Word, that is to say, subsists in the Word.
Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, in his answer
to the fourth question of Paul of Samosata, speaks thus of
the three persons of the Holy Trinity’; “The two hypo-
stases (that is, of the Father and of the Son) are insepa-
rable", and also the insubsisting? Spirit of the Father,
which was in the Son.” And it seems to me that by this—
passage of Dionysius of Alexandria the opinion of his name-
sake and contemporary, Dionysius of Rome, is by all means
to be explained; for the latter in his Epistle against the
Sabellians, [preserved] in Athanasius‘, after refuting them,
proceeds to confute those who separated the Godhead “into
three divided hypostases*.” Petavius, indeed, on the (Trinity,
iv. 1. 5) would have it that the word ὑπόστασις in this pas-
sage was used in a more general signification for οὐσία : led
to this, I suppose, by the consideration, that Dionysius
professes his dissent from those, who divided the Godhead
into three hypostases. But this is nothing to the point:
for Dionysius does not blame those against whom he argues

P See 8. § 5. of this book [p. 213, 8 εἰς τρεῖς μεμερισμένας ὑποστάσεις.
where I observed that Hippolytus wrote Athanasius de Syn. Nic. Decretis, p,
σύστασις, not drédcracis.—B. | 275. edit. Paris. 1627. [vol. i. p. 231.7

4 ai δύο ὑποστάσεις ἀχώριστοι, καὶ τὸ ~=and in Routh’s Rel. Sacr., vol. 111, p,
ἐνυπόστατον τοῦ πατρὸς πνεῦμα, ὅ ἣν ἐν 179, &c.; see the passage quoted be-
τῷ vig.—[p. 230. | low, cap. xi, ὃ 1.]

* See Theodoret, E. H. 1, 4.

by Hippolytus, and the Dionysti of Rome and Alexandria. 289
simply for making three hypostases in the Godhead, but Βοοκ 11.’

on this account only, that they thought that those three rein
hypostases were divided (mewepicpévas). And afterwards Onicey.
in the same passage he expresses this more fully, when he [912]
says again, “that the same heretics divided the Godhead‘ into

three hypostases, foreign to, and altogether separate from,

each other.” Very ill, therefore, has Petavius translated

the Greek of Dionysius into Latin, as distinctas hypostases,
(distinct. hypostases). Against these heretics, Dionysius

in the next place proceeds to lay down, that® “the divine

Word is made one! with the God of the universe, and that ! ἡνῶσθαι.
the Holy Ghost reposes’ in God and hath His dwelling in 3 ἐμφιλο-
Him ;” that is to say, that the Three Divine Persons are in- **?*™
timately and mutually conjoined with Each Other by an 114
inexplicable kind of circumincession®, and that They reci- 3 inexpli-
procally, as it were, enter into Each Other, so that One “bem

: ; _ quandam
cannot in any wise be separated from Another; but on this περιχώρη-

pomt we shall say more hereafter. The reader may see ea
this passage from Dionysius quoted entire in chap. xi. ὃ 1 * 14]
of this book. When, therefore, Dionysius of Rome denies

that there are in the Godhead three divided and separate
hypostases, he clearly meant the same as the other Diony-

sius, when he affirms that the Father and the Son are two
hypostases by no means separate [from each other], and that

the Holy Ghost also is an hypostasis subsisting in the Son
Himself, and, consequently, not disjoined either from the

Son or from the Father. It is plain that both alike confessed

a distinction of hypostases in the Godhead ; both alike denied

a division or separation of hypostases. There is, however,
another passage of Dionysius of Alexandria, which throws

the clearest light on this subject; it is quoted by Basil the

Great, in his treatise concerning the Holy Spirit, chap. 29”,

where he introduces Dionysius arguing to this effect, in his
Apology against the Sabellians, near the middle, “If, because [313]
hypostases are Three, they say that they are divided, Three

᾿ς t els τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ξένας, ἀλλήλων Ὗ εἰ τῷ τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις,
παντάπασι κεχωρισμένας, [ διαιροῦντας μεμερισμένας εἶναι λέγουσι, τρεῖς εἶσι,
τὴν ἁγίαν μονάδα. Ibid. κἂν μὴ θέλωσιν, ἢ τὴν θείαν τριάδα

U ἡνῶσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκη τῷ θεῷ τῶν παντελῶς avedkérwoayv.—Opera Basilii,
ὅλων τὸν θεῖον λόγον᾽ ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν δὲ tom. ii. p. 858. edit. Paris. 1637.
τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι δὲ τὸ ἅγιον [Vol. 111. p. 61. Op. Dionys., p. 98,
mvevua.—Lbid, 99.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 in divinis.,

2 ἐπιστή-
μην ἀνυπό-
στατον.

83. ἐνέργειαν
ζῶσαν καὶ
ἐνυπόστα-
TOV.

4 ὑπόστα-
σιν.

5. ἰδιότρο-
πον ὑπό-
στασιν.

[314]

6 or “ es-
sence.”’

> c /

ἐξ ἑτέρας
ὑποστά-
σεως ἢ
οὐσίας.

240 Ὑπόστασις used for Person, in the Nicene Anathema;

there are, (though they would not have it so,) or else let
them entirely do away with the divine Trinity.” From
these words it is clearly gathered, that amongst the catholics
of the age of Dionysius it was a fixed and settled point, that
there are three hypostases in the Godhead'; and that the
Sabellians thought that it followed from that position, that
there were three divided hypostases, as being unable to
conceive of three distinct Persons subsisting in the divine
essence without division. This consequence, however, both
the Dionysii entirely reject in the passages which have
been adduced. To proceed. The six bishops, contempora-
ries of the two Dionysii, who wrote an epistle* to Paul of
Samosata, from the council of Antioch, deny in it, in op-
position to Paul and Sabellius, that the Son of God is “the
unsubsisting? knowledge” of the Father; and in the same
place they call the Son of God Himself “the living and insub-
sisting energy®” of God the Father. Who then can doubt,
that these bishops meant that the Son also was a distinct
hypostasis* from the Father? Especially since Dionysius of
Alexandria, in the same age, used the terms τὴν ὑπόστασιν and
τὸ ἐνυπόστατον as having the same meaning, as is evident
from the passage above quoted. Alexander, bishop of Alex-
andria, in an epistle to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople,
written before the council of Nice’, seems to have taken the
word in the same sense, by writing to this effect on the words
of the Evangelist, John i. 1; “For he set forth His (the
Son’s) peculiar hypostasis®, when he said, ‘In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God.” And, if trust
is to be placed in the great Basil rather than in the modern
Jesuit, Petavius, the Nicene fathers understood the word
in the same sense, that is, according to the ancient use of it
in the Church, when in their creed they anathematized those,
who said that the Son was of “another hypostasis or sub-
stance*” than the Father. For Basil, in his 78th epistle, stat-
ing how Marcellus of Ancyra and some other abettors of the ©

x Bibl. Patr., tom. xi. [ Routh. Rel.
Sacr., vol. ii. p.469.—B. [ The passage is
this: δι’ οὗ 6 πατὴρ πάντα πεποίηκεν,

> ε ee “ 5Φ) ε »» I
οὐχ ws δι’ ὀργάνου, οὐδ᾽ ὡς δι’ ἐπιστήμης
ἀνυποστάτου, γεννήσαντος μὲν τοῦ πα-
τρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ὡς ζῶσαν ἐνέργειαν, καὶ

ἐνυπόστατον, ἐνεργοῦντα τὰ πάντα ἐν
πᾶσιν.

Υ τὴν γὰρ ἰδιότροπον αὐτοῦ ὑπόστασιν
ἐδήλωσεν, εἰπὼν, Ἔν ἀρχῇ ἣν 6 λόγος,
καὶ ὃ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, κ.λ.--- [ἢ
Theodoret. E. H. i, 4. [p. 12. ]

there distinguished from Substance ; against Petavius. 241

Sabellian heresy, had sought support from these words of 800k 1.
the Nicene council, denies that the words οὐσία and ὑπό- ΞΕ μεν
στασις were used by the fathers as parallel! and as signifying Opicen.

the same. He proves this by the following argument? ; “ For ἡ ἐκ παραλ-

λήλου.

if the words had expressed one and the same idea, what
need was there of both? but it is evident that, inasmuch as
there were some who denied that [the Son] is of the οὐσία
of the Father, and others who said, not only that He was not
of the οὐσία of the Father, but that He was of some other
ὑπόστασις, they thus renounced both opinions as alien from

- the mind of the Church.” I should wish here, however, by
the way, to examine briefly the chief arguments, by which
Petavius* has endeavoured to overthrow this view of the
great Basil; “ First,” he says, “it is quite certain, that the

_ fathers added this clause of the Creed in opposition to the
dogma of Arius alone.” I might have asked Petavius,
whence it is so certain? Surely it is most certain, that
the [Nicene] fathers in their Creed, although they intended
primarily to impugn the dogma of Arius, do yet in some
places touch on the heresies of others. For instance, when
they define that all things were made by the Son, they do [916]
not aim a blow at the Arians, who never denied this, but at
the Ebionites, Artemonites, Samosatenes, and other heretics
of the same stamp. But suppose we allow that that clause
was added by the Fathers in opposition to the dogma of the
Arians alone, (which I think to be most true,) what follows?
“The Arians,” says Petavius, “did not teach that the Son
derived His origin from another person? than that of the ? ab alia
Father.” Neither, I answer, did any one of the Arians teach °°"
that the Son derived His origin of* another substance, if we 8 ex alia
would speak strictly and exactly. But, as all the Arians SuPstanta.
denied that the Son was born of* the substance of the‘ natum e,
Father, so some denied, that He was in any way born of? ’™4tum ex.
the Father Himself, or of the hypostasis of the Father. That
is, there were two main classes of Arian fanatics; the one
acknowledged, indeed, that the Son was born® in a manner ὁ natum.

Ζ ei yap μίαν Kal Thy αὐτὴν ἐδήλουν ἄλλης τινὸς ὑποστάσεως, οὕτως ἀμφότερα
ἔννοιαν ai φωναὶ, τίς χρεία ἦν ἑκατέρων; ὡς ἀλλότρια τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ φρονή-
ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι, ds τῶν μὲν ἀρνουμένων ματος amnydpevoav.—[ Ep. cxxv. 1. vol.
) τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας εἶναι τοῦ πατρὸς, τῶν 111. p. 215. |
| δὲ λεγόντων, οὔτε ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ a De Trin. iv. 1. 6.

BULL. R

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 progeni-

tum.

2 virtutem
aliquam.

3 ἀπόρροιαν.

4 ex non
existenti-
bus.

5 genite a.
[316 |

6 genuisse
eX sese.

7 caput.

8 ἐκ τῆς
οὐσίας.
gos ae

ἐκ τῆς
ὁμοιότητος
τοῦ Πατρὸς.
10 ἐνεργείᾳ
γεννητικῇ.
11 actiones.
12 κτιστι-
κὴν.
13 ἐξ ἄλλης
ὑποστά-
σεως ἢ
οὐσίας.
14 natum.

16 natum.

242 ‘Hypostasis’ inserted against the Arians ; ‘Substance’ against —

peculiar [to Himself] of the Hypostasis of the Father Itself,—
not, as the other creatures, made out of nothing,—but yet
denied that the Son was begotten! of the substance of the
Father, regarding Him only as a kind of power’ of the
Father, not an effluence? of the Father’s substance ; the other
class, in order to avoid admitting that the Son was begotten
in a manner peculiar [to Himself] of the Father Himself,
affirmed in round terms, that He, as the other creatures,
was made simply out of nothing’. The former class were
called Semiarians, and their opinion is best explained in
few words by Petavius himself in another place, out of their
own Confession, in Epiphanius, Heres. Ixxiii. n. 2. &c., in
the following terms; “In this,” he says, “they bring for-
ward many things very like the Catholic doctrine; especially
in that they deny that the Son is a creature, on the ground
that He is a true Son, and produced by a true generation,
and not by that figurative one, whereby created beings are
said to be begotten by® God; on the contrary, that [the
Father] is truly a Father, whom they confess also to have
begotten the Son, of Himself*, and that before all thought,
and all reckonings, and times, and ages. These expressions
are plausible in appearance, and approach very near to the
Catholic Confession. But there is yet that wanting in them,
wherein consists the strength and chief point’ of the faith,
in that they do not acknowledge that the Son was begotten
by the Father of His substance®, but of the likeness of the
Father’, namely, by His generative energy’; since they
affirm that the Father has various modes of acting!', one
creative!?, another generative, whereby He produces the Son.
Then they lay it down, that there is not the same essence
in Both, but two mutually like each other.” The Nicene
fathers, therefore, strike a blow at both these parties of the
Arians, in the words, “ of another hypostasis or substance? ;””
that is to say, both at those who denied that the Son was
in any wise born’* of the Person of the Father, or of the
Father Himself, and affirmed that He was made out of
nothing; as also at those who, while they confessed that the
Son was born in a manner peculiar [to Himself] of the
Father Himself, did yet deny altogether that He was be-
b De Trin, i. 10. 7.

the Semiarians. Clauses of Anathema not equivalent. 243

gotten of the substance of the Father, and that He was in Βουκ nm.
consequence of one substance! with the Father. To put ratios
the question beyond all controversy, the Confession of the Onricens
Arians, which was presented to the Emperor Constans, by ᾿ ὁμοούσιον.
the hands of Maris, Theodorus, and Mark, and is recited

by Athanasius, in his work on the Synods of Ariminum

and Seleucia, concludes with these words¢; “Those, how-

ever, who say that the Son is out of what existed not,

or of another hypostasis, and not of God, and that there

ever was a time, when He was not, the Catholic Church
regards as aliens.’ The same thing is evident from the [317]
Confession sent into Italy, by the hands? of Eudoxius, Mar-? per.
tyrius, and others, and from the Sirmian Confession, which

follow in the same place in Athanasius. Now you see here,

that those Arians denied that the Son was created, or made,

out of nothing, and acknowledged that the Son was born ὁ ?natum.
ἐξ ὑποστάσεως, of the hypostasis of God the Father, in other

words, of* God Himself; whilst it is yet most certain that‘ ex.
these same heretics never acknowledged, and never would

have acknowledged that the Son was begotten ἐξ οὐσίας,

of the substance of the Father. Rightly, therefore, and
learnedly did Basil distinguish between the words ὑπόστασις

and οὐσία, in the Nicene Creed; and quite inconsiderately

does the Jesuit Petavius carp at that observation of the great

doctor. And as to the argument adduced by Basil—that the

Nicene fathers would not have employed .those words to-

gether in so short a creed, had the meaning of both been

the same—Petavius’s reply to it is easily refuted. “If,”

he says, “there were force in that reasoning of Basil, neither

would this be free from objection, that in the same creed,

after the fathers had pronounced an anathema against such

as held, that ‘there was a time when the Son was not,’ they
immediately add what has the same meaning, ‘and that be-

fore He was begotten He was not;’ and again, ‘that He was

made out of what existed not*.’” But I deny that the words, * nullis
“He was not before He was begotten,” have entirely the eeege
same signification as the preceding clause, “there was a time

© τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τὸν αἰὼν), Bre οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλοτρίους οἶδεν ἡ
υἱὸν, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως, καὶ μὴ ἐς καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.---ἴοπι. i. p. 895.
τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ (ὅτι) ἦν χρόνος ποτὲ (Ἐ [ὃ 25. vol. 1. p. 738.]

R 2

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

2 punctum.
2 latet.

[318]

/
3 rpiada
ὑποστά-
σεων.

4 ὑποστά-
σεις, ἤτοι
πρόσωπα.

116

5 ἐνυπόστα-
τον.

ὁ ἐνυπάρ-
χοντα.

944. Hypostasis used for Person in History of Nicene Council ;

when He was not.” For the former sentence attributes, in-
definitely, a begining to the existence of the Son; the se-
cond determines the very point’, so to speak, of that be-
ginning. There is indeed a sense latent’ in the latter words,
which has escaped the acuteness even of Petavius; what that
is, however, we shall explain at large, in a more suitable
place, hereafter*. Neither is it true, that in the following
words, “that He was made out of what existed not,” there is
again a mere repetition. For among the crowd of Arians,
there were some (as Petavius himself has observed in another
place) whom Theodoret (lib. iv. de Her.) says were after-
wards called Psathyriani, who, as they said that the Father
had ever existed, so [they said] that the Son had been ever
created by Him; for that with God to beget is nothing else
than to create. They did not assert, that there was’a time
when the Son was not; yet they maintained that the Son
was made out of what existed not. Further also, Gelasius of
Cyzicus, in his Acts of the Council of Nice, (part 1. c. 12,)
represents Hosius as making reply, by the command and de-
cree of the whole council, and declaring a Trinity of hypo-
stases’; which the fathers afterwards make profession of
through Leontius the bishop, (ibid., c. 21.) Accordingly
Anastasius Sinaita stated that the Nicene fathers had de-
fined, that® “there are three Hypostases, or Persons‘, in
the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.” The authority of
these writers, however, Petavius set at nought, relying,
forsooth, on those arguments by which he groundlessly
boasts that he has refuted the opinion of Basil. Yet cer-
tainly Eusebius of Cesarea, (who was present at the coun-
cil of Nice, and than whom no one knew better the ancient
use of the word ὑπόστασις in the Church,) in his Letter
to Eustathius of Antioch, acknowledged, (according to So-
crates‘',) “that the Son of God is substantive’ and subsist-
ing®, and that there is one God in three hypostases.” And
in this sense (I conceive) the word ὑπόστασις would have

4 Book iii. 9. 2, δῦ,

© τρεῖς εἶναι ὑποστάσεις, ἤτοι πρό-
σωπα, ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοουσίου τριά-
dos‘ Anastasius in Ὀδηγ. 6.21. [c. 20.
ed. Ingolstadt, 1606. Anastasius Si-
naita was bishop of Antioch in the
sixth century. This work, however, is

considered by Cave to have been made
up out of the works of Anastasius and
other writers.—B. |

‘ ἐνυπόστατόν τε καὶ ἐνυπάρχοντα
τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἕνα τε Θεὸν ἐν
τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν εἶναι [ὁμολογοῦν-
τες ].---Εἰ. H. i. 28.

sometimes used for Substance; as expressed at Sardica. 245

continued to be used without offence, had not the Arians ΒΟΟΚ 1.
abused it to propagate their own heresy, taking it, in a “"g4))
more general signification, for nature and substance, and Orgicen.
teaching that the Father and the Son are two hypostases, [919]
that is [two] diverse natures or substances, mutually differing

from each other. For it was against them that the catholic

doctors affirmed in the council of Sardica, that there is one
hypostasis! of the Father and of the Son. The words of the ' μίαν ὑπό-
fathers of Sardica, on this subject, in their Synodical Letter, ee
preserved by Theodoret, are worthy to be transcribed here? :

“The party of tle heretics obstinately maintains, that the
hypostases of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Ghost are different?, and are separate from each other ; we, 3 διαφόρους.
however, have received and been taught and hold this, the

catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession,

that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics themselves

call substance, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the ὃ οὐσίαν.
Holy Ghost.” Here these Fathers expressly inform us, that

they called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost one
hypostasis4, only in that sense in which the heretics took the “ μίαν ὑπό-
word hypostasis as equivalent to substance’; intimating, as 77°7”"
is plain, that they were not ignorant of another sense of

the word, received among the ancient catholic doctors of the

Church, by whom, that is, it was used to signify person or
subsistence,—and that they would willingly have embraced [320]
it, and, in accordance with that acceptation of the word,

would have acknowledged that there are three persons, or
subsistences®, in the Godhead. From this cause, however, it °subsisten-
is certain that there arose that sad division’, which after- ee
wards disturbed the Churches of the East, and of the West dium.
also, touching one or three hypostases in the Godhead? ; ὃ divinis.
whilst some, that is, chose to conform to the language of

the fathers of the council of Sardica, and others retained

the ancient use and meaning of the word. And this

5:
ουσια.

8. Or rather in an appendix (ο {πὸ πνεύματος, καὶ εἶναι κεχωρισμένας" ἡμεῖς
Letter, which was added by some of δὲ ταύτην παρειλήφαμεν καὶ δεδιδάγ-
them, under protest from the rest of μεθα, καὶ ταύτην ἔχομεν τὴν καθολικὴν
the bishops. See Athanasius, Epist. καὶ ἀποστολικὴν παράδοσιν καὶ πίστιν
Synod. ad Antiochenses, p. 576. 6. Καὶ ὁμολογίαν, μίαν εἶναι ὑπόστασιν, ἣν
Paris. [§ 5. vol. i. p. 772. ] αὐτοὶ of αἱρετικοὶ οὐσίαν προσαγορεύ-

h χὸ τῶν αἱρετικῶν σύστημα φιλο- ουσι, τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ
veer, διαφόρους εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις wylov πνεύματο-.---Τὰ. H. ii. 8. [p. 81.}
τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 ἀπλού-
στερον.

2 ὅμοιον τῷ
Πατρὶ.

3 ἐξ οὐσίας.

4 ἐξ ὗπο-
στάσεως.

[321]

246 Use of Hypostasis for Person by Origen.

use the first council of Constantinople at length ratified
by its authority, in its Synodical Letter, found in the
Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, v. 9. The Arians,
however, at length determined to throw out from their
creeds the word ὑπόστασις as well as οὐσία. For in the
Confession which was drawn up at Constantinople by
Acacius, Eudoxius, and others, who, on being condemned
by the decree of the council of Seleucia, betook themselves
to the emperor, towards the end they define to this effect*:
* But as for the word substance (οὐσία), which was set down
by the fathers in simplicity’, but being*unknown to the
people caused offence, inasmuch as the Scriptures do not
contain it, it has seemed good to us that it be taken away.
. .. For not even ought the word hypostasis (é7ocTacts)
to be used touching the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost; but we say that the Son is like unto the Father’,
&e.” By this decree those Arians completely rescinded
their former Confessions, in which they had declared that
the Son was begotten, though not of the substance*® yet
nevertheless, of the hypostasis* of God the Father.

Secondly, after premising this very lengthy, yet not use-
less, general dissertation, touching the ancient use in the
Church of the terms οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, I now, at last,
return to Origen. It is certain, that the word ὑπόστασις 15
throughout employed by Origen to signify either subsistence,
or a single and individual thing subsisting per se, which in
beings endued with understanding is the same as what we
now call person. Nay I do not remember, that I have any-
where found the word taken by him in any other sense, when
he is speaking of the Trinity; whence a great man, Hugo
Grotius, (in his Notes on Johni. 2, and on the Epistle to the
Hebrews 1. 8,) affirms, that Origen was the first to transfer
the term in this sense from the Platonists to the use of the
Church—which however I do not believe to be true. As re-
gards the passage, which is noted by Huet, nothing is more —
evident than that Origen there affirms that the Father and

K τὸ δὲ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας, ὅπερ ἁπλού- ὀφείλει ὑπόστασις περὶ πατρὸς, καὶ υἱοῦ,
στερον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων ἐτέθη, ἀγνοού- καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος ὀνομάζεσθαι. ὅμοιον
μενον δὲ τοῖς λαοῖς, σκάνδαλον ἔφερε, δὲ λέγομεν τῷ πατρὶ τὸν vidv.—Atha-
διότι μηδὲ αἱ γραφαὶ τοῦτο περιέχουσιν, nasius de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc.,
ἤρεσε περιαιρεθῆναι. ... καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ tom. i. p. 900. [§ 80. vol. i. p. 747.}

Huet’s objections further answered. 247

the Son are two in hypostasis', in the same sense in which ΒΟΟΚ τι.
the heretics, whom he is glancing at in that place, denied it? ve rear
And who were they? beyond all doubt the Noetians and “Guineas
others, who taught that God was unipersonal’, and acknow- ' τῇ ὑπο-
ledged only one hypostasis, i.e. one person, in the Godhead. " ΠῚ ᾿
And as to that further objection of Huet, that Origen, when ΠΣ 5
he gaid that the Father and the Son are one in unanimity 117
and agreement, apparently rejected all other unity, it 18 cer-
tainly of little weight. For he who in a given passage
mentions only a unity of agreement between the Father and
the Son, is not straightway to be regarded as having been
entirely ignorant of any other unity. Then again, Origen
in a thousand other passages has acknowledged the Father
and the Son to be of one substance’, if you look to the ὃ ὁμοουσί-
thing which is signified by the expression; full often, too, τῶ
has he in express terms confessed the consubstantiality 4, ἡ τὸ ὁμοού-
according to the quotations of Pamphilus the martyr and the”
testimony of Ruffinus. The same I shall clearly shew in the
proper place concerning Novatian, or whoever is the author
of the treatise on the Trinity, amongst the works of Tertul-
lian, whom Huet notes on account of a similar expression.
Moreover, Origen, in his first tome on John, says of the [922]
Valentinians and other heretics of the same kind*!: “ΠΟΥ Roe
use that passage, ‘My heart hath poured forth a good Word,’ [Ps.xlv.1.]
supposing, that the Son of God is an emanation of the Father,
as it were in syllables; and accordingly, if we strictly enquire
of them, they do not allow an hypostasis to Him, neither do
they clearly® declare His substance.” Here Huet allows, that ὁ σαφηνί-
ὑπόστασις is indeed distinguished from οὐσία; he says how- Sei
ever that it does not mean person but subsistence. But 1 ask,
what difference is made by the ancients, when they are
speaking of the Trinity, between person and subsistence ?
As Petavius™ has rightly observed, they certainly took “ sub-
sistence for a conerete noun, as it is called, and confounded it
with person.” Supposing then, next, that in that passage of Ori-
gen, to which Huet objects, the word ὑπόστασις be, accord-
ingly, taken for subsistenceyso that the Father and the Son

1 χρῶνται τῷ, ᾿Εξηρεύξατο ἣ καρδία ὑπόστασιν αὐτῷ, εἰ ἀκριβῶς αὐτῶν πυν-
μου λόγον ἀγαθὸν, οἰόμενοι προφορὰν θανοίμεθα, οὐ διδόασιν, οὐδὲ οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ

πατρικὴν, οἱονεὶ ἐν συλλαβαῖς κειμένην σαφηνίζουσιν.---ἰ 23. vol. iv. p. 25. ]
εἶναι Tov υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο m Petav. de Trin. iv. 3. 6.

ON THE
‘ CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON,
ee

1 οὐσίαν.

2 ἐτέραν
παρὰ.

[828]

3 οὐσίαν.

4 οὐσίας.

5 τὸ αὐτὸ
εἶναι τῷ
Πατρὶ.

6 persona
differre.

7 τρεῖς ὗπο-
στάσεις.
5. fere con-
stanter.

248 Οὐσία also used occasionally for Person.

be declared to be two in subsistence ; can any catholic find
fault with this? nay, is not he a heretic rather who denies
it? But Huet assaults him more keenly: “Why do we
attempt,” says he, “to set up a defence for Origen, when
he himself betrays his own cause, in his second tome on
John, where, impugning a certain person” as ‘ teaching, that
there subsists not any peculiar substance! of the Holy Ghost
other* than the Father and the Son,’ he shortly after adds,
“we however, who are persuaded, that there are three hypo-
stases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,’ &e. By
these words he shews, that he dissents from one who asserts
that there is only one substance® in the Trinity, and that he
admits [that there are] three hypostases, that is three sub-
stances. For if the word ὑποστάσεις here signified ἰδιότητες,
i.e. persons, he would fail altogether to express his dissent
from him who thought that the Trinity was of one sub-
stance’.” But, I maintain, nothing else can be collected
from this passage, than that the adversary against whom
Origen is there arguing, understood by the word οὐσία
hypostasis or person, which we have already proved that
many others, even catholics, did. For it is plain that the
opponent, against whom Origen is there arguing, was,
in reality, of the school of Noetus, who maintained that
the Holy Ghost differs in no respect at all from the Father
and the Son, but “is the same thing’ as the Father,”
as Origen himself states in the same passage. In reply
to him, Origen in this place shews, that in Matt. xii. 32,
there is, without any controversy, a distinction set forth
between the Holy Ghost and the Son; whence he concludes,
that the Holy Ghost, as also the Son, differs in person® from
the Father; and then adds, that both he himself and other
catholics believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
are three ὑπόστασεις, three subsistences’. Indeed the word
ὑπόστασις almost uniformly’ in Origen signifies either sub-
sistence in the abstract, or a single and individual thing sub-
sisting by itself, which, as I have repeatedly said; is equivalent,
in the case of those beings which are endowed with life and

2
n... δογματίζων, μηδὲ οὐσίαν “τινὰ μενοι τυγχάνειν, τὸν πατέρα, καὶ τὸν
΄“ ε cal ° .
ἰδίαν ὑφεστάναι τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, υἱὸν, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, K.A—[6.
ἑτέραν παρὰ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν vidy,... p. 01.}

An “
ἡμεῖς μέντοιγε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις πειθό-

Origen distinguished Substance and Hypostasis as we do. 249

understanding, to person. But why do we detain the reader ook τι.
with these disputes’? There is a passage extant in the Greek rey ταὶ
Commentaries of Origen, edited by Huet himself, which most Origen.
clearly establishes our interpretation of Origen’s meaning. In ‘ hisce am-
the twelfth tome on John, p. 186 of Huet’s edition, Origen ates
mentions certain persons (some of the Noetians that is),

who, from certain passages of Scripture, wrongly understood, [324]
thought that it was shewn, thate “the Son did not differ
numerically? from the Father, but that being Both one, not 3 τῷ ἀριθ-
only in substance but also in subject®, they were called oe
Father and Son, in respect of certain different ways of view- personally,
ing them‘, but not in respect of hypostasis’.”’ To whom he. ee
makes this reply?: “We must say to them, first of all, that ' ee
the Son is other than the Father, and that it is necessary ἡ Κατα ὑπό-
that the Son be the Son of a Father, and the Father be eatin
the Father of a Son.” Here substance and hypostasis® ° οὐσία et
are clearly distinguished, exactly in the same way as they ter
are by us at this day; and the view of Origen and other
catholics is accurately distinguished from that of the Noe- 118
tians. The catholics taught that the Father and the Son are

indeed one in substance, that is, that they are ὁμοούσιοι, (of

one substance or consubstantial,) but two in hypostasis and

in subject ; whilst the heretics contended, on the other hand,

that the Father and the Son are one, not only in substance

but also in hypostasis, and that they are merely distinguished
according to our different notions or conceptions, and called

at one time in one respect, Father; and at another time and

in another respect, Son. Nothing surely is more manifest

than this. I have treated of the ancient ecclesiastical sig-
nification of the word ὑπόστασις, when used of the God-

head’, at greater length perhaps than was called for by the 7 in divinis.
objection that was put forward; yet the intelligent reader

will not, I trust, take it amiss, when he considers how
entirely®, not only the mass of theologians, but also men of * ἰοιᾶ via.
the greatest learning are in error on this point 4.

/ n “A \
©... ph διαφέρειν τῷ ἀριθμῷ τὸν P λεκτέον πρὸς αὐτοὺς πρῶτον μὲν,
υἱὸν τοῦ πατρὺς, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν, οὐ μόνον οὐσίᾳ, ... ἕτερον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν παρὰ τὸν πα-
ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑποκειμένῳ τυγχάνοντας ἂμ- τέρα, καὶ ὅτι ἀνάγκη τὸν υἱὸν πατρὸς

J / 3 4 > ε 7 ene /
φοτέρους, κατά τινας ἐπινοίας διαφόρους, εἶναι υἱὸν, καὶ τὸν πατέρα υἱοῦ πατερα.---
οὐ κατὰ ὑπόστασιν, λέγεσθαι πατέρα καὶ [ Ibid. |
vidy.—[ tom. x. 21. p. 199.] 4 [See also the notes on the Orige-

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[8326]

1 roy [μέ-
γιστον, ed.
Ben. ] ἐπὶ
πᾶσι Θεὸν,
ille univer-
sorum
Deum.
Vers. Lat.
2 univer-
sorum
Deum.

3 μεγέθει
τινὶ.

[326]

250 Of Origen’s denying that the Son is God over all;

12. There follows another objection of Huet, taken from
these words of Origen, against Celsus', book viii.: “ But sup-
pose it to be the case, that, as may be expected in a numer-
ous body of persons 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, who believe Him when He
says, ‘The Father, who hath sent Me, is greater than I? ”
Upon which Huett makes these observations: “There were
some who affirmed that Christ is God over 411", and that in
a true and orthodox sense. Now this statement certainly
relates to the divine, not to the human nature of Christ.
Origen, on the contrary, denies that our Saviour is God over
all, which he proves from this, that He is less than the
Father, who is God over all. He takes away, therefore,
from the divine nature of Christ, that supreme Godhead over
all things, and assigns it to the Father; and in consequence
he makes the Son inferior to the Father in a certain kind
of greatness’, and that as God to God, not as man to God.”
But, in the first place, the very learned commentator is (Gif he
will permit me to say it) in very grave error in supposing that
it was in a true and orthodox sense, that they against whom
Origen’s strictures are here directed, affirmed, that the Son
is God over all; for Origen expressly speaks of a certain few
among the Christians, who differed in what they alleged from
the remaining very numerous body of believers, that is to
say, from the Catholic Church of Christ. Moreover, if you
read what precedes and follows this passage of Origen, you
will find that the objections which Celsus there brings against
the Christians, are taken entirely from the inventions of the
heretics. Now who were they, who, in a heterodox sense, and
departing from the common consent of Christians, affirmed
that our Saviour is the God over all Himself? I apprehend

niana of Huet, in the Benedictine edi-
tion, ad loc.—B. }

τ ἔστω δέ, τινας ὡς ἐν πλήθει πιστεύ-
οντων, καὶ δεχομένων διαφωνίαν, διὰ τὴν
προπέτειαν ὑποτίθεσθαι, τὸν σωτῆρα
εἶναι τὸν [ μέγιστον, ed. Βεη.7 ἐπὶ πᾶσι
Θεόν’ GAA’ οὔτι γε ἡμεῖς τοιοῦτον, οἱ
πειθόμενοι αὐτῷ λέγοντι, Ὃ Πατὴρ, ὃ
πέμψας με, μείξων μου ἐστί.---». 887.
[14. p. 752. ]

* [In the Benedictine edition we
read τὸν μέγιστον ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεὸν, “the
greatest God over 8]],᾿᾽ from which it
more plainly appears, what was the
dogma of the heretics, whom Origen
censures, and how perverse is the argu-
ment of Huet.—B. }

t Origenian. ii. p. 84. [Queest. 2. 7.
p. 123.]

these words were used by heretics in a wrong sense. 251

that those heretics are intended, who in the time of Origen soox τι.
were known by the name of Noetians, who taught that the 12, ΤΣ
Son is God the Father Himself, whom the catholics of that Oricen.
age used to call, by way of distinction’, ὁ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεὸς, 1 διακριτι-
‘God over all’ At any rate Justin, in what is called his bie
Second Apology, notices the impious madness of certain sorum
heretics of that class, known in his day by a different name, ee
in language not dissimilar, in the following passage": “ For
they who assert that the Son is the Father, are convicted both
of being ignorant of the Father, and of not knowing that
the Father of all hath a Son, who being also the first-born
Word of God is also God.” In these words he not only
distinguishes the Son from the Father of all, and denies,
in opposition to the heretics, that He is God the Father
Himself, but also confesses that the Son, equally with the
Father, is in very deed God, as being begotten of God
the Father Himself. Perhaps however, in the passage under
review, Origen is assailing the Marcionites and other mon-
strous forms of heresy*, who taught that our Saviour is not 3 et alia id
the Son of that God who framed the world, but is His Lord, Jeane
and superior to Him, and on that ground the God over all. monstra.
Certainly it is evident that he is treating of them both in
what precedes and follows. Secondly, what Origen asserts
in the passage cited, that the Son, even in that He is
God, (that is, God of God,) is less than the Father,
(which Huet censures,) is quite catholic, and maintained [327]
even by the fathers who most keenly impugned the Arian
heresy after the council of Nice, as I shall afterwards
shew in the fourth book*, where I shall also most clearly
prove that Origen in his books against Celsus, whilst he
laid down that God the Father was in respect of causa-
tion* greater than the Son, still acknowledged the Father 4 κατ᾽
and the Son to be altogether alike and equal in respect of “7!”
nature’. ὅ κατὰ
18. In the third place, Huet censures a passage in the fifth ee
book of the treatise against. Celsus, where Origen writes
thus’: ‘When our Lord and Saviour was once addressed
“ot yap τὸν υἱὸν πατέρα φάσκοντες πρωτότοκος dv τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ Θεὸς ὑπάρ-
εἶναι, ἐλέγχονται μήτε τὸν πατέρα ἐπι- xet.—p. 96. [Apol. i. 63. p. 81.]

στάμενοι, μήθ᾽ ὅτι ἐστὶν vids τῷ πατρὶ x See iv. 2. 6.
τῶν ὅλων yiwoHoKovres’ ds Kal λόγος Y 6 σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ κύριος, ἀκούσας

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LiTY OF

THE SON.

1 [ Matt.

252 That Christ is the Image of the Goodness of God.

with, ‘Good Master,’ He referred the man who thus spoke,
to His Father, saying, ‘ Why! callest thou Me good? There
is none good but One, that is God the Father.’ Now if the
well-beloved Son of the Father said this with good reason, as

xix.16,17.] being the image of the goodness of God, would not the sun

119

2 convenit.

3 stupidi

ingenii.
[328 |

4 oikovo-

μίαν.

5 παρά-

δειγμα.

6 ex pater-
no fonte.

7 primas.

with much greater reason say to those who worship it, Why
dost thou worship me? for, thou shalt worship the Lord
thy God,” &c. Upon these words the learned commentator
observes thus’: “ He takes away that goodness which be-
longs? to God the Father, from Christ, not merely so far
as He is Man, but even so far as He is the image of the
goodness of God, that is to say so far as He is God.” As if
Christ forsooth were not, even as Man, in a peculiar way the
image of the goodness of God! But who can believe that
Origen was so dull of understanding’, as not to perceive that
that text of the Evangelist relates entirely to the economy*
of Christ, which He took on Him when He assumed human
nature. Nay, Origen in the same passage expressly intimates,
that he introduces Christ speaking thus as an example’, which
Christ Himself (that is) whilst conversing among men, was
willing to exhibit to men. But even if we were to allow that
Origen is there speaking of Christ so far as He is God, yet
surely the Son is rightly called the image, the adequate and
perfect image, I mean, of the Father’s goodness; and yet so
far as He is the image of the Father, He is not the Father
Himself,—that is to say, so far as He has His goodness, as
also the other attributes of the divine nature, and even the
divine nature itself, by derivation from the Father, as from a
fountain®, and so possesses Godhead in secundo signo originis
(in the second degree of origin, as the schoolmen say), the
first place’ might in that way of viewing it be attributed, not
incorrectly, to the Father. It is, however, very certain, (if
Origen’s meaning and opinions are to be judged of out of his
treatise against Celsus,) that what Huet gathers from these
words is altogether alien from the meaning of Origen him-—
ποτὲ, Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθὲ, ἀναπέμπων τὸν τερον ἂν τοῖς προσκυνοῦσιν εἶπεν HALOS,
λέγοντα τοῦτο ἐπὶ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα, Τί με προσκυνεῖς ; κύριον γὰρ τὸν Θεόν
φησὶ, Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ἀγα- σου προσκυνήσεις; K.A.—p. 238. [1]. p.
θὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς, ὁ Θεὸς 6 Πατήρ. εἴπερ δὲ 585-86. ]

τοῦτ᾽ εὐλόγως, ὡς εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος * Origenian. ii, p. 39. [Quest. 2.

Tov Θεοῦ τυγχάνων, εἴρηκεν ὃ υἱὸς τῆς 15. p. 126. ]
ἀγάπης τοῦ Πατρὸς, πῶς οὐχὶ εὐλογώ-

Catholic sense of the statement. 253

self, that Origen, I mean, altogether took away from Christ soox 1.
that goodness which belongs to God the Father, and sup- eer ΡΟ
posed, (as Huet himself presently says in the same place,) that O,icmn
the Son is but “a minute portion and a kind of an imperfect
breath#” of the Father’s goodness. For seeing that in the
passages which we have quoted above Origen clearly teaches

that the Son, equally with the Father, is very God, uncreate,
immortal, unchangeable, impassible, immeasurable, omnipre-

sent, and every way happy and perfect; how was it possible

that he should in the very same work take away from the Son,

in that He is God, the goodness which belongs to the Father?

But we have also already heard Adamantius! (book 111." against 1 i. e. Ori-
Celsus) say, that the Son of God is “the very” (or most ab- 8™
solute) “ Word, and the very Wisdom, and the very Truth.”
Why then should not the Son be called very or most abso-
lute Goodness, not a minute portion and kind of imperfect
breath of some higher goodness’? seeing that the same holds ? bonitatis
good? of all the divine attributes. Thus, in book v.¢ against pele
Celsus, from which this charge is taken, Origen a second 8 ratio par
time calls the Son, “the very Word, and the very Wisdom, he

and the very Righteousness.” And if any one wishes for a

lucid commentary on these passages of Origen, let him turn

to the great Athanasius, in his Oration against the Gentiles4,

where he thus writes respecting the Son of God: “ He is the

Power and Wisdom and Word of the Father; 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 4 ἔξωθεν.
Him, and are made wise through Him, and in Him are en-

dued with power and reason; on the contrary, He is very
Wisdom, very Word, and the very own Power of the Father,

very Light, very Truth, very Righteousness, very Virtue, and

also the Impress’, and the Radiance, and the Image, and ὅ χαρακτὴρ.
| [Heb.i. 3.]

[329]

* [particulam et auram quandam
imperfectam.—cf. Hor. Sat. 11. 2. 75,
divine particulam aure. |

» [4]. p. 473-4; see ahove, p. 224. ]

° σὸν αὐτολόγον, καὶ τὴν αὐτοσοφίαν,
καὶ τὴν αὐτοδικαιοσύνην.---Ὁ. 268, [39.
p. 608.

4 δύναμίς ἐστι τοῦ πατρὺς, καὶ σοφία,
καὶ λόγος, οὐ κατὰ μετοχὴν ταῦτα ὧν,
οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν ἐπιγινομένων τούτων αὐτῷ
κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοῦ μετέχοντας, καὶ σοφι-

ζομένους δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ δυνατοὺς καὶ λο-
γικοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ γινομένους" ἀλλ᾽ αὐὖτο-
σοφία, αὐτολόγος, αὐτοδύναμις ἰδία τοῦ
πατρός ἐστιν, αὐτοφῶς, αὐτοαλήθεια, αὐ-
τοδικαιοσύνη, αὐτοαρετὴ, καὶ μὲν καὶ
χαρακτὴρ, καὶ ἀπαύγασμα, καὶ εἰκών"
καὶ συνελόντι φράσαι, καρπὸς παντέ-
λειος τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπάρχει, καὶ μόνος
ἐστὶν υἷὸς, εἰκὼν ἀπαράλλακτος τοῦ πα-
tpés.—tom, i. p. 51. [ὃ 46. vol. i. p.
46. ]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 καρπὸς.

2 ἀπαράλ-

λακτοϑ.
[390]

3 ambages.
4 manasse.

5 segre-
gasse.

6 efflu-
vium,

7 nasci,

120
® Heb. i. 8:

[331]
9 poris-
mata.

254 Origen’s use of the tilustration of the Ray of the Sun:

(in a word) the all-perfect Fruit! of the Father; and He alone
is Son, an undeviating? Image of the Father.”

14. I still press on the track of the most learned Huet, who
having professed that he would lay aside irrelevances? and
search out the very innermost recesses of the doctrine of
Origen, observes*, that “Origen believed that the Son
emanated‘ from the substance of God, even as light from the
sun, and, therefore, that He is of the same substance as the
Father, forasmuch as light is of the same substance as the
sun; and on the other hand, that he separated’ the Son from
the substance and Godhead of the Father, forasmuch as light
when it has gone forth from the sun by way of effluence’,
may be said to be separated and removed from the sun ;
moreover that the Son is inferior to the Father, forasmuch as
the sun is more noble than light, and superior in dignity.”
Huet had before concluded, from Origen’s use of the same
similef, that “the Trinity was divided by Origen into parts,
and was distinguished by certain gradations, as it were, of
essence and Godhead.” But this (I would say it with all
respect for this most distinguished man) is not to “search
out the innermost recesses of Origen’s doctrine,” so much
as to peep into and to suspect things of which Origen him-
self never even dreamed. I admit that Origen, even in his
books against Celsus, illustrates the generation of the Son
from the Father by the similitude of a ray or brightness
thrown out from the sun or other luminous body. But what
of that? Did not all the catholic fathers, both those who
wrote before and those who wrote after the council of Nice,
employ the same simile? Did not the Nicene fathers them-
selves, and that in, their very Creed, say that God the Son
was sprung’ of God the Father, as Light of Light? Lastly,
what is to become of the inspired author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, who was not afraid to call the Son of God’ “the
brightness of the Father’s glory?” Certainly two at least
of the inferences? which Huet draws from this comparison —
and fixes on Origen, are altogether foreign from his mean-
ing. The first is, that the Son is severed and separated from
the Father, as a portion of the divine essence from the

what is and what is not implied by this illustration. 255

whole, and that consequently the essence of God is cut into soox τι.
parts. But can any one believe that such foolish’ blasphemy ἡ 18, 14°
could have entered the mind of Origen, who certainly was “Ogicsn.
no unlearned man? And how often in his writings has? insulsam.
Adamantius? expressly repudiated that blasphemy! Thus ?i-e. Ori-
(to omit a thousand other passages) how does he, in his °°”
fourth book against Celsus%, (in a passage which we have

before in this chapter adduced entire,) deride the Epicureans

and Stoics for being unable “to clear our natural concep-

tion of God, as a Being every way incorruptible, and simple,

and uncompounded, and indivisible?” He immediately

adds, that the Son of God subsists in the form of God,

that is, in the divine essence, and is accordingly Himself

also equally with the Father Himself unchangeable. No-

thing, however, is more expressly opposed to this imagina-

tion [of Huet] than the words of Origen, which Pamphilus,

in his Apology®, quotes from his second book on John, to

this effect ; ‘Therefore the only-begotten God’, our Saviour, 8 unigeni-
who alone is generated‘ from the Father, is Son by nature 5% “7°
not by adoption. He is sprung’ of the very mind of the ‘ solusa P.
Father, as the will [is] of * the mind. For the divine nature, 3"™"*
that is to say [the nature] of the unbegotten Father, is not ox
divisible, that we should suppose the Son was begotten either

by division or diminution of His substance.” See § 19 of

this chapter, near the end. As to the other inference of

Huet, that Origen made the Son inferior to the Father, we

shall hereafter shew most plainly in its proper place, that

Origen never made the Son unequal to the Father in essence,

but only in respect of origin, so far, that is, as the Father is [832]
the author and principle’ of the Son. In short, Origen and 7 princi-
other catholic fathers, when they employed the simile of the P'™™
sun and the ray, of light and radiance, intended only to inti-

mate these points, nor did any thing else enter into their

mind; 1. That the Father is the fountain of Godhead’, as 8 πηγὴν
the sun is the fountain of the radiance which is sent forth %7""*

8. p. 169. [14. p. 510. see above voluntas ex mente. Non enim divisi-
Ὁ. 226. | bilis est divina natura, id est, ingeniti

» Unigenitus ergo Deus Salvator Patris, ut putemus vel divisione, vel
noster, solus a Patre generatus, natura imminutione substantia ejus Filium
et non adoptione Filius est. Natus esse progenitum.—l[cap. 5. p. 34. |
est autem ex ipsa Patris mente, sicut

ON THE
CONSUB-~
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

1 nasci.

[333]

? proprie.

3 impro-
priam et

καταχρη-
στικὴν.

from light.

256 Of Origen’s statements respecting Prayer to the Father.

from it. 2. That the Son is of the same nature and sub-
stance as the Father; seeing that He is begotten of the very
essence of the Father, as light proceeds from light. 38. That
the Son no way exists divided or separated from His Father;
just as the ray is not disjomed from the sun, nor radiance
4. Lastly, that the Son is sprung! from the Fa-
ther without alteration or diminution of the divine essence. —
And certainly that illustration wonderfully assists these con-
ceptions of our mind, concerning the adorable generation of
the Son of God; on which account it was also employed by
the Nicene fathers in their very Confession of Faith.

15. There remains the fifth and last accusation which
Huet! brings against Origen, out of his books against Celsus;
to the effect, that he taught that “the Father ought to be
adored with more humble supplication than the Son.” That
this was the genuine opinion of Origen he gathers principally
from two passages out of these books. One is found in the
fifth book!, where Origen speaks thus: “ All supplication
and prayer, and intercession and thanksgiving ought to be
offered up unto the God who is over all, through Him who is
above all angels, the High-Priest, the living Word and God.
Moreover the Word Himself also we will supplicate, and unto
Him intercede and give thanks, and pray also, provided we are
able to understand in the case of prayer, the strict meaning
of the word, and its metaphorical application.” Upon which
Huet observes, ‘‘ He enjoins that prayer, in the proper ac-
ceptation of the word’, be offered up to God the Father, but
to the Son in an improper and metaphorical sense*; to the
former, as unto the supreme God, the giver of all good
things; to the latter, as unto a Mediator, to present our
prayers unto God.” You may read the other passage in the
eighth book*; “Therefore do we worship the one God, and
His one Son, and Word, and Image, by supplications and en-
treaties to the utmost of our power, offering unto the God of

* Origenian. ii. p. 48. [Quest. 2,
29. p. 136.]

ἡ πᾶσαν μὲν γὰρ δέησιν καὶ mpocev-
χὴν, καὶ ἔντευξιν, καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ἂνα-
πεμπτέον τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεῷ διὰ τοῦ ἐπὶ
πάντων ἀγγέλων ἀρχιερέως, ἐμψύχου
λόγου καὶ Θεοῦ. δεησόμεθα δὲ καὶ αὐτοῦ
τοῦ λόγου, καὶ ἐντευξόμεθα αὐτῷ, καὶ

εὐχαριστήσομεν, καὶ προσευξόμεθα δὲ,
ἐὰν δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσ-
ευχῆς κυριολεξίας, καὶ καταχρήσεως.---
p. 233. [4. p. 580.]

_ & διὸ τὸν ἕνα Θεὸν, καὶ τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν
αὐτοῦ, καὶ λόγον, καὶ εἰκόνα, ταῖς κατὰ
τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν ἱκεσίαις καὶ ἀξιώσεσι
σέβομεν, προσάγοντες τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων

Explained ; whether Christ be considered as God or Man. 257

all, our prayers, through His Only-begotten, to whom we
first offer them, beseeching Him, who is the propitiation for
our sins, that He would, as a High-Priest, present our
prayers and our sacrifices and our intercessions unto the
God over 81}. I wonder that these passages of Ori-
gen should cause the slightest difficulty to that learned
man, in which (to confess the truth) I have myself? always
thought that the catholic doctrine touching the person and
the office of our Saviour was not ill set forth. But to the sub-
ject. Christ our Lord may be regarded in a two-fold point

᾿ οὗ view, as He is God, and as He is God-Man‘, or Mediator

between God and man. If you look at our Saviour under
the latter character‘, it is certain from many places of Scrip-
ture and the consent of all Christians, that all the worship
which we offer to God must be presented unto Him through
Christ the Mediator, and moreover that all the worship and
honour, which we offer to Christ, altogether redounds (as
Paul expresses it, Phil. ii, 11) “unto the glory of God the
Father.” But that Christ is the Mediator between God and
men in respect of both natures, (whatsoever some of the
papists* object to the contrary,) the ancient catholic fathers,
with the Holy Scriptures, have unanimously® taught. And
it is manifest that Origen, in each of the passages which have
been quoted, had this character® of our Jesus especially in
view ; for in both of them he speaks of Christ as the High-
Priest who intercedes for us with God the Father, and
who offered Himself as a propitiation for our sins. If, how-
ever, we regard Christ as God, without respect to His me-
diatorial office, we may again consider Him under a two-
fold aspect. For He is regarded either absolutely as God, or
relatively as God of God, in other words as the Son of God.
If we consider the Word under the former view, Origen in
many places explicitly confesses, that by reason of the in-
effably transcendent Godhead which He possesses in common
with the Father, the very same divine worship which we offer
unto the Father is altogether due to Him: that is to say, that
τὰς εὐχὰς διὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτοῦ; ᾧ ἡμῶν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Ocg.—p. 886, [13. p.
πρῶτον προσφέρομεν αὐτὰς, ἀξιοῦντες 76].

αὐτὸν, ἱλασμὸν ὄντα περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν k [E.g. S. Thom. Aquin. Summa

ἡμῶν, προσαγαγεῖν ὡς ἀρχιερέα τὰς εὐ. Theol, par. iii, q. 26, art, 2.]
xas, καὶ τὰς θυσίας, Kal τὰς ἐντεύξεις

BOOK II.
CHAP. IX,
§ 14, 15.

ORIGEN.
1 τῷ ἐπὶ
πᾶσι Θεῷ.

2
egomet,

[334]
3 Θεάνθρω-
πος.
4 σχέσει.

121

5 uno ore.

6 σχέσιν.

258 Why prayer and praise are offered specially to the Father.

ΟΝ ΤῊΣ in our mind and thoughts!, by which alone we (properly

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 concep-
tione.

2 colimus.

[335]

3 περὶ.
4 στάσιν.

5 θαυμά-
Cotes.

ὁ ἐξοχὴ.

7 plerasque.

8 plerzeque.

speaking) worship? God, we ought to ascribe unto the Son all
those same perfections of the divine nature, which we attri-
bute to the Father. Read over again the passages which we
have already quoted in this chapter, § 8. But if, on the other
hand, we regard the Son relatively, as He is the Son, and
derives His origin from God the Father, then again it is cer-
tain, that all the worship and veneration which we offer to
Him, redounds to the Father, and is ultimately referred to
Him, as the fountain of Godhead*. Origen seems to have
had this also in view in the latter passage cited by Huet, in
which, after the words which have been already quoted, the
following are immediately subjoined!; “In* God therefore is
our faith, through His Son, who confirms it in us: 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 His] Word, and Wisdom, and
Truth, and Righteousness, and whatsoever we have learned
the Son of God to be; thus also [we venerate the Father, in
admiring] Him who is begotten of such a Father.” That this
doctrine is sound and catholic is known to all who have even
a moderate acquaintance with the writings of the ancient
doctors. What is to be said to the fact, that this pre-em1-
nence® of the Father is even at this day recognised in all the
Liturgies of the Catholic Church? For both in doxologies
we give glory to God the Father in “the first rank,” (ἐν πρώ-
τῃ τάξει,) as Justin expresses it, and unto Him do we direct
most of’ our prayers. On this point the remarks of Petavius
(on the Trinity, 111. 7,15) are indeed worthy to be observed,
when, in replying to Crellius respecting the Holy Ghost, he
says, “In vain doth Crellius frame a false charge on the
fact, that in the Church public prayers are usually not
addressed to the Holy Ghost; since, in accordance with
ancient usage, they are for the most part® referred to the
Father. And thus we find it decreed in the twenty-third

k See our observations on the dox-

ologies of the primitive Church, above,
ὁ, 3. § 6. [p. 112.]

1 περὶ τὸν Θεὸν οὖν ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν, διὰ
τοῦ ταύτην βεβαιοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν υἱοῦ αὐ-
τοῦ. καὶ οὐδεμίαν ἡμῶν ἔχει δεῖξαι στά-
σιν περὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ Κέλσος᾽ καὶ

σέβομέν γε τὸν Πατέρα, θαυμάζοντες αὖ-
τοῦ Toy υἱὸν, λόγον, καὶ σοφίαν, καὶ ἀλή-
θειαν, καὶ δικαιοσύνην, καὶ πάντα ἅπερ
εἶναι μεμαθήκαμεν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ"
οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν γεννηθέντα ἀπὸ τοιού-
τοῦ Πατρός-.---ἰ Orig. ubi supr. 13. p. 751.
On the word στάσιν, comp. ὃ 11. p.750.]

Jerome’s charges; Of the Father being invisible to the Son; 259

canon of the third council of Carthage'; ‘when standing soox τ,
at the altar, let prayer be always directed to the Father.’ §'(5"1¢,
Doubtless, because as at that time the Body of Christ, or the Onicen.
Man Christ is offered up, and the memorial of His ancient [836]
aud bloody sacrifice is celebrated, it is right that all should ais
be referred unto the Father, as Author and Principle?; ine princi.
order that we may imitate our great High-Priest, the Lord pium.
Christ, who both was wont to refer all His words and actions

to the honour of the Father, and especially in that last sacri-

fice ‘gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice*® unto 3 hostiam.
God for a sweet-smelling savour.’ Nor does it follow from ©P® τ: 2-
this, either that Christ is not God, or that the Holy Ghost

[15 not God]; this only follows, that there is a supreme
Principle of Both*, from whom as They are distinct in what 4 summum

is peculiar® to each Person, so are They not different in eae
nature and substance.” pium.

. 2 Md τ i -
16. Hitherto we have been defending those passages which , 00°

the very learned writers Petavius and Huet have censured
in the books of Origen against Celsus. But, besides these,
Jerome in old time,—giving way too much to his hatred of
Origen, or rather of the translator of Origen, Ruffinus, and
thence being fond of wresting every word and saying of
his to the very worst sense,—noted many other expressions
also concerning the Son of God in other works of Ori-
gen, as being absurd and impious, which are all easily re-
futed out of the single treatise against Celsus; we will touch
on the most important of them. In his fifty-ninth letter,
to Avitus™, in enumerating the errors of the treatise περὶ
ἀρχῶν, Jerome declares that Origen, in the first volume of
that work, wrote to this effect; that “ God the Father, being
invisible by nature, is not seen even by the Son ;” and, in
the second" volume, thus; “It remains that God be invi-
sible ; but if He is by nature invisible, He will not be visible
even to the Saviour.” Likewise, in his sixty-first letter, to
Pammachus, chap. 8, he brings forward and condemns the [837]
following words of Origen out of his work περὶ ἀρχῶν ;
“For as it is incongruous to say, that the Son can see the

m Deum Patrem, per naturam invi- autem invisibilis, per naturam est, ne-

sibilem, etiam a Filio non videri— que Salvatori visibilis erit—[§ 6. p.
[Ep. CXXIV. 2. vol. i. p. 911.] 916.]
ἢ Restat ut invisibilis sit Deus, Si © Sicut enim incongruum est dicere,

s 2

ON THE
“CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

122

} προηγου-
μένως.

2 ἀγένητον.
8 πρωτό-
TOKOV.

4 yevnris.

[338]

260 refuted by other passages, and by the context ;

Father, so is it unsuitable to suppose that the Holy Ghost
can see the Son.” And Epiphanius (Heres. lxiv. 6. 4, and
in Ancorat. c. 63) lays down this as the foremost and chief
among the errors of Origen. But let us hear Origen him-
self, out of his undoubted work against Celsus, clearly un-
folding his own view respecting the knowledge, by which
the Father and the Son mutually know each other, in these
words4; “But our Saviour and Lord also, the Word of
God, putting before us the greatness of the knowledge of
the Father, —how that worthily, in a pre-eminent sense’, He
is comprehended and known by Himself alone fi. 6. by the
Son alone], and in a secondary sense by those who have
their reason enlightened by Him who is Himself the Word
and God,—says, ‘No man knoweth the Son save the Father,
neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him.’ For no one can
worthily know Him who is uncreate* and the first-born’ of
all created‘ nature, as the Father who begat Him, neither
can any one [know] the Father, as the living Word, who
is also His Wisdom and Truth.” Nothing was ever stated
in stricter accordance with catholic doctrine. Moreover we
have before’ heard Origen say, that “the Father is compre-
hensible (ἐφικτὸν) by His Word,” or Son. With respect,
indeed, to the passages which have been adduced from his
books περὶ ἀρχῶν, I might have replied, that of all the wri-
tings of Origen, these have been the most corrupted and in-
terpolated, and that this has been shewn by many arguments
by Ruffinus*. But in this case we have no need of such a
reply, since the very words of Origen, as they are brought
forward entire by Ruffinust, who explains both the drift of

quod possit Filius videre Patrem, ita
inconveniens est opinari, quod Spiritus
S. possit videre Filium.—[Vol. ii. p.
413, for this work is not placed among
the Epistles in the Benedictine edition.

4 GAAG καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ Κύριος,
λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ μέγεθος παριστὰς
τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Πατρὺς, ὅτι κατ᾽ ἀξίαν
προηγουμένως αὐτῷ μόνῳ λαμβάνεται
καὶ γιγνώσκεται, δευτέρως δὲ τοῖς ἐλ-
λαμπομένοις τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
τοῦ λόγου καὶ Θεοῦ, φησὶν, Οὐδεὶς ἐπι-
γινώσκει [ἔγνω ed. Ben.] τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ

6 Πατὴρ, οὐδὲ τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ 6 vids,
καὶ ᾧ ἂν 6 υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ. οὔτε yap
τὸν ἀγένητον καὶ πάσης γενητῆς φύσεως
πρωτότυκον κατ᾽ ἀξίαν εἰδέναι τις δύνα-
ται, ὧς ὃ γεννήσας αὐτὸν Πατὴρ, οὔτε
τὸν Πατέρα ὡς ὃ ἔμψυχος λόγος, καὶ
σοφία αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀλήθεια.---Τ 0. vi. p.
286. [17. p. 643.]

τ See § 9 of this chapter, [p. 232. ]

5. See Ruffinus’ Prolegomena to the
treatise περὶ ἀρχῶν.

* See Ruffinus’ Invective, amongst
the works of Jerome, tom. ix. p. 139.
[vol. 11, p. 598. ]

Origen was maintaining that God ts incorporeal, 261

the author and the context of his discourse, are abundantly ook τι.
sufficient for their own vindication. The case stood thus; eur oe
Origen, in his first book περὶ ἀρχῶν, had mooted a question “Opigen.
in opposition to those who say that God is corporeal and
represent Him with human limbs and form’; which the? habitu.
heresy of the Valentinians and Anthropomorphites parti-

cularly asserted. Origen, in maintaining the faith of the

Church against these heretics, had proved from reason? that ? rationi-
God is without a body of any sort*, and consequently is shat

3 omni

Then, the order of the question challeng- genere in-
corporeum.

also invisible’.
ing him to it, he subjoins these words"; ‘‘ These assertions , ΠΝ
however may be thought to possess less authority by those lem,
who in matters pertaining to God® wish to be instructed out ὅ de rebus
of the Holy Scriptures, and desire also to have it proved to a
them from those [Scriptures], how the nature of God sur-

passes’ the nature of bodies. Consider then whether the ° super-
Apostle also does not assert this same thing, when he speaks one
of Christ, saying, ‘ Who is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of every creature.’ For the nature of God is not,

as some suppose, visible to some’, and invisible to others ; 7 alicui.
for the Apostle did not say ‘the image of God [who is] in- [339]
visible to men,’ or ‘invisible to sinners,’ but pronounces most
decidedly® of the nature of God itself’, saying, ‘the image of ὃ valde con-
the invisible God.’ And John also in his Gospel, in saying, ΜΈΝΕΙ
‘No one hath seen God at any time,’ manifestly declares to natura
all who are capable of understanding, that there is no nature ἊΣ

to which God is visible; not as though He were such as to

be by nature indeed visible, and to escape and surpass the

power of sight of created beings as being too frail, but be-

cause it is naturally impossible that He be seen. But if

you ask me, what I think concerning the Only-begotten

Dei hominibus, aut invisibilis peccatori-

“ Verum iste assertiones minus for-
bus, sed valde constanter pronunciat de >

tassis auctoritatis habere videantur apud

eos, qui ex S. Seripturis de rebus di-
Vinis institui volunt, et etiam 5101 inde
approbari querunt, quomodo natura
Dei supereminet corporum naturam.
Vide ergo si non etiam apostolus hoc
idem ait, cum de Christo loquitur, di-
cens, Qui est imago invisibilis Dei, pri-
mogenitus omnis creature. Non enim,
ut quidam putant, natura Dei alicui
visibilis est, et aliis invisibilis; non
enim dixit apostolus, imago invisibilis

ipsa natura Dei dicens, imago invisibilis
Dei. Sed et Joannes in evangelio di-
cens, Deum nemo vidit unquam, mani-
feste declarat omnibus, qui intelligere
possunt, quia nulla natura est, cui vi-
sibilis sit Deus; non quasi qui visibilis
quidem sit per naturam, et velut fragi-
lioris creature evadat atque excedat
aspectum; sed quoniam naturaliter
videri impossibile est. Quod si re-
quiras a me, quid etiam de ipso Uni.

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 conse-
quenter.

2 cognos-
cere.

3 inter. ]

4 inter.

5 cognosci
et cog-
noscere.

6 scientia.

[340]

7 de ipsa
Deitatis
natura.

8 visibili-
tatis voca-
bulum.

9 percipi,

262 The Father known, not seen, of the Son.

Himself also, let it not be at once judged by you either im-
pious or absurd, if I say, that the nature of God, which is
naturally invisible, is not visible even to Him; for I will add
a reason in due course!. It is one thing to see, another to
know’; to be seen and to see are properties of bodies, to
be known and to know of intellectual nature. Whatsoever,
therefore, is a property of bodies, this is not to be believed
either of the Father or of the Son. But that which pertains
to the nature of the Deity, this, it is certain, holds between
the Father and the Son. Lastly, even He Himself in the
Gospel said not, ‘No one hath seen the Fatlfer, save the Son ;
nor the Son, save the Father ;’? but He said, ‘ No one know-
eth the Son save the Father, neither knoweth any one the
Father, save the Son.’ From this it is manifestly intimated,

_ that whatsoever [in what takes place] between* corporeal

natures is expressed by the terms to be seen or to see, this
[in what takes place] between‘ the Father and the Son is
expressed by the terms to be known or to know’, through
the power of knowledge’, not through the weakness of any
visible nature. Since therefore, in speaking of an incor-
poreal and invisible nature, it cannot in strictness be said,
that it either sees or is seen, in consequence neither is the
Father in the Gospel said to be seen by the Son, nor the Son
by the Father, but to be known.” Who does not at once admit
with Ruffinus, that Origen in these words says nothing about
a comparison between the Father and the Son, but is en-
quiring about the very nature of Deity’, whether the term
visible? seem in any way suitable to it? For Origen does
not deny, rather he teaches plainly enough, that the Father
is perceived? by the Son, equally as the Son by the Father,

genito sentiam, si ne ipsi quidem visi-
bilem dicam naturam Dei, que natu-
raliter invisibilis est, ne tibi statim vel
impium videatur esse, vel absurdum ;
rationem quippe dabimus consequenter.
Aliud est videre, aliud cognoscere; vi-
deri et videre corporum res est; cog-
nosci et cognoscere intellectualis natu-
re est. Quicquid ergo proprium cor-
porum est, hoc nec de Patre est nec de
Filio sentiendum. Quod vero ad. na-
turam pertinet Deitatis, hoc inter Pa-
trem et Filium constat. Denique etiam
ipse in evangelio non dixit, quia nemo
vidit Patrem nisi Filius, neque Filium

nisi Pater; sed ait, Nemo novit Filium
nist Pater, neque Patrem quis novit nisi
Filius. Ex quo manifeste indicatur,
quod quicquid inter naturas corporeas
videri et videre dicitur, hoc inter Pa-
trem et Filium cognoscere dicitur et
cognosci, per virtutem scientia, non
per visibilitatis fragilitatem. Οἷα
igitur de incorporea natura et invisi-
bili nee videre proprie dicitur nec vi-
deri; idcirco neque Pater a Filio, ne-
que Filius a Patre videri in evangelio
dicitur, sed cognosci.—[1. 8. vol. i. p.
52.]

Jerome’s unfair evasion of this explanation. 263

that is, most perfectly; all he says is, that One is perceived βοοκ n.
by the Other, “not through the weakness of any visible ar es
nature, but through the power of knowledge.” What does Οκισεν..
Jerome, however, say to this? Hear and judge for yourself.

In his Apology against Ruffinus, book 1.*, he speaks to this

effect ; “On the first book περὶ ἀρχῶν, in which Origen has

with sacrilegious tongue blasphemously asserted, that the

Son does not see the Father, you offer reasons also, as if

in the person of the writer; and you translate the explana-

tion! of Didymus, in which with useless labour he attempts ' σχόλιον.
to defend another’s error, that Origen forsooth spoke well,

but we—simple mortals and dull old-fashioned folk—can-

not understand either his wisdom, or yours who have trans-

lated him.” But why does he not prove, that the words

of Origen do not admit? of that explanation of Didymus, ? respuere.
(who certainly was a man of great name in the Church, and

once the teacher of Jerome himself,) or that Ruffinus did

not faithfully quote and transiate them? I suppose, because

he could not. It was, we know, usual for Jerome (as might

be expected from his great rhetorical power) either simply

to pass over in silence such arguments as pressed him, or

to evade their force by jest and satire. Certainly the words

of Origen, as they are alleged by Jerome himself, suffici-

ently indicate that the reply of Ruffinus, and of Didymus

before him, is most true. For he says, that Origen wrote,

that “ God the Father, being invisible by nature, is not seen

by the Son;” and again, “If God is by nature invisible, He

is not visible even to the Saviour.” From this, I say, it is

no uncertain inference, that Origen for this reason asserted [341]
of the Father, that He could not be seen by the Son, not
because the Son, as though of weaker vision®, were unable ὃ aspectus.
to see the Father, who, otherwise, of His own nature might

have been seen by competent faculties; but because God

is in Himself and of His very nature invisible; that is, in-

corporeal, and cannot become an object of sight*; and that 4 neque sub
aspectum
cadat,

* In primo libro περὶ ἀρχῶν ubiOri- tur alienum errorem defendere; quod

genes lingua sacrilega blasphemavit, Origenes quidem bene dixerit, sed nos

quod Filius Patrem non videat, tu etiam simplices homines et cicures Enniani

causas reddis, quasi ex per sona ejus Π66 illius sapientiam, nec tuam, qui in-

qui scripsit; et Didymi interpretaris terpretatus es, intelligere possumus.—

σχόλιον, in quo ille casso labore cona- tom. ii. p. 511. [ὃ 11. vol. 11, p. 502. ]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

1 Tnvec-
tive.

2 Hierony-
mi adv.
Ruffinum
Apologia.

3 imagina-
riam,

4 ipsissi-
mam ve-
ritatem,

5 objectio.

[342]

264 The Son, as the Image of, not the same as, the Father.

in this sense Origen declared the Father and the Son to be
alike invisible to Each Other. Frankly to confess the truth,
Jerome, in thus accusing Origen, has so manifestly betrayed
a temper devoid of candour, and carried away by passion,
that he seems to have deprived himself of all credit, in re-
spect of the rest of his charges. Any one will at once ac-
knowledge this, who will not think it too much trouble to
compare “The Invectives'” (as the treatise is called) of Ruf-
finus, with Jerome’s “ Apology against Ruffinus?.”

17. Again, in the same letter to Avitus, Jerome attributes
to Origen the following impious assertion also; “ that the
Son when compared with the Father is not Truth ; but among
us He is seen [as] imaged® Truth’.’” Others of the ancients
fasten on him a still more atrocious blasphemy, namely, that
“the Son in comparison with the Father is falsehood.”” Who
however, in his sound senses, can suppose that Origen was
so mad as this? at any rate we have already shewn that
Origen, both in his treatise against Celsus and elsewhere,
taught in express terms, that the Son of God is “ very
Truth4, (αὐτοαλήθεια)." But to this charge’ an answer
seems to gleam out from the very charge itself, as it is
stated in Greek by an anonymous vindicator of Origen, in
Photius, cod. 117. Here amongst the points which used
to be censured in Origen, he places this last’, “ That the
Image of God, in respect of Him of whom He is an image,
so far forth as He is an image, is not the Truth.” Nowif
this proposition be duly weighed, it will be found to be sound
and catholic. For it is most certain, that the Son, so far
forth as He is the Image of the Father, is not the Truth,
that is to say, is not the Father Himself, of whom He is the
Image. For this, you will observe, appears to have been said
by Origen, in opposition to the Noetians, who asserted that
the Person of the Father, and of the Son, was the same. In
his sixth book against Celsus, however, Origen expressly

Υ Filium [qui sit imago invisibilis
Patris] comparatum Patri non esse
veritatem; apud nos autem [qui Dei
omnipotentis non possumus recipere
yeritatem] imaginariam veritatem vi-
deri, [ ut majestas ac magnitudo majoris
quodammodo circumscripta sentiatur
in Filio.—ibid. ]

2 ὅτι ἡ εἰκὼν TCD Θεοῦ, ὡς πρὸς ἐκεῖ-
νον, οὗ ἐστιν εἰκὼν, καθ᾽ ὃ εἰκὼν, οὐκ
ἔστιν aAndea.—[ Phot. cod. 117. See
Ruffinus’ translation in the work περὶ
ἀρχῶν, I. 2. 6. p. 56, which does not
at all agree with the Greek as here
quoted.—B. |

Christ, by His Humiliation, a Light amid darkness. 265

teaches that the Son of God is the true, living, and most
perfect Image of His Father, answering to the Father Him-
self throughout', even in His greatness”; we shall afterwards Onricr
adduce the passage entire*.

18. Lastly, Jerome, in his letter to Avitus, attributes to
Origen the following blasphemy also”; “that God the Father
is Light incomprehensible; that Christ in comparison with
the Father is a very small luminary’.’” And yet we have?
seen above, that Origen in more than one passage in his
treatise against Celsus, expressly taught that the Father
and the Son are alike incomprehensible. This charge, how-
ever, appears to be derived from those passages, in which
Origen states, that, “In the Father is no darkness at all;
but the Son shineth‘4 in darkness*.” Origen himself, how-
ever, has clearly explained his own meaning and drift in
these passages, in the following words in his fourth volume
on John, thus’; “But let no man suppose that, in saying
this, we are acting with impiety’ towards the Christ of God ;
for in the sense in which the Father alone hath immortality,
seeing that our Lord, out of loving-kindness towards men,
took upon Him the death [ which He endured] on our behalf,
in this sense is it true of the Father alone, that in Him is no
darkness at all, forasmuch as Christ, out of His beneficence
towards mankind, took our darknesses upon Himself.”

19. Thus have we at last clearly shewn that the doctrine
of Origen’s books against Celsus, in the article touching
the Son of God, is orthodox and catholic; and, further, to
the impious sayings which Jerome and others have attri-
buted to this distinguished teacher, we have opposed asser-
tions plainly contrary, taken out of the same work, of
which the genuineness is undoubted. Further, whosoever
wishes to acquaint himself with the catholic testimonies
which are found in the rest of Origen’s writings, should con-

@ [(Book iv. 2. 6.) Cf. Huet’s Ori-
geniana, II. 2. 16. p. 126, and the notes
on it in the Benedictine edition.—B. ]

> Deum Patrem esse lumen incom-
prehensibile; Christum collatione Pa-
tris splendorem esse perparvum, —
[Ibid. |

e In Patre nullas esse tenebras; Fi-
lium vero in tenebris lucere. [This is
perhaps taken from the work περὶ ἀρ-
χῶν, 1. 2. 8. p. 56.—B. J

ἃ μηδεὶς δ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὑπολαμβανέτω ταῦτα
λέγειν ἀσεβοῦντας εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ
Θεοῦ. ᾧ γὰρ λόγῳ ὃ Πατὴρ μόνος ἔχει
ἀθανασίαν, τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν διὰ φιλαν-
θρωπίαν θάνατον τὸν ὑ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀνειλη-
φότος, τούτῳ ὃ Πατὴρ ἔχει μόνος τὸ,
σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία, τοῦ
Χριστοῦ διὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀνθρώπους εὐερ-
γεσίαν ἐφ᾽ αὑτὸν τὰς ἡμῶν σκοτίας ἀνα-
dedeyuevov.—vol. iv. in Joan. edit.
Huet., p. 73. [tom. ii. 21, p. 79.)

BOOK II.
CHAP, IX.
δον 16—19.
OntoEN.
ia om-—

2 etiam
magni itu-
ine.

perpar-
vum splen-
dorem.

4 lucere.

5 ἀσεβοῦν-
τας.

[343]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

124

[344]

F substan-
tialiter.

2 assump-
tione.

3 decidere
potest.

42 U
αναμᾶρ-
τησιν.

5 omnino.

266 Evidences of Origen’s orthodoxy from passages quoted

sult the Apology of Pamphilus the martyr in defence of Ori-
gen, which is extant amongst the works of Jerome¢; that
this was the genuine work of Pamphilus we shall by and
by clearly prove, in opposition to Jerome. It may suffice for
us to recite in this place a few choicer passages out of that
Apology. From his first book περὶ ἀρχῶν Pamphilus quotes
these words of Origen®; “ There is, therefore, no nature,
which does not admit of evil, except the nature of God, which
is the fountain of all. And Christ is Wisdom, and wisdom, it
is plain, cannot admit of folly; and He is Righteousness, but
righteousness certainly will never admit of unrighteousness ;
He is also the Word or Reason, which, it is plain, cannot be
made irrational; but He is also Light, and it is certain that
light is not comprehended by darkness. In like manner
also the nature of the Holy Ghost which is holy, admits not
of pollution; seeing that It is naturally or essentially! holy.
If any other nature, however, be holy, it hath this its sancti-
fication, by receiving’, or being inspired by, the Holy Ghost,
possessing it, not of its own nature, but as an accident; and
on this account being an accident it may cease to be attached
to it®.” Here, Origen expressly teaches that sinlessness ὦ, or
the being incapable of admitting evil, belongs only to the
nature of God; and, at the same time, he no less expressly
declares, that neither the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, can
admit of evil; certainly® therefore Origen thought, that both
the Son and the Holy Ghost subsist in the divine nature ;
which I would have those persons to observe, who think that
Origen reckoned the Holy Ghost at any rate amongst created
beings. But afterwards also in the same passage he clearly

€ Tom. ix. edit. Marian. Victor. enim vel substantialiter sancta est. Si

Paris. 1623. {And in the Benedictine
edition of the works of Origen, vol. iv.
—B.]

Ε 5. Or pete.

g Nulla ergo natura est, que non
recipiat malum, excepta Dei natura,
que fons omnium est. Et Christus
sapientia est; et sapientia utique stul-
titiam recipere non potest. Et jus-
titia est; justitia autem nunquam pro-
fecto injustitiam capiet. Et Verbum
est vel ratio, que utique irrationabilis
effici non potest. Sed et lux est; et
lucem certum est quod tenebrze non
comprehendant. Similiter autem et
natura Spiritus Sancti, que sancta est,
non recipit pollutionem; naturaliter

qua autem alia natura sancta est, ex
assumptione hoc, vel inspiratione Spi-
ritus Sancti habet ut sanctificetur, non
ex sua natura hoc possidens, sed acci-
dens; propter quod et decidere potest
quod accidit—p. 120. [c 4 p. 27.]
The Benedictine edition reads, ‘ fons
bonorum omnium est et Christi. Sapi-
entia enim est,’ &c., “is the fountain
of all good things and of Christ. For
He is Wisdom,’’ &c.—B. All the edi-
tions and MSS. of Pamphilus’ Apology
have the text as Bp. Bull gives it,
except that some read Christi for
Christus: the correction of the Bene-
dictine editor is made from the Lat.
Vers. of the book de Principitis itself. ]

in the Apology of Pamphilus. 267

recognises the unchangeableness' and eternity of the whole
most holy Trinity in the following words; “If the Holy
Ghost knows the Father through the Son’s revealing Him,
it follows that He has passed from a state of ignorance to
one of knowledge; but this, as is plain, is alike impious and
absurd, to confess the Holy Ghost, and yet to attribute igno-
rance to Him. For it is not the case, that having been some-
thing else before He was the Holy Ghost, He came to be the
Holy Ghost by way of advancement’, so as that any one may
presume to say that at that time indeed, whilst as yet He
was not the Holy Ghost, He knew not the Father, but that
after He received [that] knowledge He also became the Holy
Ghost. For had this been so, never certainly would the Holy
Ghost Himself also be accounted to be in the unity of the
Trinity, that is, of God the Father who is unchangeable, and
of His Son, except because He Himself also ever was the
Holy Ghost.” Of the Son of God, moreover, Origen writes
thus, in his first book on the Epistle to the Romans’, as
quoted by Pamphilus ; “Some one perhaps may make a ques-
tion whether the Son is Love, chiefly for this reason, that
John has referred this word to God the Father, saying, ‘for
God is Love.’ But on the other hand we will adduce also
out of that same epistle of his that which he says, ‘ Beloved,
let us love one another, for Love is of God.’ He therefore,
who said, ‘for God is Love,’ does himself again teach that
Love is of God; which Love I believe to be no other than His
only-begotten Son, who, as He is God of God begotten, so is

Ὁ Sirevelante Filio cognoscit Patrem
Spiritus Sanctus, ergo ex ignorantia ad
scientiam venit; quod utique et im-
pium pariter et stultum est, Spiritum
S. confiteri,etignorantiam ei adscribere.
Non enim cum aliud aliquid esset ante-
quam Spiritus Sanctus, per profectum
venit in hoc, ut esset Spiritus Sanctus,
ut quis audeat dicere, quia tune quidem,
cum nondum esset Spiritus Sanctus,
ignorabat Patrem, postea vero quam
recepit scientiam, etiam Spiritus Sanc-
tus effectus est. Quod si esset, nun-
quam utique in unitate Trinitatis, id
est, Dei Patris inconvertibilis, et Filii
ejus, etiam ipse Spiritus S, haberetur,
nisi quia et ipse semper erat Spiritus
Sanctus.—[De Princip. I. 3, 4. p. 62. ]

i Querat fortassis aliquis, si Filius

charitas est, preecipue propter hoc quod
Joannes ad Deum Patrem retulit hanc
vocem, dicens, guia Deus charitas est.
Sed rursum ex ipsa ejus Epistola pro-
feremus et illud quod ait, Charissimi,
diligamus invicem, quoniam charitas ex
Deo est. Qui ergo dixit, quia Deus
charitas est, ipse iterum charitatem
docet esse ex Deo; quam charitatem
credo non esse alium nisi unigenitum
Filium ejus, sicut Deum ex Deo, ita
charitatem ex charitate progenitum.—
p- 122. [c. δ. p. 88: These words do
not occur any where in the Commen-
taries on the Epistle to the Romans, as
they have come down to us in the
translation of Ruffinus. See the note
on 1. 5. p. 466, (of the Bened. edition
of the commentary on Romans).—B. |

BOOK II.

CHAP, IX.
ae BR

ORIGEN.

1 inconver-
tibilitatem.

2 per pro-
fectum.

[846]

1 John
iv. 8.

1 John
νι:

268

Passages of Origen quoted by Pamphilus ;

fon tue He Love of Love.... The only-begotten* Son our Saviour,
who alone was born! of the Father, is alone Son by nature
and not by adoption.” Pamphilus presently afterwards cites
the following from Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to
the Hebrews’: “We ought, however, to know that Holy Scrip-
?quemdam ture, framing a mode [of expression] for itself?, by means of
certain ineffable and secret and recondite things—endeavours
to intimate [truths] to men, and to suggest to them subtle
understanding. For instance, in introducing the word va-
pour, it is on this account that it has taken it [into use]
from corporeal things, that we may be able, in some measure
at least, to conceive how Christ, who is Wisdom, after the
likeness of the vapour which proceeds from any corporeal
substance, does thus also Himself arise as a kind of vapour
out of * the power of God Himself. So Wisdom also, proceed-
ing from Him, is generated of the very substance of God;
thus, nevertheless, is She also said, after the similitude of

[346] a corporeal effluence*, to be ‘a certain pure and undefiled
4 corporalis effluence of the glory of the Almighty’ ;’ both which simili-
tudes do most manifestly shew that there is a communion of
Wisd. vii. substance between the Father and the Son. For an effluence
seems to be consubstantial, that is, of one substance with
that body, from which it is an effluence or vapour.” Lastly,
the most blessed martyr adduces the following passage also
of Origen™: “For care should be taken, that one run not
into the absurd fables of those who imagine to themselves
a kind of emanations®, so as to cut the divine nature into

CONSUB-

STANTIA-~

LITY OF

THE SON.

1 natus.

modum
sibi fa-
ciens.

3 de.

aporrhee.

5 [See
25. ]

6 prola-
tiones
quasdam.

* Unigenitus Filius Salvator noster,
qui solus ex Patre natus est, solus
natura et non adoptione Filius est.
[These words, according to Pam-
philus, are taken from book v. on
John.—B. Of this fragments only have
come down to us: the words are quoted
by Bp. Bull as part of the extract from
the commentary on Romans. |

1 Oportet autem scire nos, quia per
ineffabilia quedam et secreta ac re-
condita quemdam modum sibi faciens
Scriptura sancta conatur hominibus in-
dicare et intellectum suggerere sub-
tilem. Vaporis enim nomen inducens,
hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assump-
sit, ut vel ex parte aliqua intelligere
possimus, quomodo Christus, qui est
sapientia, secundum similitudinem ejus
vaporis, qui de substantia aliqua cor-

porea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut qui-
dam vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius
Dei; sic et sapientia, ex eo procedens,
ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur. Sic
nihilominus et secundum similitudi-
nem corporalis aporrheee esse dicitur
aporrhcea gloriz omnipotentis pura
quedam et sincera, Que utreque
similitudines manifestissime ostendunt,
communionem substantie esse Filio
cum Patre. Aporrhcea enim ὁμοούσιος
videtur, id est, unius substantize cum
illo corpore, ex quo est vel aporrhca
vel vapor.—[ Ibid. ]

™ Observandum namque est, ne quis
incurrat in illas absurdas fabulas eorum,
qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsis de-
pingunt; ut divinam naturam in partes
vocent, (puto legendum secent, Bull,)
et Deum Patrem, quantum in se est,

alleged to have been forged by Ruffinus ; 269

parts, and, so far as lies in them, to divide God the Father ;
whereas 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 degree of folly ;
nor, is it at all congruous even as a matter of conception|,
that a substantial division of an incorporeal nature should be
imaginable. Rather, therefore, as will proceeds from mind,
and yet neither cuts off any portion of the mind, nor is sepa-
rated or divided from it, in some such way is it to be sup-
posed that the Father begot the Son, that is to say, as His
own image; so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, so
has He begotten an Image which is also invisible. For the
Son is the Word, and therefore nothing [of a nature] sub-
ject to sense is to be conceived of in Him. He is Wisdom,
and in Wisdom nothing corporeal is to be surmised. He 1s,
moreover, ‘the true Light, which lighteneth every man that
cometh into this world, but He has nothing in common
with the light of this sun.”

20. Now who can fail to see that by these passages of
Origen, which Pamphilus has adduced, the catholic faith
respecting the Son of God, and further respecting the con-
substantial Trinity, is most plainly established? Some,
however, attempt to invalidate the authority of these tes-
timonies under this pretence, that the alleged passages were
nowhere to be found entire in the Greek Apology, be it
of Pamphilus or Eusebius; but were invented and added
by Ruffinus in his Latin translation.
of this opinion is the fact, that Jerome objects agains
Ruffinus that the Greek Apology of Eusebius (for he would
not have it to be the work of Pamphilus) did in fact defend
the Arian creed, and shewed that Origen was of that same

‘dividant; cum hoc de incorporea na-
tura vel leviter suspicari non solum
extreme impietatis sit, verum etiam
ultimz insipientie; nec omnino vel
ad intelligentiam consequens, ut incor-
pore nature substantialis divisio pos-
sit intelligi, Magis ergo sicut volun-
tas procedit e mente, et neque partem
aliquam mentis secat, neque ab ea
-separatur aut dividitur, tali quadam
specie putandus est Pater Filium genu-
1556, imaginem 501], suam; ut sicut

ipse est invisibilis per naturam, ita im-
aginem quoque invisibilem genuerit.
Verbum enim est Filius, et ideo nihil
in eo sensibile intelligendum est. Sa-
pientia est, et in sapientia nihil cor-
poreum suspicandum est. Lumen est
verum, quod illuminat omnem hominem
venientem in hunc mundum; sed nihil
habet commune ad solis hujus lumen.
—[Pamph. Apol. p. 34, from the trea-
tise περὶ ἀρχῶν, 1. 2—6. p. 55. ]

BOOK II.
CHAP. IX.
§ 19, 20.

ORIGEN.

1 vel ad in-
telligen-
tiam con-
sequens.

John 1. 9.

[347]
125

The whole ground’? prora et
enue

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

Δ venuina,

2 Apolo-

giam.

[3481

3 ἐπερείδε-
ται.

4 οὐδὲν τῶν
ἐσφαλμέ-
νων λέγει.

270 Jerome’s assertion that the Apology of Pamphilus

belief. For thus he writes in his Apology against Ruffinus,
i. 4"; “The learned Eusebius, throughout six volumes, is
engaged in nothing else than in shewing that Origen was
of his own faith, that is, of the Arian faithlessness.” From
this Sandius® concludes that the Apology which was pub-
lished by Ruffinus in Latin, under the name of that of Pam-
philus, “ either was not [the production] of Eusebius,” (or
Pamphilus,) “or was so translated by Ruffinus into Latin,
that not a single line was left as it originally stood’; or
lastly, if any portion was left by Ruffinus as it originally
stood, it must afterwards have been cut out even from his
version.” It may however be proved by the strongest argu-
ments, that on this point Jerome is not to be trusted; for,
in the first place, Photius, cod. 118, testifies that he had him-
self read in the Greek the six books of Pamphilus the Mar-
tyr and Eusebius in defence of Origen; in which that severe
critic does not mark any traces of Arian heresy, although
at other times in the writings of others he is constantly ac-
customed to animadvert on all the slightest points which
bear even the appearance of Arianism. Again, this same Pho-
tius, cod. 117”, in mentioning a certain ancient anonymous
author, who likewise wrote a Defence? of Origen, says, that
that author in his Apology contended for Origen and his opi-
nions on the authority both of other more ancient writers, and
especially of Pamphilus the Martyr and Eusebius of Ceesarea.
Photius’ words are, “ But more than on all the others does he
lean® on Pamphilus the Martyr and on Eusebius.” So that
it appears to me to be beyond doubt, that this anonymous
writer pursued the very same method of defending Origen
as Pamphilus and Eusebius. But was the Apologist an
Arian? Any thing rather; for Photius himself, who in an-
other place attributes to him most of the errors of Origen,
expressly says, that “concerning the Holy Trinity he main-
tains none of the erroneous doctrines*.” How then does the

n Vir doctissimus Eusebius, per sex
volumina nihil aliud agit, nisi ut Ori-
genem sue ostendat fidei, id est, Ari-
anz perfidiz.—[§ 16. vol. II. p. 507. ]

° De Script. Eccles., p. 47.

P [ἀνεγνῴσθη βίβλιον brép’ Ωριγένους,

. ἐν τόμοις ἐ. ἀνεπίγραφον δὲ τὴν
ὀνομασίαν ἐτύγχανε τοῦ συντεταχότος
vee ὃ δὲ τοῦ συγγράμματος πατὴρ μάρ-

τυρας ὑπὲρ Ωριγένους τε καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ
δογμάτων... προκομιζει]. .. μᾶλλον
δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων Παμφίλῳ τε τῷ
μάρτυρι ἐπερείδεται, καὶ τῷ Εὐσεβίῳ...
περὶ [μέντοι] τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος οὐδὲν τῶν
ἐσφαλμένων λέγει... φησὶ δὲ, καὶ περὶ
τοῦ ᾿Ωριγένους, μηδὲν αὐτὸν κατὰ δόξαν
ἐσφάλθαι περὶ τῆς τριάδο“.---- Ποῖ, Bibl.
cod. 117,

was designed to shew that Origen was an Arian; refuted. 271

[anonymous] author defend Origen? ‘And he also declares,” soox 1.
says Photius, “respecting Origen, that he entertained no er- eo
roneous opinion! concerning the Holy Trinity.” Photius “O,icun.
afterwards states, that this writer had proved that the fif- 1 μηδὲν
teen points* which were objected to Origen, (of which the rae Che
_ first three, the thirteenth, and the last, related to the article 2 capite.
of the 'T'rinity4,) “were [mere] calumnies®, deriving his proofs 3 διαβολὰς.
out of the writings of (Origen) himself.’ The very same
principle and method is observed in the Apology, which was
published by Ruffinus under the name of Pamphilus. From

these facts the following, at least, certainly results; that an

ancient Greek writer, who, even in the opinion of Photius,

was eatholic on the article of the holy Trinity, adduced out

of the actual* writings of Origen, as they were then extant in ‘ ipsis.
Greek, testimonies which shewed that Origen also® was catho- 5 pariter.
lic on that same article [of faith], and that that writer did this

after the example of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius, and
following in their footsteps. Lastly, we have evidently proved
elsewhere, that Eusebius himself never embraced the heresy,

which was afterwards called Arian; he could not therefore

have defended the Arian impiety in Origen, either alone, or

in conjunction with Pamphilus,—for the Apology was their

joit work, as we shall afterwards" shew. But Pamphilus and [349]
Eusebius in that Apology, adduced, I conceive*, some testi-6 videntur.
monies from Origen, in which were intermixed little words? 7 vocule.
and phrases which in the time of Jerome were offensive to
catholic ears, as having been employed by the Arians at that

time to propagate their heresy: and these passages, I imagine,
Ruffinus for that very reason cut out from his version, being

content to translate such passages of Origen quoted by Pam-

philus, as taught the catholic doctrine in terms unequivocally
catholic. And Ruffinus himself seems to intimate this, when

in the conclusion® [attached] to his translation, and addressed 8 epilogo.
to Macarius, he declares, that* he had “translated into the

Latin tongue the Apology of the holy martyr Pamphilus, ac-

cording to his ability, or as THE CASE REQUIRED.” For the

4 [ἔστι δὲ, ἃ λέγει μάτην αὐτοῦ κατη- * Apologeticum sancti martyris Pam-
γορηθῆναι, | διαβολὰς εἶναι, ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ phili, ... .. prout potuimus, vel RES
ἐκείνου συγγραμμάτων ποιούμενον τοὺς ῬΟΡΟΒΟΙΊ, Latino sermone digessimus,

€A€yxovus.—[ Lbid. ] —[p. 48; see below, p. 274.]

t See ch. 13. § 3, of this book.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON,

1 studio-
sum,

2 vafree.

3 provocat.

4 qualiter
sentiat
Origenes
in singulis.

272 The honesty of Ruffinus’ translation.

rest I am persuaded, that Ruffinus inserted no testimony of
Origen in his version, which was not contained in so many
words in the Apology of Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that,
whatever he may have omitted, he added nothing of his own.
For near the beginning of his preface to the Apology of
Pamphilus, Ruffinus himself solemnly avows to Macarius,
that he had, in reply to Macarius’ enquiries, set forth in
that work‘, “not his own opinion” concerning Origen, “ but
that of the holy martyr Pamphilus;” and had defended Ori-
gen “in the words of another,’ and not in his own; and
that Ruffinus was a man who endeavoured after! sincere
piety, there are many circumstances to shew, however much
the subtle? arts of Jerome may have made him an object of
dislike to the Romans. Afterwards in the same passage he
appeals against*® his adversaries to the tremendous judgments
of God on this very point, in these words; “ But since we
shall have to appear before the judgment-seat of God, let
none refuse to know that which is true, lest peradventure
they should offend through ignorance; rather, considering
that to wound the consciences of weak brethren by false ac-
cusations is to sin against Christ, let them, on this account,
not lend their ear to accusers, nor learn what the faith of
one is from the report of another, especially when there is
full opportunity before them to ascertain it, and when there
is the confession of his own mouth to shew, what or how each
man believes. Let the tenor of this short treatise declare
what are indeed the sentiments* of Origen on each particular
point".” It is true that in translating most of the works of
Origen, Ruffinus added much of his own; but so often as he
has used this liberty he has himself* expressly informed his

* [Quamvis non meam de eo] sen-
tentiam, sed sancti martyris Pamphili
[sciscitatus sis et librum ejus... trans-
ferri tibi poposceris in Latinum: tamen
non dubito futuros quosdam, qui et in
eo lesos se putent, si nos aliquid pro
eo vel] alieno sermone [dicamus. ]
—p. 19.]

u Sed quoniam ad judicium Dei ven-
turi sumus, non refugiant scire quod
verum est, ne forte ignorantes delin-
quant; sed considerantes quia falsis
criminationibus percutere fratrum in-
firmorum conscientias, in Christum
peccare est, ideo non accommodent

criminatoribus aurem suam, nec ab
alio discant alterius fidem, maxime
cum coram experiri sit copia, et oris
sui confessio, quid vel qualiter unus-
quisque credit, ostendat. Qualiter ergo
sentiat Origenes in singulis, tenor
libelli hujus edoceat.—[In the Bene-
dictine edition the reading is, Qualiter
ergo Origenes de singulis capitulis
sanctarum Scripturarum senserit, &c.,
i. e. What indeed were the senti-
ments of Origen on the several points
of the Holy Scriptures,” &c. ]

x See Ruffinus’ preface to the trea-
tise περὶ ἀρχῶν, and his Peroration to

Jerome’s allegations against the Apology itself. 278

reader, as became an honest man and one who loves the soox n.
truth. Nay, what is to be said to the fact, that! Jerome § 20, oe
himself, who in any other case would on no account have POnmcee
forgiven Ruffinus so clear an act of fraud, has not marked? Quid?
even one single passage of Origen quoted in the Apology, be Tue Se
it of Pamphilus or Eusebius, as having been rendered by
Ruffinus into Latin in any other sense than that in which
it occurred, whether in that Apology or in Origen himself.

21. Who then would not be surprised that Jerome should
bring these objections against Ruffinus respecting this very
version of his? “There are,” he says’, “to be found in it many
scandals? and most open blasphemies. Eusebius, or rather 2 scandala.
Pamphilus, (as you will have it,) in that volume declares that
the Son is the servant of the Father?; that the Holy Ghost s patris
is not of the same substance with the Father and the Son ; Ministrum.
that the souls of men fell‘ from heaven,” &e. Now although 4 Japsas
Pamphilus is indeed introduced in the Apology translated 985.
by Ruffinus, as defending Origen for having believed the
pre-existence of souls, yet still that blasphemy about the
Holy Ghost is no where found in that work. But you will
say, Ruffinus expunged it from his books® on being remind- 5 codicibus.
ed of it by Jerome. How then does it come to pass, that [351]
there is not now extant a single copy of the work in which
that blasphemy is to be found? For copies of Ruffinus’ trans-
lation had been very widely dispersed before Jerome brought
forward that objection. Surely it is not likely, that Ruf-
finus, whom the arts of Jerome had brought into contempt
at Rome, could either have suppressed or corrected’ all those 6 men.
earlier copies? Then again, Ruffinus, in his Conclusion to 8816:
Pamphilus’ Apology, as he himself first published it, thus
addresses Macarius, (as we are also informed by Jerome?’ ;)
“Tn respect to these things, which in the foregoing treatise
we have sct forth according to our ability, or as the case
required, in the Latin tongue, following the Apology of the

the Comment. of Origen on the Epistle num lapsas esse de ccelo, &c.—Apol.
to the Romans. - advers, Ruffin. II. 4. [8 15. vol. ii.
Y In illo scandala reperiuntur οἴ p. 506. |
apertissime blasphemie. Dicit Eu- * In his que in superiori libro, se-
sebius, imo, ut tu vis, Pamphilus in cundum Apologeticum sancti martyris
isto volumine, Filium Patris minis- Pamphili, quem pro Origene Graco
trum; Spiritum S, non de eadem Pa- sermone edidit, prout potuimus vel res
tris Filiique substantia; animas homi- _ poposcit, Latino sermone digessimus,

BULL, η'

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
EUTLY “OF

THE SON.

[352]
1 Apologize
a Ruffino
verse.

2 ex tra-
duce,

274 That he denied the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost ;

holy martyr Pamphilus, which he published in Greek in vin-
dication of Origen, there is this of which I wish you, my
dear Macarius, to be reminded, that you may know that this
which we have set forth above out of his works, is that rule
of faith which ought to be embraced, and held fast. For it
is evidently proved that a catholic sense pervades them all.”
Now it is manifestly impossible that Ruffinus, who without
any doubt was catholic in the article of the Holy Trinity,
should have deliberately asserted, that it was clearly proved that
there was a catholic sense contained in so open a blasphemy,
and this in that very treatise addressed to Macarius, in
which he religiously avouches his belief, “that the Holy
Trinity is coeternal, and of one nature, and of one power and
substance ;” and denounces an anathema on the man who
should teach the contrary. Or was Ruffinus so dull as not of
himself to detect, without a prompter, so gross a blasphemy
in his own translation? Certainly not; what then must we
say? I trust the candid reader will here permit me to throw
out a conjecture. Pamphilus towards the end of his Apo-
logy, as translated by Ruffinus', when defending, or, at any
rate, excusing, the error of Origen respecting the pre-exist-
ence of souls, and disputing against such as maintained the
propagation of souls, describes two classes of these latter ;
the first, that of those, who, whilst they held that the souls
of men were derived by propagation’, nevertheless maintained
that the first soul was of the substance of God; the other,
that of those, who asserted, that that first soul was made by
God out of nothing. Against the former Pamphilus reasons
thus’; ‘ Now as respects those, who hold that souls come
from propagation and that they are sown together with the
seed of the body, if indeed, (as certain of themselves are
wont to affirm,) they maintain that soul is nothing else than
the in-breathing of the Spirit of God, that, namely, which
at the beginning of the creation of the world God is said

illud est quod te, desideriorum vir
Macari, admonitum esse volo, ut scias
hane quidem fidei regulam, quam de
libris ejus supra exposuimus, esse, que
et amplectenda sit, et tenenda. In
omnibus enim his catholicum inesse
Ri evidenter probatur.—[Ibid., p.
48.

4 See Ruffinus’s preface to Maca-
rius. [Pamph. Apol., p. 17. ]

» Jam vero illi, qui ex traduce ani-
mas venire affirmant, et simul cum
corporali eas semine seminari, siqui-
dem, ut quidam ipsorum affirmare so~
lent, non aliud dicunt animum esse
quam insufflationenr Spiritus Dei, illam

to be understood of the Breath of Life breathed into Man. 275

to have breathed into Adam, asserting that this is of the nook τι.

very substance of God; how shall not these too be believed ἐπ τ νὼ

some how to be ane this assertion in opposition to the Sa
rule of Scripture and the analogy of the faith!, [namely,] ?rationem
that it is the substance of God which sins?” These words, I P'*“"*
have little doubt, were the foundation of Jerome’s calumni-

ous charge” against Pamphilus. For, along with many of the 3 calum-
ancients, Jerome held that the breath of life, which God is ΠΟ
said to have breathed into the first man, was the Holy Spirit
Himself* infused into that same man, together with his soul‘. *: lee
Thus in his Commentary on chap. iv. of the Epistle to the Sunes
Ephesians, on the words, “ Grieve not the Holy Spirit where- ch. iv. 30.
by ye have been sealed in the day of redemption,” he has this

note°; “ For we were sealed with the Holy Spirit of God,

that both our spirit and soul may have the impress of God’s

seal*, and that we may again receive that image and likeness, ἢ Me ct
after which, in the beginning, we were created. This seal ” Ἢ 97
of the Holy Spirit, according to the language of our Savi-

our, is sealed by the impress of God.” Here he makes that

image and likeness of God, after which man was formed at [353]
his very creation, to be the seal of the Holy Spirit ; and this

he appears to have done simply from believing that the

breath of life, which God is said to have breathed into the

first man when He formed him, was the Holy Spirit. This is

more clearly expressed by Tertullian in his Treatise on Bap-

tism, chap. v., where he speaks thus of the regeneration of

man which is wrought by® baptism?; “Thus man is restored ° per.

to God, after His likeness, who in time past had been made

after God’s image, &c. For he receives again that Spirit of

God, which at that time he had received from His in-breath-

ing’, but afterwards had lost by sin.” Pamphilus, then, 7 adfatu.
or the author of the Apology, (understanding, as it appears,

5011, quam initio facturee mundi Deus
dicitur insufflasse in Adam, de ipsa
Dei esse eam substantia profitentes;
quomodo non et isti videbuntur quo-
dammodo hee preter Scripture regu-
lam et rationem pietatis asserere, quod
substantia Dei est que peccat ?—
p. 127. 16: 9. p. 43.]

¢ Signati autem sumus Spiritu Dei
Sancto, ut et spiritus noster et anima
imprimantur signaculo Dei, et illam

recipiamus imaginem et similitudinem,
ad quam in exordio conditi sumus.
Hoe signaculum Sancti Spiritus, juxta
eloquium Salvatoris, Deo imprimente
signatur. —[Vol. vii. p. 632.]

ὦ Ita restituitur homo Deo ad simi-
litudinem ejus, qui retro ad imaginem
Dei fuerat, &c. Recipit enim illum
Dei Spiritum, quem tune de adflatu
ejus acceperat, sed post amisera per
delictum.—[p. 226. ]

t 2

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[354]

1 conse-
quenter.

2 [ Euse-
bius of
Cremona. |

276 Ruffinus complained that his version was interpolated.

by in-breathing, as did the opponents whom he is refuting,
nothing else than the soul of man itself,) denied that the
in-breathing of the Spirit of God was of the very substance
of God; and from this it seems to have arisen that Jerome
accused him, as though he had taught that the Spirit of
God, the Third Person of the Godhead, was not of the sub-
stance of God, and was, consequently, a servant of God or
a creature. If, however, any one does not like this con-
jecture of mine, he must, I think, of necessity maintain that
Ruffinus’ version of the Apology of Pamphilus was corrupted
by his opponents and Jerome’s partizans; and that Jerome
laid hold of that accusation from some corrupted copy. It
is indeed certain, that Ruffinus himself complains of some
wrong of this kind done to his translation of Origen’s work
περὶ ἀρχῶν, appealing to God who knows the hearts, to
avenge the wrong. For he writes thus im the first book of
his Invectives against Jerome’; “They should have adduced
my very words, just as I had translated. But now hear what
they do, and see whether there be any precedent or example
for their flagitious conduct. In the passage where it was
written, ‘But if you demand of me what I think concerning
the Only-begotten Himself, let it not at once be thought by
you either impious or absurd, if I say that the nature of God,
who is naturally invisible, is not visible even to Him: for we
will give you a reason in due course’.’ Now instead of what
we wrote, ‘We will in due course give you a reason,’ they
substituted, ‘Let it not at once be thought by you either
impious or absurd, that as the Son sees not the Father,
so neither does the Holy Ghost see the Son.’ Now if he’
who was sent from the monastery to Rome, as being most
expert in calumny, had committed such an offence in the
courts, or in the affairs of the world, every one knows what

e Ipsa, sicut transtu'eram, mea ver-
ba posuissent. Sed nunc ausculta, quid
faciant; et flagitii eorum require, si
ullum precessit, exemplum. In eo
loco, ubi scriptum erat, ‘ Quod si requi-
ris a me, quid etiam de ipso Unigenito
sentiam, si ne ipse [ipsi ed. Ben. ] qui-
dem visibilem dicam naturam Dei, qui
naturaliter invisibilis est, non tibi sta-
tim vel impium videatur esse, vel ab-
surdum: rationem quippe dabimus
consequenter ;’ pro eo quod nos scrip-

simus, rationem quippe dabimus conse-
quenter,’ illi scripserunt, ‘ Non tibi sta-
tim impium vel absurdum videatur
esse; quia sicut Filius Patrem non videt,
ita nec Spiritus S. videt Filium.’ Hoe
si in foro positus vel negotiis secula--
ribus commisisset ille, qui de monas-
terio Romam, quasi calumniandi peri-
tissimus, missus est, norunt omnes,
quid consequeretur ex legibus publicis
ejusmodi criminis reus. Nunc vero
quia secularem vitam reliquit, et a

Bp. Bull’s conclusion respecting Origen. 207
{punishment] a person convicted on a charge of this kind
would have incurred from the public laws. But now that he
has relinquished a secular life, and has turned himself from
the chicanery of public pleading to a monastery, and has
attached himself to a distinguished teacher!, he learns from
him a second time, instead of moderation, fury and mad-
ness; instead of quietness, to excite commotion ; instead of
peace, to kindle war; instead of concord, to awaken dissen-
sion; to be perfidious for the faith, and a falsifier for truth.”
Presently after in the same book he gives this account con-
cerning the falsifier: “when he was reading out,” he says,
“a forged passage of this kind at Milan, and I declared that
what he read was forged; on being asked from whom he had
procured his copy, he replied that a lady? had given it to
him: I said of her, ‘Whosoever she be, I say nothing; but I
leave her to her own consciousness and that of God.’” And
this must suffice at present concerning Pamphilus’ Apology
for Origen.

22. To bring this chapter to a close at last; in the course
of a very attentive consideration of those passages of Origen,
which have been adduced above, I come to this conclusion ;
that this father, who has been attacked by the censures of
80 many divines, both ancient and modern, in respect of
the article of the divinity of the Son and even of the Holy
Trinity, was yet really catholic; although in his mode of ex-
plaining this article, he sometimes expressed himself other-
wise than Catholics of the present day are wont to do; but
this is common to him with nearly all the fathers who lived
before the council of Nice. Further—inasmuch as I have

BOOK II.
CHAP. Ix.
§ 21, 22.

ORIGEN.

1[ Jerome. |

2 matro-
nem [ Mar-
cella. |

[355]

very carefully studied the works of Origen, and have accu--

rately weighed his history as the ancients have narrated it,
—I may be permitted freely to record my judgment of his
theology in general, without offence to any one. He was

tergiversatione illa actuum publicorum
ad monasterium conversus est, et ad-
hesit magistro nobili, ab ipso edocetur
iterum pro modestia furere, insanire;
pro quiete seditiones movere; pro pace
movere bellum; pro concordia movere
dissidia; perfidus esse pro fide, pro
veritate falsarius. ... Cum falsam, in-
quit, hujusmodi sententiam apud Me-

diolanum recitaret, et a me, que exi-
gebat, falsa esse dicerentur, interro-
gatus a quo accepisset exemplaria, re-
spondit, Matronam quandam sibi de-
disse; de qua ego, Quecunque illa
est, nihil dico; sed sui eam et Dei
conscientiz derelinquo.—inter opera
Hieron., tom. ix. p. 140. [vol. ii.
p- 600. |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

128
[356]

278 Additional arguments for Origen’s orthodoxy.

indeed a man, as all agree, of remarkable piety, but of a too
inquisitive and almost wanton genius. His piety and reli-
gious reverence restrained him from making any innovation
on the rule of faith, (of which a great part is the doctrine of
the most Holy Trinity;) but on other points, which might be
made matter of discussion without trenching on the rule of
faith, yielding too much to his natural disposition, he put
forward not a few opinions differing very widely from the
views more commonly entertained by the teachers who were
his contemporaries. To this class I refer his paradoxes con-
cerning the pre-existence of the soul, the stars being ani-
mated, an infinity of worlds, and the like. But even on these
subjects he observed the modesty which becomes a pious
person, in that he propounded them not in a dogmatic and
positive manner, but as though he were diligently enquiring
into the truth on points which had not yet been expressly
defined by the judgment of the Church. On this the reader
should by all means consult the Apology of Pamphilus near
the beginning r.

23. This judgment of mine concerning Origen, is con-
firmed by many other considerations, besides the testimonies
which have been already adduced in this chapter. In the
first place, the defenders of Origen, who were all catholic on
the article concerning the Holy Trinity, at the same time
that they did not deny other heterodox sentiments, which
were attributed to him, such for instance as those which we
have just mentioned, but either excused or even defended
them, still strenuously maintained, that in respect of the
Trinity, Origen’s own views agreed with those of all Catholics.
It was on this ground, as we have just shewn, that Pam-
philus the Martyr and that anonymous apologist mentioned
by Photius, defended Origen; and that Didymus of Alexan-
dria, a man eminent for piety and erudition, and a most
resolute supporter of the Nicene Creed, adopted the same
course in his defence of Origen, is testified by Jerome him-
self, who, in his Apology against Ruffinus, thus addresses
Ruffinus himself: “ What answer, he asks, will you make

f See likewise, Huet’s Origeniana: 8 Quid respondebis pro Didymo,
11, p. 189. [lib. ii, Queest. 14. c. 3. qui certe in Trinitate catholicus est,
δ 11, 12. p. 255.] cujus etiam nos de Spiritu Sancto li-

Didymus ; St. Basil, St. Greg. Naz., Socrates ;

279

on behalf of Didymus, who at any rate is orthodox on the Βοοκ u.
docrine of the Trinity, and whose treatise on the Holy Ghost
I myself have translated into Latin? He certainly could not Oricen.
have agreed to those things which heretics have added to the

works of Origen ;

which you have translated, he wrote short commentaries, in
which he did not deny that what is written, is written by
Origen, but [asserted] that we simple folk could not under-
stand what he said, and endeavours to persuade us in what
sense they should be taken so as to have a good meaning.

This, however, refers only to his statements respecting the
as regards other doctrines both

Son and the Holy Ghost ;

Eusebius and Didymus do most openly give in to the te-
nets of Origen, and maintain that statements which all the

churches reprobate, are catholic and religious.”
of Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History, iv. 26, about Basil
the Great and Gregory of Nazianzum, are also worthy of
And) vet,” He says, “when the Arians ap-

observation? :

The words

pealed’? to the books of Origen in confirmation, as they ἢ τ
thought, of their own doctrine, these confuted them, and
shewed that they did not understand the meaning of Ori-

gen.”

In the second place, the earlier adversaries and the

chief opponents of Origen, who on other points attacked him
with the greatest vehemence, and with too much severity,

were almost entirely silent respecting any heresy of his on

the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, Socrates, Hist. Eccl.
vi. 13, in treating of the leading accusers of Origen, viz.,
Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris, and Theophilus, (whom
speaking rather freely he calls “a quaternion® of calumnia- ὃ κακολό-

tors,”) makes this observation respecting them!;

“ABs

affirm that even additional evidence in favour of * Origen re- 4

brum in Latinam linguam vertimus ἢ
certe hic in lis, que ab hereticis in
Origenis operibus addita sunt, consen-
tire non potuit; et in ipsis περὶ ἀρχῶν,
quos tu interpretatus es, libris breves
dictavit commentariolos, quibus non
negaret ab Origene scripta que scripta
sunt, sed nos simplices homines non
posse intelligere que dicuntur; et quo
sensu in bonam partem accipi debeant,
persuadere conatur. Hoc duntaxat de
Filio et Spiritu Sancto; czterum in
aliis dogmatibus et Eusebius et Didy-

mus apertissime in Origenis scita con-
cedunt, et, quod omnes ecclesiz repro-
bant, catholice et pie dictum esse de-
fendunt.—Tom. iii. p. 512. [ὃ 16. vol.
ii. p. 507.]

h καίτοι, τῶν ᾿Αρειανῶν τὰ ᾿Ωριγένους
βιβλία εἰς μαρτυρίαν, &s ᾧοντο, τοῦ ἰδίου
καλούντων δόγματος, αὐτοὶ ἐξήλεγχον,
καὶ ἐδείκνυον μὴ νοήσαντας τοῦ ᾿Ωριγέ-
νους σύνεσιν .---ἰ Socr. Εἰ. H. iv. 26.}

: ἐγὼ δέ τι, καὶ πλέον ἐκ τῆς ἐκεί-
νων αἰτιάσεως εἰς σύστασιν ᾿Ωριγένους
φημί. οἱ γὰρ κινήσαντες ὕσαπερ ᾧοντο

CHAP. IX.

§ 22, 23.

and on those very books of Principles |}, * περὶ ἀρ-
χῶν.

ῶν
᾿Αρειανῶν

καλούντων.

[357]

yov τε-

ied by.
"εἰς σύσ-

τασιν.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

* nullo
negotio.

? refor-
masset.

280 from Sulpicius’ account of the Council of Theophilus,

sults from their accusations of him. For those who brought
up whatever points they thought worthy of blame, and in
the course of these did not at all censure him as holding
wrong opinions respecting the Holy Trinity, are hereby most
clearly shewn to testify to his orthodox piety.” Theo-
philus, indeed, (if we are to trust Jerome,) in the first of
those Paschal Letters, which were translated into Latin by
Jerome, and are extant at this day both in the Bibliotheca
Magna Patrum*, and among the works of Jerome!, does cen-
sure certain errors of Origen on the subject of the Trinity ;
but these might easily! be explained if we had had leisure
for it at present. It is certain, however, that Sulpicius
Severus, an historian of very great credit, Dial. I. ο. 3, in
narrating the history of a council, which was convened in his
own times by Theophilus against the writings of Origen,
writes to this effect™; ‘ Many extracts from his books were
read by the bishops, which were certainly opposed to the
catholic faith; but the passage which excited the most un-
favourable feeling against him, was that, in which it was
stated, that the Lord Jesus, even as He had come in the flesh
for the redemption of man, had endured the cross for the
salvation of man, and had tasted death for the immortality
of man, so would He in the same order of suffering redeem
the devil also; masmuch as it was befitting His goodness
and piety, that, He who had renewed? ruined man, should
likewise liberate the fallen angel.’ Now if it had been
evident that Origen’s opinions, touching the prime doctrine
of Christianity, I mean, the most Holy Trinity, had been as
impious as Jerome and others have alleged, surely Theophi-
lus and the bishops of his party, who ransacked every corner
of Origen’s writings, to find a handle for accusing him, and
who seem to have been especially bent upon exciting the

μέμψεως ἄξια, δὶ ὧν ὡς κακῶς Sokdfovra diam, in quo editum legebatur, quia

περὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἐμέμ.--
ψαντο, δείκνυνται περιφανῶς τὴν ὀρθὴν
εὐσέβειαν μαρτυροῦντες αὐτῷ.---[1014.
vi. 13. ]

* [ Tom. v. pp. 843, sqq. Lugd. 1677. |

1 [Tom. ii. pp. 545, sq. |

m Cum ab episcopis excerpta in li-
bris illius multa legerentur, que con-
tra catholicam fidem scripta constaret,
locus ille vel maximam parabat invi-

Dominus Jesus, sicut pro redemptione
hominis in carne venisset, crucem pro
hominis salute perpessus, mortem pro
hominis eternitate gustasset, ita esset
eodem ordine passionis etiam Diabolum
redempturus ; quia hoc bonitati illius
pietatique congrueret, ut qui perditum
hominem reformasset, prolapsum quo-
que angelum liberaret.—Pag. 548. ed.
Lugd. Batavor. 1654.

from Eusebius, and the History of his own times. 281

greatest general ill-will against Origen, (whose authority soox τι.

the factious monks were making an ill use of against the Shee
Church,) would have exposed his heresy on this point) Whee

reservedly to all; inasmuch as, in that age, this heresy, ! precipue.
above all others, was regarded by Catholics (and justly

so) with the greatest abhorrence. But they being wary

men, knew full well that such an accusation might have

been most easily refuted by the defenders of Origen, out

of Origen’s own unquestioned writings; therefore they
passed it by, and laid the stress of their charge against

him on other heads, on which he could not be so easily
defended. Severus adds in the same passage, that what

was objected to Origen at that council was, in his own opi-

nion, an error, not a heresy, and yet it is certain, that the

Arian doctrine was regarded by Severus as a most pesti- 129
lential heresy ; it follows therefore that Origen was in no

wise declared guilty of Arianism at that synod. Thirdly,

that is worthy of observation, which Eusebius (in his Eccl. [359]
History, vi. 2, near the end) relates respecting the con-
staney of Origen in maintaining the orthodox faith, adding

these words"; “ Preserving even from boyhood the rule of

the Church, and abominating’, as he somewhere himself ?S3eaurré-
says, using that very word, the doctrines of heresies.” Surely “”°*
no one who is familiar with Kcclesiastical History, can be
ignorant that Origen was the foremost* and well nigh the ° prima-
only champion of the Church in defence of the catholic faith oe et
against whatsoever heresies were springing up in his time. cum.
For, as often as, and wheresoever, there arose any heretic,

who presumed to impugn the faith received in the Church,
recourse was at once had to Origen alone; that he, as an-

other David, might attack with his sling the Goliath who
reproached the army of the Lord; nay, he used to present
himself of his own accord for contests such as this, (herein

again resembling David,) out of the love and zeal which he

bore to the truth. Surely no one at any time deserved more

than Origen to be called malleus omnium-hereticorum. Now

the Catholic Church has at all times judged the doctrine con-
cerning the true Divinity of the Son to belong to the un-

Ὁ φυλάττων, ἐξ ἔτι παιδὸς κανόνα ἐκ- ῥήματί φησί που αὐτὸς, τὰς τῶν αἱρέ-
κλησίας, βδελυττόμενός τε, ὡς αὐτῷ σεων διδασκαλίας.--| Euseb. Εἰ. Η. vi. 2. |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 natus.

[360]

. 2 scilicet.

282 His orthodoxy shewn from his own works, his teacher

changeable rule of faith; nor did Origen entertain any other
view; for in his first book, περὶ ἀρχῶν, (as quoted by Pam-
philus in his Apology,) in making a distinction between doc-
trines, which are necessary to be known and believed, and
those which are not necessary, he puts amongst the necessary
these following’; “ First, that there is one God, who created
all-thines. οἶνος Then next, that Jesus Christ was begotten’
of the Father before every creature . . . that whereas He was
God, He became incarnate, and being made man He con-
tinued to be what He was, God. ... Then next, that the Holy
Ghost is associated with the Father and the Son, in honour
and dignity.” Amongst the doctrines that are not necessary,
or in other words, questions which might be debated on either
side, [so it be done] temperately and without detriment to
the peace of the Church, he enumerates in the same passage,
questions concerning the time and mode of the creation of
angels, concerning the sun, the moon, and the stars, whether
they be animate or inanimate, &c. In the discussion, indeed’,
of questions of this sort, Origen perhaps allowed himself too
much freedom; but so far as relates to those other doctrines,
he scrupulously refrained from departing a hair’s-breadth
from the rule of faith which was fixed and established in the
Church. Fourthly, Bellarmine’s4 argument (which we have
elsewhere touched on incidentally") seems to me to be of
great weight, however much the very learned Huet despised
it. He proves that Origen was catholic on this article, from
the orthodoxy and soundness of the opinions of his teacher
Clement, and of his pupils, Dionysius of Alexandria, and
Gregory Thaumaturgus, respecting the mystery of the most
Holy Trinity. For, as regards Clement, I have already in
treating of his belief, most evidently proved, that no one
ever acknowledged or declared the catholic doctrine respect-
ing the consubstantial Trinity, more clearly than he. We
shall hereafter shew the same as clearly with respect to Dio-

° Primo quod unus est Deus, qui _ p. 20. ]

omnia creavit ... Tum deinde quia P These statements are found in the
Jesus Christus ante omnem creaturam preface of his book περὶ ἀρχῶν.---
natus ex Patre est....Incarnatus est, GRABE.

cum Deus esset, et homo factus mansit 4 Bellarminus de Christo I. 10. [ vol.
quod erat Deus. ... Tum deinde ho- 1. Op., p. 339. ]

nore ac dignitate Patri et Filio socia- r Supra c. vi. ὃ 1. [p. 182. ]

tum esse Spiritum Sanctum.—[c. 1.

and scholars; and from the testimony of St. Athanasius. 283

nysius of Alexandria, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, although ook τι.
the Jesuit Petavius has branded these two very great names, ον
to the disgrace of his own name, with the mark of the Arian “Ogigen.
impiety. What then? is it likely, that the man who had a

master so catholic on this article, and who had disciples so
orthodox, who also at all times regarded their master with
admiration as the most illustrious doctor of the Church, was
himself heretical in that very article? Fifthly, in the next

place, the great Athanasius ought to be as good as a thou-

sand witnesses as to the orthodoxy of Origen on this ques-

tion: and he, in his work On the Decrees of the Nicene
council, expressly declares", that Origen agreed with the [861]
Nicene fathers respecting the very and eternal Godhead of

the Son: his words are these; ‘Concerning the everlasting
co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is

not of another substance or hypostasis!, but properly’ of οὐσίας ἢ
the substance of the Father, as they 1 in the council said, be nes
it permitted that you hear again from the labour-loving ὅ * ἴδιον.
Origen also.” In this passage, however, before he quotes ele
the very words of Origen, Athanasius admits, that there are

certain things premised by Origen in the passage which he

is about to cite first, which are seemingly repugnant to sound
doctrine; but these, he says, Origen states as a disputant,

not as one who is making an absolute assertion, whilst the

words which he himself adduces, contain the truly genuine
opinion of Origen; his words are: “For after what he ad-

vances as in an exercise of strength * against the heretics, ὁ τὰ és ἐν
he immediately introduces his own views’, saying thus. . .8” πες τ
He then quotes a famous sentence of Origen respecting the ὅ τὰ ἴδια.
eternity and consubstantiality of the Son; to which he also 190
subjoins a second from another of Origen’s works; which
passages we reserve for our third book’. And indeed, I

have not myself the slightest doubt, that that method of
discussion which Origen pursued in almost all° his writings, ὃ fere ubi-
that, I mean, by which he was wont first to represent the ἰὸν
opinions of the heretics, assuming as it were the person of

* περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἀϊδίως συνεῖναι τὸν λό- Athanasii, tom. i. p. 227. [§ 27. vol. i.
γον τῷ πατρὶ, καὶ μὴ ἑτέρας οὐσίας ἢ p. 282.}
ὑποστάσεως, ἀλλὰ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἴδιον 85. μετὰ γοῦν τὰ ὡς ἐν γυμνασίᾳ λεγό-
αὐτὸν εἶναι, ὡς εἰρήκασιν οἱ ἐν τῇ συνό- μενα πρὸς τοὺς αἱρετικοὺς, εὐθὺς αὐτὸς
δῳ, ἐξέστω πάλιν ὑμᾶς ἀκοῦσαι καὶ ἐπιφέρει τὰ ἴδια, λέγων otrws.—[ Ibid. ]
παρὰ τοῦ φιλοπόνου ᾿ΩὩριγένου".---Ορεοῖδ t [See book iii. 8. 1. ]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[362]

τ seris ne-
potibus.

® de Filii

τῷ ὁμοου-
σίῳ.

3 de ipsius
τῷ συναΐϊ-

δίῳ.

[363]

284 St. Athanasius could best judge of Origen’s orthodoxy.

the heretics themselves, and afterwards to lay open the catho-
hic doctrine, first gave to unlearned and ill-disposed persons a
handle for charging Origen himself with heresy, as though,
that is, he had defended those heretical positions in earnest.
But Huet" says that Origen’s view “was not seen through
by Athanasius.” That learned man, however, will pardon
us, if, notwithstanding, we are still persuaded, that Athana-
sius, a bishop of Alexandria, who lived so near the times of
Origen, also of Alexandria, and who was moreover both a
most industrious and most clear-sighted student of the works
of Origen and of other ancient writers, saw through Origen’s
opinions much better than any one amongst ourselves, who
are but their remote descendants’, can do. Huet, however,
proceeds to say; “I do not deny that Origen used these ex-
pressions ; but that he used them in the same sense as the
council of Nice, that I cannot admit.” I answer again; No
one could have known the meaning of the Nicene council
better than Athanasius, who was himself present at that
council. Athanasius however testifies, that Origen altogether
agreed in opinion with the Nicene fathers as well respect-
ing the consubstantiality? of the Son as His co-eternity’,
and indeed as concerns the eternity of the Son, Huet will
not deny that this is true; as to the consubstantiality, how-
ever, he declares that he cannot admit it. And yet we have
already shewn, clearly and at length, that the Nicene Bishops
declared the Son to be of one substance with the Father in
no other sense than that, which lays down that the Son is
very God equally with the Father, not of any created or
mutable essence. And that Origen acknowledged the Son
to be of one substance with the Father in this very sense, we
have abundantly proved, in this chapter. As to what is
called the numerical unity of substance of the Father and
the Son, (which Huet in the same place asserts that Origen
denied,) I can clearly shew, that Origen acknowledged that
unity, so far as any one of the more ancient fathers, and
even Athanasius himself, acknowledged it; that is to say,
that Origen believed, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, whilst they are in very deed Three Persons, still do
not by any means exist as three men, separately and apart
u Origenian., lib. ii. p. 33. [Quest. 2, 5. p. 119.]

Testimonies from St. Cyprian. 285

from each other!, but that They intimately cohere together 00x τι.

and are conjoined One with Another ; and thus that they ex- §03.%.§ L
ist One in the Other, and, so to speak, mutually run into and τσ αν
penetrate Each Other, by a certain ineffable περυχώρησι, 1 seorsim et
which the schoolmen call circuminsessio; from which meps- °Paratim.
xopnots” Petavius* contends, that that numerical unity neces-? ex qua..
sarily results; there will, however, be a more suitable place **:

for discussing this subject in another part [of our treatise] ¥;

meanwhile let us pass on from Origen to other fathers.

CHAPTER X. 131

CONCERNING THE FAITH AND VIEWS OF THE MARTYR CYPRIAN, OF NOVA-
TIAN OR THE AUTHOR OF A TREATISE ON THE TRINITY AMONG THE
WORKS OF TERTULLIAN, AND OF THEOGNOSTUS.

1. ContEMPoRARY with Origen was Cyprian’; [he was] cyprian.
during his lifetime chief bishop’ of Africa, a man of the great- 5 primarius
est sanctity and of a truly apostolic spirit, and who at last πάθον
obtained also the crown of a most glorious martyrdom. So mate.|
pure and sound were both his sentiments and his expressions
concerning the Divinity of the Son, that Petavius himself
could find nothing whatever in his works to transfix with his
mark‘, or, as his way is, to asperse with the spot and stain of 4 veru at-
Arianism. It may, therefore, suffice to adduce but few testi- rane Ὁ. ΕΠ
monies out of this writer. In the second book of his Testi-
monies against the Jews, addressed to Quirinus’, he proves
most copiously from the Scriptures that Christ is God; attri- [364]
buting unto Him all those things, which in the same Scrip-
tures are attributed only to the true and supreme God:

Thus, in chap. 5 and 6, he quotes the passage of Isaiah, xlv.
14°, “For God is in Thee, and there is none other God be-
side Thee: for Thou art God, and we knew it not, O God of
Israel, the Saviour ;” that of Baruch also, iii. 35, “ This is our

God, and none other shall be accounted beside’ Him ;” that + absque.

x De Trinitate, iv. 16. > Quoniam in te Deus est, et non
Y Book iv. 4. 9; and following. est Deus alius preter te: tu enim es
2 He embraced Christianity about Deus, et non sciebamus, Deus Israel
the year 246. Cave.—BowyeEr. Salvator, (Isa. xlv. 14); ... Hic Deus

4 [Page 284, &c.] noster, et non deputabitur alius absque

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON,

1 vacate,

? claritas
tem.
3 virtutes,

“ concretus
ex utroque
genere.

5 pariter
ὁμογενῆ
sive duoov-
σιον.

[365]

286

of David also, Psalm xlvi. 10, “ Be still!, and know that I
am God, I will be exalted among the heathen, and I will be
exalted in the earth;” that of Paul also, Romans ix. 5,
“Who is over all things God blessed for ever ;” also that of
the Apocalypse i. 8. and xxi. 6, “I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end;” and that of Isaiah, again,
xxxv. 4, “Our God will recompense judgment, He will come
and save us ;” and that of the same Isaiah xli. 8, “1 am the
Lord God, that is My Name, My brightness? will I not give
to another, nor My powers’ to graven images.” Now these
and other passages, in which the Supreme God is clearly
designated, Cyprian, I say, understands to be said of Christ.
To which you may add that, in chap. 10. of the same book‘,
he professedly undertakes to prove; “That Christ is both
Man and God, made up oF ΒΟΤΗ NATURES’, that He might
be the mediator between us and the Father ;” words which
plainly imply, that Christ is equally of one nature’, or of
one substance, with God the Father, in that He is God, and
with us men, in that He is Man. For the rest, it is certain,
that these books of Testimonies, addressed to Quirinus, are
the genuine production of Cyprian; since Jerome, Dial. I.
against the Pelagians*, Augustine, book iv. against the two
Letters of Pelagius, c. 8 and 10’, Gennadius, in his Cata-
logue under Pelagius, and Bede, Retract. on Acts, c. i1., do
all in express terms attribute them to Cyprian. The criti-
cism of Erasmus, therefore, is rash, when he declares that in
his view it is more probable, that these books are not the
work of Cyprian. And as to the reason which he gives for his
criticism, namely, that the author does not display Cyprian’s
style any where, save in the preface, who would not be sur-
prised that it should have fallen from so great a man? For
it was only in the preface that Cyprian could have displayed
his style; inasmuch as the entire three books are nothing

illo, (Baruch. iii. 35); . - Vacate et

St. Cyprian’s Testimonies, a genuine work.

meam alii non dabo, neque virtutes

cognoscite, quoniam ego sum Deus.
Exaltabor in gentibus, et exaltabor in
terra, (Psal. xlvi. 10); ... Qui est
super omnia Deus benedictus in sxcu-
la, (Rom. ix. 5); ... Ego sum Alpha
et Omega, initium et finis, (Apoc. i. 8;
xxi. 6); .. . Deus noster judicium re-
tribuet, ipse veniet et salvos faciet nos,
(Isa. xxxv. 4); ων. Ego Dominus
Deus, hoc mihi nomen est, claritatem

meas sculptilibus, (Id. xlii. 8.) [ch. vi.,
Vli., pp. 286, 287. In translating these
passages 5, Cyprian’s version of the
texts of Scripture is followed. ]

4 Quod et homo et Deus Christus
EX UTROQUE GENERE concretus, ut
Mediator esse inter nos et Patrem pos-
set —[p. 288. ]

* [Vol. ix. p. 480, 485. }

Other passages of St. Cyprian on the Divinity of the Son. 287

else than a collection of testimonies of Scripture, arranged ΒΟΟΚ 1.
under certain heads, in citing which it was natural that the “8 s
saint would follow the Latin version of the Scripture, which Cyprian.
was received and circulated in Africa in his own time.

2. But in the other writings of Cyprian also, you may
every where meet with passages which remarkably set forth
the true Divinity of the Son. I will here produce one or
two. In his 63rd epistle to Ceecilius, near the beginning®, he
calls Jesus Christ “our Lord and God,” as he does a second
time also in a subsequent part of the same epistle 4. There
is, however, a marked passage in his treatise On the Vanity
of Idols, in which Cyprian thus speaks concerning the Word!! Sermone.
and Son of God'; “As the Dispenser? and Master, there- ? arbiter.
fore, of this grace and teaching, the Word! and Son of God
is sent, who was foretold of by all the prophets in times
past as the Enlightener and Teacher of the race of man.
This is the Power of God, This His Reason, This His Wisdom
and Glory: He descends into the Virgin, and puts on flesh
by the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, (or rather, as it should
be read, the Holy Spirit puts on flesh,) God is united with*? miscetur
man, This is our God, This is the Christ.” Here I embrace,”
as the true reading, carnem Spiritus sanctus* induitur, be-* sancti,
cause most of the oldest MSS. exhibit the passage in this © 132
form. Certain sciolists, as I conceive, corrupted the true text [366]
in some of the copics, supposing forsooth, that by the Holy
Spirit none other than the Third Person of the Godhead
could be meant. We have, however, elsewhere * shewn that
Kach several Person of the Trinity’, because of the divine*® Unam-

“1.9 τ uamque
and spiritual nature common to the Three, is called the Mais

hyposta-
sim.

8 Jesus Christus, Dominus et Deus
noster.—Page 84. [p. 104. ]

4 Page 86. [p. 109.]

' Hujus igitur gratie disciplinzeque
arbiter et magister Sermo et Filius
Dei mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes
retro illuminator et doctor humani ge-
Neris predicabatur. Hic est virtus
Dei, hic ratio, hic sapientia ejus et
gloria, hic in Virginem illabitur, car-
nem Spiritu Sancto co-operante indui-
tur, (leg. carnem Spiritus Sancti indui-
tur, Bull.) Deus cum homine misce-
tur, hic Deus noster, hic Christus est.
—Page 170. [p. 228. The text is here
given as it stood in the editions before

the Benedictine; the emendation sug-
gested by Bp. Bull, as printed in the
Latin, stands thus, carnem Spiritus
Sancti induitur, on which Dr. Burton’s
note is, “ Read Sanctus, the reading
which some MSS. exhibit, and which
the Benedictine editor has received;”’
no MS. reads Sancti; it may there-
fore be inferred that the word which
Bp. Bull intended in his emendation
is Sanctus, and this view has been acted
on in the translation ].

« [Book i. 2. 5. p. 52. See also the
Benedictine editor’s preface to St.
Hilary’s works, § 57.—B.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.
ies Se eee

[367]

288 St. Cyprian on the Trinity.

Spirit, both in the Scriptures and throughout the writings
of the ancients; [a fact] which is also noted on this pas-
sage in the margin, in some of the MSS., as Pamelius in-
timates, who, notwithstanding, thought that no alteration
ought to be made in the reading, fearing, I suppose, lest the
Antitrinitarians should draw their poison out of this place,
and allege that Cyprian did not acknowledge the Third
Person of the Godhead. Vain fear! inasmuch as it is
abundantly clear from many passages of Cyprian, that he
believed in the whole consubstantial Trinity, an assertion
which we may also with good grounds make with regard to
the other fathers, who have used a similar mode of expres-
sion. ‘Thus in his letter to Jubaianus, about baptizing here-
tics, he proves that the baptism of heretics is not valid by
this argument!; “If any one,” he says, “could be baptized
among heretics, it follows that he might also obtain remis-
sion of sins. If he has obtained remission of sins, [he has
also been sanctified and made the temple of God,]| I ask, Of
what God? If [you say] of the Creator, he could not [be
50], for he has not believed in Him: if of Christ, neither
could he have been made His temple, who denies that
Christ is God. If of the Holy Ghost, seeing that the Three
are One (cum tres unum sint,) how can the Holy Ghost be
at peace with him who is an enemy either of the Son or of
the Father?” Here you see that the Holy Ghost is ex-
pressly called God, equally with the Father and the Son, as
we have already ™ observed was done by Tertullian. You
may also, by the way, observe that Cyprian, in this place,
certainly has an eye to the passage of John, in his 150 Epistle
v. 7, “ And these three are One”’ (et hi tres unum sunt). In
his treatise ‘On the Unity of the Church,’ however, (chap. 4,
near the end), he professedly quotes this passage, in these
words"; “Concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy

1! Si, baptizari quis apud hereticos
potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum
consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remis-
sam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est,
et templum Dei factus est; [si sanctifi-
catus est, si templum Dei factus est,
quero, cujus Dei? si Creatoris, non
potuit, quia in eum non credidit: si
Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum,
qui negat Deum Christum: si Spiritus

Sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo
Spiritus S, placatus esse ei potest, qui
aut ἘΠῚ: aut Patris inimicus est.— Page
106. [ p. 133. The words within brack-
ets were omitted by Bp. Bull. ]

m [Page 202. ]

» [Et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et
Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres
unum sunt.—[ Page 195, 196. ]

References to 1 Johnv.7, by St. Cyprian and Tertullian. 289

Ghost, it is written, ‘And these Three are Onel.’” So also, soox τι.

before Cyprian, Tertullian manifestly alluded to the same ee

passage in his work against Praxeas, c. 25°; “The connec- ‘Cobia

tion,” he says, “of the Father in the Son, and of the Son? unum,

in the Paraclete produces Three coherent, one from another ;

and these Three are one [substance] (wnum), not one | per-

son] (wnus)?.”” This is to be observed in opposition to those

who suspect that these words were introduced into the text

of John by the Catholics, after the Arian controversy. ΤῸ

return, however, to the point from which I have digressed

a little. Cyprian, in the same epistle to Jubaianus4, also

proves that baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ

only’, is of no efficacy, from the circumstance that “He in soloJ.C.

‘Himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and 7°"

united* Trinity.” Where by “the full and united Trinity ”? $ adunata.

it is manifest that the Three Persons, the Father, the Son,

and the Holy Ghost are designated, as all subsisting in one

Godhead; and, therefore, that the Holy Ghost, equally with

the Son, is united* with God the Father in the same fellow- 4 adunari.

ship of Divine honour’. 5 in eodem
3. In opposition to these passages of Cyprian, so clear Pe

and so express, Sandius", in order to persuade the reader s“rtio.

that this most blessed martyr favoured the heresy which was

afterwards called Arian, brings forward, or rather refers to δ 6 indicat.

certain expressions of Cyprian, which may seem to savour of

Arianism’. Most of them, however, relate to the economy 87 Arianis-

of the Son; as that Christ prayed to the Father to glorify vere.

Hin, and fulfilled His will even unto the obedience of drink. 8 οἰκονο-

ing the cup, and of undergoing death, &c. Others are to Lee

be referred to the subordination of the Son, in that He is [50]

the Son, to the Father, as to His Principle and Author’. 9 princi-

On this ground it is, that Cyprian, in his 74th epistle, ra a

addressed to Pompeius, declares that the Holy Ghost is less suum.
than the Son’, as he that is sent is less than he that sends

_ ° Connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii 4 [Quando] ipse Christus gentes
in Paracleto tres efficit cohwrentes, baptizari jubeat in plena et adunata
alterum ex altero; qui tres unum sint, Trinitate.-—Page 107. [p. 135.]

non unus [quomodo dictum est, ego * Enucl. Hist. Eccles., i. p. 112,

et Pater unum sumus; ad substantie 3

unitatem non ad numeri singularita- s [Page 139. St. Cyprian does not

tem.— Page 515.] say this; his words are; Qui potest
P [See also Tertullian de Baptismo, apud hereticos baptizatus Christum

ce. 6. p. 226.—B.] induere, multo magis potest Spiritum

BULL. U

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 procrea-
tum.

2 primo-
genitum.

[ Eeclus.
xxiv. 3. ]

3 procrea-
tum.

[369]

4 Libellus
de Singu-
laritate
Clerico-
rum,

5 cozequare.

290 The very unfair charges of Sandius.

him. The rest are mere calumnies fastened by Sandius
on the holy martyr; as, for instance, when he asserts that
Cyprian taught, “that Christ was created! out of the mouth
of the Most High.” It is true that Cyprian, in the second
book of his Testimonies against the Jews, c. 1, quotes the
words of Solomon, (Prov. viii. 22—30, inclusive,) with the
view of proving, that “Christ is the First-begotten’, the
Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made‘.” He
then cites a passage from Ecclus. xxiv. in which these words
occur; “I (Wisdom) came forth out of the mouth of the
Most High, the first-begotten before every creature.” But
who would hence infer with Sandius, that Cyprian taught,
that Christ was created*® or made out of the mouth of God,
like the word, that is, of a human being, which has no ex-
istence before it be put forth from the mouth, as the Valen-
tinian and other heretics supposed. Nay, in these very
books of Testimonies Cyprian expressly teaches out of the
Scriptures, that the Son of God has neither beginning nor
end of existence, as will be shewn in its proper place ",
With the like unfairness the sophist cites the following
opinion as if it were Cyprian’s; “That Christ did not pre-
sume to compare Himself to God, neither is He equal to
Him, but that the Father is greater ;” subjoining, “ state-
ments which Huet in his Origeniana, book iii. append. n. 12,
allows to savour of Arianism;” and adds, “that is to say,
he thinks it robbery®, for Christ to be equal with God ;
[and] that there is as much difference between Christ and
God, as there is between the Apostles and Christ.” The
reader who loves the truth, however, should know, that in
a short treatise on the Celibacy of the Clergy’, the follow-
ing words are indeed found*: “ If Christ ventured to com-
pare Himself to God, who saith, My Father is greater than
I; or if the Apostles ventured to equal° themselves to Christ, -

Sanctum, quem Christus misit, acci- sint.... Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi
pere. Ceterum major erit mittente, primogenita ante omnem creaturam,
qui missus est, ut incipiat foris bapti- [p. 284. ]

u [ Book iii. ch. iv. ]

gatus Christum quidem induisse sed

Spiritum Sanctum non potuisse perci-
pere: his argument, that on the view
he is opposing the Holy Spirit would
be greater than the Son—He who is
sent than He who sends.

t Christum primogenitum esse, Sa-
pientiam Dei, per quem omnia facta

x Si Christus se ipsum comparare
ausus est Deo, qui ait, Pater major me”
est; aut si Apostoli coaquare semet-~
ipsos ausi sunt Christo, et nos hodie
apostolis equales facit consimilis for=
titudo. —Page 304. [p. clxxix.]

Mis extreme want of candour. 291

a fortitude like theirs makes us also at the present day
equal to Apostles ;” but all learned men, at this day, in-
cluding Huet himself, agree in thinking that this treatise is
spurious and supposititious. “That this work is not Cy-
prian’s,” such are the words of Huet in the passage cited by
Sandius, “is proclaimed by the following barbarous phrases,
of a class of which you find none in the pure and polished
language of Cyprian ; constitutionarios, repulsorium, vulgari-
tatis, flueurarum, probrositas, &c. Who would say, that
Cyprian was the father of monstrosities such as these ?”
Here is an excellent specimen of the candour of Sandius!
Meanwhile, the words quoted, whosesoever they be, easily
admit of a sound interpretation, and may be understood of
Christ, whilst living upon earth, and fulfilling the economy
of our redemption. Nay, that this was the very meaning
of the author is apparent from his quoting, after a few in-
tervening sentences, the following words out of the Epistle
to the Philippians, chap. ii.y; “Let this mind be in you,
which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God
thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied
Himself’, and took upon Him the form of a servant.” This
passage of Paul, thus translated, manifestly intimates that

BOOK II,
CHAP. Xi
8 8, 4.

CYPRIAN.

135

1 exinani-
vit, [ éxévw-
cer. |

Christ, inasmuch as He was? in the form of God, might in-? constitu-

deed, without arrogance and without any injury to God His
Father, have thought Himself equal to God, and have borne
Himself as such: but, notwithstanding, He emptied Him-
self, &c. Sandius again foully calumniates the saint, in at-
tributing to him presently afterwards this heresy; “That
the Word” (in Christ) “was in the stead of a soul ;” for it
is the unvarying doctrine of Cyprian, as all who are not
altogether strangers to his writings are aware, that the Word,
or Son of God, took on Him not only flesh, but man® and
the son of man, that is to say, true and perfect man, con-
sisting of a reasonable soul and a human body.

4. But who, that has. any love for truth and candour,
could patiently endure this most shameless sophist, when
he endeavours to prove out of Ruffinus, that Cyprian was
an Arian? “ Wherefore,” these are his words, “ Ruffinus, in

Y Hoc sentite de vobis, quod et in tus est esse se equalem Deo, sed seme-

Christo Jesu, qui cum in forma Dei tipsum exinanivit, formam servi acci-
esset constitutus, non rapinam arbitra- _ piens,—p. 805. [p. clxxix.]

tus fuit.

3 hominem.

[370]

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

1 incubuit.

2 omne
corpus.

[371]

3 fidem per-
fidize sue.

4 recenti
adhue
facto.

ὅ inventi9

292 The treatise of (Tertullian, or) Novatian, (corrupted and)

his Apology for Origen, says, that ‘very many in those parts,’
(he is speaking of Constantinople,) ‘were persuaded that the
holy martyr Cyprian was of that belief, which has been set
forth, not correctly, by Tertullian in his writings.’ Tertullian
he certainly honoured with the title of master, and applied
himself! daily to the study of his writings; and that Tertul-
lian’s belief was Arian, we have already stated.” A little
after he subjoins, “It is clear from the words of Ruffinus
which immediately precede, that Arianism and Macedonian-
ism were what Ruffinus and the orientals meant.” But with
what face could he have referred his reader to the preced-
ing words of Ruffinus? seeing that from them it will be
clearer than noon-day, that most dishonestly is Ruffinus
alleged to prove that Cyprian’s belief was the same as that
of Arius. Here, reader, is the passage of Ruffinus entire’ ;
“The whole collection? of the Epistles of the martyr St.
Cyprian,” he says, “is usually written in one volume: in
this collection, certain heretics who blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost, inserted a short treatise of Tertullian on the
Trinity, written, so far as regards the truth of our faith, in
a way open to blame; and making as many transcripts. as
they could from these copies, they caused them to be circu-
lated throughout the great city of Constantinople at a low
price, in order that people, attracted by the smallness of
the price, might the more readily buy their unknown and
latent snares; that by this means the heretics might be
able to gain belief for their misbelief* from the authority
of so great a man. It happened, however, that not long
after this had been done’, certain of our catholic brethren,
happening to be there’, laid open the artifices of the villainy
which had been practised, and in some measure recovered
such as they could from the entanglement of this error; not-

“ See Ruffinus’ Apology for Origen
among the works of Jerome, tom. ix.
p- 181. Sancti Cypriani, martyris
solet omne Epistolarum corpus in uno
codice scribi. Huic corpori here-
tic] quidam, qui in Spiritum S. blas-
phemant, Tertulliani libellum de Tri-
nitate reprehensibiliter, quantum ad
veritatem fidei nostre pertinet, scrip-
tum inserentes, et quamplurimos co-
dices de talibus exemplariis conscri-
bentes, per totam Constantinopolim

urbem maximam distrahi pretio viliori-
fecerunt, ut exiguitate pretii homines
illecti ignotos et latentes dolos facilius
compararent: quo per hoc invenirent
heretici perfidie suze fidem tanti viri —
auctoritate conquirere. Accidit tamen,
ut recenti adhuc facto quidam ex nos- ~
tris fratribus catholicis inventi admissi _
sceleris commenta retegerent, et ex
parte aliqua, si quos possent, ab erro= —
ris hujus laqueis revocarent. Quam- —
plurimis tamen in illis partibus, sanec- é

inserted by heretics among the Epistles of Cyprian, 298

withstanding, very many in those parts were persuaded that
the holy martyr Cyprian was of that belief, which has been set
forth, not correctly, by Tertullian in his writings.” By this
time any one may clearly see that the heretics at Constanti-
nople were Pneumatomachians, who were endeavouring to
persuade others that Cyprian’s belief was different from the
catholic; and that they went about to prove this not from
any genuine work of the martyr, (inasmuch as he has every
where written as a Catholic on the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity,) but from a treatise of some other writer, which
these worthless deceivers had themselves inserted among the
works of Cyprian, by an impious fraud which was soon after
discovered by the Catholics. And, in truth, no ecclesias-
tical writer has ever stated that Cyprian wrote a work on
the Holy Trinity. Nor indeed do I believe that that treatise
which these heretics circulated' was Tertullian’s throughout,
but that it was in many places corrupted by themselves.
For Tertullian never held the opinions of the Pneumatoma-
chians, but, even when he had fallen into heresy, constantly
believed three Persons of one Godhead, and expressly called
the Holy Ghost God, as well as the Father and the Son, as
is evident from the passages which we have already quoted
from him. But the Catholics of that period did not care
much about the character and reputation of Tertullian ; for,
on account of other doctrines of his, he was at that time
regarded among all the orthodox as a heretic and an alien
from the Church. Of Novatian, too*, whose treatise on the
Trinity (the one, I mean, which is now extant among the
works of Tertullian) was thought by Jerome to have been
that which was circulated by the heretics, almost the same
must be said»; for he too held the catholic view on the
Trinity, as we shall presently shew. The reader, however,
may see further from these and many other indications, what
it is that Sandius means by “ bringing out the kernel? of ec-
clesiastical history ;’ namely, to seek out and bring together,
from every quarter, exploded and silly stories, and manifest

tum martyrem Cyprianum hujus fidei, 4 See Jerome, advers. Ruffin. Apol.
que a Tertulliano non recte scripta 11. 5, sub finem, [ὃ 19. vol. ii. p. 513.]
est, fuisse persuasum est. [Epilog. ad b [That is, that his work was cor-

Apol. sive de Adult. Lib. Orig., p. rupted by those who circulated it as
53. | St. Cyprian’s. |

BOOK II,
CHAP. X.

§ 4.

CYPRIAN.

1 vendita-
tum.

[372]

134

2 enucleare.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

NovaTIAN.

1 pleraque.

2 minus
accurata.

3 oikovo-

μίαν.
4 minorita-
tem.

5 auctoren)
et princi-
pium.

6 in rei
summa.

[373]

7 citra mys-
teril sub-
stantiam,

8 divinita-
tem ad-
struit.

[John xvi.
28. |

294 Novatian on the Trinity; Petavius’ criticism of the work

falsehoods, wherewith to gain credit and authority for the
condemned heresy of the Arians. And thus far have we laid
open the views of Cyprian.

5. Next to Cyprian follows Novatian, or the author of the
treatise On the Trinity’, which we have just mentioned.
Of this author Petavius* declares, “that he did not speak
with sufficient accuracy, nay, that he has made very many!
absurd statements” respecting the mystery of the Trinity ;
and Sandius’, relying, as usual, too much on Petavius’s judg-
ment, classes him amongst those who taught the same opin-
ions as Arius, before his time. It will, however, be shewn in
its proper place, that these ‘inaccurate? and absurd state-
ments’ ought to be referred either to the economy? of the
Son, or to that inferiority+ which the Son has when com-
pared with the Father, regarded as His Author and Prin-
ciple*, which [inferiority] has been acknowledged by all Ca-
tholics, even since the council of Nice. In the meantime
we will prove, by adducing a few, but those very clear testi-
monies from the author himself, that, whoever he was, he by
no means agreed in opinion with Arius on the chief point®.
To this proof we premise this one observation, that Petavius
himself elsewhere acknowledges, in express terms, that those
‘inaccurate and absurd statements,’ which the author in-
serted in his work, “are at variance with the catholic rule,
either in the mere mode of expression, or at any rate without
trenching on the substance of the mystery’.’”’? With this
brief observation, let us pass on to the subject itself. In the
twenty-third chapter‘ the author thus establishes the divinity*
of Christ ; “If Christ 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 come forth from
God? but in a manner in which man did not come forth
from God, did the Word of God come forth [from Him] ;”
presently he adds, “ [It was] God, therefore, [that] came

ὁ Novatian wrote this treatise ‘‘on quomodo dicit, Ego ex Deo prodii, et
the Trinity,’ about the year 257. It veni, cum constet hominem a Deo fac-
is usually printed with the works of tum esse, non ex Deo processisse? ex

Tertullian. Cave.—Bowyer. Deo autem homo quomodo non pro-
® De Trinit.i. 5. 5. cessit, sic Dei Verbum processit....
© Enucl., Hist. Ecel., i. p. 110. Deus ergo processit ex Deo, dum qui
f Preface to vol. ii. 5. 3. processit Sermo, Deus est, qui pro-

* Si homo tantummodo Christus, cessit ex Deo.—[p. 721.]

his orthodoxy shewn, and vindicated. 295

forth from God, inasmuch as the Word which came forth 18. soox τι.

God, who came forth from God.” What is there said, almost “να, δι

in the Nicene Creed itself, more explicitly opposed to Arius? yoy rian.
for the author expressly opposes these two things, to be made
by God, and to come forth from God; and he affirms no less
expressly that Christ, in His more excellent nature, was not
made; in other words! was not? created, but proceeded from
God Himself, and therefore is God of* God. A little after-
wards in the same chapter", he says again; “ If Christ .be
only man, what is [the meaning of] that which He says,
‘I and the Father are One?’ For in what sense [is it true
that] ‘I and the Father are One,’ if He be not both God
and Son, who on that account may be called One [with
the Father], in that He is of Him+, and in that He is His‘ ex ipso.
Son, and in that He is born of Him, seeing that He is
found to have proceeded from Him,—through which also
He is God.” From this passage there is a clear refutation
of Petavius’s calumny against the author of this treatise,
where he alleges that! “he explained those words in the tenth
of John, ‘I and the Father are One, in a manner almost
Arian ;”’ quoting, in confirmation of this censure, those words
of his out of the 22nd chapter*; “ But in that He saith ‘One,’
it is with reference to concord, and sameness of sentiment,
and to the fellowship itself of love; so that the Father and
the Son are with good reason One, through concord, and
through love, and through affection.” But, I affirm, it is
certain from the passage which we just now adduced, that
the author altogether understood those words of John as
Catholics do, not of concord alone, or consent of will, (as
the Arians did,) but also, and primarily, of that commu-
nion of substance which exists between the Father and the
Son. This indeed the author expresses clearly enough in
that very passage which Petavius cites: in that he imme-
diately subjoins these words, (which Petavius against all good

1 sive.
2 minime.
3 ex,

[374]

h Si homo tantummodo Christus,

quid est quod ait, Ego et Pater unum
sumus ? quomodo enim Ego et Pater
unum sumus, si non et Deus est et
Filius, qui idcirco unum potest dici,
dum ex ipso est, et dum Filius ejus
est, et dum ex ipso nascitur, dum ex
ipso processisse reperitur, per quod et

Deus est.—[p. 722. ]

* Ubi supra.

k Unum autem quod ait, ad concor-
diam et eandem sententiam, et ad ip-
sam charitatis societatem pertinet; ut
merito unum sit Pater et Filius per
concordiam, et per amorem, et per di-
lectionem.—[p. 720. ]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

Yhaud
bona fide.

2 ex.
3 illud.

[375]

* utrum--
que sit.

5 alterum.
§ alterum.
7 prescrip-
sit.

296 Novatian on the Consubstantiality of Him Who is

faith’ suppresses!;) “And since He is of? the Father, what-
soever That’ is, the Son is; the distinction still remaining,
that He who is the Son, be not the Father, forasmuch as
neither is He the Son, who is the Father.” For, without
doubt, he is here attacking exclusively the heresy of Sabellius,
which declares the Father and the Son to be in such sense
One, as altogether to do away with the distinction of Persons.
In opposition to this heresy he teaches, that the Father and
Son are indeed One, as well by consent of will as by unity of
substance also, since the Son is derived from the very foun-
tain of the Father’s essence; but that notwithstanding they
are altogether Two in subsistence, or (in other words) in per-
son. Certainly the unfairness of the Jesuit Petavius towards
the ancient writers is quite intolerable, in thus wresting, as
he does throughout, to a foreign and heretical sense, their
sound and catholic statements, [and that] in opposition to
their own evident mind and view.

6. But I return to our author, in order to adduce but
one passage more from him, such as to confirm most clearly
the consubstantiality of the Son. It will be found in the
eleventh chapter™, where the author thus speaks of the two-
fold nature of Christ, the divine and the human: “ For
Scripture as well proclaims on the one hand that the Christ
is God, as it proclaims on the other hand that God is very
man: it sets forth as well Jesus Christ [as] man, as it sets
forth the Lord Christ [as] God also. Forasmuch as it docs
not put before us that He is the Son of God only, but also
[that He is the Son] of man; nor does it say that He is
[the Son] of man only, but is wont to speak of Him as
[the Son] of God also; that so, seeing He is of Both, He
may be [proved to be] Both4, lest, if He were One of the
Two? only, He could not [be proved to be even] that One®,
FoR AS NATURE ITSELF HAS TAUGHT” THAT HE WHO 15 ΟΡ

1 Et quoniam ex Patre est, quicquid Christum Dominum. Quoniam nec

illud est, Filius est; manente tamen
distinctione, ut non sit Pater ille qui
Filius, quia nec Filius ille qui Pater
est.—[ Ibid. ]

m Tam enim Scriptura etiam Deum
adnuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum
hominem adnuntiat Deum; tam ho-
minem descripsit Jesum Christum,
quam etiam Deum quoque descripsit

Dei tantum illum Filium esse propo-
nit, sed et hominis; nec hominis tan-
tum dicit, sed et Dei referre consuevit;
ut dum ex utroque est, utrumque sit,
ne, si alterum tantum sit, alterum esse
non possit, UT ENIM PRASCRIPSIT
IPSA NATURA HOMINEM CREDENDUM
ESSE, QUI EX HOMINE SIT, ITA EADEM
NATURA PRESCRIBIT ET DEUM CRE-

the Son of God and of man, both with God and with man. 297

MAN, MUST BE BELIEVED TO BE MAN, SO THE SAME NATURE ΒΟΟΚ II.
EQUALLY TEACHES THAT HE ALSO MUST BE BELIEVED TO BE δ. 7.
Gop, wHo Is oF Gop; lest, if He be not God also, whenas Νογατιαν.
He is of God, He be not man either, albeit He be of man;

and so in either one of the two both be endangered, the

one being proved to have lost its credibility through the
other.” Surely, his mind must be completely in the dark, 135
who does not at once clearly see, that in these words it is

most explicitly taught, that Christ is consubstantial with God

the Father, in that He is of God, just as He is consubstantial

with us men, in that He is of man; and that He is not less

very God, than He is very man. For the rest, I will add
concerning this author, though it is not required by my
argument', that he held the catholic doctrine respecting the 1 ex abun-
Holy Ghost also. For in chap. 29, at the very beginning, gaa:
he teaches that, according to the rule of faith, we must
believe not only in the Father and the Son, but also in the

Holy Ghost: and in the course of the chapter, he assigns

to the Holy Ghost such powers and operations as are in

no wise compatible with a created being: and lastly, near

the end of the chapter, he expressly attributes to the same

Holy Ghost “ divine eternity.” In what sense, however, he

said that the Holy Ghost is less than the Son we have shewn
elsewhere". And let it suffice to have said thus much at
present concerning this author.

7. We shall number Theognostus of Alexandria with the Τπεο-
writers mentioned in this chapter; although the age when °X°*?"*:
he lived is scarcely ascertained®. This one thing we may be [876]
assured of, that he was much earlier than the Nicene council,
and later than Origen. It is certain that he was later than
Origen, because Photius taunts* him as a follower of Origen. 2 sugillat.
But that he lived long before the council of Nice you may
gather from the fact, that Athanasius (in his treatise on
that passage in the Gospel, “ Whosoever shall speak a word
against the Son of Man,” &c.) enumerates? him among “ the

DENDUM ESSE, QUI EX DEO SIT; ne Si ” See above, c. 3. ὃ 17. [p. 132. ]
non et Deus fuerit, cum ex Deo sit, ° Theognostus seems to have flou-
jam nec homo sit, licet ex homine fue- _rished about the year 270. Cave.—
rit, et in alterutro utrumque periclite- Bowyer.

tur, dum alterum altero fidem perdi- P Tom. i. p. 971. [Epist. iv. ad Se-
disse convincitur.—[ p. 713.] rap. 9. vol. i. p. 702. |

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

l τῶν ὑὗπο-

τυπώσεων.

2 ἐπευρε-

θεῖσα.

ὃ ἔφυ.

42 /
ἀπαύ-

γασμα.

[877]

ὅ τῇ ἐνερ-
γείᾳ μὴ
περιγρα-
φόμενον.

6 εὐσεβέ-
στερον.

298 Theognostus ; extract from him in St. Athanasius ;

ancients,” (παλαιοὺς ἄνδρας) ; and places his testimony next
after that of Origen. The same Athanasius, in his work on
the Decrees of the Nicene council 4, calls him ‘a learned
man,” (ἄνδρα λόγιον,) and in the treatise quoted just before
he gives him the appellation of “the admirable,” (τὸν θαυ-
μάσιον). He was the author of books of the Hypotyposes’
which have long ago been lost. But out of the second of
them Athanasius quotes this illustrious testimony to the con-
substantiality'; “The substance of the Son is not any one
that was brought in’ from without, nor was it superinduced
out of nothing; but it sprang® from the substance of the
Father, as the radiance* of the light, and vapour of water ;
for neither the radiance, nor the vapour, is the water itself,
or the sun itself; nor yet is it any thing alien, but it is an
effluence of the Father’s substance, yet so that the Father’s
substance underwent not division. For as the sun remains
the same and is not diminished by the rays poured forth by
it, so neither did the Father’s substance undergo alteration,
in having the Son an image of itself.” Surely nothing was
ever said, even in the venerable council of the Nicene fathers
itself, more expressly opposed to the Arians.

8. And, consequently, that cannot be true which Photius
writes, cod. 106, (which yet not only Sandius *, but the very
learned Huet' also, places confidence in,) to the effect that
this Theognostus taught, and that in the very book which
Athanasius cites, the second book of the Hypotyposes, that
the Son of God, in the sense in which He is properly the Son
of God, is a created being. Nay, Photius himself detracts
from his own trustworthiness, when, towards the conclusion
of the same chapter, he states that Theognostus said that the
Son of God is “ not circumscribed in His operation®,’”’ which
certainly cannot be said of any creature. Moreover he soon
after admits that this writer, in the seventh book of his Hypo-
typoses, treated with more reverence® both of other subjects,

1 Tom. i. p. 274. [§ 25. vol. i. Ὁ.
230.)

T οὐκ ἔξωθέν τίς ἐστιν ἐφευρεθεῖσα ἡ
τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐσία, οὐδὲ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ἐπει-
σήχθη, ἀλλὰ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας
ἔφυ, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, ὡς
ὕδατος ἀτμίς" οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα,
οὔτε ἡ ἀτμὶς, αὐτὸ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστὶν, ἢ
αὐτὸς ὃ ἥλιος" οὔτε ἀλλότριον, ἀλλὰ

ἀπόρροια τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, οὐ
μερισμὸν ὑπομεινάσης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς
οὐσίας. ὡς γὰρ μένων ὃ ἥλιος 6 αὐτὸς
οὐ μειοῦται ταῖς ἐκχεομέναις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
αὐγαῖς, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἣ οὐσία τοῦ Tarpos
ἀλλοίωσιν ὑπέμεινεν, εἰκόνα ἑαυτῆς ἔχου-
σα τὸν vidv.—Ibid.

* Enucl. ἬΝ E., i. p. 109.

‘ Origenian., p. 45. [ p. 134. ]

a charge of Photius against him easily removed. 499

“and especially, towards the end of the book, concerning 500K τ.
the Son".” Certainly, what Theognostus wrote in that place Ἔ ve
respecting the Son of God must have been very excellent, Taro-
when Photius himself commended it as expressed with espe- °N°S*"*
cial reverence!. But who can believe, that so great a man, as! pie im-
it is certain Theognostus was, could maintain in the same ae
treatise positions so incompatible? The truth is, Photius,

from his very bitter hatred to Origen, was unfair towards

this Theognostus also, his follower and defender, and on that
account he understood his writings in a bad sense, or rather

wished them to be so understood by others. Theognostus, it

would appear”, made that statement as the opinion of others, ἢ scilicet.
with whom he was disputing, and not as declaring his own [378]
view. This is gathered, not obscurely, from Photius himself,

for, after charging Theognostus with the blasphemy in ques-

tion, he soon after introduces a supposed person defending

that illustrious man, on the ground that he had put forward

these statements, “by way of argument, and not as his own
opinion,” (ἐν γυμνασίας λόγῳ καὶ οὐ δόξης). And this Pho-—

tius does not deny, but only censures a method of disputa-

tion of that kind, at least respecting the divine mysteries,

and in a written discourse; although I have no doubt that

he would have easily forgiven this fault in any other writer

who was not an Origenist. The great Athanasius, however,

puts the point beyond all controversy ; for, after having re-

cited the testimony of Theognostus, which we have quoted

above, he immediately adds*; “'Theognostus then, having
prosecuted the above enquiries in the way of argument,
afterwards, in laying down his own view, expressed himself

thus.” It is therefore clear that, in this second book of Hy- 136
potyposes, Theognostus had first put forward the views of the
heterodox, and amongst them the opinion of those, who said

that the Son of God was a created being: and this in such

a way as, to a certain degree, to assume their character, and
represent their arguments; that at last, however, he stated

his own purely catholic view, which was opposed to theirs, in

the words quoted by Athanasius.

ἡ [εὐσεβέστερόν πως περί τε τῶν x ὃ μὲν οὖν Θεόγνωστος, τὰ πρότερα
ἄλλων διαλαμβάνει,} καὶ μάλιστα meds ὡς ἐν γυμνασίᾳ ἐξετάσας, ὕστερον τὴν
~ ‘4 n~ “~ ~ “wn
τῷ τέλει τοῦ λόγου περὶ τοῦ viod.— ἑαυτοῦ δόξαν τιθεὶς, οὕτως εἴρηκεν.----ἰ S.

[Phot. cod. 106. } Athan., ubi supra. |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-~
LITY OF

THE SON,

[379]

1 ἀποτόμως

ita sumpta.

2 λόγος.

8 λογικῶν.

4 ἴῃ sancti-
ficationem.

800 Operations of the whole Trinity are ascribed specially

9. That which Photius further objects against Theognos-
tus, namely, that he taught that the Son of God “ presides
over rational beings only,” (τῶν λογικῶν μόνον ἐπιστατεῖν,)
is easily removed. For it would seem that the holy man by
no means meant, that the dominion of the Son is in such
wise tied to rational creatures, as that the other creatures are
excluded from His rule. Far be it! For how could he have
restrained the divine providence and power of the Son of God
from any one of God’s creatures, who declared, as Photius
himself, as we have seen, admits, that the Son is in no de-
gree whatsoever circumscribed in His power and operation ὃ
What follows? Without doubt Theognostus meant the same
as his master Origen, who, as Photius (cod. 8) reports, taught’
“that the Father indeed pervades all things that exist, the
Son so far only as rational beings, the Holy Ghost so far
only as the saved.’ And how these statements are to be
understood, we learn from Huet in his Origeniana’; “These
assertions,” he says, “if taken thus apart from the context’,
could scarcely escape censure. But if any one will look rather
to the meaning of Origen than to his words, he will think |
otherwise. For although the external operations of the Holy
Trinity be one and the same, and whatsoever in things ex-
ternal [to the Godhead] the Father doeth, that the Son also
doeth, [and] that the Holy Ghost also doeth; still there are
certain things which are usually assigned to the Father, others
to the Son, others to the Holy Ghost. As, therefore, to
the Father is commonly attributed the creation of the world,
although it is [the work] of the Three Persons equally, so does
Origen ascribe to the Son, who is Reason’, the care of all rea-
sonable beings’, and assigns to the Holy Ghost the bestowing
of holiness, according to Romans i. 4, and 2 Thess. ii. 13, al-
though it be owing to the whole Trinity. In 1 Peter i. 2, it is
written ‘According to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
unto sanctification* of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ.” That this was Origen’s mean-
ing Huet proves from the clearest testimonies alleged out
of his works. ΤῸ these he also adds an illustrious passage of

Y διήκειν μὲν τὸν πατέρα διὰ πάντων ibid. |
τῶν ὄντων, τὸν δὲ υἱὸν μέχρι τῶν λογι- 4 Lib. ii. p. 46, 47. [Quest. 2. 28,
κῶν μόνον [μόνων], τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα μέχρι Ρ. 135. ]
μόνον [ μόνων) τῶν ceowomevwy.--[ Phot.

to One Person; Paschasius and Augustine on this point. 301

Paschasius the deacon, on the Holy Spirit, book i. c. 98, who soox n.
adopts the sentiment of Origen, and writes thus; “So far as it “"¢'9, *
is found most manifestly in the Holy Scriptures, the Father 7,5.
Himself performs some operations by Himself, others in a GNostus.
special manner by the Son, others by the Holy Ghost, al- [$80]
though under the privilege! of a power common [to all? sub pri-
Three.| That we exist seems properly to be referred to eee 7
the Father, ‘in whom,’ as the Apostle says, ‘we live, and communis.
move, and have our being: that, moreover, we are capable

of reason, and wisdom, and righteousness, is especially at-
tributed to Him, who is Reason, and Wisdom, and Righte-
ousness, i. e., to the Son; and that being called we are
regenerated, and being regenerated are renewed, being re-

newed are sanctified, is evidently ascribed in the divine ora-

cles to the Person of the Holy Ghost.” He further adds

also a very remarkable testimony of Augustine; “Just as |
we call the Word of God alone peculiarly* by the name of ? proprie.
Wisdom, although, in a sense which includes all’, both the 3 univer-
Holy Ghost and the Father Himself be Wisdom; so is the ee
Holy Ghost peculiarly designated by the name of Love‘, al- 4 charitatis,
though, in a sense which includes all’, both the Father and ὅ univer-
the Son be Love.” For the rest, the statement which the 2"
same learned Huet had before made in the same passage,

that Athanasius, in his treatise on Matthew xu. 32, “had
condemned® both Origen and his disciple Theognostus” on ὁ explo-
account of these statements, is not true. For Athanasius only oles
reminds us that the statements of both should be considered,

and some deeper sense sought for in them. His words are

these®: “But I, from what I have learned, think that the

opinion of each requires some measure’ of examination and 7 μετρίας.

* Quantum in Scripturis sanctis vol. v. part 3. p. 737.]

Ὁ operatur.

manifestissime deprehenditur, alia Pa-
ter ipse per se, alia specialiter per
Filium, alia per Spiritum Sanctum,
licet sub privilegio potentize communis,
Quia sumus, ad Patrem pro-
prie referri videtur; im quo, sicut apo-
Stolus dicit, vivimus, movemur, et sumus.
Quod vero rationis, et sapientia, et jus-
titi capaces sumus, illi specialiter, qui
est ratio et sapientia et justitia, id est,
Filio deputatur. Quod autem vocati
regeneramur, et regenerati innovamur,
innovati sanctificamur, per divina elo-
quia persone Spiritus Sancti evidenter
adscribiter.—[ Bibl. Patr. Colon. 1618.

» Sicut unicum Dei Verbum pro-
prie vocamus nomine sapientie@, cum
sit universaliter et Spiritus Sanctus, et
Pater ipse Sapientia; ita Spiritus S.
proprie nuncupatur vocabulo charitatis,
cum sit universaliter charitas et Pater
et Filius.—Lib. xv. de Trinit. cap. 17.
[vol. viii. p. 989. § 31.]

ὁ ἐγὼ δὲ ad’ ὧν ἔμαθον, νομίζω τὴν
ἑκατέρου διάνοιαν μετρίας τινὸς δοκιμα-
σίας ἐπιδεῖσθαι καὶ κατανοήσεως, μὴ ἄρα
κεκρυμμένος ἐστί τις ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὑπὸ
αὐτῶν εἰρημένοις βαθύτερος vovs.—Oper.
Athanas., tom. i. p. 972. [Epist. iv. ad
Serap. 12, vol. i. p. 703. ]

302 Dionysius of Rome.

onTHE consideration, whether [it may not be! that] there is some
pacaeaed actual deeper meaning hidden under their statements.” This
hun son, Certainly is not to reject Origen and Theognostus on account
—_— of these statements. That profounder sense, moreover, Huet

nee. tas himself drawn out and given to us. And let thus much

381

L381] be said of the doctrine and faith of the holy Theognostus.
141 CHAPTER XI.

[389]

IN WHICH IS SET FORTH THE CONSENT OF THE DIONYSIUS’S OF ROME AND
OF ALEXANDRIA WITH THE NICENE FATHERS.

1. Dionysius, bishop of Rome, who, whilst yet a presbyter,
had been designated by his namesake, Dionysius of Alexan-
‘ dria, “a learned and admirable man,” (Adyids τε καὶ θαυμά-
ovos,) flourished® in the reigns of the emperors Valerian and
[890] Gallienus. In the fragments of this Dionysius there is nothing
that incurs the censure of Petavius, as savouring of Arianism ;
on the contrary he is praised by him,as entertaining thoroughly
catholic views regarding the Holy Trinity. Sandius himself
2 nihil non too, who has left nothing unturned’ in antiquity, which might
ct» seem to make ever so little in favour of the Arians, very wisely
observes a complete silence concerning this writer, both in
his work on Ecclesiastical writers, and in his Nucleus of Ec-
clesiastical History. In order, however, that the reader who
loves truth may not be ignorant of so great a vindicator and
witness of the catholic faith, we will bring forward his tes-
timony. He wrote a learned epistle against the Sabellians,
which is lost; a portion of it, however, of some length, well
8 auro con- Worth its weight in gold*, has been preserved by Athanasius ;
iio in which there is contained a most complete confession of the
Holy Trinity. For after having therein refuted the dogma |
of Sabellius, Dionysius goes on thus to speak against another *
heresy, the opposite of the Sabellian'; “ And I should natu-
rally, in the next place speak also against those who divide,

* See Eusebius, H. E., vii. 7. [These Roman Church from the year 259 to
are the words of Eusebius, not of Dio- the year 269. Cave.—Bowyer.
nysius.—B. ] * ἐξῆς δ᾽ ἂν εἰκότως λέγοιμι καὶ πρὸς

* He held the episcopate of the διαιροῦντας, καὶ κατατέμνοντας, καὶ ἀναι-

His full testimony to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 303

and cut up, and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the soox πι.
CHAP. X.

Church of God, the Monarchy, dividing it into three powers ¢ 9 x; § 1.
(so to say'), and divided hypostases?, and Godheads three. proxy. _
For I understand that there are some of the catechists and 5105 Rom.
teachers of the divine word among you, who are introduc- 5 ae
ing this opinion; who are, so to speak, diametrically opposed μένας ὕπο-
to the opinions of Sabellius. For he blasphemes by assert- rien
ing that the Son Himself is the Father, and conversely [that

the Father is the Son]; whilst these, in some sort, preach

three Gods, dividing the Holy Unity’ into three hypostases, ὃ τὴν ἀγίαν
foreign to each other‘ [and] wholly separated. For the Di- ἡ ee
vine Word must needs be one® with the God of all; and the λήλων.
Holy Ghost must needs repose® and habitate” in God ; and: τ σύας
further, thus® the Divine Trinity? must be gathered up and iene 13
brought together into One’, as into a point’’,—the God (17 ἐνδιαιτᾶ-
mean) of all, the Almighty.” These words are so express, ae 91]
that they need no inference of ours to shew, how extremely s Hi wa.
full and simple is the exposition, which they contain, of the 9 τὴν θείαν
whole doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in opposition to all here- {? nay
sies whatsoever. The same Dionysius, however, shortly after τὶ ΨΕΎΨΗ
subjoins the following words against those who affirmed that

the Son of God was a created being®; ‘‘ And no less should

one censure those also who imagine that the Son is a thing

made”, and consider that the Lord has come into being’ © ποιήμα.
just as one of the things that have been really brought into ,.7°7°""
being’'; whereas the divine oracles attest for Him a beget- ™ τῶν ὄν-
ting, such as is suitable and becoming, but not any form- [zy

ing and making.” He immediately adds these words?; “It 112

aA t n~ / > « a 9 "ἡ
ροῦντας τὸ σεμνότατον κήρυγμα τῆς τριάδα εἰς Eva, ὥσπερ εἰς κορυφήν τινα,

ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὴν μοναρχίαν, εἰς
τρεῖς δυνάμεις τινὰς, καὶ μεμερισμένας
ὑποστάσεις, καὶ θεότητας τρεῖς᾽ πέπυ-
σμαι γὰρ εἶναί τινας τῶν παρ᾽ ὑμῖν κατη-
χούντων καὶ διδασκόντων τὸν θεῖον λό-
γον ταύτης ὑφηγητὰς τῆς φρονήσεως"
ot κατὰ διάμετρον, ws ἔπος εἰπεῖν, ἀντί-
κεινται τῇ Σαβελλίου γνώμῃ" ὃ μὲν yap
βλασφημεῖ, αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι λέγων
τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἔμπαλιν οἱ δὲ τρεῖς
Θεοὺς τρόπον τινὰ κηρύττουσιν, eis
τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ξένας ἀλλήλων παν-
τάπασι κεχωρισμένας διαιροῦντες τὴν
ἁγίαν μονάδα. ἡνῶσθαι γὰρ ἀνάγκη τῷ
Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν θεῖον λόγον᾽ ἐμφιλο-
χωρεῖν δὲ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι δεῖ
τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα" ἤδη καὶ τὴν θείαν

τὸν Θεὸν τῶν ὅλων τὸν παντοκράτορα
λέγω, συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαί τε καὶ συνά-
γεσθαι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη.--- Αἰ μδηδδῖαβ, de
Decretis Synodi Nice, tom. i. p. 275.
[§ 26. vol. i. p. 231.]

5. ov μεῖον δ᾽ ἄν τις καταμέμφοιτο
καὶ τοὺς ποίημα τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι δοξάζον -
τας, καὶ γεγονέναι τὸν Κύριον, ὥσπερ ἕν
τι τῶν ὄντως γενομένων, νομίζοντα,
τῶν θείων λογίων γέννησιν αὐτῷ τὴν
ἁρμόττουσαν καὶ πρέπουσαν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ
πλάσιν τινὰ καὶ ποίησιν προσμαρτυ-
potytwv.—[ pp. 231, 232. |

h βλάσφημον οὖν ov τὸ τυχὸν, μέγι-
στον μὲν οὖν, χειροποίητον τρόπον τινὰ
λέγειν τὸν Κύριον.----ἰ Ibid. ]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.
[392]

* καταμερί-

Ce.

2 μονάδα.

3 κωλύειν.

4 ποιήσει.

5 ἡνῶσθαι.

° κήρυγμα.

Dionysius
ALEX.

[398]

904 Dionysius of Alexandria.

is therefore a blasphemy, and no ordinary one, but rather the
greatest, to say that the Lord is in any way a handy-work.”
Finally, after several statements which are well worthy of
being read, Dionysius concludes thus'; “Neither therefore
ought we to break up! the wonderful and divine Unity’ into
three Godheads, nor to limit’ the dignity and exceeding
majesty of the Lord by saying that He is created+; but we
ought to believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ
Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost; and that the Word is
One? with the God of all. ‘For I,’ says He, ‘and the Father
are One;’ and, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.’
For in this way both the Divine Trinity, and the holy doc-
trie® of the Monarchy, will be preserved.” Who at any
time, even after the council of Nice, has written any thing
better against the Arian or other heretical opinions touching
the Trinity? But of the faith of this Dionysius of Rome, we
shall say more in treating of Dionysius of Alexandria, to the
elucidation of whose views I now proceed.

2. Dionysius’, Bishop of ‘Alexandria, whom Eusebius, Ba-
silk, and others call the Great, was, as we have already in-
timated, both the namesake and the contemporary of Dio-
nysius of Rome; and the histories of both, so far as concerns
the subject of which we are treating, are so mutually inter-
woven, that one cannot be related fully without the other.
Of this Dionysius, however, the Arians of old time used won-
derfully to boast, as if he were their own; and not without
cause indeed, if we are to believe the modern Arian, Sandius,
though in reality most unreasonably. But let us first hear
what Sandius' has written of him: “He taught,” says he,
“that the Son of God is a created being, and made; not in
nature one with, but a stranger and alien, in respect of sub-
stance, to the Father, just as the husbandman is in relation
to the vine, or the shipwright in relation to the ship; for,

ἐμοί. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ἣ θεία τριὰς καὶ
τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγμα τῆς μοναρχίας διασώ-

" οὔτ᾽ οὖν καταμερίζειν χρὴ εἰς τρεῖς
θεότητας τὴν θαυμαστὴν καὶ θείαν μο-

νάδα, οὔτε ποιήσει κωλύειν τὸ ἀξίωμα
καὶ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος τοῦ Κυρίου"
ἀλλὰ πεπιστευκέναι εἰς Θεὸν. Πατέρα
παντοκράτορα, καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα"
ἡνῶσθαι δὲ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὸν λόγον"
᾿Εγὼ γὰρ, φησὶ, καὶ 6 Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν"
καὶ, ᾿Εγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ 6 Πατὴρ ἐν

Covro.—[Ibid., p. 232. ]

i Made bishop about the year 232.
Cave.— Bowyer.

« Eusebius, H. E., lib. vii, at the
very beginning; Basil. Epist. Canon.
ad Amphiloch. [Ep. 188, vol. iii. p.
269. ]

* Enucl, Hist. Ecek, Li, p.-122.

Charged with Arianizing, by moderns. 305

he says, existing as a creature'!, He was not before He was βοοκ τι.
made*.” That you may understand, however, from what “Ὁ 1. 3"
masters Sandius learned this, he shortly afterwards adds: p,).\.
“ Huet (Origeniana ii. 2. q. 2. ὃ 10, 25) says that Diony- stus Avex.
sius of Alexandria gave utterance to unworthy and insuffer- Sera
able sentiments respecting the Trinity; for that he said that existens.
the Son is a work (ποίημα) of the Father, that is, a creature, ae pce
and made, and unlike Him, and alien from the Father as to fieret.
substance, as is the husbandman in relation to the vine; and,
forasmuch as He is a creature, He existed not before He was
made; and that he also uttered expressions little suited to*? parum
the Spirit. And in chapter ili. § 6, he states that he was (i.
the author of erroneous and absurd notions respecting the
Trinity. Accordingly Dionysius Petavius not without rea-
son‘ classes this his namesake also among those who pro- ‘non te-
pounded the same doctrine as Arius before his time.” At ™°™
last, he thus concludes: “ It was not without ground’, then, 5 non im-
that the Arians, in the very presence of Athanasius, boasted ™"*
of Dionysius’s agreeing with them.” These are the state-
ments of Sandius.

3. We, however, on the contrary, hesitate not to assert
that the Arians appealed to the views of Dionysius, not only
without grounds® and falsely, but also most unwisely, and ὁ temere.
to the ruin of their cause; nay, further, we contend that
scarcely any thing occurs in the ecclesiastical history of the
events which preceded the council of Nice, which makes [394]
more against the Arians than the history of this very Dio-
nysius, if faithfully told. Of that history, therefore, we will
give a true and succinct relation. When the Sabellian heresy
was daily spreading more and more in Egypt and Pentapolis,
whence it had its origin, Dionysius, who was bishop of Alex-
andria at the time, in writing an epistle against it addressed
to Ammonius and Euphranor, in his anxiety to distinguish
with extreme accuracy’ the Persons [of the Godhead,] ap- 7 accura-
peared to lean to the other extreme; that is to say, not oe
merely to distinguish the Divine Persons, by attributing to
Each His own property, but also to divide Each from the
Other in substance, and thus to deny that the Son was of
one substance® with the Father. Hereupon, some of the 8 ὁμοούσιον.

people of Pentapolis accused him of treason against the
BULL. X

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
ELLY LO

THE SON.

‘lese

fidei.

2 sartam
tectam.

143

[395]

306 His own vindication of his orthodoxy ; shewing that,

faith, before the bishop of Rome, who also at that time was
called by the same name, Dionysius. A synod of bishops
having been convened at Rome in this cause, the bishop of
Alexandria was requested by them to make a declaration
of his views. He accordingly wrote an apology to the afore-
mentioned bishop of Rome, in which he defended himself
from the calumnies which had been brought against him,
and in so doing admirably preserved unimpaired’ the ca-
tholic doctrine respecting the consubstantiality, and satisfied
the bishop of Rome in all points. St. Athanasius, who was
afterwards bishop of the same church of Alexandria, attests
the truth of this, both in his Commentary on the councils
of Ariminum and Seleucia, and especially in the treatise
which he wrote professedly in opposition to the Arians, who
used to boast that Dionysius had long before professed
the same opinions as themselves. In refuting them, Atha-
nasius informs us, that Dionysius held right views in all
points respecting the catholic faith, and that what he had
stated ambiguously in any part of his epistle to Ammonius
and Euphranor, the same he had more clearly explained
both in that epistle itself, and afterwards in some other
writings of his, and especially in those, which he addressed to
his namesake, the bishop of Rome, which, as Eusebius and
Jerome testify, were contained in four books. Persons, how-
ever, who were not aware of these facts, and who had not
read what had been written by Athanasius in defence of Dio-
nysius, did not hesitate, even after this, to accuse Dionysius
of furnishing weapons to the Arians; for instance, Basil and
Gennadius of Marseilles ; although Basil™, having afterwards
learnt the facts of the case, as it would seem, made honour-
able mention of him as an orthodox man. Ruffinus® of Aqui-
leia, however, was deceived in supposing that the writings
of Dionysius had been tampered with and corrupted by the
Arians. For Athanasius, in defending him, alleges no plea ἡ
of this kind: on the contrary, he intimates that these writ-
ings had remained entire and uncorrupted, even as he had
written them, so as to exhibit clearly that their author’s

™ Basil. ad Amphiloch. de Spirit. S. n Ruffin. Apolog. pro Origene. [ Sive
ς, 29. [§ 72. vol. iii, p. 60.] De Adult. lib. Orig., p. 50.}

(i.) He did not hold the errors imputed to him. 807

opinions were correct. Such is pretty nearly the history as ΒΟΟΚ 1.
given to us in brief, by Baronius. ree
4. Now in this history, two points particularly call for our Drony-
observation. First, it is clear from this that Dionysius of *”* wie

Alexandria never really wrote what was objected against him

by his accusers of Pentapolis, namely, that the Son of God, in

that He is properly’ the Son of God, is a creature or work : ' proprie.
and that at no time did he not’ acknowledge the same Son ? nunquam
of God to be of one substance and nature® with the Father. ence:
Athanasius proves this, first, from the very title of the work oiler
which this Dionysius addressed to Dionysius of Rome. The

words of Athanasius are as follows°; “First, then, he entitled

his epistle, Of Refutation and Defence’. And what is this, but 4 Ea¢yxou
that he refutes his slanderers, and defends himself respect- ur ee
ing what he had written? shewing that he had not himself logy).
written with the meaning that Arius has supposed; but that,

when he mentioned what was spoken of the Lord in reference [996]
to His human nature, he was not ignorant, that He was the
inseparable Word and Wisdom of the Father.”? And indeed,

if Dionysius had ever really held the views which his accusers

of Pentapolis objected against him, he would not, (being, as

he was, a man of remarkable piety,) have designated his re-

ply to the charges made against him a Refutation and De-

fence®, but rather a Confession or a Retractation®. For it is ὅ apologia.
certain from his Apology itself, that Dionysius did not in ὅλ.
barefaced way’ defend the blasphemies laid to his charge ; 7 γυμνῇ
nor if he had done so, would he ever have cleared himself κεφαλῇ.
to the satisfaction of Dionysius of Rome, who, as we have

already shewn, was a man especially orthodox on the article

of the Holy Trinity. Athanasius next proves the same

from the circumstance, that Dionysius himself openly com-

plained in his Apology, that his adversaries had not quoted

his words fairly, but had maimed and mutilated them, and

had framed from them, in this their maimed and mutilated

form, certain heretical propositions to lay to his charge.

° πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ᾿Ελέγχου καὶ ΑἊπο- σεν, ἔγραψεν αὐτὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τῶν ἀνθρω-
λογίας ἔγραψεν [16ρ. ἐπεγράψεν, inscrip- πίνως εἰρημένων περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου μνη-
sit, Β]]. ἑαυτοῦ τὴν ἐπιστολήν. τοῦτο σθεὶς οὐκ ἠγνόει τοῦτον εἶναι λόγον καὶ
δὲ τί ἐστιν, ἢ ὅτι τοὺς μὲν ψευδομένους σοφίαν ἀδιαίρετον τοῦ TMarpds.—Atha-
ἐλέγχει, περὶ δὲ ὧν ἔγραψεν, ἀπολογεῖ- nasius, de sententia Dionysii Alex.,
ται; δεικνὺς, ὅτι μὴ, ὡς ᾿Αρεῖος ὑπενόη- ἴοτῃη. ἱ. p, 559. [ὃ 14. vol. i. p. 253. ]

ΧΩ

ON THE
CONSUB>
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 φαύλης.
[397]

2 ἀπολογία.

3 elongasse.

144

4 τοῦ TAN-
σιον.

5 ἐσήμανα.

6 προεί-
ANTTO.
7 ἅμα.

8 πόθεν.

308 Garbled extracts quoted from his writings.

The words of Athanasius, immediately following those whick
we have adduced, are express: “In the next place,” says
AthanasiusP, “he charges his accusers as not adducing his
statements entire, but mutilating them; and as speaking not
with a good, but an evil conscience, just as they choose; and
he compares them to such as bring calumnious charges
against the Epistles of the blessed Apostle: now a complaint
such as this on his part sets him entirely free from evil! sus-
picion.” Athanasius lastly shews, point by point, that Dio-
nysius had, in his Defence”, replied to each several objection
brought against him, and had proved himself catholic in all :
this, I repeat, Athanasius clearly shews by adducing the
express words of Dionysius themselves: I cannot, therefore,
sufficiently express my surprise at those learned and ortho-
dox men, who do not cease, even at the present day, to fix
the slanderous charge of Arianism on that immortal ornament
of the Alexandrian Church.

5. To lay the subject more clearly before the reader, we
will here note out of the charges brought against Dionysius
one or two of the principal, upon which the others depend.
ΠῚ 5 accusers complained that Dionysius, in mentioning the
Father, did not at the same time mention the Son, and on the
other hand, on occasion of mentioning the Son, was silent as
to the name of the Father; inferring from this that he sepa-
rated, widely removed’*, and divided the Son from the Father.
To this the excellent prelate, as quoted by Athanasius‘, makes
this reply; “Of the names which were mentioned by me, each
is inseparable and indivisible from the other*. I mentioned
the Father, [but] even before I introduced [the name of |
the Son, I implied’ Him also in the Father: I introduced
the Son, [and] even if I had not previously mentioned the
Father, He would most certainly have been implied by anti-
cipation® in the Son. I added the Holy Ghost, but at the
same time’ I associated both Him from whom’ and Him

Ρ ἔπειτα αἰτιᾶται τοὺς κατειπόντας Ans ὑποψίας αὐτὸν ἀπολύει.---[ Ibid. }

αὐτοῦ, ὧς μὴ ὁλοκλήρους λέγοντας, ἀλλὰ
περικόπτοντας αὐτοῦ τὰς λέξεις" καὶ ὡς
μὴ καλῇ συνειδήσει, ἀλλὰ πονηρᾷ λα-
a ε , . , ee ey,
Aovytas ws θέλουσι" τούτους δὲ τούτοις
ἀπεικάζει, τοῖς τὰς τοῦ μακαρίου ἀπο-
/
στόλου διαβάλλουσιν ἐπιστολάς. ἡ δὲ
, “
τοιαύτη μέμψις αὐτοῦ πάντως ἀπὸ φαύ-

1 τῶν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ λεχθέντων ὀνομάτων
ἕκαστον ἀχώριστόν ἐστι καὶ ἀδιαίρετον
τοῦ πλησίον. Tlarépa εἶπον, καὶ πρὶν
ἐπαγάγω τὸν viby, ἐσήμανα καὶ τοῦτον
ἐν τῷ Πατρί: υἱὸν ἐπήγαγον, εἰ καὶ μὴ
προειρήκειν τὸν Πατέρα, πάντως ἂν ἐν
τῷ υἱῷ προείληπτο. ἅγιον πνεῦμα προ-

His own account of his statements, and meaning. 809

through whom! He came. But these know not that neither βοοκ πι.

is the Father, in that He is Father, separated’ from the Son, ve ΤῸΝ

for the name is calculated to introduce [the idea of] the Drony- _

union*®: neither is the Son removed from the Father, for ee

the designation ‘ Father’ manifests the communion; and in, Me

Their hands is the Spirit, which is not capable of being τρίωται.

severed? either from Him that sends, or Him that conveys ἘΔΡ Ης Ξε

Him. How then could I, who use these names, believe συναφείας.

that they are parted and wholly severed from each other ?” ὑστέρεσθαι.

After a short interval he sums up all this in a few words, by [898]

saying, as Athanasius states’, “That the Trinity is gathered

up into a Unity’ without being divided or diminished.” 5 εἰς μονάδα.
6. His adversaries further urged against Dionysius, that itn

he taught that the Son of God is alien from the substance of

the Father; and that the relation of the Father to the Son

is like that of the husbandman to the vine, or of a ship-

builder to a vessel. To this the holy man replies in the fol-

lowing words*: “ But when I had said that some things are

conceived of as brought into existence® and some as made, ὅ γενητὰ,

of such, as being of less importance, I adduced examples Hee

{only] by the way. For I neither said that the plant was ten,’Bull.]

....to the husbandman, nor the vessel... .to the ship-

wright". After that I dwelt upon points which are more

connected with and cognate [to the subject], and I treated

more fully of what were more real’ [scil. less metaphorical],

having brought out various additional proofs, which I also com- pens

municated to you in another epistle, in which® I also shewed 8 ἐν οἷς,

that the charge which they bring against me, is a falsehood,

that I deny that Christ is of one substance® with God: for ὁμοούσιον.

[399]

σέθηκα' ἀλλ᾽ ἅμα καὶ πόθεν, καὶ διὰ πάλιν ἀμείωτον eis τὴν μονάδα συγκε-

τίνος ἧκεν, ἐφήρμοσα. οἱ δὲ οὐκ ἴσασιν
ὅτι μήτε ἀπηλλοτρίωται Πατὴρ υἱοῦ, ἣ
ἸΠατήρ᾽ προκαταρκτικὸν γάρ ἐστι τῆς
συναφείας τὸ ὄνομα" οὔτε vibs ἀπῴκισται
τοῦ ΤΠΙατρός' yap Πατὴρ προσηγορία
δηλοῖ τὴν κοινωνίαν. ἔν τε ταῖς χερσὶν
αὐτῶν ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, μήτε τοῦ πέμπον-
τος, μήτε τοῦ φέροντος δυνάμενον στέ-
ρεσθαι. πῶς οὖν ὃ τούτοις χρώμενος τοῖς
ὀνόμασι μεμερίσθαι ταῦτα καὶ ἀφωρίσθαι
παντελῶς ἀλλήλων olouat.—Tom. i. p.
561. [§ 17. p. 254]

ΤΡ, 562. [§ 19. p. 256.—The words
of Dionysius in Athanasius are; οὕτω
μὲν ἡμεῖς εἴς τε Thy τριάδα Thy μονάδα
πλατύνομεν ἀδιαίρετον, καὶ τὴν τριάδα

φαλαιούμεθα. See Grabe’s annotations
in the appendix. |

S πλὴν ἐγὼ γενητά τινα καὶ ποιητά
τινα φήσας νοεῖσθαι, τῶν μὲν τοιούτων
ὡς ἀχρειοτέρων ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς εἶπον παρα-
δείγματα. ἐπεὶ μήτε τὸ φυτὸν ἔφην τῷ
γεωργῷ, μήτε τῷ ναυπηγῷ τὸ σκάφος
[Deesse hic quidpiam monet editor
Benedict.] εἶτα τοῖς ἱκνουμένοις καὶ
προσφυεστέροις ἐνδιέτριψα, καὶ πλέον
διεξῆλθον περὶ τῶν ἀληθεστέρων, ποικίλα
προσεπεξευρὼν τεκμήρια' ἅπερ καὶ σοὶ
δι’ ἄλλης ἐπιστολῆς ἔγραψα: ἐν οἷς
ἤλεγξα καὶ ὃ προφέρουσιν ἔγκλημα κατ᾽
ἐμοῦ, ψεῦδος ὃν, ὡς οὐ λέγοντος τὸν
Χριστὸν ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τῷ Θεῷ. εἰ γὰρ

THE SON.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

1 παρεθέ-
μην.
2 γονὴν.

8
4

ὁμογενῆ.
πάντως.

διὰ τὰς

περιστά-

σειδ:

ob
asus tem-

porum.

6
7

εὐπορήσω.

τῶν συγ-

γενῶν.

“of like

nature.”’

Bp. Bull.

“

ς
ὑπάρχειν.

510 His own explanation of his letter

although I say that I have not found nor read this word in
any place of the Holy Scriptures, still my arguments which
immediately follow, of which they make no mention, are
not at variance with this belief. For I even put forward!
as an example, human offspring’, as clearly being of one
nature (homogeneous’), asserting that parents undoubtedly‘
are other than their children only in that they are not them-
selves the children*. The letter [itself], indeed, as I said
before, I cannot send, owing to present circumstances’; had
it been otherwise, I would have sent you the very words
I then used, or rather a copy of the whole letter; which, if
I shall have the means®, I will [still] do. I know however
and recollect, that I added several parallels of things cognate’;
for I said that a plant, which has come up from a seed or a
root, is different from that from which it sprang, and is [at
the same time] altogether of the same nature® with it’: and
that a river which flows from a fountain has received another
form and name; (for neither is the fountain called a river,
nor the river a fountain;) yet that they both have a sub-
stantive existence’; and that the fountain is as it were the
father, and the river is the water from the fountain. These
things, however, and such as these, they [say] that they do
not see written, but, as it were, pretend to be blind, whilst

kal τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτό φημι μὴ εὑρηκέναι,
μηδ᾽ ἀνεγνωκέναι πον τῶν ἁγίων γρα-
φῶν, ἀλλάγε τὰ ἐπιχειρήματά μου τὰ
ἑξῆς, ἃ σεσιωπήκασι, τῆς διανοίας ταύ-
TNS οὐκ ἀπάδει. καὶ γὰρ (καὶ) [om. ed.
Ben. ] ἀνθρωπείαν γονὴν παρεθέμην, δῆ-
λον ὡς οὖσαν ὁμογενῆ" φήσας πάντως
τοὺς γονεῖς μόνον ἑτέρους εἶναι τῶν τέκ-
νῶν, ὅτι μὴ αὐτοὶ εἶεν τὰ τέκνα. καὶ τὴν
μὲν ἐπιστολὴν, ὡς προεῖπον, διὰ τὰς
περιστάσεις οὐκ “ἔχω προκομίσαι. εἰ δ᾽
οὖν, αὐτά σοι τὰ τότε ῥήματα, μᾶλλον
δὲ καὶ πάσης ἂν ἔπεμψα τὸ ἀντίγραφον.
ὅπερ ἂν εὐπορήσω, ποιήσω. οἶδα δὲ καὶ
μέμνημαι. πλείονα προσθεὶς τῶν συγγε-
νῶν ὁμοιώματα. καὶ γὰρ καὶ φυτὸν εἶπον,
ἀπὸ σπέρματος ἢ amd ῥίζης ἀνελθὸν,
ἕτερον εἶναι τοῦ, ὅθεν ἐβλάστησε, καὶ
πάντως ἐκεῖνο [ἐκείνῳ ed. Ben. ] καθέ-
στηκεν ὁμοιοφυές [ ὁμοφυές ed. Ben.)
kal ποταμὸν ἀπὸ πηγῆς ῥέοντα ἕτερον
σχῆμα καὶ ὄνομα μετειληφέναι" μῆτε
γὰρ τὴν πηγὴν ποταμὸν, μήτε τὸν ποτα-
μὸν πηγὴν λέγεσθαι: καὶ ἀμφότερα
ὑπάρχειν, καὶ τὴν μὲν πηγὴν, οἷονεὶ

(τὸν) [om. ed. Ben.] Πατέρα εἶναι, τὸν
δὲ ποταμὸν εἶναι τὸ ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς ὕδωρ.
ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα μηδὲ
ὁρᾷν γεγραμμένα, ἀλλ᾽ οἱονεὶ τυφλώτ-
τεῖν ὑποκρίνονται" τοῖς δὲ δυσὶ ῥηματίοις
ἀσυνθέτοις, καθάπερ λίθοις, μακρόθεν
ἐπιχειροῦσί με BadAew.—Apud Atha-
nasium, tom. i. p. 561. [§ 18. p. 255. ]

t [The Benedictine editor intimates
that there is something wanting here.
oe

« [The following clause is omitted
by Bp. Bull, ἢ μήτε γονεῖς ἀναγκαῖον
ὑπάρχειν Eid: μήτε τέκνα. “ Other-
wise, it must needs follow, that there
are neither parents nor children.”” See
Grabe’s annotations on this passage.
—B.

Y [Read ἐκείνῳ, (see Grabe’s anno-
tations,) and presently ὁμοφυές. --- B.
These corrections, which are the read-
ings of the Bened. edition, are followed
in the translation: Bp. Bull read ὅμοι-
φυὲς, similis nature: this is noticed in

the margin. |

allows and implies the Consubstantiality. 311

with the two little words apart from the context’, as with
stones, they try to strike me from a distance.” Thus Dio-
nysius; and what can be clearer than this defence? For as
it appears, this great man, in the epistle at which his adver-
saries carped, had endeavoured to illustrate the distinction
between the Father and the Son, in opposition to the Sa-
bellians, by various similes: some of which related only to
the human nature of Christ, created by the Father; as that
of the husbandman in relation to the vine, or that of the
shipwright to the vessel; whilst others were adapted also to
the Divine nature of the Saviour, received by eternal gene-
ration from the Father. On examples of the first kind,
as less apt, he had touched but lightly and by the way;
whilst on the latter, as being most suitable and applicable,
he had dwelt a longer time. Amongst these were several,
which eminently confirmed in reality the consubstantiality
of the Son, although Dionysius allows that he had not in
this place used the term. For he had even adduced as an
example human birth, and subjoined these express words ;
“Parents undoubtedly are other than their children only in
this, that they are not themselves their children.” By this
example both the communion of nature, which subsists be-
tween the Father and the Son, and also the distinction of Per-
sons, is manifestly declared. He had added, that the plant
which grows up from a seed or a root, is other than’ that
from which it springs, and still is of a nature altogether the
same with it; and many other examples of that sort. But
the sophists, suppressing the mention of all this, seized a
handle for falsely accusing® him, from two little words only,
which they themselves had put in a wrong connection‘, and
drawn to a sense, other than that which Dionysius intended.
But why, you will say, did Dionysius employ at all those
examples, which are less suitable, and apply only to the
human nature of Christ? The great Athanasius gives an
excellent reason*; “And this form’ [of reasoning],’’ he says,
‘is in truth persuasive in overthrowing the madness of Sa-
bellius, so that he, who wishes by a short method to convict
such men, should not begin from the passages which indi-

cas / €
x [καὶ ἔστιν ἀληθῶς τύπος οὗτος πι- μανίας, ὥστε τὸν βουλόμενον ταχέως

θανὸς πρὸς ἀνατροπὴν τῆς Σαβελλίου διελέγχειν τοὺς τοιούτους, μὴ ἀπὸ τῶν

BOOK II.
CHAP. XI.
§ 6.

Diony-
5105 ALEX.
1 ἀσυνθέ-
TOL.

145

[401]

2 aliud ab.

3 calumni-
andi.

4a se male
compositis.

5 ,
TUTOS.

[402]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LILY ΘῈ
THE SON.

1rd ἀνθρω-

πίνως εἰρη-
μένα.

312 Πὶδ course of argument most effective against Sabellianism.

cate the divinity of the Word; that the Son, for instance, is
Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and that ‘I and the Father
are one;’ lest they, perversely interpreting what is correctly
said, should make such statements an occasion for their
shameless contentiousness, when they hear [the words],
‘I and the Father are one,’ and ‘He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father:’ but [one should rather] put for-
ward what has been said of the Saviour in respect of His
human nature’, just as he has done; such things, for in-
stance, as His hungering and being wearied, and that He
is the Vine, and [that] He prayed, and [that] He suffered.
For in proportion as these things which are said are lowly,
so much the more is it apparent that it was not the Father
who became man. For when the Lord is called a Vine,
there must needs be a Vine-dresser also: when He prays,
there must be One that hears, and, when He asks, there
must be One that gives. And these things shew the mad-
ness of the Sabellians much more easily, because He that
prays is one, He that hears another; and the Vine is one,
and the Vine-dresser another.” As to the objection brought
against Dionysius by his opponents, that he denied the eter-
nity of the Son, you shall hear the clear reply of the great
prelate on that point, in our third book, on the Co-eternity
of the Son. But this being the case, certain learned men
of the present day need to be seriously reminded, that they
imitate not the ways of the false accusers of old time, nor
henceforth, suppressing the mention of the very many catho-
lic statements of Dionysius, continue to cast at a very holy
man and one who has deserved most highly of the Catholic
Church, those two little words “the Vine,” and “the Hus-
bandman,” as it were stones, and they too moved out of their
proper place.

σημαινόντων τὴν θεότητα τοῦ λόγου
ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἀρχήν" ὅτι λόγος, καὶ
σοφία, καὶ δύναμίς ἐστιν ὃ υἱός" καὶ ὅτι
ἐγὼ καὶ ὃ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν ἵνα μὴ τὰ
καλῶς εἰρημένα παρεξηγούμενοι ἐκεῖνοι,
πρόφασιν τῆς ἀναισχύντου φιλονεικίας
ἑαυτῶν, τὰ τοιαῦτα πορίσωνται, ἀκούον-
TES, ὅτι ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν" καὶ
ὁ ἕ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ, ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα" ἀλλὰ
τὰ ἀνθρωπίνως εἰρημένα περὶ τοῦ σωτῆ-
pos προβάλλειν, & ὥςπερ αὐτὸς πεποίηκεν"
οἷά ἐστι, τὸ πεινᾶν, τὸ κοπιᾶν, καὶ ὅτι

ἄμπελος, καὶ, ηὔχετο, καὶ πέπονθεν. ὅσῳ
γὰρ ταῦτα ταπεινὰ λέγεται, τοσούτῳ
δείκνυται μὴ ὃ “πατὴρ γενόμενος ἄνθρω-
TOS. ἀνάγ Κη “γὰρ καὶ ἀμπέλου λεγομένου
τοῦ κυρίου, ¢ εἶναι καὶ γεωργόν" καὶ evxo-
μένου αὐτοῦ, εἶναι τὸν ἐπακούοντα" καὶ
αἰτοῦντος αὐτοῦ, εἶναι τὸν διδόντα" τὰ
δὲ τοιαῦτα μᾶλλον εὐκολώτερον τὴν
τῶν Σαβελλιανῶν μανίαν δείκνυσιν" ὅτι
ἕτερος ὃ εὐχόμενος, ἕτερος 6 ἐπακούων,
καὶ ἄλλος ἣ ἄμπελος, καὶ ἄλλος ὃ γεωρ-
γός. |—tom. i. p. 568. [ὃ 26. p. 261. ]

(ii.) The Consubsiantiality evidently the received doctrine. 313
7. I proceed to the other point, which I think especially Βοοκ 11.

worthy of observation in the history of this Dionysius. It is “8 δ, ἫΝ
then, further, an evident conclusion from it, that in the proxy. |
Christian Churches in the age of Dionysius, the doctrine 108 AU=*
which asserted! that the Son of God is of one substance and ' senten-
co-eternal (ὁμοούσιος and cuvaidios) with His Father, was jon”
already commonly received and held, as a certain and catho-

lic [truth], which it were impious to gainsay. For as soon as_ [403]
certain ill-disposed? men had falsely spread abroad a calumny 5 malefe-
against Dionysius, as though he had taught, that the Son is side
not of one substance with the Father, but created and made,

and that there was a time when the Son was not, nearly the

whole Christian world was moved at it; the complaint was
carried from the East to the West; an appeal was made to

the bishop of Rome, as holding the first seat? amongst the ὁ cathe-
prelates; a council was forthwith held upon the matter in iit
the diocese of Rome, in which the opinions which were said

to be held by Dionysius of Alexandria, were condemned, and

a synodical epistle was written to Dionysius himself, in which

the fathers enquired of him, whether he had in very deed
published doctrines of such a kind. This Athanasius himself,

the defender of Dionysius, explicitly attests, in his treatise

on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia’, in the following

words; “ But when certain persons had laid a charge before

the bishop of Rome against the bishop of Alexandria, as if he

had asserted that the Son was made’, and was not of one sub- 4 ποίημα.
stance with the Father, the council which was convened at

Rome was deeply moved with indignation, and the bishop of

Rome expressed the sentiments of them all in a letter to his
namesake.” Hence arose the Refutation and Defence of Dio- 146
nysius of Alexandria, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, in which

he easily cleared himself with’ that wise and very fair-minded ὃ apud.
man. Furthermore, it is a certain conclusion from this his-

tory, (as I have, indeed, already observed elsewhere?,) that

in the times of this Dionysius, 1. e., at least sixty years before

the council of Nice, the very word ὁμοούσιος (of one sub- [404]

Υ ἀλλὰ τινῶν αἰτιασαμένων Tapa τῷ: Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπος Thy πάντων γνώμην
ἐπισκόπῳ Ῥώμης τὸν τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας γράφει πρὸς τὸν ὁμώνυμον ἑαυτοῦ.---
ἐπίσκοπον, ὡς λέγοντα ποίημα, καὶ μὴ Tom. i. p. 918. [ὃ 48. p. 767.}
ὁμοούσιον τὸν υἱὸν τῷ Πατρὶ, ἣ μὲν κατὰ z Above in chapter 1. of this book.
Ῥώμην σύνοδος ἠγανάκτησεν, ὃ δὲ τῆς ἃ 8. [p. 65.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

emacs
* in expli-

catione.

2 ὁμοούσιος.

3 confir-
masse.

4 paralipo-
mena,

5 παρὰ δό-
ἕαν vulga-
riter eru-
ditorum.

[405]

δ αὐτολεξεὶ.

914 The word ὁμοούσιος also the received expression of it.

stance), was ordinarily used, received and approved amongst
Catholics, in stating’ the doctrine of the divinity of the Son.
For it was expressly objected to Dionysius, as he himself
admits, that he did not say that the Son was of one substance?
with the Father; and to this objection the excellent man
replied, that he had not indeed read the word in the Scrip-
tures, but that, nevertheless, he had not on that account
shrunk from it; (indeed, in his epistle against Paul of Samo-
sata, as has been shewn above®, he expressly approves of that
word as one that was used by catholic fathers who had lived
before him ;) whilst the reality itself, which is represented
by the word, he had repeatedly and most explicitly affirmed’,
both in his other writings, and in the very epistle from
which his adversaries had constructed their charges against
him.

8. Now what does Sandius say» to all this? Hear and
wonder at the extreme ignorance or impudence of the man,
whichever it be; “The Apology,” he says, “of this Diony-
sius, which is said to have been written to Dionysius of
Rome, is in my opinion spurious, and forged by those who
would have all controversies of the faith to be decided by the
Roman pontiff, as supreme judge.” But who in the world
ever suspected this before himself ? Perhaps, however, this
unkerneller of ecclesiastical history has his own reasons for
this judgment, which we, “simple and old-fashioned folk,”
do not as yet apprehend. For he openly gives it out* that he
had proposed “to write the matters which are, as it were,
omitted* in ecclesiastical history, and which are very different
from the notions of the ordinarily learned®.” Well, let us
see, whether he has aught to produce worthy of being opposed
to the consent of all, not only of those who are “ ordinarily
learned,” but of those who rise above the ordinary class.
“ First,” he says, ‘neither Eusebius nor Jerome have men-
tioned this Apology.” I reply ; granting this to be true, still
Athanasius has mentioned it, who had the best acquaintance
with the writings of his own predecessor in the see of Alexan-
dria: and he has so mentioned it as to cite pretty long extracts
from it in the very words® of the original, extracts which he

The genuineness of the Apology maintained against Sandius. 315

boldly opposed to the Arians, when they boasted of Diony- xoox 1.
sius’s agreeing in opinion with them. Basil the Great has 7.»
also mentioned it in his treatise on the Holy Spirit, c. 29°, Ῥίοκγο.
where he likewise produces out of it a remarkable testimony 51:05 Avex.
on the divinity of the Holy Ghost. But further, it is quite
untrue, that neither Eusebius nor Jerome have mentioned
this Apology: both have made clear enough mention of it.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History,. vii. 26, in enumerat-
ing the epistles, and treatises in the form of epistles, which
Dionysius of Alexandria composed against Sabellius, writes
thus concerning this Apology®: “And he also composed four
other treatises on the same subject; which he addressed to
his namesake, Dionysius of Rome.” ‘These words of Euse-
bius manifestly designate the books Of Refutation and Apo-
logy, portions of which were brought forward by Athanasius.
For all points coincide, whether you regard the form, the
argument, the title, or the division of the books. The form
of both was the same, namely, the epistolary. The work
which Eusebius mentions, was written upon the Sabellian
controversy ; and the work Of Refutation and Apology, cited
by Athanasius and Basil, treated of the same argument.
Both were alike addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome.
The epistolary work, which Eusebius mentions, was divided [406]
into different portions!; so was the apologetic epistle men- ' volumina.
tioned by Athanasius. The epistle of which Eusebius speaks,
consisted, as he himself testifies, of four parts in all; whilst
Athanasius brought forward testimonies out of the first,
second, and third books, by name, of the Apology of Diony-
sius. See the annotations of the very learned Valesius on this
passage of Eusebius. And as for Jerome, he also expressly
mentions this quadripartite epistle, in his Catalogue of Kccle-
siastical Writers, under Dionysius of Alexandria, in these
words‘, “ There are also four books of his addressed to
Dionysius, bishop of Rome.”

9. Sandius’ second argument is to this effect ; “It is evi-
dent,” he says, “from the Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History
of Eusebius, that Dionysius of Alexandria had died at a very

4 Tom. ii. p. 358. [ vol. iii. p. 60. ] mpospwvet.—[ H. E. vii. 26. ]

σεως καὶ ἄλλα τέσσαρα συγγράμματα. Dionysium Romane urbis episcopum.
ἃ τῷ κατὰ Ῥώμην ὁμωνύμῳ Διονυσίῳ κ“---ἶ νο!]. ii. p. 897-δ,}

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

147

[407]

816 Sandius argues from a known chronological error

advanced age, and his successor Maximus had been appointed,
(A.D. 268,) before Dionysius became bishop of Rome, (A.D.
269.)” An argument, indeed, worthy of such an unkerneller
of ecclesiastical history ; seeing that all, who possess even a
moderate acquaintance with this branch of learning, know that
in this place Eusebius made a gross mistake in his chrono-
logy. The source of his error was, that he was ignorant of
the number of years of the pontificate of Xystus, who was the
predecessor of Dionysius of Rome; since he states that he
presided over the Roman Church eleven years, whereas it is
certain that Xystus did not govern that Church for the whole
of three years. On this gross mistake of Eusebius the excel-
lent Valesius writes thus; “Eusebius,” he says, “is here
grievously mistaken ; for Xystus did not rule the Church of
Rome eleven years, but only two years and eleven months,
as is stated in the book upon the Roman pontiffs, which was
first published by Cuspinian®. In that book the years of
the popes of Rome, from Pope Callixtus to the pontificate of
Liberius, are very well arranged. And of Xystus it states
thus: ‘Xystus two years, eleven months, and six days. He
began from the consulate of Maximus and Glabrio and con-
tinued to that of Tuscus and Bassus, and suffered on the
eighth day before the ides of August.’ Cyprian, who him-
self suffered martyrdom under the same consuls, but in the
following month, gives the same testimony in his epistle to
Successus. Eusebius, however, says nothing of the martyr-
dom of Xystus, either in his Chronicle or in his Ecclesiastical
History, which greatly astonishes me, though I should be
much more astonished, did I not know that Eusebius was
rather careless respecting what was transacted in the West.
Besides, in his Chronicle, he states that Xystus occupied the
see eight years, though here he assigns eleven years to him.
He also makes Dionysius succeed Xystus as Pope in the
twelfth year of Gallienus, whilst he says that Maximus suc-
ceeded Dionysius of Alexandria, in the eleventh year of the
same emperor; which is most absurd, since it is certain that
Dionysius of Alexandria addressed four books against Sabel-

ξ In his notes on Eusebius’ Eccl. ficum Romanorum, ap. Cuspiniani de
History, vii. 27. Consulibus Romanorum Commenta-
» [Pseudo-Damasi Catalogus Ponti- 105, p. 885, ed. Francof. 1601. ]

of Eusebius. Further indications of his ignorance. 317

lius to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, as Eusebius states above, Book 1.
CHAP. XI.

δ." § 9, 10.
10. The third and last cavil of Sandius remains to be dis- pyoyy. _

posed of by us, in a few words; “This Apology,” he says, 8108 ALEX.

‘is at variance with the sentiments of Dionysius of Alexan-

dria, and agrees with the heresy of Paul of Samosata, of

which we shall treat in Book I. of our Ecclesiastical History.”

But first, from what does he prove that this Apology is, as he

says, at variance with the sentiments of Dionysius of Alexan-

dria? Dionysius, forsooth, [as he says], taught that the Son

of God, even in that He is properly the Son of God, is a crea-

ture and made, &c., which doctrines the author of the Apo-

logy professedly impugns. This, however, is begging the ques-

tion’. For we assert, that Dionysius never in reality taught [408 |

such things, but that they were calumniously fastened on this | τὸ ἐν

good man by his adversaries ; and of this assertion of ours we pee

give solid proofs from the Apology itself, which, as is clear

from the surest evidence, is the genuine work of Dionysius.

With these calumnies the Apology is, indeed, at variance ;

but if it had not been at variance with them, it ought by no

means to have been entitled a Refutation and an Apology.

Secondly, who is not thoroughly astonished at what Sandius

affirms,—that the sentiments, I mean, of the author of the

Apology agree with the heresy of Paul of Samosata? For

throughout that Apology, the divinity of the Word or Son of

God, which Paul of Samosata denied, is clearly asserted. But

Sandius perhaps meant, that the author of the Apology was

a thorough Sabellian: and that Sabellius and Paul of Samo-

sata were of one opinion’ on the article respecting the Son of ? ὁμοδόξους.

God; as he eagerly maintains in the first book of his Eccle-

siastical History’ Unkernelled, under [the head of] Paul of

Samosata. But suppose we allow to this trifler, that the

heresy of Sabellius and of Paul of Samosata was the same, or

at least came to the same thing; still, whence and by what

argument, I ask, will he prove, that the author of the Apo-

logy agreed with the heresy of Sabellius. Certainly Eusebius,

Athanasius, and others attest that that Apology was written

especially against the Sabellian heresy : nay, Athanasius says

i Page 114.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[409]

1 Sandii
centonem,
2 nimirum.

148

318 Dionysius was opposing Sabellianism.

that in that work Dionysius overthrows Sabellius (Σαβέλ-
Nov ἀνατρέπειν). Besides, we have already cited out of the
fragments of the Apology, which are extant in Athanasius,
statements diametrically opposed to the Sabellian heresy.
Of this kind,—I say nothing of the rest, lest I should weary
the reader with tedious repetition,—is his illustration of the
distinction between God the Father and the Son by a simile
derived from a human birth, with this remark subjoined ;
“That parents are other than their children only in this,
that they are not themselves their children.” What man in
his sober senses would say that these are the words of one
who agrees with Sabellius, or even with Paul of Samosata?
I think it probable, however, that Sandius had never read
through those fragments of the Apology, which are extant in
Athanasius; but had heard from others, that the consub-
stantiality of the Son was maintained in that work, and
thence had inferred that the writer was a thorough Sabellian.
Perhaps this conjecture of mine will, at first sight, appear
strange to the sound-minded reader, who has not yet seen
the cento of Sandius'; but it is plain® that this author does
everywhere in his book regard it as a certain and settled
point, that the doctrine of the Homousians, as he calls them,
and of the Sabellians, was entirely the same respecting the
Son of God; than which nothing is farther from the truth,
inasmuch as we have already clearly shewn that no one who
holds the same views as Sabellius), can say that the Son of
God is of one substance with the Father, except in a most
absurd and improper sense. So much respecting the Apology
of Dionysius of Alexandria.

11. Besides this, the same Dionysius, a short time before
his death, at the request of the fathers who were assembled
at Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosata, wrote a remark-
able epistle against this same Paul, which is extant at this

_day*. In it the divine soul, on the point of departing hence

3 delibabi-

mus,

to God, discourses on the true divinity of the Lord Jesus in
a manner altogether divine. There are very many passages
which bear on this subject; but we will only extract’ a few.
He there expressly calls Christ “uncreated and Creator! ;»

) ii. 1. 9, towards the end. [p. 70.]
« Bibl. Patr., tom. ii, [Op., p. 203, &c.] 1p. 266. [p. 212.]

Letter of Dionysius against Paul of Samosata. 319

(ἄκτιστον καὶ δημιουργὸν ;) and a little after™, ‘Him who 18. Book 11.

Lord by nature, and the Word of the Father, through whom

CHAP. XI.
§ 10—12.

the Father made all things, and who is said by the holy pyoyy-

fathers to be of one substance with the Father.”
we read these words"; “Christ is unchangeable, as being

Afterwards 5105 ALEX.
[410]

God the Word.” And one page after, Christ is designated

by him», ‘‘ He who is God over all, our refuge.” Parallel to

this is what we read in the next page respecting our Saviour? ;

“He who is God over all, the Lord God of Israel, Jesus the
Christ.” What is to be said of the fact, that Dionysius ex-

plicitly acknowledges the entire Trinity of one substance ?

in his replies to the questions? of Paul of Samosata, Reply

to Quest. IV., he says; “Christ the Word is of one nature! ! ὁμοειδὴς.
with the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove; and the Spirit

is of one nature with the Father.’ This I observe in oppo-

sition to those, who think that Dionysius entertained wrong

views, at least, respecting the Holy Ghost. But in the same

place he also makes these excellent statements respecting

the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost alike' ;

“For Jesus,” he says, “the Word before the worlds, is God

of Israel; as is likewise the Holy Ghost.’ Again in the

same tract”? he thus speaks concerning the Holy Ghost’; ? opusculo.
“For he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, who is

loving unto man®, shall not go unpunished, and God is a? τοῦ φι-

Spirit *.”

λάνθρωπου
Πνεύματος.

12. What on the other hand does Sandius say to this? [411]
he once more lays aside all shame’ and audaciously rejects * Spiritus

m τὸν φύσει Κύριον, καὶ λόγον τοῦ
Πατρὸς, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν ὃ Πα-
τὴρ, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἰρημένον
ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων.---». 267. [p.
214. ]

0 ἀναλλοίωτος γὰρ ὃ Χριστὸς, ws
Θεὸς Adyos.—p. 288. [p. 242. ]

o 6 dy ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, ἣ καταφυγὴ
Nuav.—p. 289. [p. 240.]

P ὃ dv ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὺς, Κύριος 6
Θεὸς Ἰσραὴλ, Ἰησοῦς 6 Xpiords.—p.
290. [p. 248. ]

q ὁμοειδὴς ev τῷ εἴδει τῆς περιστερᾶς
ὁ Χριστὸς λόγος τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ"
ὁμοειδὲς τῷ Πατρὶ τὸ Mvevua.—p. 284.
[p. 232. ]

*@ebs γὰρ Ἰσραὴλ Ἰησοῦς 6 mpd
αἰώνων λόγος, ws Kal τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα.

—|[ Resp. ad Quest. vi. p. 244. ]

est Deus.

5 frontem
* (The Greek words as given by perfricat.
Bp. Bull are; od yap ἀθῷος ἀπελεύσε-
ται βλασφημῶν κατὰ τοῦ φιλανθρώπου
Πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου" Πνεῦμα δὲ 6 Θεός:
on which Dr. Burton observes; “ In p.
245 we read οὐκ ἀθῳώσει, φησὶ, βλάσ-
φημον ἀπὸ χείλεων αὐτοῦ τὸ φιλάνθρω-
πον Πνεῦμα: ἀλλ᾽ ἐτάζει καρδίας καὶ
νεφροὺς, ὅτι καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς
Θεὸς, τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐπίσταται, (him, who
blasphemes with his lips the Spirit that
is loving unto man, He says, He will
not let go unpunished: but He search-
eth the hearts and reins, for the Spirit,
as God, knoweth the deep things
of God.’’) which, if I am not mis-
taken, Bp. Bull thus altered through
fault of memory. |

ON THE
CONSUB~
STANTIA-

LITY OF
THE SON.

1 homun-
cionis,

2 ἐπὶ τὴν
θεραπείαν.

[4192]
8 παροικία.

149

320 Historical evidence that Dionysius wrote such a letter.

this epistle also, which bears the name of Dionysius, as
spurious. ‘ There is also circulated,” he says‘, “ under the
name of Dionysius of Alexandria an epistle against Paul of
Samosata, but it is supposititious.’” Now who can, without
impatience, endure the shamelessness of this poor creature,
who thus pronounces his decretory sentence on the writings
of the holy fathers, out of his own brain and according to his
own pleasure, in contempt of the judgment, trustworthiness,
and authority of all writers who have gone before him. At
any rate Eusebius mentions, in express terms, this epistle of
Dionysius of Alexandria, written to the Church of Antioch
against Paul of Samosata, (Hist. Eccles. vii. 27"): “ Diony-
sius, bishop of Alexandria,’ he says, “ having been invited
to attend the council, declined to be present, alleging in ex-
cuse alike his old age and his bodily mfirmity, setting before
them, [however,]| in a letter, the opinion which he held on
the question under consideration.” The same epistle is men-
tioned by the fathers of Antioch themselves in their synodical
epistle, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vii. 830*. “At the same time
we sent letters,” they say, “and exhorted many even of the
distant bishops, to come for the remedying’ of the pestilential
teaching: for instance, to Dionysius the bishop of Alexan-
dria, and to Firmilian of Cappadocia, both of blessed memory:
of whom the former sent an epistle to Antioch, not consi-
dering the leader of the heresy worthy even of salutation, nor
writing to him in person, but to the whole diocese*, of which
epistle we have also subjoined the copy.” Lastly, Jerome,
(not to speak of others,) makes mention of this epistle, in his
Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, under Dionysius of Alex-
andria’; “There is also circulated,” he says, “a notable
epistle of his against Paul of Samosata, [written] a few days

t De Script. Eccles., p. 42.

" 6 μὲν κατ᾽ ᾿Αλεξάνδρειαν Διονύσιος,
παρακληθεὶς ὧς ἂν ἐπὶ τὴν συνόδον ἀφί-
κοιτο, γῆρας ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀσθένειαν τοῦ σώ-
ματος αἰτιασάμενος, ἀνατίθεται τὴν πα-
ρουσίαν, δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς τὴν αὐτοῦ γνώμην,
ἣν ἔχοι περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου, παραστή-
oas.—[ ΕΣ. H. vii. 27. |

X ἐπεστέλλομεν δὲ ἅμα Kal παρεκα-
λοῦμεν πόλλους καὶ τῶν μακρὰν ἐπισκό-
πων, ἐπὶ τὴν θεραπείαν τῆς θανατηφόρου
διδασκαλίας ὥσπερ καὶ Διονύσιον τὸν

ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Αλεξανδρείας, καὶ Φιρμιλιανὸν
τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς Καππαδοκίας, τοὺς wakapi-
Tas’ ὧν 6 μὲν ἐπέστειλεν εἰς τὴν ᾿Αντιό-
χειαν, τὸν ἡγεμόνα τῆς πλάνης οὐδὲ
mMposphoews ἀξιώσας, οὐδὲ πρὸς πρόσω-
πον γράψας αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ τῇ παροικία
πάσῃ" hs καὶ τὸ ἀντίγραφον ὑπετάξαμεν.
[Ibid., c. 30.]
y Sed et adversus Paulum Samosa-
tenum ante paucos dies quam morere-
tur, insignis ejus fertur Epistola—[ vol.
ii, p. 879-98. |

Early use of the term ὁμοούσιος allowed by Sandius. 321

before he died.” He here applies to it the epithet notable},
because in it the catholic doctrine respecting the Son of
God was excellently explained and established. Let us
then briefly examine the argument which Sandius thought
worthy of being opposed to so high an authority: ‘ Erasmus
Brochmandus,” he says, “rejects the epistle as spurious,
because in it Christ is said to be ὁμοούσιος (of one substance)
with the Father, whereas that word was not in use before
the time of Arius.” ‘To be sincere and candid in my reply,
I confess I do not know who the Brochmandus is whom
Sandius here mentions’, nor does it much matter to know;
for I am sure that his opinion, how great soever he be, must
be accounted as worth nothing in comparison with the trust-
worthiness and authority of the fathers of Antioch, of Euse-
bius, and of Jerome. And as to his argument, I have already?
in more than one place clearly proved that the expression
ὁμοούσιος was in frequent use among Catholics long before
the council of Nice, and even before the time of Dionysius
of Alexandria. But here is a notable specimen of Sandius’s
candour! in this place he uses as a weapon of attack an
argument which he himself, elsewhere, in express terms con-
fesses to be of no weight. For, in treating of Origen’s books
on Job, he makes this statement; “They, however, are mis-
taken, who with Sixtus Senensis, Possevin, Bellarmine, and
Rivet do not hold these treatises, as also the commentaries,
to be the works of Origen, on the ground that there is men-
tion made in them of the word ὁμοούσιος, which arose long
after the times of Origen ; for we shall prove in the first book
of our Ecclesiastical History that the word ὁμοούσιος was
already in use in the time of Origen. So it seems that this
was a foolish? reason for proving that Origen was not the
author of the books on Job*, which yet learned men agree
in thinking are not Origen’s: but now it is held valid for
proving that Dionysius was not the author of the epistle
against: Paul of Samosata, which all authorities, both in
ancient and modern times, (with the single exception, per-
haps, of this Brochmandus,) do with one consent acknow-

7 [He was a Lutheran teacher of δ Chap. 1. 8. [pp. 63, sqq. ]
theology, and professor in the univer- Ὁ De Script. Eccles., p. 30.
sity of Copenhagen.—B. ]

BULL. Y

BOOK II,
CHAP. XI,
§ 12.

Diony-
situs ALEX.
1 insignem.

[413]

? inepta.
3 ab Ori-

gene abju-

dicandum.

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[414]

[416]

322 Dionysius rescued from the charge of Arianizing.

ledge to have been written by Dionysius*. The truth is:
the books on Job are stuffed full of Arian ravings; and
therefore it suited the purpose of Sandius, an Arian, that
they should be regarded as the genuine production of Ori-
gen; on the contrary the epistle against Paul of Samosata
which bears the name of Dionysius, excellently establishes
the consubstantiality of the Son: and therefore, rightly or
wrongly, it must by all means be rejected as spurious. Here
is an honest and trustworthy historian®!

Thus have we at last (if I mistake not) given abundant
proof, that this very great man, Dionysius of Alexandria, did
in no wise favour the blasphemy which Arius subsequently
maintained, but that he was both in sentiment and im ex-
pression entirely catholic concerning the Son of God, and,
further, concerning the Holy Trinity. I now pass on to
other doctors of the Church.

CHAPTER XII.

ON THE OPINION AND FAITH OF THE VERY CELEBRATED GREGORY
THAUMATURGUS, BISHOP OF NEOCHSAREA IN PONTUS.

1. Sr. THEopors, alike the scholar and the glory of Origen,
called afterwards by the name of Gregory, and surnamed
“the Great,” and “ the Wonder-worker,” (Thaumaturgus,) on
account of his stupendous and celebrated deeds,—for he
wrought many and very great miracles, and converted nations
to the faith of Christ, not by words only, but much more by
deeds—was bishop of Neocsarea, and contemporary with
the Dionysii of Rome and Alexandria, but survived Diony-
sius of Alexandria; for Dionysius died before the last council

* This epistle has been suspected by
many on the ground that the fathers
of Antioch in their synodal epistle (in
Eusebius vii. 30.) expressly declare,
that Dionysius addressed his letter to
the Church at Antioch in general, and
did not even deign to give a salutation
to Paul. Cave.—Bowyer, [This is

the argument of Basnage and Tille-
mont, but it has been most fully refuted
by the editor of the works of Diony-
sius, in his preface, p. lvi.—B. ]

4 [This epistle of Dionysius against
Paul of Samosata is exceedingly well
defended in the preface to the works of
Dionysius, p. xxii. &c,—B. ]

The Confession of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. 323

assembled at Antioch against Paul of Samosata: whereas ΒΟΟΚ τι.
Gregory’, as is clear from Eusebius‘, was present at that $12. xu1§1.
council. He has handed down to posterity a most accurate Grecory
and complete Confession of faith, respecting the most holy T#4uMat.
Trinity of one substance, expressed in the following words ;

“There is one God, Father of [Him who is] the living Word,
subsisting Wisdom! and Power and [His] eternal Impress?; : ἕν i
perfect Begetter of the Perfect; Father of the Only-begotten » CT
‘Son. [There is] one Lord, Alone of the Alone, God of Heb. i. 3.
God; Impress and Image‘ of the Godhead, the operative ὙΧΘΡΌΣΤΣ
Word; Wisdom, comprehensive of the system of the uni- ““*”
verse, and Power, productive of the whole creation; True

Son of True Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incor-

ruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and

Eternal of Eternal. And [there is] one Holy Ghost, who

hath His being of God*, and who hath appeared (that is 5 ὕπαρξιν.
to mankind) through the Son, Image of the Son, Perfect

of the Perfect; Life, the cause of [all] them that live;

Holy Fountain, Holiness, the Bestower of Sanctification ;

in whom is manifested God the Father, who is over all and in

all, and God the Son, who is through all. A perfect Trinity,

not divided nor alien in glory, and eternity, and dominion».

There is therefore nothing created, or servile in the Trinity ;

nor any thing superinduced, as though previously not-exist-

ent, and introduced afterwards. Never therefore was the Son

wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but there

is ever the same Trinity unchangeable and unalterable.”

* Hist. Eccl. vii, 28; compare c. 80.

5. εἷς Θεὸς, Πατὴρ λόγου ζῶντος, co-
φίας ὑφεστώσης, καὶ δυνάμεως, καὶ χα-
ρακτῆρος ἀϊδίου" τέλειος τελείου γεννή-
Twp’ Πατὴρ υἱοῦ μονογενοῦς. εἷς Κύριος,
μόνος ἐκ μόνου, Θεὸς ex Θεοῦ; χαρακτὴρ
καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς θεότητος, λόγος ἐνεργός"
σοφία τῆς τῶν ὅλων συστάσεως περιεκ-
τικὴ, καὶ δύναμις τῆς ὅλης κτίσεως ποι-
ἡτική" υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς ἀληθινοῦ Πατρὸς,
ἀόρατος ἀοράτου, καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἀφθάρ-
του, καὶ ἀθάνατος ἀθανάτου, καὶ ἀΐδιος
ἀϊδίου. καὶ ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἐκ Θεοῦ
τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, καὶ δι’ υἱοῦ πεφῃνὺς,
δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, εἰκὼν τοῦ υἱοῦ,
τελείου τελεία" ζωὴ, ζώντων αἰτία᾽ πηγὴ
ἁγία, ἁγιότης, ἁγιασμοῦ χορηγός" ἐν ᾧ
φανεροῦται Θεὸς 6 Πατὴρ, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων

καὶ ἐν πᾶσι, καὶ Θεὸς ὃ υἱὸς, ὃ διὰ πάν-
των. τριὰς τελεία, δόξῃ καὶ ἀϊδιότητι καὶ
βασιλείᾳ μὴ μεριζομένη, μηδὲ ἄπαλλο-
τριουμένη. οὔτε οὖν κτιστόν τι, ἢ δοῦλον
ἐν τῇ τριάδι, οὔτε ἐπείσακτόν τι, ὡς
πρότερον μὲν οὐχ ὕπάρχον, ὕστερον δὲ
ἐπεισελθόν" οὔτε οὖν ἐνέλιπέ ποτε υἱὸς
Πατρὶ, ovre υἱῷ πνεῦμα, ἄλλ᾽ ἄτρεπτος
καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος ἣ αὐτὴ τρίας ἂεί.----66
the works of Gregory Thaumat., p. 1.
edit. Paris. 1622. [and those of Greg.
Nyss., vol. iii. p. 546. After the Greek
Bp. Bull gives the Latin version, pub-
lished by Vossius. ]

" {Here the Creed ends: the remain-
ing words are Gregory Nyssen’s.—B.
This is not the case: see the notes in
Gallandii Bibl. Patr., t. iii. p. 386, where
St. Gregory Nazianzen’s references to
this Creed will also be found. }

¥2

324 Evidence of the genuineness of this Confession ;

ON THE 2. This Confession of faith was delivered, it is said, to
se aerta. Gregory by revelation from heaven, when, being wholly intent
LITy OF upon discharging his pastoral charge in the best way, he was
“any one night considering the mode of preaching the pure faith
to his people, and revolving in his mind the various questions

which were then in controversy respecting the Holy Trinity.

152 And certainly no one ought to think it incredible that such
an event should have happened to a man, whose whole life

[418] was illustrious from revelations and miracles, as all ecclesias-
tical writers who have mentioned him—and there is scarcely

one who has not—unanimously attest. But however that

may be, it is certain that this formula of catholic confession
respecting the most Holy Trinity did really proceed from
Gregory. For it is attributed to him not only by Ruffinus',

but also by his namesake, Gregory of Nyssa*, who had a
thorough and accurate knowledge of what the admirable man

did and wrote, and who also composed his life. Moreover this
excellent man narrates the matter in such a way, that scarcely

any sensible person can doubt about it. I mean that, being

about to recite the Confession, he premises the following

words!; “ By which (Confession) the people of that city

' μυσταγω- (Neoceesarea) are to this day initiated [in the faith'], having
eee continued unaffected by all heretical pravity.” So certain,
pia you see, was it that this Confession of faith proceeded from
Gregory Thaumaturgus, that all the people of the city of
Neoczesarea, of which he was the bishop and the immortal

glory, embraced it as the undoubtedly genuine work of Gre-

gory, and had been used to be instructed by means of it, from

so far back as their fathers could remember down to the age of

Nyssen ; and hence it came to pass that, when the whole world

became Arian, the Church of Neocesarea kept itself untainted

by heretical pravity. Again, after having recited the Con-

fession, Nyssen subjoins these words™: ‘ And whoever wishes

to be convinced on this point, let him hear the Church in which

he used to preach the Word, among whom the very hand-

writing of that blessed hand is preserved even at the present —

i Hist. Eccl. ii. 25. διαμείνας arelparos.—[ Ibid. } .

k In his life of Gregory Thaum., m ὅτῳ δὲ φίλον περὶ τούτου πεισθῆναι,
Oper., tom. ii. p. 978, 979. [vol. iii, ἀκουέτω τῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐν ἣ τὸν λόγον
p- 546. ] ἐκήρυττεν, παρ᾽ ois αὐτὰ τὰ χαράγματα

1 δι’ ἧς μυσταγωγεῖται μέχρι τοῦ νῦν τῆς μακαρίας ἐκείνης χειρὸς εἰς ἔτι καὶ
6 ἐκείνης λαὸς, πάσης αἱρετικῆς κακίας νῦν diacwlerat.—[Ibid., p. 547.}

rom its careful preservation by the Church of Neocesarea, 325
BOOK II.
CHAP. XII.

§ 2.

GREGORY
THAUMAT.

[419]

day.” He appeals to the very autograph of 'Thaumaturgus,
which was religiously kept by the Neocesareans down to his
own day. I know not, certainly, that any thing more can
be required for the confirmation of a tradition of this nature.
Gregory Nyssen’s testimony, however, is explicitly supported,
as it seems to me, by his brother Basil the Great, who, in his
seventy-fifth epistle to the people of Neoczsarea, testifies, that
he had learnt from his grandmother, in his tender age, the
very words of Gregory Thaumaturgus, by which he had been
instructed aright respecting the faith in the most Holy
Trinity. His words are these": ‘“ What can be a more mani-
fest demonstration of our faith, than this, that we, having
been brought up under the nurture’ of a woman of blessed ' rirép.

memory”, who came forth from you—I mean the illustrious 2 μακαρίᾳ.
Macrina;—by whom we were taught the words of the most
blessed Gregory, whatsoever, having been preserved to her by
the tradition of memory’, she both herself kept treasured up,
and used to mould and fashion us, whilst we were yet infants,
in the doctrines of religion®?” Here, I say, it seems to me,
that the Confession of Thaumaturgus is certainly referred to ;
for Basil expressly testifies that he had, in his infancy, learned
of his grandmother Macrina, a native of Neoczsarea, the form *
of faith touching the most Holy Trinity, (for of that he is
there treating,) as it had been delivered in so many words by
Gregory. Reader, observe: Nyssen relates that the people of
Neocesarea used to be instructed by means of the Confession
of Thaumaturgus, from so far back as their fathers could re-
member down to his own age; whilst Basil says that he had
learned, in his tender age, (that is, before the council of Nice,)
from his grandmother, (whilst he, that is, with his parents,
was living with her at Neoczsarea in Pontus,) the right faith

3 ἀκολου-
θίᾳ μνή-
uns.

” πίστεως δὲ τῆς ἡμετέρας τίς ἂν yé- nor referred to any confession of faith

voiro ἐναργεστέρα ἀπόδειξις, ἢ ὅτι Tpa-
φέντες ἡμεῖς ὑπὸ τίτθῃ μακαρίᾳ γυναικὶ,
map’ ὑμῶν ὡρμημένῃ; Μακρίναν λέγω
τὴν περιβόητον" παρ᾽ ἧς ἐδιδάχθημεν τὰ
τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Γρηγορίου ῥήματα, ὅσα
πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀκολουθίᾳ μνήμης διασωθέντα
αὐτή τε ἐφύλασσε, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἔτι νηπίους
ὄντας ἔπλαττε καὶ ἐμόρφου τοῖς τῆς
εὐσεβείας Séyuaot.— Basil. Opera, tom.
iii, p. 131. edit. Paris, 1638. [ Ep. cciv.
6. vol. iii. p. 306. |

° {From these very words Lardner
contends that Basil had neither seen

‘“written by the hand of Gregory.”’—
B.—The existence of an autograph of
St. Gregory’s Confession would not
cause the Church to depart from the
ordinary practice of not circulating the
Creed in writing. It would be taught
and known to the people and preserved
among them by oral transmission.
And as no question was raised about
the terms of the Confession, St. Basil
had no need to refer to such original,
supposing it existed. |

326 Confirmed by other external and internal considerations.

on THE respecting the most Holy Trinity, expressed in so many words
τς δὲ Gregory. Who would not suppose, that they both are speak-
nim eow, img of the same Confession of faith? Further, also, the same
π΄ Basil, in his book on the Holy Spirit, chap. 29, testifies that so
great was the reputation of this Gregory amongst the people of
Neoczsarea down to his own times, that they would admit in

their Church nothing, whether in doctrine or rite, but what

they had received by tradition from that their great founder.

The words of Basil are these?: “Great is the admiration

of this man (Gregory) still, even at this day, amongst the

people of the country, and the remembrance of him is esta-
blished in the Churches—fresh, and ever recent, not obscured

by any lapse of time. They have not, therefore, added to

τύπον _ their Church any practice, or word, or any sacred form! beyond
iv. What he left to them.” If the Church of Neocesarea refused
153 ἴο admit any word beyond what was left to them by Gregory,
certainly much less would they have admitted any Creed or
Confession of faith, which they had not received from him.

And yet it is most certain, that in the time of Basil, the

Confession of faith of which we are speaking, was received

[421] Gregory. To these facts may be added, that this Confession
is delivered, as without doubt the genuine work of Thauma-
turgus, by the whole of the fathers who were assembled at
the fifth cecumenical synod. Lastly, the Confession itself

*redolet. quite bears the character’ of the age of Gregory Thauma-
turgus; in that it is manifestly opposed to the heresies,
which were especially disturbing the Church of Christ at
that period. Two heresies were particularly prevalent at
that time, as is clear from the epistle of Dionysius of Rome,
found in Athanasius, which we have already mentioned ; one,
that of Sabellius, which laid down that the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost differed in name only, not in hypo-

ὁ ὑποστά- stasis® (person;) the other as it were diametrically opposed.

ae to the Sabellian, that, I mean of those, who divided the most

Holy Trinity into three hypostases, separate, foreign to, and

mutually alien from each other, and who further affirmed, 4

P τούτου μέγα ἔτι καὶ νῦν τοῖς ἔγχω- πρᾶξίν τινα,οὐ Adyov,ov τύπον τινὰ μυστι-
ρίοις τὸ θαῦμα, καὶ νεαρὰ καὶ ἀεὶ πρό- κὸν, παρ᾽ ὃν ἐκεῖνος κατέλιπε, τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
σφατος ἣ μνήμη ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐνίδρυ- poo é0nrav.—Basil. Oper., tom. ii. p

> 3 (we, SBE > . τὶ ἌΣ 5.9 ν
ται, οὐδενὶ χρόνῳ ἀμαυρουμένη" οὐκοῦν οὐ 860. edit. Paris. 1638. (vol. iii, p. 63. ]

Not mentioned by certain writers ; this no valid objection. 327

that the Son and the Holy Ghost were creatures, and that
there was a time, when God the Father existed without
them!. These words at the beginning of the Confession
plainly strike at the former heresy: “ Father of [Him, who
is] the living Word, subsisting Wisdom :”’? and also these,
«True Son of True Father ;” (for Sabellius acknowledged
neither a true Father nor a true Son, but both only in name :)
and, lastly, these respecting the Holy Ghost ; “ who hath
His being of God.” The following words, besides others,
certainly give a death-blow to the latter heresy: “ Perfect
Trinity, not divided nor alien in glory, and eternity, and
dominion ; as do those which follow: “ There is, therefore,
nothing created, or servile in the Trinity,” &c. In a word,
let the attentive reader compare the profession of Dionysius
of Rome respecting the most Holy Trinity (which we quoted
in the last chapter, ὁ 1. [page 808,1 from Athanasius) with
this Confession of his contemporary, Gregory, of whom we
are speaking, and he will immediately see the wonderful
agreement between the two.

3. Now, what does Sandius" say to these facts? “Of this
Confession of faith,” he says, “I say nothing else than that
Eusebius, Jerome, and Sophronius are silent about it; as
if, forsooth, Eusebius and Jerome mentioned every thing
which the ancient fathers wrote and did. Eusebius, certainly,
in his Ecclesiastical History, by what chance I know not,
(for I cannot prevail on myself to believe that it was done,
as Anastasius the Librarian® thought, with any evil design,)
has suppressed almost all mention of the praises of Gregory
Thaumaturgus, and says nothing about his miracles, which
were celebrated throughout the Christian world. I imagine
that, in some other work which has been lost, Eusebius had
related more concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus; at any
rate, in the Apology for Origen he makes mention of his
disciple Gregory Thaumaturgus, and also inserted in that
work a panegyrical oration of his in praise of Origen, as
Socrates attests, Eccl. Hist. IV. 27. As for Jerome, he trod
generally in the very steps of Eusebius’s history, whilst So-

4 [These words, however, as we have 8. Anastasius on the year of Christ
already observed, are Gregory Nyssen’s. 246.
—B. But see above, p. 823, note h. | t fi.e. the Apology of Pamphilus

t De Script. Eccl., p. 39. and Eusebius.—B. ]

BOOK It.
CHAP. ΧΙ.
§ 2, 3.
GREGORY
THAUMAT.

1 et ali-
quando
Deo patri
defecisse.

[422]

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[423]

328 Labbé confounds this with a longer Exposition of faith.

phronius was merely a translator of Jerome. I wonder, how-
ever, what came into Philip Labbé’s mind, when he wrote the
following passage in his Dissertation upon the Ecclesiastical
Writers" ; “It is certain, indeed, as St. Gregory Nyssen wit-
nesses in his Life of Thaumaturgus, that the Mother of God
appeared with St. John the Evangelist, and commanded John
to deliver to him an Exposition of the catholic faith. But
whether this be that, which Vossius has published*, Bellar-
mine with good reason doubted; see his words, as well as
those of Petavius, who denies it, (Dogm. Theol., vol. ii.)”
For Bellarmine never doubted, whether the Confession of
faith published by Vossius were in reality that of Gregory
Thaumaturgus; nay, he held this to be certain, as will be
manifest to any one who consults Bellarmine himself, Con-
cerning the ἔκθεσις or longer Exposition of faith, which is
called κατὰ μέρος, which was also published by Vossius,
Bellarmine does indeed doubt, and that with very good rea-
son. It is also untrue, that Petavius denied the Confession,
as it was published by Vossius, to be the genuine work of
Gregory ; nay, he cites it as Gregory’s, and expressly calls
it, “An illustrious monument of the tradition of which we
are now treating, and of the ecclesiastical and catholic pro-
fession concerning the Trinity ;” (Preface to vol. ii. chap. 4.
n. 5.) But unquestionably he also, when speaking of the
longer Exposition of faith, (which Labbé here confounded
with the shorter Confession of Gregory,) does deny, and not
without very grave reasons, that it is the genuine work of
Gregory ; on the Trinity, i. 4. 10. However, Labbé’s state-
ment that there is just ground for doubting, whether the
Confession of faith, which Gregory Nyssen ascribes to Gre-
gory Thaumaturgus, is the same as that which Vossius pub-
lished, must astonish every one: for the Confession of faith,
which Vossius published, corresponds word for word with that
which Gregory Nyssen ascribes to Gregory Thaumaturgus.
If Labbé had caught any one of the heterodox critics, as he
calls them, so shamefuliy tripping, how would he (as his way
is) have insulted over him! But this by the way’.

" [Vol. i. p. 873. ] ; Y [Lardner shews by many argu-
* [That is, that which Bp. Bull has ments not to be despised that this for-
cited; see above, p. 823, note h.] inula of faith is not by any means a

Greyory’s Panegyric Oration on Origen. 329

4. Furthermore, there is still extant among the works of
Gregory, as published by Vossius, a panegyric Oration upon
Origen, which all agree, and which Sandius himself allows,
is the genuine production of that very great man. In that
Oration, after saying that God the Father cannot worthily be
praised by any creature, He subjoins these truly magni-
ficent words concerning the Son of God’; “ But our praises
and hymns unto the King and Ruler of all, the continual
fountain of all good things, we will commit to Him who
even herein healeth our infirmities, and who alone is able to
fill up what is wanting in us—the Guardian’ and Saviour of
our souls, His first-born Word, the Creator and Governor of
all things, He Himself alone being able to offer up the per-
petual and unceasing thanksgivings unto the Father both
for Himself and for all, both for each individually by him-
self and for the whole body, because He Himself, being the
Truth, and the Wisdom and Power of the Father Himself of
all things, and, besides, both being in Him and absolutely
united? to Him, it is not possible that, either through forget-

genuine work of Gregory, but a com-
position of the fourth century.—B.—
Lardner’s arguments seem to be of two
sorts; 1. Internal improbabilities. 2.
Want of external evidence. In the
first he, (i.) argues as if the genuine-
ness of the Creed were disproved by
the vision being proved legendary: and
(ii.) goes upon his own notions of the
small importance of the doctrine of the
Trinity. In the second he alleges (i.)
St. Jerome’s omission; but St. Jerome
does not profess to enumerate all the
writings of the persons he mentions,
(ii.) St. Basil’s criticising St. Gregory,
but this is only with respect to his ex-
pressions in an argument. See below,
p- 333. (111.) St. Basil’s omitting to
appeal to the autograph. On this see
above, p. 325. note o. And Lardner
omits to notice that it is the baptis-
mal Creed of Neocesarea of which
St. Gregory Nyssen professedly speaks:
which must have been too well known
to allow of a recent composition being
passed off instead of it. ]

- ἀλλὰ τὰς μὲν εἰς τὸν πάντων βασι-
λέα καὶ κηδεμόνα, τὴν διαρκῆ πηγὴν
πάντων ἀγαθῶν, εὐφημίας καὶ ὕμνους,
τῷ κἂν τούτῳ τὴν ἀσθένειαν ἡμῶν ἰωμέ-
vy, καὶ τὸ ἐνδέον ἀναπληροῦν μόνῳ δυ-
ναμένῳ ἐπιστρέψομεν", τῷ προστάτῃ τῶν

ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ σωτῆρι, τῷ πρω-
τογενεῖ αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, τῷ πάντων δημι-
ουργῷ, καὶ κυβερνήτῃ. αὐτῷ μόνῳ ὑπέρ
τε ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντων, ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ
καθ᾽ ἕκαστον " καὶ ἀθρόον ἅμα δυνατὸν ὃν
ἀναπέμπειν διηνεκεῖς καὶ ἀδιαλείπτους
τῷ Πατρὶ τὰς εὐχαριστίας" ὅτι αὐτὸς 7
> UA z 5 a ~ a
ἀλήθεια dv, καὶ ἡ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν
ὅλων καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις, πρὸς δὲ καὶ
ἐν αὐτῷ ὧν, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀτεχνῶς
ἡνωμένος, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἢ διὰ λήθην, ἢ
ἀσόφως, ἤ ὑπ’ ἀσθενείας τινὸς, ὥσπέρ
> / Φ a > > /
τις ἀπεξενωμένος αὐτοῦ, ἢ οὐκ ἐφίξεται
΄ , a ΄; ΓΕΡῸ 4 \
τῇ δυνάμει τῆς δυνάμεως, ἢ ἐφίξεται μὲν,
ς λ \ ὸ at ὶ 3 = rye 3 \
ἑκὼν δὲ, ὃ μὴ Oeuls εἰπεῖν, ἐάσῃ“ τὸν
Πατέρα ἀνευφήμητον. μόνῳ τούτῳ δυνα-
τὸν ὃν τελειότατα πᾶσαν ἄποπληρῶσαι
τὴν ἀξίαν τῶν αὐτῷ προσηκόντων αἴνων"
ὅν τινα αὐτὸς ὃ τῶν ὅλων Πατὴρ ἕν πρὸς
αὐτὸν ποιησάμενος, δι αὐτοῦ μονονουχὶ
αὐτὸς αὐτὸν ἐκπεριὼν, τῇ ἴσῃ πάντῃ
δυνάμει τῇ αὐτοῦ τρόπον τινὰ τιμῴη καὶ
τιμῷτο: ὅπερ πρῶτος καὶ μόνος ἔχειν
ἔλαχεν ἐκ πάντων τῶν ὄντων ὃ μονογε-
νὴς αὐτοῦ, ὃ ἐν αὐτῷ Θεὸς λόγος. [᾿ The
Bened. ed. reads ἐπιτρέψομεν. ? Vossius
read ἰδίᾳ τε kal ἑκάστου, but conjec-
tured in the margin, καθ᾽ ἔκαστον,
which Bull inserted, retaining the καὶ
>
also; the Bened. ed. τε καθ᾽ ἕκαστον.
3 ῥάσει, ed. Ben. |—P. 53, 54, [In vol.
iv. Op. Origenis, p. 59, Append. § 4. ]

BOOK II.
CHAP. XII.

THAUMAT.

154

1 τῷ προ-
/
στάτῃ.

[424]

2 ἀτεχνῶς
ἡνώμενος

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON,

1 ἐν,

2 ἐκπερίων
(qu. ἐκπε-
ριΐων.)

[425]

[426]

330 Gregory’s full testimony to the Divinity of the Son.

fulness or from defect of wisdom, or from any infirmity, (as
one who was alien” from Him,) He shall either not attain by
His own power unto the power of the Father, or shall attain
unto it indeed, and yet (which it were impious to say) shall
willingly allow the Father to be unpraised; He alone being
able to fill up most perfectly the due praises which belong to
Him; whom the Father of the universe Himself, having
made One! with Himself, Himself by Him all but going forth
and encircling Himself*’, in a certain manner honours Him,
and 15 honoured by Him, with power every way equal to His
own; which [honour] His only-begotten Son, God the Word,
who is in Him, first and alone of all beings obtained.” Shortly
afterwards in the same passage, he calls the Son 4 “the most
perfect, and living, and animate Word of the primal Mind
Himselfe.” In these words how many titles are heaped up
concerning the Son of God, which eminently set forth His true
Godhead! He calls the Son of God the Guardian of our
souls, the first-born Word of God, the Creator and Governor
of all things, the Truth, Wisdom and Power of the Father
Himself: who is in the Father Himself, and truly united unto
Him; who is subject to no forgetfulness, no lack of wisdom,
no infirmity ; who is in no wise alien from God the Father ;
who by His own power attains unto the Father’s power; whom
God the Father made one with Himself, and in whom He, as
it were, circumscribed His own infinite Majesty ; (clearly in
the same sense as the very ancient writer ‘in Irenzus, as
we saw above‘, declared that the immeasurable Father Him-
self is measured in the Son:) who is in very truth endued
with power in every way equal to that of the Father ; who
lastly, subsists in God Himself, as God the Word, and that
the most perfect Word, as being sprung from the primal and
eternal Mind. Could any one of the Arian herd, sincerely
and from his heart, utter these things of the Son of God?
Nor ought it to be the slightest difficulty to any one that

» So in the Confession Gregory de- meant only to say that he was by na-
nies that there is any thing alien (@maA- ture equal to Him.

λοτριούμενον) in the Trinity. | 4 τελειότατον καὶ ζῶντα, καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ
. A a y .
© δι’ αὐτοῦ μονονουχὶ αὐτὸς αὐτὸν ἐκ- πρώτου vod λόγον Eupvxov.—{ Ibid. }
περιών. This clause he added by way € In like manner in the Confession

of safeguard, (caute,) for, properly he calls the Son “ perfect, of the per-
speaking, if the Son encircled (circum- fect Father,’’ as also “living Word.”
ambiet) the Father, He would be ‘ Chap. v. § 4. [p. 164.]

greater than the Father, whereas he

St. Basil’s testimony to St. Gregory’s orthodoxy. 331

Thaumaturgus says, that the Son honours and praises His soox 1.
Father, seeing that he also at the same time says, that the μεν - ay
Father has honoured the Son, by imparting to Him power, Grscory
in every way equal to His own. The truth is, the Son praises Tuaumat.
and honours the Father, as the Author and Principle of Him-
self; the Father, on the other hand embraces, and in a man-
ner even honours, the Son, as the lively and most perfect
Image and Offspring of Himself. Hence also, catholic writers
who lived after the Nicene council, throughout spake in like
manner concerning the Son of God. Although in this passage
Gregory may seem also to have in view the economy of the
Son’, in so far as He, as Mediator, presents unto God the! ΕἸ] οἰκο-
Father the prayers and thanksgivings of the faithful, and by ΠΡ"
His own intercession makes them pleasing and acceptable.
Nay, he expressly speaks of the Son as, in this matter, “ heal-
ing our infirmity.” For this mediatorial office he shews that
the Son is altogether sufficient, inasmuch as, in respect to His
higher nature, He is entirely one with the Father, and pos-
sesses a power? in every respect equal to that of the Father. 2 virtute

5. Finally, if there were extant at this day no written ἢ oo
monument of Gregory’s belief respecting the most holy
Trinity, the great Basil alone would be a most ample testimony
that his sentiments on that article were sound, uncorrupt,
and catholic. For Basil, as often as his heretical opponents
called in question* his faith respecting the Trinity, so often ὅ litem ips’
almost did he appeal to the tradition of Gregory Thauma- eee
turgus, and professed, that he had held from a boy altogether
the same views respecting the Trinity, as that admirable man [427]
taught. Thus, in his seventy-fifth epistle, to the people of
Neocesarea’, he makes it his boast, as has been already
shewn, that he had learnt the catholic doctrine respecting
the most holy Trinity in his boyhood from the words of
Thaumaturgus, which had been taught him by‘ his grand- ‘ ipsi tra-
mother Macrina. Moreover he also distinctly attests in his aia sa
seventy-ninth epistle, to Hustathius, that he had never changed
that faith concerning God, which he had received through
his grandmother ; these are his words; “ For even if all the
rest of my life’ deserve lamentation ; yet still this one thing, 5 τἄλλα

εἰ γὰρ καὶ τἄλλα ἡμῶν στεναγμῶν χᾶσθαι ἐν Κυρίῳ, ὅτι οὐδέποτε πεπλα-

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1] , 5
μακαρίας."

> αὐξηθεῖ-
σαν.

332 Petavius (followed by Huet and Sandius) attributes

at least, 1 am bold to glory of in the Lord, that my concep-
tions concerning God were never at any time led astray ;
nor having at one time held different opinions, did I after-
wards unlearn them; but the notion of God which from a
child I received from my mother of blessed memory', and from
my grandmother, Macrina, this have I retained within me,
[only] grown and enlarged?.” Thus, if the sentiments of
Basil on the Trinity were (as no one doubts) orthodox and
religious, Gregory also, on the testimony of Basil himself, was
catholic in that article. Basil also, on the authority of the
Gregory of whom we are speaking, defends that form of dox-
ology, by which the most Holy Trinity was glorified in the
Churches subject to his government, and to which the here-
tics were so vehemently averse, in his Treatise on the Holy
Spirit addressed to Amphilochius, chapter 29‘; where, after
he had brought together the highest praises of that very
great man, he subjoins these words, which bear on our sub-

[428] ject; “ One therefore of the [institutions] of Gregory is that

3 alienum.

4 cogita-
tione no-
stra.

form of doxology, which is now spoken against ; preserved
from his tradition by the Church;” that is, of Neocesarea,
which he all but founded. It was with good reason, therefore,
and in reliance on the testimony of Basil*, that Anastasius
the librarian, in his history, pronounced that this Gregory
especially was entirely free® from the ravings of Arius.

6. Now, this being the case, I cannot sufficiently wonder at
those very learned men, who have ventured to bring a charge
of Arianism against this great doctor of the Church, and even
to put forward the authority of Basil as supporting their
charge. Petavius! declares that two errors (not more incon-
sistent with the truth than with each other) are attributed to
Gregory Thaumaturgus by Basil, in his seventy-fifth epistle ;
one the Sabellian, which taught that the Father and the Son
differed only in our mode of conception*, but not in hyposta-
sis’; the other the Arian, which affirmed the Son to be “a

ὅ hypostasi, Creature and a work,” (κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα) And with re-

γημένας ἔσχον τὰς περὶ Θεοῦ ὑπολήψεις, ᾿ ἕν τοίνυν τῶν Γρηγορίου καὶ ὃ νῦν
ἢ ἑτέρως φρονῶν μετέμαθον barepov' τιλεγόμενος τρόπος τῆς δοξολογίας
GAN ἣν ἐκ παιδὸς ἔλαβον ἔννοιαν περὶ ἐστὶν, ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνου παραδόσεως τῇ
Θεοῦ παρὰ τῆς μακαρίας μητρός μου καὶ ἐκκλησίᾳ πεφυλαγμένος-.---ἶ ὃ 74. p. 63. |
τῆς μάμμης Μακρίνης, ταύτην αὐξηθει- * Anastasius, on the year of Christ,
σαν ἔσχον ἐν euavtg.—tom. iii. p. 141. 2406.

[ Ep. cexxiii., 3. vol. iii. p. 998. 1 De Trin. i. 4. 10.

heretical opinions to Gregory: shewn to be in error. 333

spect to the former, Petavius endeavours to shew that ΒΟΟΚ τι.
Gregory’s statements were correct; whilst in the latter he errs Pie
thinks that Thaumaturgus did Arianize. Huet™ also, rely- Grecory
ing too much, as it seems, on the candour and judgment of ἐκεῖν τον
Petavius, writes, “that Gregory Thaumaturgus was censured! 1 castiga-
by Basil, for openly affirming that the Son was created.” aera
Afterwards he does not hesitate to say, that that admirable
man was “a follower of the ravings of Arius.” The Arian
Sandius", relying on the authority of these very learned
men, glories greatly in the fact, that one who was so great
a glory and ornament of the Christian Church, by the con-
fession of us Catholics ourselves, agreed in opinion with
Arius. If, however, we consider with a little more atten-
tion the words of Basil themselves, from which the mate-
rials of this accusation have been derived, it will presently
appear, that the charge of Arianism is made on Gregory
against the mind? of Basil. Basil then, in his seventy-fourth? ingratiis.
epistle®, to the people of Neoczesarea, after he had said that

the revivers of Sabellianism amongst them, with whom he

was in controversy, had even consigned their follies to pub-

lished works, having mentioned an epistle of theirs to Mele-

tius, presently animadverts on another epistle, addressed by

them to Anthimus, a bishop, in which they put forward the

great Gregory’s authority for their ravings. These are the

words of Basil? ; “They made an attempt by letter on An-

thimus also, bishop of Tyana, who is of one mind with us,

as if forsooth Gregory, in an exposition of the faith, had said

that the Father and the Son are indeed two in [our] mode 156
of conception’, but in hypostasis, one*. And these men who ἐπινοίᾳ.
congratulate themselves on the subtilty of their minds, were * ἕν.
[yet] unable to perceive that this was not said dogmatically,

but in the way of argument in his disputation with Athan:

in which many [expressions] are errors of the transcribers,”

(that is to say, many things have been wrongly’ copied from ὅ perperam.
the original MS.,) “as we shall shew, if God will, on the

[429]

m Huet. Origenian., p. 36. [lib. 11.
Quest. 2. 10. p. 122.]

o Enucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 111.

o [ Ep. cex. 5.]

» καθῆκαν δέ τινα πεῖραν δι᾽ ἐπιστο-
λῆς καὶ πρὸς τὸν ὁμόψυχον ἡμῶν ”AvO-
μον τὸν Τυάνων ἐπίσκοπον, ὧς ἄρα Tpn-

,
γορίου εἰπόντος ἐν ἐκθέσει πίστεως,
πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἐπινοίᾳ μὲν εἶναι δύο,
ς rf \ o& a \-¢ >
ὑποστάσει δὲ ἕν. τοῦτο δὲ ὅτι οὐ δογμα-
τικῶς εἴρηται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγωνιστικῶς ἐν τῇ
πρὸς Αἰλιανὸν διαλέξει, οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν
συνιδεῖν οἱ ἐπὶ λεπτότητι τῶν φρενῶν

a Spe
ἑαυτοὺς pakapifovres* ἐν ἣ πολλὰ τῶν

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

l én’ αὐτῶν
wn 4
των λέε-
ἕξεων ex ip-
sis verbis.

2 συνδιδό-
val.

8 τῷ ἔθει.
4 ἀντιτείνοι
πρὸς τὰ
καίρια.

5 ἀπαιδεύ-
τως.

6 πρὸς τὸν
ἄνθρωπον
συναφείας.

[480]

7 cogita-
tione.

homun-
cionum
ἀβλεψίαν.

9 διανοίᾳ.

10 operam
et oleum.

[431]

334 The Sabellian view stated by him in discussion only.

words themselves'. Further, in using persuasion toa heathen,
he did not think it necessary to be exact in his words, but
[thought that he ought] in certain cases to adapt himself? to
what he whom he was seeking to persuade had been accus-
tomed τοῦ, in order that he might not offer opposition on
the most important points‘, on which very account you will
also find there many expressions, which now give the greatest
strength to the [cause of the] heretics, such as ‘ creature’
(κτίσμα,) and ‘ work’ (ποίημα,) and others which there may
be of that kind. Besides, they who hear what he has written
without previous instruction’, refer to the subject of the God-
head much of what is said with reference to the union with
the manhood®; and of this kind is that also, which these
[heretics] are circulating.” In the passage Basil informs us,
that the Sabellians understood those words in Gregory’s ex-
position, “that the Father and the Son are indeed two in
[our] mode of conception’, but in hypostasis one,”—-which
he had brought forward in the course of discussion only on
the hypothesis of his opponents—as the doctrine of Gregory
himself; and for this he ridicules the want of perception of
the witlings®, who were unable to discern what was so obvious.
Basil therefore, does not say that it was the actual opinion of
Gregory, that the Father and the Son differed simply in [our]
conception [of Them®,] but he says the precise contrary.
Petavius accordingly lost his labour and his time”, when he
endeavoured by I know not what subtleties to defend that
statement, as if it were made by Gregory in a right and
catholic sense, and censured Basil, as if he had without good
grounds found fault with the same declaration of Gregory.
For Gregory never wrote this as his own opinion ; nor did
Basil anywhere attribute that foolish heresy to him. Basil,
moreover, says that faulty copies of that work of Gregory
had been circulated by the heretics, in which many things

ἀπογραψαμένων ἐστὶ σφάλματα, ὡς em
αὐτῶν τῶν λέξεων δείξομεν ἡμεῖς, ἐὰν ὃ
Θεὸς θέλῃ. ἔπειτα μέντοι τὸν Ἕλληνα
πείθων, οὐχ ἡγεῖτο χρῆναι ἀκριβολο-
γεῖσθαι περὶ τὰ ῥήματα' ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ὕπη
καὶ συνδιδόναι ᾿ συνδιδόντα ed. Bened. ]
τῷ ἔθει τοῦ ἐναγομένου, ὡς ἂν μὴ ἀντι-
τείνοι πρὸς τὰ καίρια. διὸ δὴ καὶ πολλὰς
ἂν εὕροις ἐκεῖ φωνὰς, τὰς νῦν τοῖς αἷρε-

τικοῖς μεγίστην ἰσχὺν παρεχομένας" ὡς
τὸ κτίσμα, καὶ τὸ ποίημα, καὶ εἴτι τοι-
ovTov. πολλὰ δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς πρὸς τὸν
ἄνθρωπον συναφείας εἰρημένα εἰς τὸν
περὶ τῆς θεότητος ἀναφέρουσι λόγον, οἱ
ἀπαιδεύτως τῶν γεγραμμένων ἀκούοντες"
ὁποῖόν ἐστι καὶ τοῦτο, τὸ παρὰ τούτων
mepipepduevov.—Oper. Basil., tom, iii.
p. 101. [p. 316.]

His works incorrectly transcribed. 335

were wrongly transcribed ; and pledges himself to shew those Βοοκ τι.

mistakes evidently. This is the manifest meaning of the a 6, με
words, “in which many [statements] are errors of the tran- οι πεαοκυ.
scribers,” &c., and to this, it seems, we ought to refer what THaumar.
Evagrius observes in his Eccles. Hist. iii. 31, that heretics had
obtruded their insanities on the world under the name of the
great Gregory. Lastly, Basil allows that Gregory, in what
was really his own in that work, (as he did not think it neces-
sary, in delivering a simple outline of Christian doctrine to a
heathen, to be exact in his expressions,) had himself used
many expressions, from which the followers of the heresy
which was the opposite to the Sabellian, endeavoured to esta-

blish their doctrines4. But does Basil say that they were
right in so doing? Any thing but that ; for shortly after he
adds, that what Gregory had said of Christ in reference to
His human nature, the heretics had ignorantly applied to

His divinity. And to this class he expressly refers that say-

ing, κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα (“creature and work,”) which the
sophists made so much boast of. Basil, therefore, does not
say, (as Petavius would have him say,) that Gregory had in
reality either thought or written, that the Son of God, in
that He is properly the Son of God, is a creature or work ;

rather he intimates the very contrary.

7. But why need we say so much? So far is Basil in this
passage from allowing that the Antitrinitarian heretics, of
whatever kind, had with good reason put forward Gregory
as sanctioning their tenets, that even in this very epistle he
himself confidently appeals to his view on the Holy Trinity,
in the first place after the Holy Scriptures. His words", not:
far from the beginning of the epistle, are these; ‘There is
a perversion of the faith studiously pursued’ among you,
which is opposed to the doctrine of the Apostles and Evan-
gelists, and also opposed to the tradition of Gregory the
truly great, and of his successors down to the blessed Mu-

[432]

157

1 μελετᾶ-
ται.

4 Namely the Anomceans, who were
also causing disturbances in the Church
at Neocesarea, as is evident from the
words of Basil in this epistle; ‘ For
on one side the Anomecean is rending
us, on another, as it seems, Sabellius.’’
(ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ἡμᾶς 6 ᾿Ανόμοιος σπαράσ-
cer ἑτέρωθεν δὲ, ὡς ἔοικεν, Σαβέλλιο5.)

Thid.

τ᾿ πίστεως διαστροφὴ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μελε-
τᾶται, ἐχθρὰ μὲν τοῖς ἀποστολικοῖς καὶ
εὐαγγελικοῖς δόγμασιν, ἐχθρὰ δὲ τῇ πα-
ραδόσει τοῦ μεγάλου ὡς ἀληθῶς Τρηγο-
ρίου καὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου, μέχρι
τὸν μακαρίου Μουσωνίου" οὗ τὰ διδάγ-
ματα ἔναυλα ὑμῖν ἐστὶν ἔτι καὶ νῦν δη-

Aovért.—p. 99. [ὃ 3. p. 314]

ON THE

CONSUB-
STANTIA-

LITY OF

158
[434]

336 δὲ. Gregory Thaumaturgus altogether Catholic.

sonius, whose instructions are even yet sounding in your
ears.” The fact is this: both the sentiments and expres-

sions of Gregory with respect to the Persons of the God-

THE SON.

head, were altogether correct and catholic; but the heretics
of Neocesarea, being pressed by his authority especially,
either corrupted, or altogether wrongly interpreted, his words.
Hence Basil, at the end of the preceding epistle*, the seventy-
third, thus addresses them, not without great emotion of
mind; “Be silent as to these innovations respecting the
faith ; do not reject the [divine] hypostases; deny not the
name of Christ; misinterpret not the words of Gregory.
Otherwise it is impossible for us, so long as we continue
to breathe and have the power of speech, to keep silence
in the case of so great perdition of souls.” Thus have we
at length delivered Gregory of Neocesarea, the greatest
teacher of Christianity, after the Apostles, out of the camp
of the Arians, (where certain learned men were detaining
him by force, and as if a captive,) and have restored him to
the Catholic Church.

CHAPTER XTil.

WHEREIN THE VIEWS RESPECTING 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 THE MARTYRS PIERIUS, PAMPHILUS,
LUCIAN, AND METHODIUS, IS SHEWN TO BE CATHOLIC, AND QUITE IN
HARMONY WITH THE NICENE CREED,

1. In the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus there arose the
heresy of Paul of Samosata, who denied the divinity of
Christ, in opposition to whom the catholic bishops repeat-
edly assembled at Antioch. Of these bishops, the six chief
(whose names were Hymeneus, Theophilus, Theotecnus,
Maximus, Proclus, and Bolanus) wrote a remarkable epistle
to Paul‘, before he was expelled from the Church by the
anathema of the last and fullest synod, which is still extant

τὰς περὶ τὴν πίστιν καινοτομίας και δυνώμεθα φθέγγεσθαι, ἀμήχανον ἡμᾶς
τασιγάσατε, τὰς ὑποστάσεις μὴ ἀθετεῖτε, ἐπὶ τοσαύτῃ λύμῃ ψυχῶν σιωπᾷν.---ἰ Ep.
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ ἀπαρνεῖσθε, cevii. p- 312.

Tas τοῦ Tpnyopiov φωνὰς μὴ παρεξη- : In the year 270. Cave.—Bowyenr.
γεῖσθε. εἰ δὲ μὴ, ἕως ἂν ἐμπνέωμεν, καὶ

Letter of the Six Bishops of the Council of Antioch. 337
in the 11th vol. of the Bibliotheca Patrum". In that epistle 800K 1.

the holy prelates expressly teach, that the Son of God is in ΤΩΣ gt.

His very essence and substance God. For after professing Counc —

that they are delivering* “the faith which they had received ai

by tradition from the beginning, and held [as it had been]

handed down and preserved in the Catholic Church until that

very day by succession from the blessed Apostles, who were

both eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, the faith which

is preached out of the Law, and the Prophets, and the New

Testament :” after premising this profession, I say, they next

assert that the true and apostolic faith respecting Christ is

this’; [‘ That He is] the Wisdom, and Word, and Power of

God, existing before the worlds', not in foreknowledge (alone’), ! πρὸ

but in essence and subsistence* God, the Son of God.” Never- %4”*”.

theless, Petavius does not suffer even these bishops to slip out tia sola.

of his hands without some brand of heterodoxy: although, 2%"
[435]

as we have said, they were in the front rank of the great; 7

council of Antioch, and wrote their epistle, as is probable, ce.

with the cognizance of the whole synod. For in his first

book on the Trinity, c. iv. § 10, the Jesuit writes thus of

them; “ Moreover, those six bishops who sent the epistle to

Paul of Samosata before he was degraded‘, set forth in it ¢ in ordi-

certain statements respecting the Son, somewhat discordant eae

from the rule of the catholic faith: for instance, when they

say that the Son, in creating the world, fulfilled the Father’s

will, and that the Father gave Him commandment so to

do. Hence also they prove the Son to be different’ from 5 diversum.

the Father ; inasmuch as he who commands, must necessarily

be another from him whom he commands. They add, that

He appeared to the patriarchs also in fulfilment of the

Father’s will, and that on account of this ministerial service

He obtained the name of ‘the Angel.’” This censure of

‘Petavius was greedily caught at by Sandius’, that he might

fill his bag with these great names also, as abettors of Arian-

* [It is also given in Routh’s Relig. τοῦ λόγου, καταγγελλομένην ἐκ νόμου

Sacr., vol. 11. p. 465.—B. | καὶ προφητῶν καὶ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης,
x [ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν ἔγγραφον τὴν πίστιν ταύτην ἐκθέσθαι.----ΤὈ1α. }

ἣν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παρελάβομεν, καὶ ἔχομεν Υ σοφίαν, καὶ λόγον, καὶ δύναμιν Θεοῦ,

παραδοθεῖσαν, καὶ τηρουμένην ἐν τῇ και πρὸ αἰώνων ὄντα, οὐ προγνώσει, ἀλλ᾽

θολικῇ καὶ ἁγίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, μέχρι τῆς οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει Θεὸν, Θεοῦ υἱόν.
σήμερον ἡμέρας ἐκ διαδοχῆς ὑπὸ (for. [1014.]

ἀπὸ, Routh.) τῶν μακαρίων ἀποστόλων, 2 Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i, 128, 124.
ot καὶ αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γεγόνασι

BULL. Z

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[436]

159 |

1 κατὰ
φύσιν.

PIERIUsS.

2ἀσκήσεως.
3 appetitor
erat.

4 ftw τῶν
νῦν καθε-
στηκότων.
ὅ ἀρχαιο-
τρόπως
ἴσως.

6 εὐσεβῶς
πρεσβεύει.
7 οὐσίας
δύο καὶ
φύσεις δύο.

338 St. Pierius ; his works lost ;

ism. But, though Petavius or any one else bring forward a
thousand passages of this kind out of the ancients, he will
never thereby persuade me, that they agreed in opinion with
Arius. For I know, that all those passages, so far as they
refer either to the subordination of the Son to the Father,
as His Principle and Author, or to the economy which the
Son of God undertook immediately after the fall of man,
(and the last passage ought to be referred to this,) do admit
of a sound and orthodox sense, and are not discordant* from
the rule of the catholic faith, as set forth by the Nicene
fathers ; although they do perhaps exhibit some discrepancy
from the scholastic theology, to which Petavius deferred too
much in respect to these mysteries. But, as for these six
bishops, I shall hereafter? shew by a marked testimony
out of this their own epistle, that they held, that the Son
of God in respect of nature! is altogether equal to the
Father. Meanwhile let us pass on to other doctors of the
Church.

2. Pierius, a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, and
the teacher of Pamphilus the martyr, flourished* (according
to Jerome?) under Clarus and Diocletian, at the time that
Theonas presided over that Church. So great was the ele-
gance of his style, and diversity of his treatises, that, as
Jerome also states, he was called the younger Origen. He
was a man of wonderful asceticism’, and affected* voluntary
poverty. It is also reported, as Photius affirms, that he suf-
fered martyrdom for the name of Christ, together with his
brother Isidore. The works that he sent out have now all
been lost; but we learn from Photius, who had read a
volume of his in twelve books, that he was quite a catho-
lic writer on this article of the divinity of the Son. For,
in cod. 1199, he thus says of him: ‘ Many things he sets
forth in a way different from what now obtains‘ in the
Church, perhaps after the ancient manner’: touching the
Father and the Son, however, he treats religiously*®, except
that he calls Them two substances and two natures’; using

“ See this book, chap. 5. § 6. [p. ᾧνο!. ii. p. 901.]

170. | © πολλὰ δὲ ἔξω τῶν viv ἐν τῇ ἐκκλη-
> See book iv. chap. 2. ὃ 7. aia καθεστηκότων, ἀρχαιοτρόπως tows,
e¢ About the year 283. ἀποφαίνεται" ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν Πατρὸς καὶ

Bowyer. υἱοῦ εὐσεβῶς πρεσβεύει, πλὴν ὅτι οὐσίας
4 Catalog. Script. Eccles., c. 87, δύο καὶ φύσεις δύο λέγει᾽ τῷ τῆς οὐσίας

Cave.—

his catholicity allowed by Photius. 339

the words substance and nature, as is plain from what pre- Book 11.
cedes and follows, instead of person (ὑποστάσις,) and not aH U3.
as the followers of Arius [use them].” What Pierius had Pprrrivus. |
written concerning the Son of God, must indeed have been [487]
in the highest degree catholic, since his statements are com-

mended as very religious! and alien from Arianism, even by ' pie ad-
Photius himself, who was in other instances a rigid and se- pate
vere critic of the earlier writers, and was wont to bring even

their most harmless expressions under the suspicion of Arian-

ism. Besides, when Photius says, that Pierius had set forth

many things after the ancient manner, and differently from

what in his age obtained in the Church, and then imme-

diately adds, that the same Pierius did, nevertheless, believe
religiously concerning the Son of God, he therein plainly
indicates, that the doctrine of Pierius respecting the Son of

God, altogether agreed with the theology which in his own

age was regarded as catholic. Now all who know any thing

of Ecclesiastical History, are aware how widely removed

from Arianism was the doctrine of the Greek Church con-

cerning the Son of God, in the time of Photius; with respect
however to what Photius further states in the same place,

that Pierius’s teaching respecting the Holy Ghost was not re-

ligious”, inasmuch as he affirmed that the Holy Ghost is infe- ? minus pie
rior to the Father and the Son, it is very easily defended from Pie ΕΠ
the suspicion of heresy. For the Holy Ghost is less3 than 8 minor.
the Father and the Son in the same respect, in which the Son

Himself is acknowledged by all Catholics to be less* than ‘ minor.
the Father ; I mean in respect of origin’. The Son has His ὅ originis
origin from the Father alone; whilst the Holy Ghost derives Pi ἤλῳ
His origin from the Father and the Son, as the Western

Church defined; or from the Father through the Son’, as ὅ per

the Orientals loved to express themselves. This I am quite cae
persuaded is all that Pierius meant. But it is clear from this

how falsely, and, as his way is, how impudently Sandius wrote

that‘; “Pierius (as Photius attests) taught that the Son

and the Father are two essences and natures,” the words
essences and natures, that is, being taken in the sense in [488]

καὶ φύσεως ὀνόματι, ὡς δῆλον ἔκ Te THY προσανακείμενοι, χρώμενος. — [ Phot.
ἑπομένων καὶ προηγουμένων τοῦ χωρίου, Bibl. cod. 119. ] ᾿
ἀντὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, καὶ οὐχ ὡς ᾿Αρείῳ f Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 126.

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
Lity OF
THE SON.

PAMPHI-
LUS,

1 χελείωσιν.

[439]

340 Pamphilus. The genuineness of his Apology for Origen

which they are distinguished from person. Photius does not
attest this, but the direct contrary, namely that Pierius’s
belief respecting the Father and the Son was religious ; and
that, in the place where he said, that the Father and the
Son are two substances, it is manifest from the context of
the passage, that he used the word οὔσια (substance) in-
stead of ὑπόστασις (person); and that he, consequently,
meant no more than that the Father and the Son are
two persons; and that this is catholic, all Catholics will,
I suppose, readily allow. But from the master let us come
to his scholar.

3. St. Pamphilus§, a disciple of Pierius, and presbyter of
the Church of Caesarea in Palestine, a celebrated man, who
was crowned” with martyrdom in the persecution under
Maximinus, a little before his death’, being in prison along
with Eusebius, wrote an Apology for Origen, consisting of five
parts, to which, after the death of Pamphilus, Eusebius him-
self added a sixth. The first of these five books of Pamphilus,
is still extant in a Latin translation by Ruffinus, among the
works of Jerome, published by Marianus Victorinus‘. It
can be easily proved, in opposition to Jerome, who advances
various and inconsistent arguments on this point, that this
book does not wrongly bear the martyr’s name. At all events
the statement is palpably false which Jerome makes, (in
book iii. of his Apology against Ruffinus, chapter 4*,) that
“ Ruffinus was the only person who had published” that
Apology “ under the martyr’s name ;” since the Greek copies
also, (as is attested by Photius, cod. 118, and by the ancient
Greek author of an Apology for Origen, mentioned in Pho-
tius, cod. 117,) attributed it to Pamphilus. It is in a crafty
way also that Jerome repeatedly contends that the Apology
is the work of Eusebius; for it is, indeed, Eusebius’s, but
not Eusebius’s alone; inasmuch as it was composed by the
joint labours of both, of Pamphilus as well as of Eusebius.
This fact is expressly asserted by Eusebius himself, who
best knew the circumstances, in his Ecclesiastical History,

® He flourished about the year 294. volume of the Benedictine edition of

Cave.— Bowyer. Origen. ]
h About the year 309. _Cave.— K (Jerome’s words are “quem tu
Bowyer. [See above, p. 65. ] solus sub martyris nomine edidisti.””

' [And in the appendix to the fourth § 12. vol. 11. p. 541.]

which implies the catholicity of its author. 341

vi. 83, he says!; “ But what is necessary to be known con- ΒΟΟΚ u.
cerning him (Origen), you may gather from the Apology on are oe 0
his behalf, composed by me and Pamphilus, the holy martyr pampus
of our times; which we wrote on account of his censorious "8.

accusers, labouring together with care and diligence.” —Pho-
tius, cod. 118, explains this passage of Eusebius thus™; “TI
read the work of Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius in de-
fence of Origen; the book consists of six parts!, of which five
were the work of Pamphilus, when he was in prison, Eusebius
being with him there, and the sixth was finished by Euse-
bius, after the martyr was removed from this life by the
sword, and departed? to God for whom he longed.” It is,
strange, however, that Jerome, in the passage quoted above,
should endeavour to prove that this Apology was not written
by Pamphilus, by this argument especially”; “ that Euse-
bius writes that Pamphilus published nothing of his own.”
For here, it seems, he sets Eusebius against Eusebius; inas-
much as the same Eusebius, as we have seen, expressly testi-
fies that Pamphilus employed his labours in that defence.
But Jerome might, if he had wished, very easily have solved
this difficulty ; for the Apology could not properly be called
Pamphilus’ own work, since he wrought it out with the
assistance of another, namely Eusebius. Of the fidelity of
Ruffinus’s version of Pamphilus’s Apology, we have spoken
already, [pages 272, 273.] Now it is abundantly clear from
that Apology, that the opinion of Pamphilus was orthodox
concerning the divinity of Christ. For while im that work
the holy man endeavours to prove that Origen was catho-
lic, from the circumstance that in his writings he taught»,
“that the Holy Ghost is unchangeable, equally as the Father
and the Son; that the Trinity is equal, and that the Holy

1 4
τόμοι.

/
2 ἀνέλυσε.

[440]

1 goa δὲ ἀναγκαῖα τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν
διαγνῶναι ἣν, ταῦτα καὶ ἐκ τῆς ὑπὲρ
αὐτοῦ πεπονημένης ἡμῖν τε καὶ τῷ καθ᾽
ἡμᾶς ἱερῷ μάρτυρι Παμφίλω ἀπολογίας
πάρεστιν ἀναλέξασθαι" ἣν τῶν φιλαιτίων
ἕνεκα συμπονήσαντες ἀλλήλοις, διὰ
σπουδῆς πεποιήμεθα.---ἰ Euseb, H. E.
vi. 33. |

m ἀνεγνώσθη Παμφίλου τοῦ μάρτυρος
καὶ Εὐσεβίου ὑπὲρ ᾿Ωριγένους" τόμοι δὲ
τὸ βιβλίον ἕξ᾽ ὧν of μὲν πέντε Παμφίλῳ
τὸ δεσμωτήριον οἰκοῦντι, συμπαρόντος

καὶ Εὐσεβίου, ἐξεπονήθησαν᾽ ὃ δὲ ἕκτος,
ἐπεὶ ὃ μάρτυς ξίφει τοῦ ζῆν ἀπαχθεὶς
ἀνέλυσε πρὸς ὃν ἐπόθει Θεὸν, Εὐσεβίῳ
λοιπὸν ἀπαρτίζεται. [Fhot. cod. 118.)

n (cum ...] Eusebius scribat Pam-
philum nihil proprii operis edidisse.—
[S. Hieron. ubi supra, p. 541. }

° [Quod eadem sit inconvertibilitas
Spiritus Sancti, que et Patris et Filii
(c. 4. p. 26); ...-. Quod zxqualis sit
sibi Trinitas, et quod Spiritus Sanctus
non sit creatura (p. 27);.... Quod sicut

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

LucliAn.

1 exempla-
ria Scrip-
turarum
Lucianza.

2 libellos.
[441]

342 Lucian; the Arians boasted of him as

Ghost is not a creature; that as the Father knows the be-
ginnings and the limits of all things which exist, so does the
Son, and so does the Holy Ghost know them; that the Son
is ὁμοούσιος, (consubstantial,) that is, of one substance with
the Father ;” while, I say, he endeavours to shew that Origen
was orthodox on these heads, he most plainly declares that
he himself held the same propositions to be true and catholic.
Besides, it is no contemptible argument for the orthodoxy of
Pamphilus on this point, that he was taught his theology by
St. Pierius ; and that Pierius held entirely orthodox opinions
concerning the Father and the Son, Photius himself, as we
have seen, allows. It follows that the shameless sophist,
Sandius?, has most unjustly classed this blessed martyr
among those who favoured and supported the heresy which
was afterwards called Arian.

4. With St. Pamphilus must be joined St. Lucian’. He
was a presbyter of the Church of Antioch and a very eloquent
man, who laboured so much in the study of the Scriptures,
that even in the age of Jerome, as he himself testifies", certain
copies of the Scriptures were called Lucianean!. He wrote
some short treatises? concerning the faith, and brief epistles
to some persons, which are all lost. He suffered at Nico-
media in maintaining the cause of Christ, during the perse-
cution of Maximinus’, and was buried at Helenopolis in
Bithynia. This blessed man, also, Petavius has branded
with the mark of heterodoxy, in the article concerning the
divinity of the Son‘; and he is [herein] followed by San-
dius", who boasts much of Lucian as a patron of the Arians.
Nay, even Huet himself, misled, I suppose, by Petavius, enu-
merates this martyr amongst those who devised false and
absurd notions respecting the Trinity*. Let us, however,
examine the arguments, on which this censure of theirs
is grounded. First, they say, that the Arians used to call
themselves Lucianists, because, that is, of their agreeing in

Pater novit initia omnium que sunt, * Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles., 6.
et fines, sic et Filius, sic et Spiritus 88. [vol. ii. p. 903.]
Sanctus sciat (p. 28); .... ὁμοούσιος 5. In the year 311. Cave.-—Bowyer.
est cum Patre Filius, id est, unius sub- * De Trin. i. 4. 13.
stantia (p. 33.) Ὁ Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 127.

» Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 126. * Pag. 187. Origenian. ii. 3. § 6.

4 He flourished about the year 290. [p. 253.]
Cave.

agreeing with them; set forth his Creed. 343

belief with Lucian the martyr. I grant it; but what man of Boox τι.
sense will give credit to this most mendacious class of men? ree:
They boasted just in the same way of Origen and Dionysius Lucian. —
of Alexandria as being of one mind with them!. But how’ ὁμοψύ-
utterly vain and shameless this boasting of theirs was, I have *””
given, if I mistake not, abundant proof in the preceding
chapters. As regards the martyr Lucian, however, what
Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. iii. 5¥, relates respecting the council
which was convened at Antioch, by the mandate of the em-
peror Constantius, for the Dedication [of the Golden church,| 161
is worthy of being noted. The bishops of this synod (of
whom the largest part were either simply Arians, or at any
rate only too favourable to Arius) first published a Confession
of faith, which was widely different from the Nicene faith.
But since in this formulary they were thought to have
treated in too meagre a way of the divinity of the Son, they
published another more full, seizing the following circum -
stance as an occasion for it. Having somewhat prolonged
their stay at Antioch, they discovered a Confession of faith
which had been drawn up by the martyr Lucian; this, inm- [442]
asmuch as the word ὁμοούσιος was not found in it, and
some of its phrases seemed to favour their heresy, they
ereedily embraced, and published it as the explication of
their own belief; for the purpose, no doubt, of persuading
the ignorant that they held the belief of the famous martyr
Lucian. For thus Sozomen writes in the passage cited’ ;
“And they said that they had discovered this Creed, all
written in the hand of Lucian himself, who suffered martyr-
dom at Nicomedia.”’

5. This formulary is given by Athanasius, Socrates *, and
others, and for the sake of the reader who may not have these
authors by him, I shall not hesitate to transcribe here such
portions of it as relate to the Trinity. The Creed of Lucian,
then, so much talked of by the Arians, makes this profession
respecting the most Holy Trinity: “In agreement with the
teaching” of the Gospels and the Apostles we believe in one ὅπαραδύσει.
God the Father Almighty, the Creator* and Maker [and Ὁ δημιουρ-

γὸν τε καὶ
’ See also Niceph. Hist. Eccles. ix. 5. * πιστεύομεν ἀκολούθως TH εὐαγγε- ποιητὴν.
: ἔλεγον δὲ ταύτην τὴν πίστιν ὅλό- λικῇ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ παραδόσει εἰς ἕνα
ypapov εὑρηκέναι Λουκιανοῦ, τοῦ ἐν Νι- Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν

κομηδείᾳ wapruphoavtos.—[H.E. iii. 5.] ὅλων δημιουργὸν τε καὶ ποιητὴν [καὶ

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON,
1 ἐκ.
2 ἐκ.
8 ἀπὸ.
4 Living
Wisdom.
S. Ath.
ἢ Way,
Truth.
S. Ath.
6 ἀπαράλ-
λακτον.

[448]

7 τελείωσιν.

8 οὐκ ἀπ-
λῶς.

9 οὐδὲ ἀρ-
γῶν κειμέ-

νων | ἀργῶς

Ath. }

10 ὑπόστα-
ow.

τι ΤῊ ὑπὸ"
στασει.

944. The Creed of Lucian the Martyr.

Providential Ruler] of all things, [from whom are all things];
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, the only-begotten,
God; through whom were all things (made); who was be-
gotten of" the Father before (all) the worlds, God of? God,
Whole of Whole, Sole of Sole, Perfect of Perfect, King of
King, Lord from* Lord; the living Word, Wisdom, Life 4,
true Light, Way of Truth ὁ, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door,
both unalterable and unchangeable, the unvarying® Image of
the Godhead, both of the substance and power, and counsel
and glory of the Father; the first-born of every creature ;
Him, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, ac-
cording to that which is said in the Gospel, ‘And the Word
was God ;’ through whom all things were made, and in
whom all things consist; Him who in the last days came
down from above, and was born of a virgin, according to the
Scriptures; ....... And in the Holy Ghost, who is given
to them that believe for consolation and sanctification, and
(for) perfection’: even as our Lord Jesus Christ gave com-
mandment to His disciples, saying, Go ye and make disciples
of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that is, of the Father,
being truly Father, the Son, being truly Son, and the Holy
Ghost, being truly Holy Ghost ; the names not being used
as mere [names‘’,] and without [corresponding] realities °,
but expressing accurately the proper Person! (hypostasis),
and glory, and order of Each of Those that are named Ὁ SO
that They are in Person” (hypostasis) Three, but in agree-
ment One.”

τῶν τῶν ἡμερῶν κατελθόντα ἄνωθεν, καὶ
γεννηθέντα ἐκ παρθένου κατὰ τὰς γρα-
φάς.... καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον,

ΝΣ ἊΣ ΩΝ ! F > «
προνοητὴν ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα" καὶ εἰς ἕνα
Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ
τὸν μονογενῆ Θεὸν, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα

(ἐγένετο)" τὸν γεννηθέντα πρὸ (πάντων)
τῶν αἰώνων é τοῦ Πατρὸς, Θεὸν ἐκ
Θεοῦ, ὅλον ἐξ ὅλον, μόνον ἐκ μόνου, τε-
λείον ἐκ τελείου, βασιλέα ἐκ βασιλέως,
Κύριον ἀπὸ Κυρίου" λόγον ξῶντα, σο-
φίαν, ζωὴν [l. ζῶσαν], φῶς ἀληθινὸν,
ὁδὸν ἀληθείας []. ὁδὸν, ἀλήϑειαν], ἀνά-
στασιν, ποιμένα, θύραν" ὄἄτρεπτέν τε καὶ
ἀναλλοίωτον" (τὴν) τῆς θεότητος, οὐσίας
τε καὶ δυνάμεως, καὶ βουλῆς, καὶ δόξης
τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα: τὸν
πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως᾽ τὸ» ὄντα ἐν
ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, λόγον Θεὸν, κατὰ
τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, Καὶ Θεὸς
ἦν 6 λόγος, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, καὶ
ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα συνέστηκε᾽ τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχά-

τὸ εἰς παράκλησιν καὶ ἁγιασμὸν, καὶ
(eis) τελείωσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσι διδόμε-
νον" καθὼς καὶ ὃ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς
Χριστὸς διετάξατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς, λέγων,
Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη,
βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύ-
ματος. δῆλον ὅτι Πατρὸς ἀληθινῶς ὄντος
Πατρὸς, καὶ υἱοῦ ἀληθινῶς υἱοῦ ὄντος,
καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἀληθῶς ὄντος πνεύ-
ματος ἁγίου: τῶν ὀνομάτων οὐχ ἁπλῶς,
οὐδὲ ἀργῶν [1. ἀργῶς ] κειμένων, ἀλλὰ ση-
μαινόντων ἀκριβῶς τὴν ἰδίαν (1. οἰκείαν
ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομαζομένων ὑπόστασίν
τε καὶ δόξαν καὶ τάξιν' ὡς εἶναι τῇ μὲν
ὑποστάσε, τρία, τῇ δὲ συμφωνίᾳ ἕν.--.

Grounds for thinking that this Creed was really Lucian’s. 345

6. That this was really the Creed of Lucian, and was not sBoox 1.
palmed upon him by the Arians, is proved by many con- ne 5, ie
siderations. In the first place, those bishops would have Lucian.
acted very imprudently, and even shamelessly, if they had [444]
published any Confession of faith at Antioch in the name
of Lucian, which was not really his; [in a place] where the
memory of the holy martyr was justly sacred, and his writ-
ings were preserved with the most religious care; so that any
fraud might have been detected with the greatest ease by
any one. Secondly, suppose it had been possible for them
to practise deceit on one single occasion! in safety, still the
imposture could not have been long concealed. Yet the
Arians put forward this Creed, and that with the greatest
confidence, as the undoubted production of Lucian the mar-
tyr, many years afterwards, when, in the reign of Valen-
tinian and Valens, a synod was to be assembled’ in the city ? congre-
of Tarsus in Cilicia, as Sozomen states in his Hcclesiastical cee
History vi. 12. For then, he says, in the same passage >,

“ about thirty-four bishops of Asia, having assembled in Caria
of Asia, commended the zeal [shewn] for the concord of
the Churches; but declined the word ὁμοούσιος; and strenu-
ously maintained that the faith which had been put forth at
Antioch and Seleucia, ought to hold, both as being that of
the martyr Lucian, and as having been approved by their pre-
decessors amid dangers and many labours.” Moreover, if the
Arians had themselves patched together this Creed, they would
certainly have made it more closely conformed to thei own
opinions ; at least they would not have inserted such things
as would be quite a death-blow to their own heresy; and
that some things of this kind are found in it, we shall pre-
sently shew. Lastly, this Confession of faith 18 chiefly di-
rected against the Sabellian heresy, as is most manifest from

162

1 semel.

[445]

Socrat. Hist. Eccles. ii. 10. S. Athan.
Lib. de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc., tom.
1. p. 892. [ὃ 23. vol. i. p. 735-6. The
words omitted in St. Athanasius are in-
cluded in ( ), his additions and varia-
tions in [ ]. In the concluding clauses
he has ἀληθῶς for ἀληθινῶς, and some
slight variations in the arrangement of
the words. ]

> συνελθόντες ἐν Καρίᾳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας

ἀμφὶ τριάκοντα τέσσαρες τῶν ᾿Ασιανῶν
ἐπισκόπων, τὴν μὲν ἐπὶ τῇ ὁμονοίᾳ τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν σπουδὴν ἐπήνουν᾽ παρῃτοῦντο
δὲ τὸ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου ὄνομα καὶ τὴν ἐν
᾿Αντιοχείᾳ καὶ Σελευκείᾳ ἐκτεθεῖσαν
πίστιν χρῆναι κρατεῖν ἰσχυρίξζοντο, ὡς
καὶ Λουκιανοῦ τοῦ μάρτυρος οὖσαν, καὶ
μετὰ κινδύνων καὶ πολλῶν ἱδρώτων παρὰ
τῶν πρὸ αὐτῶν δοκιμασθεῖσαν.---ἰ Ἡ. KE.
vi. 12.]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 mantisse
loco.

2 παρατρέ-
wat τὸ ppd-
νήημα.

[446]

346 The Creed being genuine shews Lucian’s orthodoxy.

what it contains towards the end*. For after giving a full
explanation of the faith respecting the most holy Trinity, the
Creed at last concludes with this, as a sort of epilogue, ex-—
plaining the sum and scope of all that had been stated be-
fore; “Of the Father, that is, being truly Father, and of the
Son, being truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost, being truly
Holy Ghost ; the names not being used as mere [names,] and
without [corresponding] realities, but expressing accurately
the proper person, glory, and order of Each; so that They are
in Person Three, but in agreement One.” Now what had these
assertions to do with the Arian controversy, which was the
subject of discussion at the council of Antioch? In the days
of Lucian, however, the doctrine of Sabellius was especially
prevalent ; and Lucian himself is said to have been a most
energetic opponent of it. To this I will subjoin, by way of
addition!, an observation of Philostorgius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 15,
where, speaking of the disciples of Lucian the martyr, who
had not maintained their master’s doctrine unimpaired, he
writes that? “Asterius had perverted his views’, testifying ©
[as he does] in his words and writings that the Son is the
unvarying Image of the substance of the Father.” Asterius,
however, borrowed this statement in so many words from the
Creed of Lucian, as will be evident on comparing them.

7. Now, if this Creed be really Lucian’s, he must have
been altogether catholic in the article of the divinity of the
Son. For this Confession, except that the word ὁμοούσιος
is wanting in it, does in all other points quite agree with the
Nicene Creed, as Sozomen rightly observed in thé passage
cited above. It follows that, if we look to the thing itself,
putting aside all controversy about words, the Arians might
with as good reason have called themselves the maintainers
of the Nicene Creed, as Lucianists. Nay, I may almost
venture to affirm, that the absolute divinity of the Son is
up to a certain point more effectually and significantly ex-_
pressed in the Creed of Lucian, than in the Nicene Creed
itself. For the words, “God of God, Whole of Whole, Per-

* An observation which has also been φρόνημα, ἀπαράλλακτον εἰκόνα τῆς τοῦ
made by Hilary, as the reader will see Πατρὸς οὐσίας εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν, ἐν τοῖς
in § 7. αὐτοῦ λόγοις καὶ γράμμασι διαμαρτυρό-

“ καὶ τὸν ᾿Αστέριον παρατρέψαι τὸ μενον. [ Philost. H. E. ii. 15.]

St. Hilary vindicates the catholicity of this Creed. 347

fect of Perfect,” which occur in the Confession of Lucian,
do more expressly enunciate the perfect Divinity of the Son,
and the equality of His nature with the Father’s, than those
of the Nicene Creed, “God of God, Light of Light, very
God of very God.” Such statements, however, in the Creed
of Lucian, as have the appearance of favouring the Arians
in some degree, Hilary, in his book on the Synods against
the Arians, admirably demonstrates to be quite catholic.
These are his words®; “The assembled synod of holy men
therefore,” (for so catholic did this Creed appear to Hilary,
that he believed it had issued forth from catholic men
assembled at Antioch,)—“ wishing to put an end to that
impiety, which would elude the real existence’ of the Fa-
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by represent-
ing these as so many names’,—that so a threefold denomi-
nation without a subsistent reality corresponding to each
name’, might uphold [their doctrine of] oneness*! under an
unreality’ of names, and the Father being alone and single,
the same and by Himself, might have the name of Holy
Spirit and of Son—on this account asserted that They are
three substances (substantias, [ὑποστάσεις }), indicating by
substances the persons of those that exist substantively, not
separating the substance of the Father and the Son by the
difference of dissimilar essence. Moreover the statement
that They are indeed in substance (per substantiam, [v7o-
στάσει) three®, but in agreement one’, contains no ground
for injurious accusation; because the Spirit, that is, the
Comforter, being named along with Them, it was fitting
to set forth the unity of agreement, rather than that of
essence arising from likeness of substance®. Besides, the
whole preceding statement did not in any one point dis-

tinguish the Father and the

* Volens igitur congregata sanctorum
synodus impietatem eam perimere, quz
veritatem Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti nominum numero eluderet, ut
non subsistente causa uniuscujusque
nominis, triplex nuncupatio obtineret
sub falsitate nominum unionem, et
Pater solus atque unus idem atque ipse
haberet (et Spiritus Sancti) nomen et
Filii; idcirco tres substantias esse dix-
erunt, subsistentium personas per sub-

Son by difference of essence

stantias edocentes, non substantiam
Patris et Filii diversitate dissimilis
essentize separantes. Quod autem dic-
tum est, ut sint quidem per substantiam
tria, per consonantiam vero unum, non
habet calumniam; quia connominato
Spiritu, id est Paracleto, consonantiz
potius quam essentie per similitudi-
nem substantia predicari convenit
unitatem, Czterum omnis superior
sermo in nullo Patrem et Filium es-

BOOK II.
CHAP. XIII.
§ 6, 7.

LUCIAN.

1 veritatem.

2 nominum

numero,

[447]
3 non sub-
sistente
causa no-
minis.
4 unionem.
5 falsitate.

6 tria.
7 unum.

348 The statement (Three Substances) of Lucian’s Creed,

on tue and nature. For where it is said, ‘God of God, Whole of
CONSUB-

stantra- Whole’, there is no doubt, that Whole God is begotten of
tity oF Whole God. For neither is there difference in the nature of |

ae [Him who is] God from God; and [He that 15] Whole from
ex toto. Whole, is Himself in [all] those things in which the Father

* in lis est 152, One from One’ (unum ex uno, [μόνον ἐκ μόνον) excludes
ἐν Pater the affections of human birth and conception; so that, being
Cats One from One, He is not from any other source, nor different,
nor other", Who is‘ One from One, Perfect from Perfect ; the

*nativitas. condition of the begotten® differs not from that of the un-
‘ abinnas- hegotten4, excepting the cause of origin, seeing that the per-
ie fection of each is not different. ‘King from King ;’? power
named together under one and the same name, admits not

of dissimilarity of power. ‘Lord of Lord ;’ lordship also is

made equal by [the word] Lord; nor does lordship [thus]
confessed in each, without difference, admit of diversity.

But that which is added after many other statements, ‘the
unalterable and unchangeable (unvarying) Image of the God-

head, both of the essence, and power, and glory,’ is absolute.

For, being of God, God, of Whole Whole, of One One, of Per-

fect Perfect, and of King King, and of Lord Lord, seeing

that in all that glory and nature of the Godhead, in which

[448] the Father abides, the Son also being born (begotten) does
also subsist, He hath this likewise from the substance of the

Father, that He be not capable of change. For that nature

of which He was born, (begotten,) was not changed in Him

in His being born, (begotten,) but being born (begotten) He

ἢ exaucto- obtained an unchangeable nature, from an original ὃ of un-

ritate,

sentiz ac nature diversitate discrevit.
Ubi enim dicitur, Deum de Deo, totum
ex toto; non ambigitur totum Deum
ex toto Deo natum. Nam et Dei de
Deo natura non differt; et totus ex
toto in iis est ipse, quibus pater est.
Unus ex uno passiones humani partus
et conceptionis excludit: ut dum unus
€x uno est, non aliunde, nec diversus,
aut alius sit, qui est unus ex uno, per-
fectus a perfecto; non differt preter
originis causam ab innascibilitate nati-
vitas, cum perfectio utriusque non dif-
ferat. Rex de Rege; non admittit uno
atque eodem nomine potestas con-
nuncupata dissimilitudinem potestatis,
Dominum de Domino; dominatus quo-
que zquatur in Domino; nee recipit

differentiam confessa in utroque sine
diversitate dominatio. Illud vero quod
post multa alia subjectum est, incon-
vertibilem et immutabilem, divinitatis et
essenti@ et virtutis et gloria imaginem,
absolutum est. Nam ex Deo Deus, ex
toto totus, ex uno unus, et ex perfecto
perfectus, et ex Rege Rex, et ex Domino
Dominus, cumin ea omni divinitatis glo-
ria atque natura, in qua Pater permanet,
natus quoque subsistat et Filius, etiam
hoc ex paterna substantia habet, ne de-
mutabilis fiat. Non enim in eo nascente
ea, de qua est natus, demutata natura
est; sed indemutabilem essentiam na-~
tus obtinuit, ex indemutabilis auctori-
tate nature. Nam quamvis imago est,
tamen incommutabilis est imago ; (non

shewn by St. Hilary to express a catholic truth. 849

changeable nature. For though He is an Image, still He is ποοκ τι.
an unchangeable Image; (the nature, that is to say, of the "ey 3.
Father’s essence, of which He was begotten, not being Sores τς
changed in Him by means of! dissimilitude) because in Him * per.
an image of the Father’s essence must be produced. Again,
when He is declared to be the first-born (primus editus) of
the whole creation, and [at the same time] He Himself is
said to have been ever in the beginning with God, God the
Word; in that He is first put forth (primus editur), He is
shewn to have been born (natus), and in that He ever has
been, He is not separated in time from the Father. The
division of the substances, therefore, (which aimed at nothing
else, than, by the name of three subsisting? [Persons],) to ex- * trium
clude [their doctrine of] oneness under a threefold appella- ee
tion, cannot be thought to have been introduced with a view substan-
to the separation of the substance, [as if] different in the esi
Father and the Son; since what is set forth in the state-
ment of the whole Creed distinguishes not the Father and
the Son, the Unbegotten and the Only-begotten, either in
time, or name, or essence, or dignity, or dominion.” And
thus have we fully refuted the first argument, by which some
persons have endeavoured to prove that the martyr Lucian
favoured the Arian heresy, drawn from the Arians’ boast-
ing about their agreement in opinion with Lucian.

8. But learned men rely chiefly on the testimony of Alex-
ander, bishop of Alexandria, who, in an epistle to his name-
sake, Alexander of Constantinople, after mentioning Paul

commutata in eo scilicet per dissimili-
tudinem paterne essentiw, ex qua est
genitus, natura,) quia in eo imago pa-
ternz essentiz nasceretur. Jam vero
cum primus editus esse totius creature
docetur, et ipse ille semper fuisse in
principio apud Deum Verbum Deus
dicitur; dum primus editur, natus
fuisse ostenditur, dum semper fuit, nec
tempore separatur a Patre. Non ergo
videri potest divisio substantiarum,
(quz nihil aliud studuit, quam ut per
trium subsistentium nomen triplicis
vocabuli excluderet unionem,) ad se-
parationem diverse in Filio et in Patre
substantiz introducta; cum totius fidei
expositio Patrem et Filium, innascibi-
lem et unigenitum, nec tempore, nec
nomine, nec essentia, nec dignitate, nec

dominatione discernat—Pag. 228. [ὃ
32. p. 1170. ed. Ben. The punctuation
of the Benedictine edition has been in
some cases substituted for that of the
earlier editions followed by Bp. Bull;
and unus ex uno, perfectus a perfecto,
has been printed in italics as being,
like the other portions, an extract from
the Confession. |

‘ [Unio was used!to express the
Sabellian doctrine of one Person in the
Godhead. |

g [This probably relates to the no-
tion of the Holy Spirit as the Love of
the Father and the Son: as in S, Aug.
de Trin. vi. 7. |

h [Alius, used by St. Hilary in the
masculine for distinct in substance. |

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[449]

Ἰ τῆς αὐτόθι
παροικίας.
3 βασιλέως.

3 βασιλείαν.

4 successive
(ut lo-
quuntur. )

[450]

350 Allegation of heresy against Lucian; not mentioned by

of Samosata, adds this remark»; “ Lucian having succeeded
him,” (that is, in his error,) “continued for the space of
many years excluded from communion by three bishops.”
My reply is, that Alexander is either speaking of another
Lucian in that place, (which is indeed probable even from
this circumstance, that he does not call his Lucian a mar-
tyr,) or that he was simply mistaken. For it is inconsistent
with the trust-worthiness of all ecclesiastical histor , that
Lucian the martyr embraced the blasphemy of Paul of Sa-
mosata, and that, on that account, he continued excommu-
nicated' under three successive bishops, which Alexander
testifies concerning his Lucian. Certainly Eusebius, who
lived in the time of Lucian the martyr, tells a very dif-
ferent tale of him, in his Ecclesiastical History, viii. 13.

“Of the martyrs of Antioch,” he says), “was Lucian, a’

presbyter of that diocese!, most excellent through his whole
life ; who had himself also, in the presence of the Emperor?
at Nicomedia, proclaimed the heavenly empire? of Christ,
first by word in an Apology, and afterwards also by deeds.”
How was it that Eusebius described him as a presbyter most
excellent through his whole life, if, for many years, that is,
under three bishops in succession‘, (as they express it,) he
continued out of the communion of the Church, for main-
taining the heresy of the Samosatene ὃ Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist. v. 28, mentions the excommunication of Theodotus
the Currier by Victor, on account of the same heresy. He
also mentions, in the same passage, Natalis a confessor, who
was seduced by Theodotus, and therefore put out of the
communion of the Church. Lastly, in book vii. ch. 27,
and following chapters, he narrates at length the history
of Paul of Samosata’s lapsing into heresy, and of his being
in consequence anathematized by the council of Antioch.
Who then can suppose, that, if Lucian the martyr had,

h ὃν διαδεξάμενος Λουκιανὸς ἀποσυνά-

three successive bishops celebrated the

γωγος ἔμεινε τριῶν ἐπισκόπων πολυετεῖς
xpévovs.—Theodoret. Η. E. i. 4. [p.
15. ]

i [Valesius (on this place of Theo-
doret) intimates that the translators
have not understood the meaning of
the word dmocuvdywyos: Alexander
“ only says that Lucian caused a schism
in the Church of Antioch, and under

Eucharist apart from the rest of the
Church.’’—B. ]

ἡ τῶν δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας μαρτύρων τὸν
πάντα βίον ἄριστος πρεσβύτερος τῆς
αὐτόθι παροικίας Λουκιανός. ἐν τῇ Νικο-
μηδείᾳ καὶ αὐτὸς, βασιλέως ἐπιπαρόν-
τος, τὴν οὐράνιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ βασιλείαν
λόγῳ πρότερον δι’ ἀπολογίας, εἶτα δὲ
καὶ ἔργοις ἀνακηρύξας. [H. E. viii. 18.}

Euseb., Jerome, or Sozomen, who all highly commend him. 351

under three [successive] bishops, persevered in the heresy
of the Samosatene, out of the communion of the Church,
Eusebius chose to be silent about so remarkable a cir-
cumstance, occurring in his own times; nay more, that he
would have been willing himself to commend Lucian as
a presbyter most excellent through his whole life, and as
one, who had much advanced the kingdom of Christ, both
in word and in deed? Besides, as we have seen, Jerome
in his catalogue wonderfully praises Lucian the martyr, not
only for the sanctity of his life, but also for his learning and
his acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures; and, when he
makes mention of his books concerning the faith, he does
not note any thing in them as different from the catholic
faith. Moreover, in his preface to the books of Chronicles,
he says that, in his own time, Lucian’s version of the Scrip-
tures was received and approved among Catholics from Con-
stantinople even to Antioch. Further, Sozomen, in his Eccl.
Hist., iii. 5, declares that Lucian* “was both in all other re-
spects a man most approved, and most accurately acquainted
with the Holy Scriptures.” It is, therefore, plain, that neither
Eusebius, nor Jerome, nor Sozomen, had ever heard any thing
of any heresy or schism of Lucian the martyr. Therefore,
although I would not over obstinately deny that the same
thing might have happened to Lucian the martyr in his con-
tests with the Sabellians, which befel Dionysius of Alexandria:
namely, to be accused by the Sabellians, before the bishops
of the Church, of denying the true divinity of Christ, be-
cause he endeavoured to prove, from the [properties] which
belong to Christ as Man, that He is not the Father Himself ;
yet I could not easily be induced to believe, that this most
blessed man did in truth embrace the blasphemies of Paul
the Samosatene, or Arius, and did in consequence dissever
himself, (for this is what Alexander says of his Lucian,)
under three successive bishops, from the communion of the
Catholic Church. For against such a story all ecclesiastical
history, as I have said, cries out, as well as that con-
fession of faith, which the Arians themselves have attributed
to Lucian. I will, however, in conclusion, add this ew abun-

k ἀνδρὸς τά τε ἄλλα εὐδοκιμώτατου, καὶ τὰς ἱερὰς γραφὰς εἰς ἄκρον ἠκριβω-
xéros.—[ Η. E, iii. 5.]

BOOK II.
CHAP. XIII.
ς 8.

LuCcIAN.

164

[451]

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

MeETHO-
DIUS.

[452]

352 Of the faith of St. Methodius.

danti, that, should we grant that Alexander did write this of
Lucian the martyr, and that with truth, it can afford very

little help to the cause of the Arians. For it was the Samo- |

satene heresy, which Alexander declares that his Lucian em-

braced, and this the Arians themselves condemn. But could

they allege, that in this one particular Alexander was wrong,

in having considered the doctrine of Paul of Samosata and of

Lucian as identical, as well as that of Arius also; they will |
not even in this way gain any thing. For then, in return for |
the support of a single Lucian, they will have the Catholic )

Church of Lucian’s age opposed to their heresy; for the

—

doctrine of that Lucian (whoever he was, and whatever |

were his opinions) was so opposed to the catholic, that he

ater nai

was unable, according to the testimony of Alexander, to re-

tain his heresy and the communion of the Church together.
And thus much for Lucian the martyr.

9. I shall conclude this chapter with a brief examination ‘
of the doctrine and faith of St. Methodius. According to —
Jerome!, St. Methodius, bishop first of Olympus in Lycia, —

and afterwards of Tyre, and famous™ for some writings in an

elegant and elaborate style, against Porphyry and Origen, —
and for many other works, was crowned with martyrdom —
at Chalcis, a city of Greece, towards the end of the last —
persecution under Diocletian and Maximian. Of his many —
writings, the Symposium, [The Banquet of the Ten Vir- —
gins,| is, 1 may say, the only work which has come |

down to us entire; if at least it be entire ; for we shall pre-
sently shew that this work also has been interpolated and
altered by heretics. We find very many fragments and ex-
tracts from him in Photius and other authors; from which,
especially, we shall gather his opinion and belief touching
the Son of God. In his book on the martyrs, as quoted by

Theodoret", he calls Christ, “Lord, and Son of God, who -
thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” A statement.

which, in the judgment even of Petavius°, can only apply to
the true God. Likewise in a book ‘ Concerning the Creation,’

Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles., c. 94. υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τιμὴν αὐτὸς ἐμαρτύρησεν, —
‘[vol. ii. p. 90.] οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγησάμενος τὸ εἶναι ἶσα

" He flourished about the year 290. θεῷ. ]7--- Ὁ 14]. i. p. 87.
Cave.—Bowyer. ° Prefat. in tom. ii. 4, 5.
5 [αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Xpiords, ὁ

Methodius teaches the Consubstantiality of the Son. 353

(περὶ τῶν γενητῶν,) in Photius, cod. 235, he gives this com- soox 1.
ment on the words of St. John, chap. 1.Ρ: “In the beginning ine 8, ae
was the Word,” &c. “ For we must say that the Beginning, Merno- _
from which the most true Word! sprang, is the Father and arya
Maker of all things, in whom He was; and in the words, τὸς Hehe
‘He was in power (ἐν ἀρχῆ;, in the beginning, £. v.),’ with God,

he appears to signify the power or dominion” of the Word, ? τὸ ἐξου-
which He had with the Father even before the world was polaron
created ; calling His power ἀρχὴ, (beginning, E. v.)” In this sive domi-

passage where he says that the Word sprang from God the as
Father Himself, as from His root, that in Him He both is
and was, and that with Him He possessed power ἡ, autho- 3 τὸ ἐξου-
rity, or dominion, before created beings came into existence, had Sale
He absolutely declares the consubstantiality of the Word,
and exempts that Word from the class of things which were [468]
created out of nothing and placed in a servile state. But it
should also be observed, that Methodius, in this book, is
professedly impugning the error attributed to Origen, in
which he was said to have proved that created beings existed
with God from eternity, by this argument, that otherwise,
God would not have been Lord from eternity, seeing that in
that case nothing would exist from eternity over which He
could exercise lordship. In opposition to this conceit, Me-
thodius excellently shews that power * pertained to God the 4 τὸ ἐξου-
Father and the Son, even before any one created being came “#77”:
into existence; forasmuch as from eternity, God the Father,
with His Word, was in possession of Almighty power, by which,
whenever He willed, He was able to produce creatures, over

_which to exercise dominion: and that meanwhile nothing

was lacking to the very God; forasmuch as from eternity He
was most perfectly blessed, and needed none of those things
which were afterwards to be created, to consummate His hap-
piness. Methodius likewise declares in his Symposium 4, that
Christ “is, not, is made, (εἶναι, οὐ yeyovéva,)” the Son of
God; i. 6. that He is the Son of God by nature, not through 165
creation, or by right of adoption. Moreover he also says

P τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχὴν, ἀφ᾽ js aveBAd- τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ mpd τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἰς
στησεν 6 ὀρθότατος λόγος, τὸν πατέρα γένεσιν παρεχθεῖν, ἔοικε σημαίνειν, τὴν
καὶ ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων φατέον, ἐν ᾧ ἦν. ἐξουσίαν ἀρχὴν εἰπών.---ἰ Phot.cod.235. |

τὸ δὲ, Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, 4 Apud Photium, cod. 287. p. 959.
τὸ ἐξουσιαστικὸν Tod λόγου, ὃ εἶχε παρὰ

BULL, Aa

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

[454]

1 περὶ τῶν
γενητῶν.

2 ἐξ οὐκ

ὄντων.

3 >
αὐτουρ-

γοῦσαν.

4 ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων.

5 a se mo-
liri et cre-
are.

6 a Patre.

354 Passage of Methodius objected against by Petavius ;

in the same place, that the Son of God neither had a begin-
ning, nor will have an end of His existence, but “is ever the
same, (εἶναι det τὸν αὐτὸν,) which certainly, at least in the
Judgment of Methodius, is a property of the true God alone ;
for in the work which has been cited On the Creation,
in opposition to Origen, or rather the interpolator of Origen,
who asserts the eternity of the world, he contends by several
arguments, that whatsoever is without any beginning is un-
created, (wyévyrov,) and that nothing is eternal but God’,
The entire passage we shall quote in Book iii. on the co-
eternity of the Son, c. 4. § 7.

10. To these statements so express, Petavius opposes
one sentiment of Methodius, which Photius, cod. 235, quotes
out of his work On the Creation |, expressed in the follow-
ing words‘; “In what has been already said, we stated that
there are two creative powers. One, out of what is not?,
by His mere will, without delay, simultaneously with the
act of will, of Himself working’? whatsoever He wishes to
create; and this is the Father; the Other setting in order
and varying what has already been called into being, in imita-
tion of the former; this is the Son, the all-powerful and mighty
Tand of the Father, by which, after He had produced matter
out of what was not ἡ, He sets it in order.” In this passage,
there are three statements which Petavius censures, as at
variance with the rule of the catholic faith: first, that Me-
thodius calls the Father and the Son two powers, (δυνάμεις ;)
secondly, that he says that the former power, namely the
Father, of Himself works and creates’, αὐτουργεῖν, whilst
the Son works from the Father®, and in imitation of Hin ;
and lastly, that he attributes to the Father the creation of
the world out of nothing, to the exclusion as it were of the

" πῇ δὴ οὖν, ὦ ἢλίθιοι, οἴεσθε τὴν
κτίσιν, συναπέραντον οὖσαν τῷ δημι-
ουργῷ, μὴ δεῖσθαι τοῦ δημιουργοῦ; τὸ
γὰρ συναπέραντον, μηδαμῶς ἀρχὴν γε-
νέσεως ἔχον, καὶ συναγένητον, καὶ ico-
δύναμον ἀνάγκη τυγχάνειν. Methodius
apud Photium, cod. 235. p. 988.

8 De Trinit. 1. 4. 12.

* δύο δὲ δυνάμεις ἐν τοῖς προωμολο-
γημένοις ἔφαμεν εἶναι ποιητικάς" τὴν ἐξ
οὐκ ὄντων γυμνῷ τῷ βουλήματι χωρὶς
μελλησμοῦ', ἅμα τῷ θελῆσαι, αὐτουρ-
γοῦσαν ὃ βούλεται moiety’ τυγχάνει δὲ

ὃ Πατήρ' θατέραν δὲ κατακοσμοῦσαν
καὶ ποικίλλουσαν κατὰ μίμησιν τῆς προ-
τέρας τὰ ἤδη γεγονότα" ἔστι δὲ 6 vids,
ἡ παντοδύναμος καὶ κραταιὰ χεὶρ τοῦ
Πατρὸς, ἐν ἣ μετὰ τὸ ποιῆσαι τὴν ὕλην
ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων κατακοσμεῖ.---Ῥαρ. 988.
‘(In the edition which Bp. Bull used,
we read “μελισμοῦ, “ distinction of
parts.” I do not know whether μελ-
λησμοῦ, “delay,’”’ is his own conjec-
ture—B. The reading of Bekker’s
edition (ed. Berlin. 1824) according to
the MSS. A. Β. is μελλησμοῦ. }

ee Hs τ ,....ὦ

ede we

shewn to admit and require a catholic sense. 355

Son, to whom he allows only the adorning what are already 00x τι.
created. But all this easily admits, and even requires a 6 9. aie
catholic sense; accordingly, even Photius did not find any Merno-~
thing to blame in that passage. As to the first point, the 4s 5]
Father and the Son are with better right called two powers
by Methodius, than two natures or essences by other fathers,
who yet are regarded as catholic and orthodox in this article :
the truth is, these words, as we have shewn above, are taken
altogether in a personal sense, as it is called. As to the second,
that the Father alone works of Himself, αὐτουργεῖν, what
Catholic would deny it? For it is the property of the Father
to exist and to work of Himself; whereas the Son refers both
His being and His working! (as they express it) [as if] received, * et esse |
to the Father as His Author. In this respect also the Son is ae
said to do His works in imitation as it were of the Father. See
John v. 19, and Maldonatus on the passage. The meaning
of Methodius and other fathers, as also of Holy Scripture,
is very well expressed by Gregory Nazianzen, Oration XXXVI",
in these words; “ It is manifest that with respect to the same
objects the Father imprints the forms [of them], and the
Word finishes them, not as a servant, or without intelli-
gence, but with knowledge and as a master, and (to speak
more properly) as the Father?” You may read in the "πατρικῶς.
same passage more that is worthy of observation on this sub-
ject. This statement of Nazianzen, however, Petavius him-
self somewhere* expresses approbation of, and further re-
marks thus on it; “ Whence it is plain, that the Father’s
shewing to the Son, or teaching Him what He has to do,
and as it were going before Him to shew Him the way, is
nothing else than communicating to Him by generation,
together with His nature and essence, the understanding of [456 ]
things to be made, and the forms and types of them.” Then
with regard to the last point which is censured, namely, that
Methodius attributes to the Father, to the exclusion as it
were of the Son, the creation of things out of nothing, the
answer is not difficult. The truth is, He no more excludes
the Son from the act of creating things, than He does the

u δῆλον ὅτι τῶν αὐτῶν πραγμάτων καὶ δεσποτικῶς, καὶ, οἰκειότερον εἰπεῖν,
τοὺς τύπους ἐνσημαίνεται μὲν ὃ Πατὴρ, πατρικῶς.--- τη. i. p. 581. eu, far.

ἐπιτελεῖ δὲ ὁ λόγος, οὐ δουλικῶς, οὔτ᾽ 1630. [Orat. xxx. 11. p. ὅ47.}
[οὐδὲ] ἀμαθῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιστημονικῶς τε = De Trin. ii. 4. 6.

Aad

ON THE
CONSUB-

STANTIA-

LITY OF

THE SON.

166

1 homun-
clones.

[467]

356 Methodius did not exclude the Son from the work of creating.

Father from that of putting them in order when created ;
indeed in the last words of the passage quoted, he says in no
obscure terms, that the Father both created matter and put
it in order through the Son, or in the Son. Besides, how is
it to be supposed that Methodius declared that the Father
created all things out of nothing without the Son, in the very
same passage in which he expressly calls the Son the almighty
Hand of the Father? Did the Father create or make any
thing without His own almighty Hand? What then? we
must here, by all means, repeat what we adduced before ¥
from Huet for the purpose of illustrating a similar passage
from Origen? The substance of it is this: Although the
external works of the Holy Trinity are one and the same, still
both in the sacred Scriptures and in the writings of the
ancients, some are usually assigned to the Father, others to
the Son, and others to the Holy Ghost. So in this passage
Methodius attributes to the Father especially, as the fountain
of Godhead, the creation of things, whilst to the Son he as-
cribes the wise ordering, disposition and adornment of what
were already created; inasmuch as He is usually called the
Reason, the Counsel, and the Wisdom of the Father. In
what sense indeed this is said, it is impossible for us fully to
understand ; but it is utterly foolish and rash at once to re-
ject those points in these mysteries which we puny mortals!
cannot adequately explain. It is certain however that Me-
thodius never dreamt of attributing to the Father the creation
of the world, in such sense as to exclude the Son. For from
this very work On the Creation, Photius in the same place
cod. 235%, and that immediately after the words which Peta-
vius carps at, quotes a passage of Methodius in which the
creation of the world is expressly attributed to the Son. For
even in the same passage Methodius thus comments on those
words of Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth;” “If by ‘the beginning’ any one should
understand Wisdom Herself, he would not err. For She is

7 See c. 10. § 9. of this book, [p. ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ, εἰς ἔργα
800,7 αὐτοῦ, πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με.

* ἀρχὴν δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν σοφίαν λέγων ἣν γὰρ ἀκόλουθον καὶ πρεπωδέστερον,
Tis, οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι. λέγεται γὰρ παρά πάντα ἃ εἰς γένεσιν ἦλθον, εἶναι ταύτης
τινι τῶν EK τοῦ θείου χοροῦ λέγουσα νεώτερα, ἐπεὶ καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς γεγόνασιν.
περὶ αὐτῆς τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον' Κύριος —[Phot, cod. 235. ]

Objections of Sandius answered. — 357

introduced by one of the band of inspired writers’ speaking soox u.
of Herself after this manner, The Lord created? Me, the “§ 10, pee
Beginning of His ways, for His works, He founded Me before yyonyo-
the worlds*. For it was natural and more becoming, that vrvs.

all things that were created should be younger than She, Br
since also it was through Her that they came into being.” 3 ἔκτισε.

And it is clear that by Wisdom is here meant the Son ἦ πρὸ τοῦ

of God. Ἧι eaten
11. Sandius« also objects to Methodius some unseemly γένεσιν

. . Ἐς . . . . λθον.
sentiments® concerning the Trinity, which his editor Possinus ᾧ τα ον

noted in the Symposium. But Photius supplies us with an modas.
answer to this objection; for in cod. 237, he expressly
cautions us respecting the work of Methodius, entitled the
Symposium, that even in his time it had been to a very
great degree altered and interpolated by heretics. These are
Photius’s words; “It is to be noted, that this Dialogue, which
is entitled the Symposion, or Concerning Chastity, 1s very
much corrupted ; for you will find it interpolated both with
- Arian imaginations®, and the fables’ of other heterodox per- ὃ δοξοκο-
sons.” Here, the reader will also observe, as I have done, ᾿ ΠΣ
that, whereas Photius thought it necessary to inform us about γήματα.
the Symposium of Methodius only, that there were found in [458]
it many Arian additions, as also absurdities of other heretics,
he hereby pretty plainly intimates that nothing of the
kind occurred in his other writings, as they were extant in
his own day. For how could Photius have gathered, that
the Symposium of Methodius was corrupted, on the ground
of the vain opinions of Arius occurring in it throughout,
unless it had been clear to him from Methodius’s other
writings, (and they were numerous,) that his uniform teach-
ing concerning the Son of God was entirely repugnant to
the wild notions of the Arians? This surely is a striking
argument for the orthodoxy of Methodius on this article.
Meanwhile, in this very Symposium there remain even at
this day vestiges not a few, of Methodius’s genuine teaching
respecting the Son of God; some of which we have already
pointed out from Photius, and could easily point out more,

4 Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 128. γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ παραβεβλημένας καὶ “Apet-

> σημειωτέον, ὡς οὗτος 6 διάλυγος, ᾧ ανικὰς δοξοκοπίας, καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν κα-

ἐπιγραφὴ Συμπόσιον, ἢ Περὶ ἁγνείας, κοδοξούντων μυθολογήματα.---Ῥδξ. 963.
παρὰ πολὺ νενοθευμένος ἐστίν. εὑρήσεις

Ὁ

858 Arnobius.

ontue if we had thought it worth our while. Enough however,

CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

[460]
168

ARNOBIUS.

[461]

1 Adversus
Gentes,

concerning Methodius.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE OPINION AND FAITH OF ARNOBIUS THE AFRICAN, AND LACTANTIUS,
RESPECTING THE TRUE DIVINITY OF THE SON, IS DECLARED ; THE SECOND
BOOK, ON THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY, IS BROUGHT TO A CLOSE, WITH A
BRIEF CONCLUSION.

1, Turre are two other authors left, who lived shortly
before the Nicene council, Arnobius and Lactantius, the
master and the scholar. The former of these, Arnobius, had
a very flourishing school of rhetoric at Sicca, in Africa, in
the reign of the emperor Diocletian’, as is related by Jerome
in his Catalogue of Eccles. Writers, chap. 90; who also
tells us in his Chronicon, on the twentieth year of Constan-
tine, that this Arnobius, when engaged in instructing youths
in declamation at Sicca, being as yet a heathen, was con-
strained by dreams to become a believer, and yet could not
obtain from the bishops, [admission to] that faith which he
had always impugned; whereupon he composed with great
pains some very clear works against his old religion, and at
length having given these hostages, as it were, of his piety,
was admitted into the covenant. These books were seven
in number, entitled Against the Heathen'. After passing
through various editions, they have at length been published
in 4to., with very learned Variorum notes, in very elegant
type, at Leyden, A.D. 1651. This is the edition which we
shall follow. In this work he frequently, and in most express
terms, acknowledges the true divinity of the Son. In the
first book, in treating of the miracles of Christ, he thus
writes *; “ But it was evident that Christ wrought all those
things which He wrought by the power of His own Name,

¢ He flourished about the year 303. © Atqui constitit Christum sine ulbis
Cave.— Bowyer. adminiculis rerum, sine ullius ritus
ἃ [Vol. ii. p. 903.] observatione, vel lege, omnia illa que

His testimony to the true Divinity of Christ. 359
without any helps from [external] things, without the Ob- ΒΟΟΚ 11.
. ° CHAP. XIV.
servance of any rite, or rule, and, (what was the special pro- 5.1.

perty, suitable to and worthy of the true God,) He bestowed ARNOBIUS.
nothing injurious or hurtful, but what was helpful, salutary,
and full of aiding blessings, in the bountifulness of munificent
power.” Here he expressly declares Christ to be true God.
There is a passage parallel to this, which follows some way
after in the same book, in which, after saying that Christ
“equally relieved the good and the bad,’ he adds these
words; “For this is the property of the true God and of
regal power, to deny His bounty to none.” In the same
book, upon a heathen’s enquiring, “ If Christ were God,
why did He appear in the form of man, and why was
He put to death after the manner of man?” he answers
thusg; “Could that power which is invisible and has no
corporeal substance, present and lend Itself to the world, be
present in the assemblies of men, otherwise than by assum-
ing some covering of more solid matter, such as might meet
the glance of the eye, and on which the gaze of the dullest con-
templation might be able to fix? For what mortal is there
that could have been able to see Him, or to discern Him, if
He had willed to present Himself on earth such as is His
original’ nature, and such as He has willed to be in His
own quality or Deity’? He therefore took on Him the
form of man, and enclosed His power under the likeness of
our race, in order that He might be both seen and beheld.”
In the same place after a few intervening words these fol-
low; “But He was put to death after the manner of man ;
not He Himself; for to perish by death® is not incident to

[462]

1 primi-
genia.
2 numine.

3 mortis
occasus.

fecit, nominis sui possibilitate fecisse;
et quod proprium, consentaneum, dig-
num Deo fuerat vero, nihil nocens, aut
noxium, sed opiferum, sed salutare, sed
auxiliaribus plenum bonis, potestatis
munifice liberalitate donasse.—[ Pag.

25, 26.]
{ Christus equaliter bonis malisque
subvenit.... Hoe est enim proprium

Dei veri potentieque regalis, benigni-
tatem suam negare nulli.— Pag. 29.

¢ [Sed]... si Deus fuit Christus,
cur forma est in hominis visus, et cur
more est interemptus humano? An
aliter potuit invisibilis illa vis, et ha-
bens nullam substantiam corporalem,

inferre et commodare se mundo, con-
ciliis interesse mortalium, quam ut
aliquod tegmen materi solidioris as-
sumeret, quod oculorum susciperet in-
jectum, et ubi se figere inertissime
posset contemplationis obtutus? quis
est enim mortalium, qui quiret eum
videre, quis cernere, si talem voluisset
inferre se terris, qualis ei primigenia
natura est, et qualem se ipse in sua
esse voluit vel qualitate vel numine?
Assumpsit igitur hominis formam, et
sub nostri generis similitudine poten-
tiam suam clausit, ut et videri posset
et conspici.... Sed more est hominis
interemptus; non ipse; neque enim

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.
1 divinas
res.
2 homo
quem.

3 ambages.

4 in nobis.

169

5 ullius
redubita-
tionis am-
biguo.

δ presidem.

[463]

360 Arnobius in express terms declares that the Son

what is divine’, nor can that go to pieces by being dissolved
in destruction, which is one, and simple, and not made up of
the combination of any parts. Who then was seen to hang
upon the cross? who died? The manhood which’ He had
put on, and bore about with Him.” Here he calls the
higher nature of Christ, “a thing divine, incorruptible, one
and simple, made up of no combination of parts,” [qualities |
which cannot be attributed to any created nature.

2. It is, however, unnecessary to lead the reader by these
circuitous ways*. I will bring forward two passages, in
which Arnobius professedly, and in terms as clear as if
written with a.sunbeam, declares the absolute divinity of the
Son. In the first book, he replies to the objection of the
heathen ‘ You worship a man that was born,” in these
words"; “Even if that were true, still on account of the
many and so liberal gifts which have come from Him unto‘
us, He ought to be called and entitled God. But seeing
that He is really and certainly God, without ambiguity or
doubt of any kind®, do you suppose that we shall disown
that we pay Him the highest worship, and call Him the
Guardian® of our body? What then, some one will say,
raging, angry, and excited, ‘Is Christ that God?’ He is
God, our reply will be, even God of the inner powers';
and, what yet more torments unbelievers with most bitter
pangs, sent to us by the supreme King for a matter of the
highest moment.” The other passage also occurring in the
same book’, runs thus: “There was nothing magical, as you
suppose, nothing human, illusive, or deceitful, nothing of

cadere divinas in res potest mortis oc-
casus, nec interitionis dissolutione di-
labi id, quod est unum et simplex, nec
ullarum partium congregatione com-
pactum. Quis est ergo visus in pati-
bulo pendere, quis mortuus est? homo,
quem induerat, et secum ipse portabat.
—Pag. 37, 38.

h Natum hominem colitis? Etiamsi
esset id verum, tamen pro multis et
tam liberalibus donis, que ab eo pro-
fecta in nobis sunt, Deus dici appella-
rique deberet. Cum vero Deus sit re
certa, et sine ullius rei dubitationis (leg.
redubitationis, Bull.) ambiguo, inficia-
turos arbitramini nos esse, quai maxi-
me illum a nobis coli, et prasidem
nostri corporis nuncupari? Ergone,

inquiet aliquis furens, iratus et per-
citus, Deus ille est Christus? Deus,
respondebimus, et interiorum poten-
tiarum Deus; et quod magis infidos
acerbissimis doloribus torqueat, rei
maxime causa a summo rege ad nos
missus.—Pag. 24. [Herald conjectured
redubitationis; Orelli, following Ursi-
nus, would omit rei, there being no
such word as redubitationis. ]

ὁ interiorum potentiarum, [i. 6. over
the highest angelic powers in the inner-
most courts of heaven. ]

ὁ Nihil, ut remini, magicum, nihil
humanum, prestigiosum, aut subdo-
lum, nihil fraudis delituit in Christo,
derideatis licet ex more atque in lasci-
viam dissolvamini cachinnorum. Deus

is God, in the strict use of the Name. ~ COL

fraud concealed in Christ, although you deride, as your way is, 800K 1.

and burst out into unrestrained laughter. He was the High! apie ye

God, God from the inmost root, God from the unknown 4 gnosis.

realms, and sent as God the Saviour from the Sovereign of ! sublimis.

all; with regard to whom neither the sun itself, nor any of

the stars, if they have perception, not the rulers, not the

princes of this world, nor lastly the great gods, or those who,

pretending to be gods, terrify the whole race of mortals,

could know or imagine whence He came, or who He was.”

In these passages, Arnobius expressly teaches, that the Son

is called God, not simply by a figure of speech ’, (as angels, ? abusive.

rulers, and very excellent men are sometimes called gods,)

but in very reality and without ambiguity, that is, most

truly and most properly; and this is a plain condemnation

of the craftiness of the impious Arians, who did not refuse

to call the Son God, but deceived good men by an ambigu-

ous use of the name. Furthermore He designates Him the

High God, God from the inmost root, God the Saviour, God

the object of the very highest worship*, lastly, God incom- * quam

prehensible, whom no creature can comprehend’. What πα.

could have been set forth concerning the Son of God more ἦ capere.

majestic than this? If however, it be a difficulty to any

one, that Arnobius does still call the Father the supreme

King and the Sovereign’ of all; let him know and re- ὅ Princi-

member, (what I am obliged to repeat again and again,) that P°™™

this is by all means to be referred to that pre-eminence ° ὁ ἐξοχὴν.

which belongs’ to the Father, in so far as He is the foun- 7 competit.

tain and head of Divinity, which both the sacred writers and

the fathers, whether Nicene or Antenicene, wished to pre-

sent whole and entire*®, and concerning which we shall treat ὃ sartam

more largely in its proper place*. peat ipa
8. And yet Sandius classes this Arnobius among those voluere.

Antenicene writers who preceded Arius in his heresy. For [464]

in the Index® of his book he writes, “ Arnobius was of ὃ Indice

the same opinion as Arius.” And he there refers his reader ae ae

to the 127th page of his book. Come then, let us see how

ille sublimis fuit, Deus radice ab in- denique dii magni, aut qui fingentes se
tima, Deus ab incognitis regnis, et ab deos genus omne mortalium territant,
omnium Principe Deus Sospitator est unde aut qui fuerit, potuerunt noscere
missus; quem neque sol ipse, neque vel suspicari.—Pag. 32.

ulla, si sentiunt (sentiant, Bull), sidera, k [See book iv. }

non rectores, non principes mundi, non

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 θεάνθρω-
πος.

[466]

362 Sandius’s objections ; refuted.

he there proves that Arnobius was of the same opinion as
Arius? Arnobius,” he says, “taught that it was a matter
of religion to worship a God unbegotten, that the true God
must never have been begotten, that God alone is unbe-
gotten ; that there is one Father of the universe, who is alone ὦ
immortal, and unbegotten, and that nothing whatever ex-
isted before Him; that hence it follows, that all those whom
men have supposed to be gods, are either begotten of Him,
or brought forth at His command: and that, if they have
been brought forth and begotten, they are posterior in order
and time; if they be posterior in order and time, they must
have had an origin, and commencement of birth and life ;
that he is not true God, who has father or mother, grand-
fathers, grandmothers, brothers, and was only lately formed in
his mother’s womb, and finished and perfected in ten months,
who was conceived and born of a woman’s womb, who arrived
at that limit of life by the stages of years; for that the Al-
mighty God is not begotten, but unbegotten*.” But in this
passage, assuredly, Sandius shews himself to be either a most
negligent reader of Arnobius’s writings, or at any rate an
egregious sophist and prevaricator. For what person of
sound mind, who ever attentively read through that master
of African eloquence, can be ignorant, that all this was
spoken by him against the superstition of the heathen, who
used to pay divine honours to mere men, that were born and
died just like themselves? How then does this make any
thing against the true divinity of Christ, God [and] Man!?
Nay, it confirms it. For when Arnobius taught, as San-
dius allows, in the passages cited, that the true God must
be unbegotten, that is, uncreated, and have no beginning
by birth, that is, that He must be eternal; and yet he
affirmed repeatedly and most plainly, (as we have seen,) that
Christ is altogether true God; it follows clearly from this that
Christ in His higher nature, in respect of which He is called
true God, is, according to the opinion of Arnobius, altogether
uncreated and eternal. So from the fact that Arnobius
taught that the true God is one, and yet at the same time
taught that the Son equally with the Father is true God, we
may conclude for certain, that he believed that the Son is

* [Sandius refers generally to lib. 1, 2, and 8. Adv. Gentes. |

Lactantius ; his opinions individually of little weight. 363

one God with the Father, although different in person. As soox mn.

for what Sandius adds in the same passage, namely, that ar ons

Arnobius taught “that Christ came into the world to preserve Arnostus.
the empire of the supreme King,” it is entirely catholic ; so

far forth, that is, as it is referred, as it ought by all means to

be referred, to the humiliation! of the Son, by which, having ‘exinanitio
taken upon Himself the form of a servant, He became obe- idea ]
dient to God the Father. It certainly gives one both pain

and shame to have so often to refute such senseless cavils.

4, We will now briefly treat of the doctrine of Lac- ΉΤΟ
tantius!, the explaining of which will bring this second - ire
book, now more than long enough, to a close. That writer
was almost unacquainted with the Christian system?, and’ oe
better skilled in rhetoric than in theology. Hence Pope
Damasus regarded him as belonging more to the school than
to the Church*?; and Jerome commended him rather for ® scholasti-
his elegant style, than for his accurate knowledge of gospel ge
doctrine. He certainly was never reckoned among the doc- setae
tors of the Church; so that it may scarcely seem worth [466]
while to enquire what he either thought or wrote on this
point. I request the reader, however, to observe and to
admire the influence of catholic tradition. This very Lac-
tantius, although in other parts of his writings, through his
ignorance of the Holy Scriptures and of the doctrine of the
Church, he has made some very absurd, and utterly ridiculous
statements‘, (if indeed it be Lactantius who has made those ‘tradiderit.
statements,) respecting the manner of the generation of the
Son, nevertheless was not ignorant of the chief point itself? ἢ ipsum τὸ
of this doctrine, and consequently taught in his works what Sees
is especially catholic, and diametrically opposed to the Arian
heresy. For he clearly affirms that the Son of God is of one
substance with the Father, and is one God, and contains and
comprehends the whole of the Father. These are his very
words. In book iv. 29, he proposes the heathen objection
against the Christian doctrine concerning the Son of God in
these terms"; “Perhaps some one may enquire how it is,

1 Lactantius flourished in the year duos tamen esse asseveremus, Deum
803. Cave.—Bowyenr. Patrem et Deum Filium; que asseve-
m Vid. book iii, chap. 10. § 20. ratio plerosque in maximum impegit
Ὁ Fortasse querat aliquis, quomodo, errorem. Quibus cum probabilia vi-
cum Deum nos unum colere dicamus, deantur esse que dicimus, in hoc uno

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF

THE SON.

1 nuncu-
pari,

2 faciat.

[467]

364 Lactantius’s answer to difficulties raised by heathens,

that when we say we worship one God, we yet assert that
there are two, God the Father, and God the Son: an asser-
tion which has driven very many into the greatest error ;
who whilst they think what we say probable, still con-
ceive that we are wrong on this one point, that we ac-
knowledge a second, and that a mortal God.” To this objec-
tion he answers as follows, word for word: “Of the mor-
tality we have already spoken; let us now inform you re-
specting the unity. When we speak of God the Father and
God the Son, we do not speak of a different God, nor do we
separate Each [from the Other]; because neither can the
Father exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated
from the Father ; since neither can the Father be [so] called '
without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the
Father. Since then both the Father implies? the Son, and
the Son the Father, Both have one mind, one spirit, one sub-
stance; but the One is, as it were, an overflowing fountain,
the Other is like a stream issuing from it: the One is as the
sun, the Other as a ray darted from the sun ; who, because He
is both faithful and dear to the supreme Father, is not sepa-
rated from Him, as is neither a river from its fountain, nor a
ray from the sun; inasmuch as both the water of the foun-
tain is in the stream, and the light of the sun is in the Taye,
If Lactantius had agreed in opinion with Arius, his answer
to this objection would certainly have been very different :
I mean, very much to this effect ; “You, philosophers, are
much mistaken in supposing that we Christians, in setting
forth God the Father and God the Son, are really introducing
two Gods; seeing that we give the name of God to the
Father and to the Son in entirely different senses; for the
Father alone we call God truly and properly, the Son meta-
phorically and improperly ; since the latter is in truth a mere

labare nos arbitrantur, quod et alterum
et mortalem Deum fateamur. De
mortalitate jam diximus; nune de
unitate doceamus. Cum dicimus Deum
Patrem et Deum Filium, non diversum
dicimus, nec utrumque secernimus ;
quia nec Pater sine Filio esse potest,
nec Filius a Patre secerni; siquidem
nec Pater sine Filio nuncupari, nec
Filius potest sine Patre generari. Cum
igitur et Pater Filium faciat, et Filius

Patrem, una utrique mens, unus Spi-
ritus, UNA SUBSTANTIA est; sed ille
quasi exuberans fons est, hic tanquam
defluens ex 60 rivus: ille tanquam sol,
hic quasi radius a sole porrectus ; qui
quoniam summo Patri et fidelis et ca-
rus est, non separatur, sicut nec rivus
a fonte, nec radius a sole; quia et aqua
fontis in rivo est, et solis lumen in
radio.—[ Lactant. Divin. Instit. iv. 29.
vol. 1, p. 850, 351. ]

clearly implies that the catholic was the received doctrine. 365

creature, alien from the essence of God and made out of Βοοκ 1.

nothing, being admitted by adoption and grace only unto the
honour and dignity of the divine name.” Lactantius, how-
ever, did not dream of any thing of this sort; the catholic
doctrine respecting the Son of God was too well known for
even him to publish such ravings as the tenets of Chris-
tians. How then does he untie the knot? he confesses
according to the belief of the Christians, that the Son equally
with the Father is truly and properly called God ; inasmuch
as He has not only one mind, but one Spirit also, and one
substance with the Father, (the very thing which the Nicene
fathers meant, when they decreed that God the Father and
God the Son were of one substance',) though he strenuously
contends that it is by no means true that two Gods are
preached among the Christians. And this he explains in two
ways; first, God the Father and God the Son exist, not
separately, as two men, but undivided the One from the
Other, so that the Father is in the Son and the Son in
the Father; exactly as the sun and the ray, or the foun-
tain and the stream, are no way separated the one from
the other. Secondly, there is one fountain and principle
of Godhead, namely, the Father, from whom the Son is
derived, like the ray from the sun, or the stream from the
fountain. What could have been said in a way more agree-
able to catholic truth? that is to say, it was precisely in the
same way that all the orthodox fathers, both the Antenicene
and those who flourished after the Nicene council, explained
the unity of the Father and the Son, as we shall shew here-
after. Here, indeed, some persons find fault with this,
that Lactantius compares God the Father to an overflowing
fountain, as if, that is, the Son were only a rivulet issuing
from that fountain, and a diminished portion of the Father’s
substance. They, however, have always appeared to me to
be most unfair, who would thus cut to the quick? whatever
similes the ancients employed to illustrate, as well as they
might®, the ineffable mystery of the divine generation. That
Lactantius certainly did not mean any thing of that kind is
clear from his own express words, which follow in the same

° See what we have observed on Tertullian in the 7th chap. of this book,
§ 5. [p. 199.] ᾿

CHAP. XIV.
ἃ 4. 4

LaAcTAN-
TIUS.

1 ὁμοουσί-
ous.

[468]

2 ad vivum
resecant.

3 utcunque,

ON THE
CONSUB-
STANTIA-
LITY OF
THE SON.

1 transfluit.

171

2 rebus.

[469]

B36 ἡ
ὁμοού-
σιος.

4 τὸ ὑπε-
ρέχον.

5 de ejus-
dem con-
sectarlis
et consen-
taneis.

366 Proposition of this Second Book recited.

chapter’: “ Wherefore,” he says, “since the mind and will —
of Each is in the Other, or rather is one in Both, Both are
justly called one God; because whatsoever is in the Father
flows ' over to the Bai and whatsoever is in the Son, descends —
from the Father.” If whatsoever is in the exuberant foun-
tain of Godhead, which is called the Father, does all flow
over to the Son, (which Lactantius expressly asserts,) then
certainly the Son is not, properly speaking, a portion of the
Godhead, but God of God, Whole of Whole, Perfect of Per-
fect, as we have already heard the Creeds of Gregory Thau-
maturgus and Lucian the martyr declare. Parallel to this is
what Lactantius says respecting the Son of God, book 1. 94 ;.
namely, that God the Father “ employed’ Him “as His
counsellor and artificer, in devising, adorning, and perfecting
the universe”; seeing that. He is perfect in providence, in
reason, and in power.” Lactantius, therefore, did not dream
of any thing diminished or ΠΕ erect in the Son of God. So
far of Lactantius.

5. And thus have we at length, by the clearest testi-
monies adduced from each one of the Antenicene writers, of
whom we had been able to discover either entire works, or
even any fragments,—abundantly proved our second pro-
position, which was this; ‘It was the settled and unanimous
opinion of the catholic doctors, who flourished in the first
three centuries, that the Son of God was of one substance®
or consubstantial with God the Father, that is, that He was
not of any created or mutable essence, but of altogether the
same divine and unchangeable nature with His Father, and,
therefore, Very God of Very God.” If, however, any one
wonder that our second book has grown to this length, I
would wish him to reflect, that herein we have explained out
of the writings of the ancients the chief point? of the doctrine
respecting the divinity of the Son ; and that in the remaining
books we shall only have to treat of the consequences of that
doctrine, and of its collateral points’. On this the hinge of

? Quapropter cum mens et voluntas iv. 29. p. 352.]
alterius in altero sit, vel potius una in 4 Et consiliatore usus est et artifice
utroque, merito unus Deus uterque in excogitandis, ornandis perficiendis-
appellatur; quia quicquid est in Patre que rebus; quoniam is et providentia,
ad Filium transfluit, et quicquid in οἵ ratione, et potestate perfectus est.—
Filio, a Patre descendit.—[ubi supr. [10]14,, ii. 9. p. 145.)

Conclusion. 367

the controversy turns: on this therefore it was necessary for
us to bestow the greatest pains. Besides in this book most

BOOK fl.
CHAP. XIV.
ἢ 4, 5.

of the writers of the first three centuries come to be spoken Concuv-
of for the first time, and it was important that the reader ‘10%

should in some degree be made acquainted with their his-
tory; and when this is done once, there will be no occasion
in what follows to make any mention of their age, authority,
or other matters connected with them. Many writings also
of the ancients are here for the first time cited, about which it
is matter of controversy among the learned whether they are
really the works of the authors whose names they bear; much
of our labour therefore in this book has been spent in critical
discussions of this kind, which are of especial need for decid-
ing the question of which we are treating. Now, however,
that the genuine writings of each author have been once for
all vindicated, and the spurious rejected, it will hereafter
be hardly necessary, when we have occasion again to quote
these writers or their works, to detain the reader by contro-
versies of this nature. In a word, as I do not see how I
could have given full satisfaction to the studious reader, if I
had used greater brevity in elucidating and establishing the
subject of this second book, so I trust that in what relates to
the following books, I shall say what may suffice at least
for the impartial reader. To the remainder of our subject,
therefore, let us now, with God’s blessing, proceed.

[470]

OXFORD :
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.

MOR ea oie fe eee
Po
δ Bre ᾿

BT 990 855 1851
vol She
Bull, George, 1634-1710.

Defensio fidei Nicaenae
= @ Gefence of the
ἈΚΙ 5595 tsi)

ne
o Teele cet acta
᾿
“at ΤΗΣ ¢
4 ome re ἮΝ
at tls

Ber
8 ἘΣ ΠΝ
‘ i
ἊΝ

ae δ
Ξ eee

Hatt
Hie mu

wR
naaits ἐν st

aoe
ris

ohh

erect
par
ts

*
Aarateae

Fak

itt
Rent ἢ en ats aes sai ἣν
ὌΡΗ pisbre rf
Heke
i

307
rs
τ
Na ae
PM μ Re
δ» Δ λα αν. ἐξ +
PIU G

ὯΝ
- 7 is
psi pier, i ae
Si nee

: Pray
ameteaat yt £
pack

yn vest
reas se

nqotrent
Pet aw τον, τὸ
S

1}
Ἀν"
δι;

δι

δὲ ᾿

ples Ἢ

ee Chae By

pe Rehab ey
rn

Tees

‘its
SEELEY Hie

rh teen 7d

ry wee

He akaseneee bie i

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Defensio fidei Nicaenae = a defence of the Nicene Creed : out of the extant writings of the Catholick doctors, who flourishsed during the three first centuries of the Christian Church"

See other formats