es sits at ‘: seineiseneipists reality ati 4 i iH te Ht ieeebieatntt De Te a Seascale Getta uteateerims teeter ot pete Hepty atte i " iY if ate aa tie rretuts ey ij i iatateretan Potrinatttr Pagel ete faite Hie eters et : eet 555 : ~3 atetatese cat ieee ina Me whe ; aes he ite ates oes * Hiatt ts . Se iysttetesepeptstocereteetsss® ret “Jeeres take tgsate: os Belg tet ete! oe ae caret _ : : (aatete i Mabien Hits gs eras exis) Sts < eee styeeteresigtaeates 3 = kes we ute. ve se ta 29 =9 Settee SSEneR ai i Shes 33 siiptateteres setae ctekarstestitgtakete, agree ieee sa sit erstebate arb tetgea tetera Fe mas sitet “. event eocstt pelimemee ast tebe Sepaatesigs tee 3 raga tee ay 4. Meets Sat alot os te eter = Piste srr ycatt aH Sierita be piears tet Me crest * : i : pean teat i if 21) Tstathel f it ahi eigi ; pat ts Ht mirira bit pet fait ; : ast i tit ath eects At : Hy eaey atti eh atest ait nt Sore ae at i d - i 7 i atu ‘ i i ey it ih . j iff Sth Be ata oe eaten ae ania re pont ah ia) rh s % i 2 i + ; meestitoaetaAtye wR tahes ns hea thet ass br i ae ty ehShe BO Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY D377 PRESENTED BY Samuel Agnew, Esq. of Philadelphia 1861 BT 111 .B766 1840 Brooksbank, Charles. A prize dissertation on the doctrine of faith in the ae ip é eu : ie \ a1 , ‘él i ad , i Veh yan ‘ f [ 7 rd ‘y tah ve nt ni a ta MEME UAL ea ON i ; Re ea Vie in ” vv re mh } Ai A ie ae if ‘ ee ene ie / vu Mi I a Ne 4 kA Wit oe 7%! pia g me aay fy fa prance ra AN anh yar é ; Bills, a ee : ; ‘ ' A ie Berar ae > ) . ' ‘ a A 7 ee * ® y y - vy é “— ie eae 4 ihe a 258 Nipadie. ERS eel OE Pi Lari. ees weet ‘ ae c aR adie! sya rs , fh) a . ; ' Wp . 4 i ‘ set f ¥ ai Iss 7 2 4 7 ee Pe “ a eee 4 PS ; % 4 ' ; ] os P . r fae (4744 ’ f 17 i } 4 -; ba x , oj 4 a owe Ah Md 2 , i 5 ae — 2 oL hey G ' ; eT a * gate ee. v r 4 es oe) Ga 4 > s-9 4 “47, ‘ ie te toa Sark Pepe Bis bee Bb POD, Shy Fr ter @ dnt i yh re sikey ayy . 14 t i a oer ‘ ; sj : aay ee I ’ he : Pie As ‘ ee vars ch o, Srtste aiee-y Yh OS ae ‘ ; re, soe 4 ~~ wre ak. ya Pag Led rae hats Fees te 8 $7. hE ah at J ae ee Coe haf Pet gy Pad ae! ‘ * oe ‘ q =F pi « + 4 ’ f =p \-« be . - 7 ° ye ; ’ ; ona ~~ ey gd y : a jy LOM Ras heyy rie ered GAME Rees Duinks oan a pore “wha = yds y a x , "i ‘ os _ : fot ‘ i 7 d r m6 , 4“ *% Pe. ’ ¥ ne ig Ue i ve ; y ; be F in (yk ALS (' Xa Bl Yaa ¢ a ie. Ts. ERY Sa be! ag 1 ; : , . j 2 Pye ‘he - oi 3 cs rs Oa ‘ ‘ . oa H AB. a Fink. ay (es z 3 “a ii ] ou Y kes i f a. 1 rs heel ; we ? bs coe bene +i Ate of Ata eonkety ek Woe a be a ? > A€yw To.ovroy tatly: Ev apiOug Tov KOcpoy Eivat gapev, Ar ody Eva ™ puvaet, AXN ovd arAody Tiva TOUTOY: TéuvOpEY yap adroy, ‘ = , ~ ~ 1 / mr ei¢ ra && wy ovvéatyKe ororyeta, cic TUP Kat VOwp, Kal Aépa Kal yiy madty 6 dvOpwrog cig apiOug dvopalerar Eva yao a&vOpwrov B 10 it were the aggregate of certain numerical parts, but one in the strictest sense possible, being always per- fect and entire in itself, and incapable of any sepa- ration whatever. The Church, in her formularies of Faith, has stated the Doctrine in the following words: “ There is but one living and true God . . . and in unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons, of one sub- stance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”* It will be the object of this Dissertation, to prove that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as it is thus taught in the Articles and Creeds of the Church of England is Scriptural, Catholic, and Necessary to be believed in order to salvation. Whether the Jews, anterior to the birth of our Lord, had any definitive notions of the Triune God, , 3 ~ z mohdakte héyopuev- GAN ovy amOvE TLC OuTOE EoTLY, EK CwpaToc, Kal ef ee, / e , EE : of (0tQue Zoov e a WUXNC TVVEOTHC: Opotwe dE Kal ayyedor, Eva aplOuM EpovpEV, AX e ~ : \ ~ , ‘ ? ~ ~ OVX Eva TH MvaEl, ove aroOdY: odciay yap pEO AyLvacpod THY TOU ’ / Cy ’ ~ ? ; ~ Va ’ ~» ~to ayyé\ou vroaracty Evvoovper: Ev Tolvuy Tay 70 Ev apLOuM Ev TH PUcEL Re Oe oe bata Are ~ / \r 8 ~ tN Kd of e ~ \ OUK EOTt, Kal TO EY TH HucEL Kal ATAOUY, Ev APLOU® OvK EaTL, HpEtC OE ef ~ / \ w~ ~ Aeyouey Eva TH Poe Oeov, wHC EvEtodyovo tiv roy apiOpor, is AN U and ’ sp ~ ~ avrov ravrTn tuwy eLopilovTwy THC praxaplac éxelvne Kal vonrijc r Agt \ ’ \ of ~ U \ t ~ ~ pucewc; 0 yp apiOpog EoTe TOU TOGOV- TO dé TOGOY TH owpaTiKH / / e ~ ’ \ ~ ~ pucel ovvecevkTat, 0 your aoiuoe Tij¢ TWMATLKIC pucewe: owLATwY \ \ \ raf ~ ms ~ dé Onjuovoyoy tov Kopwy ior eivac TEMLOTEUKApEY. OLO Kal Tac > 9 YF Pee -™ , , ; p>: 7” X Sa \ of , apo exetva onpaiver Ta evvdoy Kal TEovypaTTiy exe hayovTa THY Huo H de povic Kat Evac THE awARe Kal d&reEotNT val IY puoty. C€ povac Kat Evac THC awAHe Kal &repidhrTOV ovoiag éori onpayvreky. —Basil, tom. iil. Epist. viii. 2. fol. Paris, 1730. ey; PRY 11 is a question that has not been very clearly deter- mined. Most probably the subject was only seen by them as “ through a glass darkly.” But though the ancient Jews may not have attamed unto the knowledge of the Trinity, it does not follow that their volume was destitute of evidence. It may, on the contrary, be found, through the me- dium of a subsequent revelation, to be replete with that doctrine. Many passages of the New Testa- ment are in themselves dark and obscure; but through the medium of the Old Testament they suddenly become clear and perspicuous; and in like manner many things which were doubtlessly hidden from the Jew, we, by help of the New, readily per- ceive. We need not therefore be surprised, if the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, like other doctrines, was not clearly perceived by the Jew, who had not the assistance of the New Testament. * I have here stated my impression, after a diligent perusal of “ Dr. Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church.”? The extreme caution that is necessary in admitting the paraphrases and tar- gums of the ancient Rabbins, and the conclusive evidence that may be furnished that Philo wrote after the birth of Christ, renders, in my opinion, any greater concession than is here made ha- zardous and questionable. In “ Bryant’s Sentiments of Philo concerning the Logos,” published at Cambridge, 1797, the reader will find, from p. 30 to p. 221, a perfect refutation of the argu- ments which Dr. Allix, Mangey, and Basnage, have advanced in support of the antiquity of Philo’s writings, as well as some very clear proofs that Philo had seen some of the writings of the Evan- gelists, and was well acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity. Bev 12 On comparing the writings of the Old Testament with those of the New, it may now be seen that the doctrine of the Trinity was written in very legible characters on the page of Moses. It appears that the dealings of God in the Old Testament were as unquestionably set forth by Moses to be the dealings of the Triune God, as those in the New are described to be so by the Evan- gelists. And it will be no inconsiderable argument in proof of the eternal and determinate counsel of God to reveal to mankind the mystery of the Trinity in Unity, if I shew, by comparing the two Covenants together, that as nearly,as the two dispensations resemble each other, 2. e., as the Old Testament is the exact type of the New, so nearly does the rela- tion which Moses has given of the Trinity in Unity coincide with that which has been given by the Evangelists. } In both Testaments the First Article of Faith is represented to be belief in the Unity of the Divine Essence. ‘The first of all commandments,” says our Saviour, quoting the words of Moses, is, ‘ Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord.”? ‘ Daniel Zuicker, a Prussian Socinian, asserted that the Pla- tonic school was the founder of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Itis my object to shew, by a comparison of the Old and New Testa- ments, that the doctrine claims a more ancient founder than Plato, and that Plato rather borrowed from Moses than the early Trini- tarians from Plato. * Mark xii, 29; Deut. vi. 4. 13 In both Testaments, where the Deity is described as Creating the world, Redeeming his people, or Conducting them into a land of rest, either in a literal sense or in a spiritual sense, we are taught to discern in either instance the dealings, not of an Unipersonal, but a Triune God. The Creator of the Universe is called by Moses “ Elohim,” “ G'ods,”! by Solomon “ Creators,”? by Isaiah “ Makers :’* in either of which instances * Gen. i. 1. * Eccles. xii. 1. * Isai. liv. 5. There is no figure of speech, nor grammatical construction, by which it is possible to convey the idea of a Plu- rality of Persons in the Godhead, that has not been employed by ‘the writers of the Old Testament. First. Moses commences the history of the Creation by saying, “* In the beginning (Bara Elohim) the Gods created.’? Gen. i. 1. He might have said (as Dr. Allix has well observed in his “ Judg- ment of the Jewish Church,” p. 94) “ Jehovah Bara ;?? Jehovah being the proper name by which God made himself known to Moses, and by him to His people. Exod. iii. 15. Or he might have said “ Eloah Bara,’’ and so he had joined the singular number of “ Elohim,”’ which signifies God, with the verb “ Bara,” which is also the singular number, and signifies ‘“‘ Created.”? But Moses uses the plural word, Elohim, with a verb of the singular number, and he repeats it thirty times in the history of the Cre- ation only, though this word denotes a plurality in the Divine nature, and not one single person. Secondly. God is represented, in the History of the Creation, as speaking to some one thus—“ Let such a thing be made;”’ and then it follows, “it was made.” And again,—“‘ God said,” and ** God said.”? These expressions are very remarkable, when we consider that there were neither angels nor men at that time to 14 there is a direct intimation of a plurality of persons united in the substance of the Creator. In the following passages we are distinctly told that the Creator is Jehovah, the Word, and the Spirit. In Isaiah “ Jehovah” speaks in the following ex- clusive words:—‘‘ I am the Lord that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself’? But notwithstanding these exclusive words “ by myself,’ David says of Christ, ““O my God, of old hast thou laid the foun- dations of the earth.”* Job also, “ The Spirit of obey or hear God’s voice ; and they are repeated no less than eight times in one chapter. Thirdly. God is represented as communing and sitting in coun- cil with others. ‘ Let ws make man in owr image and after our likeness.” Gen, i. 26. “ Adam is become as one of us.”” Gen, iii. 22. “ Let us godown and confound theirlanguage.”? Gen. xi. 7. Fourthly. The following grammatical constructions are used. 1. Aplural noun joined with a verb singular.‘ In the begin- ning the Gods created the heaven and the earth.’ Gen.i.l. “If I am Masters where is my fear?” Mal. i. 6. 2. A plural noun joined with a verb plural. ‘“* And Jacob called the name of the place Bethel, because the Gods there ap- peared to him when he fled from the face of,” &c. Gen. xxxy. 77. 3. A plural noun joined with an adjective plural. “ You can- not serve the Lord, for He is the Holy Gods.” Josh. xxiv. 19. Many other instances of similar grammatical constructions may be found in Allix’s Judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 95, 96; and in Jones’s Theological and Miscellaneous Works, vol. i. p. 56—65. ' Tsai. xliv. 24. * Psal. cii. 24,25. That David addresses the second Person of the Trinity is evident, from Heb. i. 8. 15 God hath made me.”? “ By His Spirit He hath garnished the heavens.” God, therefore, who created the world by Himself, is, according to Moses, Jehovah, the Word, and the Spirit. In the New Testament, where the new creation, of which the old was evidently the type, is set forth, the Evangelists tell us, that “ God, for his great love wherewith He loved us.... hath quichkened us.”* But they also tell us, that as the Father raiseth the dead and guickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.”* And again, ‘tas the Spirit that quickeneth.”* God, therefore, who quickeneth the heart of man; or, the Creator of the new universe, is, according to the Evangelists, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. We find the Redeemer also of mankind described in both Testaments in the same terms as the Creator of mankind. He is represented both by Moses and the Evangelists as one of Three Persons who are each very God. Isaiah’s words are express on this matter. He in- troduces the Redeemer, saying :—‘ Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy one of Israel, [ am the Lord thy God.”® But notwithstanding this declara- tion of the Redeemer’s Godhead, the Redeemer adds in the very same breath, “ And now the Lord God ' Job xxxiil. 4. * Job xxvi. 13. ® Eph. i. 4. * John v. 21. * Jobn vi. 63. * Tsai. xlvin. 17. 16 and fis Spirit hath sent Me; clearly shewing that there are two other Persons who are of the same substance, very God with Himself. The relation of the Redeemer in the New Testa- ment is precisely the same. The Redeemer attests his own Divine Essence by declaring, “ I and my Father are One.”* He speaks also emphatically of Three Persons; for He declares that the Father had sent Him ;* and that the Spirit had anointed Him for His office.* The account which is given of the Being who Protected and Guided Israel into Canaan, conveys also the same intimation of a Triune God. When the redemption of Israel had been accomplished, -_—_— * Isai. xlviii, 16. Origen gives a different reading of this verse, and makes the following remark :—“ ric éorly 6 ép To Hoaig Aéywr ; kal viv xvpiog amréorere pe kat ro Uvetpa abrov. éy 3 &ppePorov ovroc rod pyrow worepov 6 Ilarip cat rd “Aytoy IIvevpua anéorei\ay roy “Incovy 4 6 Warp dréoreine roy re Xptorov cal rd “Aywy Ivetpa- 70 devrepov gory adnbec.”—Origen Contr. Cels. hb. i. The observation is very just, for we nowhere read in the Scriptures that Christ was sent by the Spirit, but everywhere that both Christ and the Spirit were sent by the Father, called in the text “‘ Lord God.” But the argument which springs from this passage in proof of the Trinity remains the same whichever way we read it. And as I have adopted the reading of our authorized version, I have given a sense in which the Spirit may, with strict propriety, be said to have sent Christ, 7.e., by descending upon Him, and anointing Him for the work of His ministry. * John x. 30. * John vii. 28, 29. * John i. 33; Luke iv. 18, 21. 17 The Lord of Hosts made a covenant with his people, saying, “ I will dwell among the children of Israel and will be their God. And they shall know that | am the Lord their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I am the Lord their God.”! Now, in Haggai, The Lord of Hosts appeals to the words of this cove- nant and says, “ According to the words that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you.”* But the words of the covenant are not that the Spire, but that The Lord of Hosts would dwell among Israel. The Lord of Hosts, therefore, by declaring that He had fulfilled the words of His covenant, and that He had fulfilled it by causing His Spirit to dwell with Israel, has identified the presence of the Spirit with His own presence, which is a direct assertion that He and the Spirit are of one essence. Isaiah* carries the information a step further, and declares that the presence of the Spirit is the presence of the Saviour as well as of the Lord of Hosts. In the New Testament the Spirit is represented as having been sent to fulfil the same office as it was in the days of Moses, 7. e., to “ teach mankind, and to reprove the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.” * The Godhead of the Spirit is also described in a ‘Ex. xxix.45, 46. * Hag. ii. 5. Vide App. p. 71, note (a). $ Tsai. lxii. 8, 10. 4 John xvi. 8. : 18 similar manner; for in whomsoever the Spirit dwells, that body is declared to be the temple of God,' and also of the Saviour Christ. Thus we see that the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity in Unity holds a very conspicuous place in both Testaments. It has been shadowed out, first by Moses, and afterwards by the Evangelists, in the three works of the Creation, Redemption, and the Entrance of Israel into Canaan. And in each Testament, when God is described as the Creator, or the Redeemer, or the Guide of His people, He is in each instance described, not as an Unipersonal God, but as a Triune God. He is represented either as one God, in the unity of which Godhead there are three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Word, and the Spirit : or else, which is the same thing, three persons are set forth, each of which are pronounced to be very God, and our adoration restricted to one God. I have now sufficiently pointed out the striking analogy which exists between the revelation which Moses has made of the doctrine of the Trinity, and that which has been made by the Evangelists ; and it only remains for me to shew the powerful man- ner, in which the doctrine which I have endeavoured to deduce from the two Testaments, is attested by other passages of Scripture. By three® Evangelists we are assured, that. when "1 Cor. iii, 16, 17; Rom. viii. 9. * Matt. iii. 16, 17; Marki. 10, 11 > Luke iii. 21, 22. 19 our Saviour was standing upon the brink of the river Jordan, “ The heavens opened, the Spirit was seen descending and lighting upon the Son of God in a bodily shape like a dove; and a voice (which was neither that of Christ nor of the Spirit) was heard proceeding out of Heaven, saying, thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.” When Christ was about to depart from the world He gave commandment to His disciples to “ go teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And when the Apostle of the Gentiles gives his parting benediction to the Church, it is in these words, “ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.”? 1 Matt. xxviii. 19. Vide Appendix, p. 72, note (/). 22 Cor. xiii. 14. The order in which the Sacred Three are placed by the writers of the New Testament is by no means un- worthy of attention. In Matt. xviii. 19, the order is Father—Son—Holy Ghost. In the present instance it is Son—Father—Holy Ghost. In 2 Thess. iii. 5, it is Holy Ghost—Father—Son. A clear proof that the Apostles and Evangelists considered “ the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to be all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.” I have not brought forward the celebrated passage in St. John’s Epistle—“ There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one,” 1 John v. 7—because many learned men have differed in opinion respecting its genuineness. Vide “A Selection of Tracts and 20. It was the pride of Sabellius to deny the doctrine of the Trinity by asserting that the Word and Spirit are not real persons, distinct from the Father, but energies only of God. Arius, running into the opposite extreme, admitted them to be two real and distinct’ persons, but denied the doctrine by asserting that they are not of one substance with the Father. A slight examination of Scripture will show the necessity of maintaining, in opposition to both these assertions, that the Word and the Spirit are real and distinct persons from the Father, and are of one substance with the Father. There are many passages in the Old Testament which speak of a Being emphatically called “ The Angel' of the Lord;” who, in his appearances and promises to the patriarchs, made frequent display a ence eee Se ees ee, Observations on 1 John v. 7.”? in two parts, collected and pub- lished in London, 1824.—Horne’s Introd. Holy Script. vol. iv. p. 448—470. ‘The phrase ‘ Angel of the Lord,” says Horsley, ‘‘ which oc- curs in the English Bible, is a phrase of an unfortunate structure, and so ill conformed to the original, that it is to be feared it has led many into the error of conceiving of ‘ the Lord? as one person, and of ‘the Angel’ as another. The word of the Hebrew, ill rendered * the Lord,’ is not, like the English, an appellative, expressing rank or condition, but it is the proper name, ‘Jehovah.’ And this proper name, ‘ Jehovah,’ is not in the Hebrew a genitive after the noun-substantive, ‘ Angel,’ as the English represent it ; but the words 77 and JNM, ‘ Jehovah’ and ‘ Angel,’ are two substantive nouns in apposition, both speaking of the same per- son, the one by the appropriate name of the Essence, the other by 21 of the divine attributes, omniscience,' omnipresence,” omnipotence ;? not only received, but demanded divine worship from the ancient worthies;* pro- fessed® himself to be God; and is pronounced, in the most unequivocal language, both by the persons to whom He appeared and the inspired penmen who have recorded those manifestations to be God.° These circumstances render it conclusive that the Being who, though he appeared as angel, could not be a created being. It was, therefore, an uncreated being. But it could not be the Father, for He has never” manifested Himself; and the answer which was made to Manoah furnishes positive evidence that it was the Word, “ Why inquirest thou of my name,” says the angel, “seeing it is Secret,”* (margin) a title of office. ‘ Jehovah-Angel’ would be a better rendering. The ‘ Jehovah-Angel’ of the Old Testament is no other than He who in the fulness of time was incarnate, by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary.’’—Biblical Crit. vol. iv. p. 314. * Gen. xviii. 12. 15. * Gen. xvi. 13. *Gen. xvi. 10; xvii. 19; xvii. 10; xxxv. 9.11; compare Num. xxi. 35, with xxiii. 4, 5. * Ex. 11.5; Josh. v. 14, 15; Judges xiii. 16. * Ex. iii. 2; Judges vi. 11, 12. * Gen. xvi. 13; xxxii. 24. 30. Jacob enquires of the Angel who wrestled with him, “ What is thy name?’ Gen. xxxii. 26. The question is answered by Hosea, xii. 3. 5, who says it was ‘¢ The Lord of Hosts.” 7 John i. 18; v.37; vi. 46; Col.i.15; 1 Tim.i. 17; vi. 16. ® The name assumed by the angel is, in the Hebrew, N55, which properly signifies “ wonderful,” “ extraordinary,”’ ‘* marvellous.’ pe). “ Wonderful,” which is the very title employed by Isaiah to distinguish the Word. Therefore, since the Word is that Being who manifested Himself as “ The Angel of the Lord,’ we come to the conclu- sion that the Word is a person distinct from the person of the Father, and yet of one substance with Him. The conversations which he held with the Patriarchs prove that He is a person, 2. ¢., a real intelligent Being. The open manifestations which He made of Himself that He is a person distinct from Him who has never manifested Himself. The divine attributes which he displayed, and the testi- monies which were given to Him, that he is of a nature uncreate, and, therefore, of one substance with the Father. The name, or rather the descriptive term, “ Je- hovah,”’ which is borne by, and so frequently ap- plied to, the Word, is another powerful proof of His divine nature. No created being can be Jeho- vah. Itis adirect contradiction of terms. It is the same as to call a created being an uncreated being. “ Jehovah” signifies “ The immutable necessary Self- a a a ne eas il lita hs The same word 55, is applied to the Messiah, Isai. ix. 5. The Greek interpreters seem to have been fully impressed with the idea that the Messiah was to be the Angel of the Lord. Their translation of Isai. ix. 5, runs thus :—“ ére raddoy evevviOn hypir, vide Kat 060 iptv ov t apy) eyevynOn ext rov @pLov avrod Kal kaXirae To Ovopa abroo Meyadne Bovdne "Ayyedoc.?>—Vide Allix Judg. Jewish Church, p. 88. ' Vide Appendix, p. 74, note (y). 23 Existent ;’ and to admit that a being is “ Jehovah” is to admit that that being is “ Zhe immutable necessary Self-Existent.” It may appear, perhaps, contrary to a pre-con- ceived opinion, that it is satisfactorily to be proved from Scripture itself, that the Word is the very Being who appeared with such awful majesty upon Mount Sinai.’ In the 4th chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul interprets the 68th Psalm, and ' The two facts which I have endeavoured to prove from Scrip- ture, viz., “that the Word appeared on Mount Sinai,” and was “ the God of Abram, Isaac, &c.”’ were facts admitted by all the earliest Fathers. In Bull’s Defensio Fidei Niczene, cap. i.,—Burton’s Testimonies of the Antenicenes to the Divinity of Christ, p. 38. 40,—and Waterland’s First Defence, p. 29. 32, the reader will find the currency of this opinion fully attested by co- pious extracts from Justin Martyr, Irenzeus, Clemens Alexan- drinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Novatian, and others. Dr. Allix, in his “ Judgment of the Jewish Church,” says that he will take upon himself to prove, in chapters xiil., Xiv., Xv. of his work, “ that all the appearances of God, or of the Angel of the Lord, which are spoken of in the Books of Moses, and in Moses’ time, and in the Books of the Old Testament after Moses’ time, have been referred to the Word of God by the Jews, before Christ’s incarnation.” I scruple, for the reasons assigned above, p. 11, note (1), to admit that all the Jewish writers which the Dean has quoted, lived be- fore Christ’s incarnation ; but it is quite certain, from the testi- monies which he has brought forward, that the opimion which was so common among the early Christian Church, was univer- sally admitted by the early Jewish Church also. 24 tells us that David spoke of the Word when he said, ‘“‘ Thou hast led captivity captive.” But by comparing the 17th and 18th verses of that Psalm together, it is clear that the same who “ led captivity captive” appeared on Mount Sinai. There- fore, if it was the Word who “led captivity captive,” it is obvious that it was the Word who appeared on Mount Sinai. The 9th chapter of Nehemiah challenges a still further investigation, and discovers the Word to be that Being to whom the Israelites were wont to pray, and acknowledge as the Lord God of Israel—the Lord alone. In the prayer which is mentioned in that chapter, after the Levites had enumerated the dealings of the God of Israel in choosing Abram, and bringing him from Ur of the Chaldees; in hearing the cry of his people in Egypt; dividing the red sea before them ; and leading them by a cloudy pillar by day, and a pillar of fire by night; there are these words (verse 13),—“ Thou camest down also on Mount Sinai.” Now, it was before proved upon the testimony of Paul and David, that the Word appeared on Mount Sinai. It is plain, therefore, that the Word is the Being set forth in the early part of the prayer, who called Abram, took Israel for his portion, rescued them out the hands of the Egyptians, and was worshipped by them as the Lord God of Israel. In short, that the Word is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. 25 In the New Testament, little of that research is necessary which is required in the Old ee to trace the divinity of the Word. We are told in explicit terms, that Christ has “created adl things;”' that He “ upholdeth all things ;”’ and “ by Him all things consist.”* Nei- ther of which expressions would be admissible if the Word Himself had been created, or was dependent upon a Superior Being. He is called “ Im- manuel,”* or “ God with us;” “I am,’® or “The necessary Self-Existent.” Many expressions also are to be found, such as the following :—“ In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ;’* “ God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself;’’ “ He that hath the Father hath the Son: He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”* Proofs such as these are too plain to require any comment. Other proofs equally demonstrative of our Lord’s Divinity may be drawn by comparing passages of the Old Testament with passages of the New; by which it will be seen that the two Testaments would contradict each other upon the Arian hypothesis, that Christ is not of one substance with the Father. In Isaiah, Jehovah declares, “I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God besides me.” But St. John writes, “In the beginning 1 Coli. 16% * Matt. i. 23. - 72 Cor. v. 19. 2 Heb:1i 3. ° John viii. 58. 8 John xiv. 9. PA Oleisel Ts *Qols oe 9: ° Tsai. xlv. 5. e: 26 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”* In the Old Testament it is written, “ Thou, even Thou only, i. e., Jehovah, knowest the hearts of all the children.”? In the New it is written, “ He, 2. e., Christ, knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.” ? “ Thou‘ shalt worship,” says the Saviour, “ the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” ‘“ Let all the angels of God,” says David, “ worship Hina. eg Ghrist:. ‘“ Before me,” says Isaiah, “ there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. — I, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour.’’® “Unto you,” says the angel, ‘is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.’”? We may notice also the following titles by which the Divinity of our Lord has been acknowledged. He is called, our God-—our Great God*—our Mighty God*’—the True God!—the Lord of Glory"—the King of Kings ’’—and Lord of Lords"*—the Alpha and Omega—the Beginning and the End, Which is, and Which was, and Which is to come, the Almighty." ‘ John i, 1. ° Tsai. xltii. 10, 11. "1 Cor. i. 8. > 1 Kings viii. 39. * Luke ii. 11. Rev. xvii. 14; xix. 16. s John 11, 249252" Tit: mesla. 1 Tim. vi. 15. 4 Matt. iv. 10. * TsaivaxsGs ead. |: Ss Reve. a teem > Heb. i. 6. 0 1 John v. 20. 27 I shall now consider those passages of Scripture which relate to the Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Much information respecting the Third Person of the Godhead may be gathered from our Lord’s address to His disciples, on the eve of His cruci- fixion. ‘I will not leave you comfortless,’’! said He to them, as He proceeded to bind up their broken spirit, “I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another comforter.’”? The distressed disciples, had they been permitted to ask a boon, would probably have begged no more than that their Master would grant them the legacy of future peace and safety. But our Lord bequeathed them a far more precious legacy. He promised them not comfort, but “ The Comforter,” not security, but a Protector. Two terms are employed to sketch out the cha- racter of the promised Being. He is called, 1. 0 mapaxanroz, “the Advocate,” (for His office* was to advocate the cause of the Son of Man,) a term denoting a living agent, and entirely free from any ambiguous sense of imper- sonality. | . Also, 2. TO nNEYMA TO arion, “the Spirit, the Holy.” But it deserves particular attention that when our Lord employed this term to designate the third person of the Trinity, He invariably coupled ~' John xiv. 18. * John xiv. 16. * Vide App. p. 76, note (0). Gre 28 with the neuter noun, mNEYMA, the emphatic word EKEINOS, in the masculine gender, as in John XV1.. 18, grav 53 2A9n EKEINOE TO TINEYMA THs dAnBetas, which, properly rendered, signifies, “ when He, i. e., that Person, the Spirit of Truth shall come,” evidently to shew that the word "NeYMaA is not to be understood of any inanimate substance, but as a personal term denoting an intelligent agent or person. The departure of our Lord is contrasted with the coming of the Comforter, as a further intimation of the personality of the promised Comforter. Our Lord seems to reason with his disciples, that it is expedient He should go away, and, i person, withdraw from them, otherwise the Comforter could not really, and in person, come to them ; but if He does really depart, then shall the Holy Ghost as really, and in person, come to them, as He came, and shall be sent to them by Him, in the same manner as He was Himself sent to them by the Father. ‘ Nevertheless,” says He, “ I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I goaway. For, if | go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you. But if I depart, I will send Him unto you. As my Father sent me, even so send I the Holy Ghost.”? In the evangelical account of the fulfilment of this promise, the coming of the Comforter is re- 1 John xvi. 7. 9 lated; and the Comforter himself is described as a Being endowed with mind, choice, and affection, and every other characteristic that can designate an intelligent agent or person. He is pleased,! vexed,’ grieved, provoked; has heard,’ spoken, received,’ distributed,’ willed ;* and he still guides® men in all truth, helps’ their infirmities, and makes intercession" for them. So lively a portraiture is utterly inconsistent with the “ science falsely so called,” which teaches that the spirit is an attribute or quality only of the Divine Being. Affections and operations of the mind can be predicated only of a sentient being: and as the Holy Ghost, as described in Scripture, is neither un-ori- ginate like the Father, nor begotten like the Son, but proceeding ;’” and as His office! is distin- guished from those of the former persons, inasmuch as he is come to “ advocate the cause of Christ,” and “to sanctify the elect;” so the Spirit is not only proved to be a person, but to be a person distinct in office and in subsistence from the Father and the Son. As regards the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit stands before us arrayed in all the fearful at- tributes of eternity, omniscience,” omnipresence,?® ’ Acts xv. 28. ° John xvi. 14. " Rom. vili. 26. * Tsai. lxili. 10. A Vcore xi. 1 Lies Onn SY 2G: * Eph. iv. 30. * 1 Cor. xii. 11. —'° Vide App. p. 76, note (0). * John xvi. 13. ° John xvi. 13. “* Heb. ix. 14. dara sty 2 ” Rom. viii. 26. 1 Cor, iis 10: © Psal. cxxxix. 7, 30 omnipotence,—attributes which belong exclusively to Deity, and, consequently, to none to whom the nature of God does not appertain. . He is also the Inspirer of the prophets,—the Sane- tifier of the elect; and His it is to know’ the mind of God, and to be His Counsellor.’ From Him, as from the lap of plenty, descend all spiritual graces. Holiness, Truth, Love, Glory, all flow from Him as their fountain and real source. To one He divides the word of wisdom, to another the gift of charity; and the fruit of his workings are Temperance, Meekness, Long-suffering, Gentle- ness. So that He is clearly that Being whom St. James addressed as “ The Father of Lights, with whom there is no variableness nor shadow of turning.” ° 11 Cor.. ii. 10, 11. There cannot be a clearer proof of the consubstantial nature of the Spirit with the Father, than the statement of St. Paul, “‘ the Spirit searcheth and knoweth the things of God.” In the verses to which I have referred, the Apostle asserts, “ the things of God knoweth no one,” ovdeic, 7. e., neither man nor angel, none but God Himself; and therefore the Spirit who knows the things must necessarily be God Himself. Secondly, he asserts, that the Spirit is with God and in God, as intimately as the soul isin the body. ‘“* What man,” says he, “ knoweth the things of a man save the Spirit of man which is in Him? Even so, the things of God knoweth none but the Spirit of God.” >1 Cor. ii. 10. 16. It is evident from Fsai. xl. 13, that God has no other counsellor than Himself; consequently since the Spirit is the counsellor, He is God Himself. ° James 1. 17. 31 Nor could He with propriety be said to dispense gifts according to His own will, if He was not truly God. For every being inferior to God performs not his own will, but the will of Him whose minister he is. But of the Holy Ghost it is said “ He divideth His gifts to every man severally as He will.” * : There is a sin also which is emphatically called “‘ Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,” which bears a melancholy stamp of the awful nature of this Being. If the Holy Ghost was by nature inferior to the Father or the Son, sins committed against Him would be less aggravating in their nature than those committed against the Father and Son. But we are told by Christ Himself, that “ all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” ? To these proofs of the Divine Essence of the Holy Ghost may be added some which spring from the titles by which he has been addressed. He is called “ Lord.” <“ The Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient 993 waiting for Christ. oor, xiwekiz > Matt. xii. 31, 32. *2 Thess. iii. 5. The Third Person of the Trinity is here 32 He is called “ God.” “ Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost.... Thou hast not lied unto man, but unto God.” ! He is called “the Lord God of Israel, who spake by the mouth of His prophets since the world began.” For “ holy men,” says St. Peter, “ spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” * He is called “the Lord of Hosts,’ who spake to Isaiah saying, ‘Go tell this people, hear ye indeed, but understand not,’’ &c.; for St. Paul, referring to the same vision, says, “‘ Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet, unto our Fathers, saying, Go unto this people and say, hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand,” &c. There can be no advantage in pursuing the im- quiry further. It is certain the Scriptures teach-— First, that the Word and Spirit are two Persons: persons who are distinct from the person of the Father by office, by relationship, and by their mode of subsistence. Secondly, that they are of one sub- stance with the Father: for by forbidding us on the one hand to acknowledge any other than one God, and by demanding our assent on the other hand that the Father is God, the Son is God, and called “ Lord.?? For the First Person is mentioned in the phrase, “‘ love of God,” and the Second is distinctly named Christ.’ Acts v. 3, 4. 2 Luke 1. 68. 70. * 2 Petit 2k */ Thats ivitl eu: > Acts xxvil. 25. 33 the Holy Ghost is God, the consubstantial nature of the Three Persons is most clearly expressed. Thus far then the Scriptures coincide precisely with the doctrine, which is now taught in the Arti- cles, Creeds, and Liturgies of the Chureh of Eng- land. But it is urged with great vehemence that the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is taught in the Arti- cles and other formularies of faith, in the Postnicene Church, is not Catholic: that the Antenicene Fa- thers, so far from asserting that the Three Persons are consubstantial, as the Postnicenes allege, as- serted, in opposition, that the Son is of a created mutable essence, and therefore of a different sub- stance from the Father. This statement is founded upon an imperfect knowledge of the writings of the Antenicene Fathers. The very contrary is the real case. There is not a single writer whose works have descended to us who has not declared that the Three Persons are of a consubstantial nature. Their several testimo- nies cannot here be adduced, by reason of a pre- scribed limit; but the truth of this assertion will appear equally conclusive by citing the verdict of a learned and sober judge of the writings of pri- mitive antiquity. It is the summing-up of the evi- dence which each Antenicene Father has yielded to this very point in question. “ Thus at length,” says Bishop Bull, “ have we 34 proved by the clearest testimonies, cited Srom every one of the Antenicene Fathers, whose whole works, or whose fragments, are to be met with, our second Lhesis; namely, that the Son of God ts consubstan- tial with God the Father, i. e., not of any created or mutable essence, but altogether of the same Divine wncommutable nature with His F ather ; and there- Sore it was the constant unanimous opinion of the Catholic doctors who flourished in the three Sirst centuries that He was very God of very God.” And as regards the Third Person of the Trinity, that learned prelate has abundantly proved. from the same source, that the Fathers of the three first centuries were unanimous in declaring the Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father. So rare an occurrence was it for the heretics of the three first centuries to venture an attack upon the divinity of the Holy Ghost, that that prelate observes, “ I do not remember that any of the Fathers of the first three centuries have attempted to explain distinctly the procession of the Holy Ghost Jrom the Father '“ Ttaque tandem luculentissimis testimoniis, e singulis scrip- toribus Ante-Niczenis, quorum vel integra scripta, vel fragmenta saltem aliqua reperire potuissemus, adductis, thesim nostram secundam abunde comprobavimus, que hee fuit. Filium De} Deo Patri époovcor, sive consubstantialem, hoc est, non create alicujus aut mutabilis essentiz, sed ejusdem prorsus cum Patre suo Nature Divine et incommutabilis, proinde verum Deum ex Deo vero esse, Catholicorum Doctorum, qui tribus primis seeculis floruerunt, constans consorsque fuit sententia.””—Bull, Defens. Fid. Nicaen. sect. ii. c. xiv. § 5. 35 and the Son, or from the Father by the Son; there being little or no dispute concerning: the divinity of the Holy Ghost till Macedonius (who lived towards the middle of the fourth century) appeared, and disputed the faith of the Church in that Article.”* It is clear, therefore, there is no such discrepancy to be found as has been alleged, between the Post- nicenes and Antenicenes, and that both have always taught that the Three Persons of the Trinity are consubstantial. But when the Fathers are represented as acknow- ledging the Three Persons to be consubstantial, it is not to be supposed (as some have done) that the Fathers imagined the divine substance to be of a Specific nature. “IT do take,’ says Stillingfleet, “ the Fathers to have been men of too great sense and capacity to have 1 Bull’s Catholic Doctrine concerning the Trinity, vol. i. p. 8, ‘Oxon, 182'7. The following Fathers have been adduced by Bishop Bull, in his Defensio Fidei Nicaenee, et Judicium Eccles. Catho~ lice, &c., as witnesses to the consubstantial nature of the Spirit with the Father. Clemens. Rom. Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect. ii. c. iii. § 6; Hermas, ib. sect. i. c. 1. § 5; Polycarp, ib. sect. ii. c. iii. § 16; Justin Martyr, Jud. Eccl. Cathol. c. vi. § 12; Tatian, Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect. ii. c. iv. § 10; Athenagoras, ib. sect. ii. ¢. iv. § 9; etiam Jud. Eccl. Cathol. c. vi. § 12; Theophilus, Defens. Fid. Nicen. sect. li. ¢. iv. § 10; Trenzeus, 1b. sect. ii. c. v. § 9; Tertullian, sect. ii. C. Vil. § 6 and 7, et sect. lil. c. x. § 85 Hippolytus, ib. sect. iii. ¢. vill. § 1 and 2; Novatian, ib. sect. ii. c. x. § 6; Dionysius Alex. ib. sect. i. c. xi. § LI. 36 maintained such an absurd opinion as that of a specific nature in Giod. For either it is a mere logical notion and act of the mind, without any real existence belonging to it as such, which is contrary to the very notion of God, which implies a necessary existence: or it must imply a divine nature, which is neither Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost; which is so repugnant to the doctrine of the Fathers, that no one, that is any ways conversant in their writings on this argument, can imagine they should hold such an 1 The Fathers invariably declared the substance to be of a simple and uncompounded na- ture, and to be incapable of any division whatever.” It was stated that, according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers who lived before and after the Council of Nice, the Three Persons of the Tri- nity are consubstantial, and therefore co-equal in every essential perfection. There is a sense, how- ever, in which, according to the same stream of antiquity, the Three Persons are not equal. The Son is not equal to the Father with respect. to his incarnate nature. He is “ equal to the Fa- RT a acetone Tee AE " Stillingfleet Vind. of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 77, 8vo., Lond. 1694. *I have shewn, in the Appendix, p. 77, note («), the gross manner in which the early Fathers have been calumniated by M. Le Clerc and Courcelles, and the falsity of the Socinian statement, namely, “That nothing can be said in answer to Courcelles’ proofs that the Fathers held only a specific unity of the Divine Nature, and the Persons to be as so many individuals.” opinion. 37 ther,” says the Athanasian Creed, “ as touching His Godhead, but inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.” Nor are the Sacred Three without order or rank, even when viewed abstractedly of the Incarnation of the Son. The Fathers have assigned to the First Person of the Trinity a certain prerogative which they deny to either of the Second or Third Persons. The Father is represented by them as the Fountain, the Oragin, and the Source, of the Divinity in the Godhead ; while, on the other hand, the Son and Holy Ghost are represented as deriving from Him whatever Divinity they possess, and not as having it from themselves. They call the Son, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. Sometimes avrobeos, “ very God,” but never estes ‘ God of Himself,” like the Father. It was this consideration which led the Ancients to acknowledge the First Person of the Trinity to be pre-eminent. They believed the Father to be un- originate, and therefore they acknowledged Him to be Supreme. They believed the Son to be begotten of the Fa- ther, and therefore to be subordinate’ to the Father, ‘The word “Subordinate ”’ if taken in a popular sense, would imply more than is here intended to be expressed ; it would seem to intimate that the Father is greater than the Son in essential perfections, whereas I have frequently asserted that he is not. [have used the term to denote only the rank or order which exists 38 but to be subordinate to no other, inasmuch as He is of the Father alone, and of no other. They believed the Holy Ghost to be, not “ begotten,” but “* proceeding ;” to be of the Father and of the Son,} and therefore to be subordinate both to the Father and to the Son. And as the sacred Three had mutually agreed to enter upon certain official capacities, differing from each other in point of rank, the Father to com- mand, the Son to execute those commands, and the Spirit to go forth as sent by the Son; so, upon this account also, the same rank and order was recog- nised by them.’ | between the sacred Three by virtue of the different mode of subsistence of each person in the Divine essence and the offices in which each is engaged. Pearson uses the same term when he treats upon the same mysterious doctrine. Vide infra note on p. 33. So also does Sherlock. See his Vindication of the Tri- nity, p. 18.: And Bishop Bull has employed it as the title of the 4th Section of his Defens. Fid. Nicene. * Vide Appendix, p. 79, note (£). * “ When it is said,” observes Dr. Waterland, “ none is afore or after other, none is greater or less than another,’’ we are not to understand it of order. For the Father is first, the Son second, the Holy Ghost third in order. Neither are we to under- stand it of office. For the Father is supreme in office, while the Son and Holy Ghost condescend to inferior offices. But we are to understand it, as the Creed itself explains it, of duration and dignity, in which respect none is afore or after, none greater or less ; but the whole Three Persons co-eternal and co-equal.’?— Waterland, Commentary on the Athan. Creed, vol. iv. p. 292, - Oxford, 1822. Vide Appendix p. 82, note (n). The pre-eminence of the Father is thus described by Pearson in his exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. “ Jn the very name of 39 The doctrine of the economy of Persons, (for such may be called the doctrine which I have endea- Farner, there is something of eminence, which ts not in that of the Son. And some kind of priority we must ascribe unto him whom we call the First, in respect of him whom we term the Sreconp Person. And, as we cannot but ascribe it; so must we endeavour to preserve tt. Now that privilege or priority con- ststeth not in this, that the essence or attributes of the one are greater than the essence or attributes of the other; but only in this, that the Father hath that essence of himself; the Son, by communication from the Father. Whence he acknowledgeth, that He is from Hime that he liveth by Him, that the Father gave him to have life in himself. And he generally referreth all things to Him, as received from Him. “Wherefore, in this sense, some of the ancients have not stuck to interpret those words, ‘ the Father ts greater than I,’ of Christ, as the Son of God, as the Second Person in the blessed Trintty ; but still with a reference, not unto his essence, but unto his generation, by which he is understood to have his being from the Father, who only hath it in himself, and who is the original of all power and essence in the Son. ‘I can of mine ownself do nothing, saith our Saviour, because he is not of himself ; and whosoever receives his being, must receive his power from another, especially where the essence and the power are undeniably the same, as in God they are. “ We must not, therefore, so far involve ourselves in the dark- ness of this mystery, as to deny the glory which ts clearly due unto the Father, whose pre-eminence undeniably consisteth in this, that He is God, not of any other, but of Himself; and that there is no other Person who is God, but is God of Him. Ii ts no diminution of the Son to say, that he ts from another. For his very name imports as much. But it were a diminution of the Father so to speak of Him, and there must be some pre- eminence, where there is place for derogation. What the Father is, he is from none; what the Son is, he ts from the Father. 40 voured to describe,) has been ably commented upon by the learned Bishop Bull; to whose writings | shall now refer, for proof that I have not dealt un- errr eet Se Nae eR ES iS What the First ts, he giveth; what the second is, he receiveth. The First is a Father, indeed, by reason of his Son; but He ts not God by reason of Him. Whereas the Son ts not only so in regard to the Father, but he is also God by reason of the same. “ Upon this pre-eminence, as I conceive, may safely be grounded the congruity of the divine mission. “We often read, that Christ was sent. Whence he bears the name of an Apostle himself, as well as those whom he therefore named so; because, as the Father sent him, so sent he them. The Holy Ghost also is said to be sent, sometimes by the Father, sometimes by the Son. But we never read, that the Father was sent at all, there being an authority in that name which seems enconsistent with this mission. “ Again, the dignity of the Father will yet further appear from the order of the persons in the Blessed Trinity, of which he is undoubtedly the first. For, although in some passages of’ the Apostolical, Discourses, the Son may first be named, and in others the Holy Ghost precedes the Son, yet, where the three persons are barely enumerated and delivered unto us as the rule of farth, there that order ts observed which is proper to them, which order hath been perpetuated in all confessions of faith, and is for ever inviolably to be observed. Now this priority doth properly and naturally result from the Divine Paternity ; so that the Son must necessarily be second unto the Father, from whom he re- ceiveth his origination, and the Holy Ghost unto the Son. “< Neither can we be thought to want a sufficient foundation for this priority of the First Person of the Trinity, if we look upon the numerous testimonies of the ancient doctors of the Church, who have not stuck to call the Father the Origin, the Cause, the Author, the Root, the Fountain, and the Head of the Son, of the whole Trinity.’—Pearson on the Creed, p. 50—56, 8vo. 1832 41 fairly with the Fathers. ‘“ The manner of speaking (says he) of some moderns, in which they call the Son ‘ God of, or ‘from Himself, is plainly repug- nant to the Nicene Synod and the opinion of all Catholic Doctors who wrote before and after it.” “* The Catholic Doctors, both before and after the Synod of Nice, have unanimously determined, that God the Father is greater than the Son, even with respect to His Divinity, namely, not IN NATURE, or any ESSENTIAL PERFECTION, which is in the Father and not in the Son; but in autnoriry, i. €., In the eighth Article he treats again upon the same doctrine as it relates to each Person of the Trinity. ** As there is a number in the Trinity, by which the Persons are neither more nor less than Three, so there ts also an order, by which, of these Persons the Father is first, the Son the second, and the Holy Ghost the third. Nor ts this order arbitrary or ex- ternal, but internal and necessary, by virtue of a subordination of the second unto the first, and of the third unto the first and second, The Godhead was communicated from the Father to the Son, not from the Son unto the Father. Though, therefore, this were done from all eternity, and so there can be no priority of time, yet there must be acknowledged a priortty of order, by which the Father, not the Son, ts first, and the Son, not the Father, second. Again, the same Godhead was communicated by the Father and the Son unto the Holy Ghost, not by the Holy Ghost to the Father or the Son, . Though, therefore, this was also done from all elernity, and, therefore, can admit of no priority in refer- ence to time, yet that of order must be here observed ; s0 that the Spirit, receiving the Godhead from the Father, who is the first Person, cannot be the first; receiving the same from the Son, who is the second, cannot be the second ; but, being from the first and second, must be, of the three, the third.” —Ib, p. 482. D ; 42 ORIGINAL ALONE, as the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son.” “ The ancient Doctors thought this doctrine of the subordination of the Son to the Father, as His ORIGINAL and PRINCIPLE, very useful and necessary to be known and believed ; because by this especially the Divinity of the Son may be asserted, and the unity of the Divine Monarchy preserved entire not- withstanding. Lor though the name and nature be common to two, namely, to the Father and His Son, yet because the one is THE PRINCIPLE of the other, from which he is propagated, and that by an interior, not an exterior production, God is truly said to be one. This reason those Ancients did also believe equally to belong to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.” * The words which I have quoted are the theses of three chap- ters. They are, therefore, to be considered not as a mere asser- tion on the part of Bishop Bull, but rather as an assertion which that learned prelate proves to be correct. His words are as fol- lows :—‘‘ Proponitur Thesis prima, de subordinatione Filii ad Patrem, ut ad sui originem ac principium. Que et unanimi vete- rum consensu confirmatur. Ostenditur locutionem illam quo- rundam Neotoricorum qua Filium dicunt dure@eoy hoc est, a seipso Deum, sententiz Synodi ipsius Niczenee adeoque Catho- licoram ‘Doctorum omnium tum qui ante tum qui post istam scripsere Synodum prorsus repugnare.”’— Bull, Defens. Fid. Niceen. sec. iv. cap. 1. “ Catholici Doctores tum qui Synodo Niceena anteriores fuere, tum qui postmodum vixerunt, unanimi consensu Deum Patrem etiam secundum Divinitatem Filio majorem esse statuerunt: nempe non natura quidem, aut perfectione aliqua essentiali, que 43 There is an aspect then, under which, according to the universal suffrage of the Fathers, the Three Persons are co-equal, and an aspect also under which there is gradation and order amongst them. In essential Perfections, it is determined that the Father is not greater than the Son or the Holy Ghost. For it was shewn before (when treating upon the substance of the Persons) that there is no essential Perfection in one Person that is not in the other, but that the Three Persons are consubstan- tial, co-eternal, and co-equal. In the “ Economy of Persons,” however, it 1s determined that there is gradation and order ; for, from what has been now lately stated, the Father ranks Supreme, the Son as Second in order, and the Holy Ghost as Third in order. For the doctrine of the “ Economy’ asserts, that the Father is unori- ginate; the Son has His origin in the Father; and the Spirit has His origin both in the Father and in ‘in Patre sit, etnon Filio: sed auctoritate sola, hoc est origine: quonium a Patre est Filius, non a Filio Pater.”’—/6. cap. 2. “‘ Doctrinam de subordinatione Filii ad Patrem, ut ad sui ori- ginem ac principium, ideo cognitu credituque perutilem ac plane necessariam esse antiqui Doctores existimarunt: quod hac im- primis ratione ita Filii Divinitas asseratur, ut nihilominus Dei unitas et Monarchia Divina sarta tecta conservetur. Scilicet quamvis duobus, nempe Patre et Filio Dei nomen et natura com- munis sit; tamen quoniam alter alterius est principlum, a quo propagatur idque interiori productione, non externa; fit ut Deus esse unicus mento dicatur. Quam rationem pariter ad Spiritus Sancti Divinitatem pertinere prisci illi crediderunt.””—Jb. cap. 4. We 44 the Son; and that the office of the Father is supe- rior to that of the Son, and that of the Son superior to that of the Holy Ghost. From what has been now stated, it must appear conclusive, that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity which is set forth in the Articles, Creeds, &c. of the Established Church of England, claims for itself the universal suffrage of antiquity, and is perfectly consistent in all its parts.’”? 7 An important question, however, still remains to be decided, namely, whether it is absolutely re- quisite that men should embrace the Catholic faith of the Doctrine of the Trinity as Necessary to sal- vation. The Postnicenes assert, that “except a man heep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”* It is important therefore to know, whether these sentiments are peculiar to the Postnicene Church, or whether the Antenicenes also held the same sentiments. If the 'T have dwelt the longer upon this branch of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it has been urged by Dr. Priestley and others, that ‘* the Trinity of the present day differs essentially from the Trinity of the early ages ; inasmuch.as the modern Trinity contains Three Persons in all respects equal, no one of which is supreme ; while the ancient Trinity contained Three wholly unequal Per- sons, among whom supremacy was ascribed to the Father,’’— Vide Faber’s Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, vol. ii. p. 251. Others also have asserted that the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it is now held by the Established Church of England, contradicts itself, and is, therefore, with good cause, to be rejected. * Athanas. Creed. 45 latter were indifferent as to the importance of the doctrine, the Postnicenes may be justly censured with practising an unprecedented severity towards the members of the Church. But if the Anteni- cenes were as rigorous as the Postnicenes in enforcing faith in this Doctrine, the Necessity of the Doctrine, and the present decision of the Church, can be no longer called in question. The readiest means of ascertaining the sentiments of the Antenicene Church concerning the Necessity of Faith in the Holy Trinity, is to consider, First, the manner in which the Church treated those per- sons who rejected the Catholic faith of the Trinity in Unity. | That the Church fulminated her anathema upon the several ringleaders of the Gnostic school is notorious. But as those persons would not now be called Christians in any sense of the term, I shall dismiss their history, and direct my inquiry exclu- sively. to such as would be called heretics, in the modern acceptation of the term “ heretic,” 7 e., “men who professed to receive the whole of Chris- tianity, who appealed to the same Scriptures as the standard of their faith ; but who held opinions which have been pronounced by the Church to be erroneous. ! 1 T have already,” says Dr. Burton, “ said enough concern- ing the definition of the term ‘ Heresy,’ and have shewn [vide p. 8—12] that it is not restricted by the Fathers to the sense which it bears now. According to the modern signification of the term 46 Theodotus of Byzantium is the earliest instance that we have of an individual who can be called an heretic, in this acceptation of the term. He lived towards the close of the second century, or, as some historians relate, in the year of our Lord 190. And when the sword of persecution was raised against him, he apostatised from the true faith, and intro- duced the modern Unitarian doctrine, that Jesus Christ was a mere man. The novelty, as well as the particular nature of his doctrines, is noticed in the following words by Tertullian :— “ Besides these there was one Theodotus of By- zantium, who being apprehended as a Christian, there was no heretic in the time of the Apostles; for the Gnostics, who, whether they believed Jesus to be a phantom or no, all agreed in believing that Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism, would not now be spoken of as Christians in any sense of the term. The Fathers have expressly stated that they were not Christians, and yet they called them heretics, which shews very plainly in what sense the term heretic was then used. But if we mean by an heretic a man who professes to receive the whole of Christianity ; who appeals to the same Scriptures as the standard of his faith ; but who holds opinions which have been pronounced by the Church to be erroneous; in this sense there was no heretic in the time of the Apostles; at least, there was none to whom al- lusion is made in the Apostolic writings.’” “The heresies of the first century were introduced by men who did not acknowledge the Apostles; they took as much of Chris- tianity as suited their purpose, and engrafted it upon a philosophy | which had already been compounded out of several different sys- tems.”—Bampt. Lect. p. 221. 47 denied his profession, and ever after blasphemed Christ; for he wrropucep the doctrine of His being purely man, and denied His Divinity. He held indeed that he was born of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, but, being only and barely man, was in nothing superior to other men but only in justice.” * For this denial of the Catholic faith, we are in- formed by Caius,” that sentence of excommunication was passed upon him by Victor, then Bishop of 1% Accedit his Theodotus heereticus Byzantius ; qui posteaquam Christi pro nomine comprehensus negavit, in Christum blasphe- mare non destitit; doctrinam enim introduxit, qua Christum hominem tantummodo diceret, Deum autera illum negaret. Ex Spiritu quidem Sancto natum ex Virgine, sed hominem solitarium atque nudum, nulla alia pre ceeteris, nisi sola justitize auctoritate.” —Tertull. de Preescript. Heret. p. 223. Commentators have observed that Cerinthus and Ebion had done the same before. ‘ But this,’’ says Dr. Burton, “is by no means true. Those heretics did not deny Christ, but Jesus, to be divine ; and Theodotus appears to have been the first who, without separating Jesus from Christ, asserted that Jesus Christ was a mere human being. Many heretics had denied Jesus to be God, and many Christians had gone over to the same creed; but Theodotus was the first Christian who openly taught that Christ was a mere man, and he did not live till the end of the second century.” —Bampt. Lect. p. 247. Indeed, it is very doubtful whether Theodotus went so far as to maintain what is now Called the simple humanity of Christ, or that any evidence can be produced of the proper Unitarian doctrines being held in the three first centuries.—See the Ap- pendix, p. 83, note (0). 2 Vide Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. v. c. 28, and Valesius’s note, in loc. 48 Rome; and that Theodotus was pronounced to be an heretic, beyond the pale of salvation, according to the old proverb, “ out of the Church no salvation.” There can be no necessity for pointing out what were the sentiments of the Antenicene Church con- cerning the importance of faith in the Holy Trinity, when it is known that she visited with so severe a punishment as Hxcommunication, the offence of de- nying the doctrine of the Trinity. But such was her invariable mode of proceeding against all those persons who denied the Catholic faith. In later times she visited the same punish- ment upon Artemon, Beryllus of Bostra, Paul of Samosata, and others who stood charged with simi- lar offences to that of Theodotus. Their heresies differed in certain points from each other: but the Church, in delivering her sentence of Excommuni- cation, made no difference whether the peculiar notions of one heretic approached. apparently nearer to the truth than those of another. All who did not attain to the truth itself were judged to have fallen short of the truth. If Jesus Christ was not confessed to be truly God, that is, in a sense free from all art- ful evasions of the term God, they who refused their assent were brought under one common charge of having denied the Lord, and for that reason sen- tence of Excommunication was indiscriminately passed upon them.! “Some of our modern Arians,”’ observes Bishop Bull, “ may 49 If we examine the Creeds which were recited in the Antenicene Church, we shall derive another proof of the necessity of Faith in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It is universally admitted, that whatever doctrines were contained in the Creeds, were always considered as necessary, above all others, to be believed for salvation. I shall show, therefore, that the doc- trine of the Trinity, as it is now professed by the Church, was always expressed in sense in the Creed recited in the Antenicene Church. Many have supposed that the earliest form of Creed proceeded no further than the words, “ £ here object, that all the heretics afore-mentioned denied that Christ was before Mary, which the Arians acknowledge—yea, they confess that he was before all ages ; therefore all that is urged, howmuch- soever it may concern the Socinians, does not at all affect the Arians. But this is nothing to the purpose. For it is plain, that the heretics afore-mentioned were condemned by the Church, for a reason common to them with the Arians themselves, namely, for denying that our Saviour was God. Look back upon what has been observed in this chapter concerning Theodotus, Artemon, and Paul of Samosata, from the ancients, and you will see that the Fathers place every one of their heresies in this, not that they made our Saviour a Being lower in the Creation than he really was, but that they made him a mere creature, and did not own him as truly God. In a word, they were convicted of, and condemned for, a heresy that denied God, as Caius says of Theodotus and Artemon, and the Antiochian Fathers of Paul of Samosata.”’—Jud. Eccl. Cathol. c. 11. § 9. 50 believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” * Of this opinion were Erasmus ad Cens. Paris, Tit. ii.; Vos- sius de Symbol. Diss. i. n. 38; Stillingfleet, Vind. Trin. p. 178; Bull, Jud. Eccl. Cathol. c. iii. § 3, c. vi. § 80; Wall, Hist. of Infant Bapt. part ii, c. ix. sect. ii. p. 491, &e. Kpiscopius was also of the same opinion: “ Antiquissimum, quodque in prima baptismi administratione jam inde ab ipsis apostolorum temporibus usitabatur, hoc erat. Credo in Deum Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum; nempe ad prescriptam ab ipso Jesu formulam.”’—TInstitut. lib. iv. c. xxxiv. p. 340. But Episcopius, it is to be observed, differed entirely from the former with regard to the inference which was to be drawn from sucha consideration. Episcopius asserted that the earliest Creeds went no further than the words prescribed by our Lord for Baptism, for the sake of proving that the eternal generation of the Son, was not inserted in the Creeds at the beginning. But to this it has been very justly observed by Bull, Jud. Eccl. Cathol. c. iv. § 3, that the short Creed mentioned by Episcopius ex- pressed the doctrine of the Trinity in a clearer, closer, and stronger manner than the more enlarged Creeds afterwards did. For the insertion of additional articles, time after time, carried the words Son, and Holy Ghost, so far from the word God, that it might look as if that title, which belonged indifferently to all three, was there applied to the Father only; though the com- pilers of those larger Creeds really designed the same common application of the name God as before. ‘“ Hence,” says Dr. Waterland, ‘tt appears that, allowing Episcopius the supposition which he goes upon, in relation to the short concise form of the Jirst baptismal Creed, yet it is so far from favouring his cause, that tt makes against him, since that form so worded carries in it, a confession of the Three divine Persons being the one true God of the Christians ; and if the Creed in the Jirst age contained no more, then that very doctrine must have been looked upon 5 i The supposition may be admitted as fair and. pro- bable; but if we call to mind the remark that was lately made, 7.e., that the Antenicenes were unani- mous in pronouncing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be of a consubstantial nature ; it must appear conclusive, that even in so short a form as this, the words, “ I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” proceeding from the lips of the Antenicene Church, was an honest confession of faith in a consubstantial Trinity. But the sense which was merely implied in this, the supposed earliest form of Creed, is fully ex- pressed in words in those forms of the Antenicene Creed which occur in the writings of the early Fathers. | The Creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus describes the Three Persons in the following terms :— “A perfect Trinity in glory, and eternity, and dominion, neither divided nor separated.” And it terminates with this confession :—‘‘ There is there- fore nothing created or servile in this Trinity, or adventitious, as if it existed not before, but was afterwards introduced. For the Son was never wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son ; but this Trinity is eternally the same, unchangeable and invariable.” * The consubstantial nature of the Trinity could from the beginning, as the sum and substance of Christianity.”— Import. of the Doctr. of the Trinity, c. vi. ' For the complete form of this Creed, vide App. p. 91. 52 not possibly have been stated in more express terms than it has been by this Bishop of Neo-Cesarea. The genuineness of the Creed, it is true, has been denied by the Arians ; but the arguments which they have advanced to impugn its genuineness, are not only futile in themselves, but there is the undeni- able evidence, both of Gregory Nyssen and St. Basil, that it is the genuine work of the Bishop, whose title it bears.! If we carry on the inquiry to other forms of the Creed, we shall find many instances in which the clause which speaks of the Second Person of the Trinity, is swelled to a very considerable extent with phrases, which mark in the most emphatic manner, the consubstantial nature of the Father and the Son. Thus, in the Creed recited by Origen, the Confes- sion of Faith states, “I believe in Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before every creature, whois God,and who when he was made man conti- nued the same God as before.” ? By Lucian Martyr—“In Jesus Christ, his only- begotten Son—who is God—God of God—whole of whole—one of one—perfect of perfect—King of King—Lord of Lord... .who was.at the beginning with God, the Word God.” 3 ' For the evidence which these two writers have yielded, as well as for a full vindication of the genuineness of the Creed, vide App. p. 84, note (c). * For the complete form of this Creed, vide App. p. 93. * For the complete form of this Creed, vide App. p. 95. D3 In the Creed which was used when Eusebius was baptised'—“ In one Lord Jesus Christ—the word of God—God of God—Light of Light—Life of Life—His only-begotten Son. .. . begotten of the Father before all ages,” &c. ! Rusebius was born about the year of our Lord 270, or as some think sooner.—[Vide Vales. de Vit. et Script. Euseb. Cees. sub init., and Lardner’s Credibility, vol. iv. p. 70.] And was bap- tized in the year 285, or at the latest 290. The Historian tells us, in the preface to his Creed, that the several articles which he has specified in the Creed are of a very ancient date: that they had descended by regular tradition from Bishop to Bishop, and that they came originally from the pure word of God itself. His words are, “As we have received by tradition from our predecessors the Bishops, both, when we were instructed in the first principles of the Faith, and recetved baptism ; and as we have learnt from the Divine Scriptures, and as during our continuance in the Presbytership, and also since we have been intrusted with a bishopric, we have believed and taught; so we also now believe, and do make a public declaration to you of our Faith, which is this,” &c. “ Kadwe TapedaPomey Tapa TOY TPO Huo eritKoTwY, Kal Ev TH Karnxioet, Kat Ore TO NouTpoy éhap- Pavopev, Kat kabwc amd Tov Osiwy ypagoy pepabhkaper, Kal we év rO mpeoPurepiy, Kal Ey avTH Th émicKoTy értorevoapéy TE Kal EOOACKO[MEY, olrw Kal vuy miorevovTec THY petépay rior vpiv mpocavapépopev.”?—Socrat. Eccl. Hist. lib. 1. c. vill. p. 23. And then follows the Creed, as I have given it in the Appendix, D297. The draft therefore which Eusebius has given of the Cesarean Creed may fairly be considered as a correct epitome, not only of the faith of the Church at the time when he was baptized, but also of the faith which had been handed down by tradition through the several ages which preceded his baptism. o4 In the Creed as it occurs in the Apostolical Con- stitutions \—* In Jesus Christ—His only- Begotten Son—who before all ages was begotten,” &c. In these instances, by either of the phrases “‘ God of God” —* Only-Begotten’—or “ Begotten before all ages” —it may be said that the Son is declared positively to be of one substance with the Father. First. The phrase “ God of God” declares the Son to be of one substance with the Father. If the Son had been simply called God, some question might possibly arise respecting the exact sense of the term God, since men and angels are stiled God in Scripture. But-in these Creeds the Son is called “ God of God:’ a phrase which will admit of no ambiguous sense whatever. The phrase interprets itself. ‘“ God of God” can be understood in no other sense than “ Bone of Bone” and “Flesh of Flesh.” By the latter a participation or unity of substance is always understood, and so must it be understood by the former also. Secondly. The Son is declared to be of one ' “ Whatever,” says Cardinal Bona, ‘‘may be said of the author of these Constitutions, all agree that it is certain and evident they were more ancient than the Council of Nice, and that in them is contained the discipline of the Christian Church before Constantine the Great, as the learned Morinus (De Sacris Ordin. pars. ii, p. 20) tells us, to whom Joannes Fronto (In Preenotatis. ad Calendar. Rom. sect. v.) assents, in his observations before the Roman Calendar.”—De Rerum. Liturg. i. cap. vill. sect. 4. For the complete form of the Creed, vide App. p. 99. 55 substance with the Father, by his title, ‘“ Only- Begotten.” The title “ Only-Begotten” cannot, in the lan- guage of Scripture, be understood either of Christ’s conception by the Holy Ghost; nor of His media- torial office; nor of His becoming the first-begotten from the dead; nor of His being made Heir of all things.' ‘ None of these circumstances,’ says Waterland, “ singly considered, nor all together, will be sufficient to account for the title of Only Son or Only- Begotten;’ but in Scripture the title “ Only-Begotten” always refers to the pre- existent and divine nature of the Word: to that state in which he was the only-Begotten from all eternity. Nor can it, in the language of the Fathers by whom it was used, be understood in any other sense than that which implies the eternal generation of the Son from the substance of the Father. ‘“ The title of the ‘ Only-Begotten, or « Only Son’ of God,” says Bishop Bull, “ given to Christ, is plainly deter- mined, by the constant and perpetual use of all Ca- tholic Doctors, to mean his Divine generation from God the Father before all ages: all of them agree with that of Tertullian concerning the Son of God. ‘He is the First-begotien, as being begotten before ' Episcopius asserts that it zs according to the four ways here mentioned that Christ is by way of eminence called God in Scripture.—Episcop. tom. i. p. 335. 56 all things: and the only- Begotten, as being alone begotten of God, properly out of the womb of his heart, For all of them owned no other Son of God than He who was begotten of the very essence of God the Father.’ In the third place it is to be observed, that the Church took considerable pains to preserve the sense in which the term “ only-Begotten” has been explained (@. e., to shew that it signified the divine generation of the Son from the eternal essence of the Father) from any misrepresentation: for when heretics gave out that Christ was begotten only in a metaphorical sense, and that he was created in time, and therefore not begotten of the substance of the Father; the Church, to shew, in opposition, that the Son was not created in time, but that He was a real Son, begotten of the eternal essence of a real Father, added to the term “ only-Begotten” the explanatory phrase, “ begotten of the Father before all ages.” When then the term “only-Begotten” signifies, *“ Titulus Filii Dei unigeniti sive wnict, Christo tributus, con- stanti ac perpetuo catholicorum omnium doctorum usu in hunc sensum plane determinatus fuit, ut divinam ejus ante omnia seecula ex ipso Deo Patre generationem significaret. Illud Ter- tulliani (Adv. Prax. c. 7.) de Filio Dei est vox omnium consona. * Primogenitus, ut ante omnia genitus, et Unigenitus, ut solus ex Deo genitus, proprie de vulva cordis ipsius,’ nam illi omnes non alium Filium Dei unigenitum agnoverunt, quam qui ex ipsa Dei Patris essentia, genitus fuerit.”,—Bull, Jud. Eccl. Cathol. v. § 10. 57 both in Scripture and in the language of the Fathers, the divine generation of the Son from the eternal essence of the Father; and when it is well known that the Fathers added the phrase “‘ Begotten before all ages” for the express purpose of insisting upon, and shewing that such was the true sense in which that term was to be received ; can it be said that the Nicene Fathers have inserted any new idea when they added to the Creed the phrase “of one sub- stance with the Father.” For it is quite certain that the phrase “of one substance with the Father” was never intended to suggest any idea beyond that which was always implied by the phrases ‘‘ only-Begotten” and ‘“ Begotten before all ages ;” for, in the form in which the Creed was first drawn up, the words of the second Article are “ In one Lord Jesus Christ : the only-Begotten, tuav 1s, of the substance of the Father.”' And in the form in which the Creed occurs in Epiphanius the second Article is, “‘ In one Lord Jesus Christ: begotten of the Father before all ages, THAT 1s, of the substance of his Father.”* Which shews clearly that the Nicene Fathers considered the terms “ only-Begot- ten”—‘ Begotten of the Father before all ages”— and ‘ of one substance with the Father,’—as syno- nymous modes of expressing one idea, i.e., the ' For the complete form of this Creed, vide App. p. 101. * For the complete form of this Creed, vide App. p. 103. E 98 divine generation of the Son from the eternal essence of the Father.” It may with truth therefore be asserted, that in the Antenicene forms of the Creed the consubstan- tial nature of the Trinity was always implied and ‘In the writings of Socrates Scholasticus there is extant a letter of Eusebius in which the latter professes to explain the two terms yevrnbelc, “ begotten,” and dpuoovcwc, “ of one sub- stance,” according to the genuine sense of the Nicene Synod. Alluding to the former, Eusebius writes: “ For the same reasons we have admitted also of these words ‘ begotten, not made. For made, said they, (i. e., the Nicene Bishops,) is a common term attributed to all other creatures which were made by the Son, of whom the Son hath no resemblance. Wherefore he is no creature like to those which were created by him; but he is of a far more excellent substance than any creature, which substance, as the sacred oracles do instruct us, ts begotten of the Father, but by such a manner of generation as is ineffable and inexpressible by any created being. Kara ra abtra oe, Kat TO yevynbérvta ov ronOévra, KaredebdpeOa, Exerdy) TO ronber, KOLVOV EpacKoy elvar Todconua Tey oToY KTLGUaTwY TOY OLA Tov viod yevopévwry. wy ovdev Gpotoy Exery Tov vidv- Oud Ot pH ecivat avrov woinpa, Tote Oi abrov yevopévorc Gpovoy KpEitrovoc dé 3} Kara way mwoinua ruyxave ovalac, iv éx Tov maTpde yeyernoBar dwdoxee ru Oia Adyta, OV TPOTOV THC yEvVhoEWS avEKPodorou kal dveridoylorou Thon yevvEeTy pvoer TUyXaVoOVTOC.” In reference to the latter term he adds: “‘ To be of the same substance with the Father, doth expressly represent to us no more than this, namely, that the Son of God hath no community with, or resemblance to, created beings ; but that in every respect he is like to the Father only, who hath begotten him, and that he does exist of no other substance or essence, but of the Father. \ >\ Fz ~ \ xuLre ‘ \ , , / Wlapaorarckoy o€ civat T@ TaTpl TO OpooVaLOY TO pnoepiay EMPEDELAY 59 understood. And since it is generally conceded that it is the practice of the Church to incorporate in her Creed those doctrines which she considers to be most important, it is evident that the Anteni- cene Church considered the doctrine of the Holy Trinity to be one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. There is a third way in which the Antenicenes may be said to have asserted the Necessity of faith in the doctrine of the Trinity. It appears from their writings that man cannot obtain remission of sins, and become regenerate, unless the faith into which he is baptised acknow- ledges that the Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are of a consubstantial nature. To make the judgment of the Antenicenes the more clear on this matter, I shall shew from their writ- ings, first, that it is the proper effect of baptism to make the body the temple of an undivided consub- stantial Trinity of Persons. Secondly, that the baptism which does not make the body the temple mode Ta yevynra KTiopara Tov vidy To Osov éEupaiverr: pdr dé Tw TarTpl TO YEyEViKOTL KATA TAYTA TPOTOY AdwpoiwoOaL, Kal pr) ELvac eg évépac Té UTOGTAGEWC Kat OvValac, UAN’ Ex Tov marpo¢.’—Socrat. Scholast. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. viii. If the Reader compares the two expositions together, he will find an additional proof of what was stated above, z. e., that the Nicene Fathers attached precisely the same sense to the term dpoovowc, “ of one substance,” that they did to povoyeric, ‘* only-begotten,”” and that the two terms were intended by them to be synonymous. . E 2 60 of an undivided consubstantial Trinity of Persons can confer no benefit whatever upon the recipient. 1. That it is the proper effect of baptism to make the body the temple of an undivided consubstantial Trinity of Persons. Justin Martyr, in his Apology for the Christians, describes the rite of baptism, and the effect pro- duced by baptism, in the following manner :— ‘* Twill now,” says he, “ declare to you also after what manner we, being made new by Christ, have dedicated ourselves to God. .. . we bring men to some place where there is water ; and they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we were regenerated: for they are washed with water in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”’ In this passage it will be observed, that the person is pronounced by Justin Martyr to be regenerated by being washed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and that Justin calls the washing in the name of the Trinity the dedicating themselves to God. Tertullian in a similar manner represents bap- 1 cc Q \ . 3 Ap 3 ; ) ) Ov rpdroy o€ kal aveOhxaper Eavrove TH OsH, KavorroinDévrec ‘ ~ ~ , i ~ va Tov Xporov, éEnynodpeba-...."Ayovra i¢ hpov zvOa vdwp ‘ ’ > U a ke? tod éoTl, Kal THOTOY avayEevYnoEews OY Kal HyEic avrot aveyevyhOnuer, > ~ ik b] BJ / ‘ ~ x ~ e dvayevvorvrau x ovoparog yap tov Ilarpdc rev odwy Kai , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Agororov Ogov, kai rov Lwrijpoc jor ‘Inco Xpisrov, cal Ived- euiy NaS ~ 35 ’ \ ow 9 e parog aylov TO EV TW VOATL TOTE Aourpov Towvyra. —Justin. Martyr. Apol. 1. cap. Ixi. 61 tism as a spiritual laver in which the body is cleansed from the pollution of sin, and made the temple of a consubstantial Trinity. “ The wash- ing away of sins,” he says, “ is obtained by Faith sealed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”' And again: “ In Baptism we are dipped not once, but. thrice, at every name, to shew that we are baptised into Three Persons.” “ Which Three Persons,” he adds, in another place, ‘‘ are ONE THING (unum), not one person (unus), as it is written, I and the Father are one, with respect to unity of substance, not of numerical individuality.” * Origen also, speaking of baptism, says, “ By virtue of the imvocations, it is made the spring and fountain of spiritual graces, tu every one that dedicates himself to the Divinity or Godhead of the adorable Trinity.”* ** Angelus baptismi arbiter superventuro Spiritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum, quam fides impetrat, obsignata in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto.’—Tertull. de Bapt. c. vi. p. 226. ? Novissime mandans, ut tinguerent in Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum. Nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in singulas personas tinguimur.’’—Tertull. contr. Prax. cap. xxvi. Vide Appendix, p. 104, note (x). * “Quitres unum sint, non unus ; quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus; ad substantis unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem.”—Adv. Praxeam. c. xxv. p. 515. “TO Eurepexovre Eavrov 7H OeornTe Tij¢ moocKurvhTns Torddoc dia rijc dvvapewc THY ErikAnoEwY, Xapioparwy apyhy EXE Kal mnynv.”?—Origen Cit. Apud, Basil. de Spir. S. ¢, 29. In our present copies the passage is read somewhat differently, 62 These passages, [ consider, are sufficient to shew, that, in the judgment of the Antenicenes, the pro- per effect of baptism, is to make the body the temple of an undivided consubstantial Trinity— Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. - I shall now cite a few passages in proof of the second position, namely, that the Antenicenes judged that the baptism which does not make the body the temple of a consubstantial Trinity can confer no benefit whatever upon the recipient. St. Cyprian’ argues against the validity of here- tical baptism in the following manner :-— “ Tf aman could be baptised by heretics he might also obtain remission of sins. If he obtained re- though much the same in sense: ‘! To éumepéxovre éavroy rH Oevdrnre THC Suvapewc THY THE TpocKvvATHe Tpiadoc émckdycéwv coy i xapioparwy Oeiwy apy? kal myyn.”—Origen Comm. in John, p. 124. Ed. Heut. ‘Tt might perhaps be objected against the citations which I have made from St. Cyprian, that his opinions respecting the admission of persons who had received heretical baptism into the Church, were not universally allowed by the other Bishops. But such an objection can carry no weight at all with the present argument, for the disputes which then agitated the African churches bear no resemblance whatever to the present point in question. The point in question is, “ whether the baptism which does not make the body the temple of an undivided consubstantial Trinity can make the body the temple of God.’ This question St. Cyprian determines in the negative, and it is impossible to produce a single Father who has differed from him on this matter. 63 mission of sins, and was sanctified and made the temple of God; LIask of what God? If you say of the Creator, I answer, that he who believed not in Him, could not be His Temple. If you say of Christ, I answer, that neither can he who denies Christ to be God become the Temple of Christ. If you say of the Holy Ghost, since the Three are One, I ask, how can the Holy Ghost be recon- ciled to him who is at enmity with the Son or the “father.” | St. Cyprian, in this passage, asserts that man cannot, by baptism, be made the temple of God if he denies the doctrine of a consubstantial Trinity ; and, therefore, man must either be made the temple of that undivided Trinity, or he can be made the temple of no God whatever. In another passage the same writer asks—‘‘ How, then, do some say that a Gentile, who is baptised out of the Church, and even contrary to the Church, provided it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, any- where, and in any manner, can obtain remission of *«¢ Si baptizari quis apud Heereticos potuit: utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est; queero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit qui in eum non credidit: si Christi, nec hujus fieri potest Templum, qui negat Deum Christum: si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Filii aut Patris inimicus est.’—Cyprian ad Jubai. Ep. 73, p. 203. 64 sins, when Christ himself orders all nations to be bap- tised in the full and united Trinity.” The observation which Cyprian makes in this passage is precisely similar to that which he made in the preceding one. He shews that it is impossi- ble for man to derive any spiritual benefit from that baptism which is administered in the faith of one Person only of the Trinity, being God ; for the Three Persons, he adds, are One God; and, therefore, unless a man is baptised into the “ full undivided Trinity” he can be baptised into no God whatever. And it was to the same effect that Hippolytus spake before him. He opposes the modern Arian doctrine with the following words:—“ I speak of onE— we cannot forma conception of ONE Gop in any other way, unless we really believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” And he proceeds to shew that it was into such a faith that Christ ordained men should be baptised: “ The Paternal Word, therefore, knowing the dispensation and the will of the Father, that the Father wished to be glorified in no other way than this (i. €., as was stated above), com- manded his disciples after his resurrection, in these words, ‘ Go teach all nations, baptising them in the "* Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt foris extra Ecclesiam, imo, contra Ecclesiam, modo in nomine Jesu Christi, ubicunque et quomodocunque Gentilem baptizatum remissionem peccatorum consequi posse ; quando ipse Christus Gentes baptizari jubeat in plena et adunata Trinitate ?”—Ep. 73. p. 206 65 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, shewing that whoever omits ANY ONE OF THESE does not PERFECTLY glorify God ; for by this Trinity the Father is glorified.”’ And if the question had been put to Tertullian, who lived before him, why God is not glorified perfectly when either of the Three are excluded ? and why the Father is glorified by that whole Trinity ? he would have told us, in the same man- ner as Hippolytus has done, “ Because by their in- divisibility the one can neither be known nor unknown without the other.” * If, then, from these passages it appears conclusive that man cannot be made the temple of God, and be accounted regenerate, unless he is baptised into a consubstantial Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,—the Necessity of faith in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity can be no longer a point of ques- tion. 1 Arig pév ovK E90 Oeode aX’ i) Eva... a+ GAddwe TE Eva Ocov , \ } / ak \ of \ \ Sia wr , / , vopioat Ly vyapeda EaY py OVTWE Ilarpt cat Yig kat avi IIvevpare MLOTEVOWMEV os oe ywaokwy ovv 6 Iarp@oc Adyoe rnv oikovopiay kat ro OéApna Tov Llarpoc, ore ovk tiddwe Povdrérar SoéaZecOar 6 Ilarno 7) otrwe, dvacrdc TapédwKey TOIC pabjrare Néywr, Llopev- 7 Ld U Ve of , bd ~ b] \ Oévreg paQnrevoare mavTa Ta t0vn, Parrilovres avrove el¢ TO of , ed ~ a * a 4 > / / Ovopa. K. T. X. Secxvdwy Ore wac Oc Gy Ey Te rovTwy exdlmn TEdELwWS © Ocov ovk gddEacev. Ava yap Tic Tpradoc raurne Llarnp doéalérat.”” —Hippol. Contra Noetum. c. xiv. p, 15. 2 Quia per individuitatem neque agnosci neque ignorari alter ~ sine altero potest.”—Tertull. Adv. Praxeam. c. xxii. p, 513. 66 We may now bring together the several results to which the present inquiry into “the Doctrine of Faith in the Holy Trinity” has led. It has been shewn, First, that when God is de- scribed, in the Old Testament, or in the New, as the Creator, the Redeemer, or the Protector of Israel ; he is described not as an Unipersonal God, but as a Triune God, viz., as one God, in whose substance there are Three Persons, the Father—the Word, and the Spirit; that the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are Three Persons numerically distinct from each other, but are one God; the Three Persons subsisting in one undivided essence. i tsphgey Secondly, That the Antenicene Fathers taught that the three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are consubstantial, co-equal, co-eternal ; and that the substance of the Godhead is not of a specific but of a simple, uncompounded, indivisible nature; that the Persons, though equal in every essential perfection, have nevertheless rank and order; that, by reason of the economy of Persons, the Father is supreme, the Son is second in order, and the Holy Ghost is third in order. Thirdly, That the, doctrine of the Holy Trinity was taught as a fundamental doctrine in the creeds of the Antenicene Church; that sentence of ex- | communication was pronounced by the Antenicenes upon all persons who rejected or defiled that doctrine. And that baptism was declared by the Ante- 67 nicenes to be deprived of its spiritual effect when recipients were supposed not to have been baptised into a consubstantial Trinity. It may, with justice, therefore, be asserted, that the doctrine of the Trinity, which is set forth +n the Articles and Creeds of the Established Church of England, is based upon the joint testi- mony of the Old and New Testaments ; that it is the Catholic Faith of all ages, and has been always urged as a doctrine necessary to be believed in order to salvation. What, then, the Scriptures contain, and the universal Church has always believed, let us also believe. Let us not inquire curiously how the Three Persons are one God, or how the one God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but rather let us praise Him who has revealed to us the adorable mystery, that there is one God the Father who hath made us, one God the Son who hath redeemed us, and one God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth us. Let us give thanks that we have been brought to this saving knowledge; and while we pray that God will vouchsafe to bring all men to this Faith, let us be mindful of the charge that was delivered by the Apostle, that we “ keep this commandment without spot unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” * 1} Tim. vi. 14. APPENDIX. aN an no ino Nx 09% > belie oe A iy : nes saint tetionaden: Foi is satay | Aiiag oes GT eM nena ee ita Taig re ‘daar a8 i : C4 rine ee : pe: "git . inchipas, ‘eh ok Witt ig re: G Ne 4 : ; ea tA ih ey Ms ‘ hk 7 i ; ‘ AT saftie e “at * aoe nite. aay be % : Mey pment pee ee teem v iat ilies haiind! c ine i a, eft we oo Ne WAX 4, sete si t ry i) ell Ly 7 ue ag Lory See aa nae 7 a ny Bs 4G Ships MOR CER ESRY T. $e by. fe aay a fae COWNR sice Md us 8 Shim aan a a ea ach if, y ik oh } ‘ ie. : Saei if ’ ey oe vs Hay Pa ae tg iP ve iti, RES mene a 2 “4 ] 7 i a 2 Ee” ay om SO ers a ‘eer a *hel | a4 sat ti ee eg evn ages Cae { ¥ ‘ < yon 7 Pr we, . HIER POUT ety Tis! Yi ath he yt WA a Pes tied bs Cay: i FR, Why SA ASRES > Tate Mi: Ve poy > a a) Re: ; ees Opes eee iy ie eg thls a8 CO TE, ‘veh aa Ute mec ied - i. ‘ es Mas re i ie Ci? i at beat AAR a ern 7 ' oe ne ey a iste ig Bt ite atagsi a Le aly ois, bac RG botnets ae oe As sth) isthaht ae fii ap i ath sth Phe alta a , Ye i) ae ee Mach ; Iai - ; 7 Ry Ree oom cee ots ae aed jae we af itd bisa j singe eg ha i ae AP Nee Were ¥ &¥ ras nie 2 foadtd + “asin (aii er f ae wile: bee ab ar bbe tical oo Rita abe A Seto 1 laps ee ae ¥ ae Aa i hy 7es vie aa ifn oe oie arhister ined ” NY aia ay Car ¥ ms i mi va Pewee os ia iy caus old : ies oA | eb ie big, aoe SAP oF A nae 7 » ae f ? apache Beda Oy Pe Pe ye CR tee P ‘to ar i a Ke g Te | # ¥ J PP As Seen ‘ le eee raG Coe ore. ‘ ‘e_7in ie —s, . ' eNet Ls re wed vy 1445)! 74) eae ihe Ant Vie au VE Lain a i APPENDIX. 4 | : Ay! ‘ou if i) > artoia ° ab she hoz si tS ail ‘rag HH ie cialis OP aur cgobiaes ‘dhe, ie pa og | DE jiize Boral si bauoligae, el otf we. Joga, od} to ewtsa 4 er A ee “oil ati sol qed @) oud? cided dean A aa: Base: Pest hay . Sun] Rojtten & aly oft atid oonft anid. of bas ys Wo Me ‘pilovery panloy gid yods ‘has oid Ye o1nad c ies “0g) cetiotees Metter TOY nolniag ton. Iw. of’ i ion : ay oh rons "9 Pt benoit: fe eae ott om" md. itt - —-_ n ne aes qu 2. phi. ie “ener, semi ad} ah hoasitam:® iat 7) 7s 4 soos ‘oa Live uo atiod aif bisod tek weve Meee ce ee ae aeonq ot berteyiahins eoerarl T. Monty ‘astiog owt . : tas has. “Asie ater dont bobigty oda Werageis, oss. wa Ley a Belly | Aaa ed rer 4H HoT AL AD Wd gilt’: 2b io beeen Aa “obeint ack ctibue peangh oul wabiliin, ‘bod: ‘See? bay indy. box Ph Gs ATLANTA? Ma eboeipiong ‘Bis 9 cane, ks ei Ayr sutaany YM eds Hive og hwo: 3% teat ASL fi mons i % pk ure: wd volt” * opal itr” iy. Malle? = ia os oa ae ARY “Kerw sagesionomsign 2a, ah | ti. ade “besiiog: eb: ~ malt Yo: queasibraitg: 5 page 1 ore dita’ bélisdor Sat? —; ebroie @ yetwoll® afta os eee ala es) brawn a, sat cond ni yl | - ae 4 al ed | “a f a A iy f 4 Ye is vee er, Oe eZ Ser , Pern A any Ree Bere | a cy ae * " L 5 dime Fy a4 ; : ah iy) a a jee agi obs ae i s a hs v4 a | % we 1 AS “~ ras | G4 tk bay : ; a+ { } m Le : oe a ‘ ’ uf " 7 A 5 a ares le a is J S f -) , ; 7 r Wy : ‘ee A : he Lh Pb i cc ys j oe uae tae St Si ee vera a Ke ob ne * Haein i. % ee Ny " ae he are “aye Ve Me Saas See TEE AR! gd ed NOTE (a), page 17. THE comparison of Haggai li, d, with, Lsod.. xxix. 4b, 46, which shews that. it was the Spirit-Jehovah who con- ducted Israel into Canaan, enables us to understand the nature of the Angel who is mentioned in Exod. xxii. 20, «‘ Behold I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have pre- pared: beware of him and obey his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my Name is in him,” &c. The Angel mentioned, is evidently, the Lord of Hosts, the Spirit. After the idolatrous worship of the molten calf, God said, «I will send an Angel before thee; for L will not go up in the midst of thee.” Exod. SEKI, O. The Angel mentioned in this latter instance is supposed by many to be a created angel, opposed to “Jehovah-An- gel,” mentioned in the former instance. But this sup- position, even if it could be borne out, will not affect the two points which I have endeavoured to prove, 2. e., that the Spirit is the Angel who guided Israel into Canaan, and that the Angel is the Lord of Hosts. For it is to be ob- served that God withdrew the threat which he made in chap. xxxiiil. 3; and promised, in opposition to it, Exod. xxxlii. 14, that He would go with them, “ My presence,” says He, “ shall go with thee,” or, as the Septuagint has rendered it, avTOs mpotropetrouat cov. The guardianship of the Spirit is noticed by Isaiah, in the following words:—* They rebelled and vexed His Holy Spirit; therefore, He was turned to be their enemy, 72 and He fought against them. Then He remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying, where is He that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? Where is He that put His Holy Spirit within him? that led them by the right hand of Moses with His glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make Himself an everlasting name? That led them through the deep as an horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble? As a beast goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of the Lord caused him to rest.’ Isaiah Ixiii. 10 —14. The latter verse contains precisely what God pro- mised above, in Exod. xxxiii. 14, « My presence shall go with thee; I will give thee rest.” And it is to be ob- served also, that for )377T2T, “caused him to rest,” the Septuagint has @dyyncev avtovs, “ conducted them.” NOTE (8), page 19. “ Our Unitarians,” says Stillingfleet, « pretend that they are satisfied that the form of baptism is found in all copies, and all the ancient translations ; and that it was used before the Council of Nice, as appears by several places of Ter- tullian. But how then? There are two things objected by them.” “Ist. That the Antenicene Fathers do not allege it to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Ghost.” « 2nd. That the form of words here used doth not prove the Doctrine of the Trinity.’—Vind. Trin. p. 177. These being the only objections that can be raised against the text which I have quoted, I shall consider each of them separately. In opposition to the first statement it is to be observed, 73 that it is erroneous to suppose “that the Antenicenes do not allege it to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Ghost.” For the Prelate whose words I have just cited has made it the chief object of his ninth chapter, to ascertain from the writings of the Antenicenes, whether those Fathers did or did not allege the text to prove the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost; and he draws abundant proofs from their writings that they dd allege it to prove the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. He alludes to those proofs in p. 220, where, after the words, “ They (2. e., the Unitarians) say farther, that the ancients of the first four hundred years do not insist on this place, to prove the Divinity or Per- sonality of the Son or Spirit ;” he adds, “As to the first three hundred years I have given an account already; and, as to the fourth century, I could not have thought that they would have mentioned it; since there is scarce a Father of the Church, in that time, who had occasion to do it, but makes use of the argument from this place to prove the Divinity and Personality of the Son and Spirit.” With regard to the second objection, viz., “That the form of words used by St. Matthew doth not prove the Doc- trine of the Trinity.” It is obvious that the case is other- wise. ‘‘I'o baptise is, in a general sense, to cleanse from defilement, and to set apart for a pure use; as an ordinance of the Christian religion to be received but once, it is sym- bolically to cleanse from the defilement of sin, and to con- secrate by a perpetual obligation to a Christian life. This obligation is the most comprehensive which can be imposed : it involves faith, worship, and obedience; the devotion of body, and soul, and spirit ; and it is incurred to the name not only of the Father, but of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It is not worship towards one, obedience towards another, and faith towards another; nor is it all these in a different sense and degree towards each; nor yet is it all F 74 these in the same sense towards one, through another, and in another. Our Saviour does not make any division, dis- tribution, or gradation, of our baptismal engagements ; neither does He distinguish one person as more especially, or in a higher degree, the object of those engagements, than another; but whatsoever things are undertaken in baptism, whatsoever duties a Godly and a Christian life comprehends, these, undivided and undistributed—these, inthe same sense and degree, are intended. Such honour, the highest which man can give, belongs only to God; nor will He permit any creature to be associated with Him in it.”—Vogan, Bampt. Lect. p. 165. Vide also Waterland’s Moyer’s Lec- tures, viii.; Randolph, Vind. Trinity, part 11. p. 54—61. NOTE (y), page 22. «« We have the concurrent testimony of all ancient writers, both Jews and Christians, that Jehovah is the proper and incommunicable name of the Supreme God, and denotes an eternal, immutable, necessary existence. It is derived from the verb M7, which signifies ‘to exist ;’ and God himself has explained this to be the meaning of it. When Moses, Ex. iii. 13, desired to know of God what was his name, God said unto Moses FPTN WS PTPIN— I am that I am,’ and then adds: ‘ Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your Fathers, hath sent me unto you; this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations,’ And to this doubtless our Lord referred, when he used that remarkable expression to the Jews,—‘ Before Abraham was I am,’ John viii. 58. The Jews tell us that the time past, present, and to come, were all expressed in this word, 75 * The Scriptures of truth in the most express terms ap- propriates this name to the true God. We have already seen that God, Exod. ii. 15, commanded Moses ‘ to say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your Fa- thers, &c., hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. And that this latter clause more particularly relates to the title Jeho- vah, appears by comparing it with the foregoing verse, and also with Hos. xii. 5: ‘Jehovah, the God of Hosts, Jehovah is his memorial.’ See also Ps. exxxv. 13, which should be translated ‘Jehovah is thy name for ever, Jehovah is thy memorial from generation to generation.’ * I am Jehovah,’ saith God by his prophet, Isa. xl. 8, ‘that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another.’ Again, ‘1 am Jehovah b (Isa. xlv. 5), and there is none else, there is no God besides me, « <'Thou whose name alone is Jehovah,’ saith the Psalmist, Ixxxu. 18, ‘ art the Most High over all the earth. This is called, Deut. xxvii. 58, ‘ the glorious and fearful name.’ This is the title on which God throughout the whole Old Testament insists ; by this He asserts His Authority, Power, and Supremacy, glorying, in a manner, and triumphing in it, as the distinguishing character by which he would be known to be infinitely superior to all the gods of the nations. With this title he introduces the Decalogue: ‘I am Jehovah thy God,’ Ex. xx. 2, Levit. xviii. and xix., and elsewhere. And this he frequently adds by way of sanction to his laws, < I am Jehovah.’ | «« And thus he expresses himself to his Prophets, ‘I, even I (Isa, xlni. 11), am Jehovah, and besides me there is no Saviour.’ ‘I form (Isa, xlv. 7) the light, and create dark- ness ; I make peace, and create evil; I Jehovah do all these things. “ Who hath (Isa, xlv. 26) declared this from an- cient time: have not I Jehovah, and there is no God else F 2 76 besides me.’ ‘ Behold I am Jehovah (Jer. xxxii. 27), the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?’ ‘IT am Jehovah (Mal. iii. 6); 1 change not. < All the Gods (Ps. xevi. 5) of the nations are idols; but Jehovah made the Heavens.’ ‘ Against all the Gods (Ex, xu. 12) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Jehovah.’ ’”’—Ran- dolph’s Vindication of the Doctrine of the ‘Trinity, part 1. p- 61—65. NOTE (8), page 27. “ As Christis called an ‘ Advocate,’ so the Holy Ghost is said to be another Advocate. Christ our Advocate to plead our cause with God, He, Christ’s Advocate, to plead His cause with the world :”—« The verb mapaxaelv is of a very large and unlimited signification: it sometimes signifies to ‘comfort,’ very frequently to ‘ preach,’ ‘teach,’ and ‘ exhort,’ and sometimes ‘to plead as an Advocate the cause of another.” And this seems to be the proper notion of the word zap&KAyros in this place, ‘the Advocate or Patron of a cause, one that pleads for the party accused. And in this sense, and no other, Christ is called our TAPAKANTOS, or ‘ Advocate with the Father” 1 John ii. 1. ‘If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” And as Christ is our Advocate with the Father in Heaven, so the Spirit is Christ's Advocate here on earth, and pleads His cause with the world. And it is very ob- servable that this very word ‘ Paraclete,’ though it be not an Hebrew, but a Greek word, is frequently used by the Chaldee paraphrast, and other Jewish writers, in this sense of an Ad- vocate. And that this notion of the word agrees best with this place, I shall clearly shew, when I come to the second 77 head of my discourse; namely, to shew the happy con- sequence and effect of the coming of the Holy Ghost, viz., the convincing of the world how injuriously they had dealt with Christ, and the clear vindication of his innocency, which ts the proper office and work of an Advocate.”— Tillotson, vol. x. Serm. excviii. p. 308, 309. Vide also Clarke’s Serm. vol. vi. p. 74. NOTE (e), page 37. « But among all the reproaches,” observes Dr. Wall, “cast on the Fathers, there is none so scandalous and destructive of the credit both of the Fathers and of Chris- tianity itself, as is one they have lately set abroad, viz., that the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in whom we believe, and in whose name we are bap- tised, is (as it is understood, explained, and held by the said Fathers) a doctrine of Tritheism, or of believing in three Gods. I may repeat their sayings, for they are indus- triously handed about in the English tongue. One of them says thus :—' «“<«* They (the Fathers) thought the three hypostases (0 persons in the Trinity) to be three equal Gods, as we should now express it.—And again:*—‘ Not to recur to the Fathers, whose opinion was quite different from that which is now received; and who, properly speaking, affirmed that there were three consubstantial Gods, as has been shewn by Petavius, Curcelleus, Cudworth, and others.’ 1M, Le Clerc, in his Supplement to Dr. Hammond’s Annot. on 1 John v. 6, 4to. London, 1699. 2 Ibid. Preface, or see the Latin edition, Novum Test. Hammondi et Clerici, 2 tom. fol. Francofurti. 1714, tom. ii. p- 594, sect. 5. 78 And again:—* Who, to speak the truth, were Tritheists rather than asserters of the present opinion: for they be- lieved the unity of substance, not the singularity of number, as Tertullian speaks; that is, that the substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was specifically One, but numerically Three: as the learned men I before mentioned have clearly shewn, and might more largely be dlemon- strated.’ —ITbid. «This slander on the writings of the Fathers our Eng- lish Socinians greedily caught up; and to any thing that was offered out of the Fathers they have in their late books opposed this: that ‘ the Fathers held only a speco- fical unity of the Divine nature, and the persons to be as so many individuals.’ «This they repeat often, and refer to Curcelleeus’ unde- niable proofs of it. Of which Bishop Stillingfleet taking notice, did, in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, answer and refute, particularly all the instances brought by Curcellzeus in a large discourse, bringing, as he expresses it himself, « undeniable proofs’ that Curcelleus had mis- taken their meaning. “ Notwithstanding this, what does the foresaid author do but three years after the publication of Stillingfleet’s book, writing some critical Epistles, loads them with the same slanders repeated, without taking any notice that they had been answered: saying, ‘That the Nicene Fathers thought the Dwine nature is no otherwise one than specifically, but that it isin number threefold; as Petavius, Curcelleus, 1 Defence of the Brief History of the Unitarians [against Dr. Sherlock’s Answer, 4to. Lond. 1691], p.5. Answer to Lamoth [viz., Reflections on two Discourses concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, written by Monsieur Lamoth, in French, and done into English. Written to J. S. 4to. London, 1693, p. 24]. Letter to the University, p. 13. 79 Cudworth, and others, have proved by such arguments as that there can nothing be said in answer to them,’ * «In another of the said Epistles he repeats the same slander, and would father it on some learned men in England. He says, ‘ Learned men in England, and elsewhere, do not forbear to say openly, that the Nicene Fathers believed three eternal and equal essences in God: and not one God in number’ —Ibid. in Epist. 5. ad Episcop. Vigorn, p. 177.— And, having mentioned that several Protestant Churches have received the Nicene Creed into their public confessions, he adds: —‘ If then they will stand to this part of their confession, they must own that they believe three eternal natures, and renounce the numerical unity of God. Or tf they will not do that, they must expunge that Article of their confession in which they own the Nicene Faith.— Ibid. < And these letters he ventures to send into England, di- rected to Bishops there, who he must needs think abominated such exorbitant sayings; and who could easily, if he had had the prudence to consult them first, have satisfied him that one of their brethren had long ago answered all those proofs of Curcelleeus with which he made such a noise; Petavius’ and Cudworth’s instances being not so considerable, nor so maliciously urged.”—Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bapt. vol. 11. cap. v. § 8, 9. p. 147. Oxon. 1830. NOTE (2), page 38. 1 have preferred the phrase, “ The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son,” to that of the Nicene Creed, “ The EL ER RE GI EAEO RI e 1 Epist. iii., ad Episcop. Sarisb. p- 108. [See Jo, Clerici Epistole Criticze (forming the third volume of his Ars. Critica), 12mo. Amstelodami. 1700. | 80 Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” be- cause it cannot, with strict propriety, be said that a// the Fathers have admitted, « The Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son.” The Latin Fathers, it is certain, taught expressly the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son ; “ Spiritus quoque sanctus cum procedit a Patre et Filio, non separatura Patre, non separatur a Filio.”—S. Ambrose, de Spir. S. lib. i. ec. 11. Spiritus autem sanctus vere Spiritus est, procedens quidem a Patre et Filio: sed non est ipse Filius quia non generatur, neque Pater, quia pro- cedit ab utroque.”—IJd. de Symbol. ¢. 3.“ Non possumus dicere quod Spiritus Sanctus et a Filio non procedat : neque enim frustra Spiritus et Patris et Filii Spiritus dicitur.’— Augustin, de Trin, lib. iv. c. 20. « Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites eundem Spiritum Sanctum qui Patris et Filii unus est Spiritus, de Patre et Filio procedere.”—Fule. de Fide ad Petrum, c. 11. But not so the Greek Fathers. The Greeks used the ex- pression, “ The Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father,” but did not say, “‘ He Pronesec from the Son.” «’ Eat rév 1 TR fee loTamevor, TO ayévunTov sinkywmev, Kar TO yevnTov, Kod 7d éx TOU Lartpos é exrropevouevov. —Greg. Na- zianz. Orat. i. de Filio. But though the Greek Fathers did not use the expression, “‘ He proceedeth from the Son,” they used another precisely similar to it, 7. e, “ He received of the Son;” and when they spoke of the Holy Ghost as “ proceeding from the Father,” they usually added, « He rececved of the Son,” as py be seen from the following instances: “ Kal yao Kal mept ToD Tlvetporros Braspnpovor, Kat ToAMact Aéyew Kexticbat tnd tod Yiod, Omep éoriv &«tTiotov &k Tatpoc é EKTOPEVOMEVOV, Kal TOD Yiod AapuB&vov.” Taegan Heer, lxix. § 52. «TS ayiov Ivedpa, lies cov, aet dv ody Harp: Kat Yio, otK aAAOTpLov Oeod, ard lt » nt ee ae oe 81 82 Ocod dv, and Tlatpos exmopevopevov, Kat Tov Yiov Aap- Bavov.”—Id. Ancor. § 6. “Agi yap To veda ovv Marpt Kat Yio, od cuveédeAdov Harp, ov yevyntov, ov KTicTOV, OvK adeApov Yiov, ovK eyyovov Harpos, é« Tatpos 08 éxmopev- dpevov Kat Tov Yiovd AapBavov.” —Id. Heer. lxii. § 4. The difference, therefore, which existed between the early Greek and Latin writers, was in words only, and not in sense. For, both agreed that the Holy Ghost receiveth his divine essence from the Father and the Son; only the Latins applied the term “ proceeding,” indiscriminately tothe Father and the Son; whereas the Greeks restricted it to the Father, and applied the Scriptural term “ received,” to denote the procession from the Son. In later years, when schismatics arose in the Eastern Church, and denied that the Spirit receiveth His essence from the Son as well as from the Father, the Latins inserted the words “ Filioque’”’ into the Constantinopolitan Creed ; and the clause, which formerly ran in the words “a Patre procedens,” was accordingly expanded to that of “a Patre Filioque procedens ;” as we now read it in the Nicene Creed. But the insertion of the words, “ Filioque” was at- tended with a lamentable result, for it occasioned the vast schism between the Churches of the East and the West, which exists to the present day. Neither Church can be excused for the part which it took in this transaction. ‘The Latins ought not to have added to the form of creed which had been resolved upon by the second council at Constan- tinople; for they were expressly forbidden to do so by a general council held at Ephesus; nor ought they to have insisted that the Greeks should receive into the Creed an ex- pression which, as I before remarked, was not to be found in any of the writings of the early Greek Fathers; and the Greeks, on the other hand, are equally inexcusable for having deviated so far from the early Catholic doctrine of the East 82 and West as to render it necessary that the Latins should have resorted to the unhappy expedient to which they did. NOTE (n), page 38. Sherlock makes the same observation, in his “ Commen- tary on the Athanasian Creed.” Having quoted the words, « And in this Trinity, none is afore or after other, none ts greater or less than another, but the whole Three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal,” he writes, “ And yet this we must acknowledge to be true, if we acknowledge all Three Persons to be Eternal, for in Eternity there can be no afore or after other. And that we cannot conceive an Eternal generation or procession is no great wonder, when we can- not conceive an Eternal Being, without any beginning or any cause. “ As for greater or less, and the equality of Three Persons, this we must confess also, if we believe all Three Per- sons to be one Supreme and Sovereign God; for in one Supreme Deity there cannot be greater or less; but then we must distinguish between subordination and equality. Per- sons who are equal may be subordinate to each other; and though there be not a greater or less, yet there is order in the Trinity. Equality is owing to nature, subordination to relation and order, which is indeed a greater and less in relation and order without an inequality of nature; and it zs the equality of Persons with respect to their nature, not to their order and subordination, of which the Creed speaks ; for in this sense the Father is greater than the Son, and the Father and the Son than the Holy Spirit, as being first in order, but their nature is the same, and their Persons, with respect to this same nature, co-equal.’’—Sherlock’s Vind. Trinity, p. 18. 1 Se es 83 NOTE (06), page 47. «There are reasons for thinking, that Theodotus by no means went so far as to maintain what is now called the simple humanity of Christ; and I cannot help quoting a remarkable passage in Athanasius, which shews that, in his opinion at least, such a notion had never been entertained. « Athanasius is stating that the Arians had been condemned for saying, that Christ was created, and that there was a time when He did not exist:—‘ But z7f any one (he says) should wish to expose them by a still stronger argument, he will find that this heresy is not perhaps far removed from heathen notions ; but that, with respect to other heresies, it goes much further, and is the very dregs of them. For the error of those heresies has been either concerning the Lord’s Body, and His union with man, some inventing this false- hood, and some that, or in saying that the Lord had not been on earth at all, which is the error into which the Jews were led: but the Arian heresy is the only one which, with still greater madness, has attacked the Divinity itself, and said that the Locos had no existence at all, and that the Father was not alway a Father. Athanasius says plainly in this passage, that the Arians went further than any other heretics in denying the Divinity of Christ. The distinctive mark of Arianism was this: it was maintained that there was a time when Christ did not exist, and that there was atime when he was called into being by God. It was observed with truth, by Athanasiusand the Fathers, that this was to say in other words that Christ was created; but still the Arians maintained, in their own sense, that Christ was God; they did not refuse to speak of him as very God of very God ; and it would be pre- posterous to say, that men who spoke thus of Christ went fur- ther in denying his Divinity than those who said he was a mere man, without any inherent divinity at all. It follows, 84 therefore, that Athanasius could never have heard of persons having maintained the latter notion; and, when he describes the preceding heresies, he says expressly, that they related to the Lord’s Body and his union with man. These words evidently refer to the Gnostics, whether Docete or Ebion- ites; and Athanasius says, that they did not lower the Divinity of Christ so much as the Arians. There may be something of polemical hyperbole in this statement; and his comparison of the Arians and Gnostics would not perhaps bear a strict examination: but this much may at least be concluded, that Athanasius knew of no persons, since the first rise of Christianity, who had lowered the Divinity of Christ so much as the Arians; and I have shewn that it was Jesus and not Curist, whose divinity the Gnostics denied ; but all of them believed Curist to have pre-existed, to have proceeded forth from God, and to have been united for a time to a real or apparent human body. “ We still, therefore, are without any evidence of the pro- per Unitarian doctrines being held in the three first centu- reves. ‘Theodotus may have been overlooked by Athanasius ; or, which appears not improbable, though he believed Christ to be a mere man, he held that something divine resided in in Him.’—Burton’s Bampt. Lect. p. 248. NOTE (.), page 52. “ Formulam illam confessionis Catholice de SS. Trinitate a Gregorio revera profectam fuisse constat. Nam eidem illam tribuit non modo Ruffinus,! sed et ipsius, cognominis Gregorius’ Nyssenus, qui viri admirabilis res gestas; et 1 Hist. Ecel. lib. vii. c, 25. * In Vita. S. Greg. Thaum. Oper. tom. ii, p. 978, 979. 85 scripta accurate perspecta habuit, adeoque vitam ejus de- scripsit. Quin et rem hanc ita narrat vir eximius, ut vix quisquam cordatus de ea dubitare possit. Nimiorum confes- sionem illam recitaturus, heec verba praeemittit; Ar yo puo- Taywyerra: péypt TOU voV 6 EKElvys Aads, TaTNS aipEeTEKIs kakiag Siapetvas ametparos, i.e. «Per quam (Confessionem) usque in presentem diem instituctur plebs tlla (nempe Neo- Cesareensis) que ab omni heretica malitia intacta per- mansit. Scilicet adeo certum erat, confessionem illam fidei a Gregorio Thaumaturgo profectam, ut plebs omnis civitatis Neo-Cesarensis, cujus Episcopus et immortale decus ille fuit, illam, ut Gregorii indubie genuinam, amplexa perque ipsam, a Patrum memoria usque ad Nysseni etatem, insti- tui solita fuerit : ndeque factum, ut Ecclesia Neo-Cesareen- sis, cum totus mundus Arianus fierit, ab heeretica malitia se illesam conservaverit. Postquam vero Confessionem reci- tasset Nyssenus, hee subjungit: dr@ O& PiAov mept TobTOU meio Onvat akovéTw THS ExKAyolas, ev 7] TOV Adyov éxHouTTeEr, Tap ois avTa TA YapayuaTa TIS pakapias exelvng yEIpos eis ett Kat vov OiacdleTau, i.e., ‘ quod siquts sibi fidem de hac re fiert cupit, audiat Kceclesiam, in qua sermonem predica- bat, apud quam illa ipsa verba a beata illa manu exarata, adhuec etiam nunc conservantur. Apellat ipsum Thauma- turgi avTéypapov, a Neo-Cesareensibus usque ad suam eetatem religiose custoditum. Nescio sane an ad ejusmodi traditionem aliquam confirmandam quicquam amplius desi- derari possit. Ceeterum Gregorii Nysseni testimonio aperte suffragari mihi videtur Basilius Magnus ipsius frater, qui Epist. 75, ad Neo-Czesareenses testatur, se ab avia sua, in tenera ztate, Gregorii Thaumaturgi ipsa verba dedicisse, quibus recte de fide in SS. Trinitatem institutus fuerit. Verba . a , Oe ~ ¢ , Fat sN 4, 3 ejus sunt : Tliotews 0€ TIS NETEPAS TIS AV YEVOITO EVapYE- ' Basil. Oper. tom. iii. p. 131. Edit. 1638. [Ep. cciv. 6. vol. iii. p. 306.) 86 oréoa anddetkis, ) Ott Teapévtes Hueis Und Titby paKapla yuvaiki, Tap vuov Spunuévy; Maxpivav Aéyw tyv treptRd- ntov' Tap Ag eddaYOnuev TA TOV pakapiwTatou Teyyopiov Oymara, Ora mods adTIHV aKkoAovOla pnuns SiacwOévTa adTH Te EpvAacoe, KAI Huds ETL VyTiOUS OVTAS ETAATTE Kat E“dppov Tos THs evoeBelas Odoypacr i.e., ‘ Fidet vero nostre que poterit esse evidentior probatio, quam quod a nutrice beata femina, que ex vestro gremio progressa est (Macrinam dico illustrem tllam) educati sumus? a qua et beatissimz Gregorti verba dedicimus, que memorieé beneficio ad wllius usque etatem conservata, et ipsa retinuit, et nos adhue in- fantes tisdem, tanquam pietatis dogmatibus formavit.’ Omnino, inquam, hic Thaumaturgi confessio designari mihi videtur. Nam totidem verbis a Gregorio traditam fidei tnotumwoiv de SS. Trinitate (quippe de ea ibi agit) se in infantia sua, ab avia Macrina Neo-Cesareensi edoctum fuisse diserte testatur Basilius. « Attende lector. Nyssenus refert, Populum Neo-Ceesare- ensem per Thaumaturgi confessionem, a Patrum memoria ad suam usque etatem institui solitum fuisse ; ait vero Basi- lius, se ab avia sua, (nempe dum apud ipsam Neo-Cesarez in Ponto una cum parentibus suis vitam ageret,) in tenera ztate (hoc est, ante Concilium Niczenum,) rectam fidem de SS. Trinitate, totidem Gregorii verbis conceptam, edidicisse. Quis non existimaverit de eadem fidei confessione utrumque loqui? Quin et idem Basilius, lib. de Spiritu S. cap. 29, tes- tatur, tantam fuisse Gregorii illius apud Neo-Cesareenses usque ad sua tempora existimationem, ut nihil sive in doc- trina, sive in ritibus admittere in Ecclesia voluerint, nisi quod a maximo illo fundatore suo traditum accepissent. Verba Basilii heee sunt:1 Tobtou péya ett Kal vov Tors eyywplos TO Padua, Kai veapa Kal det TedTpaTos H wvyuN Tats eKKAN- Basil. Oper. tom. iit. p. 360. Edit. Paris, 1638. [Vol. iii. p- 63. | 87 gious évidpuTau, oddevt yodv@ auaupoupévyn’ ovKOvY ov TEaky TIva, OV Adyov, ov TUTOY TIVAa MUOTIKOV, TAP dV EKEtvOS Ka- tédime, TH EKKAyoia TeOTEOnKaY’ 1, e., ‘ Hujus (Gregorit) in hodiernum quoque diem magna est apud ejus regionis ho- mines admiratio, recensque ac semper vigens memoria sic infiaa est Ecclesiis, ut nullo tempore obscuretur. Itaque non praxin aliquam, non dictum, non formam ullam mysti- cam ultra quam ille reliquit, Eeclesie (sue) adjecerunt.’ Si dictum nullum, ultra quam illis reliquit Gregorius, certe multo minus Symbolum aliquod aut Fidei confessionem, quam ab ipso non acceperat, Ecclesia Neo-Cesareensis vo- luit admittere: et tamen Basilii eetate confessionem fidei, qua de agimus, in Ecclesia ista receptam fuisse, idque ut a Gregorio traditam, certissimum est. His addas, quod con- fessio illa tradatur, ut Thaumaturgi indubie genuina, a Pa- tribus universis, in quinta Synodo cecumenica congregatis, Denique ipsa confessio etatem Gregorii Thaumaturgi plane redolet : quippe que manifeste opposita sit heresibus, que ecclesiam Christi tum temporis maxime turbarunt. Dus imprimis iis temporibus hereses vigebant, ut ex epistola. Dionysii Romani apud Athanasium supra commemorata liquet: altera Sabellii, que Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum S. nomine solum, non troordéce: differre statuebat : altera Sabellianze velut ex diametro contraria, eorum nempe, qui SS. Trinitatem dividebant in tres hypostases separatas, pere- erinas, atque a se invicem alienas, quique adeo dicebant, Filium et Spiritum S., creaturas esse, et aliquando Deo Patri defuisse. Priorem heeresim aperte feriunt verba ista in ipso confessionis initio: mat#0 Adyou CavTos coplas Upertaans et illa: vlog dAnOtvos, &AnAtv0d maTpos' Nam Sabellius neque ve- rum Patrem, neque verum Filium, sed utrumque nomine tan- tum fatebatur ; ac denique illa de Spiritu Sancto: &« tov Oeov mv Unapéww &yov. Heresim alteram, preeter alia, prorsus jugu- lant verba illa: tprd¢ TeAeta, Od&n Kat aididtyTe Kat Bactrcig un wepitouévy pnd &radAorproupévy, et sequentia: ovTe ovy 88 KTIOTOV TL, 7 OOVAOV ev TH Tptadr. K.7.A. Ut verbo dicam, conferat Lector Studiosus professionem Dionysii Romani de Sancta Trinitate. quam capite superiori, n. 1, ex Athanasio recitavimus, cum hac Gregorii nostri, ejus co-cetanei confes- sione; et miram utriusque convenientiam illico perspiciet. « § 3. Quid jam ad hee Sandius? De confessione fidet, inquit, nzhil aliud dico, quam de ea tacere HKusebium et Hieronymum et Sophronium.' Quasi Scilicet Eusebius et Hieronymus omnia veterum Patrum Scripta et facta com- memoraverint. Certe Eusebius in Historia sua Ecclesias- tica, nescio quo casu (nam ut credam malo aliquo consilio id factum, quod putavit Anastasius Bibliothecarius, a me impetrare nequeo,) Gregorii Thaumaturgi laudes fere silentio pressit, nec quicquam de miraculis ejus, per totum Christ- ianum orbem celebratis, dicit. Puto in alio aliquo opere, quod intercidit, plura de Gregorio Thaumaturgo retulisse Eusebium. | Certe in Apologia pro Origene,® ejus discipuli Gregorii Thaumaturgi mentionem facit, inserta etiam ei operi Pane- gyrica ejusdem oratione in laudem Origenis, ut testatur Socrates. H. E. liv. c.27. Eusebii autem historiam: fere Kata mooas secutus est Hieronymus: Sophronius vero tantum Hieronymi interpres fuit. Miror autem quid Phi- lippo Labbzeo in mentem venerit, dum in dissertatione sua de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ita seripsit: Certum quidem, inquit, est, teste S. Gregorio Nysseno in Thaumaturgi vita, Deiparam cum S. Joanne Evangelista apparuisse, ut expo- sitionem fidet Catholice ili traderet. Sed an ea sit Vos- siana, jure dubitat Bellarminus, quem vide cum Petavio, tom. ii. Theolog. Dogmat. qui negat.* Nam an fidei con- fessio a Vossio edita, Gregorii Thaumaturgi revera sit, nun- quam dubitavit Bellarminus ; imo illud pro certo habuit, ut 1 De Script. Eccl. p. 39. ? i.e, Apologia Pamphili et Eusebii. 3 [Vol. i. p. 373,] 89 cuivis ipsum Bellarminum consulenti patebit. De éx@écer sive expositione fidei longiori, que Kara pépos dicitur, ab eodem Vossio edita, dubitat quidem Bellarminus, et jure merito. Falsum quoque est Petavium negasse, confessionem illam, prout a Vossio-edita est, Gregoril esse genuinam. Imo illam citat ut Gregorii, et cdlustre monumentum tra- ditionis Ecclesiastica, ac Catholice de Trinitate profes- sions, disserte appellat.”—Prefat. in tom. 1. cap. iv. n. 9. Bull. Defens. Fid. Niceen. sect. ii. cap. xii. § 2, 3. “ Gregorii honorificam mentionem tribus in locis Historie Ecclesiasticee fecit Eusebius. Nam vi. 30. De discipulis Origenis ait ‘Qv émonuous padioTa eyvwpev, Oeddwpov, dg HV avTos ovTOS, 6 KAO Huds emioKdtwv StaPdyntos Teyydpr0s" Tov TE aUTOV adEAPoV ‘AOnvddwoov? Quorum precipuos fuisse cognovimus Theodorum, qui et Gregorius dictus est, episcoporum nostra e@tate celeberrimus: et fratrem ejus Athenodorum. Et vii. 14. ac. 28. Eum inter precipuos istius zevi Episcopos numerat: sed nulla illius opera, vel libros ab ipso scriptos nominat. Nominavit autem, ut hunc defectum suppleret, ultimo loco Ruffinus vii. 26. Hist. Eccl. (juxta ejus divisionem) ubi hec legimus. ‘ Verum quoniam beati Gregorit Historie textus attulit mentionem, dignis- simum puto, tanti virt gesta, que sub orientali et septen- trionis axe cunctorum sermone celebrantur, omitssa, nescio quo casu, huic narrationi ad memoriam posteritatis inse- rere. Unde post narrata aliqua ejus miracula, de scriptis ejus sequentia subdit. ‘ Sed et ingenii sur nobis in parvo maxima monumenta dereliquit. In Kcclesiastem namque metaphrasin idem Gregorius magnificentissime scripsit. Kt Catholice fide expositionem breviter editam dereliquit : quam quo edificatione Ecclesiarum sociare his commodo duxi. Hine ipsa Gregorii confessio sequitur, prout in hoc capite, supra p. 151. [p. 416.] recitata est.” —Annotata. J. E. Grabe. ad § 4. Defens. Fid. Niczen. de Gregorii Thauma- turgi Confessione Fidei. G The Creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus. There is one God, the Father of the living Word, the subsisting wisdom, and power, and eternal impress: he is the perfect begetter of the Perfect One, even the Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, the algne from the alone, God from God, the express impress and image of the Godhead, the energetic Word, the wisdom compre- hending the constitution of all things, and the plastic power of the whole creation: the true son of the true Father, the invisible of the invisible, the incorruptible of the incorrupt- ible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal. And there is one Holy Ghost, having his subsistence from God, who appeared unto men through the Son, the image of the Son, perfect of perfect ; life, the cause of the living ; the holy fountain, holiness, the bestower of sanctification : in whom God the Father is manifested who is over all, and in all, and God the Son who is through all. A perfect Trinity, in glory, and eternity, and kingdom, neither divided nor sepa- rated. ‘There is therefore nothing created, or servile, in this Trinity, or adventitious, as if it existed not before, but was afterwards introduced: for the Son was never wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son. But this Trinity is eternally the same, unchangeable and invariable. Ol Symbolum Gregorit Thaumaturgt. “Rig @edg, Tlatnp Adyou Cavros, Sodias tpectacys, Kat Avrvdpuews, kat Xapaxtypos aidiou' TéAetog TEAelou yevynTwp’ Tatyp Yiod povoryevovs. Eis Kiptos, pdvos &k povou, Ocds ék Ocov yapaktyp Kal eikav TH OsdryTos, Adyos évepyos, Lopia tis TOV GAwY cvoTa&oEwWS TEpLEKTIKN, Kat Abvapus Tis GANS KTIcEws ToINTIKH’ Yios aANBwWos aANOvod Tlarpos, adpatos dopa&touv, Kat apOaptos apOdpTov, Kat abkvatos aBbavkrov, Kat aidtos aidiov. Kot év Ivedpa ‘Aytov, & Ocod tyv vnapkw eyov, kat 30 Yiodv mepyvos SyAady tots avOpadrots, eixav Tov Yiov, TeAelou TeAeta” Con, Civrwv airlat my ayla, aydtys, ayracpov yopynyss év @ avepovrat Oeds 6 Maryp 6 émt mé&vtwv Kat év mao, Kat cdo 6 Yids 6 Sia ma&vTWv" Tptas TeAela, OdEa Kat atdt- étntt Kat Bacirsia py peptlouevn pyde anadAortprov- pévy. Ove ovv Ktiordv tt, 7 SovAov év TH Terdd:, ovTE émeisakTov Tl, Oo mMpdTepov péev ovy Umapyov, VaTEpov dé emetreAOdv. Ovrte ovv évédAime méTe Yids Tlarpt, ovte Yio Ilvevua’ GAN’ &rpertos Kat avaddAolwros 9 adty Teas at.” —Gregor. Neo-Cwxsar. Oper. p. 1. et ap. Greg. Nyss. tom. fii. p. 548. oe The Creed of Origen. The things which are manifestly handed down by the Apostolical preaching are these :— First, that there is one God, who created and made all things, and caused the whole universe to exist out of nothing: the God of all the just from the first creation and foundation of all; the God of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets: and that this God in the last days, as he had promised before by his prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ, first to call Israel and then the Gentiles, after the infidelity of his people Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, gave both the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospels, being the God of the Apostles and of the Old and New Testament. The next Article is:—That Jesus Christ, who came into the world, was begotten of the Father before every creature, who ministering to his Father in the creation of all things (for by him all things were made), in the last times made himself of no reputation and became man: he who was God was made flesh, and when he was man he continued the same God that he was before. He assumed a body in all things like ours, save only that it was born of a virgin by the Holy Ghost. And because this Jesus Christ was born and suffered death common to all, in truth, and not only in appearance, he was truly dead: for he rose again truly from the dead, and after his resurrection conversed with his disciples, and was taken up into heaven. They also deli- vered unto us, that the Holy Ghost was joined in the same honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. 93 Symbolum Origenis. «« Species vere eorum, que per preedicationem apostolicam — manifeste traduntur, iste sunt. Primo, quod unus Deus est, qui omnia creayit atque composuit, quique ex nullis fecit esse universa: Deus a prima creatura et conditione mundi omnium justorum, Deus Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, duodecim Pa- triarcharum, Moysi, et Prophetarum. Et quod hie Deus in novissimis diebus, sicut per prophetas suos ante promi- serat, misit Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, primo quidem vocaturum Israel, secundo etiam Gentes post per- fidiam populi Israel. Hic Deus justus et bonus, Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Legem et Prophetas et Evan- gelia dedit, qui et Apostolorum Deus est, et Veteris et Novi Testamenti. « Tum deinde—Quia Jesus Christus ipse qui venit, ante omnem creaturam natus ex Patre est: qui cum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset (per ipsum enim omnia facta sunt) novissimis temporibus seipsum exinaniens homo factus est: incarnatus est cum Deus esset, et homo mansit quod Deus erat. Corpus assumpsit nostro corpori simile, eo solo differens quod natum ex Virgine de Spiritu Sancto est. Et quoniam hic Jesus Christus natus, et passus est in veritate et non per imaginem communem hance mortem, vere mortuus est ; vere enim a mortuis resurrexit, et post resurrectionem conversatus cum discipulis suis, assumptus est. “Tum deinde honore ac dignitate Patri et Filio sociatum tradiderunt Spiritum Sanctum.’’—Origen. Tlept dpya@v in Preefat. tom. i. p. 665. Interprete Ruffino. 94 The Creed of Lucian Martyr. We believe, according to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in one God, Father Almighty, the Creator and Maker of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, God, by whom all things were made: who was begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, whole of whole, alone of alone, perfect of perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord, the living Word, Wisdom, Life, true Light, the Way of Truth, the Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, unchangeable and unalterable: the unvarying image of the Divinity, substance and power and counsel and glory of the Father : begotten before every creature: who was at the beginning with God, the Word God, according to what is said in the Gospel, “ And the Word was God, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things subsist :” who in the latter days came down from above, and was born of a virgin according to the Scriptures: and was made man, a Mediator between God and men, the Apostle of our faith, the Prince of life, as he says, “ I came down from heaven, not that I might do my own will, but the will of Him that b sent me:” who suffered for us, and rose again for us on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and cometh again with glory and power to judge quick and dead. And in the Holy Ghost, which was given for consolation and satisfaction, and for the perfecting of them that believe: as also our Lord Jesus Christ charged his disciples, saying, “ Go ye and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ; evidently of the Father who is truly Father, and of the Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Ghost who is truly Holy Ghost: the names not being merely given, or without reality, but signifying strictly the proper person and glory and office of each of those who are named; so that they are three in person, but one in agreement, 95 Symbolum Luciani Martyrs. “ Torebopev akodovOws TH evaryyeixi Kat AmooroNiKy TAPAddTE, ELS eva. @eov Tarepa RUAN TOR OUT DE TOV TOV dAwY Onpoupryev TE KOE momnriy" Kal Eig Eva Kupiov | ii oouv Xororov, Tov viov avTov TOV inal Ocov, Oe ov TO TAVTO Ai Tov yevynBevTa mp0 TAVTWOY TOV aidvey &K TOU TAaTpOS, cov &k Oeov, dAov €E GAou, pevoy éK povou, téAsiov &k TEAElov, BaciAga éK Bactréws, Kvprov amo Kupiou* Aaryov COvTa, Zopiay, Conv, pos aA bwvov, ddov aAneias, avdoraoty, mom peva, Gupav, drpentov Te Kal dvaiNhoiartov" THY THS OcoryT0s, ovolas TE Kat Suva pews Kol Bovis Kal dogs TOU Tarpos amapaNaxroy EiKOVa’ TOV TEWTOTOKOV TANS KTIDEWS” Tov ovTa &v ax mpos TOV Oeor, Adyov Oedv, Kata TO sipnuévoy, ék TO evaryyeNion, Kat Osos Hv 6 Aéyos, Oe ov Ta T&VTH éryevero, Kat év @ TH TAVTO ouv- éotnks’ Tov ém ETXATWV TOV mHEPOY KaTeAOovTa dvebev, Kat ryevvndevra. &K mapGeuoy KaTa TAS ypahas, Kat dvOpunov YSVOHEVON peoirny Ocov Kat dvOpcoman, "AnooToAdyv TE THS TOTES HOV, Kau dexnyor THS Cons, Os pyow. ort Karape- Raa. &K TOU oupavoy, ovx va TO@ TO OéAnpat 70 EMOY, AAA TO BérAnwor TOU mépnfravT os He" Tov TaOdyvTa UTsP HUOV, Kat AVATTAVTA bnép MOV TH TplTH mHEP% Kat aveA0dvTa sis oupavous, Kor KabecbéevTa év Se€la Tov Tlarpos, Kat m&duv Ep ouevov pera dogs Kal Suva pecs Kptvac Cavras Kal ve- Kpous” Kal ei¢ TO Ilvedua 7d dyiov, TO cig TAPAaKANOLV Kau aryiac pov Kor eis TeAslwow Tolg MoTEvoVCL d.dopevor, Kabas Kat 6 Kuptos nuov ‘Tygous Xpioros dveraE aro Tots pabytais, Aéyov, Topevdévtes ouv pabyrevoare MAVTA TO z0vn Banrilovres abtovs eis TO Ovoua Tov TlaTpos Kat TOU Yiov Kat Tov ‘Avyiou Ilvevpuartos* Ojo Tt Tar pos aAnOivas OVTOS Ilatpos, Kat Yiov arnbwas viov ovTos, Kat Tivevparos ‘Aryiou arnbivas OVTOS Ilvevuaros aryiou" TOV 6VOMAaTWV ov OTAMS Ov0E apyov KELLEVOV, AAG TaetyOrT oy dxpiPos mv idlav ékdoToU TOV dvopaopmevev wmoocraciy Te Kai OdEav Kat TAELY, Og Elvan TH paev UTOTTACEL Tia, TH d& cuppavia sy. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. 10. Athanas. de Synod, Arim, et Seleuc. § 23. vol. i. p. 759. 96 The Creed, Into which Eusebius of Cesarea was Baptised. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light .of Light, Life of Life, His only-begotten Son, the first-born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all ages ;_ by whom all things were made; who, for our salvation, was in- carnate, and conversed among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended unto the Father, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. Every one of these we believe to be and exist; we confess the Father to be truly a Father, the Son truly a Son, the Holy Ghost truly a Holy Ghost, according to what our Lord, when He sent His disciples to preach, said, « Go, teach all nations, bap- tising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Symbolum Fidei, In quod Eusebius Cesariensis Baptizatus erat. A “ Tleotevouev eis eva Oedv, Uarépa navtoxpétopa, Tov ~ ~ \ TOV ATAVT@V 6pATOY TE Kat dopaTwV ToinTHv? Kal Eig Eva \ \ \ Kuptov ‘Incotv Xpiorov, tov Tov Oeov Adyov, Oedv éx Oeod, ~ > \ \ 3 ~ cN ~ , pas eK pwrtos, Cwnv éx Cwys, Yiov povoyevy, mowrtdtoKov las / N , ~~ Nps: > ~ ~ A TACNS KTIOEWS, TOO TAVTWY THY AiWYwY EK Tou Meou Ilateos 4 4 baal oat pane \ | goede! \ \ \ yeyevvnpévoy’ Ot ob Kat &yéveTro Ta TaVTA’ Tov Sta THY \ nuETEpav owrypiav capKwbévTa, Kat év avOpdmots ToALTEV- : ws \ Capevov’ Kat TABdvTA, Kal dvacTavTa TH TpiTn Hugpa* Kat \ avehOovra mpos tov Tlatépa, Kat ytovta maAw év doen , ~ \ , , Niko* Gd ~ Kpivar CovTas Kat vexpovs. Tliotevouev kat eis év Tlvevpo Ly “Aylov. TovTwy ékacTov eivor Kal bndpyewv morEevovtes, ~ CX ~ x Tlarépa adnbas Margpa, kai Yiov dAnOas Yidv, kat Mvedua ¢, ~ Y, ~ ~ Aytov aAnOas Arytov Ivetua’ Kaba Kat Kutpios nuav amo- 4 > \ 4 \ t ~ \ > oTEhAwy sig TO KNPUVYHAa ToUg EaUTOY MaOyTds, Eine, Tlopev- ae ene’ Gévres ovv maOntevoate TaVTA TA &Ovy Rantitovtes adrovs > Wee ~ x \ ~ c ™ Q ~ OC , , &i¢ TO ovona Tou Iarpos kai Tov Yiov Kat Tov ayiou Tvev- patos.” —Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. iimviii. 98 The Creed, As it occurs in the Apostolical Constitutions. I believe, and I am baptised into the one unbegotten alone true Almighty God, the Father of the Christ, the Maker and Creator of all things, from whom are all things. And into the Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, the first-born of every creature, who before all ages was be- gotten, through the good pleasure of the Father, through whom all things were made, both in Heaven and on earth, both visible and invisible; who came down from Heaven, in the last days, and assumed flesh, and was born from the Holy Virgin Mary, and lived holily after the laws of His God and Father, and was crucified under Pontius Pi- late, and died for us; and, after His passion, rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended to Hea- ven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and will come again with glory at the end of the world to judge the quick and the dead, of whose kmgdom there shall be no end. And I am baptised into the Holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete, who worketh in all the Saints, from the beginning of the world; but who was afterward sentalso to the Apostles from the Father, accord- ing to the promise of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ ; and, after the Apostles, to all who believe in the Holy Ca- tholic Church. And I am baptised into the resurrection of the flesh, and the forgiveness of sins, and the kingdom of Heaven, and the life of the world to come. 99 Symbolum Fide, Ea Apostolicis Constitutionibus excerptum. 4 \ \ “ BantiComa eis eva aryévvytov povov adnOtvov Ogdv mavto- , \ 4 ~ ~ , ‘ \ Kpatopa, Tov Ilaréea tou Xpiotov, KTioTyv Kat Snpoupyov ~ at pala > @ \ , X > N , > TOV amavTwv, & ov Ta whvTa’ Kat eig Tov Kipiov "In- ~ » \ \ ~ b) ~ eX \ fe gouv Tov XpioTov, Tov povoyevy avTov Yiov, Tov mpwTdTo- ‘4 ie N \ = Ae 4 b} , ~ N KOV TAOS KTIOEWS, TOV TPC aiM@vwv EvOoKia Tov TlaTpds , ae \ , os) 2 Ae 3 > ~ mE aa yevvnGévta, Ov ov Ta mMavTa éyéveTo TA ev Ovpavots Kal emt ~ \ * ~ YS, OpaTa TE Kat adpata, Tov é@ eoyaTwV HuEpaV KATEA- ~ \ ~ c / Oovra &€ ovpavar, kat cdoxa avadaPdvta, Kat &x THs aylas 4 fa la »' , ig / at napGevov Mapias yevyynOévra, Kat ToAtTEVoaMEVoV dolws META \ , ~ ~~ XN \ > ~ aN V4 Tous vojous Tou Oeov Kai Iatpos avtov, kai oTavpwhévTa 28 / 2 Be ee / (hos an: epi Nz a emt Ilovriou WiAarou, kat amoOavovta treo Hua, KO ava- ~ 4) N ~ ~ , XN OTAVTA EK VEKPOY META TO TAOEIY TH TeiTY HuUEpG, Kat avEA- \ ‘\ GovTa sig TOUS ovpavous, Kal KaberbévTa év SeEL& TOU TLaTpos, ‘\ iA 3 , o aN / ~ 3” \ id Kat Ta EpXoMEVvov El TuVTEAEIG TOU ai@vos peta Odes ~ ~ \ \ ? ~ 4 > ~ , Kpivar CavTas Kat veKpous, ov THs RaciAEtas ovK soTAL TE- \ \ ~ \ \ Aos. BantiCouce kat eis To Lvedua 76 “Aytov, tourgort Tov \ > ~ > ~ ~ ~ IlapdkAytov, To évepynoav év maot ToIs am aiavos aryiors, 4 phe gs) \ \ ~ > / ‘ ~ N VOTEPOV OE AMOTTAAEV Kat TOIS ANoTTOADIS Tapa TOU IlaTpds \ \ B) / ~ ~ ee 4 ? ~ KaTa Tyv emayyeNiav Tou Lwrypes ynua@v Kupiov “Incov ~ \ \ \ > af \ ~ ~~ , XploTov, KO META TOUS ATODTOAOUS O& TAO TOIS MIDTEVOUCLY, 3 ~ Cc , ~ 3 , > N B) 4 \ 5] év TH aig KAOOAIKY EKKAYCIG, Eig TAPKOS aVdoTACIY, Ka Ei¢ ? c ~ S > , > ~ b MDE \ ~ AapEeciy ApnapTav, Kai Eig PactAeiav ovpaver, Kal sig Cwnv Tov MéAAovTOs ai@vos.”’—Constit. Apostol. lib. vii. c. 41. Patr. Apost. Cotel. vol. i. p. 383. 100 The Nicene Creed, as first published by the Council of Nice. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only- begotten, THAT 1S, of the substance of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father; by whom all things were made that are in Heaven and that are in earth; who, for us men, and for our salvation, descended, and was incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day: He ascended into Heaven: He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. [We also believe] in the Holy Ghost. But those who say that there was a time when He was not, or that He was not before He was begotten, or that He was made of nothing ; and those who affirm that He is of any other substance or essence; or that the Son of God is created, or con- vertible, or obnoxious to change; fall such] God’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth anathematize. 101 Symbolum Fider Nicene. “ec , > A A / , ? Iliotevopev aig Eva Oeov, Ilatépa mavToKpatopa, Tav- ~ 7 TOV OPATAY TE KA AopaTwY ToINTHV’ Kal Eis Eva Kuprov 2 ~ \ . cK ~ ~ 7 > ~ Iycouv Xpiotov, tov Yiov tov Oeou, yevvyOevta ek Tov XN ~ ~ Ilatpos, movoyevy, TOYTESTIN, €K THS OVTlaS TOU \ ~ N > \ Tlatpos' Qeov &k Oeov, pas EK Pwros, Osov aAnOwov ék ~ ~ , 5) , Ps ¢ , ~ Ocov GAnOwvov' yevvynOévta, ov moinOévTa’ dpoovoiov TO #5 ere \ , beater , 2 ae i at ~ RPS Ilatpt? O¢ ov Ta mavTa &yéveTo, TH TE EV TH OUPAVO, Kal TA > ~ ~, N Jey ww ‘ > 4 >) BS \ Me / €v TH yh’ Tov Or Huas Tovs avOpamous Kat Dia THY HuETEpav ‘ cwrnpiay KaTeAOdvTa, Kat capkwiévta, evavOpwrncdvTa. , ene) , ~ a e Ff > , | N TAOOVTA, KO AVATTAVTA TH TPITY NMEA, avEAGoVvTA Eis TOUS , ~~ ~ d Q pupavous’ Epyousvoy mar Kpivat CovTas Kai veKpoUs. \ ‘ \ > Kai eis to Uvetvpa To “Ayiov. Tous d€ AéyovTas, nv TOTE a Teck angie Une ey eet \ ~ ot 1) > ple OTE OUK HV, 7) OUK HV TLV yEevvynOnval, 7 EE OVK OVTWY EyEVETO gat aks apt g ¢ , ieee Lily 4 4 > DS) \ n €& ETEpAS UTOTTATEWS 79 OVTLAS PaTKOVTAS EiVaL, 7 KTICTOY, ae) , b N N eX ~ ~ ? BY 7 aAAoiwTov 7 TpEeNTOV Tov Yiov Tou O«ov, TouTovs avabeua- \ AN \ ~ TiCe. 9 KaBoALKN Kat amooTOAIKn ToU Osou *EKkAyola.’— Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 8. 102 The Creed of Epiphanius. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, THAT 18, of the substance of His Father ; Light of Light, very God of very God ; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father ; by whom all things were made which are in Heaven and in earth; who, for us men and our salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Vir- gin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures, and as- cended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: and shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who, with the Father and the Son, together, is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets, And in one Catholic and Apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins, and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. But they who say, there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that He was not before He was begotten, or that He was made out of nothing, or of any other substance or essence, or that He is mutable or change- able, those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes. 103 Symbolum— Epiphanit. , ¢ fs \ ** Teorevopev sig Eva Ocov Margéoa mavtoKpaTopa, momTyy \ ~ ‘ oupavou TE Kal VIC, OpaTOv Te TaVTWY Kat GopadTwV' Kar 4 N N \ » gig Eva Kopiov “Incovy Xpictov, tov Yidv tov Ocov tov ~ \ 3 ~ \ V4 \ , Movoyevyn, Tov EK Tov TLatpos yevvynbévTa Tpo TAaVTwY ~ 7 ~ \ TOV A(@VWY TOYTESTIN &€k THS ovTlas TOU Ilatpos, ~ A Q A pas &k gwtos, Oeov aAnOivov ék Ocovd. aAnOivov, yevynbévTa > s c , ~ fo SH Dat arta Sot , Eber 4 . ov TomOévTa, oxoovciov TH Iatpi Of ov Ta mavTa éyévovTo, 4 2 ~ > i) X\ Noa ~ ~, \ ie ye ie.) \ TH TE EV TOLS OUPAVOLS, KATA Ev TH yn’ Tov OF Huds ToS 5) 7 \ \ \ ¢ , , , > avOpamous, Kat dia THv nueTépav CwTHplav KaTEeAOdvTA &K ~ ’ ~ ‘\ 14 TOV OUpAaVaY, Kat capKwOévTa é&k Tvetpuatos aytov, Kat , ~ 7 *y

) % > \ XN , l4 > ~ ~ Govra sig Tous ovpavous, Kat KabeCouevov &x Sebt@v Tov \ ~~ , > 4 \ / ~ ~ \ Tlatpos, kat marry épyouevov meta Odéns, Kpivoe CovTas Kat , fe ~ , F) y 4 4 ‘ 3 vekpous’ ov THs PactAgiang ovK éoTaL TéAOS’ KaL Eis TO \ N wa Tvevpa To “Ayiov, Kupiov, kat Cworoov, 7d &x Tov Larpos : PAN \ ~ s exTopevopevov, TO ovv Ilatpi Kat Yig cuvmpocKuvovpevoy, Kai \ ~ \ ~ ~ ouvdogalouevov, TO AaAnoav Oia TOY TpopyTaV’ ic play \ ‘\ 4 Kadodkyy Kat ‘AtooroArkyy éxKAnoiav’ dpuoAdoyoupev &v V4 c ~ ~ Bantiopa sig aberw apapTiav, mpocdoKamev avaoToucy ~ Q Q ~ 7 \ A veKpov, Kat Cwnv ToU MéAAOVTOS aidvos, “Aunv. Tovs dé , » \ @& > > \ ‘ ~ > ON As&YovTas, NV. MOTE, OTE OUK HV, Kat Tpiv yevyNnOnVaL OVK HY" i) 4 3 > x Qe Ries CIS & , x See o7t &€ ovK ovTwy eyéveto, 7 && Etépas UnoTTaTEWS, i) OdTIAsS, \ ee \ \ packovtas eivar pevorov, aAAOIWTOV Tov Tov Ocov Yiov, \ \ 4 ’ Toutous avabeuariCe 7 Kaborrky Kat AmootoAky &KKAnoia.’ —FEpiphan. Anchorat. n. 120, tom. i1. Dela. 104 NOTE (x), page 61. It was the custom of the Primitive Church, in the admi- nistration of baptism, to immerse the body three times in water. ‘Tertullian, as I have already observed, has alluded to this practice in his treatise, Adv. Praxeam.: he alludes to it again in his treatise de Corona Militis, cap. ii. Cyril of Jerusalem also speaks of it as a well-known custom of the church to baptise by trine immersion, Catech. Myst. ii. n. 4. So also do many others, such as Gregory Nyssen de Bapt. Christi, tom. mi. 372; Hierome, Ady. Lucif. c. iv.; Ambrose, de Sacram. lib. ii. ec. 7; Chrysostom, Hom. de Fide. tom. vii. p. 290; Basil de Spir. Sancto, c. xxvil. ; and Augustine, Hom. iii. ap. Gratian de Consecrat. Dist. iv. cap. 78. The design of this rite was to shew,—first, the Trinity of persons into whose names Christians were baptised. And secondly, the three days during which our Lord laid buried in the earth. ‘“ Postquam vos credere promisestis, tertio capita vestra in sacro fonte demersimus. Qui ordo bap- tismatis duplict mysterii significatione celebratur. Recte enim tertio mersi estis, qui accepistis baptismum in nomine Trinitatis. Recte tertio mersi estis qui accepistis bap- fismum in nomine Jesu Christi qui die tertia resurrexit a mortuis, ila enim tertio repetita demersio typum Dominice exprimit sepulture.”—Augustin, Hom. ii. ap. Gratian de Consecrat. Dist. iv. cap. 78. The rite was also considered to denote the Unity of the Godhead as well as the Trinity of persons. “ Ter mergi- mur, ut Trinitatis unum appareat sacramentum, et non baptizamur in nominibus Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, sed in uno nomine, quod intelligitur Deus : potest et unum baptisma ita dict, quod licet ter baptizemur 105 propter mystervum Trinitatis, tamen unum baptisma re- putetur.’—Hieron. lib. ii. in Ephes. iv. p. 222. “Kat ovtos 6 Kavav THs aUTHS OUva&pews. diopiCeTar yap Ora Tpiov péev KaTadidoewy THY punolw éeTUTEAEIT OAL TOV aYyloU Ranricpatos, nyouv sis Ovoua marpds, viod, Kal caryiou mvevpatos, dnak Os Banrilerv, Oia TO Eviatov THs OEdTNTOS, Kat TO TplTOV TOV UTOTTaTEWY, K.T.A.’—Theod. Balsam in Kkavev. v’, SS. Apostol. p. 259. Paris, 1620. And so significantly was this form of baptism supposed to express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, that one of the Apostolical Canons orders every Bishop or Presbyter to be deposed who shall administer baptism not by three immersions but by one only in the name. of Christ :—‘ ef 1g éxtoxoros 9 mpsaRiTepos py Tela Ran- TITMATA pias puncews emiteAéoy, aAAA &v BamTioMa, TO eis TOV Odvatrov Tov Kupiov didduevov, KabapsicOw. ov yap eimev 6 Kipios, sig Tov Odvatov pov Banticare aAAa mopevbévres wadntevoate TaVTA TH evn, BantiCovTEes avdTOvS eis TO OVoMa TOU Ilatpos, Kai TOD Yiov, Kat Tov ayiov Ivev- patos.’ —Canon. SS. Apost. Can. 1. But when the Arians perverted the object and intention of this ancient rite, and taught the ignorant that three im- mersions signified three distinct substances—< Then,” says Wheatley, “7t first became a custom, and afterwards a law in the Spanish Church only to use one single immersion, because that would express the Unity of the Godhead, while the Trinity of Persons would be sufficiently denoted by the persons being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. However, in other parts of the Church, trine immersion most commonly prevailed, as it does in the Greek Church to this very day.’—Wheatley on the Common Prayer, p. 359. LONDON: Printed by W. CLowes and Sons, 14, Charing Cross. bar ve Shae ry Ml 58 020 9 TAM mt 1042. 01 isd Ao sant 12 Pe a LS ee ; re eS =r aes tenants ty , petat ry) itt Haan i len ae das oe Fe + la Ri dee Mernatst ‘ ay is eos Sedaytiss ny if Sistah usin o 8 as ith it : at ofl sth 2 ; yea 3 Tes a aR fen at 4 tite ty eae Speeeaate Peet, ene . y a vi ery Shy i i. te aiardta Be eat oe . if r 2 i ae Le ne at * a i %, sae ree ra ee a nia st x ts ‘a se Sa : aunt a ae - ererse z. a oy ‘Hiek ot Sata iH aaiats Ws pcttet sae UsereeRe inns ty aa nae 5 iat Parente a cee dit) Rut i ates : 7 is Euan Al mal aca sot es Uy oY ee ies ce bide iepbien eres taeec sale eiecizeped acid f “at i z ") he . ey mite a i Cee SUN Ee Lara ti onan pnt ty mga 2 isi sa petataie eae att a eih eey titi yy iis seis 7 See oe "s i dat it) Tae su Br is a0 ‘ai yeast Mt Hi t } Aner aCsi vine ir ; at ay faite o eels sean enaneaeaty omens We i i arts bees it ety utes si i Gite rae t RIS eg ‘ Q eva saarlteit heen Upetietet rag a itis i! i i die 3 ieee : Foes He si Hdahiee ae BS Aptis ties ba ity