1 • __. 1 1 i Shelf. IINCETON, N. J. Division \ Section I^utnber 1 • A N H I S TORY O F EARLY OPINIONS CONCERNING JESUS CHRIST, ^ COMPILED FROM ORIGINAL WRITJERS; PROVING THAT THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS AT FIRST UNITARIAN. By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D.F.R.S. AC. IMP. PETROP. PARIS. HOLM. TAURIN. AUREL. MED. PARIS. CANTAB. AMERIC. ET PHILAD. SOCIUS. VOL. IL Vana Philofophorum verba, quae in doftrinis Platonicis ecclefia: parvulos interimebant. ' Jerom. BIRMINGHAM, PklNTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY PEARSON AND ROLLASOiV, AND SOLD BY J. JOHNSON, NO. 72, ST. PAUL's CHURCH-YARD, LONDON. MDCCLXXXVI, i G O N T E N OF THE SECOND V O L Upfrj;/ ,^ ^'C- BOOK I. -^ -^ 'T^HE Hiftory of Opinions which preceded the Doftrine of the Divinity of Chrift, and which prepared the Way for it^ [Continued.] Page i CHAPTER Vlir. Of the Platonifm of Philo. ibid. B O O K 11. Containing the Hiflory of the Doftrine of the Trinity. 23 CHAPTER 1. OfChrifian Platonifm. ibid, CHAPTER II. Of the Generation of the Son from the Fa- ther. 44. A 2 SEC. IV CONTENTS SECTION I. ^he DoHrine of the Platonizing Fathers cori'* cerning the Generation of the Son^ as the fecond Perfon in the Trinity yjiated. Page 44 SECTION II. Authorities for this Opinion from fujiin Martyr to Origen. 53 SECTION III. yJutlorities from O rig en, and other IVriters fuhfquent to him ; with an Account of other Attributes of the Father, befdes that of W if dorr ^ "which Chrif is f aid to have been . 6 8 CHAPTER III. The Defence of the preceding Dodirine by the Fathers. 86 S E C T I O N I. The Generation of the Son from th0 Father illvf rated by the uttering of Words, 88 SECTION II. The Generation cf the Son from the Father illufi rated by the pr elation of a Branch of a Tree from jhe Root, £?r. 100 4 SEC- CONTENTS. V SECTION III. tVhy only one Son was generated^ the Obje^ion of Generation implying T^aJJion conjideredt and why the Son and Holy Spirit did not generate y &c. Page 1 1 5 SECTION IV. Whether the Generation of the Son was in Time-i and alfo whether it was a 'voluntary or involuntary Adl of the Fat her ». 128 CHAPTER IV. The inferiority of the Son to the Father^ fiewn to have been the Dodirine of all the Anteni- cene Fathers. . 14^ CHAPTER V. Of the Power and 'Dignity of Chriji as the pre'exijling Logos of the Father. ijz CHAPTER VI. Chrijiy befde being the Logos of the Father, was thought to have a proper^ human SouL 198 CHAP- Yi CONTENTS- CHAPTER vir. Of the Union between the Logos, a?id the Soul and Body of Chrijly and their feparate pro- perties. P^ge 224 SECTION I. Of this Union in general. ibid. SECTION IL Of the Ignorance of Chrijl concerning the 'Day offiidgment. 234 SECTION III. Opinions concerning the Body of Chrijl, 246 CHAPTER VIII. Of the Ufe of the Incar nation y and the Objec- tions that were made to the DoBrine. 258 C H A P T E R IX. Of the Controv^rfy relating to the Holy Spirit. 268 S E CTI ON I. Opinions concerning the Holy Spirit before the Council of Nice. 270 SEC- CONTENTS. vii SECTION n. Opmons concerning the Holy Spirit after the Council of Nice. Page 285 SECTION III. Of the proper Office of the Spirit mth refpeB to the Offices of the Father and the Son. 299 SECTION IV. Of the Arguments for the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. ^j^ CHAPTER X. Of the BoSlrine of the Trimly after the Coun- cil of Nice. 3.^ SECTION I. The DoarineoftheperfeSi Equality of all the Perfons in the Trinity, „,o S E C T I O N _ II. Of the New Language introduced at and after the Council of Nice. „ , , SECTION III. fllujlrations of the DoSlrine of the Trinity. 362 CHAP- 428 ... CONTENTS. C H A P T E R XI. SECTION I- Ar^un^ents from the OldTeJlament. ibid. SECTION II. Jr,umentsfromi^eNewreJlamnt. 4i« SECTION III. Jnfwers to ObjeSlions. V o L. li. ERRATA. i N. B. (b) dgniiies from the bottom of the pagfi i T'atye 2. line 14. /or his and he, read their and they . » 2Q. line 7* J'^^ i^S' ^^^^ their . . ^ r line 12. for omnipotent, reixd omniprcfeiit , go. line 13. for being, read beings , ^ I9Q. line 3. (b) for maxims, read maxim , 154. line 8, for leal, read ion . . 07 1 . line 7. f/v'/or Jefus, read oTJefus . 270. line 6. (k' for after, read with 29G. line 10. for why, nad jiow THE nr 2. line 7. (h) for with, read lays that with ^^ . oQr^. line 3. (b) for between, read with ^077.rine3. dele {-Ays '^12. line 8. (b) for faid, read is fliid , ^13. line 6. /5r probably, rmifjuftly. REFERENCES. Tdgc 6. note laR, line i. fjr C^i ctv, read :\ict , L. 34. note J I. 2. for oio.'it Kouicrfxctli, read oioV ilKoVlS'y.ctlt ^ 85. note * line i. for uk, read av \ — ^ 93. note * line i,f)r TTotp, read 'S'po< 1 14. note * line 2./)r I'v[Apiinai, read (jvJy.ciTiaif 213. note *■ line 4. fof (Jiiliyjl:t\'i, read ixiti'/jnctf HISTOllY aE. P^J^NJ^NS CON C .H,R,N I .^ ,0^ ^ CHRIST. BO O K I. THE HIS'i'ORY OF OPINIONS WHICH PRE- CEDED THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVI- NITY OF CHRIST, AND WHICH PRE- PARED THE WAY FOR IT. [CONTINUED] CHAPTER VIIL Of the Platomfm of Vhilo. IT has been feen that among the heathen Platonifts^ we have found no uniform and ferioiis perfonification of the divine nous^ or logos^ fo that it could be confidered as a diftinEl intelligent perfon^ but only ftrong figures, and a dark enigmatical defcription of the ideas y or the fuppofed place of ideas in the divine mind, confiituting what they Vol. II. B called 2 PtaionifmofPhilo. Book I. called the intelligible worlds or the world to be perceived by the mind, arid not by the fenfes ; and which was an exemplar, or pattern, to the vifible world. Upon the whole, it may be afferted that the Pk- tonifts themfelves proceeded no farther than to what may be called a ftrongly figurative perfonification of the divine intellect, con- fidered as diftinfl: either from the Divine Being himfelf, or thofe more excellent qualities from which he was denominated the good', fo that it cannot be faid that, if thePlatonifts had been ferioufly interrogated concerning his real opinion, he would have anfwered, that the good, and his nous, or logos, were two diftindt intelligent perfons, each having ideas, and being capable of reafoning and adling, though their language, literally interpreted, will occafionally bear that conftrudlion. In Philo, a Jew of Alexandria, who was cotemporary with the apoftles, we find fbmething more nearly approaching to a real perfonification of the logos, a term which is much more frequent with him than with the Platonifls themfelves ^ and 1 indeed Chap. VIII. Platonlfm ofPhtlo. 3 indeed it was obferved, that what they called noxiSy the barbarians called logos ^ which is a literal tranilation of the Chaldee K1;dd. Philo fays fo much concerning ideasy and the intelligible worlds and is withal fo eloquent* that it has been juftly obferved, " either that Plato philonized, or that Philo " platonized*>" but he was far from ad- vancing fo far as the platonizing chriftians. However, though he did not, like them, make a permanent intelligent per/on of the divine logos ^ he made an occafional one of it, making it the vifible medium of all the communications of God to man, that by which he both made the vi^orld, and alfo converfed with the patriarchs of the Old Teflament. It will be iztvi that PhIIo*s own ideas were far from being clear, or con ii (lent, but he is much lefs confufed than the pro- per heathen Platonifts, and he fometimes exhibits a platonifm of a fimple, and lefs figurative kind. Thus, after obferving th^t * Tocrs7ov avlov roig sTO^nviTcci^ fza^aaxiw ^aviX-x rv§ tv roic %viKii^ Phot, Bib. fea, 105. p. 278. 4 PlatoJiiJm of Pbllo. Book L " an architecft conftruds a building after ah *' idea which he has previoully formed of '' of it in his mind/* he fays, "■ in like ^' manner, we muft judge concerning God, '^ v/ho, intending to build a magnificent */ city, firft devifed the plan of it, from ** which he formed the vilible world, ufing ** it as a pattern. As the pre-conceived ^l plan of the building in the mind of an ** architedl has no exiflence externally, but *' is flamped upon the mind of the artill, *' in like manner this world of ideas has no 'Vplace but the divine logos, which dif- ** pofes all things. For what other proper ** place can there be to receive, and contain, *' not only all ideas, but even a fingle idea. ** It is a world creating power, which has *' its fource in the true good^ J' In another >av kU^eiv ciavcYjBeig^ EvsvoYiae 'jsi^olspov tug TuTrag av%g^ eI cov hoc/xov voyJov avTwaiiEvog a7rols7\u rov ai^yilcv, .£yu rzaiag^ a>Xa (Mav axpalov w rivav OE^a^ai re nai %w^>](7a{ • Aw(af/zi$ ^e nai y\ KOcrfxcTroir^IiHr], 'STfjynv ex^' era TO tJfcg a^rj^Eiav aya^ov, De Mundi Opificio, p. 4. paflage, Chap. VIII. Plafonifm of Plato. '5 paflage alfo, fpeaking of the different fig- niiications of place, he fays that '* one of *^ them is the divine logos, the whole of *' which God himfelf has filled with in- '^ corporeal powers *^." In this place the logos is evidently nothing more than the divine mind itfelf, or the feat of his ideas ; and the true goody in the former pafTage, in which the creative power is faid to refide, is the platonic term for the Supreme Being. Like the other Platoniils, Philo does not, however, content himfelf with giving thefe ideasy or the intelligible world, which is compofed of them, a place in the divine mind, or logos^ but he alfo confounds them with the logos. *^ To fpeak plainly,'' fays he, " the ideal world is no other than the ** logos of God, who makes the world, nor *^ is an ideal city any other than the rea- *' foning of the architeifl intending to pro- *^ duce it -f.*' Agreeable to this ufe of the ■^ K.artx huTEpov h t^ottov. o ^sio; ^oyo^ ov £K7re7rMfc>}Hev o?^cv 5i cT^av a(TUfAcx,roig hvafxEJiv avro^ ^sog, De Somniis, p. 574. ■f Et ?£ rig e^£>^n(T£tB yvixvols^oi; %pmaSroLi rot; ovofjuxuiv^ s5h' av slepov EiTTOi rov vct^ov sivai ho(Tijlov yi ^ea T^oyov v\^y\ Koa;uo7roiHvl^» Ou^ ya^ n vonrv} woXtj ete^ov rt env, » ts a^xj^reicTovog ^o7((7/^o; ri^n ty^/ voriTYpfisoT^vnli^eivhavosiAm, De Mundi Opificio, p, 5. B 3 term 6 Platonlfm of Philo. Book I. term logos , as fynonymous to the ideal world, he fays, ** The imitation of a per- «* fed:ly beautiful pattern, muft be perfectly ''beautiful; but the logos of God muft ** be more excellent than beauty itfelf, as ** it is in nature, without any additional ** beauty*." So far this writer is tolerably intelligible, and fo alfo he is in the following paflage, in which he fpeaks of the ideal world as formed by a power inherent in the divine mind. Speaking of God faying, Adam will be like one of lis, he fays, " Though God be one, ** he has many powers. By thefe powers ** the intelligible and incorporeal world is *' made, the architype of that which is vi- ** fible, confifting of invifible ideas, as this *' does of vifible bodies •f-.'" iHTT^sTTtraTcg EKEiva. De Mundi Opificio, p. 32. * Ejj uv Seoj aiM^sg 'siEpi aulov f%f( '^uvai/.zi;. Aj av rkluv OU" vocfAWv aaufmlog xj voy^Icg ZTTccyn koa-fjLogy ro th ^aivcfUva'rii^E apx^' TUTrov, toeaic aopscroi; auTo^ug^ oi<77rtp alog a-iifjuxa-iv ooaroig. De Confufionc Linguarum, p. 345. In Chap. VIII. Tlatonifm of Philo. 7 In one paffage he fpeaks of thefe divine powers by which the invifible world is made as twoy but he does not explain himfelf with refpeft to that particular number. ** God,*' fays he, ^* being one, has two fupreme pow- ** ers. By thefe powers the incorporeal ** and ideal world is made, the architype of ** the vilible world, confifting of invifible *^ ideas, as this is vifible to the eyes*/' He likewife fpeaks of the divine logos a$ ** flowing from the fountain of wifdom like *^ a river*!-." But in the following paffage he makes the logos to be the fame with ivifdom^ and thereby makes a nearer ap- proach to the ideas of the chriftian Fathers. Allegorizing the rivers of paradife, he fays concerning one of them, that ** it is the ^* river which is produftive of goodnefs. ** It proceeds from the wifdom of God, * Etc m Seaj ^uo rag avcolarii) ^uva^izig E%£t. Aioj rsFwy t«i» 5yva/z£wv, aa-cojjuiilog xj vordog sTrayr] Koa-fjio; ro th ^amfABva th^s apx^tJTTov^ ihaig oio^oig crvTcx^sig cocrTTsp iilog OfijMO-iv opoilog, De Mundo, p. 1150. f Kalsm h aa-TTBp »7ro 'JZY.yng TY\g co^iecg '^ola^H rpoTTov o ^siog T^yo;. De Soraniis, p. 1 1 4 1 • B 4 *< whick 8 Platonifm ofPhilo. Book I, '^ which Is the logos of God ^ for according <* to this its produdlive power is made*." But in another place he makes the logos to be different from this wifdom^ which he makes to be the mother of the logos ; and this circumftance may, perhaps, throw fome light upon the i%vo divine powers, by which, in the paffage quoted above, he faid that the intelligible world was made. Allegorizing Mofes*s defcription of the high prieft, he fays, ** This high prieft does not mean a '* man, but the logos of God, free from all *' fin, voluntary or involuntary. When ** Mofes forbids him to defile himfelf on ** account of his father the no\is^ or his mo- *' ther xh^fenfes, I think that he muft havp *^ parents incorruptible and holy; his fa- ** ther God, who is alfo the father of all, ** and his mother wifdomy by which every *' thing v/as produced j/' In this figura- * UolxfMg r] yeviKv] Env ayc^olyig, Auln £K7rop£uilat ik trig ts Sss * crcpcxg, H ^£ Euv $£« T^yog , Kixla yap rtilov 'Z3-£WOJ»7a< » 7£VE;f>j ac£%. Dc Mundi Opificio, p. 52. i Aeyo/MV yap rev apx^£p£a^ hk avS^w^ov, aX;^ Uyov^mv £ivai^ isavim ax, ekh^i'jov /mvov, a'Kha x^ okso-iuv ad'Mnfxoclav afjisloxov , s7e yap tm 'sjppjft T« I'i), s7£ itti fAy{1pi xn aio-^,(T£i ^mivaiHov Muvo-a^ Chap. VIIL Flatomfm ofPhih. g tive and confufed manner does Philo r.t length come to what may be called an in- termediate principle between God and the creation. This logos he alfo calls *' thfe ** mage of God, by which all the world was ** made* Having got an image of God, he likewife makes an image of this image 5 but his ex- planation of this I do not pretend fully to underftand. Having called ** the inviiible ** and intelligible world the divine logos, *' or the logos of God, the image of God, *' and the image of that intelligible light " which was the imageof that divine logos, ^^ which explains its origin, It is," he fays, ** that fuper-celeftial flar, which is the '^vniao-^ai (jt-iCtma^Qii, ^loli oifioti yovscov (x(phocflav kJ Koc^aoi^otlav £Xrz%£i/, '37^7^0^ /(A£v ^s», 0; y^ rcov (rv^Travlm tri Tucclnp, fznlpcg h crcpa;^ Si nj Tix oT^oe, JiX^EV 211; ymcriv. De Profugis, p. 466. ^ Thofe who are offended at the allegorical method of in- terpreting the fcriptures inOrigen, and the other chrlflian Fathers, fliould be informed that it is not peculiar to thenj, nor did it originate with them. Philo is as extravagant as my of them in the fcope that he gave to his ima<*inatcoii in this way. Aoyo; h £riv timv 0£s^ 5i a (Tvi^TTd; ^ocrixo^ ehixiaoyBilo. De Monarch iaj p. 823. z " fourcQ lo Platonifm ofPhllo. Book T. <^ fource of the vifible ftars, and which may *' be called the univerfal fplendor, from *' which the fun, moon, and ftars, fixed or << wandering, derive their refpedive fplen- *^ dors *," But befide making the logos to be the image of God, Philo gives it an occafional real perfonification, and makes it to be the medium of the divine communications to mankind, the fymbol of the divine pre- fence, and even to affume the form of an angel, or a man. " Though no perfon," he fays, ** is worthy to be called the Son ** of God, endeavour to be accomplifhed *' like his firft begotten logos, the moft *' ancient angel, as being the archangel of *' many names ; for it is called the ctpxn" [the beginning or principle] *' the name of ** God, and the logos, and the man accord- ** ing to his image, and the feer of Ifrael. * Tov Se aopcilav x) vc>i7ov ^siov >^oyov, ^ Sea Xoyov, sixova T^syEi Se«. "Kai rauh]; ukovcx. to vovjiov (pug cxavo, o Seia ^oy« ycyovei/, twm Tit ^iEp(XY,v£UTavioi rm yivsciv aula. Kai £-riv uTrEpapavioi; arnpy 'STYiyn ruv aia^'i]l(cv arepuv. Hv hk amo cthot:^ xxhsa-EiBv av ri-; rs:avauy£iov^ a^ r;o yi>.io; Kj h crz'hw) ^j oi a'XKoi 'S!>jxvrt\zi; te >0i aTTT^av-ig^ acvovlai xa^ offov tnaau) oi/y«//jf, t« i!TpE7rovla(pEfyv]. De Mundi Opificio, p. 6. « For Chap. VIII. Tlatonifm of Philo. i r ** For if we arje not worthy to be called the ^^ fonspf God, let us be fo of his eternal *^ image, the moft holy logos; for this mofl: " ancient logos is the image of God */' Philo fuppofed that it was this divine logos that had its place between the che- rubims in the Holy of Holies^ but was there invifible. Having defcribed the propitia- tory and the cherubims, he fays, *^ that the ^* divine logos is above thefe, having no ^* vifible form, as not falling under the " fenfes ; but is the exprefs image of God, *' the oldeil of all intelligible things, and *^ there is no medium between it and the *' fupreme power." He then compares it to the charioteer, afting by the command of the perfon who is carried in the car -f-. K coy, a,?^* uvjos 1 2 Plat onif 111 of Philo, Book I. Calling God the Father, he calls the logos the Son. Plaving fpoken of the high prieft as {landing before the holy of holies with his breaft-plate, which reprefented the logos, he fays, it was neceflary that he who ofiiciated as prieft to the Father of the world fhould have his moft accom- pliflied Son as an advocate *. Having reprefented tjie fupreme Being in the charad:er of a /hepherd and a king, ordering and conducing all the parts of nature, earth, water, fire, plants, animals, the heavenly bodies, &c. he defcribes the logos as his firjl begotten So77y fuperintend- ing all thefe things, as an officer under a'^'^.vS'ui d.^iJ\^v {/.%': a . hiyijcti yap Ao-hmu aoi Avao^iv t« i^ctrMptif avcL [J.i(7QV rcov S'uoiv y^f.^Ciy., cocr^ tivtcy^ov f-nv ziycu TC^V J'vi'Clf/ecc.u TcV ?.oyoV, iTTOyjV S'i 70V KcLKm\^cL iTT IK chiVO- [xi'.ov T« iiVtoy^eo to. tr^oi op-^JU' 7« 'STctrlof ))vioyj)aiv» De Pro- fugis, p. 465. • Trfi ^7(1 tcjv ^icvcov J^^JcTsy.a Ai3-»? zk T^im K.(i\u,.Ti7]^.fctt; ^Ctyjify TK CVViy^O\]og ri) t^lOlK-^{ov a^i^cov TfO'Tra.c 'Ti av koli y^o^^.idLi ivct^uovi\i?, <£)f 'mG'iJ.m Kcu ^sicri^ivf o ^53^ cty^i kcitcl j^mny Kdt yQ^.oy, '^fo'^nuaiJ.zvoi Tov o^d-Qv ciu'fH ?ayo; iv ra, nzapovli tov fiiv a^nficja:, ^icc ra ap^pa /jle/xyi- yvKEV, eiTTuv. Eyco Eifjii Sscf • Toy ?£ Halcx,xpyiiKacre Kupio; m raTTEtvutret 5-3, nv s?e $»« f oCov £(rx^g, a/c ^uc lAiffog, De Pfofugis, p. 451, And Chap.- VIII. Plaiomfmof Philo. 17 And treating of the migration of Abraham, he. fays, ** He that follows God muft of " neceflity make ufe of the attending logoi, *' which are commonly called angels *." Thus it is evident, that Philo made a much more fubftantial perfonifi cation of the divine logos than any of the proper Platonifls had done ; and it is very poffihie, that by the perufal of his writings, the chriftian Fathers, to whom they could not be unknown, might be led to their ftill more enlarged fyftem of perforiifica- tion. As Philo had reprefented the divine logos as being the immediate agent in all the communications of God to the pa- triarchs, they had nothing to do befide making this logos to be the fame with Chrift, and their fcheme was very nearly completed. ' Bat Philo himfelf was far from imagining that the logos had any more relation to the Meffiah than to any other prophet. According to him, it was the medium of the divine communica- Toi; axo^8^o(5 ocuns T^oyoiq^ aj ovofxa^eiv i^o^ afys^sf, De Migra- tione Abraham, p. 41 5. * • • Vol. II. C * tions- i8 Platonifm ojPhllo. Book L tions with the prophets, but was never fuppofed to refide with any of them, and much lefs to be infcparably attached to them, or to animate them. The logos waS ftill a divine influence, or e-§>ux, apprehended to be fomething belonging to the Divine Being, though occafionally emitted from him, and drawn into him again, when the purpofe for v/hich it had been emitted was anfwered. Where Phiio ended the dodrine of perfonification, that of the chriftian Fa- thers began. The difference was that, whereas Philo thought the emiffion of the logos to be occafional, and to aflume va- rious forms, particularly that of angels, the chriftian Fathers thought it to be uniform and permanent, and interpreted it of Chriii only. But the firfl: chriflians who adopted this opinion of the emiffion of a divine logos^ or ejjlux, went very little farther than Philo^, faying, as Juftin Martyr explains their opi- nion, that this logos, which had been that which appeared to Mofes and the patriarchs, in the form of a luminous cloud, or glory, which had fometimes affumed the form of 2 a man Chap. VIIL Platomfm ofPhilo. 19 a man, and conftituted what are called an^ gels, was likewife in Jefus Chrift, and en- abled him to work miracles, &c. Since, however, according to their opinion, no- thing was emitted from God but what he could at pleafure, draw into himfelf again, juft as a beam of light was fuppofed to go out of the fun, and go back to its fourcc (without indeed being ever feparated from it) they who'held it were properly philofo^ phical unitarians ', and this is the opinion that is afcrlbed to Marcellus of Ancyra, and other acknowledged unitarians of early times. Athenagoras held this dodlrine with refped to the Holy Spirit, though he fol* lowed Juftin Martyr in fuppoiing that, after the emiflion of the logos, before the creation of the world, it always remained a perfon, difiinct from the Father, and con- ftituted the Son, or Chriji. With refped: to the Jews, it is evident that, in general, they did not ufe the term logos in the Platonic fenfe, but as fynony- mous to God, or the mere token, or fym- bol, of the divine prefence. The Chaldee paraph rafts often ufe the term .^nOD, mimra^ C z which 20 Platontfm of Pbilo, Book I. which may be t ran dated logos ^ or word, as Gen. i. 27. The word of the Lord created man, inftead of, the Lord created man. Gen. ix. 12- This is the token of the covenant which I make between my word and you, inftead of between me and you. But that, in the ideas of thefe writers, the word of a perfon was merely fynonymous to hinfeif is evident from their application of the fame phrafeo- logy to man> Thus the fame paraphrafer fays. Numb. XV. 32, A certain man /aid in bis word, I will go forth and gather jiicks on the fahbath-day^ when he could only mean that he faid to himfelf, or purpofed in his Own mind. Ecclef. i. 2. Solomon faid in his word. Vanity of vanities, ZSc. 2 Sam. iii. 15, 16. Phaltiel pui a fword between his word a?id Michal, the daughter of Saul, i.e. between himfelf and Michal, as is juftly obferved by Mr. Lindfey, in the Sequel to his Apo- logy, p. 381. Phrafeology fimilar to this is ufed m the book called the Wifdom of Solomon ; when the author, defcribing the plagues of Egypt, fays, chap, xviii. 15. Thine Almighty word leafed down from heaven, out of thy royal throne,. Chap. VIII. Flatonifm of Fhilo, 21 throne y as a fierce man of war ^ into the midjl of a land ofdefiruSion, and brought thine m-^ feigned commandment ^ as a Jharp fword^ and Jlanding upy filled all things with death ; and it touched the heavens y but it fiood upon the earth. But that this is only a figurative defcription of the power of God, reaching from heaven to earth, is evident from the language of the whole chapter, where thofe plagues are afcribed to God, and to no other being whatever, chap. xix. 9. For they went at large y £s?c. prafing thee, O Lord, who badfi delivered them. C3 THE HISTORY OF OPINIONS CONCERNING CHRIST. BOOK 11. ^pOWTAINING THE HISTORY OF THE DOG^ TRINE OF THE TRINITY. H CHAPTER L Of Chrijlian Platonifm, A V I N G fhewn what were the boafted principles of the Platonic fchool, as held by Plato himfelf, by his followers about the time of the chriftian sera, and by Philo ; let us now fee what ufe was made of them by the philofo- phizing chriftians, many of whom were edu- cated in the Platonic fchool of Alexandria, Abfur4 and confufed as th^ fyftem muft C 4 appear 24 Cbrljiian Plalonifm. Book II. appear to us at this day, it fliould be con- fidered that it was the only philofophy thaf was in vogue at the time of the promulgation of chriftianity ; fo that perfons of a liberal education could not well be fuppofed to adopt any pther. In that age, the chief fubjed: of deliberation was the choice of a mafter in philofophy; and though thofe who then gave ledures at Alexandria, claimed the privilege of feleding what they thought proper from the fyftems of all the philofophers, and on that account called themfelves Ecle^icsy the different dodlrines were fo difcordant, that it was not much of any of them that could be adopted into any other. Accordingly, we find that, with refped: to every thing of much confequence, fuch as the dodlrine concerning God, the maker and governor of the world, and the firji principles of all things, the philofophers of Alexandria were, or pretended to be, wholly Platonifts. And it muft be aU lowed that, compared with other fyftems, there were many things exceedingly fpe-: cious in the doftrine of Plato, and fuch as would Chap. I. Chnftian PlatorJfni, 25 ' v/ould render it peculiarly captivating to religious and pious perfons, who were fhocked with the principles of Arlflotle, as leading to atheifiii, and who revolted at the rigour of the ftoics, but were charmed with thQfublimity of Plato. Alfo^ the air of myfiery which accompanied his doilrine would not, perhaps, upon the whole, leffea the favourable impreflion which it was cal- culated to make upon the mind. The things which moft ftruck the chrif- tians in Platonifm, were the dodrine of one God, a being of perfed goodnefs, that of his univerfal providence, that of the foul, and its immortality, and that of the improvement of the mind confifting in its refembiance to God, and a kind of union with him. Thefe things pleafed the chrif- tians fo much, that they perfuaded them- felves that Plato had actually borrowed them from the writings of Mofes, with which they faid he might have been ac-- quainted during his refidence in Egypt, or, in his travels in the Eaft. Juftin Mar- tyr, and others of the Fathers, infiir much ppon this. It was on account of this fup- pofed . Z6 Chrtjlian Platonifm. Book II. pofed refemblance between Platonifm and the dodtrine of the fcriptures, that this philofophy was thought to be the beft pre- paration for the iludy. of chriftianity ; and that it was even imagined that it was given to the world by a particular providence, as introdudory to the chriftian difpenfation. ** The Greek philofophy/* fays Clemens Alexandrinus, ** cleanfcs the mind and pre- *' pares it for the reception of faith, on *' which truth builds knowledge'^/' Other extracts will be given from this writer hereafter, which will more clearly fhew^ what his ideas on this fubjed: were. That chriftians v/ere really ftruck with the principles of Platonifm above-men- tioned, is not a matter of conjecture only, but appears clearly in their writings. M, Felix fays, that *^ according to Plato's Ti- *^ masus, God is the parent of the world, ** the author of the foul, and the maker of ** things in heaven and earth. It is nearly,'* f^ys he, *'* the fame doftrine with our Ei; 'mapaooxw ^itex;, z(p n tyiv yvmiv ziromohiAii y] ooAix. Strom, lib. 7. Opera, p. 7ic, '' own," Chap. I. Chrijlldn Plat 0727/712. 27 <* own"*." Tertullian fays that ** Plato's ** philofophy confiders God as caring for *' all things, as an arbiter and judge +./' Irenaeus fays that " Plato was more religi- ** ous than the heretics, in that he acknow- ** ledged the fame God to be juft and good, *^ omnipotent, and a judge :};." Clemens Alexandrinus commends Plato as having made the end of man to be to refemble God, whereas the ftoics faid that it was to live according to nature §/' Origen alfo commends Plato as having made happinefs to confift in the greateft likenefs to God poffible|j. Juftin Martyr fpeaks of Plato * Platoni itaque in Timeo Deus eft ipfo fuo nomine mundi parens, artifex animas cceleftium terrenorumque fa- bricator. Eadem fere et ifta quae noftra funt. Sed. 19. p. 96. t Platonici quidem, curantem rerum, et arbitrum, et judicem. Ad Nationes, fecS. 2. Opera, p. 54. X Quibus religiofior Plato oflenditur, qui eundem Deum et juftum, et bonum, confelTus eft, habentem poteftatem omnium, ipfum facientem judicium. Lib. 3. cap. 45. p. 269. § Ev/iTt/^Ev 01 fX£v ]S7w?«0i, TO T£Xo; rr,g (pi>.0(ro(piagy ro aKO>^(>ug rn oil}/*£«{ £/ia^(jLEv, xj vfxsig iseicr^/ai ovvavc5 ^o^O(X£v "hiym ^oyfjui • rw ^s EKTrupcoa-iv yEvsa^au UlaiKMv. Apol. I. p. 31 t Vana philofophoium verba, quae in dodrinis Plato* nicis ecclefiae parvulos interimebartt, in ultionem divinam illis converfa eft, et in cruorem. In Pf. 77. Opera, vol. 7. p. 97. and 30 Chrijlian Flatonifm. Book II. and to enlarge his fphere of adion in the world. Marks of Juftin's fondnefs for this philofophy appear in many parts of his writings 3 and it is not to be wondered at, as he had been addidled to it before he came to be a chriftian*. He fiys ** the notion ** of incorporeal things, and the doctrine of *' ideas, charmed mef." What mifchief was done to the chriftian fyflem by this doctrine Qi ideas will prefently appear. Athenagoras taught the Platonic philofo- phy in public at Alexandria, and almoft all the eminent writers among the chriftians, of that and the foll*ov/ing age, are well known either to have been educated there, or to have acquired a fondnefs for the phi- lofophy that was taught both there and at Axthens at the fame time. Aufliin, fpeaking of the principles of Plato, fays, that *' by changing a few words "and fentences, the Platonifts would be- ** come chriftians, as many of thofe of later * Kaf yap at,7c5 £70), to($ n?va:7wv®- xot^mv ^i^a.yy^iji. Apol. 2. p. 127.- exif27rlsf>ii iJi.01 Tr.v (ppovYicnv, Dial. p. 14I. ** times C H A P . I . Cbrijlian Platonifm. 3 1 *' times have done */' He fays that *^ he ** learned in fome books of the Platonifts, ** tranflated into Latin, though not in fo ** many words, the dodrine of the logos, ** as contained in the introdudion to the *** gofpel of John ; that it was with God, *' and was God, and that the >vorld was *^ made by it, &c. but not the doctrine of *^ the incarnation -f*/' I am ready enough to join with thefe chriftian writers in their admiration of many * Et paucis mutatis verbis atque fententiis chriftiani fie- rent, ficut plerique recentiorum noftrorumque temporum Platonici fecerunt. De Vera Religione, cap. 4. Opera, vol. I. p. 704. t Procurafti mihi per quendam hominem immaniffimo typho turgidum, quofdam Platonlcorum libros ex Grsca lingua in Latinam verfos : et ibi legi : non quidcm his verbis, fed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus fua- deri rationibus, quod in principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum : hoc erat in prin- cipio apud Deum, omnia per ipfum fada funt, et fme ipfo faftum eft nihil quod hStwm. eil : in eo, vita ell, et vita erat lux hominum, et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae earn non comprehe'nderunt. ConfefT, Opera, vol. i. p. 128. Item ibi legi quia Deus verbum non ex carne, non ex fanguine, non ex voluntate viri, non ex voiuntate carnis.^ fed ex Deo natus eft. Sed quia verbum caro factum eft, et habitavit in nobis non ibi legi. Ibid. things 32 Chriflan Platonlfm. Book IL things in the philofophy of Plato, compared with other fyftems exifliRg at the fame time, and wifh that they, could be detached from the reft of the fyftem, in which there is fo much confufion and abfurdity, as I have clearly pointed out. But, unhappily, thefe admirers of Plato carried their admiration much too far ; and as we have fee n, in the cafe of Juftin and Auftin, were more parti- cularly ftruck with that very part of this fyftem, namely, that concerning the doc- trine of idcas^ and the divine intelleft, noiiSy or logosy in which the greateft darknefs and abfurdity belonging to it is found. The reafon was, that this part of the fyftem, having been previoufly adopted by Philo, furnifiied them with a pretence for repre- fenting their mafter in a more reputable light than that of a mere man^ who had no higher origin than being born in Judea. In what manner they availed themfelves of the dodlrine of Plato for this purpofe, will be fcen after 1 have reprefented what they imagined the principles of Plato, with re- fpedt to the logos and other things con- nedted with it, to have been. I fhall Chap. I. ChrlflianPlatonifm. 33 I ihall begin with obferving, that even the chrifliian Fathers do not uniformly re- prefent the principles of Platonifm as very favourable to their dodtrine of the perfoni- iication of the logos. For fomethiies they defcribe thofe principles as admitting of no more than one proper mindy and that be- longing to the fapreme being, or the firft caufe, the fecond principle being nothing more than his ideas. '* Plato's three prin- *' ciples/' fays Juftin Martyr, '^ are God, *^ and matter, and idea ; God the maker of *^ all things, matter which was prior to all '* production, and which furniflied materials ** for it, and idea the pattern of every thing ** that was made '*/' Clemens Alexan- drlnus alfo fays, that *^ Plato confidered idea ** as the mind of God, the fame that bar- '* barians call the logos of God-^-;" and ob- v\m xj £jo (^" • Seoy /zev, tov 's^avlccv >zsci-f]ly]v * v}.nv ^£, im uttokziixvjyiv Ty) 'sjpulri Tcov yBvayAvm yzv^azi, x^ inv '7spo(pa(nv avlu rn; ^n/jLiacyia^ ^ap^x^aav • £<^®- 3e, to £x«ra twv y£vo/>tEywv -zija^a^Vr/zxa. Ad Grsecos, p. 7 . f H 3e tJea, i\vmj.0L ra Sea, 07r?p ci ^apQapoi hoyov £ipmoiu n^a7&)!/, iv TO) 'njoXiliKu^ Bvoi rov voiJLo^dnv (pncriv ' £v h roi; vofji,oii; vja rev avviaovla. twv (xaainm ' ^iOi t8tcov ui^adKuv tcv Xoyov iiVMEvoc, }y rov ^£ov eva. Strom, lib. i. p. 356. f Vult enim Plato efle quafdam fubftaiitias invifibiles, incorporales, fupermundiales, divlnas, et aeternas ; quasap- pellat ideas, id efl formas, exempla, et caufas naturalium iftorum manifeftorum, et fubjacentium corporalibus fcn- iibus : et illas quidem efle veritates, hxc autem imagines earum. De Aninia, (eO:. 18. p. 276. X To 5e ':!iapahr/fAx tw ^iav9iav t8 ^sa eivm, xj ihav kchUi^ omii KOvia-fAdli rss^ocriyj^v £v t>j -^vy^ Beb^ tcc 'sjavlx Bon/Xmpysi, Phi- lofophumena, p. no. *' Plato's C H A p . I . Chrijlian Platoni/m . 3 1 *^ Plato's three principles are God, matter, *' and the pattern =^.'' Thefe appear to me to have been the ge- nuine principles of Platonifm, ftripped of all figure ; and thus underftood, no harm could have refulted from them. But this plain ftate of things would not content the chriftian philofophers ^ as nothing could be made of it to favour their great purpofe, namely, to make fomething more of Chrift than a mere man, v/hofe exigence com- menced vi^ith his birth. They foon began to dwell more on the perfonification of the divine ?2ous or logos (which was originally conceived to be nothing more than a ftore- houfe of ideas) than the Platonifts them- felves had ever done ; and they took an evident pleafure in giving this turn to the principles of Platonifm. Indeed, Plato's dodrines had always been varioufly inter- preted, as Origen has obferved. " How *' can he'\ fays he, >' pretend to know ** every thing of Plato, when his inter- ^' preters differ fo much among them- * Tb^cxJav a^xa^ moii ja "S^cuvlog ^eov >tj u^nv >^ "SJupa^eiyfMX. Ibid. p. i®8. D 2 *« felves/' 36 Chrtpan Platonifm. Book IL <*fe]ves*-." Platonifm, therefore, being capable of various coniftruftions, it was na- tural for the chriflian Fathers to give it that drefs which befl fuited their purpofe. Juftin Martyr, the iirft of the platonizing chriftians, did not content himfelf with that plain and juft account of the principles of Platonifm, which has been defcribed above, though he does not feem to afcribe fo much to Plato as others did. He fays, that ** Plato learned from Mofes what he *' called a third principle, viz. the *^ fpirit (which, Mofes faid, moved upon *' the face of the waters) for he. gives the *' fecond place to the logos, which was with «* God, and the third to the fpirit, which *' is faid to have moved upon the waters -f-." There is more of perfonification in the following account of the principles of Plato by Tertullian : '< We have faid that God i^ zrscpa Toig oiYjyufxzvoig aoltx. In Celfum, lib. i. p. 11. -f Km TO ilTTZlV aulov rpilcV^ ETTSi^V, Ug ZJOOSiTIOfXEV^ ETTCiVCO TUV v^oiluv cxvsyvu vtto MuaEug etpri/xEvov f7r<^£p£cr^a< to tk Ses 's^veu/jux, , OEvlspav (A.EV yap xoipav tw nsapa, Ses ^oyw, ov »f%/acr,9a{ ev t« 'usa\\i f^», ^^'Jidl ' TYIV >^ rpilriVj 7U M^^Evll ETTHpEpECr^Ul TU) vd'aiL 'SjVEUfJ.aii^ U7[uv. Apol. I. p. 87. " formed Chap. I. Chrlftian Tlatonifn, 37 '* formed the world by his word, reafon, '^ and power. According to your philo- ■* fophers, alfo, the logos, that is, x\\t fermn^ ** and ratio, was the maker of the univerfe. ** Zeno calls him the perfon that formed ** all things. The fame which is called *^ fatCy and G(?^, and the mind of Jupiter y ** and the necejjity of all things^' J' Origen fays, the Brachmans acknowledged the logos for a God +. Conftantine, commending the doftrine of Plato, fays, that ^^ beiides the principal *^ God, he made a fecond Gcd, fubfervient ** to him, being two in number, but both *' one in perfe(5lion ; the fubftance of the *^ fecond god being derived from that of *' the principal one, and being the imme- *^ diate maker and governor of all things, * Jam ediximus Deum unlverfitatem hanc mundi verbo et ratione et virtute molitiim. Apud veftros quoque fa- pientes, AOFON, id eft, fermonem atque rationem conftat artificem videri univerfitatis. Hunc enim Zeno determi- nat fa6litatorem, qui cuncta in difpofitione formaverit. Eundem et fatum vocari, et deum, et animum Jovis, et neceJitatem omnium rerum. Apol. fe6t. 21. p. 19. i Axa* £r:7cj, rn; rs i^aiag ts ^Euicp-d ^£8 tav vTrac^iv iX^c, B£ii 'SJaig . 'ssoiov ya^ av Tig ovofxa aulu 'ss£pCho£ig 'siafa mv 'SJ^ocrnyo^iav ra rsiai^cg^ an av rcc (/.£yira s^a/Mzplavoi ' ya^ toi ruv inaviav 'Sia^p^ id, ra :cis Aoyx huxwig av 'sjcclnp vcfAi^cdo, M£xpi /U£v av T87g UmIw co(ppccv w. Oratio, cap. 9. p. 684. *« the Chap. I. Chrifuan Platonifm. 35 ^' the holy fplrit ; and, after your manner, *' you call them three gods *.'* But it has been itzw that what the Platonifts generally meant by theyj;?, or the chilcly was the vi- lible world. However, the later chriftlan writers had no more doubt about the principles of Plato than about their ovi^n, and it is remarkable, how very nearly they make them approach to each other* Cyril of Alexandria afferts, that ** Plato fays, it is plain that the firft God is ^^ immoveable, but the fecond, on the con- *^ trary, is in motion. The firft is em- '^ ployed about intelligible things, the fe- *' cond about things intelligible and kvi" ^' fible-j-." Again he fays, *' Plato calls ** the fupreme God the good^ and fays that * PrDedicas patrem et ejus fillum, quern vocas paternum jntelle(Slum feu mentem : et horum medium, quern puta- miis te dicere fpirifum fan6lum, et more veftro appellas tres Deos. De Civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 29. Opera, vol. 5. p. 5S9. l/,£v '57^«7©^ Ssof ETou Sfco; , h ^sule^o; zyima'Hv sti Kmfxsvo^ . o f^sv av 'SJ^alog, 'srs^t ra vorila ' o h ^£vie^og 'sre^j rcc vor^a ^^ ai^y^a. pontra Julianum, lib. 3. Juliani Opera, vol. 2. p. 98. D 4 '^ nous^ 40 Chrlfiian Thitonifm. Book. II. ** nousy the immediate maker of the world, '* fprung from him, the firft God being ** immoveable. He alfo introduces a third, ** viz. the foul, by which he fays every ** thing was moved and animated'^." Laftly, in his account of the principles of Plato, after fpeaking of the good^ he fays, *' From him is generated nous (which is *' perfeded by the contemplation of him) ** whom they call a fecond God, and the *' maker of the world. Him they make *' fubordinate, and place in the fecond rank. *^ The third they make the foul of the " world, which had nothing from itfelf, ** but is made more divine by its relation ** to the nouSy and ftronger with refpedl to '^ its quickening power. +.'* He fays that * O ysv rL>^7a;v Seov jWEV tov avcSlixlu (pmi r ayc^ov cf avln ye //i^i/ avoChaix-^ai vav, >i^ thIov £ivm tov 'SJ^oaexv tw noa-fxa OYi/xiapyov cvlog X; £v axmaict Tn 'u^cola . }^ r^il-^v eia^spsi -^0x^9 ^^ >lf Ta nsc vlc( xmLa^ai rs ;^ s^l^ux^^^^^ ^^^'' Contra Julianum, lib. 4. Juiiani Opera, vol. 2. p. 147. f Ta7o h mat (pa) >y ^sulepov ovofia^Ho-i^eov, y^- 'u^oo- ciyj[ TH KocTfXH d'r.ixin^yov ' y^ ts7ov vTToQiQix^iidi^ y^ iv ^JIeccc raisi Ts -CTf ;u73 Kdla.>jjyi'CQv\ai . )^ i^nv }^ r^irm 7\oyo7roiH(n ra Koa/xs i|/y%>iv, 9iHokv //£v TO af^ijyj fpi^Eiv hax^io-ctv ad'xiAug^ ax^o'^i ys /W/jv t)7 -sr^ oj tov Chap. I. Chrlfilan Platomfm. 41 '* Prophyry, explaining the dodlrine of ** Plato, extends the divine effence to three '' hypoftafes ; the flrft being the Supreme '' Being, or the good ^ the fecond the de- " miurgiis ; and third the foul of the world, " extending the divinity even to this prin- " ciple ^\" As the chriftians were admirers of Pla- tonifm, fo we find that fome of the Pla- tonifts were admirers of that part of the chriftian fyftem which was formed after the model of Plato ; and that they were particularly ftruck with the introdudlion to the gofpel of John, as interpreted by the Platonic chriflians. Bafil, fpeaking of the firft verfes of John's gofpel, favs, that he knew many heathen philofophers, who admired them, and copied them into xpenlova vav ^siols^av a7ro^ii'k£(M£VAV^ )y zipag ys ro hyaa-^ai C^:)07roi£iv s^occ(^£V£r£^av. Ibid. lib. 8. vol. 2. p. 270. * Ilo^(pv^iog yap ^/,.cxJcov(^ SfiliBsfjiEvo; ^cj|av, axPt rmcov VTTOTaaeojv^ tw th ^eih 'srp£A-^£;t' njiav * sivm ^e tcv (ji^ev avcoloilco ^sov 7xytx^ov ' fAST amv ^£ )o ^eJle^ov rov ^y^fMH^yov ' toiIcv ^e iu 7y\v ra Koc-f/.is ^vx/iv. ax^i ycc^ ^vx^.?^ Tnv ^eiolrh 'm^oe^.^ELv. Con. Jul. lib. I. Juliani Opersj vol. 2. p. 34, He repeats the fame, p. 271. their ^2 Qhrijitan Flatonifm. Book II. their own writings*." Auftin %s that a ** Platonic philofopher, faid that the intro- ** dudion to John's gofpel ought to be << written in letters of gold, and hung up ** in all churches f/' Theodoret fays that Plutarch, Numenius, and others, after the appearance of our Saviour, inferted in their own difcourfes many things from the chrif- tian theology +. Upon the whole, it muft appear that, in reorefenting the principles of Platonifm, the chriftian Fathers leaned too much to the object which they had in view, and £y«a7aAE|aj{ To^/x>ia-ay7aj. Horn. l6. Opera, vol. I. p. 432. + QuodinitJum fan(9:i evangelii, cui nomen eftfecundum Joanncm, quidem Platonicus. — Aureis Uteris confcriben- dum, et per omnes ecclefias in locis eminentiffirais propo- nendum cfle dicebat. De Civiiate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 29. Opera, vol. 5. p. 592. "l K.ai slspa OS ns>.i\c:|w Myo . De Gr^ecis Affeclibus, Difp. 2. vol. 4. p. 750. Eld. Lip(i3e. made Chap. I. Chrijlian Platonifm, .43 made more of the perfonification of the divine nous, or logos ^ than the Platonifts themfelves had ever done. The latter pro- bably meant nothing more than a mere figure of fpeech, when they fpake of the nous^ or logos, as a perfon ; but in the hands of the christian Fathers, it became a fub- ftantial fecond God, at firft derived from the Supreme Being, dependent upon his will, and fubjedt to his orders, but after- wards in all refpefrs equal to himfelf. CHAP, 44- • Generation of the Son Book IL •V, CHAPTER II. Of the Generation of the Son from the. Fat her, SECTION I. Ihe Bocfrine of the Platonizing Fathers concerning the Generation of the Son, as the fecond Ferfon in the Trinity^ Jiated. VI7E have feen v/hat notions the chrif- tian Fathers entertained of the feconci principle, in what has been called the Pla^ tojiic trinity, viz. the divine nous, or logos^ which properly fignifies the divine mind, reafon, or wifdom ; that power by means of which God produced the vifible world. This they confidered as a real perfon, a feccnd God, the fon of the lirft God. There is much indiilindlnefs and confufion in the dodlrine of the Platonifts themfelves on this fubjedl ; but all this confufion pre- fcntly vanifhedin the eyes of the chriftian Fathers ; who, feeing how excellently that hypothefis was calculated to anfwer their purpofe Chap. II. from the Father. 4^ purpofe of exalting the perfonal dignity of their mafter, did not hefitate to maintain that this fecond principle, the attribute, and the only effedive and operative attribute, of the Divine Being, was that which aduated Jefus Chrifl, and might be laid to be Ch rift. To complete this fcheme, it was necef- fary that this operative principle in the Deity, fliould affume ^vo^^v fuhjlantial pcr^ foiiality^ becaufe Jefus Chrift always re- mained a proper perfon^ as much as any other intelligent being, and is always to continue fo. And they were much affifted in doing this, by the principles of Philo, •which have been explained above, viz. that the divine logos could alTume occa^ Jional perfonality, to anfwer particular pur- pofes, and then be reforbed into the Divine Being again. For the thing itfelf being admitted to be poj/ible fo?" a time^ there was no great difficulty in fuppofing, farther, that what had been temporary, might be perpetual ; and therefore, that the logos, having been occafionally emitted from the divine mind, and having had a proper power, and a proper fphere of adion to itfeif. .46 Generation of the Son Book IL itielf, might for ever remain poffeiTed of them, and be for ever attached to a real man, as it had been fuppofed to have been attached to what had the appearance of a man, and even to have eaten and drank like a man, in the intercourfe with Abraham and the patriarchs. But the dodrine of the occajional emijjion of this divine principle preceded that of the permanent perfonality among chriflians, and continued to be held by many perfons after the latter came to be the received opinion. The firft mention of this idea occurs in the writings of Juftin Martyr, who is likev/ife the firft that can be proved to have adopted the dodlrine of the per- manent perfonality of the logos. He men- tions it as an opinion which he did not approve; but it is remarkable, that he mentions it without any particular cenfure, fo that it could not have been confidered as an heretical dodrine. The opinion that is defcribed by Juf- tin Martyr, was the fame that was held by Marcellus of Ancyra, and other learn- ed chriftians, who were properly enough \ ranked Chap. II. from the Father. 47 ranked among unitarians. For, accord- ing to them the logos was nothing more than a divine power ^ voluntarily emitted by the Supreme Beings and though in fome iz\\{^ detached from himfelf, was en- tirely dependent upon him, and taken into himfelf again at pleafure, when the purpofe of its emiffion had been anfwered. On this fcheme, the logos, it might have been faid, v^ould have been a perfon at the creation of the world, and again when it was em- ployed in the divine intercourfe with the patriarchs, in the intervals of which it was deprived of its perfonality, and that it re- covered it again at the baptifm of Chrill ; then, after afiifting him to perform thofe things to which human pov/er was unequal, was reforbed into the Divine Beine aeain : juft as a ray of light was, in thofe days, fup- pofed to be drav/n back into the fun, as the fountain of light, from which it had been emitted. This docSlrine, therefore, may be called Fhilofophical Unitarianifm^ of which a farther account will be given hereafter. At prefent I only coniider it as a ftep to- wards the doftrine oi permanent f erf maUtyy which 48 Gefieration of the Son Book IL which probably commenced with Juftin Martyr, and what might contribute to ren- der it more plaufible. This doctrine would certainly appear lefs alarming to men of plain underftanding ; for it could not be faid that, upon this principle, any 72ew beings was introduced, f'or a mere power ^ occafionally emitted, and then taken back again into its fource, could not come under that defcription. Accord- ingly, it appears that Marcellus, who held that opinion, was confidered as an unitarian, and was popular among the lower people, who continued to be unitarians ; whereas they took the greatefl alarm at the dodrine of the permanent perfonality of the logos, confidering it as the introduction of an- other Gody and therefore, as an infringe- ment of the firft and greateft command- ment. It was to avoid this great difficulty that the chriftian Fathers held fo obftinately as they did to the dodrine of Chrift being nothing more than the logos, or the proper reaforiy nvifdoniy or power of the Father, though it contributed exceedingly to em- barrafs Chap. II. from the Father. 49 barrafs their fcheme. The Platoniils had no difficulty at all on this account, as they had no meafares to keep with unitarians, but rather wiflied to ftand v^cU with thofe w4io held a multiplicity of gods. They, therefore, never pretended that their three principles were one^ or refolvable into one. This is obferved by Auflin and others. But the chriftian Fathers were not fo much at liberty. They were under a neceffity of maintaining the unity of God in fome knk or other, at all events, that being the funda- mental principle of their religion, and a principle that was moft ftridtly adhered to by the common people. On this account we find them particu- larly careful, on all occafions, to affert that, though they confidered Chrift as God, it was not as another Gody diftindt from the Father, but only the logos, or reafon, of the Father himfelf ; and, therefore, ftridly fpeaking, one wdth him, as much as the reafon of any man was the fime thing with the man himfelf. On this account, alfo, thofe who called themfelves orthodox, were fo ready to charge the Arians with holding Vol. II, E the 50 Generation of the Son Book II. the doitrine of two Gods ; becaufe the logos of the Arians was a being created out of nothing, and had a different origin from the God that made him ; whereas their lo- gos had always exifted as the reafon of the eternal Father y and therefore they thought themfelves well fecured againft any retort of the fame accufation from others. Being thus obliged to keep clear of the dodrine of two Godsy they were under a neceffity of maintaining that the logos was nothing more than the reafon, or operative faculty of the Father; at the fame time that they maintained that it was a diftindt perfon from him, which is a dodlrine fo manifeftly abfurd, that at this day it requires the plaineft evidence of its having been entertained at all. However, the dread of introducing two Gc^- and the accufations of their adver- fai. efpecially of the common people, for whom they could not but have great refped:, gave them fuch abundant occafion to explain their real principles, and fo much of their writings on this fubjed are ftill ex- tant, that we cannot mifunderftand their meaning. It Chap. IT. from the Father, 51 It is not poffible either by the ufe of plain words, or of figurative language, to exprefs this moft abfurd notion, viz. that the logos^ or theyJ;^/, which was afterwards \ real per^ foriy was originally nothing more than a mere attribute of the fat he r^ more clearly than they do. For, according to the moft definite language that men can ufe, the lo- gos, as exifting in the Father, and prior to the creation, was in the opinion of thofe chrif- tian Fathers (who, in their own age, and even till long after the council of Nice, were con- fidered as orthodox) the fame thing in him as reafon is in man, which is certainly no proper perfon^ diftinguifhable from the man himfelf. Will common fenfe permit us to fay, that the man is one perfon, or thing, and his reafo?j another, not comprehended in the 7nan ? In like manner, it is impofll- ble not to infer from the uniform language of the early chriftian writers that, according to their ideas, there was originally nothing in, or belonging to the Son, but what was necefi^arily contained in the Father. Paflages without end may alfo be felecfled from the moft approved of the Fathers to E 2 flaew 52 Generation of the Son Book II. Ihew, in the cleareft manner, that as the di- vinity which they then afcribed to Chrift was the very fame principle v/hich had con- itituted the ivifdom^ and other operative pGiv- ers, of God the Father, fo what they called the generation of the Son, was the com- mencement of a ftate of adlual perfonality in the logos; whether in time, as was thought by fome, or from all eternity, as was held by others 3 an opinion which was afterwards received as the eflabliflied doc- trine on the fubjedt. I fhall not produce a tenth part of the authorities that might eafily have been fe- lecled to prove thefe propofitions ; nor one half of thofe which I have adtually colled:ed for the purpofe; but they will be abun- dantly fufficient to put an end to all the doubts that can have been entertained on the fubjedl, efpecially as they will be ex- tracted from writers of the mofl unquef- tioned orthodoxy, from Juftin Martyr, to thofe of a very late period in the chriftian hiftory. SEC^ Chap. II. from the Father. ^^ SECTION II. Authorities for this Opinion from Jtijlin Martyr to Origen. T?ROM a careful perufal of the writings of Juftin, I cannot help thinking that he was the iirft, or one of the firft, who ad- vanced the doflirine of the permanent per- fonality of the logos. He feems to write as if this was the cafe ; and it is alfo certain, that he was the oldeft of the authorities for the pre-exiftence of Chrift quoted by the anonymous author in Eufebius, as will be fhewn hereafter. Juflin fays, " Jefus Chrifl: *^ is the only proper fon of God, being his *^ logos, firft born, and powerful *." Had he meant any other principle than the very logos which was an attribute of the Father, he would have faid a logos, or the logos, and not his logos. But I quote this paflage not as the moft explicit, but as the firft in the V7roi(>X^v, f^ 'sr^^loloH^^ i^ ^uvdfAi;, Apol, I. p. 2S' E 3 writings 54 Generation of the Son Book IL writings of Juftin in which this fentiment appears. He likewife fays, *' Mofes in- *« forms us that the fpirit, and a power ** which was from God, is no other than *^ the logos who was the firft begotten of " God*.'* Some other characters which Juftin imagined the logos to affume are mentioned in the following paffage. '' The *' logos of God is alfo called his Son. He ** is likewife called an angel, and an apoftle, ** or one fent by another," quoting the words of our Saviour, ^* He that heareth *^ me heareth him that fent me-f.'* But the following larger extract froni Juftin Ihews moft diftinctly that, in his idea, the logos of God bore the fame rela- tion to God, that the logos, or reafon, of man bears to man, and that this principle was, in his opinion, the medium of all the divine communications from God to man * To 'ujvsvij.a Hv ^ Tnv ^yv/^iv tw -zjra/ja Ta Ses s^sv a>>.o von^at Se/ztf, Yi 70V T^oyov^ 05 >t) ':!^quIo1ok^ tco Sew eh, MwycDif 'BT^ooeoViAw* fjLiv^ "S^po^y^Yi; EimwaE, Apol. I. p. 54. f O hoy^ h T8 ^EH £nv vio^ aula^ wj 'Espoz^£ilai^ JL aTioToT^^ ' avlo; yaf) a7rafy£>^Ei oca hi 7vcoy aul^ kvoio^ r\^m eittev^ e/a« ^KHMv aK^Ena a7[0Tzi?^{i(9- fjLE, Ibid. p. 93. fron> Chap. II. from the Father. 55 from the beginning of the world. ** I will " fhew you from the fcriptures, that in the " beginning, before all creatures, God pro- " duced from himfclf a rational power, ** which is called by the holy fpirit, the " glory of God, fometimes the Son, fome- ** times wifdom, fometimes an angel, fomc- ** times God, fometimes Lord, and logos. <* Sometimes he calls himfelf commander in ^^ chief having appeared in the form of a *^ man to Jo(hua. He has thefe names ** from his being fubfervient to his Father s " will, and from being produced at his Fa- ** ther's pleafure, fach as we experience " in ourfelves. For, on our uttering any «' word (i. e. logos) we generate a logos, «' not that any thing is cut off from us fo ** that we are diminifhed by that means, ** but as we fee one fire lighted by another, ** that not being diminiflied from which *« it was lighted, but continuing the fame. ** In proof of this, I can produce the word <« of wifdom, {hewing that he is a God pro- <* duced from the Father of all, being the <* logos, the wifdom, the power, and the <^ glory of him that generated him ; and B 4 ** Splgmou 56 Generation of the Son Book II, ** Solomon fays, if I tell you what happens ** to day, I will recount things from the ** beginning. The Lord created me the *' ctp;^w," the beginning, ** the way to his ** works. Before the angels he eftablifhed ** me, in the beginning, before he made the " earth*." Here is the whole fyflem of Juftin, and of the Fathers before the council of Nice, and alf) the chief foundation on which it * yiccp.vcicv ^£ ;^ aXKo v/mv. a (pi7\oi^ sipm, cciro ruvypcx/pcov ^utco^ oii (xo-XJ^v Tt^oo ^avlwv Tm JclicriJLxlav Ssoj ysyEvms ^uvccfjLiv riva £| Eauls 7\Gy iKY.v, ^ig 'i^) h'iaKvpiz vTTors ^mevfioiK^ ra aym KOiXeilai, 's^ois ^e Viog, 'ZolE ^£ croipia, 'ZuoIe ^e a/yEA®", 'nsole ^e ^eo^. 'SsqIe Se ftopi^B"^ ^ ^07(5^. TLoiE OE UfX^rpoilnyQi' Eaulov AsyHi, ev av^oaTra {juiptpri (pawjlc& Tu T« "NavYi IvKTa . 8%S{v ycxp taavlcx. 'STpc(rcvc(jijz^Ea-^ai ek te ra uTDipElEiv TO) 'SJolpiJico (3s^>i/>w{?t, ;t) ek rs utto th 'mcxipog ^E^l?7£i ysyevna^ou^ [a>A «] roi^cv CJTCiov -A E(p Yifxm yEVOfJi^vov opuf^iv. Aoycv yccp rivcczuooCaX' T^ovl^U "^oyov 7£ww/x£v, 8 Koiiac. a.7:olo(jiw cog E^^Tlcodmcci rev ev r^i^iv ^oyQv fnjpoQayM v/mv ra kc(.§ y)lxEpa,v ymi^Eva^ fxvr][MVEU(Tc>) ra e| «/wv©" apiOixr^j-ai. Kupi EfiliaE pie ac%v;v. ooov aula 21; rfz. zpya. auii. Wpo ra aiwv©- E^E/jcEXiacrB piS. Ev acyjri 'sjpo T« tuv yw Tscivicrai. Dial. p. 266. N. B. AxK s, line 7. as Thidby obferves, mud be a cor- ruption, or interpolation. was Chap. II. from the Father. ^y was built. This, however, I fliall not flop to examine, but proceed to ftate the opi- nions of other chriftian writers who fol- lowed Juftin. Irenaeus expreffes the fame thought more concifely, when he fays, «* God is wholly mind, and exifting logos, *' v/hat he thinks, that he fpeaks. His " thought is the logos, and logos is mind-, ** and the mind comprehending every thino- *^ is the Father himfelf *-." ^ In the following paflage of Theophilus we fee more clearly than in the preceding of Irenieus, that the logos was conlidered as being the fame thing with the proper wif- dom of the Father. ** When he faid, let us *^ make mariy he fpake to nothing but his ^^ own logos, and his own v/ifdom-f." If the opinion of Theophilus had not been certainly known, it might even have been queftioned whether, in writing the above paflage, he really confidered the logos as a * Deus autem totus exillens mens, et totus exiilens logos, quod cogitat, hoc et loquitur; et quod loquitur, hoc et co- gitat. Cogitatio enim ejus logos, et logos mens, et omnia concludens mens, ipfe eft pater. Lib. 2. cap. 48. p. 176. Eayls ^oyov^ rev ovla ^locTraviog evoio^eIov ty Hup^ia, Sea . rs7po yap ri yivso-^cxi mlov six^ au^^a'NiV saula vav, t^ (ppo- vvicTiv ovla , ottoIe ^e r^zXm^v o Seoj 'csoiYiaoLi oaa iQn'KBva'oilo^ ralov tov T^oyov eymyus 'Sjpcipopixov^ mpaloloHov ':saSdi, spa ^iix ^Qa%zm . c^jCwJov ysvi/ri/xa E\va\, ra 'sralpi^ »;0^63$ ysvofjLEVOv (si apx'^g yap o Seoj , v^g ai^iog cov, £i%fv avlog sv saula 6o Gcneratmi of the Son Book II. that the Son, when produced, was the fource from which other things were made. In this paflage, as the writer explains what he meant by God having always had the logos in himfelfy by faying, that he was always Koyw^y that is, a rational inteU ligent beings he certainly meant to intimate, that before the generation of the logos, it was the very fame principle in God, that reofon is in man, being his proper ivifdom, or intelligence^ one of his attri- butes ; and it was never imagined, that there were proper diftinfl: perfons in the mind of man, merely becaufe man is Myin,^, rational. The very expreflion excludes the idea, and mud have been intended to ex- clude it. Clemens Alexandrinus has been thought by fome to favour the Arian principle, of tht logos being 2l creature ^made out of Twthing-, but it will appear by the following paf- fages, that nothing could be farther from nra K^y-^zpc: ztt auloi;^ losa kJ E^jspyeia elvou nzpcfK^'j^v . cuva^^i ^h to) hoyoi iCf TO ^sspo^-^l'Mov 'SP^w/xa^ Kupi®- yapy ^ntJJV, ekIus fASy ccpxnv c^uyaul'd eis epya ccvla, Apol. p. 82t I his Chap. II. from the Father. 6i his real ideas than that opinion, though the language in which he fometimes expreffes the generation of the Son from the Father may be capable of that conftruvflion. Speak- ing of the logos, he fays, *^ He is the wif- ** dom in which the Almighty delighted : '* for the Son is the power of God, as he is ** the moft ancient logos of the Father, be- ** fore all things ,that were made, and his ** wifdom, and efpecially the chofen teacher ** of thofe who were made by him ^'.*' — '^ God cannot be fhewn, nor can he teach ; '* but the Son is wifdom, and knowledge, *' and truth, and every thing of this kind-f-*'* Of all the chriftian w^riters cf antiquity, none exceeded Tertuilian in the confidence which he had in his own principles. He feems to have imagined that there was no ymfJLEva th Tsalpo^ . ccj% yap w (Tg^icx, ;i nzpca-BX^^p^ 'Bstvloftp^tlcjp $£0f . d'iniafiig yap ra B^a viog^ als nspo '^aviav lav y^ofj^vxy apx^KOi- Wog Xoyog T8 'maipcg . ^ aotpia aula ' Hupicog av ^ OiQa,^Ex^m TUiv oi aula 's^T^a-^Bylay. Strom, lib. y. p, /C?. ■\ O fA,£v uv 3^0$, avaTTO^siKlog av, x» sfiv £7riTr,fjidvizog, h ^e vio^y ffQ(pia T£ sn jij z7r''TY,^r\y ay^r^sia^ y^ o(roi oOO^, tj:7w cryy/ei^. Ibid. iib.4. p. 537, difficulty 62 Generation of the Son Book II. difficulty whatever in comprehending them; and therefore he did Jiot fear to enter into all the minutiae of them, in order to anfwer every poffible objeftion, or cavil. By this means we are in full poffeffion of his thoughts, as much as if we could now in- terrogate him on the fubjedl; and as his orthodoxy with refpedl to the dodlrine of the trinity was never queftioned in his own age, we fee very clearly what that orthodoxy was. Among a number of paffages that I might have feledled from him for my pre- fent purpofe, the follow^ing, I imagine, will be quite fufficient. *' Before all things, God was alone. He ** was a world and place, and all things to *' himfelf. He was alone, becaufe there ** was nothing foreign to himfelf. But ** then he was not abfolutely alone, for he " had with him, and in him, his own rea- *^ foUy for God is a rational being. This " the Greeks called logos ^ which word w^e *« tranflatey?r;^/o [fpeech] and therefore, we, <• through fimplicity, are accuftomed to «^ fay that fermo was from the beginning ** with Chap. II. from the Father. 63 *^ with God, when we ought to have pre- '* ferred the word ratio [reafon] becaufe ** God was from the beginning raiionalis ** [a being endued with reafon] not fer-- '^ 7nonaris [endued with fpeech] and becaufe ** fpeech, confifting with reafon, has it as ** its fubftance. This, however, makes no ** difference. For though God had not ** yet emitted his word, he had it with- *^ in himfelf, together w^ith his reafon, ** and in his reafon, filently thinking and *^ contriving within himfelf what he was ^^ about to pronounce by his fpeech. For '* thinking, and difpofing with his reafon, *' he made \\\2X fpeech, which he treated with *^ fpeech. That you may the more ealily ** underiftand this from yourfelf, confider, *' as you are made in the image and after '* the likencfs of God, the reafon which ** you have in yourfelf, who are a rational ** creature, not only made by a rational ar- '*' tificer, but animated by his fubftance. '* Confider that when you filently mufe ** with yourfelf, reafon is adting within ** you, that principle concurring with ** fpeech 64 Generation of the Son Book II. ** fpeech to every thought and fenfation. ** Whatever you think is fer77to [fpeech] *' and whatever you perceive is ratio [reafon] « . Hov/ much more doth this take << place in the mind of God, of whom you *^ are the image and likenefs, that he has ** in himfelf when he is filent, reafon, and ** in reafon fpeech. I may, therefore, ven- ** ture to aflert, that God, before the con- *' Ititution of the univerfe, was not alone ^ " as he had then reafon within himfelf, ** and in reafon fpeech, which he could *^ make a fecond principle from himfelf, *< by ading within himfelf*." * Ante omnia enim Deus erat folus, ipfe fibi et mun- dus, et locus, et omnia. Solus autem, quia nihil aliud ex- trinfecus prseter ilium. Ceterum, ne tunc quidem folus; habebat enim fecum, quam habebat in femetipfo ; ra- tionem fuam fcilicet. Rationalis etiam Deus, et ratio in ipfo prius ; et ita ab ipfo omnia. Quae ratio, fenfus ipfms eft. Hanc Grssci Aoyov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam fer- monem appellamus. Ideoque jam in ufu eft noftrorum, per fimplicitatem interpretationis, fermonem uicere in pri- mordio, apud Deuni fuifle ; cum magis rationem com- petat antiquiorem haberi; quia non fermonalis a principio, fed rationalis Deus etiam ante principium ; et quia ipfe quoque fermo ratione confiftens, priorcm cam, utfubftan- tiam Chap. IL from the Father. 65 This paffage needs no comment. At leaft what 1 have obferved with refpedt to the quotation from Athenagoras will be quite fufficient for it, the K^yi^^ of the Greek writer being the fame thing with the rj- tionalis of the Latin author. I fhall only tiam fuam oftendat. Tamen ct fic nihil intereft. Nam. etfi Deus nondum fermonem fuum mlferat, proinde eum cum ipfa et in ipfa rationc intra femetipfum habebat, tacite cogitando et difponendo fecum, qus per fermonem mox erat didurus. Cum ratione enim fua cogitans atque dif- ponens, fermonem earn efficiebat, quam fermone tra6tabat. Idque quo facilius intelligas ex te ipfo, ante recognofce ut ex imagine et fimilitudine Dei, quam habeas et tu in temet ipfo rationem, qui es animal rationale, a rationali fcilicet artifice non tantum fa6tus, fed etiam ex fubftantia ipfius animatus. Vide quum tacitus tecum ipfe congrederis, ratione hoc ipfum agi intra te, occurrente ea tibi cum fer- mone ad omnem cogitatus tui motum, et ad omnem fenfus tui pulfum. Quodcumque cogitaveris, fermo eft ; quod- cumqiie fenferis, ratio eft. — Qiianto ergo plenius hoc agitur in Deo, cujus tu quoque imago et fimilitudo cen- feris, quod habeat in fe etiam tacendo rationem, et in ra- tione fermonem ? PoiTum itaque non temere prseftruxilTe, et tunc Deum ante univerfitatis conftitutionem folum non fuifle, habentem in femetipfo proinde rationem, et in ra- tione fermonem, quern fecundum a fe faceret, agitando intra fe. Ad Praxeam, fed. 5. Opera, p. 503. Vol. II. F give 66 Generation of the Son Book II. give two other extrafts from this writer, which clearly fhew what, in his idea, was the true origin of what is called the fecond prmciple in the trinity. *' Ghrift/' he fays, *' is the power of God, and the fpirit of ** God, the fpeech, the wifdom, the reafon, ''and the Son of God*." That, in the opinion of Tertullian, it was Chrift who was the immediate maker of the world, cannot be queftioned, and yet in the following paffage the power by which it was made, is defcribed as the proper in- herent power of God the Father. *' You *' fee how by the operation of God all '' things confifl:, in the power of making '' the earth, the wifdom of preparing the <* world, and the underftanding of extend- *' ing the heavens 3 not appearing only, nor *V approaching, but exerting fuch force of *« his mind, wifdom, power, underftanding, «' word, fpirit, powerf.'* * Ut Dei virtus, et Dei fpiritus, et fermo, et fapientia, et ratio, et Dei filius. Apol.fedi:. 23. Opera, p. 23. -j- Vides ergo quemadmodum operatione Dei univerfa confiftunt, valentia facientis terram, intelligentia parantis orbcm. Chap. II. from the Father^ 67 Cyprian, who ufually called TertuUian his mafter, follows him in expreffing ex- adlly the fame ideas. *^ Chrifi," he fays, *' is the power of God, his reafon, his ** wifdom, and glory. He, defcending into " the virgin's womb, put on flefh by the " aid of the Holy Spirit. He is God ** mixed with man. He is our God, and *' Chrift, who being the mediator of the ** two, put on man to bring him to the '' Father^." orbem, et fenfu extendentis coelum : noii adparentis fo- lummodo, nee adpropinquantis, fed adhibentis tantos ani- mi fui nifus, fophiam, valentiam, fenfum, fermonem, fpi- ritum, virtutem. Ad Hermogenem, fe(Sl.45. Opera, p* 249. * Hujus igitur indulgentise, gratias difciplinsque arbiter et magllter, fermo et filius Dei mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes retro, illiminator et doi^or humani generis prsedi- cabatur. Hie eft virtus Dei, hie ratio, hie fapientia ejus, et gloria. Hie in virginem illabitur ; carnem, fpiritu fandlo co-operante, induitur. Deus eum homine-mifcetur. Hie Deus nofter, hie Chriflus eft, qui mediator duorum, hominem induit, quern perducat ad p^trem. De Idolorum Vanitate, Opera, p, 15; Fa SBC- 68 Generaiion of the Son Book It SECTION III. Authorities from Origen^ a?id other Writer^ fubfequent to him ; ivith an Account of other Attributes of the Father y befides thai of WifdoMy "which Chriji isfaid to have been. ^^ RIG EN, as well as Clemens Alexan-* drinus, has been thought to favour the Arian principle; but he did it only in words, and not in ideas, as will be evi- dent from the following paflages ; and many more to the fame purpofe might have been ex trailed from his writings. ** Though wefpeak,'* he fays, " oi 2ifecond ^* God, we mean nothing more than a vir- ♦* tue comprehending all virtues, and a ** reafon comprehending all reafon, for the <* good of the whole, which we fay is ** united to the foul of Jefus ; which we *' fay was alone capable of partaking of ^* this perfedt reafon, perfedt wifdom, and '* perfed: virtue*/' " God, according to Chap. II. from the Father^ ^9 ** us, can do nothing without his logos, '' or without himfelf*." '' All that are " God's are in Chrift. He is the power of " God, he is the righteoufnefs of God, he ^* is fani^ification, he is redemption, he is *' the mind of Godf ." *' He is z^^vx^ '*cro:pf«J/' \living wifdom'] An expreffioti limilar to this is ufed in the creed afcribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Vv^ho was a dif- ciple of Ori^en. The creed, however, by the credulous fuperftition of the age, w^as faid to come from the apoftle John. There the Son of God is called (to}$ auloaopa^, xj jng aulo^iHaioaim^. Ad Celfum, lib. 5. p. 258. * A^^a, )y ncx^' nfiag, ahv o lore 'sra^ahoyovy tils '^ct§ estulov, t^ycaaaahai znv o ^£o^ Ibid. p. 247. ■f licxtfla yd^ 0(t$^ ra ^sa roiavla^ £v «y7« etiv * %f toj en .oyogy xaT acriav t£ vtpBTCog, Ota S£:i ^uvufxig i^ Ses croipia. Ibid. p. 75O. % Ettei ^£ Tng ts 'aoclpoi ^£oly]log koivuvo; VTTocpx^^ vio;^ ms av%g j-iiloxo^ wv ^ao-iXEtaj, exls fJLOvoyBVYjg uiog uv kJ ^eh >^oyog, )y Ben aopx, Collej^, ocfli^ Kps^aTrep apirog Kv<^£fvnlY]g m i^ia cropia^ iU TW i^ioi y^oyo)^ rco xvpioi riffMV Iria-a %j3ira), tcc 'SFavlocxa w^£pvix a-oilmioii K) ^lOKoa-fXEi^ )y 'STom cog avavla ko,}^; E;^eiv ^qky\: Contra Gentes, Opera, vol. i. p. 44. X Am' avlo7o\oyo;, og Tcce TO 'zcrav ^isKoa{xy]a'£ jcai (pali^si te T-necxula ^u^povQia. Contra Gentes^ Opera, vol. I. p. 44. f OySe yap uiog diy^t 'Mcxipog, atp' saiPm koc^' scculov, ^oiEi t/, ov^s 'ScxIy^p z:ailcog xwpjj ra via kJ th 'miWfiotlcg — K.ai o-^zi fxiav xj o/xoiav inv mpynai cv n/Aiv. Ovls ya^ y\ -^vx^ 5j%a "hoyn ettiJeMi tj, s7£ ^o- yog 5i%a ^|'y%>?5, hIe (mw vug 'ZzraX/v na^ ecxvJov^ %wp<; tvij ^vxvg ^ t« "hoya KolE^ycxidoii ti. In Gen. i. 26. Opera, vol. 1. p. 865. 2 "If Ghap.il from the Father. 73 " If the Son, as the fcripture fays, be *^ the power of God, wifdom, and truth, ** and light, and fanftification, and peace, *' and life, and the like, according to the ** dodrine of the heretics" (meaning the Arians) ** thefe things were not before the ^* Son^ and thefe having no exiftence, the ** Father himfelf mull have been diverted *« of all thefe advantages ^Z' With the fame idea, Ambrofe fays, ** Could the Fa- *' ther ever be without life, without wif- ** dom, without power, without reafon, '' which Chrift is +." '' He is, therefore,'* he fays, << called the wifdom of God, as the "^ Father can never be thought to be with- '* out wifdom, that is, without his Son, *^ This is that ineffable wifdom, which is ^* defcribed by Solomon as the beginning of ^^ the ways of God^ whether it be founded, * E( yap uio^. KCi^u; n ypa (p-n Aeyei, ouvsciJAg zTi ^sa^ y^ (To^ick iy a^nSa^, ;tj (pag^ )c^ ayiaa/AC^j y^ Eipr.vvi, )y im, ^ ra -roiauia ' rsrpo m rov viov elvoci^ kcxBco; tok; diiosltHon; ^okei, s^e raolct w 'urocvlcog . r-^rm 3e fXY] oilcoVi H£vov '^Jixvloog raiv roiifio^v aya^uv rev 'sraloaov swowdTt HohTTQv. Contra Eunomium, Opera, vol. 2. p. 4. t Num quidnam potuit effc tempus quando pater fine vita, fine fapientia, fine virtute, fine verbo, quod Chriftus ^fl:,fucrit? In Symbol. Opera, vol. 4. p. 88. '' or 74 Generation of the Son Pook II, *^ or generated, or created ; ^W'hich, how- " eyer, is To founded, as that it is always *' with God*." This continued to be the language of the orthodox divines till a very late period. Damafcenus fays, '' God has no other lo- f' gos, wifdom, power, or will, but the f' Soni." Theophyladl alfo fays, '* God *« could not be without reafon, wifdom, or f^ power ; wherefore we believe, that fince f* the Son is the reafon, the wifdom, and <* the power of the Father, he is always V (-T^pof) with God, inftead of cn/i', or />.^-7^> %.'* If thefe pafTages do not give my readers perfect fatisfadion with refpedt to the real ^ Et ideo fapientia Dei appellatur, ut nunquam pater fine fapientia, hoc pft fine filio fuo fuifTc credatur. H^ec eft ilia fapientia ineffiibilis, quae initium viarum Dei apud Salomo- nem, vel condita, vel genita, yel creata clefcribitur, quam tamen fic conditam dicit, ut fcmper earn cum Deo fuiffe ponftat. De Fjlii Divinitate, Opera, vol.4, p. 278. i |Caj y.otp (fiwvj Q AafAcca-fimo<; £v roig ^so^oyifcoig aula K£(pix>jXiOi;, lyajjUD 'srcXAa Xeyoj, hk £a rw 's::^.^i >.oy,oq, g'o(pia.^ ^vyci}jLig, ^£?.r,ai.g, &i Lt:.\ou:%. . Manuel Caleca, in Combefis, vol. 2. p.'222. X OvK zvo£y(jElc(j, jotp rov ^lov a>.oyoy v] cxffQ *^ he muft be a logos inferior to him that ** v/as in the beginning with God -'^Z' It will be feen in the preceding paflages that the logos v/as coniidered as being more properly the ivifdom, or reajon of God j though, in fonie of them, mention is made of his being the fame with other attributes^ of God, and efpecially his power ^ In the following paiTages this is more particularly exprelTed ; '* God, by his own omnipotence, ** that is, by his Son (for all things v/ere ^^ made by him, and without him nothing ** was made) before all things created the ** heavens and the earth -f .'' " The energy '257^05 TovSeo;^$£s Xoyn. In Matt. Comment, vol. i. p. 307. t Ergo Deus omnium creaturoptimus, perfummam fuam potentiam, id eft, filiura fuum (omnia enim per ipfum fadta funt, et fme ipfo fadum eft nihil) coslum terramque ante omnia creavit, Cyril. Alex. Opera, vol. i. p. 17. '' of 78 Gcneratiofi of the Son Book It. ** of the Lord has refpedl to the Almighty ; *^ for the Son may be faid to be the Fa- *^ ther's energy*/' At other times the logos, or the Son, is reprefented as being the wil/ of the Father. Clemens Alexandrinus calls the logos the will of the Father ; and under the idea of an attribute of God, as giving him to men, he reprefents him as addrefling them in the following manner: *^ I give you the logos, the knowledge of God, I give my whole felf. This I am, this is what God wills, • this is fymphony, this is the harmony of the Father, this is the Son, this the Chrift, this the logos of God, the arm of the Lord, almighty power, the will of the Father -f-." Cyril of Alexandria expreffes the fame idea with greater precifion. *' How,*' fays Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Opera, p. 703. + Mai hayov X^^?'Z°y-°^* ^l^^^t '^^^^ yvc-jXov J^s clv]q<; tk '3r*7po< iyivilo -3-5- Aijuct. Contra Eunomium, Or. r2. Opera, vol. 2. p. 345. X Qyid etiam eft voluntas patris, nifi filcns verbum ? Ad Arium, lib.3. Bib, Pat. vol. 5. p. 33,2, himfelf 8o Generation of the Son Book IL himfelf of logos, fo, fome of them likewife fuppofed, that though the Son was the will of the Father, the latter had another will, like that of man. This is particularly al- lowed by Manual Caleca, becaufe " voli- " tions,'' as he fays, " have a beginning and ** an end, whereas neither the effence of ** God, nor the image of God, can begin or " end-^-." Inftances occur in which Chrift is con- lidered as being the very ^2// of God. In- deed, this idea may have been perceived in fome of the former quotations. Eufebius fays, there is '' one logos in God, which *' is almighty, and which enlightens all ** things, as there is one foul, and one ra- " tional power in man-f*." Origen, after fpeaking of the foul as a middle principle betw^een the body and tTriQoXm voaixivn H /xev aaia nra Sea ale rip^alo a^e 'ujocvdat . sle yap r]^^(xlo n sinav hIs STrauaalo . n ^£ ^£>>Y]cri^ ^ af%£7«' »«J 'mcx.vilai, Manuel Caleca De Principiis, Auduarium Combefis, vol. 2. p. 222. t Ei$ ra Sfa Aoy©" ^avlo^uvxfjio; ra avf/.Travlot Halavya^a ' ettei 7^ Ev av^^coTTco fxioi ^vx'n ^ fJiicc hoyimt ^uvoiiM^, De Laudibus Conft. cap. 15?. p. 753. the Chap. IL from the Father, %\ the fpirity fays " what then is the foul of *' God ?'' and he replies, that '^ as every ** thing that is afcribed to God, as hands, *' fingers, eyes, feet, &c. raeans his attri- " bates, or powers; perhaps by the foul ** of God v/e are to underfland his only *' begotten Son; for, as the foul, being dif- ** fufed through the whole body, animates *' every thing, and does every thing, fo the *^ only begotten Son of God, v/hich is his '' word, and his wifdom, extends to all the *^ attributes of God, and is diiTufed through '' him*." M. Vidorinus reprefents Chrift as '' the very being and adion of the Fa- *^ ther,'' and fays in his anfwer to the Arians, that '' God cannot be without ac- *' tion-}-." In another paflage of the fame \ Et fi fas eft audere nos in tali re amplius aliquid dicere, potelt fortafie anima Dei intelligi unigenitus filius ejus. Sicut enim anima, per ornne corpus inferta, moVet om- nia, et agitat quae operatur univerfa : ita et unigenitus fillus Dei, qui et verbum et fapentia ejus, pertingit et per- venit ad omnem virtutem Dei, et infer tus eft ei. De Principiis, Opera, vol. i. p. 703. f Hoc enim quod Jvoyoj eft : ipfe enim >vcyo^ Deus eft, unum ergo et ofAoao-m^ non enim fine adlione Deus, fed Vol. II; G intus ■Si Generation of the Son Bock IL work, he calls Chrift the fortn of the Fa- ther, defining form, if I underftand him right, to be that which explains the being of a thing ; or, as he elfewhere fays, that by which God is feen *. At length the abfurdity of making Chrift to be the proper reafon, power, or will of God, feems to have ftruck fome of the orthodox chriftians ; and then, having no other refource, they made the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift to be a my fiery, think- ing by that micans, to cut off all inquiry and objedion. Ruffinus fays, '* it is to *' be believed that God is the father of his " own Son our Lord, and not to be dif-- intus operatur Deus, ficuti dicSlum. Subflantia autem Dei imago eft, a6lio, filiufque eft, per quam inteliigitur, et quod fit declaratur. Ad Arium, lib. i. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 298. * Quoniam filius forma eft patris : non autem nuilc forma efie foris extra fubftantiam inteliigitur, neque ut in nobis adjacens fubflantiae facies, fed fubftantia quaedam fubfiftens, in qua apparet et demonftratur quod occultatum et velatum eft in alio. Deus autem ut velatum quiddam eft : nemo enim videt Deum : forma igitur filius, in quo videturDeus. Ibid. p. 311. 320. '* cuffed Chap. II. from the Father. ^^ '' cujfed. For flaves muft not difpute about *^ the birth of their mafters*." Theophylad fays, that " Chrift is the *' logos of God, but neither the inward *' logos" (meaning reafon) '* nor the ex- '' ternal logos" (meaning fpeech) " nor any *^ thing that can be explained by any pro- ** perty of man, being fomething peculiar ^' to God f ." In this ftate the doftrine of the generation of the Son now refls, equally incapable of being underftood, or defended. We fhall the lefs wonder at the extreme abfurdity of the above quotations from the Fathers, when we confider what wretched * Credendus eft ergo Deus efle pater unici filil fui domini noftri, non difcutiendus. Ncque enim fas eft fervo de natalibus domini difputare. In Symbol, p. 172. ^iiv . ^ 'doifA,'j)(isvo; 7«f "^'J ^ /-*i ^>e7wu, c/jtcog ex£i tov T^oyov sv at/la JtEifxsvov^ «5 rnv ^uvaixiv hh. cctts^cO.zv . (xiv av stlv ev^'i^x^shg^ h T8 Bvhtx^slii, }^ Eviog K£iiJt.£V8, £ig svE^ysiuv 'zar^ootyovlEg ' ^irla rciyw ovlog Ts Xoy«, ahls^og Tulav ci^/xo^si etti th vis T8 Sex, als ya^ 'STpoipo^i- xof, ifls Ev^id^flog ETiv A070J Tij Be8, SHEivoi fJLEV ya^ rcov ^ua-inm )y Ho^ >5/^af, OS ra Tsai^og T^oyog vttb^ ^u£ f^£Olcr^zv oifcovoiMcig rw ai^saiv 'S7poa}^(tQV m EV^sa Tov oSev £i7\iT7rlM "ureTTOf/iHEv . acTTTs^ yap aTTo iJA(x; ^aoo; tsaoTMiV ^a^ccv m sT^Tlalai to .oyov '!^£7roims tov y£y£VY])coTcc . }C) ya,^ ff,'Jlo$ zyct) A^f^.w, ^ u/A,£ig an-dii >^ e ^tth 3iaj Tr,g iida^aato^r^ t« hoya^ 90 Generation of the Son Book II. meant to be a complete illuftration of the emiffion of the logos from the Father, in order to arrange the matter of the chaos out of which the world was made. To this explication it was obvious to objedl, that the emiffion of a word in fpcech is no generation of any thing, words bcine empty founds, and nothing per- manent. Bat the reply to this was, that words are empty things, and leave nothing permanent only when uttered by man-^ but that this is not the cafe v/ith thg wx>rds of God', the difference in the being from which they proceed making a correfpond- ing difference in the things which proceed from them. In the following paffages Ter- juUian ftates this hyppthefis, with the proof of it from the fcrip tares, before he replies to the objeftion which I have mentioned. *« Then therefore did the word [Sermo) af- ** fume its form, and drefs, its found and ** voice, w^hen God faid, Let there be light. :V* This is the perfedt nativity pf the word, iisiiia^lMELv rnv ev vfiiv axc(ri,i-/]lov v>^Y]y 'sj^q-^^yiIxm, Ad Graecos, feci. 8. Opera, p. 22. f* when Chap. III. from the Father. 91 *^ when it proceeded from God, being firft "' formed by him under the name oiivifdom. ** l^he Lord formed me the beginning of bis ** ways. Then it was efFedually generated, ^* When he prepared the heavens I was prefcnt *^ with him. By proceeding from whom he " became his fon, his firft-born, as being be- ** gotten before all things, and only begot- *' ten, as being alone generated out of God, *« from the womb of his heart; as the Fa- '' ther himfelf teftiiies, when he fays, My *' heart is throwing out a good word, to ** whom rejoicing, the Father alfo rejoicing *« fays, T!hou art my Son, this day have I be-^ ^^ gotten thee. Before Lucifer have I begotten *' thee. So the Son alfo, under the name of '' wifdom, confeffes the Father. The Lord ' *' formed me the beginning of his ways; before f the hills has he begotten me. For if here ** wifdom feems to fay that fhe was made for f* his works, and ways, in another place it f< is fhown that all things are made by his ^« word, and without it was nothing made. .*' And again, by his word were the heavens «* made, and all their hofis by his firit,- ^^ viz. the fpirit which is in the word*. ^' So 92 Generation of the ^on Book II, *' So that it is the fame power which is ** fometimes called w'lfdom^ and fometimes ^' the word^','' His dating of the objedlion, and his an- fwer to it are as follow : *' You fiippofe *^ this Scrmo to be a fubftance, &c. — What, * Tunc io;itur etiam ipk: fcrmo fpeciem ct ornatum fu- «rn famit, foiiurn ct vocem, cum dicit Deus, fiat lux. Haec eft nativitas perfccla fcrmonis, dum ex Deo procedit: conditus iib eo prim urn ad cogitatum in nomine fophi^, dominus condidit me in'uiurn vlarum, Dehir.c gencratus adcfic£liim: Cam pararet caelum, aderam illic nmul. Ex- »tide eum parem fibi faciens, de quo procedendo filius fac- tus ed, priniogenitus, ut ante omnia genitus; et unigeni- tus, ut (olus ex Deo genitus : proprie de vulva cordis ipfius, fec.undum quod et pater ipfe teRatur, erudavit cor meum fermonem optimum. Ad quern deinceps gaudens proinde «5;audentcm in perfona illius, filius meus es tu, ego bodie genjLii te, Et ante Luciferum gcnui te. Sic et nlius ex fua p^irfona prcEtetur patrem in nomine fophlse, dominus con- oidit mc initium viarum in opera fua. Ante omnes autem colies generavit me. Np.m fi hie quidcm fophia videtur dicere conditam fe a domino in opera et vias ejus: alibi ;iutem per fermonem oHcnditur omnia facia efte, et fine jib nihil faclum: ficut et rurfum, fermone ejus coeli con- .ftrmati funt, ct fpiritu ejus omncs vires eorum ; utique eo jTpiritu qui fcrmoni inerat: apparet unam eamdcm que vim effe nunc in nomine fophi^e, nunc in appcllatione fcrmonis. Ad Praxead-n, k'di. 5, 6; 7. Opera, p, 503. '' fay Chap. IIL from the Father. 92 *^ fay you, is fpeech, but the voice and found *' of the mouth, with a kind of vacuity, '* empty, and incorporeal. But I fay that *^ nothing empty and having vacuity can *' proceed from God, as it does not proceed *' from what is empty and vacuity 5 nor ** can that want fubftance, v/hich proceeds *' from fo great a fubftance, and v/hich has *' made fo many fubflances*/' Ladantius anfv/ered the fame objedlion in the lame manner. *' Our breathings are *' diffoluble, becaufe we are mortal; but ^' the breathings of God live, remain, and ** have effence, becaufe he is immortal, the * Ergo; inquis, das aliquam fubftanuam efle fermo- nem, fplrltu et fophiae traditione conftruiSram plane. Non vis enim cum fubflantivum habere in re per fubflan- tiae proprietatcm, ut res et perfona quaedam videri poiTil:, et ita capiat fecundus a Deo conftitutus duos eiiicere, pa- trem et filium, Deum et fermonem. Quid eft enim, dices, fermo, nifi vox et fonus oris et (ficut grammatici tradunt) aer ofifenfus, intelligibilis auditu j ceterum, vacuum nefcio quid, et inane, et incorporale? At ego nihil dico de Deo inane et vacuum prodire putuifTe, ut non de inani et vacuo prolatum; nee carere fubftantia, quod de tanta fubftantia procefiit, et tantas fubftantias fecit. Ad Praxeam, fec^. 5. cap. 7. Opera, p. 503. '* giver 94 Generation of the Son Book I L ** giver of effcnce and life"^/' The fame anfwer is given by Origen, Athanafius, Epiphaniiis, Auftin, and, I believe, many others. ^' The logos of God,'' fays Ori- gen, ** is not like that of all other per- *' fons. No other logos is living -, no other *' logos is God, no other logos was in the ** beginning with him whofe logos it '* was-^-." *' The word of man," fays Epi- phaniiis, *' vanifhes-, but the word of God <*' abideth," alluding to Pf. cxviii. 89 |. Athanafius having fpoken of the Father as the only God, becaufe he only is unbe- rotten (^cLyiyv))7Q^) and the fountain of deity ^ * Noftri fplritus diffolubiles funt, quia mortales fumiis. Dei autem fpiritus et vivunt, et manent, et fentiunt j quia ipfe immortalis eft, et fenfus, et vitae dator. Inftit. lib. 4- fcar. 8. p. 371- . ■\ Ouls yao 7\oyog aula Toiiflog env, crci©" o '^avio)v ^07©- • so£v(^ ycip ?.oy(i^ ^av, acsvog >.oy(B- hog • aomg yap o Aoy(§>- £v Aox^ "^pog SHEivov w, s hoyQ- w. In Jer. Horn. 19. Com- ment, vol. I. p. 184. \ Ov yccp TH av^paTTH Xoy^', av^pcoTT^ 'u^pog rev av'^pa'zov . ale yap C,Vy als vTrsTn ' nocpciccg o£ ^air.g ^ v(p£TOiaY,c uivnfxcx sri jxcyov^ >y ax vKOTotcng . >.Eyila,i yap ay^a^ ;^ nzapaxpy\iJ^ hkbIl etiv, (p^^ ha>a ^co(7yi<; nap^icc; )Cj vtpsraoy,; Huv.ua fji,Qvov . }C< ?£y£}ai 'Sfapcixpyif^ctt ^ ay- ^ti . ^ '5JO}0\aiti; ua.'XHfXEv'^ , h^ettqIs Sia/AEVEt • Tov ^£ T8. ^£8 T^o^QV uvu^EV^ i^aT^fjia^og KEHpayzi >,Eyco\\ eh; rov aimci o ^07©" -cry d'taixsvEi ev tco apavco . J^ a-u,a^uvag aula ^eou tivui T« Aoyov oyLQ'Koym EuafysT^i^vig, Sic, De aeterna Subftantia Filii, »o7w Via vos/xsvco oifXE- ^{fw ifjQifia vTroWaiilai, Apol. p. 140, H 3 ^' beam I02 Generation of the Son Book II. ** beam of light. For thefe things are the *^ proboles of their refpedlive fubftances — • ** Neither is the branch feparated from the ** root, the river from the fountain, or the " beam from the fun. So neither is the ** word from God. So that, according to ** this example, I profefs that I make God ** and his word two, the Father and his *^ Son, For the root and branch are two, •' but joined. The fountain and the river '* are two, but undivided ; and the fun and •* the beam are two, but cohering*.'* * Hoc fi qui putaverit me 'srpo<^o\y]v aliquam introducere> fcfeft, prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valen- tinus, alium atque alium asonem de aeone producens. Valentinus probolas fuas difcernit et feparat ab autore : et ita longe ab eo ponit, ut aeon patrem nefciat. Apud nos autem folus filius patrem novit, et fmum patris ipfe ex* pofuit, et omnia apud patrem audivit et vidit ; et quae man- datus eft a patre, ea et loquitur. Protulit enim Deus fermonem> quamadmodum etiam paracletus docet, ficut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et fol radium. Nam et ifte fpecies probolae funt earpm fubftantiarum, ex quibus prodeunt. Nee frutex tamen a radice, nee fluvius a fonte, nee radius a fole difcernitur, ficut nee a Deo fermo, Igiturfecundum horum exemplorum formam, profiteor me duos dicere, Deum et fermonem ejus, patrem et filfum ipfius. Nam et radix et frutex duae res funt, fed con- junctae, Chap. III. from the Father, 103 This writer*s fear of making a fepara- tion between the Son and the Father ap- pears very ftrongly in the following paffage, which has a view to the unitarians, to whom he thought jit neceffary to make frequent apologies. *' He that is un^ «' learned, or perverfe, takes this in a wrong ** fenfe, as if 1 favoured a diverftty, and as ^' if this diverfity implied a feparation of ** the Father and the Son. This I urge '' from necefllty, when they contend that <^ the Father, Son, and Spirit, muft be the ''fame, flattering the monarchy againft the <*oeconomy; when I fay that making '' thp Son another from the Father, I do >^ not make him different from him, but *' only maintain a diflribution. I do not <' make a divifion, but a diftinftion. For *< the Father and Son are not the fame, nor «« yet another, from another model. For <* the Father is all fubftance ; but the Son '' a part of this fubilance, and a portion, junase ; et fons et flumen dus fpecies funt, fed indivife ; et folet radius duse formas funt, fed cohercntes. Adv% Fraxeam, feft. 8. Opera, p. 504. H 4 '' as 104 Generation of the Son Book IL *' as he himfelf profejITes, The Father is ** greater than I*/' We fee the fame care to guard againfl: a divifion of the Father and Son in Hippoly- tus, ** By fpeaking of another,'' he fays, ** I do not make two Godsy but as light from *' light, water from the fpring, or ^ beara ** of light from the fun. For the power ** of the whole is one -, the Father is the ** whole, and the logos is his powerf/' . On another occafion Tertullian fays that the term 'u^^o'^o-h-n (prohole) which had been much ufed by the Gnoflics, was not the * Male accipit idiotes quirque aut perverfus hoc di6lum, quafi diverfitatem fonet, et ex diverfitate feparationem prq- tendat, patris et filii et fpiritus. Necefiitate autem hoc dico, cum eumdem patrem et fiHum et rpiritum conten- dunt, adverfus ceconomiam monarchias adulantes, non tamen diverfitate alium fillum a patre, fed diflributione ; nee divifione ahum, fed diftindione ; quia non fit idem pater et filius, vel modulo alius ab alio. Pater enim tota fubftantia eft : filius vero derivatio totius et portio, ficut ipfe profitetur, quia pater major me eft. Adv. Praxcam, UCt. 9. Opera, p, 504. \ YLai Hicog mscn^iTOilb aula slscog. Elspcv T^sym a ^vo Besg hsyoi tt>^ cog (pMg tK ^£i 7a £K a-TTEpiAolajv, Cap. 3- p. 676. f Sed nee ficut Hicrachas lucernam de lucerna, vel lam- padem in duas partes. Dc Trinitaie lib. 6. p. 105. SEC- Chap. III. from the Father, 115 SECTION III. IVhy only one Bon "was generated, the Objec- tion of Generation implying PaJJion confr- dered^ and why the Son and Holy Spirit did not generate^ &c. ANOTHER difficulty that remained with the orthodox, was to account for the Father having no more than one Son; and for this different reafons are given, but all of them, as will be imagined, very lame ones. If,'' fays Athanafius, *^ they fuppofe ** the Father to generate at all, it is better, '* and more pious, to fay that God is the *^ Father of only one logos, who is the ** fulnefs of his Godhead, and in whom ** are all the treafures of knov/ledge*." Another reafon, given by Ruffinus, is more curious, but not more fatisfa(5lory. '' We believe/' fays he, ^^ in one only Son of 7.£7£;v svog eivca Aoya ysyvnlcpa. tov Sfav, eg sti to 'SJ^^Yipuf.ia rv\g ^solvilo; avla^ £V CO :y ci %(rocvpc: ^aa-^g rng yvucscog £iai, O ratio Brevis, Opera, vol, 2.p, 25. "^ I 2 '' God, 1 16 Generation of the Son Book II. " God, our Lord j for one is generated ** from one, as the fplendor of one light, ** and there is one word of the heart. Nei- ** ther does incorporeal generation proceed '* to the plural number, nor does it fall ** into divifion ; where that which is gene- ** rated is never feparated from that which *' generates it. It is one, as fenfe to the " mind, as a word to the heart, as courage ** to the brave, and wifdom to the Vv^ife^." He owns, however, that thefe examples are imperfed:. The following anfwer of Eufebius tends rather to fatisfy us, that it is better that there fhould be but one Son of God than more of them ; but for the reafon that he ^Hedges, it would have been better ftill that there had been no Son at all. ** There can ** be only one Son of God, becaufe in more ** there would be diverlity, and difference, * Unicum hunc efle filium Dei domlnum noHrum. Unus enim de uno nafcltur : quia et fplendor unius eft lu- cis, et unum eft verbum cordis : nee in numerum plura- lem defluit incorporea generatio, nee in divifionem cadit, ubi qui nafcitur nequaquam a generante feparatur. Unicus eft ut menti fenfus, iit cordi verbum, ut forti virtus, ut {i- pientia fapienti. In Symbol, p. 174.. 1 **and Chap. III. from the Father. 1 17 *^ and an introduction of evil*." He alfo compares this cafe to the emiffion of light, and not darknefs, from the fun; but then it is obvious to remark that there might have been many beams of light from the fam.e fun. A much more formidable objection ftill to this dodtrine of paternal generation w^as, that it implies pa£io7i^ from v\'hich it was fin incontrovertible maxim, that the di- vine nature is exempt. It was particu- larly a maxim with the Platonifts, and is expreffed by Plato himfelf -j-, that genera- tion is always accompanied Vv^ith paffion. /* Had it been faid," fays Bafil, "- in the be- '^ ginning was the Son, and not the logos, " it would have given us an idea of paf- ** fion J." But the anfwer to this was, that this myfterious generation of an incorporeal being was a very different thing from that * Ev 7^^ 'vs'hs.'.oaw slcpoly]? srai y^ ^la^opa >sj m %fi50V05 sicxyc^yy:, Demonftratio, lib. 4. cap. 3. p. 147. + TiyvslixL dvj nsavim yzvEcn;^ nvi^c av ri 'sro^oj >) * ^yiy^ov co; OTTolav apyj] T^Q^aa. av^yw-, sk; t>iv "^zvlspav 2>Ar\[j,zlaQa.iv wof , tvj '^Jpocrnyopia th via a-LVEic-YiT^cv av aoi n 'uiepi Tn 'ssroSsf ewoux. Horn. 16. Opera, vol. i. p. 436- I 2 which 11 8x Generation of the Son Eook II, which is fo called in corporeal ones. In anfwer to thoie who faid that Goi would be diminilhed if he produced a Son from himfelf, Origen thought it fufficient to fay, *' You confider God as corporeal*.'* And the fame anfwer was thought to fufEce for this objedtion. G. Nazianzen, in anfwer to the queftion, '' hovv^ generation can be *^ without paffion,'* fays, ^' becaufe God is *' incorporeal t.'* Again he fays, '' the *' Deity is without paffion, though he ge- " Derates J.'' It fliould feem from the pains that were taken to anfwer this objeclion to the doc- trine of generation by the eternal Father, that it was much ridiculed by the profane and heretical wits of that age. They faid that ** to the ad of generation there muft <^ be the concurrence of two perfons." To pyia-^ai tov "UjaJioa^ ccTTEp eu ooy/AcxIa av^paTTQV^ fxri^ cvap (pvcnv cxopa- %v }d acrcc,ucacv 'sie(pccvlacriJt,£vcov^ acrav xupico^ aaiav ' aloi h o;^?\ov oil £v caixixliKOi TQTTOi ^aduai lov ^akpa^ Kj tov viov totcov etc totth aixn-^avlix cujjLdl'.HJ}; £7iih^ni/.msvoii^ to) Ciw, ^ axi Kxlscfacriv bk Kolaraami^ o}(X7r£p Yiixuq £^£i>.y,^ocficv. Comment, vol. 2. p. 306- t Hag av UK £iJ.7rcx.%g ji yEmo-ig', oli a70)[xaroi;. Or. 35. p. 563. J A^oSej y«o TO Seiov, •i^ziy£i.£vmiv. Ibid, Or. 23. p. 4^2' this Chap. III. from the Father. \ 19 this Ruffinus gravely anfwers, *' Do not '' think that God needs any marriage to ge- *' nerate a Son/' " My heart," he fays, ** throws out a good logos, (i. e.) I have ** from eternity generated a Son from my- ** felf; and knovv^, ,0 man, thy heart gene- ** rates counfcl vi^ithout a wife*/' ** God and man," fays Damafcenus, '' do ^^ not generate in the fame manner; for ** God being exempt from time, origin, *' pafTion, fluxion, or body, and alone with- *' out end, generates v/ithout regard to time, '^origin, paffion, or fluxion; fo that this ** incomprehenflble generation has neither ** beginning nor end-f-." This paffage is curioufly enlarged upon by Billius, his Com- * Ne putares aliquo conjugio indigui/Te Deum, unde £lium generaret : eruclavit (inquit) cor meum verbum bo- num, id eft, ex me ipfo aeternaliter genui filium. Hodie cor tuum, homo, generat confilium : nee quasris uxorem. In Pf. 4^. Opera, vol. 2. p. loi. f Nee eodem modo, Deus et homo gignunt. Deus enim, ut qui temporis, et principii, paffionifque, et fluxi- onis, ac corporis, expers eft, folufque fine careat, ita citra tempus quoque, ac principium, et paftionem, atque Huxi- onem, et fine ullo venereo congrefiTu, gi^nit ; ac nee prin- cipium nee finem habet incomprehenfibilis ipfius generaiio. Orthod. Fid. lib. j, cap. 8. p. 260. 1 4 mentator. 1-20 Geiieratlon of the Son Book II. mcntator*, The docflrine of the genera- tion of the Son, fays Hilary, is much ridi- culed, as they fay it implies the neceffity of a wife to God, Scc-^-. Another equally troublefome objection to this dodrine of divine generation, was, that there might be no bounds to it. If the Father, they faid, can generate a fon, the Son alfo, having the fame powers, might generate alfo, and the Spirit likewife, if he was properly God, and had all the energy of God '' If," fays Photius, '' the Son be *' generated from the Father, and the Spirit ** proceed from the Father and the Son, ** why fliould it be peculiar to the Spirit, * Gignit igitur affidue pater £lium perfecliiTimum, ut ab seterno genuit, neque ab hujufmocli gignendi ofHcio de- fiturus eft unquam. — Et in hoc manifeftum eft difcrimen gcnerationis hujus divinae ad humanum quae finem habet, ct tandem ex impotentia ceftat, cum ingravercente state fterilefcunt prius foscundi pareates : ficut in aliis plerifque figillatim et certa quadam ferie in littera digeftis, hae duas generationes ab in vicem difcrepare dignofcuntur. Cr- thod. Fid. lib. i. cap. 8. p. 264. t Nam ft filius necefts eft ut et faemina fit, et collo- quium fcrmonis, et compun6iio conjugalis verbi et blandi- mentum, et poftremum ad generandum naiuralis machi- nula. Contra Conftamium, Opera, p. 328. *« that Chap. III. from the Father. \o\ *' that another fhould not proceed from ** him*?'' To this he fuggefts no fatif- fadory anfwer. The Macedonian, in Athanafius, does aflign a reafon, fuppofing it not to be in it- felf impoffible, but only improper. *' Both '^ the Macedonians, and the orthodox," fays he, *' fuppofe that the Spirit could have *' generated a fon, as well as the Father^ *^' but that he did not chufe to do it, left '' there fliould be a multiplicity of Qods J/' Notwithftanding ail thefe objections, the importance of this dodirine of the gene- ration of the Son from the Father was thought to be fo great, that it was repre- fented as if the very being of the Father himfelf depended upon it. '^ If there had *' been no fon," fays Gregory NyiTen, *^ there could have been no Father ^ if no " beam, no fun ; if no image, no fub- * E^i ^e, £i i-a T8 'STo/po,' wo; yEyEi'V/i?;^:;, to ^e izvzvyi.a ik ra '^stx- %c; 1^ Ts viH iKT^o^vjilxi . Tij '^ }to(,'.volQ[X<(X ra "sivsu/AocJog^ [xyi k^ eIsocv ri avlH £K7r£7rop£uscr^ai, Ep. 2. P* 53. -f OP0 . Eav av ^s>\r,crYi uiog, rr.g avl;ig o)v (pva^ag tco ^alpi^ '^uvcz- lai ysvvr,rai viov ' MAK . Nm ^uvalai a'Xk iva (xn Seoyovi^v ^i^ax^co' __ fAsv Tk% a "sioiei. Con. Mac. Dial. i. Opera, vol. 2. p. 273. '' fiance/' 122 Generation of the Son Book II. ** ftance */' Athanafius reprefents this generation as a neceflary confequence from the nature of deity, *' If God," he fays^ *^ is a fountain, and light, and a father, it ** cannot be that a fountain {hould be dry, ** that light fliould be without beams, or "God without logos; left he fhould be ** without v/ifdom, without reafon, and *« without light +.'"* Cyril of Alexandria alfo compares the relation of the Son to the Father to that of Iplendor to the fun, and heat to the fire, both being infeparable, and alfo coeval. And though the fun, he fays, emits fplen- dor, and the fire heat, yet the fun cannot be without its fplendor, nor the fire with- out its heat J. But this did not apply to * Ei av ^K w vioc, zjccvlcog aSs o 'diju%f> w . ei an y\v to a.'Kcx.uya.ayLix^ Opera, vol. 2. p. goo. -f E: 'ujrr/y] y^ (pa; y^ 'sroilYip srivo Ssoj, a ^£[Mt; siirm hIetyiv 'mrsynv ^ripocv, ale to <^wj%w^ij a;;'^;v®", ale tovSeov %w^i$ Xoyn, iva /xyj aaG^og x) aT^yo; >^ a^sPyng >i o ^£og. Epift. ad Serapionem, Opera, vol. I. p. 167. % Nihil enim aliud nomen fontis nobis fignificat, quam lit ex quo : filius vcro in patre et ex patre ell non profluen$ foras, C H A p . 1 1 1 . from the Father. \ 2 3 the Son, or the fpirit, for the Father only was confidered as the fountain of deity. It v/as a queftion even among the Ariane, whether God could be called a Father be- fore the creation of Chrift *. Farther, it was confidered as reproachful to the Father, not to be able to generate a fon. *^ The heretics," fays Novatian, '' reproach *'• the Father, v/hen they fay he could not ge- ** nerate a fon, who il:iould be God "[•/' Epi- forasj fed aut quafi a fole fplendor, aut quafi ablgne infita fibi caliditas. In his enim exemplis unum ab una prouuci, et ambo confcmpiterna fic effe confpicimus, ut aliud abf- quc alio nee efTe pofTit, nee naturse fuss rationem retinere. Qiiomodo enim erit fol, fplendore privatus ? vcl quomodo erit fplendor, nifi fol fit a quo defluat ? ignis vero quomodo erit calore carens ? vel calor unde manabit, nifi ab igne, aut ab alio forfm non procul a fubflantiali qualitate ignis disje£lo ? Sicut igitur quse ab iftis profluunt, fimul cum illisfunt unde profluunt, ac femper unde fluant oftendunt: fic in unigenilo intelligendum eft. In Joan. lib. i. cap. i. Opera, vol. i. p. 6oo- ^ rr/vov7a< OS ;^ fv A^e/aivo/j ^iCApsasii;, o- a.ilia.v roiocJJnv ettsi yap sv TH EKHMo'^a 'SJETTiTe-JIai o Bsog Halnp eivm vi^ th Mya, ^t^lnfjiix fVcTTEO-gv Bigaula;^ £i cuvalai >^ rxrpo th uTrorrivai. tov uiov, o Seo; «aAsi- cr^-MUaJnp, Socrat. Hift. lib. 5. cap 23. p. 300. t Hsc enim contumelia hxTeticorum ad ipfum qucque Deum patrem redundabit, fi Deus Pater Filium Deum ere- nerare ncn pctuit. Cap. 4. p. 32. phanius 124 Generation of the Son Book IL phanius thought it reproachful to the uni- tarians, that they fliould fay that the Father was tL>.j'5>., i. e. unable to generate a fon*. The orthodox, it muft be allowed, took pains enough to do away this reproach; but it was at the rifque of expofmg their fcheaie to ridicule, as muft have been per- ceived already. They themfelves even pro- ceeded fo far as to fpeak of the labours of the Father in generating the Son. For mention is aduaily made of this circum- ftance in a ferious hymn of Synefius on this fubjecft; the Son being called ^ctS^ictiov it ao- ;:^2u/a.i, a great birth y Hymn 2. Opera, p. 317. and in Hymn 4. p. 336, there occurs the phrafe cjSiva 's^dL-r^^, Ambrofe fpeaks of the womb of the Fa- ther^. What could the heretics, alluded yjjvzv &£0v, avaw'j^v ojqv ro Kcct avlov tav t8 um ^Ecl-nla t^ UTTOTacnv^ }^ TH ocyia '^VEUijLcci^ ' £%wv ^£ c&ulov Tov "utccispcc svcc Ssov, ayovov uia^ oi<; sivai ra ouo aizM 'uic3cpac kJ uiov ' tov jxzv 'ssaispoi. ayovov ma^ ^y OKap- irov Tcvxoycv Ssa ^avlog k^^ (Toij. Hser. 65. Opera, vol. 1. p. 609. + Sicut enim finus patris fpigtalis intclligitur intimum quoddam paterna: charitatis naturaeque fecrctum, in quo fcmper eft filius, ita etiam patris fpiritalis et vulva inte- rioris Chap. III. from the Fatber, 125 to in the following paflage of Cyril of Alexandria, have faid more ? '' Thofe wha *^ do not approve of the dod:rine, v/hen they ** hear of the Father generating from his *^ womb, underftand a real womb, and a *' real child-birth *." At length the orthodox learned to be lefs confident, and more modefl on this fubjed; reprefenting it as a myfterious thing, and incapable of ahy explanation. Indeed, Irenasus expreffed his itni& of the difEculty of- this fubjeft at an early period ^ but it was in oppofition to the Gnoftics, v/ho made no difficulty at all of t\iQ prolatton of one incorporeal being from another. *^ If *' any perfon," fays he, '^ alk how is the *^ Son produced from the Father, we fay •^^ that this produdion, whether it be called " generation, or nuncupation, or adaper- rioris arcanum, de quo tanquam ex genetali alio procefHt filus.. Denique diverfe legimus nunc vulvam patris, nunc cor ejus, quo verbum erudavit. De Benedidionibus Patriarcharum, Opera, vol. i. p. 412. * Hsec qui redle dici negant, quum generare patrem ex utero audiant, uterum, et dolores partus intelligunt. la John, cap. 4 Opera, vol. i. p. 608. [' tion. 126 Generation of the Son Book IL *^ tion, or by whatever other name this ** ineffable generation be called, no one ^' knows ; neither Valentinus, nor Mar- *^ cion, nor Saturninus, nor angels, nor " archangels, nor principalities, nor powers i *' but the Father only who generated, and ** the Son who was generated*." However, in general, thofe w^ho followed him complained of no difficulty in this bu- finefs, as we have fecn. Conftantine inti- mates that ** the generation of the Son may '* Qiiandoquidem et Dominus, ipfe filius Dei, ipfam judicii diem et horam conceiTit fcire folum- patrem, mani- fefte diccns : De die autum ilia, et hora nemo fcit, ncquc filius, nifi pater foUis. Si igitur fcientiam dici illius filius non erubuit referre ad patrem, fed dixit quod verum eft ; r.eqi-ie nos erubcTcimus, quae funt in quseflionibus majora fccundum nos, refervare Deo. Nemo enim fuper magif- trum eft. Si quis itaque nobis dixerit ; quomodo ergo iilius prolatus a patre eft ? dicimus ei, quia prolationcrn iftam, five generationem, five nuncupationem five adapcr- tionem, aut quolibit quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejusinenarrabilem exiftentem, ncmonovit ; nonValentinns, non Marcion, ncque Saturninus, neqiie Bafilides, neque angeli, neque arcbangeli, neque principatiis, neque potef- tates, nifi folus qui generavit pater, et qui natiis eft filius. Lib. 2. cap. 48. p. 176. *' be Chap. IIL from the Father. 127 *' be underflood by thofe who are beloved *'ofGod*.'* Confidering the time In which Novatian v/rote, it is rather extraordinary that he Ihould exprefs himfelf with fo much mo- deily as he does. *' The Son," iays he, '-is ** not a mere found, or voice, but the fub- *' fiance of the power of God prolated ; ** with which facred and divine nativity, ** neither the apoftles, nor prophets, nor the '^ angels, were acquainted; but the Father ^' and the Son onlyf-.*' We do not wonder at this modefty in later times, when the orthodox had been long teized with objedions, to which they had not been able to make any fatisfadtory anfwer. Phasbadius fays, '* the Father ge- '^ nerated the Son, but no one knows * Pdi vTrorao'iit UOtIa (JLEV TW (M^ZTTd) y£y EVYj/JLEVYlV 'TSOiYVTlV (jtOVO; W' tCO^O 06 1Sa7» dvvaixi^y o^oilcov T£ x^ aopoilav aulo^ VTrorocdn; w, >oyi}ir](; ^uva/xEcogy aulo; )u o 'Koyog^ o; yiv £v auluy vttz- ducl(x Ksva xwp>](7a$, s^ycv 'si^aloJoH.ov ra 'SJVEU/j.ixloi ymlai. thIov laixtv TnHoa-fAH jnv a^xnv , Ad Grascos, fe6l. 7. p. 20. + E| o)v Icoavvr^g >>£yEi ' £y apx^ i^v "hoyoq^ ;^ ^oy©~ w 's^pog tov Sfdv <^£iKvog oil £v ^pcoloig fxovcg y]v Seof, ^ £V aula ^oy©". Lib. 3. p. 30. Clem,ens Chap. III. from the Father, 1 3 1 Clemens Alexandrinus evidently fappofed that there was a time before either the world or the Son exifted ^ for, he fays, '* He *^ fhewed that he was righteous by the *^ logos from of old, from the time that he ** became a Father; for he was God before *' he was a creator, and he was good ; and ** on this account he chofe to be a creator, ** and a Father^.'' In another pafiage, fpeaking of the logos as equal to God, ** calling him '' the divine logos, God '^ moft manifefl, made equal to the Lord of *' all, and before the fun, as being his Son, ** and the logos that was in God,'' he fpeaks of him as " deriving his origin from the will *' of the Father f." He fays that '' the lo- '* gos was before Lucifer J." '* Do you en- * To ^iKixm ?£ y[[i\.v 5ia ra ^07i: iv^z\.mu\cL[ th eocuIh . ekei^bv avco- Sev, oSev ysyovE 'moii-t]^ . 'ar^JV yaf niiTrw yeveo-^aj, Seoj tiv, aya^og W, yy 5ia Ts7o ^ ^Yjijua^yo^ mai >tj 'Sioilvi^ «SsA»]cr£y. Ped. lib, i, cap. 9. p. 127. f O ^£io; hoyog, (pan^cojcclo; ovlag Sw?, o' rco ^£(77roh rccv oIKoiv z^io-oi^Big , oil Yiv uiog au%, >^ o Tvoyoj nv ev tco Bea. — Taxirct h £ig rffavla; av^^aTra; d'io^oQsig, ^xrlov >iAis el ocul-.ig avcclsi'hoig rnj 's^oiloim; ^H>.y](T£a(;^ para y][Miv £7rE>.(Xix^e TovSeov.Ad Gentes, p. 68. J n^o £c>)a(po^ii yaf nv, xj £V apx^ ^^ ^ ^oyo$, «J o ^oyo; >iv -sroc)* TOV ^£01/ /t) SfOf nv T^oyog. Ibid. p. 5, K 2 ^' quire 122 ' Generation of the Son Book II. *' quire about the generation of the logos," fays Hippolitus, ^^ God the Father generated ** whom he pleafed, and as hepleafed*." «' We believe/' fays Athanafius, " that God *' generated him fpontaneoully, and volun- *^ tarily -f-.'' Tertullian exprefsly fays, that " God was *' not always a Father or a judge; fince he ^^ could not be a Father before he had a *^ Son, nor a judge before there was fin -, '* and there was a time when both lin *' and the Son, which made God to be a ** judge and a Father, were not J." The fame is alfo implied in the following paf- fage, " At firft, before the Son made his *' appearance, God faid, let there be light, * Ile^i ^£ Aoys ysv^criv ^m7£J$, ovtte^ /3a?;>i$£ij o ^£'^ 'TsaCir.^ £y£VVYi^ YLv^iov aulov sccula si^oie^^ £«8- (na$ aulov }y s^eXovIm viov ysyEwm^vai zvaiQox; UTTBiXn^afASv, De Syn. Arira. Opera, vol. i. p. 898. t Quia et pater Deus eft, et judex Deus eft, non tamen ideo pater et judex femper. Nam nee pater potuit efle ante filium^ ncc judex ante delictum, Fuit autem tempus cum et deli(5lum ct filius non fuit quod judicem et qui pa- trem Dominum fecerit. Ad Hermogenem, cap. 3. Opera, P- 234- *' and Chap. III. from the Father. 133 '^ and there was light; the word itfelf was *' immediately the true light ; for from *^ that time Chrift the word affifted, and '' adminiftered. God would that things *' fhould be, and God made them*." But the following paffage is perhaps flill more exprefs. *' If that/' fays he, ** which was *^ in God, and came out of God, was not ^^ without a beginning, viz. wifdoniy which «* was produced from the time that God •*^ determined to make the world, much '* more muft things that are without God '* have a beginning-f-.'* -*' Chrift,'' fays Novatian, ** is always in «« the Father, left he fhould not always be <« a Father ; but the Father muft in fome * Primum quidem, nondum filio apparente, et dixit Deus, fiat lux, et facia eft : ipfe ftatim fermo lux vera, quae illuminat hominem venientem in hunc mundum, et per ilium mundialis quoque lux. Exinde autem in. fer- mone Chrifto adfiftente, et adminftrante, Deus voluerit fieri, et Deus feeit. Ad Praxeam, fea. 12. Opera, p. 506. t Si enim intra dominum quod ex ipfo, et in ipfo fuit, fine initio non fuit, fophia fcilicct ipfius, exinde nata et condita, ex quo in fenfu Dei ad opera mundi difponenda capit agitari, multo magis, non capit fine initio quicquain fuifle quod extra dominum fuerit. Ad Hermogenem, kd:, K 3 ' fcnfe 134 Generation of the Son Book II. " fenfe precede him ; for he is prior as ** Father. For in fome way it is neceflary *' that he who has no origin precede him ** who has an origin. He, therefore, when *' the Father would, proceeded out of the ** Father, and he who was in the Father, ** came out of him *." Again, he fays, *^ nothing was before Chrift, but the Fa- *' thert j'* and in another place, he fays, *• from whom,'' [viz. God] ** and when he * ** chofe, the Son, the word, was generated +." , f* God,'' fays Ladantius, *' the framer *' and ordainer of all things, before he un- * Semper enim in patre ; ne pater non femper fit pater : • quin et pater iilum etiam quadam ratione prasceditj quod neceffe til quadammodo prior fit qua pater fit. QiioniLm aliquo pafto antecedat neceffe eft, eum qui habet originem ille qui originem nefcit. Hie ergo quando pater voluit, proceffit ex patre : et qui in patre fuit, proceffit ex patre. Cap. 31. p. 121. f Ante quern nihil praeter Patrem. Cap. i r. p. 32. :|: Eft ergo Deus pater omnium inftitutor et creator folus originem nefciens, invifibilis, immenfus, immortalis, jEternus, unus Deus, cujus neque magnitudini, neque ma- jeftati neque virtuti quicquam non dixerim prseferri, fed nee comparari potcft. Ex quo, quando ipfe voluit, fermo filius natus eft. Cap. 3 1. p. 120. *' dertook Chap. III. from the Father * 135 ** dertook the conflrudtion of this world, *' generated an Incorruptible fpirit, which *' he called his Son^"." Eufebius, fpeaking of God intending to form the material world, as well as angels, and the fouls of men, fays '' he thought of **. making one to govern and diredt the *' whole," and then he proceeds to defcribe the generation of the Son, as being ^^ the *^ proper wifdom of the Father +•" In the fanle work he fays, " light is emitted ne- ** cefTarily from the fun ; but the Son be- ** came the image of the Father from ** his knowledge and intention, and when "^ Deus igltur machlnator, conftitutorque rerum, ante quam praeclarum hoc opus mundi adoriretur, fan^tum, in- corruptibilem fpiritum genult, quern filium nuncuparet.' Inftit. lib. 4. fea. 6. p. 364. -^ IlpoAaS'wv TO />t£?^cv, oja Seoj, th '^spoyvo^crsi^ truvi^m T£, tiilm ccTravlcov ^£pi y£v£(T£cog £v iJ.£ya7^a aa/.ixli ■H£(paM hwofXEvuv. — BaM- Se($ yap ^Eo<;^ al£ (xovog^ wj aycsS^, aya^H T£ 'Siavi©' ^f%n >t) 'S^wyj), Twv avla %(7av^cov 'is'h£iHc, a7[o.£a^ixi kIictiv^ aauiial^g rivocg voe^a; xj ^£iag ^uvoi' fjt.£lg^ ayy£7\iig te }^ a^y(pt,yy£'Nii;^ auT^ rs it, 'S^avIn KU^a^a 'ssv£U!/.a}(Xy nr^oaeli ^s-^ux^^ av^^coTTuv ^va rov ttij ^r},aiH^y£iag aTraarig oikQ- vcixov y\y£iMvot. re y] ^aaih£cc twv c'Km 'zs^oloiici^'^i m% OfTt!rEia^, cfi tx mx 'i^pcI£pc7 Opera, vol. 2. p. 120. *' congre- 138 Generation of the So?z Book II. *' congregation." Again, he fays, ** He is ** his chief, as his God, fince he is before ** him*." '' I do not know," fays he, ** when the Son was generated; but it ** would be wickednefs in me to be igno- *' rant that he was generated -f-." That Hilary did exprefs this opinion is evident from Auflin's cenfuring him for af- cribing eternity to the Father only J ^ and * Et quidem Deus pater caufa eft omnium, omnino fine initio folitarius : Filius autem fine tempore editus eft a pa- tre, et ante fecula creatus et fundatus. Non erat ante- quam nafceretur : fed fine tempore ante omnia natus, folus a folo patre fiibfiftit. Nee enim eft seternus, aut co-aeter- nus, aut fimul non fadus cum patre, nee fimul cum patre habet efife, ficuti quidam dicunt, aut aliqui duo non nata principia introducentes, fed ficut unio eft principium om- nium, fie et Deus ante omnia eft. Propter quod et ante £lium eft, ficut et a te didicimus, papa, media in ecclefia prsedicante. Principatur autem ei, utpote Deu:> ejus, currl fit ante ipfum. Lib. 4. p. 60. loi. f Nefcio enim quando natus fit filius, et nefas eft mihi nefcire quod natus fit. Lib. 2. p. 27. % Et quia non mediocris audloritatis in tra6latione fcrip- turarum, et aftertione fidei vir-extitit, Hilarius enim hoc in libris fuis pofuit, horum verborum, id efi, patris et ima- ginis et muneris ; aeternitatis et fpeciei et ufus, abditam fcrutatus intelllgcntiam quantum valeo non eum fecutum arbitror Chap. III. from the Father, i^o yet in other paffages of this work Hilary- holds a diiferent language, " Where there '* is always a Father," he fays, «' there is *' always a Son*.'' " You think it, O he- ** retic, pious and religious to fay that God *^ always was, but that the Father was not •^alwaysf." Again, he fays, ** to deny *' the eternity of Chrift is a fin againft the *' Holy Spirit +.'' This inconfiftency in Hilary rriay perhaps be explained by the following maxims of his, viz. " That is eternal which is before "time§.'' By thus making that to be atbitror in seternitatis vocabulo, nifi quod pater non habet patrem de quo fit, filius autem de patre eft ut fit, atque ut illi co-3Eternus fit. De Trinitate, lib. 6. cap. g. Opera, vol. 3. p. 332. * Ubi autem Temper pater eft) Temper et filius eft. Lib. 1?. p. 305. t Pium tibi ac religiofum, hsretice, exiftimas, Deum Temper quidem, Ted non Temper patrem confiteri ? Ibid. p. 309. X Peccatum autem in Tpiritum eft, Deo virtutis poteT- tatem negare, et Chrifio Tubftantiam adimere ssternitatis. In Matt. Opera, p. 519. § i^lterum autem eft, quicquid tempus excedit. Lib, 12. p. 307. eternal 1 4a Gejieration of the Son Book 1 1 , eternal which preceded the creation, when time was fuppofed to commence, he might fay that the generation of Chrift was from eternity, and yet mean that he had not al- ways been generated. After this time the opinion of the catho- lic chriftians was invariably in favour of a proper eternal generation; and in this they were affifted by the genuine principles of Platonifm; according to which the crea- tion, and confequently the nous or logos^ its immediate author, was from eternity. Till this time the Platonizing chriftians had only held fo much of Platonifm as they had been able to retain confidently with the univerfaliy received doftrines of revelation, one of which was fuppofed to be that there was a time before God made the world, or had a Son. They wxre, therefore, obliged to hold that there was a time when the Fa- ther w^as alone ^ the Son having no exiftence, but as the reafon of the Father. But as, in the courfe of this controverfy, the perfonal dignity of Chrift advanced, which it uni- formly did, they came to think with the Platonifts, Chap. III. from the Father. 141 Platonift&, that the logos might have been from eternity, though the creation had not. They then argued as the Platonills had done, that the effe5i (and fuch they never fcrupled to call Chrifh) might always have co-exifted with its caiife. When it v/as obje(fl:ed that, " if the Son and Spirit be ** eternal, they muft be without caufe, ** like the Father,'' Gregory Nazianzen replies, *^ that effedls are fometimes cotem- *^ porary with their caufes, as is the cafe ^^ with the fun and his light •^'." The difficulty about involuntary genera-- tion v/as not got over fo well as that relat-. ing to its taking place before all time. '* The Father," fays Auftin, '' generated ** the Son neither necefiarily, nor'volun- ** tarily, becaufe there is no neceffity in ** God. The will cannot be before wif- ** dom, which is the Son." He then ailvs, ^* Do you, O heretic, fay whether the Fa- ** ther exifted neceffarily, or voluntarily •^•." ^YiKQV 0£ TO a^iQv ag a 'sravli^g — '^pscrQulspov rcov w znv ailiov^ ahyap rs(pulogn>^iog. Or: 35. Opera, p. 563. * Voluntate genuit pater filium, an nece/Htate ? Nee voluntate, nee necefTit^ite : quia neceilitas in Deo non eft : prsire 142 Generation of the Son Book II. Chryfoftom, after reprefentiiig erudiatlon as an involuntary thing, defcants upon God's eructating a good logos. ** It was not the ** ftomach/' he fays, *' but the hearty and ** what did he eructate ? not meat or drink, *' but the good logos, his only begot- *' ten •f'.'' Cyril of Alexandria feems to fay, that Chrift, being the will of the Fa- ther, it is abfurd to ajCk whether he was generated voluntarily, or involuntarily J. In a creed drav/n up by the bifhops in the eaft, and fent to thofe in the weft (in which the Arian doctrines of the creation of the Son out of nothing, and of there ever having been a time when he was not, are con- demned, the opinion that the Father did not praslre autem voluntas fapientiam non poteft, quod eft iilius : igitur prius eft ratlonabiliter fapere, quam rationa- biliter velle. Die, inquit, et tu haeretice, Deus pater n^- ceffitate eft Deus, an voiuntate ? Queft. 65. Opera, vol, 4. p. 678. yap (pn? ef slspcig VTroTansag, ^ fAYi EK T8 Sss, )y oli w 'u^qIs. x^ovog >j ocicov ols fjiYi Tjv, aT^ol^mg oi^Ev Y} ayioi Ko^onm smXYKna . ci^ioiag Jt) rag T^iyovlag r^tig fivcci ^sag, 77 tqv xe^rov fm £ivui Bsov rs^o rm aimcov, //.yjls x^itcv fxrUe viov ^sa sivai otulov^ y\ joy aulov mat. Ylalz^a k) Tlov Pd) otym Tlvsv(AOi, yc- ayEvvy^lov-iov wov, « oli a ^8>.ncr£i a^s ^sT^-^asi iymmzv rzoiln^ tov viov^ avuQs/jiscJi^ei n ayicc >i) HcxOo'him sKHhwicc, Socratis Hift. lib. 2. cap. 10. p. gg. t El rig /XY] ^zXyio-uvK^ ra 'syal^og ysy^vvna^xi rov uiov KsyoL ccvx* h(/,oi £rw, Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 30. p. 126. */ being 144 Generaticn of the Son, ^c, Book IL ** being founded *." But it does not ap- pear that any perfon in his time, or for many years after, fuppofed that the Son had exifled always, except as the reafon of the eternal Father, an attribute belonging to him, and not feparated from him. Auflin alfo fuppofes that there was no time before the creation +• According to Plato himfelf, time cannot be predicated of what is eternal ; fo that it cannot be faid of God that be was, or that he wil! /v, but only that he is J. He alfo fays that time was made with the heavens §. * X2 azi 2Ti ro a^is^ov^ ate £W ya^ scrTTSPot. ^£H,'£yco h yjyHf/^i olt n^z w^coitx^ M cTVjjMa^zitlmm m ccyEvvnlo) ^ aihco av% ^aj>j, iv 87wj siTTUi %f2i'.cj, r.ix£^a STiv avlo) ani^sfcv^ £v v yzyzvvy^ai o viog. A^^n; •yevECTEWj auta iiloi^ 8% BvpiCTKOii^n^^ cog aos ryjg v/^E^ccg. Comment. vol.2- p. 31. f Qiix tempera fuififent quss abs te non condita eflent. ConfefT. Q^ii. vol. i. p. 190. :|: Tavia h zjavla, [xsoog xpcva, ^, to, r w, to t etoli^ xpov^iyzyo- volog ci^rj, (pEpovlEg ^Mv^avo/xEv stti zyiV aid'iov ^Jiav^ hk op^ag . >^yoiJt,Ev yap ^vj ug w, fr{ te >u etm ' tvi fle ro en /jlovov, huIu tov cO^A '^oycv^ ^pcamEl . TO ^£ W, TO, T ETai^ 'SIEpi mv £V XpO'MyEVEdVJ IHffW 'mpETTSi , >,Ey£(T^M. Timaeus, p- 7 1 1. Ad Genevse. § Xpcvog ^' av ii(t apavs'yEycvzv, iva ay^a yEvvSEvlEg^ a^ioi. >tj iJ^'j^- civ, avsrolE 7 that, while, they hefitated to purfue their principle to its proper extent, they were reftrained by the fear of popular prejudices, which would not have borne the doftrine of the equality of the Son to the Father. Or, notwithftanding the tendency of the new dodrine, the force of habit was fuch,. that they Chap. IV, to the Father, 147 they could not bring themfelves at once to change the language, and the ideas to which they and their anceftors had been long accuftomed. Now the circumflance which fo long reftrained the natural ope- ration of this new dodlrine of the genera- tion of the Son from the fubftance of the Father, and of his very being confifting of the eflential attributes of the Father^ could be nothing elfe but the eftablilhed dodlrine of one Gody of unrivalled majefty and power, whofe fervant Chrift, as well as all the pre- ceding prophets, had always been confi- dered. It is evident, from numberlefs paf- fages in their writings, that they were afraid left the new dodrines of the pre- exiftence and divinity of Chrift fliould give offence to the common people, who were for a long time generally unitarians. This hypothefis only can Well account for thefe writers fo fully and fo frequently expreffing their belief of the inferiority of the Son to the Father. As, in this view, the language they hold on this fubjed: is an article of confiderable importance, ftiewing us their real fituation L 2; and 148 Inferiority of the Son Book IL and feelings, I fhall produce a confiderable number of paffages from the Antenicene Fathers, in which their opinion of the in- feriority of the Son to the Father is clearly expreffed, and it would have been very eafy to have doubled the number, I lay but little ftrefs on any paffage in the writings of thofe who are called apojio* Ileal Fathers^ or the epiftles of Ignatius, for reafons that have been given in my Introduction 5 but as the compofition of them, or the interpolations in them, were made in a pretty early age, I fhall feledl a few of them. They ihew that the idea of the inferiority of the Son to the Father was not given up when thofe w^orks were compofed. Hermas, fpeaking of a vineyard let out by its owner, who had many fervants, to his fon,. when he took a journey, fays, ** The owner of the eftate reprefents the ** Father, the creator of all things ; his *' fervant, the fon of God ; and the vine- *' yard, which he keeps, the people," And, giving a reafon why the fon is placed in a fcrvile condition,^ he fays, <* it is not a fcrvice^ Chap. IV. to the Father. 149 *' fervice, but a place of great power; for " that he is the Lord of the people, having *' received all power from the Father *." This is not the manner in which an ortho- dox chriftian would have exprefled himfelf on the fubjcdt. Ignatius commends the Ephefians for their harmony; faying, that *^ they were '* fo joined, as the church to Chrift, and *' Chrift to the Father ; that every thing '^ might be in perfed: harmony-}-/' ^ o Iwag Xf' ther Abraham, Ifeac, nor Jacob," he fays, ** nor any man, ever faw the Father, and ** ineffable Lord of all, and of Clirift him- ** felf; but he who by his -will was God, ** his Soo,and an angel, froiivh is being fub- *< fervient to his will, who at his pleaftire *• was made a man, from the virgin, wha " alfo in the form of fire appeared to Mofcs *' in the bufh-f/' <« I will endeavour to convince yaii who ** know the fcriptures, that there is another '* who is called God and Lqrd, vbefides him «^ that made all things, who is alfo called *^ an angel, on account of his delivering to " man whatever he who is the maker of all * 0$ ;9 Ts im '^i% xvpia Jiupio^ btiv^ ag ':sotTw iy Seoj, amog re avTco TH EJvaj, 59 "^uvarco^ TL) KUpia, iy ^£«. DiaL p. 413. * OuT£ ay AQpcioc{j(,^ hte la-aaK, hts Icxm^, arc ci7i m9 TVS iSpjTs, Dial . p. 4 1 1 . L4 '' things, .15a Inferiority of the Son Bock II, ** things, and above whom there is no other ** God, wills that he fhould deliver*." Though Chrift was fuppofed by this writer to have made all things, yet there was a fenfe in which the phrafe, maker of all things (^0 ^onfltH tsov ^i^a.ilcop^ was thought to be applicable to the Father only. " I will *^ endeavour," fays he, " to fhew that he ** who appeared to x^braham, Jacob, and '^ Mofes, and who is called God, is difFe- ^* rent from the God that made all things, ** &c.— I fay that he never did any thing '* but what that God who made all things, '* and above whom there is no god, willed f« that he fhould do or fayf/' With a * A >.£yQ 'ssEipao-ofA.oii v,ua; 'maacu^ 'mcravraq ra^ ypapag^ an sn iy "hzytrai Bsog >i) X'^f^^ sr£^(^ [uTTspl tov ^oir,Tw roov c/Awv, og xj (xTysX^ Ka'hma.if ^la to al7£?C\£iv toig avSpuTTOi; oaotTrsp ^s?.£Taj au- noK; afyn>uxi o twv o?^wv £yofx£v'^- )tj y£y piX(^iJL£vc; Ssoj Elzpog £Ti Tn za 'siavra 'SJcmcavT©' Ses * api^f/.co Aeyw a7J\' a tyi yvu.uri, Ouhv ya^ ^nfjti tanov ''a£7rpax£vai 'Zstote r) uTTsp avrcg o rov koct/xov '[^oiYicra; . v7r£p oV d>2>og '^}i Efj ^£0^, (^£^iiMrai, x«i ^ca^oa nai c{jt,i7\r,(7cci. Dial. i. p. 25?» view Chap. IV. io the Father. 153 view to this Origen calls Chrift the tmrne-- diate maker of the worlds. Athenagoras did not confider Chrifl as the one God, but one who was employed by the one God. '* Our dodrine/' he fays, ** teaches us, that there is one God, the *^ maker of all things— who made all things ^* by his own logos -f-." Clemens Alexandrinus calls the logos ^^ the image of God, the legitimate fon of f' his mind ; a light, the copy of the light, *' and man the image of the logos +.'' He calls the Father the only true God. Al- luding to the heathen myfteries, he fays, *' B^ thou initiated, and join the chorus ^' with the angels about him w^ho is the ** unbegotten and immortal, the only true ^^ God, God the logos joining with us, ^* he being always the one Jefus, the great ?^ high priefb of the ono. God, and his * Tqv 'srpoo-fx&j? on^iH^yov. Contra Celfum, lib. 6. p. 317. + Ettb 5'£ >^yog Yi;j,o:v svcc Secv ccy2i rov thob th ^afto^ ^oirj-iv.', Ciulov jCt£V a ysvofJLEvov (o7j tc ov s yivsix: ci>./iOi to ;j:a qv) 'Erav?^; 3s ^la Td 's^ac a-SiH Xoya "^zTToiY^ioJa. Apol. p. 40. :|: H.asv ya:prii .^£s £uio:v, "hoyo^ cSki. Yiai vicg ra vh 7i":iri©~, ^Eioj ?vD70j, (pcSlog apyzlwzcv Oi-'f. Va'/.o^v 02 tx hT/a, av^purjc;. AdGentcs, p. 62. f* Father^ 3 54 Inferiority of the Son Book II. */ Father ; he prays for men, and gives ** laws to men */' He fpeaks of Chrift as */ jfubfervient to his Father's will, and *' only called God by way of figure -f. V The mediator/' he fays, " performs the ** will of the Father. The logos is the *^ mediator, being common to both, the *^ feal of God, and the Saviour of men. ** Of the one he is the fervant, but our ^' inftrudtor 4./' *' There is one unbe- ^* gotten almighty Father, and one firft 5* begotten, by whom all things were, and ** without whom nothing was made. For ** one is truly God, who made the apyj [the ** origin] of all things, meaning his.firft ** begotten S.onj|/' And yet this writer it) avahs^fov >t) {movov ovlu; ^egv, o-vvuixvavl^ r]/xiv ts ^ea hoya. Ai^ity, s7oj, \Y.'7^(; £!f, /^.£7«5 ap%iE^£i/$ ^£« T£ £voj Ts aula kJ 'SJOilpo;, u'/np av^puTTuv Ey%£7a;, -^ avS^wTro/j £yK£>>suslai. Ad Gentes, p. 74. 4 0£oj £v avS^fiJTTi: c7%>i/*a7j, a%pav7o;, 'moCl^iKOi ^eM/jimIl oiaKcvog^ >.07c$, 0£0$, £v Tw 'ura7^(, £« ^eIiwvts '3Ja7pf, (7W ^' tw o-xnpoilt S-o^. Ibid. p. 80. ;J; Kat TO S£^n/i 'TTCtj^of OdU VTTt^iyjl cLlP.Oi ^^ TO C'.yiOV TffVlVlJ.d. Tiov KoiTTcoy^ a Tcov TV'/cv]ctK', Ahh^ oucc(; 7C0V TGcrctv]cov )y acLi' iiS'iv 7 CO 'Tsrcq^i, Comment, vol. 2. p. 218. f Cvjii) 70tVVV Kdt iv^et.^i il Tsruvlo. <^IA T8 Koyv iyii'^io, «V VTTO T8 A.0>» lyiVlloy a.>K* VTO KCil7^0V0i Kelt (J.'ct^OV'^ 'UO.' ptt Tov hoyov • T/f S""* ctv ct}^@- al"^ 7vyyjx.v;] 5? ■sya.'Jii^* In J[phan. Comment, vol. 2. p. 56. ** denying Chap. IV. to the Father. i^^ ** denying that the nature of the Son is dif- '* ferent from that of the Father, and who *"* acknowledge that he is God in name *^ only ; or denying the divinity of the *' Son, and then maintaining that his na* ** ture and effence is different from that of ** the Father. For we muft tell them, that *' he who is God of himfelf^ is God with *^ the article ^ but that all who are not God ^^ of themfclves, who are divine by becom- ** ing partakers of his divinity, are God " without the article, and feverally, among ^^ whom efpecially is the firft-born of all ** the creatures*.'* Cauiva^ J^vo etvctyofivtrat •d-mi, acLt t^cLfo. nfjo "^ifiTri'Trjovlai •JlfeyJ^sc?-/ Kcu cL(TiCiG-t J^oy[j.ctiv\dL^ ^lov iivcti Tov iMyu ^VOUctjoi ^A^ atv']o/^ VIOV ^fO(ra,yo^iVOlJ.ZVQV ' i) AOVny.zy^^ Tilif ^-.oli{](t Tif vi-6 Ti-d-ii]ci? XA d-iOf KV^tiOTifOV Ay KiyOtTO SO t!-AV7CJ^ T^MTO' '3*t« T&f 0\&)V KCtl tS-ATfh ^ KClt AVTOi fftcrnf YI^MV iyf05"«t>%€To ^a) ^£ rs^pocrsux^<^^cii rag Ka%^ico/x^viig Evcg aula 'sral^og an £nv £v>.oyov ' /movu ycc^ rco '^olI^i ^(i f//8 ;<^ ^i sfca avaTrs/^Trliov etiv vfjtiv '2rP0(T£y%»v . raol av T^sycvl^ aHuovlEg ImH) rco Sew ^i aula su- XCOfjLE^a, TO avlo T^Eyovlsg TravlEg^ /xy^h isEpi ra t^otth rr,g Ev/jyjg cyj,- ^ofJiEvoi ' n a%i cr%«^0|W£Sa, Eav oi [xev tco rsral^t^ oi ^e tw vm EvxafXE^.m v\ 'mavluif OfX^-^ Tov avia 'SioilEpoi fiovov YiyEic^ou ^eov aX)iS>i. xj fxovov asCsiv nym mapcxiiiUvilai. Praeparatio, lib. 7. cap. 15. p. 327. -f- Aio 5>) y^ fMvog ^£og aulog * (Movoyrnig ^ £| aula 'm^otmv, De Laudibus Conft. p. 752. X Xlff , fji'^z aulov mou tov zm Tsavlav ^£ov ryEia^M, firOe ruv «/- 7£^«v tvcc ' riilav ^£ fjLEaov k) fUtrin/iv . oIl tu 'SJoI^i xj aPy£>^oig f/.sai'- ?£yEJ, ag av manv^ cIe (XEcTil^g ymlai ^£ii )y av^puTTcov, (j,£(Tog av ehoIe^s TayiAccicg EhslE^og etiv- (JLEdiixg vna^xm . a7 aviog m^ o £ig '^) i^ovog Seo^ • aS o/xojwj TCI J "hQiTtoig av^^ayrotg, «v%w?rof . Tt $f, ei i^n^v fJluv ' »j Chaf«'IV. to the Father. 169 his books on the praifes of Conftantine. ** Chrift was of a middle nature between ** things created, and him that had no ori- '' gin *.'* . We are now approaching to the time when we fhall hear no more of this language from thofe who were reputed orthodox. We do, however, hear the fame fentiment oc- cafionally, when the writers were off their guard, and exprefled themfelves according to the ideas of their predeceffors, efpecially writers near to thofe times. Thus, Atha- nafius fays, that ** Chrift does every thing ** according to the will and knowledge of '' the Father f ." Theodoret, having mentioned the great diftance between the unbegottcn Father and rational and irrational beings, who were by him (t/^'rfi/T«) produced out of nothing, fays, that " his only begotten Son, by whom Sis /Aovoyf v«j wtoj, wv (jt,£v av^f wttwv «J ^f s i/.satln^ ycyovwj. Con- tra Marcellum, lib. i. p. 8. '^ MsaCsuov T£ }^ ^leipyov tyi; tcov ysvvnhv scrjoj, mv avapxov )^ ctyenjiov iSeov. P, 719* 757* + Ta 'ffavlcc ispog h^av jy yvmiv ts e«i/7s 'aaOpo^ spya^elat. Con- tra Gentes, Opera, vol. i. p. 48. '176 Inferiority of the Son Book II. ^' (cT/ >k) all things were made out of nothing, *^ is of a middle nature between them*/' " At the clofe of this fediion I (hall ob- ferve, in general, that whenever the Ante- nicene Fathers ufed the term God abfo- lutely, they always meant the Father only. But if, in their idea, the Father had been no thore entitled to the appellation of God thaii the Son or the Spirit, they would cer- tainly have confined the ufe of the word God to exprefs divinity in general^ and have ufed the word Father^ and not Gody when they really meant the Father only, exclu- fively of the tv/o other perfons. Had there been no proper correlative to the word So?2^ as a perfon, nothing could have been in- ferred from this ; but fince the term Father is perfectly correlative to the term Son^ and as familiar, it would certainly have been ufed by them to denote the Father, as well as the term Son to denote the Son. It is natural, therefore, to conclude, that their jy Twv KTia-^evTcov UTT avTs eI kK ovTuv^ hoyiHO)v re ^ ahoycav . av Ta0£3Ao78. Opera, vol/ 3. p. 18. cuftom Chap. IV. to the Father. \j\ cuftom of ufing the term God to denote the Father only v/as derived to them from ear- lier times, in which no other than the Fa- ther was deemed to be God, in any proper fenfe of the word. This language was continued long after, from a change of ideas, it ceafed to be proper. Very happily, the word G^^ is ftill, in common ufe, appropriated to the Father, fo that none but profeffed theologians are habitual trinitarians, and probably not even thefe at all times ; and while the fcriptures are read without the comments of men, the Father atone will be confidered as God, and the fole objed: of worfhip, excluiively of the Son, or the Spirit, C H A P. 1^2 Of the Power and B o o K II. CHAPTER V. Of the Power and Dignity of Chriji as the fre-exijling Logos of the Father, ^T^ H E great obftacle to the reception of chriftianity, efpecially with perfons diftinguifhed for their learning, or their rank in life, was the meannefs of the per- fon, and condition of Chrift; and efpeci- ally the circumftance of his having been crucified as a common malefador. Thofe who had difciples, called by their names, in Greece, if they had not been diftinguifhed for their wealth and rank in life, which was the cafe with feme of them, had, at leaft, been men whofe time had, in a great mea- fure, been devoted to ftudy, and none of them had been reckoned infamous^ The death of Socrates bore fome refemblance to that of Chrift, but befides that the cir- cumftanccs of the deaths themfelves were confiderably different, he had lived in inti- macy with the firft men of the flate, and though not rich himfelf, had always been relpedted Chap, V. t)igntty ofChriJl. jy^ refpedled by the rich; and his life had been devoted to fpeculation and inflrudion. Whereas Chrift had had no advantage of liberal education, or leifure for ftudy and fpeculation. He Vi^as born of obfcure pa- rents, and had lived in a very obfcure town of the moft defpifed part of his coun- try ; and till he v^as thirty years of age^ when he commenced public teacher, had been nothing more than a common car- penter. Thefe circumftances might not have been much attended to beyond the limits of his own country. But his public execution as a common malefaftor, was known where- ever the name and religion of Jefus was heard of; and though he might not be thought guilty of any crime (as it was no uncommon thing in any country for per- fons to be condemned, and fuiFer unjullly) yet the manner of his death fufficiently fhewed the low eftimation in which he had been held in his life, and marked him for one of the meaneft of mankind. To be hanged at Tyburn in this country, or ta be broke upon the wheel in France, gives us I . but 1 74 Of the Poiver ajul Book II. but a faint idea of the ignominy of criicU Jlxion in the Roman empire. This was one of the greateft difficulties that the iirft preachers of chriftianity had to ftruggle with, in their attempts to pro- pagate chriftianity; and the weight of it was much greater than we, who are brought up with a high idea of the great perfonal dignity of Chrift, notwithftanding the mean circumftances of his life, can be duly fenfi- ble of, or make fufficient allowance for. The apoftles, and firft preachers of chrif- tianity ingenei-al, being themfelves illite- rate men, had no means of removing this great obftacle, but by their accounts of the miracles wrought by Jefus Chrift, and his refurreftion from the dead ; which were fufficient proofs of his divine miffion. Alfo the miracles which the apoftles themfelves wrought, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, communicated to all the early converts, were ftanding proofs, during the age of the apoftles, of the power of God accompanying their preaching. Thefe plain arguments were all that the apoftles, as we may fee by their writings, ever oppofed to the pride of the Chap. V. Dignity of Chriji. 17- the Jews, or the cavils and contempt of the Greeks. For a long time, chriftianity feems to have fpread chiefly among the illiterate, though it w^as by.no means confined to per- Ibns of low circumftances, efpecially out of Judea ; and though we may eafily perceive that, to ufe the apoftles language, not ?nany rich me?! were called^ yet there were more of the rich than of the wife. At length, however, fome of the Greek philofophers embraced chriilianity ; and, as was natural, they were defirous of mak- ing converts of others 5 and therefore v/ould wiili to recommend it to them, by exhibit- ing it in fuch a light as they imagined would make it appear to the mofl advantage -, and in order to this they would endeavour to make it feem to be as little different from the phi- lofophy to which they had been addided as pofiible. Befides, all men are willino- to combine into one fyftem all the doctrines which they efpoufe ^ and they never rejed: any thing that they have been long attached to, without an evident neceffity. Thefe philofophers, therefore, even without any view to making converts, v/ould not aban- don 176 Of the Power and Book II. don their former tenets, unlefs they per- ceived that it was abfolutely impoffible to retain them, and their profeffion of chrif- tianity together; and certainly they would not themfelves be fo ready to fee the incon- fiftency there might be between them as other pcrfons lefs interefted might have been. As to thbfe plain men from whom thefe philofophers had fir ft heard the chrif- tian doftrines, they might admit their hifto- rical evidence to matters of faft, and thus be convinced of the truth of chriftianitvj but, confidering them as ignorant and unlearned perfons, might not chufe to be diftated to by them in matters of deep /peculation ; and, wretched as the ftate of fcience was in thofe ages, the pride of phihfophy, and the contempt of the vulgar^ were much greater than they are now. It happened that the philofophy which was moft in vogue in that age was P/^- tonifmy the principles of which have been feen to be more conformable to thofe of revealed religion in general, than thofe of any other fyftem that was taught in the Grecian fchools ^ as it contained the doc- trines Chap. V. D/gnJfy ofChriJl. 177 trines of the unity of God, the reality of a providence, and the immortality of the foul. But, unhappily, making a difference between the Supreme Being himfelf, and his mind, or ideas ; and giving an obfcure notion of its being by means of a divine efflux, that all truth is perceived by the mind, as common objedls are feen by the beams of the fun; they imagined that a ray of this wifdom, or the great fecond di^ vine principle in their fyftem, might illu- minate Jefus Chrift, and even have per- manently attached itfelf to him. And with refped to this divine principle, which qualified him to be a public teacher, they might eafily imagine that he had had an exiilence from the time that any divine operation took place ; fo that they no longer looked upon themfelves as the difciples of an obfcure perfon, who had lately ftarted up, and made himfelf confpicuous by new dodtiines, but of that great being who was inftrumental in making the world, and who was the fource of all truth. This idea was highly flattering, and the philofophers lately become chriftians, fee- Vol. II, N ing 178 Of the Power and Book II. ing that Philo had availed himfelf of the fame platonic notions, to explain the hif- tory of the divine difpenfations.in the Old Teftament, followed him in this progrefs, and extended the fame to the New ; fup- poiing that the fame divine logos, which Philo had reprefented as the medium of all the vifible appearances of God to the pa- triarchs, was the fame that was manifeiled in Jefus Chrift. This fyftem gave a dignity to the perfon and charader of Chrift, which efFedually covered the offence of the crofs. It made the profeffion of chriftianity fit much eafier upon the minds of thefe philofophers them- felves, and furniftied them with arguments by which to recommend it to others, who entertained the fame philofophical princi- ples. In this fpecious manner were the dodrines of the pre-exifte?ice and divinity of C/6r^, introduced into the chriftian fyftem. That it was the meannefs of Ghrift's perfon, and the circumftances of his death, at which the heathen philofophers re- volted, we have abundant evidence. ^* The ** heathens/' fays Arnobius *' reproach <* chriftians Chap.V. Dignify ofChriJi, ly^ ** chriftians with worfliipping a man*.'* ** The Gods are offended at you," fay they, *' not becaufe you worflilp the God that is ^^ omnipotent, but becaufe you daily pray ^^ to a man who was born, and (which is in- *' famous even to the vileft perfon) put to ** death by crucifixion, and becaufe you ** maintain that he is a God, and is now *'* alive -f-." ''What is the reafon/' fays Auftin, '' that you will not be chriftians, but " becaufe Chrift came in humility, and *^ you are proud J/' But when chriftians had found two na- tures in Chrift, a divine as well as a human nature, they could eafily anfwer this re- proach of the heathens. *' Who was it,"^ * Natum hominem colimus. Lib. r. p. t2. t Sed non (inquit) idcircodii vobis infefti funt, quod omnipotentem colatis Deum : fed quod hominem natum, tt (quod perfonis infame eft vilibus) crucis fupplicio inte- remptum, et Deum fuifle contenditis, et fuperefle adhuc creditus, et quotidianis fupplicationibus adoratis. Ibid. Supra. ■ X Quid caufae eft cur propter opiniones veftras, quas vcs ipfi oppugnatis chriftiani efte nolitis, nifi quia Chriftus humiliter venit, et vos fuperbi eftis. De Civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 29. Opera, vol. 5, p. 591. N 2 fays .iS-o Of the Power a-nd Book 11. fays Arnobius, ** that was feen hanging on ** the crofs ? The man whom he put on, <« and whom he carried with him. The *^ death you fpeak of was that of the man ** he had affumed, that of the burthen, not <* of the bearer'^/' This was an anfwer that we do not find to have occurred to the apoflles. *' Cavilling at the crofs," Atha- nafius fays, ** they do not fee that his ** power fills the whole world, and that ac- ** tions fhewing him to be God are per- *^ formed by him-f-." It was alfo a great objedion to chrif- tianity that the fyftem was new, and the author of it a perfon of yefterday. But this fublime dodlrine, of Chrift being the divine logos, and the medium of all the divine communications of God to mankind^ en- abled them to repel this accufation with * Qiiis efl ergo vifus in patibulo pcndere, quis mcrtuiis eft ? homo, quern induerat, et fecum ipfe portabat. Mors ilia, quam dicitis, alTumpti hominis fuit, non ipfms : gef- taminis, non geftantis. Lib. I. p. 22. t Oil 10V rav^ov 5ia^a^Aov7ej, ax °^^^'' '^>i'-' '^-'^^ '^vvoimv 'uacrctv tw (HHSfxsT^S 'sszTTM^mvicx.v * y^ oil 3i aul8 to, mg ^soyvu(Tiag s^ya 'z:o'.7i m(pavs^ulciu Contra Gentcs, Opera, vol. i. p'. 2. I great C H A p . V . Dig?2ity of Chriji. 1 8 1 great advantage. Eufcbius gives an ac- count of the appearances of Chrifl under the Old Teftament ; '' left any perfon/' as he fays, '' fhould objedl to him as a new ^* perfon.*" In this view, he fays, '^ the *^ patriarchs may, in one fenfe be called ** chriftians-j-." Caffian fays, that ''Mary *^ produced one who was older than herfelf, *^ even her own maker, fo that flie Vv^as the *^ parent of her parent J." Chriftians were even ready to go farther than this in order to recommend their re- ligion to heathens. They did not even fcruple to point out fome refemblances be- tween it and the groffeft polytheifm. Juftin * Tavlcx, jOCEv av c<.va.'YKyMj}(; ispo ir\(; iTo^iag vMav^oi /jloi heitBc>}, cog etv y.y] vscolspov Tig eivm vo/xiueie tov (TO)lr,^oc )y hu^iqv n/jLav Iyio-hv tov XP^^ov^ ^'^ 'T'aj t:ij svo-a^Hii 'SJo>Mtioig oiul'd %fOvs;. Hift. lijb. r, cap. 4. p. 14. -|- liavlag ^ EHSivag ^iKXiCJUvn fji,£,accfb^Yifi£Viig, si d'SIa nra A^^pococfx, sm TOV in^cSlov aviaaiv avS^wTrov, zpya xpir.xv^g^ « y^ ^<>j ovoixoHi 'moo- ctiTim Tij, UK av SKlog (SocT^oi Tn; ahn^accg. Ibid. p. 15. X Vides ergo quod non folum inquam antiquiorem fe Maria peperit : non folum inquam antiquiorem fe, fed autorem fui, et procreans procreatorem fuum, facia eR parentis parens. De ir.carnatione Domini, lib. 4. p. looi. N 3 Martyr, i82 Of the Pozver and Book IL Martyr, fpeaking of Jefus, as ftiled the Son of God, fays, " If, in the ufual ftyle, and as ** a man only, he be worthy to be called ** the Son of God, on account of his wif- *' dom, all writers call Jupiter the father ** of gods and men. But if in a peculiar *^ manner, out of the way of common ge- ** neration, we fay that Chrift is the logos ** of God ; this agrees with thofe who ** hold Mercury to be the wifdom of God, *' which explains his will. If we fay that *' he was born of a virgin, this is only what ** is faidofPerfeus*." With the fame view (not fo much to be condemned if we confider its circumftances, and the mere morality of the thing) Juftin Martyr, as far as appears, invented the doc- trine of Chrift being the logos of God^ but it was only the fame that Philo had before reprefented as the medium of all €0(piav a|j^ vic(; ^£8 ^£7£cr^aJ, ^aii^a yap ocv^^m rs ^eccv ts 's^av-. 7f; (rvyf^a(pEii; rov S-fov Ka'hacnv . £J 5'e xj idlcoj 'uia.^a tviv uomy yzvsaiy ' ytysvw'^oci aulov sk ^m >^yofA,sv \oyov ^sa, o^i 'STpoEipyi(/,EVy HOivcv t«7o Efco vyAv T0<; 7CV Ep/xiiv 7.oyov Tov usapot, Ses, ayyO^iKOV y^yaoiv. Ej 3k ^laisa^^evH yBhwjy]^'a,i (ps^cjAEv^ Homv >i T»7(? Tc^oj tqv Hsvi^fai frcu vfuv. Apol. I. p. 33, 34. the Chap. V. Dignity ofChrift. 183 the communications of God to the pa- triarchs. He alfo extended this principle as a compliment to the philofophy of the Greeks ; fuppoiing this alfo to have been infpired by the fame logos ; and in this he was followed by feveral others, though in a later period chriflians were afhamed of havincr conceded to the heathens, fo far as to fuppofe that the Grecian philofophy had the fame divine origin with chrif- tianity. '^ All that the philofophers and " legiflators faid and taught/' fays Juf- tin Martyr, " was eifeded and difcovered ** according to a portion of the logos -, but ** becaufe they did not difcover every thing ** of the logos, they often differed among '* themfelves. — ^Chrifl was in part known *^ to Socrates, for the logos was in him, ** and in every perfon, by the prophets *' foretelling things to come, and concern- " ing himfelf being made like us, and *' teaching us thefe things*," * Oca y^f KX'Ka; aei E^^eylavlo }y eu^ov Oi (pi'hoa-o^Yicravlz; n voiAoQslyiTccvleg, Kala T^oyy //f ^'3* w^easiog >^ ^ew^taj eti. 'zsovyiQevIch au- loi^ . BTTEi^y] h a '57«v7a 7tj d'l- la^a^pi^^ jaJJx). Apol. 2. p. 1 24, 1 25. * Ad Gcntes, p. 4. t Tavly] Hv y^ o-uhp >.oya$ KETiTc^lai^ ret \oyim r-aulex, e^eu^cm av^^awoig EK Evcii<7^(Tiav ^ cJk^iav (pccpfAotHa* Faed. lib. i. cap. 12. p. 134. C H A p. V. Dignity of Chrijl. ' 185 ** by the yoke, fo -man by the logos*.'* " God, as the author of all good, was the *' author of the Greek philofophy ; and ** this was the fchoolmafler to the Greeks, *^ as the law was to the Jews, preparing ^* the way for chriftianity -f-/' He elfe- where fays, *' God gave the Greek phi- *' lofophy by the inferior angels J." So that he feenxs to have adopted the dodrine of Philo, in making angels not to be per- manent beings, but only temporary appear- ances of the logos. * IlW {/.auci^iav ocl^^'jWEv owovOjUiav Si W '^nai^ayc^yEilai (jlsv o aTTo 7'/ij 'SJoaoaycoyii[jL£vog . 'Sioile^a, 0£ msi T^LiQavu , ov stti yng [xav havzi . 'usavloi o "Koyof; Xj 'Ujoiei^ to, d't^acryM, ^ 's^oci^cxyayeL . iTTTTogy aysicii %a^Ji'w • xj rav^oc ayilai ^uya ' B^roiov /Sj'o^w aXia-jcslai ' o h av^^coTTog, (xilaTT^aaazlai T^oya. Psd. lib. I. cap. 12. p. 265. f Havlm [JLEv yoL^ oi'Jiog t:jv Ka7^'^v Scaj . aAAa rav (xev kcBcc ^po- nysasvGVj ug rrtg ts ^La^m-ig 'Trig "SsaT^Mag ;^ Tv\g vsag . ruv h, y.ai ETTOCKoh^i^rilxa., cog Tug (^iXoao^iag , t«%o8 oz }y Zjoorr/nyavag roig £>M(nv Eoo^n toIs^ 'SJpiy] n tov ku^iov KOcXsj-ai >'^ THg s'h'Kyiva.g . STrau^a.- yaysi y>o7o(pioi SeoSev m^iVEig ocvii^o)7ri-:g. Strom, lib. i, p. 282. 287; See alfo Strom, lib. 6. p. 636. 64:8. X Oulog Efiv S'l^i:^ kui Toig sXMji ty-v ^ihoio^i7,v ^:oi, tcov vttoos- sffowv ^P/E^wv, Ibid. lib. 7. P' 70^. This i86 Of the Poiver and Book II. This idea of the fource of the Greek philofophy was exactly that of Juftin Mar- tyr, who fays, *' the dodlrine of Plato is ** not foreign from that of Chrift, though *' not in all refpects like it j as neither is '' that of the floicks, the poets, and hifto- ** rians. For each of them, from a por- *' tion of the divine logos implanted in <^ them, perceiving fomething fmiilar/' viz. to the chriftian dqdrine, *' very juftly de- *' livered it-^/' On this principle, thefe waiters could talk very magnificently concerning the dig- nity of Chrift, but in a manner which would have been very little underftood, or reliflied, by the apoftles. Clemens Alex- *' andrinus gives the following fubiime de- fcription of Chrift as the logos of God, reprefenting him as *' moft holy and per- *^ fedt in his nature, fupreme in autho- *' rity and beneficence, neareft to the only, ** omnipotent nature, which difpofes of all * Qwx, olt ayO\6l^\a £ri ice Tihc^lm^ o{^«7//.«7« Ti x^ira, a>:K oil ax Efi 'srav7>i qMOta^ affTrs^ ySs ra tcov a>^o)v^ S7a)i«ov te, jy 'sioiy)J'M\ >^ ffvyf^a(p£xy , ucaT^ yap ti^ utto (Jt^py-g t« (TTTE^/xixiucii ^bih T^oya TO ffjfyEVEi opi;;', hccMo.: E.£icSlcxJn dri xai ayicclalri^ nai Hv^icSJocln fcai yiysy.oviKcolalYi^ uaa ^a(n>iK(al(xiY\^ km svE^ilixcSlalYi rj via (pucrigy n tco /xovco' ^avloz^aJo^i ^po- a-^x^raJr]^ aulr] ri fXEyirn VTTspoxv^ 1 t« 'SIoctPicx. ^icxlacrcrflai naicx. to Se- ;i-4/)7r^g o vios ra Ses . a f/,E^itoiJt.£vaif zx oiVo}£(Mvo(j(.£vog^ a ^{loLQaivav sfc totte si; tovTov, 'srav?)? 3e 'SJscvlols^ }^ (/.Yi^oifji,-/] 'Z3-£^i£%o//i£voj, oAc)j V5?f, o?^og ??v, iy ug uiog av9pa7rv, ;?) crcipia p€o©-, ;tj av6©-, ««J AiS-©- a^^ya-'ywwO' Kex>,n}at kJ woc$£jf. Ibid, p. 407. ** before 190 Of the Fonjoer and Book II. '* before all creatures, coming from the *' Father by his power, and at his pleafure^, *^ who is alfo called v/ifdom, and day, and ** a day ilar, and a fword, and a ftone, and a ^^ ftafF, and Jacob, and Ifrael, and in vari- *' ous ways in the writings of the pro- ** phets'^.r '' Our Chrift," he fays, " in ** the form of fire, fpake to Mofes from the *' bufli, and faid, put off thy fhoes/' &c.t According to Philo, and the chriftian philofophers, the logos was not only a teacher, but alfo the creator of all things ; and when this logos was reprefented as the fame with Chrift, nothing could give men a higher idea of their crucified mafter. *' How," fays Chryfoftom, '' can any dare *^ to call Chrift a fervant, who did not put ** forth all his flrength when he made the * KaJ vm Shs ytypayLiA^vov aulov £v roig a7ro/j,vy)ixov£U[jLa<7i rav aTTQTOT^av ciu% £%ov7f?5 Jy viov avlov Asycv/sj, vEVomufjiZV cvla y^ 'SJpo Tuocvlav isoinfJuzJav, aTTo m 'sn^p^ 5yva/>tEt aula >y ^ahn 'mp'osT^Bovlay jt) I^«wC, ,«J lcrpciY,\ HxT ah-hov y^ a>J^ov rpoTTov, 2V roig twv 'iffpc(prhv >.oyoiq ^sjpcaYiyopvjrai, Dial. p. 353. i Ev {^£a Tsvpo; m ^ccla 'tnpoaini/.iMdzv avlco Yifi{lp.p©- Xpiro;^ km p. 92. ** world," Chap. V . Dignity of Chriji, i g i *' world ■^.." Tatian fays that ^^ the logos ** before the creation of man, was the maker '' of angels f." Methodius very diftindlly mentions a middle fcheme, fuppofmg, after Philo, that the Father created matter out of nothing, by an ad; of his will, and that afterwards the Son formed it into worlds. *^ There ** are," he fays, " two creative powers, he '* that by his mere will creates whatever he *' pleafes out of nothing, which is the Fa- *^ ther; the other, v»^hich adorns and per- ^' fe6ls what was firft produced by the for- ** mer, and in imitation of him. This is *' the Son, the powerful right hand of the *« Father, by which, after he had created ^* matter out of nothing, he adorns it J." * Ho)^ sv ro>.(xucn. rive; VTraoyov hzyEiv rev vici\ o yap jj,rios o\w avra 7y]v EV£py£ioiv Kivncra;^ oiz'tcv apavcv zczi moiwai. In Pf. 8. Opera, vol. 3. p. 121. yogyivslai. Ad Graecos. fe6l. 10. p. 26. % Ayo ^£ ^uvafA,£:<; ev tok; inpoaixoT^oya^zvoK; s^atjizv £rjM 'SjoitMO';^ TYiV eI a;£ Qvlm yvii:m tw ^H?.ifitx.Y!iy 0^y]v f| m cvloiy HOiio^HQa^iu Photii. Bib. p. 997- If jgz Of the Power and . Book IL If we admit the dillindtion between ^oi^m^ and oV./sp>c? given by Juflin Martyr, it may be fuppofed that all the more early Fathers, who called Chrift the demmrgus^ believed that the matter out of which the world was made was provided by the Father^. Afterwards it was fuppofed that the Son was employed in the original creation of matter out of nothing. Thus Tertullian fays, '* the rule of faith requires us to be- *' lieve that there is one God, who pro- *' duced all things cut of nothing, by his ** Son, firft emitted from him-f*." To be born of a woman was certainly degrading to this great perfonage ^ but the difgrace was in a great meafure wiped away, v/hen it was confidered that he made the * AviSjy/ia/ov 5l- o/,aai ko.). r^ilco "srpoa-Ex^^v rev V8j/, oJi ah tsoi^nv ckuIq-j IhMicov, a?0\a ^Yi[ji.iiipycv ovof/^u^si Becov ' Hstiioi 'SJO>^yig d'laipopag £v ri^oig acmj jcala rviv au% Ib^av^ ^o^av ' o (jlvj yap isoirhg^ a^svo; ilspa 'crj3C(rofo//£v©", f« Tng Eaula "^in'stiiiag km d^acnczg ^sioisi to nffom/jte- rov ' 0£ ^yiyiizpyog, tw rvjg ^Y)/x'.^pyiag d'uvay.iv £k tji; v},ng SiTs'/ipcog, usi- ^acrKeucx.^£i ro yevoixEVOV. Ad Grsecos. p. 21. -f Regola eft autcm fidel — qua creditur unum omnlna Deum efle — qui univeifa dc nihilo produxerit per verbum fuum primo omnium demifTum. De Prsefcriptione. fed:. 13. p. 206. very Chap. V. Dignity ofCLrifl, 193 very woman of whom he was born. ** If '' all things were made by him," fays Auftin, ** Mary, of whom he was born, was made *' by him^/' His body was alfo a dif- graceful circumftance ; but not fo much fo when it was coniidered that he made that very body. Clemens Alexandrinus, fpeaking of the Son, fays, " he forms ** himfelf *!•/* ** The logos, going forth, •' was the author of creation, and pro- ** duced itfelf, when it was made fleih, *' that it might be kzn +." *^ Having *' formed to himfelf a body out of the vir- ** gin," Athanafius fays, ** he gave no fmall ** proof of his divinity, for he who made ** that, did alfo make all things §." As Chrift made his own body, (o he likewife made his own human foul. " The * Si enim omnia per ipfum fafla funt, et ipfa Maria de qua natus eft, per ipfum fada eft. In Pf. 75. Opera, vol. 8. p. 827. -f K«{ i^w Eavlovnl^Ei Kai dy^fMnpyEu Strom, lib: 7. p. 706. J n^oE^Swv Je >^oyo^i ^n//.iiip7iccg ailio^^ Evrsiloi hm eczuIov yEwos, olav 7\oyo^ J/t/x>iv E^riixiapyrKTev, oiav cxma^xm eI iam>i Sia ts £/x^i/- ^ii icrcccriv eh. vsHpcov syYiysp/xsvov Imav Sek, tj th- Tm 's:aT£puv. ov km Xf^^<^^ h^a^av ^sov ts A^paccu, km Ijocoik^ KM IpiKcoC i. ov]edv i'TToiMiv 'Z3-ct7«p T» ^zv Koy\i, Theodoriti Hilt. lib. i, cap. 4. p. 17. '' that Chap. V. Dignity ofChrifl, 197 *^ that the logos, by which he made all ** things, being his power and wifdom, af- ** fuming the charadler of the Father, and ** Lord of all, was prefent in Paradife, in " the charafter of God^/' ^ Bifhop Bull acknowledges that Juftin Martyr, Tertullian, and Novatian thought that the Father could not be confined to place, but that the Son might -(-. Methodius calls Chrift the oldeft of the ceons, and the chief of the archangels +. 3^ zv To'TTco UK ivpKTKilcti • a yetp €5"/ TO'TTO^ TJjj KctjcL'Tra.vffienf ttvla* S'i hoy OS a,v% // y to. 'zfclvIcl ^ZTToinKit S'vvdiy.ii cov kcu collet etvla, ctvAhA^CcLvm TO 's;f07eo'7rov Ttf 'utilfoi Kcu)ivft\i rav Lib. 2. p. 129. f Defenfio. fedl. 4. cap. 3. p. 236. J Kv yet^ 'TsrpiTreoJ^iTet'JQU Tov ^fl(FCvlci\ *^ the will of God, his flefh for our flefh, his. '* foul for our fouls*." Juftin Martyr fays, *^ Our doftrine is more fublime than ^^ any thing that was ever taught by man, ** as the whole of the rational being, Chrift, ** who appeared for us, conlifted of a iody, ** the logos, and ajbul'f,'' Irensus unqueftionably had the Idea of Chrift having a human foul, as well as a body. In defcribing the whole perfon of Chrift, he reprefents it as the union of God and man, and not of the logos and the body of a man only. ^* The prophets,'* he fays, ** preached his coming according to the ** flefli, by which he was made a mixture ** and union of God and man:|;," He aU wnv m ^yiv 'irpfl? w//tfitr, TO ot/^-se Av]\i iS'coKiv f '^gp H/y-ftjj- o Scd. 49. p. 175. f M'syAKilo]i^'Z (AiV 'dV ^diTili AV^^(OTnt\i ^ta'AcryinMA.^ ^AlVijdLl TA illXi]lfA <^\a T-] auloa}^y]^£icc. To ^s ^vr^v aula aayLCX,^ y^ tw avS^wTtwjv £v aula J/uX^^i '^ '^f °> ^^^"'° ^ ^"^^^ «oivwy{a, a>:kx }y evu(T£i }^ avoH^aa-^t^ ra fjisyira (pxfxsv'7!jpO(7Si>5i '^^'>^ yuixvcug traiMtlm Ufxilst iJ^ypC^JJ* ETTjrfE^wy wwcEiVwv t<%j ^nT^jxeva^ 'sr^cf aulov. Lib. 2. p. 85. ** him Chap. VI. ahiiman BouL 209 *«hiin learn, that the logos, remaining <* eflentially the logos, fuffers nothing of ** what the body or the foul feels*/' In his Commentaries on Matthew^ he fays, that ** Chrift increafed in v/ifdom with refp.ed: ** to his human foulf." Socrates the hiftorian, giving an account of a fynod held at Alexandria, at which Athanafius attended, fays, *' It was there ** agreed, that when Chrift became inear- «' nate, he took not only fleih, but alfo the ** foul of man^ which was the opinion of *' all the ancient divines. For they did not *« think that they were introducing a new " dodtrine into the church, but what was «* agreeable to ecclefiaftical tradition among *« chriftian philofophers. This was the *« dodrine of all the ancient writers, who <^ have mentioned the fubjedt. For cer» *« tainly Irenifius, Clemens, Apollinarius of oil A07©- TV] ii^ aTTE^ el (X^x^i? )i; n EXHT^Yiaiarinn 'sia^a^c.0(To(pEi}o . >ilo ya^ 'sravleg oi 'ssa^aio- lifGi VEpi Tsls ?\oyov yvfAvatravlEg-, tyf^a^cv v/^iv HakXsiTiOV . nai yad "Eipfimiog T£ Hoci K?^yifji,y]g. ATtohiva^iog te o h^a7rcXilr,g. jtai llixpoc" mm TYig iv AvTicxEise, ^poEfco emMtnag, e^-^uxov tov svavO^co^n' cavla, £v Toig 'u;cvy\()ii<7iv avioig T^cyoig og o/j,o}^oyiSfA,£vov auloig (poccKHaiHt a fXYiv a.'h'Nx nai v\ ^loc B)ipy?^oy tov (piT^a^ET^^iag Tr,g ev A^ccdcc ETrmtO" 'jTov yE\oixivy\ awo^og y^a(pii(Joc BvipuT^o ra aula 'S7a^(X^sh)KEv. fl^i^ yivr]g oe nsa^jlaxa /xev ev toi^ (pE^o(j,£voig aula ^il^Aioig, e/A'^uxov tov EvavO^amo-avla oi^Ev, Lib. 3. cap. 7, p. 178.. and ChAp. VL a hii^7ian Soul, 21 1 and warm controverfy, before the time of Arius. It is to this day, alfo, the received opinion of all thofe who are called ortho- dox, that Chrift has a proper human foul, and the Arians ftiil are the only chrilliaris who deny this. As this doctrine of Chrifl having a pro- per human foul, together with that of the real orio:in and nature of the lds:os, is of fo much confequence to the fyRem of Ari- anifm, I have carefully attended to every thing that I could find to have been ad- vanced by any ilrians on the fubjecl. But to my great furpri^e, I have hardly foimd that it has been fo much as noticed by them, except by Mr. Whifton, who, in his Coileciion of ancient Monuments relating to the Trinity, without mentioning any other authority whatever, infers from there being no exprefs mention of a human foul in Chrift in two particular treatifes of Athana- fius, viz. that agai?ijl the Oentiles, arid that Of! the Incarnation^ that *^ this Father feems ^* as if he had never heard of fuch a no-* •Mion among chriftians at all/' P-74* He adds, '^ I folemnly appeal to the unbiaffed P 2 *' reader^ 2 12 Of Chriji having Book 11. *' reader, after he has carefully perufed the " whole difcourfe, whether he can believe <' that Athanafius owned a human rational *^ foul, as affumed by the word at the in- *' carnation, when he wrote that treatife." He then concludes with afferting, that ** the ** acknowledgment of a human and ra- *^ tional foul in Chrift, diftinguifhed from ** his divine nature, was one of the laft " branches of the Athanafian herefy." That this writer w^as aware of the impor- tance of this fadl is very evident. " It is *^ indifputable,'' he fays, ** and Is agreed ** on by all, that in cafe our Saviour did ** not affiime a human rational foul at his in- ** carnation, the common orthodoxy cannot *' poffibly be defended." But if he did, the Arian hypcthefis muftfall to the ground. Now, certainly, it' cannot follow that becaufe exprefs mention is not made of the human foul of Chrift in two particular treatifes, that. the author did not allow, and had not even heard of fuch a thing. In- deed, I do not fee that Athanafius had any particular occafion to mention it in thefe treatifes, For.it was the^^^^ of Chrifl, and the Chap. VI. a human Soul. 21 j the infirmities of fuch a body, that was the great objection to chriftianity, which he was endeavouring to anfwer ; and therefore he dwells upon the neceffity of Chrift tak- ing fuch a body. But in feveral parts of thefe very treatifes, and even fome of tho'e that are marked by Mr. Whifton himfeif, as moft favourable to his own conclufion, the human foul of Chrift feems to be hinted at ; as when the logos is faid to have af- fumed, or to have been united to the man^ or human nature in general, and not the body in particular. " When human nature " was gone aftray/' he fays, *^ the word ** took pofleflion of it, and appeared as a ** man, that he might fave it from its dan- ** gerous ftate, by his governing power and ** goodnefs"*.'' But what is fufficiently decifive in favour of Athanafius, as well as all his predeceiTors believing that Chrift had a proper human foul is that the logos, according to his and their defcription of it, could not fupply the * Ti «7rirov Xeyilcni 'map rjixiv, ej, 'ss^avcoazvii]; m^ a.v^po)'Jclnl'3~, P 3 pl^ce 214 Of Chrijl having Book II, place of one, becaufe it was the proper wif^ dom cf the Father, and confequently incap- able of fuffering, which was always fuppofed to be one end of the incarnation. The fol- lowing are defcriptions of the logos, in thefe very treatifes, and in Mr. Whifton's own tranflation. '' But God the word was not of this na- f* ture in man -, for he was not bound fail ^* to the body, but did himfelf rather hold *' it together, when he was therein ; and ** alfo was at the fame time prefent to all ** things, and was without the beings that ^* exift, and refted alone in his Father*." *' He is the good product of a good be- *^ ing, and the true Son, and is therefore ** the power, wifdom, and word of the Fa- ** ther ; and is not fuch by participation. ** Nor are thofe qualities external, or ad- ** ventitious to him, as is the cafe of thofe ^* that are partakers of them, and are in- ^' ftrufted by him, and become powerful ^' and rational through him. But he is pe- Tfl T»7 . c-j^i KCUiV r^TCO Ml/ Kcu iV TOt^ ^dalV i7Vy)(AVi, KCU P, 70. f' culiarly Chap. VI. a human SouL 215 '^ culiarly the real wifdom, the real word, ** the real power of the Father, &c. *" Athanafius. moreover, ia the treatife on the incarnation, exprefsly fays, that the lo- gos was incapable of faffering, as indeed being of a divine nature it could never be fuppofed to be. ** He hinifelf was not ** hurt at all, as being impaflible and the '* real wprd of God-f-/' It is acknowledged that Juftin Martyr and Irenaius (but I do not know that it is true of any others) Ipeak of the logos f tiff er^ ifig. The former fays, that " the logos was " preached as fuffering J." And the latter fays " the logos of God became flefli, and ** fuffered||." But as both thefe writers fuppofed that Chrift had a human foul, KClTct (J.ilO-'/nVTa.VTCt k)V,iiS'ic^C0-3-iV iTTiy'tVOUiVCOU TUTWCtUT^ KCLTCL 7ki OLVTH {.ii^iXOTCf.Vi >tCU Qotpi^Of^it'iSi St AVT^, KCU <^t/- VctTa^ KCU hoyiK^ii iV CLVfCO yiVO^^iViii, dL}X* AVTO(TOoi, i<^iv. Ad Gentes, p. 5 1, xee/ ai/To^o Of eoVt actt ^io<;» Seft. 54. p. 108. J YiY>fvy^^iV7a Si* clvtcov ^ci^ovta Koyov^ Dial. In Jack» fon on Novatian, p. 357. 11 Ala 71 Aoy<^ (TdpJ iyznro K *^ but alfo in his rational and intelleftual *^ foul J and the animal foul only was in «*hell*/' ysycvs 222 Gf Chrifi having Book if; To the foul of Chrift Origen gave the peculiar pov/er of quitting its body, and returning to it again, whenever it pleafed % meaning, that the logos difmiffed the foul, and re-united it to the body, " Chrift/* fays he, *' did not die according to the ** common courfe of nature, but by the ** exertion of a power given him by God *« for that purpofe-f-.'' He fays, that his ** foul both left the body, and returned ** to it again at his own pleafu re :};.'* The fame fentiment is alfo advanced by Cy- prian, who fays, that " Chrift being cruci- ** fied, preventing the office of the exeeu- yEyoVE f^sicc r8 voog. kJ £i^oi^8 hixIyiX^2 fxilcc 4'^%^?* Tn* Luc cap. 2^3. Opera, vcl. i. p- 535- t EAE7£ ^£ ^f^og Iruag '^201 mg zauia -^^uxyig (« iicxJa to avSfa- ^ivov %p£wv %a^t^o/>t£V/5j T» ao}/jLi/xj a-Jlw aii' sixdula. Ad Celfum, lib. 2. p. 130. X Kcci 'srSfJi rnv £xv% t£\eu%v £ixs ri ^hmv • ivcn maa-a. /xsv to o-coficc x5:?rx^J7rT] v •J'^X^i ciHcvofA,wo('f/>£VTii ^b iiva f |a) aJlsy 'mahv t7ravs>^ ols. ^H?,£lcci • roiifhv 3^' ci\>ay£7pa7rlai 's^apa ra Icoa'm siprjcBvai Ina-ag ?v07cv, tv rcoy amg aipsi T)W "i^^^w fjt,^ cctt e/xs, a?0\' sya ti\lu auhv ca%\. Ibid. lib. 2. p. 70. ^* tioner. Chap. VI. a human SouL 223 *• tioner, of his own accord difmifled his ** fpirit, and on the third day he, of his ** own accord, rofe from the dead *.'* This dodlrine is ftill held by many modern Arians, though it is highly derogatory from the charader of Chrifl, and deftroys the force of his example, in fufFering ; as it fuppofes that he had a power of putting an end to his torments, and confequently of leflening the agony of them, which his followers had not. Anaftafius Sanaita fays, that Chrift gave his foul a peculiar privilege, above that which was given to Adam, v\hich was only *« the breath of God. For the foul of *' Immanuel had its effence in God, with ** God, and like God +/' * Nam et crucifixus, praevento carnificis officio fpiri- tum fponte dimifit, et die terdo rurfus a mortuis fponte furrexit. De Idolorum Vanitate, p. i6. f H tAiv yap TH P^aiA -^uxyi f« ^es tv\v vTrap^iv ^icc ra ifju^van- acrjwcriv ecrxev. Ibid, p, 66. CHAP. 22^ ^he two Natures Bock IL CHAPTER VIL Of the Union betzveen the Logos , and the Soul and Body of Chrijiy and their feparate properties. SECTION h Of this Union in general, QEVtRAL curious queflions may be ftarted with refpedt to the union between the divine logos and the foul and body of Chrift. For this union was always repre- fented as being, equally ftridl with that which fublifts between the foul and body of man ; the maxim being, that as the foul and body make one man, fo God and man make one Chrift- Auftin fays, *' God mixed ** with man makes Chrift, as the foul and *< body make a man*/' On this fyftem, a * Sicut in unitate perfonse anima unitur corpori ut ho- mo Gt, ita in unitate pcrfonse Deus unitur homini, ut Chriftus fit. Chap. VII. ofChriJl. 225 conliderable difficulty occurred. It was a maxim that the properties of divinity could not be impaired by any circumftance what- ever, the divine nature being abf lutely un- changeable. It was, therefore, contrary to all reafon, fuppofed that the human nature was a gainer by the union, and the divine nature no lofer. ** Chrift,'' fays Eufebius, *' imparted of his divine nature to man, but ** did not receive the properties of mortal ** nature^.'* This he compares to the fun, the light of which is not contaminated by fhining on dirty objefts. In this indeed he bad not a view to the body of Chrift in par- ticular, but to human nature in general, which was benefited by the union of divi- nity^ while this was no lofer^ but there can be no doubt but he had the fame idea with refped: to the union of the logos to a fingle man. They did not however, fuppofe that the human nature of Chrift was materially changed by its union with fit. Quomodo eft enim unus homo anima et corpus, flc unus Chriftus verbum et homo. In Johan. Tr. 48. Ope- ra, vol. 9. p. 349. * Ap^Xa TO, (Asv £| aula 's^apix^i^Hi ra av^puTTco^ ra ^' vi ts 3v>i7s imavli'haij.Qamv, De Laudibus Conft. p. 761, . Vol. II, Q^ the 2 26 l^he t'wo Natures Book IL the divine nature. " As the introduc- *^ tion of fire/' fays Bafil, *' does not ** alter the property of iron, fo the di- *^ vinity makes no change in the body of '^ Chrift^%" When the dodrine was more advanced, it was maintained that *' the whole of the ** divinity of Chrift was united to the whole *' of the humanity^ and not part to part," as we read in Damafcenus *f-. This was agreeable to the eflablifhed maxim with re- fpecft to the union between the foul and body of man. So very different were the divine and hu- man natures of Chrift conceived to be, and yet fo neceffary was it, for the purpofe of the orthodox chriftian Fathers, to make an union between them, that no embarraffment or difcordance of opinion among them can * Xlct-'s sj/ - (^Y^i T>i5 aco[xuli!iYi; aa^Eveiiz; o ^sog ^0705 an £vsoT>.Yicr% ' ^(XUEV, ojg £jO£ to TTup Tcov TS aidvipH i^iu)f/,cilm fxila'hai/.Qavzi . fJLe}ux; ffi^Tipc; ^ -^^XP^^ ' ^"^ °/^"^ "inupMilu^eig tw ts 'Bupog /xqp(pr,v vtto- ^ubIm^ aulog 7^i^7rpuvo(/,svog k%< i/.e7\MV(ov to ^up, y^ aviog BK(pxoyHfXivo^ UK aTTD-lvx'-^v Trw (p-Koyoi. Horn. 25. Opera, vol. I. p. 507. f In incarnatione unlus ex fan(3:as tiiniiatis perfonis Dei vcrbi, totam ac pcrfecSlam divinitatis naturam cum tota humana natura copulatam fuiffc diclmus, ac non partem cum parte. Orthod. Fid. lib. 3. cap. 5. Opera, p. 375. furprife. Chap. VII. ofChrifi.^ 227 fiirprife us. Epiphanius muu have confix dered the foul of Chrift as having had but little proper union w'ith his divinity, when he fuppofed that v/hile he was on the crofs the former prayed to the latter^. Fulgentias fays that, '' when the human *' nature of Chriil fuffered, the divine na-^ ** ture did not even feel compaffion, any ** more than the foul of Chrift died when *^ the body did *f-/' The fame writer, however, fuppofes that, though the foul of Chrift did not know the Father, it had a perfed: knowledge of the divinity of the Son, with which it made one perfon J* As a man confifts of two parts, it was neceftary, in order to complete this fyftem, * Xlj av V) mvncn<; iflcog fysi/slo, utto 'z^pocrcoTni jng evoiv9po)7ryj(nug^ yf ipiovY] s>^sy£v cxvIyi TYi i^ia ^so%% • Bes {jl-^, See ^us, ivctli [xz sy^ixlsXivrsg, Hsr. 69. p. 789. f Et in homine toto patlens, non eft divina natura com- pafla, ficut moriente carne, non folum deitas, fed nee ani- ma Chrifti poteft oftendi commortua. Ad Trafimundum, lib. 3. cap. 18. p. 471. X Et quia unigenitus Deus aequalis eft patri, nee poteft totum nofle filium, qui totum non noverit patrem, cavea- mus, ne cum anima Chrifti totum patrem ncffe non credi- ci.T, ipfe uni Chrifto ex aliqua parte, non folum patris, kd ctiam fill, et fpiritus fanai cognido denegetur* Quam vero Q^:^ perdu rum 2 28 The two Natures Book II. that the logos fhould be united to the body, as well as to the foul of Chrift. Accordingly we read, in the account of the embafly to the Armenians. That *^ the divinity of *' Chrift was never feparated from his body, ** or his foul*," Even the death of the body was not fuppofed to break this union, " The divinity of Chrift/' fays Damafce- nus, ** was not feparated from the body of *' Chrift even in death. Even in that ftate, '^ all the three made but one hypoftafis, ** Neither the foul nor the body had any ** peculiar hypoftafis of its own. It was '* only the hypoftafis of Chrift-f-." perdurum eft, et a fanitate fidei penitus alienum, ut dica mus animam Chrifti non plenam fuae deitatis habere noti- tiam, cum qua naturaliter unam ereditur habere perfonam Ad Ferrandum, Qu. 3. p. 627. * Quum ergo divinitas ejus nunquam nee a corpore, nee ab anima dirempta fuit Bib. Pat. App. p. 1830. + Quamvis igltur Chriftus, ut homo, mortem obierit, fan£laque ipfius anima ab immaculato corpore diftra^la fit: divinitas tamen a neutro, hoc eft nee ab anima. nee a cor- .pore, quoque modo fejuncSta e(l: neque prcpterea perfona una in duas perfonas divifa eft. Si quidem et corpus, et anima, ab initio in verbi perfona eodem momento extite- runt: ac licet in morte divulfa fuerint, utrumque tamen eoriim unam verbi hypoftafim perpetuo liabuit. Quamc- brcm una eudcmque verbi hypoftafis turn verbi, turn ani- 3 . Kiae, Chap. VIL ofChriJl. 229 '* What God has joined/' fays Fulgen- tlus, " let not man put afunder, Where- " fore/' he fays, " not that the body of ** Jefus, but that "J ejus was laid in the fe- ** pulchre ; for he knew that the God, who *^ afTumed the whole man, was wholly with ** his flefli in the fepulchxe, wholly with ♦' his foul in hell, &c*." This, however, was a refinement of later ages, for originally it was fuppofed that the logos, as well as the foul, quitted the body at its death. This is exprefsly faid by Eu- febius-f-. mae, turn corporis hypoftafis erat. Neque enim unquam, aut anima, aat corpus, peculiarem atque a verbi hypof- tafi diverfam hypoftafim habuit: verum una femper fuit verbi hypoftafis, ac nunquam duae. Ac proinde una quo- que femper Ghrifti hypoftafis fuit. Orthod. Fid. lib. 3. cap. 27. Opera, p. 430. * Et quia quod Deus conjunxit, hbmo non feparat, prop- terea non corpus Jefu, fed Jefum dicit in monumento poft- turn : fciebat enim quod ille fufceptor pleni hominis Deus, totus effet cum carne fua in fepulchro, totus cum anima fua in inferno, totus in mundo, totus in ccelo, totus in uni- tate naturae in patre, de quo exivit, totus per omnipoten- tiam divinitatis fuae in tota creatura quam fecit. Ad Tra- fimundum, lib. 3. cap. 25. p. 474. xcclctT^Trav, De Laudibus Conft. fe6l. 15. p. 764. 0.3 As a^P "The t'wo Natures Book II. As the foul and the body of Chrift re- tained their feparate properties, the divine logos was alfo fuppofed to retain all its pe- culiar and extraordinary powers, and its former fundions, fo as to lofe nothing of its omniprefence, and its aftive power in iupporting the world. '^ Let us not,'* fays Origen, " fay in our hearts that Chrift is *' contained in any place, and is not every *' where, and diffufed through all things; ** for when he was on earth he faid that he *' was in heaven-'-/' ** At the very time," fays Eufebius, *' that Chrift was converfing *' on earth, he filled all things, and was ^' with the Father, ^nd adminiftered the ^* affairs of the univerfe, things in heaven ** and things on earth -f*." *' He is a crying ** infant/' fays Hilary, ** and yet in hea- * Ne fcllicit dicamus in corde noftro et putemus quod Cliriflus in aliquo continetur, et non ubiqueeft, ac per om- nia ipfe difFunditur; quippe qui cum elTet in terris dicebat quia efTet etincoclo. In Rom. Opera, vol. 2. p- 585. TO) 70% f rcov je kcxT itpccvcv ^ rav ztti yj^j ettsusmIo, De Laudi- bus Conft. p. 761. *' ven -' Chap. VII. ofChrljl 231 ** ven; he increafes in wifdom, and is the ** God offuhiefs*." *' He was not," fays Athanafius, *' cir- *' cumfcribed by the body, nor was he fo *^ in the body, as not to be every where. *' Nor did he fo aduate the body, as that *' other things were deprived of his provi- *^ dential care. But what is wonderful, ** being the logos, he was not contained by *' any thing, but rather himfelf contained ** every thing -f-.'' Fulgentius reprefents Chrifl as ** wholly ** in the Father, as well as wholly out of ** him. He was wholly," he fays, ''in the *^ virgin's womb when he was building ** himfelf a houfe, as we read, Prov. 8. */. He was wholly in heaven, wholly in the *' world, and wholly even in hell;}:/' * Vagit Infans, fed in ccslo efl; puer crefclt, fed plenl- tudinis Deus permanet. De Trinitate, \\h. lo. p. 260. \ Ou yap nsspiKthT^EiafyLivog w £v ra aaixcil'., -dh tv crcj(.ixli iJi.zv w^ t-spsiio ' a'h'hQC ro ^ccoaoohjialov^ "koyog ojv, a aumx^^^ At£v wn'o nvog^ €vv£ix£ ^^ T^ 'STui^iX /y.aA?.ci/ aJIcg. De Incarnatione^Operai vol. I. p. 69. X Neque cn'un pars ejus remanfit in patre, et pars ejus defcendit in virginem, cum totus in patre maneret quod erat, et totus in virglne lierct, quod non eratj totus cura (i.4 patre 232 ^^^ t'^o Natures Book It, Here I would obferve, that the opinioa of Chrift retaining all his divine powers w^hile he was on earth, held by Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and all the ancients, is a proof, that, in their opinion, the logos was no created fpirit, or any principle that could be confined in its operations, by any circumftances in which it could be placed. Otherwife, as they found that, when Chrift was upon earth, he applied to his Father upon all occafions, they would have more naturally thought that his own proper powers were fufpended ; and that the func- tion which he had before difcharged was for a time difcontinued, or transferred to fome other, which feems to be the opi- nion of a'l the modern Arians, and cer- tainly bed agrees, with their principles. For what occafion had Chrift to apply to bis Father, to enable him to do nothing more than his own natural powers could patre totuiii implens ct coniinens mundum, totus fibi in utero vifginis asiiificans domum: fcrlptum elt enim, fa* picntia asdilicavit fibi domum ; totus in patre fempiterno, totus in hornme fufcepto, totus in coelo, totus in mundo, totus etiam in inferno. M Traftmundum, lib. 3. cap. 8, p. 468. have Chap- VIL of Chrijl. 233 have performed, if thofe powers had been at liberty, and if he had continued to have the full ufe of them. We never think of praying to God for power to move our hands or feet, whenever we have occafion to make ufe of them, though we daily thank God for having given us that power. We know, and feel, that it is a power at the command of our own will, and there- fore we look no farther than to ourfelves for the immediate exercife of it. The fame would neceffarily have been the cafe with Chrift, if he had cured difeafes, and raifed the dead, by a power as properly his own, and as much at his command, as that by which v/e move our limbs. His pray- ing to the Father, therefore, and the mi^ fades that he wrought being afcribed to the Father, who only, as he faid, did thefc works, is a proof that, while he was on earth, he had not the power of doing them himfelf. Yet, contrary to the plaineft evidence, all the ancient Fathers fuppofed that Chrift then had that power, and they jnade his exertion of it a proof of his divinity, SEC. 2J4 ^^'^ ^"^'^ Naf tires Book II. SECTION II. Of the Igiiorance ofChriJl concerning the Day of Judgment, A Peculiarly difficult queflion occurs with reused: to the union of the divine na- ture of Chrift to his human foul ; for as both were capable of knowledge, it might be fuppofed that, whatever was known to the one, mud alfo*have been known to the other, if there was any proper union be- tween them. This confequence was fo natural, that it would, I doubt not, have been maintained, if it had not been faid, (Luke ii. 52.) that Jefus incrcajed in wif- doniy and our Lord had not fo exprefsly faid, that he did not know the time of the day of judgment. With refpe{fi: to the former, it fcems to have been allowed, that the human foul cA Chrift acquired knowledge gradually, as other human fouls do. But fometimes the Fathers fliow a confufion of ideas on rhe fubjeft'. Origcn, who believed the pre-exiftencc Chap. VII. of Chrljl, 235 pre-exiftence of all fouls, but that they had loft all their attainments in their prior ftate, feems to have thought the fame of the foul of Chrift. '' Jefus/' he fays, '' not ^' yet a man, becaufe he had emptied him- '* felf, advanced [in vvifdom]. For no one ** who is perfect can make advances, but ^* we who ftand in need of improvement */' In this Origen could not mean the logos, becaufe he fuppofed that to be omniicient, and even omniprefent, while it was con- nefted with Chrift on earth. Afterv^ards, it was generally thought that even the foul of Chrift knew every 1 thing, in confequence of its union to the logos, and that Chrift's knowledge iliow- ing itfelf more and more was all that was meant by his increaling in wifdom. This Is expreifed by Nicephorus -f, '^pQSJiOTrlsv . aosig 'urpoKOTrlsi TslshEta/xEvoi;, a70\a. niuponoTilEi ^eofiEv^ ^pojioTing. In Jerom. Horn. i. Comment, vol. i. p. 57. t ha-'dg ^£ 'izpoEKQ7r% ao:piiX >tj x^f^h '^^ ^^^ aiKpov aula 'maoa- hiitvvfr'^ai^ H Tcj >^iJi.Qavm tTTihjiv, Hiil. iib. i. cap. 14. vol. I. p. 79, As 236 ^he two Natures Book II. As Chrift exprefsly fays, that he did not know the day of judgment, he certainly either was, or pretended to be, ignorant of fomething which, at leall in his divine na- ture, he muft have known. Here, then, is a queftion., worthy of an Apollo to an- fwer ; and it may be amufing to obferve what different folutions have been given of this difficulty. Iren^us evidently fuppofed, that the time of the day of judgment was altogether un- known to the Son, and he advifes us to ac- quiefce in our ignorance of many things, after his example*. *' If any one," fays he, *' aflcs the reafon why the Father, who ** communicates every thing to the Son, ** is alone faid to know the day and the * Irrationabilitur autem inflati, audaciter inenarrabilia dei myfteria fcire vbs dicltis : quandoquidem et dominus, jpfe filius Dei, ipfum judicii diem et horam conceffit fcire (olam patrem, manifefle dicens: de die autem ilia, et hora jiemo fcit nequc iilius, nifi pater folus. Si igitur fcientiam diei iilius filius non erubuit referre ad patrem, fed dixit quod verum eft ; ncque nos erubefcimus,. quae funt in qiiaefiioiiibus majora fecundum nos, rcfcrvare Deo. Lib, 1, cap. 48, p. 176. *' hour Chap. VIL of Chriji. 237 *< hour of the future judgment, no better *^ reafon can be given but that we may ** learn of our Lord himfelf, that the Fa- *' ther is above all ; for he faid, the Fa- *^ ther is greater than I */' This being the earlieifl account that we have of any interpretation of this text, is a mod unfavourable circumftance to the orthodox. It looks as if, at that time, whatever might be pretended concerning the fuper-human nature of Chrift, the general opinion was, that he was wholly ignorant of the time of the future judg- ment. The fadt mufl have been, that the dodtrine of the divine logos in Chrift was not received by the generality of chriftians, and though adopted by the philofophers among them, had not been purfued to its proper confequences. Otherwife, it could not but have been applied to this cafe, as * Etenim fi quis exqulrat caufam, propter quam in om- nibus pater communicans filio, folus fcire horam et diem a domino manifeftatus eft ; neque aptabilem magis, neque decentiorem, nee fine periculo alteram quam hanc inveniat in prsfenti (quoniam enim folus verax magifter eft domi- nus) ut difcamus per ipfum, fuper om.nia efle patrem. Et enim pater, ait, major me eft. Lib, %, cap. 49. p. 178. well 238 ^he two Natures Book IL well as to many others, which in due time it was. • The next interpretation of this paflage that I have met with is that of Origen ; and he did not hefitate to pronounce that Chrift certainly did know what he profeiTed not to know. " Chrift," fays he^ ** being *' the truth, cannot be ignorant of any *• thing that is true*/* '' Have ye under- ** flood all thefe things? He did not afk *' this quefiion becaufe he was ignorant, *' but having affumcd human nature, he *' did every thing that belongs to man, one *' of which is to afk queftions -f-/' This imolies that even the hum.an foul of Chrift was acquainted with every thing, but that he feigned ignorance ; and this we find to have been a pretty common interpretation. According to Hilary, '' Chrift knew the ** tim.e of the future judgment, but pre- *^ tended ignorance, becaufe it v/as not time m £i Q>.air,r,oor, iTiv n oi^Ssia nQsvsiM^sg ayvoei. Comment, vol. 2. p. 28. t Non ignarns interrogat, fed quoniam fcmel aflump- juerat hominem, utitur omnibus qua? funt hominis. Quo- rum unuai illud eft intcrrogare. Opera, vol. 2. p. 11. '' to Chap.VIL ofChriJl. 239 '* \o difcover it '''^." \n another place, he fays, ^* the Son is fald not to know the day '' of judgment, becaufe he docs not fpeak '^ of it, and that the Father only knows it, ** becaufe he only fpeaks of it to hitnt-*' Didymus of Alexandria fays, that ** igno- *' ranee of the day of judgment is afcribed ^' to Chrift, as forgetful nefs, repentance,- *^ &c. are afcribed to God, viz. for the '' fake of the hearers %r '' If God," %s Cyril of xViexandria, ** affed:ed ignorance of '* where Adam was, and of what Cain had * In omnibus enirn quae ignorare fe Deus loquitur, i'^- norantiara quidem profitetur, fed ignoratione tamen non detinetur ; dum id quod nefcit, non nefciendi infirmitas eft, fed aut tempus eft non loquendi, aut difpenfatio eft iionagendi. Lib. 9. p. 226. f Filius itaque diem idcirco quia tacet nefcit, et patrem folum idcirco fcire ait, quia folus uni fibi non tacet. Lib. 9. p. 231. :|: Sicut enim cum Deus folus fit fapiens et fcientiam ha* beat omnium, oblivio paiTibilis et penitentia aut aliquid bujufinodi in eo nequaquam exiftit, cum utique de eo difpenfa vitae dicantur. Ita ergo fapientia et veritate Dei ignorantiam non recipiente, propter quandam utilitatenx horum, et diem judicii dicitur ignorare, quorum finguLi aperte monftrabuntur, cum de his fuerit dicendi propofi^ turn. In Joan. cap. 2. Eib. Pat. vol. 6. p. 653. * '' done. 240 The two Natures Book IL ** done, why fhould we wonder that the " Son of God affected ignorance concern- ** ing the day of judgment;" adding, that *^ Chrift alfo afFeded ignorance, when he ** ailced how many loaves his difciples «* had^." Theophylad fays, that '' Chrift ** pretended not to know the day of judg- " ment, to put an end to his difciples ♦* teazing him j as fathers, when they fee ♦* their children crying for a thing which *' they do not chufe to give them, will hids ** it, and then fliow their hands empty, as •' if they had it not *f /' * Sed refpondeant qusefo, quando Deus in Faradifo Adam patrem noftrum vocabat dicens : Adam Adam ubi f s ? et quando Cain interrogabat : Ubi eft Abel frater tuus ? quid dicent I nam fi ignorantcm Deum interrogaffe affir- mabunt, manifcfta Impletate tenebuntur ; fin autem difpen- fationis modo quodam fic interrogaffe Deum dicent, cuf iriirantur fi filius quoque Dei, per quern etiam tunc fa6la interrogatio eft,utilitei' difpcnfans ignorare fe dicit horam iliam ut homo, quamvis univerfa fciat ut fapientia patris? Guod autem difpenfative folcbat ignorantiam Tibi attribuere falvaior, manifefte ab Ipfo evangdifta in alio loco dicitur. Nam quando miraculofe multiplicatis panibus fequentes fe voluit alere, ut ignorans interrogabat ; quot panes habetis? Thcfaurus. lib. 9. cap. 4. Opera, vol 2. p. 29^. fxof^m y^ iVOX>>^^v ayla, zv tw eizm oil ale 01 ayftA^i, ale By6> oioa . OTcf Chap. VII. of Chnji. 241 We have two anfwers of Epiphanius to this queftion, one of which feems to im- ply that Chrifi; feigned ignorance. ** If," fays he, ^* the Son knew the Father, which *' is the greatefl of all, he muft know the ^' day of judgment.- But it became a Son ** to honour his Father, that he might ^' fhow that he was his own Son*." The other folution implies a bafe equivocation on the part of our Saviour. *' Chrill:," fays he, "did not know the day of judgment; ** meaning that it had not taken place, *' the wicked not being punifliedt." We have alfo two anfwers of Baiil to this queftion, one of which likewife implies a 7a7o . ci ^£ 'UJcilspsg^ s ^nT^ovlai d^8vai . roc 5s. K>^av9ixu^i^ov}iXi wj fXYi haiiQixvcvlci , Ts7^zulaiov fxsvloi^ cl 's^oils^sg K^v7r%(nv shsivo o x^cilacri, «^ £7ri^sik.vv'Pi£g rci^, X-^^^9 ^^cv«j roij 'Zjaj3ioy tuv £!jo[/.£voov ETTi rov 's:(xl£^a avayovlog^ -^ ^ux 'mavim ttvj 'STfu%v afliav tci; av^p'^TTGig v7ro^£iHvuviog Ei^w^ai vo(j(,i^Ofj!,Ev. Epift. 391, Opera, vol. 3. p. 389. X Mavult cnim dominus nimlo in difclpulos amore prcpcnfus, petentibus his quae cognitu inutilia judicaret, videri igiiorare quod iioverat quam negare. De Fide, lib. 5. cap. 7. Opera, vol.4, p. 205. had Chap.VII. ofChriJl. 243 had faid, I do know myfelf, but I jfhall not tell you of it. *' Chrift," fays he, *' did ** not know the day of judgment, that is, *^ he did not make to k?ww^ or difcover it '' to others^-/' Photius feems to have confidered igno- rance as a property of human nature, and therefore to have thought that our Lord took it upon himof courfe when he became a man. «* As a man," fays he, ** Chriil did not rejedl *' that ignorance which became him as a ** man. He who took the whole, would ** he refufe to take any part, or not fhew *' that he had taken it J ?" This looks as if there was no communication between the divinity and the human foul of Chrift; and on this fuppofition the orthodox of the prefent age endeavour to fatisfy themfelves and others ; faying, that Chrift knew all things as God, but was ignorant of many * Hoc enim nefeit, quod nefcientes facit, id eft, quod non ita fciebat, ut tunc difcipulis Indicaret. De Trinitate, lib. I. cap. 12. Opera, vol. 3. p. 253. -f-' X2$ avBpuTTo; h, HOE ry]v avBf/coTrois ^^ETraaav ctyvoiavy a /asv hv UK nOslsi , Og ya§ 3>j to oT^v siy^slo T^aQzw^ 'sr^j £v tj rm 's^e^i bkeivo Tsa^^i't^.aoclo fM] AaCfii/, yi fxyj ^iT^a'^ai oil '^a^^yjii >.aQm. Epift, 22S. p. 336. R 2 things 244 ^-^^ ^'^'^ Natures "Book II. things as man 5 and this was perhaps the meaning of Athanafius (if the Fragments on the Ffalms be his) who faid, " what he ** knows by nature as God, he is faid to *^ hear according to his human nature, and '^ the ceconomy^-.'' Damafcenus thought that the human foul of Chrift, in confequence of the union and perfonal identity between the two natures, knew every thing, even future eventsf." Gregory the Great has a very peculiar foiution of this difficulty. He fays that ^' Chrift was ignorant of the day of judgment " with refped: to his body the church']." The moft prudent of all the anfwers, is that of Leontius, who fays, '^ the queftion * Oji7w ;^ WKz^ Q'^z (puiTiKug w$ Seoj, Tcivla 'SjCiXiv an^m "hzyzlixi Old TO avSpcoTTivov oiHGVofxiHcog. ' opera, vol. 2. p. 522. t At domini anima, ob unionem cum ipfo Deo verb'o, ac perfonalem identitatem, ut reliquorum niiraculorum, fic etiam futurarum, ut dixi, rerum notitiam confecuta eft. Orthod. Fid. lib. 3. cap. 21. p. 421. % Quia diem et horam ncque filius neque angcli fciunt: omnino recle veCira fanclitas lenfit, quor/u«:n non ad eun- dem filium, juxta hoc quod caput eft, fed juxta corpus ejus nos quod fumus, eft certifTime reRrendum. Epift. cap. 42. Opera, vol. 2. p- 223. A. ^^ con- Chap. VII. of Chrlji. 245 ** concerning Chrift's ignorance, is not to ** be anxioufly enquired into*/* It is Mark who afferts in the ilrongeft manner that^'Chrift was ignorant of the day of judgment; for he exprefsly fays, chap. xiii. 3 2. neither the Son^ but the Father. But Ambrofe fays, that the ancient Greeks had not the words neither the Son in that pafTagef." There was at Conflantinople, a particu- lar fed of thofe who maintained that, as a man, Chrift did not know the day of judg- ment. They were therefore called Agnoetce. But the orthodox opinion then was, that he knew it as a man, and Thcodofius wrote again ft them J. * Nos autem dicimus non adeo de his fubtlllter inquiren- dum. Leont. De Sedis, Bib. Pat. App. p. 1875. f Scriptum eft inquiunt, de die autem illo et hora nemo fcit, neque angeli eselorum, nee filius, nifi folus pater. pFimum non habent codices Graeci, quod nee filius fcit. Sed et non miriuri fi et hoc falfarunt, qui fcripturas inter- polavere divinas. De Fide, lib 5. cap. 7. Op. vol. 4. p. 202. X Quum autem privatus Byzantii Thcodofius degeret Agnoetarum (fic ab ignorationedi^lorum) dogma motum fiiit. Nam quia dominus ait, neminem horam judicii fcire, R3 ne 246 The two Natures Book II. SECTION III. Opinions concerning the body of Chrifl, Y H A V E had occalion to obferve more than once, that chriflianity was never quite purged from the errors of the Gnof- tics. For though the orthodox, who op- pofed them, advanced different principles, they were infenfibly led to feveral of the fame concluiions. Thus the orthodox agreed with the Gnoftics in fuppofing, that the maker of the world was different from the Supreme God, and they came to agree with them at laft, in fuppofing matter to be the caufe of all evil. At leaft they adopted the fame maxims and practices with refped: to corporeal aufterities ; and feveral of them, we fhall now find, came very near to them with refpeft to their dodrine concerning ne filium quidem, extra folum patrem : qusefitum eft, an Chriflus earn ignoraret, ut homo. • Theodofius Chriftunn ignorare negabat, ct adverfus Agnoetas fcripfit. Leontius De Seals Bib. Pat. App. p, 1861. the Chap. VII. of Chrljl. 247 the perfon of Chrift. All the Gnoftics thought that the proper Chrijl was a fuper- angelic being, which had exifted long be- fore the birth of Jefus ; and in this alfo the orthodox agreed with them, only fup- pofing that this divine inhabitant of Jefus, was of a higher rank than the Gnoftics had made him to be (which was really depart- ing farther from the genuine fimplicity of the gofpel) and they applied the term Chrijl^ not to the divine inhabitant of Jefus only, but to his Whole compound perfon, which was a difference merely verbal. Laftly, fome of the Gnoftics thought that Chrifl had no real body, and confe- quently, had not the fenfations or feelings of one; but the orthodox principle of the union of the divine nature to the human produced almoft the fame eifcd:. For fome of the catholics fuppofed, that, in confequence of this union, the body of Chrift was exempt from all difagreeable fenfations ; and indeed this was a natural confequence of their principles. For if there v^as a real union betv^een the two natures, the fenfations of the one mull: have been communicated to R 4 the 248 The two 'Natures EooK II. the other; and as it was agreed that the divine nature could not feel pain, the hu- man nature, in order to enjoy the benefit of the union, ought to be exempt from pain alfo, which we fliall find was adually held by Hilary. In {general, however. It was maintained that the human nature of Chrift was as ef- feiflually deferted by the divine nature in the day of fuffering, as the Gnoftics had ever fuppofed it to be ; and it is very re- markable, how nearly liie language of the orthodox on this fubjecft approached to that of the Gnoftics. Tertullian, in a paffage quoted before fays, that '* the complaint *' uttered by Chrift on the crofs, was from ** the man, not from the God, to fhew that *^ God was impaflible, who thus left the *' Son, and gave up the man to death"^." *' Let him learn," fays Origen, " that the ** logos, always remaining the logos, feels *' nothing of the fuffering of the body, or * llxc vox carnis et anirriGe, id efl; hominis, ncn fcr- monis,. nee fpirltus, id eft non Dei, propterea emilTa eft, ut impafiibilcm Dcum oftenderet, qui fic filium derellquit, dum homincm ejus tradidit in mortem. Ad Praxeam, feet. 30. p. 518. '' the Chap. VII. ofChnfi. 249 '' the foul*." '' As the fun^heams," %s Damafcenus, " are not hurt when a tree on ** which it ihines is cut down ; fo neither 5/ was the divinity of Chrift afFed:ed Vv^hea *' his fiefh fufferedf .'* The opinion con- trary to this, afcribed to the Patripafiians, was deemed a herefy. Thus, Auflin fays, *^ there is another herefy, which fays that *^ the divinity in Chrift grieved, when his ** flefh was fixed to the crofs J." It being, therefore, a fettled point, that the divine nature of Chrift could not'feel pain ; it is no wonder that fomc of the or- thodox fliould have agreed with thofe Gnof- tics who held that his body, or what had the appearance of a body, had not the wants ^acy^zi TO jcoixsc n n il'^x^- Ad Celfum, lib. 3. p. lyo. f Quemadmodum enini fi fole arbori illucente feciiris arborem incident, fol tamen infecSius, atque ab oir.ni inju- ria incolumis manet : eodem modo, ac multo etiam magis, impaffibills verbi divinitas, carni perfonalitur unita, patiente carne incolumis manfit. Orthod. Fid. lib. 3. cap. 26. Ope- ra, p. 428. X Alia eft hasrefis, cus dicit in Chriflo divinitatem do- luiffj, cum figeretur caro ejus in cruce, Catalcgus Her. Opera, vol. 6. p. 29. and 250 The two Natures Book II. and weaknefTes of other bodies, and was likewife infenfible of pain. Clemens Alexandrinus fays, *' It would *' be ridiculous to fuppofe that the body of *' our Lord required fupplies for its fup- *' port. He ate not on account of his body, *' which was fupported by divine power, *^ but left thdfe who converfed with him *^ fliould have had a fufpicion that he was a ** phantafm, and had only the appearance of *' a man.'' He alfo fays that *' he was ex- *^ empt from all paffion, pleafurable or pain- ^^fulV Hilary maintained that the body of Chrift was impallible. '' You will not be- ** lieve/' fays he, " impious heretic, but *' that Chrift felt when the nails pierced ** his hands. — I aflc, why did not the chil- *' dren," meaning the three in Daniel, " fear * E^Ti />t£V T« croflnpo^ to acoau avTMlsiV ag. acc/xx rx; avayKxiot; v'7ry^fi£(7iag tig onx/xcvr^f y£^u; av sm ' E^ayEV yap a ^ix to crco(j(^j Oyya^Lifj (Tvvsxoi-f^^'JO'^ «7ta ' P^^Aa wj ^y] th; auvovloi; uT^Xcog 'zjepi aula (ppomv vjiEiaO^oi ' cofXTrep a/ji£?\si urzpcVy hy.niEi Tivsg aiflov "sis^oi" VEpua^ai vTrEf^Qov ' ocvlog d'e a.TTo.iccTi'hug a7ra%g m,^ ng ov xJsv 'sjapuo'^ufiai Kmpi.a. issaBr^iKov^ tils -nhm^ iilE Tu/tt?]. Strom. 6. p. 649. '' the Chap. VII. ofChrtfi. 251 " the fire, or feel pain*." Other refpedlable writers maintained that the body of Chrifl: v/as free from the affedlions of other human bodies. Ambrofe fays " It was artifice in *' Chrifb to pretend to be hungry -f-.*' '• \x\ ** the divine and holy body of Chrift," fays Cyril of Alexandria, " there are no paffions; *' and being the property of the logos, in- ** habiting it, and united to it, it is per- *' feftly fanaified:!:/' '^ Chrift/' fays Caf- fian, " did not feel carnal defire§." Anaftafius Sanaita makes a difference be- tween common flefh and the fiefh of Chrift, * Non vis impie hxretice, ut tranfeunte palmas clavo Chriflus non doluerit, neque vuliius illud nullam acerbita- tem teli compungentis intulerit. Interrogo cur pueri ig- nes non timuerint, nee doluerint. De Trinitate, lib. 10. P- 255- f Videte artem domini qua adverfarium fraude circum- venit. Poft multa jejunia efurire fe fimulat, ut diabolum, quern jejunando jam vicerat, iterum efuriendo folicitet. Ser. 37. Opera, vol. 5. p. 53. \ Am' x» IV T£ TO) %2[a xj ayv^ ra x^irs (Tco/xxli toihIov Ti iimim- (x%ai ^>oi(ji.£V, ct>>?! YtV ixTTixvliX (ppH^o. }y eKiOTTcSlalac r.m 'sraSwv, iu cog i^iov yEyovog ts evwSev?©" aulco £voiy,Ey%g T^oya KalsTrT^iilsi rov ayiaifxov* Contra Julianum, lib. 8. juliani Opera, vol. 2. p. 287. § Non enim ignitos aculeos concupifcentiae carnalis ex- pertus eft. Coll. 5. Opera, p. 392. 1 and 252 The t'wo Kadires Book IT. and fays that, on this account, Gregory Nazianzen fcrupled not to fay that the fleih of Chrift was God-like*. Notwithftanding it was fo much a fettled point with the ancient Fathers, that the di- vine nature could not fuifer or feel pain ; yet during the Neflonian controverfy, it was cuflomary for the orthodox to hold a different language, and to fay that the logos itfelf was crucified, fuffered, and even died. This w^is in anfwer to Neftorius, who maintained that there were two diftind na- tui-es in Chrift, the divine and the human, and that it could only be the. human na- ture in Chrift that fuffered. The language which the orthodox made ufe of in anfwer to him was very extraordinary, and often fnocking. Caffian fays in fo many words, that '' God v/as crucified -}-.'' '' If any '' one,'' fays Cyril of Alexandria, *' does * Eft enim caro ct ncn caro — Et Ideo Gregorius in theologia ccleberrimus ncn verctur dicere carnem domini o/*o^£cy, id eft, fimul Dcum. In Hexemeron. Bib. Pat. App. p. 1407-. t Ergo ncccfie eft ut Chriftum affixum eiTo in cruce de- ncges; aut Deum aiRxum cfTe fatearis. De Incarnatione, lib. 3. cap. ic. p. 995. *' not Chap, VII. cfCbri/}, 253 *' not confefs that the v/orcl of God fuffered '' ill the flefli, was crucified in the flcfli, ^' and tafted death in the flc(h, being made *' the iirft^born from the dead, as he is the ** life, and the giver of life, as God, let ** him be anathema ^'^ " But when this writer ^omes to explain himfelf, it appears that what he faid was nothing better than a quibble. " God the '' word," he fays, " was fee from paiTion ; ** but he appropriated to himfelf what was *^ done to his own bodyy." <« Chrift is ** palpable and impalpable, vifible and in- **vifiblej. We afcribe to him human '' properties on account of the difpeniatioii *^ of the flefli, and divine ones on account *^ of his ineffable generation from the Fa- * Si quis non confitetur verbum Dei carne efle paf- fum, carne crucilixufn, et mortem carne guftafTc, primo genitum ex niortuis fa(?{:um, quemadmodum et vita eft, ct vivificans, ficut Deus, Anathema eflo. Epid-. Opera, vol. 2. p. 27. t Turn cogita quod Deus verbum pailionis quldem man- ferit expers, verum hssc omnia proprio corpori facta fibi appropriarit. Horn. Opera, vol. 2. p. 75. X Dicimus itaque eundcm palpabilcm cum fit impalpa^ balisj vifibilem cum fit invifibilis. Ibid. p. 96. '' ther." 2r^ The two Natures Book II. *« ther*." He a!fo fays exprefsly, "We *' all acknowledge that the word of God is ** impaffiblet." Theodoret likewife fays ♦« becaufe the body which was affumed is *^ called the body of the only begotten Son <« of God, the fufferings of that body are ^' referred to him+/* The dodrine of the union between the divine and human nature of Chrifr feems to have been carried to its greateft height by Damafcenus, who fays, " the flefh of Chrift, <* on account of its union with the logos, *' has a life-giving property, is endued <^ wdth a knowledge of futurity, and may ** even be faid always to have been§/' For * Et hulc adfcribimus tarn humana, propter difpenfatio- nem illins cum carne fufceptam, quam divina propter in- enarrabilem illius quam ex patre habet generatlonem. Horn. Opera, vol. 2. p. 97. f Prxterea et impalTibile efle verbum Dei confitemur omnes. EpiH:. 28. Opera, vol. 2. p. 4|. \ Kat ETTEjoVj '^d.^ ci'jls fjLO'joyEva; vm Td %« aayLX to "Xyi^^-^ ^s^po^ cny 0f)£ij2'>) au}iJt.Xy £ig smjIov avz(p£pBi to th acofAxlog 'UjCx^oi^, Epift. 144. Opera, vol. 3. p. 1019. § Serva ct ignorans Chriili caro dicitur. Ver-um ob perfonas idcntitatem, atque indivulfam conjuncllonem, domini anima rerum futurarum cognitione, quern admo- dum Chap. VII. ofChriJl. 255 this he quotes Gregory Nazianzen. " The *^ orthodox believe the deification of the *' flefli of Chrift, though without any change ** of its properties. The one brought, and *^ the other received divinity ■^^'' The nature of the body of Chrifc was one part of the Apoliinarian controverfy. Apollinarius held an opinion on this fubjed:, which very m'lch refembles that of fo me of the Gncftics. For he faid that *' it came ** from heaven -f*," ** that it was eter- *^ nalj,'* and that " it v/as confubflantial ** with the divinity §." Some who were dum et rellquis miraculis, locupletata eft. Orthod. Fid. lib. 3. cap. 21. Opera, p. 421. * Ut enim incarnationem citra mutationem et conver- fionem confitemur : fic item earn! deificationem fa^lam ciis cenfemus. Sic enim Theologiis Gregorius loquitur : Qiiorum alteram dlvinitam attulit, alterum divinitatem accepit. ■ Ibid. cap. 17. p. 413. \ TiVE^ (Mv yap aulcov {io'^i^na'av >£ym. avuSzv rev xp^'^^'-J '^^ a-ccux HxJsvmox^you, Epiphanius, H. 77. p. 996. J Xlre em'siv (m ve'Mepov mai to crafjca, tk; ts ^^07^ $fo7yj/©-, aAAa cuvxidiQv aula ^icx.TTavIc'; ysysvniT^oii^ sTrsi^y] ek rrig cofiag ctuvety]. Ibid. p. 999. El a/3;ic»$ fv Tw uicj ryiv crapHOj^n msmv ^ucnv zivai, G. Nazian- zen, Or. 46. Opera, p. 722. § Tm; h K^ QtxQHa-iQv TO (raoLO. ra %ofra rn ^£q}}iIi y^zym £lo>^.r.crccv, Epiphanius. H. 77. Opera, vol, 1. p. 997. called 2-6 'The two Natures Book 1 1. called Gainiies, alfo held that " the body of <' Chrift was incorruptible -'^^ That the body of Chrift. was naturally incorruptible v/as an opinion very prevalent among the orthodox after the council of Nice. " Athanafius fays, that " the body of '' Chrift fufxered according to the nature of *« bodies, but that it had the property of *' incorruptibility from the logos inhabit- *' ing itf." Fulgentius fays, that " the body ** of Chrift had no corruption in the grave, *^ and his foul no pain in hell.'* This he afcribes to the body and foul being free from ftn t . The emperor Juftinian adopted this opinion fome time before his death. But it was afterwards generally condemned. * ConFiteutur Gainitcs Dcum fermonem e virgine natu- ram huinanani adfiimpfiffe perfecle ac vere, fed pofl unio-* ncin t{\i Sfcf sx^pv^ f;j av^wTror. Lib. 4. cap'. 59. P- 3s8-_ t Aax' ri^r] yp.vo/j.Evo; av^poiTTog s(p^Eip£l6 y^ lsotpOL7ro>^vlo .. oScv s^sti/,(Ji.n'oi »cj 'Sjaps'MpixfXEvoi nsjpolspov^ sPtoi vvv 'u^po- cziMiJ-y-ivoi }y (ytamy^ivQi toj; th aTra^n^ '^sa^eaiv* Or. 36. Opera, p.. 581;- -j- MaMov ^E T»; UTTEp YifAiiv ao)%pi(X(; TO KE^ Kixlop9oJ}ai . alco yap )fj ^avoilo^ £AyS>j, >jpSn, «5 HOiJapa Yitpavia^ri, }^ ra fivpicc £ia-Yi7<^Ev Big Tnv ^lov y\ixm ayo^a . Sio i^a7\ii7ov» }y 'sj^oEi^-/]lai to a^uvalov, Origen Contra Celfum, lib. 4. p. 171. iils }ia%>^oi. Ibid. lib. 5. p- 231. § Mu^ahg 7ap yiyavlaL 01 '^QKWia-o(poi^ S 3cr 31. Opera, vol. 5. p. 476. § ATT^sTTfj Sew. Ibid. p. 478. ' C H A Ft 268 The Confroverjy relating Book II. CHAPTER IX. Of the Controverfy relating to the Holy Spirit. T T is pretty remarkable, that, notwlth- Handing the doiftrine concerning the perfon of Chnjiy had been the great fubjecft of controverfy ever fince the promulgation of chriftianity, there is no mention made of any difference of opinion concerning the Holy Spirity that attraded any notice, till after the commencement of the Arian con^ troverfy, and even till after the council of Nice. Bafil obferves, that '^ the dodtrine *' concerning the Holy Spirit, w^hich made ** fo much noife in his time, had not been ** agitated by the ancients -, and becaufe they '^ had been all of the fame opinion about ** it, it had not been fettled* " Now, as in all this period, it will appear that there were great numbers of unt tartans (they be- E.^£«5}1 0£ TO ]ivv avoLKu^av f^apa, rav aEi ti Kaiv6}ci/.ztv f7r<%«- faiPov ^Y^Yi'ia^ 'SJapirjiuTrn^sv roi; 'SJcO^i, oia ro a\nviipp7]iov, a^iap- hp-Jlov xalsAH^Sn {->^£')j h to Tsjspi jii ayia -srvEy/^^To^j. Epift. 387 . Opera, vol.3, p. 382. ing Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 269 ing the majority of the unlearned chrif- tians among the Gentiles, belldes the whole body of the Jewifli chriftians, who did not believe in any divinity except that of the Father) and this is never objefted to them by their adverfaries, who do cenfure them for not admitting the divinity of the Son, it is evident that the divinity of the Spirit had not been acknowledged even by thofe who had been deemed orthodox. Even after the rife of the Arian contro- verfy, many perfons exprefled themfelves concerning the Spirit as if it had no proper divinity, at leafl: of a perfonal nature, with- out cenfure, which could not have been the cafe, if it had been the uniform doc- trine of the orthodox, that the Holy Spirit was a proper divine perjon^ equal to the Son, or the Father. We may conclude, there- fore, that it was the doftrine of the di- vinity of the Son which prepared the way for that of the Holy Spirit. But to en- able us to jud e from fads, I {hall produce palTages relating to the Holy Spirit from a confiderablt number of chriflian writers, m the order of time in which they wrote. S E C^ 270 273^ Controverfy relating Book II. SECTION I. Opinions concerning the Holy Spirit before the Council of Nice. ^T^ H E fentiments of the Gnoftics, with refpect to the Holy Spirit, were never, that we find, much complained of. But indeed, we do not know very diftindly what they were, except that, from their general fyftem, it may be concluded, that if they fuppofed him to be a perfon at all, he muft have been one of their ^^cns, de- rived, mediately, or immediately, from the Supreme Being 5 and this agrees with Atha- nafius's faying, that '^ Valentlnus thought <« the Holy Spirit to be of the fame rank «« with the angels - ^ >> OyaAsvliva riilo su^nfACH • y^ nfc e>^9qv aloi rcc SHEivii (p^£fyo(ji,£V0L . ekeivo^ ya^ (pY}iKi{»lcii aJla ayyEXoi. Epilt. Ad. Serapion, Opera, vol. i." p. i8s. • We Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 271 We can have no dependence, as I have fliewn, upon any arguments from the writ- ings of the apoftolical Fathers, except that of Clement, who makes no particular men- tion of the Holy Spirit. In the book afcribed to Hermas, he is made to fay, •^ do not offend the Holy Spirit, left he " intreat God, and depart from thee*/* According to this, the Holy Spirit muft have been thought to be a creature^ de- pendent upon God. Ignatius, if his epiftle to the Ephefians be genuine, conlidered the Holy Spirit as a power ^ rather than as a per/on. For he fays, aukwardly enough, '' We areraifed up- wards by the machine Jefus Chrift, which i' is his crofs, uling the Holy Spirit as a '^rope-j-.'' Juftin Martyr, to whom we are indebted for the firft rudiments of the dodrine of the divinity of Chrift, fays but little con- cerning the Holy Spirit -, and from that * Noli ofFendere fpiritum fancStum, qui in te, habitat ne roget dominum, et recedat a te. Mand. lo. {qSl. 3. p. n*'. little 272 T^he Controverfy relating Book If. little, it is not eafy to conclude what his real opinion was. But it is probable that he confidered the Spirit as a created being, fince he reprefents him as inferior to Chrift. << But him, and the Son who comes from ** him, and teaches us thefe things, and the <« hofts of good angels which follow them, ** and agree with them'* (meaning perhaps, other valuable truths of an important na- ture) *' and the prophetic fpirit, we reve- <' rence and adore, honouring them in word «* and deed^." Speaking of Chrifl as ^* the <* Son of the true God, and to be honoured ** in the fecond place,'* he fays, ^"^ we ho- *^ nour the prophetic fpirit in the third *< place, after the logos +•*' Irenaeus feems to have confidered the Holy Spirit as a divine influence, and no proper perfon. ** By the name of Chrift,'* he fays, ^' we are given to underftand one « who anoints, one who is anointed, and * A^^ z)cim'i te xJ 'vq') 'map avla viov £x5ov7a, y^ ^i^a^avla y^iAscg f-pcilcov, 'avzvyux. t£ to 'zc-^o^rilixov o-B^oi/.s9x^ >cj 'uspQcrKvvai/.iv^ y\oyoi ^ ahYi'^iictiiix'j^vl^. Apol. I. p. II. T£ -sr^oipriliHoy £V r^iln Ta|ei oil (/.iloi hoyii TifWixsv. Ibid. p. 19. the GiiAP. IX. to the Holy Spirit. zj^ *' the undlion with which he is anointed. * '' It is the Father who anoints, but the ** Son is anointed, in the Spirit, which is '' the undrion ; as the word fays by Ifaiah, '' The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, be- ** caufe he has anointed me -, fignifyine '' the Father anointing, the Son who is ** anointed, and the undion, which is the " Spirit*." Again, fpeaking of the fleece of Gideon which continued dry, he fays, ** it is a '' type of the people, who would afterwards ^'^ be dry, not having the Holy Spirit from *' God, as Ifaiah fays, and I will order the *' clouds that they fliall not rain upon thee, ** but in all the earth there fhall be dew, *^ which is the Spirit of God, which de- ^^ fcended upon our Lord ; the fpirit of *' wifdom and underftanding, the fpirit of * In Chrifti enim nomine fubauditur qui unxit, et ipfe qui undus eft, et in ipfa undioin qua undlus eft. Et linxit quidem pater, un^Stus eft vero iilius, in fpiritu, qui eft undio ; quemadniodem per Efaiam ait fermo : fpiritus Dei fuper me, propter quod unxit me; fignificans et un- gentem patrem, et un£tum filium, et undionem, qui eft fpiritus. Lib. 3. cap. 20. p. 246, VoL.ir. T "counfel 274 "^^^^ Controverff relating Book IT. « counlcl and might j the fpirit of know- *' ledge and piety, the fpirit of the fear of <' God, which he would again give to the «* church, fending the Paraclete from hea- '« ven upon all the earth ^/* Theophilus gives us no idea of a perfon, much lefs a divine one, when he fpeaks of the '' fpirit that moved upon the face of the <' water, as fomething imparted to the crea- '* tion to vivify it, as the foul does the '' body, the fpirit being fomething atte- ** nuated, imparted to the water, which is *« thin and fluid alfo, that the fpirit may *' nourifn the water, and the water added '' to the fpirit may nourilli all creation, " prevading it-f^/' * Quod crat typus populi, arlditatem futuram prophs- tans -, hoc eft, non jam habitaiuros eos a Deo fpiritum fan£lum, ficut Efaias ait : et nubibus mandabo ne pluant fuper earn; in omni autem terra fieri ros, quod eft fpi- ritus Dei, qui defcendit in dominum, fpiritus fapientise et inteile^us, fpiritus confilii, et virtutis, fpiritus fcientias et pictatis, fpiritus timoris Dei : quern ipfum iterum dedit ecclcfise, in omnem terram mittens de ccelis paracletum. Lib. 3. cap. 20. p. 244. -j- Tlvvjyux. Je to LTrKp^pcixEvov s'^avoi T8 v^alog sd'oHsv ^£og £^ i^uoyow}0-iv m hIijei^ na^uTfsp av^^coTTd) -^uxw t« T^ttIu to mA avy- 2 Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 27c Athenagoras confidered the Holy Spirit as an efflux from the Deity, flowing out and drawn into him again at pleafure, as a beam from the fun*. This was that kind of exiftence that Juftin Martyr fays fome perfons afcribed to the divinity of the Son, and which Gonftituted, as I jfhall fhow here- after, v/haf'may be called the philofophical unitarianifm of that age. Tertullian feems to have thought that t-he Holy Spirit was derived from Chrill, in the iame manner as Chrifc was derived from God, that is by a kind oi frolaiion. ** The Spirit," fiys he, '' is the third from '' the Father, and the Son ; as the fruit is '' the third from the root, and the branch ; *' as the rivulet is the third from the *' fountain and the river, and the apex the '•' third from the fun and its beam. For fispacra'; . to y^.o ^vbu/j,^ XettIov «J to vh^ ?^£7rlcv^ OTTog ro /.trv 'zirvfy- fxx T^^pn TO uoco^ • ro h oh^ cruv rco "SJvEVfixli T^e(pn mv nlmv^ ouh" Vd'ASVQV ^(XvlcXX0'7£. Lib. 2. p. 9S. * ¥^M TO', xj avlo ro tjBpy^v roig EKpaviiri ^^o(py]luuq ayiov 'srvEVfjix, (XTtoppoioiv muL a f/Mlog. TiixJr]^ ixzv ya^ sig, 'BpocruTTu o'e Joo, oli pC; uiog, ro h rciicv TO ayiov 'm/EUfioc. Ad NoCtum, fed. 14. Opera, vol. 2. p. 15. f Taio Oc ariv ro "siveufix^ to utt (Xpx;/ig E7n Opera, p. 264: ^^ to Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 279 *^ to all things that were made by Chrift ; ** and that the only reafon why he is not ** called a fon of God, is that the only be- '* gotten Son- had obtained that title, which ** the Koly Spirit wanted, being fubfer- *^ vient to his nature, not only with refped: ^' to his beings but to his being wile and '^ rational, and righteous, and every thing '* elfe that he is underftood to be. But I '* think that the Holy Spirit, if I may fo *^ fpeak, furniflies the materials of all the ^* gifts of God, which are diftributed by ^' Chrift. We acknowledge, however, that *' there is room to doubt of this; fince ** whatever is made is faid to have been '^ made by Chrift, and that, in fome places, '^ the Holy Spirit feems to have been con- ** fidered as fuperior to Chrift ; efpecially as, f ' in Ifaiah, Chrift himfelf confefles that he f* was fent by the Holy Spirit, as well as *' by the Father,'' If. xlviii. 16. '' and like- ** wife that blafphemy againft the Holy ** Spirit is more dangerous than blafphemy " againft the Son^," * H/>ce^ wov, -^ TO ayiQV ^vwiAOiy xj ayevv)!?^ (J,y[^vj H^poy ra 'SJoclpog Bivat T 4 mreyoyle^, 28o 'Tke Controverfy relating Book II. Afterwards he makes a diftin(5tion be- tween thofe things which God made m wifdofn^ and thofe made by wifdoniy i. e. by the Son*, as if the Spirit had been made by- God without the inftrumentality of Chrift. The following paflage is not more determi- nate. ** For the Saviour made both one, and *^ he being the firft fruits of thofe things that TiOya ysvofXEvuv^ ro ayiov 's^veufxa 'ujo.vlcov mai rifjLicolE^ov^ /C; ra^Ei *S!av^avTav vtto t& 'SjixIpogd'La xc/rs ysyevYifXBVCov . x^ Ta^a aJI-n inv V cuiict 78 fjLY] >C) aulo viov %^>i/xa7i^£iv ra ^£«, (jLovh m fjLOvoysvug (pvcr£i viH apxn^^v rvyxavovlog^ a Xf>i^£iv soike to ayiov 'sa-jzufj.a^ '^ianovavl^ avla r-i] VTroraasi^ a (jlovov ei^ to Eivai, a»£i. >:; y T^oyixov^ K) oixaicv, )y 'Slav oliTToiay xp'^ ^^o vobiv Tyyxavsi!/, iiaJa [xfioyrrM im 'SJpoEi^fxevciJV vf/'iv %pir8 ettivciccv ' oi/xai os to ayiov 'zsvEU[xa ty\v, *v a?w$ EiTTcoy v'hw Tuv aTTO 0£8 %aptc7-^a7a;v 'pra^ fxe.'v tok; ^< aulo ^ t»;v fiEloxyiv aula %^>i/-ta?i^^Eiv to ^VEU[xa. ysvvrhv ov, "^la ts T^oyn yEycvEvai^ 'srwj OiOVEi 'Sj^oiifjLaa-ai t8 %f ^ra ev nat y^a^aig^ sv {xev tu ilaaia o/xo- >v078yl©- X^JfK, nfc vtto T8 iiral^o; aTTETaP^ai (movh, aTC'.a }y vtto tu ayis isyvEUfialog^ (pr\ai ya^ ■'Cj vw nv^iog uttetei'Ke /xe y^ to isvEu/xqi aula . £v ^t Toj EuayyE>\i(i) a(picnv /xev ETrayyET^Q^iEva etti TYig eic ajlov aixa^ia^, aTTcpaivc/JLEva 3V 'sie^i Tr\g Eig to ayiov 's:ywiji.a ^^aaipri' fMiag. Comment, vol. ?. p. 57. * Uavla yap (pr\7i,v. ev copx ETToma?^ a 5ia t«j croiptai ETrciva-oi* Ibid. p. 59. <5 are Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 281 . ** are made one, I mean of thofe whofe fouls ** are mixed with the Holy Spirit, and *' each of thofe who are faved becomes *^ fpiritual*." It is evident, from the uncertainty ia which Origen appears to have been with refped to this fubjedt, that in his time the doftrine of the church was by no means fixed, and' that thofe who were deemed or- thodox thought themfelves at liberty to think and write as they pleafed about it, without any danger oi herefy, Novatian, who had as much orthodoxy with refpecfl to the trinity as any perfon of his age, certainly did not believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, whom he re- prefents as inferior to the Son, whom alfp he makes greatly inferior to the Father. ^* Chrift/' fays he,/' is greater than the ef.iTA^yjw Tav yivouivuv Ay.(po7ipci)v iv zavtco 'zrpo 'vavtcov '^oiilffcf.i' etiA he feems to have had no diftindl office for the Spirit, and, therefore, probably thought that Chrifl himfelf was that Spirit. It is enumerated among the faults of Ladtantius, that *' he makes no mention *^ of the Holy Spirit, and that, in his ** epiftles to Demetrianus, as Jerom fays, ** he denied the perfcnality of the Spirit; *^ and according to a Jewifh error, con- " founded him either with the Father or <'theSon+." * Major ergo jam Paracleto Chrlflus eft : quoniam ncc Paracletus aChriilo accipcrct, niu minor Chrifto eflet. Cap. 16. p. 56. t Sed quanto majora funt quce. filius loquitur, quae Dei fcrmo, qui in prophetis fuit, propria voce teflatur. De Oratlone Dominica, Opera, p. 139. X NiTvi Laclaniii et errorcs — Quod fpiritum falic^utn ne quidem nominet : imo quod in epiftolis ad Demetria- nuni, autore Hicronymo, fpiritus fandi fubftantiam ne- gavit ; Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 283 *' Dionyfius of Alexandria/' who is often called the father of Arianifm, '' fpake *^ very improperly,'* fiys Bafil, " with re- ** fpeft to the Holy Spirit, and not admit- ** ting of his divinity, reduced him to the ** rank of a created and fervile nature '^." Eufebius, who appears to have been as orthodox as other writers of his age with refped: to the Son (if his writings may be allowed to teftify for him) and who cer- tainly was not bold in herefy^ fcrupled not to conlider the Spirit as made by the Son. ** The Holy Spirit/' fays he, " is neith^ ** God, nor the Son, becaufe he did not '* derive his birth from the Father, like '* the Son; but is one of the things that ^' was made by the Son ; becaufe all things *' were made by him, and without him gavit ; et errore Judaice dixit, eum vel ad Patrem referri, vel ad filium ; et fanclificationem utriufque perfonae fub ejus nomine demon (Irari. Synthefis Do(5lrina£ Ladantii, p. 899. *. npof cTe Tii/sK /fj -^^Ft T« ^vivua]o^ stpi])ii (pc-jva^, )]KtTA ^ uAv cLv\)o, roi/!]oi. Letter to Magnus in Nicephoius's fiiilory, lib. 6. cap. 25. vol. 1. p. 419. ^^ was 284 ^^^'^ Coniroverfy relating Book IL ** was nothing made */* He alfo fpeaks of the Holy Spirit as ** holding the third *' place, as receiving from the logos, and *^ imparting valuable gifts to inferior be- ** ings, jui^ as the logos receives every ^* thing from the Supreme Being +." Even Hilary, who wrote fo largely con- cerning the divinity of the Son, feems not to have had the fame perfuafion concern- ing that of the Holy Spirit ; but, in the iittle that he fays on the fubjeft, feems rather to have confidered the Spirit as a divine influence. He reprefents our Sa- viour commanding the apoftles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as fignifying " a confeflion ** of the Father, of the only begotten, and * To cTs <7!rA^AKK^QV 'TffVivy.CLf fc7s -S-?©?, \i\i VlO^* i'Kil ^» tV. TH ^CtJpOi 0y.QU:( TCO VICO KCU CLvJo THf yiVifTlV S/AW^SJ/ , iV d's Ti T*;!' J^ict TK Via yivo/Aivcov rvyy^etvi/, o]i cTg ^ctvlct Jit etvli iyivijoy y.au X»p/f cLvl^ iyivijo »/e zi/. Ec Theol. lib. 3. cap. 4. p. 175. Koai TCOV iy Cf,v]co HflflTOVUV ^'VVetUZCoV i'TTl^oaijyit^ » f/.iV OLJ^A ycfjcf,yim)% (pvfficoi ^si; Ta -Tsctu^^^P.iVi, Preparatio, lib, 7. «^ap- I'j' P- 325* "of Chap. IX. to tide Holy Spirit. 2S5 " of the gift*/* which very much refem- bles what Irenasus fays on the fubjedl. They who faid that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, held that there was a time when only one divine perfon exifted ; and again, that there was a time when only two exifted, the Holy Spirit not being made +• SECTION 11. Opinions concerning the Holy Spirit after the Council of Nice. TT was Athanalius, the great advocate for the divinity of Chrift, and his con- fubftantiality with the Father, who alfo exerted himfelf ftrenuoufly and efFeclually in behalf of that of the Holy Spirit, whofe * Baptizare juflit in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus fan6ti : id eft, in confeflione et authoris, et unigeniti, et doni. Lib. 2. p. 22. Vctff fj.» Ov\oi via' KGU Y>V tS-oji cTuctf, //» ovjof Ay la TSrVivUctlc^. Eugenii Legatio ad Athanafium in Montfaucon's Cciledia Patrum, vol. 2, p. 3, divinity 286 The Co?2troverfy relating Book II. divinity was denied by Macedonius. He informs us, that he was in the defarts of Egypt when he heard of that herefy, and that he wrote from thence to prevent the fpread of it *, He had fo much influence in Egypt, that a fynod was immediately called there, which he attended, and where the Holy Spirit was for the firft time de- creed to be confubilantial with the Father and the Son +• Not long after this, the divinity of the Holy Spirit was more folemnly determined at a council held in Conftantinople, and from that time it was deemed equally he- retical to deny the divinity of the Spirit, as that of the Son. The doctrine of the trinity now began to afTume a proper form * ^.yoi [J-ZV «f, x-ci/Tsp .£1' sp*i/y.' ther^ to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit^ but '* that before him, fome had f^.id glory to '' the Father through the Son, in the Holy \' Spirit, which was the moft cuftomary * Ancoratus, fed. 68. Opera, vol, 2. p. 71. 73. ** form; ^88 TheControverJy relating Book IL " form ; and others. Glory to the Father *' in the Son, and the Holy Spirit*/' But the new dodlrine foon bore down the old forms, efpecially by the influence of Bafil, and the two Gregories, his cotem- poraries, who exerted themfelves as ftre- nuoufly in this bufinefs as Athanafius had ever done with refpeft to the divinity of the Son. Bafil even maintained, that '* to ** deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, is ** to be guilty of blafphemy againft the ** Holy Spirit -f." In former times we have feen that many perfons were deemed orthodox who only held the divinity of the Son 'y but Chryfoftom fays, " it cannot be *' that he who halts with refpeft to the '^ Spirit, can walk upright with refpecl to * Ot/ (^mi TOV etVTio'/JiAi (pKcf.Cta.voVt 'TtXjiOoj //.ovetyuv cvvayit^oLVTct, -u^orrcv cLvdL'Zo\)(Ta.i, J'o^et 'zs-clt^i kou vico zai ctyiQ) ^v'ivy.ctrt . tcov yetfi 'sr^o avth, tdi [j^iv, J^o^d ^Arff J'i 1//K iV etyieo cTveu/i/aT/, ^tynv ' koli Tclvtyw iJ.tt»^QV thu sk- (LuvY\fflv i'TTi'Trohcti^iiv TKj cTie, J^ojot irATpt iu vieo KCLt ctyieo 'TffvivyATi. Philoftorgius, lib. 3. fed. 15. p. 496. t ^-KZIVO cf' ctV McTgft)? aUT»^ £(p* V{J.eoV i^eoTiXTiLilXl, KAt cT/O- tii^oy.Ai 'zsrgTc/'S-oTft;^, oTi y-iTAfjAKmil aot ^OTl 7«? A^ii nai o>s i^ux^v ovoiACi^£i, Con. Jul. lib, 2. Juliani Opera, vol. 2. p. 48. U 2 Still, 292 The Contrcverfy relating Book IL Still, however, the orthodox chriftians were very defirous of making out fome- thing of a trinity in the dodlrine of Plato ; and Juflin Martyr and others imagined they faw it fo clearly, that they were con- fident it muft: have been derived from the fcriptures. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus imagined, from his conftruftion of the language of Plato, that he had a knowledge of the trinity, and that he learned it from Mofes, alledging the two paflages that have been already quoted from Plato, viz. ^that concerning ibe oath in the epiftle to Eraf- tus, &c. and that concerning the king of ally in the epiftle to Dionylius, which may be feen in vol. i. p. 334. 350*. But this has been {hewn to be a thing very differ- ent from the chriftian trinity, Hov ETTifoT^Yi (pMvdai ^cxlsoa x^ vioVy UK OiV oTTcog^ £H Tuv s^paiKaf y^a^puv £/A,^ t^iIcv, 'Sjs^a to. r^ila. ' hk a77crlv Ta OT^c^of. Strom, lib. 5^ p. 598: I The Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 293 The refemblance between the chriftlan and the Platonic trinity is very imperfed:, as it fails entirely in both the elTential cir- cumftances. For it was never imagined that the three component members of the Pla- tonic trinity w^ere either equal to each other, or ftridly fpeaking one. Bat then, neither had this been the language of thofe v^ho introduced the dodrine of the trinity, lor they went little farther than the pro- per principles of Plato, without pretending either to make a perfed equality y or a per- feft unity of the three perfons ; and there- fore, they did not maintain that this doc- trine was fo very myjierious and unintelligible as it was afterwards reprefented to be. Notwithftanding the doctrine of the tri- nity feemed to be completed by means of the -divinity and perfonality of the Spirit, and in fome refpeds it feemed better guard- ed againft attacks, there v^ere ftill fome aukward circumftances attending it. The Spirit being a divine perfon as well as the Son, and yet, like the Son, not abfolutely underived, there was fome difficulty in fet- tling the mode of his derivation. The U 3 term 294 ^^'"^ Cof7trGverfy relating Book II, term generation had been already appro- priated to the Son, and it had alfo been fettled that there could be only one Jon produced in that manner, Chrift being de- nominated the only begotten Son of God, For- tunately the Spirit v/as faid to proceed from the Father, or the Son, or from both ; and though, in the fcriptures, this meant no- thing more than his hcivigfcnt by the Fa- ther, or the Son 5 and this being fent was only a figurative expreffion, denoting the imparting thofe powers which came from God, this term proceeding was immediately laid hold of, as expreffing the manner of the emiffion of the Spirit from the fountain of deity, and was deemed to be different from generation. But then there was great diffi- culty in determining in what that difference confifted. ** The nativity of the Son/' fays Auftin, ** differs from the proceffion ** of the Spirit, otherwife they would be *^ brothers-*." * Sic cnim videbis quid diflet nativitas vcrbl Dei a pro- cefTione doni Dei, propter quod filius unigenitus non de pitre genitum, alioquin fratcr ejus efTet, fed procedere dixit fpirituinfanaum. De Trinitate, lib. 15. cap. 2^, Opera, vol. 3. p. 476. But Chap. IX. to the Uoly Spirit.. 295 But notwithftanding all the ingenuity of the orthodox, nothing more than a mere verbal diftindlion could ever be made be- tween a myfterious generation and an equally myfterious proceffion. *' What is the dif- ** ference/* fays the Macedonian, in the dialogue on this fubjed:, afcribed to Atha- nafius, *' between generated 'Si.n^ proceeding'^ The orthodox difputant anfwers ** Do not *' inquire into this difference, for it is in- *^ comprehenfible. Attend to what is com- *^ manded you, and inquire no farther. You *^ are commanded to believe that the Son *^ is begotten, and that the Spirit proceeded. " All other things, as the heaven, the " earth, the fea, and things rational, and ** irrational, are creatures -'.'* It v/as generally thought, however, that there was fomething more intelligible in the * Kai Tiq y[ ^tx^Q^a T>7j yEwnascog xj mg SHTTo^sua-Eag ; OP0, *Tnv Sia^ofav /wri 'srs^iEpya^a • a ya^ Ko^aM'/ln^ aAA* a "sr^oa-Elayyi 1:0 'suTEUtiv, oil viog ym'cclM, )y ro 'SiVEu/xa. E^iTToosuslixi, Tec 3> a^Aa '^uavix^ a^oLvoq^ yvj ^aJKaTaoc^ ;^ Ta ev avloig T^oyincc j^ aXoyos, hIi(tijlxI(X EicTf, Koii' Evi^'hw cculu T8 ^EH Klid^EvIa* Opcra, vol. 2. p.276. U 4 doctrine 296 The Controverfy relating Book II. docflrine of generation than in that of fro^ cejjkn. For Baiil fays, '^ The Son is pro- *' duced from the Father by generation, ** but the Spirit in an ineffable manner^." There is an air of dill greater modefty in what Gr. Nazianzen fays on the fubjefb, *' It is peculiar," fays he, '* to the Father '^ to be unbegotten, to the Son to be be- '* gotten, and to the Holy Spirit to pro- ** ceed. If you inquire the manner whyy '* ihould you not leave it to themfelves, '' who have declared that they only know *^ each other, and to thofe of us who may *' be ilhaminated about it hereafter -I*.'* Auftin fays that the Holy Spirit', being the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, pro- ceeds from them both ; and this he makes to be the difference between the generation of the Son, and the proceiTion of the Spirit, *' It is peculiaiV he fays, *' to the fon of * A>A laev yioj, ik tx "^(xi^o^ yevniTiyj * to ^e '3ivey//ca, «ppv?wj £«TaS^£v. Horn. 27. Opera, vol. \. p. 526. Tcis iKSi^Ev axct/xp^r^ao/xzvoi^ ute^cv. Or. 23. Opera, p. 422. '* man Chap. IX. iothe Holy Spirit. 297 *' man to proceed from two/' meaning of different fexes. *' Far be this from the Son '' of God, &c.^" Cyril of Alexandria feems to think that he had fome idea of the nature of the pro- ceffion of the Spirit from the fubftance of God, when he Tays, that " Chrifl breathed '' upon his difciples, to Ihew that the *' Holy Spirit proceeds from the divine fub- '* ftance, as the breath of man proceeds from ** himf .'' There was likewife another difficulty with refped to the Holy Spirit being faid to h^fent by the Son, from which fome con- * Qusero quid diQat inter nativitatem filii et procef- fionem fpiritus fandi ? Filius autem folius eft patris, non fpiritus fandi. Amborum iiiquam fpiritus, id eft patris et filii. Quod fi fpiritus, fandus filius effe diceretur, nul- lus autem filius eft nifi duorum, patris et raatris, quod abfit ut fit inter deum patrem et fiiium tale quid fufpicemur, quia nee filius hominis fimul ex patre procedit et ex ma- tre. Quelliones, 65. Opera, vol. 4. p. 679. t Sed quemadmodum unufquifque noftrum,- proprium in fcipfo fpiritum contlnet, et ab intimis vifceribus ad ex- teriora profundit : propterea corporaliter Chriftus fufHavit: oftendens hoc figno, quia quemadmodum ab 'ore humano corporaliter humanus fpiritus procedit, fie ex divina fub- ftantia deitati congruenter fpiritus, qui ab ea efl, profundi- tur. In Joan lib. 9. p. 936. eluded 298 The Control) erfy relating Book II, eluded that, in his origin, he iflued^from the Son, as well as from the Father; and' this dodlrine prevailed in the Latin church; v/hereas the Greeks held that the Spirit proceeded from the Father only. To the objedion that if the Spirit be God, the Fa- ther has two Sons, Epiphanius replies, that *• the Spirit proceedeth both from the Fa- *' ther and the Son^." Damafcenus fays, that '' the Spirit proceedeth from the Fa- *' ther, and refts in the Sonf ." But Ban! feems to have confidered the Spirit as de- riving his being from the Son only. For he fays, ** As the Son is the logos of the *' Father, fo the Spirit is the word [f^i^aa] of *' the Son. For it is faid that he," mean- ing the Son, *' fupporteth all things by the *' word of his power J." The ancients are faid by M. Caleca to have believed that ■^ Tg o£ ayjov '3:v£y//-'« to 'sra^ (:::,apc7f^ajv. Ancoratus, fe6l. yi. Opera, vol. 2. p. 75. t Eodam modo etiam in fpiritum fan6lum credimus, qui dominus eft, et vivihcat, qui ex patrc proccdit, et in* filio conquieicit. Orthcd. Fid. lib. i. cap. lo. Opera, p. 26S. X Aia Ti;7o x) Ssa /%£v Ts.Q'^oq y/o^, ^[jm oV viou to 'zsvEu/xa . cpscav yr'j, Qhs Audtuarium, vol. 2. p. 216. length 300 "The Contrcverjy relating Book IL length fettled, at leaft for a long time, that all the three divine perfons adted jointly in every operation in w^hich any of them was concerned. But before it was determined in this manner, divines were much employed in fettling the proper department of the Holy Spirit, after having agreed before, that the Son was the maker of all things under the Father. For fome time it was generally thought that the Father was the only prime caufcy xht fount ai?i of deity ^ the Son his immediate agent in the creation, and that the Spirit was the fan^/fier, or the perfedier of every thing. '' There are three," fays Bafil, *' the ** Father ordaining, the Son executing, and <* the Spirit perfefting*-." '' The Father," fays M. Caleca, ** is diftinguifhed as the ** primary caufe, the Son as the creator, and *^ and the Spirit as the perfedler -f-." Tcv TE^z-jyla TO 'srviui/.x to ayiov. De Sp. S. cap. i6. Opera, Voi. 2. p- 325. ^uia^yitcur^'^rov mov' t-/!v rsXeialiHr:,-. to zjvzvtjixTo ayi:v, Ccmbefis AuLituarium, voL 2. p. 209, It Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 30 1 It appears moft clearly from Eufebius, that X.O fcmBify and to perjeB meant the fame thing. In the interpretation of Pf. xxxiii. 6. By the word of the Lord were the heavens made^ aiid all the hojl of them by the breath of his mouth, he fays, ^' By thefe we are to ** underftand our Saviour, and the Holy ** Spirit, for both co-operated in the crea- *' tion of the heavens and their hofl — For ** nothing is fandified without the pre- *' fence of the Spirit. The word, being the *' demmrgus, introduced the angels into be- ** ing, but the Holy Spirit gave i\\€iv fan^ii- ^^fication-^ for the angels were not created ** infants*.'' But though it had been fettled by moil of the Fathers, that the logos, or the Son, was the medium of all the divine commu- nications of God to man in the Old Tefca- IV TU tiliaa Tav ououvav >y tojv sv avioig d'l/vccfiEuv ' 3jfyii HupiH ci a^avoi xr£^£a;Sr/(7ay .^ ru 'sn/£Vfjiccli m rc/xarog aula fssadcx. n ^uvocfXK; avlav . a^sv ycx^ ayia'Ceiai £i}/.-^i rrj rs;ci^^(na ra nzucvixoc- to; , atyzTMV yav Try j/^sv £ig to mcu tsa^o^ov^ o oY\>jL>.^^yog A0705 'SscmTYiC Tuv o?Mv ^ocoux^To • Tov ayiao-fMv h a-jioig to 'zvEV/xa to ayiov a-uv£7r£!p£^£v ' h yoco vnTfiot kti7^£vt£; a afy£7\ou Monfaucoa's Coileflio, vol. I. p. 124. ment. 502 The Contrcverfy relating Book IL ment, it was now generally thought proper to take from him the province of infpiring the prophets, and to leave to him Only the vifible appearances to Abraham, Mofes, and others. Irenasus fays it was the Spirit of God that fpake by the prophets and the apoftles*. Ambrofe fays, *' it was the *' fame fpirit by which Mofes and Aaron ** performed miracles in Egypt, and who ** fpake by Mofes, the partriarchs, pro- *' phets, and apoftles -j-/' *' The Spirit," fays Cyril of Jerufalem, *^ operates in the ** law and the prophets J. * Unus enim et idem fplrltus Dei, qui in prophetis qui- dem prasconavit, quis et qualis efletadventus domini, in fc- nioribus autem interpretatus eft bene quae bene prophetata fuerant ; ipfe et in apoftolts annunciavit, plenitudinem temporum adoptionis venifle, et proximafle regnum coe- lorum, et inhabitare intra homines credentes in eum, qui ex virgine natus eft Emmanuel. Lib. 3. cap. 25. p. 256. t Ifte eft, in quo Moyfes et Aaron coram Pharaone rege /Egypti figna fecerunt, et de quo magi dixerunt : Hie digitus Dei eft. Tfte eft, qui in Moyfe et in omnibus fanc- tis patriarchis et prophetis atquc apoftolis locutus eft. In Symbol, cap. 6. Opera, vol. 4. p. 91. J To !:vvo,aw /{J '2!rpo^viT«»? I'vZ^^ymav, Cat. 4. Opera, p. 55. Hippolytus Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit, 303 Hippolytus fays that ** the Fathers were ** infpired by the Spirit, and alfo honoured *^ by the logos itfelf, being united to them ** as an inftrument, having the log6s always ** in thenij as a pie^irum^ by which being '* moved, the prophets declared whatever '' God chofe*." With reiped: to the Father and the Son, perfonally conlldered, it does not appear that any particular province, or agency, was affigned to the Spirit, except the mere proceeding from one or both of them, till Synefius called him the ^* center of the Fa- *' ther and the Son -f-^" and M. Vidorinus called him " the copiiia of the Father and *' the Son J." But what they meant by thefe expreffions is bell known to them- felves. sv eccuToig aei rov Xoyov cog 's^avht^ov, ^i a KivufXEVOL aTDilysX^ov raulcc^ aTTE^ Yi^£7<£vo^£og, oi'ziT^o(pr^M. Dc Antichrifto, Opera, p. c. KvjT^ov KQ^a xj 'usal^og. Hymn 5. Opera, p. 342 :|: Adefto. fan6^e fpiritus, patris et filii copula. Tu cum quiefcis pater es, cum procedis filins. In unum qui cunfta nedis, tu es fpiritus fandus. De Trinitate Hymnus. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 360. It .304. ^!^^ Controverfy relating Book II. It was neceffary, however, that the Spi- rit fhould be no cypher in the fyftem ; and that, being a perforiy he ihould have the power of voluntary a6lion. Accordingly, it is obferved by Bafil, that, '' though the *' Spirit h^jent^ according to the csconomy, *' he Vvas no fcrvant, but adted voluntarily *.'' Creation is generally afcribed to the Son; but Bafil maintains, that '^ becaufe it is •^ faid, by the word of the Lord were the ** lieavens made, and all the hoft of them '* by the breath of his mouth, all things ** were created equally by the Son and the •' Spirit -|-/' In another place he adds a farther argument from Pf. cxix. 73. Thy hands have 7nade me and fajhioned me. He alfo fays, that the fupernatural body of Chrift was the vs^ork of the Spirit J. * K'7ioTiyO\i'vca yiiv ciKC/voiA,iKcog^ fVE^yej Se auTZ^ay ^iaypa(pov tw ts ^uTrlio-fxo^og X'^p^^ ' oiXn^sTEpov imvtqi mmov oifxcti 70V 7\oyDV, oil TO -srvey^a Evlccu^a rev az^a koCKu . SiTTcov xao^ oil tov upoiVQV i^ Tr,v r^y ETTOirjcre^ ^ ruv v^alm 5}a rng aCuo-cm fxvYij'^sig^ avaf- y,Mag kJ rn aspo; £/>cv>/crS>j, ui Tng m u^alog s7n(pscvEia^; fjc£xpi ts fipctvn ^ir.Ko^Jlog . aspog yap (puaig, ro ro^g HOih KSi/xsvoig eTn^s^sa-^oii cr^iji,ac: (aoTTOiHv, p^J %i>£(7/^5i s(p rijMv cv, noi] h x} ei/ auln th hv^i^ aa^m. Horn, in. Opera, vol. I. p. 439. X E^£z yap^ og £^r]ywccvlo rm; iccg wTrapxag^ kJ to, 'mpoltia rs ayis '^VEUjA^og roiv ^a7rli(Qf.i,£vuv rn av^pu7rolr{li m cruhipog ns5iv roiaJInv ^ihvlog %a^{v. Cat. 17. Opera, p, 244. X 2 himfelf •508 7be Controverfy relating Book II. hiiiifelf might have fufficed. But Chry-. foftom fays, "• When God, the logos, took ** flefh of us, he fafhioned it according to «« the form of man, or one of the prophets, *< or as one of the apoftles ; receiving the ** Holy Spirit ^ not that the divinity of *' the Son was not fufiicient, but that the " perfect knowledge of the trinity might <* be fliev/n in that creation." i. e. the fiefii of Cbrift ■ '. Auftin doubted v.lietlicr it vvas right to call the Holy ' piric tlie goodnefs of the Fa- ther, and of the ^on \ but he had lefs fcru- pie to fay that he v/as i\\Q Jhticiity of them both -"1^. This, hov/ever, could not refped: * 07av OS avcxT^aQ-.i o Srcj H'jcc tW cra^r.ci tri'.' ^1 '^iJ'(iV 'osoizi uviw 7\uv, C£Xopc£V)iy 'STvei'i/^ ccyicv > sittov 'u^coTi^aCccv^ an o)g fi-n afHii.oyQi, tyiv ccr/ia,v kJ fjLCijiix^iav r^ia^a, 'SJcclpo^ -A ma, iyayiH '27vsy/^7oj, sv a^X'^i ^oyu Tarlaai. Prseparatioj-lib. il. cap. 19. p. 541. '\ Viavla s7rQn} cx}yE>^ >^7r};^ noLv (Xfx^^y^>^?-> «^ Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 3 1 1 '' The Father," fays Bafil, "had no need of *' the Son, though he operated by him i " but he chofe to do fo ; nor does the Son ** want affiftance, when he operates like the *^ Father 5 but he chofe to perfed: every "thing by the Spirit*." ''As the Fa^ ^* ther," fays Theodoretj " could have ** created without the Son, but did it not, ** to fliew the identity of his nature ^ fo the " Son could have fancflified man with- *^ out the Spirit, but did it with the Spirit, '* that what was done might be the work " of the Father, Son, and Spirit +.'* As if an equal capacity for every thing had not been a fufficient argument of equal fAoclav aula^yiav . aXX oli ^(ZcriXwEiv twv vtt aula 'SE'^oiYifiEvav rov viov Cat. II. Opera, p. 146. xj rBieav. De Sp. S. cap. l6. Opera, vol. 2. p. 325. •f- fla-TTep q myakp, 5'yva/*£v@" tSuTM rov a^^^faTToVi /*£?« ra viH xJi^% iva ^tx^ TO rauloy t«$ ^ycr£w$ ' kloi x\ o viog^ ^wafAEV^ kIicm ayiov rov av^^uwov, fjiila th 'miVfjioil^ aym hIi^si^ ivo^ ^e'X^ "^^ yiyov^ £§yov "sra/p©", xj wa, )y aym 'Bsviv^iai^t Dial. Adv. Macedonian, Opera, vol. 5, p. 343. X 4 power ^ ^12 7 he Controverfy relating Book IL pcwer^ the three perfons were reprefented as all adtiially bearing a part in every opera- tion. A treatife afcribed to Athanafius is the firft in which I have found this fenti- rnent, as applied to the body of Chrift. ** How," fays the Macedonian, " does So- *' lomon fay wifdom has builded herfelf a " houfei' Orthodox. " Becaufe all the works ** of the Father are alfo thofe of the Son, *' and of the Spirit -, and, therefore, it is ** fometimes faid to be the Father's, fome- ** times the Son's^ and fometimes the Holy ** Spirit's*." But it iis in Ambrofe, as I have obfcrved^ that this fyftem of joint operation appears moft complete. ** The holy and undi- ** vided trinity," he fays, '* never does any *^ thing feparately." He inftances in the ** incarnation, the voice from heaven, at '' thebaptifmofChrift,&c.f" '^ What one Hws iXTiiv ^oUixm. H Cocj rx uyA mwfial©- m . )y 3ia talo nzoii m moti^^^ Uy{ica, mole t« W£, '5ro?e *ra ayiH 'meVjxal©-. Opera, vol. 2. p. 233. - t Quia fan6la et infeparabilis trinitas numquam alicjuid fe5(tra fe fingillatim operari noverit. In Symb. Opera^ Vol. 4. p. 93. «< fpeaks Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 313 ** fpeaks, they all fpeak; for there Is one ** voice of the trinity*." *' The Father, *' Son, and Spirit, created the body of *' Chrifl: ^ the Father, becaufe it is faid ** God fent his Son mack of a woman ; th6 • *' Son becaufe it is faid ivifdom has buUdecl "^^ her a houfe ; and the Spirit becaufe Mary ** was with child by the Spirit \,'' He repfefents all the perfons as prefent at the baptifm of Jefus, ** the Spirit under a *' corporeal form, and the Father, becaufe ** he could not be feen, was heardj." Auftin, who generally followed the fteps of his mafler Ambrofe in other things, did * Quod unus loquitur, tres loquuntur, quia vox Una eft trinitatis. In Luc. lib. 10. Opera, vol. 2. pi 203. f Et etinim ficut legimus quia creavic pater dominies incarnationis facramentum, creavit et fpiritus: ita etiain legimus quod et ipfeChriftus fuum corpus creavit, Creavit cnim pater, fecundum quod fcriptum eft: dominus creavit me — et alibi: mifit Deus filium fuum faflum ex muliere fa6lum fub lege. Creavit et fpiritus illud omne myfterium^ fecundum quod legimus ; quia inventa ell: Al.iria in utero habens ex fpiritu fan^lo, De Sp. S. lib. 2. cap. 8. Opera, vol. 4. pi 241- % Videnius fpiritum^ fed" fpecie Corporali : videamus et patrem 5 fed qui vidfere non pofTumus, audiamus. In Luc. cap. 3. Opera, vol. 2» p. 41. it 314 The Coftfroverjy relating Book II. it in this. He fays, in general, that *' in ** whatever the trinity ads, it operates in* ** feparably, becaufe there is one operation *' of the trinity, as it is one fubftance, <* effence, and will*/* ** The whole tri- *^ nity/* he fays, *' reconciled us to itfelf, as *' the whole trinity made the wordflefh'f'/* He fays that ** the appearances of God in ** the Old Teftament, might be of God *' in general, or of the whole trinity, or of ** the Father, Son, or Spirit, according to ^' thecircumftances of the paffage j/' '^ The ** voice from heaven, I have glorified it, and *^ will glorify it again, was from the whole * Quicquid operatur trinltas fanfla infeparabiliter haec eadem operatur, quia una eft trinitatis operatic ficut una eft fubftantia eflentia et voluntas. Queftiunculse ex libris de Trinitate, Opera, vol. 3. p. 1038. t Trinitas enim nos fibi reconciliavit, per hoc quod fo- lum verbum carnem ipfa trinitas fecit. De Fid. cap. %, Opera, vol. 3. p. 217. ^Tam enim quii^fitum atque tradatum eft, in iliis anti-r quis corporibus forniis et vifis, non tantummodo patrem, ncc tantumodo filium, nee tanturnmodo fpiritum fan<^um spparuifTe fed aut indifierentcr dominum deum qui trinitas ipfa intelligitur aut quamlibet ex trinitate perfonam, quam IcAionis textus indiciis circumftantibus fignificaret. De Trinitate, lib. 3. cap i. Opera, vol. 3. p. 281. *' trinity.'* Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit, 315 '* trinity*/' He fays that he was the firfl who taught that dodlrine. This doctrine of the joint operation of all the perfons in the trinity, though moft confpicuous in Ambrofe and Auftin, is not peculiar to them. It appears in Epiphanius and Bafil. /' All works/' fays the former, ^* are the joint produdlion of the Father, *' Son, and Spirit -f-/' *' In every opera- " tion," fays Bafil, " the Holy Spirit co- " operates with the Father and the Son ij;/' We find the fame in Theophylad:, who * Omnes qiios legere potui qui ante me fcripferunt de trini- tate, quae eft Deus, dlvinorum librorum veterum etnovorum catholic! tra6latores, hoc intenderunt fecundum fcripturas docere, quod pater et filius et fpiritus fan^lus, uniiis ejuf* deinquefubftantias infeparablliaequalitatedivinum infinuent unitatem. — Nee eandem trinitatem dixifie de caelo : Tu es filius meus: five cum baptizatus eft a Johanne, five in montem quum cum illo erant tres difcipuli : aut quem fonuit vox, dicens : et clarificavi et iterum clarificabo : (c^ tantummodo patrisvocem fuiflead filiura hCtum quam- vis pater et filius et fpiritus fanclus, ficut infeparai)iies funt. Ibid. lib. i. cap. 4. p. 242- f Ylavla, yc'^ t« £^ya oacx, £ri(Tt Ttiv -zs-i^it' 01 KoyoDi^ KctjiAiTri, De Spiritu Sando, cap. ?9» Opera, vol. 2. p. 360. T» ovo{xet]of TH via, }^ t6 TsviVfJ-cLT^ Ta etynt, a,pATi^'7rit» Apol. I p. 96. X Eti -zsrAO-i J^i 01? 'sr^o^^gpo/i/sS-rf iv^oynfJAy top 'uoimt^f Tsr ayi^* Ibid. p. 97. according 220 7 he Coniroverfy relathig Book II ^ According to what was fuppofed to have been the pradice of the earlieft ages, it is faid, that *' God alone is to be worCnipped *^ by Jefus Chrift, and in the Holy Spirit*." With refpecl to the argument from the fcriptures, Bafil contents himfelf with fay- ing, that ** many things were received on *' the authority of apoftolipal tradition, and ** that there was no more reafoii to rejed: ^' this than thofe*." As the perJonaHty of the Spirit was very niuch qiieilioned, Epiphanius fays, that *' he affumed the form of a dove, at the *■* baptifm of our Saviour, on purpofe to ** fhow that he had a real perfon:};/' It HA sri • ;u civTov UDVov aiCitv >^ 'arpo!r;cv;'2i>', o'la. li\(7-»/^ 7^70 ■■Gra\-^.S'i-/^^n7a • 5/ cTg ta ^hit^a TO l/.V7iiiuv etyp^.:;,c:<; r\uiv iiJ.7rohi7iVi7cfj, f/57^ £?i£y^n as tw 'srXawiv, oli EvvTfOTCilcv Eft TO 7rv£V(A.cc xot9* £avlo^ K^ svuTToroilog IffCZ- 7rjf, iy tviTroTolo^ fMvoymg, Hasr. 62. Opera, vol. i. p. 517. was Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 321 was acknowledged, however, by Auftin and others, that the Holy Spirit aflumed the form of a dove on this occafion, as well as of^r^ on the day of Pentecoft, for a time only, and not permanently, as Chrift did his body *. It fhould feem, therefore, that this could not be a proof of permanent per- fonallty. As Athanafius was the great aflerterof the divinity of the Spirit, and of his being confubftantial vnth the Father, the reader will be defirous of feeing fome of his argu- ments, and the following are a fpecimeii of them. '' The Spirit," he fays, '' muft *' be confubftantial with the Father and the *' Son, becaufe, according to Paul, the Spi- *' rit of God fearches all things, even the *' deep things of Godf .'' " Their folly is *^ to be wondered at, who, not admitting * Non enim ficut filius hDminem afTurhprit, ut iic ifi jeternum permaneat, fic fpiritus fan6lus columbam vel igncm : fi^d fads; funt illae vifiones de creatura inferiore, ad manifeilandum fplrituni fandum quae efTe poftea defli- terunt. Queft. 65. Qper^, vol. 4. p. 679. *Sfcc}pi :lj 01(0 . mjavlcx yap ru th Ssa «5 ra ^a^n iTTirdlM to 'SJVsvfMi TO ayiov. Difp. Con. Ar. Opera, vol. i* p. 144. Vol. II. Y *' the 322 The Controverfy relating Book IL ** the Son of God to be a creature, in this ** thinking very juflly, yet think the Spi- *' rit of the Son to be a creature'*."^ — ** This/' fays he, *' is admitting a duality, ** not a trinity-j-." Bafil alfo calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of ChriftJ. The capital argument for the divinity of the Spirit is, that the fame things are afcribed to him as to God. This is urged by Epiphanius, v/ho fays, ** The Holy ** Spirit is God, becaufe he does the fame " things that the Son does. Thus Chrift ** is fent by the Father, and the Spirit is *' alfo fent; Chrifl fpeaks in the faints, " and the Spirit alfo fpeaks in them; Chrift *' baptizes, and the Spirit baptizes, &c.§" One ftanding argument againft the divi- nity of the Spirit, and a proof of his being a mere fervant of the Father, and even of the Son, is his being faid to be Jent by * Talwv yap ;^ ^ocvixacsizv av nri; ryy avoiav, oli rov vicv ts Beh /xn ' ^£>£vli; sivcci Kliai^ay Ka naT^ug ye rs7o (p^oviivlEg^ 'zscog to 'ssvevjjux, th uia hlicTf/MHav aKHo-ai YivEaxovio. Kpiil. Ad Serapion, Opera, vol. I. p. 174. 196. + K 7«^ a Tpiag eny a^^a ouag.* Ibid. p. X75. % Uvsuftac K x^irovTcv aviov eivm. Horn. 27. Opera, vol.i* p. 523. -^-^^ *-/.. Opera, vol. I. p. 523. them. Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 32-^ tliem. . But to this argument Ambrofe fays, " The Son is fometimes faid to be *^ fent by the Spirit, as. The Spirit of the *' Lord is upon me, becaufe he has fent '^ me to preach the gofpel to the poor,&c.*'* In John iv. 24. it is faid, God is a fpirit -, but Ambrofe read it, the Spirit is God ; and he fays, that this text fo clearly proves the divinity of the Spirit, that the Arians erafe it out of their books -f-. I do not find, hov^ever, that any other w^riter mentions this circumftance. To advance the dignity of the Spirit, Job, the monk, fays, '' that the *' holy fcriptures call the v^hole trinity by ^^ his name, in faying, God is ajpirif^,'* * Ita et filium Dei fpiritus mifit. Dicit enim filius Def, fplritus domini fuper me, propter quod unxit me praedicare captivis remiHionem, et ccscis vifum. De Sp. S. lib. 3; Opera, vol. 4. p. 254» t Quern locum ita exprefle Ariani teftificamini efle de fpiritu, uteum de veftris codicibus auferatis : atqueutinam de veftris, et non etiam de ecclefiae codicibus tolleretis. — Et fortafie hoc etiam in oriente feciftis. Et litcras quidem potuittis abolere; fed fidem non potuiflis auferre. De Spiritu San6to, lib. 3. cap. 11. Opera, vol. 4. p. 271. TW T^ia^a TYi T8 'Sjv£UfM)iIo; £^ovdy.a^£t ^wvw, «$ TO ismiMX 0£OJ. Phot. Bib. fe6t.222. p»62 3, Y 2 The 324 I'heControverfy relating Book IL The arguments for the proceffion of the Spirit, either from the Father or the Son, or from both, lie in a fmall compafs. For the whole depends upon his being faid to bey^72/ by either, or by both of them. Be- fides this, Auftin fays, that " our Saviour's *« imparting the Holy Spirit by breathing «« on his apoftks, is a proof that the Spirit ** proceeds from him, as well as from the " Father*." It is remarkable, that the doftrine of the divinity of the Spirit was attacked with even more vigour than that of the divinity of Chrift ; the reafon of v/hich was that, befides the unitarians, the Arians joined in this attack ; and being very numerous at the time of that controverfy, and having fometimes the favour of the emperors, they fpoke and wrote with great freedom. We know lefs of the hiftory of Macedo- nlus, who was at the head of the oppolition * Neque enim flatus ille Gorporeus, cum fenfu corpo- raliter tangendi procedens ex corpore, fubftantia fpiritus fan£lifuit, fed demonftratio per congruam fignilicationem, ron tantum a patre, fed et a filio procedere fpiritum fanc- tum. De Trinitate, lib. 4* cap. 20. vol. 3. p. 313. to Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 325 to the doftrine of the divinity of the Spirit, than of that of Arius, or ahnoft any other leader of a fed. He is faid not to have denied the perfonality of the Spirit ; for Sozomen fays, that *' he held the Spirit to " be a perfon, but like one of the angels, *^ fubfervient to the Father and the Son, *^ whom he allowed to be confubftantial ** with each other ^"." The fame is afferted by Nicephorusf. It appears from Atha- nafius 1^ that they who held this opinion were alfo called Tropicil. That Macedonius, and his proper followers, did not deny the divinity of Chrift, is evident from what Chryfoftom fays, with fome degree of plea- ** fantry. " The Arians fuffering fliip- " wreck, loft both the glory of Ghrift, and " the power of the Holy Spirit : the Ma- * To '^i-ayiov 'sntvfia, a/Aoi^ov tojv aulcov 'srpE^'oeKcv ci'7rB(pa\,viloy Lib. 4. cap. 27. p. 173. f AiccKovov yof auTo blvou k) uTra^yov sw-nygixp, ^ ^/?axy t< ra aTyehiKCiiv ^ioc^e^ov rayiAarm, Lib. 9. cap. 47. vol. I- p. 800. % Ot ^£ T^OTTDiOly TO nSVEVlMt ^ ai/TQly TOi; KTlO-JASKn (TWa^lO^)ifflV* Epift. Ad Serapion, Opera, vol. i. p. 192. Y 3 cedonians 326 The Controverfy relating Book II. <* cedonians, ftriving to efcape, loft half ** the lading*/' The great weight of the oppofition to the dodtrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, was in Afia Minor, where it was encoun- tered by Bafil, and the two Gregories ; but it was fo violent that it amounted to a kind of perfecution. Nothing gives fo much alarm to the people, as a change in the public offices in religion ; and Bafil feems to have given occafion to the violent outcry againft him by finging glory to the Holy Spirit, as well as to the Father, and the Son. He fpeaks of his being perfecuted on this account, in his treatife on the Holy Spiritt* He fpeaks of the dodlrine about the Holy Spirit as what intercfted all people J. He reprefents it as a fubjedl of univerfal dif- cuffion, even by women and eunuchs, by whom he was befet, affuming the charadler of * Oi apiioivoi voiuctyno-avlec, aTTuT^saav^ y^ Xp^^^ ^Q^av>C) ayia *BVEviUiiog ^uvafxiv . MccHS^GViavoi (pi>.QV£Miiai (jlev avaQwcci^ to ^e v.^ii- 0-uTii(pofli^a7ru7^£aav. De Sp. S. Opera, vol. 6. p. 220. t Cap. 26. Opera, vol.2, p. 361. X Ylaaa yu^ anoYi vuv nspo^ tyiv OH^oaaiv ruv T^oym tm 'zcf^t rk ayia msviMlos avr^^s^iacci. Horn. 27. Opera, vol. i. p. 522. judges. Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 327 judges, and not of learners*." In another place, he complains of perfons " teazing ** him with queftions about the Holy Spirit, ** not with any view to information, but ^' that if his anfwers Ihould not pleafe " them, they might have a handle to make ** waragainft him-f." He fpeaks of the zeal of his opponents in the ftrongeft terms. '' They would '' fooner," he fays, '' cut out their tongues ** than fay Glory to the Holy Spirit. This *' is the caufe of the mod violent, and irre- ** concileable war with us. They fay that ^' glory is to be given to God in the Holy *' Spirit, not to the Holy Spirit ; and they ** obftinately adhere to this language con- <* cerning the Spirit, as expreffing a low '' opinion of him J." '' When I was lately ^* praying before the people, and fometimes ^QftiiJLOiJCti ^nT^oiAmi^ UK auloi TL >.x^£iv eTTi^y^lav^* Horn. 27. Opera, vol. i. p. 523. 526. t Am' oTTug eoiv (JLY) a-uix^MVHJscg rn eoLulav sm^uiAix tm octtoh^I'* Sp. S. opera, vol. 2. p. 292. ci-ivro . Tsia /asv ay ertv, tov (xkyi^wcIov yiiaiv kJ (i^TTiV^v "ssouixov Y 4 ^'^^' 328 The Controverfy relating Boo k 1 1 . ** concluding with the doxology to the Fa- <^ ther, with the Son and Holy Spirit, and ** foinetimci through the Son in the Holy ** Spirit, feme who were prefent laid, that '' I ufed phrafes which were not only new, *' but contradidory*/' He fays that *' he ** was accufed of novelty, and as an inventor ** of new phrafes, and that they fpared no ** kind of reproach, becaufe he made the " Son equal to the Father, and did not fe- «• parate the Holy Spirit from the Son f ; on *' which account, he fays, he applied to ** himfelf our Saviour's faying blejjed are ye *' when men reproach you^ ^c^' ^"^^ fpeak- vnf, Tn 'mBu/xaloi 'ss£^i2x^'Jl<^. De Sp.S.vol. 2. cap. 25. p. 347. * Xl^oa-ivxcfjiiVQ fjLOL 'u^^mv {Mda ra ^«s, xj ctjji,(pol£cco^ tysv h^oT^o* yiav aTTcn'y^Yi^iivli tw Sew >cJ '5ra7^i, vuv /x£v (/.eIo, ra um aw rcu lavwixccli TO) ayiw, vvv 3e 5ia ts via £v ayiOi 'sivsufxali. zTt^cFHY^av Tfvfc, rm t)i>:>y]^\i{J.£v tw //tov^ya'st tw hf;'.'hQy:avy ^U xaivclcfjLiig K) £(pvj^{lcz; ^ri^o^cov, ^ ri ya^ »%i jtav BTrom^^Tcov aiiOKO." T^a-iv. Ibid. cap. 6. p. 301. 304. l X2v Toaslov aTfx;w ^v.oioo^icciiy ut£ v, {/.)] >JU7ry\v Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 329 Ing of his own refolution, he fays, ** we *' mud obey God rather than man*.'' Thefe circumftances clearly fliow that the great mafs of the people exceedingly dif- liked the dodrine for which Baiil con- tended. The fame flate of things appears alfo from the writings of Gregory Nazian- zen, who fays, ** the heretics fay, whoever *' worshipped the Spirit, either of the an- ^* cients or moderns -f-." If what Jerom and others fay J, be true, that ** Donatus agreed with the Arians, *' with refpedt to the Holy Spirit," it will be an argument of fome weight in favour Ha^m yap £r£, (p-ncrtv, cluv ov£i^ia-cocnv UfjLag [^y 5i«|a;cri }Cj EiTraxn isav 'zsovn^ov ^yifAcx, xaS' v)(jt,uv -j^Ey^o/zEvot] evshev spm. Etti thIqi^ TO 'mo?^£i^ixov mlo xaS* rj/^wv (TvyumivyTicci ri(pc^ • 'sracrai h zioKBig, jy K^yLMi ^9 £j Kii.oyQi ' y^ El ah?\^og En, 'srco^ fAovoyEvng o >^oyog, y] ^a^ hk laoi, aKk o /x»ii', (mUcc rov "^(xiE^oc yEyEvvyilcci ro h, /xslcc rov uiov ovo/jlcc^eIm ' 'srcog ?£ El EK Ts 'usail^oi; £r/v, s 7^Ey{la,i «J aula yEyEvvw'^ai ' n oli viot; Efiv a'Kh oi7r>>0)^ 'SJVEu/J'ix ayiov • ei Se ra uia eti '7svEV[Aa^ hkhv 'tuaTTcoog zriv 'ma%^ Ts msu/xxJo^, Epift. Ad. Serapion, Opera, vol. i. p. 189. -f- Ayswyjlov etiv v yEvvr^lov . si (jlev ya^ ayEvin^ov^ '^(zJyi^ , ei 'os yEV" r>{!ov, viog . £ih{A,n^ eIe^qv T-ilaVy y^i(7(A.o!,» Horn, 27. Opera, vol; I. p. 524. *' Jefus 332 The Controverfy relating Book IL <« Jefus Chrift will not be the only be- *« gotten Son. Thefe/' he fays, '* were *' ufual topics of argument *.'* As no fa- tisfidtory anfwers could ever be given by the orthodox to thefe queftions, which are calculated to fet their doftrine in a very ridiculous point of light, it is no wonder that fo long a fpace of time, aided by the authority of councils and emperors was ne- ceffary to eftablifh it. One argument to prove that the Holy Spirit is a creature, was drawn from John i, 3. where it is faid that every thing was viade by the logos, and ivithout him nothing *was made. But to this Epiphanius anfwers, that the true reading was ^without him no^ thing was made that was made by him^. But * Idcirco illud quod folent tra6tare prxtereo, facrilega adverfus nos audacia proclamantes. Si fpiritus fandlus creatus non eft, aut frater eft Dei patris, aut patruus eft unigeniti Jefu Chrifti : aut filius Chrifti eft, aut nepos eft Dei patris : aut ipfe filius Dei eft, et jam non erit unige- nitus Jefus Chrillus, cum alterum fratrem habeat. De 5p. S. in Jerom's works, vol. 6. p. 234. v'xmv Tim Ev Tw Ej9r£iv isavla oi am syivelo^ it^ xwf'5 aula zy^vdo ■d^i'j • ffcJ5 «0c «5ro7i9sv(£5 TO f>i7ov, vjowiav i3?^cr^»//iotj e«f to wvev- Chap. IX. to the Holy Spirit. 333 this, befides fuggefting no meaning at all, appears to have no authority beiides his own. In this controverfy great ftrefs was laid, on the force of fome Greek particles ; as appears from Bafil, ** As it is faid, 1 Cor. *' viii. 6. there is one God, the Father, of ** whom (ela) are all things, and one Lord ** Jefus Chrift, by whom (5i«) are all things, *' and one Holy Spirit, in whom (evw) are all *' things, they (i. e. the heterodox) fay that *' the 3^; «, and ^vw, are proofs of a different, *' nature ; and therefore, that the Son was avoiJt.oio<; (unlike) to the Father*.** Confidering the violence with which this controverfy was condudled, it fliews great moderation in Gregory Nazianzen, to ex- lioc, TO ocyiov ^aCov7£J, >(jU)cloi TYig avayvaasug crHtx^miv £if ^Xcca-^n/Mav T^S7roi/.£voi. n os ayayvacTig ^a; E%ei • ^avla, Jt ay?^ eysvslo iy x^§^i ^w^^ sysvsio a3ev, @y£yov£v £v auTco* raTETi on Et ri ysyovs, Ji* coith eysvero. An- coratus, fe6t. 75. Opera, vol. 2. p. 80. * Ejj ^sog )Lj 's^aty]^ h| a rex, rnavra, iy £i; ku^icg himg xftroj, 5i u tot 'TravToty hou iv 'suveu/xcc ayiov, sv a rex. ^avToi, — Avofxoicv h ra £| s TO 5i a, avofjLOiOi a§ci HCii tco ^(xr^i viog. De Sp. S. Op. vol. 2. p. 294. prefs 334 ^'^^ Controverjy y &c. Book II. prefs himfelf fo favourably concerning the Macedonians. For he fays, '^ We admire *' their lives, but do not approve their ** faith '''^'* It is evident, that Bafil thought proper to yield, in fome meafure, to the times, and the circumftances in vv^hich he found himfelf. That he might not ex- clude too great a number from commu- nion, he advi fed that, without entering into nice diftindtions, all thofe fhould be ad- mitted v>^ho did not fay that the Holy Spirit v/as a creaturef. Or. 44. Opera, p. 710. f Etts/ ^v 'zsQ}^. ^o[j.ciict Vivoiy^idu iicL']ci TK 'n^vivy.ctjoi th etyrc:, y^ 'Zro?^?^cu y ?<.::) cr(Tcrj 'c)k.ovv.v]cu s/? 1\)V ^^c(j\i cLVTa ^Xci(r- c;',aidVi ci^tisuiVj vijcjl^ q(jqv isiv i?* ^ly.iv £;? oKiyov apiQfj.ov 'mifl^YidCU TSJ ^hcfJj(f\)lJXV7:f^^, ''h '^^^ y-*^ ^lyoVTctf y.TKTUcL 10 ^vivy-cL TO ayiov ^lyjic^sn.i as ksii'cjhav, Ep. 203. Opera, vol. 3. p. 223. CHAP- [ 335 3 CHAPTER X. Of the DoBrine of the Trinity after the Conn' cil of Nice. A FTER the council of Nice, we find a very different kind of orthodoxy from that which prevailed before. It was a -maxim with the Antenicene writers, that the Son was inferior to the Father. They even exprefled themfelves, as has been feen, in the ftrongeft manner upon this fubjed, and were felicitous fo to do in order to remove the odium under which it is evi-- dent that the new dod:rine of the divinity of Chrijl then lay. But as the chriftian world, and efpecially both the philofophi- cal and the governing part of it, began to relifh this dodlrine (being one of which they were lefs afhamed, than of being the difciples of a mere fnan) the Platonic doc- trine of Chrift being the logos of the Father was purfued to its jud: extent ^ and, ac- cordingly, the Son was then pronounced to be 336 The Dodirine oftheTrinity Book II. be of the fame fubflance with the Father, and therefore equal to him in all refpedts. At this, though nothing more than the natural confequence of the dodrine of Chrill being the logos of the Father, many revolted ; and this circumftance, among others, contributed, no doubt, to the fchifm of the Arians ; who, firmly retaining the former dodrine of the inferiority of the Son to the Father, and yet feeing the im- poffibility of holding this with that of his being the proper logos of the Father, main- tained that he was a created logos, or limply a fuper-angelic fpii-it, created (as was then the opinion) out of nothing,, hwt ftill the maker of the world under God, as had been aiTerted of the former logos. The alarm given by the new doctrine of the perfect equality of the Son to the Father was the greater, as, in the Sabellian con- troverfy, it had been incautiouily aiTerted, not only that Chrift \\d.s inferior to the •Father, but even of a different fubjlance from him. For, as the learned unitarians had talked of the divinity in the Father and that in the Son being the very fanie^ their opponents Chap. X. after the Council of Nice. ^37 opponents had maintained, that it was quite different; and this language had been uni- formly held till the rife of the Arian con- troverfy ; fo that thofe bifhops who depof- ed Paul of Samofata, and thofe who were affembled at Nice, held, in fadt, quite oppo- lite dodrines j the one faying, that the Son was not confulffaritial with the Father, and the other, that he was fo. But at thofe different times they had different objeds, and attended lefs to the propriety of their language, than to contradid their oppo- nents. Notwithftanding the prevalence of the new dodrine, we perceive feveral remains of the old, viz. that of the Father being the fole fountain of deity, which necelfarily im* pliedfome kindof inferiority in the Son, both at the time of the Council of Nice, and afterwards. Indeed, that great principle (which ftrongly militates againft the doc- trine of the equality of the Son) was never properly given up at any period; and in words it is, I believe, in general, maintain- ed by thofe who are called orthodox in the prefent age. ** There is one God," fays Vol. II. Z Athanafius, 338 The DoBrine of the Trinity Book IL Athanafius, ** becaufe there is one Father*/* Bafil alfo fays, ** there are not two Gods, ** becaufe not two Fathers -f-." And Cyril of Alexandria acknowledges, that *' when *^ the fcriptures fpeak of one God, that name <* is to be applied to the Father only, with *' whom the word was J/' But Pope Da- mafus, in the fourth century, anathematized thofe who faid that the Father, excluiive of the Son and Spirit, was the one God §. * E/f-^so? o7/ itcii TTciji'iQiii. Contra Sabell. Opera, voL i. p. 655,656. -|- Ov S'vo ^rioi, ovS'iyctf S'vo 'jcf.Ti^i^. Horn 27. Opera, vol. 1. p. 521, X Quare quum ununi Deum praedicare fcripturam in- veniamus, patri folum modo id nomen vere attribuimus, apud quern erat verbum. In John. cap. 3. Opera, vol. i. p. 603. § H 'ZFct^i'.' vm^iKoui 0^ lev viov Kelt ro <7FviviJ.et TO ayiov fe'f y.ovov vTrovoiKTcti rov 'Zirctjipct ^iov hiyiJ'd-cti, « [Ail ^is-ivzcr- ^ctt ii'cL r^icv, avihiiJicJ. iTco, Thecdoriti, Hill. lib. 5. cap. II. p. 211. SEC- Chap. X. after the Council of Nice. 339 SECTION I. The DoBrine of the perfect Equality of all the Perfons in the Trinity. 'TpO fliow how far the fentiments and language of the orthodox Fathers changed after the council of Nice, I fhall produce paffages from the moft celebrated of them, in v/hich they exprefs their opi- nion with refped: to the pefeoi equality of the Son to the Father, or that of all the three perfons to each other. Whereas it had been the univerfal lan- guage, from which no perfon thought him- felf at liberty to depart, to fay that the Fa- ther was the one true God^ it was now the cuflom to fay, that the Trinity was the one God. This is the conftant language of Auilin. Speaking of the immenfity of the divine nature, he fays, '^ fo is the Father, *' fo is the Son, fo is the Holy Spirit, fo is *^ the Trinity, one God*." Accordingly, * Tta pater, ita filius, ita fpiritus fan.o) rco vico^ xj oT^o; uio^ ev o^w tco 'sicclfi. Opera, vol. 2. p. 901. ■f Ei yocp ax(>yi'rc^ f^^v n ruv (TEfxvav rz y^ ^rifjiiav rv]g ayiag rpiah; ETiv n ari rct^v a/xafiuov s^ayopsucrt;^ » 'SjE^j rai Ei/^c^af 'Sjpo^viMu^ r] 'S^spi to -n^o; KoPiOp^aai^^ loiuxia Coi- ^poaiA'W $iiiv^ TO 'zrpo^ to d'lKctiov ^Xsttbiv^ to fx-t] Taig zTTi^vfJUCU^ cSi- CecrSaj, //vi7e n^ovvg'riTlaa^ai^ (xy^t apf,y]; aTro^EiTTEa^ai, Contra Eunomium, Or. lo- Opera, vol.2, p-277. t Kai 0, Ti av Tuv Tciuv KocJa ^(ofiev, to -zarav no^aipm voiJii^6{x£v, Q] . 20. Opera, p. 338. " tber^s G H A p . X . after the Council of Nice. 349 " ther's perfections*/' Chryfoftom gives the preference to the Father only in name. " I name the Father firft,*' fays he, *^ not " on account of his rank, but becaufe he is *^ the Father of the only begotten /* and at the fame time, he fays, that *' there is no- ** thing improper in naming the Son be- '' fore the Fatherf /' <' There is no dif- ** ference,'' fays Theodoret, *' between the ** Father and the Son, but in generating *Vand being generated, in emitting and ',' proceeding J." *^ If any one," fays Pope Damafus, ** does not fay that the Father, *< Son, and Spirit, have one godhead, power, ** dominion, glory, and authority, one king- * Cum enim Chrlftus Dei virtus fit, deique fapientia, omnes in fe virtutes continet patris. In Efaiam, lib. 12. Opera, vol. 4. p. 140. ax ^5 ctlcotlog mixi^£Jo\ Ser. 4, Opera, vol. 6. p. 34. J A. OuH eriv 8 ^la^o^a 'sjotlpog^ ^ viHy }y ay in Tuveu/jixlo; • O. Ey TretATTEiv KM sKTTQpEVEG-^ai, voii. Dial. Adv. Anonisos. Op. vol. 5. p. 275. *' dom. 350 7he Do^rine of the Trinity B o o k II . *^ dom, one will, and one truth, let him be «^ anathema*/' ** The Son," fays Ambrofe, '' knows the ** will of the Father, and the Father that of ** the Son ; and the Son hears the Father al- '* ways, and the Father the Son, by an union •* of nature, will, and fubftance-f." '* The ** Father/' fays M. Caleca, ** is a whole ** God, the Son a whole God, and the '* Spirit a whole God J/' According to this language, it would certainly have been mod natural to fay, that there were three Gods-, and this, indeed, is fometimes tacitly acknowledged ; but the fcriptures hav- ing exprefsly aiferted the contrary, thefe fjLiav ^Eol-^a^ E^aaiav^ ^uvatrEiav //tiav, ob|av, Ku^ioWa fiiav^ ^acriMiav fjLiav, SEAncTiv, )t, aAnSe/av, ava^yi/Ma £r«. Theodoriti, Hifl:. lib, 5. cap. II. p. 211. f Scit autem femper filius voluntatem patris, et pater filii, et audit patrem filius femper, et pater filium per uni- tatem naturae, voluntatis atque fubftantiae. Hex. lib. 2. Opera, vol. i. p. 22. X Kai ya^ 'sralno ^so; o>.c;^ x^- e uio; ^so; o>,o^^ >Cj ro 'inviV/jLx 79 ayiDv^sc^ o>,oi, Combcfis Auduarium, vol. 2. p. 203. writers Chap. X . after the Council of Nice, 3 5 1 writers could not do it in words, ** To fay *' that there are more Gods than one,*' fays Hilary, " is irreligious *.'* SECTION II. Of the new Language introduced at and after the Council office. T^EW ideas always require new terms; and unfortunately the nice diftinftions which were now made with refped: to the dodlrine of the trinity, required more words than had ever been ufcd by theologians be- fore; nor was there any thing in the Greek philofophy to correfpond to the diftinclions that were now to be exprefled. Befides, the Latin tongue was much lefs copious than the Greek; and this aiForded a new fource of embarralTment and contradidion among thofe who wifhed to fay the fame thing. To exprefs the difference between the three perfons, it was neceffary to have one * Quia et Deos dici irreligiofum eft. Lib. 11. p. 271. term 352 The Dodri72e of the Trinity Book II. term which might be applied to them all^ and another to each of them feparately. For thouc^h they were one in a certain refped:, that is, as God, they mufh be called three in another (i. e.) as perfons in the godhead* The two terms that were candidates for this latterofficein the Greek language were 87:; y70racrEW$ a7rE%p>:crav7c. Hift. lib. 3. cap. 7. p. 180. 2 Before Chap. X. after the Council of Nice. 3^;^ Before the Arian controverfy it had, as I have obferved, been uniformly faid by the orthodox, that the Father and the Son were different in their effence. Origen expreflly fays this, as well as that the Son was fubjedt to the Father *. Alfo Athanafius, in his fifth oration againfl: the Arians, maintains, that ejfcnce and hypojlafis mean the fame thing. The author of a treatife afcribed to him fliys, *' whoever afferts that there *' are three hypoftafis, that is, three fub- ** fiances, he, under the name of piety, af- *' ferts three natures •|';'' and this, accord- ing to the orthodox, conftituted the poly- theifm of the Arians. ** Accordingly, it *' was agreed,'* fays Sozomen, *^ in a coun- '* cil held at Alexandria, which Athanafius ** attended, that the word effence fhould be ** avoided, except in difputing with the Sa- *' bellians J." It was alfo maintained in the '" E< v«p ^^p^-i cog EV a>^oig ^SiKVuloti^ xoit aaiav^ ;^ VTTOKti/xevo^, £fiv uiog'rx iralpog, De Oratiofie, p. 48, f Quifquis autem tres vTroracug dicit, id eft, tres fub- ftantias, is fub nomine pietatis tres naturas conatur afTerere. Opera, vol. 2. p. 581. Vol. it. A a tf 3 S4 '^'^'^ Do^n'nc cftbe Trmity Book II. council of Sardica, at which Athanafius was prefent, that '* there is one effence of the '* Father, Son, and Spirit, which e^e?7ce the '* heretics call hypofiojls ^*\" It was with refpedt to this difference about effence and Lypojlq/isy that Gregory Nazianzen fays, *' it was ridiculous, though '^ lamentable, that fo a fmall difference in ** words fl:iould occaiion a difference in ** faith;" and that '* Athanafius perceiving *' it was a difference in words only, having *' addreffed both parties with gentlenefs ** and good nature, and after carefully '* examining the meaning of the words, •* when he found that the two parties did *' not differ in fenfe, gave them liberty with ** refpedt to words, but held them ftridtly Tf ICO 'ujcclpi >^ Tfio vico TO uyiov 'ssvEviJLa w[xo>.Qyy\(Tcxv x^ rpiada mo" fjLcurav ' H iMova te a-o)f/M7i , a^^a ;^ ^-^Xi r£>£iov xpv«t ^c^ac^siy av^pW/Tov^ cv Qeog >.oyo; a.V£7\a,Qsv^ Eianyviaavlof na^a y] tcij 'sra^^a; ^r?.ncng rag EKicKwiocg ilacanfis^ '.L^ av/yoLi 'SiEpt r'/lav spih; xj d'i^iv 'n:£ip7c. Lib. 5. cap. 12. p. 198. * H/x£i; CE tsujlrw 'uJxp£i7,Yi(pa[A,£v Kj hd^id'affj.E^a, jy ravlnv £%OfC£i^ Chap. X . after the Conn cil cf Nice, ^5 5 «; ^* bound with refped: to the things fignified " by them*." The Latins having no terms to exprefs both ejfaice and hypojiq/is, as is obferved by- Gregory Nazianzen -f-, ufed the word fi^b-^ fiance to exprefs both; and, accordingly, they were much chagrined at the Greeks for making any difference between them. Jc- rom expreffes his-refentment on this fubje^t, faying, that, ** in the fecular fchools they *' had no difference; and who," lays he, ** will dare to fay there are three fubftances. *' Let it fufrice us to iay there is one fub- ** fiance, and three fubilfling perfons, per- vitOTOLdiv nv auioL oi aipzliHOi iicn:xv ^pccrocyopEv-icn, th ^^uoclpcg koci 74 Vi8 y^ayiH 'ujvzvfji.ixiog. Theodoriti, Hifl. lib. 2. cap. 8. p. 81. * rig Xiav yeXoiov ^£^£avov 'STTEcj^ Bd'oi,£ ^laOo^cc n 'ujspi rov vjxoy IJt,iH.^o>.voyi(X — TauT av o^iov '■(] aK'dcov ^aiiocoiog skzvj'^' zjpoaKci.'hza-a' fji.sv'^ atxiporzoa, nx [xzpyi iflucri 'sj^aug )y py^av^paTrag^ ^ rov Vi'j rm y^syofjLEvoJv anoiQag s^sloic-ag^ ETrsiOri cru/xppGV^ivlag ey^ s, Xj ahv d'lsr- tolag Koila rev 7\oyov, r:^ ovopicila cruyx^p^'y^^^i cruvhi roig 'ZjpayfAxai, Or. 22. p. 395, 396. t T»)j yap fjuag oucriag. t^ rav rpiccv uTTorxosm 7\eyoiMvav fxsv up ilfjUMfEva-ei^.cog'ro i/,£v ya^ rw ipVTiv 3>i^ct t>5? ^so%log^ ro ^£ ra; rcov r^icov i'^iGly{loig, vo'dixsvavoe :^ '^a^a. roig Ira.'hoig ouoio^g, aTO'' h ^i/vniievoii ^loi rBvolnra rv\g 'ma^' auloig y'hair^g ^ ovo/jluIuv nzzviocv^ ^i£}siv aTTo rrjg cuixuxg r»iV VTroTaaiv^ ;^ 3ics raro avizicctyHtrYig ra -zroofZW^Tia;' ivx ^y\ r^si^ n^m'S^acpAx^i'iO'i, Or. 21. p. 395. A a 2 feftly 356 The Do^rine of the Trinity Book IL fcdly equal, and co-eternal. Let us fay nothing of three hypojlafesy but keep Xoone *. Auftin alfo thought that no difference ihould be made between effenceand hypoftafis, and laid, that in Latin they faid indifferently, that there was one effence, or fubftance, and three perfons f. This is likewife af- ferted by G. Nazianzen in the paffage quot- ed above. Notwithflanding the diflike that was taken to the word ejjence^ it was thought neceffary to make ufe of it at the council of Nice, in order to cenfure the Arians, who held that the Son was created out of nothing ; and if the term ejjence be the fame with fiibjlancey and the logos be, as the orthodox faid, God of God, or one God made out of another, the term o^oh^ti^, con-- * Tota faecularum literarum fchola nihil aliud hypof- tafm, nifi ufiam,novit. Et quis, rogo, ore facrilego tres fubflantias prxdicabit ? — SufHciat nobis diccre, unam fub- ftantiam, tres perfonas fubfidentes, perfc<5las, x-quales, cor. aeternas. Taceantur tres bypoAafes : fi placet, et una tcneatur. Epift. 57. Opera, vol. i. p. 417. t Noil audiemus dicere unam efTentiam, tres fubftantias, fed unam cflentlam vel fubftantiam, tres autem perfonas. DcTrinitate, lib. 5. cap. 9. Opera, vol. 3. p. 321. fubftantia% Chap. X. after the Council of Nice. 357 fubjlantlaU was, no doubt, very proper to exprefs their idea of his origin, as oppofed to that of the Arians. An account of the objedions that were made to the ufe of the term at that time, of the reafons for adopt- ing it, and of the fenfe in which it was admitted, is thus given by the hiftorian Socrates. He fays, that •* the term con- ^^ fubjlanttal was objedled to as implying *' the produdiion of one thing from an- " other, either according to dlvifioUy or ^^ fluxion y or prolation -, prolation fignifying *' the produdlion of a branch from a root ; ** fluxion that of children from a father; *' and divifion the making two or three '* maifes of gold from one ; and that the ** generation of the Son refembles none of ^'thefe*/' In defence of the term it was faid, that ** God is not to be confidered as a material ** being, but as immaterial, intelled:ual, *^ and incorporeal, and therefore incapable yi,Ai^ ^SiV J^i 7\i\cov iTtv Q v'lo^. Hift. lib. I. cap. 8. p. 22. A a 3 '' of 3-58 The Doclrineofthe Trinity Book II, '* of any bodily aiTedions ; and that the *' lubjed: is to be confidered in a divine ** iind hidden manner*." At length, it was Interpreted to mean *' from no other *^ eflence or hypoilaiis, than that of the *' Father onlyf/' fo that the mode of proda6lion, about which they could not aeree, was left undetermined. The reafoning of Chryfoftom on this fubjecfl feems to be fair, and to juftify the Fathers of Nice. For he fays, that " every •' thing that is generated is always con- *' fubdantial with that which generates, not ** in m.an only, but in all living creatures, ** and in plants J /* tteit is, every thing- produces its like -, and the maxim mufr apply to the cafe of the Divine Being, as * Mule yao ^yv^sa^cti t;:v axjXov Hj vos^av^ iy aao^^ociov (pu.« y^ etti ^uuv aTTavlcoVf /{J ettj ^ev^^uv 'ralo ihi r/f av. Hem. 32. Opera, vol. 1. p. 406. well Chap. X . after the Council of Nice, 35^ well as to every other ; fo that if the Son was really produced from the Father, from his own efTence, and not created out of nothing, he muft neceffarily be confubftantial with the Father. Still, however, the term ejfence was not relifhed. The reafon of this is more par^ ticularly given by Socrates, who fays, that ' the word eflence, though ufed with fim- * plicity by the Fathers, yet being unknowa ' to the common people, and not being ' contained in the fcriptures, gave offence^ * fo that it was thought proper to difufe it, Vand that no mention lliould be made of ' the effence of God for the future ; but ' that it fliould rather be iliid, that the ^ Son is like to the Father in all things*.'/ Notwithftanding the oppofition made by the Latin church, the language adopted by the council of Nice continued to be in ufe ; though even fo late as the time bf * To Se OVGtAOC TYi; ^(TICX.^ "^ICX, TO Ot.Tr'KiiTB^OV UTTO TfflV "S^OcIe^COV TE- ^i(T^si'.\ ayvQ-iyi'ivov Je VKO ravT^am^ (XKav^ix'Kov (^^^ziv.'^ix to jurjls Ta$ 'ixnixw ncrnxi; etti ^eh sivou m ^.oitth, ^£yoyLEV rev viov tcj mxl^iHxh'^oivh, Hift. lib. 2. cap. 37, p, 137. Aa 4 Bafil, 360 The DoEirine of the Trinity Book II. Bafil, the fignliication of thefe terms was not fo well fettled, but that many perfons, he fays, confounded ejfence with hypoftafis^. The term fy^ij, nature^ it feems, had been propofed by fome, but with refped to the dodlrine of the trinity, Gregory Nazianzen fays, that he preferred the word effmce'\^. And in time the term effence was eftablifhed as the general name, applicable to each of the three perfons, and hypoflafis was applied to them feverally+; fo that it was thought proper to fay that the trinity confified of three hypojiafes in one ejfence ; and alfo the term 'zcfoo-wTrov, per/on, Vvas ufcd as fypony- mous to hypojlajis^. This term was proba- * ETTHJ^n 'usQ'^.oi TO Komv TY\i; aa-iag^ etti rav fMUTiKav ^oy/xajlojv, //>j ^laxpovoylsg wsio th tuv vTroraaEccv Xoya, raig auluig avvs/xTTi'^ouaiv VTTovoiccig . K^ ciovlai oia(p£psiy-(Ji.Yi^'£v aaiav r\ UTforaJiv ?^£ysiv. Epifl. Opera, vol. 3. p. 63. t Hv av Tig o^Swj, acricxv /xaMEv y\ ipvjiv nahciyK. Or. 45. p. 717- X Subilantiae {u TO ^oUinxov avl^ a>J\ov zj^c^uTTov . i^:u T^oittov rpta nsspocruTra m Evog 'usv^og^ )jysy no VTTOKElj/^VOV ZSVp^ kJ TO KOCUflHOV^ itj tO (plclmKOV^ fXia ?£ (puaii TH «ryp5. Kj x 7peii • oi^ias ^ etti th Bm, Queftiones aliae, Ope- ra, vol. 2. p. 440. '^of Chap. X. after the Council of Nice. 365 *' of a man has to the man ^.'* To this iU luflration alfo no unitarian will have any objedion; and ftill lefs to that of Marius Vidtorinus, who, in his hymn concerning the trinity, fays, *' when thou refleft thou ** art the Father, when thou proceedeft the ** Son, as uniting all into one, thou art the ** Holy Spirit. -f-/' After this we cannot wonder that the Arians, as the author of a work afcribed to Athanafius complains, ihould charge the Trinitarians with Sabel- lianifm, becaufe they made God and the Son to be one J. In the famous controverfy between Rab- bi Nachmanides, before the king of Ar- ragon in 1263, the chriftian difputans made a trinity of the wifdom, the will, and the intelleft of God; and the king il- * To 0£ /z£7irov iiKim^iov Tr,g 'Sjpog rov zialspa x) uiov th 'jsveu- TO 'z^vsufxa ro£yviAiv. De Sp. S. cap. l6. Opera, vol. 2. p. 329- t Tu cum qulefcis pater cs, cum procedis filius. In unum qui cun<5la nedtes, tu es fpiritus fanclus. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p 360. X lu ta^eT^og tt • A0. eittev oia n u^jl X^icg * A P. amr iTTsi^n EiTag, 'sscclnp }^ voig tv iriv. Difp. contra Aruim, Opera, vol. i. p. 116. luflrated o66 ^he Bodlrmeof the trinity EooK 11. luftrated it by the properties of tafte, co- lour, and fmell in wine. But the Jew an- fwered, that, upon this principle, he could prove God to be five-fold, becaufe God had life, wifdom, will, power, and ftrength *. • On the other hand, the great mafs of con^.- parifons that were made between the trinity and things in nature, fliows that, in the opinion of the writers, the three perfons, though nominally one God, were, in fad:, confjdered as three parts cf one whole, though fome of them will be found to ex- prefs three wholes, and to be only one by their poffeflion of fome common property. Indeed, the fubjedl did not admit of any- thing better. The moft confpicuous of the emblems of the trinity is that of the fu?t. '' Know,'* fays the writer quoted above, whofe work has been afcribed to Athanafius, *' from X Roftea confurrexit Frater Raymundus, de trinltate verba facicns, aitquejuclaeis : agnofcite tandem trinitatem. Dcus enim fapientia, voluntate ac intelleiSlu conflat. Cxtcrum, rex in banc rem proponebat fimilitudinem, quam corrupti et corruptores magiftri ilium docuerant. Vino, inquiebat, tria hicc infunt : Tapor, color, et odor, atquc iria i(la res cadcm funt. R. Nachman. p. 58.59. '' this Chap. X. after tlJe Council of Nice. :\6y '^ this, that as the fun has three perfons, fo ** the one God has three perfons : For the *' fun's dific is the type of the Father, the ** beam is the type of the Son, and the *^ light is the type of thfe Holy Spirit. Say, '* therefore, thus— In the fun there is a " dific, a beam, and light; but we do not *^ fiy there are three funs, but only one. ** So likewife in God the Father, Son, and '* Holy Spirit, are not three Gods, but one ** God*."" But it is obvious to remark, that neither the beam of light, nor the light itfelf, can be called <2 fim, as the Son and Holy Spirit are called God. Equally de- fed:ive is Bafil's comparifon of the three perfons in the trinity to the rainbow and its colours, *' the fubftance of which " he fays, *' is one, but their diflindion manifeft, ** though they run into one another -f.'* * Kat SK rouiov yr/vuoKS^ oli aa-TT^p o x^^og £4i?, ^lOTcog, catzig^ y^ (pasg' s ?£yofA£v h rc£i^ 7iAi«f, aXTia £vci Kj fiovov oiJioiag ;c^ S'TTi ^es, iscPtm^ W05, y^ ayicv rrvEutxa sig ^sog -^ a rpsLg, Opera, vol. 2. p. 437. -f- HcriTEp yap sksivq zv/xsv stihoIcx. rrsi uaicQi ra aspog^ fZcoy^^ ^z Vi avlii xpK^<^^ (pauyovlcUf tj (pavsfcog rac ^ux^f/,7rovla ^ oJx av Tif, ug oifjLOii. ^vvafio th^e ra ^(3;/z7r7r)^©" ro (pug cxyro ruv oA- Tuoy, tK T« 'BTCXvliX TiX (plSlo!. '3JE^Jf%0V?0f (Xipog ^ISCKplVMy y^ l^StV UVEU ^cxlspa ^cclspov^ oT^uv ev q>.oi; aiMiyug crufH£y.pa[X£V'j)y ' «Ma }y sva ei rov Tjj Tfc'v ^vp(xm uTTE^ayayoi ra ^cofAcxIia Cuve^sheuo'Elat y 'ro hsiov ayracv ^w$, aJa/ rt twv ilspuv (pcolm iv £avlu Cvv27r,(T7rociJ.£voVf yi ts Maula TO- 5 {lepii HoCloiUiTrov, De Diviiiis Nominibus, cap. 2. p, 170. ** the Chap. X. after theCoiincU of Nice, 369 ** the eye,' and the fcafe of vifion "j-." But this is ftiil more defective than the preced- ing. The greatell; number of illuflrations of the trinity., by the ancients, is drawn from the confideration of the mind of man and its properties -, and they were led to look for thefe illuftrations here, rather than in other parts of nature 5 becaufe man, being made after the image of God, they took it for granted that he muft refemble the trinity. Gregory Nyflen fays, that ^^ God made ** fuch a creature as man, becaufe he intend- " ed to publifli the myftery of the holy tri- *' nity, that being difficult to be under- ** flood, man might have in himfelf an i" Itaque potillimum teflimonio utamur oculorum. Ts enim fenfus corporis maxime excellit, et eft vifioni mentis pro fui generis diverfitate vicinior. Cum igitur aliquod corpus videmus, haec tria, quod facillimum eft, confide- randa funt et dignoTcenda. Prima ipfa res quam videmus, five lapidem, five aliquam flammam, five quid aliud quod videri oculis poteft, quod utique jam efte poterat, et ante- quam videretur. Deinde vifio qure non erat, priufquani rem illam objectam fenfui fentiremus. Tertio quod in ea re qux videtur, quamdiu videtur fcnfum detinet oculorum, id eft, animi intentio. De Trinitate, lib. 11. cap. 2. vol. 3. p. 379. Vol. II. B b '' image. ^70 T^he Doclrinc of the Trinity Book II. ** image, likenefs, and pattern of the holy " trinity*.'* Even the Platonifts had gone before the orthodox in fuppofing that there was fomething in the conilitution of the mind of man, correfponding to the three great principles in nature. This is flrongly exprefled by Plotinus-f. Of fuch illuftrations as thefe, the writ- ings of Auftin particularly contain a great variety ; but he was preceded in them by his mafter Ambrofe, and alfo by another writer, whofe work has been afcribed to Athanafius; who fays, *'man, viz. the foul *' of man, is the image of Godj but the '* foul of man, being one, has three hy- ** poflcifes, and three perfons. How ? '* Hear. The foul is one perfon, but the foul ** generates logos] i. e, reafoUy and now the *•' Afa yap rocvlw k< y.cm r^v aihav toihIov ^uv o Seo? kaflsaKsua!7Ev^ trTti^ e/;r?7^r; tv Kccy.n «7tp%Swai to t>^5 ayia; T^iah^ ixvty,^iov^ «? Si,rrf/r,r;£f?cv te jr^ c&Kc^io.M'iuov * na f;:>i £V euoIj) q :iar emovx xj c,acicci7iv $£8, Trf eixcvcc y^ C'j.oiac-iv »ij Tif Ti7i'.-i; JiJ ra ^a^oc^Eiy^ fiala. rr.; ayia; ^^isio:^. In G.a. I. 26. Op.ia, vol. I. p. 863. t Hc-HTf CE £V T») ^U7tl rfiTlci Sfl TSC £ir.',>i^va, hlco ^f)! VOfXl^ElV :d 'srafvi^y ra-Sia Eivcu. ?v5/w o£ bK ev 7015 acZ-Kloig, En. 5. lib. i. cap. 10. p. 491. *' reafon C H A p . X. after the Council of Nice. 3 7 1 " reafon is another per Ton. The foul emits *'. the breath*' (or ipirit) *' and behold the *^ fpirit is another peribn. Behold then ** three peribns, tht foul, reafon, 'Ani fpirit'^,''' On this very curious illufcration, no par- ticular remarks will be expedled. Ambrofe makes the intelle^, the willy and ** the mefjJOfjy emblems of the trinity; and fays, ** The intelled: is the foul, the will is **'the foul, and the memory is the foul; ** and yet there are not three fouls in ** one body, but one foul, having three dig- *' nities, or attributes/' He fays farther, *' as the Son is generated out of the Father, " and the Spirit proceeds from the Father ** and the Son, fo the will is generated out ** of the intelledl, as is eafily underflood by *' thofe who have knowledge "f-." TT^ . £Vl ^£ n ■^^/O'i TJi (XV^pCOTTH fMiCX, /X£V, T^HTVTrOTotlo^ ^£ . T^ilX 'Ti pO- aWTTcc £%£{ r\ •\'VXY\ . ^ 'zetw^, aK^aov . snv » -^^X^ ^v 'srpocruTrov . yi ^E 4'''^^ 7£w:s Tov T^oyov, ;i] t^a o 7\oyoi; a^-Ko 'TspoauTTOv . yj -^^uxn £«- TTOpsuei >^ TY}V 'sryoy^v, kJ i^a )i 'SJvqyi a.70\o 'ajpoauTiov . i?s "sspoaaTia T^ia^-^vxy^y>>oyos,)i.'!svoy\. Opera, vol. 2. p. 439. t Ita et anima intelledus, anima voluntas, anima mcr moria ; non tamen trcs animie in uno corpore fed una ani- B b 2 ma 3/2 The Do5irine of the Trinity Book II. But Auftiri has difcovered the mofi: in- genuity in his illuftrations of the trinity, drawn from the coniideration of the facul- ties of the mind. He fays, that *' memory y ** intelleBy and love^ are an image of the ^* trinity *'.'* But he acknowledges that this is not a perfedl refemblance, as all images are imperfect. He compares *' the joint *' operation of the Father, Son, and Spirit ** to the joint exertion of the intellect, ina tres habens dignitates. Nam ficut ex patre generator filius, et ex patre filioque procedit fpiritus farKSlus : ita ex intellc6lu generatur voluntas, et ex his item ambobus pro- cedit memoria, ficut facile a fapiente quoJibet intelllgi potefl: De Dignitate, &c. Opera, vol. i. p. io6. * Ego per omnia tria ilia memini, ego intelligo, ego di- ligo, qui nee memoria fum, nee intelligentia, nee diledtio, fed haec habeo. Iftn ergo dici pofTunt ab una perfona, quae habet hsec tria, non ipfa eft haec tria. In illius vero fum- mas fimplicitate naturae quae Deus eft, quamvis unus fit Deus, tres tamen perfonae funt, pater et filius et fpiritus fanclus. Aliud eft itaque trinitas res ipfa, aliud imago trinitatis in re alia, propter quam imaginem fimul et illud in quo funt haec tria, imago dicitur : ficut imago dicitur fimul et tabula et quod in ea pi61um eft ; fed propter pid^u- ram quae in ea eft, ftmul et tabula nomine im'aginis appel- latur. Dc Trinitate, lib, 15, cap. 22. Op. vol .3. p. 469. *^ memory Chap. X. after the Council ofNice. 373 " memory, and will of man, each of them *^ being employed in the ads of each.'V So he fays, '* the whole trinity operates in the *^ voice from the Father, the flefli of the *^ Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit, *' though they are feparately referred to '^ each of them*." He alfo compares the trinity to the m'lnd^ its knowledge^ and its lovely Again, he fays, '^ to be, to know, *^ and to will, are properties that mutually ** involve each other • and yet belong to one ** foul;" and this he gives as an illuftratioa of the trinity:}:. Manuel Caleca fays it would be more proper to denominate the three perfons from the nature of the foul, mind, reaforij * Et quemadmodum cum memoriam meam et intellec- tum et voluntatem nomino, fmgula quidem nomina ad res fingalas referunt, fed tamen ab omnibus tribus fingulis fa6la funt : nullum enim horum trium nominum efc, quod non et memoria et intelled;us et voluntas mea fimul ope- rata fmt : ita trinitas fimul operata eft et vccem patris, et carnem filii, et columbam fpiritus fan6li, cum ad fnigulas perfonas hajc fmgula referant. De Trinitate, lib. 4. cap. 20. Opera, vol. 3. p. 314. -f- Ibid. lib. g. cap. 3. p. 360. X Dico autem haec tria, effe, noffe, velle» Confeflf. lib. 13. cap. II. Opera, vol. I. p. 219. B b 3 and 374 ^'^'^ BoHrine of the TriJiity Book II. and love, than from the body, by the names of Father, Son, and Spirit*." Gregory Nazianzen thought that the foul, its intelled, and its defire, were an emblem of the trinity, as not being di- vided from each other f." He alfo com- pares the trinity to the vdr„ intelled:, xoy^, reafon, and ^vsvixx, fpirit, of man ; but ac- knowledges that it is imperfed:]:.'' According to Methodius, quoted by Gre- gory Nyfien, '' the Jouly the mirJy and '^ the fptrit of a man, are emblems of the '^ trinity j the foul which is unbegotten, ** reprefenting the Father, the mind, or '' logos, which is generated^ the Son, and viov, iy 'nsvBUfMx, aulov cvoi^Lcc^ovle;. De Principiis, in Combefis, vol. 2. p. 233. i" O'JJoO (Wl VQU KM TOV Vrv TH 'mol^Oq /.tTI X6JC/crS£v7a TLaTOtS, sy Tifl8 ^£ 'Ssa.Xiv TO 'SJvWfxa TO ayicv^ OfA.oioog fv rco vu ty,v zv^viiwiv . a;; Tivct Hoci Toy ■«v, iiluc, £§£ Tb uyin 'SJV£v/jLcclc<; Kcxi Ts crcclr.^Qi xai th 'oral' fO{, £v //saw TOji/)iv -J ^iai^Eaiv £7:iVDy^^y]vcci i v^yxn, km ra crcofjixli, km rci) nn/BUfioilt, Ayswr^og (xsv yap ^a\:v sriv n -^uxn km availiog, si^ TUTTOV ayEwnm km ra availia ^sa km rnotl^og ' s« ayswr^log ^e o voecog avlYig Aoyo^, a/vX' f| ajl'^g yswuixEvog (X^^y^lag^ km ao^oUag km avE^ixyi" VEulag^ KM a7ra%;. To 0£ ^a^a^o^olEPOV rav rs aooi^b^oiiv r>iio)V ekelvo etiv^ oli i^y- XyiV fiEV a7r>.r,v riva E%o/.t£v, o/Micog aai vav (jlovcc^ikqv Kai aa-uv^slov • >>oyov h ^iTTToiv E%ov7s?, Tov avkv rnv yswEo-Lv km evu Kai a^!j,£^irov (puharloiAEVov. la Gen. i. 26. Opera, vol. i. p. 058. S g: '\ 0$£v y^ r^ifxE^r] 'ssa^.iv av%v rnv rifXElspccv ^lu^v^ Kxff sIe^ov Tiva r^OTTov 01 e^co (ro(poL eivm a^KTocvlo^ s'n'i^uy.yiliKGV ..culnv (pajKovlsg £%£«v }y T^oyiTiKOv Koci BufxiKOV^ OTTcog ^ a fXEV ra ETfi^ujArihy: 'zypog tyiv m ^£8 or/oLTtYiv cmairV^M ' ^icz oe ts hoyi^iKu mv r^y.p aula yvco^iv >d (70(pi(xv iicr^xfiau ' 3la h rs ^uixa iffpog ra 's^nuy.aJcc rng nzovYi- B b 4. fiixg 376 T^he BoFtnne of the trinity Book II. In all the preceding coniparifons, the three perfons are, in facl, parts of one whole ^ and yet this idea is reprobated by Auftin, who fays, "there is another herefy which ** afferts that God is three-fold, that the ^' Father is one part, the Son another, and ** the Spirit a third, that all thefe parts *« of God make a trinity, fo that none of ** them are perfect of themfelves */' According to another fet of comparifons the three perfons of the trinity agree in nothing but in having one common property^ and in that fenfe, three men might make a trinity; but then their imky is entirely abandoned. Athanafius, and many others after the council of Nice, became abfolute tritheiils on this principle ; believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are no other- fjaj av!ilarlr]la^ >^ ev ryJoij 'sraXiv auloi^ roig r^idi ro hoct £WQva ^£8 liay^a/paaa. In Gc-n. 1. 26. Opera, vol. i. p. 859. * Eft alia, quae triformem fic afTcrit Deum, ut quaedam pars ejus fit pater, quaedam filius, quaedam fpirltus fanctus : hoc eft quod Dei unius partes fint, quce iftam faclunt trinitatcm, velut ex his tribus partlbus compleatur Deus, nee fit pcrfciSlus in feipfo, vel pater, vel filius, vel fpiritus fandlus. Catalogus. Hacr. Opera, voL 6. p. 29* ' wife Chap. X. after the Council of Nice. 377 wife one^ than as having one common na- ture. Athanafius, confidering this quef- tion, fays, " Since the Father is called ** God the Son God, and the Holy Spirit *^ God ; how is it that there are not three" ** Gods," anfwers, *' that where there is a *^ common nature, the name of the dignity ^ is likev/ife' common"^." He illuftrates this by God's calling the whole human race, by the name of 7nan^ in the lingular number, and by Mofes fpeaking of the horfe and the horfeman being drowned in the red fea ; when, in fad:, great numbers of each fort were intended. '* If this," fays he, *' be the cafe with refpedl to men, who *' differ fo much as they do from each ^* other, fo that all men may be called one *' man, much more may we call the tri- ** nity one God^ when their dignity is ** undivided, they have one kingdom., one *' power, will, and energy, which dillin- *' guiflies the trinity from created things f." * Kii/ ■'zscd^ Qiiat S'vvctjcti As^iJT'd-c.i ^ctjnp -^-s^, Kj o vioi '3-£(^, It) TO ^v'.vu.'J, TO ctyiov ■d't'B^y yj a ifzii ziGi ^ioi ; cwK ttoivci r(t TY]i; (pvaicoi, Koivov }tcti ovoucl ti;? a^icou De Communi Eflentia, Opera, vol. i. p. 213. f AU TO KQIVOV 7Ji? i?l'Cr£iyf ^cL(r:L JJ OtKHUilM Ui OtV'd-fCO'T''!^ 378 Jhe DoBrine of the Trinity Book II. In tlie dialogue againft the Macedonians, written after the age of Athanafius, the or- thodox fpeaker is reprefented as faying, *' As Paul, Peter, and Timothy are of one *^ nature, and three hypoftafes, fo I fay the ^* Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three *^ hypoflafes, and one nature*.'* In the following illuftration of this com- parifon, it will clearly appear, that all idea of a proper unity in the trinity was aban- doned ; fince the three perfons were only confidered as having the common property oi divinity, juft as three men have the com- mon property of humanity. ** Peter, Paul, *' and Timothy, are three, but not three ^* men," fays Theodoret, *' becaufe they ** mull then have been difcordant to each *' other, as Jew, Gentile, and chriftian -, *' but if they fay the fame thing, and there *' be nodivifion among them, they are three *' hypoftafes, but one in the Lord 3 be- ** caufe they have one heart and one foul. KTKriC'-i, c,ci Kiyco -3-sor. De comm. HiTen.Op. vol. i p. 214. 7pe/f VTQTAJllj ^?^ft', K^.l UiAV <;VTL\', OpCia, VOl. 2. p. 269. <' They C H A p . X . after the Council of Nice, 379 ** They are three in number, but not on ac- *' count of a diverfity of nature, or heart*." When the trinity was compared to Peter, James, and John, and it was obferved that they were three diftindl men, Gregory Nyf- fen replies, *' jfirft, that though this be the '' cafe with men, it is not fo with God,'' He afterwards fays, that *' the term is im- '* proper, and that it is an abufe of language '* in this cafe to fay three men^ for that it is *^ the fame thing as faying there are three " human natures ^J' He alfo fays, that O. TfS/f {^.iv /£/,v, ojj ^okh(H ^v(Tits Ai'^^Ci^TlyAi. Opera, vol. 2. p. 449. '' though 380 T[hs Do5frme of the Trinity Book IL '^ though the men are three, the lather, *' Son, and Spirit are not, becaufe all their '^ actions are joint, and none of them does *^ any thing feparately *." '* With refped: *' to men," he fays, *' there is no danger of *' being led into any miftake, as if more *' human natures were intended ; but the ^' language of fcripture is more exadl with *' refpedt to God, kft more divine natures *' fliould be underflood, and therefore we ** are told, that there is but one God *!•." This writer expreff.rs himfelf more con- cifely, and to the purpofe, when he fays, *' they are not three, becaufe there is one di- *' vinty\.'' And alfo Bafil, when 'he fays, tS'icf^ovri^'; iVc!^yu ti y^c^'^'i th 'wvivuftrog. Ibid. p. 455. f AirtT^To cfj/d-CfijTK^ c^vyy^acii nzhi]d-VVTlKCCi OVOUCi(^ilV, S'lA 70 //HcTeI'cJ TCJ TOliiTCO (j'/J]lJ.clTt 7»^ (^CdV;)i ?/? 'SrAjjdo? aV' fnuivc^^ K-j.rct Tov iviKoi^ i^cLyyi'fAi I titoj', Ta7o 'T^^oy.Vi-ya' f/ivyi, 70 fxyi cT/.'fipcf^? (pv(j-ii<; i^-rrt t«? -^naf z^icti iv 7ii 'ZoM^ ^liV7l.:i) ti '^avTcov ama 'uSovioHpotlopog Sfs }y 'Sjcfl^og • rs h yavr^n vm au% siKcva nj^o^iay^ix(pov}og, Tsyswvi/s via ^ >xyov ra Sfa * 7r^g ^c s^- ^op£ul;)g¥.U!zg a;\yi'0iivovcn]<; i-AvrcvayiH '^vsui^aio; suTro^evlnvvTroTacnv' 3io 8h EVE^uJYicrEv avln o ^sog z^vonv ^ar,g, d'la to rvwov aviw mat rr,; TH xyiJi 'SJVtUfXcclog 'Zovorig >^ ^coy^g^, Kj ^ix to /j.£7\Xciv av%v ^i aym '^uvsu' (^ocIq; '^ii'^ia^oLi Sfov TQV cvlco; ovTa 'vsavlav 'sivoYtV y^ ^unv. In Gen, i. 26. Opera, vol. i. p. 856. f E{ h jJLYl 87w flYjh HCXTa Tiilo TO HSiT SlHOVa, TJ ^Yi'^fols {XY} T£T' cctpzg.,^ duo, v 'srAEioi'fj ui!rorjTov, K^ TO £>c'^o^£Jlov^ a'XKa t^£'.^ i<^ imo!,(;\ ^k^v e^ci^ HUT timva Koti Ho^' D/.ioiaa-iv tutsihw T^iaoa, £v fxovadi £v Tmiv viszrci^^^iv^ anu'hii^ov o£ ?^oitcv ^ap^^iv >^ f^ovad'a £v Tfia^i. Ibid. I are 3S4 ^''^^ Docirlne of the Trinity Book II. are thofe more ancient ones of the fountain, the river, and a draught of water ; and that of the root, the flock, and the branch, which are adopted with variations by Auftin. But thefe all reprefent /^r^'j- cf one whole, or rather they are things that agree in one com- mon property -, and in this very circumftance it is, that Auftin makes the refemblance to confift ; for, concerning the former he fays, «' they are all water,'' and concerning the latter, '* they are all wood */' After fuch a trinity as this, can we won- der that fome (hould be acknowledged by their friends to carry their orthodoxy into abfolute tritheifm, *' There are three dif- *' orders," fays Gregory Nazianzen, " with ** refpe6t to theology with us ; one of *' Atheifm, another Judaifm, and a third *^ tritheifm. Of the latter," he fays, " thofe *' are guilty who are too orthodox among * Cum ilia rcgula nominis maneat, utradix lignum Tit, ct robur lignum, et rami lignum, nontum tria ligna dican- tur, fed unum. — Illud ccrtc omnes concedunt fi ex fonte tria pocula irnpleantur poiTe dici tria pocula, tres autem aquas non poiTe dici, fed omnino unam aquam. De Fid. Opera, vol. 3. p. 146. a US Chap. X. after the Council of Nice, 385 ** us*/* Or caa ciny perfon be furprized at the rife of a fed of tritheifts, of whom we have aa account in ecclefiaftical hiftoryt* After thq exhibition of fo many wretched explications and illuilrations of the trinity, one cannot help approving the wifdom of thofe Fathers who were occafionally (tn- fible of their imperfection, and therefore acquiefced in the docflrine, as expreffed in the ufual phrafeology, without pretending to underlland it at all. Thus a writer, whofe work has been afcribed to Athana- fius, fays, '' the trinity is an inexplicable *^ myftery/' not to be enquired into:}:. Ba- fil alfo fays, that ^' the myfteries of theo- *' logy require to be aflented to, without '^ previous reafoning§.'' " Let no one/* fays Gregory Nyiien, " infult us, becaufe ** we are not able to produce from all na- * T^mv yao ovluv tcov vw n^tpi rw ^£0>.oyiav a^^co'Yifxklcov A^six; )y I'd^Ma-fjLH )C) izo7\v'^z',x(;. — Tr,^ h img 'to:.v ayav '^sa^ nixiv o^^o- ^a|wj/. Or. I. Opera, p. 16. t See Niccphori Hift. lib. 18. cap. 16 .vol. 2. p. 872. % Af^yTlov .t) aveK(p^ai-oy ro t;»$ ayia^ roia^o^ u'zsixp)(jti fAvrriPiov . Opera, vol. 2. p. 232. § OJIa h) 8v f^ TO T7j^ ^EoXoyid^, fxvrv^iov, rw sz rm cx'^aJUviTH 's^iTEi); ETTi^nlEi cvyKM^yci} /xu hva/Mva roi!xo%v e-j roi; nciv iv^Eiv EiKOva m ^nJa/^Eva. v ^'-cc '^avlm a^Ksan ^i avccy^oyia; rivog xj cixoiolnio; 'si^og tuv th 'si^ocEifxsin lia^ciracnv. Contra Eunomium, Or, 7. Opera, vol. 2. p. 206. i Noflruin namque eft credere illius nofle. De Incar- natione, lib. i. cap. 5. p. gjo, X Poftponenda enim eft omnis humans difpulationis in- duftria, ubi fides fufHcieCfola. Contrajud^os, lib. 2. Bib. Pat. vol. 5. p. 223. there C H A p . X . after t/je Council of Nice. 3 87 there are myfleries in all nature, and in the mind of man. *' If/' fays he, '* you who ** enquire concerning thefe things do not " underitand yourfelf, if you do not un- ** derftand thofe things which you can ex- *' amine with your fenfes, how can you ** underftand God, what and how great he " is ? This is great folly*/' The authority of the church was alfo hsd recourfe to, as an argument to enforce the reception of what could not be proved or explained. ** Some tenets in the church,'* fays Bafil, " we receive as preferved in *' writing, but fome are of apoftolical tra- ** dition, handed down as myferies^ both ** of which have the fame force with re- *' fped: to piety, and no one will queftion *' them, who is at all acquainted with the ** laws of the church -f-." ^ Ej (Tovjiov m syvcog^ o; rig £/, o 'zus^i rsluv ^ia>.eyofi£vogy £i rccJJx ffiv, £'^ivx\ v7roX(XiJL<^cx,v£i(; ', 'sroAAnj r^lo rr^g aT^y.ag. Or. 29* Opera, p. 493. *|" Toov Ev TT] skkMo'iix 'us£(pv'Nxyyi.^m ^oyfjLoilcov nai HS^vyfAotiav^ ra fx£v EX TYig syf^a^n oi^aa-jiaT^iag sxof^sv, ra Se ez rn^ rm aTTOToXci)]^ fsiix^tx^ocrEMg, ^ict^o^£vl(Z it\(xiv £v fxuTY\^ia 'na.^oL^E^afjLEQoc ' cxtte^ af/,(pol£fx TYiv aolnv {7%uv £X,i^ 'm^g tuv £va-£'^£iav ' KOii Tsloig s5Vj$ »vl£^£i (K Tii C C 2 ye 3S8 The DcBrlne of the Trinity Bock II, Auftin pleaded for implicit faith by the authority of the prophet Ifaiah. ** It was *' therefore," he fays, *' rationally faid by *' the prophet (chap, vi.) unlefs ye believe, *^ ye will not underftand ; where he doubt- ^* lefs diftinguifhes thefe two things, and *^ adviies that we firft believe that we may *' be able to underfland what we believe; *^ fo that it feems reafonable that faith ** fhould precede reafon*." The Fathers having meditated fo much on the number three, it is 110 wonder that they ihould have got a kind of fondnefs for it, and have thought that there was fome- thing very wonderful in it. Epiphanius has taken pains to colledl all the inftances of this facred number from the fcriptures, and he makes above one hundred of them-f-. '/£ Kxv Ky2a fMHpov 7*v Sfj/z-wy EJuMcriariHitiv 'ZJSTreipalat. De Sp. S. cap. 27. Opera, vol. 2. p. 35i» *>^^Et ideo rationabiliter dicium eil per prophetam r niil tr^iajriris, iioii intelligetls. Ubi proculdabio diTcrevIt liiEci(|n deditque confiiiurn quo prius crcdamus, ut id quod cj^fetius intellfg^gre valeamus, Proinde ut fides pre- ccdat ratfPim, r^fiohabiliter vifum efl. Epifl. 222. Ope- ra, vol. 2. p. "^59- • .^ ']■ Dc Niimmorlim Myfteriis, Opera, vol. 2. p. 304. Auftin C H A P . X. after the Council of Nice. 389 Auflin having mentioned twelve attri- butes of God, reduces them all to three, viz. etermty, ivifdoniy and happinefs. " Thefe *^ three," he fays, ** are a trinity, which we ** call God ; and, perhaps, in the iame man- ** ner in which we reduce the twelve attri- ** butes to thefe three, the three may be *^ reduced into any one of them. For if, *^ in the divine nature, wifdom and power *' be the fame thing, or life and wifdom, *^ why may not eternity and wifdom, or '* happinefs and wifdom, be the fame *^ thing*/' I need not repeat upon this occafion, what I have before obferved con- cerning the metaphyiics of the ancients ; and thofe of the philofophers were no bet- ter than thofe of the Fathers. t Nunc igitur cum dicimus, seternus, fapiens, beatus, haec tria funt trinitas, quae appcllatur Deus : redcgimus quidem ilia duodecim in iilam paucitatem trium, fed eo modo forfitan poffumus et baec tria in unum aliquod h^brum. Nam fruna eademque res in Dei natura poteft efle Jjdpientia et potentia, aut vita et fapicntia, cut non ur*aij3dcmque res ii^^i: poiiit in Dei natura, asternita's et fapjentra, aut bea- titudo et fapientia. De Trinitate, lib. 15. cap. 6. Opera, vol. 3 p. 446. C c .3 Auflin 390 The Do^rineofthe Trinity Book II, Aiiftin, after confidering the properties of the number three, feems to have thought that of itfelf it afforded a proof of the, do(5lrine of the trinity^. Even the number fx was thbught de- ferving of fome particular notice, becaufe it was the double of the facred number three. Epiphanius fays, the number Jix is alfo facred, becaufe it is twice three -f -, and Auftin treats of the perfe6lion of the number fix+, ^' Ojie, two, and three,''^ he fays, *^ make Jix ; and, on account of the ** perfedion of this number, God made all ** things in fix days. Wherefore the three '* parts of this number Jix demonftrate to ** us that God, the trinity, made all things *' in the trinity of number y meafurCy and *' weight %:' * Divifio trium in ter unum eft. Quid autem aliud hie numerus oftendit j nifi trinitatem, quae Deus eft- Vol. 4. p. 68. t Opera, vol. 2. p. 307. X DeCivitate Dei, lib. 15. cap. 30. § Unum. et duo, et tria, fex faciunt. Ideoque propter hujus numeri perfedionem lex diebus operatus eft omnem creaturam. Tres ergo has partes fenarii numeri demon- r ftrant Chap. X. after the Council of Nice. 391 But, perhaps, the moft curious circum* ftance relating to the number three^ that the reading of thefe Fathers can furnifhi is the following, which was thought worthy of being recorded by Auftin. ** One Fa- ** ther Valerius/' he fays, *' thought that *^ it was particularly ordered by Providence, ** that the word falus,'* which fignifies health, or falvation^ in Latin, " in the Ian- ** guage of the Carthaginians'' (which was of Phoenician origin) "' fhould fignify three^ *' or the myftery of the trinity^." In Hebrew^ )dw is three^ which is one proof, among many others, of the derivation of the Carthaginians from the Phoenicians. ftrant nobis trinitatem Deum, in trinitate numeri men» furae et ponderis, fecifTc omnem creaturam. Qucftiones, 65. Opera, vol. 4- p. 684. '" Quod pater Valerius animadvertit admiras. In qaorun- dam ruftlcanorum collocutione cum alter alteri dixifletj falus, quxfivit ab eo qui et Latlne noiTet et punice, quid eflet falus : refponfum eft, tria . turn ille agnofcens cum gaudio falutem noftram efle trinitatem, convenientiam linguarum non fortuitu lie fonuifTe arbitratus eil, fed oc- cultiffima difpenfatione divinae providentiae : ut cum La- fine nominant falus, a punicis intelligant, tria : et cum punici lingua fua tria nominant, Latins intelligant, falus. Ad. Rom. Opera, vol. 4. p. 1 181. C c 4 CHAP- -^02 Arguments for the Book II. CHAPTER XI. Of the Arguments by, which the Docirine of the Trinity was defended. SECTION I. Arguments from the Old 'Tejlanient, T T A V I N G given a view of the doc- trine of the trinity in all its variations, with the feveral illujirations of it, I fliall now proceed to fliew in v/hat manner it was defended by its ancient advocates ; and it is eafy to imagine that all their argu- ments muft be drawn from the fcripttires, as it was always acknowledged that nature teaches no fuch dodrine, though it had been imagined that it was capable of being illuflrated by fome natural objefts. Thefe arguments from fcripture I iliall arrange accurduig to the order of the books from which they are drawn. It will be thought extraordinary, that the v«ry firfl verfe in the book of Genefis, which C H A P . XI . t)oBrtne of the Trinity . 3 9 j which afferts the creation of all things by one God, fhould, notwithllanding this, have been imagined to teach the doftrine of the divinity of Chrift. But it arofe from this circumftance. Among other fynonyms of the divine nous^ or logos ^ cc^x^ ( principle ) as has been obferved, was one; being taken from one of the Platonic principles of things ; and this having being interpreted to fignify C/6'r//?, wherever that word is pfed in the Greek tranflation of the Old Teftament, feveral of the Fathers thought that, they had a right to fuppofe that Chrift was intended. Since, therefore, Mofes fays that in the beginning (ev aoxr\) God created the heaven and the earthy they thought it was the fame as if it had been faid, that God, in Chrijly or by Chrijly made the heavens and the earth. Theophilus fays^ that in the «fx>i means by the j, i. e. as an inftru-- ment^. ** In i]\Qprincipiu?n^ that is, in Chrifly* fays Ambrofe, *' God made the heaven and the fr^cunov a^«vov. Ad, Aiitolycuiii, lib. 2. p. 97. 'J earth/' 394 Arguments for the Book II. " earth*/' '* \Nh^t prificipiurn,'' fays Auf- tin, '' can we underftand but the Son, •* for he himfelf anfwered the Jews, who ** queftioned him concerning himfelf, the ^^ principium who fpeaks to you-f-." We render that paffage, the fame that I faid unto you from the beginning. As a proof that Mofes was not ignorant that the world was made by the living and fubftantial word of God, Cyril of Alex- andria al ledges God's faying, Let there be lights and there tvas light, &c,-f '' In hoc ergo principio, id efr in Chriflo, fecit Deus coclum et terrain. Hexameron, lib. i. Opera, vol. i. l>. 6. t Quid aut principium intelligendum putabimus, nifi filium ? Ipfe enim de fe ipfo interrogantibus Judaeis quis cllct, rcfpondit : principium qui et loquor vobis. 65. Quefl. Opera, vol. 4. p. 675. 682. X Eva ysio KJ aulo^ rov ipuaei ts xJ a?:So)g ^ixH^purlsi ^eov, hh ryvir^jiuf rov 01 a ra 'aavia 's^ofmlcu iJpog ysvi^iVy rov ^mlu t£ (p-fi/M K^ tV'JZOTciiov Xcr/sv cJ^i )y to £V Sfw T£ xj f| aula 'ii^vEVfjca {uoTToioVy to 3i i;i», th Kiiasi 'BeixTTO/jLeyov . Ei ettoiyjjev ^eo; rot Hpavcv >^ rr\v tw, x£i//a, »c} ^htxjr/ cit ^la ^mlc; Xoya ra k^iz1^1(B- 'sjscvIuv ^es, Ti^ciTriyJy) nspog uira^in ra hh oyloc 'ssoli^ ^aoyovtiJai ^b xj ev 'sjvevixocIi , ems (pmtv ^/Of , 7fy»jfi»rr« f wj, >£) tyiVilQ ipwj, 7£j/>;9>)tw TS^Wfxa £v (jlejco m u^a- Chap. XL Dodinne of the Trinity. 395 This paflage, one would rather think, was a proof that the world was made not by a fubjlantial oj: perfonijied wordy but by the fimple word, or mere power of ' God. But in the age of Cyril, the term ivord^ or whatever implied word^ fuggefted the idea of the living and fubflantial logos. Tertulliaa expreiTes his diflike of this interpretation, and jays that principium in in this place, is fynonymous to initiufUy le^ ginning ^. Jerom alfo fhews the fame good fenfe upon this occafion, faying that '* ac^ *' cording to both the Greek and the He* ** brew, it ought to be rendered in the be^ ** ginning -f,** Toj, -^ symro 8Tcog» Contra Julianum, lib. i, Juliani, Op. vol. 2. p. 21. * Ita principium, five initium, inceptionis efie verbum lion alicujus fubftantiae nomen. Nam et ipfum princi- pium, in quo Deus fecit ccelum et terram, aliquid vo- lunt fuilTe quafi fubftantivum et corpulentum, quod in m^- teriam interpretari poffit. Adv.Hermogenem,S. 19. p.24p. f In principio fecit Deus ccelum et terram plerique exiflimant, ficat in altercatione quoque Jafonis et papifci fcriptum eft et Tertullianus in lib : contra Praxeam dif- putat, nee non Hilarius in expofitlons cujufdam pfalmi affirmat, in Hebraeo haberi : in filio fecit Deus ccelum €t terram : quod falfum efTc, ipfius rei Veritas comprobat, nam et feptuaginta interpretes et Symmachus, et Theo- dotion, «q6 Arguments for the Book IL I fliall in this place, point out fome other arguments of the Fathers m favour of the divinity of Chrift, from their fuppofing him to be intended by the word a^%»i in the fcripturcs. Origen proves that the Son is cr^xr, from Rev.xxii. 13. though at the fame time he fays he cannot be «fxn in all re- fneds "*. '* That the Son is the aox>^ may be «« clearly proved," it is faid in the extradls of Clemens Alexandrinus, *' from Hofea '^i. iOf." Thefe interpretations w\\\ furprize us the lefs, if we confider how familiar it was with the Fathers to confider «f%>i as fynonymous to I'goSy which they always underftood of Chrift. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus dotion, in principio tranftulerunt: et in Hebraeo ferip- turn cli, berLTiih Ji*ii^J^")2I Quciliones in Genefini, Op. vol. I. p. 853. * Eyi) £i|w: o!.^yjif\ JiM TO teXcj, to a ;uti ro u^o '^palog nai o sux^' •rO" . avxyics:icv h £10£vm oti a xarrcx, -srwv o noy^lnai a^x^ fni? ccirtoi ' rnai; ya^ xch' o ^oxv trx Ci^vazai zivai aoxn ; In Johan. Comment vol. 2. p. ig. f Otj oi a^yjD 1/105, u]j, CooibeEs Au6luarium, vol. 1. p. 197. fays Chap. XL DoBrine of the Trinity, ^97 fays, that '^ the Son is the «,"%-/? and aTra^x.-n of *' all things, of whom we muft learn the ** caufe, the Father of all, the moft ancient, *' and the benefad:or of all*." In another pafiage he calls Chrift the a^yjn -^ frying, *' becaufe the logos was from above, lie is *' and was the divuie a^x^ of all things. ** This logos, the Chrift, was tlie original ** author of our being -, for he was in God, ** and of our well being. This logos has *' now appeared to men, he alone being both *' God and man, the author of all good to ** us-j^/' Theophilus alfo fpeaks of the logos, as '' having been in God, as the «f%>?, the Spirit *^ of God, who fpake by the prophets, ■ ^- To 'ZtTof 7S*J7e^C'y • vj ysv^crsi^ rjf/ ax^^"ov xj w^pt^cy afx^,v re «J ci'^ix^X^iv rcov ov^syy, rev wov, ^a^' a snixav^ccveiy ETrmeivx culiov, Tov 'ZUocIe^'X tuv orjiivy TO 'S'^ffCoircv ;^ 'sravJwy evspyBriucJldlov, Strom. 7. p. 700. •f Aaa on fx£V nv o hoyc; avcc^sv^ ^fX>J ^^^^ '^^'''' '^^vl^v w T£ -A env . oil Je wv Qvoiix z'Kx'^rjy to 'TsaKau Kc^a(ns>iAVJov^ ^acfA,tag ot^tov XDiTOi^y Koavov aafxa 1/1,01 tatO^lai. iilog ysv ?.o^og Xf^^^^i ^ T"* iivcil ^a7^a,i Yi/xa<; ' w yx^ sy &f a * )y r'd sv £iVM . vuv 5jj zTTspavn ay- B^ioTToi^ avloi hIo; "Koyoq. fjicvog a^oi. ^eo^ tz kJ cw^^wttoj, czTTcxviuv nfAiv cciliot; ayod^cov . 'sra^ h to su ^nv £«JiCb:aKO,tc£v«, «? ai^icv ^ww <:3X3a7r£jjt.7roiA,£^cx, Ad. Gentes, Opera, p. 5, I **G,od, -^9 8 Arguments for the Book II. <^ God, therefore, having his own logos in '« hi«? own bowels, generated him with his *« wifiom, throwing him out befoi-e all •* things. This logos, generated by him- «' felf, he ufed as his affiftant, and by him ^* made all things. He is called the a,^yj\^ «« becaufe he rules and governs all things *' that are made by him. He, therefore, *« being the Spirit of God *, and the af%>7, *« and wifdom, and fupreme power, went *« into the prophets, and by them fpake *' concerning the maker of the world, and *' all things. For there Vv^ere no prophets *' when the world was made, but the wif- ** dom of God, which was in him, and the *« holy logos, which is always with himf." * It is obfcrvable, that Theophilus makes the logos to be the fame with the Splrity 's^'^euf^x. Eufebius alfo fays, that >.c/vS>- and 'nrv£y/xa have no clifFcrence with refpedl: to God. It is, indeed, impoffible that they fhouid have conceived any difference between them, and ytt this clrcumftancc throws great confufion into the orthodox fyflem. ■[ Kx^v yv $£95 rov eaJln Xoyov Ev^ia^elov ev Toig i^ici; (7"9rAiK7%vor^, tytvvr.vev aulcv /xtla, rn^ E^y/a cropiixg si^ff Eyla^aEv®- 'sr^o rav o^wy . ihIcv Trv Xcyov trx^ vTra^yov rxv vn aula y£y£vniJLBvccv, ;^ ^i au% ra isavloc «Brf7roJW£v . ij7o5 Xiydai a^yy\^ oli a^x^i x^ ku^ievsi rzcxvlav ra-'v h aula JtiVi^afyr/xEvwv . lilc; s;. ^y z:xzuyi.a Sex, y^- a^x.'^ kJ acipia^ y^j '^uvaixig fi{ T}}j "rfvpr^ar, >^ 5i wJlxv 'JaUi 7:x 'jrEfi t^; 'ztoju- cteojj Chap. XL DoBrine of the Trinhy. 399 However, the term a^x'^ was not fo ap- propriated to Chrift, but that it was common to all the three great principles of things, and of courfe belonged to the Father, even with refpeft to Chrift; and therefore Cyril of Alexandria, after obferving that the Father is '* an eternal principle to the Son,'' fays, that ^' by a^x^ in the introdudlion to the *^ gofpel of John, the bleiled evangelift ** feems to fignify the Father^'/' That there was fome kind of fuperiority in the Father in confequence of his being the original (ap%>i) or caufe [culiog) was always acknowledged by the moft orthodox. This is expreilly afferted by Gregory Nazianzen, at the fame time that he fays, the Son is equal to the Father as to his natu?'e. On this principle, he fuppofes that Chrifl meant to fay that the Father was greater than he. *' That God," he fays, '' fhould be greater ffzai; Tn HQ(T/xs )y Tuv XoiTTcov aTravlav . a ya^ no'av oi 'ss^o^pnlou ols o Tiocrfjiog syivslo . a'KKa. yj cro]j ao(pio(^ av% . Tiixfn h TVKog Im i£q Hdi T»i iiy.^:\-n -r^ixe^a tyBm^ncrciv (parn^ig, Lib. 2 . p. i c6. ^* nujuber Ghap. XI. Do^rine of the Trinity, 401 " number of trinity fcandalize you, as if ** they were not connedled in fimple unity ? ** I afl<:, how could one perfon only fpeak ** in the plural number, and fay, let us ** make man in our likenefs */' To this argument Auftin adds, *' Had not the three ** perfons been one, it would have been ^^ Jaid, Let us make man in our imagesy not ** in our image ^T Bafil of Sileucia has the fame thought J. Michael Glycas, with great ingenuity, difcovers that all the three perfons were employed in the creation of man. " Who," fays he, '* faid. Let us make man ? The ** Father. Who took the duft of the * Si te adhuc numerus fcandalizat trinltatis, quafi non connexae In unitate fimplici, interrogo quomodo unicus et fingularis pluraliter loquitur ? Faciamus hominem ad ima- ginem et fimilitudinem noftram. Ad Praxeam, fe6l. 12. p. 506. t Si vero in illis tribus perfonis tres eflent Intelligendse vel credendjc fubftantis, non diceretur ad imaginem nof- trum, fed ad imagines noftras. De Fide, Ad Pel. cap. i. Opera, vol. 3. p. 211. VTra^X^irav . s: h fjiitx tIJ r^tah^ n smoiv^ fua, tuv t^mv VTToracrscov n (pu(Tig . TO ya^ Tcculov 'juj ajia^ n ing eutovog svoln^ fcn^urlei. Or, I. Opera, p. 5. Vol. n. D d ** ground 403 Arguments for the Book II. ** ground for that purpofe ? The Son. And " who breathed into him the breath of life? *« The Holy Spirit*." Auftin's veneration for the number Jix was mentioned before. He confidered the creation of the world in fix days as a proof of the trinity ; for fiXy fays he, is twice three -f. This will be thought fufficiently far fetched ; but what then fhall we fay to Cyril of Alexandria, who found a repre- fentation of the trinity in the dimenfions of the ark of Noah %, Quv ', i/iPj . iva, yav u-t] ro 'Sjysu/jLcc to ayiov aT^ol^iov ^aivnlcx.i rYi; t8 Annales, pars i. p. 6g. T Queft. 65. Opera, vol. 4. p. 684. % Afpice ergo qusfo, quemadmodum in trecentis cubi- tis, quod arc3e longitudinem efle allignavimus, perfedio fandlae trinitatis confccratur. Qiiod autem, ut formula dixerim, deltas, quae in unitate perfpicitur, perfe£lio fit perfe^tionum ex latitudine arcse, quse ad quinquaginta fe cubitos extendit, latlfnme patet. Quinquagenarius etenim numerus, fcptein fepties dicbus, unitate quoquc conjun(5la, conficitur. Quia unam quidem deitatis naturam efle ad- Iciimus. Altitude ctiam ipfius areas nil aliud profe^lo, quam mentem ipfam mirifice nobis fuggerit. In decimum enim Chap. XL Doclrine of the Trinity. 403 That it was Chrift who fpake to the Pa- triarchs, was agreed by all the Fathers from the time of Juftin Martyr ; and the proof of it lay in this circumftance, that the perfon , who appeared is called God ; but fi nee the fupreme God is invifiblcy there muft have been another perfon intitled to that appel- lation ; as we have i^^^i in the extrads from Juftin himfelf. I fhall in this place add fome pafTages to this purpofe from other writers. Tertullian, having obferved that God the Father is invifible, and yet that God was in fome fenfe vifible to the patriarchs, infers that it muft have been the Son who appeared to them, '' He muft, therefore," he fiys, *' be another perfon who was feen, *' For he who was i^^n cannot be invifible. *' It therefore foilov/s, that we fuppofe the *' Father to be invifible on account of the ** plenitude of his majefty, but the Son to enim tertium cubitorum numerum perficitur. Triginta enim cubitorum, inquit, altitudinem ejus fades : et in cu- bitum unum confummabis cam, San6la enim trinitas in tres hypoftafes triumque perfonarum differentias quum ex- tendatur, in unam deitatis naturam quodammodo contra- hitur. In Gen. 3. Opera, vol. i. p. 17. D d 2 "be 404 jirguments for the Book IL •« be vifible, as being derived from him. ** As though we cannot fee the fun him- ** fclf, v/e can bear his beams, as a tem- '< percd portion of him, extending to the ** earth ■^"." " Mofes," fays Novatian, *' every v^here '* introduces God the Father as immenfe, *' and without end, not confined to place, •* but including all fpace, not one who is ** in place, but rather in whom all place is, *' comprehending and embracing all things; " fo that he can neither afcend nor defcend. ** For he contains and fills all things ; and *' yet he introduces a God defcending to ** the to\ver which the fons of mentuiltt." * Jam ergo alius erit qui vluebatur, quia non poteft idem invifibilis dciiniri, qui videbatur, et confequens erit, ut invifibilem patrem intelligamus, pro plenitudine majef- tatis } vifibilem vcro filium agnofcamus, pro modulo deri- vationis: ficutnec folem nobis contemplari licet, quantum nd ipfam fubftantias fummam quae eft in ccelis ; radium autcm ejus toleramus oculis pro teir.peratura portionis quae m terram inde porrigitur. Ad Praxeam, fed. 14. p. 508. •f- Quid fi idem Moyfes ubiquc introducit deum patrem immcnfiim atquc fme fine, non qui loco cludatur, fed qUi omncm locum cluJat : nee eum qui in loco fit, fed potius in quo omnis locus fit : omnia continentem et cunda com- plcxum, ut merito nee defccndat nee afcendat, quoniam ipfc Chap. XL Dodlrine of the Trinity. 405 Auftin fuppofed, that the three men who appeared to Abraham either were, or repre- fented the trinity. ** The two who went *' to Sodom muft/* he fays, " have been the ** Son and the Spirit, becaufe they are faid to ** have been ferity which the Father is never *' faid to be*." As it might be objected that the Father could not become vifible, he fays, ** Why may not the Father be under- ** ftood to have appeared to Abraham and '* Mofes, and to whom he pleafed, and as *^ he pleafed, by means of a changeable and ** vifible creature, when he in himfelf re- ** mained invifible and unchangeable -[-." ipfe omnia et continet et implet j et tamen nihilominus introducit Deum defcendentem ad turrim, quam aedifica' banthlii hominum. Cap. 17. p. 62. * Sed quas duas perfonas hie intelligimus, an patris et filii, an patris et fpiritus fan£ii, an filii et fpiritus fanfti. Hoc forte congruentius quod ultimum dixi j mifios enim fe dixerunt, quod de filio et fpiiitu hnS.o dicimus. Nam patrem miflum nufquam fcriptura nobis notitia occurrit. De Trinitate, lib. 2. cap. 10. Opera, vol. 3. p. 272. t Si ergo Deus pater locutus eft ad primum homi- nem. Cur non jam ipfe intelligatur apparuilTe Abrahse et Moyfi et quibus yoluit, et quemadmcdum voluit per fubjedam fibi commutabilem atque vifibilem creaturam, cum ipfe in feipfo atque in fubftantia fua qua eft, incom- mutabilis atque invifibilis maneat. Ibid. p. 269. D d 3 He 4o6 Arguments for the Book II. He fays, with refpedt to all thefe ap- pearances, " they may either be thofe of ** the whole trinity, which is God, or of *^ each of the perfons, according to the '* circumftances *." Glycas fays, that the trinity was received by Abraham, and chearfully partook of the entertainment provided for them -f-. He adds, that, according to the opinion of Cy- ril, it was the Father that remained with Abraham, becaufe he judges no man; and that they were the Son and Spirit that v/ere * Jam enim qusefitum atque tra£l:atum eft, in illis an- tlquis corporalibus formis et vlfis non tantummodo pa- trem, nee tantummodo filium, nee tantummodo fpirltum fandium apparuiffc, fed autem indiftercnter dominum deum qui trinitas ipfa intelligitur, aut quamlibit ex trinitate per- fonam, quam Icdionis textus indiciis circumftantibus fig- nificarct. De Trinitate, lib. 3. cap. i. vol: 3. p. 281. i" Kat rcaiilov a7r'hu(; (piXo^svo'; >iv, ag )y auinv rnv ayiav r^ia^tx «/A]vai, Auo h roig To^o(ji.oig £'JE(pQik:v7c, h>^ Mt TS'STf^i tkI^jv, aluMysiv, Annalcs, pars 2- p. 132. fent Chap. XI. Do^rine of the Trinity, 407 fent to Sodom, was the opinion of the great Athanafius, becaufe no others could have been afTeflbrs with him. Juftin Martyr imagined, that Chrift was fignified by the ferpent in the wildernefs ; and even thought that Plato had got a hint of the fame thing from the fcriptures, but did not rightly underftand it *." Chryfoftom finds a proof of the trinity in the bleffing pronounced by Mofes : The Lord blefs thee and keep thee, the Lord lift tip the light of his countenance upon thee and blefs thee '^ the Lord lift up the light of his counte- nance upon theCy and give thee peace. • ** Here," fays he, **is the holy trinity ** clearly celebrated -f*/* The foundation of this argument could only be, that God is mentioned three times in this form of benediction." 'sr^colov ^£0V ^uvxijuv Ksxicif^^^i evT0'S!avli£i7r£, Apol. I. p. 87. f Eu>>oyw£i (TE Ku^ioi;, :y (pu?,oi^si as, eTTKpavEi kv^io; to :7oy ^^^y TiPiov zvivprtiima^ tov rpoTTov. Preparatio. p. 320. ■|- L|i:i£^v^a7o VI Kac^ioi fxcu Aoycv ayx^ov. )ih (itv rmg oiy\%(Tav SK 'SfQCi^'/Tii TH 'sioclpo; "hzjic^ai, Tavlcx^ 'sjspi Ts £v apx*] ovloi rzpo^ at/- Toy yoyou^ cv :« tyi; oiovei Ka^hag ?c^ dvlmTuv au^jxyxvw^ ioj Js 5bxf{ Taula etti to 7rpo(p»licov oLva.^i^ei y\ijuv tw 'mspi ts 'Sjoclpo^ iirriY,7i'j, Montfaucon's Collcclio, vol. i. p. 186. In Chap. XI. DoBrine of the Trinity, 41 1 In Pf. li. 10, 11, We read Create in me a cleaji hearty O Gody and renew a right fpirit within ?ne, Caji tne not away from thy pre ^ fence, and take not thy holy fpirit from me. *' In this/' fays Orlgen, ** we have the ** Father, Son, and Spirit; the Father be- ^* ing the principal fpirif (as the firft verfe was rendered in Greek) " the Son the right ** fpirit, and the Holy fpirit being expreflly ^^ mentioned in the lafl: place*." Pope Gregory fays, that ** David taught *^ the Dodlrine of the trinity in Pf. Ixvii. '* God bemercful to usy a^id blcfs us^'' But this fliadow of an argument can only be feen in the Latin tranflation, as given by himfelf, in which the name of God occurs three times. * O 78V Aa^i^ £v rco -^aT^iAa mg £^o//oXo7t](7£wj iffsfi nilm rw '^uVEVficclav ailst tcv 'zsdls^a. Aeywv . 's:v£V(jLix!l y\yeiioviKa rm^ov (jlb 'SsvEUfjLa Ev^F.g eyKaivio-Qv sv roig zyKctlon; />ta, xj to 'sivsufjicx ro ayiov as (An avlcivEMg aTTo Ef^a^ nva rcc T^ia '^VEu/xctla rotvla i ro yjysfAovimv z^alr]^, TO Eu^E^ ox^^^o^, ^9 to nsvEvixa TO aym. In Jer. Horn. 8. Comment, vol. i. p. 95. f David quippe ut authorem omnium Deum in trini- tate oftenderet, dixit : benedicat nos Deus Deus noiler, jbenedicat nos Deus. In Job. cap. 28. Opera, p. 174.B. Auftin 412 Arguments for the Book II. Auflin proves that Cbfift wrought mi- racles before he was born of Mary, from Pf. cxxxvi. 4. " Who did t^.em," fays he, ** but ** he of whom it is faidj ^who only doth great Eufebius, interpreting PC. Ivii. 3, God fcnt forth his mercy and his iriith, fays, ** What can the mercy- and the truth that is ** fent from God be, but the logos of God, «* concerning which it is faid, He fcnt ^^ forth his word and healed them, and de-- " livered them out of their deJlruBions. The ** fame is alfo called a light, and is faid to ** be ferity in that pfalm, in which it faid ** fend forth thy light and thy truth y they *' Jhall guide me. But the light , and the ** truth y and the 'word, fent from the moft ** high God cannot want ejfence or fub^ ^' jlance 'y for a thing without fubftance ** cannot hzfent. For our logos, confiiting " of fyllables, and words, and names, and \ Miracula cnim et nondum natus de Maria fecit. Quis culm unquam fecit, nifi ipfe dc quo didum eft, qui facit mirabilia magna folus ? In Pf. xc. Opera, vol. 8. p. 999. *^ pronounced Chap. XI. 'DoEirlne of the Trinity, 4.13 ** pronouf^ced by the tongue, and the voice, ** is not properly and truly logos */' In his commentary on Pf.lxxxii. i. he fays, ** Left any one fliould be difturbed on ac- ** count of the monarchy, hearing that the '' Chrift of God is called God, he pro- ** bably afterwards makes mention of many ** Godsy with cenfure, but exhorts not to *' decline giving the title of God to the ** Son of God. For if the princes of the ** nation, who had bad characters, were *' called gods, what danger can there be in ** calling the man who is at the right hand ** of God, and the Son of man who is *' made ftrong, a God-}-." *SjEpi'ii s.7^£y eIo ' £|aT£r£iX£ rev "hoyov avis, ^ laaalo au%g, -^ sppva-alo uulag £« Tcov ^fO^Sopwv avlcov ' o ^ avlog OfAOiag >tj (pa; a7rorE>^o{iEyo» ti^niai Ev TW :kOfji.£v^oyog ajv, crvT^haQai; y^ py]iia!ii Xj ovoiMocai Tm uTTorao-iv sxav, }y dioe yT^ajlm; -^ (pcovn; £|«%a/^£voj, 8h. av T^sx^m ku^ico; )o, a7\Y\^a; 7,oyo;, Montfaucon's Colle6i:io, vol. i, p. 249. ■^ Kxi oTTug ix-A Tapxx^cm rig eig tov ise^i fjcovx^x^ag T^oyov, Beov aH&ccv rov xf^^^^v m ^£«, siHolag x^ rsjT^eiovag ^siig ovofjia^u t8j ^ict \tcov s^g fdxlnyo^'jfiivog , f/.cvovHyj n:ijapaK£X£Wfj(,Evog {jLy\ uttqweiv Hjtov viov TH Bb8 Beov UTTOKaT^niv . ei ya^ a Q-;ah30i.Ka.K-AY.c'., Ad Celfum, lib. 2. p. 76. f OiS^.ti a.v^^cc-av '7::^o 700V diceyc-'v iyjil J^o^etv. Xf'tTOf Chap. XI. Dodirine of the Trinity, 421 any of thefe is given by Auftin, who fays, that " no man was ever greater than Solo- *' mon, but Chrifl was fo *." Ambrofe gives a curious reafon why the father of Jefus fhould be a carpenter : *' It was/* he fays, *' to fignify, that Chrift was the fon of the ** maker of all things -f-** Qeo^il X?^^^^* ^"^^'^ <^i etvd-pco'Tre^i' VTSp ety.dfjtAV, az et^A P^ckIcii, ;^piry cTg w (7«p{ sj iipcf.i'ii ii^tijcfj, Avd-pcoTTo^ t/cro 70V covy KO^TdLpyzi d-cf.vci]ov. Opera, vol. 2. p. 248. * Salomoni cum fapientiam a Deopoftulaflet, refponfum a domino eft : Ecce dedi tibi,inquit corfapiens ct prudens, quale non fuit ante te, et poft te non exurget vir fimilis tibi. Quid dicemus, verum eft quod promifit Deus ? Imo verum eft. .Nemo ergo hominum fnnilis erit Salomoni. Et quid videbit de Chrifto, qui inter caetera, regina, inquit, auftri venit ab ultimis terrae audire fapientiam Salomonis ? et ecce plus Salomons hie. Nunc elige cui credas Pho- tine, deo an Chrifto, patri an filio ? Si patri credis arguis filium : fi filio credis, accufas patrem. Si enim homo tan- tum eft Ghriftus fruftra fe praepofuit Salomoni contra pro- miflum Dei, Qyeftiones, Ex. T. J. Opera, vol. 4. p. 763- f Non alienum etiam videtur ut qua ratione fabrum patrem habuerit, declaremus. Hoc enim typo eiim pa- trem fibi efTe demonftrat qui fabricator omnium condidit mundum, juxta quod fcriptum eft, in principio fecit deus ccelum etterram. In Luc. 3. Opera, vol. 2. p. 42. E e 3 It 42 2 Arguments fir the Book II. It is the gofpel of John that has always furnifhed the greatefl number of proofs of the divinity of Chrift, though it is remark- able that, in none of the gofpels are there more evident proofs of his proper humanity. But of thefe no account was made, becaufe they were only confidered as proving what was never denied, viz. that Chrift had hu-- man nature. Epiphanius proves the divi- nity of Chrift from the Father being called the light, and the Son the true light ^.-^ John the Baptift faid. After me cometb a man^ who was before me. *' Here," fays ** Theodoret, both the humanity and the ** divinity of Chrift are taught -f." That it was Chrift who fpake both in the prophets and in the gofpel, Ambrofc • Kci/ cpct (xot Ti)v Tccv yfcttpuv etKfiCiiAif. gr/ {JLiv yap 'zfA" 7«p 9»f,x«c/ ^ 'afo7Mtleu jco -argp/ t^dilfoi, (pui AKti'^lvoV. iTit ^iyiiv, Anccratus, S. 3. Opera, vol 2. p. 8. t Keti TUTU cTg o//»J'U|Uo$ iCoetMyuV OTTtffaf fJLa ify^^ilcti ctrrp, oi ?^-Tfoo''^5f y.H yzyonVf on 'zsr^aroi /u» j;f. Kcti to iv V^caWTTOV Jn^etf etlJL(pOTi^Ct Ti^r)KiyHetl 7cL^ilA, acfA TA AV- ^^ecx-ivA, Av^fecTTipov y-iv yap, )y to, AVilp }y 7o,ip^iT((A • ^iiov cTe TO OT/ TTpwTof //K VV. tf.A^/ 0;^:6fg oH. A'aKoV OlS'i TOV OTtCeO ?»- yjilj.k\cv, X.OU AhhQY 7QV -arf rty7» qvtAj, Epift. S-^, Opera, vol, 4/p. 1 149, Ed. Hale. proves 4 Chap. XL Dodlrlne of the Trinity. 423 proves from our Saviour's own words, " in ** foretelling the gofpel by Ifaiah, I who I ** fpake am prefent. (If. 54. John i6.) ** i. e. I am prefent in the gofpel, who *' fpake in the law */' What John reprefents our Saviour as fay- ing, / and my Father are one^ and which had been urged by the Sabellians againft thofe who were then deemed orthodox, was now moft ftrenuoufly urged by the orthodox, in amore'advanced ftate of the controverfy, as a clear proof of Chrift having proper divi- nity as well as the Father ; and at the fame time, that they did not make two Gods. Origen, interpreting this text, obferves, that the Father and Son are two hypo- ** ftafes, but one in unanimity, harmony, '« and will f .*' • Atque ut fcias imperator Augufte, Chriftum efle qui lo- quutus eft et in propheta et in evangelic, tanquamin prs- deftinatione evangelii per Efaiam dicit : Ipfe qui loquebar adfum : hoc eft, adfum in evangelic, qui loquebar in lege. De Fide, lib. 2, cap. 3. Opera, vol. 4. p. 134. yoia, KouTiJ (fvix(pavta, kcu ta rsLVTOTtfji t» ^\ihfffJi.ctl<^. Con- tra Celfum, lib. 8. p. 386. E e 4 This 424 Arguments for the Book IL This text is urged by Novatian* ^ but Hi- lary makes it to be heretical to interpret this text to mean unity of confent, or harmony, and not famenefs of nature -f-. Ambrofe re- fines upon it, taking notice, that our Savi- our places himfelf before his Father, ** left «* it fhould be imagined that he was infe- ** rior to him; whereas it could not be ** fuppofed that the Father was inferior to *' the Son J." But what is more extraordi- * Si homo tantummodo Chriftus ; quid eft, quod ait, ego et pater unum fumus ? quomodo enim ego et pater unum fumus, fi non et deus eft et filius ? qui idcirco unum poteft dici dum ex ipfo eft, et dum filius ejus eft, ct dum ex ipfo nafcitur, dum ex ipfo proceffifle reperitur, per quod et deus eft. Cap. 15. p. 52. f Hsec igitur quia haerctici negare non poffunt, quippe cum fmt tarn abfolute di6la atque intellecSla : tamen ftultif- fimo impietatis fuae mendacio negando corrumpunt. Id pnim quod ait, ego et pater ynum fumus, tentant ad unani- mitatis referre c.onfenfum, ut voluntatis in his unitas fit, non naturae j id eft, ut non per id quod idem funt, fed per id quod idem volunt, unum funt. De Trinit, lib. 8. p, 162. X Pulchre etiam illud praemifit, ego et pater. , Nam fi patrcm prcTcmlfiflet, tu minoremfilium judicares : fed prae- mifit filium, qucm non convcnit credi patre fuperiorem, Hcxamcron, lib, 6. cap. 7. Opera, vol. i. p. 94. nary Chap. XL Do5}rine of the Trinity. 425 nary than even this, advantage is taken by Bafil of Chrift faying, My Father is greater than /, *' It is/' fays he, " a proof that '* they are both of the fame nature becaufe " things of a different nature are not fo ** compared */' Eufebius retained fomething of the old ideas on this fubjed, when he faid that the Father and Son are one by a communication of the glory v^hich he imparted to his dif- ciples. For thus they alfo might be ad- mitted into this unity "f-. I fhall now proceed to note a few proofs of the divinity of Chrift from the apoftolic epiftles. Paul is fuppofed to fay, that Chrift was God over all blejfed for ever, Rom. ix. 5. This is obferved by Nova- * Kar 'VaT^v o 7ra%p (^8 fisi^cov fin bti . Ksxpwat ya^ ^ rala Tfi» py]lo) roc axapiTO, KlidfiaJoc^TWrii'^sovspii yEvwifxcxlcc. . syce Je kJ eh. Tixu%.§ Ty]g (puvYigy ro Oi^oncnov mai rov viov rco 'sicclpi drjy^Ho-^cci 'BSTrirema « rag ya^ avyHpii cou.iv J'iJ^aAec'fy.ivoi, tva y.» -wcAv^eiat iv »uiv iTi i', Setft. 2. Ope- ra, vol. 2. p. 7. *' the Chap. XL DoBrine of the Trinity, 433 '* the true God, 1 John v. IVe are In him *' that is true, this is the true God, and eternal life^,'' But Auftin even proves the divinity of Chrift from this text. For he fays, it ought to be read, '* that they may know ** thee, and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft " fent, to be the true Godf.'* It was objected to the dodlrine of the divinity of Chrift that he faid, he could do nothing of himjelf. But Ifidore of Pelufium fays, that " this intimated not his weak- *' nefs, but his ftrength, as it fliewed that ** he would do nothing contrary to his Fa- *^ Father'* (meaning, no doubt, that it was in his power) *' as he had fallen under a ** fufpicion of being the antagonift of God, " and of appropriating glory to himfelf+/' * Non fecund um errorem Arianorum referimus ad per- fonam tantum dei patris de quo fcriptum eft : ut cognof- cent te foluni verum deum, et quern mififti Jefum Chrif- tum : fed ad filium, qui et ipfe verus deus eft, dicente evan- gelifta Johanne ; venit filius dei et dedit nobis mentem, ut cognafcamus verum, et fimus in vero filio ejus Jefu Chrifto. Ifte eft verus deus et vita aeterna. Opera, vol. 4. p. 219. t Ut hasc fit fentsntia, te, et quern mififti Jefum Chrif- tum, cognofcant unum verum deum. Epift. 174. Opera, vol. 2. p. 785. :|: To yao, 8 ^uvxlcci vio; 'jrojstv a

iv, oli ayBTTi^sKloi en ts £vav%ov rt la Vol. II. " Ff w;«7^: 434 Arguments for the Bcok 11. It was obje6led to the divinity of Chrift, that he frayed to the Father, as one who was dependent upon him. The general anfwer to this objection is thus expreffed by Da- mafcenus, *^ Chrifl: being perfonally united ♦* to God, has no need of that afcent of the ** mind to God in which prayer confifts ; •* but having taken human nature upon '* him, he (hewed us a pattern of what was ** proper for us to do*.'' ** The glory that ** Chrift prayed for,'' fays Hilary, *'• was '* not for the word, but for the flefhf .'* '* But Ruffinus fays, ** Chrift was praying l^iavcr(pBlefi^ofMEvog^o^av,rHlo£(py}, £p. lib. 3. p. 387. * Oratio eft mentis ad deum afcenfus : aut eorum a deo poftulatio, quc-e poftulare convcnit. Qui ergo fie- bat, ut dominus in Lazari rufcitatione, ac pallionis tem- pore, preces adhibcret ? Neque enim fand^a ipfius mens afcenfione ad deum opus habebat, quippe quae feniel deo pcrfonaliter unita efTet : nee rurfus ei opus erat, ut quic- quam a deo poftularet. Unus enim Chriftus eft. Nimi- rum igitur id Ciufe erat, quod perfonam noftram fibi ad fcifcerct, atque id quod noftrum erat, in feipfo exprimeret, f^que exemplar nobis pr^ebcrct, nofque a deo poliulare, mcntefquc ad eum erigere doceret. Orthod. Fid. lib. 3. cap. 23. p. 426. t Gloria enim omnis non vcrbo, fed carni acquireba- tur. Lib. 5. p. 211. ''for Chap. XL DoBnne of the Trinity. 435 ** for his body the church, when he faid, " My God, my God, why hafi thouforfaken '' meW Our Saviour exprefsly fays that his Fa- ther was greater,than he. But this was ge- nerally explained by faying, that he referred to his human nature only. This is the re- ply of Athanafius, who fays, that *' being ** the logos of the Father, he was at the fame *' time equal to himf." But Epiphanius intimates that our Saviour faid this as a mere compliment to the Father, fuch as be- came a fon to make J. In the Ancoratus, he fays, it was to prove that Chrift was the genuine fon of the Father ||. What Paul fays concerning the fubjec" tion of Chrijl to the Father, who put all things * Sufccplt mortem pro nobis, et nos fecit corpus fuum, pro quo orat ad patrem, cum dicit, deus deus meus, re- fpice in me, quare ine dereliquilii ? la Pf xxi. Opera, vol. 2. p. 45. -j- Kai o?£ Asyci rsciiy^^ (xh o TsiSfx-^a^ ixs fjisi^cov ,as er*v sttei ^ Tot yvmm w«, Hxr. 62. Opera, vol. i. p. 516. 11 Eot< yx^ a^/J^«J Tov yyTjcr/cv vicv T^iav Toy i^iov fssaii^c^' iva #?<|;i TYiV :i7ij-iv?);7«. Ancoratus, Opera, vol. 2. p. 23. F f 2 under 436 Arguments for the Book 1 1. under his feet (i Cor. xv. 24,) was made an objedlion to the trinitarians, as implying that Chrift was certainly inferior to the Father, and that his kingdom was to have an end. ** Very many," fays^Hilary, " think ** that w^hen all things are fubjedted to '' him, Chrift will be fubjedl to God ; that ** on account of this fubjedtion he is not •^ God V Of this difficulty many folu^ tions were propofed, and fome of them curious enough. Chryfoftom fays, that '^ when Paul fpake *' of the fubjedion of the Son to the Fa- •' ther, he was afraid left fome unreafonable ** perfons fhould imagine either that the *' Son was greater than the Father, or that *^ there was another unbegotten principle ** («^%>i)t''' Damiani fays, that '* to deli- ** ver up the kingdom to God even the Fa- ** ther, means bringing men to contemp- * Plerique cnim Ita volunt, ut aut dum fubjed^is omni- bus (leo fubjicitur, per conditionem fubjeftionis deus nori fit. De Trinitate, lib. ii. p. 282. fxEi(m eivai ts Trai^og viog^ n {ii^a T?j Ts Ji3bv7o$ i^iaiac, [xcvcv to Jw^ov . KOifjUxlxv cc^- j| ailwta; n ^oaii . ^ei^ov (/.oi mv a-nv o^iav, ^ ^Astte rr^v E(A.nv £|«- fiav. Or. 24. Opera, p. 135. X Non eft meum dare : non enim certandi munera fic mihi proppfita funt ut velim petentibus dare quibwfcunqucc^ a led Chap. XI. Dodirine of the Trinity^ 439 After this fair exhibition of the dodrinc of the trinity from the writers of the age in which it was advanced ; having feen the abfurdity of the principles from which it originated, and the ftill greater abfurdities into which it was afterwards carried ^ and alfo after feeing the wretched illuftrations, and miferable defences that were made of it, can we wonder at its bdng fometimes treat- ed with ridicule, and fometimes regarded with abhorrence, by the unitarians of that age ; or that it fhould have expofed chrif- tianity to the derifion of unbelievers, not- withftanding it was originally calculated to gain over the more philofophical part of them. The orthodox made heavy com- plaints on this fubjed, of which feveral fpecimens have been given already. They particularly fay, that they did not know how to fpeak of Chrift without giving an advantage to fome or other of their ad- verfaries. " If Chrift,*' fays Jerom, '* be ** called a man, Ebion and Photinus take fed ilUs folum qui certando fuperabunt, Thefaurus, lib. 10, cap. 5, Opera, vol. 2. p. 300. Ff4 the Aj^o Arguments for the Book II. '' the advantage ; if he be called a god, *« Manes and Marcion •\'' «• With rcfpedt to the divinity of Chrift," fays Photius, *' to acknowledge three ef- ** fences is polytheifm, and confequently *' atheifm, and to affert one hypofrafis, is '* Judaifm and Sabellianifm. And with '* refpedt to his humanity, to fay there is ** one nature and one hypoftafis, is Mani- " chieifm, and to fay that there are two ** natures and two hypoftafes, is Pauli^ ** anifm|." The orthodox were charged with hold- ing different opinions concerning the tri- nity, and a great variety of fuch opinions have been exhibited. Gregory Nazianzen denies this, and fays, that ** the difference in ** other things, which he allows, was not fo * Si Chriftum fateatur hominem, Ebion, Fotinus que fubrepunt; fi deiim efie contenderit : Manichxus et Mar- cion. In Gal. cap. i. Opera, vol. 6. p. 120. i^ Sia fiiiQ a^ZQv * x\ to (jluxv "htyziv vTroruaVy la^aiKcv xj ^aQs')\>4ov • kto }d ETTi 7r,g ciKovoixiag, to te fxiav (pvaiv (p^ovEiv xj /x:av yroratriv Viavixo^iHov )t) aiio^l<,%v ' xj to 5i/o ^ycTE/j, xj ^yo vTioTucuqy Ilay- >iavir6;v j^' /<«c7o;^fifov. Epift. p. 95. *' great Ghap. XL DoBrine ofihe Trinity. 441 .** great as their adverfaries pretended, that ** they v/ere in part cornpofed, and would be ** entirely fo*/' They were, however, no farther compofed than the authority of councils, and that of the civil pov/ers, were able to do it ; and this prophecy concerning the total celTation of thofe diiferences has never been fulfilled, nor is there any pro- fpecl that it ever will. From the very beginning it has been feen that the orthodox were charged with making more gods than one. This appears by the apologies which all the orthodox writers make on this fubjed:. Among others, fee Novatian -f*. And this com- * Ou yap 'STBpi ^Eol-^loi ^im^x^nu^v, a^^' vtts^ Evla^iot; ryavKra- fzsQot, ii^' OTTole^ccv d'si Tuv aazQ^iuv E>,£(rBai /^ta^^ov yifji>(picrCrTJwafJi£v, £p£ TVV CVVM^'dO-aV SfOV, *] TTM TS[MVH(JaV ' Eiis TO 'ZSVWfjLCZ fXOVOV CtTTO Tn; S^siKm aaioig, sile icy viov 'zspcg tco "suvbu/xo^i, tvjv /xiav yxi^av, ri rag Bi/o rv]g a(7£?'7''^ov fl 's^pc; Exvlnv n ^solvg . (s/ aiji /^sya thIo eittbiv) iy ysyovaf^sv. — A^^a ^£ i'Tiv VTTE^ m Si>iv£%S>?/>t£v . uaKug (jLEv jt^ rs!E^i Tulcov, 8 yap a^vy\.£>^i}fj(,£9a xj ^la'hvaoiJi.EOa, Eyiw T^g £i^myig Eyfurng, o fMu^og m Toaars 'sypay- fiaTog. Or. 13. Opera, p. 207. t Et imprimis illud retorquendum in iftos qui duorum nobis deorum controverfiam fecere prsefumunt. Cap. 30. p. 118. 4 plaint 442 Arguments for the Book II. plaint continued till the lateft periods, and appears not to have been lefs after the council of Nice than before. Bafil fays, *< We are accufed of blafphemy againft •* God*." There is extant, a whole tradt of Bafil's againft thofe who calumniated the orthodox, on account of their wor- fhipping three Gods -f-. Gregory Nyflen complains, that he and his friends were " accufed of preaching *' three Gods, that this accufation was ** founded in the ears of the multitude, •* and made to appear very plaufible to «' them:):.'* In a Commentary on the book of Job, publifhed among the works of Origen, but written probably by fome Arian, we have heavy complaints of the trinitarian doc- trine, called the herefy of three Gods, ^s a * EyKCtT^tQoc yaf rnv «$ Seov ^^a(^^v^/>«av. Epift. 79, Ope- ra, vol. 3. p. 140. I Om. 28. Opera, vol, I. p. 534. tiMoai Twv noTO^m^ x^ 'Sii^a,Vj)i xalcKTKtva^Qvl-; rriv $ia^o)^i]y Totulyw^ « vauoylM. De Trinitate, vol. 2 p. 439. type Chap. XI. Do^rine of the Trinity, 443 type of which the devil made three horns, or three bands, to plunder Job. It has, he fays, filled the whole world, as with dark- nefs *. The writer of the Homilies on Matthew, falfely afcribed to Chryfoftom, frequently inveighs againft the dodrine of the trinity ; fpeaking of it as the herefy foretold by Chrift to overfpread the world, under the emblem of ^r/^rj and thorns; and alluding to the word tribulus^ he calls it the triangular herejy^. * Tria cornua fecit diabolus in typum atque figuram trionymse feiStae, triumque deorum haerefis, quae univerfum orbem terrae in mpdum tenebrarum replevit, quas patrem et filium et fpiritum fan£lum aliquando tres colit, nonnun- quam unum adprat, quemadmodum Grxrcorum lingua niemoratur : triada vel homoufion. Iftam ergo trinitatis fedam et hasrefim atque in fidelitatem jam olim de longe defignans verfutilTiinus ille diabolus tria cornua mifit ad Job depraedandum, fic namque etiam nunc memorata trio- nyma haerefis, prcefertim pra^datur atque expugnat eccle- fiam. Lib. i. vol. i p. 393. f Et verum eft quidem, quia fplnas et tribulos omnes iniquos hiereticos appellavit : tamen forfitan fciens domi- nus banc hxrefim efie prsevalituram pra» omnibus tribulos eos appellavit, qu.afi trinitatis profeflbres, et triangulara impictatcm in fua perfidiabajulantes. Horn. 19. p. 842. N or 444- Arguments for the Book II. Nor were the heathens lefs backward than the chriftians to upbraid the orthodox Fathers with their own polytheifm, while they pretended to reclaim them from theirs. The heathens, according to Chryfoftom, would fay to them, *' Who is this Father, *« who is this Son, or this Holy Spirit ? " Do not you make three Gods, while you ** accufe us of polytheifm * ?'' In ridicule of the chriftian dodrine of the trinity, one of the fpeakers in Lucian's Phihpatris^ bidding the other to fwear *^ by ** the Supreme God, by the Son of the Fa- ** ther, and by the Spirit proceeding from ** the Father, one out of three, and three *' out of one, and to confider it as being Ju- '* piter /' the other anfwers, '' You make ** me .have recourle to numeration, and give ** me an arithmetical oath — I know not ** what you fay, one three, and three onef.'^ * Av TQivtrj t^M Tif t>0£iii 's:a>jjkiocv. In John i. Opera, vol. 8. p-Qi. )*^aviuva, viov ■zral^s;, rzvEVfxa m 'sial^og mTTo^svoixEvov^ £V zfc r^iuv, )y Chap. XL Dodirine of the Trinity. 445 Julian, who had himfelf been educated a chrillian, and was acquainted with the fcriptures, charges the orthodox with grofsly mifreprefenting them, in order to make out their favourite doflrine of the divinity of Chrift. To fhew in what light he con- fidered their conduct, I fhall quote feve- ral paffages from his writings. '* Mofes,'* he fays, ** taught one only God, and faid, ** that he had many fons, to whom the *^ countries were distributed ; but no only *^ begotten Son, no God the logos, fuch as ** you afterwards falfely fubftituted. This he ** neither knew from the iirft, nor taught*/' •^ If he would have no one to be w^orfliipped, " why do you worfhip his Son, and one *' whom he never confidered as his proper ** Son, as I can eafily fxiow ; but you, I do ^^ not know how, have obtruded him -f/* f^fwo^ . UK oi^a yocp ri ^£yf(5, bv t^icc, r^ia sy. Opera, vol. 2.' p. 998. * Eva it) (Movov EOi^a(TH^. Seov, w«j 5e av% ^o>^h; th; tiaiavBiixa- fASva^ ra £§yji * is^alfloicov ^e viovy y\ ^zov Aoyov. n7i toiv ct^ unm urspv i^Euhg a-uvlsSsvlcov h^ s/e nh axl a^x^,v, hIs £^id'a(TH£ (pitvs^ug, Cy- ril contra Jul. J uliani, lib. C. Opera, vol. 2. p. 290. t Ei ya^ Act 9;h2i ts^-jkuvzkt^ch, ra xa^tv rov u^qv thIov ^ffpocrHw nile, kJ cv SKSivog i^iov ah Bvof/^mv, sS y]yv];i'ai Bscv Mycv vTra^X^iv. Epid. 5I. Opera, vol. I. p. 434.. -|- OuJu ^e £T£ ^urux^^y- ^^^ ^'^^ '''^'^ ^"^^ "^^^ cx.7roTO>MV vfiiv 'ssaoic- ^'^QU.iVQli £XIJl,£lJ(.£Vr]}tCci£^ x) Taulo, 5e £7n TO %ErpOV >C- '^V(T£Q£T£POV , VZQ Tuv sTTiyivo/xn'm fif if yacr^yj . rov 78V Ir](7sv «7e riayXoj eJoX/^jia-ev £i7r£tv ^£3V if'£ Malfi.ai©- hIe Amoci;. aJe Mcifx©- * aXh x^'-'^'^^ Icoawngy cu7^0[X2v'^- r^-n 'ssoy.u TS'KYid'^ £oChQi-rto; £v 'Sio'h'KxK; ruv EMw^iuv xj Ira'Muliouy -zsto^ewv utto ^^^uin; t>i; vo7s. Cyril contra Jul. lib. 10. Juliani, Opera, vol. 2. p. 327. ** ther Chap. XI. Dodlnne of the Trinity. 447 ** ther of God. Where does he fay that ** he who (hall be born of a virgin, fliall *' be the only begotten fon of God, the ** firft born of all creation ? As to what is " faid by John, all things were made by him^ ** and without him was not any thing made *' that was made^ can any perfon fhew this " in the prophets ? But attend to what I " can iliew out of them. O Lord God " poiTefs us, we know no other befides *^ thee. King Hezekiah is reprefented by ** them as praying, O Lord God of Ifrael, ** who fitteil upon the cherubim, thou ** art God alone. He leaves no room for *< any other^.'* From this paflage it is evident that Ju- lian underftood the fcriptures much better than the orthodox Fathers. But he was * M)i7{ hsov (pYiO-iV EK 7Yi<; '^(xr:9y]yii rs^9r,o-ea^ai ; '^ecIokcv cs I'/xr.i 8 'sjau£a^e yicx^nxv HaT^vlsi; . rj /wti 'srs Ontri rov e« Trjg ^a^^evH ysv- vufASVOV mcv ^BH (/.ovcysvYi k^ ^p'J\6iou.ov 'ziajYjg KiicrEug ; aTO^ ro Xcyo- uivov vTTO Iw«vw • rsKxvJct 3t avla syzvilo, ^ X'^^^i *^^'?« sjEvilo sSe ev. auJcov EKEivuv £^Y}; azHils. Kyf:£ o $£of viiim )^Yi^ov UK o»5«/x£v . 'ssETToiY^ai 3e 'sia.p avluv ^ E^E%i£«j o ^a.ai'XEUi tvxofXEVog . Yiv^iB Q ^Eo; I(rfa»l^, o Kodnfxsvog etti tuv x£f«€'i|U,