Page images

of it, which I might farther confirm by the authorities of Athanasius, Jerom, Austin, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ecumenius, and others of the ancients, besides + Bishop Pearson and u Bishop Bull among the moderns, why should you wonder to find it again cited in the same cause, being so full and pertinent to the matter in hand ? Next, we may proceed to the other text, which you as groundlessly pretend to be directly contrary to that for which it is alleged. It is Heb. i. 3. “ Who being the “ brightness of his glory, and the express image of his per“son,” &c. Here you are so obliging as to cite only one passage out of Eusebius against me, I would say, for me. Eusebius, writing against the Sabellians, presses them with this text, and argues thus from it. « The image, 6 and that whereof it is the image, cannot both be the “ same thing, (in the Sabellian sense,) but they are two substances, and two things, and two powers :" from whence he rightly infers, or plainly means to do, that the Father is not the Son, but that they are really distinct. What is there in this at all repugnant to what the Querist maintains ? The force of your objection lies, I suppose, in this, that Father and Son are called δύο εσίαι, δύο πράγματα, and dúo duvéuers, inconsistently, you imagine, with individual consubstantiality.

I will not be bound to vindicate every expression to be met with in Eusebius : but, allowing for the time when it was wrote, before the sense of those words was fixed

in homine; et figura inventus ut homo, non substantia, id est, non carne.

Numquid ergo et hic qua in effigie eum Dei collocat? Æque non erit Deus Christus vere, si nec homo vere fuit in effigie hominis constitutus. ' Contr. Marc. l. v. c. 20. p. 486. Non sibi magni aliquid deputat quod ipse quidem æqualis Deo, et unum cum Patre, e$t. Orig. in Epist. ad Rom. 1. 5. Osòs pely revious lautòy årò rõ since ince . Concil. Antioch. Labb. vol. i. p. 848. to provaryeras på Osê hájos, Osos üráexwr ir Orõ, rsxéve tev {AUTÒy secà cho ä doger taúrny rápxe nutíoxero. Hippolytus, vol. ii. p. 29. Fabric.

! On the Creed, Article 2.

u Def. Fid. N. 49. 70. Prim. Trad. p. 38. Qui unuş locus, si recte expendatur, ad omnes hæreses adversus Jesu Christi Domini nostri personam repellendas sufficít. Def. Fid. p. 37.

11. and determined, as it has been since; there may be nothing in all this, which signifies more than what the Catholic Church has always meant by two persons; and, what all must affirm, who believe a real Trinity. So * Pierius called Father and Son solas dúo, meaning no, more than we do by two distinct Persons: and Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, the first champion for the Catholic cause against, Arius, in his letter to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, scruples not to call Father and Son y dúo a párpata; and Tertullian intimates that they are 2 duce. res, sed conjunctæ; and Methodius uses a fúo Suvausis, meaning two Persons. These or the like strong expressions, occurring in the Catholic writers, were only to guard the more carefully against Sabellianism, the prevailing heresy of those times. But after Arianism arose, there was greater danger of the opposite extreme: and therefore they began to soften this manner of expression, lest any should be led to think, that the Persons of the Trinity were so distinct as to be independent of, separate from, and aliene to each other.' Thus instead of dúo pūta, which might be innocent before, and is used by b Origen, they chose rather commonly to say, “φως εκ φωτός : yet sometimes not scrupling the former way of expression d. Rather than say, duce essentia, which might be liable to mistakes; they would say, Essentia de Essentia, as Deus de Deo. The design of all which was, so to assert a real distinction, as not to teach three absolute, independent, or separate substances; so to maintain the distinction of persons, as not to divide the substance. Three real Persons is what I, what every Trinitarian, what all sound Catholics assert. Now let us return to the text, Heb. i. 3. Having shown you that Eusebius's comment is not pertinent to our present dispute, nor at all affects the cause that I maintain, which, I assure you, is not Sabel

* See Phot. Cod. 119. p. 300.
2 Contr. Prax. c. viii. p. 504.
6 Comment. in Joh. p. 70.
a Vid. Cyril. Alex. Thess. p. 110.

y Apud Theod. I. i. c. 4.
a Phot. Cod. 235. p. 137.
< See Athanas. vol. i. p. 553.

lianism : now let me proceed a little farther, to vindicate my use of that text; which, you pretend, is strong against me. Origen perhaps may be of some credit with you; and the more for being admired by the Arians, and much censured by many of the Catholics, but after his own times. e His comment, upon a parallel text to this, together with this also, is pretty remarkable. “If he “ (Christ) be the image of the invisible, the image itself “must be invisible too. I will be bold to add, that since “he is the resemblance of his Father, there could not have been a time when he was not.He goes on to argue, that since God is light, and Christ the átaúyaoua, or shining forth of that light, quoting this text, that they could never have been separate one from the other, but must have been coeternal.

f Dionysius of Alexandria, another ante-Nicene writer, draws the very same inference from the same text. And Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, in his circular letter, & extant in Athanasius, makes the like use of it. The latter part of the text especially, the words, "express image “ of his person,” were very frequently and triumphantly urged by the Catholics against the Arians: by h Alexander of Alexandria, i Athanasius, k Hilary, 'Basil, m Gregory Nyssen, n Gregory Nazianzen, °Cyril, and others.

This may satisfy you, that it was neither strange nor new, to allege this text in favour of Christ's divinity. When you have any thing farther to object, it shall be fairly examined. In the mean while, let it stand, to support the second query; which returns upon you, and expects a fuller answer. That it may come to you recom

e Apud Athan. Decret. Syn. Nic. vol. i. p. 233. f 'Απαύγασμα δε ών φωτός αιδίου, πάντως και αυτός αΐδιός έσιν. όντος γαρ αεί του Parós, dñãos ás isvy dsi ÁTQúyaoua. Apud Athanas. de Sent. Dionys. p. 253.

και πώς ανόμοιος τη εσία του πατρός, ο ών εικών τελεία και απαύγασμα τα πατρός. Apud Athanus. vol. i. p. 399.

h Epist. ad Alexand. Theodor. p. 17. i Orat. i. p. 424. de Synod. p. 743. * De Trin. p. 975. 1085. 1159. I Contr. Eunom. p. 28. 89. to Ibid. p. 460. n Orat. 36. Dial. 5. de Trin.

mended in the best manner, and in the best company, I shall here subjoin the testimonies of the ante-Nicene writers, all declaring that the Son is not excluded from being the one God, but is included and comprehended therein: that is, though the one God primarily denotes the Father, yet not exclusively, but comprehends the Son too. Now, as often as the primitive writers speak of Father and Son together, as the one God, in the singular, they bear witness to this truth. See the testimonies of Irenæus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, collected in p Dr. Fiddes's Body of Divinity; to which may be added, 9 Hippolytus, Lactantius, and even Eusebius himself, who acknowledged sone God in three Persons, as Socrates informs usi i

I proceed next to other testimonies more expressly declaring, that the Son is not excluded from being the one Supreme God, by the several texts of Scripture, which assert the unity; but is always understood or implied, as comprehended in the same one God. + Irenæus says, “ that “ the Holy Scriptures declare the one and only God, ex«cluding all others, to have made all things by His “ WORD.” Others are excluded, but not his Word, that is, his Son, by whom he made all things, as Irenæus constantly understands it. At other times, he says, God * u made all things by himself; interpreting himself, by s his Word and by his Wisdom ; that is, his Son, and the 11. OF SOME QUERIES. “ Holy Spirit.Certainly, he could not think that God, in his declarations of the unity, meant to exclude what was so near to him, as to be justly (not in a Sabellian sense) interpreted himself. Many more passages of the like import might be cited from this primitive and excellent writer. I shall only add a * passage or two to show, that he looked upon the Son as the only true God, as well as the Father. He observes, that the Holy Scriptures never call any person absolutely God or Lord, besides the only true God; and yet presently after takes notice, that both Father and Son are by the same Scriptures absolutely so called. See the place in the margin: for though absolutely be not there expressed, yet it is necessarily implied, and is undoubtedly the author's meaning.

.P Vol. i. p. 387. &c.

9 Dixovozíce oupe Pwvías ouváystui sis ivec Osòv, sis gág isu ó Osós. ó gàg xsasúwy πατήρ, ο δε υπακέων υιώς, το δε συνετίζον άγιον πνεύμα. ο ών πατήρ επί πάντων, και δε υιός δια πάντων, το δε άγιον πνεύμα εν πάσιν. "Αλλως τε ένα Θεόν νομίσαι μη δυrepe Ir, lày peina övras Targi, xaà viño xaà áyiq' arvúkaTi Tissúowpesy. Hippol. contr. Noet. p. 15, 16. Fabric. edit. : r Lib. iv. c. 29.

"Eya sòv ix rgroly ÚTortários. Socr. E. H. 1. i. c. 23. p. 48. t Universæ Scripturæ- unum et solum Deum, ad excludendos alios, prædicent omnia fecisse per Verbum Suum, &c. l. ii. c. 27. p. 155. Bened. edit.

u Fecit ea per semetipsum: hoc est per Verbum et Sapientiam suam. Adest enim ei semper Verbum et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, per quos, et in quibus omnia libere et sponte fecit, lib. iv. cap. 20. p. 253.

We may go on to Tertullian, who is so full and clear to our purpose, that nothing can be more so. Out of many passages which might be cited, I shall here content myself with one out of his book against Praxeas. “x There

* Nunquam neque Prophetæ neque Apostoli alium Deum nominaverunt, vel Dominum appellaverunt, præter verum et solum Deum. L. iii. c. 8. p. 182. Neque igitur Dominus, neque Spiritus Sanctus neque Apostoli eum qui non esset Deus, definitive et absolute Deum nominassent aliquando nisi esset vere Deus. L. iii. c. 6.

Now see what follows. Utrosque Dei appellatione signavit Spiritùs et eum qui ungitur, Filium, et eum qui ungit Patrem. L. iii. c. 6. p. 180.

This Father goes on, in the same chapter, to produce several other instances from the Holy Scripture, to prove that the Son is called (definitively and absolutely) God. That is plainly his meaning, as any man may see by looking into the chapter. I may add, that he applies the title of Solus Deus to Christ. L. v. c. 17. p. 314.

* Igitur unus Deus Pater, et alius absque eo non est: quod ipse inferens, non Filium negat, sed alium Deum. Cæterum alius a Patre Filius non est. Denique, inspice sequentia hujusmodi pronuntiationum, et invenias fere ad idolorum factitores atque cultores definitionem earum pertinere ; ut multitudinem falsorum Deorum unio divinitatis expellat, habens tamen Filium quanto individuum et inseparatum a Patre, tanto in Patre reputandum, etsi non nominatum. At quin si nominasset illum, separasset, ita dicens, Alius præter me non est, nisi Filius meus. Alium enim etiam Filium fecisset, quem de aliis excepisset. Puta solem dicere : Ego sol, et alius præter me non est, ni radius meus; nonne denotasses vanitatem ; quasi non et, radius in


« PreviousContinue »