Bull, in reply to Episcopius, has largely insisted upon this argument, proving that the title of μovoyevns, only begotten, or only Son, in the Creed, denotes the real and eternal Divinity of Christ. He proves it, 1. from such places of Scripture where that title is applied to Christ. 2. From the strict force and propriety of the expression itself. 3. From the order and texture of the Creed. 4. From the universal and constant interpretation of the ancientst. I may refer to Bishop Bull, and others that have come after him, for proof that the title of Son of God, or only begotten Son, in Scripture, cannot reasonably be understood either of our Lord's miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost, or of his Messiahship, or of his being the first begotten from the dead, or of his receiving all power, and his being appointed heir of all things: none of these circumstances singly considered, nor all together, will be sufficient to account for the title of only Son, or only begotten; but there is a necessity of looking higher up to the preexistent and divine nature of the Word, who was in the beginning with God, and was himself very God, before the creation, and from all eternity". Angels and men have been called sons of God, in an improper and metaphorical sense; but they have never been styled only begotten, nor indeed sons in any such emphatical and distinguishing manner as Christ is. They are sons by adoption, or faint resemblance he is truly, properly, and eminently Son of God, and therefore God, as every son of man is therefore truly man. Novatian speaks the sense of all the Ante-Nicene In Symbolo Romano Christum dici Dei Filium unicum, sive unigenitum (To μvoyε) respectu divinæ suæ naturæ, qua non modo ante Mariam, sed etiam ante omnia secula ex et cum Deo Patre extitit, probatu facile est: 1. Ex locis Scripturæ ubi vox μovoyavàs reperitur Christo tributa. 2. Ex vi et proprietate ipsius vocis. 3. Ex ordine et contextu verborum in Symbolo ipso. 4. Denique ex constante ac perpetuo Catholicæ Ecclesiæ sensu atque interpretatione. Bull. Judic. Eccl. cap. v. p. 313. ■See Bull. Judic. Eccl. cap. v. p. 313-320. Dr. Sherlock's Scripture Proofs of our Saviour's Divinity, p. 161–183. Remarks on Dr. Clarke's Exposition of the Catechism, p. 44-48. * Ut enim præscripsit ipsa natura hominem credendum esse, qui ex ho Fathers in that article: I forbear to produce their testimonies here, having done it elsewherey: there is not a more noted principle or maxim among the earliest writers of the Church than this, that Christ is truly, properly, essentially God, because he is properly Son of God. The sum then is, that the Apostles' Creed, in styling Christ only Son, or only begotten, has expressed his coeternal Divinity in such terms as were constantly and universally understood by the ancient churches, to carry that idea with them. Therefore the very learned Bishop Stillingfleet had good reason to say, "that although the Apostles' Creed "does not in express words declare the Divinity of the "three Persons in the Unity of the divine essence; yet "taking the sense of those articles, as the Christian "Church understood them from the Apostles' times, then "we have as full and clear evidence of this doctrine, as "we have that we received the Scriptures from them"." The result of what has been said under the present article is, that whether we take the longer or the shorter Creeds of the ancient churches, whether those that are most explicit or those that are least so, all of them contained the doctrine of the Trinity, either as their whole subjectmatter, or as their principal part: and therefore so far as the Creeds of the ancient Church can be of use to show that any point of doctrine was judged important or fundamental, we have full proof that the doctrine we are speaking of was looked upon as an essential of Christianity in the best and purest ages. It must indeed be owned, that it never was the intention of Creeds to furnish out any complete catalogue of fundamentals, and so it would be very wrong to argue and mine sit; ita eadem natura præscribit et Deum credendum esse, qui ex Deo sit: ne si non et Deus fuerit cum ex Deo sit, jam nec homo sit licet ex homine fuerit. Novat. cap. xi. p. 31. edit. Welchm. ▾ Sermons, vol. ii. p. 198. • Stillingfleet on the Trinity, chap. ix. p. 229. → See my Sermons, vol. ii. p. 193-196. Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, vol. iv. p. 309, &c. infer negatively, that such an article was not in this or in that Creed, and therefore was not judged a fundamental by the compilers, (for by that rule, neither the article of God's being Maker of heaven and earth, nor that of life everlasting, would be fundamental, having both been omitted in the old Roman Creed,) but it may be right enough to argue and infer positively, that such an article was inserted in the Creeds, and was therefore judged to be a fundamental, or of great importance; since none could be admitted to Christian baptism, in such or such places, in the early times, without an open and explicit profession of it. So much for the head of Creeds. II. Another way of knowing the sentiments of the ancient Church, in relation to the necessity of believing the doctrine of the Trinity, is to observe what censures were passed upon the open impugners of it. For if it was accounted heresy, pernicious and deadly heresy, to oppose that doctrine, in whole or in part, then it is plain, that the doctrine was judged important, was looked upon as an essential of the Gospel faith. Among the impugners of that doctrine, in the article of Christ's Divinity, have been commonly reckoned these seven. 1. Cerinthus, 2. Ebion, 3. Theodotus, 4. Artemon, 5. Beryllus, 6. Paul of Samosata, 7. Arius. Of whom I shall treat in their order, as briefly as may be consistent with perspicuity. A. D. 60. CERINTHUS. Cerinthus lived in the apostolic age, was an impugner of our Lord's Divinity, and was condemned for it, probably, by St. John himself, and by the whole Church of that time and after: therefore the article of Christ's Divinity was then looked upon as a fundamental article. This is the sum of what I maintain under this head: I now come to the distinct proof of the several particulars. 1. That Cerinthus lived in the apostolic age is a fact so well attested by great variety of ancient evidences, (some of which will come up presently,) that it ought to pass for a certain and manifest truth. Yet a late learned fo reignerb, having a private hypothesis to serve, has called the fact in question, as some few others before him had also donec. His reasons have been considered and answered by learned hands d; to whom I refer the reader, rather than enter into a needless dispute. Irenæus is an authority so early, and so express for Cerinthus's e flourishing in St. John's time, that it is alone sufficient to remove all doubt of the fact. Indeed Epiphanius fand Philastrius & place Cerinthus so high in the apostolic age, that they suppose him to have given great disturbance to St. Peter and St. Paul, and to have occasioned the calling of the first council at Jerusalem, A. D. 49. recorded in the Actsh. But there is reason to suspect the truth of that report, and therefore I am content to place Cerinthus some years lower, but early enough to have spread his heresies before St. John wrote his Epistles, and even before St. Paul wrote some of his. 2. Cerinthus held many errors: but the only one I am concerned to take notice of, is his denying the Divinity of Christ. That he did so is plainly asserted by the ancient author of the Appendix to Tertullian's book of Prescription k. But Irenæus, a more early and a more accurate writer, will give us the truest and most distinct account of what Cerinthus held with respect to the Divinity of our blessed Lord. The sum of this heresy in that point was, that Jesus and Christ were two Persons: Jesus a mere b Frideric. Adolph. Lampe, in Comment. in S. Johan, Proleg. lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 181, &c. • Vid. Buddæus in Eccles. Apostol. p. 411. d Taylor's True Scripture Doctrine, p. 263. Buddæus, Eccl. Apostol. p. 412-419. Irenæus, lib. iii. cap. 3. 11. Epiphan. Hæres. xxviii. n. 2. p. 111. Philastr. Hæres. xxxvi. p. 80. edit. Fabric. h Acts xv. i Vid. Buddæus, Eccles. Apostol. p. 113, 196. Cerinthus- -Christum ex semine Joseph natum proponit, hominem illum tantummodo sine Divinitate contendens. Tertul. de Præscript. cap. lxviii. p. 221. Rigalt. man, conceived in the natural way, of Joseph and Mary; and Christ a celestial spirit, which descended from above, and resided in the man Jesus, not constantly, but occasionally, from his baptism to his crucifixion'. Whatever view we take this doctrine of Cerinthus in, it is denying the proper Divinity of our blessed Lord. The man Jesus, upon his principles, could not be divine at all, having no constant or personal union with what descended from above and as to that spiritual substance, called Christ, which was supposed, some time, to reside in him, even that was not properly divine, according to Cerinthus. The most that he said of it was, that it was spiritual, and impassible because spiritual; he does not say because divine. He separates him from the principality that is over all, that is to say, from God supreme, and therefore could not look upon him as properly divine. I may further observe, that his doctrine of the Logos, or Word, was, that he was Son, not of God supreme, but of the only begotten m, one remove still farther off from God most high. And since he thus distinguished him from the only begotten, who was alone supposed to know the Father immediately, it is plain he could not look upon the Word as strictly divine. Add to this, that Epiphanius, speaking of some of the Ebionites, (who were near allied to the Cerinthians, and borrowed much of their doctrine from them,) says, that they supposed their Christ to have descended from heaven, being a spirit, and first created of all, higher than the angels, and bearing rule over all; 1 Cerinthus autem quidam in Asia- -Jesum subjecit, non ex virgine natum (impossibile enim hoc ei visum est) fuisse autem cam Joseph et Mariæ filium, similiter ut reliqui omnes homines, et plus potuisse justitia et prudentia et sapientia ab hominibus: et post baptismum descendisse in eum, ab ea principalitate quæ est super omnia, Christum figura columbæ, et tunc annuntiasse incognitum Patrem, et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, et Jesum passum esse et resurrexisse, Christum autem impassibilem perseverasse, existentem spiritalem. Iran. lib. i. cap. 26. p. 105. Bened. Conf. Epiphan. Hæres. xxviii. p. 110. m Et initium quidem esse monogenem, Logon autem verum Filiam unigeniti. Iran. lib. iii, cap. 11. p. 188. |