all in it, as has been often shown by learned men; but more particularly by the learned and judicious Mr. Welchman', in his late very correct edition of the treatise against Praxeas. Tertullian was no Montanist in 198: but it has been sufficiently proved, both by Mr. Welchman and Mosheim, that his Apology (which contains the same doctrine) was as early as that as that year. A. D. 256. CYPRIAN. St. Cyprian has a remarkable passage, which speaks full and close to our purpose. Arguing for the invalidity of heretical baptisms, he asks, how any person baptized by heretics, and thereby partaking in their heresy, (so he must mean,) can be presumed to obtain remission of sins, and to become the temple of God? "If he be thereby "made the temple of God, I would ask, of what God "[or divine Person] it is? Is it of [God] the Creator? " he could not be so, if he believed not in him. Is it of "Christ? neither can he be his temple, while he denies "Christ to be God. Is it then of the Holy Ghost? But "since the three are one, how can the Holy Ghost have "friendship with him that is at enmity with either Father "or Sons?" Here it is observable, 1. That St. Cyprian gives the name or title of God to each of the divine Persons. 2. That to deny Christ to be God, is interpretatively excluding one's self from Christ, and declaring enmity towards all the three, who are one. 3. That therefore the acknowledging Christ to be God is necessary to salvation, and the impugning that doctrine is destructive of it consequently, one is a fundamental article of faith, Welchman. Præfat. ad Tertul. contr. Prax. p. 5-13. Conf. Mosheim, Disquis. Chronologico-Crit. de vera ætate Apologetici a Tertulliano conscripti. Si peccatorum remissionem consecutus est et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est, quæro, cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit qui in eum non credidit: si Christi, nec hujus fieri potest templum, qui negat Deum Christum: si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris, aut Filii inimicus est? Cyprian. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 203. edit. Oxon. and the other a fundamental error. So far is plain. And now if there remains any room for dispute, it can only be about the true and full meaning of the word God in this place. But Cyprian's declaring that salvation depends upon the article, is a strong presumption that he understood the word in its just and proper sense: his applying it indifferently to all the three Persons, without any mark of distinction, is a further presumption of the same thing: his saying, that the three are one, [unum,] one substance, one thing, makes it still plainer: and lastly, his applying the title of God to the Son, in the strictest and highest sense, in other parts of his works, sets it beyond dispute. I may observe, by the way, of Cyprian, as I have before hinted of other Fathers, that he went upon this maxim, that whosoever shall disbelieve the doctrines of salvation revealed to mankind, shall have no part in the salvation so tendered to them, ordinarily at least. A. D. 257. NOVATIAN. Novatian expresses the same thought in very clear and strong terms. "If God the Father saves none but through "God, then no one can be saved by God the Father, who "does not confess that Christ is God; in whom, and by "whom, the Father promises to give salvation: where"fore, very justly, whosoever acknowledges him to be "God, is in the way to be saved by Christ, who is God; "and whosoever doth not acknowledge him to be God, "forfeits salvation, because he cannot otherwise have it " but in Christ as God u." Words too plain to need any The passages are collected in Bishop Bull, Def. F. N. sect. ii. c. 10. p. 119, &c. and in my First Defence, vol. i. Qu. ii. p. 21, &c. Second Defence, vol. iii. Qu. ii. p. 137. Si non salvat nisi in Deo Pater Deus, salvari non poterit a Deo Patre quisquam nisi confessus fuerit Christum Deum, in quo, et per quem se repromittit Pater salutem daturum: ut merito, quisquis illum agnoscit esse Deum, salutem inveniat in Deo Christo; quisquis non recognoscit esse Deum, salutem perdiderit, quoniam alibi nisi in Christo Deo cam invenire non poterit. Novat. c. xii. p. 36. comment. Only, I may observe that Novatian, as well as Cyprian, understood the word God, as applied to Christ, to import proper and substantial Divinity; as I have abundantly proved elsewhere. Besides which, it is certain, that the Novatians, his followers, were always orthodox in the article of Christ's Divinity, as also in the doctrine of the whole Trinity Y. : A. D. 259. DIONYSIUS of Rome. Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, in a valuable Fragment, preserved by Athanasius, styles the doctrine of the Trinity, "The most venerable doctrine of the Church of "God";" understanding the doctrine as we do at this day it was not then looked upon as a speculative opinion, or as a matter of slight importance. But this is not all I have to observe from the same excellent writer: he goes on to speak of some who had the presumption to call the Son of God a creature, led to it by their indiscreet opposition to Sabellianism, as it was natural enough for weak men to run from one extreme to another. He rejects the notion with the utmost abhorrence, as every wise and good man would: and after censuring Marcion's Tritheistic doctrine as diabolical, he proceeds to speak of the other, as follows: "Nor are they less to blame, who "think the Son creature, and who suppose the Lord to "have come into being, as if he were one of the things "that were really made: the sacred oracles assign him a "generation, suitable and proper, not a formation and "creation. Wherefore it must be blasphemy of no ordi nary size, but of the first magnitude, to say that the "Lord was a kind of handy-work. For if he began to * First Defence, vol. i. p. 9, &c. p. 97, &c. Second Defence, vol. iii. p. 59, &c. 120, &c. 139, 455, 459. Conf. Bull. Def. F. N. sect. ii. c. 10. p. 121, 122. y The testimonies may be seen collected in a late pamphlet, entitled, An Answer to Dr. Clarke and Mr. Whiston, &c. by H. E. in the preface, p. 2, 3. Τὸ σεμνότατον κήρυγμα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ. Apud Athanas. vol. i. p. 231. "be, he once was not: but he existed eternally, if so be "that he is in the Father, as himself testifies, and if Christ "be the Word, and Wisdom, and Powera." There is more to the same purpose in what follows: what I have cited may suffice to show, that the doctrine of our Lord's coeternal Divinity was then looked upon as an article of the highest importance, and that to deny it was to blaspheme in a most grievous manner, according to the sentiments of the Church at that time. For Dionysius speaks not his own sense only, but the sense of the Roman Synod, and of good Christians in general; as he himself intimates by his saying to those whom he addresses himself to, that he had no need to dwell upon that matter before persons so enlightened by the Spirit of God, and so well apprised, as they were, of the great absurdity of making the Son a creature b. A. D. 259. DIONYSIUS of Alexandria. The case of Dionysius of Alexandria is a famous case. He had written some things against the Sabellians, wherein expressing himself unwarily, he was suspected by some to lean too far towards the opposite extreme, as if he had not just notions of the Divinity of Christ. A jealousy being raised, the matter was thought considerable enough to be brought before the other Dionysius, Bishop of Rome: which probably occasioned his writing what I have just now cited from him. The Bishop of Rome took cognizance of the cause, and the Bishop of Alex • Οὐ μεῖον δ' ἄν τις καταμέμφοιτο καὶ τὰς ποίημα τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι δοξάζοντας, καὶ γεγονέναι τὸν Κύριον, ὥσπερ ἔν τι ὄντως γενομένων νομίζοντας, τῶν θείων λογίων γέννησιν αὐτῷ τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν καὶ πρέπουσαν, ἀλλ' ἐχὶ πλάσιν τινὰ καὶ ποίησιν προσμαρτυρέντων. Βλάσφημον οὖν ἢ τὸ τυχόν, μέγισον μὲν οὖν, χειροποίητον τρόπον τινὰ λέγειν τὸν Κύριον. εἰ γὰρ γέγονεν υἱὸς, ἦν ὅτι οὐκ ἦν· ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν, εἴ γε ἐν τῷ πατρί ἐσιν, ὡς αὐτός φησι, καὶ εἰ λόγος, καὶ σοφία και δύναμις ὁ Χριςός. Apud Athanas. vol. i. p. 231, 232. b Καὶ τί ἂν ἐπὶ πλέον περὶ τάτων πρὸς ὑμᾶς διαλεγοίμην, πρὸς ἄνδρας πνευματος φόρους, καὶ σαφῶς ἐπισαμένους τὰς ἀτοπίας τὰς ἐκ τῷ ποίημα λέγειν τὸν υἱὸν ἀνακυ πτύσας ; Ibid. p. 232. • See Athanas. de Sententia Dionysii Alex. p. 252. de Synod. 757. 251 andria, though not inferior to him, nor under his jurisdiction, submitted so far as to put in his answer or apology which alone shows, that it was looked upon by all parties as a cause of great moment; for in smaller matters, bishops were not obliged to give account to their colleagues. St. Cyprian well expresses both the cases, viz. where and when independent bishops were accountable to other bishopsd, and where they were note. The sum is, that in the ritual part of religion, such bishops were independent and unaccountable; but in the substantial part, in matters of necessary faith, they were liable to be censured by their brethren. Seeing therefore that Dionysius of Alexandria was accused in a cause of heresy, the Bishop of Rome could not decline hearing it, nor the other refuse to submit to have it heard and judged. The whole process of that affair shows that the Divinity of Christ (about which the question was) was looked upon by all parties as a cause of the utmost concernment to religion. The whole Christian world, in a manner, was in an alarm about it: complaint was brought from Egypt as far as to Italy: the Bishop of Rome, with his clergy in Synod, were in the greatest concern upon it, and sent their judgment of the matter in question to the Bishop of Alexandria, requiring him to give an account of his faith : and that aged venerable Primate did so soon after, declaring in the face of the world, that he never intended Copiosum corpus est sacerdotum, concordiæ mutuæ glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro hæresin facere, et gregem Christi lacerare et vastare tentaverit, subveniant cæteri, et quasi pastores utiles et misericordes, oves dominicas in gregem colligant. Cyprian. ad Steph. Ep. lxviii. p. 178. • Superest ut de hac ipsa re, singuli quid sentiamus, proferamus; neminem judicantes, aut a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suæ arbitrium proprium; tamque judicari ab alio non potest, quam nec ipse potest judicare : sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus et solus habet potestatem et præponendi nos in Ecclesiæ suæ gubernatione, et de actu nostro judicandi. Concil. Carthagin. apud Cypr. p. 229, 230. |
