Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

noured by that title, while we dishonour him that gives it. If he be therefore called Christ, because anointed; as we derive the name of Christian,' so we do receive our unction,* from him. For as "the precious ointment upon the head ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard, and went down to the skirts of his garments;" (Psal. cxxxiii. 2.) so the Spirit, which without measure was poured upon Christ our head, is by him diffused through all the members of his body.+ For "God hath established and anointed us in Christ:" (2 Cor. 1.21.) "We have an unction from the Holy One, and the anointing which we have received from him, abideth in us." (1 John ii. 20. 27.) Necessary then it cannot choose but be, that we should know Jesus to be the Christ: because he is Jesus, that is, our Saviour, by being Christ, that is, anointed; so we can have no share in him as Jesus, except we become truly Christians,' and so be in him as Christ, anointed with that unction from the Holy One.‡

Thus having run through all the particulars at first designed for the explication of the title Christ, we may at last clearly express, and every Christian easily understand, what it is we say, when we make our confession in these words, I believe in Jesus Christ. I do assent unto this as a certain truth, that there was a man promised by God, foretold by the prophets, to be the Messias, the Redeemer of Israel, and the expectation of the nations. I am fully assured by all those predictions, that the Messias so promised, is already come. I am as certainly persuaded, that the man born in the days of Herod of the Virgin Mary, by an angel from heaven called Jesus, is that true Messias, so long, so often promised: that, as the Messias, he was anointed. to three special offices, belonging to him as the mediator between God and man; that he was a Prophet, revealing unto us the whole will of God, for the salvation of man; that he was a Priest, and hath given himself a sacrifice for sin, and so hath made an atonement for us; that he is a King, set down at the right hand of God, far above all principalities and powers, whereby, when he hath subdued all our enemies, he will confer actual, perfect, and eternal happiness upon us. I believe this unction, by which he became the true Messias, was not performed by any material oil, but by the Spirit of God, which he received as the Head, and conveyeth to his members. And in this full acknowledgment, I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

His only Son.

AFTER Qur Saviour's nomination immediately followeth his filiation: and justly after we have acknowledged him to be the Christ, do we confess him to be the Son of God; because these two were ever inseparable, and even by the Jews themselves accounted equivalent. Thus Nathanael, that true Israelite, maketh his confession of the Messias: "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel." (John i. 49.) Thus Martha makes expression of her faith: "I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should come into the world." (John xi. 27.) Thus the high-priest maketh his inquisition: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." (Matt. xxvi. 63.) This was the famous confession of St. Peter: "We believe and are sure, that thou art that Christ the Son of the living God." (John vi. 69.) And the Gospel of St. John was therefore written, that "we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John xx. 31.) Certain then it is, that all the Jews, as they looked for a Messias to come, so they believed that Messias to be the Son of God (although since the coming of our Saviour they have denied it):* and that by reason of a constant interpretation of the second psalm, as appropriated unto him. And the primitive Christians did at the very beginning include this filial title of our Saviour together with his names into the compass of one word.t Well therefore, after we have expressed our faith in Jesus Christ, is added that, which always had so great affinity with it, the only Son of God.

In these words there is little variety to be observed, except that what we translate the only Son, that in the phrase of the

For when Celsus, in the person of a Jew, had spoken these words: xai Tev ἐμὸς προφήτης ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ποτὲ, ὅτι ἥξει Θεοῦ υἱὸς, τῶν ὁσίων κριτὴς, καὶ τῶν ἀδίκων xolas Origen says they were most improperly attributed to a Jew, who did look indeed for a Messias, but not for the Son of God, i. e. not under the notion of a Son. Ἰουδαῖος δὲ οὐκ ἂν ὁμολογῆσαι ὅτι προφήτης τις εἶπεν ἥξειν Θεοῦ υἱεν δ γαρ λέγουσιν ἐστιν. ὅτι ἥξει ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ πολύ λάκις δε ζητοῦσι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὐθέως περὶ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς οὐδενὸς ὄντος τοιούτου, οὐδὲ προψη TRUDEYTIS. Adv Cels. 1. i. §. 49.

+ funt is, ΙΧΘΥΣ [up. Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς Θεοῦ Υἱὸς Σωτής ] Nos pisciculi secundum Sir nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur.' Tertull. de Bapt. c. 1. which is thus interpreted by Optatus: 'Cujus piscis nomen secundum appellationem Græcam in uno nomine per singulas literas turbam sanctorum nominum continet, ixus, quod est Latine, Jesus Christus Dei Filius Salvator.' lib. iii. c. 2.

The Latins indeed generally use the word unicum. So Ruffinus: Et in unico filio ejus:8, 9. which is so far from being in his apprehension the same with unigenitus, that he refers it as well to Lord as Son: Hic ergo Jesus Christus, Filius unicus Dei, qui est et Dominus noster unicus, et ad Filium referri et ad Dominum potest.' So St Augustin n Enchirid, c. 34. and Leo Epist. 10. Which is therefore to be observed, because in the ancient copies of those epistles, the word unicum was not to be found. as appeareth by the discourse of Vigilius, who, in the fourth book against Eutyches. bath these words: 'Illa primitus uno diluens volumine quæ Leonis objiciuntur Epistolæ, cujus hoc sibi primo capitulum iste, nescio quis, proposuit; Fidelium universitas profitetur credere se in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus, Dominum nostrum,' l. iv. § 1. That which he aims at, is the tenth epistle of Leo, in which those words are found, bu

Scripture, and the Greek Church is, the only-begotten. It is then sufficient for the explication of these words, to shew how Christ is the Son of God, and what is the peculiarity of his generation; that when others are also the sons of God, he alone should so be his Son, as no other is or can be so; and therefore he alone should have the name of the only-begotten.

First, then, It cannot be denied that Christ is the Son of God, for that reason, because he was by the Spirit of God born of the Virgin Mary; for that which is conceived (or begotten)* in her, by the testimony of an angel, is of the Holy Ghost; and because of him, therefore the Son of God. For so spake the angel to the Virgin; "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee (or which is begotten of thee) shall be called the Son of God." (Luke i. 35.) And the reason is clear, because that the Holy Ghost is God. For were he any creature, and not God himself, by whom.our Saviour was thus born of the Virgin, he must have been the Son of a creature, not of God.

with the addition of unicum, which, as it seems, then was not there; as appears yet farther by the words which follow, §. 2. Miror tamen quomodo hunc locum iste notavit, et illum prætermisit, ubi unici filii commemorationem idem beatus Leo facit, dicens, Idem vero sempiterni genitoris unigenitus sempiternus, natus de Spiritu S ex Maria Virgine :' which words are not to be found in the same epistle. Howsoever it was in the first copies of Leo: both Ruffinus and St. Augustin, who were before him, and Maximus Tauriensis, Chrysologus, Etherius and Beatus, who were later, read it, 'et in Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum.' But the word used in the Scriptures, and kept constantly by the Greeks, is μovoyevig, the only-begotten.

• For the original is τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθέν· and it is the observation of St. Basil, oun εἴρηται, τὸ κυηθέν, ἀλλὰ τὸ γεννηθέν. Ηomil. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. §. 4. Indeed the vulgar translation renders it, quod in ea natum est, and in St. Luke, quod nascetur sanctum; and it must be confessed this was the most ancient translation. For so Tertullian read it: Per virginem dicitis natum, non er virgine, et in vulva, non ex vulva, quia et Angelus in somnis ad Joseph, Nam quod in ea natum est, inquit, de Sp. S. est.' De carne Christi, c 19. and of that in St. Luke: Hæc et ab Angelo exceperat secundum nostrum Evangelium, Propterea, quod in te nascetur, vocabitur sanctum, filius Dei.' Adv. Marcion. 1. iv. c. 7. Yet quod in ea natum est cannot be proper, while it is yet in the womb; nor can the child first be said to be born, and then

that the mother shall bring it forth. It is true indeed, yway signifies not always to beget, but sometimes to bear or bring forth; as ἡ γυνή σου Ελισάβετ γεννήσει υἱόν Go, Luke i. 13. and verse 57. xai éyévvnosv υἱόν. Το τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλεέμ, Matt. ii. 1. must necessarily be understood of Christ's nativity, for it is most certain that he was not begotten or conceived at Bethlehem. And this without question must be the meaning of Herod's inquisition, ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται, where the Messias was to be born. But though yway have sometimes the signification of bearing or bringing forth; yet τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθέν cannot be so interpreted, because it speaks of something as past, when as yet Christ was not born; and though the conception was already past, and we translate it so, "which is conceived," yet St. Basil rejects that interpretation: yway is one thing, evaubavav another. Seeing then the nativity was not yet come, and yıvınbiv speaks of something already past, therefore the old translation is not good, quod in ea natum est. Seeing, though the conception indeed were past, yet yewav signifieth not to conceive, and so is not properly to be interpreted, that which is conceived. Seeing yeway is most properly to beget, as yewnTian the generative faculty: therefore I conceive the fittest interpretation of those words, τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθέν that which is begotten in her. And because the angel in St. Luke speaks of the same thing, therefore I interpret τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ Gou, in the same manner, that which is begotten of thee.

M

Secondly, It is as undoubtedly true, that the same Christ, thus born of the Virgin by the Spirit of God, was designed to so high an office by the special and immediate will of God, that by virtue thereof he must be acknowledged the Son of God. He urgeth this argument himself against the Jews; "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John x. 34.) Are not these the very words of the eighty-second Psalm? (ver. 6.) “If he called them gods," if God himself so spake, or the Psalmist from him, if this be the language of the Scripture, if they be called gods" unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken," nor the authority thereof in any particular denied), "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world," whom he hath consecrated and commissioned to the most eminent and extraordinary office," say ye of him, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" (John x. 35, 36.)

Thirdly, Christ must therefore be acknowledged the Son of God, because he is raised immediately by God out of the earth unto immortal life. For " God hath fulfilled the promise unto us, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (Acts xiii. 33.) The grave is as the womb of the earth; Christ, who is raised from thence, is as it were begotten to another life and God who raised him, is his Father. So true it must needs be of him, which is spoken of others, who are "the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” (Luke xx. 36.) Thus was he "defined, or constituted, and appointed the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead:" (Rom. i. 4.) neither is he called simply the first that rose, but with a note of generation, "the first-born from the dead." (Col. i. 18.)

Fourthly, Christ, after his resurrection from the dead, is made actually heir of all things in his Father's house, and Lord of all the spirits which minister unto him, from whence he also hath the title of the Son of God. "He is set down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" (Heb. i. 3--5.) From all which testimonies of the Scriptures it is evident, that Christ hath this fourfold right unto the title of the Son of God: by generation, as begotten of God; by commission, as sent by him; by resurrection, as the first-born; by actual possession, as heir of all.

But beside these four, we must find yet a more peculiar ground of our Saviour's filiation, totally distinct from any which belongs unto the rest of the sons of God, that he may be clearly and fully acknowledged the only-begotten Son. For although to be born of a virgin be in itself miraculous, and

justly entitles Christ unto the [title of the] Son of God; yet it is not so far above the production of all mankind, as to place him in that singular eminence, which must be attributed to the only-begotten. We read of " Adam the son of God," as well as Seth the son of Adam :" (Luke iii. 38.) and surely the framing Christ out of a woman cannot so far transcend the making Adam out of the earth, as to cause so great a distance as we must believe between the first and second Adam. Beside, there were many, while our Saviour preached on earth, who did believe his doctrine, and did confess him to be the Son of God, who in all probability understood nothing of his being born of a virgin; much less did they foresee his rising from the dead, or inheriting all things. Wherefore, supposing all these ways by which Christ is represented to us as the Son of God, we shall find out one more yet, far more proper in itself, and more peculiar unto him, in which no other son can have the least pretence of share or of similitude, and consequently in respect of which we must confess him the only-begotten.

To which purpose I observe, that the actual possession of his inheritance, which was our fourth title to his Sonship, presupposes his resurrection, which was the third: and his commission to his office, which was the second, presupposeth his generation of a virgin, as the first. But I shall now endeavour to find another generation, by which the same Christ was begotten, and consequently a Son before he was conceived in the virgin's womb. Which that I may be able to evince, I shall proceed in this following method, as not only most facile and perspicuous, but also most convincing and conclusive. First, I will clearly prove out of the Holy Scriptures, that Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, had an actual being or subsistence, before the Holy Ghost did come upon the Virgin, or the power of the Highest did overshadow her. Secondly, I will demonstrate from the same Scriptures, that the being which he had antecedently to his conception in the Virgin's womb, was not any created being, but essentially divine. Thirdly, We will shew that the divine essence which he had, he received as communicated to him by the Father. Fourthly, We will declare this communication of the divine nature, to be a proper generation, by which he which communicateth, is a proper Father, and he to whom it is communicated, a proper Son. Lastly, We will manifest that the divine essence was never communicated in that manner to any person but to him, that never any was so begotten besides himself; and consequently, in respect of that divine generation, he is most properly and perfectly the only-begotten Son of the Father.

As for the first, that Jesus Christ had a real being or exist ence, by which he truly was, before he was conceived of the Virgin Mary, I thus demonstrate. He which was really in heaven, and truly descended from thence, and came into the

« ZurückWeiter »