Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

receiving his eternal being from any other. Wherefore it necessarily followeth that Jesus Christ, who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the divine nature originally of himself; and consequently, being we have already proved that he is truly and properly the eternal God, he must be understood to have the Godhead communicated to him by the Father, who is not only eternally, but originally God. "All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine," (John xvi. 15.) saith Christ; because in him is the same fulness of the Godhead, and more than that the Father cannot have: but yet in that perfect and absolute equality there is notwithstanding this disparity, that the Father hath the Godhead not from the Son, or any other, whereas the Son hath it from the Father: Christ is the true God and eternal life; but that he is so, is from the Father: " for as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself," (John v. 26.)† not by participation, but by communication. It is true, our Saviour was so in the form of God, that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God: but when the Jews sought to kill him because he "made himself equal with God," he answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do:" (John v. 18, 19.) by that connexion of his operations, shewing the reception of his essence; and by the acknowledgment of his power, professing his substance from the Father. From whence he which was equal, even in that equality confesseth a priority, saying, "The Father is greater than I." (John xiv. 28.)§ The Son equal in respect of his nature, the Father greater in reference to the communication of the Godhead.

Πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ, τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστὶν, ὡς ἔμπαλιν τὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός· οὐδὲν οὖν ἴδιον, ὅτι κοινὰ, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι κοινὸν καὶ ὁμότιμον, εἰ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. de Filio.

+ Hoc dixit, Vitam dedit Filio ut haberet eam in semetipso, tanquam diceret Pater, qui est vita in semetipso, genuit Filium qui esset vita in semetipso. Pro eo enim quod est genuit, voluit intelligi dedit, tanquam si cuiquam diceremus, dedit tibi Deus esse.' S. August. Tract. 19. in Ioan. §. 13. Et paulo post : Quid ergo Filio dedit? dedit ei ut Filius esset; genuit ut vita esset; hoc est, dedit habere ei vitam in semetipso, ut esset vita non egens vita, ne participando intelligatur habere vitam. Si enim participando haberet vitam non in semetipso, posset et amittendo esse sine vita: hoc in Filio ne accipias, ne cogites, ne credas. Manet ergo Pater vita, manet et Filius vita. Pater vita in semetipso, non a Filio; Filius vita in semetipso, sed a Patre.' Ibid. So again, de Trinit. 1. i. c. 12. Ple

[ocr errors]

"I know him

rumque dicit, dedit mihi Pater, in quo vult intelligi quod cum genuerit Pater; non ut tanquam jam exsistenti et non habenti dederit aliquid, sed ipsum dedisse ut haberet, genuisse ut esset.'

Tanquam diceret, Quid scandalizati estis quia Patrem meum dixi Deum, quia æqualem me facio Deo? Ita sum æqualis, ut non ille a me, sed ego ab illo sim. Hoc enim intelligitur in his verbis, Non potest Filius a se facere quicquam, &c. hoc est quicquid Filius habet ut faciat, a Patre habet ut faciat. Quare habet a Patre ut faciat? quia a Patre habet ut possit, quia a Patre habet ut sit. Filio enim hoc est esse quod posse.' S. August. Tract. 20. in Ioan. §. 4. Paulo post: Hoc est, Non potest Filius a se quicquam facere, quod esset, si diceret, non est Filius a se. Etenim si Filius est, natus est; si natus est, ab illo est de quo natus est.' Ibid. §. 8.

§ Δῆλον ὅτι τὸ μεῖζον μέν ἐστι τῆς αἰτίας, τὸ δὲ ἴσον τῆς φύσεως. S. Greg. Nas. Orat. 2. de Filio, object. 3. & 4. p. 582. ed.

Par. 1630.

(saith Christ), for I am from him." (John vii. 29.) And because he is from the Father,* therefore he is called by those of the Nicene Council, in their Creed, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. The Father is God, but not of God, light, but not of light: Christ is God, but of God, light, but of light. There is no difference or inequality in the nature or essence, because the same in both; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ hath that essence of himself, from none; Christ hath the same not of himself, but from him.

And being the divine nature, as it is absolutely immaterial and incorporeal, is also indivisible, Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated unto him, but the whole, by which he must be acknowledged coessential,+ of the same substance

So St. Augustin hath observed: 'Ab ipso, inquit, sum, quia Filius de Patre; et quicquid est filius, de illo est cujus est filius. Ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantum Deum. Et dicimus Dominum Jesum lumen de lumine; Patrem non dicimus lumen de lumine, sed tantum lumen. Ad hoc ergo pertinet quod dixit, Ab ipso sum.' Tract. 31. in loan. §. 4. From hence then did the Nicene Council gather those words of their Creed: Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ix Stou àλnivou. But not immediately, for they were partly in some of the Oriental Creeds before; as appeareth by that confession which Eusebius presented to the Council, as containing what he had believed and taught ever since his bap tism, in which he had these words: xal εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, ζωὴν ἐκ C. And as Eusebius calls him Life of Life, so others, Power of Power, and Wisdom of Wisdom. 'Ideo Christus virtus et sapientia Dei, quia de Patre virtute et sapientia etiam ipse virtus et sapientia est, sicut lumen de Patre lumine, et fons vitæ apud Deum Patrem utique fontem vitæ. S. August. de Trin. 1. vii. c. 3. And not only so, but Essence of Essence. Pater et filius simul una sapientia, quia una essentia; et singillatim sapientia de sapientia, sicut essentia de

essentia.' Ibid. c. 2.

t'Oμous, which is coessential or consubstantial, is not to be taken of a part of the divine essence, as if the Son were a part of the essence of the Father, and so of the same nature with him; which was the opinion of the Manichees. Οὐχ ὡς Οὐαλεντῖνος προβολὴν τὸ γέννημα τοῦ πατρὸς ἐδογμάτισεν· οὐδ ̓ ὡς Μανιχαῖος μέρος ὁμοούσιον τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ γέννημα εἰσηγήσατο as Arius in his epistle to Alexander; by the interpretation of St. Hilary: Nec ut Valentinus, prolationem natum Patris

[ocr errors]

commentatus est; nec, sicut Manichæus,
partem unius substantiæ Patris natum
exposuit.' De Trin. 1. vi. c. 9. Quod
Hilarius ita Latine reddidit, tanquam
ooooov id significaret, quod partem sub-
stantiæ habet ex toto resectam,' says Dio-
nysius Petavius, without any reason; for
St. Hilary clearly translates iμooúciov
barely unius substantiæ, and it was in the
original μέρος ὁμοούσιον, which he express-
ed by partem unius substantiæ. Under
this notion first the Arians pretended to
refuse the name oμoooov, as Arius in the
same epistle signifieth, lest thereby they
should admit a real composition and divi-
sion in the Deity : Εἰ τὸ ἐκ γαστρὸς, καὶ τὸ
ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον, ὡς μέρος τοῦ ὁμοουσίου καὶ
ὡς προβολὴ ὑπό τινων νοεῖται, σύνθετος ἔσται
ὁ Πατὴς, καὶ διαιρετὸς, καὶ τρεπτός. And
St. Jerome testifies thus much not only of
Arius and Eunomius, but also of Origen
before them: Habetur Dialogus apud
Græcos Origenis, et Candidi Valenti-
nianæ Hæreseos defensoris. Quos duos
Andabatas digladiantes spectasse me
fateor. Dicit Candidus, Filium de Patris
esse substantia, errans in eo quod
Rony asserit: E regione Origenes, juxta
Arium et Eunomium, repugnat eum vel
prolatum esse vel natum, ne Deus Pater
dividatur in partes.' Apol. 2. in Ruffin.
col. 757. And therefore Eusebius, bishop
of Cæsarea, refused not to subscribe to
the Nicene Creed, being so interpreted
as that objection might be taken away:
τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, ὡμολόγητο πρὸς αὐτῶν δη-
λωτικὸν εἶναι τοῦ, ἐκ μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς, εἶναι,
οὐ μὲν ὡς μέρος ὑπάρχειν τοῦ Πατρός. Inter
Op. Athanas. de Decret. Nic. Syn. §. 5.
Upon this confession he subscribed to
that clause begotten of the substance of the
Father, which was not in his own Creed.
And again : Οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι
τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν, ἐξεταζόμενος ὁ λόγος συ-
νίστησιν οὐ κατὰ τῶν σωμάτων τρόπον, οὐδὲ
τοῖς θνητοῖς ζώοις παραπλησίως, οὔτε γὰρ κατὰ
διαίρεσιν τῆς οὐσίας, οὔτε κατὰ ἀποτομὴν, &c.

eo

with the Father; as the Council of Nice determined, and the ancient fathers before them taught. Hence appeareth the truth of those words of our Saviour, which raised a second motion in the Jews to stone him; "I and the Father are one:" (John x. 30.) where the plurality of the verb, and the neutrality of the noun, with the distinction of their persons, speak a perfect identity of their essence. And though Christ say, the Father is in me, and I in him;" (Ibid. 38.) yet withal he saith, "I came out from the Father:" (John xvi. 28. xvii. 8.) by the former shewing the Divinity of his essence, by the latter the origination of himself. We must not look upon the divine nature as sterile, but rather acknowledge and admire the fecundity and communicability of itself, upon which the creationt of the World dependeth: God making all things by his Word, to whom he first communicated that omnipotency which is the cause of all things. And this may suffice for the illustration of our third assertion, that the Father hath communicated the divine essence to the Word, who is that Jesus who is the Christ.

The fourth assertion followeth, That the communication of the divine essence by the Father, is the generation of the Son; and Christ, who was eternally God, not from himself, but from the Father, is the eternal Son of God. That God always had a Son, appeareth by Agur's question in the Proverbs of Solomon; "Who hath established all the ends of the earth; what is his name? and what is his Son's name? if thou canst tell." (xxx. 4.) And it was the chief design of Mahomet to deny this truth, because he knew it was not otherwise possible to prefer himself before our Saviour. One prophet may be

Ibid. §. 7. Upon this acknowledgment he was persuaded to subscribe to the other clause also, (added to that Creed which he himself gave in to the Council) being of one substance with the Father: which clause was inserted by the Council, at the instance of Constantine the emperor. Now as the Manichees made use of the word oooooc to express their errors concerning the nature of God and the person of Christ; so the ancient fathers, before the Nicene Council, had used the same in a true catholic sense, to express the unity in essence of the Father and the Son; as appeareth by the confession of the same Eusebius : Επεὶ καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν λογίους τινὰς, καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκόπους, καὶ συγγραφέας ἔγνωμεν, ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ Θεολογίας τῶν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου συγχρησαμέν voue viuari. Ibid. §. 7. Wherefore the other Eusebius of Nicomedia, understanding the ancient catholic sense, confessed, that if they believed Christ to be the true begotten, and not created, Son of God, they must acknowledge him ὁμοούσιον, which the Arians endeavoured to make

so odious; and therefore the Council in opposition to them determined it : Quid est aliud cur Homousion Patri nolint Filium dici, nisi quia nolunt verum Dei Filium? sicut Auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediensis Epistola sua prodidit, dicens, Si verum, inquit, Dei Filium, et increatum dicimus, Homoüsion cum Patre incipimus confiteri. Hæc cum lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Niceno, hoc verbum in Tractatu fidei posuerunt Patres, quod id viderunt adversariis esse formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipsorum nefanda caput hæresis amputarent.' S. Ambros. 1. iii. de Fide, c. 15. De voce Oμooúcios, vide Dionys. Petav. de Trinit. 1. iv. c. 6.

• Αδύνατον γὰρ τὸν Θεὸν εἰπεῖν ἔρημον τῆς φυσικῆς γονιμότητος. Damasc. de Fid. Or thod. 1. i. c. 8.

† Εἰ δὲ μὴ καρπογόνος ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἡ θεία οὐσία, ἀλλ ̓ ἔρημος, κατ ̓ αὐτοὺς, ὡς φᾶς μὴ φωτίζον, καὶ πηγὴ ξηράς πῶς δημιουργικὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτὸν ἔχειν λέγοντες οὐκ αἰσχύνει. Tai; S. Athanas. Orat. ii. contra Arian. §. 2.

:

greater than another, and Mahomet might persuade his credulous disciples that he was greater than any of the sons of men; but while any one was believed to be the eternal Son of God, he knew it wholly impossible to prefer himself before him. Wherefore he frequently inculcates that blasphemy in his Alcoran,* that God hath no such Son, nor any equal with him and his disciples have corrupted+ the Psalm of David, (ii. 7.) reading (instead of "Thou art my Son, this day have ĺ begotten thee.") Thou art my prophet, I have educated thee.' The later Jews, acknowledging the words, and the proper literal reading of them, apply them so unto David, as that they deny them to belong to Christ; and that upon no other ground, than that by such an exposition they may avoid the Christian's confession. But by the consent of the ancient Jews, by the interpretation of the blessed apostles, we know these words belong to Christ, and in the most proper sense to him alone. "For, unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" (Heb.

This is often repeated there, and particularly in the last chapter but one, called Alechlas: Est ipse Deus unus, Deus æternus, qui nec genuit, nec genitus est, et cui nullus est æqualis.' And the Saracenica set forth by Sylburgius, mention this as the first principle of Mahometanism : Ὅτι εἷς θεός ἐστι, ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων, μήτε γεννηθείς, μήτε γεννήσας, And Joannes Siculus and Georgius Cedrenus relate how Mahomet gave command: Ένα μόνον προσκυνεῖν Θεὸν, καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν, τιμῖν ὡς λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ μὲν οὐχὶ υἱὸν δέ. Hist. Compend. p. 422. ed. Par. 1647. And we read of his ridiculous history, that Christ, after his ascension into heaven, was accused by God for calling himself his Son; and that he denied it, as being so named only by men without any authority from him: Οτι ἀνελθόντα τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἠρώτησεν ὁ Θεὸς, λέγεν, Ω Ἰησοῦ, σὺ εἶπες τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, Ὅτι υἱός εἰμι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Θεός. Καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς, Ὅτι οὐκ εἶπον ἐγὼ, οὐδὲ αἰσχύνομαι εἶναι δοῦλός σου· ἀλλ ̓ οἱ ἄνθρωποι λέγουσιν ὅτι εἶπον τὸν λόγον τοῦτον.

+ Alfirozabadius in his Kamuz: 'Dictum Dei omnipotentis ad Jesum (cui propitius sit et pacem concedat Deus), Tu es Nabiya, Propheta meus, ego walladtoca, fovi te; at dixerunt Christiani, Tu es Bonaya, Filius meus, ego waladtoca, te genui. Longe est supra hæc Deus.' And to the same purpose Ebnol Athir : 'In Evangelio dixit Isæ, ego wallad toca, i.e. educavi te; at Christiani, dempta litera Lam altera, ipsum ei filium statuerunt. Qui longe elatus est super ea quæ dicunt.' Whereas then the apostles attributed those words of the psalm to

Christ, the Mahometans, who could not deny but they were spoken of the Messias, were forced to corrupt the text: and for that they pretend the eminency and excellency of the Godhead, as if it were beneath the majesty of God to beget a son, or be a Father: and indeed whosoever would bring in another prophet greater than Christ, as he was than Moses, must do so.

I say, the later Jews so attribute those words to David, as if they belonged not to the Messias ; but the ancient Jews understood them of the Christ: as appeareth not only out of those places in the evangelists, where the Christ and the Son of God are synonymous; but also by the testimony of the later Jews themselves, who have confessed no less. So Rabbi David Kimchi in the end of his commen

ויש מפרשים זה,taries on the second psalm המזמור על גוג ומגוג והמשיח הוא מלך המשיח Some interpret this וכן פירשו רבותינו ז"ל:

psalm of Gog and Magog, and the anointed is Messias the king; and so our doctors of happy memory have expounded it. And Rabbi Solomon Jarchi not only confesseth that the ancient Rabbins did interpret it of the Messias, but shews the reason why the later Jews understood it rather of David, that thereby they might the better answer the argument of the Christians deduced from thence,

דרשו את העניין על מלך המשיח ולפי משמעו ולתשובת המינים נכון לפותרו על דוד עצמו :

Our doctors have expounded it of the Messias: but as to the literal sense, and for the answering heretics (that is, in their language, Christians), it is rather to be interpreted of David, in his own person.

i. 5.) as the apostle argues. And if he had spoken them unto any other man, as they were spoken unto him, the apostle's argument had been none at all.

Now that the communication of the divine essence by the Father (which we have already proved) was the true and proper generation by which he hath begotten the Son, will thus appear: because the most proper generation which we know, is nothing else but a vital production of another in the same nature, with a full representation of him from whom he is produced. Thus man begetteth a son, that is, produceth another man of the same human nature with himself; and this production, as a perfect generation, becomes the foundation of the relation of paternity in him that produceth, and of filiation in him that is produced. Thus after the prolifical benediction, "Be fruitful and multiply; Adam begat in his own likeness, after his image:" (Gen. i. 28. v. 3.) and by the continuation of the same blessing, the succession of human generations hath been continued. This then is the known* confession of all men, that a son is nothing but another produced by his father in the same nature with him. But God the Father hath communicated to the Word the same divine essence by which he is God; and consequently he is of the same nature with him, and thereby the perfect image and similitude of him, and therefore his proper Son. In human generations we may conceive two kinds of similitude; one in respect of the internal nature, the other in reference to the external form or figure. The former similitude is essential and necessary; being impossible a man should beget a son, and that son not be by nature a man: the latter accidental; not only sometimes the child representing this, sometimes the other parent, but also oftentimes neither. The similitude then, in which the propriety of generation is preserved, is that which consisteth in the identity of nature: and this communication of the divine essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a sufficient foundation of such a similitude; from whence Christ is called "the image of God," "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." (2 Cor. iv. 4. Heb. i. 3.) Nor is this communication of the divine essence only the proper generation of the Son, but we must acknowledge it far more proper than any natural generation of the creature, not only because it is in a more perfect manner, but also because the identity of nature is most perfect. As in the divine

* Κοινὸν ὑπάρχει πᾶσι καὶ αὐτοδίδακτον ὁμολόγημα, ὡς ἅπας υἱὸς τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότι οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως. Phot. Epist. 1. This is in the language of Aristotle: To ποιῆσαι ἕτερον οἷον αὐτό· ζῶον μὲν ζῶον, φυτὸν de puróv. And St. Basil, lib. ii. contra Eunom. §. 22. Gn. Πατὴρ μὲν γάς ἐστιν, ὁ ἑτέρῳ τοῦ εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ὁμοίαν ἑαυτῷ φύσιν

τὴν ἀρχὴν παρασχών.

+ Etiamsi filius hominis, homo, in quibusdam similis, in quibusdam sit dissimilis patri; tamen quia ejusdem substantiæ est, negari verus filius non potest, et quia verus est filius, negari ejusdem substantiæ non potest.' S. August. Muximin. Arian. 1. ii. c. 15. §. 2.

contra

« ZurückWeiter »