Abbildungen der Seite

substance with the Father; as the Council of Nice determined, and the ancient fathers before them taught. Hepce 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 greater than another, and Mahomet might persuade his credulous disciples that he was greater and the person of Christ ; so the an- Auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomecient fathers, before the Nicene Coun- diensis Epistola sua prodidit, dicens, cil, had nised the same in a true catho- Si verum, inquit, Dei Filium, et inlic sense, to express the unity in es- creatum dicimus, Homoüsion cum sence of the Father and the Son; as Patre incipimus confiteri. Hæc cum appeareth by the confession of the lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Nisame Eusebius: 'Etei kai rāv nalalõv ceno, hoc verbum in Tractatu fidei loyious Tivàs, kai étıdaveis TLOKÓTOVS, posuerunt Patres, quod id viderunt και συγγραφέας έγνωμεν, επί της του adversariis esse formidini, ut tanquam πατρός και υιού θεολογίας τω του ομοου- evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipsorum neolov ovyxproauévovs óvópari. Ibid. §. 7. fandæ caput hæresis amputarent.' S. Wherefore the other Eusebius of Ni. Ambros. I. iii. de Fide, c. 15. De voce comedia, understanding the ancient 'Ouoouotos, vide Dionys. Petav. de catholic sense, confessed, that if they Trinit. I. iv. c. 6. believed Christ to be the true begotten, 'Αδύνατον γάρ τον θεόν είπεϊν έρηand not created, Son of God, they pov Tits ovourñs yoviporntos. Damasc. must acknowledge him quoouorov, de Fid. Orthod. 1. i. c. 8. which the Arians endeavoured to + Ει δε μή καρπογόνος εστίν αυτή η make so odious ; and therefore the θεία ουσία, άλλ' έρημος, κατ' αυτούς, ως Council in opposition to them deter- φώς μή φωτίζον, και πηγή ξηρά: πώς δηmined it: Quid est aliud cur Homo- ulovpyxnv {vépyklav autov { xelv déyovüsion Patri nolint Filium dici, nisi Teş ook aloxúvovrat; S. Athanas. Orat. quia nolunt verum Dei Filium ? sicut ii. contra Arian. §. 2.

than any of the sons of men; but wbilè any one was believed to be the eternal Son of God, he knew it wholly impossible to prefer bimself 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 I begotten thee,"") · Thou art my prophet, I have educated thee.' The later Jews, I 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 sach 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,

* This is often repeated there, and not deny but they were spoken of the particularly in the last chapter but Messias, were forced to corrupt the one, called Alechlas: * Est ipse Deus text: and for that they pretend the unus, Deus æternus, qui nec genuit, eminency and excellency of the Godnec genitus est, et cui nullus eșt æqua- bcąd, as if it were beneath the majesty lis.' And the Saracenica set forth by of God to beget a sop, or be a Father: Sylburgius, mention this as the first and indeed whosoever would bring in pripciple of Mahometanişm: "Oti gis another propbet greater than Christ, DEÓS ŠOTI, TOLYTNS TŪy lwy, pýte yavvn- as he was than Moses, must do sp. Oeis, přte yeyvñoas. And Joannes Sicu * I say, the later Jews so aštribute lus and Georgius Cedrenus relate how those words to David, as if they beMahomet gave command : "Eva jóvov lenged not to the Messias; but the anπροσκυνείν θεόν, και τον Χριστόν, τιμάν cient Jews understood them of the w lóyov toŨ JEOū uży ovxi viòv . Hist. Christ: as appeareth not only out of Compend. p. 422. ed. Par. 1647. And those places in the evangelists, where we read of his ridiculous history, that the Christ and the Son of God are sy, Christ, after his ascension into heaven, nonymous; but also by the testimony was accused by God for calling him of the later Jews themselves who have self his Son; and that he denied it, as confessed no less. So Rabbị David being so named only by men without Kimchijn the end of his commentaries any authority from him "Oru ávellóvra on the second psalm, Ti qwaan TÖv Xplotov tòv oúpavov upútnoev 9eds, Néywv, ''Incoỗ, où elmec Tòv 16:51 113710D TUAN 772 γον τούτον, "Οτι υιός είμι του θεού και Some interpret this psalm of Gog and Geós Kalamexpien, 'Invous, "Ore our Magog, and the anointed is Messias the

, govo dxl oi avopwroz Néyovoiv őrı elmoz king : and so our doctors of happy meτον λόγον τούτον.

mory have expounded it. And Rabbi + Alfrozabadiųs in his Kamuz: that the ancient Rabbins did interpret

Solomon Jarchi not only confesseth * Dictum Dei omnipotentis ad Jesum

it of the Messiás, but shews the rea(cui propitius șit et pacem concedat Deus), l'u es Nabiya, Propheta meus, rather of David, that thereby they

son why the later Jews understood it ego walladtoca, fovi te; at dixerunt Christiani, Tu es Bongya, Filius meus, of the Christians deduced from thence,

might the better answer the argument ego waladtoca, te genui. Longe est hou Sy, yn ng Wit 127 supra hæc Deus.' And to the same

: * , dixit Isæ, ego walladtoca, i. e. edu- :joy 717 by niab

7173 DIJOIT cavi te; at Christiani, dempta litera Our doctors have expounded it of the Lam altera, ipsum ei filium statuerunt. Messias : but as to the literal and

sense, Qui longe elatus est super ea quæ di- for the answering heretics (that is, in cunt.' Whereas then the apostles at- their language, Christians), it is ratributed those words of the psalm to ther to be interpreted of David, in his Christ, the Mahometans, who could own person.

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. 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; it 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,t 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

* Κοινόν υπάρχει πάσι και αυτοδίδα- την αρχήν παρασχών: , κτον ομολόγημα, ώς άπας υιός της αυτής + Etiamsi filius hominis, homo, in εστί το γεγεννηκότι ουσίας και φύσεως. quibusdam similis, in quibusdam sit Phut. Epist. 1. This is in the language dissimilis patri; tamen quia ejusdem of Aristotle : TÒ Touñoal črepov olov substantiæ est, negari verus filius non autó fõov pèy Gov, putòv guróv, potest, et quia verus est filius, negari And St. Basil, lib. ii. contra Eunom. ejusdem substantiæ non potest. s. §. 22. fn. Ilatno uèv yap lotiv, ò érépui August. cuntra Maximin. Arian. I. ii, του είναι κατά την ομοίαν εαυτώ φύσιν c. 15. 3. 2.

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 essence we acknowledge all the perfections of the creatures, subtracting all the imperfections which adhere unto them here in things below: so in the communication we must look upon the reality without any kind of defect, blemish, or impurity. In human generation the son is begotten in the same nature with the father, which is performed by derivation, or decision of part of the substance of the parent: but this decision includeth imperfection, because it supposeth a substance divisible, and consequently corporeal : whereas the essence of God is incorporeal, spiritual, and indivisible; and therefore his nature is really communicated, not by derivation or decision, but by a total and plenary communication. In natural conceptions the father necessarily precedeth the son, and begetteth one younger than himself; for being generation is for the perpetuity of the species, where the individuals successively fail, it is sufficient if the parent can produce another to live after him, and continue the existence of his nature, when his person is dissolved. But this presupposeth the imperfection of mortality wholly to be removed, when we speak of him who inhabiteth eternity: the essence which God always had without beginning, without beginning he did communicate; being always Father, as always God. Animals when they come to the perfection of nature, then become prolifical;* in God eternal perfection sheweth bis eternal fecundity. And that which is most remarkable, in human generations the son is of the same nature with the father, and yet is not the same man; because though he hath an essence of the same kind, yet he hath not the same essence; the power of generation depending on the first prolifical benediction, increase and multiply, it must be made by way of multiplication, and thus every son becomes another man.

But the divine essence, being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division, and in respect of its infinity incapable of multiplication, is so communicated as not to be multiplied; insomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication, hath not only the same nature, but is also the same God. The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Isaac man: but Abraham one man, Isaac another man; not so the Father one God, and the Word another, but the Father and the Word both the same God. Being then the propriety of generation is founded in the essential similitude of the Son unto the Father, by reason of the same which he receiveth from

* IIáTa doa hồn cua YevỡAftov Tĩg bóơ:0g: S. Atban. Ohat. i. δε αεί τέλειον, αεί και αίδιον γεννα. Eu- contra Arian. S. 14. This was it seb, de Præp. Evang. ex Plotino, l. xi. which so much troubled the Arians, §. 17. 'Avēpurwv mèv ydp idiov év when they heard the Catholics cona χρόνω γεννάν, διά το ατελές της φύσεως stantly asserting: αεί θεός, αεί υιός: θεού δε αΐδιον το γέννημα διά το αεί τέ- άμα πατήρ, άμα υιός.

him ; being the full perfect nature of God is communicated unto the Word, and that more intimately and with a greater unity or identity than can be found in human generations: it followeth that this communication of the divine nature is the proper generation by wbich Christ is, and is called the true and proper Son of God. This was the foundation of St. Peter's confession, “ thou art the Son of the living God;" (Matt. xvi. 16. John vi. 69.) this the ground of our Saviour's distinction,* “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father.” (John xx. 17.) Hence did St. John raise a verity, more than only a negation of falsity, when he said, we “ are in the true Son:” (1 John v. 20.) for we which are in him are true, not false sons, but such sons we are not as the “ true Son." Hence did St. Paul draw an argument of the infinite love of God towards man, in that “he spared not his own proper Son." (Rom. viii. 32.) Thus have we sufficiently shewed, that the eternal communication of the divine essence by the Father to the Word was a proper generation by which Christ Jesus always was the true and proper Son of God: which was our fourth assertion.

The fifth and last assertion followeth, that the divine essence was so peculiarly communicated to the Word, that there was never any other naturally begotten by the Father; and in that respect Christ is the only-begotten Son of God. For the clearing of which truth, it will first be necessary to inquire into the true notion of the only-begotten; and then shew how it belongs particularly to Christ, by reason of the divine nature communicated by way of generation to him alone. First, therefore, we must avoid the vain interpretation of the ancient heretics,who would have the restraining

• Multum distat inter dominatio- jóvov, and unigenitus were nothing nem et conditionem, inter generatio- else but genitus ab uno, This Sf. nem et adoptionem, inter substan- Basil refuteth copiously;, first, from tiam et gratiam. Ideoque hic non the language of the Scriptures and permixte nec passim dicitur, Ascendo the usage of mankind: Aiù try navαd Patrem nostrum aut Deum no- oυργίαν ήν περί το όνομα του μονογεstrum; sed ad Patrem meum et Pa- voūs šxaxoúpynos, rapá te Tiv Tūv åvtrem vestrum, ad Deum meum et ad θρώπων συνήθειαν, και παρά την ευσεβή Deum vestrum. Aliter enim illi Deus rbv ypapuv mapádooiv laußávwv avtoo Pater est, aliter nobis. Illum siqui- Triv diávolav. Movoyevis ydp oux à denm natura conquat, misericordia παρά μόνου γενόμενος, άλλ' ο μόνος γενhumiliat: nos vero natura proster- νηθείς εν τη κοινή χρήσει προσαγορεύεnit, misericordia erigit.' Capreolus rai. Ibid. Secondly, by a retort peCarthag. Epist. p. 70. Opusc. Dogm. cnliar to that heresy, which held the Vet. V. Script. Par. 1630.

Son of God might be called cTio Osis as + This was the fallacy which Eu- well as yevvndeis, created as well as nomius endeavoured to put upon the begotten, and consequently might be Church, as appears by those words of as properly named povórtiotos as pohis delivered and answered by St. νογενής : Ει μη παρά το μόνος γεγενBasil: Διά τούτο γάρ, φησί, μονογενής, νήσθαι, αλλά διά τό παρά μόνου μονογε. επειδή παρά μόνου τη τού αγεννήτου δυ- νης είρηται, ταυτό δε εστι κατά σε το νάμει γεννηθείς και κτισθείς τελειότατος εκτίσθαι το γεγεννήσθαι, τι ουχί και γέγονεν υπουργός αdυ. Eunom. 1. ii. 3. Μονόκτιστον αυτόν ονομάζεις και Ιbid. 9. 20. as if uovoyevijs were only hapà 21. Thirdly, by a particular instance,

« ZurückWeiter »