Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

term only to belong, not to the Son, but to the Father; as if the only-begotten were no more than begotten of the Father only. Which is both contrary to the language of the Scriptures, and the common custom of men, who use it not for him who is begotten of one, but for him who alone is begotten of

any.

Secondly, We must by no means admit the exposition of the later heretics,* who take the only-begotten to be nothing else but the most beloved of all the sons; because Isaac was called the only son of Abraham, (Gen. xxii. 2. 12. 16.) when we know that he had Ishmael beside; and Solomon said to be the only-begotten before his mother, when David had other children even by the mother of Solomon. For the onlybegotten and the most-beloved are not the same; the one having the nature of a cause in respect of the other, and the same cannot be cause and effect to itself. For though it be true, that the only son is the beloved son; yet with this order, that he is therefore beloved, because the only, not therefore the only because beloved. Although therefore Christ be the only-begotten and the beloved Son of God, yet we must not look upon these two attributes as synonymous, or equally significant of the same thing, but as one depending on the other; unigeniture being the foundation of his singular love. Beside, Isaac was called the only son of Abraham for some other reason than because he was singularly beloved of Abraham, for he was the only son of the free-woman, the only son of the promise made to Abraham, which was first this, "Sarah shewing the absurdity of such an interpretation, for that thereby no man could properly be called μovoyεvns, because not begotten of one, but two parts: Μονογενὴς δὲ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀνθρώτων οὐδεὶς κατά γε τὸν ὑμέτερον λόγον, διὰ τὸ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν τὴν γέννησιν· οὐδὲ ἡ Σάῤῥα μήτηρ μονογενούς ἦν παιδὸς, διότι οὐχὶ μόνη αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ ̓Αβραὰμ, ἐτεκνώσατο. Ibid.

The Socinians make very much of this notion, and apply it so unto Christ, as that thereby they might avoid all necessity of an eternal generation. So the Racovian Catechism: 'Causa cur Christo ista attributa (sc. proprium et unigenitum Dei Filium esse) competant, hæc est; quod inter omnes Dei filios et præcipuus sit, et Deo carissimus; quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abrahamo carissimus et hæres exstitit, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. xi. 17. licet fratrem Ismaelem habuerit; et Solomon unigenitus coram matre sua, licet plures ex eadem matre fratres fuerint, 1 Paral. iii. 1, 2, 3, &c.' Sect. iv. c. 1. p. 113. And that this might be applied to the in

terpretation of the Creed, Schlictingius hath inserted it as a material observation: 'Nam hic unicus seu unigena filius nominatur, qui cæteris longe carior est Patri, longeque præstantior: and confirms the interpretation with those two testimonies concerning Isaac and Solomon. But certainly this observation of theirs is vain, or what else they say is false. For if Christ be called the Son of God, because conceived by the Holy Ghost, and none else was ever so conceived, then is he the only-begotten by virtue of his generation. And if so, then is he not the only-begotten, as Isaac and Solomon were, that is, by the affection and prelation of their parents. Or if Christ were the onlybegotten, as Isaac and Solomon were, then was he not conceived after a singular manner, for the brethren of Solomon no way differed from him in their generation. It is plain therefore that this interpretation was invented, that when all the rest should fail, they might stick to this.

[See Prov. iv. 3.]

shall have a son," and then, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Gen. xviii. 14. xxi. 12.) So that Isaac may well be called the only son of Abraham in reference to the promise, as the apostle speaks expressly; "By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son." (Heb. xi. 17.). Avoiding therefore these two expositions, as far short of the true notion of the only-begotten; we must look upon it in the most proper, full, and significant sense, as signifying a son so begotten as none other is, was, or can be: so as the term restrictive only shall have relation not only to the Father generating, but also to the Son begotten, and to the manner of the generation. It is true, the Father spake from heaven, saying, "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," (Mark i. 11.) and thereby we are to understand, that whosoever of us are beloved by the Father, are so beloved in and through the Son. In the same manner Christ is the only-begotten Son of God; and as many of us as God hath bestowed his love upon, that we should be called the sons of God, are all brought into that near relation by our fellowship with him, who is by a far more near relation the natural and eternal Son.

Having thus declared the interpretation of the word, that, properly, as primogeniture consisteth in prelation, so unigeniture in exclusion; and that none can be strictly called the only-begotten, but he who alone was so begotten: we shall proceed to make good our assertion, shewing that the divine essence was peculiarly communicated to the Word, by which he was begotten the Son of God, and never any was so begotten beside that Son.

And here we meet with two difficulties: one shewing that there were other sons of God said to be begotten of him; to whom either the divine essence was communicated, and then the communication of that to the Word made him not the only-begotten; or it was not communicated, and then there is no such communication necessary to found such filiation: the other, alleging that the same divine essence may

* Eunomius would have it only Tapà μóvov, in relation to the Father only. St. Basil shews that no way proper, and shews that μονογενὴς is not he which παρὰ μόνου but μόνος YeyεvvηTaι. adv. Eunom. 1. ii. §. 21. St. Cyril adds these two rapà μóvov and póvos together, in relation to the Father and the Son: Movoyevs Karà φύσιν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς ὠνόμασται λόγος, ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου γεγέννηται τοῦ πατρός. Epist. 1. ad Regin. as Rufinus doth in unicus: Ideo subjungit unicum hunc esse Filium Dei, unus enim de uno nascitur.' Expos. Symb. §. 9.

St. Gregory Nazianzen adds to these two a third, in respect of the manner; Μονογενὴς δὲ οὐχ ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου καὶ μόνον, ἀλλ' ὅτι καὶ μονοτρόπως, οὐχ ὡς τὰ σώματα. Orat. 2. de Filio, p. 590. So he something obscurely and corruptly; but plainly enough in Damascene, who aims often to deliver himself in the words of Nazianzen: Λέγεται μονογενὴς, ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς μόνως ἐγεννήθη· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁμοιοῦται ἑτέρα γέννησις τῷ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ γεννήσει, οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλος υἱὸς rov Ocov. De Orthod. Fid. 1, i. c. 9,

be communicated to another beside the Word, and not only that it may, but that it is so, to the person of the Holy Ghost; whence either the Holy Ghost must be the Son of God, and then the Word is not the only-begotten; or if he be not the Son, then is not the communication of the divine essence a sufficient foundation of the relation of sonship. These two objections being answered, nothing will remain farther to demonstrate this last assertion.

For the first, we acknowledge that others are frequently called the sons of God, and that we call the same God our Father which Christ called his; "both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one : for which cause he is not ashamed to call us brethren:" (Heb. ii. 11.) we confess that those whom St. Paul "hath begotten through the Gospel,"* may well be termed the "begotten of God, whose seed remaineth in them:" but withal, we affirm that this our regeneration is of a nature wholly different from the generation of the Son. We are first generated,† and have our natural being; after that regenerated, and so receive a spiritual renovation, and by virtue thereof an inheritance incorruptible: whereas the generation of Christ admits no regeneration, he becoming at once thereby God and Son and heir of all. The state of sonship which we come into is but of adoption, shewing the generation by which we are begotten to be but metaphorical; whereas Christ is so truly begotten, so properly the natural Son of God, that his generation‡ clearly 1 Cor. iv. 15. Ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ ρούμενος, υἱός ἐστι θεοῦ· οὗτος δὲ πολλῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέν- καὶ μακρῷ διαφέρει παντὸς τοῦ διὰ τὴν νησα. 1 John iii. 9. Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννη- ἀρετὴν χρηματίζοντος υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, μένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι ὅστις ὡσπερεὶ πηγή τις καὶ ἀρχὴ τῶν τοισπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει. And more ούτων τυγχάνει. Οrig. adv. Celsum, l. i. expressly, 1 John v. 1. Hãç & TIOTEȧ- §. 57. ων, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστὸς, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα, ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν γεγεννημέvov auTou. Quisquis credit Jesum esse Christum illum, ex Deo genitus est; et quisquis diligit eum qui genuit, diligit etiam eum qui ex eo genitus

est.

+ Nos genuit Deus, ut filii ejus simus, quos fecerat ut homines essemus. Unicum autem genuit, non solum ut Filius esset, quod Pater non est, sed etiam ut Deus esset, quod et Pater est.' S. August. de Cons. Evang. l. ii. c. 3. In the book of Celsus, there was a Jew introduced speaking thus to Christ: Ei Touro Xeyes, orɩ Taç ἄνθρωπος κατὰ θείαν πρόνοιαν γεγονώς υἱός ἐστι θεοῦ, τί ἂν σὺ ἄλλου διαφέρης; who is thus answered by Origen: Πρὸς ὃν ἐροῦμεν, ὅτι πᾶς μὲν, ὡς ὁ Παῦλος ὠνόμασε, μηκέτι ὑπὸ φόβου παιδαγωγούμενος, ἀλλὰ δι' αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν αἱ

[ocr errors]

First, it is most certain that the Word of God, as the Word, is not the adopted, but the natural Son of God.

Non est Dei Filius Deus falsus, nec Deus adoptivus, nec Deus nuncupativus, sed Deus verus.' S. Hilar. de Trin. 1. v. c. 5.

'Hic etiam Filius Dei natura est Filius, non adoptione.' Concil. Tolet. 11. Yiòg roũ Đeoũ korì φύσει, καὶ οὐ θέσει, γεννηθεὶς ἐκ πατρός. S. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 11. §. 2. and again: OvK έK TOũ μý övтos els tò εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν παρήγαγεν, οὐδὲ τὸν μὴ övra eis viodeoíav ñyayev· á áîðìos ŵv ὁ πατὴρ, ἀϊδίως ἐγέννησε καὶ ἀνεκφρά στως υἱὸν ἕνα μόνον, ἀδελφὸν οὐκ ἔχοντα. lbid. §. 5. This hath been so generally confessed, that Felix and Elipandus, who were condemned for maintaining Christ as a man to be the adopted Son of God, did acknowledge it, as appeareth by the beginning of their book : ' Confitemur et credimus

excludeth the name of adoption; and not only so, but when he becometh the Son of man, even in his humanity refuseth the name of an adopted Son. For "when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, (not that he, but) that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal. iv. 4, 5.) He then whose generation is totally different from ours whom he calleth brethren; he whom in the sacred Scriptures the Spirit nameth the true Son, the Father sometimes his own, sometimes his beloved, but never his adopted Son;* he who by those proper and peculiar appellations is distinguished from us,† who can claim no higher filiation than that which we receive by the privilege of adoption: he is truly the only-begotten Son of God, notwithstanding the same God hath

Deum Dei Filium, ante omnia tempora sine initio ex Patre genitum, coæternum et consubstantialem non adoptione, sed genere.' Secondly, it is also certain, that the man Christ Jesus, taken personally, is the natural not the adopted Son of God: because the man Christ Jesus is no other person than the Word, who is the eternal and natural Son, and by subsisting in the human nature could not leave off to be the natural Son. The denial of this by Felix and Elipandus was condemned as heretical in the Council of Francford; and their opinion was thus expressed, partly in the words of St. Augustin, partly in their own additions: Confitemur et credimus eum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege; non genere esse Filium Dei, sed adoptione, non natura, sed gratia.' This they maintained by forged testimonies of some fathers, and by the Liturgy of the Church of Toledo, composed by Hildephonsus, as the Roman by Gregory. In the Mass de Coena Domini: Qui per adoptivi hominis passioném, dum suo non indulsit corpori:' and in the Mass de Ascensione Domini: 'Hodie Salvator noster per adoptionem carnis, sedem repetivit Deitatis.' To this the Synod opposed their determination in Sacrosyllabo: Quod ex te nascetur sanctum vocabitur filius Dei, non adoptivas sed verus, non alienus sed proprius.' And again: Porro adoptivus dici non potest qui alienus est ab eo a quo dicitur adoptatus; et gratis ci adoptio tribuitur, quoniam non ex debito, sed ex indulgentia tantummodo adoptio præstatur: sicut nos aliquando, cum cssemus peccan

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

do filii iræ, alieni eramus a Deo, per proprium et verum Filium, qui non eguit adoptione, adoptio nobis filiorum donata est.' And of this they give us the true ground in the Synodic Epistle: Unitas personæ quæ est in Dei filio et filio Virginis, adoptionis tollit injuriam.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

*‘Legi et relegi Scripturas, Jesum Filium Dei nusquam adoptione inveni.' Ambrosiaster Com. in Ep. ad Rom. Dices mihi, Cur times adoptivum Christum Dominum nominare? Dico tibi, quia nec Apostoli eum sic nominaruut, nec sancta Dei et Catholica Ecclesia consuetudinem babuit sic eum appellare.' Synod. Epist. Concil. Francoford. From whence they charge all those to whom they write that Synodic Epistle, that they should be satisfied with such expressions as they found in the Scriptures:

[ocr errors]

Intelligite, fratres, quæ legitis, et nolite nova et incognita nomina fingere, sed quæ in S. Scriptura inveniuntur, tenete,' &c.

+ St. Augustin hath observed, that St. Pau! made use of vioỡɛcía, that he might distinguish the filiation of Christ from ours: At vero etiam nos, quibus dedit Deus potestatem filios ejus fieri, de natura atque substantia sua non nos genuit, sicut unicum Filium, sed utique dilectione adoptavit. Quo verbo Apostolus sæpe uti non ob aliud intelligitur, nisi ad discernendum Unigenitum.' De consens, Evang. 1. ii. c. 3. And St. Ambrose takes notice, that the name of true destroyeth that of adopted: Adoptivum filium non dicimus filium esse natura; sed eum dicimus natura csse filium, qui verus est filius.' De Incarn. Sacr. c. 8.

begotten us by his Word; and the reason why he is so, is, because the divine essence was communicated unto him in his natural and eternal generation, whereas only the grace of God is conveyed unto us in our adoption. Indeed if we were begotten of the essence of God as Christ was, or he were only by the grace of God adopted, as we are, then could he by no propriety of speech be called the only Son, by reason of so many brethren: but being we cannot aspire unto the first, nor he descend unto the latter, it remaineth we acknowledge him, notwithstanding the first difficulty, by virtue of his natural and peculiar generation, to be the onlybegotten Son.

But though neither men nor angels be begotten of the substance of God, or by virtue of any such natural generation be called sons; yet one person we know, to whom the divine essence is as truly and really communicated by the Father as to the Son, which is the third person in the blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost. Why then should the Word by that communication of the divine essence become the Son, and not the Holy Ghost by the same? or if, by receiving the same nature, he also be the Son of God, how is the Word the only Son? To this I answer, that the Holy Ghost receiveth the same essence from the Father which the Word receiveth, and thereby becometh the same God with the Father and the Word: but though the essence be the same which is communicated, yet there is a difference in the communication; the Word being God by generation, the Holy Ghost by procession: and though every thing which is begotten proceedeth,† yet every thing which proceedeth is not begotten. Wherefore in the language of the sacred Scriptures and the Church, the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'Non omne quod procedit, nascitur; sicut omne quod nascitur, procedit.' S. August. contra Max. ). ii. c. 14. §. 1. Who gives the same solution to the same argument: Quæris a me: Si de substantia Patris est Filius, de substantia Patris est etiam Spiritus Sanctus, cur unus Filius sit, et alius non sit Filius? Ego respondeo, sive capias, sive non capias: De Patre est Filius, de Patre est Spiritus S.; sed ille genitus est, iste procedens.' Ibid. Hoy Tourov Tilavúτeρον, τὸ φάναι ἐξ ἐκείνου γε τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φῆναι τὸν Λόγον καὶ τὸ ̔́Αγιον Πνεῦμα· τὸν μὲν, ὡς Λόγον, ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ γεννώμενον τὸ δὲ, ὡς Πνεῦμα, ἐκπορευόμενον. ξυμπρόεισι γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ Πνεῦμα, οὐ ξυγγεννώμενον, ἀλλὰ ξυνὸν καὶ παρομaprovv raì ékπopevóμevov. Theodoret.

* Si unicus, quomodo adoptivus, dum multi sunt adoptivi filii? Unicus itaque de multis non potest dici.' Concil. Francof. Quod si etiam Unigenitus Filius factus dicitur ex gratia, non vere genitus ex natura, proculdubio nomen et veritatem Unigeniti perdidit, postquam fratres habere jam coepit: privatur enim hujus veritate nominis, si in Unigenito non est de Patre veritas naturalis.' Fulgentius ad Thrasim. 1. iii. c. 3. Si divina illa Filii sempiternaque nativitas non de natura Dei Patris, sed ex gratia creditur substitisse, non debet Unigenitus vocari, sed tantummodo genitus. Quoniam sicut ei nomen geniti largitas adoptionis paternæ contribuit, sic eum ab Unigeniti nomine nobis quoque tributa communio paternæ adoptionis exclusit. Unigeni- Serm. 2. p. 304. tus enim non vocatur, quamvis geni-Nunquam fuit non Pater, a quo tus possit vocari, cum genitis.' Ib.o.4. Filius natus, a quo Spiritus Sanctus

« ZurückWeiter »