« ZurückWeiter »
term only to belony, 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 in- terpretation of the Creed, Schlictinterpretation, for that thereby no man gius hath inserted it as a material could properly be called uovoyevns, observation: ‘Nam hic unicus seu unibecause not begotten of one, but two gena filius nominatur, qui cæteris parts: Movoyevijs dè, ás Écikev, kvēpu- longe carior est Patri, longeque præTwv oudeis kata yɛ Tòv quétepov lóyov, stantior:' and confirms the interpreδιά το έκ συνδυασμού πάσιν υπάρχειν την tation with these two testimonies conγέννησιν ουδε ή Σάρρα μήτηρ μονογενούς cerning Isaac and Solomon. But ήν παιδός, διότι ουχί μόνη αυτόν, αλλά certainly this observation of theirs is μετά του Αβραάμ, έτεκνώσατο. Ιbid. vain, or what else they say is false.
* The Socinians make very much For if Christ be called the Son of of this notion, and apply it so unto God, because conceived by the Holy Christ, as that thereby they might Ghost, and none else was ever so avoid all necessity of an eternal gene- conceived, then is he the only-begotration. So the Racovian Catechism: ten by virtue of bis generation. And 'Causa cur Christo ista attributa (sc. if so, then is he not the only-begotten, proprium et unigenitum Dei Filium as Isaac and Solomon were, that is, esse) competant, hæc est; quod inter by the affection and prelation of their omnes Dei filios et præcipuus sit, parents. Or if Christ were the onlyet Deo carissimus; quemadmodum begotten, as Isaac and Solomon were, Isaac, quia Abrahamo carissimus' et then was he not conceived after a hæres exstitit, unigenitus vocatus est, singular manner, for the brethren of Heb. xi. 17. licet fratrem Ismaelem Solomon no way differed from him in habuerit; et Solomon unigenitus co- their generation. It is plain therefore, ram matre sua, licet plures ex eadem that this interpretation was invented, matre fratres fuerint, 1 Paral. iii. 1, that when all the rest should fail, they 2, 3, &c.' Sect. iv. c. 1. p. 113. And might stick to this. that this might be applied to the in t.[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, uniyeniture 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 St. Gregory Nazianzen adds to these Tapà povov, in relation to the Father two a third, in respect of the manner: only. St. Basil shews that no way. Movoyevns dè oủx ori jóvos ér póvov kai proper, and shews that μονογενής is μόνον, αλλ' ότι και μονοτρόπως, ουχ ώς not he which mapà povov but uóvos rà owuara. Orat. 2. de Filio, p. 590. yeyévvntai. adv. Eunom. I. ii. §. 21. So he something obscurely and corSt. Cyril adds these two papà pávov ruptly; but plainly enough in Daand jóvos together, in relation to the mascene, who aims often to deliver Father and the Son: Movoyevns Karà himself in the words of Nazianzen; φύσιν ο εκ θεού πατρός ώνόμασται λόγος, Λέγεται μονογενής, ότι μόνος εκ μόνου ότι μόνος εκ μόνου γεγέννηται του πα- του πατρός μόνως εγεννήθη ουδέ γάρ. τρός. Epist. 1. ad Regin, as Rufinus ομοιούται ετέρα γέννησις τη του υιού του doth in unicus: Ideo subjungit uni- θεού γεννήσει, ουδέ γάρ έστιν άλλος υιός cum hunc esse Filium Dei, unus enim, toũ DeoŨ. De Orthod. Fid. I, i, c, 9, de uno nascitur.' Expos. Symb. §. 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. Εν γάρ Χριστό ρούμενος, υιός έστι θεού ούτος δε πολλά ' Ιησού διά του ευαγγελίου εγώ υμάς εγέν- και μακρά διαφέρει παντός του διά την
1 John iii. 9. Πάς ο γεγεννη- αρετήν χρηματίζοντος υιού του θεού, μένος εκ του θεού αμαρτίαν ου ποιεί, ότι όστις ώσπερεί πηγή της και αρχή των τοιoniqua avtoù év aŭrą uével. And more oútwv Tuyxável. Orig. adv. Celsum, l. i. expressly, 1 Jolin v. I. Ilãs ó mloteú- §. 57. ων, ότι Ιησούς εστίν ο Χριστός, εκ του I First, it is most certain that the θεού γεγέννηται και πάς ο αγαπών τον Word of God, as the Word, is not the yevvyoavta, ayaną kai Tòv YEYEvvnué- adopted, but the natural Son of God. vov te atroő. Quisquis credit Jesum . Non est Dei Filius Deus falsus, nec esse Christum illum, ex Deo genitus Deus adoptivus, nec Deus nuncupaest; et quisquis diligit eum qui ge- tivus, sed Deus verus. S. Hilar. de nuit, diligit etiam eum qui ex eo genitus Trin. I. v. c. 5. • Hic etiam Filius
Dei natura est Filius, non adoptione.' + Nos genuit Deus, ut filii ejus Concil. Tolet. 11. Yiòs ToŨ OcoŨ toti simus, quos fecerat ut homines esse- φύσει, και ου θέσει, γεννηθείς εκ πατρός.
Unicum autem genuit, non S. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 11. §. 2. solum ut Filius esset, quod Pater non and again: OÚK ÉK TOū ur) Övtos els tò est, sed etiam ut Deus esset, quod et είναι τον υιόν παρήγαγεν, ουδέ τον μη Pater est.' S. August. de Cons. Evang. övra eis viogegiav ñyayɛvo áll’ điềos av 1. ii. c. 3. In the book of Celsus, ο πατήρ, αϊδίως εγέννησε και ανεκφράthere was a Jew introduced speaking στως υιόν ένα μόνον, αδελφόν ουκ έχοντα. thus to Christ: Ei ToŰTO Néyals, őti tãs Ibid. §. 5. This hath been so geneάνθρωπος κατά θείαν πρόνοιαν γεγονώς. rally confessed, that Felix and Eliυιός έστι θεού, τί αν συ άλλου διαφέρης; pandus, who were condemned for who is thus answered by Origen: maintaining Christ as a man to be the Προς ον έρούμεν, ότι πάς μεν, ώς ο Παύ- adopted Son of God, did acknowledge λος ώνόμασε, μηκέτι υπό φόβου παιδα- it, as appeareth by the beginning of γωγούμενος, αλλά δι' αυτό το καλόν αι- their book : “Conftemur et credimus
ARTICLE II. 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, inade 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,t who can claim no higher filiation tban 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 tem- do filii iræ, alieni eramus a Deo, per pora sine initio ex Patre genitum, proprium et verum Filium, qui non coæternum et consubstantialem non eguit adoptione, adoptio nobis filioadoptione, sed genere. Secondly, it rum donata est.' And of this they is also certain, that the man Christ give us the true ground in the SyJesus, taken personally, is the natural nodic Epistle: Unitas personæ quæ not the adopted Son of God: because est in Dei filio et filio Virginis, adothe man Christ Jesus is no other per- ptionis tollit injuriam.' son than the Word, who is the eter *'Legi et relegi Scripturas, Jesum nal and natural Son, and by subsist- Filiam Dei nusquam adoptione ining in the human nature could not veni.' Ambrosiaster Com. in Ep. ad leave off to be the natural Son. The Rom. . ' Dices mihi, Cur times adodenial of this by Felix and Elipandus ptivum Christum Dominum nomiwas condemned as heretical in the nare? Dico tibi,quia nec Apostoli eum Council of Francford; and their opi- sic nominarunt, nec sancta Deiet Canion was thus expressed, partly in tholica Ecclesia consuetudinem bathe words of St. Augustin, partly in buit sic eum appellare. Synod. Epist. their own 'additions : ‘Confitemur et Concil. Francoford. From whence credimus eum factum ex muliere, they charge all those to whom they factum sub lege; non genere esse write that Synodic Epistle, that they Filium Dei, sed adoptione, non na- should be satisfied with such exprestura, sed gratia. This they main- sions as they found in the Scriptures : tained by forged testimonies of some · Intelligite, fratrcs, quæ legitis, et fathers, and by the Liturgy of the nolite nova et incognita nomina finChurch of Toledo, composed by Hil- gere, sed quæ in S. Scriptura ipvenidephonsus, as the Roman by Gregory. untur, tenete,' &c. In the Mass de Coena Domini: Qui † St. Augustin hath observed, that per adoptivi hominis passionem, dum St. Paul made use of viojecia, that he suo non indulsit corpori:' and in the might distinguish the filiation of Christ Mass de Ascensione Domini: 'Hodie 'from ours: At vero etiam nos, quiSalvator noster per adoptionem car- bus dedit Deus potestatem filios ejus nis, sedem repetivit Deitatis.' To fieri, de natura atque substantia sua this the Synod opposed their determi- non nos genuit, sicut unicum Filium, nation in Sacrosyllabo : Quod ex te sed utique dilectione adoptavit. Quo nascetur sanctum vocabitur filius Dei, ' verbo Apostolus, sæpe uti non ob non adoptivas sed veras, non alienus aliud intelligitur, nisi ad discernensed proprius.' And again: Porro dum Unigenitum. De consens. Evang. adoptivus dici non potcst qui alienus l. ii. c. 3. And St. Ambrose takes est ab eo a quo dicitur adoptatus; et notice, that the name of true destroygratis ci adoptio tribuitur, quoniam eth that of adopted: Adoptivum filinon 'ex debito, sed ex indulgentia um non dicimus filium esse natura; sed tantummodo adoptio præstatur: sicut eum dicimus natura csse. filium, qui nos aliquando, cum cssemus peccan- vcrus est filius.' De Inearn. 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 natúre, 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,ť yet every thing which proceedeth is not begotten.' Wherefore in the language of the sacred Scriptures and the Church, the
Si unicus, quomodo adoptivus, +'Non omne quod procedit, nadum multi sunt adoptivi filii? Unicus scitur; sicut omne quod nascitur, itaque de multis non potest dici.' procedit.' S. August. contra Max. 1. Concil. Francof. Quod si etiam ii. c. 14. §. 1. Wbo gives the same soUnigenitus Filius factus dicitur ex lution to the same argument: Quægratia, non vere genitus ex natura, ris a me: Si de substantia Patris est procaldabio'nomen et veritatem Uni- Filius, de substantia Patris est etiam geniti perdidit, postquam fratres ha- Spiritus Sanctus, cur unus Filius sit, bere jam coepit: privatur enim bujus et alius non sit Filius? Ego responveritate nominis, si in Unigenito non deo, sive capias, sive non capias: De est de Patre veritas naturalis. Ful- Patre est Filius, de Patre est Spiritus gentius ad Thrasim. l. iii. c. 3. • Si S.; sed ille genitus est, iste procedivina illa Filii sempiternaque nativi- dens.' Ibid. Tolly Toúrov Tibavúretas non de natura Dei Patris, sed ex ρον, το φάναι εξ εκείνου γε τού αγεννήgratia creditur substitisse, non debet του φύναι τον Λόγον και το "Αγιον ΠνεύUnigenitus vocari, sed tantummodo μα τον μεν, ώς Λόγον, έκ τοϋ νού γεννώgenitu Quoniam sicut ei nomen ge- μενον το δε, ως Πνεύμα, εκπορευόμενον. niti largitas adoptionis paternie con- ξυμπρόεισι γάρ τώ λόγω το Πνεύμα, ου tribuit, sic eum ab Unigeniti nomine EvyzevvÚjevov, åktà Evvòv kaì raponobis quoque tributa cominunio pa- paproőv vai Értopevóuevov. Theodoret. ternæ adoptionis exclusit. Unigeni- Serm. 2. p. 504. tus-enim non vocatur, quamvis geni -. I I. Nunquam fuit non Pater, a quo tus possit vocari, cum genitis.' 16.0:4. Filius natus, a quo Spiritus Sanctus