« ZurückWeiter »
and therefore the Son of God must die for the sins of men. When he appointed Aaron to go into the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement, he said, Christ, our High-priest, should never enter through the veil into the highest heavens, to make expiation for us, but by his own blood. If then we look upon the fountain, the eternal counsel of the will of God; if we look upon the revelation of that counsel, either in express predictions, or ceremonial representations, we shall clearly see the truth of our third assertion, that the sufferings of the promised Messias were predetermined and foretold.
Now all these sufferings which were thus agreed, determined, and revealed, as belonging to the true Messias, were undergone by that Jesus of Nazareth, whom we believe to be the true Christ. Never was there any suffering type which he outwent not, never prediction of any passion which he fulfilled not, never any expression of grief and sorrow which he felt not. When the appointed time of his death approached, he said to his apostles, “ Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.” (Luke xviii. 31.) When he delivered them the blessed sacrament, the commemoration of his death, he said, “Truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined.” (Luke xxii. 22.)* After his resurrection, he chastised the dulness of his disciples, who were so overwhelmed with his passion, that they could not look back upon the antecedent predictions; saying unto them, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory ?” (Luke xxiv. 25, 26.) After his ascension, St. Peter made this profession before the Jews, who had those prophecies, and saw his sufferings, “ Those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.” (Acts iii. 18.) Whatsoever therefore was determined by the counsel of God; whatsoever was revealed by the prophets concerning the sufferings of the Messias, was all fulfilled by that Jesus whom we believe to be, and worship as, the Christ. Which is the fourth and last assertion propounded to express our Saviour's passion in relation to his office.
Having considered him that suffered in his office, we are next to consider him in his person. And being in all this Article there is no person expressly named or described, we must look back upon the former, till we find his description and his name. The Article immediately preceding leaves us in the same suspension; but for our satisfaction refers us to the former, where we find him named Jesus, and described the only-begotten Son of God.
Now this Son of God we have already shewn to be therefore truly called the only-begotten, because he was from all
Κατά το ώρισμένον.
eternity generated of the essence of the Father, and therefore is, as the eternal Son, so also the eternal God. : Wherefore by the immediate coherence of the Articles, and necessary consequence of the CREED,* it plainly appeareth, that the eternal Son of God, God of God, very God of very God, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. For it was no other person who suffered under Pontius Pilate, than he who was born of the Virgin Mary; he who was born of the Virgin Mary, was no other person than he who was conceived by the Holy Ghost; he who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, was no other person than our Lord; and that our Lord no other than the only Son of God: therefore by the immediate coherence of the Articles it followeth, that the only Son of God, our Lord, suffered under Pontius Pilate. That Word which was in the beginning, which then was with God, and was God, in the fulness of time being made flesh, did suffer. For the princes of this world “ crucified the Lord of glory;" (1 Cor. ii. 8.) and “God purchased his Church with his own blood.” (Acts xx. 28.)+ That person who was begotten of the Father before all worlds, and so was really the Lord of glory, and most truly God, took upon him the nature of man, and in that nature being still the same person which before he was, did suffer. When our Saviour fasted forty days, there was no other person hungry, than that Son of God who made the world: when he sat down weary by the well, there was no other person felt that thirst, but he who was eternally begotten of the Father, the fountain of the Deity: when he was buffeted and scourged, there was no other person sensible of those pains, than that eternal Word which before all worlds was impassible: when he was crucified and died, there was no other person which gave up the ghost, but the Son of him, and so of the same nature with him," who only hath immortality.” (1 Tim. vi. 16.) And thus we conclude our first consideration propounded, viz. Who it was that suffered : affirming that, in respect of his office, it was the Messias; in respect of his person, it was God the Son.
But the perfect probation and illustration of this truth requireth, first a view of the second particular propounded, How, or in what he suffered. For while we prove the person suffering to be. God, we may seem to deny the passion, of which the perfection of the Godhead is incapable. The divine nature is of infinite and eternal happiness, never to be disturbed by the least degree of infelicity, and therefore subject to no sense of misery. Wherefore while we profess that the Son of God did suffer for us, we must so far explain our as
* This is that inseparabilis connexio auctoritas, et Apostolus tradidit, diin the Creed, which Cassianus urgeth cens, Si enim cognovissent, nunquam so much against Nestorius, De Incarn. Dominum gloriæ crucifixissent. Vi1. vi.
gil. advers, Eutych. I. ii. §. 8. + Dominum passum symboli tenet
sertion, as to deny that the divine nature of our Saviour suffered. For being the divine nature of the Son is common to the Father and the Spirit, if that had been the subject of his passion, then must the Father and the Spirit have suffered. Wherefore as we ascribe the passion to the Son alone, so must we attribute it to that nature which is his alone, that is, the human. And then neither the Father nor the Spirit will appear to suffer, because neither the Father nor the Spirit, but the Son alone, is man, and so capable of suffering.
Whereas then the humanity of Christ consisteth of a soul and body, these were the proper subject of his passion; nor could he suffer any thing but in both or either of these two. For as “ the Word was made flesh,” (John i. 14.) though the Word was never made* (as being in the beginning God), but the flesh, that is, the humanity, was made, and the Word assuming it became flesh: so saith St. Peter, “ Christ snffered for us in the flesh,” (1 Pet. iv. 1.) in that nature of man which he took upon him: and so God the Son did suffer, not in that nature in which he was begotten of the Father before all worlds, but in that flesh which by his incarnation he became. For he was “ put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit;” (1 Pet. iii. 18.)+ suffered in the weakness of his humanity, but rose by the power of his Divinity. As he was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh,” (Rom. i. 3.) in the language of St. Paul; so was he“ put to death in the flesh,” in the language of St. Peter: and as he was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness;” (Rom. i. 4.) so was he“ quickened by the Spirit.” Thus the proper subject and recipient of our Saviour's passion, which he underwent for us, was that nature which he took from us.
Far be it therefore from us to think, that the Deity, which is immutable, could suffer; which only hath immortality, conld die. The conjunction with humanity could put no imperfection upon the Divinity; nor can that infinite nature by any external acquisition be any way changed in its intrinsical and essential perfections. If the bright rays of the sun are thought to insinuate into the most noisome bodies without any pollution of themselves, how can that spiritual essence contract the least infirmity by any union with humanity ?8
* 'O Xóyos odpłyévero, iva kai ó anxia usque ad mortem, denique et dóyoc del i łóyos, kai oápka éxy o Nóyog' mortua est.' Tertull. advers. Prax. c. kvå rá og kai tòv Oávatov å vedétaro, 27. Clemens Alexandr. Pædag. I. i. έν μορφή τη ανθρωπίνη μέχρι τάφου, και C. 5. adov é hibás. S. Athanas. de Incarn. 1 Το γάρ φύσει άφθαρτον και αναλDom. 1. i. c. 12.
λοίωτον αεί τοιούτόν έστιν ου συναλλοιού+ Adeo salva est utriusque pro- μενον τη ταπεινή φύσει, όταν εν εκείνη prietas substantiæ, ut et Spiritus res kard oicovoulav yévntai. Greg. Nyssen. suas egerit in illo, id est, virtutes et Epist. ad Eustath. opera et signa, ct caro passiones suas 8 Ως ουδ' ηλιακού φωτός πάθοιέν τι functa sit, esuriens sub Diabolo, åktiveç tà távra nnpoữoat, kai owuasitiens sub Samaritide, flens Lazarum, των νεκρών και ου καθαρών εφαπτόμεναι
We must neither harbour so low an estimation of the divine nature, as to conceive it capable of any diminution; nor so mean esteem of the essence of the Word, as to imagine it subject to the sufferings of the flesh he took; nor yet so groundless an estimation of the great mystery of the incarnation, as to make the properties of one nature mix in confusion with another. These were the wild collections of the Arian and Apollinarian heretics,* whom the Church hath long since silenced by a sound and sober assertion, That all the sufferings of our Mediator were subjected in his humau nature.
And now the only difficulty will consist in this, how we can reconcile the person suffering, with the subject of his passion; how we can say that God did suffer, when we profess the Godhead suffered not. But this seeming difficulty will admit an easy solution, if we consider the intimate conjunction of the divine and human nature, and their union in the person of the Son. For hereby those attributes which properly belong unto the one, are given to the other; and that upon good reason.t For being the same individual person is, by the conjunction of the nature of God and the nature of man, really and truly both God and man; it necessarily followeth, that πολύ πλέον η ασώματος του θεού δύνα- απαθή θεότητα αναφέροντες ασεβώς. S. pis oïr' åv tábol triv ovolav, oőt åv Athan. lib. de Inearn. Dom. I. i. c. 15. Blaßein ospatog dowpátws és aqwuévn. Of this St. Hilary is to be understood: Euseb. Demon. Evang. 1. iv. c. 13. "Sed eorum omnis hic sensus, ut opi
* This danger is the rather to nentur metum mortis in Dei Filium unfolded, because it is not generally incidisse, qui asscrunt non de æterunderstood. The hercsy of Arius, as nítate prolatum, neque de infinitate it was condemned by the Council of paternæ substantiæ exstitisse, sed ex Nice, is known to all. But that he nullo illum qui omnia creavit effemade the nature of the Word to suffer ctum ; ut assumptus ex nihilo sit, et in the flesh, is not so frequently or coeptus ex opere, et confirmatus ex plajuly delivered. This Phoebadius tempore. Et ideo in eo doloris an(the first of the Latin Church who xietas, ideo spiritus passio eum corwrote against the Arians) charged poris passione. Com. in Matt. c. 31. them with : “ Duplicem hunc statum, §.3. Where clearly he argues against non conjunctum sed confusum, vultis the Arians. The right understanding videri ; ut etiam unius vestram, id est whereof, is the only true way to reEpistola Potami, quæ ad Orientem concile those harsh sayings of bis, et Occidentem transmissa est, qua which so troubled the Master of the asserit, carne et spiritu Christi coagu- Sentences, and the whole Schools latis per sanguinem Mariæ, et in ever since. unuti corpus redactis, passibilem t • Per indissolubilem unitatem Deum factum. Hoc ideo, ne quis Verbi et carnis, omnia quæ carnis illum ex eo crederet, quem impassi- sunt adscribuntur et Verbo, quomodo bilen satis constat.' Lib. adv. Arianos, et quæ Verbi sunt prædicantur in c. 7. And again : 'Nou ergo est spi- carne. Orig. in Ep. ad Rom. I. i. c. 1. ritus caro, nec caro spiritus, quod isti Διά την ακριβή ενότητα της τε προσληvolunt egregii Doctores, ut fuctus sit φθείσης σαρκός και της προσλαβομένης scilicet Dominus et Deus noster ex hac θειότητος, αντιμεθίσταται τα ονόματα substantiarum permixtione passibilis. ώστε και το ανθρώπινον τη θείω, και το Ideo autem passibilem volunt dici, θείον των ανθρωπίνω, κατονομάζεσθαι. ne ex impassibili credatur.' cap. 8. Greg. Nyss. Ép. ad. Theoph. Xor mévΜάτην ούν 'Αρειανοί φαντάζονται, σάρκα του είδέναι, ως η ένωσις κοινά ποιεί τα póvnu ÚTOTLJépevou ávelandévai Tòv Iw- óvóuara. Theodoret. Dial. 3. c. 17. τήρα, την δε του πάθους νόησιν επί την
it is true to say, God is man, and as true, A man is God; because in this particular, he which is man is God, and he which is God is man. Again, being by reason of the incarnation it is proper to say, God is man, it followeth unavoidably, that whatsoever necessarily belongeth to the human nature, may be spoken of God; otherwise there would be a man to whom the nature of man did not belong, which were a contradiction. And being by virtue of the same incarnation it is also proper to say, A man is God, by the same necessity of consequence we must acknowledge, that all the essential attributes of the divine nature may truly be spoken of that man; otherwise there would be one truly and properly God, to whom the nature of God did not belong, which is a clear repugnancy. Again, if the properties of the divine nature may be truly attributed to that man which is God, then may those actions which flow from those properties, be attributed to the same. And being the properties of the human nature may be also attributed to the eternal Son of God, those actions or passions which did proceed from those properties, may be attributed to the same Son of God, or God the Son. Wherefore as God the Son is truly man, and as man truly passible and mortal; so God the Son did truly suffer, and did truly die. And this is the only true communication of properties.*
Not that the essential properties of one nature are really communicated to the other nature, as if the Divinity of Christ were passible and mortal, or his humanity of original omnipotence and omnipresence; but because the same God the Son was also the Son of man, he was at the same time both mortal and eternal: mortal as the Son of man, in respect of his humanity; eternal, as the Son of God, in respect of his Divinity. The sufferings therefore of the Messias were the sufferings of God the Son: not that they were the sufferings of his Deity, as of which that was incapable; but the sufferings of his humanity, as unto which that was inclinable. For although the human nature was conjoined to the divine, yet it suffered as much as if it had been alone; and the divine as little suffered, as if it had not been conjoined: because each kept their respective properties distinct, without the least confusion in their most intimate conjunction. From whence at last the person suffering is reconciled to the subject of his passion: for God the Son being not only God, but also man, suffered, though not in his Deity, by reason of which he is truly God; yet in his humanity, by which he who is truly God, is as truly man. And thus we conclude our two first disquisitions: Who it was that suffered ; in respect of his office, the Messias, in respect of his person, God the Son: How it was he suffered; not in his Deity, which is impassible, but in his humanity, which he assumed, clothed with our infirmities.
Called by the Schools ordinarily cient Greek divines ’Avridoois, and communicatio idiomatum, by the an- sometimes 'Avrijeraoranu.