« ZurückWeiter »
Christ, were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts viii. 12.) For as in the Acts of the Apostles there is no more expressed than that they baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ:" (Acts ii. 38. viii. 16. x. 48. xix. 5.) so is no more expressed of the faith required in them who were to be baptized, than to believe in the same name. But being the Father and the Holy Ghost were likewise mentioned in the first institution, being the expressing of one doth not exclude the other, being it is certain that from the apostles' time the names of all three were used; hence upon the same ground was required faith, and a profession of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Again, as the eunuch said not simply, I believe in the Son, but 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;" as a brief explication of that part of the institution which he had learned before of Philip: so they who were converted unto Christianity were first taught not the bare names, but the explications and descriptions of them in a brief, easy, and familiar way; which when they had rendered, acknowledged, and professed, they were baptized in them. And these being regularly and constantly used, made up the rule of faith, that is, the CREED. The truth of which may sufficiently be made apparent to any who shall seriously consider the constant practice of the Church, from the first age unto this present, of delivering the rule of faith to those which were to be baptized, and so requiring of themselves, or their sureties, an express recitation, profession, or acknowledgment of the CREED. From whence this observation is properly deducible : that in what sense the name of Father is taken in the form of baptism, in the same it also ought to be taken in this Article. And being nothing can be more clear than that, when it is said, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, the notion of Father hath in this particular no other relation but to that Son whose name is joined with his; and as we are baptized into no other son of that Father, but that only-begotten Christ Jesus, so into no other father, but the Father of that only begotten: it followeth, that the proper explication of the first words of the Creed is this, I believe in God the Father of Christ Jesus.
In vain then is that vulgar distinction applied unto the explication of the CREED, whereby the Father is considered both personally, and essentially: personally, as the first in the glorious Trinity, with relation and opposition to the Son; essentially, as comprehending the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For that the Son is not here comprehended in the Father is evident, not only out of the original, or occasion, but also from the very letter of the CREED, which teacheth us to believe in God the Father, and in his Son ; for if the Son were included in the Father, then were the Son the Father of himself. As therefore when I say, I believe in Jesus Christ his Son, I must necessarily understand the Son of that Father wbom I mentioned in the first Article ; so when I said, I be
lieve in God the Father, I must as necessarily be understood of the * Father of him whom I call his Son in the second Article.
Now as it cannot be denied that God may several ways be said to be the Father of Christ ; first, as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary (Luke i. 35.); secondly, as he was sent by him with special authority, as the King of Israel (John x. 35, 36. i. 49, 50.); thirdly, as he was raised from the dead, out of the womb of the earth unto immortal life, and made heir of all things in his Father's house (Acts xiii. 32, 33.): so must we not doubt but, beside all these, God is the Father of that Son in a more eminent and peculiar manner, as he is and ever was with God, and God (John i. 1.): which shall be demonstrated fully in the second Article, when we come to shew how Christ is the only-begotten Son. And according unto this paternity by way of generation totally divine, in which he who begetteth is God, and he which is begotten the same God, do we believe in God, as the eternal Father of an eternal Son. Which relation is coeval with his essence: so that we are not to imagine one without the other; but as we profess him always God, so must we acknowledge him always Father,+ and that in a far more proper manner than the same title can be given to any creature. I Such is the fluctuant condition of human generation, and of those relations which arise from thence, that he which is this day a son, the next may prove a father, and within the space of one day more, without any real alteration in himself, become neither son nor father, losing one relation by the death of him that begot him, and the other by the departure of him that was begotten by him. But in the Godhead these relations are more proper, because fixed; the Father having never been a son, the Son never becoming father, in reference to the same kind of generation.
• Pater cum audis, Filii intellige non fuisse blaspbemes.' Id. Serm. 62. Patrem, qui filius supradictæ sit • Advertite, quod cum Dei Patris noimago substantiæ.' Ruff. in Sym. §. 4. men in confessione conjungit, osten
* "Αμα γάρ έστι θεός και άμα πατήρ dit quod non aute Deus esse coeperit ουχ υστερίζουσαν έχων του είναι την et postea Pater, sed sine ullo initio et γέννησιν· αλλ' ομού τω είναι πατήρ και Deus semper et Pater est.' S. August. ÝDeOtws sai vooóuevos. S. Cyril. Alex. de Temp. Serm. 132. Dial. de Trin. 2. Iarno dei matrip, • Deus solus proprie verus est και ουκ ήν καιρός ενώ ουκ ήν ο πατήρπα Pater, qui sine initio et fine Pater tup. S. Epiphan. Hæres. Ixii.§. 3. Sic est; non enim aliquando coepit esse ut nunquam fuit non Deus, ita nun quod Pater est, sed semper Pater est, quam fuit non Pater, a quo Filius na semper_habens Filium ex se genitus.' Gennad. de Eccles. dogm. c. 1. tum.' Faustinus lib. contra Arianos.
Credimus in Deum, eundem confi. 'Επί της θεότητος μόνης ο πατήρ κυρίως temur Patrem, ut eundem semper ο πατήρ έστι, και ο υιός κυρίως υιός έστι, habuisse Filium nos credamus.' Chry και επί τούτων δε μόνων έστηκε το παsol. Serm. 59. `Inest Deo pietas, est τηρ άει πατήρ είναι, και το υιός αεί υιός in Deo semper affectio, paternitas per elvai. S. Athanas. Orat.i. contra Aria. manet apud illum; semper ergo Fi
nos, §. 21. lium fuisse credas, ne Patrem semper και 'Επί μόνης της θεότητος το πατήρ
A farther reason of the propriety of God's paternity appears from this, that he hath begotten a Son of the same nature and essence with himself, not only specifically, but individually, as I shall also demonstrate in the exposition of the second Article. For generation being the production of the like, and that likeness being the similitude of substance ;* where is the nearest identity of nature, there must be also the most proper generation, and consequently he which generateth the most proper father. If therefore man, who by the benediction of God given unto him at his first creation in these words,“ Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth,” (Gen. i. 28.) begetteth a son“ in his own likeness, after his image;" (Gen. v. 3.) that is, of the same human nature, of the same substance with him, (which if he did not, he should not according to the benediction multiply himself or man at all,) with which similitude of nature many accidental disparities may consist, if by this act of generation he obtaineth the name of father, because, and in regard, of the similitude of his nature in the son, how much more properly must that name belong unto God himself, who hath begotten a Son of a nature and essence so totally like, so totally the same, that no accidental disparity can imaginably consist with that identity ?
That God is the proper and eternal Father of his own eternal Son is now declared: what is the eminency or excellency of this relation followeth to be considered. In general then we may safely observe, that in the very name of father there is something of eminence wbich is not in that of son;t and some kind of priority we must ascribe unto him whom we call the first, in respect of him whom we term the second person; and as we cannot but ascribe it, so must we endeavour to preserve it. I
Now that privilege or priority consisteth not in this,g that the essence or attributes of the one are greater than the essence or attributes of the other (for we shall hereafter demonstrate them to be the same in both); but only in this, that the Father
και το υιός έστηκε και έστιν αεί" των μεν Vide Tho. Sum. p. 1. quæst. 33. art. γάρ ανθρώπων. ει πατήρ λέγεται τις, 2. ad quart. άλλ' ετέρου γέγονεν υιός, και ει υιός λέ * Αυτό το όνομα του πατρός μείζον γεται, αλλ' ετέρου λέγεται πατήρ. ώστε ļoti toữ vioữ. Syn. Sardic. Theod. l. επ' ανθρώπων μη σώζεσθαι κυρίως το ji. c. 8. 'Insinuatur nobis in Patre Fatpòs kai vioũ õvoua. S. Athanas. auctoritas, in filio nativitas.' S. Autom. 1. Πατήρ κυρίως, ότι μή και υιός. gust. ώσπερ και υιός κυρίως, ότι μή και πατήρ. 1 Το μεν αγεννήτη πατρί οικείον τα γάρ ημέτερα ου κυρίως, ότι και άμφω. . αξίωμα φυλακτέον, μηδένα του είναι S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 35.
autq tov aitiov léyovras, Alex. apud • Etiamsi Filius hominis homo in Theod. 1. i. c. 4. quibusdam similis, in quibusdam sit 5. Ημείς δε κατά μέν τήν τών αιτίων dissimilis Patri; tamen quia ejusdem προς τα εξ αυτών σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι substantiæ est, negari verus Filius του υιού τον πατέρα φαμεν, κατά δε της non potest, et quia verus est Filius, φύσεως διαφοράν ουκέτι. . S. Basil. negari ejusdem substantiæ, non po contra Eunom. 1. i. 8. 20. test.'S. August. 1. iii. cont. Max. c.15.
hath that essence of himself, the Son by communication from the Father. From whence he acknowledgeth that he is « from him,” (John vii. 29.) that he “ liveth by him,” (John vi. 57.) that the “Father gave him to have life in himself,” (John v. 26.) and generally referreth all things to him, as received from him. Wherefore in this sense some of the ancients have not stuck to interpret those words, “ the Father is greater than I,” (John xiv. 28.)* of Christ as the Son of God, as the second person
* Μείζων, είπεν, ου μεγέθει τινί, ουδε habet, quod potest, non tribuit sibi, χρόνω, αλλά διά την εξ αυτού του πα sed Patri, quia non est a seipso, sed τέρος γέννησιν. S. Athanas. contra a Patre. Æqualis est enim Patri, sed Arianos, 1. 1. 3. 58. Λείπεται τοίνυν hoc quoque accepit a Patre.' $. Auκατά τον της αιτίας λόγον ενταύθα το gust. Epist. 66.
Necesse est, quoμείζον λέγεσθαι. επειδή γάρ άπό τού πα dammodo prior sit, qua Pater sit ; τρός η αρχή το υιω, κατά τούτο μείζων quoniam antecedat necesse est, eam ο πατήρ, ως αίτιος και αρχή. διό και ο qui babet originem, ille qui originem κύριος είπεν, ο πατήρ μου μείζων μου nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum εστί, καθό πατήρ δηλονότι. το δε πατήρ in illo esse se scit habens originem, τι άλλο σημαίνει, ή ουχί το αιτία είναι φuia nascitur.' Novatianus, de Trin. και αρχή του εξ αυτού γεννηθέντος; c. 3). 'Major itaque Pater filio est, 8. Basil. contra Eunom. I. i. §. 21. et plane major, cui tantum donat esse And the same S. Basil doth not only quantus ipsc est, cui ipnascibilitatis acknowledge this to be true in re esse imaginem sacramento nativitaspect of the divine nature of Christ, tis impertit, quem ex se in forma sua but thinketh the divinity of the Son generat.' S. Hilar.. de Trin. I. ix. c. may be proved from hence: 'Eyw dè 54. “Non præstantem quenquam και εκ ταύτης της φωνής, το ομοούσιον cuiquam genere substantiae, sed subείναι τον υιόν τω πατρί δηλούσθαι πε jectum alterum alteri nativitate naπίστευκα. τας γάρ συγκρίσεις οίδα κυ turæ: Patrem in eo majorem esse ρίως επί των της αυτής φύσεως γινομέ- quod pater est, Filium in eo non miνας άγγελον γαρ αγγέλου λέγομεν μεί norem esse quod filius sit.' Id. de ζονα, και άνθρωπον ανθρώπου δικαιότε Synod. contra Arianos,.c. 64. 'Quis ρον, και πτηνών πτηνού ταχύτερον. ει Patrem non potiorem confitebitur, ut τοίνυν αι συγκρίσεις επί των ομοειδών ingenitum a genito, ut Patrenm a Filio, γίνονται, μείζων δε κατά σύγκρισιν είρη ut eum qui miserit ab eo qui missus ται ο πατήρ του υιού, ομοούσιος το πα est, ut volentem ab eo qui obediat! τρί ο υιός. Ad Cesarienses Epist. 141. et ipse nobis testis est, Pater major Το μείζον μέν έστι της αιτίας, το δε ίσον me est.' Id. de Trin. I. jii. c. 12. . In της φύσεως. S. Greg. Νaz. Οrat. 36. et eo quod in sese sunt, Dei ex Deo diΟrat. 40. ου κατά την φύσιν το μείζον, vinitatem cognosce; in eo vero quod κατά την αιτίαν δέ. Vide S. Epiphan. 1η Pater major est, confessionem paterAncor. c. 17. Ει δέλέγοιτις μείζονα είναι næ auctoritatis intellige.' Id. l. xi. τον πατέρα καθό αίτιος του υιού, ουδε c. 12. And before all these Alexander τούτο αντερούμεν. S. Chrys. Ηomil. in bishop of Alexandria: Το δε αγέννηIoan. 75. *Iσος τοιγαρούν κατά τον της τον τω πατρί μόνον ιδίωμα παρεϊναι δοουσίας λόγον υπάρχων ο υιός τω πατρί, ξάζοντες, άτε δή και αυτού φάσκοντες και όμοιος κατά πάντα, μείζονα αυτόν του σωτήρος, Ο πατήρ μου μείζων μου φησιν ώς άναρχον, έχων αρχών κατά toti. Theodor. Hist. 1. i.c. 4. Lastly, μόνον το εξ ου, εί και σύνδρομον αυτώ we have the testimony of Photius, την ύπαρξιν έχοι. S. Cyril. Aler. The that many of the ancient fathers so saur. c. 11. And Isidore Pelusiota, expounded it: Τήν, ο πατήρ μου μείEpist. 334. I. iii. cites this saying of ζων μου έστι, του ευαγγελίου φωνήν, διαan ancient father: Και το μείζον ίστα φόρως οι πατέρες ημών εξειλήφασιν οι ται η γεννήτωρ, και το ίσον καθο θεός μεν γάρ φασι τω αιτίφ μείζονα ειρήσθαι. και ομοούσιος. So Vigilius professes Epist. 176. “ Equalis Patri; sed mato believe the Son: 'æqualem per jor Pater, quod ipse dedit ipsi omnia, omnia Patri, excepto eo quod ille in et causa est ipsi Filio ut sit, ut isto genitus est, et iste genitus.' De Trin. modo sit.' Victor. Afr. adv. Arium, 1. xi. c.7. p. 285. * Ideo totum quod ].i.in Biblioth. Pair. Lat. t. iv.p 192.
in the blessed Trinity; but still with reference not unto his essence, but his generation, by which he is understood to have his being from the Father, who only hath it of himself, and is the original of all power and essence in the Son. can of mine own self do nothing,” (John v. 30.) saith our Saviour, because he is not of himself;* and whosoever receives his being, must receive his power from another, especially where the essence and the power are undeniably the same, as in God they are. “ The Son then can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do,” because he hath no power of himself, but what the Father gave : + and being he gave him all the power, as communicating his entire and undivided essence, therefore “ what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise,” (John v. 19.) by the same power by which the Father worketh, because he had received the same Godhead in which the Father subsisteth. There is nothing more intimate and essential to any thing than the life thereof, and that in nothing so conspicuous as in the Godhead, where life and truth are so inseparable, that there can be no living God but the true, no true God but the living. “The Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King,' saith the prophet Jeremy (x. 10.): and St. Paul putteth, the Thessalonians in mind, how they “ turned from idols to serve the living and true God.” (1 Thess. i. 9.) Now life is otherwise in God than in the creatures: in him originally, in them derivatively; in him as in the fountain of absolute perfection, in them by way of dependence and participation; our life is in him, but his is in himself: and as “the Father hath life in himself, so hath be given to the Son to have life in himself;” (John v. 26.)I both the same life, both in themselves, * Pater, inquit, major me est ; merito genuit eum.' Id. Tract. in Ioan, 21. §. major, quia solus hic auctor sine au 2. 'Et primum Filium cognosce, com ctore est.' Phæbadius, p. 96. dicitur, Non potest Filius, a se facere
*.Quicquid Filius habet ut faciat, quicquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem faa Patre habet ut faciat. Quare ha cientem. Habes nativitatem Filii, quæ bet a Patre ut faciat ? quia a Patre ab se nihil potest facere nisi videat. In habet ut Filius sit; quia a Patre ha eo autem quod a se nihil potest, innabetut possit; quia a Patre habetut sit.' scibilitatis adimit errorem. Ab se enim S. August. Tract. 20. in Ioan. 9. 4. non potest posse nativitas.' S. Hilar.
+ Non alia potentia est in Filio, et de Trin. l. vii, c. 21. 'Dum non a se alia substantia; sed ipsa est potentia facit, ad id quod agit secundum haquæ et substantia; substantia ut sit, tivitatem sibi Pater auctor est.' lbid. l. potentia ut possit. Ergo quia Filius xi.c.12. ‘Auctorem discrevitoum ait, de Patre est, ideo dixit, Non potest Non potest a se facere: obedientiam Filius a se facere quicquam; quia non significat cum addit: Nisi quodviderit est Filius a se, ideo non potest a se." patrem facientem.' Id. de Syn. c. 75. Ibid. “Totum quod est, de Patre est; I Sicut habet Pater vitam in semettotam quod potest, de Patre est; quon ipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in iam quod potest et est, hoc unum est, semetipso: ut hoc solum intersit inter et de Patre totum est,' Ibid.ş. 8. “Non Patrem et Filium, quia Pater habet potest Filius a se facere quiequam, nisi vitam in semetipso quam nemo ei de- ; quod viderit Patrem facientem: quia dit, Filius autem habet vitam in sede Patre est totus Filius, et tota sub metipso quam Pater dedit.' S. Ar stantia et potentia ejus ex illo est qui gust. Tract. 19. in Ioan. §. 11.