« PreviousContinue »
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 fuffice for the illustration of our third Allertion, 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 bis Son's name? if thou canst tell. 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 than any of the sons of inen; but while any one was believed to be the eternal Son of God, he
knew it wholly impossible to prefer himself before him. Wherefore he * This is often frequently inculcates that blafphemy in his * Alcoran, that God hath no repected there, fuch Son, nor any equal with him and his Disciples have † corrupted the Larly in the Pfalm of David, reading (instead of Thou art my Son, this day have I last chapter, begotten thee,) Thou art my. Prophet, I have educated thee. The later but one, called Alechlas. t žews, acknowledging the words, and the proper literal reading of them, Ex iple Deus apply them so unto David, as that they deny them to belong to Chrift; unus, Deuson
and that upon no other ground, than that by fuch an exposition th nec genuit," avoid the Christians Confession. But by the consent of the ancient Jews, by nec genitus the interpretation of the blessed Apostles, we know these words belong to eft, & cui nullus eft re- Chrift, and in the most proper sense to him alone. a For, unto which of qualis. And the Angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten the Saracani. thee? as the Apostle argues. And if he had spoken them unto any other ca set forth by" Svíburgius man, as they were fpoken unto him, the Apostle's Argument had been none mentions this at all. as the first principle of Mahumetanism, "Ort eis Isós ist, woming to the Orav, pite yfuvrbeis, páte sfuvécus. And Joannes Siculus and Gregorius Oedrenus relate how Mahomet gave command, "Eva Mórov Tregex webv geov, raj. Xerson timãvais dolor tg Jeð ý, oxi hór &i. And we read of his ridiculous History, that Christ, after his ascension into Heaven, was accused by God for calling himself bis Son, and that'he denied it, as being so named only by men without any authority from him. "Oro áviadávla À Xesör os ó regrov matrasy • Jens, réywv, 12 'Incă, Cu Gires ♡ sólov tõtov, "Otı yös eri tõ Fiğ xj 986s. X ST Exeion "Izrős, "OTI ox imov dlose è aigmover even öğrós Cocaa'oi dv@gwton délyon öti Tor dólov rôtoy.
† Alfirozabadius in his kamuz: Dictum Dei omnipotentis ad Jesum, (cui propitius fit & pacem concedat Deus) Tu eft Nabiya Propheta meus, ego walladtoca, fove te; at dixerunt Christiani, Tu es Bonaya, Filius meus, ego wallado toca, te genui. Longè eft fupra hæc Deus. And to the same purpose Ebnol Athir : In Evangelio dixit Ifæ, ego waladtoca, i. e. educavi te; at Christiani, dempta litera Lam altera, ipsum ei filium ftatuerunt. Qui longè elatus eft sue per ea quæ dicunt. Whereas then the Apostles attributed those words of the Psalm to Christ, thé Mahumet ans who could not deny but they were spoken of the Messias, were forced to corrupt the Text: and for that they pretend the emi-. nency and excellency of the Godhead, as if it were beneath the Majesty of God to beget a Sön, or be a Father: And indeed whosoever would bring in another Prophet greater than Christ, as he was than Mofes, must do so.
# 1 fay the later Jews To attribute those words to David, as if they belonged not to the Messias; but the ancient Jews understood them of the Chrift; as appeareth not only out of those places in the Evangelists where the Chrift, and the Son of God are synonymous; but also by the testimony of the later Jews themselves, who have confessed no less. So Rabbi
ærernus, qui uilu lilal upon 10 C
ויש מפרשים זה המו מור על גוג ומגוג והמשיח ,David Kimchi in the end of his Commentaries on the Jecond Palm
31130127 wnio Y31 nown yoo NR Some interpret this plalin of Gog and Magog, and the anointed is Messias the King; and so our Doctors of happy memory have expounded it. And Rabbi Solomon Jarchi not only confefjeth that the ancient Rabbins did interpret it of the Messias, but News the reason why the later Fews understood it rather of David, that thereby they mighi the better answer the Argument of the Christians deduced from thence : 111an : ippy 719 3y 17010) Vonnaiwno tynun 1950 AUD 750 y payo na 1677 our Doctors have expounded it of the Mellias : but as to the literal sense, and for the answering Hereticks, (that is, in their Language, Christians) it is rather to be interpreted of David, in his own. person. a Heb. I. 5.
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 begetrech a son, that is, produceth another man of the fame 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. 1. 28. and by the continuation of the same blessing, the succession of human ge- and 5. 3. nerations hath been continued. This then is the known * confession of Kami
01* Korvovireaall men ; that a Son is nothing but another produced by his Father in the xt wãos reais fame nature with him. But God the Father hath communicated to the Word w rodidoxiou the same Divine Essence by which he is God; and consequently he is of the money to one fame Nature with him, and thereby the perfect image and fimilitude of him, wras isi có and therefore his proper Son. In humane generations we may conceive rigXvqxóti se two kinds of similitude ; one in respect of the internal nature, the other Phot. Ep. I. in reference to the external form or figure. The former fimilitude is essen- This is in the tial and necessary ; it being impossible a man should beget a son, and that ar
ir language of son not be by nature a man : the latter accidental; not only sometimes woñous éte egy the child representing this, sometimes the other parent, but also oftentimes
S São, quo Cãoz, neither. The similitude then, in which the propriety of generation is pre- 9070 TOMTO? seryed, is that which consisteth in the identit y of nature : and this Com- And S. Bafil. munication of the Divine Essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a fincminn.
lib. 2. cont. fufficient foundation of such a similitude ; from whence Christ is called, anime të re a the image of God, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of interneto his perfon.
púrum uexw agager. Etiamsi filius hominis, homo, in quibusdam similis, in quibufdam sit dissimilis patri; tamen quia ejusdem fubftantiæ est, negari verus filius non poteft, & quia verus eft filius, negari ejusdem substantiæ non poteft. S. Aug. contra Maximin. c. 13. 42 Cor. 4. 4. Heb. 1. 3.
Nor is this Communication of the Divine Essence only the proper generation of the Son, but we must acknowledge it far 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 Creature, fubstracting 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 subltance 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 * Tár?c i bra they come to the perfection of nature, then become prolifical; in God eter-mom Tiles
nouvã m 3 ce nal' perfection Theweth his eternal foecundity. And that which is most re- Fixesov died seg
idion gfová. Eufeb. de Prep. Evang. ex Plotino. 'Ay@zám wr ne S door to co xeøvæ glov@y, ale ról áreais pórows. Jeg ö äidior va Skórnua, els te dod tihenov qp Qúrews. S. Athan. Orat. 2. This was it which so much troubled the Arians, when they heard the Catholicks constantly asserting, ári feos, sino yjós. cua wa7nz, ámu yós.
markable in human generations the Son is of the same nature with the fa ther, and yet is not the fame man ; because though he hath an essence of the fame kind, yet he hath not the fame essence; the power of generation depending on the first prolifical benediction, Increase and multiply, it mult be made by way of multiplication, and thus every Son becomes another man. But the Divine Ellence, being by reason of its fimplicity not fubject to divi. fion, and in respect of its infinity uncapable of multiplication, is fo communicated as not to be multiplied ; infomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the same nature, but is also the fame God. The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Ifaac man: but Abraham one man, Ifaac another man; not so the Father one God, and the Word another, but the Father and the Word both the fame God. Being then the : propriety of generation is founded in the essential fimilitude of the Son unto the Father, by reason of the same which he receiveth from him ; being the full perfect nature of God is communicated unto the Word, and that more intimately aud 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 which Christ is, and is called the true and proper Son of God. This was the foundation of St. Peter's Con
fession, thou art the son of the living God; this the ground of our Saviour's * Multum di- * distinction, I go unto my Father, and to your Father. Hence did S. John fat inter do- raise a verity, more than only a negation of falsity, when he said, we are in minationem the true son : for we which are in him are true, not false fons, we are not & conditionem, inter as the true Son. Hence did S. Paul draw an argument of the infinite love generation of God toward man, in that he spared not his own proper Son. Thus nem & adoptionem, inter nave we un
I have we sufficiently shewed, that the eternal communication of the Divine fubftantiam Essence by the Father to the Word was a proper generation by which Christ & gratiam: Jefus always was the true and proper Son of God: which was our fourth Ideoque hic non permixtè Allertion. nec passim dicitur, Afcendo ad Patrem nostrum aut Deum noftrum ; fed ad Patrem meum ex Patrem veftrum, ad Deum meum o ad Deum vestrum. Aliter enim illi Deus Pater eft, aliter nobis. Illum fiquidem natura coæquat, misericordia humilat: nos verò natura profternit, misericordia erigit. Capreolus Carthag. Epift.
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 enquire 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 in* This was the terpretation of the ancient * Hereticks, who would have the restraining term fallacy which Eunomius
nich only to belong, not to the Son, but to the Father; as if the Only-begotten endeavoured were no more than begotten of the Father only. Which is both contrary to put upon to the language of the Scriptures, and the common custom of men, who the Church, as appears.by use it not for him who is begotten of one, but for him who alone is begotten those words of of any. bis delivered and Conferenced Secondly, We must by no means admit the exposition of the † later Hereby S. Bafil, Aldi Tšto g5 pnci, povogluais, étolda a ga móvx sñ 75 ágfors to deveéped gform Beis tej x2000 Bis TERH6767@gélovey iwreyos, as if nouglon's were only a go póry, and unigenitus were nothing else but genitus ab uno. This S. Basil refuteth. copiously : First, from the Language of the Scriptures and the usage of mankind; Ale wareggia lui mei to o voject tô movesfuis cnaxóeseci, wuego te th távogár wy (wideseen, og These m süre bien de regepas wapgedoow neem búva wira F Algérolas. Μονογυης γδ εκ ο παρα μόνα γιόρG-, αλλ' ο μόνο πονηθείς, και τη κοινή χρήση προσα/ορ σε 3. Secondly, By a retorr peculiar to that Heresie, which held ihe Son of God might be called shoot his as well as a fornbeis, created as well as begotten, and confequently might be as properly named μονόκλιτG- ας μονοθυής. Ει μη παρα το μόνο γεγθυνώα. αλλά Δε η σαρα Móv8 Moroglurs cheng, Tawo do iso xceló Cs có emlíay To regfuvža, no óxo sj Moróx7150v awitiv óvonalas; Thirdly, by a particular instance, Mewing the absurdity of such an interpretation, for that thereby no man could properly be called povo
φυής, becaufe not begotten of one, our two parts. Μονογιης 3, ως έoικεν, ανθρώπων δεις και γε τ υμέτερον λόfoν, δια ο και Γωδυασμά πάσιν άρχαν τ' βύνησιν" έδε η Σάρρα μήτης μονογνος ώ παιδος, διότι όχι μόνη αυτων, αλλά με το 'Αβρααμ, έτεκνώσαλο. t The Socinians make very much of this Notion, and apply it so unto Christ, as that thereby they might
Avoid all necesity of an eternal generation. So the Racovian Catechism: Causa cur Christo ista attributa (fc. proprium ex unigenitum Dei Filium esse), competant, hæc eft , quod inter omnes Dei filios & præcipuus fit, & Deo chariffimus: quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abrahamo chariffimus & hæres exftitit, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. 11. 17. licet fratrem Isinaelemi habuerit; & Solomon unigenitus coram matre sua, licet plures ex eadem matre fratres fuerint, I Paral.. 1, 2, 3, &e. And that this might be applied to the interpretation of the Creed, Schlictingius bath inserted it as a material Observation ; Nam hic unicus feu unigena filius nominatur, qui cæteris longe charior est Patri, longèque præftantior; and confirms the Interpretation with those iwo testimonies concerning Ifaac and Solomon. · But certainly this Observation of their,s is vain, or what else they say is falfe. For if Ckrift be called the Son of God, because conceived by the Holy Ghoft, and none else was ever fo conceived, then is he the only begotten by virtue of his generation. And if ré ther is he not the only begotten as Ifaac and Solomon were, that is, by the affection and prelation of their parents. Or if Chrift were the Only-begotten as Isaac and Solomon were, then was he not conceited after a fingular manner. for the brethren of Solomon no way differed from him in their generation. .' It is plain therefore that this interpretation was in venied, that when all the rest should fail, they might flick to ihis.
ticks, who take the Only-begotten to be nothing else but the most beloved of all the Sons; because I raac was called the only Son of Abraham, when we know that he had Ishmael befide, and Solomon said to be the only-begotten before his Mother, when David had other Children even by the Mother of Solomon. For the only-begotten 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; yer with this order, that he is therefore beloved, be i cause 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 thefe 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, Ifaac was called the only Son of Abra- . ham for some other reason than because he was fingularly 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, Sarab shall have a fon, and Gen. 18. 14: then, In Ifaac hall thy feed be called. So that Ifaac may well be called and 21. 12. the only son of Abraham in reference to the promise, as the Apostle speaks expreflly; By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Ifaac, and be Heb. 11.07. that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten Son. Avoiding therefore these two expositions, as far fhort of the true notion of the only. begotten; we must look upon it in the most proper, full and fignificant fenfe, as signifying a Son so begotten as none other is, was, or can be': so as the term restricãive only shall have relation not only to the * Father generating, + but also to the Son begotten, and to the manner of the Generation. 'Tis would have ir true, the Father fpake from Heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in only a Sai piówhom I am we fed; and thereby we are to understand, that whosoever 8.1
and that who have 8, in relation
oever to the Father of us are beloved by the Father are so beloved in and through the Son. In only. S. Bafil the famë manner Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God; and as many of us ferus that ne as God hath bestowed his love upon, that we should be called the Sons of and best het
www.way proper, God, are all brought into that near relation by our fellowship with him, Morogfenis is who is by a far more near relation the natural and eternal Son.
not he which ο μόνο με
μόνος γεγβύνη. S. Cyril adds these two aggi móve and nóv@ together, in relation to the Father and the Son: Morogfun's res púor å én dit wulogs whóras ou nóra, óri Mów @ ('n Mórs vegfóng to walogs, Epift. 1. ad Regin. As Ruffinus doth in Unicus : Ideo subjungit Unicum hunc esse Filium Dei, Unus enim de uno nascitur. Expos. Symb. S. Greg. Naz. adds to these two a third, in respect of the manner : Movogfenis , ö% ört món 'n pove, rj kórs ára Öto s Movilearws ór ws tá Capísele. So be something obscurely and corruptly, but plainly enough in Damascene, who aims often to deliver himself in the words of Nazianzen: ΛίΓε3 μονογοής ότι μόνο- και μόνο τα πατρος μόνως έχωνήθη εν δ ομοιώ) επίρ βύνησις τη τε και τι θες vrvou, adi yene ise ära jos 78 Ješ.
Having thus declared the interpretation of the word, that, properly, as Primogeniture consisteth in Prelation, fo 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 Affertion, Thewing that the Divine Essence was peculiarly communicated to the Word, by which he was begotten the Son of God, and ncver any was so begotten beside that Son. ;
And here we meet with two difficulties : On thewing 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 a Filiation: The other, alledging that the fame Divine Essence may be communicated to another beside the Word, and not only that it may, but that it is for 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 fufficient foundation of the relation of Sonship. These two objections being answered, nothing will remain farther to demonstrate this last Affertion.
For the first, we acknowledge that others are frequently called the Sons
of God, and that we call the fame God our Father which Christ called bis ; Heb. 2. 11. both he that sanctifieth, and they who are fančtified are all of one, for
which cause he is not ashamed to call us brethren; we confess that those * Cor. 4.15. whom S. Paul* hath begotten through the Gospel may well be termed the 'Ev 78 Xersão
There only begotten of God, whose feed remaineth in them : 'but withal, we affirm that buay sekis iya this our Regeneration is of a nature wholly different from the generation of υμάς έγχόνησα. . i John 3. 9.
you the Son. We are first t generated, and have our natural being; after that nãs i noglo regenerated, and so receive a spiritual renovation, and by virtue thereof an
in to inheritance incorruptible : whereas the Generation of Christ admits no ReBig cucelíay de oro generation, he becoming at once thereby God and Son and Heir of all. The ewigua auto state of Sonihip which we come into is but of adoption, thewing the Genecu cu Toit pelbet ration by which we are begotten to be bur metaphorical: whereas Christ is presly, 1 Joh. so truly begotten, fo properly the natural Son of God, that his † Generation 5.1. nas o wa clearly excludeth the name of Adoption; and not only fo, but when he besowy oro 'ImSorinoxer- cometh the Son of man, even in his humanity refusech the name of an adoptsòs, in 75 018 ed Son. For a when the fulnefs of time was come, God sent forth his Son repunor pre made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under puurhout, the Law, (not that he, but) that we might receive the adoption of Jons. dyante ng He then whose Generation is totally different from ours whom he calleth γες γωνη μονο. e uis-Brethren; he whom in the sacred Scriptures the Spirit nameth the true Son,
quis credit Jefun effe Chriftum illum, ex Deo genitus eft; & quifquis diligit eum qui genuit, diligit etiam eum qui ex eo genitus elt.
Nos genuit Deus ut filii ejus limus, quos fecerat ut homines effemus. Unicum autein genuit, non for lùm ut filius effet quod Pater non eft, fed etiam ut Deus effet, quod & Pater eft. S. Aug. de Cons. Evang. 1.2.6. 3. In the Book of Celsus there was a Jew introduced speaking thus to Chrift, Ei rõmo déters, ori wās ávögwr@ xe Iriav a zývacy gesoras yós és. Jei, ai do Cù baar 219.pegas; who is thus answered by Origen; negs ev içõpp, oto was , as ö Roma
ώνόμασε, μηκέτι σε φόβο παιδαγέλμα, άλλα δι αυτο m καλών αρέλυφ», γός εςι θες» στG- και πολλά και μακρά Αλαφέρα • Weitis To Alce Fi digelli xammalizov 7 y Tš Jið,6515 newegei wenyń Tis xj dexon T TORSTW turneeves. Orig. adv. Celluin, l 1.
# First, it is most certain that the Word of God, as the Word, is not the adopted, but the natural son of God. Non eft Dei Filius Deus falsus, nec Deus adoptivus, nec Deus nuncupativus, fed Deus verus. S. Hilar. de Trin. 2. 5. Hic etiam Filius Dei naturâ est Filius, non adoptione. Concil. Tolet. 11. 'Voos rõ rõ isi púottxj 8 Jérh, furnbris 'n wolegs. s.Cyril. Hierofol. Čatech. 11. and again, Dúx ini tô speel ov70 sig có elvon you wagafatev, od on the prezi on to ois vodecim Ingeviernida av o waliis aidiws igfóveot xj erexposés as you ivæ póvor, adapor 8x + xorta. This hath been fo generally con fessed, that Felix and Elipandus, who were condemned for maintaining Christ as man to be the adopted Son of God, did acknowledge it, as appeared by the beginning of their Book. Confitemur & credimus Deum Dei Filium, ante omnia tempora fine initio ex Patre genitum, coæternum & confubftantialem, non adoptione red genere. Secondly, It is also certain, that the man Christ Jefus taken personally is the natural, not the adopted son of God; because the man Christ Jefris is no other person than the Word, who is the eternal and natural Son, and by sublisting 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 thres expressed, partly in the words of S. Auguftine, partly in their own additions. Confitemur & credimus eum factum ex muliere, factum lub lege; non genere effe Filium Dei, sed adoptione, non natura, sed gratiâ: 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 Mafs de Cena Domini, Qui per adoptivi hominis passionem duin suo non indulfit corpori; and in the mass de Afcenfione Domini , Hodie Salvator nofter, per adoptionem carnis, sedem repetivit Deitatis. To this the Synod opposed their determination in Sacrofyllabo; Quod ex te nafcetur fanctam vocabitur filius Dei, non adoptivus sed verus, non alienus sed proprius. And again; Porro adoptivus dici non poteft qui alienus est ab eo à quo dicitur adoptatus ; & gratis ei adoptio tribuitur, quoniam non ex debito, fed ex indulgentia tantummodo adoptio præftatur : ficut nos aliquando cum effemus peccando filii iræ, alieni erainus à Deo, per proprium & verum Filium, qui non eguit adoptione, adoptio nobis filiorum donata cft. And of this then give us the true ground in the Synodic Epifle; Unitas personæ quæ eft in Dei filio & filio Virginis adoptionis tollit injuriam. a Gal. 4.4, 5.