« PreviousContinue »
the Father sometimes his own, sometimes his beloved, but * never his adopt- *Legi & releed Son; he who by those proper and peculiar appellations is distinguish'd jesum Filium from us, who can claim no higher filiation than that which we receive by Dei nusquam the privilege of Adoption ; he is truly the Only-begotten Son of God, not-adoptione inwithstanding the fame God hath begotten us by his Word; and the reason Jasier Com. why he is fo; because the Divine Essence was communicated unto him in his in Ep. ad Rom. natural and eternal Generation, whereas only the Grace of God is conveyed Curetimes':anto us in our Adoption. Indeed if we were begotten of the Essence of God doptivum as Christ was, or he were only by the Grace of God #adopted, as we are,
Chriftum Dothen could hé by no propriety of speech be called the Only Son, by reason minare?" Diof so many brethren : but being we cannot aspire unto the first, nor he de- co tibi, quia fcend unto the latter, it remaineth we acknowledge him, notwithstanding cum dicono: the first difficulty, by virtue of his natural and peculiar Generation to be minârunt, nec the Only begotten Son.
sancta Dei &
Catholica Ecclefia consuetudinem habuit fic eum appellare. Synod. Epift. Contil
. Francoford. From whence they charge all those to whom
they write that Synodic Epiftle, that they should be farisfied with such expressions as they found in the Scriptures : Intelligite, fratres, quæ legitis, & nolite nova & incognita nomina fingere, led quæ in S. Scripturâ inveniuntur te
7s. Aug. hath observed that s. Saul made use of yooecia, that he might distinguish the filiation of Christ from
At verò etiam nos, quibus dedit Deus poteftatem filios ejus fieri, de natura atque fubftantia sua non nos genuit, ficut unicum Filium, fed utique dele&tione adoptavit. Quo verbo Apostolus fæpe uti non ob aliud intelligitur, nifi ad difcernendum Unigenitum, De confenf. Evang. 1. 2.6. 3. And s. Ambrof. takes notice that the name of true destroyeth that of adopted: Adoptivum filium non dicimus filium effe natura, fed eum dicimus natura esse filium qui verus eft filius, De Incar. Sacr. c. 8. Si unicus, quomodo adoptivus, dum multi funt adoptivi filii? Unicus itaque de multis non poteft dici. Council. Francof. Quod fi etiam Unigenitus Filius factus dicitur ex gratia, non vere genitus ex natura, proculdubio nomen & veritatem Unigeniti perdidit
, poftquam fratres habere jam cæpit : privatur enim hujus verita: te nominis, fi in Unigenito non est de Patre veritas naturalis. Fulgentius ad Thrafim. l. 3. c. 3. Si divina illa Filii sempiternaque nativitas non de natura Dei Patris, sed ex gratia, creditur subftitille, non debet Unigenitus vocari, fed tantummodo genitus. Quoniam ficut ei nomen geniti largitas adoptionis paternæ contribuit, fic eum ab Unige. niti nomine nobis quoque tributa communio paternæ adoptionis exclufit. Unigenitus enim non vocatur, quamvis genitus pofsit vocari, cum genitis. 16. c. 4.
But though neither Men nor Angels be begotten of the fubftance 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 blesfed 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 fame Essence from the Father which the Word receiverh, and thereby becometh the fame God with the Father and theWord: but though the Essence be the fame which is communicated, yet there is a difference in the communication ; the Word being God by Generation, the * Non omne Holy Ghost by procession: and though * every thing which is begotten id quod proproceedeth, yet every thing which proceedeth is not begotten. Where- cedit nascitur; fore in the Language of the sacred Scriptures and the † Church, the Holy quod nascitur Ghost is never faid to be begotten , but to proceed from the Father ; procedit
. S. nor is he ever called the Son, but the Gift of God.
Eve was produced Max. 1.3. our of Adam, and in the same nature with him, and yet was not born c. 14. who of him, nor was the truly the Daughter of Adam ; whereas Seth proceed-Folieriche line ing from the same person in the fimilitude of the fame nature, was truly and fame arguproperly the Son of Adam. And this difference was not in the nature pro- ment
, Quæris duced, but in the manner of production ; Eve descending not from Adam fubftantia Pa
tris eft Filius de fubftantia Patris est etiam Spiritus Sanctus, cur unus Filius fit, & alius non fit Filius. Ego respondeo, five capias, sive non capias ; De Patre est Filius, de Patre est Spiritus S. sed ille genitus eft, iste procedens. Torrã TýT8 T.@avaτερον το φάναι, εξ εκείνα γε τα αβωνήτε φιούται Λόον και το "Aftoν Πνεύμα" τ, ως λόfoν, κ τα νε ξινώμομον το 3, ως Πνεύμα, εκπος δόμδυον ξυμπρόαση και το Λοώ το Πνεύμα, και ξυγΓενώ μόνον αλλα ξωών και παρομαρτάν, και εκπορό ρθρου. Τheodorei. Serm. 2. P. 504. † Nunquam fuit non Pater, à quo Filius natus, à quo Spiritus Sanctus non natus, quia non cft Filius. Gennad. D. Ecclef. Dog. Deus Pater innascibilis non ex aliquo, Deus Filius Unigenitus ex aliquo, hoc eft, ex Pa tre Spiritus S. innascibilis ex aliquo, hoc eft, ex Patre. Ifaac. lib. Fidei. Quod neque natum neque factum eft, Spiritus 6. eft, qui à Patre & Filio procedit. S. Ambrof. in Symb.
Hom. de Fide.
as Seth did, by way of generation, that is, by natural fecundity. The Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father in the same nature with him, the Word proceedeth from the fame person in the same fimilitude of nature also; but the Word proceeding is the Son, the Holy Ghost is not, because the first procession is by way of Generation; the other is not. As therefore the Regeneration and Adoption of man, so the Procession of the Holy Ghost doth no way prejudice the eternal Generation, as pertaining solely to the Son of God.
Seeing then our Saviour Jesus Christ had a real being and existence be. .fore he was conceived by the Virgin Mary; seeing the being which he had antecedently to that Conception was not any created, but the one and indivisible Divine Essence; feeing he had not that Divinity of himself originally, as the Father, but by communication from him ; seeing the communication of the same Essence unto him was a proper Generation; we cannot
but believe that the same Jesus Christ is the begotten Son of God: and fee*'s on
ing the same Essence was never so by way of Generation communicated * unto Los Queixas. any, we must also acknowledge him the Only-begotten, distinguish'd from the σαρός: ως 3
Holy Ghost, as Son; from the adopted Children, as the natural Son. Morogfons, önce The necessity of the belief of this part of the Article, that Jesus Christ is Iz to the proper and natural Son of God, begotten of the substance of the Father, Curte@wv, ģ
and by that singular way of Generation the Only Son, appeareth first in the ertopiks ses confirmation of our Faith concerning the Redemption of Mankind. For this it c9". S. Bafil. doth thew such an excellency and dignity in the person of the Mediator as
will assure us of an infinite efficacy in his actions, and value in his fufferings. * Heb. 19. 4. We know a it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats Jhonld take a
way sins : and we may very well doubt how the blood of him, who hath no other nature than that of man, can take away the sins of other men ; there
ap: pearing no fuch difference as will shew a certainty in the one, and an imporby Cor.6.20. sibility in the other. But since we may be bbought with a price, well may we
believe the blood of Christ sufficiently precious, when we are assured that it is 3 Acts 20- 28: the a blood of God: nor can we question the efficacy of it in purging our conHeb. 9. 14. science from dead works, if we believe Christ offered up himself through the
Eternal Spirit. If we be truly sensible of our sins, we must acknowledge that in every one we have offended God; and the gravity of every offence must needs increase proportionably to the dignity of the party offended in respect of the offender; because the more worthy any person is, the more reverence is due unto him, and every injury tendech to his dishonour : but between God and man there is an infinite disproportion ; and therefore every offence committed against him must be esteemed as in the highest degree of injury. Again, as the gravity of the offence beareth proportion to the person offended; so the value of reparation ariseth from the dignity of the person satisfying; because the fatisfaction consistech in a reparation of that honour which by the injury was eclipsed; and all honour doth increase proportionably as the person yielding it is honourable. If then by every sin we have offended God, who is of infinite eminency, according unto which the injury is aggravated ; how Shall we ever be secure of our reconciliation unto God, except the person who hath undertaken to make the reparation be of the fame infinite dignity; so as the honour rendred by his obedience may prove proportionable to the offence and that dishonour which arose from our disobedience? This scruple is no otherwise to be satisfied than by a belief in such a Mediator as is the Only-begotten Son of God, of the fame substance with the Father, and consequently of the same power and dignity with the God whom by our fins we have offended.
Secondly, The belief of the eternal Generation of the Son, by which he is the same God with the Father, is necessary for the confirming and encou
and 9. 23.
* The emphasis
& Servies ei,
THS. and that
raging a Christian in ascribing that honour and glory unto Christ which is due unto him. For we are commanded to give that Worship unto the Son which is truly and properly Divine ; the same which we give unto God the Father, who hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should John 5. 22, honour the Son even as they honour the Father. As it was represented to S. John in a Vision, when he heard every creature which is in heaven, and Rev. 5. 13. on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, saying, blessing, honour, glory, and power be unto him that fitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb, for ever and ever. Again, we are cominanded to fear the Lord our God, and to * serve him ; and Deus. 6. 3; 4. that with such an emphasis, as by him we are to understand him alone, be
appears in ıhis, cause the Lord our God is one Lord. From whence if any one arose among that it is not the Jews teaching under the title of a Prophet to worship any other beside him for God, the judgment of the Rabbins was, that notwithstand-bu Jayn innt ing all the Miracles which he could work, though they were as great as
& ipfi fervies,
a Mofes wrought, he ought immediately to be strangled, because the evidence peculiar reof this truth, that one God only must be worshipped, is above all evidence friction as of fense. Nor must we look upon this Precept as valid only under the Law, by iher Chalas if then there were only one God to be worshipped, but since the Gof- dee Paraph. pel we had another ; for our Saviour hath commended it to our observation, by making use of it against the Devil in his temptation, saying, - Get & in conipethee hence, Satan, for it is written, Thori shalt worship the Lord thy God, itu ejus ferand him only shalt thou serve. If then we be obliged to worship the God LXX. x wires of Ifrael only, if we be also commanded to give the same Worship to the moon malesuSon which we give to him ; it is necessary that we should believe that the
restriction apSon is the God of Israel. bWhen the Scripture bringeth in the first-begot- proved by our ten into the world, it faith, Let all the Angels of God worship him; but Saviour, Mat. then the fame Scripture calleth that first-begotten < Jehovah, and the Lord Mofes Maim. of the whole earth. For a man to worlhip that for God which is not praf, in seGod, knowing that it is not God, is affected and gross Idolatry ; to wor-a Mar. 4.To. ship that as God which is not God, thinking that it is God, is not the same Heb. 1.6. degree, but the same sin: to worship him as God who is God, thinking Pfal. 97.5; that he is not God, cannot be thought an act in the formality void of Idois comments latry. Left therefore while we are obliged to give unto him Divine wor- ist, gde usar fhip, we should fall into that sin which of all others we ought most to ab- 529 itens wegs hor, it is no less necessary that we should believe that Son to be that ever- vwricev. Theod. nal God, whom we are bound to worship, and whom only we should serve.
1. 5. 6. 2. Thirdly, Our belief in Christ as the eternal Son of God is necessary to raise us unto a thankful acknowledgment of the infinite love of God appearing in the sending of his only begotten Son into the world to die for fin
This love of God is frequently extolled and admired by the Apostles. God so loved the world, faith S. John, that he gave_his only be-d John 3.16.
. God commended his love towards us, faith S. Paul, in that ° Rom. while we were yet sinners Christ died for us; in that he spared not his and 8. 32. own Son, but delivered him up for us all
. f In this, faith S. John again, fJohn 4. 9. was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his 10. only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. If we look upon all this as nothing else but that God should cause a man to be born after another manner than other men, and when he was so born after a peculiar manner, yet a mortal man should deliver him to die for the sins of the world; I see no such great expression of his love in this way of redemption, more than would have appeared if he had redeemed us any other way.' 'Tis true indeed, that the reparation of lapsed man is no act of absolute necessity in respect of God, but that he hath as
freely designed our Redemption as our Creation ; considering the misery from which we are redeemed, and the happiness to which we are invited, we cannot but acknowledge the singular love of God, even in the act of Redemption it self; but yet the Apostles have raised that consideration higher, and placed the choicest mark of the love of God in the chusing luch means and performing in that manner our reparation, by sending his Only-begotten into the World; by not sparing his own Son, by giving and delivering him up to be scourged and crucified for us; and the estimation of this act of God's love must necessarily increase proportionably to the dignity of the Son so sent into the World; because the more worthy the person of Christ before he suffered, the greater his condescension unto such a suffering condition ; and the nearer his relation to the Father, the greater his love to us for whose fakes he sent him so to suffer. Wherefore to derogate any way from the Person and Nature of our Saviour before he suffered, is so far to undervalue the love of God, and consequently, to come short of that acknowledgement and thanksgiving which is due unto him for it. If then the sending of Christ into the World were the highest act of the love of God which could be expressed; if we be obliged unto a return of thankfulness some way correspondent to such infinite love ; if such a return can never be made without a true sense of that infinity, and a sense of that infinity of love cannot consist without an apprehension of an infinite dignity of nature in the person fent ; then it is absolutely necessary to believe that Christ is fo the Only-begotten Son of the Father, as to be of the same substance with him, of Glory equal, of Majesty co-eternal.
By this discourse in way of explication every Christian may understand what it is he says, and express his mind how he would be understood, when he makerh this brief Confession, I believe in Christ the only Son of God. For by these words he must be thought to intend no less than this; I do profess to be fully assured of thiş assertion as of a most certain, infallible and neceffary truth, That Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Messias, is the true, proper and natural Son of God, begotten of the substance of the Father ; which being incapable of divifion or multiplication ; is so really and totally communicated to him, that he is of the fame Essence with him, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. And as I affert him to be the Son, so do I also exclude all other persons from that kind of Sonship, acknowledging none but him to be begotten of God by that proper and natural Generation; and thereby excluding all which are not begotten, as it is a generation; all which are laid to be begotten, and are called Sons, but are fo only by adoption, as 'tis natural. And thus I believe in God the Father, and in Jefius Christ his Only Son,
Fter our Saviour's Relation founded upon his eternal Generation, fol* For though
loweth his Dominion, * in all ancient Creeds, as the necessary consein the first quent of his Filiation. For as we believe him to be the Son of God, so must Rules of Faith mentioned by
we acknowledge him to be our Lord, because the Only Son must of necessity Irenæus and be Heir and Lord of all in his Father's House; and all others which bear the Tertullian we name of Sons, whether they be men or Angels, if compared to him must find not Do
not be looked upon as Sons of God, but as Servants of Christ. ftrum, yet in all the Creeds afterwards we find those words; probably inserted because denied by the Valentinians, of whom Irenæus, Δια τέτο Σωληρα λεΓεσιν, έδε γδ Κύριον ονομάζον αυτόν θέλεσι, 1. 1. τ. Ι.
Three things are necessary, and more. cannot be, for a plenary explication of this part of the Article. First, the proper notation of the word 'Lord in the Scripture-phrase, or language of the Holy Ghost : Secondly, the full fignification of the same in the adequate latitude of the sense, as it belongs to Christ: Thirdly, the application of it to the person making confession of his Faith, and all others whom he involves in the same condition with himself, as saying, not my, nor their, but Our Lord.
First then, we must observe that not only Christ is the Lord, but that this title doth fo properly belong unto him, that the Lord alone absolutely taken is * frequently used by the Evangelists and Apostles determinately for #Mark 16. 19; Chrift, insomuch that the Angels observe that Dialect, a Come, see the place 20. Luke 12. where the Lord lay. Now for the true Notation of the word, it will not
42. and 24.
34. be so necessary to enquire into the use or origination of the Greek, much Porn 4. 1. less into the Etymology of the correspondent Latin, as to search into the and 6.23. Notion of the Jews, and the Language of the Scriptures, according unto and 20:2, 18, which the Evangelists and Apostles Ipake and wrote.
20, 25. and And first, it cannot be denied but that the word which we translate the 21. 7. Acts 9. Lord, was used by the Interpreters of the Old Testament sometimes for 15, 17, 27, #men with no relation unto any other than human Dominion. And as it 31, 42.andı 1. was by the Translators of the Old, so is it also by the Pen-men of the 16, 24. and * New. But it is most certain that Christ is called Lord in another notion Kiel. than that which signifies any kind of human Dominion ; because, as fo, Mat. 28. 6. b there are many Lords, but he is in that notion · Lord which admits of no ver Thall.com more than one. They are only a Masters according to the flesh; He e the sider the fisLord of glory, the Lord from heaven, King of Kings, and Lord of all nification of
ΚύρμG- in the other Lords,
think he will Scarce find any footsteps of the same in the ancient Greeks. In our Sacred Writ it is the frequent name of God, whereas I imagine it is not to be found so used by any of the old Greek Authors. Julius Pollux, whose business is to observe what words and phrases may be properly made use of in that language, tells us the Gods may be called Os or Aasvoves but mentions not Kiero, as neither proper, nor any name of God with them at all. Nor did they anciently use it in their OEconomicks; where their constant terms were not Kúere but decórrs, and dğa and they had then another kind of notion of it, as appears by the complaint of the servant in Aristophanes, Tô Cárcera gs eõ ì xúelor 'regelev o dabuwv, ánna iwonpekov. In which words, if they were interpreted by the Scripture usage, Kúere would signifie the Master, and iwmpefc the person bought, that is, the servant; whereas the place requires an interpretation wholly contrary; for iamulia is not here Tocarolyo, but loodras, or sinoc wc, as the Scholiast, Suidas and Mofchopulus have observed, that is, nct the Servant, but the Master who bought him. And though those Grammarians bring no other place to prove this active signification beside this of Ariftophanes, by which means it might be still questionable whether they had rightly interpreted him without any authority; yet Phrynichus will sufficiently secure us of this sense. 'Etuxov iwrnus oixicy alegvi cvτώθα δεν έχωρα * Από τα τρία μψει το εωνη μου δόκιμον. 'ΕωνημέρG- then here is he which buyeth, shar 15, the Master : and consequently xúero not the Master, but the Servant bought, whom he supposeth originally to have power over his own body. Indeed it was not only distinguished, but in a manner opposed to decorns: as appears by that observation of Ammonius, thus delivered by Eustathius in Odys. z. Kúero gwarròs rj yao avrie se warme, decoórns ö cięługaría
# As 1198 is generally translated xúero when it signifieth Lord or Master in respect of a servant or inferior. So Sarah called her husband, Gen. 18.12. 1 Pet. 3.6. so Eleezer his Master Abrahamn, Gen. 24. frequently. Thus Rachel faluted her Father Laban, Gen. 31. 35. and Jacob his Brother Esau, Gen. 33. 8. Potiphar is the riera of Joseph whom he bought, Gen. 39. 2. Or. and Jofeph in power is to saluted by his brethren, Gen.42. 10. and acknowledged by his Servant, 44.5. The general name in the law of Moses for servant and master is zaws and ries@, Exod. 21.2, 4. It is indeed so plain that the ancient Jews used this word to signifie no more than humane power, that we find and the name of man so transated, as i Sam. 17. 32. 35 40 hp by S92 per di Cupersoéto xep dia iš sueis pó in' w To. rúero is used with relation and in opposition to wadionu, Acts 16. 16. in the sense which the later, not the ancient, Greeks used it : radiorn, tốto éti Gergea chung oi va tibécoin. oi de maior ini yeávio G, as Phrynichus observes, as it is opposed to oirétns, Luke. 16. 13. (according to that of Ætymol. Kéeso aegs to isiv, fxe wegs oixérhu) to dõao, Mat. 10.24. and 18.25,er. And in the Apostolical rules pertaining to Christian Economicks, the Master and Servant are did@ and xóerc. As also by way of addition xúera 7ð geesouă, Mat. 9:38. xúer@ 78 durinã G; Mat. 20.8. xúera & oixias, Mark 13.35. Infomach as ruere is sometimes used by way of address or salutation of one man to another, (as it is now generally among the later Greeks, and as Dominus was anciently among the Latines, Quomodo obvios, fi nomen non occurrat, Dominos falutamus, Sen.) not only of Servants to Masters, as Mat. 13. 27. or Sons to Parents, as Mat, 21. 30. or inferiors to men in authority, as Mat. 27.63. but of strangers; as when the Greeks Spake to Philip, and desired him, saying, Kves, Sing pe&u Inção idcv, John 12. 21. and Mary Magdalen Speaking unto Christ, but taking him for a Gardener, Kéen, ei Cù isásaras autov, John 20.15. And it cannot be denied but this title was sometimes given to our Saviour himself in no higher or other sense than this: As when the Samaritan woman saw him alone at the well, and knew no more of him than that he appeared to be one of the Jews, fie said, Kúere, äv7anues óx 17h5, reg To Ogine isi Babe, John 4. II. And the infirm man at the Pool of Bethesda, when he wist not who it was, said unto him, Kúess, and WTOV 8x éxw, John 3.7. The blind man, to whom he had restored his fight, with the same salutation maketh confession of his ignonce, and his faith, Tis isi, xúeve; and wis suw, xúent, John 9. 36, 38.
b I Cor. 8.5.
c 16. . 6. and Eph.4.5. c I Cor. 2. 8. and 15.47. f Rev. 19. 16.
d Col. 3. 22.