136 self. We must not look upon the divine nature as sterile', The fourth assertion followeth, That the communication 1 Αδύνατον γὰρ τὸν Θεὸν εἰπεῖν ἔρη μον τῆς φυσικῆς γονιμότητος. Damasc. de Fid. Orthod. 1. i. c. 8. · Εἰ δὲ μὴ καρπογόνος ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἡ θεία οὐσία, ἀλλ ̓ ἔρημος, κατ' αὐτούς, ὡς φῶς μὴ φωτίζον, καὶ πηγὴ ξηρά πῶς δημιουργικὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτὸν ἔχειν λέγοντες οὐκ αἰσχύνονται; S. Athanas. Orat. ii. contra Arian. [§ 2. Vol. I. p. 470 A.] 3 This is often repeated there, and particularly in the last chapter but one, called Alechlas: 'Est ipse Deus unus, Deus æternus, qui nec genuit, nec genitus est, et cui nullus est æqualis.'* yevvnoas. And Joannes Siculus and And the Saracenica set PEARSON 17 him: and his disciples have corrupted' the Psalm of David, Psal. ii. 7. reading (instead of Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,) Thou art my prophet, I have educated thee.' The later Jews, acknowledging the words, and the proper literal reading of them, apply them so unto David, as that they deny them to belong to Christ; and that upon no other ground, than that by such an exposition they may avoid the Christian's confession. But by the consent of the ancient Jews, by the interpretation of the blessed apostles, we know these words belong to Christ, and in the most proper sense to him alone. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? as the apostle argues. And if he had spoken them unto any other man, as tor. ibid. delivers this fable somewhat differently: Τοιοῦτόν τι μυθευσάμενος (ὁ Μωάμεδ)-κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς κρίσ σεως- - Ιησοῦν παραστῆναι· καὶ ἀρνησάμενον ἔμπροσθεν Θεοῦ, ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν ἑαυτὸν εἶναι Υἱὸν Θεοῦ· τοὺς δὲ Χριστ τιανοὺς ὡς τοιοῦτον τολμήσαντας προστρίψαι τῷ Χριστῷ ὄνομα, τῇ τοῦ πυρὸς γεέννῃ παραδοθῆναι.] Heb. i. 5. 1 Alfirozabadius in his Kamuz: 'Dictum Dei omnipotentis ad Jesum (cui propitius sit et pacem concedat Deus), Tu es Nabiya, Propheta meus, ego walladtoca, fovi te; at dixerunt Christiani, Tu es Bonaya, Filius meus, ego walladtoca, te genui. Longe est supra hæc Deus.' And to the same purpose Ebnol Athir: 'In Evangelio dixit Isæ, ego walladioca, i.e. educavi te; at Christiani, dempta litera Lam altera, ipsum ei filium statuerunt. Qui longe elatus est super ea quæ dicunt.' [Marracci, Prodr. in Ref. Alc. part 3. § 15. p. 49.] Whereas then the apostles attributed those words of the psalm to Christ, the Mahometans, who could not deny but they were spoken of the Messias, were forced to corrupt the text: and for that they pretend the eminency and excellency of the Godhead, as if it were beneath the majesty of God to beget a son, or be a Father. And indeed whosoever would bring in another prophet greater than The words Christ, as he was than Moses, must do so. 2 I say, the later Jews so attribute those words to David, as if they belonged not to the Messias; but the ancient Jews understood them of the Christ: as appeareth not only out of those places in the evangelists, where the Christ and the Son of God are synonymous; but also by the testimony of the later Jews themselves, who have confessed no less. So Rabbi David Kimchi in the end of his commentaries on ויש מפרשים זה המזמור,the second psalm על גוג ומגוג והמשיה הוא מלך המשיח וכן Some interpret this פירשו רבותינו ז"ל: psalm 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 confesseth that the ancient Rabbins did interpret it of the Messias, but shews the reason why the later Jews understood it rather of Davil, that thereby they might the better answer the argument of the Christians רבותינו דרשו את deduced from thence הענין על מלך המשיח ולפי משמעו ולתשובת -Our doc המינים נכון לפותרו על דור עצמו: tors have expounded it of the Messias: but as to the literal sense, and for the answering heretics (that is, in their language, Christians), it is rather to be interpreted of David in his own person.* nanbare found in Bomberg's Rabbinic Bible, but not in Buxtorf's and the Amsterdam editions. They occur in a MS, in the Bodleian, examined by Dean Payne Smith, and in a MS. in St John's College, Cambridge, examined by Mr Rose. they were spoken unto him, the apostle's argument had been v. 3. 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 137 same nature, with a full representation of him from whom he is produced. Thus man begetteth a son, that is, produceth another man of the same 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 Gen. i. 23 ; own likeness, after his image: and by the continuation of the same blessing, the succession of human generations hath been continued. This then is the known' confession of all men, that a son is nothing but another produced by his father. in the same nature with him. But God the Father hath communicated to the Word the same divine essence by which he is God; and consequently he is of the same nature with him, and thereby the perfect image and similitude of him, and therefore his proper Son. In human generations we may conceive two kinds of similitude; one in respect of the internal nature, the other in reference to the external form or figure. The former similitude is essential and necessary; it being impossible a man should beget a son, and that son not be by nature a man: the latter accidental; not only sometimes the child representing this, sometimes the other parent, but also oftentimes neither. The similitude, then, in which the propriety of generation is preserved, is that which consisteth in the identity of nature: and this communication of the divine. 1 Κοινὸν ὑπάρχει πᾶσι καὶ αὐτοδίδακτον ὁμολόγημα, ὡς ἅπας υἱὸς τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότι οὐσίας καὶ púoews. Phot. Epist. 1. [lib. i. ep. 8. c. 8. Vol. 11. p. 633.] This is, in the language of Aristotle : Τὸ ποιῆσαι ἔτερον οἷον αὐτό· ζῶον μὲν ζῶον, φυτὸν ôè purov [de Anima. 1. ii. c. 4. § 3]. And St Basil, lib. ii. contra Eunom. [§ 22. Vol. I. p. 258 D]. Пarnρ μèv γάρ ἐστιν, ὁ ἑτέρῳ τοῦ εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ό ὁμοίαν ἑαυτῷ φύσιν τὴν ἀρχὴν παρα- 2 Etiamsi filius hominis, homo, in essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a sufficient foundation of such a similitude; from whence Christ is called 2 Cor 4 the image of God, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. Heb. i. 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, subtracting 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 substance 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 they come to the perfection of nature, then become prolifical1; in God eternal perfection sheweth his eternal fecundity. And that which is most remarkable, in human generations the son 138 is of the same nature with the father, and yet is not the same man: because though he hath an essence of the same kind, 1 Πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἤδη τέλεια γεννῇ· τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ τέλειον, ἀεὶ καὶ ἀΐδιον γεννᾷ. Euseb. de Præp. Evang. ex Plotino [1. xi. § 17]. ̓Ανθρώπων μὲν γὰρ ἴδιον τὸ ἐν χρόνῳ γενναν, διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς φύσεως Θεοῦ δὲ ἀΐδιον τὸ γέννημα, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ TéλELOV TĤs púσews. S. Athan. Orat. i. yet he hath not the same essence: the power of generation depending on the first prolifical benediction, increase and multiply, it must be made by way of multiplication, and thus every son becomes another man. But the divine essence, being by reason of its simplicity not subject to division, and in respect of its infinity uncapable of multiplication, is so communicated as not to be multiplied; insomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication, hath not only the same nature, but is also the same God. The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Isaac man: but Abraham one man, Isaac another man; not so the Father one God, and the Word another, but the Father and the Word both the same God. Being then the propriety of generation is founded in the essential similitude of the Son unto the Father, by reason of the same (nature1) which he receiveth from him; being the full perfect nature of God is communicated unto the Word, and that more intimately and 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 confession, Thou art the Son of the living God; this the Matt. xvi. 16. ground of our Saviour's distinction', I go unto my Father, John xx. 17. and to your Father. Hence did St John raise a verity, more than only a negation of falsity, when he said, we are in the 1 John v. 20. true Son; for we which are in him are true, not false sons; [but such sons] we are not as the true Son. Hence did St Paul draw an argument of the infinite love of God toward man, John vi. 69. in that he spared not his own proper Son. Thus have we suf- Rem, viii. 32. ficiently shewed, that the eternal communication of the divine essence by the Father to the Word was a proper generation, by which Christ Jesus always was the true and proper Son of God: which was our fourth assertion. The fifth and last assertion followeth, that the divine 1 [The word 'nature' is not in the third edition.] 2. Multum distat inter dominationem et conditionem, inter generationem et adoptionem, inter substantiam et gratiam. Ideoque hic non permixte nec passim dicitur, Ascendo ad Patrem nostrum et ad Deum nostrum; sed ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, ad |