« PreviousContinue »
had been mentioned immediately before. "I do not absolutely say that there are Gods and Lords, but I follow the apostle ; aud if the Father and the Son are to be named together, I call the Father, God, and Jesus Christ, Lord; though I can call Christ, God, as the apostle, when he says, of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. For, separately taken, I call a beam of light the sun; but speaking of the sun, whose beam it is, I do not immediately call the beam the sun. For though I do not make two suns, yet I say that the sun and his beam are two things, and two species of one undivided substance; like God and his word, the Father and the Son."
The ideas of Lactantius on this subject seem to have been very much the same with those of Tertullian, as has been seen in former instances; and, like him, he is chiefly careful to guard against the separation of the Son from the substance of the Father, lest he should make different Gods. " When we say
that the Father is God, and the Son, God, we do not mean a different God, nor do we separate them. For neither can the Father be without a Son, nor the Son without a Father. Nor can the Son be separated from the Father; as the Father cannot have his name without the Son, nor the Son be generated without a Father. Since, therefore, the Father produces a Son, and the Son becomes one, there is one mind, one spirit, one substance, common to them both. But the Father is like an exuberant fountain, and the Son, a river flowing from it. The Father is as the sun, the Son as a beam stretched from the sun; who, because he is faithful, and dear to the Father, is not separated from him, as the river is not separated from the spring, nor the beam of light from the sun; because the water of the spring is in the river, and the light of the sun in the beam. In like manner, neither is the voice separated from the mouth, nor the power or the hand separated from the body. When the same person is called by the prophets the hand of God, and the power, and the word of God, there is no separation between them. For
• “ Itaque deos omnino non dicam, nec dominos ; sed apostolum sequar, ut si pariter nominandi fuerint pater et filius, Deum patrem appellem, et Jesum Christum Dominum nominem. Solum autem Christum potero, Deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus. Ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, Deus super omạia, benedictus in ævum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum solem vocabo; solum autem nominans cujus est radius, non stalim et radium solem appellabo. Nam etsi soles duos non faciam, tamen et solem et radium ejus tam duas res, et duas species unius indivisæ substantiæ numeraþo, quam Deum et sermonem ejus, quam patrem ef blium." Ad Praxeam, Sect. xiii. Opera, p. 507. (P.) VOL. VI.
the tongue subservient to the speech, and the hand, in which is power, are inseparable parts of the body.” *
Tertullian appears, however, not a little embarrassed with the question how the Father can be called the one God, if the Son, though connected with him, can, in any proper sense, even where the Father is not mentioned, he called God; but he seems to satisfy himself with saying, that as the
proper style of the Father before he had a Son was that of the one God, he could not lose it in consequence of having a Son, especially as that Son derives his divinity from his inseparable connexion with the Father. “ Without injuring the rights of the Son, the Father,” he says, “ may be called the only God, which was his original title, whenever he is named without the Son. But he is named without the Son when he is spoken of as the first person, which is to be named before that of the Son; because the Father is first known, and the Son after the Father. Wherefore there is one God the Father, and no other besides him ; when he says which, he does not deny the Son, but some other God; for the Son is not another from the Father-as if the sun had said, I am the sun, and besides me there is no other except my beam.”+
One of Austin's explanations of the generation of the Son bears soine resemblance to those of a branch from the root, and of a river from a spring ; but a much greater to the Gnostic prolations. “ As the Son,” says he, “ is from the Father, so the woman is from the man," # meaning Eve from Adam. For here unhappily the woman was entirely detached from the man.
* “ Cùm dicimus Deum patrem, et Deum filium, non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque secernimus, quia nec pater sine filio potest; nec filius & patre secerni, siquidem nec pater sine filio nuncupari, nec filius potest siue patre generari. Cùm igitur et pater filium faciat, el filius fiat; uua utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est; sed ille quasi exuberans fons est, hic tanquam deffuens ex eo rivus; ille tanquan, sol, hic quasi radius à sole poriectus, qui quoniam summo patri et fidelis, et casus est, non separatur, sicut nec rivus à fonte, nec radius & sole; quia et aqua fontis in rivo est, et solis lumen iu radio. Aique neque vox ab ore sejungi, nec virtus, aut manus à corpore diveli potest. Cùm igitur à pruphetis idem manus Dei, et virtus, et sermo dicatur, uțique nulla discretio est; quia et lingua sermonis ministra est, et manus, in qua est virtus, individuæ sunt corporis portioues." L. iv. Sect. xxix. p. 446. (P.)
+ “ Salvo enim filio, recte unicum Deum potest determinasse, cujus est filius. Non enim desinit esse qui habet filium ipse onicus, suo scilicet nomine, quotiens sinc filio nominatur. Sine 6lio autem nominatur, cùm priucipaliter determinatur ut prima persona, quæ ante filii nomen erat proponenda; quia pater ante coguoscitur, et post patrem filius nominatur. Igitur unus Deus pater, et lius absque eo nous est. Quod ipse inferens, non filium negat, sed alium Deum, ceterum, alius à patre filius non est.-Alium enim etiam filium fecisset, quem de aliis excepisset. Puta solem dicere: Ego sol, et alius præter me non est, nisi radius meus.' Ad Praxeam, Sect. xviii. Opera, p. 510. (P.)
1.“ Ut quemadmodum de patre est filius, sic et de viro mulier." Questiones in V. r. xxi. Opera, IV. p. 719. (P.)
In the oration of Constantine, the union of the Son with the Father is preserved on a more metaphysical principle, viz. that of the Divine nature having no relation to place. “ For he that came from him is united to him again; for the separation and union, being not topically but intellectually that which is produced, was attended with no loss of any thing within the Father, as in the case of seeds.”*
Justin Martyr, and others, thought that the comparison of lighting one lamp at another happily illustrated the production of the Son from the Father. But it was afterwards perceived that, according to this, there must be an entire separation between them. On this idea Hilary objects to it as having been used by Hierax. +
SECTION TU. Why only one Son was generated; the Objection of Generation
implying Passion considered, and why the Son and Holy Spirit did not generale, &c.
Another difficulty that remained with the orthodox was to account for the Father having no more than one Son; and for this different reasons are given, but all of them, as will be imagined, very lame ones. “If,” says Athanasius,
they suppose the Father to generate at all, it is better and more pious to say that God is the Father of only one logos, who is the fulness of his Godhead, and in whom are all the treasures of knowledge." I
Another reason, given by Ruffinus, is more curious, but not more satisfactory. We believe,” says he, “ in one only Son of God, our Lord; for one is generated from one, as the splendour of one light, and there is one word of the heart. Neither does incorporeal generation proceed to the plural number, nor does it fall into division; where that which is generated is never separated from that which
generates it. It is one, as sense to the mind, as a word to the heart, as courage to the brave, and wisdom to the wise.” * He owns, however, that these examples are imperfect.
“Ο δε εξ εκεινα εχων την αναφοραν, εις εκεινον ενoυται σαλιν" εκεινη της διαφασεως συκρισεως τε, ου τοπικως, αλλα νοερως γινομενης ου γαρ ζημια τινι των παιρωων σπλαγχνων συνεση το γεννηθεν, ώσπερ αμελει τα εκ σπερματων. C. ii. p. 676. (Ρ.)
" Sed nec sicut Hierachas lucernam de lucerna, vel lampadem in duas partes." De Trinitate, L. vi. p. 105. (P.)
1 Ει γαρ όλως γενναν αυτον υπονουσιν, βελτιον εςι και ευσεβεςερον λεγειν ενος ειναι λογο γεννητορα του Θεον, ός εςι το πλήρωμα της θεοτητος αυτου, ενώ και οι θησαυροι πασης της
Oratio Brevis Onera in 05
The following answer of Eusebius tends rather to satisfy us, that it is better that there should be but one Son of God than more of them ; but, for the reason that he alleges, it would have been better still that there had been no Son at all. “ There can be only one Son of God, because in more there would be diversity, and difference, and an introduction of evil.”+ He also compares this case to the emission of light, and not darkness, from the sun; but then it is obvious to remark that there might have been many beams of light from the same sun.
A much more formidable objection still to this doctrine of paternal generation was, that it implies passion, from which it was an incontrovertible maxim, that the Divine nature is exempt. It was particularly a maxim with the Platonists, and is expressed by Plato himself, I that generation is always accompanied with passion. “ Had it been said,” says Basil, “ in the beginning was the Son, and not the logos, it would have given us an idea of passion.”$ But the answer to this was, that this mysterious generation of an incorporeal being was a very different thing from that which is so called in corporeal ones. In answer to those who said that God would be diminished if he produced a Son from himself, Origen thought it sufficient to say, “ You consider God as corporeal.”|| And the same answer was thought to suffice for this objection. Gregory Nazianzen, in answer to the question, “ How generation can be without passion,” says, “ because God is incorporeal.”I Again he says, “The Deity is without passion, though he generates.”** It should seem from the pains that were taken to answer this objection to the doctrine of generation by the eternal Father, that it was much ridiculed by the profane and heretical wits of that age. They said that“ to the act of
* “ Unicum hunc esse filium Dei dominum nostrum. Unus enim de uno nascitur: quia et splendor unius est lucis, et unum est verbum cordis: nec in numerum pluralem defluit incorporea generatio, nec in divisionem cadit, ubi qui nascitur nequaquam à generante separatur. · Unicus est ut menti sensus, ut cordi verbum, ut forti virtus, ut sapientia sapienti." In Symbol. p. 174. (P.)
+ Εν γαρ πλειοσιν ετεροτης εσαι και διαφορα και το χειρονος εισαγωγη. Demonstratio, L. iv. C. iii. p. 147. (P.)
Η Γιγνεται δη παντων γενεσις, ηνικ’ αν τι παθος η δηλον ως oπoταν αρχη λαβεσα αυξης, EIS TWY devrepay enom MeTabaony. Plato De Legibus, L. X. p. 668. Ed. Geneva. (P.)
και Ει δε ειπεν εν αρχή ην ο υιος, τη προσηγορια του για συνεισηλθεν αν σοι ή περι του παθος εννοια. Hom. xvi. Opera, 1. p. 436. (P.)
Η Ακολουθει δε αυτους και σωμα λεγειν τον πατερα και τον υιον, και διηρησθαι τον παλερα, απερ εςι δογματα ανθρωπων, μηδ' οναρ φυσιν αορατον και ασωματον σεφαντασμενων, δυσαν κυριως ουσιαν: δυτοι δε δηλον ότι εν σωματική τοπο δωσουσι τον πατέρα, και τον υιον τοπον εκ τοπου αμειψαντα σωματικως επιδεδημηκεναι το βιω, και ουχι καταςασιν εκ καταςασεως, ασπερ ημεις εξειληφαμεν. Comment. ΙΙ. p. 306. (Ρ.) « Πως ουν ουκ εμπαθης η γεννησις; ότι ασωματος. Οr. ΧΧΧν. p. 568. (Ρ.)
Απαθες γαρ το θειον, και ει γεγεννηκεν. Ιbid. xxiii. p. 409. (Ρ.)
generation there must be the concurrence of two persons.
Το this Ruffinus gravely answers, “ Do not think that God needs any marriage, to generate a Son." “ My heart," he says, “throws out a good logos, (that is,) I have from eternity generated a Son from myself; and know, O man, thy heart generates counsel without a wife.” *
“ God and man,” says Damascenus,“ do not generate in the same manner; for God being exempt from time, origin, passion, fluxion, or body, and alone without end, generates without regard to time, origin, passion, or fluxion;
so that this incomprehensible generation has neither beginning nor end.”+ This passage is curiously enlarged upon by Billius, & his commentator. $ The doctrine of the generation of the Son, says Hilary, is much ridiculed, as they say it iinplies the necessity of a wife to God, &c. ||
Another equally troublesome objection to this doctrine of Divine generation, was, that there might be no bounds to it. If the Father, they said, can generate a son, the Son also, having the same powers, might generate also, and the Spirit likewise, if he was properly God, and had all the energy of God. If,” says Photius,“ the Son be generated from the Father, and the Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, why should it be peculiar to the Spirit, that another should
“ Ne putares aliquo conjugio indiguisse Deum, unde filium generaret: Eructavit (inquit) cor meum verbum bonum, id est, ex me ipso æternaliter genui filium. Hodie cor tuum, homo, generat consilium: nec quæris uxorem." lo Ps. xlv. Opera, II. p. 101. (P.)
+ “ Nec eodem modo, Deus et homo gignunt. Deus enim, ut qui temporis, et principii passionisque, et Auxionis, ac corporis, expers est, solusque fine careat, ita citra tempus quoque, ac principium, et passionem, atque fuxionem, et sine ullo venereo congressu, gignit; ac nec principium nec finem habet incomprehensibilis ipsius generatio.” Orthod. Fid. L. i. C. viii. p. 260. (P.)
Jacques de Billi-mourut à Paris, en 1581.-Peu de Savans ont mieux po. sédé la langue Grecque.” Nouv. Dict. Hist. I. p411.
§ “Gignit igitur assidue pater filium perfectissimum, ut ab æterno genuit, neque ab hujusmodi gignendi officio desiturus est unquam.--Et in hoc manifestum est discrimen generationis hujus divinæ ad humanum quæ finem habet, et tandem ex impotentia cessat, cum ingravescente ætate sterilescunt prius fecundi parentes : sicut in aliis plerisque sigillatim et certa quadam serie in littera digestis, hæ duæ generationes ab invicem discrepare dignoscuntur." Orthod. Fid. L. i. C. viii. p. 264. (P.)
ll “ Nam si filius necesse est ut et fæmina sit, et colloquium sermonis, et compunctio conjugalis verbi et blandimentum, et postremum ad generandum naturalis machinula." Contra Constantium, Opera, p. 328. (P.)