This Son, which is the word of the Father,' is said to be begotten of the Father.' Here he is said to be the word of the Father,' and not the word of God; because he cannot so properly be said to be begotten of God, as of the Father. For here, as in the Trinity, we must have a great care how we speak concerning the Father's begetting of the Son, and the Son's being begotten of the Father: we may say, the Father begot the Son, and so he that was God, begat him that was God; but we must not say God begat God. We may say one divine person begat another; but we must not say one divine nature begat another; for that would imply two divine natures, one of which is begotten, the other not. But how may we properly say, the Son was begotten of the Father? By receiving from the Father an unbegotten essence. His person must be begotten of the Father, otherwise he would not be his Son; but his essence must be unbegotten, otherwise he would not be God. And that Christ was begotten, and so begotten of the Father, as to receive an unbegotten essence from him, is clear; but how the person of the Father, and not his essence, did beget; and how the person of the Son, and not his essence, was begotten, is a mystery which was never revealed to us.

C

Israel shall be saved by the word of ישראל יתפריק במימרא דיי פורקן עלמיא

God with an everlasting salvation.' And hence I conceive it is, that Philo the Jew calls his δευτερον Θεόν, whom he reckons after πατέρα τῶν ὅλων, ögðòv Decũ Xóyov xai #ęwróтonov viòv. — Phil. de Agriculturá. And so Celsus also, speaking the sense of the Jews, acknowledgeth that 'O a6yos kσtiv vidc TOŨ ☺BOʊ. — Orig. contra Cels. 1. ii. And as the Jews before St. John called λόγον Θεοῦ, υἱὸν Θεοῦ, St. John, after them, might well call υἱὸν Θεοῦ, λόγον Θεοῦ, and use no other than their own term, that in their own translation of the Bible and other authors often occurred.

eSi quis ita nobis dixerit, Quomodo ergo Filius prolatus à Patre est? Dicimus ei, quia prolationem istam sive generationem, sive nuncupationem, sive adapertionem, aut quomodo libet quis nomine vocaverit; generationem ejus inenarrabilem existentem nemo novit; non hæretici omnes, neque angeli, neque archangeli, nec principes, neque potestates, nisi solus qui generavit, Pater, et qui natus est, Filius. Irenaus, lib. iii. adv. Hares. cap. 21. edit. Par. 1639.

Quomodo sanè Deus Pater genuerit Filium nolo discutias, nec te curiosiùs inseras in profundi hujus arcanum, ne fortè dum inaccessæ lucis fulgorem pertinaciùs perscrutaris, exiguum ipsum qui mortalibus divino munere concessus est perdas aspectum. - Ruffin. in Exp. Symbol. And presently after, Credendus est ergo Deus Pater esse unici Filii Domini nostri, non discutiendus; neque enim fas est servo de natalibus Domini VOL. IX.

G

And therefore we are not to be too curious in prying and searching into it, especially considering that we are not here capable of apprehending it aright. All the apprehension we can frame of it, is by conceiving the essence of the Father to have communicated itself to the person of the Son, and so begetting the Son, by communicating his own unbegotten essence to him. I say, by communicating of his essence, not of his person, for then they would be both the same person, as now they have both the same essence. The essence of the Father did not beget the Son by communicating his person to him, but the person of the Father begat the Son by communicating his essence to him: so that the person of the Son is begotten, not communicated; but the essence of the Son is communicated, not begotten.

And this communication of the divine essence of the Father, to the divine person of the Son, was from everlasting,' as the essence itself was. For eternity is an essential property, yea, the very essence of God itself. And therefore the essence being, its eternity could not but be, communicated to the Son; from whence, he must of necessity be begotten of the Father, from 'everlasting.' So that as the essence of the Father that was communicated to the Son, disputare.— Ibid. And Athanasius, propounding the question how the Son is begotten of the Father, returns this answer, Επεὶ ὁ Θεὸς αθεώρητὸς ἐστι καὶ ἀνεςμηνευτὸς, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἑρμηνεῦσαι δυνάμεθα· πῶς γὰρ τὶς ἑρμηνεῦσαι δύναται ὁ οὐδέπου αὐτὸς ἐθεάσατο, ἤ παρ ̓ ἄλλων ἀκηκοε πώποτε ; πλὴν ἐκ τῶν ποιημάτων αὐτοῦ φημὶ τοῦ λόγου καὶ Θεοῦ τυπικῶς εἴπωμεν, ὅσον τὸ κατὰ δύναμιν νοητέον μὲν ὅτι ὥσπερ ὁ λόγος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου γενᾶται ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσπόρως καὶ ἀκατανοήτως, οὕτως γενᾶται καὶ ὁ λόγος ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς· καὶ ὡς γενᾶται πᾶς ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς, καὶ φῶς ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς, οὕτως γενᾶται ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς. — Athanas. Quæst. Sal. 14. tom. ii. p. 443. Edit. Par. Neque enim Pater ut haberet Filium de se minuit seipsum; sed ita genuit de se alterum se, ut totus maneret in se, et esset in Filio tantus, quantus, et solus. Aug. Epist. 66. ad Maximum, vol. ii. p. 319. Edit. Basil. And Hilary: Hic ergo ingenitus, ante omne tempus, ex se Filium genuit, non ex aliqua subjacente materia, quia per Filium omnia; non ex nihilo, quia ex se Filium; non ut partum, quia nihil in Deo demutabile aut vacuum est; non partem sui, vel divisam, vel descissam, vel extensam, quia et impassibilis et incorporeus Deus est. Hæc autem passionis et carnis sunt, et secundùm apostolum, in Christo inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter,' sed incomprehensibiliter inenarrabiliter, ante omne tempus et secula, unigenitum ex his quæ ingenita in se erant procreavit, omne quod Deus est, per charitatem atque virtutem nativitati ejus impartiens, ac sit ab ingenito, perfecto, æternoque Patre, unigenitus, et perfectus, et æternus Filius. De Trinit. lib. iii. p. 439,

Edit. Par.

had not, so neither had the person of the Son, whose essence was so communicated from the Father, any beginning; but as the essence communicated was, so was the communication of that essence to the Son, from all eternity.

Hence also it is here said, that the Son is very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father: that is, of one essence or nature with the Father. For his essence, as we have heard, is the self-same individual essence that the Father's is, communicated from the Father to him, the same eternal, almighty, all-wise, infinite, unbegotten, uncreated, essence: and therefore he is not another, but the same very and eternal God.' And so there is no difference, no distinction at all betwixt the Father and the Son in their essential, but only in their personal properties. The Son is of the same substance and essence with the Father, but herein they differ, that the Father hath this essence of himself, the Son of the Father: and so the person of the Father is not from the person of the Son, but from himself; whereas, the person of the Son is not from himself, but from the person of the Father. But his person is so begotten of the Father, as to be the same in essence with him, very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father.

This Son of God, a distinct person, but the same in substance with the Father, being the middle person betwixt the Father and the Spirit, undertakes to be the Mediator betwixt God and man; by him the world was made, and by

d Pater est Deus, de quo Filius est Deus, de quo autem Pater nullus est Deus. Aug. Epist. 66. ad Maximum, vol. ii. And again upon those words, I know him, for I am of him,' the same father observes, Ab ipso inquit sum, quia Filius de Patre est; et quicquid est Filius, de illo est cujus est Filius; ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus de Deo; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantùm Deum; et dicimus Dominum Jesum lumen de lumine, Patrem non dicimus lumen de lumine, sed tantùm lumen. Id. in Joh. tract. 31. Again, Pater vita est non nascendo, Filius vita est nascendo. Pater de nullo Patre, Filius de Deo Patre. Pater quod est à nullo est; quod autem Pater est propter Filium est: Filius verò, et quod Filius est propter Patrem est, et quod est à Patre est. - Id. in Joh. tract. 19. And presently after, Manet ergo Pater vita, manet et Filius vita. Pater vita in semetipso, non à Filio; Filius vita non in semetipso, sed à Patre. - Ibid. And hence it is that our Saviour saith, ὁ Πατὴρ μου μείζων μου ἐστι. John, xiv. 28. v. 3. Because though he hath as much as the Father, yet what he hath is only from the Father; but what the Father hath, is not from him.

him therefore it was fitting it should be redeemed; which, notwithstanding, could not have been done by him, unless he became the Son of Man in time, as well as he had been the Son of God from eternity. Hereupon he took man's nature; he that had the nature of God communicated to him, hath the nature of man assumed by him. Not as if the divine nature was converted into, or confounded with the human, but only the human nature is assumed into the divine, so as to become perfectly man like unto us in all things, our sinful infirmities only excepted, 'in time;' as he had been perfectly God like to the Father in all things, his personal properties only excepted, from eternity.' And therefore man having two essential constitutive parts, a soul and a body, Christ, in his assuming of the human nature, was invested with both, yea, and the natural infirmities of both too; he had a soul and body as well as we, and his soul and body were united together as well as ours, and so was hungry and thirsty, and weary, and sorrowful, as we are.

'This human nature he took in the virgin's womb of her substance. As he was God, he had no mother; as he was man, he had no father: as God, he had his divine nature from his Father; as man, he had his human nature from his mother. Neither did he only take the human nature in the virgin's womb, but of her substance; so that his human nature was as really of the same substance with his mother

• Ολὸν ὅλῃ συνενῶσθαι φαμὲν τῇ καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπώτητι τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ λόγον. οὐ γὰρ που τὸ ἄμεινον ἐν ἡμῖν τουτέστι τὴν ψυχὴν οὐδενὸς ἠξίωσε λόγου μόνη δωρούμενος τη σαρκὶ τῆς ἀποδημίας τους πόνους, ἐπράτετο δὲ δ ̓ ἄμφω τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον· προσεχρήσατο δὲ καθάπες ὀργάνῳ τῇ ἰδίᾳ σαρκὶ πρὸς τὰ σαρκὸς ἐςγά τε καὶ ἀῤῥωστήματα φυσικὰ καὶ ὅσα μώμου μακράν, ψυχῇ δὲ αὐτε ἰδίᾳ πρὸς ἀνθρώπινὰ τε καὶ ανυπαίτια πάθη. Cyrill. de Rect. Fid. ad Theodos. tom. v. par. 2. p. 18. Edit. Paris. 1638.

Sicut nondum natus ex virgine Patrem Deum habere potuit sine homine (matre), æquè cùm de virgine nasceretur, potuit matrem habere (hominem) sine homine Patre. - Tertullian. de Carne Christi. And Lactantius to the same purpose, Ipse enim Pater Deus et origo et principium rerum quoniam parentibus caret, dáre atque dur à Trismegisto verissimè nominatur, quòd ex nullo sit procreatus. Idcirco etiam Filiumn bis nasci oportuit, ut ipse fieret dárwę atque prop. In prima enim nativitate spirituali dure fuit, quia sine officio matris à solo Patre generatus est. In secunda verò carnali amára fuit, quoniam sine Patris officio virginali utero procreatus est. -Lactant. de Vera Sapient. 1. iv. p. 345. edit. Oxon. 1684.

Mary, as his divine nature was of the same substance with his Father God. And as he was begotten of his Father, without a mother from eternity, so was he born of his mother without a father in time: his mother being a virgin after he was born, as really as she was a virgin before he was conceived;-I say, before he was conceived; for though he was not begotten of the virgin by man, yet he was conceived in her by God, even by God the Holy Ghost's miraculously overshadowing her. The manner of which conception is as difficult to be understood by men, as the truth of it is evidently avouched by God: only this we know, that he was not so conceived by the Spirit, as to have the Spirit for his Father as he had the virgin for his mother; for though he was conceived by the Spirit, yet it is not said he was begotten of the Spirit: and therefore the Spirit cannot be said to be father to him, generation being the ground of paternal relation. But only he was so conceived by the Spirit of God, as not to need to be begotten by man o.

Lastly, He so took the nature of man, as that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the manhood, were joined together in one person, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very man.' So that as in the Trinity, there are three persons, and yet but one nature, so here there are two natures, and yet but one person: so that the two natures do not either of them constitute a distinct person, but both of them make up one and the same person. And therefore we must consider, that the human nature had no subsistence in itself, by which it could be a distinct person of itself, but its subsistence was only in the divine person and also that as it was not an human person, but

5 Αλλ ̓ ἐκ Πνεύματος ̔Αγίου τὸ θεῖον συνέστη σῶμα πλαστουργούμενον ἀῤῥήτως ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρθένῳ καὶ τῶν τῆς φύσεως νόμων ὀλίγα πεφροντικός· ἥκιστα γὰρ δὴ σπερματικῆς ἐδεῖτο καταβολῆς ὁ τῶν ἁγίων πρωτότοκος, i. e. Atqui ex Spiritu Sancto divinum illud corpus compactum est arcanâ quâdam ratione in sanctâ virgine, neglectis naturæ legibus formatum, neque enim indito semine indigebat ille sanctorum primogenitus.-Cyrill. Alex. de Adorat. in Spir. et Verit. tom. i. lib, 15. p. 554. And the same is expressed in the epistle to Heron, ascribed to Ignatius, τοῦ γὰρ Ἀδὰμ τὸ σῶμα ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων τῆς δὲ Εὔας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς τοῦ ̓Αδάμ, καὶ ὁ παράδοξος δὲ τοκετὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἐκ μόνης τῆς παρθένου, οὐ βδελυκτῆς οὔσης τῆς νομίμου μίξεως ἀλλὰ θεοπρεποῦς τῆς γενέσεως έπρεπε γὰρ τῷ δημιουργῷ μὴ τῇ συνέθει ἀποχρήσασθαι γενήσει ἀλλὰ τῇ παραδόξῳ καὶ ξένη ὥς Snusover. — In Epist. ad Heron. Ignatio attributa.