essence we acknowledge all the perfections of the creatures, 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 prolifical;* in God eternal perfection sheweth his eternal fecundity. And that which is most remarkable, in human generations the son 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, 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 incapable 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 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

* Πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἤδη τέλεια γεννᾷ τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ τέλειον, ἀεὶ καὶ ἀΐδιον γεννᾷ. Euseb. de Prap. Evang. ex Plotino, 1. xi. §. 17. Avgv μὲν γὰρ ἴδιον τὸ ἐν χρόνῳ γεννᾶν, διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς φύσεως· θεοῦ δὲ ἀἴδιον τὸ γέννημα διὰ τὸ

P

del TéλELOV THC puosos. S. Athan. Orat. i. contra Arian. 6. 14. This was it which so much troubled the Arians, when they heard the Catholics constantly asserting: ἀεὶ Θεὸς, ἀεὶ υἱός· ἅμα πατὴρ, ἅμα υἱός.

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;" (Matt. xvi. 16. John vi. 69.) this the ground of our Saviour's distinction,* "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father." (John xx. 17.) Hence did St. John raise a verity, more than only a negation of falsity, when he said, we "are in the true Son:" (1 John v. 20.) 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 towards man, in that "he spared not his own proper Son." (Rom. viii. 32.) Thus have we sufficiently 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 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 inquire 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 interpretation of the ancient heretics, t who would have the restraining term only to belong, not to the Son, but to the Father; as if the only-begotten were no more than begotten of the Father only. Which is both contrary to

*Multum distat inter dominationem et conditionem, inter generationem et adoptionem, inter substantiain et gratiam. Ideoque hic non permixte nec passim dicitur, Ascendo ad Patrem nostrum aut Deum nostrum ; sed ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, ad Deum meum et ad Deum vestrum. Aliter enim illi Deus Pater est, aliter nobis. Illum siquidem natura coæquat, misericordia humiliat: nos vero natura prosternit, misericordia erigit.' Capreolus Carthag. Epist. p. 70. Opusc. Dogm. Vet. V. Script. Par. 1630.

+ This was the fallacy which Eunomius endeavoured to put upon the Church, as appears by those words of his delivered and answered by St. Basil: A TOUTO γὰρ, φησὶ, μονογενῆς, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ μόνου τῇ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου δυνάμει γεννηθεὶς καὶ κτισθεὶς τελειότατος γέγονεν ὑπουργός· adv. Eunom. l. ii. g. 20. as if μονογενής were only παρὰ μόνου, and unigenitus were nothing else but genius ab uno. This St. Basil refuteth copiously; first, from the language of the Scriptures and the usage of mankind:

Διὰ τὴν πανουργίαν ἣν περὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογε
νοῦς ἐκακούργησε, παρά τε τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων
συνήθειαν, καὶ παρὰ τὴν εὐσεβῆ τῶν γραφῶν
παράδοσιν λαμβάνων αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν.
νογενῆς γὰρ οὐχ ὁ παρὰ μόνου γενόμενος, ἀλλ ̓
ὁ μόνος γεννηθεὶς ἐν τῇ κοινῇ χρήσει προσαγορεύε
Tai. Ibid. Secondly, by a retort peculiar
to that heresy, which held the Son of God
might be called arosis as well as yay-
veis, created as well as begotten, and con-
sequently might be as properly named
μονόκτιστος as μονογενής: Εἰ μὴ παρὰ τὸ
μόνος γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ παρὰ μόνου
μονογενὴς εἴρηται, ταὐτὸ δέ ἐστι κατά σε τὸ
ἐκτίσθαι τῷ γεγεννῆσθαι, τί οὐχὶ καὶ Μονόκτι
OTOV AUTÒV ÓVOμÁZeç; Ibid. §. 21. Thirdly,
by a particular instance, shewing the
absurdity of such an interpretation, for
that thereby no man could properly be
called povoyens, because not begotten of
one, but two parts: Μονογενής δὲ, ὡς ἔοικεν,
ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς κατά γε τὸν ὑμέτερον λόγον,
διὰ τὸ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν τὴν
γέννησιν· οὐδὲ ἡ Σάββα μήτης μονογενούς ἦν
παιδὸς, διότι οὐχὶ μόνη αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ
̓Αβραὰμ, ἐτεκνώσατο. Ibid.

the language of the Scriptures, and the common custom of men, who use it not for him who is begotten of one, but for him who alone is begotten of any.

Secondly, We must by no means admit the exposition of the later heretics, who take the only-begotten to be nothing else but the most beloved of all the sons; because Isaac was called the only son of Abraham, (Gen. xxii. 2. 12. 16.) when we know that he had Ishmael beside; and Solomon said to be the onlybegotten 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; yet with this order, that he is therefore beloved, because 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 these 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, Isaac was called the only son of Abraham for some other reason than because he was singularly 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, "Sarah shall have a son," and then, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Gen. xviii. 14. xxi. 12.) So that Isaac may well be called the only son of Abraham in reference to the promise, as the apostle speaks expressly; "By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son." (Heb. xi. 17.) Avoiding therefore these two expositions, as far short of the true notion of the only-begotten; we must look upon it in the most proper, full, and significant sense, as signifying a son so

The Socinians make very much of this notion, and apply it so unto Christ, as that thereby they might avoid all necessity of an eternal generation. So the Racovian Catechism: Causa cur Christo ista attributa (sc. proprium et unigenitum Dei Filium esse) competant, hæc est; quod inter omnes Dei filios et præcipuus sit, et Deo carissimus; quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abrahamo carissimus et hæres exstitit, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. xi. 17. licet fratrem Ismaelem habuerit; et Solomon unigenitus coram matre sua, licet plures ex eadem matre fratres fuerint, 1 Paral. iii. 1, 2, 3, &c.' Sect. iv. c. 1. p. 113. And that this might be applied to the interpretation of the Creed, Schlictingius hath inserted it as a material observation: Nam hic unicus seu unigena filius nominatur, qui cæteris longe carior est Patri, longeque præstantior:' and

confirms the interpretation with those
two testimonies concerning Isaac and
Solomon. But certainly this observation
of theirs is vain, or what else they say is
false. For if Christ be called the Son of
God, because conceived by the Holy Ghost,
and none else was ever so conceived, then
is he the only-begotten by virtue of his
generation. And if so, then is he not the
only-begotten, as Isaac and Solomon were,
that is, by the affection and prelation of
their parents. Or if Christ were the only-
begotten, as Isaac and Solomon were, then
was he not conceived after a singular
manner, for the brethren of Solomon no
way
differed from him in their generation.
It is plain therefore that this interpreta-
tion was invented, that when all the rest
should fail, they might stick to this.
[See Prov. iv. 3.]

begotten as none other is, was, or can be: so as the term restrictive only shall have relation not only to the Father generating, but also to the Son begotten, and to the manner of the generation. It is true, the Father spake from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," (Mark i. 11.) and thereby we are to understand, that whosoever of us are beloved by the Father, are so beloved in and through the Son. In the same manner Christ is the only-begotten Son of God; and as many of us as God hath bestowed his love upon, that we should be called the sons of God, are all brought into that near relation by our fellowship with him, who is by a far more near relation the natural and eternal Son.

Having thus declared the interpretation of the word, that, properly, as primogeniture consisteth in prelation, so 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 assertion, shewing that the divine essence was peculiarly communicated to the Word, by which he was begotten the Son of God, and never any was so begotten beside that Son.

And here we meet with two difficulties: one shewing 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 onlybegotten; or it was not communicated, and then there is no such communication necessary to found such filiation: the other, alleging that the same divine essence may be communicated to another beside the Word, and not only that it may, but that it is so, 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 sufficient foundation of the relation of sonship. These two objections being answered, nothing will remain farther to demonstrate this last assertion.

For the first, we acknowledge that others are frequently called the sons of God, and that we call the same God our Father which Christ called his; "both he that sanctifieth, and

Eunomius would have it only ragà ovou, in relation to the Father only. St. Basil shews that no way proper, and shews that μονογενής is not he which παρὰ μόνου but μóvos ysyivnтai. adv. Eunom. 1. ii. §. 21. St. Cyril adds these two mapa μovou and moved together, in relation to the Father and the Son: Μονογενής κατὰ φύσιν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἀνόμασται λόγος, ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου γεγέννηται τοῦ πατρός. Εpist. 1. ad Regin. as Ruffinus doth in unicus: Ideo subjungit unicum hunc esse Filium Dei, unus enim de uno nascitur.' Expos. Symb.

§. 9. St. Gregory Nazianzen adds to these two a third, in respect of the manner; Μονογενὴς δὲ οὐχ ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου καὶ μόνον, ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι καὶ μονοτρόπως, οὐχ ὡς τὰ σώματα, Orat. 2. de Filio, p. 590. So he something obscurely and corruptly; but plainly enough in Damascene, who aims often to deliver himself in the words of Nazianzen: Λέγεται μονογενῆς, ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς μόνως ἐγεννήθη· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁμοιοῦται ἑτέρα γέννησις τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ γεννήσει, οὐδὲ γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλος υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. De Orthod. Fid. 1. i. c. 9.

they who are sanctified, are all of one for which cause he is not ashamed to call us brethren :" (Heb. ii. 11.) we confess that those whom St. Paul "hath begotten through the Gospel,"* may well be termed the " begotten of God, whose seed remaineth in them:" but withal, we affirm that this our regeneration is of a nature wholly different from the generation of the Son. We are first generated,† and have our natural being; after that regenerated, and so receive a spiritual renovation, and by virtue thereof an inheritance incorruptible: whereas the generation of Christ admits no regeneration, he becoming at once thereby God and Son and heir of all. The state of sonship which we come into is but of adoption, shewing the generation by which we are begotten to be but metaphorical; whereas Christ is so truly begotten, so properly the natural Son of God, that his generation clearly excludeth the name of