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', 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 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 139 the later heretics, who take the only-begotten to be nothing

1 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: Διὰ τοῦτο γάρ, φησί, μονογενής, ἐπειδὴ [μόνος] παρὰ μόνου τῇ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου δυνάμει γεννηθεὶς καὶ κτισθεὶς τελειότατος γέγονεν ὑπουργός· [adv. Εunom. 1. ii. 3 20. Vol. I. p. 255 Ε.] as if μονογενής were only παρὰ μόνον, and unigenitus were nothing else but genitus 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 μονογενοῦς ἐκακούργησε, παρά τε τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων συνήθειαν, καὶ παρὰ τὴν εὐσεβῆ τῶν γραφῶν παράδοσιν ἐκλαμβάνων αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν. Μονογενὴς γὰρ οὐχ ὁ παρὰ μόνου γενόμενος, ἀλλ' ὁ μόνος γεννηθεὶς ἐν τῇ κοινῇ χρήσει προσαγορεύεται. [Ibid. p. 256 A.] Secondly, by a retort peculiar to that heresy, which held the Son of God might be called κτισθείς as well as γεννηθείς, created as well as begotten, and consequently might be as properly named μονόκτιστος a8 μονογενής: Εἰ τοίνυν μὴ παρὰ τὸ μόνος γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ παρὰ μόνου μονογενής εἴρηται, ταὐτὸ δέ ἐστι κατά σε τὸ ἐκτίσθαι τῷ γεγεννῆσθαι, τί

οὐχὶ καὶ Μονόκτιστον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζεις ; [Ibid. § 21. p. 256 E.] Thirdly, by a particular instance, shewing the ab. surdity of such an interpretation, for that thereby no man could properly be called μονογενής, because not begotten of one, but two parents: Movoγενὴς δέ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς κατά γε τὸν ὑμέτερον λόγον, διὰ τὸ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν τὴν γέν νησιν· οὐδὲ ἡ Σάβρα μήτηρ μονογενούς ἣν παιδός, διότι οὐχὶ μόνη αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ ̓Αβραάμ, ἐτεκνώσατο. [Ibid.]

2 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 charissimus; quemadmodum Isaac, quia Abrahamo charissimus 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, Schlictin

12, 16.

else but the most beloved of all the sons; because Isaac was called the only son of Abraham, when we know that he had Gen. xxii. 2, Ishmael beside; and Solomon said to be the only-begotten before his mother, when David had other children even by Prov. iv. 3. the mother of Solomon. For the only-begotten and the mostbeloved 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 Gen. xviii. son, and then, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. So that Isaac may well be called the only son of Abraham in reference to the promise, as the apostle speaks expressly: By Heb. xi. 17. faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten son. 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 begotten as none other is, was, or can be so as the term restrictive only shall have relation not only to the Father

gius hath inserted it as a material observation: Nam hic unicus seu unigena filius nominatur, qui cæteris longe charior est Patri, longeque præstantior:' and confirms the interpretation with those two testimonies concerning Isaac and Solomon. [Schlictingius explains in the same manner the term unigenitus, in his Commentary on St John's Gospel i. 11. p. 12. col. 1.] 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 Solo-
mon 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 interpre-
tation was invented, that when all
the rest should fail, they might stick
to this.

14; xxi. 12.

generating', but also to the Son begotten, and to the manner

of the generation. It is true, the Father spake from heaven, Mark i. 11. saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, 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 onlybegotten, 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 140 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 only-begotten; or it was not communicated, and then there is no such communication necessary to found such a 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

1 Eunomius would have it only παρὰ μόνου, in relation to the Father only. St Basil shews that no way proper, and shews that uovoyevns is not he which παρὰ μόνου but μόνος, γεyévvηraι. adv. Eunom. 1. ii. § 21. [p. 256.] St Cyril [of Alexandria] adds these two παρὰ μόνου and μόνος together, in relation to the Father and the Son: Μονογενὴς κατὰ φύσιν ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ὠνόμασται Λόγος, ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου γεγέννηται τοῦ Пlaтpós. Epist. 1 ad Regin. as Ruffinus doth in unicus: 'Ideo subjungit unicum hunc esse Filium Dei.Unus enim de uno nascitur. Expos.

Symb. § 6. [p. 62.] St Gregory Na-
zianzen adds to these two a third,
in respect of the manner; Μονογενής
δὲ οὐχ ὅτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου καὶ μόνον,
ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι καὶ μονοτρόπως, οὐχ ὡς τὰ
σώματα. [Orat. 30. § 20. Vol. 1.
p. 553 E.] So he, something ob-
scurely and corruptly; but plainly
enough in Damascene, who aims
often to deliver himself in the words
of Nazianzen: Λέγεται -μονογενής
δέ, 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
Ocoû. De Fid, Orthod. 1. i. c. 8.

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; that both he that sanctifieth, Heb. ii. 11. and they who are sanctified, are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call us brethren: we confess that those whom St Paul hath begotten through the Gospel1, 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 generation3 clearly excludeth the name

1 1 Cor. iv. 15. Ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα. 1 John iii. 9. Πᾶς ὁ γεγεν νημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει. And more expressly, 1 John v. 1. Ilâs d πιστεύων, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγα πῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα, ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Quisquis credit Jesum esse Christum illum, ex Deo genitus est; et quisquis diligit eum qui genuit, diligit etiam eum qui ex eo genitus est.

2 'Nos genuit Deus, ut filii ejus simus, quos fecerat ut homines essemus. Unicum autem genuit, non solum ut Filius esset, quod Pater non est, sed etiam ut Deus esset, quod et Pater est.' S. August. de Consensu Evang. 1. ii. c. 3. [§ 7. Vol. ш. part 2. p. 30 A.] In the book of Celsus, there was a Jew introduced speaking thus to Christ: El τοῦτο λέγεις, ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ θείαν πρόνοιαν γεγονώς

3 First, it is most certain that the Word of God, as the Word, is not the adopted, but the natural Son of God. 'Nec est itaque Dei Filius Deus falsus, nec Deus adoptivus, nec Deus connuncupatus sed Deus verus.' S. Hilar. de Trin. 1. v. [c. 5. p. 857 D.] 'Hic etiam Filius Dei natura est Filius, non adoptione.' Concil. Tolet. xi. [Præfatio. Labbe, Vol. vi. p. 541 D.] Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστι φύσει, καὶ οὐ θέσει, yevvηleis éк Пarpós. S. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 11. [§ 7. p. 152 A.] and again:

of adoption; and not only so, but when he becometh the Son of man, even in his humanity refuseth the name of an Gal. iv. 4, 5. adopted Son. For when the fulness of time was come, God

sent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, (not that he, but) that we might receive the adoption of sons. He then whose generation is totally different from ours whom he calleth brethren; he whom in the sacred Scriptures the Spirit nameth the true Son, the Father sometimes his own, sometimes his beloved, but never his adopted Son'; he who by those pro