*

'named by Euodius the bishop of that place, as ecclesiastical history informs us. A name no sooner invented, but embraced by all believers, as bearing the most proper signification of their profession, and relation to the Author and Master whom they served. In which the primitive Christians so much delighted, that before the face of their enemies they would acknowledge no other title but that, though hated, reviled, tormented, martyred for it. Nor is this name of greater honour to us, than obligation. There are two parts of the seal of the foundation of God, and one of them is this, "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity." (2 Tim. ii. 19.) It was a common answer of the ancient martyrs, I am a Christian, and with us no evil is done.' The very name was thought to speak something of emendation; and whosoever put it on, became the better man. Except such reformation accompany our profession, there is no advantage in the appellation; nor can we be honoured by that title, while we dishonour him that gives it. If he be therefore called Christ, because anointed; as we derive the name of Christian,' so we do receive our unction,|| continued as the most proper appel- ἀντὶ γένους, καὶ ἀντὶ παντὸς ἐπαλλήλως lation which could be given unto our profession, being derived from "the Author and finisher of our faith." At nunc secta orditur in nomine utique sui auctoris. Quid novi, si aliqua disciplina de magistro cognomentum sectatoribus suis inducit? Nonne philosophi de auctoribus suis nuncupantur Platonici, Epicurei, Pythagorici? Etiam a locis conventiculorum et stationum suarum Stoici, Academici! Nonne Medici ab Erasistrato, et Grammatici ab Aristarcho, coqui etiam ab Apicio? Neque tamen quenquam offendit professio nominis cum institutione transmissi ab institutore.' Tertull. Apol. c. 3.

*As we read of Sanctus, a deacon at Vienna, in a hot persecution of the French Church, who being in the midst of tortures, was troubled with several questions, which the Gentiles usually then asked, to try if they could extort any confession of any wicked actions practised secretly by the Christians; yet would not give any other answer to any question, than that he was a Christian. Tooaúry παραστάσει ἀντιπαρετάξατο αὐτοῖς, ὥστε μήτε τὸ ἴδιον κατειπεῖν ὄνομα, μήτε ἔθνους, μήτε πόλεως ὅθεν ἦν, μήτε εἰ δοῦλος ἢ ἐλεύθερος εἴη· ἀλλὰ πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἐπερωτώμενα ἀπεκρίνατο τῇ Ρωμαϊκῇ φωνῇ, Χριστιανός εἰμι. τοῦτο καὶ ἀντὶ ὀνόματος, καὶ ἀντὶ πόλεως, καὶ

wμoλóyɛ. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. v. cap. 1. The same doth St. Chrysostom testify of St. Lucian: Пoiaç el πarpiδος; Χριστιανός είμι, φησί. Τί ἔχεις ἐπιτήδευμα; Χριστιανός εἰμι. Τίνας προγόνους; ὁ δὲ πρὸς ἅπαντα ἔλεγεν, ὅτι Xploriavós εipi. Orat. 75.

+ So Blandina in the French persecution : "Hv avrõs áváλnþıç kai áváπαυσις καὶ ἀναλγησία τῶν συμβαινόντων, τὸ λέγειν ὅτι Χριστιανή είμι, καὶ παρ' ἡμῖν οὐδὲν φαῦλον γίνεται. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. v. c. 1.

+ 'Alii quos ante hoc nomen vagos, viles, improbos noverant, ex ipso denotant quod laudant, cæcitate odii in suffragium impingunt. Quæ mulier! quam lasciva! quam festiva! qui juvenis! quam lascivus! quam amasius! facti sunt Christiani: ita nomen emendationis imputatur.' Tertull. Apol. c. 3.

Totum in id revolvitur, ut qui Christiani nominis opus non agit, Christianus non esse videatur. Nomen enim sine actu atque officio suo nihil est.' Salvian. de Gubern. Dei, 1. iv. in init. p. 100. al. 89. 'Eáv Tig TÒ ὄνομα λαβὼν τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ ἐνυβρίζῃ τὸν Χριστὸν, οὐδὲν ὄφελος αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῆς προσηγορίας. S. Basil. ad Amphiloch. Epist. 199. al. 2. can. 45.

" Christianus vero, quantum interpretatio est, de unctione deducitur. Tertull. Apol. c. 3.

from him. For as "the precious ointment upon the head ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard, and went down to the skirts of his garments;" (Psal. cxxxiii. 2.) so the Spirit, which without measure was poured upon Christ our head, is by him diffused through all the members of his body.* For "God hath established and anointed us in Christ:" (2 Cor. i. 21.) "We have an unction from the Holy One, and the anointing which we have received from him, abideth in us." (1 John ii. 20. 27.) Necessary then it cannot choose but be, that we should know Jesus to be the Christ: because he is Jesus, that is, our Saviour, by being Christ, that is, anointed; so we can have no share in him as Jesus, except we become truly Christians,' and so be in him as Christ, anointed with that unction from the Holy One.†

Thus having run through all the particulars at first designed for the explication of the title Christ, we may at last clearly express, and every Christian easily understand, what it is we say, when we make our confession in these words, I believe in Jesus Christ. I do assent unto this as a certain truth, that there was a man promised by God, foretold by the prophets, to be the Messias, the Redeemer of Israel, and the expectation of the nations. I am fully assured by all those predictions, that the Messias so promised, is already come.. I am as certainly persuaded, that the man born in the days of Herod of the Virgin Mary, by an angel from heaven called Jesus, is that true Messias, so long, so often promised: that, as the Messias, he was anointed to three special offices, belonging to him as the mediator between God and man; that he was a Prophet, revealing unto us the whole will of God, for the salvation of man; that he was a Priest, and hath given himself a sacrifice for sin, and so hath made an atonement for us; that he is a King, set down at the right hand of God, far above all principalities and powers, whereby, when he hath subdued all our enemies, he will confer actual, perfect, and eternal happiness upon us. I believe this unction, by which he became the true Messias, was not performed by any material oil, but by the Spirit of God, which he received as the Head, and conveyeth to his members. And in this full acknowledgment, I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST.

His only Son.

AFTER our Saviour's nomination immediately followeth his filiation: and justly after we have acknowledged him to be the Christ, do we confess him to be the Son of God; because

*

Inde apparet Christi corpus August. in Psal. xxvi. nos esse, quia omnes ungimur; et † Τοιγαροῦν ἡμεῖς τούτου εἵνεκα, omnes in illo et Christi et Christus καλούμεθα Χριστιανοὶ, ὅτι χριόμεθα sumus, quia quodammodo totus Malov Oeou. Theophil, ad Autol. 1. i. Christus caput et corpus est.'. S. p. 77.

these two were ever inseparable, and even by the Jews themselves accounted equivalent. Thus Nathanael, that true Israelite, maketh his confession of the Messias: "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel." (John i. 49.) Thus Martha makes expression of her faith: "I believe that thou art the Christ the Son of God, which should come into the world." (John xi. 27.) Thus the high-priest maketh his inquisition: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." (Matt. xxvi. 63.) This was the famous confession of St. Peter: "We believe and are sure, that thou art that Christ the Son of the living God." (John vi. 69.) And the Gospel of St. John was therefore written, that "we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John xx. 31.) Certain then it is, that all the Jews, as they looked for a Messias to come, so they believed that Messias to be the Son of God (although since the coming of our Saviour they have denied it):* and that by reason of a constant interpretation of the second psalm, as appropriated unto him. And the primitive Christians did at the very beginning include this filial title of our Saviour together with his names into the compass of one word. Well therefore, after we have expressed our faith in Jesus Christ, is added that, which always had so great affinity with it, the only Son of God.

In these words there is little variety to be observed, except that what we translate the only Son,‡ that in the phrase of the

For when Celsus, in the person of a Jew, had spoken these words: καὶ εἶπεν ἐμὸς προφήτης ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ποτὲ, ὅτι ἥξει Θεοῦ υἱὸς, τῶν ὁσίων κριτὴς, καὶ τῶν ἀδίκων κολαστής Origen says they were most improperly attributed to a Jew, who did look indeed for a Messias, but not for the Son of God, i. e. not under the notion of a Son. 'Iovdaïos dè our âv òpoλoynσαι ὅτι προφήτης τις εἶπεν ἥξειν Θεοῦ υἱόν. ὃ γὰρ λέγουσίν ἐστιν, ὅτι ἥξει ὁ Xplords rov Oεoỡ' kai Tolλákig dn nτοῦσι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εὐθέως περὶ υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς οὐδενὸς ὄντος τοιούτου, οὐδὲ προφηTεvýévros. Adv. Cels. 1. i. §. 49.

+That is, IXOYE [up. 'Inσovs Xploròs Dεou Yiòs Σwrnp.] Nos pisciculi secundum ix nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur.' Tertull. de Bapt. c. 1. which is thus inter preted by Optatus: Cujus piscis nomen secundum appellationem Græcam in uno nomine per singulas literas turbam sanctorum nominum continet, ixovs, quod est Latine, Jesus Christus Dei Filius Salvator.' lib. iii. c. 2.

The Latins indeed generally use the word unicum. So Ruffinus: Et

in unico filio ejus:' §. 8, 9. which is so far from being in his apprehension the same with unigenitus, that he refers it as well to Lord as Son: Hic ergo Jesus Christus, Filius unicus Dei, qui est et Dominus noster unicus, et ad Filium referri et ad Dominum potest.' So St. Augustin in Enchirid. c. 34. and Leo Epist. 10. Which is therefore to be observed, because in the ancient copies of those epistles, the word unicum was not to be found; as appeareth by the discourse of Vigilius, who, in the fourth book against Eutyches, hath these words: • Illa primitus uno diluens volumine quæ Leonis objiciuntur Epistolæ, cujus hoc sibi primo capitulum iste, nescio quis, proposuit; Fidelium universitas profitetur credere se in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus, Dominum nostrum,' l. iv. §. 1. That which he aims at, is the tenth epistle of Leo, in which those words are found, but with the addition of unicum, which, as it seems, then was not there; as appears yet farther by the words which follow, §. 2. 'Miror tamen quomodo hunc

Scripture and the Greek Church is, the only-begotten. It is then sufficient for the explication of these words, to shew how Christ is the Son of God, and what is the peculiarity of his generation; that when others are also the sons of God, he alone should so be his Son, as no other is or can be so; and therefore he alone should have the name of the only-begotten. First then, It cannot be denied that Christ is the Son of God, for that reason, because he was by the Spirit of God born of the Virgin Mary; for that which is conceived (or begotten)* in her, by the testimony of an angel, is of the Holy Ghost; and because of him, therefore the Son of God. For so spake the angel to the Virgin; "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee (or, which is begotten of thee) shall be called the Son

locum iste notavit, et illum prætermisit, ubi unici filii commemorationem idem beatus Leo facit, dicens, Idem vero sempiterni genitoris unigenitus sempiternus, natus de Spiritu S. ex Maria Virgine:' which words are not to be found in the same epistle. Howsoever it was in the first copies of Leo: both Ruffinus and St. Augustin, who were before him, and Maximus Taurinensis, Chrysologus, Etherius and Beatus, who were later, read it, 'et in Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum.' But the word used in the Scriptures, and kept constantly by the Greeks, is μονογενής, the only-begotten.

* For the original is rò ¿v avtÿ yevvŋlév and it is the observation of St. Basil, οὐκ εἴρηται, τὸ κυηθὲν, ἀλλὰ, τὸ yɛvvŋlev. Homil. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. §. 4. Indeed the vulgar translation renders it, quod in ea natum est, and in St. Luke, quod nascetur sanctum; and it must be confessed this was the most ancient translation. For so Tertullian read it: Per virginem dicitis natum, non ex virgine, et in vulva, non ex vulva, quia et Angelus in somnis ad Joseph, Nam quod in ea natum est, inquit, de Sp. S. est. De carne Christi, c. 19. and of that in St. Luke: Hæc et ab Angelo exceperat secundum nostrum Evangelium, Propterea, quod in te nascetur, vocabitur sanctum, filius Dei.' Adv. Marcion. 1. iv. c. 7. Yet quod in ea natum est cannot be proper, while it is yet in the womb; nor can the child first be said to be born, and then that the mother shall bring it forth. It is true indeed, yɛvväv sig

nifies not always to beget, but sometimes to bear or bring forth; as ǹ yvvý σov 'Exoáßer yevvýσei vióv oo, Luke i. 13. and verse 57. kai ¿yévvnoɛv vióv. So τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐν Βηθλεὲμ, Matt. ii. 1. must necessarily be understood of Christ's nativity, for it is most certain that he was not begotten or conceived at Bethlehem. And this without question must be the meaning of Herod's inquisition, oŬ ò Xploròs yevvarai, where the Messias was to be born. But though yɛvväv have sometimes the signification of bearing or bringing forth; yet rò ¿v αὐτῷ γεννηθὲν cannot be so interpreted, because it speaks of something as past, when as yet Christ was not born; and though the conception was already past, and we translate it so, "which is conceived;" yet St. Basil rejects that interpretation: yevväv is one thing, ovλλaμßávεiv another. Seeing then the nativity was not yet come, and yɛvvŋŷèv speaks of something already past, therefore the old translation is not good, quod in ea natum est. Seeing, though the conception indeed were past, yet yɛvväv signifieth not to conceive, and so is not properly to be interpreted, that which is conceived. Seeing yevväv is most properly to beget, as ǹ YEVVATIKŃ the generative faculty: therefore I conceive the fittest interpretation of those words, tò ¿v avtỹ yevrŋlèv, that which is begotten in her. And because the angel in St. Luke speaks of the same thing, therefore I interpret tò yɛvvwμevov x σou, in the same manner, that which is begotten of thee.

of God." (Luke i. 35.) And the reason is clear, because that the Holy Ghost is God. For were he any creature, and not God himself, by whom our Saviour was thus born of the Virgin, he must have been the Son of a creature, not of God.

Secondly, It is as undoubtedly true, that the same Christ, thus born of the Virgin by the Spirit of God, was designed to so high an office by the special and immediate will of God, that by virtue thereof he must be acknowledged the Son of God. He urgeth this argument himself against the Jews; Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John x. 34.) Are not these the very words of the eighty-second Psalm? (ver. 6.) "If he called them gods," if God himself so spake, or the Psalmist from him, if this be the language of the Scripture, if they be called gods" unto whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken," nor the authority thereof in any particular denied), "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world," whom he hath consecrated and commissioned to the most eminent and extraordinary office, "say ye of him, Thou blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God?" (John x. 35, 36.)

Thirdly, Christ must therefore be acknowledged the Son of God, because he is raised immediately by God out of the earth unto immortal life. For "God hath fulfilled the promise unto us, in that he bath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (Acts xiii. 33.) The grave is as the womb of the earth; Christ, who is raised from thence, is as it were begotten to another life: and God who raised him, is his Father. So true it must needs be of him, which is spoken of others, who are "the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." (Luke xx. 36.) Thus was he "defined, or constituted, and appointed the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead:" (Rom. i. 4.) neither is he called simply the first that rose, but with a note of generation, "the first-born from the dead." (Col. i. 18.)

Fourthly, Christ, after his resurrection from the dead, is made actually heir of all things in his Father's house, and Lord of all the spirits which minister unto him, from whence he also hath the title of the Son of God. "He is set down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" (Heb. i. 3-5.) From all which testimonies of the Scriptures it is evident, that Christ hath this fourfold right unto the title of the Son of God: by generation, as begotten of God; by commission, as sent by him; by resurrection, as the first-born; by actual possession, as heir of all.

But beside these four, we must find yet a more peculiar ground of our Saviour's filiation, totally distinct from any