substance with the Father; as the Council of Nice determined, and the ancient fathers before them taught. Hence appeareth the truth of those words of our Saviour, which raised a second motion in the Jews to stone him; "I and the Father are one:” (John x. 30.) where the plurality of the verb, and the neutrality of the noun, with the distinction of their persons, speak a perfect identity of their essence. And though Christ say, "the Father is in me, and I in him ;” (Ibid. 38.) yet withal he saith," I came out from the Father:" (John xvi. 28. xvii. 8.) by the former shewing the Divinity of his essence, by the latter the origination of himself. We must not look upon the divine nature as sterile,* but rather acknowledge and admire the fecundity and communicability of itself, upon which the creation of the World dependeth: God making all things by his Word, to whom he first communicated that omnipotency which is the cause of all things. And this may suffice for the illustration of our third assertion, that the Father hath communicated the divine essence to the Word, who is that Jesus who is the Christ. The fourth assertion followeth, That the communication of the divine essence by the Father, is the generation of the Son; and Christ, who was eternally God, not from himself, but from the Father, is the eternal Son of God. That God always had a Son, appeareth by Agur's question in the Proverbs of Solomon; "Who hath established all the ends of the earth; what is his name? and what is his Son's name? if thou canst tell." (xxx. 4.) And it was the chief design. of Mahomet to deny this truth, because he knew it was not otherwise possible to prefer himself before our Saviour. One prophet may be greater than another, and Mahomet might persuade his credulous disciples that he was greater and the person of Christ; so the ancient fathers, before the Nicene Council, had used the same in a true catholic sense, to express the unity in essence of the Father and the Son; as appeareth by the confession of the same Eusebius: 'Eπɛi kai r☎v πalaιwv λογίους τινὰς, καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκόπους, καὶ συγγραφέας ἔγνωμεν, ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ Θεολογίας τῷ τοῦ ὁμοου olov ovyxonoauέvovç óvópari. Ibid. §.7. Wherefore the other Eusebius of Nicomedia, understanding the ancient catholic sense, confessed, that if they believed Christ to be the true begotten, and not created, Son of God, they must acknowledge him ouoovorov, which the Arians endeavoured to make so odious; and therefore the Council in opposition to them determined it: Quid est aliud cur Homoüsion Patri nolint Filium dici, nisi quia nolunt verum Dei Filium? sicut Auctor ipsorum Eusebius Nicomediensis Epistola sua prodidit, dicens, Si verum, inquit, Dei Filium, et increatum dicimus, Homoüsion cum Patre incipimus confiteri. Hæc cum lecta esset Epistola in Concilio Ni- ́ ceno, hoc verbum in Tractatu fidei posuerunt Patres, quod id viderunt adversariis esse formidini, ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio ipsorum nefandæ caput hæresis amputarent.' S. Ambros. 1. iii. de Fide, c. 15. De voce Oμoovotos, vide Dionys. Petav. de Trinit. I. iv. c. 6. * Αδύνατον γὰρ τὸν θεὸν εἰπεῖν ἔρηpov ris puoiкñs yoviμórηros. Damasc. de Fid. Orthod. 1. i. c. 8. † Εἰ δὲ μὴ καρπογόνος ἐστὶν αὐτὴ ἡ θεία ουσία, ἀλλ' ἔρημος, κατ ̓ αὐτοὺς, ὡς φῶς μὴ φωτίζον, καὶ πηγὴ ξηρά· πῶς δημιουργικὴν ἐνέργειαν αὐτὸν ἔχειν λέγονTec ouk aloxývovraι; S. Athanas. Orat. ii. contra Arian. §. 2. than any of the sons of men; but while any one was believed to be the eternal Son of God, he knew it wholly impossible to prefer himself before him. Wherefore he frequently inculcates that blasphemy in his Alcoran,* that God hath no such Son, nor any equal with him: and his disciples have corrupted+ the Psalm of David, (ii. 7.) reading (instead of "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,") Thou art my prophet, I have educated thee.' The later Jews, acknowledging the words, and the proper literal reading of them, apply them so unto David, as that they deny them to belong to Christ; and that upon no other ground, than that by such an exposition they may avoid the Christian's confession. But by the consent of the ancient Jews, by the interpretation of the blessed apostles, we know these words belong to Christ, *This is often repeated there, and particularly in the last chapter but one, called Alechlas: Est ipse Deus unus, Deus æternus, qui nec genuit, nec genitus est, et cui nullus est æqualis.' And the Saracenica set forth by Sylburgius, mention this as the first principle of Mahometanism: "Orɩ is θεός ἐστι, ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων, μήτε γεννηθεὶς, μήτε γεννήσας. And Joannes Siculus and Georgius Cedrenus relate how Mahomet gave command: "Eva póvov προσκυνεῖν θεὸν, καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν, τιμᾷν wg λóyov Tov DεOũ μèv ovxì vìòv dé. Hist. Compend. p. 422. ed. Par. 1647. And we read of his ridiculous history, that Christ, after his ascension into heaven, was accused by God for calling him self his Son; and that he denied it, as being so named only by men without any authority from him: "Oriȧveλlóvra not deny but they were spoken of the Messias, were forced to corrupt the text: and for that they pretend the eminency and excellency of the Godhead, as if it were beneath the majesty of God to beget a son, or be a Father: and indeed whosoever would bring in another prophet greater than Christ, as he was than Moses, must do so. * Ι say, the later Jews so attribute those words to David, as if they belonged not to the Messias; but the ancient Jews understood them of the Christ: as appeareth not only out of those places in the evangelists, where the Christ and the Son of God are synonymous; but also by the testimony of the later Jews themselves who have confessed no less. So Rabbi David Kimchi in the end of his commentaries on the second psalm, θεὸς, λέγων, ὦ Ἰησοῦ, σὺ εἶπες τὸν λό- 21 ΠΡΟΠΤΩΣ γον τοῦτον, Οτι υἱός εἰμι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Some interpret this psalm of Gog and θεός. Καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς. Ὅτι οὐκ Μagog, and the anointed is Messias the εἶπον ἐγὼ, οὐδὲ αἰσχύνομαι εἶναι δοῦλός σου· ἀλλ' οἱ ἄνθρωποι λέγουσιν ὅτι εἶπον king : and so our doctors of happy meτὸν λόγον τοῦτον. mory have expounded it. And Rabbi that the ancient Rabbins did interpret Solomon Jarchi not only confesseth it of the Messiás, but shews the rearather of David, that thereby they son why the later Jews understood it of the Christians deduced from thence, might the better answer the argument + Alfirozabadius in his Kamuz: 'Dictum Dei omnipotentis ad Jesum (cui propitius sit et pacem concedat Deus), Tu es Nabiya, Propheta meus, ego walladtoca, fovi te; at dixerunt Christiani, Tu es Bonaya, Filius meus, ego waladtoca, te genui. Longe est supra hæc Deus.' And to the same רבותינו דרשו את הענין על מלך המשיח ולפי, משמעו, ולתשובת purpose Ebnol Athir: • In Evangelio המינים נכון לפותרו על דוד עצמו: -dixit Ise, ego walladioca, i. e. edu cavi te; at Christiani, dempta litera Our doctors have expounded it of the Lam altera, ipsum ei filium statuerunt. Messias: but as to the literal sense, and Qui longe elatus est super ea quæ di- for the answering heretics (that is, in cunt.' Whereas then the apostles at- their language, Christians), it is ratributed those words of the psalm to ther to be interpreted of David, in kiş Christ, the Mahometans, who could own person. and in the most proper sense to him alone. "For, unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" (Heb. i. 5.) as the apostle argues. And if he had spoken them unto any other man, as they were spoken unto him, the apostle's argument had been none at all. Now that the communication of the divine essence by the Father (which we have already proved) was the true and proper generation by which he hath begotten the Son, will thus appear: because the most proper generation which we know, is nothing else but a vital production of another in the same nature, with a full representation of him from whom he is produced. Thus man begetteth a son, that is, produceth another man of the same human nature with himself; and this production, as a perfect generation, becomes the foundation of the relation of paternity in him that produceth, and of filiation in him that is produced. Thus after the prolifical benediction, "Be fruitful and multiply; Adam begat in his own likeness, after his image:" (Gen. i. 28. v. 3.) and by the continuation of the same blessing, the succession of human generations hath been continued. This then is the known* confession of all men, that a son is nothing but another produced by his father in the same nature with him. But God the Father hath communicated to the Word the same divine essence by which he is God; and consequently he is of the same nature with him, and thereby the perfect image and similitude of him, and therefore his proper Son. In human generations we may conceive two kinds of similitude; one in respect of the internal nature, the other in reference to the external form or figure. The former similitude is essential and necessary; it being impossible a man should beget a son, and that son not be by nature a man: the latter accidental; not only sometimes the child representing this, sometimes the other parent, but also oftentimes neither. The similitude then,+ in which the propriety of generation is preserved, is that which consisteth in the identity of nature; and this communication of the divine essence by the Father to the Word is evidently a sufficient foundation of such a similitude; from whence Christ is called "the image of God," "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." (2 Cor. iv. 4. Heb. i. 3.) Nor is this communication of the divine essence only the proper generation of the Son, but we must acknowledge it far * Κοινὸν ὑπάρχει πᾶσι καὶ αὐτοδίδακτον ὁμολόγημα, ὡς ἅπας υἱὸς τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστὶ τῷ γεγεννηκότι οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως. Phot. Epist. 1. This is in the language of Aristotle: Tò Toñoαι repov olov autó Swov pèv Sãov, puròv dè puróv, And St. Basil, lib. ii. contra Eunom. §. 22. fin. Пarng μiv yáp kotiv, ò ¿répų τοῦ εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ὁμοίαν ἑαυτῷ φύσιν τὴν ἀρχὴν παρασχών. + Etiamsi filius hominis, homo, in quibusdam similis, in quibusdam sit dissimilis patri; tamen quia ejusdem substantia est, negari verus filius non potest, et quia verus est filius, negari ejusdem substantiæ non potest.' S. August. contra Maximin. Arian. 1. ii, c. 15. §. 2. more proper than any natural generation of the creature, not only because it is in a more perfect manner, but also because the identity of nature is most perfect. As in the divine 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 be-` getteth 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 * Πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἤδη τέλεια γεννᾷ τὸ δὲ ἀεὶ τέλειον, ἀεὶ καὶ ἀΐδιον γεννᾷ. Euseb. de Præp. Evang. ex Plotino, l. xi. §. 17. ̓Ανθρώπων μὲν γὰρ ἴδιον τὸ ἐν χρόνῳ γεννᾷν, διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τῆς φύσεως Θεοῦ δὲ ἀΐδιον τὸ γέννημα διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ τέ λειον τῆς φύσεως. S. Athan. Orat. i. contra Arian. §. 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. him; being the full perfect nature of God is communicated unto the Word, and that more intimately and with a greater unity or identity 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,† who would have the restraining *Multum distat inter dominatio- μóvov, and unigenitus were nothing nem et conditionem, inter generatio- else but genitus ab uno, This St. nem et adoptionem, inter substan- Basil refuteth copiously; first, from tiam et gratiam. Ideoque hic non the language of the Scriptures and permixte nec passim dicitur, Ascendo the usage of mankind: Aià Tỷy Tavqd Patrem nostrum aut Deum no- ουργίαν ἣν περὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογε strum ; sed ad Patrem meum et Ρa- νοῦς ἐκακούργησε, παρά τε τὴν τῶν ἀνtrem vestrum, ad Deum meum et ad θρώπων συνήθειαν, καὶ παρὰ τὴν εὐσεβῆ Deum vestrum. Aliter enim illi Deus τῶν γραφῶν παράδοσιν λαμβάνων αὐτοῦ Pater est, aliter nobis. Illum siqui- τὴν διάνοιαν. Μονογενὴς γὰρ οὐχ ὁ dem natura coæquat, misericordia παρὰ μόνου γενόμενος, ἀλλ' ὁ μόνος γενhumiliat: nos vero natura proster- νηθεὶς ἐν τῇ κοινῇ χρήσει προσαγορεύε nit, misericordia erigit.' Capreolus rau. Ibid. Secondly, by a retort peCarthag. Epist. p. 70. Opusc. Dogm. culiar to that heresy, which held the Vet. V. Script. Par. 1630. Son of God might be called Kriolɛiç as well as yevvyoɛic, created as well as begotten, and consequently might be as properly named μovókтiσтog as μoνογενής: Εἰ μὴ παρὰ τὸ μόνος γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ παρὰ μόνου μονογε νὴς εἴρηται, ταὐτὸ δέ ἐστι κατά σε τὸ ἐκτίσθαι τῷ γεγεννῆσθαι, τί οὐχὶ καὶ Μονόκτιστον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζεις; Ibid. §. 21. Thirdly, by a particular instance, + 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 γὰρ, φησὶ, μονογενὴς, ἐπειδὴ παρὰ μόνου τῇ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου δυνάμει γεννηθεὶς καὶ κτισθεὶς τελειότατος γέγονεν ὑπουργός adv. Eunom. l. ii. §. 20. as if μovoyɛvns were only rapà |