Page images
PDF
EPUB

* This is often

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 fuffice for the illuftration of our third Affertion, that the Father hath communicated the Divine Effence to the Word, who is that Jefus who is the Chrift.

The fourth Affertion followeth, That the Communication of the Divine Effence 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. And it was the chief design of Mahomet to deny this truth, because he knew it was not otherwise poffible to prefer himself before our Saviour. One Prophet may be greater than another, and Mahomet might perfuade his credulous Difciples that he was greater than any of the fons of men; but while any one was believed to be the eternal Son of God, he knew it wholly impoffible to prefer himself before him. Wherefore he frequently inculcates that blafphemy in his * Alcoran, that God hath no fuch Son, nor any equal with him and his Disciples have † corrupted the Pfalm of David, reading (inftead 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 fo unto David, as that they deny them to belong to Chrift; and that upon no other ground, than that by fuch an expofition they may nec genuit, avoid the Chriftians Confeffion. But by the confent of the ancient Jews, by nec genitus the interpretation of the bleffed Apoftles, we know these words belong to nullus eft æ- Christ, and in the most proper fenfe to him alone. For, unto which of qualis. And the Angels faid he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten the Saracani thee? as the Apostle argues. And if he had fpoken them unto any other Sylburgius man, as they were fpoken unto him, the Apostle's Argument had been none

repeated there,

and particu

larly in the last chapter led Alechlas. Eft iple Deus

but one, cal

unus, Deus

æternus, qui

eft, & cui

ca fet forth by

mentions this

as the first

principle of

at all.

a

Mahumet anim, "Ότι εἰς θεός ἐςι, ποιητής * όλων, μήτε δυνηθείς, μήτε γυνήσας. And Joannes Siculus and Gregorius Cedrenus relate how Mahomet gave command, “Ένα μόνον προσκευεῖν θεὸν, καὶ ὶ Χρισὸν τιμῶν ὡς λόγον τὸ θεῖ μ, εχὶ μόν d. And we read of his ridiculous Hiftory, that Christ, after his afcenfion into Heaven, was accused by God for calling himself his Son, and that he denied it, as being fo named only by men without any authority from him. "Ore aveλlóva * Χρισὸν εἰς τὰ ἐρανὸν ἠρώτησεν ὁ θεὸς, λέγων, ο Ιησέ, (ὺ εἶπες τ λόγον τότον, "Οτι τὸς εἰμι το θεᾶ καὶ θεός· καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ιησός, ̔́Οτι εκ εἶπον ἐδῶ, ἀδὲ αἰχανομαι είναι δαλός (γ· ἀλλ ̓ οἱ ἄνθρωποι λέξεσιν ὅτι εἶπον τ λόγον τῦτον.

Alfirozabadius in his Kamuz: Dictum Dei omnipotentis ad Jefum, (cui propitius fit & pacem concedat Deus) Tu cft Nabiya Propheta meus, ego walladroca, fove te; at dixerunt Chriftiani, Tu es Bonaya, Filius meus, ego walladtoca, te genui. Longè eft fupra hæc Deus. And to the fame purpofe Ebnol Athir: In Evangelio dixit Ifæ, ego waladroca, i. e. educavi te; at Chriftiani, dempta litera Lam altera, ipfum ei filium ftatuerunt. Qui longè elatus eft fuper ea quæ dicunt. Whereas then the Apoftles attributed those words of the Pfalm to Christ, the Mahumetans who could not deny but they were spoken of the Meffias, were forced to corrupt the Text: and for that they pretend the emi-. nency and excellency of the Godhead, as if it were beneath the Majefty 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 Mofes, muft do fo.

I fay the later Jews fo attribute those words to David, as if they belonged not to the Meffias; but the ancient Jews underflood them of the Chrift; as appeareth not only out of those places in the Evangelifts where the Chrift, and the Son of God are fynonymous; but also by the teftimony of the later Jews themselves, who have confeffed no less. So Rabbi

ויש מפרשים זה המז מור על גוג ומגוג והמשיח,David Kiinciii in the end of his commentaries on the fecond Pfalm Some interpret this Pialim of Gog and Magog, and the anointed is Mcflias the הוא מלך המשיח וכן פירש רבותינו ו"ל

King; and fo our Doctors of happy memory have expounded it. And Rabbi Solomon Jarchi not only confeffeth that the ancient Rabbins did interpret it of the Meffias, but shews the reason why the later Jews understood it rather of David, that thereby they might the better answer the Argument of the Chriftians deduced from thence:

-our Doctors have ex דרשו את העניין על מלך המשיח ולפי משמעו ולתשובת המינים נכון לפותרו על דור עצמו

pounded it of the Mellias: but as to the literal fenfe, and for the anfwering Hereticks, (that is, in their Language,
Chriftians) it is rather to be interpreted of David, in his own perfon.
a Heb. I. 5.

Now that the Communication of the Divine Effence 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

4

nature,

and

5.3.

[ocr errors]

nature, with a full representation of him from whom he is produced. Thus man begetteth a fon, that is, produceth another man of the fame 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. 1. 28. and by the continuation of the fame bleffing, the fucceffion of human generations hath been continued. This then is the known* confeffion of Kotvòvúæágall men, that a Son is nothing but another produced by his Father in the fame nature with him. But God the Father hath communicated to the Word autodidaxtor αὐτοδίδακτον the fame Divine Effence by which he is God; and confequently he is of the ass ὁμολόγημα, ὡς ἅπας τ fame Nature with him, and thereby the perfect image and fimilitude of him, and therefore his proper Son. In humane generations we may γελυνηκότι In humane generations we may conceive 8two kinds of fimilitude; one in refpect of the internal nature, the other Phot. Ep. 1. in reference to the external form or figure. The former fimilitude is effen- This is in the tial and neceffary; it being impoffible a man fhould beget a fon, and that language of fon not be by nature a man: the latter accidental; not only fometimes was the child reprefenting this, fometimes the other parent, but also oftentimes. neither. The fimilitude then, in which the propriety of generation is pre- quor. served, is that which confifteth in the identity of nature: and this Com- And S. Bafil. munication of the Divine Effence by the Father to the Word is evidently a Eunomium; fufficient foundation of fuch a fimilitude; from whence Chrift is called, wag vás a the image of God, the brightness of his glory, and the exprefs image of isivo iTiew To his perfon.

σίας καὶ φύσεως.

Ariftotle, T

g

[ocr errors]

lib. 2. cont.

sivas 2 7 8μοίαν ἑαυτῇ φύσιν * άρχω Sagar. Etiamfi filius hominis, homo, in quibufdam fimilis, in quibufdam fit diffimilis patri; tamen quia ejusdem fubftantiæ eft, negari verus filius non poteft, & quia verus eft filius, negari ejufdem fubftantiæ non poteft. S. Aug. contra Maximin. c. 13. a2 Cor. 4. 4. Heb. 1. 3.

Nor is this Communication of the Divine Effence only the proper generation of the Son, but we must acknowledge it far 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 Effence we acknowledge all the perfections of the Creature, fubftracting all the imperfections which adhere unto them here in things below : fo 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 fame nature with the Father, which is performed by derivation, or decifion of part of the fubftance of the parent: but this decifion includeth imperfection, because it fuppofeth a substance divisible, and confequently corporeal; whereas the Effence of God is incorporeal, fpiritual and indivifible; and therefore his nature is really communicated, not by derivation or decifion, but by a total and plenary Communication. In natural conceptions the Father neceffarily precedeth the Son, and begetteth one younger than himself; for being generation is for the perpetuity of the Species, where the individuals fucceffively fail, it is fufficient if the Parent can produce another to live after him, and continue the existence of his nature, when his person is diffolved. But this prefuppofeth the imperfection of mortality, wholly to be removed, when we fpeak of him who inhabiteth eternity: the Effence which God always had without beginning, without beginning he did communicate; being always Father, as always God. *Animals when * ára a they come to the perfection of nature, then become prolifical; in God eternal perfection fheweth his eternal foecundity. And that which is most re-ex de j

ἤδη τέλεια

Κυνᾶ· τὸ ἢ ἀεὶ

αίδιον γυνα.

Eufeb. de Prep. Evang. ex Plotino. Ανθρώπων με γ ἴδιον τὸ ἐν χρόνῳ Αυνάν, λὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τὸ φύσεως· θεῖο ἢ αίδιον τὸ
Κίνημα, γιὰ τὸ ἀεὶ τέλειον τ φύσεως. S. Athan. Orat. 2. This was it which so much troubled the Arians, when they
heard the Catholicks conftantly afferting, dei deos, de jós· äμa walng, äμa jós.
T

markable

markable in human generations the Son is of the fame nature with the Father, and yet is not the fame man; because though he hath an effence of the fame kind, yet he hath not the fame effence; 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 Effence, being by reafon of its fimplicity not fubject to divifion, and in refpect of its infinity uncapable of multiplication, is fo communicated as not to be multiplied; infomuch that he which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the fame nature, but is alfo the fame God. The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Ifaac man: but Abraham one man, Ifaac another man; not fo the Father one God, and the Word another, but the Father and the Word both the fame God. Being then the propriety of generation is founded in the effential fimilitude of the Son unto the Father, by reafon of the fame which he receiveth from him; being the full perfect nature of God is communicated unto the Word, and that more intimately aud 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 Confeffion, thou art the fon of the living God; this the ground of our Saviour's Multum di- *diftinction, I go *diftinction, I go unto my Father, and to your Father. Hence did S. John flat inter do- raise a verity, more than only a negation of falfity, when he faid, we are in minationem the true Son: for we which are in him are true, not falfe fons, we are not & conditio- as the true Son. Hence did S. Paul draw an argument of the infinite love generatio- of God toward man, in that he spared not his own proper Son.

nem, inter

nem & adop

Thus

tionem, inter have we fufficiently fhewed, that the eternal communication of the Divine fubftantiam Effence by the Father to the Word was a proper generation by which Chrift Ideoque hic Jefus always was the true and proper Son of God: which was our fourth non permixtè Affertion.

nec paffim

dicitur, Afcendo ad Patrem noftrum aut Deum noftrum; fed ad Patrem meum & Patrem veftrum, ad Deum meum & ad Deum veftrum. Aliter enim illi Deus Pater eft, aliter nobis. Illum fiquidem natura coæquat, mifericordia humilat: nos verò natura profternit, mifericordia erigit. Capreolus Carthag. Epift.

The fifth and last affertion followeth, That the Divine Effence was fo peculiarly communicated to the Word, that there was never any other naturally begotten by the Father; and in that refpect Chrift is the Only-begotten Son of God, For the clearing of which truth, it will first be neceffary to enquire into the true notion of the Only-begotten; and then fhew how it belongs particularly to Christ, by reafon of the Divine Nature communicated by way of Generation to him alone. First, therefore, we must avoid the vain in*This was the terpretation of the ancient *Hereticks, who would have the restraining term fallacy which Eunomius only to belong, not to the Son, but to the Father; as if the Only-begotten endeavoured were no more than begotten of the Father only. Which is both contrary to the language of the Scriptures, and the common cuftom of men, who us appears by ufe it not for him who is begotten of one, but for him who alone is begotten thofe words of of any.

to put upon the Church,

his delivered

and answered Secondly, We must by no means admit the exposition of the † later Heret by S. Bafil, aὰ τέτο γδ φησὶ, μονογυῆς, ἐπειδὴ τα μόνα τῇ τῇ ἀγυνήτες δινάμε μνηθεὶς καὶ κλιθείς τελειότατο γέγονεν ύπαρ ros, as if movilons were only a move, and unigenitus were nothing else but genitus ab uno. This S. Bafil refuteth copiously: First, from the Language of the Scriptures and the usage of mankind; warsgríar li dei to ovoμa TẼ μovoλυός ανακέρδισε, παρά τε το ανθρώπων (εήθειαν, καὶ παρα τ' ούσεβη το γραφών παράδοσιν λαμβάνων αὐτὸ τὰ πλάνοιαν. Μονοχυής γδ' ἐκ ὁ παρά μόνο βρόμα, ἀλλ' ὁ μόνος γυνηθείς, ἐν τῇ κοινῇ χρήση προτατορουε). Secondly, By a retort pe culiar to that Herefie, which held the Son of God might be called eis as well as ones, created as well as begotten, and confequently might be as properly named μονόκλις ας μοναχής. Εἰ μὴ παρὰ τὸ μόνο μελλονής, ἀλλὰ ἐὰὶ τὸ παρά μόνος μονολυής είρηθ, ταυτὸ δὲ ἐσι καλά με το εκλίπς της γεγονώς, τι όχι καὶ Μονόκλισον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζεις; Thirdly, by a particular inftance, fhewing the abfurdity of fuch an interpretation, for that thereby no man could properly be called movoχής, becaufe not begotten of one, but two parts. Μονοχμής 5, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀνθρώπων εδεὶς καὶ γε τ' ὑμέτερον λόγον, διὰ τὸ εἶνα (ωδυασμό πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν τ' όνησιν· ἐδὲ ἡ Σάρρα μήτης μονογυές τώ παιδός, διότι εχὶ μόνη αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ μὲ τὸ ̓Αβραάμ, ἐτεκνώσατο. †The Socinians make very much of this Notion, and apply it fo unto Chrift, as that thereby they might avoid

2

avoid all neceffity of an eternal generation. So the Racovian Catechism: Caufa cur Chrifto ifta attributa (fc. proprium unigenitum Dei Filium effe), competant, hæc eft; quod inter omnes Dei filios & præcipuus fit, & Deo chariffimus: quemadmodum Ifaac, quia Abrahamo chariffimus & hæres exftitit, unigenitus vocatus eft, Heb. 11. 17. licet fratreni Ifmaelem habuerit; & Solomon unigenitus coram matre fua, licet plures ex eadem matre fratres fuerint, 1 Paral. 3. 1, 2, 3, &c, And that this might be applied to the interpretation of the Creed, Schlictingius bath inferted it as a material Obfervation; Nam hic unicus feu unigena filius nominatur, qui cæteris longè charior eft Patri, longèque præftantior; and confirms the Interpretation with those two teftimonies concerning Ifaac and Solomon. But certainly this Obfervation of theirs is vain, or what else they fay is falfe. For if Ckrift be called the Son of God, because conceived by the Holy Ghoft, and none else was ever fo conceived, then is he the only begotten by virtue of his generation. And if fo, then is he not the only begotten as Ifaac and Solomon were, that is, by the affection and prelation of their Parents. Or if Chrift were the Only-begotten as Ifaac and Solomon were, then was he not conceived after a fingular manner, for the brethren of Solomon no way differed from him in their generation. It is plain therefore that this interpretation was invented, that when all the reft fhould fail, they might flick to this.

ticks, 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, when we know that he had Ishmael befide, and Solomon faid to be the only-begotten 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 fame; the one having the nature of a cause in refpect of the other, and the fame cannot be caufe and effect to itself. For though it be true, that the only Son 12 is the beloved Son; yet with this order, that he is therefore beloved, be

7

caufe the only, not therefore the only because beloved. Although therefore Chrift be the Only-begotten and the beloved Son of God, yet we must not look upon these two Attributes as fynonymous, or equally fignificant of the fame thing, but as one depending on the other, Unigeniture being the foundation of his fingular love. Befide, Ifaac was called the only Son of Abraham for fome other reason than because he was fingularly beloved of Abraham, for he was the only Son of the Free-woman, the only Son of the promife made to Abraham, which was first this, Sarah fhall have a son, and Gen. 18. 14. then, In Ifaac fhall thy feed be called. So that Ifaac may well be called and 21. 12. the only fon of Abraham in reference to the promise, as the Apostle fpeaks exprefly; By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Ifaac, and he Heb. 11. 17. that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten Son. Avoiding therefore these two expofitions, as far fhort of the true notion of the onlybegotten; we must look upon it in the most proper, full and fignificant fenfe, as fignifying a Son fo begotten as none other is, was, or can be: fo as the term reftrictive only fhall have relation not only to the* Father generating, Eunomius but also to the Son begotten, and to the manner of the Generation. 'Tis would have is true, the Father fpake from Heaven, faying, Thou art my beloved Son, in only a pó18, in relation whom I am well pleafed, and thereby we are to understand, that whofoever to the Father of us are beloved by the Father are fo beloved in and through the Son. In only. S. Bafil the fame manner Chrift is the Only-begotten Son of God; and as many of us fhews that no as God hath bestowed his love upon, that we should be called the Sons and hewsthat. God, are all brought into that near relation by our fellowship with him, is who is by a far more near relation the natural and eternal Son.

of

way proper,

not he which Syi' move but μόνος γελύνη 5. s. Cyril adds thefe two move and póv together, in relation to the Father and the Son: Morogfors & Purno on des waley's wroμason róso, ősi μóve in μóvy geglón) rỡ walogs, Epift. 1. ad Regin. As Ruffinus doth in Unicus: Ideo fubjungit Unicum hunc effe Filium Dei, Unus enim de uno nafcitur. Expof. Symb. S. Greg. Naz. adds to thefe two a thira, in refpect of the manner : Μονοχής 5, είχε ότι μόνο εκ μόνε, καὶ μόνῳ ἀλλ' ὅτι καὶ μονοπρώπως εκ ὡς τὰ σώματα. 50 he fomething obfcurely and corruptly, but plainly enough in Damafcene, who aims often to deliver himself in the words of Nazianzen: Λίγες μονοχής ότι μόνο ότι μόνα τα παρὸς μόνως ἐγυνήθη· ἐδὲ γδ όμοια 5 ἑτέρας κίνησις τῇ τῇ νὰ τὰ θεῖ γυνήσει, ἐδὶ γάρ ἐσιν ἄλλων ος τα θεά.

Having thus declared the interpretation of the word, that, properly, as Primogeniture confifteth in Prelation, fo Unigeniture in Exclufion; and that none can be strictly called the Only-begotten but he who alone was fo begotten: we shall proceed to make good our Affertion, fhewing that the Divine Effence was peculiarly communicated to the Word, by which he was begotten the Son of God, and never any was fo begotten befide that Son.

T 2

And

Heb. 2. 11.

[ocr errors]

1 John 3.9.

Θεό αμαρτίαν

And here we meet with two difficulties: One fhewing that there were other Sons of God faid to be begotten of him, to whom either the Divine Effence 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 fuch Communication neceffary to found fuch a Filiation: The other, alledging that the fame Divine Effence may be communicated to another befide the Word, and not only that it may, but that it is fo, to the Perfon of the Holy Ghoft; 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 Effence a fufficient foundation of the relation of Sonfhip. These two objections being aufwered, nothing will remain farther to demonftrate this laft Affertion.

For the first, we acknowledge that others are frequently called the Sons of God, and that we call the fame God our Father which Chrift called his both he that fanctifieth, and they who are fanctified are all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call us brethren we confess that those * 1 Cor. 4.15 whom S. Paul* hath begotten through the Gospel may well be termed the In 2 1 begotten of God, whofe feed remaineth in them: but withal, we affirm that dayi iy this our Regeneration is of a nature wholly different from the generation of ὑμᾶς ἐχύνησα. the Son. the Son. We are first generated, and have our natural being; after that Пas y regenerated, and fo receive a fpiritual renovation, and by virtue thereof an Tinheritance incorruptible: whereas the Generation of Chrift admits no Re8 ποιεῖ, ὅτι generation, he becoming at once thereby God and Son and Heir of all. The aigua aut ftate of Sonship which we come into is but of adoption, fhewing the GeneTeration by which we are begotten to be but metaphorical: whereas Chrift is prefly, 1 Joh. fo truly begotten, fo properly the natural Son of God, that his ‡ Generation 5.1. nas clearly excludeth the name of Adoption; and not only fo, but when he besisiv & xex- cometh the Son of man, even in his humanity refufeth the name of an adoptsos, cx T8 Oto ed Son. For when the fulness of time was come, God fent forth his Son resivn?) made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under I surioavia, the Law, (not that he, but) that we might receive the adoption of fons.. *** He then whofe Generation is totally different from ours whom he calleth γελυνημερίου are. Quif- Brethren; he whom in the facred Scriptures the Spirit nameth the true Son,

And more ex

Πῶς ὁ πι

σδύων ὅτι Ιησ

σᾶς ἐςὶν Χρι

πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν

quis credit Je

[ocr errors]

fum effe Chriftum illum, ex Deo genitus eft; & quifquis diligit eum qui genuit, diligit etiam eum qui ex eo genitus eft. Nos genuit Deus ut filii ejus fimus, quos fecerat ut homines effemus. Unicum autem genuit, non folùm ut filius effet quod Pater non eft, fed etiam ut Deus effet, quod & Pater eft. S. Aug. de Conf. Evang. 1. 2. c. 3. In the Book of Cellus there was a few introduced peaking thus to Chrift, Εί τότε λέξεις, ὅτι πᾶς άνθρωπο και θείαν πρόνοιαν γεγονώς ψός ἐςι θεό, τι ἂν οὗ ἄλλες ἀσφέρης, who is thus anfwered by Origen; Προς ὃν ἐξαρθρ, ὅτι πᾶς μ, ὡς ὁ Παῦλο ὠνόμασε, μηκέτι από φόβο παιδια ονόματα, ἀλλὰ δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ καλόν αἱρέμπου, ψός ἐσι θεῖ στὰ ἢ πολλῷ καὶ μακρῷ Διαφέρει · παντὸς τῇ 2/α 7 άρει το χρηματίζονται με το θεό, ὅτις απορεί πηγή τις καὶ ἀρχὴ Ἡ τοιέτων τυχάνει. Orig. adv. Celfum, 1. First, it is most certain that the Word of God, as the Word, is not the adopted, but the natural Son of God. Non eft Dei Filius Deus falfus, nec Deus adoptivus, nec Deus nuncupativus, fed Deus verus. S. Hilar. de Trin. 1. 5. Hic etiam Filius Dei naturâ eft Filius, non adoptione. Concil. Tolet. 11. Tios r Oix isi Qúch, » & dice, Hornbeis en walegs. s. Cyril. Hierofol. Catech.II. and again, Οὐκ ἐκ τὰ μὴ ὄνον εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἢ τὸν παρή[α[εν, ἐδὲ τὰ μὴ ἕνα εἰς υοθεσίαν ἔδα & you γεν· ἀλλ ̓ ἀἴδια ἐν ὁ πατὴς αϊδίως ἐλόνεσε καὶ ἀνεκφράσως τὸν ἕνα μόνον, ἀδελφὸν ἐκ ἔχοντα. This hath, been fo generally confeffed, that Felix and Elipandus, who were condemned for maintaining Chrift as man to be the adopted Son of God, did acknowledge it, as appeared by the beginning of their Book. Confitemur & credimus Deum Dei Filium, ante omnia tempora fine initio ex Patre genitum, coæternum & confubftantialem, non adoptione fed genere. Secondly, It is also certain, that the man Chrift Jefus, taken perfonally is the natural, not the adopted Son of God: because the man Chrift Jefus is no other perfon than the Word, who is the eternal and natural Son, and by fubfifting in the human nature could not leave off to be the natural Son. The denial of this by Felix and Elipandus was condemned as Heretical in the Council of Francford; and their opinion was thus expressed, partly in the words of S. Auguftine, partly in their own additions. Confitemur & credimus eum factum ex muliere, factum fub lege; non genere effe Filium Dei, fed adoptione, non naturâ, fed gratia: This they maintained by forged teftimonies of fome Fathers, and by the Liturgy of the Church of Toledo, compofed by Hildephonfus, as the Roman by Gregory, in the Mafs de Coena Domini, Qui per adoptivi hominis paffionem dum fuo non indulfit corpori; and in the Mafs de Afcenfione Domini, Hodie Salvator nofter, per adoptionem carnis, fedem repetivit Deitatis. To this the Synod opposed their determination in Sacrofyllabo; Quod ex te nafcetur fanctum vocabitur filius Dei, non adoptivus fed verus, non alienus fed proprius. And again; Porro adoptivus dici non poteft qui alienus eft ab eo à quo dicitur adoptatus; & gratis ei adoptio tribuitur, quoniam non ex debito, fed ex indulgentia tantummodo adoptio præftatur: ficut nos aliquando cum effemus peccando filii iræ, alieni eramus à Deo, per proprium & verum Filium, qui non eguit adoptione, adoptio nobis filiorum donata eft. And of this they give us the true ground in the Synodic Epifile; Unitas perfonæ quæ eft in Dei filio & filio Virginis adoptionis tollit injuriam.

a Gal. 4. 4, 5.

« PreviousContinue »