and particu 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 illustration of our third Assertion, that the Father hath communicated the Divine Essence to the Word, who is that Jesus who is the Chrift. 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 bis 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 possible to prefer himself before our Saviour. One Prophet may be greater than another, and Mahomet might perfuade his credulous Disciples that he was greater than any of the fons of inen; 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 * This is often frequently inculcates that blafphemy in his * Alcoran, that God hath no repeated there, fuch Son, nor any equal with him: and his Disciples have † corrupted the larly in the Pfalm of David, reading (instead of Thou art my Son, this day have I Last chapter, begotten thee,) Thou art my Prophet, I have educated thee. The later led Alechlas. Jews, acknowledging the words, and the proper literal reading of them, Eft ipte Deus apply them so unto David, as that they deny them to belong to Chrift; unus, Deus and that upon no other ground, than that by fuch an expofition they may nec genuit, avoid the Christians Confeffion. But by the consent of the ancient Jews, by nec genitus the interpretation of the blessed Apostles, we know these words belong to nullus eft æ- Christ, and in the most proper sense to him alone. a 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 spoken them unto any other man, as they were spoken unto him, the Apostle's Argument had been none æternus, qui eft, & cui ca fet forth by principle of Mahumetanism, Ὅτι εἷς θεός ἐσι, ποιητής ἢ ὅλων, μήτε γλυνηθείς, μήτε γλυνήσας. And Joannes Siculus and Gregorius Cedrenus relate how Mahomet gave command, "Eνα μόνον προσκυνεῖν θεον, κὶτ Χρισὸν τιμᾶν ὡς λόδον τῷ θεῖ μ, ἐχὶ τὸν δέ. And we read of his ridiculous History, that Christ, after his afcenfion into Heaven, was accused by God for calling himself bis Son, and that he denied it, as being so named only by men without any authority from him. "Οτι ἀνελθόντα τ Χεισὸν εἰς τέρανὸν ἠρώτησεν ὁ θεὸς, λέγων, Ὦ Ἰησε, (ὺ εἶπες τ λόδον τῶτον, Ὅτι φὸς εἴμι τῷ θεῷ κὶ θεός· κὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησᾶς, ὅτι ἐκ εἶπον ἐδῶ, ἀδὲ αὐχιύομαι εἶναι δᾶλός (8· ἀλλ ̓ οἱ ἄνθρωποι λέξεσιν ὅτι εἶπον τ λόδον τᾶῶτον. † Alfirozabadius in his Kamuz: Dictum Dei omnipotentis ad Jesum, (cui propitius fit & pacem concedat Deus) Tu eft 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 same purpose Ebnol Athir : In Evangelio dixit Ifæ, ego waladtoca, i. e. educavi te; at Chriftiani, dempta litera Lam altera, ipfum ei filium statuerunt. Qui longè elatus eft fuper ea quæ dicunt. Whereas then the Apostles attributed those words of the Pfalm to Christ, the Mahumetans who could not deny but they were spoken of the Messias, were forced to corrupt the Text: and for that they pretend the erninency 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 Mofes, must do so. I fay 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 Pfalmויש מפרשים זה המז מור על גוג ומגוג והמשיח הוא מלך המשיח וכן פירש רבותינו ו"ל Some interpret this Plalm of Gog and Magog, and the anointed is Meffias the King; and fo our Doctors of happy memory have expounded it. And Rabbi Solomon Jarchi not only confefseth that the ancient Rabbins did interpret it of the Messias, but shews the reason why the later Jews understood it rather of David, that thereby they might the better answer the Argument of the Christians deduced from thence : רבותינו -our Doctors have ex דרשו את הענין על מלך המשיח ולפי משמעו ולתשובת המינים נכון לפותרו על רור עץמו pounded it of the Meffias: but as to the literal fenfe, and for the answering Hereticks, (that is, in their Language, Chriftians) it is rather to be interpreted of David, in his own. person. a Heb. 1. 5. 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 fame 4 nature, and 5. 3. ὁμολόδημα, ὡς 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 same blessing, the fuccession of human generations hath been continued. This then is the known * confeffion of * Κοινὸν ὑπάρ all men, that a Son is nothing but another produced by his Father in the χι πᾶσι κὶ fame nature with him. But God the Father hath communicated to the Word αὐτοδίδακτον the same Divine Effence by which he is God; and confequently he is of the άπας same Nature with him, and thereby the perfect image and fimilitude of him, αὐτῆς ἐσὶ τὸ and therefore his proper Son. In humane generations we may conceive γελυνηκότι ἐtwo kinds of fimilitude; one in respect of the internal nature, the other phot. Ep. 1. in reference to the external form or figure. The former fimilitude is essen- This is in the tial and necessary; it being impossible a man should beget a fon, and that language of fon not be by nature a man: the latter accidental; not only fometimes ποιῆσαι ἕτερον the child reprefenting this, sometimes the other parent, but alfo oftentimes οίον αὐτό. ζώον, με ζώου, neither. † The fimilitude then, in which the propriety of generation is pre- φύλον ἢ Φυλόν. served, is that which consisteth 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 similitude; from whence Christ is called, παζής με γάς a the image of God, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of isiνο his person. σίας κὶ φύσεως. Ariftotle, το lib. 2. cont. ὁ ἑτέρῳ τῶ είναι και τότ μοίαν ἑαυτες φύσιν ἢ ἀρχὴ αραχών. † Etiamfi filius hominis, homo, in quibufdam fimilis, in quibufdam fit dissimilis patri; tamen quia ejufdem substantiæ eft, negari verus filius non poteft, & quia verus est filius, negari ejufdem substantiæ non poteft. S. Aug. contra Maximin. c. 13. a2 Cor. 4. 4. Heb. 1. 3. Nor is this Communication of the Divine Essence 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 Essence we acknowledge all the perfections of the Creature, fubstracting 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 fame 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 confequently corporeal; whereas the Effence of God is incorporeal, spiritual and indivifible; 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 Effence which God always had without beginning, without beginning he did communicate; being always Father, as always God. * Animals when * Πάντα ἢ ὅσα they come to the perfection of nature, then become prolifical; in God eter- Κωνᾶ τὸ ἢ ἀεὶ nal perfection sheweth his eternal fœcundity. And that which is most re- τέλειον ἀεὶ κỳ ἀΐδιον γλυνά. ἤδη τέλεια Euseb. de Prep. Evang. ex Plotino. ̓Ανθρώπων με γε ἴδιον τὸ ἐν χρόνῳ γλυνᾷν, 2λὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς ὁ φύσεως· θεῦ ἢ ἀΐδιον τὸ Μύνημα, Δλὰ τὸ ἀεὶ τέλειον ὁ φύσεως. S. Athan. Orat. 2. This was it which so much troubled the Arians, when they heard the Catholicks constantly asserting, ἀεί θεὸς, ἀεὶ ψός· ἅμα παλὴς, ἅμα ψός. : * Multum di & conditio markable in human generations the Son is of the same nature with the Father, and yet is not the fame man; because though he hath an essence of the fame kind, yet he hath not the fame 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 Effence, being by reason 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 also the fame God. The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Ifaac man: but Abraham one man, Ifaac another man; not so 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 essential fimilitude 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 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 Confession, thou art the fon of the living God; this the ground of our Saviour's * diftinction, I go unto my Father, and to your Father. Hence did S. John ftat inter do- raise a verity, more than only a negation of falsity, when he said, we are in minationem the true Son: for we which are in him are true, not false sons, we are not nem, inter 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. Thus nomador have we fufficiently shewed, that the eternal communication of the Divine fubftantiam Effence by the Father to the Word was a proper generation by which Chrift Ideoque mic Jesus always was the true and proper Son of God: which was our fourth non permixte Assertion. tionem, inter & gratiam. nec paffim dicitur, Afcendo ad Patrem nostrum aut Deum nostrum; fed ad Patrem meum & Patrem vestrum, ad Deum meum & ad Deum vestrum. Aliter enim illi Deus Pater est, aliter nobis. Illum fiquidem natura coæquat, mifericordia humilat: nos verò natura profternit, mifericordia erigit. Capreolus Carthag. Epift. 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 enquire 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 in * This was the terpretation of the ancient * Hereticks, who would have the restraining term fallacy which 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 custom of men, who as appears by use it not for him who is begotten of one, but for him who alone is begotten those 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 Hereby S. Bafil, 21ὰ τῶτο γδ φησὶ, μονογλυὴς, ἐπειδὴ πρὰ μόνο τῇ τῶ ἀλλυνήτε δινάμε Κυνηθείς κή κλισθείς τελειότα γέΓονεν ύπεργος, ας ές μουχυής were only τωρα μόνο, 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; 2/α 7 πανεργίαν ὦ δεὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῷ μονο λυᾶς ἐκακέρδισε, παρά τε τ ἢ ἀνθρώπων (κωήθειαν, κὶ παρὰ τ' ύσεβή – γραφῶν παράδοσιν λαμβάνων αὐτῶ τ. Αλάνοιαν. Μονογλυής γδ είκ ὁ παρά μόνες λυόμμα, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ μόνο γλυνηθείς, ἐν τῇ κοινῇ χρήση πορταΓορούε). Secondly, By a retort peculiar to that Heresie, which held the Son of God might be called κλιθείς as well as λονηθείς, created as well as begotten, and consequently might be as properly named μονόκλιτο ας μονολλυής. Εἰ μὴ παρὰ τὸ μόνο γελλυνῆαθς. ἀλλὰ αλὰ τὸ παρὰ μόνει μονογλυὴς είρης, ταυτὸ δὲ ἐσι κατά σε τὸ ἐκτίας τῷ γελλονήας, τι έχι κὶ Μονόκλισον αὐτὸν ὀνομάζεις; Thirdly, by a particular instance, shewing the absurdity of such an interpretation, for that thereby no man could properly be called movoAns, because not begotten of one, but two parts. Μονογλυής 5, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀνθρώπων ἐδεις και γε τ ὑμέτερον λόδον, διὰ τὸ съ (κωδυασμό πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν τ' γλύνησιν· ἐδὲ ἡ Σάρρα μήτης μονολλούς Ιω παιδος, διότι έχὶ μόνη αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ μὲ τὰ ̓Αβραάμ, ἐτεκνώσαζο. † The Socinians make very much of this Notion, and apply it so unto Christ, as that thereby they might avoid 2 - 11 1 t d 1, e | 1 avoid all necessity of an eternal generation. So the Racovian Catechism: Caufa cur Christo ista attributa (fc. proprium unigenitum Dei Filium effe), competant, hæc est, quod inter omnes Dei filios & præcipuus fit, & Deo chariffimus: quemadmodum Ifaac, quia Abrahamo chariffimus & hæres exftitit, unigenitus vocatus est, Heb. 11. 17. licet fratreni Minaelem habuerit; & Solomon unigenitus coram matre fua, licet plures ex eadem matre fratres fuerint, I Paral. 3. 1, 2, 3, &c, And that this might be applied to the interpretation of the Creed, Schlictingius hath inferted it as a matevial Obfervation; Nam hic unicus seu unigena filius nominatur, qui cæteris longè charior est Patri, longèque præstantior; and confirms the Interpretation with those two testimonies concerning Ifaac and Solomon. But certainly this Obfervation of theirs is vain, or what else they say is false. For if Ckrift 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 Ifaac and Solomon were, that is, by the affettion 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 rest should fail, they might stick to this. : ticks, who take the Only-begotten to be nothing else but the most beloved of all the Sons; because Ifaac was called the only Son of Abraham, when we know that he had Ishmael beside, 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 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 fingular love. Beside, 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 promise made to Abraham, which was first this, Sarah shall have a fon, and Gen. 18. 14. then, In Isaat shall 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 speaks expressly; 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 expositions, as far short of the true notion of the onlybegotten; we must look upon it in the most proper, full and fignificant fenfe, as signifying a Son so begotten as none other is, was, or can be fo as the term restrictive only shall have relation not only to the * Father generating, * Eunomius but alfo to the Son begotten, and to the manner of the Generation. 'Tis would have it true, the Father spake from Heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in only τα μόwhom I am well pleased, and thereby we are to understand, that whosoever, in relation of us are beloved by the Father are so beloved in and through the Son. In only. S. Bafil the same manner Chrift is the Only-begotten Son of God; and as many of us shews that no as God hath bestowed his love upon, that we should be called the Sons 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. of a way proper, and shewsthat μονολλής is not he which τωρα μόνες όμε μόνος γελλύνη). S. Cyril adds these two wὰ μόνs and μόνο together, in relation to the Father and the Son: Μονογλωής και φύσιν ὁ ἐκ θες πατρὸς ὠνόμασαι λόδου, ὅτι μόνου ἐκ μόνο γεγλύη) τε πατρός, Epift. 1. ad Regin. As Ruffinus doth in Unicus: Ideo fubjungit Unicum hunc esse Filium Dei, Unus enim de uno nafcitur. Expof. Symb. S. Greg. Naz. adds to these two a third, in respect of the manner : Movολλυής 5, έχ ὅτι μόνο ἐκ μόνε, κὶ μόνει ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι κὶ μονολρώπως ἐκ ὡς τὰ (ώματα. δο be something obscurely and corruptly, but plainly enough in Damascene, who aims often to deliver himself in the words of Nazianzen: ΛέΓεξ μονογλοής ὅτι μόνο όκ μόνο τα πατρὸς μόνως ἐλλυνήθη ἐδὲ γδ όμοια) ἑτέρα λύνησις τῇ τῷ ἡὰ τῷ θεῶ Συνήσει, ἐδὶ γάς ἐσιν ἄλλο φὸς τὸ θεῖ. 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. T2 And Ἐν γδ Χρισῷ 1 John 3.9. 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 Only-begotten; or it was not communicated, and then there is no fuch Communication necessary to found such a Filiation: The other, alledging that the same Divine Effence 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 fufficient foundation of the relation of Sonship. These two objections being answered, nothing will remain farther to demonftrate this last 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 sanctifieth, 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 Ίησα το begotten of God, whose feed remaineth in them: but withal, we affirm that δύαγΓελία ἐγὼ this our Regeneration is of a nature wholly different from the generation of ὑμᾶς ἐγχυνησα. the Son. We are first † generated, and have our natural being; after that πᾶς ὁ γελο- regenerated, and so receive a spiritual renovation, and by virtue thereof an νημθύω ἐκ τε inheritance incorruptible: whereas the Generation of Chrift admits no ReΘεῷ ἁμαρτίαν সরল, ὅτι generation, he becoming at once thereby God and Son and Heir of all. The απέρμα αὐτῶ state of Sonship which we come into is but of adoption, shewing the Geneperation by which we are begotten to be bur metaphorical: whereas Chrift is pressly, 1 Joh. so truly begotten, so properly the natural Son of God, that his † Generation 5.1. Πᾶς ότι clearly excludeth the name of Adoption; and not only so, but when he beσας έσιν όχι- cometh the Son of man, even in his humanity refuseth the name of an adoptτὸς, ἐκ τῷ Θεỡ ed Son. For when the fulness of time was come, God fent forth his Son γεθύνης made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under Η γλυνήσαντα, the Law, (not that he, but) that we might receive the adoption of fons.. ἀγαπᾷ κ He then whose Generation is totally different from ours whom he calleth γελλονημθύον αυτό. Quif- Brethren; he whom in the facred Scriptures the Spirit nameth the true Son, And σούων ὅτι ̓Ιη πᾶς ὁ ἀδαπῶν quis credit Je fum esse 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 Celfus there was a Jew introduced speaking thus to Christ, Εἰ τᾶτο λέξεις, ὅτι πᾶς ἄνθρωπο και θείαν πρύνοιαν γεδονὼς ψός ἐσι θες, τι ἂν (ὺ ἄλλο Ναφέρης; who is thus answered by Origen; Πρὸς ὃν ἐρῶθμ, ὅτι πᾶς με, ὡς ὁ Παῦλο ὠνόμασε, μηκέτι ππο φόβο παιδαδογέμμου, ἀλλὰ δι αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν αἰρέμυθα, ψός ἐσι θες· ὅτο ἢ πολλῷ κ μακρῷ Διαφέρει παντὸς τὸ λλα τ' ἀρετὴ χρηματίζοντα ἐᾶ τὸ θεῖ, ὅτις ὡαπερεί πηγή τις κ ̓ ἀρχὴ ἢ τοιότων τυχάνει. Orig. adv. Celfum, 1 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 falsus, nec Deus adoptivus, nec Deus nuncupativus, fed Deus verus. S. Hilar. de Trin. 1.5. Hic etiam Filius Dei naturâ est Filius, non adoptione. Concil. Tolet. II. Υιὸς τῷ Θεῷ ἐςὶ φύσει, κὶ ὁ θέσει, Χυνηθείς ἐκ πατρός. s. Cyril. Hierofol. Catech. II. and again, Οὐκ ἐκ τὸ μὴ ὄντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἢ τὸν παρήδαξεν, ἐδὲ τ μὴ ὄντα εἰς ψοθεσίαν ἤδαγεν· ἀλλ ̓ ἀαΐδια ὡν ὁ πατὴς ἀἰδίως ἐλλόνεσε κὶ ἀνεκφράσως τὸν ἕνα μόνον, ἀδελφὸν ἐκ ἔχοντα. This hath been so generally confeffed, that Felix and Elipandus, who were condemned for maintaining Christ 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 & consubstantialem, non adoptione sed genere. Secondly, It is alfo certain, that the man Christ Jesus taken personally is the natural, not the adopted Son of God: because the man Christ Jesus is no other person than the Word, who is the eternal and natural Son, and by subsisting 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 esse Filium Dei, fed adoptione, non naturâ, fed gratia: This they maintained by forged testimonies of some Fathers, and by the Liturgy of the Church of Toledo, composed by Hildephonsus, as the Roman by Gregory, in the Mass de Cœna Domini, Qui per adoptivi hominis passionem dum fuo non indulfit corpori; and in the Mass de Afcenfione Domini, Hodie Salvator nofter, per adoptionem carnis, sedem repetivit Deitatis. To this the Synod opposed their determination in Sacrofyllabo; Quod ex te nafcetur fanctum vocabitur filius Dei, non adoptivus sed verus, non alienus sed proprius. And again; Porro adoptivus dići non potest qui alienus eft ab eo à quo dicitur adoptatus; & gratis ei adoptio tribuitur, quoniam non ex debito, fed ex indulgentia tantummodo adoptio præstatur: ficut nos aliquando cum essemus 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 Epistle; Unitas perfonæ quæ est in Dei filio & filio Virginis adoptionis tollit injuriam. a Gal. 4. 4, 5. : the |
