also God will cease to be the head of Christ, because the Deity of Christ himself, which is still covered with a veil, will shine forth in all its native effulgence.

IV. And this observation, if the reader make a judicious application of it, will be of great use towards the solution of many difficulties. For it is surprising how much ignorant persons, and even some who are not altogether destitute of learning, are perplexed by such forms of expression, as they find attributed to Christ, which are not exactly appropriate either to his divinity or to his humanity. This is for want of considering that they are applicable to his complex person, consisting of God and man, and to his office of Mediator. And indeed we may see the most beautiful coherence between all these things, if we have only a sober expositor, that examines such great mysteries with becoming reverence. But these furious and frantic spirits throw every thing into confusion. They lay hold of the properties of his humanity, to destroy his divinity; on the other hand, they catch at the attributes of his divinity, to destroy his humanity; and by what is spoken of both natures united, but is applicable separately to neither, they attempt to destroy both. Now what is this but to contend that Christ is not man, because he is God; that he is not God, because he is man; and that he is neither man nor God because he is at once both man and God? We conclude therefore, that Christ, as he is God and man, composed of these two natures united, yet not confounded, is our Lord and the true Son of God, even in his humanity; though not on account of his humanity. For we ought carefully to avoid the error of Nestorius, who, attempting rather to divide than to distinguish the two natures, thereby imagined a double Christ. This we find clearly contradicted by the Scripture, where the appellation of "the Son of God" is given to him who was born of the Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called "the mother of our Lord." (x) We must also beware of the error of Eutyches, lest, while we aim to establish the unity of Christ's person, we destroy the distinction of his two natures. For we have already cited so many testimonies, where his

divinity is distinguished from his humanity, and the Scripture abounds with so many others, that they may silence even the most contentious. I shall shortly subjoin some, in order to a more complete refutation of that notion. At present one passage shall suffice us: for Christ would not have styled his body "a temple," (y) if it had not been the residence of the Divinity, and at the same time distinct from it. Wherefore as Nestorius was justly condemned in the council of Ephesus, so also was Eutyches afterwards in the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon; for to confound the two natures in Christ, and to separate them, are equally wrong.

V. But in our time also there has arisen a heretic equally pestilent, Michael Servetus, who in the place of the Son of God has substituted an imaginary being, composed of the essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three uncreated elements. In the first place, he denies Christ to be the Son of God, in any other respect than as he was begotten by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin. But his subtilty tends to subvert the distinction of the two natures, and thereby to represent Christ as something composed of God and man, and yet neither God nor man. For this is the principal point which he constantly endeavours to establish, that before Christ was manifested in the flesh, there were in God only some shadowy figures; the truth or effect of which had no real existence till the Word, who had been destined to this honour, actually began to be the Son of God. Now we confess that the Mediator, who was born of the Virgin, is properly the Son of God. Nor indeed could the man Christ be a mirror of the inestimable grace of God, if this dignity had not been conferred on him, to be, and to be called, "the only-begotten Son of God." The doctrine of the Church, however, remains unshaken, that he is accounted the Son of God, because being the Word begotten by the Father before all ages, he assumed the human nature in a hypostatical union. By the "hypostatical union" the ancients expressed the combination of two natures constituting one person. It was invented to refute the error of Nestorius, who imagined the Son of God to have dwelt in flesh in such a

(y) John ii. 19.

manner as, notwithstanding that, to have had no real humanity. Servetus falsely accuses us of making two Sons of God, when we say that the eternal Word was the Son of God, before he was clothed with flesh; as though we affirmed any other than that he was manifested in the flesh. For if he was God before he became man, it is not to be inferred that he began to be a new God. There is no more absurdity in affirming that the Son of God appeared in the flesh, who nevertheless was always the Son of God by eternal generation. This is implied in the words of the angel to Mary: "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God:" (z) as though he had said, that the name of the Son, which had been in obscurity under the law, was about to be telebrated and universally known. Consistent with this is the representation of Paul; that through Christ we are the sons of God, and may freely and confidently cry, Abba, Father. (a) But were not the holy patriarchs in ancient times numbered among the children of God? Yes, and depending on this claim, they invoked God as their Father. But because, since the introduction of the only-begotten Son of God into the world, the celestial paternity has been more clearly revealed, Paul mentions this as the privilege of the kingdom of Christ. It must, however, be steadily maintained, that God never was a Father, either to angels or to men, but with reference to his only-begotten Son: and especially that men, whom their own iniquity renders odious to God, are his sons by gratuitous adoption, because Christ is his Son by nature. Nor is there any force in the cavil of Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God had decreed in himself; because we are not here treating of figures, as expiation was represented by the blood of the sacrifices: but as they could not be the sons of God in reality, unless their adoption were founded on this head, it is unreasonable to detract from the head, that which is common to all the members. I go farther: since the Scripture calls angels "the children of God,"(b) whose enjoyment of such high dignity depended not on the future redemption; yet it is necessary that Christ should precede them in order, seeing it is

(z) Luke i. 35. (a) Rom. viii. 15. Gal. iv. 5, 6. (b) Psalm lxxxii. 6.

by him that they are connected with the Father. I will briefly repeat this observation, and apply the same to the human race. Since angels and men were originally created in such a condition, that God was the common Father of both, if there be any truth in the assertion of Paul, "that Christ was before all things, the head of the body, and the first-born of every creature, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence," (c) I conceive I am right in concluding, that he was also the Son of God before the creation of the world.

VI. But if his filiation (so to speak) commenced at the time of his manifestation in the flesh, it will follow that he was the Son also in respect of his human nature. Servetus and other heretics maintain that Christ, who appeared in the flesh, was the Son of God; because out of the flesh he could not be entitled to this appellation. Now let them answer me, whether he be the Son according to both natures, and in respect of both. So indeed they idly pretend; but Paul teaches us very differently. We confess that Christ is called "the Son" in his human nature, not as the faithful are, merely by adoption and grace, but the true and natural, and therefore the only Son; that by this character he may be distinguished from all others. For we, who are regenerated to a new life, are honoured by God with the title of sons, but the appellation of "his true and only-begotten Son" he gives to Christ alone. But among such a multitude of brethren, how can he be the only Son, unless he possess by nature what we have received as a gift? And we extend this honour to the whole person of the Mediator, that he who was born of the Virgin, and offered himself on the cross as a victim to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God; but nevertheless with respect to his Deity, as Paul suggests, when he says that he was "separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power." (d) When he distinctly denominates him the Son of David according to the flesh, why should he particularly say that he was declared to be the Son of God with

power, unless he intended to suggest that this dignity depended not on that flesh, but on something else? For in the same sense in which he says in another place that "he was crucified through weakness, yet that he liveth by the power of God," so in this passage he introduces the difference between the two natures. They certainly must be constrained to admit, that as he hath received of his mother that which causes him to be called the Son of David, so he hath from his Father that which constitutes him the Son of God, and that this is something distinct and different from his humanity. The Scripture distinguishes him by two names, calling him, sometimes "the Son of God," sometimes "the Son of man." With respect to the latter, it cannot be disputed that he is styled the "Son of man," in conformity to the common idiom of the Hebrew language, because he is one of the posterity of Adam. I contend on the other hand, that he is denominated "the Son of God" on account of his Deity and eternal existence: because it is equally reasonable that the appellation of "Son of God" should be referred to the divine nature, as that of "Son of man" should be referred to the human nature. In short, in the passage which I have cited, "that he, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, was declared to be the Son of God with power," Paul intends the same as he teaches us in another place, that "Christ, who as concerning the flesh came of the Jews, is God blessed for ever." But if the distinction of the two natures be expressed in both these passages, by what authority will they deny that he is the Son of God in respect of his Divine nature, who according to the flesh is likewise the Son of man?

VII. They clamorously urge in support of their error, that God is said "not to have spared his own Son," (e) and that the angel directed that the very same who was to be born of the Virgin, should be called "the Son of the Highest." (ƒ) But to prevent their glorying in so futile an objection, let them accompany us in a brief examination of the validity of their reasoning. For if it be rightly concluded, that he began to be the Son of God at his conception, because he that is conceived is called his Son; it will follow that he began to be the Word at