ψυχίω, καὶ ἄλλον ἢ να δειματίσαντες, εκ τείων ἢ ἄνθρωπον (ετάναι, βόλους, σώματα, καὶ ψυχῆς, καὶ νέ. Οἷς ἐκολύθησε κα Απολλινάριον ὁ ο Λαοδικείας Χρόμρον ἐπίσκοπος τότον γ πεξάρθρο θεμέλιον οἰκείας δόξης, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ προσωκοδό μησε εξ, τὸ οἰκεῖον δόγμα. And by Theodoret in refpect of his Divinity : Σαρκωθώσι ἢ - Θεὸν ἔφησε λόγον, ῶμα καὶ ψυχώς ἀνειληφότα & 7 λογικίω. ἀλλὰ ἢ ἄλογον, τώ φυσικές ήταν ζωγικά, τινὲς ὀνομάζετι. τ 5 νῦν ἄλλο τι τα ψυχώ είναι λέ γων, ἐκ ἔφησεν ἀνειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ' ἀρκέσων * θείαν φύσιν εἰς τὸ πληρώσαι το να το χρείαν.

*

*

tre Chriftus acceperat, ni

minem fine

Thus the whole perfect and complete nature of man was affumed by the Quid à PaWord, by him who was conceived and born of a woman, and fo made a man. And being the Divine Nature which he had before could never ceafe fi quod & to be what before it was, nor ever become what before it was not; therefore induerat? hohe who was God before by the Divine Nature which he had, was in this In- dubio carnis carnation made man by that human Nature which he then affumed; and fo animæque really and truly was both God and Man. And thus this third Article from fer de Rethe conjunction with the fecond, teacheth us no lefs than the two natures fur. carn. really diftinct in Chrift incarnate.

texturam.

Tertul.

C.34. Hoc to

to credente

confiteantur

carnem natu

mam fufce

For if both natures were not preferved complete and distinct in Chrift, it jam mundo, must be either by the Converfion and Tranfubftantiation of one into the o- puto quod & ther, or by commixtion and confufion of both into one. But neither of thefe Dæmones ways can confift with the Perfon of our Saviour, or the Office of our Me- Filium Dei diator. For if we fhould conceive fuch a mixtion and confufion, of fub- natum deMaria Virgine,& ftances as to make an union of Natures, we fhould be fo far from acknowledging him to be both God and Man, that thereby we fhould profefs him re humanæ to be neither God nor Man, but a Perfon of a nature as different from both, atque anias all mixt bodies are diftinct from each clement which concurs unto their piffe. S. Hier. compofition. Befides, we know there were in Chrift the Affections proper Apot. z. adto the Nature of man, and all thofe infirmities which belong to us, and verf. Rufficannot be conceived to belong to that nature of which the Divine was but † Nuiret a part. Nor could our humanity be fo commixed or confounded with the Pv avg Divinity of our Saviour, but that the Father had been made Man as much as the Son, because the Divine Nature is the fame both of the Father and the Son. Nor ought we to have fo low an esteem of that infinite independent being, as to think it fo commixed with or immersed in,

creature.

and

num.

τοῖς αὐτὸς ὅτος

S.

čl. Alexand

the

adv. Gentes. + Abfit ita credere, ut conflatili quo

dam genere duas naturas in unarn arbitremur redactas effe substantiam; hujufmodi enim commixtio partis utriufque corruptio eft. Deus enim qui capax eft, non capabilis, penetrans, non penetrabilis, implens, non implebilis, qui ubique fimul totus, & ubique diffufus eft per infufionem potentiæ fuæ, mifericorditer naturæ mixtus eft humanæ, non humana natura naturæ eft mixta Divinæ. Leporius Libel. Emend.

Theol. 1. 4.

Again, as the confufion, fo the converfion of natures is impoffible. For firft, we cannot with the leaft fhew of probability conceive the Divine Nature of Chrift to be tranfubftantiated into the human nature; as thofe whom they call * Flandrian Anabaptifts in the Low-Countries at this day maintain. * Teste EpisThere is a plain repugnancy even in the fuppofition: for the nature of Man copio, Inftit. must be made, the nature of God cannot be made, and confequently cannot .8. become the nature of Man. The immaterial, indivifible and immortal Godhead cannot be divided into a spiritual and incorruptible Soul, and a carnal and corruptible body; of which two Humanity confifteth. There is no other Deity of the Father than of the Son; and therefore if this was converted into that Humanity, then was the Father also that Man, and grew in knowledge, fuffered, and died. We must not therefore so far ftand upon the Propriety of fpeech, when it is written, †The Word was made flesh, as to de- † In that proftroy the Propriety both of the Word and of the Flesh.

pofition, oxoજળ વ્હેધુ મ 2470, there

hath been ftrange force used by men of contrary judgments, and for contrary ends, as to the word ins7o. The Socinians endeavouring to prove it can have no other fenfe than fimply fuit, the word was flesh: The Flandrian Anabaptifts Atretching it to the bigheft fenfe of factum eft, the Word was made flesh. It is confeffed that the Verb yive in the use of the Greek Language is capable of either interpretation: it is also acknowledged that the most ancient Interpreters were Y divided

divided in their Renditions. For the Syriack rendred it by Et verbum caro fuit; the ancient Latine, Et verbum caro factum eft. It cannot be denied but in the Scriptures it hath been used indifferently in either fenfe. And the fame old vulgar Tranflation in fome places renders it, as the Syriack doth here, Matth. 10. 16. vivente av ogripes wis oi pes, Eftote ergo prudentes ficut ferpentes; and 25. Agxetov Ts μabnih iva got as i didácxados ats, Sufficit difcipulo ut fit ficut magifter ejus. From whence it is evident that they placed not the force in the fignification of the word Vive, but in the circumstance of the matter in which 'twas used. Howfoever, neither of thefe Interpretations prove either of thefe Opinions. For if it be acknowledged that the Word was flesh, and it hath been already proved and prefuppofed by S. John in his precedent difcourfe, that the Word had a former being antecedent to his being flesh; it followeth, that he which was before the Word, and was not flesh, if after he were flesh, must be made fuch. And fo the Socinian Obfervation falls. Again, If he which was made flesh was the Word, and after he was made fuch was still the Word, as certainly he was, and is fill the fame; then his being made or becoming flesh can no way evacuate that nature in which he did before fubfift. And so the Flandrian Interpretation is of no validity.

*This was the

Secondly, we must not, on the contrary, invent a converfion of the human nature, into the Divine, as the Eutychians of old did fanfie. For fure the Incarnation could not at firft confift in fuch a converfion, it being unimaginable how that which had no being fhould be made by being turned into fomething elfe. Therefore the humanity of Chrift could not at the first be made by being the Divinity of the Word. Nor is the Incarnation fo prepofterously expreffed, as if the flesh were made the Word, but that the Word was made flesh. And if the Manhood were not in the first act of Incarnation converted into the divine nature, as we fee it could not be; then is proper Opinion there no pretence of any time or manner in or by which it was * afterward fo of Eutyches, tranfubftantiated. Vain therefore was that old conceit of Eutyches, who as appeareth thought the Union to be made fo in the natures, that the Humanity was abConfeffion in forpt and wholly turned into the Divinity, fo that by that tranfubftantiation the Council of the human nature had no longer being. And well did the ancient Fathers, Chalcedon. who opposed this Herefie, make use of the Sacramental Union between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Chrift, and thereby fhewed, that the human nature of Chrift is no more really converted into the Divinity, and fo ceaseth to be the human nature, than the fubftance of the Bread and Wine is really converted into the fubftance of the Body and Blood, and - thereby ceafeth to be both Bread and Wine. From whence it is by the way ya. Act. 1. obfervable, that the Church in those days understood no fuch Doctrine as that Two distinct of t Tranfubftantiation.

by his own

Ομολογώ εκ δύο Φύσεων resoras Κύριον ἡμῶν weg z cvw

ἕνωσιν μίαν

natures he

confessed at first, but when the Union was once made he acknowledged but one. But when that Union was made he expreffed not, nor could his followers agree; fome attributing it to the Conception, fome to the Resurrection, others to the Afcenfion. Houfever, when they were united, his opinion clearly was, that the human nature was fo abforpt into the Divine, fo wholly made the fame, that it ceafed wholly to be what it was, and fo there was but one, that is, the Divine, Nature remained. This is fufficiently exprefs'd by S. Leo, who was the strongest opposer of him, and speaketh thus of his opinion, Serm. 8. de Nativ. Hic autem recentioris facrilegii profanus affertor unitionem quidem in Chrifto duarum confeffus eft naturarum; fed ipfâ unione id dixit effectum, ut ex duabus una reinaneret, nullatenus alterius exfistente substantiâ. And the Eraniftes in the Dialogue of Theodoret arguing for that Opinion, being urged to declare whether in that Union one nature was made of them both, or one remaining, the other did not fo, anfwer'd plainly 'Eya 7' θεότητα λέγω με θρηκέναι, καταπορείναι η υπό ταύτης τ' ανθρωπότητα. 1. There can be no time in which we may obferve the Doctrine of the Ancients fo clearly, as when they write profeffedly against an Herefie evidently known, and make use generally of the fame Arguments against it. Now what the Herefie of Eutyches was is certainly known, and the nature of the Sacrament was generally made use of as an Argument to confute it. Gelafius Bishop of Rome hath written an excellent Book against Eutyches, de duabus naturis in Chrifto, in which he propoundeth their Opinion thus: Eutychiani dicunt unam effe naturam, id eft, Divinam; and folâ exiftente Deitate, Humanitas illic effe jam deftitit. That then which he difputes against is the Tranfubftantiation of the human nature into the Divine. The Argument which he makes use of against it is drawn from the Eucharift: Certè Sacramenta quæ fumimus corporis & fanguinis Chrifti Divina res eft, propter quod & per eadem Divinæ efficimur confortes naturæ: & tamen effe non definit fubftantia vel natura Panis & Vini. Et certè imago & fimilitudo corporis & fanguinis Chrifti in actione myfteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter oftenditur, hoc nobis ipfo Chrifto Domino fentiendum,, quod in ejus imagine profiteur, celebramus, & fumimus, ut ficut in hanc, fcilicet, in Divinam, tranfeant, S. Spiritu perficiente fubftantiam, permanentes tamen in fuæ proprietate naturæ ; fic illud ipfum myfterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repræfentant, ex quibus conftat propriè permanentibus, unum Chriftum, quia integrum verúmque, permanere demonftrant. In which words 'tis plain he affirms the Union of the human nature of Chrift to be the principal mystery, the reprefentation of that mystery to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharift: He concludes from thence, that as in the reprefentation the fubftance of the Bread and Wine remaineth in the propriety of their own nature, fo the human nature of Chrift in the greater mystery, doth ftill remain. In the margin of this place in the Bibliotheca Patrum there is printed Cautè, as if there could be any danger in obferving the fenfe of the Fathers, when they speak fo expreffly and confiderately. In the fame manner we find a Difputation between an Heretick and a Catholick in the fecond Dialogue of Theodoret, where Eraniftes, as an Heretick, afks Orthodoxus by what names he calls the Bread and Wine after Confecration; who answers, the Body and Blood of Chrift: From whence Eraniftes argues, Ωασες τοίνω τὰ ζύμβολα τα διατολικά σώματός καὶ αίματα άλλα μὲ εἰσὶ πρὸ ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, με δέ γε τ' ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλει καὶ ἕτερα γίνε)· ὅτω τὸ δεαπολικόν σώμα με ανάληψιν εἰς τ' εσίαν μετεβλή In Jav As the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ are one thing before Confecration, and after

τε

after that change their name, and become another; fo the Body of Chrift after his afcenfion is changed into the Divine fubftance. To this Orthodoxus answers, Edhws as oploss ägevou, You are taken in your own nets. Οὐδὲ ηδ με τ' ἀδιασμὸν τὰ μυσικά σύμβολα τ' οἰκείας ἐξισα]αὶ φύσεως, καθώς ηδ ἐπὶ ἢ προτέρας εσίας, καὶ τὰ χήματος, καὶ τὰ εἴδος, καὶ "pala is x axlà, oia x greg The Bread and Wine even after Confecration leave not their own nature, but remain in their former fubftance, fhape and form. In the fame manner, crevo To Caμa to je wegteng, sidos ixer καὶ ἐκεῖνο ζῶμα πρότερον καὶ annan we expli, i aдag anλng GTER, I To Caμalos sriav The Body of Chrift hath the fame form, figure and Thape, and indeed, the fame bodily fubftance. And when Eranistes fill objects, that the Bread is called the Body, and nor Bread, Orthodoxus anfwers that he is mifaken; Οὐ γδ σῶμα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄρτος ζωῆς ὀνομάζει, ὅπως αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος προσεγόρουσε, καὶ αὐτὸ ἢ χῶμα θεῖον ονομάζομαι σώμα. For it is not only called the Body, but alio Bread of Life, and the Body it felf we call the Divine Body. Who fees not then that Theodoret believed no more that the Bread is converted into the Body, than that the Body is converted into the Divinity of Chrift? Who perceives not that he thought the Bread to be as fubftantially and really Bread after the Confecration, as the Body of Chrift is really a Body after his Afcenfion? The fame Argument is used by S. Chryfoftome upon the fame occafion against the Apollinarians in his Epiftle ad Cæfarium, not yet published in Greek, and by Ephraimus in Photii Bibliotheca against the Eutychians. As therefore all the piraso xewos of the Sacramental Elements maketh them not ceafe to be of the fame nature which before they were; fo the human nature of Chrift joined to the Divine, lofeth not the nature of humanity, but continueth with the Divinity as a fubftance in it felf distinct; and so Christ doth subsist not only ex, but in duabus naturis, as the Council of Chalcedon determined against Eutyches.

Being then he which is conceived was the only Son of God, and that only Son begotten of the fubftance of the Father, and fo always fubfifted in the Divine Nature; being by the fame Conception he was made truly Man, and confequently affumed an human nature; being these two natures cannot be made one either by commixtion or converfion, and yet there can be but one Chrift fubfifting in them both, because that only Son was he which is conceived and born: it followeth, that the Union which was not made in the nature, was made in the perfon of the Word; that is, it was not fo made, that out of both natures one only should refult, but only fo, that to one Perfon no other fhould be added.

Nor is this Union only a fcholaftick fpeculation, but a certain and neceffary truth, without which we cannot have one Chrift, but two Chrifts, one Mediator, but two Mediators; without which we cannot join the second Article of our Creed with the third, making them equally belong to the fame perfon; without which we cannot interpret the facred Scriptures, or underftand the Hiftory of our Saviour. For certainly he which was before Abráham, was in the days of Herod born of a woman; he which preached in the days of Noah, began to preach in the days of Tiberius, being at that time about thirty years of age; he was demonftrated the Son of God with power, who was the feed of David according to the flesh, he who died on the Cross, raised him from the dead who died fo, being put to death through 2 Pet. 3. 18. the flesh, and quickned by the Spirit; he was of the fathers according to Rom. 9. 5. the flesh, who was God over all blessed for ever. Being these and the like actions and affections cannot come from the fame nature, and yet must be attributed to the fame Perfon; as we must acknowledge a diverfity of natures united, so must we confess the identity of the perfon in whom they are conjoined, against the ancient Herefie of the* Neftorians, condemned in the Coun- * This Herefie cil of Ephefus.

doth most formally contradict these.

words of the Creed, because it immediately denies this truth, that the eternal Son of God was conceived and born. And in vain did Neftorius feek not only to avoid it in the Nicene Creed, but to make use of the words of the Creed even against the Unity of the Perfon of Chrift. S. Cyril had well objected the feries, order and confequence of that confession : Εφη ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη Συνόδου, αὐτὸν ἢ ἐκ Θεό Πατρὸς καὶ φύσιν τὸν μονόμη, τ ἐκ Θεὸ ἀληθινς· Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν, τὸ φῶς τὸ εκ τὸ φωτός. τ δι 5 τὰ πάντα πεποίηκεν ὁ Πατήρ, κατελθεῖν (αρκωθίώαι τε καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι παθεῖν, ἀνασαι τῇ τρίτῃ ἐμέσ çx, xj dreadã, eis eaves. The ftrength of this Objection lies in this, that Christ, the only-begotten Son; begotten of the Father before all Worlds, was incarnate. The answer of Neftorius was in this manner: Пisopp eis à Ruerov nμav "Inoõv Χρ τὸν, τ' τὸν αὐτῷ τ μονολυή, (κόπησον ὅπως, Ιησές Χρισός, τα μονοπυής, καὶ εός, πρότερον θέντες, τὰ κοινὰ τὸ θεότητα καὶ άνθρω πότης, ὡς θεμελίες, ὀνόματα τότε * f ενανθρωπήσεως, καὶ τὰ πάθος, καὶ τ' ἀνατάσεως, ἐποικοδόμᾶσι Λαδοτιν. And the frength, or rather the weakness, thereof is this: that firft the Council plac'd the names of Jefus, Chrift, and the onlybegotten Son, names common to the Divinity and Humanity of Chrift: and then upon them built the doctrine of his Incarnation. Whereas it is evident that, fuppofing the Only-begotten a term common to the Humanity and Divinity, yet the Council clearly expounds it of the eternal generation, adding immediately, begotten of his Father before all Worlds; neither is there any word between that Expofition and the Incarnation, but fuch as speak wholly of Chrift as God. Therefore that only-begotten Son, who was begotten of his Father before all worlds, defcended from Heaven, and was incarnate. Thus S. Cyril in his fecond Epifile to Neftorius, and Neftorius in his fecond to him. Which mistake of his feems yet more ftrange to me, when I confider in the fame Epiftle of Neftorius that fundamental truth asserted, which of it felf fufficiently, nay, fully confutes his Herefte: For he acknowledgeth the name of Chrift to be anabus watlis Bolas

Y 2

Es moradoxw wogróтw @egonłociar (nuarixhe, and confequently Chrift himself to be a fingle Perfon in a double nature, paffible and impaffible: which once granted, it evidently followeth, that he which was born from eternity, was also born in time, for by thofe feveral nativities he had thofe feveral natures; that he which was impaffible as God, might, and did fuffer as man, because the fame Perfon was of an impassible and a passible nature; impaffible as God, paffible as man. Wherefore by that which Neftorius hath confeffed, and notwithstanding that which he hath objected, it is evident out of the Nicene Creed, that the Son of God, begotten of his Father before all Worlds, was incarnate and made Man; and as evident out of the Apostles Creed, especially expounded by the Nicene, that the fame only begotten Son was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.

Luke 1. 31.

Luke 2. 27.

33.

John 1. 45.

HA

By the Holy Ghoft.

Aving thus difpatched the confideration of the first Person concerned in this Article, and the Actions contained in it fo far as distinctly from the reft they belong to him, we defcend unto the other two concerned in the fame; and first to him whofe operation did precede in the Conception, the Holy Ghoft. Which fecond part fome may think to require a threefold confideration; first, of the Conception; fecondly, of the Perfon; thirdly, of the Operation. But for the Perfon or existence of the Holy Ghoft, that is here only mentioned obliquely, and therefore to be referved for another Article where it is propounded directly. And for the Conception it felf, that belongeth not fo properly to the Holy Ghoft, of whom the act cannot be predicated. For tho' Chrift was conceived by the Holy Ghoft, yet the Holy Ghoft did not conceive him, but faid unto the Virgin, Thou shalt conceive. There remaineth therefore nothing proper and peculiar to this fecond part, but that Operation of the Holy Ghost in Christ's Conception, whereby the Virgin was enabled to conceive, and by virtue whereof Chrift is faid to be conceived by him.

Now when we fay the Conception of our Saviour was wrought by the operation of the Spirit, it will be neceffary to obferve, first, what is excluded by that attribution to the Spirit; fecondly, what is included in that operation of the Spirit.

For the first of these we may take notice in the Salutation of the Angel, when he told the bleffed Virgin fhe fhould conceive and bring forth a Son, Luke 1. 34. fhe faid, How shall this be, feeing 1 know not a man? By which words she excludeth first all men, and then her felf: all men, by that affertion, I know not a man; her felf, by the queftion, How shall this be, feeing it is fo? First, our Melchizedek had no Father on earth, in general; not any Matth. 1. 18. man, in particular not Jofeph. 'Tis true, his mother Mary was efpoufed to Jofeph: but 'tis as true, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghoft. We read in S. Luke, that the parents brought up the child Jefus into the Temple: but thefe Parents were not the Father and the Mother, but as it followeth, Jofeph and his mother marvelled at thofe things which were spoken of him. "Tis true, Philip calleth him Jefus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph; and which is more, his Mother faid unto him, Behold, thy Father and I have fought thee forrowing but this must be only the reputed Father of Christ, he being only, as was fuppofed, the son of fofeph, which was the fon of Eli. Whence they muft needs appear without all excufe, who therefore affirm our Saviour to have been the proper fon of Jofeph, because the Genealogy belongs to him; whereas in that very place where the Genealogy begins, Jofeph is called the fuppofed Father. How can it then therefore be neceffary Christ fhould be the true Son of Joseph, that he may be known to be the Son of David, when in the fame place where it is proved that Jofeph came from David, it is denied that Chrift came from Jofeph? And that not only in S. Luke, where Jofeph begins, but alfo in Indeed in our S. Matthew, where he ends the Genealogy. Jacob begat Jofeph the husband

Luke 2. 48.
Like 3. 23.

a Matth. 1.16.

Tranflation,

a

who may relate to both, as well as one, and to Jofeph as well as Mary; but in the Original it evidently belongs to Mary ; Τον Ιωσήφ τ άνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγυνήθε Ιησός.

of

of Mary, of whom was born Jefus, who is called Chrift. Howfoever then the Genealogies are described, whether one belong to Jofeph, the other to Mary, or both to Jofeph, it is from other parts of the Scriptures infallibly certain, not only that Chrift defcended lineally from David according to the flesh, but also that the fame Chrift was begotten of the Virgin Mary, and not by Jofeph.

Secondly, As the bleffed Virgin excluded all mankind, and particularly Jofeph, to whom he was then efpoufed, by her affertion; fo did fhe exclude her felf by the manner of the queftion, fhewing that of her self she fhould not cause any fuch Conception. Although the may be thought the Root of Jeffe, yet could fhe not germinate of her felf; though Eve were the Mother of all living, yet generation was founded on the Divine Benediction which was given to both together: For God blessed them, and faid Gen. 1. 28. unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. Though Chrift was promifed as the Seed of the Woman; yet we must not imagine that it was in the power of Woman to conceive him. When the Virgin thinks it impoffible fhe thould conceive because the knew not a man, at the fame time the confeffeth it otherwise as impoffible, and the Angel acknowledgeth as much in the fatisfaction of his anfwer, For with God nothing shall be Luke 1. 37imposible. God then it was who immediately and miraculously enabled the blessed Virgin to conceive our Saviour; and while Mary, Jofeph, and all men are denied, no perfon which is that God can be excluded from that operation.

But what is included in the conception by the Holy Ghoft, or how his operation is to be distinguished from the Conception of the Virgin, is not fo easily determined. The words by which it is expreffed in Scripture are very general: Firft as they are delivered by way of promise, prediction or fatisfaction to Mary; The Holy Ghoft fhall come upon thee, and the power Luke 1. 35. of the Highest hall overshadow thee: Secondly, as they fuppofe the Conception already paft; When his mother Mary was espoused to Jofeph, before they came together, he was found with Child of the Holy Ghost; and give fatisfaction unto Jofeph, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy Wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghoft. Now being the expreffions in the Scriptures are fo general, that from thence the operation of the Spirit cannot precifely be diftinguished from the concurrence of the Virgin; much lefs fhall we be able exactly to conclude it by that late distinction, made in this Article, conceived by the Holy Ghoft, born of the Virgin; because it is certain that the fame Virgin alfo conceived him according to the Prophecy, Thou shalt conceive and bear a Son: and therefore notwithstanding that distinction, the difficulty still remains, how he was con- * As concepceived by the Spirit, how by the Virgin. Neither will any difference of* Pre- tus de Spiritu pofitions be fufficient rightly to distinguish thefe operations. Wherefore there S. natus ex is no other way to bound or determine the Action of the Holy Ghoft, but ne. S. Aug. by that concurrence of the Virgin which must be acknowledged with it. indeed hath For if he were truly the Mother of Chrift, (as certainly the was, and we diftinction befhall hereafter prove,). then is there no reafon to deny to her in refpect of tween De and him whatsoever is given to other Mothers in relation to the fruit of their Ex, after this manner,fpeaking to those words of the Apoftle, Quoniam ex ipfo, & per ipfum, & in ipfo, funt omnia. Ex ipfo non hoc fignificat quod de ipfo. Quod enim de ipfo eft, poteft dici ex ipfo; non autem omne quod ex ipfo eft rectè dicitur de ipfo. Ex ipfo enim cœlum & terra, quia ipfe fecit ea; non autem de ipfo, quia non de fubftantia fua. Sicut aliquis homo fi gignat filium, & faciat domum, ex ipfo filius, ex ipfo domus; fed filius de ipfo, ficut domus de terra & ligno. De Nat. Boni adv. Manich. c. 27. This diftinction having no foundation in the Latin Tongue, is ill made ufe for the illuftration of this Article, because in the Greek Language of the Teftament there is no fuch diversity of Prepofitions, for as we read of Mary, ἐξ ἧς ἐλυνήθη ο Ιησές, το αίζο of the Holy Ghoft, οςέθη εν γαςρὶ ἔχεσα ἐκ πνεύματος αγίω, and τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ μ der i'n wysμalós is dyis. It is therefore faid as well in apa, as in Macías. Again, the Vulgar obferveth no fuch difference, as rendring for the one, de qua natus eft Jefus, and for the other, in utero habens de Spiritu S. Correfpondently in the Greek Creeds, συλληφθέντα εκ πνεύματα, Συνηθέντα εκ Μαρίας, or as in the Nicene, εκ πνούμα]α Macias. And the Latin not only de Spiritu S. ex Maria Virgine, but fometimes de Spiritu S. & Maria Virgine, and 3

Maria Virgi

delivered a

de Maria