about the controversy (Alcuin, Opera, ii, 760 sq.). Neander gives the following statement: "Felix dis- tinguished l)etween how far Christ was the Son of God and God according to nature (tiatura, genere), and how far he was so by virtue of grace, by an act of the divine will (^gratia, voluntatt), by the divine choice and good pleasure (electione, placito) ; and the name Son of God was given to him only in consequence of connection with God (nuncnpaiive) ; and hence the ex- pressions for this distinction, secundum naturam and secundum adopiiunem. Felix appealed to the fact that, though the name of Son by adojition (tt' viofitffiac') is not applied in the Bible to Christ, yet there are other designations which express the same idea. He ad- duces John X, 34, when Jesus disputed with the Jews {kot ui'OpwTTov), and referred to the passage in the Old Testament, in which men are called Elohim, where Christ placed himself as a man in the category of those who were called ^ gods' -Jiuncupat ire, and not in a strict sense. Then as to the passage, ' None is good save one, that is God,' frcm this it appears that as man he was not to be called good in the same sense as God, and that only the divine nature in him was the source of goodness. He would allow an inter- change of the divine and human jiredicates only in the same manner as Theodore ; it could not be made with- out limitation, but the different senses must be observed according as the}' were attriliuted to the divine or hu- man natures. He charged his opponents with so con- founding the two natures bj' their doctrine of the sin- gularitas pe7-son(e that they left no distinction between the suscijn'ens and the susceptum. Expressions that were then in common use, such as God nas born, and died, never occur in Scripture, which also never saj's that the Son of God, but that the Son of man was given for us. On the latter point Alcuin could easilj' have con- futed Felix by other passages, but both were wrong in not distinguishing the various Biblical applications of the term Son of God from the Church use of it, and in taking the idea everywhere in a Church sense. Like Theodore, Felix asserted Agnoutism of Christ. It is also a point of resemblance between them that both sought for an analogy between the union of the man Christ with the divine Being and the relation of be- lievers to God. Felix says that Christ in an improper sense (nuncujMtivf) was called the Son of God con- jointly with all who are not God according to their nature, but by the grace of God in Christ have been taken into communion with God (deifcati). In this order also the Son of God is, in resj)cct of his human- it}', both according to nature and grace. He main- tained that, as far as Christ as man is reckoned among the sons of God, all believers are his members; con- sidered according to his divine nature, believers are the temple in which he dwells. He did not wish by that to deny the specitic difference between Christ and believers ; Avhatever resemblance existed between them belonged to him in a far higher sense; he was united to God bj' generation, and was the medium of the communion of the rest with God. Felix also per- fectly agreed with Theodore in the thought that the communion with God into which Christ was received as a man miglit be represented as a revelation of the divine being according to the measure of the various stages of the development of his human nature, and thus supposed various degrees of it up to the highest revelation after the glorification of Christ. It might be peculiarly offensive that he should compare the baptism of Christ with the regeneration of believers ; but ho certainly did not mean to say that Christ thus became partaker of communion with the divine nature, but only to point out an analogy so far, as baptism marked a distinct stage in Christ's life, after which the operation of the divine life in him was peculiarly conspicuous. It is therefore evident that the doctrine of Felix was altogether that of Theodore, excepting that the latter could express himself more freelj' in an
FELIX
525
FELL
age when the doctrines of the Church were less rigor- oiislj' defined, while Felix was obliged to use ;i termin- ology which was opposed to his own S3'stem. The great importance of the antagonism in which he stood to the Church doctrine is likewise manifest ; it in- cluded not merely Christologj', but also Anthropologj' ; for the doctrine of the revelation of the Divine Being in Christ, conditioned bj"- various stages of develop- ment, was connected with one of special importance — the principle of free self-determination. It is uncer- tain how far Felix consciously developed his jirinci- ples ; but there is no question that these were through- out contradictor}' to the prevalent Augustinian doc- trine. As Felix lived in the Frankish territory, the Prankish Church was drawn into the controvers}-. In A.D. 792, Charlemagne convoked an assembly at Rat- isbon, at which Felix appeared, and was induced to recant. He was then sent to Rome, where he made similar explanations (Alcuinus adv. Elijiandum, i, c. 1(!; JIansi, Coiuil. xiii, 1031). But, on being permit- ted to return home, he repented of the steps he had taken, took refuge in Saracenic Spain, and again pro- mulgated his doctrine. Alcuin, who had been sum- moned to take a part in the controversy, endeavored to win him over by a friendlj' epistle ; but Felix re- g.irded the suliject of the controversy as too important, and thus it was carried on in his writings (Alcuini Libe'lus adv. Ilmrcsin Fellcis, 0pp. Ale. i, pars ii, 759). The Spanish bishops interceded for Felix with the emperor, and applied for a new investigation (Alcuin, Opera, ii, 5G7). In consequence, Charles called a sec- ond sj'nod at Frankfort-on-the-Maine in A.D. 794, which again decided against Felix {Mansi, xiii, 8G3); and since the Adoptianists had spread themselves even as far as France, the emperor sent a commission of tliree persons into those parts in order to oppose them. Felix came with them, and was prevailed upon to ap- pear before the synod at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aix), A.D. 799. After Alcuin had disputed with him for a long time, Felix declared himself to be convinced. He made a recantation in Spain; 3'et he was not altogether trusted, and was placed under the oversight of Leidrad, l)ishop of Lyons. He could not at once give up a dog- matic tendency which was so deeply rooted ; he still was alwaj's inclined to Agnoetism, and after his death a series of questions was found which showed that he lirinly adhered to his fundamental views" {Hist, of Dogmas, tr. b}' Ryland, p. 444 sq.). Felix was deposed A.D. 790, and died about A.D. 818. His writings, whether in apology or retractation of his views, re- main only in fragments; but his Pi-ofession of Faith, made at Aix-la-Chapelle ia 799, is given in Alcuini Opera (Paris, 1617, fol.) ; in Mansi, Cmicil. xiii, 1035 ; in Labbe, Condi, p. 1171. See Dupin, Ercles. Writers, cent, viii ; Neander, Ch. Ilisfor;/, iii, 156, 158; Mos- heim, Ch. IliMory, cent, viii, ch. v, § 3; Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, § 179 ; Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Edinb. transl. div. ii, vol. i, 248 sq. See Adoptians; Christology.