239

ARTICLE III.

Which was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary.

THESE words, as they now stand, clearly distinguish the conception of Jesus from his nativity, attributing the first to the Holy Ghost, the second to the blessed Virgin; whereas the ancient Creeds made no such distinction; but without any particular express mention of the conception, had it only in this manner, who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; or of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary:* understanding by the word born, not only the nativity, but also the conception and generation. This is very necessary to be observed, because otherwise the addition of a word will prove the diminution of the sense of the Article. For they who speak only of the operation of the Holy Ghost in Christ's conception, and of the manner of his birth, leave out most part of that which was anciently understood under that one term of being born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.

That therefore nothing may be omitted which is pertinent to express the full extent, and comprehend the utmost signification of this Article, we shall consider three persons mentioned, so far as they are concerned in it. The first is he who was conceived and born; the second, he by whose energy or operation he was conceived; the third, she who did conceive and bear him.

Deum Judæi sic prædicant solum, ut negent filium ejus; negent simul cum eo unum esse, qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine.' Novatianus. Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine.' Ruffinus in Symbolum, §. 12. Natus de Spiritu S. et Maria Virgine.' S. August. Ench. ad Laurent. c. 34. 37. et 38. As also the Council of Francford in Sacrosyllabo. Natus est per Spiritum S. ex Virgine Maria.' S. August. de Fide et Symb. c. iv. §. 8. Nonne de Spiritu S. et Virgine Maria Dei filius unicus natus est?' Idem, de Prædest. Sanct. c. 15. Et paulo post : Quia natus est de Spiritu S. ex Maria Virgine.' Qui natus est de Spiritu S. ex Maria Virgine.' S. Leo Epist. x. c. 2. Marimus Taurin. Chrysol. Etherius Uxam. Auctor Symbol. ad Catechum. So also Venantius Fortunatus. From whence Fulgentius de Fide ad Petrum Diaconum: Natum de Spiritu S. ex Maria Virgine, in Symbolo acceptum, et corde ad justitiam credit, et ore ad salutem S. Ecclesia confitetur. Item prædicandum est quomodo Filius Dei incarnatus est de Spiritu S. ex Maria semper-Virgine.' c. 2. Capitul. Caroli 82.

and Alcuinus 1. iii. de Trinitat. c. 1. Dicitur in Symbolo Catholicæ fidei, quod Christus de Spiritu S. et ex Maria Virgine sit natus.' In the ancient MS. transcribed by the learned Archbishop of Armagh: Τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου. So Paulus Samosatenus in his fifth proposition : Ἰησοῦς ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Tag Sivou. These, omitted in the Nicene Creed, were put in by the Council of Constantinople, upon the occasion of the Apollinarian heresy, as was observed by Diogenes bishop of Cyzicum in the Council of Chalcedon: O yàg äyia maτέρες οἱ μετὰ ταῦτα, τὸ ἐσαρκώθη, ὃ εἶπον οἱ ἅγιοι ἐν Νικαίᾳ πατέρες, ἐσαφήνισαν εἰπόντες, ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου. In the several expositions among the sermons de Tempore, falsely attributed to St. Augustin: Qui conceptus est de Spiritu S. natus ex Virgine Maria.' Eusebius Gallicanus, Homil. ii. de Symbolo, p. 554. And from thence it hath so continued, as we now read it, Which was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.

So

For the first, the relative in the front of this carries us clearly back unto the former Article, and tells us that he which was thus conceived and born was Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, And being we have already demonstrated that this only Son is therefore called so, because he was begotten by the Father from all eternity, and so of the same substance with him; it followeth that this Article at the first beginning, or by virtue of its connexion, can import no less than this most certain, but miraculous, truth, that he* which was begotten by the Father before all worlds, was now in the fulness of time conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary. Again, being by the conception and birth is to be understood whatsoever was done towards the production of the human nature of our Saviour; therefore the same relative, considered with the words which follow it, can speak no less than the incarnation of that person. And thus even in the entry of the Article we meet with the incarnation of the Son of God, that great mystery wrapt up in that short sentence of St. John, "the Word was made flesh." (i. 14.)

Indeed the pronoun hath relation not only unto this, but to the following Articles, which have their necessary connexion with and foundation in this third; for he who was conceived and born, and so made man, did in that human nature suffer, die, and rise again. Now when we say this was the Word, and that Word was God, being whosoever is God cannot cease to be so; it must necessarily follow, that he was made man by joining the human nature with the divine. But then we must take heed lest we conceive, because the divine nature belongeth to the Father, to which the human is conjoined, that therefore the Father should be incarnate, or conceived and born. For as certainly as the Son was crucified, and the Son alone; so certainly the same Son was incarnate, and that Son alone. Although the human nature was conjoined with the Divinity, which is the nature common to the Father and the Son; yet was that union made only in the person of the Son. Which doctrine is to be observed against the heresy of the Patripassians, which was both very ancient and far diffused, making

'Huic, quem dudum de Patre natum ineffabiliter didicisti, nunc a Spiritu S. templum fabricatum intra secreta uteri Virginalis intellige.' Ruff. in Symb. §. 12.

+ The heresy of the Patripassians seems only to have relation to the suffering of our Saviour, because the word signifies no more than the passion of the Father. But it is founded in an error concerning the incarnation, it being out of question that he which was made man did suffer. Epiphanius observes, Noetus was the first which taught this heresy, who lived one hundred and thirty years before him, more or less, and when he was questioned for

it, he denied it: διὰ τὸ μηδένα πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἐξεμέσαι ταυτηνὶ τὴν πικρίαν. Hares. Ivii. §. 1. But certainly this heresy was ancienter than Noetus: for the Patripassiani are named by St. Cyprian, Ep. 73. and Tertullian his master chargeth it upon Praxeas: Duo negotia Diaboli Praxeas Romæ procuravit, Prophetiam expulit, et Hæresim intulit; Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit.' Adv. Prax. c. 1. And expressing the absurdity of that opinion: 'Itaque post tempus Pater natus et Pater passus, ipse Deus Dominus Omnipotens Jesus Christus prædicatur.' c. 2. And De Præscr, adv. Hæret. Post hos omnes

the Father to be incarnate, and becoming man to be crucified. But this very CREED was always thought to be a sufficient confutation of that fond opinion,* in that the incarnation is

not subjoined to the first, but to the second, Article; we do not say, I believe in God the Father Almighty, which was conceived, but in his only Son, our Lord, which was conceived by the Holy Ghost.

any

other

person

First then, We believe that he which was made flesh was the Word, that he which took upon him the nature of man was not the Father nor the Holy Ghost, nor but the only-begotten Son. And when we say that person was conceived and born, we declare he was made really and truly man, of the same human nature which is in all other men, who by the ordinary way of generation are conceived and born. For the" Mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus:" (1 Tim. ii. 5.) that since "by man came death, by man also should come the resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor. xv. 21.) As sure then as the first Adam and we who are redeemed are men, so certainly is the second Adam and our Mediator man. He is therefore frequently called the "Son of man,” and in that nature he was always promised. First, "to Eve," (Gen. iii. 15.) Then to Abraham, as her seed, and consequently her son. "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;" (Gen. xxii. 18.) and that "seed is Christ," (Gal. iii. 16.) and so the son of Abraham. Next to David, as his "son to sit upon his throne ;" (2 Sam. vii. 12—16.) and so he is "made of the seed of David according to the flesh, (Rom. i. 3.) the son of David, the son of Abraham," (Matt. i. 1.) and consequently of the same nature with David and with Abraham. And as he was their son, so are we his brethren, as descending from the same father Adam; “and therefore it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren." (Heb. ii. 17.) For he "laid not hold on the angels, but on the seed of Abraham.” (Ibid. 16.) And so became not an angel, but a man.

As then man consisteth of two different parts, body and soul, so doth Christ: he assumed a body, at his conception, of the blessed Virgin. "Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." (Heb. ii. 14.) The verity of his body stands upon the truth of his nativity;* and the actions and passions of his life shew the nature of his flesh.

He was first born with a body which was "prepared for him," (Heb. x. 5.) of the same appearance with those of other infants; he grew up by degrees, and was so far from being sustained without the accustomed nutrition of our bodies, that he was observed even by his enemies to come" eating and drinking," (Matt. xi. 19.) and when he did not so, he suffered hunger and thirst. Those ploughers never doubted of the true nature of his flesh, who "ploughed upon his back and made long furrows." (Psal. cxxix. 3.) The thorns which pricked his sacred temples, the nails which penetrated through his hands. and feet, the spear which pierced his sacred side, give sufficient testimony of the natural tenderness and frailty of his flesh. And lest his fasting forty days together, lest his walking on the waters and traversing the seas, lest his sudden standing in the midst of his disciples when the doors were shut, should raise an opinion that his body was not true and proper flesh; he confirmed first his own disciples, "feel and see," that a "spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me to have." (Luke xxiv. 39.) As therefore we believe the coming of Christ, so must we confess him to have come in the verity of our human nature, even in true and proper flesh. With this determinate expression was it always necessary to acknowledge him for "every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ come in the flesh, is not of God." (1 John iv. 2, 3.) This spirit appeared early in opposition to the apostolical doctrine; and Christ, who is both God and man, was as soon denied to be man as God. Simon Magus, the arch-heretic, first began, and many after followed him.

And certainly, if the Son of God would vouchsafe to take the frailty of our flesh, he would not omit the nobler part, our soul, without which he could not be man. For "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature ;" (Luke ii. 52.) one in respect of his body, the other of his soul. Wisdom belongeth not to the flesh, nor can the knowledge of God, which is infinite, increase he then whose knowledge did improve together with

nium redderent et responderent nativitas et caro; quia nec nativitas sine carne nec caro sine nativitate.' Tertull. de Carne Christi, c. 1.

Simon Magus first made himself to be Christ; and what he feigned of himself, that was attributed by others unto Christ. Dixerat se in monte Sina Legem Mosi in Patris persona dedisse Judæis, tempore Tiberii in Filii persona putative apparuisse.' S. August. Hæres. 1. St. Cyril represents him: Οὐκ ἐν σαρκί, ἀλλὰ δοκήσει, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν φανέντα. Catech. 6. From this dóxnois of his invention arose the heresy of the Aountai.

So

For Saturnilus or Saturninus followed his disciple Menander with his putative tantum hominem, as Irenæus; and in phantasmate tantum venisse, as Tertullian speaks, Adv. Hæret. c. 46. After him Valentinus and his followers, Epiphanes, Isidorus, and Secundus; then the Marcosians, Heracleonita and Ophitæ, Cerdon, Marcion, Lucanus, and generally the Manichees. Those were the Aountai Οι Φαντασιασταί, all conspiring in this, that Christ was not really what he appeared, nor did truly suffer what he seemed to endure. This early heresy appeareth by the opposition which St. Ignatius made unto it in his epistles.