Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

as we must acknowledge a diversity of natures united, so must we confess the identity of the person in whom they are conjoined, against the ancient heresy of the Nestorians,* condemned in the Council of Ephesus.

By the Holy Ghost.

HAVING thus dispatched the consideration of the first Person concerned in this Article, and the actions contained in it so far as distinctly from the rest they belong to him, we descend unto the other two concerned in the same; and first to him whose operation did precede in the conception, the Holy Ghost. Which second part some may think to require a threefold consideration; first, of the conception; secondly, of the person; thirdly, of the operation. But for the person or existence of the Holy Ghost, that is here only mentioned obliquely, and therefore to be reserved for another Article, where it is propounded directly. And for the conception itself, that

This heresy 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 Nestorius seek 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 person of Christ. St. Cyril had well objected the series, order, and consequence of that confession : Εφη ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη Συνόδος, αὐτὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς κατὰ φύσιν υἱὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς, τὸν δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα πεποίηκεν ὁ Πατὴς, κατελθεῖν, σαρκωθῆναι τε καὶ ἐνανθρωπῆσαι, παθεῖν, ἀναστῆναι τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθεῖν εἰς οὐρανούς. Epist. 5. p. 25. The strength of this objection lies in this, that Christ, the only-begotten Son, begotten of the Father before all worlds, was incarnate. The answer of Nestorius was in this manner: Πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ σκόπησον ὅπως Ἰησοῦς, Χριστὸς, καὶ μονογενῆς, καὶ υἱὸς, πρότερον θέντες, τὰ κοινὰ τῆς θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, ὡς θεμελίους, ονόματα τότε τὴν τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως, καὶ τοῦ πάθους, καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ἐποικοδομοῦσι magábor. Ibid. p. 26. And the strength, or rather the weakness, thereof is this: that first the Council placed the names of Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son, names common to the Divinity and humanity of Christ and then upon them built the doctrine of his incarnation. Whereas it

:

is evident that, supposing the only-begotten a term common to the humanity and Divinity, yet the Council clearly expounds it of the eternal generation, adding imme

diately, begotten of his Father before all worlds; neither is there any word between that exposition and the incarnation, but such as speak wholly of Christ as God. Therefore that only begotten Son, who was begotten of his Father before all worlds, descended from heaven, and was incarnate. Thus St. Cyril in his second epistle to Nestorius, and Nestorius in his second to him. Which mistake of his seems yet more strange to me, when I consider in the same epistle of Nestorius that fundainental truth asserted, which of itself sufficiently, nay, fully confutes his heresy : for he acknowledgeth the name of Christ to be, ἀπαθοῦς καὶ παθητῆς οὐσίας ἐν μοναδικῷ προσώπῳ προσηγορίαν σημαντικὴν, ibid. and consequently, Christ himself to be a single person in a double nature, passible and impassible which once granted, it evidently followeth, that he which was born from eternity, was also born in time, for by those several nativities he had those several natures; that he which was impassible as God, might, and did suffer as man, because the same person was of an impassible and a passible nature; impassible as God, passible as man. Wherefore by that which Nestorius hath confessed, 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 same only-begotten Son was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary.

belongeth not so properly to the Holy Ghost, of whom the act cannot be predicated. For though Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, yet the Holy Ghost did not conceive him, but said unto the Virgin, "Thou shalt conceive." (Luke i. 31.) There remaineth therefore nothing proper and peculiar to this second part, but that operation of the Holy Ghost in Christ's conception, whereby the Virgin was enabled to conceive, and by virtue whereof Christ is said to be conceived by him.

Now when we say the conception of our Saviour was wrought by the operation of the Spirit, it will be necessary to observe, first, What is excluded by that attribution to the Spirit; secondly, 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 blessed Virgin she should conceive and bring forth a son, she said, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke i. 34.) By which words she excludeth first all men, and then herself: all men, by that assertion, "I know not a man;" herself, by the question, "How shall this be, seeing" it is so? First, our Melchizedeck had no father on earth; in general, not any man, in particular, not Joseph. It is true, "his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph:" but it is as true, "before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. i. 18.) We read in St. Luke, (ii. 27.) that "the parents brought up the child Jesus into the temple:" but these parents were not the father and the mother, but as it followeth, "Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." (Ibid. 33.) It is true, Philip calleth him "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph:" (John i. 45.) and which is more, his mother said unto him, "Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing" (Luke ii. 48.) but this must be only the reputed father of Christ, he being only, "as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Eli." (Luke iii. 23.) Whence they must needs appear without all excuse, who therefore affirm our Saviour to have been the proper son of Joseph, because the genealogy belongs to him; whereas in that very place where the genealogy begins, Joseph is called the supposed father. How can it then therefore be necessary Christ should be the true son of Joseph, that he may be known to be the son of David, when in the same place where it is proved that Joseph came from David, it is denied that Christ came from Joseph? And that not only in St. Luke, where Joseph begins, but also in St. Matthew, where he ends the genealogy. "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matt. i. 16.)* Howsoever then

nealogies are described, whether one belong to Joseph,

our translation, whom may relate to both, as well as one, and to Joseph y; but in the orginal it evidently belongs to Mary: Tov 'Iarp Tár νήθη Ιησούς.

[graphic]

the other to Mary, or both to Joseph, it is from other parts of the Scriptures infallibly certain, not only that Christ descended lineally from David according to the flesh, but also that the same Christ was begotten of the Virgin Mary, and not by Joseph.

Secondly, As the blessed Virgin excluded all mankind, and particularly Joseph, to whom she was then espoused, by her assertion; so did she exclude herself by the manner of the question, shewing that of herself she could not cause any such conception. Although she may be thought the "root of Jesse," yet could she not germinate of herself; 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 said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." (Gen. i. 28.) Though Christ was promised 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 impossible she should conceive because she knew not a man, at the same time she confesseth it otherwise as impossible, and the angel acknowledgeth as much in the satisfaction of his answer, "For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke i. 37.) God then it was who immediately and miraculously enabled the blessed Virgin to conceive our Saviour; and while Mary, Joseph, and all men are denied, no person which is that God can be excluded from that operation.

But what is included in the conception by the Holy Ghost, or how his operation is to be distinguished from the conception of the Virgin, is not so easily determined. The words by which it is expressed in Scripture are very general: First, as they are delivered by way of promise, prediction, or satisfaction to Mary; "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:" (Luke i. 35.) Secondly, as they suppose the conception already past; "When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;" (Matt. i. 18.) and give satisfaction unto Joseph, "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost:" (Ibid. 20.) Now being the expressions in the Scriptures are so general, that from thence the operation of the Spirit cannot precisely be distinguished from the concurrence of the Virgin; much less shall we be able exactly to conclude it by that late distinction made in this Article, conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin; because it is certain that the same Virgin also conceived him according to the prophecy, (Isa. vii. 14.) "Thou shalt conceive and bear a son:" and therefore notwithstanding that distinction, the difficulty still remains, how he was conceived by the Spirit, how by the Virgin. Neither will any difference

of prepositions* be sufficient rightly to distinguish these operations. Wherefore there is no other way to bound or determine the action of the Holy Ghost, but by that concurrence of the Virgin which must be acknowledged with it. For if she were truly the mother of Christ (as certainly she was, and we shall hereafter prove), then is there no reason to deny to her in respect of him whatsoever is given to other mothers in relation to the fruit of their womb; and consequently, no more is left to be attributed to the Spirit, than what is necessary to cause the Virgin to perform the actions of a mother. When the Scripture speaketh of regeneration, or the second birth, it denieth all which belongeth to natural procreation, describing the "sons of God" as begotten "not of bloods,

[ocr errors]

As conceptus de Spiritu S., natus er Maria Virgine. St. Augustin indeed hath delivered a distinction between de ander, after this manner, speaking to those words of the apostle : Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso, sunt omnia. Er ipso non hoc significat quod de ipso. Quod enim de ipso est, potest dici ex ipso; non autem omne quod ex ipso est, recte dicitur de ipso. Ex ipso enim cœlum et terra, quia ipse fecit ea; non autem de ipso, quia non de substantia sua. Sicut aliquis homo si gignat filium, et faciat domum, ex ipso filius, ex ipso domus; sed filius de ipso, sicut domus de terra et ligno.' De Nat. Boni adv. Manich. c. 27. This distinction having no foundation in the Latin tongue, is ill made use of for the illustration of this Article, because in the Greek language of the Testament there is no such diversity of prepositions, for as we read of Mary, it yewin & Insous, so also of the Holy Ghost, sugion Ev yaσrgi ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου, and τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. It is therefore said as well ἐκ πνεύματος, as ἐκ Magías. Again, the Vulgar observeth no such difference, as rendering for the one, de qua natus est Jesus, and for the other, in utero habens de Spiritu S. Correspondently in the Greek Creeds, συλληφθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος, γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας, or as in the Nicene, ἐκ πνεύματος καὶ Μαρίας. And the Latin not only de Spiritu S. ex Maria Virgine, but sometimes de Spiritu S. et Maria Virgine, and de Maria Virgine, Chrysologus and St. Augustin often de Trinitate. Wherefore in vain have the schools first accepted of St. Augustin's distinction, and then applied it to Christ's conception; first taking the preposition de to signify no less than a procession from the substance of the cause, and then acknowledge Christ so begotten of the Holy Ghost, because the eternal Son who was so begotten was of the same substance with the Holy Ghost. Thus Thomas

[ocr errors]

Aquinas has delivered the subtilty, Sum. p. 3. q. 32. a. 2. In Spiritu S. duplex habitudo consideratur respectu Christi. Nam ad ipsum filium Dei, qui dicitur esse conceptus, habet habitudinem consubstantialitatis; ad corpus autem ejus habet habitudinem causæ efficientis. Hæc autem præpositio de utramque habitudinem designat, sicut cum dicimus hominem aliquem esse de suo patre. Et ideo convenienter dicere possumus Christum esse conceptum de Spiritu S. hoc modo, quod efficientia Sp. S. referatur ad corpus assumptum, consubstantialitas vero ad personam assumentem.' But this distinction of consubstantiality and effective causality can make nothing for the propriety of the phrase; for the preposition de signifieth the material cause as well as the efficient, it must do so in respect of that which is the effect, if it require that the thing which is made be made of the substance of that de quo est: then must Christ, according unto that which is made, be made of the substance of the Holy Ghost; or, to speak in the words of the Scripture, Quod in ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est.' Where either that which was conceived in the Virgin must be acknowledged of the substance of the Holy Ghost, or else the preposition de must not be taken in St. Augustin's sense. ever, being there is but one preposition ix, common to both in the original Greek; being the vulgar translation useth de indifferently for either; being where they have distinguished de and er, they have attributed ex, which doth not signify consubstantiality, to the Virgin, of whom they confess he did assume the substance of his body, and de, which signifieth (as they say) consubstantiality to the Holy Ghost, of whose substance he received nothing: it followeth, that the difference in the prepositions can no way declare the different concurrence of the Spirit and the Virgin in Christ's conception.

How

nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God:" (John i. 13.) and in the incarnation of our Saviour, we remove all will or lust of the flesh, we deny all will of man concurring; but as the bloods in the language of the Hebrews did signify that substance of which the flesh was formed in the womb, so we acknowledge in the generation of Jesus Christ, that he was made of the substance of his mother.

But as he was so made of the substance of the Virgin, so was he not made of the substance of the Holy Ghost, whose essence cannot at all be made. And because the Holy Ghost did not beget him by any communication of his essence, therefore he is not the father of him, though he were conceived by him. And if at any time I have said, Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, if the ancients speak as if he generated* the Son, it is not so to be understood, as if the Spirit did perform any proper act of generation, such as is the foundation of paternity.

Again, as the Holy Ghost did not frame the human nature of Christ out of his own substance; so must we not believe that he formed any part of his flesh of any other substance than of the Virgin. For certainly he was of the fathers according to the flesh, and was as to that truly and totally the son of David and Abraham. The Socinians, who will acknowledge no other way before Christ's conception by which he could be the only-begotten Son of God, have been forced to invent a strange conjunction in the nature of Christ: one part received from the Virgin, and so consequently from David and from Abraham, from whom that Virgin did descend; another framed by the Spirit,t and conjoined with it; by the

As Chrysologus, Serm. 57. 'Ubi Spiritus generat, Virgo parturit, totum divinum geritur, nihil humanum.' And Serm. 62. Stupenti mundo solus aperit quid est, quod Spiritus generat, Virgo concipit, Virgo parit.'

+ Deus ipsemet ad sanguinem Mariæ addidit aliam materiam, ex quibus deinde Christus conceptus et natus est.' Smalcius, De Vero et Naturali Dei Filio, c. 2. Verum manet generationem et hanc dici posse, quatenus in Deum ea cadere potest, si ad sanguinem Mariæ addita sit ex parte Dei materia, ex qua cum sanguine Mariæ juncta natus sit Christus.' Ib. c. 3. What this was thus added to the substance of the Virgin, he elsewhere explains: 'Nos Dei virtutem in Virginis uterum aliquam substantiam creatam vel immisisse aut ibi creasse affirmamus, ex qua, juncto eo quod ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit.' This he doth not only without any authority affirm, but ground upon it the sonship of Christ. For so it follows: Alias enim

homo ille Dei filius a conceptione et nativitate proprie non fuisset.' And again : Necessitas magna fuit ut Christus ab initio vitæ suæ esset Dei Filius, qualis futurus non fuisset, nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum fuisset quod ad constituendum Christi corpus una cum Mariæ sanguine concurrit.' Thus while they deny the eternal generation of the Son, they establish a temporal in such manner as is not consonant with that word which they pretend wholly to follow, and have made a body of Christ partly descending from the Father, partly not: and whereas as man he is like to us in all things, sin only excepted; they have invented a body, partly like ours, partly not, and so in no part totally like. Indeed some of the ancients did speak so as to make the Holy Ghost the semen Dei; as Tertullian : 'Ergo jam Dei filius ex Patris Dei semine, i. e. Spiritu, ut esset hominis filius, caro ei sola erat ex hominis carne sumenda sine viri semine. Vacabat enim viri semen apud habentem Dei semen.' De car.

« ZurückWeiter »