The necessity of believing our Saviour thus to be born of the Virgin Mary, will appear both in respect of her who was the mother, and of him who was the son. In respect of her it was therefore necessary, that we might perpetually preserve an esteem of her person proportionable to so high a dignity. It was her own prediction, "From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed;" (Luke i. 48.)* but the obligation is ours, to call her, to esteem her so. If Elizabetht cried out with so loud a voice," Blessed art thou among women," (Ibid. 42.) when Christ was but newly conceived in her womb; what expressions of honour and admiration can we think sufficient, now that Christ is in heaven, and that mother with him? Far be it from any Christian to derogate from that special privilege granted her, which is incommunicable to any other.‡ We cannot bear too reverend a regard unto the 'mother of our Lord,' so long as we give her not that worship which is due unto the Lord himself. Let us keep the language of the primitive Church: Let her be honoured and esteemed, let him be worshipped and adored.'§ In respect of him it was necessary, first, that we might be assured he was made, or begotten of a woman, and consequently that he had from her the true nature of man. "For he took not on him the nature of angels," (Heb. ii. 16.) and therefore saved none of them, who for want of a Redeemer, are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6.) And man once fallen had been, as deservedly, so irrevocably condemned to the same condition, but that "he took upon him the seed of Abraham." (Heb. ii. 16.) Therefore as he took the Lord and God to be synonymous; so he thought Elizabeth first styled Mary, the mother of God, because she called her the mother of her Lord; and after Elizabeth, Leo was the first who plainly styled her so, that is, the mother of God.' And that we may be yet farther assured of his mind, he produceth the words of Leo the pope, in his epistle to Leo the emperor: 'Avaθεματιζέσθω Νεστόριος, ὁ τὴν μακαρίαν καὶ Θεοτόκον Μαρίαν οὐχὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀνθρώπου δὲ μόνον, πιστεύων εἶναι μητέρα. The sentence which he translates is this: Anathematizetur ergo Nestorius, qui beatam Virginem Mariam non Dei, sed hominis tantummodo, credidit genitricem.' Epist. 97. c. 1. Where plainly genitrix Dei is translated μήτηρ Θεοῦ and Θεοτόκος is added by Ephraim out of custom in the subject, being otherwise not at all in Leo's words. It is therefore certain that first in the Greek Church they termed the blessed Virgin serxes, and the Latins from them Dei genitrix, and mater Dei, and the Greeks from them again ereg Oscũ, upon the authority of Leo, not taking no fraudare conetur.' § Ἡ Μαρία ἐν τιμῇ, ὁ Κύριος προσκυνείσθω. Ἐν τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία, ὁ δὲ Πατὴς, καὶ Υἱὸς, καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσκυνείσθω. Τὴν Μαρίαν μηδεὶς προσκυνείτω. S. Epiphan. Hares. 79, §. 7. Εἰ καλλίστη ἡ Μαρία, καὶ ἁγία, καὶ τετιμημένη, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ εἰς τὸ προσκυνεῖσθαι. Ibid. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τῶν μὲν ὁρωμένων θεολογούμεν οὐδὲν· τῶν δὲ ἀνθρώπων τοὺς ἐν ἀρετῇ δια πρέψαντας, ὡς ἀνθρώπους ἀρίστους, γεραίρομεν μόνον δὲ τὸν τῶν ὅλων προσκυνοῦμεν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, καὶ τὸν ἐκείνου γε λόγον, καὶ τὸ Taváy mua. Theod. Therapeut. Serm. 2. p. 302. For being we are "partakers of flesh and blood," we could expect no redemption but by him who "likewise took part of the same." (Ibid. 14.) We could look for no Redeemer, but such a one who by consanguinity was our brother. And being there is but one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, we cannot be assured that he was the Christ, or is our Jesus, except we be first assured that he was a man. Thus our Redeemer, the man Christ Jesus, was born of a woman, that he might redeem both men and women ;† that both sexes might rely upon him, who was of the one, and from the other. Secondly, It was necessary we should believe our Saviour conceived and born of such a woman as was a most pure and immaculate virgin. For as it behoved him in all things to be made like unto us; so in that great similitude a dissimilitude was as necessary, that he should be "without sin." (Heb. iv. 15.) Our Passover is slain, and behold the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world; but the lamb of the passover must be without blemish. Whereas then we draw something of corruption and contamination by our seminal traduction from the first Adam; our Saviour hath received the same nature, without any culpable inclination, because born of a virgin, without any seminal traduction. Our High-priest is "separate from sinners," (Heb. vii. 26.) not only in the actions of his life, but in the production of his nature. For as Levi was in the loins of Abraham,§ and paid tithes in him, and yet Christ, though the son of Abraham, did not pay tithes in him, but receive them in Melchizedeck: so though we being in the loins of Adam, may be all said to sin in him; yet Christ, who descended from the same Adam according to the flesh, was not partaker of that sin, but an expiation for it. For he which is contained in the seminal virtue of his parent, is some way under Under that notion did the ancient Jews expect him, as appeareth by the Tar ובההיא זמנא אתגלי מלכא .1 .gum, Cantic. viii משיחא לכנישתא דישראל ויימרון לה בני ישראל When the Messias shall אתא תהא עמנא לאח reveal himself, the sons of Israel shall say unto him, Thou shalt be unto us a brother. Hominis liberatio in utroque sexu debuit apparere. Ergo, quia virum oportebat suscipere, qui sexus honorabilior est, conveniens erat ut fœminei sexus liberatio hinc appareret, quod ille vir de femina natus est. S. August. Quæst. lib. lxxxiii. q. 11. Nolite vos ipsos contemnere, viri, filius Dei virum suscepit: nolite vos ipsas contemnere, fœminæ, filius Dei natus ex fœmina est.' Agone Christiano, c. xi. §. 12. Idem de Non eum in peccatis mater ejus in utero aluit, quem Virgo concepit, Virgo peperit.' S. August. Tract. 4. in loan. §. T 10. Ergo ecce Agnus Dei. Non habeat iste traducem de Adam; carnem tantum sumpsit de Adam, peccatum non assumpsit.' Ibid. Verbum caro factum in similitudine carnis peccata omnia nostra suscepit, nullum reatus vitium ferens ex traduce prævaricationis exortum.' Ioan. IV. Epist. ad Constantinum. Levi in lumbis Abrahæ fuit, secundum concupiscentiam carnalem; Christus autem, secundum solam substantiam corporalem. Cum enim sit in semine et visibilis corpulentia et invisibilis ratio, utrumque cucurrit ex Abraham, vel etiam ex ipso Adam, usque ad corpus Mariæ, quia et ipsum eo modo conceptum et exortum est: Christus autem visibilem carnis substantiam de carne Virginis sumpsit; ratio vero conceptionis ejus non a semine virili, sed longe aliter ac desuper venit.' S. August. de Gen. ad lit. 1. x. c. 20. his natural power, and therefore may be in some manner concerned in his actions: but he who is only from him by his natural substance according to a passive or obediential power, and so receiveth not his propagation from him, cannot be so included in him, as to be obliged by his actions, or obnoxious to his demerits. Thirdly, It was necessary that we should believe Christ born of that person, that Virgin Mary which was espoused unto Joseph, that thereby we might be assured that he was of the family of David. For whatsoever promises were made of the Messias, were appropriated unto him. As the seed of the woman was first contracted to the seed of Abraham, so the seed of Abraham was next appropriated to the Son of David. He was to "be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God was to give unto him the throne of his father David." (Luke i. 32.) When Jesus asked the Pharisees, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? they said unto him, The son of David." (Matt. xxii. 42.) When Herod demanded of the chief priests and scribes, "where Christ should be born; they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea," (Matt. ii. 4, 5.) because that was "the city of David," whither Joseph went up with Mary, his espoused wife, because he was of the house and lineage of David." (Luke ii. 4.) After John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, was born, Zacharias blessed the Lord God of Israel, who had "raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David.' (Luke i. 69.) The "woman of Canaan," the "blind men sitting by the way-side," and those other "blind that followed him," cried out, "Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David." (Matt. xv. 22. xx. 30. ix. 27.) The very children, out of whose mouths God perfected praise, were "crying in the temple, and saying, Hosannah to the Son of David." (Matt. xxi. 15.) And when the blind and dumb both spake and saw, "all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the Son of David?" (Matt. xii. 23.) Thus by the public and concurrent testimonies of all the Jews, the promised Messias was to come of the house and lineage of David; for "God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit upon his throne." (Acts ii. 30.)* It was therefore necessary we should believe that our Saviour 'was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" (Rom. i. 3.) of which we are assured, because he was born of that Virgin Mary who descended from him, and was espoused unto Joseph, who descended from the same, that thereby his genealogy might be known. The consideration of all which will at last lead us to a clear 'Atqui hinc magis Christum intelligere debebis ex David deputatum car nali genere, ob Mariæ Virginis censum. De hoc enim promisso juratur in Psalmo ad David, Ex fructu ventris tui collocabo super thronum tuum. Tertull. l. iii, adv. Marcionem, c. 20. explication of this latter branch of the Article, whereby every Christian may inform himself what he is bound to profess, and being informed, fully express what is the object of his faith in this particular, when he saith, I believe in Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary. For hereby he is conceived to intend thus much: I assent unto this as a most certain and infallible truth, that there was a certain woman, known by the name of Mary, espoused unto Joseph of Nazareth, which before and after her espousals was a pure and unspotted virgin, and being and continuing in the same virginity, did, by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, conceive within her womb the only-begotten Son of God, and, after the natural time of other women, brought him forth as her first-born son, continuing still a most pure and immaculate virgin; whereby the Saviour of the World was born of a woman under the Law, without the least pretence of any original corruption, that he might deliver us from the guilt of sin; born of that Virgin which was of the house and lineage of David, that he might sit upon his throne, and rule for evermore. And in this latitude I profess to believe in Jesus Christ, BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY. ARTICLE IV. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. THIS Article hath also received some accession in the particular expressions of Christ's humiliation. For the first word of it, now generally speaking of his passion, in the most ancient Creeds was no way distinguished from his crucifixion; for as we say, suffered and crucified, they only crucified under Pontius Pilate:* nor was his crucifixion distinguished from 'Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus.' Ruffin. in Symb. §. 16. Cassianus de incarn. Domini, l. vi. c. 4. 'Credimus in eum qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus.' S. August. de Fide et Symb. c. v. §. 11. et de Trinitat. 1. i. c. 14. Caput nostrum Christus est, crucifixum et sepultum, resuscitatum ascendit in cœlum.' Idem, in Psal. cxxxii. 'Qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus.' Max. Taurin. Chrysol. Euseb. Gallic. de Symb. Hom. ii. p. 554. Tov int Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα, ταφέντα. ‘Qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus et sepultus.' MSS. Armach. And besides these, a witness without exception, Leo the Great: Unigenitum Filium Dei crucifixum et sepultum, omnes etiam in Symbolo confi temur.' Epist. x. c. 5. Afterwards the Passion was expressed: Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus et sepultus.' Etherius Uxam. And the Death: Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus.' Auctor lib. de Symb. ad Catechum. §. 6. Not but both these were expressed before in the rule of faith by Tertullian, but without particular mention of the crucifixion. Adv. Prax. c. 2. 'hunc passum, hunc mortuum, et sepultum:' as Optatus: Passus, mortuus, et sepultus resurrexit.' lib. 1. c. 1. 'Passus, sepultus, et tertia die resurrexit.' Capitul. Caroli 82. And generally the ancients did understand determinately his crucifying, by that more comprehensive name of his suffering. For as Marcellus and his death, but where we read, crucified, dead, and buried, they only, crucified and buried. Because the chief of his sufferings were on the cross, and he gave up the ghost there; therefore his whole passion and his death were comprehended in his crucifixion. But again, being he suffered not only on the cross; being it was possible he might have been affixed to that cursed tree, and yet not have died; therefore the Church thought fit to add the rest of his sufferings, as antecedent, and his death, as consequent to his crucifixion. To begin then with his passion in general. In those words, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, we are to consider part as substantial, part as circumstantial. The substance of this part of the Article consisteth in our Saviour's passion, he suf fered: the circumstance of time is added, declared by the present governor, under Pontius Pilate. Now for the explication of our Saviour's passion, as distinct from those particulars which follow in the Article, more I conceive, cannot be required, than that we shew, who it was that suffered, how he suffered, what it was he suffered. : First, If we would clearly understand him that suffered in his full relation to his passion, we must consider him both in his office, and his person; as Jesus Christ, and as the onlybegotten Son of God. In respect of his office, we believe that he who was the Christ did suffer; and so we make profession to be saved by faith in a suffering Messias. Of which that we may give a just account, first, We must prove that the promised Messias was to suffer for if he were not, then by professing that our Jesus suffered, we should declare he was not Christ. Secondly, We must shew that Jesus, whom we believe to be the Messias, did really and truly suffer for if he did not, then while we proved the true Messias was to suffer, we should conclude our Jesus was not that Messias. Thirdly, It will be farther advantageous for the illustration of this truth, to manifest that the sufferings of the Messias were determined and foretold, as those by which he should be known. And fourthly, It will then be necessary to shew that our Jesus did truly suffer whatsoever was determined and foretold. And more than this cannot be necessary to declare who it was that suffered, in relation to his office. For the first of these, that the promised Messias was to suf fer, to all Christians it is unquestionable; because our Saviour did constantly instruct the apostles in this truth, both before his death, that they might expect it, (Mark ix. 12.) and after, that they might be confirmed by it. (Luke xxiv. 26. 46.) St. Cyril have σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα, 3. Τὴν εἰς Θεὸν πίστιν, τὴν εἰς παθόντα ὁμολο ylav. Which was farther enlarged afterwards by the Council of Constantinople into σταυρωθέντα, καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ταφέντα. |