« ZurückWeiter »
standing 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 intent, 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.
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 Symbolo Catholicae fdei, quod Chri- νισαν ειπόντες, εκ πνεύματος αγίου και stus de Spiritu S. et ex Maria Virgine Mapías rñs taplévov. In the several sit natus.' In the ancient MS. tran- expositions among the sermons de scribed by the learned Archbishop of Tempore, falsely attributed to St. AuArmagh: Tòv yevvnévra én hveúparos gustin: 'Qui conceptus est de Spiritu àylov kai Mapias rñs zaplévov. So S. natus ex Virgine Maria.' So EuPaulus Samosatenus in his fifth pro- sebius Gallicanus, Homil. ii. de Symposition: 'Inooős ó yɛvvndeis ÉK Tveú- bolo, p. 534. And from thence it hath paros åylov xai Mapias tñs napfévov. so continued, as we now read it, These, omitted in the Nicene Creed, which was conceived by the Holy were put in by the Council of Con- Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. stantinople, upon the occasion of the * Huic, quem dudum de Patre Apollinarian heresy, as was observed natum ineffabiliter didicisti, nunc a by Diogenes bishop of Cyzicum in the Spiritu S. templum fabricatum intra Council of Chalcedon: Oi yap öylol secreta uteri Virginalis intellige.' Tarépes oi perà raðra, rò toapróon, ö Ruff. in Symb. f. 12. είπον οι άγιοι εν Νικαία πατέρες, έσαφή
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 dif
* The heresy of the Patripassians he answered: Tí vào kakòv tenoinka ; seems only to have relation to the suf- ένα θεόν δοξάζω, ένα επίσταμαι, και ουκ fering of our Saviour, because the άλλον πλήν αυτού γεννηθέντα, πεπονword sigpifies no more than the pas- Jóra, årobavóvra. Hares. Ivii. Ş. 1. He sion of the Father. But it is founded thought the Father and the Son to be in an error concerning the incarnation, the same person, and therefore if the it being out of question that he which Son, the Father to be incarnate : Yiowas made man did suffer. Epipha- πάτορα τον Χριστόν εδίδαξε, τον αυτόν nius observes, Noetus was the first είναι πατέρα και υιόν και άγιον πνεύμα. which taught this heresy, who lived S. Epiphan. Anuceph. t.i. l. ii. 9.11. Af one hundred and thirty years before ter ihe Noetiani followed the Sabellihim, more or less, and when he was ani. So Philastrius: “Sabellius Disciquestioned for it, he denied it : dà tò pulus ejus,qui similitudinem suiDoctoμηδένα προ αυτού εξεμέσαι ταυτηνί την ris itidem secutus est, unde et Sabellihukplav. Hæres. Ivii, ş. 1. But cer- ani postea sunt appellati, qui et Patritainly this heresy was ancienter than passiani, et Praxeani a Praxea,et HerNoetus : for the Patripassiani are mogeniani ab Hermogene, qui fuerunt named by St. Cyprian, Ep. 73. and in Africa, qui et ista sentientes abjecti 'Tertullian his master chargeth it upon sunt ab Ecclesia Catholica.' In BiPraxeas: ‘Duo negotia Diaboli Pra- blioth.Patr. Lat.t.iv.p. 602. So$t. Auxeas Romæ procuravit, Prophetiam gustin: 'Sabelliani dicti sunt quidam expulit, et Hæresim intulit; Paracle. Hæretici, qui vocantur et Patripastum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit.' siani, qui dicunt ipsum Patrem pasAdv. Práx. e. 1. And expressing the sum esse.' Tract. 36. in Ioan. This I absurdity of that opinion: ‘Itaque confess is denied by Epiphanius, who post tempus Pater natus et Pater pas- acknowledged Sabellius to have folsus, ipse Deus Dominus Omnipotens lowed Noetus in many things, but not Jesus Christus prædicatur.'c. 2. And in the incarnation or passion of the De Præscr. adv. Hæret. «Post hos Father: SafeMiavoù di td Õuota svonomnes etiam Praxeas quidam Hære- rws (l. åvontois, id est, Nontiavois, vel sim introduxit, quam Victorious cor- ảvonty, id est, Nonta, as St. Augustin, roborare curavit. Hic Deum Patrem Novato.) dogáLOVTES, a apd. TOūTO Móvovo Omnipotentem Jesum Christum esse λέγουσι γάρ μη πεπονθέναι τον πατέρα. . dicit, hunc crucifixum passumque Anaceph. t. i. l. ii. §. 16. This St. Aucontendit; mortuum præterea seip- gustin wonders very much at in Episum sibi sedere ad dextram suam, phanius : Sabelliani, inquit, similia cum profana et sacrilega temeritate Noeto dogmatizantes, præter hoc quod proponit.'c. 53. After Praxeas, Noe- dicunt Patrem non esse passum; quotus taugbt the same. 'Erólungedé- modo de Sabellianis intelligi potest, γειν τον πατέρα πεπονθέναι, says Epi- cum sic innotuerint dicere Ρatrem phanius, and being questioned for it, passum, ut Patripassjani quam Sa
fused, making the Father to be incarnate, and becoming man
* It appeareth plainly that Tertul- bilem :' and then gives the reason :
First then, We believe that he which was made flesh was the Word, that he which took upon him the nature of mán was not the Father nor the Holy Ghost, nor any other 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.) as her seed, and consequently her son. Then to Abraham, “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,
* "Marcion, ut carnem Cbristi ne- monium redderent et responderent garet, negavit etiam nativitatem, ant, nativitas et caro'; quia nec nativitas ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et car- sine carne nec' caro sine nativitate." nem: scilicet, ne invicem sibi testi- Tertull. de Carne Christi, c. 1.
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 his years must have a subject proper for it, which was no other than a human soul. This was the seat of his finite understanding and directed will, distinct from the will of his Father, and consequently of his divine nature; as appeareth by that known submission, “ Not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke xxii. 42.) This was the subject of those affections and passions which so manifestly appeared in him: nor spake he any other than a proper language, when before his suffering he said, “ My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” (Matt. xxvi. 38.) This was it which on the cross, before the departure from the body, he recommended to the Father: teaching us in whose hands the souls of the departed are: for 66 when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father,
* Simon Magus first made himself and in phantasmate tantum venisse, as to be Christ; and what he feigned of Tertullian speaks, Adv. Hæret. C. 46. himself, that was attributed by others After him Valentinus and his followunto Christ. * Dixerat se in monte ers, Epiphanes, Isidorus, and SecunSina Legem Mosi in Patris persona dus; then the Marcosians, Heraclededisse Judæis, tempore Tiberii in onitæ and Ophitæ, Cerdon, Marcion, Filii persona putative apparuisse.' S. Lucanus, and generally the ManiAugust. Hæres. 1. So St. Cyril re- chees. Those were the Aorntai or presents him : Ουκ εν σαρκί, αλλά δο- Φαντασιασται, all conspiring in this, khoet, ás Xploròv 'Incoûv pavévra. Ca- that Christ was not really what he aptech. 6. From this dócnois of his in- peared, nor did truly suffer what he vention arose the heresy of the Aorn- seemed to endure. This early heresy rai. For Saturnilus or Saturninus fol. appeareth by the opposition wbich lowed his disciple Menander with his St. Ignatius made unto it in bis episputative tantum hominem, as Irenæus; tles.