Abbildungen der Seite

who died so, being “ put to death through the flesh, and quickened by the Spirit,” (1 Pet. jii. 18.) he was “ of the fathers as concerning the flesh,” who was “God over all blessed for ever.” (Rom. ix. 5.) Being these and the like actions and affections cannot come from the same nature, and yet must be attributed to the same person; 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

• This heresy doth most formally the eternal generation, adding immecontradict these words of the Creed, diately, begotten of his Father before because it immediately denies this all worlds ; neither is there any word truth, that the eternal Son of God was between that exposition and the incarconceived and born. And in vain did nation, but such as speak wholly of Nestorius seek not only to avoid it in Christ as God. Therefore that only. the Nicene Creed, but to make use of begotten Son, who was begotten of his the words of the Creed even against Father before all worlds, descended the unity of the person of Christ. St. from heaven, and was incarnate. Thus Cyril bad well objected the series, St. Cyril in his second epistle to Neorder, and consequence of that confes- storius, and Nestorius in his second to sion: "Eon vi åyia kai yeyákn Evvódos, him. Which mistake of his seems yet αυτόν εκ θεού Πατρός κατά φύσιν υιόν more strange to me, when I consider μονογενή, τον εκ θεού αληθινού θεόν in the same epistle of Nestorius that αληθινόν, το φώς το εκ του φωτός, τον δι' fundamental truth asserted, which of oð tà távra 'ren oinkev è llarnp, karel- itself sufficiently, nay, fully confutes θεϊν, σαρκωθήναι τε και ενανθρωπήσαι, his heresy : for he acknowledgeth the παθεϊν, αναστήναι τη τρίτη ημέρα, και name of Christ to be, απαθούς και παανελθείν εις ουρανούς. Epist. 5. p. 25. Θητής ουσίας έν μοναδική προσώπω The strength of this objection lies in tpoonyopiav onpavzuniv, ibid. and, this, that Christ, the only begotten consequently, Christ himself to be a Son, begotten of the Father before all single person in a double nature, passworlds, was incarnate. The answer ible and impassible: which once of Nestorius was in this manner: granted, it evidently followeth, that Πιστεύομεν εις τον Κύριον ημών Ιησούν he which was born from eternity, was Χριστόν, τον υιόν αυτού τον μονογενή: also born in time, for by those several σκόπησον όπως Ίησούς, Χριστός, και μο- nativities he had those several natures; νογενής, και υιός, πρότερον θέντες, τα that he which was impassible as God, κοινά της θεότητός και ανθρωπότητος, might, and did suffer as man, because ως θεμελίους, ονόματα τότε την τής έναν- the same person was of an impassible θρωπήσεως, και του πάθους, και της ανα- and a passible nature; impassible as otáoews, ÉTOLKOdojoñol napádoow. Ibid. God, passible as man. Wherefore by p. 26. And the strength, or rather the that wbich Nostorius hath confessed, weakness, thereof is this: that first the and notwithstanding that which he Council placed the names of Jesus hath objected, it is evident out of the Christ, and the only-begotten Son, Nicene Creed, that the Son of God, pames common to the Divinity and begotten of his Father before all humanity of Christ: and then upon worlds, was incarnate and made man; them built the doctrine of his incar- and as evident out of the Apostles' nation. Whereas it is evident that, Creed, especially expounded by the supposing the only-begotten a term Nicene, that the same only-begotten common to the humanity and Divinity, Son was conceived by the Holy Ghost, yet the Council clearly expounds it of and born of the Virgin Mary.

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 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 the genealogies are described, whether one belong to Joseph, 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 thein, 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 im mediately 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

• Indeed in our translation, whom original it evidently belongs to Mary: may relate to both, as well as one, and Tòv 'Iwong tòv ävopa Mapías, és nis £y£vto Joseph as well as Mary; but in the výon 'Inpows.

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 deter

* As conceptus de Spiritu S., natus Aquinas has delivered the subtilty, ex Maria Virgine. St. Augustin in- Sum. p. 3. q. 32. a. 2. 'In Spiritu S. deed hath delivered a distinction be- duplex habitudo consideratur respectu tween de and ex, after this manner, Christi. Nam ad ipsum filium Dei, speaking to those words of the apo- qui dicitur esse conceptus, habet hastle: ' Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, bitudinem consubstantialitatis ; ad et in ipso, sunt omnia. Ex ipso non hoc corpus autem ejus habet habitudinem significat quod de ipso, Quod enim de causæ efficientis. Hæc autem præ

est, potest dici ex ipso; non au- positio de utramque habitudinem detem omne quod cx ipso est, recte di- signat, sicut cum dicimus hominem citur de ipso. Ex ipso enim coelum aliquem esse de suo patre. Et ideo et terra, quia ipse fecit ea; non autem convenienter dicere possumus Chride ipso, quia nou de substantia sua. stum esse conceptum de Spiritu S. hoć Sicut aliquis homo si gigpat filium, et modo, quod efficientia Sp. $. referatur faciat domum, ex ipso filius, ex ipso ad corpus assumptum, consubstantiadomus; sed filius de ipso, sicut do- litas vero ad personam assumentem.' mus de terra et ligno.' De Nat. Boni But this distinction of consubstanadv. Manich. c. 27. This distinction tiality and effective causality can make , having no foundation in the Latin nothing for the propriety of the phrase; tongue, is ill made use of for the illus- for the preposition de signifieth the tration of this Article, be in the ma erial cause as well as the efficient, Greek language of the Testament it must do so in respect of that which there is no such diversity of preposi- is the effect, if it require that the thing tions, for as we read of Mary, že vs which is made be made of the subèyevvý n ó Inooūs, so also of the Holy stance of that de quo est: then must Ghost, espéon év yaotpi é xovoa Ék hveú- Christ, according unto that which is ματος αγίου, and το εν αυτή γεννηθέν made, be made of the substance of ÉK Tveúparóg żotiv åylov. It is there- the Holy Ghost; or, to speak in the fore said as well tx a veúpatos, as łw words of the Scripture, Quod in ea Mapias. Again, the Vulgar observeth natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est.' no such difference, as rendering for Where either that which was conthe one, de qua natus est Jesus, and ceived in the Virgin must be acknowfor the other, in utero habens de Spi- ledged of the substance of the Holy ritu S. Correspondently in the Greek Ghost, or else the preposition de must Creeds, ovlinpoévta ŠK aveúpatos, yev- not be taken in St. Augustin's sense. vnévta èx Mapías, or as in the Nicene, However, being there is but one preŠK aveúuaros kai Mapias. And the La- position ék, common to both in the tin not only de Spiritu S. ex Maria original Greek; being the vulgar transVirgine, but sometimes de Spiritu S. et lation useth de indifferently for either; Maria Virgine, and de Maria Virgine, being where they have distinguished Chrysologus and St. Augustin often de and ex, they have attributed ex, de Trinitate. Wherefore in vain bave which doth not signify consubstanthe schools first accepted of St. Au- tiality, to the Virgin, of whom they gustin's distinction, and then applied confess he did assume the substance it to Christ's conception; first taking of his body, and de, which signifieth the preposition de to signify no less (as they say) consubstantiality to the than a procession from the substance Holy Ghost, of whose substance he of the cause, and then acknowledge received nothing: it followeth, that Christ so begotten of the Holy Ghost, the difference in the prepositions can because the eternal Son who was so no way declare the different concurbegotten was of the same substance rence of the Spirit and the Virgin in with the Holy Ghost. Thus Thomas Christ's conception.

[ocr errors]

mine 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, 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 ac. cording 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 turali Dei Filio, c. 2. Verum manet Spiritus generat, Virgo parturit, to- generationem et hanc dici posse, qua. tum divinum geritur, nihil humanum.' tenus in Deum ea cadere potest, si ad And Serm. 62. 'Stupenti mundo solus sanguinem Mariæ addita sit ex parte aperit quid est, quod Spiritus generat, Dei materia, ex qua cum sanguine Virgo concipit, Virgo parit.'

Mariæ juncta natus sit Christus. 16. t Deus ipsemet ad sanguinem c.3. What this was thus added to the Mariæ addidit aliam materiam, ex substance of the Virgin, he elsewhere quibus deinde Christus conceptus et explains: “Nos Dei virtutem in Virnatus est.' Smalcius, De Vero et Na- ginis uterum aliquam substantiam

« ZurückWeiter »