« ZurückWeiter »
one part of which humanity he was the son of man, as by the other part he was the Son of God.
The belief of this is necessary to prevent all fear or suspicion of spot in this Lamb, of sin in this Jesus. Whatsoever our original corruption is, however displeasing unto God, we may be from hence assured there was none in him, in whom alone God hath declared himself to be well pleased. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?” saith Job(xiv. 4.); a clean and undefiled Redeemer out of an unclean and defiled nature ? He whose name is Holiness, whose operation is to sanctify, the Holy Ghost. Our Jesus was like unto us in all things as born of a woman, sin only excepted, as conceived by the Holy Ghost. This original and total sanctification of the human nature was first necessary, to fit it for the personal union with the Word, who, out of his infinite love, humbled himself to become flesh, and at the same time, out of his infinite purity, could not defile himself by becoming sinful flesh. Secondly, The same sanctification was as necessary in respect of the end for which he was made man, the redemption of mankind : that as the first* Adam was the creatam vel immisisse aut ibi creasse ciam.'l. 2. de Trin, c. 26. But in this affirmamus, ex qua, juncto eo quod they only understood the operation of ex ipsius Virginis substantia accessit, the Spirit, loco seminis. And whosoverus homo generatus fuit.' This he ever spake of any proper semen, they doth not only without any authority abhorred; as appears by the 191st affirm, but ground upon it the sonship Sermon de Tempore: ' Nec ut quidam of Christ. For so it follows: ' Alias sceleratissimi opipantur, Spiritum S. enim homo ille Dei filius a conce- dicimus pro semine fuisse, sed potenptione et nativitate proprie non fuisset.' tia et virtute Creatoris operatum.'. I And again: Necessitas magna fuit know not whether be the greatest ut Christus ab initio vitæ suæ esset folly; to make the Holy Ghost the Dei Filius, qualis futurus non fuisset, father, as these men have done, by nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum fuis- creating part of his body by way of set quod ad constituendum Cbristi seminal conjunction; or to make the corpus una cum Mariæ sanguine con- same Spirit mother of Christ, as the currit.' Thus while they deny the Nazarenes did. “In Evangelio Heeternal generation of the Son, they bræorum quod lectitant Nazaræi, Salestablish a temporal in such manner vator inducitur loquens, Modo me aras is not consonant with that word ripuit mater mea, Spiritus Sanctus.' which they pretend wholly to follow, There is only this difference, that one and have made a body of Cbrist is founded upon the authority of Scrippartly descending from the Father, ture, the other upon the authority of partly not: and whereas as man he is a pretended, but no Scripture: the like to us in all things, sin only ex- one maketh the Holy Ghost a partial, cepted; they have invented a body, the other a total mother. partly like ours, partly not, and so in * “Illud unum peccatum, quod tam no part totally like. Indeed some of magnum in loco et habitu tantæ felithe ancients did speak so as to make citatis admissum est, ut in'uno homine the Holy Ghost the semen Dei; as originaliter, atque, ut ita dixerim, raTertullian: ‘Ergo jam Dei filius ex dicaliter, totum genus humanum daPatris Dei semine, i, e. Spiritu, ut es- mnaretur, non solvitur ac diluitur nisi set hominis filius, caro ci sola erat ex per unum Mediatorem Dei et bomihominis carne sumenda sine viri se- num, hominem Christum Jesum, qui mine. Vacabat enim viri semen apud solus potuit ita nasci, ut ei opus non habentem Dei semen.' De car. Christ. esset renasci.' S. August. Enchirid. c. 18. And St. Hilary calls it: 'Se- cap. 48. mentivam ineuntis Spiritus effica
fountain of our impurity, so the second Adam should also be the pure fountain of our righteousness. “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh;” (Rom. viii. 3.) which he could not have condemned, had he been sent in sinful flesh. “ The Father made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him ;” (2 Cor. v. 21.) which we could not have been made in him, but that he“ did no sin,” (1 Pet. ii. 22.) and knew no sin. For, whosoever is sinful wanteth a Redeemer; and he could have redeemed none, who stood in need of his own redemption. We are redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ :” (1 Pet. i. 19.) therefore precious, because “of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot." (Ibid.) Our atonement can be made by no other high-priest than by him who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” (Heb. vii. 26.) We cannot “know that he was manifested to take away our sins,"* except we also know that “ in him is no sin.” (1 John iii. 5.) Wherefore, being it is so necessary to believe the original holiness of our human nature in the person of our Saviour; it is as necessary to acknowledge that way by which we may be fully assured of that sanctity, his conception by the Holy Ghost.
Again, it hath been observedt that by this manner of Christ's conception is declared the freedom of the grace of God. For as the Holy Ghost is God, so is he also called the Gift of God: and therefore the human nature in its first original, without any precedent merit, was formed by the Spirit, and in its formation sanctified, and in its sanctification united to the Word; so that the grace was coexistent, and in a manner connatural with it. The mystery of the incarnation is frequently attributed in the Scriptures to the love, mercy, and goodness of God. Through the tender mercy of our God the day-spring from on high hath visited us:" (Luke i. 78.) In this « the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared.” (Tit. iii. 4.) And though these and such other Scriptures speak properly of the love and mercy of God to man alone, offered unto him in the incarnation of our Saviour, and so directly exclude the merits of other men only; yet be
'In quo non est peccatum, ipse præcedentibus meritis, in ipso exorvenit auferre peccatum. Nam si esset dio naturæ suæ quo esse coepit, Verbo in illo peccatum, auferendum esset Dei copularetur in tantam personæ illi, non ipse auferret.' S. August. unitatem, ut idem ipse esset filius Dei Tract. 4. in 1 Ioan. §. 8.
qui filius hominis, et filius hominis qui + By St. Augustin: 'Ex hoc quod filius Dei : ac sic in humanæ naturæ de Spiritu S. est secundum hominem assumptione fieret quodammodo ipsa nativitas Christi, quid aliud quam ipsa gratia naturalis, quæ nullum peccagratia demonstratur.' Enchir. c. 37. tum posset admittere. Quæ gratia
I'Modus iste quo natus est Chri- propterea per Spiritum S. fuerat sistus de Spiritu S. non sicut filius, et de gnificanda, quia ipse proprie sic est Maria Virgine sicut filius, insinuat Deus, ut etiam dicatur Dei Donum.' nobis gratiam Dei, qua homo, nullis Id. ibid. c. 40.
cause they speak so generally with reference to God's mercy, they may well be thought to exclude all universally. Especially considering the impossibility of merit* in Christ's humanity, in respect of his conception ; because all desert necessarily precedeth its reward, and Christ was not man before he was conceived, nor can that merit which is not.
Thirdly, Whereas we are commanded to be holy, and that even as he is holy; by this we learn from what foundation this holiness must flow. We bring no such purity into the world, nor are we sanctified in the womb; but as he was sanctified at his conception, so are we at our regeneration. He was conceived not by man, but by the Holy Ghost, and we are “ not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John i. 13.) The same overshadowing power which formed his human nature, reformeth ours; and the same Spirit assureth us a remission of our sins,t wbich caused in him an exemption from all sin. He which was born for us upon his incarnation, is born within us upon our regeneration. I
All which considered, we may now render a clear explication of this part of the Article, whereby every person may un. derstand what he is to profess, and express what is the object of his faith, when he saith, I believe in Jesus Christ, which was conceived by the Holy Ghost. For hereby he ought to intend thus much: I assent unto this as a most necessary and infallible truth, that the only begotten Son of God, begotten by the Father before all worlds, very God of very God, was conceived and born, and so made man, taking to himself the human nature, consisting of a soul and body, and conjoining it with the divine in the unity of his person. I am fully assured that the Word was in this manner made flesh, that he was really and truly conceived in the womb of a woman, but not after the manner of men; not by carnal copulation, not by the common way of human propagation, but by the singular, powerful, invisible, immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, whereby a Virgin was beyond the law of nature enabled to conceive, and that which was conceived in her was originally and completely sanctified. And in this latitude I profess to believe in Jesus Christ, WHICH WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY GHOST.
* Cum ad paturam Dei non perti- tia homo ille ab initio suo factus est neat natura humana, ad personam ta- Christus. De ipso Spiritų et hic remen unigeniti Filii Dei per gratiam natus, de quo est ille natus. Eodem pertinet humana natura ; et tantam Spiritu fit
in nobis remissio peccatogratiam, ut nulla sit major, nulla pror- rum, quo Spiritu factum est ut nullum sus æqualis. Neque enim illam sus- haberet ille peccatum.' S. August. de ceptionem hominis ulla merita præces. Prædest. Sanct. c. 15. serunt, sed ab illa susceptione merita I Nolite desperare; quod semel ejus cuncta coeperunt.' S. August. natum est ex Maria, quotidie et in Tract. 82. in Ioan.
nobis nascitur.' S. Hieron, Comm. in. + • Ea gratia fit ab initio fidei suæ Psal. Ixxxiv. 17, homo quicunque Christianus, qua gra
Born of the Virgin Mary. The third person considerable in this third Article, is represented under the threefold description of her name, condition, and action. The first telleth us who it was, it was Mary; the second informeth us what she was, a virgin; the third teaches us what she did, she conceived and bare our Saviour, and brought forth the Son of God; which was born of the Virgin Mary.
The Evangelist, relating the annunciation, taketh particular potice of this name; for shewing how an angel was sent unto ą“ virginespoused to a man,” he first observed that his "name was Joseph;" and then that the “virgin's name was Mary :" (Luke i. 27.) not for any peculiar excellency in the name itself, or any particular application to the Virgin arising from the origination of it, as some have conceived ;* but only to
* For some have thought the dig- maris stella dicitur, et matri Virgini nity of the Virgin to be denoted in her valde convenienter aptatur. Ipsa name. As Gregory Nyssen (or rather namque aptissime sideri comparatur, bis interpolator) Homil
, in Natal. Chris quia sicut sine sui corruptione sidus sti: 'ETEIDàv _tex In tò maidíov, úvóuage suum emittit radium, sic absque sui μεν αυτήν Μαρίαν, ώς αν και διά της επω- lesione Virgo parturit filium. So far vulas tò Jeóðotov diaonjavgein rñs xá- not amiss. But when from a bad etyPetos. Mistaking, as I conceive, the mology he makes worse divinity, call, origination of Mary for that of Anna, ing her the Star of Jacob, and attrihor mother 73). Thus he thought buting unto her the light of our minds, grace, others dominion, to be contain the life of our graces, and extirpation ed in her name. 'H Mapia &punveterat of our vices (the work of the Spirit of κυρία, αλλά και ελπίς. Κύριον γαρ έτεκε Christ), when in the midst of all our Tojv tanida roŨ Tavròg koopov Xplotóv. temptations, horrors of conscience, Auctor Homil. de Laud. B. Mariæ, and depths of despair, he adviseth us sub nomine Epiphanii
. Tiktel tolyap- immediately to a Respice Stellam, oŨv ň zápis (Povto yåp 'Avvà èpun. Mariam cogita, Mariam invoca;' his νεύεται) την κυρίαν" τούτο γάρ σημαίνει interpretation can warrant no such rñs Mapías tò óvoua. Damasc. Orthod, devotion. This etymology also deFid. I. iv. c. 15. S. Hieron. de Nom. scendeth from St. Jerome, who in his Hebraicis, col. 1478: 'Sciendum quod interpretation of the names in Exodus, Maria sermone Syro Domina nuncu- as from Philo; · Maria illuminatrix patur.? So Chrysologus: Dignitas mea, vel illuminans eos, aut smyrna Virginis annunciatur ex nomine: nam maris, vel stella maris.' De Nom. Maria Hebræo sermone, Latino Do Hebr. col. 1454. And again, on the mina nuncupatur. Vocat ergo Ange- names in St. Matthew :· Mariam lus Dominam, ut Dominatoris gene- plerique existimant interpretari, illutricem trepidatio deserat servitutis, minant me isti, vel illuminatrix, vel quam nasci et vocari Dominam ipsa smyrna maris; sed mihi nequaquam sui germinis fecit et impetravit aucto- videtur. Melius autem est ut dicaritas.' Serm. 142. “Sermone Syro Ma- mus sonare eam stellam maris, sive ria Domiya nuncupatur, et pulcre, amarum mare.' Ibid. col. 1478. 'Epquia Dominum genuit.' Isidor. Hin unveteral nálev Mapia ouúpva Balãospal. Orig. 1. vii. c. 10. The same Isi- ons.' Homil. de Laudibus B. Mariæ. dore with others gives another etymo- 'Dictæ sunt et ante Mariæ multæ : logy: Maria illuminatrix, sive stella nam et Maria soror Aaron dicta fuit, maris; genuit enim lumen mundi.' sed illa Maria amaritudo maris vocaIbid. And Bernard, Homil. 2. super batur.' S. Ambros. Instit. Virg. c. 5. Missus est: 'Loquemur pauca et su- Indeed that ab amaritudine, without per hoc nomine, quod interpretatụm the adjeotion of mare, is the etymo
denote that singular person, who was then so well known to all men, being espoused unto Joseph, as appeareth by the question of his admiring countrymen, “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary ?” (Matt. xiii. 55.) Otherwise the name was common even at that time to many; to the sister of Lazarus, (John xi. 1.) to the mother of James and Joses, (Matt. xxvii. 56.) to the wife of Cleophas, (John xix. 25.) to the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, (Acts xii. 12.) to her who was of Magdala in Galilee, (Luke viii. 2.) to her who bestowed much labour on St. Paul, (Rom. xvi. 6.) Nor is there any original * distinction between the name of these, and of the mother of our Lord. For as the name of Jesus was the same with Joshua, so this of Mary was the same with Miriam.The first of which name recorded
מרים מגדליתא ומרים Virgin ; as ותקרא שמה מרי כי ,ter
addeth ,Mark xv . 40. So again אמה דיעקוב בעת ההיא החלי המצריי בני חם מרים מגדליתא ומרים אחרתא She was called למרור חיי בני ישראל
Iogy observed by the Jews; as appears 'Ασπάσασθε Μαριάμ, ήτις πολλά εκοπίαby the author of the Life of Moses, gev eis újās, Rom. xvi. 6. Beside, the who relating how Amram took Joche- Syriac translation makes no difference bed to wife, and of her begat a daugh- between the name of these and of the , , , ;
2 . , Miriam, because at that time the Egyp- Matt. xxviii. 1. And therefore there tians, who were the offspring of Cham, can be no sufficient foundation for any made the lives of the sons of Israel bit- such distinction. ter. And in the like manner Sedar + For whereas we first read, Exod.
, . . ,. * This is to be observed, by reason translate it, Mapidu o apopñrış, and of some learned men, who make the the Vulgar Lat. Maria Prophetissa. name of the Virgin different from that The Hebrew first was 7? Mirjam; of others called Mary in the Gospel, upon two grounds, in respect of ihé the Syriac altering the pronunciation, accent, and the termination ; the one not the letters, O'n? Marjam, as for being . Mapudy, the other Mapia: the sizan, 5739. And because the Greek first with a Hebrew termination, indeclinable, and the accent in ultima; language admitteth no jod consonant, the latter with a Greek termination, they pronounced it Mapiáp. Though declinable, and the accent in penul- sometimes indeed, even the Greeks tima. As "Ovoua tñs apdévov Mapidji, did use the barbarous pronunciation Luke i. 27. in the nominative: 'Ano- in the barbarous words, as Lucian γράψασθαι συν Μαριάμ, Luke ii. 5. in with the Latins makes Ιουδαίος of the dative: Μη φοβηθής παραλαβείν three syllables, Mapiàu, Matt. i. 20. in the accusative: Ιουδαίος έτερον μώρον εξάδει λαβών. and un poßoõ, Mapıdy, Luke i. 30. in
Tragopodagr, 172. the vocative case. All which belong Again, because no Greek word endeth to the Virgin, who is never named in M, to make it current in that lanMapia: as none of the rest by any of guage, it was necessary to alter the the evangelists is ever called Mapiáu. termination, according to their cusBut notwithstanding this observation, tom; as for Annibal’Avvißas, Asdruwe find the same Virgin's name de- bal’Aodpoúsas, Amilkar 'Apixas, and clined: as, Mvnotevbɛions rīts untpós Káiv, Káis. This was to be done someaŭtoŨ Mapías, Matt. i. 18. and, Cùy times by addition; as Nwx Nữxos, γυναιξί και Μαρία τη μητρί του Ιησού, 'Αβέλ "Αβελος, Λαμία Λάμεχος, Ίαρέδ Acts i. 14. both which must come from ’lápedos, 'Evūs "Evwoos, Eno Enoos, the Greek termination Μαρία in recto. 'Αδάμ Αδαμος, 'Αβραάμ "Αβραμος and And, on the contrary, that Mary which ’Appakuns. And so for Mapıdp, MaSt. Paul mentioneth, hath the same pláuun or Mapıáuvn. Josephus, MaHebrew termination with the Virgin, ριάμη του παιδός αδελφή, of Miriam the