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 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. Christ. c. 18. And St. Hilary calls it: 'Sementivam ineuntis Spiritus effica ciam.' 1. 2. de Trin. c. 26. But in this they only understood the operation of the Spirit, loco seminis. And whosoever spake of any proper semen, they abhorred; as appears by the 191st Sermon de Tempore: Nec ut quidam sceleratissimi opinantur, Spiritum S. dicimus pro semine fuisse, sed potentia et virtute Creatoris operatum.' I know not whether be the greatest folly; to make the Holy Ghost the father, as these men have done, by creating part of his body by way of seminal conjunction; or to make the same Spirit mother of Christ, as the Nazarenes did. In Evangelio Hebræorum quod lectitant Nazaræi, Salvator inducitur loquens, Modo me arripuit mater mea, Spiritus Sanctus.' There is only this difference, that one is founded upon the authority of Scripture, the other upon the authority of a pretended, but no Scripture: the one maketh the Holy Ghost a partial, the other a total mother. * 'Illud unum peccatum, quod tam magnum in loco et habitu tantæ felicitatis admissum est, ut in uno homine originaliter, atque, ut ita dixerim, radicaliter, totum genus humanum damnaretur, non solvitur ac diluitur nisi per unum Mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Jesum, qui solus potuit ita nasci, ut ei opus non esset renasci.' S. August. Enchirid. cap. 48. 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 observed† 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 66 * In quo non est peccatum, ipse præcedentibus meritis, in ipso exorvenit auferre peccatum. Nam si esset dio naturæ suæ quo esse cœpit, 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 filius Dei: ac sic in humanæ naturæ assumptione fieret quodammodo ipsa gratia naturalis, quæ nullum peccatum posset admittere. Quæ gratia propterea per Spiritum S. fuerat significanda, quia ipse proprie sic est Deus, ut etiam dicatur Dei Donum.' Id. ibid. c. 40. + By St. Augustin: 'Ex hoc quod de Spiritu S. est secundum hominem nativitas Christi, quid aliud quam ipsa gratia demonstratur.' Enchir. c. 37. 'Modus iste quo natus est Christus de Spiritu S. non sicut filius, et de Maria Virgine sicut filius, insinuat nobis gratiam Dei, qua homo, nullis 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,† which caused in him an exemption from all sin. He which was born for us upon his incarnation, is born within us upon our regeneration.‡ All which considered, we may now render a clear explication of this part of the Article, whereby every person may understand 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 ofthe 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. 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 notice of this name; for shewing how an angel was sent unto a "virgin espoused 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 dignity of the Virgin to be denoted in her name. As Gregory Nyssen (or rather his interpolator) Homil, in Natal. Christi: Επειδὰν ἐτέχθη τὸ παιδίον, ὠνόμασε μὲν αὐτὴν Μαρίαν, ὡς ἂν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπωνυμίας τὸ Θεόδοτον διασημανθείη τῆς χάproc. Mistaking, as I conceive, the origination of Mary for that of Anna, her mother. Thus he thought grace, others dominion, to be contained in her name. Ἡ Μαρία ἑρμηνεύεται κυρία, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλπίς. Κύριον γὰρ ἔτεκε τὴν ἐλπίδα τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου Χριστόν. Auctor Homil. de Laud. B. Mariæ, sub nomine Epiphanii. TiKTE TOyapοὖν ἡ χάρις (τοῦτο γὰρ ἡ ̓Αννὰ ἑρμης νεύεται) τὴν κυρίαν τοῦτο γὰρ σημαίνει Tns Mapias rò ovopa. Damasc. Orthod. Fid. 1. iv. c. 15. S. Hieron. de Nom. Hebraicis, col. 1478: 'Sciendum quod Maria sermone Syro Domina nuncupatur.' So Chrysologus: 'Dignitas Virginis annunciatur ex nomine: nam Maria Hebræo sermone, Latine Domina nuncupatur. Vocat ergo Angelus Dominam, ut Dominatoris genetricem trepidatio deserat servitutis, quam nasci et vocari Dominam ipsa sui germinis fecit et impetravit auctoritas.' Serm. 142. 'Sermone Syro Maria Domina nuncupatur, et pulcre, quia Dominum genuit. Isidor. Hispal. Orig. 1. vii. c. 10. The same Isidore with others gives another etymology: • Maria illuminatrix, sive stella maris; genuit enim lumen mundi.' Ibid. And Bernard, Homil. 2. super Missus est: Loquemur pauca et super hoc nomine, quod interpretatum maris stella dicitur, et matri Virgini valde convénienter aptatur. Ipsa namque aptissime sideri comparatur, quia sicut sine sui corruptione sidus suum emittit radium, sic absque sui læsione Virgo parturit filium. So far not amiss. But when from a bad etymology he makes worse divinity, calling her the Star of Jacob, and attributing unto her the light of our minds, the life of our graces, and extirpation of our vices (the work of the Spirit of Christ), when in the midst of all our temptations, horrors of conscience, and depths of despair, he adviseth us immediately to a Respice Stellam, Mariam cogita, Mariam invoca; his interpretation can warrant no such devotion. This etymology also descendeth from St. Jerome, who in his interpretation of the names in Exodus, as from Philo: Maria illuminatrix mea, vel illuminans eos, aut smyrna maris, vel stella maris.' De Nom. Hebr. col. 1454. And again, on the names in St. Matthew: Mariam plerique existimant interpretari, illuminant me isti, vel illuminatrix, vel smyrna maris; sed mihi nequaquam videtur. Melius autem est ut dicamus sonare eam stellam maris, sive amarum mare.' Ibid. col. 1478. 'Epμηνεύεται πάλιν ἡ Μαρία σμύρνα θαλάσ ons' Homil. de Laudibus B. Mariæ. 'Dicta sunt et ante Mariæ multæ: nam et Maria soror Aaron dicta fuit, sed illa Maria amaritudo maris vocabatur.' S. Ambros. Instit. Virg. c. 5. Indeed that ab amaritudine, without the adjection 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 logy observed by the Jews; as appears by the author of the Life of Moses, who relating how Amram took Jochebed to wife, and of her begat a daugh ̓Ασπάσασθε Μαριάμ, ἥτις πολλὰ ἐκοπία- מרים מגדליתא ומרים Virgin ; as ותקרא שמה מרי כי,ter, addeth ,Mark xv. 40. So again אמה דיעקוב בעת ההיא החלי המצרי בני חם מרים מגדליתא ומרים אחרתא She was called למרור חיי בני ישראל Miriam, because at that time the Egyptians, who were the offspring of Cham, made the lives of the sons of Israel bitAnd in the, like manner Sedar ter. Matt. xxviii. 1. And therefore there + For whereas we first read, Exod. .the LXX מרים הנביאה .20 .xv נקרא שמה מרי על שם מירור,Olam * This is to be observed, by reason of some learned men, who make the name of the Virgin different from that of others called Mary in the Gospel, upon two grounds, in respect of the accent, and the termination; the one being Μαριάμ, the other Μαρία: the first with a Hebrew termination, in declinable, and the accent in ultima; the latter with a Greek termination, declinable, and the accent in penultima. As Ὄνομα τῆς παρθένου Μαριάμ, Luke i. 27. in the nominative: 'ATOγράψασθαι σὺν Μαριάμ, Luke ii. 5. in the dative: Μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαριάμ, Matt. i. 20. in the accusative: and μὴ φοβοῦ, Μαριάμ, Luke i. 30. in the vocative case. All which belong to the Virgin, who is never named Mapia as none of the rest by any of the evangelists is ever called Mapiáμ. But notwithstanding this observation, we find the same Virgin's name declined: as, Μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας, Matt. i. 18. and, Σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ Μαρίᾳ τῇ μητρὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Acts i. 14. both which must come from the Greek termination Mαρία in recto. And, on the contrary, that Mary which St. Paul mentioneth, hath the same Hebrew termination with the Virgin, translate it, Maρiàμ ǹ πроoñτɩs, and the Syriac altering the pronunciation, . And because the Greek language admitteth no jod consonant, Ἰουδαῖος ἕτερον μῶρον ἐξᾴδει λαβών. Tragopodagr. 172. |