Page images
PDF
EPUB

putabant nonnulli effe, (ex traditione Hebræorum fumptâ occafione, ex evangelio quod titulum habet juxta Petrum, aut ex libro Jacobi) filios Jofeph ex priore uxore, quæ convixerat ipfi antequam duceret Mariam, in Mat. 13.55. This Jacobus mentioned by Origen, is the fame with him whom Euftathius mentions in Hexamero, "Aiaviscerar his διέξεσι τεὶ, ἢ ἁγίας Μαρίας Ἰάκωβός τις ἐπελθείν. Where he reckons Jofeph inter τις χηρεύοντας and Epiphanius calls 'Idxa6 Ebgaños. S. Hierome therefore obferving that the former opinion of Jofeph's Sons was founded merely upon an Apocryphal Writing, and being ready to affert the Virginity of Jofeph as well as Mary, firft invented the other Solution in the kindred of Mary, as founded not only in the Language, but also teftimony of the Scriptures. Quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore Jofeph filios fufpicantur, fequentes delirimenta Apocryphorum, & quandam Efcham mulierem confingentes. Nos autem ficut in libro quem contra Helvidium fcripfimus continetur, fratres Domini non filios Jofeph, fed confobrinos Salvatoris, Mariæ liberos intelligimus materteræ Domini, quæ effe dicitur mater Jacobi minoris & Jofephi & Judæ, quos in alio Evangelii loco fratres Domini legimus appellatos. Fratres autem confobrinos dici omnis Scriptura demonftrat. S. Hieron. in Matth. 12. 49. After S. Hieron. S. Aug. embraced this Opinion: Confanguinei Virginis Mariæ fratres Domini dicebantur. Erat enim confuetudinis Scripturarum appellare fratres, quoflibet confanguineos & cognationis propinquos, in Joh. Tract. 28. item Tract. 10. & contra Fauftum l. 22. 35. Although therefore he seem to be indifferent in his Expofition of the Epistle to the Galatians, Jacobus Domini frater, vel ex filiis Jofeph de alia uxore, vel ex cognatione Mariæ matris ejus, debet intelligi: yet because this Expofition was written while he was a Presbyter, and thofe before mentioned after he was made a Bishop: therefore the former was taken for his undoubted Opinion, and upon his and S. Hierome's Authority hath been generally fince received in the Latin Church.

*From this

us argued,

Hæc eadem

And yet this difficulty, tho' ufually no farther confidered, is not fully cleared; for they which impugned the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of our Lord urged it farther, pretending that as the Scriptures called them the Brethren of Chrift, fo they alfo fhewed them to be the Sons of Mary Matth.13.55. the Mother of Chrift. For firft the Jews exprefs them particularly by their Names, Is not his Mother called Mary? and his brethren James and Joses, place Helvidi- and Simon, and Judas? Therefore James and Jofes were undoubtedly the brethren of Chrift, and the fame were alfo as unquestionably the Sons of Mary: For among the Women at the Crofs we find a Mary Magdalen, and Mary the Mother of James and Jofes. Again, this Mary they think can be no other than the Mother of our Lord, because they find her early in the Morning at the Sepulchre with Mary Magdalene and Salome; and it is not probable that any fhould have more care of the Body of the Son than Maria. S. the Mother. She then who was certainly prefent at the Cross, was not Helv. And probably abfent from the Sepulchre: Wherefore they conclude, fhe was the from the next Mother of Chrift, who was the Mother of James and Jofes, the Brethren of be concluded, Chrift.

vocabula in

alio loco nominari, &

eofdem effe fratres Domini filios

Hier. adverf.

Ecce Jacobus

& Jofes, filii Mariæ, quos Judæi fratres appellârunt.

b

[blocks in formation]

dius exclaiming triumphed, Quam miferum erit & impium de Maria hoc fentire, ut cum aliæ fœminæ curam fepulturæ habuerint, matrem ejus dicamus abfentem!

And now the urging of this Argument will produce a greater clearness in the folution of the question. For if it appear that Mary the Mother of James and Jofes was different and diftinguished from Mary the Virgin; then will it alfo be apparent that the Brethren of our Lord were the Sons of another John 19. 25. Mother, for James and Jofes were fo called. But we read in S. John, that

there ftood by the Cross of Jefus, his mother, and his mother's fifter, Mary Matth.27.56. the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. In the reft of the Evange Mark 15.40. lifts we find at the fame place Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Matth. 28.1. James and Jofes; and again at the Sepulchre, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary: wherefore that other Mary by the conjunction of these Testimonies appeareth to be Mary the wife of Cleophas, and the mother of James and Jofes; and confequently James and Jofes, the Brethren of our Lord, appellatur fra- were not the Sons of Mary his Mother, but of the other Mary, and thereter Domini, fore called his Brethren, according to the language of the Jews, because that cognomento the other Mary was the Sifter of his Mother.

* Jacobus qui

Juftus,ut non

*

nulli exiftimant, Jofeph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariæ fororis Matris Domini, cujus Joannes in libro fuo meminit, filius. S. Hieron, in Catalogo. Sicut in Sepulchro ubi pofitum eft corpus Domini, nec antea nec postea mortuus jacuit: fic uterus Mariæ nec antea nec poftea quicquam mortale fufcepit. S. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 28.

Notwithstanding therefore all these pretenfions, there can be nothing found to raise the leaft fufpicion of any interruption of the ever-blessed Mary's perpetual Virginity, For as fhe was a Virgin when the conceived, and

4

after

after the brought forth our Saviour; fo did fhe continue in the fame state and condition, and was commended by our Saviour to his beloved Disciple, as a mother only now of an adopted fon.

The third Confideration belonging to this part of the Article is, how this Virgin was a Mother, what the foundation was of her maternal relation to the Son of God, what is to be attributed unto her in this facred Nativity befide the immediate work of the power of the Highest, and the influence of the Holy Ghost. For we are here to remember again the most ancient form of this Article, briefly thus delivered, Born of the Holy Ghoft, and the Virgin Mary; as alfo that the word * Born was not taken precisely for the Nativity *renia. of our Saviour, but as comprehending in it whatsoever belonged to his human Generation; and when afterward the Conception was attributed to the Spirit, the Nativity to the Virgin; it was not fo to be understood, as if the Spirit had conceived him, but the blessed Virgin by the power and operation of the Spirit.

*

nativitatem

First therefore we must acknowledge a true, real and proper Conception, by which the Virgin did conceive of her own fubftance the true and real fub- Tantum ad stance of our Saviour, according to the prediction of the Prophet, Behold a carnis ex fe Virgin fhall conceive, and the Annunciation of the Angel, Behold, thou dedit, quanShalt conceive in thy womb. From whence our Saviour is expreffly termed tum ex fe by Elizabeth, the ‡ fruit of her womb.

fœminæ edendorum

corporuin

fufceptis originibus impendunt. S. Hilar. l. 10. de Trinit. †That is, by a proper Conception, Cuddabei, ev yasei the Syriack in one word ac fi diceres, ventrefcere. So the LXX. tranflated the fimple, cu rasei ante. As therefore cyases ixen expreffseth a proper Gravidation, fo doth in vases Curλaber a proper Conception. According to that exprefion of Gregory Nazianzen, θεικῶς με, ὅτι χορὶς ἀνδρὸς ἀνθρωπικῶς 5, ὅτι νόμῳ κυήσεως. "Ep. I. ad Cledon.

a Luke 1. 42.

פרי בטן .Heb $

C

Matth.1.18.
Luke 2.5.

son isxúc.

d Luke 11.27.

σατά σε

* Πεπληροφο

Secondly, As the did at first really and properly conceive, fo did she also nourish and increase the fame body of our Saviour, once conceived by the true Substance of her own; by which he was found with child of the Holy Ghost, and is described going with Jofeph to be taxed, being great with child, and pronounced happy by that loud cry of the woman in the Gospel, d Bleed is the womb that bare thee. Thirdly, When Chrift was thus conceived and grew in the womb of the xian Basablessed Virgin, the truly and really did bring forth a Son by a true and proper anggo Parturition; and Chrift thereby was properly born by a true Nativity. For es eis i as we read, e Elizabeth's full time came that he should be delivered, and Key, She brought forth a fon; fo in the like fimplicity of expreffion, and propriety of fpeech, the fame Evangelift fpeaks of Mary, The days were accomplished & Cágna dv that he should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son. καὶ διώαμιν θεῖο Wherefore from these three, a true Conception, Nutrition and Parturition, we must acknowledge that the bleffed Virgin was † truly and properly the Mons waes ther of our Saviour. And fo is the frequently ftyled the Mother of Jefus in ad Smyr. Oiva. Ig. Epift. the language of the Evangelifts, and by Elizabeth particularly the mother of Luke 1.57. her Lord, as alfo by the general confent of the Church (+ because he which Luke 2.6, 7. † Veri & prowas fo born of her was God,) the *Deipara; which being a compound title prii filii quis

ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐκ

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

θεό και θέλημα

nifi abfurdiffi

*This name

mus neget verè & propriè effe matrem? Facundus l. 1. c. 4. Hoc & ad credendum difficile, & dignum controverfiâ videbatur, utrum Deum illa Virgo genuerit: cæterùm quod verè & propriè genuerit, quicquid eft ille quem genuit, nulli dignum difceptationis apparet. Ibid. +Пãs gs & Oto]óx© ʼn Deòr you exsqa. Theod. Abucara. was first in ufe in the Greek Church, who delighting in the happy compofitions of that language, called the blessed Virgin Otoloxov. From whence the Latins in imitation ftyled her Virginem Deiparam & Deigenitricem. Meurfus in his Gloffary fets the Original of this Title in the time of Juftinian. Inditum hoc nomen eft matri Domini ac Servatoris noftri Jefu Chrifti à Synodo V. Conftantinopolitana tempore Juftiniani. Whereas this was not the Original, but the Confirmation, of that Title. In hac Synodo Catholicè eft inftitutum, ut Beata Maria femper, virgo Otolox diceretur: quia, ficut Catholica fides habet, non hominem folum, fed verè Deum & Hominem, genuit. Paul. Warnef. de Geft. Longobard. 1.6. c. 14. So speaketh he of the fame Synod: and 'tis true, for the feventh Canon of the fame runneth thus, Εἴ τις καὶ ἀναφορὰν ἢ καταχρησικῶς Θεοτόκον λέγη το αγίαν, ἔνδοξον, ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίαν ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίως καὶ καὶ' ἀλήθειαν Θεοτόκον αὐτῷ ὁμολογεῖ ὁ τοι το ανάθεμα ἔσω. Otherwife in this Council was but confirmed what had been deter mined and fettled long before and therefore Photius fays thereof, Αὕτη ἡ Σμύοδον Nεφορία πάλιν τὰ μικρὰ του αφυόμμα A a добрат

dółμala eis to #alexis igedése, that it utterly cut off the Herefie of Neftorius which then began to grow up again. Now part of the Herefie of Neftorius was the denyal of this colox, and the whole was nothing else but the ground of that denyal. And therefore being he was condemned for denying of it, that Title must be acknowledged authentick which he denied from the time of the Council of Ephefus; in which thofe Fathers, faith Photius exprefly, wæváxelov » ዤagθένου (Χρις) μητέρα κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς καλεῖς καὶ ἀνυφημείας Θεοτόκον του αδεδώκασι, Ερίβ. Ι. And that it was fo then is manifeft, because by the denyal of this the Neftorian Herefie was first discovered, not in Neftorius himself but in his Prefbyter Anaftafius, who firft in a Sermon magifterially delivered, Ocolóxov + Magian acto μndeis. Soc. Eccl. Hift.l.7. c. 31. and Liberat. Breviar. c. 4. as alfo Euagrius and Nicephorus. Upon which words arifing a Tumult Neftorius took his Prefbyter's part, teaching the fame Doctrine conftantly in the Church, wavlax I xéğ1 To Otolóx inbáλλæv. And hereupon the Tumult grew fo great, that a general Council for that reafon was called by Theodofius Jun. 7 Nia sogix 7 aylar Magian sivas Ocolóxor ages, as Juftinian teftifieth, Ep. ad V. Synodum. In which, when all things feemed clearly to be carried against Neftorius and his faction, he hoped to have reconciled all by this feigned Acknowledgment, Aryia w x Ccolóx n Magia, i wavod dw to nurney. Soc. 1. 7. c. 34. Liber. Brev. c. 6. It is plain then that the Council of Ephefus, which condemned Neftorius, confirmed this Title Ocolóx, I say, confirmed it; for 'tis evidens that it was before used in the Church, by the Tumult which arose at the first denyal of it by Anaftafius; and fo confirmed it as received before, because they approved the Epiftles of S. Cyril, who proved it by the usage of thofe Fathers which preceded him. Where by the way it is obfervable, that while S. Cyril produceth nine feveral Fathers for the ufe of this Word, and both before and after he produceth them, affirmeth that they all did use it, there are but three of them who exprefly mention it, Athanafius, Antiochus and Ammon, Epift. ad Reginas. And it is fomething to be admired that be fhould fo name the other fix, and recite thofe places out of them which had it not, when there were before him fo many Lefide them that ufed it. As Gregory Nazianzen, Εἴ τις & Θεοτόκον 7' Μαρίαν ἐπιλαμβάνς, χώρις ἰσὶ ἡ θεότητα; Ερί. ad Cledonium, and in his firft Oration de Filio, Speaking of the difference of his generation from that of others, we go cr τοῖς σοῖς ἔγνως Θεοτόκον παρθένον, and S. Bafil affertath, μὴ καταδέχεως το φιλοχρίςων τ' ἀκοί, ὅτι πολὲ ἐπαύσατο εἶναι wagter & DeolóxC. Hom. de Nat. Chrifti. And that in the time of S. Bafil and S. Gregory this term was usual, appeareth by the Objection of Julian, who derided the Chriftians for thinking God could be born of a woman; colóxer 3 iμes & waved: Magiar nadövles. S. Cyr. Tom. 6. Before both thefe Eufebius fpeaketh of Helena, who built a Church at Bethlehem; Ἡ βασιλὲς ἡ θεοσεβεσάτη - Θεοτόκε * κύησιν μνήματι θαυματοῖς κατεκόσμο. de vita Conft. l. 3. And before Eufebius, Alexander Bifmop of Alexandria; ἀπαρχὶ γέ[ονεν ὁ Κύριο ἡμῶν Ἰησές Χρισός, ζώμα φορέσας ἀληθῶς, καὶ δο xod, in Ocolóxx Magias. Ep. ad Alex. apud Theod. l. 1. c. 4. Before him Dionyfius Alex. calls our Saviour CagnoBirla in & arias wagters in Ocolóxy Magias. Epift. ad Paulum Samofat. And speaking of the words of Ifaiah, a Virθέντα αγίας παρθένε Θεοτόκε gin fhall conceive, Aivo To OcOTÓN TIVE CUNÉRαber, n wagter duλovors. Resp. ad Quaft. 5. And in the Answer to The fame queftion, πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἥδρασαι, καὶ σκέπε) τῇ διωάμὴ τὰ ὑψίσει ἡ ἀείμνης (κηνὴ το Θεό, Μαρία ή Θεοτόκη, καὶ παρθένος. · έτωσεὶ λέγε καὶ γυνηθέντος cm $ Θεοτόκες. wagtevos. And again, &rwoes aird wei to Hurnderlos in Ocolony. In the Answer to the 7th Question, To Afg φεύγειν εἰς Αἴγυπτον το Ἰωσὴφ ἅμα τῇ Θεοτόκῳ Μαρίᾳ ἐν ἀγκάλαις φερέσῃ ἢ καταφυγι ἡμῶν, and fo often. Nay yet before bim Origen did not only use, but expound at large the meaning of that title Otoloxos, in his first Tome on the Epifile to the Romans, as Socrat. and Liberat. teftifie. Well therefore did Antiochus Bishop of Antioch urge the ancient Fathers again Neftorius, calling it πρόσφορον ὄνομα και τελειμμένοι πολλοῖς ἢ Πατέρων. And again, Πολλοῖς τα Παλέξων καὶ δέν, καὶ γραφέν, καὶ ῥηθέν. Τότε γδ τὸ ὄνομα, Jays he, εδεὶς ὅ Εκκλησιασικῶν διδασκάλων παρήτης· οἵ τε γδ χρησάμθμοι αὐτῷ πολλοὶ ἐπίσημοι, οἵ τε μὴ χρησάμθμοι ἐκ ἐπελάβοντο 7 χρησαμβρίων. Concil. Εphef. p. I. 6. 25.

*Although begun in the Greek Church, was refolved into its parts by the Latines, and Deolóxos may fo the Virgin was plainly named the *Mother of God.

be extended to

fignifie as much as the Mother of God, because rixler doth fometimes denote as much as ovär, and therefore it hath been tranflated Dei Genitrix, as well as Deipara; yet those ancient Greeks which call the Virgin Oeolóxos, did not call her untśnge T :. But the Latins tranflating Oolóxos, Dei genitrix, and the Greeks tranflating Dei genitrix 98 png, they both at laft called her plainly the Mother of God. The first which the Greeks obferved to style her fo was Leo the Great, as was observed by Ephraim Patriarch of Theopolis, zubofe words have been very much mistaken by two learned men, Dionyfius Petavius and Leo Allatius, who have produced them to prove that Leo Magnus was the first man which ever used the word colonos. A ftrange error this must needs appear in so great a perfon as a Patriarch, and that of the Greek Church; and indeed not imaginable, confidering how well he was verfed in thofe controverfies, and how he compared the words of Leo with thofe of the ancient Greek Fathers, and particularly of S. Cyril. His words are thefe in This Epifle ad Zenobium, Πρῶτος ἐν ἁγίοις Λέων ἰδικῶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς λέξεσιν, ὡς μήτης θεῷ ἐςὶν ἡ ἁγία Θεοτόκος, τῷ πρὸ αὐτὸ πατέρων Διαπρυσίοις ρήμασι μὴ πιάτα φαρθρων. That is, Leo was the firf who in plain terms called the Θεολόκος, that is, Mary, the Mother of God; whereas the Fathers before him spake not the fame in express words. Petavius and Allatius have clearly mistaken the Propofition, making the Subject the Predicate, and the Predicate the Subject, as if he had firft called the Mother of God Ooloxos, whereas he is faid firft to call the Otoloxes Mother of God, as appeareth by the Article added to the Subject, not to the Predicate. But if that be not fufficient, his meaning will appear by another pafage to the fame purpofe, in his Epifle ad Syncleticum; Ὅτι μητέρα θεὸ πρῶτον μὲ ἡ Ἐλισάβετ ανεπεν, καὶ οἷς λέγε. Καὶ πόθεν μοι τότο, ἵνα ἡ μήτης το Κυρία με ἔλθη πρός με ; αφέσερον ἢ τ' ἄλλων με ταῦτα τ' λέξιν πρῶτος ὁ ὅσιος Λέων ὁ Пáñas #ognveľne. Therefore as he took the Lord and God to be fynonymous; fo he thought. Elizabeth firft ftyled 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 fo; that is, the Mother of God. And that we may be yet farther affured of his mind, be produced the words of Leo the Pope in his Epifle to Leo the Emperor : "Αναθεματιζέπω Νεσόριος, ο * μακαρίαν καὶ θεοτόκον Μαρίαν εχὶ τὸ θεῖ, arbgány 5 Mover, wisdier five untieg. The fentence which he tranflates is this, Anathematizetur ergo Neftorius, qui beatam Virginem Mariam non Dei, fed hominis tantummodo, credidit genitricem. Epift. 97. c. 1. Where plainly genitrix Dei is tranflated μnrng Or, and tolóxos is added by Ephraim out of cuftom in the Subject, being otherwife not at all in Leo's words. It is therefore certain that first in the Greek Church they termed the blessed Virgin Otolóxos, and the Latins from them Dei genitrix, and mater Dei, and the Greeks from them again μárng Des, upon the authority of Leo, not taking notice of other Latins who styled her fo before him.

The neceffity of believing our Saviour thus to be born of the Virgin Mary, will appear both in refpect of her who was the Mother, and of him who was the Son.

In refpect of her it was therefore neceffary, that we might perpetually preferve an esteem of her person proportionable to so high a dignity. It was her

Own

a

Non æquanda eft mulie

own prediction, From henceforth all generations fhall call me bleffed; but Luke 1 48. the obligation is ours, to call her, to esteem her fo. *If Elizabeth cried out with so loud a voice, Bleffed art thou among women, when Chrift was ribus cunctis, but newly conceived in her womb; what expreffions of Honour and Admi- quæ genuit ration can we think fufficient now that Chrift is in Heaven, and that Mo- Author Lib. ther with him? Far be it from any Chriftian to derogate from that special de fingular. privilege granted her, which is incommunicable to any other. We cannot Helifabet & bear too reverend a regard unto the Mother of our Lord, fo long as we give Zacharias nos her not that worship which is due unto the Lord himself. Let us keep the docere poflanguage of the Primitive Church: Let her be honoured and esteemed, let inferiores him be worshipped and adored.

Ei

Clericorum.

funt quanto

funt B. Mariæ matri Domi

ni fanctitate, quæ confcia in fe habitantis Dei liberè proclamat, Ecce ergo ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes. S. Hier. adv. Pelag. l. I. Abfit ut quifquam S. Mariam divinæ gratiæ privilegiis ut fpeciali gloriâ fraudare conetur. - Η Μαρία εν τιμή, ὁ Κύριος προσκυνείσω· Εν τιμῇ ἔσω Μαρία, ο 5 Παλης· καὶ Υἱὸς, καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα προσ κανείπω. Τα Μαρίαν μηδείς προσκευέτω, Epiph. Hæref. 79. ἰ καλίση η Μαρία, καὶ ἅγια, καὶ τετιμημβρη, ἀλλ' ἐκ εἰς τὸ προσκυνείας. 16. Ἡμεῖς ἢ με όρωμθύων θεολογέμθμ εδέν· τ ἢ ἀνθρώπων τὰς ἐν ἀρετῇ Διαπρέψαντας ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρίσεις γεραίρομαι μόνον ἢ - ν ὅλων προσκει μου θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, καὶ τ ἐκείνα γε λόγον, καὶ τὸ πανάγιον πνεῦμα. Theod. Thera'peut 2. pag. 302.

w.

In refpect of him it was neceffary, first, that we might be affured he was made, or begotten of a Woman, and confequently that he had from her the true nature of man. For he took not on him the nature of Angels, and Heb. 2. 16; therefore faved none of them, who for want of a Redeemer, are referved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. And man once fallen had been, as defervedly, fo irrevocably condemned to the fame condition, but that he took upon him the feed of Abraham. For being we are partakers of flesh and blood, we could expect no Redemption but ỷ 14. by him who likewife took part of the fame. We could look for no Redeemer, but fuch a one who by confanguinity was our *Brother. And being there is but one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Je- * Under that fus, we cannot be affured that he was the Christ, or is our Jefus, except notion did the we be firft affured that he was a Man. Thus our Redeemer, the Man Chrift expect him, as Jefus, was born of a woman, that he might † redeem both men and women; appeareth by that both Sexes might rely upon him, who was of the one, and from the the Targum. other.

Cantic. 8. 1.

ובההיא

זימנא אתגלו מליכא

When the Mefias fhall reveal bimmelf, the משיחא לכני שתא דישראל ויארון לוה בני ישראל איתא תהא עמנא לאחו

fons of Ifrael fhall fay unto him, Thou shalt be unto us a Brother. Homini liberatio in utroque fexu debuit apparere. Ergo, quia virum opportebat fufcipere, qui fexus honorabilior eft, conveniens erat ut fœminei fexus liberatio hinc appareret, quod ille vir de foemina natus eft. S. Auguft. Quaft. . 83. Nolite vos ipfos contemnere, viri, filius Dei virum fufcepit: nolite vos ipfas contemnere, fœminæ, filius Dei natus ex fœmina eft. Idem de agone Chrifti.

ter ejus in u

go peperit,

Secondly, It was neceffary we fhould believe our Saviour conceived and born of fuch a woman as was a moft pure and immaculate Virgin. For as it c Heb. 4. 15. behoved him in all things to be made like unto us; fo in that great fimi- Non eum in litude a diffimilitude was as neceffary, that he should be without fin. Our peccatis maPassover is flain, and behold the Lamb that taketh away the fins of the tero aluit, World; but the Lamb of the Paffover must be without blemish. Where- quem Virgo as then we draw fomething of corruption and contamination by our fe- concipit, Virminal traduction from the firft Adam; our Saviour hath received the fame S. August. in nature without any culpable inclination, becaufe born of a Virgin with- Tract. 4. in Johan. Ergo out any feminal traduction. Our High-Prieft is feparate from finners, not ecce Agnus only in the actions of his life, but in the production of his nature. For as Dei. Non ha+ Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and paid tithes in him, and yet Christ, beat ifte trathough the Son of Abraham, did not pay tithes in him, but receive them in dam, carnem fumpfit de Adam, peccatum non affumpfit. Ibid. Verbum caro factum in fimilitudine carnis peccata omnia nostra suscepit, nullum reatus vitium ferens ex traduce prævaricationis exortum. Johan. 4. Epift. ad Conftantinum.

A a 2

tantùm

Levi

in

in Lumbis Abrahæ fuit, fecundùm concupifcentiam carnalem, Chriftus autem fecundùm folùm fubftantiam corporalem. Cùm enim fit in femine & vifibilis corpulentia & invifibilis ratio, utrumque cucurrit ex Abraham, vel etiam ex ipfo Adam, que ad corpus Marie, quia & ipfum eo modo conceptum & exortum eft: Chriflus autem vifibilem carnis fubftantiam de carne Virginis fumpfit; ratio verò conceptionis ejus non à femine virili, fed longè aliter ac defuper venit. S. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c. 19.

Luke 1. 32.

Luke 2. 4.

Luke 1.69.

Melchizedeck: fo though we being in the loins of Adam may be all faid to fin in him; yet Chrift, who defcended from the fame Adam according to the flefh, was not partaker of that fin, but an expiation for it. . For he which is contained in the feminal virtue of his Parent, is fome way under his natural power, and therefore may be in fome manner concerned in his actions: but he who is only from him by his natural fubftance, according to a paffive or obediential power, and fo receiveth not his propagation from him, cannot be fo included in him as to be obliged by his actions, or obnoxious to his de

merits.

Thirdly, It was neceffary that we fhould believe Chrift born of that perfon, that Virgin Mary which was efpoufed unto Jofeph, that thereby we might be affured that he was of the family of David. For whatfoever promiles were made of the Meffias were appropriated unto him. As the feed of the woman was firft contracted to the feed of Abraham, fo the feed of Abraham was next appropriated to the Son of David. He was to be called the Son of the Higheft, and the Lord God was to give unto him the throne Mat. 22. 42. of his father David. When Jefus asked the Pharifees, What think ye of Christ? whofe fon is he? they faid unto him, The fon of David. When Mat. 2. 4, 5. Herod demanded of the chief Priests and Scribes where Christ should be born; they faid unto him, In Bethlehem of Judæa, becaufe that was the city of David, whither Jofeph went up with Mary his efpoufed wife, because he was of the house and lineage of David. After John the Baptift, the forerunner of Chrift, was born, Zacharias blessed the Lord God of Ifrael, who had raised up an horn of falvation for us in the houfe of his fervant David. Mat. 15. 22. The woman of Canaan, the blind men fitting by the way, and thofe other and 20.30. blind that followed him cryed out, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou fon of David. The very children, out of whofe mouths God perfected praife, were Mat. 21. 15. crying in the Temple, and faying, Hofannah to the fon of David. And Mar. 12. 23. When the blind and dumb both fpake and faw, all the people were amazed, and faid, Is not this the fon of David? Thus by the publick and concurrent teftimonies of all the Jews, the promised Meffias was to come of the *Ads 2. 30. house and lincage of David* for God had fworn with an oath to him, that magis Chri- of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would raife up Chrift to fit ftum intelli- upon his throne. It was therefore neceffary we fhould believe that our Sagre debebis viour a made of the feed of David according to the flesh of which we are affured, because he was born of that Virgin Mary who defcended from him, nali genere, and was efpoufed unto Jofeph, who defcended from the fame, that thereby his Genealogy might be known.

and 9. 27.

Atquin hinc

ex David de

putatum car

ob Mariæ

Virginis cen

Pfalmo ad

tui collocabo

Super thro

fum. De hoc The confideration of all which will at laft lead us to a clear explication of enim promi- this latter branch of the Article, whereby every Chriftian may inform himfo juratur in felf what he is bound to profefs, and being informed, fully exprefs what is the David, Ex object of his Faith in this particular, when he faith, I believe in Jefus Christ fructu ventris which was born of the Virgin Mary. For hereby he is conceived to intend thus much I affent unto this as a moft certain and infallible Truth, That there was a certain woman, known by the name of Mary, efpoufed unto FcTertul.3.adv. Seph of Nazareth, which before and after her. Efpoufals was a pure and unfpotted Virgin, and being and continuing in the fame Virginity, did, by Rom. 1. 3. the immediate operation of the Holy Ghoft, conceive within her Womb the only-begotten fon of God, and, after the natural time of other women brought him forth as her first-born Son, continuing ftill a moft pure and im

num tuum.

Marcionem,

C. 20.

3

maculate

« PreviousContinue »