1.—THE third person considerable
in this third article is represented under a 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 teacheth us what
she did, she conceived and bare our Saviour, and brought forth the Son of
God: which was born of the Virgin Mary.
2.—The Evangelist, relating the
annunciation, taketh particular notice of this name; for, showing how an
angel was sent unto a Virgin espoused to a man, he first observeth that his
name war Joseph, [Luke i. 27] and then that the Virgin's name was Mary. 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 denote that singular person, which 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 which
was of Magdal in Galilee, [Lukeviii. 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 Josuah, so this of Mary was the same with Miriam. The
first of which name recorded was the daughter of Amram, the sister of Moses
and Aaron, a prophetess; to whom the bringing of Israel out of Egypt is
attributed as well as to her brethren, For I brought thee up out of the
land of Egypt, saith the Lord, and redeemed thee out of the house of
servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. [Micah vi. 4]
As she was exalted to be one of them who brought the people of God out of
the Egyptian bondage; so was this Mary exalted to become the
mother of that Saviour, who through the Red Sea of his blood hath wrought a
plenteous redemption for us, of which that was but a type; and even with the
confession of the lowliness of an handmaid she seems to bear that exaltation
in her name.
3.—Beside this name of the
blessed Virgin, little hath been discovered to us. Christ, who
commended the faith of the Centurion, the love of Mary Magdalene, the
excellencies of John the Baptist, hath left not the least encomium of
his mother. The Evangelists who have so punctually described the city,
family, and genealogy of Joseph, make no express mention of her
relations only of her cousin Elizabeth, who was of the tribe of Levi, of
the daughters of Aaron. [Luke i. 5] Although it be of absolute
necessity to believe that he which was born of her descended from the tribe
of Judah and the family of David, yet hath not the scripture
clearly expressed so much of her, nor have we any more than an obscure
tradition of her parents Joacim and Anna.
4.—Wherefore the title added to
that name maketh the distinction; for as divers characters are given to
several persons by which they are distinguished from all others of the same
common nomination, as Jacob is called Israel, and Abraham
the friend of God, or father of the faithful; so is this Mary
sufficiently characterised by that inseparable companion of her name, the
Virgin.
5.—For the full explication
whereof more cannot be required than that we show first that the Messias
was to be born of a Virgin, according to the prediction of the prophets;
secondly, that this Mary, of whom Christ was born, was really
a virgin when she bare him, according to the relations of the Evangelists;
thirdly, that being at once the mother of the Son of God and yet a virgin,
she continued for ever in the same virginity, according to the tradition of
the fathers and the constant doctrine of the church.
6.—The obdurate Jew, that he
might more easily avoid the truth of the second, hath most irrationally
denied the first; resolved rather not to understand Moses and the prophets,
than to acknowledge the interpretation of the apostles. It will therefore
be necessary, from those oracles which were committed unto them, to show the
promised Messias was born after a miraculous manner, to be the son of
a woman, not of a man. The first promise of him seems to speak no less,
The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head; [Gen. iii. 15]
for as the name of seed is not generally or collectively to be taken for the
generation of mankind, but determinately and individually for that one seed,
which is Christ, so the woman is not to be understood with relation unto
man, but particularly and determinately to that sex from which alone
immediately that seed should come.
7.—According to this first
evangelical promise followed that prediction of the prophet, The Lord
hath created a new thing on the earth, a woman shall compass a man. [Jer.
Xxxi. 22] That new creation of a man is therefore new, and therefore a
creation, because wrought in a woman only, without a man, compassing a man.
Which interpretation of the prophet is ancient, literal, and clear; and
whatsoever the Jews have invented to elude it, is frivolous and forced. For
while they force the phrase of compassing a man in the latter part of the
prediction to anything else than a conception, they do not only wrest the
scripture, but contradict the former part of the promise, making the new
creation neither new, as being often done, nor a creation, as being easy to
perform.
8.—But if this prophecy of
Jeremy seem obscure, it will be sufficiently cleared by that of Isaiah,
Behold, a Virgin shall conceive; and bear a Son, and shall call his name
Emmanuel. [Isa. vii. 14] The ancient Jews, immediately upon the
promulgation of the gospel, understanding well how near this place did press
them, gave three several answers to this text: First, denying that it spake
of virgin at all: secondly, asserting that it could not belong to Jesus;
thirdly, affirming that it was fully completed in the person of Hezekiah.
Whereas the original word was translated a virgin by such interpreters as
were Jews themselves, some hundred years before our Saviour's birth. [The
LXX.] And did not the notation of the word and frequent use thereof in the
scriptures persuade it, the wonder of the sign given by the Lord himself
would evince as much. But as for that conceit, that all should be fulfilled
in Hezekiah, it is so manifestly and undoubtedly false, that nothing
can make more for the confirmation of our faith. For this sign was given
and this promise made (a virgin shall conceive and bear a son) at
some time in the reign of Ahaz. This Ahaz reigned but sixteen
years in Jerusalem; [2 Kings xvi. 2] and Hezekiah his son, who
succeeded him, was twenty and five years old when he began to reign,
[2 Kings xviii. 2] and therefore born several years before Ahaz was
king, and consequently not now to be conceived when this sign was given.
Thus while the ancient Jews name him only to fulfil the prophecy in whom it
is impossible it should be fulfilled, they plainly show that, for any
knowledge which they had, it was not fulfilled till our Saviour came; and
therefore they cannot with any reason deny but that it belonged unto the
Messias, as divers of the ancient Rabbins thought and confessed, and is
yet more evident by their monstrous error, who therefore expected no
Messias in Israel, because they thought whatsoever was spoken of
him to have been completed in Hezekiah. Which is abundantly enough
for our present purpose, being only to prove that the Messias
promised by God, and expected by the people of God before and under the law,
was to be conceived and born of a virgin.
9.—Secondly, as we are taught by
the predictions of the prophets that a virgin was to be mother of the
promised Messias, so are we assured by the infallible relations of
the evangelists that this Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom we
believe to be Christ, was a virgin when she bare him, when she
brought forth her first-born son. That she was a virgin when and after
she was espoused unto Joseph, appeareth by the narration of St. Luke:
For, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin espoused to a man whose
name was Joseph. [Luke i. 27] After the salutation of that angel, that
she still was so appeareth by her question, How shall this be, seeing I
know not a man? That she continued so after she conceived by the Holy
Ghost is evident from the relation of St. Matthew: for when he was
espoused unto Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of
the Holy Ghost. [Matt. i. 18]
10.—That she was a virgin not
only while she was with child; but even when she had brought forth, is also
evident out of this application of the prophecy: Behold, a virgin shall
be with child, and shall bring forth a son. [Matt. i. 23] For by the
same prediction it is as manifest that a virgin should bring forth,
as conceive a son. Neither was her act of parturition more
contradictory to virginity than that former of conception.
11.—Thirdly, we believe the
mother of our Lord to have been not only before and after his nativity, but
also for ever, the most immaculate and blessed Virgin. For although it may
be thought sufficient as to the mystery of the incarnation, that when our
Saviour was conceived and born his mother was a virgin; though whatsoever
should have followed after could have no reflective operation upon the first
fruit of her womb; though there be no farther mention in the CREED than that
he was born of the Virgin Mary: yet the peculiar eminency and
unparalleled privilege of that mother, the special honour and reverence due
unto that Son, and ever paid by her, the regard of that Holy Ghost who came
upon her, and the power of the Highest which overshadowed her, the singular
goodness and piety of Joseph, to whom she was espoused, have
persuaded the church of God in all ages to believe that she still continued
in the same virginity, and therefore is to be acknowledged the
ever-Virgin Mary. As if the gate of the sanctuary in the prophet
Ezekiel were to be understood of her: This gate shall be shut, it shall
not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of
Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. [Ezek. Xliv.
2]
12.-Many, indeed, have taken the
boldness to deny this truth because not recorded in the sacred writ; and not
only so, but to assert the contrary as delivered in the scriptures; but with
no success. For though, as they object, St. Matthew testified that
Joseph knew not Mary until she had brought forth her first-born son,
[Matt. i. 25] from whence they would infer that afterwards he knew her; yet
the manner of the scripture-language produceth no such inference. When God
said to Jacob, I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have
spoken to thee of, [Gen. xxviii. 15] it followeth not that when that was
done the God of Jacob left him. When the conclusion of Deuteronomy
was written, it was said of Moses, no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto
this day: [Deut. Xxxiv. 6] but it were a weak argument to infer from
thence that the sepulchre of Moses hath been known ever since. When Samuel
had delivered a severe prediction unto Saul, he came no more to see
him until the day of his death; [1 Sam. xv. 35] but it were a strange
collection to infer that he therefore gave him a visit after he was dead. Michal
the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death; [2 Sam.
vi. 23] and yet it were a ridiculous stupidity to dream of any midwifery in
the grave. Christ promised his presence to the apostles until the
end of the world: [Matt. xxviii. 20] who ever made so unhappy a
construction as to infer from thence that for ever after he would be absent
from them?
Again, it is true that Christ is
termed the first-born son of Mary, from whence they infer she must
needs have a second; but might as well conclude that wheresoever there is
one there must be two. For in this particular the scripture notion of
priority excludeth an antecedent, but inferreth not a consequent; it
supposeth none to have gone before, but concludeth not any to follow after.
Sanctify unto me, saith God, all the first-born; [Exod. xiii.
2] which was a firm and fixed law, immediately obliging upon the birth:
whereas if the first-born had included a relation to a second, there could
have been no present certainty, but a suspension of obedience; nor had the
first-born been sanctified of itself, but the second birth had sanctified
the first, And well might any sacrilegious Jew have kept back the price of
redemption due unto the priest, nor could it have been required of him, till
a second offspring had appeared; and so no redemption at all had been
required for an only son. Whereas all such pretences were unheard of in the
law, because the original Hebrew word is not capable of any such
construction, and in the law itself it carrieth with it a clear
interpretation, Sanctify unto me all the first-born; whatsoever openeth
the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast, it is mine.
[Exod. xiii. 2] The apertion of the womb determineth the first-born,
and the law of redemption excludeth all such tergiversation: Those that
are redeemed, from a month old thou shalt redeem; [Num. xviii. 16] no
staying to make up the relation, no expecting another birth to perfect the
redemption. Being then they brought our Saviour to Jerusalem, to present
him to the Lord; as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: [Luke ii. 22, 23] it
is evident he was called the first-born of Mary according to the notion of
the law of Moses, and consequently that title inferreth no succession, nor
proveth the mother to have any other offspring.
13.—Indeed, they thirdly object
it cannot be denied but that we read expressly in the scriptures of the
brethren of our Lord: He went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and
his brethren; and, While he talked unto the people, his mother and his
brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. [John ii. 12; Matt.
xii. 46] But although his mother and his brethren be named together, yet
they are never called the sons of his mother; and the question is not
whether Christ had any brethren, but whether his mother brought forth any
other children. It is possible Joseph might have children before
Mary was espoused to him; and then, as he was reputed and called our
Saviour's father, so might they well be accounted and called his brethren,
as the ancient fathers, especially of the Greek church, have taught. Nor
need we thus assert that Joseph had any offspring, because the language of
the Jews includeth in the name of brethren not only the strict relation of
fraternity, but also the larger of consanguinity; and therefore it is
sufficient satisfaction for that expression that there were such persons
allied unto the blessed Virgin. We be brethren, said Abraham unto
Lot; [Gen. xiii. 8] when Abraham, was the son of Terah,
Lot of Haran, and consequently not his brother, but his nephew, and,
as elsewhere properly styled, the son of his brother. [Gen. xii. 5]
Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron,
and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary;
[Lev. x. 4] whereas those brethren were Nadab and Abihu, the
sons, not of Uzziel, but of Aaron. Jacob told Rachel that
he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son; [Gen. xxix.
12] whereas Rebekah was the sister of Rachel's father. It is sufficient,
therefore, that the evangelists, according to the constant language of the
Jews, call the kindred of the blessed Virgil the brethren and sisters of her
only son; which, indeed, is some thing the later, but the most
generally-approved, answer.
And yet this difficulty, though
usually no farther' considered, 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 Christ,
[Matt. xiii. 55] so they also showed them to be the sons of Mary the mother
of Christ. For first, the Jews express them particularly by their names,
Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon,
and Judas? Therefore James and Joses were undoubtedly the brethren of
Christ, and the same were also as unquestionably the sons of Mary: for among
the women at the cross we find Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James and Joses. [Matt. xxvii. 56] 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; [Mark xvi.
1] and it is not probable that any should have more care of the body of the
son than the mother. She then who was certainly present at the cross was
not probably absent from the sepulchre. Wherefore they conclude she was the
mother of Christ, who was the mother of James and Joses, the brethren of
Christ.
And now the urging of this
argument will produce a greater clearness in the solution of the question.
For if it appear that Mary the mother of James and Joses was different and
distinguished from Mary the Virgin, then will it also be apparent that the
brethren of our Lord were the sons of another mother, for James and Joses
were so called. But we read in St. John that there stood by the cross of
Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and
Mary Magdalene. [John xix. 25] In the rest of the evangelists we find
at the same place Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses;
[Matt. xxvii 56; Mark xv. 40] and again at the sepulchre Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary: [Matt. xxviii. 1] wherefore that other Mary by the
conjunction of these testimonies appeareth to be Mary the wife of Cleophas,
and the mother of James and Joses; and consequently James and Joses, the
brethren of our Lord, were not the sons of Mary his mother, but of the other
Mary, and therefore called his brethren, according to the language of the
Jews, because that the other Mary was the sister of his mother.
Notwithstanding, therefore, all
these pretensions, there can be nothing found to raise the least suspicion
of any interruption of the ever-blessed Mary's perpetual virginity. For as
she was a virgin when she conceived, and after she brought forth our
Saviour, so did she continue in the same state and condition, and was
commended by our Saviour to his beloved disciple as a mother only now of an
adopted son.
14.—The third consideration
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 sacred nativity beside 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 Ghost and the Virgin Mary: as also that
the word born was not taken precisely for the nativity 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 so to be understood, as if the Spirit
had conceived him, but the blessed Virgin by the power and operation of the
Spirit.
15.—First, therefore, we must
acknowledge a true, real, and proper conception, by which the Virgin did
conceive of her own substance the true and real substance of our Saviour,
according to the prediction of the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, [Isa. vii. 14] and the annunciation of the angel, Behold,
thou shalt conceive in thy womb. From whence our Saviour is expressly
termed by Elisabeth, the fruit of her womb.
Secondly, as she did at first
really and properly conceive, so did she also nourish and increase the same
body of our Saviour, once conceived, by the true substance of her own; by
which she was found with child of the Holy Ghost, [Matt. i. 18] and
is described going with Joseph to be taxed, being great with child,
[Luke ii. 5] and pronounced happy by that loud cry of the woman in the
gospel, Blessed is the womb that bare thee. [Luke xi. 27]
Thirdly, when Christ was thus
conceived and grew in the womb of the blessed Virgin, she truly and really
did bring forth her Son by a true and proper parturition; and Christ thereby
was properly born by a true nativity. For as we read, Elisabeth's full
time came that she should be delivered, and she brought forth a son;
[Luke i. 57] so in the like simplicity of expression and propriety of
speech the same evangelist speaks of Mary, The days were accomplished
that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son.
[Luke ii. 6,7]
Wherefore from these three, a
true conception, nutrition, and parturition, we must acknowledge that the
blessed Virgin was truly and properly the mother of our Saviour. And so is
she frequently styled the mother of Jesus in the language of the
evangelists, and by Elisabeth particularly the mother of her Lord,
as also by the general consent of the church (because he which was so born
of her was God), the Deipara; 4 which being a compound title begun in
the Greek church, was resolved into its parts by the Latins, and so the
Virgin was plainly named the mother of God.
16.-The necessity of believing
our Saviour thus to be born of the Virgin Mary will appear both in respect
of her who was the mother, and of him who was the son.
In respect of her it was
therefore necessary, that we might perpetually preserve an esteem of her
person proportionable to so high a dignity. It was her own prediction,
From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; [Luke i. 48] but
the obligation is ours to call her, to esteem her so. If Elisabeth cried
out with so loud a voice Blessed art thou among women, [v. 42] when
Christ was but newly conceived in her womb, what expressions of honour and
admiration can we think sufficient now that Christ is in heaven, and that
mother with him? Far be it from any Christian to derogate from that special
privilege granted her, which is incommunicable to any other. We cannot bear
too reverend a regard unto the mother of our Lord, so long as we give her
not that worship which is due unto the Lord himself. Let us keep the
language of the primitive church: Let her be honoured and esteemed, let him
be worshipped and adored.
17 a.—In respect of him it was
necessary, first, that we might be assured he was made, or
begotten, of a woman, and consequently that he had from her the
true nature of man. For he took not on him the nature of angels,
[Heb. ii. 16] and therefore saved none of them who, for want of a Redeemer,
are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of
the great day. [Juke 6] And man once fallen had been, as deservedly, so
irrevocably, condemned to the same condition, but that he took
upon him the seed of Abraham. For being we are partakers of flesh
and blood, we could expect no redemption but by him who likewise took
part of the same. [Heb. ii. 14] We could look for no Redeemer but such
a one who by consanguinity was our brother. And being there is but one
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, we cannot be
assured that he was the Christ, or is our Jesus, except we be
first assured that he was a man. Thus our Redeemer, the man Christ Jesus,
was born of a woman, that he might redeem both men and women, that both
sexes might rely upon him, who was of the one and from the other.
b.—Secondly, it was necessary we
should believe our Saviour conceived and born of such a woman as was a most
pure and immaculate virgin. For as it behoved him in all things to be made
like unto us, so in that great similitude a dissimilitude was as necessary,
that he should be without sin. [Heb. iv. 15] Our passover is slain,
[1 Cor. v. 7] and behold the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world;
[John i. 29] but the Lamb of the passover must be without blemish. [Heb.
vii. 26] Whereas then we draw something of corruption and contamination by
our seminal traduction from the first Adam; our Saviour hath received the
same nature without any culpable inclination, because born of the Virgin
without any seminal traduction. Our High-Priest is separate from sinners
[Heb. vii. 26] not only in the actions of his life, but in the production of
his nature. For as Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and paid tithes in
him, and yet Christ, though the son of Abraham, did not pay tithes in him,
but receive them in Melchizedek; so though we being in the loins of Adam may
be all said to sin in him, yet Christ, who descended from the same Adam
according to the flesh, was not partaker of that sin, but an expiation for
it. For he which is contained in the seminal virtue of his parent is some
way under his natural power, and therefore may be in some manner concerned
in his actions; but he who is only from him by his natural substance,
according to a passive or obediential power, and so receiveth not his
propagation from him, cannot be so included in him as to be obliged by his
actions, or obnoxious to his demerits.
c.—Thirdly, it was necessary
that we should believe Christ born of that person, that Virgin Mary
which was espoused unto Joseph, that thereby we might be assured that
he was of the family of David. For whatsoever promises were made of
the Messias were appropriated unto him. As the seed of the woman was
first contracted to the seed of Abraham, so the seed of Abraham was next
appropriated to the son of David. He was to be called the son of the
Highest, and the Lord God was to give unto him the throne of his father
David. [Luke i. 32] When Jesus asked the Pharisees, What
think ye of Christ? whose son is he? they said unto him, The son of David.
[Matt. xxii. 42] When Herod demanded of the chief priests and scribes
where Christ should be born, they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judea,
[Matt. ii. 4, 5] because that was the city of David, whither Joseph went up
with Mary his espoused wife, because he was of the house and lineage of
David. [Luke ii. 4] After John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ,
was born, Zacharias blessed the Lord God of Israel, who had raised
up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David. [Luke
i. 67-69] The woman of Canaan, the blind men sitting by the way, and those
other blind that followed him, cried out, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou
son of David. [Matt. xv. 22; xx. 30; ix. 27] The very children out of
whose mouths God perfected praise were crying in the Temple, and saying,
Hosannah to the son of David. [Matt. xxi. 15, 16] And when the blind
and dumb both spake and saw, all the people were amazed, and said, Is not
this the son of David? [Matt. xii. 23] Thus by the public and
concurrent testimonies of all the Jews, the promised Messias was to
come of the house and lineage of David; for God had sworn with an
oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh he would
raise up Christ to sit upon his throne. [Acts ii. 30] It was,
therefore, necessary we should believe that our Saviour was made of the
seed of David according to the flesh: [Rom. i. 3] of which we are
assured, because he was born of that Virgin Mary who descended from him, and
was espoused unto Joseph, who descended from the same, that thereby his
genealogy might be known.
15.—The consideration of all
which will at last lead us to a clear explication of this latter branch of
the article, whereby every Christian may inform himself what he is bound to
profess, and being informed fully express what is the object of his faith in
this particular, when he saith, I believe in Jesus Christ which was
born of the Virgin Mary. For hereby he is conceived to intend thus
much: I assent unto this as a most certain and infallible truth, that there
was a certain woman, known by the name of Mary, espoused unto
Joseph of Nazareth, which before and after her espousals was a
pure and unspotted virgin, and being and continuing in the same virginity,
did by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost conceive within her womb
the only-begotten Son of God, and after the natural time of other women
brought him forth as her first-born Son, continuing still a most pure and
immaculate virgin, whereby the Saviour of the world was born of a woman
under the law, without the least pretence of any original corruption, that
he might deliver us from the guilt of sin; born of that Virgin which was of
the house and lineage of David, that he might sit upon his throne and rule
for evermore. And in this latitude I profess to believe in Jesus Christ,
born of the Virgin Mary.
