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. 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 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. 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." (Luke i. 31.) From whence our Saviour is expressly termed by Elizabeth "the fruits of her womb." (Luke i. 42.) 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 a son, by a true and proper parturition; and Christ thereby was properly born, by a true nativity.** For as we read, " Eli zabeth'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 Elizabeth particularly, the mother of her Lord, as also by the general consent of the Church (because he which was born of her was God)† the Deipara; which ἀληθῶς ὄντα, ἐκ γένους Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, υἱὸν θεοῦ κατὰ θέλημα καὶ δύναμιν θεοῦ, γεγεννημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ παρθένου. S. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyr. c. 1. Veri et proprii filii quis nisi absurdissimus neget vere et proprie esse matrem?' Facundus l. i. c. 4. Hoc et ad credendum difficile, et dignum controversia videbatur, utrum Deum illa Virgo genuerit, cæterum quod vere et proprie genuerit, quicquid est ille quem genuit, nulli dignum disceptationis apparet.' Ibid. † Πῶς γὰρ οὐ Θεοτόκος ἡ θεὸν υἱὸν ἔχουσα ; Theod. Abucara, disp. 12. This name was first in use in the Greek Church, which delighting in the happy compositions of that language, called the blessed Virgin Tónov. From whence the Latins in imitation styled her Virginem Deiparam et Deigenitricem.' Meursius in his Glossary, sets the original of this title in the time of Justinian: Inditum hoc nomen est matri Domini ac Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi a Synodo V. Constantinopolitana tempore Justiniani.' Whereas this was not the original, but the confirmation of that title. In hac Synodo Catholice est institutum, ut Beata Maria semper virgo Tónos diceretur; quia sicut catholica fides habet, non hominem solum, sed vere Deum et hominem, genuit.' Paul. Warnef. de Gest. Longobard. 1. vi. c. 14. So speaketh he of the same Synod; and it is true, for the seventh Canon of the same runneth thus: Εἴ τις κατὰ ἀναφορὰν ἡ κατα χρηστικῶς Θεοτόκον λέγει τὴν ἁγίαν, ἔνδοξον, ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίαν—ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίως καὶ κατ' ἀλήθειαν Θεοτόκον αὐτὴν ὁμολογεῖ ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Otherwise in this Council was but confirmed what had been determined and settled long before; and therefore Photius says thereof, epist. 1. Αὕτη ἡ Σύνοδος Νεστορίου πάλιν τὰ μιαρὰ παραφυόμενα δόγματα εἰς τὸ παντελὲς ἐξεθέ. pigs that it utterly cut off the heresy of Nestorius, which then began to grow up again. Now part of the heresy of Nes torius, was the denial of this era, and the whole was nothing else but the ground of that denial. And therefore being he was condemned for denying of it, that title must be acknowledged authentic, which he denied from the time of the Council of Ephesus; in which those fathers, saith Photius, expressly : πανάχραντον καὶ ἀειπαρθένον (Χριστού) μητέρα κυρίως καὶ ἀληθῶς καλεῖσθαι καὶ ἀνευφημεῖσθαι Θεοτόκον παραδεδώκασι. Epist. 1. And that it was so then is manifest, because by the denial of this the Nestorian heresy was first discovered, not in Nestorius himself, but in his presbyter Anastasius, who first in a sermon magisterially delivered: Θεοτόκον τὴν Μαρίαν καλείτω μηδείς. Socrat. Eccl. Hist. 1. vii. c. 32. and Liberat. Breviar. c. 4. as also Evagrius and Nicephorus. Upon which words arising a tumult, Nestorius took his presbyter's part, teaching the same doctrine constantly in the Church, καὶ πανταχοῦ τὴν λέξιν τοῦ Θεοτόκος ἐκβάλλων. And thereupon the tumult grew so great, that a general Council for that reason was called by Theodosius junior, τοῦ Νεστορίου τὴν ἁγίαν Μαρίαν εἶναι Θεοτόκον ἀρνουμένου, as Justinian testifeth, Ep. ad V. Synodum. In which, when all things seemed clearly to be carried against Nestorius and his faction, he hoped to have reconciled all by this feigned acknowledgment: Λεγέσθω καὶ Θεοτόκος ἡ Μαρία, καὶ παυσάσθω τὰ λυπηρά. Socrat. 1. vii. c. 34. Liberat. Brev. c. 6. It is plain then, that the Council of Ephesus, which condemned Nestorius, confirmed this title Toxos, I say, confirmed it; for it is evident that it was before used in the Church, by the tumult which arose at the first denial of it by Anastasius; and so confirmed it as received before, because they approved the epistles of St. Cyril, who proved it by the usage of those fathers which preceded him. Where by the way it is observable, that while St. Cyril produceth nine several fathers for the use of this word, and both before 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.* and after he produceth them, affirmeth that they all did use it; there are but three of them who expressly mention it, Athanasius, Antiochus, and Ammon, Epist. ad Reginas de Rect. Fid. p. 47. seqq. And it is something to be admired, that he should so name the other six, and recite those places out of them which had it not, when there were before him so many beside them that used it. As Gregory Nazianzen: Εἴ τις οὐ Θεοτόκον τὴν Μαρίαν ὑπολαμβάνει, χωρίς ἐστι τῆς θεότητος. Εpist. 1. ad Cledon. and in his first oration de Filio speaking of the difference of his generation from that of others: Ποῦ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς σοῖς ἔγνως Θεοτόκον παρθένον ; And St. Basil asserteth : μὴ καταδέχεσθαι τῶν φιλοχρίστων τὴν ἀκοὴν, ὅτι ποτὲ ἐπαύσατο είναι παρθενος ἡ Θεοτόκος. Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. §. 5. And that in the time of St. Basil and St. Gregory, this term was usual, appeareth by the objection of Julian, who derided the Christians for thinking God could be born of a woman : Θεοτόκον δὲ ὑμεῖς οὐ παύεσθε Μαρίαν καλοῦντες. S. Cyril. Alex. c. Jul. l. vii. Before both these Eusebius speaketh of Helena, who built a church at Bethlehem: Η βασιλὶς ἡ θεοσεβεστάτη τῆς Θεοτόκου τὴν κύησιν μνήματι θαυμαστοῖς κατεκόσμει. De rita Const. l. iii. c. 43. And before Eusebius, Alexander bishop of Alexandria : ̓Απαρχὴ γέγονεν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, σώμα φορέσας ἀληθῶς, καὶ οὐ δοκήσει, ἐκ τῆς Θεοτόκου Μαρίας. Εp. ad Alex. apud Theod. L. i. c. 4. Before him Dionysius Alexand. calis our Saviour: τὸν σαρκωθέντα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου καὶ Θεοτόκου Μαρίας. Epist. ed Paulum Samosat. p. 276. t. i. Biblioth. Patr. Gr. Par. 1624. And speaking of the words of Isaiah, "a virgin shall conτείνε .” Δείκνυσιν ὅτι ἡ Θεοτόκος τινὰ συνέ λαβεν, ἡ παρθένος δηλονότι. Resp. ad Quast. 5. And in the answer to the same quesτσα: Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ἥδρασται, καὶ σκέπεται τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ ὑψίστου ἡ ἀείμνηστος σκηνὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Μαρία ἡ Θεοτόκος, καὶ παρθένος. And again : Ούτωσεὶ λέγει καὶ περὶ τοῦ γεννηθέντος ἐκ τῆς Θεοτόκου. In answer to the seventh question : Διὰ τὸ φεύγειν εἰς Αἴγυπτον τὸν Ἰωσὴφ ἅμα τῇ Θεοτόκῳ Μαρία ἐν ἀγκάλαις φερούσῃ τὴν καταφυγὴν ἡμῶν. And so often. Nay, yet before him Origen did not only use, but expound at large the meaning of that title soτόκος, in his first tome on the Epistle to the Romans, as Socrates and Liberatus testify. Well therefore did Antiochus, bishop of Antioch, urge the ancient fathers against Nestorius, calling it: πρόσφορον ὄνομα καὶ τετριμμένον πολλοῖς τῶν Πατέρων. And again: Πολλοῖς τῶν Πατέρων καὶ συντεθέν, καὶ γραφέν, καὶ ῥηθέν. Τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ ὄνομα, says he, οὐδεὶς τῶν ̓Εκκλησιαστικῶν διδασκάλων παρῄτηται· οἵ τε γὰς χρησάμενοι αὐτῷ πολλοὶ καὶ ἐπίσημοι, οἵ τε μὴ χρησάμενοι οὐκ ἐπελάβοντο τῶν χρησαμένων. Concil. Ephes. p. 1. c. 25. * Although Θεοτόκος may be extended to signify as much as the mother of God, because τίκτειν doth sometimes denote as much as yeway, and therefore it hath been translated Dei genitrix as well as Deipara; yet those ancient Greeks which call the Virgin Θεοτόκος, did not call her μητέρα τοῦ Θεοῦ. But the Latins translating Θεοτόκος Dei genitrix, and the Greeks translating Dei genitrix θεοῦ μήτηρ, they both at last called her plainly the mother of God. The first which the Greeks observed to style her so, was Leo the Great, as was observed by Ephraim Patriarch of Theopolis, whose words have been very much mistaken by two learned men, Dionysius Petavius and Leo Allatus, who have produced them to prove that Leo Magnus was the first man which ever used the word Θεοτόκος. A strange error this must needs appear in so great a person as a patriarch, and that of the Greek Church ; and indeed not imaginable, considering how well he was versed in those controversies, and how he compared the words of Leo with those of the ancient Greek fathers, and particularly of St. Cyril. His words are these in his epistle ad Zenobium : Πρῶτος ἐν ἁγίοις Λέων ἰδικῶς εἶπεν αὐταῖς λέξεσιν, ὡς μήτηρ θεοῦ ἐστὶν ἡ ἁγία Θεοτόκος, τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ πατέρων διαπρυσίοις ρήμασι μὴ τοῦτο φαμένων, that is, 'Leo was the first who in plain terms called the Θεοτόκος, that is, Mary, the mother of God; whereas the fathers before him spake not the same in express words.' Petavius and Allatius have clearly mistaken the proposition, making the subject the predicate, and the predicate the subject, as if he had first called the mother of God Θεοτόκος, whereas he is said first to call the Θεοτόκος mother of God, as appeareth by the article added to the subject, not to the predicate. But if that be not sufficient, his meaning will appear by another passage to the same purpose, in his epistle ad Syncleticum: Οτι μητέρα θεοῦ πρῶτον μὲν ἡ ̓Ελισαβέτ ἀνεῖπεν, ἐν οἷς λέγει, Καὶ πόθεν μοι τοῦτο, ἵνα ἡ μήτης τοῦ Κυρίου μου ἔλθῃ πρός με; Σαφέστερον δὲ τῶν ἄλλων μετὰ ταῦτα τὴν λέξιν πρῶτος ὁ ὅσιος Λέων ὁ Πάπας προήνεγκε. 1 but to assert the contrary as delivered in the Scriptures; but with no success. For though, as they object, St. Matthew testifieth 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 was Eunomianus. But the words are For in the word "Ews there is no such force. Τὸ ἕως οὗ πάντως ἀντιδιαιρεῖται το οὐκ ἐπὶ χρόνου λέγει, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πράγ – Καὶ ὤμοσα καρτερὸν ὅρκον, And yet it is not likely (says Eustathius), 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 "unto 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;" 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 Whereas all such pretences were unheard of in the Law, because the original Hebrew wordt 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 * For I shall not deny that Christ was called the first-born in respect of his mother, though Epiphanius thought that a sufficient answer: Οὐκ εἶπεν, ὅτι ἐγέννησε τὸν πρωτότοκον αὐτῆς· ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτὴν, ἕως ἐγέννησε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς. καὶ οὐκ εἶπε, τὸν πρωτότοκον αὐτῆς, ἀλλὰ τὸν πρωτότοκον. Ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτῆς ἐσήμανεν, ἐξ αὐτῆς κατὰ σάρκα γεγεννῆσθαι· ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ τοῦ πρωτοτόκου ἐπωνυμία οὐκέτι τὸ αὐτῆς ἔθετο, ἀλλὰ πρωτόTOROV μvov. Hæres. 78. §. 17. As if her son the first-born were not her first-born et alii, sed ante quem nullus.' S. Hieron. adv. Helvid. col. 443. It is observed by Servius, on that of Virgil's Æneid. i. 5. Trojæ qui primus ab oris,' that primus is post quem nullus. + Thus Jerome makes his plea: 'Quid me in unius mensis stringis articulo? quid primogenitum vocas, quem an sequantur fratres ignoro? Exspecta donec nascatur secundus: nihil debeo sacerdoti, nisi et ille fuerit procreatus, per quem is qui ante natus est incipiat esse primogenitus.' Advers. Helvid. col. 443. בכור $ § 'Definivit sermo Dei, quid sit Primogenitum; Omne, inquit, quod aperit vulvam.' S. Hier. adv. Helv. col. 443. |