Green on Article II: Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man

Mainly from the Augsburg Confession, Part I., Art. III., through the medium of the XIIT. Articles. The clause in thick type was added in 1563 from the Wurtemburg Confession, Art. II.

§ 2 .—OBJECT.

The doctrinal excesses of the Anabaptists made it necessary for the Church, at the time of the Reformation, to reaffirm the Catholic doctrine of our Lord’s Incarnation. The prevalence of heresies on this central doctrine of the Christian faith is clear from the following evidence : —

By Stat. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 49,

1 1 , those were excluded

from the king’s pardon who held “ that Christ took no bodily substance of our blessed lady.”

Hooper, writing to Bullinger from London, June 25, 1549, says : —

“The Anabaptists flock to the place ( i.e ., of public lecture), and give me much trouble with their opinions respecting the Incarnation of the Lord ; for they deny altogether that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh.” — Original Letters , vol. i. p. 65.

Martin Micronius, in a letter to Bullinger, dated London, May 20, 1550, writes : —

“And indeed it is a matter of the first importance that the Word of God should be preached here in German, to guard against the heresies which are introduced by our countrymen. There are Arians, Marcionists, Libertines, Danists, and the like monstrosities, in great numbers. A few days since, namely, on the 2nd of May, a certain woman was burnt alive for denying the Incarnation of Christ.”1 — Original Letters , vol. ii. p. 560.

Micronius, writing again to Bullinger from London, August 1 4, 1551, says : —

“ We have not only to contend with the Papists, who are almost everywhere ashamed of their errors, but much more with the Sectaries and Epicureans, and pseudo-evangelicals. In addition to the ancient errors respecting paedo-baptism, the Incarnation of Christ, the authority of the magistrate, the lawfulness of an oath, the property and community of goods, and the like, new ones are rising up every day, with which we have to contend. The chief opponents, however, of Christ’s Divinity are the Arians, who are now beginning to shake our Churches with greater violence than ever, as they deny the conception of Christ by the Virgin.” — Original Letters , vol. ii. p. 574.

Richard Hilles writes to Bullinger from London, March 8,

“ But I grieve very much that the pestiferous sect of Arians is budding forth again in many other places besides Switzerland.” — Zurich Letters , vol. ii. p. 182.

See also Ridley’s letter to Bradford, quoted above, pp. 23, 24, and compare £ Reformatio Legum,’ De Haeresibus, cap. 5 : —

“ Circa duplicem Christi naturam perniciosus est et varius error : ex quibus alii sunt ex Arianorum secta, Christum ita ponentes

1 The woman referred to is Joan Bucher, sometimes called Joan of Kent.

hominem ut Deum negent. Alii eum sic Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore nugantur de coelo divinitus assumpto, et in virginis uteruni lapso, quod tanquam in transitu per Mariam quasi per canalem aut fistulam praeterfluxit.”

§ 3 .—EXPOSITION.

(1) The Nature of the Son of God.

“The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father.”

the Word (S. John i. i). The significance of the title as applied to the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity is that as a word declares thought, so does the Son reveal the Father (S. John i. 1 8) ; as a man makes known his will by word of mouth, so God reveals His will by His Son (Heb. i. i).

begotten expresses here not an event, but a relationship which has subsisted from everlasting. He is “ be¬ gotten ” or else He would not be “ Son/’ but “ from everlasting” or else He would not be God (Col. i. i 5 ; Heb. i. 5-12).

very and eternal God. Christ is not metaphorically but properly and truly called God (Rom. ix. 5 j1 S. John i. 18; 2 v. 26; 1 S. John v. 20).

of one substance with the Father (Patri consubstantialis). These words correspond to the well-known clause of the Nicene Creed, o/jloovo-iov t« TLarpl. “ Of one essence ” would be a better representation of the meaning in English (S: John x. 30; v. 26).

(2) The Doctrine of the Incarnation.

“ Took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance : so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man.”

Took man’s nature (Phil. ii. 6—8). An important state¬ ment. The Divine Nature did not become human, neither did the Son of God take a mans nature , but man’s nature , i.e. human nature , assuming the same

1 The doxology in this passage is doubtless rightly taken as referring to Christ.

2 Note that the reading of this passage according to NBCL is 6 /xovoyevrjs debs.

nature which is in all other men, assuming it in its first original element before it had come to have any personal subsistence (Heb. ii. 16). in the womb of the Blessed Virgin (S. Matt. i. 20 ; S. Luke i. 30-35 ; Gal. iv. 4). The Divine Nature did not descend upon the man Jesus at some period , of his earthly life, as Nestorians taught, but He Who was born of Alary was really God, so that the Blessed Virgin may be called Oeoroicog} Cf. the Apology of Aristides,2 § II., “ God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew Virgin took and clad Himself with fiesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God.”

The followers of Cerinthus and the Ebionites are thus excluded, who held that Jesus Christ had no existence before His Mother, so that two whole and perfect natures … were joined together in one person, never to be divided.

There were four great heresies on this subject in early times.

(a) Allans denied the Divinity of Christ.

(b) Apollinarians tampered with His Manhood.

(c) Nestorians divided the Divinity and the Manhood,

making Christ two Persons.

(d) Eutychians confounded the two natures, so as to make

from them one composite nature, neither human nor Divine.

The Church defended the faith at four General Councils.

(a) At Nicsea, A.D. 325, affirming that Christ is truly

(aXriOcog) God.

(b) At Constantinople, a.d. 381, affirming that He is per¬

fectly (reXecog) man.

(c) At Ephesus, a.d. 4 3 1 , declaring that the two natures

are indivisibly (dScaipercog) united.

(d) At Chalcedon, a.d. 451, laying down that at the same

time He is distinctly (acrvy^yrcog) God and man.

See Rev. i. 5, 6, 17, 18 ; Acts xx. 28.

1 The title was authoritatively adopted at the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, Nestorius having raised an objection to it. It is the common title of the Blessed Virgin in the Eastern Church at the present day.

2 An Apology for Christianity presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius by Aristides, an Athenian philosopher. It was written between 120 and 140 A.D., and recovered in a Syriac Version at the Convent of S. Katherine, Sinai, by Mr. Rendel Harris, in 1889.

We have seen that the two natures are joined together in Christ, but not confused : from these two natures, each of which still remains entire, is made one Person,1 of the whole of which Person that is sometimes predicated which is proper only to one of the natures ; see, e.g., Acts xx. 28. This manner of expression is called “ communicatio idiomatum ” ( i.e ., sharing of properties). By this it is not meant that there is ever any mutual participa¬ tion of both natures, but always a co-operation and association of the two.

The words “never to be divided” are important. The humanity was not laid aside at the Ascension.

(3.) The Doctrine of the Atonement.

“ Who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” truly suffered. Thus are excluded all forms of the Docetic heresy, which teach that the Son of God became man in appearance only, and that His humanity, His sufferings, &c., were therefore unreal, to reconcile … to be a sacrifice.

When treating of the change brought about in the relation of man to God by the death of Christ, the following words are used in the New Testament : —

(a) KaraWdua-eLv and cognate words.

Man was in a state of enmity against God (Eph. ii. 3), but Christ reconciles the two (Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18—20; Eph. ii. 1 6; Col. i. 20). We should notice that while the Article speaks of God being reconciled to us by the death of Christ,2 on the other hand in the passages of Scripture

1 This is called the “hypostatic union,” a technical term of theology denoting the joining of the two natures in one viroaTacns.

2 The expression of the Article “ ut Patrem nobis reconciliaret ” is taken, as stated above, from the Augsburg Confession ; the same manner of presenting the truth is also found in the Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XI.

“ Porro passione et morte sua, omnibusque adeo quae a suo in carne adventu nostra causa fecit et pertulit, reconciliavit omnibus fidelibus Dominus noster Patrem ccelestem.”

See also the Homily of Repentance, First Part, p. 564

“We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto Him, who for our sins is angry with us. The same is Jesus Christ ; who, being true and natural God, equal and of one substance with the Father, did at the time appointed take upon Him our frail nature, in the blessed Virgin’s womb, and that of her undefiled substance ; that so He might be a Mediator betwixt God and us, and pacify His wrath.”

E

referred to the enmity is represented as on man’s side, and man is spoken of as reconciled to God. Though the ex¬ pression is not used, nevertheless, in the New Testament, God is thought of as being reconciled to man ; we read of an opyt] Oeov (Rom. i. 1 8 ; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6), which must not be considered merely as an anthropomorphic mode of expression, but as representing something real in the nature and disposition of God towards man in his natural state.

( b ) a7ro\vTf)Goo-is , \vrpov, and cognate words.

These give the idea of deliverance as from slavery (S. Matt. xx. 28 ; Rom. iii. 24 ; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. y ; Col. i. 14). Man was in a condition of slavery to sin (Rom. vii. 14; cf. S. John viii. 34), but Christ paid the ransom (1 Tim. ii. 6) and redeemed him (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 ; Acts xx. 28).

(c) IXao’TrjQiov , l\acriu.6$.

These words have in the New Testament the sense of “ expiation ” which takes place by means of sacrifice or offering (Rom. iii. 25; 1 S. John ii. 2).1

(d) 7rpoc(pop(x , Qucria.

See Eph. v. 2, where these words are used of Christ’s death, signifying its virtue as a propitiatory sacrifice.

The Article, within Holy Scripture, strongly insists on Christ’s Death as an atoning sacrifice ; thus our Church discards any merely exemplary view of the Death of Christ, as also the theory which sees in it only an impressive moral exhibition.

for original guilt. See notes on Art. IX.

for all actual sins of men.

The omission of the word “all” in some modern copies is entirely without authority. The wording is important because strongly anti-Calvinistic,2 Calvinism teaching that Christ did not die for all sins, but for those of the elect only. That the Calvinistic party considered the word “all” hostile to their doctrine is proved by the fact that

1 i\aaT7]pi.ov in LXX. generally represents the Hebrew rn’33, the Cover of the Ark, the Mercy-Seat {cf. Heb. ix. 5).

2 The English Church emphatically asserts the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice “for the sins of the whole world.” {Cf. Art. XXXI., where see notes.)

in the text as revised by the Westminster divines it is wanting.1

Original guilt and actual sins are both mentioned in the Article in order to emphasise the truth that the effect of the Atonement wrought by Christ’s Death is utterly to abolish all sin.

1 See Appendix IV. ; and cf. Westminster Confession, xi. 4 : —

“God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect ; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins.”