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

i. Connection. The subject of the Incarnation naturally follows that of the Blessed Trinity. God, being such as the first Article has stated Him to be, has supple- mented His original act of Creation by the manifestation of Himself in human form. The second Article, therefore, proceeds to treat of the nature and purpose of the Self- manifestation of the Son of God by taking upon Him human flesh.

ii. Title. In the Edition of 1553 the Title of the Article both in Latin and English varied from the present English form, and ran as follows, “Verbum Dei verum

hominem esse factum,” ” That the Worde or Sonne of God was made a very man.” The authoritative Latin edition of 1 57 1 has ” De Verbo, sive Filio Dei qui verus homo factus est,” ” Of the Worde or Sonne of God which was made very Man.”

iii. Source. The Article, as originally drafted, and as it appeared in the Latin and English editions of 1553, lacked the clauses stating the Eternal generation of the Son and His consubstantiality with the Father. In its earliest form it had constituted, with very slight variation, a portion of the Third Article of the Thirteen of 1538, which was identical with the Third Article of the Augsburg Confession. The additional clauses were introduced in 1563 from the Wtirtemberg Confession of 1552’.

iv. Object. The Article was not directed against the Mediaeval party, for they held the orthodox doctrine respecting the Deity of the Son and His Incarnation. It is rather aimed against the ancient Docetic teaching revived by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century. They denied altogether that Christ was ” born of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh”,” and amidst many other tenets that savoured of Arianism, rejected the doctrine of the Universality of Christ’s redemption3.

1 This Confession was a Lutheran Arians, who are now beginning to Manifesto based very largely upon the shake our Churches with greater vio- Augsburg Confession. It was pre- lence than ever, as they deny the con- sented to the Council of Trent by the ception of Christ by the Virgin.” ambassadors of Wurtemberg. The Hardwick, p. 90. Hooper, writing Article de Filio Dei agrees verbatim to Bullinger, June 25, 1549, says, with the clauses inserted in this Article “The Anabaptists. …deny altogether in 1563; ” Credimus et confitemur that Christ was born of the Virgin Filium Dei, Dominum nostrum Jesum Mary according to the flesh.” Christum, ab atemo a Pat re suo gent- 3 A work published in 1556 tells turn, ventm et etternum Deum, Patri of one condemned for holding “that sitoconsubstantialcm. ” Hardwick, Hist. Christ was only incarnate and suffered of the Articles, p. 127. death for them that died before His

GROUP r.

v. Analysis. The Article treats of the following points : —

(1) The Deity of the Son of God ;

(2) His Incarnation ;

(3) The Union in Him of the two Natures, the Divine and Human ;

(4) The Fact of the Passion ;

(5) The Object of the Passion.

(a) The Deity of the Son of God.

vi. The statements of the Article on this point are fourfold. It speaks of the Son (i) as the Word of the Father; (ii) as begotten from everlasting of the Father; (iii) as Very and Eternal God; and (iv) as consubstautial with the Father.

vii. The Word of the Father. In Scripture the application of this term to the Son is confined to the writings of S. John. In the beginning, we read, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John i. i)1; and the message of the same Apostle in his Epistle is, That which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life”1 (1 John i. 1). The term Word, or Logos, marks the inseparable inherence of the Son in

1 ‘Ep a.pxo V” 0 A670S, nai 6 A6yos again in Gen. iii. 9, instead of “God rp> irpbs tov Qtbv, Kai Geos t\v 0 A670S. calledunto Adam,” weread “the word The idea of Logos or Wisdom is (Mcmra) of the Lord called unto dimly traceable in the Old Testament Adam.” In the writings of Philo the (Gen. i. 3, 6,9; Ps. xxxiii. 6; Prov. Logos was an intermediate agency viii., ix.); becomes more clear in the between the Creator and the creature. Apocrypha (Ecclus. i. 1 — 20 ; xxiv. 2 ” S. John taking the expression 1 — 22; Wisdom vi. 22 sqq.; ix. 17,18), the Word, on which human reason had and clearer still in the Targums and the lighted in its gropings, stripped it of writings of Philo. In the Targums or its merely philosophical and mytho- Aramaic paraphrases of theOld Testa- logical wrappings, and fixed it as the ment, we read in Gen. iii. 8, instead Divine Word by identifying it with of ” they heard the Voice of the Lord the Person of Christ.” See Bp West- God,” they heard ” the Voice of the cott’s Com. on John i. 1. Word (Memra) of the Lord God ” ;

the Unity of the Godhead. It defines the fact that the Son is the Mediator between the Creator and the creature, the Person by whom the Father is naturally and properly revealed. Hence Scripture tells us that by Him God made the worlds (Heb. i. 2), that in Him all created being subsists (Col. i. 17)1, and that through Him God spake to man at the end of these days (Heb. i. 2).

viii. Begotten from everlasting of the Father. But He, the Word, was none other than the Son of God, begotten from everlasting of the Father. Pre-existent from all eternity2, He stands in a relation wholly peculiar to the Father. He is God’s own proper Sou3, the only One to whom the title belongs, and that in a sense in which it could be applied to no other. He is Movoyevrfs, only- begotten (John i. 18), and as such, His generation is unique, being “before all worlds,” not in time, but in eternity. We cannot fathom that which is unfathomable, a property of the Divine Nature, known only to God and to His Son. All that we can dare to say is that though this relationship is, in its deepest essence, incomprehensible for the finite understanding, as indeed is impressed upon us by our Lord

[…]

2 ‘En ipxv ?P 0 A670S (S. Johni. 1). His creation made to be Son, instru- ‘Ev ipxv expresses not at the time of mental in the creation of all else than Creation, but in Eternity, before there Himself. Thus they admitted that was such a thing as time at all. He existed before time, but asserted

[…]

Lord could speak of God His own

Himself1, yet we must believe that the Infinite could not be the perfectly Blessed One, without an eternal and perfect object of His Love2. And this object He has in His Son, who, while He must necessarily be another than the Father, yet has continually the ground of His existence in the being and essence of the Father, and is not a Son of God, but the Son of God, His beloved Son, in Whom He is ever well pleased (Matt. iii. 17)3.

ix. Very and Eternal God. Since the Word is in a proper and yet unique sense, Son of God, He is not another God, a sort of under-God, but “very and Eternal God.” Scripture is clear as to the Deity of the Son. S. John distinctly says, the Word was God (John i. 1), and S. Paul tells us that in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. ii. 9)4, and that He is from all eternity in the essential form of God (Phil. ii. 6)5. Moreover he speaks of Him as our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Tit. ii. 13)6, as over all, God blessed for ever (Rom. ix. 5). Indirect

1 Matt. xi. 27, oi’Seis iinyivCcaKU rbv vibv, ci fxi] 6 irarrip’ ovbc rbv irartpa tis iiriyivijxFKti, el ixi) 6 vibs. Nemo novit Filium nisi Pater, nequt Patrem guts novit nisi Fitius. Vulg. ‘E7ri- yunlxTKei, as disiinguished from the simple verb, implies a perfect and thorough knowledge. Com]). Luke i. 4, and Bp Lightfoot on Col. i. 9. There is a remarkable affinity between this verse and the general import of the Gospel according to S. John. It brings out an absolute and unique mystery of spiritual community, both in reference to power and to know- ledge, between the Father and the Son. See Lange in toe., and compare Luke x. ii, 22.

” Oosterzee’s Christian Dogmatics, p. 275;

[…]

TTjs 6e6T7JT05 (TUHaTlK&S (Col. ii. 9).

His is not Quottjs, Divinity, or the possession of Godlike properties, such as Spirituality, but 0€<5tt)s, Deity, or the possession of the nature of God. He is perfectns Deus, and not the less such, because whether in virtue of the order of origin, or in virtue of His human nature, He is subordinate to the Father, ” wqualis Patri secun- dum Divinitatem, minor Tatre secun- dum Humanitatem.” Athanasian Creed.

6 ‘Ep fiop<prj Oeov i’Tapxuv. Mop07) expresses essential being, as distinct from <rxwo (Lat. habitus), which is mere external shape. Mop^Tj is the forma, is the figura forma.

The verb bir6.p\tav expresses that He was originally in the form of God. See Bp Lightfoot in loc.

[…]

testimony to the same effect is afforded by the ascription to the Son of the same attributes as to the Father, the same power (John v. 21), the same knowledge (John xxi. 17), the same wisdom (Luke xi. 49), the same immortality (Heb. xiii. 8). Moreover He performs the same works as the Father ; He forgives sins (Matt. ix. 2 sq.); He quickens and judges men (John v. 24 — 29). He claims the same honour as is rendered to the Father (John v. 23; xiv. 1), and He allows the homage due to God to be paid to Himself (John xx. 28).

x. Consubstantial with the Father. Moreover, as very and eternal God, He is of one substance with the Father. He is 6fioovaio<;1, of one and the same essence with the Father. This famous term, of which ” consubstantial ” is the English equivalent, is not found in Scripture, but acquired an important dogmatic meaning owing to the exigencies of the Arian controversy. God as the I AM, has an essence. The Son, if He be God, and no mere creature, is of the essence of the Father, and the term o/moov- <ri09 is a perfectly natural statement of the relation between the Father and the Son. The Arians were willing to exalt Him to any conceivable height short of Godhead2, but in so doing they parted Him from the Divine essence by a fathomless chasm, and really placed between God and the creature a subordinate God. The Nicene Fathers, there- fore, proclaimed in unmistakeable terms the real and proper Godhead of the Son, and laid it down that He was not of a different nature from the Father, as are all things

phrase is made quite clear by the use of the one article. Supposing the writer to designate one Person as fieyaXov Geou and another Person as Zur^pos tih&v, the article would have been repeated before 2«t%>os. ” We have here,” writes Bp Ellicott, “a direct, definite, and even studied

declaration of Christ’s Divinity.” See Ellicott in loc.

2 See Dean Church’s Sermon on the Incarnation, S. P. C. K. Series, i. P- 138.

M,

visible and invisible, whereof He is the Maker; nor of a merely similar nature and essence, 6fioiov<rio<;, as one man resembles another without identity; but that He is of one and the same nature, essence, and substance, ofioovcrios with the Father, God Himself in all His perfection and com- pleteness, blessed for evermore (Rom. ix. 5)1.

(b) The Incarnation of the Son of God. xi. The Incarnation. Having stated that the Word is consubstantial with the Father, the Article proceeds to treat of His consubstantiality with man, or His Incarna- tion. Respecting this unspeakable mystery it affirms that the ever blessed Son of God ” took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance.” The Article thus agrees with the statements of the Creeds. For whereas the Apostles’ Creed affirms that He, Who was with the Father before all worlds, “was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary ” ; and the Nicene Creed expands this by stating that He was “incarnate by the Holy Ghost… and was made man”; and the Athanasian Creed declares that “our Lord Jesus Christ,… God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds,” became ” Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world,” the Article gathers together these statements into one whole, and places before us in terms at once accurate and distinct the mighty mystery of the Incarnation.

1 ” Between the Son and the Father the Father doeth (John v. 19), and is there exists unceasingly the most in- in heaven with the Father while He

timate community of life and love. holds converse with men on earth

This lies in the nature of the case, (John iii. 13). Without any limita-

and is besides constantly asserted by tion, therefore, He is able to speak of

the Son Himself. The Father lovcth all that is the Father’s as at the same

the Son, and sheweth Him all things time His (John xvii. 10), and thus

that Himself doeth (John v. 20). The Himself justifies us in speaking of a

Father honoitreth the Son (John viii. true oneness of nature (o^oowria) be-

54), and hath delivered all things unto tween Him and the Father.” Ooster-

Him (Matt. xi. 27). TheSon, on the zee, Christian Dogmatics, pp. 277,

other hand, doeth all things whatsoever 27S.

xii. Foreshadowings of the Incarnation. This stupendous event had long been foretold and foreshadowed1. The Eternal Word in frequent Theophanies had presented Himself to the vision of Patriarchs and Prophets. He had imaged Himself beforehand in elect sons of men under the Old Covenant2, and in them had realised, long before He appeared, some features of the Being, Whose entire Divine and human fulness He purposed to express in the revela- tion of Himself, as at once the Son of God and the Son of Man. But since the taint and corruption of our nature descends to all men, who are born in the ordinary course of the offspring of Adam, it was not possible that He could be conceived like other men. Accordingly the Spirit3, who in the beginning brooded over the waters, and awoke order out of chaos and life out of death (Gen. i. 2), brought it about by the exercise of Divine Power that in the j illness of time (Gal. iv. 4) the Virgin Mary should, without the intervention of any human father what- ever, become in time the mother of Him Who was with the Father from all eternity. In meek submission to the Divine will she humbly accepted the supernatural dignity in store for her, and gave herself up to be the instrument of the Divine counsel, saying to the angel Gabriel, Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; be it unto me according to thy word (Luke i. 38).

xiii. The Fulfilment. Thus it came to pass that He, Who is very God, condescended to be “conceived by the Holy Ghost,” and so far from “abhorring the Virgin’s womb,” deigned to take unto Him “of her substance” the simplest original element of man’s nature, before it came to

[…]

have any personal human subsistence1. Moreover, passing through all the stages necessary to maturity, He was born into this our world of the Virgin Mary, even as other children are born, at Bethlehem of Judah in the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus (Luke ii. 6, 7). Thus ” in great humility” He willed2 to be conceived and take upon Him our nature, and so the new Adam was formed, not as the first Adam out of the dust of the ground, lest He should miss the participation with us in a common nature, but from a woman, of the substance of the Virgin Mary His mother, that as her seed He might ” bruise the serpent’s head.”

(c) The Union of the two Natures.

xiv. The Effect of this infinite condescension on His part, of this conjunction of the Divine with the human, is stated in the Article to have been this, that

(a) ” Two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined to- gether in one Person, never to be divided3”;

(j3) ” Whereof 4 is one Christ, very God, and very Man.”

For in taking upon Him man’s nature the second Person in the Trinity lost nothing of His essentially Divine attributes6, and while the Manhood He assumed did not

1 Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 53. 3.

3 The two Natures were in the language of the Article joined together

(i) integre, (2) perfecte, and (3) in- separabiliter in unitate Personae. See Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. 52 and 53; Pearson on the Creed, i. 289, Art. 3.

4 Whereof =ex quibus, i.e. of which two whole and perfect Natures.

lessen the form of God, the form of God did not annihilate His Humanity. ” He was, in the flesh, as before the Incarnation, in the bosom of the Father1.” Hence by this union a Personality appeared in this our world, in which the Divine just as little existed without the human, as the human without the Divine, ” One Christ,” true God and true Man. Both natures, though originally by no means identical, became in consequence of this personal union henceforth inseparably joined together2, and that not by any blending or confusion of the Divine and human essence, or any conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by His “taking the Manhood into God,” and as the rational soul and flesh constitute one man8, so God and man is one Christ. And the two natures thus united are not only real but complete. Our Lord, as born of the Virgin Mary, was not an emanation from God, or a Being all but God, He was God Himself, in all His Perfection and Completeness. But He was also perfect Man. No one element or faculty of human nature was wanting to the Manhood which He assumed. He had a body ; He had a soul ; He had a spirit ; and the two natures were perfectly and inseparably united4. The

bum igitur Dei Deus, Filius Dei… the eternal Son of Man.” Archer

factus est homo; ita sead susceptionem Butler’s Sermons, Series i. p. 73.

humilitatis nostra? sine diminutione 3 “Unus autem non conversione

sua? majestatis inclinans, ut manens Divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione

quod erat, assumensque quod non erat, Humanitatis in Deum.” The words

veram servi formam ei forma;, in qua of the Athanasian Creed “unus om-

Deo Patri est sequalis, uniret, et tanto nino,” rendered in a Prymer of 1543,

[…]

ut nec inferiorem consumeret glorifi- entire, oneness. On the Arian, Apol-

[…]

sumptio.” S. Leo, Serm. in Solem. heresies as regards the Incarnation,

Nativ. 20, c. 2. see Introduction to the Creeds, pp.

279. 4 “To the question who is the ‘I’

• “This blessed union is incapable who presents Himself as speaking in

of dissolution. As there ever has the Gospel? we cannot reply Only the

been, and ever will be, the eternal Man Jesus, or Only the Son of God ;

Son of God, so will there ever remain but the God-man in undivided person-

manner of this union is to our finite understanding incom- prehensible. It is the mystery of mysteries, the one everlasting mystery of Divine power and love. But we cannot be surprised at its baffling our comprehension. ” The highest miracle in the world’s history will assuredly be the last of all to be understood1.”

(d) The Fact of the Passion.

xv. Who truly suffered. Having declared that the Eternal Son of God thus became Man, the Article proceeds to enunciate the truth that He still further humbled Him- self even unto death, that He truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried. Here again the statement made sums up the teaching of the Creeds. For while the Athanasian Formula simply asserts that He “suffered,” and the Nicene affirms that He ” was crucified under Pontius Pilate,… suffered, and was buried,” and the Apostles’ Creed adds that ” He died,” the Article brings out strongly the fact that His Passion and death were real and actual2 and not in appearance only. It was not unimportant to insist on this, for many of the Anabaptist School in the sixteenth century had revived the erroneous teaching of the Docetae, and represented the Death of our Redeemer as having been apparent only and not real. In respect to this idea, which has been revived in modern times, it is to be

ality. Hence the Lord never says ‘I and the Logos,’ or ‘I and the Son,’ but ‘I and the Father are one thing’; for this ‘I’ is the Son Him- self, who is inseparably one with Jesus of Nazareth.” Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, p. 513. ” Videmus dupli- cem statum, non confusum, sed con- junctum in una persona, Deum et hominem Jesum…et…salva est utrius- queproprietas substantive.” Tertullian, adv. Prax. 27. “Ad rependendum nostne conditionis debitum natura in-

violabilis naturae est unita passibili, Deusque verus et homo verus in uni- tatem Domini temperatur, ut quod nostris remediis congruebat, unus at- que idem Dei hominisque Mediator, et mori posset ex uno, et resurgere posset ex altero.” S. Leo, In Sol. Nat. 20, c. 1.

1 Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, P-,5’6-

• Vere passus est, crucifixus, mor- tuus et sepultus.

observed that on purely historical grounds there is no single reason for doubting the reality of His Death. On the contrary

(a) Our Lord’s words before the event imply it1 ; (/3) Friends like the Holy Women2, Joseph of

Arimathaea3, Nicodemus4, and the Apostles5,

were certain of it ;

(7) Foes as (1) the soldier who thrust the head of his spear into His side6; (2) Pilate who exa- mined the centurion as to the reality of the death7 ; (3) the Jewish Sanhedrim, who begged that His grave might be carefully guarded, were convinced of it8 ;

(8) The narrative of the Evangelists, the dogmatic statements of the Epistles9, the distinct asser- tion of the glorified Lord after the Ascension10, assume it without hesitation ;

(e) The clear statement of the historian Tacitus11 records it as an historical fact, and not only

1 Luke xxiii. 46, Father, into Thy Hands I commend My Spirit ; and having said this, He gave up the ghost. These words imply that His Spirit was separated from His body, and, as death consists in this separa- tion, so far as He was man, He died.

2 Mark xv. 47.

3 Mark xv. 43.

4 John xix. 39.

5 Acts ii. 23.

6 John xix. 31 — 37. The spear used is called ‘S.oyxv, Vulg. lancea. It was either (1) the Roman has/a, the iron head of which was the width of a hand-breadth and pointed at the end, or (2) the long lance of a horse- man.

7 Mark xv. 44.

8 Matt, xxvii. 62—66.

9 Rom. iv. 24, 25; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 24. .

10 Apoc. i. 18.

was it accepted in an age which had its archives and its registers, but it is mentioned by later authors as a matter of common notoriety, and, besides being never disproved, gave point to the opprobrious epithets of remorseless foes1.

(e) The Object of the Passion.

xvi. Its twofold Nature. Having asserted that the Passion of our Lord was a real objective fact, the Article proceeds to deal with its object and purpose. The Nicene and Athanasian symbols affirm that ” He suffered for us and for our salvation.” The Article amplifies this state- ment and affirms that our Lord humbled Himself to the death of the Cross

(1) “That He might reconcile His Father to us”;

(2) “That He might be a sacrifice, not only for

original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.”

It thus emphasizes two of the three figures, under which Scripture represents to us the purpose of the Passion, (1) Reconciliation or At-one-ment ; (2) Propitiation or Sacrifice.

xvii. Reconciliation. The idea which lies at the root of the Greek word /caraWayr/*, which we have rendered by Reconciliation or At-one-ment, is that of bringing together those who have been at variance. Now in consequence of

[…]

supplicio interemptum et Deum fuisse died? Why should men make up a

[…]

xxvi. 40. ” How could He have gone benefit, but only contempt, persecu-

through the Crucifixion without dying? tion, and death?” Fisher’s Grounds of

What would have been His physical Theistic and Christian Belief, p. 167.

[…]

remained? If He did not die then, see Introduction to the Creeds, p.

when did He die? Did He and the 133, n. 1.

the Fall man is not only in a state of bondage, but also in one of alienation from God, and S. Paul speaks of the wrath of God being revealed from heaven against all un- godliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. i. 18)1. One of the pur- poses, then, of our Lord’s Passion was in our nature and for us to do that which we could not do ourselves, and make peace between man and God. When, therefore, He offered Himself on the Altar of His Cross, He died for all, and all died in Him2, and so He abolished in His flesh the enmity which sin had interposed between the creature and the Creator. Hence S. Paul affirms that in Christ God reconciled man3, the world4, and all things8 to Himself. Here, as in other places, Holy Scripture speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God, not of God as reconciled to the sinner. Still the language of the Article holds good. For while the essential nature of God is unchangeable Love, it is also and equally unchangeable Righteousness, and the fact of sin in man had disturbed the relations of God towards man. If, then, reunion was to be brought about and an at-one-ment rendered possible, the righteous anger of God against sin must be satisfied. And it was satisfied, when the Son of God, having in our nature lived a life of perfect obedience, offered up that unblemished life

[…]

all died {in [dim). See a striking ser- mon of F. W. Robertson on this verse.

[…]

5 ‘Ek aiiTif tvdoK-qo-e irav t6 […] 5t’ avTov diroKaTaWdljai rd iravra eh o.vt6v, Col. i. 19, 20. Observe the compound form here used dT0Ka.TaK\d£ai = to restore or reconcile completely. See Bp Lightfoot’s note in loc.

upon His Cross1, and thus reconciled man to God and God to man.

xviii. A Sacrifice. Besides bringing about this Re- conciliation, the Article further affirms that the object of our Lord’s Passion was that He might be a Victim and a Sacrifice “not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men2.” On this subject the language of Holy Scripture is explicit: for

(a) It was expressly said to Joseph by the Angel, Thou shalt call His Name Jesus, for He3 shall save His people from their sins (Matt. i. 21) ; (I?) Again John the Baptist expressly pointed Him out as the Lamb of God, wJiicli taketh away the sin of the world (John i. 29) ; (c) And the Apostle John writes, If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is tlie propitiation for our sins (1 John ii. 1, 2). As the appointed Victim, destined in the eternal pur- pose4 to be the sacrifice for sin, He became by His death the propitiation not only for original sin5, but also for all

for He was God.” Newman, Paroch. Serm. vi. 71.

[…]

4 Comp. Apoc. xiii. 8, tov apvlov tov ecr(paypJvov a-rrb Kara/SoX^s k<5o>ou.

6 The guilt of original sin is cancel-

actual sins of men. That His propitiation is valid for all alike1, and extends as far as the need of it through all place and all time2, is clear from

(a) S. Peter’s words to those who had been guilty of the awful crime3 of crucifying the Lord of glory, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, unto the remission of your sins (Acts ii. 38) ; (£) The words of Ananias to the repentant perse- cutor, Arise, and be baptized, and wash aiuay thy sins (Acts xxii. 16) ;

(7) The words of S. Paul respecting the Corin- thians, some of whom had been stained with the foulest vices and the deadliest sins, Such were some of you, but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God ( 1 Cor. vi. 11);

(8) The words of S. John, who, after saying that Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins, adds, And not for ours only, but also for the zvhole world (1 John ii. 1, 2).

led in Holy Baptism, when being made one with Christ (Rom. vi. 3), we share the virtue of His death for the sins of the whole world, and of His glorified Humanity in heaven.

1 See Westcott on 1 John ii. 2.

[…]

the word many is a quantitative designation of all, used for the pur- pose of contrast. See Vaughan and Westcott, in loc, and Macaire, Theol. Dojm. ii. p. 180, French Tr.

3 “Die immane aliquid quod com- misisti, grave, horrendum, quod etiam cogitare horres; quidquid vis feceris, numquid Christum occidisti? Non est isto facto aliquid pejus, quia et Christo nihil est melius. Quantum nefas est occidere Christum? Judsei tamen Eum occiderunt, et multi in Eum postea crediderunt, et biberunt Ejus sanguinem : dimissum est illis peccatum quod commiserunt.” S. Aug. Stmt, ad Catech. xv.

Notes

• “The chief opponents of Christ’s Incarnation, and not for them that Divinity,” we read in one of the Zurich died since.” Hardwick, pp. 89,90. letters dated Aug. 14, 1551, “are the
• On the word 6/tooi/irtoi, see Intro- duction to the Creeds, p. 84, n. 1, and the references there given.
• See Introduction to the Creeds, Liddon’s University Sermons, i. p. pp. 97, 98. 197.
• “Opportunitatetemporis, quando voluit, quando sciebat, tunc natus est; non enim nolens natus est. Nemo nostrum quia vult nascitur, et nemo nostrum quando vult moritur. Ille quando voluit natus est.” S. Aug. Serm. ad Catich. c. viii.
• “Nunquam destitit esse Deus.” S. Leo, Serm. in Nativ. 26,0. 2. “As- sumpsit quod non erat, et permansit quoderat.” Aug. Serm. 184. 1. “Ver-
• Strong’s Manual of Theology, p. 106, 107.
• “Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum, supplicio affectus erat.” Tac. Ann. xv. 44. Supplicio affectus erat denotes that He suffered the capital penalty. “It is true that according to the Gospel History Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him (John xix. 1), and in this sense punished Him or caused Him to suffer; but this would have been a trifle to the mind of a Roman historian, not worthy of being record- ed; the only ground for referring to Christ would be that under Pontius Pilate His life and labours came to an end.” Bp Goodwin’s Founda- tions of the Creed, p. 151.
• When our Lord suffered on the Cross, our nature suffered in Him, for all Humanity was represented by Him and gathered up in Him. In Him our nature satisfied its old and heavy debt, for the presence of His Divinity gave it transcendent merit. “Dignitas carnis Christi non est jestimanda solum secundum carnis naturam, sed secundum personam as- sumentem, in quantum scilicet erat caro Dei ex quo habebat dignitatem infinitam.” S. Thorn. Aq. Sum. iii. 48. 1. “That which setteth the high price on this sacrifice, is this; that He which offereth it unto God, is God.” Bp Andrewes, Serm. ii. 152. “There was a virtue in His death which there could be in no other,
• Or as it is rendered in 1553 “to be a Sacrifice for all sinne of manne, both originall, and actuall.” “The omission of the important word ‘all’ in many modern copies of the Article is without the least authority. It appears in the editions of 1628, but is dropped as early as 1630, and de- liberately in the received text of the Assembly of Divines, 1643.” Hard- wick, Hist. Art. p. 790, n.