Page images


[ocr errors]

which shall afterward be produced to evince the contrary, our plea from whence shall not here be anticipated. The places of Scripture they mention prove him to be a true man,—that as man he died and rose; but that he who was man was not also in one person God (the name of man there expressing the person, not the nature of man only) they prove not. The prophets foretold that Christ should be such a man as should also be the Son of God, begotten of him, Ps. ii. 7; “The mighty God,” Isa, ix, 6, 7; "Jehovah,” Jer. xxiï. 6; “The LORD of hosts,” Zech. ii. 8, 9. And the Apostles' Creed also (as it is unjustly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord, and requires us to believe in him as we do in God the Father; which if he were not God were an accursed thing, Jer. xvii. 5.

Q. Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure (or mere) man?

A. By no means; for he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God, as we read, Luke i. 35, that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt afterward find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare that the Lord Jesus can by no means be esteemed a pure (or mere) man.'

Ans. 1. But I have abundantly demonstrated that Christ neither was nor was called the Son of God upon the account here mentioned, nor any other whatever intimated in the close of the

answer, but merely and solely on that of his eternal generation of the essence of his Father,

2. The inquiry is after the essence of Christ, which receives not any alteration by any kind of eminency or dignity that belongs to

If Christ be by essence only man, let him have what dignity or honour he can have possibly conferred upon him, let him be born by what means svever, as to his essence and nature he is a man still, but a man, and not more than a man,—that is, purus homo, a "mere man,"—and not puos sós, “God by nature,” but such a god as the Gentiles worshipped, Gal. iv. 8. His being made God and the Son of God afterward, which our catechists pretend, relating to office and dignity, not to his nature, exempts him not at all from being a mere man. This, then, is but a flourish to delude poor simple souls into a belief of their honourable thoughts of Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of than the Turks do of Mohammed, nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, than as Moses to the Jews. That which Paul speaks of the idols of the heathen, that they were not gods by nature, may, according to the apprehension of these catechists, be spoken of Christ; notwith

his person.

1 • Ergo Dominus Jesus est purus homo ?—Nullo pacto; etenim est conceptus e Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei est, ut ea de re Luc. i. 35 legimus, ubi angelus Mariam ita alloquitur, Spiritus Sanctus supervenict in te, etc., ut alias causas non afferam, quas postmodum in Jesu Christi persona deprehendes, quæ evidentissime ostendunt Dominum Jesum pro puro homine nullo modo accipi posse.”



standing any exaltation or deification that he hath received, he is by nature no god. Yea, the apprehensions of these gentlemen concerning Christ and his deity are the same upon the matter with those of the heathen concerning their worthies and heroes, who, by an årodéwors, were translated into the number of their gods, as Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them gods, indeed; but put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but one God, but that these men were honoured as being, upon [account of] their great worth and noble achievements, taken up to blessedness and power. Such an hero, an Hermes or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ, who, for his faithful declaring the will of God, was deified; but in respect of essence and nature, which here is inquired after, if he be any thing according to their principles (of making which supposal I shall give the reader a fair account), he was, he is, and will be, a mere man to all eternity, and no more.

They allow him no more, as to his essence, than that wherein he was like us in all things, sin only excepted, Heb. ii. 17.

Q. You said a little above that the Lord Jesus is by nature man; hath he also a divine nature ?

A. No; for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, but also to the Scriptures.

But this is that which is now to be put to the trial, Whether the asserting of the deity of Christ be repugnant to the Scriptures or

And as we shall see in the issue that as these catechists have not been able to answer or evade the evidence of any one testimony of Scripture, of more than an hundred that are produced for the confirmation of the truth of his eternal deity, so, notwithstanding the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, rising up against it. [As] for that right reason, which in this matter of mere divine revelation they boast of, and give it the pre-eminence in their disputes against the person of Christ above the Scripture, unless they discover the consonancy of it to the word, to the law and testimony, whatever they propose on that account may be rejected with as much facility as it is proposed. But yet, if by “right reason" they understand reason so far captivated to the obedience of faith as to acquiesce in whatever God hath revealed, and to receive it as truth,—than which duty there is not any more eminent dictate of right reason indeed,—we for ever deny the first part of this assertion, and shall now attend to the proof of it. Nor do we here plead that reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot discern the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves

1 « Dixeras paulo superius Dominum Jesum natura esse hominem; an idem habet naturam divinam ?-Nequaquam; nam id non solum rationi sanæ, verum etiam di. viuis literis repugnat.”



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

regenerate before we admit them to judge of the truth of the propositions under debate; which though necessary for them who would know the gospel for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation, yet it being the grammatical and literal sense of propositions as laid down in the word of the Scripture that we are to judge of in this case, we require no more of men, to the purpose in hand, but an assent to this proposition (which if they will not give, we can by undeniable demonstration compel them to), “Whatever God, who is prima veritas, bath revealed is true, whether we can comprehend the things revealed or no;" which being granted, we proceed with our catechists in their attempt.

Q. Declare how it is contrary to right reason.

A. 1. In this regard, that two substances having contrary properties cannot meet in one person; such as are to be mortal and immortal, to have a beginning and to want a beginning, to be changeable and unchangeable. 2. Because two natures, each of them constituting a person, cannot likewise agree or meet in one person; for instead of one there must (then) be two persons, and so also two Christs would exist, whom all without controversy acknowledge to be one, and his person one.

And this is all which these gentlemen offer to make good their assertion that the deity of Christ is repugnant to right reason ; which, therefore, upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly appear.

1. It is true that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two substances with such diverse properties as by that union to make an exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties; but that there may not be such a concurrence and meeting of such different substances in one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such

. an union is to beg the thing in question against the evidence of many express testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their request.

2. In calling these properties of the several natures in Christ “adverse" or "contrary," they would insinuate a consideration of them as of qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove destructive to the one, if not both, or, by a mixture, cause an exurgency of qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such qualities, nor are they inherent in any common subject; but [they are] inseparable adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never


1“ Cedo qui rationi sanæ repugnat ?—Primo, ad eum modum, quod duæ substantiæ, proprietatibus adversæ, coire in unam personam nequeant; ut sunt mortalem et im. mortalem esse, principium habere et principio carere, mutabilem et immutabilem ex. istere. Deinde, quod duæ naturæ, personam singulæ constituentes, in unam personam convenire itidem nequeant; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, atque ita duos Christos existere, quem unum esse, et unam ipsius personam omnes citra omnem controversiam agnoscunt.”




[ocr errors]

mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the person wherein both the natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing, in this first part of their answer, but beg the thing in question; which, being of so much importance and concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted them on any such terms. Will Christ, on their entreaties, cease to be God?

Neither is their second pretended argument of any other kind.

1. We deny that the human nature of Christ had any such subsistence of its own as to give it a proper personality, being from the time of its conception assumed into subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by express texts of Scripture, Isa. vii. 14, ix. 6; John i. 14; Rom. i. 3, ix. 5; Heb. ii. 16; Luke i. 35; Heb. ix. 14; Acts ü. 15, xx. 28; Phil. ii. 7; 1 Cor. ii. 8, etc.; and by arguments taken from the assigning of all the diverse properties by them mentioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, etc. That we would take it for granted that this cannot be, is the modest request of these gentlemen with whom we have to do.

2. If by natures constituting persons they mean those who, antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot meet in one person, so that upon this union they should cease to be two persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed, their different beings could not be preserved. But if by “constituting” they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possibility of constituting a person, then, as before, they only beg of us that we would not believe that the person of the Word did assume the human nature of Christ, that “ holy thing that was born of the Virgin," into subsistence with itself; which, for the reasons before mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.

And this is the substance of all that these men plead and make a noise with in the world, in an opposition to the eternal deity of the Son of God! This pretence of reason (which evidently comes short of being any thing else) is their shield and buckler in the cause they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christ's being hungry and dying, we say it was in the human nature, wherein he was obnoxious to such things no less than we, being therein made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted;—when of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the office of mediator, which he willingly undertook, and that his inequality unto him as to that office doth no way prejudice his equality with him in respect of his nature and being. But when, with the Scriptures and arguments from thence, as clear and convincing as if they were written with the beams of the sun, we prove our dear Lord


Jesus, in respect of a divine nature, whereof he was partaker from eternity, to be God, blessed for ever, they tell us it cannot be that two such diverse natures as those of God and man should be united in one person ; and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so,—there is no such union among other things! And these things must be, that those who are approved may be tried. But let us hear them out.

Q. But whereas they show that Christ consisteth of a divine and human nature, as a man consisteth of soul and body, what is to be answered them?

A. That here is a very great difference; for they say that the two natures in Christ are so united that Christ is both God and man. But the soul and body are in that manner conjoined in man, that a man is neither soul nor body; for neither soul nor body doth singly of itself constitute a person. But as the divine nature by itself constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the human nature should do."

Ans. 1. In what sense it may be said that Christ, that is, the person of Christ, consisteth of a divine and human nature, was before declared. The person of the Son of God assumed the human nature into subsistence with itself, and both in that one person are Christ.

2. If our catechists have no more to say, to the illustration given of the union of the two natures in the person of Christ by that of the soul and body in one human person, but that there is “a great difference” in something between them, they do but filch away the grains that are allowed to every similitude, and show wherein the comparates differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.

3. All that is intended by this similitude is, to show that besides the change of things, one into another, by the loss of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides the union that is in physical generation by mixture, whereby and from whence some third thing ariseth, that also there is a substantial union, whereby one thing is not turned into another nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude (which, to please our catechists, we can forbear, acknowledging that there is not among created beings any thing that can fully represent this, which we confess “ without controversy to be a great mystery') is only to manifest the folly of that assertion of their master on John i., “That if the 'Word be made flesh' in our sense, it must be turned into flesh; for,” saith he, "one thing cannot be made another but by change, conversion, and mutation into it:” the absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced by the substantial union of soul and body, made one person, without that alter

"Cum vero illi ostendunt, Christum sic ex natura divina et humana constare, quemadmodum homo ex animo et corpore constet, quid illis respondendum ?—Permagnum hic esse discrimen; illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Christo ita unitas esse, at Christus sit Deus et homo. Anima vero et corpus ad eum modum in homine conjuncta sunt, ut nec anima nec corpus ipse homo sit, nec enim anima nec corpus sigillatim personam constituunt. At ut natura divina per se constituit personam, ita humana constituat per se necesse est."

« PreviousContinue »