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

God, and that this one God is three Persons, and every one of those three Persons is one God, and yet all but one God. In this we have the second Person, there spoken of, to be considered, called the Son; because begotten of the Father, not by spiritual regeneration, as other sons of God are, but by eternal generation, as none but himself is. The Son, who is the > Word of God, which expression is taken from those words, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, John i. 1; which place being clearly to be understood of Christ, he is therefore called the Word; in Greek, Logos, a word, or speech; because, as a man utters his mind by the words of his mouth, so doth God reveal his will and effect. his pleasure by his >Son. By the

[…]

Of the Word, or Son of God, &c. 73

word of God were all things at the first made ; he said, Let there be light, and there was light: and God said, Let there be a Jivmament, &e., and there was so. Hence the Apostle saith, By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth stand- ing out of the water and in the water, 2 Pet. iii. 5; and, the worlds were framed by the word of God, Heb. xi. 3; and the Psalmist, By the word of God were the heavens made; and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth, Psalm xxxiii. 6, All which God is elsewhere said to do by his Son. AU things were made by him; and without him was nothing made that was made, John i. 3: the world was made by him, ver. 10, and by him (speaking of Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, &c.; all things were created by him and for him. Col. i.16. And ¢ therefore it is that the Son of God is called the Word of God; as also, because it was by him that he spake unto the Fathers, and gave them the promises ; and because, as our words are the birth and effigies of our mind, so did Christ come from the Father, and is the express image and lively portraiture of him. And though John.be the only person that gives him this title in the New Testament, yet he was not the first that gave it him; but is rather thought to have taken it out of the ¢Chaldee Para-

factus est mundus, in illis operibus ; per me regitur mundus in istis ope- ribus, Aug. in Joh. tract. 17. [15. vol. III. par. ii. p. 429.] Neither is this the doctrine of the New Testa- ment only, but of the Old also, where in the Chaldee Paraphrase (which the Jews had commonly read in their synagogues,) instead of *nywy 1338 oneta m>y cI) pox, I made the earth, and created man upon: it, is put 8WIN) NRYIN MTIY 170701 RON yma. mby, I by my word made the earth, and created man upon it. Isa. xlv. 12. And so xlvii. 13. Jer. xxvii. 5: from which, and the like laces, I suppose it is that Philo ag ae calls Adyov Tov Geod, the Word of God, épyavov Gcod dv of (6 xéopos) kareoxevaora, Phil. de flammeo gladio. [vol. I. p. 162.] And elsewhere he saith, Sku de cov 5 Néyos abtod early & Kabdrep op-

[…]

¢ This seems to be the reason that Athenagoras gives why Christ is called the Word of God, when he saith, dAN gotw 6 vids Tod Ceod Adyos Tov marpos ev idéa Kal evep- yeia, mpos avrod yap kat dv adrov mavra eyevero. Athenag. leg. pro Christ. [loc. cit. |

4d Where in the Hebrew text there is mim? and ondsx in the Chaldee Paraphrase, »»7 xn, the Word of God, is often put for it, and (which is observable) most usually where it is taken peculiarly for God the Son, AS TW 297 TORI TN7A FIN 7343 9d, For by thee will I run through a troop; by my God will I leap over a wall. 2 Sam. xxii. 30. For which the Targ. hath +2px J n°M2 4K 1992 59 WAIN TIN Waa prawn porpn, For by thy word I will mul-

74 Of the Word, or Son of God, ART.

phrase of the Old Testament, which in our Saviour’s time was much in use, where it frequently occurreth.

This Son, who is the Word of the Father, is said to be begotten of the Father. Here he is said to be the Word of the Father, and not the Word of God ;. because he cannot so properly be said to be begotten of God as of the Father. For here, as in the Trinity, we must have a great care how we speak concerning the Father’s begetting of the Son, and the Son’s being begotten of the Father; we may say, the Father begot the Son, and so he that was God begot him that was God; but we must not say God begot God. We may say one Divine person begot another ; but we must not say one Divine nature begot another, for that would imply two Divine natures, one of which is begotten, the other not. But how may we properly say then, the Son is begotten of . the Father? By receiving from the Father an unbegotten essence. His person must be begotten of the Father, otherwise he would not be his Son; but his essence must be unbegotten, otherwise he would not be God. And that Christ was begotten, and so begotten of the Father as to receiye an unbegotten essence from him, is clear; but how the person of the Father, and not his essence, did beget ; and how the person of the Son, and not his essence, was begotten, and so how the Son was begotten of the Father, is a mystery which

tiply tents, and by the word of God I dee Paraphrase renders it expressly,

will subdue all strong towers. So where we read DIN NN DITOR NID yoda, And God created man in his own image, Gen. i. 27. the Hierus. Targum hath it, nyo SDD NI) mma72 01x, And the Word of God created man in his likeness: and again in the Heb. we read it, pnw) mi Sip nx, And they heard the voice of the Lord, Gen. iii. 8, but in the Targ. of Onkelos it is rendered, »T NID Jp n> iynw, And they heard the voice of the word of the Lord; and to name no more, we read in the Heb. mima yw danw Drab» nyiwn, Israel shall be saved of the Lord with everlasting salva- tion. Isa. xly. 17: which being clearly spoken of the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, the Chal-

05Y PVP TNA PIN NAW? Israel shall be saved, or redeemed, by the word of the Lord with an ever- lasting salvation, or redemption. And hence I cinceive it is that Philo the Jew calls his devrepov Ccdy, dp- O3v Geod Aédyov kal mpwrdyovoy vidy. Phil. de Agricultura. Aaa so Celsus also, in his dispute with Origen, speaking the sense of the Jews, acknowledged that “O Adyos ear vids Tod Geod. Orig. contra Cels. 1. 2. And as the Jews, before St. John, called Adyov Gcod, vidy Gcod, St. John, after them, might well call viov Qeov, Adyov Oeod, and yet use no other than their own terms nei- ther, that in their own translation of the Bible, and in other authors often occurred.

ent £ ticii dade dh tah eee te

IE which was made very Man.

was never revealed to us. And therefore we are not to be too “curious to pry and search into it, especially seeing that it is beyond our capacities and abilities either to f express it aright to others, or to know and apprehend it aright in ourselves. All the apprehensions that we can frame of it, is only by conceiving the person of the Father to have & com- municated his Divine essence to the person of the Son, and so of himself begetting his other self the Son, by communi- cating his own unbegotten essence to him. I say, by com- municating of his essence, not of his person, for then they would be both the same person, as now they have both the

Saine essence.

The essence of the Father did not beget the

Son by communicating his person to him, but the person of

[…]

al. quest. 14. [tom. II. pp. 339, 40. ]

& Sed incomprehensibiliter, ine- narrabiliter, ante omne tempus et secula, unigenitum ex his que in- genita in se erant procreavit (pater, ) omne quod Deus est, per. caritatem atque virtutem nativitati ejus imper- tiens, ac sic ab ingenito, perfecto, aternoque Patre, unigenitus, et per- fectus, et eternus est Filius. Hilar. de Trinit. lL 3. [3.]

76 Of the Word, or Son of God, Arr,

the Father begat the Son by communicating his essence to him: so that the person of the Son is begotten, not commu- nicated; but the essence of the Son is communicated, not begotten.

And this communication of the Divine essence of the Father to the Divine person of the Son was from everlasting, as the essence itself was. For eternity is an essential pro- perty, yea, the very essence of God itself: and therefore the essence being, its eternity could not but be communicated to the Son; from whence he must of necessity be begotten of the Father from everlasting. So that as the essence of the Father that was communicated to the Son, had not, so neither had the person of the Son, whose essence was so communicated from the Father, any beginning; but as the essence communicated was, so was the communication of that essence to the Son, from all eternity.

Hence also it is here said, that the Son zs very and eter- nal God, of one substance with the Father: that is, of one essence or nature with the Father. For his essence, as we have heard, is the selisame individual essence that the Fa- ther’s is, communicated from the Father to him, the same eternal, almighty, all-wise, infinite, unbegotten, uncreated es- sence: and therefore he is not another, but the same very and eternal God. And so there is no difference, no nor distinction at all betwixt the Father and the Son in their essential, but only in their personal properties. The Son is of the same substance and essence with the Father, but herein they differ, that » the Father hath his essence of himself, the Son of the Father; and so the person of the Father is not from

h Pater est Deus, de quo Filius est Deus, de quo autem Pater nul-

Patrem non dicimus Lumen de Lu- mine, sed tantum Lumen. Id. [vol.

lus est Deus, Aug. [Vvol. II. ep. clxx. 7.] ad Maximum. And again, upon those words, I know him, for I am of him, the same Father observes, ** Ab ipso, inquit, sum, quia Filius de Patre est; et quicquid est Filius, de illo est cujus est Filius; ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus de Deo ; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantum Deum ; et dicimus Do- minum Jesum Lumen de Lumine,

II. par. ii.] in Joh. Tract. 31. [4.] Pater vita est non nascendo, Filius vita nascendo. Pater de nullo Patre, Filius de Deo Patre. Pater quod est a nullo est; quod autem Pater est propter filium est; Filius vero, et quod Filius est propter Patrem est, et quod est a Patre est. Id. Tract. 19.{13.] Manet ergo Pater vita manet et Filius vita. Pater vita in semetipso non a Filio, Filius vita in semetipso

leds TO Pye ee ee ee ee ee eee

eee a eT es Le

it, WG the person of the Son, but from himself; whereas the person of the Son is not from himself, but from the person of the Father. But his person is so begotten of the Father as to be the same in essence with him, very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father.

This Son of God, a distinet Person, but the same in sub- stance with the Father, being the middle person betwixt the Father and the Spirit, undertakes to be Mediator betwixt God and man; by him the world was made, and by him therefore it was fitting it should be redeemed; which not- withstanding could not have been done by him, unless he became the Son of man in time, as well as he had been the Son of God from eternity. Hereupon he took man’s nature ; he that had the nature of God communicated to him, hath the nature of man assumed by him. Not as if the Divine nature was converted into or confounded with the human, but only the human nature is assumed into the Divine, so as to become perfectly man like unto us in all things, our sinful infirmities only excepted, in time, as he had been perfectly God, like to the Father in all things, his personal properties only excepted, from eternity. And therefore man having two

which was made very Man.

[…]

martnp, @s atrios Kal apxn. 610 kal 6 KUptos elirev, 6 TaTHp pou pei€ov pov éott Kabo matip Sndovert. Contra Eunom. 1. 1. |p. 724.] And St. Hilary, Major itaque Pater Filio est; et plane major, cul tantum donat esse quantus ipse est. De Trinit. 1. 9. [54-] And Gregory Nazianzen, Ajdov te TO petCdv egret ths airias. De Theolog. orat. 4. [vol. I. p. 582. A.| And so others; but St. Au- gustine expounds it of his incarna- tion, that as he was man his Father was greater than he: Quid itaque mirum, vel quid indignum, si secun~ dum hance formam servi loquens, ait Dei Fihus, Pater major me est; et secundum Dei formam loquens, ait idem ipse Dei Filius, Ego et Pater unum sumus? Unum enim sunt secundum id quod Deus erat Ver- bum, et major est Pater secundum id quod verbum caro factum est. Aug. [vol. III. par. ii.] in Joh. tract. xxviii. [2.] V. Nicet. p. 233.

78 Of the Word, or Son of God, Arr.

essential constitutive parts, a soul and a body, Christ in his

assuming of the human nature was invested with both’, yea,

and the natural infirmities of both too; he had a soul as well as we, he had a body as well as we, and he had+his soul and body united together as well as we, and so was hungry and thirsty and weary and sorrowtful, as we are.

k This human nature he took in the Virgin’s womb of her substance. As he was God, he had no mother; as he was man, he had no father: as God, he had his Divine nature from his Father; as man, he had his human nature from his mother, whose womb was as the bridechamber wherein the marriage knot betwixt the two natures was tied, never to be divided. Neither did he only take the human nature in the Virgin’s womb, but of her substance, so that his human nature was as really of the same substance with his mother Mary, as his Divine nature was of the same substance with his Father God. And as he was begotten of his Father without a mother from eternity, so was he born of his mother without a father in time. His mother being a virgin after he was born, as really as she was a virgin before he was conceived. I say, before he was conceived ; for though he was not be- gotten of the Virgin by man, yet he was conceived in her by God, even by God the Holy Ghost miraculously overshadow- ing her. The manner of which conception is as difficult to be understood by men, as the truth of it is evidently avouched by God. Only this we know, that he was not so conceived

[…]

k Sicut nondum natus ex Vir- gine Patrem Deum habere potuit sine homine (Matre) zque cum de

Virgine nasceretur potuit matrem habere (Hominem) sine Homine Patre, Tertullian. Je Carne Christi: [cap. xviii.] Ipse enim Pater Deus et origo et principium rerum quo- niam parentibus caret drdrap atque dpntep a ‘Trismegisto verissime no- minatur, quod ex nullo sit procrea- tus. Idcirco etiam Filium bis nasci oportuit, ut ipse fieret dmdrwp atque dunrep. In prima enim nativitate spiritali dujrep fuit, quia sine officio matris a solo Patre generatus est. In secunda vero carnali ddrwp fuit, quoniam sine patris officio virginali utero procreatus est. Lactant. de vera Sapient. cap. 13. [init. ]

, : q ( ‘

1. which was made very Man. 79 by the Spirit as to have the Spirit for his father, as he had the Virgin for his mother; for though he was conceived by the Spirit, yet it is not said he was begotten of the Spirit : and therefore the Spirit cannot be said to be father to him, generation being the ground of paternal relation. But only he was so conceived by the Spirit of God as not to need to be begotten by man.

Lastly, He so took the nature of man, as that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and the man- hood, were joined together in one Person, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man. So that as in the Trinity there be three Persons and yet but one nature, so here there be two natures and yet but one Person: so that the two natures do not either of them constitute a distinct Person, but both of them make up one and the same Person. And therefore we must consider how the human nature had no subsistence in itself, by which it could be a distinct Person of itself, but its subsistence was only in the Divine Person: and also how as it was not a human person, but the human nature that was assumed, so it was not the Divine nature, but a Divine Person that did assume: and therefore this Divine Person, though he hath received one nature from his Father, and another from his mother, yet receiving them both into the 1unity of his Person, though he hath two absolutely dis- tinet natures, yet he is but one and the same Person, very God by his Divine, and very man by his human nature ; which two natures being thus once united together, they can never be put asunder; but as Christ was God and not man from eternity, he will now be both God and man to eternity.

And for the truth of all this we shall first consult the scriptures. And here we have several things to be con- firmed. 1. That the Son was begotten from everlasting of the

1 Confitemur unigenitum Dei Fi- lium in his omnibus in quibus Deus Pater existit, una cum patre eter- naliter subsistentem partes nostree naturze simul unitas, ex quibus ve- rus Deus in se existens fieret verus homo, humanum viz. corpus pas- sibile et animam intellectivam seu

rationalem ipsum corpus vere per se et essentialiter informantem as- sumpsisse ex tempore in virginali thalamo ad unitatem sue hypostasis et persone. Concil. Vien. de Sum. Trinit. et Fid. Cathol. [Hard. Conc. vol, VII. p. 1359-]

80 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

Father. 2. That he is very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father. %. He took man’s nature upon him i the womb of the Virgin. 4. He so took man’s nature upon him, that he is but one and the same Person, having both these natures united together in himself.

First, that “the Son was begotten from everlasting of the Father.” And truly this the Father himself, who best knows the Son himself begets, assures us of, saying of this Jesus Christ we are speaking of, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. iii. 17. And, Thow art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, Psalm ii. 7. Heb. i. 5. Hence he is called the Son of the living God, Matt. xvi. 16: yea, the only begotten of the Father, John i. 14. And that he was begotten from everlasting is as certain as that he was begotten at all of the Father: for it is expressly said by Christ, ™Zhe Lord

_ ™m What we here translate the Lord possessed me, the LXX. render Kvpuos éxrioé pe, and this being the translation which the Greek church generally received, the Arians and Eunomians, and other heretics, took occasion to urge this place against the eternity and divinity of the Son. Yea, as it is in Athanasius, Todro dé Gpeos adrol 7O pntov dv Kal KaT@ Tre- pipepovtes ev TOY KTLTATe@Y TOV vidY evan @deyov. Athan. in Nic. syn. cont. her. Ar. decr. [13. vol. I. p. 219.]| Yea, Arius himself, in his dispute with Athanasius, insisteth much upon it. Yea, and Hunomius makes use of it too in St. Basil, and that translation being generally re- ceived by the orthodox themselves, as well as heretics, the Fathers were put hard to it to find out a full an- swer to the objection, and after other evasions of it were still forced at length to refer the words to the hu- man nature, for fear lest they should understand them of his Divine na- ture, they should be forced to ac- knowledge’ him a creature indeed: Anmréoy ovy, saith St. Basil, 7d pev eyevnoev el Tov OQeod viod, Td Se EKTLOED ETL TOU THY popdyy Tov Sov- Rov AaBdvros: adv. Kunom. 1. 4. [vol. I. p. 774.] And Athanasius, Kat yap Aéyor 76, &xrice, Th dvOpa~ Twov onuaiver, Ore avOpwros yéyove

kat exticOn. Hpist. [II.] ad Serap. [vol. I. par. ii. p. 690.] But if they had but consulted the ori- ginal, (which in those days was too much neglected and but little un- derstood,) they would have found it there expressed in far different terms, »22p mim the Lord possessed me, as the word always signifies ; not Kuptos éxrio€é pe, for the word is not so much as once taken in that sense. And St. Basil himself observes also in one place against Eunomius, that some ancient interpreters did render the word, not exricé je, but exrnoard pe, as ours hath it. Teas ye puny, saith he, pndé exeivo amapaonpavrov kataXitropev, OTe GAOL TOY €éppy- vé@y ol KaLpLoTepoy THs oOnwacias TOY ’EBpaixav Kabixduevor extnoatd pe avri Tov extigev exdedoKaow. Adv. Eun. 1. 2. [p. 735.] And then it follows, Omep péyiotov avrois eumd- doy éorat mpos THY Bacdyplav Tod KTicpatos’ 6 yap eima@v éxtnoduny aOpamrov Sia Tod Oeod ovxt Kricas tov Katy ddd yevynoas tavtyn paive- Tat xpnodpevos TH pavn. Ibid. By which means this place is so far from making against the divinity of Christ, that it maketh altogether for it, proving that for which I cited it, even that he was begotten from eter-

[…]

with éyevynoé pe.

F ‘

II.

which was made very Man. 81

possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no fountains abounding with water, before the mountains were settled : before the hills was I brought forth. Prov. viii. 22—25. And he that was brought forth before time must needs be begotten from eternity. Thus it is said also, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, John i. 1. Where we may see, that in the beginning, before the world was, the Word was ; yea, it was by the Word that the world was created, ver. 3, which could not be unless himself was before it : and before the world was, there was nothing but eternity. And therefore if he be before the world, he must needs have been from eternity. But what ground have we in scripture to say, The Son was begotten of the Father by receiving an unbegotten es- sence from him? or that the Father’s begetting of the Son

was by communicating his own essence to him ? Why, this notion I ground upon those words, Mor as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he ™ given to the Son to

have life in himself, John v. 26.°

[…]

To have life in hunself is an

were put together ; piay ywaokopev Tov Tatépa airiay Kal pitav, kal mnynv ts Oedtnros, Ses. 25. [ Hard. Conc. IX. p. 379.] Yea, and he is called the Head too, as St. Cyril of Alex- andria, Kepady rod Xpicrov 6 Ocds 6rt €€ avtod kara dvow, Ad Regin. Ep. 1. [vol. V. par. il. de recta fide, p- 64.] all plainly intimating, that the whole Divinity both of the Son and Spirit was communicated from the Father. Fons ergo et origo to- tius divinitatis ipse est. Concil. To- let. XI. [vol. ILI. p. 1020. ]

© Though the Father be here said to give to the Son to have life in himself, yet seeing it is here said he hath life in himself as well as the Father, hence it is that as the an- cients asserted the Son to have re- ceived his Divine essence from the Father, so they asserted also that he hath it wholly and perfectly in him- self, and therefore do they call him Avrotany, as’ Avaykn raca Ths amdd- Tyros Sohoyouperns avrocenv civac

G

82 Of the Word, or Son of God, ‘Art.

essential property of the Divine nature : and therefore where- soever that is given or communicated, the nature itself must needs be given and communicated. Now here we see God the Father communicated this his essential property, and so his own essence, to the Son; and by consequence, though he be a distinct person from him, yet he hath the same unbe- gotten essence with him, and so, as the Father hath life m himself, so hath the Son life in himself, and so all the other properties of the Divine essence, only with this personal dis- tinction, the Father hath this having life in himself, not from the Son but from himself ; whereas the Son hath this having

life in himself, not from himself but from the Father. Secondly, that this Son of God is very and eternal God may be proved from what hath been said concerning the

[…]

——

thet

Ee ee

TI. which was made very Man. 83

communication of the Divine essence from the Father to him: for if he hath the same nature that the Father hath, he cannot but be the same God that the Father is. And the same would further appear, if we considered how the names, properties, works, and worship, which is given to the Father, is given to the Son too. The Father is called Je- hovah, and so is the Son, Isa. iy. 3. Hos. i.‘7. The Father is called God, so is the Son, John i. 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. With God as to his person, God himself as to his es- sence ; so John xx. 28. Acts x. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16, &c. The Father is Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, Isaiah xli. 4. xliv. 6, so is the Son, Rev. i. 8,17. Is the Father eter-

nal? so is the Son, Isa. ix. 6. Apoe. i. 8. almighty ?.so is the Son, Heb. i. 3.

[…]

Is the Father Is the Father every-

vetoOa. Hist. 1. 10. c. 4. In which and the like places, Atrd0eos is not to be understood e& éavrod Gcds, but ev €avt@ Oeds; or, which is the same, avros 6 Oeds, one who is God in himself, and so God himself. For though he had his Deity from the Father, yet he so had it from him, as to have it in himself; so that though he hath his Divine nature from the Father, yet he hath it in himself as well as the Father. And therefore saith St. Augustine, Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semet- ipso, ut hoc solum intersit inter Pa- trem et Filium, quod Pater habet vitam in semetipso quam nemo ei dedit, Filius autem habet vitam in semetipso quam Pater dedit : in Joh. Tract. 19. [11. vol. III. par. ii.] And hence it is, that in the beget- ting of the Son, the Father commu- nicated his whole essence to him ; so as to give the Son to be in him- self whatsoever himself as God was in himself; so that, as St. Augus- tine expresseth it, Genuit de se al- terum se: ad Maxim. [vol. II. epist. CLXX.5.] And therefore also doth Anastasius Sinaita call the Son Aev- Tépocw vrocrdcews ev TavTéTnTL PU- ces, Anast, Sin. ev 6dnyo.

G2

84 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art,

where? so is the Son, Matt. xviii. 20. Doth the Father know all things? so doth the Son, John xxi. 17. Did the Father make all things? so did the Son, John i. 3. Doth the Father preserve and uphold all things‘ so doth the Son, Heb. i. 3. Doth the Father forgive sins? so doth the Son, Matt. ix. 6. Is the Father to be worshipped? so is the Son, Heb. i.6. Is the Father to be honoured? so is the Son, John vy. 23. No wonder then, if Christ, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, Phil. ii. 6: he did not think he robbed God of any glory by saying himself was equal to him. And thus the second thing is clear, that Christ is very and eternal God.

Thirdly, this Son of God became very man, so that he was not more like to God, yea, very God in his Divine, than he was like to man, yea, very man in his human nature ; and as he was begotten of the same substance with God the Father from eternity, so was he conceived of the same substance with us men in time; and therefore is there nothing that belongs to us as men but what he took upon himself. Have we a body? so had he, Heb. x. 5,10. Have we flesh and blood? go had he, Heb. 1.14. Have we hands and feet? so had he, Luke xxiv. 39. Have we a soul? so had he, Matt. xxvi. 38. Are we hungered? so was he, Matt. iv. 2: and weary? so was he, John iv. 6: and heavy and sorrowful? so was he, Mark xiv. 33. Do we grow in stature and know- ledge? so did he, Luke ii. 52. Do we die? so did he, he gave up the ghost too, John xix. 80. Thus was he in all things tempted like us, but only in sin, Heb. ii. 17. iv. 15. So well may he be called the man Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. ii. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 21. and Christ Jesus the Son of man, Matt. xxvi. 2.

Fourthly, We have seen how express the scripture is in asserting him to be both God and man; now we are to inquire, whether he be thus God and man in one Person or in two. I mean, whether he be God in one Person and man in another, or both God and man in the same Person. But we need not make much inquiry after it, the scripture being so plain and frequent in attributing to him two natures and yet but one Person; in saying, that the Word was made flesh, John i. 14. He did not take flesh unto him, but into him ;

is which was made very Man. 85

yea, he was made flesh ; that is, he that was as really a spirit as God, became as really flesh as man; not by P changing himself into flesh, but by taking flesh into himself, to make up one and the same Person with himself. Hence the same Person who was zn the form of God is said to have taken upon him the form of a servant, Phil. ii. 6, ‘7. Hence also is the Son of God said to be born of the Virgin Mary, Luke i. 35, which could not be unless the Son of God and the Son of Mary was the same person. Hence it is also that we are said to have but one Mediator, 1 Tim. ii. 5; that is, though our Mediator have two natures, yet being but one Person he is but one Mediator. And, to name no more, hence it is that God is said to have purchased his Church with his own blood, Acts xx. 28. With the blood of the Divine nature? No, for that hath no blood. With the blood of man, a distinct per- son from God? No, for then it could not be called God’s own blood. And therefore it cannot possibly be otherwise inter- preted than to signify the blood of a Person who was God as well as man; who being God, and becoming man, and purchasing his Church with that blood himself assumed with

P Mnde havracO7s n\ordoOae Thy Oedtnra petaBAnOcicay «is cdpka. Basil. de humana Christi genera- tione, [vol. I. p. 506.] otk a\Xos yéyove thy odpxa aBov, add 6 avros &v éxad’arero ravtn. Athan. cont. Arr. orat. [II. 8. vol. I. p. 470.| ovr@ yap €ort pecitns Ceod kat avOpamrayv, Oeds Sy Kal dvOpwros yeyovas, ov Tparrels tiv pvow, adda KaO Exarepa mpos Ta ayorepa peot- revov. Epiph. in Anchor. [xliv.] And there are many the like ex- pressions to be met with in the Fathers, intimating that his Divine nature was not changed into the human, but only the human taken into the Divine: he did not lay aside the one to assume the other, but he assumed one to the other, so that he was as perfectly both God and man after, as he was God and not man before his incarna- tion. Semetipsum exinanivit, saith St. Augustine, formam servi acci- piens : non ergo formam Dei amit-

tens. Factus est ergo homo qui erat Deus, accipiendo quod non erat, non amittendo quod erat. [ Vol. III. par. ii.] in Joh. Tract. 23. [6.] Se- metipsum autem exinanivit formam servi accipiens: non ergo amittens illam sed accipiens istam. Ho modo se exinaniens quo hic minor ap~- parebat, qui apud Patrem manebat. Forma quippe servi accessit non forma Dei recessit. Hee est as- sumpta non illa consumpta. Ibid. Tract. 78. [1.] Erat enim hu- mane nature proprietas; sed non Dei forma jam non erat, quia per ejus exinanitionem servi erat forma suscepta. Neque enim defecerit na- tura ne esset; sed in se humilitatem terrenz nativitatis manens sibi Dei natura susceperat. Hilar. de Trin. 1. 9. [51.] ‘Tenet enim sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura. Et sicut formam servi Dei forma non adimit, sic formam Dei servi forma non minuit. Leo. epist. ad Flavian. [p. 130, 1. ]

86 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

the human nature, may justly be said to have purchased his Church with his own blood. And hence it is, that to denote his two natures in one Person he hath a name given him where they are both joined in one word, Immanuel, Isa. vii. 14. which is truly interpreted God with us, Matt. i. 23. In the beginning of the word Immenu, with us, there is the human, at the end EJ, God, there is the Divine nature im- plied, and both in the same word, to shew that though they be two natures, yet one name or word is sufficient to express them both, they both making up but the same Person. And thus we see how evidently it hath pleased the most high God to unveil this great mystery to us, clearly discovering, not only that Christ was begotten of himself, and so very God from eternity; and that he was born of a woman, and so very man in time; but also that he was and is both very God and very man in the very selfsame Person.

And what scripture affirms, reason cannot but subscribe to: as, first, that the Son was begotten of the Father is plain, otherwise he would not be a 4Son, nor the other a Father. Secondly, that he was begotten from everlasting is plain, otherwise he would not be God; God, as I have shewn, being everlasting, both from and to eternity. But, thirdly, that Jesus Christ is God, very God, is as plain as either of the former. For as he could not be called a Son unless he were begotten, so he could not be called Jesus unless he were very God. For he cannot be called Jesus unless he brings salvation unto men; but it is impossible for him to bring salvation unto men unless himself be God. For wherein consists the salvation which this Jesus was to procure for us, but in bearing those punishments which were due from God to us, and in performing that obedience which is due from us to God? Now it is impossible for one that is not God to do these things for us.

To unveil this mystery and the reason thereof more clearly,

_@ Etenim si Filius est, natus est; esset; Ibid. Tract. 22. [14.] Pater si natus est, ab illo est de quo natus autem non est, si non habet Filium est. Aug. [vol. ITI. p. “a in Joh. et Filius non est, si non habet Pa. Tract. 20. [8.] Sed non est de se trem. Ibid. ‘Tract. 29. [5.]

Filius. $i de se esset, Filius non

:

i Ae ee i ie ia

:

Tl. which was made very Man. 87

we must consider that there be two things wherein man standeth indebted unto God: first, he owes him obedience to his precepts; secondly, satisfaction to his justice for his disobedience. The first is the principal debt, the other accessory, proceeding from the forfeiture, as it were, of the bond and breach of the covenant, wherein man was obliged to the payment of the former. But man in Adam proving bankrupt became non-solvent, unable to pay either; and therefore, unless there be some person found out that is willing to undertake, and is able to perform, the office of suretyship in paying of both these debts for him, he can expect no other than to be cast into prison, and not to come out thence till he hath paid the uttermost farthing, which himself can never do. The principal debt of obedience he can never pay, because he is become a sinner, one whose actions are all rebellion and disobedience: the accessory he ean never pay, it being impossible for a finite creature to make complete satisfaction to infinite justice.

And as man himself cannot, so neither can any person who is any way inferior unto God pay these debts for him. First, None but one that is equal to God can perform obe- dience for man; because every one that is any way inferior unto God depends continually upon him, and therefore is bound to do whatsoever it can do for God upon its own ac- count; it being impossible for a creature to perform more to God than itself is bound to do. And every creature being bound to do for itself whatsoever itself can do for God, no creature, that is, no person any way inferior to God himself in his essence, can perform obedience for any other persons but itself. Whereas we must have one to undertake for us who is bound to pay nothing for himself; and therefore one, all whose obedience may justly be set upon our account, and be reckoned as performed in our steads and upon our ac- count. And such a person as this is we can nowhere find out, unless it be among the Persons of the glorious Trinity ; every one of which is perfectly God, and therefore none of them is bound to do more than the other, but whatsoever he doth which the other doth not may justly be accounted as a work of supererogation; and therefore, without violation of

88 Of the Word, or Son of God, Arr.

justice may be imputed to others, and others may be ac- counted as obedient by it. By which means such a Person, and none but such a Person, can perform that obedience, and so pay that debt to God for us which is due from us to God. And as none but one that is equal to God can perform obedience for us, so neither can any but such a Person make satisfaction to the justice of God for our dis- obedience to his laws. For that satisfaction cannot be made otherwise than by bearing the punishments that are due from God to man, for the sins that are committed by man against God: which sins, being committed against an infinite God, cannot but deserve infinite punishments, which all creatures, in that they are creatures, and so finite, are both unable and incapable of undergoing. And therefore as there is none but one that is God, coequal with the Father, can perform obe- dience to God’s precepts for our souls, so neither can any but one that is coequal with the Father make satisfaction to God’s justice for our sins. And so if Christ be our Jesus and Saviour, he must of necessity be God.

Fourthly, That he is man as well as God, reason coneludes from the same premises upon which it builds his Godhead: for as he could not be our Saviour and Mediator unless he were God, so neither could he be the Saviour of us unless he was a man like to us. So that he must be man as well as God, or God-man, in order to his’ mediating betwixt God

[…]

TI. which was made very Man.

and man. He must be man, that he may be capable of being bound for us; as well as God, that he may be able to pay our debts. It was man that stood engaged in the cove- nant, and therefore man must perform the conditions of it. Neither is it only reasonable, but absolutely necessary, that Christ should be man as well as God, in order to his redeem- ing us from prison by paying our debts for us: for as he could neither perform obedience, nor satisfy justice for us, unless he were God as well as man; so neither could he do either of these things for us, unless he was man as well as God. First, If he was only God, he could not perform any righteousness for us, which by imputation might be laid upon us. For God in himself is the maker of the laws, and there- fore in himself cannot be subject to them. Especially, not upon the account of man, because the laws were made for men; and therefore man cannot be accounted righteous by any other righteousness than what is performed by man. The fallen angels were not accounted righteous by the righteous- ness of Christ, because he was a man, not an angel, that did perform it: so neither could man be accepted as righteous by it, if he had been God only, and not man. Secondly, As he could not pay the principal, so neither the accessory debt for us, unless he be man as well as God. For without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins: nor, therefore, any satisfaction to justice: sins could be pardoned, if justice might be satisfied any other ways, the remission of sins necessarily following upon the satisfaction of justice. Whereas, it is

[…]

Cecds ovK dy eyevero peaitns, ov yap dy édé£avro avrov ois éepuecitevoer. Ibid. [277. 1.] Inde et mediator Dei et hominum, quia Deus cum Patre, quia homo cum hominibus. Non mediator homo preter dei- tatem; non mediator Deus preter humanitatem. Ecce mediator, di- vinitas sine humanitate non est mediatrix ; humanitas sine divini- tate non est mediatrix: sed inter divinitatem solam et humanitatem solam mediatrix est humana divi- nitas et divina humanitas Christi. Aug. [vol. as de ovibus, c. 12. [Ser. xlvii. 20.

90 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

impossible for one that is only God to shed blood, or bear any punishment whatsoever: he cannot shed blood, because he hath none to shed; nor bear any punishments whatsoever, whereby the justice of God could be satisfied for the sins of men. For God is a pure Act, and by consequence uncapable of any suffering or passion, as I have shewed before. And therefore if he was God only, and not man, he eould not suffer any thing whereby to satisfy: as well as if he was man only, and not God, he could not satisfy by his sufferingss. Unless he was a man as well as God, he could not suffer; and unless he was God as well as man he could not satisfy. If he was man only, his satisfaction could not be sufficient for God ; if he was God only, it would not be suitable for man. And therefore to make him capable of suffering for men, and able to satisfy God, himself must be both God and man. And not only so, but,

Lastly, He must be both God and man in one Person: otherwise he would be as far from being our Saviour as if he was man only and not God, or God only and not man. Man can suffer, but he cannot satisf y; God can satisfy, but he cannot suffer: and therefore if he was God in one Person, and man in another, he might suffer in one and satisfy in another, but both suffer and satisfy in neither. But for the making of his suffer- ings for men satisfactory to God, it is necéssary the Person that suffers should be the same with him that satisfieth : for it is upon the union of these two natures in one Person that the value and satisfactoriness of his sufferings dependeth. He therefore by his sufferings made satisfaction, because the same Person that suffered was God as well as man. And hence it is that the properties of one nature are often t communicated

[…]

t Per indissolubilem unitatem Verbi et carnis omnia que carnis

Il. which was made very Man.

to the other; because, though they be two natures, they be both united in one Person. So that though we cannot say that either the Godhead suffered or the manhood satisfied, yet we may say God both suffered and satisfied, or man both satisfied and suffered; because, whether we call him God or ‘man, still both natures are implied; so that he that is God is man as well as God, and he that is man is God - as well as man. Hence, I say, it is, that his sufferings, as they were suitable for men, so were they sufficient for God ; for though his Godhead did not suffer, yet he that was God did suffer ; and though his manhood did not satisfy, yet he that was man did. Whereas, if he had been God in one Per- son and man in another, his sufferings would have been only the sufferings of man, and so not satisfactory to God; and his satisfaction would have been only the satisfaction of God, and so not suitable for man. Which things being considered, as we cannot, yea, dare not deny him to be both God and man, so we dare not but believe him to be both God and man im one and the same Person: “that as the soul and body united together make one man, so do the Divine and human nature make one Christ and Mediator, blessed for evermore. And this hath been the doctrine of the Church of Christ in all ages. As, first, That the Word was begotten of the Fa- ther, and that from everlasting. Justin Martyr expressly :

sunt ascribuntur et Verbo, quomodo Christi Jesu Domini nostri sic ex

et que Verbi sunt predicantur in carne. Jesum vero et Christum et Dominum invenimus sepe ad utram- que naturam referri; ut est illud, Unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia. Et iterum, Si cogno- vissent, nunquam Dominum glorie crucifiaissent. Origen. in Rom. 1. 1. [6. vol. IV. p. 467.] Ac per hoc propter istam unitatem persone in utraque natura intelligendam et Fi- lius hominis dicitur descendisse de ccelis, quamvis sit ex ea que fuerat in terra Virgine assumptus ; et Filius Dei dicitur crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus ; quamvis hec non in divi- nitate ipsa qua est unigenitus Patri coeternus ; sed in nature humane sit infirmitate perpessus. Aug. [vol. VIII. p. 629.] contra serm. Arrian. c. 8. [init.] Hanc unitatem persone

[…]

u Sicut enim unus est homo anima rationalis et caro; sic unus est Christus Deus et homo. Aug. [vol. III. par. ii.] in Joh. Tract. 78.[3.] ‘Qomep yap Wux7 AoytKy Kat coupé els Cot dvOpamos, ovTws Ocds kai dvOperos eis eott Xpratds. Atha-~

nas. in symb. [vol. II. p. 729.]

92 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

x“ But the Word of Wisdom testifies this unto me, he being God himself, begotten of the Father of all things ; being also the Word, and the wisdom, and the strength, and the glory of him that did beget him.” And again, y “ You understand, oh hearers, if you attend, that the word holds forth, that this offspring was begotten of the Father before all creatures whatsoever; and that he that was begotten is another in number from him that did beget him, every one will confess.” And Athanasius begins the exposition of the Christian faith thusz: “ We believe in one unbegotten God, the Father Al- mighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible, who hath of himself what he is; and in one only-begotten Word, the Wis- dom and the Son, without beginning, and from everlasting, begotten of the Father.” And so St. Hilary: *“ The Son is from him who is the Father. The only-begotten from the unbegotten : the offspring from the parent: the living from the living. As the Father hath life in himself, so is it given to the Son to have life in himself. Perfect of perfect ; all of all, without division or scission ; because one is in the other, and the fulness of the Godhead in the Son. Incomprehensible of incomprehensibie ; for none know their minds but one an- other. Invisible of invisible ; because he is the image of the invisible God: and he that secth the Son secth the Father also. One of the other ; because they are Father and Son: not as

[…]

[vol. I. p. 99-]

@ Est Filius ab eo qui Pater est, unigenitus ab ingenito, progenies a Parente, vivus a vivo. Ut Pater habet vitam in semetipso, ita et Fi- lio data est vita in semetipso. Perfec- tus a perfecto, quia totus a toto; non divisio aut scissio, quia alter in altero, et plenitudo divinitatis in Filio est. Incomprehensibilis ab incomprehensibili; novit enim ne- mo nisi invicem. Invisibilis ab in- visibili, quia imago Dei invisibilis est, et quia qui videt Filium videt et Patrem. Alius ab alio, quia Pater et Filius. Non natura Divinitatis alia et alia, quia ambo unum. Deus a Deo, ab uno ingenito Deo, unus unigenitus Deus. Non dii duo, sed unus ab uno; non ingeniti duo, quia natus est ab innato. Hilar. de Trin. lib. If. [{11.]

Pe ee

re ow

If. which was made very Man.

if the nature of the Divinity was one and another, for they are both the same. God of God; of one unbegotten God; one only begotten God. Not two Gods, but one of one: not two unbegottens; for one is begotten of the other unbegotten.” And again: >“ Therefore this unbegotten God did of himself before all time beget his Son: not of any subject matter, for all things are by the Son; nor of nothing, because of himself he begot his Son.” And St. Augustine: ¢“ The Word of God was always with the Father, and always the Word; and because the Word, therefore the Son. He was always there- fore the Son, and always equal ; for he is not equal by growth, but by birth. Who was always born of the Father, the Son God of God, coeternal of eternal. The Father is not God of the Son, but the Son is God of the Father; therefore did the Father by begetting of the Son give him to be God; by begetting of him gave him to be coeternal with himself; by begetting of him gave him to be equal with himself.”

And as the Fathers speak of the Son’s being begotten from eternity of the Father, so do they much contend for his being very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father. As Ignatius: 4“ If any one saith there is but one God, and con- fesseth Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a bare man, and not the only-begotten God, the wisdom and word of God, but thinks that he consisteth only of soul and body; such a one is a serpent, preaching deceit and error to the destruc- tion of men.” And Justin Martyr, having disputed long with Trypho the Jew, at the length says, ¢‘‘ And that Christ, who

[…]

tempus ex se Filium genuit, non ex aliqua subjacente materia, quia per Filium omnia; non ex nihilo quia ex se Filium. Ibid. 1. III. [3.]

¢ Verbum Dei semper cum Patre, et semper verbum; et quia verbum, ideo Filius. Semper ergo Filius et semper equalis. Non enim crescendo sed nascendo equalis est. Qui semper natus est de Patre Filius, de DeoDeus, de eterno coeternus. Pater autem non de Filic Deus, sed Filius de Patre Deus. Ideo Pater Filio gignendo dedit ut Deus esset; gignendo dedit ut sibi coeternus esset; gignendo dedit ut equalis esset. Aug. [vol. III. par. a in Joh. Tract. 48. [6.]

[…]

94 Art.

is the Lord and God, being the Son of God, and having ap- peared before in power as a man and an angel, both appeared in the glory of fire, as in the bush, and in the judgment that fell upon Sodom, is abundantly proved by what hath been said.” And so Tertullianf: “Neither are we ashamed of Christ, seeing it delights us to be judged and condemned for his sake. Him we have learned to be born of God, and being born, to have been begotten, and therefore to be the Son of God, and called God from the unity of his substance,” viz. being of one essence or substance with the Father. And this is that which Athanasius so confidently affirms through all his works: I shall produce only one place. We believe Christ to be ““sOmnipotent of omnipotent; for whatsoever the Fa- ther rules and governs, that doth the Son rule and govern too. Perfect of perfect; in all things like unto the Father.” But for this we have a whole synod of Fathers, the first general council that ever was, express and clear, having deli- vered their mind concerning this particular in these words: h« We believe in one God Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten; that is, of the substance of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father,” or of one substance with the Father, as the convocation that composed these Articles expressed it. Nei- ther was this council the first that used the phrase of one sub- stance with the Father, for we see Tertullian using of it long before; and Athanasius saith, that it was not ‘invented by the council, but taken out of the Fathers that lived before them.

Of the Word, or Son of God,

f Neque de Christo erubescimus cum sub nomine ejus deputari et damnari juvat. Hune ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filrum Dei et Deum dictum ex unitate substantie. Tertul. Apol. adv. gentes [cap. xxi.]

[…]

Lae which was made very Man. 95

We have seen how express the Fathers are in avouching Christ to be God, and truly they are as express too in averring him to be man. As Ignatius‘: “ Mary did there- fore truly conceive a body, having God inhabiting in it; and God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, clothed with a body of the like passions with us. He was truly conceived in the womb, who formeth all men in the womb, and made him- self a body of the blood of the Virgin only, without the help of man. He was carried in the womb the set time that we are, and was truly born as we are.” And so Athanasius!: “ But on the other side, when once the Word was born of Mary in the fulness of time, to take away sin, (for so it pleased the Father to send his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,) then it is written, that taking flesh he became man, and in that suffered for us, as Peter said; for Christ (saith he) suf- fering for us in the flesh, that it might be evident, and all might believe, that being God from eternity, and sanctifying whom he came unto, and disposing all things according to the will of the Father, at the last he became man for us. And the Godhead, as the Apostle saith, dwelt in the flesh bodily, which is all one as if we should say, being God he took to himself a body, and using that as an instrument became man for us.” And again: ™“For the body which our Saviour had of

[…]

Art.

96 Of the Word, or Son of God,

Mary, according to the Divine scripture, was by nature a human and a true body. It was a true one, because it was the same with ours, for Mary was our sister.”

And as for the last thing, that Christ is both God and man in one Person, the same Father is clear: “Christ is but one Person, compounded of God and the human nature, as every common man is of the animal and rational part.” And St. Augustine: ©‘ Neither because he said (by the obe- dience) of one man did he separate God, because he became man; because, as I have said, and it is to be observed, he is one Person. For he is but one Christ, the Son of God from eternity by nature, and the Son of man which in time was assumed.” Again, ?“ Let us acknowledge a twofold substance in Christ, to wit, the Divine in which he is equal to the Father, and the human in which the Father is greater than he. But both together, Christ is not two but one; lest God should be a quaternity, not a Trinity. For as the rational soul and body are one man, so is God and man one Christ.” I shall conclude this with that excellent passage of St. Chrys- ostome; 4“ When thou hearest of Christ, do not think him

God only or man only, but both together.

[…]

© Nec quia dixit hominis separavit Deum, quia hominem assumpsit: quia sicut dixi, et valde commen- dandum est, una persona est. Ipse namque unus Christus et Dei Filius semper natura, et hominis Filius qui in tempore assumptus est. Aug. [vol. VIII. p. 629.] contra serm. Arrianorum, c. 8.

P Agnoscamus geminam substan- tiam Christi, divinam viz. qua equa- lis est Patri, et humanam, qua major est Pater. Utrumque autem simul non duo, sed unus est Christus. Ne sit quaternitas non trinitas Deus. Sicut enim unus est homo anima rationalis et caro, sic unus est Chri- stus Deus et homo. Id. [vol. III. par. ii.} in Joh. Tract. 78. be

For I know Christ

[…]

v s \ =

[…]

avactnoavta’ oida Xpiotov Tidr@

[…]

Pp. 503. ]

II. which was made very Man. 97 was hungry, and I know that with five loaves he fed five thousand men, besides women and children. I know Christ was thirsty, and I know Christ turned water into wine. I know Christ was carried in a ship, and I know Christ walked upon the waters. I know Christ died, and I know Christ raised the dead. I know Christ was set before Pilate, and I know Christ sits with the Father. I know Christ was worship- ped by the angels, and I know Christ was stoned by the Jews. And truly, some of these I ascribe to the human, the other to the Divine nature ; for by reason of this is he said to be both together.”

But besides particular persons, there are many ancient councils that determined this truth ; but passing by ’ others, I shall only cite the fourth general council gathered together at Chalcedon, both because it was a general council consisting of no less than 630 bishops, and also because it was called on purpose to confirm this truth; and when assembled they defined amongst other things that Christs was begotten of the Father as to his Divinity before all ages, and that in the last days, for us and for our salvation, he was born according to his humanity of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, and that he is made known as one and the same Jesus Christ, the Son, Lord, and only-begotten, in two natures, without con- fusion, conversion, division, or separation. The difference betwixt the two natures being no ways changed by their union, but rather the propriety of both natures preserved, and making up one Person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons. And thus we have the first part of this article confirmed from scripture, reason, and Fathers : the next followeth.

[…]

98 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

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 actual sins of men.

That the Second Person in the sacred Trinity was begotten of the First from eternity, and conceived by the Third in time, and that in the womb of a virgin; and so became both per- fectly God and perfectly man, perfectly united together in the same Person, we have seen in the foregoing part of this article. And in this we are to dive into the reason of this so great a mystery, why did the Son of God thus become the Son of man? Why did he thus take the human nature into his Divine Person? When he came from heaven to earth, what did he before he went again from earth to heaven? How did he deport himself towards his fellow-creatures, and how did they carry themselves towards him? Did they not highly honour and extol him, who had so honoured and extolled them as to assume their humanity into his Divinity? No: he was so far from being honoured amongst them, that he truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried. But it is strange so great a Deity should be loaded with so much ignominy, Was it for his own sake he suffered all this? No: it was to reconcile God to our souls, and to be a propitiation for our sins.

First, he sufered: though God be without passions, yet God-man is not without his sufferings. Whilst God and not man, he could not. suffer if he would, neither would he suffer if he could. But when he was man as well as God, he both could suffer what he would, and would suffer what he could ; and not only could and would, but did truly (and not in show only, as the Cerdonites, Manichzans, and others, asserted) suffer many things in his life, and most of all at his death. For he was then crucified, which was a punishment usual amongst the Romans till abrogated by Constantine the Great, who, being the first Christian emperor, is thought to have forbidden it out of the respect and honour he had unto him whom we have here asserted to have undergone it, and so to

aa a eee eee eee ee ee Fe a ee ee EE en

HH: which was made very Man.

have honoured itt. He was crucified ; that is”, there being first a straight and erect piece of wood (which himself first carried towards the place of execution) made fast in the earth, and a transverse beam fastened towards the top of it, and after that another piece of wood fastened to and standing out from that which was fixed in the ground ; his body being lifted up was applied to the straight piece of wood that stood in the earth, his hands were nailed to the transverse beam that went across or athwart over the other, his head reached above the transverse beam towards the top of that which was fixed in the ground; and towards the bottom of it were his feet nailed, his body resting upon that other piece of wood which was fastened into and stood out from that which was

t Sed quia ipse honoraturus erat fideles suos in fine hujus_seculi, prius honoravit crucem in hoc se- culo, ut terrarum principes creden- tes in eum prohiberent aliquem no- centium crucifigi. Aug. [vol. V. p. 473-| de verbis Domini in Evang. sec. Mat. Serm. [LXXXVIII. 8.] Denique modo in peenis reorum non est apud Romanos, ubi enim Do- mini crux honorata est, putatum est quod et reus honoraretur si crucifi- geretur. Aug. [vol. III. par. ii. p. 546.| in Joh. Tract. 36. [4.] Ad illam postremo crucem non perve- nies, quia jam de poena generis hu- mani sublata est. Cum enim sub antiquis scelerati crucifigerentur, modo nullus crucifigitur. Hono- rata est et finita est; finita est in pena, manet in gloria. Id. [vol. LV. p. 267.] in Psa. 36. [ser. ii. 4.] IIpérepov pev yap 6 aravpds dvopa Karadixns Av, vuvi dé mpaypa Tysns

[…]

ist (4

100 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

fixed in the earth. Upon his head was a crown of thorns, above his head was a table fastened, on which, after the Roman custom, his accusation was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin characters, that all might ‘read what it was he was there nailed and crucified for. Neither was Jesus only thus nailed and fastened to the cross, but there he hung till his soul was forced from his body, and so he died. After which, he was not suffered any longer to hang there, but was taken down, and laid in a sepulchre, and so buried.

Neither did he mind his own things in all this; no, it was only upon their account that laid these things upon him, that he was pleased to undergo them. He suffered for us, only that we might not suffer from God; he was crucified here, that we might be glorified hereafter ; he died that we might live, and was buried for a time, that we might not be damned to eternity; for he suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, and all to reconcile God to us. Man naturally is at odds with God; God hates man’s person, and man God’s precepts. To make up this enmity betwixt them, Christ joined both their natures in one Person, and so shedding the blood of the hu- man, with it he appeased the wrath of the Divine nature, and so reconciled his Father to us, not only by quenching the fire of his anger towards us, but also by purchasing his love and favour for us. And by this means also, laying down his life for us, he offered himself a sacrifice to God, @ sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men; a sin-offering, to propitiate God and obtain his pardon, not only for the natural corruption of our sinful hearts, but also for the actual provocations of our sinful lives. All which appears from the light both of Scripture and reason too.

And truly that Christ suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, is the whole sum and substance of both Law, Pro- phets, and Gospel; the first, foreshewing it in types; the second, *foretelling it in prophecies; the third, relating

x Lactantius, 1. iv. de vera sap. ce. 18. [p. 322.] doth not only pro- duce the prophets, but the Sibylline oracles also as foretelling that Christ should suffer. Hee autem (saith

he) sic futura fuisse, et prophetarum vocibus et Sibyllinis carminibus de- nunciatum est. Apud Isaiam ita scriptum invenitur, Non sum con- tumax, neque contradico ; dorsum

7,

én tele el eed 6 ee | A ee i tie

Il.

meum posui ad flagella, et mazxillas

meas ad palmas, &c. Sibylla quo-

que eadem futura monstravit ;

[…]

gee,

[…]

Item de silentio ejus quod usque ad

mortem pertinaciter tenuit, Esaias

iterum sic locutus est, Sicut ovis ad

immolandum ductus est, et sicut agnus

coram tondentibus se sine voce, sic

non aperuit os suum. Et Sibylla su-

pradicta,

[…]

De cibo vero et potu quem ante-

[…]

David in Psalmo 68. sic ait, Ht de-

derunt in escam meam fel, et in siti

[…]

Item hoc futurum etiam Sibylla con-

cionata est ;

[…]

Et alia Sibylla Judeam terram his

versibus increpat,

[…]

Of the four first of these Sibylline

verses, the two last are not read in

the Sibylline Oracles now extant ;

but the two first are, in the eighth

book, p. [62.] though something

altered, thus :

[…]

El.

[…]

The second three verses, beginning

Kai kodadifopevos, &c. are read in

the same eighth book, [ibid.] only

for the beginning of the second of

which was made very Man.

[…]

“ah

eT

102 Of the Word, or Son of God, ART.

it in history. Isaac was a typey, the brazen serpent? a shadow of it. Isaiah was that prophesying evangelist, or evangelizing prophet, that expressly related his sufferings to come as if they had been already past, saying, He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him ; he was de- spised, and we esteemed him not. Isa. lili. 8. He was oppressed, he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth, ver. 7. But should I write down all the historical prophecies, or prophetical his- tories, concerning the passions of this Immanuel, God-man, I should transcribe not only all this chapter, but the greatest part of all the prophets. And as for the evangelists, though there be some things which only one of them relates, others which only two, others which three only have recorded ; yet that he suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, they all with one consent left it on record, for the confirmation of our faith in so great a mystery. To pass by therefore his tender years, which he spent in subjection to his earthly parents, though themselves and all the world ought always to be sub- ject unto him: if we take a turn in the garden of Gethse- mane, or in the mount of Olives, the field, it seems, himself had appointed to fight the Devil and. all his angels in, here we may behold a doleful sight, the Son of God beginning to be sorrowful, and very heavy, Matt. xxvi. 36. Mark xiv. 32. Luke

y- Itaque in primis Isaac cum a patre hostia duceretur, et lignum ipse sibi portaret, Christi exitum jam tunc denotabat, in victimam concessi a Patre, lignum passionis sue bajulantis. Tertul. adv. Judeos, [vol. II. c.10.] In hoe tam grandi mystico fidei sacramento, et Abra- ham sanctus apparuit probatus, et filius in presenti est liberatus in quo est Christus preenunciatus. Aug. de 4 virtutibus charitatis. [vol. V. App. Ser. CVi. 7. p. 192. |

[…]

Il. which was made very Man. 108

xxii. 39; presently saying to his disciples, Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, whom he had taken with him to behold the combat, My soul is eaceeding sorrowful unto death, Matt. xxvi. 38. Then leaving them he goes to his Father, pouring forth his mournful soul to him, having prostrated himself upon his face before him, erying out, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thow wilt, ver. 39; and elsewhere, Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour ; but for this cause came I unto this hour, John xii. 27. And if we view his body, behold sweat gushing out of it, as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground, Luke xxii. 44. And whilst his soul is thus surrounded with sorrows, his body is com- passed about with enemies. Judas, his own disciple, betray- ing him; the soldiers apprehending him; the malicious Jews, resolved against their own salvation, hailing him from one place to another, spitting in his face, striking him with their hands, and crying out, Crucify him, Crucify him. And at the last, having by their importunity obtained his condemnation from Pilate, who then sat in judgment upon him, away they hurry him with his cross upon his shoulders, and a crown of thorns upon his head, unto the 2place of execution; (himself all this while being forced by his almighty power to uphold them, whilst they thus abused him.) But for fear lest he being wearied by bearing of his cross himself should not

a This place the ancients took to be the same place where Adam was buried. Venit ad me traditio que- dam talis, quod corpus Adz primi hominis ibi sepultum est, ubi cruci- fixus est Christus ; ut sicut in Adamo omnes moriuntur, sic in Christo omnes vivificentur ; ut in loco illo qui dicitur Calvariz locus, i.e. locus capitis, caput humani generis resur- rectionem inveniat cum populo uni- verso per resurrectionem Domini Salvatoris, qui ibi passus est, et re- surrexit. Origen. in Mat. 27. Tract. 35. [vol. III. p. 920.] Quam sus- cepit in Golgotha Christus, ubi Adz sepulchrum, ut illum mortuum in sua cruce resuscitaret ; ubi ergo in Adam mors omnium, ibi in Christo omnium resurrectio. Ambros. lib.

[…]

Il. p. 575+]

104 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

endure so much pain when borne upon it, they afterward com- pelled one Simon, a Cyrenian, to carry it for him, not from compassion to him, but design against him; that coming fresh and lively to it, he might be the more able to grapple with the pains of death, and so they might have a longer time to glut their eyes with that pleasing object. Well, having gotten him to the place, they presently fasten the cross in the ground, and him upon the cross, stretching his joints till his sinews cracked, hanging a table over his head, wherem was written, Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews. And now was his soul exceeding sorrowful unto death indeed, when behold- ing himself so shamefully abused by his own, as well as his fellow-creatures, he cries out, Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? Not intimating any spiritual desertion of his Father’s affection towards him, but only a temporal desertion of his Father’s protection of him against his enemies. As if he should have said, Why hast thou left me to be the object of so much cruelty? Which words he had no sooner spoken, but himself puts a period» to these his sufferings by giving up the ghost, and so dissolving the union betwixt his soul and body, though both his soul and body still remained Cunited to his saered Deity. And, himself having breathed his soul from his body, Joseph of Arimathea obtained the favour to take his body from the eross, and laid it in a sepulchre, Luke xxiii. 53; and so he that suffered, was crucified, dead, was also buried. Thus have

b That it was himself that of his own accord gave up the ghost, and so laid down his life, appears from the strong cry he uttered even at his last gasp, Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani, for this plainly shews that he had sense and strength even to the last: as St. Chrysostome observes, Aca yap Todto kal porn expavyacey, iva OetxOn Ore Kar’ eEovoiay TO mpaypa

[…]

monstravit spiritus mediatoris, quod nulla peena peccati usque ad mortem carnis ejus accesserit, quia non eam deseruit invitus; sed quia voluit, cum voluit, et quomodo voluit. Aug. Hyer VIII. p. 820.] de Trinit. 1. 4. 16.]

[…]

Il. which was made very Man. 105

we seen our Saviour brought from the garden to the judg- ment-hall, from the judgment-hall unto the cross, and from the cross to the grave; and so he that came down from heaven is now himself laid under earth.

And that it was not for himself, but for us, that this God- man lived sorrowfully, and died so painfully, the scripture is full and clear; and not only in general that it was for our sakes he did it, but in particular, it was for the reconciling his Father to us, and to purchase the pardon of our sing for us, expressly telling us, that he hath reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) wnto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby, Eph. ii. 16. Yea, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, Rom. v.10. So that we, who were sometimes alienated and enemies in our mind by wicked works, now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present us holy and unblamable and unreprov- able in his sight, Col. i.21,22. And the reason is, because it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell ; and (having made peace through the blood of his cross) by him to re- concile all things unto himself ; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. ver. 19,20. And this reconcilia- tion of God to us he made by offering up himself a sacrifice for us: for God sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins, 1 Johniv.10. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, chap. ii. 2. And therefore, when we see him sweating great drops of blood under the burden of sin, we must not think they were his own sins that lay so heavy upon him : no, they were our sins which he had taken off from us, and laid them upon himself ; for he bore our griefs, and carried our sorrows: he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for owr iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. Isa. liii. 4,5. So undoubted a truth is this com- fortable assertion, that Jesus Christ by his death and suffer- ings reconciled his Father to us, and therefore was a sacri- fice, not only for original guilt, but likewise for actual sins of men.

From scripture we may proceed to reason: for though that Jesus Christ did truly suffer, was crucified, dead and

106 Of the Word, or Son of God, Art.

buried, it being a matter of fact, cannot be expected to be proved from reason; yet-that he should truly suger, be crucified, dead and buried, in order to his appeasing his Father’s anger against us, and the purchasing his favour for us, may even from natural principles be clearly deduced. For in order to his [reconciling his] Father to us, we have seen how he must pay all our debts for us, whereof satis- faction to his justice for our transgressions of his law is one, which could not be paid in any other coin than by suffering ; that being the debt we were engaged to pay to God for our sins against him. So that though Christ should have taken our nature upon him, if he had not suffered in it we should have reaped no benefit by it, it being suffering that we owe to God for sin, and therefore that Christ must pay to God for us. Neither must he only suffer, but suffer to death ; for it was death that we had deserved by sin, and therefore it was death that Christ must undergo for us. In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dhe the death, saith the great God; and what he said then, being an unchangeable God, he cannot but always make true; so that we may as well expect God should cease to be God, as not make good his word, in punishing our discbedience with death. I say, with death, either in ourselves, or another person, whose death may be at the least equivalent with all ours. So that though Christ had suffered, yet if he had not died, the sufferings of his life could never have freed us from the pangs of death.

Neither was it only necessary that he should suffer and die, but that he should suffer this death upon the cross ; for not only death, but a curse was entailed upon all trans- gressors of the law: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them, Deut. xxvii. 26. Gal. ii1.10. And therefore must Christ cut off the entail of curse as well as of death, in order to his instating us in perfect bliss ; which he could not do any other ways than by being made a curse for us, willingly submitting to that death which was the only death cursed by God him- self, and that was the death of the cross: Oursed is every one that hangeth on a tree, Gal. iii. 13. Neither was he in reason only to hang upon the cross, but there to hang fill dead ;

‘ ’ : , } ’ <

Il. which was made very Man. 107

otherwise he would not have suffered the cursed death of the cross. And that being once dead he was buried, it is plain ; for his body, left by his soul, must needs have some place or other to lie in; and there, be it where it will, it may justly be said to be 4buried.

And that he suffered these things not for himself but us, none that ever read the history of his life and death, and set his reason on work about it, but will easily grant it. Nay, he being both God and man, it is impossible he should. suffer any thing for himself, himself having nothing to suffer for. For being God, though he might take our human infirmities, he could not possibly take our sinful imperfections into his sacred person; for then he that was God would have been a sinner as well as man; which to affirm is downright blas- phemy, yea, and a contradiction too. So that we cannot but in reason judge him perfect and spotless without the least tincture of sin; and therefore we cannot but in reason also conclude that it was not for himself he suffered, it being im- possible for the justice of God to inflict punishment upon any other account than sin; which he not having in himself, he could not have any punishment for himself, and therefore it must needs be for us he suffered, whose nature he had assumed. I say, for us, there being all the reason and justice in the world, that being it was our nature he suffered in, it should be our sins he should [suffer] for. Especially consider- ing that it was not any human person in particular ¢, but the

Nec tumulum curo, sepelit natura re-

d The grave is commonly distin- guished into the artificial and natural grave. The artificial grave is such a one as is digged in the earth, hewn out of stone, or any way pre- pared for the body of the dead. The natural is any place where the body lies: according to that of Seneca: Omnibus natura sepulturam dedit, naufragos idem fluctus qui expulit, sepelit, suffixorum corpora crucibus in sepulturam suam defluunt; eos

[…]

ontrov. 4. [vol. III. p. 495.] And this is that which Mecenas speaks of, Senec. Epist. 92. [vol. II. p. 434.] saying,

lictos. So that our Saviour might well be said to be sepultus, buried, howso- ever or wheresoever his body, void of his soul, was laid. Sepultus in- telligitur (saith Pliny) quoquo modo conditus, humatus vero humo con- tectus. Nat. Hist. 1.7. c. 54. And therefore though we can only know from scripture that Christ had an artificial grave, yet that he had a natural one reason itself may ac-

quaint us. e Item queris utrum summa illa veritas et summa sapientia, forma verbum, per quam facta sunt omnia,

108 Of the Word, or Son of God, Arr.

human nature in general, he assumed into his divine person ; so that as the whole nature sinned in Adam, so did the whole nature suffer for sin in Christ. And therefore there is none of us that take this Christ for our surety and believe these things, but, seeing we are all but particular persons comprehended under that general nature, we may justly expect our freedom from that punishment that we have al- ready suffered in Christ. And as we may expect the pardon of our sins from his sufferings for them, so we may expect the reconciliation of God the Father to us; and the acceptance of our persons with him, upon the account of our nature in general being united and made one person with the divine. For here we may see how both natures are agreed, and the ~ breach betwixt them so made up, as that they are both mar- ried together by the Spirit in the womb of the blessed Virgin, and ever since did, and ever shall live together, like loving mates, unto all eternity: and our nature being so nearly! joined together unto God as to make but one and the same person with him, we may well expect and believe that he will not refuse, but accept of any of the particular persons con- tamed under his assumed nature, that by faith shall lay hold upon him, and by repentance turn unto him ; especially, this being the great end of his first assumption of, and all his transactions in, the human nature: so that he suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, and all to reconcile the Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but for actual sins of men; that offering up himself a sacrifice for all our sins, he might reconcile the Father to our souls.

And this is the doctrine that the Fathers of the primitive church did constantly and unanimously teach. To begin with Ignatiuss; “‘ He truly ate and drank, was crucified and died

[…]

stra prophetantur, generaliter homi- nis an etiam uniuscujusque nostrum rationem contineat? Magna questio. Sed mihi videtur quod ad hominem faciendum attinet, hominis quidem tantum, non meam vel tuam ibi esse rationem. Aug. [vol. II. p. 18.] Epist. [14. 4.] ad Nebridium.

f Namque est in Patre, et factus

est inter homines in hoc implet suam intercessionem quod omnes sibi uni- verit, et per seipsum Patri: sicut dicit Dominus in Evangelio ad Pa- trem verba faciens, sicut tu Pater in me et ego in te, ut et ipsi unum sint in nobis. Greg. Nyssen. in illud Tune ipse filius subjicietur. [vol. II. Peli

[…]

IL. which was made very Man. 109

under Pontius Pilate: truly, I say, and not only in imagina- tion, he was crucified and dead; the celestial, terrestrial, subterrestrial creatures all beholding him.” And again): “The Judge was judged by the false Jews and Pontius Pilate the governor; he was whipt, struck with the hand, spit upon; he was crowned with thorns, and clothed with purple; he was condemned and crucified truly, and not only in opinion, fancy, or deceit. He truly died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead. And elsewhere’: “ There- fore he was truly born, and truly grew up, truly ate and drank, was truly crucified and dead, and rose again.” And St. Hilary saith*: “ But that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and condemned to death, who by the nativity he had from his eternal Father was himself eternal, we often, yea, always preach. But this passion he is to be understood to be subject to, not from the necessity of nature, but rather from the mystery of the salvation of mankind, and that he rather willingly subjected himself to these sufferings than was forced by others.”

And there were some in Athanasius’s time also, as well as in Ignatius’s, who affirmed that Christ did not, as we say, truly suffer, but that he suffered impassibly, in fancy and opinion only, not truly and really. Against these that re- nowned Father is very sharp and elegant: 1“ He suffered

[…]

k Quod autem et in crucem ac- tum unigenitum Dei Filium, et morte damnatum eum qui ex nativitate que sibi ex zeterno Patre est, naturalis et

zternus sit, frequenter, imo semper preedicamus; non ex nature neces- sitate potius quam ex sacramento humane salutis passioni fuisse sub- ditus intelligendus est, et voluisse magis se passioni subjici quam co- actum. Hilar. in Ps. 53. Enar. [12.]

[…]

p- 508. |

110 Of the Word, or Son of God, Arr.

impassibly ! Oh foolish wisdom, Oh jocular learning, build- ing up with one hand, and pulling down with the other, like childish sports in sand! He suffered impassibly! Before I can hear this word impassibly, I forget what he suffered sig- nifies: for that which is added, impassibly, takes away both his death, burial; and resurrection, upon which our salvation depends. For if he suffered, how impassibly? or if impas- sibly, how did he suffer?” And again: ™“ Wherefore we must either acknowledge that our Saviour suffered truly, or that others also suffered impassibly, like to whom the Lord is preached to have been tempted.” And again: ”“‘ We must therefore either believe that all things were true and real too ; or, if we say that he suffered impassibly, we must of necessity say withal, that all things that are said of him are but figures, fancies, and imaginations. If he did not truly suffer, neither did he at all truly rise again. If he did not truly taste of death, neither did he pluck out the sting of death, we are still in our sins, death still reiqneth over all; we are still kept out from our inheritance.” And presently: °“ But away with such madness, oh vain man! for the testator is dead, the will is settled, the inheritance is propounded to the faithful, and punishment prepared for such reproachers.”

And that Christ did not suffer all this for himself, but for us, even to reconcile the Father to us, and to be a sacrifice for our sins: P“for he had his conversation,” saith Ignatius, “without sin, and was truly crucified in the flesh, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, for us, by whom also we are redeemed by his divinely blessed passions. And

[…]

, > / , kAnpovowias adddrpioe KabecrnKapey. Ibid. [p. 569. |

[…]

, c , ni pavracs jroipacra. Ibid. [p. 569. |

[…]

{ q F

IL. which was made very Man. 111

St. Hierome4: “ He was wounded for our iniquities, saying, in the Psalms, They pierced my hands and my feet, that by his wounds he might cure ours. And he was bruised and made weak for our sins; that being made a curse for us, he might free us from the curse; for cursed is the man that hangeth upon a tree; wherefore the chastisement of our peace was also upon him, For that which we ought to have borne for our sins he underwent for us, reconciling by the blood of his cross the things that are in earth and that are in heaven ; for he is our peace, who hath made both one.” And so St. Cyprian™: “ And the Son of man gocth, as it is written of him, who was himself condemned, that he might free those that were condemned : he grieved, that he might heal the weak: he feared, that he might make us secure: he bare reproaches, that the scoffs of reproachers might not move the elect.” And this is that which s Athanasius also avers: “ For the creature cannot be joined (nor so reconciled) to God by a creature, itself also wanting another to join it. Neither could part of the crea- tion become the creature’s salvation, seeing itself also wanteth salvation. Lest this therefore should come to pass, God sent his own Son, and he became the Son of man, assuming cre- ated flesh unto him, that seeing all were subject unto death, he being another from all offered his own body to death for all.” And elsewheret: “ All things truly which our Lord and

ut improperia detrahentium non mo-

a Ile vulneratus est propter ini- verent electos. Cyprian. de passione

quitates nostras, dicens in Psalmo,

foderunt manus meas et pedes, ut suo vulnere vulnera nostra curaret. Et attritus est sive infirmatus est prop- ter scelera nostra, ut factus pro nobis maledictum nos liberaret a maledicto, Maledictus autem homo qui pendet in ligno. Unde disciplina pacis nostre super eum est. Quod enim nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus susti- nere, ille pro nobis passus est, paci- ficans per sanguinem crucis sue, sive que in terra sive que in ccelis sunt. Ipse enim est pax nostra qui fecit utraque unum. Hieronym. in Isa. 53. [vol. IV. p. 616.]

r Et quidem Filius hominis sicut scriptum est de illo vadet : qui dam- natus est ut liberaret damnatos ; doluit ut sanaret infirmos; timuit ut faceret securos; opprobria pertulit

Domini. [p. 49. ad calc. ]

[…]

112 Of the Word, or Son of God, &c. Art. II.

Saviour Jesus Christ, as St. Luke saith, did and taught, was done only and altogether for our salvation.” And therefore, as St. Chrysostome saith, «“ He died, that he might give immortality unto thee; he was hungry, that he might feed thee with his own flesh; he was thirsty, that he might give thee to drink of his own blood; he sat upon an ass, that he might set thee above the heavens; he was baptized, that he might set thee at liberty; he travelled, that thou mightest not be weary, and sailed that thou mightest not be fearful ; he slept, to make thee secure; he came of a woman, that he might pity the sin that was committed in paradise ; he was called a man, that he might call thee the son of God; he took our miseries, that he might give us his merits; and he prayed, that he might make thee believe.” So that we may well conclude with Cyril of Alexandria*; “If any one say that he offered himself a sacrifice for himself, and not rather for us only, (for he needed no sacrifice who knew no sin,) let him be accursed.” For fear of which curse, we dare not but acknowledge that Christ 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 actual sins of men.

[…]