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

The Latin text invites no special comment. The substance of this Article is identical with that of Edward, excepting that the clause, * begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father,’ was added in Elizabeth’s time from the Wurtemberg Confession, and one or two slight verbal changes were made.

The Article itself is derived from the Third of the Augs- burg Confession, which runs thus : —

• The Word, that is, the Son of God, took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so that two natures, the divine and human, were joined together in one person, never to be divided (whereof is), one Christ, very God and very Man, bom of the Virgin Mary, (who) truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us^ and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.’

It is manifest that no code of Christian doctrine could be complete without an explicit confession of faith on this funda- mental Article. But the circumstances of the age of the Reformation also made it needful ; for, omitting for the present any reference to the more ancient heresies, it is certain that in the confusion created by the great movements of the Reformation every conceivable misbelief about the nature and ]»erson of the Lord Jesus Christ found some utterance. For this we may refer to the notice of the Anabaptists, under Art. Vn. We may further illustrate it by some lamentable occurrences in the reign of Edward VI. These will show how strong was the hold on men’s minds of the persecuting prin- cij^es of the middle ages. It was perceived to be an intoler- able wrong that the Gospel should be resisted. But it was held to be the inviolable duty of the civil ruler to punish blasphemy with death, according to the precepts of the Mosaic law and the example of Jewish sovereigns. The taunts of Romanists quickened zeal in this matter. The Reformers were anxious to clear themselves of any complicity with those who in any way denied the Saviour. Thus we read of sundry heretics being brought before Cranmer, Latimer, and others, sitting as the King’s Commissioners, and being compelled to recant.* A more terrible example is the death of Joan Bocher, who was burnt by warrant of the Council of Regency. Latimer 2 gives an account of her, evidently without the slightest misgiving on his own part or that of his hearers that the slightest wrong had been committed in dealing with her. * I told you,’ says he, * the last time, of one Joan of Kent,

’ Strypes’ ‘Cranmer,* book ii. ch. viii. * ‘Remains/ p. 114.

16 ARTICLE 11.

which was in this foolish opinion, that she should say our Saviour was not very Man, and had not received flesh of His mother Mary, and yet she could show no reason why she should believe so. Her opinion was this. The Son of God, said she, penetrated through her, as through a glass, taking no substance of her. But our Creed teacheth us contrariwise.’ Two others likewise suffered for a similar reason. And in like manner, it is notorious that Servetus was put to death at Geneva, how far with the co-operation of Calvin is disputed. If the Eomanists, like ourselves, had been led to repudiate and detest this mode of casting out false doctrine, such instances as these (however few, comparatively speaking) would prevent our reproaching them on this score. Our just ground of indignant rebuke is this, that all the authorita- tive utterances of their Church, down to the encyclical of the present Pope, maintain the right of persecution for the sake of religion, and complain of their present state as one of discouragement and oppression, because the civil power no longer enforces the ecclesiastical domination.

Observations on Article II.

For reasons already stated, we shall again recur to * Pearson on the Creed ’ for the exposition of this Article, and, as far as possible, confine ourselves to his treatment of the several doctrines it contains. We may conveniently break up the Article into these principal sections : —

I. The Deity and Sonship of the Second Person of the

Trinity.

II. The Incarnation.

III. The Nature of the Person of the Incarnate Son,

IV. The sufferings of Christ.

V. The purpose of those sufferings.

I. Tlie Deity and Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity,

It has already been needful, in commenting on the first Article, to prove that the Son is very God, and of one substance

THE DEITY OJ;^ THE SON. 17

with the Faliheft. It ivas also shown that the mode of com- mmdcatiog the divine essence from the Father is such as to make the Second Person of the Trinity properly the Son of God. * For,* says Pearson, * the most proper generation which we know is nothing else but a vital production of another in the same nature, with a full representation of him from whom he is produced… . But God the Father hath com- municated to the Word the same divine essence by which He is God ; and consequently He is of the same nature with Him,, and thereby the same image and similitude of Him^ and therefore His proper Son.’

The Arians of old, though they allowed the ineffable dig- nity of the Son of God, yet allowed not this commimication of the divine essence which makes the Son properly ofjioovaioQf of the same substance, with the Father. They maintained that He is avofxoio^, unlike in substance ; while the semi- Arians were willing to go a step further, and to acknowledge that He is ofAoiovmoQ, similar in substance to the Father. The Arians. also asserted the formula 7]v ttote ote ovk ^v, there was a time when He was not. We maintain, therefore, the true and proper communication of the divine nature to the Son, and we now further assert that He was begotten from everlasting of the Father, Upon this we again quote Pearson (Art H. § 3) : ’ In human generation the son is begotten in the same nature with the iather, which is performed by derivation or decision of part of the substance of the parent. But this decision’ in- cludeth imperfection, because it supposeth a substance divi- sible, and consequently corporeal. Whereas the essence of God is incorporeal, spiritual, and indivisible; and there- fore His nature is really communicated, not by derivation or decision, but by a total and plenary communication. In na- tural conceptions the father necessarily precedeth the son, and begetteth one younger than himself. It is sufficient if the parent can produce another to live after him, and continue the existence of his nature when his person is dissolved. But this presupposeth the imperfection of mortality wholly to be removed, when we speak of Him who inhabiteth eternity ; the essence which God always had without beginning, without

a

18 ARTICLE n.

beginniDg he did communicate, being always Father, as always God. Animals, when they come to the perfection of nature, then become prolifical; in God, eternal perfection showeth His eternal fecundity. And that which is most remarkable, in human generations the son is of the same nature with the father, and yet is not the same man, because, though he hath an essence of the same kind, yet he hath not the same essence : the power of generation depending on the first prolifical benediction, * Increase and multiply,’ it must be made by way of multiplication, and thus every son becomes another man. But the divine essence being, by reason of its simplicity, not subject to division, and, in respect of its in- finity, incapable of multiplication, is communicated so as not to be multiplied; insomuch that He which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the same nature, but is also the same God.’

Nothing need be added to this clear and masterly theolo- gical statement of the proper divinity and eternal generation of the Son of God.

n. Tlie Incarnation,

This portion of the doctrine before us corresponds to the third Article of the Apostles’ Creed : ’ Conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.’ In the second section of that Article Pearson considers the action of the Holy Ghost in the conception, and lays down these positions : —

1. The action of the Spirit excludes all human agency, even that of the Virgin herself, as the cause of the conception. This appears from passages in the gospels, describing what took place previously to the birth.

2. What this action of the Spirit includes cannot further be defined from the words of Scripture than to say, whatever * was necessary to cause the Virgin to perform the actions of a mother ’ must be attributed to the Ho]y Spirit. But this did not involve any communication of the substance of the Holy Ghost, which is uncreated. The flesh of Christ was not formed of any substance but that of the Virgin.

Further, imder the third section cf the same Article, it is

shown, from the testimony of Scripture, that, in accordance with prophecy, Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth of our Lord, and that her maternity involves of necessity these three things :

1. The reality of the conception of the real substance of our Saviour in her womb and of her substance.

2. The reality of the growth from her substance in her womb of that which was so conceived.

3. That what was so conceived and grew was brought forth by her with a true and proper nativity.

III. The Nature of the Person of the Incarnate Son.

The consideration of this in Pearson falls chiefly under Art. III. § 1, *Who was conceived.’ In this part of Pearson’s treatise we find statements to the following effect : He who was conceived and born partook of the same human nature which is in all men. He is often called man. A parallel is drawn between Him and Adam. He is the seed of Eve, of Abraham, of David. Being thus truly man, His manhood con- sisted of body and soul. The body was real, for Scripture speaks of its growth, nutrition, and sufferings. The soul was a rational human soul, for He increased in wisdom^ as well as in stature, which is impossible for the Godhead. Moreover, He experienced the various human affections and sorrows whose seat is in the soul. And He commended this human spirit to His Father at the moment of death.

This opposes the heresy of the Apollinarians, who held that though Jesus had a human body and animal soul, yet in Him the divine Logos was a substitute for the spiritual part of man (the vovq or ^ux^ XoyiKYj^),

Next, it is maintained that in this incarnation there is no conversion of one nature into the other, nor any confusion between them. There is no confusion or mixture of the two natures, for otherwise a third something would result, which would be neither God nor man. The affections and infirmi- ties of our nature could not belong to such a being. More-

over, the Godhead being indivisible in substance^ a confusion of substance must intermix the Father also.

Further, the divine cannot be converted into the human nature, for the uncreated Godhead cannot be created or made.

Npr can the human nature be converted into the divine, as the Eutychians and other monophysites taught.

Finally, it is concluded that, though different actions and qualities are attributed in Holy Scripture to Christ, some of which belong to the divine and some to the human nature, yet they must all be attributed to one and the same Person. Otherwise there would be two Christs, two Mediators, contrary to the spirit, as well as the language, of all Scripture.

Hence we confess in this present Article of our Church (against the Nestorians of old), that the two natures were joined together in one Person,

One more topic falls under this head. The Article further asserts that the two natures in Christ are ’ never to be divided.’ In the first place, Pearson argues that they were not divided when the Lord Jesus died, because God ’ doth never subtract His grace from any without their abuse of it, and a sinful de- merit in themselves ; we cannot imagine the grace of union should be taken from Christ, who never offended, and that in the highest act of obedience and the greatest satisfaction to the will of God.’ And further, while it is granted, from 1 Cor. XV. 24, 28, that the mediatorial kingdom shall cease when its work shall be finally completed, ’ yet we must not think that Christ shall cease to be a king or lose any of the power and honour which before He had… The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever ’ (Rev. xi. 15) ; not only to the modificated eternity of His mediatorship, so long as there shall be need of regal power to subdue the ene- mies of God’s elect, hut also to the complete eternity of the duration of His humanity which for the future is coeteimal with His divinity.

[…] Art. IV. § 4. « Ibid. Art. VI. § 2.

IV. The Sufferings of Christ.

These we find summed up by our Article in these words of the Creed, * Who truly suffered^ was crucified, dead, and buried.’ A slight abstract of some portions of the fourth Article of ‘Pearson on the Creed’ will bring out the principal theological points belonging to this section. The Person who sufiered is distinctly one^ the Son of God. But the nature in which He suffered is as distinctly the human and not the divine. For the two natures are united ’ not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.’ The nature of the Deity is in itself * impassihilis ’ (Art. L), incapable of suffering. It follows, therefore, that the union of the divine nature with the human nature in Christ does not modify the divine nature so as to make it capable of suffering.

The intimate conjunction of the two natures in Christ has led divines to the use of language which ascribes to that one Person the attributes which properly belong to one only of the two united natures. Such a transfer of language is called in theological language ^ communicatio idiomatumJ Thus it is said that the Son of God suffered. Yet He suffered in that He was man, not in that He was God. Or, vice versdj we say that Christ is omnipresent. Yet he is so as God, not as man. Still, properly speaking, the one Person^ the Son of God, is omnipresent. But if we permit this mode of speech to confuse our thoughts, we shall fall into some shape of monophyidte error. Some such error pervades all systems of consubstantiation and transubstantiation. For they not only claim that the Person, the Son of God, is present, but that His human nature has acquired (in some sense) the omnipresence of the divine nature.

The sufferings of the human nature of Christ consist in tlie bodily sufferings before the crucifixion which are spoken oi” in so many parts of the gospels ; and in the anguish of soul, including emotions of fear, sorrow, and other pains, endured during His whole life, and more especially in Gethsemane ; and, finally, in the acerbity and ignominy of the cross itsehT.

With regard to the death of Christ, the chief theological

22 AETICLE n.

points are its certainty and the description of that wherein it consisted.

That Jesus did ’ truly die ’ is asserted from the testimony of His worst enemies, of nature itself, and of the water and blood which flowed from His wounded side.

Deatii in Him consisted in the same fact as in other men — the separation of the soul from the body. This appears from the expressions of the Evangelists who describe His death. For this there was an adequate cause in the anguish, bodily and spiritual, which He endured.

It must further be understood that Hia death was voluntary (John X. 18), in the sense that of His own will He submitted Himself to that which would cause death. It was involuntaiy in the sense that, without divine interposition, the human frame subjected to such anguish must suffer dissolution ; and also that He did not anticipate the natural moment of death. Otherwise the actual death itself would not have been the deed of His enemies, but His own.

The feet of the burial of our Lord, omitting the circum- stances relating to it recorded in Scripture, may here be chiefly noticed as sealing the truth of His death.

V. The Purpose of the Sufferings of Christ.

• To reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.’

It will be noticed that the doctrine here set forth is the more abstract one of the general nature and purport of Christ’s sufferings ; not the paiiiicular and individual one of the appli- cation of tlie merit of those sufferings to a sinful soul. This latter will find its place further on, under the Articles on sin, justification, &c.

And it is also this more general view of the subject that Pearson chiefly treats ^ when commenting on the clause * The forgiveness of sins,’ Pearson there deduces from the con- sideration of many passages of Scripture that the forgiveness of sins promised to us * containeth in it a reconciliation of an

[…] Art. X.

offended God, and a satisfection to a just God : it containeth a reconciliation, as without which God cannot be conceived to remit ; it comprehendeth a satisfaction, as without which Grod was resolved not to be reconciled.’ These are the two particulars of the present section of our Article.

On the first of these two points, * The reconciliation of His Father to us,’ Pearson proceeds thus : * Christ by His death hath reconciled God unto us, who was oflfended by our sins ; and that He hath done so we are assured, because He, which before was angiy with us, on the consideration of Christ’s death becomes propitious to us, and did ordain Christ’s death to be a propitiation for us. For we ” are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in ffis blood” (Rom. iii. 24, 25). “We have an Advocate with the Father, and He is the propitiation for our sins ” (1 John ii. 1). For God “loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John iv. 10). It is evident, therefore, that .Christ did render God propitious unto us by His blood (that is, His sufferings imto death), who before was offended with us for our sins. And this propitiation amounted to a reconciliation, that is, a kindness after wrath. We must conceive that God was angry with mankind before He deter- mined to give our Saviour ; we cannot imagine that God, who is essentially just, should not abominate iniquity. The first affection we can conceive in Ibm upon the lapse of man is wrath and indignation. God, therefore, was most certainly offended before He gave a Redeemer ; and though it be most true that He ” so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John iii. 16), yet there is no incongruity in this, that a father should be offended with that son which he loveth, and at that time offended with him when he loveth him. Notwithstanding, therefore, that God loved men whom He created, yet He was offended with them when they sinned, and gave His Son to suffer for them, that through that Son’s obedience He might be reconciled to them. This recon- ciliation is clearly delivered in the Scriptures as wrought by Christ ; for ” all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to

Himself by Jesus Christ ” (2 Cor. v. 18), and that hj virtue of His death, for ” when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of His Son” (Rom. v. 10).’

This doctrine needs close attention in the present day, when much is made of what Pearson calls ’ the Socinian ex- ception, that in the Scriptures we are said to be reconciled unto God, but God is never said to be reconciled imto us.* He shows from the language of Scripture, in many instances (e.g. 1 Cor. vii. 11), that to be reconciled to a person implies that person becoming favourable to the other. We turn to the second part of the present section — the death of Christ viewed as a sacrifice for all sin.

The definition of sin, based on 1 John iii. 4, given by Pearson, is this : * Whatsoever is done by man. or is in man, having any contrariety to the law of God, is sin.’ And after including in this definition all acts of omission or commission contrary to God’s law, and * every evil habit contracted in the soul,’ he says that * any corruption or inclination in the soul to do that which God forbiddeth, and to omit that which God commandeth, howsoever such corruption and inclination came into the soul, whether by an act of his own will, or hy an act of the will of another^ is a sin, as being something disso- nant and repugnant to the law of God.’

Sin thus regarded manifestly comprehends under one term the double expression of our present Article, ‘original guilt’ and

• actual sins of men.’ For sin, in this comprehensive sense, Christ’s death was a sacrifice. In proof of this, Pearson alleges many passages of Scripture, such as these, which may be easily multiplied : ’ Once in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. ix. 26) ;

• He was delivered for our offences ’ (Rom. iv. 25) ; * He died for our sins, according to the Scriptures ’ (1 Cor. xv. 3). Pear- son further shows how the life of Christ was laid down as a price : * Ye are bought with a price ’ (1 Cor. vi. 20) ; * We are not redeemed with corruptible things … but with the precious blood of Christ ’ (1 Pet. i. 18, 19). ’ Now, as it was the blood of Christ, so it was a price given by way of compen- sation : and as that blood was precious, so it was a full and

perfect satisfaction. For as the gravity of the offence and iniquily of the sin is augmented and increaseth, according to the dignity of the person offended and injured by it, so the value, price, and dignity of that which is given by way of compensation is raised according to the dignity of the perdon making the satisfaction. God is of infinite majesty, against whom we have sinned ; and Christ is of the same divinity, who gave His life a ransom for sinners ; for God ” hath pur- chased His Church with His own blood” (Acts xx. 28). Although, therefore, God be said to remit our sins by whidi we were captivated, yet He is never said to remit the price without which we had never been redeemed ; neither can He be said to have remitted it, because He did require it and receive it.’

Before we dismiss this important Article, which deals with the very foundation of the Christian hope, a few words of caution may be needful. That side of the atonement which looks towards God, rather than towards man, is confessedly mysterious. In other words, any doctrinal statement is so which seeks to answer the question, * Why God required and accepts the atonement on man’s behalf,’ rather than the practical question, * How man may obtain the benefit of that atone- ment.’

On that mysterious side, the analogy of revelation will not permit us to expect more information than may satisfy us that God’s attributes are really united in the mode of salvation He has provided. The origin of evil, its permitted existence, the extent to which it has permeated the whole of human nature, and, as Scripture intimates, spiritual regions of unknown amplitude besides, are appalling, and to us unintelligible sub- jects. They render it absolutely impossible for us to attempt to account for the present immense scope and sway of evil in the universe of God. We may further consider, that to pre- vent its grosser and more ruinous manifestations in human society is the very utmost which the effort of man has attained, and scarcely attained ; and that the absolute conquest of evil in a single human heart has never yet been accomplished. Hence we may weU hesitate in presuming to judge of the

26 ABTICLE n.

means by which it has pleased God to deal with this gigantic enemy, initially for the present, and completely, as He has intimated to ns, in the future. The dealing of God with sin, whether through His attribute of Love or of Justice, is there- fore beyond human criticism. The past and the future are alike beyond our ken. The subjection or destruction of evil, in the establishment of the great kingdom of God that is to be, will be accomplished, but we cannot judge of the necessary means. Meanwhile we are able to say that Christi- anity, of which the atonement is the animating principle, has, in point of fact, proved itself the most powerful agent yet known in overcoming sin.

But if all this is undeniable, it is manifest that great caution is needed in stating the doctrine of the atonement. It is in theology, as a science, as it is in other sciences. In as- tronomy the results of multitudinous observations give certain facts, which must be all accounted for and included in any theory of the science which claims acceptance. In theology each passage of Scripture is a fact ; and the undoubtedly as- certained qualities of man’s nature are other facts. Any doc- trinal theory, in order to be true, must unite in itself, and take account of, all these facts. If it fails to unite them (within those limits which are possible to man), it is not a true doctrine. If the results of our induction, carefully conducted, lead to two apparently conflicting doctrines, it does not follow of necessity that either is false. For example, the free-will of man, to such an extent at least as to make him responsible, is an imquestionable fact of Scripture and experience. The fore- knowledge of God, and His universal sovereignty, are neces- sary deductions of reason and clear assertions of Scripture. Perfectly to reconcile these with man’s free-will may be impossible. This need not distress us when we have carefully followed our facts to the verge of the infinite or the unknown. There we must leave them, and we need have little difficulty in feeling assured that the missing facts which would reconcile the apparent contradictions in our deductions lie v/ithin, and probably not many steps within, the dark margin it which we pause.

Turning again to the doctrine of the atonement, the greatest care is needed in so stating it that the justice of the Father shall not seem in stem opposition to the love of tlie Son. The popular opposition to the doctrine of the present Article is mainly fostered either by the incaution of the or- thodox divine in so apparently stating it, or else by the misapprehension or disingenuousness of the opponent so invidiously expressing it. We need not particularise names. With varying degrees of refinement or of coarseness, the great doctrine of the atonement is travestied. It is profanely represented as a tyrannical wrath seeking satisfaction -with a blind iury, and mitigated at length by exhausting itself even on an innocent victim. If divines of some considerable reputation can be found to make such misrepresentations as this, it behoves us to be very careful in our statements. And the point of all others to be wary upon is that which Pearson (p. 23) presses, that God infinitely loved the Son whom He gave, and man for whom He gave the Son. His justice was offended, and yet He did not cease to love. Let us gather together briefly the facts from which we are to make our induction. If any fact of experience be manifest, this is. There are marks of divine wrath and punishment visible everywhere throughout the whole history of man.^ There are also visible in the world everywhere signs of divine love and care for God*s creatures. So also in Scrip- ture there are unquestionable declarations of divine wrath against all unrighteousness of man. There are also most gracious declarations of divine love and care for man. These are our sects, equally imquestionable in nature and in re- velation. Any theory which fails to embrace both the wrath and the love must be false. Any theory which either ignores one of these, or so deals with both as to rend them apart, is xmtrue to the imity and perfection of God, and must be felse. The great doctrine of the atonement, truly stated, embraces and harmonises both, so far as we are

• See Butler, part L chaps, ii. iii.

competent to follow it. It is not that coarse idea of God’s justice, rent away from his love, seeking a victim, and finding it in Christ. God is One. He is not made up of conflicting and contending attributes. But His perfection can only be de- scribed to us under different names, varying with the action of the divine Will. Towards sin it has the nature of Justice, and can only be described by that name. And yet this is only another phase of that infinite perfection which, looked at another way, is Love, verily such in name and in nature. Thus the atonement may be truly described as God’s justice receiving satisfiiction, according the full measure of the demands of an infinite wrong. It may also be as truly and more fully described as the last inconceivable effort of Infinite Love. Sin had produced an apparently irretrievable breach between God and man. There was not put forth a destructive vengeful effort of Infinite Power. At least not yet. But instead, Infinite Love, with Infinite Self-Sacrifice, gave itself. He who thinks that he is competent to gage and define all the results in the spiritual world of such a trans- action as this, is confident indeed. We are content to believe that it will take eternity to unfold them.

We may observe, finally, that Pearson’s mode of stating this doctrine has something of an antique hardness. The present Archbishop of York, therefore, warns us^ that in this mode of treatment * there is the danger lest the atonement degenerate into a transaction between a righteous Father on the one side, and a loving Saviour on the other, because in the human transaction from which the analogy is drawn two distinct parties are concerned ; whereas in the plan of salvation one Will operates, and in the Father and the Son alike Justice and Love are reconciled.’ The student who desires to meet some modem phases of this doctrine may read with instruction the essay of the archbishop above referred to. And it is scarcely necessary to remind him, that in Butler’s * Analogy ’ * he will find the a priori objections against the appointment of a

• • Aids to Faith/ vin. ii. 10. * Part ii. ch. v.

Mediator and the satisfaction wrought hj Christ effectually parried, and the right place which human reason may occupy in relation to the divine action accurately defined. The Thirty-first Article returns to the subject of Christ’s death as the sacrifice for sin, and the subject will there receive «ome further notice.

so

Notes

• Neander, ‘Hist.’ vol. iv. p. 119.