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

THERE are in this Article Five Heads to be Explained:

• I. That the Son or Word is of the same Substance with the Father, begotten of him from all Eternity.

• II. That he took Man’s Nature upon him in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin, and of her Substance.

• III. That the Two Natures of the Godhead and Manhood, both still perfect, were in him joined in one Person never to be divided.

• IV. That Christ truly suffered, was Crucified, Dead and Buried.

• V. That he was our Sacrifice to Reconcile the Father to us, and that not only for Original Guilt, but for Actual Sins.

The first of these leads me to prosecute what was begun in the former Article: And to prove, That the Son or Word, was from all Eternity begotten of the same Substance with the Father. It is here to be noted, That Christ is in Two respects the Son, and the only begotten Son of God. The one is, As he was Man; the Miraculous overshadowing of the B. Virgin by the H. Ghost, having without the ordinary course of Nature, formed the first beginnings of Christ’s Human Body in the Womb of the Virgin. Thus that Miracle being instead of a Natural begetting, he may in that respect be called the begotten, and the only begotten Son of God. The other sense is, That the Word or the Divine Person was in and of the Substance of the Father, and so was truly God. It is also to be considered, That by the Word one Substance, is to be understood that this second Person is not a Creature of a Pure and Excellent Nature, like God, Holy and Perfect as we are called to be; but is truly God as the Father is. Begetting is a term that naturally signifies the Relation between the Father and the Son: But what it strictly signifies here is not possible for us to understand till we comprehend this whole Matter: nor can we be able to assign a Reason why the Emanation of the Son, and not that of the H. Ghost likewise is called begetting. In this we use the Scripture Terms, but must confess we cannot frame a distinct Apprehension of that which is so far above us. This begetting was from all Eternity: If it had been in time, the Son and H. Ghost must have been Creatures; but if they are truly God, they must be Eternal, and not produced by having a Being given them, but educed of a Substance that was Eternal, and from which they did Eternally spring. All these are the Natural Consequences of the main Article that is now to be proved, and when it is once proved clearly from Scripture, these do follow by a natural and necessary deduction.

The first and great proof of this is taken from the words with which St. Iohn begins his Gospel.¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Here it is to be observed, That these words are set down here, before St. Iohn comes to speak of Christ’s being made in our Nature: This passage belongs to another Precedent Being that he had. The beginning also here is set to import, That it was before Creation or Time: Now a Duration before Time is Eternal. So this beginning can be no other than that Duration which was before all things that were made. It is also plainly said over and over again, That all things were made by this Word: A Power to Create must be Infinite; for it is certain, That a Power which can give Being, is without Bounds. And although the Word make may seem capable of a larger Sense, yet as in other places of the New Testament, the stricter Word Create is used and applied to Christ, as the Maker of all things in Heaven and Earth, Visible and Invisible; so the Word Make, is used through the whole Old Testament for Create; so that God’s making the Heaven and the Earth is the Character frequently given of him to distinguish him from Idols and false Gods. And of this Word it is likewise said, That he was with God, and was God. These words seem very plain, and the place where they are put by St. Iohn, in the Front of his Gospel, as it were an Inscription upon it, or an Introduction to it, makes it very evident, That he who of all the Writers of the New Testament has the greatest Plainness and Simplicity of Stile, would not have put words here, such as were not to be understood in a plain and literal Signification, without any Key to lead us to any other sense of them. This had been to lay a Stone of Stumbling in the very Threshold; particularly to the Iews, who were apt to cavil at Christianity; and were particularly jealous of every thing that savoured of Idolatry, or of the Plurality of Gods: And upon this occasion I desire one thing to be observed, with relation to all those Subtile Expositions which those who oppose this Doctrine put upon many of those places by which we prove it: That they represent the Apostles as magnifying Christ in words that at first sound seem to Import his being the True God; and yet they hold that in all these they had another Sense, and a Reserve of some other Interpretation, of which their words were capable. But can this be thought fair dealing? Does it look like honest Men to write thus; not to say, Men Inspired in what they Preached and Writ? and not rather like Impostors, to use so many Sublime and Lofty Expressions concerning Christ as God, if all these must be taken down to so low a Sense, as to signify only that he was miraculously Formed, and Endued with an Extraordinary Power of Miracles, and an Authority to deliver a New Religion to the World. And that he was in consideration of his Exemplary Death which he underwent so patiently, raised up from the Grave, and had Divine Honours conferred upon him. In such an Hypothesis as this, the World going in so naturally to the excessive Magnifying, and even the Deifying of Wonderful Men, it had been necessary to have prevented any such mistakes, and to have guarded against the belief of them; rather than to have used a continued strain or Expressions, that seem to carry Men violently into them, and that can hardly, nay very hardly be softened by all the Skill of Criticks, to bear any other Sense. It is to be considered further, That when St. Iohn writ his Gospel, there were Three sorts of Men particularly to be considered. The Iews, who could bear nothing that savoured of Idolatry; so no Stumbling-block was to be laid in their way, to give them deeper Prejudices against Christianity. Next to these were the Gentiles; who having Worshipped a variety of Gods, were not to be indulged in any thing that might seem to favour their Polytheism: In Fact we find particular caution used in the New Testament, against the Worshipping Angels or Saints: How can it therefore be imagined, That words would have been used, that in the plain Signification that did arise out of the first hearing of them, imported that a Man was God, if this had not been strictly true? The Apostles ought, and must have used a particular care to have avoided all such Expressions, if they had not been literally true. The Third sort of Men in St. Iohn’s Time were those of whom Intimation is frequently given through all the Epistles, who were then endeavouring to corrupt the Purity of the Christian Doctrine, and to accommodate it so, both to the Iew, and to the Gentile, as to avoid the Cross and Persecution upon the account of it. Church-History, and the Earliest Writers after St. Iohn assure us, That Ebion and Cerinthus denied the Divinity of Christ, and asserted that he was a mere Man. Controversy naturally carries men to speak exactly; and among Human Writers those who let things fall more carelesly from their Pens, when they apprehend no danger or difficulty, are more correct both in their Thoughts, and in their Expressions, when things are disputed; therefore if we should have no other regard to St. Iohn, but as an ordinary, cautious, and careful man, we must believe that he weighed all his words in that Point, which was then the Matter in Question; and to clear which, we have good Ground to believe both from the Testimony of Ancient Writers, and from the Method that he pursues quite through it all, that he Writ his Gospel: And that therefore every part of it, but this Beginning of it more signally, was Writ, and is to be understood in the Sense which the Words naturally Import: That the Word which took Flesh, and assumed the Human Nature, had a Being before the worlds were made, and that this Word was God, and made the World.

Another eminent Proof of this is in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians; in which when he is exhorting Christians to Humility,² he gives an Argument for it from our Saviour’s Example. He begins with the dignity of his Person, expressed thus; That he was in the form of God, and that he thought it no robbery to be equal with God: Then his Humiliation comes, That he made himself of no reputation, but took on him the form of a servant (the same Word with that used in the former Verse); after which follows his Exaltation, and a Name or Authority above every Name or Authority is said to be given him; so that all in Heaven, Earth, and under the Earth (which seems to Import Angels, Men, and Devils) should bow at his Name, and confess that he is the Lord. Now in this Progress that is made in these words, it is plain That the Dignity of Christ’s Person is represented as Antecedent both to his Humiliation, and to his Exaltation. It was that which put the value on his Humiliation, as his Humiliation was rewarded by his Exaltation. This Dignity is expressed first, That he was in the Form of God, before he humbled himself: He was certainly in the form of a Servant, that is, really a Servant as other Servants are: He was obedient to his Parents, he was under the Authority both of the Romans, of Herod, and of the Sanhedrim: Therefore since his being really a Servant is expressed by his being in the form of a Servant, his being in the form of God, must also import, That he was truly God, But the [?]ollowing words, That he thought it not robbery to be equal, or be held equal (for so the word may be rendred) with God, carry such a natural Signification of his being neither a Made nor Subordinate God, and that his Divinity is neither precarious, nor by concession, that fuller words cannot be devised for expressing an entire Equality. Those who deny this, are aware of it; and therefore they have put another sense on the words, in the form of God. They think, That they signify his appearing in the World, as one sent in the Name of God, representing him, Working Miracles, and delivering a Law in his Name: and the words rendred, he thought it no robbery, they render, he did not catch at, or vehemently desire to be held in equal honour with God. And some Authorities are found in Eloquent Greek Authors, who use the words rendred, he thought it not robbery, in a figurative sense, for the earnestness of desire, or the pursuing after a thing greedily, as Robbers do for their Prey. This rendring represents St. Paul, as Treating so sacred a Point in the Figures of a high and seldom-used Rhetorick, which one would think ought to have been expressed more exactly. But if even this sense is allowed, it will make a strange Period, and a very odd sort of an Argument, to enforce Humility upon us, because Christ, though Working Miracles, did not desire or snatch at Divine Adorations, in an Equality with God. The Sin of Lucifer, and the cause of his Fall, is commonly believed to be his desire to be equal to God; and yet this seems to be such an extravagant piece of pride, that it is scarce possible to think, That even the Sublimest of Created Beings should be capable of it. To be next to God, seems to be the utmost heigth, to which even the Diabolical Pride could aspire: So that here by the Sense which the Socinians put on those words, they will import, That we are persuaded to be humble from the Example of Christ, who did not affect an Equality with God: The bare repeating of this seems so fully to expose and overthrow it, that I think it is not necessary to say more upon this place.

³The next head of Proof is made up of more particulars. All the Names, the Operations, and even the Attributes of God, are in full and plain words given to Christ. He is called God; his Blood is said to be the Blood of God; God is said to have laid down his life for us; Christ is called the true God, the great God, the Lord of Glory, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords; and more particularly the Name Iehovah is ascribed to him in the same word in which the LXX Interpreters had Translated it throughout the whole Old Testament.⁴ So that this constant Uniformity of Stile between the Greek of the New, and that Translation of the Old Testament which was then received, and was of great Authority among the Iews, and was yet of more Authority among the first Christians, is an Argument that carries such a weight with it, that this alone may serve to determine the Matter. The Creating, the Preserving, and the Governing of all things, is also ascribed to Christ in a variety of plac[?]s, but most remarkably, when it is said, That by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, Visible and Invisible: Whether they be Thrones, ⁵ or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers; all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. He is said to have known what was in man, to have known mens secret thoughts, and to have known all things: That as the Father was known of none, but of the Son; so none know the Son but the Father. He pardons Sin, sends the Spirit, gives Grace and Eternal Life, and he shall raise the dead at the last day. When all these things are laid together in that variety of Expressions in which they lie scattered in the New Testament, it is not possible to retain any reverence for those Books, if we imagine that they are writ in a Stile so full of approaches to the Deifying of a mere Man, that without a very Critical studying of Languages and Phrases, it is not possible to understand them otherwise. Idolatry, and a Plurality of Gods, seem to be the main things that the Scriptures warn us against; and yet here is a pursued Thread of Passages and Discourses, that do naturally lead a man to think that Christ is the True God, who yet according to these men, only acted in his Name, and has now a high Honour put on him by him.

This carries me to another Argument to prove that the Word that was made Flesh, was truly God. Nothing but the True God can be the proper Object of Adoration. This is one of those Truths that seems almost so evident, that it needs not to be proved. Adoration is the humble Prostration of our selves before God, in Acts that own our dependance upon him, both for our Being, and for all the Blessings that we do either enjoy or hope for, and also in earnest Prayers to him for the continuance of these to us. This is testified by such outward Gestures and Actions as are most proper to express our Humility and Submission to God: All this has so clear a[?]d so inseparable a Relation to the only True God, as its proper Object, that it is scarce possible to apprehend how it should be separated from him, and given to any other. And as this seems evident from the Nature of things, so it is not possible to imagine how any thing could have been prohibited in more express and positive, and in more frequently-repeated Words, and longer Reasonings, than the offering of Divine Worship or any part of it to Creatures. The chief design of the Mosaical Religion was to banish all Idolatry and Polytheism out of the Minds of the Iews, and to possess them with the Idea of One God, and of One Object of Worship. The Reasons upon which those Prohibitions are founded, are universal; which are, The Unity of God’s Essence, and his Jealousy in not giving his Honour to another. It is not said that they should not worship any as God, till they had a Precept or Declaration for it. There is no Reserve for any such time; but they are plainly forbid to worship any but the Great God,⁶ because he was One, and was Jealous of his Glory. The New Testament is writ in the same Strain: Christ when tempted of the Devil, answered, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, ⁷ and him only shalt thou serve. The Apostles charged all Idolaters to forsake those Idols, and to serve the living God. The Angel refused St. Iohn’s Worship, commanding him to worship God. The Christian Faith does in every particular raise the Ideas of God and of Religion to a much gr[?]ater Purity and Sublimity than the Mosaical Dispensation had done; so it is not to be imagined that in the chief Design of Revealed Religion, which was the bringing men from Idolatry to the Worship of One God, it should make such a Breach, and extend it to a Creature. All this seems fully to prove the first Proposition of this Argument, That God is the only proper Object of Adoration. The next is, That Christ is proposed in the New Testament as the Object of Divine Worship. I do not in proof of this urge, the Instances of those who fell down at Christ’s Feet and worshipped him, while he was on Earth; for it may be well answered to that, That a Prophet was worshipped with the civil Respect of falling down before him, among the Iews; as appears in the History of Elijah and Elisha; nor does it appear that those who worshipped Chris[?], had any apprehension of his being God; they only considered him as the Messias, or as some eminent Prophet. But the mention that St. Luke makes in his Gospel,⁸ of the Disciples worshipping Christ at his Ascension, comes more home to this matter. All those Salutations in the beginning and conclusion of the Epistles, in which Grace, Mercy, and Peace are wished from God the Father, and the Lord Iesus Christ, are implied Invocations of him. It is also plain, that it was to him that St. Paul prayed, when he was under the Temptations of the Devil; as they are commonly understood;⁹ Every knee must bow to him: The An[?]els of God worship him: All the hosts in heaven are represented in St. Iohn’s Visions, as falling down prostrate before him, and worshipping him as they worship the Father. He is proposed as the Object of our Faith, Hope, and Love; as the Person whom we are to obey, to pray to, and to praise; so that every Act of Worship, both External and Internal, is directed to him as to its proper Object. But the Instance of all others that is the clearest in this Point, is in the last Words of St. Stephen, who was the first Martyr, and whose Martyrdom is so particularly related by St. Luke: He then in his last Minutes saw Christ at the right hand of God; and in his last Breath he worshipped him in two short Prayers, that are upon the matter the same with those in which our Blessed Saviour worshipped his Father on the Cross; Lord Iesus, receive my spirit: Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. ¹⁰ From this it seems very evident, that if Christ was not the True God, and Equal to the Father, then this Protomartyr died in two Acts that seem not only Idolatrous, but also Blasphemous; since he worshipped Christ in the same Acts in which Christ had worshipped his Father. It is certain from all this deduction of Particulars, That his Human Nature cannot be worshipped; therefore there must be another Nature in him, to which Divine Worship is due, and on the account of which he is to be worshipped.

It is plain that when this Religion was first published, together with these Duties in it as a part of it, the Iews, though implacably set against it, yet never accused it of Idolatry; though that Charge of all others had served their purposes the best, who intended to blacken and blast it. Nothing would have been so well heard, and so easily apprehended, as a just Prejudice against it, as this. The Argument would have appeared as strong as it was plain: And as the Iews could not be ignorant of the Acts of the Christian Worship, when so many fell back to them from it, who were offended at other parts of it; so they had the Books in which it was contained, in their hands. Notwithstanding all which, we have all possible reason to believe that this Objection against it was never made by any of them, in the First Age of Christianity: Upon all which, I say, it is not to be imagined that they could have been silent on this head, if a mere Man had been thus proposed among the Christians as the Object of Divine Worship. The Silence of the Apostles in not mentioning nor answering this, is such a Proof of the Silence of the Iews, that it would indeed disparage all their Writings, if we could think that while they mentioned and answered the other Prejudices of the Iews, which in comparison to this are small and inconsiderable matters, they should have passed over this, which must have been the greatest and the plausiblest of them all, if it was one at all. Therefore as the Silence of the Apostles is a clear Proof that the Iews were silent also, and did not object this; and since their silence could neither flow from their Ignorance, nor their undervaluing of this Religion, it seems to be certain that the first opening of the Christian Doctrine did not carry any thing in it that could be called the Worshiping of a Creature. It follows from hence that the Iews must have understood this part of our Religion in such a manner as agreed with their former Ideas. So we must examine these: They had this settled among them, That God dwelt in the Cloud of Glory, and that by virtue of that Inhabitation, Divine Worship was paid to God as dwelling in the Cloud; that it was called God, God’s Throne, his Holiness, his Face, and the Light of his Countenance: They went up to the Temple to worship God, as dwelling there bodily, that is, substantially, so bodily sometimes signifies, or in a Corporeal Appearance: This seems to have been a Person that was truly God, and yet was distinct from that which appeared and spake to Moses; for this seems to be the Importance of these words: Behold, ¹¹ I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee to the place which I have prepared: Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my Name is in him. These words do plainly import a Person to whom they belong; and yet they are a pitch far above the Angelical Dignity. So that Angel must here be understood in a large sense, for one sent of God; and it can admit of no sense so properly, as, That the Eternal Word which dwelt afterwards in the Man Christ Jesus, dwelt then in that Cloud of Glory: It was also one of the Prophecies received by the Iews, That the Glory of the second Temple was to exceed the Glory of the first. ¹² The chief Character of the Glory of the first, was that Inhabitation of the Divine Presence among them; from hence it follows that such an Inhabitation of God in a Creature, by which that Creature was not only called God, but that Adoration was due to it upon that account, was a Notion that could not have scandalized the Iews, and was indeed the only Notion that agreed with their former Ideas, and that could have been received by them without difficulty or opposition. This is a strong Inducement to believe that this great Article of our Religion was at that time delivered and understood in that sense.

If the Son or Word is truly God, he must be from all Eternity, and must also be of the same Substance with the Father, otherwise he could not be God; since a God of another Substance, or of another Duration, is a Contradiction.

The last Argument that I shall offer, is taken from the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews: To the apprehending the Force of which, this must be premised, That all those who acknowledge that Christ ought to be honoured and worshipped as the Father, must say that this is due to him either because he is truly God, or because he is a Person of such a high and exalted Dignity, that God has upon the consideration of that appointed him to be so worshipped. Now this second Notion may fall under another distinction; that either he was of a very sublime Order by Nature, as some Angelical Being, that though he was created, yet had this high Priviledge bestowed upon him; or that he was a Prophet illuminated and authorized in so particular a manner beyond all others, that out of a regard to that, he was exalted to this Honour of being to be worshipped. One of these must be chosen by all who do not believe him to be truly God: And indeed one of these was the Arian, as the other is the Socinian Hypothesis. For how much soever the Arians might exalt him in words, yet if they believed him to be a Creature made in time, so that once he was not; all that they said of him can amount to no more, but that he was a Creature of a Spiritual Nature, and this is plainly the Notion which the Scripture gives us of Angels. Artemon, Samosatenus, Photinus, and the Socinians in our days, consider our Saviour as a great Prophet and Lawgiver, and into this they resolve his Dignity. In opposition to both these, that Epistle begins with Expressions that are the more severe, because they are Negative, which are to be understood more strictly than Positive words. Christ is not only preferred to Angels, but is set in opposition to them, as one of another Order of Beings. Made so much better than angels, ¹³ as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the Angels said he at any time, ¹⁴ Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, ¹⁵ he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. ¹⁶ Of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. ¹⁷ But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. And, Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; ¹⁸ and the heavens are the works of thy hands. Thou art the same, ¹⁹ and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? ²⁰ Are they not all ministring spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? This opposition is likewise carried on through the whole second Chapter; one Passage in it being most express to shew both that his Nature had a Subsistence before his Incarnation, and that it was not of an Angelical Order of Beings, since he took not on him the nature of Angels, ²¹ but the seed of Abraham. Thus in a great variety of Expressions,²² the Conceit of Christ’s being of an Angelical Nature, is very fully condemned. From that the Writer goes next to the Notion of his being to be honoured, because he was an Eminent Prophet; on which he enters with a very solemn Preface, inviting them to consider the Apostle and High-priest of our Profession: ²³ Then he compares Moses to him,²⁴ as to the point of being faithful to him who had appointed him: But how eminent soever Moses was, above all other Prophets, and how harshly soever it must have sounded to the Iews to have stated the difference in terms so distant as that of a Servant and a Son, of one who built the house, and of the House it self: yet we see the Apostle does not only prefer Christ to Moses, but puts him in another Order and Rank; which could not be done according to the Socinian Hypothesis. From all which this Conclusion naturally follows, That if Christ is to be worshipped, and that this Honour belongs to him neither as an Angel, nor as a Prophet, That then it is due to him because he is truly God.

The Second Branch of this Article is, That he took man’s Nature upon him in the Womb of the Blessed Uirgin, and of her Substance. This will not need any long or laboured Proof, since the Texts of Scripture are so express, that nothing but wild Extravagance can withstand them. Christ was in all things like unto us, except his miraculous Conception by the Virgin: He was the Son of Abraham and of David. But among the Frantick Humours that appeared at the Reformation, some in opposition to the Superstition of the Church of Rome, studied to derogate as much from the Blessed Virgin on the one hand, as she had been over-exalted on the other; So they said, that Christ had only gone through her. But this Impiety sunk so soon, that it is needless to say any thing more to refute it.

The Third Branch of the Article is, That these two Natures were joined in one Person, never to be divided. What a Person is that results from a close Conjunction of Two Natures, we can only judge of it by considering Man, in whom there is a Material and a Spiritual Nature joined together. They are Two Natures as different as any we can apprehend among all created Beings; yet these make but One Man. The Matter of which the Body is composed, does not subsist by it self, is not under all those Laws of Motion to which it would be subject, if it were mere inanimated Matter; but by the Indwelling and Actuation of the Soul, it has another Spring within it, and has another Course of Operations. According to this then, to subsist by another, is when a Being is acting according to its Natural Properties, but yet in a constant dependance upon another Being; so our Bodies subsist by the Subsistence of our Souls. This may help us to apprehend how that as the Body is still a Body, and operates as a Body, though it subsists by the Indwelling and Actuation of the Soul; so in the Person of Jesus Christ the Human Nature was entire, and still acted according to its own Character; yet there was such an Union and Inhabitation of the Eternal Word in it, that there did arise out of that a Communication of Names and Characters as we find in the Scriptures. A man is called Tall, Fair, and Healthy, from the state of his Body; and Learned, Wise, and Good, from the qualities of his Mind: So Christ is called holy, harmless, and undefiled; is said to have died, risen, and ascended up into Heaven, with relation to his Human Nature: He is also said to be in the form of God, to have created all things, ²⁵ to be the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, with relation to his Divine Nature. The Ideas that we have of what is Material and what is Spiritual,²⁶ lead us to distinguish in a Man those descriptions that belong to his Body, from those that belong to his Mind; so the different apprehensions that we have of what is created and uncreated, must be our Thread to guide us into the Resolution of those various Expressions that occur in the Scriptures concerning Christ.

The design of the Definition that was made by the Church concerning Christ’s having one Person, was chiefly to distinguish the nature of the Indwelling of the Godhead in him, from all Prophetical Inspirations. The Mosaical degree of Prophecy was in many respects superior to that of all the subsequent Prophets: Yet the difference is stated between Christ and Moses, in terms that import things quite of another nature; the one being mentioned as a Servant, the other as the Son that built the House. It is not said that God appeared to Christ, or that he spoke to him; but God was ever with him, and in him;²⁷ and while the Word was made flesh, yet still his glory was as the glory of the only begotten Son of God. The Glory that Isaiah saw, was called his Glory; and on the other hand God, is said to have purchased his Church with his own Blood. If Nestorius in opposing this, meant only, as some think it appears by many Citations out of him, that the Blessed Virgin was not to be called simply the Mother of God, but the Mother of him that was God; and if that of making Two Persons in Christ, was only fasten’d on him as a Consequence, we are not at all concerned in the Matter of Fact, whether Nestorius was misunderstood and hardly used, or not; but the Doctrine here asserted is plain in the Scriptures, That though the Human Nature in Christ acted still according to its proper Character, and had a peculiar Will; yet there was such a constant Presence, Indwelling, and Actuation on it from the Eternal Word, as did constitute both Human and Divine Nature one Person. As these are thus so entirely united, so they are never to be separated. Christ is now exalted to the highest degrees of Glory and Honour; and the Characters of Blessing, Honour, and Glory, are represented in St. Iohn’s Visions as offered to the Lamb for ever and ever. It is true, St. Paul speaks as if Christ’s Mediatory Office and Kingdom were to cease after the Day of Judgment,²⁸ and that then he was to deliver up all to the Father. But though when the full number of the Elect shall be gathered, the full End of his Death will be attained; and when these Saints shall be glorified with him and by him, his Office as Mediator will naturally come to an end; yet his own Personal Glory shall never cease: And if every Saint shall inherit an everlasting Kingdom, much more shall he who has merited all that to them, and has conferred it on them, be for ever possessed of his Glory.

The Fourth Branch of the Article is concerning the Truth of Christ’s Crucifixion, his Death and Burial. The Matter of Fact concerning the Death of Christ is denied by no Christian; the Iews do all acknowledge it; the first Enemies to Christianity did all believe this, and reproached his Followers with it. This was that which all Christians gloried in and avowed; so that no question was made of his Death, except by a small number called Docetae, who were not esteemed Christians, till Mahomet denied it in his Alcoran, who pretends that he was withdrawn, and that a Iew was crucified in his stead. But this corruption of the History of the Gospel came too late afterwards, to have any shadow of credit due to it; nor was there any sort of Proof offered to support it. So this Doctrine concerning the Death of Christ is to be received as an unquestionable Truth. There is no part of the Gospel writ with so copious a Particularity, as the History of his Sufferings and Death; as there was indeed no part of the Gospel so important as this is.

The Fifth Branch of the Article is, That he was a true Sacrifice to reconcile the Father to us, and that not only for Original, but for Actual Sins. The Notion of an Expiatory Sacrifice, which was then, when the New Testament was writ, well understood all the World over, both by Iew and Gentile, was this, That the Sin of one Person was transferred on a Man or a Beast, who was upon that devoted and offered up to God, and suffered in the room of the offending Person; and by this Oblation the Punishment of the Sin being laid on the Sacrifice, an Expiation was made for Sin, and the Sinner was believed to be reconciled to God. This, as appears through the whole Book of Leviticus, was the design and effect of the Sin and Trespass-Offerings among the Iews, and more particularly of the Goat that was offered up for the Sins of the whole People on the day of Atonement. This was a piece of Religion well known both to Iew and Gentile, that had a great many Phrases belonging to it, such as the Sacrifices being offered for, or instead of Sin, and in the name, or on the account of the Sinner; its bearing of Sin, and becoming Sin, or the Sin-offering; its being the Reconciliation, the Atonement, and the Redemption of the Sinner, by which the Sin was no more imputed, but forgiven, and for which the Sinner was accepted. When therefore this whole set of Phrases in its utmost extent, is very often, and in a great variety, applied to the Death of Christ, it is not possible for us to preserve any Reverence for the New Testament, or the Writers of it, so far as to think them even honest men, not to say Inspired men, if we can imagine, That in so Sacred and Important a Matter they could exceed so much as to represent that to be our Sacrifice which is not truly so: This is a Point that will not bear Figures and Amplifications; it must be treated of strictly, and with a just exactness of Expression. Christ is called the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; he is said to have born our sins on his own body; to have been made sin for us;²⁹ it is said, That he gave his life a ransom for many. That he was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world: and that we have redemption through his blood, even the remission of our sins: It is said That he hath reconciled us to his Father in his cross, and in the body of his flesh through death: That he by his own blood entred in once into the Holy place, having obtained Eternal Redemption for us: That once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself: That he was once offered to bear the sins of many: That we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Christ once for all: And, That after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, he sate down for ever at the right hand of God. It is said, That we enter into the holiest by the blood of Christ, That is the blood of the New Covenant, ³⁰ by which we are sanctified: That he hath sanctified the people with his own blood: and was the great shepherd of his people, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant: That we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot. And, That Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. In these and a great many more passages that he spread in all the parts of the New Testament, it is as plain as words can make any thing, That the Death of Christ is proposed to us as our Sacrifice and Reconciliation, our Atonement and Redemption. So it is not possible for any man, that considers all this, to imagine, That Christ’s Death was only a Confirmation of his Gospel, a Pattern of a holy and patient suffering of Death, and a necessary preparation to his Resurrection; by which he gave us a clear proof of a Resurrection, and by consequence of Eternal Life, as by his Doctrine he had shewed us the way to it. By this all the high commendations of his Death, amount only to this, That he by dying has given a vast Credit and Authority to his Gospel, which was the powerfullest mean possible to redeem us from Sin, and to reconcile us to God: But this is so contrary to the whole design of the New Testament, and to the true Importance of that great variety of Phrases, in which this Matter is set out, that at this rate of Expounding Scripture, we can never know what we may build upon, especially when the great Importance of this thing, and of our having right Notions concerning it, is well considered. St. Paul does, in his Epistle to the Romans, state an opposition between the Death of Christ,³¹ and the Sin of Adam; the ill effects of the one being removed by the other; but he plainly carries the Death of Christ much further, than that it had only healed the Wound that was given by Adam’s Sin; for as the judgment was of one (sin) to Condemnation, the free gift is of many offences to justification; but in the other places of the New Testament, Christ’s Death is set forth so fully, as a Propitiation for the Sins of the whole World, that it is a very false way of arguing to inferr, That because in one place That is set in opposition to Adam’s Sin, that therefore the virtue of it was to go no further, than to take away that Sin. It has indeed removed that, but it has done a great deal more besides.

Thus it is plain, That Christ’s Death was our Sacrifice, The meaning of which is this, That God intending to reconcile the World to himself, and to encourage Sinners to repent and turn to him, thought fit to offer the pardon of Sin, together with the other Blessings of his Gospel, in such a way as should demonstrate both the Guilt of Sin, and his Hatred of it; and yet with that, his love of Sinners, and his compassions towards them. A free Pardon without a Sacrifice had not been so agreeable neither to the Majesty of the Great Governor of the World, nor the Authority of his Laws, nor so proper a method to oblige men to that strictness and holiness of Life that he designed to bring them to: And therefore he thought fit to offer his Pardon, and those other Blessings through a Mediator, who was to deliver to the World this new and holy Rule of Life, and to confirm it by his own unblemisht Life: And in conclusion, when the Rage of Wicked men who hated him for the Holiness both of his Life, and of his Doctrine, did work them up into such a fury, as to pursue him to a most Violent and Ignominious Death, he in compliance with the secret design of his Father, did not only go through that dismal series of Sufferings, with the most intire Resignation to his Father’s Will, and with the highest Charity possible towards those who were his most Unjust and Malicious Murderers; but he at the same time underwent great Agonies in his Mind; which struck him with such an Amazement and Sorrow even to the Death, that upon it he did sweat great drops of Blood, and on the Cross he felt a withdrawing of those comforts, that till then had ever supported him, when he cried out, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? It is not easy for us to apprehend in what that Agony consisted: For we understand only the Agonies of Pain, or of Conscience, which last arise out of the Horror of Guilt, or the Apprehension of the Wrath of God; It is indeed certain, That he who had no Sin could have no such horror in him; and yet it is as certain, That he could not be put into such an Agony only through the Apprehension and Fear of that violent Death, which he was to suffer next day: Therefore we ought to conclude, That there was an inward Suffering in his Mind, as well as an outward visible one in his Body. We cannot distinctly apprehend what that was, since he was sure both of his own spotless Innocence, and of his Father’s unchangeable love to him. We can only imagine a vast sense of the heinousness of Sin, and a deep Indignation at the Dishonour done to God by it, a melting Apprehension of the Corruption and Miseries of Mankind by reason of Sin, together with a never-before-felt withdrawing of those Consolations that had always filled his Soul. But what might be further in his Agony, and in his last Dereliction, we cannot distinctly apprehend; only this we perceive, That our Minds are capable of great pain as well as our Bodies are. Deep horror, with an inconsolable sharpness of Thought, is a very intolerable thing. Notwithstanding the Bodily or Substantial Indwelling of the fulness of the Godhead in him; yet he was capable of feeling vast pain in his Body: So that he might become a compleat Sacrifice, and that we might have from his Sufferings, a very full and amazing apprehension of the Guilt of Sin; all those Emanations of joy with which the Indwelling of the Eternal Word had ever till then filled his Soul, might then when he needed them most be quite withdrawn, and he be left merely to the firmness of his Faith, to his patient Resignation to the Will of his heavenly F[?]ther, and to his willing readiness of drinking up that Cup which his Father had put in his hand to drink.

There remains but one thing to be remembred here, though it will come to be more specially Explained, when other Articles are to be opened; which is, That this Reconciliation which is made by the Death of Christ, between God and Man, is not absolute and without conditions. He has Established the Covenant, and has performed all that was Incumbent on him, as both the Priest and the Sacrifice, to do and to suffer; and he offers this to the World, that it may be closed with by them, on the terms on which it is proposed; and if they do not accept of it upon these conditions, and perform what is enjoined them, they can have no share in it.

Footnotes

1. John. 1.1, 2, 3. ↩

2. Phil. 2.6.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. ↩

3. Acts 20.28. 1 Joh. 3.16. 1 Joh. 5.20. Tit. 2.13. Jam. 2.1. ↩

4. Rev. 1.8. Rev. 19.16. ↩

5. Col. 1.16.17. [?]ohn 2.25. Mat. [?]1 27. Mat. 9.6. Joh. 15.26. Joh. 14.13. Joh. 5 25, 26. Joh. 6.39, 40. ↩

6. Matth. 4.10. ↩

7. Acts 14.15. Acts 17.29. 1 Thes. 1.9. Rev. 19 1[?]. ↩

8. Luke 24.52. ↩

9. 2 Cor. 12.8, 9 Phil. 2 10. Heb. 1.5. Rev. 5.8, to the end ↩

10. Acts 7.59.60 ↩

11. Exod. 23.20. ↩

12. 2 Hag. 7. ↩

13. Heb. 1. ↩

14. 4, 5, ↩

15. 6, ↩

16. 7, ↩

17. 8, ↩

18. 10, ↩

19. 12, ↩

20. 13, 14. ↩

21. Chap. 2. ↩

22. ↩

23. Chap. 3. ↩

24. ↩

25. Phil. 2.6. Col. 1.16. ↩

26. Heb. 1.3. ↩

27. Joh. 1.14. ↩

28. Rev. 5.13. ↩

29. John 1.29. 1 Pet. 2.24. 2 Cor. 5.21. Matth. 20.28. Rom. 3.25. 1 Joh 2.1. Eph 1.7. Col. 1.14, 20, 21. Heb. 9.11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 28. ↩

30. Heb. 10.10, 12, 14, 19, 29. Heb. 13.12.20. 1 Pet. 1.19. 1 Pet. 2.24. 1 Pet. 3.18. ↩

31. Rom 5.12. to the end. ↩