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

OQbj. 4. 1f che erernal Son of God be’incarnated, zt follows that.he had a Being, and was a Per- fon before be was incarnate : If this be so, What rs that which was conceived inthe Virgin’s Womb, and born > Not a Person; for then there would be Two Persens, and Two Sons of God. If the Pere fon is not bori of the Virgin, how does that dee serve to be called a Man which 7s born of her, smce no body can be called a Mm, that is not ‘a

“Humane Person #\For a Man is distinguished to | be such by his Person, and nothing else. HIER

’ * Answ. There is one sort ‘of Individual

• which subsists of cir self, and; is rightly called:

| “Person- ; and another, which does. ror fub- AEM \ B4 list.

Fd

8 | A Defence of the fist of it self, bur in another, as the Hand in the Body : Burt because it does nor subsist of it self, is therefcre not ro be called a Per- son. So the Humane Narure of Christ never did subsist by ir self, bur always in the Di- vine Logos ; and for that: Reason was never of it self a Person. |

Obj. 5. God sent his Son, not in true Flesh, but (as the Apostle says, Rom. 8. 3.) in the Si- militude of sinful Flesh: And fo Christ was not atrue Man.

Answ, The true Flesh of Christ is called the Similitude of Flesh, nor. simply so, bur as obnoxious ro the Sin of pthe Flesh 5 nor that Christ did assume the Likeness of Flesh, and as it were the Image of a Body, and nor a real one, but only rhe Similitnde of fianing Flesh : This p45” not be ; for Christ was - not a Sinner, though he was like to Sinners.

. Obj. 6. Christ and Melchisedeck are compa= red together, because both of them were without

Father and withour Mother, Heb. 7,3. And

therefore Chrift was not born of a Virgin.

Answ. Christ is said ro. be withour Father and Morher,in respect rodifferent Narures,not simply so : For he was withour Father in re- spect of his Humane Nature, and in respect of his Divine, without Mother.

Obj. 7 God was not angry with Munkind, but abundantly laved it, _ therefore out of meer Charity sent his Sen ; for which R:ason there was no necessity that the Father should be reconciled f0 us, 5 Answ. God was certainly angry with us, although he sent his Son : He loved us as

Creatures, and hated us as Trausgreflors. RE RE.

Thirty Nine Articles. PONY 9 God’s Wrath excludes the special and patr-

ticular, though not thar general Love of God, wherewith, as such, he loves his Creatures.

AR T. III. Of the going down of Curist