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

[…]

G^‘f^, anAGedi

The ExposiTidNrf

HE Son, or Second Person in the chrifl the sm Ever-Bleffed Trinity, is called tht indmrdf Word, John I. 1. In the Beginning ” was the IVord and the Word was with God dnd the Word was God, God having his Word within him, faith heophihts of An tioch begot him according to his own Wifdani

B pro-

50 Jn Exposition on tie

Article II. producing him before all Things *. The Word, ""yy faith Jiiflin Martyr being the First-begotten ot ”God, is God, and first appeared to Moses and the rest of the Prophets in a bodily Shape. Know ye, that are void of Understanding, laith Ircnceus that Jefiis, who fuflfered for us, and who took up his Abode among us, that very lame Jesus, is the Word of God t. -Let our Accufers know, faith Origen that he whom we esteem and believe to be from the Beginning God, and the Son of God, is his own Word, his own Wisdom, and his own Truth §. And again t, He that is the Maker of all Things, is the Son of God. We lay, faith ertuUian that - he proceeded from God, and that he proceeded by Generation, and therefore is called the Son and God, by reafbn of the Unity of Substance ; for the Spirit is alio God. — That which proceeds from God, is God, and the Son of God, and both these are one . He is the Power of God, faith S. Cyprian his Reafbn, his Wisdom, his Glory.

If the Son were not begotten, he would not be a Son : And when I fay that he is the Very and Eternal God, of one Substance with the u vhat sense per, 1 mean that he is fo ftridlly and properly LternalGod. fpaking, and not in a metaphorical or bor- rowed Sense. Thus much is afferted in several Places of Scripture, n)iz Heb. i. 5, 6, 8, 10, 1 1 . For unto which of the Angels [aid he at any time hou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee ? And again, I will he to him a Father , and

• Ad Atitolyc. L. II.

f Ailv. H&r. L. I. C. 1. §. 20.

§ Contra Celfam, L. III.

4: mi L. VL

II Mv. Gentesy C. XXi.

K^ry-^j.

Thirty -Nine Articles- 5 1

he Pjall he to rne a Son ? And again^ when he Article^II. hrmgeth in the First -begotten mto the IVorld, he fa’ttb^ And let all the Angels of God worjlfip him.

But mto the Son he faith ^ ‘^hy throne ^

O Gody is for e^er and ever ^ a Sceptre of Righteoufnefs is the Sceptre of thy Kingdom.

And thott^ Lord^ in the Beginning haft

laid the Foundation of the Earthy and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands : i’heyfJjalt periJJjj hut thou remaifieft , and they all fo all wax old as doth a Garment. Rev. xxii. 13. / am Alpha and Ojnega the Beginning and the End, the Ftrft and the Last. And Ifai. xliv. 6. ‘Thus faith the Lord the King of Ifraelj and his Re- deemer the Lord of Hosts I am the First and I am the Last aJtd hefides me there is no God. The Oppofers of our BlelTed Saviour’s Divinity; acknowledge, that where the Word God is used in the Greek Teflament, with an Article by v/ay of Excellency before it, it denotes the one Ah mighty and Supreme God ; and then they go on to observe, that it is never applied to the Second Perfbn in the Ever-bleffed and Adorable Trinity in this manner 5 and oj by confe quence, leave him in the Nunjber of those Gods, or chief Persons, who are ecluded frora the Majesty of the Eternal Deity.

Now, tho’ there can be no kind of Certainty in any such Observations on the Greek Articles, because the Greeks very often ufe or omit them, without any Reason for fb doing; infomuch, that the Supreme God is confeffedly often named without an Article, yet ‘tis easy to van- quifli our Adversaries with their own Argument, and to (hew that the Word God is applied to Christ, in the manner which they fay it is not. Thus St. Matthew applies that of the Prophec D 2 t^

5 X An Exposition on the

Article II. to him. Behold a Virgin Jhall he with Child, and

[…]

Name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is

God with ns. In the Greek it is, ‘Uh « TWf^eK©-

[…]

Mat. i. 23. And when our BlefTed Saviour had convinced St. Thomas by the fullest Evidence that Human Nature is capable of, that it was he himself that appeared to, and talked with him, his Answer was. My Lord and my God, KdLi d’fiKexi 0 QwfjAiy ) itvnv dvniy 0 Kvet©- fjLa : 0 ©go /t, John XX. 28. ‘Twere easy to go on, and heap up a Multitude of Texts of Scripture to prove the Divinity of Christ , but since these which I have already produced are sufficient, and since our Adversaries main Strength lies in an Objection or two, by which they endeavour to give a new Turn to all the Texts of Scripture which are usually cited upon this Occasion, and by which they imagine all Difficulties that we can throw in their way, are cut afunder, if not untied ; it will be most fatisfadory to the Reader, to haften to a serious and impartial Consideration of them. And here I shall con- fine myself, as it were, to such Pretences as have been lately revived, and artfully fet off by the ’ great Champion of them, the Author of Scrip- ture Borine, in order to prove that our BlefTed Saviour is not Omnifcient, and, by consequence, not equal to the Father.

I. As to our Lord’s being the Searcher of Hearts, as he is declared. Rev, ii. 23. he thinks it may be accounted for from a PalTage of Clemens Alexandri7ius, which he would gladly fo interpret, as to make Clemens fay, that Christ is, hy the Will oj the Almighty, In-

fpe^or

Thirty ‘Wine Articles. 5 5

[…]

II. A Second Pretence t to invalidate the Proofs which Orthodox Writers usually bring to prove the Son’s Omnifcience, or knowing all Things, is taken from 50; viii. 28. where our Lord faith, / do nothing of myself ; hut as my Father hath taught me I speak these Things, The full Meaning of which is no more than this. That God the Son is intimately united with the Father, never separate from him ; and, there- fore, neither adls nor peaks but in concert with him. Our Bleffed Saviour fpeakiiig of his Father and himself, is pleased to take up with such Expreilions as are of common ufe with us : But they are to be foberly interpreted, suitably to the Dignity of the Subje6t. This I observe, left the Word Taught taken from what is customary amongst Men, should be apt to con- vey a low Idea when applied (though in a more refined and elevated Sense) to the Perlbns; of the Ever-blefTed Trinity. It is very certain, that the Son hath his Knowledge, and every other Perfedion, from the Father, in the fame Sense as he hath also his Nature or Substance from the Father : But it should be considered, that after our Bleffed Lord had said, The Son can do nothing of himself John v. 19. he imme- diately added, for what things foever he (the

D % Father)

54, ^^^ Exposition on the

Article ii. padier) doth^ these also doth the Son Ukewtfe.

”-” Let it then be acknowledged, that the Son can know nothing of hi??ifelf provided only that we add this Consideration to it, that whdt ‘ihings foe-ver the Fcither knoweth, tbefe also knoweth the Son Jikewife ; and then it will appear, that those Expreflions which the Objectors lay hold on, are fo far from denoting any Imperfedlion in the Son’s Knowledge, that, on the contrary, they fet forth the great and unmeafurable Per- fedion of it, as being infeparably linked with, and, indeed, one and the fame in Extent and Decree with the Father’s.

III. A Third Objedion against what is afferted by the Catholick Writers of the Church, is taken from Kev. i. i. I’he Ke’velation of Jesus Cbrift which God gave unto him *. But this hath no Difficulty with any that consider, that all the Tranfadions of God the Father with Mankind, are in and by Cbrift Jesus. Every Revelation of God is through Christ his Son, the Revealer and Interpreter of the otherwise unknown Father, and his Will to Men. This Order and OEconomy, observable in the Peribns of the Sacred ‘T’nnity^ is what we ought humbly to adore and reverence, rather than pry too cu- rioufly into, left pretending to be wife above what IS written^ w^e fall from our own Stedfaft- ness, and lose ourselves in inextricable Mazes.

IV. The last and most material Objection against us, is from Mark xiii. 32, But of that Day and that Hour knoweth no Man no not the Angels which are in Heaven neither the Son hut

[…]

thi

T/j’irty-Nhie Articles. \ 55

the Father ; or Father only as it is in Mat, xxiv. Article ll. 36. which the Author of Scripture Dodrine particularly taketh Notice of* He does not in Terms, declare whether this Text be, in his Opinion, a Proof of God the Son’s being igno- rant of any Thing ; but is content to fay f, or infinuate, as from Irenaus (though he mif-tran- flates his Author) that the Father is fiiperior in Knowledge and that he only has perfeil Knoiv ledge : Very fufpicious and doubtful Expref- fions, and left without Guard or Caution. But to come to the Point, I am to fhew, that thele Texts of St. Mark and St. Matthew prove nothing at all against the perfe(5l Knowledge, or flridl Omnifcience of the Divme Nature of Christ. It is not said, the Son of God knew not the Day of Judgment, but the Soit that is the So7 of Man as appears from the Context in both the Evangelifts CMat. xxiv. 37, 39. Mark xiii. 26, 34: And it is well oblerved by Atha7iafius i that after our Lord had men- tioned the Angels, as not knowing that Day, he did not add, neither the Holy Ghost , that’it might still be considered, that if the Holy Ghost knew the Day, well might also God the Son know it 5 and that therefore, what is here said of the Son, relates to the Son of Man only. It is objeded by Crellius and others, that It could not with Truth and Sincerity be said of Christ, that he was ignorant of the Day, if he knew it in any Capacity. But to this I answer, that as it may be truly said of the Body of Man, that it is not Imtnortal though the Sotil be 3 fo

t Ibid. p. 135, 154..

D4 it

UOTN^

An Exposition on the

t\ It may be truly said, that the Son of Man was not knowing though the Son of God knew every Thing. Now since Christ may speak of himself, either as Son of God, or as Son of Man ; it is not inconfiftent with Truth and Sincerity, for him to deny, that he knew what he really did know in one Capacity, while he was ignorant of It in another. Our Lord says in one Place, Now I am 7io more in the World (John xvii. ii.) and in another Place, Te ha’ve the Poor always with you hut me ye have not always (Mat. xxvi. II.) denying that he was, or should be any longer present with his Diiciples, which can only be understood of his Human Nature, and Bodily Presence ; for in another relped:, he elsewhere says, Lo I am with you always (Mat.

xxviii. 20) and if any Man love me My

father will love him and we will come unto him and make our Abode with him John xiv. 23. From hence we fee, that our Bleffed Lord might, without any Breach of Sincerity, deny That of himself considered in one Capacityjwhich he could not have denied in another. He denies the Knowledge of the Day of Judgment, but in refpedt of his Human Nature ; in which refpedt aifb, he is said to have increased in Wtfdom (Luke ii. 52.) the Divine Logos having, with the Human Nature, aflumed the Ignorance and other Infirmities proper to it. If it be objected, that the Son is here placed after the Angels and that the Gradation requires that we fliould understand the Text, of a Nature superior to Angels ; it is easily answered, that he Son of Man’s Union with the Logos and the particular Concern the Son of Man has in the iaft Judgment, are sufficient to account for the iuppofed Climax or Gradation. Upon the f/hok then, it appears that our Lord might

very

Thirty ‘Nine Articles. 57

very sincerely and juftly fay, that he knew not Article il. the Day or Hour of the final Judgment, un- */VV- derftanding it of himself considered in his Hu- man Capacity ; though at the fame time, in another refpecft, he could not be ignorant of any Thing. If it be pretended farther, that the Son of Gody as such, and every other Peribn whatfbever, is excluded, because of the Words Father only , I answer, that the exckifive Term, o/y, is not to be 6 flricbly interpreted, as to exclude what ejfentially belongs to the Father and may be reckoned to him as included in him, his IVord or Spirit. It is said. Rev. xix. 12. of God the Son, that he had a Name writ- ten which no one (A0 knew hut he himself. Now if it be reafbnable and just to infer from hence, that the Father was ignorant of that Name ; then let it also be realbnable to infer from this Place of St. Matthew that the Son was ignorant of the Day of Judgment : Or, if luch Inference be manifeftly false and unjuftifi- able in one Cafe, there must be fbmething more than the bare Force of the exclusive Term, to make it true or justifiable in the other.

From what hath been laid, it is manifest, that the Holy Scripture hath, by necelfary Con- sequence, and also in express Terms, declared the Son to be God Co-equal with the Father ; and that the Pretences which are brought againfthis Omnifcience are of no Weight, being founded only on Mifmterpretation of Texts, and Miiapplication of what relates to Christ in one Capacity to him considered in another.

The last Obejedlion I ihall take notice of, is, that which the Arians and Socinians formerly, and Mr. IVhifion now makes «fe of, to prove

our

58 An Exposition on the

Article II. our BlefTed Saviour a Creature, and, by confe- -y quence, themselves Idolaters. ‘Tis taken from Colojf.l IS’ where our Blcfled Saviour is called the First’born of every Creature, In refpedt of which Words, I observe, i. That our Tranfla- tion comes not up to the Force or Meaning of the Original. It should have been, First-horn lefore the whole Creation as is manifefi from the Context, which gives the Reason why he is ‘prp_f.roTit&- T!VL(TVi K77(neoiy or First-born, &c. ‘viZ. because he is before all Things, and because by him were :!! Things created : So that this very PafTage, when i ightly understood, clearly exempts him from the Number of Creatures. 2. That if the Apostle had meant to affert him to be a Creature, the Reason he gives for it, because he himself created all hings is the most furprizing that ever was urged by Man, especially by that Apostle, who had afTerted, Kom. i. 20. That the Creation of the World was a full Proof of the Eternal Godhead. 3. That the Word First- born, is not always to be understood in a literal Sense, particularly Psalm Ixxxix. 27. / will make him my First-horn higher than the Kings of the Earth , for in this Sense David could not be First-born : And Koj?i. viii. 29. where St. Paul laith, lhom he did foreknow, he also f did predeftinate to he conformed to the Image of his

Son, that he might he the First-horn among many Brethren’:, or, as he is ftiled Heh, ii. 10. in Terms equivalent, i’he Captain of their Salvation j whom, ver. 11. he was not ajhamed to call Bre^ ihren > or, as it is Heh. xii. 2. ^he Author and Finifber of their Faith. There are many Expreflions relating to our Saviour, and

• See this proved at large, Pages y 9 and do. Dr. IVaterland’s Sermons.

even

Thirty-lSIhie Articles. 59

[…]

plain literally ; ib that we may very reasonably ^-/^X^

fay to Mr. IVbtfton^ as our Bleffed Lord did to

Nicodemus^ Art thou a Majier in Ifrael, and

knoweft net these things ? Agreeable hereto, is

what hath been said by several of the Fathers j

The Scepter of God’s Majesty, which is our

Lord Jesus Christ, whatever ’ Power he was

endued with, came not with the Noise of Boast-

ing and of Pride ^. I glorify Jesus Christ, who

is God, who is indeed our Lord, of the Family

of Danjid^ according to the Flesh ; the Son of

God, of a Truth born of a Virgin f. The

fame Father, in his Epiftle to Polycarp^ fays.

That he was before all Time, and not limited

by it ; invisible, yet visible for our Sakes ; not

capable of being touched, yet capable of fuf-

fering for our Sakes. Our Lord knew before,

as God, both that he should be asked about

Things that would come to pass, and that such

Things should be foretold by him 4^. Should

any furious, angry, or inraged Person ask us,

whether Christ be God ? Our Answer will be.

That he is a God, and that too a God who pre-

fides over the more inward Faculties of the

Soul.

A N D, now to fumup the Force of the gene- ral Argument, every single Attribute that harii been mentioned, every single Title almost, justifies the Inference, that Christ is no Crea- ture, but truly and ftridly God. All together jnake fo full, fo dear, fo irrefragable a Demon- ftration of it, that one might juftly wonder how

[…]

-|- Ignatius y in Epfc. ad Smyr.

4 S. Clement of Miexandria, ^u Div. Sal, C. VI.

any

oorx^

60 Aji Exposition 07t the

Arc; any who retain the least Regard or Reverence ” ’ towards the Sacred Writings, can make any serious Doubt of it. It cannot be fhewn, that any one of those Names, Titles, Attributes, and EflTential Properties of God, was ever given in this Manner, and with those Circumstances to any Creature. If one or two of them (as the Name, God for Inftancc) might be Equi- n)ocal yet the rest are not fo 3 and the Manner and Circumstances wherewith they are ascribed to Christ sufficiently determine the Sense of them. If Titles alone are not of Weight fuf- ficient. Attributes come in to strengthen and confirm them ; and if any Scruples remain ftilJ, Creation and Adoration understood of, and attri- buted to Christ render the Proof still more irrefragable. The Strength and Number of the Evidences concurring to eftablifti Christ’s Divinity when fewer and less considerable might have been sufficient, are very wonderful ; as if Divine Wisdom had purposely fb ordered it, forefeeing what Opposition would be made to it. Were it poflible, by any Quirk or Sub- tlety, to elude every single Evidence, yet the Joint-Force of all together, would be very con- siderable ; because it is hardly to be imagined, that in an Affair of this Moment, God would ever have suffered fb many plausible Appear- ances, and fpecious Prefumptions, of a Thing that is not, to stand in Scripture, for the Decep- tion even of Wife, and Good, and Confeien- tious Men. The JewiJJj Church were trained up to a Sense of the True God, by those very Characters which are applied to Christ : Upon those they formed their Idea of the Divine Being, and would have thought it Blasphemy to have ascribed the fame, though by way of Figure only Qxi fo serious a Concern) to any

Creature ^

Thirty ”Nine Articles. 6\

Creature ; and not they only, but all Mankind Artii. must allow, that none more expreflive and figni- -f ficant Charaders of God can be devised, than several of those which are applied to Christ. If we are mistaken in this Matter, it is a Mistake which the Christian World, by plain Force of Scripture, has in a manner inevitably been led into. He must be a very weak Man, who can imagine, that the Doftrine of the Trinity could ever have come in, or could have fubfifted half a Century, were it not for the plain and irre- fiftable Reasons for it appearing in Holy Scrips tme. How the Matter now stands all the Christian World over (except a few Arians which we have lately been peftered with) is very well known. If we run up Fourteen hundred Years higher (or thereabouts) we find the Body of the Bishops and Clergy, summoned from all Parts to debate this very eftion determining at length, as we have done, and as much deceived (if we are deceived) as we are at this Day. If we look Sixty Years higher, and may judge of the Principles of the Church at that Time, from those of the two celebrated Bishops oi Alexandria and Kome with their Clergy, we still find them lying under the fame fatal Deception that prevails now. Go up a Hun- dred Years higher, to the Middle of the Second Century; still, all the Way as we pass, we meet with plain Marks and Charafters of the fame Delusion (if it be one) overfpreading the Church of Christ, at a Time when Miracles were not ceased, nor Revelations uncommon. In ihort, when we have carried our Searches up to the very Apoftolick Age, we still observe manifest Footsteps of the fame Error (if it be one) prevailing , nor can we find to much as one Man of any considerable Repute among I Christians,

6% ^;^ Exposition on the

Article II. Chriftlans, whom we can certainly prove to yf have been free from it : Surely God had foon for- laken his Heritage, and given up his Church to strong Delufwns (that Church, against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail) if we have been mistaken in theie Things. It appears from hence, however, how powerful and forci- ble the Scripture-Evidences of Christ’s Divinity have ever been upon the Minds of Men • not the Illiterate, Unthinking, or Injudicious, but the Wifeft, the most Considerate, the brightefl Ornaments, and the most eminent Lights of the Chtiftian Church. But our Adversaries are Men that can look up against all these Evi- dences, and can harden their Minds in Oppo- fition to them : And I wlfh I had not too great Reafbn to complain of their difingenuous and unfair Way of writing in this Controverly, to fay no worle of it that they had not repre- fented the Orthodox, as Men over-run with Prejudice and Eigottry, preferring Human and Modern Decisions, before the infallible Word of God; full of Contradiction and Absurdity, and bereft, in a manner, of common Sense -, whilst they themselves have been guilty of such ungenerous and mean, and even impious Pradices, for the Support and Propagation of their own Scheme witness the daily Inroads made upon Christian Simplicity, and Godly Sincerity -, the Wiles and Artifices, Diilimulation and Dif* guifes made ufe of for this Purpose ; their con- cealing and covering the Deformity of their own Opinions, as much as they poflibly can ; ftifling of Evidences that make against them ; mifreprefcnting the Truth of History -, taking Advantage of ambiguous Terms; keeping off in Generals not daring fb much as to own the certain and inevitable Confeqiiences of their Prin- ciples,

Thirty -WtJie Articles. 63

ciples, hardly the Principles themselves ; nay, Article ii. infinuating often what they will not fay, and -‘“Y laying what they cannot prove not trusting to a fair, open, regular Examination, but Ihrink- ing from the Point in Question ; opposing, ob- jecting, cavilling perpetually against the OrthodooQ Scheme, but taking little or no Care, either to answer or fo much as to mention the main Dif- ficulties and Inconfiftencies visible in their own. If the Lord JeiiLs Christ, for in-nce, be a Creature, why do rhcy Jinxid-g Iur.a Is it no£ Idolatry ? Hath not God declared, Isaiah xlii. 8. “itbat he will not give his Glory to another ? And when St John was about to worship the Angel, in the Revelations chap. xix. ver. lo. was he not restrained from it by these Words, See thou dv it not for I ara thy Fellow-Ser’vant ; worJJ:jip God ? Why the Angels, they must an fwer, are commanded to worlhip him ; and Mr. Whifton himself cannot but acknowledge, in the 9th and loth Pages of his Letter to the late Bishop of London That fome of the Scrip- ture-Doxologies are direded to the Father and the Son jointly and fbme to Jesus Christ only. And if he be no more than a Creature, what is this but introducing Almighty God himself, as changing his ‘itruth into a Lye ? Rom. i. 25. But if he be God hlejfed for e-ver what is the treating of Him, as i\t Arians have always done, but Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy, a Crucifying him afrefh, and putting him to an open Shame, m Defiance of all Laws both Divine and Hu- man • and I will add too, in Defiance both of Reason and common Sense? And, therefore, before we venture to dethrone our God and Saviour, by bringing him down to the Rank of Creatures before we presume to abridge him of those Honours, and that Worship which

he

64 An Exposition on the

!!rv”’ ” in the Church, by a Prescription ” of 15, 165 or 17 hundred Years before we run upon what hath hitherto been accounted, what I just now called it, Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy, by the wifeft, the greatest, and most eminent Lights of the Christian Church, in former, and in latter Ages , before we dii claim our solemn Vows in Baptism, where we were dedicated by our Blefled Lord’s express Command to the Service and Worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God blefled for ever before we go these Lengths, let us, at least have Things fairly* and impar- tially examined, in Sincerity, and Singlenefs of Heart ; difguifing nothing, nor finothering any Evidences, but comparing Things with Things, Scripture with Scripture, Reafbn with Reafbn ; let us lay aside Prejudice, and contentedly fub- mit our Fancies to God’s written IVord interpret- ing it according to its most obvious and natural Meaning, without laboured Subtleties, and artificial Glofles remembering always, that in cafe of Doubt, there is no safer Guide to take with us, than the concurring Judgment of the Antients , nor any more dangerous one, than Warmth of Imagination, or a Love of Novel- ties .

The Manhood of That the Son of God took Man’s Nature

[…]

conceive in thy Womh^ and hring forth a Son^

mid Jhalt call, his Name Jesus. And from

[…]

Gal

Thirty-l’rine Articles. ($5

Gal. iv. 4. But when the Fttlnefs of ime was Article ir; come God fent forth his Son, made of a IVoman yYsJi made under the Law. For since it pleased God, Gen. iii. 15. to promiie, that the Seed of the Woman foould hriitfe the Serpenfs Head fb it was neceflary that he fliould be born of a Virgin, that he might not be the Seed of Man, like all other Men. Justin Martyr speaking of him, lays. That he was born of a Virgin according to the Will of the Father *. Origeu says, That he not only took a Mortal Body, arid a Human Soul in it, by a Sort of Communication with it, but ‘j’ [ € by as flrid and intire an Union as could be ; and H that the Properties of his Godhead deicended /‘/r upon God f. I’ertullian says. That this Branch of God, as always had been foretold, descended into a Virgin, and in her Womb became Flesh, received a Shape, and was born God-Man, or God and Man together t. He descended into a Virgin, faith S. Cyprian ; and, by the Co- operation of the Holy Ghost, put on Flelh : God and Man are mixed together.

As Man confifteth of two different Parts,^ Body and Soul, fo likewise doth Christ, He affumed a Body at his Conception of the Virgini Mary ; forafmuch as the Children are Partakers of the fleflo and Bloody he also htmfelf Ukewtfe took Part of the fame. The Truth of his having a Body depends upon the Truth of his Nativity ; and the Adionsand Paffions of his Life fhew the Nature of his Flefli. He was first born with a Body which was prepared for him, of the lame Appearance with thole of other Infants ; he grew

[…]

^ Advir. Gemes. C.XXI.

E up

66 An Expofitioii on the

Article II. p y Degrees and was fb far from being ""” fuilained without the usual NouriHiment of our Bodies, that he was observed, even by his Enemies, to come eating and drinking and when he did not fb, he suffered Hunger and hirft, Those Flowers never doubted of the true Nature of iiis Flesh, who plowed upon his Back and made long ‘Farrows. The ‘thorns which pricked his lacred Temples ; the Nails which penetrated through his Hands and Feet ; the Spear which pierced his sacred Side, give sufficient Testimony of the natural Tenderness and Frailty of his Flesh. And left his Fasting Forty Days together , left his walking on the Waters, and traverfing the 7 ; left his fuddeii standing in the P’lidft of his Disciples, when the Doors were shut, should raise an Opinion that his Body was not true and proper Flefli , he applied himself to his Disciples in this manner. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is J my- [elf: handle me and fee for a Spirit hath not Flejh and Bones as ye fee me have, Luke xxiv. 39. As therefore we believe the coming of Christ, fo must we confess him to have come in the Verity or Truth of our Human Nature, even in true and proper Flesh. With this deter- minate Expreflion was it always neceffary to acknowledge him , for every Spirit that confeffeth J e fits Chnft is come in the Flefb, is of God - and every Spirit that confeffeth not that Jesus Chrifi is come in the Flefj is not of God, i John iv. 2, 3. This Spirit appeared early in Opposition to the Apoftolical Dodlrine ; and Christ who is both God and Man, was as foon denied to be Man as God. Simon Magus, the Arch-heretick first began, and many after followed him ; viz. Menander, and after him Saturnilus, or Satur vius i after him Valentinus and his Followers,

Epiphanesy

TIjirty-Nine Articles. 67

Epiphanes Ifidorus and Secundtis • thetl the Article il Marcofians HeradeonitiX and Orphit Cerdon i/YX MarcwUy Lucanus and generally the Manichees. These were the cAxilcti or I’TWOTtga/, all con- fpiring in this, that Christ was not really what he appeared to be, nor did truly suffer what he seemed to endure. This early Heresy appeareth by the Opposition which S. Ignatius made unto it in his Epiftles. And certainly, if the Son of God would vouchfafe to take the Frailty of our Flelh upon him, he would not omit the nobler Part, our Soul, without which he could not be Man ; for Jesus increased in Wtfdmi and Stature Luke ii. 25. one in refpedl of his Body, the other of his Soul: Wiidom belongeth not to the: Flesh, nor can the Knowledge of God, which is infinite, increase. He then, whose Knowledge did improve together with his Years, mnft have a Subjed: proper for it, which was no other than a Human Soul. This was the Seat of his finite Understanding, and directed Will, diftinci from the Will of his Father, and, consequently, of his Divine Nature, as appeareth by thac known Submiffion, Islot my IVill hut fhinc he, done Luke xxii. 42. This was the Subject of those AiFedions and Paflions which fo mani- feftly appeared in him ; nor fpake he any other than a proper Language, when before his Sut fering he said, Aly Soul is exceeding forrowful, even unto Death Mat. xxvi. 38. “Twas this that he recommended to the Father before its Departure from the Body on the Cross , there- by teaching us in whose Hands the Souls of the Departed are : For when Jesus had cried with a loud Voice he fatd Father into thy Hands t commend my Spirit : and having said thus he gave up the Ghost Luke xxiii. 46. And as his Death was nothing elie but the Separation o£

68 Jn Expofitioi) on the

Article II. the Soul from his Body ; fo the Life of Chrlfty •yC as Man, did confift in the Conjundion, and vital Union of that Soul with the Body : So that he which was perfed; God, was alio perfect Man, of a Reasonable Soul, and Human Flesh, iubfifting J which is to be observed and alTerted against the antient Hercticks, the Avians and Apllinanans who taught that Christ affumed Human Flesh, but that the Word, or his Divinity, was unto that Body in the Place of an informing Soul. Thus the whole perfect and complete Nature of Man was alfumed by the Word, by him who was conceived and born of a Woman, and fo made a Man. And fmce the Divine Nature which he had before, could never cease to be what it was before, nor ever become what before it was not ; it follows, that he who was God before, by the Divine Nature which he had, was in this Incarnation made Man, by that Human Nature which he then affumed, and fo was really and truly both God and Man.

founikd.

The tm Na- A s thefc two Natures, the Divine and tures not con- imian, were thus united, fb they were not confounded , but, as this Article afferts, two whole and perfedl: Natures, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, of whom many Things are said, which are proper to one Nature only. Thus the Blood of God is said to be shed, A5fs xx. 28. And Man is proposed as an Obje6l to which the Angels were to perform Worship, Heb. i. 6. This Manner of Exprefiion is called a Cojnniunion of Idioms or CommunicatiGU of Properties by the antient Greek Divines ‘Av-ncfhg-t and ibmetimes ‘Avjija,ni j and the Conjunction of the two Natures, the Hypoilatick Union : Concerning

whichj

Thirty-Nine Articles. 6^

which, Neftorius first, and Eutyches after him, Article it. have grievoufly erred , the one by dividing the L/VN-/ Person, the other by confounding the Natures. Both these Errors are effeduaJly, and in four Words, condemned by the Council oi Ch alee don which hath taught us, that Jesus Christ, is one and the fame in two Natures, etcnjyTi ctTj fcTTry;, rtd)*/p47w?, A-p.‘gzy?, — — i. e. zmtbout Confusion Jirily infeparahle and not to he divided. They who have fa-d, faith Origen % That the Soul of Jesus is united to fo great a Son of God, with a very ftrid Union, that it cannot be separated from him, have said nothing to be wondered at.

I F both Natures were not preserved complete and diftind in Christ^ it mull: be either by the ConverfionandTranfubftantiationofoneintothe other, or by Commixtion and Confusion of both into one. But neither of these Ways can confift with the Peribn of our Saviour, or the Office of our Mediator : For if we Ihould conceive such a Mixture and Confusion of Substances, as to make an Union of Natures, we should be fo far from acknowledging him to be both God and Man, that we should thereby profefs him to be neither God nor Man, but a Person of a Nature as different from both, as all mixed Bodies are diftina from each Element which concurs in their Composition. Besides, we know there were in Christ the Affedlions proper to the Nature of Man, and all those Infirmities which belong to us, and cannot be conceived to be- long to that Nature of which the Divine was but a Part. Nor could our Humanity be fo ’

Contra Celfum, Lib. VI.

E 3 com-

ya Jin Exposition on the

Article II. commixed’ or confoutided with the Divinity of O"" our Saviour, but that the Father had been made Man as much as the Son, because the Divine Nature is the fame both of the Father and the Son. Nor ought we to have fo low an Esteem of that infinite and independant Being, as to think it o cojnmixed with, or immersed in the Creature : Neither can we with the least Degree of Probability conceive the Divine Nature of Chrifi: to be tranfubftantiated, or converted mto the Human Nature. There is a plain Repugnancy even in the Suppofition ; for the Nature of Man mufl: be made, the Nature of God cannot be made, and, consequently, cannot become the Nature of Man. The Im- material, Indivifible, and Immortal Godhead3 cannot be divided into a Spiritual and Incor- ruptible Soul, and a Carnal and Corruptible Body ; of which two Humanity confifteth. There is no other Godhead of the Father than of the Son ; and, therefore, if this was con- verted into that Humanity, then was the Father also that Man, and grew in Knowledge, suffered and died. We must not therefore, fo far (land upon the Propriety of Speech, when it is writ- ten, n!he Word was 7nade Flejlo as to destroy the Propriety both, of the Word and the Flejlj. Nor must we, on the contrary, invent a Con erfion of the Hum/an Nature into the Divine ; for surely the Incarnation could not at first* confift in such a Conversion, it being un-ima- ginable, how that which had no Being should be made by being turned into fbmething elfe : Therefore the Humanity of Christ could not at first be made, by being the Divinity of the Word Nor is the Incarnation o prepofteroufly expreffed, as if the Flesh were made the Word, tut that the Word v/as made Flesh. And if the

Manhood

Thirty ‘Nine Articles. 71

Manhood were not in the first A61 of Incar- -Article II. nation converted into the Divine Nature, as we "" lee it could not be ; then is there no Pretence of any Time or Manner in or by which it was afterwards fb tranfubfliantiated. Vain there- fore was that old Conceit of Eutyches who thought the Union to be made fo in the Natures, that the Humanity was abforpt, and wholly turned into the Divinity, fo that by that Tran- fubftantiation the Human Nature had no longer Being. And well did the antient Fathers, who opposed this Heresy, make ufe of the Sacramental Union between the Bread and Wine, and the Body and Blood of Christ , and there-. by fliewed, that the Human Nature of Christ is no more really converted into the Divinity, and fo ceafeth to be the Human Nature, than the Substance of the Bread and Wine is really con- verted into the Substance of the Body and Blood, and thereby ceafeth to be both Bread and Wine. From hence, by the way, it is observable, that the Church in those Days understood no fach Dodrine as that of Tran- fubftantiation. Since therefore, he which was conceited of the Virgin Mary was the Only Sen of God and that Only Son begotten of the Sub- stance of the Father, and fo always fubfifted in the Divine Nature • fmce by the fame Concep- tion he was made truly Man, and, confe- quently, alTumed a Human Nature , fmce these two Natures cannot be made one, either fey Commixtion or Conversion, and yet there can be but one Christ fubfifting in them both, because that Only Son was he which was conceived and born : it followeth, that the Union which was not made in the Nature, was made in the Person of the Word ; that is, it was not fo made, that out of both Natures one only jfhould result, but E 4 only

yi An Exposition o7i the

AjtTicLE 11. only o that to one Perfbn no other should be yy added. For without such an Union as this, we should not have one Chriffi but two Cbrifts j one Mediator, but two Mediators ; without which we cannot join the Second Article of our Creed -with the Third, making them equally belong to the fame Peribn • without which we cannot interpret the Holy Scriptures, or underfland the History of our Saviour. For certainly he which was before Abraham was in the Days of Hered l?orn of a Woman ; he which preached in the Days /Noah, began to preach in the Reign oi ibe- riusj being at that Time about I’htrty Tears of Age ; he was demonstrated to be the Son of God with Pozver who was the Seed of David accord- ing: to the FlefJj , he who died upon the Cross raised him from the Dead that died fo, beingput to Death through the FleJJj and quickened by the Spirit 5 he was of the Fathers according to the Fleflo who was God o’ver all bleffed for ever. Since these and the like Actions and Affe6lions cannot come from the fame Nature, and yet must be attributed to the fame Person , as we must acknowledge a Diversity of Natures united, fo must we confels the Identity or Sam.enels of the Peribn in whom they are conjoined, against the antient Heresy of the Neflorians condemned in the Council of Ephefus. %

The Sufferings T H A T this Pcrfon, of whom I have been ofchri^. speaking, did truly suffer (I mean in his Human Nature, for the Divine Nature is not capable of fuftering) that he was crucified, dead and buried, appears at large from Mat. xxvii. whither I am obliged to refer the Reader.

” 4: neld of the Church, L. V. C. XII, XIII. Tearfon on the Creed, Art. III. Scotfs Christian Life, Part II. Chap. VII. §. I. Nelson’s Fcftivals, Annunciation. Hooker’s Ecd. Pol. Book v. ^. j-i, &c.

And%

Tbirty-Nine Articles. 7;

Article II.

And, indeed, I am fb far from having any -/‘Wi Occasion to be very full and explicite upon this Head, that the Enemies of Christianity freely confclsit: The Gejitiles acknowledged it; the yews triumphed at it ; and we may well take that for granted, which is fo far from being denied, that ‘tis objected. If Hunger and Third ; if Revilings and Contempt ; if Sorrows and Agonies -, if Stripes and Buffetings if Con- demnation and Crucifixion be Sufferings, Jesus suffered. Nor were there ever any which thought he did not really and truly suffer, but such as withal irrationally pretended he was not really and truly Man. The only Difficulty will confift in this, how we can reconcile the Person suffering, with the Subjed: of his Paffion ; how we can lay that God did suffer, when we profels the Godhead suffered not. But this leeming Diiticulty will admit an easy Solution, if we con- fider the intimate Conjun6tion of the Divine and Human Nature, and their Union in the Ferlbii of the Son ; for hereby thole Attributes which properly belong unto the one, are given to the other, and that upon good Reason: for PiUCQ the fame Individual Person is, by the Con- jundlion of the Nature of God, and the Nature of Man, really and truly both God and Man 3 it neceffarily follows, that it is true to fay, God is Man and as true, a Man is God : Becaule in this Particular, he which is Man is Gody and he which is God is Alan. Again, fjnce by reason of the Incarnation it is proper to fay, God is Man it followeth unavoidably, that whatfocver necejfartly helongeth to the Human Nature may he spoken of God 3 otherwise there would be a Man to whom the Nature of Man did not belong, which would be a Centra-

didion.

74 -^^^ Exposition on the

Article II. diclion. And fiiice by Virtue of the lame In- OON carnation, it is alfb proper to fay, a Man is God by the fame NecefHty, of Consequence, we must acknowledge, that all the Effential Attributes of the Divine Nature may be truly ipoken of that Man ; otherwise there would be one truly and properly God, to whom the Nature of God did not belong, which is a clear Repugnancy. Again, if the Properties of the Divine Nature may be truly attributed to that Man which is God, then may those Actions which flow from those Properties, be attributed to the fame. And fmce the Properties of the Human Nature may be also attributed to the Eternal Son of God, those Actions or Paflions which did pro- ceed from those Properties may be attributed to the fame Son of God, or God the Son : Where- fore, as God the Son is truly Man, and as Man, truly padible and mortal ; ib God the Son did truly suffer, and did truly die. And this is the only true Communication of Properties.

Not that the Effential Properties of one Nature are really communicated to the other Nature, as if the Divinity of Christ were paf- fible and mortal, or his Humanity of Original Omnipotence and Omniprefence , but because the fame God the Son was alfb the Son of Man, he was at the fame Time both Mortal and Eternal : Mortal, as the Son of Man, in refpedl of his Humanity , Eternal as the Son of God, in refpe61: of his Divinity. The Suiterings there- fore of the MeJJias^ were the Sufferings of God the Son : Not that they were the Sufferings of his Deity, which was incapable of suffering, but of his Humanity, which was not , for tho’ the Human Nature was joined to the Divine, yet it suffered as much as if it had been alone ;

and

Thirty-Wine Articles. 75^

and the Divine Nature was as free from Suffer- Article II. ing, as if it had not been joined to the Human : OO’N^ Because each kept their rcfpedive Properties diftind, without the least Confusion in their most intimate Conjun6lion. In a Word, God the Sow being not only God, but also Man, suffered, tho’ not in his Deity or Godhead, by reason of which he is truly God ; yet in his Humanity, by which he, who is truly God, is as truly Man *.

[…]

’ gi’ve himself a Kanfom far all - which are Words , that denote a true and real propitiatory Sacrifice, f’jf-flf” as strong and properly as Words can pofTibly do. From hence S. Iaiil having told us, E’h. ii. 14. hat Chrifl Jesus had broken down the Par- tition Wall that was betwixt the Jews and Gentiles, ipeaks, Verse 16. of his Reconciling both unto God in one Body by the Cross. The Prophet Isaiah speaking of him, Chap. liii. 4, 5, 6. expreifes himself thus : Stirely he hath borne our Griefs and carried our Sorrows - yet- we did esteem him fcricken smitten of God and afflicted: But he was wounded for our i’ranf- greffions he was bruised for our Iniquities j the Chaftifement of our Peace was upon him and with his Stripes we are healed. All we like Sheep ha’ve gone astray ; we ha’ve turned every one to his own IVay. and the Lord hath laid on him the

[…]

Iniquities

7^ ^n Exposition on the

Article II. Iniquities of as all. S. John in his first Epiftle, yy” ii. 2. tells us, ‘ithat he is the Propitiation for our Sins and not for our Sins only hut also for the Sins of the whole World. For he hath made Him to he Sin for us faith S. Paul who knew no Sin that we might he made the Kightcoufnefs of God in him. These Things he suffered for us, faith S. Ignatius. that we might be saved. And again he tells us, that he underwent all Sorts of Punishment for our Sakes ’*. And Justin Mar tyr tells us f. That he bore to be fet at nought, and to fuifer for the Salvation of those who be- lieve in him. For this Reason, faith S. Clement oi Alexandria he came down from Heaven ; for this Reason he became Man, that being measured according to the Weakness of us whom he loved, he might measure us again according to his own Power; and being to be oifered up a Sacrifice, and giving himself for a Ransom, he leaves us a new Covenant §.

From all this it plainly enough follows, that our Blefled Saviour was a Sacrifice for all the Sins of Men, both Original and Actual. The former of these, viz. Original Sin, having the Ninth Article allotted for the Explication of what is neceflary to be known concerning it, I refer the Reader thither. If he desires to fee the End and Design of Christ’s Sufferings more largely difcourfed on, I refer him to the Authors under-quoted jl.

• Epif. ad Vclj’c,r^um.

t Apl, C. XXVIII.

§ ^U Div. Salv. C. XXXVII.

[…]

Art ic le

T/jirty-Nhie Articles. ^

Notes

• Scripture Doftrine. p. 45-, 118, 25>4. t Page 4.5-, 158.
• Scrip. Doftr. p. 45-, 132.
• jithanaf. Tom. 1. p. _fp3.