Gambar halaman

to be mortal and immortal; to have a beginning; and to want a beginning ; to be changeable and unchangeable.

* 2. Because two natures, each of them constituting a person, cannot likewise agree, or meet in one person : for instead of one, there must (then) be two persons, and so also two Christs would exist : whom all without controversy acknowledge to be one, and his person one.'

And this is all which these gentlemen offer to make good their assertion, that the Deity of Christ is repugnant to right reason; which therefore upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly appear.

1. It is true, that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two substances with such diverse properties, so as by that union to make an exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties; but that there may not be such a concurrence, and meeting of such different substances in one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such an union, is to beg the thing in question, against evidence of many express testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least inducement for any to grant their requests.

2. In calling these properties of the several natures in Christ adverse or contrary, they would insinuate a consideration of them as of qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove destructive to the one, if not both; or by a mixture cause an exurgency of qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such qualities, nor are they inherent in any common subject, but inseparable adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the person, wherein both the natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing in this first part of their answer, but beg the thing in question; which being of so much importance, and

unam personam convenire itidem nequeant; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, atque ita duos Christos existere, quem unum esse, et unám ipsius personam onines citra omnem controversiam agnoscunt.

[ocr errors]


concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted them on any such terms. Will Christ on their entreaties, cease to be God?

Neither is their second pretended argument of any other kind. 1. We deny, that the human nature of Christ had any such subsistence of its own, as to give it a proper per'sonality, being from the time of its conception, assumed into subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by express texts of Scripture ; Isa. vii. 14. ix. 6. John i. 14. Rom. i. 3. ix. 5. Heb. ii. 15. Luke i. 35. Heb. ix. 14. Acts iii. 15. xx. 28. Phil. ii. 7. 1 Cor. ii. 8, &c. And by arguments taken from the assigning of all the diverse properties by them mentioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, &c. That we would take it for granted, that this cannot be, is the modest request of these gentlemen with whom we have to do,

2. If by natures constituting persons, they mean those, who antecedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot meet in one person; so that upon

this union they should cease to be two persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed, their different beings could not be preserved. But if by constituting, they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next possibility of constituting a person; then, as before, they only beg of us, that we would not believe, that the person of the Word did assume the human nature of Christ, that : holy thing, that was born of the Virgin,' into subsistence with itself; which for the reasons before-mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.

And this is the substance of all that these men plead, and make a noise with in the world, in an opposition to the eternal Deity of the Son of God. This pretence of reason (which evidently comes short of being any thing else), is their shield and buckler in the cause they have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christ's being hungry and dying, we say, it was in the human nature, wherein he was obnoxious to such things no less than we, being therein

made like 'unto us in all things, sin only excepted. When of his submission and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the office of Mediator, which he willingly undertook; and that his inequality unto him, as to that office, doth no way prejudice his equality with him, in respect of his nature and being. But when with Scriptures and arguments from thence, as clear and convincing, as if they were written with the beams of the sun, we prove our dear Lord Jesus in respect of a divine nature whereof he was partaker from eternity, to be God blessed for ever: they tell us it cannot be, that two such diverse natures, as those of God and man, should be united in one person: and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so, there is no such union among other things. And these things must be, that those who are approved may be tried: but let us hear them out.

'Q. But whereas they shew, that Christ consisteth of a divine and human nature, as a man consisteth of soul and body, what is to be answered them?

* A. That here is a very great difference. For they say, that the two natures in Christ are so united, that Christ is both God and man. But the soul and body are in that manner conjoined in man, that a man is neither soul nor body, nor neither soul nor body do singly of themselves constitute a person. But as the divine nature by itself constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the human nature should do.?

Ans. 1. In what senseit may be said, that Christ, that is, the person of Christ, consisteth of a divine and human nature, was before declared. The person of the Son of God assumed the human nature into subsistence with itself, and both, in that one person are Christ.

2. If our catechists have no more to say to the illustration given to the union of the two natures in the person of Christ by that of the soul and body in one human person, but that there is a great difference in something between them, they do but filch away the grains that are allowed to every similitude; and shew wherein the comparats differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.

3. All that is intended by this similitude, is to shew, that besides the change of things, one into another, either by the loss of one, as of water into wine by Christ, and besides the union that is in physical generation by mixture, whereby and from whence some third thing ariseth, that also there is a substantial union, whereby one thing is not turned into another, nor mixed with it. And the end of using this similitude (which to please our catechists we can forbear, acknowledging, that there is not among created beings any thing that can fully represent this, which we confess .without controversy to be a great mystery'), only to manifest the folly of that assertion of their master on John i. that if the • Word be made flesh' in our sense, it must be turned into flesh; for, saith he, one thing cannot be made another, but by change, conversion, and mutation into it.' The absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced, by the substantial union of soul and body, made one person, without that alteration and change of their natures which is pleaded for. Neither is the Word made flesh by alteration, but by union.

i Cum vero illi ostendunt, Christum sic ex natura divina et humana constare, quemadmodum homo ex animo et corpore constet, quid illis respondendum ?-Permagnum hic esse discrimen : illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Christo ita unitas esse, ut Christus sit Deus et homo; animo vero et corpus ad eum modum in homine conjuncta sunt, ut nec anima nec corpus ipse homo sit, nec enim anima, nec corpus sigillatim personam constituunt. Atut natura divina per se constituit personam, ita humana constituat per se, necesse est.

4. It is confessed that the soul is not said to be made the body, nor the body said to be made the soul, as the Word is said to be made flesh; for the union of soul and body is not a union of distinct substances, subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two parts of one nature, whereof the one is the form of the other. And herein is the dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that predication be justified in Christ; “the Word was made flesh, without any change or alteration, because of that subsistence whereunto the flesh, or human nature of Christ was assumed, which is common to them both. And so it is in accidental predications. When we say a man is made white, black, or pale, we do not intend that he is, as to his substance, changed into whiteness, &c. but that he who is a'man, is also become white.

5. It is true that the soul is not a person, nor the body; but a person is the exurgency of their conjunction; and therefore we do not say, that herein the similitude is urged; for the divine nature of Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union; nor is the union of his


the union of several parts of the same nature, but the concurrence of several natures in one subsistence.

6. That it is of necessity that Christ's human nature should of itself constitute a person,' is urged upon the old

[blocks in formation]

account of begging the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we deny; and produce all the proofs before-mentioned to make evident the reason of our denial. But our great masters here say the contrary; and our under cathechists are resolved to believe them, Christ was a true man, because he had the true essense of a man, soul and body, with all their essential properties. A peculiar personality belongeth not to the essence of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither do we deny Christ to have a person, as

a man, but a human person. For the human nature of Christ subsisteth in that, which though it be in itself divine, yet as to that act of sustentation which it gives the human nature, it is the subsistence of a man. On which account the subsistence of the human nature of Christ is made more noble and excellent, than that of any other man whatever. And this is the whole plea of our catechists from reason, that whereto they so much pretend, and which they give the pre-eminence unto, in their attempts against the Deity of Christ, as the chief, if not the only, engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weak in the main body of their forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from Scripture, whereof indeed they have the meanest pretence and shew that ever any of the sons of men had, who were necessitated to make a plea from them, in a matter of so great concernment as that now under consideration, will quickly disappear. Thus then they proceed:

Q. Declares also how it is repugnant to Scripture, that Christ hath a divine naturé.

*A. First, because that the Scripture proposeth to us, one only God by nature, whom we have above declared to be the Father of Christ. Secondly, the same Scripture testifieth, that Jesus Christ was by nature a man, whereby it taketh from him any divine nature. Thirdly, because whatever divine thing Christ hath, the Scripture plainly teacheth that

& Doce etiam, qui id repugnet Scripturæ, Christum habere divinam naturam.Primum, ea ratione, quod Scriptura nobis unum tantum natura Deum proponat, quem superius demonstravimus esse Christi patrem. Secundo, eadem Scriptura testatur, Jesum Christum natura esse hominem, ut superius, ostensum est; quo ipso, illi naturam adimit divinam. Tertio, quod quicquid divinum Christus babeat, Scriptura eum patris dono habere aperte doceat, Matt. xxviii. 18. Phil. ii. 9. 1 Cor. xv. 27. John. v. 19. x. 25. Denique cum eadem Scriptura apertissime ostendat, Jesum Christum omnia sua facta divina non sibi, nec alicui naturæ divinæ suæ; sed patri suo vindicare solitum fuisse, planum facit, eam divinam in Christo naturam prorsus otiosam, ac sine omni causa futuram fuisse.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »