redemption and intercession had not been sufficient without them; and accordingly a great part of their worship consists in desiring that these good offices may be performed by them, on their behalf, which I cannot but conclude to be a breach of the first, or, at least, let them put never so fair colours upon it, of the second commandment; which will be farther considered in its proper place.

The scriptures they bring, in defence of this practice, are nothing to their purpose. For whenever an angel is said to intercede for men, as it is expressed, The angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah? Zech. i. 12. or to be the object of their prayers, or supplications, as Jacob says, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, Gen. xlviii. 16. no other person is intended hereby but Christ the angel of the covenant. Another scripture, which they bring to the same purpose, is that, in which Moses says, Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, Exod. xxxii. 13. which they miserably pervert; for Moses does not desire that God would hear the prayers that these saints made to him in the behalf of his church; but that he would remember the covenant that he made with them, and so accomplish the promises thereof, by bestowing the blessings that his people then stood in need of.

And there are two other scriptures that are often cited by the Papists, to this purpose, which, they think, can hardly be taken in any other sense; one is in Rev. v. 8. where it is said, that the four beasts, and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints; and the other is in chap. viii. 3. And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar, which was before the throne. It must be allowed, that there are many passages, in this book, which are hard to be understood; but there are none contrary to the analogy of faith, or derogatory to the glory of Christ, as the sense they give of these scriptures is; and therefore we must enquire, whether they may not be understood otherwise by us? It is said, indeed, the four beasts, and four and twenty elders, had golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints; but it is not fully determined whether, by these beasts and elders, are intended the inhabitants of heaven, or men on earth. If it is only an emblematical representation of those prayers that are directed to God from the church in this world, it is nothing to their purpose. But we will suppose that, by these beasts and elders, here spoken of, who fell down before the Lamb, are meant

the inhabitants of heaven: nevertheless, we are not to understand, that they are represented as praying for the saints here on earth; for the golden vials full of odours, are only an emblem of the prayers that are put up by the saints here on earth, which God accepts of, or smells a sweet savour in, as perfumed with odours of Christ's righteousness. This may be illustrated by those political emblems, that are used in public solemnities; such as the coronation of kings, in which the regalia are carried by the prime ministers of state, not to signify that they have any branch of kingly dignity belonging to them: but the whole ceremony is expressive of his honours and prerogatives, who is the principal subject thereof; so when the heavenly inhabitants are represented, in this vision, in such a way, as they are here described, it only signifies, that the prayers, which are put up by God's people here on earth, through the mediation of Christ, are graciously heard and answered by him.

As for the other scripture, in which it is said, Another angel stood at the altar, and there was given him much incense, that he should offer it, with the prayers of all saints, that is generally understood, by those who do not give into this absurd opinion of the Papists, as spoken of our Saviour, and then it makes nothing to their purpose, but rather militates against it. But if it be objected, to this sense of the text, that our Saviour cannot properly be called another angel, and therefore it must be meant of one of the created angels; the sense but now given of the foregoing scripture may be accommodated to it, and so the meaning is, this angel, or one of the angels, stood at the altar before the Lamb, and, in an emblematical way, is set forth, as having incense put into his hand, which he presents to him; not as offering it up for himself, but as signifying that it was for the sake of Christ's merits, that the prayers of his people, here on earth, ascended with acceptance in the sight of God. And it is as though he should say to Christ, "The incense is thine, "thou hast a right to the glory thereof; and therefore let all "know, that this is the only foundation of the church's hope, "that their wants shall be supplied by thee." So that this does not give the least countenance to the Popish doctrine, of there being other mediators between God and man besides our Lord Jesus Christ.

Some of the Papists, indeed, are sensible that this opinion tends to detract from the glory of our great Mediator, and therefore they chuse rather to assert, that the saints and angels. are mediators between Christ and men, so that we are through their means, to have access to him, and by him, to the Father: but, since Christ not only condescended to take our nature upon him, and therein to procure redemption for us; but invited his people to come to him; and since it is said, through

him we have an access unto the Father, Eph. ii. 18. and no mention is made of any, by whom we have access to Christ; and our access to God is founded only in his blood, we have nothing else to do, but, by faith, in what he has done and suffered to draw nigh to God, as to a Father, reconciled to this great and only Mediator.

II. This Mediator is described, as to his Person, as God incarnate, or, as it is expressed, the eternal Son of God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, who became Man, and that, in the most proper sense, by assuming to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, which are the two constituent parts of man. Here we are to consider,

1. The Person assuming the human nature. He is styled the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, and, with respect to his personality, equal with him.* This is the same mode of speaking that was used by the Nicene fathers, in defence of our Saviour's divinity against the Arians, which we have largely insisted on, in our defence of the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and having also explained what we mean by Christ's Sonship, as referring to his Person and character, as Mediator, we shall add no more on that subject at present, but take it for granted, that our Saviour is, in the most proper sense, a divine Person, and shall consider him as assuming the human nature; accordingly we may observe,

(1.) That it was the second Person in the Godhead who was incarnate, and not the Father, nor the Holy Ghost. This we affirm against the Sabellians, who deny the distinct Personality of the Father, Son, and Spirit; and assert that the Father, or the Holy Ghost, might as truly be said to have been incarnate, as the Son, since their Personality, according to them, is not so distinct, as that what is done by one divine Person, might not be said to have been done by another.

(2.) It follows, from hence, that the divine nature, which belongs in common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, cannot be properly said to have been incarnate. It is true, we read, that God was manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. iii. 16. and elsewhere, that in him, namely, in the human nature, dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead, Col. ii. 9. from whence some take occasion to conclude, that the human nature was united to the Godhead, or that the Godhead of Christ was said to be incarnate: but if this be asserted, it must be with caution and a distinction. I cannot therefore suppose, that the Godhead absolutely considered, but as including in it the idea of its subsisting in the Person of the Son, was incarnate; which is very well ex* See Vol. I. Page 243.

† See Quest. ix, x, xi.

Vide. the note, Vol. I. Page 279.

For this reason, the Sabellians are often called, by ancient writers, Patripassians

pressed, when we say that the human nature was united to the second Person in the Godhead, rather than to the Godhead itself.

(3.) Christ being farther considered, as the eternal Son of God; it follows from hence, that he existed before his incarnation, which has been largely insisted on, under a foregoing answer, in defence of Christ's proper deity. In this we oppose not only the Socinians, who deny that he existed before he was conceived in the womb of the blessed Virgin; but also the Arians, especially those of them who take occasion to explain, without disguise, or ambiguity of words, what they mean when they speak of him, as being before time, which comes infinitely short of what is intended by his being styled God's eternal Son, and so existing with him before time. Thus we have an account of the Person assuming the human nature.

2. We are now to consider the nature assumed, or united to the divine Person, which was an human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; so that as Christ is, in one nature, God equal with the Father, in the other he is Man, made, in all the essential properties of the human nature, like unto us. Here we may consider,

(1.) That, since this is a matter of pure revelation, we have sufficient ground, from scripture, to assert, that our Saviour is both God and Man. Many of the scriptures, that have been before referred to, to prove his deity, expressly attribute to him an human, as well as a divine nature, and speak of the same Person as both God and Man; as when God styles him, The Man that is my Fellow, Zech. xiii. 7. or, when he, who is Jehovah, our righteousness, is also described as a branch raised unto David, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. that is, of the seed of David; or, as the apostle says, he, who is over all, God blessed for ever, was of the fathers concerning the flesh, or his human nature, Rom. ix. 15. Moreover, when we read of the same Person, as styled, The mighty God, and yet a Child born unto us, a Son given, Isa. ix. 6. or of the same Person's being called Emmanuel, God with us, and yet born of a Virgin, Isa. vii. 14. compared with Matt. i. 23. or, when we read of the Word's being made flesh, and dwelling among us: and elsewhere, being called the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, and yet made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, Rom. i. 3. or, God manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim. iii. 16. These, and many other scriptures, as plainly prove him to be man, as they do that he is God.* And, indeed, the arguments to prove his humanity, taken from

* See the same scriptures, and others to the like purpose, before cited, for the proof of Christ's proper deity, under Quest. ix. x. xi. Vol. I. Page 302, to 319. and also what has been said concerning his Sonship, as implying him to be God-man Mediator. Vol. I. Page 274. 279, &c.

VOL. II.

Ff

thence, are not so much contested, as those that respect his proper deity; and therefore, if these, scriptures prove him to be God, they contain as strong and conclusive arguments to prove him to be Man, so that the bare mention of them is sufficient, especially when we consider, as it cannot be denied, that all these scriptures speak of the same Person; therefore,

(2.) When Christ is said to be both God and Man, it does not imply that there are two Persons in the Mediator; and accordingly it is said, in the answer we are explaining, that though these natures are distinct, yet the Person who has them, is but one. This is to be maintained against those who entertain favourable thoughts of that ancient heresy, first broached by Nestorius, whose method of reasoning cannot be reconciled with the sense of those scriptures, which plainly speak of the same Person, as both God and Man, and attribute the same actions to him in different respects, which is inconsistent with asserting, that the Mediator is both a divine and a human Person; and it cannot be denied but that it is a contradiction in terms, to say, that two Persons can be so united, as to become one. However, it must be acknowledged, that this is one of the incomprehensible mysteries of our religion; and when divines have attempted to explain some things relating to it, they have only given farther conviction, that there are some doctrines contained in scripture, which we are bound to believe, but are at a loss to determine how they are what they are asserted to be.

If it be objected, that we cannot conceive of an human nature, such an one as our Saviour's is that has not its own Personality, since there is no parallel instance hereof, in any other men, which I take to be the principal thing that gave occasion to the asserting, that he had a human Person, as well as a divine;

own,

The answer that I would give to this objection, is, that though, it is true, every man has a distinct subsistence of his without being united to any other person, yet we have no ground to conclude, that the human nature of Christ, even in its first formation, had any subsistence separate from the divine nature. Had it been first formed, and then united to the divine nature, it would have had a proper subsistence of its own; but, since it was not, its Personality, considered as united to the second Person in the Godhead, is contained therein, though its properties are infinitely distinct from it.

3. These two natures are distinct; united but not confounded. This is asserted, in opposition to an old exploded heresy,

• Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius, the younger, A. D. 428. who very warmly maintained, that the Virgin Mary was not the mother of that Person that was God, but of a distinct human Person, called Christ, which was censured and condemned by the council at Ephesus, A. D. 431.