66

gressions, for my name is in him." (Ex. xxiii. 20, 21.) This text is supposed by the Jewish rabbins to allude to "the Angel, the Redeemer, or an uncreated angel, in whom Jehovah dwelt." They were therefore aware of the existence of a divine person distinct from God the Father. Again, it was a well known prophecy among the Jews, that "the glory of the second temple should exceed the glory of the first." (Hag. ii. 7.) Now the glory of the first temple consisted in the inhabitation of the divine presence among them. They were, therefore, not unprepared for the doctrine of a similar habitation of God in a creature. It is true they denied that Christ was that person, but still if this were once acknowledged, there was nothing repugnant to their former notions, in his being honoured with divine worship. The conclusion to be derived from these circumstances is evident. The Jews knew that Christ received divine homage from his followers, yet they never objected to it. They held that there was a person distinct from God the Father, to whom such homage was due. Their silence, therefore, can only be accounted for, by supposing that Christ was declared to be that divine person.

II. The article asserts, the doctrine of the Incarnation.

See Ambrose in loc. et Cartwright in Criticis Sacris.

The various parts of this doctrine may be satisfactorily established by the following method:

1. The article describes the manner of Christ's Incarnation: "He took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance."

2. It declares the nature thereby assumed: "Two whole and perfect natures, that is, the "Godhead and Manhood were joined together "in one person, never to be divided."

3. It describes the sufferings endured in that character: "He truly suffered, was dead, and buried."

4. It states the design of that Incarnation: "To reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for "the actual sins of men."

66

1. As to the manner of Christ's Incarnation. This requires little proof; the texts of Scripture, particularly the 1st Chapter of Luke, are so express, that nothing but wild extravagance can withstand them. Christ," says the Apostle, was made like unto his brethren." Heb. ii. 27. He is frequently, too, called the Son of David, a title which could not be applied to him if his body were not formed by the ordinary laws of nature. At the time of the Reformation,

2

cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age." The

however, a sect of the Anabaptists ventured to deny this, and asserted that Christ had only passed through Mary as through a canal; but this absurdity soon became extinct.

2. As to the nature thereby assumed.

Though we cannot form an accurate idea of the union of the two natures in the person of Christ, yet we may be assisted in our conception, by considering that there is a material and a spiritual nature in man, which yet constitute but one individual. The matter of which the body is composed does not subsist by itself, nor is it under all those laws of motion to which it would be subject, were it mere inanimated matter; but by the indwelling and actuation of the soul, it has another spring within it, and another course of operations. Thus, too, in the person of Jesus Christ, his human nature was entire, and acted according to its own character. Yet there was such an union of the Eternal Word with it, as gave rise to the application of appropriate terms. We find men called tall or healthy from the state of their

word also, plainly shows that Mary's offspring was to undergo the same natural increases as Elizabeth's.

A great number of this sect came over from Germany to England about the time of the Reformation, under Edward VI. See Strype's Eccles. Mem. v. 2. p. 1. c. 9. p. 107. Ed. Oxford, 1822. Their opinions, and the confutation of them, may be found in Bullinger, adv. Anabapt.

b See Field of the Church, 1. 5. c. 12.

bodies, and learned or good from the qualities of the mind; and by our ideas of what is material and spiritual, we are enabled to distinguish between those descriptions that belong to the former or to the latter. So, too, 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 Scripture concerning Christ.

That Christ had his perfect Godhead after his incarnation appears from several texts. Thus, "his glory was as the glory of the only begotten Son of God." (John, i. 14.) "God is said to "have purchased his Church with his own. blood." (Acts, xx. 28.) That he had a perfect manhood is equally manifest. Thus," the Word was made flesh." (John, i. 14.) He is called 'holy, harmless, and undefiled,” (Heb. vii. 26,) and is said to have died, risen, and ascended up into heaven. These texts at the same time show

66

2 This was denied by the sect of the Eutychians, in the fifth century, who held, that after his incarnation, Christ had but one nature, formed from the compounding or confusion of the divine and human into one. They were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon, in 451. See Mosheim's Hist. v. 1. cent. 5. Part, 2. c. 5. sec. 13. This was denied by two different sects. The Arians and Eunomians held that Christ had no part of the human nature, except merely the flesh; but that the soul was supplied by the indwelling of the Word. The Apollinarians distinguished man into three parts, the body, the sensitive soul, and the rational soul. The two former parts they said Christ possessed, but the Word was substituted in

that the two natures were united in one person, for the different titles are predicated of the same individual Christ, and, therefore, prove his identity. Indeed, this was never denied by any but Nestorius, who considered it improper to call Mary" the Mother of God," and only allowed her to be styled, "the Mother of Him that was God." As to the heresy which took its rise from him, perhaps it originated in confusion of terms,

the place of the latter. See Mosheim's Hist. v. 1. cent. 4. Part. 2. c. 5., and Pearson, Art. 3. p. 270. note. It may be observed, that the former of these opinions is refuted by all those passages in Scripture which ascribe to Christ the feelings of our nature, such as pity, sorrow, &c. The latter is also refuted by Luke, ii. 52: "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature." An increase in wisdom plainly proves a gradual development of mental faculties, which can only belong to one of the sons of men.

a The union of the two natures is thus described by the judicious Hooker: "Of the two natures, there is a co-operation often, an "association always, but never any mutual participation whereby "the properties of the one are infused into the other.", Eccles. Pol. 1. 5. sec. 51.

b See Mosheim's Hist. v. 1. cent. 5. Part. 2. c. 5. sec. 6. The heresies now mentioned, are respectively alluded to in the Athanasian Creed. The Apollinarian and Arian doctrine is rejected in these words: "Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting." The Nestorian, in these words: “ Although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ." tychian, in these: "One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh." I am aware that this creed has been supposed to have been written before the Eutychian controversy; but even if the supposition be true, the force of the application is not impaired.

The Eu