1 Tim. ii. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 21. but to the second, Article; we do not say, I believe in God First then, We believe that he which was made flesh was 159 the Word, that he which took upon him the nature of man was not the Father nor the Holy Ghost, nor any other person but the only-begotten Son. And when we say that person was conceived and born, we declare he was made really and truly man, of the same human nature which is in all other men, who by the ordinary way of generation are conceived and born. For the Mediator between God and man is the man Christ Jesus: that since by man came death, by man also should come the resurrection of the dead. As sure then as the first Adam and we who are redeemed are men, so certainly is the second Adam and our Mediator man. He is therefore frequently called the Son of Man, and in that nature he was always promised. First, to Eve, as her seed, Gen. xxii. 18. and consequently her son. Then to Abraham, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; and that seed is Christ, and so the son of Abraham. Next to David, as 2 Sam. vii. 12 his son to sit upon his throne; and so he is made of the seed of David according to the flesh; the son of David, the son of Abraham, and consequently of the same nature with David and with Abraham. And as he was their son, so are we his brethren, as descending from the same father Adam; Heb. ii. 17. and therefore it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren. For he laid not hold on the angels, but on the seed of Abraham; and so became not an angel, but a man. iii. Gen. ill. 15. Gal. iii. 16. -16. Rom. i. 3. Matt. i. 1. Heb. ii. 16. Ieb. ii. 14. As then man consisteth of two different parts, body and soul, so doth Christ; he assumed a body, at his conception, of the blessed Virgin. Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. The verity of his body stands upon the truth Greeks against Noetus drawn from words: Credo in Deo Patre Om- of his nativity'; and the actions and passions of his life shew He was first born with a body which was prepared for Heb. x. 5. him, of the same appearance with those of other infants; he grew up by degrees, and was so far from being sustained without accustomed nutrition of our bodies, that he was observed even by his enemies to come eating and drinking, Matt. xi. 19. and when he did not so, he suffered hunger and thirst. Those plowers never doubted of the true nature of his flesh, who plowed upon his back, and made long furrows. Psal. cxxix. The thorns which pricked his sacred 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 lest his fasting forty days together, lest his walking on the waters and traversing the seas, lest his sudden standing in the midst of his 160 disciples when the doors were shut, should raise an opinion 3. Luke xxiv. 39. that his body was not true and proper flesh; he confirmed dicit, et visibilem factum esse, vel 1 'Marcion, ut carnem Christi negaret, negavit etiam nativitatem, aut, ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et carnem: scilicet, ne invicem sibi testimo nium redderent et responderent nativi- 2 Simon Magus first made himself And certainly, if the Son of God would vouchsafe to take the frailty of our flesh, he would not omit the nobler part, Luke ii. 52. our soul, without which he could not be man. For Jesus increased in wisdom and stature; one in respect of his body, the other of his soul. Wisdom 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, must have a subject proper for it, which was no other than a human soul. This was the seat of his finite understanding and directed will, distinct from the will of his Father, and consequently of his divine nature; as appeareth by that Luke xxii. 42. known submission, not my will, but thine be done. This was the subject of those affections and passions which so manifestly appeared in him: nor spake he any other than a proper language, when before his suffering he said, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. This was it which on the cross, before the departure from the body, he recommended to the Father: teaching us in whose hands the souls of the departed are: for when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. And as his death was nothing else but the separation of the soul from his body; so the life of Christ as man did consist in the conjunction and vital union of that soul with the body. So that he which was perfect God, was also perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Which is to be observed and asserted against the Matt. xxvi. 33. Luke xxii. 46. So St Cyril represents him: Ook v ancient heretics', who taught Heracleonitæ and Ophitæ, Cerdon, Marcion, Lucanus, and generally the Manichees. Those were the AоkηTai Οι Φαντασιασταί, all conspiring in this, that Christ was not really what he appeared, nor did truly suffer what he seemed to endure. This early heresy appeareth by the opposition which St Ignatius made unto it in his epistles. 1 Of this kind two several sects were most remarkable, the Arians and the Apollinarians. Arius taught that Christ had nothing of man but the flesh, and with that the Word was joined. "Αρειος δὲ σάρκα μόνην πρὸς ἀποκρυφὴν τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογεῖ· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔσωθεν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπου τουτἐστι τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ σαρ 161 that Christ assumed 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 assumed by the Word', by him who was conceived and born of a woman, and so made a man. And being the divine nature which he had before could never cease to be what before it was, nor ever become what before it was not; therefore 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 assumed; and so really and truly was both God and κὶ λέγει γεγονέναι. Athan. de Adv. Christi. [contra Apollinar. 1. ii. § 3. Vol. 1. p. 942 c.] So Felicianus the Arian, in Vigilius de Unitate Trin. c. 17. [p. 348.] Ita enim a majoribus nostris semper est traditum, quod Christi corpus ad vicem animæ communis ipsius Filii Dei habitus animarit; nec accessione vitalis spiritus indigens fuerit, cui inhabitans fons vitæ potuit conferre quod vixit.' Eunomius followed him in this particular : "Αρειος δὲ καὶ Εὐνόμιος σῶμα μὲν αὐτὸν ἔφασαν εἰληφέναι, τὴν θεότητα δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνηργηκέναι τὴν Xpelar. Theodoret. Hæret. Fab. v. 11. [Vol. iv. p. 420.] Apollinaris distinguished between the soul and the mind, the uxń and the voûs, and acknowledged that the Word assumed the body and the soul or yuxń of man, but not the mind or spirit, or the vous, but the Word itself was in the place of that. Apollinaristas Apollinaris instituit, qui de anima Christi a Catholica dissenserunt,dicentes,sicutAriani, Deum Christum carnem sine anima suscepisse. In qua quæstione testimoniis Evangelicis victi, mentem qua rationalis est anima hominis, defuisse animæ Christi, sed pro hac ipsum Verbum in eo fuisse, dixerunt.' [Augustin. de Hæresibus, § 55. Vol. vii. p. 19 B.] This was then the clear difference betwixt the Arian and Apollinarian heresy: 'Apollinarista quidem carnis et animæ naturam sine mente assumpsisse Dominum credunt, Ariani vero carnis tantummodo.' Facundus, 1. ix. [c. 3. p. 749 c.] So that two things are to be observed in the ApolPEARSON. linarians, their philosophy and their divinity; their philosophy, in making man consist of three distinct parts, the body, the soul, and the mind; their divinity, in making the human nature of Christ to consist but of two, the body and the soul, and the third to be supplied by the Word. Which is excellently expressed by Nemesius de Nat. Hom. in respect of his philosophy: Τινὲς μὲν, ὧν ἐστὶ καὶ Πλωτίνος, ἄλλην εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ἄλλον τὸν νοῦν δογματίσαντες, ἐκ τριῶν τὸν ἄνθρωπον συνεστάναι βούλονται σώματος, καὶ ψυχῆς, καὶ νοῦ. Οἷς ἠκολούθησε καὶ ̓Απολλινάριος ὁ τῆς Λαοδικείας γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος· τοῦτον γὰρ πηξάμενος τὸν θεμέλιον τῆς οἰκείας δύξης, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ προσῳκοδόμησε κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον δόγμα. [c. 1. init.] And by Theodoret in respect of his Divinity: Σαρκωθῆναί τε τὸν Θεὸν ἔφησε λόγον, σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνειληφότα οὐ τὴν λογικήν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἄλογον, ἣν φυσικήν, ἤγουν ζωτικήν, τινὲς ὀνομά ξουσι. τὸν δὲ νοῦν ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι λέγων, οὐκ ἔφησεν ἀνειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ' ἀρκέσαι τὴν θείαν φύσιν εἰς τὸ πληρῶσαι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν χρείαν. [Hæret. Fab. 1. iv. § 8. Vol. iv. p. 363.] 1 'Quid a Patre Christus acceperat, nisi quod et induerat? hominem sine dubio, carnis animæque texturam.' Tertull. de Resur. Carn. c. 34. 'Hoc toto credente jam mundo, puto quod et dæmones confiteantur Filium Dei natum de Maria Virgine, et carnem naturæ humanæ atque animam suscepisse.' S. Hier. Apol. 2. adv. Ruffinum. [§ 4. Vol. II. p. 493 B.] 20 man'. And thus this third Article from the conjunction with the second, teacheth us no less than the two natures really distinct in Christ incarnate. For if both natures were not preserved complete and distinct in Christ, it must be either by the conversion and transubstantiation of one into the other, or by commixtion and confusion of both into one. But neither of these ways can consist with the person of our Saviour, or the office of our Mediator. For if we should conceive such a mixtion and confusion of substances as to make an union of natures, we should be so far from acknowledging him to be both God and man, that thereby we should profess him to be neither God nor man, but a person of a nature as different from both, as all mixed bodies are distinct from each element which concurs unto their composition. Besides, we know there were in Christ the affections proper to the nature of man, and all those infirmities which belong to us, and cannot be conceived to belong to that nature of which the divine was but a part. Nor could our humanity be so commixed or confounded with the Divinity of our Saviour, but that the Father had been made man as much as the Son, because the divine nature is the same both of the Father and the Son. Nor ought we to have so low an esteem of that infinite and independent Being2, as to think it so commixed with or immersed in the creature. Again, as the confusion, so the conversion, of natures is impossible. For first, we cannot with the least shew of probability conceive the divine nature of Christ to be transubstantiated into the human nature; as those whom they call Flandrian Anabaptists3 in the Low-Countries at this day maintain. There is a plain repugnancy even in the supposition; for the nature of man must be made, the nature of God cannot be made, and consequently cannot become the nature of man. The immaterial, indivisible, and immortal Godhead |