that of the supreme God. Now this he would not have done, if there had been a sort of subaltern [religious] worship, which was still lawful; lest he should lay a snare for men, by so ambiguous an expression as would naturally entangle them in error. He would not have forbidden us, in general, to worship any but God; but to worship any other with supreme worship. The second is, that the lawgiver manifestly designed to stop the course of heathen idolatry. Now, the idolatry of the heathens properly lay in paying this subaltern worship to many gods: for they also, generally, as well as the Jews, acknowledged one Supreme Being. 27. "I say, in the second place, that the prophets knew nothing of this subaltern worship: for they had no example of it before their eyes. They had never heard it spoken of. They never mentioned it themselves. They scoff at those subaltern gods of the heathens, as not being able to comprehend how they could regard or worship, as gods, any other being than Him who governs the world, and who created heaven and earth. But this they certainly could not have done, had they known that there was, or would be, in the fulness of time, a subaltern and dependent God, who ought to be worshipped, though he did not make or govern the world.

28. "Thirdly, the apostles knew nothing of this distinction between supreme and subaltern worship. They thought that all, even outward worship, paid to a creature, was an injury to the Creator. When Cornelius fell down at Peter's feet, he did not take him for God. He knew him well to be but a man: this, therefore, could be but a subaltern worship. Yet, as even this outward worship was an action, consecrated by custom, to denote the honour paid to the Supreme Being, St. Peter could not suffer that to be done to him, which ought to be done to God only. Arise, (said he,) I also am a man:' giving us hereby two invincible proofs, that it is in no case lawful to worship any other than the supreme God. The first, that St. Peter condemns this action from a concern for the glory of God: whence it appears, that subordinate worship, as well as all other, paid to any but God, is contrary to his glory. The second, inasmuch as it appears from hence, that whoever is by nature a mere man, has no right to any worship at all, supreme or subaltern.

29. "In the fourth place, the angels know nothing of this subaltern worship: otherwise, this angel, who spake to St. John, would not so earnestly have rejected that which the apostle was willing to pay him. St. John did not take him for God; for he had just been saying, 'The Lord God of the holy prophets hath sent his angel to show his servants the things which must be shortly.' St. John, therefore, would have worshipped him because he was an angel of God, not because he thought he was God himself. But this angel, who made none of these distinctions, said to him, Worship God;' showing, in the plainest manner, that worship, of whatsoever sort, must be paid to God alone." (Abbadie abridged.)

30. The reader will pardon my subjoining another short extract here. "It is something surprising, that when this religion, with this duty (worshipping Christ) in it as a part of it, was first published in Judea, the Jews, though implacably set against it, yet never accused it of idolatry: though that charge, of all others, had served their purpose

the best, who intended to blacken and blast it. Nothing would have been so well heard, and so easily apprehended, as a just prejudice against it, as this. The argument would have appeared as strong as it was plain and as the Jews could not be ignorant of the acts of the Christian worship, when so many fell back to them from it, who were offended at other parts of it; so they had the books, in which it was contained, in their hands. Notwithstanding all which, we have all possible reason to believe, that this objection against it was never made by any of them in the first ages of Christianity.

31. "The silence of the apostles, in not mentioning nor answering any such objection, is a plain proof of the silence of the Jews on this head for it would indeed disparage all their writings, if we could think, that while they mentioned and answered the other prejudices of the Jews, which, in comparison of this, are small and inconsiderable matters, they passed over this, which must have been the greatest and plausiblest of them all, if it was one at all. Therefore, as the silence of the apostles is a clear proof of the silence of the Jews, and since their silence could neither flow from their ignorance, nor their undervaluing of this religion, it seems to be certain that the first opening of the Christian doctrine did not carry any thing in it that could be called the worshipping of a creature. For it is not to be imagined, that they would have been silent on this head, if a creature, a mere man, had been thus proposed among the Christians as the object of Divine worship.

6

32. "As it follows, from hence, that the Jews must have understood this part of our religion in such a manner as agreed with their former ideas, so we must examine these. Now they had this settled among them that God dwelt in the cloud of glory, and that, by virtue of that inhabitation, Divine worship was paid to God as dwelling in the cloud; that it was called God, God's throne, his holiness, his face, and the light of his countenance.' They went up to the temple to worship God, as dwelling there bodily; that is, substantially-so bodily sometimes signifies or in corporeal appearance. This seems to have been a person that was truly God, and yet was distinct from the Father; for this seems to be the import of these words: Behold, I send an angel before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee to the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice. Provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for my name is in him.' These words do plainly import a person to whom they belong; and yet they are a pitch far above the angelical dignity. So that angel must here be understood in a large sense, for one sent of God; and can admit of no sense so proper as that the eternal Word, which dwelt afterward in the man Christ Jesus, dwelt in that cloud of glory. It was also one of the prophecies received by the Jews, That the glory of the second temple was to exceed the glory of the first.' The chief character of the glory of the first, was that inhabitation of the Divine presence among them. From hence it follows, that such an inhabitation of God in a creature, by which that creature was not only called God, but that adoration was due to it upon that account, was a notion that could not have scandalized the Jews, and was indeed the only notion that agreed with their former ideas, and that could have been received by them without difficulty or opposition. This is a strong inducement to believe that

this great article of our religion was, at that time, delivered and understood in that sense." (Burnet on the Articles.)

CHAPTER XII.

That Jesus Christ is also very man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh, subsisting.

1. INASMUCH as it appears from the preceding chapters, that the Holy Scriptures afford such clear and abundant proof of the divinity of Christ, it may justly appear strange that any, who sincerely desire to know the truth, and with a view thereto diligently search these sacred records, should entertain any doubt concerning it. But one reason of this may be, the same Divine oracles which represent him as God, do also, in many other passages, speak of him in a very different and inferior character; nay, and affirm things of him absolutely incompatible with true and proper Deity. They tell us, that he was conceived and born, was an infant, a child; that he "grew in wisdom and in stature ;" nay, and "in favour with God and man:" that he was subject to all the infirmities of human nature; felt hunger, thirst, weariness; eat, drank, slept; that he was sensible of mere human affections, such as sorrow, Matt. xxvi, 38; joy, Luke x, 21; love, John xi, 5. They signify that he was weak and ignorant in some things, not being able to do any thing of himself, and not knowing the day of judgment; that he loved God, obeyed his commandments, and sought his glory; that he frequently prayed to him as to "One that was able to save him," and once in particular "offered up strong cries and tears, and was heard in what he feared;" that at that time his "soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death ;" and he entreated his disciples to "watch with him;" that he then went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt;" that after returning to his disciples, he "went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done;" that he "went away a third time, and prayed, saying the same words, and there appeared an angel unto him, strengthening him and being in an agony, he prayed the more earnestly, and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood falling to the ground;" that when on the cross, he cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; and gave up the ghost."

2. Now, how shall we account for all this? Surely by allowing what the true catholic Church has allowed, and believed, in all ages; that he who is God is also man; that he who is the root is also the offspring of David, Rev. xxii, 16. As the root of David, he is David's Creator, the author of his existence, the source of his being, and, therefore, his King and Lord, Psa. cx, 1; and Matt. xxii, 43. As David's offspring, he is his true son, his real descendant. Now, as in the former character he is very God, possessed of a nature truly Divine, so in this latter he is very man, possessed of a nature truly human. Thus Bishop Pearson :

"When we say that he 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, 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 is the son of Abraham. Next to David, as 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 Abraham; and as he was their son, so are we his brethren, as descending from the same father, Adam, and therefore it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren.' For he laid not hold on angels,' but on the seed of Abraham, and so became, not an angel, but a man.

3. "As, then, man consisted of two 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 of his nativity; and the actions and passions of his life show the nature of his flesh. He was first born with a body prepared for him of the same appearance with those of other infants; he grew up by degrees, and was so far from being sustained without the accustomed nutrition of our bodies, that he was observed, even by his enemies, to come eating and drinking; and when he did not so, he suffered hunger and thirst. Those ploughers never doubted of the true nature of his flesh, who 'ploughed upon his back, and made long furrows there.' The thorns which pricked his sacred temples, the nails which penetrated through his hands and feet, the spear which pierced his 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 water, and traversing the seas, lest his sudden standing in the midst of his disciples, when the doors were shut, should raise an opinion that his body was not true and proper flesh, he confirmed first his own disciples, Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.' As, therefore, we believe the coming of Christ, so do we confess him to have come in the verity of our human nature, even in true and proper flesh. Thus it was always necessary to acknowledge him. For every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ come in the flesh, is not of God.' This spirit appeared early in opposition to the apostolical doctrine, and Christ, who is both God and man, was as soon denied to be man as God.

4. "And certainly if the Son of God would vouchsafe to take the frailty of our flesh, he would not omit the nobler part, our soul, without which he could not be man. For Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, one in respect of his body and the other of his soul. Wisdom be.

longeth 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 had 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 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 faithful are. For when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit; and having said this, he gave up the ghost.' And as his death was nothing else but the separation of his 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 who was perfect God, was also perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh, subsisting."

5. Now this being allowed to be a truth, as it undoubtedly must, we need not wonder if this human nature of Christ, consisting of body and soul, and constituting as complete and proper a person as the human nature of any man-we need not wonder, I say, if it should frequently be represented in the Holy Scriptures as a complete and proper person, and should speak and act as such: surely this is what one might reasonably expect, notwithstanding its union with the "Word of the Father." For though the union was such that he might properly be termed "Emmanuel, God with us, God manifest in the flesh," yet the two natures were preserved distinct, and the personality of the man was not destroyed.

6. "If both natures (says the last mentioned author) were not preserved complete and distinct in Christ, it must either be by the conversion and transubstantiation of one into the other, or by the commixion 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 mixion and confusion of substances as to make a 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 into their composition. Beside, we know there were in Christ the affections proper unto the nature of man, and all those infirmities which belong to us, and cannot be conceived to belong to that nature, [which is Divine, or,] of which the Divine is but a part.

7. "And as the confusion, so the conversion of natures is impossible: for, first, we cannot, with the least show of probability, conceive the Divine nature of Christ to be transubstantiated into the human nature. 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, cannot be divided into a spiritual and incorruptible soul, and a carnal and corruptible body; of which two, humanity consisteth. Secondly, we must