II.

ART. Epistle begins with expressions that are the more severe, because they are negative, which are to be understood more strictly than positive words. Christ is not only preferred to angels, but is set in opposition to them, as one of another order of beings. Made so much better than angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than 5, they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou 6, art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? When he bringeth

Heb. i. 4.

in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the 7, angels of God worship him. Of the angels he saith, Who

maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8, But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 10, ever. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foun

dation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy 12, hands. Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail 13, But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my 14. right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? This opposition is likewise carried on through the whole second chapter; one passage in it being most express to shew both that his nature had a subsistence before his incarnation, and that it was not of Chap. ii. 16. an angelical order of beings, since he took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham. Thus in a great variety of expressions, the conceit of Christ's being of an angelical nature is very fully condemned. From that the writer goes next to the notion of his being to be honoured, because he was an eminent prophet; on which he Chap. iii. 1.enters with a very solemn preface, inviting them to consider the Apostle and High-priest of our profession: then he compares Moses to him, as to the point of being faithful to him who had appointed him. But how eminent soever Moses was above all other prophets, and how harshly soever it must have sounded to the Jews to have stated the difference in terms so distant as that of a servant and a son, of one who built the house, and of the house itself; yet we see the Apostle does not only prefer Christ to Moses, but puts him in another order and rank; which could not be done according to the Socinian hypothesis. From all which this conclusion naturally follows, that if Christ is to be worshipped, and that this honour belongs to him neither as an angel, nor as a prophet, that then it is due to him because he is truly God.

The second branch of this Article is, that he took man's nature upon him in the womb of the blessed Virgin, and of her substance. This will not need any long or laboured proof, since the texts of Scripture are so express, that no

II.

thing but wild extravagance can withstand them. Christ ART. was in all things like unto us, except his miraculous conception by the Virgin: he was the Son of Abraham and of David. But among the frantic humours that appeared at the Reformation, some, in opposition to the superstition of the Church of Rome, studied to derogate as much from the blessed Virgin on the one hand, as she had been over-exalted on the other: so they said, that Christ had only gone through her. But this impiety sunk so soon, that it is needless to say any thing more to refute it.

The third branch of the Article is, that these two natures were joined in one Person, never to be divided. What a person is that results from a close conjunction of two natures, we can only judge of by considering man, in whom there is a material and a spiritual nature joined together. They are two natures as different as any we can apprehend among all created beings; yet these make but one man. The matter of which the body is composed does not subsist by itself, is not under all those laws of motion to which it would be subject, if it were mere inanimated matter; but by the indwelling and actuation of the soul, it has another spring within it, and has another course of operations. According to this then, to subsist by another, is when a being is acting according to its natural properties, but yet in a constant dependance upon another being; so our bodies subsist by the subsistence of our souls. This may help us to apprehend how that as the body is still a body, and operates as a body, though it subsists by the indwelling and actuation of the soul; so in the Person of Jesus Christ the human nature was entire, and still acted according to its own character; yet there was such an union and inhabitation of the eternal Word in it, that there did arise out of that a communication of names and characters, as we find in the Scriptures. A man is called tall, fair, and healthy, from the state of his body; and learned, wise, and good, from the qualities of his mind: so Christ is called holy, harmless, and undefiled; is said to have died, risen, and ascended up into heaven, with relation to his human nature: he is also said to be in the form of God, to have created all things, to Phil. ii. 6. be the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image Col. 1. 16. of his person, with relation to his divine nature. The ideas that we have of what is material and what is spiritual, lead us to distinguish in a man those descriptions that belong to his body, from those that belong to his mind; so the different apprehensions that we have of what is created and uncreated, must be our thread to guide us into

Heb. i. 3.

ART. the resolution of those various expressions that occur in the Scriptures concerning Christ.

II.

The design of the definition that was made by the Church concerning Christ's having one person, was chiefly to distinguish the nature of the indwelling of the Godhead in him, from all prophetical inspirations. The Mosaical degree of prophecy was in many respects superior to that of all the subsequent prophets: yet the difference is stated between Christ and Moses, in terms that import things quite of another nature; the one being mentioned as a servant, the other as the Son that built the house. It is not said that God appeared to Christ, or that he spoke to him; but God was ever with him, and in him; and John i. 14. while the Word was made flesh, yet still his glory was as the glory of the only begotten Son of God. The glory that Isaiah saw, was called his glory; and on the other hand, God is said to have purchased his Church with his own blood. If Nestorius, in opposing this, meant only, as some think it appears by many citations out of him, that the blessed Virgin was not to be called simply the Mother of God, but the Mother of him that was God; and if that of making two persons in Christ was only fastened on him as a consequence, we are not at all concerned in the matter of fact, whether Nestorius was misunderstood and hardly used, or not; but the doctrine here asserted is plain in the Scriptures, that though the human nature in Christ acted still according to its proper character, and had a peculiar will; yet there was such a constant presence, indwelling, and actuation on it from the eternal Word, as did constitute both human and divine nature one Person. As these are thus so entirely united, so they are never to be separated. Christ is now exalted to the highest degrees of glory and honour; and Rev. v. 13. the characters of Blessing, Honour, and Glory, are represented in St. John's visions, as offered to the Lamb for ever and ever. It is true, St. Paul speaks as if Christ's mediatory office and kingdom were to cease after the Day of Judgment, and that then he was to deliver up all to the Father. But though, when the full number of the elect shall be gathered, the full end of his death will be attained; and when these saints shall be glorified with him and by him, his office as Mediator will naturally come to an end; yet his own personal glory shall never cease: and if every saint shall inherit an everlasting kingdom, much more shall he who has merited all that to them, and has conferred it on them, be for ever possessed of his glory.

The fourth branch of the Article is concerning the truth of Christ's crucifixion, his death and burial. The matter

of fact concerning the death of Christ is denied by no ART. Christian; the Jews do all acknowledge it; the first enemies to Christianity did all believe this, and reproached his followers with it. This was that which all Christians gloried in and avowed; so that no question was made of his death, except by a small number called Docete, who were not esteemed Christians, till Mahomet denied it in his Alcoran, who pretends that he was withdrawn, and that a Jew was crucified in his stead. But this corruption of the history of the Gospel came too late afterwards, to have any shadow of credit due to it; nor was there any sort of proof offered to support it. So this doctrine concerning the death of Christ is to be received as an unquestionable truth. There is no part of the Gospel writ with so copious a particularity, as the history of his sufferings and death; as there was indeed no part of the Gospel so important as this is.

The fifth branch of the Article is, that he was a true sacrifice to reconcile the Father to us, and that not only for original, but for actual sins. The notion of an expiatory sacrifice, which was then, when the New Testament was writ, well understood all the world over, both by Jew and Gentile, was this, that the sin of one person was transferred on a man or beast, who was upon that devoted and offered up to God, and suffered in the room of the offending person; and by this oblation the punishment of the sin being laid on the sacrifice, an expiation was made for sin, and the sinner was believed to be reconciled to God. This, as appears through the whole book of Leviticus, was the design and effect of the sin and trespass offerings among the Jews, and more particularly of the goat that was offered up for the sins of the whole people on the day of atonement. This was a piece of religion well known both to Jew and Gentile, that had a great many phrases belonging to it, such as the sacrifices being offered for, or instead of, sin, and in the name, or on the account, of the sinner; its bearing of sin, and becoming sin, or the sin-offering; its being the reconciliation, the atonement, and the redemption of the sinner, by which the sin was no more imputed, but forgiven, and for which the sinner was accepted. When therefore this whole set of phrases, in its utmost extent, is very often, and in a great variety, applied to the death of Christ, it is not possible for us to preserve any reverence for the New Testament, or the writers of it, so far as to think them even honest men, not to say inspired men, if we can imagine, that in so sacred and important a matter they could exceed so much as to represent that to

II.

2 Cor. v. 21.

25.

Heb. ix. 11,

12, 14, 19,

12, 20.

1 Pet. ii. 24. 1 Pet. iii.

18.

ART. be our sacrifice which is not truly so: this is a point which will not bear figures and amplifications; it must be treated of strictly, and with a just exactness of expression. Christ John i. 29. is called the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the 1 Pet. ii. 24. world; he is said to have borne our sins on his own body; to Matth. xx. •have been made sin for us; it is said, that he gave his life a 28. ransom for many; that he was the propitiation for the sins of Rom. iii. the whole world; and that we have redemption through his 1 John ii. 2. blood, even the remission of our sins. It is said, that he hath Eph. i. 7. reconciled us to his Father in his cross, and in the body of his Col. i. 14, flesh through death: that he by his own blood entered in 20, 21, 22, once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption 12, 13, 14, for us: that once in the end of the world hath he appeared to 26, 28. put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself: that he was once Heb. x. 10, offered to bear the sins of many: that we are sanctified by the 29. offering of the body of Christ once for all: and that, after he Heb. xiii. had offered one sacrifice for sin, he sat down for ever on the 1 Pet.i. 19. right hand of God. It is said, that we enter into the holiest by the blood of Christ, that is the blood of the new covenant, by which we are sanctified: that he hath sanctified the people with his own blood: and was the great shepherd of his people, through the blood of the everlasting covenant: that we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot; and, that Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. In these and in a great many more passages that lie spread in all the parts of the New Testament, it is as plain as words can make any thing, that the death of Christ is proposed to us as our sacrifice and reconciliation, our atonement and redemption. So it is not possible for any man that considers all this, to imagine, that Christ's death was only a confirmation of his Gospel, a pattern of a boly and patient suffering of death, and a necessary preparation to his resurrection; by which he gave us a clear proof of a resurrection, and by consequence of eternal life, as by his doctrine he had shewed us the way to it. By this all the high commendations of his death amount only to this, that he by dying has given a vast credit and authority to his Gospel, which was the powerfullest mean possible to redeem us from sin, and to reconcile us to God: but this is so contrary to the whole design of the New Testament, and to the true importance of that great variety of phrases, in which this matter is set out, that, at this rate of expounding Scripture, we can never know what we may build upon, especially when the great importance of this thing, and of our having right notions concerning it, is well considered. St. Paul does, in his Epistle to the Ro