Nestorius allowed the presence of the Son of God with the man Christ Jesus to consist in five things.

[1] He said he was so present with him xarà Tapάoraon, or by inhabitation, as a man dwells in a house or a ship to rule it. He dwelt in him as his temple. So he dwells in all that believe, but in him in a more especial manner. And this is true with respect unto that fulness of the Spirit whereby God was with him and in him; as he is with and in all believers, according unto the measures. wherein they are made partakers of him. But this answers not that divine testimony, that in him dwelt "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Col. ii. 9. The fulness of the Godhead is the entire divine nature. This nature is considered in the person of the Son, or eternal Word; for it was the Word that was made flesh. And this could no otherwise dwell in him bodily, really, substantially, but in the assumption of that nature to be his own. And no sense can be given unto this assertion to preserve it from blasphemy,-that the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in any of the saints bodily.

[2] He allowed an especial presence, xarà oxéon, as some call it; that is, by such a union of affections as is between intimate friends. The soul of God rested always in that man [Christ] ;-in him was he well pleased: and he was wholly given up in his affections unto God. This also is true; but there is that which is no less true, that renders it useless unto the pretensions of Nestorius. For he allowed the divine person of the Son of God. But whatever is spoken of this nature concerning the love of God unto the man Christ Jesus, and of his love to God, it is the person of the Father that is intended therein; nor can any one instance be given where it is capable of another interpretation. For it is still spoken of with reference unto the work that he was sent of the Father to accomplish, and his own delight therein.

[3.] He allowed it to be nár2 àğíav, by way of dignity and honour. For this conjunction is such, as that whatever honour is given unto the Son of God is also to be given unto that Son of man. But herein, to recompense his sacrilege in taking away the hypostatical union from the church, he would introduce idolatry into it. For the honour that is due unto the Son of God is divine, religious, or the owning of all essential divine properties in him, with a due subjection of soul unto him thereon. But to give this honour unto the man Christ Jesus, without a supposition of the subsistence of his human nature in the person of the Son of God, and solely on that account, is highly idolatrous.

[4] He asserted it to be xarà ravroßóvλíav, or on the account of the consent and agreement that was between the will of God and the will of the man Christ Jesus. But no other union will thence ensue,

but what is between God and the angels in heaven; in whom there is a perfect compliance with the will of God in all things. Wherefore, if this be the foundation of this union, he might be said to take on him the nature of angels as well as the seed of Abraham; which is expressly denied by the apostle, Heb. ii. 16, 17.

[5.] Kas iμavupíav, by an equivocal denomination, the name of the one person, namely, of the Son of God, being accommodated unto the other, namely, the Son of man. So they were called gods unto whom the word of God came. But this no way answers any one divine testimony wherein the name of God is assigned unto the Lord Christ, as those wherein God is said "to lay down his life for us," and to " purchase his church with his own blood," to come and be "manifest in the flesh," wherein no homonymy or equivocation can take place. By all these ways he constituted a separable accidental union, wherein nothing in kind, but in degree only, was peculiar unto the man Christ Jesus.

But all these things, so far as they are true, belong unto the third thing to be considered in his person,-namely, the communion or mutual communication of the distinct natures therein. But his personal union consists not in any of them, nor in all of them together; nor do they answer any of the multiplied testimonies given by the Holy Ghost unto this glorious mystery. Some few of them may be mentioned.

"The Word was made flesh," John i. 14. There can be but two senses of these words. (1st,) That the Word ceased to be what it was, and was substantially turned into flesh. (2dly,) That continuing to be what it was, it was made to be also what before it was not. The first sense is destructive of the Divine Being and all its essential properties. The other can be verified only herein, that the Word took that flesh—that is, our human nature--to be his own, his own nature wherein he was made flesh; which is that we plead for. For this assertion, that the person of the Son took our nature to be his own, is the same with that of the assumption of the human nature into personal subsistence with himself. And the ways of the presence of the Son of God with the man Christ Jesus, before mentioned, do express nothing in answer unto this divine testimony, that "The Word was made flesh."

66

Being in the form of God, he took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient," Phil. ii. 6-8. That by his being "in the form of God," his participation in and of the same divine nature with the Father is intended, these men grant; and that herein he was a person distinct from him Nestorius of old acknowledged, though it be by ours denied. But they can fancy no distinction that shall bear the denomination and relation of Father and Son; but all is inevitably included

This person

"took on

in it which we plead for under that name. him the form of a servant,”—that is, the nature of man in the condition of a servant. For it is the same with his being made of a woman, made under the law; or taking on him the seed of Abraham. And this person became obedient. It was in the human nature, in the form of a servant, wherein he was obedient. Wherefore that human nature was the nature of that person, -a nature which he took on him and made his own, wherein he would be obedient. And that the human nature is the nature of the person of him who was in the form of God, is that hypostatical union which we believe and plead for.

"Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and his name shall be called The mighty God,” Isa. ix. 6. The child and the mighty God are the same person, or he that is "born a child" cannot be rightly called "The mighty God." And the truth of many other expressions in the Scripture hath its sole foundation in this hypostatical union. So the Son of God took on him "the seed of Abraham," was "made of a woman," did " partake of flesh and blood," was "manifest in the flesh." That he who was born of the blessed Virgin was "before Abraham,”—that he was made of the "seed of David according to the flesh,”—whereby God "purchased the church with his own blood,”—are all spoken of one and the same person, and are not true but on the account of the union of the two natures therein. And all those who plead for the accidental metaphorical union, consisting in the instances before mentioned, do know well enough that the true Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ is opposed by them.

III. Concurrent with, and in part consequent unto, this union, is the communion of the distinct natures of Christ hypostatically united. And herein we may consider,-1. What is peculiar unto the Divine nature; 2. What is common unto both.

α

1. There is a threefold communication of the divine nature unto the human in this hypostatical union. (1.) Immediate in the person of the Son. This is subsistence. In itself it is ¿vuróσraros,—that which hath not a subsistence of its own, which should give it individuation and distinction from the same nature in any other person. But it hath its subsistence in the person of the Son, which thereby is its The divine nature, as in that person, is its suppositum. (2.) By the Holy Spirit he filled that nature with an all-fulness of habitual grace; which I have at large explained elsewhere. (3.) In all the acts of his office, by the divine nature, he communicated worth and dignity unto what was acted in and by the human nature.

own.

For that which some have for a long season troubled the church withal, about such a real communication of the properties of the divine nature unto the human, which should neither be a transfusion of them into it, so as to render it the subject of them, nor yet

consist in a reciprocal denomination from their mutual in-being in the same subject,—it is that which neither themselves do, nor can any other well understand.

2. Wherefore, concerning the communion of the natures in this personal union, three things are to be observed, which the Scripture, reason, and the ancient church, do all concur in.

(1.) Each nature doth preserve its own natural, essential properties, entirely unto and in itself; without mixture, without composition or confusion, without such a real communication of the one unto the other, as that the one should become the subject of the properties of the other. The Deity, in the abstract, is not made the humanity, nor on the contrary. The divine nature is not made temporary, finite, limited, subject to passion or alteration by this union; nor is the human nature rendered immense, infinite, omnipotent. Unless this be granted, there will not be two natures in Christ, a divine and a human; nor indeed either of them, but somewhat else, composed of both.

(2.) Each nature operates in him according unto its essential properties. The divine nature knows all things, upholds all things, rules all things, acts by its presence everywhere; the human nature was born, yielded obedience, died, and rose again. But it is the same person, the same Christ, that acts all these things,-the one nature being his no less than the other. Wherefore,

(3.) The perfect, complete work of Christ, in every act of his mediatory office,—in all that he did as the King, Priest, and Prophet of the church,—in all that he did and suffered,—in all that he continueth to do for us, in or by virtue of whether nature soever it be done or wrought,—is not to be considered as the act of this or that nature in him alone, but it is the act and work of the whole person,-of him that is both God and man in one person. And this gives occasion,

IV. Unto that variety of enunciations which is used in the Scripture concerning him; which I shall name only, and conclude.

.

1. Some things are spoken of the person of Christ, wherein the enunciation is verified with respect unto one nature only; as-"The Word was with God, and the Word was God," John i. 1;-"Before Abraham was, I am," John viii. 58;-" Upholding all things by the word of his power," Heb. i. 3. These things are all spoken of the person of Christ, but belong unto it on account of his divine nature. So is it said of him, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,' Isa. ix. 6;—“ A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," Isa. liii. 3 They are spoken of the person of Christ, but are verified in human nature only, and the person on the account thereof.

2. Sometimes that is spoken of the person which belongs not distinctly and originally unto either nature, but doth belong unto him on the account of their union in him,—which are the most direct enun

ciations concerning the person of Christ. So is he said to be the Head, the King, Priest, and Prophet of the church; all which offices he bears, and performs the acts of them, not on the singular account of this or that nature, but of the hypostatical union of them both.

3. Sometimes his person being denominated from one nature, the properties and acts of the other are assigned unto it. So they “crucified the Lord of glory." He is the Lord of glory on the account of his divine nature only; thence is his person denominated when he is said to be crucified, which was in the human nature only. So God purchased his church" with his own blood," Acts xx. 28. The denomination of the person is from the divine nature only-he is God; but the act ascribed unto it, or what he did by his own blood, was of the human nature only. But the purchase that was made thereby was the work of the person as both God and man. So, on the other side, "The Son of man who is in heaven," John iii. 13. The denomination of the person is from the human nature only,-" The Son of man." That ascribed unto it was with respect unto the divine nature only, "who is in heaven."

4. Sometimes the person being denominated from one nature, that is ascribed unto it which is common unto both; or else being denominated from both, that which is proper unto one only is ascribed unto him. See Rom. ix. 5; Matt. xxii. 42.

These kinds of enunciations the ancients expressed by ivaλλayń, "alteration;" ¿2λoíwors, "permutation;" xovórns, "communion;" гpóπος ἀντιδόσεως, “the manner of mutual position;” κοινωνία ιδιωμάτων, the communication of properties," and other the like expressions. These things I have only mentioned, because they are commonly handled by others in their didactical and polemical discourses concerning the person of Christ, and could not well be here utterly omitted.

CHAPTER XIX.

The Exaltation of Christ, with his Present State and Condition in Glory during the Continuance of his Mediatory Office.

The apostle, describing the great mystery of godliness" God manifest in the flesh"-by several degrees of ascent, he carrieth it within the veil, and leaves it there in glory-aveλýpon év dón, 1 Tim. iii. 16; God was manifest in the flesh, and "received up into glory.” This assumption of our Lord Jesus Christ into glory, or his glorious reception in heaven, with his state and condition therein, is a principal article of the faith of the church,-the great foundation of its hope and consolation in this world. This, also, we must therefore