A divine antidote against a devilish poyson, or, A scriptural answer to an anti-scriptural and heretical pamphlet entituled A designed end to the Socinian controversie, written by John Smith answered by Francis Gregory, D.D. and rector of Hambleden in the county of Bucks.

SECT. XIX. (Book 19)

THE next thing, which this Soci∣nian Trifler attempts, is this; namely, to disprove the Union of the Divine and Humane Natures in the Per∣son of Christ; and, to that end, he argueth to this effect: That Person, who died as a Man, could not also be God. But our Lord died as a Man, Ergo, He could not also be God.

This Minor Proposition being granted true, to confirm the Major, and so to secure the Conclusion, he gives this Reason; A person, constituted of two such Natures, could never have died according to his Humane Nature, but why not? His Reason is this; One capacity must needs have supplied the defects of the other, especially the stronger of the weaker; he means, that if Christ had been God, as well as Man, his Divinity must have supplied the defects of his Humanity, and not to have permitted that to re∣main either Ignorant or Mortal: To which I answer, as to each Particular:

1. There was no necessity that our Lord's Divinity should so far supply the defects of Humane Nature, as to render that Omniscient, had it been capable of being so.

The truth is, since Omniscience is one of those Infinite Perfections, which are no where to be found, but in God alone; the want of it must not be thought or blamed as an Imperfection in the Nature of Man. what St. Paul saith of himself, is true of the best of Men;* 1.1 We know but in part: That's the case of the most improved and enlightned Understand∣ing here below, but how will it be with us above?* 1.2 Aquinas propounds this Que∣stion: Utrum videntes Deum per Essenti∣am Omnia in Deo videant? To which he answers thus in the negative; Intellectus Creatus videndo Essentiam Divinam in ea non videt omnia, when we shall see God, as he is, we shall not see all things in him, because our created and limited Understandings are in no capacity to comprehend an Infinite being.

And this was our blessed Saviour's own case; for, as he was Man, he in∣creased in Wisdom by degrees, as other Men do; yet at a far higher rate, and far greater measures, yet not so as to become Omniscient; for the Particular

day and hour of the last Judgment was concealed from his Humane Soul, nor was there any need that it should be revealed to him, as Man; because it was no part of that Doctrine, where∣in he was to instruct the World.

It was enough that Christ, as Man, was furnish'd with so much knowledg, as enabled him to reveal the whole will of God, to interpret the Moral Law, to instruct his Church, to solve all doubts, to confute all Errors, and to understand the very Hearts and Thoughts of Men. And since he had such a knowledg, as was sufficient for the discharge of that great Work, and those high Offices, which he had un∣dertook, his Humane Nature could need no more. And if so, it was no more necessary that our Lords Divinity should render his Humane Nature Omniscient, than that it should render it Omnipresent, which had been needless and is Impossible.

2. There was no necessity that our Lord's Divinity should, as this Man contends, have so far supplied the de∣fects of his Humane Nature, as to ren∣der that Immortal.

Nay, this was so far from being ne∣cessary, that it had been utterly incon∣sistent with that great End, for which

he came into the World, which was to save his Church, not only by his Do∣ctrine and Example, but especially by his death. We do easily believe, that our Lord, by the power of his own Divinity, could have rendred his Hu∣mane Nature Immortal. He, who kept his own Body from starving forty days without any Food. He, who often preserved his own life from the assaults and outrages of Men, who were ready to stone him. He, who could have commanded a numerous Guard of An∣gels at his pleasure. He, who at last raised his own dead Body from the Grave, could have kept it from ever lying there; but when such thoughts were once suggested to him by one of his Disciples, who did it in much kindness too, how severely did our Lord rebuke him,* 1.3 saying, How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled? The preservation of his Humane Nature from Mortality was within the reach of his Divine Power, but it was utterly inconsistent with his Divine pleasure, and the most gracious design of his In∣carnation.

3. Whereas this Author makes this demand; How could he in Person be

mortal in one capacity, if he had been on the contrary immortal in another? I answer,

'Tis no new thing for a Person, constituted of two different Natures, to be mortal in one Capacity, and yet immortal in another. The Man, who makes this demand, is so himself; the Body of every Man is mortal, but the Soul of no Man is so. But as to Christ, if this Man supposeth, as he seems to do, that our Lord's Person was mortal, and died accordingly, he lieth under a very great mistake: for, that which died upon the Cross, was no∣thing else, but that, which he had took upon him in the Virgin's Womb; and that was, not the Person, but the Nature of Man.

When our Lord died, the natural Union of his Humane Body and Soul was broken; but the Personal Union of the Divine and Humane Natures was not dissolved; his Spirit indeed was separated from his Flesh, but neither his Flesh nor Spirit was parted from his Divinity. When first he became a perfect Man, the same moment he be∣came a God-man too; and his two Na∣tures being united, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

as the Greek Fathers use to speak, their Union being inseparable, a God-man he continued even upon the Cross, in the Grave, yea and in Hell too, if he were, as many have thought, locally and tri∣umphantly there.

True it is, our Lord upon the Cross cried out thus,* 1.4 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? But from thence we cannot infer that there was any dis∣solution of his two Natures; but there was Subtractio Visio••is, his Divinity was pleased for a short space to withdraw its comfortable influences, and leave his Humane Nature to conflict with the Terrors of Death alone. And thus much may suffice for an Answer to this Man's impertinent Cavil against the Union of two Natures in the Per∣son of Christ.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1 Cor. 13.9.
• * 1.2

  Aquin. Par. 1. qu. 12. Art. 8.
• * 1.3

  Mat. 49.26.54.
• * 1.4

  Mat. 27.46.