Christian religion: substantially, methodicalli[e,] [pla]inlie, and profitablie treatised

IOH. 1.14 And the Word was made flesh, &c.

WHereupon dependeth the performance of this coue∣nant of grace?

On the second person in Trinitie, Christ Iesus the onely sonne of God.

What are we to consider in him?

First, his Person, secondly his office.

What haue we to consider in his person?

First, his Godhead, that maketh the person. Se∣condly, his manhood, which hath subsistence in the person of the Godhead.

What say you of his Godhead?

That he is the onely naturall sonne of the most high and eternall God his father, his word, character, and image, God coessentiall and coequall with the father and the holy Ghost.

Doe you then hold that he is, and is called the son of God in regard of his Godhead?

Yes verily, and not according to his manhood; ac∣cording to the Apostle, who saith, that hee is with∣out father according to his manhood,* 1.1 and without mother according to his Godhead.

It seemeth he is called the sonne of God in respect of his humane nature; in the generation whereof it is said that the holy Ghost did that which fathers doe in the naturall generation, especially seeing he is therefore said the sonne of the highest.

No, but onely in regard of the eternall generati∣on, otherwise there should bee two sonnes; one of the father, and another of the holy Ghost: but he is therefore called the sonne of the most highest, for that none could be so conceiued by the holy Ghost, but he that is the naturall son of God.

How is he said to be conceiued by the holy Ghost?

Because the holy Ghost by his incomprehensible power, wrought his conception supernaturally,

which fathers doe naturally in the begetting of their children; not that any of the substance of the holy Ghost, which is indiuisible, came into the wombe of the Virgin.

Why is he said to be in the beginning?

Not because he began then to bee: but that then he was; and therefore is from eternities.

So much of his Diuinitie. What are wee to consider in his manhood?

That the Diuine nature tooke to himselfe a body and reasonable soule.

VVhy did hee not take the nature of Angels vpon him?

Because hee had no meaning to saue the Angels that fell,* 1.2 for that they had committed the sin against the holy Ghost, in falling malitiously into rebellion against God, without tentation.

Are not the elect Angels any way benefited by the humanity of Christ?

Properly his humanity reacheth onely to sinfull mankind: for if he had ment to haue benefited An∣gels (otherwise then confirming them) by taking a∣nother nature, he would haue taken their nature vp∣on him.

How is that then Ephes. 2. to be vnderstood: He re∣conciled things in heauen?

It is vnderstood of the Saints then in heauen, and not any way of the Angels; although in Christ the Angels bee elected, and by him confirmed, so that they shall stand for euermore.

Did hee not passe through the Virgin Mary (as some affirme) as saffron out of a bagge, or water through a conduit?

God forbid, for he was made of the seed of Dauid, and was a plant of the seed of Iesse; for he tooke hu∣mane nature of the Virgin.

How is that shewed?

For that he saith the word was made flesh, flesh being taken for the whole man, both body and soule.

Was not the Godhead instead of the soule vnto him?

No: for our soules must haue perished euerla∣stingly, except the soule of our Sauiour Christ had satisfied for them.

Was not the Godhead turned into flesh, seeing it is said he was made flesh?

* 1.3In no wise, no more then hee was turned into sin or into a curse, because it is said, hee was made sinne and made a curse for vs.

VVas this vnion of the body and soule with the Godhead by assuming of the manhood vnto the Godhead, or by infusing of the Godhead into the manhood?

By assuming and taking of the manhood to the Godhead; for otherwise there should be two sonnes, one of the holy Virgin Marie, and another of God: then consequently also two persons.

If the Godhead be not changed into the manhood; is it not at least mingled with the manhood?

Nothing lesse: for then he should be neither God nor man, for things mingled together cannot retaine the name of one of the simples: As honie and oyle being mingled together cannot bee called honie or oyle. Secondly, the properties of the Godhead can∣not agree to the properties of the manhood; nor the properties of the manhood to the Godhead: for as the Godhead cannot thirst; no more can the man∣hood

bee in all or many places at once.

But was not this performed after his resurrection, that the glorie of the Godhead then more plenti∣fully communicated with the manhood, swallowed vp the truth thereof, as a whole sea one drop of oyle?

No, for these two natures continued still distinct in substance, properties and actions, and still remai∣ned one and the same Christ.

VVhy tooke he our nature vpon him?

Because the iustice of God could no otherwise be satisfied, then by our nature which had committed the sin: and for that he could not suffer in his God∣head.

Is there no vse of the Godhead of Christ in his suffe∣ring?

Yes: it was necessarie hee should bee God that should suffer, that he might be able to ouercome the infinite sufferings due to vs.

Hitherto of the natures of our Sauiour, diuine and humane. What is to be considered in the coniun∣ction of these two natures?

That these two natures vnseparablie ioyned to∣gether, in the first moment the holy Virgin concei∣ued, made but one person: a mysterie that no Angel, much lesse man is able to comprehend.

VVhy so?

For that the manhood of our Sauiour Christ is personally vnited to the Godhead, whereas the An∣gels of much greater glory then men, are not able to abide the presence of God.

VVhat is the vse of this coniunction of two natures into one person?

That by the vnity of persons in both natures, the obedience of Christ performed in the manhood, might be of infinite merit, as being the obedience of God.

VVhat further fruit haue we by this coniunction?

That whereas God hath no shape comprehensi∣ble either to the eye of the body or of the soule; and the mind of man cannot rest but in a representation of some thing, that his mind and vnderstanding can in some sort reach vnto: considering God in the se∣cond person in the Trinitie, which hath taken our nature, whereby God is reuealed in the flesh, he hath whereupon to stay his mind.

How did then the Iewes before his comming, which could not doe so?

* 1.4They might propose to themselues the second person that should take our nature, and the same also that had appeared sundrie times in the shape of a man: albeit our priuiledge is greater then theirs; as they that behold him as he is, whereas they did be∣hold him, as he should be.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Heb. 7.
• * 1.2

  Heb. 2.
• * 1.3

  Rom. 8. Galat. 3.
• * 1.4

  Gen. 18.1.2. &. 19.1.2.