[2.] He allowed an especial presence, xara sjisiv, 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 in- terpretation. 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.
[S.] He allowed it to be xkt' d^/av, 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 sub- jection 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 xard rauro/3ouX/av, 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,
232 THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
but what is between God and the angels in heaven; in whom there is a perfect comphance 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.
[o.] Ka6' o/o-wi/u/x/ai', 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 chm-ch with his o\\ti 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, — namety, the communion or mutual communication of the distinct natures therein. But his per- sonal union consists not in any of them, nor in all of them together; nor do they answer any of the multiphed testimonies given by the Holy Ghost unto this glorious mystery. Some few of them may be mentioned.
" The Word was made flesh," John i. 1 4. 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, {^dly^ 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 pro- perties. 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 mto per- sonal 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."
" 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 deno- mination and relation of Father and Son ; but all is inevitably included
THE HYPOSTATICAL UNION. 2o3
in it which we plead for under that name. This person " took on him the form of a servant," — that is, the nature of man in the con- dition of a servaut. 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 beheve and plead for.