The communicatmi of properties, on which depend two or three of the following instances mentioned by Mr B., is a necessary consequent of the union before asserted ; and the thing intended by it is no less clearly de- livered in Scripture than the truths before mentioned.-*- It is affirmed of " the man Christ Jesus" that he " knew what was in the heart of man," that he " would be Avith his unto the end of the world," and Thomas, putting his hand into his side, cried out to him, " My Lord and my God," etc., when Christ neither did nor was so, as he was man.^ Again, it is said that " God redeemed his church with his own blood," that the " Son of God was made of a woman," that " the Word Avas made flesh," none of which can properl}'^ be spoken of God, his Son, or eternal Word,^ in respect of that nature whereby he is so ; and therefore we say, that look Avhat pro- perties are peculiar to either of his natures (as, to be omniscient, omnipo- tent, to be the object of divine Avorship, to the Deity;* to be born, to bleed, and die, to the humanity), are spoken of in reference to his person, Avherein both those natures are united. So that whereas the Scriptures say that " God redeemed his church with his OAvn blood," or tliat he A\'as " made flesh ; " or Avhereas, in a consonancy thereunto, and to obviate the folly of Nestorius, Avho made tAvo persons of Christ, the ancients called the blessed Virgin the 3Iother of God, — the intendment of the one and other is no more but that he was truly God, Avho in his manhood Avas a son, had a mother, did bleed and die. And such Scripture expressions Ave affirm to be founded in this " communication of properties," or the assignment of
1 "Non ut Deus esset habitator, natura bumana esset habitaculum : sed ut naturoo alteri sic misceretur altera, ut quamvis alia sit quae suscipitur, alia vero qupe suscipit, in tantam tamen unitatem conveniret utriusque diversitas, ut unus idemque sit Filius, qui se, et secundum quod unus homo est, Patre dicit minorem, ct secundum quod unus Deus est> Patri se profitetur wqualem." — Leo. Senn. iii. de Nat.
^ Toh; //.iv TaTiiimis X'oyovi ru ix Mapia; av^pu'ru, tou; Se avri'yf/.ivovs, xeu ^ioTpi'rii; tm •v O'PXV °'"^' ^'yy- — Theod. Dial. 'Afrvy^-
' TauTa •ravra <ruf/.SoXa c;a.py.os tyi; olto yn; llXtifcftivrn. Iren. lib. iii. ad. Ha3reS.
■• " Salva proprietate utriusque natune, suscepta est a majestatc humilitas, a virtute iufirmitas, ab £eternitate modalitas." — Leo. Kp. ad Fiavi.
7G THE PREFACE OF MR RIDDLE
that unto tlio person of Christ, however expressly spoken of as God or man, wliich is proper to him in regard of either of these natures, the one or other, God on this aceount being said to do what is proper to man, and man wliat is proper alone to God, because he who is both God and man doth both the one and the other.^ By what expressions and with what diligence the ancients warded the doctrine of Chiist's personal union against both Nestorius and Eutyches,^ the one of them dividing his per- son into two, the other confounding his natures by an absurd confusion and mixture of their res])ective essential properties (Mr B. not giving occasion), I shall not farther mention.
And this is all Mr B. instances in of what he rejects as to our doctrine about the nature of God, the Trinity, person of Christ, and the Holy Ghost ; of all which he hath left us no more than what the Turks and other Mohannnedans will freely acknowledge.^ And whether this be to be a " mere Christian," or none at all, the pious reader will judge.
Having dealt thus with the person of Christ, he adds the names of two abominable figments, to give countenance to his undertaking, wherein he knows those with whom he hath to do have no communion, casting the deity of Chi'ist and the Holy Ghost into the same bundle with trans ahstantiation and consuhstantiaiion ; to which he adds the ubiquity of the hochi of Christ, after mentioned, — self-contradicting fictions. With what sincerity, can- dour, and Christian ingenuity, INIr B. hath proceeded, in rolling up to- gether such abominations as these with the most weiglity and glorious trutlis of the gospel, that together he might trample them under his feet in the mire, God will certainly in due tim.e reveal to himself and all the world.
The next thing he decries is original sin (1 Avill suppose Mr B. knows what those whom he professeth to oppose intend thereby) ; and this he condemns, name and thing. Tnat the guilt of our first father's sin is im- puted to his posterity ; that they are made obnoxious to death thereby, that we are " by nature children of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins, conceived in sin; that our understandings are darkness, so that we cannot receive the things that are of God; that we are able to do no good of our- selves, so that unless we are born again we cannot enter into the kingdom of God; that we are alienated, enemies, have carnal minds, that are enmity against God, and cannot be subject to him ;"* — all this and the like is at once Mown away by Mr B.; there is no such thing. "Una litura potest." That Christ liy nature is not God, that we by nature have no sin, are the two great principles of this " mere Christian's" belief.