Q. Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure (or mere) man?
A. By no means; for he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God, as we read, Luke i. 35, that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt after- ward find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare that the Lord Jesus can by no means be esteemed a pure (or mere) man."
Ans. 1. But I have abundantly demonstrated that Christ neither was nor 2vas called the Son of God upon the account here men- tioned, nor any other whatever intimated in the close of the answer, but merely and solely on that of his eternal generation of the es- sence of his Father.
2. The inquiry is after the essence of Christ, which receives not any alteration by any kind of eminency or dignity that belongs to his person. If Christ be by essence only man, let him have what dignity or honour he can have possibly conferred upon him, let him be born by what means soever, as to his essence and nature he is a man still, hut a man, and not more than a man, — that is, puriis homo, a " mere man," — and not (puasi Qs6g, " God by nature," but such a god as the Gentiles worshipped. Gal. iv. 8. His being made God and the Son of God afterward, which our catechists pretend, relating to office and dignity, not to his nature, exempts him not at all from being a mere man. This, then, is but a flourish to de- lude poor simple souls into a belief of their honourable thoughts of Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of than the Turks do of Mohammed, nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians, than as Moses to the Jews. That which Paul speaks of the idols of the heathen, that they were not gods by nature, may, according to the apprehension of these catechists, be spoken of Christ ; notwith-
1 "Ergo Dominus Jesus est purus homo? — Nullo pacto; etenim est conccptus e Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conccptione ct ortu Filius Dei est, ut ea de re Luc. i. 35 legimus, ubi angclus Mariam ita alloquituv, Spiritus Sanc- tns svpcrvenict in te, etc., ut alias causas non afFeram, qiias postmoilum in Jcsu Christi persona depreheniles, quoe evitlcutissime ostcnuunt I^ominum Jesura pro piiro homine nullo modo accipi posse."
208 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
standing any exaltation or deification that lie hath received, he is by nature no god. Yea, the apprehensions of these gentlemen concerning Christ and his deity are the same upon the matter with those of the heathen concerning their worthies and heroes, who, by an uToDsuffig, were translated into the number of their gods, as Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them gods, indeed; but put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but one God, but that these men were honoured as being, upon [account of] their great worth and noble achievements, taken up to blessedness and power. Such an hero, an Hermes or Mercury, do they make of Jesus Christ, who, for his faithful declaring the will of God, was deified; but in respect of essence and nature, which here is inquired after, if he be any thing according to their principles (of making which supposal I shall give the reader a fair account), he was, he is, and will be, a mere man to all eternity, and no more. They allow him no more, as to his essence, than that wherein he was like us in all things, sin only excepted, Heb. ii. 17.
Q. You said a little above that the Lord Jesus is by nature man; hath he also a divine nature ?
A. No ; for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, but also to the Scriptures.'
But this is that which is now to be put to the trial. Whether the asserting of the deity of Christ be rejnignant to the Scriptures or no. And as we shall see in the issue that as these catechists have not been able to answer or evade the evidence of any one testimony of Scripture, of more than an hundred that are produced for the confirmation of the truth of his eternal deity, so, notwithstanding the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they arc not able to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance, rising up against it. [As] for that right reason, which in this matter of mere divine revelation they boast of, and give it the pre-eminence in their disputes against the person of Christ above the Scripture, unless they discover the consonancy of it to the word, to the law and testimony, whatever they propose on that account may be rejected with as much facility as it is proposed. But yet, if by " right reason" they understand reason so far captivated to the obedience of faith as to acquiesce in whatever God hath revealed, and to receive it as truth, — than which duty there is not any more eminent dictate of right reason indeed, — we for ever deny the first part of this assertion, and shall now attend to the proof of it. Nor do we here plead that reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot dis- cern the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves