' " Dixeras paulo supcrius Dominum Jcsum natui'a esse hominom ; an idem habet naturam diviuaiii ? — Nequaquam ; nam id uon solum rationi saiiaj, verum etiam di- viiiis Uteris rcpugnat."
DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 209
regenerate before we admit them to judge of the truth of the pro- positions under debate; which though necessary for them who would know the gospel for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation, yet it being the grammatical and literal sense of propositions as laid down in the word of the Scripture that we are to judge of in this case, we require no more of men, to the purpose in hand, but an assent to this proposition (which if they will not give, we can by undeni- able demonstration compel them to), " Whatever God, who is prima vei-itas, hath revealed is true, whether we can comprehend the things revealed or no ; " which being granted, we proceed with our catechists in their attempt.
Q. Declare liow it is contrary to right reason.
A.\. In this regard, that two substances having contrary properties cannot meet in one person ; such as are to be mortal and immortal, to have a beginning and to want a beginning, to be changeable and unchangeable. 2. Because two natures, each of them constituting a person, cannot likewise agree or meet in one person; for instead of one there must (then) be two persons, and so also two Christs would exist, whom all without controversy acknowledge to be one, and his person one.*
And this is all which these gentlemen offer to make good their assertion that the deity of Christ is repugnant to right reason ; which, therefore, upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly ap- pear,
1. It is true that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two substances with such diverse properties as by that union to make an exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties; but that there may not be such a concurrence and meeting of such different sub- stances in one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such an union is to beg the thing in question against the evidence of many express testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least induce- ment for any to grant their request.
2. In calling these properties of the several natures in Christ " ad- verse" or "contrary," they would insinuate a consideration of them as of qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove de- structive to the one, if not both, or, by a mixture, cause an exurgeucy of qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties such qualities, nor are they inherent in any common subject; but [they are] inseparable adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never
* " Cede qui ration! sanse repugnat ? — Prime, ad cum niodum, quod duse substantias, proprietatibus advei'soe, coire in unara personam ncqucant ; ut sunt mortalcm ct im- mortalem esse, principium habere et principio carcre, mutabilem et immutabilem ex- istere. Deinde, quod dure natura;, personam singula; constitucntes, in unam personam convenire itidem nequeant ; nam loco unius duas pcrsouas esse oporteret, atque itaduos Christos cxistere, quern unum esse, et unam ipsius personam omnes citra omncm coa- troversiam agnoscunt."
VOL. XII. 14)
210 VINDICI^ EVANGELICiE.
mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to eternity, nor ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not unto, though all of them do denominate the person wherein both the natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading reason, which they pretended they would, they do nothing, in this first part of their answer, but beg the thing in question ; which, being of so much im- portance and concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted them on any such terms. Will Christ, on their entreaties, cease to be God?
Neither is their second pretended argument of any other kind.
1. We deny that the human nature of Christ had any such subsist- ence of its own as to give it a pi^oper personality, being from the time of its conception assumed into subsistence with the Son of God. This we prove by express texts of Scripture, Isa vii. 1 4, ix. 6 ; John i. 14 ; Rom. i. 8, ix. 5 ; Heb. ii. 16 ; Luke i. 35 ; Heb. ix. 14 ; Acts iii. 15, XX. 28; Phil. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8, etc.; and by arguments taken from the assigning of all the diverse properties by them men- tioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, etc. That we would take it for granted that this cannot be, is the modest request of these gentlemen with whom we have to do.
2. If by natures constituting persons they mean those who, ante- cedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot meet in one person, so that upon this union they should cease to be two persons. The personalit}'' of either of them being destroyed, their different beings could not be preserved. But if by " constitut- ing" they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next pos- sibility of constituting a person, then, as before, they only beg of us that we would not believe that the person of the Word did assume the human nature of Christ, that " holy thing that was born of the "Virgin," into subsistence with itself; which, for the reasons before mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.