Q. How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate 9
A. From those testimonies where, according to their translation, it is read, " The Word was made flesh," John i. 14, etc.
Q. How dost thou answer it ?
A. On this account, because in that testimony it is not said (as they speak) God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the human. "The Word was made flesh" is one thing, and God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed the human, another. Besides, these words, " The Word was made flesh," or rather, " The Speech was made flesh," may and ought to be rendered, " The Word was flesh." That it may he so rendered appears from the testimonies in which the word iyinro (which is here translated " was made") is found rendered by the word " was," as in this chapter, verse 6, and Luke xxiv. 19, etc. Also, that it ought to be so rendered the order of John's words teacheth, who should have spoken verv inconveniently, " The Word was made flesh," — that is, as our adversaries in- terpret it. the divine nature assumed the human, — after he had spoken those things of the Word which followed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus : such as are these, " John bare witness of him ; " " he came into the world ; " '• he was not received of his own ;" that " to them that received him, he gave power to become the sons of God." 1
• "E quibus vero testimoniis Scripturso demonstrare conantm' Christum (ut loquun- tur) incarnatum esse? — Ex iis ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur Verhum cam factum esse, Joh. i. 14; Phil. ii. 6, 7 ; 1 Tim. iii. 10, etc.
" Quomodo ad primum respondes? — Ea ratione, quod in eo testimonio non haboatur Deum (ut loquuntur) incavuatum esse, aut quod natura divina assumpscrit hunianam. Aliud euim est, Verbum caro factum est, aliud, Deus incainatus est (ut loquuntur) vel natura divina as.sumpsit hunianam. Praiterea, hrec vci'ba, Verbum caro factum est, vol potius, Sermo caro f actus est, possunt ct dcbeiit ita rcddi, Serjno caro fiit. Posse ita reddi, e testimoniis in quibus vox iyiviro (qure hie per factum est translata est) verbo fult reddita invenitur, apparet; ut in codem cap., ver. 6, et Luc. xxiv. 19 : Fuit homo missus a Deo, etc. ; et. Qui fuit vir propheta, etc. Debere vero reddi per verbum fuit, ordo verborum Johannis docct, qui valde inconvenicnter loquutus fuisset, Sermonem carnem factum esse, — id est, ut advcrsarii intcrpretautur, uaturam divinam assumpsisse
VOL. XIL 15
226 VINDICIiE EVANGELIC^.
This is tlie last plea tliey use in this case. The dying groans of their perishing cause are in it, which will provide them neither with succour nor relief; for, —
1. It is not toords or expressions that we contend about. Grant the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with any living about the expressions wherein it is by any man delivered. By the " incar- nation of the Son of God," and by the " divine nature assuming the human," we intend no more than what is here asserted, — the Word, who was God, was made flesh,
2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on is, that the word ijsviro may, yea ought to be, translated fuit, " was," and not f actus est, " was made." But, —
(1.) Suppose it should be translated "was," what would it avail them? He that was a man was made a man. In that sense it expresses what he was, but withal denotes how he came so to be. He who was the Word before was also a man. Let them show us any other way how he became so but only by being made so, and, upon a suppo- sition of this new translation, they may obtain something. But, —
(2.) How will they prove that it may be so much as rendered by fuit, " was." They tell you it is so in two other places in the New Testament ; but doth that prove that it may so much as be so rendered here ? The proper sense and common usage of it is, " was made," and because it is once or twice used in a peculiar sense, may it be so rendered here, where nothing requires that it be turned aside from its most usual acceptation, yea much enforcing it thereunto ?
(3.) That it ought to be rendered hy fuit, " was," they plead the mentioning before of things done after Christ's incarnation (as we call it), so that it cannot be " He was made flesh." But, —
[1.] Will they say that this order is observed by the apostle, — that that which is first done is first expressed as to all particulars ? What, then, becomes of their interpretation who say " The Word was made God by his exaltation, and made flesh in his humiliation ?" and yet how much is that which in their sense was last expressed before that which went before it ? Or will they say, in him was the life of man before he was made flesh, when the life of man, according to them, depends on his resurrection solely, Avhich was after he ceased to be flesh in their sense ? Or what conscience have these men, who in their disputes will object that to the interpretation of others which they must receive and embrace for the establishing of their own ?