ii. 17, and if it assert any unlikeness to us, it is only with respect to sun, which he had not, although he was considered as a sinner, and treated as such, as his Father also sent him, that he might be a sacrifice' for sin; for him who knew no sin he made to be sin for us,” 2 Cor. v. 21.

C. The third particular that must be considered with respect to nis incarnation is of whom he received his manhood. The catechism saith, "of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary." The Valentinians of old said, as the Menonites do still, that the human nature of Christ was not born of the flesh and blood of Mary, but through her, and that he brought it with him from heav n of the seed of the Father, and of the Word, or from elsewhere, we do not know whence, and that he only passed through Mary, as water through a conduit, and as the sun shines through glass. The Socinians assert that the Holy Ghost supplied the place of a natural Father, and that he crea ted and produced a new substance in Mary: but then (1) Christ was not in all things like us, nor man of man, contrary to what we have proved before. (2) Then also the genealogy of Christ could not be referred to Mary, Matt. i. and Luke 3. (3) Neither was he then, according to his human nature, without father, contrary to Heb. vii. 3. (4) Moreover, the guilt of man might not be punished in any other besides the human nature, as we have proved on the sixteenth question.

It is indeed said, that "he came down from heaven," John vi. 38, and that "he is the Lord from heaven," 1 Cor. xv. 47, but this doth not mean that he brought his manhood from heaven, but (a) that his Godhead manifested itself, present in his manhood in a particular manner, when he assumed his manhood: "For the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) John i. 14, as it is said that the Lord God came down from heaven, when he manifested himself present any where in a glorious manner, Exod. xix. 20. Neh. xix. 13. Or we may understand by it (b) the original and institution of his office, which was not of men, but from heaven, as it is said of the baptism of John, that "it was from heaven," Matt. xxi. 25.

He received his manhood of Mary without any previous intercourse of her with a man, for she was a virgin, and conceived, bore and brought forth the man Christ Jesus, as a virgin without knowing man. See Matt. i. 18. This was not less necessary than it was true, not only because it was foretold, Isaiah vii. 15," Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a Son, and call his name Imman

uel," to which the an el also appealed, and referred Joseph, the betrothed husband of Mary, when he suspected her, Matt. i. 23. But it was also necessary that he should receive his manhood of a virgin, because he should be born holy, and without original sin; Christ should be "that holy thing, which should be born of her," Luke i. 35. The reason of which was not that the virgin had not any original sin, as the Papists without any reason pretend; but the reason of Christ's holy birth of the virgin was, that he was thus born out of the broken covenant of works, which transmits original sin by the intercourse of the man and woman to the posterity of Adam. This is not so difficult to understand, if we consider that Adam and Eve received the marriage law, and the blessing, that they should "be fruitful and multiply," while they were in the covenant of works, Gen i. 28, and hence all men should be born in that covenant of works, and thus all men since the fall are born under the breach of that covenant in iniquity, and conceived in sin. Therefore because the Saviour was born of a virgin, who had not any fellowship with a man, it is evident that he was born out of the covenant of works, under which all other men are born by virtue of the law of marriage. And thus Christ cannot be reckoned under Adam in the covenant of works; wherefore he is also opposed to Adam in this respect, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47.

D. But how could this be? Mary also proposed this difficulty, when Gabriel brought her the tidings, that she should conceive, Luke i. 34, 35. "And Mary said to the angel, how shall this be, seeing I know not a man? and the angel answered, and said unto her, the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." The work of the Holy Ghost in this matter was, (1) that he formed and disposed, in an extraordinary and superordinary manner, the human nature of Christ, of the seed of Mary, and thus he was conceived in Mary, born and brought forth by her without miscarriage. (2) The Holy Ghost also sanctified him, by forming him in the image of God, that he who should be born of Mary might be holy, and also by separating and disposing him in his Father's name for a suitable sacrifice: so Paul considers this matter, Heb. x. 5. (3) Many also affirm that the Holy Ghost united the human nature from the time of its conception, to the divine nature: but we rather consider this as a personal act of the Son, who united his human nature to himself, as we will see hereafter, more particularly.

E. In what manner did the Son of God become man? the cate whiem saith that "the eternal Son of God, who is, and continueth

true and eternal God, took upon himself the very nature of man.” He did not become a man as other men do, who had no manner of existence before: but he who was before true and eternal God, and continueth such, became also man. Not by a changing of his Godhead into the manhood, as the Menonites imagine; for his Godhead is unchangeable, James i. 17. "The Word indeed became flesh," according to John i. 14, but we do not read that it was changed into flesh the word "became " doth not always intimate a change; for otherwise the body of Adam, which was formed of the dust of the earth, and "became a living soul," Gen ii. 7, was changed into a living soul; and "Christ, who became a curse," Gal. iii. 13, would have been changed into a curse; but the Son of God became man by taking upon himself the nature of man, and uniting it in the strictest manner to his divine nature.

We must consider this union somewhat more particularly, and must take special care, that we do not misunderstand this matter, as the smallest misconception of it is exceedingly mischievous and pernicious. We must therefore know that this union of the two natures in Christ is not an essential union, like that of the three Persons in the Go head; for then there would be but one essence or nature, and two Persons in Christ, whereas we find two natures in him, and only one Person, since there is but "one Mediator, as there is but one God," i Tim. ii. 5. Moreover, the union of the two natures in Christ is not a physical union, like that of the soul and body, which being physically united to each her, make one person; for he was a person before he became man. Neither is this union, a merely relative union, consisting in the love of the Godhead to the human nature, disposing the Godhead to assist the human nature, and show kindness to it, as the husband is united to the wife, and Christ to the church; for then there would be two persons, as well as two natures in Christ, and we should have two Mediators, contrary to 1 Tim. ii.5.

This was the opinion of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople; but it was condemned by the great council of Ephesus, in the year 431. In oppos tion to his opinion it was determined, that the union of the two natures was adiaretes, "indivisible," and achoristos, "inseparable," and thus that there were not two divisible and separable persons in the Mediator. Eutyches, Abbot of Constantinople, fell, from an excess of opposition to Nestorius, to another extreme, for he taught that the two natures of Christ, and their properties were mixed, so that Christ, who had two natures before they were united, after they were united, no longer such a man as we are. He

was,

was condemned for this opinion in the general council of Chalcedon, in the year 451, and in order to illustrate the nature of this union, it was said, it was atreptos, "unchangeable,” and asunchutos, “unmixed." And they signified thus, that the Lord Jesus in his incarnation continued what he was, namely God, and became what he was not, namely man; for otherwise his Godhead would have been changed into the manhood, and the manhood into the Godhead.

We say then with the catholic church, that this union was a personal and hypostatical union, that is, the divine Person took upon himself the human nature, and continued one Person: we have shown on the eighth Lord's day that a person is an intelligent substance, by which he is individually what he is, without constituting a part of another. We must now know that the human nature is not an individual person, and that it doth not subsist individually, but that it subsists in, and by the personality of the Son of God: not that the personality of the Son of God is communicated to his manhood, as the Lutherans suppose; for the personality and selfsubsistence are incommunicable: but that the divine nature, constituting the human nature in its person, causeth it to subsist; for otherwise the several phrases used with respect to this matter will be unintelligible, as John i. 14. "The Word was made flesh," Rom. viii. 3. "God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," Gal. iv. 4. "Made of a woman," 1 Tim. iii. 16. "God was manifest in the flesh, Philip ii. 6, 7." Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant."

This personal union is illustrated also by an observation of the consequences of it, which are three :

1. That from this union follows a communion of the properties of both natures, which the person hath by virtue of the union of the two natures. This doth not imply, that the divine attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, vivification and adorableness, are communicated to the manhood, as the Lutherans imagine; for the manhood of Christ is not capable of divine attributes, and this would make the manhood a God. In this manner the divine attributes are incommunicable; if this followed from the personal union, not a few. only of the divine attributes would be communicated to the manhood, but all of them, because the manhood is united to the whole Person of the Son of God; but this is to be understood in such a manner, that the Person of the Mediator doth perfectly possess the properties of the divine and human natures This hath occasioned a variety of phrases to wit, that which is proper to

Sa

him with respect to his Person, is ascribed to him with respect to the one or the other of his natures, and what is proper to him with respect to the one nature, is ascribed to him with respect to the other, or to his Person. We may say, for instance of his Person, that Christ is eternal, was born in time, is our righteousness: with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Christ who is God, is infinite, the Lord of glory was crucified, God hath bought his church with his own blood, 1 Cor. ii. 8. Acts xx. 28. We may say also with respect to his human nature, that Christ the man died, is in heaven, John iii. 13, is Mediator, 1 Tim. ii. 5.

All which is unintel

ligible without a respect to this personal union. But we cannot use these phrases in the abstract; for we cannot say that the Godhead of Christ was crucified, that his manhood was in heaven, while he was on earth, because then the Godhead would necessarily be the manhood, and the manhood the Godhead.

2. From this personal union follows also the communion of the works and actions of both natures; by which we understand that both natures co-operate in that one Person in the same work of redemption, so that we have here (a) a working person of the Mediator, (b) a work of redemption, and (c) a twofold principle, his divine and human nature, which do each contribute their proper share to the work of redemption, the manhood suffers, and the Godhead adds an infinite value to it, Acts xx. 28. Whence it is easy to understand that he is Mediator according to both natures:

3. The third consequence of this personal union is, that many glorious gifts of grace are communicated to the manhood; and particularly, that it is dignified with a personal union with the Godhead, and is in consequence of this become endued with exalted wisdom, perfect holiness, power and dignity above all men and angels. See all this Luke i 35. John iii. 34. Psalm xlv. 7. Philip. iii. 6-9. F. We must finally inquire for what end the Son of God became man. The great end was that the sinner might by him be reconciled to God, and saved the whole word of God aims at this only, and the name Jesus was given to him on this account. It is therefore an idle assertion of the schoolmen among the Papists, of the Socinians and Osiander, that Christ would have become man, although man had not sinned. But how do they know this? have they been in the council of God? no: do they find it in the word of God? the word of God saith nothing of it. It is then an idle fiction of their own brains.

:

But inasmuch as the instructor adds this great end to the advan tages of the incarnation of Christ in the thirty-sixth question, there