brought it forward. We do contend, that the manhood of Christ was man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof: Dr. Thomson has denied, and does deny, to Christ's manhood every one essential property of humanity and as to infirmities, he maintains that they were imputed. He does make conversion, composition, and confusion, by attributing essential immortality and impeccability to the manhood, which are essential attributes of Deity alone; and he thereby denies the very manhood of Christ. For this denial of the creed of his own church; for this public promulgation of the ancient heresy of a denial of the proper, true, and very humanity of Christ; the General Assembly in ancient times would have called him before them. How does all this square with the idea of the Divine nature ' of Christ dwelling within the human nature of Christ, as the Holy Spirit dwells with the believer? If the Son of God in'habited the man Christ Jesus, according to the representation 'given above, we could no more call the two natures one person, than we could identify the mine in which a labourer is digging 'with the labourer himself; or the house which a man abides, and works in, and white-washes, with the man himself who is thus employed. The representation, in short, is utterly ab'surd.'-This last sentence is the only one which contains any truth. Dr. Thomson, having been so eminently successful in speculative theology, here tries his hand at poetry, and endeavours to illustrate his meaning by a simile. A man living in a mine, does not make one person, half-man and half-mine: therefore, quoth the Doctor, the Deity dwelling in the humanity cannot make one person! Fortunately, the representation, the simile, is utterly absurd: because, if there were any truth in it, it would be as fatal to Dr. Thomson's view of the case as it would be to the orthodox view: but it is not only utterly absurd, but also nothing but absurd: it has no one correct point of similitude in it. We will, however, inform Dr. Thomson of an instance exactly parallel to that of the Deity dwelling in the humanity, and so composing one person, though of two natures; and that is, the soul of a man dwelling in the material body of a man; thereby composing one person, though of two distinct natures. The metaphysics of our antagonists are as bad as their theology. But what can be expected of those who are bold 'to maintain, that when Christ prayed in the Garden, "If it 'be possible, let this cup pass from me," he was in his human 'nature, in his sinful flesh, rebelling against God; and who are ' ingenious enough to discover, that as a spiritual being could not properly create the material universe, therefore the work was assigned to Christ, who had a body as well as a spirit ? - as if there was no power of common sense to put the question, Who, or what, then, created Christ's body, which was itself ' material, and not eternal?'-As Dr. Thomson has neither furnished us with the names of the writers whom he calls his antagonists, nor referred to the volume or page of their works, it is impossible to examine the soundness of his representation of their opinions; and we have seen sufficient to make us sceptical of his ability either to apprehend or express any clear ideas on the subject. We shall therefore only remark upon his sneer at those who maintain that when Christ uttered his prayer in the Garden it was the weakness of his humanity crying out in fear to his Father; expressing, indeed, his human will to be other than, but not in contrariety to, the will of the Father: and we here directly charge Dr. Thomson with gross ignorance, not to know that such is the remark of almost every commentator who has written upon the subject. Moreover, so far is it from being a subject of dispute, that the passage does not admit of any other interpretation whatever; and by denying this, the plain and obvious, meaning, Dr. Thomson inculcates the ancient heresy of the Monothelites, who asserted that there were not two wills, but only one will, in Christ. On these very words, as we shewed in our last Number, St. Jerome says, "In qua formâ loquitur adverte. Hominis substantiam gessit, hominis assumpsit affectum. Non ergo quasi Deus, sed quasi homo loquitur. Alia voluntas hominis, alia Dei ;"-which, for the benefit of all theological babes, we will translate: "Observe in what form he speaks. He bore the substance of man, he assumed the affections of man. He does not therefore speak as God, but as man. There is one will of the man, another of the God." The Continuation of Poole's Commentary says, "It is one thing what he knew as he was God, and of council with the Father; and another thing what he prayed for as man. Besides, our Saviour's saying, if it be possible, doth not suppose that he knew it was possible: it signifieth no more than this, 'Father, my human nature hath an aversion from this heavy stroke, so as, if it were possible, it craves of thee a discharge from this curse: nevertheless, not my will, but thy will be done.' The first clause is but the expression of the natural, but not sinful, infirmity of his flesh; the latter, a perfect resignation of his will to God. In the first he tells his Father what his natural flesh would crave, if it might consist with the will of God; in the second, he begs, that, whatever his flesh craved, yet the will of God might be done. And herein he sets us a perfect pattern for our prayers for deliverance from temporal evils-namely, with a submission to the will of God. By this our Saviour doth not declare himself ignorant, or uncertain of the Divine will. Only as, though the person that died was God-Man, yet the human nature only died; so, though the person that prayed was God-Man, yet he only prayed as he was man." Now let us see what Henry says in his Exposition, edited by Messrs. Burder and Hughes:-" This was the language of that innocent dread of suffering, which, being really and truly man, he could not but have in his nature "—(and which Dr. Thomson not only says he had not, but which it obviously was impossible he could have, in the nature that Dr. T. ascribes to him)" But he, knowing it to be his Father's will that he should suffer and die, and that, as the matter was now settled, it was necessary for our redemption and salvation, presently withdrew that petition, did not insist upon it, but resigned himself to his heavenly Father's will: Nevertheless, not my will be done ""-Not the will of my human nature, but the will of God. On Luke xxii. 42:He begs that this cup might pass from him; that is, that he might avoid the sufferings now at hand; or, at least, that they might be shortened. This intimates no more than that he was truly and really man; and, as a man, he could not but be averse to pain and suffering. This is the first and simple act of man's will,-to start back from that which is sensibly grievous to us, and to desire the prevention and removal of it. The law of self-preservation is impressed upon the innocent nature of man, and rules there, till overruled by some other law: therefore Christ admitted and expressed a reluctance to suffer, to shew that he was taken from among men, was touched with a feeling of our infirmities, and tempted as we are, yet without sin......Not that the human will of Christ was adverse or averse to the Divine will; it was only in its first act diverse from it; to which in the second act of the will, which compares and chooses, he freely submits himself," &c. &c. It appears to me, that while, from the very nature of the case, ' and the very purpose to be answered by Christ's incarnation, it is impossible that his flesh could be considered at any period ""sinful," or "fallen," or "evil;" so the Divine Spirit has been 'particularly careful to impress our minds, through the medium of Scripture, with the doctrine of his perfect freedom from every thing approaching to moral pravity, or weakness, or perversity, or to a capacity of disobeying God. The whole account given 'us of Christ seems intended to satisfy us to the full, that in 'all respects in which he can be viewed he was completely ""separated from sinners." When the angel Gabriel conversed with the Virgin Mary, he said unto her, "The Holy 'Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest 'shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing which 'shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." Christ 'himself said, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath "nothing in me." And we are told that he was "without sin," 'that he did no sin," and that "he knew no sin." Could all this have been the case, if at the same time it could be 'affirmed of him that he was "in sinful flesh," that he "took 'human nature in the fallen, and not in the unfallen state; 'that his "flesh was all evil, even as this fallen world was all evil?"-It appears to us, that while, from the very nature of the case, and the very purpose to be answered by the incarnation of the Second Person in the Godhead, it is impossible that his flesh could be considered at any period different from that of his mother Mary; so the Divine Spirit has been particularly careful to impress our minds, through the medium of Scripture, with the doctrine of his perfect identity with mankind, SIN ONLY excepted. But Dr. Thomson goes a great deal farther than this; for he asserts that the human nature had not a capacity for disobeying God. This is quite in harmony with what Dr. Thomson has inculcated before, respecting the humanity of Christ; for if the humanity was not liable to fall, it can only be because it had not a capacity for disobeying God: the manhood, therefore, was not a responsible creature at all. In the quotations which Dr. Thomson has adduced, he has paid no attention to those words which are really important. In the above extract, the distinctive expression is "of thee;" shewing, in common with many others, that the humanity of Christ was of the same substance as that of his mother. Now, if Dr. Thomson will assert that a humanity with self-derived purity, with self-derived incapacity for disobeying God, self-derived immortality, self-derived incorruptibility, is of the same nature, and same substance, as a humanity which has no one of these qualities but as they are continually imparted and sustained by its Maker, then we must request him to publish a Glossary, as a key to his Sermons; for all language at present in use in Great Britain is set at nought: Johnson's Dictionary, even with Todd's additions, cannot avail us: and science can no longer be imparted, if the essential properties of substances may be reversed, and yet those substances remain the same. We must beg our readers to pay particular attention to this point, because, from the frequent use of sound expressions in other places-such as, our nature, human nature, &c.-we have met with many persons who have been deceived, and who have not been able to perceive the real heresy which lurks beneath and it is only by accurately considering the properties which Dr. Thomson attributes to the humanity of Christ, that we discover, that, notwithstanding the use of the words our nature," repeated never so often, the humanity described by the Doctor is not nearly so like our nature as it is to the nature of angels. We cannot do better than direct Dr. Thomson's attention to the remarks of Mr. R. Hal dane respecting the way in which falsehood may be inculcated under the same form of words as truth:-" In what do the Neologians and Socinians differ from the Orthodox? Only in particular modes, as they would say, of explication! The Socinian agrees with the Calvinist in calling Christ God, but differs in the explication of the term. The Neologian agrees with the believer in receiving the scriptural account of the works of Christ, but begs leave to explain them upon natural principles. The most adventurous Neologist would not think it necessary to object to the language of Scripture......It would abundantly serve his purpose, to allow him the right of his own mode of explanation......Have the Evangelical Clergy themselves taken lessons in the school of Neology?"--(Conduct of Rev. D. Wilson, &c. p. 17.) 6 Respecting the capability of the humanity of the God-Man for disobeying God, we subjoin the following remarks from President Edwards, as some corrective to the heresy contained in this passage of Dr. Thomson's note. In his controversy with Dr. Whitby's half-Arminian and half-Socinian sentiments, President Edwards most properly maintains the orthodox view that Messiah was in a state of trial, p. 259. "The words," he says, "of Isa. xliii. 1-4, Behold my servant whom I uphold,' &c. imply a promise of his being so UPHELD BY GOD'S SPIRIT THAT HE SHOULD BE PRESERVED FROM SIN"-(directly the reverse of Dr. Thomson's heretical notion of an inherent incapacity from sin)—" particularly from pride, and vain-glory; and from being overcome by any temptations he should be under to affect the glory of this world, the pomp of an earthly prince, or the applause and praise of men: and that he should be so upheld that he should by no means fail of obtaining the end of his coming into the world, of bringing forth judgment unto victory, and establishing his kingdom of grace in the earth." "In Isa. iv. 5, 6, we have the Messiah expressing his assurance"-of what? of the impeccability of his human nature? of his incapacity for disobeying God? No; but-" that God would help him, by so opening his ear, or inclining his heart to God's commandments, that he should not be rebellious, but should persevere, and not apostatize, or turn his back: that, through God's help, he should be immovable in obedience, under great trials of reproach and suffering; setting his face like a flint: so that he knew he should not be ashamed, or frustrated in his design; and finally should be approved and justified, as having done his work faithfully." How deeply is it to be regretted that such a tenet is maintained by any influential divines-by those who are reputed ' and followed as "masters in Israel!" And how distressing that ' it should be mentioned with a dogmatism which sets all argu |
