|
(Continued from Vol. V.
page 549.)
In the exposition of the third article, “which was
conceived of the holy Ghost,” he says, “I do assent unto this as a most
necessary and infallible truth, that the only begotten Son of God,
<<31>>begotten before all worlds, was conceived and born and so made man,
taking to himself a soul and body and conjoining it with the divine in
the unity of his person; that he was really and truly conceived in the
womb of his mother, by the singular extraordinary influence of the Holy
Ghost.” The dogma which the Bishop here assents to does not appear to be
a necessary truth, and certainly is not infallibly true; but it has been
assumed as one of the proofs of the Messiahship of Jesus, founded on the
prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, though it is evident that the prophecy was
fulfilled at the time, and farther, the word used by Isaiah does not
necessarily imply a virgin. However, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
assume the truth of her virginity at the time of her pregnancy, which
the writers of both Gospels ascribe to the agency of the Holy Ghost. How
can the Son which was begotten by the Father before all worlds, be said
to have been conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and by the
influence of the Holy Ghost? How can a being be said to have been
conceived and born at a certain time, who was in existence before? This
is not explained. What could be the nature of the union of the divinity
and the humanity? In the notes to this section, it is said that though
the Divine Nature was common to the Father and the Son, yet the union
with the humanity was made only with the Son. This is an assumption very
necessary to avoid the difficulties which would result from allowing
that the humanity being joined to the Divine Nature, must have been
united to both Father and Son, an opinion which was held by the
Patripassians, and is much more plausible than the opinion embraced by
the Bishop. For if the Father and Son have the same common essence, how
is it possible that the humanity could be united with the essence of the
Son, which is common to both Father and Son, without the former
participating in the union which the Son had effected with their common
essence?
I really feel ashamed of arguing about things of
which I cannot possibly know anything; but when men have composed a
system of Theology which they press us to adopt, it is natural that we
should examine how the different points agree with each other; what is
the evidence on which they are founded; which of them are based on an
unnatural interpretation of the sacred text, and which are mere
assumptions, the latter class greatly
<<32>>preponderating; and it is
surprising that not being restricted in their assumptions by the
necessity of supporting them by any evidence, they should not have
produced a whole in which the parts should mutually support each other.
The early teachers of Christianity had two different dogmas to
reconcile, the Unity of God, and the existence of three persons in that
Unity. Of course they could not prove that God existed in that threefold
state; but they cut the matter short by telling their disciples in the
so-called Athanasian creed, that if they did not believe in the dogmas
there laid down, they should “perish everlastingly.” The Bishop asserts
the union of the two natures. In the note (e) he says: “Could
this union have been made in the two natures, it must have been either
by conversion of one into the other, or by commixtion, or confusion of
both in a third;” neither of which, he says, took place yet. “The
personal union,” here asserted, “is not a mere scholastical speculation,
but a certain and necessary truth, without which we cannot join the
second article of our creed to the third; without which we cannot
interpret the Holy Scriptures, or understand the history of our Saviour;
for certainly He who is before Abraham, was in the days of Herod born of
a woman; He who was the seed of David according to the flesh, was
declared the Son of God with power: was God over all blessed for ever.
Since these actions and affections cannot proceed from the same nature,
and yet must be ascribed to the same person; as we must acknowledge a
diversity of the natures united, so must we confess an identity of the
person which unites them.” In this note the Bishop urges the belief in
the dogma of the twofold nature as indispensable to the connexion of the
second and third articles of the creed, and rests its credibility on
certain passages in the writings of the followers of Jesus; but the
union of the two natures he says was not effected by conversion or
commixtion, therefore the humanity could only have been an appendage to
the Divinity; in the frame of Jesus, the two natures were distinct. He
who was before Abraham was not the same person that in the days of Herod
was born of a woman; neither was one of the seed (or as the Bishop
states it, the seed) of David declared the Son of God with power. The
Son was not made man in any sense of the word; an immortal being cannot
be made mortal. The omni<<33>>presence which is claimed for the Son as an
attribute of his Divinity, could not be contained in the frame of a man;
yet it is unequivocally asserted in the New Testament, that it was the
Divinity that spoke in the frame of Jesus; he himself declares in that
form that the Father was as in him and he was in the Father, and that
whoever saw him saw the Father. The twofold nature of the Son is an
impossibility; any thing or person has a mode of existence or future
peculiar to itself or its species. One subject may be endowed with
properties which are also found in other subjects; but that union of
properties is its peculiar nature, it does not consist of two natures.
In the next section the Bishop confesses his belief
“that the mother of Jesus was a pure virgin when she conceived within
her womb the Son of God, and afterwards brought him forth as her
first-born son, still remaining a pure and immaculate virgin.” What
necessity there may be for the belief that Mary was still a virgin after
parturition, or how the fact was ascertained, we are not told: though
surely a fact so contrary to the laws of nature ought to be supported by
some other evidence than the bare assertion of men who lived many years
afterwards, and which is not mentioned in the New Testament, which
merely states that Joseph, after his discovery, “knew her not till she
had brought forth her first-born son.” Now in support of the virginity
of Mary previous to the birth of Jesus, the Bishop tells us (note 6),
that “It is evident that the Messiah promised by God was to be born of a
virgin,” which he endeavours to prove by the following quotations: Gen.
3:15, where God promises that the seed of the woman shall bruise the
head of the serpent. But there is no mention of a virgin here; neither
in Jeremiah, 31:22. “A woman shall compass a man.” Whatever may be the
meaning of the words, the Bishop allows that it seems obscure; but says
it is sufficiently cleared up by the prophecy of Isaiah: “Behold a
virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” On the authority of these three
passages, the Bishop boldly asserts that it is evident the Messiah
promised by God was to be born of a virgin. But in neither of them is
there any indication that the female alluded to was to be a virgin. In
the first two the text says a woman, and when a woman is spoken of as
being or about to become a mother, according to the laws of nature, it
cannot be supposed <<34>>to imply a virgin. In the third case it is objected,
that the word employed does not necessarily denote a virgin; a time was
prescribed for the fulfillment of this prophecy; the child was born and
the event foretold took place within the specified time; the prophecy
therefore did not concern Mary and Jesus, who did not live till some
hundred years afterwards. I believe Christians allow that the prophecy
was fulfilled at the appointed time; but contend that it was again
fulfilled in the instance of Mary. But if they allow that it was first
fulfilled in the time of Isaiah, and that the word really meant a
virgin, they must confess there was at that time a miraculous
conception, and that it was only a second instance when the miracle was
repeated in the person of Mary. But we deny that there was anything out
of the course of nature in the conception of the child of Isaiah; this
the Prophet affirms, chapter 8:3: “And I took onto me faithful witnesses
to record, Uriah the Priest, and Zachariah the son of Jeberechiah. And I
went unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son.”
It is not true that there is any evidence that the
promised Messiah was to be born of a virgin; it is equally false that
such a belief was entertained among the Jews. The evidence with which
the Bishop supports his belief in the virginity of Mary, is a fair
sample of the proofs and arguments which he adduces in support of the
other dogmas of Christianity.
The next article “Of the sufferings of Christ,” the
Bishop declares his belief “as a most necessary, certain, and infallible
truth, that the only begotten son of God, begotten of the Father, and of
the same essence with the Father, did, for the redemption of mankind,
really and truly suffer. Not in his Divinity, which was impassible, but
in his humanity, which in the days of his humiliation was subject to
infirmities.” In justification of his belief, in note 6, he says, “When
by the necessary coherence of the articles of our creed, we profess that
the Son of God did suffer and die for us, far be it from us to think the
divine nature, which is immutable, could suffer, which only hath
immortality, could die.” He is obliged by adopting the creed, to believe
in an article which he acknowledges to be impossible. This is an
extraordinary mode of faith. A man may believe in a dogma which has been
revealed to him by God, or of which the truth
<<35>>is evident, though the
mystery is to him incomprehensible; but no one can believe in that which
he is far from thinking can be true. The rest of his explanation is
equally contradictory. “The sufferings of the Messiah were the
sufferings of God the Son, because the same God the Son was also the Son
of Man. Not that they were the sufferings of his Deity, as of which that
was incapable, but the sufferings of his humanity, as unto which that
was inclinable; for although the human nature was united to the divine,
yet it suffered as much as if it had been alone, and the divine as
little suffered as if it had not been united, because each kept their
respective properties distinct without the least mixture or confusion.”
Now what is the meaning (if any) of this explanation? In the first
place, the sufferings of the Messiah were the sufferings of God the Son,
because God the Son was also the Son of Man. The great absurdity is to
suppose it possible for a God to suffer. A being suffering is one who is
subjected to an evil which he cannot avert, but endures unwillingly;
such a being cannot be God. Afterwards it is acknowledged that they were
not the sufferings of his Deity, but of his humanity; then it is said
that the humanity suffered as much as if it had been alone, and the
Deity as little as if it had not been united; or more plainly, the Deity
did not suffer from the sufferings of the humanity,—in direct
contradiction to the former declaration, that the sufferings of the
humanity were the sufferings of God the Son. It says the same God the
Son was also the Son of Man, but afterwards it is explained that each
nature kept its respective properties distinct, without the least
mixture or confusion. Now where there are two objects which are distinct
from each other, one cannot be said to be the other also;—but the whole
passage is full of contradictions; scarcely any assertion is made but
what is directly denied or contradicted; and the note concludes by the
very lucid declaration, “And we can say that God did suffer whilst we
declare the Godhead did not suffer.” In the same manner we might say,
King Charles I. was decapitated, but his Majesty did not suffer, which
would have been a poor consolation to his widow and family.
J. R. P.
Hackney, 29 October, 1847.
(To be continued.) |
