Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

'Without going through all the wild and fanciful notions of ⚫ those with whom we are contending, I may only mention one, 'which amounts to this, that the Son of God dwelt in the 'human nature, "all evil," "sinful," "fallen;" and exerted 'this power to accomplish its purification; operating mightily for that end, and finally succeeding in his purpose. This is

[ocr errors]

altogether inconsistent with the doctrine contained in those 'church formularies, which some of these gentlemen have dis' covered of late to be so sound and essential, that no parent isa 'real Christian who does not inculcate them on his children. For 'what says "the Shorter Catechism" of the Church of Scot'land? "The only Redeemer of God's elect, is the Lord Jesus 'Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man; and so was, and continueth to be, God and man, in two distinct 'natures and one person, for ever."-As far as any meaning can be extracted from the beginning of this paragraph, it seems as if Dr. Thomson supposed some one to say, That the human nature in which the Son of God dwelt had, as it were, a stain at first, which by some continuous process was gradually diminished, and finally abolished. But we again suspect this to be a man of straw. Not that we imagine Dr. Thomson has wilfully put sentiments into his adversary's mouth which he did not believe to be there; but that he is entirely ignorant of the nature of the question at issue; that he has never thought of it in the whole course of his existence; and that therefore he is as incompetent to handle it, as he would be to write a dissertation on Sungskrit. The sentence which he brings forward from the Assembly's Catechism has no reference whatever to the subject: but if it have any, it testifies against Dr. Thomson; for it speaks of the two distinct natures of the Deity and the humanity, whereas Dr. Thomson has throughout ascribed to the humanity the attributes of the Deity; thereby not keeping the natures distinct, but confounding them: an old heresy, often condemned.

[ocr errors]

'And what says the Confession of Faith of the same church? "The Son of God, the Second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the 'Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon 'him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the 'power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably 'joined together in one Person, without conversion, composition, or confusion: which Person is very God and very man, yet 'one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man."-This extract has very little to do with Dr. Thomson's argument, and that little is entirely opposed to the purpose for which he has

[ocr errors]

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.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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.

[ocr errors]

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 ?

[ocr errors]

"In

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 who has written upon the subject. Moreover, so far is it from every commentator 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, qua formâ loquitur adverte. Hominis substantiam gessit, hominis assumpsit affectum. homo loquitur. Alia voluntas hominis, alia Dei ;"-which, for Non ergo quasi Deus, sed quasi 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. as God, but as man. He does not therefore speak the God." The Continuation of Poole's Commentary says, There is one will of the man, another of "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.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'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 con' versed 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

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 66 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

« AnteriorContinuar »