Owen - BX9315 O81

HYPOSTATICAL UNION OF HIS NATURES DECLARED. 123 whatever is spoken of this nature concerning the love of God unto the man Christ Jesus, and of his love to God, it is the person of the Father that is intended therein; nor can anyone instance be given, where it is capable of another interpretation: for it is still spoken of, with reference unto the work that he was sent of the Father to accomplish, and his own delight therein. S. He allowed it to be ,.ara' ¿,Ia,, by way of dignity and honour. For this conjunction is such, as that what- ever honour is given unto the Son of God, is also to be given unto the Son ofman. But herein, to recompense his sacrilege in taking away the hypostatical union from the church, he would introduce idolatry into it. For the honour that is due unto the Son ofGod, is divine, religious, or the owningof all essential divine properties in him, with a due subjection of soul unto him thereon. But to give this honour unto the man Christ Jesus, without a suppositionof the subsistence of his human nature in the person of the Son of God, and solely on that account, is highly idolatrous. 4. He asserted it to be , ,at Talmo/30d., or on the ac- count ofthe consent and agreement that was between the will of God, and the will of the man Christ Jesus. But no other union will thence ensue, but what is between Godand the angels in heaven; in whom there is a perfect compliance with the will of God in all things. Wherefore, if this be the foundation of this union, he might be said to take on him the nature of angels, as well as the seed of Abraham, which is expressly denied by the apostle, Heb. ii. 16, 17. 5. teas' 64a.vtu/au, by an equivocal denomination, the name of the one person, namely, of the Son of God, beingaccommodated unto the other, namely, the Son of man. So they were called gods, unto whom the word of God came. But this no way answers any one divine tes- timony, wherein the name of God is assigned unto the Lord Christ, as those wherein God is said to lay down his life for us, and to purchase his church with his own blood, to comeand be manifest in the flesh, wherein no homonymyor equivocation can take place. By all these ways he constituted a separable accidental union, wherein nothing in kind, but in degree only, was pecu- liar unto the man Christ Jesus. But all these things, so far as they are true, belongun. to the third thing to be considered in his person, name- ly, the communion, ormutual communication of the dis- tinct natures therein. But this personal union consists not in any of them, nor in all of them together. Nor do theyanswer any the multiplied testimonies given by the Holy Ghost unto this glorious mystery. Some few of them may be mentioned. The Word was made,flesh, John i. 14. There can be but two senses of these words. (1.) That the Word ceased to be what it was, and was substantially turned intoflesh. (2.) That continuing to be what it was, it was made to be also what before it was not. The first sense is de- structive of the divine Being, and all its essential pro- perties. The other can be verified only herein, that the Word took that flesh, that is, our human nature to his own, his own nature wherein he was made flesh, which is that we plead for. For this assertion that the person of the Son took our nature to be his own, is the same with that of the assumption of the human nature into personal subsistence with himself. And the ways of the presence of the Son ofGod with the man Christ Jesus before mentioned, do express nothing inanswer unto this divine testimony, that the Word was made flesh. Being in theform of God, he took on him theform of a servant, and became obedient, Phil. ii. 7, a. That by his being in the form ofGod, his participation in and of the same divine nature with the Father is intended, these men grant. And that herein he was a person dis- tinct from him, Nestòriusofold acknowledged, though it beby ours denied. But they can fancy no distinction, that shall bear the denomination and relation of Father and Son, but all is inevitably included in it, which we plead for under that name. Thisperson took on him the form ofa servant; that is the nature ofman in the conditionof a servant. For it is the same with his be- ing made of a woman, made under the law; or taking on him the seed ofAbraham. And this person became obedient. It was in the human nature in the form of a servant wherein hewas obedient. Wherefore that human nature was the nature of that person, a nature which he took on him and made his own, wherein he would be obedient. And that the human nature is the nature- of the person ofhim who was in the form of God, is that hypostatical union, which we believe and plead for. " To us a Son is given, to us a Child is born, and