Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

not have become incarnate but for an accidental cause, that is to restore mankind from ruin; so that he might thence infer, that Christ was created after the image of Adam. For why should he dread, what the Scripture so plainly teaches, that he was made like us in all things, sin excepted? (k) whence also Luke hesitates not in his genealogy to call him "the son of Adam." () I would wish to know why Paul styles Christ "the second Adam," (m) but because he was destined to become man, in order to extricate the posterity of Adam from ruin. If he sustained that capacity before the creation, he ought to have been called "the first Adam." Osiander boldly affirms, that because Christ was already foreknown as man in the Divine mind, therefore men were formed in his likeness. But Paul, by denominating him "the second Adam," places the fall, whence arises the necessity of restoring our nature to its primitive condition, in an intermediate point between the first original of mankind and the restitution which we obtain through Christ: whence it follows that the fall was the cause of the incarnation of the Son of God. Now Osiander argues unreasonably and impertinently, that while Adam retained his integrity, he would he the image of himself, and not of Christ. On the contrary, I reply, that although the Son of God had never been incarnate, both the body and the soul of man would equally have displayed the image of God; in whose radiance it always appeared, that Christ was truly the head, possessing the supremacy over all. And thus we destroy that futile subtilty raised by Osiander, that the angels would have been destitute of this head, unless God had decreed to clothe his Son with flesh, even without any transgression of Adam. For he too inconsiderately takes for granted, what no wise man will concede, that Christ has no supremacy over angels, and that he is not their Prince, except in his human nature. But we may easily conclude from the language of Paul, that, as the eternal Word of God, he is "the first-born of every creature;" (n) not that he was created, or ought to be numbered among creatures: but because the holy state of the world, adorned as it was at the beginning with consummate beauty, had no other author; and that afterwards,

(k) Heb. iv. 15.
(m) 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47.

(1) Luke iii. 38.
(n) Col. i. 15.

as man, he was "the first-begotten from the dead." For in one short passage he proposes to our consideration both these points: that all things were created by the Son, that he might have dominion over angels; and that he was made man, that he might become our Redeemer. (0) Another proof of Osiander's ignorance is his assertion, that men would not have had Christ for their King, if he had not been incarnate. As though the kingdom of God could not subsist, if the eternal Son of God, without being invested with humanity, uniting angels and men in the participation of his glorious life, had himself held the supreme dominion. But he is always deceived, or rather bewilders himself in this false principle, that the Church would have been destitute of a head, if Christ had not been manifested in the flesh. As if, while he was head over angels, he could not likewise by his Divine power preside over men, and by the secret energy of his Spirit animate and support them, like his own body, till they should be exalted to heaven, and enjoy the life of angels. These impertinencies, which I have thus far refuted, Osiander esteems as incontrovertible oracles. Inebriated by the charms of his own speculations, he is accustomed to express himself in the language of ridiculous triumph, without any sufficient cause. But he quotes one passage more, which he asserts to be conclusive beyond all the rest; that is, the prophecy of Adam, who when he saw his wife, said, "This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." (p) But how does he prove this to be a prophecy? because Christ, according to Matthew, attributes the same language to God. As though every thing that God hath spoken by men contained some prophecy. Then Osiander may seek for prophecies in each of the precepts of the law, of which it is evident God was the author. Besides, Christ would have been a low and grovelling expositor, if he had confined himself to the literal sense. Because he is treating, not of the mystical union, with which he hath honoured his Church, but only of conjugal fidelity; he informs us, that God had pronounced a husband and wife to be one flesh, that no one might attempt by a divorce to violate that indissoluble bond. If Osiander be displeased

[blocks in formation]

with this simplicity, let him censure Christ, because he did not conduct his disciples to a mystery, by a more subtile interpretation of the language of the Father. Nor does his delirious imagination obtain any support from Paul, who after having said that "we are members of Christ's flesh," immediately adds, "this is a great mystery." (q) For the apostle's design was, not to explain the sense in which Adam spake, but, under the figure and similitude of marriage, to display the sacred union which makes us one with Christ. And this is implied in his very words; for when he apprizes us that he is speaking of Christ and the Church, he introduces a kind of correction to distinguish between the law of marriage and the spiritual union of Christ and the Church. Wherefore this futile notion appears destitute of any solid foundation. Nor do I think there will be any necessity for me to discuss similar subtileties; since the vanity of them all will be discovered from the foregoing very brief refutation. But this sober declaration will be amply sufficient for the solid satisfaction of the children of God; that "when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." (r)

CHAPTER XIII.

Christ's Assumption of real Humanity.

THE arguments for the divinity of Christ, which has already been proved by clear and irrefragable testimonies, it would, I conceive, be unnecessary to reiterate. It remains then for us to examine, how, after having been invested with our flesh, he has performed the office of a Mediator. Now the reality of his humanity was anciently opposed by the Manichæans and by the Marcionites. Of whom the latter imagined to themselves a visionary phantom instead of the body of Christ; and the former dreamed that he had a celestial body. But both

[blocks in formation]

these notions are contrary to numerous and powerful testimonies of Scripture. For the blessing is promised, neither in a heavenly seed, nor in a phantom of a man, but in the seed of Abraham and Jacob: nor is the eternal throne promised to an aërial man, but to the Son of David and the fruit of his loins. ($) Wherefore on his manifestation in the flesh, he is called the Son of David and of Abraham, not because he was merely born of the virgin after having been formed of some aërial substance; but because, according to Paul, he was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh;" as the same apostle in another place informs us, that "according to the flesh" he descended from the Jews. (t) Wherefore the Lord himself, not content with the appellation of man, frequently calls himself also the Son of man, a term which he intended as a more express declaration of his real humanity. As the Holy Spirit hath on so many occasions, by so many instruments, and with such great diligence and simplicity, declared a fact by no means abstruse in itself, who could have supposed that any mortals would have such consummate impudence as to dare to obscure it with subtileties? But more testimonies offer themselves, if we wished to multiply them; such as this of Paul, that "God sent forth his Son made of a woman;” (v) and innumerable others, from which he appears to have been liable to hunger, thirst, cold, and other infirmities of our nature. But from the multitude we must chiefly select those, which may conduce to the edification of our minds in true faith: as when it is said, that "he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham;" that he took flesh and blood, "that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death:" for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren: that "in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren; that he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest:" that "we have not an high-priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities:" (x) and the like. To the same purpose is what we have just before mentioned, that it was necessary for the

(s) Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18. xxvi. 4. cxxxii. 11. Matt. i. 1. (t) Rom. i. 3. ix. 5.

(x) Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17. iv. 15.

Acts iii. 25. ii. 30.
(v) Gal. iv. 4.

Psalm

sins of the world to be expiated in our flesh; which is clearly asserted by Paul. (y) And certainly all that the Father hath conferred on Christ, belongs to us, because he "is the head, from whom the whole body is fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth." (z) There will otherwise be no propriety in the declaration, " that God giveth the Spirit not by measure unto him, that we may all receive of his fulness:" (a) since nothing would be more absurd, than that God should be enriched in his essence by any adventitious gift. For this reason also Christ himself says in another place, "For their sakes I sanctify myself." (b)

II. The passages which they adduce in confirmation of this error, they most foolishly pervert; nor do their frivolous subtileties at all avail them in their endeavours to obviate the arguments which I have advanced in defence of our sentiments. Marcion imagines that Christ invested himself with a phantom instead of a real body: because he is said to have been "made in the likeness of men," and to have been "found in fashion as a man." (c) But in drawing this conclusion, he totally overlooks the scope of Paul in that passage. For his design is, not to describe the nature of the body which Christ assumed, but to assert that whilst he might have displayed his divinity, he manifested himself in the condition of an abject and despised man. For to exhort us to humility by the example of Christ, he shews, that being God, he might have instantaneously made a conspicuous exhibition of his glory to the world; yet that he receded from his right, and voluntarily debased himself, for that he assumed the form of a servant, and, content with that humble station, suffered his divinity to be hidden behind the veil of humanity. The subject of this statement, without doubt, is not the nature of Christ, but his conduct. From the whole context also it is easy to infer, that Christ humbled himself by the assumption of a real human nature. For what is the meaning of this clause, "that he was found in fashion as a man:" but that for a time his Divine glory was invisible, and nothing appeared but the human form, in a mean and abject condition? For otherwise there would be no foundation for

(y) Rom. viii. 3.
(6) John xvii. 19.

(z) Eph. iv. 15, 16.
(c) Phil. ii. 7, 8.

(a) John iii. 34. i. 16.

« AnteriorContinuar »