Christian Religion, Catechism · Part 17 – Part 18
IER. chap. 31. verſ. 31, 32, 33, 34.
31 Behold, the daies come, ſaith the Lord, that I will make a new couenant with the houſe of Iſrael, & with the houſe of Iudah.
32 Not according to the couenant that I made with their fathers, when I tooke them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the which my couenant they brake, although I was an husband vntounto them, ſaith the Lord.
33 But this ſhall be the couenant that I will make with the houſe of Iſrael, After thoſe daies, ſaith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in then hearts, and will be their God, and they ſhall be my people.
34 And they ſhall teach no more eueryevery man his neighbor, and eueryevery man his brother, ſaying, Know the Lord: for they ſhall all know me from the leaſt of them vntounto the greateſt of them, ſaith the Lord: for I will forgiue their iniquitie, and will remember their ſinnes no more.
WHat followeth to be ſpoken of?
The couenant of grace.
Seeing by the couenant of nor his life euerlaſting is propounded, what need is there that the couenant of grace ſhould be ſet before vsus?
Becauſe, as hath beene ſaid, the couenant of works cannot through the infirmitie of our fleſh giuegive life vntounto any: And therefore if God ſhould iuſtifie any by it, he ſhould be vniuſt, as one that ſhould giuegive the kingdome of heauen to wicked men.
Seeing the nature of a couenant is to reconcile and ioyne thoſe together which are at variance; as we ſee in the example of Abraham, and Abimelech, Laban and Iacob: why is this called the couenant that can make no reconciliation betweene God and vsus?
Although it be not able to reconcile vsus, yet it doth make way to reconciliation by another couenant: neither is it meet ſtrictly to bind Gods couenant with men, to the lawes or couenants of one man with another; for amongſt men the weaker ſeeketh reconciliation at the hand of the mightier:Luk. 14.31.32. but God neither able to bee hurt or benefited by vsus, ſeeketh vntounto vsus for peace.
What is the couenant of grace?
Act. 16.30.31.That God will giuegive vsus life euerlaſting through Chriſt, if we beleeue in him.
How are they conuinced by the giuing of this couenant, which ſeeke righteouſneſſe in the law or old couenant?
Heb. 8.7.Becauſe thereby they make God vnwiſe, that would enter into a new and ſecond couenant, if the former had beene ſufficient.
Of how many ſorts is this?
It is either the old or new Teſtament.
VVhat is the old Teſtament?
It is the couenant of God, vnderunder ſhadowes to giuegive life euerlaſting by faith in Chriſt that was to come.
What is the new Teſtament?
It is the couenant of God, without ſhadowes to giuegive life euerlaſting by faith in Chriſt that is come.
Are theſe Teſtaments diuers?
They be in ſubſtance the ſame, but in maner they differ.
What are the parts of this couenant of God?
Two: the one is the couenant that God maketh with vsus; the other is the couenant that we make with God.
What is the ſumme of that couenant God maketh with vsus?
That he will be our God.
What gather you from this couenant of God?
The ſurname of God, as it is in diuers places, and namely, Exod. 3.15.
What is properly ment when it is ſaid the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Iacob?
The ſingular glory and priuiledge of Gods people,Heb. 11.16. in that God is content to take his ſurname of them.
Why is this ſurname added?
For that it is a fearefull thing, to thinke of the proper name of God alone, vnleſſe this bee added to it: whereby he declareth his louelove and kindnes to vsus.
IOH. 1.14 And the Word was made fleſh, &c.
WHereupon dependeth the performance of this couenant of grace?
On the ſecond perſon in Trinitie, Chriſt Ieſus the onelyonly ſonne of God.
What are we to conſider in him?
Firſt, his Perſon, ſecondly his office.
What hauehave we to conſider in his perſon?
Firſt, his Godhead, that maketh the perſon. Secondly, his manhood, which hath ſubſiſtence in the perſon of the Godhead.
What ſay you of his Godhead?
That he is the onelyonly naturall ſonne of the moſt high and eternall God his father, his word, character, and image, God coeſſentiall and coequall with the father and the holy Ghoſt.
Doe you then hold that he is, and is called the ſon of God in regard of his Godhead?
Yes verily, and not according to his manhood; according to the Apoſtle, who ſaith, that hee is without father according to his manhood,Heb. 7. and without mother according to his Godhead.
It ſeemeth he is called the ſonne of God in reſpect of his humane nature; in the generation whereof it is ſaid that the holy Ghoſt did that which fathers doe in the naturall generation, eſpecially ſeeing he is therefore ſaid the ſonne of the higheſt.
No, but onelyonly in regard of the eternall generation, otherwiſe there ſhould bee two ſonnes; one of the father, and another of the holy Ghoſt: but he is therefore called the ſonne of the moſt higheſt, for that none could be ſo conceiued by the holy Ghoſt, but he that is the naturall ſon of God.
How is he ſaid to be conceiued by the holy Ghoſt?
Becauſe the holy Ghoſt by his incomprehenſible power, wrought his conception ſupernaturally, which fathers doe naturally in the begetting of their children; not that any of the ſubſtance of the holy Ghoſt, which is indiuiſible, came into the wombe of the Virgin.
Why is he ſaid to be in the beginning?
Not becauſe he began then to bee: but that then he was; and therefore is from eternities.
So much of his Diuinitie. What are wee to conſider in his manhood?
That the Diuine nature tooke to himſelfe a body and reaſonable ſoule.
VVhy did hee not take the nature of Angels vponupon him?
Becauſe hee had no meaning to ſaue the Angels that fell,Heb. 2. for that they had committed the ſin againſt the holy Ghoſt, in falling malitiouſly into rebellion againſt God, without tentation.
Are not the elect Angels any way benefited by the humanity of Chriſt?
Properly his humanity reacheth onelyonly to ſinfull mankind: for if he had ment to hauehave benefited Angels (otherwiſe then confirming them) by taking another nature, he would hauehave taken their nature vponupon him.
How is that then Epheſ. 2. to be vnderſtood: He reconciled things in heauen?
It is vnderſtood of the Saints then in heauen, and not any way of the Angels; although in Chriſt the Angels bee elected, and by him confirmed, ſo that they ſhall ſtand for euermore.
Did hee not paſſe through the Virgin Mary (as ſome affirme) as ſaffron out of a bagge, or water through a conduit?
God forbid, for he was made of the ſeed of Dauid, and was a plant of the ſeed of Ieſſe; for he tooke humane nature of the Virgin.
How is that ſhewed?
For that he ſaith the word was made fleſh, fleſh being taken for the whole man, both body and ſoule.
Was not the Godhead inſtead of the ſoule vntounto him?
No: for our ſoules muſt hauehave periſhed euerlaſtingly, except the ſoule of our Sauiour Chriſt had ſatisfied for them.
Was not the Godhead turned into fleſh, ſeeing it is ſaid he was made fleſh?
Rom. 8. Galat. 3.In no wiſe, no more then hee was turned into ſin or into a curſe, becauſe it is ſaid, hee was made ſinne and made a curſe for vsus.
VVas this vnion of the body and ſoule with the Godhead by aſſuming of the manhood vntounto the Godhead, or by infuſing of the Godhead into the manhood?
By aſſuming and taking of the manhood to the Godhead; for otherwiſe there ſhould be two ſonnes, one of the holy Virgin Marie, and another of God: then conſequently alſo two perſons.
If the Godhead be not changed into the manhood; is it not at leaſt mingled with the manhood?
Nothing leſſe: for then he ſhould be neither God nor man, for things mingled together cannot retaine the name of one of the ſimples: As honie and oyle being mingled together cannot bee called honie or oyle. Secondly, the properties of the Godhead cannot agree to the properties of the manhood; nor the properties of the manhood to the Godhead: for as the Godhead cannot thirſt; no more can the manhood bee in all or many places at once.
But was not this performed after his reſurrection, that the glorie of the Godhead then more plentifully communicated with the manhood, ſwallowed vp the truth thereof, as a whole ſea one drop of oyle?
No, for theſe two natures continued ſtill diſtinct in ſubſtance, properties and actions, and ſtill remained one and the ſame Chriſt.
VVhy tooke he our nature vponupon him?
Becauſe the iuſtice of God could no otherwiſe be ſatisfied, then by our nature which had committed the ſin: and for that he could not ſuffer in his Godhead.
Is there no vſe of the Godhead of Chriſt in his ſuffering?
Yes: it was neceſſarie hee ſhould bee God that ſhould ſuffer, that he might be able to ouercome the infinite ſufferings due to vsus.
Hitherto of the natures of our Sauiour, diuine and humane. What is to be conſidered in the coniunction of theſe two natures?
That theſe two natures vnſeparablie ioyned together, in the firſt moment the holy Virgin conceiued, made but one perſon: a myſterie that no Angel, much leſſe man is able to comprehend.
VVhy ſo?
For that the manhood of our Sauiour Chriſt is perſonally vnited to the Godhead, whereas the Angels of much greater glory then men, are not able to abide the preſence of God.
VVhat is the vſe of this coniunction of two natures into one perſon?
That by the vnity of perſons in both natures, the obedience of Chriſt performed in the manhood, might be of infinite merit, as being the obedience of God.
VVhat further fruit hauehave we by this coniunction?
That whereas God hath no ſhape comprehenſible either to the eye of the body or of the ſoule; and the mind of man cannot reſt but in a repreſentation of ſome thing, that his mind and vnderſtanding can in ſome ſort reach vntounto: conſidering God in the ſecond perſon in the Trinitie, which hath taken our nature, whereby God is reuealed in the fleſh, he hath whereupon to ſtay his mind.
How did then the Iewes before his comming, which could not doe ſo?
Gen. 18.1.2. &. 19.1.2.They might propoſe to themſelues the ſecond perſon that ſhould take our nature, and the ſame alſo that had appeared ſundrie times in the ſhape of a man: albeit our priuiledge is greater then theirs; as they that behold him as he is, whereas they did behold him, as he ſhould be.