Soul that Bird of Paradise perking upon a little Glandule in the midst of the Brain and from thence giving its imperious Dictates to every Member of the Body Or else what Tube or Spectacles did he use to see the Soul diffused through the whole and be wholly in the whole and yet wholly in every part thereof Now though when we look on a Man we cannot see his Essence and yet by his Discourse and Reason we see and know he hath the Essence of a Man so whosoever looks on Christ though the Divine Essence be invisible yet since he that sees him sees the Father must necessarily acknowledg that he hath the Essence of the Father he is one with the Father he is the most High God the God of Israel But say the Objectors If this be granted yet the Consequence you make is altogether illogical for if it be true that he who sees Christ sees the Father it naturally follows that Christ is the Father and not as you say that he is one in Essence with the Father And so contrary to your own Principles you confound the Persons and make the Son the Father and the Father the Son which is a Contradiction and altogether impossible To this I answer that the word Father in the Scripture is taken either essentially and absolutely for God or the Divine Nature or else personally and respectively in reference to the other Persons of the sacred Trinity An Example of the latter we have in the Commission of Baptism Go and disciple all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost And again There are three that bear Record in Heaven the Father Son and Holy Ghost And an Example of the former we have in those Words of the Jews We have one Father even God And of the Prophet Isaiah chap. 9.6 His Name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God The Everlasting Father Now either the Prophet meant he should be called as he was to be and then the Everlasting Father must signify essentially the Eternal God or else he should not be what he foretold he should be called And so there is here no Prerogative of the Messiah foretold but the Prophecy is a mere Scoff and an ironical Mock of him who was to be the Desire of all Nations And the meaning is he should be called the wonderful Counsellor but he shall be only one of no Parts no Wit Counsel or Advice He shall be called The mighty God but shall be only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a poor weak silly Man He shall be called The Everlasting Father but shall be the most despicable amongst the Sons of Men. Now since this Interpretation is contrary to the Scope of the Prophet and the Tenour of the whole Scripture and it 's a Contradiction that in one and the same Respect the Father should be the Son and the Son should be the Father we must conclude that the word Father in this Prophecy must be taken essentially for God or the Divine Nature And if here and in several other Places of Scripture which my time will not now give me leave to enumerate the word Father is so taken why not in this Speech of our Saviour's which will make the Sense clear and obvious to the meanest Understanding He that seeth me seeth the Father that is seeth God him who hath the Divine Nature or else which amounts to the same is one in Essence with the Father There is yet an Interpretation more which is the learned Hammond's in his Paraphrase on the New Testament where he saith The Son is said to be the Image of his Father and whosoever seeth the Son seeth the Father alluding to the Expression of the Apostle where Christ is said to be the Brightness of his Father's Glory the express Image of his Person But this is so far from helping our Adversaries that indeed it doth both confute and confound them For though as they say truly the Image and that it represents cannot be the same yet the Son cannot be said to be the Image of his Person without he have one and the same Divine Nature and Essence For every Image either expresseth the outward Lineaments and Proportions of the thing it represents as a Picture Statute and Impression or else together with the out ward Lineaments the Gesture and Motion of the thing it represents as a Mirrour or Looking-glass Thus Man as he was created in Holiness and had Power given him over the Creatures did represent or was the Image of God in the Imitation of the Divine Operations or in the Exercise of his Power Justice and Mercy or else it expresseth the Nature Genius Person and internal Form of that whereof it is the Image Thus the Son of Man cannot be the natural Image of his Father unless he hath one and the same specifical Nature with his Father and is like him in the Qualities and Endowments of the Soul Non progenerat Aquila Columbam 't is a Man only that begetteth a Man 't is a Man not a Horse or a Lion can be the express Image of the Person of a Man Thus nothing can be the express Image of Infinity but what is infinite And the Son of God the eternal Son of an eternal Father God of God Light of Light is the express Image of his Father's Person As he hath one and the same not specifical for the Divine Nature is indivisible and can be but one since it is impossible there should be more than one infinite most perfect Essence but individual Divine Nature and Perfections And so the Words according to this Interpretation amount to thus much that he that seeth Christ who is the express Image of his Father's Person seeth him who cannot but be of the same Nature and Divine Essence And so the Consequence is yet more clear and evident that Christ is one with the Father that he is the most High God the God of Israel The Words being thus cleared if there were no other Place of Scripture to prove this great Truth yet from this alone we have sufficient Ground to believe it But the Divinity of the Blessed Jesus is almost in every Paragraph writ in such large and evident Characters that he that runs may read it Would you see it written by a Sun-Beam What can be more bright and illustrious than that Saying of St. Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 3.16 Without Controversy great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached to the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory Here the word God is the Subject of six Propositions together and therefore according to the Rule laid down by the Socinians signifieth the supream Power and Majesty excluding all others from that Deity Now that that Text is meant of our Saviour and not of the Will of God revealed by frail mortal Man and gloriously received on Earth as
kind by way of Understanding which in spiritual Beings is Conception or Generation so it 's no contradiction that there be an infinite Act of the Will too by way of infinite Love or Volition which is Procession But saith the Objector if it be necessary that an infinite Good be infinitely communicable how can these two be one as it is indeed the usual Method of our Adversaries to pose us with the manner of the Existence of a Plurality of Persons in one Divine Essence But who knows not that as to argue from the Existence to the manner of existing is no Consequence so to argue we know not the manner of it therefore it is not is very bad Logick We know not how the Loadstone drills and draws the Iron into its close Embraces but we are sure it is so The Wind we know blows but whence it comes and whither it goes we are ignorant In these and a thousand things more is Reason pos'd in Naturals much more in Supernaturals So that it is a sufficient Answer to say Scripture and Reason tell us it is so but how it is so we know not Neither do we desire to know left with the Bethlemites we smart for our peeping into the Ark of the Lord. But we are not altogether in the dark as to this neither There is something in Nature which tho there be no proportion between finite and infinite may yet at the least shadow out something not altogether unlike this Plurality of Persons in one Essence If we lift up our Eyes towards Heaven and look upon the Sun we cannot but perceive some Glimmerings of this great Truth in that beautiful and glorious Body Is it not the Fountain and Cause of natural Light Was it ever destitute of this pleasing Act of Generation Did it not ever since it was a Sun send forth these bright and joyful Emanations Thus the Son of God is the Brightness of his Father's Glory the eternal Son of an eternal Father Are not the Sun and its darling Light distinct Supposites Do they not differ as Cause and Effect Begetter and Begotten It is a poor shift here to say that Light is a Quality for Reason in the best of Antients Democritus Epicurus and generally in all the modern Philosophers speaks the contrary In short the Sun naturally and necessarily produceth Light Thus God who is the most free Agent in this great Act of Generation acts ex necessitate Naturae naturally which is the highest Perfection as I said before because being infinitely Good he is infinitely Communicable Now that the Sun and Light which as Cause and Effect Begetter and Begotten have one and the same individual Essence appears from the tacit Consent of all Men I ever met with for if nothing interposeth between the Rays of the Sun and them they will say they are in the Sun And it is true for the Sun is Light and Light is the Sun they are one in Essence tho distinct as Cause and Effect I could enlarge much upon this Similitude and make it clearer than the Sun it self But Time calls me to answer their other way of arguing which is by Scripture wherein I will be as concise as may be for I fear I have already tired your Patience First say our Adversaries his Divinity was by Donation as appears from Phil. 2.9 And again the Father is called the Head nay the God of Christ I answer All this is in respect of his humane Nature as we may see in the Chapter cited Phil. 2. for he that was in the Form of God and thought it no Robbery to be equal with God took upon him the Form of a Servant submitting to the Death of the Cross the Punishment of Slaves and Servants The Exaltation therefore of the Humane Nature as a Reward of his Death and Suffering could be no prejudice to his Divinity which the Apostle asserts fully in the foregoing Verses But saith the Objector how can the Son be the Father To do nothing of himself not to come of himself or seek his own Glory are Imperfections not suitable to the Divine Nature I answer What he calls Imperfections are the greatest Perfections for since the Divine Nature can be but one Christ if he be the proper natural Son of God as he is said to be in Scripture must have the same individual Essence with the Father and so consequently what the Jews affirmed for Blasphemy the most High God and he doth nothing of himself because the Father that dwelleth in him worketh together with him Opera Dei ad extra sunt indivisa The third sort of Objections are from those Scriptures which deny some Perfections to belong to Christ in some certain Respect But our Adversaries deny them absolutely as not to know the Day of Judgment and the like The fourth Objection is when they attribute some Imperfection to Christ absolutely which is spoken of him in Scripture only in some certain Respect as to be Man to Die to Pray to be Raised again that the Father is greater than he and the like all which are said of him only in respect of his Humanity Lastly saith the Objector Christ gives this as the only Reason why he is said to be God because he was sanctified and sent into the World And here I beg your leave to be more copious and that I may not seem to derogate or take any thing from the strength of the Argument I will repeat the very Words of their Authors as they are set down in the Racovian Catechism pag. 19. Having premised that the word God is taken two ways in Scripture first for the most High secondly for him who hath some sublime Dominion under him they add that in the latter Signification the Word of God is in certain Places dignified with the Title of God And this we prove saith the Racovian Catechism from the very Words of the Son himself John 10.35 If ye call them Gods to whom the Word of God comes and the Scripture cannot be broken Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World Thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God By this Speech Christ doth clearly intimate both that the word God is sometimes attributed in Scripture to them who are far inferiour to that one God as also that he called himself the Son of God for no other reason than because he had been sanctified by the Father and sent into the World To this I answer 1st That I admit the distinction but that the word God is applied to Christ only in the latter Signification is false as I have before proved And to say only as they do that in certain Places of Scripture the Word when attributed to Christ is taken in the latter Signification for him that hath some derivative Power from the most High God makes nothing against us for in certain other Places of Scripture it is attributed to Christ in the former Signification
for the God of Gods or the most High God If indeed they had said that in every Place of Scripture where the word God is applied to Christ it is taken only for him who is inferiour to the Supream God they had spoke to the purpose And if this be their Meaning which I think it is yet what they offer for Proof is altogether illogical and non-cogent For who that ever pretended to Reason ever went about to prove an universal Affirmative by one Particular and yet they do no otherwise here for thus they argue Christ calls himself the Son of God and so consequently a God in one Place of Scripture viz. John 10.36 wherein the word God is used in the latter Signification for him that hath some derivative Power from the most High God and for no greater reason than because he is fanctified and sent into the World therefore in every Place of Scripture where the word God is ascribed to Christ it must be so taken and for the same reason Now help me Logick if this be found Reasoning and good Argumentation The King of England is called and acknowledged King of France by us here in England therefore he is so in France Spain Italy and all the World over Who is so dim-sighted as not to perceive this egregious non-sequitur But suppose what cannot be granted that he called himself God for that reason yet it is not expressed that he calls himself so for no greater he might declare this and conceal others at this time when the Jews were about to stone him for ought our Adversaries can say to the contrary Nay what if he doth not at all alledg this Reason for his calling of himself God which indeed he doth not as will appear from the consideration of the Context The Jews ver 34. accuse him of Blasphemy and because thou being a Man makest thy self a God Our Saviour answers to this Accusation The Scripture calls them Gods to whom the Word of God came therefore if I am sanctified or set apart by the Father and sent into the World to preach this Word I am no Blasphemer though I call my self God It is one thing to say I call my self God because the Father hath sanctified me and sent me into the World and another to say If I call my self God for that Reason I am no Blasphemer for Christ doth not here go about to shew how he is said to be God but to answer their Accusation and prove that he was no Blasphemer because he said he was the Son of God So that the Sense of the Words is clearly this I am no Blasphemer by calling my self God since being sanctified by the Father I spake nothing contrary to Scripture which calls them Gods to whom the Word of God came And now I hope I have brought to the ground this high and mighty Objection having shewn first that the word God which is supposed not granted be attributed to Christ in the latter Signification for him that hath some derivative Power from the most High God yet in certain other Places of Scripture when attributed to him it is taken for the God of Gods or the most High God 2dly If they mean what is false that in every Place of Scripture where the word God is given to our Saviour it is taken only for him who hath some derivative Power from the most High God yet their Argument is not good because it concludes from one sole Particular an universal Affirmative 3dly Because if he does give his Sanctification and Mission as a Reason of his Deity yet it cannot be said he called himself God for no greater Reason since it is not so expressed in the Text and he might declare this and conceal others at this time when the Jews were about to stone him His Hour as he saith else-where being not then come 4thly and lastly He doth not say he calls himself God for that Reason but saith only that if he call himself God for that Reason he is no Blasphemer his Design being not to shew how he was God but to prove he was no Blasphemer So that I think now we may safely enough conclude that he that sees the Son seeth the Father that Jesus is one in Essence with the Father that he is the most High God the God of Israel There are yet two Difficulties the Independency of Christ and the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature both which I will briefly speak to and so conclude First then say the Socinians Christ is said in Scripture to be the Son of God and therefore since the Divine Essence which is infinite and most perfect cannot be multiplied without a Contradiction Christ depends on the Father as to his Essence which is an Imperfection not suitable to the most High God In short say they Christ is dependent therefore not the most High God To this I answer 1. That nothing can be said to depend upon another as to his Essence but what is in time after that which causeth it 2. That hath an Essence individually distinct from it 3. Which is contingent as to its Essence or is in the Power of another to be or not be But nothing of this can be said of Christ for the Father and the Son are co-eternal nei-before or after other the Son hath not an Essence distinct from the Father neither is the Son of God contingent as to his Essence It is not in the Power of the Father that he be or not be since the Father naturally and necessarily begetteth the Son In a word they have both the same Essence and how the same can be said to depend upon it self is a manner of speaking I am not acquainted with and know not how to apprehend Christ saith Rev. 1. I am the first and the last which Elogy the God of Israel the most High God appropriates to himself Isa 48.12 Now I would fain know how the first Being can be said to depend upon another for its Being If our Adversaries say as they do that these Words are not to be understood absolutely but in reference to the Gospel or Way of Salvation then they contradict their own Principles and take away the Difference between the first and second Cause They make the Son the first Cause and yet they say the Father is the first or prime Author of Salvation and so in reference to Salvation there is a first before a first which implies a Contradiction I conclude therefore that these words are to be understood of Christ absolutely viz. that he is the first being the Cause of all things that he is Alpha and Omega the Beginning and End the first and the last which denotes not only his Eternity but likewise his Independency For how can that which is before all things be said to depend on any thing As to the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature into one Person our Adversaries thus argue It 's impossible that two endued with
opposite Properties should combine into one Person Or that two Natures each whereof is apt to constitute a several Person should be united into one Person I answer First that is neither strange impossible nor as our Adversaries say repugnant to sound Reason that two Substances endued with opposite Properties should combine into one Person for the Soul is immortal and the Body mortal yet these do so combine that they constitute one Person Again the Soul is not only apt to constitute but is really a Person according to the Platonist if a Person be a singular Substance endued with Reason before its Entrance into the Body for if each Soul did subsist by it self many thousand Years before its Body it could not be said to be part of a Man before it was united to the Body And therefore a Nature which is not only apt but really constitutes a Person may be united to another Nature as that both shall constitute one Person There is no Necessity therefore in the Hypostatical Union that there should be two Persons and so consequently two Christs for as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man so God and Man is one Christ And it is false what our Adversaries say that the Similitude holds not because according to us Christ is both God and Man but Soul and Body are so conjoined that a Man is neither Soul nor Body for he is both Thus the Scripture speaking of Men and Women says So many Souls were added to the Faith And the common Speech is thus is there any Body or there is no Body meaning none of Mankind in such or such a Place But if they will not the Platonists Pre-existence of Souls which I as Answerer am not obliged to prove but they to disprove yet according to the common Opinion that two Persons cannot combine there is no Fear there should be two Persons in Christ for nothing can be said to be a Person as your own Definition of a Person intimates by the word Individual unless it actually exist But the humane Nature of Christ never existed but in the second Person of the Trinity It is true if the humane Nature had been individuated and subsisted of it self before it was united to the second Person of the Trinity there might have been some Shew of an Objection but this they know is not admitted How then can Christ be said to be more than one Person since the Son of Man subsists only in the Person of the Son of God What hinders then that a Person may be so united to another Person which if it should subsist of it self would be a Person that they both be one only Person since the one subsists in the other and hath no proper Subsistence of its own But it will be sufficient in short to say Rem scimus Modum nescimus the thing we know the manner we know not And it is no good Consequence as I said before to argue you know not the manner you know not how the thing is therefore it is not Let us therefore admire and adore that infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God which hath revealed so much of that great Mystery to Mankind which the Prophets foretold and the Angels themselves desired to peep into viz. God manifested in the Flesh whereby he that sees Christ seeth the Father sees the invisible God and approacheth to that Light which is inaccessible Would you then see the Father Is your Soul athirst for the living God Do you breath and pant after eternal Life Why then do you any longer gaze and gape after Vanity Look upon Jefus there is no seeing the Father but by the Son View him in his Word view him in his Works in him dwelleth the Fulness of the Godhead bodily He only can shew you the Father He is the Way the Truth and the Life he only can give you the Ante-pasts of Eternity and whilst you are here upon Earth make you touth Heaven with a Finger And though now as the Apostle saith you can see him but as through a Glass darkly yet the time will come when you shall see him as he is Face to Face encircled with all his Rays of Glory Again would you see the Father Doth the Horror of your Sins afright you and the infinite Justice of an angry God terrify you Have you been bitten by the fiery Serpent and would you see the Bowels of Mercy and the tender Compassions of a Father Look upon Jesus view him on the Cross see how he stretcheth forth his Arms to receive thee How can'st thou now chuse but cry out with the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O the Depth and Length and Breadth of the Love of God in Christ Jesus Behold him bleeding there 's Balsam in his Blood The Serpent upon the Pole of the Cross can cure all the venemous Stings of Satan that red Dragon that fiery Serpent Let not the infinite Justice of God any longer terrify you He that seeth Jesus seeth also the Father of Mercies the God of Comfort and all Consolations As there was infinite Punishment due so there is an infinite Satisfaction made for he that sacrificed himself for us was both God and Man By the Blood of God saith the Apostle we are redeemed and Jesus is this God for he is as the Apostle speaks Rom. 9.5 over all God blessed for evermore Amen To him therefore with the Father and the Holy Ghost be ascribed as most due is all Honour Glory Praise Might Majesty and Dominion both now and evermore Amen Glory be to thee O Lord. FINIS