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
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
Fecundity Diseases fly and the Devils tremble at his Command and are forced to confess what the Socinians deny that Jesus is the Holy One the most High God the God of Israel Neither will the Objection which they make from the 14th Verse of this Chapter where Christ saith He that believeth on him shall do greater Works than he doth signify any thing for the Words answer themselves It is by his Power and Authority they are done by believing on him who is one in Essence with the Father for whosoever believeth on him believeth on the Father Jesus saith unto him Have I been so long time with you and hast thou not known me Philip He that hath seen me hath seen the Father But saith carnal Reason this is an hard Saying who can bear it What Hocus-Pocus Tricks have we here to make two one and one two What Legerdemain Divinity What religious Non-sense is this Can the Father be the Son and the Son the Father If the Son have the same Essence with the Father how then can they differ Can any thing differ from its own Essence Can it differ from its self Sure these are the Dreams of some superstitious Zealots whose Devotion makes them with the Athenians build Altars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Vnknown God The most High God who is the highest Reason will not oblige his Creature to believe things contrary to Reason and make us do Violence to our own natural Faculties The old Jews thought not of such a Plurality of Persons in one Divine Essence the Old Testament no where mentioneth it And if we consult the New we shall find Christ's Divinity to be by Donation not by Eternal Generation that God highly exalted him and gave him a Name above every Name but this was the Reward of an excellent Vertue of an incomparable Submission to the Death of the Cross and an unerring Obedience nothing here of an Existence and Divinity before he was born of the Virgin 'T is true indeed he might be called the Son of God because the Virgin was over-shadowed by the Power of the most High but who ever dream'd the Antient of Days was con-infantiated and entred into the Womb of a Woman If this be true how could the Father be greater than he Can any thing be greater than it self Why doth Christ acknowledg that all the Power he hath was given him of the Father that he can do nothing of himself that he came not of himself nor to do his own Will or to seek his own Glory If he be the most High God how comes it to pass that he is not omniscient that he knows not the Day of Judgment that he cannot dispose of Places in Heaven that he denies himself to be good that he affirms the Father to be the only true God How is it that he received Commands from God to be sent into the World What makes him to pray What did he put up his Petitions to himself If he be God how could he die and be raised again by the Power of his Father And lastly why doth he give this as the only Reason why he is said to be the Son of God because he was sanctified by the Father and sent into the World Thus you see these Zamzummims of Reason would despoil the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the highest Reason of his Divinity But as Elisha said to his Servant There be more with us than with them and if that one who is more than all be for us if the Chariot and Horsemen of Israel be on our side let Socinus and his Followers do what they can I doubt not but we shall prevail against them The time allotted for this Exercise will not give me leave to answer distinctly to every one of these Arguments I will therefore reduce them summarily into Heads and Classes and by applying an Answer to each Head let you see easily how you may give a distinct Solution to every Argument in particular First then saith the Objector it is against Reason To this I answer That it may be above Reason as to the manner of explaining it but that it is contrary to right Reason I deny for Reason that Divine Candle of the Lord hath discovered the necessity of this Doctrine to her chiefest Adorers To pass by Trismegistus and others whose Writings are suspected what made Plato in his fourth Book of Laws say that God should be the Rule and Measure of all things principally if any where he took upon him the Nature of a Man Why did Aristotle say it was necessary the Gods immortal should vest themselves with Humanity to destroy the Errors were crept into the World Tully saith The time will come when there shall be but one common Lord and Master God himself who shall reign upon the Earth Besides the Platonists plainly assert in their Writings that there are three Hypostases or Persons in the Deity Either these Men found out this by the Light of Nature and then how can it be contrary to Reason or else they had it by Tradition from the Jews and then it seems the old Jews understood it And certainly it is the Doctrine of the Old Testament as well as the New But Reason shews the necessity of this Doctrine from one of her first Maxims or Principles Every Good saith she the more communicative it is the better it is if God then be infinitely good he must be infinitely communicable which can no otherwise be but by Communication of the Divine Essence which is only infinitely good since the Creatures neither separately nor conjunctly can any way be said to be so Thus Reason speaks a necessity of this Doctrine Are not the Communicator and the Communicated distinct Persons Yet there can be but one individual though communicable Divine Essence since there can be but one infinitely Good and Perfect as Reason dictates and we all confess But to this they object That the Son as infinitely Good must also be infinitely Communicable and so in infinitum To this I answer That the Act of Generation or Communication is infinite and eternal and the Essence communicated is infinite how then can there be more than one infinite and eternal Act of Generation Where shall ye next begin since this can never be at an end But if you urge the Procession of the Holy Ghost I answer That every thing which is begotten proceedeth but not every thing that proceedeth is begotten Eve was produced and came forth of Adam and yet was not generated by him So the Procession of the Holy Ghost cannot prejudice the eternal Generation of the same For though the Essence be the same which is communicated from the Father to the Son and from the Father and Son to the Holy Ghost yet there is a difference in the Communication the Word being God by Generation the Holy Ghost by Procession So that though there cannot be more than one infinite and eternal Act in suo genere in its
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