Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

already obferv'd) and the fcriptures, when they speak of God and his Son, they reprefent them as fuch. Now if the very or fupreme God, and the man Chrift Jefus (which is his Son) are two diftinct individual Beings (as in the nature and reafon of the thing they muft, and as the fcriptures reprefent them to be) then they are truly two diftinct individual perfons, in the moft proper fense of the word perfon, whatever union there may be betwixt them: and therefore if the Logos, or word, is the very or fupreme God, then he cannot be (in whole, nor in part) that Being or perfon which is the Son of God: and confequently whatever union there is betwixt the fupreme God, and the man Christ Jefus (which is his Son) yet there is not, nor can there be any such personal union as is here supposed.

If it fhould be farther urged, that tho the [word] is the very or fupreme God; yet he is not the whole and all that Being which is that God: because that Being is truly diftinguishable into three diftinct individual perfons, viz. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft; these three alike partaking of all the attributes and effential properties of the very or fupreme God: and that the man Christ Jefus, or the Son of God, was not united to that whole Being which is his Father, but only to the fecond perfon of that Being, viz. the Word and that this fecond perfon, and the man Chrift Jefus, conftitute one individual perfon in their united state.

I anfwer, as before, if the [Word] is effential to, and in part conftitutes that Being which is the Father of God's Son, then the Word himself is the very, tho not the whole or all that is the Father of that Son; and if the Son was perfonally united to the Word, then he was perfonally united to that Being which is his Father. The diftinguishing of God into three imaginary perfons makes no alteration in the cafe, because it is that Being which is conftituted of these three, which is the very Father; and therefore what thing foever is united to either of these perfons, that thing is united to the Being it felf: and confequently if the man Chrift Jefus, which is the Son of God, is perfonally united to the Word, then he is perfonally united to his own Father; and fo the relation of father and fon ceases, or rather it never took place; because this fuppofed perfonal union began when the man Chrift Jefus (confider'd as the man Chrift Jefus, or Son of God) began to be. But the fcriptures have plainly declared, that the fupreme God, and the man Chrift Jefus, ftand in the relation of Father and Son to each other; and confequently have plainly denied the perfonal union which is here fuppofed. But farther, upon the fuppofition that · the Being which we call the fupreme God, is truly diftinguishable into three distinct individual perfons, which alike partake of all the attributes and effential properties of that Being, then it will follow, that if the [Word] was perfonally united to the man Christ Jefus, the Father and the Holy Ghost must be fo, they being alike omniprefent, filling up the fame place, at the fame time, and being prefent in, and with all perfons and things, in the fame manner, kind, and degree. And tho in a triangle, one angle may touch, and fo be united to what the other two are not, each angle being in a particular place, and neither of them being in the fame place as the others; yet with

re

refpect to three fuppofed perfons, which are alike omniprefent, the cafe is quite otherways, becaufe they all fill up the fame place, and where one is, there the others are in the fame manner, kind, and degree; and therefore to what one is perfonally united, the others must be alfo. If the [Word] was perfonally united to the man Chrift Jefus, the Father and the Holy Ghost must be fo; and confequently the man Chrift Jefus was perfonally united to the whole, and all of that Being, which we call the fupreme God. Upon this principle I farther obferve, that as God is omniprefent, and fo fills all place, and is present in and with all perfons and things, in the fame manner, kind, and degree; fo from hence it will follow, that if he was perfonally united to the man Chrift Jefus, he must be so to all other men, because he is present in and with (and confequently is united to all other men) in the fame manner, kind, and degree, as he is to the man Chrift Jefus: for tho God may, if he pleases, exercise or manifeft his attributes or effential properties at fome times, and in fome places, when he doth not at other times, or in other places; and tho he may exercise or manifeft these in, to, by, or upon fome perfons or things, and not in, to, by, or upon others; and tho he may exercise or manifest these in a different manner or degree, in, to, by, or upon fome perfons or things, than he doth in, to, by, or upon others: I fay, tho he may do this if he pleases, yet as to his effence, or effential properties themselves, they are not fubject to these changes or alterations, they being alike present in and with, and fo are alike united to all places, perfons, and things in the fame manner, kind, and degree. And if God's exercifing or manifefting of his attributes, or effential properties in, to, by, or upon any being, fhould be call'd his perfonal union with that being, then it will follow, first, that every being which God exercises or manifefts his attributes and effential properties in, to, by, or upon, I fay, every fuch being is perfonally united to the fupreme God, upon this principle (only it may be with this difference, that one is perfonally united in a different manner, or to a different degree from another, as God's attributes or effential properties, are in a different manner or degree exercised or manifefted as aforefaid) fecondly, it will follow, that quiefcence or the non-exercise or manifeftation of God's attributes, or effential properties in, to, by, or upon any being, deftroys God's perfonal union with that being, or at least falls fhort of it; for if perfonal union is founded in God's exercifing, or manifefting his attributes, or effential properties, as aforefaid, then it will follow that quiefcence or the non-exercise, or manifeftation of these falls fhort of that union; fo that where the exercise, or manifestation of these is wanting to any being (as in the cafe of quiefcence it is,) there perfonal union is wanting to that being; and confequently when the {word] was quiefcent in the man Chrift Jefus, he was not perfonally united

to him.

Again, I obferve, upon a fuppofition, that the fupreme God is truly distinguished into three diftinct individual perfons, and that thefe are not three minds, but only one fingle individual mind; then it will follow from hence, that if one of these perfons acts, the other two must act alfo; and if one of these is quiefcent, the other two must be fo: for as these three conftitute one and the

* The quiefcence of the word was treated of in a difcourfe on the Trinity, by Dr. Bennet.

fame

[ocr errors][merged small]

fame individual mind, and as this mind is the fountain of action; fo whatever actions flow from it, muft flow from all the three perfons which constitute this mind, it being repugnant to reafon (and no where fuppofed in the chriftian revelation) that one and the fame mind, or fountain of action, should both act and be quiefcent at the fame time; this being as much a contradiction as for a thing to be and not to be at the fame time: and confequently if the Father, or the Holy Ghoft, did at any time act in, by, or upon the man Chrift Jefus, then the word, or fecond perfon, did fo alfo. And if the word was quiescent in the man Christ Jefus, then the Father and the Holy Ghost must be fo; because they all conftitute one and the fame mind or fountain of action. And if we fuppose these three perfons to be three diftinct fountains of action, in one and the fame mind, which may act feparate from, and independent one of another, then these three perfons are plainly three minds; and fo we have three minds, and yet but one mind in one and the fame individual being, which is a contradiction, and a confounding the use and fenfe of words. If these three persons were not the mind itself, but only three inftruments which he made ufe of to act by, then I allow, that one of these perfons might be quiefcent when the others were not; because this mind might make use of one inftrument when he did not make use of another; and fo one might be quiefcent when the others were not fo; but forafmuch as thefe perfons are not the inftruments of, but are the very mind itself, it will follow, that when one of these acts, the others must act alfo; and when one of thefe is quiefcent, the other must be fo; because they all conftitute that one and the fame mind, or fountain of action, which doth or is fo.

per

If it should be faid, that these are great myfteries, which it is the glory of a christian to fubject his reafon and understanding to; I anfwer, first, as these mysteries are no part of the chriftian religion, fo it is fo far from being a glory, that on the contrary, it is a fhame for a christian to fubject his reafon and understanding to fuch abfurdities and contradictions as are no where reveal'd in, nor countenanced by the christian revelation. Here it may not be amifs to obferve the ftrange humour of chriftians, in this particular. They will needs have it, that the fupreme God is conftituted of three diftinct individual fons, and that the Meffiah is conftituted of the fupreme God, and the man Christ Jefus, and yet is but one individual perfon. In the former we have three perfons in one individual Being; and in the latter we have two intelligent Beings in one individual perfon. In the former the fupreme God alone conftitutes three perfons; and in the latter the fupreme God, and the man Chrift Jefus, conftitute but one perfon. This I call the bumour of chriftians; for bleffed be God, there can be no fuch thing juftly chargeable upon the chriftian revelation. That revelation gives a rational account of the fupreme God, as one individual Being or perfon, and of his Son Chrift Jefus, as another individual Being or perfon; and it no where contradicts this, when it is understood in the most likely and rational fenfe: and therefore, I anfwer, fecondly, it plainly appears to me, from St. John's gofpel, that he uses the term [word] only as a name to exprefs the perfon of the Meffiah. We find this perfon was called by

different names, upon different accounts. He was called Jefus, because he was to fave his people from their fins. He was called Christ, because he was anointed and fet apart by his Father, to the office and work he undertook. He was called the Son of man, because he was one of mankind; and because he was in part produced from one of that fpecies. He was called God, because he was by his Father made the governour and head of his people. He was called the Son of God, because he (his body at leaft) was begotten by the power of the highest, in the womb of the Virgin. He was called the Lamb of God, because he was to be offer'd up for a fin-offering to God; and because of his lamb-like difpofition under his fufferings (He was led as a lamb to the flaughter; and as a Sheep before the fhearers is dumb, fo be opened not his mouth.) He was called light, because he was to enlighten mankind with faving knowledge. He was called the way, the truth, and the life, because it was he that fhewed the true way to the favour of God, and eternal life in him. He was called the logos, or word, because he was the great revealer of the word or counsel of his Father to mankind. As a man's mind is exprefs'd or fhewn to others by his words, fo the mind of God was exprefs'd or fhewn to mankind by Chrift; and therefore he, by a figure, is called the word, by St. John. And whereas it is said, the word was made flesh, &c. I obferve that the term [word] implies an intelligent rational being, or else it implies fomething which is not an intelligent rational being, when it is used by the Evangelift, as aforefaid. If it implies fomething which is not an intelligent rational being, then I fay, as we know not what the [word) is upon this principle, fo it is needlefs to enquire any farther about it. But if the term [word] implies an intelligent rational being, when used by the Evangelift, in the text under confideration, then I obferve farther, that the text muft, as I conceive, fignify one or other of these four things; either, first, the word was made flesh, that is, was tranfubftantiated, or changed into flesh; or, fecondly, the word was made flesh, that is, was united unto a whole man, body, and foul, the term flesh being put for the term man; or, thirdly, the word was made flesh, that is, was united to a human body or fleshy part, and fo became a human foul to that body, which he was united to; or, laftly, the word was made flesh, that is, was a man, the term flesh being put for the term man, as before, in the second cafe. One or other of these, I think, must be St. John's meaning in the text: but which of them is the true sense, as it remains a queftion; fo, I think, every man ought to esteem that to be the true sense which appears moft rational and likely to be fo, when compar'd with the rest of divine revelation. And forasmuch as we are all fallible, and poffibly may err, this ought to make us modeft, with refpect to our own determinations, and charitable, with refpect to the determinations of other men.

As to the firft fenfe which I have given of the foremention'd text, viz. the word was made, or tranfubftantiated into flesh, as this fuppofes the pre-existence of the word before his change; fo he must be metamorphofed, or changed into a human body; and confequently was no more after that change, than barely the human body of our Saviour: but this feems fo very unlikely to me, that I can by no means think it to be the true fenfe of the text, tho it is the Literal fenfe.

As

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

parts

As to the second sense, viz. the word was made flesh, or united to a whole man, foul and body (the term flesh being put for the term man in this cafe) as this fuppofes the existence of the word antecedent to his union, as aforefaid; fo the perfon of Chrift, upon this principle, must be conftituted of two individual intelligent rational fpirits, united to one human body, and these three, in their united ftate, muft conftitute the perfon of Jefus Chrift, which makes it very unlikely to me to be the true fenfe of the text, for the reafons following. First, because the perfon thus conftituted would not be a man, which the fcriptures reprefent the perfon of Chrift to be, a man being conftituted of only one individual intelligent rational spirit, united to only one individual human body; these two, and they only, in their united state, being that which constitutes a man, properly fo called: whereas if there are two rational fpirits, united to one human body, in the perfon of Chrift; this excess of would effentially difference him in that which is made the standard of the fpecies of mankind, and confequently he would not be a man upon this principle. Secondly, we have no mention of two rational fpirits in the person of Chrift, nor any intimation of it in all the Bible. And tho this doctrine is urged as neceffary to reconcile fome texts of fcripture which clash with each other, according to fome mens interpretation of them; yet this is altogether needlefs, because those texts can be eafily reconciled, or rather they do not clash, when they are understood in the most likely and rational fenfe. The true ground or reafon of mens advancing this unfcriptural doctrine, I take to be this. Some men have unjustly inferred from fome texts of fcripture, that Jesus Christ, or the Son of God, is himself the fupreme God, whereas the Son himself hath exprefsly declared the contrary: therefore to remove the difficulty which they themselves have made, they imagine two rational natures in the perfon of Christ; and then they put it off with this pretence, when Christ faith [my Father is greater than I] he did not mean his own perfon, but only a part of it, viz. his human nature, as they call it. I call this, a pretence, because there is no mention of Chrift's having two rational natures in his perfon, nor any intimation of it in all the Bible, as I faid before. My third reafon is, because one rational spirit, in the perfon of Chrift, was fufficient for all the offices, performances, and works which he was called to, or did perform: and therefore it is very irrational, in my opinion, to fuppofe that he had a fuperfluity, which two rational spirits in his perfon must be, especially if we add to this, what fome maintain, viz. that one of these rational natures was quiefcent, was put by as ufelefs, was laid a-fleep in non-activity, if I may fo fpeak. My fourth, aud last reason is, because our Saviour's words and actions are represented by St. John (in the words after the text) as proceeding from one and the fame fountain of action: the word, the only begotten of the Father, and Jefus Chrift, being used as fynonymous terms to exprefs one and the fame thing. The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Verle 17. The law was given by Mofes, but grace and truth came by Jefus Christ. Here we fee, that the word, the only begotten of the Father, and Jefus Chrift, are con

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »