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) secondly, it will follow, that * quiefcence or the non-exercife 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 leaft 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 manifestation 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 muft act alfo; and if one of thefe is quiefcent, the other two must be fo: for as these three conftitute one and the fame individual mind, and as this mind is the fountain of action; fo whatever *The quiefcence of the word was treated of in a actions actions flow from it, muft flow from all the three persons which conftitute 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 Ghost, did at any time at in, by, or upon the man Chrift Jefus, then the word, or fecond person, did fo alfo. And if the word was quiefcent in the man Christ Jefus, then the Father and the Holy Ghost must be so; because they all conftitute one and the fame mind or fountain of action. And if we fuppofe 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 ufe and fenfe of words. If these three perfons 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 so one might be quiefcent when the others were not fo; but forasmuch as these persons are not the inftruments of, but are the very mind itself, it will follow, that when one of thefe acts, the others must act alfo ; and when one of thefe is quiefcent, the other muft be fo; because they all conftitute that one and the fame mind, or fountain of action, which doth or is fo. If it should be faid, that thefe are great mysteties, which it is the glory of a chriftian to fubject his reafon and understanding to; I anfwer, firft, as thefe myfteries 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 chriftian to fubject his reafon and understanding to fuch abfurdities and contradictions as are no where revealed 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 perfons, 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 conAtitutes three perfons; and in the latter the fupreme God, and the man Chrift Jefus, conftitute but one person. This I call the bumour of christians; for bleffed be God, there can be no fuch thing jurftly 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 fense; and therefore, I anfwer, fecondly, it plainly appears to me, from St. John's gofpel, that he ufes the term [word] only as a name to exprefs the perfon of the Meffiah. We find this perfon was call'd by different names, upon different accounts. He was called Jefus because he was to fave his people from their fins. He was called Chrift, becaufe 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 that fpecies. He was called God, because he was by his Father made the governour and head of his people. He was called Son of God, becaufe he (his body at leaft) was begotten by the power of the higheft, in the womb of the Virgin. He was called the Lamb of God, because he was to be offered 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 fheep before the bearers is dumb, fo he 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 shewed 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 counfel 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 faid, the word was made flesh, &c. I obferve that the term [word] implies an intelligent rational being, or elfe it implies fomething which is not an intelligent rational being, when it is ufed by the Evangelift. as aforefaid. If it implies fome thing 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 ufed by the Evangelift, in the text under confideration, then I obferve farther, that the text muft, as I conceive, fignify one or other of thefe four things; either, first, the word was made flesh, that is, was tranfub. ftantiated, or changed into flefh; 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 the term man; or. thirdly, the word was made flesh, that is, was united to a human body or flefhly part, and fo became a human foul to that body, which he was united to; or, lastly, the word was made flef, that is, was a man, the term flesh, being put for the term man, as before, in the fecond cafe. One or other of thefe, I think, must be St. John's meaning in the text but which of them is the true fenfe, as it remains a queftion; fo, I think, every man ought to efteem that to be the true fenfe which appears moft rational and likely to be fo, when compared with the reft of divine revelation. And forafmuch 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 first fenfe which I have given of the forementioned text, viz. the word was made, or tranfubftantiated into fief, as this fuppofes the preexiftence of the word before his change; fohe muft 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 to the fecond fenfe, viz. the word was made ff, or united to a whole man, foul and body (the term fleb being put for the term man in this cafe) as this fuppofes the exiftence of the word an tecedent to his union, as aforefaid; fo the perfont of Chrift, upon this principle, must be conftituts ed of two individual intelligent rational fpirits, u nited to one' human body, and these three, in their united state, muft conftitute the perfon of Jefus Chrift, which makes it very unlikely to me to be the true fense of the text, for the reasons following, First, becaufe the person thus confti tuted |
