Imágenes de páginas

union with that being, then it will follow, first, that every being which God exercises or manisests his attributes and essential properties in, to, by, ©r upon, I fay, every such being is personally united to the supreme God, upon this principle (only it may be with this difference, that one is personally united in a different manner, or to a different degree from another, as God's attributes or essential properties, are in a different manner or degree exercised or manisested as aforefaid) secondly, it will follow, that * quiescence or the non-exercise or manisestation of God's attributes, or essential properties in, to, by, or upon any being, destroys God's personal union with that being, or at least falls short of it; for if personal union ia founded in God's exercifing, or manisesting his attributes, or essential properties, as aforefaid, then it will follow, that quiescence or the non-exercise, or manisestation of these falls short of that union; so that where the exercise, or manisestation of these is wanting to any being (as in the case of quiescence it is,) there personal union is wanting to that being; and consequently when the [word] was quiescent in the man Christ Jesus, he was not personally united to him.

Again, I observe, upon a supposition, that the supreme God is truly distinguished into three distinct individual persons, and that these are not three minds, but only one single individual mind; then it will follow from hence, that if one of these persons acts, the other two fnust act also; and if one of theseis quiescent, the other two must be so: for as these three constitute one and the fame individual mind, and as £his mind is the fountain of action; so whatever

* The quiescence of the word was treated of in a
.dutotirse on the Trinity, by Dr, Bem;ct.

'- actions actions flow from it, must flow from all the three persons which constitute this mind, it being repugnant to reason (and no where supposed inthe christian revelation) that one and the fame mind, or fountain of action, should both act and be quiescent at the same time; this being as much a contradiction as for a thing to be and not to be at the fame time: and consequently, if the Father, or the Holy Ghost, did at any time act in, by, or upon the man Christ Jesus, then the word, or second person, did so also. And is the word was quiescent in the man Christ Jesus, then the Father and the Holy Ghost must be so; because they all constitute one and the fame mind or fountain of action. And if we suppose these three persons to be three distinct fountains of action, in one and the fame mind which may act separate from, and independent one of another, then these three persons are plainly three minds; and so 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 sense of words. If these three persons were not the mind itself, but only three instruments, which he made use of to act by, then I allow, that one of these persons might be quiescent when the others were not; because this, mind might make use of one instrument when he did not make use of another and so one might be quiescent when the others were not so; but forasmuch as these persons are not the instruments of, but are the very mind itself, it will follow, that, when one of these acts, the others must act also; and when one of these is quiescent, the other must be so i because they all constitute that one and the fame mind* or fountain of action, which doth or is so.

If it should be faid, that these are gte^t mysteries, which it is the glory of a christian to subject as these mysteries are no part of the christian religion, so it is so far from being al^glory, that on the contrary, it is a shame for a christian to subject his reason and understanding to such absurdities and contradictions as are no where revealed in, nor countenanced by the christian revelation. Here it may not be amiss to observe the strange humour of christians, in this particular. They Will needs have it, that the supreme God is constituted of three distinct individual persons, and that the Messiah is constituted of the supreme God, and the man Christ Jesus, and yet is but one individual person. In the former we have three persons in one individual Being; and in the latter we have two intelligent Beings in one individual person. In the former the supreme God alone constitutes three persons -, and in the latter the supreme God, and the man Christ Jesus, constitute but one person. This I call the humour of christians; for blessed be God, there can be no such thing firstly -chargeable upon the christian revelation. That revelation gives a rational account of the supreme God, as one individual Being or person, and of his Son Christ Jesus, as another individual Being or Personand it no where contradicts this, when it is understood in the most likely and rational sense-, and therefore, I answer, secondly, it plainly appears to me, from St. Jobrss golbel, that he uses the term [word] only as a name to express the person of the Messiah. We find this person was call'd by different names, upon different accounts. He was called Jesus because he was to fave his , people from their fins. He was called Christ, because, he was anointed and set apart by his Father, to the office and work he undertook. He was called the Son os man, because he was one of mankind; and because he was in part produced from one of


that species. He was called God, because he was by his Father made the governour and head of his. people. He was called Son of God, because he (his body at least) was begotten by the power of the highest, in the womb of the V irgin. 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 disposition under his sufferings {He was led as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before the shearers is dumb, so 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 Godr and eternal lise in him. He was called the legos, or word, because he was the great revealer of the word or counsel of his Father to mankind. As a man's mind is express'd or shewn to others by. his words, so the mind of God was express'd or shewn to mankind by Christ; and therefore he, by a figure, is called the word, by St. John. And whereas it is faid, the word was made fleflo, &c. I observe that the term [word] implies an intelligent rational being, or else it implies something which is not an intelligent rational beinwhen it is used by the Evangelist, as aforefaid. It it implies some* thing which is not an intelligent rational being, - then I fay, as we know not what the [word] is upon this principle, so it is needless to enquire any farther about it. But if the term [word] implies an intelligent rational heing, when used by the Evangelist, in the text under consideration, then I observe farther, that the text must, as I conceive, signify one or other of these four things; either, first, the word was made fleft, that is, was transubstantiated, or changed into flesh.; ot, secondly, the ivord was made flesh, that is, was united unto a whole man, body, and foul,' the term flesh being put fop

the term -man; or. thirdly, she word was rtiade fieft, that is, was united to a human body or fleshly part, and so became a human soul to that body, which he was united- to; ory tistty, the word was wade stestj, that is-, was a mail, the term flefh, being pit for the term man, as before-, in the second case. One or other os these, I think, must be St. John's meaning in the text: but which of them is the true sense;: as- it remains a question -, so, I think, every man ought to esteem that to be the true sense which appears friost -rational and likely to be so, when compared with the rest of divine revelation. And forasmuch afc we are all fallible, and possibly may err, this ought to .make vis modest, with rei fpect to .our own determinations, and charitable, with respect to the determinations of other men.

As to the first fense which I have given of the forementioned text, viz. the Word was made, Dt transubstantiated into flefh, as this supposes the preexistertce of the-word before his change; so he must be metamorphosed, or changed into a human body; and consequently, was no more after that change, than barely the human body of our Saviour; but this seems so very unlikely to me, that I can by no means think it to be the true sense of the text, tho' it is the literal sense.

As to the second sense, viz. the word was made sttst>, or united to a whole man, soul and'body '(the term flestj being put for the term in this case) as this supposes the existence of the ward antecedent to his union, as aforefaid; so the person of Christ, upon this principkj -must be constitute ed of two individual intelligent rational spirits, u» nited to one' human body, and these three, in their united state, must constitute the person of Jesus Christ, which makes it very unlikely to me to be the true sense of the text, for the reasons following. First, because the person thus consti*


« AnteriorContinuar »