To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
§. 1. NO wonder that it seemeth hard to Man, to understand how the Divine Na∣ture assumeth the Humane into Union, when it is so far beyond our reach to conceive how God is near to all his Works, and how he opera∣teth on every man. Christ hath told us, That
we know not how a man is born of the Spirit, no more than we know whence the Wind cometh and whither it goeth: And can we easilier know how God became Man?
§. 2. It is certain, that God being infinite, is as near to us as is possible; our Souls can be no nearer to our Bodies, nor perhaps to them∣selves. And though Philosophers dispute, Whe∣ther Spirits be in loco, and whether God be in us, or we in him, and whether he be quasi locus & spatium to the World; yet it is past questi∣on, that he is omnipresent, and intimately proxi∣mus to all things.
§. 3. It is not therefore his meer Presence or Proximity of being that is this Hypostatical Uni∣on; else it would extend to all the World. It is harder therefore to prove, that God is not as nearly united to all, than to prove, that he is not so united to the Humane Nature of Christ. Which caused Peter Sterry and such others, to hold, That Christ hath three Natures; that is, That the Divine Nature first produced the prime, superangelical, emanant Nature, (by which he seemeth to mean an universal Soul to the Mat∣ter of the World▪) and that this superangelical Nature did unite it self to all, but eminently to the humane Nature of Christ, which he calleth One top-Branch in the Tree of Beings. Some say the superangelical Nature being Christ's only Soul assuming but a Body; others, that it assumed a Body and Soul.
§. 4. The grand difficulty about God's Unity with the World, and the World with God, is how to solve the difficulty that hath stalled the School-Doctors; That if the Creature have no
Entity distinct from God's, it is either part of God, or nothing: But it is not nothing, or no Substance (though some call it a shadow.) And it is not a part of God; for to be pars, is to be im∣perfect, and so to be no God. And if it have a real Entity distinct from God's Entity, then there would be more Entity in God and the Creature, than GOD alone: For two is numerally more than one; and two Entia have more Entity than one, how small soever the lesser be. And then God should be put part of Universal Entity, which is Imperfection. To say that the Crea∣ture hath part of Created Entity, but not of Divine Entity, seemeth to yield, that God is but part of Universal Entity. To avoid which, many Philosophers take up the Opinion, that the whole being of all Worlds is GOD, the material Part being his Body, and the eternal Spirit the Soul.
What shall we say to this? To silence it will not silence the Objectors. And sure we must not grant them, That the World is God; or that it is part of God; or that God is but a part of Real Substance or Entity; or that to be so is no Imperfection. Is there no other sounder way?
Though Divines say, that Dei non sunt acci∣dentiae, and it's true, That God is all Essence and per essentiam operatur, yet I dread to assert, but humbly ask, Whether rather than fall into any of the former Opinions, it be not less dangerous to say, That as God hath made his Works in his likeness, and no Substance is without all Ac∣cidents, so the World be not quasi accidens Dei. And if so, it is no Part of Him, essential or inte∣gral: And as its Substance is not univocally such
as God's, so such as it is, it is so totally caused by and dependent on God's continual Creating∣will and Emanation, that its Substance and Being is more GOD's (though not GOD) than its own, and so is no Addition of Being to God's Be∣ing, but contained in him, and flowing from him: A man's actual thought, words or sensation is no Addition to a man's substance as such; and yet they are not nothing. A man's Hair and Nails that have no life, but vegetative, are substantial Accidents, and yet no part of the man: And yet are so wholly his own, caused by his Soul, as heat and moisture, that we use not to call them any addition to the man's being.
§. 5. Q. But wherein then lieth the Hypo∣statical Union, if God be equally near to all things?
Ans. He doth not equally operate on all: As the God of Nature, he sustaineth and operateth on all his Creatures: As the God of Grace, he worketh Holiness on Believers Souls: As the God of Glory, he is present demonstra∣tively and gloriously to the Blessed: But he work∣eth on none as he did on the humane nature of Christ: These three differences I conceive make this proper sort of Union. 1. Some Works God doth, though by essential Proximity, yet not with∣out the use and operation of second Causes: But Christ's assuming the humane nature by the divine, was by Conception by the Holy Ghost, as the immediate Efficient, without the Causali∣ty of Man or Angel, the Mother affording Matter and Aliment to the foetus.
2. Divine Operations being various, the Divine Nature did that on the Humane Nature of Christ, which it did not on any other Creature: He ha∣ving
such Work to do, as no other Creature was to do, the divine nature fitted the humane for its part. No Angel was to be Mediator between God and Man, and to work Miracles as he did, and in our nature to fulfill all Righteousness, and be a Sacrifice for Sin, and to rise from the Dead, and to send down the Spirit, and ascend to Glo∣ry, and there to reign and to judge the World: Therefore he was qualified for all this work.
3. And so there is also a relative difference, in that the Divine Nature, by a fixed Decree and Will, united it self for this work, to this one humane nature, even for all futurity. It may be some that are wiser can better tell wherein the Hypostatical Union consisteth.
§. 6. As to the Question, Whether the di∣vine and humane nature be two or one, it is to ask, Whether the nature of God and his Creatures be two or one? They may be called one as we are one with Christ, as conjunct, rela∣ted and consenting: But not one and the same essential nature.
§. 7. But the great difficulty is, whether the two natures constitute one Person, or two. Ne∣storius is accused (Derodon saith falsly, citing his own plain words) to have held, That Christ was two Persons, divine and humane. But what is to be held, the School-Doctors make a difficult question; that is, whether the humane nature be either a Person, or any part of the Person of Christ. 1. They say, that Christ was a divine Person from Eternity, and therefore began not to be such at his Incarnation. 2. That the divine nature cannot be pars personae, for that would be to be imperfect and not divine: Therefore that the hu∣mane
nature is no part, but an adjunct to the Person of Christ. (And if the humane nature be an Accident to the divine in Christ, why must we deny Creatures to be Accidents of God?) But most plain Christians would be star••l••d to hear a Preacher say, that the Humanity is no part of the Person of Christ.
§. 8. I have no answer to the difficulty, unless I may distinguish of the sence of the word PER∣SON, and say, that in the sence as it signifieth a Person in the Essence of God, the humane nature is no part of it. But as to a Relative Personality, (as a King, a Priest, a Prophet, &c. as a Husband, a Father, &c. are Persons) so there is one Mediator between GOD and Man, the Man Christ Jesus: And the humane is not here excluded.
But is the Divine a part of the Person of a Me∣diator? I handle such things with fear; The Lord pardon our weakness: But we are called to handle them by men's Presumptions.
1. As God is not a part of the World, or uni∣versal Substance, and yet is eminenter more than a part, what if it be so answered here?
2. But if, as great Doctors now maintain, Rela∣tions may be ascribed to God, without any Com∣position, because they have no proper reality, but a meer objective comparability, why may not the divine nature have a relative part in the Relati∣on of Mediator, as assuming and advancing the hu∣mane, and operating in it, without composition? And as according to this ambiguity, Christ may
have two persons (not univocally) divine and me∣diatorial, so the divine and humane may make one Mediator: And in the one Person of a Mediator are contained many Relative Persons of Christ, as King, Priest, Prophet, Son of Mary, &c. The Lord pardon what is amiss in these Conceptions, and rectifie my Judgment, and give me that practical Faith and Knowledge of Him, which constituteth Christianity, according to the Baptismal Covenant, and which is it that He calleth Eternal Life.
Such a noise do the Histories of Church-Fa∣ction make about Nesto∣rians, Eurychians, Mo∣nothelites, &c. that will not permit ••s to pass by these points.