6o Of the l_(porvledg of (jod the Father, ~ when it would fee and view a thing without it [elf,takes in an Image ofthe thing : B 0 ° K 11. So the Mind doth when it knows it felf or any other thing. And that thus '-EV"U God in the knowing ofhimfelf, cloth beget within himfelfth~ Image ofhimfelf,as Heb. 1. 2. Chrifl is alto called. And it is obfervable, that hJS Eternal Generati– on, as the Son, fhould be expreffed by the Came Phrafe (and. fo they !hould fo fitly agree) that the Production ofthe Thoughts, o~ Imagem the M~nd ts e~preflcd by. The Phrafe ufed to exprefs the Generatton ofhtm as Gods Son, ts, that he came forth from the Father, Joh. 8. 42. Joh. 16. 28. Joh. 17. 8. And the f: 1 me Word is ufed, to eYprefs the begetting ofthe Thoughts and Purpoles, by the Mind, and inthe Mind, Matth. 1 5· 18. . . · zwhy, _.,_ But this import oftt, many ofour Reformed Dtvmes have been an? are fhy of, Nfi"' l dd<n- as too cunous. And yet, as I have obfe:v~d, the Came Auth_ors are m ?ther foi– l<>, .md" bm. !owing Paffages glad to make ufe ofthe Stmthtude thereofagam and agam, to ex– prefs the Generation ofthe Son of God thereby, as moft appofite and fubfervienr thereunto: And fo might have been glad that the Scriptures fpeak fo near thereto. There have been two things among many others, that have made them fhy to own this, as the Scriptures intention in this Phrafe. r. That the [Ot;cepttH, or Images in the Mind, are Accidents, and Iefs than the Mind it felf, ps alfova~ifhi_ng and tranfient, and not ofthe. fame Subftance with it, and equal to tt; whtch JS dangerous to hold forth ofChnft. But that is eafily anfwered. r. That a full Similitude, from things Earthly bo!Jing in all things like, could not be found ofthis Myfrery. And, 2. Them– fdvesC.1y of the Perfons in the Divine Nature,that they being but various Modes or Manner ofSubfillings ofthat one Divine Nature, the God-head; That though thole feveral Modes in a Creature would be but Accidents, yet in the God-head they are Perfons : So why not in the Cafe in Hand ? That Image which in the Mind of Man is but an Accident, this in God, and of God himfelf, is a Perfon equal to God : Elpecially, feeing otherwjfe he fhould not know himfelf perfectly as he is in himfcl£ The fecond is, That to fay Chrift is the Word ofthe Father, as the Thoughts, or R.eafon, or Counfel is the Word ofthe Mind, vergeth and inclines too much unto the Notion of'Pidto, and other Heathen Philofophers; who acknowledg– ing God the Maker ofthis World, conceived ofthis Word of God in God, to no other thing in God, than the Idea or Plat-form ofall that which God meant to make. And fo, as an Artificer having the Model ofa Ship or Frame of Build– ing in his Head, that Model, or Frame, or Pattern of what he means to make is one Thing, ,;md his own Being or Nature as a Man is another ; and indeed,thus did thefe wife Folks, philofophifing ofGod's making the World, diftinguifh:be– tween God, and this Word in God thus ; that by God they conceived one Per– Con only, that enjoyed that Divine Nature to himfelf: Only he having all the Creation in him, the Pattern of all thefe, or Idea ofthem, according unto which he made them ; the~ termed this the Word, or My@-, in God's Mind, fo making the whole ofthe Bemg or Subfiftence ofthat Word m God, to be wholly difrinll from the Nature ofGod as God; and to be only that in God which was the Ori– ginal and Sampler of his Creation; and fo to be but the Head of the Creation: that is, the Top and Chiefand Original ofit, and a meer Refpect thereto. This wasPlato's My@-, or Word; and I fear is all that others, bringing but up old Ph,Jofophy for new Divinity, do intend, by that which they fo ufually cry up, and term the Eternal Word. But that the Philofophers meant by the Notion of My@-, or the Word, no more but the Model ofthe Creation, needed not have deterred Chrifrians from the owning of this Phrafe [the Word] to intend the Image of what was, and is, in God, and that as a diClinCl: Perfon that had the true Nature of the God-head, and as that which was not in God meerly, or only the Pattern of his Creation. r. If indeed the whole of the Image of God's Mind, or Object of God's Thoughts and Knowledg, had been but the Image of the Creatures, in which God only forefaw what he would or could create: then indeed, John's . o My@', or the Word, had been, nor could have been no other than thisSampler ofGod's Creation; but the chiefObject ofGod's Knowledg is himfelfin the firft Place, and thereby it is he knows all things elfe he can produce, and that at fecond liand, . by
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=