Owen - Houston-Packer Collection BX9315 .O8 1721

156 LADeclarationof the Glorious MYSTERY nor fubfiftence of its own. With refpeft unto this union, the name of Chrift is called wonderful, as that which hath the prelheminence in all the effefts of divine wifdom. And it is a fingular effeft thereof. There is no other union in things divine or humane, in things fpiritual or natural, whether fubfiantial or accidental, that is ofthe fame kind with it it differs fpecifically from them all; z.) The moft glorious union is that of the divine perfons in the fame being or nature ; the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father, the Holy Spirit in them both, and both in him. But this is an union of diftinft perfons in the unity ofthe fame fingle nature. And this I confefs is more glorious than that whereofwe treat. For it is in God abfolutely, it is eternal, of his nature and being. But this union we fpeak of, is not God, it is a creature, an effe& of divine wifdom and power. And it is diffe- rent from it herein; inafmuch as that is of many diflin8 perfon in the fame nature, tisis is of dtio i natures in the fame perfon. That union is _natural, fubitantial, effential, in the fame nature ; this as it is not accidental, as we Ihall fhew, fo it is not properly fubltantial, becaufe it is not of the fame nature, but of divers in the fame perfon, remaining diftinch in their effence and fubftance, and is therefore peculiarly hypo- tatical or perfonal. Hence Auflin feared not to fay, that Homopatios eft infilio dei, quam filius in parre, DeTrin. lib. 'r. chap. io. But that is true only in this onerefpeft, that the Son is not fo in the Father as to become one perfon with him. In all other refpefts it mat be granted that the In-being of the Son in the Father, the union between them, which is na- tural, effential and eternal, doth exceed this in glory, which was a tem- porary, external aft ofdivine wifdom and grace. n.) The moft eminent fubftantial union in things natural, is that of the foul and body conitituting an individual perfon. There is, I confefs fome kindof fimilttude between this union, and that of thedifferent natures in the perfon of Chrift; but it is not of the fame kind or nature. And the difiìmilitudes that are between them, are more and of greater impor- tance, than thofe things wherein there feenhs to be an agreement between them. For, Firfi, The foul and body are fo united, as to conftitute one entire nature. The foul is not humane nature, nor is the body, but it is the confequent of their union. Soul and body are effential parts of humane nature, but compleat humane nature they are not but by virtue of their union. But the union of the natures in the perfon of Chrift, dock not conftitute a new nature that either was not, or was not compleat before. Each nature remains else fame perfect Zompleat nature after this union. Secondly, The union of the foul and body doth conftitute that nature which is made effentially compleat thereby, a new individual per- fon with a fubfiftence of its own, which neither of them was, nor had before that union. But although the perfon of Chrift as God and man be conftituted by this union, yet his perfon abfolutely and his individual fubfiftence was perfeft, abfolutely antecedent unto that union. He did not become- a new perfon, another perfon than he was before, by virtue of that union; only that perfon affumed humane nature to it felf ro be itsown, into perfonal fubfiftence. Thirdly, Soul and body are united by an etternal efficient caufe, or the power of God; and not by the act of one of them upon another. But this union is effefted by that aft of the divine nature towards the humane, which we have before defcribed. Fourthly, Neither foul nor bodyhave any perfonal fubfiftence before their union. But the foie foundation of this union was in this, that the Son of God was a felf-fubfhfting perfon from eternity., 3.) There

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=