15 ó LADeclaration of the Glorious M Y s rF R Y thefilnefr of the Godhead bodily, Col. ii. 9. Thefulnefs of the Godhead is the entire divine nature. This nature is confidered in the perfon of the Son, or eternal word, for it was the word that was made ftefh. And this could no otherwife dwell in him bodily, really, fubftantially, but in the affumption of that nature to be his own. And no fenfe can be given unto this aiferrion to preferve it from blafphemy ; that thefishy: fs of the God- head dwelletb in any of the faints bodily. a.] He allowed an efpecial prefence, cn grid, as fome call it, that is by fach an unionofaffectionsas is between intimate friends. The foul of God refted always inthat man; in himwas hewell pleafed, and he was whoI- ly given up in hisaffections unto God. Thisalfd is true; but there is that which is no lefs true that renders it ufelefs unto the pretentions of Nefto- viza. For he allowed the divine perfon of the Son of God. But what- ever is fpoken of this nature concerning the love of God unto the man Chrift Jefus, and ofhis love to God, it is the perfon of the Father that is intended therein ; nor can any one inftance be given where it is capable of another interpretation. For it is ftill fpoken of with reference unto thework that he was fent of the Father to accomplifh, and his own de- light therein. 3.] He allowed it to be v,7 á;iar, by wayof dignity andhonour. For this conjunftion is fuck, as that whateverhonour is given unto the Son of God, is alto to be given unto the Son of man. But herein to recom- pence his facriledge in taking away the hypoflotical union from the church, he would introduce idolatry into it. For the:honour -that is due unto the Son of God, is divine, religious, or the owning ofall effential divine properties in him, with a due fubje&ion of foul unto him thereon. But togive this honour unto the man Chrift Jefus, without a fuppófition of the fabftftence ofhis humane nature in the perfon of the Son of God and folely on that account, is highly Idolatrous. - q.]] Healerted it to be , susmßan u', or on theaccount of the confent and agreement that was between the will of God, and the will of the man Chrift Jefus. But noother union will thence enfue, but what is be- tween God and the angels in heaven; in whom there is a perfeft com- pliance with the will ofGod in all things. Wherefore if this be the foun- dation of this union, he might be faid to take on him the nature ofangels, as well as the feed of Abraham, which is exprefly.denied by the.apoftle, Neb. ii. 15, 17. 5.] Kan' ?unvguiar, by an aquivotal denomination, the name of the one perfon, namely, of the Son of God, being accommodatedunto the other, namely, the Son of man. So they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came. But this no way anfwers any one divine teftimony,, whereinthe naine ofGod isafhgned unto the Lord Chrift, as thofe where- in God is faid to lay down bis lifefor us, and to purchafe bis church with his own blood, to come and be manifeft in the flefh, wherein no Homonymy or æquivocation can take place. By all thefe ways he conftituted a fepa. rabic accidental union, wherein nothing in kind but in degree only was peculiar unto theman Chrift Jefus. But all thefe things fofa ras theyare true, belong unto the third thing tobe confidered in his perfon, namely, the communion, or mutual commu- nication of the diftin& natures therein. But his pezfanal union confits not hi any of them, nor in all of them together. Nor do they anfwer anyof themultiplied teftimonies given by the Holy Ghoft unto this glorious my- Feu. Some fewofthem may be mentioned. The
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=