blessed God Object 3. Let me add Is it only these Divines that speak thus or is it not the divinely inspired Pen-men of the Holy Scripture who speak the same The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doth he not tell chap. 1. v. 3. That the Son is the express Image of his Father's Person and can he be a Son representing as a lively Image the Person of his Father and yet not a distinct Person Doth not St. John chap. 1. expresly tell us that the Word was made Flesh and was this the Father or the only begotten of the Father See v. 14. This only begotten of the Father when in the Humane Nature he was baptized was he not a distinct Person from the Person of the Father testifying of him by a Voice from Heaven This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased And was he not a distinct Person from the Holy Ghost who descended in a bodily Shape like a Dove upon him Luke 3. 21 22. And does not our Lord Christ himself when speaking of Father Son and Holy Ghost clearly distinguish these as Three Persons in telling us John 14. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things have we not here the Person sending the Person sent and the Person in whose Name he 's sent But what need I thus argue for a Distinction of Persons I don 't at all question here but this Author will readily grant that the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost as set forth in Scripture are three different Persons for he tells us P. 32. § 94. It is evident that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguish'd from the Son as two Men or Angels can be and Mankind that are incapable of apprehending Metaphysical Niceties cannot but conceive them so and hence it is as we have shewn before that he makes God and the Father or Person of the Father equivalent Terms so excluding the Son and blessed Spirit from being God or equal to the Father so that he owns them no otherwise to be Three Persons than as three Beings or Substances which do really differ one from another Answ You will thus see at length what this Author is and how his sometimes seemingly applauded Unitarianism ends in Arianism and the Truth is the very worst Dregs of the Poyson of his Doctrine lye here not in his denying any Trinity of Persons but his denying a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the divine Essence he can be well enough content that the Word be the Person incarnate the Holy Ghost the Comforter or Person sent so he can but strip them of their Divinity or make that Divinity which the Scripture seems as he grants to ascribe to them to agree to them only in a tropical or figurative Sense but to ascribe this truly to them together with proper divine Worship this he makes to be Idolatry Here 1. I would have it noted that I may meet with and refute his Railery which hath diffused it self through a great Part of his Pamphlet that when this Author speaks of the Trinitarian's worshiping the Three Persons as Three distinct Almighty Beings as Three Gods as Three compleat distinct Objects of Worship and as paying at other times divine Worship to one of them and at the same time not paying it to another that all this is meer Calumny and hath not a Word of Truth in it they worship indeed Three Persons as they are one and the same Almighty Being or God but not as Three Almighty Beings or Gods such Tritheism they abhor as much as himself or any other They worship Three Persons what as three distinct Objects of Worship No but as all three in Conjunction making up the one great compleat and adequate Object of our Worship they worship the Son and blessed Spirit as well as Father but do they when they worship the Son not worship the Father and blessed Spirit at the same time Or when they worship the blessed Spirit do they not worship the Father and the Son at the same time as this Author would Persuade That 's false yea it 's impossible that divine Worship should be paid to one of these and not to another when the Three are but one and the same God blessed for ever Obj. Here I would ask this Author when he does in Worship apply himself to God as our great Redeemer does he in his so doing exclude God our Creator from sharing in that Worship Or when he doth in a more special manner apply himself to God as our Sanctifier doth he by so doing exclude God our Creator and Redeemer from sharing in that Worstip And must he for this his applying himself unto God under these different Respects needs be a Polytheist and an Idolater If not why then must Trinitarians be such for applying themselves in divine Worship to the Person of the Son or of the blessed Spirit If he say it is because three divine Persons are three Gods Answ This is most false most repugnant to Descriptions given by all sound Trinitarians of divine Persons and hath fully been answered and therefore I shall here pass it over as a meer Calumny 2. I would have it noted that when the Author tells us § 47 that the Notions of the Trinitarians when apply'd to the Incarnation and Satisfaction must be very uncouth and further that when they speak of these and when they endeavour to prove the Spirit and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be Persons that then they are real Trinitarians that is such in his Language as set up three Gods and further adds § 48. that these who will be thought to be neither real nor nominal Trinitarians cannot properly be said to believe any Trinity except at the most a Trinity of Cyphers and that as he thinks it cannot be presumed that Men of so great Sense to mention no other than Sarum and Worcester would assert so absurd a thing but that they knew if they declared what they suppose the three to be they must inevitably run into Polytheism or Vnitarianism Answ 1. And is there then no Medium betwixt these two Extreams One would have thought that the Writings of so many learned Men as have writ on this Subject if he had not resolved to have shut his Eyes against clearest Light should have convinced him that there is Do not these expresly tell if we must repeat things again that these three are three Persons that however three Persons cannot exist in one singular finite Essence where Personality flows from the Termination of Essence yet three Persons may exist in one singular infinite immense Essence where Personality flows from Essence after a different manner which the boldest Arians and Sacinians dare not deny And if Personality does not result from divine Essence as it does from created Essence why there may not exist three Persons in the one when yet there can but
second Person are not different Things or Beings but if by real difference he mean no more than a true modal distinction in opposition to feign'd and imaginary then we do assert such a difference or distinction and the Scriptures by him quoted are so far from opposing this that they do clearly evince it as we shall see afterwards What is contain'd in § 9. is as idle and impertinent for granting that if a Man be an Animal all that is contain'd in the Idea of Animal must be contain'd in that of Man what is this to the purpose But as if he would correct his own Impertinency he pretends afterwards to speak properly truly naturally viz. Man is a Rational Animal and a Rational Animal is a Man They are only different words to express the same Being so saith he a Divine Person and God are convertible Terms how absurd this Discourse is will easily appear if the Dissimilitude of the things compared be considered Man is defin'd by Rational Animal Man is the thing defined Rational Animal the Definition therefore these must needs be convertible Terms But it is not so here for neither is God the Thing defined and Divine Person the Definition nor is Divine Person the Thing defined and God the Definition So that its clear they are not in like manner convertible as Man and Rational Animal Surely the Author for all his pretending to Reason might have been more Logical But he tells us that Obj. Nothing is contain'd in the Idea of God but what is contain'd in the Idea of a Divine Person and so on the contrary And therefore the Terms are convertible Answ The Author is bold and forward in Asserting but as slow in Proving what he do's assert Where will he find one who asserts the Trinity but he will tell him That the Essence of God as absolutely considered is communicable to three Persons but the Divine Essence as limited by a personal Property is Incommunicable and is there then no difference in the Ideas of these He may as well tell us that Communicability and Incommunicability are the same which sure is a downright contradiction He might do well to give over such bold Assertions till he can make better proof of them or free them from most gross absurdity Obj. But the Author would perswade That Person being a Term which we give to all Intelligent Beings either Man Angel or God as we have no different Ideas of Man and a humane Person or of Angel and Angelical Person so we have the same Idea of God and a Divine Person Answ This will not at all follow except he could make it out that Personality does flow from the Divine Essence after the same manner as it doth from the Angelical or Humane Essence which he can never do for it flows from Angelical or Humane Essence as Finite and Terminated in it self but so it cannot flow from the Divine Essence it being Infinite and Unterminated Therefore tho Essence or Fundamental Subsistence in an Angel or Man being Finite and Terminated in it self can propagate only one modal Subsistence or Personality yet it will not follow by any Rational Consequence That the Divine Essence or Fundamental Subsistence which is Infinite and Unterminated must do the like Thus you see this high pretended Rationalist how weak and vain his Reasoning is But you will see more of the Poyson of this Doctrine in that which follows viz. God saith he is in holy Writ described as a Person and as the Father who is a Person is God so God as appears by a great number of Texis is a Person viz. the Father So that it is evident there is nothing more in the Idea of one than of the other and are convertible Terms and only different words which signifie the self same All. perfect Being Compare this passage with what we find p 32. in his close of the 9th Chapter viz. That it is evident that in Scripture God the Father is as much distinguished from the Son as two Men or Angels can be So you see its clear the Author 's mischievous design in denying the Blessed Trinity is to overthrow and destroy so far as in him lies The Divinity of Christ and of the Blessed Spirit for in making the Person of the Father and God convertible Terms he excludes the Son and blessed Spirit from being God yea he makes God and the Son to differ as really as two Men or Angels So that you see his Work is to revive again the long since confuâ—ed and condemned Heresies and Blasphemies wherewith Arius did so much infest the ancient Church raising a dreadful Storm in it One would think that those many Scripture Texts which with greatest Plainness do hold forth the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost such as Isa 9. 6. Joh 1. 1 2 3 10. Joh. 17. 5. Heb. 1. 8 9 10 11 12. Psal 139. 7. Act. 5. 3 4. I Cor. 2. 10 11. with abundance more should have kept him from so daring an Attempt as to vent himself in downright Opposition to so many sacred Testimonies As to what follows p. 6. § 10. he tells us 1. That he hath according to his weak Ability uindicated the Honour of a Divine Person and clear'd the Athanasian Creed from speaking so contemptibly of him Answ The Author 's running into gross Mistakes about God and Divine Person argues indeed but weak Ability but it were well if Weakness were the worst surely his excluding the Son as well as Spirit from being God or Divine Person is so far from vindicating the Honour of Divine Person that it casts the vilest Aspersions not only on the ever-blessed God but also on holy Scripture which testifies that Father Word and Holy Ghost are one 1 Joh. 5. 7. But when he tells us he hath cleared the Athanasian Creed from speaking so contemptibly of him viz. Divine Person It 's strange if he can believe himself when a little after he tells us that this good charitable Creed only damns all those that cannot believe a Divine Person is and is not the same with God And that it makes it Damnation not to believe a Difference Is it not evident here that his Design in Reference to this Creed is only to ridicule it and so set it off as made up of Contradictions when yet the Contradictions are not found in the Creed but only floating in his own Brain yea and to make the Compiler of it the worthy Athanasius fall under the Fate of Damnation if he believe his own Creed as Sect. 1 And what is this but to damn all the Christian World from the Time that the Arian Heresy was exploded in it till such time as it was reviv'd again by Socinus yea and to rob God of a Church during those many hundred Years But how comes this great Master of Reason to be so highly conceited of himself as to account all the ancient Fathers in and since the Time of Athanasius all the
one exist in the other it 's neither this Author nor any other Man living how big soever these may swell with Pride that can shew any solid Reason to the contrary and when once divine Revelation hath assured us it is so who is this Man that dare fight against God Will he tell us that he hath been in Heaven or beheld from all Eternity what God by eternal Acts terminated on himself can do or not do To hear a vile Worm so talk as he doth what horrid Boldness is it Were I minded to do it I could easily instance in several things about the divine Attributes as difficult to be explicated and fully resolved as any he can propose to Trinitarians about the Existence of three Persons in the God-head and what then must we because of this call those divine Attributes into Question And rather not cry out with the great Apostle Oh the Depth 2. How uncouth then must the Notions of these Trinitarians be when applyed to the Incarnation and Satisfaction or to the Spirit or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Persons Ichallenge him or any of his Party how highly soever pretending to Reason to shew the Inconsistency of these Notions when so applyed with true and right Reason or that any such thing as Polytheism as he vainly pretends can be inserred from them Indeed if one should grant him that one so often begged absurd Principle of his viz. That if God the Son be the same God with the Father then he must be the same Person with the Father or if he be God and yet a distinct Person that he must be a distinct God Then it were no wonder if uno absurdo concesso mille sequerentur But when he 's told by Trinitarians a thousand times over that the Son altho' he be the same God with the Father or the same with the Father as to God-head Nature Essence Substance yet he 's not the same with the Father as to personal Property that altho there be three different Personal Properties in one and the same God-head yet that same God-head as limited by one Personal Property cannot be the same as limited by a different Personal Property that is cannot be the same Person however it be in it self the same God head still And now I pray why may not one and the same God-head or divine Essence as it is with one personal Property be not incarnate as it is with another be incarnate as it is with one be unbegotten as with another begotten as it is with one receive Satisfaction as with another make Satisfaction as it is with one send as with another be sent He must be quicker sighted than I that can see any thing like a Contradiction here as if contrary Predicates were here affirmed de eodem secundum idem ad idem c. when it 's clear they are not So that his loud Clamour Chap. 6. P. 17. § 50. That this Supposition That On Ch. 6. Of real Trinitarians Note here I shall not concern my self with these and consequently not with this or the Author 's following Chapters further ther than I find him inveighing against the Orthodox Trinitarians each Person is the same God carries with it an innumerable Company of most obvious Contradictions such as he tells us he will instance in § 50 51. will be found to be but a meer empty Sound without any thing of Sense or Reason and all his pretended most obvious Contradictions vanish into Smoak as any Smatterer in Logick might easily shew him That which hath been said might I hope satisfie a judicious Reader and serve for Answer to such further Cavils and blasphemous Invectives as this Author hath P. 24 25 26 27. and P. 31. § 93 94. of his Letter not so much against the Trinitarians as against the sacred Scriptures and the blessed God Father Son and Spirit as revealed in Scripture but I fear his glorying if I should so much as seem to pass them over Therefore Obj. 1. As to what he saith chap. 8. p. 24 § 74. That none of the Trinitarians besides the Author of the 38 Propositions can say that any of their Persons is a most perfect God or a most high God or the only true God or supream God because there are two others as perfect as high as true c. will be found to be very idle and trifling if it be but considered that each Person in the most blessed Trinity is the most perfect high wise supream God because the same most high God with the other two Persons and neither a distinct God from them nor they distinct Gods from him as this Author doth falsly suppose and if each one be the same God with the other then each must be the most perfect high true supream God Object 2. As to what he saith § 76. of the same Page That Trinitarians do imagine that when Man was made there was a Consult of the whole Trinity about that weighty Affair and that one said to the others Let us make Man Answ The Author might do well to speak out plainly and tell us that his Design is to quarrel not so much with Trinitarians as with the Holy Scriptures themselves for the Words he quotes to quarrel with Let us make Man c. whose Words are they Are they the Words of any other Trinitarian save of Moses Gen. 1. 26. the infallibly inspired Penman of that Book or rather of the blessed Spirit himself as speaking by Mojes Our Divines I confess make use of this Scripture for proving a Plurality of Persons in the Unity of the God-head and it 's a full and clear Scripture for that purpose but I cannot wonder at this Author if after his bold Attempt of stripping the blessed Spirit of his Divinity he proceed to that Height of Blasphemy as to make him speak falsly or ridiculously in Scripture Obj. 3. As to what he adds in the same § that according to the Trinitarians the Son as God really wanted Glory and prayed to the Father John 17. 5. to give it him telling us in a scoffing way it is strange that a most high God should want and beg of another to supply him Answ 1. It 's false that the Trinitarians suppose that the Son as God really wanted Glory they do indeed suppose that the Son as God being made Flesh or taking our Nature on him by his dwelling in a poor humane Nature during the State of his Humiliation had the Glory of his Divinity much obscured and eclipsed so that it did not shine forth with that Lustre as before otherwise the essential Glory was still the same and there was no want as to this but only as to its Manifestation which may very well agree to the most high God as this Author himself must be forced to grant if he will grant such a Variety of divine Providences towards the Sons of Men as make his Glory to shine forth brightly at some times but suffer
it to be eclipsed and not manifested to these at other times But 2. Seeing the Author would seem so quick-sighted as to find an Argument in this Scripture John 17. 5. against the Divinity of Jesus Christ but so stark blind as to find none in the same Scripture for it I would therefore improve it a little for getting the Scales of his Blindness removed and whereas our Lord Christ prays Glorify me with thine own self with that Glory which I had with thee before the World was Hence I argue if the Glory that Christ the Son had with the Father before the World was was not the increated Glory of the Son as most high God which this Author does ridicule then it was but the Glory of a created Being But that could not be For 1. If it was but the Glory of a created Being then there was a created Being before Creation yea before the first Moment of Creation But that 's impossible and the Author himself who is so good in finding out Contradiction where there 's none will sure see a Contradiction in this The Consequence is undeniable for the very first Moment of Creation God gave Being or Existence to the Heaven and Earth as the Phrase in Gen. 11. clearly imports and yet the Son had his Glory with the Father before this i. e. through the boundless Tracts of Eternity Let the Author answer this Argument if he can But 2. If the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was no other than of a created Being then it highly concerns this Author to declare what created Being he means for 1. it could not be that of his Humane created Being for Christ had no such Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary If then the Glory which the Son had with the Father before the World was was the Glory of such Being it must then be the Glory of such Being when there was no such Being if this be not downright Contradiction I know not what is 2. It could not be the Glory of Angelick created Nature for Scripture is express that Christ took not on him the Nature of Angels Heb. 2. 16. Besides Scripture sets him above all Angels making him the Object of their Worship Heb. 1. 6. yea in the very same Place where it mentions them as ministring created Spirits it mentions the Son as God having an eternal Throne and as the great unchangeable Creator of this great World Heb. 1. 7 8 10 11 12. Now if the Son did exist before the World and yet neither as God Angel or Man I wonder what Species of Beings this Author will reduce him to He who in Scorn so often asks the Trinitarians what a something they mean by a second or third Person in the Trinity may well be asked what a something he means by the Son of God as having Glory with his Father before the World was and what a Compound he will make the Person of our Redeemer as consisting of an Humane Nature and of some other yet never before heard of pre-existing Nature I doubt before he have done he 'll turn that great Mystery of God manifested in the Flesh into a meer Chimaera but I tremble to mention such Blasphemies 4. As to what this Author adds P. 25 26 27. of his Letter § 77 78 79 80 81 82 83. tho I find little besides idle Repetitions of former Matter which hath already been fully answered yet some few Remarks I shall make and 1. Whereas he tells us P. 25. That it is impossible that the same numerical Act of Creation could be done by three Persons because the self same Act could not be done three times and if one Person does an Act no other can do the sels same Answ Such Stuff as this and that which follows argues the Author's gross Ignorance about the divine Persons whom he supposeth to be separate divided Beings like Humane Persons acting divisim separatim were this so his arguing would be to purpose But he knows well enough and so his Ignorance will be found to be wilful Ignorance that the Three Divine Persons according to the Doctrine of all Orthodox Trinitarians are not divided Beings Minds Natures Essences but one and the â—ame most pure and simple divine Beings Minds Natures Essences with three distinct relative Properties which do not so much as make any real Composition in that one glorious Being and yet are true Relations arising from their proper Foundations in that one most simple immense Being as he may easily understand from what hath been said if he have a Mind to be informed and so he might have satisfied himself that it contradicts no Idea of ours at all that one divine Person does the very same numerical Action another does 2. Whereas in the same Page he does insinuate That infinite Divine Wisdom teacheth Men he means according to the same Doctrine of the Trinitarians that there are two needless and useless Persons in God himself whose Actions are to no manner of purpose only to do what the first Person is not only all sufficient to do but actually and wholly does that if the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act they are no other than necessary Agents and all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing the same Acts he wholly does Answ This whole Discourse is false and impious and not without greatest Calumny fixed on Orthodox Trinitarians For may he not find if he will but take notice of it generally averring 1. That the Second and Third Persons are so far from being needless and useless that they do as necessarily subsist in the divine Essence as the first Person 2. That altho the Father has a free Will and Power to do or not do viz. ad extra whatever he pleaseth yet this must be so understood that he hath this in Union and Conjunction with the Son and Spirit and not as divided or separated from them Therefore what he would infer that the Son and Spirit must necessarily do the same Act the Father doth consequently that they are no other than necessary Agents that all the Power must be in him with whom they cannot help doing what he wholly does is idle and blasphemous as if the Power of doing aâ—d Will for doing were the sole Power and Will of the Father and not the joint Power and Will of Father Son and Spirit or as if the Son and Spirit did not in entire Conjunction with the Father perform the same Act ad extra and with the same Freedom when the Act is the Joynt Act of all Three And I pray is that we say here the Language only of some late Tritarians and not the Language of sacred Scriptures yea and of Christ himself What else do those Words of our Lord import John 5. 17. My Father worketh hitherto and I work did not the Father work Miracles Did not Christ work the same in Conjunction with him
And does not that Scripture John 1. 1 2 3 14. expresly affirm that the Word stiled the only begotten of the Father was in the Beginning was with God was God the great Creator and Maker of all things that without him was not any thing made that was made It 's a Wonder this Author when he reads such a Scripture as this can forbear for to cast forth Reproaches on the divinely inspired Evangelist himself for could any Trinitarian have with greater Evidence set forth That 1. this Word was from the Beginning and before the Beginning of all created Beings and therefore from Eternity 2. That in this Beginning he was with God and therefore a distinct Person from God the Father 3. That he was God viz. the same blessed God with the Father as to Essence 4. That all things were made by him and that without him was not any thing made that was made that therefore the Father did make nothing but in Conjunction with the Word or Son not in Separation from him as this Author would have it And as nothing that was made was made without this Word so this Word himself was not made except he make himself but is the eternal increated Being Let this Author shew now if he can what he hath to charge Trinitarians with which he may not as well charge on this blessed Apostle Obj. But this Author is so far from granting the Concurrence of the Son or Spirit to the doing of the same Actions with the Father notwithstanding Scripture does most clearly testifie it as in the Texts before cited that he does boldly aver That this is apparently false the Scripture being fâ—ll of Actions especially those they do to one another as one being sent by another their going from and returning to one another which is impossible to suppose they all equally concurr'd in a little after he adds That they viz. Trinitarians cannot deny but Father Son and Spirit act separately ad extra even with respect to the Creatures and to prove this he asks Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the other took him into theirs or were limited to him He further adds They are so far from being one in a natural Sense that there is not so much as a moral Vnion between them they have different Wills and Inclinations for instance the first Person will not forgive Mankind without having Satisfaction given him by a divine Person nay they say his Justice could not be satisfied without it the Son is so far from being of the same Mind that he freely offer'd himself to suffer to appease the Wrath of the first Person and still intercedes to the Father The third Person neither gives nor receives Satisfaction Answ 1. I know no divine Actions ad extra which are expressed in Scripture whether in a proper and literal or in a tropical and improper Sense but they may well enough agree to Father Son and Spirit and they may equally concur in them It 's true our Lord saith Joh. 16. 25. I came forth from the Father and am come into the World Again I leave the World and go to the Father But these Words do import no more than that the Word being made Flesh and dwelling in that Humane Tabernacle did for such time as that Humane Nature was upon the Earth manifest the divine Glory in it and so his leaving the World and going to the Father imports no more than his ceasing from such a Way for Manifestation of the divine Glory and from thenceforth reserving such Manifestation for Heaven stiled God's Throne so this makes nothing at all to the Author's purpose only imports God's making in the Person of the Son Manifestations of his Glory after different ways sometimes in the Humane Nature on Earth which is his Footstool sometimes in Heaven which is his Throne so Joh. 14. 26. our Lord saith but the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things What Action is there the Words being rightly understood wherein one Person may not concur as well as another If the Author say the Father's sending the Spirit to teach the Church is such an Action I answer The Father's sending here imports no more than the Father 's willing that the Church be taught and illuminated by the blessed Spirit this being a Benefit which Christ hath purchased for it and this teaching such as in respect of Order in operating is more especially appropriated to the Third Person but dare this Author therefore say that the Father does therefore exclude himself either from willing that the Church be taught or from teaching it himself when the teaching the Church all things is such a peculiar Work of God that as it does infallibly evidence the true Divinity of the Holy Spirit so the joynt Concurrence of Father Son and Spirit in it So we see the grand Arguments of this Author against the Trinity which he thinks to be invincible are no other than such as do arise from his own Misunderstanding or perverting the Sense of Holy Scriptures 2 As to that Query of his wherewith he thinks doubtless to silence all Trinitarians viz. Did not God the Son take the Man Christ into his God-head when neither of the others took him into their's or were united to him Answ The Author in this labours under a double gross Mistake of the Doctrine both of sacred Scripture and of Trinitarians 1. In his confounding God-head with Personality For doubtless the Humane Nature of Christ is truly united to that God-head which is common to the Three Persons as divina charismatum communicatis and as that Name Immanuel God with us or God in our Nature do clearly import And as that Scripture Act. 20. 28. To feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own Blood does evince tho at the same time it be but united to the Personality of one of these viz. the Son and through the Contrivement of eternal Wisdom be made to subsist wholly Substantiâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the God-head as limited by personal Property that so this glorious 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might become a meet Representative or Sponsor for us 2. Tho it be granted for the Reason aforesaid that only the Person of the Son did take the Human Nature into his Subsistence yet this imports no more than passive Reception of that Humane Nature into his Subsistence which was added or united to it by the real joynt Action of the Three blessed Persons and wherein they did equally concur like as they do in other Actions relating to the Humane Nature See Psal 16. 10. compared with Acts 2. 24. Yea do act joyntly as well in preparing a Body or Humane Nature for the Person of the Son compare Heb. 10. 5. with Luke 1. 35. as they do in uniting that Person with the Humane Nature John 1. 14. The Word was