for the Wisdom of a Man is not a diftinct Perfon in Man, but it is otherwise in God, whofe Wisdom is a diftinct Hypoftafes, that is, a Subfiftence, or Perfon in his Nature.

SOC. I Remember this very well, and what has been faid upon it; but we are now upon the point of Scripture, and therefore I defire, that you wou'd fhew me from Scripture, that the Word is a diftinct Perfon from God.

CHR. You have not remembred exactly, for we do not fay, That any of the Perfons of God are distinct from God? But they are diftinct In God. God is as it were a Species to all the Perfons; tho' it be fometimes more particularly apply'd to the First Perfon, as has been fhewn. The Nature of God is One, and the three Perfons are all In it. And ther is an Example of this among Men. We do not say that John is a diftinct Perfon from Human Nature; but he is a diftinct Per fon In Human Nature. That is, he is a diftinct Person from other Perfons who partake equally of the fame Nature. John is a diftinct Perfon from Peter, and Peter from John; but neither of them is diftinct from that Nature of which he partakes, and which confequently is his own Nature. That wou'd be, to be diftinct from Himself. The Deftinction is not in the Nature, for a Distinction cannot be 'twixt One. But the Distinction is 'twixt feveral Perjons who are united in the fame Na ture. Thus the Son is a Diftin& Perfon from the Father, but not from God, unless where God is taken for the Father.

SOC. I fee my mistake in this. Therefore, pray, go on and fhew, that the word is a diftinct Perfon In God, or from the Father.

CHR. I prove it, because Perfonal Actions are attribu The Son a ted to Him: And because he is fet up as the Obiect of Diftin&t Per our Adoration. Which you do not deny; for you worfon from the fhip Him. i. e. Chrift, whom St. John calls The word. Father And I think you will not difpute that any thing but a

Per

Perfon can be an object of Worship: Therefor, if Chrift
be a Perfon, which you confefs, the Word must be a
Perfon, because you cannot deny that in the First of St.
John, He is call'd the Word.

I fhall have occafion to fhew you hereafter, that the Chaldee Paraphrafe and the Jewish Targums do all along, in the Old Teftament, make the word of Jehovah Synonimous with Jehovah Himfelf, and yet a Diftinct Perfon, from Him; and do attribute to the Word the fame Perfonal Actions, as to Jehovah; and to be Equally Adorable as Jehovah. As, the word of Jehovah Raining down fire from Jehovah upon Sodom. Gen. 19. 24. The word of Fehovah fhall be my God. Gen. 28. 21. Abraham worshiped and called upon the name of the word of Jehovah, and faid Thou art Jehovah, &c. more of this I will fhew you, when I come to Explain what Notion the Jews had of the Logos or word of God, how they esteem'd Him to be both God, and a Diftinct Perfox. But now, as to the Scripture, in the plain words of the Text. Pfal. 110. 1. The Lord faid unto my Lord, fit Thou on my Right hand, till I make Thine Enemies Thy Footftool. That the Second Lord, here spoken of was Chrift is plain from Matt. 22. 44. and that the Jews fo Understood it; whence the Targum of Jonathan renders it thus, The Lord faid to His word. In the Language of St. John, who calls Chrift the word of God. And ther cannot be a greater Diftinction of Perfons, than one to Speak to the other, one to fit on the others Right Hand, one to Subdue the others Enemies, &c.

And therefor where it is faid, The word is God, by the word a Perfon must be meant, and not only a Property or Attribute of God. Which, as your Author fays, is not fomething different from God, but is God, and yet in the very fame anfwer he fays, that it is fo God, that it is not all that God is. This is as unintelligible to me as the Trinity can be to him. To be God and to be nothing

different

84.

Hist. p. 83:

different from God; and yet to be fo God as not to be all that God is! This is pat all Human Understanding, for if you be not all that God is, you cannot be God, but a Piece of God, and if you be not fomething different from God, then you must be all that God is.

SOC. The Def. of the History, pag. 44. means no more by, The word was God, then that the word was in fome manner like God.

CHR. He does not deferve an Anfwer. Let his Hiftorian answer him, or let him anfwer the Hiftorian, for in this, he difputes against him inftead of defending him. Nay, let this Defender anfwer himfelf, he fays, P. 53. that the Knowlege which Chrift had was by the Di vine Word abiding on him, which agrees with the Hiftorian, p. 120. who likewife tells of the Divine Word being communicated to Angels and Men, p. 83. and 84. and that the word was made Fleb means no more than the words abiding on or inhabiting an Human Perfon, the Perfon of Jefus, p. 87. fo that here the word is kept as a diftinct thing from Jefus, and according to this the word was not a Man, was not Jefus, but only did Infpire Jefus; and yet the Defender p. 46. fays exprefly, and gives it as his Paraphrafe upon that Text, The word was made Flesh, that the word did not only Inhabit and Infpire Jefus but was that Man Jesus; these are the words of his Paraphrafe. The word (Fefus) was a Man like unto us in all things, Sin only excepted, and to fortify this, he quotes Mr. Limborck, fpeaking these words. The true Senfe of this Place, is, that the WORD WAS FLESH, that is, a TRUE FLESHLY SUBSTANCE, fubject to all the Infirmities that attend our Flesh, that is to fay, He was Mortal, Vile, and Contemptible, which appear'd_more especially in the Days of His Paffion and of His Death, which are call'd Heb. 5. 7. THE DAYS OF HIS FLESH that is, the Flesh, Death, Paffion, &c. of the WORD OF GOD. And And yet in the fame place he fays, now is it not

more

words thus

more agreeable to Reafon and Scripture to interpret these than to fay, THE WORD WAS INCARNAT, which is a Language unknown to Scripture, &c.

Is not this Astonishing! Pray, what is the difference: 'twixt, The word was made Flefb, and the word was Incarnat, but that made Flesh is the English for Incarnat? Do thefe Men speak against Myfteries!

Ther are multitudes of more Quotations out of Scripture, may be given to prove the Word to be a Perfon. John 1. 14. The Word was made Flesh. You will not say it was the Bible that was made Flesh? Or any outward Speech or Declaration of Gods? Was it not a Perfon that was made Flefb.

SOC. By God's word there, is meant God Himself, and not any thing diftinct from God, as I told you just

now.

CHR. Was it God Himself than that was made Flesh? SOC. The word was made Flesh, that is, Did abide on, Hift. Uniand Inhabit an Human Perfon; and fo was in appearance P. 87. made Flefb or Man, or the word became Incarnat, that is, abode on the Perfon of Jefus Chrift.

CHR. I muft ftill ask, what was it that was made Fleb or Man? If by the Word of God you mean God Himfelf, then God was made Man, which you will not allow.

If you mean only fome outward Speech or Declaration of His, as the Book of the Scriptures, or the like. Then that Book was made Man or Incarnat.

SOC. You do not observe that he fays, the word was in appearance, made Man.

CHR. I did obferve it, and fee the utmost pains taken to escape the force of this Text. But this, like all other Fallacious Subterfuges will involve you in greater difficulties: For was ther nothing really made Flesh in this Text? Thofe Hereticks wou'd be beholding to you, who fay that Christ affum'd only a Body of Air, and fuffer'd

only

86.

Fob. 3.34.

only in Appearance and Show, but had no real Flesh or Blocd.

But these your Hift. calls falfe Prophets and Teachers,

p. 151.

But pray how did the Word appear to be Flesh? Or how was it Incarnat?

SOC. Because it did Inspire or abode on the Perfon of Fefus.

CHR. Do's that make it Flesh? Or appear to be Flesh? SOC, I dare not fay that, for it did Infpire the Prophets, and Patriarchs; and the Spirit of God Infpires every Holy perfon. But it was in Chrift in a more Eminent

manner.

་

CHR. Does that make it Fleb? Does the Spirit of God contract the Nature of Flefb, when it Inspires a Perfon who has Flefb? It infpir'd Mofes more than other Prophets, and the Prophets more than other Men: Is it therefor more Flesh in a Prophet than in another Saint? Or can you say that it is Flesh at all, by any Infpiration it gives to Men? Does it Contract Corruption and become Flesh, by its Inspiration of Man? Can It be tainted by touching one Nature? Is the Spirit Incarnat when it abides upon any Man?

A

SOC. All these you speak of did partake of Gods Spirit, or Infpiration in their feveral Degrees, But it is faid of Christ, That God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him; what Alteration this will make, is to be Confider'd.

CHR. It is indeed, and by the Argument you have already heard, it will prove Chrift to be God; for as we faid before, nothing can hold Infinit, but Infinit. And therefor nothing can hold the Spirit of God, without measure, that is the whole Spirit of God, but what is it self as Infinit and without measure, as that Spirit.

Irenæus