would have grown as a separate tree in itself, now ft groweth in the tree into which it is graffed, and pertaineth to the unity of it: and this kind of union doth of all others most perfectly resemble the personal union of the two natures of God and man in Christ, wherein the nature of man, that would have been a person in itself, if it had been left to itself, is drawn into the unity of the divine person, and subsisteth in it, being prevented from subsisting in itself, by this personal union and assumption.

2. For the thing wherein this union of two natures consists, we say, That this union consists in that dependence of the human nature on the person of the Word, and in that communicating of the person or subsistence of the Word, with the human nature that is assumed, so that it is an hypostatical or a personal union, that is, such an union, as that both natures do but make one person of Christ; for the better understanding of this, we must consider what the difference is betwixt nature and person, and what makes an individual nature to be a person, briefly thus, "To be this or that, we say, is an individual nature; to be this or that, in, and for itself, is a person or subsistence; to be this or that, in, and for another, is to pertain to the person or subsistence of another." Now amongst those created things, which are naturally apt to make a personal being, or to subsist in and for themselves, there is a very great difference. For,

1. Some things of this kind may become parts of another more entire thing of the same kind; as we see in all those things wherein every part hath the same nature that the whole hath; as every drop of water is water, and being left to itself, it is a subsistence in itself, and hath its quality, nature, and being in, and for itself, but if it be joined to a greater quantity of water, it hath now no being, quantity nor operation, but in and for that greater quantity of water into which it is poured.

2. Other things of this kind cannot naturally put themselves into the unity of any other thing, and yet by the help of some foreign cause they may be united: as the branch of a tree of one kind, which put into the ground, would be an entire distinct tree in itself, may by the hand of a man be put into the unity of a tree of another kind: and so grow, move, and bear fruit, not distinctly in and for itself, but jointly in and for that tree into which it is planted.

3. Other things of this kind cannot by force of natural causes, nor by the help of any foreign thing, ever become parts of any other created thing or pertain to the unity of the subsistence of any such thing; as the nature of man, and the nature of all living things: and yet by divine and supernatural workings, it may be drawn into the unity of the subsistence of any of the persons of the blessed Trinity, wherein the fulness of all being, and the perfection of all created things, is in a more eminent sort than in themselves; for though all created things have their own being, yet seeing God is nearer to them than they are to themselves, and they are in a better sort in him than they are in themselves, and there is no question, but that they may be prevented and stayed from being in, and for themselves, and caused to be in and for one of the divine Persons of the blessed Trinity.

So that, as one drop of water, that formerly subsisted in itself, if it be poured into a vessel containing a greater quantity, it becomes one in subBistence with the greater quantity of water; and as a branch of a tree that being set in the ground, and left to itself, would be an entire and indepen dent tree, becomes one in subsistence with that tree into which it is graff ed; so the individual nature of man assumed into the unity of one of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, it loseth that kind of being that, naturally

left to itself, it would have had, and it becomes one with the person; for now it is not in, and for itself, but hath got a new relation of dependence and being in another.

But you will say, All the creatures in the world have their being in God, and dependence on God, and therefore all creatures, as well as man, may pertain to the person, or subsistence of God.

I answer, it is not a general being in, and dependence upon God, but a strict dependence on man's part, and a communicating of the subsistence on God's part, that makes up this union. Hence, we say, That there are four degrees of the presence of God in his creatures: the first is the general presence, whereby he preserves the substances of all creatures, and gives unto them, "to live, and to move, and have their being." Acts 17:28. And this extends itself to all creatures good and bad.

The second degree is the presence of grace whereby he doth not only · preserve the substance of his creature, but also gives grace unto it; and this agrees to the saints, and God's people on earth. The third degree is the presence of glory peculiar to the saints and angels in heaven, and hereby God doth not only preserve their substances, and give them plenty of his grace; but he also admits them into his glorious presence, so as they may behold him face to face. The fourth and last degree, is that whereby the Godhead of the Son is present with, and dwells in the manhood, giving unto it in some part his own subsistence; whereby it comes to pass, That this manhood assumed, is proper to the Son, and cannot be the manhood of the Father, or of the Holy Ghost, or of any creature whatsoever, and this is a thing so admirable, and unspeakable, that though we may find some similitudes, yet there cannot be found another example hereof in all the world.

Hence, it follows, that if the manhood of Christ, consisting of a body and soul, there is a nature only, and not a person; because it doth not subsist alone as other men, Peter, Paul, and John do, but it wholly depends on the person of the Word, into the unity whereof it is received; and this dependence of the human nature on the person of the Word, and the communicating of the person or subsistence of the Word, with the human nature is the very thing itself wherein this union consists.

3. For the scriptural texts that confirm this union. You see the well is very deep, but where is your bucket? What texts of scripture have we to confirm this wonderful union of two natures in one person? Amongst many, I shall cite these:

When Christ asked his disciples, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God," Matth. 16:13.16. Now, if but one Christ, then surely but one person; and if the son of man be the Son of the living God, then surely there is two natures in that one person; observe how the son of man, and the Son of God, very man, and very God, concentre in Christ; as the soul and body make but one man, so the Son of man and the Son of God make but one Christ: "Thou art Christ, saith Peter, the Son of the living God."

So Paul, speaking of Jesus Christ the Son of God, he tells us, Rom. 1:3,4. "That he was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit." 1. "Made of the seed of David," of the substance of the virgin, who was David's posterity. 2. "Declared to be the Son of God;" not made the Son of God, as he was made the Son of man, "but declared to be the Son of God;" the word in the original signifies a declaration by a solemn sen

tence or definitive judgment. "I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son," Psal. 2:7. That which I point at, he is the Son of David, (Kata farka) in respect of his manhood, and he is the Son of God, (Kata pneuma) in respect of his Godhead. Here be the two natures, but in the words before, these two natures make but one Son, Jesus Christ the Lord; and in the very words themselves he is declared to be the Son of God: he doth not say, Sons, as of two; but "his Son Jesus Christ," First, before, and then after; to shew unto us, That as before his making, so after his making, he is stilì but one Son, or one person of the two distinct natures subsisting.

To the same purpose is that same text, "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," Col. 2:9. By the union of the divine nature with the human, in the unity of his person, the Godhead dwelleth in Christ, as the soul in the body: "It dwelleth in him bodily: not seeming. ly, but really, truly, and indeed; not figuratively, and in shadow, as he dwelleth in the temple; not by power and efficacy, as he dwells in all the creatures; not by grace, as in his people; nor by glory, as in his saints above: but essentially, substantially, personally, the human nature being assumed into the union with the person of the Word. Observe the passages; he in whom that fulness dwells is the person; that fulness which doth so dwell in him, is the nature: now, there dwells in him not only the fulness of the Godhead, but the fulness of the manhood also: for we believe him to be both perfect God, begotten of the substance of his Father before all worlds; and perfect man made of the substance of his mother in this world; only he in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth is one, and he in whom the fulness of the manhood dwelleth, is another; but he in whom the fulness of both these two natures dwelleth, is one and the same Emmanuel, and consequently one and the same person; in him, i. e. in his person dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead, and all the fulness of the manhood: "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

4. For the similitudes that resemble or set forth this mystery, many are given, but for our better understanding, let us consider these few:

The first is of the soul and body, that make but one man; as the soul and body are two distinct things, and of several natures, yet being united by the hand of God, they make but one person; so the Godhead and manhood are two distinct things, and of several natures, yet being united by the hand of God, they make but one person. Indeed herein is the similitude defective: First, In that the soul and body being imperfect natures, they concur to make one full and perfect nature of a man. Secondly, in that the one of them is not drawn into the unity of the subsistence of the other, but both depend on a third subsistence, which is that of the whole.

The second is of the light and sun; as after the collection and union of the light with the body of the sun, no man can pluck them asunder, nor doth any man call one part the sun, and another part the light; but both of them jointly together we call the sun; even so after the union of flesh with that true light the Word, no man doth call the Word apart to be one Son of God, and the Son of man another Son of God; but both of them jointly together we call one, and the self same Christ. I know in this similitude are many defectives, yet if hereby we be not altogether able to attain the truth of this great mystery, certainly, "we have herein a most excellent similitude, which will greatly help, and contentedly suffice. the godly and moderate searchers of this divine truth." Justin Martyr de recta confess. de Coessent. Trin.

The third is of a fiery and flaming sword; as the subsistences of the fire and sword are so nearly conjoined, that the operations of them for the most part concur; for a fiery sword in cutting burneth, and in burning cutteth; and we say of the whole, That this fiery thing is a sharp piercing sword, and that this sharp piercing sword is a fiery thing, even so in the union of the two natures of Christ, there is a communication of properties from the one of them to the other, as shall be declared, if the Lord permit; only this similitude is defective in this, in that the nature of the iron is not drawn into the unity of the subsistence of fire, nor is the nature of the fire drawn into the unity of the subsistence of iron; so that we cannot say, This fire is iron, or this iron is fire.

The fourth is of one man having two qualities, or accidental natures; as a man that is both a physician and a divine, he is but one person, and yet there are two natures concurring and meeting in that same one person; so that we may rightly say of such a one, This physician is a divine, and this divine is a physician; this physician is happy in saving souls, and this di• vine is careful in curing bodies: even so is Christ both God and man, and but yet one Christ; and in that one Christ, according to the several na. tures, are denominations of either part, as, that this man is God, and, this God is man; or that this man made the world, and, this God died upon the cross; but in this similitude is this defect, in that the different natures are accidental, and not essential or substantial.

The fifth and last is of the branch and tree into which it is ingraffed; as suppose a vine branch, and an olive tree, now as this olive tree is but one, but hath two different natures in it, and so it beareth two kinds of fruit, and yet between the tree and the branch there is a composition not hujus ex his, but hujus ad hoc, i. e. not of a third thing out of the two things united, but of one of the two things united or adjoined to the other; even so Christ is one, but he hath two different natures, and in them he performs the different actions pertaining to either of them; and yet between the different natures (the divine and the human nature) there is a composition, not hujus ex his, but hujus ad hoc, not of a third nature arising out of these, but of the human nature added, or united to the divine, in unity of the same person: so that now we may say, as this vine is an olive-tree, and this olive-tree is a vine; or as this vine bears olives, and olive-trees bear grapes; so the Son of man is the Son of God, and the Son of God is the Son of man: or this Son of man laid the foundation of the earth, and this Son of God was born of Mary, and crucified by the Jews. This si militude (I take it) is the aptest and fullest of all the other, though in some things also it doth fail; for the branch hath first a separate subsistence in itself, and losing it after, then it is drawn into the unity of the subsistence of that tree into which it is implanted; but it is otherwise with the human nature of Christ, it never had any subsistence of its own, until it was united to the person, or subsistence of the Son of God.

5. For the person assuming, and the nature assumed, and for the reason of this way, we say, 1. That the person assuming was a divine person; it was not the divine nature that assumed a human person, but the divine person that assumed a human nature; and that of the three divine persons it was neither the first, nor the third, neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost that did assume this nature, but it was the Son, the middle person who was to be the middle one, That thereby, 1. He might undertake the mediation between God and us. 2. He might better preserve the integrity of the blessed Trinity in the Godhead. 3. He might higher advance mankind by means of that relation which the second person, the

Mediator did bear unto his Father: for this very end, saith the apostle, Gal. 4:4,5,8. “God sent his own Son made of a woman, that we might receive the adoption of sons; wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ;" intimating thereby, that what relation Christ hath unto God by nature, we being found in him, have the very same by grace; he was God's Son by nature, and we are his sons by grace; he was in a peculiar manner" the first born among many brethren," Rom. 8:29. And in him and for him, the rest of the brethren by grace of adoption are accounted as first born, Heb. 12:23. Exodus 4:22,23.

2. The nature assumed was the seed of Abraham; "For verily he took not upon him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Heb. 2:16. Elsewhere the apostle calls it the seed of David, “He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," Rom. 1:3. And elsewhere it is called the seed of the woman, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed," Gen. 3:15. And when" the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son, made of a woman," Gal. 4:4. No question she was the passive, and material principle, of which that precious flesh was made, and the Holy Ghost the agent and efficient; that blessed womb of her's was the bride chamber, wherein the Holy Ghost did knit that indissoluble knot betwixt our human nature and his Deity; the Son of God assuming into the unity of his person, that which before he was not, even our human nature. O with what astonishment may we behold our dust and ashes assumed into the unity of God's own person!

3. For the reason of this way; why did the person assume a nature; or rather why did not the person of the Son of God join itself to a perfect person of the Son of man? I answer, First, Because then there could not have been a personal union of both natures, and so Christ had not been a perfect Mediator. 2. Because then the work of each of the natures of Christ could not have been counted the works of the whole person; whereas now, by this union of both natures in one person, the obedience of Christ performed in the manhood is become of infinite merit, as being the obedience of God; and thereupon God is said "to have purchased the church with his own blood," Acts 20:28. 3. Because, if the person of the Son of God had been joined to the person of man, there should have been four persons in the Trinity. It is very observable how for the bet ter preservation of the integrity of the blessed Trinity in the Godhead, the human nature was assumed into the unity of the second person; for if the fulness of the Godhead should have dwelt in any human person, there should then have been a fourth person necessarily added to the God. head; and if any of the three persons, besides the second, had been born of a woman, there should then have been two sons in the Trinity; whereas now the Son of God and the Son of man, being but one person, he is consequently but one son; and so no alteration at all made in the relations of the Trinity; but they are still one Father, one Son, and one Holy Ghost.

These are the deep things of God, and indeed so exceedingly mystical, that they can never be perfectly declared by any man. Bernard compares this ineffable mystery of the union of two natures, with that incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity in unity: in the Trinity is three persons, and one nature, in Christ is two natures, and one person; that of the Trinity is indeed the greatest, and this of the incarnation is like unto it; they both far exceed man's capacity; "For his way is in the sca, and his path in the great waters, and his footsteps are not known," Psalm 77:19.