A44344:674
A comment upon Christ's last prayer in the seventeenth of John wherein is opened…
A comment upon Christ's last prayer in the seventeenth of John wherein is opened the union believers have with God and Christ, and the glorious privileges thereof ... / by that faithful and known servant of Christ, Mr. Thomas Hooker ... ; printed from the authors own papers written with his own hand, and attested to be such in an epistle by Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nigh.A comment upon Christ's last prayer in the seventeenth of John wherein is opened the union beleevers have with God and Christ, and the glorious priviledges thereof ... / by that faithful and known servant of Christ, Mr. Thomas Hooker ... ; printed from the authors own papers written with his own hand, and attested to be such in an epistle by Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye.
London: printed by Peter Cole, 1656
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The proper and peculiar Ground, from whence this In-being proceeds, may be expressed in two Conclusions, thus:
1. This In-being of subsistence of the Father in the Son, & of the Son in the Father, is not firstly from the Essence, or Deity, considered according to it self, or in it self as some have conceived: As thus; Because the Deity, or Essence, which is in the Father, is in the Son, therefore the Father also is in the Son: for this is neither safe, nor sound, but a dangerous mistake; because by the same reason, it may be concluded; That the Son is in himself, or the Father is in the Father. For the same Essence, or Deity (being but one) which is in the Father, is in the Son also; and then the reason would follow on like manner, thus: Where the Deity, or Essence of the God-head, which appertains to the Son, is, there is the Son. ⟨p. 131⟩But the Deity of the Son, is in the Son. Therefore the Son is in the Son.
2. This In-being each in other, though it issues nextly, and immediately from the persons, yet not as they are in themselves considered, without respect to the Essence; but as they are subsistences in the same Essence, taking that in with them, to make up a full, and complete Ground; from whence this mutual subsisting in each other may be inferred; as thus: 1. Not only because they have the same Essence. 2. Not because they are distinct persons alone. But because they are distinct persons subsisting in other. For this mutual In-being requires both distinction and conjunction. They must be two, for one cannot be in it self: and they must be together with the same Nature, or else they cannot be each in other. As we see in the Creatures constantly, as a Father, or Son; Buyer, and Seller: though they be persons in Relation, yet because they be in several Natures, separate one from another, therefore they cannot be said to be each in other. Thus for the Ground of this In-being.