form of God long before he was a Creature His 6th position is answered before He adds 7thly That he is the Son of Man in both natures As to his Humane nature and that only he was â—â—â—e of the seed of David But the union of both natures was so strict and indissoluble in the person of Christ that it is truly said That holy thing that was born of the Virgin was the Son of God The person who as to his Humane nature was formed of the seed of the Virgin being Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper Son begotten of his own substance from Everlasting as to his Divine nature And this distinction of natures in Christ strictly observed doth not at all infer a plurality of Persons or Sons as Mr. C. vainly imagines p. 8. in his Question For the Humane nature hath no subsistence of its own It is the same person who is the Son of God and the Son of David yet is he the Son of God in his Divine nature in contradistinction from the Humane and the Son of David with respect to our nature that he took of the Virgin in contradistinction from the Divine nature though these natures since the Incarnation cannot possibly be divided or separated And if this be not owned we must bring in a confusion of natures in the Person of Christ As to what he adds about Justification it shall be taken notice of in a more convenient place Whereas Mr. C. closeth this Chapter with an affirmation That he cannot yet be convinced of any thing written in his Body of Divinity wherein himself owneth these things are found of which he yet seeth cause to repent Truly his blindness renders him an object of pity And because he supposeth these strange Heterodoxies have proceeded from his being inriched in knowledge beyond all others his case is the more dangerous But oh that he would be advised to go to Christ for Eye-salve that he might see and then we should hear another story from him While I was engaged in my answer to Mr. Collier I received from the hand of a Friend some Animadversions on this Chapter of his especially respecting his second position concerning the Person of Christ which because they are not long and may give some farther Light into this matter under debate I have here annexed Mr. Colliers Add. word p. 2. That which I shall endeavour to demonstrate from Scripture iâ— That he is the Son of God only as considered in both natures And if this be proved if he be tâ—e Son of God in both natures only then he is not the Son of God in the Divine nature only and to prove that he is the Son of God in both natures only the Scripture so presents him to us and no otherwise And as the Scripture presents him to us so ought we to believe him to be and no otherwise Before I enter upon the consideration of what the Scriptures say in this important Article of our Faith let us hear what Mr. Collier himself saith in his Body of Divinity under this Title How this one God subsisteth in three Persons p. 44. The sum of all is this That God is one Eternal infinite substantial Being distinguished into Father Son and Holy Spirit and in all three are Divine and distinct relative properties and operations yet in all no one wills no one acts without the other Gen. 1. 1 2 26. Heb. 1. 2. Job 33. 4. And p. 43 And this truth i. e. a plurality in one infinite and eternal God is clearly to be proved from the Old Testament even from the Creation It might be supposed by this his brief description of the Deity that Mr. Collier is Orthodox in his opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son of God though in many places he be singular in his expressions And that his design wherein he is singular and different from others is very charitable viz. That his supposed absurdity of making two Sons or the Sonship of Christ not to be the same at first as it was at last might be avoided Yet whosoever throughly weighs his whole discourse cannot but observe that he speaks at least very doubtfully concerning any existence that the Son of God had in the Divine nature before he was made or manifest in flesh Add word p. 11. § 6. That this word God-man was made flesh Here it seems lyeth the blâ—ck in the way that he that was a man was made a man The resolve is clear from Scripture he that was God and man in Gods eye was made so in our eye when made or manifested in flesh It were to be wished that Mr. Collier would yet speak more plainly that if he think a right a wrong opinion may not be conceived of him from his seemingly affected obscurity in his expressions What is the meaning of this He that was God and man in Gods eye was made so in our eye Is it that God the Father always saw him as he was from Eternity existing with him in the Deity in both natures God-man or never existing â—s God the Son till he was made or manifest in the flesh Because of this obscurity and the jealousies justly conceived that Mr. Collier is very corrupt in his opinion concerning the pre-existence of the Son of God in the Divine nature before he assumed flesh let it now be considered whether the Scriptures present the Lord Christ to us as being the Son of God in both natures only even those places of Scripture among others which Mr. C. by his false glosses would have us to think do so only present him to us Heb. 1. 8. But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever a scepter of Righteousness is the scepter of thy Kingdom thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with the Oil of gladness above thy fellows Herein we have not only the unction of the Son of God mentioned but the reason of it And that is plainly taken from his Everlasting Divinity Regality and Righteousness Because he that is the Son of God is God that made and upholds and rules over the world in Righteousness and loveth it and hateth iniquity therefore as the only fit person is he anointed by God the Father his God and our God to the Office of Mediatorship which the whole Chapter treats of And from the dignity of his Person as the Son of God is divine adoration given to him when as the Son of man he came first into the world And from thence also his preheminence notwithstanding his debasement in the flesh continues with him above all his fellows Heb. 2. 16. He took not on him the nature of Angels but he took on him the Seed of Abraham If the question be asked as the Eâ—nuch did Philip in the like case of whom does the Apostle here speak The answer is plain from the context of the Son of God He is the person assuming
Believe slays my heart It is my duty I confess and ever to be admired is Grace that found out such a remedy But oh my unbelief I am shut up under it what shall I do whether shall I flee Lord Faith is thy Gift and by thine Almighty power it hath been wrought in some such as I am Oh magnifie Grace in me a lost Creature even me also renew my Soul change my Heart make me a Believer work in me both to will and to do of thy good pleasure else I may as â—â—â—n reach Heaven with my finger as Believe my impotency my blindness the perverseness of my heart is so great I must confess O Lord thou art just if thou damn me but oh pity and save a Soul without might that is now sinking under thy wrath if free free Grace prevent not by working in me what thou requiâ—â—st of me I return to Mr. C. who will now give us instances to illustrate his former assertion and that he may take this opportunity to let out more of his poisonous Doctrine chiefly insists on original sin which he endeavours to perswade men is an harmless thing and of it self lays them under no more guilt then doth a fit of sickness or any other affliction of the like kind that no man can help c. only thus much he grants It s true the first death is come on all men by Adams transgression they having the same original nature of sin and death it s come into all men as a Judgement for the first transgression but not as a sin to the second death Although it may not be easie to find out any good sense of these words the Original nature of sin and death yet it is easie to understand what is the drift of his discourse which he also farther explains anon and which I before touched And therefore to prevent him before I examine what he saith I will briefly propose the truth concerning this point as it is taught in the Scriptures Rom. 5. and other places viz. Job 14. 4. Psal 51. 5. Joh. 3. 6. c. From whence I gather 1. That Adam in his primitive state was to be considered as a publick person in whom all mankind that in an ordinary way of generation came of him were and in whom they sinned and fell when he fell And they are to be considered in him legally and naturally 1. Legally as he was according to the terms of the Covenant in which he stood related to God their representative and so received his perfections or original righteousness for them as well as for himself and they as well as he lost it by the fall 2. Naturally as he was the root of all mankind which were virtually in his Loins when he fell So then 2. Original sin is either Imputed or Inherent The imputation of Adams sin to his posterity by which they are most justly accounted to have sinned in him who was the root and both generative and faederal principle of mankind is in some sort the meritorious cause of the inherent pravity of the humane nature derived from him which is diffused through all the parts of the Soul and is a just punishment for the first offence by which we are turned away from God and disposed to all wickedness it being the root seed and principle of all actual transgressions and sins and is therefore so frequently by the Apostle Paul called sin in a way of emphasis and the flesh of which all the abominations that are in the world are the proper fruit and off-spring and are so represented by him Rom. 7. 8 c. ch 13. 14. Gal. 5. 19. Col. 2. 11. Eph. 2. 3. 3. When therefore we affirm with the Apostle Rom. 5. 18. That by the offence of one Judgement came upon all men unto condemnation neither doth the holy Ghost in that Text nor we intend to assert that any are actually damned for Adams particular fact but That by his sin and our sinning in him by Gods most just ordination we have lost original righteousness and so as darkness necessarily is where light is taken away or denied and sickness where health is not contracted that exceeding pravity and sinfulness of nature which deserveth the curse of God and Eternal damnation and it is inherent uncleanness that actually excludes out of the Kingdom of God From what hath been said it is easie to gather how pernicious Mr. C's doctrine is who teacheth that Original sin exposeth only to temporal or bodily not Eternal death The Apostle constantly affirms Rom. 5. that it is the death and condemnation that Christ saveth his people from which surely is the second not the first death only which by our fall in Adam we were exposed to and guilty of But why doth not Original sin deserve the second death Is it because Adams transgression was but trivial certainly the aggravations of his sin were exceeding great There was contempt of God dis-belief of his word pride breach of Covenant Theft Murther c. all combined in that one sin so that a greater the sin against the holy Ghost excepted and â—ore 〈…〉 ex evi 〈…〉 e of the Sons of â—â—n were ever guilty of But if 〈…〉 had 〈…〉 n There 〈…〉 in in â—â—s own nature so small but ratione obj 〈…〉 in that it is â—â—ainst an infinite Majesty it deservâ—â— Eveâ—lasting p 〈…〉 shment a◠〈…〉 ry one that fears God and knows his teâ—rour 〈…〉 Is it because â—â—e corruption of our nature derived from Ad 〈…〉 â—t a small thing who trembles not at such a thought that haâ—â—â—ot cast off all sense of a Deity and the holiness thereof We havâ— before proved That it is the spring of all the evil that is done â—â—der the Sun it is in its own nature a principle of enmity to Gâ—d that from whence the heart of man is denominated to be decâ—i 〈…〉 above all things and desperately wicked If there be any thing therefore in what he saith besides his bold affirmation it is only this Because it is a Judgement for the first transgression â—t cannot be a sin to the second death But he may learn from the Scriptures that God oft-times punisheth sinners by giving them up to sin and yet that sin which hath also in it a punishment of former transgression will sink a Soul under divine wrath as well as any other Lâ—t him take for instance Rom. 1. 21. ad finem 2 Thâ—s 2. 10 11 12. I thought in my reply to this and what followeth to have shewed how Mr. Collier in some things takes the Pelagian notion of Original sin in effect plainly enough denying it and also how in asserting the defilement of our nature not to be ouâ— sin he agrees with Bellarmine and other Jesuites in their opposition to the Protestant Doctrine in this point But I must be brief and shall therefore content my self only to shew his repugnancy to the truth of God in the Scripture Thus he goes on
Eph. 2. 8 9 10. 3. The meritorious cause of our Justification is the Obedience of Christ both passive and active and our actual Voet. Select Disput pars 5. p. 281. Justification is the effect or consequent of the imputation thereof unto us Justification in the formal reason thereof doth speak two things 1. A discharge from condemnation or the remission of sins which was purchased by the death and blood-shedding of Christ Gal. 3. 13. Eph. 1. 7. The benefit of which purchase râ—dounds to us because of Gods reckoning upon our account or imputing to us what our surety suffered in our stead Isa 53. 6. 11. 2. The adjudging of us to be Heirs of and so inrighting us in Life and Glory for the sake of Christs active Obedience imputed to us in like manner Rom. 3. 22. ch 4. 4 5. 5. 19. Gal. 2. 15. ch 3. 11 12. 4. True and lively Faith whereby we receive Christ and his benefits freely given of God to us and rest on him and his Righteousness is the instrument of our Justification Joh. 1. 12. Rom. 5. 17. So that Faith alone justifieth though justifying Faith is never alone but worketh by love and that Righteousness for the sake of which we are justified before God was wrought out and fulfilled only by Christ who was made sin for us although he knew no sin that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him And therefore in the business of Justification Faith is opposed to all good works as exclusive of them from any influence into the obtaining of our pardon and acceptance with God Rom. 3. 20 21 22. v. 28. chap. 4. 4 5. Gal. 2. 16. ch 3. 11 12. The first mention of this Article that I meet with in Mr. Colliers Book is ch 1. p. 12. where after some boasting of his clear stating the matter in his Body of Divinity he thus writes If any persons dare to maintain that any are justified before God without Faith and Holiness as the terms thereof though not the deserving cause I must leave them to their own understanding without all Scripture grounds for my own part I fully on good grounds believe the contrary Notwithstanding Mr. Colliers swelling words of vanity and contempt of the understanding of others I must tell him even these words are not so clear and scriptural but that they give just occation to suspect his own understanding to be dark and his judgement to be unsound For although true and justifying Faith is pregnant with good works and whosoever is justified is sanctified also and that Faith considered as a Grace inherent in us belongs to our sanctification yet doth not the Scripture any where allow good works the same influence into our Justification as it doth unto Faith which is a clear evidence that it is not the act of believing â—â—r any other holy duty for which we are justified but that in this business Faith is to be considere as relative to Christ and that it is the object of Faith apprehended thereby on the account of which its said to justifie And this Mr. Collier cannot but own if he understands what is asserted by himself in his Bodâ— of Div. concerning the imputation of Christs Righteousness unto us in order to our Justification before God For if we are justified freely by Grace and are presented without spot before God in an imputed Righteousness then can our good works have no interest in the reason of our acceptance with him And indeed if this were not so we could not be justified at all forasmuch as the Lord is of purer eye then to behold iniquity and our sanctification is imperfect so that if all our Righteousnesses so far forth as ours be examined in strictness of justice they will be found but filthy raggs a Covering too narrow and a Bed too short Yea if those that plead mosâ— for the interest of good works in our Justification would seriously consider what themselves dare abide by before the tremendous tribunal of the great Judge they must all fly to Bellarmines tutissimum est and put an end to this controversie by acknowledging that they dare not venture into Gods sight nor pass out of the World to his Judgement-seat in their own Righteousness But indeed there is another principle laid down once and again by Mr. C. in those Chapters of his Book already examined which if true renders all discourses of deliverance from wrath to come by Christ needless and without ground It is this That the penalty of the breach of the first Covenant was only temporal death and Eternal damnation is inflicted on men only for sinning against the Gospel the Law of Faith Now if this were true Besides that in some respects it renders the condition of those that never heard of Christ more eligible then those who live under the sound of the Gospel 1. If there be no Law threatning Eternal death Ferg Differ of Moral Virtue Grace p. 107. but the Law of Faith then there is no such thing as forgiveness and remission of sin in the World For the Gospel denounceth damnation only against final impenitency and unbelief and as these are not pardoned nor pardonable so on the other hand if there be no Law threatning Eternal death besides the Gospel then is there no other sin we need forgiveness of 2. If this be true Then Christ never dyed to free any from wrath to come which yet is plentifully asserted in the Scriptures wherein we read also that his death was for the Redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Covenant Heb. 9. 15. For it is non-sense to say that he hath freed us from the curse of the Gospel yea it is a repugnancy unless you will introduce another Gospel to relieve against the terms of this nor will that serve the turn unless you likewise find another Mediator to out-merit this Thus Mr. Ferguson in answer to one of Mr. Colliers mind So then if Mr. C. will abide by this notion and the just consequences thereof his sense of our Justification must either be contradictory to himself or else very corrupt and unsound Another passage that hath a bad aspect this way you meet with Addit Word p. 50. where he gives this reason why his supposed deliverance of the damned will not extend to any degree of Glory but only a deliverance from pain and misery For they are under no promise of reward of Good works because they had none That God will graciously reward the good works of Believers is granted so that besides that joy and glory that all Saints have an immediate right to by virtue of their interest in Christ every one shall receive a superadded Crown according as his work shall be which layeth a foundation for our believing the enjoyment of different degrees of Glory among the blessed in another world But to suppose as Mr. C. here doth That the admission of persons into the Kingdom of