them But I shall pass this also and return to the beginning of his Chapter that his strange notions about the person of the Son of God may be brought to examination And that I may proceed with the more clearness I will first briefly represent what the Scripture teacheth in this matter That the Son of God might become the author of Eternal Salvation unto lost sinners he took upon him the office of a Mediator betwixt God and them and in order to the accomplishment of what he had undertaken on their behalf it was necessary that he should take hold of their nature and be manifested in flesh In the person of Christ therefore we are to mind 1. The distinction of both natures Divine and Humane 2. The union of both natures in the person of the Mediator First Both the Divine and Humane nature in Christ remain distinct in their essence and all their essential properties and necessarily must do so the one being created and the other increated the Divine nature cannot be changed into the Humane nor the Humane into the Divine neither is it possible that they should be so confounded or mixed together as to make a third nature distinct from both The Word was God and the Word was made flesh Joh. 1. He was in the form of God and yet took upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2. He was and remained the only begotten of the Father his own Son and yet was in all things made like to us sin only excepted He was true God God by nature and true man also made of the seed of David as concerning the flesh Secondly There is a glorious and unspeakable union of both natures in the person of Christ As he is Immanuel he is but one person and as such is spoken of throughout the Scripture even the same person that in the beginning was with God The Humane nature of Christ never having a personality of its own Vid. Amâ—sâ—i Medullam did from the first moment of its being subsist in the person of the Son of God So then 1. Though the second person of the Deity have but one only subsistence yet his subsistence is to be considered with a twofold respect first as he was in the Divine nature from Eternity and also as he was manifest in the flesh which last inferrs no change in God but only a relation The Son of God remained what he was although he became what he was not by uniting the Humane nature with the Divine in one person 2. Though there is not nor cannot be a real transfusion of the properties of the Divine nature into the Humane or of the Humane into the Divine yet by reason of this strict union of both natures there is a personal communication of properties which doth consist in a communion or concurrence of both natures unto the same operations so as they are done by both natures together yet each nature worketh according to its own properties So that all that Christ did or suffered is properly referred to his person but if we consider the immediate principle of his actions some of them must be referred to his Divine nature only others to his Humane 3. Hence ariseth and herein is founded that communication of properties in the Scriptures speaking of Christ 1. When that is spoken of the Person that agreeth to him onely with respect to one of his natures as when Christ is said to dye of which he was capable only in his Humane nature or to create all things which was proper to his Divine nature And sometimes it is said of him that he knew what was in man that he searcheth the reins c. at another time that he knew not the day of Judgement So likewise of God it is true that he cannot be tempted of evil and yet Christ who was God as well as man suffered being tempted but then this could not be as God but as man considered as made like to his Brethren in all things except sin neither can we avoid contradiction without embracing this way of exposition which is alone suited to the mind of the Spirit of God in such sayings and founded in the real distinction of both natures without division in the person of Christ 2. Sometimes also that is attributed to one nature as it doth connote the person that is proper to the other so Act. 20. 28. and 1 Joh. 3. 16. That is spoken of God viz. his shedding his blood and laying down his life which cannot without blasphemy be affirmed of the Divine nature as such 3. And again That which is only proper to the person as such considered in both natures is attributed to the one nature as 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God and men the man Christ Jesus He was not Mediator as man only nor as God only but as God-man in one person These things well weighed may deliver us from that strange confusion that Mr. Colliers discourse tends to cast us into and might serve for a refutation of his first Chapter but for the help of the weak for whose sake this work was undertaken I will particularly examine whatever therein might be occasion of stumbling to them and remove it out of the way In p. 1. of his Book he thus writes The exceptions against what I said in this matter i. e. relating to the Person of the Son of God are as followeth 1. That he is not the Son of God in the Divine nature only 2. That he is the Son of God only as considered in both natures 3. That he was the word as he was God-man and man-God 4. That as God-man he was a Creature 5. That this Creature God and man created all things 6. That this Word God-man was made flesh 7. That he is the Son of Man in both natures By these words of his one would conclude these gross contradictions were the assertions of the animadverter on his Book but his meaning is That these are the things excepted against in it which he still owns and undertakes the vindication of them in which fruitless attempt I shall attend him He begins with the first That he is not the Son of God in the Divine nature only My reason for this is Because the Scripture no where that I know affirms him so to be and for me or any other to affirm that which the Scripture doth not must needs be unsound and unsafe The Scripture always when it speaks of the Son of God it is as he was in both natures God and Man and hence its safe to say that he was not the Son of God in the Divine nature only Had I met with this position concerning Christ by it self That he is not the Son of God in the Divine nature only charity would have moved me to hope that the design thereof though the words are harsh and improper had been no more then to assert the indissoluble union of the humane nature with the Divine
Book I answer I have in the following page given thee a specimen of Mr. Colliers strange Heterodoxies collected out of his Book for the most part in his own terms which with very many more contained therein are detected and refuted in this And give me leave to express my desires in the words of that holy man of old concerning what I have written Domine Deus unus Deus Trinitas quaecunque dixi in his libris de tuo agnoscant tui si qua de meo tu ignosce tui Amen! August Let God alone have the glory of any thing serviceable to the interest of his truth in this Treatise and interpret well my poor Essay towards the clearing thereof much weakness therein I am sensible of and know right well that one of deeper Judgement and greater abilities endued with a more plentiful anointing of the good spirit would have said much more in less room then I have done But seeing no other was engaged in this service my mite is humbly offered and that my weakness may be pardoned and my poor endeavours succeeded to some advantage if it be but of the weakest of Christs sheep and the reflecting of some glory to his holy Name is the earnest prayer of The unworthiest of his Servants N. C. Amongst the many gross Errours published by Mr. Collier in his Additional Word and refuted in this Treatise are these following 1. THat Christ is the Son of God only as considered in both natures Addit Word Ch. 1. p. 2. 2. As he was the Prince of Life the Lord of Glory was he killed and crucified and that was not in the humane nature only ch 1. p. 4. 3. As God-man he was a Creature ch 1. p. 9. 4. This Creature God-man made all things ch 1. p. 10. 5. The word God-man was made flesh ch 1. p. 11. 6. There are Increated Heavens for the Eternal God must have some Eternal habitation ch 1. p. 12. 7. Christ died for the Universe the Heavens and Earth and all things therein ch 2. p. 13. 8. The Gospel ought to be preached to the whole Creation even to that part of it that is not capable of hearing or understanding it ch 2. p. 16. 9. The Foolish Virgins shall obtain some great priviledge in the day of Christ ch 3. p. 23. 10. Those that never heard the Gospel cannot be under the Judgement of Damnation ch 4. p. 26. 11. The sinful defilement of our nature is not the sin but the affliction of man ch 4. p. 27. 12. It s possible for men in respect of power to believe the Gospel if God do not work at all upon them by his spirit ch 5. p. 31 32. 13. Regenerate Persons or True Believers may finally fall away from God and Perish ch 5. p. 36 c. 14. None shall be Eternally damned but those that sin against the holy Spirit ch 7. p. 47. 15. The Gospel hath been preached to men after they were dead ch 7 p. 48. 16. Men may repent so as to obtain deliverance from their torment after death and the last Judgement ch 7. p. c. 8. 17. Sluggish Christians and Formalists may find some mercy in the day of Judgement p. 51. 18. Perhaps the torment of some sinners may not exceed a 100 years p. 52. 19. The Sodomites have already received their Judgement and are still suffering thereof and the day of the general Judgement is like to be their day of ease p. 53. 20. The infinite Sacrifice of Christ remains the same to have its influence for the obtaining of Grace after the Judgement as before p. 54. CHAP. I. Concerning God The distinct Subsistencies in the Divine Nature And more especially the Person of the Son MR. Collier intimates in the beginning of his first Chapter That he had been from some private hand admonished of certain errors by him before published in his Body of Divinity which in this Chapter he endeavours to vindicate and makes this the occasion of the putting forth the whole of what we find in his Additional Word But verily this course is in no wise like to give satisfaction to them who before were justly offended For a man when he is blamed for swerving from the form of sound words and that Doctrine that is according to Godliness in some instances to repeat his errors with new Confidence instead of a retractation of them and then to add many more and more dangerous against the analogy of Faith yea the express words of Scripture and common sentiments of all that deserve the name of Christians is not the way to reconcile himself to the truth or to any true lovers thereof And that Mr. Collier hath thus done will be manifested in our progress We are plentifully instructed from the Scripture That there is but one only living and true God who is a most pure Spirit Eternal and Immutable Incomprehensible and infinitely perfect in his Being and all the properties thereof c. This also Mr. Collier professeth to own yet he hath in the close of this first Chapter of his Additional Word dropt an expression or two that seem to hold no very full harmony therewith He saith p. 12. As to the Omnipresence of God the Father I say what the Scripture saith which directeth us to the Father as in Heaven and that by his Spirit he is present in all places Omnipresence is an Essential property of God grounded on his Infiniteness it is as necessary to him to be Omnipâ—â—ent as to be God It is all one therefore whether we speak of the Omnipresence of the Father or of the Son or of the holy Spirit these three being that One incomprehensible and infinite Jehovah to whom all fear and worship is due And to deny it of any of them is to deny their Divinity And whereas Mr. Collier tells us That he saith what the Scripture saith c. That is not enough unless he make it manifest also That he saith it according to the true sense and intendment of the Spirit of God in those Scriptures he refers unto I am unwilling to entertain jealousies of any man but yet I must say That those Socinians who have most opposed the truth concerning the immensity of God have yet said as much as Mr. Collier here presents us with and to clear himself from suspicion in this matter when questioned about it more might justly have been expected from him The Scriptures indeed speak of God as in Heaven but that is as many other expressions in them â—re in a way of condescension to our capacity And we must always remember that those things that are spoken of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of men must be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a sense becoming God else we must immediately close with the gross and absurd Heresie of the Authropomorphites Seeing then that we conceive of no place so glorious as Heaven that is represented to us as the dwelling place or
by nature And in that it is to be begotten or brought forth that is here predicate of him it can be no other then the Divine nature subsisting in the incommunicable property of a Son that is here spoken of And an Illustrious exposition of these words you have Joh. 1 1. c. Bâ—t Mr. Collier saith The word translated brought forth is in the Hebrew formed else he could not be set up from Everlasting That the Hebrew word ought to be rendred for 〈…〉 he offers not to prove and his saying so doth not at all 〈…〉 ce it Nay either he is unacquainted with that Language which is very probable and took this by hearsay from some Arrian or else he doth wittingly impose upon his ignorant Reader that cannot contradict him The root from whence that word comes viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth properly signifie the pain and sorrow of a Woman in Travail Peculiare est parturientium nisumque parturiendi proprie significat Mercer and hence being formed in Pihel it signifies properly to cause to bring forth or to bring into the pain attending parturition so it is used Psal 29. 9. and in Pyhall as it is formed here it can signifie no other thing then to be brought forth according to its proper import It is granted that from hence it sometimes borroweth other significations as from the Grief of parturition iâ— is transferr'd to signifie any sorrow or grief and because the product of art in forming something is a kind of birth or bears some similitude to it being oft accomplished not without care and pain which also bear some similitude unto the pains of parturition it is sometimes transferr'd to signifie the formation of a thing by art or otherwise But this is a sure rule that the proper signification of a word is to be retained unless the circumstances of the Text or the analogy of Faith require the contrary But both favour yea necessitate this sense in this place It is impious to think that he which claims religious Worship to himself as Wisdom doth in the close of the Chapter is a formed creature only Mr. Collier adds If it be not so he could not be set up from Everlasting This doth not at all weaken but enforce what I have pleaded Divers able interpreters viz. Pagn Mont. Merc. Vatabl. read it I obtained a prinpality or was constituted a Prince from Everlasting The intendment of these words we have fully exprest Col. 1. 15 16. with Heb. 1. 2. The Son is Lord of the whole Creation and Heir of all things and this right of principality in him hath a double foundation 1. It is in him as he is the Son begotten of the substance of the Father having the same Essence with him and the Creator of all things 2. It is founded in the Covenant of Redemption made between the Father and him and is referred to his Mediatory kingdom The first belongs to him by necessity of nature from Everlasting unto his Mediatory kingdom and principality he was designed of God according to Covenant and fore-ordained from Everlasting There is then nothing in these words that will give Mr. Collier any relief what he further adds requires no answer So then here is a second witness to the Everlasting Son-ship of Christ before he was God-man I will mention one Text more where we have not only the thing but even the term plainly exprest Prov. 30. 4. Who hath established all the ends of the Earth what is his name or what is his Sons name if thou canst tell This Scripture fully holds forth That the Father had a Son before the Incarnation of Christ whose name was Wonderful and his Glory as unspeakable as that of the Father It is therefore the Son of God not as made flesh but as he was from Eternity with God having his Essence and Glory that is here mentioned But why do I stay to enumerate particular testimonâ—es seeing all those Scriptures that speak of his Divine nature do confirm the truth pleaded for Joh. 1. The word was God and the word was made flesh How and when he was made flesh the other Evangelists particularly relate But before that This word was in the beginning with God and he is acknowledged by Mr. Collier to be the second in the Trinity and that his title is the Son And indeed the being of the Divine Essence is not more necessary then the manner of its being i. e. the incommunicable relative properties thereof or the subsisting of the Father Son and holy Spirit therein I conclude therefore that it is not only safe and sound to assert but moreover that it always was an Article of the Common faith of Christians That the Son of God was before he was made flesh while he subsisted only in the form of God And to deny that he was the Son of God in the Divine nature only is by just consequence to deny that he hath a Divine nature seeing it either infers an utter denial of his pre-existence to his Incarnation or at least that the nature he had before was neither Person nor Son until it received its perfection and became both by the uniting of the Humane nature thereto By Mr. Colliers after-discourse it appears that he hath been cast upon those absurd contradictions that this Chapter is filled with by a very gross mistake of the Decree of God concerning Christ and the Prophecies of his coming in the flesh Because it was from Eternity decreed that the Son of God should become Immanuel he concludes that he is to be considered as being actually God-man from Everlasting and because it was foretold what he should be therefore he always was such an one But he may as well conclude That himself or any other thing that ever was is or shall be in nature had an Everlasting existence seeing the futurition of all these was from Everlasting determined in Gods Decree Having thus removed the foundation of his whole discourse on this subject I shall not trouble the Reader with a reply to every futilous cavil and contradiction I meet with in the remaining part of this Chapter but pass through it with all speed and brevity He proceeds to the second position which depends on the first viz. That he is the Son of God only as considered in both natures His reason for this is the same also in effect with his former and his whole plea in defence of it is already sufficiently enervated But because he here endeavours to wrest many Texts to countenance his notion I will in few words reply to his abuse of them The first is Joh. 1. 2. 14. Let that whole context be soberly considered and we need no more to reprove Mr. Colliers folly But he saith The Scriptures that speak of Christ as in the bosom of the Father before time speak of him as he came forth in time That the Son of God as to his Divine nature is the same yesterday to day