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
is Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one that is say they one in the same substance c. And a little after That Christ did not intend himself to be the Son of God in the Divine nature only is apparent Because he speaks of himself as he was the Son of God not as he was not viz. as he was God and man visible and not of the Divine nature only which was invisible and must have been an unseen Son which could not be understood This Text doth fully prove that Christ hath the same Essence with the Father and therefore without respect to his being made flesh was from Everlasting begotten of the substance of the Father and this generation is the foundation of that relative property of a Son in which he did subsist before the World was This we say and other Texts do so fully assert it and manifest its lying in the foundation of the Christian Religion that I will not doubt to say he is an Heretick that doth deny it In the following reasoning of Mr. C. it is evident he miserably begs the question it cannot he saith intend his Sonship in the Divine nature because in that only he was not the Son of God But this he should have proved not dictated against the testimony produced What he saith of the invisibility of the Son in the Divine nature may be as well applyed to the denial of the subsisting of the Father or Holy Spirit who also are the invisible God And Mr. C. can never prove that it is necessary unto the being of the Son of God that he should be visible The other Texts minded by him do divers of them speak expresly of a person sent into the world in our nature which was the Son of God and in that he is called the Son of God when found in fashion as a man it doth firmly prove the personal union of both natures in him but not in the least intimate that he was not a Son before he was a man as Mr. C. would seduce his Readers to believe And this may suffice to this Head also His third position is That he was the Word as God-man and man-God or as he explains it p. 8. That the same Word and Son of God God-man was made flesh c which falls in with his 6th position p. 11 How abundantly the Scriptures hold forth a distinction betwixt the Word that took Humane nature and the nature assumed by him hath been already manifested and that the Word was from Everlasting with God and was God the Humane nature not so And the absurdity of his 6th thesis is obvious even to a Child what was it for the Word to be made flesh but to become a man and if he was God-man from Everlasting how could he be made a man in time The truth is Mr. C. fairly intimates his good-will to deny Christs coming of the Seed of David as concerning the flesh for in answer to this objection he saith p. 11. He that was God and Man in Gods eye was made so in our eye when made or manifested in flesh So then he was a man before it seems only we knew it not and his Humane nature he took not of the Virgin but brought it from Heaven with him If this be not his sense he speaks nothing to the purpose and if it be I desire he would speak out in his next and the abomination of it shall be farther detected For the present he produceth nothing more that may give any seeming countenance to these notions or in the least free them from the highest absurdity I shall leave them therefore naked as they are proposed by him and follow him to his fourth Thesis That as God-man he was a Creature i. e. He was a Creature as God as well as in his Humane nature Verily Mr. Collier may as well perswade us That the Creature is God as that God is a Creature I will not suppose his Reader or mine to be utterly Bruitish and without understanding and therefore shall leave this idle and contradictious fiction to confute it self also Only I will add an exposition of Col. 1. 15. abused by him p. 10. where he falls in directly with the notion of the Arrian Hereticks and would perswade us That if Christ be not here considered as the first-born of every Creature as being one of them there is nothing in the Text. But the contrary is abundantly manifested by Dr. Owen in his answer to Biddle the Socinian his Catechism from whence I shall transcribe enough to stop Mr. C's mouth and to inform those that have not that Treatise by them Observe then Although in the 15 16 and 17 Verses the Apostle speaks of him who is the Mediator God-man yet he speaks not of him as Mediator but that he enters upon v. 18. But His present design being to set forth the excellent Glory of Christ he speaks of those things that appertain to him as God For The Creation of all thâ—â—gs by â—â—m is most emphatically exprest v. 16. together with the end of thâ—ir Creation they were created by him and for him he is the Heir of all things and in v. 17. His pre existence unto all things and his providence in supporting them and continuing that being to them which he gâ—ve them is asserted And on this account for this reason is he saâ—d to be the first-born of every Creature which are the words Mr. C. cavils at He therefore by whom all things all Creatures were Created is none of them otherwise he must Create himself He is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first-born â—ot the first Created that is the Prince Hâ—ir and Lord of the whole Creation so that his priviledge rule and inheritance of and over all Creatures is here exprest which suits the Apostles aim to set out the excellency of Christ above all Creatures His being begotten is opposed to the Creation of all things First in Scripture is sometimes used with respect to things going before in which sense it denies all order or series of things in the same kind so God is said to be the first Isa 41. 4. Because before him there is none Isa 43. 11. and in this sense is Christ the first born so the first born as to be the only begotten Son of God He is also said to be the beginning of the Creation of God because he giveth and continueth being to all Creatures And whereas Mr. C. saith he is a Creature and the Creator too we grant it but not secundam idem in tâ—e same nature As he was God he is the Creator as Man a Creature He saith farther in the 5th place That this Creature God man made all things As God-man he is not a meer Creature It is true Christ made all things as we saw in the preceding Text but not as man for he was made flesh long after but when he subsisted onâ—y in the
reflecting upon the different natures Angelical and Humane rejecting the former laying hold of the latter For here the dignity of the nature of Angels though in it sâ—lf superiour to the Humane and more near to the nature of God as being purely Spiritual and who are in that respect by way of eminency called the Sons of God Job 38. 7. was not chosen because the assumption of the Humane nature though in it self more inferiour was yet more proper and necessary for their sakes for whom he was the anointed of God as their High-Priest and Saviour Hence is plainly inferr'd not only his pre-existence as the Son of God before his choice and assumption of the Seed of Abraham viz. his taking upon him flesh but that he was also purely so subsisting in the Divine nature as to stand indifferent as to the assumption of the Angelical or Humane nature into the Unity of his Person otherwise then as he was pre-determined by the Decree Councel and Covenant of God in order to the work to which he was anointed Jo. 16. 28. I came forth from the Father and am come into the world again I leave the world and go to the Father Jo. 17. 5. And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with the glory I had with thee before the world was Jo. 8. 42 58. If God were your Father you would lâ—ve me for I proceeded forth and came from God neither came I of my self but he sent me Before Abraham was I am What words can express more directly the relation of Christ unto God the Father as his Son considered singly in his Divine nature It was some 1000 of years after Abraham that we had the knowledge of this mystery by Divine revelation God manifest in Flesh The Word was made Flesh That was accomplished in the fulness of time But from all Eternity he was the I am the Son of God and as such came forth from God And herein also we may note that he declares not only his own action and motion but also his Fathers his mission It was not only his own undertaking though he was therein also voluntary Wherefore he saith when he cometh into the world Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldst not but a body hast thou prepared me Then said I â—o I come to do thy will O God In order to the perfect observance of this will of his Father for the performance whereof he had in time a Body prepared fitted for him which he had not before The Father sends him and he comes both are active and spontaneous herein for the accomplishing of this great work the Reconciliation Redemption and Salvation of sinful and lâ—â—t man The Lord Christ did not then first acquire his being or relation unto God the Father as his Son But being from Eternity the brightness of his Fathers Glory and express Image of his Person after he had by the appointment of his Father and his own voluntary undertaking vailed his Deity humbled himself and taken upon him the form of a Servant and therein performed the work his Father gave him to do he prays to be restored to the same not any other for there could be no greater Glory conferr'd upon him as to his Divine nature then what he had with his Father before the world was Joh. 6. 38. I came down out of Heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me Gal. 4. 4 6. When the fulness of time was come God sent out his Son And because you are Sons God hath sent out the Spirit of his Son into your hearts c. In these Texts compared with their Contexts you have again a full discovery of him who was by God the Father anointed to be the Saviour of the world His being in the Flesh was now manifest to all that conversed with him it needed no proof he carried about with him a self demonstration that he was made of a Woman made under the Law The great thing that the Jews and all the world were to be fully informed in and convinced of was that the Person now manifest in the flesh was the Saviour the Christ the Lord. And for the evidencing of this great and important truth it was necessary that the Lord Christ should not only speak and do as never man before him spake and did but also prove his descent whence he was and wherefore he came into the world And in that respect together with all the testimonies born of him immediately from Heaven by God the Father and the holy Angels we have him frequently asserting his Original himself I came down from Heaven Hence it was that the Jews at this season took occasion for their murmuring Jo. 6. 42. Is not this Jesus the Son of Joseph whose Father and Mother we know how is it then that he saith I came down from Heaven In answer to this Objection the Lord Christ tells the Jews that in order to a true saving knowledge of his Person who and whence he was it was necessary they should be taught of God Blessed art thou Simon Barjona for Flesh and Blood hath not revealed this to thee but my Father which is in Heaven And that they might know his original and his immediate and uninterrupted relation to God as his Father notwithstanding his then present state of Humiliation in the Flesh he tells them from whence he was who he was and wherefore he came into the world The medium he uses to prove his relation to God as his Father is not his being born of a Virgin Abrahams or Davids Seed though that be also true and most proper to prove him who is the Son of God to be also that Son of man the Messiah that was promised But he proves it by his descent from Heaven his seeing of the Father which no man ever did or could do his being of God And because the exceptions to what he affirmed both by the Jews and his Disciples were taken from his being in the flesh Therefore to shew that the Hypostatical Union of God and Man in him had not deprived him of his dignity of the Son of God he speaks of himself under the notion as they apprehended him of being the Son of Man as he then also was And asks his Disciples what and if you see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before which is further explained Jo. 3. 13 14. ch 12. 32. Eph. 4. 10. His condescension to take upon him flesh to become the Son of Man and in that nature to suffer death upon the Cross was no deprivation of his Divinity nor derogation from his Person he still asserts even from thence his then present being in Heaven The Divine and Humane nature subsisting in his Person had not removed the Deity out of Heaven but by that intimate conjunction given the Humanity from the dignity of his Person a claim to Heaven and right of Ascension thither He did not therefore descend
that he might always remain upon earth but that after he had finished his Fathers work which he was to do in the flesh he might carry the Humane nature with him into Heaven whither he was to ascend again So that since his uniting of the Humane to the Divine nature in his own person whether he was spoken of as the Son of God according to his Divinity or as the Son of David according to his Humanity under which notion soever he was spoken of either as the Son of God or the Son of Man he being in both natures but one entire person was still truly said to be in Heaven not that it was or could ever be supposed that his claim to Heaven and his being there did arise from his being the Son of Man but as he himself asserts from his coming down from thence his coming and being sent from his Father and yet remaining always with his Father He and his Father being one He that descended is the same also that ascended there neither was nor could there be admitted any change of the Person It is also observable that Gal. 4. 6. the same word is used for the sending forth of the Spirit of his Son by God the Father into the hearts of his adopted Sons that is used for the sending forth of his Son into the world This is no slender evidence of the Eternity and Divinity of Christ that he hath the same relation to the holy Spirit with the Father 1 Pet. 1. 11. It was the Spirit of Christ that was in the Prophets of old that long before his Incarnation did foretell thereof and of his sufferings and the Glory that should follow David himself said by his Spirit The Lord said unto my Lord sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool as to his Divinity he is the root of David who according to his Humanity was his off-spring Rev. 22. 16. The Vision of Isaiah ch 6. was true and the voice of the Angels a real voice who cried as to the time then present holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts the whole Earth is full of his Glory And if the Application of this vision of the Prophet and voice of the Angels by the Evangelist Jo. 12. 41. be also true what more clear evidence can be given of the Lord Christs subsisting in the Divine nature before his descension from Heaven and assumption of the Humane nature Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of thine hands they shall perish but thou remainest they shall wax old as doth a garment and as a vesture thou shalt fold them up and they shall be changed but thou art the same and thy years shall not fail From these and many other the like Texts is the Divinity of the Lord Christ fully asserted and by the writings of the Apostles directed by the Holy Spirit since his Incarnation applyed to him By whom we are given to understand that the Prophets aforetime spake of our Lord Christ and thereby is made known to us the dignity of his person as the Alpha and Omega But I would have Mr. Collier ingeniously consider whether he or any other man without this future revelation and explication could have gathered any such doctrine as the Manhood coexisting with the Godhead in the person of Christ from all Eternity or that he who in the beginning laid the foundations of the Earth and made the Heavens was when he did this work Man as well as God or that since this revelation and application of these sayings to the person of Christ can say any otherwise then that these titles and operations are referr'd to the Son of God as he subsisted in his Divine nature with the Father And if this be so let Mr. Collier be convinc'd and acknowledge that the Scriptures do sometimes and that frequently speak of the Son of God as in the Divine nature only and not always as he was in both natures God and Man CHAP. II. Of Election I Shall for the better order sake pass over his second Chapter at present and consider in the next place what he proposeth in his third of Election Only this I desire the Reader to take notice of once for all that I intend not to make Mr. C.'s discourse an occasion of going over the Heads of the Controversie betwixt us and the Arminians in a full stating and handling of those points It hath been sufficiently done by others both formerly and of late but my present design is only to remove those stumbling-blocks that he in this Book hath endeavoured to cast before weak Christians Thus he begins p. 18. Of this I have spoken something too in my Confession of Faith or Body of Divinity but in this I shall speak a little more full and plain I will not undertake to justifie all he hath said about Election in his Body of Divinity but I must say that in this he is gone farther out of the way of truth and instead of speaking more full and plain to the business he involves himself in many absurdities and gross errors which before he kept off from He proceeds to explain the term Election or to elect or choose from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture ordinarily imports to choose or to be chosen What Mr. Collier designs in getting these Greek words into his Book I know not one that understands not the Greek can tell him that to elect or choose ordinarily imports to choose But I confess he must have more learning then I that can readily conceive how to elect or choose should import to be chosen which Mr. C. adds Election indeed is sometimes put to signifie â—ersâ—ns chosen the abstract being put for the concrete He proceeds to his division of Election unto which I shall oppose a brief account thereof from the Scripture and so free the teâ—m from ambiguity that we may proceed without interruption Election as it is attributed to God may be variously considered 1. There is frequent mention in Scripture of Election unto some function or office either Ecclesiastical or Political 2. There is an Election unto a participation of some peculiar benefits and favours from God and this may be distinguished into that which is 1. General In which sense a Person or Nation is said to be chosen of God when they partake of such an adoption as that they are brought into some covenant with God and are reputed his people so the Israelites were an Elect Nation 2. Special and that is Gods choosing unto Eternal life and it is either of Angels or Men And it is this Election and the concernment of men therein that we are to consider and as Mr. Pâ—lhil well observes p. 24. of the Div. Will this is variously express'd in the Scripture It is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 8. 28. because it is Gods purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
this high and holy place being increated But to manifest that Mr. Collier speaks not only without the Scriptures but against the Scriptures herein let these Texts be considered Thus the Heavens were finished and all the Host of them Gen. 2. 1. He commanded and the Heaven of Heavens were created Psal 48. 4 5. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Hosts of them Psal 33. 6. what the Hosts of Heaven are you may understand by 2 Chron. 18. 18. Luke 2. 13. And if these Hosts of Heaven the holy Angels do always behold the face of God and all of them both place and Inhabitants were part of the six days creation as Exod. 20. 11. And if the face of God be beheld where his glory is displayed in the greatest splendour then certainly there is no colour nor place left for any increated Heavens And why cannot Mr. Collier conceive of the Eternal God without an Eternal Habitation distinct from himself If he must have such an habitation it is either because his happiness would not be perfect without it which is to make him dependant on something beside himself and to deny his Godhead by denying his self-sufficiency or else it must be because his being is such as is determined and limited by certain bounds as Bodies are properly said to be in such or such a place because they are circumscribed within some space that they fill up Created spirits though in a more improper sense yet are truly said to be in a place because though they have not parts and dimensions as bodies have so filling up the place where they are nor can be punctually circumscribed as they may yet they are so in some certain place as not to be at the same time without it or elsewhere Now therefore when we conceive of the being of either of these we must also conceive of some space susceptive of them which we call place because they are finite But what place can we conceive of for his dwelling therein who is immense and indistant to all places and things present to all by and in his infinite essence and being but contained in none He adds If God hath prepared a Building a House for his people not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens 2 Cor. 5. 1. Methinks it should be no crime to say that he hath an Eternal habitation for himself suitable to his name and nature and if Eternal then Increated I suppose the ambiguity of the word Eternal which Mr. Collier meets with in the Text is the occasion of his mistake in part If we look into the Scriptures we shall find mention made of a threefold duration 1. That which is absolutely Eterna without beginning or end and this is proper to God alone 2. That which hath a beginning but shall have no end which for distinction sake is commonly called Aeviternity And 3. That which hath a beginning and shall have an end which is time Now the term Eternal is indifferently used in the Scripture to signifie either of the two former but this ambiguity is easily removed if we consider the subject spoken of when it is applyed to God we must take it in the first sense but when unto Creatures in the second so then the Apostle as is clear from the scope of the Text when he speaks of an House Eternal in the Heavens doth not intend a building that had been from Everlasting but such an one as notwithstanding its Creation for it was made though without hands by the power of God in time should not decay as the earthly house of our Tabernacle doth but abide incorruptible for ever And let not Mr. C. think that because we need a house a building in the Heavens to compleat our happiness that therefore the former of all things doth so So then this Text will not bear the weight he lays on it And when in the close he infers from the Eternity of Gods dwelling place that it is also increated he might have added and then God for this necessarily follows upon the grant of the other and by this very medium Mr. Collier in his Body of Divinity p. 85. proves that Angels are created beings His words are these Reason teacheth that they must be and are created oâ— else they must be Eternal which is proper to none but God and if so they must be God but they are not God c. and by that Mr. C. may see that he hath intangled himself in medling with things that he understands not But I shall proceed The Scripture doth also instruct us concerning the subsistence of God or the manner of his being and this is such a glorious mystery as by his word only is revealed to us We cannot by reason comprehend it but ought to adore it and by Faith rest in his testimony concerning it In 1 Joh. 5. 7. we are taught that there are three that do subsist in the Divine essence and that these three are the Father the Word and the Spirit who are the one true God Here then is set before us the Divine essence subsisting in three relative properties The relative property of the Father is to begâ—t Ps 2. 7. Joh. 3. 16. The relative property of the Son is to be begotten The relative properly of the Holy Spirit is to be breathed or to proceed from the Father and the Son Joh. 15. 26. Rom. 8. 9 c. Now unto these relative properties belong all imaginable perfection but no imperfection because they are in God Therefore as considered in him they do inferr personality because a personal subsistence is the most perfect manner of being in the whole reasonable nature And throughout the Scriptures when the Father Son or Holy Ghost are distinctly spoken of those terms are made use of that are proper only unto a person and personal operations are every where ascribed to them Though in our conception of personality in the Divine nature we must separate from it whatsoever imperfection is seen in a created person Every created person hath a limited essence distinct and distant one from another But all the increated persons in the Deity have the same immense undivided essence and are the one Eternal immortal invisible only wise God In created persons also there is difference of time in the proceeding of one from the other but here though there be an Eternal order of origination there is no priority of time or nature Add hereunto the warranty of this term from Hebr. 1. 3. where it is applied to the Father and there is the same reason for our using it when we speak of the Son or Spirit and I cannot see why Mr. C. should reject or except against it as he doth p. 11 12. and in his Bod. of Div. However I shall not strive about words if the thing be owned But it is commonly seen that men have been offended with apt terms because the things expressed by them have been displeasing to
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
and for ever is certain and that the Godhead of Christ underwent no change when he was made flesh is before proved But that he took not into a personal Union with himself a nature he had not before when he was made flâ—sh is false and absurd and directly opposeth the very terms of the Text produced by him Indeed it is too evident that Mr. Collier doth not understand the force of the particle as which he so frequently useth and therefore he supposeth that whatsoever is spoken of the Person that was God-man is indifferently spoken of either nature as such in that Person Whereas although the Body and Soul of man do make up but one Humane nature in ordinary discourse we hear those things attributed to that Person who is both animal and rational of which some belong to him only as he is animal viz. to eat drink sleep dye others only as he is rational viz. to understand deliberate will c. It is to be bewailed that a man which stumbles at such things as thâ—se should become troublesome to the World by Printing his impertinencies The next Scripture insisted on by him is Rom 8. 29. unto which we may add Eph. 1. 4. 1 Tim. 1. 9. Mr. Colliers reasonings from these Scriptures is to this purpose God did choâ—se and bless his people in Christ before the World was even in Christ the anointed who is the Son of God and was then with the Father But he is not Christ in the Divine nature only nor in the Humane nature only but as God-man Therefore as God man he was with the Father before time and as such only is his Son It is true that God did never intend the salvation of any sinners but in and by Christ and when God did before time choose a remnant in him he had a respect to his Incarnation and redeeming of them according to the terms of the Covenant between the Father and Christ They were chosen then in Christ considered as one that had undertaken to be a Mediator betwixt God and men and in order to the accomplishing of what he so undertook in the fulness of time to become Immanuel the Messiah or anointed â—f the Lord It is true also that Christ is the Son of God But that he is so as the Christ and could not have been so unless he had been our Saviour or that he was anointed to be the Son of God and was not so by nature is impious and false So likewise to conceit that he was actually God-man when we were chosen in him as Mr. Collier doth can arise from no other ground but his confounding the Decree of God with the execution thereof And let but the Reader compare Phil. 2. referr'd to by him with 1 Pet. 1. 20. with which he closeth this Section and he will need no other antidote against Mr. Colliers Doctrine The next series of Texts abused by him are these wherein we have prediction of Christs coming in the flesh divers of which he cites p. 3. and concerning them he saith The Scriptures that foretell of him before he was come in the flesh so speak of him as to come viz. God and Man c. If there be any kind of argument in that Section it must be this which to recite is to confute The Scriptures that foretell Christs coming in the flesh speak of the Son of God But they foretell that the Messiah should be God-man ergo He iâ— the Son of God only as considered in both natures I might ansâ—er as pâ—rtinently as he argues Si placet Domine negatur Applicatiâ— as a young Scholar once replyed to his Tutor It is strange that a man who undertakes to teach others should yet himself bâ— to learn to distinguish between predictions and their fulfilling He finds it foretold that the Son of God should be incarnate Ergo He always was so But it is just with God to leave men to such absurdities in undertakings of this kind as Mr. Collier is now engaged in He proceeds p. 4 5 to reckon up many of those Texts that speak of the birth of Christ his converse with men in the days of his Flesh his Death Resurrection and Sâ—â—sion at the right hand of God all which are cleared and his exceptions removed by that which I laid down in my entry upon this point whither I refer the Reader desiring him to remind Rom. 9. 5. with other Texts of like import that frequently occur in the New Testament I know Mr. Collier scornfully rejects what I insist on in his 8th page But offers no reason for his so doing and the contradiction yea blasphemy that he runs upon in refusing that truth may warn us to give the more heed thereto Thus he writes p. 4. § 5. And as he was the Prince of life Act. 3. 15. the Lord of Glory 1 Cor. 2. 8. was he killed and crucified and certainly that was not in the Humane nature only for so he could not be the Prince of Life and Lord of Glory I wish Mr. Collier had seriously thought of that saying Prov. 30. 6. Add thou not unto his words least he reproove thee and thou be found a lyar In the Scriptures cited by him there is no such thing written that as he was the Prince of Life c. he was killed and crucified They say indeed That the Prince of Life was killed and the Lord of Glory was Crucified So the Scripture saith also that God purchased his Church by his blood and laid down his Life for us The person that died was very God the Prince of Life and Lord of Glory but it was in his Humane nature and not in his Divine that he suffered although both made but one person and to reject this and say with Mr. Collier that as God c. his Bloud was shed he was crucified and died i. e. that all these things befell the Divine as well as the Humane nature is impious to that degree as may make a tender heart bleed and the ears of a godly man to tingle He saith in the same Section That unscriptural notion doth not reach the case that the Humane nature suffered and the Divine nature satisfied it is the same who suffered that satisfied The common faith of Christians about this matter is That the same Jesus who suffered made satisfaction to Divine Justice for their sins but that his sufferings were in his Humane nature only and the worth of them for satisfaction to Justice did arise from the Union of the Humane nature with the Divine in one person so that the Godhead of Christ put an infinite value into his sufferings This he offers not to disprove and they have taken it up on better grounds then to part with it because he boldly censures it as an unscriptural notion In p. 5. c. Mr. Collier doth also undertake to give answer to some Texts produced to prove thâ—t Christ was the Son of God in the Divine nature The first
that which they have been warned to flee from by those that know the terrour of the Lord. These with some other things of like import prevailed with me to account it necessary That those precious truths opposed by him should be vindicated from his cavils and reproaches though for my self I can truly say I had much rather for many reasons some other of my Brethren had undertaken this work and I have many witnesses this task was imposed on not sought by me for I have no such esteem of my ability as to desire to trouble the world in Print and therefore I beg a candid interpretation of my appearing in publick on this occasion In my answer I have been forced very briefly to touch upon many of Mr. Colliers notions being desirous to bring it into as little room as might be lest by its length it should be rendred the less serviceable to many of those for whose good it was chiefly intended and therefore have passed over many things more remote from the main controversie in silence which otherwise might have deserved some remark Amongst which you may reckon that which so often occurs in his Book viz. This and that is true in a Gospel sense or some Scripture sense which sense he yet gives us no account of but what we must gather from his accommodation of that which he saith is true in a Gospel sense to his own absurd Opinions which may serve to amuse and deceive his ignorant and unwary Reader This I am abundantly satisfied in That what I have asserted against Mr. Collier is plainly confirmed in the Scripture of truth and agreeable to that Doctrine which the Church of God hath always been possessed of and are no new notions of my own coyning and therefore I hope by the Grace of Christ to be enabled farther to clear and strengthen what I have written if occasion be really offered by Mr. Collier his making such a reply as hath any colour of reason urged against it otherwise I shall not concern my self with a noise of vain words but rest satisfyed in that I have once for all born my witness against him and detected his Errors I earnestly desire that God would give him Repentance unto the acknowledgement of the truth that by his own recantation of what he hath published so contrary thereto and offensive to true Christians this contest may have an end put to it And forasmuch as I understand Mr. Collier pretends some respect to the Labours of Dr. Usher I could heartily wish he would seriously read over his Body of Divinity and his Treatise of the Incarnation of the Son of God called Immanuel printed at the end thereof that if he will not attend to what I have written yet he may by that holy man be better informed about the principles of Christianity And that he may for the future escape that absurdity and confusion he hath cast himself into in his first Ch. concerning the Person of Christ I desire he would compare this observation of the Dr. with what I have written on the same head to the same purpose By reason of the strictness of the personal Union whatsoever may be verified of either of those natures the Divine or Humane the same may be truly spoken of the whole Person from whethersoever of the natures it be denominated And let him take in the other parts of that discourse with it wherein he solidly proves that the Son of God took the nature of man not an humane person into a personal Vnion with himself and so was manifest in flesh and wrought out our Redemption as also his pithy and pious discourse of this subject in his Body of Divinity p. 164 165. c. and it may prove of singular use to guide him out of that labyrinth of Errour he is at present lost in if more gross tenets do not lye in the bottom of his discourses then he is yet willing to speak out plainly before the world which I would not suggest my suspicion of did I not discern ground for it in what he hath already written especially if compared with the Heresies formerly espoused by him but being willing to wait for his more plain and ingenuous opening of his own sense I have for the present passed over many things especially in his first Ch. that are of an harsh sound in Christian ears though clouded in ambiguous terms expecting that his Rejoynder will either give me occasion to put a better sense upon those phrases then the words at present seem well to bear or else engage me to a farther detection of his abomination couched in them With the latter part of Mr. Colliers Book which he intitles An healing word I have not concerned my self though divers things therein are lyable to just exception but I must tell him There can be no Gospel Peace without truth nor Communion of Saints without an agreement in fundamental principles of the Christian Religion We must contend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints and mark those that cause divisions among us by their new Doctrines contrary thereto and avoid them And lest any should be deceived by Mr. Colliers good words and fair speeches I cannot but take notice that his General Epistles were ushered into the world with the same pretext of making peace and discharge of his Conscience and with as great shew of zeal for God and other as plausible pretences as any he now maketh or can make And yet one shall hardly find more contradictory and blasphemous notions in the writings of any called or pretending to be Christians then in them For besides his contempt of the holy Scriptures and all Ordinances there he tells us To have Communion and Fellowship with the Father is to be one in Common with God to have fellowship is to be Gods fellow so is Christ so are Saints p. 243. Christ is no more then a Christian p. 244. with other like blasphemies which I abhor the recital of These things indeed as I am informed he saith he hath repented of but never yet thought himself obliged to publish to the world an ingenuous recantation of them that so those concerned might have from himself a plain and particular warning to take heed of that poison which hath flowed from his own pen however it may be a good warning to us not to heed the smooth or swelling words of a man carried about with every wind of Doctrine I have but a word or two more and that is to acquaint thee that I have been troubled for the delays that this little work hath met with both before and since it went to the Press which yet I could not help I have taken what care I could that Errata's in Printing it might be prevented and desire that those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which do occur may be pardoned and amended in reading I hope they are not many nor very material And that thou maist the sooner have a taste of the
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
in one person since the incarnation of the Son of God But his defence thereof together with his following positions will in no wise admit this sense but determine his meaning to be That Christ is no otherwise nor ever was the Son of God but as he was God-man considered in both natures Whence it necessarily followeth That either he had no existence before the days of Augustus Caesar when he was born of the Virgin or else that he had both natures and was a man before he came of the Seed of David as concerning the flesh And this last absurdity he seems not to stick at in his following lines The argument he endeavours to confirm his notion by may be thus framed That which the Scripture no where affirms is unsound and unsafe for any man to affirm But the Scripture no where affirms Christ to be the Son of God in the Divine nature-only Ergo For any man to affirm it is unsound and unsafe If his meaning in his first proposition be that every notion that is not either exprest in terms in the Scripture or by just consequence deduced from it for ex veris nil nisi verum is unsound we grant it But then his assumption is false and must be denied All the inforcement he gives it is in these words The Scripture always when it speaks of the Son of God it is as he was in both natures God and Man But I shall prove the contrary by an instance or two out of those many that might be produced from the Scripture The first is Psal 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made This text I do the rather mention because Mr. C. confesseth p. 2. That it is the Son of God that is here spoken of under the name of the Word And it is evident that he is nor here spoken of as he was God-man but only as he did subsist in the form of God The design of the Psalmist being to set forth the Glory of his Eternal Power and God-head by enumerating some of his great works in this and the following Verses As he is the Creator of all things is his praise here celebrated long before he became Immanuel by taking our nature The next Scripture I urge for the proof of Christs being spoken of as the Son of God before his Incarnation is Prov. 8. from v. 22. to the end of the Chapter Which Text hath always been a grievous eye-sore to the enemies of the Son of God and hath by the Orthodox been pleaded with great advantage both against the Arrians and Socinians The last mentioned have laid in all the Cavils they could devise to perswade men that it is not the Son of God that is here intended and with them Mr. Collier joyns and puts in his exceptions also against the application of it to him p. 7. The learned know where and by whom this Text with others have been fully vindicated from their exceptions And amongst others Dr. Owen in his Exercitations prefixed to the second part of his Exposition of the Hebrews p. 37. c. hath so learnedly and solidly asserted the truth by me pleaded for from this Text with so full an answer to all Socinian cavils against it as leaves no ground for Mr. Colliers saying That it is a question too hard for any man to resolve whether this Scripture intend the Son of God or not His fond trifling in the exposition of it I shall not trouble my self with but only remove his exceptions laid in against the true sense of it which being established his gloss upon it vanisheth without farther trouble That an intelligent person is intended in this Text almost every Verse in the Chapter doth confirm for all kind of personal properties are ascribed to it and if we compare this with chap. 1. 21. ad finem we must acknowledge That Wisdom speaking in them is a person and a Divine person too unto whom all fear and obedience is due or else there is no such mentioned in the Scripture Moreover Christ is expresly called Wisdom in the New Testament Mat. 11. 19. 1 Cor. 1. 30. and the word there is of the Feminine Gender as well as here which evinceth the vanity of that cavil of Mr. Collier That Christ is not intended Because the Wisdom here spoken of is in the Feminine Gender What terms can express at once the whole of his Glory who is infinite Neither is there any thing here spoken of Wisdom that is not in other Scriptures attributed to Christ as we may see in a brief paralel v. 22. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way c. Joh. 1. In the beginning was the word v. 23. I was set up from Everlasting c. Mic. 5. 2. whos 's goings forth have been from of old from Everlasting So 2 Tim. 1. 9. Grace is said to be given us in Christ before the World began v. 25 Before the Mountains were settled before the Hills I was brought forth Col. 1. 25 17. He is the first born of every Creature and before all v. 29 30. When he appointed the foundations of the Earth Then I was by him Joh. 1. 2. And the word was in the beginning with God I was daily his delight rejoycing always before him Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased v. 32. Now therefore hearken unto me O ye Children Mat. 17. 5. Hear ye him Thus might I pass through the whole context but this sufficeth at present Mr. Collier still objecteth That here is no mention of the Son under that name and title That Christ is not here called the Son of God in terms doth not in the least weaken the testimony of this Scripture seeing it is manifest that such a person is here spoken of as can be no other then the Son of God And the relative property of the second subsistence in the Divine nature is so expresly mentioned that it is abundantly evident he is here spoken of as the Son of God before time This we find first v. 22. The Lord possessed me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning of his ways The word signifies either to acquire something or to possess it being acquired Now amongst other ways of acquiring Acquisition and so possession by right of paternity or generation is one so the same word is used Gen. 4. 2. and as the circumstances of the Text do necessitate us to embrace that sense here so the following words do put it out of doubt For thus he proceeds v 24. When there were no deeps was I brought forth and again v. 25. Before the Hills I was brought forth The word is the same in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in like manner by many learned Interpreters rendred brought forth Psal 51. 5. So then here is the Eternal generation of the person spoken of In that it is from Everlasting it can be applicable to none but he that is God
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
If we may suppose the Ministry to go without the spirit working therein then we may suppose a pâ—ssibility in respect of power else men could not be condemned for not believing c. The absurd folly of his supposition That by our sin we out God short of right to command our Obedience to his holy will as well as loose our power to obey hath been already detected By this and what followeth you may see what I said before that this man doth not stick at the grossest Pelagianisme but supposeth man in his fallen state by his corrupt mind and natural capacity without any work of Gods spirit upon him to be capable of discâ—rning believing and yielding acceptable Obedience to the revelations of God contained in the Scriptures of truth Howbeit we have heard the Scripture teacheth other Doctrine And the Apostle Paul was so far from this proud conceit of himself that he confesseth the quite contrary viz. 2 Cor. 3. 5. That we are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves but our sufficiency is of God i. e. It is of God in a way of Grace who works all our works in us But against the saying of the Apostle he excepts p. 43. It s true as of our selves only we are not distinct from Christ and Gospel Grace we are not but by the helps afforded there is power both to will and to do the will of God in the Gospel It seems by these words of Tho. Collier That he is conscious to himself that this Text doth overthrow his notion of the sufficiency of men without any help of the spirit of God to do any thing that is truly and spiritually Good especially those that are utter strangers to Christ and Gospel-Grace for he now owns that distinct from Christ and Gospel-Grace we have no such sufficiency But he doth not use to trouble himself to keep an harmony in his Book betwixt pages so far distant as is 31. from p. 43. and therefore it is no marvel to find him here unsaying what before he said and instead of that to content himself for the present with asserting That there is a sufficient help afforded to all c. But brings forth no proof of that neither but besides what hath been already proved against him I shall farther examine this notion before I come to the end of this Chapter and at present manifest that it is overthrown by this Text The Apostle doth in these words not with a feigned modesty but from his heart confess he is beholding to the Grace of God for every good thing wrought in him or by him And therefore he instanceth in that which scarce amounts to any good work even a thought when he affirmeth our sufficiency to be of God and denyeth that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient or meet for it any way capable of our selves to exert or frame a good thought in our own Breasts and this he denies of himself when converted and refers all the praise of the exercise of Grace in his Soul to the spirit of God even then now it is less to think then to will and less to will then to perform And if our ability for the former be denied it must be so much more for the latter And if it be denied of a converted man much more of one unconverted It is repugnant to reason and Scripture evidence to think that the blessed Apostle a person in all respects qualified with natural endowments and education yea in an eminent manner assisted by the Spirit of God should say that he had no sufficiency of his own for any thing that was truly good and in the mean while to suppose that any unconverted person hath power of himself to be so good in thought will and deed as to get to Heaven by the meer improvement of his natural capacity without any assistance of Divine Grace In p. 32. he farther opens his mind about conversion and tells us If God did not work at all by his spirit but only give the Gospel which hath in its self a natural tendency to draw sinners to Christ if according to their capacities they believe and obey it they should undoubtedly be saved There are two things supposed in these words the one true the other utterly untrue a common artifice of Deceivers to make their notions pass the more readily with the weak that cannot discover their imposture herein 1. He supposeth that whosoever believeth and obeyeth the Gospel by any means is under the promise of salvation which is a great truth thâ—se two viz. Faith and Salvation being inseparably connected in the Scripture 2. He takes it for granted as before That a man in his natural Estate without any the least assistance from the spirit of God hath a sufficient ability and is in a capacity to beâ—ieve and obey the Gospel And so all that he allows to the spirit oâ— God is but to render the work of conversion the more facile and easie for thus he writes again p. 33. That after believing and obeying the Gospel God usually gives a greater measure of his spirit so that after believing Christians are or might be in a better capacity to live to God then before They were therefore in a capacity to live to God before believing and again p. 34. As the Apâ—stle speaks in the matter of prayer Rom. 8. 26. He helpeth our infirmities so its true in all cases the work of the Spirit is to help our infirmities for it s we that dâ— believe and obey the Gospel and not the Spirit The result or necessary consequence of these words of his is That persons may believe and never be beholding to the Spirit they can convert themselves without him But if he do ex abundanti afford his help it is not to convert the Soul by his own power and grace but only to facilitate the work by exciting a principle that he finds in the Soul and which was there before any special working of his in and upon it But if we consult the holy Scriptures we shall find that in them conversion is spoken of in a Dialect far differing from Mr. Colliers For instance Jam. 1. 18. Of his own will hath he begotten us c. Now this new birth or being begotten of God doth bespeak plainly the infusing of that gracious principle into the Soul that was not there before and this is done by the Spirit of God in the exercise of Soveraign Grace As the wind bloweth where it listeth so of his own will hath he begotten us Of the same import is that phrase of taking the heart of stone out of the flesh and giving an heart of flâ—sh a new heart so often mentioned in the Covenant of Grace and can signifie no less then the effectual removing and curing of that wicked disposition of Soul and stubbornness of heart by which a person is kept in rebellion against God by communicating to them a divine nature as
they should have continued with us 1 Joh. 2. 19 But the Scripture no where saith as Mr. Collier supposeth that these are in a saved condition and Heirs of Glory before their rottenness at heart is discovered or that any sincere sound Believer ever did or ever shall return from life to death from a state of redemption by Christ and reconciliation unto God into a state of bondage and enmity against God from a state of Justification before God into a state of condemnation and wrath The Scripture also fully declares that there are some who are the called according to Gods purpose a remnant according to the Election of grace that obtain like precious Faith through the effectual and saving operation of the holy Ghost who dwells in them and by whose indwelling they are made lively members of Christs mystical Body espoused to him and one spâ—rit with him but that any other then the Elect of God predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Son called by his grace to the Obedience of Faith are or ever were in a state of salvation The Scripture no where teacheth but the contrary Those that are not Vessels of mercy are Vessels of wrath And that fiction of his p. 33. That the spirit worketh in all Gospel believers as he calls them alike which are the Elect in the threefold sense minded by him which might all obtain were they sincere and constant to the end is in this 35th page in part refuted by himself whilst he tells us That the work of the spirit on the special Elect is certain and infallibly brings them to Glory but on others some do wholly resist it others though for a time they savingly comply with it yet at last undo all again and dostroy it Certainly then here is a peculiar work of the spirit to be allowed in and upon the special Elect which in Scripture phrase are the only Elect unto Salvation Yet he supposeth that others are savingly wrought upon besides them and some of these persevâ—re others fall away and that many more are convinced and all have a sufficient work so as they might obtain the end even those who notwithstanding never believe nor are converted to God And probably the thing he drives at in this Question is whether God doth more for and the Spirit worketh more powerfully in one of these then the other And first he pretends that this is a great secret and God onely knows it but according to his principles it is easily resolved in the Negative For although as the Arminians say God draws some modo congruo and others modo non congruo So that some have external and circumstantial advantages beyond others yet there is no specifical difference in the drawing it self both the one and the other is only by way of moral swasion not physical operation objective and external not subjective and internal and the turning cast still lies on the will of Man not the efficacy of Grace And I marvel that he should pretend so much modesty in this point who but a little before hath asserted that which all sober Arminians protest against viz. The sufficiency or ability of man to believe without any help from the holy Ghost We have now met with Mr. Colliers assertion That there is a sufficient work of the Spirit upon all so that they might obtain the end repeated ad nauseam usque It may not be amiss therefore to look into it a little more strictly I say then 1. Upon whomsoever the Spirit works in any degree it is more then they deserve it is of grace and not of debt he is no way obliged to do so much for them and even the common workings of the Spirit have in their own nature a tendency towards a farther good in the conversion of the Soul were they not opposed and stifled by the enmity that is in mans heart unto God But 2. To pass over many other things that might be urged If the work of the Spirit upon all men be sufficient to bring them to Heaven how cometh it to pass that all men are not saved It will be answered Because many refuse to comply with and resist his working upon and striving with them Be it so I ask again From whence ariseth his opposition to the Spirit of God and his work in the Souls of men Certainly from that corruption of nature and aversion of will from God wherein all men are immerst by the faâ—l But then the Question returns on the other hand How comes it to pass that all men do not pâ—rish in their obstinacy The true answer is Because God prevents a râ—mnant with distinguiâ—hing mercy and quickens them whom he found dead in trespasses and sins by his grace they are saved and takes the heart of stone cut of their flesh and gives them an heart of flesh thus making them a willing people in the day of his power and considering mau in that fallen condition wherein he is there is no other work of the Spirit sufficient to bring a lost sinner to grace and glory but that by which his natural enmity to God is cured and so the opposition of his Soul to the work of the holy Ghost overcome even that work by which the heart is circumcised and made willing and obedient that before was not so And this Mr. C. seems to own as the priviledge of the special Elect and without this none ever was or will be converted In p. 35. Mr. C. proposeth a Question about the fore-knowledge of God which he supposeth to be really distinct from his Decree and though he be very unmeet to dispute such a Question yet he resolves to give the poor Calvinists another lash before he finish his answer to it Both Question and Answer are too confused for us to get any good by a particular examination of them and therefore instead thereof I will only give a brief account of what I understand in this matter and so obviate his design The Divine knowledge is variously distinguished according to its respecting different objects I shall at present consâ—der it only as it is conversant about things meerly possible or things future Things only possible are indifferent considered as such unto being or not being and are such as in their own nature imply no contradiction unto being even all things that all within the unlimited compass of Divine Omnipotence God knoweth all things that himself can do though an infinite number of these never are done Things future are all those things and only those which do in time come to pass Now whatsoever hatâ— doth or shall come to pass in time was future from Eternity i. e. It was true from Eternity that such things would be and as things that would be were they known unto God before time Seeing then some things were to be and many things possible never shall be it appears that some things were from Eternity passed from the condition of things meerly possible in