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
destruction and many there be which go in thereat Because strait is the Gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto Life and few there be that find it Beware of false Prephets Mat. 7. v. 13 14 15. But saith he It would be beneath the spirit and charity of the Gospel to allow no salvation during the old Covenant to any in the world besides the elect Church of the Jews and contrary to the Scripture Act. 10. 34 35. In what sense the Nation of the Israelites was chosen of God I shewed before That all are not Israel elect of God to eternal life that are of Israel according to the flesh is certain and I grant also that in the time Mr. C. speaks of God had his remnant though we have reason to think not many in other Nations unto whom he did by means ordinary or extraordinary manifest himself and these did fear God and work righteousness by which their Election of God was manifested But that these did not belong to the number of the special Elect nor were of that Church which is Christs Spouse is utterly untrue neither doth he attempt to prove it He saith moreover Or to allow no salvation now under the Gospel to any among the Gentiles that have not heard of Christ and contrary to the Scripture Rom. 2. 14 15 16. Mr. C.'s notion about this matter we shall meet with again and examine afterwards At the present I must tell him that without the Spirit and Grace of Christ which may not be separate from the knowledge of him and Faith in his name all that persons can do is from a principle of self-love to yield some obedience to the Law of God externally and so live honestly among men But by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in Gods sight for by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3. 21. and that the Law of nature where the written Law is wanting will so far supply the place thereof as to convince of sin and leave the sinner inexcusable in his disobedience is the design of the Apostle to evince Rom. 2. 14. When the Gentiles which have not the law viz. written do by nature i. e. by a knowledge and conscience which God causeth to remain in mans nature though corrupt do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the offiees of the law viz. condemning evil and in theâ—r consciences approving good not so as to love good and hate evil but this they did sufficiently unto full inexcusableness These having not the law are a law unto themselves c. So Mr. C. closeth this Chapter without proof of his opinion CHAP. III. Of the Extent of Christs death I Return now to his second Chapter where he discourseth of the extent of the design of God in the death of his Son wherein he is so extreamly confused contradictious to himself Scripture and Reason that I fear the censure of my Reader for abusing him with the repetition of Mr. C's absurdities that can justly plead for no answer and also for imploying my own precious time to no better purpose But that which first engaged me in this task musâ— be my plea for proceeding in my reply to this and the remaining part of his Book In the beginning of this Chapter p. 13. After he hath minded us of differing apprehensions among men concerning the end of Christs death That he may be sure to outstrip all he tells us That Christ dyed for the world that is the Vniverse the Heavens and Earth all things therein the whole six days Creation that fell with man for the sin of man c. Certainly whatsoever the Scripture holdeth forth concerning the curse brought upon the Creation by the sin of man and the future deliverance of the Creature from the vanity it now groans under it cannot but sound very harsh to Christian ears to hear That their Saviour dyed for the Universe yea for all things in Heaven or Earth for every silly Bird that flies in the Air yea and every Creature known in nature even the vilest most perishing and contemptible thing Yea how ridiculous might this notion be rendred But I fear God and therefore dare not dally with those things wherein the dying of my precious Lord must be mentioned This woful mistake he is cast upon by the ambiguity of the word World which he supposeth must always intend the Universe but the absurdity of that Hypothesis abundantly appears if we look into divers Texts where the word is used and can in no wise bear that sense Mr. Collier doth also assert universal Redemption in the Arminian sense in the next Section Because this word and the term All is sometimes used in Scripture where Redemption by Christ is treated of And so do others more sober than he For an answer therefore unto his abuse of divers Texts even all that are with any colour pleaded by him and fully to deliver the weak from his snares as also that my Reader may not complain of the utter loss of his time I will briefly give an account of those two terms from the Reverend Dr. Owen his Treatise of Redemption which I the rather insert because that excellent Treatise is now grown scarce and in the hands of few of those for whose benefit these Lines are especially designed Thus he writes Two words there are that are mightiâ—y stuck upon Dr. O. Treat of Redemp p. 180 c. or stumbled at First the World Secondly All. The particular places wherein they are and from which the arguments of our adversaries are urged we shall afterwards consider and for the present only shew that the words themselves according to the Scripture use do not necessarily hold out any collective universality of those concerning whom they are affirmed but being words of various significations must be interpreted according to the scope of the place where they are used and the subject matter of which the Scripture treâ—teth in those places First then for the word World which in the New Testament is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for there is another word sometimes translated World viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that belongs not to this matter noting rather the duration of time then the thing in that space continuing he that doth not acknowledge it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a word of various significations need say no more to manifest his unacquaintedness in the Book of God I shall briefly give you so many various significations of it as shall make it apparent that from the bare usage of a word so exceedingly aequivocal no argument can be taken until it be distinguished and the meaning thereof in that particular place evinced from whence the argument is taken I shall pass over the Scheme inserted by the Learned Author because it is contained in what followeth which is more accommodate to mean capacities He proceeds The word World in the Scripture is in general taken four wayâ— First pro mundo
All men are born into the world with sinful natureâ— now this defilement of our natures though sinful no man can help therefore it is not their sin but their affliction Here is a sinful nature a sinful defilement of nature and yet no sin but an affliction only Let such confusion be the â—ot of all that oppose Gods sacred truth Can the nature of man be defiled and sinful and yet he not a sinner yea but no man can help it therefore it is not their sin I answer This defilement of humane nature came by that sin that man might not have committed he might have helped it if he would Yea moreover Original sin is habitually in the Will as the subject thereof as well as other faculties of the Soul and therefore is voluntary and every particular person is to be accounted and truly is the immediate principle as well as the subject the Author as well as the possessor of his own individual Original sin or corruption of nature even as a man is of his natural faculties or acquired habits or as Adam himself was of â—his Original Sickness or Disease in his own person as the Learned Voetius asserts in his first Book of Select Disputations p. 1105. And it is by reason of this defilement of nature that we are by nature the Children of wrath which could not be if it were not our sin Eph. 2. 3. And on this ground the Lord Christ asserts the necessity of regeneration and that without it none can see the Kingdom of God Joh. 3. 5 6 7. Mr. C saith farther And cause we have to bewail it as our affliction but not as our sin so the Apostle doth Rom. 7. 24. It is consenting to it which is the sin v. 15 16 Jam. 1. 14 15. when persons consent to covetous and worldly lusts to proud envious and disobedient lusts this is the sin that will usher in the second death Original guilt and stain only brings under the first death but not not the second as distinct from consent Original sin may be considered either in the unregenerate in whom it reigns and is wholly unmortified or as remaining in the regenerate though mortified and spoiled of its reigning power The unregenerate are under the power thereof in all the faculties of their Souls It is blindness and vanity in their minds hatred of God and obstinacy in their wills c. and they are content to be commanded by this principle and the first moral acting of the Soul is influenced thereby Psal 58. 3. and in them the lustings of the flesh are never resisted from any true hatred of their sinfulness though on other accounts as they are apprehended destructive to themselves one way or other they may be so in some particular actings thereof But in the regenerate there is a contrary principle even the Law of the Spirit of Life which is in Christ Jesus that sets them free from the Law of sin and death so that they obey not the flesh in the Lusts thereof and these as they are by the power of the spirit of Grace delivered from the service of sin so are they also by the efficacy of Christs bloud saved from the condemning power thereof There is no condemnation to them Rom. 8. 1. But it is not because in-dwelling sin deserves none But because Jesus saâ—eth them from the wrath to come Now such an one is personated by Paul Rom. 7. unto whom all sin is an afflicting burthen and the lustings of in-dwelling sin which wâ—re opposed by the new Creature he complains of as his greatest affliction bâ—t not as his affliction only as outward trouble and persecution was but as his sin also Nay therefore it was his affliction because his sin and so he calls it about ten times in that Chapter and as such bitterly bewails it Lâ—t the Text be consulted for proof hereof In me saith he that is in my flesh in me so far as not renewed by Grace dwells no good thing Now sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— privation of that Good and Holiness that the Law requires and this saith the Apostle is in me and yet Mr. C. supposeth he acknowledgeth no sin but this may be in a rational Creature and he not a sinner Yea the Apostle confesseth that he was greatly hindered in his duty by the working of his corruption and at last flies to Christ for deliverance therefrom and yet shall we say he owneth no fault all this while As for Jam. 1. 14 15. The evident scope of the Apostle is not to teach men to justifie the wicked lustings of their hearts as Mr. C. doth but to prove that the spring of all the wickedness of man is in his own Breast and it will be in vain for him to think of shifting off the blame to any other It is granted indeed that the Apostle saith Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin and that this conceiving of sin is by the consent of the will agreeing to the Commission thereof but by sin here it is evident that actual transgression is intended and what saith the Apostle of this Lust verily That it tempteth draweth away the Soul from God and enticeth it to sin and that it worketh thus as a principle in the Soul it is a mans own lust Shall we then suppose actual transgression to be a sin and the working of that principle in a mar that disposeth to it not to be so Hath God no regard to the hearts and principles of men and the habits of their Souls do not they come under his Law or is not the habit of Grace Grace as well as the exercise thereof and a man denominated Gracious therefrom and here â—ppositorum par ratiâ— In plain terms to suppose the lustings of a corrupt heart after all wickedness is no harm unless they be fully consented to is impious As to that which he adds concerning Infants and Idiots To suppose them no way concerned in sin as he doth and so well enough without Christ is like the rest of his Doctrine This I say because the Scripture saith it which declares all to be under sin even those that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression viz. actually and all sin to deserve wrath That neither Infants nor Idiots can stand before God without a Mediator They have sin enough to damn them but there is Grace enough in God and Merit enough in the bloud of Christ to save them unto which and not their own innocency they must be beholding for salvation The 5th thing he insists on to prove his opinion is Gods expostulating with men to convince them of the equality of his ways That the ways of God towards the Sons of men are full of Equity and Grace is evident from what I have already proved in opposition to his errours and to his harangue about it I shall only say There is no need for him to speak wickedly for God His righteousness is
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
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
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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉