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 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
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
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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
by Grace in their station and glorified Saints cannot but love God choose and delight in perfect obedience to his holy will yet in all this are they free agents because they are thus determined by no external force but by the dictate of their own understanding And on the contrary the Devils and fallen man are by their own wickedness determined to sin and that onely yet are they free in the choice thereof c. 3. That God made man upright and so capable of yielding perfect obedience to the whole will of God according to that Covenant in which he stood related to him but he sought out many inventions and by his voluntary defection from and rebellion against God fell short of the Glory of God and lost that rectitude of nature which was concreate with him and became blind disobedient and dead to God 4. Man having thus wickedly and wilfully lost and cast away his power of obeying God doth infer no unrighteousness in the Law of God still requiring and commanding them to do that which is Just and Holy and Good neither doth it infer the least obligation on God to recover him out of his lost estate 5. Although man in his lâ—psed estate hath such a principle of enmity to God reigning in him that he cannot until converted by effectual Grace choose that which is right in the sight of God yet doth he freely put forth a positive act of his will in refusing mercy tendered on Gospel terms 6. So then the Question is not so much whether men left to themselves and the common helps afforded them may believe if they will But whether any such will believe and not rather finally oppose God and refuse his Grace tendred to them in the Gospel These things duly considered tend to obviate the cavils of Mr. Collier and to detect his mistakes He asserts in the first Section p. 24. That suitable to the means and Ministries men are under there is a capacity both of power and will in all men that are not debilitated of the ordinary capacities of men to understand believe and obey the Lord in them By this and other following passages it appears that by universal Grace Th. C. means the sufficiency of the humane nature which is it and not Grace that he desires to exalt and as his notions are the same in this matter with the Pelagians so is there the same deceit and aequivocation in his using the term Grace which they sought refuge in and therefore let none be blinded with that saying of his in the same Section That this capacity both of power and will is of God For Pelagius himself acknowledgeth as much and it amounts to no more then the acknowledgement of our endowment with natural abilities by God who is our Creator All these are from God in a way of nature but ability to believe and obey the Gospel is from him in a way of special Grace which is that we plead for and deny that a natural unregenerate man is capable of saving knowledge of or yielding obedience to the will of God in the Gospel otherwise then as a dead Soul is capable of being quickened by the Almighty power of the Spirit of Christ This the Scripture is full and express in I will instance in a Text or two We read 1 Cor. 2. 14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God For they are foolishness unto him neither can be know them for they are spiritually discerned The Apostle doth in the context divide all men into two sorts Natural and Spiritual The last have the mind of Christ and are made acquainted with the Grace of the Gospel through the effectual working of the Spirit by which they are born again the other viz. natural men unregenerate persons even the wisest and best of them receive not the things of the Spirit of God i. e. the Doctrines of the Gospel because they are without any Spiritual discerning of the glory that is in them remaining under the power of darkness they are accounted foolishness and as foolish things are slighted and rejected by them Neither can they know them viz. savingly and effectually for they are spiritually discerned i. e. by the enlightening and teaching of the Spirit of God and not without it But I find divers exceptions laid against this interpretation of the Text by Mr. Collier p. 42. 43. which I shall here remove out of the way 1. He expounds this term the natural man by the sensual man as if all unregenerate persons were not intended thereby but only some of the most bruitish among them which is quite against the Apostles scope whose design is to shew that God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world and that the principal men thereof are strangers to the things of the new Covenant which eye hath not seen c. ch 1. 20. 2. 7 8 9. 2. He supposeth the Idolatrous Gentiles that would not come to the Gospel light c. to be intended But this also is plainly to contradict the Apostle who speaks of both Jew and Gentile and particularly those of them to whom the Gospel was preached as you may see most evidently in his foregoing discourse and these when the things of Gods Spirit were proposed to them received them not but esteemed them foolishness His third exception is plainly ridiculous He saith All where the Gospel comes should understand and believe it but its thâ—se only that by the Word and Spirit of the Gospel do believe and obey it that have this spiritual understanding This we plead That although all unto whom they are tendered ought to receive the things of the spirit of God yet no unconverted man doth so the reason is in part because he cannot understand them but they are foolishnesâ— to him and accordingly rejected by him and to confute this Mr. C. tells us that no unbeliever hath this understanding indeed but if he did believe and obey he should have it as if to obey and believe the Gospel were not to receive the things of Gods spirit The sum is this If he did believe he might believe and if he were not ignorant he might understand c. 4. He endeavours to perswade us that it is only such an understanding of Gospel mysteries as is proper to grown Christians that the unconverted man is uncapable of and how repugnant this is to the whole discourse of the Apostle I leave every one to judge Thus he concludes his futilous cavil So that it supposeth not any impossibility for the darkeâ—t and worst of men to obtain Light and Life by the Gospel He woulâ— fain lye hid under the darkness of his ambiguous terms This Scripture doth not suppose indeed but that the darkest and worst of men may be enlightened and quickened by the power of Gods spirit working with the word But that every man which hath only the natural accomplishments of a man may understand and obey the Gospel
some degrees and measures of ohem to comply with his mind and will which they voluntarily neglect And this of its self is sufficient to bear the charge of their Eternal ruine The second thing whereby he endeavours to prove his opinion p. 25. is Because God blames those under all his ministrations that did not or do not suitably obey him therein To which he adds in the third place He threatens and executes Judgement on all such Both these depend on the first and no man besides Mr C. would have made use of them as distinct mediums in the proof of his position The first therefore being enervated these fall with it But he saith If we accept not this as a sufficient proof of his notion We cannot have right honourable and God-like thoughts of the Lord to require blame pity promise threaten and execute terrible judgement on a people that in no case was able to help it He that can make good sense of these words hath more skill then I but I heartily wish non-sense had been the worst fault in Mr. Colliers Book however it be I will endeavour to give a distinct answer to that which he drives at 1. God may require obedience of those from whom it is due though they have siâ—ned away their power to perform it 2. It is a moral sinful impoâ—ency that men are under they cannot nor they will not obey but they can and do wilfully refuse to obey God and therefore are justly blamed and punished for this wickedness and are also as Creatures the objectâ— of pity while they thus destroy themselves 3. Promises and threatnings are fit mediums to work upon rational Creatures who are capable of understanding the terms in which the things of the spirit of God are proposed to them though the Glory of the things themselves they discern not and to put forth a free act of their wills in reference to them as Mr. C. saith himself in his Bod. of Div. p. 452. Though man hath lost the freedom of his will to that which is good by sinning yet not the power of willing And 4. By the mighty power of Gods spirit giving efficacy to this means the Elect are made obedient and the rest left without excuse or Cloak for their sin As for that clause That in no case was able to help it it is fallacious They act spontaneously and are in no case willing to help it whose Souls are not renewed by special Grace He goes on p. 26. 4. It must be so because the contrary leaves the condemnation of sinners at Gods door which fâ—r be it from any sober spirit to imagine For God to bring forth a glorious ministration of Grace and Life to the world 1 and tender it to sinners on such terms as is impossible for them to perform with the helps he affords 2 and to damn them for non-performance therâ—â—f necessarily leaves a necessity of perishing without hope or help So that if this were true that men could not believe and obey the Gospel where it comes 3 simply from their debility and impotency and the debility of the means â—fforded them for help therein It could not be their sin 4 for it s no mans sin not to do what he cannot do but what he can and might do had he a will to it The things before pleaded do fully remove out of our way what is here offered But farther to detect his aequivocation mind 1. Although it be impossible for dead sinners to quicken themselves yet seeing this impossibility is founded in the corruption of their natures and wickedness of their own hearts it cannot in the least excuse their disobedience 2. Sinners are liable to damnation for the breach of the Law and if they add hereunto disobedience to the Gospel it necessarily aggravates their sin and condemnation and this they will do if left to themselves but neither doth this necessity which is only a necessity of infallibility with respect to the event in any wise infringe their liberty or excuse their sin 3. Whereas he talketh of unbelief that comes simply from the debility and impotency of men and the debility of the means afforded them and in the next Section Of that which befalls a man that he could not nor in any case cannot help c. I must tell him that it is dishonestly done to represent this as the opinion of the men with whom his controversie is seeing they teach That mens disobedience to God springs from their obstinacy and not only impotency and they are condemned for that and not simply for this alone and also That the means of Salvation tendred in the Gospel is full and gloriously perfect in its kind But the reason why the Gospel is not effectual to the salvation of all that hear it is The natural enmity and obstinacy of their hearts against God is such that unless it be overcome and cured by him that raised Christ from the dead they do finally resist the call of God and will not come to Christ that they might have life And this defilement of humane nature man brought upon himself â—y his fall which he could have helped and prevented if he would and it is approved and delighted in by all his posterity 4. The falshood therefore of his saying That is no mans sin not to do what he cannot do is evident seeing mans duty is determined by Gods holy command not his own sinful weakness So then our Doctrine doth not lay the sin of men at Gods door as he suggests but at their own where the Scripture lays it It spoileth man indeed of all matter of boasting which is the true reason of Mr. Colliers endeavour to load it with this calumny And in truth though proud Hypocrites will be bâ—asting of their self sufficiency we need not nor can have a more pathetical confutation of Mr. C's Doctrine then that which is gathered from the confession of one poor in spirit and distressed in Soul under the sense of his lost condition by nature Methinks I see such an one rolling himself in the dust and with flouds of tears and groanings that cannot be uttered pouring out his Soul before the Lord with such expressions as these O Lord look down in mercy upon a captivated condemned sinner that hath broken thy holy Law and finds nothing in himself but a principle of enmity to and aversation from thy holy will revealed either in the Law or in the Gospel I confess that it is a miracle of mercy that terms of pardon and acceptance by Jesus are proposed to me But ah Lord my blindness is such that I shall never find this way of life if thou do not lead me and the hardness of my heart such that it will not bow unless thou make me willing in the day of thy power I hear Christ say Come but alas I cannot came Oh draw my Soul to thy self by thine effectual Grace Heaven is opened to the Believer but O Lord that word
Believe slays my heart It is my duty I confess and ever to be admired is Grace that found out such a remedy But oh my unbelief I am shut up under it what shall I do whether shall I flee Lord Faith is thy Gift and by thine Almighty power it hath been wrought in some such as I am Oh magnifie Grace in me a lost Creature even me also renew my Soul change my Heart make me a Believer work in me both to will and to do of thy good pleasure else I may as â—â—â—n reach Heaven with my finger as Believe my impotency my blindness the perverseness of my heart is so great I must confess O Lord thou art just if thou damn me but oh pity and save a Soul without might that is now sinking under thy wrath if free free Grace prevent not by working in me what thou requiâ—â—st of me I return to Mr. C. who will now give us instances to illustrate his former assertion and that he may take this opportunity to let out more of his poisonous Doctrine chiefly insists on original sin which he endeavours to perswade men is an harmless thing and of it self lays them under no more guilt then doth a fit of sickness or any other affliction of the like kind that no man can help c. only thus much he grants It s true the first death is come on all men by Adams transgression they having the same original nature of sin and death it s come into all men as a Judgement for the first transgression but not as a sin to the second death Although it may not be easie to find out any good sense of these words the Original nature of sin and death yet it is easie to understand what is the drift of his discourse which he also farther explains anon and which I before touched And therefore to prevent him before I examine what he saith I will briefly propose the truth concerning this point as it is taught in the Scriptures Rom. 5. and other places viz. Job 14. 4. Psal 51. 5. Joh. 3. 6. c. From whence I gather 1. That Adam in his primitive state was to be considered as a publick person in whom all mankind that in an ordinary way of generation came of him were and in whom they sinned and fell when he fell And they are to be considered in him legally and naturally 1. Legally as he was according to the terms of the Covenant in which he stood related to God their representative and so received his perfections or original righteousness for them as well as for himself and they as well as he lost it by the fall 2. Naturally as he was the root of all mankind which were virtually in his Loins when he fell So then 2. Original sin is either Imputed or Inherent The imputation of Adams sin to his posterity by which they are most justly accounted to have sinned in him who was the root and both generative and faederal principle of mankind is in some sort the meritorious cause of the inherent pravity of the humane nature derived from him which is diffused through all the parts of the Soul and is a just punishment for the first offence by which we are turned away from God and disposed to all wickedness it being the root seed and principle of all actual transgressions and sins and is therefore so frequently by the Apostle Paul called sin in a way of emphasis and the flesh of which all the abominations that are in the world are the proper fruit and off-spring and are so represented by him Rom. 7. 8 c. ch 13. 14. Gal. 5. 19. Col. 2. 11. Eph. 2. 3. 3. When therefore we affirm with the Apostle Rom. 5. 18. That by the offence of one Judgement came upon all men unto condemnation neither doth the holy Ghost in that Text nor we intend to assert that any are actually damned for Adams particular fact but That by his sin and our sinning in him by Gods most just ordination we have lost original righteousness and so as darkness necessarily is where light is taken away or denied and sickness where health is not contracted that exceeding pravity and sinfulness of nature which deserveth the curse of God and Eternal damnation and it is inherent uncleanness that actually excludes out of the Kingdom of God From what hath been said it is easie to gather how pernicious Mr. C's doctrine is who teacheth that Original sin exposeth only to temporal or bodily not Eternal death The Apostle constantly affirms Rom. 5. that it is the death and condemnation that Christ saveth his people from which surely is the second not the first death only which by our fall in Adam we were exposed to and guilty of But why doth not Original sin deserve the second death Is it because Adams transgression was but trivial certainly the aggravations of his sin were exceeding great There was contempt of God dis-belief of his word pride breach of Covenant Theft Murther c. all combined in that one sin so that a greater the sin against the holy Ghost excepted and â—ore 〈…〉 ex evi 〈…〉 e of the Sons of â—â—n were ever guilty of But if 〈…〉 had 〈…〉 n There 〈…〉 in in â—â—s own nature so small but ratione obj 〈…〉 in that it is â—â—ainst an infinite Majesty it deservâ—â— Eveâ—lasting p 〈…〉 shment a◠〈…〉 ry one that fears God and knows his teâ—rour 〈…〉 Is it because â—â—e corruption of our nature derived from Ad 〈…〉 â—t a small thing who trembles not at such a thought that haâ—â—â—ot cast off all sense of a Deity and the holiness thereof We havâ— before proved That it is the spring of all the evil that is done â—â—der the Sun it is in its own nature a principle of enmity to Gâ—d that from whence the heart of man is denominated to be decâ—i 〈…〉 above all things and desperately wicked If there be any thing therefore in what he saith besides his bold affirmation it is only this Because it is a Judgement for the first transgression â—t cannot be a sin to the second death But he may learn from the Scriptures that God oft-times punisheth sinners by giving them up to sin and yet that sin which hath also in it a punishment of former transgression will sink a Soul under divine wrath as well as any other Lâ—t him take for instance Rom. 1. 21. ad finem 2 Thâ—s 2. 10 11 12. I thought in my reply to this and what followeth to have shewed how Mr. Collier in some things takes the Pelagian notion of Original sin in effect plainly enough denying it and also how in asserting the defilement of our nature not to be ouâ— sin he agrees with Bellarmine and other Jesuites in their opposition to the Protestant Doctrine in this point But I must be brief and shall therefore content my self only to shew his repugnancy to the truth of God in the Scripture Thus he goes on
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