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
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