Reader
A Confutation of the Heresies and Errors of Thomas Collier · Nehemiah Coxe

A Confutation of the Heresies and Errors of Thomas Collier, Chapter 1

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 Omnip…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 …re) in a way of condeſcenſion to our capacity. And we muſt always remember, that thoſe things that are ſpoken of God foreign after the manner of men, muſt be interpreted foreign 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 Throne of the moſt high, that ſo we might be affected with his Glorious Majeſty; Heaven alſo is the place where God doth manifeſt his Glory in a more eminent way then in any other part of the Creation: On theſe accounts, or ſome other like unto them, he is ſaid to be in Heaven, but leaſt we ſhould conceive of him as confined to any place, or limited in his being, we are expreſly told in his word: The Lord your God, he is God in Heaven above, and in Earth beneath, Joſh. 2. 11. And again, Behold the Heavens, and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee, 1 Kings 8. 27. Am I a God at hand ſaith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himſelf in ſecret places that I ſhall not ſee him, ſaith the Lord? do not I fill Heaven and Earth, ſaith the Lord? Jer. 23, 24. with Pſal. 139. and divers expreſſ…ons of the ſame import we meet with therein, in other places. …f then the Spirit of God be preſent in all places, the Father is ſo, and the Son is ſo, for the Divine Eſſence is undivided; and as I ſaid at firſt, This is an Eſſential property of God that we are ſpeaking of. I might here ſtay to tell him in what a corrupt and impious ſenſe ſome have uſed the expreſſions he here makes uſe of; but I ſhall proceed no farther with this point at preſent; If he declare himſelf to embrace the truth, this ſufficeth; if he farther declare his mind in oppoſition thereto, we ſhall then have a fitter opportunity to in large on this head.

In the ſame page he doth re-aſſert and endeavour to inforce his notion of the increated Heavens. But notwithſtanding what he ſaith. I cannot ſee how this notion may be reconciled, either with the Scripture, or right Reaſon: Himſelf confeſſeth, that Eternity is an attribute proper to God alone, and certainly to be increated is no leſs ſo: Creator and creature do divide all beings; how then can we conceive of any increated being but God himſelf, or of any thing that is abſolutely Eternal beſides himſelf? Again, if we allow him to conceive of an Eternal and increated habitation for God; I ask him whether we may imagine any ſpace without thoſe Heavens: if not? Then is the whole World within that increated and eternal dwelling place; which will hardly ſuit with Mr. Colliers opinion of it. If we may imagine ſpace without thoſe Heavens, then I ask whether we are to conceive of God in thoſe Heavens, and not in that ſpace; if he anſwer we are, then doth he indeed oppoſe the immenſity and incomprehenſibility of the holy one of Iſrael: If he ſay we are not to imagine him limited by theſe Heavens; Then muſt he grant alſo, That he is Everlaſtingly and Eſſentially preſent, as well in the infinite ſpace without them, as within them, for he is immutable; how then is the one his dwelling place more then the other? If Mr. Collier remove theſe, his notion may eaſily be clogg'd with other doubts: But we will conſider what he offers for the proof thereof. Thus he pleads, p 12. §. 3.

As for the increated Heavens, though in the term of Increated it be not expreſt, yet there is enough in Scripture to prove the truth thereof; For the Eternal God muſt have ſome Eternal habitation, as it is called Iſa. 57. 15. The high and holy place.

By Mr. Colliers own aſſertion (p. 2. of his Additional word) if he affirm that concerning the increated Heavens, which the Scriptures do not, it muſt needs be unſound and unſafe: He confeſſeth that in the term of increated they are not to be found in Scripture, but yet both here, and in his Body of Divinity, p. 46, 47. he hath diſcovered the moſt Glorious Heaven, ſuch as the Book of Job, or the Pſalms make no mention of; for the Heavens, and the Heaven of Heavens mentioned therein, he affirms are polluted by the ſin of Man.

And Mr. Collier doth intimate to his Reader, as if the Glory of the Eternal God was not exalted above theſe moſt glorious Heavens; and that the moſt high God doth not humble himſelf when he beholds them. As for the Heavens which were known to the Pſalmiſt, and of which he ſpeaks, Pſal. 8. 1. Pſal. 1. 3. 4, 5, 6. Mr. Collier acknowledgeth Gods glory to be ſet above all them, and that when he beholds them, he humbles himſelf; and hereof he gives you a double reaſon, viz. not only becauſe he created them, (which is true) but alſo becauſe as he affirms the created Heavens are all in a fallen eſtate, together with the Earth, by reaſon of the ſin of man: And therefore in his Additional Word, p. 12. §. 5. He endeavours to prove the corruption of the Heavens by the ſin of man, from Job 15. 15. The Heavens are not clean in thy ſight: But I conceive the ſcope of that Text is by way of compariſon, to ſhew how vile man is, inaſmuch as the pureſt part of the Creation, even the Heavens, in conſpectu Dei, or compared with the moſt holy pure God, are not to be reputed pure, rather then to impute to the Heavens any ſinful defilement. So that here again we have another taſt of Mr. Colliers unſcriptural boldneſs: whence doth he collect that the ſin of Man reached ſo high as to corrupt the Heavens? one would think, if there be any ſuch corruption, it ſhould rather be referred to the ſin of Angels, who were once Inhabitants therein, then to the ſin of Man.

But to come to a more ſtrict examination of his notion, concerning his ſuppoſed increated Heavens; which I take to be not only unſcriptural, but antiſcriptural; and his proof by his oportet it muſt be ſo, to be moſt abſurd and irrational.

The only Text he quotes, upon which he would faſten his corrupt notion, is Iſa. 57. 13. of which he takes only a part of a ſentence, and omits the reſt; The Text ſpeaks thus:

For thus ſaith the high and holy one, that inhabiteth Eternity, whoſe name is holy, I dwell in the high and holy place, with him alſo that is of a contrite and humble ſpirit, to revive the ſpirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Here the habitation of the high and holy God is in general terms ſaid to be in Eternity, without reference to any place whatſoever; Then he comes to diſtinguiſh of his preſent reſidence, and that is ſaid to be, not only in the high and holy place, (take it for Heaven) but withall, in the heart of every one of his humble and contrite Saints: Heaven, and the heart of a Believer, may be alike truly ſaid, to be the habitation of God, Eph. 2. 21, 22. The Heaven of Heavens is not comprehenſive of the immenſe God: yet no Believers heart is too narrow for an habitation for him: And as the Text doth expreſs the high and holy place, and a contrite ſpirit on Earth, to be at the ſame inſtant Gods dwelling place; ſo is it altogether ſilent as to this high and holy place, being increated.

But to manifeſt that Mr. Collier ſpeaks not only without the Scriptures, but againſt the Scriptures herein, let theſe Texts be conſidered: Thus the Heavens were finiſhed, and all the Hoſt of them, Gen. 2. 1. He commanded, and the Heaven of Heavens were created, Pſal. 48. 4, 5. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Hoſts of them, Pſal. 33. 6. what the Hoſts of Heaven are, you may underſtand by 2 Chron. 18. 18. Luke 2. 13. And if theſe Hoſts of Heaven, the holy Angels, do always behold the face of God: and all of them both place and Inhabitants, were part of the ſix days creation; as Exod. 20. 11. And if the face of God be beheld, where his glory is diſplayed in the greateſt ſplendour, then certainly there is no colour, nor place left for any increated Heavens.

And why cannot Mr. Collier conceive of the Eternal God, without an Eternal Habitation diſtinct from himſelf? If he muſt have ſuch an habitation, it is either becauſe his happineſs would not be perfect without it, which is to make him dependant on ſomething beſide himſelf, and to deny his Godhead, by denying his ſelf-ſufficiency: or elſe it muſt be, becauſe his being is ſuch, as is determined and limited by certain bounds: as Bodies are properly ſaid to be in ſuch or ſuch a place; becauſe they are circumſcribed within ſome ſpace that they fill up: Created ſpirits, (though in a more improper ſenſe) yet are truly ſaid to be in a place; becauſe, though they have not parts and dimenſions as bodies have, ſo filling up the place where they are, nor can be punctually circumſcribed as they may; yet they are ſo in ſome certain place, as not to be at the ſame time without it, or elſewhere. Now therefore when we conceive of the being of either of theſe, we muſt alſo conceive of ſome ſpace ſuſceptive of them, which we call place; becauſe they are finite: But what place can we conceive of for his dwelling therein, who is immenſe, and indiſtant to all places and things, preſent to all by and in his infinite eſſence and being, but contained in none. He adds,

If God hath prepared a Building, a Houſe (for his people) not made with hands, Eternal in the Heavens, 2 Cor. 5. 1. Methinks it ſhould be no crime to ſay, that he hath an Eternal habitation for himſelf; ſuitable to his name and nature, and if Eternal then Increated.

I ſuppoſe the ambiguity of the word Eternal, which Mr. Collier meets with in the Text, is the occaſion of his miſtake in part; If we look into the Scriptures, we ſhall find mention made of a threefold duration; 1. That which is abſolutely Eterna, without beginning or end; and this is proper to God alone. 2. That which hath a beginning but ſhall have no end, which for diſtinction ſake is commonly called Aeviternity. And 3. That which hath a beginning and ſhall have an end, which is time. Now the term Eternal is indifferently uſed in the Scripture to ſignifie either of the two former; but this ambiguity is eaſily removed, if we conſider the ſubject ſpoken of; when it is applyed to God, we muſt take it in the firſt ſenſe; but when unto Creatures, in the ſecond: ſo then the Apoſtle, as is clear from the ſcope of the Text, when he ſpeaks of an Houſe Eternal in the Heavens, doth not intend a building that had been from Everlaſting, but ſuch an one as notwithſtanding its Creation (for it was made, though without hands, by the power of God) in time, ſhould not decay as the earthly houſe of our Tabernacle doth, but abide incorruptible for ever. And let not Mr. C. think, that becauſe we need a houſe, a building in the Heavens to compleat our happineſs; that therefore the former of all things doth ſo. So then this Text will not bear the weight he lays on it: And when in the cloſe he infers from the Eternity of Gods dwelling place, that it is alſo increated, he might have added, and then God; for this neceſſarily follows upon the grant of the other: and by this very medium Mr. Collier in his Body of Divinity, p. 85. proves, that Angels are created beings: His words are theſe:

Reaſon teacheth that they muſt be and are created, o… elſe they muſt be Eternal, which is proper to none but God; and if ſo they muſt be God; but they are not God, &c. and by that Mr. C. may ſee that he hath intangled himſelf in medling with things that he underſtands not. But I ſhall proceed;

The Scripture doth alſo inſtruct us concerning the ſubſiſtence of God, or the manner of his being; and this is ſuch a glorious myſtery as by his word only is revealed to us; We cannot by reaſon comprehend it, but ought to adore it; and by Faith reſt in his teſtimony concerning it.

In 1 Joh. 5. 7. we are taught, that there are three that do ſubſiſt in the Divine eſſence; and that theſe three are the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, who are the one true God. Here then is ſet before us the Divine eſſence, ſubſiſting in three relative properties: The relative property of the Father is to beg…t, Pſ. 2. 7. Joh. 3. 16. The relative property of the Son is to be begotten; The relative properly of the Holy Spirit is to be breathed, or to proceed from the Father and the Son, Joh. 15. 26. Rom. 8. 9, &c.

Now unto theſe relative properties belong all imaginable perfection; but no imperfection, becauſe they are in God: Therefore as conſidered in him they do inferr perſonality, becauſe a perſonal ſubſiſtence, is the moſt perfect manner of being in the whole reaſonable nature: And throughout the Scriptures when the Father, Son or Holy Ghoſt are diſtinctly ſpoken of, thoſe terms are made uſe of that are proper only unto a perſon; and perſonal operations are every where aſcribed to them; Though in our conception of perſonality in the Divine nature, we muſt ſeparate from it whatſoever imperfection is ſeen in a created perſon: Every created perſon hath a limited eſſence diſtinct and diſtant one from another: But all the increated perſons in the Deity have the ſame immenſe undivided eſſence, and are the one Eternal immortal inviſible only wiſe God. In created perſons alſo there is difference of time in the proceeding of one from the other; but here though there be an Eternal order of origination, there is no priority of time or nature. Add hereunto the warranty of this term from Hebr. 1. 3. where it is applied to the Father, (and there is the ſame reaſon for our uſing it, when we ſpeak of the Son or Spirit) and I cannot ſee why Mr. C. ſhould reject or except againſt it as he doth, p. 11, 12. and in his Bod. of Div. However I ſhall not ſtrive about words, if the thing be owned: But it is commonly ſeen, that men have been offended with apt terms, becauſe the things expreſſed by them have been diſpleaſing to them. But I ſhall paſs this alſo, and return to the beginning of his Chapter, that his ſtrange notions about the perſon of the Son of God may be brought to examination.

And that I may proceed with the more clearneſs, I will firſt briefly repreſent what the Scripture teacheth in this matter.

That the Son of God might become the author of Eternal Salvation unto loſt ſinners, he took upon him the office of a Mediator betwixt God and them; and in order to the accompliſhment of what he had undertaken on their behalf, it was neceſſary that he ſhould take hold of their nature, and be manifeſted in fleſh. In the perſon of Chriſt therefore we are to mind,

1. The diſtinction of both natures, Divine and Humane.

2. The union of both natures in the perſon of the Mediator.

Firſt, Both the Divine and Humane nature in Chriſt remain diſtinct in their eſſence, and all their eſſential properties, and neceſſarily muſt do ſo, the one being created, and the other increated; the Divine nature cannot be changed into the Humane, nor the Humane into the Divine; neither is it poſſible that they ſhould be ſo confounded or mixed together, as to make a third nature diſtinct from both. The Word was God, and the Word was made fleſh, Joh. 1. He was in the form of God, and yet took upon him the form of a ſervant, Phil. 2. He was and remained the only begotten of the Father, his own Son, and yet was in all things made like to us, ſin only excepted. He was true God: God by nature, and true man alſo, made of the ſeed of David, as concerning the fleſh.

Secondly, There is a glorious and unſpeakable union of both natures in the perſon of Chriſt: As he is Immanuel he is but one perſon, and as ſuch is ſpoken of throughout the Scripture; even the ſame perſon that in the beginning was with God. The Humane nature of Chriſt never having a perſonality of its own,Vid. Am…ſ…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 onelyonly 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, in one perſon, ſince the incarnation of the Son of God. But his defence thereof, together with his following poſitions, will in no wiſe admit this ſenſe, but determine his meaning to be, That Chriſt is no otherwiſe (nor ever was) the Son of God, but as he was God-man, conſidered in both natures. Whence it neceſſarily followeth, That either he had no exiſtence before the days of Auguſtus Caeſar, when he was born of the Virgin; or elſe that he had both natures, and was a man, before he came of the Seed of David as concerning the fleſh: And this laſt abſurdity he ſeems not to ſtick at in his following lines. The argument he endeavours to confirm his notion by, may be thus framed.

That which the Scripture no where affirms, is unſound and unſafe for any man to affirm.

But the Scripture no where affirms Chriſt to be the Son of God in the Divine nature-only. Ergo,

For any man to affirm it is unſound and unſafe.

If his meaning in his firſt propoſition be, that every notion that is not either expreſt in terms in the Scripture, or by juſt conſequence deduced from it (for ex veris nil niſi verum) is unſound, we grant it; But then his aſſumption is falſe, and muſt be denied: All the inforcement he gives it is in theſe words, The Scripture always when it ſpeaks of the Son of God, it is as he was in both natures God and Man. But I ſhall prove the contrary by an inſtance or two (out of thoſe many that might be produced) from the Scripture.

The firſt is Pſal. 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made. This text I do the rather mention, becauſe Mr. C. confeſſeth, p. 2. That it is the Son of God that is here ſpoken of under the name of the Word: And it is evident, that he is nor here ſpoken of as he was God-man; but only as he did ſubſiſt in the form of God: The deſign of the Pſalmiſt being to ſet forth the Glory of his Eternal Power and God-head▪ by enumerating ſome of his great works, in this and the following Verſes. As he is the Creator of all things is his praiſe here celebrated, long before he became Immanuel by taking our nature.

The next Scripture I urge for the proof of Chriſts being ſpoken of as the Son of God before his Incarnation, is Prov. 8. from v. 22. to the end of the Chapter. Which Text hath always been a grievous eye-ſore to the enemies of the Son of God; and hath by the Orthodox been pleaded with great advantage, both againſt the Arrians, and Socinians; The laſt mentioned have laid in all the Cavils they could deviſe, to perſwade men that it is not the Son of God that is here intended; and with them Mr. Collier joyns, and puts in his exceptions alſo againſt the application of it to him, p. 7. The learned know where and by whom this Text with others, have been fully vindicated from their exceptions; And amongſt others Dr. Owen in his Exercitations prefixed to the ſecond part of his Expoſition of the Hebrews, p. 37. &c. hath ſo learnedly and ſolidly aſſerted the truth by me pleaded for, from this Text; with ſo full an anſwer to all Socinian cavils againſt it, as leaves no ground for Mr. Colliers ſaying, That it is a queſtion too hard for any man to reſolve, whether this Scripture intend the Son of God or not. His fond trifling in the expoſition of it, I ſhall not trouble my ſelf with, but only remove his exceptions laid in againſt the true ſenſe of it; which being eſtabliſhed, his gloſs upon it vaniſheth without farther trouble.

That an intelligent perſon is intended in this Text, almoſt every Verſe in the Chapter doth confirm, for all kind of perſonal properties are aſcribed to it; and if we compare this with chap. 1. 21. ad finem; we muſt acknowledge, That Wiſdom ſpeaking in them, is a perſon, and a Divine perſon too, unto whom all fear and obedience duplicate page duplicate page is due; or elſe there is no ſuch mentioned in the Scripture▪ Moreover Chriſt is expreſly called Wiſdom in the New Teſtament, Mat. 11. 19. 1 Cor. 1. 30. and the word there, is of the Feminine Gender as well as here; which evinceth the vanity of that cavil of Mr. Collier, That Chriſt is not intended, Becauſe the Wiſdom here ſpoken of is in the Feminine Gender. What terms can expreſs at once the whole of his Glory who is infinite? Neither is there any thing here ſpoken of Wiſdom, that is not in other Scriptures attributed to Chriſt: as we may ſee in a brief paralel, v. 22. The Lord poſſeſſed me in the beginning of his way, &c. Joh. 1. In the beginning was the word, v. 23. I was ſet up from Everlaſting, &c. Mic. 5. 2. whoſe goings forth have been from of old, from Everlaſting. So 2 Tim. 1. 9. Grace is ſaid to be given us in Chriſt before the World began, v. 25▪ Before the Mountains were ſettled, before the Hills I was brought forth: Col. 1. 25, 17. He is the firſt born of every Creature, and before all, v. 29, 30. When he appointed the foundations of the Earth, Then I was by him: Joh. 1. 2. And the word was in the beginning with God. I was daily his delight, rejoycing always before him: Mat. 3. 17. This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleaſed: v. 32. Now therefore hearken unto me O ye Children: Mat. 17. 5. Hear ye him. Thus might I paſs through the whole context, but this ſufficeth at preſent; Mr. Collier ſtill objecteth, That here is no mention of the Son under that name and title. That Chriſt is not here called the Son of God in terms, doth not in the leaſt weaken the teſtimony of this Scripture, ſeeing it is manifeſt that ſuch a perſon is here ſpoken of as can be no other then the Son of God; And the relative property of the ſecond ſubſiſtence in the Divine nature is ſo expreſly mentioned, that it is abundantly evident he is here ſpoken of as the Son of God before time: This we find firſt v. 22. The Lord poſſeſsed me foreign in the beginning of his ways: The word ſignifies either to acquire ſomething, or to poſſeſs it being acquired: Now amongſt other ways of acquiring; Acquiſition, and ſo poſſeſſion by right of paternity or generation, is one: ſo the ſame word is uſed Gen. 4. 2. and as the circumſtances of the Text do neceſſitate us to embrace that ſenſe here, ſo the following words do put it out of doubt; For thus he proceeds, v 24. When there were no deeps was I brought forth: and again v. 25. Before the Hills I was brought forth. The word is the ſame in both places foreign which is in like manner by many learned Interpreters rendred brought forth, Pſal. 51. 5. So then here is the Eternal generation of the perſon ſpoken of: In that it is from Everlaſting it can be applicable to none, but he that is God 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. B…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. foreign doth properly ſignifie the pain and ſorrow of a Woman in Travail: Peculiare eſt parturientium▪ niſum que 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, i… 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 foreordained 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 teſtimon…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 fl…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 th…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 cho…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 …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 i… the Son of God only as conſidered in both natures.

I might anſ…er as p…rtinently as he argues, Si placet Domine negatur Applicati… (as a young Scholar once replyed to his Tutor) It is ſtrange that a man who undertakes to teach others ſhould yet himſelf b… 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 S…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 th…t Chriſt was the Son of God in the Divine nature, The firſt is Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one, that is, (ſay they) one in the ſame ſubſtance, &c. And a little after, That Chriſt did not intend himſelf to be the Son of God in the Divine nature only is apparent; Becauſe he ſpeaks of himſelf as he was the Son of God, not as he was not, viz. as he was God and man viſible, and not of the Divine nature only which was inviſible, and muſt have been an unſeen Son, which could not be underſtood.

This Text doth fully prove that Chriſt hath the ſame Eſſence with the Father, and therefore (without reſpect to his being made fleſh) was from Everlaſting begotten of the ſubſtance of the Father; and this generation is the foundation of that relative property of a Son, in which he did ſubſiſt before the World was This we ſay, and other Texts do ſo fully aſſert it, and manifeſt its lying in the foundation of the Chriſtian Religion, that I will not doubt to ſay he is an Heretick that doth deny it. In the following reaſoning of Mr. C. it is evident he miſerably begs the queſtion; it cannot (he ſaith) intend his Sonſhip in the Divine nature, becauſe in that only he was not the Son of God. But this he ſhould have proved, not dictated againſt the teſtimony produced. What he ſaith of the inviſibility of the Son in the Divine nature, may be as well applyed to the denial of the ſubſiſting of the Father, or Holy Spirit, who alſo are the inviſible God. And Mr. C. can never prove that it is neceſſary unto the being of the Son of God, that he ſhould be viſible. The other Texts minded by him do (divers of them) ſpeak expreſly of a perſon ſent into the world in our nature; which was the Son of God; and in that he is called the Son of God, when found in faſhion as a man; it doth firmly prove the perſonal union of both natures in him; but not in the leaſt intimate, that he was not a Son, before he was a man, as Mr. C. would ſeduce his Readers to believe. And this may ſuffice to this Head alſo.

His third poſition is, That he was the Word as God-man and man-God, or as he explains it p. 8. That the ſame Word and Son of God, God-man was made fleſh, &c which falls in with his 6th poſition p. 11

How abundantly the Scriptures hold forth a diſtinction, betwixt the Word that took Humane nature, and the nature aſſumed by him, hath been already manifeſted; and that the Word was from Everlaſting with God, and was God, the Humane nature not ſo. And the abſurdity of his 6th. theſis is obvious even to a Child; what was it for the Word to be made fleſh, but to become a man; and if he was God-man from Everlaſting, how could he be made a man in time? The truth is, Mr. C. fairly intimates his good-will to deny Chriſts coming of the Seed of David as concerning the fleſh; for in anſwer to this objection he ſaith, p. 11. He that was God and Man in Gods eye, was made ſo in our eye, when made or manifeſted in fleſh: So then he was a man before, it ſeems, only we knew it not; and his Humane nature he took not of the Virgin▪ but brought it from Heaven with him? If this be not his ſenſe, he ſpeaks nothing to the purpoſe; and if it be, I deſire he would ſpeak out in his next, and the abomination of it ſhall be farther detected. For the preſent he produceth nothing more that may give any ſeeming countenance to theſe notions, or in the leaſt free them from the higheſt abſurdity; I ſhall leave them therefore naked, as they are propoſed by him, and follow him to his fourth Theſis.

That as God-man he was a Creature, i. e. He was a Creature as God, as well as in his Humane nature. Verily Mr. Collier may as well perſwade us, That the Creature is God, as that God is a Creature. I will not ſuppoſe his Reader or mine, to be utterly Bruitiſh and without underſtanding, and therefore ſhall leave this idle and contradictious fiction to confute it ſelf alſo. Only I will add an expoſition of Col. 1. 15. abuſed by him p. 10. where he falls in directly with the notion of the Arrian Hereticks; and would perſwade us, That if Chriſt be not here conſidered as the firſt-born of every Creature as being one of them, there is nothing in the Text. But the contrary is abundantly manifeſted by Dr. Owen in his anſwer to Biddle the Socinian his Catechiſm, from whence I ſhall tranſcribe enough to ſtop Mr. C's mouth▪ and to inform thoſe that have not that Treatiſe by them. Obſerve then,

Although in the 15, 16, and 17 Verſes the Apoſtle ſpeaks of him who is the Mediator, (God-man) yet he ſpeaks not of him as Mediator, but that he enters upon v. 18. But,

His preſent deſign being to ſet forth the excellent Glory of Chriſt, he ſpeaks of thoſe things that appertain to him as God: For,

The Creation of all th…gs by …m is moſt emphatically expreſt, v. 16. together with the end of th…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 g…ve them is aſſerted. And on this account, for this reaſon is he ſa…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 foreign not foreign the firſt-born, …ot the firſt Created, that is the Prince, H…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 t…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 on…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 …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 foreign 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 i…, That he is the Son of God only as conſidered in both natures. And if this be proved, if he be t…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 bl…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 …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 E…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 ſ…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 l…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, …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 l…t man.

The Lord Chriſt did not then firſt acquire his being or relation unto God the Father as his Son: But being from Eternity the brightneſs of his Fathers Glory, and expreſs Image of his Perſon, after he had by the appointment of his Father▪ and his own voluntary undertaking, vailed his Deity, humbled himſelf and taken upon him the form of a Servant, and therein performed the work his Father gave him to do, he prays to be reſtored to the ſame, not any other, for there could be no greater Glory conferr'd upon him as to his Divine nature, then what he had with his Father before the world was.

Joh. 6. 38. I came down out of Heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that ſent me.—Gal. 4. 4, 6. When the fulneſs of time was come God ſent out his Son.—And becauſe you are Sons God hath ſent out the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, &c.

In theſe Texts compared with their Contexts, you have again a full diſcovery of him who was by God the Father, anointed to be the Saviour of the world. His being in the Fleſh was now manifeſt to all that converſed with him, it needed no proof, he carried about with him a ſelf demonſtration, that he was made of a Woman, made under the Law. The great thing that the Jews, and all the world were to be fully informed in and convinced of, was, that the Perſon now manifeſt in the fleſh, was the Saviour, the Chriſt, the Lord. And for the evidencing of this great and important truth, it was neceſſary that the Lord Chriſt ſhould not only ſpeak and do as never man before him ſpake and did, but alſo prove his deſcent, whence he was, and wherefore he came into the world. And in that reſpect, together with all the teſtimonies born of him immediately from Heaven by God the Father and the holy Angels, we have him frequently aſſerting his Original himſelf, I came down from Heaven. Hence it was that the Jews at this ſeaſon took occaſion for their murmuring, Jo. 6. 42. Is not this Jeſus the Son of Joſeph, whoſe Father and Mother we know, how is it then that he ſaith, I came down from Heaven. In anſwer to this Objection, the Lord Chriſt tells the Jews, that in order to a true ſaving knowledge of his Perſon, who and whence he was, it was neceſſary they ſhould be taught of God; Bleſſed art thou Simon Barjona, for Fleſh and Blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. And that they might know his original, and his immediate and uninterrupted relation to God as his Father, notwithſtanding his then preſent ſtate of Humiliation in the Fleſh, he tells them from whence he was, who he was, and wherefore he came into the world. The medium he uſes to prove his relation to God as his Father, is not his being born of a Virgin, Abrahams or Davids Seed (though that be alſo true, and moſt proper to prove him who is the Son of God to be alſo that Son of man, the Meſſiah that was promiſed) But he proves it by his deſcent from Heaven, his ſeeing of the Father, (which no man ever did or could do) his being of God. And becauſe the exceptions to what he affirmed, both by the Jews and his Diſciples, were taken from his being in the fleſh; Therefore to ſhew that the Hypoſtatical Union of God and Man in him, had not deprived him of his dignity of the Son of God, he ſpeaks of himſelf under the notion as they apprehended him, of being the Son of Man as he then alſo was. And asks his Diſciples, what and if you ſee the Son of Man aſcend up where▪ he was before, which is further explained Jo. 3. 13, 14. ch. 12. 32. Eph. 4. 10. His condeſcenſion to take upon him fleſh, to become the Son of Man, and in that nature to ſuffer death upon the Croſs, was no deprivation of his Divinity, nor derogation from his Perſon, he ſtill aſſerts, even from thence, his then preſent being in Heaven. The Divine and Humane nature ſubſiſting in his Perſon, had not removed the Deity out of Heaven, but by that intimate conjunction given the Humanity from the dignity of his Perſon, a claim to Heaven, and right of Aſcenſion thither. He did not therefore deſcend, that he might always remain upon earth, but that after he had finiſhed his Fathers work which he was to do in the fleſh, he might carry the Humane nature with him into Heaven, whither he was to aſcend again. So that ſince his uniting of the Humane to the Divine nature in his own perſon, whether he was ſpoken of as the Son of God according to his Divinity, or as the Son of David according to his Humanity, under which notion ſoever he was ſpoken of, either as the Son of God, or the Son of Man, he being in both natures but one entire perſon, was ſtill truly ſaid to be in Heaven▪ not that it was, or could ever be ſuppoſed that his claim to Heaven▪ and his being there, did ariſe from his being the Son of Man, but as he himſelf aſſerts from his coming down from thence, his coming, and being ſent from his Father▪ and yet remaining always with his Father, He and his Father being one. He that deſcended is the ſame alſo that aſcended; there neither was, nor could there be admitted any change of the Perſon. It is alſo obſervable that Gal. 4. 6. the ſame word is uſed for the ſending forth of the Spirit of his Son by God the Father, into the hearts of his adopted Sons, that is uſed for the ſending forth of his Son into the world. This is no ſlender evidence of the Eternity and Divinity of Chriſt, that he hath the ſame relation to the holy Spirit with the Father, 1 Pet. 1. 11. It was the Spirit of Chriſt that was in the Prophets of old, that long before his Incarnation did foretell thereof, and of his ſufferings, and the Glory that ſhould follow: David himſelf ſaid by his Spirit, The Lord ſaid unto my Lord, ſit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footſtool, as to his Divinity he is the root of David, who according to his Humanity was his off-ſpring, Rev. 22. 16.

The Viſion of Iſaiah ch. 6. was true, and the voice of the Angels a real voice, who cried as to the time then preſent, holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hoſts, the whole Earth is full of his Glory. And if the Application of this viſion of the Prophet, and voice of the Angels by the Evangeliſt (Jo. 12. 41.) be alſo true, what more clear evidence can be given of the Lord Chriſts ſubſiſting in the Divine nature, before his deſcenſion from Heaven and aſſumption of the Humane nature.

Thou Lord in the beginning haſt laid the foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of thine hands; they ſhall periſh, but thou remaineſt; they ſhall wax old as doth a garment, and as a veſture thou ſhalt fold them up; and they ſhall be changed, but thou art the ſame, and thy years ſhall not fail.

From theſe and many other the like Texts, is the Divinity of the Lord Chriſt fully aſſerted, and by the writings of the Apoſtles, directed by the Holy Spirit, ſince his Incarnation applyed to him. By whom we are given to underſtand, that the Prophets aforetime ſpake of our Lord Chriſt, and thereby is made known to us the dignity of his perſon, as the Alpha and Omega. But I would have Mr. Collier ingeniouſly conſider, whether he or any other man, without this future revelation and explication, could have gathered any ſuch doctrine as the Manhood coexiſting with the Godhead in the perſon of Chriſt from all Eternity; or that he who in the beginning laid the foundations of the Earth, and made the Heavens, was when he did this work Man as well as God; or that ſince this revelation and application of theſe ſayings to the perſon of Chriſt, can ſay any otherwiſe then that theſe titles and operations are referr'd to the Son of God as he ſubſiſted in his Divine nature with the Father. And if this be ſo, let Mr. Collier be convinc'd and acknowledge, that the Scriptures do ſometimes (and that frequently) ſpeak of the Son of God as in the Divine nature only, and not always as he was in both natures God and Man.