74 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE
the " Avorkls were made," Heb. i. 2, so that surely he had his sonship be- fore he took flesh in the fuhiess of time; and when he had hfe sonship he had his generation. He is such a Son as, by being partaker of that name, he is exalted above angels, Heb. i. 5 ; and he is the " first begotten " before he is brought into the world, verse 6 : and therefore his " goings forth" are said to be " from the days of eternity," Micah v. 2 ; and he had " glory with the Father" (as the Son) " before the world was," John xvii. 5. Neither is he said to be " begotten of the Father" in respect of his incarna- tion, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb by him, of the substance of his mother ; nor is he thence called the " Son of God." In brief, if Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr B. will not deny him to have had an eternal generation : if he be not, a generation must be found out for him suitable to the sonship which he hath ; of which abo- mination in its proper place.
This progress have.we made in Mr. B.'s creed: He believes God to be finite, to be by us comprehended, compounded; he believes there is no trinity of persons in the Godhead, — that Christ is not the eternal Son of God. The following parts of it are of tlie same kind : —
The eternal j)rocession oftlieHoly Ghostis nextly rejected. The HolyGhost being constantly termed the " Spirit of God," the " Spii'it of the Father," and the " Spirit of the Son" (being also " God," as shall afterward be evinc- ed), and so partaking of the same nature with Father and Son (the apostle granting that God hath a nature, in his rejecting of them who " by nature are no gods "), is yet distinguished from them, and that eternally (as no- thing is in the Deity that is not eternal), and being, moreover, said sz-ro- ^svssdai, or to " proceed" and " go forth" from the Father and Son, this expression of his '• eternal procession " hath been fixed on, manifesting the property whereby he is distinguished from Father and Son. The thing in- tended hereby is, that the Holy Ghost, who is God, and is said to be of the Father and the Son, is by that name, of his hcing of them, distinguished from them ; and the denial hereof gives you one article more of Mr B.'s creed, namely, that the Holy Ghost is not God. To what that expression of " proceeding " is to be accommodated will afterward be considered.
The incarnation of Christ (the Deity and Trinity being despatched) is called into question, and rejected. By " incarnation" is meant, as the word imports, a taking of flesh (this is variously by the ancients expressed, but the same thing still intended^), or being made so. The Scripture affirming that " the Word was made flesh," John i. 14 ; that " God was manifest in - the flesh," 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; that " Christ took part of flesh and blood," Heb. ii. 14 ; that " he took on him the seed of Abraham," chap. ii. 16 ; that he was " made of a woman," Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; sent forth " in the likeness of sin- ful flesh," Piom. viii. 3; "in all things made like unto his brethren," Heb. ii. 17, — we thought we might have been allowed to say so also, and that this expression might have escaped with a less censure than an utter rejection out of Christian religion. The Son of God taking flesh, and so being made like to us, that he might be the " captain of our salvation," is that which by this word (and that according to the Scripture) is afliirmed, and which, to increase the heap of former abominations (or to " carry on the work of reformation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin"), is here by Mr B. decried.
Of the hypostatical union there is the same reason. Christ, who as
Eva'apxa/tris- ItifufidTeuric iiavSfuTnri;' h ^iffTonriKfi Ivihrifiia,' h vafova'ta.- n o'licovofiia' « iia, irafxc; ofiiXia- « S(' an^paTOTriros ipoc/ipug'if h tXtvo'is' i) xivuffis' h rou 'X.fiirTDV i-ri-
TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 75
*' concerning the flesh" was of the Jews, and is God to be blessed for evei", ovei" all, Rom. ix. 5, is one person. Being God to be blessed over all, that is, God by nature (for such as are not so, and yet take upon them to be gods, God will destroy), and having " flesh and blood as the children" have, Heb. ii. 14, that is, the same nature of man with believers, yet being but one person, one mediator, one Christ, the Son of God, we say both these natures of God and man are united in that one person, namely, the person of the Son of God. This is that which Mr B. rejects (now his hand is in), both name and thing. The truth is, all these tilings are but colourable advantages wherewith he laboureth to amuse poor souls. Grant the deity of Christ, and he knows all these particulars will necessarily ensue ; and whilst he denies the foundation, it is to no purpose to contend about any consequences or inferences whate\'er. And whether we have ground for the expression under present consideration, John i. 14, 18, xx. 28 ; Acts XX. 28 ; Rom. i. 3, 4, ix. 5 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Phil. ii. 5-8 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 John i. 1, 2 ; Rev. v. 12-14, with innumerable other testimonies of Scripture, may be considered. If " the Word, the Son of God, was made flesh, made of a woman, took our nature," wherein he was pierced and wounded, and shed his blood, and yet continues " our Lord and our God, God blessed for ever," esteeming it " no robbery to be equal with his Father," yet being a person distinct from him, being the " brightness of his person," we fear not to say that the two natures of God and man are united in one person ; which is the hypostatical union here rejected.