Man made righteous by Christ's obedience being two sermons at Pinners-Hall : with enlargements, &c. : also some remarks on Mr. Mather's postscript, &c. / by Daniel Williams.

A REPLY TO Mr. Mather's Postscript.

I Shall first consider the Errors Mr. M. chargeth me with, and then his Defence of his own. The Errors he loads with no lighter Epithets than Damning and Blasphemou••. Terms agreeable to his long known Temper and Charity: He introduceth his Charge with an Ecee, This is he, he is the Man: Would he infer that I am the only Man? No, the body of Divines, except Antinomians, affirm as I do: And in his Preface it's his Moan, the Number is so great. Is it that I am the Man that eminently defend these? Alas, I can shew him Volumes of the Dead, and many are yet Alive, whose Defence of my Positions is so Nervous, as renders mine truly Inconsiderable, as his Opposition thereto Contemptible. Sure then it's either to leave a Mark, that his Facti∣ous Design may more succeed; or to point me

the Person designed by him in his Sermons, Page 22.64. in words indeed too blunt for a Man of his own Sagacity to need another Comment. Yet after all his labour to make the Man sure, he hath assigned the Charge so falsly, that an Ingenuous Reader will sooner charge him for a base Trick in his Insinuations, than me the Patron of the Opinions he would ascribe.

1 Charge. He is one that makes Vnion to Christ, our having this Righteousness upon us, and our being Iustified by it, to be given us in way of Reward of something done by us.

Reply. My words which he refers to here and Page 46. are these, Gospel-Benefits are no Reward of Debt, and yet they are given in a way of Reward: The Benefits are given not for our Faith, yet upon Believing; not upon it as a Meriting Consideration, yet upon it, as that the Presence whereof is made necessary by the Gospel, this having required Faith, and confined the Benefit to him that believes. If a Man saith, I'll give you a Thousand Pounds if you will come to my House and fetch it. It is not a Free Gift, though the Poor Man must come if he will have it, and the Giver is yet bound by his Promise to give it if he come, and not bound to give it if he refuse to come? Defence of Gospel-Truth, P. 25.

These are my very words he pretends to mention, and no where in my Books can he find the least shadow for more. You see, 1. I mention only Gospel-Benefits, and not Union with Christ or Justification. 2. It's Faith only which I mention, and not something done by

us, by which he would insinuate, that other good Works are meant. 3. I say it's upon Believing, and not for Faith; upon it not as a Meriting Consideration; but upon it as that the Presence whereof is made necessary by the Gospel. Doth not this sound lower than his Reward of something done by us? Vpon it as a thing present, and of it as a thing Meriting, are very different. 4. The occasion of my using these words was this, to prove that God by the Gospel, injoyns Faith as a Condition of our having those good things which yet he freely gives; and that Christ shews his go∣verning Authority in his displays of Grace; and excites to Duties by Motives from Benefits freely given; and that Gospel-Conditions have no Merit of Condignity or Congruity. And 5. I laid the Vmbrage of the way of Reward wholly on the Gospel-Promise, and not upon the least Dignity of the Act done. God who is our Ruler, commands Faith, and promiseth, as a Motive to Faith, the Benefits purchased by Christ as good things. Here's the whole of this Damning Error, as far as he could justly call it mine. And by this time you'll discern as little Danger to me by my Opinion, as to him by his False and Malicious Attempt to expose my Ministry, and Person, not to say truth it self; yea, and the generality of Mini∣sters and Christians, who will not stoop to him as Dictator.

2. I shall descend into the Merit of the Cause truly stated, which is resolved into two Que∣stions.

1 Q. When may a Benefit be said to be given in a way of Reward, when yet it is not in a

way of Debt, or Merit, or a Reward for the thing done?

Ans. A thing is thus given in a way of Reward, when a Benefit is given in a way of Encouragement of something required, yea, or desired to be done, however small or unvalu∣able the thing done is, or however great the Benefit is. If you say to your Child, If you'll make a Bow and Thank me, I'll give you such an Estate: When you give him such an Estate upon his so Bowing and Thanking, you do give it him in a way of Reward: It's a Gift, because that Bow and Thanks deserve not that Estate; it's yet given in a way of Reward, since you promised it in a way of Encouragement to his Bow and Thanks. Indeed all Gospel-Conditions are but a meet receiving of the Benefits.

2 Quest. Whether God doth give Gospel-Benefits in a way of Encouragement to our performing of any Gospel-Duties?

Ans. Can any one read the Bible and not cease to doubt, that the Scope of it were vain in its Proposals and Promises, if the thing be otherwise. For 1. Are not the Promises of the Gospel Motives to Duty, Acts 13.19. Repent and be converted, that your Iniquities may be blotted out. Matt. 11.28. Come unto me and I will give you rest. Is the blotting out Iniquities no Encouragement to Repentance? Nor Rest an exciting Motive to a weary Souls coming to Christ? 2. Is it a Dishonour to Christ, to perform his Promise in the way and to the full ends that he makes that Promise? Doth be use the Benefit as a Motive, but not dis∣pense it in a way shewing his Approbation of

the Duty whereto the Motive was Influential? Especially when his Actual Performance of his Promise to some, is an Encouragement to all others; as it's a Ratification of his word, so it's urged, Heb. 6.12. That y•• be not Sloathful, but Followers of them, who through Faith and Patience inherit the Promises. He would have us to this day be Diligent, Believing, and Pa∣tient: What is his Motive? Even this: Others that were so, yea, upon being so, do now in Heaven inherit the promised Good: Through Faith and Patience they inherit. 3. Doth not God frequently express his regard to the Duty performed, as what he encourageth and shews his Approbation of, in applying the Benefit he promised hereupon. Ezekiel 18.27, 28. If the wicked Man turneth, &c. Because he con∣sidereth and turneth away from all his Trans∣gressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Matt. 25.34, 35. Come ye Blessed, &c. For I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat, &c. Verse 23. Well done Good and Faithful Servant, thou hast been Faithful over few things, I will make thee Ruler over many things. 4. How oft are Gospel-Benefits called a Reward in Scripture? Col. 3, 23, 24. What∣soever ye do, do it ••eartily, as to the Lord. Know∣ing that of the Lord ye shall receive the Reward of the Inheritance: for (or because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) you serve the Lord Christ. Col. 2.18. Let no Man beguile you of your Reward; as falling from the Truth would have done. 1 Cor. 3.14, 15. If any Man's work abide, he shall receive the Re∣ward, &c. Verse 8. Every Man shall receive his own Reward, according to his own Labour. Nay

we are downright Infidels, and next to Atheists, who deny God is, if we do not believe that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him, Heb. 11.6. 5. The humblest Saints that ab∣horred Merit most, have been encouraged to their Duty by the promised Benefit, and ex∣pected to receive it in this way of Reward that I contend for: Gal. 6.9. Let us not be weary in well doing, for we shall reap if we faint not. 1 Cor. 9.17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. If I do this thing willingly I have a Reward. This I do for the Gospels sake, that I may be partaker thereof. So run that you may obtain: We strive to obtain an incorruptible Crown. I therefore so run not as uncertainly, &c. 6. How oft are Christians called worthy of the Benefits (in a Gospel-sense) and that with respect to their Graces and Per∣severance? Matt. 22.18. They which were bid∣den were not worthy, because they rejected Christ. Matt. 10.11, 13. If the House be worthy, let your Peace come upon it: That is, as v. 11. who would accept the Message: In which respect the Refusers of Christ are called unworthy of Everlasting Life, though Forgiveness had been ten∣dered to them, Acts 13.38, 46. so Rev. 3.4, 5. Thou hast a few Names, which have not defiled their Garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be cloathed in white Raiment, and I will not blot out his Name, but I will confess his Name before my Father, and before his Angels. A Persevering Freedom from Pollution in Do∣ctrine and Practice, is the very thing that the Promise refers to, in the Persons thus encou∣raged; for the fifth Verse prevents Mr. M's

perverting of the fourth: Though Christ's Righteousness is supposed to this, and all other Promises, and the Reward is in his Right, yet it's to all that overcome, and not to others; and it's on Christ's account, that such that are Faith∣ful can be esteemed Worthy; but it's the Faith∣ful, and not the Vnfaithful, that in him are so esteemed Worthy. 7. I have oft thought what these Men think of Christ, that he alone can give nothing to his Followers in a way of Re∣ward, nor propose any thing to his Enemies, as an encouraging Inducement to become his Disciples: It seems he cannot outbid Satan, the World, and Flesh, least he make his Followers Merit-mongers. 8. As strange is it, how they that credit these Confused Men, can ever come to any grounded Hopes or Assurance of an Interest in any Gospel-Benefit. Can they hope without a Promise? That's vain. But what's the Promise to them without an Interest? No more than to such as never shall enjoy it, which are very many. Then how is it theirs? Whereby have they an Interest rather than others, since God offers the promised Benefits to those others as well as them? If they say, I am a Believer, and those others are not so; I a Believer shall have these Benefits for Christ's sake, but those others shall not, because they are still Unbelievers; and so Christ's Righte∣ousness shall not be applied to them for an In∣terest in these Benefits, according to these Pro∣mises. Alas, hereby they fall into the Error which Mr. M. calls Damnable; they expect the Benefit in a way of Reward upon being Be∣lievers rather than Unbelievers, 9. The Ministry

is by these Wild Notions reduced to a Dead unapt thing; take away Encouragement to Conversion and Godly Perseverance, from the Benefit promised thereto, and the Dangers they escape thereby; And who will mind their telling their Story as they call it? 10. Nay they Confound all Men in their Serious Endea∣vours; they call Men to believe in Christ; and tell them, as Mr. M. in case they do so, his Righteousness will be upon them; that seems an Encouragement, so far well. Ay, but take heed, for if you expect that upon your believing God, will apply Christ's Righte∣ousness to you, that's Damnable, and not Con∣sistent with Faith. So you must Pray, Mourn, and Reform: But you must not rejoyce in it, or look for any thing upon it, saith Mr. M. that's Destructive. Poor Paul, Our rejoycing is this, the Testimony of our Conscience, that in Simplicity and Godly Sincerity, we have had our Conversation in this World, 2 Cor. 1.12. And Paul brings many under Mr. M's Damning Sentence, it's our rejoycing. Yet' I would chuse to be in their case above any Men••, who talk of Faith and Christ if they neglect this. What shall People do in this Wood? It's Im∣possible to Serious Men, it's Injurious to Christ and his Promises, not to look for that promised Good, upon doing what he moves us to by his Promises. But yet Mr. M. and Party assure you are Damned if you do it. The Spirit saith, In keeping God's Commands there is a great Reward, Psalm 19. 11. Mr. M. tells you there is none. Rev. 22.14. Blessed are they that do his Commands, that they may have right to the

Tree of Life. Mr. M. saith, you are gone if you expect it. Christ saith, Luke 21.36. Watch and Pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man. Mr. M. tells you, he thinks it Inconsistent with Faith to do so. 11. They effectually strike at Christ's Government in one of the Principal Means he hath pitched on to administer it by in our pre∣sent State; for with them it's Damnable to be excited to Duty, by hope of any good upon Obedience; or by fear of missing that Good if we obey not: And so in Truth Promises and Threats are Nullities, as to God's Government. Hence Mr. M. resolves all the Reasons of Obedience, into Motives of what God hath done for us, Page 70. Indeed they are Mo∣tives, but they are not the only Motives, nor the chief Motives that God makes use of; nor what are fittest to impress Mankind, yea, or Christians, whilst they be so Imperfect and encompassed with S••ares. We see they restrain not Wrath, Malice, Faction, &c. in too many. How dare Men say, Is it Damning to submit to such Arguments, which God so often useth, from future Rewards and Punishments; because he sometimes moves us from past Privileges or present Decencies? Yea, though you should add the Authority of the Precepts, whilst you divest them of all Promises and Threatnings, to invigorate Mens Compliances therewith: We say, Frustra est praecipere quod impune potest negligi. Christ saith Iohn 13.17. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them. John 12, 48, He that rejecteth me, and receives

not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, that shall judge him. Gal. 6.7, 8. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: what a Man soweth, that shall he reap. For he that soweth to the Flesh, shall of the Flesh reap Corruption: but he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap Life Everlasting. I might transcribe the greatest part of the Bible to prove this. 12. They dreadfully Contradict themselves in all the profitable Sermons they preach. Mr. M. saith it's a Damnable Error in me, to say that God gives any Benefit in a way of Reward or Encouragement upon Be∣lieving, though not as a Debt, or as if Faith merited ought; yea, and it's in and for Christ's Righteousness that it is given. Yet hear him∣self Page 68. Oh get Faith, see that you Believe, for in this way it will come to pass, that the Righteousness of Christ shall be upon you. If a Man should ask him, Doth God command me to believe? Ans. Yes. But doth God by you perswade me to believe by this Argument, That Christ's Righteousness shall be upon me? Ans. Yes sure, or it's a meer Delusion. Q. Well, but shall I have it upon my Believing? A. Yes, it is in this way. But will it be upon me if I believe not? Ans. No, I have told you Page 66. Your Souls shall go down into Hell. Qu. Do you intend that I may tell my own backward Heart, If thou wilt believe, thou shalt have an Interest in this Blessed Righteousness; and so urge the Worth of this, and the Necessity of Believing, upon my Soul? I suppose Mr. M. must here suspend: But if I ask, may I expect assuredly, when I am through Grace enabled to believe,

that upon this God will put the Righteousness of Christ upon me; and make good the word wherein he caused me to hope, viz. That if I did Believe, the Righteousness of Christ should be upon me? Here Mr. M. by his Principle must cry out, O No, this is to follow a Soul∣destroying Error, if there be any in the World. Page 46. But, Sir, I will not plead my Faith as any Merit, but only plead the Promise God is pleased to make to my Faith, and rely on that word now that I have Faith Mr. M. yet that's Damnable, for then it comes in a way of Reward. Then I ask again, If that be Damnable, Pray why did you use this Mo∣tive in the name of Christ to perswade me to believe? How could it be a Motive to Faith, if I was not to expect it upon believing? And if I was to expect it before I believed, in case that I would believe, Why may not I expect it now that I do believe? I know not what Answer Mr. M. will make, unless 1. It's some∣thing done by Man: Or 2. God will be still at liberty to perform, or not perform, the Be∣nefit, though he did promise it: Or 3. He will not perform it in the way he promised it; that is, He promised it as an Encouragement to you if you would believe, but he will not accomplish it as an Encouragement now tha•• you do believe; nor seem so much to approve of your Faith. The first were Silly, because it was, a Man was perswaded to do this, eve•• to believe (for I hope it's a Humane Act, though by the Spirits Power.) The second is, to impeach the Truth of God's Word. The third is, a weak Foppery; as if it were a Dis∣honour

to God to give the Benefit in the way he chose to use it, as a Motive to the Duty; especially when, as Mr. M. owneth, it's by the Gospel-word that God puts this Righteousness on us; which is the very same Word whereby he urgeth this Benefit, as a Motive to Man's Believing. If I again ask, Why Mr. M. would by this Motive, thus perswade Sinners to Be∣lieve? He would, I hope, say, This is the way God hath ordained to convert them to the Faith. But why dare he Preach thus, when it implies what he calls a Damning Error, or else it's a meer Mockery? I'll answer for him, He had a mind to venture a Contra∣diction, rather than be wholly useless to those People, whom he designed to frighten from the Ministry of others as Damnable, that he and his Party might be more considerable.

Reader, Would'st thou know whence comes this Confusion? I'll tell thee it is, Because they consider not 1. That though the Gospel be not a Law, wherein Governing Justice displays it self in the Adjustment of Benefits to the Duty; yet therein there is a Governing Authority in a way of Grace, suitable to the State of Men, in the dispensing of the Fruits of Christ's Death. 2. That a Reward of Grace is quite another thing than a Reward of Debt. 3. That all Gospel-Benefits are given in Christ's Right, and are the Effects of his Righteousness applied to all that partake of them. 4. That all Go∣spel-Precepts and Promises do Authoritatively appoint and describe the Persons that are Par∣••••kers of Benefits for the sake of Christ's

Righteousness but not their own; and not put Men on purchasing these Benefits. 5. Yet these do fully distinguish them that shall par∣take of the Benefits, from others that shall not partake of them: The Gospel doth hereby fix a certain Rule of Judgment, and doth in∣fallibly direct Mens Hopes, Fears and Expecta∣tions: Also it governs Mens Endeavours after Graces and Duties, as the certain Means, on our part, of coming at the respective Benefits, graciously promised in and by Christ, to or upon those Graces or Duties. But these things I have before largely insisted on. This Damn∣ing Error comes to no more at last than this, The Gospel-Covenant is Conditional, not as to the first Grace, but as to the subsequent, Benefits; and so that God requires us to be∣lieve and repent, that we may escape the Wrath of God; and that there are Promises made to Graces: All which the Assembly of Divines in plain words assert; therefore how many are und•••• Mr. M's Condemnation. Nay, it's well if 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Innocent, when he Pre∣faced Mr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Book called, The Blow at the Root; for there all that I assert in this Point is affirmed.

2 Charge. He is the Man that makes the State of Believers to be undecided, and in Suspence during this Life. This is my Second Damning Error.

Reply. He is very unfair in wording this, who would not infer either 1. That I affirm, that all true Believers are not in a State of Sal∣vation. Or 2. That an Elect Person that is brought to believe Savingly will Apostarize,

and Eternally Perish. 3. Or that a Believer, during this Life, may not be assured of his Eternal Happiness. But he knows in his Con∣science, that I do often, in the plainest words, assert the contrary to each of these: Take a few Instances out of my Book; I affirm that we are Justified the same Moment as we truly believe in Christ, and the Blessing is not Su∣spended for any time longer: And an Elect Person once Justified, shall, by Christ's Care, be kept in a Iustified Stated. Gospel-Truth stated, p. 104, 105. Again I affirm, That Assurance is attainable in this Life, as the Effect of Faith, Page 74. I affirm that a Penitent Believer shall be Saved, if he die before he hath time for fur∣ther Obedience. Again, The Essential Blessings of the Gospel, become the Inheritance of a Believer as soon as he is united to Christ, Page 125, 126. Do not say the Elect Believer will not fall away, I think the same; yet is it the less true, that even he should Perish, if he fall away? Nay, Doth not God by these Threats, contribute to keep hi•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apostasie? P. 138. See Defence, P. 9.

2. I'll give thee the Ground upon which he wordeth this Charge. P. 55. I said the Reason why I use the word Condition, is, because it best Suits with Man's Relation to God, in his present Dealings with us, as Subjects in trial for Eternity. And P. 136. How unsuitable is it, to the present State of Mankind, that Christ should govern us without Promises and Threat∣nings. He is a King and we are his Subjects; and we are 1. his Subjects in a State of trial for another World. 2. We have great Remains

of Sin within us, and Temptations without us. These are the places that give him the greatest Umbrage: Now where is here that a Believer's Case is undecided?

3. Let us briefly examine where the very true Difference between him and me consists; for certainly ther•• is one, though he thinks it the best Defence of his own Opinion, to mis∣represent mine, or else he had gained little by calling it Damning. The Difference is not 1. Whether all true Believers are in a State of Salvation. 2. Whether they shall Persevere. 3. Whether it be by the Influences of Christ, through the Spirit, that they do Persevere. 4. Nor whether the Influences of the Spirit and Perseverance, and the Certainty of their Salvation thereupon, be the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, and purchased by his Obedience. All these I affirm: But the real Difference is, 1. Whether God require Believers to Persevere in Faith and Holiness, as the means of their continuing in a State of Salvation? 2. Whe∣ther it be a blameably legal Fear, to be Soli∣licitously Cautious in resisting Temptations, and striving in Christ's Strength to Persevere, least we Eternally Perish? 3. Whether if a Man have once believed, yet if he should fall under the reigning Dominion of Sin and Cor∣ruption, he ought to suspect that he is not in a State of Salvation? These three I affirm, and Mr. M. denies, or I can make nothing of his words, which thou must joyn together. P. 50. If thou hast indeed believed with the Faith of the Operation of God, and they Con∣science knows it, thou mayst then conclude

assuredly, That whatever thy Sins have been, or whatever thy Defects and Corruptions now be, yet this Righteousness of God is upon thee; thou hast it and dost stand in it.

Reply. The Faith is an Act past; the Conclusion is at present whatever a Man's Corruptions be; the only Evidence of the past Faith is ••he Knowledge of Conscience which is not Infallible. And by the way I can prove, That by his Opinion, as that first Act is before Regeneration, so no other, or after-Act of Faith, is necessary to continue our Justified State. Again, He ex∣poseth such, P. 63. as hold that we stand in it (this Righteousness) by our own Faith. And P. 64. their Continuance in Obedience, and the not failing of their Faith, is one of the Pri∣vileges of their State, and the Effect and Fruit of their having this Righteousness of Christ upon them, and not the Means or Cause thereof. You see the not failing of Faith, is not so much as the Means of our continuing to have this Righteousness on us; for of its first being on us, he makes Faith a Cause, P. 51, 52. I need not shew how oft he calls all Fears about this Perseverance in our State Legal.

I have not time to argue these, therefore shall only touch on each. 1. God doth require Believers to Persevere in Faith and Holiness, as a Means of their Continuance in a State of Salvation, Rom. 11.20, 22. Because of Vnbe∣lief they were broken off, and thou standest by Faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. Towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. 2 Cor. 1.24. By Faith ye stand, How Conditionally is it pro∣posed,

Col. 1.22, 23. Now to present you Vn∣blameable in his sight: If ye continue in the Faith, and be not moved away from the Hope of the Gospel. Here our Unreprovableness and Re∣conciliation in the Body of Christ's Flesh, through Death, as to Continuance, is stated on this, If you continue in the Faith, Heb. 10.35 to 39. Now the Iust shall live by Faith: but if any Man draw back, my Soul shall have no Pleasure in him. But we are not of them that draw back to Per∣dition; but of them that believe to the Saving of the Soul. It's by Faith we live; this Be∣lieving is to Salvation, as drawing back is to Perdition. How many are the Promises of Salvation to Perseverance, and Threatnings of Death against Apostasie: And these uttered to Believers? Yea, are a great Means of their Per∣severance which Divine Wisdom hath appointed.

Obj. Christ's Righteousness upon us keeps our Faith. Ans. And yet keeping our Faith through God's Power, keeps that Righteousness upon us to Salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5. And know that Christ's Righteousness is applied in Correspondence with the Gospel-Rule: It is not upon the Apostate to give him a Right to Salvation, but upon the Persevering Believer: It is on the Believer for his present Right, but it is in Christ for to be still applied to the Persevering Be∣liever for his continued Right. Obj. The Be∣liever will not fall away. Ans. It is not natu∣rally Impossible, but it's by Grace that he shall not fall away. But then God's Helps and Means must be used by him, of which these Cautions are not the least; and the Connexion between Apostasie, and the loss of Salvation,

is never the less true, and so Mr. M's Princi∣pal never the less false, for if ever he draw back, my Soul shall have no Pleasure in him, and truly you may as well infer that Faith is not necessary to our justification at first, as that Perseverance is not necessary to our continuing so. For it was as sure of the Elect. even before they believed that they should be justified: It's sure of the Believer, before he persevere, that he shall be saved. But yet, if Faith be necessa∣ry to the first, so Perseverance is by as express Testimony, necessary to the last.

2. It is not blamably legal Fear, for Believers to be sollicitously cautious in resisting Temptati∣ons, and s••riving in Christ's Strength to perse∣vere, and this lest they eternally perish. hold fast that which thou hast that no Man take thy Crown, Rev. 3.10. was a fit Means to beget Care in holding fast. Heb. 4.1. is a Caution the Apostle comprehends himself in. Let us fear, left a Promise being left us, any of us should seem to come short of it, any appearing challenge from within themselves was matter of Fear, for on Christ's Part there's no Suspicion. It's a divine Charge, Phil. 2.13. Workout your own Salvation with Trembling and Fear; not only begin it so, but so work it out. Nay, in no span of Time on this side the Grave is the best Saint exempted. Pass the Time of your sojourning here in Fear, and the Reason is, If you call upon the Father, who, without respect of Persons, judgeth according to eve∣ry Man's Work, 1 Pet. 1. 17. These Men now tell us, There is no judicial Process of Believers, no Judgment by a Gospel-rule: It will not be asked you what Sin you have committed or for∣saken,

or Duty you have omitted, or Good you have done; but are you in Christ? As if these were of no Use to determine whether we are in Christ truly or no, and as if a Privilege were the proper matter of a Judicial Trial. Mr. M. may know whose these are. Oh Christians! Is our Race as yet run, our Fight already fought, or our Dangers past? Are we still in Via, or in Termino.

3. A Man that hath once believed if he should fall under the reigning Power of Sin and Cor∣ruption, ought to suspect that he is not in a State of Salvation. Rom. 8. 13. If ye live after the Flesh ye shall die, but if ye mortifie the Deed of of the Flesh by the Spirit ye shall live, was a Truth directed to all the Saints at Rome; and let me tell you, the Dominion of Sin is a more sure Evidence that Men are now out of a State of Salvation, than the Knowledge of their Consciences that they formerly believed, is of their ever being in a State of Salva∣tion: For this may be a mistaken Know∣ledge, but the other is the divine Word. These Conceits are obviated, Ezek. 33. 13. when I say to the righteous, he shall surely live, if he trust to his own Righteousness, and commit Iniqui∣ty, all his Righteousness shall not be remembred, but for his Iniquity that he hath committed he shall sure∣ly die for it. i. e. If because he began to do well, and because he hath done so for a Time, he ventures to give up himself to a Course of Sin, he shall certainly perish for it. This is the plain Sense of the Place, notwithstanding Mr. M. forced Perversion of it against our expecting any Benefit upon performing any Duty. The Apo∣stle

Paul thought not himself above this Rule, 1 Cor. 9.11, 24. I keep my Body under lest when I have preached to others: I my self should be a Cast-away. What a damning Sentence would Mr. M. pass on Turretin, Perkins, Mr. Anthony Bur∣gess, and most of our old Divines, who jointly assert, That if David had died before he had repented of the Murther of Vria, he had been damned? Nay, that comfortable Text, Rom. 8.1. brands his Position, there's no Condemnation to them that are in Christ, Who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit; whence it's evident, That if they now walk after the Flesh they shall be condemned, at least from its being inconsi∣stent with their present being in Christ, whate∣ver they think of their former believing. I will not retort damning on Mr. M's Opinion; yet to such Souls who credit his Notion, That whatever thy Corruptions now be, if thy Con∣science know that thou hast believed formerly, they Salvation is safe. I must in pity say thou mayest eternally perish by it. For thou canst not judge now it was a true saving Act, but ac∣cording to the Sentence of Conscience; and they Conscience may be mistaken, yea, if thy Corruptions now have Dominion over thee, and continue so, God warns thee, Let no Man eeceive you with vain Words, for these things the Wrath of God comes upon the Children of Disobedi∣ence, Eph. 5.6.

3 Charge. And whether he do not in Truth disown the Imputation of our Sins unto Christ, and of his Righteousness unto us: It is like, if he live, the World will see more fully, for he hath given such pregnant Indications

thereof, as do amount to at least, just Cause of Iea∣lousie. Repl. 1. Is it come so low as a Jealousie now? When he was one that under his Hand affirmed thus of me. He teacheth that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed only as to Effects, with a Purchase of a Conditional grant, viz. This Pro∣position, He that believeth shall be saved, and they cite for it, though in contrary Words. Gospel Truth, p. 39. where my Words are these. I affirm, That Christ, by his Righteousness, me∣rited for all the Elect, that they should, in his Time and Way, be certainly Partakers of its saving Effects, and did not only purchase a con∣ditional Grant of those Effects, viz. That Propo∣sition, He that believeth shall be saved. And be∣sides, these Effects being made ours, the very Righte∣ousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers, as what was always undertaken and designed for their Salvation, and is now effectual to their actual Pardon, and Acceptance to Life, yea, is pleadable by them as their Security, and is as useful to their Happiness, as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did. Reader, were these Men duly tender or honest when they per∣vert Words ••o plain, and ascribe to me what is as directly contrary to my Words as yea and no. They say I affirmed what I do deny, and that I denied the very thing I affirmed: But the Turn could not be served without these Me∣thods.

3. The Ground of Jealousie I'll give, and judge you how just it is. 1. I did affirm that Christ did bear the Punishment of our Sins, yea, and he bare the Guilt of our Sins, which is that

respect of Sin to the threatning of the Law, whereby there is an Obligation to bear the Pu∣nishment of Sin. But I denied that Sin it self, as to its Filth and Fault, was transacted on Christ, and that Christ was made and accounted by the Father the very Transgressor, the Adulte∣rer and Blasphemer. Gospel-Truth p. 10, 11. Here's my Crime, for Mr. M. hath oft preach∣ed up the later. 2. I affirm as thou seest of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness; but my Fault is, that I deny that God accounts that we legally died and obeyed, that we made Satisfaction to God, though I grant that Christ died for us, yea, in our Place and stead. 3. I have, through the Goodness of God, lived to declare, in this Book, enough to confute his Prophesie, and his Opinion too; though I think he should pray for a more calm and charitable Spirit before he pr••∣tend to Predictions concerning his Brethren. 4. Will he repent of his rigid censorious Slander? For I'll here declare that I assent to his own Words, p. 18. By imputed I mean, that it (Christ's Righteousness) is looked on by God as be∣longing to us, in order to our being judicially dealt with according to the Merit thereof. This I have oft affirmed, but it's far short of what elsewhere he strains it too. 4 Charge. The Son of God was united to an Embrio, which is a Piece of ignorant Blasphemy. Repl. My Words were; Oh! For God-Man to be at any time unactive as an Embrio, or Child in the Womb, for him to be born of a Wo∣man. I said not that the Son of God was united to an Embrio, unactive as an Embrio is ano∣ther thing: And I'll ••••ing him twice Ten to op∣pose

his two Witnesses. But had I said it, where is the Blasphemy, when the divine Nature I hope was united to Christ's dead Body in the Grave as all grant. And very many say, that the divine Nature was united to the Flesh before it was organized or animated, of whom Turre∣tin's Instit. Theol. p. 372. Etsi anima infundi non potuit in Corpus. nisi jam organizatum, &c. Non sequiter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non potuisse carnem statim si∣bi unire cum Opus ejus non possit aut praesente aut absente, anima sibi coarctari. Pierson and Multi∣tudes are Blasphemers with this bold Man. But, (supposing that though the Virgin conceived by the Power of the Holy Ghost, and went her usual Time, and that Christ was like other Children, and the Faetus had Matter and Nou∣rishment ministred thereto by the Virgin, who conceived by the Power of the Spirit.) Yet, that the Divine Person was not united to the Flesh before it was animated: But are not ma∣ny Phisicians so ignorant as to judge the Soul is united to the Body unorganized; and if so, ei∣ther the humane Nature of Christ had a sepa∣rate Subsistence from the Divine Person, which is false, or the Divine Person assumed it when the Body was unorganized. But it's a Theme not fit for me to pursue, who must confess my Ignorance therein in Comparison of Mr. M. who can tell us how the humane Nature of Christ leans on the God-head in the Son, and hath the eter∣nal Power of the Deity clasping about it, and hold∣ing it in that Vnion, p. 63. May not this sera∣phical, yet very dull Author, call what he please in this Point a Piece of ignorant Blasphemy, whatever greater Divines, or skilful Phisicans say to the contrary.

5 Charge. Because I would wash off all his Dirt at once, I'll give you one Charge out of his Book that he forgets in his Postscript, though it hath been their best Tool. viz. That I lick up Bellarmin's Vomit in my Exposition of Phil. 3.8, 9.Repl. This is as true as the rest, for when I expounded that Text, I plainly affirmed, tha•• 1. We are justified by Christ's imputed Righte∣ousness only. 2. That all Holiness compared with winning Christ, is to be esteemed as Dung. 3. The best thing in us is vile, compared with Christ's Righteousness. And indeed if that Text speaks only of Justification, and that the Apostle designes to oppose his own Righteous∣ness to Christ's, then his own and ours are as unfit as Dung to be found in. 4. But I then judged (and still do) that the Apostle there de∣signed to proclaim the Preferrableness of Christi∣anity to Judaism, and what was Pharasaical, yea, or self-invented: And therefore, as he enu∣merates all the Dignities of Judaism, so he as∣cribes to Christ the whole Glory of his entire re∣deemed State, shewing that not only his Justifi∣cation, but his Sanctification too came from and by Christ; both which were of a diviner Na∣ture, as well as appointment, than what he arri∣ved to whiles he was a Stranger to Christ, and therefore expected and pressed after a Perfecti∣on therein, whiles he despised all Things, Pri∣viledges and Attainments which stood in Com∣petition with Christ: Yea, was glad he had lost them all for Union with him; a Perseve∣rance in whom with higher Communications from him was the very main Aim of his Life and Endeavours. I am sure this Sense best agrees

with the Context, and is far enough from Bel∣larmin's Sense, neither want I Reasons suffici∣ent to prove it had I room, yea, my Exposition of that Text is so far from militating against Justification by Christ's Righteousness, that it proves it strongly.

2. I come now to consider Mr. M's Defence of his own Errors. He confines them to two. Saying, I kept Silence as to more. When others read this Book they'll see a greater Number, though it seems he could not perceive them when he read my Notes; and hath left out of his printed Sermons many obnoxious Passages; yet he'll meet with his Suretiship Righteousness, the Debtor being as clear as the Surety, P. 24. With his limiting so far Christ's Merit to his active Obedience, p. 13. With his Position, that all Graces of the Spirit are Effects of our being justified, and not at all the Means thereof, p. 32. That all our Obedience avails no more to our Justification than our worst Sins, p. 71. Though he ascribes a Causality to Faith, that the Crown of Glory is due to us in Justice, p. 12. Even a remunerative Justice is exerted to us, p. 15. &c.

But let us take what he thinks most concerns him, the first whereof is, that Christ's Incarnati∣on was no Part of his Humiliation. 1. He grants the Point which ought to be the real Que∣stion. 2. He sets up for his Chimera with a false State of the Question and its Terms.

1. He tells us if you take Incarnation largely, as Christ's taking our Nature and the common sinless Frailties of it, together with his being in the Form of a Servant, and made under the

Law: I know not why it should be denied to be a Part of his Humiliation. p. 73. Reply. Well Christ's taking our Nature is granted by him to be Part of this large Sense: And who can fair∣ly exclude the rest out of the Subject of this Question? Was Christ's Incarnation Part of his Humiliation? Did not Christ assume our Na∣ture with these Frailties, and in the Form of a Servant? Is our Question concerning an Ens Rationis, i.e. supposing Christ had taken our Nature without taking the Form of a Servant, which was next to impossible; or without its sinless Frailties which were then natural to it; and not under the Law which was the next End of taking it? What would it have been then, i. e. if it had been what it never was, nor never would have been, whatever some Popish Schoolmen talk, is that to be the Subject of this Question? Is this meant by Incarnation? Where∣as, as it indeed was, or as Christ was incarnate, and the only way he was incarnate, Mr. M. grants it was Humiliation, and so he fairly yields the Cause. But where will you hold him? In a few Lines, he drops the Form of a Servant, as not so proper a Part of Christ's Humiliation, because Christ in his Exaltation hath still the Form of a Servant: Well recalled because so soon; but it is to get creditable Company in his oversight, for he chargeth the Apostle with the same Slip, Humiliation, &c. Which the Apostle calls taking on him the Form of a Servant, or rather being made under the Law: Between which there may be conceived some Difference, for Christ is still God's Servant, &c. p. 73. It's well the Apostle added this in another Place. But

what gains our Author by this Halt. 1. Either he engageth against him, Phil. 2.7. where the Form of a Servant is Part of Christ's Exaniniti∣on (and note that the best Authors esteem Christ's taking the Form of a Servant for his very Incarnation, and not any humbling Cir∣cumstances consequential of it) or else Mr. M. answers himself, and his poor Argument too, and sure that's convictive: For if Christ was humbled in taking on him the Form of a Ser∣vant, though he keeps the Form of a Servant in his exalted State, then Christ might be humbled in assuming our Nature, though he keeps that Nature in his exalted State. 2. Yea, I think one may follow him to Gal. 4. 4. For if there the Apostle more properly mentions Christ's Humiliation, and instanceth Christ's being made under the Law, yet he fails not to join therewith Christ's being made of a Woman, to share in the Humiliation with his being made under the Law: It would seem Mr. M. thinks the Apostle had better served his Purpose, if not written more accurately, had he set made under the Law in the room of taking the Form of a Ser∣vant in Phil. 2. 7. But it will be no otherwise, yet he sits not down with it; for after all his mend∣ing and winding in vain, to confine all Christ's Humiliation to his being made under the Law; he hesitates and will be halving that too. And therefore tells us, He is not new under the law as he was in the Days of his Flesh. Then the Whole of Christ's being under the Law is not a Part of his Humiliation; it must be confined to an As he was in the Days of his Flesh: And what's all this Toil for? You'll presently see, it's to keep all

Humiliation within the Compass of the Curse; as he had before, P. 7. All the while Christ was in a State of Humiliation, he was under the Curse. A Point which that difficult Text Gal. 3.13. will never prove, as to the whole time. Let us now review what he hath brought his first State of the Question to, which promised so well primo intuitu, we have lost Christ's taking our Na∣ture, which was never intended; we have lost the Form of a Servant, as what is still re∣tained in Heaven; we have lost all that's in∣cluded in being under the Law, except as it was in the days of his Flesh.

2. It's time to see what use he'll make of all this, and how he supports his Chimaera by a further false Explaining of the Terms of the Question; and this he doth by confining Humi∣liation to what is far less than it truly is; and making Incarnation to be such an abstracted thing as it never was nor possibly could be.

1. Humiliation is fulfilling the Law, either in the Precept or the Curse of it, P. 75 as before, P. 7. he confined it to being under the Curse.

Reply. The Disjunctive may help, other∣wise he hath given so hard a Definition of Humiliation, by making it convertible with the Curse, that it would sound ill to ascribe it to the Eternal Word, unless on the account of our Flesh already Assumed; yea, or so as our Author intends by the Curse: But the best of it is, this is Gratis dictum; but where is the Proof, that's a thing he seldom mindeth; that he saith it, is enough to bring you under his Damning Sentence if you deny Assent. But 1. There is a very great part of Christ's Humi∣liation

as the Son of God, which is no part of the Humbling Curse as upon the Son of Man: His Exaninition, or laying aside of his Glory, is Humiliation in the account of the Holy Ghost; and this was true of the Son of God, as to his very Assuming our Flesh, abstructed from its Humbling Circumstances, as I have fully proved. Is it strong Reasoning then, be∣cause the Humiliation of Christ hath more parts than one; therefore that which is not that one part of it, is no part at all of it? 2. Christ did assume our Nature in Obedience to a Law, even that of Mediation; to which he had subjected himself as our Sponsor; this also I have proved. And sure if Obedience to the Law of Works, as he grants, would ren∣der the Incarnation a part of Humiliation, Why will not Obedience to another Law, especially from him who owed no Obedience but for our Redemption, and by his own Con∣sent. 3. Mr. M. will hazard his ill-jumbled Hypothesis of Suretiship, unless he'll grant, that supposing the Son of God would be a Redeemer of Man, the very Law of Works required his Incarnation: If so, then Mr. M. hath allowed, that it must be a part of Humi∣liation in his own proper Sense. 4. Yea, I know a Notion of his that must fall; that supposing the Compact between the Father and Son, antecedent to the Incarnation, the Son stood obliged to Assume our Nature with its Frailties; and that because it was our Nature whom he was to Redeem, and because it was in that State by our Sins, which he had obliged himself to expiate. Yea, 5. Upon his

being thus obliged, Millions of Sinners were Pardoned and Saved before his Incarnation; and therefore he stood charged with their Con∣cerns, so as to be obliged to Satisfie for their Sins, and that in their Nature (for out of their Nature would not serve.) Put these two last together, and we shall come, even with Mr. M's own good liking, to our Point, viz. That Hu∣miliation doth properly predicate of the Incar∣nation strictly taken: Yet I suspect it will hardly go down: Why? Because Mr. M. is so very fond of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Filth of Sin being on Christ, that he cannot think Christ humbled sooner, or longer, than he can with some tolerable Decency call Christ the very Murtherer, Adulterer, Blasphemer, &c. which hath too frequently Preached; and in his Book P. 14. he a little washeth, by saying, He put on the Sinners Garments; and our Guilt, our Sins, were upon him. (Crispian Phrases, which for some end or other he still likes to Con∣secrate.) With him the true Model is, Christ must be as Unrighteous as Sinners, that Sinners may be as Righteous as Christ; and our Saviour cannot be humbled till he be a Sinner, nor Sinners happy till they be Saviours. Here is the Arcanum, whatever be the Pretence.

2. The next Term he dissecteth and strictly garbleth, is Incarnation: It is strictly his dwelling in Flesh, comprehending under it both the Act of Assumption, and the Relation or Vnion effected thereby, between the Humane Nature so Assumed, and the Person of the Son of God.

Reply. If one should ask him, How the dwelling in Flesh comprehends under it the

Act of Assumption, which is supposed to it as much as entring into an House, is to a Man's abode in it, I know not what Answer he will make, unless that the Son of God repeats the Act of Assumption as long as he dwells therein, by that which he calls The Divinity clasping the Humanity, P. 63. If one should again demand, Why he leaves out all that is proper to real Dwelling? Since there might be Assumption, and Relation, though it had ceased the next Moment. I judge he must answer, Pardon my improper Speaking, in making that the Principal Thing, which nothing of what I speak saith any thing to. But if he should answer, by dwelling in Flesh: I do intend, Christ's still remaining in our Nature, and only suppose to it the Act of Assumption, and the Relation effected thereby. I reply, That this is the Grossest Fallacy; for Christ's continuing in our Nature, is remaining Incarnate, and not for∣mally Incarnation; which is the Term in the Question. And the Design of this Fallacy, is to change the Question for the sake of an Argument that he greatly wants; since the Question thereby would be, Is the Son of God's continuing in our Nature, a part of his Humi∣liation? And is any so Foolish as to say, That this is the same Question, as was the Son of God's Incarnation a part of his Humiliation? Where the Term Incarnation is the very Assuming our Flesh into Relation and Union; and is so far from being comprehended in the Son of God's still dwelling in Flesh, that it is sup∣posed thereto, yea, as its Cause; yea, and doth not so much as connote it, but as he assumed

it to dwell in it for ever: Such Juggling it seems is necessary. But the main Enquiry I now come to, viz. Whereby was the Act of Assumption? How did the Son of God take our Flesh into Union to his Divine Person? Was this in and by his Conception? To this Mr. M. answers.

Mr. M. P. 74. Christ's Incarnation is one thing, his Conception another; by the one he be∣came Man, by the other he became the Son of Man: The former implies only his Participation of the Nature; the other, together with the Na∣ture, the Manner and Way of his partaking it, though in Christ they did Concur and Coexist.

Reply. It seems then being Man, and being the Son of Man, differ; and that so far, as humbled and unhumbled: But did not the Son of God become Man by becoming the Son of Man? If so, then he was humbled by becoming the Son of Man, but again unhumbled by be∣coming Man. He saith, They Coexisted. What as two Separate things? No: He tells you it's as a Thing, and the Way and Manner of that Thing therewith. But to the loss of his Fancy, he will find that the Thing hath its being, by what he calls the Way and Manner of that Thing; for the Son of God's Incarnation was by his Conception, as the Means and Cause of it; and therefore if he was humbled by his Conception, he was humbled by his Incarna∣tion too; for he became Incarnate by being Conceived. He tells us, They did Concur as well as Coexist in Christ: What meaneth he? Did Christ's being Man, as by Incarnation, concur to make him the Son of Man by Con∣ception;

as his being the Son of Man by his Conception, did concur to make him a Man, or Incarnate. i. e. He took Flesh as a Man, that he might be Conceived, as much as he took Flesh by being Conceived. At last finding, upon a long rolling in his Mind, that if to be Conceived was to be Humbled, the Son of God then must be Humbled by becoming Incarnate. He leaves this Profane Cant, and tries what he can make of granting, There was an Abasement in the Manner of his Con∣ception, but not in his being Conceived. But as I think he can never part them, so I have else∣where proved, That his being Conceived is ••he greater Debasement; and there was no∣thing in the Manner of it Debasing, but as supposing the Thing it self was so. Alas, What is this or that Humane Circumstance com∣pared with God's taking our Flesh? And what are the Circumstances? Mary, though no Rich Woman, was of David's Line, a Free Woman, and a Virgin. Yet let's hear his Reason since he seldom offers any. The Humane Nature was really related to Mary, as to its Cause, for she Conceived him, yet she was not a Cause either of his Incarnation or of his Humiliation. Doth he intend that Mary was not the Cause of the Son of God's Will to be Incarnate, and so Hum∣bled? But that is not the Point, and none doubt it. But I ask, Was not Mary the Cause of the Humane Nature, as it was Christ's Hu∣mane Nature? And did not it become his Humane Nature, as he was Conceived of her, by the Efficiency of the Spirit? Well therein, and so far, she was the Cause of his Incarna∣tion:

And if she was not the Cause of his Humiliation, Pray whence was the Abasement in the Manner of his Conception, which Mr. M. just now affirmed? I dare not pretend to seek out any, least in naming the word Embrio, he should call it a piece of Ignorant Blasphemy.

Mr. M. after all his Superfine Distinctions, of Christ's Assuming our Nature being ano∣ther Thing than his Conception; the Thing, and the Manner of the Thing, (though that Manner was a Cause of it) the Conception, and the being Conceived; being Self-conscious that he had offered no Arguments fit to Proselite any, his Admirers not being able to under∣stand them; and such as could guess at what they did signifie, being sure to despise, if not abhor them; he comes down to offer a Pro∣posal from his own Choice. For my own part, I would chuse to refer Christ's Conception to the Things that made him allied in Blood to us, and so fit to act as our Surety, rather than to his actual performing the Work of Suretiship, as antece∣dently standing in that Relation to us, P. 75.

Reply. Designeth he by this, to leave others to chuse for themselves, without a Damning Sentence? That's unlike the Heighth and Heat of the Man: But what can we make of this Jargon, as connected with what past before? Was not Eve allied in Blood to Adam, though she was not Conceived a Daughter of Man or Woman? And therefore Christ might have been allied without Conception. Again, was not Christ allied in Blood to us by his Incar∣nation, which he saith is another thing than Christ's Conception? It seems by our Author's

words, That his abstracted Incarnation was Christ's taking the Humane Nature or Flesh, but not Specifically our Humane Nature or Flesh: Or was his Assuming the Humane Nature, as distinct from Conception, an Assum∣ing a Humane Soul not allied to our Souls, as he is allied to us in Blood by Conception, and he doth here confine it thereto? Here we meet with another Distinction, sufficient to argue him still a Designing Man, but not a very Di∣stinct or Discerning one: Here's a Humane Nature, and yet not a Humane Nature allied to us; a Humane Flesh and Blood, and not a Flesh and Blood allied to ours. By Christ's Incarnation he took a Humane Nature, a Flesh and Blood, not allied to us: By Con∣ception he became allied to us in Flesh and Blood, and in Nature too, unless he hath it in his Mind, that Christ hath not a Humane Soul allied to ours. Those words also are very un∣certain, Antecedently standing in that Relation to us. Doth he mean that Christ was not re∣lated to Men as their Surety before his Incar∣nation? How then were all the Saints Saved before his Coming? Or is it that the Son of God did not perform any Suretiship-Act in Assuming our Nature, or being Conceived? If so, then he had not undertaken to Assume our Nature before he took it; though all that he did or suffered (had it been possible) would not have availed us, unless so done and suffered in our very Nature: And can you suppose he engaged not that as a Surety or Sponsor, with∣out which nothing had been Payment? Or doth he intend that Christ wa•• not allied to us in Blood before his Conception? It's true, and

yet as true, That he was allied to us in Blood by his very Incarnation, as well and as soon as by his Conception: Christ did not Assume a Humane Nature before nor otherwise, than as he was by his Conception allied to us in Blood, and Soul too: At last we are gotten out of this Labyrinth, made up of nothing but ripe blown Thistles. His Authorities, when ex∣amined, avail him little, I have but room to examine one, yet he is at the Front of them. Ames, Medulla, Cap. 20. P. 94. Humiliatio est qua subditus est justitiae Dei, ad illa omnia per∣ficienda, &c. The Humiliation (of Christ as Mediator) is that whereby he was subject to the Justice of God for finishing all those things which were required for Man's Redemption, Phil. 2.8. Here he confineth Humiliation to one part, viz. a subjection to Justice, (not Authority) and this to finishing (not beginning) what was necessary to the Redemption of Man; which by the Text he quotes, refers to his Death or Pas∣sion on the Cross, of which besure he was not ca∣pable as God. But that he confined not all Christ's Humiliation to this which excludes his Incarna∣tion, is not evident; for the next words are, Humiliatio ista non fuit, &c. that Humiliation was not properly of the Divine Nature or Per∣son, considered in themselves, but of the Medi∣ator God-Man: Therefore the Assumption of the Humane Nature simply and in it self con∣sidered (non est Humiliationis hujus pace) is not a part of this Humiliation. That Humiliation, and of this Humiliation do indicate, that he had an Eye to somewhat else that might be call∣ed by this Name Humiliation; at least it doth not prove that Christ's Incarnation was not a

part of any Humiliation of the Son of God, because it was not a part of this Humiliation Dr. Ames limits it to this part, Mr. M. concludes against any other. Our Author at last, having bungled so at Demonstration, he falls to suspicion-work, which I confess his Ta∣lent renders him much more expert in; as if thinking no Evil, were no part of Charity; or at least, want of Charity were no Challenge to Faith. But what hath his Jealous Head brought forth, after so oft tumbling the word Concep∣tion? Even this his own Doctrin of Imputation is lost, if Christ's Incarnation be a part of his Humiliation: Well, it's a point I never thought of before; and it's a comfort to me, the Gospel Doctrin of Imputation will suffer nothing, but be availed thereby; I hope to find much more of Christ imputed to me as done for me, than what I was personally obliged to do by the Law, or was esteemed legally to perform; though I own as well as Mr. M. that Christ died in my stead; yea, and so obeyed too, as you'll see in this Book. But with him, farewell all Christ's Obedience or Humiliation, if we did not legally do and endure all the very same; and if so, he must take his leave of the greatest part of the price of Redemption, viz. the va∣lue given to all Christ's Obedience by the Divine Nature; for I hope the Law never required that in Man's Obedience.

And since he lays such stress on his point of the Incarnation being no part of Humiliation, let us Appeal to Competent Judges, Phil. 2.6, 7, 8. Christ Iesus, who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God: but▪

be emptied himself of his Glory, taking on him the Form of a Servant, being made in the Likness of Man: And being found in Fashion as a Man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto Death, even the Death of the Cross. I have rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, emptied himself of his Glory, and left out the two Copulatives which are not in the Origi∣nal. The main Matter is reducible to these. 1. Is emptying himself of his Glory any Humilia∣tion? I answer, it signifies more Humiliation, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is rendred humbled, Vers. 8. The Word is as much as rendring all Glory and Honour vain or void, so used 1 Cor. 9.15. 2. Is the Son of God's Incarnation in∣tended by the Apostle when he saith he made his glorying void? It is certainly and eminently so. For 1. The Nominative Case to this Verb, is confined to the second Person not incarnate, he being in the Form of God, &c. He, even he so consi∣dered, before he was God-Man emptyed himself, or made his glorying void as to Manifestation, wherein could this properly be so but in becoming incarnate, for whatever Debasement followed af∣ter his Incarnation referred to him as the Effect of thus emptying himself. 2. The whole 7. Vers. is confined to his Incarnation as I have fully proved, he emptied himself being made in the Likeness of Man. P. 24, 25. &c. Vers. 8. be∣ing found in Fashion as a Man, is that which lets in what followed his Incarnation, though but one eminent Instance be given. The Assembly of Divines, Larg. Cat. Q. 47. Christ humbled him∣self in his Conception, in that being from all Eter∣nity the Son of God, he was pleased in the Ful∣ness of Time to become the Son of Man, made of

a Woman of a low Estate, and to be born of her, with divers Circumstances of more than ordina∣ry Abasement. To wrigle himself out of this which he subscribed, he doth, I suppose, use ••he former Shifts. But to add no more, Doctor Owen's Expos. on the Hebrews, Chap. 3. Vers. 2, 3. P. 21. This glorious one humbled himself into the Form of a Man, of a Servant, unto Death, the Death of the Cross, Phil. 25.6, 7, 8. You see his Comment on this Text. Reader, judge now of the Confidence and small Tenderness of this Man that should have a very peculiar Eye to this Opinion of his when he told his Hearers, P. 38. So shall it go with your Souls, so will God deal with every one of you as you receive or reject those Truths of his: A thing he calls a damning Error in me when I say so but of Mens being pe∣nitent godly Believers.

The second Point to be marked is, That Be∣lievers are as righteous as Christ in Equality, as to Suretyship-Righteousness. For that's the Point. He saith little here for it; and I have said enough in this Book against it; therefore a few words will serve. His Authors Rhetorical Say∣ings are more reconcilable to Truth than his Position. Mr. Bradshaw affirms, That Pardon without the rigid Imputation of the Active Obe∣dience, serves to all saving Purposes. But I'll dismiss this with these Remarks.

1. He builds his whole Notion upon a Sure∣tiship-Righteousness, and never proves Christ to be any such Surety as will at all infer, that we are as Righteous as he on that account. I have carefully weighed what he hath written; and find what he saith for it, pag. 10, is, that he is

called a Surety, Heb. 7. 22. I grant it, and he'll find, I have proved that Christ is there called only a Surety of the Gospel Covenant; and therefore can, as mentioned in that place, be engaged to no more thereby, than what that Covenant includeth. Though yet I grant, that other Scriptures prove, that Christ undertook to be the end of the Law for Righteousness, and died in our place or stead, &c. of which I have in∣sisted at large. And if this will not serve, he adds his All: He who is obliged to pay anothers Debt, or any part of it, is properly, and in strict∣ness his Surety. Repl. But not always so, as that the Principal can be said to pay that Debt as m••••h as he, nor be as just as he, nor be said to be im∣mediately released upon his payment, &c. For if a Friendgoes to a Creditor, and promiseth to pay part of a Prodigals Debt, agreeing together, that upon sundry terms, and in a fit time, and by degrees the Prodigal shall be acquitted and re∣leased; yea, and that his Debt shall be remit∣ted to him in a way of forgiveness by the very Creditor, and he still be bound to certain Ser∣vices thereby; I hope all the former daring as∣sumptions are prevented, and yet the subsequent Surety engaged to pay part of the Prodigal's Debt. Should not Mr. M. p. 10. forbear say∣ing, that holy Mr. Baxter wrangles and rejects this Counsel of God against himself, and cites the place where Mr. B. argues this point, and offer no better proof. But that's their way, he shall Reason, and they'll do their work by meer Re∣proaches, and cursed Censures.

2. He p. 75. saith, That Christ's Resurrection, Ascension and Intercession, are not imputed to Be∣lievers:

Yet all the proof he brings for an Eter∣nal Legal Union between the Elect and Christ, and their being one Person in Law, is, That they are said to be in him in his reviving, rising from the Dead▪ and sitting in heavenly places with him, p. 59. ••••hat what in one place is the instance and ground of Legal-Surety-Imputation, in the other is excluded from being imputed: I hope those phrases will by his followers, not again be pleaded for Suretiship-Imputation.

3. How dogmatically spoken is it, p. 76. That if it be the same Righteousness in which Christ and we stand, he and we are so far as that Righteousness makes Righteous, equally Righteous? Repl. But Sir, he and we come not alike by it; and we depend on it as in him for all; he stands not in it so as to need forgiveness, which we do; yea, that forgiveness is oft repeated to us after we are made Righteous: He is by it entitled to much more than we are, &c. of which elsewhere. And since he infers an Equality from a Sameness, let me ask, are we as spiritual as Christ? And yet it's the same Spirit that is in Christ and in us. Are we as much beloved by God as Christ our Mediator is? And yet Ioh. 17. 26. Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me, that the Love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them: Here's As and the Same Love, yet it were Impudence to pretend to be loved equally. Yea, Vers. 22. The Glory which thou gavest me I have given them: Here's the same Glory, but must we be as glorious as Christ in Equality? Alas! Do not we see that the same Guilt of a Fact may lie upon many, and yet all not be guilty in the same Degree? Judge then,

what an Air of Assurance doth this short-sighted Man breathe forth in the next Words. I can hardly think any Man is so forsaken of common Vn∣derstanding as to deny it: Because he cannot give convincing Light, he'll threaten us into it by calling us mad, and had he thought th•••• would have sent more open Mouths after us, he would have given us that Term instead of Semisacinia∣ne, Men that hold damning blasphemous Er∣rors, and what not. But any Man that inti∣mately knew Mr. Baxter (whom he loads with these Titles as well as others) and Mr. M. would not be long concluding which had more Understanding, Truth, Love to God and Man, Publick-spiritedness, Godliness, Integrity, and whatever makes a Gospel-spirit and the Image of Christ upon a Man; to say nothing of Humili∣ty, good Nature. Freedom from Envy and Ma∣lice, &c. Yea, God blessed him, more to the real Conversion of Souls than a hundred Mr. Ma∣ther's; notwithstanding his charging him with rejecting the Counsel of God against himself. P. 10. And to hold pernicious, Soul-destroying Errors; for it's him, whose Words he puts in a broken Light. P. 46.

4. He very oddly evades the Charge of the Assembly. Confess. Chap. 26. A. 3. viz. This Communion which the Saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise Partakers of the Sub∣stance of his God-Head, or to be equal with Christ in any respect; either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous: This Place I cited, but would not repeat the Words at Pinners Hall. To this he tells us, P. 76. This must be taken in a limited Sense, &c. for taken absolutely it will not hold, Be∣lievers

are Menequally with Christ, &c. Rep. True, for he hath almost told us, we are hail Fellows with Christ, he was not humbled in being a Man, nor is he dishonoured in our being as righteous as he. He saith, P. 7. Christ's Incar∣nation may as justly be said to be a Part of his Ex∣altation as of his Humiliation: But though they intend not the being of a Man in what they so severely brand, yet they mean nothing if they exclude what is so great a Perfetion of Christ as his Righteousness is, when they fix Blasphemy on saying we are equal with Christ in any respect, they must think his Righteousness such a Pre∣rogative, that who will equal Christ in this, may next ask of him his Kingdom also, and Mr. M. hath given us a Handle for that upon our very being as Righteous as Christ. For, P. 25. He at large shews that Christ hath two Titles to Glory, a natural one, and an accumulated one, viz. An acquired Title as our Surety; and if you ask what Glory that is you'll find, P. 56. It's that special Revenue of Glory and Praise which the Father, who began his Son from Eternity, and lov∣ing him with an infinite Love designed him. Now then, if Christ's Title to all his acquired Glory be his Suretiship Righteousness, and as to that we are as Righteous as he in Equality, what can hinder us not only to have that very same Title to Heaven and Glory as Christ hath as he is our Sponsor! But I say what can hinder Be∣lievers Claim and Title to the very same high Throne in Heaven, and the very same Degree of Glory, as Christ, as their Surety hath a Ti∣tle to, since Christ hath it? For that very Righteousness which they have as much of as

he himself, and that God gives, or rather pay•• them all of remunerative Justice; and that they are one mystical Person with Christ all which this modest Author affirms, P. 55. Reader ••••••ge, is this no other Equality than in being Men as well as Christ?

5. Though he talks so much of Suretiship Righteousness, he gives an uncertain Sound of that Bond wherein Christ and Believers come into that legal Oneness. 1. One while he was constituted a Surety in that Covenant between God and him. P. 10. Thereby there was a legal Vnion, and this Vnion was from ever∣lasting, and it was of supercreation Grace, and perfected in the Transaction between God and Christ. P. 50, 60. Reader know; That I grant there was a Covenant of Redemption be∣foretime, and that therein Christ undertook to redeem and save elect Sinners, &c. But yet I de∣ny, that by that Covenant Christ and the Elect were eternally one legal Person, or that he is their Surety in such a Sense, as will render them legally esteemed to do and suffer all that Christ did pursuant to that Covenant; or that thereby they are as Righteous as he: Thou wilt find my Arguments in this Book, at present it's enough to say, we were never Principals in that Cove∣nant, and therefore Christ could not be such a Surety. The thing insisted on in that Covenant was Redemption Work, and the Salvation of Sinners, as fallen; but the redeeming and sa∣ving of Sinners, or our selves as Sinners, was ne∣ver proposed to us as our Duty; it was inconsi∣stent and impossible to our State as fallen; and with his Leave, as it looks strange the Elect should

have two legal Heads at once, viz. Christ and A∣dam, so if Christ and Men were eternally one le∣gal Person, I doubt it may as well be proved that Christ legally broke the Law in the Elect's breaking it, as the Elect kept the Law in Christ's keeping it: Well, thus far, here's a Sure∣ty without a Principal, and a Work or Debt which none was ever bound to, but him that is called a Surety in a Sense that many must be said to do and pay as much as he. 2. Another while Christ's Name was put into the original Bond in which we by the Law and Covenant of our Creation were bound, P. 10. He told us before he was constituted a Surety in another Bond, viz. The Eternal Compact; if so, then his Name is put into this Bond, in performance of his an∣tecedent Suretiship, and not made a Surety by putting his Name in this Bond; then it follows, that what he doth pay of this Bond can be said to be paid by us no otherwise than according to the Nature of his Suretiship in the former Bond, wherein we have seen he was principal and sole Undertaker, I am glad by this that I need not argue with him, that if Christ was a pecuniary proper Surety with us in the Covenant of Works, then it was either absolutely or dis∣junctively: if absolutely, that he would keep it, then we were not Parties at all engaged. If disjunctively, viz. That either we or he would keep it, then it was never broken, for he hath kept it, and his Obedience, without any Suf∣fering sufficed to fulfill it, &c. But Mr. M. granting, and that truly, that Christ was con∣stituted Surety in the Covenant of Redemption prevents my insisting on such things, Only still

note, as I have elsew••ere proved, that Christ being made under the Law (which he means by putting his Name in the Bond) was the Effect of Christ's Suretiship. 3. Yet inconsistently enough, P. 14. Christ was made our Surety, his Name was not only put into the Covenant of Works, but into it as a broken Covenant. Here all is ruffled again, and how shall we unriddle it? He was but now constituted a Surety in the eternal Bond, but he is here made a Surety in the brok∣en Bond: He that distinguished between assuming our Nature and being conceived, no doubt, will find some Difference be∣tween constituted a Surety, and made a Surety; for that he must do or he contradicts himself. Well, I grant that Christ came in our Nature to obey the Law we had broken, and bear the Pu∣nishment we had deserved, and answer the End of the Law which we had frustrated. But this will not make him such a Surety in this broken Bond, as shall make us legally accounted to do all, and suffer and answer all, and be as righteous as he that did it, though it be in his very Righteousness that we are saved, notwith∣standing we have failed in all this. For I ask when he put his Name in this broken Bond? Sure not before it was broken, then he was Surety before: Again, when he did put his Name, did, he do it to the same very purpose as we were originally bound, viz. that we might live by our Innocency and Obedience as our Righteousness? No, it was to redeem us from the Effects of our own Disobedience. Did he engage that we should do and suffer what would be a Price of our Redemption and Salvation?

No, he was to do it himself in his own legal Person, I say legal, because the divine Dignity of his Person gave the legal, yea, supralegal Va∣lue in God's Account to what he did and suffer∣ed; for one meer Man's doing and suffering what the meer Law injoined, would not have satisfied for Millions, and the broken Bond it self did not require a divine Person's obeying any more than the whole Bond did, though the At∣tainment of its Ends did so. Again, if Christ's Suretiship was so limited within this broken Bond, than as he was bound to do and suffer no more than it required, so neither he nor we are entitled by that Obedience to any more than this broken Bond at first covenanted to give: Yea further, Mr. M. faith, P. 57. The elect were constituted (at first) under another Head, and under another Covenant, which had nothing in it of Christ and his Righteousness, either to be brought in for them, or to be applied to them.

Reply. But if Christ's Righteousness be no higher than that Covenant did require before it was broken, the Righteousness of perfect Adam had been as great as Christ's: And if the unbroken Covenant was the same as the broken Bond, How should the unbroken Co∣venant neither have nor require any Righte∣ousness of Christs, and yet the broken Bond measure and limit Christ's Righteousness, and Sentence us legally Righteous for it. But if, as Mr. M. saith, the Covenant with Adam and the Elect was another Covenant from the broken-Bond; then we are not under the Covenant requiring what at first it injoyned, and being federating Parties only in the first,

and subjected to Penalty only by it as it's broken: Here's no Obedience-work for a Surety, nor place for a proper Surety in bearing the Penalties. But I have elsewhere enlarged, and therefore conclude, That such Confusion about the Suretiship should abate Mens regard to his Censures, against such as will not own he himself knows not what, and proveth none sees how.

6. I find after all, that this Equality of Righ∣teousness between Christ and us, is not so much from Legal Union, or Judicial Imputation, but from a Coalescence of Believers into one mysti∣cal Person with Christ by Vital Union. Thus p. 55. Between our believing and our being justified, there comes in our Coalescing into one mystical Per∣son with Christ by this Vital Vnion, and our having his Righteousness upon us unto the Iustification of Life; and so our being justified is not the next or immediate effect of our Believing, &c. Here in∣deed; if I understand what one person is, he may well argue we are as Righteous as Christ; for we are Christified with Christ, not in Name, or on Account of his undertaking, or his being the Head of the Church as his mystical Body: But as being one mystical Person, opposed to a Legal Person, than by pointing at any Believer, you may avoid the danger of Ioh. 8.24. If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins. Mr. M. may rise higher than that we are as Right••••us as Christ, and say we are as Holy as Christ, as Honorable as Christ, as Wise as Christ; and so interpret his proof, 1 Cor. 1.30. Nay, are we not assumed into a Personal Union with the Eternal Word, as the Humane Nature

of Christ is; which I think is unavoidable, un∣less Christ hath more Persons than one? Besides, his being a legal Person, which he opposeth this mystical Person to. And that he means some∣thing like this, hear him p. 60. It's called a Vital Vnion, because in effecting it; there is a Vital Touch, as I may say, between Christ and us, and a clasping each on other. Compare this with P. 63. The Humane Nature of Christ leans on the Godhead in the Son, and hath the Eternal Power of the Deity clasping about it, and holding it in that Vnion, &c. The Eternal Power of the Godhead in Christ (and not so much the strength of any created Principle of Grace in us) holding our Hearts unto him, and causing them for ever to live upon him. Can you find much difference, though he pretend a Disproportion? The Awfulness of the Subject restrains me from exposing this affected Cant, which is the only Gospel with these Men, because its My∣stery, i. e. unintelligible Nonsence fitted to a Rosocrucian or Behemist: It is not enough that Christ is the Author of all in us, and the Securer of all promised Good to us; and that he condescended to confirm this, and comfort our Souls by such gracious Instances of a My∣stical Union, as that between Vine and Branches, Head and Members, Husband and Wife; yea, that the same Spirit dwells in Christ and us, each of which inform and assure to us, the Blessing designed to be signified thereby, but not whatever our Profane Fancies may wrest a Metaphor, or force an Expression to. Must Men strain it to one Person, whereby Christ's Prerogatives and our Vile Defects are in com∣mon

to Christ and us? Is this to let Christ in all things have the Preheminence? Col. 1. 18. The Scriptures needed not so many Metaphors to represent to us the several Benefits we have by Union with Christ: This one would have served for all, yea, far exceeded all; only that one Person would consist but with few of them, nay with none; Head and Members do not make one Person, but one Body; yea, one Spirit in Christ and us doth not make one Person, unless you'll make the Holy Ghost to be an animating Soul to the Body, and so be the chief constitive part of the whole Person: What will a deluded vain Fancy expose Men to at last?

Exceptions against some more Passages in Mr. M's Book.

I Have been already engaged to hint at some, yet among many obnoxious enough, let's consider some more of his Stamina.

1. That

God hath ordained Christ to do all with God for the Elect, and that he shall be a•••• from God to them, &c. All, I say, that in this ruined Condition they need to bring them to that heighth of Happiness, &c. P. 56, 58.

Reply. If he had meant only that Christ was to do all with God in a way of Satisfaction, Impetration, Merit, or Intercession, it were true; but as he words it, it may be very Erronious; and it is to Scrue an Error he doth thus express it. Hence, because he finds Re∣pentance

and Faith are so necessary to our Salvation, he hath in his Pulpit endeavoured to inform Men how Christ repented, and that he repented for us; and though he doth not-publish it in this Sermon as he did elsewhere, That Christ believed for us; yet you'll see pre∣sently, how much he endeavours to convince us that he did so; for if he believed whilst humbled, it was for us, and it's imputed to us, as he oft in this Book affirms. Had I Mr. M's liberty, what would I call this Error; for though it's in Christ's Strength and Grace that we Repent, Believe, turn to God, and do good Works; yet if we do not these as our Personal Acts, Misery will be our Portion. If you (not I) believe not, you shall die in you Sins, John 8. 24. Except you (not I) repent, you shall all perish, saith Christ, Luke 13. 3. I say, Except your Righteousness (not mine) exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Matt. 5.20. Had Mr. M. been an Auditor, he had not said, Lord thou understandest not the Gospel; it's thou art to do these things, this is the deep Counsel of God, however legally thou speakest: He might as well say, it's thou Christ shall perish, as thou Christ art to repent.

2. Faith is a prime and principal part of our Being, conformable to the Image of Christ, &c. He is the first Pattern and original Copy of Be∣lieving, P. 62, 63.

Reply. Is Christ's Faith the Pattern of Faith in Christ? I remember somewhere Dr. Good∣win speaks of God's trusting Christ till he was Incarnate; and of Christ's trusting the Father

since the time of his Sufferings: Yea, we may easily grant that Christ believed God's Pro∣mise; and, as a Man, depended and relied on God's Power and Truth. But this is no other Faith than Adam in Innocency acted, than the Law of Works directed to. By this account we may think better of the State of Pagans than most do; for without Gospel-Revelation they may believe in God, trust him, and depend on him. But what is this to the account the Scripture gives of Faith in Christ? Did Christ come to himself as a Saviour? Did he receive himself as a Crucified Redeemer? Did he eat his own Flesh, and drink his own Blood for Eternal Life? Did he plead his own Merits, and rely on his own Righteousness for Pardon, and restored Peace? Did he consent to be married to himself? Did he look to him∣self for Healing? Or to use Mr. M's account of Faith in this very Page, Did he go out of himself unto himself for all? Yea, take part of his Description of Faith in Christ, p. 39, 40.1. The Subject of Faith is the Heart of a con∣vinced broken-hearted Sinner, &c. The very Nature of Faith, and the acting of the Soul in it, is such as doth imply and include a Sight and Sense of Sin and Misery, and a lively heart-influencing Conviction of utter Helplesness in a Man's self, and unworthiness to be helped by God, &c. Rea∣der, Doth Christ's Faith in the Nature of it, imply a Sense of utter Helplesness and Unwor∣thiness in himself, or of his Sin and Misery? The Reason he gives for Justling out such as Abram, and setting up Christ for the original Copy of believing in himself is this, The Hu∣mane

Nature of Christ lives and subsists in the second Person, leaning on the Eternal Deity of the Son of God, it hath its Subsistence in the Bosom of the Godhead, &c. and hath the Eternal Power of the Deity clasping about it, P. 63. The Apostle did not know this Faith, when he said that Charity was greater than Faith: Well, as Sublime as this Reason seems to be, I will venture to say, This is not that Faith in Christ which the Gospel requires of Sinners. 1. I will give you a Reason of Mr. M's, which besure is none of the best, P. 7. Christ's dwelling in our Nature is no part of the Punishment of Sin, for then the Divine Nature only is punished, and not the Humane at all, nor the Person. It's a bad one for what he brings it, since that Assuming the Nature and dwelling in it differ, and I have answered it before, and it needs a great Allowance to keep it from. But if the Suffer∣ings or Acts of only one Nature be not the Sufferings or the Acts of the Person of Christ; then the acting of Faith of the one Nature on the other Nature, is not acting of Faith upon the Person of Christ; and consequently not Gospel-Faith, which is to be acted on the Person of Christ; here the Humane Nature believes; but that is not with him; Christ that believes, it believes on the Divine Nature, and that with him is not Christ who is believed on: What now is become of Christ's Believing even by his own Reasoning? 2. The Object of Faith in Christ, is God-Man Mediator, a Cru∣cified Christ, &c. but the Deity of the Son of God abstractedly considered, is not God-Man Mediator, &c. Truly if our Gospel-Faith is

specified by this, I see not the need of Christ's Incarnation or Death, yea, or regard thereto. 3. This leaning, and especially to the purposes assigned to this Act of Christ's Humane Nature, is not all that which is Essential to the Faith in Christ which the Gospel requires. But why should I Scribble the little Paper left? It's like the Reasons he gave for Christ's Repenting, viz. The reproaches of them that reproached thee, are fallen upon me; and he was a Man of Sorrows, and acquainted with Grief.

3. He plainly discovers his Mind to be, that Faith is an Act of the Soul whilst spiritually dead and unregenerate, P. 61. He joins with such as say, Faith is the means and way of our being made spiritually alive, rather than our acting Life, as being already brought into a state of Life, as the Bodies Clasping hold on the Soul by the ani∣mal Spirits, which are Corporeal things, is ra∣ther the means of Life, than an act of Life, &c. P. 62. Suppose that the principle of Grace begot∣ten and created in us in Regeneration contain in it the Habit of Faith, which I will not now call in question: Yet &c. P. 32. All our new Obedience, and all the Graces of the Spirit comprized under that one word Love, are the Effects and Fruits of our being ju∣stified. P. 60. In Vnion (by Faith which is the cause of this Union) we are brought immediately into a state of Spiritual Life, first Relative, then Quali∣tative, &c. Repl. Here, with the Arminians, he denieth the habit of Faith necessary to the actings of Faith: He is contrary to the Assem∣bly of Divines, who tell us, That

God in ef∣fectual Vocation, takes away the Heart of Stone, and gives a heart of Flesh, renewing

their Wills, and by his power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, Conf. Cap. 10. A. 1. & Q. 2. Man is altogether Passive therein, until being quickned by the holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this Call, and to embrace the Grace offered, and conveyed in it. Large Cat. A. 73. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other Graces which do always accompany it, or of good Works that are the fruit of it.

Here we see, that there is a quickning regenerating Work and Change on the Heart and Will, in order to the Act of Faith; and that there is no Faith unaccompanied at any time by other Graces, and that by good works they intend not such Graces, &c. Did not Mr. M. tell us, p. 60. that in effecting our Vital Vnion, there is a Vital touch as I may say between Christ and us, and a Clasping on each other. Is there a Vital Touch before Life, or a Clasping while we are Dead? Doth the Mind see Christ whilst it's Blind, or the Will embrace him whilst it's morally dead, im∣potent, unperswaded, and averse? Do we con∣sent to Christ, and Covenant with him, whilst Satan, Sin and Enmity Reign in our Faculties; or open the Door to Christ whilst these keep the Keys? God, saith the natural Man, re∣ceiveth not the things of God, because they are spi∣ritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2.14. but Mr. M. saith, yea, it's while they are natural that they see Christ and close with him: Here's a knowledg of an ignorant Mind; here's a coming and re∣ceiving without Life. Here's a Faith the Gospel Covenant never promiseth; for it's not inclu∣ded

in God's Writing his Laws in the Heart. The whole stress of Salvation is laid by him on an Act of a dead unregenerate sinner, and Men are justified while the Soul is not turned from darkness to life, nor from the power of Satan unto God, Acts 26. 18. it were worth asking h••m, whose Act this Act of Faith is? It's not a Humane Act, unless you can suppose the Mind and Will can Act without any Vital Principle, yea against it's own prevailing Principle: Here then must be a force, and unactiveness too in our very acting; and it's a strange Clasping of what we hate and abhor. I doubt here may come in again Christ's believing for us. However, he must think 1. That our Faith after we are alive, is either a Faith specifically distinct from that which justified us, or it's still an Act not effected by a regenerate Principle, but is some∣what either below Life, or above Man, even when he is spiritualized, he seems to bid at both: His Simile is for the first; the Spirits, which he saith are Corporeal, Clasp about the Soul for Life; so it seems our Faith is a dead thing always, never made Life or Living; any more than those Spirits are made Soul; other∣wise it loseth its Clasping meetness, as they would do in ceasing to be Corporeal. Yet other times he makes it look like a Divinity Clasp about us. 2. I do now see a little why the Man is so against God's giving us any saving Benefit in any way of Reward, though not of Debt: It's because Faith is the only thing or∣dained (not required) as a Physical means on our part; and this is so low a thing, that a dead sinner may act; or so sublime, as not to be a

Humane Act. 3. Again, I see why he doth still confine our Justification to the end, to the first Act of Faith; yea, and deny the immedi∣ate influence of Faith on our Justification; for if you should bring it among Duties, or to be under the Notion of a Duty, all is spoiled: No, it must be a meer Physical Band of Union, not enjoined by God as our Ruler, but appoint∣ed as the Corporeal Spirits for Ligaments. I dare not touch the Philosophy part of that, lest if I name Embrio, he should Curse me anew. 4. I know now at last, why he thought me a Pele∣gian, (the selfish reason why he writ it to London I knew long since) because I in a Printed Ser∣mon put the Act of Faith after spiritual Life; it seems I should have said with him, That in Vnion with Christ as one mystical Person (which is by the efficient causality of Faith) we are brought into a state of Spiritual Life, Relative in our Iu∣stification and Adoption, and then and thereupon Qualitative, &c. p. 60. His Proofs for Faith be∣fore Life, because Christ promiseth Life upon believing, are contemptible; as if further spiri∣tual Life, and Pardon, and Eternal Glory, be not Life as well as Hell is Death, 'and some sinners twice dead.

4. The Faith he so much insists on, hath not all the Essentials of a saving Faith. I know many Worthy Men distinguish between Faith quae justificat, and qua justificat; and no doubt the Soul hath an especial respect to Christ as Priest, and his Righteousness in order to Ju∣stification. But our Discourse is of the Faith quae justificat. What that Faith is, he tells us p. 62. Faith is a going out of our selves unto Christ

for all. And p. 40. The Hearts acting towards this Object in its believing, is most properly in a way of trust, and dependance, and affiance.

Rep. 1. We have just seen, it wants a Vital Prin∣ciple as it is the Act of an unregenerate dead Soul. Now this brings it, in the Judgment of most Divines, to be no saving act at all, no sa∣ving Faith, because the Act of a Natural and Dead Sinner. 2. I need not mention that it is no obediential Act: And note, That when our Divines deny that Faith is not Imputed as an Act of Believing, or as an Evangelical Act of Obe∣dience; they say, it's not as such imputed as our justifying Righteousness, which I grant. But they positively affirm, that the Faith by which Christ's Righteousness becomes imputed, is an Act of evangelical Obedience, Confess. Chap. 11.A. 1. Again, 3. I will not insist how far the Assent of this Faith is limited, as to its Ob∣ject as well as its Nature. 4. I do grant, That by Gospel-faith we trust in, and depend on Christ as our only Saviour; and that by it we go out of our selves to Christ for all Attonement, Merit, Causality of Acceptance of all we do, and Strength and Grace to enable us to all. 5. Yet, see how much more the Assembly in∣cludes in saving Faith,

Confess. Chap. 14. A. 2: By this Grace (Faith) a Christian believeth to be true, whaever is revealed in the Word for the Authority of God himself speaking therein, and acteth differently upon that which each particular Passage thereof con∣taineth, yielding Obedience to the Commands Trembling at the Threatnings, and embracing the Promises of God for this Life, and that

which is to come; but the principal Acts of saving Faith are accepting, receiving, and restin upon Christ alone for Justification, Sanctifica∣tion, and eternal Life.

6. His Faith w••nts the receiving of Christ, if not wholly, yet as a Pro∣phet and Lord: Whereas true Faith receives Christ Iesus the Lord, Col. 2.6, 7. Here's no yielding up our selves to our Redemer's Con∣duct, no Dedication of our selves to him as our Owner. Guide and Ruler, nor Consent or En∣gagement or Purpose of Heart to do so: Whereas Gospel-Faith is such a Trust of and on Christ, as includes a yielding up our selves to him, to be saved by him in his way; as he sets down the Terms, viz. To deny our selves, take up his Cross, be his Followers and Disciples, Isa. 44.5. Luke 19.14, 27. Rom. 6.13.16. Luke 14.26, 27, 33. Ier. 30.21. 8. Here's no purpose of Heart to renounce the World, Flesh and Devil, who are Christ's Rivals and Competitors; to whom we before, did yield up our selves, 1 Pet. 3.21. Io. 5.44. Faith is a strange Conjugal Consent, wherein the Wife promiseth no Duty or Loyalty; only expects all to be done for her.

Obj. If we trust and lean on Christ we shall do these. Ans. 1. It's as true if we do these, we shall and do lean on Christ; and by that rule may as well call these Faith, and leave out that. 2. It is not a saving Trust in Christ that doth exclude these, or is without them. This is plain, because the Act of Gospel-Faith is oft ex∣pressed by these as well as by Trust; and a Sen∣tence of Condemnation lies still upon a Soul that wants these, and is under the power of their contraries, We will not have this Man to

Reign over us, was the Language of Unbelief; and for this they were subject to Death, Luke 19.14, 27. 3. The Scriptures tell us of instances of a Trust and Leaning, that proved destru∣ctive for want of these other things; and cer∣tainly will prove so to all others, Mic. 3.11. The Priests teach for hire, and the Prophets divine for money, yet they will lean upon the Lord and say, is not the Lord among us, none evil can come upon us? No doubt, the Foolish Virgins had a degree of Trust in Christ; but were lost for want of Oil, though they looked for so much from him. 4. As he wordeth it, and joineth it in other places; it looks to be a meer Contemplative Act, which as a Man unregenerate doth with him perform, so a Carnal Man may do it for indulging his Sloath and Carelesness, q. d. I will now and then apply to this Meditation, Christ shall do all for me, I trust him to do so, and therefore I am safe, though I do no more; yea▪ I shall be damned if I strive to do any thing else as a means of obtaining saving Benefits, though it be in Christ's Righteousness that I expect all. We are warned Mat. 7.21. Not every one that crieth Lord Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. but he that doth the Will of my Father; and this was to enforce that Charge, Enter in at the strait Gate.

5. He ascribes too much to Faith, as imper∣fect, dead, and unholy a thing as he makes it; even more than I dare for a World ascribe to that which is the true Gospel-Condition. P. 51. There is between our Believing and this Righteous∣ness being upon us, a reference of Causality.

Repl. We must be destroyers, and be destroy∣ed, for saying God requires Faith, suspending Pardon till we believe; and by his Promise, se∣curing it to us when we believe, though we ex∣presly deny all Causal Influence, and confine the Condition to the meer Frame of the Ob∣ject; and do leave Justification in all its Causes entire, as the Benefit to be given in Christ's Right to him that is a Believer. Yet our Ac∣cuser, Witness and Judge, can innocently cry up a Causality, a real and proper Causality; a mediate Causality of Justification, an immediate Causality of Union with Christ, which is the greater benefit. P. 52. My short Legs can follow these small strides. It's a Cause of Justification; but how? By more than that Rule, causa causae est causa causati. Faith is a Cause of Vnion, that Union is a Cause of Christ's Righteousness being upon us, and that Righteousness being upon us is the Cause of Justification; and so Faith is an influential Cause of Justification. If you go forward with what Justification is the Cause of, and what that is also a Cause of, Faith is a Cause of even as much, and in the same sort as it is of Justification; and if you go back∣ward to the next Cause of Faith, and to the Cause of that, and even all that is the Cause of Justification, as much, and in the same sort as Faith is. And what kind of Cause is Faith in all? It's always with him a Phisical Cause, a natural touch and clasping. Yet P. 52. he saith, it's by God's Constitution and Ordination; hopeful words; but he soon throws it o•••• of •• moral Causality again and brings i••to the Corporeal Spicies Clasping about the Soul. Here's a Cove∣nant-Consent,

without an Act considered as any way Moral; a strange thing to any Man of Sense, who must know, that Acts are consi∣dered only as Moral Acts in every Covenant.

6. He accounts all Performance of any Duty with an Expectation of any Saving Benefits as Morally connected therewith, to be in a legal Manner and Spirit, from legal or old Covenant Principles, and unto old Covenant Ends, &c. P.28. Compare p. 71.

Reply. I have fully proved, that though no∣thing done by us is the Righteousness wherein we stand before a Just God, or the Merit of any Good, or Atonement for Sin, or instead of a legal Righteousness: Yet there is in the Gospel a Display of Authority, though in a way of Grace, and a Rectoral way fixed for giving out the Effects of Christ's Obedience in his Righteousness, as Benefits encouraging to Duty: And in that way we must expect them to the Glory of God's Truth and Pro∣mises, and we wickedly Presume in expecting them otherwise; and hereby Obedience to Christ and the Righteousness of Christ are not opposed, nor old Covenant ends pursued. Mr. M. saith P. 49. Faith hath no Influence, no not so much as in a way of Instrumentality to confer upon us a Right and Title to Christ's Righteousness; all the Influence that Faith hath, is to our actual Possession of it. I grant 1. That Faith is not our Justifying Righteousness. 2. That Christ hath merited the Elect shall have it. 3. That it is the Gospel-Promise is our Title and Char∣ter; yea, 4. I deny all Causal Influence to our Possession. But as to him who ascribes to

Faith a Causality, I would ask 1. Doth not the Gospel adjust by its Promise, that it is the Believer it will invest in this Possession of Righteousness. 2. Doth not this Promise en∣title a Believer to this Possession, and bar the Unbeliever. 3. Doth Faith then no way affect our Right or Title to the Possession thereof? Doth it not render us the Persons whom it so entitleth thereto? And is this nothing, though it be not the Righteousness for which we are Justified as legal Obedience was to be?

7. He ventures too far in making the Crown of Glory and Justification to be Effects of Remunerative strict Iustice as to us, which is untrue, notwithstanding Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us. P. 12, 13, 15. Among many other Expressions of this kind, he saith, It is the Constitution of God, that all the Saving. Good and Blessing which shall be given us, shall be given not only by Free Grace, but by the Hand of Justice. Reply. If he mean only that the Consideration upon which all Saving Good was granted, is a Righteousness that answered strict Justice: I grant it. But to say (which he seems fully to intend) that the Righteous∣ness of Christ is so impured to us, as that Benefits are actually conferred on us in a way of Re∣munerative Justice as to us, I deny, and say it is a Thousand Fold worse than they whom he Condemns durst ever have a thought of. I own also it's a Reward of Justice to Christ, that Be∣lievers should be Justified and Glorified: But Justification and Glory are given of meer Grace to those Believers, though in a Gospel way of Government: They cannot plead, Now Lord

I have Christ's Righteousness on me, I have a Claim to these, as a Debt or Reward due to me from Remunerative Justice: For though Christ give the Crown in his own Right, and his Right to secure that Crown; yet he re∣serves the Claim of Justice to his own Person, and we must accept of all even at God's Hand of Gift. Sinners shall not have the Saviour's Plea in themselves, though he will plead it for their Good. There is more Spiritual Pride in this kind of Talk than many imagine; ••he Gift of God is Eternal Life, even when he gives it; and not only as to antecedent Causes, we look for the Mercy of Christ to Eternal Life, Iude 21. and it's still for Christ's sake we must intreat and expect, and not for our own, nor for any thing as it's ours, whatever be the Effect of the Imputation of Christ's Righteous∣ness on us.

8. That which he calls telling a Story to us of the deep Counsels of the Wisdom and Grace of God, how this Righteousness is upon us, from its first and highest Original, is in several things an unsafe Account; and greatly to the Dis∣honour of Father, Son and Spirit. Some parts of it I have already considered, I now shall briefly observe these things, 1. He strikes at the Essential Glory of the Son of God. 2. He describes the Fall of Man very Dishonourable to God. 3. He much mistakes - what is most properly the Glory of God. 4. He leaves out Man's Acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit in the Work of Salvation.

1. Mr. M. strikes at the Essential Glory of the Son of God: Before I prove this, I would

premise, 1. The Son of God as second Person in the Trinity, is equal to the Father in Essence and Glory, though he be of the Father, as to the Mode and Manner of Subsistence. Hence he hath the same Divine Perfections and Glory. 2. Whatever is ascribed to Christ, before he assumed the Humane Nature, must be such as is consistent with his Divine Nature as the Son of God, and proper thereto. 3. Nothing is added to the Divine Nature, as in Christ by its Union to the Humane Nature, besides rela∣tion to that Humane Nature. 4. The Person of the Son of God was compleat, before he assumed the Humane Nature; and therefore the Humane Nature is no Constitutive part of the Second Person; but, as Dr. Ameswell saith, is only as an Adjunct. If Mr. M. mean more, it's horridly Dangerous, when he saith P. 8. The Humane Nature belongs to the Constitution of Christ's Person as he now is. And looks the worse for his words P. 7. Christ's dwelling in our Na∣ture, is no part of the Punishment of Sin, for then the Divine Nature only is punished, and not the Humane at all, nor the Person. As if what terminated on one Nature only, did not ter∣minate on Christ's Person; and by the same Rule, the Acts confined to one Nature, as their Principle, are not the Acts of his Person, unless they be the Acts of both Natures. 5. Since the Incarnation we frequently meet with a Personal Communication of Properties; what is proper to either of the two Natures; is ascribed to Christ as God-Man, as Christ died, &c. 6. Yet there is neither a Transfusion or Com∣munication of the Properties of one Nature to

the other; nor must we ascribe to his Person any thing in any manner that would tend to the Confusion of the two Natures. 7. All the Glory or Humiliation that can be justly ascribed to the Son of God as such, cannot infer any Change in or Addition to him, and must be confined to what is Manifestative and Relative: His Glory may appear more, but cannot be added to; it may be obscured, but it cannot be really diminished. 8. Hence whatever Addition of real Glory or Afflictive Suffering belongs to Christ, it is with respect to his Hu∣mane Nature. This was only capable of Re∣wards, of being Exalted, of being Deferred, of God's hiding his Face and Dying. I shall now evidence, that Mr. M. strikes at the Essential Glory of Christ as the Eternal Son of God.

1. He makes Christ, as the Eternal Son of God, capable of an Addition to his real Glory as God, P. 56.

God the Father from Eter∣nity, begat his Son, the Second Person in the Trinity, and loving him with an infinite Love, designed a special Revenue of Glory, and Honour, and Praise unto him, as from all his Creatures in their Kind and Way, so more eminently from and in a certain Num∣ber of Mankind, &c. The End and Vpshot, and last Issue that all his Counsels about them comes to, is this, That they may be brought to the Acknowledgment of the Son of God, &c. P. 61. You see how the grand Original Design of God, to bring in a Re∣venue of singular Honour, and Praise, and Glory to his Son Christ, is brought about, &c.

I shall presently repeat more: Let's consider,

1. It's plain he intends the Son of God as such; It's he as begotten from Eternity; he as the Second Person in the Trinity; it's he as loved with an infinite Love; yea, from being so in∣finitely beloved as God's Eternal Son, the Con∣trivance had its Rise. The Design in the Vpshot is, That he might be acknowledged to be that Son of God. It cannot be meant, that this Ad∣ditional Glory might be designed for him as foreseen Mediator, or as in Flesh; for this Design is the first step; and this Glory of the Son, is the Original of all the Contrivance: He was, pursuant to this purpose, made a Mediator and legal Head; and he tells us, to confirm this, That for this end of bringing a Revenue of Glory unto his Son, in the Salva∣tion of the Elect, God ordained that he shall do all with God for them, and he shall be all from God unto them; which is his second step; and therefore what is subsequent to this in Inten∣tion, cannot be before the other; his Office and Incarnation are but means to this end: So that no Doubt can remain, that Christ is in this Design considered as the Eternal Son of God. 2. Let's weigh how he describes the Glory intended: It's an especial Revenue of Glory and Honour: It's a Revenue of singular Honour and Glory, somewhat that made him more Glorious than he was as the Son of God; nay, it was his being acknowledged to be the Son of God; which is the Vpshot of the Design about him; as if though he were Son before, yet he would not have been acknowledged to be the Son of God, without this added Revenue of Glory.

2. He makes the eternal Son of God, consi∣dered as to his Divine Nature, to be for a while under the Frowns and Displeasure of God.

3. He makes the eternal Son of God as God, to be capable of an acquired Right, superadded to his natural Right, even to his essential Glo∣ry as God; and also of an acquired Right to that Love, which he enjoyed as the Son of God in the Divine Nature before he was the Son of Man. Take his Words, p. 25, 26.

'Tis true, Christ hath another Title and Right to the Love of God and unto Heavenly Glory, viz. by the Prerogative of his Birth I mean his Eter∣nal Generation as he is the only begotten Son of God: But though he was rich, yet such is his Grace, that for our Sakes he became poor, he consented (not to forego his Title) but for a Time to forego the actual Enjoyment of the full Fruit and Benefit of it. He was con∣tented to lay aside his Glory for a Time, and to dwell here below on Earth, under the Frowns and Displeasure of God his Father, untill he should fully, to the utmost Farthing, have paid our Debt, but then he was to be restored and raised up to the Enjoyment of his Father's Love, and Heavenly Glory, in the Virtue of that forementioned double Right or Title, viz. both as the Son of God by Nature, and as also having discharged all the Debt of the Elect as their Surety. This latter being accumulated and superinduced upon the former, and there∣fore being not a Natural but Acquired Title.

1. You see that it is the eternal Son of God, considered as to his Divine Nature which was

under God's Frowns and Displeasure; for it was only as to that Nature his Person was the Subject of God's Love before his Incarnation, and it was that Love he alone could be restored and raised to, which he had before his Incarna∣tion, and there could not be a restoring and rais∣ing to the Enjoyment of this Love as to this Na∣ture, unless that he was under the Frowns and Displeasure of his Father as to his Divine Na∣ture. For, whatever Nature he enjoyed the Love of God in, before he did forego the En∣joyment of it, and to the Enjoyment of which he was raised and restored, must be the Nature he endured those Frowns and Displeasure in, which are opposed to the actual Enjoyment of that former Love. He tells us that he did fore∣go the actual Enjoyment of this Love, and so dwelt under his Father's Frowns here below on Earth; therefore it must be as to his Divine Nature he did forego the Enjoyment of that Love and Glory: And consequently, as to that Nature he endured the opposite Frowns; since that he had not enjoyed that Love in his Hu∣mane Nature before he dwelt on Earth. 2. It's as plain that he makes the eternal Son of God, as to his Divine Nature, to have a superadded Right to that essential Glory from God which he had a former natural Right to: For the Glo∣ry he enjoyed before his Incarnation, was his essential Glory as the Son of God; and it was his essential Glory he had a Natural Right to. Again, he had no Glory in his Humane Nature before he was Man, to be restored to; there∣fore the Glory he had an acquired Right to, being a Glory to which he was restored and

raised, must be his essential Glory enjoyed only by the Divine Nature: He could be restored to the actual Enjoyment of no Glory, but what he actually had before he affirmed our Flesh, and could not be restored to any Glory which he had not till he assumed our Flesh. The Matter is the same as to the Love that his Father bare to him as his Eternal Son; for it's the Love he was restored to the Enjoyment of, which Christ is said by Mr. M. to have an acquired superad∣ded Right to; which must be no other than he was the Object of before his Incarnation; yea, he tells them it's that very love and glory which was due to him by Privilege of Birth, that he had this superadded Title to; yea, even that which he did not forego his Title to, though he did forego the actual Enjoyment of for a while; and to this he was restored in the Vertue of this double Right; so he tells us Christ was rich, yet he became poor: How poor? By foregoing the actual Enjoyment of the full Fruit and Bene∣fit of it, which he enjoyed before: The Mean∣ing of the Place he refers to is, that though the Son of God was Maker and Heir of all things; yet, as to his Humane Nature, he was in a ne∣cessitous suffering Case. But hence Mr. M. infers, that Christ, as the Son of God, did fore∣go the actual Enjoyment of the full Fruit of his Inheritance, which he fully possessed before, and in that respect was poor: This is plainly his Sense, for he speaks of his being rich as he was antecedently to his Incarnation, as to Enjoy∣ment as well as Title; and as to Riches he did not forego his Title to, as he was the Son of God; and yet the full Benefit of those very Riches he

was so entitled to as Son of God, he did forego the actual Enjoyment of; whereas he might as well say he did forego the Enjoyment of all the Benefits as any, and of his Title as of the En∣joyment, all being alike possible to the Son of God; who still enjoyed that whole Inheritance to the full (as Son of God) as he enjoyed it by his Title before he was the Son of Man, to forego the Manifestation and the actual Enjoy∣ment differ as to his Glory. And as to Riches, it's one thing for the Human Nature to want, for the Divine-Nature to abate any Enjoyment of what it was entitled to, is quite another thing. A poor God is a wild Phrase. Obj. Had Christ, as our Redeemer, a Right to no Glory as a Reward? Ans. 1. Yes, to a Glory and Riches as to his Humane Nature. But, 2. that was not a Restauration of what the Son as God enjoyed before his Incarnation; but a Glory and Riches granted as to his Humane Nature which fully commenced upon his Exaltation, though eternally decreed. And to both indeed there was a Title from the Union of the Hu∣man Nature to the Divine Person; and also as a Reward of what was suffered and done in the Human Nature. 3. The utmost Glory be∣longing to or received by Christ as acquired, was of another kind than what belonged to him as God, and which he enjoyed before the Incarna∣tion. The ••ne is dependant, the other indepen∣dant; the one is Creature Glory, though above Angels, the other is increated, essential, and di∣vine, even the same with the Father's. Obj. Did not Christ lay by his Divine Glory? A. 1. He could no more part with it, no, nor with the

Enjoyment of it than he could part with his Divine Essence. 2. He voluntarily agree'd to have it vailed as to Manifestation for a time; but in the least quitted not the Enjoyment of it as the Son of God. 3. The sensible Communi∣cations of it, and of the Divine Favour were a while much suspended from the Humane Na∣ture: But considered as the Son of God, he al∣ways alike possessed and perceived the Divine Glory and Favour. The Father could as well be displeased with himself as with his Son, as he was God. 4. Hence, though what Christ did and suffered, did entitle him to the restoring of the sensible Enjoyments of the Divine Fa∣vour to the Humane Nature, yet there was no Place or room for acquiring a Right to any sen∣cible Communications of Love, Riches or Glo∣ry to him, as Son of God: For they were ne∣ver suspended, they were essential to him; and to suppose an acquired Right were to make that Love and Glory dependant, and bring them within a Creatures State; whereas you may see Christ in his humbled State, still when he speaks as the Son of God, asserting his Title and Possession in Equality with the Father, yea, to be the fame, Ioh. 16.15. Ioh. 5.18, 19, 26. Ioh. 1.18.

Reader, judge how he honoureth Christ; I could tell him what Names the Ancient Church gave to such a Heresie, but I better like that he gives to my Opinion causlesly, the name of Blasphemy, than that I should give so just a Cause, though I met with a Man so ••ld, as should hope it was only ignorant. The Son of God as God, capable of an addition of real Glory;

and be the Object of God's Frowns and Dis∣pleasure, and capable of parting with the en∣joyment of God's Favour, and the Glory and Riches he had before he was Incarnate; and that he could have an acquired Right to that Essential Glory and Love, and Riches, super∣added to his natural Right thereto, are such Po∣sitions as should make a Man to tremble how he ventures afterwards to meddle beyond his depth. My concern for these things prevents my using the advantage Mr. M. gives me.

2. He describeth the Fall of Man in a manner very dishonourable to God: 1. He makes it a designed necessary means resolved on, to bring to the Son of God that Revenue of Honour and Praise which the Father had before designed for him: This is fully expressed by him in his Model of the eternal Decrees. The 1. Step is the Design of that Revenue of Glory to the Son. 2. Step is Christ's being to do all for the Elect with God for them, &c. 3. Is making a Man innocent. 4. Is the Fall of Man. 5. The double Union issuing in legal and mystical Per∣sons. 6. Faith is the Means of mystical Union. 7. This Faith in its Nature, is to rest on Christ for all, P. 58, 59, 60. The thing I infer is, that the Fall being the Fourth Step, must needs be not a thing supposed to the Fathers Design of the Revenue of Glory to Christ; by some mens acknowledging him to be the Son; for that's first in order resolved, and then the Fall appoint∣ed (not over-ruled) as a necessary means there∣to; as that by which he was to obtain this Glo∣ry, and without which he must have gone with∣out it, and been limited to the privilege of his

Birth. Therefore he tells us, P. 58. The Fall of the Elect into a state of Sin and Death, and Wrath may seem somewhat remote from the point in hand. But it is not; for hereby a Door is opened to the Son of God to step in, and do all with God for them that in this ruined condition they need, &c. So that as Christ speaks of the blindness of him, Ioh. 9.3. that it was that the works of God might be made manifest in him; we may say this of the Fall of the Elect, it was in the Counsel of God designed to this end, that the depths of the riches, the knowledge of God might be manifest in them; and as Christ speaks of Lazarus his sickness and dying, it was not to death, &c. So must we say of this falling of the Elect into a state of spiritual death in sin and trespasses; it is not unto Death for ever. but for the Glory of God, that the Son of God might be Glorified in recovering them.

Repl. I am sure the Son of God did not need any such Glory; he had been as happy, and perfectly Glorious as now he is, though Man had stood. 2. It seems very unagreeable to the purity and goodness of God to design the breaking of his own Laws, the destroying of the greatest part of mankind, the defacing of his own Image, the gratifying of the Devil in the sin and misery of Men, such dishonour to his own Name, &c. and this as a necessary means to Glorifie his Son; to Decree the permission of the Fall, and so to over-rule it to good ends, is another thing. 4. By this Model it was as impossible for Man to have stood, or for the mo•••• of Mankind to have avoided Sin and E∣ternal Ruin, as it was for Man to have hindred God to give to his Son that special Revenue of

Glory as he designed for him; which I think would be a greater ease to the damned than their Consciences will feel, or the Pleadings of God with Men will import. 5. It greatly abates that admiring and thankful regard to God and our Saviour, which the Scriptures always direct us to: For if Mr. M's Model be right, it was Love to the Son of God that brought Men to need a Saviour, and not Love to Sinners that enclined God to give his Son, and the Son to give him-self, to be a Saviour, Ioh. 3.16. The utmost which this Model can rise to is, that since God resolved for the Glory of his Son, that all should fall into a state of Sin and Death, and Wrath, that thereby some of them might be to his Glory, they were ordained to be some of those; which indeed is a mercy, but not so greatly displaying of Divine Pity, Love and Grace, as the word represents it. Therefore 6. to suppose Man foreseen as fallen and self-ruined, and thereupon a Saviour ordained to recover, and actually save a certain number of these: And for this to be in his suffering Na∣ture to be rewarded, and eternally exalted, re∣ceiving the Praises of his saved ones, fully an∣swers the Account the Scripture gives of the Oeconomy of Redemption, Rev. 1.5, 6. Man is supposed thus fallen in all the. Texts which Mr. M. cites for God's Design of a Revenue of Glory to his Son from the Elect, Eph. 1.3, 4, 5, 6. We are chosen in Christ; in what State? You'll see that by the Nature of the Blessings we are to obtain by him, to be holy, who were by the Fall unholy: To be without Blame before him in Love, who were so reproveable and hateful to

the Adoption of Children; who had by Sin lost our natural Birthright, and become Aliens; ac∣cepted in the Beloved, to the Praise of the Glory of his Grace, who had made our selves unaccepta∣ble and Condemnable in the Eye of Justice, Re∣demption in him, and Forgiveness of Sin according to the Riches of his Grace, who had enslaved our selves, committed Sin and were incapable to redeem our selves, make Atonement, or me∣rit our Recovery: And then he addeth, Vers. 8. That in all this he abounded towards us in all Wisdom and Prudence. Amazing Wisdom! To find a Way to sanctifie the depraved, justifie the blamable, love the hateful, adopt the alien, ac∣cept the vile and unworthy whom Justice con∣demned, redeem the captive, and forgive the guilty Sinner: Here's Work for all Wisdom, and Prudence to abound, much more than it was to resolve first to glorifie the Son of God, and then find out a Way for it by designing to make Men fall into Misery and Death, that he might come to this Glory by it. Look into Vers. 9. and you'll see that according to what I have shewen to be the Apostle's Model, he con∣cludes this is the Counsel of God's Will and his Purpose in himself, even to recover by Christ Sin∣ners, thus in his Eye fallen and miserable. The same Sense is plain in Rev. 5.11, 12.2 Thess. 1.10. Eph. 4.13. I confess, when I consider some Mens Temper I am at a Loss whether they are led, by what themselves are, to think of God as so cruel and far from Goodness; or that the strange Representations of God, which they believe, do form them to what they think is his Resemblance, Would any Divine else

dare to preach that God took the Sin of Adam and squeezed out the Quintessence of it, into the Humane Nature, to propagate to the World. And God took delight to see the Wicked Sin; as one that sets Rats-bane to kill Rats, looked through the Key-hole with delight to see the Rats eating the Rats-bane, knowing it would kill them; so God looked at the Wicked through his Fingers with Pleasure, to see them Sinning, knowing it would destroy them. And the Spirit of God striving with Sinners, did Enlighten them, Reform them, &c. But why did he thus strive with many whom he did resolve he would never Save? It was that they might be brought to those higher Degrees of Torments in Hell, which he had fore-or∣dained them to. As Iudas went to his own place, that is, to the higher Torments in Hell, which God had decreed him to, he could not come to this but by falling from his Apostle∣ship, he could not fall from his Apostleship if he had not been an Apostle, and he could not have been an Apostle if the Spirit of God had not striven with him. Mr. M. I suppose, hath not forgotten these unsavory Passages, which I do not think I have varied a word of; at least I am sure this is the Substance, and not aggrava∣ted at all, as I have abundant Witnesses to prove.

3. He mistakes what is the Glory of God, as to its principal Sense; this consists in his Essential Perfections as in himself; yea, the Manifestative Glory of God, Father and Son, is not so much in the Creatures Acknowledg∣ments, as in the display of his own Perfections, in a way commanding their Admiration and

Love: Mens Hosanna's are a poor-thing com∣paratively even therewith: He made all things for his Glory, i. e. To express thereby his Wisdom, Goodness, Power, Justice, &c. His Glory shines forth more in the Impresses of his Excellencies on any Being, than in their Thank∣ful Returns of Gratitude to him, or Oral men∣tion of his Praises: Men by these do their Duty, and contribute to their own Good, but add not to his Glory; yea, his manifestative Glory is not hereby so promoted by those Men, as by his Image on them, and his Authority acknowledged by their Obedience and Good Works, Matt. 5.16. God is glorified by Christ, as Redeemer in our Nature, as his Govern∣ment was honoured, Justice satisfied, his Hatred to Sin expressed, his Image restored, his Authority among men acknowledged, his Blessed Nature exemplified in the Humane Nature and Beha∣viour of Christ, his Love and Mercy to Sinners made manifest by his Death: By these I say, much more than that some few Men do own him to be the Son of God, yea, our Redeemer, even as in our Nature is more glorified by honouring God, vindicating his Government from Contempt, opening a way for Mercy, to exert it self without Injury to God's Holiness or Justice, accomplishing God's Purposes and Promises, having all Fullness of Grace in him, Authority and Judgment committed to him; defeating Satan's Projects, and break∣ing his Strength and Power even by the Hu∣mane Nature; his giving his Spirit, restoring the Image of God to a degenerate World, ren∣dring Men subject to the Divine Laws, Imitaters

of his Example, subject to his Authority, 2 Thess. 1.10. raising the Dead, judging the World, his wise, equal and effectual Managing his Kingdom, &c. he is by them honoured, I say, far more than in a few Persons acknowledging his Sonship; and being that his Sonship be∣came obscured by his dwelling in Flesh, I ad∣mire that Mr. M. would place the Vpshot of Christ's acquired Glory in the Elects Acknow∣ledgment of his Sonship; as if he took a Vail to do and suffer so much, chiefly if not only to buy off its being a Vail.

4. He leaves out the Holy Spirit, as to the mention of any G••••••y designed to him in the Oeconomy of the Salvation of Sinners. Yet sure the Eternal Spirit hath a Glory Superior to Christ's Humane Nature, and a Right thereto Superior to Christ's acquired Right. Yea, we are Baptised as Redeemed ones, into, or in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. 28. But with these Men his Honour is little regarded, he shall not have a Hand so much as to render some Sinners to be the Persons that shall rather than others be in∣vested in Christ's Right to any Saving Benefits according to a Gospel-Rule. Though God hath so wisely contrived the Acknowledgment of Father, Son and Spirit, in the Saving of Sin∣ners; the Father gives and sends his Son to Redeem, the Son pays the Price of Redemption, the Holy Spirit applies it, by rendring Sinners the Objects of the respective Effects thereof, as the Gospel determines the Distribution of them.

His Notion of legal Union, between Christ and the Elect from Eternity, as being one legal Person, is an unscriptural Notion which I have confuted, though I acknowledge Christ from Eternity undertook to Redeem and Save the Elect; but that is far from one legal Person; being that we are not reputed to Redeem or Save our selves, alike ungrounded, is one Mysti∣cal Person. It's time to put an end to my Remarks on his Story made up of Steps, which I wonder he hath acquired no better Skill in relating, than to represent the Counsels of God, in a manner so inconsistent with, nay, reproach∣ful to the Glory of the Blessed God.

9. I shall not take notice of such things as these, all your Obedience to the Law avails no more to justifie you than your worst Sins; the not failing of Faith is not a means of our continuing justified; Repentance is the effect of Pardon, and not necessary thereto. These and the like being already insisted on in this Book and elsewhere, neither shall I demonstrate as I might; it must be his Judgment, that all our Sins are pardoned at once, even past, present, and to come; and that God cannot be dis∣pleased with, or afflict Believers for their Sins, &c.

10. He vainly supposeth many things possible to be in Unbelievers, which are certain Evidences of true Faith, Effects of Faith; yea, they are the Execution of the Consenting Act of Faith, and without them (if Men have time) all his Faith is but a Dead Faith, that will never Save. I will admit that no Act of Grace or Godliness can Save us without Faith: But I as positively

affirm, That there is no one Act of real Grace or Godliness without true Faith; nor yet any true Faith without Acts of other Graces. Why then should he put the Graces of the Spirit into a War, and tell us of mending our Ways and reforming our Lives and our Hearts too, so as never more to Sin, and live as a Saint dropt down from Heaven, &c. yet they are not Faith, and the Righteousness of Christ would not be upon thee, P. 67, 68, &c. Can Mens Hearts be changed, and their Lives thus reformed in Obedience to the Call of Christ's Gospel, and not accept of Christ, and trust in him? No. And I ask, If any Man go out of himself to Christ for all, and yet never repent, nor have his Heart and Life changed, nor love God: Would that Man have the Righteousness of Christ upon him for Salvation? Yet this is as possible as the other, yea, and more easily mistaken: 1 Thess. 1. from 5. to 10. you'll see the Spirit of God makes the things concur, which Mr. M. would set at so great an Oppo∣sition. To me it's evident that Christ's Righte∣ousness extends it self through all the Benefits and Privileges of a Saint, as the Sole Meriting Cause, whatever be the Condition: And all the after-gracious Acts and Godliness of a Be∣liever are the Operations of Faith; they are his first Conjugal Consent executed, as well as the Effects of his Dependance on Christ for new Supplies. 1. Faith, as it acts upward towards Christ, still Craves, Prays, Hopes, Trusts, Ex∣pects, with Affection Adheres, and renews Self-dedication and Consent. 2. As it looks into the word, it finds Motives, Excitements,

Directions, &c. to urge and apply to it self from invisible things realized. 3. As it acts under the Power of both the former, with re∣spect to External and Internal Effects, it Puri∣fieth, Melts, Loves, Quickens, Strengthens to Duty, and against Temptations, Comforts, Re∣claimeth, Recovereth, Guardeth, Watcheth, &c. So that our renewed Act of Repentance, Love and Fear, &c. our Godliness, Reformation, Zeal, and all sincere Obedience, is the Opera∣tion of Faith, and the Obedience of Faith: Faith is in them, and they are in Faith not formally, but in the way above expressed: Whence I conclude it's a false Faith that omits Obedience to Christ in all these, as it is a false Obedience which excludes a Dependance on Christ in or by any of those.

11. Mr. M's Criminations of his Brethren are intolerable, becoming neither an honest Man, nor a true Believer, and much less a Gospel-Minister; more wicked- Malice and Falsehood hardly any Man can be guilty of, than his Accusations and Insinuations are justly chargeable with; unless they proceed from real Ignorance, which Charity prompts me to hope. I have instanced already how he hath per∣verted my words; but had he confined his Reproaches to me, I should not think my Re∣sentments so fit to be expressed, but he spares not the Dead, he strikes at the Body of our Usefulest Ministers alive, and at their Ministry too: Who or what could excite any Man to render the Labours of so many Ministers use∣less, when so adapted to promote the Kingdom of Christ in the World? Who will dare to

attend their Labours, or avoid being filled with Jealousies, Prejudices, and Abhorrence, that believe this fiery Man when he saith, They hold Soul-damning Errors, if there be any in the World, P. 46. That they have a Dislike and Heart∣hatred of standing in the Righteousness of Christ imputed, and it only, that lies at the bottom in these Oppositions (to our being as Righteous as Christ) P. 76. and the Devil (by them) laboureth to Forestall and shut up Mens Hearts against (what he calls) the Blessed Truths; nay, his Malignant Spirit riseth so high, as to call them oft Semi-socinians, and studiously brands them with that name (as what he would have them called by) in his Preface, as well as Socinians in his Sermons; and that the Go∣spel of our Salvation is Craftily and Insolently assaulted by them in the very Vitals and Fun∣damentals of it. And this and much more, as an Apostasie from the Truth, he fixeth on Old and Young, even many of the rising Genera∣tion, not only among Conformists but Dissenters also.

Reply. The Angel said, The Lord rebuke thee; when he durst not bring railing Accusa∣tion, sure he knoweth not what Spirit he is of, nor who doth instigate him to these things, any more than Holy Peter did, whose Design was better. After long working at this Trade under Ground, he proclaims it when he comes into open Air, and hides not his Spirit or his Purpose. I hope others injured so deeply, will joyn with me in forgiving him, and Pray∣ing for his Repentance, that the Blood of Pre∣judiced Souls may not be required at his hands, nor these Injurious Reproaches be imputed to

him. I shall make a few Remarks on the Names he give us:

1. He of all Men seems least allowed to give us any Name, for we are not the Chil∣dren of his Church-Members, and others he will not Baptise; he pleads that the Ancient Church, called the Off-spring of Pelagius his Heresie Semi-Pelagians: May therefore one that utterly denies a Catholick visible Church pre∣tend to it; yea, who thinks he ceaseth to be a Minister, when his Relation to his parti∣cular Flock is at an end. Nay, he is of so Rash a Spirit, small Skill in the Reason of Names; and lavishly disregardful of Truth in this Matter, that a Nick-name must be the Effect of his giving any to such as are not of his own Faction.

2. He quits all Truth and Modesty, in giving us the Name of Socinians or Semi-soci∣nians. He saith, our Opinions are the Off-spring of Socinianism: What meaneth he by Off-spring? Is it 1. only that Socinianism was the occasion thereof: Or 2. That they are of the same Genuine Nature with Socinianism. The last is an abominable Slander, hatch'd by no good Spirit; 1. The former may be pre∣tended, but then an immediate Descent must be denied: Socinianism tempted weak Men to the opposite Extream of Profane Antinomia∣nism: This Extream was perceived equally ••atal to the Vitals of Practical Christianity, as Socinianism; and also to give Advantage to the Socinians by its wild Positions, and weak Arguments consonant thereto. There∣fore our best Learned Divines, at once to pre∣vent

the Triumph of the Socinians, and the growth of Antinomianism, waved many of those Terms which had obtained among the Ortho∣dox in speaking of Christ's Satisfaction, with∣out any due regard to either of these fatal Er∣rors. Hence Dr. Owen of the Trinity and Satis∣faction, P. 153. It appears from what hath been spoken, that in this matter of Satisfaction, God is not considered as a Creditor, and Sin as a Debt, and the Law as an Obligation of that Debt, and the Lord Christ as paying it. He then shews the difference, and tells us, God must be considered as a Rector, &c. p. 113. and p. 141. There is an allusion to them (the Socinian Argument) to a Debt and Payment, which is the most improper expression used in this matter. The same you'll find, Essenius Triumphus Crucis p. 391, 399. Tur∣retin. Instit. Theol. par. 2. p. 264. 462. In like manner they place Satisfaction in an equivalent in many things, and not the same for kind in all, Essenius p. 340. Dr. Stillingfleet of Suffer∣ings of Christ, p. 244, 245. Many more in∣stances might be given.

2. But our Principles are far from being the Off-spring of Socinianism, as being of the same Nature with it, which he meaneth. They are nothing which is properly Socinian, or con∣demned as such by either Synod or Men of Learn∣ing: So far are we from being half Socinians. The Socinian Principles are summarily reduced to that of the Trinity, and that of Christ's Satisfaction. They deny the Deity of Christ as the Son of God by eternal Generation: We af∣firm it, they deny the Personality of the Holy Ghost, we affirm it. The Malice of our Au∣thor cannot pretend to touch us there. The

Socinians deny that Christ died a proper Sacri∣fice for Sin; we affirm it. They deny that Christ's Sufferings were the Punishment of our Sins, we affirm it. They deny that Christ sa∣tisfied Divine Justice, or died in our Place: We affirm he satisfied Justice, and that Christ died in our Place and in our stead: He died that we might not die, who were liable to die: He gave his Life for ours. They say Christ died for our Good, not by way of Merit at all strict∣ly: We affirm that Christ properly merited all the saving Good we enjoy. The Good they say Christ died for is, the giving us an Example of Patience, confirming his Doctrin, and at highest, the ratifying the Covenant wherein our own Faith and Obedience is by Acceptilation accepted instead of a perfect legal Righteousness, and this exclusive of Christ's Satisfaction and Righ∣teousness; and that he attends to this is what they mean when they say Christ in some sort may be said to give us Life. But we affirm, that the good Christ merited is Reconciliation with God, Pardon of Sins, and eternal Glory, &c. as well as that he gave us an Example of Pa∣tience, &c. And we truly affirm that we have no Righteousness that answers the Law but Christ's, and that Christ's Righteousness is im∣puted to us, as that wherein we stand before a just God, and is as available to us for Salvation, as if we had done and suffered what Christ did; and we renounce all our own Obedience and Works legal and evangelical as any Part of that Righteousness in, or for which we are par∣doned, accepted, or glorified. Our very Faith, and much less our Repentance or other good Works, is not any merit or procuring cause of

our Justification. The whole use and place we assign to Faith in our Justification, and to Re∣pentance in the pardon of sin, is, that they are the things which the Gospel requireth in those whom God will impute the Righteousness of Christ to for actual Pardon, and a Title to Eter∣nal Glory; as promising to impute Christ's Righteousness to Believers, and actual Pardon to the believing Penitent; as also, the possession of Glory to such as persevere in Faith and Ho∣liness; and all in, by, and for the only Righte∣ousness of Christ, as the sole meriting, enclining, and procuring Cause.

Reader, judge between us, yea, let the search∣er of Hearts judge, whether we are not wrong∣ed by this Brother. I have in this Book as well as formerly, shewed, that by Reward is meant no more than an encouragement to a Duty esta∣blished by the Gospel, as a Law, not whereby governing Iustice enjoineth us to work out a Righteousness as our Title to Eternal Life; but a Law, wherein Grace in a way of Govern∣ment, appoints Conditions that render us the subjects of saving Benefits, as the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, and to be received and enjoyed in his Right. Again, whereas some call Faith our subordinate Righteousness, I have evidenced that they intend no more than a per∣formed Condition of the Gospel, and no way a Righteousness of the same kind, or to the same End or Purpose with Christ's Righteousness. Also when any of us say that we are justified by Faith as an Act, Justification is then taken in quite another sense from Justification by Christ's Righteousness; the last being universal as to

our Persons and State; the former being only of a particular Cause, viz. Are we Believers? and but consequently, are we the Persons the Gospel promiseth to deal with as Believers? Also I have shewn, that Justification is entire in all its Causes; and that Faith doth no more than connote us the Objects or Subjects on whom this Justification is conferred by God as a Benefit, or the Object on whom the Justifying Act ter∣minates by the Gospel. If these be Semisocinian Principles, I undertake to shew, that all or most of the noted Protestant Confessions of Faith, and the Body of our Protestant Divines of Name, yea, especially such as have written against Socinianism, are Semisocinian. Sure then our Author either reads our Principles in a false Glass, or he knows no more of Socinianism, than that it is a scandalous word, and so fit to brand those with, whose worth, acceptance and usefulness, he beholdeth with an envious Eye; wherein I except my self.

Mr. M. hath done more to favour Socinianism than all those whom he accuseth. 1. By calling such Semisocinians, whose doctrin and Principles will approve themselves to most Men to be Or∣thodox. Many will abate their prejudice against the real Socinian, as not being so bad as the word imported. 2. He falls in wholly with the Socinians, in denying Christ's Incarnation to be a part of his Humiliation, and deprives us of the force of one of the greatest Texts for the Deity of Christ, Phil. 2.6, 7. 3. He sup∣ports the Socinian Cause, and one of their strongest Topicks against the Satisfaction of Christ; by speaking still of God as a Creditor,

Sin as a Debt, the Law as a Money Bond, Christ as a Money Surety; whereas all our Divines find it impossible to defend that Doctrin, with∣out denying this Metaphor, and therefore plead, that God is to be considered as a Rector, Sin a Crime, Sinners Criminals, Christ a Sponsor, in consistency with his being Redeemer, Media∣tour, Saviour, Sacrifice and Priest, &c. For if Sin were a Money Debt, why could not God forgive it without Satisfaction, as well as other Creditors do, &c. 4. He grants the absurdity in the sense objected by the Socinians, and still opposed by our Divines, viz. That we are as Righteous as Christ in equality; Turretin. In∣stit. Theol. p. 714, 715. proves that licet, &c. though we are justified by Christ's Righteousness im∣puted, non sequitur nos non minus justos esse quam Christum; it doth not follow that we are no less Righteous than Christ: So doth Dr. Owen of Iustif. p. 509, 510. All our celebrated Opposers of So∣cinianism do the same. Mr. M. may say as well of these as he doth of us, for denying it as they do; They have a heart-hatred of standing in the Righteousness of Christ. 5. The Socinians have their whole Cause favoured against the Deity of Christ (or at least the Arrians) by what he asserts concerning the Person of the Son of God. He makes him such a God as was capable of a real Glory to be added to him, that as God he might be under God's frowns and displeasure; might quit and forgo the actual enjoyment of that Love, Glory and Inheritance, which as Son of God he was entitled to, and possessed of before his Incarnation, (not in a way of mani∣festation, nor as to his Humane Nature, but in

reality, and as to his Divine Nature, in which alone he acted before his Incarnation) a God capable of an acquired Right, superadded to his natural Right to those very Riches, Love, and Glory, which he enjoyed before he was Son of Man. And also, that the Humane Nature be∣longs to the Constitution of the Person of the Son of God as it is now, p. 8. &c. Are not these bold Strokes, which I have before fully proved to be his Assertions? Though Cha∣rity binds me to acknowledge, that I think he designeth not to oppose the Eternal Deity of the Son of God, by Assertions so unsuitable to the Divine Essence; and so mistaketh what God is, rather than who he is. 6. I might add, he blasts all the opposition made by our best Authors against Socinianism, by branding even them as Semisocinians. To say nothing of his repre∣senting the Doctrin of imputed Righteousness in a manner not defensible, and tempting to most Mens being Socinians, unless they have a better Notion of it. Few will believe, that we did legally do and suffer what Christ did; that we are as Righteous as Christ; and that the Gospel enjoineth no Duty as a Condition on us for obtaining the blessed Effects of Christ's Me∣rits, which be the only ground of his quarreling thus hotly with us. Men of his suspicious tem∣per will judge, he designeth to favour Socinia∣nism, by calling us Semisocinians.

12. Mr. M. Attempts to instruct us how to Preach, but with an evil insinuation, and in some things very contrary to Apostolical Preach∣ing. Thus your Teachers should instruct and lead you. This is the Apostles direction to Titus, that

he should teach them that have believed, to be care∣ful to maintain good works; not to teach and press sinners in their Vnbelief, to fall to doing of good works first, and overlook believing wholly, or to post∣pone it after them, p. 69. Repl. 1. Which teacher of his Hearers doth teach any to postpone Faith, or overlook it wholly, or delay it at all? If by Believing he means a due accepting of a whole Christ, yea, do not they direct them to expect all from God through Christ, and look to Christ as he in whom all fulness is? But our Author is one of them who think, Christ is never Preached, unless his Name be mentioned, and that as a Priest too. His revealed Truths, and enjoined Laws, &c. are not Preaching Christ. 2. But may one call Sinners to no Duty till they are Believers? Must they not be prest to examin themselves, pray, read the Word, hear it Preached, fear God, teach their Families, love their Wives, meditate, consider, strive with their Hearts, resist Temptations, believe the Scriptures, nor relieve the Poor, till they be Believers? Peter was to learn of our Author to Preach; for though he knew Simon Magus to be in the gall of bitterness, yet he bids him then repent of this thy wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee, Acts 9.22. perhaps he'll say he believed; true, in such a manner as I fear some that pre∣tend high to Faith exceed not. Paul gives such an account of much of his Ministry at first to Jews and Gentiles, Acts 26.20. That they should repent and turn unto God, and do works meet for Repentance; the Baptist was an ill Teacher, and Christ's Sermon on the Mount, Mat. 5. and Paul's

at Lystra, Acts 14.15, 16. needed Mr. M's dire∣ction. Paul saith to unbelievers, We are Men of like Passions with you, (thus far he'll agree) and Preach unto you, that you should turn from these vanities unto the living God that made Heaven and Earth, &c. a good Work is pressed before they believed. Here Mr. M. would have told him, you Paul should not teach thus. But what are his Reasons? 1. They that believed in God should be charged to excel in good works; there∣fore they that believe not in Christ, should not be pressed to endeavour to set upon doing any good Work, Hos. 5. 4. They must not so much as frame their doings to turn unto the Lord. 2. A few words after; through Faith that Righteous∣ness will be upon you; and being upon you, it will produce good Works. Here it seems (as I have oft heard it urged) Ministers should not urge you, nor you strive and labour after good Works, this Righteousness will produce them; but are all that I hope have Faith, so abundant therein, as not to need Spurs? Do all that pretend to it, shew that they have it by it's Fruits? and how can we know them? And is its being upon us the next principle of good Works; for though it be the Meriting Cause of all as it is in Christ, yet holy habits are the next Principle with the Spirits influence: And above all, must we cease to declare the whole Will of God to all that hear us, till we know is Christ's Righteousness upon them? Yea, is it because they are dead in Sin before Faith, that we must not press them to repent, fear and love God, &c. The same reason will hold against pressing them to saving Faith, which of them∣selves

they can as little perform: And if it be by the Word that God regenerates our Hearers. Why may not the Spirit infuse Life, by calling Men to Repent, &c. as well as to Believe; and a true Principle of Life will act duly, though I think not in the same order of dis∣cernable Actings in every Convert. But how∣ever it's certain, that if by preaching Repen∣tance the Spirit quickens a Soul, that Soul is as sure to believe when quickned, as it is to repent when it believes. And so our Author makes but a spiteful Flourish, when he would induce our Hearers to think we teach them amiss, because we learn not of him.

SInce the Printing of my Answer, to what Mr. M. calls my Second Damning Error, viz. That I make the State of Believers to be Undecided, and in Suspence during this Life. I have found the word Vndecided in my Gospel Truth Stated, P. 55. which I then was Ignorant of, though I cast my Eye on the bottom of that very Page. My words are,

The Covenant, though Conditional, is a Disposition of Grace; there's Grace in giving Ability to perform the Conditions, as well as in bestowing the Benefits: God's enjoyning one in order to the other, makes not the Benefit to be less of Grace, but it is a Display of God's Wisdom, in conferring the Benefit suitably to the Na∣ture and State of Men in this Life, whose Eternal Condition is not Eternally decided, but are in a State of Trial; yea, the Con∣ditions

are but a Meetness to receive the Blessing.

But as I have in my Answer shewed, that I oft in Gospel Truth stated, affirm, That the Elect shall Persevere in Faith, and that every true Saint is now in a State of Sal∣vation. So I shall only add, 1. I do not here mention Believers, but Men in general, yea, ra∣ther Unbelievers. 2. By Eternally decided any Man may see, that I had an Eye only to God's Iudicial Decision at Death, and the more Solemn Sentence at the last Judgment; when we Die, our Warfare is finished, and our State, as Viatores, is at an end. 3. What meaneth all the Scripture Cautions (even to Believers) such as Watch, &c. Pass the time of your Sojourning here in Fear, &c. If all our State be decided so, while we have many Years, Temptations, and Persevering Work before us; as it will be beyond the Grave: Alas how many are long deceived by the meer Form of Godliness, and they that are Godly, are called to Caution and Care, on this very Consideration, that they are to be judged, 1 Pet. 1.17. which were useless to such as are in termino, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. Rev. 2.10. See more in my Answer.

The Point of the Embrio was not fit for my large insisting on, or I could have proved, that an Embrio is not an unformed, unorganized Mass or Lump, &c.

FINIS.