With his Stripes we are healed and sundry other places Nay to suppose any Degree of Suffering on Christ and not our Sins laid on Christ even though in the Doctor 's Sence would overturn the whole Christian Religion and justifie the Socinians Testimonies The Assemblies Lesser Catechism Q. Wherein did Christ's Humiliation consist A. In his being Born and that in a low Condition made under the Law undergoing the Miseries of this Life the Wrath of God and the cursed Death of the Cross in being buried and continuing under the Power of Death for a time Thou seest Christ's Incarnation or being Born and several other things before Christ's Crucifixion are parts of his Humiliation The Ground of the Doctor 's Mistake Because the hidings of God's Face and especially the dying Sacrifice of Christ did so compleat and finish the Work of Satisfaction as the principal parts thereof therefore he thinks our Sins were not laid on Christ till then CHAP. VI. Of God's Separation from and Abhorrence of Christ while our Sins lay upon him Truth THough God testified his threatned Indignation against Sin in the awful Sufferings of Christ's Soul and Body in his Agony and suspended those delightful Communications of the Divine Nature to the Humane Nature of Christ as to their wonted Degrees yet God was never separated from Christ much less during his Body's lying in the Grave neither was the Father ever displeased with Christ and far less did he abhor him because of the Filthiness of Sin upon him Errour Christ was on the account of the Filthiness of Sins while they lay upon him separated from God odious to him and even the Object of God's Abhorrence and this to the time of his Resurrection Proved that this is Dr. Crisp 's Opinion He saith P. 294. Nay from this I affirm as Christ did bear our Iniquity so Christ for that Iniquity was separated from God and God was here separated from Christ or else Christ spake untruth P. 295. The Doctor puts an Objection It may be this for saking was but for a little time He saith To this I answer it was as long as Sin was upon him had not Christ breathed out the Sins of Men that were upon him he had never seen God again he having taken Sin upon him he must unload himself of Sin before he can be brought near to God c. There was a Separation and Forsaking when Christ died but at his Rising there was a Meeting again a kind of renewing his Sonship P. 408. It is a higher Expression of Love that Christ should bear the Sins of Men than that he should be given to die for Men c. Affliction is not contrary to the Nature of God God can smile upon Persons when they are under the greatest Scorn c. But where the Lord doth charge any Sin the Lord hath an Abhorrence there P. 379 380. He shews That Christ to be a Scorn yea for God to make him suffer the most accursed Death of the Cross is far less than to make him sin because all this may agree to the Nature of God but Iniquity is the hatefullest thing in the World to God where Iniquity is found a Toad is not so odious nor ugly to Man as that Person is in the Sight of God P. 180. All that Filthiness and Loathsomeness of our Nature is put upon Christ he stands as it were the Abhorred of the Lord. Wherein the Difference is not 1. It is not whether the Soul of Christ endured the Effects of Gods Wrath against sin and was amazed thereat as well as at the Importance of the Work he was engaged in and the Enemies he was to encounter with and the Sacrifice he was to make c. 2. Nor whether the Divine Nature suspended for a while on the Cross the delightful Communications of it self as to the Degrees it was accustomed to emit to the humane Nature of Christ. These with awe I freely affirm The Real Difference 1. Whether Christ was separated from God This the Doctor affirms and I deny 2. Whether Christ was at any time under God's Abhorrency or odious to him because under the Loathsomeness of Sin This the Doctor affirms and I deny yea not without Detestation 3. Whether Christ was thus on the account of the Filthiness of Sin upon him separated from and under the Abhorrency of the Father during his lying in the Grave This the Doctor affirms and I deny it of that time and any other or else it would be true for the whole time of his Humiliation The Truth Confirmed 1. This Separation was impossible because of the Union between the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ in one Person This Union could not be dissolved nor could all Communications of Comfort or Strength from the Divine Nature be interrupted while the Union remained Yea the Humane Nature of Christ had never a personal Subsistence of its own but was assumed by the eternal Word the second Person of one Essence with the Father 2. The Father had promised constant Supports to Christ in the whole of his Undertakings and Sufferings and his comfortable Presence with him Isa. 42. 1 4 6. Isa. 50. 7 8 9. 3. The Doctor of all Men had least reason to assert this Separation when he had so exceeded in telling us P. 379. That the Divine Nature is a kind of Soul to the Humanity consisting of Soul and Body and is the Form and Strength of both c. The God-head gives Life to Christ and so all the Sufficiency to bear Iniquity proceeds from the Divine Nature of Christ. And P. 378. Should Iniquity be laid on the Humane Nature and the Divine Nature not support the Humane Nature it would have sunk under sin Reader is it not strange that after this the Doctor should affirm a Separation and that for all the time when Iniquity was upon Christ 4. The Lord Jesus could not be abhorred or odious to God for in him God was always well pleased Isa. 42. 1. Mat. 17. 5. He was now yielding the highest Act of Obedience and so there was at least no cause of Offence yea God loved him for this John 10. 17 18. the Person of the Son was always Gods Delight from Eternity to Eternity Prov. 8. 30. and could not but be so Christ must have been as odious to himself as to the Father for he is of the same Holy Essence Reader How horrid a sound must it have to a Christian Ear to say A Christ odious to God abhorred by the Father and that because he was a loathsome a detestable an abominable and filthy sinner for a time This Point carries that Aspect that from Regards for the Doctor I will not insist on it nor its necessary Consequences and yet upon this depend many of his Positions 5. Christ could not be thus separated from and be as it were the Abhorred of the Lord while his Body lay in the Grave for then his Soul could not be in Paradise as
is their Father though they resolve against being Separate Men can though God saith they cannot partake of the Table of the Lord and of the Table of Devils 1 Cor. 10. 21. For Union and Communion with Christ be the Heart of the Benefits included in partaking of the Lord's Table Reader Weigh these things and thou canst hardly conceive what Act of God an Union before Faith can be ascribed to It 's not to the Decree for that only resolveth it shall be in future It 's not to God's appointing or Christ's engaging to be a Mediator for thereby he undertook in time to raise a Seed which in the fulness of Time God would gather in one in him Eph. 1. 10. It 's not in Christ's assuming the humane Nature for that admits all Mankind to be united to him as well as the Elect. And what Mr Sterry and others talk of a radical Union with Christ as he is the top Branch or the universal Spirit of the Creation in a Nature distinct from his Divine and Humane it's fordid to such who know of but two Natures in Christ and if granted would not prove the Doctor 's Notion of actual Union TESTIMONIES The Assembly Confess Ca. 26. a. 1. and the Elders at the Savoy Chap. 27. a. 1. affirm That we are united to Jesus Christ by-his Spirit and by Faith A. 5. Only the Elders add We are not thereby made one Person with Christ. The Lesser Catechism hath this Question How doth the Spirit apply to us the Redemption purchased by Christ A. By working Faith in us and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual Calling The New England Synod confute this as Errour 37. We are compleatly united to Christ before or without any Faith wrought in us by the Spirit They sum up their Confutation of this in these VVords If there be no Dwelling of Christ in us no coming to him no receiving him no being married to him before and without Faith But the former is true Errour 16. which Boston Church charged Mr. Hutcheson with was That Union to Christ is not by Faith Errour 38. The Synod Confutes is There can be no true closing with Christ in a Promise that hath a Condition expressed Errour 69. Though a Man can prove a gracious VVork in himself and Christ to be the Author of it if thereby he will prove Christ to be his this is but a sandy Foundation He never read Doctor Owen who did not find him as express in this as any Man can be Norton Orthod Evang. P. 291. Union in order of Nature though not of Time followeth Vocation P. 181. Union not without the Act of Faith P. 222. It 's by the Spirit and Faith The Grounds of the Dr's Mistake Because Christ is appointed and given to raise a Body eternally elected thereto therefore he thinks they are this Body before they be raised Because all After-Grace is from Christ as our actual Head therefore he thinks Christ cannot by his Spirit work the first Grace as our designed Head VVhereas the Spirit makes us an Habitation to God Eph. 2. 22. And it 's a strange conceit that Christ can exert no Act of Power on a dead Soul in order to Union but Men must infer that Union prior to it Because the natural Body cannot see without a Head therefore Christ cannot convert a Sinner to bring him into his mystical Body One might better infer the Head cannot see without the Body and the Body sees as much as the Head and the Head sees no better than the Body and so conclude Christ can see nothing till every elect Person be a Member and every Member seeth as well as Christ and the dim Sight of every Member makes the Sight of Christ as blind as his Because Christ received Gifts for the Rebellious that God might dwell among them therefore God dwells among them before those Gifts operate or be communicated to them Whereas the Apostle Eph. 4. 10 11 12. tells us how these Gifts are the Means by which the Elect are converted and made Believers and so come to partake of Union with its peculiar Effects Because from the Parable of the Vine the Gardiner puts the Graff into the Tree before there 's Sap or Fruit therefore he thinks a Man is in Christ before God puts him in Christ by the Spirit and Faith which is the only ingraffing the VVord tells us of besides external Church Privileges Rom. 11. 17 19. I may as well argue a Member of Christ must always do wicked VVorks because the Graff bears always Fruit of its own Kind and not after the Kind of the Stock into which it is ingrafted How sad is it to strain and abuse Parables or Metaphors against the Scope of the Gospel because God condescends to explain some Truths thereby as if all that belongs to the Metaphor teach and prove any Doctrine because that one Point for which the Lord useth it is illustrated thereby VVhat VVork may soon be made by fond People if this be true Because we are chosen in Christ from eternity that is elected to obtain Life by him as Mediator therefore we are one with him before any uniting Bonds Reader I forbear to represent the Nature of this Union as he seems to state it P. 104 105 648 649 615. hoping he meant better than many of his VVords do import but for thy own Good know that upon believing we are made Partakers of Gospel-Benefits we are related to him for all the Advantages which the Metaphors of this Union express He loveth enricheth and honoureth us as a Man doth his Wife He directs rules and quickens us as a Head doth the Members He ministers Grace for Fruit and Exercise as the Root doth to the Branches Yea This Relation he 'll keep undissolved and yet more the very Spirit that his Humane Nature received in Fulness abides in and worketh a Conformity to the Life and Temper of Christ in all his Members which at last he will perfect to the utmost of our Capacity But yet fansie not that we are deified with God or christified with Christ or one natural Person with him as if he had a superangelick Nature which was a sort of a commen Soul or that our distinct Personality shall ever cease with other Notions destructive of God's Government and of all Judgment Beware of confounding God and the Creature or making Christ the Subject of our Graces because he is the Author of them Obj. But you said in the Errour that Men are said to receive Christ against their VVills A. The Doctor tells us Our first receiving of Christ is when Christ comes by the Gift of the Father to a Person while he is in the Stubbornness of his own Heart and the Father doth force open the Spirit of that Person and pours in his Son in spight of the Receiver P. 99. In P. 98. It 's as a Physician poureth Physick down the Patient's Throat and so it works against his Will
loved Rev. 3. 19. Was not that for Sin which you find 1 Cor. 11. 30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep What meaneth God when he saith he 'll be Sanctified in his offending Children He cannot hide his Face for Sin nor abate his gracious Influences for Sin and not shew Displeasure for Sin against the Offenders whom he so deserts How wickedly have most pious Persons been employed while they have humbly owned their Sins to be the cause of God's Withdraws and Corrections if what I assert be not a Truth And how strange such Texts You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth and therefore I will punish you for your Iniquities Amos 3. 2. Now who dare tell God Lyes to his Face c. TESTIMONIES You have seen the Assembly and Elders in the Savoy positively assert this Truth in my last Chapter which again consult And large Catech. Q How doth Christ execute the Office of a King Ans. among other things I Rewarding their Obedience and Correcting his People for their Sins The Provincial Synod of London p. 16. recite as one of the dangerous Errours of that day That God doth not chastize any of his Children for Sin nor is it for the Sins of God's People the Land is punished The Grounds of the Doctor 's Mistake Because God laid on our Sins on Christ to make Atonement for the Forgiveness of the Elect when they repent therefore God cannot be offended with the Elect for them before they repent Because God doth not hate the Believer as an unreconciled God when he sins therefore he is not at all displeased with him because of the grossest Sins Because the Refiner is not angry with his Gold which never could offend him when he casts it into the Fire therefore a holy God is no way angry with rational Offenders when he corrects them for their Reformation Because God will not hate a Believer so as to damn him therefore he cannot be angry with his People so as Fatherly to chastize them Because God afflicts from Sin therefore he doth not also afflict for Sin as if he could not rebuke for what is past if he resolve not against their amendment for time to come It seems also that the Doctor was led into his Opinion by not considering that Anger or Displeasure be not Passions in God but a Will of Correcting and are denominated from the kinds and degrees of Corrections CHAP. XIX Of the Beauty of sincere Holiness TRUTH THough the present sincere Holiness of Believers be not perfect according to the Precepts of the Word nor Valuable by the Sanction of the Law of Innocency nor any Atonement for our Defects and we still need Forgiveness and the Merits of Christ for Acceptance thereof yet as far as it prevails it 's lovely in it self and pleasing to God and is not dung or filth ERROUR The greatest Holiness in Believers though wrought in them by the Holy Ghost is mere Dung Rottenness and Filthiness as in them Proved that this is Doctor Crisp 's Opinion P. 232. Know that the motions and assistance of the Spirit be pure holy and without scum in the Spring to wit it self yet by that time these Motions and Assistances have passed through the channels of our Hearts and been mixed with our manifold Corruptions in doing even the whole Work becomes polluted and filthy our filthiness alters the property of the pure motions of Christ's Spirit c. As one drop of Poyson injected into the rarest Cordial makes the whole and every drop of the whole Mortal so that except the best of our Works can pass through us without the least touch or mixture of any Defect or Pollution it cannot but be Dung c. And whereas it may seem harsh that even what is the Spirit 's must be involved within that which is a Man 's own under the general Notion of Dung Know that it once being mixed with our filth ceaseth to be the Spirit 's and becomes our own It was the Spirit 's when injected but our Flesh being like the Viper's Stomach turns the wholsomest Food into Poyson or like an ulcerous Tumour that turns the purest Spirits and soundest Flesh into rottenness And some of this ulcerous Flesh remains in the best Saints on Earth and mingles it self in the best service and so turns the whole into its own nature P. 414. All our Righteousness are filthy full of menstruosity the highest kind of filthiness Do not say he meaneth that our gracious Actings are too imperfect to be the Righteousness for which we are Justified No he must intend more for that would not make them Dung or Rottenness and cease to be the Spirit 's it would only argue they are Imperfect c. He hath abundance of such terms to make Holiness vile as before he said much to render Sin innocent to the Elect. Wherein the Difference is not 1. It is not Whether the Holiness or best Acts of a Saint be such or so perfect as to atone for his Sin or procure a state of Pardon 2. Nor whether our Holiness can make us accepted with God without Christ. 3. Nor whether the holiest Action of the holiest Saint is such as not to need forgiveness 4. Nor whether by the Sanction of the Law of Innocency Sincere Holiness could be accounted Holiness All these I deny and the last because nothing but perfect conformity to the Precept was Holiness whereas the Gospel-Grace makes a great difference between True Holiness though Imperfect and what 's formally Wickedness between sincere Love and Enmity sincere Faith and utter Unbelief The real Difference 1. Whether the sincere Holiness of a Believer's Heart and Actions be really Dung and Rottenness This the Doctor affirms and I deny yet I own we should so esteem it is compared with Christ as meritorious of Justification 2. Whether sincere Holiness as far as it prevails in our Hearts and Actings be truly lovely in it self and pleasing to God according to the Grace of the Gospel and is not Dung. This I affirm and the Doctor denies The Truth confirmed Consider That whatever is spoken of Holiness in any mere Man on Earth since the Fall is spoken of Sincere Holiness for Perfect Holiness none had I have room but to expostulate this Matter Is that Dung which is the effect of Regeneration in the Soul and Actings Is that Dung which is so often honoured with the Name of the Spirit it self and called the Spirit of Love Prayer c. I not that more lovely which is called the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1. 4. How aimable must that be which is the New Man after God's Image Eph. 4. 24. The New Heart Ezek. 18. 31. The Law of God in the Heart and the Grace of God Are those Works Dung to which we are created in Christ Jesus Eph. 2. 10. and enabled by the Spirit Or is that Filthiness which renders Saints the Excellent of the