Part of his Humiliation 1. He grants the Point which ought to be the real Question 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 fairly exclude the rest out of the Subject of this Question Was Christ's Incarnation Part of his Humiliation Did not Christ assume our Nature 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 Whereas 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 Exaninition and note that the best Authors esteem Christ's taking the Form of a Servant for his very Incarnation and not any humbling Circumstances 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 Servant 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 Servant in Phil. 2. 7. But it will be no otherwise yet he sits not down with it for after all his mending 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 Nature which was never intended we have lost the Form of a Servant as what is still retained in Heaven we have lost all that 's included 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 Humiliation 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 otherwise 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 Humiliation 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 because 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 render 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 Consent 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 Humiliation 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
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 Repentance 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 presently 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 Believing P. 62 63. Reply Is Christ's Faith the Pattern of Faith in Christ I remember somewhere Dr. Goodwin 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 Promise 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 himself 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 convinced 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. Reader Doth Christ's Faith in the Nature of it imply a Sense of utter Helplesness and Unworthiness 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 Humane 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 Sufferings 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 Crucified 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 animal Spirits which are Corporeal things is rather the means of Life than an act of Life c. P. 62. Suppose that the principle of Grace begotten 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 justified 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 Qualitative c. Repl. Here with the Arminians he denieth the habit of Faith necessary to the actings of Faith He is contrary to the Assembly of Divines who tell us That God in effectual Vocation takes away
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 Righteousness of Christ is so impured to us as that Benefits are actually conferred on us in a way of Remunerative 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 Believers 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 reserves 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 â—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 Righteousness 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 Dishonour 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 relation 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 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 As if what terminated on one Nature only did not terminate 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 Communication 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 Humane Nature This was only capable of Rewards 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 Eternity 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 Number 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 Revenue 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 infinitely beloved as God's Eternal Son the Contrivance 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 Additional 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 Salvation 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 Intention 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 considered 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 Glory 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. 'T is 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 Eternal 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 contented 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 therefore 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 Incarnation and there could not be a restoring and raising to the Enjoyment of this Love as to this Nature unless that he was under the Frowns and Displeasure of his Father as to his Divine Nature For whatever Nature he enjoyed the Love of God in before he did forego the Enjoyment 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 forego 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 Humane 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 Glory 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 therefore 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 superadded 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 Benefit of it which he enjoyed before The Meaning 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 necessitous suffering Case But hence Mr. M. infers that Christ as the Son of God did forego 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 Enjoyment 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 Enjoyment 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 Enjoyment 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 Human Nature to the Divine Person and also as a Reward of what was suffered and done in the Human Nature 3. The utmost Glory belonging to or received by Christ as acquired was of another kind than what belonged to him as God and which he enjoyed before the Incarnation The â—ne is dependant the other independant the one is Creature Glory though above Angels the other is increated essential and divine 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 Communications of it and of the Divine Favour were a while much suspended from the Humane Nature But considered as the Son of God he always 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 Favour to the Humane Nature yet there was no Place or room for acquiring a Right to any sencible Communications of Love Riches or Glory to him as Son of God For they were never 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 â—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 Displeasure and capable of parting with the enjoyment 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 superadded to his natural Right thereto are such Positions 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 Persons 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 appointed not over-ruled as a necessary means thereto as that by which he was to obtain this Glory and without which he must have gone without 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 moâ—â— of Mankind to have avoided Sin and Eternal 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
Clots of Blood and rendred him Sorrowful even to Death God hid his Face from him A Death in the manner of it accursed as well as shameful he tasted and endured He lay in the Grave for a time after he had thus wade◠through a Sea of Blood Shame and Terrour Alas Who can tell what he underwent whose Resentments of all must give them a weight beyond our conjecture One so Glorious to be thus Debased one so near to God to be thus Deserted c. How astonishing a sight was it to see Christ hang upon a Cross The purposes designed by it must be answerable to the wonder and so we shall acknowledge when we understand the Justice and Purity of God the Evil of Sin the Harmony of Divine Government the value of Pardon and Eternal Life the Honour of the Mediatour and the influence of his Obedience on Myriads of Angels At present we see the Pardon of Sin made consistent with Justice Our Lord endured that Punishment of Sin that God might be Glorious whilst the Believing Sinner escapes By this God declared the Righteousness of his Government whilst he Glorified his Grace in saving Transgressors Christs being Obedient even unto Death Honoured the Law above all that Men could perform in their best Condition yea sets it above Contempt when the Penitent is forgiven his greatest Enormities So that God as our Governor receives such Glory by Christs Subjection as it suffers nothing by the Impunity and Happiness of all who are saved Yea A Dying Christ is more fit to Awe every one against Rebellion and dispose to the exactest Obedience than any other Consideration For the further clearing of this Point I shall propose three Enquiries 1 Enq. Were Christ's Sufferings a part of the Obedience of Christ whereby we are made Righteous Ans. The Sufferings of Christ were a part of the Obedience of Christ whereby we are made Righteous No Precept could try his Obedience more than that he should make his Soul an Offering for Sin Herein he outdid the Loyalty of all Beings for the proof of this Point I shall give you some further Evidence that Christs Sufferings were a part of his Obedience 1. Whatever was endured by Christ was injoyn'd on him in a way of Authority upon supposition he would be Redeemer He agreed to be a Subject and Servant He learned whât Obedience was even by what he endured Heb. 5.8 and still acknowledged an Authority over him as Mediatour This Commandment I have received of the Father 's John 10.18 Not as I will but as thou wilt were his Words when the Human Nature hinted so much Reluctancy as expressed the Cup to be truly bitter Mat. 26.29 2. Christ's Sufferings were endured by him in a way of Obedience he obeyed in whatever he endured Isa. 50.5 6. The Lord God hath opened my Ear and I was not Rebellious I gave my Back to the Smiters c. Mat. 26.42 He shews the most Obediential regard Thy Will be done Phil. 2.8 He was Obedient unto Death The Law of Mediation injoin'd it his Will exerted its true consent even giving up the Ghost 3. The efficacy of Christ's Sufferings much depended on their being acts of Obedience had they been against his Will or had he Repented after he had first agreed Men had fail'd of Salvation Heb. 10.9.10 Lo I come to do thy Will O God By the which Will we are Sanctified through the Offering of the Body of Iesus Christ one for all The Will of God appointing and accepting this Atonement and the Will of Christ obeying and freely performing what was appointed are that we are Saved by The Obedient Heart of Christ in all gives a Power thereto Hence there 's a Stress laid on his Voluntariness in his Work He gave Himself Gal. 14. Tit. 2 14. And he offered Himself Heb. 7 27. He testified this in being the Priest that offered himself as well as the Sacrifice that was offered These being such amazing instances of Obedience tended much to glorify Gods Government how sacred is that Authority and how binding are its mandates ◠When the Son of God in Flesh will observe them even when they require such Sufferings to be endured and submitted to These are harder precepts than Angels or Men were ever called to obey and therefore how chearful should they be in observing such Commands as be less humbling and difficult especially when the Authority of Gods precepts are founded in his absolute Dominion over them But Christ could be under no Law till by his own consent he was willing to be a Subject I infer then that if Christs Sufferings were a part of his Obedience then we are made Righteous thereby or we are made Righteous by only some part of his Obedience which I suppose you 'l not affirm 2. Christ's Sufferings are a part of Christ's meriting Righteousness this will both prove that they are part of Christs Obedience and that we are made Righteous thereby Unless any should surmize we are made Righteous by some what of Christs besides his Obedience or that his meriting Righteousness doth not conduce to make us Righteous That Christs Suffering are apart of his Righteousness might be demonstrated many ways as First They were part of the condition whereupon Christ had a right to Mens Pardon and Salvation Isaiah 53.11 12. Second Christ pleads and interceeds in the virtue of his Sufferings 1 Iohn 2.1 2. Third We are justified by his Blood Rom. 5 9. Four They are meritorious of what blessings we receive but these things will be insisted on in the third Enquiry 2. Enquiry Was Christ's Incarnation a part of his Humiliation Ans. Christs Incarnation was a part of his Humiliation To argue this point with evidence I must mind you that the subject of this proposition must be taken as it naturally lieth I would think it of no use to you and in it self a vain question to ask had Christ assumed our Nature in another State than it is since the Fall or had Christ become incarnate in another manner than by being Conceived in the Womb of the Virgin Whether then his Incarnation had been a part of his Humiliation thô I know some Popish Schoolmen ungroundedly affirm that Christ would have taken our nature into union with him if Adam had not fallen and so there would not have been that place for his Humiliation yet I think not hard to prove that for the Eternal word to become Incarnate in any manner would have been a great Humiliation and there must have been somewhat that would have rendred it so or he would not have assumed our Nature But we have nothing to do with such Chimaeras Christ was Incarnate he hath assumed our Nature the Word of God tells us in what manner he assumed it and to what ends and in what State Therefore we must in our Question speak of Christs Incarnation as it was and not as it was not and which ever way it be decided every one must