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 notwithstanding 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 Value in God's Account to what he did and suffered 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 Attainment 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 Covenant neither have nor require any Righteousness 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 Righteousness between Christ and us is not so much from Legal Union or Judicial Imputation but from a Coalescence of Believers into one mystical Person with Christ by Vital Union Thus p. 55. Between our believing and our being justified there comes in our Coalescing into one mystical Person 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 indeed 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 Rightâ—â—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 unless Christ hath more Persons than one Besides his being a legal Person which he opposeth this mystical Person to And that he means something 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 Mystery 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 Mystical 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 common 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 aâ—â— 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
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
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
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
their Happiness as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did Reader were these Men duly tender or honest when they pervert Words â—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 Methods 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 Punishment 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 Adulterer and Blasphemer Gospel-Truth p. 10 11. Here 's my Crime for Mr. M. hath oft preached 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 prâ—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 belonging 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 Woman I said not that the Son of God was united to an Embrio unactive as an Embrio is another thing And I 'll â—â—ing him twice Ten to oppose 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 Turretin's Instit. Theol. p. 372. Etsi anima infundi non potuit in Corpus nisi jam organizatum c. Non sequiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non potuisse carnem statim sibi unire cum Opus ejus non possit aut praesente aut absente anima sibi coarctari Pierson and Multitudes 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 Nourishment 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 many Phisicians so ignorant as to judge the Soul is united to the Body unorganized and if so either the humane Nature of Christ had a separate 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 eternal Power of the Deity clasping about it and holding it in that Vnion p. 63. May not this seraphical 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 thaâ— 1. We are justified by Christ's imputed Righteousness 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 Righteousness 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 designed to proclaim the Preferrableness of Christianity to Judaism and what was Pharasaical yea or self-invented And therefore as he enumerates all the Dignities of Judaism so he ascribes to Christ the whole Glory of his entire redeemed State shewing that not only his Justification but his Sanctification too came from and by Christ both which were of a diviner Nature as well as appointment than what he arrived to whiles he was a Stranger to Christ and therefore expected and pressed after a Perfection therein whiles he despised all Things Priviledges and Attainments which stood in Competition with Christ Yea was glad he had lost them all for Union with him a Perseverance 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 Bellarmin's Sense neither want I Reasons sufficient 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 Incarnation was no
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 Concerns 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 Humiliation doth properly predicate of the Incarnation strictly taken Yet I suspect it will hardly go down Why Because Mr. M. is so very fond of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Consecrate 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 formally 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 Humiliation 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 supposed 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 became Man by the other he became the Son of Man The former implies only his Participation of the Nature the other together with the Nature 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 becoming 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 Incarnation 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 Conception 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 Conception but not in his being Conceived But as I think he can never part them so I have elsewhere proved That his being Conceived is â—he greater Debasement and there was nothing in the Manner of it Debasing but as supposing the Thing it self was so Alas What is this or that Humane Circumstance compared 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 Humbled 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 Humane 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 Incarnation 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
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