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
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
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
Nature was taken as an obscuring Vail and in the manner of Assuming it that Vail was exceeding thick which will appear in these Things 1. Christ was conceived in a Woman's Womb there was he confined the usual time he was born he sâ—ent part of his time in the unactive state of Infancy and Childhood He was capable of growing in knowledge Luke 2.52 This points to the manner of his Incarnation and is there no concâ—alment of his Glory herein no laying it aside 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 for him to pass through the Incapacities of Infancy and the like necessary Consequences of the manner of his Incarnation Sure here 's a Suspension of Glory Eve was formed in a way more Glorious Whereas the Apostle notes it of Christ that he was made of a woman made under the law Gal. 4.4 2. Christ in his very Incarnation assumed the Humane Nature when in a low State yea after the Fall and subject to many Effects of that Fall It was not a Glorious Body a Spiritual Body a Body cloathed with Immortality but a Body subject to Hunger Thirst Weariness yea Death it self The Apostle leaves a Remark on this 2 Cor. 5.16 Thô we have known Christ after the Flesh yet know we him so no more Further what a Vail was it that he assumed our Nature after Man had sinned after he was condemned and part of the Sentence executed Yea there was need of an extraordinary way of Generation to prevent the propagation of Guilt and Defilement to him our Lord was subject to Grief Fear Trouble Temptations from without c. and the same Infirmities as we fallen Men are Sin only excepted Heb. 4.15 And was all this no Humiliation his meer Incarnation was his assuming a Body in the frame and habit whereof these Infirmities had actual place and not a Body exempted from these He was in the likeness of sinful flesh Rom. 8.3 3. The Apostle includes Christ's Incarnation in his Inferiority below Angels Heb. 2.9 We see Iesus who was made a little lower than the Angels for the suffering of death c. Thô his Exaninition in assuming our Nature be not all yet it is a great part of his Minoration as taking a Nature below the Angelical Thô he could soon raise it above Angels when he had assumed it and finished his Work therein and hence some render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a little while But it 's plain that the Humane Nature in it self is below the Angelical and therefore in taking this lower Nature he was so far Humbled and went so far further from his Glory 2. Christ's receding from his Glory in taking our Nature in this state and after this manner in obedience to God and for the ends for which he assumed such a Body was truly a degree of Humiliation That Christ should become Man was one Article submitted to by him Heb. 10.5 It was a Debt Heb. 2.16 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was Incarnate and that in the very described manner that he might be capable of enduring those full effects of Sin that he might tast Death for every Man be Tempted and the like Had not he assumed our Flesh he was not capable of enduring these yea had he not assumed our Nature in an humbled State and submitted to a Vail on his Glory the World would have been dazled with his Brightness above the Sun 's and none durst have blasphemed or assaulted him But our Lord was thus Incarnate his Humane Nature was in this humbled Condition and not in an exalted State when he assumed it and begun not to be humbled afterwards he laid by his Glory when he put on our Flesh in his Conception and therefore Iohn 17.5 he prays Glorifie me with that glory which I had with thee before the world began And the Apostle reckons it as a degree of his Humiliation Gal. 4.1 Made of a woman made under the law Yea I think it might be demonstrated that the Lord 's quitting the Display of his Divine Glory in his Conception Birth and the whole time of his Life was the greatest degree of his Humiliation And what can exclude his Incarnation especially in such a manner from being a part of Humiliation unless this following Objection for it was in a way of Obedience his Glory obscured and this to abasing Purposes Obj. How could the Divine Nature be humbled A. It was the Eternal Word or the Second Person that was humbled as far as his Incarnation obscured his Glory in the way above described 1. The Divine Nature essentially considered could neither be humbled nor exalted nothing can add to or take from it 2. Neither could the Divine Nature feel or resent Sufferings in the same manner as the Humane Nature it was not capable of Passion 3. Yet the Eternal Word was capable of laying aside his Manifestative Glory of subjecting himself to do so in obedience to the Father and persuant to his Covenant Undertaking and to make himself capable of drinking the whole of the Cup by being cloathed with such Flesh and that in a manner so obscuring of his Glory It 's more strange that this should be questioned by such who ascribe to Christ Acts properly Mediatorial before his Incarnation 3. R. Christ for his very Incarnation among other things received Authority as a Reward Iob. 5.27 He hath given him authority to execute judgment because he is the son of man If you say he was not capable of such a Gift but as the Son of Man even that argues a degree of Humiliation that the Person to whom all was due by virtue of his Divine Essence should assume another nature to be capable of this as a Gift But the words express his being the Son of Man to have a Causality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authority is a Reward for his Incarnation among other things And if this be rewarded it must come within the compass of his Humiliation for all Christ's Meritorious Acts come under the consideration of his being humbled and the Acts of his exalted State are not properly Meritorious I might add other Reasons as from the dependant State to which Christ became subject by assuming our Nature and from the way how the Glory of Christ's Person added to value the Sufferings of the Humane Nature c. But I think what is already offered is sufficient Obj. If Christ's Incarnation was a part of his Humiliation then he is in a state of Humiliation in Heaven A. 1. Christ's continuing in the Nature assumed when he hath exalted it may not be a part of his Humiliation and yet his assuming that Nature was a part of his Humiliation The Act of Assumption is one thing remaining United is another The Nature in a humble State as it was when he was Incarnate is one thing that Nature in a perfected glorious State as it is now in
way of its application Rom. 10.3.4 For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God They not knowing the Righteousness which God had contrived and appointed for the Salvation of fallen Man proudly thought they could by a tale of Works made up with operous costly Sacrifices merit Life at the hands of God and by this conceit they despised a Crucified Christ as needless refused to believe in Christ for Justification by his Merits and went on in Impenitency as above the necessity of Pardon by his Blood Which Impenitent persisting in rejecting of Christ was their non-submission to the Righteousness of God Oh the danger of a Heart too proud and a Will too stubborn to stoop to Christ and his Gospel Alas our own Garments are too scant for a covering and unless we accept of a whole Christ we shall be naked notwithstanding the largeness of his Robe His Stripes will not heal us if we return not unto this Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls 1 Pet. 2.24 25. A Righteousness to procure Acceptation or Merit Life we cannot work out but blessed be God Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Rom. 10.4 The end of the Ceremonial Law is what the Tipes signified The end of the Law of Works as being the scope and issue of it for if it had been perfectly obeyed by Man right to Impunity and its Reward was the utmost which that Law could confer on Innocent Man And blessed be God Christ hath by his Obedience merited both these and all that will truly believe shall in Christ's Right be Entitled to both tho' for any thing wrought by them they could never attain either Impunity or Glory If you peruse v. 5. to the 11. you will find that God hath put us past all solicitousness concerning the sufficiency and certainty of a Christ who hath a fullness of Righteousness for the Salvation of Sinners But the thing incumbent on us to be sollicitous about is that we comply with the Gospel that we may be saved by his Righteousness V. 10 11. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and believe with thy heart thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made to salvation Without these neither his coming to Dye nor his Resurrection from Death will avail us to Salvation Oh! then accept of Christ and yield up your selves to him and to a due and faithful Confession of him as your Lord and Iesus 4. Prop. Jesus Christ by the gracious Dispensation of God as our Law-giver was admitted and in our Nature did so fully answer the demands of Governing Justice as that to its own very Glory it admits the Grace of God to exert it self in forgiving Believing Sinners and in conferring on them Saving Benefits in the Righteousness of Christ. It was not so small a matter as most account it to bring Justice and Pardoning Mercy to consist to honour the Government of God and save Believing Sinners who before were Sentenced to Dye But having spoken to some part of this Proposition in my former Discourse I shall reduce it to these Particulars which I shall briefly hint at 1. It was in our Offending Nature that Christ answered the Demands of Justice tho' it was not in our Person Rom. 8.3 God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh If without this it had been possible to vindicate the Government of God in general yet without assuming our Nature it would not have been a Vindication of the Government of God over Men in particular the Sufferings had not been a satisfaction for Human Offences as Human. 2. Nothing was abated to Christ that Governing Justice exacted the Substantials of the Law were inserted into the Rule of his Active and Passive Obedience and Justice adjusted his Work to his Wages There 's no Common nor Special Benefit promised or given on the account of his Obedience to any but the value of his Obedience is proportionable thereto tho' yet the Benefits much exceed what Adam forfeited and therefore his Obedience must transcend what was injoined Man by the Law of Works 3. Gods Government and Justice were not only Vindicated by Christs Obedience but greatly Honoured Oh! the lustre cast on Gods Laws hereby Never did the Authority of Gods Precepts appear so Royal as when God in Flesh so accurately obeyed them even to that of Dying for Sinners Never was the awfulness of Gods Penal Sanctions discovered as in the Tears Sweats Agony and Blood of his Glorious and Beloved Son There 's no instance of the Riches of Gods Praemiant Sanction as in the Rewards which our Saviour received How Exalted is his Human Nature above Angels And how great are his Rewards in his Members Yea no Blessing given to lost Man but it 's on his account What an attesting Eccho have you Ioh. 12.28.27 Father glorify thy Name Then came there a voice from heaven saying I have both glorified it and will glorify it again Christ spake his part when he had inspected the united force of Terrors just besetting him Now is my soul troubled Father save me from this hour but for this cause came I unto this hour q. d. As heavy as it presseth as awful as it is yet Father glorify thy Name abate nothing that will make for thy Honour however my Flesh trembleth and my Soul is distressed Be thou great however low I must be brought Spare not for my crying so as to abate whatever tends to make thy Authority Sacred and Justice Exact The Father Answers I have persued the Interest of my Glory hitherto in thy Debasement Poverty Contempt Sorrows Shame Temptations and Torments which are now just a finishing my Sword is giving its utmost blow and then I will be Glorious in Exalting and Rewarding thee I 'll get my Remunerative Justice as great a Name in thy Triumphs as my Punitive Justice hath acquired in thy Debasements So Christ explains it v. 31 32. Now shall the prince of this world be judged and when I am lifted up I 'll draw all men to me 4. Tho' all was fulfilled by Christ when appointed to it yet it was by a gracious Dispensation of God as Law-giver that Christ was allowed to work this Righteousness for the Salvation of Sinners The Law-giver is above the Law and tho' the Law knew no Sponsor whose Obedience should procure Pardon and save the Guilty alius was aliud in its accounts Noxa Caput sequitur is its Language The Punishment must fall on the Sinner it could appoint no other to bear it and imputing to the Sinner what another endureth is above its Dialect Yet God the Law-giver had not signified his whole Will by the Law of Works he had reserved a Prerogative whereby he could secure the Glory of his Government and spare the Rebel satisfy Justice
and not destroy the Sinner and be as glorious in forgiving as in punishing To him the satisfaction was made and by him accepted Heb. 10.7 And hence the Sinner is not free as soon as the satisfaction was made but it's when and on what terms the Law-giver and Sponsor would adjust yea and the release comes to the Sinner as a forgiving Act. Exh. Adore the Wisdom and Grace of God Oh! what Grace that would transfer the punishment What Wisdom that contrived a way to place it so that God should be satisfied and yet his Grace be free The Sinner saved and yet not tempted to Rebel The Sufferer repaid in Glory suited to what he did and endured The Redeemed kept Humble as Pardoned tho' the Pardon was granted on a valuable Price The Gift so bestowed as to exert Authority and necessitate Diligence And yet nothing done on the Receivers part to purchase the Gift or to Rob Grace of its Glory it s comprehensively expressed Eph. 1.7 8. In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sin according to the riches of his grace wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence 5 Prop. The righteousness of Christ in all respects is perfect and compleat yet Christ's Righteousness is variously denominated from those different respects However variously we conceive thereof it s every way perfect it 's chargeable with no defect nor subject to any challenge 1. It 's perfect if you consider it as a meer conformity to the preceptive part of the Moral Law in which respect it 's the same as Holiness He was holy harmless and undefiled separate from sinners Heb. 7.26 He was habitually Holy above Adam yea above Angels none so full of grace and truth as he Joh. 1.14 No Mind so filled with light in actu primo even from the very â—â—nning no Heart so inlaid with the Divine Image and enflamed with Love as his he had the Spirit without measure Ioh. 3.34 He had no taint of evil in his Constitution in the Womb he was that Holy thing Luk. 2.35 And when the Tempter assaulted him with the most Skilful violence he had nothing in him Ioh. 14.30 He super-eminently obeyed to an Iota all that was required of him or competent to his Person and this without any defect in the manner and to the utmost extent of the Precept Thus compleatly Holy was Christ which Holiness went into the matter of his Righteousness and is often called so he gave God his utmost due as a Holy Law-giver 2. It was a perfect Righteousness as the performed condition of the Reward promised him in the Covenant of Redemption Whatever was promised to Christ either for himself or Members was promised upon certain conditions some of which were a due undergoing of the bitterest Sufferings threatned in the Law of Works others were included in that of his Active Obedience A Penal Sanction in case of his failure had no room in the Law of Mediation because of the impossibility of his Non-performance and therefore a right to Impunity is of as little concern but Christ's Active and Passive Obedience became formally a compleat Righteousness as what he did and suffered was an exact fulfilling of the condition of the Reward in the Sanction He took our Nature he made his Soul an Offering for Sin he Honouâ— the Law he Glorified God he did all the â—â—rk which was given him to do and drunk the Dregs of the Cup which was appointed him to Drink He fulfilled all Righteousness Mat. 3.15 Even all that for which he was to be Exalted or his Seed made Happy nothing was omitted by him or abated to him 3. This Righteousness of Christ as the performed condition of the Reward was a Federal Righteousness above what was to be Man's Righteousness by the Law of Works which could not be but that the conditions consented to by Christ in the Covenant of Redemption were other and greater than what were required of Adam by the Covenant of Works I shall give you a few of many instances of Conditions appointed to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption above what the Law of Works required The Law of Works did not require the Person Obeying or Suffering to be the Eternal Son of God in our Nature but the Covenant of Redemption required this should I Name no more this would fully prove the point But I add The Law of Works did not exact an Obedience above what Innocent Adam was able to perform but the Covenant of Redemption did this And Christ so obeyed in our Nature not needlessly as must fill the Angels with admiration to see themselves outdone The Covenant of Works did not exact Punishment even to Death from the same Person as still yielded perfect Obedience but the Covenant of Redemption did this The Law of Works did not require or appoint a vicarious Punishment or Obedience from a Sponsor for others but limited both to the Persons originally subject to the Law whereas the Covenant of Redemption appointed this The Law of Works did not command the Sufferings of any as a Reconciling Propitiation but the Law of Mediation did this My reason for that is The Law of Works did by its Threats denounce Vengeance against Sin But this was not by a Precept upon Obedience whereto the Sufferer could Merit Peace and Reconciliation whereas the Law of Mediation appointed Christs Death for a Propitiatory Offering and in Dying he yielded the highest Act of Obedience to a Precept Ioh. 14.31 And this to make Reconciliation Heb. 2.17 Col. 1.20 The Covenant of Works did as a condition of Impunity and Reward injoin Obedience to no Law but that which Adam was under viz. the Law of Works and the Positive one Prohibiting the Eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil But the Covenant of Redemption required Obedience to the Ceremonial Law c. The Law of Works appointed no more Obedience than Governing Justice as such had suited to the Rewards of that Covenant But as the Covenant of Redemption had far higher Rewards so it ordained suitable conditions The Law of Works appointed no Obedience after Sin as a Meritorious condition of obtaining forfeited Benefits but the Covenant of Redemption did this We may easily perceive that the conditions prescribed to our Redeemer much differ'd from those the Law of Works required and since Christ fulfilled all these his federal Righteousness exceeds that which the Law of Works prescribed If you ask why Christ's Righteousness must thus exceed what the Law of Works ordained I Answer It 's because it's a greater thing to Redeem an Offender than to continue an Innocent Persons Right to Impunity And it 's more to Purchase greater Blessings for one that hath forfeited all good than it is to continue lesser Blessings tho' with some addition to one that hath not forfeited Yea and Reconciliation is more difficult than maintaining Peace before any Enmity 4. Christs Righteousness was perfect as it was his
we purchased the Spirits Operation and Faith equally with Christ we redeemed our selves and bought the Church with Christ's Blood equally as Christ did all which are notoriously false The ground of the Consequence is this He that equally performs that by which a thing is effected or procured doth equally effect or procure that thing Therefore if we performed that equally with Christ by which the Honour of Divine Justice is vindicated we did equally honour Divine Justice If we paid the Price of our Redemption and that whereby Faith and the Church is bought in equality with Christ we did redeem our selves and buy Faith and the Church equally with Christ the performed Conditions being the Ransom and Price 3 R. If we performed the legal Conditions equally with Christ we then are entitled equally with Christ to all his Rewards proposed to Christ upon those Conditions The ground of the Consequence is this Whatever is proposed and promised upon any Conditions is equally due to all who equally perform those Conditions Therefore if Christ is to have a Name above every Name and all Judgment and Authority committed to him for Obeying the Law and Dying then if we have equally with Christ so Obeyed and Died we are to have a Name above every Name c. 4 R. If we performed the legal Conditions in equality with Christ then we have an equal Share in whatever contributed to make Christ's Sufferings and Obedience Satisfactory and Meritorious and so the Influence of the Divine Nature into the value of all the performed Conditions was equally ours as it was Christ's The reason of the Consequence is this Whatever is essential to the performed Conditions must be equally ascribed to all that equally performed those Conditions and none of you will doubt that it was not sufficient to Redeem Sinners that the meer Acts were done and the Sufferings endured but that they were to be done and suffered by him that was habitually Holy to Perfection yea by him that was the Son of God in our Nature the value resulted from the Dignity of his Person Had he not been the Son of God he could not make Satisfaction for Sin by his Obedience It then unavoidably follows That if we equally obeyed and satisfied with Christ then we are accounted legally to have the Dignity of the Divine Nature in what we performed and that in equality with Christ a thing the Law never obliged Innocent Man to and a thing too great to be assumed by Sinful Wretches What need I more Arguments to prove that we did not equally with Christ perform the legal Conditions Though we have the same Right to a Freedom from Condemnation and to Eternal Glory as if we had only we are excluded from that Carnal Pride in saying we did it legally our selves and engaged against Idleness and Security in our Obedience to the Terms of the Application of what Christ hath performed If we dare not pretend that we satisfied Justice vindicated the Honour of God's Government purchased the Spirit of Grace and Faith and redeemâ—â— our selves yea and the whole Church in equality with Christ If we abhor pretending to the same Glory and Authority which belongs to Christ as Redeemer in equality with him If we tremble at pretending to have an equal Share with Christ in the Dignity and Value of his Obedience from the Glory of his Divine Person as the Son of God we must renounce this Conceit that we equally performed the Conditions the Reward whereof is our Redemption and Salvation and therefore should renounce that we are equally Righteous as Christ. The Performance of these Conditions being the legal Righteousness of Christ and that for which we are Justified and Saved but not to be equally ascribed to us and Christ and for any Pretence to it from its being a Suretiship-Righteousness you have seen there is no Suretiship of that kind as will infer that we performed whatever Christ performed or suffered what Christ suffered for our Redemption much less equally with him Though I might stop here for it 's the Righteousness of Christ as it was the Performance of the legal Conditions which is intended by Suretiship-Righteousness in respect of which we are said to be equally Righteous with Christ yet I will proceed further 3. It is not true that we are equally Righteous as Christ as he is Righteous with respect to his Right to the Reward upon his performing the Conditions thereof If any thing would afford a Shadow for the Assertion this is likeliest to do it though alas the thing intended is of a higher Nature even the Performance of the Condition it self but yet even in this lower Sense it is ungrounded By the Reward I mean what was promised Christ for himself or others in Consideration of what he was to do and suffer I shall briefly give you some considerable Differences between Christ's Right to the Reward and our Right even though it 's in Christ's Right we obtain all Saving Blessings 1. Christ's Right was by his own Purchase but we have a Right by Gift and do receive every Benefit as the Effect of his Purchase He bought a Pardon for Penitent Believers by his own Blood He graciously gives Believers this Pardon secured by his Title Is there nothing peculiarly honourable to Christ distinct from us Sure he hath the Glory of the Purchase and of his Beneficence whilst we have reason of humble Gratitude as needing and of Gift receiving this though he makes it safe to us Rev. 1.5 6. 2. Christ is Righteous as the Subject in whom Righteousness inheres and formally is but Believers have it by Imputation and hold all in dependance on it as in Christ. The Purchase is peculiar to him and the Right resulting therefrom never alienable from his Person though it be so transferred as to be the Plea and Security of Believers for what is promised to them Though it be upon them it is in Christ Rom. 3.22 Sure here is somewhat of a distinct Ground as to the Degree Reason and Manner of Denomination Subjectively Righteous and Imputatively Righteous Also Originally and Independantly Righteous and Dependantly Righteous have not a Sound of equality The Moon that borrows its Light from the Sun and depends on the Sun for Light is not equally Light as the Sun though it have the same Light Believers use and apply themselves daily to this Righteousness as it is in Christ that they may be dealt with according to it 3. Christ had nothing Forgiven him and needs no Forgiveness but Believers are Forgiven much and oft need Forgiveness and are taught by Christ daily to pray for it yea much of their Happiness and Hope lies in God's Forgiving them Luke 11.4 Rom. 4.7 8. Is there a full Equality between him that is Happy by Pardon yea is often pardoned actually after he is Justified and most Righteous And him that never needed a Pardon for himself yea in whose Right that Pardon is granted when so often
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
Superfine Distinctions of Christ's Assuming our Nature being another Thing than his Conception the Thing and the Manner of the Thing though that Manner was a Cause of it the Conception and the being Conceived being Self-conscious that he had offered no Arguments fit to Proselite any his Admirers not being able to understand them and such as could guess at what they did signifie being sure to despise if not abhor them he comes down to offer a Proposal from his own Choice For my own part I would chuse to refer Christ's Conception to the Things that made him allied in Blood to us and so fit to act as our Surety rather than to his actual performing the Work of Suretiship as antecedently standing in that Relation to us P. 75. Reply Designeth he by this to leave others to chuse for themselves without a Damning Sentence That 's unlike the Heighth and Heat of the Man But what can we make of this Jargon as connected with what past before Was not Eve allied in Blood to Adam though she was not Conceived a Daughter of Man or Woman And therefore Christ might have been allied without Conception Again was not Christ allied in Blood to us by his Incarnation which he saith is another thing than Christ's Conception It seems by our Author's words That his abstracted Incarnation was Christ's taking the Humane Nature or Flesh but not Specifically our Humane Nature or Flesh Or was his Assuming the Humane Nature as distinct from Conception an Assuming a Humane Soul not allied to our Souls as he is allied to us in Blood by Conception and he doth here confine it thereto Here we meet with another Distinction sufficient to argue him still a Designing Man but not a very Distinct or Discerning one Here 's a Humane Nature and yet not a Humane Nature allied to us a Humane Flesh and Blood and not a Flesh and Blood allied to ours By Christ's Incarnation he took a Humane Nature a Flesh and Blood not allied to us By Conception he became allied to us in Flesh and Blood and in Nature too unless he hath it in his Mind that Christ hath not a Humane Soul allied to ours Those words also are very uncertain Antecedently standing in that Relation to us Doth he mean that Christ was not related to Men as their Surety before his Incarnation How then were all the Saints Saved before his Coming Or is it that the Son of God did not perform any Suretiship-Act in Assuming our Nature or being Conceived If so then he had not undertaken to Assume our Nature before he took it though all that he did or suffered had it been possible would not have availed us unless so done and suffered in our very Nature And can you suppose he engaged not that as a Surety or Sponsor without which nothing had been Payment Or doth he intend that Christ wa◠not allied to us in Blood before his Conception It 's true and yet as true That he was allied to us in Blood by his very Incarnation as well and as soon as by his Conception Christ did not Assume a Humane Nature before nor otherwise than as he was by his Conception allied to us in Blood and Soul too At last we are gotten out of this Labyrinth made up of nothing but ripe blown Thistles His Authorities when examined avail him little I have but room to examine one yet he is at the Front of them Ames Medulla Cap. 20. P. 94. Humiliatio est qua subditus est justitiae Dei ad illa omnia perficienda c. The Humiliation of Christ as Mediator is that whereby he was subject to the Justice of God for finishing all those things which were required for Man's Redemption Phil. 2.8 Here he confineth Humiliation to one part viz. a subjection to Justice not Authority and this to finishing not beginning what was necessary to the Redemption of Man which by the Text he quotes refers to his Death or Passion on the Cross of which besure he was not capable as God But that he confined not all Christ's Humiliation to this which excludes his Incarnation is not evident for the next words are Humiliatio ista non fuit c. that Humiliation was not properly of the Divine Nature or Person considered in themselves but of the Mediator God-Man Therefore the Assumption of the Humane Nature simply and in it self considered non est Humiliationis hujus pace is not a part of this Humiliation That Humiliation and of this Humiliation do indicate that he had an Eye to somewhat else that might be called by this Name Humiliation at least it doth not prove that Christ's Incarnation was not a part of any Humiliation of the Son of God because it was not a part of this Humiliation Dr. Ames limits it to this part Mr. M. concludes against any other Our Author at last having bungled so at Demonstration he falls to suspicion-work which I confess his Talent renders him much more expert in as if thinking no Evil were no part of Charity or at least want of Charity were no Challenge to Faith But what hath his Jealous Head brought forth after so oft tumbling the word Conception Even this his own Doctrin of Imputation is lost if Christ's Incarnation be a part of his Humiliation Well it 's a point I never thought of before and it 's a comfort to me the Gospel Doctrin of Imputation will suffer nothing but be availed thereby I hope to find much more of Christ imputed to me as done for me than what I was personally obliged to do by the Law or was esteemed legally to perform though I own as well as Mr. M. that Christ died in my stead yea and so obeyed too as you 'll see in this Book But with him farewell all Christ's Obedience or Humiliation if we did not legally do and endure all the very same and if so he must take his leave of the greatest part of the price of Redemption viz. the value given to all Christ's Obedience by the Divine Nature for I hope the Law never required that in Man's Obedience And since he lays such stress on his point of the Incarnation being no part of Humiliation let us Appeal to Competent Judges Phil. 2.6 7 8. Christ Iesus who being in the form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God but be emptied himself of his Glory taking on him the Form of a Servant being made in the Likness of Man And being found in Fashion as a Man he humbled himself and became obedient unto Death even the Death of the Cross. I have rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 emptied himself of his Glory and left out the two Copulatives which are not in the Original The main Matter is reducible to these 1. Is emptying himself of his Glory any Humiliation I answer it signifies more Humiliation than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is rendred humbled Vers. 8. The Word is as much as rendring all Glory
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
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
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