Man Made Righteousness by Christs Obedience, Part

Man Made Righteousness by Christs Obedience · Part

p. 145A REPLY TO Mr. Mather's Postscript.

I Shall first consider the Errors Mr. M. chargeth me with, and then his Defence of his own. The Errors he loads with no lighter Epithets than Damning and Blasphemou…. Terms agreeable to his long known Temper and Charity: He introduceth his Charge with an Ecee, This is he, he is the Man: Would he infer that I am the only Man? No, the body of Divines, except Antinomians, affirm as I do: And in his Preface it's his Moan, the Number is so great. Is it that I am the Man that eminently defend these? Alas, I can shew him Volumes of the Dead, and many are yet Alive, whose Defence of my Positions is so Nervous, as renders mine truly Inconsiderable, as his Opposition thereto Contemptible. Sure then it's either to leave a Mark, that his Factious Design may more succeed; or to point me p. 146the Person designed by him in his Sermons, Page 22.64. in words indeed too blunt for a Man of his own Sagacity to need another Comment. Yet after all his labour to make the Man sure, he hath assigned the Charge so falsly, that an Ingenuous Reader will sooner charge him for a base Trick in his Insinuations, than me the Patron of the Opinions he would ascribe.

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

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

These are my very words he pretends to mention, and no where in my Books can he find the least shadow for more. You see, 1. I mention only Gospel-Benefits, and not Union with Christ or Justification. 2. It's Faith only which I mention, and not something done by p. 147us, by which he would insinuate, that other good Works are meant. 3. I say it's upon Believing, and not for Faith; upon it not as a Meriting Consideration; but upon it as that the Presence whereof is made necessary by the Gospel. Doth not this sound lower than his Reward of something done by us? VponUpon it as a thing present, and of it as a thing Meriting, are very different. 4. The occasion of my using these words was this, to prove that God by the Gospel, injoyns Faith as a Condition of our having those good things which yet he freely gives; and that Christ shews his governing Authority in his displays of Grace; and excites to Duties by Motives from Benefits freely given; and that Gospel-Conditions have no Merit of Condignity or Congruity. And 5. I laid the Vmbrage of the way of Reward wholly on the Gospel-Promise, and not upon the least Dignity of the Act done. God who is our Ruler, commands Faith, and promiseth, as a Motive to Faith, the Benefits purchased by Christ as good things. Here's the whole of this Damning Error, as far as he could justly call it mine. And by this time you'll discern as little Danger to me by my Opinion, as to him by his False and Malicious Attempt to expose my Ministry, and Person, not to say truth it self; yea, and the generality of Ministers and Christians, who will not stoop to him as Dictator.

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

1 Q. When may a Benefit be said to be given in a way of Reward, when yet it is not in a p. 148way of Debt, or Merit, or a Reward for the thing done?

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

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

Ans. Can any one read the Bible and not cease to doubt, that the Scope of it were vain in its Proposals and Promises, if the thing be otherwise. For 1. Are not the Promises of the Gospel Motives to Duty, Acts 13.19. Repent and be converted, that your Iniquities may be blotted out. Matt. 11.28. Come unto me and I will give you rest. Is the blotting out Iniquities no Encouragement to Repentance? Nor Rest an exciting Motive to a weary Souls coming to Christ? 2. Is it a Dishonour to Christ, to perform his Promise in the way and to the full ends that he makes that Promise? Doth be use the Benefit as a Motive, but not dispense it in a way shewing his Approbation of p. 149the Duty whereto the Motive was Influential? Especially when his Actual Performance of his Promise to some, is an Encouragement to all others; as it's a Ratification of his word, so it's urged, Heb. 6.12. That y… be not Sloathful, but Followers of them, who through Faith and Patience inherit the Promises. He would have us to this day be Diligent, Believing, and Patient: What is his Motive? Even this: Others that were so, yea, upon being so, do now in Heaven inherit the promised Good: Through Faith and Patience they inherit. 3. Doth not God frequently express his regard to the Duty performed, as what he encourageth and shews his Approbation of, in applying the Benefit he promised hereupon. Ezekiel 18.27, 28. If the wicked Man turneth, &c. Because he considereth and turneth away from all his Transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Matt. 25.34, 35. Come ye Blessed, &c. For I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat, &c. Verse 23. Well done Good and Faithful Servant, thou hast been Faithful over few things, I will make thee Ruler over many things. 4. How oft are Gospel-Benefits called a Reward in Scripture? Col. 3, 23, 24. Whatsoever ye do, do it …eartily, as to the Lord. Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the Reward of the Inheritance: for (or because foreign) you serve the Lord Christ. Col. 2.18. Let no Man beguile you of your Reward; as falling from the Truth would have done. 1 Cor. 3.14, 15. If any Man's work abide, he shall receive the Reward, &c. Verse 8. Every Man shall receive his own Reward, according to his own Labour. Nay p. 150we are downright Infidels, and next to Atheists, who deny God is, if we do not believe that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him, Heb. 11.6. 5. The humblest Saints that abhorred Merit most, have been encouraged to their Duty by the promised Benefit, and expected to receive it in this way of Reward that I contend for: Gal. 6.9. Let us not be weary in well doing, for we shall reap if we faint not. 1 Cor. 9.17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. If I do this thing willingly I have a Reward. This I do for the Gospels sake, that I may be partaker thereof. So run that you may obtain: We strive to obtain an incorruptible Crown. I therefore so run not as uncertainly, &c. 6. How oft are Christians called worthy of the Benefits (in a Gospel-sense) and that with respect to their Graces and Perseverance? Matt. 22.18. They which were bidden were not worthy, because they rejected Christ. Matt. 10.11, 13. If the House be worthy, let your Peace come upon it: That is, as v. 11. who would accept the Message: In which respect the Refusers of Christ are called unworthy of Everlasting Life, though Forgiveness had been tendered to them, Acts 13.38, 46. so Rev. 3.4, 5. Thou hast a few Names, which have not defiled their Garments, and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be cloathed in white Raiment, and I will not blot out his Name, but I will confess his Name before my Father, and before his Angels. A Persevering Freedom from Pollution in Doctrine and Practice, is the very thing that the Promise refers to, in the Persons thus encouraged; for the fifth Verse prevents Mr. M's p. 151perverting of the fourth: Though Christ's Righteousness is supposed to this, and all other Promises, and the Reward is in his Right, yet it's to all that overcome, and not to others; and it's on Christ's account, that such that are Faithful can be esteemed Worthy; but it's the Faithful, and not the Vnfaithful, that in him are so esteemed Worthy. 7. I have oft thought what these Men think of Christ, that he alone can give nothing to his Followers in a way of Reward, nor propose any thing to his Enemies, as an encouraging Inducement to become his Disciples: It seems he cannot outbid Satan, the World, and Flesh, least he make his Followers Merit-mongers. 8. As strange is it, how they that credit these Confused Men, can ever come to any grounded Hopes or Assurance of an Interest in any Gospel-Benefit. Can they hope without a Promise? That's vain. But what's the Promise to them without an Interest? No more than to such as never shall enjoy it, which are very many. Then how is it theirs? Whereby have they an Interest rather than others, since God offers the promised Benefits to those others as well as them? If they say, I am a Believer, and those others are not so; I a Believer shall have these Benefits for Christ's sake, but those others shall not, because they are still Unbelievers; and so Christ's Righteousness shall not be applied to them for an Interest in these Benefits, according to these Promises. Alas, hereby they fall into the Error which Mr. M. calls Damnable; they expect the Benefit in a way of Reward upon being Believers rather than Unbelievers, 9. The Ministry p. 152is by these Wild Notions reduced to a Dead unapt thing; take away Encouragement to Conversion and Godly Perseverance, from the Benefit promised thereto, and the Dangers they escape thereby; And who will mind their telling their Story as they call it? 10. Nay they Confound all Men in their Serious Endeavours; they call Men to believe in Christ; and tell them, as Mr. M. in case they do so, his Righteousness will be upon them; that seems an Encouragement, so far well. Ay, but take heed, for if you expect that upon your believing God, will apply Christ's Righteousness to you, that's Damnable, and not Consistent with Faith. So you must Pray, Mourn, and Reform: But you must not rejoyce in it, or look for any thing upon it, saith Mr. M. that's Destructive. Poor Paul, Our rejoycing is this, the Testimony of our Conscience, that in Simplicity and Godly Sincerity, we have had our Conversation in this World, 2 Cor. 1.12. And Paul brings many under Mr. M's Damning Sentence, it's our rejoycing. Yet' I would chuse to be in their case above any Men…, who talk of Faith and Christ if they neglect this. What shall People do in this Wood? It's Impossible to Serious Men, it's Injurious to Christ and his Promises, not to look for that promised Good, upon doing what he moves us to by his Promises. But yet Mr. M. and Party assure you are Damned if you do it. The Spirit saith, In keeping God's Commands there is a great Reward, Psalm 19. 11. Mr. M. tells you there is none. Rev. 22.14. Blessed are they that do his Commands, that they may have right to the p. 153Tree of Life. Mr. M. saith, you are gone if you expect it. Christ saith, Luke 21.36. Watch and Pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man. Mr. M. tells you, he thinks it Inconsistent with Faith to do so. 11. They effectually strike at Christ's Government in one of the Principal Means he hath pitched on to administer it by in our present State; for with them it's Damnable to be excited to Duty, by hope of any good upon Obedience; or by fear of missing that Good if we obey not: And so in Truth Promises and Threats are Nullities, as to God's Government. Hence Mr. M. resolves all the Reasons of Obedience, into Motives of what God hath done for us, Page 70. Indeed they are Motives, but they are not the only Motives, nor the chief Motives that God makes use of; nor what are fittest to impress Mankind, yea, or Christians, whilst they be so Imperfect and encompassed with S…ares. We see they restrain not Wrath, Malice, Faction, &c. in too many. How dare Men say, Is it Damning to submit to such Arguments, which God so often useth, from future Rewards and Punishments; because he sometimes moves us from past Privileges or present Decencies? Yea, though you should add the Authority of the Precepts, whilst you divest them of all Promises and Threatnings, to invigorate Mens Compliances therewith: We say, Frustra est praecipere quod impune potest negligi. Christ saith Iohn 13.17. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them. John 12, 48, He that rejecteth me, and receives p. 154not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, that shall judge him. Gal. 6.7, 8. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: what a Man soweth, that shall he reap. For he that soweth to the Flesh, shall of the Flesh reap Corruption: but he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap Life Everlasting. I might transcribe the greatest part of the Bible to prove this. 12. They dreadfully Contradict themselves in all the profitable Sermons they preach. Mr. M. saith it's a Damnable Error in me, to say that God gives any Benefit in a way of Reward or Encouragement upon Believing, though not as a Debt, or as if Faith merited ought; yea, and it's in and for Christ's Righteousness that it is given. Yet hear himself Page 68. Oh get Faith, see that you Believe, for in this way it will come to pass, that the Righteousness of Christ shall be upon you. If a Man should ask him, Doth God command me to believe? Ans. Yes. But doth God by you perswade me to believe by this Argument, That Christ's Righteousness shall be upon me? Ans. Yes sure, or it's a meer Delusion. Q. Well, but shall I have it upon my Believing? A. Yes, it is in this way. But will it be upon me if I believe not? Ans. No, I have told you Page 66. Your Souls shall go down into Hell. Qu. Do you intend that I may tell my own backward Heart, If thou wilt believe, thou shalt have an Interest in this Blessed Righteousness; and so urge the Worth of this, and the Necessity of Believing, upon my Soul? I suppose Mr. M. must here suspend: But if I ask, may I expect assuredly, when I am through Grace enabled to believe, p. 155that upon this God will put the Righteousness of Christ upon me; and make good the word wherein he caused me to hope, viz. That if I did Believe, the Righteousness of Christ should be upon me? Here Mr. M. by his Principle must cry out, O No, this is to follow a Souldestroying Error, if there be any in the World. Page 46. But, Sir, I will not plead my Faith as any Merit, but only plead the Promise God is pleased to make to my Faith, and rely on that word now that I have Faith Mr. M. yet that's Damnable, for then it comes in a way of Reward. Then I ask again, If that be Damnable, Pray why did you use this Motive in the name of Christ to perswade me to believe? How could it be a Motive to Faith, if I was not to expect it upon believing? And if I was to expect it before I believed, in case that I would believe, Why may not I expect it now that I do believe? I know not what Answer Mr. M. will make, unless 1. It's something done by Man: Or 2. God will be still at liberty to perform, or not perform, the Benefit, though he did promise it: Or 3. He will not perform it in the way he promised it; that is, He promised it as an Encouragement to you if you would believe, but he will not accomplish it as an Encouragement now tha… you do believe; nor seem so much to approve of your Faith. The first were Silly, because it was, a Man was perswaded to do this, eve… to believe (for I hope it's a Humane Act, though by the Spirits Power.) The second is, to impeach the Truth of God's Word. The third is, a weak Foppery; as if it were a Dishonour p. 156to God to give the Benefit in the way he chose to use it, as a Motive to the Duty; especially when, as Mr. M. owneth, it's by the Gospel-word that God puts this Righteousness on us; which is the very same Word whereby he urgeth this Benefit, as a Motive to Man's Believing. If I again ask, Why Mr. M. would by this Motive, thus perswade Sinners to Believe? He would, I hope, say, This is the way God hath ordained to convert them to the Faith. But why dare he Preach thus, when it implies what he calls a Damning Error, or else it's a meer Mockery? I'll answer for him, He had a mind to venture a Contradiction, rather than be wholly useless to those People, whom he designed to frighten from the Ministry of others as Damnable, that he and his Party might be more considerable.

Reader, Would'st thou know whence comes this Confusion? I'll tell thee it is, Because they consider not 1. That though the Gospel be not a Law, wherein Governing Justice displays it self in the Adjustment of Benefits to the Duty; yet therein there is a Governing Authority in a way of Grace, suitable to the State of Men, in the dispensing of the Fruits of Christ's Death. 2. That a Reward of Grace is quite another thing than a Reward of Debt. 3. That all Gospel-Benefits are given in Christ's Right, and are the Effects of his Righteousness applied to all that partake of them. 4. That all Gospel-Precepts and Promises do Authoritatively appoint and describe the Persons that are Par…kers of Benefits for the sake of Christ's p. 157Righteousness but not their own; and not put Men on purchasing these Benefits. 5. Yet these do fully distinguish them that shall partake of the Benefits, from others that shall not partake of them: The Gospel doth hereby fix a certain Rule of Judgment, and doth infallibly direct Mens Hopes, Fears and Expectations: Also it governs Mens Endeavours after Graces and Duties, as the certain Means, on our part, of coming at the respective Benefits, graciously promised in and by Christ, to or upon those Graces or Duties. But these things I have before largely insisted on. This Damning Error comes to no more at last than this, The Gospel-Covenant is Conditional, not as to the first Grace, but as to the subsequent, Benefits; and so that God requires us to believe and repent, that we may escape the Wrath of God; and that there are Promises made to Graces: All which the Assembly of Divines in plain words assert; therefore how many are und… Mr. M's Condemnation. Nay, it's well if … was Innocent, when he Prefaced Mr. … Book called, The Blow at the Root; for there all that I assert in this Point is affirmed.

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

Reply. He is very unfair in wording this, who would not infer either 1. That I affirm, that all true Believers are not in a State of Salvation. Or 2. That an Elect Person that is brought to believe Savingly will Apostarize, p. 158and Eternally Perish. 3. Or that a Believer, during this Life, may not be assured of his Eternal Happiness. But he knows in his Conscience, that I do often, in the plainest words, assert the contrary to each of these: Take a few Instances out of my Book; I affirm that we are Justified the same Moment as we truly believe in Christ, and the Blessing is not Suspended for any time longer: And an Elect Person once Justified, shall, by Christ's Care, be kept in a Iustified Stated. Gospel-Truth stated, p. 104, 105. Again I affirm, That Assurance is attainable in this Life, as the Effect of Faith, Page 74. I affirm that a Penitent Believer shall be Saved, if he die before he hath time for further Obedience. Again, The Essential Blessings of the Gospel, become the Inheritance of a Believer as soon as he is united to Christ, Page 125, 126. Do not say the Elect Believer will not fall away, I think the same; yet is it the less true, that even he should Perish, if he fall away? Nay, Doth not God by these Threats, contribute to keep hi… … Apostasie? P. 138. See Defence, P. 9.

2. I'll give thee the Ground upon which he wordeth this Charge. P. 55. I said the Reason why I use the word Condition, is, because it best Suits with Man's Relation to God, in his present Dealings with us, as Subjects in trial for Eternity. And P. 136. How unsuitable is it, to the present State of Mankind, that Christ should govern us without Promises and Threatnings. He is a King and we are his Subjects; and we are 1. his Subjects in a State of trial for another World. 2. We have great Remains p. 159of Sin within us, and Temptations without us. These are the places that give him the greatest Umbrage: Now where is here that a Believer's Case is undecided?

3. Let us briefly examine where the very true Difference between him and me consists; for certainly ther… is one, though he thinks it the best Defence of his own Opinion, to misrepresent mine, or else he had gained little by calling it Damning. The Difference is not 1. Whether all true Believers are in a State of Salvation. 2. Whether they shall Persevere. 3. Whether it be by the Influences of Christ, through the Spirit, that they do Persevere. 4. Nor whether the Influences of the Spirit and Perseverance, and the Certainty of their Salvation thereupon, be the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, and purchased by his Obedience. All these I affirm: But the real Difference is, 1. Whether God require Believers to Persevere in Faith and Holiness, as the means of their continuing in a State of Salvation? 2. Whether it be a blameably legal Fear, to be Solilicitously Cautious in resisting Temptations, and striving in Christ's Strength to Persevere, least we Eternally Perish? 3. Whether if a Man have once believed, yet if he should fall under the reigning Dominion of Sin and Corruption, he ought to suspect that he is not in a State of Salvation? These three I affirm, and Mr. M. denies, or I can make nothing of his words, which thou must joyn together. P. 50. If thou hast indeed believed with the Faith of the Operation of God, and they Conscience knows it, thou mayst then conclude p. 160assuredly, That whatever thy Sins have been, or whatever thy Defects and Corruptions now be, yet this Righteousness of God is upon thee; thou hast it and dost stand in it.

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

I have not time to argue these, therefore shall only touch on each. 1. God doth require Believers to Persevere in Faith and Holiness, as a Means of their Continuance in a State of Salvation, Rom. 11.20, 22. Because of Vnbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by Faith. Be not high-minded, but fear. Towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou shalt be cut off. 2 Cor. 1.24. By Faith ye stand, How Conditionally is it proposed, p. 161Col. 1.22, 23. Now to present you Vnblameable in his sight: If ye continue in the Faith, and be not moved away from the Hope of the Gospel. Here our Unreprovableness and Reconciliation in the Body of Christ's Flesh, through Death, as to Continuance, is stated on this, If you continue in the Faith, Heb. 10.35 to 39. Now the Iust shall live by Faith: but if any Man draw back, my Soul shall have no Pleasure in him. But we are not of them that draw back to Perdition; but of them that believe to the Saving of the Soul. It's by Faith we live; this Believing is to Salvation, as drawing back is to Perdition. How many are the Promises of Salvation to Perseverance, and Threatnings of Death against Apostasie: And these uttered to Believers? Yea, are a great Means of their Perseverance which Divine Wisdom hath appointed.

Obj. Christ's Righteousness upon us keeps our Faith. Ans. And yet keeping our Faith through God's Power, keeps that Righteousness upon us to Salvation, 1 Pet. 1.5. And know that Christ's Righteousness is applied in Correspondence with the Gospel-Rule: It is not upon the Apostate to give him a Right to Salvation, but upon the Persevering Believer: It is on the Believer for his present Right, but it is in Christ for to be still applied to the Persevering Believer for his continued Right. Obj. The Believer will not fall away. Ans. It is not naturally Impossible, but it's by Grace that he shall not fall away. But then God's Helps and Means must be used by him, of which these Cautions are not the least; and the Connexion between Apostasie, and the loss of Salvation, p. 162is never the less true, and so Mr. M's Principal never the less false, for if ever he draw back, my Soul shall have no Pleasure in him, and truly you may as well infer that Faith is not necessary to our justification at first, as that Perseverance is not necessary to our continuing so. For it was as sure of the Elect. even before they believed that they should be justified: It's sure of the Believer, before he persevere, that he shall be saved. But yet, if Faith be necessary to the first, so Perseverance is by as express Testimony, necessary to the last.

2. It is not blamably legal Fear, for Believers to be sollicitously cautious in resisting Temptations, and s…riving in Christ's Strength to persevere, and this lest they eternally perish. hold fast that which thou hast that no Man take thy Crown, Rev. 3.10. was a fit Means to beget Care in holding fast. Heb. 4.1. is a Caution the Apostle comprehends himself in. Let us fear, left a Promise being left us, any of us should seem to come short of it, any appearing challenge from within themselves was matter of Fear, for on Christ's Part there's no Suspicion. It's a divine Charge, Phil. 2.13. Workout your own Salvation with Trembling and Fear; not only begin it so, but so work it out. Nay, in no span of Time on this side the Grave is the best Saint exempted. Pass the Time of your sojourning here in Fear, and the Reason is, If you call upon the Father, who, without respect of Persons, judgeth according to every Man's Work, 1 Pet. 1. 17. These Men now tell us, There is no judicial Process of Believers, no Judgment by a Gospel-rule: It will not be asked you what Sin you have committed or forsaken, p. 163or Duty you have omitted, or Good you have done; but are you in Christ? As if these were of no Use to determine whether we are in Christ truly or no, and as if a Privilege were the proper matter of a Judicial Trial. Mr. M. may know whose these are. Oh Christians! Is our Race as yet run, our Fight already fought, or our Dangers past? Are we still in Via, or in Termino.

3. A Man that hath once believed if he should fall under the reigning Power of Sin and Corruption, ought to suspect that he is not in a State of Salvation. Rom. 8. 13. If ye live after the Flesh ye shall die, but if ye mortifie the Deed of of the Flesh by the Spirit ye shall live, was a Truth directed to all the Saints at Rome; and let me tell you, the Dominion of Sin is a more sure Evidence that Men are now out of a State of Salvation, than the Knowledge of their Consciences that they formerly believed, is of their ever being in a State of Salvation: For this may be a mistaken Knowledge, but the other is the divine Word. These Conceits are obviated, Ezek. 33. 13. when I say to the righteous, he shall surely live, if he trust to his own Righteousness, and commit Iniquity, all his Righteousness shall not be remembred, but for his Iniquity that he hath committed he shall surely die for it. i. e. If because he began to do well, and because he hath done so for a Time, he ventures to give up himself to a Course of Sin, he shall certainly perish for it. This is the plain Sense of the Place, notwithstanding Mr. M. forced Perversion of it against our expecting any Benefit upon performing any Duty. The Apostle p. 164Paul thought not himself above this Rule, 1 Cor. 9.11, 24. I keep my Body under lest when I have preached to others: I my self should be a Cast-away. What a damning Sentence would Mr. M. pass on Turretin, Perkins, Mr. Anthony Burgess, and most of our old Divines, who jointly assert, That if David had died before he had repented of the Murther of Vria, he had been damned? Nay, that comfortable Text, Rom. 8.1. brands his Position, there's no Condemnation to them that are in Christ, Who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit; whence it's evident, That if they now walk after the Flesh they shall be condemned, at least from its being inconsistent with their present being in Christ, whatever they think of their former believing. I will not retort damning on Mr. M's Opinion; yet to such Souls who credit his Notion, That whatever thy Corruptions now be, if thy Conscience know that thou hast believed formerly, they Salvation is safe. I must in pity say thou mayest eternally perish by it. For thou canst not judge now it was a true saving Act, but according to the Sentence of Conscience; and they Conscience may be mistaken, yea, if thy Corruptions now have Dominion over thee, and continue so, God warns thee, Let no Man eeceive you with vain Words, for these things the Wrath of God comes upon the Children of Disobedience, Eph. 5.6.

3 Charge. And whether he do not in Truth disown the Imputation of our Sins unto Christ, and of his Righteousness unto us: It is like, if he live, the World will see more fully, for he hath given such pregnant Indications p. 165thereof, as do amount to at least, just Cause of Iealousie. Repl. 1. Is it come so low as a Jealousie now? When he was one that under his Hand affirmed thus of me. He teacheth that the Righteousness of Christ is imputed only as to Effects, with a Purchase of a Conditional grant, viz. This Proposition, He that believeth shall be saved, and they cite for it, though in contrary Words. Gospel Truth, p. 39. where my Words are these. I affirm, That Christ, by his Righteousness, merited for all the Elect, that they should, in his Time and Way, be certainly Partakers of its saving Effects, and did not only purchase a conditional Grant of those Effects, viz. That Proposition, He that believeth shall be saved. And besides, these Effects being made ours, the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers, as what was always undertaken and designed for their Salvation, and is now effectual to their actual Pardon, and Acceptance to Life, yea, is pleadable by them as their Security, and is as useful to their Happiness, as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did. Reader, were these Men duly tender or honest when they pervert Words …o plain, and ascribe to me what is as directly contrary to my Words as yea and no. They say I affirmed what I do deny, and that I denied the very thing I affirmed: But the Turn could not be served without these 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 p. 166respect 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 pr… tend to Predictions concerning his Brethren. 4. Will he repent of his rigid censorious Slander? For I'll here declare that I assent to his own Words, p. 18. By imputed I mean, that it (Christ's Righteousness) is looked on by God as 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 …ing him twice Ten to oppose p. 167his 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 foreign, 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. p. 1685 Charge. Because I would wash off all his Dirt at once, I'll give you one Charge out of his Book that he forgets in his Postscript, though it hath been their best Tool. viz. That I lick up Bellarmin's Vomit in my Exposition of Phil. 3.8, 9.Repl. This is as true as the rest, for when I expounded that Text, I plainly affirmed, tha… 1. We are justified by Christ's imputed 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 p. 169with 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 Part of his Humiliation. 1. He grants the Point which ought to be the real Question. 2. He sets up for his Chimera with a false State of the Question and its Terms.

1. He tells us if you take Incarnation largely, as Christ's taking our Nature and the common sinless Frailties of it, together with his being in the Form of a Servant, and made under the p. 170Law: I know not why it should be denied to be a Part of his Humiliation. p. 73. Reply. Well Christ's taking our Nature is granted by him to be Part of this large Sense: And who can fairly exclude the rest out of the Subject of this Question? Was Christ's Incarnation Part of his Humiliation? Did not Christ assume our Nature with these Frailties, and in the Form of a Servant? Is our Question concerning an Ens Rationis, i.e. supposing Christ had taken our Nature without taking the Form of a Servant, which was next to impossible; or without its sinless Frailties which were then natural to it; and not under the Law which was the next End of taking it? What would it have been then, i. e. if it had been what it never was, nor never would have been, whatever some Popish Schoolmen talk, is that to be the Subject of this Question? Is this meant by Incarnation? Whereas, as it indeed was, or as Christ was incarnate, and the only way he was incarnate, Mr. M. grants it was Humiliation, and so he fairly yields the Cause. But where will you hold him? In a few Lines, he drops the Form of a Servant, as not so proper a Part of Christ's Humiliation, because Christ in his Exaltation hath still the Form of a Servant: Well recalled because so soon; but it is to get creditable Company in his oversight, for he chargeth the Apostle with the same Slip, Humiliation, &c. Which the Apostle calls taking on him the Form of a Servant, or rather being made under the Law: Between which there may be conceived some Difference, for Christ is still God's Servant, &c. p. 73. It's well the Apostle added this in another Place. But p. 171what gains our Author by this Halt. 1. Either he engageth against him, Phil. 2.7. where the Form of a Servant is Part of Christ's Exaninition (and note that the best Authors esteem Christ's taking the Form of a Servant for his very Incarnation, and not any humbling Circumstances consequential of it) or else Mr. M. answers himself, and his poor Argument too, and sure that's convictive: For if Christ was humbled in taking on him the Form of a Servant, though he keeps the Form of a Servant in his exalted State, then Christ might be humbled in assuming our Nature, though he keeps that Nature in his exalted State. 2. Yea, I think one may follow him to Gal. 4. 4. For if there the Apostle more properly mentions Christ's Humiliation, and instanceth Christ's being made under the Law, yet he fails not to join therewith Christ's being made of a Woman, to share in the Humiliation with his being made under the Law: It would seem Mr. M. thinks the Apostle had better served his Purpose, if not written more accurately, had he set made under the Law in the room of taking the Form of a Servant in Phil. 2. 7. But it will be no otherwise, yet he sits not down with it; for after all his mending and winding in vain, to confine all Christ's Humiliation to his being made under the Law; he hesitates and will be halving that too. And therefore tells us, He is not new under the law as he was in the Days of his Flesh. Then the Whole of Christ's being under the Law is not a Part of his Humiliation; it must be confined to an As he was in the Days of his Flesh: And what's all this Toil for? You'll presently see, it's to keep all p. 172Humiliation within the Compass of the Curse; as he had before, P. 7. All the while Christ was in a State of Humiliation, he was under the Curse. A Point which that difficult Text Gal. 3.13. will never prove, as to the whole time. Let us now review what he hath brought his first State of the Question to, which promised so well primo intuitu, we have lost Christ's taking our Nature, which was never intended; we have lost the Form of a Servant, as what is still retained in Heaven; we have lost all that's included in being under the Law, except as it was in the days of his Flesh.

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

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

Reply. The Disjunctive may help, otherwise he hath given so hard a Definition of Humiliation, by making it convertible with the Curse, that it would sound ill to ascribe it to the Eternal Word, unless on the account of our Flesh already Assumed; yea, or so as our Author intends by the Curse: But the best of it is, this is Gratis dictum; but where is the Proof, that's a thing he seldom mindeth; that he saith it, is enough to bring you under his Damning Sentence if you deny Assent. But 1. There is a very great part of Christ's Humiliation p. 173as the Son of God, which is no part of the Humbling Curse as upon the Son of Man: His Exaninition, or laying aside of his Glory, is Humiliation in the account of the Holy Ghost; and this was true of the Son of God, as to his very Assuming our Flesh, abstructed from its Humbling Circumstances, as I have fully proved. Is it strong Reasoning then, because the Humiliation of Christ hath more parts than one; therefore that which is not that one part of it, is no part at all of it? 2. Christ did assume our Nature in Obedience to a Law, even that of Mediation; to which he had subjected himself as our Sponsor; this also I have proved. And sure if Obedience to the Law of Works, as he grants, would render the Incarnation a part of Humiliation, Why will not Obedience to another Law, especially from him who owed no Obedience but for our Redemption, and by his own Consent. 3. Mr. M. will hazard his ill-jumbled Hypothesis of Suretiship, unless he'll grant, that supposing the Son of God would be a Redeemer of Man, the very Law of Works required his Incarnation: If so, then Mr. M. hath allowed, that it must be a part of Humiliation in his own proper Sense. 4. Yea, I know a Notion of his that must fall; that supposing the Compact between the Father and Son, antecedent to the Incarnation, the Son stood obliged to Assume our Nature with its 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 p. 174being 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 foreign 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 p. 175Act 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 p. 176it 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; p. 177as 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 …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: p. 178And 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 p. 179words, 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 p. 180yet 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 p. 181part 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▪ p. 182be 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 foreign, 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 foreign, which is rendred humbled, Vers. 8. The Word is as much as rendring all Glory and Honour vain or void, so used 1 Cor. 9.15. 2. Is the Son of God's Incarnation intended by the Apostle when he saith he made his glorying void? It is certainly and eminently so. For 1. The Nominative Case to this Verb, is confined to the second Person not incarnate, he being in the Form of God, &c. He, even he so considered, before he was God-Man emptyed himself, or made his glorying void as to Manifestation, wherein could this properly be so but in becoming incarnate, for whatever Debasement followed after his Incarnation referred to him as the Effect of thus emptying himself. 2. The whole 7. Vers. is confined to his Incarnation as I have fully proved, he emptied himself being made in the Likeness of Man. P. 24, 25. &c. Vers. 8. being found in Fashion as a Man, is that which lets in what followed his Incarnation, though but one eminent Instance be given. The Assembly of Divines, Larg. Cat. Q. 47. Christ humbled himself in his Conception, in that being from all Eternity the Son of God, he was pleased in the Fulness of Time to become the Son of Man, made of p. 183a Woman of a low Estate, and to be born of her, with divers Circumstances of more than ordinary Abasement. To wrigle himself out of this which he subscribed, he doth, I suppose, use …he former Shifts. But to add no more, Doctor Owen's Expos. on the Hebrews, Chap. 3. Vers. 2, 3. P. 21. This glorious one humbled himself into the Form of a Man, of a Servant, unto Death, the Death of the Cross, Phil. 25.6, 7, 8. You see his Comment on this Text. Reader, judge now of the Confidence and small Tenderness of this Man that should have a very peculiar Eye to this Opinion of his when he told his Hearers, P. 38. So shall it go with your Souls, so will God deal with every one of you as you receive or reject those Truths of his: A thing he calls a damning Error in me when I say so but of Mens being penitent godly Believers.

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

1. He builds his whole Notion upon a Suretiship-Righteousness, and never proves Christ to be any such Surety as will at all infer, that we are as Righteous as he on that account. I have carefully weighed what he hath written; and find what he saith for it, pag. 10, is, that he is p. 184called a Surety, Heb. 7. 22. I grant it, and he'll find, I have proved that Christ is there called only a Surety of the Gospel Covenant; and therefore can, as mentioned in that place, be engaged to no more thereby, than what that Covenant includeth. Though yet I grant, that other Scriptures prove, that Christ undertook to be the end of the Law for Righteousness, and died in our place or stead, &c. of which I have insisted at large. And if this will not serve, he adds his All: He who is obliged to pay anothers Debt, or any part of it, is properly, and in strictness his Surety. Repl. But not always so, as that the Principal can be said to pay that Debt as m…h as he, nor be as just as he, nor be said to be immediately released upon his payment, &c. For if a Friendgoes to a Creditor, and promiseth to pay part of a Prodigals Debt, agreeing together, that upon sundry terms, and in a fit time, and by degrees the Prodigal shall be acquitted and released; yea, and that his Debt shall be remitted to him in a way of forgiveness by the very Creditor, and he still be bound to certain Services thereby; I hope all the former daring assumptions are prevented, and yet the subsequent Surety engaged to pay part of the Prodigal's Debt. Should not Mr. M. p. 10. forbear saying, that holy Mr. Baxter wrangles and rejects this Counsel of God against himself, and cites the place where Mr. B. argues this point, and offer no better proof. But that's their way, he shall Reason, and they'll do their work by meer Reproaches, and cursed Censures.

2. He p. 75. saith, That Christ's Resurrection, Ascension and Intercession, are not imputed to Believers: p. 185Yet all the proof he brings for an Eternal Legal Union between the Elect and Christ, and their being one Person in Law, is, That they are said to be in him in his reviving, rising from the Dead▪ and sitting in heavenly places with him, p. 59. …hat what in one place is the instance and ground of Legal-Surety-Imputation, in the other is excluded from being imputed: I hope those phrases will by his followers, not again be pleaded for Suretiship-Imputation.

3. How dogmatically spoken is it, p. 76. That if it be the same Righteousness in which Christ and we stand, he and we are so far as that Righteousness makes Righteous, equally Righteous? Repl. But Sir, he and we come not alike by it; and we depend on it as in him for all; he stands not in it so as to need forgiveness, which we do; yea, that forgiveness is oft repeated to us after we are made Righteous: He is by it entitled to much more than we are, &c. of which elsewhere. And since he infers an Equality from a Sameness, let me ask, are we as spiritual as Christ? And yet it's the same Spirit that is in Christ and in us. Are we as much beloved by God as Christ our Mediator is? And yet Ioh. 17. 26. Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me, that the Love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them: Here's As and the Same Love, yet it were Impudence to pretend to be loved equally. Yea, Vers. 22. The Glory which thou gavest me I have given them: Here's the same Glory, but must we be as glorious as Christ in Equality? Alas! Do not we see that the same Guilt of a Fact may lie upon many, and yet all not be guilty in the same Degree? Judge then, p. 186what an Air of Assurance doth this short-sighted Man breathe forth in the next Words. I can hardly think any Man is so forsaken of common Vnderstanding as to deny it: Because he cannot give convincing Light, he'll threaten us into it by calling us mad, and had he thought th… would have sent more open Mouths after us, he would have given us that Term instead of Semisaciniane, Men that hold damning blasphemous Errors, and what not. But any Man that intimately knew Mr. Baxter (whom he loads with these Titles as well as others) and Mr. M. would not be long concluding which had more Understanding, Truth, Love to God and Man, Publick-spiritedness, Godliness, Integrity, and whatever makes a Gospel-spirit and the Image of Christ upon a Man; to say nothing of Humility, good Nature. Freedom from Envy and Malice, &c. Yea, God blessed him, more to the real Conversion of Souls than a hundred Mr. Mather's; notwithstanding his charging him with rejecting the Counsel of God against himself. P. 10. And to hold pernicious, Soul-destroying Errors; for it's him, whose Words he puts in a broken Light. P. 46.

4. He very oddly evades the Charge of the Assembly. Confess. Chap. 26. A. 3. viz. This Communion which the Saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise Partakers of the Substance of his God-Head, or to be equal with Christ in any respect; either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous: This Place I cited, but would not repeat the Words at Pinners Hall. To this he tells us, P. 76. This must be taken in a limited Sense, &c. for taken absolutely it will not hold, Believers p. 187are Menequally with Christ, &c. Rep. True, for he hath almost told us, we are hail Fellows with Christ, he was not humbled in being a Man, nor is he dishonoured in our being as righteous as he. He saith, P. 7. Christ's Incarnation may as justly be said to be a Part of his Exaltation as of his Humiliation: But though they intend not the being of a Man in what they so severely brand, yet they mean nothing if they exclude what is so great a Perfetion of Christ as his Righteousness is, when they fix Blasphemy on saying we are equal with Christ in any respect, they must think his Righteousness such a Prerogative, that who will equal Christ in this, may next ask of him his Kingdom also, and Mr. M. hath given us a Handle for that upon our very being as Righteous as Christ. For, P. 25. He at large shews that Christ hath two Titles to Glory, a natural one, and an accumulated one, viz. An acquired Title as our Surety; and if you ask what Glory that is you'll find, P. 56. It's that special Revenue of Glory and Praise which the Father, who began his Son from Eternity, and loving him with an infinite Love designed him. Now then, if Christ's Title to all his acquired Glory be his Suretiship Righteousness, and as to that we are as Righteous as he in Equality, what can hinder us not only to have that very same Title to Heaven and Glory as Christ hath as he is our Sponsor! But I say what can hinder Believers Claim and Title to the very same high Throne in Heaven, and the very same Degree of Glory, as Christ, as their Surety hath a Title to, since Christ hath it? For that very Righteousness which they have as much of as p. 188he himself, and that God gives, or rather pay… them all of remunerative Justice; and that they are one mystical Person with Christ all which this modest Author affirms, P. 55. Reader …ge, is this no other Equality than in being Men as well as Christ?

5. Though he talks so much of Suretiship Righteousness, he gives an uncertain Sound of that Bond wherein Christ and Believers come into that legal Oneness. 1. One while he was constituted a Surety in that Covenant between God and him. P. 10. Thereby there was a legal Vnion, and this Vnion was from everlasting, and it was of supercreation Grace, and perfected in the Transaction between God and Christ. P. 50, 60. Reader know; That I grant there was a Covenant of Redemption beforetime, and that therein Christ undertook to redeem and save elect Sinners, &c. But yet I deny, that by that Covenant Christ and the Elect were eternally one legal Person, or that he is their Surety in such a Sense, as will render them legally esteemed to do and suffer all that Christ did pursuant to that Covenant; or that thereby they are as Righteous as he: Thou wilt find my Arguments in this Book, at present it's enough to say, we were never Principals in that Covenant, and therefore Christ could not be such a Surety. The thing insisted on in that Covenant was Redemption Work, and the Salvation of Sinners, as fallen; but the redeeming and saving of Sinners, or our selves as Sinners, was never proposed to us as our Duty; it was inconsistent and impossible to our State as fallen; and with his Leave, as it looks strange the Elect should p. 189have two legal Heads at once, viz. Christ and Adam, so if Christ and Men were eternally one legal Person, I doubt it may as well be proved that Christ legally broke the Law in the Elect's breaking it, as the Elect kept the Law in Christ's keeping it: Well, thus far, here's a Surety without a Principal, and a Work or Debt which none was ever bound to, but him that is called a Surety in a Sense that many must be said to do and pay as much as he. 2. Another while Christ's Name was put into the original Bond in which we by the Law and Covenant of our Creation were bound, P. 10. He told us before he was constituted a Surety in another Bond, viz. The Eternal Compact; if so, then his Name is put into this Bond, in performance of his antecedent Suretiship, and not made a Surety by putting his Name in this Bond; then it follows, that what he doth pay of this Bond can be said to be paid by us no otherwise than according to the Nature of his Suretiship in the former Bond, wherein we have seen he was principal and sole Undertaker, I am glad by this that I need not argue with him, that if Christ was a pecuniary proper Surety with us in the Covenant of Works, then it was either absolutely or disjunctively: if absolutely, that he would keep it, then we were not Parties at all engaged. If disjunctively, viz. That either we or he would keep it, then it was never broken, for he hath kept it, and his Obedience, without any Suffering sufficed to fulfill it, &c. But Mr. M. granting, and that truly, that Christ was constituted Surety in the Covenant of Redemption prevents my insisting on such things, Only still p. 190note, as I have elsew…ere proved, that Christ being made under the Law (which he means by putting his Name in the Bond) was the Effect of Christ's Suretiship. 3. Yet inconsistently enough, P. 14. Christ was made our Surety, his Name was not only put into the Covenant of Works, but into it as a broken Covenant. Here all is ruffled again, and how shall we unriddle it? He was but now constituted a Surety in the eternal Bond, but he is here made a Surety in the broken Bond: He that distinguished between assuming our Nature and being conceived, no doubt, will find some Difference between constituted a Surety, and made a Surety; for that he must do or he contradicts himself. Well, I grant that Christ came in our Nature to obey the Law we had broken, and bear the Punishment we had deserved, and answer the End of the Law which we had frustrated. But this will not make him such a Surety in this broken Bond, as shall make us legally accounted to do all, and suffer and answer all, and be as righteous as he that did it, though it be in his very Righteousness that we are saved, 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? p. 191No, 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, p. 192and 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 Right…us as Christ, and say we are as Holy as Christ, as Honorable as Christ, as Wise as Christ; and so interpret his proof, 1 Cor. 1.30. Nay, are we not assumed into a Personal Union with the Eternal Word, as the Humane Nature p. 193of 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 p. 194to 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?