other places, and shall therefore transcribe the whole passage in my own words, p. 51. It is Christ as mediator of whom we speak; and therefore by the grace of his person I understand not, first, The glorious excellencies of his Deity considered in itself, abstracting from the office which for us as God and man he undertook: nor secondly, The outward appearance of his human nature, neither when he conversed here on earth bearing our infirmities, whereof by reason of the charge that was laid upon him, the prophet gives quite another character, Isa. lii. 14. concerning which some of the ancients are very poetical in their expressions; nor yet as now exalted in glory, a vain imagination whereof, makes many bear a false, a corrupted respect unto Christ, even upon carnal apprehensions of the mighty exaltation of the human nature, which is but to know Christ after the flesh, a mischief much improved by the abomination of foolish imagery. But this is that which I intend; the graces of the person of Christ as he is vested with the office of mediation, his spiritual eminency, comeliness, and beauty, &c. Now in this respect the Scripture describes him as exceeding excellent, comely, and desirable, far above comparison with the choicest, chiefest, created good, or any endowment imaginable;' which I prove at large from Psal. xlv. 2. Isa. iv. 2. Cant. v. 9. adding an explanation of the whole.

In the digression, some passages whereof he carps at in this section, my design was to declare, as was said, somewhat of the glory of the person of Christ; to this end I considered both the glory of his divine and the many excellencies of his human nature. But that which I principally insisted on was the excellency of his person as God and man in one, whereby he was meet and able to be the mediator between God and man, and to effect all the great and blessed ends of his mediation. That our Lord Jesus Christ was God, and that there were on that account in his person the essential excellencies and properties of the divine nature, I suppose he will not deny; nor will he do so, that he was truly man, and that his human nature was endowed with many glorious graces and excellencies which are peculiar thereunto. That there is a distinct consideration of his person as both these natures are united therein, is that which he seems to have a mind to except against. And is it meet that any one who hath ought

else to do, should spend any moments of that time which he knows how better to improve, in the pursuit of a man's impertinencies, who is so bewilded in his own ignorance and confidence, that he knows neither where he is, nor what he says. Did not the Son of God by assuming our human nature, continuing what he was, become what he was not? Was not the person of Christ by the communication of the properties of each nature in it and to it, a principle of such operations as he could not have wrought either as God or man, separately considered? How else did God 'redeem his church with his own blood?' Or how is that true which he says, John iii. 13. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven?' Was not the union of the two natures、 in the same person (which was a property neither of the divine nor human nature, but a distinct ineffable effect of divine condescension, wisdom, and grace, which the ancients unanimously call the grace of union whose subject is the person of Christ) that whereby he was fit, meet, and able for all the works of his mediation? Doth not the Scripture moreover propose unto our faith and consolation the glory, power, and grace, of the person of Christ, as he is 'God over all blessed for ever;' and his love, sympathy, care, and compassion as man yet all acting themselves in the one and selfsame person of the Son of God? Let him read the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews and see what account he can give thereof. And are not these such principles of Christian religion as no man ought to be ignorant of, or can deny without the guilt of the heresies condemned in the first general councils? And they are no other principles which my whole discourse excepted against, doth proceed upon. But, saith our author, 'unless the person of Christ as mediator be distinct from his person as God-man, all this is idle talk.' Very good! and why so? Why,' what personal graces are there in Christ as mediator which do not belong unto him either as God or man?' But is he not ashamed of this ignorance? Is it not a personal grace and excellency that he is God and man in one person which belongs not to him either as God or man? And are there not personal operations innumerable depending hereon, which could not have been wrought by him either as God or man, as raising himself from the dead by

his own power and redeeming the church with his blood? Are not most of the descriptions that are given us of Christ in the Scripture, most of the operations which are assigned unto him, such as neither belong unto, nor proceed from, the divine or human nature, separately considered, but from the person of Christ as both these natures are united in it? That which seems to have led him into the maze, wherein he is bewildered in his ensuing discourse, is, that considering there are but two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, and nature is the principle of all operations, he supposed that nothing could be said of Christ, nothing ascribed to his person, but what was directly formally predicated of one of his natures, distinctly considered. But he might have easily inquired of himself, that seeing all the properties and acts of the divine nature are absolutely divine, and all those of the human nature absolutely human, whence it came to pass that all the operations and works of Christ as mediator are theandrical. Although there be nothing in the person of Christ but his divine and human nature, yet the person of Christ is neither his divine nature nor his human; for the human nature is and ever was of itself ávνñóσтaros, and the divine, to the complete constitution of the person of the Mediator in and unto its own hypostasis, assumed the human, so that although every energy or operation be Δραστική τῆς φύσεως κίνησις, and so the distinct natures are distinct principles of Christ's operations, yet his person is the principal or only agent, which being God-man, all the actions thereof by virtue of the communication of properties of both natures therein are theandrical; and the excellency of this person of Christ, wherein he was every way fitted for the work of mediation, I call sometimes his personal grace, and will not go to him to learn to speak and express myself in these things. And it is most false which he affirms, p. 203. That I distinguish the graces of Christ's person as mediator, from the graces of his person as God and man.' Neither could any man have run into such an imagination, who had competently understood the things which he speaks about; and the bare proposal of these things is enough to defeat the design of all his ensuing cavils and exceptions.

And as to what he closeth withal, that 'Surely I will not call the peculiar duties and actions of an office personal

graces;' I suppose that he knoweth not well what he intends thereby. Whatever he hath fancied about Christ being the name of an office, Jesus Christ of whom we speak is a person and not an office; and there are no such things in rerúm natura as the actions of an office. And if by them he intends the actions of a person in the discharge of an office, whatever he calls them, I will call the habits in Christ from whence all his actions in the performance of his office do proceed, personal graces, and that whether he will or no. So he is a merciful, faithful, and compassionate high-priest ;' Heb. ii. 17. iv. 15. v. 2. And all his actions in the discharge of his office of priesthood being principled and regulated by those qualifications, I do call them his personal graces, and do hope that for the future I may obtain his leave so to do. The like may be said of his other offices.

The discourse which he thus raves against is didactical, and accommodated unto a popular way of instruction, and it hath been hitherto the common ingenuity of all learned men to give an allowance unto such discourses, so as not to exact from them an accuracy and propriety in expressions, such as is required in those that are scholastical or polemical. It is that which by common consent is allowed to the tractates of the ancients of that nature, especially where nothing is taught but what for the substance of it is consonant unto the truth. But this man attempts not only a severity in nibbling at all expressions which he fancieth liable unto his censures, but with a disingenuous artifice waving the tenor and process of the discourse, which I presume he found not himself able to oppose, he takes out sometimes here, sometimes there, up and down, backward and forward, at his pleasure what he will, to put if it be possible an ill sense upon the whole. And if he have not hereby given a sufficient discovery of his good will towards the doing of somewhat to my disadvantage, he hath failed in his whole endeavour; for there is no expression which he hath fixed on as the subject of his reflections, which is truly mine; but that as it is used by me, and with respect unto its end, I will defend it against him and all his co-partners, whilst the Scripture may be allowed to be the rule and measure of our conceptions and expressions about sacred things. And although at present I am utterly wearied with the consideration of such sad triflings,

I shall accept from him the kindness of an obligation to so much patience as is necessary unto the perusal of the ensuing leaves wherein I am concerned.

First, p. 202. he would pick something if he knew what out of my quotations of Cant. v. 9. to express or illustrate the excellency of Christ, which first he calls an excellent proof by way of scorn. But as it is far from being the only proof produced in the confirmation of the same truth, and is applied rather to illustrate what was spoken, than to prove it; yet by his favour, I shall make bold to continue my apprehensions of the occasional exposition of the words which I have given in that place, until he is pleased to acquaint me with a better, which I suppose will be long enough. For what he adds,But however white and ruddy belong to his divine and human nature, and that without regard to his mediatory office, for he had been white in the glory of his Deity, and ruddy with the red earth of his humanity, whether he had been considered as mediator or not;' it comes from the same spring of skill and benevolence with those afore. For what wise talk is it of Christ's being God and man, without the consideration of his being mediator, as though he were ever, or ever should have been, God and man, but with respect unto his mediation. His scoff at the red earth of Christ's humanity represented as my words, is grounded upon a palpable falsification; for my words are, he was also ruddy in the beauty of his humanity. Man was called Adam from the red earth whereof he was made. The word here used, points him out as the second Adam, partaker of flesh and blood, because the children also partook of the same.' And if he be displeased with these expressions, let him take his own time to be pleased again, it is that wherein I am not concerned. But my fault which so highly deserved his correction is, that I apply that to the person of Christ which belongs unto his natures. But what if I say no such thing, or had no such design in that place? For although I do maintain a distinct consideration of the excellency of Christ's person, as comprising both his natures united, though every real thing in his person belongs formally and radically unto one of the nature those other excellencies being the exurgency of their union), whereby his person was fitted and suited unto his mediatory operations, which in neither na