ever say, 'not the covenant of grace but the person of Christ is all we regard?' But whence comes this causeless fear and jealousy; or rather this evil surmise, that if any endeavour to exalt the person of Christ, immediately the covenant of the gospel (that is in truth the covenant which is declared in the gospel), must be discarded? Is there an inconsistency between Christ and the covenant? I never met with any who was so fearful and jealous lest too much should be ascribed in the matter of our salvation to Jesus Christ; and when there is no more so, but what the Scripture doth expressly and in words assign unto him and affirm of him, instantly we have an outcry that the gospel and the covenant are rejected, and that a dispute lies between the person of Christ and his gospel. But let him not trouble himself, for as he cannot, and as he knows he cannot produce any one word or one syllable out of any writings of mine, that should derogate any thing from the excellency, nature, necessity, or use of the new covenant; so, though it may be he do not, and doth therefore fancy and dream of disputes between Christ and the gospel, we do know how to respect both the person of Christ and the covenant, both Jesus Christ and the gospel, in their proper places. And in particular we do know, that as it is the person of Christ who is the author of the gospel, and who as mediator in his work of mediation gives life and efficacy and establishment unto the covenant of grace; so both the gospel and that covenant do declare the glory, and design the exaltation of Jesus Christ himself. Speaking therefore comparatively, all our hopes are built on Jesus Christ, who alone filleth all things; yet also we have our hopes in God through the covenant declared in the gospel, as the way designing the rule of our obedience, securing our acceptance and reward. And to deal as gently as I can warrant myself to do with this writer, the dispute he mentions between the person of Christ and the gospel, which shall be the foundation of our hope, is only in his own fond imagination, distempered by disingenuity and malevolence. For if I should charge what the appearance of his expressions will well bear, what he says seems to be out of a design influenced by ignorance or heresy, to exclude Jesus Christ God and man from being the principal foundation of the church, and which all its hopes are built upon. This being

the sum of his charge, I hope he will fully prove it in the quotations from my discourse, which he now sets himself to produce; assuring him that if he do not, but come short therein, setting aside his odious and foppish profane deductions, I do aver them all in plain terms, that he may, on his next occasion of writing, save his labour in searching after what he may oppose. Thus therefore he proceeds, p. 205,

'To make this appear, I shall consider that account which Dr. Owen gives us of the personal graces and excellencies of Christ, which in general consist in three things; first, His fitness to save, from the grace of union, and the proper and necessary effects thereof. Secondly, His fulness to save, from the grace of communion, or the free consequences of the grace of union. And thirdly, His excellency to endear, from his complete suitableness to all the wants of the souls of men. First, That he is fit to be a Saviour, from the grace of union. And if you will understand what this strange grace of union is, it is the uniting the nature of God and man in one person, which makes him fit to be a Saviour to the uttermost; he lays his hand upon God, by partaking of his nature; and he lays his hand on us, by partaking of our nature; and so becomes a days-man or umpire between both. Now though this be a great truth, that the union of the divine and human nature in Christ did excellently qualify him for the office of a mediator, yet this is the unhappiest man in expressing and proving it, that I have met with; for what an untoward representation is this of Christ's mediation, that he came to make peace, by laying his hands on God and men, as if he came to part a fray or scuffle; and he might as well have named Gen. i. 1. or Matt. i. 1. or any other place of Scripture for the proof of it, as those he mentions.'

To what end it is that he cites these passages out of my discourse, is somewhat difficult to divine. Himself confesseth that what is asserted (at least in one of them), is a great truth, only 'I am the unhappiest man in expressing and proving it that ever he met with.' It is evident enough to me, that he hath not met with many who have treated of this subject, or hath little understood those he hath met withal; so that there may be yet some behind as unhappy as myself. And seeing he hath so good a leisure from other

occasions, as to spend his time in telling the world how unhappy I am in my proving and expressing of what himself acknowledgeth to be true, he may be pleased to take notice, that I am now sensible of my own unhappiness also, in having fallen under a diversion from better employments by such sad and woful impertinencies. But being at once charged with both these misadventures, untowardness in expression, and weakness in the proof of a plain truth, I shall willingly admit of information to mend my way of writing for the future. And the first reflection he casts on my expressions, is my calling the union of the two natures in Christ in the same person, the grace of union, for so he says, 'If you would understand what this strange grace of union is.' But I crave his pardon in not complying with his directions, for my companies' sake. No man who hath once consulted the writings of the ancients on this subject, can be a stranger unto xápis évéσews, and 'gratia unionis,' they' so continually occur in the writings of all sorts of divines, both ancient and modern. Yea, but there is yet worse behind; for what an outward representation is this of Christ's mediation, that he came to make peace by laying his hands on God and men, as if he came to part a fray or scuffle.' My words are, the uniting of the natures of God and man in one person, made him fit to be a Saviour to the uttermost; he laid his hand upon God by partaking of his nature, Zech. xiii. 7. and he lays his hand upon us by partaking of our nature, Heb. ii. 14. 16. and so becomes a days-man or umpire between both. See what it is to be adventurous. I doubt not but that he thought that I had invented that expression, or at least that I was the first whoever applied it unto this interposition of Christ between God and man; but as I took the words, and so my warrantry for the expression from the Scripture, Job ix. 33. so it hath commonly been applied by divines in the same manner, particularly by Bishop Usher (in his Immanuel, p. 8, 9. as I remember), whose unhappiness in expressing himself in divinity, this man needs not much to bewail. But let my expressions be what they will, I shall not escape the unhappiness and weakness of my proofs, for 'I might,' he says, as well have quoted Gen. i. 1. and Matt. i. 1. for the proof of the unity of the divine and human nature in the person of

Christ, and his fitness thence to be a Saviour, as those I named,' viz. Zech. xiii. 7. Heb. ii. 14. 16. Say you so? Why then I do here undertake to maintain the personal union, and the fitness of Christ from thence to be a Saviour, from these two texts, against this man and all his fraternity in design. And at present I cannot but wonder at his confidence, seeing I am sure he cannot be ignorant that one of these places at least, namely, that of Heb. ii. 16. is as much, as frequently, as vehemently pleaded by all sorts of divines, ancient and modern, to prove the assumption of our human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God, that so he might be ikavos, fit and able to save us, as any one testimony in the whole Scripture. And the same truth is as evidently contained and expressed in the former, seeing no man could be the fellow of the Lord of hosts, but he that was partaker of the same nature with him; and no one could have the sword of God upon him to smite him, which was needful unto our salvation, but he that was partaker of our nature, or man also. And the mere recital of these testimonies was sufficient unto my purpose in that place, where I designed only to declare, and not dispute the truth. If he yet think that I cannot prove what I assert from these testimonies, let him consult my Vindicia Evangelicæ,' where according as that work required, I have directly pleaded these Scriptures to the same purpose, insisting at large on the vindication of one of them, and let him answer what I have there pleaded, if he be able. And I shall allow him to make his advantage unto that purpose, if he please, of whatever evasions the Socinians have found out to escape the force of that testimony. For there is none of them of any note, but have attempted by various artifices to shield their opinion in denying the assumption of our human nature into personal union with the Son of God, and therewithal his preexistence unto his nativity of the blessed Virgin, from the divine evidence given against it in that place of Heb. ii. 16. which yet (if this author may be believed) doth make no more against them than Gen. i. 1. Wherefore, this severe censure, together with the modesty of the expression, wherein Christ making peace between God and man, is compared to the parting of a fray or scuffle, may pass at the same rate and value with those which are gone before.

His ensuing pages are taken up for the most part with the transcription of passages out of my discourse, raked together from several places at his pleasure. I shall not impose the needless labour on the reader of a third perusal of them; nor shall I take the pains to restore the several passages to their proper place and coherence, which he hath rent them from, to try his skill and strength upon them separately and apart; for I see not that they stand in need of using the least of their own circumstantial evidence in their vindication. I shall therefore only take notice of his exceptions against them. And, p. 207. whereas I had said on some occasion, that in such a supposition we could have supplies of grace only in a moral way, it falls under his derision in his parenthesis (and that is a very pitiful way indeed). But I must yet tell him, by the way, that if he allow of no supplies of grace but in a moral way, he is a Pelagian, and as such, stands condemned by the Catholic church. And when his occasions will permit it, I desire he would answer what is written by myself in another discourse, in the refutation of this sole moral operation of grace, and the assertion of another way of the communication of it unto Leave fooling, and the unhappiest man in expressing himself that ever I met with,' will not do it; he must betake himself to another course, if he intend to engage into the handling of things of this nature. He adds, whereas I had said, 'the grace of the promises (of the person of Christ you mean):' I know well enough what I mean, but the truth is, I know not well what he means; nor whether it be out of ignorance, that he doth indeed fancy an opposition between Christ and the promises, that what is ascribed unto the one, must needs be derogated from the other, when the promise is but the means and instrument of conveying the grace of Christ unto us, or whether it proceeds from a real dislike, that the person of Christ, that is, Jesus Christ himself should be esteemed of any use or consideration in religion, that he talks at this rate. But from whence ever it proceeds, this cavilling humour is unworthy of any man of ingenuity or learning. By his following parenthesis ( a world of sin is something'), I suppose I have somewhere used that expression, whence it is reflected on; but he quotes not the place, and I cannot find it. I shall therefore only at present

us.

VOL. X,

2 E