THE PRECEDING DISCOURSE. 329
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 per- son 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 innixmerable 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 per- son 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 predi- cated 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 opera- tions and works of Christ, as mediator, are theandricaU^ 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, avumsraTog ; and the divine, to the complete constitution of the person of the Me- diator, in and unto its own hypostasis assumed the human : so that, although every energy or operation be dpagnxri r^j (phaug xlvrjffig, 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 the pro- perties 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 ' Proceeding from the divine and human natures in personal union,— Ed.
S.30 A VINDICATION OF
it is most false which he affirms, p. 208, " That I distinguish the graces of Christ's person as mediator from the graces of his person Bs 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 enoiigh 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 renom natitra 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, faith- ful, and compassionate high priest," Heb. ii. 17, iv. 15, v. 2. And all his actions, in the discharge of his office of priesthood, being prin- cipled and regulated by those qualifications, I do call them his per- sonal 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 accom- modated 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 pro- priety in expressions, such as is required in those that ai'e scholas- tical or polemical. It is that which, by common consent, is allowed to the tractates of the ancients of that nature, — especially where no- thing is taught but what, for the substance of it, is consonant unto the truth. But this man attempts not only a severity in nibbhng at all expressions which he fancieth liable unto his censures, but, with a disingenuous artifice, waiving 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 for- ward, 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 dis- advantage, 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