And then he adds, that "he giveth that to the one which belongeth to the other; the same is spoken of our salvation; sometimes it is attributed to one thing, and sometimes to another sometimes it is imputed to the act of Christ's suffering; another* while the very effects of our salvation is put for the cause." Where do the Scriptures make such distinctions, or such rhetoric; and where proves he that faith and obedience to the Gospel is no cause of salvation, but the effects? And by what rule does William Burnet thus essay to correct the Scriptures, which he counts his rule; or thus detect the sayings of Christ, as being so improper, as giving that to one thing which belongs to another in such a high concernment? And has not he herein in effect accused the Scriptures, and God, with the same thing (or as great offence) as he has accused us with, as giving that to one thing which belongs to another; as our attributing salvation and justification to God or Christ, as the Eternal Word, which he would lay all upon the offspring of man, or upon the body of Christ that suffered death upon the cross, and sometimes upon the shedding the blood out of it, denying Christ as the Word and Son of God to be the Saviour, contrary to plain Scriptures, as before is shown.

Baptist. "Christ ascribing and attributing that to the Godhead that properly refers to the manhood, is a stumbling-stone to this poor people." Page 35.

Answer. What is this, but to charge Christ with improper doctrine, or impertinent speaking? wherein William Burnet makes himself wiser than Christ, and a corrector of Christ's sayings. It is no marvel that he has so much accused us, feignedly calling us poor people, when he has done no less to Christ, as one not consenting to the wholesome words or sayings of Christ; but in effect deems them improper, (in the case mentioned,) and then makes that the cause of our stumbling; both which are false. And wherein we are either accused for saying, "that God saveth, justifieth, or the Eternal Word redeems, saves, &c. and that God was in Christ reconciling the world ;" if our adversary should say this is improper, and that it is an error to ascribe that to God, the Eternal Word, or to Christ as the Eternal Son of God, that properly belongs to his manhood, as the son of Mary, not as the Son of God, &c. has not he accused Christ to the very same purpose with speaking improperly? What can we expect from such a one, but the like reproaches and contradictions of sinners, that Christ Jesus the captain of our Salvation underwent? And yet this proud, presumptuous opposer of

Act, and suffering, are two things; the act was wicked men's, but the suffering Christ's.

truth will pretend the Scriptures, or sayings of Christ, to be his rule; but when they please him not, he will essay to correct them by his dark confused meanings, and corrupt interpretations-who further adds to his corrupt doctrine, as followeth.

Baptist. But as he was God without being man, or the root and not the offspring, he could not save man; for God was the offended, and man the offender; and it was impossible for the offended to acquit and clear the guilty, and to discharge the debt, and to embrace the offender; for no man out of Christ can see God's face, and live."

Answer. Here it appears what he means by saving man, and clearing the guilty, only a pacifying of God, and an acquitting man from the penalty, as he imagines, which he says, "God could not do; but something that was not God, but the offspring of man." So by this he does not mean salvation to be a work wrought in man, as a saving and delivering from sin, or the offence within, but a satisfaction made to God that he may embrace the offender, and yet he must be in Christ that sces God's face. What gross contradiction is this! and what falsehood and blasphemy is it, to say, God could not save! or, that it was impossible for him to discharge the debt! Where, first observe, that if salvation consist in pacifying or satisfying God, without any inward work wrought by him in man, (which were a gross error so to say); this is to assert that God cannot please himself, but some other must do it; and this is to deny that God had infinite love, good will and favour in himself, as the real cause of his sending his Son into the world.

And then I ask, Who is he that satisfies and appeases God, discharges the guilty, and pays the debt?

Baptist. "It is the man Christ Jesus."

Question. Whence came he?

Answer. "God gave him."

Question. And what is this man Christ Jesus, who can satisfy and pacify an infinite God?

Baptist. "He is God-man, born of a Virgin,"

Reply. How then does it hold that God could not save, and how would this divide God, and set him at a distance from himself? If that which satisfies be of infinite worth; then whence came all these distinctions tending to make a variableness in God, whose love is infinite, and whose ways are ways of truth, and righteousness? Or is it good doctrine to say, that God pacified God when he saw himself angry? For says the Baptist, "It was Godman that did it." Which is all one as to say, God corrected himself, and not man, while perfection and freedom from sin is denied in this life by Baptists and others; and then he was mediator to bimself, and so a mediator of one; whereas a mediator is not a

mediator of one, but God is one. Gal. iii. 20. And the cause of his displeasure, and of the law, and sentence of death being added, was sin, which Christ comes to destroy, and to put an end to, that the creature may be in him in whom the face of God is seen, in whom there is no sin, and in him God is well pleased. And thus we know a mediator is not a mediator of one, but we have a mediator betwixt God and man, even the man Christ Jesus we have an Advocate with the Father: mark, we have an Advocate, and we have life through the Son of God; we know that the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in every one that walks after the Spirit. And so we can rejoice in God our Saviour, and testify against all such antichristian spirits as deny his power, and say, He could not save as God; whereas his Divine power worketh mightily in the true believers unto their salvation; for he hath wrought all our works in us, and it is his Divine power that giveth unto us all things pertaining to life and godliness. 2 Peter i. 2. And how is redemption purchased by the Son of God, if he does not save, as he is the Word, seeing it is confessed he most properly was the Son of God from the days of eternity? Page 34. And how has he wrought off man's disobedience by his suffering? Is it wrought off while man lives in it, and denies perfection, and freedom from sin for term of life? And how then does the seed of the woman bruise the Serpent's head, if the Serpent must have a place and sway in man, by leading him into sin all the days of his life? Must not the Serpent's head be bruised within, and the seed be known within which bruises it? And has not he that is born of God the seed in him? And is not this seed spiritual? But what is the price so much talked of, that both satisfies God and saves man?

Baptist. "The sufferings and blood shedding of Christ, had in it as much efficacy to save a soul from the first day he was promised (if believed on) as the same day he died.”

Answer. Was not the object and foundation of faith in being through all ages? did not the prophets believe and follow the Spirit of Christ in them? (1 Peter i.) from whence then was the efficacy of salvation derived? was it from spirit or from flesh? Surely it is the Spirit that quickens: if so, the efficacy was spiritual, not natural, or that which could not be lost. But whereas so much mention is made of the blood shedding, and so much efficacy and virtue seems to be derived from it; I ask, is it not a spiritual supernatural virtue, power, and efficacy, that cleanseth, saveth, and justifieth? If it be, how then does it proceed from the shedding of the blood outwardly, (which shedding by the soldier's spear, was a wicked man's act,) or from the essence of the blood, if it perished, and be not in being, as is confessed? And is it good doctrine to say, that the blood, or life, which sanc

tifies and justifies true believers in all ages, is not in being? When sanctification, purging the conscience, &c. is a real work, can it be done by a thing that is not? And yet we know that Christ the one Offering, the living Sacrifice, and the Blood of the Covenant, which cleanseth them that walk in the Light, (1 John i. 7,) is still in being, and was throughout all ages. And he is said to be a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, &c.; and that his sufferings did all testify for God, his love and good-will, though being reconciled through his death we are saved by his life; (Rom. v.), which life is hid from all them that deny his work within, and the effect of his obedience to be inward and spiritual, and plead that God embraces the offender; denying perfection in this life, which is the tendency of much of William Burnet's doctrine.

Baptist. "The Spirit could not in that capacity be a Saviour, for that could not be killed nor hanged on a tree, but he that was a Saviour was so." Page 37.

Answer. Herein he has shown us that he would fain deny the Spirit to save; but then he minces and mangles his work, telling us the Spirit could not in that capacity be a Saviour, that is, as hanged on a tree. Indeed we never affirmed that the Spirit is a Saviour in that capacity; but as it lives, quickens, gives life to the soul, &c. So, however, seeing it is granted that the Spirit in some capacity saves, the Saviour is not divided; Christ was not a Saviour without the Spirit; though William Burnet's words imply so much, if the salvation depended on his body when killed; which his brother Ives said was but "an empty trunk when the Spirit was out of it;" now it would be sad to say, that an empty trunk was the Saviour of the world.

Baptist. "He was that day born a Saviour: but had the Light within been the Saviour, or the Spirit, or the Godhead, then this had not been that day born."

:

Answer. Hereby has he denied the Spirit, the Light within, or the Godhead to be the Saviour, and so has gone about to make a separation between Christ, the Spirit, the Light, and Godhead whence then came this Christ? and by whose power was he a Saviour? had he any power but what was given him of the Father? But a Saviour was born: what was he born for but to bear witness to the truth? and by whose power and spirit, but by the power and Spirit of the Father; and what he did and wrought, it was what God did by him. And though that day was born in the city of David a Saviour, was he a Saviour distinct from either Light within, Spirit, or Godhead? what manner of Saviour was he then? This is sad doctrine, to exclude Spirit, Light within, and Godhead from being a Saviour; surely flesh

and darkness is not the Saviour, but the holy thing (spoken of) which was of the Holy Ghost.

Baptist. But in his fourth reason, page 37, it is again confessed, "that Saviour that good old Simeon waited for, and was revealed by the Spirit, and that he had the promise of seeing, was the child brought to Jerusalem in Mary's arms, and taken by him into his arms."

Answer. This proves against our opposer in the first place; for, 1st. By the Spirit within good old Simeon waited and had the Saviour revealed, therefore the Spirit is saving. 2dly, I ask, was this child a natural birth, without either Spirit, Light within, or Godhead? or without any spiritual birth, seeing the Light within, Spirit, and Godhead, is so much excluded and excepted from being a Saviour? But would it be good doctrine to say, that Mary and Simeon carried their Saviour in their arms, but had not the Light nor Spirit within them to save them? or that they carried God in their arms, and had him not within them, if that child was God-man, as he terms him? But Simeon saw further than the Baptists, for he confessed Christ to be a Light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the salvation God had prepared before the face of all people; which Light within they have endeavoured to darken as much as in them lies.

Baptist. "The Spirit descended on him like a dove, (Mat. iii. 16,) but had the Spirit been the Christ, what nonsense would it be to say the Spirit descended upon the Spirit?"

Answer. The Spirit's descension on him in that likeness, was a testimony to John, the more to confirm his belief of Christ; and does not argue that Christ was without the Spirit before, or had it not in him, who was the Son of God; neither does it argue that Christ the last Adam, is not a quickening Spirit now in his spiritual appearance, (1 Cor. xv. 45,) because that John saw the Holy Ghost descend on him like a dove in the days of his flesh. And as to Christ within both to save and rule, (for which we are accused,) we are not ashamed of him; but do testify to him within, and his government, power, and authority within; and have not been ashamed of him before men in stormy days and trials; when many of the chieftains of you Baptists were fain to hide and secure yourselves, for all your boasting of your God and Christ at a distance above the clouds, stars, and firmament. It is no marvel in such trials fear surprises you, and that now you can carp, and cavil, and villify such as have been faithful in sufferings, when you so much oppose the Light and Saviour within, and show yourselves to be in the spirit of Antichrist, as this William Burnet has apparently done, to the shame of you that own him: who also, (page 38,) accuses us for owning, "that Christ took flesh or a body, but will not own that body to be Christ."