AN ANSWER To a late SCANDALOUS PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, A Friendly Debate between SATAN and SHERLOCK, Written by THOMAS DANSON.  
BY WILLIAM SHERLOCK, Rector of S. George Buttolph-Lane, London.  
LONDON: Printed by A. C. for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in S. Paul's Churchyard. 1677.   

AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE.  
OUR Author was conscious to himself, that the very Title and Design of this Pamphlet would be so offensive to all sober Christians, that he durst not venture it abroad in the world without making some Apology for it, and had he deferred his Apology a little longer, he might have been informed of some more material things to have exercised his faculty of making excuses. But he conceives himself obliged to make an Apology for three things, which, he conceives, an intelligent Reader may fault in them, according to his new mode of speaking.  
First, that they came out so late, when many Persons of ability have foiled the Adversary, and when he hath mollified the harshness of many expressions here repeated, in a second Discourse. To the former he answers, that none had dealt with Mr. Sherlock upon the Medium here suggested, and that the world had had these Sheets sooner, if this Medium they contain, had come sooner into his thoughts. This is a very satisfactory Answer, and I know nothing to be said to it, for it is unreasonable any man should write before he thinks, though I doubt after all, it will appear, that our Author has done so. But what an unmerciful man is this, to set so furiously upon a foiled Adversary, only for the sake of a new Medium, which is like running a man through with a Rapier, who was killed before with a Bullet, because forsooth he had not been yet killed with a Sword, and he must needs try the strength of his Arm and the metal of his Sword. But this is a plain Argument, that though our Author is resolved to huff, and like the Dutch, appoint public Thanksgivings and Bonfires, when they are beat, to keep up their reputation (which well enough becomes such Dutch Divines) yet he did not think in his heart, that the Adversary was foiled, nor is he ever likely to be foiled by twenty such new Medium's as this.  
But I would fain hear what he has to say to the latter, why He should repeat those Expressions, the harshness of which had been mollified in a second Discourse; without so much as giving notice to the Devil of any such thing, which I am apt to think, he would have been so ingenuous as to have acknowledged, had he been duly informed: If he have not put a cheat upon the Devil in this, I am sure he has upon his credulous Readers.  
But to this he answers, That he finds not in M. Sherlock ' s second Discourse any retraction of his unsound Tenets. But he finds a Defence of the soundness of them, and such as has silenced his Adversaries, and it had been done more like a Man and a Scholar, to have assaulted the second Discourse, than to have gloried in the repetition of the old baffled Calumnies; unless he thought it would give more reputation and credit to them, that they are repeated and owned by the Devil. But he proceeds: Though he seems upon second thoughts, not so well pleased with his own Phraseology, as giving cause to every man, whose addition is Christian, to suspect, that under a pretence of rectifying mistakes, he designed to expose all Religion (which not without cause he intimates his fear of, Pref. p. 3. of his first discourse:) Who, that reads these words, would not imagine, that in the Preface to my First Book, I had intimated my fears, lest my Phraseology, as he calls it, should expose all Religion, and that this was the reason, why I altered it in my second: whereas that passage he refers to in the Preface, concerns quite another matter, as appears from viewing the whole sentence: I have taken care, not only to unteach men, what was amiss, but to explain and confirm the true notions of Religion, lest any man should suspect, that under a pretence of rectifying mistakes, I designed to expose all Religion: and the reason I assigned in the second, for changing some Phrases is quite different: for there 
Defence, p. 529.  is an Euphemia due from us when we speak of Sacred things, and it is not fit always to represent such Doctrines in their true and proper Colours: whether this be a good reason I cannot tell, but it was the best I had, and I never thought to have been called to an account for such a piece of ingenuity, as our Author will never be guilty of: I sufficiently signify, that I still believe those expressions to be a proper and natural representation of their Doctrines, but their Doctrines are so horrid, that it is not fit to represent them in their proper language, as it is not fit to describe obscene and filthy things in proper terms. Here we have the first taste of our Author's Ingenuity and Honesty, which shows him to be a man well qualified to write a Dialogue for the Devil.  
The Second thing he fears may be blamed is, that Mr. Sh. principles are represented under the form of a Dialogue, and with so odious a choice of a Dialogist. As for the form of a Dialogue I like it very well, when it is honestly managed, and whether this be so or no, shall be presently examined. Though I wonder he was not afraid to mention those Dialogues, which have given such a baffle to their Cause, that Satan himself cannot help them.  
But he has started one Objection, which he had better spared because he cannot Answer it, viz. That Mr. Sh. is brought in ex professo designing to give the Devil hopes of Salvation, which yet he no where does throughout his whole Book: which he attempts to justify from my own practice and apology: the sum of which is this, that I charge some men's Doctrines with such consequences, which they do not own, and plainly acknowledge, that they do not own them in such express words; but if they will be consistent with themselves, upon their Principles they must own them; which is a plain way of Reasoning, which all men allow of, to convince men of the unsoundness of their Doctrines, by the evil consequences, which attend them: but is there no difference between this and bringing in a man industriously owning and proving those consequences, which he does not own; as to give a plain instance or two of it:  
Suppose the Friendly Debate, which he mentions, had brought in a Nonconformist industriously disputing against all Order and Government in the Church, because this is the natural consequence of their loose Principles: or should have brought in a Calvinist owning and proving, that God is the Author of sin, and that he damns his creatures, only to show his Almighty power, and to sport himself in their miseries, or that there is no need of living a holy life, but that God can love us as dearly with all our sins, as when we are holy; would not T. Danson have thought this hard usage to be made to own that, and plead for it, which he pretends to disown.  
What is the meaning of a Dialogue, but to represent two Persons talking together? And therefore if we will deal honestly, we must make neither of them say that, which we know, they would not say, if they were present: we may charge any man with the ill consequences of his Doctrine, but we must not make him own them, unless he pleases; at this rate of writing Dialogues, I could quickly make T. Danson appear the greatest Fop in nature.  
As for the choice of a Dialogist, which he confesses to be odious enough, he pretends he could not avoid it in regard of the Medium he insists upon: for who can be imagined a fitter person to debate the point with him, whether there be any hope of the Devil's Salvation, than the Person concerned, Satan himself. He has concealed the true Reason, which is, because it was Odious, and did gratify a Fanatic rage, and malice; for what necessity was there of a Dialogue? Why could not T. D. have fairly debated the case upon my Principles, and left me to answer for myself? He who will observe the rules of Dialogues, ought not to bring in two persons talking together, who can never be supposed to do so; and there never was yet any Dialogue framed between a man and the Devil, but upon a designed abuse; and let Mr. Danson consider, whether this be a fit representation to make of a Christian and a Minister: for my part I heartily forgive the injury, pity his folly, and despise his malice, and would seriously advise him to have a care, lest while he intends merrily, and, as he thinks, wittily, to dispute the Devil into Heaven, he do not dispute himself into a worse place: I had rather ten thousand times be represented, as disputing with the Devil, than so much to partake of his nature and qualities.  
Let any man judge, whether this be not a readier way to expose all Religion to contempt than some harsh and ill sounding Phrases: their Fantastic Divinity has already made a great many half-witted men Atheists, who had wit enough to see the folly of their Religion, but not to discover the true notions of things, and what a confirmation will it be to such men to hear the Fundamental Principles of Religion, the love of God to his creatures, and the necessity of Holiness to recommend us to God, Burlesqued by a Fanatic Devil?  
But indeed his Friends the Non-Conformists have most reason to be angry with him for this, for it seems their cause is at a very low Ebb, when they are forced to call the Devil in to their assistance. 
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.  Like Saul, who went to the Witch at Endor, when God would not hear him? And I have so good an opinion of them, (as much as I am thought their enemy, for no other reason, than the Galathians thought S. Paul so, because I have told them the truth, and charitably designed to rescue them from those mistakes, which are great hindrances of Piety, and dangerous snares and temptations to weak doubting Christians) yet I say, I believe so well of them, that they are not willing to have the Devil of their party, nor represented as their Patron and Advocate. And yet throughout this Friendly Debate, the Devil is brought in as pleading their cause, and going to Conventicles, and mightily admiring Dr. Owen, and some other of his Brethren: and this T. Danson was so conscious of, that when in his Preface in vindication of this Dialogue, he produces the instance of the Friendly Debate, he durst not add [between a Conformist, and a Nonconformist,] because that makes it too plain, which side the Devil took, that the Friendly Debate between Satan and Sherl. was equivalent to a Friendly Debate between a Nonconformist and a Conformist.  
Though I must needs say this for T. Danson, that he has chose the most proper Dialogist, that possibly he could for such a design: For the whole Dialogue consists of nothing else, but lies and calumnies, and who so proper a Person to bear that part, as the Devil, who is the Father of lies, and the Accuser of the Brethren? and indeed I am more beholden to this Author, than to any of my adversaries, that he will let the world know who is my grand Adversary; I have been assaulted all along with no other weapons, but lies and slanders, and malicious insinuations, but than it was done with a demure pretence of Religion, and Zeal for God, but M. Danson has dealt honestly, and drawn aside the Curtain, and showed the world, that Satan stood behind to prompt them; but to return to our Author, he proceeds thus.  
The last thing, that some Readers may fault, is, that the Dialogue detracts from the Devils abilities of managing a Controversy, for he is commonly introduced, as acquiescing in Mr. Sherl. Grounds, which are liable enough to exception. It is well for him, if this be the last thing, his Readers will find fault with, which if it be, will as much detract from their understandings, as the other does from the Devil's skill in Controversy. To this he answers, That there is a fitness, and necessity for it. The fitness in short is this, that the Devil is contented to appear a fool, so he may do mischief; and indeed this is the only reason I can think of, that should make him contented to bear his part in so silly a Dialogue as this; And I fear, it will be found at last, that as great a fool as the Devil seems to be, he has out-witted our Author in this undertaking.  
The necessity is in regard of the deficiency of M. Sh. Book, (to which the Dialogue is confined) which affords not answers to multitude of exceptions (which might have been put into Satan's mouth) against the Principles therein contained. Truly I cannot help that, for I never thought of disputing with the Devil, and therefore might not be so well provided for him: But he, who helped the Devil to so much, without any just occasion from any thing in that Book, might have helped him to more, if there had not been some other defect; and I doubt not, but the Devil would have argued more craftily, had he been left to his own natural wit, or had a better disputant to put words into his mouth; The lying malicious part could not have been done better by the Devil himself, and if that had not made him some satisfaction for the other defects, I know not how M. Danson could ever have repaired the injury he has done him.  
I should much have wondered, if after the last fault, there had not been some other found out; and now he suspects, That some may find a fourth fault, that the Author brings in Satan as playing upon M. Sherlock. But hath not M. Sh. taken the same liberty with his Antagonists: I am sorry our Author should give himself the trouble to excuse his wit, for he has as little reason for it, as any man I know: But I see the Devil is their very good Friend, and must revenge their quarrel on me, and play upon me, because as our Author says, I have played upon them; well if it must be so, I cannot help it, only I would advise them not to look behind, lest they should see the Devil laughing more heartily at them behind their backs.  
And I perceive the Devil has very much be-fooled, if he does not laugh at our Author, that he should see no difference between representing a Minister of Christ Jesus disputing with the Devil, and the Devil playing and drolling on him; and making a little innocent mirth with some absurd and foolish propositions, such a man is a very fit Tool for the Devils use, who has lost all manner of sense, of what is fit and comely.  
And now the Author gives us leave to go into the house itself, and though I perceive it is a haunted house, yet I think there is no danger in it, for it is such a silly Devil, as will be easily conjured out.   

AN ANSWER To a SCANDALOUS PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, A Friendly Debate between SATAN and SHERLOCK.  
THe Question under debate is, whether those Principles owned by me in A Discourse of the Knowledge of JESUS CHRIST, afford the Devi the same grounds for his hope of Salvation, that they do mankind? Thus our Author tells us in his Title-Page, which he says, subverts the Gospel, and transforms Christianity into Mahumetanism. This Mahumetism is placed here only as an invidious term, for that gives no more hope of Salvation to the Devil, than T. Danson does, unless he will say, that an absolute Fate and irrespective Decrees, which is the doctrine of Mahumetanism gives the Devil as much hope of Salvation, as Mankind: And if he did say so, some think he would come much nearer the truth; for if these absolute Decrees give no hope to the Devil, no more do they to Mankind: For he will not say, that the Elect are all Mankind, and it is plain, that the Reprobate, who are far the greatest part of Mankind, can have no more reasonable hope of Salvation, than the Devils have, and the Elect themselves can have no hope of Salvation by virtue of these Principles; but must either have a particular revelation for it, or live in perpetual doubt, or abuse themselves by a warm and Enthusiastic fancy: And if there were any necessity of choosing one, methinks every man out of love to himself and to human Nature, should rather espouse those Principles, which afford all mankind reasonable hopes of Salvation, though the Devil himself should conceive some reason to hope well too; than such Principles as will give no man, not the Elect themselves any sure foundation for hope.  
But let us consider, what those Principles are, which as our Author says, give the Devil as great hope of Salvation as Mankind.  
And the First is, God's love to all his Creatures; as he citys my words, The light of nature, and works of Creation and Providence assure us, that God is so good, that he designs and desires the happiness of all his Creatures according to the capacity of their natures. [Knowledge of Christ, p. 42. Ed. 1.] and therefore either the Devil is none 
Friend. Deb. p. 1.  of God's Creatures, or his nature is uncapable of happiness, or God designs and desires his happiness, as well as of other of his Creatures. I see our Author begins, as he intends to hold on, for it is his constant Practice to take part of a Sentence, which he thinks will serve his turn, and leave out what will not; for my words are these: The light of nature and the works of Creation and Providence, and those manifold Revelations God hath made of himself to the world, especially that last and most perfect Revelation by Jesus Christ our Lord, assure us, etc. So that I join the Light of Nature with the Revelation of the Gospel, which is the most certain discovery of the will of God, and therefore can be understood of no other creatures, than those to whom the Gospel gives hopes of Salvation. But the force of his Argument consists in the word Creature; but does not the Scripture use that word peculiarly for all mankind? When our Saviour commands his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to every Creature, Mark xuj. 15. does that signify, that they must Preach the Gospel to Devils, as well as Men? When the Psalmist tells us, that the Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psal. cxlv. 9 which is as large an expression as all Creatures, must the Devil, who is one of God's works be included or not? if not, than it seems God may be good all his works, and all his Creatures according to the Scripture Phrase, without being good to the Devil.  
But why did not our Author from hence conclude the Salvation of Birds and Beasts and Fishes, and in a Fanatic frenzy, like another S. Francis, and S. Antony, go and Preach to Lambs and Sheep and Fish? For they are Creatures too, and if we will believe the experience of these Saints, very capable of Devotion; and indeed it would have been a much more innocent employment, and more suited to his abilities, than writing Dialogues for the Devil.  
But let me seriously ask our Author, whether God be good to all his Creatures or not? If he be (as I hope, he will not dare to say otherwise, whatever he thinks,) then according to his Principles, the Devil has the same hope of Salvation, that mankind has; or if he have not, than he must find out some way to reconcile God's love to all his Creatures, with the irrevocable Damnation of the Devil, and that will serve my turn as well as his.  
But to bring this to an issue, I will only ask him one question more, whether from God's goodness to all his Creatures, he thinks, it may be proved, that all men shall to all eternity be in the same capacity for Salvation, that they are in while they live in this world? If not, than it seems, God may be very good to all his Creatures, and yet allot such a time for the exercise of his patience and long suffering, beyond which the obstinate and incorrigible shall be utterly uncapable of Mercy and Salvation: and this God expressly tells us, that his Spirit shall not always strive with man, Gen. vi. 3. and our Saviour wept over Jerusalem, because she had outstood the day of Grace and Salvation, Luke nineteen. 41, 42. And when he was come near, he beheld the City, and wept over it, saying, if thou hadst known, even thou at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace, but now they are hid from thine eyes. The like we may see in Matth. xxiii. 37, 38, 39 And the Apostle to the Hebrews dissuades from the delays of their Repentance, by the example of God's severity upon the Israelites. Heb. iii 7, 8, 9, etc. To day if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, as in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your Fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years, wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, they do always err in their hearts, and have not known my ways, so I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter into my rest: take heed Brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; But exhort one another daily, while it is called to day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. And in Heb. xii. 15, 16, 17. he presses the same exhortation from the example of Esau, who for one morsel of bread sold his birthright, for ye know, how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place for Repentance, though he sought it earnestly with tears. And our Saviour gives us the same account in the Parable of the foolish Virgins, who were not prepared to entertain the Bridegroom, when he came, Matth. xxv. 1, 2, etc. which he concludes with this inference, Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour, wherein the son of man cometh v. 13.  
From all which it evidently appears, that though God be very good to all his Creatures, yet he has limited a time to the exercise of his Grace and Mercy, beyond which he will not extend his goodness to those, who neglect their day, and proper season of Grace: The longest period, that any Christians own, is the day of our life, though some of the most Zealous Patrons of the Divine Goodness, think it no reproach to the goodness of God to make it shorter, and to assert, that some men may outsin the day of Grace even in this life, and some of those places, I have now mentioned, seem very strongly to insinuate some such thing; which is a very powerful Argument against the delays of our Repentance, and should make us very cautious of contracting such habits of vice, as may make the Grace of God ineffectual to us.  
So that though God be very good to all his Creatures, that is not sufficient to prove the Devil to be in as good a capacity of Salvation as mankind, unless he can withal prove, that the Devil's day of Grace and Salvation is not yet past, and when he does that, he shall hear more from me.  
I have insisted the longer on this, because it is a sufficient answer to this whole Pamphlet, and whoever can but carry this in his mind, will easily discover the Sophistry of all the rest, for if the Devil's time be passed, his condition is equally hopeless and desperate, let the terms of Salvation be what they will.  
And since our Author has put me in mind of an old Maxim, Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora, I shall not trace the Devil through all his turnings and labyrinths, but taking that account, which he gives of his hope of Salvation from my Principles, and supposing it at the present to be a true account (which as you shall hear more afterwards is far from being so) shall show you what a silly Devil this is, and that his Doctrine of signs and evidences is much more foolish and absurd, than ever the wildest Fanatic Preached to a doubting Soul: we find all his grounds to hope for Salvation put together at the end of this Pamphlet, p. 43. etc.  
As First, That God is so good, that he designs and desires the happiness of all his Creatures (and therefore mine,) this I have already answered, and that answer will answer all the rest.  
II. That Gods will in that design is not Arbitrary, having no reason but itself, for such a will would destroy all the perfections of God's nature.  
Answ. But his will is governed by the Laws of Wisdom and Justice and Holiness, and that will serve to condemn bad men and evil spirits, and to pass an irrevocable sentence on them: and it seems our Author thinks, and that very right, that an Arbitrary will, which acts for no other reason, but because it will, would give the Devil more hopes of Salvation: for if God have no reason to damn the Devil, but because he will, it is possible he may alter his mind when there is no reason, why he should not, and as well save, as damn them without any Reason.  
III. That Holiness in the Creature is the reason of the determination of his love to any particular persons.  
Answ. What comfort is this to the Devil? who is a very wicked and impure Spirit, and therefore cannot expect, that God should love him for this reason, if God could love him without Holiness, he would have more reason to hope well.  
IV. That this Holiness is not an effect of an Omnipotent power, but of powerful Motives and Arguments, (and so by the use of my free will, I may be Holy if I will.)  
Answ. If he call this my Principle, it is a very great Calumny, though it is not the first lie the Devil has told, but at present suppose it to be true, what powerful Motive can the Devil have to be Holy, when a final and irrevocable sentence is passed on him? there can be no Motive to Repentance powerful, without hope of Pardon, and that he has none.  
But does our Author imagine it impossible for Men or Devils to sink into such a degenerate state, that the most powerful Motives cannot work on them? what does the Apostle mean then by being hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, having a reprobate sense, and being past feeling, and their Consciences seared as with a hot iron? and if men may by repeated acts of sin grow so hard and incurable, what shall we think of the Devils? What can powerful Motives do on them? If God would make any Creatures Holy by an Omnipotent and irresistible Grace, there is some hope for the Devil, that he might be Holy, when God pleases to make him so: but the most powerful Arguments will signify nothing to such degenerate Creatures: and so far as we can understand the nature of God's judgements from the examples of Scripture (for in executing judgements God reserves a Sovereignty to himself, and punishes some sooner and others later, and when men have made themselves ripe for judgement, defers the execution of it, and endures with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,) yet the most usual Method is to harden those, who have first hardened themselves, and when men shut their eyes, and stop their ears, and resist all the powerful Methods of his Grace, he gives them up to their wilful blindness and impenitency; as an indulgent Father casts off a Son, who continues obstinate and incorrigible, after all the most probable ways of reclaiming him.  
There are a great many, who not without reason deny, that we are wholly passive in our Conversion, as a man naturally dead is passive in his being restored to life again, and assert, that our natural impotency and inability to good, which we contracted by the fall of Adam, is curable by Gospel Grace, by these powerful Motives and Arguments of the Gospel, and the internal assistances of the Holy Spirit, which yet do not work irresistibly, but require the concurrence of our endeavours, we must work out our Salvation with fear and trembling, because God works in us both to will and to do according to his own good pleasure, as the Apostle speaks. But I never in my life yet met with any man, who was not distracted, who durst affirm, that no man could so harden himself in sin, as to be incurable by all the Methods of Gospel Grace; and if men may sin themselves into such an incurable state, we have some reason to think the Devil may and has.  
And therefore our Author did not observe a good decorum, when he brings in the Devil hoping that he 
Fr. Deb. p. 47.  may hereafter govern his life by the Revelations of the Gospel, for the Devil scorns any such hopes, or he is so mean a spirited Devil, that many of our Town Hector's will scorn him: but I wonder our Author did not consider, that he has by this spoilt one very considerable sign of Grace, which is the desire of Grace, for if the Devil may hope for Grace, which always includes a desire of Grace, it can give no great comfort to doubting Christians. And by the way, he has spoiled another very good sign of Grace too, when he brings in the Devil going to Conventicles, what recompense he will be able to make the Brethren for taking away two such good signs, and thereby spoiling so many good Sermons, let him consider. But to proceed.  
V. That though this holiness be not perfect, yet God will accept it, if sincere: This is the current Doctrine of the Gospel, that God will accept our sincere but imperfect obedience for the sake of Christ, but what is this to the Devil, who is not concerned in it, as you have already heard; whose final doom is past, and neither can, nor will be holy? But let all good Christians consider, whether this be not to expose the Gospel of our Saviour, by making the plain and undeniable Doctrines of it to give as much encouragement to the Devil, as to mankind, and by that goodly medium to prove that they are unfound and false, if this be not the Doctrine of the Gospel, I will burn my Bible, and never Preach more; and if it be, I suppose, no body will thank M. Danson for this but the Devil, not that he is so silly, as to hope for Salvation upon these terms, but he knows it is the ready way to make men despise Holiness, and thereby bring them under the same condemnation with himself; for that he is more concerned for, that mankind may be damned with him, than that he may be saved with them.  
VI This acceptance of my sincere Holiness I have reason to believe and hope for, though I have no promise, for,  
VII. God's gracious nature obliges him to reward all sincerely (though imperfectly) good actions. God is merciful to all, whose Creator he is, and affords them all possible means of Salvation without a Saviour, or any knowledge of one, and accordingly  
VIII. De Facto, Abel, Enoch, and Abraham, are saved without a Faith in Christ, because no man could believe in Christ, till he come.  
Answ. Our Author must account for these calumnies, and many others, before we part: but for the present let us suppose these to be my Principles, and see what encouragement they give to the Devil. For though mankind had reason to hope for acceptance without any promise, or any other assurance, than God's gracious nature, though they might be saved without a Saviour, and though Abel, Enoch, and Abraham were, what is this to the Devil, whose sentence of damnation is irrevocable? is there no difference between those who are in a state of probation, and those who are actually condemned? May not a servant, who is diligent in his business, and does the best he can, more reasonably expect to be accepted and rewarded, by a kind and good natured Master, without any promise from him, than one who for his past villainies is already actually condemned to the Galleys, to continue there for his whole life? He who sees no difference between these two Cases, may give the Devil some hope of Salvation, but in the mean time gives very little to mankind.  
IX. Though God hates me now, yet he may love me hereafter, for God's love and hatred are not immutable, nor does the immutability of them consist in loving or hating always the same Person, but for the same reason, because they are either good or bad.  
Answ, This is very foolishly represented, and so as to contradict itself; but what he intends in it is certainly true, that though God be unchangeable in his love, yet he does not always love and hate the same individual Persons, but he always loves and hates for the same reason, that is, he always loves good men, and hates the wicked, but what comfort is this to the Devil, whose nature is incurably wicked, and therefore must eternally continue the object of God's hatred? as you heard above: But then, though God's love and hatred in itself considered is not immutably fixed upon particular Persons, upon a supposition that they may change and alter, yet God's Just and Righteous Decrees of executing judgement upon particular Persons, may be and often are immutable and irreversible; and this is the Devil's case, that he is under an irreversible Decree, whereby he is reserved in Chains of Darkness to the judgement of the last day, and this certainly gives him no great hope of Salvation.  
X. God never designed the Glory of Mercy and Justice in saving some and not others, in the permission of his creatures sins.  
Answ. This is such a horrid piece of Knavery, as I thought the Devil himself would have blushed to be the Author of: for who ever said, that God did not design the Glory of his Justice in the Damnation of men? Nor the Glory of his Mercy in the Salvation of true Penitent Believers? Who ever said, that God does not permit sins? Or that he does not serve his own Glory by it? And yet our Author has worded it so on purpose, as to bear this sense, and if this be not the sense of it, it cannot serve the Devils turn: whoever understands the nature of God, which is infinite goodness, or the Gospel of Christ, which makes such Glorious discoveries of the Divine Love, can never believe, that God from all eternity did decree to make Angels and Men, and to damn some and save others, without any respect to the good or evil, they should do, for no other reason but to Glorify his Justice in the Damnation of some, and his Mercy in the Salvation of others, and that he might make a fairer show of Justice and Mercy, should not only permit, but decree and by irresistible Methods bring to pass the fall and sin of his creatures: But when Men or Angels wilfully apostatise from God, it is a glorious act of Justice to punish the incorrigible, and to show Mercy to the true Penitents, especially in such a stupendious way, as by the Incarnation and sufferings of his Son, and what consolation does this give to the Devil?  
XI. Though a Saviour was brought into the world after it was about four thousand years old, yet he was not of absolute necessity, for the only knowledge absolutely necessary to the Purposes of Religion (whereof Salvation is not the least) is such a knowledge of God's nature and will, as is sufficient to direct our actions and encourage our obedience. And hence,  
XII. The wisdom of God was not discovered in sending a Saviour, if there were no other way of redeeming the world; for wisdom consists in the choice of the best and fittest means to attain an end, when there are more ways than one of doing it.  
Answ. Well, we will at present be still so goodnatured as to grant him all he would have, what then? Suppose Christ was not absolutely necessary, suppose there were more ways than one of saving sinners, what comfort is this to the Devil, who is excluded from all ways of Salvation, though there were five hundred more? When a man is already dead of an Ague or a Fever, though an able Doctor should demonstrate, that there are a thousand infallible Cures for it, what advantage is this to the dead man, who cannot be recovered to life again?  
XIII. This Saviour being the Eternal Son of God, we may reasonably conclude, he came upon no less design than universal Goodness, for he can have no temptation to partiality, as being equally concerned in the Happiness of all men, and we cannot imagine, why he should lay a narrower design of Love in the Redemption, than in the Creation of Mankind (all which fits my case; the eternal Son of GOD, being my Creator, hath no temptation to partiality, being equally concerned in my Happiness and man's, as we are his rational Creatures.)  
Answ. The force of this Argument, if it may be called so, consists in this, That there was no difference at all between the case of Mankind and of the Devil; and no more reason why God should take pity on fallen Man, than on fallen Angels; and when our Author has made good that, I shall own his consequence; though this will be a very bold attempt, considering how little we know of the Sin and Fall of Angels, or of their condition before or since. No Divines hitherto ever argued at this rate, but have rather employed their Wit and their Pens, to show the difference between the state of Men and Angels, and how much more pitiable the Fall of Men was, than the Fall of Angels. As that the Angels were all in actual being, and every one sinned for himself, that they had no Tempter, but their own Pride, or whatever other Lust it was, that occasioned their Fall, that they had a great Perfection of Knowledge, etc. whereas there was but one Man and Woman in the world, that were actually in the Transgression, and they were tempted by the Devil, and cheated by him, which makes their case vastly different from that of the fallen Angels. Though our Author quite mistakes the design of my Argument, if it may be called mine (for I propose it in my first Discourse only as an instance of a probable way of arguing from the Person of Christ, in imitation of their Scheme of Divinity, which is founded on a pretended Acquaintance with Christ's Person, with no other design, than to show them how much safer it is to adhere to the plain Revelations of the Gospel, than to indulge ourselves in such uncertain reasonings) the intention of which was not to prove that Christ must be the Redeemer of all those whose Creator he is, but that, since we see by his appearing in the world in our nature, that he looked upon the condition of fallen Man so pitiable, that he came to redeem them, we have reason to believe, that he came upon a design of universal Love and Goodness to Mankind; because the case of all mankind is equally pittiable, and he being the Creator of all, is equally concerned for the happiness of all.  
XIV. The sum of this Paragraph which is too long to be transcribed, and shall be particularly accounted for hereafter, is this, that I make a Saviour wholly useless now he is come, that whatever according to my Principles Christ has done, might have been done without him; now this is no more than what we have met with already, for what if mwn might have been saved without Christ, how does this prove that the Devils may be saved, who are out of all capacity of Salvation?  
XV. That whoever was or shall be justified, were and shall be justified without any Righteousness at all: if this indeed were true, it would give great comfort to the Devil, as it does at this day to many Fanatics, but sure I never said so; yet I affirm, that God accepts of a sincere though imperfect obedience, and he learnedly proves, that Sincerity is no Righteousness at all; well than I hope they will never charge me again with Preaching up justification by our own Righteousness, for if Sincerity be no Righteousness at all, it is not worth quarrelling about; but till he can prove, that the Devil is, or may be sincere, I know not what comfort it is to the Devil; For though Sincerity be no Righteousness at all, I am sure many Fanatics (and our Author brings in the Devil in personating a Fanatic) do as much abhor the test of sincerity, and care as little for hearing of sincere obedience, as of perfect Righteousness.  
XVI. A Saviour is the less needful because God's justice is not natural, though his mercy is, and the fears of sinful men (and so of Angels) of God's justice are but the workings of heated fancy, and Religious distraction.  
Answ. This is every word false and if it were true, is nothing to the purpose; for if justice were not natural to God, yet if he has decreed the eternal Damnation of Devils and bad men, it comes much to one, as to this case, and then let them forbear fearing and trembling too if they can.  
XVII. How our Author quarrels at my Notion of Faith in Christ, which is such a belief of the Revelations of the Gospel, as governs our lives and actions; and makes the Devil take comfort in this, that he already believes all the Articles of Faith, and so his Faith is of the same kind with mine, and he hopes in time, that he may govern his life by them also, can any Christian hear this with patience? We must not believe the Articles of the Christian Faith, for fear of having such a Faith, as the Devil has: But does the Devil believe all the Articles of Faith? Does he believe that God will forgive his sins, and bestow on him eternal Happiness? Then he is a perfect Fanatic in his Faith, for he believes without any Reason, unless our Author can show, that the Gospel promises of forgiveness of sin and eternal life, which are two great Articles of our Faith, do as much belong to the Devil as to men: and I am sure without the belief these, the belief of all the other Articles of our Creed can, neither better his life, nor administer any comfort to him.  
XVIII. The last ground of the Devils hope of Salvation is the nature of our Union to Christ by Faith, which is not mystical, that is, analogical to a natural Union between Vine and Branches, nor therefore are we passive in the reception of Grace to believe and live accordingly: but a Mediator is only a Minister of Grace, i. e. one who by powerful Motives persuades us to be gracious, (come by Grace as we can) and so it is not impossible, but I may get Grace, though I be not United to Christ. Now if all this were true, it is only a repetition of what was said in his Fourth ground of hope, and there you may find the answer: but he proceeds. The Union made by Faith, is Political, consisting in a belief of Christ's Revelations, (which I have already) though you have now heard, that he neither has, nor can have that Faith; and government of our actions, (which I am in hopes of in time, for Christ is the Minister of this Grace, by proposing powerful arguments to it) this has been already answered, and if he have no more to say for himself, he is like to be a Devil still: but we may observe how hard the Devil is put to it to make out his evidences, sometimes he hopes he may be saved without being United to Christ, and sometimes he begins to hope that he is United to Christ in part already, and may be perfectly United to him hereafter.  
Thus you see, that though we liberally grant M. Danson, whatever he asks, and suffer him to represent my Principles just as he pleases, which, as he represents them, are so unlike to mine, that I should never have known them, had he not said so, yet no such thing can follow, as he pretends, that the Devil has the same grounds to hope for Salvation, that Mankind has. But indeed this is not M. Dansons' talon, to reason and argue, and draw consequences, he knows much better, how to imitate the Devil, than to defend him, lies and slanders and misrepresentations are the best weapons he has, and therefore having got rid of the Devil, I shall now come to Danson, and take him to task for that abuse and cheat he has put upon his credulous Readers, and that great injury he has done to me in perverting my words, and sense. And to make this as short and useful as I can, I shall reduce it to certain Heads, which may offer some occasion for profitable discourse.  
First then, one great artifice of our Authors is to represent me, as attributing that knowledge wholly to the Light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence, which I expressly ascribe to Revelation also, as the most certain and infallible means of knowing the nature and will of God, this we had one instance of in the very beginning concerning God's goodness to all his Creatures, which he often repeats without the least mention of Revelation. Thus p. 29. The Light of Nature assures sinners, that God is so good, that he hath a natural love for all good men, and will not fail to reward them, though he never made them a promise. Knowledge of Christ, p. 42. 43. as he citys the place, though whoever looks there shall find no such thing, that last Clause, though he never made them a promise, being his own addition, though Printed in a different Character as my words. Thus p. 10. The Light of Nature and the works of Creation and Providence assure us, that God is so Holy that he hath a natural love for good men, and will not fail to reward them, and had Christ never appeared in the world, yet we had reason to believe, that God is thus good and holy and merciful— The Appearance of Christ did not first discover the Nature of GOD to us; but confirms us in the belief of what we had learned before from Nature, pag. 42, 43. GOD is as ready to pardon the worst of Men, (and why not the worst of Angels?) 
Friend. Deb. p. 8.  when they return to their Duty, as a kind Father is to receive an humble and penitent Prodigal. pag. 43. Now any one who reads this, might conclude, that I very much slight the Revelations of the Gospel, and resolve all our Faith into the Light of Nature, and therefore to discover the gross Knavery of this, (for I know not what gentler term to give it) I shall transcribe that whole Paragraph, which runs thus:  
The Light of Nature and the Works of Creation 
Know. of Chr. p. 42. Ed. I. p. 29. Ed. II.  and Providence, and those manifold Revelations GOD hath made of himself to the world, especially that last and most perfect Revelation by JESUS CHRIST our Lord, assure us, that God is infinite in all Perfections, that he is so powerful, that he can do whatever he pleases; so wise, that he knows how to order every thing for the best; so good, that he desires and designs the happiness of all his Creatures, according to the capacity of their natures; so holy, that he hath a natural Love for all good men, and will not fail to reward them, but hates all sin and wickedness, and will as certainly punish all obstinate and incorrigible Sinners; but yet that he is very patient and long-suffering towards the worst of men, and useth various methods of Kindness and Severity to reclaim them, and is as ready to pardon them, when they return to their Duty, as a kind Father is to receive an humble and penitent Prodigal: These Properties of GOD are plainly revealed in the Scripture, without any further Acquaintance with the Person of Christ (that is, without reasoning from a pretended Acquaintance with the Person of Christ, which is Dr. Owen's way of discovering those Gospel-Mysteries, which cannot be learned from Revelation only, against which this whole Discourse was leveled, and which you may see fully stated and explained in pag. 38. of my Defence, but to proceed,) and had Christ never appeared in the world, yet we had reason to believe, that GOD is thus wise and good and holy and merciful, because not only the works of Creation and Providence, but the Word of GOD assures us, that he is so: The appearance of Christ did not first discover the nature of GOD to us, but only gave us a greater Expression of God's Goodness, than ever we had before; confirms us in the belief of what we had learned before from Nature and Revelation, just as his Resurrection, which is an ocular demonstration of another Life, confirms us in the belief of that blessed Immortality he had promised, and yet we could not have learned this neither from the Person of CHRIST, had he not told us for what ends he came into the World; as will appear more anon.  
Where the Reader may observe, that all those Expressions which refer to Revelation, and are here printed in a different Character, are every where left out by our Author, though they were the very next in course, and he was forced to break off in the middle of a Sentence, to avoid them, which could not be done by mistake, but out of a bad design to represent me as no Friend to Revelations; and those words (why not the worst of Angels) which are Printed as mine, and are not, though he has given notice of the mistake among the Errata: yet now knowing the man so well, I have reason to think it was done upon a design; for he knew very well few of his Readers would consult the Errata, and it had been no great matter to have Corrected that fault with a Pen in such a Pamphlet.  
And now I dare venture this Paragraph with any man in his wits: for does not the Light of Nature and the works of Creation and Providence assure us, that God is Good and Merciful and Holy, etc. And does not Revelation give us a more perfect discovery of the nature and will of God, than Nature does? and is it any disparagement to the Revelations made by Christ, to say, that the world did understand something of God before Christ's appearance, though not so perfectly and certainly as we now do? Must we then deny, that the Heathens or Jews knew any thing of God or of another world, for fear of making Christ useless, who, notwithstanding what the world knew before, is said to make known God to us, to Reveal him to us in S. John's Phrase, and to bring life and immortality to light by the Gospel?  
And yet p. 9 he quarrels at my notion of a natural Faith, that is a belief (or assent, as I expressly call it in the same place) of those principles of Religion, which are discoverable by the Light of Nature, as that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, which was the Faith of Enoch and Abel: now let this be science or opinion, or what he pleases to call it, I desire our Author to tell me, how he will prove the being of God, but by Natural or Moral Arguments. I suppose he is so wise, as to prove the being of God from Scripture, though we must first believe the being of a God, before we can believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, or prove any thing from their Authority: and S. Paul proves the being of God from his works, The invisible things of God from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Rom. i 20. The same Arguments the Apostle uses Acts xvii. 24. etc. and Acts xiv. 17. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from Heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.  
What then is my fault? is it that I say, that the belief of the being and Providence of God are the first Principles of all Religion? And will our Author deny that they are so? let him then name what is before them: or that I assert, that God required no more of those good men, who had no other particular Revelations of his will? and will he say, that God required they should believe more than he had revealed to them? or can he prove that they had any more particular Revelations from God? It is not impossible but they might have, considering how familiarly God was pleased to converse with good men in those days: but there is no more recorded, and the Author to the Hebrews, when he designedly gives an account of the Faith of these good men, whereby they were accepted by God, takes notice of no more, and therefore is as obnoxtious to the peevish censures of our Author, as myself.  
To the same purpose he alleges another Passage of my Book, p. 21. That the only Knowledge necessary to the purposes of Religion is such a Knowledge of God's Nature and Will, as is sufficient to direct our actions and encourage our obedience. [Knowledge of Christ, pag. 33.] by which he would insinuate, that I make nothing more necessary to Religion, than a natural Knowledge of God's Nature and Will. Let us then consult the place, where we have these words: The result of all is this, that God is the last and highest object of Religious and saving Knowledge, i. e. that the only Knowledge necessary to the purposes of Religion is such a Knowledge of God's Nature and Will, as is sufficient to direct our actions and encourage our obedience; and whereas God was formerly known by the Light of Nature, etc. Now the only true Medium of knowing God is the Knowledge of Christ, who came into the World to declare God to us. So that I expressly assert, that we must now fetch the Knowledge of God's Nature and Will, which comprises the whole of Religion, from that perfect Revelation which Christ hath made.  
To the same purpose he quarrels with me, p. 13. for saying, that when God chose the posterity of Abraham to be his peculiar people, he did not design to exclude the rest of the world from his Care and Providence, and all possible means of Salvation. The Interpretation of which he says, is this, That the Gentiles before the Preaching of the Gospel, as well as since, had all possible means of Salvation, and that as he elsewhere expresses it, without a Saviour. God deliver me from such Commentators, who cannot understand the difference between not being excluded from all possible means of Salvation, and having all possible means of Salvation. As if I should say, that M. Danson is not free from all the signs and suspicions of Knavery in writing his Debate; and others should expound this, that he has all the signs and suspicions of Knavery: He who has any one possible means of Salvation, is not excluded from all, and yet cannot truly be said to have all, when he has but one.  
Another Exception of the like nature is, that I say, No man could believe in Christ till he came, that is, could not believe any thing upon his Authority, 
Know. of Chr. p. 242. Ed. I. p. 172. Ed. II.  which is the true notion of believing in him. Now pray what is the fault of this Proposition? Does not the Gospel represent believing in Christ, by believing his Divine Authority, that he came from God and declared the will of God to the world, which infers a belief of the whole Gospel? And could any man do this, before Christ came, and preached in Person, and confirmed his Authority, by those many Miracles, which he wrought? But our Author, for Satan and he are all one, cannot understand why they could not do this, (that is, believe upon Christ's Authority before he came to preach) if he was the eternal Son of GOD, by whom the world was made. For than he was preaexistent, and being GOD, they that lived before he came in the flesh wanted not the Ratio formalis of Divine Faith, the Authority of GOD revealing: pag. 24. And this he is so fond of, because it contains so foul an insinuation, that I deny the Godhead of our Saviour, that he repeats it again in his POSTSCRIPT. But it is very happy, that Malice is blind and foolish: Is there no difference then between considering Christ as the eternal Son of God, and considering him as the Messias, who was Incarnate in time, and came to Preach the glad tidings of Salvation to us? No difference between Gods speaking to the Fathers by the Prophets, and his speaking to us in these last days by his Son? Heb. i. 1. No difference between believing in God, and believing in Christ, though our Saviour makes a difference between them, ye believe in God, believe also in me, John xiv. 1. All the Prophecies of the Old Testament go in the name of God, not of Christ: and though believing in God contain a Virtual belief in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or eternal word, and in the Holy Ghost also, as being All one God; yet will any man say, that this is any where in Scripture called believing in Christ? I perceive now, who a late Author meant by his Uncatechized Upstarts, for had our Author ever learned his Catechism, we cannot imagine but he must have had more wit.  
Thus p. 21. he quarrels that I say, that God in former ages attempted various ways for the recovery of mankind, but with little success; at last God sent his own Jesus, Christ our Lord to be the great Shepherd and Bishop of Souls, to seek and to save that which was lost, p. 89. God hath now committed unto Christ all the secret purposes of his Counsel concerning the Salvation of mankind, which were concealed from ages, p. 30. Certainly our Author is mad or possessed, that he should quarrel at such great truths as these are, which are so evident to every one who has read the Bible.  
Did not God use various Methods for the recovery of mankind before the appearance of Christ in the world? What signified then his Methods of judgement and severity, of clemency and mercy? all the apparitions of Angels, the giving of the Law, and exhortations of the Prophets? And had all this that success which might have been expected? Did not the world, even the Jewish Church, continue very wicked? Does not God complain of the unfruitfulness of his Vineyard? Isaiah v. what could have been done more to my Vineyard, that I have not done to it: Did not God in these last days send his Son into the world? has not he made a more perfect Revelation of God's will, than ever the world had before? Has he not discovered those Mysteries which were concealed from ages? Does not S. John tell us? That no man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him, John i 18. Does not our Saviour himself tell us, All things are delivered unto me of my Father, no man knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son, and he, to whomsoever the Son will reveal him, Matth. xi. 27. And must Christians be forced to prove to Christians, that our Saviour Christ hath discovered those secret Counsels of God concerning the Salvation of mankind, which the world was not acquainted with before? And yet nothing will satisfy our Author, unless we will acknowledge that, which is contrary to the express Testimony of Scripture, and to the Records of all former ages, viz, that the world was as well acquainted with the Gospel before our Saviour Preached it, as we are since; for thus he argues, I understand you not unless you mean, that the knowledge of a Saviour was concealed from the world till Christ came in the flesh, and the reason of that concealment was because the knowledge of a Saviour was not absolutely necessary to the purposes of Religion (whereof eternal Salvation was not the least considerable) and if the knowledge of a Saviour was not absolutely necessary, than not a Saviour himself; for he gives Salvation by giving the knowledge of Salvation, and it is eternal life to know Jesus Christ. And if the world were saved for so long a time without a Saviour, why may it not for the remainder of its duration, be it more or less? If our Author would but accustom himself to read whole Sentences, he could never talk at this extravagant rate: Those very places he alludes to, would have convinced him of his mistake: for not to take notice, that giving knowledge of Salvation, Luke i 77. does not refer to Christ but to John the Baptist, who was to prepare the way for Christ by giving knowledge of Salvation to his people, the next Verses would have satisfied him, what state the world was in before the appearing of Christ. Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace; and that other place, John xvii. 3. This is life eternal to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, plainly speaks of such a knowledge of Christ, as was consequent to his being sent, to his coming into the world: this is that knowledge, which Christ gave them, and which they had not before. For I have given to them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known truly that I came out from thee, and have believed that thou didst send me, v. 8.  
But to make this discourse as useful as may be, I shall briefly state this matter, and consider what the condition of mankind was in the several ages of the world before the Incarnation of our Saviour, with respect to their acceptance with God, and hopes of a better life.  
First then, I lay this down as the foundation of all, That ever since the fall, God was reconciled to man only in Christ; in that promised Seed of the Woman, that in due time should break the Serpent's head; and therefore he is said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Revel. xiii. 8. Not only with respect to the decree of God, but to the extent and merit of his Sacrifice. For Christ is the head of all mankind who are saved; as Adam was the head of all men, who descend from him by carnal generation, so is Christ the head of the new and spiritual birth, that is, of all good men in all ages of the world, who are all United into one Church and one Body.  
Secondly, the knowledge of Christ in former Ages was more or less obscure according to the different Revelations, which God made to the World, as it must necessarily be. It was but little that Adam understood from that promise, The seed of the woman shall break the Serpent's head; nor could that promise made to Abraham, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, instruct him, who this seed was, or what he should do, or by what means he should bless the world, as I showed particularly in my first Discourse, to which 
P. 248. Ed. 1. P. 173. Ed. 2.  I shall refer my Reader. The promise made to David of a great Prince, that should come of his Race, and sit upon his Throne, and those other magnificent descriptions of the Kingdom of the Messias by the Prophets, betrayed the Jews into an expectation of a temporal Prince, which was the reason, why they rejected Christ when he came. And though the Prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel concerning the Sufferings of the Messiah seem very plain to us, now the event has expounded them; yet it is as evident, that the Jews did not understand them; and must we be forced now, to please Mr. Danson, to say, that Adam and Enoch and Abraham, and the whole Jewish Nation did understand, that their promised Messiah was to be no less Person than a God incarnate, that he was to live in a mean condition, to preach the Gospel, to suffer Death upon the Cross, to rise again from the dead, and ascend up into Heaven, there to intercede for us, and that we are to be saved by a fiducial reliance and recumbency on the Merits and Righteousness of his Life and Death? truly I would do something to gain his favour, but I cannot renounce my senses, and assert that to be, which is so plain never was. I believe, that the true Light of the Gospel never shone upon the World, till the dayspring from on high visited us: but this is no hindrance to Gods accepting and rewarding good men for the sake of Christ; for why may not God accept us for reasons which at present he thinks sit to conceal from us? The virtue of Christ's death to procure our pardon and reward, does not depend upon our knowing, but Gods accepting it, and why may not God, if he pleases, accept it unknown to us?  
Thirdly, the terms and conditions of Salvation were always the same, viz. such a sincere and hearty Faith as governs our lives and actions. The objects of this Faith alter according to the different degrees of revelation: The belief of the being and providence of God was all that could be required of those, who had no more revealed to them, but every new revelation God made, enlarged the objects of their Faith, till it grew up to the perfection of the Gospel Revelation: and now our Faith in Christ, whereby we are justified, is of the same kind with the Faith of Abel and Enoch and Abraham, but enlarged and perfected by a more perfect revelation: as those good men believed whatever discoveries God made to them, and governed their lives accordingly; so must we believe all the Revelations Christ hath made to us of the Will of God; and the way to Salvation, and govern our lives by them, and this is the righteousness of Faith, as I have at large proved in the Knowledge of Christ, pag. 252. etc.  
Were the only condition of our justification a fiducial reliance and recumbency on Christ, a rolling and resting our Souls on him, and a fanciful application of his Merits and Righteousness to ourselves; these good men could never have been saved by Christ, because this requires a particular knowledge of what Christ was to do and suffer, which they had not; but such a Faith in God, as teaches us to love and serve him, is of the same kind with the Christian Faith whereby we are now justified, such a Faith in Christ, as makes us obedient to the Gospel.  
This our Adversaries are very sensible of, and therefore nothing will serve them but to assert, that Abraham and other good men before Christ had an explicit knowledge of Christ, and were saved by resting on Christ for Salvation, as they hope to be; but it is evident, that this is false, and therefore it is as evident, that their notion of Justification is false; or else they must say, that these good men were not saved by Christ.  
Fourthly, the evidence these good men had of their acceptance with God did vary also, according to the different Dispensations they were under: that natural knowledge we have of God from the natural impreffions on our minds, or from the works of Creation and Providence, give us some assurance of God's love to good men, and of his readiness to pardon and reward those who are sincere Worshippers of him; but this knowledge is not certain, as that which is founded upon an express promise, confirmed by our Saviour Christ himself: the arguments from Nature without the help of Revelation are sufficient to incline honest minds, though they are not without all possibility of a mistake; as it was in the belief of a future state, we see Mankind did generally agree in it, though the evidence was not so great, but that it needed a farther confirmation: and therefore notwithstanding that evidence the World had of it, yet Christ is said to have brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel; because he has given us such assurance of it, as the World never had in former Ages.  
And therefore till the appearance of Christ in the World, God gave them some additional confirmation of his acceptance of good men, above what the light of Nature afforded, as the frequent apparitions of Angels, who possibly might make some greater discoveries to them, than are recorded; and the peculiar expressions of his goodness to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to all their Posterity for their sakes; all the promises of the Law of Moses, which though according to the letter were but temporal, yet were designed to typify and represent spiritual and future blessings, and were understood so by good men.  
And since God for wise reasons reserved to himself, was pleased to make but an imperfect Revelation to these good men, he accepted also of a more imperfect obedience, than the Gospel of our Saviour requires of us, according to our Saviour's known Rule, To whom much is given, of them shall be much required. And since God was pleased to accept of good men for the sake of a Saviour, whom they did not know with a distinct and explicit knowledge, and to accept of meaner attainments, when they wanted those powerful motives and assistances, which were necessary to raise them to the Evangelical Heights of Goodness, it brings it to such an equal balance, that we cannot say, that God was wanting to these good men.  
But yet fifthly, it was necessary that Christ should actually come into the World, and suffer and die, because these good men were accepted upon account of that atonement, which Christ was to make in the fullness of time for the sins of men; and it was becoming the Divine Wisdom and Goodness, that the World should have a more perfect Revelation of the Will of God, than till then it had. We may observe, that God communicated the knowledge of himself to the World by several steps and gradations, as we instruct Children proportionably to their age and capacity; and the time, when our Saviour appeared, is called the Fullness of time, as if it were the ripe and manly Age of the World, and fitted for that perfect Dispensation of the Gospel. But for what reasons soever God deferred the coming of our Saviour for so long a time, it is sufficiently evident, what advantages we now enjoy by the publication of the Gospel: That we have a greater confirmation of our Faith, more perfect rules of life, more persuasive arguments, and more powerful assistances of the holy Spirit; and if we be not better than other men, all our counterfeit and hypocritical relyances on Christ will avail us nothing: which I would desire our Debate Writer to consider, who has not yet attained to the moral honesty of a Heathen; as may appear from his whole Pamphlet, which is nothing else but a malicious design to pervert my words or sense; but I shall at present only set down one Paragraph, which needs no other confutation, than what has been already said: for thus he makes the Devil to argue (which is a true Fanatic trick to lay all their faults, lies, and calumnies upon the Devil.) Is not this to make Christ useless, and to reduce Religion to its first natural state, when you make no other duty necessary to happiness, than what the light of Nature suggests, and no other ground needful to the hopes of it, than the goodness of God, which had been known as fully (as now it is) if Christ had never appeared in the World?  
But this is enough to show, how impiously I am traduced by this Author, as asserting, that good men were not saved by Christ till he came, and that we may still be saved by the guidance of the Light of Nature without supernatural Revelation, nay as he would insinuate, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law and the Light of Nature. For so he brings in the Devil charging me with contradicting the Church of England in this, and I profess I could never have thought that any one but the Devil would have invented such a charge against me.  
But secondly his next charge is, that I make Christ wholly useless, because I will not assert, that God could not have found out any other possible way for the Salvation of mankind, but only by Christ; now though I do not think this Author a sit person to dispute with, (for there are two sorts of men who will never understand better; great Fools and great Knaves) and because I perceive our Author is of the Devil's 
Fr. Debate. p. 12.  mind, rather to be accounted a Knave than a Fool, (let him have his choice) yet for the satisfaction of more teachable minds, I shall briefly represent the difference between us.  
These men found the necessity of satisfaction upon such a natural vindictive justice, as makes it impossible that God's anger should be diverted from Sinners without the interposing of a propitiation; and because this anger and revenge in God is infinite like himself, therefore there must be an infinite Sacrifice to appease it, and that can be no other than the eternal Son of God incarnate, or made Man, who must die to satisfy a natural and unappeasable revenge and fury. This makes a representation of a good and Merciful God, too like that which some do of the Devil; and I do not wonder, that Mr. Danson's Devil pleads for it, since it is so natural to draw the Picture of God like ourselves; and it represents the Justice of God not to be the justice of a wise Governor, which must always serve a public good, and punishes for no other reason; but more to resemble a private revenge, which gluts itself with blood, as I phrased it in my first Book, but retracted it for the harshness of the expression in my second, though our Author is so ingenuous, as to repeat it again in this Pamphlet.  
This is such an account of the end of Christ's death, as the Scripture no where gives, as is incredible in itself and irreconcilable with the other perfections of the Divine Nature: the Scripture has assured us, that Christ died for our sins, that he died for us, that he is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, that we are reconciled to God by the death of his son, that his blood is the blood of the Covenant, that he hath redeemed his Church with his own blood, and hath purchased and ratified the New Testament in his blood, and several such expressions we meet with, but we are not so expressly told, wherein the virtue of Christ's death consists, how it makes an atonement for our sins, and I should rather guests at five hundred reasons, than pitch upon this, that the Beloved Son of God, who was infinitely dear to his Father, even when he hung upon the Cross, should die on purpose to satisfy a revenge, which would be satisfied with no meaner Sacrifice.  
We may understand how the death of Christ satisfied the justice of God considered as the wise and holy Governor of the World; as it secured the Authority of his Laws and the Glory of his Government, and vindicated the Holiness of his Nature that God may now forgive Sin without injuring any of his Attributes, or giving any encouragement to Sinners to continue wicked, which seems to be the proper satisfaction of a governing justice; but wherein soever the Nature of this Atonement consists, it is sufficient to us to know, that God accepts of the death of Christ, as an Atonement for our sins, which seals to us the pardon of our sins, and the promise of eternal happiness upon the conditions of Faith and Repentance and a new life.  
And does it become such silly Creatures as we are to limit infinite Wisdom, and to assert, that God could not possibly have found out any other way for the Redemption of Mankind? let those say so, who dare pretend to comprehend infinite Wisdom; for without an infinite Understanding, none can tell what is possible to an infinite Mind.  
But does this make Christ useless, or argue, that we may be saved without him, now God has pitched upon this way for the Salvation of sinners, because it is possible God might have chose some other way of Salvation? When God has rejected all other ways, and chose one, that one becomes absolutely necessary, as if there were no other possible way; for we must be saved in such a way as God has appointed, not in such ways as God might have appointed, but has not. This is a sufficient answer to those several quotations out of my Book against the satisfaction of a natural-vindictive justice and revenge, and he who would see more of it, may find it in my Defence, pag. 523, etc.  
And though our Author has played his old tricks in his quotations, I shall only take notice of that representation he has made of this Doctrine, pag. 47. A Saviour is the less needful, because God's Justice is not natural, though his Mercy is, and the fears of sinful men (and so of Angels) of God's Justice are but the workings of a heated fancy, and religious distraction. But where did I ever affirm, that Justice is not as natural to God, as Holiness and Goodness? Indeed I reject such a notion of a vindictive Justice, as imposes a necessity of nature upon God to punish the least sin with eternal miseries without an atonement and propitiation; but still I acknowledge, that God is an irreconcilable enemy to all wickedness, and that he will certainly punish all incorrigible sinners, that the atonement of Christ himself cannot reconcile him to bad men, while they continue so; and therefore that he is as naturally just as he is holy: and where did I ever affirm, That the fears of sinful men of God's Justice are but the workings of a heated fancy, and religious distraction? The place he refers to he transcribes, p. 42. The workings of the Law, the amazing terrors of God's wrath, the raging despair of damned Spirits, are the workings of a heated fancy, and religious distraction: which he quotes from pag. 95. Of Knowledge of Christ. Let us then turn to the place, and behold our Author's most shameful dishonesty. I was there discoursing of the method of a sinner's recovery by Christ, and add these words: If our Faith in Christ have reform our lives, and rectified the temper and disposition of our minds, and made us sincere lovers of God and goodness, though we are not acquainted with these artificial methods of repentance; have not felt the workings of the Law, nor the amazing terrors of God's wrath, nor the raging despair of damned Spirits, and then all on a sudden (as if we had never heard of any such thing before) have had Christ offered to us to be our Saviour, and heard the woo and beseechings of Christ to accept him, and upon this have made a formal contract and espousal with Christ, and such like workings of a heated fancy, and a religious distraction (which you see does not refer to the workings of the Law, and the terrors of God's wrath, but to what immediately goes before, which is all the work of fancy) though our conversion be not managed with so much art and method, and by so many steps and gradations, we are never the worse Christians for want of it, etc.  
Now can any man from these words honestly accuse me of asserting, that sinners ought not to be afraid of God's Justice, because I say, that if men be really converted, as they may be, without feeling those amazing terrors, they are never the worse Christians for it: whereas my Adversaries assert, that let a man be never so holy in his life, he is an unregenerate man, unless he has first been under the Law, and a spirit of bondage, as they speak, and ready to run mad with despair.  
Thirdly, at the same rate he proves, that I make Christ useless now he is come; because I deny the imputation of Christ's personal Righteousness to us, as the formal cause of our Justification; that I deny, that Christ was such a surety for Saints, as acts wholly in our stead, that whatever he did and suffered is accounted as done and suffered by us, and that he is not such a Mediator, as performs all the conditions of the Covenant for us, and leaves nothing for us to do, but to cleave to the Person of Christ, and apply his personal Righteousness to ourselves. The sum of which charge is, that Christ is wholly useless, if he have left any thing for us to do in order to our Salvation: and so far I acknowledge I do make Christ useless; for I believe, that notwithstanding all that Christ hath done and suffered, no man shall be saved by him, but upon the condition of such a sincere Faith as changes and renews his nature, and governs his life and actions.  
I shall not go to dispute these matters now with T. Danson, for that is not his Talon; I have already sufficiently explained and vindicated these notions in my Defence, in Answer to Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson, and there, whoever pleases may find an Answer to whatever this Whiffler has suggested, and a great deal more, p. 120, etc. p. 459, etc. p. 488.  
His last accusation is concerning the Nature of our Union to Christ and the influences of Grace derived from Christ, where he talks like a Man, who neither understands me, nor himself; and the truth is, as he 
See the Doctrine of our Union to Christ fully handled in Defence and Cont. Ch. 5. p. 399.  says well, it was a disparagement to Domitian to catch Flies: and therefore to rid my hands of such an idle employment, and yet to do right to myself and a good cause, I shall give the World once more a short abstract of the Doctrine of my first Book, which I drew up in the first Chapter of my Defence, and shall reprint it here, for the sake of those who will read such a short Pamphlet as this, but will not look into a bigger Book.   

A Short Account of the Design and Doctrine of the Discourse concerning the Knowledge of Christ, etc. Taken out of the Defence and Continuation. Ch. 1. p. 15.  
THE Design I proposed to myself in that Discourse, was to reconcile that Love and Honour and Adoration, Trust and Affiance, which all Christians owe to their Lord and Saviour, with the necessity of obeying his Laws, and being conformed to his Example; that esteem and reverence we owe to the Person of Christ, with a reverence for his Laws; that no man might expect to be saved by Christ, though he be infinitely gracious and compassionate, and inherit all the boundless Perfections of the Deity, without the practice of an universal Righteousness. And therefore I showed that all those Considerations which 
Chap. 2.  did naturally result from the contemplation of the Person of Christ, as he is the Eternal Son of God, who was made Man, and sent into the World to accomplish the work of our Redemption, did necessarily engage us to obey his Laws, but gave us no encouragement to expect any thing more from him upon his Personal account, than what he hath promised in his Gospel.  
This (I observed) was a plain demonstration of God's love to Mankind, that he sent so great and so dear a Person as his only begotten Son, to save Sinners:— No man can doubt of God's good will to Sinners, who sees the Son of God clothed with our flesh, and dying as a sacrifice for our sins; and this gives relief to our guilty fears, and encourages us to retrieve our past follies by new Obedience. No man will return to his Duty without some hope of Pardon and Forgiveness for his past sins; and the proper use of God's love in sending Christ into the World, is to conquer our obstinacy, and to encourage our Hopes.  
Thus the greatness of Christ's Person gives great Reverence and Authority to his Gospel, and an inviolable Sanction to his Laws, as the Apostle argues; If the word spoken by Angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of Reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, 2 Heb. 1, 2, 3.  
And this gives great Authority to his Example, and lays forcible obligations on us to imitate him, who was not only our Saviour but God incarnate.  
And this assures us of the infinite value of his Sacrifice, and of the power of his Intercession: God cannot but be pleased, when his own Son undertakes to be a Ransom, and to make Atonement for Sinners, which is so great a vindication of God's Dominion and Sovereignty, of the authority of his Laws, and the wisdom and justice of his Providence, that he may securely pardon humble and penitent sinners without reproaching any of his Attributes; and we can desire no greater security for the performance of this Gospel-Covenant, than that it was sealed with the blood of the Son of God.  
And this is a great encouragement to return to God, when we have such a powerful Advocate and Mediator to intercede for us.  
But then we must expect no more from Christ, upon account of his personal Excellencies and Perfections, than what he hath promised in his Gospel. Christ is the object of our Faith and Hope, only as he is our Saviour; and he is our Saviour in no other sense, than as he is our Mediator; and he mediates for us as our Priest, that is, in virtue of that Covenant, which he hath sealed with his blood; and therefore we have no reason to expect any thing from the Person of Christ which is not contained in his Covenant, much less, which contradicts it; for that would be, in effect, to renounce his Mediation, and to trust to the goodness of his Nature.  
Christ will in his own Person accomplish all those Promises he hath made, whether they concern the present assistances of his Grace, or his Providence and Protection in this World, or the future rewards of the next: but we must learn what Christ will do for us, and upon what terms, not from the boundless Perfections and Excellencies of his Person, but from the Declarations of the Gospel, though the consideration of his Person, who he is, and how he lived, and what he taught, may convince any man, that he will be a Saviour to none but those who live in the practice of that Righteousness, of which he was a Preacher and Example.  
Now to silence the clamours of some men, who upbraided those Preachers who spent their greatest zeal in expounding the Laws of Christ, and in pressing men by all the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel (the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ, the necessity of a good Life to make men happy hereafter, and the many great advantages of Holiness here, etc.) to the practice of an universal Righteousness; I say, to silence the clamours of those, who upbraided such Preachers, with not preaching Christ, I considered in the next place, what it is to know Christ, and so consequently, what it is to 
Discourse of the Knowledge of Christ, Chap. 3.  preach Him; and the sum of it was this, That to know Christ, is to be acquainted with that Revelation which Christ hath made of Gods will to the World: For as in former Ages God made himself known by the light of Nature, and the works of Creation and Providence, and those partial and occasional Revelations of his Will, which he made to good men; now in these last days he hath sent his Son into the World, to declare his Will to us: And therefore the only useful knowledge is to understand those Revelations, which Christ hath made of God's Will, the necessary consequence of which is, that he, who expounds the Laws and Doctrine of the Gospel, does in the most proper sense preach Christ, as Philip is said to preach Christ to the Samaritans, Act. 8. 5. which in ver. 12. is called, Preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ; that is, the whole Doctrine of the Gospel.  
The whole Christian Religion is the Knowledge of Christ, and the Laws of Righteousness, and the Motives to Obedience as principal a part as any, because this was the ultimate design of Christ's coming into the World to reform men's lives, and to prepare them for the happiness of the next World, by transforming them into a Divine Nature: All that Christ did and suffered, was only in order to this end; and then we understand all those Mysteries of the Incarnation, and Death, and Intercession of Christ, as much as is necessary to the purposes of Religion, when we understand what obligations they lay on us to a holy Life, and feel their power and virtue in renewing and sanctifying our minds.  
In the next place I observed, that the foundation of the greatest and most dangerous mistakes, was laid in a wrong notion of our Union to Christ, of which some men discourse in such uncouth and Cabbalistical terms, as no body can understand, and therefore I endeavoured to state the true notion of our Union to Christ, and 
Chap. 4.  Communion with him.  
And the sum of it is this, that those Metaphors which describe our union to Christ, do primarily refer to the Christian Church, not to every individual Christian; as Christ is the Head, and the Church or whole Society of Christians his Body; a Husband, and the Church his Spouse; a Shepherd, and the Church his Flock; a Rock, whereon his Church is built; the chief corner Stone, and the Church a holy Temple.  
But as for particular Christians, their Union to Christ is by means of their Union to the Christian Church: that is, no man can be united to Christ, till he be a Christian; and no man is in the Scripture account a Christian, till he make a public profession of his Faith, and be solemnly admitted into the Christian Church, which is the Body of Christ, for which he died, and to which all the Promises of the Gospel are made.  
A secret and private Faith in Christ is not ordinarily enough to make any man a Christian; but Faith in the Heart, and the Confession of the Mouth are both necessary: Rom. 10. 9, 10. Christ himself hath appointed the public Sacrament of our Initiation, and our Church teaches her Children, that in their Baptism (which is their solemn admission into the Christian Church) They are made Members of Christ, the Children of God, and the Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
But I have abundantly confirmed this Notion in my former Discourse, and those who would be more fully satisfied in it, may have recourse thither. The next thing to be considered is, what is the true nature of this Union betwixt Christ and his Church, and the most general and comprehensive notion is, that it is a Political, not a natural Union: the Union between Christ and his Church consists in their mutual Relations to each other; now those Relations whereby the Scripture represents this Union, signify Power and Authority on Christ's part, and Inferiority and Subjection in the Church: Christ is the Head and Husband, which signifies Rule and Government; and the Church is his Spouse and Body; and therefore as the Wife is subject to the Husband, and the Body to the Head, so the Church must be subject to Christ; and the like may be said of all those other Relations, whereby this Union is described.  
Only when I call it a Political Union, you must not imagine, that it is only such an external Relation, as is between a Prince and his Subjects; because Christ is a spiritual King, and his Authority reaches to the Heart and Spirit, which no Humane Power can: no man is in a proper sense a Subject of Christ's Kingdom, but he who governs his Heart and Spirit, as well as his external Actions, by the Laws of the Gospel; and though an external and visible profession of the Gospel entitles men to an external Communion with the Christian Church, because the external Government of the Church is committed to men, who cannot discern hearts and thoughts; yet whoever does not heartily obey Christ, is not really united to him; for the subjection of the Mind and Spirit is the principal thing which denominates us the Subjects of a spiritual King: and therefore this may be called a Spiritual-Political Union, which principally respects the Subjection of our Minds and Spirits to Christ, and does necessarily include a participation of the same nature with him, and a mutual and reciprocal love: It is a Political Union because it consists in the Authority and Government of Christ as a Head and Husband, and in the Subjection and Obedience of the Church, as his Body and Spouse: and it is Spiritual, because the Authority of Christ does not only teach our outward Actions, as the Government of Earthly Princes does, but extends itself to our Minds and Spirits: and if you will put it into other words, our Union to Christ consists in a hearty belief of his Revelations, in obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority, this makes us the Church the Temple of God, wherein he dwells, as he formerly did in the Temple at Jerusalem; this is that which the Scripture calls having Fellowship and Communion with God and Christ, which signifies being of that Society, which puts us into a peculiar relation to God, that God is our Father, and we his Children; that Christ is our Head and Husband, our Lord and Master, we his Disciples and Followers, his Spouse and his Body: this entitles us to his Merits and Righteousness, to his peculiar Care and Providence, to the Influences of his Grace, to the Power of his Intercession, to all those blessings, which he hath purchased for, and promised to his Church.  
Now besides that this Notion is plain and intelligible, and very aptly agrees with all those Metaphors and Forms of Speech, whereby the Scripture represents our Union to Christ, there are these two great advantages we gain by it: first that this is a plain demonstration of the evil and danger of Schism, a sin which very few men have any sense of in these days; for if our Union to Christ as our Head, necessarily requires our Union to the Christian Church, which is his Body, then to divide from the Christian Church, or any true and sound part of it, does not only make a Rent in the Body of Christ, which is a very great evil, but divides us from Christ; as a Member, which is separated from the Body, is separated from the Head too: this makes the Sentence of Excommunication so dreadful, because it cuts us off from the Body of Christ; and this Sentence every Schismatic executes upon himself, and that more infallibly too than Church-governors can; for they may be mistaken in the Justice of the Cause, and may separate those from the external Communion of the Church, who are spiritually united to Christ; and then their Sentence is reversed by a superior Tribunal: But whoever causelessly separates from the Christian Church, or any part of it, does infallibly divide himself from Christ, unless it be through such invincible mistakes, as may mitigate the crime, and plead his excuse; for Schism is a work of the flesh, the effect of Pride, and Passion, or Interest, or some other carnal Lust; and it concerns those men, who make so light of Schism, to consider, how they expect to be saved by Christ, who is only the Saviour of the Body, when they have divided themselves from his Body, and are no longer any part or member of it.  
A second advantage, which we gain by this notion, is this, that it gives a plain account of the necessity of Holiness and Obedience to entitle us to the Merits of Christ, and Justification by him, and to all those Promises, which Christ hath made to his Body and Members; whoever is in Christ, and united to him, shall certainly be saved by him; for he is the Saviour of the Body; and our Justification is not owing to our own Merits and Deserts, but to the Merits of Christ, for whose sake alone, God hath promised to justify and reward those, who are united to him; but since our Union to Christ consists in the subjection of our Souls and Bodies to him, Holiness and Obedience is as necessary a condition of our Justification by Christ, as it is essential to our Union to him: We cannot be justified by Christ, till we are united to him, and we are not united to him, till we obey him: this gives the glory of all to Christ, because we are justified for his sake, by virtue of our Union to him, and yet vindicates the necessity of a holy Life, because this is essential to our Union to Christ.  
And this is the sum of whatever I asserted concerning the necessity of Good Works to our Justification; not that they can merit any thing of God, but that they are the necessary conditions of the Covenant of Grace, which was purchased and sealed by the blood of Christ; or in other words, that they are necessary to our. Union with Christ, and thereby to give us an interest in all those Promises of Pardon and Grace, and Eternal Life, which Christ hath made to his Church. The Righteousness of Christ is our Righteousness, when we speak of the Foundation of the Covenant, by which we are accepted; but if we speak of the terms of the Covenant, than we must have a Righteousness of our own, not to merit Justification or Eternal Life, but to entitle us to the Grace and Mercy of the New Covenant, or which is all one, to unite us to Christ, by whom and for whose sake we are justified: to say, that Obedience to the Laws of the Gospel, a new Nature, and Holiness of Life, are the necessary conditions of our Justification by Christ, and to say, that they are essential to our Union to Christ, by whom we are justified, are different forms of Speech, but signify the same thing; because Christ justifies none but those who are united to him, and none are united to him but by Faith and Obedience; and so è converso, those who believe and obey the Gospel are in so doing united to Christ, and they, and none else, shall be justified by him: which gives a plain account, how the Virtue and Merit of all is due to Christ, because we are justified by our relation to him; and explains the meaning of those Phrases of receiving Christ, and coming to him for Life and Salvation, and believing in him; which signifies our being united to him by a sincere Faith and Obedience, which is necessarily required of all those who would be justified by him.  
In the last Chapter I give a short account of the nature of Christ's love to us, and of our love to Christ, that no man might mistake the love of Christ for a fond and easy passion, nor think to please him with some heats and raptures of Fancy, instead of the substantial Returns of Duty and Obedience: the sum of which in short is this; that Christ expressed a wonderful and stupendious Love in dying for us, especially in dying for us while we were his Enemies; upon which account the Scripture every where magnifies the love of Christ: but though this were the greatest, yet it is not the only expression of his love, but he manifests the same good will in all the methods of his Grace and Providence: he is an easy and gentle Governor, who rules with the natural tenderness and compassion of a Shepherd, a Husband, a Head, a Friend: He pities our weaknesses and infirmities, and is ready to help and succour us; he is now ascended up to Heaven, where he personally intercedes for us, and with his own hand dispenses all those Blessings to us, which we want, and pray for in his Name. And he who loved Sinners so as to die for them, must needs take pleasure in good men, and dwell with them as one Friend dwells with another, Joh. 14. 21, 23. Christ will in a more special manner be present with such good men, who are careful in all things to obey him, and will give very sensible demonstrations of his presence with them, will manifest himself unto them, and make his abode with them.  
And now in return to this, we must consider that Christ is our Superior, our Lord, and Master, and therefore our love to Christ must not express itself in a fond and familiar passion, such as we have for our Friends and Equals, but in a great Reverence and Devotion. Superiors must be treated with Honour and Respect, and therefore our love to our Parents and Superiors in the Fifth Commandment is called Honour; and the same religious Affection to God, which is sometimes called Love, is at other times called Fear, which signifies a Reverential Love, or a Love of Honour, Reverence, and Devotion: and therefore the external expressions of our love to our Saviour are as various, as the expressions of Honour, and must bear some respect to the nature and condition of the Person, and that relation we stand in to him: Christ being the only begotten Son of God, we must have regard to the Greatness and Excellency of his Person: Since he became Man, and died for us, we must admire and praise his Goodness: He being our Mediator and Advocate, we must trust and confide in him, and expect the returns of our Prayers, and all other Blessings from the prevalency of his Intercession: He being our Prophet and Lawgiver, we must express our Love to him in a belief of his Gospel, and a sincere Obedience to his Laws; as Christ requires of his Disciples, If you love me, keep my Commandments: And when we consider our Saviour as our Guide and Example, the truest expression of our Love and Honour is to imitate him, to live as he lived in the World: And that which perfects our Love, is an undaunted courage and resolution in professing the Faith of Christ, whatever dangers and miseries it may expose us to in this World: For there is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear. These are the proper expressions of our love to Christ, which are summarily comprehended in believing his Gospel, and obeying it; for to be a true Lover of Christ, signifies neither more nor less, than to be a good Christian.  
This is a faithful account of the Design and Doctrine of my Book, which hath raised so much noise and clamour, and hath sharpened the Pens and Tongues of so many against me; but it is a vain attempt to think to outface the Sun; these are such bright and glorious Truths as will outshine all the New Lights of present or former Ages, and command belief from all honest and inquisitive Minds, by their own natural Evidence.  
The Doctrines which I designedly opposed in that Discourse, are such as contradict these great Truths, or at least such, as I apprehended to do so, either expressly, or in their immediate consequences; and because this is the principal thing which has angered so many men, whose Cause and Reputation are concerned in the quarrel, I shall give some brief account, what those Doctrines are, and in what sense I reject them, which I hope may silence those scandalous Reports, as if I had struck at the very Foundations of Christianity.  
And first whereas I observed, that to know Christ, signifies the belief and knowledge of those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World, which includes whatever he hath revealed to us concerning his own Person, Natures, Mediation, and the whole Will of God concerning our Salvation, which must be learned from the express Declarations of the Gospel, not from some fanciful and imaginary consequences, which is a very unsafe way in matters of pure Revelation; Doctor Owen hath advanced an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ, as the only Medium of saving knowledge; that is, when we have from the Gospel learned, who Christ is, what he hath done and suffered for us; when we have learned those things which concern his Person, Offices, and Work, we may then give free scope to our fancies, and draw such conclusions, as are no where expressly contained in Scripture, or could not possibly have been learned from Scripture, at least not clearly and savingly, without such an Acquaintance with the Person of Christ, that is, without reasoning and drawing conclusions from what Christ hath done and suffered. These conclusions must be form into artificial Theories and Schemes of Religion, and then these are the great Gospel-Mysteries, and the only saving knowledge of Christ: and those men only preach Christ, who fill people's heads with such choice Speculations, as they have learned from this Acquaintance with Christ.  
I thought there was very great reason to oppose this Principle, which gave such boundless scope to men's fancies, and allowed every man to frame and mould a Religion according to his own humour; and was the more confirmed in this, when I observed what strange Mysteries the Doctor himself had learned from this Acquaintance with Christ, which I am sure without this, he could never have learned either from Scripture or Reason; I gave several instances of this nature out of his own Writings, which shall be made good in due time; at present I must observe what Doctrines I there reject, and in what fence.  
I rejected such a notion of God's Justice, as represents him as fierce and savage as the worst of beings; such a notion of Justice as disparages the Satisfaction of Christ, as if the whole design of it were to gratify Revenge, and to appease a furious and merciless Deity; which notion at first frighted Socinus out of his Wits, and made him rather choose to deny the satisfaction of Christ, than to believe any thing so unworthy of God; though thanks be to God, that we need do neither.  
I reject such a notion of Justice, as disparages the Wisdom of God in the contrivance of our Redemption by Jesus Christ: for if it were absolutely necessary for God to punish sin, and there were no other Person in the World fit or able to bear the punishment of sin, and to make expiation for it, but only Christ, there was required no great Wisdom to make the choice.  
I reject such a notion of the Mercy and Patience of God, as represents it to be the effect only of the satisfaction of Revenge, which is like the tameness of an angry man, when his passion is over, which is an unworthy conceit of the infinite Love and Goodness of the Divine Nature.  
I reject such a notion of Mercy, as represents God to be fond and easy to Sinners, while they continue so; and I think such a notion of Justice and Mercy very unworthy of God, which represents him more concerned to punish Sin, than to reform it: And is it not hard, that a man must be scandalised with denying the satisfaction of Christ, and blaspheming God, merely for rejecting such doctrines, as are injurious to the Satisfaction of Christ, and when they are pursued to their just and natural consequences, are downright blasphemy against God: this is a certain way to prevent the confutation of such Doctrines, for you cannot confute them without discovering their blasphemy, and whoever does so, shall himself be charged as a Blasphemer.  
But to proceed, I reject such a notion of our Union 
Chap. 4. Sect. 2.  to the Person of Christ, as is unintelligible, such as the Great Patrons of it cannot explain, nor any one else understand; for since all our hopes of Salvation depend upon our Union to Christ, I can by no means think, that this is such a Mystery, as surpasses humane knowledge; for that on which the happiness of all men depends, aught in reason to be so plain, that it may be understood by all.  
I reject such a notion of our Union to the Person of Christ, as entitles us to all the Personal Excellencies, Fullness, Beauty, and to the Personal Righteousness of Christ, as much as Marriage entitles a Woman to her Husband's Estate: that whatever Christ hath done and suffered is as much reckoned ours, when we are united to him, as if we had done and suffered the same things ourselves; and that upon this account we are justified only by the Righteousness of Christ, without respect to any inherent Righteousness in ourselves.  
Now I reject this, because no Union can thus entitle us to Christ's personal Excellencies and Righteousness, but such a natural Union as makes Christ and Believers One Person, that they are Christed with Christ, which is an absurd and dangerous Heresy; but neither our Marriage to Christ, nor his being our Surety, or Mediator, can effect this; for whatever Union there may be between the Person of Christ and the Persons of Believers, while their Persons remain distinct, their Properties and Qualifications and Righteousness must be considered as distinct too; and though we may receive great advantage by what Christ hath done and suffered, yet it cannot be reckoned ours, in that strict notion, as if it had been done by us: and there is a vast difference between these two notions; for the first only makes the Righteousness of Christ the meritorious cause of our Pardon and Reward, which makes it necessary to have a Righteousness of our own to entitle us to these Blessings; but the second makes the Righteousness of Christ our Personal Righteousness, which destroys the necessity of any inherent Righteousness in ourselves; but of this more hereafter.  
I reject such a notion of our Union to Christ, whereby bad men may be, ●ay must be united to Christ, while they continue in their sins: for if it once be granted (as it must be granted, if we believe the Gospel) that our Union to Christ gives us an actual interest in all his Promises, such as Pardon of Sin, and Eternal Life; it is easy to observe how this overthrows the whole Design of the Gospel; if a bad man, while he continues so, may be united to Christ; for than he is a Son of God, and an Heir of Everlasting Life; and what becomes then of all those Gospel-threatning, which denounce the wrath of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men? When Christ tells us, That he who breaks the least of his Commandments, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; that except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, we shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And when S. Paul tells us, The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, Adultery, Fornication, Uncleanness, Lasciviousness, Idolatry, Witchcraft, Hatred, Variance, Emulations, Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Heresies, Envyings, Murders, Drunkenness, Revellings, and such like, of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, Gal. v. 19, 20, 21. I say, must these and such like places, which so expressly denounce the wrath of God against all wickedness and impieties, be expounded with this limitation, that this shall be the portion of such men, unless they be united to Christ, and thereby sheltered from the wrath of God, as a Wife under covert is secured from all Arrests at Law? But as soon as any man hath got into Christ, let him be what he will, he is redeemed from the curse of the Law, and made an Heir of Eternal Life: And does not this effectually evacuate all the threatenings of the Gospel, and set up the Person of Christ, as a Refuge and Sanctuary for the Ungodly, and make the Grace of Christ's Person a Dispensation from his own Laws and threatenings? I am sure the Apostle understood not this limitation, as is plain from what he adds, vers. 24. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts. And in Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus; and that we might not mistake him, he expressly tells us, whom he means, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This is essential to our Union to Christ, and to entitle us to the Grace of the Gospel.  
And it is not enough to say, that Christ will save none, but those who do live very holy lives, because there is no reason for this saying: for if men are united to Christ before they are holy, their very Union to Christ gives them a title to eternal Life, and this can never be reconciled with the antecedent necessity of Holiness, which the Gospel inculcates, not only to qualify us for actual Salvation, but to give us a right to it: and therefore I had good reason to reject ●his notion of Union, unless I would renounce the whole Gospel.  
I reject such a notion of Union, as makes it impossible for any man to know, either how to get into Christ, or whether he be in Christ or not; and I think every man, who values the salvation of his soul, or the peace and comfort of his own mind, hath reason to reject this too.  
I reject such a notion of Sanctification, as makes it impossible to distinguish a sanctified from an unsanctifiest state.  
I reject such a notion of Christ's love to us as represents it too like a fond and foolish passion, as respects the very Person, without regard to any Qualifications in him, whether he be a fit object of love or not, which is so great an imperfection in humane love, that I cannot imagine it to be the perfection of a Divine Love.  
And I reject such a notion of the immutability of Christ's love, as sin itself cannot alter, which is contrary to all the Declarations of his Gospel, and inconsistent with the Holiness and Purity of his Nature.  
I reject such a notion of our love to Christ, as excludes all respect to the infinite love of Christ, and those numerous Benefits we receive by him; which the Scripture assigns as the true reason of our love to Christ.  
I reject such a notion of love to Christ, as excludes all regard to our own Happiness and Salvation by him, and must make us contented to be damned, and eternally separated from him; which is not only impossible to humane Nature, but contrary to the Principles of Christianity.  
I reject such a notion of our love to Christ, as opposes our Love to Christ to our Duty and Obedience to him, which is the most proper and natural expression of our love of him; such a love as consists only in some flights of fancy and imagination, in admiring and valuing the Person of Jesus Christ, and in preferring him above all Legal Righteousness, and blamelesness of Conversation, and Duties upon Conviction; and in using all Duties and Ordinances only to have us over to Christ, for Righteousness and Salvation, and whatever we need; for this is no better than to set up the Person of Christ in opposition to his Laws and Religion.  
This is a short and plain account of all the material Doctrines of my Book, and I dare appeal to any man of common honesty, whether these Principles give as much hope of Salvation to the Devils as to Mankind, whether they make Christ and his Gospel useless, and whether our Author be not a great Artist at misrepresenting the plainest Truths, which are so plain, that no man of an ordinary understanding could mistake their meaning: and that he should do this after I had cleared my notions from popular mistakes, and silenced those clamours which were raised against my first Discourse in my Defence and Continuation, without taking the least notice of any thing I had there said. I could have given many more instances of his foul play, had I not studied a short Answer. I have let pass his scurrilous reflections and unjust insinuations of Socinianism, as either unworthy of any notice, or already sufficiently baffled in my Defence: when he pretends to argue, it is so very childish, that I thought it as ridiculous an attempt to answer it, as it would be very gravely to confute Tom Thumb, or merry Andree, or a Town Lampoon; and though the most proper return to such persons, is to laugh them out of countenance, yet I confess, I am not in a laughing humour; for it is a sad consideration to all sober Christians, that the holy Religion of our Saviour should be treated with such scurrility, that every thing that is sacred and serious, should be turned into ridicule, to make sport for Atheists and Buffoons, that one who pretends to be a Reformer of the Reformation, to be got much above the low and beggarly Dispensation of the Church of England, should bring the Devil upon the Stage disputing about Religion, which if it were no more, is as great a scorn as can be put upon it. And now sure there is no need for me to chastise such an Offender; if his own Brethren be such tender conscienced men, as they pretend, they cannot but correct such an affront offered to God, and such injustice to man; for lying and slandering, and burlesquing Religion are certainly much greater impieties, than wearing a Surplice, or using a sober Form of Prayer.  
FINIS.