fion caft them away, muft God make them good? Chap. 5. Must he follow after a Rebel, a wasting bankrupt Creature, to repair the loft Image, and fet him up again with a new stock of Grace? No: He, who made him ex beneplacito, cannot be bound ex juftitia, to new-frame him, being broken; He might without the least spot of injustice, have left all mankind in the ruins of the Fall.

3. The cafe of the fallen Angels determines this point: When they left their Principle, or first Estate, Did God capitulate, or enter into new Articles with them? Was there a tabula poft naufragium, a room for Faith or Repentance? Had they a Chrift, or a Gofpel tendred unto them? No, they were caft down immediately into chains of darkness. The sentence was irreverfible, their mifery eternal; an-. nihilation would have been a kind of favour to them. That God, who stood upon the first terms with Angels, fuperior creatures, might have done fo with man, being a little lower than those glorious Creatures. I know there are differences affigned between the two Cafes. Angels were the first tranfgreffors, the ring-leaders in fin: Man followed after. The Angels had a moft pure light, and that without any allay of flesh: Mans intellect was lower, and in conjunction with matter. The Angels finned by felf-motion, and of their own meerly: Man finned by feduction, and through the guile of the Serpent. In the Fall of Angels, all the Angelical nature fell not: In Adams Fall, all the humane Nature fell, no Religion was left in the lower world. But notwithstanding all this, God might in Juftice have stood upon the first terms with Man, as well as

Chap. 5. with Angels; and that he did not do so, it was from meer Grace, as the primary Reason thereof.

4. Grace is in a very eminent manner lifted up in the Gospel. Grace gives Chrift, and Faith to believe in him. Grace juftifies and fanctifies. Grace faves and crowns with a bleffed Immortality. Everywhere in the Gospel founds forth, Grace, Grace; but if God might not justly have stood upon the old terms, the giving of new ones to Man, was not Grace, but Debt; not Mercy, but Juftice. Those Novatores, who fay, That it would have been unjuft for God to have condemned Adams Posterity for the firft Sin, do thereby overturn the Grace of the Gospel. The Apostle, who is much rather to be believed, faith exprefly, That by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, Rom. 5. 18; that is, according to the terms of the old Covenant; but if the old terms might not have been stood upon, the new ones must be neceffary and due to mankind, and fo no Grace at all. They who deny the Juftice of the old Covenant, overturn the Grace of the new.

C

God, as we fee, might have stood upon the old terms, even to the utter ruin of fallen mankind. But, oh! immenfe Love! He would not; he would do fo with Angels, but he would not with Men; an abatement was made to them, not afforded to those nobler Creatures, once Inmates of Heaven. In the cafe of Sodom, God came down lower and lower, from fifty righteous perfons, to forty five; and fo at laft to ten, I will not do it for tens fake, Gen. 18. 32. But in the cafe of fallen man, when all had finned, when there was none righteous, no, not one;

God

God comes down from the first terms made with Chap. 5. Man, to fuch lower ones as might comply with his frailty. Under the Law there were Sacrifices called by the Jewish Doctors, Gnoleh Wajored, afcending, and defcending. The rich man offered a Lamb, the poor, whofe hand could not reach fo far, offered two Turtle-Doves. While Man was rich in Holy Powers and Excellencies, God called for pure perfect finlefs Obedience; but after the Fall, he being poor in Spirituals, altogether unable to pay fuch a fum, God ftoops and accommodates himself to Humane weakness; a faithful conatus, a fincere, though imperfect Obedience, will ferve the turn in order to Mans happiness. This is the first step which infinite Mercy takes in raifing up Man out of the ruins of the Fall, The old terms were not stood upon.

But now, that new terms might be made and established, that the fecond Covenant might have an happier iffue than the firft, Mercy goes on to give the Son of God for us: God fo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlafting life, John 3. 16. This (fo) is unutterable, this Love unmeasurable, diffufing it felf, not to Jews only, but to a World, and that overwhelmed in fin; giving, and that freely, without any Merit of ours, a Son, and an only begotten Son, that we through faith in him might have life eternal, and there enjoy him who is Love it felf, for ever. Here is a Mine of Love too deep and rich for any Creature to fathom, or count the value of it. But before I open it, I fhall first remove the ill ufe which

L 2

the

1. I. c. 7.

lucet? Cui ira

filium in mortem

Chap. 5. the Socinians make of this Love,. to overturn Chrifts Satisfaction. If God (fay they) fo loved us, as Oportuige to give his Son for us, then he was not angry with Deum jam pla catiffimum effe, us; and if not angry, then there was no need at all Soc. de Serv. of a Satisfaction to be made for us. Unto which I Non vos pudet, anfwer; Anger and Love are not inconfiftencies, in iram divinam, Scripture both are attributed unto God: He gave eamq, immen- his Son for us, was not that Love, immenfe Love? abi nil nifi im. He wounded and bruifed him for our iniquities: he menfus amore made him to be fin and a curfe for us Was not there Jebatur Deus, Wrath, great Wrath? We have both together in cum unigenitum one Text, Herein is love, not that we loved. Gad, dabat ? Scli- but that he loved us, and fent his Son to be the proing contr. pitiation for our fins, 1 John 4. 10. The high Emphafis of his Love, was in giving his Son to be a Propitiation for us: unless there had been just anger, a Propitiation would have been needlefs; unless there had been immenfe Love, his Son fhould not have been made one for us. We have a plain inftance in Job's friends; Gods Wrath. was kindled against them, and yet in love he directs them to atone him by a Sacrifice, Job 42. 7, 8. God could not but be angry at the Sin of the World, and yet in love he gave his Son to be an expiatory Sacrifice. But for a more full answer, I fhall lay down feveral things:

Meifn.

1. God may be confidered either as a Rector, or as a Benefactor. As a Rector, he acts out of a just anger in vindicating his broken Law by Penal Sufferings. As a Benefactor, he, acts out of admirable love, in giving his Son, to be a Propitiation for us. When he vindicates his Law by Punishments, Is it not Anger? when he gives his Son for us, Is it not Love?

*

Love? If he be a Rector, Can he not be a Benefa- Chap. 5. ctor too? Then he could not give his Son without laying down of his Government. If he be a Benefactor, Can he not be a Rector too? Then he could not govern, without laying down his Love; but if, as the truth is, he may be both, then Anger and Love may confist together.

2. Gods difpleasure may be taken either as it terminates on the fin, or as it terminates on the finner; as it terminates on the fin, it is altogether unremovable. God himself, with reverence be it spoken, can no more remove it, than he can lay down his Sanctity, which in the very notion of it, includes an abhorrency of fin: As it terminates on. the finner, fo it may be removed. This appears, in that God pardons fin, and that (as the Scripturephrafe imports) in fuch a way, that the Penal Sufferings are tranflated from the finner himfelf to his Sponfor. The Divine displeasure did pass off from us, or else we could not have been pardoned or faved; and it did light upon Chrift, or elfe that Holy One could not have been made a Curfe, which no meer Sufferings, if abftracted from Divine Wrath, can amount unto. We fee here, there is displeasure at the fin, and yet infinite love.. towards the finner, in tranflating the punishment upon another.

3. Gods Love is double, a Love of Complacence,which delights in the Creature, and a Love of Benevolence, which defigns good to it. The first takes pleasure in the Saints, who bear his holy Image. The fecond diffufes it felf to finners, who in themselves are worthy of Wrath. Hence the Apostle tells us,

Godi