WHen I had done, M ^r Coppe began: he first Prayed and after Preached: as for his Prayer, I shall not meddle with it, I heard but little of it, and of what I heard, I knew not what to make: some told me he began as Aristotle ended, Thou being of beings, with another new-coyn'd appellation, unlimited Almightinesse. I referre these [Page 26]points to that God that heard it. As for his Sermon, it contained two parts, the first had most relation to what I had spoken in my exhortation: The second concern'd the text in Esay 40. ult. Who gave Jacob to the spoyle, and Israell to the rob­bers, did not I the Lord.

In these two was much to be obser­ved. I shall briefely note the chiefest in it.

As for the former part of his dis­course which referd to mine, something in it concerned my selfe, and otherwhat the matter.

For what concern'd my selfe, there was a hint of Ʋsurpation.

Ans. My preaching there and then, was not from usurpation. I was called to it by God, Mark. 16. 2 Tim. 4.11. its a generall Gospel war­rant Goe preach the Gospel to every creature, weele take in the Apostles limi­tation in another generall, Let every thing be done in decency and in order. to apply it. I found a people there to heare, I had a word from God to Preach, time and season suited with it. for order, had I known the Minister, I would have craved his leave, I had it af­ter. in the mean time, though through a [Page 27]mistake, I took it for M ^r Osburnes turne, on whom I would presume, it made no stirre. as farre as I conceite 'twas done with decency and in order. I was no Stage player, I blesse God. his presence was in mine eye, his feare upon mine heart, my matter was Evangelicall, my method cleare and plaine, I know not an exotick terme which Scripture does not use, or the peoplet Mat heard it understand. I thank God my desire was to observe the forme of wholsome words, I wish others had done so too.

Twas said some preacht they knew not what, and talkt of Gospel, but did not understand what Gospel was.

An. I ever took the Gospel, to hold out the doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ the son of God Contayning in it good news, or glad tidings of salvation in that way, to lost and undone sinners. I am sure this was gospel with Christ, and Paul and all saints, as may appeare by the exhortation. I desire to know no other.

If M. Coppe have another gospel be­side that which Paul and after him, I preacht I tell him.

That M. Coppe and his gospel are both accurst.

An. If hee meane what Paul meant, I grant it 3 his words seeme to mee to Confound the gospel and the power of God, I put no meaning on M. Copps words, am loath to misunderstand or re­present him: but for the peoples sake.

I write not now to quarle with M. Coppe but to informe the people, as to this question. How the Gospel is the power of God.

You must understand the gospel sometimes notes the matter contayned in the gospel, Q. 1. An. as the person of Christ, his righteousnes, the way of salvation by him, especiall in his Crucifixion, death for sin.

In this sense I understand, that the power of God unto salvation worketh. in the person of Christ, Rom. 1.17. and through his righteousnes applyed unto us by fayth, unto salvation. this is the way of salva­tion even the righteousnes of Christ &c. which is preached in the gospel Gods power goes forth through this Christ, [Page 29]and no way else unto salvation.

2. ibid. The gospel notes the word the doctrine that holds out this salvation by Christ whether written or preacht: 1 Cor. 1. so then understand: though the doctrine the preaching of salvation, through the crosse, be a way despised by the world, a Crucified Christ accounted a weake a Contemptible saviour, the doctrine, a foolish simple doctrine, & the preach­ing of this by men a weak foolish and Contemptible thing.

Yet Gods power works this way unto salvation.

A crucified Christ carryeh in him both the wisdome and power of God unto salvation. 1 Cor. 1. ult. Gods wisdome and Gods power too shine in it unto Salvation: no way so wise, no way so powerfull be­cause God appointeth it, and God works with it, to a full salvation.

2 The gospel preached, the Greeks count it foolishnes, and Jews weakness, but Instrumentaly is the wisdom and the power of God.

God makes use of the foolishnes and the weakness of preaching to save those that beleve, and so Christ Crucified in himself and in his gospel preached, is [Page 30]both the wisdom of God and the power of God unto salvation. Let none despise this gospel then. I am not ashamed of this gospel, Rom. 1.16. there might be more said, let this suffice. I will be briefe and God willing clear.

Gods power working in us holds not out so fully this gospel to us but as if this very power were the very gospel: and wee were to look for no other go­spel.

I say the Gospel is the Gospel though Gods power be not actually put forth to the Application of this Gospel un­to salvation. [...] the word is a good word, and an heart-gladding word, though thousands to whom the gospel comes feel not this power.

The gospel is the power of God instru­mentall, I meane the word and the word preached is the instrument, the power of God, his being, put forth with strength efficient, is the working, the principall working cause of this salva­tion. you must distinguish between the toole which is used, and the force the hand putteth forth with this toole or instrument. strictly the toole is not your hand or the working virtue in your hand.

Some men love to darken words without knowledge, meerely that peo­ple may not know where to find their meaning, others would abuse the Scri­pture but they dare not speake plainly. 'twere a grosse thing for a Familist espe­cially new converted, to say the glad ti­dings of Salvation by Christ contained in the Scripture is not the gospel, if he say you understand not the Gospel it's the power of God; he has his designe, though we can­not take him.

If M ^r Coppe mean, the gospel is the unlimited Almightinesse of God, with a mighty power carrying him out to sin, sweare, blaspheme. He be bold to tell him, hee's worse then the divell. I say not, this is his meaning. but if that be his meaning, my words are plaine and need no explanation. So much for that.

M. Coppe said there was much spoken af­ter others.

If I spake after Christ, after the Apostle, after the faythfull witnessers to gospel truth, I speak as I desire it seems twas no new gospel, but it har­monized with Christ, prophets and Evangelist. I would not speake after [Page 32]mine own spirit, nor after any but after Christ, and as they speak after Christ. I tell you friends, our accursed gospel­lers love not the old way of God and Christ in scriptures: ye must have something new, like Afrike; and that makes them such monsters. I told you other gospels then the old gospel preacht after Christ and Paul (for pat­ternes) are cursed Gospels. my soule ab­horres them.

For other triviall things I let them passe.

As to the matter I beseech you pon­der well these words.

As to the matter by me delivered M ^r Coppe spake two waies.

1. By way of Assent and Confirma­tion.

2. By way of Glosse, and Opposition. I say not an opposition of contrariety and contradiction.

I have something to say to both these.

First. Let these lines make known, that M ^r Coppe againe and againe with dread­full curses, execrations, profest his as­sent [Page 33]in full words to severall the maine passages in mine exhortation. should I repeat the particulars, I should tran­scribe the whole. I have therefore let the whole lye open to publike view, that the world may see, if M ^r Coppe be right, what through Gods grace he is brought to see.

If otherwise, what by Gods power he was made to say.

I intend it not to reproach him, but let the world receive this testimony from him to these gospel truths.

1. The divinity. 2. The humanity. 3. The mediation. 4. The undertaking. 5. The righteousnesse of Christ. 6. The resurrection of the dead, with severall others delivered by him, particularly in this forme.

Let me be accursed, if I deny that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God.

Let me be accursed if I deny the Righte­ousnesse of Jesus Christ.

Let me be accursed if I deny the Resurrecti­on of the body, &c.

At length to summe up all, as 'twas noted in the Epistle.

Let me be accursed, with an Anathema Ma­ranatha, [Page 34]if I deny any one of all those things that were delivered by him.

What I have to say upon the account of these assertions of divine truth under execrations is briefely this.

I most gratefully accept these asseve­rations from M ^r Coppe. I heartily thank him for them, upon the account of truth, that he would so freely, so pathe­tically professe his assent unto it. if he were ingenious, (I will not yet question it) Christ and truth will thank him too. 2. Upon mine own account, I thanke him, that he would take so much paines as to repeate it, even in mine own words, and to confirme it, as he did with execrations. I professe I had no particu­lar prejudice against his person as such, in my discourse, I thank him, he exprest no more against mine in his.

1. I wish all M ^r Coppes hearers would well consider his asseverations, that such as have been deceived, would be infor­med, and as I said before, if God will, convinced and converted.

2. I wish that all sound Christians would take notice, 1. Of the soveraign­ty and divinity of Gospel-truth, even M ^r Coppe himselfe doth at length acknowledge it. [Page 35]wee thank God and him for it.

3. If M ^r Coppe did defaulter with us, speak one thing and mean another. learne from hence never more to trust a Familist, unlesse you can by better de­monstrations then their verball recantations, make good their reall conversions to the waies of God and truth. 2. And as for him, if it may appeare by these notes or his own discourse, that he is the same what he was before, only more cunning. 1. To preserve himselfe from barres and bolts, Newgate a type of Hell. 2. To de­ceive others, the very picture of the Divell. I say if this appeare (I will not say 'tis so, though you may see my guesse anon) then 1. let the World know what to ex­pect, when the Bottomlesse pit is ope­ned, and the Divell loosed. 2. Let the peo­ple of God where ever they heare the name of Coppe, look on it as accursed, ei­ther stoppe their eares, or pray to God, some way or other to stop his mouth, that he may no more dissēble, blaspheme. 3. Let them likewise observe the mighty power of God which doth accompany that weak and foolish (so accounted gospel preaching, if not to convince, convert save, yet to harden (judicial­ly, [Page 36]from God, occasionally from the gospel, efficiently from the Divel and mans own heart.) to kill to damne be­sides to over-awe to over-power: that hell it self shall not open its mouth, (some­times, this is not alwaies,) to Contra­dict. if Coppe bee still what hee was be­fore, see here how God supprest his rage, overul'd his tongue what a testimo­ny to divine truth, what a witness a­gainst himself, hath the gospel God forc't and wrested from the wretches mouth. but of this before in the E­pistle.

To the second his opposition, Reader understand, that M ^r Coppe would now and then oppose to what by me and himself was spoken, to what end I know not, I shall give you the opposition, and then my thoughts.

As I remember this was the first, how­ever let it be the first here. ‘ Christ was Crucified at Ierusalem, let my tongue cleave to the roofe of my mouth if I deny that. Christ was Crucified in Sodom and Aegypt, cursed be he that denyes this.’ These words were again and again repeated, without a syl­lable to their reconciliation or inter­pretation.

What might be his meaning let the World judge.

1. He tell you how Familists use to speak, and what they generally intend when they thus speak.

2. I shall shew you the Scripture meaning, as to those Assertions under this Question. How is it said that Christ was Crucified at Ierusalem? How may it be said that Christ was Crucified as in Sodom and Ae­gypt.

1. Familists use to speak one thinge and mean another: Por: as you may see in the Epistle: One disputed with me a­bout the Deity of Christ before a Com­mittee, he denyed that Christ was God, or Jehovah, 'twas prov'd, the man was charg'd by the Committee with it, he presently told them he meant not so. the like.

Christ's Imputative righteousnes is a saplesse righteousnes, but he meant not so. They will say and unsay in one breath.

2. Before the late Act against Raun­ters, they spake boldly, now they dare not, especially in points against the light of nature.

3. Since the pretence of the conversi­on [Page 38]of severall of them to the way of truth, they have a generall straine of Clo­thing their corrupt notions with sound words, especially such Scripture expres­sions as will beare a generall sence, as to Instance. They will tell you that Christ was Crucified at Ierusalem, a sound expression, there generall sence is true, he was Crucified at Ierusalem, but in what sence? abominably corrupt, as a type and figure of the true death of Christ in them (as they pretend.) An harmlesse Christian, that would wrong none, and things none would wrong him, takes all well, the man (saies he) ‘speaks truth, delivers speciall truth, he granted that Christ died on the Crosse, he does not deny that Christ died for our sinnes, according to the Scripture’ but poore heart, he never intended thou shouldest so apply it. Again he will tell you, by Christs blood, that you are saved: my self not long since heard words like these, I thought no harm, but that by Christs blood, the man meant the meri­torious cause of our salvation. But it seems 'tis one of their cursed formes of swearing, like that, the plague of God take all flesh, of cursing: I should trem­ble [Page 39]to write this, but to discover Fami­lists—

4. It seems to me, from what I have knowne of them, they will put them­selves on all expressions, wayes & wind­ings, to keep themselves from being known, but to their owne: you shall not know where to find them, so as to fasten on them, but their own shall know their meaning, and so may you when you have once got their Key.

I have heard of canting Beggers, and seen some such books, for their sakes I shall not easily beleeve some Recantations. A Key to Familisme hath cost me more than Ile now mention.

5. They are designers, & we may not be ignorant of their devices, they have learnt these of their blasphemous ring­leader, when 'tis for their purpose, they will tell you Scripture speakes it for them, and none then shall speake for Scripture, more then they. Another time they will let you know, they care no more for Scripture then Gesta Romanorum, and likely scarce so much.

6. When they speak on the account of Scripture Revelation, they will tell you, if you will beleeve it, that the Authen­tick [Page 40]Copy is their Imagination.

7. I find it is one of their close de­signes and undertakings, in undermining Scripture, if possibly they can, to make one clash against another. Their drift is to weaken the Verity, Harmony, and Pu­rity of the Scripture, in the weakest I­magination. When they have done that, they laugh, you are as they would have it: they'l set truth and Scripture as 'twere together by the eares, and sport at it. I say Scripture they undermine, and they have an 100 wayes for this, whereof this is one now hinted.

8. Take this Rule wherever they be, they will be sure (I meane the craftiest of them) to close in with you, in all dis­courses, duties, that they may promote their designe upon you: you shall find it, for a never failing observation, they will first insinuate an interest in your affecti­ons, and then corrupt your judgments. They will smile upon you, and cut your throate: use melting words, Honny-sweet, smooth as oyle, but full of poyson. A Christ would they exalt within, and who would not? meeknesse, love, peace, and righteousnesse would they promote, who likes not this? but friends, their [Page 41]Christ within, is to Crucifie that Christ without, to crucifie him as to your faith, your love, your delight, your joy—it will not be long ere yee heare of him, ‘That he was the Type, and but the Type of this within. God never intend­ed that you should besaved by the cor­poreall blood of a man, that's a fleshly Christ we know him.’ So no more: abusing that Scripture, where Paul Preaches the spirituall strength of the flesh and blood, the naturall death of Christ in order to our Reconciliation: we know not Christ, 'tis true, barely as in the flesh, but with spirituall conside­ration, that blood as the price of our re­demption thats the mystery, Christ only dying that's but the History) on this far­well Christ, farwell righteousnes, far­well too I say, salvation. and what becomes of love and meeknesse: Anti­christ, The Antichrist? the mystery of Ini­quity is the best notion they can fasten on the Choicest Saynts, & wayes of ho­lynes. I have had the experience of these: & therefore let the world know, them­selves know, I doe not wrong them.

9. Take this note likewise: there be severall sorts of Familists, the divell is [Page 42]cunning hee draws them on by steps: and secondly Gods more gratious, they would follow faster, but because they are his election, hee will not so farre leave them.

I have heard of severall sorts of di­vels some white, some black. some of stronger parts, others more base, and servile, and beetle-headed. See Burton melanch. it may be so, there are as many sorts of Familist.

10. These severall sorts they have their severall streynes: the Lascivious Familist hee turns all that way, the speculative the Scepticall Familist he strikes another way, will goe as farre as hell in prin­ciple, though not in practise. He say this for all, they all dance the divels dirge 1. hee loves variety, there were no pleasure for him else his sport might bee sooner spoyl'd.

11. Their Common principle is this, (though some will say it, others Con­ceale it they beleeve it.) God is All, and All is God, but whether am I gone, let me now resolve the question. I hope if this may bee counted a digression, yet not from my main designe, defence of truth, discovery of Enemies: It may bee [Page 43]of much use. if well read and weighed. I have many more, but they may serve for another purpose. to the question.

Quest. How Christ was Crucified at Ieru­salem, and at Sodom, and Egypt.

Sol. 1. I say Christ was literally Crucified at Jerusalem, I think none question this, and therefore it needs no explanation. Christ Jesus did lite­rally hang there without the Citie upon the Crosse, as a Sacrifice for our sins.

2. I say too that Christ was Crucified at Sodom and Egypt. but How? these places literally are farre asunder, but heark a little, and you shall find them in a safe Scripture sense, so neare toge­ther, that I think 'twill bee beyond mans skill to put them once againe asunder.

The Scripture in Rev. 11. v. 8. holds out the slaying of the witnesses. I pray of whom speaks, the Scripture, Rev. 11.8. when it speaks of these? are they not the Martyrs, that have testified to Je­sus under Romes cruelty? well.

Whats that City, that great City, in one street whereof, these latter witnesses are slayne? For shame let none but a popeling say, it is not Rome, but 'tis [Page 44]well known, Papists and Familists can both agree to mangle Scripture, and kill the witnesses. Well, and what doe ye think is meant of Rome, and the Citty? is it only the space of ground within Romes walls, or else the territories be­longing to it? I need speak no more.

1. 'Tis well known the Scripture speaks of Rome.

2. For its spi­rituall a dultery and cruelty. 'Tis well known how fitly called Sodome and Aegypt.

3. 'Tis well known that Rome takes in the Empire Romes jurisdiction.

4. 'Tis well known Jerusalem was un­der the power of Rome, and jurisdicti­on of Rome, a street of that Citty to use the expression.

5. 'Tis as well known that Christ was crucified by a power from Rome.

Joyne these together, Christ was cru­cified in Jerusalem, his blood is reckoned with the blood of all his members on Romes account, spiritually called E­gypt and Sodom, and good cause why the blood of Christ should lye upon the head of that Scarlet Whore. 'twas with­in Rome that Christ was Crucified, within its territories, by the power of Rome, that Christ was crucified. a child may understand this.

I think likewise, few but understand how Christ is said to suffer with his members, even in the same sense that they are said to be his members. I hope none is so grosse to take it in a grosse sense, though I knew a Familist once that did. Ile let that passe.

There is a crucifying of Christ, and puttiug him to an open shame, even now while he is in glory, and Familists bloody hands cannot reach him in a lite­rall sense. See Heb. 10.28. &c.

I feare the crucifixion of Christ may be too sadly put upon their account, and they will finde it so, when God comes to render recompence. how have they tortured Christ in Scripture? how re­proachfully have they spoken of the death, the crosse, the blood, the person of Christ? I feare this will be reckoned and accounted Crucifying the Lord of glory. surely, they will be found as guilty of the body and blood of Christ, as those that discerne not the Lords-body in the Sacrament. 1 Cor. 11. the murther hath more ac­cessaries then we are aware of. as bad as the principall agents, nay ten thou­sand times worse. So much for that.

Let the Second opposition be this.

I desire the reader to view once again the characters of Familists noted but now, and then judge of this. The key of Familisme will shew all the Cham­bers of Imagery in this too. Ile not con­sider these words now as M ^r Coppes, but first what use a Familist would make of this opposition. yet not all that use which a Familist knowes to put it to.

1. He would Amuse his simple hea­rers.

2. He would carry on his designe o [...] undermining Scripture, and Scripture truth.

3. He would let you know that Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary, that you might not know, but count him orthodox.

4. He would let his brother Familists to understand, that he was their own. (I mean such, as are well acquainted with their Canting, and something too of the kinds of their Recantings.)

5. Should he speak his mind in plai [...] [Page 47]English, he would let you know. Christ borne of Mary true, but that's not the true birth of Christ, that was but a type, there's the birth of Christ within you, and that's the true Christ, and the true birth.

I say this use a skilfull Familist would make of such an opposition. M ^r Coppe knowes best whereto he might intend it. I charge him not: not because I feare him, but God. I would not wrong him, and that's the principle I goe upon. per­chance there may be a work of God up­on him, and it comes on but by degrees. I blesse God if there be any — I hope it will doe him no hurt if truth be clea­red, and errour discovered. I wish how­ever M ^r Coppe would speak plainer next.

Let the question be, Quest. How Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary, and how Christ is formed in us.

1. Note this, Ans. Mat. 1. Luke 1. Christ was really and literally borne of the Virgin, according to the history of his Nativity. he was true man. Some Familists will not grant this, let them stay till I farther prove it.

2. Christ was not borne meere man as we are, Ioh. 1. but Christ was borne God­man.

He was, before he was borne: and he was with God, that was borne: and he was God, that was thus borne. See for this Ioh. 1.1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

3. The union between these two na­tures is a personall union.

Though some Familists say he was no more God then we, Heb. 1.2. Ioh. 1.4. W.S. they lye.

Though some Familists say Christ had not two natures, they lye.

He was a person before, though di­vine, he is but one person now, though he be likewise humane.

It is not now a God, and a Man, to speak personally, but God man, though Man and God.

4. The word was so made flesh, that the God-head was not the Manhood, nor the Man-hood the God-head: the na­tures were distinct without mixture, con­fusion, composition, though met in one person, and in a personall way united.

A Familist told me the Deity was mingled with the soule of Christ. Por. The [Page 49]Scripture clearly speaks against this, and reason too. but Familists care for nei­ther.

5. The Word was so made flesh, as that the fulnesse of the God-head dwelt in Christ bodily, Christ had not only the fulnesse of created Grace, in respect of which it is said the spirit was commu­nicated unto him not by measure, and said to be full of grace, and againe of his fulnesse, have all we received grace for grace. this had speciall relation to his Man-hood, I say he had not only this fulnesse of grace, (I call it created because it is not the God-head but the worke of God, a creature call'd a new creation, would Familists but under­stand this 'twere somewhat, the Lord teach them.) but he had the fulnesse of the God-head in him, likewise, more then grace, the God-head not only something divine, a nature divine, somewhat like God, and from God, a neere resemblance of God, but the Godhead or the Deity, & this the fulnes of the God-head as much as the Deity is, was in Christ, & that bo­dily, in conjunction with his humane na­ture & body: or after some bodily, i. e. substantially, or subsistentially, but it may [Page 50]bee these are termes too high for weake Capacities, the are Scripture expressions, Heb. let it suffice weake ones to beleeve that 'tis so, though they know not how 'tis so, nay though their reason as weake, might tell them it is not so.

6. This word was so made flesh or assumed flesh, and took it into such a neare (Conjunction with himself I say himself to note the personality of Christ before his incarnation) as that their is a communication of properties, and attributions. Christ God-man was God, though man, Act. 20. Jesus Christ, Imanuel, died, Ever-lived, &c. though onely true ac­cording to one nature, yet spoken of the person, and the other nature with re­lation to the person, or the person in the other nature.

Quest. The Scripture sayes that Christ is formed in us: so sayes Paul to his Galatians: this is a nice point, Gal. 4. but I shall speak very plainely to it in few words.

1. I shall tell you what familists doe understand by this.

2. I shall tell you what Paul meant by it, and how wee are to understand it.

Familists, their notion improved [Page 51]speaks this, that the Godhead (for persons in the Trinity they acknowledge not, or as wee understand it.) the second person in the Trinity, assumes unto him­self our particular personall flesh, and bodies, as it assumed that particular flesh and body which was framed and fitted for him by the Holy-ghost in the Virgins wombe.

This is the thing they aime at; some of clearer reason note it so, others have more grosse conceptions of it, according to their severall Capacities.

Some think that Every thing is God, and so they speak plain, they say the Divel himself is God, as one told mee expressely that the Divel was God in darknesse.

The Creation to God (the pure being of God) being nothing else (according to their apprehension) but so many ap­pearances of God, God sporting himself in so many shapes. now they distinguish when you come to aske whither they be God or no: as to instance, their bodie? they will tell you, no: they are not God: that is, their appearance, and the Creature (they will call it so) it is not God and in truth they judge so. (For the [Page 52]most part though sin be grosse indeed) I say they will distinguish thus, between the Creature and God, for they make it the appearance of God, if you aske them Concerning the nature of this appea­rance, what being it is, they vanish, & can talk no longer. 'tis not they say, a reall thing but apparent, as the image in the glasse or water, or the image in our fancie, &c.

This is their notion generally: others that are Come off from this, they take it in the first notion, the Godhead entring into a relation towards us our personall flesh, particular bodys, and soul as it did to Christ: and this they understand by Christ formed in you.

They say, this Christ (so now, they call it with relation to our flesh, though sometimes they call it God in us.) or God is fully in us, as hee was in Christ: onely it is not manifested wee doe not see it, aske them why it workes not so, as it did in Christ? they will tell you it hath its growthes and detriments, it is young, a babe, growne Crucified, and ri­ses againe in them, and many more such stories they have of this.

Many expressions they have to set out [Page 53]the nativity of Christ in us, as they term it—after the same manner as 'tis spo­ken of the birth of Christ in the wombe of the Virgin Mary.

This is their opinion—now let me shew you Paules and I have done.

1. It is not as the Familists would have it—God is not every thing, and e­very thing is not God.

We are come now to the very root of the Divell. the Assertion that every thing is God is most hellishly blasphe­mous.

1. Briefely, the Divell himselfe never told our first parents that every thing was God, and therefore let God enjoy e­very thing, nothing is sin to God, for every thing is God.

He told them, they should be As Gods, thats another matter.

2. If every thing were God, I say there were then no God. a God is a most absolute spirituall simple immense eter­nall infinite being, &c.

For that which is every thing is no God. it implieth contrariety, contradi­ction, weaknesse, multiplicity, and what not? if God be every thing—he must be then good and evill, weake and [Page 54]strong, finite and infinite, temporall and eternall, &c. but why rake I here, when mans naturall heart cannot but abhorre this principle.

Ob. 2, If they say, true, the Creature is not God, in its being, so considered, but as it is in Ʋnion with God it is God.

Ans. I answere, without all question M ^r Coppe knowes the meaning of this, Familists, doe indeed say it. the Crea­ture is not God, why? God is invisible, and the creature visible, God a substance and the creature a shadow, God infinite and unlimited Almightinesse, but the creature weaknesse, &c. but yet say they, there's some thing in the wind, they will tell you, that as they are crea­tures, quâ creatures, men and women, they are not God: no more then Christ was God quâ man: the Man-hood was not the God-head, but in nature property & ope­ration distinct, but that as they are in v­nion they are God. Even as was said of Christ, the two natures united make a Christ, and that person is God—I say, here's the roote of the Divell in Fami­lisme.

If they meane this as to every crea­ture, [Page 55]its most grossely blasphemous. the Divell himselfe by this reckoning is God too.

I think in my conscience he is gene­rally the God of Familists, they have no other God for their God.

But some I doe suppose referre it to good men, though I have but little rea­son so to thinke, yet I will be so chari­table for the sake of those that are de­ceived, and may think no more of it, especially at first, then this, that a true convert is God in union.

I say, first that every union with God cannot give the denomination of God, it is only a personall, as was said of the person of Christ: there must be the very being of God personally subsisting, or else it cannot be.

2 ^ly Every thing in union with God is not God. therefore cannot be truly called God, as it might be said of Christ. if they were God, the properties of a di­vine nature, or the God-head, were like­wise theirs, they were omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. I desired once that Familists would make it appeare they were God in union, as was said of Christ. 1. By their omnipotency, let [Page 56]them raise the dead, let them open the eyes of those that are borne blind, let them doe that which man as such, and assisted by the Divell cannot doe. Christ could, and did so manifest his God-head. my workes bear witnesse of me that I am true, and in the true sence the Son of God. O poore weaknesse—what have you yet done? Some I confesse, have playd the juglers and Conjurers, and Sorcerers—could raise Divells, and shew you fine sights — dance over joynt stooles, and a hundred such prankes you'l play.

2. Let them make it out by divine testimony, I meane immediate from God in glory, Christ had it—particular­ly personally, this is my beloved Sonne, and in Scripture the mighty God. Es. 9. Heb. 1. Heb. 1. and thy throne ô God, &c.

3. When did ever God say of them, as once of Christ, let all the Angels of God worship them. you Divels, will ye rob God of his honour? spoyle him? you shall not, he will not give his Glory to Another, Es. 42. the glory of divine worship, nor his praise to graven Images—had the Divell in union bin God, Christ might very well have worshipt him, Christ got­ten [Page 57]some Kingdomes by it, (if the Divel had any to give him, which were not his own before.) Ile say to such, get thee behind me Sathan. Mat. 4. thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

4. Let them manifest it by their im­mutability—at least in judgement. I have known some who will be for God and holinesse to day, and for the Divell and darknesse, as the phrase is, to morrow—God never yet chang'd his mind though men have thought so, nor God in union, the Lord Christ, he is the same yesterday, and to day, Heb. 13. and for e­ver.

He was not to day a Saint, to morrow a Divel.

5. Are yee God in union shew it by your omnisciency- Can ye like Christ search hearts, and know their thoughts, Mat. 9.4.12.25. that are farre enough from you. Can ye say as Christ of Nathaniel, Ioh. 2. or can ye so declare our hearts, and all our thoughts unto us, as that we may ac­knowledge that you know them. poore wretches ye are scarce yet men, I am sure ye are not man enough, ye want reason. ye are so farre from being God in union.

This is most cleare, if it be with them as it was with the man at Jerusalem, as they call him, they could doe as much as he, know as much as that Christ, it should be spoken of them as it was of that Christ.

That he is the word, with God, is God, it should be spoken of them.

That they are the only begotten sons of God (but it seems they are sons with­out glory) that they made the world, uphold all things by the word of their power, Heb. 1. that they purged away sin, are sate downe at the right hand of the Ma­jesty on high, that their thrones as God indures for ever, that they are the same yesterday to day and for ever.

3. Such as have been in union with God, as much as the choisest Saints now are. Speake of Christ as they could not speake of themselves, or of any other. we know and are assured, that thou art The Christ, Ioh. 6. the Son of the living God. nay God himselfe. to which of the An­gels said he, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee. (poore creatures,) againe of his fulnesse all we received grace for grace. which of all the Fami­lists in England hath so much grace. [Page 59]can communicate as Christ does, from that stock of grace, he has, if he have a­ny? Col. 2. and againe the Fulnesse of the God­head dwels in him bodily—how more in him then others, if this be true of all? poore Familists is their fancied Christ in them? or they, (as they are in union with God) I say, are they the head over all things to the Church? doe they fill all in all? Fye upon it, that ever wret­ches should thus derogate from Christ, and appropriate to themselves what God never gave them.

4. If the union of God and Saints be a personall union, as it was with Christ. then it followes, so many waies as God is personally united, so many per­sons must there be in the Deity—: and where's a Trinity? there must be as ma­ny persons in the God-head, as waies of personating the God-head, or of its sub­sistence.

5. Againe, Every such person must be a Christ, God and Man personally united make a Christ: gallant! we shall be all Christs, severall Christs: as many Christs as Christians, all of us Lords as was said of Christ. Fooles, there will be Lords many, but we have [Page 60]but one Lord Jesus Christ.

If this union be personall, then it fol­lowes, as what is proper to the God­head may be attributed to the person, so what is attributed to the man-hood, should be attributed to the person.

The person thus in union should be God-man. Infinite Immense, Eternal, &c. Againe take the persons of Familists as sinners, and it may be said as of Christ, God dying, so of Familists, God sinning. God a swearer, God a drunkard, God a blaspheamer. This would be sweet stuff, yet it must be so, if God and a sinner be personally united.

Let me give you Pauls sence of Christ formed in us, in the true sence, and so con­clude with this Question.

For the clearer understanding of this mystery; I shall speak as plainly as I can, and the rather, because some would charge me with denying, that Christ is in us, formed in us, &c. I shall therefore grant as much as may be granted.

First I say, that true beleevers the called of God, they are really united un­to Christ, one with Christ, one with the humane nature of Christ, one with the Divine nature of Christ, one with the [Page 61]person of Christ. But how to be under­stood anon.

2. We are one with God, in union (if you will) with God; one with the na­ture of God, one with the persons in the God-head, Father, Sonne, and Spirit.

3. I say that Christ is really in us, nay the person of Christ is in us.

4. Nay the Godhead is in us: Far­ther,

5. I say that Christ is formed in us.

6. That we are partakers of the di­vine nature.

For my meaning in all this, I intend not what the Familists intend when they speake this, as I have before deli­vered, I take it not in that sense.

1. I say we are really united to God and Christ, as really as a branch is uni­ted to the vine, the wife to the husband, the building to the foundation, the head unto the members, and the members to the head; as really as the Father, and Sonne, and Spirit are one, which is one step-farther. I say, as truly and as really. It followes not in all respects, the same kind of union, to the same participation and communion; these comparisons and resemblances of our union doe not [Page 62]alway hold out the kind of the union, but for the most part the verity, the truth of the union it were grosse blas­phemy to assert other wise.

2. Christ and God are really in us, but not in the same manner is God in us, as in the severall persons of the Trinity, or as in the humane nature of Christ, I have proved this already.

3. Wee are united to the person of Christ but not made one person with Christ.

4. Christ is formed in us, but not in the same way and manner as hee was formed in the wombe of the virgin, the word is not so made flesh in us, as there it was: not so manifested in our parti­cular flesh as in that particular flesh, this I have already prooved.

4. Wee are really pertakers of the di­vine nature, but not in the same way and manner as Christ was partaker of the divine nature, I have likewise pro­ved this already and therefore shall speak no more to these negatives.

I shall not speak of the severall sorts of union, tis well known there are seve­rall, hee that knowes not this knowes nothing, the union of the soul and body [Page 63]is one kind of union, the union of head and members a secondly the union of members in one body a 3 ^d. the union of husband and wife a 4 ^th. of foundation and building a 5 ^th. of vine and branches a 6 ^th. of the two natures in Christ a 7 ^th. of the persons in the divine essence an 8 ^th. &c. Of a Christian with God and Christ a 9 ^th. &c.

2. Nor of the severall respects of Gods being or presence: in himself, in his son, in all Creatures; in heaven, in hell, in his ordinances, in his people: who knows not but that these are severall, and must not bee Confounded, neither shall I speak how Christ is in himself, in his father, in earth, in heaven, in his ordi­nances, in his peoples hearts. &c.

3. I shall not speak in the 3. place of the severall sorts of Gods working, ma­nifesting himself, in heaven in Glory, one way to saints in Glory, another to saints on earth in Grace, in types, in truth. nor how he may make known in crea­tures, his power and God head &c.

For the better understanding of the mysti­call union observe these points. The mat­ter is very high, the words shall bee the plainer: that the meanest capacities [Page 64]may take it in, I shall use as few termes of art as may bee, the truth in this point is above art. note.

1. That there is a generall union, & an especiall union, between God and his Creatures.

2. This union whither generall or speciall is reall, really uniting them.

3. This reall union is the originall of a reall Communion between God and the creature.

4. This reall union may be diversely Considered, according to the diverse respects, and diverse effects of union.

5. Every union between God and the creature, is not this mysticall union of which we speak.

6. The Gratious soule mystically united unto God. may bee thus united unto God in more respects then one.

7. For distinctions sake (whither pro­perly or improperly) wee may say there are severall unions: though indeed, properly, severall modes or waies of union, between God and the elect soul. this premised I conclude.

1. The elect soul hath God united to it, (though not onely,) in the generall and universall union. in respect of [Page 65]which God may be said to be united to the whole creation. this is not as an Elect soule, but in Common as a crea­ture, this union I take to be held out in that text. In him we live and moove and have our being. this union for its forme, is made up 1. on gods part, by that common spirit, (or spirit in com­mon in fluences) which actuates the whole creation, in' esse & operari, in es­sence and operation, see Gen. 1.2. 2. on the creatures part, by that dependance (natural) which the creature hath on God, for this esse & operari, through the spirit. he that knowes not this, knowes little, this union every creature hath with Gods: Familists goe no higher then this, they may be thus united unto God, and yet divels. but this union the elect soul hath, as a creature, and more.

2. The elect soule hath God united to it, in a speciall: (which is called a my. sticall union.) in respect of which God is not united to the whole creation, Eph. 1. it being proper to the elect viz. Christ, Angels, and Saints: though to Christ Angels and Saints, under severall re­spects.

3. This union, wherein the elect soule [Page 66]hath God united to it, is not an Imme­diate but a mediate union, through a mediatour Jesus Christ. Mat. 1. 1 Cor. 1.30. 2 Cor. 5.19. God-man the Imanuel, God whith us. of him are all things, especially spirituall. God is in Christ uniting and reconciling &c. God and the falne creature cannot unite without a mediatour. no more then a consuming fire and stubble. Christ is this mediatour and the union is through him. John 17. read the Scripture.

4. This union through a mediatour may be considered, either first as uniting God and the soule, (the mediatour in­tervening.) or secondly, as uniting the mediatour and the elect soule.

5. This union may be considered, with respect 1. to the present state of grace: or secondly the future State of glory.

6. Considered with respect to God, (the mediatour intervening) and with respect to the present state of grace 1. God is relatively united. i.e.

1. According to the uniting virtue of love divine, love unites God to the soul loved, 1 Sam. 18.1. with the speciall gratious-union of speciall love, hence that Scripture, hee that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in [Page 67] God, and God in him, for God is love, 1 Iohn 4.16. ubi amor tbi anima. love brings an indwell­ing.

2. 1 Sam. 18.3. Hence God stands united to the elect soule, in a special-gratious-Cove­nant relation, league, hence among men the terme of the united provin­ces &c.

3. Hence in those sweet relations that depend on love, and a love Covenant, Hosee 2.18. father, husband, friend, in reconcilia­tion. 2 Cor. 5. Eph. 1. Col. love, Ami­ty &c. make the most of it.

2. Sec. 2. God is (I could never meet with a fit word, to set out this respect of union by it: there are words used, but they serve rather to vaile our ignorance, then reveale this mistery, mysticall it is, be­cause secret, hidden, and a mysterie: so sayes Paul Eph. 5. in naturall things I would call it physicall, set out by the union in Contact virtuall, but in these supernaturall I professe, I know not any word used fitly to note the nature of it. I shall not Coyne new, but give you the notion it self in plain words:) I say god is united as a speciall grace working cause, I have spoken alreadye, how he is not united, I speak now to shew you, how [Page 68]he is united, 1 Iohn 3.2. as well as I can, I shall bet­ter tell you, and you will better under­stand it, when wee are come to heaven.

God, through the mediatour, as a principle, a working-cause of a spirituall being and operation, unites himself to the elect soule enlightning it, quickning it, &c. with speciall grace.

This is on gods part, 1. 1 Cor. 6.19. by that spe­ciall spirit (or the speciall Influences of the spirit) which actuates the spi­rituall elect soule, in its spirituall being & operation. 2. 1 Iohn 4.13. on the crea­tures part, by the dependance of the spirituall soule on god for this, wrought in it by the spirit.

From this union, it is said: hee that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit, 1 Cor. 6.7. and 1 Cor. 12.13. by one spirit wee are uni­ted &c.

7. Considering it with respect to the mediatour, his union with us, it is.

1. A Relative union: I shall not speak, of the union of love, wherein Christ is united to the elect soule. 2. nor of that speciall Covenant, Cant. 2.6. wherein, the media­tour stands united. 3. nor of all the sweet relations that flow from it, as husband father, friend &c. I should bee [Page 69]then too large. but thus.

1. Christ stands (as it were) in a spiritually Civil, Ep. 1.22. Rom. 5.14. 1 Cor. 5.21.22.45. Rom. 11.16.17. Heb. 7.22. Es. 53. 1 Ioh. 1.2. 2 Cor. 5.21. 2 Cor. 5.14. Kor. 6.11. 1 Cor. 12.12. Gal. 3.16. and politicall union mystically united to his Church: as an head-man: a repraesentative. thus he is said to bee the head of the Church, the se­cond Adam, the second man; roote, roote-man, you know the union between the surety and his friend of the proxy, the representative the Burgesse in par­liam ^t. &c. hence floweth communion spirituall, Christ is reckoned to us, and wee reckoned to Christ, Christ made our sin: wee made the Righteousnes of God in him. read at large Rom. 5. wee are (in divine Law) reckoned as really one with him, as if (though not) one person, hence our communion, in ele­ction, Justification, Adoption, sancti­fication, glory.

Christ is that, in respect of us, what he is not, in respect of himself and wee are that, in respect of Christ, what wee are not, as in our selves hence that in Joan. 17.23. I in them, and they in mee, hence the Communion in attribu­tion (Communicable) so Also is Christ: Christ mysticall: Christ Jesus in union with his Church: as Christ, he is not [Page 70]considered without his Church, (he is as God. therefore that is not communica­ble,) & his people, as such, are not consi­dered without Christ, no more then a body without an head. This is a soul en­riching-union, call it what you will.

This union is by Gods gracious Co­venant Grant on Gods part. Ephe. 1.4 This may be, before we be, from eternity, (chosen in him we thus are) in Gods account, or virtually.

2. By the spirit working faith.

3. Ephe. 3.17. Faith wrought by the spirit, bringing us on our part in time, actually into this Covenant, state, and so union with Christs The union of Christ I shall speak unto elsewhere.

2. The kind 1. Cor. 15 Ioh. 6. 1. Cor. 8.6. Christ stands in such an union as we were but now speaking to, in respect of God, as a principle active, and a working cause (in subordination to God the Fa­ther) united to the elect soule. Cod works by Christ. Heb. 1.2.

This is by the spirit from Christ, The forme (and the Father) being to us as the soule is to our body, a quickning principle, though not in every particular, as the soule to the body. (I speak as to in­fluence— quickning— to a spirituall [Page 71]life, 1. Ioh. 4.12.13.) working in us habits of Grace (as anon) whereby we are enabled likewise, by faith and love, and other Graces, in severall respects, to unite to Christ, and maintain Communion with him.

This is set out by the union between (not a civil—but) a naturall head and members. So 1. Cor. 12. 1. Cor. 12 Col. 1.18.19. Col. 2.19. Ioh. 15.1. Pet. 2 the head is the seat of the spirits naturall, giving out influence to all the body by these spirits, so Christ. Hence (not only civilly but otherwise) this is set out by the Vine and Branches— building and foundati­on. Hence the Communion of Sanctifi­ing influences. The same spirit working that in measure in us, Ioh. 1.16. Ioh. 3.34. Col. 1.19 1. Ioh. 5.20. Ephe. 3.19. w ^ch it wrought in Christs humane nature in fulnesse, Even grace for grace, and we are said to have it from his fulnesse. On this account I might now here speak of the union as it is on our parts with God. As 1. Intel­lectuall, the understanding and God, by knowledge and vision of faith. 2. Mo­rall, the will by faith cleaving to God in Christ, and so of love &c. but this would make this Volume swell. From what hath bin spoken concerning union, you may answer the question concerning Presence. thus breifly.

1. God and Christ are present Sym­balically or Typically, and analogical­ly, the rock followed them, and that was Christ, Typicall. So the Cloud, and Tem­ple, &c.

2. Essentially, by his Immense pre­sence filling all things, places, fil'd of none. Mat. 28.29. So he is in every thing, place, even Hell. So is the God-head of Christ, or Christ as God, every where: Familists make a great matter of this. But alasse this is not his speciall presence, Devils have this, though we have more.

3. Act. 17.27. Energetically: by power and provi­dence operative. 1. Generall, and com­mon in all creatures, to works of nature. Of him are all things, in him we live. 2. Speciall and Saving, the speciall works of grace in the hearts of his people, from regeneration to perfection. But this is not as in himself, and in his Sonne.

4. Objectively, the mind by under­standing, and will by chusing, love em­bracing, makes God present. But especi­ally faith. Christ is said to dwell in our hearts by faith, faith bringing in a pre­sence, and an abiding presence of Christ unto the heart, according to the presence faith gives—faith sees God who is in­visible, [Page 73]and faith layeth hold on God, Heb. 11.27. Moses his Optiks. in Christ: nay faith will make the hu­mane nature of Christ present, with the presence that faith gives, which is a reall presence: it can feed upon this humane nature of Christ, and eate the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, and really nourish the soule hereby, as really as the body is nourished by its food, &c. Chri­stians indeed know this, from hence by the being that faith gives, the soule shall be in God: and God in the soule: Christ in the Saints, and the Saints in Christ, without jumbling of their Persons, na­tures together. Alasse it is to be feared, they know not this Inbeing and Indwel­ling of God, that talke so grosly of it: many talke of Gods being in them, and their being in God, but they know not what they say.

I shall speak a word concerning the Effects of these Unions, these operati­ons, this In-being of God and Christ in us. God forbid I should not say that Christ is in us. The Deity, and the hu­manity of Christ, the Person of Christ, but how? you have seene. I will speak no more to that.

Q. The agent working in us is Christ, the Father, the Spirit, but what is the thing wrought upon us? the working virtue is the power of God; but what's the effect?

An. This is not God himself. God of God, Ioh. 1.16 I say that grace wrought in us (I suppose we may agree to call it grace, let it be what it will) is not God, the Be­ing the Essence of God, produced in us: there is the Being of God, the Essence of God God himself producing, but the thing produced, is not God, is not the Person of Christ, is not the Person of the spirit, though these Persons be there, in a spe­all way of Presence and Union to effect it. Gal. 5.22 Pet. 5.21 Eph. 1.18 1. I say grace is a fruit of the spirit. 2. It is a disposition in us, a qualificati­on of our understandings and wils, and affections, and Gods working in us is not to set up a third thing between God and us, 1. Pat. 1.21. but to dispose, and frame, and order our spirits to move towards him.

3. This work is that which is con­veyed through instruments, Gal. 4.19. meanes, & ordi­nances, ministers. Paul travels in birth to forme this Christ, and the word, the Scripture word, and that preached, is [Page 75]that which is the seed of God too, 'tis that which things humane, as well as di­vine concurre unto, 1. Pet. 13.25. to effect and pro­duce on the hearts and minds of men in an ordinary way as Instruments: true, man cannot do it alone without God, and God will not do it alone without man, I mean ordinarily.

4. The alteration it makes upon the man, on whom 'tis wrought, 'tis no Essen­tiall alteration, substantiall alteration, the man is man still, and but man, though better qualified, a spirituallized man, his understanding is cleared of darknesse, and strengthened by the enlightning of the spirit of God, to understand more clearly the things of God. There is not a new faculty of seeing, but the hinde­rance removed, (the vaile as it were be­fore the understanding) and help affor­ded, light brought into a dark room, 1. Cor. 3.16. the objects cloathed with light.

So the will, the will is will still, no new soule, but the action of the soule purified. There's a new disposition, its called new, because it was old and is made new as 'twere there is a new stamp upon it, a peece of filver was silver be­fore the Goldsmith toucht it. An old [Page 76]peece of Plate put into the Furnace, put in a new mould, comes forth not the old peece of Plate for forme, but a new though the same for substance.

If it be God, then the soule is turned into God, a creature made a God: for 'tis the soule that hath this work.

6. Or else it's God changed and con­verted into a creature, which is blaphea­mous.

7. We need not goe so far, the Scrip­ture tels us, 1. Cor. 5. Eph. 3.17 it is a creature, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature through­out, whatever is new, its a creature still, & therefore not God, yee are the work­manship of God in Christ Jesus, created unto good works, God in Christ works upon you, and creates you a new unto good works, that you may be able to worke new works: its you that are crea­ted, you that have the alterations, this alte­ration is not the adition of another sub­stance, which may be called you, but you, even you are created unto good works, new made. It is Gods Image created in Righteousnesse & true Holynesse. There can be no more, for former reasons: which shewed that the Deity of Christ is not formed in us, and assumes not our [Page 77]flesh, as it did the flesh in the Virgins wombe.

8. This worke of god upon us hath severall names but they all note the same thing, only with severall relations as the new creature, because it is a creature and new wrought by the creating power of god.

The new birth Regeneration, Ioh. 3. 1 Pet. 1.23. because it is like a birth, and is a new state like the state of a man brought a new into the World.

A birth from above, because it came from God above, this worke does — the spirit, the word that is the seed of God is from above, &c.

Sanctification, 1 Cor. 1. ult. because it purifies our hearts, sets us apart from sin and the world, creature, and disposes us for God devotes us, directs us to him.

The life of Christ, because wrought by Christ, 2. because it acts in the strength of Christ, he is the bottome, the principle, the original, though not the subject of this life, 3. because it makes us live like Christ.

Christ formed in us, as Christ may be said to be formed in us, that grace which is in Christ being communicated [Page 78]to us by the spirit as before.

There being the stampe, the image of Christ upon us — not in the Godhead. the Godhead of Christ, as Christ is the expresse image of the fathers person, Heb. 1.2. we have proved this already — that that is not in this sence formed in us — but as the nature of man is conveyed from the father and formed in the Son, so is the nature of grace (created) from Christ conveyed to us and formed in us as in Christ, (the Godhead is incommunica­ble.) and so the divine nature, because a Godly nature, 2 Pet. 1.4 Ephes. 4.24. from God, like God, a participation of some of the attributes of god. though not in the same way as attributed unto god, they are in god per modum essentiae, in abstra­cto. in us per modum qualitatis, or habitus. in god 'tis his essence, in us the representation of god. god is holy. his essence is holinesse, in concrete we are holy — 'tis our quality: though it streames from god yet it is not god, though a nature di­vine, something beyond and above the naturall strength of man and pitch of man, 'tis his nature humane improoved nearer to a divinity.

Heavenly, 1 Cor. 15. not because of the sub­stance of the heavens, but the Analogy, [Page 79]that is between the heavens and this thing, this work of grace. they that are heavenly — 'tis said 1 Cor. 15. &c. but e­nough for this.

Christ was formed in the Virgins wombe naturally and literally, but in us mystically and spiritually.

So much for what related to my dis­course, now followes, what related to his Sermon. The more grosse and principall passages concerning gods giving up his people to sin — you will see here that Familists (if Coppe does not) father blasphemously their wicked­nesse on god.

I shall not speak much as to M ^r Copps Sermon, only cleare some passages, and vindicate the purity and holinesse of god and Scripture.

Esai 40. ult. Who gave Jacob to the spoile, and Israel to the robbers, did not I the Lord? was his Text.

His point of doctrine (as I remem­ber) was this: that God gives up his owne people to robbers and spoilers.

In the explication, he told us, that these robbers were such as should spoile gods own people of their Priests and Altars, &c. and at length of their holi­nesse, [Page 80]by sin, blasphemies, wickednes­ses.

M ^r Coppe on the Lords day before this lecture, preached neere Witney: his Text (as I am informed) was. There is a time to sing, and a time to dance. it seems he was very merry. (some men such as rejoyce in wickednesse, are very merry when, (they cannot be unlesse) they have, the Divell for their play­fellow. as I have read of Witches, so I have heard of some Familists and Ran­ters that (literally) they dance dirges with the Divell.) in that discourse (as I heard from some that knew it.) he said that the whole Scripture from the be­ginning of genesis to the end of the Re­velations was to be understood allego­rically. This I am sure, is the sence of all Familists. No wonder then that such doctrines are drawne from such Scri­pture. Familists (ex professo) bring Scri­pture to their private spirit, and make Scripture speak according to that. They will not try their spirit by the true spi­rit of god in the Scripture, nor speake according to the Law, and to the testi­mony in Scripture. When men leave Scripture: or presume to interpret [Page 81]Scripture in their owne (if not the Di­vels) sence: what doctrines must we ex­pect? no wonder, that gods giving his people over to afflictions, and (as I take it from the scope of the Scripture) Isra­el to captivity and (literally) robbers and spoilers bee interpreted. a giving up of his owne people to sin, curse, sweare, blaspheme. God as a father may well chastise correct & his children, actually, effectually; I trow, not so give up his people to the power of sin.

1. Take this note: Iames 1.13. god tempts no man to sin, he that sinneth is lead away into sin by his own Lust; and the instigation of the divell-understand this effective­ly as the working cause. sin is of the divel, he is the Father, and our corrupt hearts they are the mothers of these hel­lish brats. Iam. 1.15.

2. There is not a principle of sin in god, Exod. 15.11. 1 Pet. 1. he is good, and purely good, and per­fectly good. he were not god had he such weaknesse, and contradiction. The god of Familists whom they generally so serve is the —, he is the sink of sin.

3. Farther, god permissively, may suf­fer sin to be, for ends best known unto himselfe.

4. On the same account, God may suffer the Divel to lay his snares, and leave his people to themselves- and they may be insnared in these, and sin, but yet hee's not the cause of sin.

5. He forbids sin, gave strength once against sin, and now more then they will use: if men neglect this strength, nay sin away this strength, is God bound to re­new their strength, that they may not sin? and shall God on this be the cause of sin? god forbid.

6. God may judicially give over some men to sin — give Sathan the charge of them, Rom. 1. the power of them. to doe up­on them what he will and can, god withdrawes from them (judicially) his good gifts, and whats his owne, and whom have these to blame? if they with a full careere run on in sinne, they run freely downe the streame of sin, 'tis their choice to sin, why shall god be blam'd for this?

If God and Christ doe say, thou shalt not take the name of god in vaine, Euod. 20. and Coppe and others sweare themselves into the bottomlesse pit of hell, why may not god leave them there? Rev. 22. if they will be un­cleane, why may not god say let them [Page 83]be uncleane? what comfort is this to M ^r Coppe, and others thus robbed and spoyled with him?

M ^r Coppe applied his doctrine, first to their comfort, who with himselfe were spoiled, they should not be troubled: for god gave them up. Hellish comfort for such wretches. I grant, god judici­ally gave the Divell leave to doe what he would with them. I say this is hel­lish comfort, to be in the divels hands by Gods judiciall appointment. he would have others not only pitty them, but love them as Brethren. but what compassion should others shew them? the weake god pitties, spares, pardons, so should we.

The obstinate, the rebellious, he lets run the long run to hel and judgement, let them take what they meet with in the way of sin, Justice from god, ordi­nary, by the Magistrate; extraordinary, by his owne hand, and damnation in the end of sin.

As for us we must mourne for sin, their sin, reprove them for sinning; 1 Cor. 5. if all will not doe, but they will sin, deliver them to Sathan: pray downe mercy, 1 Tym. 1.20. or gods vengeance on them. 2. Let gods [Page 84]ordinance take hold upon them by the Magistrate. Rom. 13.

To love them as brethren, is to reckon our selves their brethren in iniquity. 'tis to partake in their sins, 2 Ioh. 10.11. and the next step to partaking with them in their plagues.

You have the seeds of these. saies he.

What though wee have the same Cor­rupt principles of sin within us, if God change our natures, and kill us to sin, and sin to us, Rom. 6. must wee love sin still, where wee see 'tis? shall wee call the Divel father still, in calling these bre­thren, that beare his Image, and be­cause they beare his Image, no let us hate sin, where it 'tis, in our selves, in others, and hate our selves, and o­thers too, if worthy, on this account of hatefull sin: Hate I not, Lord, the workes of Iniquity, Psal. 129.21.22. such as hate thee Lord, I hate them with a perfect hatred.

Againe saies M ^r. Cop. God may give you up too, to be rob'd and spoyled.

And what though God may leave us? must wee therefore to provoke him to it, Prov. 4.6. leave God? no let him know if wee keepe to God, hee will keep us, if wee forsake not God, heele never forsake us: and what though it bee an houre of [Page 85]tryall? snares there be, shall wee let fall our watch, and run upon them: let us keep to God, and I say, that god will keep us, resist one sin manfully, and heele give strength to withstand ano­ther, Ephes. 6.12.13. where you see your weaknes Call in his strength and stand.

Raunters may take their fill of sin, they say god is unlimited Almightines, & unlimited Almightines is in them and they may doe any thing.

M ^r. Coppe gave us some reasons for his doctrine. 1. god is unlimited almigh­tinesse god can and may doe any thing, pull down his own ordinances as cir­cumcision, &c. Reader, this you have at, large in his booke caled Cops returne to waies of truth.

God Almighty hee is infinite, yet hee cannot sin and thats his Almightinesse, sin cannot fasten on him to doe Con­trary to the nature of god, nay hee cannot be so farre fastned on by sin, to will whats contrary to the nature of god. and proclaimes him weak, imperfect, that were not almighty.

For the Abolishing of Jewish ordi­nances know: they were erected but for a time: when scripture sayes they cease [Page 86]they must cease: might they have been nelected when they were in force, with­out sin? I trow not, reade Gal. 3.10. to this M ^r. Coppe brought in (as I have heard of Juglers) his sic volo sic Jubeo let that passe: nay, sayes M. Coppe as ano­ther reason for his doctrine.

"He that said thou shalt not murther, Coppe. bade Abraham slay his son: and he that said thou shalt not Commit adultery, said to Ho­sea, take a whore.

Foule mouth's, blaspheaming god & scripture, will belch out this with open mouth: Raunters will bring such reason­nings for their Adultery, Cursing, blaspheming? murthers and what not they would make god like unto themselves a murtherer, Ps. 51. an Adulterer, a blasphe­mer, these things will they doe, and god it may bee, may keepe silence too: but bee will reproove them and set their sines in order before their eyes: hee will teare them in pieces, and there shall be none to deliver: ô that such as forget god would Consider this.

What doe ye think now readers of M ^r Coppe Recantation?

Concerning god's will in sin, note.

1. Gods will in precept determins [Page 87]sin, not gods will in decree or providence, gods will revealed in his word, not his essentiall will as they call it, unlesse they mean this essentiall will manifesting, in his word, what shall be sin, what not.

2. Some things god cannot but will to be sin, such as contradict his nature, the truth of his divinity: he cannot deny himself.

3. Other things are sin or not sin as hee does in his precepts will them to be sin: and no otherwise: such are things as in their own nature strike not at his Majesty, but may be by his wisdome ordered for his glory.

4. These latter, as his will of precept makes them sin, by forbidding it, so his will of precept makes it no sin by En­joyning it (this was Abrahams & Hosees case) nay the omission of the things thus en­joined is sin; a trial it was to Abraham, & to Hosee, but no sin: (were it done really, Abrahams was not, and as most say, Hosees was but an allegory, or a pa­rable, as to him: read Pareus, Buroughs on the text, the law maker hath this power to change his owne lawes, lawes were made for god not god for lawes.

Examples of sin, and particular re­peales [Page 88]of statutes to particular persons are no warrant for us to sin.

6. Inclinations to sin, opportunities to sin, suggestion by immediate voices or instincts, unto sin, they are not war­rants to sin.

7. The Commissions for such actions as will bee no sin the statute repealed, must have the broad seale of heaven infal­lible dem̄ostration evincing that repeale.

Thus you have the point stated brefly, and I hope clearly — let me close up all with a note or two and so farewell.

1. Familists are grown extreamly cunning, to order their words so as that 1. They may be in a sence true, 2. De­fend themselves from the hands of the Magistrate. 3. And yet to let their own know their divelish and blaspheamous meaning.

2. A Familisticall Repentance is a di­vel-trick, they will as it were take all sin to themselves, yet most grossely, though craftily, charge all on god.

3. If this be Copps Repentance (rea­der judge by what is here noted) he is a very—incarnate, the Lord re­buke him, and from Sin, Satan, and Ranters deliver us.