Opposition to Errors of William Sherlock, Chapter 4 · Section 3 (2 of 3)

Opposition to Errors of William Sherlock · Chapter 4 · Section 3 (2 of 3)

p. 627(2.) He has told us, p. 42. That the Light of Nature, the Works of Creation and Providence do assure us, that God designs the Happiness of all his Creatures according to their Capacities; (and they are capable of being justified and saved): And that God is so Holy, that he has a Natural Love for all good Men, and is as ready to pardon them when they return to their Duty, as a kind Father is to receive a Humble, and Penitent Prodigal: And p. 43. Had Christ never appeared in the World, yet we had reason to believe that God is thus good and merciful. Now having such good security from the Light of Nature, Reason being clear in the Point, and the thing so natural, and essential to God, that he will pardon, and is ready to it, upon Repentance and Obedience, though Christ had never appear'd; what has the Death of Christ done, to procure this Favour or more Favour from God? We will grant that the Death of Christ has confirmed the Truth of it more, but what has it added to the Procurement of the thing? If it be said that Christ's Death did not procure a Willingness in God to Pardon, but only a Confirmation of his Willingness: I would ask what greater Confirmation a rational Creature could well desire, than an Assurance from the Light of Nature, that this was Natural and Essential to God? And I would further know, what the Procuring of a Confirmation amounts to more than a Confirmation? (3.) The Scripture has assured us, Gen. 17. That God gave an explicite Promise to Abraham, that he would be his God, or a God to him: that is, that whatever Abraham should want, and yet could not want but he must be eternally miserable, p. 628that thing God would be to him: For 'tis an uncouth Interpretation of the Promises: I will be thy God, that is, I will be nothing to thee, do nothing for thee, of what thou mainly wantest; but for all my Promise, to be thy God, I will suffer thee to lye under the guilt of Sin at present, and to fall under eternal Condemnation here-after; though thou walkest before me, and art perfect. If then there was such an Implicite and Virtual Promise in God's Nature, revealed by the works of Creation and Providence to Reason; and an Explicite one too in the particular Revelation, that God would bestow Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who walkt before God inuprightness: The Question is, How did Christ procure such an Engagement from God, when it was procured before? But supposing that there was never any such Promise made by God till Christ by his Death procured it; then how did the Death of Christ prevail with God to make such a Promise, which otherwise he had never made? (4.) But I suspect more than ever, that we are merely gulled: for he tells us, That the Blessings of the Gospel are the proper Effects of the Covenant, but not of that Blood of Christ: so that we are justified by the Blood of Christ, is properly false, but improperly true; that we are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ, in an improper Sense, may be said to be true, but in a proper Sense is utterly false; and then if the Apostles had penn'd their Epistles clean backward, they would have been properly true, whereas now they are properly false: And now who can tell but when he says The Blood of Christ procured this Covenant, he may not mean in some improper odd Sense that is not worth a Button?

But yet our Author seems to go higher than all this, p. 330. Our Righteousness and acceptation with p. 629God it wholly owing to the Covenant, which he hath purchased & sealed with his Blood. To Purchase is a very good word when applied to the Blood of Christ, & therefore because we meet with so few I shall make as much of it as I can: It denotes procurement in a special way by a valuable price paid; The Covenant of Grace then Christ has purchased; that Covenant is a Promise of Pardon and Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel. In this Covenant there are three things. First, the Material part, the pardon of sin, and eternal Life. Secondly, the conditional part, Faith and Obedience. Thirdly, The form of the Covenant, A Promise of the Material part upon performance of the Conditional part. Now when he owns the Blood of Christ to have purchased this Covenant; the question is, whether the whole or some part of it only? If not the whole, then what part is the purchase of his Blood? 1. For the Conditional part, Faith and Obedience, I may secure my self, our Author will not put them into the particular of the purchase; for then it would be scarce worth the while to mingle Heaven and Earth with Tragedies, what the conditions of the Covenant should be if Christ had purchased the conditions themselves, and therefore as to these, let every man trust to himself. 2. As for the Material part, Pardon, and Life. I doubt our Author will not yield us neither that Christ has purchased them, because he denies that the Blessings of the Gospel, are the proper effects of Christ's Blood; whereas had he purchased them with his Blood they would have been the proper effects of it. 3. Then it remains, that Christ has purchased a Promise of bestowing the Material part, upon our performance of the Conditional part; And thus we are just where we were two miles ago, and these great words of p. 630purchasing and procuring are shrivel'd up to Confirmation of a Promise; but if he will say that the Blood of Christ, his Death, and dreadful sufferings were a proper price paid to God, to procure or purchase a word from God that he would do that which was natural and essential to him, then we shall thank him, that he has such honourable thoughts of it, as to judg it worth a good word: The Scripture every-where ascribes the Blessings of the Gospel to the purchase and procurement of the Blood of Christ; but if this be all, that he has got a word from God, it supposes the the Scripture to swell with Scenical Language, and high Tragical Phrase; which seems to carry sublime matters in it, but when it comes to be stript of Metaphor and Allegory is a mere Anatomy. From this precarious Hypothesis that the Apostles always write like himself, that is, improperly and impertinently, and attribute such things to the Blood of Christ which are the proper and immediate effects of the GospelCovenant, he will unriddle to us many Mysteries which are vulgarly reputed matters of weight and worth; but if we can spare him a little Patience, he will so uncase them, that we shall confess, they contain nothing that may deserve or need the Blood of Christ, or any great matter to be made about them. [1.] Concerning Reconciliation; The Apostle had said, 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ, and hath committed to us the Ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their Trespasses, and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation, v. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us: what the import of foreign, reconciliation, and foreign, to reconcile, is, will not create us any great trouble, because p. 631our Author allowing a reconciliation to be made between Iew and Gentile, secretly confesses that Reconciliation implies the taking away of an enmity, and bringing the differing parties into a state of Peace and Friendship: But the Apostle in this place instructs us further. 1. That the proper effect of this Reconciliation is [not-imputing Trespasses]. God is by Nature a Holy God, as he is Governour of the World, he is a Righteous Iudg; sin is both Contrary to his holy Nature, and his Holy Law: And therefore as a Holy God, he cannot but hate sin; as a Righteous Iudg he cannot but punish sin: And because this sin is inherent in, and committed by Man, God hates the sinner upon the Account of his sin; his Person and his best services, are an abomination to the Lord. From hence it follows, that sin being a transgression of the Law, in its preceptive part, renders the sinner Guilty, that is, obnoxious and lyable to the Law in its Sanction, to the punishment. Now this Righteous Iudg will certainly charge the guilty sinner with the penalty due to his sin, but there is a way found out that he may be reconciled, and not impute to sinners their Trespasses: and this clearly shews that the Reconciliation here spoken of, is a reconciliation of God to the Sinner; such a one as makes provision that God shall not impute iniquity. 2. The Apostle instructs us further in the way whereby Christ made this Reconciliation of God, v. 21. He was made sin for us; that is, he was constituted to be a sin-offering, upon whom the Guilt and Punishment of our sin being laid, the great obstructions to Reconciliation, God's Justice and Holy Law, being removed (by being satisfied), a way is cleared for a new Peace with God. And the Apostle as hath been observed, cites this from Isa. 53. 10. When he shall make his Soul an offering for sin p. 632the same word signifying both sin, and sin-Offering. 3. That the Preaching of this Reconciliation made with God, to the World, was committed to the Ministers of the Gospel, that they as Ambassadors from God, might treat with them also about their being reconciled to God; which farther evinces a mutual Enmity, and a mutual Reconciliation; that God reconciled the World to himself by Iesus Christ, whom God made to be sin, for that great end, and then establisht a Ministry to Preach the Doctrine to the Sons of Men, and to deal with them in the Name of Christ, that they would also lay aside their Malignity, and accept of the Reconciliation procured by the Blood of Jesus: Now this Reconciliation made with God respects the Gentiles and Iews equally; for some might plead that it was the peculiar priviledge of the Iews, as being the only Church of God, to enjoy the benefit of propitiating Sacrifices: others might think to do the Jews a kindness in pleading that Reconciliation only belonged to the Gentiles, for they alone were Enemies to God, and therefore they only needed it; but the Apostle assures us that Iews as well as Gentiles had need of a Mediator of Reconciliation, and that Gentiles as well as Jews had a share in the Grace, and mercy of it: God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself. Thus the Apostle Eph. 2. 13. But now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the Blood of Christ. v. 16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one Body by the Cross. Now here our Author meets us with a window open into his Soul, that we may see the Pulse of his heart, and what he understands by Christ's reconciling the World to God. That is (says he) the Gentiles were received into the fellowship of God's Church, and the p. 633Iews and Gentiles united in one Body or Society. Some that were strangers to our Author's Sentiments would greedily ask, what was that great quarrel between Jews and Gentiles, that God must send his only begotten Son, out of his Bosom to dye a most bitter, violent, painful, lingering, cursed Death, to take it up? That he must be made sin, have Iniquities charged upon him, to make them friends? That there have been Wars, and Contentions betwixt the Iews and their Neighbours, Histories both sacred and prophane, abundantly testify; there are such amongst most Neighbouring Nations: But shall we think that God will send his Son into the World to compose all the bickerings that ever were in the World? But suppose there had been a Necessity of it, was the feud so inveterate that nothing but the Death of him that came to make Peace could take it away? must every Man dye a Cursed Death that comes to make up a breach between two wrangling Neighbours or Nations? few would be ambitious to be Plenipotentiaries upon such Terms. It is true, there was a difference or distinction set up by God himself, between the Jews and the rest of the World, but no quarrel or enmity put between them: But then, 1. The Gentiles had Liberty to become Proselytes of Righteousness, and then the union had been made, the Ceremonial Law still standing in force. 2. God could easily have taken down the Partition▪ Wall, and laid the Church open from the enclosure; there was a Time when there was none of that discriminating Dispensation, and he that set it up could have abrogated, and repealed it, without such a dreadful way of giving his only Son to be Made first Man, and then Sin, and then a Curse▪ It p. 634seems strange that God should first Create a necessity of a quarrel; and then put his Son upon a necessity to remove it at so dear a price as his own Blood. 3. If our Author was once i'th' right, there was no great need of removing these Ceremonies, for (says he) p. 29. The rest of the World might when they pleased fetch the best Rules of Life, and the most certain notices of the Divine Will from the Jews; so long then as they might have a fairer Copy of their Moral-Law, they needed not be beholden to them for their Ceremonies. But the bottom of the business is this and no other: The Scripture is most express that Christ is said to reconcile us to God by his Blood, by his Death, & it would be a burning shame to deny it: What is then to be done? First, it's resolved on, that it's not to be endured, that any of the Blessings of the Gospel be allowed the proper effects of his Death or Blood; why then, some wholsome expedient must be found out that the expression may be owned, and yet the thing it self rejected: And the best that can be thought on at present is this, To imagine a most terrible War between Jews and Gentiles, upon the Account of Ceremonies; such as set the whole World on a Flame, and involved all Mankind in the dreadful Combustion; not a single Person in all the World but sided in with one of the parties: And now if▪ we could but be Masters of so much Confidence as to say that Christ came, and dyed, and was made a Curse to make these two Parties friends, there would be something that might be called Reconciliation. Now upon a serious view of the premises, it was observed that the Jews had some marks of distinction whereby they were priviledged above, and differenced from the rest of Mankind: Now a difference you know sometimes signifies a Quarrel, p. 635which fell out as luckily as heart could wish; and therefore these tokens of difference shall be called Enmity, and Christ's taking away this difference, shall be called the removing of the Enmity, and by Consequence, Reconciliation: yes, there it must go, if anywhere: for I see and am glad to see it, that our Author is willing to carry some fair Correspondency, and not to fall out flat with the Death of Christ. Now (says he) This Union of Iews and Gentiles is owing to the Gospel which takes away all marks of distinction; and gives them both equal right to the Blessings of the New-Covenant. But, 1. To what purpose was the Enmity removed between Iew and Gentile, if the Enmity of God against both had not been removed; all Union on Earth without Peace, without Heaven, is but a wicked confederacy. 2. The Iews as well as Gentiles are said to be reconciled. Now what-ever grudg the Gentiles might have against the Iews, yet the Jews had no Cause of any against the poor Gentiles; did they envy them, their darkness, and blindness, and Alienation from their Common-Wealth? 3. They must both be reconciled to God; and what did the removal of Ceremonies contribute to that end? But (says he) This New-Covenant belongs to all Mankind, to Gentiles as well as Iews, there's now no distinction of Persons, no Man is ever the more or less accep…able to God because he is a Iew or a Greek: very true! I wonder when ever it was otherwise! Our Author could have Answered himself from p. 27. Those particular favours that God bestowed on Israel: were not owing to any partial fondness, and respect to that People, but the design of all was, to encourage the whole World to Worship the God of Israel; And that the Jews were not accepted for their Ceremonial Services, we may easily believe, if we can but believe p. 636what he tells us, Pag. 269. The Law of Moses … them up in a ritual and external Religion; taught them to Worship God in the Letter by Circumcision, Sacrifices, and an external Conformity to the Letter of the Law; but the Gospel aloue teaches us to worship God with the Spirit, to offer a reasonable Service to him. And if he can but assure me that the Gentiles were never the less accepted of God, because they were Gentiles; I dare give him my Warrant, that the Iews were never the more accepted of God for their Judaism, according to those Measures which our Author has given of their Religion, which it seems was mere Pageantry. [2.] Concerning. Redemption, he acquaints us what it signifies, both to Iews and Gentiles. (1.) As to the Iews: They (says he) are said to be redeemed from the Curse of the Law, by the accursed Death of Christ upon the Cross, Gal. 3. 13. Because the Death of Christ put an end to that legal Dispensation, and sealed a New, and better Covenant between God and Man. It's well he could find any thing small enough to be the proper and immediate effect of the Death of Christ; but who shall reconcile the Apostle and our Author? The Apostle says, Christ redeemed them by being made a Curse for them; Our Author says, No, he only put an end to that Legal Dispensation: The Apostle says, they were redeemed by a price paid, foreign, He brought them out with a price, which he expresses in words at length, 1 Cor. 6. 20. foreign; Ye are bought with a price: No, says he, Christ's Death put an end to that legal Dispensation. The Apostle says, they were redeemed, foreign; from under the Curse: No, says he, 'twas only a freedom from the legal Dispensation. Two suppositions he makes use of to give a Colour to his matters.

p. 6411. Sect. That the Iews were under no other Curse, but that of the Ceremonial Law. Now, 1. He should have been sure that the Ceremonial Law was a Curse: It's a wonder to me, what grievous sins the Iews above all the World should commit, that God should put them under such a Curse, as should need the Death of Christ to redeem them from it; especially what great Crimes had Abraham been guilty of, that God should thus Curse and plague him with Circumcision, which yet the Scripture calls the Seal of the Righteous Faith, Rom. 4. 11. 2. It would be considered whether ever God gave a Law to any People in the World besides them, that in its own Nature was a Curse? Our Author once told us, p. 196. That it pleased, God to Institute a great many Ceremonies in the Iewish Worship, to awe their Childish minds into a greater Veneration of the Divine Majesty. And truly, better so than worse; better be frighted into Obedience, than not at all Obedient: But that ever God designed it for a Curse is past my apprehension. 3. The Ceremonial Law in it's constitution, end, and design, was a great Blessing: there they had Pardon of sin, Atonement, Reconciliation exhibited, and sealed to them, Lev. 17▪ 11. 2 Chron. 29. And all this could be no curse, but to those who loved their sins better than the pardon of them, and to such every Blessing of God would eventually prove a Curse. 4. It will appear they were under a greater curse than what arose from the burden someness, or their violation of the Ceremonial Law, viz. That Condemnation which came upon all Men by the Fall of Adam, Rom. 5. 12, 13, 14. 17, 18, 19. Such a Curse as was Common not only …o Iew and Gentile, but to every individual under p. 642both capacities, Rom. 3. 9. We have proved, both Iews, and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, ver. 19. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the World become guilty before God, ver. 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God. And therefore all had need of free justification by Grace, through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ, ver. 24. 5. The Jews were under a curse upon the Account of their violation of the Moral Law, and their not duly attending to the true ends of the Ceremonial Law; but if the violation of a Law would make it become a curse, then the Moral Law was become a curse too; and then they had need of a Redeemer from the one as well as the other, though both were blessings in themselves. The Ceremonial Law in particular had this great blessing in it: That as it discovered to them the demerit, and Wages of sin, in the slaying of the Sacrifices; so it discovered a remedy two, in the Sacrifices slain for them, which directed them to look through them, beyond them, and above them, to him who was the Lamb of God slain from the Foundation of the World: All this was no curse.

2. Sect. He supposes that the Text, Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath Redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, relates onelyonly to the Iews: Whereas the Apostle adds to obviate that Cavil, That the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles: Christ is made a curse for them upon whom the Blessing of▪ Abraham came by his Death; but the Blessing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles by his Death; therefore Christ is made a Curse for the Gentiles. And that the Law from the curse whereof both Jews and Gentiles were Redeemed by Christs being made a Curse for them, is the Moral Law; p. 643I have endeavoured to evince in the last Section, but whether to our Authors content or no I know not. One thing more he supposes, that Christs Sealing a New Covenant is Redemption: But there must go more than the sealing of such a Covenant as he has described: There must be the payment of a Price to Iustice, or there can be no Redemption: To Redeem, is properly to buy back again, that which was forfeited, and such were Sinners: Their Persons forfeited to Iustice, their Mercies escheated into the hands of the Law; Now comes a Redeemer and gives himself to God as a foreign, a Counter-price, a valuable Consideration, to Answer the demands of Justice, and the claims of the Law; and this is something more than abolishing Ceremonies, or Sealing a Covenant; but if our Author can contrive a way of Redeeming and Purchasing by Paper, Parchment, and Wax, by Sealing Covenants without paying down a valuable consideration, he will highly oblige this present Age to read his Book, which is more studious to purchase this world, than about the deliverance of their Souls from present Curse, and future wrath, by the blood of a Redeemer.

(2) As for the Gentiles he acquaints us next, from 1 Pet. 1. 18. how they were Redeemed. Ye were not Redeemed with corruptible things, as Silver and Gold from your vain Conversation received by Tradition from your Fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot. In which words the Apostle evidently shews, That look what place Silver and Gold do hold in the Redemption of Persons, or things that are Legally under seizure, the same does the blood of p. 644Christ obtain in ▪the Redemption of sinners: Christs blood was not indeed a corruptible price, like Silver and Gold; yet it was a price, a proper price, though not a corruptible price, and has the same Office with another price, if we may compare small things and great: and in that he excepts the corruptibility of this price, he establishes the parallel in the other particulars, Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam. And he gives us further light into this Affair from that expression foreign, with the precious blood of Christ, or that blood which is a price. So the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 6. 20. foreign. Ye are bought with a Price▪ And yet further: That the blood of Christ▪ that is Christ by dying, is this Price; which is evident in that he compares Christ himself, to the Sacrifices of Atonement, and Expiation, where the Lamb chosen out for that Service, was to be without spot and blemish. And thus the Apostle Paul conspires with his beloved Brother Peter, 1 Tim. 2. 6. Who gave himself a Ransom for all; foreign. Now if foreign, & foreign: will not evince a proper price paid by way of Ransom for another, we must despair of ever expressing Truth with that clearnes, but it shall be lyable to mis-construction, by the possibility of another meaning; and it's in vain to seek a Remedy against that evil, for which there's no Help in Nature. But let us now hear our Authors Apprehensions about these things. The Gentiles (says he) were delivered from Idolatry by the Preaching of the Gospel, which is called their being Redeemed by the blood of Christ, because we owe this unspeakable Blessing to his Death. Here are several things which he asserts, and takes for granted.

p. 6451. Sect. That the Apostle speaks here only of the Redemption of the Gentiles, not of the Iews. A Fancy so idle, that nothing but an absolute necessity to preserve the Life of his Cause could justifie it▪ Hunger (we say) will break through stone walls; extremity taught Mariners that use of Jury-Masts, and such pinching Scriptures have made men rack their wits for evasions: That this Epistle was primarily written to the Jews of the Asian foreign we need not vouch Scaliger to prove, c. 1. v. 1. puts it out of doubt. To the strangers scattered through Pontus, &c. which the Apostle Iames, Chap. 1. ver. 1. expresses, To the twelve Tribes scattered abroad: His pressing them with the Authority of the Prophets, his alluding to Old Testament-worship, Ordinances, Customes; His urging them with the example of Sarah, do clearly prove it, besides his Exhortation, Ch. 2. 12. To have their conversation honest amongst the Gentiles, evidently distinguishes them to whom he wrote, from the Gentiles amongst whom they dwelt; and yet because of the Communion that was between the believing Iews, and believing Gentiles, there are some passages in this Epistle that respect them also: But still the primary intendment of the Epistle was to the Jews, which one thing destroys all that goodly superstructure that he has raised upon this supposition that the Apostle here speaks of the Redemption of the Gentiles onelyonly.

2. Sect. He supposes that Redemption signifies no more than deliverance in general; whereas the Redemption here mentioned is a special way of deliverance by a price paid. As silver and gold are used in the Redemption of Captives, so is the blood of Christ p. 646in the Redemption of Sinners; but Silver and Gold are paid as a Price for the Redemption of Captives, therefore so is the Blood of Christ. Now, what is that which in our Authors New Model of Redemption by Christ, Answers, the Silver and Gold in the Redemption of Captives? As the Redemption by Price is always Seconded with deliverance by Power; so deliverance by Power presupposes Antecedent Redemption▪ by Price: But here it is commonly Objected, That if the Blood of Christ be a proper Price, then it ought to be paid to the Devil, the world, or Sin, for these held the Sinner in Captivity. To which I Answer, true; if Satan detained the Sinner Prisoner in his own right, if Souls were his own proper spoyls, acquired by right of War, or otherwise; but the Devil is onelyonly an Officer of Divine Iustice, a Goaler, and Executioner of the Sentence of the Law: The World may pass for one of his UnderKeepers. As for sin that's the bondage and slavery it self. If then God be satisfied, in whose right, as the great Law-giver, and Governour, these Sinners are held in bondage, though Satan repine, and gnash his Teeth, he must quit his Prey and Prisoners. It is said again, that then upon the payment of▪ the price to God, the sinner is immediately set free: But no Reason compels us to Argue so; for the Price of Redemption being not paid to God by Man himself, but a third Person, a Mediator between them both: It's not onelyonly convenient, but absolutely necessary, that he submit to such Terms as shall be agreed upon between God and the Mediator, that he may actually enter upon the benefits of that Price paid: Besides, it's necessary he should be so qualified as to Glorifie both the Redeemer, and the free-grace of that God p. 647that accepted a Redeemer; and there are many of the greatest benefits of Redemption that would signifie nothing to the sinner if it were possible to imagine him invested with them, without a previous change in his Nature, enabling him to enjoy them: But yet it will be said, and is said by others of our Authors Judgment, who have managed these things with a greater appearance of cunning than himself: That however then, this Price should have been paid to God, which (say they) it was not; but we are confident that it was, 1 Tim. 1. 5, 6. There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Iesus, who gave himself a price of Redemption for all. Now, if Christ gave himself as a price of Redemption as Mediator between God and Man, he must either give it to God, or Man, (for as Mediator he stands onelyonly between these two Parties.) How absurd it is that he should pay it to Man, needs not many words to evince; it remains therefore that he paid it to God himself: But the Apostle Peter puts that out of dispute in the place under consideration: For he tells us, that we were Redeemed by the blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot; whence it appears, that Christ was the true Sacrifice chosen by God, immaculate, to be the real sin-offering; and that he was Offered to God as the Lamb was.

3. Sect. Our Author supposes, that all that the Gentiles were Redeemed from was some gross sins; he instances onelyonly in Idolatry, but we favourably allow him to include all Actual sins; and yet he comes not up to the design of Christ in Redemption: The vain Conversation received by tradition from their Fathers, foreign; was p. 648that Corruption that they derived by propagation, being by Nature the Children of wrath even as others: Jews and Gentiles being all equally under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law.

4. Sect. He supposes that we are Redeemed by the Preaching of the Gospel: To which I Answer; That we could never in any sense have been Redeemed by the power of the Gospel Preached, if we had not first been Redeemed by the price of the Blood of Christ paid to God in a proper sense.

5. Sect. He asserts that Deliverance by Preaching is called Redemption by Christs blood, because we owe this unspeakable blessing to his Death: But how do we owe the Preaching of the Gospel to the Death of Christ? When our Author himself was in such a Huff not long ago with any that should own a Doctrine as Gospel that was not Preach'd by Christ in his Life. He admired the Sermons of Christ beyond those of the Apostles, and will not allow that his Disciples Believed his Death before he was Crucified; and yet now we owe it all to his Death. As if Moses had not sufficiently confirmed the Truth of his Mission and Doctrine by Miracles, though he never dyed himself to confirm them: And as if Christ had not done the same abundantly, though he had never dyed; Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to the Iews, and Preach'd it in his own Person before his Death, and yet of those Jews it's said, Ye were Redeemed not with Corruptible things, as Silver and Gold, but with the precious Blood of Christ. But this our Author thinks he has proved from Eph. 2. 15, 16, 17. Having abolished in his Flesh (by his Death) the enmity, even the Law of Commandments, &c. Came, and Preached Peace to you which p. 649were afar off, and to them which were nigh. That which he would prove from hence is this: That the Redemption of the Gentile World by the Death of Christ, signifies no more than the Removing of the Ceremonial Law, and reclaiming them from Idolatry and Prophaneness by Preaching the Gospel, and then bringing them into one body or Church with the Jews. To make the Text Serviceable to such a design, it was necessary, 1. That he should lustily bind over our weaker imagination to his own stronger fancy, that by [Flesh] is meant the Death of Christ: For my part, I see no necessity that Flesh should signifie any more than his Assumption of our Nature; In which Nature he has answered and fulfilled all the Types and Ceremonies of the Law, though in divers ways, and at divers times: foreign which we render to Abolish, signifies not any formal positive Act, whereby a Law is expresly repealed and disanulled; but the rendring a thing useless of course, when it's end is attained: Thus were all the Ceremonies of the Law rendred absolete and of none effect, when Christ in the Course of his Ministry had answered their design; and particularly Sacrifices became useless, by the Death of Christ, those Services, which were Mercies and no curses in their day, being swallowed up of that greater mercy of the Death of Christ. 3. He must suppose, and that is indeed a reaching supposition, that Christs Preaching Peace, is the same thing formally with his procuring peace by his Death, than which nothing can be imagined more precarious; for he first procured Peace by his Blood; and then Preached that Peace which he had procured to Men in his Person, and by his Apostles; and therefore, though Christ Preach'd p. 650that peace to the Jews before he Suffered, yet it was with reference to that peace he should procure by his Sufferings. An eminent instance whereof we have in his Institution, and first Celebration of his last Supper, Mat. 26. 28. This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed, foreign, for the Remission of sins; for though his blood was not yet shed Actually, yet in Gods regard, and the Faith of Believers it was considered as shed Antecedently to the Remission of sins; for without shedding of blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9. 22. And thus was the Blood of Christ considered as shed from the first establishing of the New Covenant, Christ being called The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World; even that Lamb without spot, and blemish, by whose precious Blood Iews and Gentiles were Redeemed. 4. He must suppose too, that the enmity here mentioned is nothing but some bickering that had fallen out between Jew and Gentile about Ceremonies; which the Gentiles that I can find were never very envious at: and then, when he has made all those suppositions, and begged those Postulata's, he will be ready for Demonstration.

A particular consideration of the Text will set that strait which he had made crooked: And 1. The Apostle describes the state of the Gentiles by Nature to be most wretched and miserable, ver. 12. They were Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, Strangers from the Covenants of promise, without Christ, having no hope, without God in the World. They that are without Christ, are without God; and they that are without a promise, are without Christ; and they that are without Covenant, are without promise; and they that are without all these, must needs be without p. 651hope. Their Case must needs be desperate, that have …o Christ to bring them to God; no promise to bring them to Christ; and if they were Aliens from the Church, where the means of Grace were to be had, they must needs be without all these. 2. The Apostle shews the true means whereby the Gentiles were brought nigh to God; Ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ: It was Christs blood alone, by which the great impassable gulph was filled up that was between God and his Creature by sin; for Christ is our Peace. 3. That the Gentiles might not Object, that there were many Ceremonial Hedges and Fences that kept them off from enjoying the Priviledges of those who were reputed the onelyonly Children of God: He removes that small Objection, telling them Christ had already removed them in his Flesh, in his Person; he was the summe and substance of them: foreign. Having (already) in his Flesh (or Person) made void the Law of Ordinances, and (already) dissolved that Partition Wall: He that has Reconciled you to one God, has also brought you into one Church, which he repeats again, ver. 16. That he might Reconcile both unto God, in one Body, by the Cross, having slain the Enemy thereby, or in himself foreign: Here are first, the Parties Reconciled, Jews and Gentles; Secondly, to whom they are Reconciled; to God. Thirdly, the Fruit of this Reconciliation to God. They are brought into one Church amongst themselves. Fourthly, The Means whereby they are Reconciled to God, that so they might be capable of being United into one Church, and that is by the Cross of Christ, or by himself on the Cross, who bare our sins on the p. 652Tree. 4. The Apostle shews the way, and means of promulgating this Peace which he had made with God; and that was by the publick Preaching of the Gospel, ver. 17. He Preached Peace; he made Peace with God, and then Preached it to the Gentile World: He that had procured good will towards men, Preaches Peace on Earth. How little ground now had our Author to say, That we are said to be Redeemed by the Preaching of the Gospel, when the Preaching of the Gospel is nothing but a Declaration of that Redemption which Christ has made of Jew and Gentile with God, and the way and Method to be partakers of the benefit of it?

And now to draw to a close of this Matter, let us re-view our Authors Doctrine of Redemption: The Redemption of Iew and Gentile he makes to differ as much as the Faith of Abraham, and that of Christians.

1. They differ in the matter of Redemption, that which they were Redeemed from: The Jews they were Redeemed from the Ceremonial Law, the Gentiles they were Redemed from Idolatry, and impure practises.

2. They differ in the manner of procurement; for the Jews, Christ (says he) by his Death put an end to that Legal Dispensation; and so their turn is served, that little Redemption that they needed, which is all our Author can afford them, was Actually accomplisht by the Death of Christ, which was a proper and immediate cause of their Redemption, (such a one as it was;) but then the Gentiles they were Redemed after another fashion, by the Preaching of the Gospel, whereby they were turned from Idolatry, and impure practises. And this shall be called p. 653Redemption, because it were dangerous to ascribe it to the blood of Christ (for an Obvious Reason that he knows of;) but because the Scripture says we are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ, and gives that Blood a concernment therein; therefore to stop the …uth of the Scripture, it shall be said, we owe the Preaching of the Gospel to the blood of Christ.

[3.] There is one thing more, from whence our Author flatters himself with hopes of great success; and that is by mis-representing the Analogy between the Iewish Sacrifices, and the Sacrifices of Christ▪ Two things he attempts.

1. To shew what it is under the Law, to which the Death of Christ, his Ascention into Heaven, and presenting his Blood to God, does Answer.

2. What it is under the Law to which his Intercession Answers: Which project of our Authors has been contrived, and managed with a great deal more subtilty by those who would storm, or blush, to see their Arguments thus miserably abased.

(1.) To the former of these, he expresses himself thus. Now as the Death of Christ upon the Cross, and his Ascention into Heaven, and presenting his Blood to God in that most Holy place did answer to the first sprinkling of the Blood under the Law, which confirmed the Mosaical Covenant, as the Apostle Discourses, in Heb. 9. &c. In which few words he has heaped up more absurdities, and follies than another must hope to bring into twice as many. For,

1. Here is a supposition of Christs presenting his Blood to God in Heaven distinct from his Intercession, which when he shall offer to prove, it may be time to consider it.

p. 6542. He supposes that Christs Ascention into Heaven answered the first sprinkling of blood under the Law: A most ridiculous supposition! For what is there in sprinkling that answers to Ascention, or bears the least Analogy to it? Surely these Gentlemen that create such parallels, and fancy such uncouth resemblances, must have some mad design in their Heads, which nothing will subserve but such forced allusions: And I do not now wonder that he should so tediously rail at the use of Allusions in others, for they will deserve the most of scorn that can be thrown upon them, if they be all like his own.

3. That the Death of Christ upon the Cross did Answer the sprinkling of Blood under the Law which confirmed the Covenant, is very true: but then, 1. It must be remembred in what respect it confirmed the Covenant, not meerly as a witnessing to the Truth of what he has preach'd, but as Answering the demands, and claims of the Governing Iustice of God, as we have before shewed. 2. It must be remembred also that it was not such a Covenant as he has imposed upon us, but the true Covenant of Grace, wherein God promises to give that which our Author will not own; the New Heart, New Spirit, and New Obedience. 3. That to confirm a Covenant, was not all the design of it's sprinkling, but diverting of the wrath of God, procuring his favour, &c. So the Blood of Christ has greater ends than confirming of the Truth he taught, viz. the appeasing Gods just displeasure, procuring his Actual Love, pacifying of the Conscience, cleansing the Soul. 4. He supposes also that the Apostle Discourses to this purpose, Rom. 9. which is to make the Apostle accessory to his own groundless fopperies, who is indeed p. 655perfectly innocent of these crimes. For, 1. The sprinkling of the blood, which the Apostle mentions, Heb. 9. 9. in that mentioned Exod. 24. 6. Now, there was another sprinkling of blood Antecedent to that, which we read of, Exod. 12. to which the blood of Christ did Answer, and to which the Apostle refers, as is evident from Heb. 11. 28. Heb. 12. 24. 2. The sprinkling of Blood, Heb. 9. 19. being the same with that Exod. 24. 6. shews evidently that as the whole concern of the blood sprinkled at that time, was not confirming a Covenant, but Atoning God: So the whole concern of the blood of Christ, is not taken up in confirming a Covenant, much less such a thing as he will mis-call a Covenant, but in Reconciling God to Man, paying a price of Redemption to God, &c. 3. That the Apostle carries another Argument is evident▪ For, 1. The Typical Interest which those Sacrifices had in Redemption, were accomplish'd before the Blood was carried in to the Holiest place, ver. 12. Neither by the blood of Bulls and Goats, but by his own Blood he entred into the most Holy place, having obtained eternal Redemption: Thus Christ had obtained eternal Redemption, and perfected the whole work of it (as far as the paying of a price to God goes in the Matter) before his Ascention; and that which remained, was the application of the benefit of what he had procured with God, to us, by his prevailing Intercession: And as to the blood of the Sacrifices mentioned, Exod. 24. 6. which the Apostle refers to, ver. 19. which our Author thinks had no other use but the confirming of the Mosaical Covenant, it was never carried into the most Holy place at all, nor the blood of any Propitiatory Sacrifice, but onelyonly that upon the Feast of p. 656Expiation once a year. 2. The Apostle in this Chapter, does not onelyonly refer to the sprinkling of the Blood of the Sacrifice, Exod. 24. but to the sprinkling of the blood of the Red Heifer, Numb. 19. 4. Eleazer shall take of her blood (the red Heifer without blemish, and without spot, ver. 2.) and shall sprinkle it directly before the Tabernacle of the Congregation: To which the Apostle expresly refers, ibid. v. 12. If the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of a Heifer sprinkling the unclean Sanctifieth to the purifying of the Flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit Offered himself to God, purge your Consciences from Dead works? And this blood was neither carried into the Holy place, nor the Ministration of the Service performed by the High-Priest, but by Eleazar: which proves, 1. That the blood of Christ had all its atoning vertue on this side his entrance into Heaven; and 2. That Christ was Typified by the inferior Priests, and not by the High-Priest alone: For here not Aaron, but Eleazar performed the Service of the Day. 3. The Apostle clearly Disputes against this Figment of Christs presenting his blood to God in Heaven, (which the Men of this leaven, will needs have to be all the Sacrifice that Christ Offered to God) ver. 25, 26. Nor yet that he should Offer himself often, for then he must often have Suffered. No Offering without Suffering: But Christ Suffered but once, therefore he Offered but once. Nay, says the Apostle, Now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. That which Christ did once he does not do always; but if Christs appearing before God in Heaven, be the offering of himself in sacrifice, he does it always to the end of his Mediatory Kingdom.

p. 657(2) But what was it under the Law, to which the Intercession of Christ answers? To this he returns thus: As the Death, &c. so his continual Intercession for us in virtue of his Blood once shed, and once offer'd to God, answers those frequent Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law, especially to that General Sacrifice on the great Day of Expiation, when the High-priest enter'd into the Holy of Holies with the blood of Beasts: As the Death of Christ, his Ascension, and presenting his Blood to God, answers that one, so his Intercession answers the other. Yes indeed, just so, with so much Truth and Regularity of Proportion; that is, with just none at all. What parallel he can fancy between Expiation and Intercession, I cannot divine: This I know,

1. The Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law, were by Blood-shedding; It was the Blood upon the Altar, as the Life of the Sacrifice, that made Expiation, Lev. 17. 11. but in Christs Intercession there is no shedding of Blood.

2. The Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law, were by the Death of the Sacrifice, and so was the Expiation of Christ: And so says our Author too, p. 327. He hath made a perfect Expiation for our sins, by dying once▪ p. 328. He procures the Pardon of our sins by his Death: But in Heaven there is no Death; and yet he says, The Intercession of Christ answers the Expiations by Sacrifice under the Law; that is, just as much as Life answers Death: But how to make our Author friends with the Apostle, will be difficult, who is so hard to be reconciled to himself.

3. The Expiations which were made by the frequent Sacrifices, were all without the Holyest, but p. 658the Intercession of Christ is in the most Holy place: And is not this a famous correspondency? But how clear is all this, if we could be reconciled to the Scriptures? Where the Death of Christ upon the Cross, answers all the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, and the Intercession of Christ at the right Hand of God, or his appearing continually in Heaven before his Father for us, answers the Highpriests entering into the Holy of Holies, with that Blood which had been before shed at the Altar. But whereas such was the imperfection, such the poverty of the Types, that no one was able to Answer all the Concerns of a Sinner, no one could express all the various respects that a guilty Person had to God, and his Law; and therefore it was necessary that various Sacrifices should be instituted, that they might represent those things foreign, which it was impossible they should perform foreign, our Lord Jesus Christ by one Offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. For where Remission is, there is no more Offering for sin, v. 18. When therefore our Author affirms, so secure of Contradiction, That Christs continual Intercession answers those frequent Expiations under the Law, especially that on the great day of Expiation; he has said enough to determine this Matter: For if there were frequent Expiations under the Law, besides that of the Feast of Expiation, and that there be any thing in Christs Sacrifice answering to them; it follows, that Christs Expiatory work was finish'd before his entrance into Heaven; for the Blood of those other Sacrifices never came within the Holy of Holies, which answers to the true Holy Place where Christ makes continual Intercession for us.

p. 659All this while the Reader ought charitably to believe that our Author is discoursing what influence the death of Christ hath upon our Acceptation with God; To which he has answered, that it Confirms a Covenant, it procures a Covenant, though how it procures a Covenant he has not yet informed us; Justification, Reconciliation, Redemption are not the proper and immediate effects of his death; nor indeed is any thing so, but the abolishing ceremonies, and conforming such a Covenant, as he has obtruded upon us, and for confirming that which he calls the Covenant, there was the least need, and I think no need at all; but he closes up the whole with a parcel of good words; Christ (says he) procures the pardon of our sins by his death, and dispenses this pardon to us by his Intercession: Is not this very Canonical, and Orthodox? yes sure; but now mark his interpretation of himself: He sealed the Covenant of Grace by his blood, and intercedes for us in the virtue of his blood. So that he wheels about again, and Procuration is turned into Confirmation: Christs procuring the pardon of sin is no more than that he has scaled this Doctrine, that whosoever believes and obeyes shall be pardoned; Expiation that's owing to Christs intercession in heaven, and reconciliation is nothing but making the Iews and Gentiles friends, and preaching the Gospel to reclaim men from their debaucheries.

Notwithstanding all this our Author will not be beaten out of it, but that he and his principles are better friends to the blood of Christ, than those men that pretend to magnifie it: for they attribute no more to it than the non-imputation of sin; that Christ by his death, bearing and undergoing the punishment that was due to us, paying the ransom that was due for p. 660us, delivered us from this condition (the wrath, and curse of God and his whole displeasure, &c.) But now our Author ascribes much more than all this comes to; For (says he) the Scripture gives us a different account of it, we are said to be justified, and redeemed by the blood of Christ, nay we have boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Iesus; we have admission into Heaven it self, but the Doctor (Owen) says, that the Blood of Christ makes us innocent, but cannot give us a right to the Kingdom of Heaven. And now what comparison is there between these two? The summe of the business is this: Our Author attributes perhaps more to the Blood of Christ in wordy complement, but what the Doctor ascribes to the Death of Christ, he does in reality: Our Author will confess, that we are redeemed by the Blood of Christ; but when you come, (as all that are not Children will come) to examine what he means by it, then it shrinks into this: Christ by his Death confirmed the Promise of Pardon and Life to them that Believe and Obey, and this Promise he has appointed to be declared to the world, and when men believe it, and obey the Gospel themselves, they are then Redeemed; Christs death is no immediate, no proper Cause of Redemption, no price pay'd to God, accepted by him for poor Captive Sinners: Nay our Author will not stick to say, We are justified by the Blood of Christ too, but when you come to sift his Notion, it's all bran; he confirmed the Promise, which when we believe, and obey the Gospel Commands, we are justified; so that in my weak Judgement, it had beeen commendable in our Author, to have been very sure that he attributes any thing at all to the Death of Christ, as the proper p. 661Cause of that Mercy, before he enter'd into Degrees of Comparison with others; something I do perceive indeed he would attribute to Christs Death, Viz. The confirming of a certain Covenant, but so feebly asserted, so weakly proved, that it needs the Candour of the Reader: But now what doe these other men attribute to the blood of Christ? Why Nothing but Non-Imputation of Sin, bearing and undergoing the Punishment that was due to us, paying the Price that was due for us; delivering us from this Condition, (The Wrath, Curse, and whole displeasure of God,) and that by the Death of Christ, all Cause of Quarrel and Rejection is taken away: And if this be Nothing in our Authors Arithmetick, we desire he will ascribe more to it, if he can justifie it when he has done: But the truth is, our Author is most grievously gulled in this business; He reads their Writings who are too crafty for him, and smile to see how little he understands of them: Though these men attribute no more to the blood of Christ as shed on the Cross, yet they are willing to let him know, that they attribute more to the Blood of Christ than as it was shed on the Cross: The Blood of Christ, and the Death of Christ, are not Expressions of equal latitude: All the Concerns of Christs Blood are not comprehended in his Death; for they consider it as that in the virtue whereof he intercedes for them upon the Throne of Grace; as that which gives them a holy and humble boldness to draw nigh to God, the Quarrel being removed by his Death: And that our Author may see his own delusion herein, I shall give him a short Collation from that person whom he contends with: Exercit. on Heb. Vol. 2. p. 99. There are Two general Ends of Christs p. 662Interposition: 1. Averruncatio Mali, the turning away of all Evil, hurt, dammage, or punishment, on the Account of our sins, and Apostacy from God: 2. Acquisitio Boni; or, the procuring and obtaining for us, every thing that is good, with respect to our Reconciliation to him, Peace with him, and Enjoyment of him; and these are intended in the general parts of his Office. For, 1. His Oblation principally respects the making Atonement for sins, and the turning away Gods wrath, which is due to Sinners, wherein he was Jesus the Deliverer, who saves us from wrath to come. And this is all that is included in the Nature of Oblation, as absolutely considered; but it had a farther Prospect, for with respect to that Obedience which he yielded to God therein, according to the Terms of that Covenant, betwixt the Father and Christ, it was not onelyonly Satisfactory, but Meritorious; that is, by the Sacrifice of himself, he not onelyonly turned away the wrath of God that was due to us, but also obtained for us Eternal Redemption, with all the Grace and Glory thereto belonging. And now if our Author will but ascribe any of all these things to the blood of Christ, as its proper and immediate Cause; he may hope to perswade the world, that he is willing to ascribe something to the Blood of Christ I know well he will say, That the Blood of Christ is said to Redeem us, is said to Iustifie us; these are Scripture Phrases indeed, the sound of words carries it thus; but when he comes to open the Meaning of things, the Blood of Christ does neither redeem, nor justifie us, but after multitudes of Deductions, and great windings of Inferences, and Conclusions, p. 663one upon the Neck of another; it does that, which does another thing, which procures a third, which leads to a fourth, which brings us to believe, that Belief may possibly bring us to Obedience, and when all is done, it's our Obedience that justifies us: And we owe our Acceptation with God to our own Obedience, and he is more inclined to think, that nothing can justifie us, rather than to own it due to the Righteousness of Christ imputed, as he expresses himself, p. 272. And now at length he once more casts up his Reckonings: Our Righteousness, and Acceptance with God, is wholly owing to the Covenant which he has purchased, and sealed with his own blood. What a rare sound does that word purchase carry with it? But, 1. He has purchased no more, than that we shall be Pardoned and Saved, if we Believe and Obey, without any Ability purchased to Believe and Obey. 2. Christ did not purchase any one single, spiritual Benefit for us, as the Cause of it, immediate and proper. 3. He purchased Nothing but that he may lose the whole Benefit of his Purchase. 4. Obedience will as soon save us without the Blood of Christ as with it: Lesser Obedience with that Blood, is not more acceptable to God than Greater without it: But this he will call an Influence upon our Acceptation with God. I confess, he is a Free-man, for ought I know, and may call, or miscall Things, as he has done Persons at his pleasure, but surely no man whose understanding is his own, would ever call this an Influence upon our Acceptation with God; A contingent, uncertain Influence it may have upon our Obedience, but none at all upon the Acceptation of our Obedience. An act of Love to God, is as welcome and acceptable to God at this p. 664rate, without Christ as with Him: But this is the Misery of it; when Men must say something, and yet cannot tell well what to say, but either on the one hand they must flie in the Face of the Scripture, which they hardly dare do; or else on the other hand renounce their beloved Errors, which they are resolved never to do; then must the Scriptures be wrested to their crooked Sentiments, instead of Rectifying their crooked Notions by the straight Rule of the written Word.

[2] Having now Informed us what Influence the Death of Christ has upon our acceptance with God, it remains that he Instruct us with equal Ingenuity, what Influence the Righteousness of his Life has upon God, for the same end? But here he will be to seek, for having assigned in words so much to the Death of Christ, there is nothing left for his Life. No matter upon which it may work; but seeing all the former was in pretence, there is Employment enough for it left still.

Though the pardon of sin, and our justification, be attributed (says he) to the blood of Christ, yet I could never persuade my self that this wholly excludes the perfect obedience, and righteousness of his life: He cannot persuade himself; very strange! what had he attempted to satisfie his judgement about the exclusion of Christs righteousness, and yet could he not be persuaded? yes, persuaded he was to exclude it, but not wholly to exclude it, there were some rubs, and little scruples in the way, that he could not get over: but had he improved his own principles, and built upon his own foundation, I could have shewn him a way how he might wholly have excluded it, for p. 243. he gives it us as a Note worth our observing p. 665that in the whole New Testament there is no such expeession as the Righteousness of Christ; And p. 78. he lays it down as an infallible maxime; That we cannot draw any one conclusion from the person of Christ, which his Gospel hath not expresly taught; seeing then we cannot safely draw any such conclusion from Christs Person, and the Scripture has not expresly taught it, what should hinder him from a plerophory in this point, wholly to exclude that from his Creed, which is not expresly taught in the Scripture, and therefore may not be drawn from the consideration of his Person by consequence. And if his scruples had been but as strong against the righteousness of Christ, (or he had been in the scrupling mood) as against the justification of Abraham by the righteousness of Christ, this matter had been put out of doubt with him wholly long before this. In the mean time, The righteousness of Christ is mightily beholden to his good Nature, that when by his principles he might, yet out of civility he would not, and therefore could not wholly exclude it: Some Place, some Room it shall have, some Remote and Improper causality, as the Death of Christ had in our Acceptation with God: But what may be the Reason why he could not altogether, as well as almost exclude it? O, he tells us, that the Apostle tells him, Ephes. 1. 6. That we are accepted in the Beloved. And is this the great difficulty? Alas, one of his Wedges would make this little Knot flie at the first stroke: May there not possibly be given another meaning of it? Must it needs be Interpreted of Acceptation through the active Obedience of Christ? This would have done the work. Or thus, Our acceptation is ascribed to the Obedience of Christs Life, because that p. 666has a great Influence upon us to make us Obedient, which is that Righteousness for which we are accepted of God. The Example of Christ has given us a Pattern of Obedience, which when we Imitate, we are accepted of God; but what now if he had played one of his Omnipotent Machines against the Text, he might have Batter'd down the Conclusion with ease. By the Beloved, is meant Christ, by Christ, is meant the Gospel; by the Gospel is meant Obedience, and then the sence is no more but this; We are accepted in the Beloved, that is, We are accepted for our selves. And I must needs say, this had been a far more Rational Course, than that he has taken with the Death of Christ: Ay, but (says he) whatever rendred Christ beloved of God, did contribute something to our Obedience: Something? That's a huge Kindness indeed; There's a vast distance between something and nothing, and yet it may be such a something, as is next to nothing. Well, we are glad of a little till we can get more: For because he was beloved of God, we are accepted for his sake: That's high, and surprizing. But still, What kind of Cause was Christs Obedience of our acceptance? One of the Poorest, Lowest causes in the World, is one that they Nick-name a Causa sine quâ non; which yet is properly no cause at all; And yet our Author when time was, could tell us, pag. 43. That had Christ never appeared in the World, yet we have reason to believe God is thus Wise, Good, and Merciful, to forgive us our sins, when we return to our Duty: Such a Cause was the Death of Christ of our acceptance. Pag. 46. Gods requiring such a Sacrifice as the Death of Christ for the Expiation of our sins, was not because he could p. 667not do otherwise. If now we might have been accepted without his Incarnation, I presume we might have been so without his Obedience; and then it is not so much as that little nothing of a Causa sine quâ non: But this is pure Trifling; For the Question was, What Influence Christs Righteousness has upon our acceptance with God? He answers, That because Christ was beloved, we are beloved for his sake. That is, Christs Obedience has an Influence upon our acceptance; but what that Influence is, remains a Secret: Suppose the Question had been, Why are we accepted for Christs sake? The answer might have been, His Obedience has an Influence upon our acceptation. Those two words, [Influence, and Sake,] are like two Rackets, that Toss the Ball from one to another, to the end of the Game: However, Rebus sic stantibus, under our present Circumstances; I would gladly know, What that Influence is? Why, He thinks no man will deny that God was very highly pleased with the perfect Obedience of our Saviours Life. Truly, I think so too, and perhaps it may be the last time that we shall be both of a mind: But yet to put it upon thinking, is a more cunning way of Tempting our unbelief to appear against it. Had it been a truth wherein our Authors affections had been bespoke, I doubt not but we should have had better Proof than his thinking, or standing to the Courtesie of mens denyal: But still, still the Difficulty presses us: Why God should be ever the more pleased with our Obedience, because He was pleased with Christs? For if no consideration be had of Christs Obedience in the Justification of a sinner, as that which God accepts for our Non-obedience, I do not p. 668see, but God had been as well pleased with our Obedience without Christs Obedience, as with it: The Obedience of Christ was a Transient thing, it's past and gone long since, and how it should come in remembrance before God, at this day, that for the sake of it, we should find savour in his Eyes; is (without the Doctrine of Imputation) very unaccountable. Why, that is the thing wherein our Author will at length Resolve us.

We know (says he) how many Blessings God bestowed upon the Children of Israel, for the sake of their Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, who were great Examples of Faith and Obedience, which made them very dear to God; and there is no doubt but God was more pleased with the Obedience of Christ, than with the faith of Abraham, and therefore we ought not to think that we receive no Benefit by the Righteousness of Christ, when Abrahams Posterity was so blessed for his sake. I have several humble Propositions to make upon this Discourse. 1. We ought not to think that we have no benefit: But how shall we do to know what that Benefit is? Great or Small, Spiritual, or Temporal? Must we content our selves with thinking? Surely, we have some benefit, if we could but tell what it was: It may be, we may want that benefit; and may have it for asking, for his sake, and yet still we must not know what it is; or it may be some small benefit that cannot be seen without a Microscope; such it may be, and yet answer all the necessary Import of his words. 2. We ought not to think that we have no benefit: But have we the benefit of acceptation with God? For that was the Question, if I have not forgotten, p. 669as well as our Author: So that though we should be so charitably credulous as to take it upon one of our Authors Say-soes, and Thinkings, that we have some benefit by it, yet if it be not the very benefit under Dispute, it's monstrously Impertinent. 3. We ought not to think: But what if we do think so? With what argument will he compel us to alter our Judgments? For I see this is his Device, when he has no mind to a Truth, to lay the Proof of it upon thinking, and a well fortified fancy. 4. Let us now examine his Similitude: God (says he) bestowed many Blessings upon Israel, for the sake of their Fathers. But, 1. VVere they accepted of God, Pardoned, Iustified, for their Fathers sake? If not, How will it follow, that we are Accepted, Pardoned, Iustified, for the sake of Christs Obedience, because they received some common Favours for the sake of Abraham? 2. VVould God give them any blessings for their Fathers sake, unless they walked in their steps? If not, then they were not accepted for their Fathers obedience-sake, but for their own: For why should they need the sake of their Fathers Obedience, to procure them Blessings for their Obedience, more than their Fathers needed the sake of another to procure them Blessings for their Obedience? But if so, that God did give them many blessings for their Fathers sakes, though they walked not in the steps of their Faith, and Exemplary Obedience: That is indeed to the purpose, but then it will be in danger of proving that God may give us Gospel blessings for Christs sake, though we walk not in his steps. Indeed we read, that when Israel was most unworthy, and had provoked God most, that God did remember his Covenant made p. 670with Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and God may have special Favours too for sinners, who personally considered are unworthy of the least Mercy, which some will call the Imputation of Christs Obedience. 3. The true account of those Favours which God bestowed upon Israel for Abrahams saké, is this: God had made a Promise to Abraham, that in his Seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed. That is, That in the Messiah which should come of his Line by Isaac, there should be a Blessedness or Happiness,) provided for the miserable undone VVorld: This Promise was afterwards clear'd up to Iudah, that the Messiah should be conveyed to the VVorld by his Tribe; this being an absolute, irrevocable Promise, that God would out of that People, that Tribe, deliver a Saviour to the VVorld: It was necessary that God should preserve that Tribe, that People, out of which the Messiah was to come; and as it was necessary for the truth of the Promise, that that Tribe should be continued in being, so was it necessary for the evidencing of the fulfilling of the Promise, that that Tribe should be continued in some considerable state of Visibility in the VVorld; that so the Promise might not only be made good in it self, but that it might be made out that it was made good, to the Conviction of Gain-sayers. This was the Reason why, when Iudah had sinned, and God Corrected them, yet still He remembred this Covenant; he left his People a Lamp for Davids sake, on this account that People escaped utter Extirpation, when they were upon the borders of Desolation: To this Zachary imputes the giving of the Messiah, Luke 1. 72. To perform the Mercy promised to our Fathers, and to remember His holy Covenant. p. 671The Oath which he Sware to our Father Abraham. 4. Perhaps this may be some account of it: The Covenant which God made with Abraham, he made with his Seed also, Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. Abraham therefore, and his Seed, were but one of the Parties to that Gracious Covenant; and therefore God in his Providential Dispensations dealing with them as one Body, the Obedience, Holiness of Abraham the Head, was considered as the Obedience, and Holiness of the Body, so far at least as to turn away temporal Evils, and procure temporal Mercies: And if this be so, we may consider Christ and Believers as one Mystical Body, and God in Covenant with Christ their Head, and in him with them, and then our Authors Argument will hold, though his Cause break: If God for the sake of Abrahams imperfect Obedience, yet as he was the Head of the League, gave so many temporal MercieMercy to Israel; surely then, God for the sake of Christ, the Head of all that the Father hath given him, will bestow Spiritual and Eternal Mercies; for, the Head and Members making but one Body, the Obedience of the Head, is reputed the Obedience of the Members: And as the Blessings which God bestows for Christs sake, are Transcendently g…eater, than those bestowed on Israel for Abrahams sake; so is the Obedience which Christ performed upon it's own account, and the Dignity of the Person, infinitely beyond the imperfect Obedience of Abraham; and the Union which Faith makes with Christ is a stricter Union, than any Natural, Civil, Political Union, that could possibly be, between Abraham and his Posterity. Thus I have endeavoured to Vindicate p. 672our Authors Argument; but I am sure he had rather it should perish, than be thus justified.

But is it not strange, our Author should tell us, That he knows how many Blessings God bestowed upon the Children of Israel for their Fathers sakes, and yet not acquaint us with one single Blessing that God bestows on us for Christs sake? For the sake of Christs Personal Obedience? I wish I had so much Interest in any Friend of his, that had that Interest in him to perswade him to acquaint us freely, and open-heartedly, what those blessings are, and how procured? Why, just now he comes to it: The Righteousness of his Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death, both serve to the same end to establish, and confirm the GospelCovenant: God was so well pleased with what Christ did and suffered, with the obedience of his Life, and Death, that for his sake he entred into a Covenant of Grace with Mankind. Very good, what needed all this Circumlocution, and Periphrase? To beat about, and about the Bush? Had it not been more Civil to have given us our doom in plain English, than to Tantalize us with sugared hopes, and expectations of some great matter from Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob? Some would say, 1. That this ascribes more Influence to Abrahams Obedience than thus to Christs; for God for the sake of Abraham's Active Obedience entred into a Covenant with Israel, and chose them to be his peculiar People, without the Death of Abraham: but the Obedience of Christs Life, and Death, must both concur to procure this Covenant; and yet it is such a one, as I suppose God would not refuse upon as small an account as the sake of Abraham. 2. Some will say, this is not to Answer the Question, but perplex it: The p. 673Question at first was, what influence the Righteousness of Christs Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death have upon our acceptation with God? He Answers, They serve to establish the Covenant; they confirm to us, that God will pardon, and save us if we believe and Obey: but what if I Obey without such confirmation, shall my Obedience be rejected without it be performed upon that Confirmation? Ay, but God entred into this Covenant of Grace for Christs sake: Still I say that's not an answer, but the bandying the Question upon us again a hundred times over: Why should his Life and Death have such an influence upon God to make that Covenant? Why should they Operate that way? What connexion is there between Christs active and passive Obedience, and such a Covenant? But sure we forget our selves, for we are enquiring into the influence of Christs Active Obedience: And

(1.) For Confirming a Covenant; let any rational Man satisfie me how The Obedience of a Person perfectly holy, pure, spotless, sinless, being accepted of God should prove this promise, That therefore God will accept them whose best Obedience is imperfect, and defective. This is so far from confirming it, that God will accept me, who am a Sinner, that it leads to utter dispair of acceptance with him; seeing I came so infinitely short of my pattern: What hope can a sinner have of acceptance, from a consideration that God has accepted Christ, who was no sinner: If Faith was ready to believe that God would accept him that believes and obeys; yet had it seen Christs Faith and Obedience, and his acceptance thereon, it might have stagger'd him that ever such pitiful things as his Faith and Obedience p. 674should find favour with God. And if Faith was so strong, as to overcome that difficulty, as to believe the Promise notwithstanding this staggering Example; yet it's far enough from Truth, that a sinner should believe the promise ever the more, that his imperfect Service should be accepted and rewarded, because Christs entire obedience was so. Nay, without question it had been a greater confirmation of that promise, to have had assurance that God had pardoned some hainous Offender, some flagitious wretch, who deserved Condemnation, than to behold him accepting a Person not obnoxious to Condemnation: So says the Apostle, 1 Tim. 1. 16. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Iesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them who hereafter should believe on him to Life everlasting. The Pardon of a Blasphemer, one injurious, a Persecutor, is a stronger confirmation that God will pardon a sinner, than the acceptance of Him that had done no wrong, neither was guile found in his mouth.

(2.) But now for Gods making such a promise for Christs sake, or entring into a Covenant to pardon, accept for Christs sake; this answers not the Question in the least: for, 1. It onelyonly asserts, that God has declared openly, that he will do it. Now, a Declaration of Pardon, is not a Pardon; a promise of acceptance, is not acceptance; and therefore a Reason of, or Motive to such a Promise, such a Declaration, is not a Reason of, or Motive to Pardon and acceptance: Christs Obedience was so well pleasing to God, that for his sake he made such a Promise. Well; but if my Obedience be little, Christs Obedience will not make it accepted, as if it were p. 675great; if imperfect it will not render it accepted, as if it were perfect. 2. That God has made such a promise for Christs sake, answers not the Question; for it s but turning the Question into an Assertion: As if we should enquire, what Reason is there that God should accept me for Christs obedience? And he should Answer, there is a Reason, why God should accept me for it, but never shew the Reason: Or thus, What Cause is Christs Obedience, of the Acceptance of our Obedience? And he should say, it is a Cause, but not shew the Cause.

But then further, The Obedience and Righteousness of Christs Life was one thing which made his Sacrifice so Meritorious. I confess, I question the Truth of the Proposition; had Christ Sacrificed himself as soon as he came into the World, his Sacrifice had been as Meritorious, being the Sacrifice of him that as Priest was God and Man; and as Sacrifice, was the Sacrifice of him that was Personally United with God; but I am not concerned to insist upon that at present: All I say, is, that it's no Answer to the Question; for to the best of my remembrance, (and it's not a full Twelve-monethmonth since the Question came before us) the Question was, What influence the Righteousness of Christs Life hath upon our Acceptance? and now we have got an Answer to another Question: What influence the Righteousness of Christs Life has upon his own Acceptance with God? As if we were at the Old Childish Game of cross Questions: It was asked me, How many Miles it is to London? and it was answered me, Thirteen shillings and a groat make a Noble. For what is this Meritoriousness of Christs Obedience? did he Merit for himself, or for us? If p. 676for himself onelyonly, then it's out of the Olives; If for us, then that which he has Merited is ours. Merit denotes a proportion between the Work done, and the Reward received; and it's strict Justice in God to bestow upon us, that which another has Merited for us: if then Christ has Merited our Acceptance, we cannot but be accepted; it's Iustice we should be so. Again, what is it, that Christ has Merited? Is it acceptauce? Our Author will not say it; what then? Why, a promise of acceptance; that is, that we shall be pardoned and saved upon Faith and Obedience: And this is the bottom of the bag; when he has turned his discourse into a thousand shapes and forms, and varied his expressions infinitely, yet all amounts to no more than this, Christ has confirmed a promise, procured a promise, merited a promise, that if we believe and obey, we shall be pardoned, and saved; and yet the answer to the Question is to come: For, 1. There must be a better Reason assigned than the Righteousness of Christs Life, why the Sacrifice of his Death should merit any thing; for if his active obedience was due to Gods Law upon his own Personal account, it could merit nothing for another: The payment of a Debt, will not merit a reward; and if the Righteousness of Christs Life did not merit any thing it self, it can never make his Death meritorious. 2. To Merit for us a reward, upon a condition, and never to merit for us that condition, is next to nothing, as the Case stands with us: For both Christ and we shall lose that which he has Merited, if our Obedience be left to the desultoriness of our own will, and the imbecillity of corrupt Nature: Upon the whole Matter I conclude, that according to his Principles our Author canot shew any one thing in all the p. 677Life and Death of Christ, that may render our Persons and Services more acceptable to God, than they would otherwise have been, upon equal Holiness and Obedience; and therefore we must make our Application to Persons of other apprehensions in Religion, if we would have an honest satisfactory Answer to this Question: What influence the Righteousness of Christs Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death, have upon our Acceptance with God.

There is a Text, which some think will shew us more of that True influence that the Righteousness of Christ hath upon our Acceptance with God, than all this tedious rambling Discourse of our Authors; It is Rom. 5. 18, 19. Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation, even so, by the Righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all Men to Iustification of Life: For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made Righteous: From whence I have heard some Argue; In the same sense that all are made sinners in the first Adam, all that are righteous are made righteous in the second Adam; but in the first Adam, all are made sinners by the imputation of his Disobedience, therefore all that are righteous, are made so, in the second Adam, by the imputation of his Obedience. Again, If it was the Active Disobedience of the first Adam, whereby many (even all that were in him,) were made sinners; then it is the active obedience of the second Adam, whereby Many (even all that are in him,) are made righteous; but the former is true, therefore so is the latter. But (says our Author) This is the most that can be made of that place: This? What? Why this something, p. 678or this nothing, which he had said before; That God was so well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life, that for his sake he entred into a Covenant of Grace with Mankind: And if this be all that can be made of that Text, the Opposition must run thus; As God was so ill pleased with the Disobedience of Adams Life, that for the sake of it he entred into a Covenant of Works with Mankind; So he was so well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life, that for the sake of it, he entred into a Covenant of Grace with Mankind. Really it must be so, Reader; take it, or leave it; for look what influence Adams Disobedience had upon God to provoke him to condemn the World, the same influence had Christs obedience upon God to please him to save the World. And will not this be a rare contrivance, to fancy a Covenant of Works, instituted after the Fall of Adam, when we are certain it was established before his Disobedience? And so was the Covenant of Grace before the Active, and Actual obedience of Christ: However let us consider the most he can make of it. First (says he) there's no necessity of expounding this foreign of the Righteousness of Christs Life, or his active obedience. This Answer of our Authors is like the Ariere banne, it's never raised but in a case of extreme urgency: an Answer that will serve the turn of all the Atheists, Hereticks, and Miscreants upon Earth: If you tell them that Eternal Salvation is promised in the Gospel, they have it at their fingers ends, that there is no necessity that Eternal should signifie a duration beyond the Horizon of time: it's used in other places for the lengthning out the existence of a thing to it's own allotted period. Thus the Aaronical Priesthood p. 679was an everlasting Priesthood; it was to continue for the Ever of the Iewish World. And as for that word Salvation, there's no necessity it should signifie a deliverance from Spiritual Evils; for besides that, there were no promises of any such Salvation in the old Testament; the word is often used in the New, for temporal deliverance: As when the Apostle said, Except these abide in the Ship ye cannot be saved, Acts 27. But why is there no necessity of it? It may well signifie no more than his Death, because the Apostle tells us, Phil. 2. 8. That Christ became obedient unto Death, foreign; but by his leave, the word foreign does indeed signifie obedient in general, and foreign obedience in it's common Nature, without determining it's signification either to active or passive obedience; but do they argue from the Nature and purport of the Word, that because Christs obedience is called foreign, therefore it must needs be active obedience? No such matter; but they argue from another hard word, Yeleped Antithesis, from the opposition that is there made between Adams disobedience, and Christs obedience. Thus the Dr. argued, if our Author durst have read him; Com. p. 185. It's opposed to the disobedience of Adam, which was Active; The foreign is opposed foreign, The Righteousness to the Fault: The Fault was an active transgression of the Law, and the obedience opposed to it, must be an active accomplishment of it: If the foreign of Adam was active, then the foreign of Christ must be active. But our Author will have the other bout with him. Christs offering himself in Sacrifice is called doing the will of God, Heb. 10. 9, 10. And whether this be properly said or not, I will leave the Dr. to p. 680dispute it with the Apostle: But I do not perceive the Doctor has any contraversie with, though he has maintained many for the Apostle: They are very well agreed, for ought I perceive, nor shall they Quarrel if I can help it: The Doctor will not contend, that Christs assuming a body in order to the offering a Sacrifice to God, was not doing his will; no, he pleads for it, to the cost of somebody: But this is that which he disputes, that in Rom. 5. 18, 19. The Opposition between Adams Disobedience, and Christs Obedience, will prove them both of the same kind; It's acknowledged that Christ did actively obey in suffering; his sufferings were Activo passiva: But yet the Obedience mentioned in the place before us, was an Active Obedience, because Adams Disobedience was so. One blow more, and then our Author will yield us the Cause: There is no express mention (says he) made in this Chapter of any other Act of Obedience whereby we are reconciled to God, but onelyonly his dying for us, which makes it more than probable, that by his Righteousness and Obedience, the Apostle understands his Death and Sufferings. I assure you, I like it well when Men argue from the Context, provided they do not destroy the Text; and had our Author Religiously observed this Rule, he had not turned his Readers stomacks so often with nauseous Interpretations, but yet I have a few things to offer to him: 1. That though there be no other act of Obedience mentioned whereby we are reconciled, yet there may be another act of Obedience mentioned whereby we may be compleatly justified. 2. Though there be no other act of Obedience mentioned in the fore-going verses, yet there may be one in this. No Laws of p. 681Cohaerence or Contexture, ever obliged an Author that he might not pass to new matter; and so has the Apostle done in this place, and Case, as the Opposition most undeniably proves. 3. All that he says, makes it but more than probable: Now, had there been any colour for Truth of his Conceit, his confidence does not use to dwindle away into probabilities, but he had fetcht the Great Commander, and knock'd us all dead with irrefragable Demonstration; for do you understand the Mystery of this [more than probable] when you hear him confess, that Matters seem to be against him, and but probably, or a little more than probably for him: You need not lay your Ear to listen in what quarter the wind …its. But then 4.—Nay, hold; Our Author yields: Good Nature begins to work; But yet (says he) these Expressions, his Righteousness, and Obedience, seem to take in the whole compass of his Obedience in doing and Suffering the will of God. All is well then, and Dr. Owen is a very honest Man again. And we will not vex our selves how to reconcile, more than probable Con: with seeming Pro. I have made some attempts formerly, and once more whilst our Author is in the tractable vein, I le try whether the Doctor and he may not be made good Friends; for since our Author is coming towards a willingness to take in Active Obedience, it's but attempting however to prevail with the Doctor not to exclude the Passive. Well, look once more: Com. p. 185. That the Passive Obedience of Christ is here OnelyOnly intended, is false; so that all that the Doctor contends for, is, that the Passive Obedience is not solely intended to the exclusion of the Active.