An Answer to William Sherlock, Chapter 4 · Section 3

An Answer to William Sherlock · Chapter 4 · Section 3

p. 398SECT. III.

THe union of perſons between Chriſt and Believers, Mr. Sherlock.which gives them a propriety in all the perſonal graces of Chriſt is commonly explained by a conjugal relation, and legal union, that mutual relation which is betwixt Husband p. 399and Wife; and that union, which is betwixt the ſurety and debtor: Now theſe men ſay, That the Wife hath an intereſt in her Husbands Eſtate, and is ſecured from all arreſts of the Law; And therefore, Chriſt being our Husband, all his perſonal Excellencies, Righteouſneſs, &c. are ours, and the Law cannot take hold of us, but our Husband muſt be reſponſable for our faults: A very hard Law truly; and I think a Huſband is in a very ill caſe, when he has a bad Wife. Now ſuppoſe this were the caſe in ſome earthly Marriages, it were worth while to conſider, whether this be eſſential to Marriage: Or whether it depends upon private contracts or publick Laws, which are arbitrary and mutable; for if this be eſſential to Marriage, how can we be ſecure, that this is the Law of our Spiritual Marriage, unleſs our Spiritual Husband had told us ſo; eſpecially conſidering that this Spiritual Marriage betwixt Chriſt and his Church, is of a different nature from earthly Marriages; and if they differ in any thing, we cannot be ſure, but that they differ in this, unleſs we have ſome better proof of it, than this Analogy between earthly and Spiritual Marriages: Nay, and better proof too, than Dr. Owen giver us of it, p. 400Cant. 1. Behold! thou art fair, thou haſt Doves eyes: Cant. 3.14. O my Dove! thou art in the clefts of the rock: Or Cant. 4.8. Come with me from Lebanon; look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon; from the lyons dens, and the mountains of the leopards: Or Iſai. 4.2. The branch of the Lord is beautiful and glorious: and the fruit of the earth is excellent and comely to them that are eſcaped of Iſrael: Which are all the proofs he can ſind for Chriſt's giving himſelf to the ſoul with all his excellencies: Now how any ſuch conſequence as this can be drawn from Doves eyes, or the clefts of the rock, or from Lebanon, Amana, Shenir, Hermon, or from the lyons dens, or mountains of leopards, is past my underſtanding to make out: But let the Laws of Kingdoms and Nations be as they will, there can be no Law made to alter the nature of things; there never was any Law, that the perſonal virtues, and qualities, and perfections of the Husband ſhould be ſettled on his Wife for a joynture; though the Huſband be never ſo fair, wiſe, virtuous, his Wife may be ugly, a fool, or an harlot; for perſonal excellencies paſs not out of the perſon, nor can be made ever to any p. 401other, as Money and Lands are: By our Marriage to Chriſt; his perſonal excellencies cannot be ours, though his perſon were. In Marriages there are private contracts; and the truth is, Chriſt hath not made ſuch an abſolute ſettlement of himſelf upon us, as theſe men dream he hath: for the Goſpel contains the Articles of this Marriage; and there we must learn to what purpoſes, and upon what conditions Chriſt gives himſelf to us, and muſt challenge no more from Chriſt by vertue of our Marriage to him, than what the Goſpel, the Marriage Covenant promiſes; and we find nothing there of his perſonal Righteouſneſs to be made ours: And for what they tell us, That a woman under covert is not liable to an arreſt at Law; but all muſt fall upon her Husband: It is true as to matters of debt, but does not extend to crimes; if a woman kill or rob, her being under covert ſecures her not from the Gallows: How ſecure ſoever any man may fancy himſelf of his Marriage to Chriſt: I would n…t adviſe him to venture too much upon it; for if he be guilty of any groſs wilful ſin, there is ſome danger, that the Law or Goſpel may condemn him, unleſs he timely repent, and reform: When the Scriptures calls Christ our Husband, and the p. 402Church his Spouſe; it means no more but that Christ is our Head and Governour, who rules his Church with as great kindneſs, tenderneſs, and compaſſion, as an Husband exerciſeth towards his Wife; and that we are to pay the ſame Love, Duty, and Obedience to Chriſt, that Wives owe to their Husbands: And here we must have done with the Metaphor, unleſs we will turn Religion into a Romance.

Chriſt being our Husband, his Righteouſneſs is ours; Anſwer.the Law cannot take hold of us, our Husband must be reſponſable for our faults: But this is a very hard Law (ſaith the Author) and the Huſband in a very ill caſe: In truth our Husband, though the eternal Son of God, was made under the Law, wounded, bruiſed, caſt into a bloody ſweat, made a curſe; and (as the Septuagint hath it, Iſai. 55.3.) he was foreign, a man ſet in the ſtroke of Gods wrath: But all this he was, not by chance or fortune, but out of choice and unparallelled Love to his Spouſe: The eſſentials of Marriage lie in a narrow room, a conſent per verba de praeſenti does it; but the juſt neceſſary conſequents of it, are, as the Civilians tells us, Conſortium omnis vitae, p. 403divini & humani juris communicatio; the Wife participates of his ſacred and civil good things; neither can it be otherwiſe, where there is, as there is in Marriage, ſuch an intimate union of minds and bodies; there muſt needs be a communio bonorum, nature and reaſon tells us; that the Wife in ſo near an union muſt have foreign, alimentum & indumentum, food and raiment, out of the Husbands eſtate; Nay, and all things in a decorum thereunto; and can we think that Chriſt ſhould do leſs for his Spouſe, when her neceſſities exceed all thoſe in nature? Will he, who infinitely tranſcends all humane Relations, leave his Spouſe to the rags of her own Righteouſneſs, or ſuffer her to periſh in an eternal priſon for debt; and that, when he hath fulfilled the Righteouſneſs, and bore the curſe of the Law on purpoſe to cloth her, and ſatisfie for her? The whole Book of Canticles is a divine Ditty; which, under the parable of Marriage, ſtreams all along, as a full torrent of Spiritual Love interchangeably paſſing between Chriſt and his Church: Well might the Doctor bring his proof from thence: Chriſt calls his Spouſe all fair, and without ſpot, Cant. 4.7. She was not ſo p. 404naturally, but by Marriage; neither is ſhe ſo in this life by inherent Graces; but by the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt put upon her by a gracious imputation: Chriſt calls her from Lebanon, from the top of Amana, Shenir, and Hermon, from the lyons dens, from the mountains of the Leopards, verſ. 8. That is, from the brutiſh luſts and idolatries of the World; and he calls her thus: Come with me, with me, my Spouſe, as if he had ſaid, that he would provide for her as a Spouſe; and therefore ſhe ſhould come away with him: But, ſaith the Author, Perſonal virtues in the Husband were never ſettled on the Wife for a Joynture, by our Marriage to Chriſt; his perſonal excellencies cannot be made over to us. To which, I anſwer, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt cannot be made ours, ſo as to inhere in us: But it may be made ours by imputation; or if not, neither can his blood be imputed to us; and by conſequence there can be no ſuch thing as ſatisfaction or redemption through his Blood: But for the truth of imputed Righteouſneſs, theſe men deſire to appeal no further than the Articles or Marriage Covenant contained in the Goſpel, beyond this they deſire to claim nothing from p. 405Chriſt their Husband and Saviour? But, ſaith the Author, A woman under covert is not liable to debts, but ſhe is to crimes. I anſwer, Our debts are crimes, and that above Felonies; they are High-treaſons againſt the God of Heaven; and if theſe fall not on our Huſband Chriſt, they muſt fall upon us; and then who, where is the man that can ſtand before the Divine Tribunal? What room can there be for the leaſt drop of mercy or forgiveneſs? Remarkable is the form, that in Anſelms time was uſed in the Viſitation of the ſick, the weak man is there directed thus: Si Dominus Deus te voluerit judicare, dic Domine, mortem Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti objicio inter me & tuum judicium, alitèr tecum non condendo; & ſi tibi dixerit, quia peccator es, dic Domine, mortem Domini nostri Jeſu Chriſti pono inter me & mea peccata: He was not to contend with God; but to put the death of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt between himſelf and God's Tribunal, and to put it between himſelf and his ſins; unleſs our Husband had undertaken to diſcharge our debts, we could never have had any poſſibility of Salvation.

Chriſt and Believers are legally united,Mr. Sherlock. p. 406Dr. Jacomb tells us, That Chriſt is the Saints foreign, or Surety, he ſtruck hands with God (as the words imports) put himſelf into their ſtead, took their debt upon himſelf, and bound himſelf upon this account to make ſatisfaction to God. Now in the Law the debtor and ſurety are but one perſon; the Law looks on them as one, and makes no difference between them; and therefore both are equally liable to the debt; and if the one pay, it is as much in the eye of the Law, as if the other had paid it: Thus it is with Chriſt and us; he is our Surety, he took our debt upon himſelf, engaged to pay what we owed; upon this Chriſt and we are but one perſon before God; and accordingly he deals with us; for he makes over our ſins to Chriſt, and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and Satisfaction to us, he now, in a legal notion, looks upon both but as one perſon: Now I have two things to ſay to this: Firſt, I wonder why this ſhould be called the union of Saints to Christ? Or why Chriſt ſhould be called only the Saints Surety? The Apoſtle tells us, that he is foreign, Heb. 7.22. The Surety of a Teſtament or Covenant: Now there is a vaſt difference between p. 407Chriſt's being the Saints ſurety, and the ſurety of the Covenant; for the Covenant reſpects both Saints and Sinners; therefore is antecedent to our union to Chriſt as Saints; and to be ſurety of the Covenant, ſignifies no more but to confirm this Covenant, and to undertake for the performance of it, that all the promiſes of it ſhall be made good upon ſuch terms as are annexed to them: But to be a Surety for Saints (as the Doctor explains it) is to ſtrike hands with God, to put himſelf in their ſtead to do and ſuffer for them. Now this notion is different from the notion of a Surety of a Covenant, and ſo it wants ſome better proof. But ſecondly, ſuppoſe Chriſt had been called the Saints ſurety: I doubt they are as much out in the Law of ſuretiſhip, as they were before in the Laws of Marriage: For, firſt, the prime end of ſuretiſhip among men, is not that the Surety, ſhall without more ado pay the debt: but to give ſecurity to the Creditor, that the debt ſhall be paid; that is, the Surety doth not make himſelf immediate Debtor; but the Debtor is Debtor ſtill, and bound to pay the Debt; and the Surety is liable only in caſe of his default: It is a ſtrange definition of ſuretiſhip, That it is an abſolute taking p. 308the debt upon our ſelves, and an actual diſcharging the Debtor. No man in his wits ever became ſurety for another, when he knew before hand; that, if he did, he must pay the debt: but men become ſureties upon reaſonable aſſurance, that they ſhall ſuffer no injury by it: Therefore when Christ died for us, he did not dye as our Surety, but as our Sacrifice ſubſtituted in our room, which is the Scripture notion of it, and differs as much from the notion of a ſurety; as paying the debt doth from being bound with another, that it ſhall be paid: Suppoſe, ſecondly, That Chriſt dyed for us as our Surety; yet did Christ fulfill all Righteouſneſs for us as our ſurety too? Doth this alſo exactly anſwer the caſe of ſuretiſhip among men, ſo as that there needs no illuſtration of it? The Doctor was ſo wiſe, that he would not aſſert this in the premiſſes, but very craftily thrusts it into the concluſion; That therefore God makes over our ſins to Chriſt, and Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and ſatisfaction to us: But was there ever ſuch a ſurety heard of among men, that one man ſhould diſcharge all offices of piety, virtue, juſtice, temperance inſtead of another? If ſuch a thing had ever been, ſuch a man ought not to have been called a ſurety, but a proxy: p. 409But humane Laws, as many defects as there are in them, never admitted of ſuch proxies; for theſe are perſonal duties, which none can perform for us; you may as well ſay, that a man may live and be a man by proxy, as diſcharge thoſe duties, which are neceſſarily entailed on his perſon by a proxy. Proxies are allowable only in ſuch caſes, where the material enquiry is, whether the thing be done, not who doth it; but where the conſideration of the perſon that doth it, is eſſential to the action; there is no place for a ſurety or proxy: becauſe it doth not ſatisfie the Law, that the thing is done, unleſs it be done by ſuch a perſon. Thus it is in all the duties of Piety and Religion; every individual perſon is bound to do them: Though there were never ſo many righteous men in the World, there righteouſneſs can avail none but themſelves; Nay, the righteouſneſs of God, which is more than all the righteouſneſs of men cannot make an unrighteous man righteous; no external Relation can make the righteouſneſs of another ours; becauſe it is perſonal righteouſneſs, that is required of us, and the righteouſneſs of another can never be our perſonal righteouſneſs, unleſs we become one perſon with him: There is no other way to make the perſonal righteouſneſs, p. 410(which is the Righteouſneſs required of us) but by a perſonal union to Chriſt, by being chriſted with Chriſt, as ſome ſpeak, how boldly ſoever, yet very agreeable to theſe principles.

Chriſt is the Surety of the Covenant, Heb. 7.22.Anſwer. And he is our Surety alſo, he undertook the ſatisfaction of our debts; and therefore muſt be ſuch, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God, ſaith he, Heb. 10.7. Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices could not pay our debts: The blood of Bulls and Goats could not take away ſin, as the Apoſtle there tells us: Chriſt therefore undertook the doing of it, he was ſubſtituted in our ſtead or room, he gave his life, foreign, Matth. 20.28. A price in the room or ſtead of many; he gave himſelf, foreign, 1 Tim. 2.6. A counterprice, or vicarious price for all; he was our foreign, his Soul was in our Souls ſtead, which could never have been, unleſs as our Surety he had undertaken to ſatisfie for us: The ſins of us all met upon that holy immaculate one, Iſai. 53.6. He was made ſin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. Sin by imputation, who had not the leaſt ſpot by inheſion; and this could by no means have been, unleſs he had undertaken ſatisfaction as our Surety: p. 411St. Paul could never have been charged with the debt of Oneſimus, unleſs as his Surety; neither could Chriſt have been charged with our ſins, unleſs he had been ours: he was nor only charged with our ſins, but made actual ſatisfaction for them; he paid that he never took, he was wounded for our tranſgreſſions, Iſai. 53.5. He gave himſelf for our ſins, Gal. 1.4. He made ſuch ſatisfaction, that he blotted the bond or hand-writing that was againſt us, Col. 2.14. And theſe things he would never have done, unleſs he had taken them upon himſelf as our Surety; he ſaith of himſelf, that he came to give his life a ranſom for many, Matth. 20.28. He came for that end, as being bound by his ſuretiſhip ſo to do: He was therefore our Surety, as well as the Surety of the Covenant: Nay, it being plainly the divine pleaſure, that there ſhould be no remiſſion without ſhedding of blood, that all pardoning mercy ſhould iſſue out to us through a ſatisfaction; unleſs he had been our Surety, unleſs he had undertaken to ſatisfie for us, he could not have been Surety of the Covenant; he could not have ſecured the leaſt Grace or Mercy to us, more than to Devils; for whom he would not be ſurety, or make any ſatisfaction: Now p. 412being our Surety, he is one with us Conjunctione legali, and ſo he is with all thoſe for whom he is Surety, ſo far forth as he is Surety for them. But poſſibly Dr. Jacomb may ſpeak of the Saints, becauſe the Payment or Satiſfaction of Chriſt hath a ſpecial aſpect upon the Elect or choſen people of God, and is particularly applied to Believers and Saints; whileſt in the mean time to others, who receive not the Atonement, it is totally ineffectual, and in the event, as it were, none at all: But, ſaith the Author, I doubt theſe men are as much out in the Law of Suretiſhip, as before in the Laws of Mariage: To which I only ſay, I hope they are out in neither. But before I come to the Authors Objections, I ſhall crave lieve to offer one thing to the Readers conſideration, viz. That the Titles given to Chriſt in Scripture, are all to be taken foreign, in a way of tranſcendent Excellency and Eminency, not according to the narrow Scantling of humane Laws or Reaſon: Chriſt is a Sacrifice, but when did you ever hear of a Sacrifice that offered up it ſelf, or of a Sacrifice and Prieſt both in one? Or when was there a Sacrifice that was offered up through p. 413the eternal Spirit, or that had ſuch an Altar as the Deity? Chriſt is a Redeemer, but when was there a Redeemer who paid down himſelf as a Price, and, which is more, paid down himſelf to himſelf? For ſo Chriſt as God-man paid down his humane Nature to himſelf as God. Chriſt is a Mediator, and where is there a Mediator, who hath two Natures in one Perſon, or who gave himſelf a Ranſom for all? And to name but one inſtance more, Chriſt is a Surety for us; but where was there a Surety ever procured by the Creditor only? Or a Surety, who took another Nature to be ſuch in? Chriſt is a Surety of the Covenant, where there is ſomething on Gods part, and ſomething on Man's; and who ever heard, that in Articles of agreement, or reciprocal Covenants between Man and Man, any one became Surety for a performance of both parts or ſides of the Covenants? Theſe things plainly ſhew, that Chriſt is all theſe in a way of Eminency or Tranſcendency: So that, unleſs we will be ſo bold as to ſpoil him of the glory and excellency of his Titles, we muſt by no means crowd them into the Span of humane Laws or Reaſon. This, if conſidered, will prepare a way to anſwer p. 414the Authors Objections, which are now to be heard: The Surety doth not make himſelf immediate Debtor, he doth not abſolutely take the debt upon himſelf; he is liable only in caſe of the Debtors default: No man in his wits would be Surety for another, when he knew beforehand, that, if he did, he must pay the debt: Men become Sureties upon aſſurance not to ſuffer injury by it: Thus the Author: To which I anſwer, Sureties are uſually bound to pay in caſe of the Debtors default, but it is not at all material or eſſential to Suretiſhip, whether the Debtor be ſolvent or not; it is not the Debtors ſufficiency, but the Sureties own Act, which makes him a Surety; neither can a Surety, if proſecuted, plead this in Law, that the Debtor was a Non ſolvent at the time when he became Surety: But however it be with Sureties among men, Jeſus Chriſt was a Surety after another rate than they are: Sureties among men undertake to pay the debt upon a meer contingency, that is, if the Debtor make default; but Chriſt undertook to ſatisfie for us, not upon contingency, but certainty: he was delivered foreign, by a determinate Counſel; it was down in the p. 415eternal Rolls, that he muſt make ſatiſfaction for us, there was not the leaſt Salvo, or Condition, or Contingency in it. No man in his wits will be a Surety for a known Non-ſolvent: But Chriſt was by his love to us ſo excordiated and raviſhed out of himſelf, that he would be Surety for us, though known utter Bankrupts, though under the foreign, under a perfect impoſſibility to fulfil the Law or expiate the leaſt breach of it: Nay, he would be a Surety for us, for this very reaſon, becauſe he knew, thar we were in a loſt irrecoverable condition in our ſelves. The Surety doth not abſolutely undertake the debt: But Chriſt our Surety did abſolutely undertake to make Satisfaction, he was a Surety and a Redeemer both in one: As a Surety he paid down his Blood for ſatisfaction, and as a Redeemer he paid the ſame Blood for a price of Redemption. A Redeemer, we know, doth not depend on the Captive for paying the Ranſom, but abſolutely undertakes it himſelf; and ſo did Chriſt our Redeemer for us: And if as Redeemer he abſolutely undertook to pay down his Blood for a price of Redemption, then as a Surety too, he abſolutely undertook p. 416to pay down the ſame Blood for ſatisfaction; otherwiſe his Redeemerſhip and Suretiſhip could not poſſibly conſiſt together. Sureties uſe to have aſſurance to ſave them harmleſs: But had Chriſt any? Or was any ſuch thing poſſible? It pleaſed the Lord to bruiſe him, Iſa. 53.10. There was an abſolute foreign upon his Death and Sufferings, Matth. 16.21. and how could he be ſaved harmleſs againſt the Decree of Heaven? Nay, if if he could, he would not; when Peter would have had him ſpare himſelf, he calls Peter, Satan, one who in that particular ſavoured not the things of God. Thus we ſee, Chriſt is a Surety in a way of Excellency above humane Sureties. But ſaith the Author, Chriſt died for us, not as our Surety, but as our Sacrifice: To which I anſwer, Chriſt died for us as a Sacrifice, but he died for us as a Surety too; no one Notion can take in all the Excellencies of his Death: Though the Eſſentials of his Suretiſhip lay in his undertaking to ſatisfie for us, yet the Satisfaction it ſelf was a juſt neceſſary conſequent of it: As he offered up himſelf for us, ſo he died for us as a Sacrifice; and as he undertook to ſatiſfie for us, ſo he died for us as a Surety. p. 417But to paſs on with the Author: If Christ died for us as a Surety, yet did he fulfil all Righteouſneſs for us as a Surety too? Was there ever ſuch a Surety heard of among men, that one man ſhould diſcharge all Offices of Piety, Virtue, Juſtice, Temperance in ſtead of another? Such a man muſt have been called not a Surety, but a Proxy; but humane Laws admit no ſuch Proxies; theſe are perſonal Duties, which none can perform for us; no external Relation can make the Righteouſneſs of another ours; the Righteouſneſs of another can never be our perſonal Righteouſneſs, unleſs we become one perſon with him: Thus the Author: To which I anſwer; Here the Author makes a great wonder at Imputed Righteouſneſs; Was there ever ſuch a Surety heard of among men? ſaith he: To which I anſwer, Socinus makes as great a wonder at the imputation of ſin to Chriſt: Ego ſanè non video quid abſurdius aut iniquius dici potuerit, quàmjure alicui poſſe aliena peccata imputari; I ſee nothing (ſaith he) more abſurd or unequal than that the ſins of one man ſhould be imputed to another: Yet for all this our Divines do maintain, that our ſins were imputed to Chriſt; and indeed there can p. 418be no Satisfaction without it. The Author here complains, that Chriſt ſhould be a Surety to fulfil all Righteouſneſs for us, and ſo that Righteouſneſs ſhould be imputed to us; but if the ſin of one man may be imputed to another, why not his Righteouſneſs? The Apoſtle argues from the Imputation of Adam's Sin, to the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; ſo by the righteouſneſs of one the free gift came upon all men to juſtification of life: As by one mans diſobedience many were made ſinners, ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous, Rom. 5.18, 19. What can be more expreſs, if our Reaſon would ſubmit to it? Biſhop Davenant tells us, that,De juſtit. habit. cap. 28. Christus Sponſor pro nobis factus noſtro nomine non modò ſubivit perpeſſionem Crucis, ſed impletionem Legis: Christ, not as our Proxy, but as our Surety, did in our name not only undergo the ſufferings of the Croſs, but took on him the impletion of the Law. But ſaith the Author, Righteouſneſs is a perſonal thing, to be performed by our ſelves: I anſwer, What Chriſt performed for us, was not performable by our ſelves in our lapſed p. 419eſtate; he fulfilled all Righteouſneſs for us to the very higheſt pitch of the Law, in order to our Juſtification, and that we could not reach in our own perſons; and that ſincere Obedience which we pay in our own perſons doth not fully anſwer the Law, and ſo appertains not to our Juſtification, but Sanctification: And this I take to be the Method of Salvation which God hath chalked out to us. It's true, the Author urges, That the Righteouſneſs of another can never be our perſonal Righteouſneſs: But though it cannot be ours by Inheſion, yet it may by Imputation; it was only in Chriſt's Perſon, yet may be reckoned or accounted to us in Juſtification, or elſe I cannot tell, how the Blood of Chriſt, which cleanſes away all ſin, ſhould ever be ours; that was not inherent in us, and, if it become ours, it muſt be by Imputation: If we own not the Imputation of Chriſts Paſſive Obedience, we cannot own, that Chriſt gave himſelf for us as a Ranſom or a Sacrifice; and if we own the Imputation of his Paſſive Obedience, we muſt alſo own the Imputation of his Active; for there was, not to ſay a tincture, but a great, and high meaſure of Active Obedience in his p. 420Paſſion, and if his Paſſion in its entirety and complete perfection be imputed to us, his Active Obedience muſt be imputed to us alſo.

But now let us conſider, Mr. Sherlock.whether in Law the Debtor and Surety are one perſon; no conſidering man can think it indifferent, who pays the debt, the Surety or the Debtor, or that they are both equally obliged to it; the Debtor is the immediate Debtor ſtill, and the Surety only obliged in caſe of default, the Law doth not account it indifferent which of them pay it: For though it permit the payment to be exacted from the Surety, in caſe the Debtor refuſe, yet it will look back again, and allow the ſurety an action againſt the debtor for ſuch a refuſal, which is an Argument that the Law doth not judge them one perſon: Thus it is in bail, the Law doth not judge them one perſon, for if the priſoner eſcape, the bail or ſurety ſhall be puniſhed according to the nature of the fact; and yet the priſoner is not quitted by this means, but liable either to the arreſt of the Surety; or in Criminal Cauſes to the Sentence of the Law, if ever he be retaken. Thus in Sureties for good behaviour (which ſounds as if it were neareſt a kin to the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs as our Surety) p. 421though the Surety be never ſo innocent and virtuous, this will not ſerve him for whom he is Surety; but if he prove a Villain they ſhall be both puniſh'd: So that humane Laws are ſtrangers to this Mystery of imputing the Righteouſneſs of a Surety to a bad man; Suretiſhip doth not ſo unite their Perſons, that whatever one doth, is always and to all purpoſes imputed to the other: And if this will not hold good among men, it is a very ſorry foundation for this bargain and exchange betwixt Chriſt and Believers, that he ſhould take their ſins upon himſelf, and impute his Righteouſneſs to them.

All this runs upon a miſtake,Anſwer. that Chriſt cannot be a Surety, unleſs he be ſuch after the manner of men; the Suretyſhip of Chriſt is not to be meaſured by humane Laws, unto which (becauſe variant among themſelves no leſs, I ſuppoſe, in points of Suretyſhip than in other things) it cannot poſſibly correſpond; but it is to be meaſured by the holy Scriptures, which ſet forth his undertaking and ſatisfying our debts in a way of ſuperlative Excellency above all the Sureties in the world. Among men, notwithſtanding the Surety, the Debtor is Debtor ſtill: But Chriſt hath p. 422as our Surety made ſuch a plenary Satisfaction on our behalf, that if we receive him by Faith, we are Debtors no longer, all our debts are croſſed and blotted out of Gods Book. Among men the Surety, having made payment, may have his Action against the Debtor, and ordinarily he ſeeks to reimburſe himſelf; But our heavenly Surety ſeeks no ſuch matter; he knows, that all the Creatures in Heaven and Earth are not able to repay him what he hath laid down for us, neither if they could, doth he deſire it; but on the contrary he woes and beſeechs men to come in to him, that their Debts may not be charged on them by the Law for want of imbracing the Goſpel. If upon the eſcape of the Priſoner, the Bail be puniſhed, yet is not the Priſoner quitted: But our Surety Chriſt, did not ſuffer as a Bail doth upon eſcape, upon accident or contingency, but upon abſolute and irrevocable certainty, ſuch as could not be avoided, and he ſuffered ſo in our room and ſtead; and his Satisfaction is ſo far reckoned or imputed to us, that upon our believing there is not, there cannot be any condemnation to us, or ſatisfaction required of us for ever. In Suretiſhip for the Behaviour, p. 423the Virtues of the Surety are not accounted to him for whom he is Surety: But the Payment and Satisfaction of Chriſt our Surety is upon Goſpel-terms ſo imputed and made over to us, that the Law or Juſtice of God cannot demand a ſecond Payment and Satisfaction from us: Hence it appears, that Chriſt and we are one perſon in Law, that his Payment and Satisfaction is reckoned as ours. And what matters it, if humane Laws are ſtrangers to imputed Righteouſneſs, it ſuffices us, that this Myſtery is founded on the holy Scripture. When the Romans would have no other Gods, but what were approved of by the Senate, Tertullian tells them, Apud vos de humano arbitratu Divinitas penſitatur; Apoſt. cap. 5.nifi homini Deus placuerit, Deus non erit: But as long as we find Imputed Righteouſneſs in Scripture, we need not ſeek a Probatū eſt from humane laws or reaſon.

Let us now try, Mr. Sherlock.whether the Notion of a Mediator can do any better ſervice than the Notion of a Surety. Dr. Owen ſaith, That Chriſt fulfilled all Righteouſneſs as he was Mediator, and that whatever he did as Mediator, he did it for them whoſe Mediator he was, and in whoſe ſtead, and for whoſe good he executed the Office of a Mediator before p. 424God; and hence is it that his complete and perfect Obedience to the Law is reckoned to us: But that Chriſt fulfilled all Righteouſneſs as he was Mediator must have good proof, the Notion of a Mediator includes no ſuch thing. A Mediator is one who interpoſes between two differing parties; but was it ever heard of yet, that it was the Office of a Mediator to perform the Terms and Conditions himſelf: Moſes was the Mediator of the firſt Covenant, Gal. 3.9. and his Office was to receive the Law from God, and to deliver it to the people, and to command them to obſerve the Rites and Sacrifices and Expiations, which God had ordained; but he was not to fulfil the Righteouſneſs of the Law for the whole Congregation: Thus Chriſt is now the Mediator of a better Covenant, and his Office required, that he ſhould preach the Goſpel, which contains the Terms of peace between God and men; and ſince God would not enter into Covenant with ſinners without the intervention of a Sacrifice; he dies too as a Sacrifice and Propitiation for the ſins of the World, and confirms and ſeals this new Covenant with his own Blood; and being riſen from the dead, he executes this Office of Mediator with power and p. 425glory, that is, he intercedes for us according to the Terms and Conditions of the new Covenant, to obtain the pardon of our ſins, and the aſſiſtance of the divine Grace to do the Will of God, and all thoſe other bleſſings that are promiſed: But the Office of Mediator doth not oblige him to fulfil the Righteouſneſs of the Covenant for us.

Chriſt is a Mediator but in a ſupereminent way; a Mediator,Anſwer. but above all Peers or Parallels: Hence the Apoſtle tells us, that there is one Mediator between God and men the man Chriſt Jeſus, 1 Tim. 2.5. One Mediator; Moſes was a Mediator too, but, becauſe Chriſt was a Mediator in a peculiar and ſuperexcellent manner, there is but one Mediator. Moſes was an internuncial Mediator; but Chriſt was a ſatisfying and atoning one: Hence it appears, that the Mediatorſhip of Chriſt muſt not be meaſured by the Mediatorſhip of Moſes or any other perſon in the world, but muſt be conſtrued according to thoſe ſingular Excellencies and Preeminencies which the Scripture attributes to it: The Apoſtle tells us what a Mediator he was; He gave his life a ranſom for all; and, as I noted before, where his Paſſive Obedience is expreſſed, p. 426there the active is implyed: Chriſt was a Mediator in that, which he did for us; and on our behalf, and for us, and on our behalf he fulfilled all Righteouſneſs: This is evident; that of Chriſts which is imputed, and applyed to us to juſtifie and make us Righteous before God, was done for us, and and on our behalf; and ſuch was his fulfilling all Righteouſneſs. Hence the Apoſtle tells us; That by the righteouſneſs of one, the free gift came upon all men to juſtification of life, and by the obedience of one, ſhall many be made righteous, Rom. 5.18, 19. Moſes was not to fulfill the righteouſneſs of the Law for the people, nor was he to dye as a propitiatory Sacrifice for them, but Chriſt, a more excellent Mediator, did both for us.

Dr. Owen first tells of an habitual Righteouſneſs of Chriſt,Mr. Sherlock. as Mediator in his humane Nature, that this was the neceſſary effect of the Grace of Union, that therby he was foreign, fit to do all that he did for us; So that this is not imputed to us, but was his own proper Righteouſneſs: But Secondly, There is the actual obedience of Chriſt, which was his willing performance of every thing that God by any Law did p. 427require, beſides the particular Law of the Mediator: Let us then firſt conſider the peculiar Law of the Mediator, which he tells us, reſpected himſelf meerly, (ſo that we have nothing to do with this neither) and it contains all thoſe acts and duties of his, which were not for our imitation; he inſtances in his obedience, which he ſhewed in dying, (though St. John tells us, that we muſt imitate him in this alſo, must lay down our lives for the brethren, as Chriſt dyed for us, Joh. 1.3.16. And St. Paul tells us, that we muſt be conformed to the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt, Rom. 6. which ſounds very like an imitation) though in the next page he excepts the caſe of dying of his paſſive obedience; and tells us, that all the reſt of his obedience to the Law of meditation is not imputed to us, as though we had done it; So that by the Law of meditation, he underſtands whatever Christ was bound to do as our Mediator, whatever was proper to his Mediatory office; all this (though ſometimes, when he better thinks of it, he excepts dying) is not imputed to us, as though we had done it: I hope we ſhall find ſomething at laſt to be imputed to us; and yet there is nothing left now. But thirdly, p. 428That which concerns him in a private capacity, as a man ſubject to the Law: And now whatever was required of us by virtue of any Law, that he did and fulfilled: And this is that actual obedience of Chriſt, which he performed for us: This is very strange, that what he did as Mediator, is not imputed to us: But what he did not as our Mediator, but as a man ſubject to Law, that is imputed to us, and reckoned as if we had done it, by reaſon of his being our Mediator; and it is as ſtrange to the full, that Chriſt ſhould do whatever was required of us by virtue of any Law, when he was neither Husband, Wife, Father, Merchant, Soldier, Captain; much leſs a Temporal Prince; and how he ſhould diſcharge the duties of thoſe Relations for us, when he was never in any of thoſe Relations, I leave to the ſubtilty of the School-men.

I know not of what moment this diſcourſe is,Anſwer. only the Author would ſeem to wrap the Doctor up in obſcurity; but the Doctor hath expreſſed his mind in plain terms, pag. 182. his words are theſe: God ſent Chriſt as a Mediator to do and ſuffer whatever the Law required at our hand; for that end & purpoſe, that we might not be condemned, p. 429but accepted of God. This ſatisfies me, Chriſt our Mediator was made under the Law, under the command, and under the curſe of it; he fulfilled the command of it by his active obedience, he bore the curſe of it by his paſſive: This entire obedience of his, which fully anſwers the Law, is by God imputed to us; not as if we were Mediators, or had done it as Mediators; no, by no means, Chriſt is the great Actor of it, the Mediatorſhip is his own: But it is imputed to us ſo far as to juſtiſie us, and make us righteous before God; we were no efficients in it, but are meer recipients; and it is applyed to us in order to our juſtification: It is not for us to reach the works of our Saviour; theſe are far above our Line, we muſt indeed lay down our lives for the Brethren, as St. John tells us: But what in a way of atonement and expiation of ſin! No, it is too high for us ſo to do: Paul was not cruciſied for us, nor can any other Saint be, only we muſt, as we can, Procul ejus veſtigia ſequi, as Calvin expreſſes it, imitate him as far as our model goes: We muſt be conformed to the Death and Reſurrection of Chriſt, Rom. 6. We muſt dye unto ſin, and be alive unto God: But, after we have in our little reſembled him, we muſt confeſs, p. 430that the merit is only in him, not in us, we are but receivers, he is the great purchaſor: But, ſaith the Author, it is ſtrange that Chriſt ſhould do whatever was required of us by vertue of any Law, when he was neither Husband, Wife, Father, Merchant, Soldier, Captain or Prince; and how could he diſcharge the duties of thoſe relations which he was never in? To which, I anſwer, After this rate would the Socinians rob us of the ſatisfactory paſſion of Chriſt: For, ſay they, If Chriſt had ſatisfied for us, then he muſt have ſuffered all that we ſhould have ſuffered; that is, eternal torments, which he did not: But one anſwer ſerves for both: Chriſt ſuffered the ſame which we ſhould have ſuffered in the ſubſtantials and eſſentials of it, though not in the accidentals or circumſtantials of it; and what was wanting in the duration of his ſufferings was compenſated by the dignity of his perſon, and Chriſt fufilled the command of the Law in the ſubſtantials and eſſentials of it, though not in every relation; this latter not being poſlible for him to do, becauſe he could not poſſibly be in all relations; he had that Love in perfection, which is foreign, the fulfilling of the Law, and what of accidentals p. 431of obedience was not in him, was compenſated by the dignity of his perſon.

The Doctor tell us, Mr. Sherlock.That of this exexpreſſion, as Mediator, there is a double ſence, it may be taken ſtrictly, as relating ſolely to the Mediator, and ſo Chriſt may be ſaid to do as Mediator, only what he did in obedience to the Law, (that is only what he did as Mediator, which is a pretty Obſervation:) But in the ſence now inſiſted on (that is, not ſtrictly as Mediator, but as not Mediator, whatever Chriſt did, as a man ſubject to the Law, he did as Mediator, becauſe he did it as part of the duty incumbent on him, who undertook ſo to be: The meaning is, that he, who was Mediator, being bound to do ſuch things, though not as Mediator, but as a man ſubject to the Law; yet he did them as Mediator, becauſe he was a Mediator who did them, which is ſuch an expoſition of Quâ, as ſubtileſt Schoolmen never yet thought of.

I ſuppoſe there is no need of the ſubtil Schoolmen,Anſwer. who yet ſometimes take Quâ ſpecificativè, ſometimes repliducativè: I ſuppoſe the Doctor wants only a fair Interpreter, he tells us expreſly, pag. 182. God ſent Chriſt as a Mediator to do and p. 432ſuffer whatever the Law required at our hands; for that end and purpoſe, that we might not be condemned, but accepted of God. It was all to this end, that the Righteouſneſs of the Law might be ſulfilled in us; that is, which the Law required of us, conſiſting in duties of obedience; this Chriſt performed for us: The Doctor doth not meerly intend that the Mediator did fulfil the Law, or that he who did fulfill it was a Mediator; but that he did it as a Mediator, and was by God ſent to do ſo, and that for us. This, I ſuppoſe, will appear to any Reader, who ſeriouſly peruſes the places in the Doctors Book; a little piece of a face, and that wreſted, will hardly reprſent the whole as it ought.

The difficulty of Christ's doing thoſe things as Mediator, Mr. Sherlock.which did not belong to the Laws of his Mediation, is a very material one, and requires great skill in Logick to get rid of it: but however, it is wiſely done to make a ſhew of ſaying ſomething, to that which cannot be anſwered; for he was ſenſible, that what Christ did purely as Mediator could not be imputed to us, as though we had done it, though the foreign, or fruits of it are, becauſe we were p. 433never deſigned to be Mediators and the Righteouſneſs of a Mediator is as improper to be imputed to thoſe, who are not Mediators, as it is to impute the Righteouſneſs of a Prince to a Begger; therefore he was forced to conſider him not as Mediator, but as a private man, though this too was impoſſible; for he could not at the ſame time act ſo wany different and oppoſite parts as there are relations and conditions of men in the world; and yet when he thought on't again, he found, that it was not the Righteonſneſs of a private perſon, that would avail us (becauſè we have no way to come at it, to make it ours) but only the Righteouſneſs of the Mediator, who did, what he did for us, and in our ſtead; and ſo wheels about again, and is caught in the net and labyrinth of his making.

The Doctor aſſerts poſitively,Anſwer. that Chriſt, as Mediator did do whatever the Law required at our hands; and I can never perſwade my ſelf, that he ſhould exclude the fulfilling of the Law from the Laws of his Mediation: But then, as the Author would have it, we run upon another rock; that is, If what Chriſt did as Mediator be imputed to us, then we muſt become Mediators, and much ſuch an Argument againſt imputed p. 434Righteouſneſs, we have in Bellarmine, whoſe words are theſe,De juſtif. l. 2. cap. 7. Si vere imputaretur nobis Chriſti juſtitia, profectò non minus juſti haberi cenſeri que deberemus quàm ipſe Christus, proinde deberemus dici at que haberi Redemptores & ſalvatores mundi. Upon which Biſhop Davenant gives this cenſure, that it is ridicula illatio; The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt was in himſelf by inheſion, or from him by perſonal action; but it is ours only by imputation; and who ever heard of a Mediator, made ſuch by imputation, or by that Righteouſneſs, which another performed for him? The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to us; but what, Secundum totam latitudinem, to all intents and purpoſes whatſoever? Oh no, it is not imputed to us, to do that which is impoſſible, to make us Mediators, or the Efficients of it, but ſo far only as to make us Righteous before God; by the imputation of it, we are juſtified and ſaved, but we are not Mediators and Saviours: The Righteouſneſs is formally Chriſt's the one Mediators; but materially it becomes ours by imputation, ſo far forth as to juſtifie us: The Righteouſneſs it ſelf is one thing, and p. 435the manner of application another: Bellarmine himſelf, who made the objection, can ſay in another place, paſſiones Christi, & quae ſunt infiniti pretii, De Indulgent. l. …. cap. 4.applicari per indulgentias finiso modo: So ſay I, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is imputed to us, not to all intents and purpoſes; not to tranſlate a Mediatorſhip upon us, but in a limited manner, to juſtifie and ſave us, who are the receivers of it: It is imputed to every Believer, but it makes never an one of them, God-man; and no man that is a meer man, or leſs than God-man can be an expiating and ſaving Mediator; or, if he could, he could not be ſuch without a Divine Call or Ordination, which no Believer can pretend to: The Mediatorſhip is totally, ſolely Chriſt's; but the Righteouſneſs which he performed, is ſo far imputed to us, as to juſtifie and ſave us: The ſatisfaction of Chriſt's death is made ours, and that by imputation; or elſe we muſt be pardoned without a foreign; and yet that imputation doth not make us ſatisfying Mediators: Our Church tells us,1. Hoim. of Salvation. Chriſt is the Righteouſneſs of them that believe, he for them paid the ranſom by his death; he for them fulfilled the Law in his life: So that now in him, and by him, every p. 436true Chriſtian may be called a fulfiller of the Law: And yet our Church never dreamed of any ſuch thing, as that ſuch an imputation would turn a Believer into a Mediator; there is therefore no ill conſequence, but an infinite comfort in this aſſertion; that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, our Mediator is imputed to us.

The Doctor tells us, Mr. Sherlock.That Chriſt was under no obligation to obey theſe Laws himſelf; And to make this appear, he diſcourſes particularly of the Law of our Creation, and the Ceremonial Law given to the Jews: And for the firſt, the Law of Creation, that comprehends thoſe eternal Laws, which reſult from the eſſential difference of good and evil, which all mankind are bound to obſerve by the very frame of their natures: Now he dares not deny, that Chriſt was bound to obey this Law for himſelf; but then his obedience was voluntary: And what of that? For ſo the obedience of every good man is; for by voluntary he tells us, he doth not mean, That it was meerly arbitrary, and at his choice, whether he would obey or not; but on ſuppoſition of his undertaking to be Mediator, it was neceſſary it ſhould be ſo; but he voluntarily and p. 437willingly ſubmitted to it: and ſo became really ſubject to the commands of it. And is it not very plain now, that Chriſt was not obliged to obey thoſe Laws, becauſe he willingly ſubmitted to them; but he means ſomewhat more by this, voluntary, than he could tell how to expreſs; and all that I can gueſs is, that whereas we are bound to obey theſe Laws antecedently to our choice; it was not ſo with him, for his obligation was conſequential, upon his being born, and becoming man, which was his own choice; and yet, even then, as he tells us: As he was Mediator God-man, he was not by the inſtitution of that Law obliged to it, being, as it were, lifted up above that Law by the hypoſtatical Union: Now this is very profound reaſoning; for the meaning of it is this: That Christ had not been bound to live like a man, unleſs he had become man; and yet I can grant ſomething more, that it was impoſſible that he ſhould have lived like a man, without being man: But when he choſe to be man, he was bound to diſcharge all the duties of a man for himſelf: But how could he be exempted from this Law, by being Mediator God and Man: When the Doctor acknowledges, that upon ſuppoſition p. 438of his being Mediator, it was neceſſary it ſhould be ſo; that is, that he ſhould obey, now, not to be obliged by the Institution of the Law as Mediator; and that it ſhould be neceſſary for him to obey as Mediator, are at ſo great a diſtance, that it may ſerve for another trial of skill to reconcile them.

Chriſt,Anſwer. when he aſſumed the humane Nature, was as man ſubject to the Law of Creation; for his humane Nature was but a Creature, and its will, not being Supreme in it ſelf, was under the Divine Will; but Chriſt freely and voluntarily became man; and ſo put himſelf of his own accord into the ſtate of ſubjection; and as he was not made man for himſelf, but for us: So neither was he made under the Law for himſelf, but for us. Hence the Apoſtle joyning both theſe together; He was made of a woman, made under the Law, Gal. 4. 4, 5. Superadds as the end common to both, that he might redeem us; he aſſumed humanity, and with it duty, neither for himſelf, but both for us, that he might foreign, fulfil the Law, Matth. 5.17. for us; not only doctrinally, by opening the pure Spirituality of it; but practically too, by fulfilling all the p. 439Righteouſneſs thereof. Chriſt as man was bound by the Law; but this hinders not, but that his obedience may be for us, and may be imputed to us in juſtification: No ſooner was that Divine Decree (which put a muſt upon Chriſt's ſufferings) made known to him as man; but he was bound to dye, and yet his death was a ſweet Sacrifice for us, and a propitiation for our ſins; And as the Blood of Chriſt was the Blood of God, ſo the obedience of Chriſt was the obedience of God; being ſtamped with his Deity, it amounted to an infinite ſumm; enough for himſelf, and a world beſides. Chriſt was in ſome ſence, as it were, exempted, and lifted up above the Law by the hypoſtatical Union; he might have carried up the Humane Nature into heaven, in the very firſt inſtant of its aſſumption; he need not have performed the Law, in ſuch a debaſed manner, for ſuch a ſpace of time, and in ſuch a place as earth; he was not ſimply and abſolutely bound to it in himſelf; but upon ſuppoſition, that he took upon him the Mediatory Office, he was bound to fulfil the Law for us as he did.

Though we ſuppoſe, Mr. Sherlock.that Christ as man was bound to yield obedience to the Law p. 440of Creation, yet the Dr. obſerves, that this is the only Law he could be liable to as a man; for an innocent man in a Covenant of works, as he was, needed no other Law, nor did God give any other Law to ſuch perſons; the Law of Creation is the only Law, that an innocent Creature is liable to, with what Symbols of the Law God is pleaſed to add: But now Jeſus Chriſt yielded perfect obedience to all the Laws which came upon us by the occaſion of ſin, as the Ceremonial Law; yea, thoſe very Inſtitutions that ſignified the waſhing away of ſin and repentance from ſin, as the Baptiſm of John, which he had no need of himſelf; this therefore muſt needs be for us: This looks ſomething like, but I fear it will prove like all the reſt, that is, to no purpoſe: I would willingly have had ſome proof of it, that an innocent man can be bound by no other Law than that of Creation: God, as he acknowledges, might add what Symbols he pleaſed to that Law; (for he remembred the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil) and I know not what theſe Symbols are, but poſitive Laws, and ſuch the Ceremonial Laws were; and if God may require the obedience of an innocent p. 441man to one poſitive Law, he may, if he pleaſe, enjoyn twenty. And though they were at first commanded upon occaſion of ſin, an innocent man may obſerve them to good and wiſe purpoſes, as ſolemn acts of Worſhip, external expreſſions of Devotion, a publick profeſſion of a virtuous Life; to which purpoſes among others, the Sacrifices and Ceremonies of the Law and Baptiſm of John ſerved: And if there were no other reaſon, this were enough, that an innocent man ſhould ſet an example of reverence to all divine Institutions: But this is not worth contending about; for the Righteouſneſs of the Ceremonial Law could never justifie any man; neither can I underſtand, why the Doctor ſhould ſuppoſe, that Chriſt fulfilled the Ceremonial Law for all Believers, when the greatest part of them, the Gentiles, were never under the obligation of it.

God gave unto innocent Adam ſymbolical Precepts,Anſwer over and above the Law of Creation; but what were thoſe Precepts? Not Waſhings, Purifications, Circumciſions, Expiations, Sacrifices, nothing that was ſignificative of ſin, but ſuch only as were congruous to that State: The true One would not have the leaſt ſhadow of a lye in his p. 442Service; neither is it to me imaginable that Chriſt ſhould for his own ſake be put under ſuch Laws as are unſutable to his Innocency; what need had he of Circumciſion, who had no corrupt fleſh in him, or of Baptiſm, who was without ſpot? But, ſaith the Author, an innocent man may obſerve ſuch Laws, for profeſſion or examples ſake: But ſurely what he doth muſt be done in truth. We find in Scripture, that at the Jewiſh Sacrifices there was a confeſſion of ſin, the form of which, as their Doctors ſay, was thus; O Lord, thy people, the houſe of Iſrael, they have ſinned, they have done wickedly, &c. and might an innocent Iſraelite (had there been ſuch an one) have joyned in this confeſſion, and that without the forfeiture of his innocency? I doubt he could not: Beſides, when the Scripture aſſigns no ſuch reaſon for Chriſt's ſubjection to any Law, who may be ſo bold as to do it? But, ſaith the Author, Chriſt's Obedience to the Ceremonial Law juſtifieth no man; Neither according to the Author doth his Obedience to the Moral Law; and therefore he might have left his Obedience, which is the compleature of all divine Laws, undivided and in its entirety.

p. 443The Dr. ſaith, Mr. Sherlock.There can be no other reaſon aſſigned of Chriſt's Obedience to the Law of God, but only this, that he did it in our ſtead: Now this Argument would be good, were it true and were there not a great many things done, which we cannot aſſign the reaſon of, and yet done for great and weighty reaſons; but this reaſon is ſufficient, becauſe he was as much bound to it as any other man. The Dr takes it for granted, That if Chriſt were not bound to obey theſe Laws upon his own account, it muſt be either for us, or to fit him for his Death and Oblation; but it was not to fit him for his Death, therefore it was for us: He tells us, that he anſwered all Types, and was every way fit to be made an offering for ſin by his Union and habitual Grace: If his Obedience were not for us, and upon our account, there is no juſt cauſe to be aſſigned, why he ſhould live here in the world ſo long as he did in perfect obedience to all the Laws of God. Had he died before, there had been perfect Innocence and perfect Holineſs by his habitual Grace, and infinite Virtue and Worth from the dignity of his Perſon; and ſurely he yielded not that long courſe of Obedience but for p. 444ſome great and ſpecial purpoſes, in reference to our Salvation: Yes truly; but muſt this needs be his actual fulfilling all Righteouſneſs for us? What do you think of his preaching the Goſpel throughout all Judea which would take up ſome time? What of the many Miracles which confirmed his Doctrine? What of training up his Apoſtles to ſucceed him in his Miniſtry as Eye-witneſſes and Earwitneſſes of his Miracles and Doctrine? What of the holy Example of his Life, which was no leſs neceſſary than his Laws? Theſe are all great and ſpecial purpoſes in reference to our Salvation, though we ſhould ſuppoſe him fit to have been a Sacrifice (as Herod deſigned he ſhould have been) as ſoon as he were born; though by the way, I think he could not have anſwered the Types and Predictions of him, had he dyed ſo ſoon, notwithſtanding his perfect innocence and holineſs.

I take it the Doctor's Scope was this,Anſwer. That the end of Chriſt's Active Obedience could not be aſſigned to be, that he might be fitted for his death and oblation, and that becauſe be was every way fit to be made an offering for ſin, by his Ʋnion and habitual Grace; the Dr. intended not, that Chriſt lived here ſo long, only that he might obey p. 445and for no other ends: It's true that Chriſt lived here ſo long, that he might preach, and do Miracles, and inſtruct his Apoſtles, and it's true, that he lived here ſo long, that he might fulfil all Righteouſneſs, all theſe were ends of his living here; but the Quaere is, What was the end of his Active Obedience? I never yet read, that the end of that was his preaching, doing of Miracles, or inſtructing his Apoſtles; theſe were ſimultaneous and concurrent in time with his Obedience. But Christ obeyed the Law, that he might give us an holy Example by his Life: I grant it, but that was not all; Chriſt died alſo for to leave an Example to us, but there was much more in his Death; in truth both were for our Juſtification: As we are justified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. ſo we are made righteous by his obedience, ver. 9.

His Third Reaſon to prove, Anſwer.that Christ fulfilled all Righteouſneſs for us, is from the abſolute neceſſity of it: For this is the Term of the Covenant, Do this and live; Life is not to be obtained, unleſs all be done that the Law requires; we being unable to do this, it is neceſſary that Chriſt our Mediator and Surety ſhould fulfil the Law for us: p. 446This Argument is to prove that it ought to be ſo, not that it is ſo; but we muſt not preſcribe methods to God. The ſum of the Argument is, that there never was, nor never can be a Covenant of Grace; that God ſtill exacts the rigorous perfection of the Law from us; that we muſt not appear before him without a complete and perfect Righteouſneſs of our own or of another: Now this is the thing in queſtion, Whether we muſt be made righteous with the perfect Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to us, or whether God will for the ſake of Christ diſpenſe with the rigor of the Law, and accept of a ſincere and Evangelical Obedience in ſtead of a perfect and unſinning Righteouſneſs; ſo that he only confidently affirms what was in diſpute, and this goes for an Argument.

We muſt not preſcribe methods to God: Anſwer.Nor may we deny thoſe he hath ſet down and reveiled to us. The Scripture tells us, that Juſtification under the Goſpel is in a way completive and perfective of the Law, ſo that the Law is eſtabliſhed, Rom. 3.31. and hath its end or complement, Rom. 10.4. and this cannot be without a perfect Righteouſneſs: And withal the Scripture tells us where that Righteouſneſs p. 447is, Chriſt is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to us, Rom. 10.4. and, We are made the Righteouſneſs of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is made ours by Imputation, & that anſwers the Law in every point. But then (ſaith the Author) there can be no covenant of Grace: If the perfect Righteouſneſs were to be done by us in our own perſons, there could be none indeed; but may there be none, if that Righteouſneſs be fulfilled by Chriſt and imputed to us? The Papiſts uſe to blaſt imputed Righteouſneſs with many ugly names, as if it were putative, an imaginary Fiction, a Spectrum of Luther's Brain, and the like; but I never before heard, that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, made ours by Imputation, did overthrow the Covenant of Grace: Sure the Paſſive Righteouſneſs of Chriſt doth not overthrow it, and, if the Active be joyned with that as it ought, no evil can enſue; but we may in the conjunction of both as in a Glaſs ſee the admirable Wiſdom of God, which hath framed the Covenant of Grace in ſuch a manner, that we, who have no perfect Righteouſneſs of our own, are yet juſtified by the complete Righteouſneſs of Chriſt p. 448our Surety; ſo that the Law, though not fulfilled by us, hath its perfect completion. It's true, that God accepts of our ſincere Obedience, but not in Juſtification; not in the room of Chriſt's perfect Righteouſneſs, but in its own proper place, having its defects covered with Chriſt's Righteouſneſs.

The Doctor makes a great flouriſh with ſome Scripture-phraſes, Mr. Sherlockthat there is almoſt nothing that Chriſt hath done, but we are ſaid to do it with him; We are crucified with him, dead with him, buried with him, quickned with him; &c. But he is quite out in the reaſon of theſe expreſſions, which is not, that we are accounted to do the ſame things, which Christ did, but becauſe we do ſome things like them: Our dying to ſin is a conformity to the death of Chriſt, and our walking in newneſs of life, a conformity to his Reſurrection.

I know no Divine who interprets thoſe Phraſes (of being crucified, Anſwer.dead, buried, quickned with Christ) of imputed Righteouſneſs, neither do I ſuppoſe that the Doctor ever intended any ſuch thing; thoſe Phraſes belong to Sanctification: Then we are crucified with Chriſt, when we feel the power of his Croſs in our Mortification p. 449then we are riſen with Chriſt, when we feel the power of his Reſurrection raiſing of us up to the divine Life and Likeneſs.

The Doctor cites that Text, Mr. Sherlock.Gal. 4. 4, 5. God ſent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, and here he ſtops; but I ſhall take confidence to add, That we might receive the adoption of Sons: Now by being made under the Law, he tells us is meant, being diſpoſed of in ſuch a condition, that he muſt yield ſubjection and obedience to the Law; well, ſuppoſe this, and this was all to redeem us, and therefore our redemption is by the obedience of Chriſt imputed to us: Fairly argued, but can his obedience to the Law contribute no otherways to our redemption, but by being reckoned as done by us? But the truth is, this, us, is not in the text, it is not to redeem us, but to redeem them that were under the Law, that is, the Jews, who were in bondage under the Moſaical Law; from which Chriſt redeemed them by abrogating that Law, and introducing a better covenant, the adoption of ſons: For in this Epiſtle, nay in this chapter, the Law is called a ſtate of ſervants, and of an heir under p. 450age, but the Goſpel is the adoption of ſons, puts us into ſuch a free and manly ſtate, as that of an heir at age, and therefore is called the Spirit of Adoption, Rom. 8.15. So that the meaning of this Text is this, that God hath put an end to the diſpenſation of the Law, which is called redeeming them that are under the Law, in a ſtate of ſervitude and bondage, and hath eſtabliſhed a better Covenant in the room of it, which as much exceeds the Law as the adoption of Sons doth the ſtate of Servants; and this God brought to paſs by ſending his Son made of a woman, made under the Law: For the underſtanding of which words we must conſider, what influence Christ's appearing in the world had on the abrogation of the Law, and that was, that he accompliſhed all the Types and Figures of the Law in his own Perſon; and when all thoſe Types were fulfilled, they grew out of date: So that his being made under the Law moſt probably ſignifies his being made ſuch a Perſon, as ſhould exactly anſwer all the Types and Figures of the Law, and ſo to put an end to it, as of no further uſe: Thus the Temple was God's Houſe, but now the Shechinah or divine Glory rested on Chriſt: When Christ the great High-Prieſt p. 451came, and offered himſelf, all legal Prieſts and Sacrifices were of no uſe: Thus by his being under the Law, and accompliſhing all the Types of it; he put an end to all thoſe beggarly rudiments, and delivered the Jews from the bondage of the Law; for though the Gentiles too are redeemed by Chriſt, yet they were not redeemed from the Law of Moſes, under which they never were.

God ſent forth his Son, made of a woman, Anſwer.made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of ſons: Thus the Apoſtle, Gal. 4. 4, 5. The Son of God was made of a woman, in his Incarnation, made under the Law; under the rule of it in his active obedience; under the curſe of it, in his paſſive; and the end of all was, that he might redeem us; that we, who were captives under the wrath of God, might be redeemed ones. And further, that we might receive the adoption of ſons, that we, who were children of wrath, might be ſons of God, and ſo heirs of eternal life; and that it may be thus indeed, that Chriſt's being under the Law, his active and paſſive obedience may procure ſuch a redemption and adoption; ſuch an exemption from wrath, p. 452and title to heaven for us: His obedience muſt be applyed to us, and become ours, which cannot be but by imputation: But, ſaith the Author: This, us, is not in the Text, it is not, to redeem us, but to redeem them that were under the Law; that is, the Jews: But was not Chriſt a Redeemer of the Gentiles alſo? Or is he not their Redeemer within this Text? Yes, ſurely, obſerve the words of the Apoſtle; To redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of ſons. The Apoſtle alters his phraſe, and turns them into, we, which takes in the Galatians into the adoption; and by conſequence into the redemption too; and to make it more clear, he alters his phraſe again, and turns we into ye; in the next verſe which hangs upon the former: And becauſe ye are ſons, verſ. 6. ye Galatians, ye Gentiles are ſons; and ye Galatians, ye Gentiles, are redeemed ones within the Text: Otherwiſe, which is very ſtrange, the Apoſtle ſhould argue from the Redemption of the Jews only, to the Adoption of the Gentiles: But to go on, Chriſt, ſaith the Author, redeemed the Jews from the bondage of the Moſaical Law (that is, I ſuppoſe, the p. 453Ceremonial Law) and introduced a better Covenant, the adoption of ſons. To which I anſwer, Chriſt did indeed redeem from the bondage of Moſaical Rites and Ceremonies: But is this all the Redemption within the Text? If we ſtop here, we fall in with the gloſs of Socinus; who underſtands only a freedom, A jugo legis, De ſervat. part. 2. cap. 24.ut Spiritûs ſervilis loeo filialem ſpiritum adipiſcerentur. The Redemption here is not to be reſtrained to a freedom from Moſaical Ceremonies only: Chriſt was made under the whole Law, and the Redemption, which muſt be parallel to his being under the Law, muſt not only be a Redemption from the Bondage of the Ceremonial Law, but a Redemption from the curſe of the Moral; of which the Apoſtle had diſcourſed but a little before, Gal. 3.13. Our Saviour was never made under the whole Law to redeem from a part of it only. Again, Redemption from the Ceremonial Law was peculiar to the Jews: But the Redemption here ſpoken of reaches as far as the Gentiles alſo; who, as I before noted, have a ſhare in the Adoption of Sons, as well as the Jews: The Redemption here ſpoken of, is not a part or piece of p. 454Redemption, but Redemption in its fulneſs and excellency. Chriſt by coming into the fleſh, introduceth a better Covenant; that is, the beams of Evangelical Light were purer, and the effuſions of the holy Spirit larger than before: But ſtill we muſt remember, that the Covenant of Grace was for ſubſtance, one and the ſame under both Teſtaments: Under the Old Teſtament, true Believers had the Law in their heart, the Adoption of Sons, the free Spirit, and a true title to eternal Life: And on the other hand, under the New Teſtament, unbelievers have the Law and Goſpel too, but in the Letter; their bondage is far greater than that of beggarly Elements: The unclean ſpirit dwells and works in them; and the dreadful wrath of God abideth on them. Chriſt's being under the Law, ſaith the Author, is his being ſuch a perſon, as ſhould exactly anſwer all the Types and Figures of the Law: Unto which I add: His being under the Law, is his being ſuch a perſon, as ſhould exactly anſwer all the demands of the Moral Law, in its mandatory and minatory parts.

I ſhall now examine what influence the Sacrifice of Christ's Death, Mr. Sherlock.and the p. 455Righteouſneſs of his life have upon our acceptance with God: And all that I can find in Scripture about this, is, that to this we owe the Covenant of Grace, that God being well pleaſed with the obedience of Chriſt's Life, and the ſacrifice of his Death; for his ſake entred into a new Covenant with mankind; wherein he promſes pardon of ſin and eternal life to thoſe who believe and obey the Goſpel: This is very plain with reference to Chriſt's death. Hence the Blood of Chriſt is called the blood of the covenant, Heb. 10.29. And Chriſt is called, the great Shepherd and Biſhop of ſouls, through the blood of the everlaſting covenant, Heb. 13.20. And the Blood of Christ is called, the blood of ſprinkling, which ſpeaks better things than the blood of Abel, Heb. 12.24. which is an alluſion to Moſes, his ſprinkling the blood of the Sacrifice, whereby he confirmed the Covenant between God and the children of Iſrael, Heb. 9.19, 20, 21. For when Moſes had ſpoken every Precept to all the people according to the Law (when he had declared the terms of this Covenant to them) he took the Blood of Calves and Goats, with Water and ſcarlet Wool, and Hyſop, and ſprinkled both the Book, and all the p. 456People, ſaying, This is the blood of the teſtament, which God hath ordained to you: Thus the Blood of Chriſt is called, the blood of ſprinkling; Becauſe by his Blood God did ſeal and confirm the Covenant of Grace, as the ſprinkling of the blood of beaſts did confirm the Moſaical Covenant, Hence we are ſaid, to be juſtified by the blood of Chriſt, Rom. 5.9. that is, by the Goſpel-Covenant, which was confirmed with his Blood: Chriſt is called a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. that is, by a belief of his Goſpel. Hence the Scripture uſes theſe phraſes promiſcuouſly; To be juſtified by Faith, and to be juſtified by the faith of Chriſt; and to be juſtified by Chriſt, and to be juſtified through Faith in his blood, & to be juſtified and ſaved by grace; Nay, by believing, that Chriſt is the Son of God, Joh. 20.31. And that God raiſed him from the dead, Rom. 10.9. All which ſignifie the ſame thing, that we are juſtified by believing and obeying the Goſpel; for faith, or faith in Chriſt ſignifies ſuch a firm belief of the Goſpel, as brings forth all fruits of obedience, and the Grace of God is the Goſpel of Chriſt, expreſly ſo called, Tit. 2.11. As being the effect of Gods Grace, and Faith in the Blood of Chriſt is a belief of the Goſpel; which was confirmed by his death, and p. 457believing, that Chriſt is the Son of God, the Meſſiah, and Prophet, whom God ſent to reveil his will, includes a general belief of the Goſpel, which he preached; and believing that God raiſed him from the dead doth the ſame, becauſe his Reſurrection was the laſt and great confirmation of the truth of the Goſpel. Hence the Apoſtles attribute ſuch things to the Blood of Chriſt, as are the proper immediate office of the Goſpel-Covenant, becauſe the Blood of Chriſt is the Blood of the Covenant; and therefore all the bleſſings of the Goſpel are owing to it, becauſe the Goſpel-Covenant was procured and confirmed by it: Thus the Gentiles, who were a far off, are made nigh by the blood of Chriſt; and the Gentiles and Jews were reconciled unto God in one body by the croſs, Eph. 2.14, 15, 16. That is, the Gentiles were received into the fellowſhip of God's Church, and the Jews and Gentiles united in one body: Now this union of Jews and Gentiles is owing to the Goſpel, which takes away all marks of diſtinction and ſeparation, and gives them both an equal right to the bleſſing of the New Covenant: This New Covenant belongs to all mankind; there is now no diſtinction of perſons: Neither Jew, nor Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, p. 458bond nor free; but Chriſt is all, and in all: No man is acceptable to God, becauſe he is a Jew or Greek; but the only thing of any value is Faith in Chriſt, or a belief of the Goſpel, which is indifferently offered to all. Now this is attributed to the Blood of Chriſt, and to his death, becauſe thereby Chriſt put an end to the Moſaical Covenant; and ſealed this New Covenant of Grace with Mankind, as the Apoſtle explains himſelf, in the following verſes 17.18. &c. That Chriſt having aboliſhed the Law of Commandments by his death, he came and preached peace, (that is, the Goſpel of peace) to them who were a far off, to the Gentiles, and to them who were nigh to the Jews, he abrogated the Moſaical Law; That Law of Commandments contained in ordinances, which was peculiar to the Jews, and ſeparated them from the reſt of the World; And he broke down the middle wall of partition, which kept the uncircumciſed Gentiles, though Proſelites, at a diſtance from God, as confining their worſhip to the outward court of the Temple, which the Apoſtle ſeems to refer to in that phraſe; Them that were a far off. And now, by the Goſpel he admits the Gentiles to as near an approach to God, as the Jews: p. 459As he adds; For through him we have an acceſs by one Spirit to the Father, verſ. 18.

The Author enquiring,Anſwer. what influence the obedience and death of Chriſt have upon our acceptance with God, reſolves it thus: All that I can find in Scripture is, that to this we owe the Covenant of Grace. Chriſt's Blood is called the Blood of the Covenant, becauſe it did ſeal and confirm the Covenant. I anſwer, Chriſt's Blood did indeed ſeal and confirm the Covenant: But is this the all of it? Socinus will own as much as this comes to; Sicuti alicujus animantis ſanguine fuſo foedera antiquitùs ſanciebantur, De ſervat. l. 1. cap. 3.& confirmabantur, ita Chriſti ſilii ſui ſanguine foedus ſuum novum at que aeternum, quod nobiſcum per ipſum Christum pepigerat, ſancivit & confirmavit Deus: Thus he, telling us too, that it is therefore called, Sanguis aeterni foederis: To the ſame purpoſe ſpeaks the Racovian Catechiſt, with others of the ſame Tribe: But the Scripture tells us more of the Blood of Chriſt, That we are juſtified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. But, ſaith the Author, we are ſaid to be justified by his Blood; that is, by the Goſpel-Covenant, which was confirmed with his Blood: This is a p. 460ſtrange way of interpreting Scripture: We are justified by his blood; that is, by the Goſpel: We may as well go on to verſe 18. and ſay, juſtification of life is by the righteouſneſs of one; that is, by the Goſpel: And to verſe 19. and ſay, We are made righteous by the obedience of one; that is, by the Goſpel: And from thence we may go on at the ſame rate with other Scriptures, as, He hath waſhed us from our ſins in his own blood, Revel. 1.5. that is, in his own Goſpel: The blood of Jeſus Chriſt, who through the eternal Spirit offered up himſelf without ſpot to God, ſhall purge your conſciences from dead works, Heb. 9.14. that is, the Goſpel ſhall do it: This is my blood of the new Teſtament, which is ſhed for many, for the remiſſion of ſins, Matth. 26.28. that is, this is my New Teſtament of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many, for the remiſſion of fins: Rather than make ſuch work with Scripture; we were as good let the Blood of our dear Lord ſtand there, as it ought, in its juſtifying Glory: We are juſtified by Christ's blood; that is, by the Goſpel: And is Chriſt's Blood the Goſpel? Or where in all the Scripture is the Blood of Chriſt ſo taken? The Scripture rarely, if ever, ſpeaks of p. 461being juſtified by the Goſpel, but it ſpeaks much and often of being juſtified by Chriſt's Blood: It cleanſes us from all ſin, 1 Joh. 1.7. It purges the conſcience, Heb. 9.19. It was ſhed for the remiſſion of ſins, Eph. 1.7. It waſhes us from our ſins, Rev. 1.5. And yet all this contrary to the expreſs words and genius of Scripture, muſt be underſtood not of the Blood of Chriſt, but of the Goſpel; and why of the Goſpel? Becauſe his Blood confirmed the Goſpel: And is juſtifying and confirming the Goſpel all one? Chriſt's Blood, according to the Author, confirmed the Covenant with all Mankind; but all men are not juſtified: When the Scripture ſpeaks of Chriſts Blood and Death as confirmative of the Covenant or Goſpel, it ſpeaks ſometimes in general of all men: Thus he died for all men, 2 Cor. 5.15. Hee gave himſelf a ranſom for all, 1 Tim. 2.6. with many other places to the ſame purpoſe: But when the Scripture ſpeaks of Chriſt's Blood as juſtifying, it ſpeaks not in general of all, but in particular of Believers only; and yet if juſtify- and confirming the Goſpel were all one, it might be as truly ſaid, that Chriſt juſtifies all as that he died for p. 462all The Goſpel is the Charter of Juſtification; but beſides the Charter their muſt be a Righteouſneſs to be the Matter of our Juſtification: God never juſtifies any man without a Righteouſneſs, and what is it? Is it the very Act of Faith? Thus Socinus would have it,De ſervat. part. 4. cap. 4. that the foreign Credere is loco justitiae, in the room of all Righteouſneſs: But I have before proved that Faith as an Act and abſolutely in it ſelf conſidered canot juſtifie us; Or is it our inherent Graces? This is the expreſs Tenet of the Papiſts: Thus Bellarmine would have juſtifying Grace to be donum in Animainhaerens, Renovation and Regeneration: Againſt this our Proteſtant Divines have ſufficiently teſtified. Indeed no man, who underſtands, either himſelf and his own Errata's, or the neceſſary diſtinction which is to be made between Juſtification and Sanctification, can aſſert it: And now nothing remains to be our Righteouſneſs in Juſtification but the Obedience and atoning Blood of Chriſt, and theſe cannot be applied to us, and become ours but by Imputation: By this it appears, that the Blood of Chriſt doth not only confirm the Covenant, but that it juſtifies us alſo. p. 463And this further appears by the place quoted by the Author, Moſes ſprinkled the blood on the book and on all the people, Heb. 9.19. He did not only confirm the Covenant, but ſprinkled the People too; this was the Type or Figure; but Chriſt, who is the Subſtance, not only confirms the Covenant, but ſprinkles the hearts of Believers by his Blood: Hence their hearts are ſprinkled from an evil conſcience, Heb. 10.22. and they have the ſprinkling of the blood of Chriſt, 1 Pet. 1.2. But to go on; The Scripture, ſaith the Author, uſes theſe phraſes promiſcuouſly, to be juſtified by Faith, by Chriſt, by Grace; nay, by believing that Christ is the Son of God, or riſen from the dead: To which I anſwer, All theſe concurr to the ſame Juſtification, but not in the ſame manner: Grace, which is the inward impulſive Cauſe of Juſtification, is not Chriſt or his Blood; the Blood of Chriſt, which is the Matter of our Righteouſneſs, is not Faith; Faith, which is the Hand to receive Chriſt and Grace, is not the Goſpel, the Charter of Juſtification, which contains the Evangelical Axioms, ſuch as thoſe, touching Chriſt's being the Son of God or touching his Reſurrection from the p. 464dead, are: Theſe are diſtinct things and not to be confounded. As for that place, Eph. 2.14, 15, 16. the Apoſtle ſpeaks indeed of reconciling Jews and Gentiles, but that is not all, he ſpeaks too of reconciling both to God, ver. 16. and of making them one new man in himſelf, ver. 15. which notes a further reconciliation than that among themſelves, even a conjunction with God and Chriſt, according to our Saviours Prayer, That they maybe one in us, Joh. 17.21. Chriſt, ſaith the Author, abrogated the Moſaical Law: I anſwer, He did ſo as to Types and Ceremonials; but the Moral Law, which is immortalized by its intrinſecal Sanctity, ſtands to this day, and the Grace, which was under the Old Teſtament, was not abrogated, but made more illuſtrious than it was before. The Gentiles, ſaith the Author, were at a diſtance from God; But if they had natural Faith, and could by it pleaſe God, the diſtance was leſs and more tolerable; though they were but in the outward Court of the Temple, nay, though they were a thouſand miles off from it, they would do well enough in the other world.

Mr. Sherlock.Thus the Jews are ſaid to be redeemed p. 465from 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; and the Gentiles were redeemed from their vain converſation, received from their fathers, that is, from thoſe idolatrous and impure practices they were guilty of; not with ſilver and gold, but with the precious blood of Jeſus Chriſt, 1. Pet. 1.18, 19. Now the Gentiles were delivered from their 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.

Thus the Jews are redeemed from the curſe of the Law by the accurſed death of Chriſt, Anſwer.Gal. 3.13. ſo the Author; and thus Socinus, De Servat. part. 2. cap. 1.Ad Judaeos tantùm pertinet, This belongs only to the Jews: But the Curſe which fell upon Chriſt, was not a ceremonial one, but a real, ſuch as put him into Agonies and a bloody Sweat; neither were the Jews only redeemed from it, but the Gentiles alſo; what elſe was this to the Galatians who were Gentiles? Were not the Gentiles alſo under the Curſe, p. 466and by nature children of wrath? No doubt they were, the Apoſtle ſaith, That Chriſt redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, that the bleſſing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jeſus Chriſt, ver. 14. And ſurely he would not argue from the Redemption of the Jews only to the Benediction of the Gentiles, but from what was common to both of them. The Gentiles were redeemed from their vain converſation, that is, from their idolatrous practices, with the blood of Chriſt; 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. that is, they were delivered by the preaching of the Goſpel; So the Author: But when they were redeemed from their vain Converſation, they were redeemed from the guilt of it; and the foreign for this was not the Goſpel, but the precious Blood of Chriſt, who was a Lamb without blemiſh and without ſpot.

Thoſe men are injurious to the Blood of Christ, Mr. Sherlockwho attribute no more to it than a non-imputation of ſin; That by his death Chriſt,Dr. Owen Com. 193. bearing and undergoing the puniſhment due to us, paying the ranſom due for us, delivered us from the wrath and curſe of God: And thus by Chriſt's death all cauſe of quarrel is taken away: But then p. 467this will not complete our acceptation, the old quarrel may be laid aſide, and yet no new friendſhip begun; we may be not ſinners, and yet not ſo far righteous, as to have a right to the Kingdom of heaven: So that the Blood of Chriſt only makes us innocent, delivers us from guilt and puniſhment; but (if we will take the Doctor's word for it) it can give us no title to Glory; this is owing to the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, to the Obedience of his Life: But you ſee the Scripture gives us a quite 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 Jeſus, Heb. 10.19. which is an alluſion to the high Prieſt's entring into the Holy of Holies (which was a Type of Heaven) with the blood of the Sacrifice: Thus by the Blood of Christ we have admiſſion into heaven it ſelf, though the Dr. ſays, That the Blood of Chriſt makes us innocent, but cannot give us a Title to Heaven. The Scripture takes no notice of their artificial Methods, That the guilt of ſin is taken away by the death of Chriſt, and that we are made righteous by his Righteouſneſs: But the Blood of Christ is ſaid to juſtifie us, p. 468and to give us admiſſion into the holiest of all; into heaven it ſelf; nay, we are made righteous by the death of Chriſt too, 2 Cor. 5.21. For he hath made him to be ſin for us, who knew no ſin, that we might be made the righteouſneſs of God in him: That is, Chriſt died as a Sacrifice for our ſins, that we might be reconciled to God: So that our Righteouſneſs as well as Innocence is owing to the death of Chriſt, to that Sacrifice he offered for our ſins; his Blood had a great vertue in it, to make us righteous, to purge our conſciences from dead works, that we might ſerve the living God; and our righteouſneſs and accceptance with God is wholly owing to that Covenant, which he purchaſed and ſealed with his Blood.

I ſuppoſe the Author to be a very unfit man to put in this accuſation:Anſwer. Who attributes moſt to that Blood, the Author or theſe men, is a very ſhort iſſue, and will ſoon he tried: Chriſt's Blood ſealed and confirmed the Covenant; this is the all of it ſaith the Author: Theſe men (though they do not ſtint it with an All) yet they freely own, That Christ's death did ſeal and confirm the Covenant; evidently therefore they attribute as much to Chriſt's p. 469blood, as the Author doth: But do they ſtay here? No, they ſay with the Apoſtle; That we are juſtified by Chriſt's blood, Rom. 5.9. And doth the Author do ſo? No ſurely, We are juſtified by his blood; that is, by the Goſpel-Covenant, which was confirmed with his blood: Thus the Author: Now if juſtifying and confirming the Covenant be one thing, then the Author allows juſtification by Chriſt's blood; But juſtifying and confirming the Covenant are not one thing: Christ's blood, according to the Author, confirmed the Covenant for all; but it doth not juſtifie all. Hence it appears, that the Author allows not juſtification by Chriſt's Blood; and yet he charges theſe men with being injurious to it; to which they attribute remiſſion, or non-imputation of ſin: But for the matter it ſelf, I conceive that the Obedience and Blood of Chriſt are to be taken in conjunction; both together are the completure of the Law, both are imputed to us, both juſtifie us unto life eternal. Hence I conceive where one is expreſſed in Scripture, the other is implyed; when the Scripture ſaith, That we are justified by Chriſt's blood, Rom. 5.9. It doth include his Obedience; p. 470and when it ſaith, That we are made righteous by his obedience, Rom. 5.19. it doth include his Blood alſo. Hence our Church takes in both into juſtification:1. Hom. of Salvation. He paid the ranſom for them by his death; he fulfilled the Law for them in his life: ſo that in and by him every true Chriſtian man may be called a fulfiller of the Law.

But though our pardon and juſtifieation be attributed to the Blood of Chriſt; Mr Sherlock.yet I could never perſwade my ſelf, that this wholly excludes the perfect Obedience and Righteouſneſs of his life: For the Apoſtle tells us, That we are accepted in the beloved, Eph. 1.6. Whatever rendred Chriſt beloved of God, did contribute ſomething to our acceptance: For becauſe he was beloved, we are accepted for his ſake: No man will deny, that God was highly pleaſed with his perfect Obedience: We know how many bleſſings God beſtowed upon the children of Iſrael, for the ſake of their Fathers, Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, who were great examples of Faith and obedience, which made them very dear to God; and no doubt 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 p. 471Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, when Abraham's poſterity was ſo bleſſed for his ſake: But then Christ's Righteouſneſs and Death ſerve not two ſuch different ends, as theſe men fancy; but they both ſerve the ſame end to establiſh the Covenant: God was ſo well pleaſed with what Chriſt did and ſuffered; that for his ſake he entred into a Covenant of Grace with man: As Abraham's Faith was not imputed to his Poſterity, as their act; but for Abraham's ſake, God entred into Covenant with them, and choſe them for his peculiar people.

Here we have the Author acknowledging,Anſwer. that the obedience of Chriſt did contributé ſomething to our acceptance with God: The children of Iſrael were bleſſed for Abraham's obedience; and why may not we for Christs? The confequence is undeniable; but there is a vaſt diſproportion between Abraham's obedience and Chriſts. Abraham's was but the obedience of a man, and of an imperct man; but Chriſts was the obedience of God: His Blood is called, the blood of God; and for the very ſame reaſon his obedience may be ſtiled the obedience of God: Abraham's had not a jot or tittle of merit in it, he had nothing to glory in p. 472before God: But Chriſt's was ſo richly meritorious as to purchaſe the Bleſſings of both Worlds: Abraham's was not imputed to his Poſterity; it was little enough, and (without Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to cover its defects) too little for himſelf: But Chriſt's is imputed to us, and is long enough, and broad enough to cover a multitude of Believers, and to juſtifie them before God. The Covenant made with Abraham was the very Covenant of Grace; The Goſpel was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. And Abraham ſaw Chriſt's day and rejoyced, Joh. 8.56. And hence it appears, that the Covenant with Abraham was not founded in Abraham's Righteouſneſs, but in Chriſt's; and therefore the Apoſtle tells us expreſly, That it was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, Gal. 3.17. foreign, before confirmed; The foreign tells us, that the Goſpel was in Abraham's time.

The obedience of Chriſt's life was one thing, Mr Sherlock.which made his Sacrifice ſo meritorious, which was the precious blood of Chriſt, as of a Lamb without blemiſh and ſpot; And this is the moſt that can be made of, Rom. 5.18, 19. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all to condemnation: So by the p. 473Righteouſneſs of one, the free gift came upon all to juſtification of life: For as by one man's diſobedience, many were made ſinners; ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous: There is no neceſſity of expounding this, foreign, obedience, of the Righteouſneſs of Christ's life; for it may well ſignifie no more than the obedience of his death, notwithſtanding the Doctors distinction, that doing is one thing, and ſuffering another: For the Apostle tells us, That he became obedient unto death foreign, Phil. 2.8. And his offering himſelf in Sacrifice, is called doing God's will, Heb. 10.9, 10. And whether this be properly ſaid or not, I will leave the Doctor to diſpute with the Apoſtle: It is plain, that in this Chapter there is no expreſs mention made of any act of obedience and righteouſneſs, whereby we are reconciled to God: But only his dying for us, in verſ. 8. the Apostle tells us, That Chriſt dyed for us: In verſ. 9. That we are juſtified by his blood: In the 10. That we are reconciled by his death; which makes it more than probable, that by his Righteouſneſs and Obedience here, the Apoſtle underſtands his death and ſufferings; becauſe this was the ſubject of his diſcourſe; but p. 474yet theſe expreſſions, His righteouſneſs and obedience, ſeem to take in the whole compaſs of his obedience in doing and ſuffering the Will of God; and the meaning of the words is this: That as God was ſo highly diſpleaſed with Adam's ſin, that he entailed a great many evils and miſeries, and death it ſelf upon his poſterity for his ſake: So God was ſo well pleaſed with the obedience of Christ's life and death, that he beſtows the rewards of Righteouſneſs on thoſe who according to the rigor of the Law are not righteous; that for Chriſt's ſake he hath made a new Covenant of Grace, which pardons our past ſins, and rewards a ſincere though imperfect obedience: For foreign, ſhall be made righteous, is the ſame with foreign, ſhall be juſtified; That is, treated like righteous perſons: So that Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is not the formal cauſe of our juſtification; that very Righteouſneſs, whereby we are righteous: But it is the meritorious cauſe of that Covenant, whereby we are declared Righteous, and rewarded as Righteous; for the Apoſtle tells us, in verſ. 17. who thoſe are, who are thus juſtified by Chriſt, and ſhall reign with him in life; not thoſe who are Righteous by the imputation of p. 475Christ's Righteouſneſs: But thoſe who have received abundance of Grace, and the gift of Righteouſneſs; that is, who by the Goſpel, which is the abundant grace of God, are made holy and righteous, as God is; which Righteouſneſs is called a gift, becauſe it is not owing ſolely to humane endeavours, but is wrought in us by ſupernatural means: We are made righteous by the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, not that his actual obedience is reckoned as done by us (which is impoſſible) But becauſe we are made righteous, both in a proper and forenſick ſence, by the Goſpel-Covenant, which is wholly owing to Gods Grace and Chriſt's Merits and Righteouſneſs: So that the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is our Righteouſneſs, when we ſpeak of the foundation of the Covenant, by which we are accepted; but if we ſpeak of the terms of the Covenant, then we must have a righteouſneſs of our own; for the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt will not ſerve the turn: Chriſt's Righteouſneſs and our own, are both neceſſary to our Salvation; the firſt as the foundation of the Covenant, the other as the condition of it.

We are now arrived at that famous place,Anſwer. as by the offence of one judgement came upon all to condemnation; ſo by p. 476the Righteouſneſs of one, the free gift came upon all to juſtification of life; as by one man's diſobedience many were made ſinners; ſo by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous, Rom. 5.18, 19. The Apoſtle here uſes two words, foreign, or Righteouſneſs; and foreign, or Obedience; both theſe ſignifie the doing of God's Will, which doing for its rectitude is called Righteouſneſs; and for its ſubjection, Obedience, neither of them do properly ſignifie ſuffering: Meer ſuffering, which is not ſpirited with a right and ſubjective mind, is not Righteouſneſs or Obedience: The Apoſtle here ſpeaks of Righteouſneſs in general, and Obedience in general, and who may pare off ought, and ſay, it is not all Chriſt's Righteouſneſs or Obedience, but ſome; eſpecially, when that ſome, the paſſive, I mean, is leſs properly ſuch than the active? and what neceſſity or cogent reaſon is there for doing ſo? The Antitheſis in the Text evinces the contrary; Act is here ſet in oppoſition againſt Act, Chriſt's Obedience againſt Adam's Diſobedience. Now, for what the Author alledges, I ſay, it is true, that of Chriſt's being obedient, Phil. 2.8. reaches down to his death, but it takes in all the Obedience p. 477of his life; and that of Chriſts doing Gods will, Hebr. 10.7. extends to the Sacrifice of himſelf, but it compriſes all the righteouſneſs of his life too. It is true, that the Apoſtle in this 5. Chapter to the Romans, doth firſt ſpeak of Chriſt's Death and Sufferings; but his active and paſſive Obedience are ſo near in conjunction, that the Apoſtle may in his diſcourſe eaſily paſs from the one to the other: Nay, as I before noted, when the one is expreſſed in Scripture, the other is implied; ſo that the Apoſtle doth not indeed paſs from one thing to another, but only vary his Phraſe. The Author himſelf confeſſes, That thoſe expreſſions, his righteouſneſs and Obedience, ſeem to take in the whole compaſs of his Obedience, in doing and ſuffering the will of God. And how doth the active and paſſive righteouſneſs of Chriſt juſtify us, or make us righteous? Why, theſe procured that Goſpel Covenant, whereby we are declared righteous, and rewarded as righteous. Now, this Interpretation may ſtand good, when juſtifying and procuring the Covenant ſhall be, what they can never be, one and the ſame thing: Chriſts active and paſſive Obedience, according to the Author, procured the Covenant for all Men; But p. 478ſurely they do not juſtify all Men. The whole Obedience of Chriſt may be confidered two wayes: either as it is procurative of the Covenant, and ſo it renders us juſtifiable; or as is it received by Faith, and ſo it actually juſtifies us: But neither of theſe can be without a Divine imputation; without that firſt fundamental imputation (which is implied in ſuch Scripture expreſſions, as tell us, that Chriſt died for us) the Obedience of Chriſt could not have rendred us juſtifiable any more than it doth Devils; and without that ſecond particular imputation (which is implied in ſuch Scripture expreſſions, as tell us, That we are juſtified by Christs Blood, that we are made righteous by Christ's Obedience.) the Obedience of Chriſt could not juſtify us; for it juſtifies us not as it procures the Covenant (that is done, according to the Author, for all Men; and all Men are not juſtified) but it juſtifies us, as it is particularly made ours; and made ours it cannot be without an Imputation. According to the Author, the Apoſtle muſt be interpreted thus: By the righteouſneſs of one, the free gift came upon all unto Juſtification of life; that is, by the righteouſneſs of one the Covenant was p. 479procured: and ſo, by the obedience of one ſhall many be made righteous; that is, by the obedience of one the Covenant was procured. But this Interpretation is ſo harſh and ſtrange, that, I ſuppoſe, few will be able to receive and own it: But the Author tells us, That the Apoſtle, in ver. 17. acquaints us, who the juſtified are, not thoſe who are righteous by imputed righteouſneſs, but thoſe who by the Goſpel, which is the grace of God, are made righteous as God is; But by the grace of God, verſ. 17. is not meant the Goſpel, but the rich mercy of God; and by the gift of righteouſneſs there, is not meant inherent graces, but the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which is made over to us by a gracious imputation; the very ſame righteouſneſs, which is called the righteouſneſs of one, verſ. 18. and the obedience of one, verſ 19. The Apoſtle is ſo far from ſpeaking of our own inherent righteouſneſs, that the great ſcope of the Chapter is not of Sanctification, but Juſtification; and that not by a righteouſneſs of our own, but of another, that is, of Chriſt. But now, let us hear the Authors concluſion: Chriſts righteouſneſs and our own, are both neceſsary to our ſalvation; the first, as the foundation of the Covenant; the other, as p. 480the condition of it. Very well, Faith in Chriſt is indeed the condition of the Covenant, and in us inherent; but I had thought, the Author had been treating of that righteouſneſs, which is the matter of our juſtification, and not only of the condition of the Covenant: To underſtand what that righteouſneſs is, which is the matter of our juſtification, we muſt conſider, what it is which we are to anſwer unto in the point of juſtification; if we are only to anſwer unto the terms of the Goſpel Covenant, then indeed Faith anſwers thereunto; but what will be the conſequences of this? If we are only to anſwer unto the terms of the Goſpel Covenant, then our Saviour, contrary to his words, came foreign, to diſſolve the Law, to untye all the Bonds of it, to looſen the very Foundation of it; then Juſtification is not in ſuch a way, as eſtabliſhes the Law, as the Apoſtle tells us, Rom. 3.31. But in ſuch a way as voides and abrogates it, then all true Believers muſt be in a ſtate of perfection, the defect of their Graces muſt be no ſins, for they have that true Faith, which anſwers the terms of the Goſpel; and to more then theſe they are not to anſwer; then the Goſpel, the great p. 481Charter of Grace, hath no pardon in it, for no more is required of us, but the truth of Faith and other Graces; and the want of true Faith and other Graces the Goſpel doth not pardon: Then Chriſt dyed not to obtain the pardon of thoſe ſins, which are conſiſtent with Goſpel-ſincerity, but dyed to prevent them from being ſins, which otherwiſe would have been ſins, and to prevent them from being pardoned by his Blood; and to name but one thing more: Then all the Pagans muſt be in a juſtified ſtate; for the Goſpel Covenant being founded for them alſo, they are only to anſwer to the terms of the Goſpel; and to theſe they have a very eaſie full anſwer, that they knew them not: By theſe things it appears, that in the point of Juſtification, we muſt anſwer not to the terms of the Goſpel only, but to the pure perfect Law alſo; and to that, nothing of our own imperfect Graces can reſpond; nothing leſs can anſwer, but the perfect Righteouſneſs and Obedience of Chriſt, which is made ours by imputation: Hence the Apoſtle tells us, That by the righteouſneſs of one we have justification of life; and by the obedience of one, we are made or conſtituted righteous.