Anti-sozzo, sive, Sherlocismus enervatus in vindication of some great truths opposed, and opposition to some great errors maintained by Mr. William Sherlock.

CHAP. IV. (Book 4)

Sect. 1. Of our Union to Christ, and Communion with him.

OUR Author will not in Courtesie, or can∣not for Shame deny, that the Scripture does mention such a Relation between Christ and Christians, as may be express'd by an Union; and that these Phrases of [Being in Christ,] and [Abiding in Christ,] can signifie no less. Now this Union to Christ being a very suspicious Phrase, he is deeply concern'd, to mollifie it with some such Healing Explication, that it may not prejudice, or however not utterly destroy his main design. To in∣terpret it according to the sound of words, is to blow up himsels, with his whole Cause; and there∣fore it is judg'd a safer way, to accommodate the Expression, if it will be tractable, or to force it, if it proves obstinate, to a Complyance with his own espoused Notions, and preconceived Opinions: And now we see, that the True Reason why he so zea∣lously declaimed against that way of Interpreting Scripture in the last Section, was that he might without suspition serve himself of it in this. Some do not like his Tottering and Staggering way of wording his Matters: It may be express'd by an Uni∣on, and it can signifie no less than an Union: A form

of speech invented doubtless to let us know, how unable he is to deny, and yet how loath he is to confess the plainest Truth. I have not forgot that he told us, p. 108. That the Scripture describes the Profession of Christianity, a sincere Belief and Obe∣dience to the Gospel, by [Having Christ, and Being in Christ;] but now he is graciously pleased to Mount them a little higher, and is gently content, that they should signifie no less than an Union with Christ.

Four Notable Observations he makes to us in this one Section.

[1] That those Metaphors which describe the Re∣lation between Christ and Christians, do primarily referre to the Christian Church, and not to every Individual Christian. I am sorry that it must still be my great unhappiness to dissent from him, but seeing all Accommodation is desperate, we must bear the shock of his Reasonings as well as we can: Christ (says he) is called a Head, but he is the Head of his Church, which is his Body, as the Husband is the Head of his Wife; No particular Christian is the Body of Christ, but onely a Member in this Body. This indeed would do pretty well, but that it wants two small Circumstances, Truth and Pertinency; which being so inconsiderable, we may well spare in any of His Writings. And,

1. Methinks I want that sorry circumstance of Truth in his Argument. Christ is the Head of his Church, as the Husband is Head of his Wife; but the Headship of the Husband over the Wife, will not exactly measure the Headship of Christ over Be∣lievers; we must call in assistance from another Si∣militude, that of the Head in the Natural Body over

the Members: Christ is a Head of Influence, as well as Authority; he communicates Grace to Obey, as well as commands Obedience. And this is that the Apostle would teach us, Eph. 4. 15, 16.—The head, even Christ, from whom all the Body fitly joyn∣ed together and compact, by that which every joynt supplyeth, according to the effectual working, in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the Body, to the edifying of it sel•…•… in love. Here's an effectual Operation in every part, the Growth and Increase of every individual Member, by virtue of that In∣fluence which the Head communicates to it: And now to make the Husbands headship over the Wife, to represent the whole of Christs Headship, is craftily to seduce us from the Consideration of that Grace which from Christ we receive, to help us in time of need. The Holy Ghost has singled out the most per, and perspicuous Metaphors, that outward things would afford, to instruct us in the Nature of that Union, and Relation that Believers have to Christ, the Priviledges and Advantages which they receive thereby, and those Duties which indispensably arise from thence; and yet such is the incorrigible and untractable Nature of all outward things, such is their shortness, poverty, and narrowness, that they do not yield a Similitude that will adaequately, and commensurately express the total of Christs Grace, Mercy and Authority, or of our mutual Obligati∣ons and Duty. Much of the Poverty and Beggar∣liness of the Mosaical Types, lay in this, (those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gal. 4. 9.) that they could not repre∣sent Jesus Christ to the life, whom yet it was their design in some measure to shadow out. And when I have named a shadow, I have given a sufficient Reason

of my Assertion; for though a shadow may describe the general Lineaments of its Body, yet it will not paraphrase upon the Complexion: To supply this defect, it has pleased the Wisdom of God to insti∣tute that numerous train of Types, that so what could not be express'd by any one, might yet in par∣cels be described by Another. Hence is it, that one Type represents the Death of Christ as a Sacrifice for Sin; as the Goat of the Sin-offering, Lev. 16. 15. Another, the Intercession of Christ at the right hand of the Father; as Aarons appearing in the Most Holy place upon the Feast of Expiation: The same Wisdom has it pleased the Spirit of God to exe•…•…cise, in describing to us the Union and Relation betwixt Christ and Believers; for, seeing that no one single Metaphor, however borrowed from the nearest, and most intimous Relation upon Earth, could possibly convey to our understandings all that Mercy, Grace and Love, which from Christ issues to all that are in Covenant with him; nor all that Reverence, Love and Duty, which from Believers is due to a Re∣deemer; therefore has he chosen out many, that so by putting together the Mercy and Duty which is comprehended in each, we might spell out the Mean∣ing of what is wrapt up in that Relation wherein we stand to him. But,

2. It wants Pertinency as well as Truth: For, what if no particular Christian be the Body of Christ. yet is he a Member of that Body; and Christ, as Head of that Body, is related in particular to him, without the Intervention of the Body. A Body is nothing else but the result of all the Integral parts put together in their due Scite, and proper Order: and the Church is nothing else but the aggregate of

many Christians united under their proper Pastor: And as the Head in the Natural Body is immediate∣ly related to all the parts, so is Christ immediately related to every true Christian. If then he will ar∣gue thus, No particular Christian is the Body, there∣fore Christ is primarily related to the Body; any one with as much honesty may inferre, Every particu∣lar Christian is a Member of Christ, therefore, Christ is primarily related to every particular Chri∣stian: And thus the Conclusion will be as far to seek as ever; Whether this Metaphor of a Head does primarily referre to the whole Body, or particular Members. But let us go on: Christ is called a Hus∣band, (says he) but then the whole Church, not every particular Christian, is his Spouse, as St. Paul tells the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 11. 2. I have espoused you to one Husband, that I may present you a chaste Virgin to Christ. To which renowned Argument, I have many things to oppose. 1. If the Church of Corinth was the Spouse of Christ, then the Church of Ephesus, that of Coloss, that at Philippi, and to be sure the Church of Rome, will put in their claims with equal right to that Title; and then what be∣comes of what he asserts, p. 14•…•…. Christ is a great Enemy to Poligamy, and has but one Spouse. Is it not great pity a Conceit so ingenious, should have its Neck broken at the first Encounter? And, 2. If Christ hath but one Spouse, and yet every particular Church be his Spouse; it▪s but crumbling the Meta∣phor into more minute particles, and then he may be a Husband to every individual Believer. 3. The Text proves not that Christ has but one Spouse, but that the Church hath but one Husband; I have espoused you to one Husband. 4. Though the Me∣taphor

may perhaps more fitly express Christs Re∣lation to particular Churches, than particular Be∣lievers; yet this hinders not, but that Christ may be primarily related to particular Believers: For the Metaphor does not express the Order of Christs Relation, but the Relation it self. The word Church is onely a Term of Art, which expresses the same Persons collectively, who distributively taken, are each immediately related to Christ. Again, Christ (says he) is a Shepheard, and the Christian Church is his Flock, for the Relation between Shepheard and Sheep, doth primarily concern the whole Flock. This is but one Doctors opinion at most, and will hardly mount it up to the Credit of Probability. For, 1. A Shepheard may be related to one single Sheep; and that one is enough to keep alive, and maintain the Relation; one Sheep will denominate him a Shepheard, though there must be more than one to constitute a Flock. As there was a first Man, related to God, as a Creature to his Creator, be∣fore there was A Church; so there was a first Dis∣ciple, a first Believer, or Convert, and that one un∣der the Pastoral Charge and care of Christ the great Shepheard, ipso facto, as a sincere Convert, and sound Believer, and yet that Individual would not make a Society under Bishops or Pastors. 2. A Flock is made up of many Sheep; now that which constitutes, is at least in order of Nature before the thing constituted: The whole is made up of parts; and I have been taught to presume, that the parts are in order of Nature before the whole: A Shep∣heard does not muster a company of howling Wolves, and roaring Lyons, and then by that Col∣lection make them a Flock of Sheep; but he gathers

particular Sheep together, unites them into one Fold, and thereby they become a Flock. The way of Christ is not, to amass a Medley of debauched Var∣lets and Scoundrels, and by making them a Church, make them Christians; but he seeks out for his own Service, particular Christians, and out of these Ma∣terials he forms his Church. Again: Christ (says he) is the Rock upon which his Church is built, and the Christian Church is a Holy Temple. Let him take it •…•…or granted, if it will do him any service; but is this Rock, this Foundation, this Corner-stone, related primarily to the Building, or to the particu∣lar Stones? The Apostle Peter, who was a wise Master-builder in Church-work, understood the Me∣thod much better: 1 Pet. 2. 5. To whom coming as to a Living Stone; ye also as lively Stones, are built up a spiritual House: Hence ordinary under∣standings would conclude, that the building did not make the materials, but the materials made the building; the Spiritual House did not make the Lively Stones, but the Lively Stones made the Spiritual House: Such Language the Apostle durst use; these lively Stones were first united to the living Corner-stone, and the product of all was, a beauti∣full Fabrick: And thus was Solomon's Temple built; the materials were exactly fitted, and squared for their respective uses and places, and there was no∣thing to doe but to joyn them together, and out of those (after seven years Labour) there grew up a Holy Temple: Had He built of Bricks, the Edifice would never have converted them into hewen Stones; and had he used onely Sycamores, they had never been turned into Cedars by being Sleepers in the wall. I must therefore abate him an Ace or two of

his general Conclusion: All these Metaphors in their first, and most proper use, referre to the whole Society of Christians. In Isa. 9. 6. Christ is called the Everlasting Father, which Metaphor (if it be a Metaphor) does primarily express the Relation of Christ to every adopted child, and not the Relation of Christ to Children in gross, and in the Lump: A Father is as really so to one child, as to Twenty; he may be a Father to more, but not more a Father. It will sound harshly in the Ears of any that have not lost them under the Cataracts of Nilus: to say, That Father does not primarily describe the Rela∣tion of Philip (v. g.) to Alexander, Iohn, &c. but to children, in the first place, and then at second hand, and through a remove or two, to Alexander and Iohn. Thus is the Everlasting Father prima∣rily related to every childe, by virtue of his Adopti∣on, and Regeneration; and secondarily to them all as brethren, related to one another, living under the same Discipline, and Laws of the Family.

[2] He observes further to us for our Learning: That the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by Means of their Union to the Christian Church: Which he as Learnedly proves from 1 Cor. 12. 27. Ye are the Body of Christ, and Members in Parti∣cular. Where the strength of this Argument lies, I confess, I see not: That the Church of Corinth was the Body of Christ, That I plainly see: That every particular Member of that Church, was a Member of Christ; I think I see that too: But that it was therefore a Member of Christ, because it was Uni∣ted to that Body of the Church of Corinth; I own my Dulness, that I cannot see: And I have some scruples that makes me Halt, and not so Nimbly

go on both Feet into our Authors Opinion. For, 1. If particular Christians by being United to the Body, become the Members of Christ, then what Me∣dium of Union have these particular Churches to Unite them to Christ? We poor Folks of the Laity have an Expedient found out to Unite us to Christ, namely, by Uniting us to the Church under the Bi∣shops, and Pastors: But what shall become of the Bishops and Pastors themselves? What Provision is made for them? VVhich way shall they be Uni∣ted to Christ? Some (indeed) talk of Uniting them by their Metropolitans, and them again by their Patriarchs, and then these by the Pope: But who shall Unite him, poor man? I see here's a Design laid to prove the Pope to be Antichrist. 2. VVhen a Church is first Collected, I am perplexing my self how the first Convert, the first Believer comes to be United to Christ, when there is never a Church ex∣isting by which he should be United: And it trou∣bles me to think, what a long while that unhappy Creature may be Holy, and very Religious, and yet cannot be united to Christ, because others will not consent to become a Church; and thus he must necessarily perish, though he be thus Holy, and Devout, because others will not go to Heaven with him. But, 3. VVe must suppose, that Baptism U∣nites us to the Visible Church: Now, either this single Person was United to Christ before his Bap∣tism, or not: If he was, then the Cause is lost; for then Union with the Visible Church, is not the only Means of our Union to Christ. If not, then, 1. What a sad Generation of Wretches must be the Ingredients of a Church? And some will define it, as others have made it; A Cage of unclean Birds,

and a Hold of every filthy and unclean Spirit. And then, 2. It will be the unquestionable Duty of the Pastors of the Church, to admit into the Society, the most Profligate Rascals, that offer themselves: For what would you have them do? Shall they be so Barbarous and Inhumane, such bloody Murtherers of Souls, to deny them the only Means of their Uni∣on to Christ? And what would you have the poor wicked wretches do? Repent, and believe, and turn from their sins? Alas! all's to no purpose, they can never be United to Christ, without the only Means of Union; were they as Meek as Moses, as Patient as Iob, as Believing as Abraham, they are never the nearer Christ; and therefore as good come Loaden with all their Villanies, and Triumph∣ing in their Rogueries, and be but united to the Church, and all in good time, they may come to be United to Christ: But surely the Church of England has Instructed her Children otherwise. I shall not press our Author with the Articles, be∣cause he's no great admirer of them; but because he so adores the Catechism, I shall remit him thi∣ther for Satisfaction. Qu. What is required of Persons to be Baptised? Ans.

Repentance, where∣by they forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they sted∣fastly believe the Promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.

If now such a Faith, such a Repentance, as are here described, must qualifie a Person for Baptism, that he may be United there∣by to the Church, and so to Christ; I would gladly learn, whether such a faith, and such a repentance, will not serve to Unite him to Christ, antecedent to his Baptism? And if not, whether the Church can contribute any more to his Union with him?

Another Reason of our Authors, proceeds thus: The Church is Christs Flock, and every Christian who is of this Fold, is one of Christs Sheep. In good time! but is he therefore, and onely therefore, one of Christs Sheep because he is one of this Fold? Or rather taken into the Fold, because he was first one of Christs Sheep? But if indeed this be the real way to Create sheep, by taking any thing that has four Legs into the Fold, it will be a Noble piece of Charity to revive the Tribute of Wolves; and if the Breed should be worn out in England, we know from whence to recruite the Sheepfold; but still he proceeds, and I perceive he has a mind to prove something if he knew what. The Church is Christs Spouse, every Christian is a Member of that Socie∣ty, which Christ owns for his Spouse, but every Chri∣stian is not Christs Spouse. No? Why not? Now comes the Knocking-argument: He is a great ene∣my to Poligamy, and hath but one Spouse. Won∣derful! So is Christ a great Enemy to Monsters, and Prodigies, and has but one Body: And yet for all this, our Author could allow the Church of Co∣rinth, to be his Spouse, to be his Body, and then I will allow the Church of Smyrna, to have been his Body, and his Spouse, and others (as their affecti∣ons lead them) will no doubt allow other particu∣lar Churches to be his Body, his Spouse; and then Christ shall have as many particular Bodies, and Spouses, as there are particular Churches upon the Face of the Earth; and so this Doughty argument Vanishes into Smoak, and nothing: and in lieu of it, I will offer him another. It's impossible to be United to Christ, without the only Means of Uni∣on, but it's possible to be United to Christ, without

being United to a particular Church, therefore to be United to a particular Church, is not the only Means of Uniting us to Christ. The former Pro∣position we will for once humbly beg at his hands, and do not doubt but he will charitably grant it; the second is Evidenced from hence: When particular Churches are broken in pieces by Persecution, or otherwise, yet the true believing Members are not thereby separated from Christ; they cease not to be Christs Friends, because the World is their Ene∣my: Yea indeed (says our Author, pag. 165.) If there be no Visible Society (as it may happen in time of Persecution) it must of necessity alter the Case. That is in plain English; his Discourse had been Strong, if it had not been Weak; and our Union to the Church had been the only Means of our Union to Christ, but for one ill favoured Business, that there is another Means of our union to him, and we may be united to him without it. I grant (indeed) with much readiness, that it is our unquestionable Duty, and when all Circumstances concur, our In∣dispensible Duty for every Christian to joyn himself to some particular Church; the Command of Christ has made it so: The Edifying our own Souls in Faith, Love, Comfort, adds to that necessity; the Glori∣fying of our God, and our Redeemer, in a visible Profession of, and Subjection to all his Ordinances, heightens that Necessity; the enjoyment of many Gos∣pel Ordinances which presuppose a Church-state, add more weight to the Necessity, and that our Uni∣on with Christ has more Bonds laid upon it, by this means, I freely own; but that our Union with the Church, is the only means to Unite us to Christ, I must see better Arguments to prove it, before I

know how to believe it: Our Union with Christ, is by Invisible and Internal Ligaments, and if there were no other, than what a Visible Church can af∣ford, I do not see, but all Christians are Obliged to be Hypocrites. The great Promises of the Gospel, those of Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification, are made to Individuals, and how to apply them to whole Churches, otherwise than by the Individuals, is unconceivable: They are single Persons, that are Justified, Sanctified, Adopted, Pardoned, and Saved, and not a Complex Notion, which is only an Operation of the Mind conceiving of singular things, as they relate one to another.

There is yet one Text of Scripture, which our Author has reserved as the Triarij to the main Bat∣tle; and though his Jelites be Cut off, and his Body shaken, yet so long as his Reserves are entire, and unbroken, he cannot be totally Routed. The place is, Iohn 15. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman.—Abide in me, and I in you. As the Branch cannot bear Fruit ex∣cept it abide in the Vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me. Now because he lays such a Stress upon, and places all his Hopes and Confidence in this place, I shall particularly Examine, 1. His Interpretati∣on. 2. His Reasons for that Interpretation. 3. The Use he makes of this Interpretation.

(1.) For his Interpretation, it has more Faces than Ianus; and more Colours than the Rainbow. I am the true Vine: Where [I] signifies Christ to∣gether with his Church: There's one Face. But pag. 146. He repents that ever he took the Person of Christ into the Paraphrase, for fear some ill dispo∣sed persons should make an ill use on▪t, and there∣fore he Glosses it thus: I am the true Vine, that

is the Church: So [I] is grown a Church. But yet that neither will not answer all his Occasions, nor stop all Gaps, and therefore it must put on another shape: pag. 147. When Christ speaks in the first Person [I] he cannot mean this of his own Per∣son, but of his Church, Doctrine, and Religion: And yet for all this it will not do the Feat, but it must pass through one Metamorphosis more, and it sig∣nifies, a sincere and hearty Belief of the Gospel. So here we have got the Act and the Object Mar∣ried together in this one word [I:] A man would conclude he had found at last Aristotles Materia Prima, it's Omnium formarum capax: Nothing in Act, but every thing in Power, a piece of soft Wax, that's plyable to any Impression, a mere blanck Pa∣per, you may Write down your own Conditions: But what is meant by the Vine? Why that's the Church too, pag. 146. That is, the Church, which is founded on the belief of my Gospel, is the only true Church: Or, I am the Vine, that is, the Church is the Church; but let us proceed. He that abideth in me: [In me] that is, the Christian Church: [I in him,] that is, the Christian Doctrine; For without me, you can do uothing: That is, without a sincere belief of my Gospel. And now he presumes he has laid his Mat∣ters so Closely, Evenly, and Regularly together, that he may defie the Cunning of the most expert Caviller to disturb them. And yet to deal openly with him, he has not lead me Captive by his fair Colours and regular Proportions. For, 1. I find his way of Interpretation meerly Arbitrary, such as has no other Foundation but the Soveraign will of the Commentator; he deals with Scripture as if it were his perfect Vassal, and he the absolute Mo∣narch

of the Word of God; and that his Para∣phrase knew no other Language than his Car tel est nostre plaisir: For such is our Will and Pleasure▪ Let the Reader take but a taste: He that abideth in me, and I in him. Where [Me] must signifie the Christian Church, and [I] the Christian Doctrine. For we must know for our Learning, that [Me] in the Ablative case, must always signifie a Church; but [I] in the Nominative case, that's the Christian Doctrine. And if any peevish Fellow shall Object that it's a huge Wonder that such a slight Variation of the Case, should alter the Signification. Every puisny Shool-Boy will inform him, that the varying the Case, does wonderfully alter the Case. Now had it been Referred to a Hundred Systematical, Heavy-headed Divines, they would have conclu∣ded, One and All; that if [I] signifie a Doctrine, [Me] will signifie the same: And if [Me[ signi∣fie a Church, [I] will signifie neither better nor worse, but a Church too; but when a Zaphnath Paaneah, a Revealer of Secrets, shall take the Mat∣ter in hand, he will shew you the difference. 2. An∣other Exception I have against this Interpretation, is, That Christ has often spoke in the first Person, He has compared himself to many other things, and yet never intended any thing by [I] but his own Self, Iohn 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd. And besides that, we have had our Authours Suffrage to it, the thing it self makes it evident that Christ speakes there neither of Church, nor Doctrine. The Fold, must signifie the Church: The Pasture, will answer the Doctrine, and Christians they are the Sheep, but Christ himself is the Shepherd. And yet one significati∣on more for this poor [I] will do the business, let it signifie the Pastors and Bishops, and that will heal all.

And I do not doubt when he has need of them, he can fi•…•…d a Dozen more significations of that one word, that one Letter [I.] Again, Iohn 10. 7. Christ says, I am the Door. Now the Church is evidently the House, or Temple, and so [I] will not do very well for Church, in that place: And the Doctrine, is the Orders, and Rules for Government of the House; and therefore we had not best make [I] signifie Doctrine neither, in this place: Oh! but then (and it was well thought on) Baptism is a Sacrament of Admission into the Church, and then it will run as Glib upon the Tongue as may be, I am the Door; that is, Baptism is the Door. But what shall we say to Iohn 6. 48. I am the Bread of Life. Oh! that is wondrous easie, and the Interpretation natu∣ral, and without straining; that is, My Doctrine is the Bread of Life, which answers the Manna. But then Christ tells us, ver. 51. That the Bread which he will give is his Flesh, which he will give for the Life of the World. What shall become of us now? Why our Author must take advice with his Pillow about this Difficulty, and let it signifie any thing in the World; Black or Blew, provided it do not signifie the Person of Christ, and the Interpre∣tation is authentick, and by to Morrow-morning, shall shine with it's own Light. 3. This Interpre∣tation avows false Doctrine. He had told us: That by He that abideth in me, is meant, he that abideth in the Christian Church. And our Saviour assures us, ver. 5. That without [Me] ye can do nothing. Now in just proportion to his Interpretation, the sence must run thus: Without you be in the Christi∣an Church, it's impossible ye should do any th•…•…ng that is good. And how notoriously false this is of a par∣ticular Church, is evident, how many particular

Churches have been dissolved; The Shepheard smit∣ten, and the Sheep scattered, and yet the Indivi•…•…u∣als have brought forth Fruit in patience. Our Au∣thor should have considered this a little better: Why so he has. Without me ye can do nothing; that is, Without such a sincere and hearty belief of my Gos∣pel. Well, but we were told, that by [Me] was meant the Church: And we took it for granted, that if we met with it in the Ablative case, it ought to signifie the Church; And must it now signifie the Doctrine? How often has the Wind turned in half an hour? Oh! but you are to understand, that, then it was in the 4th. ver. Abide in me: But this is in the 5th. verse, Without me. And so the Rule will be this; That whensoever you find it in the Ab∣lative case, in the 4th. verse of any Chapter, then it signifies the Church; but if it fall out to be the Ab∣lative case, and the 5th. verse, then believe it, you shall do well to Interpret it by Gospel or Doctrine: But still here's an odd Scruple behind; For what will become of ver. 4? Abide in Me, and and I in you: As the Branch cannot bear Fruit of it self, except it abide in the Vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. Now our Authors Gloss is this, [abide in Me,] continue in the Church; and [I in you,] let my Doctrine continue in you. And then the fol∣lowing words must be thus Paraphrased: As the Branch cannot bear Fruit of it self, except it abide in the Vine, no more can ye except ye [abide in the Church:] Which spoken of a particular Church, is utterly false; and there's no help left, but only this standing Rule: That [Me] in the beginning of a verse, signifies a Church; but in the latter end of a verse, it always signifies a Doctrine. And then the 5th.

verse too, will be as plain as a Pike-staff: He that abideth in me, that is, in the Church; and I in him, that is, the Doctrine in him; the same bringeth forth much Fruit: for without me; that is, with∣out a sincere and hearty belief of my Doctrine (or to disguise it a little, say Gospel) it's impossible you should do any thing that is good: And surely, never was a small piece of Armour better placed, nor to better purpose, by the Wit of Man. I have done with his Interpretation, but that I cannot forbear to give the Reader the Summe of what he has said: That Church which owns my Doctrine, is the true Vine: and all you who make a publick profession of Fait•…•…o in me, (i. e. of a belief of my Gospel) and live in Communion with one another, are the Bran∣ches of this Vine; and whoever of you continue sted∣fast in this Profession, and Communion, and do not only make a visible profession of Faith in me, but suf∣fer my Doctrine and Precepts to dwell and abide in you too, to Govern your Wills and Affections, and direct your Conversations in the World, all such of you will be very Fruitful in good Works. And it's very likely to be true, for it would be a great won∣der if they whose Wills, and Affections, and Con∣versations, are Govern'd by the Word of Christ, should do nothing that's good; because most things in the World, are what they are, excepting only Christs Person, which shall signifie, Many, Divers, Contrary Things, and in short, any Thing besides Himself.

(2.) His Interpretation being so Arbitrary, Pre∣carious, Self-Inconsistent, and Ridiculously false, I need not much trouble my self with his Reasons; nor should I, but that they also discover its •…•…∣ness.

Reason 1. The Iewish Church is frequently in the Old Testament called a Vine, Isa. 5. 1. I will sing to my Beloved a Song concerning his Vineyard. My Beloved had a Vineyard: Iudge between me and my Vineyard. And now he must be very blind, that does not see the Church is compared to a Vine; though some will be so Peevish, as to fancy some small difference between a Vine, and a Vineyard. But yet it is called a Vine, Jer. 2. 21. Very true: Ergo, What? Why therefore Christ is not com∣pared to a Vine, in the New Testament. And therefore it must signifie Doctrine, Gospel, Religi∣on, and Twenty things more. But, 1. Tell me se∣riously: Did God, or any of the Prophets, ever say, I am the Vine; and then teach the Iews to dis∣cant thus upon it? That is, The Church which is founded on the belief of Moses his Doctrine, is the only true Church. When the Prophet will describe the Church by a Vine, he tells you expresly what he intends; and there's an end of all Controversie: And so would our Saviour if ever he intended to be understood, till a happy Head should, after Sixteen Hundred Years, light upon the Mystery. Ay, but the Christian Church is expresly called an Olive Tree, and the Members of it called Branches, Rom. 11. 17, 18. Expresly? And must we then split against that Rock, and Interpret the place, by the express the sound of words? Two things let him consider at his Leisure, 1. Whether it be the Christian Church that is there compared to the Olive-Tree. 2. Whether it be said, that Christ is the Olive-Tree: Which expression if he can produce, and then make it out, that [I] am the Olive-Tree, signifies the Church is so; we will then freely confess he has bid∣den

fair towards a probability for the truth of his Interpretation. 2. Because God is called the Hus∣bandman, who takes care to Dress this Vine, which cannot be understood of Christ, but of the Church. This Reason seems to carry some civility towards Jesus Christ, and therefore deserves a fairer Treat∣ment than the strength of it can challenge. Let this suffice: The Father is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Husband∣mand, in respect of the Branches of the Vine, ver. 2. Every branch that beareth Fruit he purgeth, that it may bring forth more Fruit; and every branch that beareth not Fruit, he taketh away. 3. Christ speaks of such branches in him as bear no fruit: Now there can be no such branches in the Person of Christ, for our very Union to Him will make us Fruitful. Ans. Many things are said to be, which only seem to be. There's nothing more ordinary than for ap∣pearances, to wear the Livery of Realityes: Hypo∣crites are said to be in Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who are not so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 8. 15, 16. Simon Magus is said to believe, who yet was in the Gall of Bitter∣ness, and in the bond of Iniquity: Rotten, Dead Branches may have a visible station in the Vine, and yet derive no nourishment from the Vine; and visi∣ble Professors may be said to be in Christ, in a judgment of Charity, which thinks no evil where none appears; and hopeth all things, where there is ground of hope. Our Saviour prescribes a Rule how we must judge, who have no direct Cognizance of the heart; when he himself takes other Mea∣sures of Men, and needeth not that any should testi∣fie of Man, for he knows what is in Man. 4. To confirm all this, and prevent Objections, It's evident (says he) from the Chapter, that Christ when he

speaks in the First Person [I,] and [in Me,] can∣not mean this of his own Person, but of his Church, Doctrine, and Religion. But where lies the Evi∣dence of this great Demonstration? Why Christ says, I am the true Vine, and ye are the Branches; He that abideth in me, and I in him, bringeth forth much Fruit, for without me you can do nothing. Well, what of all this? Why, our Author would willingly Learn what sence can be made of all this, if we understand it of the Person of Christ: And I will as willingly Teach him, if he be not too proud to Learn, I Iesus Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, am very fitly compared to a Vine; and ye my Disciples are as fitly compared to the Branches of a Vine. Now he that really abideth in me by a true lively faith, and I in him by the Quic∣kening Operations of my Spirit, the same bringeth forth much Fruit of holy Obedience; for without de∣rivation of Grace from Me your Root, you can do nothing that is truly good, and acceptable to God. Oh! but he has two or three formidable Objecti∣ons against this Interpretation. 1. It's not very In∣telligible, How we can be, or abide in Christs Per∣son? No more it is: If we bring Capernaitical un∣derstandings along with us, who Puzled their Heads with a gross Notion of Carnal eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of Christ. If by [being in Christ] were understood, a Local, Physical, or Na∣tural being in Him, it were somewhat Unintelli∣gible, but when no more is meant by it, but that every true Believer is by Constitution of the Co∣venant of Grace, one Person morally with Christ; so considered and dealt with by God, there's no more insuperable Difficulty, than what unbelief

will create in the clearest Truths of the Gospel. But, 2. It's more unintelligible still; How we can be in the Person of Christ, and the Person of Christ at the same time be in us; Which is a new piece of Philosophy, called Penetration of Dimensions. But there's no great danger in that: Christ may dwell in us by his Spirit, and we in him by Faith, and yet Faith and the Spirit, never disturb each other in their Motions; but what the Dimensions of the Soul, in its actings of Faith, or of the Spirit in it's work∣ing of Grace are, this I confess, is to me unintelli∣gible: And that a Christian should be in the Church, and the Church at the same time be in a Chri∣stian, had been equally Unintelligible, and as much danger of the Penetration of Dimensions: But that our Author stumbled upon a happy Expedient; that [I] should signifie a Doctrine, and [Me] a Church, to heal the Contradiction. 3. That our Fruitfulness should depend on our Union to Christ, is as hard to my understanding. Truly, I cannot help that, I have no Medicine to cure Crazed Intel∣lectuals: He that cannot understand that Believers do receive Actual assistance from Christ by his Spi∣rit, to help them in the way of their Duty, and to encourage them against the Difficulties they meet withal in their Duties, cannot (I presume) under∣stand very many Lines in the Gospel.

(3.) Our last Task is, to Examine what improve∣ment he has made of this Interpretation, and in short it is this: That the Union of particular Chri∣stians to Christ, consists in their Union to the Chri∣stian Church. And now I am abundantly satisfied, that our Author is a very Philomel, Vox & prae∣terea nihil; One, whose Volubility of Tongue,

and Pen, supplies the place of Argument, and De∣monstration: I hope our Author will not meet with many Readers, who have so far parted with their Memories, as not to remember what that was he Propounded to himself to Evince, viz. That the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by means of their Union with the Christian Church: And yet now when he comes to cast up his Accounts, we have gotten another Conclusion; That the Union of particular Christians to Christ, consists in their Union to the Christian Church. Surely, the Pur∣blind will espie some small difference: Eating is a means to Living, yet none but a Swine of Epicu∣rus his Stye, will say, that Living consists in Eating. The High-road is a means to bring the Traveller Home; yet it will be hard to perswade us, that being at Home, consists in Travelling: Trading is a mean to Riches, yet Riches do not formally con∣sist in Trading: The end may possibly be separated from the Means, but nothing can be separated from that thing wherein it consists. But let that pass: If he has proved either the one, or the other, I am con∣tent he be reputed an Artist. The thing he has a good will to prove, is: That the Union of parti∣cular Christians to Christ, is either by means of their Union to the Christian Church; or else that it consists in it. Now for the Proof of this: He has told us, That the Church is the Body of Christ: The Church is the Temple of Christ: The Church is the Spouse of Christ: The Church is the Flock of Christ. And had it been referred to a thousand Per∣sons, not one but would have thought, that, that Christ who is the Head of that Body, is a Person: He that is the Husband of that Spouse, is a Person:

He that is the Shepheard of the Flock, is a Person: and He that Dwells in that Temple, is a Person: But things are not so far gone, but our Author shall have his Opinion, and choose what he will abide by; for my part I am much unconcern'd, let him please himself, he shall not displease me at all. Say then: Shall it be Christs Doctrinal, or Christs Ecclesiasti∣cal, that is the Head of this Body? The Husband of this Spouse? The Shepheard of this Flock? I can rest satisfied. But then the Sence runs thus: A Doctrine, or a Church, is the Head of the Church: A Doctrine, or a Church, is the Husband of the Church: A Doctrine, or a Church, is the Shep∣heard of the Church. If this does not please him, let him try the other way, and allow it to be a Person that is all these. A Person, that is the Head, Husband, and Shepheard of the Church: And now I must plainly acquaint him, That he has Entangled his Af∣fairs in such confusion, that he will never be able to Extricate them. For, 1. If the Person of Christ be here intended, then it seems at last, what∣ever the means be of that Union, yet there is an U∣nion to the Person of Christ; and whereinsoever that Union consists, yet such an Uunion there is: How absurd would it be, to enquire whether our Union to Christ's Person, consists in our Union with a particular Church? If, Union to Christs Person be a Non-entity? Or, Whether our Union with a particular Church, be the means to our Union with Christ? If there be no such thing? And then, 2. He is as much concern'd, as his poor Neighbours, to salve the Difficulties of being in Christs Person; and yet at the same time, Christs Person being in us; of the depending of our Fruitfulness upon that

Union, with whatever other Incongruities a strong Fancy may impute to it. And then 3. If the Person of Christ be intended in the Question, then his last and tedious Argument from Iohn 15. 1. which he has managed with so much Industry, upon which he has bestowed so much Cost, and in which he places so much Confidence, concludes something very near to Nothing: For the Abstract of his Medium is this, that Christians are in the Church; which will never conclude, that therefore our Union to a particular Church is the Means of our Union to Christ, much less, that our Union to Christ consists in it.

From the Scriptures we are posted over to the Ancient Fathers; who (if we may believe him) In∣terpret all those Metaphors which decypher the Union between Christ and Christians to signifie, the Love and Unity of Christians among themselves. He that will reproach his own Mother, will not much Re∣verence the Fathers: They do indeed argue from the Unity between Christ and Christians, to an ab∣solute Necessity of Unity between Christians them∣selves, they are members of one body, under one common Head, and therefore it presses sore upon them, that there be no intestine Broyls among them∣selves: they are Sheep of the same Fold, under one Shepheard, and it were unnatural for Sheep to devour one another, which is the Province of Wolves; they are subjects in the same spiritual Kingdom, under Christ the Sovereign Monarch of the Church, and therefore all heats and animosities, all seuds and broyls, are alien from that place and Relation they fill up towards Christ, and each other: So the Fa∣thers, so the Scriptures argue: Mal. 2. 10. Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?

why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother? The Process of the Argument is very clear, if we be Children of one Father, we ought to love our Brethren; but to conclude from thence, that A Childs Relation to his Father consists in the Love and Unity of the Children among themselves, is some∣what more than ridiculous. Thus from the Union between Christ and Christians, there is an unan∣swerable Argument drawn for the Unity of Christi∣ans amongst themselves; but that the Union of Chri∣stians with Christ, does formally consist in their mu∣tual Agreement and Concord each with other, is a piece of Logick for which we are indebted to our Author; but thus Chrysostom expounds Eph. 2. 19, 20, 21. where the Apostle speaks of that spiritual building which is erected on the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Iesus Christ [himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] being the chief Corner-stone, to signi∣fie the Unity of the Church in all Ages, that both the Iewish, and the Christian Church are united in Christ, as the several parts of the building are kept together by the Corner-stone. Now though Chry∣sostom be little beholden to our Author for traducing his honest meaning, yet we are all beholden to Chrysostom. For then, 1. There have not been so many sorts of Churches in the World, as he would perswade us, but both Iews and Christians consti∣tute one universal catholick Church, though differ∣ing in the Oeconomy, and some variety of Admi∣nistration; both the Jewish and Christian Church are the several parts of one and the same Building. And then, 2. The Iews, we may presume knew something at least of Christ, what he was to be to them, what he was to doe for them, if they and we,

Jews and Gentiles in all Ages are United in him. To the same purpose St. Ambrose: (Yes I believe it; as little to our Authors purpose as St. Chrysostom:) Duos Populos in se suscepit Christus Salvator, & fecit unum in Domino, sicut Lapis Angularis duas parietes continet in Unitate Domûs firmatas: which our Author Englishes thus: Christ united two Peo∣ple, in himself, and made them one in the Lord, as the Corner-stone unites two Walls in a building, and makes it but one house. Now if we cannot agree about the Construing a piece of familiar Latine, we shall strangely differ in the Interpretation of its de∣sign and tendency: And here Ambrose is less be∣holden to our Author than Chrysostom; for, that he may not cross our Authors sence, he is made to speak Non-sence. Christ united two people, and made them one: That is, he made them one, and made them one; or he united them, and united them; for, what uniting should be, but making one, I can∣not divine. But Ambrose his Latine runs thus: Duos populos in se suscepit, & fecit unum in Domino. He took two people upon himself, and (so) made them one in the Lord: He bore their Iniquities, carryed their sins in his body upon the Cross, and thereby reconciled them to God, and then their reconcilia∣tion to one Another would be easie: but our Author, (who is never wanting to his Concerns) was not at leisure to take notice of that: However (says he) this is the plain design of the place, to prove, that Christ hath taken away the enmity which was between Iew and Gentile, and hath reconciled them both to God. Well, I can be content it should be the Plain design, but not the Main design, not the whole de∣sign of the place: Some men think themselves won∣drous

witty in the Contrivance, that they have found out some Reconciling work for Christs Death: But then it must not be, to reconcile God and Sinners, but to remove an old grudge between Iew and Gen∣tile; (which is an Invention of the latter dayes, utter∣ly unknown to the Ancient Fathers, and the whole Catholick Church,) that they might not seem to say, there's no Reconciliation by the Blood of Christ: I would turn over our Author for satisfaction in this point to the Reason, not the Authority of Dr. E. Stillingfl. against Crellius, p. 558. A Difference be∣ing supposed between God and Man, on the account of sin, no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual: For, did Man only fall out with God, and had not God just reason to be displeased with Men, for their Apostacy from him? If not, what made him so severely punish the Old World, for their Impieties, by a Deluge? what made him leave such Monuments of his Anger against the Sins of the World, in succeeding Ages, &c? Well then, supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins; shall this displeasure alwayes continue, or not? If it alwayes continues, men must certainly suffer the desert of their sin: If it doth not alwayes continue, then God may be said to be reconciled, in the same sence that an offended party is capable of being re∣conciled to him who hath provoked him. Now there are two wayes, whereby a party justly offended, may be said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him: First, when he is not onely willing to admit of Terms of Agreement, but doth declare his Acceptance of the Mediation of a third Person, and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it, that he appoints it to be published to all the world, to assure

the Offender, that if the Breach continues, the fault lyes wholly upon himself: The Second is, when the Offender doth accept the Terms of the Agreement offer'd: And these two we assert, must necessarily be distinguished in the Reconciliation between God and us: For, upon the Death and Sufferings of Christ, God declares to the World, that he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffer'd, in order to the Reconciliation between himself and us, that now be publishes Remission of sins to the World, upon those Terms which the Mediator hath declared by his own Doctrine; but because Remission of sins doth not im∣mediately follow upon the Death of Christ, without supposition of any act on our part, therefore the state of Favour doth commence from the performance of those Conditions that are required of us, &c. And now let the Authority of the Church of England in∣terpose: Art. 31. [Of the one Oblation of Christ, fi∣nished upon the Cross:] The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect Redemption, Propitiation and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole World, both Original and Actual, and there is none other Satis∣faction for sin but that alone. But we shall be soundly pelted with the Fathers, and therefore he cites a great many more from Chrysostom, and from all concludes: That according to the sence of this Holy man, particular Christians are united to Christ by Means of their Union to the Christian Church; otherwise I cannot understand how our Union to Christ, can be an Argument to Union and Concord among our selves. But if that be the worst on't, that he cannot understand it, Charity commands me to relieve his labouring understanding: It's a good Argument, that Children should entirely love one

another, because they are Children of the same Fa∣ther; and yet for all that, they become not Chil∣dren to their Father, by means of their Union one to another as Brethren; but they are therefore Bre∣thren, because they are Children of the same Fa∣ther. It's an Argument, that Subjects should study and follow the things that make for Peace among themselves, because they are all Subjects to the same Prince, aud his honour, the strength, and se∣curity of his Kingdom, lyes much in it; and yet their Union among themselves is not the Means whereby they become related to their Prince; but because they are all Subjects to him, they become fellow-subjects each with other. And now methinks, a very ordinary pair of Brains might have under∣stood, how our Union to Christ is an Argument to Christians to unite amongst themselves, though by their union amongst themselves they had not been united to Christ: And thus he might as well have quoted the Ancient Father Mercurius Gallo-Belgi∣cus, as either Ambrose or Chrysostom; but that we are all mightily concerned to know, that he reads the Fathers, to very little purpose.

But from hence he will give us a very seasonable word of Exhortation: That they would seriously con∣sider it, who boast of their Union to Christ, and yet rend his Church into a thousand little Factions: I am glad however that they are not great Factions: And I would have them seriously consider it also, who broach such Doctrines, so contrary to the main de∣sign of the Gospel, that if owned by any Church, must necessitate an absolute and total separation, if we will be true to Christ. There have been ma∣ny sad Controversies amongst us, but they have been

about Mint, Anise, and Cummin, in comparison of the great and weighty things of the Gospel; but the Question now must be, Whether Christ be a true and proper High-priest, whether 〈◊〉〈◊〉 death upon the Cross be a proper Sacrifice offer'd unto God, to re∣concile him to sinners? The Question is now, Whe∣ther we must hold Communion with God in Prayer or no? Whether Faith and Repentance will unite us to Christ? Nay, whether there be any such thing as an Union with Christs Person or no? Nay, upon the Matter, whether there be a Person of Christ or no? or that all must not be interpreted into Do∣ctrine, Church, Office, and I cannot tell what? Some I perceive are hugely afraid, least differences should be accommodated; they dread The tombe of Con∣troversies almost as much as their Own; they are more solicitous how Quarrels may live, than about their own Deaths; and therefore fearing those small∣er Bones of Contention would not set the World together by the ears long, they have thrown more considerable ones before us; to entail Contentions upon Posterity, and propagate Divisions to Eter∣nity. It's the Interest of some men, to make loud clamours against Divisions, variety of Opinions, dif∣ference in Judgements, and yet to take special care that there shall never want matter for them; to complain of the Fire, and yet pour in Oyl to quench it; and if they may but warm their own hands, can sing over the flames which they have kindled, and do still foment. It has been the Policy of Rome, to build partition-walls of Separation, and then to rail at all that cannot leap over them; to thresh the Wheat out of the Floor, and then rage at it for Di∣viding from the Chaffe; to beat their Servants out

of doors, and then send Huy-and-cry after them, with all the Marks and Descriptions of Run-awayes. Thus far our Author has led us out of the way, and it will be high time to return.

The Fathers may now go to bed, and sleep, our Author will give them no further trouble: Autho∣rity is but an inartificial Argument, and now have at us with down-right Demonstration, and Club-law. Those Sacraments our Saviour hath instituted, are a plain demonstration, that our Union with Christ consists in our union with the Christian Church.

1. For Baptism. Baptisme is the Sacrament of our Admission into the Visible Church; but in Baptisme we make a publick Profession of our Faith in Christ; Therefore the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by Means of their Union with the Church. This is that plain Demonstration we are threatned with; and in a while, if our Author does but eat a dish of Beans and Bacon, it will be a plain Demon∣stration: In Baptism we make a visible Profession of our Faith in Christ; and if this Profession be true, such a one as the Church of England requires as pre∣requisite to Baptism, we are thereby United to Christ antecedently to our Baptism. If Baptism finds us not in Christ, it puts us not into Christ: If it finds us not qualified for a Church state, it makes us not so; it is a Symbol, but it supposes the thing signified, and conferrs it not: It is a Seal, but presupposes a Co∣venant: But that we are admitted into the visible Church by it, he will prove; and indeed he is ex∣cellent at proving what none deny; and very un∣toward at proving the thing in Question; but hear his proof; 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body. In which (says he) the

Apostle seems to allude to Baptism; which conferres the same Holy Spirit on us All, and thereby makes us all Members of that one Body, which is his Church. I think he is resolved never to produce a pertinent Scripture, to prove the plainest Truth: For, 1. here's but an Allusion at most; and has he scolded all this while against Allusions, Allegories, and must he lay the main stress of his Argument upon an Allusion? 2. It but seems to Allude neither, and that weakens the Credit of it exceedingly: An Allusion, a seem∣ing Allusion; A shadow, the dream of a shadow: Any thing or Nothing will serve his turn for plain demon∣stration; when a Mans Name is up for a demon∣strative Man, he may lye in bed till noon. 3. This Baptisme (says he) conferres the same Holy Spirit upon us all: But the Apostle sayes no such matter, but the contrary; by the Spirit we are baptized; and not by Baptism receive the Spirit: Thus the Spirit Unites us to Christ; then comes Baptism, which looks backward as a Seal of what we have received, and forward to our visible state in the Church; and hence it appears, that our Union to Christ, is the Reason of our Union to the Church; and not our Union to the Church, the Means to unite us to Christ. 4. Baptism admitts not into a particular Church, but the visible Church at large, and then it will be harder still for our Author to prove from thence, that the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by Means of their union with a particular Church under the Bishops and Pastors: But if Allusions will not pass currant; Then (sayes he) more expressely in Eph. 4. 4, 5. There is one Body, and one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism: That is, the Christian

Baptism is but one; and is A Sacrament of Union; making us all the Members of that one Body of Christ; this is called being Baptized into Christ: i. e. Ad∣mitted into the Christian Church by a visible Pro∣fession of our Faith in Christ: Now for a small mat∣ter I could grant him all this, and yet despair of seeing his Conclusion: Baptism is but one; be it so: It's a Sacrament of Union; take it for granted: It makes us all Members of that one Body of Christ, which is his visible Church; let it be supposed: But still I wait for proof of this, That by Baptism we are all really united to Christ. But here are some things very pretty: 1. Baptism is but one, and is a Sacrament of Union: Very good; and so is the Spirit but one, and therefore he is the Means of Union. 2. By Baptism we are made Members of the one Body of Christ; that is, of the Visible Church: but is there no means to make us Members of the Invisible Church? 3. This is called, being Bapti∣zed into Christ. But is there no other way of uni∣ting us to Christ, but by Baptism. 4. We are ad∣mitted into the Christian Church by a publick Pro∣fession of our Faith in Christ: Very true; we are solemnly admitted into a Visible Station in the Vi∣sible Church, thereby alwayes supposing Repen∣tance, whereby we forsake sin; and Faith, whereby we steadfastly believe the Promises of God made to us in that Sacrament, which has already united us to Christ.

2. The Lords Supper is a Sacrament of Union, and signifies that neer Conjunction between Christ and Christians: Signifies it? It presupposes an Union both with Christ, and a particular Church: All are supposed, in one sence or other, to be in

the Church, to be in Christ, that are admitted to it: Read over the Exhortation in the Liturgy at your best leisure. My duty is, to exhort you to consider the Dignity of this Mystery.—And so to search and examine your Consciences, that you should come holy and clean, to a most Holy Feast: for otherwise, receiving of the Holy Communion doth nothing else but encrease your Damnation. Again, in the other Exhortation: For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart, and lively Faith, we receive that holy Sacrament, (for Then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, Then we dwell in Christ, and he in us,) so the danger is great, &c. and therefore, if any of you be a Blasphemer of God, N. B. an hinderer, or a slanderer of his Word, N. B. an Adulterer, or be in Malice, N. B. or Envy, or any other grievous crime, bewail your sins, and come not to this holy Table, least the Devil enter into you, as he did into Iudas. But what can be more evi∣dent? our Author supposes we are united to the Church, united to Christ by Baptism; and therefore surely this other Sacrament confirms our Union, and does not first Create it.

I have long waited for an Argument to enforce his Conclusion, and now we shall have it: The In∣tention of our Lord and Saviour in what he did and suffer'd for us, was not to reform and save some single Persons, but to erect a Church, and to combine all his Disciples into a publick Society. A fairer Truth never dropt from his Pen, which some will like the better, because it is so handsom and proper a Confutation of the whole Section: For, if this be Christs design to combine all his Disciples into a publick Society, then sure they were his Disciples,

related to him as their Lord and Master before such combination: Now to be a true Disciple of Christ, is no such slighty and trivial matter, that we may be such a one, and yet not united really to Christ: It implyes Self-denyal, taking up the Cross, and fol∣lowing Christ; and that will go a great way to an Union with Christ; and yet of such as these it's granted, the Christian Society must be composed: But he copes up all this with a little Reason: And therefore our Saviour does not own any Relation to particular men, as such, but as they are Members of his Body. As such? Now for an Explication of the Quà: He owns no Relation to particular men as such; that is, as particular men: No, I am very well satisfied of that; for then he should own a Re∣lation to all particular men; for, à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: But does he own a Relation to particular Believers, as Believers? will he own a Relation to a Disciple, as a Disciple? I am sure he has promis'd to own those, that own them as Disci∣ples; and I am as sure, that if a particular Church be a combination of Disciples, he will own his Disciples wherever he finds them; so that I was just a concluding the clear contrary, if our Author had not given me timely Notice, That because Christ does combine all his Disciples into publick Societies, that therefore he does own, and is so re∣lated to, united with, and will have a special care of, his Disciples, as they are such: and he has eviden∣ced his owning of them, and care for them; that he unites them into such Societies, wherein they may mutually discharge all Christian Offices to each other; edifie one another in Love, and be meet helps to one anothers Salvation. That Christ there∣fore

owns a Relation to particular men, though not as men, but as holy men, is evident, Heb. 2. 11. Both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them Brethren: Nor was he ashamed to own Paul to be a chosen Vessel to himself, upon his par∣ticular Conversion, nor to bestow the Holy Ghost upon him, and yet all this before Baptism, before his publick profession of the Christian Religion, and admission into the Visible Church.

At length we are assaulted with a kind of Argu∣ment from 1 Iohn 1. 1, 2, 3. That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truely our fellow∣ship is with the Father, and with his Son Iesus Christ. Here are so many sad misadventures in this one Ar∣gument, that I know not where to begin; and ha∣ving begun, it will be as difficult to know where to make an end of pointing at them.

1. His Gloss is very Notable: That which we have seen and heard: That is, (says he) The whole Doctrine, and History of the Gospel. And thus we have gained one signification more of Christ, that we never heard of before: Christ is now not onely a Doctrine, a Church, an Office, but a History too, and ere long he will cut him short by an Aphaeresis, and and make him a Story.

2. That his Gloss might pass without suspicion, he has concealed the Apostles words, v. 1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, and seen with our eyes, which we have looken upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life: This was certainly the same Person, of whom the same Apostle, Ioh. 1. 1. affirms, That he was in the

beginning with God; whom being made flesh, he saw, and looked upon with his eyes; whom he touched with his hands: the same Person who lay in the Bosom of the Father, and manifested that Eternal Life that was in the Father: And yet as he has handled the Matter, it shall be the handling of a History, the handling of a Doctrine. Really the Socinians are well-bred Gentlemen to our Author: for though they contend hotly about the Beginning, in which Christ is said to be, yet they confess it was the Person of Christ who was in the beginning. But,

3. Our Author has quite lost his Question; how∣ever it gave him the slip, I cannot tell, but gone it is to Iamaica: For the Question was about the Means of our Union to Christ? and the Answer is, about the Means of our Fellowship with Christ: The Enquiry was, Which way we are related to Christ? and he answers very gravely, to the Way of our enjoying the Priviledges that flow from that Relation: Alas, if he had but once asked it, we would, for a word of his Mouth, have granted his Petition; That our Union with a particular Church, is a Means to let us into Communion and Fellow∣ship with Iesus Christ; to admit us into many glo∣rious Priviledges, and happy advantages, which can∣not possibly otherwise be obtained; only we would say, there must be a previous Union, an antecedent Re∣lation to Christ, as the Foundation of our Enfran∣chisement in that Church, whereby we are ensta∣ted, and installed in all those Priviledges.

4. The Communion we enjoy with the Church, will not prove that we are united to Christ thereby, any more than it will prove, that a Servant becomes

related to his Master by Means of his Relation to his Fellow-servants, because they eat, and drink, and work together; which is no tremendous De∣monstration.

5. Those words, That ye may have Fellowship with us, are very ill glossed: That is, become mem∣bers of the Church of Christ; for the Apostle writes unto them as Members of the Christian Church actually; otherwise the whole Epistle is unintelli∣gible: chap. 2. 12. I write unto you little Children, because your sins are forgiven you for his Names sake: I write unto you Fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning: I write un∣to you young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.

6. Those words, That ye may have fellowship with us, doe not denote, that the Fellowship of particular Believers must of necessity be with the Church immediately, and then with the Father and Christ, at the second hand; but that the Fellowship of the Apostle and all Believers, is joyntly and equally with the Father, and with Christ: His de∣sire was, that others might enjoy the same Com∣munion with both, that he enjoyed. And now the Reader will easily see the dreadfull Mischief of not stating the Question, and distinguishing its Terms at the first: It was obvious to every Man, (and I was aware of it) into what Confusions he would lead us, by the Ambiguity of Church, Union, Means, Communion; but I resolved he should run his Trundle, and when he had tyred himself in a Labyrinth of Errour, it would be a more seasonable time to talk with him.

His last Argument (which is therefore the best, because it is last) is taken from Excommunication.

Now, This (says he) is a plain Demonstration: That our Union to Christ, is not an Union to his Person, but consists in the Spiritual communion with the Christian Church: Otherwise this External com∣munion with the Church, could be no visible signifi∣cation of our Union to Christ; nor could our Exci∣sion from the visible Church, signifie our Separation from him. This is another plain Demonstration, if you will take his word for it. Two things call for our Consideration: 1. What he would prove. 2. How he proves it.

(1) What he would prove: And I assure you, that is grown a great Secret of late: One while he would prove, That our Union with a particular Church, was the means of our Union to Christ; and within an hour after, he would prove: That our Union with Christ, consists in our union with the Chri∣stian Church: And now he will prove (or it shall cost him a fall) that our Union to Christ, is not an Union to his Person. And thus here's another Hare risen up before us, which whilst we pursue, it's ten to one we shall lose them all. If I might counsel our Author, before I would be Tormented with a Fu∣gitive, Vagabond, Protean Question, that's never two Hours in one mind, nor ever tarries two Hours in one place, I would clap it in Irons, and Chain it to a Post. For if the Reader will give me Credit in so small a Matter, I verily thought for some while, that he had been Hammering out a Proof; That our Union to Christ, is by means of our union to the Church. At last, I perceived another Conclusion just Peep out of the shell; That our Union to Christ, consists in our union with the Church: And all along,

I Dream't, that, that Christ about whom the Que∣stion was; He that was the Shepheard, to whom the Sheep are United; the Husband, to whom the Spause is United; the King of the Church, to whom all Christians are United; had been a real, and very Person, and that it had been supposed that Christians are some way or other, United to him; Only all the Question was, Whether they were so United by Means of the Church, or no? For if we are not united to Christ at all, it s a needless En∣quiry, How, or by what means we are United to him? Or, wherein that Union consists? For this takes away the Subject of the Question: What is it then, wherein this Union with Christ consists? Why, It consists in a sincere and Spirituall commu∣nion with the Christian Church. And now the Que∣stion must be Trimed over again: Whether our U∣nion with the Church, consists in a sincere communi∣on with the Church? That is, this Face of the Que∣stion will do best in this place; for I always observe, our Author Writes just from Hand to Mouth; and if he can but make a Rubbing shift for the present Page, let the next take care for it self.

(2) And now let us hear his plain Demonstrati∣on. Otherwise (says he) this External commu∣nion with the Church, could be no visible signification of our Union to Christ. A notable Argument (no doubt) if any Living-body understood it. In the words fore-going, he tells us: He means by Union with Christ, a sincere and Spiritual communion with the Church: And then the old question would have stood thus: Whether our union with a particular Church, be the means of our sincere and spiritual communion with the Church: And if he had thus spoke out, I am assured he had met with no Opposition: But he intend∣ed

another thing then, and entertain'd new Councels upon new Successes, and greater hopes from atchieved Victories. But still the Reader is Importunate for the Demonstration: Then take it, and make your best on't: External communion with the Church, is a visible signification of our Union to the Church; (that he means by Christ) and therefore our Union to Christ, consists in a sincere and Spiritual com∣munion with the Christian Church. And if he had told us plainly, that there is no such thing as Union with Christ; but that the Phrase of Union with Christ is an empty Name, and has no more in it, than union with a Church; it had been easie to have understood the strength of his Will, and the weak∣ness of his Reason, without half this Circumlocntion.

[3.] His next Observation is; That the Union between Christ, and the Christian Church, is not a Natural, but a Political Union: That is (says he) such an union as is between a Prince and his Sub∣jects. It was but just now, that he told us, That our Union with Christ, is not an union with his Per∣son; and yet now he will explain the Nature of this Union, between Christ and the Church. And indeed, he has so Bewildred himself, that it needs a great deal of Explication, and I doubt, all will be too little to deliver it from Non-sence: For his Explication must be this:

The Union between the Church and the Christian Church, is not a Natural, but a Political Union; such an union as is between a Prince and his Subjects.

Now this has two Faults in it: First, That if it were true, it would Over-turn his whole Design; which I can be very well content withall. And, Secondly, (which is the Misery on't) its False, and there∣fore

will neither Overthrow, nor Support his De∣sign: And therefore his Interest will lie in this one •…•…hing, (if he could but see it) to Prove his Asser∣tion to be False, that there may be some hopes left of his conclusion.

(1.) As it stands, it apparently Overthrows his whole Design. For if this Politick Union be such a one as is between a Prince, and his Subjects: Then, 1. There is such a thing alive again in the World, as Union with, and Relation to Christs Person: For surely, Subjects are Related to, and united with the Person of their Prince. 2. Then this Union to Christ, denotes Primarily a Rela∣tion to, and Union with the Person of Christ; and only Secondarily, an Union with, and Relation to his Laws and Commands, and the rest of our fel∣low Subjects. For I think, the Reason why Sub∣jects give Obedience to any Laws, is, because they are the Laws of him who is the Legislator: The Reason why the Sheep are subject to Pastoral Or∣ders, is, because they are the Orders, and Insti∣tuted by him who is their Shepheard, and has a right to Enjoyn them: And the Reason why the Wife subjects her self to the Commands of her Husband, is, because she is united to him, upon those Terms in the Marriage-covenant. All Duty is founded in Relation; It's impossible to conceive Conjugal Duty, without a Preconception of Con∣jugal Relation: If therefore such be our Rela∣tion to Christ; such our union to Him; as of Sheep to Shepheard, Wife to Husband, Subjects to a Prince; then are we first Related to his Person, and as far as such Relation will Unite, united to his Person; and then his Negative is blown up:

That our Union to Christ is not an union to his Person, but consists in our communion with his Church. Which is, as if he should say, Our Re∣lation to our Prince, is no Relation to his Person; but consists in our Union to the Common-wealth; which is a neat Engine to hook in Democracy.

But (2) It s False, which is the worst on't; our uuion to Christ is not fully explain'd by a Political union. It's true, It is not a Natural union; but yet it's well Explain'd by, and bears a full Analogy with a Natural union: The Relation is not Natu∣ral, but Spiritual; and yet it has pleased the Holy Ghost to express the Spiritual Relation, by the Natural. The Relation between a Prince and his Subjects, expresses something of that Relation that is between Christ and Believers, but not the whole: All the Similitudes used in Scripture, to Illustrate the Relation between Christ and Christians, have something in common with each other. All imply absolute Soveraignty, and Authority, contempered with tenderness of Affection on Christs part; and all imply an absolute Subjection to be given to Him, with delight and complacency on our parts; yet some of them express a nearer union, and more endeared Affections than others: That of a Master, Lord, and King, express Authority, and Power, yet not that Intimacy, and union, which is expres∣sed by that of Husband, and Wife: That of a King, implies Christ to be a Head of Government; but that of the Head in the Natural Body, implies the Communications of Grace, of Strength, Coun∣sel, and Power to Obey; and withal, that there's such an Intimate union between Christ and true Believers, that the Members in the Natural are

not more (though in another way) united to the Head, and one to another, than Christ and Christi∣ans are in this, which may be called a Mystical uni∣on; for Christ and Believers are hereupon called, One Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 12. As the Body is one, and hath many Members, even so is Christ: That is, so is the Lord Christ and his Church. When therefore (he says)

That Christ is called a Head, and the Church his Body; a Husband, and the Church his Spouse; which two Metaphors signi∣fie the same thing, and are both of them Names of Power and Authority:

It is something of the Truth, but not the whole Truth, nor nothing else but the Truth. Something of truth there is in it: Christs Headship, denotes Authority: But then it's not the entire Truth: Christs Headship denotes more than bare Authority: And then there's something more than the Truth: Those two Metaphors do not denote the same thing: That of the Husband over the Wife, denotes Power mixed, and sweetly tem∣pered with Love, and Pity: But that of the Head over the Members, denotes a continual Influx of all saving Grace into his Members. I wish therefore, he would leave Trifling with his Hackney Fallacy; That because Christ is a Head of Authority, He is not an Head of Influence: For he that can assert, that the Union and Relation between Christ and Christians, has no Spiritual correspondency with a Natural Union; (which yet is Explicated by it) may when he sees his own time, deny, That the Union between Christ and Christians, has any Ana∣logi•…•…with a Political union, though he has (Pro hâc vice) Explicated the Union by it.

There is one thing more, wherein our Author

shows himself a great Divine, and a mighty States∣man; for the very sound of Political Union, is e∣nough to Inspire a Man that is prepared for such Im∣pulses.

Our Union to Christ (says he) consists in our Belief of his Revelations, Obedience to his Laws, and Subjection to his Authority: As Obedience to our Prince, is the strongest Bond of a Political Union, which is Dissolved and Broken by Rebellion and Disobedience.

But this is nei∣ther truly Asserted, nor wisely Explained. 1. Not truly asserted: For our Union to Christ, does not consist in that Obedience, which we give him as our Lord, our Shepheard, our Husband; but in that Act of Obedience whereby at first we take him for our Lord, Shepheard, and Husband; and give up our selves sincerely to him again, to be his Sheep, Subjects, Spouse. 2. Nor wisely Explicated: For if Relation to a Prince, does formally consist in Obedience, and that Union be dissolved by Rebel∣lion; then whenever a Rebel shakes hands with Actual subjection, he absolves himself from the du∣ty to Obey, which would save the horrible Charges of the Popes Bull. Our Author has acquainted the World with a very fine way, how to live a Tray∣tor Twenty years, and yet never commit but one single sin at first, but all the after acts will be Re∣gular: For if Rebellion dissolve, and break in pieces the Union between Prince and Subject, then he ceases any longer to be a Subject; and by conse∣quence whatever sins he commits, must be called by other Names, for it can be no Rebellion: When the Relation ceases, Duty ceases; Obedience is a con∣serving cause of Union, but the Union lies not in it: He that does not perform his Duty, yet is un∣der

an Obligation to perform his Duty; the Union continues, though many acts unsuitable to the Uni∣on are committed. But should we be so charitable as to grant him all this, he will be weary on't in a while; as little Children, that make a heavy and piteous moan for a Gewgaw, and when they have it, throw it away.

Thus after all his Rodomontade, That this Union is a Political union, such as is between Prince, and Subjects; as if his Book could never have been Li∣censed, if he had talk'd of any thing below Crowns and Diadems, and the Roman Empire: Yet pag. 162. he tells us, That God has laid aside, in a great Measure, that severe Name of a King, and calls himself our Father, to signifie that Liberty we en∣joy under the Gospel, in Opposition to the Bondage, and Servitude of the Law of Moses. Well, whatever opinion he has of Monarchy, the severity of it's Name, the Bondage and Servitude that it brings Men under; I know many, who if they might choose, had rather come under that severe Name of King, as to their Religious concerns, than feel the more smooth, and Debonair Treatment, of some Spiritual Fathers.

It's very Tiresome to Travel out of the way, for the further we go on, the further we have to come back; and yet thus has our Author seduced his Reader, but now we shall come to a vein of Mat∣ter; for having reduced all the benefit Believers have from Christ as their Head, to Political Go∣vernment, there is but one thing more, which if he can cleverly compass, the day is his own; and this is to strip Christ of that little Power and Authority he had left him: To this end we must observe further:

That though Christ be our Lord and Governour, he does not Govern us immediately by Himself, for he is Ascended into Heaven, where he power∣fully Intercedes for his Church, and by a Vigi∣lent Providence, superintends the affairs of it; but he has left the Visible and External conduct and Government of it, to Bishops and Pastors, who preside in his Name,

and by his Authority. To which I answer:

1. That Christs committing the External conduct of his Churches to his own Officers, may very well consist with his own Internal and Invisible con∣duct of his Peoples Souls, and their Spiritual con∣cerns.

2. Whatever Authority Christ has vested his Officers with, he has Devested himself of none, he continues sole Head of the Church still; All Power is committed to him in Heaven, and in Earth: And though there are some that would ease him of the Trouble, yet I have not heard that he has laid down his Commission, nor taken any into joynt Commission with himself.

3. Christ has given an Authority in the Churches to all his own Officers, but he has not given to any of them his Authority: And indeed, unless he could Communicate to them his Power, as well as his Autho∣rity, it would signifie little. But, I hope, they know their places better than so; they are Servants of Jesus Christ, tied up to their Instructions, as all Ambassadors are, though they come in the Name of their Prince; and their Commission runs, to teach us to Observe whatsoever Christ has Commanded in the Scripture.

4. As to the External Conduct of the Church,

Christ has left it as much to Princes, as to Bishops, and more; for several Reasons that I know of, but one is this: That every Supreme Magistrate is next and immediately under Christ, Supreme Head and Governour of the Church, within his own Domini∣ons. Well, but what Reason does he favour us with? Why Christ doth not immediately Govern us Himself.

1. He is ascended into Heaven: Well: Yet he knows how to be present with all and every one of his, to the end of the World: And, Where two or three meet together in his Name, he will be in the midst of them: He has sent Vicariam vim Spiritus sancti, who does Manage for him a Spiritual Go∣vernment in the Souls of all the Elect: And since I have named two such dangerous words, as Sancti∣fication, and Election, I had best bethink my self of good Security; and that I have from the Church Catechism. Quest. What dost thou learn chiefly in these Articles of thy Belief? Answ.—

I learn to believe in God the Holy Ghost, who San∣ctifieth me,

and all the Elect People of God.

2. He powerfully Intercedes for his Church. Why sure Intercession with the Father, is not In∣consistent with immediate Rule and Government over his Saints. But,

3. By his vigilant Providence, he Superintends all the Affairs of it: Why then he Governs it: Nay, Soft a-while: He will allow Christ a Trans∣marine Superintendency, but no proper Episcopal Iurisdiction: That is, he may be a Spectator, or a By-stander, and look on to see how Squares go, but must not meddle with the Immediate Government of us; for he has put that out of his Hands, and

left it to the Bishops and Pastors: Which I confess, is the worst News that I have heard this Seven years. But now for the Conclusion: This is (says he) a plain Demonstration, That the Union of par∣ticular Christians to Christ, is by union with the Christian Church. Shortly, If our Author does but give a grave Nod, it will amount to a Demon∣stration; but if he should please to give a Lusty Hum, it will be a plain Demonstration: Though others are so perverse, they will not own it for a probable Conjecture; for the Spiritual subjection of the Soul and Conscience, is immediately to Christ: As the Emperour once said, Non tibi sed Petro; so may every Christian, Non tibi sed Christo. What∣ever Command the Officers of Christ bring us in his Name, their Commission is Patent, and we must search the Scriptures to see whether it be so or no; if it carrys the Signature of Christs Authority, we Obey him in hearing them; and if they have, or pretend to have any private Instructions, or Cabala, we may fairly demur to them, or bring a Quo War∣ranto against them.

And now at last, he will leave his Imperious Di∣ctates, and come to Disputation:

If our Union to Christ, consist in our Subjection to him as our Lord and Master, Head and Husband, it fol∣lows that we cannot be United to Christ, (that is, cannot own his Authority) till we Unite our selves to the publick Societies of Christians.

But the former is true. Ergo, &c. To the Consequence of the former Proposition, all I say, is, It's Feeble and very Sick. Our union to Christ may consist in our subjection to him as King, Lord, and Husband, and yet we may be united to him thus, before our

Actual union to a particular Society. Well, he will prove it thus: This Authority of Christ is not Exercised immediately by Himself, but by the Bi∣shops, and Pastours of the Church. To which I return:

1. If he means that only Christ exercises not a Visible Authority by himself, but by the Guides and Pastors of the Church, it may be true; but then it will prove no more than this. That we are visible Pro∣fessors of Christs Name, by our Uniting to a parti∣cular Church, under the Guides and Officers there∣of, which is not the thing in Question.

2. If he means that Christ exercises not any in∣ward Authority over the Soul, immediately by Him∣self; I must return to my former Answer, which is a peremptory denial.

3. Whether this Authority be exercised immedi∣ately by Christ, or not? Our Union with Christ may be immediate: For our acceptation of Christ as Lord, King, and Husband, is the Bond of our U∣nion, and the Exercise of all Authority of a Supe∣riour in those Relations, must still of necessity pre∣suppose the Union, and Relation. But as to our Antecedent: That our Union to Christ, consists in our Subjection to him as our Lord, Head, and Hus∣band: Which is very true, of that Act of Subje∣ction whereby at first we accept of him to be all these to us, and give up our selves to be all the other to him; but very false of those subsequent Acts of Obedience which flow from, but do not Constitute the Relation: And therefore it was prudently done, to Explain Union to Christ, by owning his Autho∣rity. For however it be false, yet every one will not spie that, who Rides on a Trotting Horse; and

it will serve to make a Semblance of saying some∣thing. It's true, we cannot own Christs Authority, if we Derogate from his Commands; but yet our union with Christ, and our relation to him▪ must precede our owning his Authority over us. And for this, our Author has fitted us with a Similitude, which may befriend Us as well as it's owner. As no man can be said to submit himself to his Prince, who denies Subjection to Subordinate Magistrates, who Act by his Commission: For the union of Bodies Politick, consists in Order and Government, when all the Members keep their proper places, and are knit together by a faithful Discharge of their Du∣ties. I could not hope for more Weakness in an Adversary, than I shall be sure to find in this Simili∣tude.

First, None can be said to submit to his Prince, who denies Subjection to Subordinate Magistrates: And thus none can be said to submit himself to Christ, who denies Obedience to his Officers, who act in his Name.

Secondly, As Submission to Subordinate Magi∣strates, is not that wherein our Relation to our Prince con•…•…ists, but an effect of it; so a due subjection to our spiritual Guides, is not that wherein our Union to Christ consists, but a Consequent of it: We first owe a subjection to Christ, and from thence to them who Command us in his Name. Thus the Apostle, 2 Cor. 8. 5. They first gave themselves to the Lord, and to us, by the Will of God.

Thirdly, No man can be said to Submit, who Re∣bels. (A weighty truth:) But he may be said to owe submission, though he rebells: His Prince has

not lost his right to Command, though he (like a Villain) want•…•… Grace to Obey.

Fourthly, It's very Childish, and spoken like a Green headed Statesman, That the union of Bodies Politick, consists in Order and Government. For, Order and Government, are for the preservation of the Union, and not the first union of these Bodies Politick. The union of Prince and People, consists in their first relation to one another as such; and the exercise of Government, is to secure that union, and the advantages of it: If union consists in Order and Government, then Disorder and ill Govern∣ment would dissolve the union, and relation, and by consequence discharge all Subjects from a Con∣science of their Duty; which is very dangerous Do∣ctrine, and a wide Gap to all Rebellion: What a pitiful plight were Princes in, if the Foundations of Government, the Essential reasons of the Peoples subjection, were to be Discanted upon by every Churchman. The Childs relation to his Father, does not consist in his filial Obedience, but is the rea∣son of it: The Subjects relation to his Prince, does not consist in Subjection, but is the true Ground of it: The Wife, her relation to her Husband, does not consist in her submission to her Husband, but is the Spring of it: A disobedient Child is a Child still, he cannot shake off the relation; a rebellious per∣son, though he deserves not the honourable Title of a Subject, yet he is a Subject, and cannot put off that relation: An untoward Wife, is a Wife still; and every act, nay, many acts of Disobedi∣ence cannot dissolve the Copula: For otherwise, the way to be rid of a relation, would be to Violate

the Duties of it; and then all future Disobedience would be no sin: Because, when the union is once Null, and the relation dissolved, there's no Founda∣tion upon which the Superiour can build a claim to Duty; and this would be a short Cut, and save abundance of time and Charges, in sueing out a Di∣vorce: For, let but the Wife disobey, and the union which consists in Obedience, Vanishes.

A little Divertisment will now be seasonable, both for our Author and his Readers; and therefore he will give us a plain Account of the only cause that can justifie Separation. In the mean time it seems, there is a Cause, though but one only Cause that will justifie it; and separation will not always argue S•…•…hism: And now all you that would know the one, the on∣ly one Cause in all the World, that can justifie a Se∣paration from a true Church, draw near and give your attention.

1. When any Church prevaricates in the Laws of Christ. Prevaricates? How many thousands of Schismaticks will shrowd themselves under the Co∣vert of that one Word? He has opened a Gate, at which three Coachful of Separatists, may Drive all-a-Brest. If then a Church shall pretend to give us the Laws of Christ in Scriptis, (such was the Knavery of a Cardinal in the Consistory, before the Conventicle of Trent) and yet by Preaching and Practice, destroy those very Laws, or the Ends of them; if the Church of Rome shall talk Big words of Holy Mother Church, and yet embrace in her arms as her Children, the vilest Varlets, and shut out none but the Good, unless now and then an old Fornica∣tor, or some such like Vermine, that want Money

to Buy off, or Commute for Penance; this is an un∣worthy Prevarication, and if it shall certainly ap∣pear, will justifie a separation.

2. When it corrupts Religion: And this will go a great way (I promise you) in some particular Churches. Corruption may be by Addition, Sub∣straction, Multiplication, or Division: The end of the Keys may be perverted, those shut out whom Christ would receive: and they admitted whom Christ would exclude: It may strike with the back of the spiritual Sword when it should use the edge, and wound with the edge when it should sleep in the Scabbard; Christs Religion may be corrupted by mingling our own inventions, with this pure and plain institutions: and then we have a cause, or a piece of a cause that paves our way for separation, as broad as that by which Israel departed out of Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 five in a rank.

3. When it undermines the fundamental design of Religion which is to make men good, and vertuoùs. So that though they do not openly assault it by batte∣ry, and escalado, yet if they shall secretly under∣mine Godliness, by denying the office of the holy spirit in Creating men to good, and vertuous works, and teach men to trust to their own natural strength, and shall craftily oppose the Doctrine of the Scrip∣tures and the Church of England: That the condi∣tion of man after the fall is such, that he cannot turn by his own natural strength, without the Grace of God preventing him, that he may have a good will: or if they shall disown the satisfaction of Christs death up∣on the cross to Gods holiness, and his justice found∣ed thereon, which is the bottom of our return to God

and of our holy walking with him, why then fare∣well! as far as the shooes of the Gospel will carry you.

4. When we cannot obey our spiritual rulers with∣out disobeying the Laws of Christ: when Christs commands, and they forbid; when he forbids, and they command; then we have our pasport to be gone, and travel to the utmost ends of the Earth: These are those four things, all in one that will justi∣fie a separation from a particular society, and if our Authour would preach this Doctrine to his Parisho∣ners, he might leave it to them to make the Applica∣tion.

But now on the otherside, if the Church we live in acknowledges the Authority, and submits to the Laws of Christ, we are bound to live in Communion with it. Very true, but not true for our Authors Reason, because this Unites us to Christ, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but go on! when nothing is made the con∣dition of our Communion, which is expressely forbid∣den by the Laws of the supreme Lord, we acknow∣ledge his Authority in our subjection to our spiritual guides. Now here are many things might be oppo∣sed.

1. Let it be considered whether an implicite pro∣hibition from the supreme Lord be not sufficient to make a condition of Communion unlawful? and I cannot but wonder that our Authour in this case is all for an expresse prohibition, when perhaps that may signifie a Command if he follows but his own rule, not to interpret phrases by the sound of words. But,

2. In submitting to such conditions of Communion as are not expressely forbidden, the Question is, whe∣ther

herein we submit to Christs authority? and this I confesse I stick at: And the Reason of my doubt∣ful hesitation is this. Because it supposes an acknow∣ledgment of Christs Authority, where he has not in∣terposed his Authority: supposes him to speak, where he is silent, and to Command obedience where he commands nothing; nay where he has for∣bidden, though not expressely forbidden that conditi∣on: Now as I am not bound to obey an inferiour Magistrate, unlesse his particular command be war∣ranted by his Commission, though it be not forbidden in his Commission▪ so it seems I am not bound to Obey a particular Church, in a particular imposed condition, if not authorised by Christs instructions, though it be not forbidden there, at least no such re∣fusal of obedience can be interpreted to be a disown∣ing of Christs Authority, because he is supposed to have determined neither Pro nor Con. If we turn back to p. 164. Our Authour has these words: No man can be said to submit himself to his prince, who denies subjection to those subordinate Magistrates who act by his Commission: so no man can be said to resist his Prince who gives subjection to all inferiour officers in all things wherein they act by his Commi∣ssion; for he may passe for a very tolerable good Subject who does all things that are commanded him, so in this case; no man can be said to Obey Christ who denies subjection to the Pastors of the Church who act according to their instructions from the supreme Lord of the Church: nor any be said to resist Christs authority, though they refuse com∣plyance in those things to the Officers of the Church, wherein they act besides their Commission. But let

us a while wholly set aside the consideration of the lawfulness or unlawfullness of these new conditions of Communion: yet still me thinks there's a great deal of disingenuity in the Pastors of a Church, to make new Terms of Communion with them, for if it be so necessary as is pretended, to our Union with Christ, that we be United to the Church: and then again so necessary to our Salvation to be United to Christ: and then further so necessary to our Union with the Church, to submit to those conditions that the Pastors shall appoint, every new condition is a Bar to, and a Clog upon our Salvation. We must come up to the condition e're we can be United to the Church, and we must be United to the Church, e're we can be United to Christ, and we must be United to Christ, e're we can be saved: That condition therefore how small soever it be in it self, how indif∣ferent soever in its own Nature is thereby made ne∣cessary to Salvation, because indispensably required to that which is so: Now I will not clamour, and make a noise at this as an evil thing, but yet me∣thinks it does not look as if it had over much good Nature in't, for a Church to deal thus with the peo∣ple. The Church received a Religion from Christ at first, that had no incumbrance upon it, and that the Church should leave it deeplyer engaged than she found it, I think is not very handsome: if the Church found the door wide open; why does shee set it on half-charrs: when she could march in with a full body, why should others be forced to crowd in and wedge themselves through a narrow wicket sidelings? why should the Pastors bind heavy burdens on others fhoulders, when Christ laid none upon theirs? or

why should they raise the Markets so high in the lat∣ter age, when they had it so cheap in the primitive times? It was a good plain saying of King Iames to the pragmatical Spalatensis, when he would be new modelling affairs at Winsor. Extraneus es! Relin∣que res sicut eas invenisti. Come Reader, there's no false Latine in't, had former Ages heard and ta∣ken the advice, we could have been content with the Primitive light, though we had wanted sumptuous Candlesticks; the power of Religion, had made a∣mends for its plainnesse; and golden Officers, recom∣pensed woodden chalices: Thus far at our Authors invitation we have step't out of the way, and are now ready to return with him into it.

The next thing considerable wherein he ingages, is a description of the New nature, whereof the Holy Ghost makes frequent mention, as that from which all new Obedience must proceed.

This New Nature, (says he) the Scripture repre∣sents under several Notions.

• 1. By the subjection of our minds and Spirits to Christ.
• 2. By a participation of the same Nature, which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him.

If a man would study to be cross all his days, and resolve to trade in no figure but Hysteron Prote∣ron, he might hardly hope to equalize our Author in this discourse. For,

1. What subjection of mind, and Spirit, can be given to Christ, without a new Nature, from whence that Act of subjection should proceed? the most inward Acts of Obedience are yet but Acts: the

most spiritual and refined workings of the soul are still but works, and have alwayes for their root and prin∣cipal, a good and an honest; a new, and a renew∣ed heart and Nature. Thus we see 'tis in Nature: there must be a principle of motion, before there can be natural motion, all the rest is violent, and against the hair. And this order our Saviour has described in the most plain, and familiar way to gratifie our un∣derstandings that they could desire. Math. 12. 33. Either make the tree good and the fruit good; or the evil and the fruit evil, and Math. 7. 17. 18. Do men gather Grapes of thornes, or Figs of Thistles. Even so every good Tree bringeth forth good Fruit, and a corrupt Tree brings forth evil fruit: But our Authour has found out a way called Transmutation of spe∣cies: to make a Thorn become a Vine, and to Transubstantiate a Thistle into a Figtree: I know the Reader has a grudging of the old curiosity to see the experiment: The operation therefore is this, teach a Thistle to produce Figs for one seven years, and you shall see it become as very a Fig-tree as any is in the world, thus let the natural and unregenerate man perform multiplyed Acts of the best obedience he can, and without any efficacious working of the Holy Ghost he shal acquire a new heart, which I shall believe at the same time, when I see a thousand Cy∣phers give themselves the significancy of one figure. Our Blessed Saviour has long ago determined this to our hand. John 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Let the Egyptian Pollinctors practise upon it, let them sweeten perfume, and season it with the spicery of India, and all the balm of Gilead, it will be but flesh still, all its operations carnal.

2. It will be of good use in this matter to enquire, wherein lay the Image of God in Adam, what relati∣on it had to his obedience, and thence perhaps we may get some light what order the Image of God in us observes: That it mainly consists in righteous∣ness and true holinesse, no man can doubt that reads the Apostles description, Eph. 4. 24. but now it is evi∣dent that Adam did not procure this Image of God, by repeated Acts of obedience, it was not the result of many particular duties, it was no acquired habit, but it was concreated with him, as a condition due and meet for a Creature made to such sublime, and glorious ends as the enjoyment of his God, and from this Nature, this Image of God, proceeded all that Obedience which he payed, all that which God required, and accepted. And if this be so, it's evident that all who are renewed, who are born again, who are Created unto good works go through the same method. So the Apostle Col. 3. 10. And have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him, that Created him: The order of Gods working is conformable to his promise, we may be sure he will do both what, and how he has promised, Ezek. 36. 26. A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your Flesh, and give you an heart of Flesh; and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them: where the order and method of God in this great work is laid down, with such a convincing evidence that he must have no eyes or shut those he has who does not see it. And,

1. God promises that he will remove the great principle of resistance, that which makes head, and opposition to the Commands of God: the stony, hard, inflexible-Heart.

2, That he will bestow another, a better, a new heart, a soft Spirit, a heart of Flesh: that may com∣ply and close in with Gods Commands.

3. That from this new heart, all new obedience, all service acceptable to God must proceed as from its spring or root. I will put my Spirit into you, and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments,

4. That all obedience, inward and outward obedi∣ence: keeping the Commandements of God with the heart, and doing them in the practice of our lives, yet all must proceed from this new heart, this new Spi∣rit, which God promised, to put within them.

But he comes to close Argument, we are exhort∣ed that the same mind be in us that was in Christ, Phil. 2. 5. And to be his disciples is to learn of him, who was meek, and lowly in spirit, Math. 11. 29. We question not that, its our duty to imitate Christ; to copy out all his imitable excellencies, and if he can prove that we can do this, viz. imitate Christ in Acts of self denyal, taking up the Crosse, bear∣ing reproach, forgiving enemies, without a better heart, and Nature, than we brought into the world with us, he will then begin to speak to the purpose: But (says our Authour) Christ transcribed his own nature into his Laws, and therefore a sincere obedi∣ence to his Laws is a conformity to his Nature, To which I answer,

1. He that transcribed his Nature into his own

Laws, must yet transcribe it once more, even into the heart of a son of Adam, e're he can give to him that new Obedience which is acceptable to him: It was not enough that God wrote his Lawes in Stone, unless they be written upon the Tables of the heart with the finger of God.

2. Obedience to the Laws of Christ does increase our conformity to the Nature of Christ, but still there must be a renewed heart and Nature, upon which all progressive conformity to Christ in obedi∣ence must proceed.

3. Transcribing of Christs Nature into his Lawes is a Metaphorical expression, which our Authour may explain how he pleases, but I observe alwayes, when he can cloath an Argument with Metaphors, he is then secure: yet still he presses upon▪ us from, Rom. 8. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his. That is (says he) Unlesse he have the same Temper, and disposition of mind that Christ had: Now let the Reader look well about him, and he shall see rare sights: we do all remember that to be United to Christ, or to be one of Christs, signifie to be United to a particular Church: And now we are told: That by having the Spirit of Christ, is meant being of the same temper and disposition: and now from hence we have these consecta∣ries.

1. That if any man be not of the same Temper with Christ, that is be not holy, as he is holy: he cannot be United to a particular Church: And our Saviour has vouched for it, John 3. 5. Except a man be regenerate and born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. We must be like minded

with Christ, and thereby become one of his: and what is now become of the great Proposi∣tion that has filled so many pages. That the only means of Uniting as to Christ is by our U∣nion with a particular Church.

2. He tells us that Union to Christ is descri∣bed by having the Spirit: and then having the Spirit is interpreted by being of the same Tem∣per with Christ: so now we have got another Doctrine: That our Union to Christ consists in being of the same Temper, and disposition with him. But,

3. We have here an excellent expedient to discharge the World both of the Person of Christ, and of the Spirit too: For as he can in∣terpret Christs Person into Doctrine, office Church, Religion, Bishops, Baptism; so he has interpreted the Spirit into Temper, dispo∣sition; and when an exigency calls for it, he may explicate it by a strong wind, or a vapour, and then his work is done. But,

3. For the explicating of the new Nature, he tells us there is a closer Union which results from this, which consists in a mutual, and reci∣procal love, which I am glad of, amongst other Reasons for this; that now it will be lawfull to Love Christ, without persecution, pro∣vided alwayes we do not over love him, nor be passionately in love with him: but yet there are a few inconveniences which attend this explication. For,

1. If we be United, and closely United to Christ by Love, then a Political Union, is not the onely one betwixt Christ and Christians. And,

2. Then it seems (for all the sorrow) a Christi∣an may be United to Christ without being U∣nited to a particular Church: for we therefore love Christians because we love Christ, and are taken with the imperfect holiness which is copied out into their Natures, and lives, be∣cause we are surprized first with a delightful ad∣miration of Him who is the grand exemplar of all perfect Holinesse, 1 John 5. 1. He that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is be∣gotten of him. 3. Why may not this Union with Christ signifie an Union with the Church as well as the other? and then to love Christ sig∣nifies no more than to love his Church, and so we are but where we were.

4. Its very strange, that our Love should re∣sult from our obedience, and subjection, where∣as its hard to conceive how the soul should give subjection without Love, and if it should give any, a forced subjection without its principle of Love, would find as cold a well-come in Christs heart, as that cold heart it came from: our Sa∣viour had described obedience as the result of love. John 14. 15. If ye Love me keep my Commandements. No (says our Authour) keep my Commandements, and then you will fall in Love with me: but let him give light to his own Notions: when we are transformed in∣to the Image of Christ, he loves Us as being like him; and we love him too, as partaking of his Nature. He loves us, as the price of his blood, as his own workmanship created to good works, and we love him, as our Saviour, and Redeem∣er,

now love is the great Cement of Union which unites interest, and thereby does more firmly unite hearts. It is not then quite so bad as was pretended, to Love the Lord Jesus Christ, provided we have but our Authours license to love him: but now the Question will be this: whether our Union to Christ consists in a mutual and reciprocal love? And if our Authour▪ had been judge a little while since, he would have resolved it in the Negative, That our Union to Christ consists in our Union to a particular Church: and that it is a political union, such a one as is between Prince, and Subject, and con∣sists in a belief of his revelations, obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority. I shall only note a few things, and dismisse it.

1. That there is a love of Benevolence and good Will, a designing, purposing love in Christ towards us, before we bear his Image and Su∣perscription: this love he bears towards those that are unlike him, Rom. 5▪ 8. God Com∣mendeth his love to us, that when we were yet sin∣ners Christ dyed for us: verse 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.

2. There must of necessity be the interventi∣on of an Union, a likenesse, a Conformity of Natures, before there can be supposed a love of mutual complacency, and reciprocal delight in each other, for this love, this delight, must have something to work upon. As there must be a Conjugal Relation, before the Husband can

take delight in his Wife, as his Wife; and the Wife in her Husband as her Husband.

3. That this love of good will in Christ, is the Original Reason of our transformation into the Image of Christ; whereby we become meet objects for that other love of Compla∣cency.

4. Its true that we love him, as partaking of his Nature; but then its also as true that those Acts of love to, and delight in Christ, proceed from that New Nature which we derive from him.

5. The Love wherewith Christ Loves us, as the price of his blood, is a differing love from that wherewith he loves us as his workmanship created in Christ Jesus to good works.

6. I rejoyce however that we are owned to be Christs workmanship Created to good works: which it were not so, we had more reason to love our selves, to admire and deifie our own natural Abilities, which effected that glorious workman∣ship: And I see of late our Authour, takes to the Church Catechism; which had he attended to in time, had saved him half the Labour of his Book:- My good Child! know that thou art not able to do these things of thy self (to love God, to believe in him, to fear him, with all thy heart with all thy mind, withal thy strength, to wor∣ship him to give him thankes to put thy whole Trust in him, &c.) nor to walk in the Commande∣ments of God and serve him without his special Grace, which thou must learn at all times to call for by diligent prayer.

7. The more we exercise our selves in the Love of Christ, the more like him we grow; and the stronger bonds are layd upon our Souls, to maintain the Union inviolable; but still there must precede an Union, which is the true Foundation of the Exercise of this Love of Delight and mutual Complacency. Ay but (says he) Love is the great Cement of Union, which unites Interests, and thereby more firm∣ly unites hearts. Let him call it the Cement, or the Soder, or the Glew, it's all one to me; I conceive that Interest is the Cement of Love, and not Love the Cement of Interest: Men love because it's their Interest so to doe; but whether that Love that flutters up and down the world, a thing so unstable and desultory that we cannot tell where to have it, be a fit Pattern for the heigths, and lengths, and depths, and breadth of the Love of Christ, ora just Measure of it, I very much question.

Many things we meet with that are full of delight, but one may take a Surfeit of Sweet∣meats, and therefore I shall onely trouble the Reader with his Concluding Argument, taken from the Sacraments: Which are (says he) the Instruments and Symbols of our Union with Christ. And if by Christ he understands the Church, it's not worth the while to make a Controversie on't; we will grant, That Uni∣on with the Church consists in Union with it; and the surest Means to be United to the Church, is to be United to it; and this way seldom fails: But if he had a mind to con∣clude

something else, he had done like a Neigh∣bour to have informed us; for I must needs confess, I am in the dark: But yet we shall not lose all our labour: For these Sacraments represent both our external and real Union with him. And it's worth all our pains and pati∣ence, to hear one of his Lectures upon this Subject:

First, for our External Union; Baptism is a publick Profession of the Christian Religion, that we believe the Gospel, own his Authority, and submit to his Government:

Secondly, These Sacraments signifie our Reall Union to Christ: Thus Baptism signifies our Profession of becoming New men, our profes∣sion of Conformity to Christ in his Death and Resurrection. Now look how much Conformity to Christs Death and Resurrection, is better than owning his Authority, and submitting to his Government, just so much is our Real Uni∣on, better than our external, which if one so exactly versed in the essential differences of things as our Author▪ had not told us other wise, ordinary Capacities had judged to be both one: That little advantage there is, the External Union carries it: For as to our External Union, Baptism (he tells us) is a Profession of it; but as to our Real Union, Baptism onely signifies a profession of it; and then it will be somewhat better to make a Profession of submission to Christs Government, than to make a signification of a Profession of Conformity to his Death. I shall therefore

rather acquiesce in the Judgement of the Ca∣techism about the Signification of Baptism, than in our Authors; which makes this Que∣stion: What is the inward and spiritual Grace? Ans. A death unto sin, and a New Birth un∣to Righteousness; for being by Nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of Grace.

[4] His last, and most famous Observa∣tion is: That Fellowship and Communion with God signifies, what he calls a Political Union: And would we knew what that was: why it is this: To be in fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society which puts us into a peculiar Relation to God; that God is our Father, and we his Children, that Christ is our Head and Husband, and Lord, and Master; and we his Disciples, and fol∣lowers, his Spouse, and Body. It's below the generosity of the Eagle, to catch Flies; an Employment more suitable to the impertinent humour of Domitian; and therefore it may be expected, that our Author should scorn to play so mean a Game, as to impose upon our weakness with the Ambiguity of a poor word. [To be in Fellowship,] carries a sound to a mere English Ear very like to [Union,] but if we examine either the Synonymous word [Communion,] or the Greek words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉), and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which are rendred Fellowship and Communion; and how those words are used in Scripture, we may abundantly satisfie our selves, that they signifie something very distinct

from, Union or Relation. Fellowship, and Communion, are words of the same import; and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indifferently render'd by either of them: 1 Ioh. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And truely our Fellowship, &c. And v. 6. If we say, that we have fellowship with him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 2 Cor. 3. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Communion of the Holy Ghost; and the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is once translated Fellowship: 2 Cor. 6. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For what Fellow∣ship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? Now, what the general Nature of Fellowship, Communion, or Participation, and Communi∣cation, is; the Apostle will clear up to us, Phil. 4. 15. Now ye Philippians know; That no Church communicated with me, as con∣cerning Giving, and Receiving, but ye onely; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which he ex∣plains, (if there be need of that,) v. 16. Ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Com∣munion therefore, or Communication, is the Mutual bestowing of those good things which are in each others power, grounded upon some Union, and Relation between the Parties. And this is more fully expressed by that Scrip∣ture phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: To have, hold, exercise, or maintain Communion, or Com∣munication of all those good things which may be expected from each other in a Re∣lation: 1 Ioh. 1. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I must profess my self therefore wholly dissatisfied with our Authors New Notion of Commu∣nion,

That it signifies the same thing with Uni∣on: That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are Terms ade∣quately Measuring each other: There must be first a Relation, before there can be a com∣municating of those good things which pre∣suppose the Relation. Thus the Love of a Father to his Child, his Care over him, his Bounty to him, is founded in his Relation to him, as his Son; and the Childs filial Love, Duty, Fear, are all b•…•…tomed upon the Re∣lation which he holds to his Father. Thus we conceive first a Real Union between the Head and the Members, before we can conceive the Head should communicate spirits to all the parts, to quicken them to Motion. And this the Apostle expresses, Col. 2. 19. That they who do not, Hold the Head, [that are not united to Christ,] can never receive from him those supplies, or Communications of Spiritual Nourishment, that they may encrease with the encrease of God. And thus must there be an Union between the Husband and the Wife, before there can be a Communication of what is in each others power: That is, they must give what they are, before they can give what they have: And this Order and Method is well observed in the Liturgy, (though our Author is pleased to make him∣self very merry with it) where the Man first takes the Woman to be his wedded Wife; and then assigns, or makes over what he has to her Use; with all my worldly Goods I thee endow: For he that gives Himself, will ne∣ver

stick at a'l the Rest. And thus the first thing that God gives to his in Covenant, is Himself: Heb. 8. 10. I will be their God; and then follows the Communication of all his Covenant Mercies. v. 12. I will be mercifull to their Iniquities, and remember their sins no more: And in the same Order the Soul pro∣ceeds in its Restipulation with God: 2 Cor. 8. 5. First gave their •…•…wn selves to the Lord. Now as the Union, or Relation is for kind, so also are the Communications that flow from, or follow upon the Relation and Union. If the Union be a more general Union, the Relation a more common Relation, the Com∣munications in due proportion will be more general, and Common; we are Related to all men, none are so remote, but they are our Neighbours; but yet we have a more special and peculiar Relation to all Christians: And hence is it, that the Apostle apportions out to us, the Nature of those good things that we ought to commuicate to both, Gal. 6. 10. Doe good to all, but especially to them that are of the houshold of Faith. The great God as Crea∣tor, is Related to all; and therefore does good to all. Psal. 36. 6. Thou preservest Man and Beast: Yet, as he stands more nearly related as a Father to some, than others, so he com∣mnicates more choyse and peculiar Favours to them: Hence is that Prayer of David, Psal. 106. 4. Remember me, O Lord, with the fa∣vour thou bearest to thine own People; O visit me with thy Salvation; that I may see the

Good of thy Elect ones. And because the Elect∣ing Love of the Father, and the Redeeming Love of the Son, are exactly parallel, there∣fore has Christ a general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as a special 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ 1 Tim. 4. 10. He is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that Be∣lieve: It was never doubted, but the Relati∣on of a Master to his Servant ought to pro∣duce suitable Communications to that Relation: And yet those of a Fathe•…•… to his Child, are of another and sweeter Nature, those of the Hus∣band to the Wife, yet more endearing; and those of the Head to the Members still more intimous and intrinsecal: Now that Commu∣nion is a Communication of Good things flow∣ing from Union, the Apostle will not suffer us to doubt; Gal. 6. 6. Let him that is taught in the Word, communicate unto him that teacheth in All Good things: Where the Relation be∣tween the Teacher and the Disciple, is the Foun∣dation of that Communication of all good things; but if indeed our Author will abide by his No∣tion, That Union and Communion are both one; Then if his Parishioners do but hear him preach, they may spare the Impertinency of Tythes, it is but Actum Agere, and Commu•…•…ion is satis∣fied in the Notion of Union; so that they have here a general Release of all Minute and Praedial Tythes, under his own hand, from the beginning of the World to this Day.

The Sophistry of our Authors Argument from 1 Joh. 1. 3. we have already considered and discovered: He leads us now to 1 Cor.

1. 9. God is faithfull, by whom ye are called into the Fellowship of his Son Jesus: All the advantage he can expect from these words, is upon a presumption of his Readers Sim∣plicity, that he will not spye small faults; to be called into fellowship with Christ, cajouls the Ear into a Conceit of Union: But that which spoyls all is, our Translation reads un∣to the Fellowship, or Communication, or Par∣ticipation of his Son, and the Mischief on't is, the Greek reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: But let us see however, how he will improve it: Where (says he) the Fellowship of Christ can signifie no more than fellowship with the Church, be∣cause the Apostle addes in the next Verse, [I beseech you brethren, that you all speak the same thing, that there be no Divisions among you.] I confess he has a heavy hand at Reasoning, and it goes hard with us that must continually feel the weight of it: But yet,

1. The Apostles Argument will conclude as strongly from the Communications of Grace from Christ, unto Peace among our selves, as from Union, q. d. You have all been made par∣takers of the Communications of Grace and Peace from Christ; you have many mercies in hand, and more in hope, much in possessi∣on, but infinitely more in Reversion, and will you run into Factions among your selves? But,

2. The very plain Truth is: The Apostle argues neither the one way nor the other;

Verse 9. has no such Influence upon Verse 10. but the Rise of his Discourse is from Verse 3. Grace be unto you, and Peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Where you have:

First, The Union and Relation. God our Father: Our Lord and Saviour.

Secondly, The Communion that flows from that Relation: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Peace, i. e. All new Covenant-Mercies: And because what∣ever Grace, or Peace, comes from the Fa∣ther as the Fountain and Spring, from the Son in a way of Purchase and Procurement, comes also from the Holy Ghost, by way of Imme∣diate Efficiency; therefore it's called also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Cor. 13. 14. The Grace of our Lord Jesus, the Love of God, and the Communion, or Communication of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. You all, that is, The Church of God at Corinth, with all the Saints in Achaia, Chap. 1. ver. 1. who are suppo∣sed to be already United to Christ, both in our Authors false Notion, and in the true. Now this Communication, he calls, The Grace of God given them, or Communicated to them by Jesus Christ, Verse 4. And shews the Mea∣sure of it, Verse 5. Ye are enriched in every thing by Him. And Verse 8. He shews that God would confirm them in, as well as enrich them with his Grace to the end: And for a Proof of this, he minds them of the Faithful∣ness, and Steddiness of God in his Covenant. Verse 9. God is Faithful, by whom ye are

called unto the Communication of our Lord Jesus Christ. The end of your Effectual calling to an Union with Christ, is a Communication of this Grace and Peace from Christ. And then,

Thirdly, Our Authors Memory is very Trea∣cherous. For first he observes: That Commu∣nion with God, signifies a Political Union; and that Political Union, was such a one as is be∣tween a Prince and his Subjects, pag. 156. And that, certainly, has the Persons of both, for the Terms of the Relation. And pag. 185. He observes, That our Fellowship with the Fa∣ther and the Son, is founded on our Fellowship with the Christian Church, and therefore fellow∣ship with the Father and the Son; and fellow∣ship with the Christian Church, are two things really distinct, for it would be harsh to say, a thing is founded on it self. And yet after all this: Fellowship with Christ can signifie no more than Fellowship with the Church. And thus, the short and long of the Business, is this, Uni∣on with Christ, is Union with the Church: And Communion with Christ, is Communion with the Church: And Union with the Church, is Communion with the Church. Quod erat De∣monstrandum.

But we are terribly Threatned with an Ar∣gument, from 2 Cor. 6. 14. Be ye not une∣qually Yoaked together with Unbelievers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Where the Apo∣stle refers to a Levitical Ordinance, Deut. 22. 10. Thou shalt not Plow with an Ox, and an Ass. In proportion to which, the Apostle for∣bids

Believers to joyn in the same special League and Covenant, with Unbelievers. Now the Reason why he disswades them from such an unequal union, is, because the end of all union, is a Communion, or Communication, each to, and with other in that Union. But to be sure, where there are such Contrarieties of Interests and Inclinations, in the Persons joyned toge∣ther, there can be no assistance to the same common VVork: The Cedar in Lebanon, and the Thistle in Lebanon, are not qualified for a Match, for they will never serve and accom∣modate each other in the Duties of the Relati∣on. When the Wise God chose a VVife for Adam, he provided one that was Homogene∣ous with him, Bone of his Bone, and Flesh of his Flesh, that she might be a Meet-help for him. But now (says the Apostle) If you joyn your selves with Unbelievers; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: VVhat participation of good things can you expect from them, whose Religion is as contrary to yours, as Righteousness is to Unrighteousness? And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; VVhat Communication can there be between Light and Darkness? Pa∣gans can Communicate nothing to you but their uncleanness, and I would not have you commu∣nicate with the unfruitful Works of Darkness, Ephes. 5. 11. Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: VVhat Concord hath Christ with Belial? VVhat Symphony or Harmony, can there be in your Conversations? You will be always Jarring? There will be no Melody or Musick in your Converses: VVhen you would be praising

to their Idols: so that never was there greater Confusion of Tongues at Babel, than there will be in your Society. And then, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what Portion can a Believer have with an Unbeliever? He will not, ought not partake of the Lords Table with you; and you will not, ought not partake of the Table of Devils with him. For, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what Consent, or Suffrage will the one give to the other? The living God will not vote for dead and dumb Idols: The Arke will never endure Dagon: How absurd there∣fore must it be, to enter into a Relation with them, with whom you can enjoy no Fellowship in that Relation?

One Reserve he has still left from the Lords Supper, whereby our Fellowship with God and Christ, are expressed, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ?

Now (says he) it's called a Communion, be∣cause it signifies,

• 1. A Communion of Christians with each other.
• 2. A Fellowship with God.

That is, it's called a Communion because it's no Communion, but onely the sign of a Communion. There is indeed an outward and visible sign; and there is also an inward and invisible Grace, really exhibited and com∣municated from Christ by the Ordinance, to the worthy Receiver. And thus much he might have learn'd from the Church Catechism:

Qu. What is the inward part, or thing signified?

Ans. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken, and received of the Faithfull in the Lords Supper.

Qu. What are the Benefits whereof we are partakers Thereby?

Ans. The strengthning and refreshing of our Souls, by the Body and Blood of Christ; As our Bodies are by the Bread and Wine.

And the Liturgy in the Office of the Supper, expresses, not onely a Communication of reall Nourishment from Christ, to our Souls; but a mutual communication of our Praise and Thanksgiving to God for Christ, and to Christ for his Flesh and Blood; which compleats the Communion: The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for Thee, preserve thy Body and Soul into Everlasting Life; and Take, and Eat this, in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee; and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith, and be Thankfull.

But to put this out of doubt, That all Com∣munion is grounded upon Union, I will quote our Author to our Author; for Nothing cuts the Diamond like it self. God (says he) enter∣tains us at his Table as his own children. Why then, let it be referred to the Man that comes next; Whether sitting at Gods Table, does not presuppose us to be Children? Surely, we are not therefore Children because we sit at the Table; but we therefore sit at the Table, be∣cause we are Children. Again, p. 152. Our Author (whose word ought to go far with him∣self) assures us, That Baptism is the Sacrament

of our Admission into the Church. There's our Union then however; and the Lords Supper finding us already united, affords us a commu∣nion, or a participation of those Priviledges, which flow from that Union. So that, whe∣ther our Union to Christ, consist in our Union to the Church, or no; yet still there must be an Union to the Church, before we can hold Com∣munion with it, in those Mercies and Blessings which Christ has entailed upon it.

And thus has our Author made a quick dispatch of Communion with Christ in the Lords Supper; could he but as fairly dispatch it out of all other Exercises of Religion, he might seriously Triumph, that he had cut off the Neck of all Religion at one Blow: Well, success waits upon the Bold Undertaker, and there's no hurt in a daring Attempt. Prayer (says he) and Meditation, and such like Acts of Devotion, are no where called Communion with God. Our Author is just now turning Quaker.

Thou man, where dost thou read, that the People of God put off their Hats, or wore Ribbands and Lace?

But to satisfie him, Prayer and Meditation are not called, nor are they Communion with God; but Means whereby, and Wayes of Gods appointment where∣in, we hold Communion with him: In these and other Ordinances we communicate to him the Actings of our Faith, Fear, Love, delight, Praise, &c. and by these he communicates to us of his Grace, Strength, Favour, Mercy, to help us in the time of our Need. In Prayer we pour

out our hearts before him, Psal. 62. 8. In Prayer and Meditation, We lift up our Souls to the Lord, Psal. 25. 1. Hence that frequent Ex∣pression of the Ancient Christians, Sursum Cor∣da, continued in the Liturgy: Lift up your hearts: Ans. We lift them up to the Lord: But a few dribling Objections he has against this also.

1 Object. Communion does not consist in Transient Acts.

Ans. 1. Communion does consist in those permanent Effects conveyed by transient Acts; the Effect of Prayer abides, when the Act is over.

2. The Lords Supper is a Transient Act, both in opposition to Permanent and Imma∣nent, and yet there is a real Communion be∣tween Christ and Believers therein.

2 Object. You will not say, a poor Man has Communion with his Prince, when he puts up a Petition to him, to begg his Charity.

Ans. It's more than our Author can tell, whether we will say so or no. If a Prince com∣mands his Subjects, to make their Addresses to him, in all their streights; promising, that the great distance between them shall not preju∣dice their Supplications, and shall appoint a Person near and dear to himself, to receive from them, and present to him all their Petitions, that in his Name they may find Acceptation and An∣swer; if now his poor Subjects shall give faith to his Promises, make use of his Indulgence, own their Relation to him, and improve the

Mediation of that Master of Requests, and upon the Relief of their Wants, Redress of their Grievances, shall return their humble and hearty thanks; and learn to love their Prince more, to serve him better, to become more loyal Subjects; methinks here's that which may be called Communion grounded upon Union.

3 Obj. To Pray to God, is an Act of Homage which we owe to him as our Creator and Father.

Ans. I looked every moment when he should Confute himself; for now he will not deny, that Relation to God as our Creator and Father, precedes this Communion: It's a Duty (says he) that results from Relation. Therefore, (say I) It's not the Relation it self: And there∣fore I shall still conclude, that Communion does properly denote the Communication of good things, bottom'd upon that Union and Relation we have to and with each other; and that our Author has most wretchedly abused his Time, and his Reader, in a weak Endeavour to prove, That Communion consists in Union; and has merited the Character of Hanno the Carthagi∣nian (given him by the great Historian,) That he was a Person very skilfull in the Art of seem∣ing Reverend.

SECT. 2. Of our Union to the Person of Christ.

THis Section may well be called, Our Author's Lamentations; wherein he most passionately bewails, how some men have obscured Plain things, to his no small trouble (I assure you) to vindicate them to their Primitive Clearness. We (who are not privy to his Nocturnal Elucubrations) do little think what pains it cost him to scowre off all that Rust, which (in so long a tract of time as Sixteen hundred years, through the Sleepin•…•…ss of the Ancient Fathers, and the Sluttishness of all the Christian Churches) Religion had contracted, to the day of the date of his Reformation. But there are others too that whisper out their Complaints, How Christ in the be∣ginning of his Gospel, bequeathed to us a Religion Decent, but not Gawdy; Plain, but yet Power∣ful; not courting Proselytes with Meretricious Gallantry; but Matron-like Modesty: Whose At∣tire was indeed more coarse, and home-spun, yet withall very warm, and fitted to its end: But now∣a-days all is trim'd up with Ribbands and Lace, and set off with Fan and Feather. It was a Complaint as old as Austin, That men loaded Religion with ser∣vile Burdens, which God in mercy would have left free: So that the condition of the Jews was m•…•…re tol∣rable, that were subject to Legal Sacraments, and n t to the Presumptions of men. Thus ev•…•…ry one co•…•…∣plains

of faults, but very few that I can fee will mond ny.

I suppose our Author will be content, that the Re∣formation of Worship be committed to the Churches care; but for reducing the Doctrine, that's a Burden he has reserved for his own shoulders: And methinks I see him (like the sign of the Atlas, supporting the Globe) chearfully heaving at the weight, and yet never so much as once crinkle in the Hams.

God (says he) was pleas'd to institute a great many Ceremonies, and many of them of very obscure Signi∣fication, i•…•… the Iewish Worship, to aw their Childish Minds into a greater Veneration of his Majesty. Now let the Reader substract A many, out of A great many, and the Remainder will inform him, just How many of God's Institutions, had Any light in them. Had this Divinity faln into some mens fingers, they would perhaps have made desperate work with it: For, 1. Some might say, Nay then, if God's own Ceremonies were invented to aw Childish Minds, we can never hope for better from Humane Ceremonies, but that they should fright the Churches Children out of their wits. 2. Others would censure it as guilty of horrid Prophaneness, to assign such a Reason for God's sacred Institutions, as must imply, That he was forced to go subtly to work with his people, and to use the Artifice of Mormo's and Scarce-crows to fright them into Reverence; as women terrifie their children with Robin—with the Raw-head and Bloody-bones. And 3. Some would not stick to say, That surely some prying pate or other would have discovered the design, and then instead of con∣ciliating more Reverence, it would certainly have exposed his Ordinances, if not the Author of them,

to contempt. But they who had seen Mount Sinai all on flame, and smoak; they who had heard the sound of that dreadful Trumpet, who felt the Earth-quake without, and a greater Heart-quake within at the presence of the Almighty God, were convinced that God needed not to have re∣course to those little slights of Ceremonies to aw their Childish Minds into a Veneration of his Majesty. 4. Others expect when our Author should make God himself a Ceremony, contrived to manage this bulky and unruly World with more ease: For some it seems, have got it by the the end, that Primus in Orbe Deos fecit Timor. 5. But all agree in this, That this Doctrine argues our Authors gross igno∣rance in the true end of those Ceremonies: All which had a fair and clear Prospect towards a Re∣deemer, Col. 2. 17. They were a shadow of good things to come, but the body was of Christ. But men may speak their pleasure, our Author has determined against them, That God's Institutions were to fright Children: But now (says he) in these last days, God sent his Son to make a plain, easie, and perfect Revela∣tion of his Will; to publish such a Religion as may approve it self to our Reason. Well! whatever we have gained, I am sure Religion has got no great matt•…•…r by the Bargain: For then their Reason was to crowch to God's Religion, though in an obscure Ceremony; but now poor Religion must stoop to Reason, must ap∣pear before the Tribunal of Reason; and if it does not acquit it self well, and give a Rational and Sa∣tisfactory account of its Tendries, it must be bored through the Tongue with a red-•…•…ot Iron, for an Heretick: And which is the worst on't, this Reason holds its Consistory in our Authors brain, so that

if he be but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with a Rheumatism, the drop∣pings of his Nose must be imposed upon us for Twice distilled Reason. Nor yet can I perceive, wherein Religion does more approve it self to our Reason, than formerly to theirs: For, 1. As to the Moral part of Religion, that was as agreeable to Natural Light then, as '•…•…is now; Murder, Adultery, Steal∣ing, were equally condemned by the Sentiments of all Mankind in all Ages. 2. For the Ceremonial part, which depends upon the mere Authority and Sovereign pleasure of the Legislator, they had as good Reason for their obedience, as we can claim for ours. There was as fair Reason pleadable for Circumcision, as for Baptism; for the Passover, as the Supper; the first Reason from which all instituted Worship springs, being the Will, and the last Reason into which all is resolved, being the Glory of the Su∣preme Law-giver. 3. The Perfection of Christ's Re∣velation, above that of God to the Iews, lies not in giving us a new Moral Law, or adding any thing to it; but in exhibiting Himself▪ as the Substance of their Ceremonial Law, who was revealed (though less clearly revealed) to them in Types and Figures.

And now Dr. Owen shall have a short truce and respite from Persecution, whilst the storm falls upon Dr. Iacomb. Some cavilling spirits have made a Q•…•…estion, How the Air and Earth could afford suf∣ficient Matter for Rain to make an Universal De∣luge? But I more wonder, whence our Author could furnish himself with such a vast stock of s•…•…olding Materials and Utensils, as might maintain such a constant Tenor of Fury and Rage against these men? What Cistern or Receptacle is able to hold such a body of Rancor, as may feed that stream

which perpetually turns his Mill? Some thought, surely these Doctors had a great hand in burning the City; or have rob'd the Temple at Delphos; or however that of Tholouse. But I relieved my self against that Suspicion, by a seasonable Considerati∣on, That it's not the custom to hear ill, but for doing well: And therefore my thoughts began to reel to the other side; Whether possibly they had not club'd together, to build, or endow some Hospital, or Colledg; or had bought in all the Impropriations, and laid them to the Church, because it must be some glorious Work, that could purchase our Au∣thor's Indignation; and at no lower rates could they entitle themselves to his severe displeasure. At last with much beating about, I found that they had both zealously and strongly engaged against the So∣cinians, for the Doctrine of the Church of England; and then no Penance shall ever expiate their Guilt, or procure an Indulgence for such Delinquen•…•…y. But then the Difficulty recurred upon me, Why he should slip his Hold of the one, and fasten upon the other? Yet I considered, that Nature is much delight∣ed with Variety: And I have heard some that pre∣tend to know something in those matters, say, That it's not Policy to fight long with one Enemy; for in a while, they will understand▪ our manner of fighting, and become as good at our Weapon as our selves. But now attend!

When we enquire (says he) what this Union be∣tween Christ and Believers is? They answer, It's a My∣stical Union through the Spirit and Faith. And tru∣ly they answer pretty well! For that it is a Mysti∣cal Union, they produce the Apostle Paul for their Voucher, Ephes. 5. 32. This is a great Mystery, but I

speak concerning Christ and his Church. The Apostle is there discoursing of that intimous Oneness, (good Sir be not angry!) that is between the Husband and the Wife: That the Wife is the Husbands own self, vers. 28. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. Now covertly, the Apostle, with one and the same labour, will shew us how mystical and intimous that Union is, which is between Christ and his Church, v. 29. No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherish∣eth it, even as the Lord the Church: For we are members of his body, and of his flesh, and of his bones. And for this cause (says the Apostle, vers. 31.) a man shall leave Father and Mother, and cleave to his Wife, and they two shall be one flesh: But now (says he) that which I have discoursed to you will seem very abstruse; and, as some will phrase it, mystical non∣sense, and unintelligible Drollery; but, I speak con∣cerning Christ and his Church: For however this be true, That the Husband and Wife are but one flesh, in the eye and consideration of the Law; yet it's more emi∣nently true concerning Christ and his Church, who in the consideration and eye of God, are but one Spirit. All Metaphors and Similitudes taken from outward things, come infinitely short, and cannot decypher that mystical Union, which is between Christ, and all true Believers. Your Political Union, is but a new-invented Bawble; your Natural Union, is lean, and hungry; your Civil Union is low, and flat; it is a Mystical Union! Ay, but this Paul was an obscure Author and writes very darkly: But yet he may comfort himself the better under this hard Censure, since God himself cannot escape the Lash of Virulent Pe•…•…s, emboldned with an Imprimatur; whose In∣stitutions are reproached, to be of Obscure Significa∣tion,

to aw the Childish Minds of men into Venerati∣on. And then, that the internal Ligaments of this Union, are the Spirit and Faith; as the Scripture is free in affirming, so our Author is shy in denying; only he throws away a little scornful Drivel upon't. This Mystical is a hard word! Let it be so! Dr. Ia∣comb shall explain it, on Rom. 8. p. 42. And first (says the Doctor) There is an Union of three Persons in one Nature. 2. There's the Union of two Natures in one Person. 3. There's an Union of Persons, where yet Persons and Natures are distinct. Con∣cerning which he observes, 1. Here's an Union, but no Transmutation, Commixtion, or Confusion. Here's an Union of Persons, but no Personal Union. Say you so Doctor? then I promise you, here's one has made bold with some of your names; for page 103. he tells his Reader, and me amongst the rest, That these men place all their hopes of Salvation in a personal Union with Christ. But pray Dr. go on! The Per∣son of Christ is united to the Person of a Believer, and the Person of a Believer to the Person of Christ: But for this our Author has a dry flam; As it must needs be where the Person of Christ, is united to the Person of a Believer! Silly Man! the Doctor observes, that Christ is united to a Believer by the Spirit; and a Believer united to Christ by Faith. Though the Terms of the Relation are the same in Christ's Union with a Believer, and a Believer's Union with Christ, the Bond that unites them is Distinct. A Father is related to his Son, and a Son to his Father, yet Pa∣ternity is one thing, and Filiation another; and the Foundations of these Relations differ: The Foun∣dation of the one, is to beget; of the other, to be begotten. But (says the Doctor) Faith is the uniting

Grace; and this Faith receiving Christ, 1 John 13. it must also unite us to the Person of Christ: But of this our Author doubts, because men are not united to every thing they receive. Alas-a-day! yet when a Master receives any one to be his Servant, that Re∣ception is the bottom of his Relation. If a Woman receives a person to be her Husband, that Reception creates an Union. But I had rather the Reader would give himself the satisfaction to peruse the Doctors Book, where he shall find these things laid down with Modesty, backed with strength of Rea∣son; Scripture, and the suffrage of Learned Christi∣ans: And if our Author thinks, that a few Squirts and Flashes (which he is resolved to call Wit) be a sufficient Confutation, he shall enjoy the Content∣ment of admiring his own Excellencies, without any Rival. Again; This Union (says the Doctor) may be thus described, 'Tis that Supernatural, Spi∣ritual, Intimous Oneness, and Conjunction between the Person of Christ, and the Persons of Believers, through the Bonds of the Spirit and Faith; upon which there follows mutual and reciprocal Communion each with other. I will not conceal from the Reader my thoughts; I really expected, that our Author should have highly commended the Doctors Modesty, who in a subject so Sublime, as might well exercise the Tongues of Angels, should draw his Description with a Peut estre, it [may be described:] And the rather, because by that means he has not excluded our Authors greater Abilities from travelling in the subject, but left room enough for his Defining Fa∣culty: But instead of that, I s•…•…e he's Angry still, though impotent. This Oneness and Conjunction are hard words! So they are indeed! It's hard to say,

Whether they will prove Arabic, or Syriac, or Welsh or Wild-Irish: But to be sure, they came but lately into England, and are not yet made Denizons to purchase our Author's favour. The great danger is, lest we should mistake this Conjunction, for one of the Eight parts of Speech. Oh Sirs! what inextri∣cable perplexities has this one lewd word involved the Nation in, since it landed? The old Shiboleth was an innocent Chrysom to it. Political Union and Machine, are sorry Sneaks to it: Indeed Tetrachyma∣gogon, and Syncategorematical come pretty near: But Oh Conjunction! This Conjunction is not to be tolerated in a Land professing the Seven Liberal Sciences. And yet after all this, I dare venture an even Wager, That as many understand Conjunction, as Opposition, and more than know what to make of Antithesis; and yet that never choak'd our Au∣thor, but he could swallow it without making any Bones of it, or a Vespasian-face at it, p. 264. But if some small splinter should stick in his throat, the Doctor will be that charitable Crane to pluck it out; for he adds, Believers are said to be joyned to the Lord, 1 Cor. 6. 17. Now if no words will down with him but such as melt in the mouth, let him sub∣stitute Ioyning for Conjunction, and that will serve for a Vehicle, with a spoonful of Syrrup of Mulber∣ries to supple the passage.

Our Author finding that the Doctor has bewil∣dred himself, will endeavour to help him out. It's a plain case (says he) if Christ and Believers are uni∣ted, their Persons are united too; for the Person of Christ, is Christ himself, and the Persons of Be∣lievers, are Believers themselves; and I cannot under∣stand how they should be united without their Persons;

but then they are united by mutual Relations, as the Person of a Prince and his Subjects, of a Husband and his Wife, are united by mutual affections. This I confess a surpassing kindness; and therefore that frequent reckonings may make us long Friends, I shall call some small Follies to account, ere they be forgotten. 1. I am more confirm'd in my old Ob∣servation, That our Author writes only from hand to month. He has told us, p. 157. That our Union to Christ, is not an Union to his Person, but confists in a sincere Union to his Church. And so again, p. 151. and yet now, If Christ and Believers are united, their Persons are united too; for he cannot understand (no not for his heart, I warrant you) how they should be united without their Persons. 2. He charges the Doctor with owning an Adhesion, nay a Natural Ad∣hesion of Persons. I confess, I never admired any mans Confidence more; that in the face of the Do∣ctors words, which he himself had quoted, directly affirming the contrary, should charge him with as∣serting, a Natural Adhesion of Persons: Thus he re∣ports the Doctors words, The Person of Christ and Believers are united, and yet it's no Personal Union. Again, the Doctor thus, It's a Spiritual, and Su∣pernatural Conjunction. Our Author had need tell nothing but Truth; for he is the poorliest qualified for a Lyar, that I have met withal: And now let it be referred to the Groom-Porter, Whether Adhe∣sion be not as like to choak narrow throats, as Con∣junction. 3. He says, Christ and Believers are uni∣ted by mutual Relations: And then makes a Quaere upon't, Whether all the Absurdities he would fasten upon the Doctors words, will not recoyl upon his own: For it signifies no more, than if he had said,

Christ and Believers are united by their Union, and related by their Relation; and thus Christ, is Christ; and Believers, are Believers; and Union, is Union.

The Truce is now expired, and he is once again falling upon Dr. Owen: For as the Serpents in A∣frica lay aside their Poyson whilest they drink, and then presently suck it up again; so I was pretty se∣cure, our Author would lick up that vomit again, which he had cast in Dr. Iacomb's face, that he might serve the other with the same sawce. But whilst I am considering his Extravagances, there comes to my hand an Answer from the Doctor, wherein since he has condescended to chastise our Author in person, it may justly supersede any fur∣ther attempt of mine in his Vindication.

At p. 243. I meet again with our Author, where he falls upon that weighty point of Justification: In his exposing of which Truth, he takes occasion from a passage in Dr. O. (I see I must mention him again) Com. p. 55. There is no man whatever, that hath any wants, in reference to the things of God, but Christ will be to him that which he wants: (I speak of those [N. B.] who are given him of the Father.) Is he Dead? Christ is Life! Is he weak? Christ is the Power of God! Hath he a Sense of Sin upon him? Christ is Compleat Righteousness! Jer. 23. 6. The Lord our Righteousness. Which words being fortified with express Scripture, it concerned our Author to take good advice, and to go gingerly to work in pervert∣ing of them. Two Artifices he uses, which like Fire and Water, will make the strongest Cloth shrink. And, 1. He lops off one whole Sentence, p. 214. and then exclaims. This sounds like Universal Re∣demption! What, down-right Arminianism? Really

I am sorry for't! Is the Doctor sheer gone over to the Remoustrants? Come! come Sir! you have a Card in your Sleeve; pray produce it! I speak (says the Doctor) of those who are given him of the Father. Now where are your ears? Does this chink like Uni∣versal Redemption? But so true is the old Observa∣tion, He that is prepossest with an Opinion, finds it in all he reads. 2. If that way fails, another will hit: What Comfort is this to us (says he) that Christ was Righteous, if we continue wilful, and incorrigible sin∣ners? Yes, says the Doctor, hast thou a sense of sin upon thee? Christ is Compleat Righteousness. Fie upon it! put on a Mask for shame! Is the Soul that la∣bours under the sense of some particular sin, a wil∣ful and incorrigible sinner? It's the repenting, the broken, and the sorrowful sinner, that the Doctor directs to Christ. Our blessed Saviour has invited those that labour, and are heavy-laden, to come unto him; promising, that he will give them rest. I won∣der our Author could forbear twitting him, that he encouraged wilful and incorrigible sinners? But, pray, what would our Author say to a Soul that has the sense of sin upon him? without peradventure, Re∣pent of thy sin, forsake thy sin, &c. And does he think that Repentance will save a wilful and incorrigible sinner? one that Repents and sins, and sins and Repents again, and goes on in a circle of sinning, and half∣repentance? Say but the same for the Doctor: He Counsels the Soul, under the sense of sin, to believe; but then it's only the Repenting sinner that will, that can, that ought to make his Address to Christ, that he may find rest to his Soul.

For our Author's Method in prosecuting this great Point, I dare not warrant it. Such as it is,

Reader shall have it as cheap as I had it, my duty is to Follow, and not to Dispute.

[1.] His first enquiry will be, In what sense Christ is called our Righteousness? and what the Scrip∣ture intends by those Phrases of, The Righteousness of God; the Righteousness of Faith; or, The Righteous∣ness of God by Faith? He begins with that famous place, Jer. 23. 6. where Christ is expresly called the Lord our Righteousness. To which our Author re∣turns three things; A pitiful Scoff, a woful Evasion, and a wretched Answer, worse than both. 1. He begins with a Scoff: A very express place to prove that Christ is our Righteousness; that is, that the only Righ∣teousness, wherewith we must appear before God, is the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Who these men should be that thus expound it, I cannot Divine, un∣less it be the first Reformers of this Church? and they do indeed tell us, Artic. 11. That we are account∣ted Righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ, and not for our own Works and Deservings: Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and full of comfort. And I believe our Author experienced it to be a most sweet and comfortable Doctrine, when he subscribed it for a fat Benefice: But in the mean time, these men (whoever they be) have a very hard task on▪t. For one while they must not draw one Conclusion from the Person of Christ, which his Gospel has not expresly taught; to use their own Rea∣sons to deduce one single Inference from Gospel∣premises, is present Death. But what now if they produce express Scripture, that Christ is our Righ∣teousness? Why, that's as bad! for this is to inter∣pret Scripture by the sound of words. 2. He retreats

to a most woful Evasion, Is there no other possible sense to be made of this Phrase? If it be possible to procure another Sense for Love or Money, it shall never go thus: The Cause looks with a very de∣sperate face, when once it comes to this; when men are ready to shoot the Pit, and only watch for the Creep-hole of a bare Possibility. If they intended honestly, they would lay things together as well as they can; labour to find out the meaning of God's Spirit, with Sobriety and Humility, and never strain their Wits, and vex and torture the Scripture with utmost Possibilities: The Text tells us, that the nam•…•… whereby Christ shall be called, is the Lord our Righte∣ousness. Now it's granted, that this was not design∣ed to be his Praenomen, or Cognomen, that which should distinguish him in Common Discourse from other persons; and therefore, He shall be called, is no less than, He shall Really be our Righteousness: Thus, 1 Iohn 3. 1. Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called (that is, that we should become) the sons of God: Isa. 9. 6. His name shall be called (i. e. he shall Really be) Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. The true intent and meaning of which place, I know how some have attempted to elude, by this fine de∣vice of the Possibility of another meaning; and whether our Author sharpned his weapon at their forge, he knows best. But, 3. He returns an Answer worse than both the other: Righteousness in Scripture is a word of a very large sense, and sometimes signifies no more than Mercy, Kindness, Beneficence; and so the Lord our Righteousness, is the Lord who does us good. But, 1. Is it not vainly supposed, That for Christ to do us

good, is inconsistent with being our Righteousness? 2. Though Christ be a Redeemer of Mercy, Kind∣ness, and Beneficence; yet he is no-where called, The Lord our Mercy, The Lord our Kindness, The Lord our Beneficence: Which clearly proves, that when he is called, and really is, The Lord our Righteousness, the expression implies more than an Imparting, or Communication of good things to us. Hence some would say, That if our Author's Conscience were not larger than the sense of this word, he had never given so stretching an Answer. But (says he) Righteousness signifies that part of Iustice, which con∣sists in relieving the oppressed. Isa. 54. 17. Their Righ∣teousness is of me, saith the Lord, which is a parallel expression to, The Lord our Righteousness, and sig∣nifies no more, than that the Lord would avenge their Cause, and deliver them from all their Enemies: So that all the benefit we are to expect from Christ, is Temporal Salvation and Deliverance. To which I answer: 2. That the Reason of Christ's glorious Name, The Lord our Righteousness, assigned by the Prophet, that in his days Iudah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, is interpreted by the Angel, Matth. 1. 21. to be this, He shall be called Iesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. And the end why God raised up his Son Jesus in the World, is expresly assigned to be, To bless his people, in turn∣ing away every one of them from their iniquities, Acts 3. 26. Thus Rom. 11. 26. Out of Zion shall come the Deliverer, and he shall turn away ungodliness from Iacob. To turn away iniquity from us; and to turn us away from iniquity, is I hope something of a more useful import, than to relieve the injured and oppressed, and deliver them from their Enemies.

I do not at all envy our Author therefore the glory of his discovery, that for God to justifie good men, is to deliver them from the violence and injuries of their Enemies: And I would gladly hope, that all good men have something better wherein to glory. In Ier. 33. 16. the Church is called, The Lord our Righteousness; because she only glories in the Righ∣teousness of Christ, her Head and Husband; to whom being so nearly related, and with whom being so closely united, his Righteousness, is her Righteous∣ness; and therefore she, who upon the account of the imperfection of her Inherent Righteousness, can find, no, not the least, matter of boasting before God, yet has whereof to Triumph in Christ her Saviour; Isa. 45. 24. Surely, shall one say, In the Lord have I Righteousness: In the Lord shall all the seed of Iacob be justified, and shall glory. Now the Apostle, whom I take to be a competent Interpreter of Scrip∣ture, assures us, that God has taken special care, that in his dispensing of Grace to sinners, No flesh shall glory in his presence, 1 Cor. 1. 29. which he has well provided; for ver. 30. since Christ is made unto us of God for Righteousness; and therefore he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord: Which is exactly parallel to that of Isa. 45. 24. In the Lord shall all the seed of Iacob be justified, and shall glory. Come we now to our Author's Interpretation of Isa. 61. 11. which is of the same leaven with the former: I will greatly rejoyce in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God: For he hath clothed me with the garments of Salvation, and covered me with the robe of Righteousness, &c. This Text one may perceive struck cold to his heart, and he gives us as cold an Answer, that's ready to freeze between his lips.

The Garments of Salvation (says he) and the Robe of Righteousness, signifie those great Deliverances God promised to Israel. Signifie! I would our Author would write a Dictionary of the Signification of words. We use to say, A bad Answer, is better than none: Reform the Proverb for shame; for such an one is worse than none. 1. It's evident, that the Triumph of the Church was upon the view of Jesus Christ, vers. 1. Anointed to preach Good-Tidings to the meek, to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the Captives, and the opening of the Prison to them that are bound: To proclaim the acceptable Year of the Lord: Which our Saviour Christ applies to himself, Luk. 4. 18, 19. when he was far from work∣ing out for the Iews those great Deliverances by im∣probable means, which should make them glorious in the eyes of men. 2. The Virgin Mary quotes this very place, Luke 1. 46, 47. My soul doth magnifie the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoyced in God my Sa∣viour; where the joy of her heart broke out at her lips, in Contemplation of that Eternal Redemption wrought out by him, in whom she could more se∣riously glory as her Saviour, than as her Son: And it's a wonder to me then, men can patter over their Magnificat every day, and not observe it. 3. It's observable, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render [Decketh] signifies to Adorn as a Priest; and im∣plies, that Christ as our High-Priest, shall present us acceptable to God upon his Account. 4. There's no∣thing more familiar with the Spirit of God, than to clothe Evangelical Mercies, in a Mosaical Dress; and to express New-Testament Salvation, in Old∣Testament Phrase: Thus Gospel-Believers, are un∣derstood by Israel; the Church, by the Temple; Evan∣gelical

Ministers, by the Legal Priests; and the cover∣ing of Sin, by the covering of Nakedness; and by the decking with Ornaments, and a•…•…dorning with Iewels, the representing true Believers, accepted with God through a better Righteousness than their own.

[2.] The Reader would admire to hear these glorious Gospel-Promises recorded in the Old-Te∣stament, thus interpreted to bare skin and bone: But our Author confesses, he swarms with preju∣dices against the Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness. When Prejudice sits upon the Bench, it's like to go very ill with poor Truth that stands at the Bar. As a Bribed Fancy will admit the most feeble Appear∣ances, for plain Demonstrations of what it longs should be True; so a mind fore-stalled with preju∣dice, will despise the clearest evidence, for what it desires to be false. And we need no other instance of all this, than our Author's great Indisposition and Averseness to receive the present Truth.

And, 1. I perceive he is very much stumbled at one thing; That in all our Sa•…•…iour's Sermons, there's no mention of his Imputed Righteousness. Now be∣cause the same Charity that commands me, not to lay a stumbling-block in the way of my Neighbour, enjoyns me also to remo•…•…e it out of his way, or however, to help him over it; the ensuing Conside∣rations will afford him that Civility, if he please to accept it. 1. If our Saviour had mentioned the Imputation of his Righteousness a thousand times over, he could easily have evaded it at his rate of an∣swering; for he might have said, This is but to in∣terpret Scripture by the sound of words; or if that had been too frigid, that it's sufficient to say, The words may possibly have another meaning, though he could

not tell what that should be; or, that by the Impu∣tation of Christ's Righteousness, no more is meant, but the Accepting of our own Righteousness, which Christ has commanded in the Gospel. 2. It may be of good use to him to consider, Whether Christ's Silence raised his prejudice against the Doctrine; or his own prejudice against the Doctrine, raised the conceit that Christ was silent in it? Whether it was the want of an Object to be seen; or the want of eyes to see the Object? For most men are deaf, when they have no mind to hear; and blind, when they have no will to see. For, 3. Christ in his Sermons has plainly revealed the case to be such between God and man, that without a better Righteousness than their own, they are all lost for ever, Matth. 5. 19. He that breaks the least of these Commandments, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, shall never come there. Now the universal Suffrage of all mens Consciences is, That there is no man that lives, and sins not; and therefore Christ has determined up∣on him, that he shall never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. I never yet heard, that God has dispenced with one jot or tittle of the Moral Law; but, Do this and live, is as strictly exacted as ever: So that unless a Surety be admitted, and the Righteousness of another owned, the case of all the Sons of Adam is deplorable and desperate. To deny then the Righteousness where in the believing sinner may stand before this Righteous and Holy God, is to affirm the Eternal Damnation of all the World. 4. Christ has plainly discovered to us such ends of his Death and Sufferings, as evidently prove the impossibili∣ty of being justified by our own Righteousness, Matth. 20. 28. He gave, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Life, [or Soul,] a Ransome, [a Re∣de•…•…ption-price,] for [instead of] many: Which is no whit less than that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 21. He was made sin for us (who knew no sin) that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him; And the same with Isa. 53. 10. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, when he shall make his Soul an Offering for sin, &c. Again, Matth. 26. 28. This is the Blood of the New-Testament, which is shed for the Remission of the sins of many. Whence it's plain, that God in pardoning sin, in justifying and accepting the sinner, has such a respect to the Satisfaction of Christ in our stead, as may properly be called, the Imputa∣tion thereof to us. 5. Though Christ mention not the Imputation of his Righteousness, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet has he mentioned that Righteousness, which it's certain from the Scriptures, must be imputed to Be∣lievers, or they can have none of that benefit by it, which they are said to have, Matth. 3. 15. Christ fulfilled all Righteousness; and vers. 17. In him (or upon his account) God is well pleased, comes to delight in Believers, whom he accepts in the Beloved, Ephes. 1. 6. '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; He hath graciously accepted us in his Beloved one. Hence it is the Holy Ambition of all the Saints, 2 Cor. 5. 9. to be accepted of him, or in him, '〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: That regard then which God has to the Obedience of Christ, as the Reason for which he accounts a Believer righteous, we judg, may commodiously be called, the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness to them, without the Leave, License, or Faculty of our Author.

A second Prejudice that is deep-rooted in our Author's breast against this Doctrine, is, That Christ

exacts from men a Righteousness of their own, if they would find mercy with God. A Righteousness of their own? Ay, but let them be sure they come honestly by it. The Righteousness of Christ must be made ours, or else we shall never find mercy with God: We must also have another Righteousness of our own, an Inherent Righteousness, if ever we expect to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and find mercy with God in his great Day. But what is that Righ∣teousness for which we are just and accepted with God? But for the removing of this small preju∣dice, may he please to consider: 1. How easie it is to vapour and make a flourish with those Texts that require an Inherent Righteousness, as a necessary Qua∣lification for Eternal Salvation; and yet how hard to produce one place that mentions our own Inherent Righteousness, as that which answers God's holy Law, makes Reconciliation with God, and consti∣stutes the sinner spotless and blameless before God, the Holy, Righteous Judg; yet such a Righteous∣ness we want, and such a one we must have. 2. Our own Righteousness is very pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, being the fruit of Faith, and follow∣ing after Iustification. So says the Church of Eng∣land, Artic. 12. But (says She) Works done before the Grace of God, and the Inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasing to God, for as much as they spring not out of Faith in Christ, Artic. 13. Which two Articles I shall leave to our Author to confute, at his best leisure.

A third Block which I perceive lies in his way is, That our Saviour should never once warn his Hearers, to beware of trusting to their own Righteousness. But, 1. Christ preach'd to the Iews, who had had warn∣ings

•…•…now to beware of splitting upon that Rock: They might have taken warning from the Churches Confession, Isa. 64. 6. We are all as an unclean thing, and all our Righteousnesses are as filthy rags. All the warn∣ing in the World signifies nothing to them that are resolved to interpret, Our own Righteousness, by Ce∣remony and Hypocrisie. Had Christ inculcated the danger, even to Tautology, all may be evaded by that happy Gloss, which he keeps Leiger by him: True indeed, he warns us to beware of our own Righ∣teousness, but he intends no more hereby, than the works of the Ceremonial, and external acts of the Moral Law. 3. Christ had indeed given them fair warn∣ing, but if they will not take it, the sin must lie at their own doors, and the Condemnation upon their own heads, Luke 18. 9. He spake a Parable to them that trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and despised others, &c. Now it may seasonably be here remembred: 1. What was the design of this Para∣ble? And that the Evangelist tells us, was to meet with them that trusted in themselves, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, men that presumed very highly upon their own Abilities, to answer the Law of God; and there∣fore despised others, who made such a stir about their own Impotency to keep it; and kept such a coyl about the shortness of their obedience to it; like the poor Publican, who being conscious to himself of both, makes his retreat to, and shelters himself in the free Grace, and rich Mercy of God to miserable sinners. 2. It will be seasonable to enquire, What that Righ∣teousness was, upon which the Pharisee in the Para∣ble so stiffly insisted, as that in which he durst ad∣venture to appear before God? And that (as our Saviour puts the case) was a Righteousness made up

of obedience to Gods Commands: And those both Pro∣hibitory, he was no Extortioner, no Adulterer, no Unjust Person; and Affirmatively, he paid his Tythes exactly, (which will go a great way) and fasted twice a-week. 3. Let it be considered, that however many of the Pharisees of those days were Hypocrites, yet our Saviour frames his Parable of a Pharisee, not according to what many of them were, but what they seemed to be, and were reputed for amongst men, who admired their Sanctity, and reverenced their Devotions; and therefore he describes not a Person acting his part well upon the Stage, but living up to very high Attainments of Nature. For, 1. The duties instanced in, are only some particulars, in the name of all the rest: He instances in his praying to, and praising of God, which comprehend all the du∣ties of the First Table: His freedom from Adultery, Extortion; and in a word, from Injustice, which is the whole of the Second Table. Again, He instances in duties of the Iudicial Law, paying Tythes; and of the Ceremonial, Fasting; with a little touch per∣haps of Supereragation, [Twice in the week.] 2. When Christ introduces a person, saying, he was no Adul∣terer, we may reasonably suppose, he taught him to speak in the proper sense of the word which Christ himself allows. Now in Christ's Dialect, to be no Adulterer, is not to commit it with the heart, Mat. 5. still abating for Humane Frailties. And, 3. This is evident, because our Savióur describes not this Pharisee, as praying in the corners of the streets, or in the Synagogues, to be seen of men; but in obedi∣ence to God's Command, Going up to the Temple to pray; and there praying to God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his own heart, between God, and his own Soul:

All which evidently prove, that our Saviour puts not the case of a stinking Hypocrite, but of one who went as far as Natures legs would carry him. But, 4. The miscarriage of this Pharisee lay not in this, that he was, what he pretended he was not; or was not, what he pretended he was; but that he trusted to himself for a Righteousness, to be compounded out of all these Ingredients, wherein he would dare to stand before God, and in despising others, which is the natural Product of Self-Righteousness: And yet upon our Author's Principles, I see not why he might not trust to himself, that he was Righteous, if Righteousness be to be made out of Obedience; and despise others too, since his own free-will exert∣ed, and natural strength improved, had made him differ from another, even from that Publican.

But yet, 4. There's one Prejudice more remaining, which perhaps may stick more with him than all the rest: He is apt to admire our Saviour's Sermons in the first place, before the Writings of the Apostles, though inspired men. I should be loth to weaken his Admiration of our Saviours Sermons: But he may do well to examine, Whether his Aptness to admire them before other Sermons given forth by the same Spirit, may not proceed from great Ignorance, or a worse Principle? For though our Saviour's Per∣son had more Authority than the Persons of the Apo∣stles; yet the Writings of the Apostles are of equal Authority with those of the Evangelists, to command our Faith and Obedience. The Epistles of S. Iohn are indited by the same Spirit by which hepenned the Gospel: 'Tis the Authority of Christ in both; the Infallible Spirit speaking in both, which are the Reason of our Belief of both: All Scripture is given

by Divine Inspiration, 2 Tim. 3. 18. The same Spirit of Christ that spake in the Prophets of the Old-Testa∣ment, and the Apostles in the New, 1 Pet. 1. 11. And such Comparisons must needs be very odious, where the Spirit of God has made none.

But the total sum of all these Prejudices, we shall have in one Dilemma; Did not our Saviour instruct his Hearers in all things necessary to Salvation? or have the Evangelists given us an imperfect account of his Doctrine? If the first; then our Saviour was not faithful in the discharge of his Prophetical Office: If the latter; you overthrow the Credit of the Gospel. Well! I hope we may out-live this horned-Argu∣ment, for all the terrour of its looks: 1. Christ was faithful in his Prophetical Office; he instructed his Hearers in all things necessary to Salvation: But then there are some great and weighty Doctrines, which it was necessary to the Salvation of the Gentile World to know, wherein the Iewish Church had been sufficiently instructed already. The Doctrine of Atoning God, making Reconciliation for sin, ex∣piating Transgressions, was abundantly clear from their Sacrifices: The Theory of God's justifying a sinner, was evident from thence; they knew what Imputation signified, by the transferring of the guilt of the sinner, upon the head of the Sacrifice: And therefore when Christ came, his main business with the Jews, was to convince them, that he was the Messiah promised of old, and typified in their Sacri∣fices: His Work they knew, all the Question was, Whether he was the Person? Matth. 11. 3. Art thou he that should come? or do we look for another? Joh. 10. 24. If thou beest the Christ, tell us plainly. Christ's Sermons therefore suppose them instructed in the

Doctrine of Iustification: But when the Apostle Paul, who is called, The Apostle of the Uncircumci∣sion, comes to preach and write to the Gentiles, he must be more express; they knew little of God, and nothing at all of a Redeemer, they must be taught their Catechism, and the first Rudiments of Christi∣anity; and therefore do we find these great Points more explicitely handled in his Discourses, which are more sparingly and more covertly delivered by the Evangelists. 2. The Evangelists have given us a per∣fect account of Christ's Doctrine; but then the per∣fectness of that account, is not to be measured by what Christ preached, but by what they were com∣manded to record and transmit to Posterity. S. Iohn was faithful in giving us a perfect account of Christ's Sermons; but his faithfulness, and the entireness of the account he gives us thereof, is not to be taken from every Miracle Christ wrought, or every Sermon he preach'd; for he omits that whole famous Sermon preach'd by Christ in the Mount, recorded by Matthew. And S. Matthew was also faithful in his account, and yet he omits the excellent Prayer recorded by Iohn, Chap. 17. and yet both of them, and both the other, have conveyed down to us, whatsoever, was delivered to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from above, Luke 1. What strange work would our Author's Dilemma make amongst the four Evangelists, if it were dis∣charged at them? Did Christ instruct his Hearers in all things necessary to Salvation? or, Was the Evangelist John short in giving us a perfect account of his Doctrine? If the first; then Christ was not faithful in his Prophetical Office: If the latter; then you overthrow the credit of the Gospel. And therefore, unless you can prove every Article of the Chri∣stian

Faith, from express words, in that one single Book of his Gospel; and particularly, The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, our Author will retain his inveterate prejudices against it. Nay, we may fly a great deal higher; Christ was faithful in the dis∣charge of his Prophetical Office, and therefore no doubt, whenever he preach'd a single Sermon, he ac∣quainted his Hearers with all things necessary to Sal∣vation, and the Evangelists have delivered us a per∣fect account of every such Sermon; and therefore un∣less you can prove every Article of your Creed, from every single Sermon of Christ, our Author is like Thomas, he will not believe but upoń his own terms; but will justifie his prejudices against it, That the Doctrine is certainly to be found no-where, because he finds it not every-where. Christ preach'd so much of necessary Truth in every Sermon, as he judg'd necessary; the full account of his preaching must be gathered from the rest: And every Evangelist has registred so much of Christ's Miracles, Sermons, and the passages of his Life, as he had in charge; and what is omitted in one, must be supplied from others. And all the Evangelists have delivered so much of what Christ taught the Iews, as is needful for us to know; and what is further necessary for Gentiles to know, is abundantly, and explicitely made up from other holy Persons, divinely inspired for that very end. The whole will of God, necessa∣ry for us to know for salvation, is not so explicitely revealed in any one Book of the Sacred Oracles, but we have need to receive Information from the whole. Nor were the Writings of any one Prophet, Evange∣list or Apostle, design'd to complete the Canon of our Faith, but the whole Scripture. I say not this,

as if I at all questioned, much less denied, that the Doctrine of Christ's Righteousness imputed, is laid down by the Evangelists, though some mens pre∣judices will not permit them to see it, either there, or any-where else; but that it is there spoken to more implicitly, our Saviour doing another thing, & touch∣ing upon it by the way, as supposing them already in∣structed in it: And that the Writings of the Apo∣stles, qualified to preach to the Gentiles, by the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit upon them, have more clearly commented upon that, and other im∣portant Doctrines, and beaten out that Gold which was before in the Lump; and though of equal weight, yet not so dilated: So that there remains no more just cause of Dispute about these matters, with them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God: And as for others, they can never want Objections, whilst their Corruptions and Unbelief continue in full force, strength and power.

But, 5. There is another Prejudice which ex∣tremely gravels him; That in all the New-Testament, there's no such expression as the Righteousness of Christ: And this (he says) is worth our observing. A Learn∣ed Observation it is! but I think the whole New-Te∣stament is but one great expression of the Righteous∣ness of Christ, or else it is but one great blot. How∣ever, I am glad that he will own, that the New∣Testament mentions the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Faith, and the Righteousness which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ. For the Righteousness of Christ, is the Righteousness of that Person who is God. They who crucified Christ, are said to crucifie the Lord of Glory, 1 Cor. 2. 8. and that Blood by which the Church is purchased, is called, the Blood of God,

Acts 20. 28. that is, the Blood of that Person who is God, though not as God: Thus the Righteousness of Christ, the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Faith, are expressions of the same import. They describe the same Righteousness, under various Consi∣derations; being called the Righteousness of God, be∣cause it was the Righteousness of him that is God; the Righteousness of Christ, because it was fulfilled in his own Person; and the Righteousness of Faith, be∣cause Faith makes Him, and thereby his Righteous∣ness, to become ours. However, we desire to plead for no more of Christ's Righteousness to be imputed to us, than we can evidently prove, was inherent in him, and fulfilled by him: And if after all, our Au∣thor be so passionately fond of his Prejudices, he may keep them to himself. But now he will exa∣mine these expressions more distinctly.

(1.) For the Righteousness of God: He confesses, That in the New-Testament, most commonly it signi∣fies, that Righteousness which God approves, and com∣mands, and which he will accept for the Iustification of a sinner. That was well jumbled! God approves, and commands a Righteousness in a Believer, which he will not accept for the Iustification of a sinner: That Righteousness which God will accept, he has commanded us to seek in Christ; but that Righte∣ousness which he has commanded us to find in our selves, is not that Righteousness which he will accept for our Iustification. Inherent Righteousness, may be called the Righteousness of God, because he com∣mands it, but especially, because he works and creates it: But the true Reason of the expression is, because it is the Righteousness of him who is God, and only discovered by the Wisdom of God, and accepted by

God, in the Justification of a believing sinner. But though I agree not with him in the Reason of the Name, let him make the best of it: Now (says he) this Righteousness consists in a sincere and universal obedience to the Commands of God: That's Magiste∣rially dictated however. But where may we find this Righteousness? It's contained (says he) in the Terms of the Gospel. We are as wise as we were be∣fore: Why then we are posted over to Rom. 1. 17. The Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith. Evident it is hence, That the Gospel reveals that Righteousness by which we are justified, and as evident, that the Righteousness of God, and of Faith, are the same thing, under divers Considerations; but that the Righteousness of God, consists in an uni∣versal obedience to Commands; or that these are the Terms of Iustification, it speaks not one syllable; on∣ly it speaks aloud that our Author had a very loving Inclination it should be so. Then we are turned over to Matth. 6. 33. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and his Righteousness. What then? Why; It is called the Righteousness of God. It is called! What is called? without all peradventure the Righteous∣ness of God, is called the Righteousness of God, not only there, but where-ever else we meet with the Ex∣pression: But what are we the nearer? Why, this is the same with the Righteousness of his Kingdom? But what Kingdom? and upon what account? and in what place is the Righteousness of God, called the Righteousness of the Kingdom? But go on! Now the Kingdom of God signifies, the state of the Gospel. Well, proceed! And the Righteousness of God, or of his Kingdom (signifies) that that Righteousness which the Gospel prescribes, which is contained in the Sermons

and Parables of Christ: Ergo, &c. Quod erat De∣monstrandum! Round-about our Coal-fire! And now who can be so hard-hearted, as not to allow our Author rarely qualified, to Reform the Religion of Christendom? What man would not be content to be argued out of his Seven Senses, with such po∣tent Demonstration?

(2.) We must observe farther (if at least it be far∣ther) that this Righteousness of God (which he com∣mands and rewards) •…•…is the Righteousness of Faith, or Righteousness by the Faith of Christ. We have heard so: The Gospel commands us to believe in Christ for Justification; for he is our Righteousness. This will not undo us yet: But Faith is often taken objectively, for the Gospel of Christ. Faith is some∣times so used; but that [Faith in Christ] is so used, we wait for evidence. He produces it from Acts 24. 24. Felix sent for Paul, and heard him concern∣ing the Faith of Christ, that is, concerning Righteous∣ness, Temperance, and the Iudgment to come. But here our Author is taken napping. 1. He corrupts both the Original, and the Translation (unless he has other Bibles than are come to our hands) for neither the Greek nor the English say, He heard him concerning the Faith of Christ: (which words are more liable to a perverse insinuation,) but, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, concerning that Faith which is in, or upon Christ. 2. He prevaricates with his Reader most palpably, in making those words, [con∣cerning Righteousness, Temperance, and Iudgment to come] to be an Exegesis of the foregoing words [The Faith that is in Christ:] Whereas the Apostle argued with Felix about the Nature of these things; where∣in he knew he was Defective, to awaken his secure

and sleepy Conscience, to consider what need he had by Faith to fly to Christ for a better Righteousness than his own. The Apostle took the true Method of Gods Spirit, to insist upon Righteousness, to convince him of his Injustice, Bribery; upon Temperance or Con∣tinence, to convince him of his Adultery; and upon Iudgment to come, to alarum him with the righteous Judgment of God; that so being terrified by the Law, he might more gladly entertain the Doctrine of Faith in Christ for Righteousness, wherein he might stand before God; which otherwise his proud unhumbled heart would never have brook'd, and submitted to.

[3.] His Next step is, towards the deciding the Controversie about the way of Abraham's being justi∣fied before God: And a great and weighty Question it is; for Abraham being called, The Father of the Faith∣ful, it might seem strange, that the Father should be justified one way, and his Children another; when Believers are therefore, and only therefore, his Chil∣dren, because they walk in the steps of his Faith, Rom. 4. 12. And seeing (as our Author Confesses) he was set forth as a Patern of our Iustification; It were to be admired, If the Exemplar, and the Copy; the Archetype, and Ectype, were of Divers kinds. It will be of good use therefore to enquire, What way Abraham was justified? Though the best way to resolve it, is to enquire, What way Believers under the Gospel are justified? Now the Apostle is very punctual herein, Rom. 4. 11. Abraham received the sign of Cir∣cumcision; a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not cir∣cumcised, that Righteousness might be imputed to them

also. Look what way Abraham was justified, the same way are all true Believers justified (for he is Father of the faithful; and they his Children only, because they tread in the steps of the same Faith:) but Abraham was justified by Faith, by the Righte∣ousness of Faith, and in a way of Imputation (what∣ever these Expressions signifie;) therefore Believers under the Gospel are justified by Faith, by the Righ∣teousness of Faith, and in a way of Imputation. Again, Gal. 3. 6. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness: v. 7. Know ye therefore, that they which are of Faith, are the Children of faithful Abraham: Where the Apostle demonstrates, that the sameness of a Christi∣ans Faith with Abrahams, is as able to denominate him one of Abraham's Children, as if he came out of his loyns. Ver. 9. So then, they which are of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. If they have the same Faith with Abraham, they shall have the same Bles∣sing with Abraham; for says he, v. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us; that the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, through Iesus Christ. All the advantage the Gentiles receive by Christ (and they need no more to make them perfectly and eter∣nally blessed) is, that Abraham's Blessing may come upon them: But if we have not Abraham's Faith, we must never expect a part in Abraham's Blessing: Nay (says the Apostle) v. 8. Abraham had the same Gospel preach'd to him, that we have. The Scrip∣ture foreseeing (that is, the Spirit of Christ which gave forth the Scripture) that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham. Now the preaching of the Gospel, is the

Spirits Engine, for the begetting a true, saving, and lively Faith: If then Abraham had the same Gospel, the same Faith, the same Blessing with Christians, he was justified the same way; but so had our Fa∣ther Abraham.

But what is our Author's judgment in the case? I confess that's hard to discover, p. 243. he gives us, The Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Faith, and the Righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ, as Synonima's. And again expresly, p. 245. he observes it to us for a choice dis∣covery; That the Righteousness of God, is the Righte∣ousness of Faith, or Righteousness by the Faith of Christ. And now p. 246. he is peremptory, That this Righ∣teousness of Faith, and this alone, can recommend us▪ to God: Which (says he) the Apostle proves from the example of Abraham; and adds, That Abraham, who was the Father of the faithful, was set forth for a patern of our Iustification. Now scarce one of his Readers in a thousand, but would have been trying Conclusions out of his premises: Abraham's Righ∣teousness, was the Righteousness of Faith: But the Righteousness of Faith, is the Righteousness of Faith in Christ; therefore Abraham's Righteousness was the Righteousness of Faith in Christ. Again (says he) the Apostle proves, that this Righteousness of Faith, and this alone, can recommend us to God. If then there be but one only Righteousness that can re∣commend us to God, either Abraham and Christians have one and the same Righteousness, or else one of them must needs want a Righteousness that can re∣commend them to God. But now from these pre∣mises, our Author concludes, that Abraham's Faith, was not a Faith in Christ. Then say I, His Righte∣ousness

was not the Righteousness by Faith in Christ: And then it was not neither the Righteousness of Faith, no, nor the Righteousness of God; for our Author has warranted us, p. 243, and 245. That the Righteousness of Faith, the Righteousness of God, and the Righteousness by the Faith of Christ, are but all one Righteousness. But here we have the Quin∣tessence and Elixir of our Author's rational Abili∣ties: To this purpose he argues, The Father of the faithful, and his believing Children, are justified both one way, But Abraham the Father of the faithful was justified one way, and therefore Be∣lievers, who are his Children, are justified another. Now I like our Author's Conclusions dearly, when they are together by the ears with their premises. Again, Thus he reasons; Abraham was set forth for a patern of our Iustification: But nothing ought to be like its patern; and therefore you may be sure if Abraham was justified one way, Believers are justi∣fied another. Again, The Apostle proves what way Believers are justified, from the example of Abraham: But now the Apostle you know, always argues from one sort of things to another, his way of con∣cluding is by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And there∣fore, if Abraham was justified by Faith, you may conclude from thence, then Christians are justified by Works; and if Believers are justified by Faith in Christ, then to be sure Abraham was justified some other way. The plain truth is, our Author is got into a Cramp, and has so hamper'd and bangled his matters, that I am very confident none of his Readers do understand him, and it were well, if he understood himself.

There are two Enquiries he will make to en∣lighten us in this Mystery.

1. What that Faith was whereby Abraham was justified? 2. What Agreement there is between the Faith of Abraham, and the Faith in Christ.

(1.) What that Faith was whereby Abraham was justified? To which he answers: 1. Negatively, It was not a Faith in Christ. Which Determination might have better become any mans mouth than hi•…•…, whose hand has subscribed the Seventh Article of the Church of England: Both in the Old-Testa∣ment and the New, Everlasting Life is offered to Man∣kind by Iesus Christ, who is the only Mediator be∣tween God and man, being both God and man. And I do the rather urge him with this Article, because it speaks not only what respect God might have to Christ, in bestowing Eternal Life; but that there was an offer to Mankind of Eternal Life, through Christ, which speaks that respect which Believers had to a Mediator in their Faith▪ But perhaps these Articles are but matter of course and form, and therefore I shall press him with what has more weight than a sorry Subscription: The Righteousness of God (says he, p. 245.) is the Righteousness of Faith, or Righteousness by the Faith of Christ: But Abra∣ham's Righteousness, was the Righteousness of God; and therefore it was the Righteousness of Faith, or the Righteousness by the Faith of Iesus Christ: Yea, (says our Author) Christ was the material Object of Abraham's Faith, that is, he believed the promise of God's sending Christ into the World, John 8. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoyced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. Hence it's evident, that Abraham had a great and personal concern in Christ's coming

into the World, which made his heart leap within him: The same which the Apostle expresseth, Rom. 5. 11. We joy in God through our Lord Iesus Christ, through whom we have received the Atonement: For what cause of all this triumph, all this joy, that Christ should come into the World, some thousands of years after he should be dead, and buried, and rotten in his grave, to preach a Gospel in which he had no concern, and for which he should not be one pin the better? But our Author will prove that Abraham's Faith was not a Faith in Christ, because no man could believe in Christ till he came. But I prosess my self otherwise perswaded, and that the actual exhibiti∣on of Christ in the flesh, was not at all times absolutely necessary to a believing in him. Abraham believed that testimony which God gave of his son, that in him all the Nations of the earth should be blessed: He be∣lieved that God would bless him for the sake of Christ. He saw Christ slain from the Foundation of the World in Sacrifices: He saw a Redeemer, as that way which God had chosen to bruise the head of the Serpent; which St. Iohn expounds, 1 Epist. 3. 8. by destroying the works of the Devil; and Paul, Heb. 2. 14. by destroying the Devil, that is, so far as he had got the power of Death into his hands by sin: and in that security which he received from the promise of God, and from Christ, who was the Reason of its being made good, Yea and Amen, His Soul did rejoyce with exceeding great joy; for so much 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do import. But our Author has a Notion of Believing that is worth two of this, and will do his work: To believe any thing upon the Authority of Christ, is the true Notion of believing in him. To which I answer, 1. Supposing this to be the true

Notion of believing, yet might Abraham receive a Doctrine upon the Authority of Christ, before his Manifestation in the Flesh: Christ was Mediator be∣fore his Incarnation, nor was his Assumption of our Nature absolutely necessary to the discharge of his Prophetical, but of his Priestly Office. A Body was prepared him, that he might have what to offer in Sacrifice to God, Hebr. 10. 7, 8. It was the Spirit of Christ that spake in the Prophets, 1 Pet. 1. 11. and to deny this, is to deny something more than all the Thirty nine Articles, namely, the Nicene Creed, I believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake by the Prophets. But, 2. I deny that to receive a Doctrine upon the Au∣thority of Christ, is the true and full Notion of be∣lieving on him: Faith in general implies an assent to a Truth upon the Authority of the Revealer; but to make this a saving, a justifying Faith, the assent of the Understanding must draw along with it the Con∣sent of the Will. A true Faith is described by such terms as include the Concurrent Acts both of the Will and the Understanding; and therefore that which the Apostles Creed expresses, I believe the Resurrecti∣on of the Body; the Nicene Creed renders, I look for the Resurrection of the Dead: Taking in that Act of the Soul, whereby it waits and stedfastly hopes for the goodness of the thing promised; as well as credits the Veracity of God in the truth of the Proposition. And thus Abraham believed in Christ, he looked and waited for that rich Mercy wrap'd up in that promise of the Messiah, and all those spiritual Blessings that were to come through him. 3. The Reason of the Promise, is the Object of Faith, as well as the Truth of the Promiser. Abraham believed the Promise to be true, upon the Authority of him who gave it

forth; but he saw also that it was upon the account of Christ, a Mediator, that God would communicate to him the Blessings of the Covenant opitomized in that, I will be thy God. And this was that Gospel or Glad∣tidings which was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3. 8. But our Author threatens we shall hear more of this presently: And I promise him when we do, it shall be fully considered. 2. He answers Affirmatively, Abraham believed God. To which I say, Subordinat a non pugnant: To believe God, and to believe in Christ, are very well consistent. That Abraham be∣lieved in God, and therefore he believed in Christ, seems to me to carry as fair Reason, as that other of his: Abraham believed God, and therefore he did not believe in Christ; for the Scripture represents them as well agreed, 1 Pet. 1. 21. Through Christ we believe in God.

[4.] Our next Task must be to Combate with our Author's scruples, and certainly never did man so snithe with prejudices against Truth: It's hard to conceive how Abraham should learn this Mystery from that general Promise, [In thy Seed shall all the Na∣tions of the Earth be blessed.] Prejudice will, I confess, make an easier matter than this very hard; and unbelief, impossible to be conceived: And yet were there not something worse than Prejudice at the bottom, the difficulty could not be insuperable: For, 1. Abraham had one Promise that we know of, to clear up the meaning of this. Several Promises give Reciprocal light to one another: The first Pro∣mise assured him, That the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head: This shews to Abraham the necessity of having that Enmity removed, which the Devil by sin had sowen between God and his Crea∣ture;

the removing of this Enmity could not be, whilst Satan had the Dominion over the Creature: A Seed is therefore promised, to heal all that misery which sin brought into the World. This Promise was committed to the Church of God, which was a faithful Guardian, to keep so precious a Iewel com∣mitted to its trust: In this Seed (which God had now revealed should come out of the Loyns of Abra∣ham) God promises Blessedness, which mutually sends light to the other Promise, that God would not only by the Promised Seed, Deliver from evil, but bestow all good. 2. Abraham might have other and better Comments upon both these Promises, than we are concerned to know; it's enough for us, that we are taught in general, that Abraham was justified the same way that we are; and what that is, the New-Testament abundantly declares: And there∣fore it's more ingenuous to conclude, That Abra∣ham was justified by a Faith in Christ, because we are so; than, That we are not justified by the Righte∣ousness of Christ, because Abraham was not so. 3. Abra∣ham understood the true use of Sacrifices, which are a clear Paraphrase upon the Promise, in what man∣ner God would reconcile the World to himself, namely, by laying the sins of the Offender upon the head of that Sacrifice, which in the fulness of time should be offered for a Propitiation to God. In the Faith of which grand Propitiation, all true Be∣lievers lived and died: And when at length he was exhibited to the World, Iohn the Baptist points to him, as the Accomplishment of all their former Sa∣crifiees, and the Answer of all their Prayers and Hopes: This is that Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World, John 1. 29. But, 4. The Pro∣mise

it self is not so obscure neither, but that upon this single Supposition, That God would bless the World with spiritual Blessings in the promised Seed; they might easily conclude, they could not be blessed in themselves; and therefore not in their own works and deservings, but in the Righteousness of another, who must be more acceptable to God than them∣selves. 5. We ought to entertain charitable thoughts of God, of his Goodness and Mercy, that he would not preach to Abraham the Gospel in an unknown tongue; that is, would not give him a Promise, with∣out the full latitude and extent of its meaning. And, 6. We are assured of the matter of fact that God did, because he had the same Gospel preached to him, That God would justifie the Hea∣then through Faith, Gal. 3. 8. Now as it's a strange way of Preaching, to speak in a Language not under∣stood; so it's as strange a Gospel that knows no Me∣diator; no Redeemer. Whatever then was the Object of a Gospel-Faith, was the Object of Abraham's Faith (for substance) and whatever did constitute a Gospel-Righteousness, made up his Righteousness.

And yet after all this, our Author has muster'd up more self-created Prejudices, to stumble his own belief of the way of Abraham's Justification: For he supposes, that Abraham must believe many things incredible, and know many things not knowable, be∣fore he could come to the knowledg of the Imputati∣on of Christ's Righteousness: As, (1.) He must be well assured, that the Blessings here meant are spiritual Bles∣sings, &c. But if this be the worst on't, it would stumble me more to believe, how he could believe Blessedness, without pardon of sin, and eternal life. I cannot tell whether I shall satisfie another, but I

have satisfied my self in this matter, from these Con∣siderations: 1. That Abraham upon his believing, was justified in the sight of God; and methinks it looks like a mere whimsey, to fancy a Notion of Iustification in his sight, that has neither pardon of sin included in it, nor eternal life attending of it. It's strange to me to hear of Iustification before God against Temporal Evils: And if Abraham had no other, I think he was never perfectly justified. 2. The Determination of the Church of England is no light matter with me, Artic. 7. They are not to be heard, that feign the Fathers looked only for Transitory Pro∣mises. But it seems, that in this one particular, the Church was not infallible; for they are to be heard, and read, and licensed, and advanced too, who dare f•…•…ign, and write, and preach, That the Patriarchs either looked for none, or at the best but Transitory Promises. 3. When I read, that Abraham was so earnest to see Christ's day by Faith, and when he got a sight of it, he was glad; I begin to think with my self, what should be the ground of so great a joy, at so great a distance. Spiritual Promise he is allowed none; and was it worth the while to rejoyce in the foresight of some temporal Advantages that should come to the Jews, when he should be turn'd to dust and nothing? especially, seeing the coming of Christ either brought spiritual Mercies 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Seed of Abraham, or none at all: So that he had more cause to sit down and lament, that he had no promise of Love from, or Life with God, either for his Person, or Posterity. Ay! but (says he) the Promise was not so clear, but men might mistake i•…•…. That may be I confess! And so may the clearest that ever God gave to the sons of men. If men will

set their wits on work, and serue, and torture, and vex, and wrest every letter and syllable, and in all this forsake the Conduct of God's Spirit, and scorn the Catholick Judgment of the Church in all Ages, to gratifie their Airy Crotchets, I do not remember a Promise of God to secure them against mistaking his Promises. Ay! but (says he) we know that the whole Iewish Church did so for many Ages. If he knows it, he knows more than I do (but that is no great wonder) and than any man alive besides his own Knowing self: And yet they had more particu∣lar Promises concerning Christ than that was, and yet expected only a temporal Prince. I will deal openly with him; I do not believe, that the whole Iewish Church for any Age, much less for many Ages, no not for any one day in any Age, did expect a Messiah to deliver them only from temporal evils: That there was great degeneracy in that Church in some Ages, I deny not (there is so amongst Christians) especially towards the latter times of their Church∣state: But that ever the whole Church so far degene∣rated, as to lose the expectation of a Redeemer to deliver them from sin, and its consequents, and to en∣dow them with spiritual Blessings, I demand better proofs than Confidence, before I subscribe. And, 1. For Abraham, it's evident he sought a heavenly Country; and therefore I conclude, That the be∣lieving Jews, who had (says our Author) more par∣ticular Promises concerning Christ, sought a heavenly one too; or their more express Promises were ill be∣stowed on them, Heb. 11. 9. By Faith, he (Abra∣ham) dwelt in the promised Land, as in a strange Country. The promised Land was a strange Coun∣try to him that sought a heavenly one, whereof

that was but the figure, the rind and bark; for that Promise had greater excellencies underneath, to his discerning Faith; ver. 10. For he looked for a City that had foundations, whose builder and maker is God: Vers. 13. All these died in the Faith—Confessing that they were Strangers and Pilgrims; for they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a Coun∣try. Vers. 16. But now they desire a better, that it, a heavenly Country; therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God. 2. It's evident, that the Mes∣siah was promised, Isa. 53. 4. To bear their sins, and carry their sorrows. Vers. 5. To be wounded for their transgressions, and bruised for their iniquities. Ver. 6. To have all their iniquities laid upon him. Ver. 8. To be stricken for the transgression of God's people. Ver. 10. To have his Soul made an Offering for sin: And now to assert, That the whole Iewish Church expected only a temporal Monarch, is to throw such dirt in the face of God's people, as is very scandalous. 3. If any of them at any time expected temporal Deliverances, temporal Honours, Revenues, &c. from the Messiah, it was not inconsistent utterly with an expectation of better things from him; for the Disciples themselves had been hammering some such conceit in their heads, Acts 1. 6. (perhaps mistaking in the Chronology, and Antedating that Mercy, which in its season they might have reason to expect) and yet by our Author's good leave, I will be so charitable as to presume they looked for par∣don of sin, and eternal life from Christ: Nay, I could name instances nearer home of those that ex∣pect from the Gospel large in-comes, and yet we may reasonably believe, have nobler things in their eye, and would scorn his Atheistical spirit, who would

not forgo his part in Paris, for his share in Paradise. (2.) He must know, that Christ was to die for our sins, without which (according to our Doctor) it's impossi∣ble God should forgive sins, considering the Natural∣ness of his Vindictive Iustice to him. Now to untie this knot in the Bulrush: 1. I question not that Abraham understood clearly, That God was essen∣tially holy, and that his Rectoral, or Governing Iu∣stice, was founded therein, Gen. 18. 25. Shall not the Iudg of all the Earth do right? That it should be with the righteous, as with the wicked; or with the wicked as with the righteous, were far from God: Which Consideration might stagger his Faith about the pardon of his own sin, and his only relief could be from the Faith of the Messiah's undertaking with God: In which he had this satisfaction, that how∣ever he found difficulties in the way of believing, yet still he gave credit to God, and his Testimony concerning a Redeemer, leaving the Modes and Cir∣cumstances of the Mediatory Office, as a secret in God's bosom. 2. I am confident our Author can∣not prove, that Abraham knew nothing of Christ's death. This I know, he had Sacrifices, which might sufficiently instruct him in the demerit of sin, and what the sinner had deserved, and in the necessity of Compensation to be made to God's Justice, for his violated Law, and reproached Government: And whether Abraham might not once open his mouth to God, to be instructed in their noblest signification and design, I cannot tell. 3. I do not know of any absolute necessity, that Abraham should understand the Circumstances that should lead towards the ful∣filling of the Mediator's work, or in what particular way God would justifie a sinner: It was enough

that God had firmly revealed, that he had made sufficient provision for it by a Mediator. Abraham believed stedfastly, that the means God had chosen were proportionable to their end, and the rest was to be left to God. 4. And herein lay much of the Bon∣dage that Believers were in: Under the Old-Admi∣nistration of the Covenant of Grace, they had not so satisfactory an account of the particular means how the Redeemer should work out their Delive∣rance; which way he should accomplish the great work of Propitiation; and therefore when fresh guilt, contracted by fresh sin, lay upon the Consci∣ence, their faith was staggered, and peace broken, because they had a clear Objection against their par∣don, from their sins; but not so clear a Solution from the promise of the pardon of it; the Promise being encumbred with so many intricacies, that the only refuge was a Retreat to the Faithfulness of God in general: Which yet was no easie work, under the Scruples and Cavils of present guilt, and the Ac∣cusation of Conscience. Ay! but (says he) this was more than the Apostles understood, till after the Re∣surrection, though Christ had expresly told them of it▪ Was it so? Then, 1. They could never know it to the World's end: For if telling, and express tel∣ling will not make us know, there's no remedy, we must be content to be ignorant: But this is our Au∣thor's humour, to reproach all the World for So•…•… and Fools but himself, and a few more Rational Heads. The Jews were all Fools, they had more particular Promises than Abraham, and yet they looked only for a temporal Prince: The Apostles they were all Naturals, for they had been told, and expresly told of it, and yet understood no more than

the wall. I wonder what could have been done more to make them know it, unless it had been beaten in∣to their heads with a Beetle. I suppose our Au∣thor has got this fancy from some such place, as that Mark 9. 31. The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of Men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed, he shall rise again; but they under∣stood not the saying. But can we be so vain as once to imagine, that they understood not the Grammar of those words? that they knew not the literal sence of dying. No! but they had not such clear satis∣faction about some of the Consequents of it: Per∣haps they had not such a firm and stedfast belief of the truth of it, as might bear up their hearts at an even rate of Tranquillity and Calmness, under their temptations and tryals; they might not improve the Truth, to encourage in a patient waiting for the Resurrection of Christ: And that this was it that pinch'd them is plain▪ they declare it, Luke 24. 19, 20, 21. Concerning Iesus of Nazareth—how the chief Priests delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him, but we trusted that it had been be, that should have redeemed Israel. They believed his Cru∣cifixion, but were staggered about his Resurrection: Hereupon Christ rebukes their slowness of heart to be∣lieve all that the Prophets had spoken, how Christ ought to suffer, and to enter into his glory, ver. 25, 26. Be∣sides, it's a common Rule, That verba intellectus implicant affectiones; words that in their bare sound, only denote the understanding, yet in their true in∣tent and meaning, take in the will and affections: And again, Negatives are often put for Comparatives; I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice, that is, I will have Mercy rather than Sacrifice. So here, They un∣derstood

not, that is, They understood not so much of it, as such clear Expressions deserved.

(3.) Another great Scruple (for I see there's no end of them) is this, He must understand the per∣fect holiness, and innocency of Christ's life: But that was the least thing of a thousand: He needed no Elias to explain that; a very Nullifidian would have believed, that he whom God had designed to bless others, must needs be perfectly blessed himself. 'Tis true, had Christ's work been no other than what our Author has cut out for him, he might have dis∣charged it, without an absolute sinless Perfection: A Prophet might have revealed the whole will of God, and afterwards confirmed his Doctrine by his death; but to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice, this required that Christ the Antitype, should be holy, harmless, un∣defiled, and separated from sinners: And in this God was punctual and precise, under the Law, that the Sacrifice of Atonement should be without spot, and without blemish. And thus much Abraham might learn from his own Sacrifices; and had he conceived the least suspicion, that Christ would prove a sinner, it had damped his joy and triumph in the foresight of his day. Ay! but (says he further) he must un∣derstand that he fulfilled all Righteousness, not for himself, but for us. Answ. 1. It's a most wretched and unrighteous way of procedure, to call things clear and evident into question, for the sake of some that are obscure and disputable: It becomes ingenuous persons, to agree to what is clear and certain, leaving them upon their own Basis, and to reduce the doubt∣ful to them. It's plain that Abraham was justified by Faith, his Righteousness, was the Righteousness of Christ: If the measure of his knowledg herein, be

unknown to us, yet that he had a knowledg, is not so. If God revealed this to Abraham's Faith, I doubt not but he believed it: That he did not, is more than our Author can prove. If he shall attempt it, his Arguments may be considered; in the mean time, his Conceits and Crotchets ought not to prejudice the Truth: But if God did not reveal it, Abraham's Faith might live, though not be so vigourous and strong without it. 2. Abraham might know, that what Christ suffered, he suffered not for himself, but in the stead of those for whom he suffered; for he saw the Sacrifices die, and yet not for their own sins. And why he might not conclude, That what a Re∣deemer did was for others too, I cannot tell. 3. There's many a sincere and sound Believer, that understands not all the Terms of Art that are used in the Explica∣tion of the Doctrine of Justification, that perhaps cannot tell you, which part of Christ's obedience answers this, and which the other exigency of the sin∣ner; and yet believes the Thing, that Christ is made to him Righteousness of God: He is not so well versed in the Nomenclature of the Schools, as to call every thing by its proper name, but goes downright to work; he renounces his own Righteousness, sees the necessity of a Redeemer to make his peace with God; accepts of life upon God's terms, and leads a holy life suitable to his present mercies, and future hopes, and leaves the rest to the Learned World to wrangle about, who may perhaps dispute themselves gravely and learnedly into Hell, whilst the poor honest man believes his Soul into Glory.

(4.) He must understand the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Understand the my∣stery of the Incarnation? I assure you it's fair if it be

well believed! I have not met with many, not with any, that understand the mystery of it, to this day. It's more adviseable for our Author, to secure his own Faith in this point, than Abraham's Understand∣ing. Abraham was a Believer, and received his Re∣ligion upon the Authority of the Revealer; but our Author will own none but what approves it self to his Reason; and whether the Incarnation of Christ have had that happiness with him, I cannot tell: and therefore to deal plainly with him, I have some Conjectures that may weigh against his Prejudices, which incline me to choose Abraham's Faith even in this particular before his own. But however that be, the Scripture assures us, that Abraham was justified the same way that New-Testament-Believers are: One God, one Lord Iesus Christ, one Holy Spirit, ye∣sterday, to day, and the same for ever; and if his poor prejudices must controul divine Revelations, I cannot help it. An Atheist would believe there i•…•… a God, but that he cannot get over all Objections; and our Author would believe the Gospel-report, of the way of Abraham's Justification, but that he cannot weather all the Prejudices, which he first creates, and then pleads.

(5.) He must understand the nature of Faith, and of rowling the Soul on Christ for Salvation, and re∣nouncing all Righteousness of his own. Answ. I que∣stion not but the Father of the Faithful, one so much in the exercise of Faith, understood very well the na∣ture of it, and that he would hardly have lighted his Candle at our Author's Torch; but it's grown the Mode, for junior Understandings to vilifie the grey Heads of the Fathers, and to count them all Bl•…•…ck heads, that think not to a hairs breadth with

them. Abraham knew, that Faith consisted in a firm belief, that what God had promised was true, and that the things of the Promise were exceeding good, and so to him: He gave a full assent and consent to both, with their special Reasons; he embraced the mercy of the Promise with thankfulness, and joy; and credited the veracity of him that made the Pro∣mise, with security of mind; and he felt by experi∣ence, that quiet, and satisfaction of Soul, that arises from an interest in him that gave, and that Redeemer that was given in the Promise: And if he must be jeered for rowling himself on God, and on his Christ, for ought I know he must bear his burden.

[5.] And now conformable to his old awkward humour, our Author will attempt the deciding the Controversie, Which way Abraham was justified, from Heb. 11. And this, I say, is a perverse and awk∣ward way of proceeding, to wave the proper places, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostle professedly disputes the point, and fix upon one where he disputes it not. Two things he would perswade us to believe him in.

1. That the Apostle in this Chapter discourses of a justifying Faith. To which I answer, That the Apostle does indeed Treat of a Faith that justifies, but not of Faith as it justifies. A justifying Faith has many excellent, and admirable uses, does a Chri∣stian noble service, besides that of justifying him be∣fore God. It teaches him to trust God in all the ways, and methods of his▪ Providences, to depend on him for all the good things of this life, as well as those of a better: It deals with the Promises of the life that now is, and those of that to come: It encourages us to pray, Give us this day our daily bread; as well as,

Forgive us our trespasses. It instructs us to commit our concerns to his fatherly love, and care; to wrestle vigourously with all the oppositions we meet with in the Profession of Christianity; to walk comfortably, chearfully, conscientiously in our particular Callings; to despise the things that are seen, which are but tem∣ponal, in comparison of those which are not seen, and are eternal. It taught Abel to offer Sacrifice to God, whereby he had the witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts. And if our Author can see no difference between being made Righteous, and having the witness of it in his Conscience, he needs a Collyrium which I cannot help him to. It taught Enoch also to walk with God; from whence he had the same testimony, that he pleased God: The same Faith that justified him, procured him a testimony of his Justification, but not as it justified him. The Direct Act of Faith is one thing, and the Reflecting Act of Faith another. It taught Noah also to take Gods warning of the approaching Deluge, and to prepare an Ark to escape the danger: Whereby he condemned the World, and became heir of the Righte∣ousness which is by Faith; that is, he had more full assurance of his Acceptation with God; According to a common Rule, Multa tun•…•… fieri dicuntur quando facta esse manifestantur.

2. He would perswade us into his Notion of a ju∣stifying Faith: This justifying Faith (says he) is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But the Apostle does not here intend to give us a strict Definition of a justifying Faith, but a Description of its most noble effects: A justifying Faith produces these effects, but not at all times, nor in all persons justified; it's Faith in its vigour, not

in its essence, that is here described: By this Faith the Elders obtained a good report before men, and their own Consciences; yet was it not this Act of Faith that justified them before God, though it was the same Faith that produced this Act, by which they were justified. Whereas therefore he would oblige us yet more by his critical skill in the Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a firm and confident expectation of those things we hope for•…•… and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Argument of the Being of those things we do not see; For my part I am not much edified, and therefore let him make merry with his own Talents. That which follows will be more for our Information; for he will now speak to the Act, the Object, and the several kinds of Faith.

(1.) For the Act of Faith: It is (as he says) such a firm and stedfast perswasion of the truth of those things that are not evident to sense, as makes us confi∣dently hope for them. But this seems to me to be a hungry description of the Act of justifying Faith▪ The Scripture has other apprehensions of this mat∣ter, which describes the Act of faith by receiving, John 1. 12. To as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Where, if the Evangelist may be trusted to make his own Exegesis, Receiving of Christ, and, Believing on his name, do mutually interpret each other. It's not enough that the Un∣derstanding be engaged in this work, which may be found in the worst of men and Devils; the Will must also conspire with the Understanding: For that which Faith is conversant about, being not only true, but good, there must be an Act of Choice, as Knowledg, that the whole man may be employed about it.

(2.) Says he, The Object of Faith must be unseen things; As the Being, or Providence of God, or a Fu∣ture state, something past or to come, the Creation of the World, or the final Dissolution of it, or the accom∣plishment of any Promises or Predictions. I grant in∣deed, that these things may be called tropically, the Object of our Faith; but as they are things to be ob∣tained, they are more properly the Object of our Hope: But that which Faith primarily eyes, that which is its proper Object, is the reason of its Assent and Con∣sent: And thus God in Christ, through the Promise, is the proper Object of a justifying Faith. The mercles of the Covenant of Grace, are many of them re∣served for a future estate, when the Soul shall be better qualified to enjoy them; but Faith respects God actually giving himself in Covenant to be our God, through a Mediator: When we say, we believe Heaven, we belief Life Everlasting, &c. the mean∣ing is only this, we believe God has promised to give Heaven, to give Life Everlasting, through Jesus Christ: I believe such a thing will be; that is, I believe God, who has engaged that such a thing shall be. The Authority of God speaking in the Pro∣mise, is the true Reason, and proper Object of Faith, and the things contained in the Promise, as they are such, are not the Object of my Faith properly, but have other powers of the Soul that are concerned about them.

(3.) The different sorts of Faith (says he) result from the different Objects and Motives of it. The Apostle takes notice of two kinds of Faith in this Chapter (Hebr. 11.) and faith in Christ makes a Third, which are all the kinds of Faith the Scripture mentions. Now I am afraid I shall grow every day

less in love than other with our Author's Accurate∣ness in Divinity: For, 1. What a mad way is this, to distinguish Faith into its several kinds and sorts, from the multiplicity of the things that it believes! for at this rate he could have minted not three only, or threescore, but three hundred sorts and kinds of Faith. The different sorts, or kinds of Faith result (says he) from the different Objects and Motives of it. But (say I, in his sence) the Objects and Motives of Faith are innumerable, and therefore the sorts and kinds of Faith are innumerable also. The Object of Faith (says he) must be unseen things; The Being, or Provi∣dence of God, or a Future state, something past or to come, &c. Now according to this Doctrine we must believe the Being of God with one sort of Faith, his Providences with another; the Creation of the World with one kind of Faith, its Dissolution with another; Heaven with one kind of Faith, Hell with another; things past with one kind, things to come with another; Prophesies with one kind of Faith, Promises with another: And then for the Motives of Faith, they are various; The Power of God, the Wisdom of God, our Experience of God, the Goodness of God: So when I believe any thing, and take the Power of God able to accomplish it, for my Motive; I believe it with a Faith of another kind from that whereby I believe the same thing, and take the goodness of God for my motive: And now there's a Foundation laid for one of his plain Demonstrations, that Abraham's Faith differed toto genere from Pauls; because Abraham in believing, took his encouragement from the faith∣fulness of him that had promised; and Paul, from his Abilities to keep what he had committed unto him: So that I think I have not over-shot my self

in saying, That he may upon these principles, coyn as many several sorts, and distinct kinds of justifying Faith, as he can possibly spend in seven years time, and as he grows out of sorts, he may stamp as many more. 2. I am not satisfied that the Apostle mentions two, and but just two sorts of justifying Faith in this Chapter: For the Apostle mentions one and the same Faith; By Faith, we believe the Worlds were created; by Faith, Abel sacrificed; by Faith, Enoch walked with God; by Faith, the Elders obtained a good re∣port; by Faith, Noah took Gods warning; by Faith, Sarah conceived; by Faith, Abraham offered up Isaac, &c. But if these Faiths were of several sorts and kinds, the Apostle could not manage his Argument with Consistency; nor should he so insensibly have passed from one sort of Faith to another, without fair warning, that he had no plot upon his Readers imbecillity. 3. It's full as easie to make All the sorts of Faith appear in the Chapter, as two, if it had pleased the Painter: For, 1. Here's evidently the Faith of Christians, vers. 3. Through Faith we un∣derstand, [we Christians] that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God. 2. There's Enoch's and Abel's Faith, which our Author allots for a second kind of Faith. And then, 3. The Faith of Noah, Abraham, and all the rest, and their's constitutes the third sort o•…•… Faith. 4. Much less am I satisfied, that Faith in Christ makes a third kind of justifying Faith, di∣stinct from the other two: Faith is but one; the Rea∣son into which our Faith is ultimately resolved, is but one; the Mean whereby we believe in God, is but one, even Jesus Christ, by whom we believe in God: But the things, the good things propounded in the Promises are infinite: So that I doubt not when

any necessity shall urge him, he can reduce all these three sorts of Faith into one again by Synaeresis, or split any one of them into a couple, by a Diaeresis: But now let us look into his three sorts of Faith.

1. §. The first (says he) we may call, A natural Faith. I confess he may call things what he pleases, only let him be sure he do not miscal them; the ra∣ther, because he has not Adams faculty, to make in∣spection into their Natures. But what is this natu∣ral Faith? A belief (says he) of the Principles of natural Religion, which is founded on natural Demon∣strations, and moral Arguments, as, that God is, and that heis a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him. But I am still of the same mind, that there is no such thing, (nor ever was) as a Religion of sinners, whereby they can draw nigh to God, and worship him with Acceptation, but what supposes Divine Reve∣lation, as the means of Manifestation; and a Redeemer, as the medium of Reconciliation. It is owned, that this is a Principle of all Religion, that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him: But there must be somewhat more than this, namely, Ability and strength from God, that we may diligently seek him, and a Mediator through whom we may seek him, with him, with Acceptati∣on. But (says he) This was the Faith of Abel, and Enoch, whereby they pleased God. Answ. There was this in their Faith, but this was not the whole of their Faith: Well! he will prove it; 1. There's no mention made of the Faith of Abel, and Enoch in the Old-Testament. A worthy Argument! A non scripto negativè, in a matter of Fact! The Old-Te∣stament mentions it not, therefore there was no such

thing; this is pure trifling: For though the Old∣Testament mentions not expresly their Faith, it men∣tions their Acceptation with God, which without Faith is impossible to be obtained. And secondly, The New-Testament mentions both their Faith, and their Acceptation: Which Faith was of the same kind with the rest of those eminent Worthies mentioned with them; as is evident from that even Tenour of Dis∣course the Apostle uses: By Faith Abel, by Faith Enoch, by Faith Noah, by Faith Abraham, &c. without any ground of the least suspicion that he leaps from one sort of Faith to another. 2. God (says he) required no more of these good men. Answ. 1. But there was something required to make them good men. 2. How can he prove, that God required •…•… more of these good men? God required more of Adam, even Faith, in that first Promise of a Mediator; and how Abel should lose it, or having it, not believe it, and yet be such a good man, is past my skill to con∣ceive. 3. He tells us, p. 26. That God afforded good men the frequent Apparitions of Angels: The head of whom was the Son of God, who, in praeludium futurae incarnationis, frequently appeared to the ancient Fathers: And he is not sure either what God reveal∣ed to them, or required of them. 4. God required more of Abel, a Sacrifice; and that not meerly as a part of his Obedience, but as Propitiatory, which by the blood and the fat, which always accompanied that kind of Sacrifices, is evident. 3. Says he, They had no other particular Revelations of God's with Answ. If they had no other, they had none at all▪ for natural Demonstrations, are not particular Reve∣lations. 2. Adam had more particular Revelati∣ons; and it being a Promise wherein Posterity was

concerned as well as himself, and concernid so deeply, I shall not question his fidelity in deriving it to po∣sterity, without proof. 3. Abel had the use of Sa∣crifices, which suppose Revelation: For what Light of Nature could teach me, that God would delight in the death of his Creatures, that had not transgressed the Laws of their Creation: Abel's was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a bloody Sacrifice; nor is God ever the more entitled to, or possest of any Creature by being offered dead, than if it were presented alive: And if natural De∣monstrations, the Light of Nature, was the Foundation of the Practice, it is still obliging; for natural Light, with its Demonstrations, varies not. 4. We are sure, that Enoch had the Spirit of Prophecy, was an emi∣nent Prophet in his days, and therefore had particu∣lar Revelations; and amongst many, one Revelation of Christ, Jude, ver. 14. Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesi•…•…h of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to exe∣cute judgment upon all, &c. The same with that of the Apostle, 2 Thess. 1. 7. The Lord Iesus shall be re∣vealed from Heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming fire to take vengeance, &c. for to Christ is the power of executing vengeance committed, John 5. 27. And therefore I cannot but conclude, That he who had a particular Revelation of Christ's coming to judg the World, had particular ones also, that he should come into the World to redeem it. And now how vain must our Author's Argument needs be, from the si∣lence of the Old-Testament, to infer, That Enoch and Abel had no particular Revelation, when the New∣Testament proves, that Enoch had particular Reve∣lations: And if Enoch had this Revelation, which yet is not mentioned either in the Old-Testament or

the New, but only in this place, how many more might he have, which are drowned in the Gulph of Time, and this one, by special Providence, scaped the common Shipwrack? But, 5. That which abundantly proves, that they had particular Reve∣lations, and Revelations of Christ too, through whom God is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him, is this, That their Sacrifices in God's Institution of them, and their own Application of them, from the first rise of them, had respect to Christ, who is therefore called, The Lamb slain from the Foundati∣on of the World, Rev. 13. 8. Which, without parti∣ticular Revelation, they could never have under∣stood.

§. 2. His second sort of justifying Faith, he calls a Faith in God: Which puts me to a stand, Whether he would have us take the former for a justifying Faith or no. If the former were not a Faith in God, how could it justifie? If it was; then how comes Faith in God, to constitute a new and distinct kind of justifying Faith? But what is this Faith in God? A belief (says he) of those particu∣lar Revelations, which God made to the Fathers of the Old-Testament. From whence it is easie to prove, that every time our Author repeats his Creed, I believe in God, we are bound to take him for one of the Fathers of the Old-Testament: If this be a true Definition of Faith in God, all the Saints in the New-Testament are misbelievers. But of this (says he) the Apostle gives us many examples, Noah▪ Abraham, Sarah, Moses, &c. Perhaps the Reader will wonder why Enoch and Abel should be left out of the Catalogue of the Fathers of the Old-Testament;

but he must reflect, and remember, that they are rank'd already in the Classis of examples for the na∣tural Faith: And truly, if he had pleased, he might have created a new sort of Faith for every Pair in the whole Chapter: Thus Abraham and Sarah would have done well in a Form by them∣selves; nay, to have advanced the Conceit, he might have created a particular kind of Faith, for every par∣ticular person of them: Each of them had their par∣ticular Revelations, and particular Motives; Noah, believed the Deluge; Abraham, the promise of a Son; and David, the warning that God gave him of his Dan∣ger, &c. Now we are told, that the object of Faith is something to come, or something past, &c. and that the different sorts of Faith, result from the different Objects and Motives of it: and therefore it had been easie to have allotted to each of them a different kind of Faith: But let us hear him improve his No∣tion. Noah (says he) believed God, when he fore∣warned him of the Deluge, and in obedience to him, provided an Ark; and this was imputed to him for Righteousness: He became the Heir of Righteousness, which is by Faith: But I find no such thing in all the Copies that I have, that it was imputed to him for Righteousness. This I find, that he became Heir of the Righteousness which is by Faith: Which two things are more different than any of his three kinds of Faith. Noah was an Heir of Righteousness, that is, he inherited those advantages, which come by Righteousness; he had the peaceable fruits of Righ∣teousness. As a Son by being his Fathers Heir, inhe∣rits the Purchases, Possessions, Honours of his Fa∣ther: Thus Noah by being an Heir of Righteousness, enjoyed whatever Priviledges the Promise of God had

entailed upon Righteousness. Noah was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Heir of Righteousness; where Righteousness is not Ge•…•…itivus materiae, but efficien∣tis. It denotes not that Righteousness was the thing he inherited, but the true Reason why he inherited those blessings: Righteousness answers not to the Pos∣session, but to the Ancestor; not what, but from what he inherited. And this is clear from this one Con∣sideration, That Noah was righteous before God, before that particular Revelation was made to him: He was not made righteous, because he believed that particular Revelation; but God made him that parti∣cular Revelation, because he was already righteo•…•…. Gen. 6. 8, 9. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord▪ Vers. 9. Noah was a just man, and perfect in his Ge∣nerations, and Noah walked with God. Vers. 13. God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me. Ver 14. Make thee an Ark of Gopher wood. Ver. 17. And behold I, even I, do bring a Flood upon the Earth.

He proceeds to Abraham: Who in obedience to the divine Revelation, left his Country, went into a strange Land, offered his son Isaac, which seem'd to thwart that former promise, In Isaac shall thy Seed be called; i. e. That from Isaac should proceed that numerous Off-spring which God had promised Abra∣ham; and yet he was so well assured of the power and faithfulness of God, that whatever Impossibilities Hu∣mane Reason suggested, he would neither disobey Gods Command, nor distrust his Promise. Now here would arise several Queries: As, 1. Whether then Abraham's Religion was of the right stamp, seeing it would not approve it self to his Reason? and, Whe∣ther Abraham's Reason was not Carnal, that suggest∣ed Impossibilities against God's Promise? and, Whe∣ther

our Author (had he been in Abraham's Circum∣stances) ought not by his own Principles, to have dis∣obeyed, and distrusted God both in his Precept and Pro∣mise, because they did not approve themselves to his Reason. 2. It might be enquired, What inference he will make from hence? and that he tells us is, That the Faith whereby Abraham, and all good men were justified before God, was such a firm belief of the Being, and Providence of God, and all the parti∣cular Revelations God made to them, as made them careful to please God in all things: Now this is still the Question, and is like so to continue, for any as∣sistance we are like to have from our Author's Ar∣guments. But, 3. There is one thing that I shall particularly examine, Whether that Promise, Gen. 21. 12. In Isaac shall thy Seed be called, be made good in that numerous Off-spring that issued from Isaac's loyns? Now if any regard might be had to the Apostle, he would soon decide the Controversie, Rom. 9. 7, 8. In Isaac shall thy Seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the Flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the Promise, are counted for the Seed. See here now the vast dif∣ference in mens judgments. In Isaac shall thy Seed be called; id est, (says our Author) from Isaac should proceed that numerous Off-spring: No, says the Apo∣stle, In Isaac shall thy Seed be blessed; id est, The children of the Flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the Promise, are counted for the Seed. Again, Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it [the Promise] is of Faith, that it might be sure to all the seed; not only to that which is of the Law, but to that which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all. Gal. 3. 29. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams Seed, and

Heirs according to the Promise. 4. It were easie to evidence, that what the Apostle speaks of Abraham's Faith in offering up his son, related not to the Act of it, whereby he was justified, but to the Evidence of his Justification. His third sort of Faith fol∣lows.

§. 3. From hence (says he) we learn what Faith in Christ is, which is now imputed to us for Justifi∣cation. From hence! From whence? If we never learn what faith in Christ is, better than from the Faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, which are the whole Heavens asunder each from other, as he has ordered the matter, we must be content to be ignorant of it till our lives end. For who could learn the special Nature of one thing, from another that differs from it in the kind? But let us give him the hearing! Our faith in Christ must signifie such a stedfast belief of all those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World, as governs our lives and actions. Why so? To make our faith in Christ, answer to the faith of Abraham, and all good men in former Ages; without which, the Apostles Argument from Abra∣ham's being justified by faith, to our Iustification by faith, is of no force. There is a necessity then granted, that our faith in Christ and Abraham's, do answer one another, lest the Apostle should be re∣proach'd with a Non-sequitur: Now to perform this, instead of making Abrahams to be a faith in Christ, as it really is, he debases faith in Christ, as low as, if not, below the faith of Abraham: He pre∣tends to under-prop the Apostles Argument, but really he undermines it; and whilst he seems to provide an Expedient, that his Reasonings may not

be invalidated, he renders them more than Nuga∣tory. For, 1. How can faith in Christ, answer to the faith of all those good men in former times? Abel, Enoch? when their's was Faith without Revelations, but faith in Christ is a Faith grounded upon Revela∣tions: The Motive of their Faith, was Natural De∣monstrations; the Reason of ours is Revelation: The Object of our Faith (in his sense) is Eternal Life; but whether they had any such thing in their eye, our Author will not grant; for he that will not allow Abraham, whose Faith was grounded upon Revelations, to have had any spiritual Promises, will less allow those poor good men the priviledg, whose Faith was only built upon Natural Demonstrations. 2. How can faith in Christ, answer to the faith of Abraham? He has laid it down as the bottom of this Discourse, p. 252. that, The different sorts of Faith, result from the different Objects and Motives of it: But Abraham's Faith had different Objects and Motives from ours, (as he tells us): And therefore it's of another nature, sort and kind than ours; for so he says expresly, The Apostle takes notice of two kinds of Faith, and faith in Christ makes a third: Now will it not be hard for the Apostle to maintain his great Principle, That Abraham is the Father of the faithful, if Abraham's Faith and theirs differ toto Genere? Those things that differ in their special Na∣ture, may yet agree in their common Nature; but those things that are of divers kinds, wherein shall they agree? But all this is but a scandal thrown upon the Apostle, who proves from Abraham's way of being justified, the way of Christians being ju∣stified, Rom. 4. As Abraham was justified without Works, so are we. Vers. 2. As Abraham had a Righte∣•…•…sness

imputed to him, even so have we. Vers. 11. That Righteousness might be imputed to them also: As Abraham's Righteousness, was a Righteousness of Faith, even so is ours. Vers. 11. A Seal of the Righ∣teousness of Faith. As Abraham was justified by free Grace, so are we. V. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly. Thus was his Righteousness, the patern of ours; his Faith the patern of ours: And is it not a strange Copy that differs in kind from its Idaea? That's a huge way off from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: As if you should propound a House for your patern, and draw a Horse to sample it. Once more look into Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith, preach'd before the Gospel to Abraham: Now if Abraham had not our Faith, what needed he to have our Gospel? The end of preaching the Gospel is to beget Faith; and it was an equivocal Generation, if it begat a Faith of one kind in Abraham, another in Christians: What needed this circumspect Caution of Providence, that Abraham should have the glad tidings of the Gospel preach'd to him, which made him rejoyce and be glad, if a Faith of a lower size would serve his turn for Justification? Again, vers. 13. That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, through Iesus Christ. If we have his blessing, surely he had our Faith: Or could Abra∣ham get the blessing without Christ; but Christians no other way, but in Christ? But thus has our Au∣thor vindicated the Apostles Reasonings, as if he had secretly design'd (as he openly professes of the Wriings of others) to expose them to contempt.

It may be now seasonable to examine his Defi∣nition of a Gospel-Faith; viz. Such a stedfast belief

of all those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World, as governs our lives and actions. If this be to define, put but a company of Letters in a bag, shuffle them well together, then shake them out, and they will tumble into as good a Definition as this comes to: But thus did Atoms by dancing in Infi∣nite and Eternal Spaces, justle one another so long, till at last they produced this beautiful Fabrick of Heaven and Earth. I except against it; 1. Because the whole Priestly Office of Christ is excluded by it; Propitiation, Atonement, Expiation of sin, are shut quite out of all consideration; and the Death and Suf∣ferings of Christ of no regard, unless perhaps they may come in by way of Motive, to believe his Do∣ctrine as a Prophet. And if this be his Faith, I must profess, I would not venture my Salvation in his Church, for the hopes of all the good, or fear of all the evil this World can either flatter or affright me with; however I beg Grace from God that I may not. He that has but half a Christ, had as good have no Christ; and he that takes him not wholly into the Definition of his Faith, may as safely leave him wholly out. As half a heart in God's ac∣count, is no heart; so half a Saviour in Faith's esteem, is no Saviour. 2. I except against it, because it may be found in Hypocrites: They may so far believe the Revelations of Christ, as to govern their lives and actions, and yet their hearts never be purified by that Faith. 3. It pretends to define Faith, and yet gives us no Genus of it: Faith is such a Belief, as governs our lives and actions; that is, Faith, is Faith that governs our lives and actions: But the Question is, What is that Faith, that will so govern our lives and actions? For it describes not any direct influence

of Faith upon our Iustification, but our obedience. And whereas he pretends to assign some differences, that may distinguish it from all other Faith, true or false; yet in plain terms they do nothing less. 1. It's a belief of those Revelations Christ has made to the World. Now unless he can prove, that those Revelations which Christ has made to the World, are essentially distinct from those which God before made to the World; their being revealed by Christ, makes no essential difference: For Christ came in his Fa∣thers name, under the New-Testament; and the Spirit came in Christs name, under the Old-Testament. All Christ's Revelations, in order to the governing our lives and actions, may be reduced either to Precepts, or Promises: Now though some have been tam∣pering at it, I cannot find that Christ revealed either a new Moral Law, or added any thing to the old: Self-denial, Taking up the Cross, Praying for our Per∣secutors, &c. were Old-Testament duties, though not met with in New-Testament phrase: As a Rule of obe∣dience, Christ medled not with it; all he did, was to vindicate it from the corrupt Glosses the Scribes and Pharisees had put upon it. As to Promises, Christ has revealed no other Heaven, no other Glory, no other Salvation; only he has cleared up these, given us more light into them, poured out more Grace, that we might live more in fellowship with God, and hopes of Glory: But this, and much more, will make no essential difference in the Revelation. 2. It's such a Belief, as governs our lives and actions: But such a Belief was Enoch's, Abel's, Noah's, Abra∣ham▪s; their's govern'd their lives and actions too, and somewhat more; their Hearts and Consciences: This therefore will make no essential difference. 4. I

except against it, that it mentions not God as the proper Object of Faith: For though Christ, who is God, be in the Definition, yet not as God; there's nothing supposes him to be so, no employment that necessarily requires it should be so assigned to him; only he is allowed Revelation-work, which a meer man, instructed with God's Commission, might have done.

And now once again he will reassume his Argu∣ment: If by the Righteousness of Faith, you under∣stand the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith, and imputed to us, you utterly destroy the Apostle's Ar∣gument for our Iustification by Faith; for Abraham, and all the good men of old were not justified by such a Faith as this is: They never heard of Christ's Righ∣teousness imputed to us, &c. Now how does it follow, that because Abraham was justified by such noble and generous Acts of Faith, therefore we shall be justified by Christ's Righteousness imputed? But whoever overthrows the Apostle's Argument, I have some things that will overthrow, and utterly overthrow our Author's. 1. That he begs, and most shamefully begs the Question, which I think we must be forced to grant him at last to be rid of him, without any respect to his Argument: For thus we shut our hands sometimes of those importunate Mendicants, whose strongest Logick, and most prevailing Ora∣tory, is Clamour and Obstinacy: He has hardned himself to say, that Abraham was justified without any respect to the Righteousness of Christ, that he was justified by noble and generous Acts of Faith; and then concludes, That therefore so are we: And all this, to save the credit of the Apostle's Argument. But I should rather go the other way; Believers under the

Gospel are not justified without respect to the Righte∣ousness of Christ, therefore neither was Abraham; and let that save the credit of the Apostle's Argu∣ment. As he cannot prove that Abraham was accept∣ed of God, without any consideration of Satisfaction made to him by a Redeemer, and therefore ought not to infer, that we are accepted of God without such Consideration; so we can prove that Believers under the Gospel are accepted of God, upon Consideration had of the Satisfaction made to him by a Redeemer, and therefore may infer, that Abraham was accepted up∣on the same Consideration. 2. His Argument will re∣coil upon the Engineer: For if by the Righteousness of Faith, you understand a Righteousness of our own obedience, you utterly destroy the Apostle's Argument for our Justification by Faith: for how does it fol∣low, that because Abraham was justified by Faith without Works, that therefore Believers under the Gospel are justified by Works? Again, If there be no reasoning from Faith of one kind, to Faith of an∣other; and that the Apostle understood himself better, than to argue at this weak rate (for which we have our Author's Broad-Seal, p. 257.) And if the faith of Abraham, and our faith in Christ, be of different kinds, and do constitute two distinct sorts of Faith, for which also we have his Word and Warrant, (p. 252.) then let every Reader try the issue, whether our Author have not utterly destroyed the Apostle's Argument, for our Iustification by faith in Christ, from Abraham's being justified by Faith; seeing he supposes him to argue from one kind of Faith to an∣other. For at this weak rate he makes him argue; If Abraham were justified by faith without Christ, then Believers under the Gospel are justified by faith in

Christ. All that I can conclude from this Discourse of our Authors is, That he has owned the Apostle an old grudge, and has now found a convenient time to pay him home.

He promises us now he will bring his Discourse to a head: Which I am right sorry for, hoping he had been at the foot of it: And yet I am glad it shall be reduced to a head, for hitherto it has been like the Hydra, when one head was lopt off, another, or two more sprung up in the room of it. But I mistake him: He will bring it to a head; it has been hither∣to like an obstinate, inveterate Oedema, that scorns ordinary Applications; but now we shall see his Chirurgick faculty, he will bring the undigested Matter to a Head, and then I doubt it will issue out in purulent, offensive stuff: But the head of it is this, The difference between the faith of Abraham, and the Faith of Christians is this; Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness; and we believe in Christ, and that's counted to us for Righ∣teousness; which is a difference without a distincti∣on, and so he has made neither head nor foot of it: For Abraham believed God, but it was by the preaching of the Gospel to him, Gal. 3. 8. The Gospel-Doctrine that was preach'd was this, In thy Seed shall all the Na∣tions of the Earth be blessed: That Seed was Iesus Christ, ver. 16. To thy Seed, which is Christ. So that it's as plain as we can desire it, and more plain than the Enemies of the Christian Religion would have it, That Abraham was justified through Faith in Christ; and if Abraham believed in God through Christ, it's certain, that Christians do so also, 1 Pet. 1. 21. Who through him do believe in God. Abraham's belief in God, was not exclusive of Christ; our be∣lieving

in Christ, is not exclusive of our believing in God: The Objects mediate and ultimate are the same, and then the Faith is so, if we may take our Author's word for it (which for his own Confuta∣tion we may venture to do;) and then where's the difference? And thus the Reader has all the head and foot I can make of this tedious long-winded Argu∣ment.

Having thus happily dispatch'd the difference be∣tween Abraham's faith, and the faith of Christians, he promises to give us the difference between two or three other things, or between something and no∣thing; for to acknowledg my ignorance, I cannot tell what. I turn'd to the Errata, and there we are bid to read—Nonsense. I was in good hopes that had been it; but the difference of the pages soon un∣deceived me. I shall therefore give the Reader it, as cheap as I had it, in his own words, and that's good both for Buyer and Seller: And the same dif∣ference there is between the Righteousness of Faith in a general Notion, as it is applied to Noah, Abraham, and these Worthies of old, and the Righteousness of G•…•…d by the Faith of Iesus Christ Rom. 3. 22. and that Righteousness which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness of God by Faith, Phil. 3. 9. Now I have guest, and guest and almost tired my self with guessing, what those things should be betwen which he pretends the difference: One while it seems to be, Between the Righteousness of Faith in a general Notion, as it is applied to Noah, Abraham, and those Worthies of old, on the one party; and, the Righte∣ousness of God by the Faith of Iesus Christ, &c. on the other party: Another while it seems to be, Be∣tween the Righteousness of Faith in the general Notion,

on one side; and, the Righteousness of God by the Faith of Iesus Christ, on the second; and, the Righ∣teousness which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness of God by Faith, on the third; and so the difference will be tripartite: Whatever the busi∣ness is, I shall not trouble my self about it. Of two Righteousnesses I have heard; the one of Faith, the other of Works, according to the two Covenants from thence denominated; which do irreconcileably differ, and are as far asunder as the two Poles, which can never meet: Of two Righteousnesses of Faith I have not heard till of late; and a happy invention it was for them, whose faith or unbelief would not stoop to Gospel-Revelations. But that we may not let our time run waste, I shall a little consider one of his Scriptures, and wait with patience, till he shall consider the other: That which I fix upon, is Rom. 3. 20, 21, 22. Therefore by the deeds of the Law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the Law is the knowledg of sin: But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law, and the Prophets, even the Righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ. In which words; (1.) I take notice of the Apostles peremptory Conclusion, By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his [Gods] sight. Now as this Proposition smiles or frowns upon our Author, or his Opponent, so will the whole cause stand or fall on either side. It seems indeed to carry a smart sound of words against his Notions; but he is well enough provided against

all Arguments drawn from express words; and there∣fore we must enquire, What that Law is, by the deeds whereof no flesh can be justified: If it proves the Moral Law, our Author will not deny that he's at least half undone; and I find him feelingly aware of that all along. Now to dally no longer with him, nor to put him to a lingring death: The Apostle (who knew his own mind best) has assured me, that by [Law,] he understands the Moral Law. 1. It's that Law by which we have the knowledg of sin. His Argument runs thus: By the deeds of that Law by which comes the knowledg of sin, no flesh is justi∣fied: But by the Moral Law comes the knowledg of sin; therefore by the deeds of the Moral Law no flesh is justified. The major is the Apostle's own, in this very place: The minor is his own too, Rom. 7. 13. I had not known sin, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet. From whence I argue: By that Law which says, Thou shalt not covet, comes the knowledg of sin: but that Law which says, Thou shalt not covet, is the Moral Law; therefore by the Moral Law comes the knowledg of sin. The major is the Apostle's own in the place last quoted; the minor needs no other proof, but that a man be able to read the Ten Com∣mandments, which is the sum of the Moral Law, the Tenth whereof is, Thou shalt not covet. But now at what a weak rate must the Apostle argue to please our Author? By the deeds of the Ceremonial Law shall no flesh be justified. No: Why not? Why, because by the Moral Law is the knowledg of sin. 2. None can doubt of what Law the Apostle speaks, that considers how he draws this great Conclusion out of vers. 19. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the World become guilty before God, therefore

by the deeds of the Law, &c. His Argument is this; By the deeds of that Law by which every mouth is stopped, and all the World become guilty before God, shall no flesh be justified: But by the Moral every mouth is stopped, and all the World become guilty be∣fore God; therefore by the deeds of the Moral Law shall no flesh be justified. And this evidently ex∣cludes the Ceremonial Law from any Concern in this Argument: For that Law never obliged all, or half the World, and therefore they could not violate it, and therefore not become guilty by it before God. Again, the instances which the Apostle gives of the violation of the Law, shews what Law he excludes from Justification, vers. 13. With their Tongues they have used deceit. Vers. 14. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Vers. 15. Their feet are swift to shed blood, &c. which are all apparent violations of the Moral Law. But is there never a Creep-hole at which our Author may escape the Apostles Ar∣gument? Yes! yes! p. 245. The great dispute in the Epistle to the Romans is, Whether we must be ju∣stified by the Law of Moses, or by the Faith of Christ? that is, Whether the Observation of the External Rites, and Ceremonies of the Law, and an External Confor∣mity of our Actions to the Moral Precepts of it will justifie a man before God? &c. This sorry evasion has all its small pretence, from that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the deeds; which our Author would willingly perswade himself, signifie nothing but Observation of Ceremonies, and outward Conformity to the Moral Law. Now that the Apostle in this place directly excludes the Moral Law I have proved: All the Question is, Whether he disputes against Justification by external Conformity to its Precepts only; or against Justifica∣tion

by whatever Obedience is, or may be given to the Moral Law by man, under his present Circum∣stances? And against our Author's conceit herein, I oppose these things: 1. It appears not that ever there was such a Question started amongst any Chri∣stians, Whether Hypocrisie would justifie a man before God? much less was it ever laid down in Thesi, and Dogmatically maintained that it would do so. Many Hypocrites there were then, (there are so now) who may deceive themselves into a Fools Paradise, that Hypocrisie might not condemn and damn them; but none ever so forsaken of common sense, as to think that Hypocrisie would justifie, and save them: Many presume to be saved, notwithstanding their sins, but none to be saved for their sins: If any should so dote, they deserve to receive their Confutation from Bedlam, rather than the Divinity-Schools. I can∣not therefore once imagine, that the Apostle should so operosely handle a subject; that he should rowse up his zeal, and knit all the nerves of his spiritual Reason, to confute what was either no-where, or so thin, and transparent a falshood, that to recite it, was clearly to confute it. 2. The Deeds or Works of the Law, are the Deeds and Works which the Law commands, which it primarily commands; but the Law never commanded outward Conformity of actions, without inward Conformity of heart to its Precepts: These are not the Deeds of the Law, but such as God abhors; therefore the Deeds of the Law by which no flesh shall be justified, are not external works only. 3. The Deeds of the Law, by which no flesh shall be justified, are the Deeds of every one of God's Laws, the Deeds of every particular Command∣ment; but the Deeds of one of God's Laws, of on•…•…

particular Commandment, are only internal Deeds; therefore the Apostle disputes not only against exter∣nal deeds. By the Law, is meant the whole Law; but one part of the Law (extensively taken) reaches internal deeds only: As is evident in the Tenth Commandment, Thou shalt not covet; but accord∣ing to our Author's way, the Apostle should have laid down his Doctrine thus, By the deeds of nine parts of the Law, shall no flesh living be justified. 4. The Apostle disputes against Justification by such deeds of the Moral Law, as wherein all the World is become guilty: But by the external deeds of the Law all the World is not become guilty; therefore he di∣sputes not against Justification by the external deeds of the Law only. That all the World is not become guilty by the external deeds of the Moral Law, and a failure therein, he proves, Rom. 5. 14. where he shews, That death reigned over some, who had not sin∣ned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. 5. Those deeds which David excluded from his Iu∣stification, the Apostle excludes from our Iustification; for he quotes his Proposition from Psal. 143. 2. and therefore takes it in his sense, or else he could not make use of his Authority: But David excludes all his deeds whatsoever from Justification; Enter not in∣to judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man be justified: He durst not once think of God's entering into judgment with him, upon the account of any thing he had attained: From all which it ap∣pears, that the Apostle excl•…•…es the Law, the whole Law, and the deeds thereof, all the deeds thereof, from having any concern in the Iustification of a sin∣ner in the sight of God. (2.) We may observe hence, That the Apostle opposes the Righteousness of God,

unto a Righteousness by the deeds of the Law: But now (says he) the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, vers. 21. And as in vers. 20. he says not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the deeds of the Law, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the deeds of Law, of a Law, of any Law: So here he says not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without the Law, as if he intended some singular Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without a Law, without any Law: And hence he fully silences and stops the mouth of our Authors Cavil, that by the deeds of the Law is meant only an external Con∣formity of our Actions to it. But the Apostles words leave no place for ambiguity: For if the Righteous∣ness of God without Law, a Law, any Law, be ma∣nifested, then without either Ceremonial, or Mo∣ral Law; then also without external, or internal deeds of either: But the Apostle shuts out Law sim∣ply and absolutely, The Righteousness of God—with∣out Law is manifested. As this term Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is more properly predicated of the Moral, than of the Ceremonial Law; so the deeds of Law, are more pro∣perly predicated of internal, than external deeds; and Analogum per se stans, stat pro famosior, Analo∣gato. If then (as our Author contends) we are ju∣stified by the Moral, though not by the Ceremonial Law, or by internal Conformity to it, though not by external Conformity to it only; then the Apostles Doctrine is true in an improper, or less proper sense, but utterly false in the proper, or more proper sense of the words: For had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 words been inverted, they had carried a clearer truth in them; By the deeds, [the internal deeds] of the Law, [the Moral Law] shall all flesh be justified: But now the Righteousness of God with the Law, [the Moral Law,] and its internal as

well as external deeds] is manifested: But this is not to interpret the Apostle, but dictate a new Gospel to him. But further: Hence I have just occasion to complain of an unrighteous surmise, with which our Author loads some men, That because they ex∣clude Law, and Law-deeds from Iustification in the sight of God, that therefore they exclude it from having any place in their Lives and Conversations. The Apostle, who is a zealous Vindicator of the interest of the Law, as a Rule of our Obedience; yet we see discharges it wholly from any, from all use, and ser∣vice in the Justification of a sinner in the sight of God: Therefore he adds, Before God; and the Psalmist, In thy sight; to teach us, That though the Righteousness of God without Law, is manifested, as to the truth of the thing, yet the Righteousness of God is not, cannot be manifested to us, without a sincere obedience to the Law. There's a Iustification before God; to this the Law, a Law, any Law, con∣tributes nothing; but there's a Justification before Conscience, before men, and to this a sincere, and evangelically universal obedience contributes much. (3.) The Apostle assures us, That this Doctrine of his is no new fancy, broached t'other day, and set on foot lately in Gospel-times, but the same way by which all the good men of old were justified, v. 21. It's witnessed by the Law, and the Prophets: Now as to the Prophets testimony, though our Author ap∣proves not their Cryptick way of demonstrating, but is all for plain Meridian demonstration; yet they are full that Jesus Christ was the main consideration in the Justification of a sinner from of old, Acts 3. 25, 26. Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Cove∣nant that God made with our Fathers, saying to Abra∣ham,

And in thy Seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; unto you first, God having raised up his Son Iesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Whence it ap∣pears, God's raising up Christ in the World, to bless his people with spiritual blessings, was no more than what he had covenanted with Abraham, and pro∣mised to him, even in that very Promise which our Author thinks was fulfilled in the numerous Posterity of Isaac: But now that this Righteousness of God without Law, should be witnessed by Law, this seems strange: Does the Law witness against it self? Is it false to it's own interest? But the Law, is God's Law; and when it witnesses to a sinner, it wit∣nesses home; convinces him of the perfect holiness of that God who gave the Law; of the perempto∣riness of God, in not abating one jot, or tittle of the Law; of the sinners utter inability to come up to the Demands of the Law, and therefore the utter im∣possibility of being justified by the Law; of the se∣verity of God's Justice in punishing the violater of his Law, and therefore unless he can find another Righteousness, he must utterly perish. 'Tis true, the Law speaks its old Language still, Do this and live; but then it speaks it only to those who are upon a bottom of Innocency; for to a Transgressor its language is, Cursed is very one that continues not in all things. (4.) The Apostle acquaints us, what that Righteous∣ness of God is which is manifested, vers. 22. Even the Righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of Christ. Now hence it's evident, that the Righteous∣ness of God, and Righteousness by the Faith of Christ, are both one; and therefore Faith in God, and Faith in Christ, are both one. As is the Righteousness,

such is the Faith: as is the Faith, such is the Righte∣ousness; which perfectly overthrows that Arbitrary distinction, which our Author had studied for more need; Of Faith in God, and Faith in Christ, on pur∣pose to shut Abraham out of Christ, and by Conse∣quence out of Heaven, and to lock him up in the Limbus Patrum.

(5.) The Apostle concludes, That there's no dif∣ference (in point of Justification) all that are sin∣ners by the First, must be justified (if ever they be justified) by the Second Adam: v. 22. The Righte∣ousness of God which is by Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all, and upon all that believe; for there's no difference, for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. As all men that ever were, are, or shall be, are sinners, under Condemnation; so all that ever were, are, or shall be righteous in the sight of God, are so by that righteousness which is by Faith of Iesus. So that every pardoned, accepted, justified sinner must own, that he is justified freely by the Grace of God, through the Redemption that is in Christ.

From these and such-like Scriptures, it is, that Christians ascribe their Iustification before God, not to their own good Works, but to the Free Grace of God through Iesus Christ: but our Author has a way of proving his Sentiments worth a thousand of these. Could men (says he) be reconciled to plain sence, it would need no other Confirmation, but the Natural evidence of naked and simple Truth. It has been ob∣served of the great Bellarmine (from whom our Au∣thor has borrowed some things) that he never comes in with a [Procui dubio] but the next words are a Rapper: the same I observe in our Author, that when he has done just nothing, he always makes

the loudest cackle. It was a handsom Come-of if you did but mind it; that when he had pester'd us with his prejudices, surfeited us with Arbitrary di∣stinctions, filled our heads with empty Notions, and when we looked to have been attack'd with one of his old, plain, kill-cow demonstrations, he faces about, and pops us off with this: It needs no other proof than the Natural evidence of simple and naked Truth.

But now let the Reader take something warm next his heart, let him use his phial of Essences, for our Author is just now a-coming to examine those Texts of Scripture which are abused by these men, to set up the personal Righteousness of Christ, as the only formal Cause of our justification: And must not those Texts of Scripture be miserably abused indeed, that are thus prest in for such a service? What, the perso∣nal Righteousness of Christ the formal Cause of our justification? I have heard some say it was the Meri∣torious Cause, some the Impulsive Cause, others the Material Cause, and some that it is no Cause; but our Author is the first that ever I heard this expression from. There was once a good Orthodox Bishop, (as Orthodoxy past in that Age) his Name Down∣ham, he has Written many a long page upon this Subject, and he acquaints us with the sence of Pro∣testants▪ Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 1. That the matter of our justification is Christ's Righteousness, and the form is God's Imputing it; and this way go most of your Systematical Divines: but from hence I learn it's the Mode now-a-days, for these Gentlemen to Con∣fute (that is, to Rail at) those long-winded Authors they never had the patience to read, nor the Brains to understand; but let this pass amongst our Au∣thors Negligences or Ignorances, till I understand

better where to marshal it. In examining the Texts which they abuse, he will begin and end with Phil. 3. 8, 9. Yea doubtless, and I account all things loss for the excellency of the Knowledg of Iesus Christ my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things that I may win Christ, and be found in him not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. The main Question here will be, What was that Righteousness which the Apostle renounces, from having any place in his Justi∣fication before God? Upon this one hinge turns all the Controversie betwixt our Author and his Antago∣nists. They say it was, what-ever inherent Righte∣ousness he had attained or could attain, what-ever Obe∣dience he had performed, or could perform to the Com∣mands of God. Ay but (says our Author) what proof have they for this? he can learn none, but that they take it for granted, that My Righteousness signi∣fies Inherent Righteousness. And really they are to be pittied if not pardoned, that by His own Righte∣ousness, understand his own Righteousness; for if Inherent Righteousness, be not His own Righte∣ousness, it's plain he could have none at all; for an External Conformity of Actions to the Law alone is not Righteousness at all, but Hypocrisie, and Vn∣righteousness: but I shall inform him of some other proofs why they take His own Righteousness for In∣herent Righteousness. 1. That which he calls his own Righteousness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he tells you in the next words, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that which is from Law, from a Law, from any Law indefinite∣ly: now a Righteousness which is from a Law is such a one as the Law urges, presses upon and pre∣scribes

to the Conscience; but that without question is an Internal Conformity of soul to the holiness of the Law; but this the Apostle rejects, therefore he re∣jects Internal and Inherent Righteousness. 2. The true Notion of My Righteousness is not to be fetcht from some sorry Conjectures, from precarious Hypothe∣ses, which men (when they are in streights) in∣vent to avoid present ruine, but from the stable fixed constant use thereof in Scripture; but so is this ex∣pression [My own Righteousness] and [My own, or your own Works] used in Scripture, viz. for real sineere Conformity of heart and life to a Law, therefore so ought we to take it here, till we see co∣gent Reason to the contrary. That this is the fixed use of the expression in Scripture we shall see, Gen. 30. 33. My Righteousness shall answer for me in time to come; which our Author would paraphrase thus, My Righteousness, that is, My Roguery, Iob 27. 6. My Righteousness I hold fast, my heart shall not re∣proach me as long as I live. My Righteousness, that is, (would he say) My Hypocrisie, Matth. 5. 16. That men may see your good works, that is, in the New Glossary, Your Complement. Dan. 9. 18. we present not our supplications before thee not for our Righteous∣nesses, but for thy great Mercies. The Prophet in the Name of the Church must be supposed here not to renounce real Righteousness, but the Sceleton of Obedience: Now had the Apostle designed only to reject his own Hypocrisie, he was not so barren in ex∣pressions but he could have fitted it with its Proper Name. 3. The Apostle expresly renounces both what-ever he had attained before or after his Conver∣sion, v. 7. These things that were gain to me, (whilst I was a Pharisee) those I accounted [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] loss

for Christ: But is that all? No! Yea doubtless (v. 8.) and I do (now) account [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] all things but loss: I have accounted all things attained in my Iudaism loss, when I was first convinced: and I do now account all things even my own Righteousness loss, and dung for Christ: and therefore it is to be noted that the Apostle rises higher in his earnestness, v. 8. Yea doubtless; q. d. Did I say that I once looked upon all as loss for Christ. I will speak a bolder word than that, I count all but loss, dung, filth, that I may win Christ, and be found in him not having my own Righte∣ousness: and that he speaks of that esteem and value he had of his present Righteousness, is yet further evi∣dent from this, that it was in reference to a future day, the day of Iudgment, that he might be found in Christ, in that day, not sticking to his own Righteousness. Two things our Author returns to this:

1. It's a sufficient Answer to say they need not signi∣fie so. I confess for want of a better the Answer may pass: A bad shift is better than None, and half a loaf is better than No-bread: but if a Man had a better, it was the sorriest Answer in the World. I see when men are prest with express Scripture, and yet are resolved (cost what will) to adhere to their own Conclusions, it's adviseable to cast about, to turn their thoughts into all shapes imaginable, to hunt for the extremest possibilities: If a Word, a Phrase, an Expression is but capable of another sence, let it be probable, or improbable, true or false, agreeable to the scope of the place or alien, all is a case, something must be said, that they may not seem to say Nothing; And if they can say it's possible it may be otherwise (as who cannot) though

they do not believe themselves, they hug them∣selves for their ready wit, and applaud themselves for grave Respondents. A little matter will blow away this dust: Let them show where ever, My Righteousness, is otherwise used, and then let them boast of a bare possibility. 2. My own Righteousness (says he) can signifie no more than that wherein he placed his Righteousness. I beg his pardon for that. It signifies more than that wherein he placed his Righteousness whil'st a Pharisee; and a great deal less than that, wherein he placed Righteousness after Conversion, in order to Justification. But if the Apostle renounced what-ever he placed his Righte∣ousness in, then, either he placed it in Inherent Righteousness, or not; If not, then how dares our Author place his Righteousness there, where the Apostle durst not? If he did ever place his Righte∣ousness in it; then here he openly declares before the World that he Renounces it: But (says our Au∣thor) what necessity is there to understand this of in∣herent holiness? We have shewed you the Necessity before, and shall do hereafter. An External Righte∣ousness serves most mens turns very well: not so well neither as he may Imagine. And this is the Righte∣ousness by which the Pharisees (and amongst the rest St. Paul whilst he was a Pharisee) expected to be justi∣fied; but stay a while. 1. We have proved that the Apostle not only renounced that Righteousness what-ever it was that he had whilst a Pharisee; but that which was his own at the time when he made that solemn Renunciation of it: what-ever he had attained, or might possibly attain, all went that he might be found in Christ in the great Day. 2. The Pharisees were generally bad enough in all Consci∣ence,

and he need not make them worse. It's a sin we say to bely the Devil; It doth not appear that the Pharisees expected to be Justified before God, by an external obedience only without sincerity: It was not their Principle, though Hypocrisie (as to many Individuals) might be their Practice. The Case is frequent before our Eyes, a Drunkard, a common Swearer, &c. will tell you they Hope to be saved, though they are wicked; but none durst ever assume the Impudence to expect Salvation be∣cause he was wicked: No, he will repent when he can intend it, and trust to the general grace of God, and some such reserves, which our Modern-Pulpit-Drol∣lery has furnisht him withal. 3. As to Paul whilst he was a Pharisee (if we take his own word for it when he was none) he was no Hypocrite, he every-where vindicates himself as to that: His Per∣secuting was his great Crime, in which he protests his sincerity, Acts 25. 9. I verily thought with my self that I ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Iesus: and 1 Tim. 1. 13. he avows he did it ignorantly: He durst appeal to his very Enemies how he had lived from a Child, Act. 25. 4. My manner of life from my youth know all the Iews if they would testifie: and makes a solemn Protestation be∣fore the Sanhedrin, Act. 23. 1. That he had lived in all good Conscience to that very day: That others of the Pharisees, were Sober, Conscientious men, I do not at all question; and the discourse of Paul's Mr. Gamaliel, Act. 5. shows that he had a great deal more Religion in him than most of those who to carry on a design rail at them for Hypo∣crites.

Ay, but (says our Author) what his Righteousness

was he tells us, V. 6, 7. Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, &c. So that My own Righteous∣ness which is of the Law, is so far from signifying an inherent Righteousness, a vital principle of Holiness, that it only signifies an external Righteousness, which consisted in some external Rites, as Circumcision, and Sacrifices, or external Priviledges, as being of the Seed of Abraham, or an external Civility and blame∣lessness of Conversation. This proceeds upon a double false supposition; 1. That the Apostle renounces no∣thing but what he had attained whilst he was a Phari∣see. 2. That whatsoever he had renounced, V. 6, 7. did constitute his Pharisaical Righteousness: For, 1. I must cut him off Circumcision; that was no part of his own Righteousness, a priviledge it was; but nothing performed by him, and therefore could not expect Justification by it: unless our Author will grant that he had a spice of the Doctrine of imputing the Obedience of Another to him for Iustification. 2. For Sacrifices, the Apostle mentions them not, renounces them not; for he understood too well their use and proper End in the Iewish Church; that they were their visible Gospel, and did lead to Christ (whom now he owned) though then he was ignorant of him. The Conscientious and be∣lieving use of Sacrifices might put in for a place in Justifying the Sinner, with better right, than such Obedience to the Moral Law as man was able in his present state to perfom. 1. Consider them as mere acts of Obedience, wherein the thing done is not so considerable, as the subjection of the Conscience to the Authority of God the Soveraign Law-giver: which in this Case is most signal, for here is only the will and pleasure of God for the Reason of that costly, and

operose seruice; whereas Moral duties are vouched for, by the suffrage of the Light, and Reason of Na∣ture. 2. Consider them as instituted for their pecu∣liar end, the leading and conducting of Faith to Christ; and so they far exceed and outstrip any thing the Moral Law (being become weak through the flesh) could assist the sinner in; for so they are said, actually to procure pardon of sin, actually to make Atonement and reconciliation, Lev. 17. 11. I have given you it [the blood] upon the Altar to make an Atonement for your souls, for it is the Blood that maketh an Atonement for the soul, 2 Chron. 29. 24. The Priests killed them [the Sacrifices] and they made reconcili∣ation with their Blood upon the Altar, to make an A∣tonement for All Israel. Now let him shew me, where ever Atonement, Reconciliation, are annext to the Actual performance of the Moral Law. It is true that the Original design of the Moral Law was Justifi∣cation, but not the Justification of a Sinner; but Man being now become such, the Law is utterly uncapa∣ble of reaching it's Primitive end: and it's as true also that Sacrifices upon their own Account could not supply that defect, but as directing the sinner to him who is the grand Propitiation, and from whose Death they received all their virtue and effica∣cy. 3. As to his being of the Stock of Israel, of the Seed of Abraham, &c. they might expect some fa∣vours thence, but that any was so far bewitched as to believe that all of the Stock of Israel, and the Na∣tural Seed of Abraham should be justified, cannot be proved. 4. For external Civility, and blamelessness of Conversation: It would have gone a great way in our Authors account at any other time; pag. 384. he asks the question with some heat and briskness,

what? live a blameless, innocent, honest, smooth life, and yet live in some sin or other? Paul would have past for a Righteous person upon his producing the Ticket of a blameless Conversation in that Section, though in this he is rated at for a Hypocrite, and all that's naught: but what-ever Paul was, or was not whilst a Pharisee, it makes no great matter to the busi∣ness in hand, seeing he has so freely and openly dis∣owned, what-ever was his own Righteousness after Conversion, in the matter of Justification before God.

But to Confirm all this (says our Author) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 must observe a double Antithesis in the words. We must? what, whether we can or no? whether it be there to be observed or no? what if there be but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 single Antithesis in them? It's no matter; we must observe a double Antithesis if we will purchase our peace and quiet: I promise you this Antithesis is a very hard word! Graecum est, non potest intelligi! And I should assoon chuse to swallow Dr. Iacomb's Con∣junction (at which our Author made such a sowre face in the beginning of this Section) as this crab∣bed Antithesis, much more then a Double Antithesis: but what is this Double Antithesis? Why (says he) The Righteousness of the Law is opposed to the Righte∣ousness which is by the Faith of Christ. And my own Righteousness, opposed to the Righteousness of God. There's your double Antithesis! Now (says he) the surest way to understand the meaning of this, is to examine how these phrases are used in Scripture; but in my mind it will be a surer, I am sure a more Ra∣tional way, to examine first whether indeed there be such a double Antithesis in the words as he pre∣tends, or whether a single one will not content the

Text? And the surest way to understand this, is to examine the words themselves. And be found in him not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law; But that which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. Now if any one can find a double Antithesis, or in plain English a double Opposition in these words, he must have eyes like a Cat, which some say, can see as well by Night as by Day, or however as well i'th' dark as without light. Not having my own Righteousness which is of the Law. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There's one member of the Antithesis, where the Righteousness which is of the Law, is a plain Exegesis (there's another hard-word for you) of my own Righteousness; and not any thing distinct from it: My own Righteousness which is of the Law; and then comes the other member of the Antithesis; But that which is through the Faith of Iesus Christ, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: where the repe∣tition of the Article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as every hungry Graecu∣list knows) is as much as videlicet. The Righteous∣ness by the Faith of Christ, namely, or that is to say, the Righteousness which is of God by Faith: and thus Beza, Non habens meam justitiam (nempe) quae est ex lege; sed eam quae est per fidem Christi (id est) justitiam [quae est] ex Deo per fidem: who for a smattering in that Language will not envy our Au∣thor? So that nothing could by the Wit, or Igno∣rance of Man, have been more groundlesly, absurd∣ly, and ridiculously invented, than this double An∣tithesis. And, 1. Let us observe how ill-favoured∣ly it was contrived. The Text-order is this, My own Righteousness which is of the Law—That which is

the Faith of Christ (even) the Righteousness of God by Faith. Now if any man would needs have a double Antithesis to do him some special service, it should have been laid between my own Righteous∣ness, and that which is by the Faith of Christ; and then between, That of the Law, and the Righteous∣ness of God by Faith: but on the contrary our Au∣thor without any provocation, without any umbrage of a pretence from the Text (like old Iacob crossing his hands) has laid them in saltire; My own Righ∣teousness, to the Righteousness of God, and the Righte∣ousness of the Law, to the Righteousness by the Faith of Christ. 2. Supposing all that he can desire, how does this double Antithesis confirm that which he contrived it to confirm, viz. that my own Righteous∣ness signifies an external Righteousness only? It has been an old saying, that one absurdity being granted many more will easily follow. And yet so hard is this Gentleman put to it, that granting him a many ab∣surdities, he cannot make one follow: but yet the Reader shall hear what he would serve out of this double Antithesis.

(1.) The Righteousness of the Law (as you have already heard) is an external Righteousness, which consists in Washings, Purifications, Sacrifices, or an external conformity to the Moral Law: So we have beard indeed once and again affirmed, but never confirmed: The double Antithesis was brought to confirm it, and that must confirm the double Anti∣thesis. I desire therefore once for all to hear where the Righteousness of Law, the Moral Law, is said to consist in Externals: The Righteousness of the Law is that Righteousness which the Law requireth; but the Law requires an internal Conformity of heart to

our outward Actions, and of both to the Law of God; therefore the Righteousness of the Law con∣sists also in an internal Conformity. The Law con∣demns none that bring the Righteousness of the Law, but the Law condemns those that bring only an ex∣ternal Conformity▪ therefore external Conformity is not the Righteousness of the Law: and from hence we may be abundantly satisfied what was that Righteousness of his own, which the Apostle renoun∣ces. That which was his own Righteousness, that he renounces; but an internal inherent Righteousness was his own Righteousness, therefore that he renounces. The Minor I prove, The Righteousness of the Law was his own Righteousness (Not having my own Righteousness that is of the Law) but the Righteous∣ness of the Law was an inherent internal Righteous∣ness; therefore his own Righteousness was an inherent, and internal Righteousness. The Minor I prove, That which the Law prescribes, and commands is the Righteousness of the Law; but that which the Law prescribes and commands, is an internal and inherent Righteousness, and therefore the Righteousness of the Law is such a Righteousness. That which God requires, his Law requires; but God requires Truth in the inward parts, whether in Ceremonials or Mo∣rals; therefore the Law requires the same: And is it not now an unparalleld piece of Non-sence to call that the Righteousness of the Law, which both the Law and the Author of it do a•…•…hor? External Conformity alone, is so far from being the Righte∣ousness of the Law, that it's the Unrighteousness of the Law: But hence the Reader will begin to get a glimmering into the true Reason that necessitated our Author to study this device of a double Anti∣thesis,

viz. that Paul's Righteousness which he •…•…∣nounced, might not seem to be the Righteousness of the Law which God required (though not in or∣der to Justification;) for if his own Righteousness be the Righteousness of the Law, and he so peremp∣torily renounces his own, then he renounces the Righteousness of the Law also; and what that is, this one Consideration is enough to convince us of: That the Law requires an absolute, perfect, entire Conformity of the whole Man to it's demands, and claimes, without which no man can expect to be Iusti∣fied by it. And seeing such is the Case with poor impotent Man, that he cannot answer it's demands and claims, he can never reasonably expect it should do him that service: but now see the frailty of our Authors memory, for just above he told us, the surest way to understand the meaning of this, was to consider how these Phrases are used in Scripture; and yet when he undertakes to give us the true meaning of this Phrase (The Righteousness of the Law) he cannot afford to give us one single Scripture to lead us into the true meaning of it.

(2.) The Righteousness by the Faith of Christ (says he) is an internal Righteousness: Oh but that should have been proved, soundly proved, not begg'•…•… or borrowed, much less stollen, for it's the main thing in Question; and of all things in the Syllogism, we should not stand to Courtesie for the Conclusion: why (says he) it's call'd being born again, becoming new Creatures, rising again with Christ, &c. But still proof! proof is wanting! for we think that those expressions do not denote that Righteousness whereby we are constituted Iust, in the sight of God; but Holiness, and Sanctification of Nature,

which the Gospel evidently distinguishes from that Righteousness whereby we are Iustified; but let him have line enough. Hence (says he) The Apostle tells us, that the Reason why God sent Christ into the World in our Nature, to die as a Sacrifice for our sins, and to confirm the Covenant; was, that the Righteous∣ness of the Law might be fulfilled in us (N. B.) who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Well! what is that Righteousness of the Law Christ came to fulfil? why (says he) Learnedly from Chry∣sostom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Righteousness of the Law, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That which the Law was design'd to work in them; but was too weak to effect it by Reason of the greater power and prevalency of sin; i. e. the inward holiness, and pu∣rity of mind, which was represented by those external∣Ceremonies: Most incomparable! and very like himself! It was but the other side of the leaf, that he told us, that the Righteousness of the Law consisted in Washings, Purifications, Sacrifices, or an external Conformity to the Moral Law; but now the Case is altered, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is grown 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in∣ward purity, and holiness of mind. It may not be amiss to call these things over again: 1. If the Righteousness of the Law be only an external Conformi∣ty (as he told us just before) then Christ came in∣to the World to fulfil in us only Ceremony, and Hypo∣crisie: for he tells us just now from the Apostle, Rom. 8. 3, 4. God sent Christ into the world, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Or, 2. If the Righteousness of the Law, be inward holi∣ness and purity of mind; then St. Paul who rejects the Righteousness of the Law, in the matter of Justi∣fication before God; rejects also inward purity and

holiness of mind for that purpose: but whether we are to believe, pag. 264. or pag. 265. as the honester∣of the two, I cannot tell, nor am much concern'd at present. 3. If it be true, that the Righteousness of the Law, be that inward purity of mind which the Law was design'd to work in us, then what is become of that Antithesis which he coyned between the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness by the Faith of Christ? I am very serious, and de∣sire to be resolved; for he tells us here, that the Righteousness of the Law, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the inward holiness and purity of mind; and then tells us immediatly after, that the design of the Gospel is to work that inward holiness and purity: Now why St. Paul should renounce inward holiness (which was the Righteousness of the Law) to attain in∣ward purity (which is the Righteousness of the Gospel) is to me a Mystery as deep as any of those I have met withal in your Systematical Divines. To shut up this point, The Righteousness of the Law, is that which the Law requires; and his friend Dr. Ia∣comb, has furnish'd him with such a Syncretism of Learned Men, as may cut his Comb, and spoyl his Crowing over his Adversary. Significat eam recti∣tudinem quae praecipitur in lege, P. Mart. Iustitia quam lex exigebat, Vatab. Totum quod lex praecipit, A. Lap. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ipsa legis praecepta, Perer. Iu∣stitia legis, est justitia quam lex praecipit, Estius. Im∣plere justum legis, est totum quod lex praecipit efficere, Tolet. Ut justificatio legis, id est, ut justitia quam lex praescribit & exigit, impleretur, Stap. Ut ad∣impleret opus praeceptorum legis, Vers. Aethiop. Ut nos impleremus omnia quae in lege Mosis, & per se honesta sunt, Grot. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is any thing that

God hath thought meet to appoint or command his People, Dr. Hammond. And now for to divert his Reader, he has sprung us new game: but I shall adjourn the Consideration of what immediately follows, that we may not be bewildred and lost in a wood; and shall fall in with him at p. 273. where he reassumes the present Subject. Thus y•…•…u see (says he) how the Apostle opposes the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of Faith; not as an Inherent and Personal Righteousness to an Imputed Righteousness; but as an External and Ritual, to an Inherent and Substantial Righteousness: but we have seen no such matter as yet, and do believe we are not like to see it. And the rather because he has thrown in a very suspicious word that would make any one think, that though he sets a good Face upon the Matter, yet he has little confidence in the Truth of his own Notions. The Truth is (lays he) The Righ∣teousness of the Law, and of Works, in the New∣Testament signifies only an External Righteousness, which cannot please God. Now I began to think thus with my self: Does the Righteousness of the Law signifie one thing in the New-Testament, and an∣other in the Old-Testament? Does it signifie a real In∣herent Substantial Righteousness in the Old, and a Ritual External Righteousness in the New? Sin∣cerity in the one, and Hypocrisie and Ceremony in the other? this is very unaccountable! Surely (thought I) when the Apostle argues with Jews, or Judaizing Christians, he speaks in their Dialect, speaks to their Capacity, speaks that he may be understood, speaks ad idem. They that had read Ps. 119. 144. The Righteousness of thy Testimonies [of thy Law] is everlasting, would wonder to hear the Apostle

speak against the Righteousness of the Law: but alas, he only equivocated, and had a mental Reservation in his Sleeve, and understood all the while Ceremony and hypocrisie: But this is a Riddle, which because our Author has made of his own Mother-wit, he is the fittest Man alive to interpret it.

(3) His Second Antithesis is between my own Righteousness, and the Righteousness of God; and he is considering with himself in what sense they are oppo∣sed. But there's no great difficulty in this, (says he) for the Apostle himself tells us, that by his own Righte∣ousness he means the Righteousness of the Law; and by the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Faith: and therefore he will give this the gentle wipe, and away: But now he has quite spoiled the Humour of the double Antithesis; for, if by his own Righteousness, he means the Righteousness of the Law, and by the Righteousness of God, the Righteousness of Faith; then there's but one single Antithesis: be∣tween his own Righteousness which is of the Law, (on the one part) and the Righteousness by the Faith of Christ, even the Righteousness which is of God by Faith, (on the other part:) but at these rates he might have given us, a treble, quadruple, sextuple, Antithesis, and have rung as many changes, when his hand was once in, upon two Bells, as others can do upon six. The Apostles Words indeed were clear, very clear, till our Author found it necessary to obscure them, to deprave the Truth, & conciliate some small reverence to errour, to which two Heads I foresaw from the first, his whole Discourse might be reduc∣ed. And thus much we are secured of, That the Apostle has repudiated his own Righteousness from any concern in justification; and that we may not

doubt what that was, he tells us, 'tis that of the Law. What the Righteousness of the Law signifies is evident, that which always bore that Name; that which the Law commands, and prescribes, viz. An exact Conformity to the Law of God in Spirit, Soul, and Body, so far as 'tis attainable or not attainable. He assures us next what he owns and adheres to, viz. The Righteousness of Christ, which is also called, The Righteousness of God. He further acquaints us, how we come to be interessed in this Righteousness, and that is by Faith; and that we may not ignorant∣ly or wilfully mistake Faith for the Doctrine of Faith; he assures us that it's by Believing, by which we obtain this Righteousness. Rom. 3. 22. The Righ∣teousness which is by Faith of Iesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.

To shut up his learned Exercitation, or schola∣stical Dissertation, or Diatriba of Antitheses, our Author will favour us with a Reason, nay, with an obvious and the most obvious Reason, why this Righ∣teousness of the Law is called their own Righteousness; because (forsooth) this Legal Righteousness was a way of their own chusing, not of God's Appointment. Now here he most falsly supposes, that by the Righ∣teousness of the Law is only meant a Righteousness made up of the Works of the Ceremonial Law: but I think something has been offered to dash that fan∣cy out of countenance. I am in haste, and intreat our Author to accept of short answers: 1. God has not appointed a Righteousnes▪ made up out of any observances of the Moral Law, to be that Righ∣teousness wherein Sinners shall stand justified be∣fore him: If any will demand Iustification thereby, God will demand exact and perfect Conformity. If

therefore Sinners will chase this way, 'tis their own Righteousness; and it's time to give it a bill of di∣vorce, God has not appointed it. 2. External Washings, External Conformity, &c. were no Righteousness at all, much less the Righteousness of the Law, that which it required to form a Righte∣ousness; and therefore chuse it, or not chuse it, this is nothing to the purpose: The Apostle renounces his own Righteousness, which is the Righteousness of the Law. And this is further evident from Rom. 10. 3. (which our Author quotes, but miserably perverts.) For they being ignorant of Gods Righ∣teousness, and going about to establish their own Righ∣teousness, have not submitted to the Righteousness of God. Here is then the same Antithesis again, be∣tween their own Righteousness, (that of the Law) and the Righteousness of God, (which is by the Faith of Jesus Christ); and the opposition is so direct, and diametrical, that 'twas impossible to establish their own, but they must shake off all subjection to Gods Righteousness. The Question then will be, Whether we are to be justified by a Legal, or an Evangelical Righteousness? And to this our Author agrees in words; but his Words intend quite another thing from the Truth: For by the Law he understands the Law of Moses: and let that pass too for once. But then by the Law of Moses he understands only the Ceremonial Law, though sometimes he is con∣tent to take in External Acts of Conformity to the Moral Law: and thus by a Legal Righteousness, or the Righteousness of the Law, he understands one made up of External Observations only, wherein the Apostle has clearly determined against him; to whom therefore from his partial Judgment-Seat. I

shall appeal, v. 5, 6. For Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man that doth these things shall live in them; from whence I argue a∣gainst our Author: That Law whose Righteousness Moses describes, the Apostle excludes from hav∣ing any place in Justification, but it is the Moral Law whose Righteousness Moses describes; therefore it is the Moral Law, which the Apostle excludes from having any place in Iustification. The Major is evi∣dent from the Connexion of the Apostle's Words, v. 3.—They have not submitted themselves to the Righteousness of God. v. 4. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that be∣lieveth; for Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, &c. The Minor I prove thus: That Law which saith, He that doth these things shall live in them, is that Law whose Righteousness Moses prescribeth; but it is the Moral Law, which saith, He that doth these things shall live in them: there∣fore it is the Moral Law, whose Righteousness Moses describeth. The Major is the Apostles own, v. 5. the Minor I prove from Lev. 18. 5. You shall keep my Statutes and Iudgments, which if a Man do he shall live in them. v. 6. None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him. 7. The nakedness of thy Father or of thy Mother thou shalt not uncover, &c. from whence I argue thus: That Law which forbids incest, is the Moral Law; but that Law which saith, He that doth these things shall live in them, is the Law which forbids incest: therefore that Law, that saith, He that doth these things shall live in them, is the Moral Law. Again I argue thus from Gal. 3. 10, 11. That Law which hath the Curse annext to it for noncontinuance in all things commanded therein,

is the Law which the Apostle excludes from hav∣ing any place in the Justification of a Sinner; but it is the Moral Law which hath that Curse annext to it: therefore it is the Moral Law which the A∣postle excludes from having any place in the Justifi∣cation of a Sinner. The Major is evident from the place, v. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things, which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. v. 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident. The Minor I prove from Deut. 27. 26. from whence the Apostle quotes it. Cursed be he that continueth not in all the Words of this Law to do them. That Law which forbids making Ima∣ges, which forbids setting light by Father or Mother, which forbids removing Land-marks, which forbids causing the Blind to go out of his way, which forbids perverting of judgment, incest, sodomy, is the Law which hath the Curse annext to it; but it is the Moral Law which forbids all these things: There∣fore it is the Moral Law which hath this Curse an∣next to it. I cannot foresee what our Author will return to all this, but his old tawdry Answer. That indeed the Apostle does exclude the Moral Law, but that is only with respect to External O∣bedience, without Internal Conformity: But it's evi∣dent that the Apostle excludes the Law it self, and therefore it must be highly impertinent to enquire what Deeds of the Law are excluded, when the Law it self is excluded: But yet for his further sa∣tisfaction, I shall bestow an Argument upon that also.

Those Acts of Obedience to which the Promise of Life in the Covenant of Works originally was most directly made, are excluded from Iustification: but to inward acts of Obedience the Promise of Life was most directly made; and therefore inward acts of Obedience are excluded from Iustification. The Apostle has se∣cured the Major, Rom. 10. 3, 5, 6. They have not sub∣mitted themselves to the Righteousness of God: For Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that he that doth these things shall live in them. The Minor is evident, for God never made a Promise of Life to External Acts of Obedience, without inward Confor∣mity of Soul to them, and of both to the Law of God. Again, Those Acts, the want whereof main∣ly exposes the Sinner to the Curse, are excluded from Justification; but the want of Internal Acts of Obedience mainly exposes the Sinner to the Curse: therefore internal Acts are excluded from Justification. And the true Reason why these in∣ward Acts are excluded from Justification, is not because they are not well-pleasing to God; but be∣cause the case is thus with impotent fallen men, that he cannot reach the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the utmost tittle of what the Law requires, & theresore must fall under the severe doom annext to the viola∣tion of the Law in the least punctilio, unless God had provided a better Righteousness than that of his own Obedience.

After all that has or may be said in the Case, If any one will be so civil and ingenuous, as out of his pure good-nature to yield our Author a few small inconsiderable things: As, 1. That there is a double Antithesis, where there is but one. And 2. That a man's own Righteousness is another thing

than the Righteousness of the Law. 3. That the Righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ, is di∣stinct from the Righteousness of God. 4. That by the Righteousness of the Law, no more is intended, than Ceremony and Hypocrisie. 5. That a mans own Righteousness is so called, not because it is his own, but because he places his Righteousness in it. and 6thly, one poor sorry triffle more, That all he asserts is meer Gospel; grant him but this, and he will prove all the rest with ease: but though I would go a great way to save his longing, yet this is so large a boon, that it deserves mature advice and serious deliberation.

There are yet a few odd things in arrear, some notice whereof I promised to take; and seeing we are a little at leisure, I shall do him justice. And first, let us consider what work he has made with that Text, Rom. 8. 3, 4. For what the Law could not do in that it was weak-through the Flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the Flesh, that the Righ∣teousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit. Now our Authors Paraphrase (as well as we can scram∣ble it together from broken fragments, and odd shreds of his Discourse) is thus much. The Ceremo∣nial Law being designed of God to work in the Iews inward holiness, and purity of Mind, which was re∣presented by Circumcision, Washings, Purifications, and Sacrifices; it was found too weak to effect this de∣sign, and therefore God sent Christ into the World to die as a Sacrifice for our Sins, to confirm and seal the New-Covenant with his Blood; to work in us that In∣ternal Holiness and Purity, which is the Perfection

and Accomplishment of the Figurative and Typical Righteousness of the Law: which he gives us in o∣ther words, p. 267. What the Law could not do, i. e. govern our Minds and Passions; this God effected by sending Christ into the World to publish the Gospel to us, and to confirm all those great Promises and Threatnings contained in it, with his own Blood. This is indeed a parcel of excellent Divinity, but that it's wholly destitute of truth: For 1. he supposes, That that Law, whose weakness the Apostle assigns as the Reason of Gods sending his Son; was only the Cere∣monial Law; the Falshood whereof I shall demon∣strate (if that be not too great a word for any mans Mouth besides his own) by and by. 2. He insi∣nuates that the whole of Christs being a Sacrifice for our Sins, lay in confirming the New-Covenant; the Falshood whereof, the next Section will give us direct occasion to evince. 3. He makes the whole business of the Ceremonial Law, to represent inward purity, and (perhaps) to effect it: where∣as though some of the Ceremonies did represent in∣ward purity; yet the main of their design was to lead to Jesus Christ: and particularly Sacrifices which represented that Atonement and Reconcilia∣tion which Christ in due time should make with God on the behalf of Sinners. Col. 2. 17. The Law had a shadow of good things to come, but the Body is of Christ. 4. He scandalously charges it up∣on God, that he appointed a means to an end; which was found too weak to reach his End: As if God must try conclusions, and make experiments, before he could be certain whether his design would take, and his appointments reach their End. 5. He renders Christ's Coming into the World unnecessa∣ry;

for what though the Ceremonial Law could not effect that inward Purity, yet I hope God had means to effect it, unless he will say all the World till Christ's Coming were whited-Walls, and paint∣ed-Sepulchres: For what was become of the Moral Law all this while? had it no power to effect that End? 6. He tells us p. 269. That the Reason why the Law of Moses was abrogated, was because it could not make men good: But then the Moral Law was either able to make men good, or it was not; If it was not, why was not that abrogated also? If it was able, and had its effect, then what need of Christ to come into the World to effect that which the Moral Law was able to effect without him? But the true Reason why the Ceremonial Law is expired, is because the Lord Jesus Christ has an∣swered and fulfilled all that is represented. When the Sun is risen, the Shadows fly away; there was no formal abrogation either made or necessary to be made; it expired of course when Christ had made good what-ever the Ceremonies had exhibited to their Faith. 7. He tells that Christ came to work in us that inward Purity, represented by the Cere∣monial Law: but for all his good-morrows, when he is throughly catechifed: Christ's working is no more than those sufficient arguments and motives, to excite their own wits, whereby they might work it themselves; and I cannot tell whether he will deny that the Jews had sufficient motives, and arguments for that end under their Law. 8. He contradicts himself (which is no news); for whereas he had said p. 265. That the Law was designed to work in them inward purity: He says p. 269. That the Law nursed them up in a ritual, and external Re∣ligion,

and taught them to serve God in the Letter, by Circumcision, and Sacrifices, or an external Confor∣mity to the Letter of the Law. And then I hope God could not justly blame them, much less damn them for being Hypocrites, if they did as well as, and no better, than his own Law taught them: Nay he adds, That the Gospel of Christ alone teaches us to worship God with the Spirit, and to offer a reasonable Sacrifice to him. This is strange Doctrine! but it's less matter for that if it be but true. But was not God always a Spirit, and did he not always teach his People to worship him with their Spirits? How osten does God complain that they drew nigh him with their Lips, when their Hearts were far from him? which he could not well do, if he taught them no better: It's a Riddle to me that these Cere∣monies should represent inward purity, and yet not teach it; when they had no way to teach that Purity, but by representing it. 'Tis true, the Gospel teaches us to worship God in the Spirit, in opposition to Ceremonies; but God always taught his People to worship him with their Spirits in opposition to Hy∣pocrisie. Psal. 51. 6. Thou desirest truth in the in∣ward parts. Did God institute a Law, a Law so chargeable and burdensome, and all to teach his People to worship like Parrots, to mumble over their Mattens, and like Puppets to make an outward noise, without a rational Principle to guide it? If they had no reasonable Service, why were they rea∣sonable Creatures? But a little more reverence of the Divine Majesty would confute a great deal of such blasphemy. Let us now seriously consider the Text: and 1. It will be necessary to enquire what that Law is, whose weakness the Apostle assigns as

the reason of God's sending his own Son? And for all the Authors presumptions, I am well satisfied it was not the Ceremonial Law: for what if the Ceremo∣nial had proved weak? what if it had been resolved into its first nothing, the Moral stood still where it always did? and what need of Christ's Coming into the World upon that account? There was a time when the Ceremonial Law was not created, and what if it had been again repealed and annihi∣lated, things had been but in statu quo: But that the Law here mentioned is the Moral Law, the Connexion of the Apostle's Words, his Premises out of which he draws his Conclusion, will abun∣dantly manifest. In Chap. 7. v. 7, He tells us he had not known sin except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet: But sin taking occasion from that Law, wrought in him all manner of Concupiscence, v. 8. Nevertheless he clears the Law. v. 12. The Com∣mandment was holy and just, and good; had an in∣trinsick goodness, righteousness in it; and this he calls v. 25. The Law of God. Now the Apostle having said v. 10. That this Commandment (of the Moral Law) which was unto life in (God's Original Institution) he found to be unto death: Nevertheless, Chap. 8. v. 1. he assures us, That there is no Con∣demnation to them that are in Christ Iesus; and he shews how Sinners are brought from under that Condemnation, v. 3. What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh, God sending his own Son, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; That impossible thing of the Law: where the Apostle add∣ing the Article [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] intimates that he spake of that Law whereof he had made mention before, which was the Moral Law; that Law which saith Thou shalt

not covet; that Law which is holy, just, good; that Law, which is eminently the Law of God, and not that which carries the name of the Law of Moses. (2) But what was that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the im∣possible thing of this Law? There are many things that this Law cannot do: It can lay a Command upon the Creature, but it cannot give strength to obey the Command; it can offer the Promises of Life to the obedient, and shake the Threatning over the Conscience of the Rebellious; but meeting with de∣praved Nature, it cannot redintegrate lapsed Na∣ture; it can wound, but it cannot heal; it can condemn but it cannot absolve a Sinner: But yet there seems to be some one thing which above all other impossibles, is absolutely impossible for this Law to do for man; and that is to justifie him before God: For so he had said, and proved Chap. 3. 20. By the Deeds of that Law shall no Flesh be justified in his Sight. But (3.) How comes the Law to be so weak? for certainly it had once such a Power in its primitive appoint∣ment, and was fitted to give life to the Obedient; for we must not dare to think, that the Wise God ever appointed a Law or the meanest thing in the World, but it was fitted to reach all those Ends which in his Holy and Secret Counsel he designed it to: How then comes this Law, the Moral Law, to be so weak? If any of the Sons of Adam can produce an Obedience every way such as the Law demands, it is able to give Life Eternal still: The Apostle ans∣wers us, It's weak through the Flesh: it was not made weak, but became weak through our weakness. The Law is as strong to reward still, if we were but as strong to obey as ever. But (4.) How did Christ remedy, and help us in this desperate Case? for▪ if

we cannot live by the Law, we must die by the Law. The Apostle resolves us; God sent his Son in the like∣ness of sinful Flesh, (and in the truth of humane Flesh) and for sin, condemned sin in the Flesh: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; That is, as an offering for Sin: So near is the relation between the Sacrifice and the Sin that is laid upon it, that they are called the same. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin: that is, he was made an Offering for sin. For so 'tis ex∣prest, Isa. 53. 10. When thou shalt make his Soul an offering for sin. The Greek therefore, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, does but imitate the Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signi∣fies both the Sin, and the Sin-Offering: thus then Christ supplyed the Laws weakness; he who knew no sin, was made sin, and as he was made sin for us, so are we made the Righteousness of God in him. Christ could no otherwise be a Sinner, but by impu∣tation, nor we otherwise Righteous than by the Imputa∣tion of his Righteousness. As the Offenders guilt under the Law could not otherwise be laid upon the head of the Typical Sacrifice, but by God's Imputing it; so nei∣ther could our Sin otherwise lye upon the Head of Christ, but by his own voluntary Susception, and there∣upon God's Righteous Imputation; but these things we shall meet with professedly in the next Secti∣on.

There is a Metaphorical expression still behind, which our Author cannot digest; whereupon when he has thrown away a little, and truly but a little wit, he will ease us of the tediousness of this Dis∣course. The expression which sticks so hard with him is that of the Apostle, Ephes. 3. 8. The un∣searchable Riches of Christ. Now though at another time, I would try a fair fall with him, whether

this (and many others which he thinks it enough for their reproach to call so) be a Metaphorical Expressi∣on or no; yet I have not leisure at present to at∣tend that Service: for my part, I think that riches is more properly, and literally predicated of that Grace, that is treasured up in the Lord Jesus, than of all that paltry trash which has got the vogue in the Dialect of deluded Worldlings; but I am weary, and shall therefore only make a defensive War of it. What is then this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this unsearchable Riches of Christ? Why, even here these Men cannot agree, for some are zealous for it, that (what-ever is meant by unsearchable Riches,) yet by Christ is meant Christ himself; others, (a∣mongst whom our Author professes his Name) by the unsearchable Riches of Christ, understand the Gospel which St. Paul preached to the Gentiles: And is it not a small thing (that he should stand so stifly upon it) for us to entreat; 1. That the Glorious Per∣son of Christ, his Offices, his Natures, his Obedience, his Life, his Death, with their proper Springs and Causes, their special ends and designs, might come in for a good share of the Gospel? But 2. The Gospel preached is the opening of the Treasures of Wisdom, Knowledg, and Grace that are in Christ. Those Riches are, or were unsearchable, as they lay hid and deep in the Counsels and Purposes of the Father and the Son; so far as they are revealed in the Gospel, they are not unsearchable. But what is meant by Ri∣ches? why, Riches (says he) signifie only an abundance. This 'tis to be wise above the common sort of ordi∣nary Mortals; most men I dare say, have hitherto thought that Riches carry in their first Notion, pre∣ciousness as well as plenty: A handful of Gold is more

truly Riches, than a heap of Pebbles; but then what are unsearchable Riches? why, they are so called, because the Gospel is not a narrow and stinted thing, is not confined to a particular nation, as the Law was, but is offered to all mankind, &c. I shall not cope with him in his Grammatical skill, for therein he is unmatchable: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has formerly sig∣nified that which cannot be traced, that whereof we have no foot-steps: and such are the Riches of Christ, such the Counsels of God, to reconcile the World to himself, by his dear Son; A Mystery whose know∣ledg depends upon Divine Revelation, whereof we have not the least track in nature, no more than of a Ship in the Sea, an Eagle in the Air, or a Serpent upon a Rock: The Light of Nature is Dark, the Ton∣gue of the Creature Dumb, the Book of the Creation, a great Blank; and he alone that was from eternity in the Bosom of the Father, whose Name is Wonder∣ful Counsellor, was able to reveal and give us notice of them.

One small brush at Mr. Brookes will conclude this Section, for 'tis impossible for our Author to conclude without reviling; and what evil has this good Man done? Oh he has spoken a little too prodigally in commendation of Christ, and it's a standing rule, that whoever will give our Saviour one good Word, shall purchase two bad ones at our Author's Hands for his pains. Now Mr. Brookes (you must know) had said, thinking no man no harm I dare say; That Christ is generally rich, rich in Houses, Lands, in Gold, Silver, in all Temporals as well as Spirituals; with many more friendly expressions of the Fulness and Preciousness of the Grace that is in Christ: To which our Author returns a solid

though short Confutation: That the Son of Man bad not a place whereon to lay his head: And is not Mr. Brooks a rash and unadvised Man think you, to rant it so high in extolling his Riches, and to ascribe to him such vast revenues and possessions: But let us be Charitable, and put a favourable construction upon these dangerous words; perhaps, they are not so rank poyson as they seem to be: 1. What if Mr. Brooks speaks not of what Christ was when he appeared in the form of a Servant; but what he now is since he has reassumed his original Glory, and as Mediator has all power in Heaven and Earth put into his hands; and methinks, it is no such fla∣gitious Crime to assert that Christ has the disposal of all outward things for the good of his Church: But I correct my self when I remember my Author has told us, p. 162. That Christ has left the visible and external Conduct and Government of the Church to Bishops and Pastors; and therefore it may be pre∣sumed also he has left the visible Revenues, and Tem∣poralties to their disposal also; for it's equitable, that the Maintenance should go along with the work and therefore those Houses and Lands, the Palaces, the Tithes, the Glebe, the Gold, the Silver, which Mr. B. fancies are in Christ's hands, are entrusted where they shall be converted to better uses. 2. What if Christ for a season that he might feel our Infirmi∣ties, and accommodate himself to that dispensation under which his wonderful Condescension had put him, did wave the use of many things he had a Right to: Yet 1. He had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Title, when he for∣bore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Use of those things. 2. He used his Right too for others, when he would not assert it for himself; He was Rich even then, when he for our

sakes he became poor, 2. Cor. 8, 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; let him not be reproached for his Love, pardon him that wrong! 3. That Christ had not where to lay his head; signifies no more than that he had no fixed habitation at all times, but generally went up and down doing good, healing all manner of Diseases, Preaching the ever∣lasting Gospel; for he had a House to hide his head in, Ioh. 1. 39. They came and saw where he dwelt: and a Pillow too to lay his head on, Mark. 4. 38. and could sleep securely in the midst of the Storm: he wanted not conveniences for his life, but was so swallowed up of his Fathers work, that he account∣ed it his Meat and Drink to do his will; and therefore I hope Mr. B. will out-live this assault and batte∣ry many a fair day. And now all that I can in∣struct my self or my Reader in from this Discourse is, That if Mr. Brooks or any of his Brethren shall assert the plainest Truth that ever the Sun shone upon, our Author by the Laws of his Society is bound to oppose it.

SECT. 3. Concerning the Nature of our Union to Christ, Whereby, we are entituled to all his fulness, Righteousness, &c.

WHen the Arm is in danger of being lost by a Gangraen, it were unseasonable Diligence to attend the Cure of a Cut-finger. When that Vessel in which all our common Concerns are embarqued is ready to sink, it would be unpardonable folly in the the Passengers to study the security of their particular Cabbins: like those whom the great Orator laughs at, for presuming their Gardens, Orchards, and pri∣vate Walks would be indemnified in the general Ru∣ine of the City. In this Section our Author lays his Axe to the Root of the Christian Religion; leaving therefore particular persons to shift for themselves, The Righteousness of Christs Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death, with that influence that they have upon our acceptance with God, call for defence. Many have been infamous for horrid Murders: Cain is upon Record for a Fra•…•…ricide, Saul for a Suicide, Herod's Ambition was to have been a Deicide; but this last Age seems to have out-done all in an At∣tempt to Murder the Death of Christ it self: As if, because Christ by his Death had destroyed him that had the power of Death, these Men would avenge the Devils Quarrel, and become his second, hoping they may one day triumph over it and sing, O Death

we will be thy Death! In Pag. 320. Our Author propounds this great Question: What Influence the Sacrifice of Christ's Death, and the Righteousness of his Life, have upon our acceptance with God? And he gives us both a Reason, why he moves the Questi∣on, and an Answer to it. 1. The Reason why he moves this Question upon it, Lest any should suspect that his Design is to lessen the Grace of God, or to di∣sparage the Merits, and Righteousness of Christ. Now I would make a question upon it; Whether his An∣swer to the Question will probably heal us of our suspicions, or rather beget Iealousies where there were none, and heighten those already conceived into violent presumptions, if not plain demonstrations, that such is his Design? 2. His Answer to the Question is this: 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 promises Pardon of sin, and Eternal Life to those who believe, and obey the Gospel. This Answer contains three things: 1. A Description of the Covenant of Grace. 2. An Assertion that this Covenant is ow∣ing to the Sacrifice of Christ's Death, and the Righteousness of his Life. 3. a Supposition, that the Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ, has no o∣ther Influence upon our Acceptance with God, but that for his sake he entred into such a Covenant (as he has here described) with Man-kind.

(1.) His Description of the Covenant is this: A promise of the Pardon of sin, and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel. A Description so liable to exceptions, that it describes neither

the whole of the Covenant, nor a New-Covenant, nor (upon the matter) any Covenant at all.

§. 1. This Description gives us little, very little of the true Covenant of Grace: for (1.) though he thinks to put us off with a promise of Pardon and Life to those who believe and obey; the true Covenant of Grace has given us a Promise of that Faith, whereby we may believe, and of that New-heart whereby we are enabled to obey the Gospel. And first we have a Promise of the right Faith made to us in the true Covenant, Ioh. 6. 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no-wise cast out, Eph. 2. 8. By Grace ye are saved through Faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God. And lest it should be Answer∣ed, that Faith is indeed God's gift as all other things are, wherein the Common Providence of God concurs with Humane industry: The Apostle, as if aware of such a petty Answer, has laid in a Reply ready, ch. 1. v. 19. That they who believe, do so by the exceeding greatness of God's power, even ac∣cording to the working of his Mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead. Se∣condly, we have a direct, and express Promise too of that New-heart from which we give to God New-o∣bedience; nay, of that New-obedience it self, which proceeds from the New-heart, or renewed Nature: Ezek. 36. A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you; and I will take a∣way the heart of Stone out of your Flesh, and will give you a heart of Flesh: (there's the new Heart.) and v. 27. I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my Iudgments and

do them: (there is new obedience) thus also, Heb. 8. 10. This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts &c. wherein it's easy to observe: 1. That this New-Covenant was founded upon God's free Grace, v. 9. They continued not in my Covenant (the old Covenant) and I regarded them not, saith the Lord: They were a Covenant-breaking people, deserved utter rejection, yet God will make another, a bet∣ter, a New-Covenant with them. 2 That the pro∣mises of this Covenant were purely Spiritual; wri∣ting his Laws in their minds and hearts. 3. The parties▪ Covenanting, God and his Israel; not all and every individual Son of Adam: But (2.) This De∣scription gives us very little of the true Covenant of Grace; here's a Promise of Pardon and Life to them who believe and obey; but perseverance in Faith and Obedience, is left to the desultory and lubricous power of free-will: whereas in the true Covenant of Grace, there's an undertaking that the Cove∣nant shall be immutable, both on God's part and the Believers, Jer. 32. 38, 40. They shall be my people and I will be their God; and I will make an everla∣sting Covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me. There are but two things that we can possibly Imagine should make the Covenant fall short of perpetuity, either God's turning away from his people, or (which is only to be suspected) their turning away from their God: Against both of these God has made sufficient Provision. 1. God has promised that he will not turn away from them to do them good.

2. He has promised that they shall not depart from him, and to fix and determine their backsliding Natures, he has promised to put his fear into their hearts, which is the great preservative against Apo∣stacy.

§. 2. As it describes not the whole of the Covenant, so it describes not the Nature of a New-Covenant. The Gospel-Covenant may be called a New Cove∣nant, either in opposition to the Old Covenant of Works; or the old Administration of the Covenant of Grace: Now, 1. This Covenant which he has here described is no new Covenant in opposition to the Old-Covenant of works. The Covenant which God made with Adam promised Life upon condition of Obedience; Now the Commands which God gave to Adam, were as easy as those which are now gi∣ven to all Mankind: and much easier too, if we consider, first; That he had more natural strength to obey and keep them, and as for supernatural strength, our Author will allow us none, unless by a desperate Catachresis we will call Moral Arguments so; which to a Creature dead in trespasses and sins, signi∣fy just nothing, without special power from on high, to render them efficacious, which neither will be al∣lowed us. And Secondly, we are told that Christ has added to the Moral Law, which is to lay more Load on those who were before overcharged; so that (as he makes Covenants) Adam's was much the better Covenant of the two: But he has wisely shuffled in a Promise of the Pardon of Sin, which may seem to give his Covenant a preheminence above that of Adam: But that will not mend the matter; both because it's better to have no sin in our Na∣tures

than such a Remedy, better to have no Wound than such a Plaister, and also because the Promise of Pardon is suspended upon the condition of Faith and Obedience, which without supernaturally real in∣flux of immediate Divine Power reduces the pro∣mise to an impossibility of performance. 2. This Covenant which he has here described, is no New∣Covenant in opposition to the old Administration of the Covenant of Grace. There were the same pro∣mises then that we have now, the same moral pre∣cepts to observe that we have now; and though the word [Gospel] comes in for a blind, yet the Apo∣stle assures us, Gal. 3. 8. That Abraham had the Gospel Preached to him.

§. 3. Upon the matter, it's no Covenant of Grace at all. For, 1. A Promise of Pardon and Life, upon Condition of Believing and Obeying, is neither better nor worse, than a threatning of Con∣demnation and Death, to them who Believe not, and Obey not. It may with equal right be called a threat∣ning of Death, as a Promise of Life: It's no more a Covenant of Grace than a Covenant of Wrath; and therefore, 2. (if it be lawful to consider Man as the Word of God describes him, as dead in Sins and Trespasses, as one that of himself cannot think a good thought, that can do nothing at all without Christ) It's no Covenant at all to him under his present cir∣cumstances; for what is the nice difference between a Promise of Life, to him that obeys, when it's cer∣tain before-hand he cannot obey, and no Promise at all? 3. This Covenant which he calls New, (and well he may, for it's of his own making, or howe∣ver of his own new-vamping) assigns the same condi∣tions

of Pardon and Eternal Life; but the Scripture requires other qualifications for Eternal Life, than for the Pardon of Sin. A Believer may be justified without a sinless perfection, but without such a sin∣less perfection none shall enter into Glory: He may be actually justified, that has not persevered in Holy Obe∣dience to the Death; but without such perseverance he can never be made partaker of Eternal Life. 4. This Covenant of his is supposed to be made with all Mankind, and yet all Mankind never heard of it: Now is it not very admirable, and to be placed a∣mongst the wonders of the New-Divinity, that God should enter into a Covenant with all the World to Pardon and save them upon condition of Faith & O∣bedience, and yet not let many of them know a sylla∣ble of it? Nay, that he should expresly countermand the promulgating of the Gospel to them? And yet so has God done even by the preaching of the true Covenant of Grace: Acts 16. 6, 7. Now when they had gone throughout all Phrygia, and the Region of Ga∣latia, and were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to Preach the word in Asia; After they were come to Mylia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffer∣ed them not.

(2.) Let us now briefly consider his Assertion: That the Covenant of Grace (such a one as he has made for us) is owing to the Sacrifice of Christ's death, and the Righteousness of his Life: That God being pleased with these, for Christ's sake entred into a New Covenant with Mankind. I must tell the Reader that I have narrowly pryed into this Section, wherein I find frequent assertions of this Doctrine, That the Co∣venant of Grace is owing to, procured by, founded on the Obedience of Christ's Life, and the Sacrifice of his

Death; and yet so unhappy have I been in my search that I cannot find any Proof, or any attempt to prove it▪ and therefore (till I see evidence to the contra∣ry) I shall take it for granted, that the Covenant of Grace is owing to, founded on, and given forth by that free Grace of God, from whence it is justly denomi∣nated A Covenant of Grace; though the interven∣tion of a Mediator, such a Mediator, was absolutely necessary to put us into the Actual possession of those rich mercies designed for us by God in that Cove∣venant; which Mediator himself is owing to, found∣ed on that Covenant of Grace, and therefore the Covenant of Grace is not founded upon him: but in∣deed for that Covenant which he is pleased to call a New-Covenant, and a Covenant of Grace, it's no great matter where 'tis founded, and therefore let him dispose of his own Creature as he pleases.

(3.) He supposes that Christ's Obedience and Sa∣crifice had no other influence upon our acceptance with God, but that for his sake he entred into such a Cove∣venant with Mankind. This is all, however that he can find; But this is a most miserable All, and either is just nothing, or very near it. For, §. 1. Let him of Courtesy Answer one Question more since he is so good at it, Whether God was ever at any time un∣willing to pardon sin, and give Eternal Life, to those who did believe his Promises, and obey his Precepts? If he was unwilling; Then let him shew how Christ's Obedience and Sacrifice, did operate upon God to alter his will, and of unwilling to make him wil∣ling: what could there be in the Sacrifice of Christ's Death, or the Righteousness of his Life, that should make God more in Love with Faith and Obedience, than he had been before? But if God was willing, and

that without respect to Christ: then how does he give the Pardon of sin and Eternal Life, to them who Believe and Obey for Christ's sake? I am sure of our Authors good-Nature in this point; he will say, he has said it; That some, that many were saved with∣out respect to Christ; The mercy and Grace of God (it seems) accepting their Belief of particular Reve∣lations, and their sincere Obedience to his Commands; Repentance supplying the defects, and shortness of their Conformity to the Law: Now if God did all this without regard to Christ, how does he do it for the sake of Christ? But there's an Answer to this, that lies Dormant in the word [Promise] God did indeed Pardon sin, and give Eternal Life, to those who believed his Revelations, and obeyed his Com∣mandements; but he never promised he would do it. But now he has drawn out his Grace and good-will into a Promise to pardon sin and give Eternal Life; upon the terms aforesaid, and this he has done for Christ's sake: And let us Audit the Account; and all the influence that Christ's Obedience and Sacrifice bath upon our acceptation with God, is, that we have got a promise from God to do that which he would have done before; to give us that he would have gi∣ven us before; only he would not promise to do it for us, to give it to us. Two things I shall briefly re∣turn. 1. That God under the Old-Testament made explicite promises of the pardon of Sin, and Eternal Life; and if under that Dispensation, I am sure our Author will say, without respect to Christ: that this was the Doctrine of the Old-Testament, the Apostle asserts, Act. 13. 40. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his Name, whosoever be∣lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins. 2 Sam.

7. 14. I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son: and there's enough in that to secure a promise of par∣don to a repenting Child. Mal. 3. 17. They shall be mine, and I will spare them as a Father spares his own son that serves him: but it it is added; If he sin against me, I will chasten him with the Rod of Men, but my Mercy shall not depart from him. Ps. 99. 8. Thou answeredst them, O Lord our God, thou wast a God that forgavest them, though thou tookest vengeance on their inventions. And as the pardoning Grace that was in God's Nature was revealed to them, as the foundation of their Faith and obedience, Ps. 130. 4. There is forgiveness with thee that thou mayst be feared; So it is drawn out into a promise, v. 8. He shall re∣deem Israel from all his Iniquities, which without the pardon of them is simply impossible. As for the Promises of Eternal Lise, we find good old Iacob now giving up the Ghost, and having no hope in this Life; expressing his Faith thus, Gen. 49. 18. I have waited for thy Salvation, O Lord! Which doubtless was Eternal Salvation▪ beyond the Verge of that short time of his Life, which he knew was expired; Ps. 73. 24. Thou shalt guide me with thy Counsel, (in my pilgrimage) and afterwards receive me to glo∣ry: but a more convenient place will offer it self for the discussing of this matter. 2. If then this be all that the Obedience of Christ's Life and the Sacrifice of his Death do contribute to our acceptance with God, that for Christ's sake we have got a Promise, or a more explicite Promise of the pardon of sin, and Eternal Life than before; then I must be of the same mind still, that it contributes just nothing to the acceptance of our Obedience with God. Let me have Liberty to put the Case of two Persons, v. g.

David and Paul; let us suppose these two, equally o∣bedient to God's commands, the former without such an express and explicite promise of Reward the other, encouraged by stronger Arguments of clear and numerous Promises of Pardon, and Eternal Life: Which of these two is more accepted of God? He that performed equal Obedience, upon more feeble encouragements; or he that upon stronger Motives▪ yet gave but equal Obedience? If Reason might de∣termine this Controversy, it would clearly carry it for him, that bore equal burden with less strength, performed equal duty upon less inducements: If then this be all the influence that the Obedience and death of Christ have upon our Acceptation with God; that thereby we have got a greater help to obedience, the best Answer to the Question had been, that it has no influence upon our Acceptance with God. §. 2. His Answer signifies nothing or very near it: For the Question was, What Influence Christ's Active and Passive Obedience have upon our Acceptance with God? And he has framed an Answer to another Que∣stion; What Influence Christ's Active and Passive O∣bedience have upon our Obedience? Which is quite another thing. If Christ's Obedience have any in∣fluence upon our acceptation with God, then God for Christ's sake must accept us, and our Obedience for the sake of Christ, which otherwise he had not, would not have done; and Christ must be supposed to have done and suffered something, which had such an influence upon God, as to procure the fa∣vour of God towards our persons and services, which without that consideration had not been, could not be procured: But if this be all; That God has made us a Promise to accept that Obedi∣ence

for Christ's sake, which (without any respect to Christ) would have accepted, though not say be would accept; then if our obedience be little, Christ will not make it reputed much, if imperfect, Christ's Obedience will not render it perfect; and thus in plain Terms, The Sacrifice of his Death, and Righte∣ousness of his Life procure no acceptance at all, no not the least of our Persons or Obedience with God. (3.) His Answer is so like nothing, as cannot be discerned from nothing: The Question was, What influence Christ's Righteousness and Sacrifice have upon our acceptance with God? The Answer is, God for Christ's sake entred into a New-Covenant with Man∣kind, &c. which is to leave the Question just as he found it (and if he leave it no worse it's pardonable) for it will be enquired still; What influence the Righ∣teousness of Christ's Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death had upon God to move him to enter, into such a Covenant? Under what Notion did his Life and Death operate upon God? Did Christ make a proper Reconciliation and Atonement with God? Was his Death a proper Sacrifice? Did it expiate the Guilt of Sin? No! not a syllable of all this; only for fashions sake it must be said to have had An influence; though what it is, or how it had that influence, he cannot tell: But he will speak to these things more distinctly.

[1.] What influence the Death of Christ has upon our Acceptation with God? But it is to be supposed that we have had our Answer, and must sit down by it. That God was so well pleased with the Sacrifice of Christ's Death, that for his sake he entred into a New∣Covenant with Mankind: The Proof is all in all; Why, this is plain (says he) in reference to his Death; Hence the Blood of Christ is called the Blood of the Co∣venant▪

Heb. 10. 29. It's plain, that God for Christ's sake entred into this Covenant, because his Blood is called the Blood of the new Covenant: but yet it's not so very plain neither; A man may possibly mistake it for all that he has said to satisfy him: well! But then Christ is called the great Shepherd, and Bishop of Souls through the blood of the everlast∣ing Covenant, Heb. 13. 20. but I can find no such Scripture: well; However, 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, wherewith he confirmed and ratified the Covenant, between God and the Children of Israel, &c. I expected it would come to this at long run▪ God entred into the Covenant for the sake of Christ's Death, because his Death confirmed the Covenant: A very trim Reason! The confirming of a Covenant, supposes a Covenant in being; If then all the design of the Blood of Christ was to confirm and ratifie a Covenant, it will not follow that therefore God did enter into such a Covenant for the sake of the Blood, but therefore he did not. I deny not that the Death of Christ was a great Confirmation of the true Cove∣nant of Grace to our Faith: For what stronger Confirmation could the most jealous Soul desire of the reality of free Grace promising to pardon sin, and bestow Eternal Life upon believers, than that the Son of God himself should first take upon him our Na∣ture, and in that Nature offer up himself to God, to atone and reconcile him to us; that he should make sa∣tisfaction to God's rectoral Iustice, and pay the price of our Redemption, thereby removing out of the way of our Faith the grand impediments of it▪ the

Justice of God and the Commination of the Law, which stood in the way of our Pardon, and Salva∣tion? But to obviate our Author's design, I shall a little divert the Reader with the consideration of these Propositions: 1. The Confirmation of such a Covenant as he has described (viz. a Promise of the Pardon of sin and Eternal Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel) was not the main end of the Death of Christ: 1. Because there is such an end a∣scribed to his Death, which the Death of no other person in the world, could in any wise reach: but now to confirm the Gospel, and all the Promises thereof was an end which the Death of another might reach; therefore this was not the main end of the Death of Christ. The crucifying of Peter, the Martyrdom of Paul, were a great Confirmation of the Doctrine which they Preached; the Doctrine which they Preach't was the Gospel, and all its Pro∣mises; yet neither was the Death of the one, or other, able to reach the great Design of the Death of Christ: 1 Cor. 1. 18. Was Paul Crucified for you? Or were you Baptized into the Name of Paul? None could be Crucified for Sinners in that way that Christ was Crucified for them, into whose Name they might not be Baptized: but into the Name of no mere Man might they be Baptized; therefore no mere Man could be Crucified for sinners in that way, and for those ends which Christ was Crucified for▪ Paul▪ suffered Death for the Churches good, but not in the Churches stead: He dyed to Confirm what he Preacht, and he Preacht the Covenant of Grace with all its Promises; yet he was not Crucified for the Church, his Soul was not made an Offering for sin, God laid not upon him all our Iniquities; his Death was

not a Sacrifice of Propitiation: And yet all this may be said of Paul's Death, if those expressions applyed to the Death of Christ, signify no more than a Con∣firmation of the Gospel. 2. The Scripture assigns greater ends to the Death of Christ, than confir∣mation of Promises: 1. His Death as a Sacrifice a∣toned God. 2. His Death as a Price paid to God redeemed us. 3. His Death as a Punishment exacted of God, satisfied his Iustice. For the first, Isa. 53. 10. his Soul was made an Offering for sin: and therefore as on a Sacrifice of Atonement, God laid on him the Iniquities of us all, V. 6. For the second, 1 Tim. 2. 6. He gave himself a Ransom, or Price of Redemption for all. For the third, Rom. 3. 25, 26. The Blood of Christ is said to be a Declaration of God's Righteousness, that he might be just in justifying the Believer; which Testimonies will call for clearing and vindication in due time. And these indeed are such ends of the Death of Christ, as will undeniably prove, that his Death had an Influence upon our Ac∣ceptance with God. 3. The Scripture owns Christ as a proper Priest; and therefore his Work must be somewhat more, than confirming a Doctrine. A Pro∣phet will abundantly answer that design: But our Author prudently having cut out Christ some work to do, has fitted him with an Office too, which is pro∣portionable to it; for to what purpose should Christ be a Priest, that has nothing to do with his Sacrifice, but to confirm his Doctrine? The direct and imme∣diate Object of Christ's Sacerdotal Office was God, Heb. 9. 14, 15. How much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself to God, purge your Consciences? I know these Men will say that Christ offered up himself to God in He•…•…∣ven,

but not upon the Cross: whereas the Blood of Christ is here compared with, though preferred to the Blood of Bulls and Goats, and the Ashes of a hei∣fer sprinkling the unclean, some of which were never carried into the Holy Place; and the Blood of those which were, was first shed at the Altar, before it could be sprinkled at the Mercy-Seat: And the word here used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a sacred and religious Word, applied to the Sacrifices which were brought to, and •…•…ffered at the Altar. Again, Heb. 5. 1. Christ i•…•… ordained a Priest in things pertaining to God. His Priestly Employment lay mainly with him, to con∣firm promises that relate to us men; but a Priest offers not Sacrifice to the People, though for the Peo∣ple. Christ's Business as our High-Priest was with God, and in his Undertaking with him, lyes the true Reason of the Acceptation of our Persons & Ser∣vices with God. 4. The Scripture every-where expresses Christ's Innocency, nay his perfect Holine•…•…, the cheerfulness, self-denyal, constancy, universa∣lity of his Obedience to his Fathers Will, especially the Law of the Mediator. He always did the Things that pleased his Father, Joh. 8. 29. He fulfilled all Righteousness, Mat. 3. 15. His Meat and Drink was to do the Will of him that sent him, and to finish his Work, Joh. 4. 34. He came not to do his own Will, but the Will of him that sent him, Joh. 6. 38. And the Father has witnessed it most solemnly by a Voice from Heaven, That he was well-pleased with his beloved Son, Mat 17. 5. and yet notwith∣standing all this, and much more that might be said, It pleased the Father to bruise him, and make his Soul an Offering for Sin, Isa. 53. 10. He loved him, and yet shewed all imaginable tokens of displeasure;

he was amazed, sore troubled in Soul, and (as to the apprehension of his Soul) in respect of comfort for∣saken of God, so that he cried out of it most b•…•…tterly; My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And in the view of his approaching Sufferings was in such an Agony, and conflict of Soul, that it exprest Clods of Blood from his labouring Body: Upon con∣sideration of which unexpressible, inconceivable Torments of the Lord Jesus, the Ancient Church did use to pray, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, By thy un∣known Torments, Lord deliver us; In imitation whereof perhaps the Liturgy of the present Church of England uses the like; By thy Agony and Bloody Sweat, by thy Cross and Passion, &c. Now I would have it resolved to satisfaction, without such pitty∣ful dry evasions, and paltry answers as we meet with from some kind of men: 1. How God could at the same time be well-pleased with Christ, and be so well-pleased to bruise him? 2. How it could consist with the Iustice of God, to punish a Person so Innocent, so Holy, so compleatly Righteous, over whom the condemning Part of the Law had no power, seeing he had never violated it, in its pre∣ceptive Part, unless he stood in the st•…•…ad of Sinners, bore their Iniquities, and was charged with their Guilt? They will tell us, that God used his Pre∣rogative, and Soveraignty over Jesus Christ; and yet in other causes will not allow him an absolute and irrespective Soveraignty over the poorest W•…•…etch in the World: They will tell us too, That all this was not proper penalty or punishment; but here was the matter of punishment to purpose: and still the difficulty remains, Why an Innocent Person should suffer the same things materially, which were only

formally to be inflicted upon those who had deserv∣ed them? Let none say, If Christ bore the Punish∣ment due to sin, he must suffer Eternal Death; see∣ing no less was due to our Transgressions: For 1. The Eternity of punishment is only due to sin by accident, as it is found in a finite Person, who being not able to bear at once, or in the longest time, that Wrath which his Sins have demerited; Divine Ju∣stice exacts of him an Eternity of suffering. 2. Whereas sin is only infinite, or of infinite demerit, objectivè, as committed against an infinite God: The Sufferings of Christ are infinite also subjectivè, being the Sufferings of that Person who is God, though not as God; and therefore Christ in a finite time was able to give infinite Satisfaction. 3. Christ was such an High-Priest, as being God and Man, was able to give an infinite Value to his Sacrifice of himself as Man: nor let any say that if Christ suf∣fered in a way of Satisfaction to Divine Justice, and bore what the Sinner should have born, or that which was equivalent to it, that then the Sinner ought immediately to be delivered from the Curse due to his sin; for seeing that the Satisfaction was not made in the Person of the Offender, but his Substi∣tute, it was necessary that the benefit of another's Satisfaction should be communicated in such a way as might best please that God, whose Grace was the only Motive to his Acceptation of a Substitute: It's the undoubted priviledg of the Giver to dispose of his own Gift in his own Way; and it was absolutely and indispensibly necessary that the Sinner should be duly qualified to receive so transcendent Favours, purchased at so dear rates, and fitted to return the Glory due to a Redee∣mer,

which an unhumbled, unbelieving, uncon∣verted, & unsanctified Sinner could not possibly be.

(2) The Death of Christ (devested of those its proper respects of a Sacrifice offered to God to atone and reconcile him: a price paid to ransom, and re∣deem us, and a Punishment born to satisfie Divine Iustice, was no infallible proof of the Doctrine which he preached: For 1. Many have laid down their lives to Abett, and endured extremity of Tortures rather than renege the Doctrine they have openly preached; their Confidence (the mean while) sup∣ported either by a mistaken Conscience, or perhaps some sinister respects. All that it can prove in the largest judgment of Charity is, That they suppose their Doctrine to be true, or else would hardly lose their All, rather than lose a Principle; but not that therefore the Doctrine is true, because the Preacher dies for it. That which is false in it self, will not become true, by laying down our life for it. In the Memory of the last Age, there were some who sacrificed their lives to the Flames in defence of Contradictory Doctrines: So that to say that the Death of Christ has no other use, but To confirm the Truth of that Doctrine which he preacht, is but a more modest, civil▪ and gentle way of saying it has no use at all. 2. To whom should the Death of Christ confirm the Truth of his Doctrine, to his E∣nemies or his Friends? For his Enemies: Many of his Sufferings, the very greatest and sorest of his Sufferings were out of their notice; either privately in the Garden, or more privately in his Soul, such as whereof they could take no cognizance: and for these which were visible; they looked on them as the just rewards of his violation of the Law. As for

his Friends, his Death considered singly in it self, without respect to its proper Ends, was so far from confirming of their Faith, or Belief of his Doctrine, that it was that which shook their hopes, and dasht their expectations out of countenance: their Hearts died in his Death; and those two expressed the Sense of more than their own diffidence, Luk. 24. We trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel. But whether to Friends, or Enemies, the Death of Christ (considered without his antecedent Miracles, and subsequent Resurrection, and concomi∣tant Sacrifice) was so improper a means to confirm, that it had proved the clearest Confutation of his Do∣ctrine that malice could have desired. (3.) The Death of Christ was so far from confirming this Do∣ctrine, That God would pardon Sinners, that sepa∣rate this one Consideration of it as satisfactory to Di∣vine Iustice, from his Death; and it quite over∣throws the credibility of the Doctrine, and runs all the World down into utter despair: For our Au∣thor must have a happy dexterity, if he can con∣clude, that because God dealt so severely with an in∣nocent holy Person, that therefore he will not fail to pardon repenting Sinners. We must despair that ever repentance should make us personally equal with Christ: If then God did these things in the green Tree, what will be done in the Dry? If Iudg∣ment begun at God's own House, where shall the Un∣godly and Sinner appear? He that spared not his own Son, how much less will he spare the Sinner? It could not be expected that any should believe Christ, telling them God would pitty and pardon others, who found him so severe to himself: But that indeed the true Reason why God deals so graci∣ously

with the repen•…•…ing Sinner, is because he had dealt so justly with his own Son, voluntarily becom∣ing his Surety and Substitute. (4.) There were pro∣per proofs designed by God for the Confirmation of the Doctrine of Christ; and no need at all to take sanctuary in that which (nakedly considered) was not so. Those frequent, clear, stupendious Miracles wrought by Christ, were fully adequate, and commensu∣rate to that End. Reason will teach us to believe that God will not alter the course of Nature, nor re∣verse its standing Laws, to confirm a Lye, to bear witness to a grand Imposture. And surely they who would not believe Christ to be sent of God, upon his Testimony to him in those Extraordinary Works, would never believe it for his Death which was no wonder at all; otherwise than as the fruit of his in∣effable Love, offering himself to God as a Sacrifice for Sin; and so indeed it was the greatest Wonder of them all. The Enemies of Christ triumpht in his Death, that they had nailed his Cause with his Per∣son to the Cross; and that which they feared was his Resurrection: A Miracle so far beyond all excepti∣on, to confirm that he was sent of God, and there∣fore his Doctrine must needs be true, that their greatest care was to have prevented it, by sealing the Stone, and setting a Watch. (5.) But supposing that the Death of Christ had confirmed his Doctrine, and particularly this, That God would pardon, and save the Believing, and Obedient Sinner: Yet still what influence has this upon our Acceptance with God? Will God accept our Obedience the more, because we have greater helps to obey? May our duty expect a greater Reward because we come easier by it? But when all is said that our Author can say, it's our

Obedience that hath the Influence upon our Accep∣tance with God, and Christ's Death has only an In∣fluence upon our Obedience. The same Obedience given to the Commands of the Gospel, without the motive of his Death, had found equal, if not greater Acceptance from him, than when drawn from us by so cogent an Argument. But if the Death of Christ may be said to have any influence upon our Accep∣tance with God, because he thereby confirmed his Do∣ctrine; then the Death of the Martyrs also may be said to have an Influence upon our Acceptance with him; for they by their Deaths confirmed the Truth which they preacht, which Truth was the true Covenant of Grace. And whereas many of them laid down their Lives with that Heroical Magnani∣mity, with that gallantry of Spirit, with more than that boasted Stoical valour, kissing the Stake, em∣bracing the Flames, triumphantly singing in the midst of their Torments, professing they felt no more pain than in a Bed of Roses, as if they were to ascend Heaven in that fiery Chariot, to the Confutation of their Enemies, the encouraging of their Friends, and the credit of that Gospel they died for; evident∣ly assuring all, that they were immediately supported from above to bear with patience, nay with exulta∣tion, those extremities which to Flesh and Blood were intolerable. We see our Blessed Saviour (on the contrary) in his Sufferings strangely dejected, amaz∣ed, troubled in Soul, earnestly begging that if it were possible that Cup might pass from him, and crying out in the bitterness of his Soul, That he was for∣saken of God; which consideration is enough to sa∣tisfy an impartial Enquirer, That the Sufferings of Christ were fitted for some higher design than the con∣firming

of Truth, for which end (had there been no∣thing more in't) the Death of the Martyrs had clearly out-gone it.

But it's high time to recollect our selves, and re∣turn into the way again; for those pittiful things which stand for proof, that this was all the design of the Death of Christ, call aloud for examination.

The Blood of Christ says he) 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 con∣firmed the Covenant between God and the Children of Israel, Heb. 9. 20, 21. For when Moses had spoken every precept to the People according to the Law, he took the Blood of Calves and Goats, and sprinkled both the Book and all the People, saying: This is the Blood of the Testament, which God hath ordained for you. Thus the Blood of Christ is called the Blood of Sprink∣ling, because by his Blood God did seal and confirm the Covenant of Grace, as the sprinkling of Blood did con∣firm the Mosaical Covenant.

There are four things which I shall offer, any one of which cleared up, will shew the vanity of this Period.

§. 1. The Blood of Christ, is not called the Blood of Sprinkling, which speaks better things than the Blood of Abel; only in allusion to the Sprinkling of that Blood which confirmed the Mosaical Covenant: There is a further, a higher design in the Expres∣sion. The Blood of Abel cried to God from the Earth, for vengeance upon the Head of Cain; and with the same importunity does the violation of every Law of God sollicite Divine Justice against the Transgres∣sour; and that with great justice: For the same

God, who hath establisht his Holy Law, in the Promise, Do this and live, hath bound, and con∣firm'd it also with the threatning, If thou sinnest thou shalt die. Such dreadful things did the Blood of Abel (shed in defiance of the Law) speak to God; But O what sweet, how much better things does the Blood of Christ speak! It speaks better things to the Justice of God, than if the Sinner himself should suffer his utmost Indignation: It speaks better things to the Law, than if the Sinner had felt the weight of its severest Curse: It speaks bet∣ter things to the Conscience, than if we had wrought out our inward Peace by our own Righteousness: It satisfies God's Justice, answers the Law, and quiets the Conscience: And in reference to this use of the Sprinkling of Blood, viz. the Atoning, and Reconciling of God, is the Blood of Christ, called the Blood of Sprinkling; and to this the Apostle re∣fers, Heb. 11. 28. By Faith Moses kept the Passe∣over, and the Sprinkling of Blood, that he who de∣stroyed the first-Born might not touch them. The Apo∣stle evidently points to Exod. 12. 14. The Blood shall be to you a token upon your Houses, and when I see the Blood, I will passe over you, and the Plague shall not be upon you. v. 21, 22. Kill the Passeover, and you shall take a Bunch of Hyssop and dip in the Blood, and strike the Lintel, and the two side-Posts, and none of you shall go out of his House until the Morning. Now here are several things observeable: 1. That it was a respect to the Blood of the Paschal-Lamb duly used and applyed, in consideration whereof God would not destroy them with the rest. 2. That if they expected any benefit from that Blood, they must abide under the shelter and protection of it. 3. This

Blood must be sprinkled upon the Lintel, not upon the Threshold, to mind them, (as the Jews ob∣serve) that they ought not to trample it under their Feet: And surely that Blood which turns away the deserved wrath of God from their head, might claim more reverence than to be trampled under their feet. 4. That this Blood thus sprinkled was considerable in God's eyes, as it was the Blood of such a Lamb, so chosen •…•…t of the flock, without any spot or blemish, and so slain, precisely according to God's appointment: I just proportion, the Lord Jesus Christ is called expresly our Passeover, 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passe∣over is Sacrificed for you. Now as the Blood of Christ has the same influence, so it has the same plea: It has the same Influence upon God, it turns away his Anger, he has a respect to the Blood of Jesus; under this Blood do we take shelter and Sanctuary; and therefore it pleads with us that we account it not a prophane and unholy thing, for that will be interpre∣ted a trampling under foot the Son of God himself, Heb. 10. 29. which is to despise all the Grace and Mercy of God, for what-ever Mercy we receive from God, it is through the intervention of that Blood.

§. 2. The whole concern of the Blood of Christ is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exprest by the Blood of Sprinkling. Sprinkling was one way, and but one way of employing the Blood of the Sacrifices: but it must be shed, before it could be sprinkled, and therefore sprinkled, because it had been shed as a Sacrifice. What-ever other use there was of the Blood of Sacrifices, yet the efficacy of all was derived from this, that that Blood had been once shed at the Altar, Lev. 17. 11. It was Blood upon the Altar (and that not merely as Blood,

but as it was the Life-Blood of the Sacrifice substi∣tuted in the room of the offender) that made an Atone∣ment for their Souls. And this is evident in that the Blood of many of the Sacrifices for sin, atoneing, expiating Sacrifices, were not sprinkled, but only shed at the Altar: What an unrighteous dealing is this then with the Blood of Christ, to allot it no service but only the Confirmation of a Covenant, because it's called the Blood of sprinkling? whereas the Blood of the Sacrifices of old as it was sprinkled, did not ex∣press all the ends and uses of the Blood of Christ.

§. 3. That which comes home to our Author is this: The whole design of the Blood of sprinkling 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not to confirm a Covenant. As Blood was larger than sprinkling of Blood; so sprinkling of Blood was lar∣ger than the confirming of a Covenant. (1.) The Blood of the Sacrifice was sometimes sprinkled 〈◊〉〈◊〉 turn away God's Anger: thus in the Passeover and thus in that very place which our Author in∣sists upon, Heb. 9. 19. which the Apostle cites from Exod. 24. 5, 6, 7. where we read of a two∣fold Use of the Blood: First, one half of the Blood of the Burnt-Offering, and the Peace-Offering which had been shed at the Altar, Moses sprinkled upon the Altar: Now all the use of Blood upon the Al•…•…r was Atonement, Propitiation, and Reconciliation of God. Secondly, With the other half of the Blood, Moses consecrates and dedicates the People to the Lord, to walk before him according to the Tenour of that Covenant: whereas then he will argue, that the Blood was sprinkled only to confirm a Covenant, because one half of it was reserved for that as a secon∣dary Use; some surly, ill-conditioned People

would conclude, that it was not used to confirm a Covenant, because the other half was not imployed for that use. (2.) Another use of the Blood of the Sa∣crifice sprinkled, was to procure the favour of God, 2. Chron. 29. 21, 22. where we read: 1. That all these Lambs, Bullocks, Rams, Goats, were offered to God at the Altar; Hezekiah commanded the Priests to offer them on the Altar. 2. That when the Blood had been shed at the Altar, it was afterwards sprink∣led on the Altar. 3. To shew that the great operati∣on of the Blood (even as sprinkled) was by vertue of his having been once shed at the Altar. The two Goats of the Sin-Offering were only slain by the Priests, after they had laid their hands on them, and thereby laid the sins of the People upon them, in their Typical way; but their Blood was not at all sprinkled upon the Altar, and yet the greatest efficacy is ascribed to them as the Sin-Offering. 4. The design of all these Sacrifices, their Offering upon the Altar, the shedding and then sprinkling of the Blood; is said to be v. 24. to make Reconciliation with their Blood upon the Altar and to make Atonement for all Israel. 5. And that none might harp upon the old humour, that surely the People were fallen out among themselves, were all in Mutiny and Civil-Wars, and this Blood was to reconcile them, and make them friends; We are told, It was for all Israel, for the Kingdom, the Sanctuary, for Iudah, for Church and State, Prince and Peo∣ple: All had offended God, and this was the Typi∣cal way of recovering his favour, and regaining a Communion with him in his Temple. (3.) The Blood was sprinkled also for Purification and Clean∣sing, Lev. 14. 5. Answerable hereto, God has promised in the Covenant of Grace, that he will

sprinkle his people with clean water, and from all their Idols and Abominations will be cleanse them, Ezek. 36. which he effects by the power of the Holy Spirit, and by the Blood of Iesus. Therefore are Saints called elect according to the foreknowledg of God the Father, through the Sanctification of the Spirit u•…•…to obedience, and sprinkling of the Blood of Iesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1. 2. (4.) The Blood was sprinkled before the Mer∣cy-Seat, Lev. 16. 15. When the Priest had shed the blood of the Sacrifice at the Altar, and offer'd it to God, he carries in some of the Blood into the most Holy place, and by that Blood intercedes with God for the People: Thus our Lord Jesus, when by the once offering of himself he had made an Atonement with God for sin, discharges the other great part of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Priesthood, becomes our intercessor at the throne of Grace, and in the merit and vertue of that Blood which was once shed for the reconciling of God, and procuring his favour, he lives for ever to make inter∣cession for us. And now I suppose it may be left to all indifferent Persons to judg, whether our Au∣thor has not most barbarously Murdered the Death of Christ it self, and trampled his sacred Blood under his feet, allowing no other end or use to it, but that o•…•… confirming a Covenant; whereas considered as the Blood of sprinkling, it has far greater and higher ends, and yet the Blood as sprinkled, comprehends not the whole design of that Blood.

§. 4. But yet supposing, That all the ends of the Death of Christ were wrap't up in that one expression [the Blood of sprinkling] and supposing also that the Blood of the Sacrifices as sprinkled, had no other end or use but the confirming of a Covenant; yet how

will this prove his main Assertion, That we owe the Covenant of Grace to the Death of Christ? All that will follow is, that we owe the Confirmation of the Covenant to it, and only the Confirmation of the Co∣venant; and then another thing will follow too, that we do not owe the Covenant it self to it, unless he can prove that procuring and confirming are Terms of the same importance.

The advantage our Author has got by this way of Reasoning is, that he has found out a way how to own all Scripture-Expressions, and yet accommo∣date them to his own preconceived Opinions. [1.] Hence (says he) we are said to be justified by the Blood of Christ, Rom. 5. 9. That is, by the Gospel-Covenant which was confirmed, and ratified by his Death: To which I Answer. 1. If we may be said to be ju∣stified by his Blood, because his Blood confirmed the Covenant, then we may be said more properly to be justified by his Miracles; for they indeed had a pro∣per, direct, immediate, and sufficient evidence in them to confirm the Doctrine which he Preacht; and it's a Miracle almost as great as any of them, that the Scripture should never once intimate that we are justi∣fied by Miracles, which directly and properly confirm∣ed his Doctrine; and yet constantly affirm it of his Death, which directly and properly confirmed it not. 2. Then also, with the same propriety of Speech, we may be said to be justified by the Blood of the Martyrs, which was a convincing Testimony that they belie∣ved their Doctrine to be true; and then the old Po∣pish Rhime will come in fashion again: Tu per Tho∣mae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Da nos Christe scandere, quo Thomas ascendit. 3. If the Blood of Christ contribute no more to our justification than▪ as

it confirmed the Truth of this proposition amongst others; He that Believes, and obeys the Gospel, shall be pardoned and saved; then it's possible to be justi∣fied without the Blood of Christ: God has given us many Arguments to confirm the Truth of the Go∣spel: If then I believe the Truth of what Christ preached upon those Arguments, which are suited to its confirmation, (as upon the evidence of Miracles, &c.) and accordingly obey all its Commands; It were very hard if I should miss of Pardon and Life for not believing it upon one single Argument, and that but a probable one neither: What if I Believe the Promise upon nine of God's Arguments, and hit not upon the Tenth, obey upon nine of God's Motives, and want only that single String to my Bow; shall my Faith and Obedience be rejected be∣cause not grounded upon every particular Reason that may possibly be Muster'd up to confirm them? 4. It will be in vain ever to speak or write again, if such far-fetcht Consequences be allowed to interpret what is spoken and written. There are no two things in the world so remote each from other, but they have some kind of Relation and Affinity; and if this way will salve all, there will hardly be found that thing in the World, if it may but be conceived to have had any Relation as an Argument to our Faith and Obedience, but we may be said to be justified by it. We are said to be justified by the Blood of Christ; True! But how? Why thus: The Blood of Christ signifies his Death; His Death confirmed his Do∣ctrine; His Doctrine was he that believes and obeys, shall be justified and saved; Hereupon we believe it to be true, and in process of time come to obey it, & our obedience justifies us, and therefore the Blood of

Christ may be said to justifie us. And whereas Iu∣das his Covetousness, the Jews Envy, Herod's Cruelty; & Pilates Flattery, had a direct tendency to the Death of Christ; why we may not be properly said to be ju∣stified by them also at this rate, I profess I cannot apprehend. Religion is fallen into most cruel and unmerciful hands in this latter Age, who to give a •…•…aint colour to any little sorry fancies of their own, care not to interpret Scripture in such ways as shall certainly open a dore to elude the plainest Truths. God is said to have made the World; Now if any has a mind to eternize his Name, which without some rare discovery cannot be, let him take our Au∣thor's Course, and he is secure of a Monument. That is indeed a Scripture phrase; but if you examine it throughly, it signifies no more, than that God made a company of Atoms, and put them in Motion; and then let them alone, they will dance you so long in infinite spaces till they jostle themselves into that form wherein you see things at this day: And thus here's a fair Account how God may be said to have made the World, because he made that which made the World; and the Cause of the Cause, (you know) may be said to be a Grand-Father-Cause of the thing Caused. But this is infinitely beyond what our Au∣thor will allow the Blood of Christ of Causality in our justification: for it's only a Confirming Cause of the Promise, and that in Commission with other things, and they have a greater stroke in the business than it self, & then when we come to believe that Promise, and that belief proves strong enough to perswade us into Obedience, then we are justified for the sake of that Obedience. But 5. The Consideration of the Text it self; Rom. 5. 9. is enough to discredit this

idle conceit for ever; for Christ is said to dye for us, and in order to our justification, in the same sence that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of old 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who laid down Life for Life, Blood for Blood, Body for Body. v. 6. Christ dyed for the •…•…ngodly. v. 7. For scarcely for a righte∣ous Man will one dye; yet peradventure for a good Man some one would even dare to dye. v. 8. But God commendeth his love to us that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for us. v. 9. Much more then being now justified by his Blood, &c.

[2.] Christ (says he) is called a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, that is, by a belief of the Gospel Covenant, Rom. 3. 25. But how short this comes of the Apostle's design is obvious from the place. Christ is set forth by God to be a propitiation through faith in his Blood, to declare his Righteousness that he might be just, and the justifier of him that be∣lieves in Iesus: But is God ever the more declared to be a just God, demonstrated to be a Righteous God, because Christ has confirmed his Doctrine, and we believe and obey it? The obedience of most men is so imperfect, that when they have done all, they will need mercy, and that will declare one of God's attributes. But what provision is here made, that God may be declared Righteous and Iust? All that he has assigned to the Blood of Christ turns not away the least of God's displeasure against sin or the sin∣ner; Christ dyed to confirm the Doctri•…•…e! Well, but still God is displeased with sinners; for what Reason is there why God should be less displeased with them, because Christ dyed to confirm his Doctrine? Well, but hereupon Man believes this Doctrine to be true; but yet God's Anger is never the more turned away from the sinner, because he believes what

God says is true. For what Reason is there why God should be less displeased with him, who believes the Truth, and yet will not obey his Commands? So that neither the Blood of Christ, nor Faith neither, do reconcile God to us, or propitiate him for us: well, at last Man gives obedience to the Commands, and then God is propitiated and reconciled. So that the true Scripture should have been (had our Au∣thor had the p•…•…nning of it) God hath set forth Man to be his own propitiation through his own obedience. And why might it not have been said, that God set forth the Martyrs to be a propitiation through Faith in their Blood? For they willingly and chearfully shed their dearest Blood to confirm the Truth of the Gospel; and upon their Confirmation of it some have believed it, and upon their believing it have obeyed it, and then by that obedience are reconciled to God. And thus may Paul be said to have dyed for our sins, and Peter to have been Crucified for us, and both of them to have been set forth by God to be a propitiation through Faith in their Blood. Nor let any say, that the Death of the Martyrs was not so strong a confirma∣tion of the Gospel as the Death of Christ: For if we believe the Truth, and obey it upon more infirm Evi∣dence; yet if that evidence produce a strong Faith, and that a vigorous obedience, such an obedience will not find less acceptance with God, because it was be∣gotten by weaker Motives.

[3] The Scripture (says he) uses these Phrases promiscuously, to be justified by Faith; and to be ju∣stified by the Faith of Christ; and to be justified by Christ; and to be justified through Faith in his Blood; and to be justified, and saved by Grace: Nay, by belie∣ving that Christ is the Son of God, John 20. 31. And

that God raised him up from the dead. When our Author has a design upon any great Truth of the Gospel, then the clearest expressions the wisdom of God's Spirit shall use, are Phrases, allusive, figura∣tive, metaphorical, tropical forms of Speech: But the Scripture uses not these expressions promiscuously, only our Author confounds them craftily. Each of them have indeed something in common with the rest; and no wonder, all the Offices, the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, the whole work of the Spirit, the actings of Faith, and every saving-Grace, meet in this one great Project, the glorifying of God, the Electing love of the Father, the Redeeming Love of the Son, and the Sanctifying love of the Holy Spirit, in the Iustification and Salvation of a Believer: But yet each of these expressions carries in it some∣thing peculiar to it self: for the Scripture abhors to speak at his dull and cloudy rate, who by diversify∣ing one and the same thing in twenty several shapes, can vend it for so many several things, when 'tis but the same notion disguised in a new-fashioned ex∣pression. One denotes the interest of Faith; ano∣ther speaks the concern of him who is Iehovah our Righteousness; a third may particularly point at the influence of his Blood in this matter; another, the evi∣dence of all this: But by this Argument he may fancy (and that may stand for Proof) that all things under Heaven signify one and the same thing: for I know no two things so perfect strangers but have some cognation, some common and general agree∣ment, and meet in some Latudinarian Third that will clasp their Interests: They must be related either as Cause and effect, or Concauses of the same effect; or as joynt-effects of the same universal Cause, &c. but

now to say that all these signify the same thing for∣mally because of some general coherence, is no more to my edification, than if our Author would prove himself a-kin to the great Mogul, because they have two Elbows a-piece: A way of Reasoning very much unbecoming a Rational Divine, especi∣ally one who trades so much in the essential differen∣ces of things. But suppose that all these expressions do signify one and the same thing: what is that one thing which they signify? The Answer is ready, That we are justified by believing and obeying the Go∣spel: This is the one thing, and this is the one thing that should have been proved; for if by [Gospel] he understand no more than the commands of the Go∣spel, and all the rest, as Promises and confirmations of Promises, thrown in as Motives and Arguments to that Obedience; then I say we are justified by some∣thing else than the Gospel, (that which he cal's Gospel) even by the Blood of Christ, which is more than a Motive to Faith, or an Argument to Obedi∣ence (though a most excellent Motive, and Argu∣ment to both) being a proper propitiatory, expiatory, Sacrifice, to remove God's just displeasure, procure his favour and take away Guilt. But I shall wil∣lingly hear him practise upon the partic•…•…∣lars.

(1.) Faith, or Faith in Christ, signifies such a firm stedfast belief of the Gospel, as brings forth all the fruits of Odience: Therefore what? Why theref•…•…re to be justified by Faith, or by the Faith of Christ, or by Christ, signify to be justified by believing, and obey∣ing the Gospel. Here's nothing but evidence want∣ing, for we have confidence enough: But then, 1. If a justifying Faith be such a firm and stedfast belief.

of the Gospel as brings forth all the fruits of obedience, then no Man can be justified till he be in Heaven, or at least within one step of the actual possession of glo∣ry. One of the fruits of obedience is final perseverance; now Faith may produce one, or two, or twenty of the fruits of obedience; but yet if it fail before it has brought forth all the rest, it falls shorts of a justi∣fying Faith. 2. If this be the true Notion of a ju∣stifying Faith, I doubt not to affirm that the Devils have as true a justifying Faith (as far as the essence of Faith reaches) as the best Saint on earth. It's true their Faith, does not bring forth the fruits of obedience: but that's only to say, they want a saving obedience, a justifying obedience; for all that is of the essence of Faith (as 'tis Faith) they have; they firmly and stedfastly believe the Gospel to be true, though their Faith produces not the fruits of obedience. That Faith which justifies will in due season produce all the fruits of obedience, yet a justifying Faith (as it ju∣stifies) does not include all the fruits of obedience. We read, 1 Ioh. 3. 2. He that hath this Hope in him [God] purifies himself as God is pure; whence it's plain, that a well-grounded hope will purify the heart: but if from thence any will infer that the Grace of hope, and the effects of hope, are formally the same, he will miserably expose his own ignorance.

(2.) To be justified by the grace of God that signifies the same thing too, viz. That we are justified by believ∣ing and obeying the Gospel. Now this is truly won∣derful! but how does he prove it? why thus! The Grace of God is the Gospel of Christ, expresly so called in Tit. 2. 11. as being the Effect of the free Grace and Goodness of God to Mankind. To which I return; 1. It is very true, that the Gospel of Christ

is called Grace; as being the product of mere Grace, and contains the Methods of God's Grace in the justi∣fying and recovering of Sinners. The word Grace signifies either the free Love and Favour of God to∣wards us, or the effects of that Grace for us, or upon us: and thus the Revelation of God's Mind and Will, being one of the Effects of Grace, may be called Grace. But now that the Grace of God is the Gos∣pel, that is, the Revelation of God's Mind and Will, is not true: Grace is larger than Gospel-Revelation▪ The Gospel reveals more Grace than what consists in Revelation. But he argues thus: The Gospel of Christ is called Grace, therefore the Grace of God is called the Gospel: as if he would conclude, that because every man is a living Creature, therefore every living Creature is a Man. But I wonder why any should pray so earnestly for true Repentance and the Holy Spirit, if Grace signifie nothing but the Revelation of the Gospel? which a Man may purchase, filleted, and guilded for five Shillings: And all the Suppli∣cations of Christians for Grace, signifie no more but that we may have the Scriptures, which is Grace indeed but not all the Grace promised in the Scrip∣tures. 2. To be justified by Grace is quite another thing. Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: justified in a way of free Gift, which excludes the considera∣tion of any thing inherent in us: for though to be saved by Grace, might allow some consideration of Obedience, and yet such is the infinite Disproportion between the Obedience and the Reward, that it may be called Grace; yet that will not satisfy the Expression, To be justified 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, gratis, without

any consideration at all on the part of the Person justi∣fied, for which he is so justified. (3.) Faith in the Blood of Christ is a belief of the Gospel which was con∣firm'd by his Blood. Then farewel for ever all dis∣course, and writing: The Builders of Babel might •…•…ooner have guest at one anothers meaning, after that the Curse of God had cleft their Tongues into seventy two Dialects, than here-after we shall un∣derstand the Conceptions of Men's Minds by the ex∣pressions of their Mouths. For if when the Apostle says we are justified through Faith in his Blood, he de∣signs no more than that we are justified by believing and obeying the Gospel; then for ought I know our Author may intend as Orthodoxly as any Man liv∣ing: and when he says we are justified by believing and obeying the Gospel, he may intend it only by way of evidence; but that we are really justified through Faith in the Blood of Christ. (4.) To be justified by believing that Christ is the Son of God, signifies the same thing too, Joh. 20. 31. But here our Author has relieved himself from his old Artifice which ne∣ver failed him: the forceing Scripture over to him, when he is lazy, and will not stir a step to go to the Scripture. The Text speaks its own Language thus: These things are written that ye might believe that Iesus is the Son of God, and believing ye may have life through his Name; where the Evangelist says not, They are justified by believing that Iesus is the Son of God, but that having first satisfied their Faith from Scripture that Jesus is the Son of God, (which Truth being well studied, well digested, and improved, will give us a marvelous light into the Mystery of the Gospel, and without which, the whole of the Gospel is involved in eternal Night)

and then believing, they have eternal Life through his Name, by his satisfactory Blood and Righteous∣ness, and the Authority which he has thereby with the Father. But believe it, here is harder work than all this behind; for our Author will propound se∣veral Questions, and when he has done answer them. 1. Quest. What is it to believe that Christ is the Son of God? Ans. That is, (says he) That Messiah, and Prophet whom God sent into the World. Very good! Now as I remember p. 4. he told us, That Christ was anointed to be the Messiah at his Bap∣tism, (let the Reader examine it): Now if to be the Son of God, be to be the Messiah, and that he was not the Messiah till his Baptism, then he was not the Son of God till his Baptism; and then for about 30 years he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a mere Man; and yet this is a great favour I assure you, for his Bap∣tism was about three or four years before his Resurre∣ction, and then they are to blame who will suspect this Principle to be Socinian: well! But yet to be∣lieve Christ to be the Son of God, is to believe him to be the Messiah! Ay, But there's one odd misadven∣ture more in the thing; that is, that Hebrew is ea∣sier than Greek; for if Messiah explain Christ any better, I am very much out in my reckoning. Some from hence will pretend to give us a Scheme of our Author's Faith about the Deity of Christ; and per∣haps should they deal with him as he has dealt with others, or half so uncharitably, it would be found dissonant to what he professedly owns in subscribing the three Symbols of Faith: but I see no reason to fix an Opinion upon any Man that he will not open∣ly avow. 2. Quest. But what is the Messiah? Ans. Why, The Prophet whom God sent into the World to

reveal his Will to us: To believe him to be the Son of God, is to believe him to be the Messiah, and to believe him to be the Messiah is to believe him to be a Prophet, and that is (as near as I can measure it) just one third part of his Mediatory Employment. Surely he has mean thoughts of his Reader's Intelle∣ctuals, or great presumptions upon their good-Na∣tures, or a high esteem of the persuasiveness of his own Rhetorick, that can hope to proselyte them into a belief (without one Argument) That the Son of God signifies no other than Messiah, Messiah no more than Prophet, and that the Prophetical-Office of this Messiah, is the just, compleat Object of our Faith. 3. Quest. But what does this Belief of Christ to be the Messiah, the Prophet, include? Ans. A general Belief of the Gospel which he preacht: most rare Divinity! I suppose we may be saved upon very cheap terms by and by: For 1. A general Be∣lief of the Gospel, will serve the turn to justify 〈◊〉〈◊〉 well enough, that is as far as Faith has ought to do in Justification. If Faith believes Christ to be the Messiah, that is, a Prophet whom God sent to reveal his Will to us, it has got a general Belief of the Gospel, which may be without understanding in particular one syllable of what Christ has revealed of his Father's Will; and then I suppose, a general Obedience will serve well enough for a general Faith. 2. We may believe Christ to be the Messiah, yet if we believe not also what that Person is, in whom the Office of Mediator resides, we shall understand very little of its Nature, Dignity, and Efficacy. To believe Christ to be Anointed, signifies very little unless we under∣stand also who it is that is so Anointed. (5.) To be∣lieve that God raised Christ from the Dead, doth the

same: Doth the same? the same what? Why, it includes a general Belief of the Gospel, because his Resurrection was the last, and great Confirmation of the Gospel. Let us now put all this together: We are said to be justified by believing that God raised up Christ from the Dead, and that signifies the same with being justified by the Blood of Christ; and both these sig∣nify to be justified by believing and obeying the Gospel; and yet to believe that God raised up Christ from the Dead includes only a general belief of the Gospel: In all which there is nothing but what is rotten at the Core. 1. Let us examine in what sense we are said to be justified by believing that God raised up Christ from the Dead. The place assigned is Rom. 10. v. 9. If thou shalt confess with thy Mouth, the Lord Iesus Christ, and shalt believe in thine Heart that God •…•…ath raised up him from the Dead, thou shalt be saved. Where Salvation is not promised to a Belief of this Proposition▪ That God raised Christ from the Dead, but to a Believing it with the Heart; such a Faith as closes with the Redeemer included in that Proposition, as is evident from the Faith of Thomas, Joh. 20. 28. Our Lord Jesus willing to satisfy his doubts and scruples about the Truth of his Resurrection, shews him his Hands and Feet, gives him leave to put his H•…•…nd into the Print of the Nails, and the Hole of his Side; upon this he is satisfied and expresses the Be∣lief of his Heart in these words, My Lord and my God. When therefore the Apostle tells us, That by believing with the Heart that God has raised Iesus from the Dead, we shall be saved, he intends such a Faith, as accepts of, and gives up the Soul mutually to a Redeemer as its own God and Lord; and not a general Belief that Christ must needs be the Messiah,

because he was raised from the Dead; and if the Mes∣siah his Doctrine must needs be true, be it what it will, though we know nothing of it. 2. It may be enquired whether such a general Belief that God raised up Iesus from the Dead, be a true justifying Faith? If it be: An Implicite Faith will serve tum for all the Particulars of the Gospel; and this would save abundance of needless pains that men take in reading of, meditating upon the Scriptures: and now instead of the Colliers Faith, who believed as the Church believed, at all adventures, right or wrong, he has introduced another full as easie, The Belief of the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead: A Faith happily contrived for the Genius of this sparing Age, which saves us two parts in three of Christ's Offices, and eleven parts in twelve of our very Creed. 3. Let it be modestly examined also, whether To be justified through Faith in the Blood of Christ, and to be justified by believing that God raised up Christ from the Dead, •…•…e expressions of the same importance? If they be: then we may be said to be reconciled to God by the Resurrection, and that Christ in being raised from the Dead, was made sin for us, a Sacrifice for sin; and it's something strange that none of the Apostles could hit upon such expres∣sions as might recommend them, and their writings to our Author's Charity. 4. Let it be considered also, whether Christ's Resurrection was the last Ar∣gument he gave to confirm the Truth of the Gospel: I think his visible Appearance to his Disciples after his Resurrection, and those Miraculous Operations he then put forth; his Ascension into Heaven, whilst his Disciples looked on; his pouring out the Spirit upon the Apostles, enabling them to speak with Ton∣gues,

his empowering them to work Miracles many years after his Resurrection and Ascension, were all Confirmations of the Truth of his Gospel, and all subsequent to his Resurrection. 5. Let it have a place in our Thoughts too; seeing Christ's Resur∣rection was the great Confirmation of his Doctrine, without which all the rest, and especially his Death, had been no Confirmation of it, and yet Atonement, Propitiation, Reconciliation, Redemption are not a∣scribed to it, whether the Death of Christ, to which all these are ascribed, have an Influence upon our Ac∣ceptance with God, only as it confirms his Doctrine? It is strange that the Apostles should word matters so crosly, to attribute those things to the Death of Christ, which do most properly belong to the Re∣surrection, and those things to the Resurrection which do most properly belong to his Death. And all∣out as strange that our Author should make such a noise with Atonement, Reconciliation, Redemption, and ascribe all these to his Death, when-as upon the sole-Reason of his Ascribing them to that Death, they are much more rationally applicable to his Resur∣rection. There are some well-meaning Souls no doubt that have read our Author's Book, who finding such Glorious things ascribed to the Death of Christ; Iustification by his Blood, Redemption by his Blood, Reconciliation by his Blood, lift up their Eyes and cry out, What pitty it is that such a sweet young Gentleman that has written such a precious Piece, of Union, Communion, Sacrifice, Atonement, Redemption, and Reconciliation, stuft so full with Orthodox Propositions, should be taken upon sus∣picion for a Socinian? and yet when we come to scan these fine words, they prove nothing but a

company of sweet Flowers stuck about his Dead Body: And to be justified by Faith in the Blood of Christ, is no more but to believe that Christ is a Pro∣phet sent to reveal God's Will to us. The Conclusion of the whole Matter then will be this: If the Death of Christ has no other influence upon our Acceptance with God, but that it confirms to us this Truth, That God will pardon and save them that believe and obey the Gospel, it has no influence at all upon God for that End; for which I refer my self to the Reader, and the Reader to the foregoing Discourse.

He goes on: Hence is it also that the Apostles at∣tribute such things to the Blood of Christ, as are the pro∣per, and immediate Effects of the Gospel-Covenant, and therefore all the Blessings of the Gospel are owing to the Blood of Christ, because the Gospel-Covenant it self was procured and confirmed by the Blood of Christ. I am now perfectly cured of my Ambition to be one of the Corporation of your Rational Divines: and if this be Reason, I do by these presents re∣nounce it for ever. Here are two words, [Hence] and [Therefore] which always pretend to infer∣ence, and conclusion: I shall examine how well they make good their Pretences. First [Hence] I pray whence? Out of what Premises is this Con∣clusion deduced? That the Apostles attribute such things to the Blood of Christ, as are the Proper and Immediate Effects of the Gospel-Covenant? Let us look back as far as fairly we may. To be justified by Faith, by the Faith of Christ, by Christ, by his Blood, &c. signifie one and the same thing: and Hence it is that the Apostles attribute such things to the Blood of Christ, &c. And really turn it quite backwards and it will conclude as strongly. The

Apostles attribute such things to the Blood of Christ, as are the proper and immediate Effects of the Gospel Co∣venant: and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is, that To be justified by Faith, by the Faith of Christ, by Christ, by his Blood, &c. signify one and the same thing. Now when he can once bring matters into this Posture he is safe, and out of the Gun-shot of Reply, for which way soever you come to attaque him, you must deny the Con∣clusion. But let us leave out the [Hence,] and consider the words absolutely. The Apostles attri∣bute such things to the Blood of Christ as are the proper and immediate Effects of the Gospel-Covenant: To which I answer: 1. It's just as easie for another (if he had but a Licence) to say, The Apostles attri∣bute such things to the Gospel-Covenant, as are the pro∣per and immediate▪ Effects of the Blood of Christ; and with better Reason, because whatever acceptation our Services and Duties, our Repentance and Obedi∣dience find with God, is clearly assigned to the Blood of Christ. But 2. This is a foul scandalous slan∣der which he throws upon the Apostles; they give to the Blood of Christ its own proper and immedi∣ate Effects: they rob not Repentance and Obedience to adorn the Sacrifice of Christ with borrowed Plumes. They give to Christ the things that are Christ's; and to Faith, Repentance; and Obedience the things that are Theirs. They ascribe our Redemption to the Blood of Christ, as a proper Price paid to God; and they ascribe to Faith its own Efficiency to interest us in the Benefits of that Redemption. They ascribe Reconciliation to the Blood of Christ, as its imme∣diate & proper Effect, without any intervening Act of the Creature for that End; and they ascribe to Faith, Repentance, and Obedience their proper and immedi∣ate

Concerns, to put us into the actual and full Posses∣sion of all the Fruits of that Reconciliation made with God: They attribute Pardon of Sin to the Blood of Christ, who was made sin for us, an expiatory Sacrifice to remove guilt, that is, the Obligation of the Sinner to punishment; and they attribute the Application of that Pardon unto Individuals, unto Faith, as that whereby we receive Christ and all his Benefits. 3. If these be the proper and immediate Effects of the Covenant, and not of the Blood of Christ; What should move the Apostles always to speak improperly, to affix Reconciliation, Atonement, Redemption, &c. to the Blood of Christ, and never to our Obedience? when yet we are neither properly reconciled, properly redeemed, nor God properly a∣toned by Christ's Blood, but all these are the pro∣per Effects of our Obedience.

And now one word to the [Therefore] And therefore (says he) All the Blessings of the Gospel are owing to the Blood of Christ, because the Gospel-Cove∣nant it self was procured, and confirmed by the Blood of Christ: A very learned Argument! that is to say; We owe the Blessings of the Gospel to that which is no true and proper cause of them. The Blood of Christ is not the proper Cause of our Justification, therefore we owe our Iustification to it: His Blood is not the proper Cause of our Reconciliation, and therefore we are indebted to his Blood for our Reconciliation. All Effects are owing to their proper Causes; whatsoever therefore is the proper Cause of our Iustification, to that we are indebted for it: But how naturally would this Conclusion follow from his Premise? The Blood of Christ is not the proper Cause of Iustification, Reconciliation, and Redemption; and therefore we

do not owe our Justification, Reconciliation, and Redemption to the Blood of Christ: Or thus; We owe all the Blessings of the Gospel to the Blood of Christ, and therefore the Blood of Christ is the proper Cause of those Blessings.

And now let the Reader observe, how his Rea∣son brought up in the Rear, has routed his Reason that marched in the Van. The Blood of Christ is not the proper Cause of the Blessings of the Gospel: there's your Reason in the Front, why we do not owe the Blessings of the Gospel to it. And again: The Gospel-Covenant was procured and confirmed by it; There's your Reason in the Rear, why we do owe the Blessings of the Gospel to it.

But to do our Author justice, I shall look over these things more severely. The Gospel-Covenant it self (says he) was procured by the Blood of Christ. And does not this sound more honourably for the Blood of Christ, than to say it only confirm'd a Covenant? To procure (if we might measure the import of the Word by its sound) implies that the Blood of Christ had some Influence upon God, that moved him to enter into such a Covenant with Mankind, which without that Consideration he had never done; but to confirm a Covenant, that supposes there was such a Covenant in being, only the Blood of Christ gave security to Men that it should be made good: So that if we know when we are well, we had best keep our selves so, and sit down contented with this New∣Honour and Efficiency ascribed to the Blood of Christ, that it procured as well as confirmed the Gospel-Cove∣nant; lest whilst we labour to engross more than is due, we lose what the Charity of our Author has given us: But they who think they have right to All, will hardly be perswaded to be put off with

half; and therefore I must a little further enquire into this new-start-up Notion of procuring the Cove∣nant. What this Gospel-Covenant is, which our Author so frankly attributes to the Procurement of Christ's Blood, he has told us p. 320. A Promise of the Pardon of Sin, and Eternal Life to those who believe, and obey the Gospel: I confess a clear and distinct Notion of what he calls Gospel, would very much befriend us in our Enquiry: The best I can find, (and it's but a half-faced one neither) is p. 34. To preach Christ (says he) is to preach his Gospel, that is, to expound all those Rules of Life, and Articles of Faith, which are contained in it: Whether this be Gospel or no I shall not enquire, or whether this be the Covenant of the Gospel I shall not torment him with; but this is that which Christ has procured for us with his Blood, A Promise of Pardon, and Life to those who believe, and obey all that's revealed and com∣manded, either in the Scriptures, or the New-Testa∣ment, or the Four Evangelists, or in one of Christ's Sermons, (I think that must be it) Now I must here entreat the Reader to open his Eyes and see how he has been cheated all this while. (1.) It's very well known he propounded a Question at first, What In∣fluence the Righteousness of Christ's Life, and the Sa∣crifice of his Death have upon our Acceptance with God? To this he answers separately concerning the Death of Christ and its Influence; and will come all in good time to shew us, What Influence the Righteousness of his Life hath upon God for that End. Concerning the Influence of his Death, he has been perswading us that it confirms the Covenant; and now in the Close he has stollen-in a Word we never dreamt of, that i procures this Covenant: Now I suspect some fraud; for what Influence has the Death of Christ

upon God to procure us such a Govenant? Had he shew'd us that, he had deserved better of his Rea∣ders, than by all this Amusing Sophistry.

(2.) He has told us, p. 42. That the Light of Nature, the Works of Creation and Providence do assure us, that God designs the Happiness of all his Creatures according to their Capacities; (and they are capable of being justified and saved): And that God is so Holy, that he has a Natural Love for all good Men, and is as ready to pardon them when they return to their Duty, as a kind Father is to receive a Humble, and Penitent Prodigal: And p. 43. Had Christ never appeared in the World, yet we had reason to believe that God is thus good and merciful. Now having such good se∣curity from the Light of Nature, Reason being clear in the Point, and the thing so natural, and essential to God, that he will pardon, and is ready to it, upon Repentance and Obedience, though Christ had never appear'd; what has the Death of Christ done, to pro∣cure this Favour or more Favour from God? We will grant that the Death of Christ has confirmed the Truth of it more, but what has it added to the Pro∣curement of the thing? If it be said that Christ's Death did not procure a Willingness in God to Pardon, but only a Confirmation of his Willingness: I would ask what greater Confirmation a rational Creature could well desire, than an Assurance from the Light of Nature, that this was Natural and Essential to God? And I would further know, what the Pro∣curing of a Confirmation amounts to more than a Confirmation? (3.) The Scripture has assured us, Gen. 17. That God gave an explicite Promise to Abraham, that he would be his God, or a God to him: that is, that whatever Abraham should want, and yet could not want but he must be eternally miser∣able,

that thing God would be to him: For 'tis an uncouth Interpretation of the Promises: I will be thy God, that is, I will be nothing to thee, do no∣thing for thee, of what thou mainly wantest; but for all my Promise, to be thy God, I will suffer thee to lye under the guilt of Sin at present, and to fall under e∣ternal Condemnation here-after; though thou walkest before me, and art perfect. If then there was such an Implicite and Virtual Promise in God's Nature, re∣vealed by the works of Creation and Providence to Rea∣son; and an Explicite one too in the particular Revelation, that God would bestow Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who walkt before God in∣uprightness: The Question is, How did Christ pro∣cure such an Engagement from God, when it was procured before? But supposing that there was never any such Promise made by God till Christ by his Death procured it; then how did the Death of Christ pre∣vail with God to make such a Promise, which other∣wise he had never made? (4.) But I suspect more than ever, that we are merely gulled: for he tells us, That the Blessings of the Gospel are the proper Ef∣fects of the Covenant, but not of that Blood of Christ: so that we are justified by the Blood of Christ, is pro∣perly false, but improperly true; that we are Redeem∣ed by the Blood of Christ, in an improper Sense, may be said to be true, but in a proper Sense is utterly false; and then if the Apostles had penn'd their Epi∣stles clean backward, they would have been properly true, whereas now they are properly false: And now who can tell but when he says The Blood of Christ procured this Covenant, he may not mean in some im∣proper odd Sense that is not worth a Button?

But yet our Author seems to go higher than all this, p. 330. Our Righteousness and acceptation with

God it wholly owing to the Covenant, which he hath pur∣chased & sealed with his Blood. To Purchase is a very good word when applied to the Blood of Christ, & there∣fore because we meet with so few I shall make as much of it as I can: It denotes procurement in a special way by a valuable price paid; The Covenant of Grace then Christ has purchased; that Covenant is a Promise of Pardon and Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel. In this Covenant there are three things. First, the Material part, the pardon of sin, and eter∣nal Life. Secondly, the conditional part, Faith and Obedience. Thirdly, The form of the Covenant, A Promise of the Material part upon performance of the Conditional part. Now when he owns the Blood of Christ to have purchased this Covenant; the que∣stion is, whether the whole or some part of it only? If not the whole, then what part is the purchase of his Blood? 1. For the Conditional part, Faith and Obe∣dience, I may secure my self, our Author will not put them into the particular of the purchase; for then it would be scarce worth the while to mingle Heaven and Earth with Tragedies, what the con∣ditions of the Covenant should be if Christ had pur∣chased the conditions themselves, and therefore as to these, let every man trust to himself. 2. As for the Material part, Pardon, and Life. I doubt our Au∣thor will not yield us neither that Christ has purcha∣sed them, because he denies that the Blessings of the Gospel, are the proper effects of Christ's Blood; whereas had he purchased them with his Blood they would have been the proper effects of it. 3. Then it remains, that Christ has purchased a Promise of bestowing the Material part, upon our performance of the Conditional part; And thus we are just where we were two miles ago, and these great words of

purchasing and procuring are shrivel'd up to Confirma∣tion of a Promise; but if he will say that the Blood of Christ, his Death, and dreadful sufferings were a pro∣per price paid to God, to procure or purchase a word from God that he would do that which was na∣tural and essential to him, then we shall thank him, that he has such honourable thoughts of it, as to judg it worth a good word: The Scripture every-where a∣scribes the Blessings of the Gospel to the purchase and procurement of the Blood of Christ; but if this be all, that he has got a word from God, it supposes the the Scripture to swell with Scenical Language, and high Tragical Phrase; which seems to carry sublime matters in it, but when it comes to be stript of Me∣taphor and Allegory is a mere Anatomy. From this precarious Hypothesis that the Apostles always write like himself, that is, improperly and impertinent∣ly, and attribute such things to the Blood of Christ which are the proper and immediate effects of the Gospel∣Covenant, he will unriddle to us many Mysteries which are vulgarly reputed matters of weight and worth; but if we can spare him a little Patience, he will so uncase them, that we shall confess, they con∣tain nothing that may deserve or need the Blood of Christ, or any great matter to be made about them. [1.] Concerning Reconciliation; The Apostle had said, 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ, and hath committed to us the Ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their Trespasses, and hath com∣mitted to us the word of reconciliation, v. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us: what the import of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, reconciliation, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to reconcile, is, will not create us any great trouble, be∣cause

our Author allowing a reconciliation to be made between Iew and Gentile, secretly confesses that Re∣conciliation implies the taking away of an enmity, and bringing the differing parties into a state of Peace and Friendship: But the Apostle in this place instructs us further. 1. That the proper effect of this Recon∣ciliation is [not-imputing Trespasses]. God is by Na∣ture a Holy God, as he is Governour of the World, he is a Righteous Iudg; sin is both Contrary to his holy Na∣ture, and his Holy Law: And therefore as a Holy God, he cannot but hate sin; as a Righteous Iudg he cannot but punish sin: And because this sin is inhe∣rent in, and committed by Man, God hates the sinner upon the Account of his sin; his Person and his best services, are an abomination to the Lord. From hence it follows, that sin being a transgression of the Law, in its preceptive part, renders the sinner Guilty, that is, obnoxious and lyable to the Law in its Sanction, to the punishment. Now this Righteous Iudg will cer∣tainly charge the guilty sinner with the penalty due to his sin, but there is a way found out that he may be reconciled, and not impute to sinners their Trespasses: and this clearly shews that the Reconciliation here spoken of, is a reconciliation of God to the Sinner; such a one as makes provision that God shall not im∣pute iniquity. 2. The Apostle instructs us further in the way whereby Christ made this Reconciliation of God, v. 21. He was made sin for us; that is, he was constituted to be a sin-offering, upon whom the Guilt and Punishment of our sin being laid, the great obstructions to Reconciliation, God's Justice and Holy Law, being removed (by being satisfied), a way is cleared for a new Peace with God. And the Apostle as hath been observed, cites this from Isa. 53. 10. When he shall make his Soul an offering for sin

the same word signifying both sin, and sin-Offering. 3. That the Preaching of this Reconciliation made with God, to the World, was committed to the Ministers of the Gospel, that they as Ambassadors from God, might treat with them also about their being reconciled to God; which farther evinces a mutual Enmity, and a mutual Reconciliation; that God reconciled the World to himself by Iesus Christ, whom God made to be sin, for that great end, and then establisht a Ministry to Preach the Doctrine to the Sons of Men, and to deal with them in the Name of Christ, that they would also lay aside their Malignity, and accept of the Reconciliation procured by the Blood of Jesus: Now this Recon∣ciliation made with God respects the Gentiles and Iews equally; for some might plead that it was the peculiar priviledge of the Iews, as being the only Church of God, to enjoy the benefit of propitiating Sacrifices: others might think to do the Jews a kindness in pleading that Reconciliation only belonged to the Gentiles, for they alone were Enemies to God, and therefore they only needed it; but the Apostle assures us that Iews as well as Gentiles had need of a Mediator of Reconciliation, and that Gentiles as well as Jews had a share in the Grace, and mercy of it: God was in Christ reconciling the World to him∣self. Thus the Apostle Eph. 2. 13. But now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the Blood of Christ. v. 16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one Body by the Cross. Now here our Author meets us with a window open in∣to his Soul, that we may see the Pulse of his heart, and what he understands by Christ's reconciling the World to God. That is (says he) the Gentiles were re∣ceived into the fellowship of God's Church, and the

Iews and Gentiles united in one Body or Society. Some that were strangers to our Author's Senti∣ments would greedily ask, what was that great quar∣rel between Jews and Gentiles, that God must send his only begotten Son, out of his Bosom to dye a most bitter, violent, painful, lingering, cursed Death, to take it up? That he must be made sin, have Iniquities charged upon him, to make them friends? That there have been Wars, and Conten∣tions betwixt the Iews and their Neighbours, Histo∣ries both sacred and prophane, abundantly testify; there are such amongst most Neighbouring Nations: But shall we think that God will send his Son into the World to compose all the bickerings that ever were in the World? But suppose there had been a Necessity of it, was the feud so inveterate that no∣thing but the Death of him that came to make Peace could take it away? must every Man dye a Cursed Death that comes to make up a breach be∣tween two wrangling Neighbours or Nations? few would be ambitious to be Plenipotentiaries upon such Terms. It is true, there was a difference or di∣stinction set up by God himself, between the Jews and the rest of the World, but no quarrel or enmity put between them: But then, 1. The Gentiles had Liberty to become Proselytes of Righteousness, and then the union had been made, the Ceremonial Law still standing in force. 2. God could easily have ta∣ken down the Partition▪ Wall, and laid the Church open from the enclosure; there was a Time when there was none of that dis∣criminating Dispensation, and he that set it up could have abrogated, and repealed it, without such a dreadful way of giving his only Son to be Made first Man, and then Sin, and then a Curse▪ It

seems strange that God should first Create a necessity of a quarrel; and then put his Son upon a necessity to remove it at so dear a price as his own Blood. 3. If our Author was once i'th' right, there was no great need of removing these Ceremonies, for (says he) p. 29. The rest of the World might when they pleased fetch the best Rules of Life, and the most certain noti∣ces of the Divine Will from the Jews; so long then as they might have a fairer Copy of their Moral-Law, they needed not be beholden to them for their Cere∣monies. But the bottom of the business is this and no other: The Scripture is most express that Christ is said to reconcile us to God by his Blood, by his Death, & it would be a burning shame to deny it: What is then to be done? First, it's resolved on, that it's not to be endured, that any of the Blessings of the Gospel be allowed the proper effects of his Death or Blood; why then, some wholsome expedient must be found out that the expression may be owned, and yet the thing it self rejected: And the best that can be thought on at present is this, To imagine a most terrible War between Jews and Gentiles, upon the Account of Ceremonies; such as set the whole World on a Flame, and involved all Mankind in the dreadful Combustion; not a single Person in all the World but sided in with one of the parties: And now if▪ we could but be Masters of so much Confidence as to say that Christ came, and dyed, and was made a Curse to make these two Parties friends, there would be something that might be called Reconcilia∣tion. Now upon a serious view of the premises, it was observed that the Jews had some marks of di∣stinction whereby they were priviledged above, and differenced from the rest of Mankind: Now a diffe∣rence you know sometimes signifies a Quarrel,

which fell out as luckily as heart could wish; and therefore these tokens of difference shall be called En∣mity, and Christ's taking away this difference, shall be called the removing of the Enmity, and by Conse∣quence, Reconciliation: yes, there it must go, if any∣where: for I see and am glad to see it, that our Author is willing to carry some fair Correspondency, and not to fall out flat with the Death of Christ. Now (says he) This Union of Iews and Gentiles is owing to the Gospel which takes away all marks of distinction; and gives them both equal right to the Blessings of the New-Covenant. But, 1. To what purpose was the Enmity removed between Iew and Gentile, if the Enmity of God against both had not been removed; all Union on Earth without Peace, without Heaven, is but a wicked confederacy. 2. The Iews as well as Gen∣tiles are said to be reconciled. Now what-ever grudg the Gentiles might have against the Iews, yet the Jews had no Cause of any against the poor Gentiles; did they envy them, their darkness, and blindness, and Alienation from their Common-Wealth? 3. They must both be reconciled to God; and what did the removal of Ceremonies contribute to that end? But (says he) This New-Covenant belongs to all Mankind, to Gentiles as well as Iews, there's now no distinction of Persons, no Man is ever the more or less accep•…•…able to God because he is a Iew or a Greek: very true! I wonder when ever it was otherwise! Our Author could have Answered himself from p. 27. Those particular favours that God bestowed on Israel: were not owing to any partial fondness, and respect to that People, but the design of all was, to encourage the whole World to Worship the God of Israel; And that the Jews were not accepted for their Ceremonial Ser∣vices, we may easily believe, if we can but believe

what he tells us, Pag. 269. The Law of Moses 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them up in a ritual and external Religion; taught them to Worship God in the Letter by Circumcision, Sacrifices, and an external Conformity to the Letter of the Law; but the Gospel aloue teaches us to wor∣ship God with the Spirit, to offer a reasonable Service to him. And if he can but assure me that the Gen∣tiles were never the less accepted of God, because they were Gentiles; I dare give him my Warrant, that the Iews were never the more accepted of God for their Judaism, according to those Measures which our Author has given of their Religion, which it seems was mere Pageantry. [2.] Concer∣ning. Redemption, he acquaints us what it signifies, both to Iews and Gentiles. (1.) As to the Iews: They (says he) are said to be redeemed from the Curse of the Law, by the accursed Death of Christ upon the Cross, Gal. 3. 13. Because the Death of Christ put an end to that legal Dispensation, and sealed a New, and better Covenant between God and Man. It's well he could find any thing small enough to be the proper and immediate effect of the Death of Christ; but who shall reconcile the Apostle and our Author? The Apostle says, Christ redeemed them by being made a Curse for them; Our Author says, No, he only put an end to that Legal Dispensation: The Apo∣stle says, they were redeemed by a price paid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He brought them out with a price, which he expresses in words at length, 1 Cor. 6. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Ye are bought with a price: No, says he, Christ's Death put an end to that legal Di∣spensation. The Apostle says, they were redeem∣ed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; from under the Curse: No, says he, 'twas only a freedom from the legal Dispensa∣tion. Two suppositions he makes use of to give a Colour to his matters.

1. Sect. That the Iews were under no other Curse, but that of the Ceremonial Law. Now, 1. He should have been sure that the Ceremonial Law was a Curse: It's a wonder to me, what grievous sins the Iews above all the World should commit, that God should put them under such a Curse, as should need the Death of Christ to redeem them from it; especially what great Crimes had Abraham been guilty of, that God should thus Curse and plague him with Circumcision, which yet the Scripture calls the Seal of the Righteous Faith, Rom. 4. 11. 2. It would be considered whether ever God gave a Law to any People in the World besides them, that in its own Nature was a Curse? Our Author once told us, p. 196. That it pleased, God to Institute a great ma∣ny Ceremonies in the Iewish Worship, to awe their Childish minds into a greater Veneration of the Di∣vine Majesty. And truly, better so than worse; better be frighted into Obedience, than not at all Obedient: But that ever God designed it for a Curse is past my apprehension. 3. The Ceremonial Law in it's constitution, end, and design, was a great Blessing: there they had Pardon of sin, Atonement, Reconciliation exhibited, and sealed to them, Lev. 17▪ 11. 2 Chron. 29. And all this could be no curse, but to those who loved their sins better than the pardon of them, and to such every Blessing of God would eventually prove a Curse. 4. It will appear they were under a greater curse than what arose from the burden someness, or their violation of the Ceremo∣nial Law, viz. That Condemnation which came upon all Men by the Fall of Adam, Rom. 5. 12, 13, 14. 17, 18, 19. Such a Curse as was Common not only •…•…o Iew and Gentile, but to every individual un∣der

both capacities, Rom. 3. 9. We have proved, both Iews, and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, ver. 19. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the World become guilty before God, ver. 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God. And therefore all had need of free justification by Grace, through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ, ver. 24. 5. The Jews were under a curse upon the Ac∣count of their violation of the Moral Law, and their not duly attending to the true ends of the Ceremo∣nial Law; but if the violation of a Law would make it become a curse, then the Moral Law was become a curse too; and then they had need of a Redeemer from the one as well as the other, though both were blessings in themselves. The Ceremonial Law in particular had this great blessing in it: That as it dis∣covered to them the demerit, and Wages of sin, in the slaying of the Sacrifices; so it discovered a reme∣dy two, in the Sacrifices slain for them, which directed them to look through them, beyond them, and above them, to him who was the Lamb of God slain from the Foundation of the World: All this was no curse.

2. Sect. He supposes that the Text, Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath Redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, relates onely to the Iews: Whereas the Apostle adds to obviate that Cavil, That the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles: Christ is made a curse for them upon whom the Blessing of▪ Abraham came by his Death; but the Blessing of Abraham came upon the Gentiles by his Death; therefore Christ is made a Curse for the Gentiles. And that the Law from the curse where∣of both Jews and Gentiles were Redeemed by Christs being made a Curse for them, is the Moral Law;

I have endeavoured to evince in the last Section, but whether to our Authors content or no I know not. One thing more he supposes, that Christs Sealing a New Covenant is Redemption: But there must go more than the sealing of such a Covenant as he has described: There must be the payment of a Price to Iustice, or there can be no Redemption: To Re∣deem, is properly to buy back again, that which was forfeited, and such were Sinners: Their Per∣sons forfeited to Iustice, their Mercies escheated in∣to the hands of the Law; Now comes a Redeemer and gives himself to God as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Counter-price, a valuable Consideration, to Answer the demands of Justice, and the claims of the Law; and this is something more than abolishing Ceremo∣nies, or Sealing a Covenant; but if our Author can contrive a way of Redeeming and Purchasing by Paper, Parchment, and Wax, by Sealing Cove∣nants without paying down a valuable consideration, he will highly oblige this present Age to read his Book, which is more studious to purchase this world, than about the deliverance of their Souls from pre∣sent Curse, and future wrath, by the blood of a Redeemer.

(2) As for the Gentiles he acquaints us next, from 1 Pet. 1. 18. how they were Redeemed. Ye were not Redeemed with corruptible things, as Silver and Gold from your vain Conversation received by Tradition from your Fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot. In which words the Apostle evident∣ly shews, That look what place Silver and Gold do hold in the Redemption of Persons, or things that are Legally under seizure, the same does the blood of

Christ obtain in ▪the Redemption of sinners: Christs blood was not indeed a corruptible price, like Sil∣ver and Gold; yet it was a price, a proper price, though not a corruptible price, and has the same Of∣fice with another price, if we may compare small things and great: and in that he excepts the corrupti∣bility of this price, he establishes the parallel in the other particulars, Exceptio in non exceptis firmat regulam. And he gives us further light into this Af∣fair from that expression 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with the preci∣ous blood of Christ, or that blood which is a price. So the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 6. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ye are bought with a Price▪ And yet further: That the blood of Christ▪ that is Christ by dying, is this Price; which is evident in that he compares Christ himself, to the Sacrifices of Atonement, and Expi∣ation, where the Lamb chosen out for that Service, was to be without spot and blemish. And thus the Apostle Paul conspires with his beloved Brother Pe∣ter, 1 Tim. 2. 6. Who gave himself a Ransom for all; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: will not evince a proper price paid by way of Ransom for another, we must despair of ever expressing Truth with that clearnes, but it shall be lyable to mis-construction, by the possibility of another meaning; and it's in vain to seek a Remedy against that evil, for which there's no Help in Na∣ture. But let us now hear our Authors Apprehen∣sions about these things.

The Gentiles (says he) were delivered from Idolatry by the Preaching of the Gospel, which is called their being Redeemed by the blood of Christ, because we owe this un∣speakable Blessing to his Death.

Here are several things which he asserts, and takes for granted.

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

2. Sect. He supposes that Redemption signifies no more than deliverance in general; whereas the Re∣demption here mentioned is a special way of delive∣rance by a price paid. As silver and gold are used in the Redemption of Captives, so is the blood of Christ

in the Redemption of Sinners; but Silver and Gold are paid as a Price for the Redemption of Captives, therefore so is the Blood of Christ. Now, what is that which in our Authors New Model of Redemp∣tion by Christ, Answers, the Silver and Gold in the Redemption of Captives? As the Redemption by Price is always Seconded with deliverance by Power; so deliverance by Power presupposes Antecedent Redemption▪ by Price: But here it is commonly Ob∣jected, That if the Blood of Christ be a proper Price, then it ought to be paid to the Devil, the world, or Sin, for these held the Sinner in Captivity. To which I Answer, true; if Satan detained the Sinner Prisoner in his own right, if Souls were his own pro∣per spoyls, acquired by right of War, or otherwise; but the Devil is onely an Officer of Divine Iustice, a Goaler, and Executioner of the Sentence of the Law: The World may pass for one of his Under∣Keepers. As for sin that's the bondage and slavery it self. If then God be satisfied, in whose right, as the great Law-giver, and Governour, these Sinners are held in bondage, though Satan repine, and gnash his Teeth, he must quit his Prey and Prisoners. It is said again, that then upon the payment of▪ the price to God, the sinner is immediately set free: But no Reason compels us to Argue so; for the Price of Redemption being not paid to God by Man himself, but a third Person, a Mediator between them both: It's not onely convenient, but absolutely necessary, that he submit to such Terms as shall be agreed upon between God and the Mediator, that he may actually enter upon the benefits of that Price paid: Besides, it's necessary he should be so qualified as to Glorifie both the Redeemer, and the free-grace of that God

that accepted a Redeemer; and there are many of the greatest benefits of Redemption that would sig∣nifie nothing to the sinner if it were possible to ima∣gine him invested with them, without a previous change in his Nature, enabling him to enjoy them: But yet it will be said, and is said by others of our Authors Judgment, who have managed these things with a greater appearance of cunning than himself: That however then, this Price should have been paid to God, which (say they) it was not; but we are confident that it was, 1 Tim. 1. 5, 6. There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Iesus, who gave himself a price of Re∣demption for all. Now, if Christ gave himself as a price of Redemption as Mediator between God and Man, he must either give it to God, or Man, (for as Mediator he stands onely between these two Par∣ties.) How absurd it is that he should pay it to Man, needs not many words to evince; it remains therefore that he paid it to God himself: But the A∣postle Peter puts that out of dispute in the place un∣der consideration: For he tells us, that we were Re∣deemed by the blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot; whence it appears, that Christ was the true Sacrifice chosen by God, immacu∣late, to be the real sin-offering; and that he was Offered to God as the Lamb was.

3. Sect. Our Author supposes, that all that the Gentiles were Redeemed from was some gross sins; he instances onely in Idolatry, but we favourably allow him to include all Actual sins; and yet he comes not up to the design of Christ in Redemption: The vain Conversation received by tradition from their Fathers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; was

that Corruption that they derived by propagation, be∣ing by Nature the Children of wrath even as others: Jews and Gentiles being all equally under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law.

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

5. Sect. He asserts that Deliverance by Preaching is called Redemption by Christs blood, because we owe this unspeakable blessing to his Death: But how do we owe the Preaching of the Gospel to the Death of Christ? When our Author himself was in such a Huff not long ago with any that should own a Do∣ctrine as Gospel that was not Preach'd by Christ in his Life. He admired the Sermons of Christ beyond those of the Apostles, and will not allow that his Di∣sciples Believed his Death before he was Crucified; and yet now we owe it all to his Death. As if Mo∣ses had not sufficiently confirmed the Truth of his Mission and Doctrine by Miracles, though he never dyed himself to confirm them: And as if Christ had not done the same abundantly, though he had never dyed; Christ sent his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to the Iews, and Preach'd it in his own Person before his Death, and yet of those Jews it's said, Ye were Redeemed not with Corruptible things, as Silver and Gold, but with the precious Blood of Christ. But this our Author thinks he has proved from Eph. 2. 15, 16, 17. Having abolished in his Flesh (by his Death) the enmity, even the Law of Command∣ments, &c. Came, and Preached Peace to you which

were afar off, and to them which were nigh. That which he would prove from hence is this:

That the Redemption of the Gentile World by the Death of Christ, signifies no more than the Remo∣ving of the Ceremonial Law, and reclaiming them from Idolatry and Prophaneness by Preaching the Gospel, and then bringing them into one body or Church with the Jews.

To make the Text Ser∣viceable to such a design, it was necessary, 1. That he should lustily bind over our weaker imagination to his own stronger fancy, that by [Flesh] is meant the Death of Christ: For my part, I see no neces∣sity that Flesh should signifie any more than his As∣sumption of our Nature; In which Nature he has an∣swered and fulfilled all the Types and Ceremonies of the Law, though in divers ways, and at divers times: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which we render to Abolish, signifies not any formal positive Act, whereby a Law is expresly repealed and disanulled; but the rendring a thing useless of course, when it's end is attained: Thus were all the Ceremonies of the Law rendred absolete and of none effect, when Christ in the Course of his Ministry had answered their design; and particular∣ly Sacrifices became useless, by the Death of Christ, those Services, which were Mercies and no curses in their day, being swallowed up of that greater mer∣cy of the Death of Christ. 3. He must suppose, and that is indeed a reaching supposition, that Christs Preaching Peace, is the same thing formally with his procuring peace by his Death, than which nothing can be imagined more precarious; for he first procu∣red Peace by his Blood; and then Preached that Peace which he had procured to Men in his Person, and by his Apostles; and therefore, though Christ Preach'd

that peace to the Jews before he Suffered, yet it was with reference to that peace he should procure by his Sufferings. An eminent instance whereof we have in his Institution, and first Celebration of his last Supper, Mat. 26. 28. This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the Re∣mission of sins; for though his blood was not yet shed Actually, yet in Gods regard, and the Faith of Be∣lievers it was considered as shed Antecedently to the Remission of sins; for without shedding of blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9. 22. And thus was the Blood of Christ considered as shed from the first esta∣blishing of the New Covenant, Christ being called The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World; even that Lamb without spot, and blemish, by whose precious Blood Iews and Gentiles were Redeemed. 4. He must suppose too, that the enmity here men∣tioned is nothing but some bickering that had fallen out between Jew and Gentile about Ceremonies; which the Gentiles that I can find were never very envious at: and then, when he has made all those suppositions, and begged those Postulata's, he will be ready for Demonstration.

A particular consideration of the Text will set that strait which he had made crooked: And 1. The Apo∣stle describes the state of the Gentiles by Nature to be most wretched and miserable, ver. 12. They were Aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, Strangers from the Covenants of promise, without Christ, ha∣ving no hope, without God in the World. They that are without Christ, are without God; and they that are without a promise, are without Christ; and they that are without Covenant, are without promise; and they that are without all these, must needs be without

hope. Their Case must needs be desperate, that have •…•…o Christ to bring them to God; no promise to bring them to Christ; and if they were Aliens from the Church, where the means of Grace were to be had, they must needs be without all these. 2. The Apo∣stle shews the true means whereby the Gentiles were brought nigh to God; Ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ: It was Christs blood alone, by which the great impassable gulph was filled up that was between God and his Creature by sin; for Christ is our Peace. 3. That the Gentiles might not Object, that there were ma∣ny Ceremonial Hedges and Fences that kept them off from enjoying the Priviledges of those who were reputed the onely Children of God: He removes that small Objection, telling them Christ had already removed them in his Flesh, in his Person; he was the summe and substance of them: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Having (already) in his Flesh (or Person) made void the Law of Or∣dinances, and (already) dissolved that Partition Wall: He that has Reconciled you to one God, has also brought you into one Church, which he repeats again, ver. 16. That he might Reconcile both unto God, in one Body, by the Cross, having slain the Enemy thereby, or in himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Here are first, the Parties Reconciled, Jews and Gentles; Second∣ly, to whom they are Reconciled; to God. Thirdly, the Fruit of this Reconciliation to God. They are brought into one Church amongst themselves. Fourth∣ly, The Means whereby they are Reconciled to God, that so they might be capable of being United into one Church, and that is by the Cross of Christ, or by himself on the Cross, who bare our sins on the

Tree. 4. The Apostle shews the way, and means of promulgating this Peace which he had made with God; and that was by the publick Preaching of the Gospel, ver. 17. He Preached Peace; he made Peace with God, and then Preached it to the Gentile World: He that had procured good will towards men, Preaches Peace on Earth. How little ground now had our Author to say,

That we are said to be Re∣deemed by the Preaching of the Gospel, when the Preaching of the Gospel is nothing but a Declara∣tion of that Redemption which Christ has made of Jew and Gentile with God, and the way and Me∣thod to be partakers of the benefit of it?

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

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

2. They differ in the manner of procurement; for the Jews, Christ (says he) by his Death put an end to that Legal Dispensation; and so their turn is ser∣ved, that little Redemption that they needed, which is all our Author can afford them, was Actually ac∣complisht by the Death of Christ, which was a pro∣per and immediate cause of their Redemption, (such a one as it was;) but then the Gentiles they were Redemed after another fashion, by the Preaching of the Gospel, whereby they were turned from Ido∣latry, and impure practises. And this shall be called

Redemption, because it were dangerous to ascribe it to the blood of Christ (for an Obvious Reason that he knows of;) but because the Scripture says we are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ, and gives that Blood a concernment therein; therefore to stop the •…•…uth of the Scripture, it shall be said, we owe the Preaching of the Gospel to the blood of Christ.

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

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

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

(1.) To the former of these, he expresses him∣self thus.

Now as the Death of Christ upon the Cross, and his Ascention into Heaven, and presen∣ting his Blood to God in that most Holy place did answer to the first sprinkling of the Blood under the Law, which confirmed the Mosaical Covenant, as the Apostle Discourses, in Heb. 9. &c.

In which few words he has heaped up more absurdities, and follies than another must hope to bring into twice as many. For,

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

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

3. That the Death of Christ upon the Cross did Answer the sprinkling of Blood under the Law which confirmed the Covenant, is very true: but then, 1. It must be remembred in what respect it confirm∣ed the Covenant, not meerly as a witnessing to the Truth of what he has preach'd, but as Answering the demands, and claims of the Governing Iustice of God, as we have before shewed. 2. It must be re∣membred also that it was not such a Covenant as he has imposed upon us, but the true Covenant of Grace, wherein God promises to give that which our Author will not own; the New Heart, New Spirit, and New Obedience. 3. That to confirm a Covenant, was not all the design of it's sprinkling, but diver∣ting of the wrath of God, procuring his favour, &c. So the Blood of Christ has greater ends than confirm∣ing of the Truth he taught, viz. the appeasing Gods just displeasure, procuring his Actual Love, pacify∣ing of the Conscience, cleansing the Soul. 4. He supposes also that the Apostle Discourses to this pur∣pose, Rom. 9. which is to make the Apostle acces∣sory to his own groundless fopperies, who is indeed

perfectly innocent of these crimes. For, 1. The sprinkling of the blood, which the Apostle mentions, Heb. 9. 9. in that mentioned Exod. 24. 6. Now, there was another sprinkling of blood Antecedent to that, which we read of, Exod. 12. to which the blood of Christ did Answer, and to which the Apo∣stle refers, as is evident from Heb. 11. 28. Heb. 12. 24. 2. The sprinkling of Blood, Heb. 9. 19. be∣ing the same with that Exod. 24. 6. shews evident∣ly that as the whole concern of the blood sprinkled at that time, was not confirming a Covenant, but Ato∣ning God: So the whole concern of the blood of Christ, is not taken up in confirming a Covenant, much less such a thing as he will mis-call a Covenant, but in Reconciling God to Man, paying a price of Redemption to God, &c. 3. That the Apostle carries another Argument is evident▪ For, 1. The Typical Interest which those Sacrifices had in Redemption, were accomplish'd before the Blood was carried in to the Holiest place, ver. 12. Neither by the blood of Bulls and Goats, but by his own Blood he entred into the most Holy place, having obtained eternal Re∣demption: Thus Christ had obtained eternal Redemp∣tion, and perfected the whole work of it (as far as the paying of a price to God goes in the Matter) be∣fore his Ascention; and that which remained, was the application of the benefit of what he had procured with God, to us, by his prevailing Intercession: And as to the blood of the Sacrifices mentioned, Exod. 24. 6. which the Apostle refers to, ver. 19. which our Author thinks had no other use but the confirming of the Mosaical Covenant, it was never carried into the most Holy place at all, nor the blood of any Pro∣pitiatory Sacrifice, but onely that upon the Feast of

Expiation once a year. 2. The Apostle in this Chapter, does not onely refer to the sprinkling of the Blood of the Sacrifice, Exod. 24. but to the sprinkling of the blood of the Red Heifer, Numb. 19. 4. Eleazer shall take of her blood (the red Heifer without blemish, and without spot, ver. 2.) and shall sprinkle it directly before the Tabernacle of the Con∣gregation: To which the Apostle expresly refers, ibid. v. 12. If the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of a Heifer sprinkling the unclean Sanctifieth to the purifying of the Flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit Offered him∣self to God, purge your Consciences from Dead works? And this blood was neither carried into the Holy place, nor the Ministration of the Service perform∣ed by the High-Priest, but by Eleazar: which proves, 1. That the blood of Christ had all its ato∣ning vertue on this side his entrance into Heaven; and 2. That Christ was Typified by the inferior Priests, and not by the High-Priest alone: For here not Aaron, but Eleazar performed the Service of the Day. 3. The Apostle clearly Disputes against this Figment of Christs presenting his blood to God in Heaven, (which the Men of this leaven, will needs have to be all the Sacrifice that Christ Offered to God) ver. 25, 26. Nor yet that he should Offer himself often, for then he must often have Suffered. No Offering without Suffering: But Christ Suffered but once, therefore he Offered but once. Nay, says the Apostle, Now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. That which Christ did once he does not do always; but if Christs appearing before God in Heaven, be the of∣fering of himself in sacrifice, he does it always to the end of his Mediatory Kingdom.

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

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

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

3. The Expiations which were made by the fre∣quent Sacrifices, were all without the Holyest, but

the Intercession of Christ is in the most Holy place: And is not this a famous correspondency? But how clear is all this, if we could be reconciled to the Scriptures? Where the Death of Christ upon the Cross, answers all the Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, and the Intercession of Christ at the right Hand of God, or his appearing continually in Hea∣ven before his Father for us, answers the High∣priests entering into the Holy of Holies, with that Blood which had been before shed at the Altar. But whereas such was the imperfection, such the poverty of the Types, that no one was able to An∣swer all the Concerns of a Sinner, no one could ex∣press all the various respects that a guilty Person had to God, and his Law; and therefore it was necessa∣ry that various Sacrifices should be instituted, that they might represent those things 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which it was impossible they should perform 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, our Lord Jesus Christ by one Offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. For where Remission is, there is no more Offering for sin, v. 18. When therefore our Author affirms, so secure of Contradiction, That Christs continual Intercession answers those frequent Ex∣piations under the Law, especially that on the great day of Expiation; he has said enough to determine this Matter: For if there were frequent Expiati∣ons under the Law, besides that of the Feast of Ex∣piation, and that there be any thing in Christs Sa∣crifice answering to them; it follows, that Christs Expiatory work was finish'd before his entrance into Heaven; for the Blood of those other Sacrifices ne∣ver came within the Holy of Holies, which answers to the true Holy Place where Christ makes continual Intercession for us.

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

Notwithstanding all this our Author will not be beaten out of it, but that he and his principles are better friends to the blood of Christ, than those men that pretend to magnifie it: for they attribute no more to it than the non-imputation of sin; that Christ by his death, bearing and undergoing the punishment that was due to us, paying the ransom that was due for

us, delivered us from this condition (the wrath, and curse of God and his whole displeasure, &c.) But now our Author ascribes much more than all this comes to; For (says he) the Scripture gives us a different account of it, we are said to be justified, and re∣deemed by the blood of Christ, nay we have boldness to enter into the Holiest by the Blood of Iesus; we have admission into Heaven it self, but the Doctor (Owen) says, that the Blood of Christ makes us innocent, but cannot give us a right to the King∣dom of Heaven. And now what comparison is there between these two? The summe of the business is this: Our Author attributes perhaps more to the Blood of Christ in wordy complement, but what the Doctor ascribes to the Death of Christ, he does in reality: Our Author will confess, that we are re∣deemed by the Blood of Christ; but when you come, (as all that are not Children will come) to examine what he means by it, then it shrinks into this: Christ by his Death confirmed the Promise of Pardon and Life to them that Believe and Obey, and this Pro∣mise he has appointed to be declared to the world, and when men believe it, and obey the Gospel them∣selves, they are then Redeemed; Christs death is no immediate, no proper Cause of Redemption, no price pay'd to God, accepted by him for poor Captive Sin∣ners: Nay our Author will not stick to say, We are justified by the Blood of Christ too, but when you come to sift his Notion, it's all bran; he confirmed the Promise, which when we believe, and obey the Gospel Commands, we are justified; so that in my weak Judgement, it had beeen commendable in our Author, to have been very sure that he attributes any thing at all to the Death of Christ, as the proper

Cause of that Mercy, before he enter'd into Degrees of Comparison with others; something I do perceive indeed he would attribute to Christs Death, Viz. The confirming of a certain Covenant, but so feebly asserted, so weakly proved, that it needs the Can∣dour of the Reader: But now what doe these other men attribute to the blood of Christ? Why Nothing but Non-Imputation of Sin, bearing and under∣going the Punishment that was due to us, paying the Price that was due for us; delivering us from this Condition, (The Wrath, Curse, and whole displeasure of God,) and that by the Death of Christ, all Cause of Quarrel and Rejection is taken away: And if this be Nothing in our Authors Arithmetick, we desire he will ascribe more to it, if he can justifie it when he has done: But the truth is, our Author is most grievously gulled in this business; He reads their Writings who are too crafty for him, and smile to see how little he understands of them: Though these men attribute no more to the blood of Christ as shed on the Cross, yet they are willing to let him know, that they attribute more to the Blood of Christ than as it was shed on the Cross: The Blood of Christ, and the Death of Christ, are not Expressions of equal latitude: All the Concerns of Christs Blood are not comprehended in his Death; for they consider it as that in the virtue whereof he intercedes for them upon the Throne of Grace; as that which gives them a holy and humble boldness to draw nigh to God, the Quarrel being removed by his Death: And that our Author may see his own delusion herein, I shall give him a short Collation from that person whom he contends with: Exercit. on Heb. Vol. 2. p. 99.

There are Two general Ends of Christs

Interposition: 1. Averruncatio Mali, the turn∣ing away of all Evil, hurt, dammage, or punish∣ment, on the Account of our sins, and Apostacy from God: 2. Acquisitio Boni; or, the procu∣ring and obtaining for us, every thing that is good, with respect to our Reconciliation to him, Peace with him, and Enjoyment of him; and these are intended in the general parts of his Office. For, 1. His Oblation principally respects the making Atonement for sins, and the turning away Gods wrath, which is due to Sinners, wherein he was Jesus the Deliverer, who saves us from wrath to come. And this is all that is included in the Na∣ture of Oblation, as absolutely considered; but it had a farther Prospect, for with respect to that Obedience which he yielded to God therein, ac∣cording to the Terms of that Covenant, betwixt the Father and Christ, it was not onely Satisfacto∣ry, but Meritorious; that is, by the Sacrifice of himself, he not onely turned away the wrath of God that was due to us, but also obtained for us Eternal Redemption, with all the Grace and Glo∣ry thereto belonging.

And now if our Author will but ascribe any of all these things to the blood of Christ, as its proper and immediate Cause; he may hope to perswade the world, that he is willing to ascribe something to the Blood of Christ I know well he will say, That the Blood of Christ is said to Redeem us, is said to Iustifie us; these are Scrip∣ture Phrases indeed, the sound of words carries it thus; but when he comes to open the Meaning of things, the Blood of Christ does neither redeem, nor justifie us, but after multitudes of Deductions, and great windings of Inferences, and Conclusions,

one upon the Neck of another; it does that, which does another thing, which procures a third, which leads to a fourth, which brings us to believe, that Belief may possibly bring us to Obedience, and when all is done, it's our Obedience that justifies us: And we owe our Acceptation with God to our own Obe∣dience, and he is more inclined to think, that nothing can justifie us, rather than to own it due to the Righteousness of Christ imputed, as he expresses himself, p. 272. And now at length he once more casts up his Reckonings: Our Righteousness, and Acceptance with God, is wholly owing to the Cove∣nant which he has purchased, and sealed with his own blood. What a rare sound does that word purchase carry with it? But, 1. He has purchased no more, than that we shall be Pardoned and Saved, if we Believe and Obey, without any Ability purchased to Believe and Obey. 2. Christ did not purchase any one single, spiritual Benefit for us, as the Cause of it, immediate and proper. 3. He purchased No∣thing but that he may lose the whole Benefit of his Purchase. 4. Obedience will as soon save us with∣out the Blood of Christ as with it: Lesser Obedience with that Blood, is not more acceptable to God than Greater without it: But this he will call an Influence upon our Acceptation with God. I confess, he is a Free-man, for ought I know, and may call, or mis∣call Things, as he has done Persons at his pleasure, but surely no man whose understanding is his own, would ever call this an Influence upon our Accepta∣tion with God; A contingent, uncertain Influence it may have upon our Obedience, but none at all upon the Acceptation of our Obedience. An act of Love to God, is as welcome and acceptable to God at this

rate, without Christ as with Him: But this is the Misery of it; when Men must say something, and yet cannot tell well what to say, but either on the one hand they must flie in the Face of the Scripture, which they hardly dare do; or else on the other hand renounce their beloved Errors, which they are re∣solved never to do; then must the Scriptures be wrested to their crooked Sentiments, instead of Re∣ctifying their crooked Notions by the straight Rule of the written Word.

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

Though the pardon of sin, and our justification, be attributed (says he) to the blood of Christ, yet I could never persuade my self that this wholly excludes the perfect obedience, and righteousness of his life: He cannot persuade himself; very strange! what had he attempted to satisfie his judgement about the exclusion of Christs righteousness, and yet could he not be persuaded? yes, persuaded he was to exclude it, but not wholly to exclude it, there were some rubs, and little scruples in the way, that he could not get over: but had he improved his own principles, and built upon his own foundation, I could have shewn him a way how he might wholly have excluded it, for p. 243. he gives it us as a Note worth our observing

that in the whole New Testament there is no such ex∣peession as the Righteousness of Christ; And p. 78. he lays it down as an infallible maxime; That we cannot draw any one conclusion from the person of Christ, which his Gospel hath not expresly taught; seeing then we cannot safely draw any such conclusion from Christs Person, and the Scripture has not ex∣presly taught it, what should hinder him from a ple∣rophory in this point, wholly to exclude that from his Creed, which is not expresly taught in the Scripture, and therefore may not be drawn from the considerati∣on of his Person by consequence. And if his scruples had been but as strong against the righteousness of Christ, (or he had been in the scrupling mood) as against the justification of Abraham by the righteousness of Christ, this matter had been put out of doubt with him wholly long before this. In the mean time, The righteousness of Christ is mightily beholden to his good Nature, that when by his principles he might, yet out of civility he would not, and therefore could not wholly exclude it: Some Place, some Room it shall have, some Remote and Improper causality, as the Death of Christ had in our Acceptation with God: But what may be the Reason why he could not altogether, as well as almost exclude it? O, he tells us, that the Apostle tells him, Ephes. 1. 6. That we are accepted in the Beloved. And is this the great difficulty? Alas, one of his Wedges would make this little Knot flie at the first stroke: May there not possibly be given another meaning of it? Must it needs be Interpreted of Acceptation through the active Obedience of Christ? This would have done the work. Or thus, Our acceptation is ascri∣bed to the Obedience of Christs Life, because that

has a great Influence upon us to make us Obedient, which is that Righteousness for which we are accep∣ted of God. The Example of Christ has given us a Pattern of Obedience, which when we Imitate, we are accepted of God; but what now if he had played one of his Omnipotent Machines against the Text, he might have Batter'd down the Conclusion with ease. By the Beloved, is meant Christ, by Christ, is meant the Gospel; by the Gospel is meant Obedience, and then the sence is no more but this; We are accepted in the Beloved, that is, We are ac∣cepted for our selves. And I must needs say, this had been a far more Rational Course, than that he has taken with the Death of Christ: Ay, but (says he) whatever rendred Christ beloved of God, did contribute something to our Obedience: Something? That's a huge Kindness indeed; There's a vast di∣stance between something and nothing, and yet it may be such a something, as is next to nothing. Well, we are glad of a little till we can get more: For because he was beloved of God, we are accepted for his sake: That's high, and surprizing. But still, What kind of Cause was Christs Obedience of our acceptance? One of the Poorest, Lowest causes in the World, is one that they Nick-name a Causa sine quâ non; which yet is properly no cause at all; And yet our Author when time was, could tell us, pag. 43. That had Christ never appeared in the World, yet we have reason to believe God is thus Wise, Good, and Merciful, to forgive us our sins, when we return to our Duty: Such a Cause was the Death of Christ of our acceptance. Pag. 46. Gods re∣quiring such a Sacrifice as the Death of Christ for the Expiation of our sins, was not because he could

not do otherwise. If now we might have been ac∣cepted without his Incarnation, I presume we might have been so without his Obedience; and then it is not so much as that little nothing of a Causa sine quâ non: But this is pure Trifling; For the Que∣stion was, What Influence Christs Righteousness has upon our acceptance with God? He answers, That because Christ was beloved, we are beloved for his sake. That is, Christs Obedience has an Influence upon our acceptance; but what that Influence is, remains a Secret: Suppose the Question had been, Why are we accepted for Christs sake? The answer might have been, His Obedience has an Influence upon our acceptation. Those two words, [Influ∣ence, and Sake,] are like two Rackets, that Toss the Ball from one to another, to the end of the Game: However, Rebus sic stantibus, under our present Circumstances; I would gladly know, What that Influence is? Why, He thinks no man will deny that God was very highly pleased with the per∣fect Obedience of our Saviours Life. Truly, I think so too, and perhaps it may be the last time that we shall be both of a mind: But yet to put it upon thinking, is a more cunning way of Tempting our unbelief to appear against it. Had it been a truth wherein our Authors affections had been bespoke, I doubt not but we should have had better Proof than his thinking, or standing to the Courtesie of mens denyal: But still, still the Difficulty presses us: Why God should be ever the more pleased with our Obedience, because He was pleased with Christs? For if no consideration be had of Christs Obedi∣ence in the Justification of a sinner, as that which God accepts for our Non-obedience, I do not

see, but God had been as well pleased with our Obe∣dience without Christs Obedience, as with it: The Obedience of Christ was a Transient thing, it's past and gone long since, and how it should come in re∣membrance before God, at this day, that for the sake of it, we should find savour in his Eyes; is (without the Doctrine of Imputation) very unac∣countable. Why, that is the thing wherein our Author will at length Resolve us.

We know (says he) how many Blessings God bestowed upon the Children of Israel, for the sake of their Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Ia∣cob, who were great Examples of Faith and Obe∣dience, which made them very dear to God; and there is no doubt but God was more pleased with the Obedience of Christ, than with the faith of Abraham, and therefore we ought not to think that we receive no Benefit by the Righteousness of Christ, when Abrahams Posterity was so blessed for his sake.

I have several humble Propositions to make upon this Discourse. 1. We ought not to think that we have no benefit: But how shall we do to know what that Benefit is? Great or Small, Spiri∣tual, or Temporal? Must we content our selves with thinking? Surely, we have some benefit, if we could but tell what it was: It may be, we may want that benefit; and may have it for asking, for his sake, and yet still we must not know what it is; or it may be some small benefit that cannot be seen without a Microscope; such it may be, and yet answer all the necessary Import of his words. 2. We ought not to think that we have no benefit: But have we the benefit of acceptation with God? For that was the Question, if I have not forgotten,

as well as our Author: So that though we should be so charitably credulous as to take it upon one of our Authors Say-soes, and Thinkings, that we have some benefit by it, yet if it be not the very benefit under Dispute, it's monstrously Impertinent. 3. We ought not to think: But what if we do think so? With what argument will he compel us to alter our Judgments? For I see this is his Device, when he has no mind to a Truth, to lay the Proof of it upon thinking, and a well fortified fancy. 4. Let us now examine his Similitude: God (says he) be∣stowed many Blessings upon Israel, for the sake of their Fathers. But, 1. VVere they accepted of God, Pardoned, Iustified, for their Fathers sake? If not, How will it follow, that we are Accepted, Pardoned, Iustified, for the sake of Christs Obedi∣ence, because they received some common Favours for the sake of Abraham? 2. VVould God give them any blessings for their Fathers sake, unless they walked in their steps? If not, then they were not accepted for their Fathers obedience-sake, but for their own: For why should they need the sake of their Fathers Obedience, to procure them Blessings for their Obedience, more than their Fathers needed the sake of another to procure them Blessings for their Obedience? But if so, that God did give them many blessings for their Fathers sakes, though they walked not in the steps of their Faith, and Exem∣plary Obedience: That is indeed to the purpose, but then it will be in danger of proving that God may give us Gospel blessings for Christs sake, though we walk not in his steps. Indeed we read, that when Israel was most unworthy, and had provoked God most, that God did remember his Covenant made

with Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and God may have special Favours too for sinners, who personal∣ly considered are unworthy of the least Mercy, which some will call the Imputation of Christs Obedience. 3. The true account of those Favours which God bestowed upon Israel for Abrahams saké, is this: God had made a Promise to Abraham, that in his Seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed. That is, That in the Messiah which should come of his Line by Isaac, there should be a Blessedness or Happiness,) provided for the miserable undone VVorld: This Promise was afterwards clear'd up to Iudah, that the Messiah should be conveyed to the VVorld by his Tribe; this being an absolute, irrevocable Promise, that God would out of that People, that Tribe, deliver a Saviour to the VVorld: It was necessary that God should preserve that Tribe, that People, out of which the Messiah was to come; and as it was necessary for the truth of the Promise, that that Tribe should be continued in being, so was it necessary for the evidencing of the fulfilling of the Promise, that that Tribe should be continued in some considerable state of Visibility in the VVorld; that so the Promise might not only be made good in it self, but that it might be made out that it was made good, to the Conviction of Gain-sayers. This was the Reason why, when Iudah had sinned, and God Corrected them, yet still He remembred this Cove∣nant; he left his People a Lamp for Davids sake, on this account that People escaped utter Extirpa∣tion, when they were upon the borders of Desola∣tion: To this Zachary imputes the giving of the Messiah, Luke 1. 72. To perform the Mercy pro∣mised to our Fathers, and to remember His holy Co∣venant.

The Oath which he Sware to our Father Abraham. 4. Perhaps this may be some account of it: The Covenant which God made with Abra∣ham, he made with his Seed also, Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. Abraham therefore, and his Seed, were but one of the Par∣ties to that Gracious Covenant; and therefore God in his Providential Dispensations dealing with them as one Body, the Obedience, Holiness of Abraham the Head, was considered as the Obedi∣ence, and Holiness of the Body, so far at least as to turn away temporal Evils, and procure temporal Mercies: And if this be so, we may consider Christ and Believers as one Mystical Body, and God in Covenant with Christ their Head, and in him with them, and then our Authors Argument will hold, though his Cause break: If God for the sake of Abrahams imperfect Obedience, yet as he was the Head of the League, gave so many temporal Mer∣cie to Israel; surely then, God for the sake of Christ, the Head of all that the Father hath given him, will bestow Spiritual and Eternal Mercies; for, the Head and Members making but one Body, the Obe∣dience of the Head, is reputed the Obedience of the Members: And as the Blessings which God bestows for Christs sake, are Transcendently g•…•…eater, than those bestowed on Israel for Abrahams sake; so is the Obedience which Christ performed upon it's own account, and the Dignity of the Person, infinitely beyond the imperfect Obedience of Abraham; and the Union which Faith makes with Christ is a stricter Union, than any Natural, Civil, Political Union, that could possibly be, between Abraham and his Posterity. Thus I have endeavoured to Vindicate

our Authors Argument; but I am sure he had ra∣ther it should perish, than be thus justified.

But is it not strange, our Author should tell us, That he knows how many Blessings God bestowed upon the Children of Israel for their Fathers sakes, and yet not acquaint us with one single Blessing that God bestows on us for Christs sake? For the sake of Christs Personal Obedience? I wish I had so much Interest in any Friend of his, that had that Interest in him to perswade him to acquaint us freely, and open-heart∣edly, what those blessings are, and how procured? Why, just now he comes to it: The Righteousness of his Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death, both serve to the same end to establish, and confirm the Gospel∣Covenant: God was so well pleased with what Christ did and suffered, with the obedience of his Life, and Death, that for his sake he entred into a Covenant of Grace with Mankind. Very good, what need∣ed all this Circumlocution, and Periphrase? To beat about, and about the Bush? Had it not been more Civil to have given us our doom in plain English, than to Tantalize us with sugared hopes, and ex∣pectations of some great matter from Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob? Some would say, 1. That this ascribes more Influence to Abrahams Obedience than thus to Christs; for God for the sake of Abraham's Active Obedience entred into a Covenant with Israel, and chose them to be his peculiar People, without the Death of Abraham: but the Obedience of Christs Life, and Death, must both concur to procure this Covenant; and yet it is such a one, as I suppose God would not refuse upon as small an account as the sake of Abraham. 2. Some will say, this is not to Answer the Question, but perplex it: The

Question at first was, what influence the Righteous∣ness of Christs Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death have upon our acceptation with God? He Answers, They serve to establish the Covenant; they confirm to us, that God will pardon, and save us if we believe and Obey: but what if I Obey without such confir∣mation, shall my Obedience be rejected without it be performed upon that Confirmation? Ay, but God entred into this Covenant of Grace for Christs sake: Still I say that's not an answer, but the bandying the Question upon us again a hundred times over: Why should his Life and Death have such an influence upon God to make that Covenant? Why should they Operate that way? What connexion is there be∣tween Christs active and passive Obedience, and such a Covenant? But sure we forget our selves, for we are enquiring into the influence of Christs Active O∣bedience: And

(1.) For Confirming a Covenant; let any ratio∣nal Man satisfie me how

The Obedience of a Per∣son perfectly holy, pure, spotless, sinless, being accepted of God should prove this promise, That therefore God will accept them whose best Obe∣dience is imperfect, and defective.

This is so far from confirming it, that God will accept me, who am a Sinner, that it leads to utter dispair of accep∣tance with him; seeing I came so infinitely short of my pattern: What hope can a sinner have of accep∣tance, from a consideration that God has accepted Christ, who was no sinner: If Faith was ready to believe that God would accept him that believes and obeys; yet had it seen Christs Faith and Obedience, and his acceptance thereon, it might have stagger'd him that ever such pitiful things as his Faith and Obe∣dience

should find favour with God. And if Faith was so strong, as to overcome that difficulty, as to believe the Promise notwithstanding this staggering Example; yet it's far enough from Truth, that a sinner should believe the promise ever the more, that his imperfect Service should be accepted and rewar∣ded, because Christs entire obedience was so. Nay, without question it had been a greater confirmation of that promise, to have had assurance that God had pardoned some hainous Offender, some flagitious wretch, who deserved Condemnation, than to be∣hold him accepting a Person not obnoxious to Con∣demnation: So says the Apostle, 1 Tim. 1. 16. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Iesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them who hereafter should believe on him to Life everlasting. The Pardon of a Blasphe∣mer, one injurious, a Persecutor, is a stronger con∣firmation that God will pardon a sinner, than the ac∣ceptance of Him that had done no wrong, neither was guile found in his mouth.

(2.) But now for Gods making such a promise for Christs sake, or entring into a Covenant to par∣don, accept for Christs sake; this answers not the Question in the least: for, 1. It onely asserts, that God has declared openly, that he will do it. Now, a Declaration of Pardon, is not a Pardon; a pro∣mise of acceptance, is not acceptance; and there∣fore a Reason of, or Motive to such a Promise, such a Declaration, is not a Reason of, or Motive to Par∣don and acceptance: Christs Obedience was so well pleasing to God, that for his sake he made such a Pro∣mise. Well; but if my Obedience be little, Christs Obedience will not make it accepted, as if it were

great; if imperfect it will not render it accepted, as if it were perfect. 2. That God has made such a promise for Christs sake, answers not the Question; for it s but turning the Question into an Assertion: As if we should enquire, what Reason is there that God should accept me for Christs obedience? And he should Answer, there is a Reason, why God should accept me for it, but never shew the Reason: Or thus, What Cause is Christs Obedience, of the Acceptance of our Obedience? And he should say, it is a Cause, but not shew the Cause.

But then further,

The Obedience and Righte∣ousness of Christs Life was one thing which made his Sacrifice so Meritorious.

I confess, I question the Truth of the Proposition; had Christ Sacrificed himself as soon as he came into the World, his Sa∣crifice had been as Meritorious, being the Sacrifice of him that as Priest was God and Man; and as Sa∣crifice, was the Sacrifice of him that was Personally United with God; but I am not concerned to insist upon that at present: All I say, is, that it's no An∣swer to the Question; for to the best of my remem∣brance, (and it's not a full Twelve-moneth since the Question came before us) the Question was,

What influence the Righteousness of Christs Life hath upon our Acceptance?

and now we have got an Answer to another Question:

What influence the Righteousness of Christs Life has upon his own Acceptance with God?

As if we were at the Old Childish Game of cross Questions: It was asked me, How many Miles it is to London? and it was answered me, Thirteen shillings and a groat make a Noble. For what is this Meritoriousness of Christs Obedience? did he Merit for himself, or for us? If

for himself onely, then it's out of the Olives; If for us, then that which he has Merited is ours. Me∣rit denotes a proportion between the Work done, and the Reward received; and it's strict Justice in God to bestow upon us, that which another has Merited for us: if then Christ has Merited our Acceptance, we cannot but be accepted; it's Iustice we should be so. Again, what is it, that Christ has Merited? Is it acceptauce? Our Author will not say it; what then? Why, a promise of acceptance; that is, that we shall be pardoned and saved upon Faith and Obe∣dience: And this is the bottom of the bag; when he has turned his discourse into a thousand shapes and forms, and varied his expressions infinitely, yet all amounts to no more than this, Christ has confirmed a promise, procured a promise, merited a promise, that if we believe and obey, we shall be pardoned, and saved; and yet the answer to the Question is to come: For, 1. There must be a better Reason assigned than the Righteousness of Christs Life, why the Sacrifice of his Death should merit any thing; for if his active obedience was due to Gods Law upon his own Personal account, it could merit nothing for another: The payment of a Debt, will not merit a reward; and if the Righteousness of Christs Life did not merit any thing it self, it can never make his Death meritorious. 2. To Merit for us a reward, upon a condition, and never to merit for us that condition, is next to no∣thing, as the Case stands with us: For both Christ and we shall lose that which he has Merited, if our Obedience be left to the desultoriness of our own will, and the imbecillity of corrupt Nature: Upon the whole Matter I conclude, that according to his Prin∣ciples our Author canot shew any one thing in all the

Life and Death of Christ, that may render our Per∣sons and Services more acceptable to God, than they would otherwise have been, upon equal Holiness and Obedience; and therefore we must make our Application to Persons of other apprehensions in Re∣ligion, if we would have an honest satisfactory An∣swer to this Question:

What influence the Righ∣teousness of Christs Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death, have upon our Acceptance with God.

There is a Text, which some think will shew us more of that

True influence that the Righteous∣ness of Christ hath upon our Acceptance with God,

than all this tedious rambling Discourse of our Authors; It is Rom. 5. 18, 19. Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation, even so, by the Righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all Men to Iustification of Life: For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made Righteous: From whence I have heard some Argue; In the same sense that all are made sinners in the first Adam, all that are righteous are made righteous in the second Adam; but in the first Adam, all are made sinners by the imputation of his Disobe∣dience, therefore all that are righteous, are made so, in the second Adam, by the imputation of his Obe∣dience. Again, If it was the Active Disobedience of the first Adam, whereby many (even all that were in him,) were made sinners; then it is the active obedience of the second Adam, whereby Many (even all that are in him,) are made righteous; but the former is true, therefore so is the latter. But (says our Author) This is the most that can be made of that place: This? What? Why this something,

or this nothing, which he had said before;

That God was so well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life, that for his sake he entred into a Covenant of Grace with Mankind:

And if this be all that can be made of that Text, the Opposition must run thus; As God was so ill pleased with the Disobedience of Adams Life, that for the sake of it he entred into a Covenant of Works with Mankind; So he was so well pleased with the Obedience of Christs Life, that for the sake of it, he entred into a Covenant of Grace with Mankind. Really it must be so, Reader; take it, or leave it; for look what influence Adams Disobedience had upon God to provoke him to condemn the World, the same influence had Christs obedience upon God to please him to save the World. And will not this be a rare contrivance, to fancy a Covenant of Works, instituted after the Fall of Adam, when we are certain it was established before his Disobedience? And so was the Covenant of Grace before the Active, and Actual obedience of Christ: However let us consi∣der the most he can make of it. First (says he) there's no necessity of expounding this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Righteousness of Christs Life, or his active obedience. This Answer of our Authors is like the Ariere banne, it's never raised but in a case of extreme urgency: an Answer that will serve the turn of all the Atheists, Hereticks, and Miscreants upon Earth: If you tell them that Eternal Salvation is promised in the Gos∣pel, they have it at their fingers ends, that there is no necessity that Eternal should signifie a duration beyond the Horizon of time: it's used in other places for the lengthning out the existence of a thing to it's own allotted period. Thus the Aaronical Priesthood

was an everlasting Priesthood; it was to continue for the Ever of the Iewish World. And as for that word Salvation, there's no necessity it should signi∣fie a deliverance from Spiritual Evils; for besides that, there were no promises of any such Salvation in the old Testament; the word is often used in the New, for temporal deliverance: As when the Apostle said, Except these abide in the Ship ye cannot be saved, Acts 27. But why is there no necessity of it? It may well signifie no more than his Death, because the Apostle tells us, Phil. 2. 8. That Christ became obe∣dient unto Death, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but by his leave, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 does indeed signifie obedient in gene∣ral, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 obedience in it's common Nature, without determining it's signification either to active or passive obedience; but do they argue from the Na∣ture and purport of the Word, that because Christs obedience is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, therefore it must needs be active obedience? No such matter; but they ar∣gue from another hard word, Yeleped Antithesis, from the opposition that is there made between Adams disobedience, and Christs obedience. Thus the Dr. argued, if our Author durst have read him; Com. p. 185.

It's opposed to the disobedience of Adam, which was Active; The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is opposed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Righteousness to the Fault: The Fault was an active transgression of the Law, and the obedience opposed to it, must be an active ac∣complishment of it: If the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Adam was active, then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Christ must be active.

But our Author will have the other bout with him. Christs offering himself in Sacrifice is called doing the will of God, Heb. 10. 9, 10.

And whether this be properly said or not, I will leave the Dr. to

dispute it with the Apostle:

But I do not perceive the Doctor has any contraversie with, though he has maintained many for the Apostle: They are ve∣ry well agreed, for ought I perceive, nor shall they Quarrel if I can help it: The Doctor will not con∣tend, that Christs assuming a body in order to the of∣fering a Sacrifice to God, was not doing his will; no, he pleads for it, to the cost of somebody: But this is that which he disputes, that in Rom. 5. 18, 19. The Opposition between Adams Disobedience, and Christs Obedience, will prove them both of the same kind; It's acknowledged that Christ did actively obey in suf∣fering; his sufferings were Activo passiva: But yet the Obedience mentioned in the place before us, was an Active Obedience, because Adams Disobedience was so. One blow more, and then our Author will yield us the Cause:

There is no express mention (says he) made in this Chapter of any other Act of Obedience whereby we are reconciled to God, but onely his dying for us, which makes it more than probable, that by his Righteousness and O∣bedience, the Apostle understands his Death and Sufferings.

I assure you, I like it well when Men argue from the Context, provided they do not de∣stroy the Text; and had our Author Religiously ob∣served this Rule, he had not turned his Readers sto∣macks so often with nauseous Interpretations, but yet I have a few things to offer to him: 1. That though there be no other act of Obedience mentioned whereby we are reconciled, yet there may be ano∣ther act of Obedience mentioned whereby we may be compleatly justified. 2. Though there be no other act of Obedience mentioned in the fore-going verses, yet there may be one in this. No Laws of

Cohaerence or Contexture, ever obliged an Author that he might not pass to new matter; and so has the Apostle done in this place, and Case, as the Opposi∣tion most undeniably proves. 3. All that he says, makes it but more than probable: Now, had there been any colour for Truth of his Conceit, his con∣fidence does not use to dwindle away into probabili∣ties, but he had fetcht the Great Commander, and knock'd us all dead with irrefragable Demonstration; for do you understand the Mystery of this [more than probable] when you hear him confess, that Matters seem to be against him, and but probably, or a little more than probably for him: You need not lay your Ear to listen in what quarter the wind •…•…its. But then 4.—Nay, hold; Our Author yields: Good Nature begins to work;

But yet (says he) these Expressions, his Righteousness, and Obedience, seem to take in the whole compass of his Obedience in doing and Suffering the will of God.

All is well then, and Dr. Owen is a very honest Man again. And we will not vex our selves how to reconcile, more than probable Con: with seeming Pro. I have made some attempts formerly, and once more whilst our Author is in the tractable vein, I le try whether the Doctor and he may not be made good Friends; for since our Author is com∣ing towards a willingness to take in Active Obedi∣ence, it's but attempting however to prevail with the Doctor not to exclude the Passive. Well, look once more: Com. p. 185. That the Passive Obe∣dience of Christ is here Onely intended, is false; so that all that the Doctor contends for, is, that the Pas∣sive Obedience is not solely intended to the exclusion of the Active.

We are all agreed then in the meaning of the sim∣ple Terms, and it's well if we do not fall out again about the Propositions that result from them: Let us now hear his Comment upon the words.

The meaning of the words (says he) is this: That as God was so highly displeased with Adams sin, that he entail'd a great many evils, and miseries, and death it self, upon his Posterity, for his sake: So God was so well pleased with the Righteousness and Obedience of Christs Life and Death, that he bestows the Rewards of Righteousness on those who according to the strictness and rigour of the Law are not Righteous; that for Christs sake he he hath made a New Covenant of Grace, which pardons our past sins and follies, and rewards a sincere, though imperfect Obedience.

There are two Questions which he here under∣takes to Answer. First, What Influence Adams sin hath upon his Posterity? and Secondly, it is to be hoped that from thence we may at last know, What Influence Christs Righteousness and Obedience have upon our acceptance with God?

1 Quest. What Influence hath Adams sin upon his Posterity? To this he returns.

God was so highly displeased with Adams sin, that he entailed a great many evils, and miseries, and death it self, upon his Posterity, for his sake:

Now, all this is true, very true; but whether it be the whole Truth, that which will satisfie the design of the Text I shall examine by and by. At present I shall onely make some short Notes upon it.

1.

God (says he) was so highly displeased with Adams sin, that for his sake he entailed a great many evils.

Now, had it not been fair to have

shewn the Iustice, as well as the Highness of Gods Displeasure in such a proceeding with his Posterity? That God was justly, as well as highly displeased with Adams Sin, never created a Doubt to any man; but that he should be so highly displeased with the Sin of one single Man, to entail Evils upon Mil∣lions, upon all his Posterity, this would invite us to examine the Righteousness of the Entail. The Posterity of Adam knew nothing of Adams Sin, were not conscious nor consenting to it, and yet God involves them in the Consequences of Adams Sin.

2. God (says he) entail'd those Evils upon his Posterity for Adams sake: Now here's the old Blind again: For to say, that God did it for Adams sake, implies, that Adams sin had an influence, and it had this influence, but how it could righteously or indeed possibly have that influence, is still a Questi∣on; and till that be resolved, we shall never have the advantage from hence to know, How the Righte∣ousness of Christ could have an Influence upon God, to shew us any kindness for Christs sake.

3. God (says he) entail'd a great many Evils and miseries upon his Posterity, for his sake. Now see∣ing there are but a Many (though a great many) evils entailed upon them, and not all Evils, it's very much our Interest to understand which are the En∣tailed evils, and which our own Personal evils; which are hereditary, and which of our own procure∣ment; that so having found out which are entailed upon us, we may search if there be not a way found to cut off the Entail, by the Recovery wrought out by Christ. And the rather, because the Text men∣tions not only Evils, many Evils, but seems to in∣clude

all Evils; As Life and Absolution, compre∣hend all spiritual Mercies; so Death and Condem∣nation comprehend all spiritual Curses: And by these comprehensive words, the Apostle expresses those Evils which God upon the Account of Adam's Sin, has entailed upon Posterity. I know how easily our Author presumes to dock the Entail, by plead∣ing, that Death signifies onely Temporal Death; but the Apostle has obviated that Cavil, v. 11. As by one Man Sin entred into the world, and Death by S•…•…n, and so Death passed upon all Men, for that all have sinned. By one man, by Adam, that Sin whose wages is Death, and that Death which is the wages of Sin, enter'd into the world, even upon all his Po∣sterity, for that all have sinned. And what that Death is, which is the Wages of Sin, he assures, by opposing it to Eternal Life, v. 21. As Sin reigned unto Death, so might Grace reign through Righte∣ousness unto Eternal Life, by Iesus Christ our Lord. So again Chap. 6. v. 23. The Wages of Sin is Death, but the Gift of God is Eternal Life.

2 Qu. What Influence has Christs Righteousness and Obedience upon our Acceptation with God? And had our Author answered the former question to purpose, he had answered this in it, and saved himself a great deal of needless pains in a New pro∣secution of it. But he answers:

God was so well pleased with the Righteousness of Christ Life and Death, that he bestowes the Rewards of Righteousness on those, who according to the strict∣ness and rigour of the Law are not righteous: That for Christs sake, he hath made a New Co∣venant of Grace, which pardons our past sins and follies, and rewards a sincere though imperfect

Obedience.

A few notes also I shall make upon this, and so dismiss it at present.

And, First, here is certainly a great Iuggle in these words: God (says he) was so well pleased with the Righteousness and Obedience of Christs Life and Death, that he bestows the rewards of Righteousness upon us. Now these rewards of Righteousness (be they what they will or can) are either the proper and immediate effects of the Life and Death of Christ, or not: If they be, then I am sure he was tardy p. 323. The Apostles attribute such things to the Blood of Christ, as are the proper and immediate Effects of the Gospel Covenant: And what that is in his Dia∣lect, I hope we are not to seek at this time of day. But if they be not the proper and immediate Effects of the Life and Death of Christ, then, 1. He has juggled here with his Reader, placing the rewards of Righteousness as bestow'd for Christs sake, be∣fore any Consideration of the Covenant. 2. If not, then he has not drawn a fair Parallel between the Influence of Adams Sin, and that of Christs Obe∣dience: For he tells us, that God for Adams sake entailed a great many Evils, Miseries, nay Death it self, upon his Posterity; there are particular evils entailed upon Individuals for the sake of Ano∣ther, without any intervention of their own perso∣nal Transgressions: Ay, but there our Author will perhaps tell me, That the truth is, he means all this while, (by a secret reserve,) that Adams Posterity, when they commit Adams sin, or and other, they then render themselves obnoxious to those miseries, evils, and death it self: But then this is not to the purpose; for then 'tis not for Adams sake, but for their own: Not for that One Mans Offence, but for

every mans own Offence, that judgement came upon them to condemnation: Which is not to interpret the Apostle, but dictate to him, and indite his Epistles for him. Miseries then, and a great many miseries, none knows how many, are entail'd upon Adams Posterity for his sake, without any inter∣vention of their own sin: But now here's no Blessing, not one single Blessing, entailed upon such spiritual Posterity of Christ, that they shall receive any one the least Favour, without the Intervention of their own Obedience: And so things are where they were at first.

Secondly, I must note also, That he says, God bestows the rewards of Righteousness on those who according to the strictness and rigour of the Law are not righteous: That is, as he explains himself, they shall be justified or treated like righteous Persons:

Now, 1. If God can treat them like Righteous Persons, who are not really so; because he is so well pleased with Christs Obedience, why may not God conceive me to have done that which I have not done, as well as to be what I am not? Why not to have obeyed in Christ, to have suffer'd in Christs sufferings, as to be a righteous Person in my self, when there is no such matter? Andthus our Author has laid a block in our way, at which a well-mean∣ing man, (though against our Authors meaning) may stumble upon the Notion of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness: It's altogether unintelligible, how God should punish me for Adams fault with Justice, if Adams fault were not some wayes or other my own; and fully as unaccouutable, How God should deal with me as righteous who am not so, for the sake of Christs Obedience, if Christs Obedience some way

or other become not mine: I can easier satisfie my Reason how the Righteousness of the second Adam may make me righteous, and accepted of God; than how the unrighteousness of the first should make me a sinner; and yet Faith believes both, though it con∣clude stronglier for Christ, Rom. 5. 17. For if by one mans Offence Death reigned by one, much more they, &c.

2. God (he says) bestows the rewards of Righte∣ousness on those who in strictness are not righteous, Let some enquire at his house, as they go by, What he means by the Rewards of righteousness: Is it In∣herent Righteousness? Then it's Non sence▪ or worse: God gives them inherent righteousness who have not inherent Righteousness, which in sensu composito is Non-sence, and in sensu diviso not agreeable to our Authors Principles: But if he mean, the rewards of Acceptation as righteous when they are not righte∣ous, and this for Christs sake; then either there will be some immediate proper effect found ou•…•… for the Obedience of Christs Life and Death, or else all comes to no more than this, That God will Accept us righteous or unrighteous, that is, right or wrong.

3. I would observe also, That he supposes God to have dispensed with the Moral Law: Which is News to me, and I confess I doe not believe it, nor shall I, till I hear it confirmed: Some Errors though speculative are da•…•…ble, and such may this prove: For if we like Fools goggled in with the Rhetori∣cal Divinity of this Age, should Trust to Gods Abate∣ments of his Law; and at last it should prove, that God loved Righteousness, and hated Iniquity as such, we were in a most wretched, miserable, and undone Condition, merely by Trusting to Indulgence. I de∣mand

therefore good Counter security of our Au∣thor, That God will deal with me as righteous, though I be not so in the Account of his Law; unless I be considered, as found in Christ, not having my own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is by the Faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by Faith. The Moral Law is the Image of Gods Mind, his Nature transcribed into his Law; and one jot nor tittle of this Law shall ever pass away: How much of this Law God will dispense with, what part of it, or what degrees of the violation of it, is to me unknown; and if with any, whether he may not possibly dispense with the whole by the same Reason, is more than our Authors Principles can inform me; he that may dispense with one part of it, may with another, and so of the rest: For where to stop, or put bounds to such a Dispensation as comes from the Grace of God, is very impossible to determine, unless we knew the true bounds of Gods Grace. And whereas our Author talks of the rigour of the Law, there's nothing of it rigorous in its own Nature, and the least particle of it would be impossible to be ob∣served according to its exact demands, if it were made the Law of our Iustification: He that breaks the Law in one point, is guilty of all; and the Curse is denounced against him that confirms not all that is written therein to doe it.

4. The Difficulty remains to this day, Why God should be so pleased with the Righteousness and Obe∣dience of Christ, that he should allow the Disobe∣dience of Another. And it will remain for ever a Difficulty, both why God should inflict Evils upon the Posterity of Adam for his sake, or deal with them as righteous, who in the Account of his Holy

Law are not righteous, for Christs: till we understand the true Nature of the Two Covenants, the one made with Adam and all his Natural seed; the other with Christ, and all his spiritual seed; both which Seeds were to stand or fall, according as their re∣spective Heads and Representatives, should acquit themselves in point of Obedience and Disobedience towards God, and his most holy and righteous Law.

The same liberty that he has taken, I question not but he will give, and I shall be very modest in a few Enquiries.

(1.) May we enquire, Whether what he allows of Influence to Adams Sin upon his Posterity, will satisfie the Apostles Intendment? The Apostle asserts v. 18. That by the offence of one, judgement came upon all to Condemnation: v. 19. That by one mans Offence, many were made Sinners. And there are these things considerable:

1. That Adams Sin had this Influence upon Po∣sterity, that they were made Sinners also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Transgressors of a Law; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to deviate from a Rule, to come short of a Mark that is set us to aim at, as Suidas observes.

2. That the Posterity of Adam were so made sin∣ners, that they were lyable to condemnation; Iudg∣ment came upon them to Condemnation: This I Ob∣serve, because some talk as if they were Sinners in jest; but God lets the Sons of men know, that they are obnoxious to Condemnation for the Offence of that one Man.

3. The Apostle shews how they were made sin∣ners, and how they were liable to Condemnation;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; they were so by a Constitution: God did not infuse sin into them, and make them sinners Inherently; but they were made so by a Law-con∣stitution: And it was needful that the Apostle should clear that Point, because the Vindication of Gods Iustice called for it: For how could God deal with them as sinners in respect of Condemnation, who were not first sinners in respect of Guilt? Guilt and Condemnation do Reciprocally prove each o∣ther. To assert them to be sinners, proves them lia∣ble to Condemnation; and to assert them liable to Condemnation, presupposes them to be sinners; for what is Condemnation but the evil of Punish∣ment inflicted, for the evil of sin committed. Nor can it consist with the Righteousness of the Iudge of the whole Earth, to treat them as sinners as to Pu∣nishment, who were not first so, as to Guilt contra∣cted: To clear therefore the Righteousness of God, that he may be Iust when he Condemns; we must understand, that the sin of Adam is one way or other made the sin of his Posterity: Several ways there are Contrived to Salve this Difficulty; some say (as was noted before) that Adams sin being Imitated by his Posterity, they become sinners, and so liable to Condemnation. A dull Contrivance, which our Author himself will not allow, who as∣serts, that God was so displeased with Adams Diso∣bedience, that for his sake he Entailed many Evils upon his Posterity; but if there be nothing more but the Infection and Contagion of his Example, then it's not for Adams Sin, Fault, or Offence, that they are made sinners, but for their own: In Defi∣ance of the Apostle, and his way of Reasoning: the very truth is, God made a Covenant with Adam, and

in him with all his▪ Natural Posterity: Adam was not only the Natural Parent, but the Moral Head and Representative of all his Seed, and therefore according to this Righteous Law of God, his Offence was theirs; what he forfeited, they forfeited; what he lost, they lost; he sinned, they sinned; he came under the Condemnation, they came under it also: And this does fully satisfie the Apostles Reasoning; By one Mans offence, many were made sinners; by one Mans offence, Iudgment came upon all to Condemnation. And God has given us pregnant Instances of his Righteous procedure in Punishing the Members of Political Bodies, for the Offences of their Political Heads, 2 Sam. 24. Thus he Punisht Davids sin in Numbering the People, upon the People, who were Innocent in his Transgression personally; and to say (as some have ventured to say,) That the People had sins of their own, for which God might Righteously punish them; is to say a great Impertinent truth: For whatever sins they had of their own, for which God might justly have dealt thus with them, yet God Declares that this was the Impulsive cause of their Punishment, even the sin of David, with whom the People ha∣ving a Political Union (as our Author phrases it) they made but one Body in the sight of Vengeance: And when others say, That this was but a temporal Punishment, and therefore it will not hold, that God should punish the Posterity of Adam spiritu∣ally for his Transgression, they say they know not what: For God will not be Unrighteous and Unjust, in Punishing the Sons of Men for that sin which is none of their own, in the smallest thing, from a Thread to a Shooe-latchet; and the Rule of▪ Justice

in this Case, is the Law; for if the Law was back'd by a Sanction of Spiritual and Eternal threatnings, then 'tis Just with the Law-giver to Inflict the Pu∣nishment upon all that are under the Law; our Uni∣on with Adam was another, a stricter Union, than the Israelites had with David; it was Spiritual, the other Civil, External only: And therefore accord∣ing to the Law of Union and Relation, though the Israelites could only suffer for Davids sin temporal∣ly, yet the Posterity of Adam may by Righteous Judgment of God, for Adams sin suffer Eternally. And now let us briefly see, whether our Author comes up to any thing of the Apostle, or no?

God (says he) was so highly displeased with Adams sin, that for his sake he Entailed a great many Evils, Miseries, nay Death it self, upon his Po∣sterity.

Nay, but says the Apostle, they were constituted sinners, Iudgment and Condemnation came upon them, though they had not sinned after the Similitude of Adams transgression; the same Iudgment which in the Sanction of the Law, was threatned against Adams sin; and now to Fob and Flam off this with Evils, Miseries, and never tell us what they were, not how it could be Just with God to Entail the least Evil upon them, or touch a Hair of their Heads for the sin of another, with whom they had no privity of Interest; is to Reduce the sin of Adam as near to Nothing, as he has Re∣duced Christs Righteousness.

(2.) May we enquire also, VVhether that Influ∣ence which he allows to Christs Obedience, reach the Mind of the Apostle? The Apostle affirms, that By the Obedience of one, many were made Righte∣ous; and that by the Righteousness of one, the Free∣gift

came upon all to Iustification of Life, v. 18, 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Many, or the ma∣ny (of whom he Treats) shall be constituted Righ∣teous. For as all that were in the first Adam, all his Natural Seed, were by vertue of a Legal Constitu∣tion, Ordinance, and Appointment of God, made sinners in the Transgression of their common Head and Representative; so all the Spiritual Seed and Posterity of Christ, (which the Father had promi∣sed to give him as the Reward of his Death and Suf∣ferings) are by vertue of a New, a better Law∣constitution made Righteous, by the Righteousness of their spiritual Head, and Representative: And therefore the Apostle, v. 14. tells us expresly, That Adam was the Figure of Christ: He did exactly represent the Headship of Christ towards all his spiritual Posterity, in that Headship which he bore towards his own Posterity: But the Apostle has said enough in this Chapter, to stomack the Pride and Restifness of humane Wisdom; nothing more grating upon the Spirit of a Gallant, than that he should be made a sinner by the sin, or owe his Righteousness to the Righteousness of another. This is the summe of the Apostles Discourse: As the Posterity of A∣dam were made sinners, constituted such by a Law, and dealt with as such by God; so are the Posterity of Christ made Righteous, by such another way of Justification. But then I assume, The Posterity of Adam could not be made sinners by▪ the sin of Adam, otherwise than by the Imputation of Adams sin; therefore the Posterity of Christ could not be made Righteous otherwise in the sight of God, than by the Imputation of Christs Righteousness: The Po∣sterity of Adam could not possibly be made sinners

by Adams first sin, any other way than by charging it upon them, according to the Terms of that Law under which he and they stood; nor are the Seed of Christ capable of being made Righteous in Gods sight, by the Obedience of Christ, otherwise than by Imputing it to them, according to that New Co∣venant-constitution, called the Law of Faith and Righteousness, under which Christ and Believers do now stand. But if the word Imputation do Disgust our Authors delicate Ears, let him call it what he pleases, provided the Apostles Argument be satis∣fied, and his main Design secured; let us now see how our Author comes up to the Apostle.

God (says he) was so well pleased with the Obedience and Righteousness of Christs Life, and Death, that for his sake he bestows the rewards of Righ∣teousness on those, who according to the Rigour of the Law are not Righteous:

Wherein our Author and our Apostle come not near one ano∣ther by many Leagues. 1. Our Author says, God bestows the reward of Righteousness on them that are not Righteous. But our Apostle says, we are made Righteous by the Obedience of Christ, before we can be accounted Righteous by God: The Holy God will not account half Righteousness for a whole one; sinners may mock themselves, but they can∣not mock God: That which the Law requires, must be had; the Apostle tells us, 'tis to be had in Christ: By his Obedience, through the Intervention of the Law-constitution of Faith and Righteousness, Be∣lievers are made Righteous. 2. Whatever is Lurk∣ing under the darkness of these Expressions, The Rewards of Righteousness; the Rigour of the Law; yet this we may be sure of, that all come to this in

the Up shot:

That God for Christs sake has made a New Covenant of Grace, which Pardons our past Sins and Follies, and rewards a Sincere, though Imperfect Obedience.

I can compare our Authors Copia Verborum, his Variegated Equipollent Phrases and Expressions, to nothing so well as that of the Chymists, when they endeavour to bind Hermes, or in plain English, their fixing of Quick∣silver; they can Model it into many accidental Forms and Shapes, and yet the Cunning versute Creature will be Mercury again, do what they can; unless some will compare it to the Young∣mans Mistress in the Fable, that Brided it for a day, or so, but yet upon the sight of her old Game, put off her Personated self, and reassumed her real self again. Such Feats of Activity have we shown us, ever and anon by our Author, he can turn his words into more Shapes than Proteus; tell us of this and that, but when he comes to himself, All the Influ∣ence that Christs Obedience has upon our acceptance with God, is, that we owe such a Covenant to it as he has described to us, and Contrived for us: Tells us, That God for Christs sake has entered into a Covenant, made a Covenant; his Righteousness and Obedience have procured a Covenant; are the Me∣ritorious cause of a Covenant; when the total Summe of all is no more than this, That God has pro∣mised to Pardon and Save us if we Believe, and Obey the Gospel, though we Obey not perfectly. So that at last, it's our own Obedience that Recommends us to God, our own Righteousness for which we are Iustified: Whereas the Apostle is Peremptory, That by the Obedience of Christ we are constituted Righteous.

His Conclusion is therefore this: That the Righ∣teousness of Christ, is not the formal Cause of our Iustification; but the Meritorious cause of that Co∣venant whereby we are declared Righteous, and re∣warded as Righteous. I perceive the Righteousness of Christs Life, and the Obedience of his Death, are like to prove something ere long: One while they Confirm and Seal, another while they Procure, and at last they Merit a Covenant: I cannot but Examine particulars, though I have often done it. 1. The Righteousness of Christ, is not the Formal cause of our Iustification. Indeed, I think it is not: Never any Man in his Wits affirmed it so: Give but us leave to call it the Material cause, or the Meri∣torious cause immediately and properly of Justifica∣tion▪ and he shall take Formal cause, and deal with it at his pleasure. I think I have a Commission from all the Systematical Divines of Germany, the Voluminous Tigurines, and Bulky Low-Dutch, with those few that are left in England, to make a Bargain with him, Hard and Fast; That the Righte∣ousness of Christ is not the Formal cause of our Iusti∣fication. 2. Says he, It is the Meritorious cause of that Covenant whereby we are declared Righte∣ous: A Meritorious cause sounds very high, if it had an honest Meaning: But what has it Merited? Iustification? By no means: What then? Any particular Mercy, or Priviledge, or Blessing? By no means, for then it would be a proper cause of it; there's an Exact and Severe proportion betwixt the Reward and the Work, in all Merit: What is it then the Meritorious cause of? Why of a Cove∣nant: But are we made Righteous by the Cove∣nant? Not at all; only we are declared Righteous:

But how does the Righteousness of Christs Life, and the Obedience of his Death, Merit such a Co∣venant at Gods Hands? Nay, That he will not tell us. God was well pleased with them, but why he should be so, is a Secret which must be reserved for the coming of Elias.

(3.) The last thing I shall Exmine, is his Ex∣ceptions against our Interpretation of the Apostle. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Shall▪ be made Righteous (says he) is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Shall be Iusti∣fied. Well, I agree to him: But then I say, the former Expression explains the way of our being Iu∣stified; that it is by Vertue of a Gospel-Law-Con∣stitution, or Appointment of God; who consider∣ing all Believers as one with their Redeemer, does Constitute them Just, and Righteous, (there's the Formal Cause) in the Righteousness of Christ, (there's the Material Cause of Justification) as all the Posterity of Adam are constituted Sinners, and liable to Condemnation by the Constitution of the old Law, as Represented by him their Common Head. 2. He excepts: That the Apostle tells us, ver. 17. Who they are that are Iustified by Christ, and shall Reign with him in Life; not those who are Righteous by the Imputation of Christs Righteous∣ness to them. But I do not hear the Apostle telling me one such word, whatever he has told our Au∣thor privately by way of Cabala: I hear him saying plainly, That as by one Mans offence many were made sinners, so by one Mans Obedience many were made Righteous: And because I cannot devise how possi∣bly one Man should be made a sinner, dealt with as a sinner, Condemned and Judged as, and for a sinner, by another mans sin, unless he be some ways or other

guilty of sin; and because it is not the making of that one mans sin their own by Immitation and Ex∣ample, that the Apostle speaks of, but by a consti∣tution of a Covenant or Law: Therefore till I can find a better Term to express the Doctrine by, I shall call, Gods charging Adams sin upon his Posterity to their Condemnation, his Imputing it to them: And then because I cannot neither devise with my self, how one man should possibly be made Righteous by the Obedience of another, but that others Obedi∣ence must some way or other become his own; and because to say Christs Obedience is ours by Imita∣tion of his Example, is to cross the Apostles para∣lel, and to cross the Truth, for we Imitate it but in part and very Imperfectly; therefore I shall take the Freedom also to call Gods constituting Believers righteous by the Obedience of Christ, his Imputing that Obedience to them for their Justification: pro∣vided always, that when more convenient and expres∣sive Terms shall be found out, to satisfie the Apostle, this of Imputation be left indifferent: Well, but if not these, who are then? Why those who have re∣ceived the abundance of Grace, and of the Gift of Righteousness; these are justified by Christ, these shall Reign with him in Life: It's very true, the Apostle does tell us no less: And I cannot imagine how he should more fitly describe a justified person, that others may know him, and he should know himself, than by the Fruits and Effects of Justifica∣tion, such as abundance of Grace are: For whate∣ver our Author thinks of the Apostle, he does not use to describe a thing by it self, or something equal∣ly obscure, but by that which is more known and Obvious than the thing described: and therefore

the Apostle seems not to describe Justification, but a justified Person by Sanctification: They that have received abundance of Grace, and the Gift of Righ∣teousness, these are justified Persons; not that Ju∣stification is from any Inherent work, but that the justified Person is only known to himself to be such, by an Inherent work, and to others by the fruits of it.

This answer, I will deal truly with my Reader, came next to hand, I had it from our Author, and I presumed he would accept a bad one of his own, be∣fore a better of another mans: The Apostle (says he) tells who those are that are thus justified by Christ; Nay then, thought I, that will kill no body; for a justified Person may be described by his Qualifica∣tions, and yet his Righteousness, wherein he stands accepted before God, not consist in those Qualifica∣tions: But to deal plainly with him, I do humbly conceive, that the Apostle describes an Imputed Righteousness by that expression; They which receive the abundance of Grace, and the Gift of Righteous∣ness: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It was the over-flowing and Redundancy of Divine Love, to accept a Surety to fulfill all Righteousness, and Suffer for us; and abun∣dance of Grace too, to let us in by Faith into the Righ∣teousness of Christ's Life, and the Sacrifice of Christs Death: God might have held us close, and tyed us up to the Terms of the Old Covenant, and righte∣ously have exacted of us a Personal compleat Obe∣dience to every jot and tittle of the Law, as the Con∣dition of Justification; but though he has not abated of his Law, yet he has admitted a Surety, called therefore the Surety of the Covenant; not only be∣cause

he has undertaken for God, but for us also; for a Mediator is not of one, Gal. 3. 19. And our re∣ceiving this abundance of Grace, is not the Receiving of inherent Grace into us, but our accepting by Faith this New Gospel-Law or Constitution of God, with the whole Man, closing with this gracious way of Ju∣stifying a Believer by Christ.

But here our Author unhappily crosses me the way with one of his id est's.

That is (says he) Those who by the Gospel of Christ, which is called Grace, the abundant Grace of God, are made Holy and Righteous.

To which I say as I have sometimes said, That the Gospel (as he describes it) is not the Grace of God, but a real Doctrine of Ju∣stification by Works blanch'd a little to make it ven∣dible. 2. The Gospel as it is a Revelation of Grace, is not the whole of the Grace of God; the Gospel reveals more Grace to be in God, in Christ, in the Holy Spirit for us, than the Revelation of it: There is an Operation of Grace upon us, a Constitution of Grace with us, as well as a Revelation of Grace to us; but this he will grant us, That Righteousness is called a Gift: so far good. But is it really a gift, or onely called so; as Christs is called a Redeemer, called a High-Priest, called a Sacrifice? I doubt this will prove nothing but Phraseology at last: He an∣swers, 1. Negatively: It's called a gift, because it is not owing solely to Humane Endeavours. Not solely? But then it may be almost, and very near al∣together owing to Humane Endeavours: The Grace of God may come in for a share, though a poor pi∣tiful share: as he would not exclude the Righteous∣ness of Christ wholly, totally, from having any con∣cernment in our Iustification; so out of his genero∣sity

he will not shut out Grace wholly, from interpo∣sing in our Sanctification. Haerebit in aliquâ saltem parte: Well, commend me to the memory of honest I. G. who, though a high trotting Arminian, would allow Free-grace ninety nine parts in the Conversion of a sinner, provided always, and upon Condition nevertheless, that Free-will might have one in a hun∣dred: But what a Company of Rigid Bigots are these Calvinists, that will not abate one ace, not for∣go a single Unite in a Hundred? but they pretend they have no Commission to compound between Free∣grace, and Free-will, and that God will not put his Right to arbitration: and indeed it were hazardous, for what sad terms had our Author made for the Rich effectual Grace of God, had the determination been put into his hands? Righteousness is not owing solely to Humane endeavours: Natural strength, free∣will, humane ability, shall have ninety nine parts in the Dividend; and Grace that deserves all, must be content with one single lot, and perhaps a smaller pittance. And now what if this will not denomi∣nate it a gift? just so much as you add to these Hu∣mane Endeavours, you substract from free-grace; and whether that little, that very little concern, that grace has in this work, shall denominate it a Gift; or that much, that very much which Humane Endea∣vours have in it, No gift; must stand to the Courte∣sie of the Criticks, and great Masters of Language. 2. Affirmatively: It is wrought in us (says he) by supernatural means, by those powerful arguments and motives, and Divine assistances, which God in infi∣nite Love hath afforded the World by Iesus Christ. I cannot express the transport of my mind at the first sound of these words; supernatural means, power∣ful

arguments, Divine assistances; I began to suspect our Author was turn'd Calvinist, as he suspected Dr. Owen was turned Arminian, and with equal Reason; for I presently found my Errour. The word Grace has a Considerable Name, and carries a good repute in the Scriptures, and therefore our Author will behave himself as decently towards it, as he can afford. But what is the meaning of these su∣pernatural means? Why, to speak liquidly, Means of Supernatural Revelation at best, but of no super∣natural Operation: Some arguments suggested, which the light of Nature could not discover; and some in∣stitutions, which depend meerly on the will and plea∣sure of God: for his powerful arguments, and Divine assistances, they are such Motives as being given by God externally, are left to the self-determining power of that great Idol, Free will: For when all is done, 'tis the man who Converts himself: but this, and a great deal more, will not satisfie the claim of ef∣fectual Grace in the Conversion of a Soul to God: Who by the same power whereby Christ was raised from the dead, works Faith in the Soul, Eph. 1. 19; 20. Who works in us both to will and to do, of his own good pleasure, Phil. 2. 13. Who gives us the new Heart, and causes us to walk in his Statutes, Ezek. 36. 26. Who takes away the resistibility of the Soul, the stony heart, and Circumcises the Hearts of his People to Love the Lord their God with all their heart, Deut. 30. 6. But with such Cantings did Pe∣lagius cover his abominations, talking of ineffable grace, wonderful grace, when all was but Revela∣tion, or Grace the Name, suborned to destroy Free and effectual Grace the thing it self.

After all these windings and turnings, our Author

will give us a fair account, How we may be said to b•…•… made Righteous by the Righteousness of Christ: I hope it shall be an honest account, as well as a fair one, and then it's welcome; but whose hopes could have been so vain as to flatter him, he should live to see an account, and a fair account too, given by our Author, of such a Paradox? But we attend; Not that his Actual Obedience is reckoned as done by us, which is impossible. There's the Negative: And this seems to go a great way in the Account,

How we may be said to be made Righteous by anothers Righte∣ousness?

Because it's impossible we should be righ∣teous by anothers righteousness: But why is this so impossible? There's no more impossibility in it, than that Adams Disobedience should be reckoned as mine; which if it be not, let men shift, and evade, with all their cunning, they shall never be able to justifie Gods procedure with his Posterity, in entail∣ing evils, many evils, and Death it self upon them, for Adams sake, if they be not guilty of the Crime. Suppose we had been in Adams place, had com∣mitted his sin, eaten the forbidden Fruit, in his stead, in our own Persons, what had the penalty been in our Authors Judgment, but evils, a great many evils, Death it self? And what in the Apostles account but Iudgment unto Condemnation? If then the penalty of sin may be inflicted, there's a necessity that the guilt of the sin be imputed: It's impossible indeed, that we should Personally have committed Adams sin, or performed that very Obedience which Christ perfor∣med, but not impossible (according to the Consti∣tution of the Law of the two Covenants, made with the first and second Adam) that the Disobedience of the one, or Obedience of the other, should be

•…•…eckoned as committed, or performed by us: And when the Apostle shall expressely tell us, That by one mans Offence we are made Sinners; Death is passed upon us, judgement come upon all to condem∣nation; and therefore, and in the same way, by the Obedience of one, many are made righteous; I shall see very good Reason before I quit my Faith, and renounce the Apostle, upon an idle Tale of I know not what impossibilities.

Secondly, Affirmatively: Because we are made righteous both in a proper, and a Forensick sence, by the Gospel Covenant, which is wholly owing to the Grace of God, and to the Merits and Righteousness of Christ. I see now how hard it is to get our Au∣thors Mind out of him: P. 320. The Covenant of Grace was then

Owing to the Sacrifice of Christs Death, and the Righteousness of his Life:

And p. 334.

God for Christs sake made a New Cove∣nant of Grace:

But now it's

Wholly owing to the Grace of God, and the Merits and Righteous∣ness of Christ:

So that,

1. If the Grace of God, and the Righteousness of Christ, be Con-causes of the Covenant, and yet their proper concerns are not distinctly meted and bounded out; he may allow as small a share to the Righteousness of Chhrist in procuring the Covenant, as he allows the Power of God in Conversion: Righteousness is not owing solely to Humane Endea∣vours; well, it may not be wholly and solely owing, and yet within a very small trifle it may be wholly and solely owing to them; so here: This Covenant is wholly owing to Gods Grace, and the Merits and Righteousness of Christ, but how small a little singer

Christ may have in it, is a Secret, and till an ad∣measurement be made, will be so.

2. This Covenant is wholly owing to the Grace of God, &c. Now what he understands by the Grace of God, he has often told us: Pag. 322. The Grace of God is the Gospel: And pag. 334. The Gospel is the Grace, and abundant Grace of God: And the summe of this Gospel in words at length, and not in Figures, is, A Promise of Pardon and Life to them that believe, and obey the Gospel; and then the short and long of this Business is, That the Covenant is owing to the Covenant, or the Gospel is owing to the Gospel, or the Grace of God is owing to the Grace of God.

3. The Grace of God, and the Merits of Christ are here assigned as Con-causes of this Covenant; Now if it be of Merit, how is it of Grace? if of Grace, how is it of Merit? I can easily understand how Christ should merit Pardon and Life for me, and yet that this should be of mere Grace from God, to admit anothers Merits to procure those Blessings for me, which I cannot procure to my self: But I acknowledge my own weakness, I cannot un∣derstand, How this Covenant of his should be owing both to Merit, and Free-grace; that is, How God should make a Promise to pardon freely, without any Consideration of making the Promise, and yet Christ should merit it at Gods hands, which implies a valuable consideration. But thus it must be, when men to save the Lives of two or three sorry Crotchets, will forsake the Conduct of the Scriptures, and lean to their own Understandings; for the Scripture assures us, that Free-grace is the only Foundation of the Covenant of Grace, and that Christ himself

is the Gift of God, Joh. 4. 10. who by the Righte∣ousness of his Life, the Sacrifice of his Death, the Power and Prevalency of his Intercession, admits us into all the Grace, and Mercy, and Benefits of that Covenant, with Security to Gods Honour, and the Repute of all his Attributes. But▪

4. This is no fair or tolerable Account, How we may be said to be made righteous by the righteous∣ness of Christ, because the Covenant is owing to his Righteousness, (if it had been owing to it;) for, as fair an Account may be given, How we may be said to be made righteous by the Virgin Mary. If we may be said to be made righteous by any thing, to which that thing is owing by which we are really made righteous, then we may be said to be made righteous by the Virgin Mary: We are properly made righteous (according to our Author) by our own Obedience; that this Obedience makes us so, is owing to the Covenant; that Covenant is owing to the Obedience of Christ; his Obedience is owing to his Nativity; his Nativity to his Mother; and that may be run up in the Genealogical Scale as high as Adam; and thus at this rate, we may be said to be justified by Adam. And for this he has wisely made a reserve: A fair Account how we may be said; that's All. Not that we are so, but that we may be said to be so; and the Mystery of it lyes here. The Scripture has said, that we are made righteous by Christs Obedience; and we take it for granted, that the Scripture had not said it, unless it had been really true: but there are some, who doe not believe it to be really true; and therefore they must set their wits awork, to find out how it may possibly be said to be true, and yet not really be so; that so they

may neither throw the Lye directly in the face of the Apostles, nor yet be compelled to wave their own Unbelief.

But it seems there is a two-fold sence in which we may be said to be made righteous by the Gospel∣Covenant.

1. Sect. A Proper Sence; which is this. The great Arguments, and Motives, and powerfull As∣sistances of the Gospel, form our Minds to the love and practice of Holiness, and so make us inherently righteous. What needed all this pother and stir to no purpose? The Righteousness of Christ contri∣butes something, (though he cannot tell what) to the Gospel-Covenant; this Gospel-Covenant contains, Promises and Duties, or Motives, Arguments, Rea∣sons to Obedience; now when these Promises prevail with us to love and practise those Duties, to per∣form that Obedience, then we become inherently righteous in a proper sence; and so that none may take it ill, they shall have liberty to say, that we are made righteous by the righteousness of Christ: His Righteousness or Obedience was an excellent Pat∣tern of, a strong Motive to our being righteous. Two things I shall oppose to this.

(1.) That to be made inherently righteous, is not the proper sence of being made righteous: This was indeed the proper sence of being Righteous under the Covenant of Works; when a perfect, exact, com∣pleat inherent Holiness, was the Matter of Justifi∣cation before God; and when it was attainable; and it shall be once more the proper sence of being made righteous in Heaven, where the spirits of just men are made perfectly perfect; but to us, in the way, it's not the proper sence of being made righteous, but

a Figurative sence, as we may call an Aethiopian white, because his teeth are so; and it must be a stretching Synechdoche that will denominate a Chri∣stian Righteous by inherent Righteousness, if he shall compare the Attainments of a Pilgrim with the perfect Law of God; but the proper sence of being made righteous, is that of the Apostle, Rom. 5. 20. By the Obedience of one Man many shall be made righteous; made so perfectly and compleatly by the Constitution of the Law of Righteousness and Faith: for thus we are compleat in Christ, Coloss. 2. 10. through whom we are presented to God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; unblameable, and unreproveable in Gods sight: so pure, that there is not a spot or blemish to be found in a Believer in the sight of God himself; which upon the Account of inherent Righteousness, is impossible. Inherent Righteousness is properly Righteousness (for so much as there is of it,) but it is so imperfect, that it will not denominate any man properly righteous in the sight of God.

(2) There is another thing which mightily dis∣composes this kind of Argumentation:

We may be said to be made righteous by the Righteous∣ness of Christ in a proper sence. Why so? Oh! Because the Righteousness of Christ is one of those great Arguments of the Gospel that forms our Minds to the Love and practice of Holiness, and so makes us inherently righteous.

Which is this; The Righteousness of Christ, and our Righte∣ousness, hang so loosely and contingently together, that it seems very absurd, to ascribe the Effect of the latter to the former: If indeed the Righteous∣ness of Christ did properly, necessarily, and infal∣libly produce an inherent Righteousness in us, it

were warrantable to say, we were made righteous by it; but when the Connexion is so accidental, so uncertain, that the Effect depends upon our own Free-will (as in the New Theology it does) we cannot properly be said to be made righteous in this sence by his Righteousness: For when all these Ar∣guments and Motives have done their best, That which does the work, is, Free-will and Humane Endeavour; and therefore properly are we said to be made Righteous by them.

2. Sect. A Forensick sence; which is this. The Grace of the Gospel accepts and rewards that sin∣cere and Evangelical Obedience, which according to the Rigour and Severity of the Law, could de∣serve no reward. This Forensick, is a hard word; and if I might presume to soften it a little with In∣terpretation, it should be thus: A Forensick sence of Justification, is a sence borrowed from Courts of Judicature, where the Judge absolving or ac∣quitting a Prisoner of those Crimes wherewith he stood charged, does not doe it by making him in∣nocent or honest, by infusing into him the Habits of Vertue; but onely declares, That according to the Evidence he is found Innocent, Righteous, Just, and therefore, as the Law acquits him, so the Judge as the Minister of the Law declares him to be ac∣quitted. Now the Question is, Whether our Au∣thor has given us a true Forensick sence of Iustifi∣cation, or no? His Sence is this: The Grace of the Gospel accepts, and rewards that sincere and Evan∣gelical Obedience, which according to the Severity and Rigour of the Law, deserves no reward: which seems to me so far from a Forensick sence, that it's the Forensick Non-sence of Justification; for does a

Judge pronounce and declare him righteous, whom the Law says, is unrighteous? Can he justifie him whom the Law condemns? The Judge sits not there as a good Natur'd Man, with a Chancery of Charity in his own breast, but as a Righteous Governour, to render to every man according to his works, weighed in the Ballance of that Law by which he is to judge: And shall we dare to fan∣cy, that the Grace of the Gospel will pronounce that Man righteous, reward that Man as righteous, who is not righteous by the Law of God, if that be the Law by which he must be Condemned or Acquitted? I will grant, that in a Criminal Cause, which by the Law deserves Bodily Punishment, if the Constitution of the Law will Allow it, the Judge may lay the Punishment of the Guilty Person upon another who will freely undergoe it, or that which is equivalent in the eye of the Law to it; and acquit him, that in the first Consideration of the Law was not in∣nocent: Let us apply it. God is the righteous Iudge of all the World, and by his Eternal Holy Law he will Judge the Sons of Men; so true is God to his own Law, that he will not acquit and justifie him whom the Law condemns, nor Condemn him whom his Law Acquits, nor is it possible he should: To say the Sinner is righteous by the Verdict of his Law, when by the Verdict of the Law he is not righteous, is not consistent with the Veracity of that God who cannot lye: But there is another Law, the Law of Righteousnesse and Faith, which Sovereign Grace has set up, and this admits the satisfaction of Another, admits a Sacrifice, a Surety, even Je∣sus Christ the righteous, whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, to

declare his Righteousness, that he may be just, and the Iustifier of him that believes in Iesus: If now according to the Terms of this New Law of Grace, the Righteousness and Sufferings of this Jesus may be accepted for the Delinquents, then will there a genuine sence of a Forensick Iustification be found out. Yet let us examine these things further:

[1] The Grace of the Gospel (says he) accepts and rewards that sincere Obedience. Let it be sup∣posed he means the Grace of God, declared in the Gospel; yet this is so far from being Grace, that it is not good Moral Vertue: Is that Grace, or something that deserves Another Name, to declare an Offender to be righteous when he is not so? to pronounce he has kept the Law, when he has bro∣ken it? and yet thus must the Grace of the Gospel speak, if it declares him righteous in a Forensick sence, who is a Violator of the Law, and yet has no Substitute to keep it for him: Here is some Provision made for an Imaginary Grace, to the destruction of real Iustice; whereas, in the true Covenant of Grace there is a blessed Accord of all Gods Attributes, Mercy and Truth have met to∣gether, Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other.

[2] If it be the Grace of God, or the Gospel, that accepts this sincere Obedience, then how do we owe this to the Righteousness of Christ? what Influence has that upon God, to move him to accept and re∣ward that sincere, yet imperfect Obedience, which his Law will not accept? This is the thing that re∣mains in the Clouds still, and upon our Authors Hy∣pothesis must lodge there Eternally.

[3] Our Author fancies a Rigour and Severity

in the Law; now what that should be, is not easily conceivable: Is it any of the Ten Commandements which is so rigorous above the rest? which is it? or how many are there of them? and where has God dispensed with them, or it? or what part of the Law is it, the external or the internal part, wherein the Rigour of the Law lies? or is it no certain thing, but left to Discretion? such as hath a latitude, in some greater, in some less? or ra∣ther, is not this Rigour of the Law (as 'tis here applyed) a great Name of Blasphemy, and reproach against the Law, and therein the Law-giver, all whose Commands, and every part and parcel there∣of, are holy, just, and good? And in a word, if God can dispence with his Law, and indulge the Violation of it, what Reason can be given, why he may not dispense with all the rest? Why so he may, if our Author say true, p. 45.

That part of Justice which consists in Punishing Offenders, was alwayes look'd on as an Instrument of Go∣vernment, and therefore the exacting, or remit∣ting Punishment, was referred to the Wisdom of Governours, who might Spare or Punish as they saw Reason, without being unjust in either.

And therefore he concludes, There was no Necessity for such a Sacrifice as the Death of Christ, for the Expiation of Sin.

He is now drawing his Conclusion, and I hope will draw to a Conclusion. So that our Righteous∣ness is wholly owing to the Righteousness of Christ. I am in hope it will be owing to something before he has done. A little before, it was owing (not solely indeed, but almost) to humane Endeavours, and now the Debt is transferred, wholly to the Righte∣ousness

of Christ. And yet he flies higher in his Complements, to the Righteousness of Christ: Which (says he) in this sence may be said to be Im∣puted to us, because without this Covenant which is founded on the Righteousness of Christ, the best man Living could lay no claim to Righteousness or future Glory. And is it come to this? Is there a sence, wherein the Righteousness of Christ may be said to be Imputed to us? And must all men be Reviled and Persecuted with Scurrility, because they cannot Jump just into his Sence? And yet the sence of this way of Imputation is Invisible: VVas it not possible for God to pardon without respect to Christ? O yes! Could he not reward sincere Obedience with∣out regard to Christ? O yes! Could he not accept him that walkt uprightly before him, without any consideration had of Christs Righteousness? Oh yes! Could not God have promised to do all this, as well as do it without a promise? No doubt of that: VVhy then might not the best man Living lay claim to that which God promised, upon performance of the condition of which he promised it? Yes, in∣deed he might, had God promised it; but before the appearance of Christ in the Flesh, he made no such promise: VVell then, all we have got by the Bargain is a promise that God will do that now, which he always would have done, and did do (though not promise that he would do) before the appearance of Christ, and if he never had appeared. If then this be the only sence in which Christs Righteousness may be said to be imputed to us; it may be said to be imputed in no sence at all; for it gives us no right upon which we may make a claim, only an evidence of right, whereby we may lay claim to Righteous∣ness

and future Glory: But why might not the best man living lay claim to Righteousness and future Glory? Why, he supposes there was no such Co∣venant in the World before the appearance of Christ; and he supposes that this Covenant was founded up∣on the Obedience, and Sacrifice of Christ. Here must needs be a great mistake.

1. Upon his own Principles. For pag. 252. he asserts, That Natural Religion is founded upon Na∣tural Demonstrations, that God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him: And that upon this Foundation, Abel and Enoch, proceeded in their serving of God, pag. 253. And that they pleased God by their Obedience, the Apostle assures us, Heb. 11. 4, 5. And that Abel obtained witness that he was Righteous: And that Enoch before his Tran∣slation had this Testimony, that he pleased God. Now that which God Spoke by Natural Demonstra∣tion, to that, upon their diligent seeking of Him, they might lay claim; but God Spoke by Natural Demonstration, that he was a Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him, therefore to that Reward they might lay claim: Yes, no doubt, a claim to that Reward, But what was that? A meer Tempo∣ral transitory Reward. And was that all the Re∣ward that righteous Abel was to have for his Sacri∣fice, for his serving of God? Doubtless, for he was presently Murder'd for it. And was that all the re∣ward that holy Enoch might claim? Doubtless, for Good took him, Ttranslated him to a better Life, for before his Translation, he received this Testimony that he pleased God.

2. There's a mistake upon better Principles: That which God Spoke by Revelation, to that they

might lay claim; but God Spoke to Abraham by Revelation, that upon his walking uprightly before him, He would be his God; therefore Abraham up∣on his walking uprightly before God, might lay claim to it, that God should be his God. Ay, (says our Author) Be his God: No doubt of 〈◊〉〈◊〉: But what does that signifie? This was one of the great difficulties that lay in his way, to believe that Abra∣ham was justified by Christ. For then, We must be well assured, that the Blessings promised to Abraham were Spiritual Blessings, pardon of Sin, and Eter∣nal Life: And therefore this is Ignoratio Elenchi: But I profess my Name on the other side. And that the Promise that God would be Abrahams God, com∣prehended all that ever God Promised, or could promise to any of the Sons of Men: When God could Swear by no greater, he Swore by Himself; and when he could promise no thing greater, he promised Himself: I will be thy God, is the Abstract and Epitome of the whole Covenant of Grace: 'Tis that Gold in the Lump, which was afterwards beaten out into greater breadth, but still of the same weight. Summe up all the particular Promises in the Gos∣pel, and the total Summe is no more than this, I will be thy God. And therefore when the Apostle gives us the Covenant of Grace, Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. He describes it thus, I will be their God, and they shall be my People: That he will Write his Laws in their Hearts, that he will pardon their Iniquities, are some of the particulars included in that com∣prehensive Promise, I will be their God.

3. That which the Saints guided by the Infallible Spirit laid claim to, that they might justly lay claim to; but the Saints guided by the Infallible Spirit,

laid claim to an Eternal Reward, therefore to that Reward they might justly lay claim, Psal. 73. 24. Thou shalt guide me with thy Counsel, (here below in my Passage and Pilgrimage) and afterwards (when I have run my Race, and finisht my Course) receive me to Glory.

The Epilogue to the whole is this:

The Righ∣teousness 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 Termes of the Covenant, then we must have a Righteousness of our own: The Righteousness of Christ will not serve the turn; Christs Righteous∣ness and our own are both necessary to Salvation: The first as the Foundation of the Covenant, the other as the Condition of it.

Two things are here asserted: First, that Christs Righteousness is the Foundation of the Covenant: Secondly, that our Righteousness is the Condition of the Covenant. A brief Examination of which things, shall ease the Reader of any further attendance upon these Discourses.

[1.] The Righteousness of Christ is the Founda∣tion of the Covenant of Grace: Let us hear his Proofs; not a word: Peracta est haec Fabula Spe∣ctatores valete & plaudite. We have heard of Pro∣curing, Meriting, Founding a Covenant, but not a syllable of Evidence: Methinks I see the Reader filled with shame and wonder; wonder, that he who could so pleasantly scoff at the Scripture Expressions of building upon Christ as on a Foundation, p. 105. and so merrily inveigh against Dr. Owen for asser∣ting Christ to be the only Foundation of our Com∣munion with God, should now so zealously talk for

Christs being the Foundation of the Covenant; and shame, that after such expectations of Proof, he should find himself bilk'd in the stock. That the Rea∣der may not wholly therefore lose his pains, I shall entertain him with my own apprehensions in this matter.

The Covenant of Grace may be considered either in i•…•…'s Constitution, or Execution: The Constituti∣on of the Covenant is Gods firm and unchangeable purpose of saving his Elect, to the praise of his glo∣rious Grace: For the word Covenant, which in the English Notion has seduced our Understandings, in the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which the Spirit of God expresses those things to us, signifie a disposition, appointment, or ordering of Matters; whether there be restipulation or no: Thus the fixed purpose, the determinate Counsel of God in Scripture is called a Covenant, though the things about which that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Counsel of God is conversant be not capable of re-promising any thing, and have onely an Obediental Capacity in them an∣swering the absolute extraordinary Power of God. Thus Ier. 33. 20. If you can break my Covenant of the day, and my Covenant of the night, that there should not be day and night in their Season, ver. 25. Thus saith the Lord, If my Covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the Ordi∣nances of Heaven; where Gods fixed Law concer∣ning the Succession of Day and Night to the period of all time, is called his Covenant; and which is still more to our purpose, by the stability of this grand Law of Nature, he is pleased to instruct us in the fixedness of his better Covenant, that of Grace, ver. 21. Then may also my Covenant be broken with Da∣vid

my Servant, ver. 26. Then will I cast away the Seed of Jacob, and David my Servant. This pur∣pose of God, this disposition of Grace is immuta∣ble, Rom. 9. 11. That the purpose of God accord∣ing to Election might stand. The Execution of this fixed Constitution follows: which is Gods wise and gracious managing of all things for the accomplish∣ment of that glorious design, which he had in the prospect of his Eternal Counsel, which he steddily and regularly pursues through all the vicissitudes that his mutable Creature was obnoxious to, whilst man stood, God pursued his Counsel in giving him a Holy Law to guide him, Seconded and back'd with promises and threatnings; when Man with drew from God, yet God could not deny himself, but devolves this great Affair into the hand of a Mediator, who with equal readiness and satisfaction in that Seed that should be given him as the purchase of his un∣dertaking, addresses himself to this glorious work of Recovering them back again to God; and when the fulness of time was come, took upon him our Nature, partook of our Flesh and Blood, because the Children whom God had committed to him were partakers of it: This Redeeming Mediator under∣takes with God as a Righteous Iudge, that he may not lose the glory of any of his Attributes, and unto God as a Father, that he shall not lose any of the Chil∣dren that he had given him; and therefore he be∣comes a Priest, a Sacrifice; a price of Ransom, a Curse, to satisfie the Judge and his Law; and a Pro∣phet and King to recover us Actually in our state to God. Thus is he the onely Foundation, 1 Cor. 3. 12. The Foundation, not of the Constitution, but of the Execution of the Covenant.

• 1. On Gods part; whatever grace and mercy was in his eternal purpose, that is given out to us by Jesus Christ: The Promises are made by free-grace as their Reason, but made good by Jesus Christ, as the means of procuring the promised Mercy, which had been forfeited; for all the promises of God in him are yea, and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. He accepts us in the beloved, Eph. 1. 6. Forgives us through him, ver. 7. Iustifies us by Christ, Rom. 3. 24. Sanctifies, and saves us by Christ, Tit. 3. 4, 5, 6. And,
• 2. On our part; through him we approach to God, John 14. 6. Heb. 10. 19, 20. By him we believe in God, 1 Pet. 1. 21. He is our hope of Glory, Col. 1. 27. He is the ground of our Faith, the Foundation upon which our Souls are laid, 1 Pet. 2. 5. To whom coming as to a living stone, we also as lively stones are built up a Spiritual house: Thus is he the Foun∣dation of conveying all the blessings of the Covenant to us, Eph. 1. God blesseth us with all Spiritual blessings in Christ: but that Christ is the Foundati∣on of the Covenant it self, that I crave leave to deny, and to render the Reasons of my denial.

1. Sect. Christ cannot be the Foundation of the Covenant, because Christ himself is promised in the Covenant, as the great Comprehensive Blessing of the Covenant, Isa. 49. 8, 9. I will give thee for a Covenant, that thou maist say to the Prisoners, go forth, to them that are in darkness, shew your selves. Whence it's evident, first, that the free-love of the Father is the Reason of his giving his Son to be our Deliverer; Secondly, that Christ is the great un∣dertaker to Execute that Counsel of God in our actual

Deliverance, Luke 1. 68. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath Visited, and Redeemed his Peo∣ple, and hath raised up a Horn of Salvation in the House of his Servant David, as he spake by the mouth of his Holy Prophets which have been since the world began,—ver. 72. To perform the Mercy promised to our Fathers, and to remember his holy Covenant, the Oath which he sware to our Father Abraham; where the firm Oath and Covenant of God to Re∣deem his People is assigned as the Reason of his giv∣ing Christ to be a Redeemer. The places are too many to be insisted on that confirm this Truth. Iohn 3. 16. 1 Iohn 4. 9, 10.

2. Sect. Free grace is given as the true Reason of the Covenant of Grace, Heb. 8. 8. For finding fault with them, he saith, behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, &c. They were a faulty, an un∣deserving, an ill-deserving People, yet Free grace will make a Covenant with them: Nor is there any opposition between Free-grace and Christs Merits in this Case: if we consider that Free-grace is the Original Reason of Gods designation, and purpose to bestow the good things of the Covenant; and the Righteousness of Christs Life, and the Sacrifice of his Death the way of recovering these Mercies, which by sin had been forfeited and lost.

3. Sect. The Scriptures give us no intimation that Christ is the Foundation of Gods making this Cove∣nant, or the Original Reason of Gods design to be∣stow the Mercies of the Covenant, though it abounds with Testimonies that Christ is the way of procuring

for us, and conveying to us these intended mercies; and in those things which depend upon mere good plea∣sure, Revelation must be our onely guide: In this case we may conclude Negatively, Non credimus quia non legimus: And we may shrewdly conjecture that there is no pretence from Scripture for this Fig∣ment of our Authors, because it's the Foundation of all his mistakes, and yet he has not so much as at∣tempted the perverting of one Scripture to give co∣lour to it, which may be reckoned amongst the Ad∣miranda Nili.

[2.] His other Assertion is this, Our own Righ∣teousness is the condition of the Covenant, which with his former Assertion is obtruded upon us with∣out proof, and therefore I suppose he intends they must both be maintained at the Charges of the Pa∣rish: Now,

1, It is agreed, for ought I know, that an inherent righteousness is a necessary condition of eternal Sal∣vation, Heb. 12. 14. Without Holiness no man shall see God. It is a Condition in the Covenant, though not of the Covenant; such a Condition, as is due to every Person in a Covenant-state; it doth necessarily attend that state, though it be not allowed as ante∣cedent to a Covenant-state.

2. As to the Constitution of the Covenant in Gods purpose and Counsel, I know no condition at all. They that talk of the right use of free-will, future Faith, or good works fore-seen as the Reason of that pur∣pose, talk without book, and onely intimate what a rare Covenant they would have made for us, had they had the modelling, and Contrivance of it; like him that boasted, that if he had stood by God when he formed Man, he could have told him, how to have

made him more commodiously, Rom. 9. 11. The Children being not yet born, neither having done any good, or evil. Where those words [neither having done any good, or evil,] must necessarily exclude all respect to the future good or evil they should do, (as the Reason of the purpose of God according to Election:) because it's evident by the form of speech. That they deny something more concerning the Chil∣dren, than the former words, [being not yet born] and yet even they exclude, Having done good or evil Actually.

3. The Question then is, whether

An inherent Righteousness be the Condition required of us and in us, antecedent to our first Covenant-state?

And I durst leave this Matter to be determined by the Church of England, if our Author would do so too: Art. 17. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby before the Foundation of the World was laid, he hath constantly decreed by his Counsel secret to us, to deliver from Curse and Dam∣nation, those whom he hath chosen out of Mankind in Christ, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting Salvation; whence we are taught,

• 1. That Election is not of all Mankind, but of some out of Mankind.
• 2. That this purpose of God was from everlast∣ing.
• 3. That it is a fixed constant decree.
• 4. That the Design of it is to deliver those chosen out of Mankind, from the curse, under which Man∣kind was fallen: and to bring them to everlasting Salvation.
• 5. That the Reason of this eternal Election was his own counsel.
• ...

• 6. That the Execution of this Decree is in and by Iesus Christ; and the manner of it follows.

  Where∣fore they which be endued with so excellent a be∣nefit, be called according to the purpose of God; working in due season by his Spirit. They through Grace obey the calling, they be justified freely, they be made the Sons of God by Adoption, they be made like the Image of his onely begotten Son, they walk Religiously in good works, and at length by Gods mercy, they attain everlasting felicity.

  Whence we are Instructed,
  • 1. That the calling of the Elect to a Covenant∣state is from Grace as the reason, and by Grace as it's efficient.
  • 2. Their obeying that call of God is by Grace.
  • 3. Good works necessarily follow effectual calling: See also Art. 10. 12, 13.
  • 4. Religious walking with God in good works is a necessary condition of eternal Felicity.
  • 5. That there is such a firm connexion in this golden chain of Salvation, that no one linck can possibly be broken: They are Elected freely, called effectually, justified freely, Adopted graciously, Sanctified gra∣dually, walk Religiously, and at length by the mer∣cy of God are saved eternally, which the Apostle gives us more concisely, Rom. 8. 30. Moreover whom he did Predestinate, them he a so called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also Glorified: I conclude then that our own righteousness is not the condition of the Covenant of Grace, neither of the designment of the Father, nor the procurement of the Son, nor of the effectual Operation of the Holy Spirit, nor of our Covenant-state, nor of our Covenant-right, nor of

• ...
  • ... the first Covenant-mercy; but of many after-mercies, and of Eternal Salvation it is the condition.

1. Sect. That is not the Condition of the Cove∣nant required of us on our part, which God pro∣mises to work in us on His part; but God has pro∣mised to work in us Inherent-righteousness, both Root and Fruit, Ezek. 36. 26, 27. A new Heart also will I give you, and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my Iudgments, and do them.

2. Sect. That which God in Covenant bestows, cannot be the Condition of a Covenant-state, but God in Covenant bestows the new Heart, for new Obedience, Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will Cir∣cumcise thy Heart, to love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy Soul.

3. Sect. That which presupposes other Covenant∣mercies antecedent to it, cannot be the condition of the first Covenant-Blessing, and therefore not the condition of a Covenant-state: but our own righte∣ousness presupposes other Covenant-blessings ante∣cedent to it; Ezek. 36. 26. I will take away the Heart of stone out of your Flesh, and give you an Heart of Flesh: the Natural Heart must be Circum∣cised, the hard heart removed, a soft heart bestowed before we can perform new Obedience, out of which our own righteousness results. When therefore our Author says, That Christs righteousness and our own are both necessary to Salvation: He says true, and (which is necessary to all Truth) that which over∣throws his main design. For if Christs righteousness be necessary to our Salvation, (not onely to the pro∣mise

of it) then no Salvation can be had without that righteousness: but if it be onely necessary to a pro∣mise of that Salvation, then it is not necessary to Sal∣vation; for Salvation (according to his Principles) has been obtained without a promise of Salvation, (otherwise the Patriarchs before Christ could not be eternally saved, whom he supposes to have had no such promise) and so it may still; for Obedience per∣formed will save, though it want that great promise for it's encouragement. And whereas he says, That Christs Righteousness is the Foundation, but not the Condition of the Covenant; what policy there may be in using the Metaphor of a Foundation I cannot tell; but this I know: A Foundation is a necessary Condition to the superstructure raised upon it.

I have now attended him through all the Laby∣rinths of this tedious Discourse, whence the Reader will learn at least how impossible it is for Error to be Consonant to it self: As the two Milstones grind one another, as well as the grain; and as the extreme Vices oppose each other as well as the intermediate vertue that lies between them: So have all Errors this fate (and 'tis the best quality they are guilty of) that they Duel one another with the same heat that they oppose the Truth. The Remainder of his Book is so full of falshoods in matter of fact, reproaches of the Truth, and immerited bitterness against the Living, and the Dead, that I could not perswade my self to give the Reader any further trouble with them at present; but a small invitation will draw out the second Part: In the mean time I do solemnly pro∣test, that as I have no Personal Quarrel with this Gentleman, so I have not willingly wronged his Discourse in the smallest instance: The worst I wish

him is, that he may seasonably repent of his injurious dealing with the Scriptures, and his unworthy treat∣ment of those Persons who have deserved well of Religion, and the Common-wealth of Learning, and not ill of himself: I cannot deny but that his provo∣king way of writing, his unjust censures of the Inno∣cent, and above all, his Drolling faculty, exercised upon sacred things, have sometimes tempted me to a return, not so agreeable to my Natural inclinations. I hope the Reader will consider not onely how, but what I have written; nor onely what, but upon what provocations it has been written: Let Cause be com∣pared with Cause, the moments of Reasons with Reasons; let the little Vagaries, and impertinces be brusht off; and then let the indifferent, and impar∣tial Reader moderate between us: And if he shall meet with any Truth of the Gospel cleared or vin∣dicated, let him give God the more praise, who by such improbable means, as Clay and Spittle, can open his Eyes to the acknowledgment of the Truth; and secure him against the Impostures and Apostacy of these latter times: and what ever of Vanity and Folly he meets with in these Papers, let him be as∣sured that's my own; and that it may not prejudice the concerns of Christ, let him freely trample it un∣der his Feet.

FINIS.