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 Question and till that be resolved we shall never have the advantage from hence to know How the Righteousness 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 seeing 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 Entailed evils and which our own Personal evils which are hereditary and which of our own procurement 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 mentions not only Evils many Evils but seems to include all Evils As Life and Absolution comprehend all spiritual Mercies so Death and Condemnation 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 pleading 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 Sâ—…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 Posterity 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 Righteousness 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 prosecution 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 strictness and rigour of the Law are not righteous That for Christs sake he hath made a New Covenant 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 Dialect 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 before 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 Obedience 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 Another without any intervention of their own personal 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 't is 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 intervention 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-meaning 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 conclude 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 Righteousness 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 Inherent 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
which he now confesses was not one word to the purpose For that which they call pardoning Mercy he sayes is not to be seen in Scripture-Revelation and perhaps that which he calls so may be seen in the Discoveries of Nature and found growing upon every Hedge We shall go near to entertain more Charitable thoughts of the Schoolmen and the old Systematical Divines hereafter for they would have set the Terms of a Question to rights and stated the due bounds of the Meaning of words before they had made a noyse and blunder about the Confutation of their Adversaries what our Author means by these things we must leave in the Clouds as we found it what others mean we are pretty well secured But we are not so secure of our Authors Honesty in this matter who jumbles together those things which the Doctor had separated and puts them all Pell Mell into the common Box as if he had asserted That the Love of God to Sinners his Justice against Sinners his Patience with and Long-suffering of Sinners were none of them discoverable but by Christ whereas the Doctor plainly and in terms asserts that Gods Iustice Patience Long-sufferance may be otherwise known as we have heard before and shall see again by and by The Rise of our Authors Fury and Indignation against the Doctor is from these words p. 93. Com. God hath manifested the Naturalness of his Righteousness unto him in that it was impossible that it should be diverted from Sinners without the interposing of a Propitiation Now says he this is such a Notion of Iustice as is perfectly New which neither Scripture nor Nature acquaint us with And if it be so I could heartily wish it underwent the Deleatur of an Expurgatory Index but how strangely is our Author wheel'd about it was but p. 42. that he deliver'd it with as much Confidence as most men are guilty of That the Light of Nature the Works of Creation and Providence besides Revelation doe assure us that God hath a Natural Love for all good men but that he hates sin and will certainly punish incorrigible sinners from whence we might have been prone enough to have dropt into such an Error that if Hatred of Sin be as Natural to God as his Love to good Men he cannot but hate the one and love the other for God cannot act against his Nature and must act according to his Nature Nay we should have concluded that it holds more strongly a great deal for his hatred of the one than for his love of the other seeing there 's something of sin in good men in the best of Men which may allay his Love towards them consider'd in their single and Personal Capacities but there 's nothing at all in sin not the least that may qualifie his Indignation against sin And had we not been snib'd we should have ventur'd further to say that as God has a Natural Love to good Men and will not fail to reward them so he has a Natural displicency against sin and therefore will not fail to reward it according to its demerits And then because we are assured from a surer hand Rom. 6. 23. That the wages of sin is death which by the opposition clearly intends eternal death we could not much doubt that a righteous and holy God will give to every one their wages without the interposition of that Propitiation whereof our Author makes so light Thus I say we had concluded but that our Author limits the Certainty of punishment to incorrigible and obstinate Sinners but this is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will not much mend the matter both because those corrigible ones are not so wholly corrected but that still some remaining sins lodge in them which are the Object of Divine abhorrency and also because those Corrigible ones are onely pardoned and received to Grace through the Interest which they have in the Sufferings of Christ hence 1 Iohn 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins which Faithfulness of God has the Foundation of its Exercise in the satisfaction of his Vindictive Iustice which being once answer'd God that cannot lye promises the pardon of Sin through Christ which because he is faithfull and just he will make it good to the truely penitent Sinner But what Reason will our Author favour us with of his Blunt Negative Why All Mankind have accounted it an act of Goodness without the least suspicion of Injustice in it to remit Injuries and Offences without exacting any punishment I much doubt whether our Author was ever Principal Secretary of State to all Mankind that he should be so privy to their Sentiments his own daring Fancies and crude Conceptions are no just Standard of their Apprehensions and I am well assured that some of Mankind and such whose Learning and Judgement may vye with his and may be supposed to know Mankind as well as himself yet think not with him in this business but I shall lay a few things in his way let him remove them 1. The Strength of his Argument lyes in a most gross and palpable Absurdity viz. That there is the same Reason for Gods pardoning sin against his most holy Law that there is for a private Persons charitable remitting a trespass against himself That God as he is the Governour of the World may wave the Execution of the Sentence threatned against and due to the violation of his Rules of Government because a private Person may depart from his Right in a Six-penny matter but these things are wonderfully mistaken For 1. Our Author confesses that God will certainly punish all obstinate and incorrigible Offenders but if sin be consider'd onely as an injury against a private Person God may pardon even Impenitency and Incorrigibility it self And if it be an act of Goodness to remitt such an Injury without the least suspition of Injustice the greater the Offence is the greater will that Goodness triumph in remitting the greater Injury The degree of sin alters not the Case He that can pardon a Penny justly may also a pound who shall set limits to him how far he shall depart from his Right 2. That the Case is not the same between God and Man is evident from hence Man may depart from his Right to his Servant may Manumitt him and release him from all dependance on him from performance of all duty to him as his Master but it 's impossible to suppose that God should discharge and acquitt a Creature from its dependance on and its subjection to himself 3. God is to be considered not only as our Proprietor and Owner but as our Governour and Ruler Now the end of Government being the good and welfare of the Community every violation of the Law claims either that Judgement and Execution pass upon the Offender according to it or if not that good Security be put in that neither the Honour of the Legislator suffer Offenders be
Father of the faithful if Abraham's Faith and theirs differ toto Genere Those things that differ in their special Nature 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 justified Rom. 4. As Abraham was justified without Works so are we Vers. 2. As Abraham had a Righteâ—…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 Righteousness 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Abraham get the blessing without Christ but Christians no other way but in Christ But thus has our Author 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 Definition 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 Infinite 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 Sufferings of Christ of no regard unless perhaps they may come in by way of Motive to believe his Doctrine 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 account 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 Fathers 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 tampering 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 Persecutors c. were Old-Testament duties though not met with in New-Testament phrase As a Rule of obedience 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 Abraham 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 Argument If by the Righteousness of Faith you understand the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith and imputed to us you utterly destroy the Apostle's Argument 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 Righteousness 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
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 flagitious 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 presumed also he has left the visible Revenues and Temporalties 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 Infirmities 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Title when he forbore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 everlasting 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 accounted it his Meat and Drink to do his will and therefore I hope Mr. B. will out-live this assault and battery many a fair day And now all that I can instruct 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 private Walks would be indemnified in the general Ruine 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 Fraâ—…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 Attempt 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 Question 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 disparage the Merits and Righteousness of Christ. Now I would make a question upon it Whether his Answer 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 owing 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 other 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 Answered 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 according to the working of his Mighty power which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Secondly we have a direct and express Promise too of that New-heart from which we give to God New-obedience 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 away 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 better a New-Covenant with them 2 That the promises of this Covenant were purely Spiritual writing 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 Description 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 Covenant 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 everlasting 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 Apostacy § 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 Covenant 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 given 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 signify just nothing without special power from on high to render them efficacious which neither will be allowed 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 Natures 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 influx of immediate Divine Power reduces the promise 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 promises then that we have now the same moral precepts to observe that we have now and though the word Gospel comes in for a blind yet the Apostle 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 Condemnation and Death to them who Believe not and Obey not It may with equal right be called a threatning 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 circumstances for what is the nice difference between a Promise of Life to him that obeys when it 's certain 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 however of his own new-vamping assigns the same conditions 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 sinless perfection none shall enter into Glory He may be actually justified that has not persevered in Holy Obedience 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 amongst 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 Obedience and yet not let many of them know a syllable 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 Galatia 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 suffered 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 Covenant 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 contrary 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 denominated A Covenant of Grace though the intervention 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 Covevenant which Mediator himself is owing to founded on that Covenant of Grace and therefore the Covenant of Grace is not founded upon him but indeed for that Covenant which he is pleased to call a New-Covenant and a Covenant of Grace it 's no great matter where 't is founded and therefore let him dispose of his own Creature as he pleases 3. He supposes that Christ's Obedience and Sacrifice had no other influence upon our acceptance with God but that for his sake he entred into such a Covevenant 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 unwilling 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 willing 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 without respect to Christ The mercy and Grace of God it seems accepting their Belief of particular Revelations 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 Commandements 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 given us before only he would not promise to do it for us to give it to us Two things I shall briefly return 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 believeth 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 pardon 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 redeem 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 glory 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 obedient 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 determine 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 Question What Influence Christ's Active and Passive Obedience have upon our Obedience Which is quite another thing If Christ's Obedience have any influence 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 favour 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 Obedience 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 Righteousness 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 Mankind 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 Righteousness 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 Covenant 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 everlasting 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 Covenant 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 Nature and in that Nature offer up himself to God to atone and reconcile him to us that he should make satisfaction 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 Salvation 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 ascribed 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 Promises 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 Confirmation of the Gospel 2. The Scripture assigns greater ends to the Death of Christ than confirmation of Promises 1. His Death as a Sacrifice atoned 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 Acceptance with God 3. The Scripture owns Christ as a proper Priest and therefore his Work must be somewhat more than confirming a Doctrine A Prophet 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 proportionable 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 immediate 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 Heâ—…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 heifer 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a sacred and religious Word applied to the Sacrifices which were brought to and â—…ffered at the Altar Again Heb. 5. 1. Christ iâ—… ordained a Priest in things pertaining to God His Priestly Employment lay mainly with him to confirm promises that relate to us men but a Priest offers not Sacrifice to the People though for the People 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 Services with God 4. The Scripture every-where expresses Christ's Innocency nay his perfect Holineâ—… the cheerfulness self-denyal constancy universality 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 notwithstanding 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 forsaken of God so that he cried out of it most bâ—…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 consideration of which unexpressible inconceivable Torments of the Lord Jesus the Ancient Church did use to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By thy unknown 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 pittyful 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 preceptive Part unless he stood in the stâ—…ad of Sinners bore their Iniquities and was charged with their Guilt They will tell us that God used his Prerogative and Soveraignty over Jesus Christ and yet in other causes will not allow him an absolute and irrespective Soveraignty over the poorest Wâ—…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 deserved them Let none say If Christ bore the Punishment due to sin he must suffer Eternal Death seeing 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 Justice 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 suffered 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 Substitute 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
is I will be nothing to thee do nothing for thee of what thou mainly wantest but for all my Promise to be thy God I will suffer thee to lye under the guilt of Sin at present and to fall under eternal Condemnation here-after though thou walkest before me and art perfect If then there was such an Implicite and Virtual Promise in God's Nature revealed by the works of Creation and Providence to Reason and an Explicite one too in the particular Revelation that God would bestow Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to those who walkt before God inuprightness The Question is How did Christ procure such an Engagement from God when it was procured before But supposing that there was never any such Promise made by God till Christ by his Death procured it then how did the Death of Christ prevail with God to make such a Promise which otherwise he had never made 4. But I suspect more than ever that we are merely gulled for he tells us That the Blessings of the Gospel are the proper Effects of the Covenant but not of that Blood of Christ so that we are justified by the Blood of Christ is properly false but improperly true that we are Redeemed by the Blood of Christ in an improper Sense may be said to be true but in a proper Sense is utterly false and then if the Apostles had penn'd their Epistles clean backward they would have been properly true whereas now they are properly false And now who can tell but when he says The Blood of Christ procured this Covenant he may not mean in some improper odd Sense that is not worth a Button But yet our Author seems to go higher than all this p. 330. Our Righteousness and acceptation with God it wholly owing to the Covenant which he hath purchased sealed with his Blood To Purchase is a very good word when applied to the Blood of Christ therefore because we meet with so few I shall make as much of it as I can It denotes procurement in a special way by a valuable price paid The Covenant of Grace then Christ has purchased that Covenant is a Promise of Pardon and Life to those who believe and obey the Gospel In this Covenant there are three things First the Material part the pardon of sin and eternal Life Secondly the conditional part Faith and Obedience Thirdly The form of the Covenant A Promise of the Material part upon performance of the Conditional part Now when he owns the Blood of Christ to have purchased this Covenant the question is whether the whole or some part of it only If not the whole then what part is the purchase of his Blood 1. For the Conditional part Faith and Obedience I may secure my self our Author will not put them into the particular of the purchase for then it would be scarce worth the while to mingle Heaven and Earth with Tragedies what the conditions of the Covenant should be if Christ had purchased the conditions themselves and therefore as to these let every man trust to himself 2. As for the Material part Pardon and Life I doubt our Author will not yield us neither that Christ has purchased them because he denies that the Blessings of the Gospel are the proper effects of Christ's Blood whereas had he purchased them with his Blood they would have been the proper effects of it 3. Then it remains that Christ has purchased a Promise of bestowing the Material part upon our performance of the Conditional part And thus we are just where we were two miles ago and these great words of purchasing and procuring are shrivel'd up to Confirmation of a Promise but if he will say that the Blood of Christ his Death and dreadful sufferings were a proper price paid to God to procure or purchase a word from God that he would do that which was natural and essential to him then we shall thank him that he has such honourable thoughts of it as to judg it worth a good word The Scripture every-where ascribes the Blessings of the Gospel to the purchase and procurement of the Blood of Christ but if this be all that he has got a word from God it supposes the the Scripture to swell with Scenical Language and high Tragical Phrase which seems to carry sublime matters in it but when it comes to be stript of Metaphor and Allegory is a mere Anatomy From this precarious Hypothesis that the Apostles always write like himself that is improperly and impertinently and attribute such things to the Blood of Christ which are the proper and immediate effects of the 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 contain nothing that may deserve or need the Blood of Christ or any great matter to be made about them 1. Concerning Reconciliation The Apostle had said 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. All things are of God who hath reconciled us to himself by Iesus Christ and hath committed to us the Ministry of reconciliation to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation v. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us what the import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reconciliation and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reconcile is will not create us any great trouble because our Author allowing a reconciliation to be made between Iew and Gentile secretly confesses that Reconciliation implies the taking away of an enmity and bringing the differing parties into a state of Peace and Friendship But the Apostle in this place instructs us further 1. That the proper effect of this Reconciliation is not-imputing Trespasses God is by Nature a Holy God as he is Governour of the World he is a Righteous Iudg sin is both Contrary to his holy Nature and his Holy Law And therefore as a Holy God he cannot but hate sin as a Righteous Iudg he cannot but punish sin And because this sin is inherent in and committed by Man God hates the sinner upon the Account of his sin his Person and his best services are an abomination to the Lord. From hence it follows that sin being a transgression of the Law in its preceptive part renders the sinner Guilty that is obnoxious and lyable to the Law in its Sanction to the punishment Now this Righteous Iudg will certainly charge the guilty sinner with the penalty due to his sin but there is a way found out that he may be reconciled and not impute to sinners their Trespasses and this clearly shews that the Reconciliation here spoken of is a reconciliation of God to the Sinner such a one as makes provision that God shall not impute iniquity 2. The Apostle instructs us further in the way whereby Christ made this Reconciliation of God v. 21. He was
the decking with Ornaments and aâ—…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-Testament thus interpreted to bare skin and bone But our Author confesses he swarms with prejudices 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 Appearances for plain Demonstrations of what it longs should be True so a mind fore-stalled with prejudice 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 Saâ—…iour's Sermons there 's no mention of his Imputed Righteousness Now because the same Charity that commands me not to lay a stumbling-block in the way of my Neighbour enjoyns me also to remoâ—…e it out of his way or however to help him over it the ensuing Considerations 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 answering for he might have said This is but to interpret 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 Imputation 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 upon 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 impossibility of being justified by our own Righteousness Matth. 20. 28. He gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Life or Soul a Ransome a Redeâ—…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 Imputation thereof to us 5. Though Christ mention not the Imputation of his Righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet has he mentioned that Righteousness which it's certain from the Scriptures must be imputed to Believers 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. ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Righteousness for which we are just and accepted with God But for the removing of this small prejudice 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 Qualification 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 constistutes the sinner spotless and blameless before God the Holy Righteous Judg yet such a Righteousness 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 following after Iustification So says the Church of England 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 warnings â—…now to beware