that it was fome original Inftitution of God, or divine Appointment, attended with a Promife or Encouragement to hope for Mercy from an offended God? And what could fuch Sacrifices of brute Creatures fignify to this purpose; but as they were Figures of fome more valuable and richer Sacrifice? And is not this the very thing which the Gospel of Chrift reveals, and hereby answers the follicitous and anxious Inquiries of guilty Men? even that there is Forgiveness to be found with God, and that the Sacrifice of Atonement is his own Son, by whom we have Redemption from Punishment in his Blood, even the Forgiveness of Sins thro' the Riches of bis Grace?

Again, What is the next chief Concern and Inquiry of an awaken'd Soul? I find my Nature prone to Sin, my Senfes and Paffions lead me aftray from the inward Dictates of my Duty: Temptations in this World are great and many, my own Strength to refift them is but Weakness, they prevail over me notwithstanding all my better Refolutions. Is there no Affiftance in this difficult Work to be obtain'd from Heaven, whereby I may keep myself from the Defilements of a finful World, and ferve and please my Maker and my God? And is not this alfo another Bleffing which the Gospel reveals? even the Spirit of God promised to mortify our Sins, to renew our Souls to Holinefs, to E 2 fanctify

fanctify us and reform us to a heavenly Temper, to enable us in fome meafure to do our prefent Duty here, and fit us for the Enjoyment of God hereafter?

Thus that facred Book, the New Testament, discovers to us thofe two most eminent and important Bleffings which an awakened Sinner feels himself to ftand in need of; and yet Agrippa has left them both out of his Creed.

Query IX.

INCE the Gospel has revealed these two Bleffings in fuch exprefs Language for the Relief of fin ful Man: What is there in the Description or Proposal of them in the Gospel that lies crofs to the Dictates of right Reafon? What is there in the literal Senfe of thefe Doctrines that is contrary to the Nature or Perfections of God, or difagreeable to the Reason of Man? What is there that should constrain us to conftrue them into a metaphorical Senfe, and to explain them merely as Figures and Emblems? It is granted, indeed, that the Reafon of Man could not find them out; yet when once they are revealed and propofed to us, Do they not appear very confiftent with our beft Reasonings about God or Man, and confiftent alfo with all other Parts of divine Revelation ?

It must be confefs'd there are fome things fo described in Scripture, as makes it necef

sary

fary to explain them by the help of Tropes and Figures; as for inftance, there are feveral Expreffions which reprefent God to us as feeing with his Eyes, as bearing with his Ears, as working with his Hands, as rejoicing, as grieving, as repenting, &c. and these cannot be understood in their literal Senfe, becaufe it is contrary to the Nature of God who is a Spirit, contrary to our Reafon in our best Apprehenfions of God, and 'tis alfo contrary to other Places of Scripture where God is declared to be a Spirit, who hath no bodily Parts or Paffions: And thefe are fufficient Arguments to constrain us to forfake the literal Senfe, and to conftrue thefe Expreffions in Scripture as mere Figures and Refemblances of divine Things, fpoken after the manner of Men. So in the Lord's Supper, when Chrift fays, This Bread is my Body, it cannot be understood in the literal Sense, becaufe 'tis contrary to the Teftimony of our Senfes, our Reason, and the Scripture, that the Body of Chrift fhould be handled and eaten by the Apostles, and yet at the fame time be fitting at the Table and eating with them, with a hundred other Abfurdities which attend the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation it must be therefore a figurative Expreffion, and 'tis hard to conceive how any reasonable and honest Mind fhould mistake the true Meaning, (viz.) this Bread is the Sign or Figure of my Body.

E 3

But

But in the plain fcriptural Doctrines of the Atonement of Christ for Sin, and the Affiftances or Influences of the Blessed Spirit, towards the restoring of our Natures to Holiness, there is nothing abfurd, nothing inconsistent with Reason, or with other Scriptures, fo as to make it neceffary to conftrue them by Tropes and Figures. This may be made fufficiently to appear, if we ask but a few Questions on each of thefe Subjects. And first, of the Atonement of Christ for our Sins.

Is it not a moft reasonable thing that a Penalty fhould be annexed to the Tranfgreffion of God's holy Law, in order to deter Men from finning against God? Is not Death a proper Punishment for Sin? Hath not the Tranfgreffor well deferved it? Is not the Execution of this Threatning a proper Means to fecure the Honour of God's Authority, his Juftice, and his Government of the World? But is there no room for Mercy to interpofe and fave here and there a Criminal? May not divine Juftice receive the fame Honour, and the Authority and Government of God be as effectually fecured in the World, by making it appear that Sin is punished, and the Penalty executed upon a willing and avow'd Surety, as if the Sinner himself were punished? Will not the World learn hereby how dangerous a thing it is to tranfgrefs the Law of God, when it appears that even Mercy itself will not release the Sinner with

out

out fome atoning Sacrifice, without fome Demonstration of the Juftice of the Law of God, and his Hatred of Sin? And when fo glorious a Perfon, and one fo dear to God as his own Son, becomes the Surety, How døth this more abundantly manifeft that God will not fpare wilful Criminals, fince even his own Son must be fmitten when he becomes a Surety for the Sinner, rather than Sin fhould go unpunish'd? I would ask yet further, Why Agrippa fhould think this Doctrine unreafonable? Is not Suretifhip for Debts a common thing among Men? Is it not practifed daily? And is not the Surety feized, and the Debt exacted from him, if the principal Debtor be infolvent? Is he not made to fuffer Imprisonment, and all the Hardships of it on the account of the Principal? And is not the Debtor discharged if the Surety pays the Debt? In criminal Cafes indeed Suretifhip is not fo frequent among Men, for they have not fuch abfolute Power over the Life or Limbs of themfelves or others, nor have they fo much Love for their Friends. But what good Reason is there, or can there be, why the Son of God, who had Power over his own Life, and whofe Compaffion to guilty Man was exceeding great, might not become his Surety, and fuffer Death in his ftead, i. e. pay the Debt of Suffering, which the finful Creature owed to a juft God?