P. 296, he returns again to my discourse, and fiercely pursues it tor sundry leaves, in such a manner as becomes bim, and is usual with him. That part of my book which he deals withal, is from p 1 /b uuto p. 187; and if any person of ingenuity and judgment will be pleased but to peruse it, and to compare it with this man's excep- tions, I am secure it will need no farther vindication. But as it is represented m his cavilling way, it is impossible for any man either to conceive what is the true design of my discourse, or what the argu- ments wherewith what I assert is confirmed; which he doth most unduly pretend to give an account of: for he so chops, and chances and alters at his pleasure, going backwards and forwards, and that from one thing to another, without any regard unto a scholastic or mgenuous debate of any thing that might be called a controversy merely to seek oat an appearance of advantage to vent his cavillino- exceptions, as no judgment can rationally be made of his whole dis'' course, but only that he had a mind to have cast aspersions on mine If he had known how. But such stuff as it is, we must now take the measure of it, and consider of what use it may be. And first he quotes those words from my book, "That Christ fulfilled all rio-ht- eodsness as he was mediator; and that whatever he did as mediator he did It for them whose mediator he was, or in whose stead and or whose good he executed the office of a mediator before God • and hence it is that his complete and perfect obedience to the law is reckoned to us He adds, ''This is well said, if it were as well proved. And because this is a matter of great consequence, I shall first examine those reasons the doctor alleges to prove that Christ
' r'l-oin p. 154 to p. 164 of this voJume. \OL. II. 2g
354 A VINDICATION OF
fulfilled all rifrhteousness, as he was mediator, in their stead whose inediator he was."
These assertions are gathered up from several places in my dis- course, though p. 182^ is cited for them all. And if any one find himself concerned in these things, I may demand of him the labour of their perusal in my book itself; <and for those who shall refuse a compliance with so reasonable a request, I do not esteem myself obliged to tender them any faiiher satisfaction. However, I say again, that the Lord Christ fulfilled all righteousness as mediator; and that what he did as mediator, he did it for them whose mediator he was, or in whose stead and for whose good he executed the office of a mediator before God. He says, " It is well said, if it were as well proved." I say, it is all proved in the places where it is asserted, and that with such testimonies and arguments as he dares not touch upon. And although he pretends to examine the reasons that I allege to prove that Christ fulfilled all righteousness, as he was medi- ator, in their stead whose mediator he was, yet indeed he doth not
do so. For, first, I say no such thing as he here feigns me to say,
namely, that " Christ as mediator fulfilled all nghteousness in our stead;" but only, that ''' Christ being the mediator, in our stead ful- filled all righteousness:" which is another thing, though perhaps he understands not the difference. Nor doth he so much as take notice of that testimony which is immediately subjoined unto the words he cites in the confirmation of them ; but he will disprove this assertion, or at least manifest that it cannot be proved. And this he enters upon, p 29 7, " As for the first, we have some reason to require good proof of this, since the notion of a mediator includes no such thing. A mediator is one who intei-poseth between two differing parties, to accommodate the difference ; but it was never heard of yet, that it was the office of a mediator to perform the terms and conditions him- self. Moses was the mediator of tlie first covenant. Gal. iii. 19; and his office was to receive the law from God, to deliver it to the people, to command them to observe those rites, and sacrifices, and expia- tions which God had ordained : but he was not to fulfil the right- eousness of the law for the whole congi-egation. Thus Christ is now the mediator of a better covenant; and his office required that he should preach the gospel, which contains the terms of peace and re- conciliation beween God and men ; and since God would not enter into covenant with sinners without the intervention of a sacrifice, he dies too, as a sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the world."
I yet suppose that he observed not the inconsistencies of this dis- course, and therefore shall a little mind him of them, although I am no way concerned in it or them. For, first. He tells us, that " a I Pp. 1G2, 1()3, of this volnnie.
THE PRECEDING DISCOURSE. S55
mediator is one who intei-poseth between two differing parties, to accommodate the difference;" and then gives us an instance in Moses, who is called a mediator in receiving the law, but did therein no way interpose himself between differing parties, to reconcile them. Secondly, From the nature of the mediation of Moses, he would de- scribe the nature of the mediation of Christ; which Socinian fiction I could direct him to a sufficient confutation of, but that, thirdly. He rejects it himself in his next words, — that Christ as a mediator was to die as a sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the world ; which renders his mediation utterly of another kind and nature than that of Moses. The mistake of this discourse is, that he supposetli that men do argue from the general nature of the office of a mediator the work of mediation in this matter; when that Avhich they do in- tend hence to prove, and what he intends to oppose, is the special nature of the mediatory ofiice and work of Christ ; which is peculiar, and hath sundry things essentially belonging unto it, that belong not unto any other kind of mediation whatever; whereof himself gives one signal instance.