204 Mr. Baxter's fenfe of Chrift's Surtyshipe examined; C H A P. 14, to prove the other ; nor should there be any Coherence in the words ; Vn- lefs , with the Soc :mans, we should pervert the, Nature of Chrift's Priefily office , & make it to be for God , in things pertaining to Men , contrary to Heb. s: t. and all the ufe of Prietts from the beginning; as they do, when they make Chrift's Priefthood ro confft, in His making effeClual to us the promifes of God; or in his effetlual Communicating to us the good things, promifed to us of God ; from which Mr. Lawrondoth not much differ, when he faith (as Mr. Baxter citeth his words ) That a Prief doth undertake to pro- cure from God both the confirmation and performence of the Promif ès to thepeople; dT to that end mediats between both. He faith next, That Calvinfeemeth to Intimate that,which he thinketh is the truth , vii. that Chrift is called £yyv of God's Covenant , from the Sacerdotal appropinquation, mentioned vers 19. But no filch thing appeareth in Calvin's Comment. And that appropinquation, mentioned vers 19. is the people their privilege now under the New Teflam. He tels us further, that Iviarlorat and others by .Sponfor mean a Mediator. And it is true , that the Sponfor here is a Mediator : But that the word Sponfor here (hall denote no- thing elfe , than what the word Mediator figni(ieth , I shall not readily be- leeve , without clearer grounds , than any I fee yet adduced : for I cannot think , that the Apotlle would make ufeofa word , which no where elfe he ufeth , & which is no where to be found in the N. Tell. but here, in a fen - fe , that it is never found to have , neither in Scripture , nor in the common life of men. And how-ever ; Yet it mutt be granted that He is luch a Me- diator , as is a Prieft , & fo mutt offer Sacrifices CO God for men , & there- fore muff as well be a Mediator and Sponfew on mans part , as on God's. He faith , thatPateur on the place , calleth Chrift a Sponfor of the Covenant, quia novum fcedus fanguine d morte fua obfignavit. But fcr anfwer , he may read the fame author on Chap. S: I. laying , eft dJr Sponfor fcederisfpondens Peo populi nomine fidem der abedientiam , non verbis modo fed d& viflimiî. And thus he diftinguifheth a Sponfor from a Mediator. Mr. Baxter granteth (pag. 109.) that a Mediator is not of -one , but doth some what on the behalf of both parties : but addeth. That as Mediator, He is , Hath, Doth, Suffereth, Meriteth, Satisfieth, fo as the Reprefenter or Per- fon offùcb a Beleever, as that every firth perfon isfir p pofed in Laty, to have Been, Done > Su f fèred , Merited , thus in and by the Mediator , it neither fignifed by this, or any other Text. Anf. Though this cannot be faid ofa Mediator, who is only a Mediator, thickly fo taken, & no more; yet it may be Paid of him, who not only is a Mediator, but alfo a Sponfor and Surety as we have fe- veral times explained ir. He addeth z. They that diflinguifh of a Natural d5' Political Perfon , do but darken the cafe , by an ill expreffed diflinilion, which in- deed is not of two forts of perfOns , but between Ikeality d¿ Acceptation , taking per - fón properly for a Natural perfon: It is one thing to be f uch a perfon ; and another tbingh to have the Aí , Paffion , Merite 15c. accepted for that other perfon: And this latter figniii'eth either , t. That it was done by the other pert on medfatly , as being a chiefe caufe ailing by his Inflrument. z. Or that it was done for that other Perfon by another : the fall is our denied fence, thefecond our affirmed fence. Anf
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=