Lord's-fupper, because they agree in the fame general tendency with facrifices, is of the fame nature and kind with the virtue and efficacy of facrifices. If the Dr. would prove this point of his to purpose, he must bring his arguments from other topics, than that of the agreement of Jewish-facrifices, and of the facrifice of Chrift, in such a general tendency, virtue, or efficacy, as is not peculiar to them as facrifices, but belongs, in common, to all other inftitutions of religion, as well as to them.

§ 34. I acknowledge, that the facrifice of Christ made atonement for fins, and that the atonement, which it made for them, was extra-levitical. I acknowledge, likewife, that the means, by which fome extra-levitical atonements were made, were acts of piety, fuch as prayer, acts of righteoufnefs, the execution of juftice upon offenders. But if any perfon fhould infer from these conceffions, that the mean, by which Chrift made atonement for fin, was of the fame nature and kind with thofe by which thefe other extra-levitical atonements were made for fin, viz. acts of piety, or the perfect obedience and goodness of his whole life; and, confequently, that his perfect obedience and goodness were the facrifice which he offered to God: I fay, if any fuch argument as this fhould be grounded upon the conceffions mentioned, the Dr.

fupplies

fupplies us with a very proper and fatisfactory anfwer to it, viz. that extra-levitical atonements were fuch as "had no relation "to facrifices 1." Wherefore, if atonement was made for fins, by the perfect obedience and goodness of Christ, after the fame manner as fome other extra-levitical atonements were made for fins, by acts of piety; and if thefe other extra-levitical atonements were made, not by facrifice, but by other means, which had no relation to facrifice; then, it plainly follows, that the atonement, which Chrift made for fins by his perfect obedience and goodness, was not made by facrifice, but by fuch a mean, as had no relation to facrifice: confequently, that his perfect obedience and goodness, by which he made this atonement, were no facrifice.

To conclude; if that idea of piacular facrifice; which the Dr. exhibits in his definitions of Jewish-facrifices, be a true and juft one; that which he gives us of the facrifice of Chrift must be a wrong one, Either the one or the other of thefe ideas of facrifice must be a falfe one; for it is impoffible that both of them should be true ideas of things of the fame kind and species, (fuch

M 4

See Scripture-doctrine of Atonement examined, Chap. V. §. 70. Alfo the firft part of this my examination of it, Chap. II. §. 33.

(fuch as all piacular-facrifices are,) becaufe they are ideas of things of a different nature and kind. As far as I can judge, both thefe ideas are wrong ideas of facrifice. I with the Dr. had been pleafed to give us a definition of piacular-facrifice, fuch as had been equally applicable to Jewish piacularfacrifices, and to that of Chrift. For the omiffion of this leaves his reader in the dark, and his own whole doctrine about facrifices in disorder and confufion. go on to

But I

CHA P. II.

Containing an examination of the tendency which the facrifice of the perfect obedience and goodness of fefus Chrift, as it stands in Dr. Taylor's fcheme, has to promote fanctification, or to render men, who are corrupt and wicked, penitent and obedient.

1

§. 1. THE next conftituent part of the Dr's scheme of redemption, is, that the death of Chrift (i. e. his perfect obedience and goodness) hath a strong and natural tendency, as a moral mean, to promote our fanctification, or to render men, who are corrupt and wicked, penitent and obedient. This principle he not only adopts, but beftows much pains upon the proof of it. §. 2.

Sec Scripture-doctrine of Atonement examined, Chap. X. §. 168-171. and Chap. XI. throughout.

§. 2. IN the foregoing chapter, it has been proved, that the death or facrifice of Christ was not his perfect obedience and goodness; and that all the fcripture-evidence, which the Dr. has produced to prove the contrary, is weak and inconclufive. Wherefore, though the Dr. really could prove, (as, indeed, he has done,) that the perfect obedience and goodness of Chrift has a strong and natural tendency to promote our fanctification; yet it would not follow, that the death or facrifice of Chrift (which is a thing of a different nature) has any natural tendency to promote our fanctification; which is the point that he has to prove. And upon this I might reft my whole answer to all that the Dr. has faid, in order to prove that the facrifice of the perfect obedience and goodness of Chrift, as he is pleased to call it, has a strong and natural tendency, as a moral mean, to promote our fanctification. But fince it may be useful and profitable, to penetrate to the very bottom of the Dr's fcheme of redemption, and to lay open the weakness of its foundation, I fhall here beftow a more particular examination upon this part of it.

§. 3. I acknowledge, that the death or facrifice of Chrift is often mentioned in the fcriptures both as a perfect pattern of all piety and virtue, and as a moft powerful motive to the practice of them; confequent

ly,

ly, as a mean of our fanctification. This is abundantly clear from a good number of of these texts which the Dr. has quoted in the XIth chapter of his fcripture-doctrine of atonement examined. And for this reafon, the death or facrifice of Chrift, as it ftands in the true fcripture-fcheme of redemption, must have a ftrong and natural tendency to promote our fanctification, and to render men, who are corrupt, and wicked, penitent and obedient.

§. 4. BUT as the best things may be perverted, and made to subserve bad purposes; fo the death or facrifice of Chrift, may be fo placed and circumstanced, in an unfcriptural scheme of redemption, that its tendency to our fanctification fhall not only be overruled,and fet aside, but a contrary tendency be given to it, whereby it shall become a most powerful motive and encouragement to the practice of fin and wickedness, and a mean of corrupting mankind. Unfcriptural schemes of redemption of this bad tendency, have by the not only been fet on foot, but become very Methodiẞs popular. And whether the Dr's scheme is, or is not, a fcheme of this bad tendency, is what I now propofe to examine.

§. 5. In order to difcover whether the death of Chrift, as it ftands in the Dr's fcheme, has a natural tendency to reform mankind, or to corrupt them, we must take his notion of the death of Chrift along with