An answer to the discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, touching the knowledge of Christ,…

Christ and Believers are legally united,¹ ⟨p. 406⟩Dr. Jacomb tells us, That Christ is the Saints [Greek or Hebrew], or Surety, he struck hands with God (as the words imports) put himself into their stead, took their debt upon himself, and bound himself upon this account to make satisfaction to God. Now in the Law the debtor and surety are but one person; the Law looks on them as one, and makes no difference between them; and therefore both are equally liable to the debt; and if the one pay, it is as much in the eye of the Law, as if the other had paid it: Thus it is with Christ and us; he is our Surety, he took our debt upon himself, engaged to pay what we owed; upon this Christ and we are but one person before God; and accordingly he deals with us; for he makes over our sins to Christ, and Christ's Righteousness and Satisfaction to us, he now, in a legal notion, looks upon both but as one person: Now I have two things to say to this: First, I wonder why this should be called the union of Saints to Christ? Or why Christ should be called only the Saints Surety? The Apostle tells us, that he is [Greek or Hebrew], Heb. 7.22. The Surety of a Testament or Covenant: Now there is a vast difference between ⟨p. 407⟩Christ's being the Saints surety, and the surety of the Covenant; for the Covenant respects both Saints and Sinners; therefore is antecedent to our union to Christ as Saints; and to be surety of the Covenant, signifies no more but to confirm this Covenant, and to undertake for the performance of it, that all the promises of it shall be made good upon such terms as are annexed to them: But to be a Surety for Saints (as the Doctor explains it) is to strike hands with God, to put himself in their stead to do and suffer for them. Now this notion is different from the notion of a Surety of a Covenant, and so it wants some better proof. But secondly, suppose Christ had been called the Saints surety: I doubt they are as much out in the Law of suretyship, as they were before in the Laws of Marriage: For, first, the prime end of suretyship among men, is not that the Surety, shall without more ado pay the debt: but to give security to the Creditor, that the debt shall be paid; that is, the Surety doth not make himself immediate Debtor; but the Debtor is Debtor still, and bound to pay the Debt; and the Surety is liable only in case of his default: