DEBATE I. of the State of the Elect before Effectual Calling.

GEntlemen, it's well you are come, pray what Case will you propound first to be spoken to?

I have this Errour to charge Mr. Anti­nom. with, viz. That he saith the Elect are at no time of their Lives under the Wrath of God, nor are they subject to Condemnation, if they should die before they should believe; yea, when they are under the domi­nion of Sin, and in the practice of the greatest Villanies, they are as much the Sons of God, and Justified, as the Saints in Glory. D. W. p. 1. This I prove from Dr. Crisp, p. 363, 364.

He saith, ‘It's thought by some, that in Case such a Person should die before God call him to Grace, and give to him to believe, that Person had been Damned.’ But that is a vain Supposition, for it were to suppose a Man Elected and not Elected; a Man Elected to the End and not to the Means, or that the Sins of the Elect are laid upon Christ, and the Elect not secured thereby from Condemnation. And he saith therefore, ‘That the Lord hath no more to lay to the Charge of an Elect Person [considered as such] than to the Saints in Glory; his reason is, because his Sins are laid on Christ; and tho' the Per­son remain yet Unregenerate, and in the heighth of Iniquity, yet God hath no more to lay to his Charge than to a Believer, or to a Saint in Glory.’ By this he means there is so full secu­rity and provsion made for all the Elect, that as to Christs bear­ing their Sins, and satisfaction to Divine Justice, there is as much already done by Christ as ever shall in respect of satisfaction; for he was once offered to bear the Sins of many, Heb. 9.28. And if the Sins of the Elect were born by Christ, they were satisfied for, and in respect of Divine Essential Justice there can be nothing laid to their Charge, so as to affect them with a stroak of Vindicative Justice; those that are Elected are Redeemed by Christ, Eph. 1.5, 6. And when the Spirit of God speaks of an Elect Person, it [Page 2] always speaks of him as secure in his Person from Wrath and Condemnation, as to the real Execution of the sentence of the Law upon him, Rom. 8.

It's one thing to say an Elect Person is free from Condemnation as such, and another thing to say a Sinner is thus freed from it. He saith not, that if a Man die under the dominion of Sin, or the practice of the greatest Villanies, he shall be saved; that's a false Charge. Paul as an Elect Vessel, was by vertue of Election and Redemption secured from Condemnation in Execution of the Law Sentence upon him, all the time of his Unregeneracy; neither could a Charge be laid against him that could cut off his Person from the Benefits designed for him in Election, or prepared and pur­chased in Redemption. See what Dr. Cr. saith to this Charge, p. 637.

He saith the Elect are at no time of their Lives under the Wrath of God or under Condemnation.

That Men are not under the Sence of the Law, and by the state of Nature under Wrath, he doth not say, and in foro Consci­entiae, when the Law speaks to him as under it, for he saith, p. 359, 360. ‘There's a laying Sin on Christ, 1. By way of Obligation, so he bore the Sins of the Elect [before he suffered actually] from all Eternity, and by virtue thereof the Elect were justify'd before Christ came [as the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World.] 2. By way of Execution, and this was his Real bearing, the other was Vertual; but there's a third, which is the Lords laying Iniquity on Christ by way of Application. i. e. When it is that the Lord doth single out this or that particular Person, and lay his Iniquities on Christ. Concerning the E­lect in general, they were in the Eye of God before they had a Real Existence. So all their Iniquities were laid on Christ from Eternity, but it must needs be granted that a particular Application of this Grace to Persons must be in time, before a Person is in being there cannot be a Personal Application of the Grace of God; God cannot apply his Grace to nothing.’

P. 361. ‘Know also that this Application is double, there's Gods Application and Mans; Gods Application is when he himself doth say, he loves such a Person. Man's Application is, when God gives to Men to Believe, and by this Act of believing to be perswaded and resolved that God hath done it.’

He distinguisheth likewise, and saith, ‘God lays the Iniquity of every Elect Person two ways, in respect of the Application of this Grace.’ 1. Secretly. 2 Manifestly. As to secret applying, he instances in God's Declaration of his Love to Jacob, Rom. 9. and saith, ‘ [Page 3]We have here, ( p. 362.) the Lord's declaring himself personally and judicially unto the one whom he loved, Jacob; there was a Love to him from Eternity in the Election of Grace; but till there was a single Individual Person, as Jacob, the Lord did not say, Jacob have I loved, &c.’

Now he concludes, ‘That this secret Application of the Grace of laying Sins on Christ, is at the very instant of such a Per­sons having a Being in the World, then God doth appropriate this Grace to an Elect Person; and therefore in the Unregene­rate Estate of such a Person, in the Excess of Riot, [he is secured from the Judicial Charge of Sin, from Vindicative Justice.] There's great diversity of Judgment about the time of applying this Grace, (saith he.) Some say it's at Baptism, some say at first Conversion, &c. pag. 364. It's true, an Elect person not called, is never able to know individually of himself, that he is such an one that God hath nothing to charge upon him, because till Call­ing God gives not unto Persons to Believe: And it's only Be­lieving is the Evidence of things not seen; and this he calls the Application of pardoning Grace by way of manifestation.’ Thus I have given you the Summ of Dr. Crisp's Opinion in this matter.

I perceive then his Opinion is, that, 1. In General, That by Electing and Redeeming Love the Elect are secured from the Stroak of Vindicative Justice, and God hath nothing to lay to their Charge, having accepted the Satisfaction of Christ on their behalf. 2. That the Application of this Love to a particular Per­son is in time, as to God's Sentence concerning him, and as to some Fruits of this Love from his first having a Being; as suppose, di­stinguishing of him as a chosen Vessel, as he did Jacob from Esau: As he separated Paul to the Designs of electing Love, as to prevent­ing Grace, yea, and providential Grace, to bring such a Person, it may be, under the Secret Effects of the Promise, and the means of Grace. 3. He saith, The manifest Application is, when God gives to Believe: So that notwithstanding all the Security he hath by Election, Redemption, and secret Application, he is be­fore Faith, but in a state of Death, and under the Law-Sentence in Foro Conscientiae, and by Nature born a Child of Wrath, and so in Foro Mundi. Hence, that he knows nothing of all this, spoken of an Elect Person, any more than a Reprobate doth, till he doth believe: I think this is Dr. Crisp's Full Sence, and therefore I think, Mr. Neonomian, you are too partial in your Representation of the Doctor; you take those Expressions only that may render him odious, and leave out the Grounds and Reasons thereof. As [Page 4] to that Opinion of his concerning God's secret passing over his Love to the Elect Persons so long before they believe. What if he be singular therein, yet there may be more in it than you or I can tell, seeing it is manifest that it hath been so in several that have lived to be Adult; and I doubt not but it is so daily as to Elect Infants that die in Infancy. And I must tell you, if you deny this Covenant of Grace to belong to the Infants of believing Parents, as it is claimed by vertue of a Gospel-Promise, you can have little Ground to plead for Infant-Baptism, which is a Sign and Seal of Forgiveness of Sins in some Gospel-Sence or other. But I leave that Point now; and I must tell you, that there is no doubt but that there is a secret passing over of the Grace of God in Christ to every Elect Person, before he can put forth anyone Vital Act.

He saith, the Elect of God are Heirs of God; so that their first Being puts them into a right of Inheritance, &c.

He gathers this from Gal. 4.1, 2, 3. See Page 367. ‘Though God doth secretly give over his Right and Title of his own Grace to a Person in the Womb, yet he doth not make it known to him that he hath that Right and Title, till such time as he doth call him; during which time, being under the Law, he is under a Schoolmaster, Tutors and Governours. And here he saith, The Heir, so long as a Child, differs nothing from a Ser­vant, though he be Lord of all. From which I observe from hence, 1. That there is an Heirship during Childhood it self. 2. That there is this Heirship when there is no difference be­tween being a Child and a Servant. 3. A Child is an Heir as soon as born; yea, when first conceived. If a Man of Estate leaves his Wife but a Month gone with Child, he leaves an Heir, &c.’

Mr. Neonomian, though you grant not the secret Applica­tion of Grace he speaks of at Conception, yet you can't deny a secret and sure Relation by Vertue of Election and Redemption. Relata affectio in Deo ponit objectum correlatum: A Right must be in the Object whenever it hath a Being: Jus adrem, if not in re. All that are redeemed by Christ, are called the Sheep of Christ before Calling, John 10. Shew me a Person that is an Elect and Redeemed One, I can tell you God's Justice is satisfied on his behalf, and eternal Life procured for him, though he be yet an Unbeliever, be not in Possession, nor can make any Claim as yet. I pray, was not Paul in his unregenerate State an Elect Vessel, and secured from the Hands of Vindicative Justice by Christ's Satisfaction, and Hea­ven secured by Christ's Impetration? Impetratio dat Jus ad Bene­ficium. [Page 5] I pray, Mr. Neonomian, what would you say of Paul a Per­secutor in the Heighth of his Villany, had you known then that he was an Elect Vessel?

I would say thus, That Paul when a wicked persecuting Saul, while breathing forth Cruelty against the Churches, should not die under the Dominion of Sin; and being an Elect Person, and Christ having born his Sins on the Cross, was the Object of God's Love and good Will even while he was so wicked and vile, and that God continues his gra­cious purpose of doing him good, notwithstanding all his Wickedness and Abomination; that Christ hath made full Attonement for his Sins, and merited Eternal Life for him, and that he shall certainly be Justified, Adopted and Glorified in God's appointed way and time; and that Christ hath left nothing to be done by us in a way of Atonement and Merit; yea, I affirm, [that distinguishing Grace] doth make a very great difference between an Elect Sinner, and others. D.W. p. 1. p. 3.

I pray now what is it more that Dr. Crisp hath said?

He saith, the Elect are at no time of their Lives under the Wrath of God.

So must you too, if you understand Wrath in the same Sence that he doth: For Christ cannot bear their Sins, and the Wrath of God for their Sins, and yet they bear it themselves too. Shall not the Judge of all the World deal Righteously? And you say, They continue Objects of his gracious good Will, and full Atonement made. God cannot be wroth with a Person with whom full Attonement is made.

But what if they should die before they should believe?

He doth not say, They shall be saved if they die be­fore they believe; or under the Dominion of Sin, &c. You fasten that Charge without Ground; and never fear that, for you say their Justification and Adoption is certain, there's no doubt then but they shall certainly believe.

But they are actually Ʋnpardoned, and not Adopted to Life, which the Dr. saith they are.

The Doctor speaks not here of the Elect's Actual Pardon or Adoption: He saith indeed, their Sins are laid on Christ, and therefore God hath nothing to lay to their Charge. And you say, Christ hath made full Atonement for them. I pray what difference is here? He saith, They have a secret hidden Right to Life: You say, by vertue of Election, and Christ's Merits, they shall certain­ly have Justification, Adoption, Glorification. So that you own your Jus ad rem. He doth not say an unregenerate Man is Adopt­ed, or hath received the Spirit of Adoption, any where as I know.

But the Elect, while dead in Sin and Ʋnbelief, are Children of Wrath, condemned by the Law, not justified by the Promise. This I affirm, and the Doctor denies.

The Doctor in this point, for ought I know, affirms and denies but as you do. He saith, a Sinner in respect of his Vi­sible Estate is under the Law-Sentence, and dead in Sin and Unbe­lief. He will not deny this, but that an Elect Person as such, hath a hidden Relation, Standing and Right, not only in respect of Election, Satisfaction and Procurement, but a secret passing over of Grace. So that to be a Child of Wrath in regard of the Law-Sentence, and a Child of Mercy, are not contradicentia; they may be predicated of the same Subject in divers respects: A Man may be a Child of Wrath in one respect, and of Mercy in another. A Man may be poor in one respect, and rich in another, as the Church of Smyrna condemned in one respect, and secured from it in another. Wrath is understood two ways in Scripture. 1. For the Sentence of the Law, that all the World is under, as having sinned, and come short of the Righteousness of God. 2. For the real Execution of the Sentence of the Law by Essential Vindicative Justice: This the Elect are abundantly freed from, and the Wrath of God shall never fall upon them as such.

But he saith, the Elect have right to the Inheritance.

Yes, a secret and hidden Right, but true and certain, though not Possession or Claim, till Grace embraceth them, and this Grace manifested to them. A Child that hath a good Right to an Inheritance may be taken Captive in Infancy, and remain in Algiers a Slave many Years, and never know of any Estate belong­ing to him: But upon his return to his Native Country, finds by Writings and Court-Rolls that he hath had Right all this while, though kept out of Possession, and knew no Ground of a Claim. A Man may be Heir to a Crown, and yet during the King's Life be no King; yea, it may be, out in Rebellion against his Father many Years, and yet come to possess the Crown upon his previ­ous Right. A Man may have a good Right to an Estate in one Court where it is enrolled, whenas another Court knows nothing of it. Every Elect Person is enrolled by Name in God's Book of Election, and the Lamb's Book of Redemption, while there's no­thing of this to be sound in Foro Conscientiae, nor in Foro Mundi. And your own Assertion at first cuts you off from all Pleas to the contrary. For you say, ch. 1. p. 1. ‘It's certain from God's De­cree of Election, that the Elect shall in time be Justified, Adop­ted and Saved in the way God hath appointed, [then they are [Page 7] Heirs of Justification, Adoption and Salvation, upon some ground of right or other] and the whole meritorious Cause and Price of Justification; Adoption and Eternal Life were perfect when Christ finished the Work of Satisfaction.’ So now it ap­pears here is a compleat Right adjusted for them, the Estate is bought, and the Money all paid, and the Title is enrolled in their Name, what hinders them from being Heirs in Law, and having a Right of Inheritance belonging to them?

I will prove the Elect before they are effectually called, to be Children of Wrath, Eph. 2.2, 3. Col. 1.21.

As Elect Persons the Scripture no where faith; but as Sinners, and as dead in Trespasses, we acknowledge they are under the Law Sentence, imprisoned in their naturall Estate, in a State of Bondage and Darkness: But this hinders not the Foundation of God in Election and Redemption, they have a hidden Safety and Security from Wrath by your own Confession.

The Gospel barrs all Ʋnbelievers and dead Sinners from Pardon and Adoption, and denounceth a continuance of Condemnation against them, limiting it's Benefits to such as believe, John 3.18. ver. 36. 1 Cor. 16.22. 1 Cor. 6.11. D. W. p. 4.

If the Gospel barrs all Unbelievers, and those that are dead in Sin, from Gospel Benefits, who shall be saved? it must barr them from Life; for Life is the first and greatest Benefit a Dead Man can receive; nay, you say, it declares continuance of Condem­nation against them: It's certainly therefore impossible they should ever be saved. And are not Regeneration and Faith Gospel-Bene­fits? And are Unbelievers for ever barred from them? This puts a Barr upon their possibility of Salvation, and keeps them from ever being Believers. The places you quote are nothing to prove your Assertion; for the most they say, is, That whilst a Person is in a state of Unbelief, he is in a state of Condemnation, under the Law; but the Gospel doth not put a Barr to his Salvation, but ra­ther take off the Barrs, opens the Prison-doors, gives him Life, gives him a Door of Hope, brings him to Christ, who is the Re­surrection and Life.

If it were not so, neither the Spirit nor the Word of God would have any Influence in the Saving of Sinners.

Non sequitur. Can't the state of the Elect be secured by Election, and yet Redemption have it's place? Why notwith­standing both, may not the Spirit have it's place and Influ­ence?

Gospel-Benefits imply, that there is a time when we are actu­ally guilty and miserable, Rom. 7.4. Col. 2.12.

Grant it, there is such a time, when we are so in our selves; but yet quoad Deum, Election and Redemption is not in vain; they have their Force: The Changes that pass upon us doth not make a Change as to Electing Love, nor as to the Satis­faction and Merits of Christ.

The Dr. may well infer, that we are sanctified and possessed of Heaven in the Womb; for God hath elected us to those, as well as to Pardon; and Christ merited these also.

No, but he might not: One imports a Relation, the other a real Subjective Change. A Child may be a Son, and yet a very wicked one: There is also a great difference between a Right and a Possession.

Do you not find that God justifies none but what are called, Rom. 8.30?

1. He Justifies Infants dying in Infancy, that were ne­ver called by the Word. 2. What you would prove by that place, that effectual Calling is before Justification, is not manifest; for, it's whom be called, them he also justified. It might be before Calling as well as after, for any thing appears in that Text. 3. But you go from the Terms of the Question all along; for that which the Doctor saith, is, That the Sins of the Elect being all laid upon Christ, who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect? It's Christ hath dyed and rose again, for them: Now God hath no Charge against the Elect considered as such; if Justice remain unsatisfied, Christ dyed in vain.

There is Joy in Heaven for one Sinner that repents, Luke 15.7, 10. And would there be such, if they were pardoned and safe before.

Yes, Why not? For I question whether the Angels be acquainted with the Secrets of Election and Redemption as to the Persons concerned, till it be made manifest by their Actual Faith and Repentance. And as for the safe Estate of the Elect before believing, you have said enough, i. e. As to their Security from Wrath, and Certainty of Eternal Life: Therefore it's strange you should deny it now, say and unsay the same thing.

How much is our Ministry and Concern for Souls de­based, if all we can prevail with are actually pardoned.

You should have said, If all you prevail with have had their Sins laid on Christ, whereby God was in Christ recon­ciling the World to himself. Paul might have said, How then is [Page 9] our Ministry debased, to be only Embassadors for Christ to beseech Sinners to be reconciled to God, when their Sins are already laid on Christ, and to Preach, That all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, who hath slain the Enmi­ty, and made Peace on the Cross, &c. There's great difference between God's being reconciled to us, and our being reconciled to God.

Who can reconcile this Notion to the Pleadings of God with Sinners, Ezek. 33.11.

Every one. The Pleadings of God in his Word with Sinners, is in Order to change their Hearts by his Word and Spirit, in the Embassie of Reconciliation, which God hath sent unto Sinners: Therefore the Apostle saith, We beseech you for Christ's sake to be reconciled unto God; and all Arguments used in the Word are to that end and purpose, viz. To work Faith and Repentance, and to bring them unto God: One great End why Christ bore their Sins.

I have the Assembly and Dr. Owen on my side.

We deny not what the Assembly and Dr. Owen saith, according to their true Meaning and Intention: For they all say no otherwise than what I have shewed the Doctor sincerely means, and your own Assertions will bear out as well as his: as to his particu­lar Opinion, That the Grace of laying Sins on Christ is secretly applyed as soon as we have a Being, as to some Effects wherein we are meerly passive, and it's unknown to us till effectual Calling; you see he grounds it upon matter of Fact, in the Instance of Jacob, which undoubtedly deserves Consideration. Though I say not, that it's so with every one, but apprehend the Spirit of God hath these things to instruct us thereby, that Justification of a Sinner before God is not for the Act of Faith, or Gospel-Obedience, be­cause Jacob was justified before either. 2. That the Children of Believing Parents dying in Infancy may be justified and saved. 3. That a believing Parent hath Promise Ground to baptize his Child, and exercise Faith, that his Child is embraced in the Arms of Free Grace, to work upon it how, and when, and in what manner he pleaseth; and though he can't be active therein, yet he may be passive. This we pray for, and in praying believe: God saying, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed. I am not for Baptismal Regeneration, nor Baptismal Justification: Though there is something Analogous to it, and therefore a kind of Justi­fication in Foro Ecclesiae, it being a significant Seal of it, as Cir­cumcision was called the Covenant: And therefore if there be any [Page 10] secret Application of the Grace of Election and Redemption ac­companying that Institution of Christ, or coming before or after, neither we nor our Children shall be ever the worse for it. And therefore let us not banter and condemn such as have higher Appre­hensions of the Secret Workings of Grace before we are aware of of it. I am sure many Divines that you would not call Antinomians, have defended Infant Baptism upon this Notion, That Infants are capable of the Habit of Saving Faith. And if so, I am sure ac­cording to your Notion, they must be Justified, because they have the qualifying Condition: For a Habit is a Quality, and a Confor­mity to the Rule of the Promise, (as you phrase it) and therefore must Justifie as such.

The Dr. mistakes the Nature of God's Decree, because a Decree ascertains a thing shall be in time; therefore he thinks a Decree gives a thing a present subjective Being.

The Decree of God gives an Objective Being to the thing Decreed; for the Will willing, and the thing willed, are relata; all things in time are present with God, looking upon them in one Eternal Act; there's neither Time past or to come, or Successi­on, that his Decrees are measured by; his Decree is himself. But if we consider the Objects of the Decree in Execution, they are in time, and measured by Succession; but yet things thus standing, are the Objects of the Decree, they have their first Cause in his Divine Idea, and have their unchangeable Fixation, as to their Na­ture and Order in the present or future Being and Working, either as necessary or contingent Agents.

Because Jacob was an Elect Person, or the Object of Elect­ing Love in the Womb, therefore he was then actually a Pardoned and Adopted Person.

Nay, there was more in it than that: For mark the Text, ver. 11, 12. r. It doth not only tell us Jacob was Elected, but that it was published and declared unto Rebecka, Jacob have I loved. If God should tell my Wife when with Child, I have Elect­ed, and do love this Child that is in thy Womb, I should look up­on this as a Justification of this Child, it being a declared Sentence of God concerning it's standing in his Favour and unchangeable Love. 2. The Text is particular in the Reason of this Declarati­on to Rebecka, ver. 11. that we may see that God accomplish'd his purpose of Election in the applying of the Grace thereof without Works, not so much as upon the Account of Faith as a Work, because the Children were not capable of doing Good or Evil, the Application of his distinguishing Love could not be upon that Ac­count, viz. Of any Condition found in them; nor could the Fore­sight [Page 11] of any such thing in them be the Cause of God's Purpose in Ele­ction, and shews it's one and the same Righteousness that an Infant and Adult Person is Justified by.

Because an Eldest Son is an Heir in the Womb, therefore an Elect Person who is in time to he Adopted, is an Heir in the Womb.

There's a Difference between an Heir and Adoption. If you know there is an Elect Person in the Womb, as Rebecka did, he is a more sure Heir to Heaven than ever any great Man's Son was to an outward Estate. And as to Adoption, that may not be till some time after: For that is the Grace of Sonship. It's one thing to be a Son, and another to have the Grace of Sonship. And is the call­ing them the Sons of God, manifestly taking them into the num­ber, and endowing them with the Priviledges of the Sons of God? The Relation of an Heir, and the state of Adoption, admit of dif­ferent Considerations. The State of Adoption, is the grown state of an Elect Person; he is put into Possession of the Estate, and all Priviledges, sit together with Christ in Heavenly Places as a Co­heir. And thus we are the Children of God by Faith, Gal. 3.26. The Spirit bearing Witness with our Spirit that we are the Children of God, and so Heirs ex abundanti, Joynt-Heirs with Christ, Rom. 8.17.

Let us now hear what our approved Calvinists say in this Point, that speak most particularly and distinctly to it. Speak Dr. Amesius.

‘The Transaction between God and Christ was a cer­tain previous Application of our Redemption and Discharge to our Surety, and to us in him, which hath the Nature of a cer­tain efficacious Pattern to that Secondary manner of Applicati­on which is compleated in us; so that this is the representation of that, this is produced by vertue of that. Now it's inferred hence, That our Freedom from Sin and Death was not only determined in God's Decree, but also granted and communicated to us in Christ before it is perceived by us, Chap. 24. § 3.’

Mr. Rutherford, pray speak, you wrote against Antinomianism. ‘ Sane prius (que) electus credit, &c. Certainly before an Elect Person doth believe, the Wrath of God, and all the Effects of his Wrath, are removed from the Persons by vertue of Christ's Sa­tisfaction.’ Exercit. Apologet. per gratiâ, p. 45.

‘That God doth actually love the Elect before they are Regenerate, or can actually believe, may appear fur­ther by these Reasons. 1. Where God is actually reconciled, there he actually loveth; for Love and Reconciliation are inse­parable; but with the Elect before they are converted and [Page 12] believe, God is Actually Reconciled, Ergo, he loves them before Faith and Conversion: The Minor is evident, because before they are Born a full Atonement and Satisfaction is made for their Sins by Christ, and accepted on God's part, whereupon all Actu­al Reconciliation must needs follow. 2. God did Actually Love the Elect before Christ's time, when Actual Reconciliation was not yet made, much more therefore after the Atonement made. 3. Justification, Effectual Vocation and Faith, are Fruits of God's Actual Love, &c. De gratiâ & fide, p. 22.’

‘Chamier. Persuasissimum est, &c. We are most fully perswa­ded that our Sins are forgiven before we believe; for certainly we deny Infants to act Faith, and yet their Sins are forgiven them. And although it be true, that our Sins be forgiven before we believe, i. e. before we know it as Actual Believers, we do believe the Remission of our Sins, because this is proposed to us, yea promised to us in the same words which we relye upon by Faith, and it's Sealed by the same Spirit, whereby that word is Truth. Panstr. Tom. 3. lib. 13. c. 10.’

I think I see Mr. Baxter appear in this Cause, though I suppose he is seldom in this Society.

I pray let us hear Sir what you say to this Point.

The Anabaptists bring Eph. 2.3. against Baptism of Infants, and say, Because they are by Nature Children of Wrath, the Promise belongs not to them. Ans. ‘What though we are by Nature Children of Wrath, doth it follow that we may not be otherwise by Grace; the state of Wrath goes first in order of Nature, and whether in order of time also is not worth our dis­puting; but may not a state of Grace immediately succeed? Je­remy was Sanctified in the Womb, and John Baptist; and the Infants that Christ Blessed were all by Nature Children of Wrath, and yet by Grace were in a better state. As they come from old Adam they are Children of VVrath, but as they re­ceive of the Grace procured by the Second Adam, so they are not Children of wrath. If a Prince should Entail some Honours upon all your Children; you might well say by Nature, or as they were your Children, they were not Honourable or Noble, and yet by the Favour of the Prince they might be all Honoura­ble from the VVomb. The Godly at Age may say that they are still by Nature Children of wrath, even when they are sure they are Children of God by Grace; and they use in their Confessions to say, That we by Nature are Enemies to God, Fire-brands of Hell. R. Baxter of Inf. Bapt. p. 110, 111.’

I would willingly hear what the Learned and Judicious Mr. J. Cotton saith.

Mr. J. Cotton, in Answer to that Objection made by the Ana­baptist against Infant Baptism. Faith comes by Hearing, Ergo, In­fants have not Faith. Ans. ‘It is no Extraordinary thing which Christ speaks concerning Infants, when he saith, Except you re­ceive the Kingdom of God as little Children, &c. and they cannot receive it without Christ, nor without Faith in Christ, and yet received not Christ nor Faith by their own immediate Hearing of the Word; and for the second thing which you make Essential to Union with Christ, ( viz. a Heart fitly disposed to apprehend and receive Christ,) be not unwilling to understand that which is Truth. The Heart is fitly disposed by Faith to apprehend or apply Christ, when Faith is begotten in the Heart; for by this Gift of Faith begotten in us, Christ apprehends us, and by the same Gift of Faith the Heart is fitly disposed to apprehend Christ even in Infants; for when Faith is wrought in Infants, the Heart is quickned with Spiritual Life, and made a Sancti­fied Vessel to receive Christ, which reception of Christ though it be passive, yet it is all one with Regeneration, (as Dr. Ames. Medul. c. 26. § 21.) wherein not Infants only but all Men are passive, which gave the Lord Jesus Christ occasion to say, That whosoever receiveth the Kingdom of God as a little Child, [i. e. in respect of the passive reception,] Luke 18.17.’

DEBATE II. Of God's laying Sin on Christ.

YOƲ know at last Conference our Subject we discoursed upon was The State of the Elect before Effectual Calling. If you please let us discourse the Point Of Laying Sins on Christ, I shall here charge considerable Errours on Mr. Antinomian.

I pray Sir proceed, I perceive Mr. Antinomian is very willing to hear you with patience.

I charge him with this Errour, that he saith, D. W. p. 8, 9. That God did not only Impute the Guilt, and lay the Punishment of the Sins of the Elect upon Christ, but he laid all the very Sins of the Elect upon Christ, and that as to their real filth and loathsomness; yea so that Christ was really the Blasphemer, Murderer, and Sinner, and so accounted by the Fa­ther.

Mr. Antinom. Did you lay down this Position?

Sir it's bad enough if it be as he saith, and in his sence and meaning: I find his way is to put first a wild Beasts Skin upon me, and then fall a Hunting of me. I pray Mr. Neonom. how do you prove this Charge?

You tell us, It's Iniquity it self that the Lord laid upon Christ; D. Cr. p. 312. not only our Punishment but our very Sin, &c. The Transaction of our Sins to Christ is a real Act; our Sins so became Christs that he stood the Sinner in our stead, and we dis­charged, D. Cr. p. 270. [and he is not contented to mean only the Punishment, but saith it's Iniquity it self] I mean, saith he, the fault of the Transgression it self, &c. To speak more plainly, Hast thou been an Idolater? Hast thou been a Blasphemer, Murderer, Drunkard, &c? If thou hast part in the Lord, all these Transgressions of thine become Actually the Trans­gressions of Christ: D. Cr. p. 26. Nor are we so compleatly sinful, but Christ being made Sin, was as compleatly sinful as we, &c. And God himself did account him among the Number of Trans­gressors.

You should first have told us, Mr. Neonomian, what you mean by Guilt and Punishment of Sin, how you distinguish reatus from culpa, and how you understand the filth of Sin; and should have al­ledged some Expression of his whereby it might have been evinced that he held Christ to be the very Perpetrator of the Sins of the Elect; that he had said, Christ was Actually Drunk when Noah was; that Christ kill'd Ʋriah and lay with his Wife, and made the Gol­den Calf in the Wilderness, that he denied himself when Peter did, yea that he Slew and Murdered himself. You should have told us what you mean by Imputation, &c.

I shall shew you by comparing his Charge and Proof together, how fallaciously he deals with you, and Invidiously with Dr. C. He saith, I said God laid all the very Sins of the Elect up­on Christ, he should have added, by Imputation, for his Proof runs thus, Our Sins so became Christs, that he stood the Sinner in our [Page 15] stead, and we discharged: Now I pray is it to become the very Per­son and Actor, when I stand in the stead of another Person that did it. The Proof makes his Charge false, the very Evidence he brings is enough for my Defence against his Charge; and when he brings these words of mine [to prove, that I hold Christ became the real Murderer, &c.] if thou beest a Thief, Murderer, Lyar, &c. all these Transgressions (if thou hast part in the Lord) become Actually the Transgressions of Christ, he should have told you how I explain'd my self; and he knows I mean no otherwise than what can be Christs by Actual Imputation. Here's a Great Sputter of Real and Actual, and very Sins, &c. He might as well if he had dealt candidly, told you all my meaning, and not perverted it to serve his own Reproachful Tongue. I say thus in handling this Text, Isa. 53.6.

‘This Iniquity was really laid upon Christ; Christ was as really the Bearer of the Sins of Gods People, D. C. p. 373. as a Surety is really the Debtor when he willingly puts himself into the Room of the princi­pal Debtor. Insomuch that God cannot expect the Debt any where but of Christ. Christ gives the Bond, and by giving the Bond makes himself the Debtor. God accepts of this, and up­on it dischargeth the poor Sinners themselves, and if he will have payment he must have it where himself hath laid the Debt. God was in Christ Reconciling the World unto himself, not Im­puting their Trespasses to them, 2 Cor. 5.3. vers.’

Now Sir you have the great prodigious Errour that Mr. Neo­nomian chargeth me to be guilty of. As the Surety gives Bond for the very Debt of the Principal to a Farthing, the very Debt of this or that Party by Name, Living in such a Place, of such a Calling, for a Debt contracted at such a time. ‘So that it's that Debt, not another that he contracted at another time, or the Debt of another Man, but the Debt so and so circumstantiated, described and subscribed by the Debtors own Hand. A Sure­ty enters into the same Bond, changing only the Names. D. C. p. 330. Sin is called our Debts by Christ himself who is our Surety. Did he not bear our very Debts? He that bare our very Debts, bare our very Sins; but Christ bare our very Debts; and now for me to pay the very Debts of a Debtor that is become Bankrupt, and spent his Estate upon Luxury, is it to become the Luxurious Contra­cter of the Debt.’

You may think, Gentlemen, that this Man means only Pu­nishment that was laid on Christ.

No, no, I do not mean only Punishment, as you mean; I know, whatever you say, you mean not Punishment in a right sence, but only Suffering. But you must blot out, for Sin, then it's not Punishment; for if the Law inflict Suffering it's for Sin; and if for Sin, it's Punishment; and if a Punishment, Sin was in some sense or other sound upon him, or else the Law wronged him in inflicting Sufferings on him. ‘Now when I say it is Iniquity it self that the Lord hath laid on Christ, D. C. p. 270. I mean as the Prophet doth, it is the fault of the Transgression it self; and to speak more fully, that erring and straying like Sheep, that very erring, straying and transgressing, is passed off from them, and is laid upon Christ, [ viz. by Imputation.] To speak it more plain­ly, Hast thou been an Idolater, Blasphemer, Murderer, &c. If thou hast a part in Christ, they become Actually the Transgressions of Christ, D. C. p. 268. [by Imputation,] and so cease to be thine, —for he was num­bred with Transgressors. God himself did account him among the number of Transgressors, for he himself made him a Trans­gressor at that time; bear with the Expression, for the Apostle hath a higher than this, though it may seem harsh to you, 2 Cor. 5. c. He was made Sin for us; there's a great deal of difference between being made Sin and a Sinner, the Expression in the Ab­stract going beyond the Concrete. I know the word may be spoke Hyperbolically; not that Christ simply could be made Sin, not that his Essence could be turned into Sin, but the Apo­stles meaning was, that no Transgressor in the World was such a Transgressor as Christ was. But still he was a Transgressor, as our Transgressions were laid upon him; not that he was the Actor of any Transgressions.’ Now Sir you hearing me say this, that Christ was a Transgressor by way of Suretiship only; not as the Actor of any Sin in his own Person, do not you traduce me slanderously, charge me with saying, that Christ was really the Blasphemer and Murderer, and Idolater? And that because I say, If thou be a Thief, Murderer or Drunkard, if thou hast part in the Lord, all these Transgressions of thine become Actually the Trans­gressions of Christ, i. e. by Actual Imputation, as the Debts of a Bankrupt becomes a Surety, that undertakes them. Was not Noah's Drunkenness, David's Murder and Adultery, Rachel's Theft and Idolatry Imputed to Christ? How would you have these great [Page 17] foul Sins forgiven? I suppose you are not for the taking away so great Sins by the Blood of Christ; with you it would redound to the disparagement of Christ.

Yes, if he should bear the filthiness and loathsomeness of Sin, as you say, D. C. p. 436. he bears the loathsom­ness, abominableness, and hatefulness of Rebellion, which is laid on Christs Back; he bears the Sin as well as the Shame and Blame.

‘I was opening, Psal. 68.18. Thou hast received Gifts from Men, yea, for the Rebellious also; an Eminent Prophesie of Christ. The Text saith also that thou mightest dwell among them; who is that them? The Rebellious: Beloved, you must know that no Evil dwells with God; the Lord stands fully off and separated from all Iniquity. —Therefore seeing God can't dwell with Iniquity, there must be a taking away of Iniquity, before there be a receiving graciously, Hos. 14.2, 3. As long as there is Iniquity to be charged upon any Person, there's no receiving graciously; therefore seeing God cannot dwell with Men where Iniquity is, Christ he received Gifts for Men that the Lord might dwell among the Rebellious, and inlarging here I spake what he rehearseth by way of Reproach unto me.’ It is easie to misrepresent any Mans words, and make them look very odiously, if you hang, draw and quarter them, pluck a Sentence limb from limb. But the thing in Dispute betwen us is, Whether Christ did not bear the very Sins of the Elect in some sence or other?

Yes, it is so, for you say it's Sin opposed to Guilt, and to say that God laid the Guilt of Sin, D. W. p. 9. and not Sin it self upon Christ is contrary to Scrip­ture.

For the Objection about Guilt, that the Lord lays the Guilt and Punishment, D. Cr. p. 271. but not simply the Sin it self; for ought that I see it is a simple Objection. ‘For first, you shall never find there is distin­ction in all the Scriptures, That God laid the Guilt of Sin upon Christ, and not Sin it self; Dr. C. 272. nay to affirm that God laid the Guilt of Sin upon Christ, and not Sin it self, is contrary to Scripture. [ i. e. to deny that God laid Sin it self, by saying he laid Guilt and not Sin, must needs be so, because the Scriptures affirm positively God laid Sin, yea Iniquity upon him, and that he bore our Sins &c.] What presumption then is it for Man to say, God laid the Guilt and not the Sin, [ i. e. to assert the laying of [Page 18] Guilt on Christ, with a denial of laying Sin.] 2. That you may have a little Light concerning the Word Guilt, for I know many Spirits are troubled at it, for my part I do not think as some do, that Guilt differs from Sin, as that which is an Obli­gation or Binding over to the Punishment of Sin, rather than Sin it self being past and gone, [for when Sin is committed it leaves behind the Conscience of Sin committed, which is the Sin lying upon us.] But that you may have the true Nature of Guilt, Gen. 42.21, When Joseph's Brethren were accused for Spies, there it is said they spake one to another, We are guilty concerning our Brother.’ [...]. Buxtorf renders it Delin­quentes, and it's applyed to, being under Levitical Ʋncleanness actual­ly, Levit. 5.2. the Chald. renders it [...] Debitores, we are Deb­tors to the Law in breaking of it. We have contracted the Debt of Sin, an [...]. And its not a little remarkable how the LXXII. LXX. Isa. 53.6. [...]. Interpret the forementioned word, Gen. 42.21. [...]. We are in our Sins, or the Sins are upon us, which we committed about our Brother.] ‘What is the meaning of Guilty here? D. C. ibid. Reu­ben Expounds that Ver. 22. Did not I say to you, Sin not against the Lad, but you would not hearken unto me, and therefore behold we are guilty: What is that? We did Sin against the Child: to be guilty then, and to commit Sin, is all one; they are but two words expressing the same thing; for further understanding: A Malefactor is asked Guilty or Not Guilty? He answers Not Guilty; he means he hath not done that Fact which was laid to his Chage; when the Jury say Guilty, what do they mean? Do they mean any thing of the Punishment, [no, they enquire only of the Justness of the Charge concerning matter of Fact,] the Jury have nothing to do with the Punishment, but only matter of Fact, whether done or not done, so that Guilt and Sin are all one: And to say Guilt is laid upon Christ, but Sin is not laid upon Christ is a con­tradiction; and whereas some say the Punishment of Sin, and not the Sin: I say, that Scripture that warrants the laying Punish­ment on Christ, he was wounded for our Transgressions, warrants the laying Sin upon Christ, in speaking it thrice plainly in the same Chapter. P. 383. 281, 288, 290. —I say here is a real Act, and not supposed only, God doth really pass over Sin upon him, still keeping this fast, That Christ Acted no Sin; so that in respect of the Act, not one Sin of the Believers is Christs: But in respect of Trans­gression, [Page 19] [i. e. the [...], the relation that Sin hath to the Law as a fault,] in respect of conveyance, as to passing Accounts from one Head to another, in respect of that, there is a reality of ma­king Christ to be Sin; when one Man becomes a Debtor in ano­ther Man's Room, Legally and by Consent, this Surety that doth become the Debtor, is not barely supposed to be the Deb­tor, but by undertaking it, and legally having it pass'd upon him, he is as really and truely the Debtor, [yea hath the same Debt upon him] as he was who was the principal before; I say as re­ally and truely the Debtor: So that there is an absolute truth and reality in God's Act of passing over Sins to Christ, and lay­ing Sins upon him. —There must be [in Criminal Cases] of necessity a present desert upon a Person on whom he inflicts Punishment; he must not inflict Punishment upon a meer Suppo­sition.’

I do not see but that he hath given a very clear and distinct account of his Notion, but I find you will condemn what­ever Mr. Antinom. saith, right or wrong.

No, no, I will lay open his mistakes more plainly before you, I will assure you he knows not what he saith, I will convince you both immediately. The Ground of his Mistakes are these. 1. He seems to speak of Sin as a positive material thing, and doth not distinguish between God's laying our Sins on Christ as a Physical Act, and as a Moral Act, and thinks God took our Sins as a material Burden, and laid them upon Christ. D. W. p. 13.

Sir, I must tell you then, that you mistake him, I doubt wilfully, for he no where speaks of Sin as a Physical Act, but as a Mo­ral Transgression; Doth he not say as plainly as may be the contrary to what you suggest, viz. ‘Here is a real Act of God, God doth re­ally pass over Sin upon him, still keeping this fast, that Christ Acted no Sin. [Doth he not plainly here deny the Physical Act to Christ?] And doth he speak of Sin as a material Burden, when he saith Christ bore it as a Fault, Debt, Law-Breach, &c. D. C. p. 283.’ He speaks of it as a Moral and Judicial Burden, and so doth the Spirit of God speak of it, Psal. 38.4. Mine Iniqui­quities are gone over mine Head, as an heavy Burden they are too heavy for me. And Christ bore them as a Burden in his Body on the Tree; it was not sweet and pleasant naturally to him.

He seems not to Apprehend what the true Notion is of Imputing a thing to another in Law in Criminal Cases.

Nor do you understand that of Mr. Antinomian, I suppose [Page 20] he means you were never used to the Crown Bar, you only have been exercised at the Nisi Prius side.

I am no Lawyer, but yet am fain to use some Law terms (that the Scripture useth, and most Men are acquainted with) in this matter, and most Divines hold necessary to explain these Mysteries by; though Mr. Neonomian will not understand them, nor allow them any otherwise than in his own Sense, con­trary to all received meanings of them. Do not I talk of Sin as a Criminal Case, when I say David's Murder and Adultery was Im­puted to Christ, and the Sin of those and such like Actions? Im­putation is of the same Nature, whether the Default be Debt, or Criminal nature, both Debts of Money and Fellonies are Moral Transgressions; nay, both are the breach of one Law, Theft; and not paying anothers, or his own Money due upon Bond, or Rent-Charge, or the like, is breaking the Eighth Commandment, Thou shalt not Steal, and is not Theft a Criminal Case? See Dr. Cr. p. 288, 289.

God's laying Sin on Christ is a Moral Act of God as a Rector, i. e. he Agreed and Appointed that Christ should in his Person stand obliged to bear the Punishment of our Sins, that we might obtain pardon, and that Punishment was Actually laid upon him, and suffered by him.

What do you mean by a Rector? do you mean as a Rector under a Law for the Rule of his Moral Obedience? or was God Bound by his Moral Law to appoint Christ to bear Sin? What do we with this diminutive word Rector; methinks you might Entitle God, our Great King, Soveraign Lawgiver, who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and doth whatever he pleaseth in Heaven and Earth, and you make him little Moral Rector, and as such he Covenanted with his Son to bear Sin: Did God Act in a way of Government and Dominion over his Son as his Rector, when he said, If thou shalt make thy Soul an Offering for Sin, &c? Isa. 53. Or as with one that counted it no Robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2.6. Was it not when he was with him, one brought up with him, his Delight, his Delight, his Fellow? And was agree­ing with Christ to bear Sin, and Actually laying it upon him, the same Act? whereas one was Immanent, and the other Transient; God in laying Sin or charging Sin upon Christ, or executing the Punishment upon him, freely submitting himself to be dealt with in a way of Justice, did Act as a Great Judge, the Judge of all the World, in foro Justitiae Divinae. Why must we have this mean Ti­tle for God, Rector? God did not Covenant with his Son in a way of Judicial proceeding, though that Covenant was executed in a [Page 21] way of Vindictive and Remunerative Justice. And you say the Punishment of Sin was laid on Christ, but not Sin it self. What Justice is it in a Judge, or as a Rector, as you call him, to punish him for Sin, that is not justly charged with Sin, its Transgressi­on charged is the only Meritorious Cause of Punishment; where there is no Law, there's no Transgression; and where there's no Trans­gression, there can be no Punishment, though there may be Suf­ferings they cannot be Penal. Sin and Punishment are Relata in Logick as well as Law. And you say he was obliged to bear the Punishment, that we might obtain pardon, cunningly worded in­deed; this is an answer to a Bill, saving all Advantages that here­after may be taken: You mean Christ hath bore the Punishment of our Sins, that we may hereafter by the Righteousness of another Law obtain pardon.

Again, also because a Man that is Bound in a Bond of Money becomes a Debtor; therefore he thinks because Christ suffered to save the Idolater or Blasphemer, therefore Christ must be the Idolater and Blas­phemer. D. W. p. 14.

But pray Sir shew first, [...] signifies propter, Rom. 4.25. [...], for these things comes the Wrath, &c. Eph. 56. And [...] hath the same force, 1 Cor. 15 3. Pro peccatis nostris, Gal. 1.9. Et [...], for Sins, 1 Pet. 3.18. [...] and [...] use to signifie no less the Impulsive Cause than the Final Cause. See Rom. 15.9. 2 Cor. 1.11. Eph. 1.16. 2 Cor. 5.21. Grot. de satisfact. Ʋlciscipio Injuriis. Sceleris poenas persolveré suppli­ciis & maleficiis metuere. Cicero. Castigare pro commerita noxia. Plaut. Pro dictis & factis ulscisci. Terrent. Pro peccatis Passus aut Mortuus. Grot. de sat. that he thinks Christ became the very Ido­later and Blasphemer; you heard him again and again deny that he thought so, but he said that Christ was charg­ed with, and bore the Sins of the I­dolater and Blasphemer; and I stand to it, and I must tell you, if a Man Bound for Money becomes a Debtor, it's for that Debt which is owing. And if Idolatry be a Sin whereby a Sinner is a Debtor to the Law, Christ becomes a Debtor in the same sence for Idolatry. And I told you, a Debtor is a Moral Transgressor, if he make not due payment as well as a Thief, both Sinners against one Command.

Christ paying our Debts was a satisfaction for Criminals, not a payment of Money.

Not Silver and Gold, but a better sort of Money. 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. You know the Spirit of God alludes to that Metaphor; he calls our Redemption, Our being bought with a Price, or a Ransom, &c. 1 Cor. 6.20. therefore I think you should not pretend to be wiser than the [Page 22] Spirit of God; and Christs paying our Debts was making satis­faction for Criminals, and he was a reputed Criminal, he was numbred among Transgressors not only by Man [as you say] but by God.

And yet it is plain, that if I were bound for Money for one, that by Drunkenness wastes his Estate, my being Bound to pay the Mo­ney, doth not argue that I was, or must by the Creditors be so accounted when I make payment.

It is very true, Mr. Moderator, I think it's time for us to break up our Club at this time, for if the Constable should happen to look in, and hear such high-flown Reasoning as this is, I do not know but we may be in danger of being laid by the Heels, the best of it is, that we shall not be reckoned Constables for be­ing laid by the Heels.

Once more, to clinch the last Conviction a little closer, because Christ was made Sin, i. e. an Offering or Sacrifice for Sin; there­fore he thinks our very Sins was laid upon him, and he made filthy.

Because he was made a Sacrifice for Sin, therefore I say he was made Sin, the Sacrifices were made Sin, and bore the Sins of the People Typically as Shadows, Christ really, and as the Substance; and as the Sacrifices became Levitically Unclean by the bearing of Sin, so Christ the true Sacrifice was Judicially Un­clean when he bore our Sins in his Body on the Tree.

To add no more, because men wickedly arraigned him as a Blasphemer, therefore [...]he Doctor thinks he was so indeed, and in God's account.

What blundering Doctor is this to have so many gross Mistakes in such a plain point of Divinity, and of so great concern; that ever any Man's Skull should be so thick, as to think that Christ Actually Blasphemed God, because he bore the Sins upon the Cross of those that reproached him for a Blasphemer, and Arraigned him as such.

I pray Sir let me ask him one Question for Informati­on, now he talks of Blasphemers, and he is so good at rectifying Mistakes: Tell me the meaning of that place, Psal. 69.3. applyed to Christ, Rom. 15.3. Some take it to mean that the Blasphemies of Blasphemers were charged upon and imputed to Christ; and I think the Apostle Paul quotes the place in that sence, but it may be the Apostle Paul and I may be both mistaken; I pray Sir make it so, and add it to the other mistakes.

You have been a great while shewing what laying of Sin upon Christ is not, and convincing this Dr. of Antinomi­anism, [Page 23] and want of Brains; I pray Sir now let us be the better for yours, and let us know the Truth in this great matter, and that we may not be liable to be led aside by such dark Larthorn Doctors as you make this to be.

I came on purpose to be a Guide to you, I know you are all at a loss in these Points.

Truth. Though our Sins were Imputed to Christ with respect to the Guilt thereof, so that he by the Fathers appointment, and his own con­sent, became obliged, as a Mediator, to bear the Punishment of our Ini­quities; and he did bear those Punishments to the full satisfaction of Ju­stice, and to our Actual Remission when we believe; nevertheless the filth of our Sins was not laid on Christ; nor can he be called the Transgressor, or was he in God's account the Blasphemer, Murderer, &c. D. W. p. 7.

That you may not be mistaken, I will tell you in several particulars what I hold. 1. Christ bare the Punishment of our Sins. D. W. p. 9.

Sir, I desire to remark upon your Concessions as you Name them.

I pray take your liberty as to that.

Punishment is such no otherwise than as the Wages of Sin, and where Sin is not charged there's no Wages due, and there­fore if Punishment be taken only as Suffering for Sin, it's no Pu­nishment but bare Sufferings. An Innocent Person may suffer, but none can be punished by justice but a nocent Person, that is so in the Eye of the Law that inflicts the Suffering.

2. Christ bare the Guilt of our Sins, which is that respect of Sin to the threatning of the Law, whereby there is an Obligation to bear the Punishment.

We have told you the Scripture every where says Christ bore our Sin. You say before, that our Sins were Impu­ted to Christ with respect to Guilt, as if they were not layed on the guilty. 2. We find God's People for whom Christ bore Sin, do often labour under Guilt of Sin. 3. Guilt of Sin is a re­sult of Sin, belongs to the Committer, and all the World is found Guilty before God; or else it is the Judicial Charge, or Accusa­tion by the Law, whereby the Sinner is made to deserve Punishment; thus it is with Thousands that have no sense of Guilt in Conscience. 4. Guilt in Conscience is taken off at the application of the satis­faction of Christ to the Soul, by the sence of his bearing Sin. 5. Guilt in Judgment is upon proof of the Charge or Confession of it, either from Conscience of the Fact in the Person that committed it, or [Page 24] from a submitting to the Charge in the place and stead of another, whereupon the Person becomes Guilty, i. e. blame-worthy, and faulty in the Eye of the Law. 6. You mistake in saying Guilt is that respect of Sin to the Threatnings of the Law, whereby there is an obligation to bear Punishment. Guilt is the just Charge of Sin, which is [...], a Transgression of the Preceptive part; it's Extrinsick to Sin, to suffer Punishment for Sin, and though they are relata by God's Constitution that where-ever there is Sin there must be Punishment, yet it's not so by necessity of Nature. 7. Hence obligation to Punishment is from the Will of the Law-giver, and the Nature of the Law; not from the Sinner; the Law hath tyed Sin and Punishment together, and it's not Sin to be obliged to Punishment, but it is for Sin; obligation to Punish­ment is part of the Wages of Sin, and not Sin in it self, nor the guilt of Sin; a Murderer that is cast, he is guilty before Sentence or Execution, not because the Law will Sentence him, but because he hath committed the Fact which the Law hath forbid, and therefore hath annexed a Penalty to it. There's a Privative Nature in Sin, which is a contrariety to the Goodness of the Law, which is the Fault, therefore the Law to avenge it self makes it worthy, or deserving such a Punishment, and upon Tryal binds over the Sin­ner to it; there's hardly to be found a difference between reatus culpae & poenae, as Dr. O. saith; but Sin committed or justly charged upon some account or other, is in it self by vertue of the Constitution of the Law an obligation to Punishment, being the Meritorious Cause thereof.

I own Christ was esteemed by Men a Transgressor, and Arraigned as such.

If it were only so, he bore Sin no otherwise than the Saints and Martyrs, who also were accounted Transgressors by Men, Arraigned and Condemned as such, but it seems you will not own him accounted a Transgressor by God, and therefore no Sin was laid upon him, nor any Punishment, and here you fall in round­ly with the Socinians.

We grant also that Christ's Sufferings were as Effectu­al to put away Sin, as if our very Sins had been transacted on him.

I doubt not but you will ascribe as much to your Gospel, as Paul did to his; there was never any Coyners of new Doctrine, (Papist, Quaker, Socinian or Arminian, all Well-wishers to your Divinity, in some part or other of it) but will still each of them cry up your Doctrine, and decry the Truth [Page 25] for Error; and this Truth of laying Sin on Christ, as vehemently as you, especially in the Sence that you do.

But I say he became obliged as Mediator to bear the Pu­nishment of our Iniquities.

If as Mediator, then to take up the difference between God and us, for it's Sin makes the difference and not punishment; this is but the effect of the difference, the High-priest, the Typi­cal Mediator, was to bear the Iniquities of the People, and offer a Sacrifice on which they were charged.

He did bear those Punishments to the full satisfaction of Justice.

Unless Sin be taken away in a Law sence, Justice is not satisfied, bearing Punishment only doth not satisfie for Sin, the Law will have the Sinner, or the Sin taken away; therefore the Damned must suffer to Eternity because they cannot take a­way Sin by Suffering, but Christ did more than suffer, he put an end to Sin by the Sacrifice of himself.

Yea, and to our Actual Remission when we believe.

It seems there's Fundamental Potential Remission be­fore; and I doubt you will not suffer this Remission to take place without a new Law and the Righteousness thereof.

The Real difference lyes in these things.

1. Whether Sin it self as to its filth and fault was transacted on Christ? This you affirm, and I deny.

2. Whether Christ was made and accounted by the Father the very Transgressor, the Adulterer, the Blasphemer? This you affirm, and I deny. D. W. p. 10.

You might have put the Questions into one, and sta­ted it as it lyes between the Apostle Paul and you.

Whether God Imputed Sin to Christ at all?

I go on to confirm my Positions.

1. To transact our Sins on Christ as opposed to Guilt, is impossible, for it would argue either a mistake in the Divine Mind to account him the Committer of our Sins, or a Propagater of our corrupt Qualities to him, which is impossible; and any other way besides Imputing the guilt there is none.

This Argument, I judge, is to prove both Positions. As to the First, it runs thus: That which is impossible cannot be done; but to transact Sin as to it's Fault, is impossible, Ergo. As to the Major, I judge the Impossibility is meant in respect of the Nature of God, or the Constitution of God, otherwise I know not why a Fault may not be taken away, as well as Obligation to [Page 26] Punishment; when as Fault is that for which a Man is obliged to bear Punishment: For if the Fault remain, the Punishment is still due.

The Minor you prove thus: It would argue a mistake in God, or suppose him a Propagator of Sin.

1. It doth argue a Mistake in you to say, that's transferred from us which was never in us. For the Obligation to Punishment in it's active consideration is subjectively in the Law, and that cannot be taken from it; it's the Debt which the Law owes to the Sinner, by reason of it's Sanction, and the Punishment is the Payment; 1 Joh. 3.3, 4. [...]. the Wages of Sin is Death. For Punish­ment is not the Sinners Debt, but the Law's Debt, and the Sinner's Due. The Sinner's Debt is, do­ing the Duty the Law requires. His Disobedience is an Of­fence to the Law, a Fault blamed by the Preceptive part of the Law; and this is Guilt, Reatus culpae, to which Meritum poenae doth by vertue of the Constitution belong. There's two respects in Sin. 1. To the preceptive part of the Law, and that is Fault. 2. To the Penal part, and that is Meritum. Now these by reason of the Justice of the Law, and the Connexion made by it's Institution between the Accusing and condemning part, are in­separable before God; and being but two different respects of the same individual Act, it is a Fault and a Merit, and a Merit because it is a Fault; the Merit is a Result from the Fault, and are such re­lata, that they cannot be parted in Judgment. Now then, will not your Argument rebound upon your self? Would it not argue a Mistake in God, to lay the Merit of Punishment upon a Person that hath not any meritorious Cause of it in no respect? If the Fault be not imputed, how can the Merit? There can be no Merit with­out a meritorious Cause, and this is our Sins, and not Christ's, by way of Perpretation. In laying Sin on Christ, there are these things. 1. The Spirit of God says it's Sin, and doth not con­found Sin and Punishment: And it's absurd if it should, for Punish­ment is not Sin. 2. It saith, It's our Sins, not Christ's. 3. That these Sins are Juridically imputed and accounted to Christ: The Payments by Christ's Sufferings is his own Money, not ours; the Debt is imputed, not the Payment: A Surety is charged with, and takes upon him the principal Debt, but doth not take Money from him to pay it; the Money is his own; the Debt is the Prin­cipal's transferred to him, but the Payment is the Surety's sub­jectively and properly: Therefore to say the Payment is imputed to the Surety is Nonsence. The Spirit of God speaks expresly, [Page 27] that our Sins were laid on Christ, no less than Three times in Isa. 53. and expressed by three different Words, [...], ver. 6. [...], ver. 11. [...], ver. 12. It's express, 1 Pet. 2.24. the Apo­stle plainly there speaking after the Prophet, says, He bore it as a Sin-offering, Heb. 9.28. Was made Sin, 1 Cor. 5.21. Therefore we neeed not fear to say, Christ bore our Sins, let the Sence be what it will which the Spirit means; it was certainly so, as to take away the Charge of Sin, which is Fault and Blame, from before God, 1 John 3.3, 4. To take it away as [...], which is so to take it away, as to set a Man right in the Eye of Justice.

Your next Branch of Proof to the Minor, is, That to impute Sin to Christ, would argue him a Propagator of Corrupt Qualities. What could be done or said more by a Socinian, to load the great Truths of the Gospel with reproachful Consequences. 1. Sin is no positive Quality as such, but only privative. 2. All Qualities of a pernicious Nature to the Sinner, consisting of Natural Causes, are Subjecta peccati, not Peccatum it self, and they are separable from Sin in it's Moral Consideration: There were in Christ him­self Effects of our Sins, in Infirmity, Sorrow, Reproach, &c. They were very uneasie Qualities, though not corrupt. 3. God himself tells us. He laid Iniquity upon him, and made him Sin, and yet saith Positively, He was no Committer of Sin. And you charge the Spirit of God with Nonsence and Contradiction. For you say, it's impossible to impute Sin to Christ any other way than punishing of him, it's to mistake, and make Christ the Commit­ter, which Punishment is not sin; therefore what the Spirit saith is false, Sin was not laid on Christ at all, and yet the Spirit speaks it expresly. 4. You will inferr these Absurdities. 1. That Sin cannot be laid on Christ but by Transfusion, wherein you deny Imputation. 2. That Christ must be corrupted thereby: Whereas the Spirit of God tells us, he bears Sin as a Lamb without Spot: You will have it, that he had the Macula fixed on him by bearing it. 3. You will have God, by laying Sin on Christ, to become a Propagator of Sin. The Spirit of God says, he appeared to take away our Sins, and in him is no Sin, 1 John 3.5. How audacious is our Carnal Reason, to set upon Divine Mysteries.

It was needless to the Ends for which our Sins were laid on Christ.

You should have said, what's needless. Your Argu­ment should have run thus, Laying Sins on Christ is needless to the ends for which they were laid on Christ; and therefore those Scrip­tures that say so, are needless.

Sins were laid on Christ, that he might make Atonement by suffering for them; and so release us who had transgressed.

Now, Sir, you say something, you speak like a Di­vine, if you can hold there. Now you own something laid on Christ besides Punishment; for the Atonement was made by being punished, and say well now, that Sin was laid on him, that he might make Atonement for them, viz. by being punished. For bearing Sin is one thing, and making Atonement is another, but are inseparable relata, and therein contraria affirmantiae.

Now Christ, by submitting to the Guilt as an Obligation to Punishment, according to the Terms of the Covenant of Redemption, was sufficient to this End, and all that was needful.

That Christ bore the Desert or Demerit of our Sin, which is done only by a Judicial Charge and Accusation in our stead, is sufficient. What is Sin after the Fact is committed, but reatus culpae? Guilt is the Fault declared and applyed somewhere in a way of Judicial Proceeding: And this is often the Conscience of Sin, and is not removed but by Faith on Christ crucify'd, who bore our Sins before God.

All that endangered us, was the Threatning of the Law, and the Punishment included in the Threat.

Where there is true Godly Sorrow, it's more upon this Account, that he hath sinned against a Holy God, and broke his holy, just and good Law, than for fear of the Threats of Wrath. I thought I had better understood the Nature of Sorrow for Sin, that it had been the nature of Sin in Contrariety to God, had more grieved than the Fear of Punishment.

The Obliquity of the Fact, as against the Precept, shall not hurt, where the Sanction of the Law is answer'd.

I think this is that you call Antinomianism with a Wit­ness; you shall hear of it again e're long; only observe, That this is as much a Doctrine of Licentiousness, as any you charge on me: Secure but your self from Hell, and you need not regard the preceptive part of the Law, you may live as you list. See how you'l clear your self, when you charge it for a great Crime upon me, in saying, Sin will do no hurt in some Sence, &c.

And he that suffers as Sponsor for another, need not sustain in himself the filthiness of the Crime, to make him capable of giving Sa­tisfaction, Gen. 44.13. Phil. 18.

No, that's true upon your Hypothesis, there's no need of a Sponsor; for the Filthiness of Sin is too foul for Christ to bear, the Sinner must be his own Expiator, and carry away his [Page 29] Filth himself; or if he keep it, it will not hurt. See 1 John 7.9.

This transacting of the Filthiness of our Sins on Christ is blasphemous.

Friend, that's a cruel Bomb to shoot at a good Man, to charge him with Blasphemy. But where's the Blasphemy, to say, Christ bore the Filth of Sin in a Sence. Is not Sin filthy under all Con­siderations? Doth not the Spirit of God call it filthy and abominable in all respects? 1. Is not the Guilt of Sin Filth and abominable in God's Sight? And is it not so, when it lies upon the Conscience? I think the Spirit of God represents it always as the greatest Foulness and Un­cleanness. I say, a Conscience polluted with Sin, to those that are de­filed and unbelieving, and can't by Faith fetch and derive cleansing Vertue from the Blood of Christ into their Consciences, to such nothing is clean, [...], Tit. 1.15. Now this is the very Rooot and Foundation of a Defilement: And what is it that takes it off, but Faith in the Sin-cleansing Vertue of Jesus Christ? The great Contrariety of Sin to the Holy Law, is the Filthiness of Sin. And the Apostle tells, Heb. 9.14. How our Con­sciences come to be purged from dead Works; it's no other way, than by the offering of Christ without Spot to God. This spot­less Sacrifice, whereon he bore Sin, and was not defiled: And here­by the Conscience of Sin, i. e. the Guilt of Sin, (which is no other than Sin charged upon the Conscience) is taken away; and thence the Levitical Services could not make any perfect, as pertain­ing to Conscience, but it's the Blood of Christ that sprinkles from an evil Conscience, Heb. 10.22. 2. A condemning Conscience, without which we stand but loathsomly before God; yea, while for want of Faith we apprehend God deals with us out of Christ, we are very loathsom, and all our Works and Services dead, God loaths and abhors them. Is not the Vertue of Christ's Blood com­pared to a Fountain to wash us in, and intended especially of Justi­fication and Pardon, and the Saints to betake themselves to it un­der the Notion of it's cleansing Vertue in that Sence? 1 John 1.7. Rev. 1.5. Guilt of Sin then is as great a Pollution as belongs to Sin: It's no other than Sin lying upon the Conscience with an Ac­cusation, 1 John 3.20, 21. Greg. Nysson saith, He bore [...], the Filth of our Sin. Dr. O. p. 42.

Again, Wherever Sin is to be purged out by Sanctification, it is to be rid away by Justification, but all Filth is to be rid by Sancti­fication, that indwells. Now it is manifest, that the cleansing Ver­tue of the Blood of Christ applyed by Faith, is the first Gospel-effectual Means of Sanctification; and it must be the great Cause [Page 30] of Mortification; wherein we are planted together in the likeness of his Death, Rom. 6. And what did Christ in his Death, but destroy the Body of Sin by carrying it away? 2 Tim. 1.10. He hath by carrying away sin, abolished Sin and Death, slain the Enmity that lay in Hatred of God, Pravity and Dominion of sin. Whence was it that David was cleansed from Blood-guiltiness? Was it not from it's being laid on Christ? Was it not that very Filthiness of his Sin? Psal. 51.14. Doth he not pray to God to be washed throughly from his sin, and to be cleansed from it? Was not that by the Application of the Blood of Christ? Doth he not mention all his Pravity, Original as well as Actual, from which he would be purged as with Hyssop, and made whiter than Snow? And wherein lies this Washing? Is it not in respect of sin? (not in respect of Punishment, he mentioneth not) he explains what he means, it is that radical Washing, ver. 9. Hide thy Face from my Sins, and blot out mine Iniquity, i. e. From the Face of God's Justice. Then fol­lows the Creation of a clean Heart; He gave himself for us to re­deem us from all Iniquity, Tit. 2.14. There is no Pravity, Defile­ment, Pollution of Sin what-ever, that is so but because of it's con­trariety to the preceptive part of the Law, must first have it's Foundation of cleansing from Christ's bearing of it away, and this Faith applying purifies the Heart from the indwelling Macula in us. Whence that Promise, Ezek. 36.25. The clean Water there is the Spirit working in Application of the Blood of Christ; and therefore Gospel-cleansing lies chiefly in Application of Promises, 2 Cor. 7.1.

He took care his Body should not see Corruption, Acts 2.3. he would much more abhor to take in our Pollution: He was holy, harmless, undefiled, &c.

All this we say over and over, that he bare Sin, but was not defiled with Sin, nor corrupted in his Nature; but the Spirit of God is not to be believed. See Christ's taking away of Sin by Atonement, is called [...], Heb. 1.3.

It was Condescension enough, that he agreed to be treated as a Sinner: But how odious is it to load him with Sin it felf! To spit that in his Face that the worst of Men abused him with; and it would justifie his Persecutors who punished him, if he was really the Person your Principles renders him to be.

The Spirit of God renders him to be the Person that my Principles renders him to be. It saith he bore our Sins in his Bo­dy on the Tree, the Lord laid Iniquities on him, he was made Sin for us, and yet how dare you reproach the Spirit of God in such a manner! To say, that it's an odious thing: To say, be bore the Load and Weight of all the Sins of the Elect; that it is spitting in [Page 31] the Face of Christ, doing that which the worst of Men did to him, and justifying his Murderers: I am surprized with great horrour to hear such things out of the Mouth of a Man that is called a Gospel Minister. I pray God give you Repentance, and lay not these things to your Charge.

But Sir, you have here declared your defiance of the Date of the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, and yet would pretend you hold that Doctrine by saying God laid the Punishment of Sin only upon Christ. The meer Punishment of Christ (I must tell you) was not the bearing our Sin; for the bearing the Punishment was the payment of the Debt, and was his Righteousness which is Imputed unto us: if Imputation of our Sins to Christ lay in nothing else, they were not Imputed at all to him; Punishment was laid upon him, and he bore it by way of Suffering in his Humane Nature, and was that Righteousness that is Imputed to us in Justification, the Argument against you is this:

That which is Imputed to us was not Imputed to Christ, but Pu­nishment of Christ to Satisfaction for our Sins, is his Righteousness Im­puted to us. Ergo, not the Imputation of our Sins unto him. If your rooted prejudices will suffer you to consider, I pray weigh well that Argument, you will have more by and by.

But you still say if Christ bore Sin he must be polluted with Sin. Ans. It argues not that Sin was his by perpetration or In­fusion, but only by Imputation, they were our Sins by Perpetrati­on and Inhesion, which he bore by Imputation: The Spirit of God tells us he was a Sinner in one respect, and no Sinner in another; as the Church of Smyrna was Poor in one respect, and Rich in another. Omnia diversa natura sua abstractâ sunt opposita; as Poverty and Riches, Sin and no Sin; tamen eidem attributa ratione tantum dissentiunt; as a Man may be Rich and Poor, Wise and Foolish in divers respects.

And as to the filthiness of Sin it could not stain him, he re­mained untouched in his Holy Nature, but yet I must tell you, as bearing Sin by the Sacrifices caused a Typical Uncleanness, inso­much as the Bodies were Burnt without the Camp, and they that Burnt them and gathered up the Ashes became Unclean; such a Judi­cial uncleanness was Jesus Christ our Sacrifice under, wherein he answered those great Types, and we are not without ample proof of it, especially from Heb. 13.11.

Arg. 2. Had he been Esteemed the very Transgressor, his Atonement had been unavailable, for he could not Atone for himself. D. W. p. 11.

You should have said, had he been the very Transgres­sor; he was a reputed Transgressor, and stood instead of the actual Transgressor; he therefore was a becoming High-priest, because he needed not to Offer for his own Sins, but did at once Offer for us when he Offered up himself, Heb. 7.25, 27. All the places you mention are against you, that especially, 1 Pet. 3.18. and that of Heb. 9.14. above all as we have shewed before.

Christ then suffered for his own Sins.

So far as they became his own by Imputation.

To conclude, because you will have it, that in pleading for the Imputation of our Sins to Christ, I must hold that Christ was the very Transgressor. See what I said: ‘There is a certain trans­acting of Sin on Christ, so real, that indeed a Believer though an Actual Transgressor is as absolutely and truely discharged of his Sins as if he himself had not committed them. As a Debtor when a Surety hath taken the Debt on him, and the Debtor re­ceives an Acquittance and Discharge, he is as free of the Debt now as if he never run into the Debt: So I say it is with a Be­liever, Christ being made a Surety of a better Testament, and thereby becoming really and truely the Debtor, instead of the Believer, he so bears all the Debts himself, that they are altoge­ther released and discharged, as if they had never been in Debt. Still I say, this hinders not, but there is an Acting of Sin, and Committing of Sin every day by a Believer, but still the vertue of Christ's Suretiship takes off the Sin as soon as it is committed; nay he hath a Proviso, or Stock in Bank to satisfie it as soon as it is Committed.’ Dr. Cr. p. 289.

If this be Mr. Antinomians Judgment, I see not but it is sound, and according to the Scriptures; and you have little reason to make such a noise as you have done, and load him so in­vidiously with your loathsom Consequences, and misrepresent him so hideously to the World, as if he were a Person of no Divinity, Logick, Religion, Brains, or common Sense; I must confess, I think you have given a great deal of Ground of just offence, in wresting the words and sence of so good a Man; besides your ta­king advantage to insinuate to us Errours; for I apprehend your Spleen is most especially vented at the Doctrine of Imputation, it's that which you principally aim at to Wound and cast to the Ground.

Laying Sin on Christ no other than that whereby Christ be­comes accountable to God for our Sins, and there is in it these things very easie and plain to be understood.

[Page 33]1. Christ's Offering himself freely to be accountable to God for our Sins; because none can be forced to be accountable for the de­faults of another. 2. His answering the Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver, the Judge of all therein, being called thereunto and accepted in so doing, in the room and stead of the Delinquents. 3. Hence it is for our Sins and not his own, that he is accountable. 4. Our Sins are the Material and Meritorious Cause of his Suffer­ings, which he takes upon him; our very Faults in non-conformity to the Law; our Sins in the delinquency, our very Sins in opposi­tion to Punishment, our Sins in their greatest foulness, under the greatest Aggravations, they are the very offending, meritorious Causes; and whereas when we are without Christ they are accoun­ted the offending and the meritorious Cause of Suffering to us; so Christ being substituted in our room, they are the very offending meritorious Causes of Suffering to him; Sin hath a double resp [...]ct as a Fault and Demerit, but as a fault is a demerit. To be ac­countable is to stand under the demerits of Sin; and indeed that is Guilt; or reatus culpae, which the Orthodox mean when they say Christ bare the guilt of Sin, and it's no other than the charge of Delinquency. Dignitas poenae & obligatio ad poenam is the same thing, and there's little weight in the distinction between Reatus Culpae and Reatus Poenae; for Reatus Culpae is nothing else but Dignitas Poenae propter Culpam. D. O. 280. And hence they say there's no diffe­rence between Guilt and the Sin it self; for Sin is no positive thing but privative, and that which is remaining besides the Physical Act of that which is a Moral Guilt, or just Charge of Abberration from the Rectitude and Duty required in the Law, for which Men must be accountable to God, and according to the sanction of the Law give satisfaction; and that is in this case by receiving the Wages of Sin, and in so doing the Payment is made.

And I shall now prove by many Arguments that it's our Sins, and our Sins in the highest degrees and aggravations that Christ was accountable to God for, and that he bore them in this sence, by way of Imputation, though none of the macula or stain by way of Inherent pollution or defilement fell upon him, nor could cleave unto him. And we defend the Position as the Spirit of God eve­ry where states. it. That it was Sin as [...] that Christ bore, and in bearing took away from before God, it's said to be laid on Christ as [...] and [...].

1. That which is the Radical Cause of God's displeasure a­gainst a Sinner was laid upon Christ to take away, but Sin was the Radical Cause of God's displeasure, Ergo, Sin in the radical Nature [Page 34] of it as it's a Fault, and blamed of God as such. Now obligation to Punishment is not the Cause of God's displeasure, but the effect of it; that which renders a Person abominable in the sight of God is Sin, as it's against the preceptive part of the Law: as to the Major it's plain, unless the Radical Cause of God's manifesting displeasure be taken away, God cannot be reconciled to us; it's called the Enmity, Eph. 2. even on God's part, which is upon the default of Sin, and it's Enmity on ours.

2. That which Christ bore in his Body on the Tree, was Sin it self, our Blame as well as Demerit; for there's no demerit where there's no blame: He that suffers for a fault bears the fault; the fault stands and claims the Meritoriousness of Sufferings. The A­postle is express in it, That he bore our Sins on the Cross, [...], 1 Pet. 2.24. This is the Punishment only you will say; but the Holy Ghost will tell you he bore [...] in the Nature of it; [...] is not the Punishment of Sin, but Sin it self, 1 John 3.4. [...], and mark what follows, ver. 5. and ye know that he was manifest, [...], that he might bare away Sin in bearing it; and notwithstanding this, (saith he) there was no Sin in him; this doth plainly evince that the Anomy of Sin was accounted to him.

3. That the fault of Sin is separable from the Person of the Sin­ner, but can never be separated from the demerit without payment. David's Person is freed from the fault of Murder, but his Murder cannot be freed from the desert of Death: Now that which Christ did especially, was to make the Elect without fault before God, to take off that relation which they had to the Law, lying as to the blame of it. God's Reconciliation to the Persons of Sinners is by taking a­way the fault of Sin before God, and this is done by the Person of Christ bearing Sin.

4. That in a Sinner which is to be pardoned whenever he receives Christ, was [...]aid on Christ; but the fault of Sin is to be pardon­ed whenever he receives Christ; there's the least part of pardon that frees only from Punishment, but forgives not the Fault or Of­fence; just as a King's Reprieving a Felon, but not Pardoning him. To save him from the Gallows, but charge him never to see his Face.

5. That without the taking away of which the Conscience of a Sinner can never be purified from Guilt, was certainly laid upon, and taken away by Jesus Christ, Heb. 9, 14. But the Fault of Sin is such without the taking away of which before God, the Consci­ence can never be purified from Guilt; Ergo, the fault of Sin was [Page 35] laid upon Jesus Christ to take it away: let a Man be sure he should never see Death, yet if the fault lye upon him, there will still be Guilt; his Conscience will accuse, he cannot have Peace towards God.

6. If the Wages of Sin be in the very Nature of Sin, viz. Spiritual Death and it be inseparable from [...], or Sin it self; then that Death cannot be removed without taking away the Sin before God; but the Wages of Sin, which is Death, is inseparable from the Na­ture of Sin in the Fault before God; &c. Ergo, he that by Death slays our Death, slays and carries away the Sin which is this Death. The Apostle to the Rom. 7. calls the Body of Sin the Body of Death, 2 Tim. 1.10.

7. That which Essentially belongs unto Christ's Office as Media­tor, must be performed by Christ, but bearing our Sins so as to take them away before God, is Essentially belonging to Christ's Office as Mediator. It's not the Essential part of a Mediator to bear the Punishment of the wronged Party, but to reconcile the Parties at variance; he may save one Party from utter Ruine by bearing Punishment, yet cannot reconcile them without taking away all matter of offence; but it is the fault of Sin that is the cause of variance; God hates it, and the Sinner loves it. God is not offended at the Creature because he must be punished, but because it's he who hath broke his Law, therefore he punish­eth him.

8. If the Creature will never be Reconciled to God till it hath some prospect of God's being reconciled first, by Christ taking away the fault of Sin before God, then Christ bore it away; but the Creature will never be reconciled to God without this prospect; Ergo: for the Ministry of Reconciliation as to its Efficacy is found­ed upon this, 2 Cor. 5. And it's there described to be God be­ing in Christ first Reconciling the World to himself; and how is he said to be so, but by making Christ Sin for us who knew no Sin.

9. All the Sin-offerings of the Law hold forth Christ's bearing Sin; if you consider their Names, the proper Sin-offering was called [...], Levit. 4.3. It was called a Sin because made Sin for us Typically, as Christ Really, by Imputation, the [...], the Trespass or Guilt-offering was for Sin, that for the whole Congregation was such, Lev. 4.15. So the Burnt-offering was designed to the taking away of Sin by bearing it, that Called [...], and the Peace-offering, [...], was in order to the making Peace and Reconciliation for the Sinner; therefore in the Consecration of all [Page 36] these, there was the charging them with Sin by the laying on of the hands of them that brought them, to be Offered up for them, Levit. 1.3. The Hebrew Doctors say, all Oblations of Beasts which particular Persons Offer of Debt, or voluntarily, they lay hands on them, and so it was on the daily Sacrifice, as Mr. A. on Numb. 28.2. saith, signifying that it was constituted instead of the Sinner, and the Sacrifice placed in the Sinners Room, thus charg­ed with his Sins, the Priest was to offer to make Atonement by, to Expiate and make Reconciliation in regard of Man's Sin, and God's Wrath for the same. That these Sacrifices were Types of Christ, our Sacrifice in beating Sin, appears abundantly, Heb. 9.28.

Neither do we say, that this bearing of Sin by Christ doth free a Person from being formally a Sinner, but because we are for­mally Sinners, therefore our Sins are thus born to bring us to God, 1 Pet. 3.18. The Physical Substratum of Sin remains, and in us; yea, the Moral macula in pravity and obliquity to be gradually re­moved in the Application of Christ's Blood, by the Spirit of Holi­ness; but yet the [...] before God must be taken away, which is the fault blamed by the Law, [...] and [...].

Dr. O. of Justification, p. 287. proves Sin was laid on Christ as to the Guilt, which we have shewed, and is either the Sin it self, or is so conjoined with it, that it cannot be separated; where there is a demerit there is a fault; if Christ had a demerit to Sufferings it was for Sin, though ours, and subjective in us, which his bear­ing Sin by Imputation always supposeth. His Arguments are these.

1. ‘If Guilt of Sin was not Imputed to Christ, Sin was not Imputed to him in any sence, for the Punishment is not Sin.’

2. ‘There can be no Punishment but with respect of the Guilt of Sin, personally Contracted or Imputed; Guilt alone gives what's materially evil and afflictive, the formal Nature of Pu­nishment; and what is Guilt but Sin manifest by Conviction, whereof the Sinner is charged in foro Dei, or in foro Conscientiae. The first kind Christ took off by bearing it, immediately the other is removed by Application in Believing.’

3. ‘ Christ was made a Curse for us, Gal. 3.13, 14. but the Curse of the Law respects the Guilt of Sin only, [ i. e. a Per­son manifestly faulty, and a Delinquent to the Law.]’

4. ‘The Express Testimonies of Scripture unto this purpose cannot be avoided, Isa. 53.6. Psal. 32.5, &c.’

[Page 37]5. ‘This was represented in all the Sacrifices of old, especially in the Great Aniversary Expiation with the Ordinance of the Scape-Goat.’

6. ‘Without supposition of this, it cannot be understood how Christ should be our [...], or suffer [...].’

‘He likewise vindicates the Imputation of Sin to Christ in the sense of Guilt opposed to Punishment; from all these odious Consequences that you would lay upon it; such as this: That if our Sins be Imputed to Christ, then Christ is a Sinner and Child of the Devil. A. That which the Scripture affirms is, that he was made Sin for us; this the Greek Expositors, Chrisostom, Theophyl, Oecumen. and many others take for a Sinner, but all affirm that denomination to be taken from Imputation only, he had Sin Imputed to him, and underwent the Punishment. 2. This Imputation did not carry with it any thing of Pollution and Filth of Sin to be communicated by Transfusion. 3. The De­nomination of an Idolater, Drunkard belongs not to him upon this account, &c.’

‘In Sin there are three things. 1. The Offence of God, which is the fault. 2. Obligation unto Eternal Punishment, which is the Guilt. 3. The Stain or Pollution of the Soul, the Inherent Vici­ous Inclination of the Soul. Sin doth not remain in those that are Justified in the two first respects, of Fault and Guilt, both which are taken away by the Death of Christ. But Sin doth re­main in the Regenerate according to the third respect; viz. the Vitious Quality and Corruption thereof, inherent in the Soul.’ Pemble of Just. p. 183. fol.

Pinch. saith, 2 Cor. 5.21. ‘The meaning of these words, is not that he was made Sin for us but as a sacrifice for sin, &c.’ Nor­ton against Pinch. p. 53.

Answ. ‘He was made sin for us, as we are made Righteousness, i. e. by Judicial Imputation, without the Violation, yea, with the Establishing of Justice; he was made sin as he was made a Curse, Gal. 3.13. the Greek word used here and there are the same: But he was made a Curse by Judicial Imputation, because he was the sin-offering in truth; therefore he was made sin by real Im­putation, as the Legal Sin-Offering was made sin by Typical Imputation. Likewise in Vindication of Isa. 53.6. from Pin­chon's false Glosses, who used this Argument against Imputation; Christ's sacrifice was Effectual to procure Atonement, therefore sin was not imputed to him.’ p. 4. § 46.

‘Here is a meer non-sequitur; nay the contrary consequence is true Christ appeared to put away Sin, Heb. 9.26, 28. was once Offered to bear the Sins of many, ver. 28. The Greek word used here by Paul, and elsewhere by Peter, 1 Pet. 2.24. signifieth to take, carry, bear up on high, and that so as to bear away; and in Allusion to the whole Burnt-offering, —the Person that brought the Sacrifice was to put his Hand upon the Head there­of — The Apostle whilst he was speaking of the Antitype, chuseth out such a word to express Christ's bearing of sin, to teach us thereby that Christ did both carry up and bear the load of our sins, Imputed to him on the Cross, and also bear them clear away: And thus Isaiah, Paul and Peter sweetly agree toge­ther, and Interpret one another, as concerning Christ's bearing the Imputation of Guilt and Punishment of sin.’ See more in his Refutation of that Socinian.

‘I do not see how he could be said to bear the Punishment of sin, (that being strictly taken) if first he should not take its Guilt: We all grant Christ's sufferings to be Penal, but how could they have been so without Guilt? Therefore having no Guilt of his own, he must be lookt upon as assuming ours, upon which he might be said properly to undergo Punishment: And he also vin­dicates, 2 Cor. 5.21. shewing that his being made sin, is his vo­luntary susception of the sinners Guilt.’ Dr. Jacomb on Rom. 8. p. 490.

‘ Etsi Peccatum interdum vocatur Victima ex Hebreor. Idiotissimo, &c. yet the reason of the Antithesis here requires that Christ should rather be said to be made Sin for us, i. e. the sinner, not in himself, but from the Guilt of all our sins Imputed to him, of which thing that pair of Goats was a Figure, Levit. 16. Beza on 2 Cor. 5.21.’

‘ Quemadmodum Christus [...], coram Deo pec­catum nostrum & Execrationem sustinuit, non fictè sed reverà; ita fi­delis fiunt Justitia Dei, i. e. Justi in conspectu Dei, &c. i. e. As Christ being Righteousness and Holiness himself, bore our Sin and Curse before God, not feignedly but really; so the Faithful are made the Righteousness of God.’ Camerar. upon the same place.

‘It is of singular Consolation so to Cloath Christ with our sins, and to wrap him in my sins, thy sins, and the sins of the whole World. And so to behold him bearing our Iniquities; for the beholding him after this manner, shall easily vanquish all the Fantastical Opinions of the Papists concerning Justi­fication [Page 39] by Works; for they do imagine by a certain Faith formed and adorned with Charity, sins are taken away, and Men are justified before God; and what is this but to unwrap Christ, and strip him quite out of our sins, to make him Innocent, and to charge and overwhelm our selves with our own sins, and to look upon them not in Christ but in our selves? yea, what is this but to take Christ clean away, and to make him unprofitable to us?’ Luth. on Gal. 3.13.

— ‘Let us receive this most sweet Doctrine, and full of Com­fort, with Thanksgiving and assured Faith, which teacheth, that Christ being made a Curse for us, ( i. e. a sinner subject to the Wrath of God,) did put upon him our Person, and laid our sins upon his own shoulders, saying, I have committed the sins which all Men have committed; therefore he was made a Curse indeed according to the Law, not for himself, but for us; for unless he had taken upon himself my sins, and thine, and of the whole World, the Law had had no right over him; which condemn­eth none but sinners only, and holdeth them under the Curse; but because he had taken upon him our sins, not by constraint, but of his own good will, it behoveth him to bear the Punishment and Wrath of God; not for his own Person, which was Just, but for our Person.’ Fol. 140.

‘Spanhem. saith, Culpam & Poenam esse [...], adeo (que) se mutuo ponere & tollere, nec illam dari sine abnoxitate ad istam, nec istam sine retentione illius, absurdum est esse hominum culpae omnis & pro­priae & Imputatae expertem poenae ulli addici. The sum whereof is, It is absurd to say, that a Man can be void of his own sin, or the sin of another, and yet Condemned to any Punishment.’ Spanhem. Dub. Evang. pars tert. p. 117.

DEBATE III. Of the Discharge of the Elect from Sins upon their be­ing laid on Christ.

GEntlemen, you may remember what Point was discoursed the last time we met in this Conference: now Mr. An­tinomian [Page 40] is come, I pray let us proceed in order and method, and if you please, I will propound the subject of our Discourse, because I would have it to be such as may lead to discover the Errours of the Antinomians, and if it be possible to convince this Gentleman whom I take to be so deep­ly immers'd in them.

I remember you have Charged him with some already, how far he is guilty, we leave every Man to his own Judgment, to think as matters of proof doth evince: It's not a practice to subscribe our Names to commend Truth, or condemn Errour. Have you any more Errours to Charge him with.

Yes Sir, very foul ones, I will Name you one, and it is this, he holds,

That the very Act of God's laying Sin on Christ upon the Cross, is the very Actual Discharge of all the Elect from all their Sins.

Are you sure, 1. That this is my Opinion? And, 2. That if it be, it is an Errour? It may be there may be such an ambiguity in the terms of the Question, that you may un­derstand them in one sence and I in another, the greatest, I judge, lyeth in Actual Discharge. But I pray make proof of your Charge first, and then we will endeavour to find out the true matter in Debate, and discuss the things in difference; it may be you mi­stake me.

This is your declared Opinion, that runs as a Line thorow all your Discourses, and is the Foundation you Build most upon.

I say all the weight, and all the Burthen, and all that very sin it self is long ago laid upon Christ; and that laying of it upon him, is a full Discharge, and a general Release and Acquittance unto thee, that there is not any one sin now to be charged on thee. Did not you speak these words in a Sermon you Preached, you know where, upon Isa. 53.6. D. C. p. 298.

Yes, I did speak these words; but you deal with me as you always have been wont to do, you rehearse only part of my words, and conceal or take no notice of such Expressions as may make my true meaning manifest.

‘I was speaking to that place, Rom. 8. It is God that justifies, who is he that condemns? I said the same God that justifies, will not eat his own words, and pass Sentence of Condemnation up­on a Person that hath received the Sentence of Absolution alrea­dy: No, you will say, God doth not Condemn, but he will let Sin be charged upon the Spirit of a Man; doth not he then Sentence him to be unjust? Answ. There be divers Condemna­tions: Condemnation in Sentence, and Condemnation in Execu­tion. [Page 41] Condemnation in Sentence is the pronouncing such a Per­son guilty. The other is the Execution of Punishment deserved for this guilt, and it's but an effect of Condemnation, rather than Condemnation it self; so far as God charges fault upon a Person, so far he condemns that Person; so that if God should charge a Person as faulty, how can you believe still that this Person is manifested and pronounced just by God? I beseech you stop your Ears against the Quirks of Satan, and of your Hearts deceived by him, clamouring still to you, that Sin lyes upon your own Spirits. It is but the Voice of a Lying Spirit in your own Hearts, that saith, That you that are Believers have yet Sin wasting your Consciences, and lying as a Burden too heavy for you to bear, [now comes in the words which you rehearsed] I say all the weight, and all the burden, and all the very sin it self, &c.’ Dr. Cr. p. 292. Now I pray judge whether this Gentleman hath dealt fairly with me.

No indeed, I must needs say he hath not; for you see he speaks not of the Elect indefinitely; but of Believers, and is it not of the Devil that any true Believer lyes under Conscience-wasting sins? And was not all the sins of the Elect laid long ago upon Christ, in full Discharge of every Believer? And is not eve­ry Believer bound in Duty to believe it so?

You teach that the Elect are Justified before they do believe; otherwise till such Believing, the Person of the Elect doth bear his own Transgression, and is Chargeable for them. D. Cr. p. 616, 617.

‘Sir, I was preaching from 1 John 2.1, 2. and was shewing Faith is the Fruit of our Union with Christ, and prov'd it from, John 15. I am the Vine, and ye are the Branches; and I shewed that there must be a Union to Christ before the Branch could bring forth Fruit; and that Fruit is Faith, and proceeds from our Radical Union with Christ. I also alledged, Col. 3. Your Life is hid with Christ in God, &c. And inferred that the Life of every Elect Person hath a Being in Christ before he doth believe; believing therefore doth not produce a new Life that was not before, [ i. e. Fundamentally and Efficaciously to the producing of Faith,] but it makes that Life that was before an Active Life, or is an Instrument by which that Life which was hid in Christ, doth now after believing become an Active, and Ap­pearing Life in this Person.’ So that all that can be made of this, is that till believing there is no Life and Activity in the Person that is Elected, his Life is in Christ, and was in Christ, and [Page 42] reserved in Christ for him till the time of Believing; and then doth he, the Elect Person become Active in Life when Christ doth give him to believe actually. D. C. 615.

And do you Mr. Neonom. reckon this false Doctrine, I wonder what kind of Gospel you Preach; I am much deceived, if this be not true Gospel Doctrine, and so strongly Built that no Sophi­stry, or all the Gates of Hell will never shake. I see every thing is not false Doctrine which you are pleased to call so.

Truely now it plainly appears that I am not mistaken in Charging Calvinists with Antinomianism, if all be of this Gentleman's Opinion.

But Sir, if you be pleased to give me leave, I will pro­ceed in the further account of my Discourse. ‘I shew'd the dan­gerous Consequences that must follow this Principle, that there is no Justification, [ i. e. Fundamentally] and Union at all be­longing unto Elect Persons, till they do Actually believe in Christ. I say if Persons are not United unto Christ, and do not partake of Justification before they do believe, but that believing is the In­strument by which they are first United. 1. That this in some respect would be bringing to Life a Covenant of Works, Do this and Live; whereas the Covenant of Grace runs upon contra­ry terms, Live and do this: God in the Covenant of Grace gives Life first, and doing comes from Life.’

2. ‘If there must be our Act of Believing before our participa­ting of Christ, then those Sins that were laid upon Christ, and taken away from the Elect, [i. e. in foro Dei] are returned back again— I say, if there must be believing before there be Union with, or Interest in Christ, it must necessarily follow the Person doth bear his own Transgression, is chargeable for them, and Imputed to him— Hence,’

3. ‘If they bear their own Sins, till they Actually Believe, there must be an Hatred of God to such Persons till they Believe Actu­ally, [which is Death,] and a Person may perform a Vital Act in a state wherein he is Actually Dead, and at the same time.’

4. ‘This must follow, that there's Believing before Union with Christ, and then there must be some other Root from which this Fruit of Faith doth spring; and it's said Heb. 12. expresly, Christ is the Author of our Faith. I have received this Principle meerly for the vindication of the Glorious Priviledges which are proper and peculiar to Christ alone, and therefore refer the be­ing of Faith it self to Christ; to this end I deliver, that Elect Persons have a participation and share in Christ himself, even be­fore [Page 43] they do believe; neither would I thereby diminish the Pre­rogative of Believing; for there are glorious things done by Faith in Believers: God hath honoured it above all meer Creatures in the World; he hath made it the Conduit-pipe for the con­veyance of all Peace and Comfort; nay of all that strength which believers have all their Lives; no Faith, no Comfort, no Faith no Peace of Conscience, no Faith no Pleasure to walk with God— The Soul lyes in Darkness while in Unbelief. But still that which is proper and peculiar to Christ alone, is not to be a­scribed to Believing.’ D. Cr. p. 616, 617, 618.

Mr. Neonom. We shall be the better able to take our measures, if you will be pleased to state this Point aright, and tell us what we may receive for undoubted Truth, and what is to be Ana­thematized for Errour in your Judgment.

I'le tell you then first what is Truth.

Truth. The Atonement made by Christ by the Appointment of God, is that for which alone the Elect are pardoned, when it is applyed to them. D. W. c. 3. p. 15.

Pray Sir give me leave to make my Remarks as you dictate, because my Memory is but short.

1. You grant then that there is a compleat Atonement wrought, finished and accepted by God; if so, there is a Fundamental Life of Justification laid up and reserved for them in Christ.

2. That this precedes their Actual Justification by Faith.

3. That this influenceth to Justification by Faith and is objective to Faith, and Meritorious of Faith, and of the Work of the Spi­rit working Faith.

But the Elect are not immediately pardoned, upon Christ's being appointed to suffer for them, nor as soon as the Atonement was made.

The Question is, Whether there is not upon Christ's Atonement Pardon with God that he may be feared? Or whether there be not a Life laid up for them in Christ which needs no ad­dition to it? There is a difference between Pardon and Pardoned; one is the Abstract, and the other the Concrete. We say where there is Atonement for any, there is Pardon; but it follows not that because there is Pardon for any, that therefore they are pardoned; there may be a Pardon Sealed for a Traytor by the King, and yet he not pardoned, but the Law proceeds against him, till the Par­don is sent down and read in Court. So the Pardon is certain and finished for all the Elect, but they have not the particular Par­dons taken out, nor pardoned till they believe.

Nor is that Act of laying Sins on Christ, God's forgiving Act by which we are personally discharged.

I doubt you are too presumptuous, to prescribe to God which shall be his forgiving Acts, and which not; if God's laying Sin on Christ be not of a pardoning and forgiving Nature to us, I know not what it was, did he not do it as a God pardoning Iniquity, Transgression and Sin? was it not his casting our Iniqui­ties behind his Back? And is it not this Act of God which reacheth every Elect Person unto Actual Pardon and Forgiveness? Yea, are we not Justified by this Act of God apprehended and ap­plyed by Faith? For is not an Act of God removing Sin from us, and laying them on a Surety, a Pardoning Act.

I pray Sir deliver your self more distinctly, for you do darken and confound things extreamly.

I will tell you what is not in Dispute between us in diverse particulars, that you may not take up a wrong sense. 1. The Questi­on is not, Whether Christ made a full Atonement for Sin.

Give me but the right scent of you (which is hard to keep, you make so many banks and turns) and I will follow you as close at the Heels as I can. You grant Christ made full Atone­ment for Sin; there's Pardon in that Atonement without Question for all God's Elect. Atonement always carries Pardon in it as its formal Nature, or else it's no Atonement.

2. Nor whether that shall in time be applyed to the Elect for their Actual Remission as the Effect of it? D. W. p. 16.

Then there is Atonement wherein is Pardon eventually certain; i. e. shall certainly be applyed, and being applyed is actu­al Remission as the Effect; therefore this Atonement is the Remissi­on, as the Cause and as the Object to be applyed.

3. Nor whether we be so far Released thereupon, as that God can demand no Atonement from any who shall submit to the Gospel way of Application of it.

It seems then if they will not submit to the Gospel way of Application, God can demand some other Atonement from them. I never understood before that the Suffering of the Damned was Atonement; for where there's Atonement God is at last ap­peased, but he will never be appeased toward the Damned. 2. You said but now that the application of the Atonement to the Elect in time should be (I understood you) certain, but now you make it only conditional, in case of their submission to the Gospel way of Application.

Nor 4thly, Whether the Law be answered, and God's Ho­nour so vindicated thereby, that the Sins of Men cannot hinder an Offer and Promise of Forgiveness and Life.

There's a great Theological Intriegue here, we must endeavour to unravel it. What do you mean by answering the Law, is it by Active or Passive Obedience, or both? and for whom? for some absolutely or conditionally? you tell us of a conditional Atonement, and such an Atonement the Scripture is a stran­ger to.

2. You would have us to understand the end and use of Atone­ment is to fence and secure God against his Law, that so he might be at liberty to save Men; this is to make an Atonement to Sin, and not for Sin; your suggestion is, that God cannot in Honour offer Life and Salvation till his Law be vindicated, i. e. I suppose he took out of the way, and abolished that Law, so another Law more practicable might be set up in the room of it; this is a fine way of vindicating a Law, to Abrogate it.

Nor whether, when we are Pardoned, the whole Merito­rious Cause of Pardon be that Atonement, and what is required of Sin­ners is only a meetness to receive the Effects of it.

What do you mean by the whole Meritorious Cause? Do you exclude Christ's Active Obedience from the Meritorious Causes? And do you mean the Merit of Satisfaction or Procure­ment? There's a great deal of difference in the Case before us; and what is the meetness? whether it be not a meetness of Congrui­ty, if not of Condignity? And whether this meetness be not of the Effects of Christ's Merits, and if not from what other Cause it ariseth?

Nor whether this Atonement is the only way of Forgiveness which we can apprehend?

I had thought a meetness to be forgiven, had been with you one way to be forgiven, which you make to be distinct from Atonement, and the Meritorious Cause of Forgiveness.

Now Sir, you say these things are not the Question, but they are questionable to me; you might have told us of a Thousand more Questions which are not ours; for there is no one thing but in genere disparatorum is separate from all other things in the World. But after, Sir, you have freed our Brains from the mixture of all Impertinent Questions, I pray put your Finger upon the very Spot.

The Real Difference, lyes in two Things.

[Page 46]1. Whether the Elect were Actually discharged of all their Sins at the time that Christ made Atonement? D. W. p. 16.

The Question is, whether a Believer is not to look up­on the laying of his Sins on Christ his full Release; for I speak of an Elect Believer; I say not that any other can, whether Elect or no; for all the burden and load of Sin was long ago laid on Christ, it is not now to do.

Having spoken to the Question before, I insist now only upon this, Whether the very Act of laying Sin upon Christ on the Cross, be the discharge of the Elect from all Sin?

You state your Questions still with great Ambiguity; for what mean you by the Act of laying Sin on Christ? The laying Sin on Christ must suppose and imply all things that conduced to the making him a compleat Sacrifice for Sin, God's Acts and his own: on God's part it's to be supposed there was not only a charge of Christ, but a discharge on Christ's part; not only a Subjection to the Charge, but a Suffering by way of Satisfaction; not only an undertaking of the Debt, but a payment; I suppose you mean, whether the Atonement that Christ made was in any sence a dis­charge unto the Elect; for no wise Person will give a Discharge to a Debtor till the Money be paid, or Suretiship accepted; now then we distinguish of Pardon, it was perfect and compleat by way of Impetration for all the Elect, but it hath not an Actual Applica­tion till the Persons are in being to whom it is to be applyed; and that Application in regard of the time of their Lives, is according to the dispensation of Grace. Now all this you seem to grant, and need not put to any further Question; you say Christ made full Atonement for Sin, and it shall be certainly applyed; you say only that a Sinner is not discharged till Application: we distin­guish of Discharge. 1. There's that which is Vertual and Funda­mental, and Real in Christ; or else he could not have rose; for the Charge upon him was our Sins, and he must have a Discharge as a Surety; and it was the Elects Discharge in the Mind of God and of Christ, and really transacted. But 2ly, There's a personal sensible Discharge, which is at or by Application.

Now then in the same sence that Christ bore our Sins by Impu­tation, as a Representative, in that sence we were Discharged; for the Discharge must be as large and full as the Charge, to the very Person of Christ, and all he undertook for, or else he is bearing Sin still, and the Sins of some of the Elect must be still upon him. And 3ly, If Christ obtained what he bore our Sins for, then he had a Discharge not only for his own Person, but for all he under­took [Page 47] for and represented; and Christ having made good and full payment, cannot remain undischarged, for he finished the work which his Father appointed him to do.

But we can claim no Interest in his Atonement till we Be­lieve.

A Sinner's first Ground of Claim is the Promise and free Offer of Christ in the Gospel, and Faith is a laying hold upon him, and receiving of him in whom is full Atonement and Par­don. It is one thing to have Jus ad rem, and another to have Jus in re; a Child new Born, or to be Born Heir of an Estate, hath a good Right to the Inheritance, else he could not be Heir, which is previous and lyes dormant until the time of Claim and Possession, and therefore the Apostle seems to speak in this way of Allusion, Eph. 1.11. He saith, In whom we have obtained an Inheritance, [...], and it's grounded upon what he said, ver. 7. in whom we have Redemption. And Dr. Goodwin saith, ‘That the Apostle speaks not there of the Redemption that we have here, [ i. e. the Fruits of Redemption] but of the Work of Redemption which Christ himself hath wrought, which is the cause of all the Re­demption we receive. And 2dly, We have Redemption in Christ as in a common Person; and we have it not only when it is ap­plyed to us, but we have it in him as we had Condemnation in Adam before we were Born into the World; so we had Redemp­tion in Christ when he dyed.’ So Dr. Goodwin on Eph. 1.

It was not that Will or Purpose of God, or Christ, that the laying our Sins on Christ should be the Immediate Discharge of the Elect, John 6.40. 1 Pet. 1.2. D. W. p. 17.

It was the Will and Purpose of God and Christ, that upon Christ's Satisfaction for Sin he should have an immediate Discharge, and all the Elect Vertually and Really in him, a gene­ral Discharge, but not manifested, and personally applyed to particular Persons, and in this sence the Elect are Discharged at and by Application; and the places mentioned hold forth no more than this; and this is all the Dr. saith, That the Church had a general Discharge in Christ, not a particular Application till Being.

This overthrows the whole Scheme so wisely contrived for the distribution of the Effects of his Death.

It may overthrow your Scheme, but it overthrows no true Scheme of the Gospel Mystery.

Things are so adjusted, that forgiving the Elect should be [Page 48] the Effect of Christ's Kingly Office as well as his Priestly Office, Acts 5.31. 1 Cor. 6.11. Acts 26.18.

Christ wrought out our Forgiveness by way of Atone­ment as a Priest, and God was Atoned and Appeased thereby; and therein he also Gloriously Triumphed in his Kingly Office, spoil­ing Principalities and Powers, Triumphing over them on the Cross, Col. 2.14. And through Death he destroyed him that hath the Power of Death, even the Devil, Heb. 2.14. In that place, Christ is meant in all his Offices; first as a Priest entred into the Holiest of all, Heb. 4.14. Application is by vertue of his Intercession to ob­tain the Ends of his Death; likewise as a Prophet he teacheth by his Spirit and Gospel, the Promise of Eternal Life, and the whole Mystery of his Incarnation, and Sufferings, and Exaltation; he as a King Conquers and Subdues the Hearts of Sinners to himself, and gives forth the Promise of the Father, and hence there comes the Application of Pardon, and that Life laid up and hid in himself, Colos. 3.1, 2, 3. And all the places mentioned by you, speak but of our receiving Forgiveness, so all the Offices of Christ have the Honour due unto them, when we were Enemies we were Reconciled by the Death of his Son, Rom. 5.10. Reconciliation was by his Atonement; and therefore the Apostle saith, ver. 11. not only so, but through Jesus Christ we have now received the Atonement; viz. through all Christ, in all his Offices; it's one thing to make Atone­ment, and for God to be reconciled to us; that is the accomplishment of the Reconciliation of God to the Elect, considered as Sinners: and another thing to Reconcile us, which is done by the Gospel Mi­nistry, whereby also we receive the Atonement. Dr. Davenant having shew'd many ways of Redemption, saith, ‘ Ʋltima & unica ratio nos redimendi, est ea quae fit per modum Justitiae, &c. The last and only way of Redemption, is that which was by way of Justice all our Debts being paid by our Surety Jesus Christ; which price being paid, the great Debt is discharged, 1 Pet. 1.18. Christ a­verts the Wrath of God from us, by undergoing the Punishment undue to him, to free us from our Debt, Gal. 3.13. — And here it is to be observed, that although the Devil do detain us Cap­tives, yet the price of our Redemption, viz. The Blood of Christ, was Offered in satisfaction to God, not to the Devil, &c. Deo satisfactum & expiata sunt peccata nostra. Dr. Davenant on Colos. 1.14.’

Arg. 3. By the opposite Errour the Elect would have been discharged if Christ had never risen again.

We excepted against this Quirk before, as if any Man understood not by laying Sin on Christ, all things that concern the satisfaction to be made; speaking of things by Synechdoches and Metonimy's as the Scripture doth, mentioning sometimes the Blood of Christ, sometimes his Body, for all the satisfaction of Christ by Sufferings, and by Metonymies the Cross of Christ for his Sufferings on the Cross. Secondly, Christ's Satisfaction had never been compleated if he had never rose from the Dead, and then we had been still in our Sins, 1 Cor. 15. and 1 Pet. 1.3.

But let your Supposition go, (though no such thing is to be sup­posed) make what you can of it; and observe, I pray, was not the Sins of Believers under the Law Actually taken away before Christ either Dyed or Rose again? I say if a Creditor do accept of an Insolvent Person for Paymaster, and Cancel the Debtor's Bond, the said Creditor cannot recover his Debt of the Principal, though it may affright him, fearing it is not Cancelled; there's nothing truer than that the Hand-writing of the Law that was against us, which was contrary to us, was taken away and Nailed to the Cross, Col. 2.14. Dr. Davenant after a long Explanation of the Text, saith, ‘In all these words this one thing is shewed, that by vertue of the Passion of Christ dying upon the Cross, the Damning Power of the Moral Law was taken away, and all the Rites of the Ceremonial Law were at once abrogated. The Hand-writing of the Law bound us to Obedience, and bound us over to Pu­nishment for Non-performance thereof; Christ therefore our Surety, by performing that exact Obedience which the Law required, and undergoing the Punishment which the Law ex­acted of the Violators thereof, did that which we were bound unto by this Hand-writing; and so blotted out the Hand-wri­ting, for the Blood of him being shed who was without spot, the Hand-writing of all faults are blotted out, as Augustine saith, Christ was made in subjection to the Law, that he might redeem them that are subject to the Law, Gal. 4.4, 5. Dr. Da­venant on the place.’ He adds,

‘But that is to be observed, this Hand-writing may be said to be blotted out two ways. 1. Quoad Deum, as to God, Ʋniver­saliter & Sufficienter, Universally and Sufficiently, because there is such satisfaction given to God by the Blood of Christ; be­cause that Hand-writing of the Law cannot be exacted of any as Debtors, when they fly by Faith to this Redeemer, but he must absolve them. 2. Particulariter & efficaciter, Particularly and ef­ficaciously, when it is actually blotted out from the Consciences [Page 50] of Individual Faithful ones who do apprehend Christ by Faith, [and he follows the true Spiritual sence of this Scripture most Evangelically, I chuse to give the Summ of it, because it decides the whole Point in Controversie most excellently,] according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 5.1. A Man in Debt cannot have Peace so long as he sees he owes more Money than he can pay, and sees he is bound in a Bond under his Hand to the payment thereof; but as soon as any Person apprehends Christ by Faith; immediately the Hand-writing is Cancelled [in his view] and he enjoys blessed peace of Conscience. Here Paul excellently resolveth the Case of doubting Consciences by an admirable kind of Gradation; not content with what he had said in the former Verse, all your Sins are forgiven; but he adds, the very Hand-writing is Cancelled; but it may be said, Happily not so blotted out but a new Suit may arise, he sub­joyns therefore è medio sublatum, it is taken out of the way; but it may be said again, it may be it's kept and hid, and here­after may be produced; yea, saith the Apostle it's Nailed to the Cross, Cruci affixum, it is Cancelled, torn in Pieces and Nail­ed to the Cross; this he saith, we ought to believe; not only that Christ hath deserved the blotting out of this Hand-wri­ting, but that it is even Actually blotted out as to our selves in particular.’

I think Sir, now I need say no more of this Debate, seeing I have given you the Opinion of the Learned Dr. and of whose Opi­nion I know you are in the Point of Universal Redemption; and I believe your other Arguments are here Answered.

I will alledge them for all that.

Arg. 4. If taking Sins of the Elect, and laying them on Christ was their discharge, they would be discharged before the Sufferings and Death of Christ, &c. D. W. p. 18.

This Argument is as it were the same with the former, and admits the same Answer. And would it be so absurd to say a Believer may be discharged before the Death of Christ, were not the Faithful under the Old Testament discharged before the Death of Christ? We say, when the Charge of Sin is taken off from one and laid upon another, there is a discharge real in one sence or another. Generaliter; but not particulariter; here is a blotting out of Sin, quoad Deum, though not quoad Conscientiam. Christ took away Sin by way of Suretiship before he did it Actu­ally, and so the Faithful before his Coming were saved.

If this Errour hold, the Gospel Notion of Forgiveness by the Blood of Christ is destroyed. D. W. p. 19.

You mean I suppose if this be Truth; No, It con­firms Gospel Forgiveness by the Blood of Christ; but prove that it de­stroys it.

Forgiveness denotes a Person guilty; it is a Judicial Act of God as Rector Acting by a Gospel Rule.

The Apostle saith, He justifies by free Grace through the Redemption of Christ, that he may appear just also, in so doing, because his Justice is satisfied. He shews God justifies sitting on a Throne of Grace; Grace is the Impulsive Cause so far as it consists in the Pardon of a Sinner; but it is through the Righteousness of Christ to shew forth his Righteousness, and in forgiving in and through the Righteousness of Christ; he hath the high concurrence of Ju­stice therein, that as he is a Gracious Justifier, so he is justified as Righteous by doing it in this way; and whereas you say, It's a Judicial Act of God, Acting by a Gospel Rule; I think you should rather say, It is a Gracious Act of God Acting according to the Rules of Justice therein; for so the Apostle clearly describes it, Rom. 3.24, 25.

And methinks you turn my Stomach to hear you give so pitiful, a low and mean Title to God as a Rector, (as if he were but a Mayor of a Corporation, or some little Earthly Prince.)

And this supposeth the full and perfect Atonement made by Christ, and the Grant made in Vertue thereof.

What have we been Disputing about all this while? I am glad to see Mr. Neonomian's Ingenuity, that now he grants all we Dispute about, only differs in naming a thing; you say the Atonement of the Wrath of God by Christ for Sinners (which is in my sence Fundamentally and Really Pardon quoad Deum) is full, compleat and perfect; and that Forgiveness sup­poseth it, and the Grant made in the Vertue thereof; if you had said, it had been the Grant made in the vertue thereof, I take it you had spoken your own sence fuller, than to say it supposeth the Grant made in the vertue thereof; unless you mean the Grant made to Christ as our Representative, which comes more to our sence; but let these Mistakes in Expression pass.

You seem to distinguish between a Discharge and a Discharge, so do we; you distinguish between an accepted Atonement for us, and giving out the Grant and Patent to us, and so do we; be­tween Impetration and Application, and so do we; between For­giveness in foro Dei, and Forgiveness in foro Conscientiae, or Evan­gelii; [Page 52] but as to that first I find you do not Love to call it Forgiveness, though you think it carries the Nature of Forgiveness in it; why should you represent me as such an Heretick, to scare People from my Ministry upon the meer naming a thing, by a word which by your own terms contain the Nature and Substance.

But Forgiveness supposeth a Person Guilty.

Christ's bearing Sin supposeth all the World is be­come Guilty before God, and the Elect as well as others; and therefore he became a Propitiation for Sin to God, that we who are by Nature under the Law, and thereby Condemned as Chil­dren of Adam, and in our own Consciences, and thereby guilty, might receive Forgiveness of Sins, or an Atonement (both signi­fying the same thing) by believing. A Man is reus quoad Deum, & reus quoad Ministrationem Legis in Conscientiâ; and in this sence shut up under the Law till Faith comes, and then is his Personal and Particular Discharge through the Blood of Christ; and this last I apprehend to be the Justification by Faith, which the Apostle Paul speaks so frequently of; neither do I say that this or that Man hath any part in Christ or Pardon, any more than in Election and Redemption, till he doth believe.

But you are of Opinion a Person is never guilty.

I never had any such Opinion, if you distinguish right concerning Guilt.

You say Man, that Sins were laid on Christ before we were Born, and therefore never upon us.

How old are you? Was not Christ's Death and Suf­fering almost 1700 years ago? And do you not say Sins were laid then on Christ; and if they were then laid on Christ, they cannot return to us in the sence as they were taken off from us; and therefore they are never upon us in the same manner as they are on those that are not Elect, and this must be in respect of Guilt quodamodo, some kind of guilt; distinguish then of guilt, there is guilt in respect of the Righteous Judgment of God in foro Dei; and guilt that accompanies the Letter of the Law set­ting in with our Consciences, and in that sence the Law worketh Wrath. Sins were laid upon Christ, and they lye upon us, but not both in the same Manner, nor for the same End.

A Judicial Act by a Rule there is none.

What your new terms of Art mean, I will not trouble my self, my Scheme, as you term it, of Justification, imports that God graciously pardons in a way of Manifestation of his Justice, and all God's Acts are according to the Rule of his good Pleasure, and Will, and that's enough.

For the Gospel Grant of Pardon is not to the Elect as E­lect; but as penitent Believers, neither is the Atonement of Christ sup­posed to our Forgiveness.

Pardon as to the Nature of it belongs to Sinners, as such, & eo nomine; Faith and Penitency is given together with Remission of Sins; and how can you have the Face to say, I do not suppose Atonement in Forgiveness, or belonging to it, when it's upon that account that you have fell so foully upon me, because you think I lay too great a stress on Atonement, and give too much to it in Forgiveness.

You own the laying of our Sins on Christ before the making of Atonement; and without our Sins lay on Christ, he could not justly be punished.

And do not you own that it's first in Nature to making Atonement, and how could Christ be justly punished without he had the Merit upon him either by his own Sins, or by the Sins of others; but I find you own a Man may be justly punished that deserves it in no sence whatever.

So that our Discharge being a transferring of Sin from us to Christ, and this being done before Christ made Atonement, we are discharged not for the Atonement of Christ, nor by any Act of Forgiveness for the sake of this Atonement; I need not add, that by this Notion Heathens may be in a pardoned State, and there's no need of the Gospel or Knowledge of Christ to bring them out of a state of Wrath.

I hope by this time you have pretty well spent your Powder and Ball.

I told you before, when we spake of laying Sins on Christ, we un­derstand his offer to bear them, the Charge and Imputation laid on him, and the payment he made of our Debt, all which is the Atonement; for bearing of our Sins was an Essential part of it, as shedding his Blood was of the Payment; this payment and bear­ing Sin was in the Eye of God from Eternity as if already done; hence the Patriarchs were Actually and Personally Justified by it; and doth it follow that they were Justified without Christ's Atone­ment? And whereas you talk of God's Acts of Forgiveness, you should tell us what you mean; if Immanent, there's but one Act of Forgiveness, there's no new Acts arise in God, and it was the Promise of Eternal Life before the World began, Tit. 1. If you mean a Transient Act, it's but one, viz. the performance of that Promise to Christ our Surety and Head, and to us in him, Virtu­ally and Fundamentally, 1 John 5.11. This is the Record that he hath [Page 54] given us Eternal Life, and this Life is in his Son; and from him de­rived to us, terminates in and upon us by the same Effectual Grace of God in Christ towards us; so that the same Forgiving Act of God terminates in Christ and in us, and therefore you must allow our Life of Forgiveness first in Christ, and then bestowed upon us in and through him, whereby we are as Sinners brought in to him, and receive of his fulness both for Justifying and Sanctify­ing Grace.

Whereas you say, Heathens by this Notion may be in a pardoned state; you foist in another term to impose upon us, as if we had said, that immediately upon laying Sins on Christ, all the Elect were in a pardoned state; there's none can be in a pardoned state before a being natural, nor before a being Spiritual at least be­ginning; but what hinders but that the Eternal Life which is given me, should be in Christ before I was Born, and inferrs not that therefore when I come into the World there will be no need of Gospel or Knowledge of Christ to bring me out of my Natural Estate into Christ? See Colos. 1.25, 26, 27. Ephes. 3.3, 4, 5, 6. And are not Gentiles as well as Jews pardoned through Christ?

The Assemblies at Westminster and the Savoy are both against you.

They say in a manner but as we do, if you distinguish between a Forgiveness in Christ and Forgiveness bestowed, between Impetration and Application, Justification and Justified.

I will shew you your mistake, Mr. Antinomian; because it was God's Act to appoint Christ to suffer for our Sins, that we might in his way and time be discharged, therefore you think we are immediate­ly discharged by that Act.

You take greatly upon you, to tell what I think, and makes me think contrary to what I have exprest; you take upon you to make me speak what you please, and to think what you please; I take you to be a fit Man to be a Guide; was there no­thing but God's appointing Christ to suffer for our Sins? was there not God's accepting of his Sufferings for us? Was not Christ Justified from the Sins of the Elect? for when he rose, was there not a Radical Justification of all the Elect in Christ? If there had not been so, they could never have been personally Justified: but you would have Christ only purchase our Justification by some­thing else; but I must believe and say that he wrought out our Justification, which being in him, is the same that we do partake of; and that our Discharge is begun and carried on in Christ, and is compleated in him, and received by Faith in his Blood.

Because Christ's Atonement is the Sole Meritorious Cause of Forgiveness; therefore he thinks God suspends not Forgiveness till he works any thing else in the Soul, which he made requisite to our being For­given, though not as a Meritorious Cause.

No, you mean Christ shall have the Honour of being the Meritorious Cause, but it is that way of Justification intend­ed that Christ hath merited, that though we have broken the Law, and cannot be Justified by it; that a new way of Justification should be set up, not through his Blood, but by something else a peculiar qualification that shall make us meet to be forgiven, that there may be some reason found in the Sinner why he should be forgiven; this is now the new Divinity to sham off the Satisfaction of Christ from the Justification of a Sinner; and you think you have been very kind to Christ, to say, this new Qualifications are not Meritorious Causes, but Christ's Suffering was, though they must stand afar off and look on upon a Justification by something else.

I think, as you said, Mr. Antinomian's Ambiguity lyes in the word Discharge, concerning which you must distinguish, there's liberatio in Christo, & liberatio à Christo; though Mr. Antinomian hath abundantly cleared himself, as to his Intention and Meaning; but you Mr. Neonomian are so harsh in your Censures, that nothing but the worst Interpretation of his words can be admitted by you.

My Opinion is, that as Christ bore our Sins by Imputation; so he made full payment of our Debt, and had a Discharge so far as concerned himself and us, represented by him and in him; and hence through this Discharge, and the perfection of the New Na­ture in freedom from all Original and Actual Sin, and perfection of all Righteousness, our Eternal Life which God hash given us, is fully and compleatly in him both for Grace and Glory. I say fully, Fundamentally, Originally, and as in a Fountain or Root, and of this fulness we do receive, even Faith the first Vital Act, and by Faith all discharge in Justification, and all conformity to him in Sanctification through the operation of the Spirit of Holi­ness; so that it was impossible but Christ must be discharged bear­ing our common Nature, and standing in our stead; and that we were in our measure discharged in him; but it is also as impossible that we should be discharged personally, and in ours, till we had our Personal Beings, and were first in that State, and under that Wrath in some regard, from which we were to be delivered, and brought into the New Nature by Reconciliation and Actual Union [Page 56] on our part, and till then we are Prisoners of the Law, without God, without Hope, Aliens to the Covenant of Promise.

This account I trust may give both satisfaction, and I think it's that which is generally received as the Truth of the Gospel by the Orthodox. I think those Testimonies, Mr. Neonomian, brought for your Extream, do all in a manner say as I have said, they do not so deny the discharge of the Elect before believing, as to deny Christ's discharge, and the Elects in him, so far as they were capable, nor do they assert our discharge in Christ so as to affirm our Personal discharge before Faith.

The Assembly saith thus, ‘The Lord Jesus Christ by his perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself, which he through the Eternal Spirit once offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the Justice of his Father, and purchased not only Reconciliation, but an Ever­lasting Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, for all those which the Father hath given to him.’ Assembl. Confess. c. 8. 5. [Here are two things that Christ hath done, satisfied for our Sins, and over above purchased a great Estate, he could not have done the latter had he not done the former; and he hath the Grant or Covenant Deeds in his Hands; the Lambs Book of Life wherein the Names of all that are given him are Recorded and Enrolled; and this is Life which he now hath the dispensation of in his due time through the Gospel; and therefore they further say, § VIII. ‘To all those to whom Christ hath purchased Redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, &c.]’ The Ca­techism and Savoy Confession say the same in effect in every thing; and so doth Dr. Owen.

‘When the Lord Christ dyed for us, and offered himself a Pro­pitiatory Sacrifice, God laid all our Sins on him, Isa. 53.6. 1 Pet. 2.24. Then he suffered in our stead, and made full satisfaction for all our Sins, as appears, Heb. 9.26. c. 10.14. He whose Sins were not Actually and Absolutely satisfied for in that one Offering of Christ, shall never have them Expiated unto Eternity; —Notwithstanding this plenary satisfaction, yet all Men continue equally to be Born by Nature Children of Wrath — Dr. Owen of Justification, 305’ [This old Nature Christ never Purchased and Redeemed, but intended always to pull down and destroy, for the whole Nature is under Wrath; and we cannot be in a state of Life till we be in the New Nature, and be Created in Christ Jesus.] ‘What the Lord Jesus Christ paid for us, is as truely paid as if we had paid it our selves; — And what he underwent and suffered, he underwent and suffered in our stead; but yet the Act of God [Page 57] in laying our Sins on Christ, conveyed no Actual Right and Title to us, [ i. e. immediately, for all our Actual Right is founded on it, and flows from it,] therefore he adds,] They are not imme­diately thereon, nor by vertue thereof ours, or esteemed ours, [personally and in possession] because God hath appointed some­thing, not only Antecedent thereunto, but the Means thereof; viz.’ Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us.

I shall add the state of the Question how the Learned Dr. Prid. states the Question de satisfact. D. Prid. Praelect. 19. p. 297. de sa­tisfact. Christi.

Ʋtrum Christus filius Dei & B. Virginis Justitiae Divinae [non com­mutativae sed distributivae & Judiciali, tam premiativae quam vindicati­vae] verè h. e. non praecariò, impetrativè, tantum aut metaphoricè, sed, reipsâ, meritoriè & integrè, non omittendo aliquid qui stricto Jure fieri debuit, satisfecerit tam agendo quam patiendo quicquid saluti nostri erat requisitum. Hic affirmamus Orthodoxi cum nostris Art. 31. obliquè ne­gant Papiculae, & subdolè labefactant Remonstrantes. Sed [...] quasi [...] apertè, & toto Impetu oppugnant Anabaptistae, Familistae, & hisce omnibus Acutiores & Astutiores Sociniani, hanc positionem confirmat va­riis Argumentis Irrefrigabilibus, & adversariorum objectionibus responsa dedit.

Christ satisfied the Justice of God, not Commutative but Distri­butive, and Judicial, as well Remunerative as Vindicative, not Pre­cariously, or by way of Impetration only, or Metaphorically, but Really, Meritoriously, and Fully, not omitting any thing that in strict Justice ought to be done, whatever was requisite to our Sal­vation.

‘Christ by his Obedience and Death did fully discharge the Debt of all those, that are thus Justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to his Fathers Justice, [ i. e. for all them that should believe.]’ Assemb. Confess. c. 11. §. 3.

And Mr. Neonomian, I must not forget to tell you that there is nothing more frequent than for mistaken Men to tell others how much they are mistaken, as you do tell Mr. Antinomian about the Scape-Goat.

I say he mistakes the Type of the Scape-Goat, because the Scape-Goats carried their Sins into the Wilderness, who expressed Faith and Repentance by laying Hands on it, and confessing Sin, therefore the Sins of Men are taken away by Christ while they continue Impenitent and Ʋnbe­lieving.

You may see how in this matter you speak after the Socinian, for they give this Interpretation of this Type; for though [Page 58] the Confession of Sin over the Head of the Scape-Goat or Sacrifice, did hold forth Faith and Repentance, yet there's a difference be­tween an Act Typifying God's Imputation of Sin unto Christ, and an Act testifying our Faith concerning God's Imputation of Sin to Christ. Norton against Pinch, p. 49. So Ainsworth, There's no­thing more plainly holds forth Christ's bearing away our Sins to be remembred no more. So Dr. Prid. Quemadmodum etiam Hircus iste Azazel sive Emisso [...]is, habuit imposita super caput ipsis populi peccata, Levit. 16.21, 22. Haud alitèr Christo contigit, quem proposuit Deus, [...], ipsius, Rom. 3.25. Prid. de satisf.

‘As that Azazel or Scape-Goat had the Sins of the People laid on his Head, and so was sent into the Wilderness, Lev. 16.21, 22. so Christ was dealt with, whom God set forth for a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, to shew forth his Righteousness, Rom. 3.25. which those Sacrifices did manifestly point out (however they fell short in themselves) yet in relation to the Antitype they were not only Expiatory but also Satisfactory, whence the satis­faction wrought by the Antitype is the more strongly argued.’ Praelect. de satisf.

Mr. Norton. ‘We may distinguish between the being of Justifi­cation, and being Justified, between Justification in the Abstract, and Justified the Concrete; that being without the receiving Sub­ject; this considered, together with the receiving Subject, viz. the Believer's Justification considered in the Abstract Sence, and in it self (in which sence it signifies Remission of Sins and Righte­ousness to Acceptation prepared, though not yet conferred on the Elect) hath before Faith a Being, not only in the purpose of God, but also in the Covenant between the Father and the Son, and the Mediator, and in the purchase of Christ; this truth held forth in the Gospel makes the object of Faith, and thus the Object is before the Act.’ Orthod. Evan. p. 214, 215.

Mr. Perkin's speaks, ‘Christ is first Justified, Acquit of our Sins, and we Justified in him.’ On Gal. 3.16.

Dr. Ames. ‘Our Freedom or Discharge [liberatio nostra] from Sin and Death was not only determined in the Decree, but also granted and communicated to us in Christ before it's perceived by us, Rom. 5.10, 11.’ Medul. c. 24.

‘The sentence of Justification was conceived in the Mind of God by the Decree of Justifying, Gal. 3.8. 2. It was pronounced in Christ our Head when risen from the Dead, 2 Cor. 5.19. 3. It's vertually pronounced from the first relation, which results from Faith wrought in the Heart, Rom. 8.1.14. 4. This Sentence is [Page 59] expresly pronounced by the Spirits witnessing with our Spirits our Reconciliation to God, Rom. 5.5. C. 1. C. 27. §. 9.’

Mr. Rutherford. ‘There is a Justification in the Mind of God Eternal, and a Justification in time terminated in the Consci­ence of a Believer, Exercit. Apologet. per gratia, p. 45.’ He wrote against the Antinomian; and therefore this Testimony you have no pretence to refuse.

Dr. Twiss speaks, and saith, ‘The Righteousness of Christ was ours before we did believe, ours I say in respect of Right; because in the Intention both of the Father and the Son it was performed for us, though not in respect of Possession and Enjoyment.’ Vind. Grat. l. 1. p. 2. § 25. N. 5. p. 197.

DEBATE IV. Of the Elects ceasing to be Sinners from the time their Sins were laid on Christ.

GEntlemen, now we are come together again as we are wont, to make Discovery of Truth and Error: I am willing we should be very clear in this Point of Imputation: For I will assure you, as it's usually understood, I cannot digest it: It's the Foundation of this Antinomian Error; therefore I would propound this following Question to be discussed at this time. Q. Whether the Elect cease to be Sinners from the time their Sins were laid upon Christ?

This Question is the same with the last, and it's resolved in the Resolution of that, viz. So far as the Elect are discharged by the Satisfaction of Christ, so far they cease to be Sinners.

You are mistaken, it is not the same Question; there is difference between being discharged of Sin in a way of Justification, and ceasing to be Sinners in respect of Sanctification.

Ay, if that be your Meaning: Do you charge Mr. An­tinomian with that Errour, That the Elect never sinned since Sin was laid on Christ?

Ay, that I do, and will make good my Charge too.

Say you so; then I have no more to say. Mr. Antino­mian, answer for your self.

He saith what he pleaseth of me; for he hath a [...] in­veterate Spirit against me: However, I am willing to hear [...]at he saith. I pray, Sir, declare your Charge in express Terms, that you will not start from, and then prove it.

I must premise some things first, and then tell you, what's Truth, that you may the better know the Errour, and judge of it.

I had rather you would fall down-right upon the Er­rour; for your way is to make long Speeches and Explications of things, that others know as well as you. —

Pray let him take his own way; sometimes the furthest way about is the nearest way home, they usually say.

I premise two things. The First, That Men are Sinners, or not Sinners in divers respects. 2. As to the Filth or Obliquity of Sin, with respect to this they are more or less Sinners, according to the De­gree of their Innocence and Holiness D. W. p. 22.

There is nothing in Sin but is Filth and Obliquity; God looks upon it all as so, as it stands in opposition both to Justification and Sanctification, and it consists in it's Contrariety to the Moral Rectitude of the Law, and the Duty required by it; where there's no Law there's no Sin: Those Actions that are gross Sins in Men, are no Sins in Bruits, because they are not under a Moral Law. And for Degrees of Innocency I know none, though there be of Holiness.

2. With some as to the Guilt of Sin, which refers to the Sanction of the Law against Offenders; with respect to this, the Offenders are more or less Sinners, as they are forgiven or not forgiven.

With some! What mean you by that some? I judge they are Neonomians by the Glimpse you give of them. You say the Guilt of Sin is no more than this, that a Man is bound over to be punish'd whether right or wrong; and a poor Creature that is tryed for Murder is guilty, because he is to be hanged. I thought always that he was obliged to be hanged because he was guilty; and if the Law finds not the Fault upon him, he is never guilty. Is it Sence to say, a Man is guilty? being Whipt, Burnt in the Hand, or being Hanged, never: unless he hang himself. Obliga­tion to Punishment, or the Punishment it self, is no Sin, it's but an Effect of it founded in the Law. I do not understand more or less Sinners in respect of Guilt, as forgiven or not forgiven; for in the sence of Guilt, whether the Fault be more or less, Forgive­ness takes all off, and all Sinners stand equally upon that account [Page 61] before God. A Believer here on Earth is as fully forgiven as a Saint in Heaven. Justification admits not of Degrees. But it may be you distinguish Sinners in respect of Guilt, into Forgiven and not For­given, as Men are more eminently Sinners before Justification than after.

As to the Charge of the Fact, which was sinful, neither after-Sanctification nor Pardon will deliver a Transgressor from having been a Sinner; the Fact was his.

I told you already the Charge of any one with sinful Fact, which the Party had done, makes him guilty, it is a Fault; and tho it be true, that the Physical Act cloathed with it's moral Pravity was done by him, yet God forbid that Pardon and imputed Righte­ousness should not deliver him from being a Transgressor. I pray, Is David now a Murderer, and Noah a Drunkard? You would seem to speak some great Thing, but you thought safest to change the Tense, and say, from having been.

The first and last denominate a Man a Sinner most pro­perly.

i.e. The Filth of Sin, and the charge of a sinful Fact; and they are near a Kin; for a sinful Fact is Filth, and the Filth of Sin is a sinful Fact; and that's a Fault, and a Fault charged and proved, or confess'd, is Guilt; so that it's Fault or Guilt (for they are reci­procal) denominates a Sinner.

The Second denominates a Man punishable, but not a Sinner Formally.

This 2d is Guilt of Sin, which, say some, is a Relation to the Sanction of the Law: We say Guilt refers to the preceptive also, and is Fault. You say, to the Sanction only; and therefore I say, no Sin. You say, the guilty Person is no Sinner formally. What then, a punishable Creature? Do you mean a Creature capable of Suffering; so is a Dog, or a Cat, or a Horse: Or do you mean a Man under a Law? If under a Law, he is not punishable but as a Sinner. Sin is Subjectivè formalis ratio poenae, Sin is subjectively the formal Reason of Punishment: So that a Man must be denominated a Sinner formally, or else he is not punishable in any way of Ju­stice.

In the whole Scheme of your Principles, it's Elect as Elect who cease to be Sinners. When you speak of Believers, you do not mean that he was a Sinner before he believed; for you state the time when Christ had his Sins laid upon him. D. W. p. 23.

Believers of great Antiquity, older than Methuselah. But methinks a Man that would be taken for a great Divine, and [Page 62] one that in tender [...]ess to Holiness will rather with-hold the Truths of the Gospel, and abscond them, lest Men should take too much liberty thereby to sin: I say, one would think such a Man should for his Reputation s [...]ke make Conscience of speaking Truth, and much more tremble at the Temptation to Bantering, and exposing the great Truths of the Gospel to Scorn and Re­proach. How can you dare to toss, tumble, reproach and load this great Truth of the Gospel in the very Words of the Holy Ghost, with all the odious Consequences imaginable? You may value your self as you please, or other Men may judge of you and your Words as they please; I shall only desire you to read Job 19.27, 28, 29.

Now I will tell you what is the Truth.

No, no; I hope we know the Truth. Tell us the Er­or you charge me with, and if there be time, we will hear the Truth afterward.

If you are in such haste for it, you shall have it then.

The Elect upon the Death of Christ ceased to be Sinners; and ever since their Sins are none of their Sins, but are the Sins of Christ; and this I prove to be your Error from your own Words.

‘You put this Objection, Must he not be reckoned a Sinner while he doth sin? A. I answer, No: Tho he doth Sin, yet he is not to be reckoned a Sinner; but his Sins are reckoned to be taken away from him, &c. A Man doth sin against God; God reckons not his Sin to be his, he reckons it Christ's, therefore he cannot reckon it his.’ Dr. Cr. p. 8.

Gentlemen, I would have you observe the things that are Asserted by Mr. Neonom. (for I beseech you do me Justice) that it appears that I speak always of the Elect as Elect, and not Be­lievers; and when I mention Believers, that I do not mean he was a Sinner before he believed. I will read my Discourse to you taken from me as I delivered it.

Preaching from John 14.6. I was shewing Christ was the Way from a State of Sinfulness— ‘There is a two-fold consideration of Sinfulness, from which Christ is our Way in a special manner. 1. That which is called the Guilt of Sin, which is indeed the Fault, or a Persons being Faulty as he is a Transgressor. Is, 2ly. The Power and over-masterfulness of Sin in Persons: Christ is the way from both these. 1. From the Guilt of Sin. Christ is the way from the Guilt of Sin: It is briefly no more but this, to be [...]d of the Guilt of Sin, viz. Upon Tryal to be quitted and dis­charged from the Charge of Sin that is laid, or may be laid to [Page 63] him, and to be freed from it: This is for a Person in Judge­ment to be pronounced actually innocent, and a just Person, as having no Sin to be charged on him: This is to be free from the Guilt of Sin. A Man is not free from a Fault, as long as the Fault is laid to his Charge; and he is then free, when he is not charged with it— He is only the way by which a poor Sinner may be pronounced innocent; and having proved, that Christ is the way to take away the Guilt of Sin, which, I say, is the Charge of Fault, by many plain places of Scripture, and by the Type of the Scape Goat: I came to answer this Objection, But do not those that receive Christ actually, commit Sin? I answer, Yea, they do commit Sin; and the Truth is, themselves can do nothing but commit Sin. If a Person that is a Believer hath any thing in the World, he hath received that; if he doth any thing that is good, it is the Spirit of God that doth it, not he: There­fore he himself doth nothing but Sin, his Soul is a Mint of Sin.’ Dr. Cr. p. 3. & 8.

Now therefore judge, Gentlemen, whether here I say, the Elect ceased to be Sinners ever since the Death of Christ: If Sinners af­ter believing, much more before, in respect of the Indwelling of Sin and Corruption; and do not in this Sence cease to be Sinners after believing. I went on,

‘Then you will say, If he doth sin, must not God charge it where it is? [all this while speaking of a Believer] Must he not be reckoned to be a Sinner while he doth sin? A. I answer, No; though he doth sin, yet he is not to be reckoned a Sinner,’ [i. e. Being a pardoned Believer, God doth not reckon him so, and he ought by Faith to behold all his Sins taken away in Christ] ‘but his Sins are to be reckoned to be taken away from him. A Man borrows 100 l. some Man will pay it for him: Doth he not owe this 100 l. seeing he borrowed it? I say no, in case another hath paid it for him. A Man doth sin against God, God reckons not his Sin to be his, he reckons it Christ's, therefore he cannot reckon it his, God hath laid it upon Christ. —'Thou hast sinned, Christ takes it off; supposing, I say, thou hast received Christ.’ Is this any other Doctrine than what John teaches? 1 John 1.7, 8. Chap. 2.1, 2. I say, in one respect they are not Sinners, in another they are Sinners. And is this any other Doctrine than what the Scripture and all our best Divines teach: Therefore judge ye how justly now I am charged with this Error.

But you said, If thou hast part in the Lord Christ [which he thinks all unbelieving Elect have.] All those Transgressions of thine [Page 64] become actually the Transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine. Dr. C. p. 270.

Is it not very unfair dealing for you to impose a wrong meaning upon my Words, when I express my self so plainly. If thou hast received Christ, if thou hast a part in the Lord Christ, who will understand these Expressions, but of our active receiving and partaking of Christ? though I do speak elsewhere of our having Benefit by Christ, and a hidden Right in him; and it hath an Influence on us, and we are passive therein before we believe, yet it's not that I speak of here. ‘I was shewing from Isa. 53.6. that Christ is our great Pay-master, and how sad a thing it is to have Sin lying upon our Spirits: Separate Sin from the Soul, and the Spirit hath Rest in the worst conditions— You will never have quietness of Spirit in respect of Sin, till you have received this Principle, [ viz. By Faith] that it is Iniquity it self that the Lord hath laid on Christ. Now when I say thus, I mean with the Prophet, that it is the Fault of the Transgression, &c. — Reckon up what Sins thou canst against thy self; if thou hast part in the Lord [ i. e. by Faith] all these Transgressions of thine became Christ's, [ i. e. Thou seest them laid on Christ: Not that they were just then laid on Christ when thou believest: I would think your Divinity is not so gross, as to assert that, but that a Believer by Faith sees that he is one of those Elect ones, whose Sins were laid on Christ.] What the Lord beheld Christ to be, that he beholds his Members to be. — So that if you would speak of a Sinner, supposing that Person of whom you speak to be a Mem­ber of Christ,’ [is this speaking of the Elect meerly as the Elect, and no more?] ‘you must not speak of what he manifests, but what Christ was, pag. 271.’ What Unsoundness, I beseech you, is in this Doctrine? I pray speak, Gentlemen.

The Company generally smiled; but being afraid to displease Mr. Neonomian, and affrighted at the Name of Antinomian, which Mr. Neonomian called every one that contradicted him, were silent: But at last a brisk Gentleman, Learned and Solid, stood up and said, I think you have greatly abused Mr. Antinomian, and charged him unrighteously, both in your misrepresenting him, and in your charging him with Error and False Doctrine in the things alledged against him. For, saith he, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, though I see some of my Brethren here seem to be so, that will not speak for the Truth when they hear a Man of Confidence run it down. I say and affirm, that he that hath a part in Christ, is confidently to believe that Christ bore his Sin in his Body o [...] the Tree, Tit. 2.14.

I pray Mr. Neonomian, give us your Thoughts clearly what you hold, and what you deny in this Point.

I shall tell first what is not in Dispute between us.

There's 100 things are not now in Question before us, I pray you to cut short, that we may not lose so much time; come to the very Point in Difference first.

You are not capable of understanding it, till I have told you what is not in Dispute: I'm sure you'll mistake the Question, if I tell you not what the Question is first.

The Difference is not, 1. Whether the pardoned Sinner shall be deli­vered from Condemnation. D. W. p. 24.

But it is, whether the pardoned Sinner is not delivered from Condemnation, and that Delivery the Ground and Reason of his Pardon.

2. Nor whether God, for Christ's sake, will deal with a pardoned Sinner as if he had not been a Sinner.

The Question is, Whether God can deal with any one Salvâ Justitiâ, as if he were not a Sinner, and yet be esteemed by him formaliter, and in the just Sentence of the Law, a Sinner; and whether a pardoned Sinner be in the righteous Judgment of God a Sinner; and can be a Sinner and not a Sinner at the same time, and in the same respect.

3. Nor whether Forgiveness doth take away Sin as to it's Obligation to Punishment.

If Fault in the Judgment of the Law be made the Obli­gation to Punishment, and the Demerit of Sin lies in the Fault, it is a great Question how the Obligation to Punishment can be ta­ken away, without taking away the meritorious Cause; and whe­ther if the Obligation to Punishment could be taken away, with­out taking away the Sin in the Eye of the Law, whether it were Forgiveness; for Forgiveness lies formally in taking off the Fault, and but consequentially in remitting the Punishment.

Nor whether the Atonement of Christ, when it's applyed in it's full effects, will perfectly remove all Punishment, and purge away all Filth and Defilement from the Elect: Each of these I affirm.

But it is a Question, whether upon the Atonement of Christ made and accepted, any of the Elect were punishable for Sin in a way of Vindicative Justice, even before Faith, much more after? So that the things which are without Dispute to you, are questionable to us, especially according to your ambiguous way of expressing them.

I shall now acquaint you with the Questions that are in de­bate betwixt us.

1. Whether because Christ obliged himself to bear the Satisfactory Pu­unishment of our Sins, they did therefore become the Sins of Christ?

You state this Question fallaciously. The Question all this while between us is this, Whether if God laid our Sins upon Christ, (in the way that he laid them) they did in that way be­come the Sins of Christ? If you will have it in the Notion of Christ's bearing Punishment only, it must run thus, If Christ was obliged to bear, or did bear Satisfactory Punishment, whe­ther or no our Punishment, or the Punishment due to us did there­by become his? Both these we affirm.

Whether our Sins were pardoned when Christ suffered on the Cross. This you affirm, and I deny.

I affirm it in my own Sence, but deny it in your false and imposed Sences.

Whether even they that are Members of Christ, yet if they do sin, are they Transgressors and Sinners, and are the Sins they commit their Sins? This you deny, and I affirm.

This Question, as you you state it, I both affirm and deny; because in one Sence a Man must be a Transgressor, in ano­ther none. But the Question, Whether the Members of Christ while Sin remains, are Sinners, and in the sight of God do stand fully justified from all Sin? This I affirm.

One would think this needed no Proof, whether he that doth a sinful Fact be a Doer of it.

It needs no Proof, I always own it to be so. I tell you, the Saints commit Sin, and are therefore the Doers of it; and I have told you, 'tis all that they can do of themselves, and that it is my Sin, my sinful Fact; and yet my Debt that I contracted may become another Man's, if he engageth for it.

Christ teacheth Believers to pray for the Pardon of Sins, Luke 11.4.

So they had need, for Sins are pardoned when they have it not, and it's to them as if they were not pardoned at all, if they have not the Comfort.

It would be vain to object, they pray for manifestation of Pardon.

Why in vain? Is it any more that a true Believer can pray for? For he sees and knows all his Sins are pardoned, but yet continues to pray for a further manifestation of Pardon. Did [Page 67] not David tell us what it is, Psal. 1.10. Restore to me the Joy of thy Salvation.

For were it so, yet it is for our Sins; it would sound strange to pray, Forgive us the Sins of Christ.

Yes, we pray for the Pardon of our Sins that were laid on Christ; and though we do not pray to forgive us the Sins of Christ, yet we pray to God to forgive us for the sake of Christ, whose bearing of Sin and Satisfaction wrought, we always plead believing. But you will banter Christ's bearing Sins.

The Saints in Scripture esteemed them their Sins, and them­selves Sinners, when they committed Sin, and found it's Motions, Jer. 14.7. Isa. 59.12. Job 7.21. Psal. 25.11. D. W. p. 25.

So do we, though they and we ought to acknowledge Sin always in Faith of the pardoning mercy of God in Christ; we should ask Pardon in Faith, nothing doubting; but sometimes there may be but weak Faith, next to none, in God's Children, and great Doubtings, and therefore great Guilt lying upon their Consciences, and from thence great Darkness in times of Temptation. Thence did flow those Pathetical Expressions of many of the Faithful from God's hiding of his Face, and the Weakness of their Faith, as if they were reprobated ones, and cast away; and so it is even now sometimes: And though we believe Christ hath born our Sins, yet this is the greatest Ground of true Gospel-brokenness of Heart, that they were our Sins, and are now the Product of corrupt Flesh, the Old Man remaining in us, which we labour under, endeavour­ing to get more and more into Christ by a strong Faith, that the Body of Sin, the Source of Corruption in us, may be destroyed: Therefore Repentance and Godly Sorrow is exercised even for our Sins laid on Christ

3. God reckons Sins to be their own; he reproves them, he forgave them, 1 John 2.12. Jer. 33.8. Rev. 2.20. Rev. 3.19. 2 Tim. 4.16. D. W. p. 26.

Sins are Sins, and our Sins, (we have said it again and again) and therefore reprovable in us, and to be forgiven in us by the Application of Pardon: All this hinders not, but that we be without Fault before God, and our Sins cast behind his Back, we have a Perfection and Fulness of Pardon and all Grace in Christ Jesus, though Sin it self was never reconciled to God; and there­fore God sets us to the killing of it; Christ destroyed Sin on the Cross, as to the obstructing God's compleat Love to the Persons of the Elect; so that it cannot condemn before God; but it is Sin [Page 68] Yet in the Elect, and will accuse and condemn wherever it is, or at least the Law will by Reason of it, and therefore it hath it's Influence this way sometimes on the Holiest Men. It's in the Nature of Sin to condemn, but God doth not condemn for Sin; though he condemns Sin daily in the holiest Men, and through Unbelief they are apt to think their Persons condemned of God himself. When God denounceth Judgment against a sinful Church or Nation, they are ordinarily, hypocritical, prophane and Apostate, and therefore a mixt People, many or most under a Covenant of Works, and a People in their Sins, which God awakens by Threatnings or Judg­ments themselves; and therefore the places quoted by you affect us not. The Force of your arguing lies here. Those Sins that God calls our Sins, and we ought to call our Sins, are not laid on Christ and taken away; but God calls Sins our Sins, and we ought to call them so, Ergo.

The Major is utterly false: For all places that we bring to prove, that Sin was laid on Christ, do call them our Sins; and we speak of them as such, and it's cause of Abasement in our selves, and thankful Admiration of the Free Grace of God in Christ, and so the Church acknowledge their Sins, Jer. 14.7, 8. Isa. 59.12, 16, 17.

Mark what will follow hence: No Elect Members of a Church are justly censured for Offences, and no Christian Criminal could be punished; for they are not the Sinners, the Sin is not theirs.

It is a shame to hear a Mininister argue in this man­ner: Your Argument runs thus; If the Sins of the Elect were laid on Christ by Imputation, then no Church or Court of Judi­cature can proceed to condemn an Offender, Ergo. Baculus stat in Angulo, ergo pluit. Doth Man see and judge as God doth? Is there no difference between Forum Divinum and Humanum, Ecclesiastick and Civil; the Law before Man, and his Administration of it, knows no difference of Persons, it proceeds secundum allegata & probata: Churches censures is in order to a Justification before the Church, that by Faith and Repentance it may appear, that God hath forgiven such an one, that he belongs to Electing and Redeeming Grace, and the Sinners Sin laid on Christ; and when they find that, they are soon reconciled to an offending Member. And you say, If Sins were laid on Christ, no Christian Criminal can be punished. A very sad Case indeed; for then any Crimi­nal condemned justly by Man's Law, can never be saved: For if Christ bore not his Sins, he can't be pardoned; nay, may not [Page 69] a Godly Man, through Temptation, fall into a Crime whereby he may justly suffer in Foro humano; and doth this hinder his Sal­vation by Christ? And is it an Argument his Sins were never laid on Christ? Are not these consistent, a Sinner and condemned by Man's Law, and an absolved Sinner by the satisfy'd Law of God? Was not the converted Thief a Sinner justly condemned by Man, though absolved by God, because Christ bore his sins on the Cross; and if he had repented before he had been hanged on the Cross, would it have freed him from Man's Sentence. Satisfaction to God's Law is not to Man's, nor Satisfaction to Man's is not to God's. Men stay not Execution of a Malefactor because he repents to Sal­vation; but Man's Law must take it's course upon him. I doubt not but the Ordinary of Newgate can teach you better Divinity than this. A Man may be in one respect guilty, and in another not: And so likewise God deals with his Children two ways, in case of their eminent Falls, in a way of his common Providential Government of the World, in foro mundi, as he dealt with David, that those Evils of Affliction (Judgments in the Apprehension of the Men of the World) should befall them; and so in the Partici­pation of external, common Calamities, there should not be any manifest difference between them and other Men. Therefore the Wise Man saith, That Love and Hatred is not known by these things. But notwithstanding all this, the other and certain way of God's dealing with them, is according to the Covenant of Grace, which is the Secret of the Lord: he fully pardons their Sins, is reconciled to them in Christ, will never leave or forsake them, his Loving Kindness shall not depart from them, and all things shall work together for their good.

An Hundred such Consequences naturally proceed from this Error, which fully tends to render Sin and Sinners Innocent: Not to say what Popery is in it, as if Justification did remove the Filth of Sin.

By such consequent Drawers as you are, who will charge the greatest Truths of the Gospel with any Absurdities that are forged by carnal Reason.

As for danger of Popery, where is most, in Justification by Free Grace, or Works? And when you make it appear that Justification doth not take away the Guilt of Sin, then you shall convince me, it taketh not away Filth in that respect: For I take no greater Filth to be in Sin than Guilt, and that which is the Fountain of all other Filth that is in it, or produced by it, causeth the inherent Macula.

And whereas you say, the Doctrine of laying Sins on Christ, tends to make Sin and Sinners innocent. To make Sin innocent is a contradiction; Sin is never made no Sin, tho' the Sinner may be made no Sinner in a Gospel Sence, and your Position is dangerous.

I will shew the Grounds of your Mistake: You think, be­cause God removes our Sins by Pardon, so as to acquit us from Punish­ment, therefore our Sins cease to be ours. D. W. p. 27.

That is no Pardon to acquit only from Punishment, if the Fault remain, so that the Person is under the Charge of it. 2. Remitting of Punishment only doth not discharge us from Sin. 3. Sin imputed to Christ, is not imputed to us: It's a Contradicti­on to say, that it is in the same respect; and yet we say, it was our Sins imputed to Christ, and so it's still. We say not, they are not ours imputed to Christ, but they are ours by Commission, and his by Imputation.

Because a pardoned Sinner is discharged from Condemnation, therefore you think that Person is not to be denominated a Sinner from the Violation of the Precept.

Pardon dischargeth from the Fault it self, and forgives it, or else it's no Pardon. A Man may many ways escape Punish­ment, and not have the Fault pardoned. He that is pardoned is no Sinner in the Eye of the Law, but we call him a pardoned Sin­ner; and such an one ought by Faith to look upon himself as per­fectly righteous before God.

Because Christ took upon him to make Satisfaction for Sin, therefore he thinks no Filth can cleave to the Offender, nor he be a Trans­gressor by the Offence.

You know I do not think so; for you know I said, a Believer of himself can do nothing but sin. And do not you con­tend with me for saying, Our very Righteousness is Sin, polluted and unclean: And you know my Meaning is, that we are pe [...]fect and compleat in Christ; in our selves all things are polluted and unclean: And I take this to be very sound Divinity. I will tell yau what Luther saith.

‘There is no more Sin, Death or Malediction, since Christ now reigneth; we daily confess also in the Creed of the Apostles, which we say: We believe there is an Holy Church, which is in­deed nothing else but as if we should say, I b [...]lieve there is no Sin, no Malediction, no Death in the Church of God. F [...]r they [...] do believe in Christ are no Sinners, are not guilty of Death, but are holy and righteous, Lords over Sin and Death, and living [Page 71] for ever. But Faith only seeth this; for we say, I believe there is an Holy Church.’ Luth. on Gal. 3.14.

Obj. ‘If thou wilt believe Reason and thine own Eyes, thou wilt judge clean contrary; for thou seest many things in the Godly which offend thee, they fall into Sin, are weak in Faith, subject to Wrath, Envy, and such other Evil Affections; therefore the Church is not holy.’

Answ. ‘I deny the Consequence. If I look upon my own Person, or the Person of my Brother, it shall never be holy: But if I be­hold Christ, who hath sanctified and cleansed his Church, then it is altogether holy: For he hath taken the Sins of the whole World: Therefore where Sins are seen and felt, there are they indeed no Sins. For according to Paul's Divinity, there is no Sin, no Death, no Malediction any more in the World, but in Christ that is the Lamb of God, that hath taken away the Sins of the World; who is made a Curse, that he might deliver us from the Curse. Contra­riwise, according to Philosophy and Reason, Sin, Death, and the Curse are no where else but in the World, in the Flesh, or in Sin­ners; for as a Sophistical Divine can speak no otherwise of Sin, than doth a Heathen Philosopher: Like as the Colour (saith he) cleaveth to the Wall, even so doth Sin in the World, in the Flesh, and in the Conscience: Therefore it is to be purged by contrary Operations. But True Divinity teacheth, there is no Sin in the World any more; for Christ, upon whom the Father hath cast the Sins of the World, hath vanquished and killed the same in his own Body. He once dying for Sin, and raised up again, dyeth no more. Therefore where-ever there's a true Faith in Christ, there is Sin abolished, dead and buried; but where no Faith in Christ is, there Sin doth still remain: And albeit the Remnants of Sin be still in the Saints, because they believe not perfectly, yet are they dead, in that they are not imputed unto them, because of Faith in Christ’

DEBATE V. Of the Time when our Sins were laid on Christ, and con­tinued there.

LET us now discourse about the Time of God's laying our Sins on Jesus Christ. I take Mr. Antinomian to be unsound in this Point. For he saith,

That the Time when our Sins were laid actually on Christ was, when he was nailed to the Cross, and God actually forsook him, and they continued on him till the Resurrection. D. W. p. 28.

My Words were these, ‘Now there was a pitch'd Time wherein God did serve Execution actually upon him, and that was, when God did forsake this Son of his, when he called him forth, and served Sin upon him as the Desert of Transgressi­on, when he said, My God, my God, &c.— Now was the time of Payment and Satisfying God.’ Dr. C. p. 356.

I do not say that this was the first time of his bearing Sin, he bore them in the Garden, and was there sorrowful unto Death, and lay under Soul-sufferings; but upon the Cross he finished his greatest Sufferings, made payment in full; and therefore the Apostle Peter ascribes his bearing of Sin mostly to that time when he was upon the Cross, and under Complaint of the Punishment of Loss, God's forsaking of him. Besides, I distinguish between the charging Sin on Christ as our Debt, and the Payment of the Debt; and say, this was the time of Execution and Payment; though I know you con­found bearing Sin as a Debt, and making Payment: So that you will have Payment made when nothing is due upon any account. D. W. p. 28.

But you say, look upon the Execution, or rather the ser­ving the Execution, i. e. the actual laying of Iniquity on Christ: This Iniquity was laid upon him at that instant when he was upon the Cross, and God nailed the Sins of Men to the Cross of Christ, and from that time there was not one Sin to be reckoned, &c. Dr. Cr. p. 357.

You should have rehearsed a little more: You are on­ly for exposing me as much as may be, and therefore will not re­hearse my whole Sence.

I said, ‘From that time there was not one Sin to be reckoned to Believers, who are the Members of Christ, or to Christ himself, he having then made Satisfaction, and upon it given out to the World, It is finished. What was finished? It was the Payment of the Price so long looked for, the utmost Farthing laid down. It is proper to say, Payment is made, when it is finished.’ Dr. Cr. p. 357.

Pray, Sir, from what Time do you date the laying of Sins on Christ?

The Obligation of Sufferings for our Sins was upon Christ, upon his Ʋndertaking the Office of a Mediator, to the Moment wherein he finished his Satisfactory Atonement; the Punishment of our Sins lay upon Christ, from the first moment to the last of his Humiliation. D. W. c. V. p. 28.

First then you grant his bearing Sin by way of Obliga­tion from Eternity, D. W. p. 3. It was a little while ago you charged this for an Error upon me, that our Iniquities were laid upon Christ by way of Obligation from all Eternity, tho' you call it suffering for our Sins; but we say, Sin charged upon him unto Suffering. And you own Obligation from the first Under­taking his Mediator's Office, and I take that was from Eternity, and that he was indebted from thence to the Moment when he finished his Satisfactory Atonement. I think there's no great Dif­ference between us in these things, provided you do but grant this Obligation was from the Demerit of our Sins, which neces­sarily inferrs the charging our Sins upon him as a Fidejussor or Sponsor, that takes upon him another's Debt; and you say also, Satisfactory Atonement; wherefore God was satisfyed with the Payment made. Now why must I be dealt so hardly with, as to be censured for Erroneous, for saying, He was under Obligation to pay our Debt from Eternity, and stood obliged till he made full Payment by way of Execution upon the Cross.

As to the last part of your Assertion, that the Punish­ment of our sin lay upon Christ from the first moment to the last of his Humiliation, it is false; for tho he was the Lamb of God, in our Nature yet he bore not sin actually, till he was offered up in Sacrifice, then he was made Sin as a Sacrifice, and not before.

DEBATE VI. Of God's Separation and Abhorrence of Christ while our Sins lay upon him.

I Shall acquaint you with an Errour of a gross nature that Mr. Antinomian is guilty of, and it is this;

Christ was on the Account of the filthiness of Sin, while they lay upon him, separate from God, odious to him, and even the object of God's Abhorrence, and this to the Time of his Resurrection. D. W. p. 31.

I pray Sir let us see how far this great Errour of your own forging is Chargeable upon me.

I will acquaint these Gentlemen with what you delivered; you said, Nay, for this I affirm, as Christ did bear our Iniquities, so Christ for that Iniquity was separated from God, and God was here se­parated from Christ, or else Christ spake Ʋntruth. Dr. C. p. 294.

Take my words as they were. Object. ‘Iniquity cannot be laid on Christ, because it separateth from God; but Christ could not be separated from God. A. This Objection makes it most manifest that Christ did bear Iniquity; because in that bear­ing of Sins there was a separation from God, or else Christ's Words were not true, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ for where Iniquity is, there will be a separation from God.

And my Argument stands thus, Where there is a forsaking of God, there is a separation from God in the sense of sins separation from God; but in Christ's bearing Sin there was a forsaking of God; Ergo.

Object. ‘It may be this forsaking was but for a little moment. A. It was as long as Sin was upon him, had not Christ breathed out the Sins of Men that were upon him, he had never seen God again; he having taken Sin upon him, he must first unload himself of Sin before he could be brought near to God; therefore you find that passage in the Psalm 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee, Expounded by the Apostle of the Resurrection of Christ, Acts 13.33. As if the Lord at the Resurrection of Christ did beget his Son a new as it were; there was a separation and forsaking when Christ dyed, but at the Resurrection there was a meeting again, a kind of renewing of Sonship with God; there­fore Rom. 8. the Apostle saith, It is Christ that dyed, yea, rather that is risen again from the Dead, and sits at God's Right Hand; and what doth he inferr from thence? Who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect, i. e. till Christ himself came off from Mens Sins, Men were in danger of being Charged with Sin, but Christ [Page 75] hath dyed and made satisfaction, nay, rather is risen again, and hath his Discharge, &c. p. 295.’

And I pray, Gentlemen, wherein is this Doctrine contrary to the Scriptures, or Reason guided by the Word of God.

You say, It it a higher Expression of Love that Christ should bear the Sins of Men, than that he should be given to die for Men, &c. D. C. p. 408.

‘My reason of that Assertion was added, for Christ to be given to die, comes short of the Love he expresseth in bear­ing Sin; Affliction is not contrary to the Nature of God, &c. but Sin is; where God doth Charge any Sinner he hath an Abhor­rence there; i. e. so far as God chargeth and seeth Sin.’

‘I said, God never did do such a wonderful thing to the Asto­nishment of the Creature, as laying Sin on Christ; Iniquity is the hatefullest thing in the World to God, [therefore the Sin charged is abhorred by God] where Iniquity is found, a Toad is not so ugly unto Man, as that Person is in the sight of God, where Iniquity is found — Sin is the most horrible and abo­minable, nay, the most abhorred thing in the World to God.’ That this is so the whole Scripture bear me witness; but observe what follows — ‘That God should make Christ to be Sin, is out of the reach of all the Creatures in the World to apprehend how God should do it, and yet that he should retain his own Power, by Love, and respect to his Son, p. 180. Now as there was an Abhorrence of Sin charged on Christ, yet, and accordingly a Sepa­ration or forsaking upon that Account, so far as he bore Sin in his Humane Nature; yet God did retain that Love and Respect to him as his Son: Neither do I say, that Christ in his Humane Nature was separated from the Divine by a Dissolution of his Hypostatical Union: And therefore it's a false Charge to say I said, God abhorrtd the Person of his Son, or that there was a Separati­on between the Divine and Humane Natures of Christ.’ D.W. p. 33.

You say, Christ was separated from God, which you affirm and I deny.

Answ. If you understand me according to the Language of the Scripture and Analogy of Faith, I say so. i. e. As Sin brings in­evitably the Punishment of Loss as the Curse, and the greatest part of it, which is a Judicial Separation of God from the Creature; this I affirm, Christ suffered this Punishment in his Soul. But if you will wrest my meaning to be this, that he was separated by a Dissolution of the Hypostatical Union, I deny it. I say, ‘Should Iniquity be laid on the Humane Nature, and the Divine Nature not support it, it would have sunk under Sin, as a meer Hu­mane [Page 76] Creature.’ D. Cr. p. 378. Therefore it's apparent I intend­ed no such Separation, (as also by my whole Discourse it appears) that you would impose upon me.

The Question is, Whether Christ was at any time under God's Abhorrency, or odious to him, because under the Loathsomness of Sin? This you affirm, and I deny.

That I affirm it in your Sence, is false; for you know I said in express Terms, that God retained his Love and Respect to his Son: For it's not inconsistent, that God should retain his Love to his Son in respect of his Divine Nature, and yet lay him in respect of his Humane Nature under his manifest Displeasure, being now under the Charge of all the Sins of his Elect, and so Sin on Christ was the Object of God's Abhorrency.

Whether Christ was thus on the Account of the Filthiness of Sin, &c. This you affirm, and I deny.

When you can clear Sin from being Filthiness in the sight of God, upon any account; and that Guilt of Sin, reatus culpae, (I mean, not liableness to Punishment, that's not Sin, but the Effect of it) is not the greatest Filth of Sin: I shall tell you, I do not think Sin as to it's Filthiness was not laid on Christ: But this hath been argued before. You think you have a great Claw at me here; but I am sorry you understand the Nature of Sin no better, as to think it in the Law relation to be so clean, as not to be Filth in the sight of God.

I pray Mr. Neonomian, lead us into the Truth of this Point, that we may not be mistaken: We are willing to receive Light in these Truths; but we think it of dangerous Consequence to part with them, or darken them.

Truth. Though God testified his threatned Indignation against Sin in the awful Sufferings of Christ, Soul and Body, in his Ago­ny, and suspended those delightful Communications of the Divine Na­ture to the Humane Nature of Christ, as to their wonted Degrees; yet God was never separated from Christ, much less during his Body's lying in the Grave; neither was the Father ever displeased with Christ; and far less did he abhorr him, because of the Filthiness of Sin upon him. D. W. p. 31.

This is a marvellous Aphorism indeed. 1. Did God testifie his threatned Indignation against Sin in the awful Sufferings of Christ, Soul and Body? What is this less than what you would condemn for Error in me? 2. Did God suspend his Delightful Communications to the Humane Nature? What was this but the Separation I always shewed that I intended? 3. That God was never separated from Christ in the Hypostatick Union, I always [Page 77] affirm: No, not during his lying in the Grave. 4. But 4ly, I ne­ver said, the Father was displeased with Christ as his Son, or in relation to him as Son by Eternal Generation, but in relation to him as our Surety, and as a Sacrifice to bear Sin, he was displeased with him, or else you give your self the Lie in the same Para­graph, where you say, he testified his threatned Indignation against sin in the Sufferings of his Body and Soul; and how could this be without Displeasure. 5. What have we been doing all this while? Have you not been arguing against Christ's bearing sin? And now you say, God testified his Wrath against sin in the Sufferings of Christ. If sin was not imputed to him, could he bear Indignation for it? 6. And was not the Father as Judge dis­pleased with Christ as Debtor, and bearing our sins? How could he deal with him else in a way of testifying his Indignation, as you say? 7. You say, He did not abhorr him; so say we, not his Per­son, nor in such a way of Abhorrence that is in Man's Affections. God is not as Man, in natural Appetite or Aversion; but he ex­erted such an Abhorrence or Aversion as was proper to his Na­ture; we desire to term it but as you do, a manifestation of threatned Indignation to Sin, condemning Sin in the Flesh of Christ, Rom. 8.8. As Christ was made sin, doth not the Spirit of God say he was made a Curse? Is not Sin a cursed thing, that which is odious and abhorred? Suppose then we use not those Words Odi­ous, Abhorred, and we say, God testified his threatned Indignation against sin in Christ, even to the making him a Curse for us: What greater and higher Expression can be used? And how could God's Indignation be shewed against sin on a person upon all Ac­counts innocent, no way chargeable? Sin can't suffer Indignation, but the Sinner may: Sin in the Abstract is not capable of Suffering, it must be sin bringing some Person under a Law-Condemnation, so that he have the Denomination of a Sinner. 9. And whereas you will not have sin filthy, where is it the Spirit of God repre­sents it any otherwise, and the efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice as to the Purgation of Filth? therefore it's said, [...], Heb. 1.3. But of this elsewhere.

This Separation was impossible, because of the Ʋnion between the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ, &c. D. W. p. 33.

This Argument affects us not, for we never thought of of any such Separation, as I have told you; and it's your Impu­dence to charge it.

2. The Father hath promised constant Supports to Christ in the whole of his Ʋndertakings and Sufferings, Isa 42.1, 4, 6. Isa. 50 7, 8, 9.

Shot beside me still. I said, Should Iniquity been laid [Page 78] on the Humane Nature, and the Divine Nature not support it, it would have sunk under sin; and you own that I say so. Dr. Cr. p. 378.

And is it not strange, Gentlemen, that after he had said this, he should affirm a Separation?

And is it not strange, that you cannot distinguish be­tween Separations: I may separate from a thing in one respect and not in another: I may separate from another as to Communion, but not as to Relation, let it be Son, Wife, Brother, &c. and it's strange you cannot understand forsaking to be but of a Relation.

The Lord Jesus could not be abhorred or odious to God, for in him God was always well-pleased, Isa. 42.1. Matth. 17.5.

We say the same: Christ's Person in his Eternal Son­ship was so. All the Indignation that was testified towards him in his Humane Nature, in which only he was capable of Suffering, in that he became a Curse as well as Sin, God saith it.

Mr. Calvin, How horrid a Sound hath it to the Ear, to say, that Christ is odious to God, and abhorred by the Father?

Methinks those new Words applyed to Christ do not sound so well, and some Ears are offended at them. I think it's better to use the Scripture-Expressions, Christ made Sin, and Christ made a Curse for us: Let us but have the thing, Mr. Neonomian, we will part with any Word that's not Scriptural, if you give us another that will express it as well.

Doth not this make as horrid a Sound in a Christian Ear, that God manifested his wrathful Indignation against sin in the Person of Christ, in a most awful and dreadful manner?

But that's his way of expressing it, he doth not like yours.

Then I will abdicate those Words Odious and Abhor­rence, and use his Words; I be not fond of mine.

5. Christ could not be separated from God, or abhorred: while his Body lay in the Grave, his Soul went into Paradise.

No, his Hypostatical Union was not dissolved, nor God's Fatherly Love removed from his Person; but yet at the same time he was under the Suffering of Death, which was Penal for sin, he finished his Soul-sufferings on the Cross, but was under the Separation of Body and Soul, which was part of the Threat­ned Indignation against Sin; as also the lying of his Body in the Grave.

I will shew you your mistakes. You do not distinguish be­tween the Affection of Wrath and Effects of Wrath, because God forsook Christ as to the usual Degrees of Comfort, he thinks Christ was separated from God.

Sure this is a soul Mistake; if he should mistake his [Page 79] Logick, as to take the Cause to be the Effect, and the Effect the Cause: But I doubt you mistake your Divinity, as to ascribe an affection of Wrath to God. But I pray, where there's an Effect of Wrath in the Creature, is not Wrath the Cause of it? He that lies under the Effects of Wrath, is he not under Wrath? If Christ suffereth the Effects of Wrath, he suffereth Wrath. I know not how any one should suffer Wrath any other way. As to my Thoughts about Separation from God, they are only your Impo­sition of Thoughts and Meanings upon me, as I have told you.

Because he that is formally a Sinner is odious to God, there­fore he thinks Christ was odious to God, who had on him the Punishment of Sin, with the Guilt or Obligation to bear Punishment by his own Consent, neither of which have any thing of the Loathsomness of Sin.

I will not use the Word Odious, because you love not the smell of it: I say therefore, because a formal Sinner, or Com­mitter of sin unpardoned, is the Object of God's threatned Indig­nation bearing the Effects of Wrath, therefore an imputed Sinner is also the Object of God's threatned Indignation bearing the Ef­fects of Wrath. You will be at the old Socinian Notion still, That Christ bore but the Punishment for Sin, and Guilt is only Obliga­tion to Punishment; which is absolutely false, unless you mean re­atus culpae; for nothing is a Demerit of Punishment, but reatus culpae.

I know not why you think Christ came not near God from the time of his Death to his Resurrection, unless because of your Con­ceit, for the Loathsomness of Sin God could not bear the sight of him.

Your frequent Banter and Scoffs at the Scripture-Account of the Nature of Christ's Satisfaction, and of Sin, I am sure is very odious, and a horrid Sound to a Christian Ear. I shall not think such reasoning worthy of any thing but a Note of Con­tempt.

Mr. Neonomian, you must know we can't part with this Article of our Faith, That Christ was made a Curse for us, no more than that, That he was made Sin; That Christ bore the Curse of the Law, and was made a Curse for us, is such a Gospel-Truth, that we need no other Authority for it, than what is contained in the Scripture, being so expresly declared; which all sound Pro­testants always understood of bearing the Wrath of God in his Soul and Body, especially in his Soul, undergoing Poena Damni and Sensus, the first whereof I look to be the greatest and Cause of the other, and also fully enough express'd by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Cross.

Take Mr. Calvin. in his Harmony on the Evangelists. ‘Altho' [Page 80] there appeared more than Humane Courage in Christ's Outcry, yet it's certain it was uttered from Extremity of Grief. Verily, this was his chiefest Conflict, and more grievous than all his other Torments, because that in his Anguishes he was not so refreshed with his Fathers Holy Favour, that he did in some respect per­ceive him alienated from him; for neither did he offer his Body only as the Price of our Reconciliation with God, but in his Soul he bore the Punishment due to us; and they are Men of un­savoury Spirits, that slighting this part of Redemption, do in­sist only on the external Punishments of the Flesh; for as Christ satisfied for us, so it was requisite that he should be set as guilty before God's Tribunal: For nothing is more horrible than to perceive God as a Judge, whose Wrath exceeds all Deaths — Neither doth he complain Feignedly or Theatrically that he was deserted of God, according to the insipid Cavils of some: For the inward Grief of his Soul from the Depth of Anguish, compelled him to break forth into this Outcry. He did perfectly fulfill the Law, endured most grievous Torments immediately in his Soul.’ Conf. Assemb. c. 8. § 4.

He bore the Weight of God's Wrath, and laid down his Life an Offering for sin. Large Catceh. p. 249.

Quest. What Death did Christ suffer when he Sacrificed himself? Mr. Perkin's Catech.

Answ. A Death upon the Cross, peculiar to himself alone: For besides the Separation of Body and Soul, he felt also the Pangs of Hell, in that the whole Wrath of God due to the Sin of Man was poured forth upon him.

‘The Apostle doth not say that Christ was cursed, but a Curse, Calv. on Gal. 3.13. which is more; for it shews that all Malediction was included in him: This may seem hard, that it may look like a Reproach to the Cross of Christ in Confession, of which we glory: But God was not ig­norant of what kind of Death his Son should die, when he said, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree. But one may here object, How comes it to pass that the Son in whom the Father delights, should be accursed? I answer, Two things are here to be consider­ed, not only in the Person of Christ, but also in his Humanity: One is, that he was the Lamb of God without spot, full of Blessing and Grace. The other, that he took our Person; therefore he was a Sinner, and under the Curse, not so much in himself as in us, but yet it was necessary he should die in our stead, which he could not do out of the Grace of God; and yet he underwent his Wrath, else how could he reconcile the Father to us, whom he [Page 81] looked upon as incensed against us; therefore the Will of the Fa­ther did always rest satisfied in him. Again, how could he free us from the Wrath of God, unless he had translated it from us to him; therefore he was wounded for our Sins, and experienced God as an angry Judge. This is the foolishness of the Cross, but admired by Angels, and swallows up all the Wisdom of the World.’

‘We must not imagine Christ to be innocent, and as a private Person, (as do the Schoolmen, Luther on Gal. 3.14. and almost all the Fathers have done) which is holy and righte­ous for himself only. True it is, that Christ is a Per­son most pure and unspotted; but thou must not stay there, for thou hast not yet Christ, although thou know him to be God and Man: But then thou hast him indeed, when thou believest that this more pure and innocent Person is freely given unto thee of the Father to be thy Priest and Saviour; yea, rather thy Servant, that he putting off his Innocency and Holiness, and taking thy sinful Person upon him, might bear thy Sin, thy Death and thy Curse, and might be made a Sacrifice and Curse for thee, that by this means he might deliver thee from the Curse of the Law.’

‘As Paul applied unto Christ that place of Moses, Accursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree; so may we apply unto Christ not only that whole 27th of Deut. but also may gather all the Curses of Moses's Law together, and expound the same of Christ. For as Christ is innocent in this general Law touching his own Per­son; so is he also in all the rest. And as he is guilty in this general Law, in that he is made a Curse for us, and is hanged upon the Cross, as a wicked Man, a Blasphemer, a Murderer, a Traytor, even so is also guilty in all others. For all the Curses of the Law are heaped together, and laid upon him; and therefore he did bear and suffer them in his own Body for us; he was therefore not only accursed, but made a Curse for us.’

DEBATE VII. Of the Change of Person between Christ and the Elect, and their being as Righteous as he.

HAving stated, and finished the Doctrine of Imputa­tion of Sin, let us, if you please, in the next place examine the Doctrine of Imputation of Righte­ousness, I have in this Point, as I shall state it, great Errours to Charge upon Mr. Antinomian.

I pray Sir proceed, I shall be very attentive to your Charge.

You hold that every Believer (or Elect Person) is as Righ­teous as Christ; and there is a perfect Change of Person and Condition betwixt Christ and the Elect; he was what we are, and we are what he was, viz. Perfectly Holy, without Spot or Blemish.

If I mistake not, this is the 22th Errour Mr. B. chargeth upon the Antinomian, but that he stateth it truer than you.

Errour 22. They feign Christ to have made such an Exchange with the Elect, as that having taken all their Sins, he hath given them all his Righteousness; not only the Fruit of it, but the thing it self: So that they are as perfectly Righteous as Christ himself, and so esteemed of God; and this Doctrine subverts all the Go­spel; viz. That God makes an effectual Grant and Donation of a true, real and perfect Righteousness, even that of Christ himself, to all that believe, accounting it as theirs. Scripture Gospel Defend­ed, B. Err. descr. p. 11. Err. 22. and p. 108.

Let the Question go in his own Terms; I chuse to hold him to them, because he reckons no Man states a Question better than himself; pray Sir make proof in Matter and Form as charged by you.

That I can easily; you say, D. C. p. 270, 271. Mark it well, Christ himself is not so compleatly Righteous, but we are as Righteous as he; nor we so compleatly sinful, but Christ be­came [Page 84] so, being made Sin, as compleatly sinful as we. Nay more, we are the same Righteousness, for we are made the Righteousness of God; the very sinfulness that we were, Christ is made that very sinfulness before God. So that here is a direct Change; Christ takes our Person and Con­dition, and stands in our stead; we take Christ's Person and Condition, and stand in his stead — So that if you reckon well, you must always reckon your selves in another's Person, and that other in your Person: God gives Christ, i. e. God gives the Person of Christ to Men, as much as to say, God gives Christ to stand in the Room of Men, and Men to stand in the Room of Christ; so that in giving Christ it is as it were to make a change, &c. Dr. C. p. 180.

When I speak of compleatly sinful and righteous, you must know that I still understand by way of Imputation, that which was not originally in the Subject; and so the Perfection is a Perfection of Imputation, which is as real and compleat in its kind as any Relative Perfections. A Man may be a weak sickly Man but a perfect Father; a Poor Man, but as perfect a Son as the Son of the Richest; a Man may be free from Debts, and yet make himself as perfect a Debtor for the Debts of others as any Man for his own; and a Man may be a poor, wretched, miserable Creature, but made as Righteous in respect of the Law as the Richest Man on Earth, by the Money of another Man; that which denominates a Man perfect­ly Righteous is this, that he oweth nothing to the Law; and if a Man be worth but Forty Shillings, and owe nothing, he is as Righ­teous in a Legal Righteousness, as he that hath a Thousand Pound; therefore it's no Hyperbolical Expression for one that owes nothing to the Law, to say, I am as Righteous as the King, meaning such a Righteousness which the Law requireth of him, respecting the Precept or Sanction, Active and Passive Obedience; I mean not the Righteousness of Legislation or Execution of Justice in a way of distribution, but such a Righteousness that I am capable of. So when I say, we are as Righteous as Christ, I mean not Christ's Me­diatorial Righteousness as you suggest; I do not mean Justitia Me­diatoria, sed Justitia Mediatoris; not Mediatorial Righteousness, but the Righteousness of the Mediator.

When I say I am as Righteous now (after my Debt of Five Pound is paid, and owe no more in all the World,) in the Eye of the Law, as my Friend that paid my Debt, and fetched me out of Prison: I do not thereby say that I have as good an Estate as he, or that I have so many Thousand Pounds as he; or as able to pay the Debts of others as he is; and as for the other part of your Charge about our commutation of Person, I justifie my self [Page 85] in it, that as Christ bore my Sins by Imputation, so I have his Righteousness, and am Righteous in his Righteousness, by Impu­tation, 2 Cor. 5.21.

What do you, Mr. Neonomian, reckon to be Truth in this Point?

The Truth is this. D. W. p. 37.

The Mediatorial Righteousness of Jesus Christ is so Imputed to true Believers, as that for the sake thereof they are pardoned and accepted unto Life Eternal; it being reckoned to them, and pleadable by them for these uses, as if they had personally done and suffered what Christ did as Mediator for them, whereby they are delivered from the Curse, and no other Atonement or Meriting Price of Saving Benefits can be demanded from them?

Your Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness necessarily inferrs the Consequents that you would draw upon us; for if the Mediatorial Righteousness of Christ be Imputed (as you explain it your self, Diff. 1. To be Habitual as well as Active and Pas­sive;) then we must be reckoned Mediators; for we must be rec­koned such as Christ is, in Person, and in Office; but we deny that the Mediatorial Righteousness was Imputed, but Justitia Mediatoris not Justitia Mediatoria.

2. You say this Righteousness is so Imputed to a true Believer, as for the sake thereof he is pardoned; I am sure by your so, you mean another sence than we mean; that we are only pardoned ef­fective, and that's no more than we are sanctified and glorified for it's sake; and this appears by your second Difference, p. 39. where you say the difference is not, ‘Whether our Justification, and all o­ther Benefits, when we are partakers of them, be the Fruits of this Righteousness as the only Meritorious Cause.’ So that you have no reason to quarrel with me for saying, That through Christ's bear­ing of Sin we appear in perfect Holiness, (speaking there of Glo­ry;) for you say, Justification and all other Benefits flow from it; therefore in the same manner as we are Justified by the Righteous­ness of Christ, in the same manner we are sanctified and glorified, i. e. effective, in your sence.

3. You say also pleadable for these Uses, i. e. for all Uses in a like manner.

4. As if they had personally done and suffered what Christ did as Mediator for them; your meaning is, That it's as well done as if they had done it themselves. A Man may do a thing as well as another, that he doth not for another in his stead; yea, a Man may do a thing for another, and not do it in his stead; as a Tay­lor makes a Minister a Suit of Cloaths, but doth not do it in his [Page 86] stead; because it's not his Business to make his Cloaths; but it's another thing for a Man to come and preach for him, that is, to do it in his stead; because it's his proper Work, Profession and Bu­siness.

5. And hereby you say they are delivered from the Curse. What mean you by the Curse? We shall find this Curse is not the whole Vindicative Wrath of God, only Eternal Curse. And for our Comfort you tell us, this is all the Attonenement or meriting Price of saving Benefits that God can demand of us. It's so in our stead, as that God can exact no other Atonement, and so a Security from God's hurting us.

In a Word, the Description of Imputation here that you have given, is but a meer piece of Sophistry; that Imputed Righte­ousness may be any thing for all this, and we shall see by and by what you will have it be.

Nevertheless this Mediatorial Righteousness is not sub­jectively in them; nor is there a Change of Person betwixt them and Christ, neither are they as righteous as he, but there remain Spots and Blemishes in them, until Christ by his Spirit perfect that Holiness begun in all true Believers, which he will effect before he bring them to Heaven.

Now you come to the Negative part of your Descrip­tion, which should have been first; and having said nothing of the thing at first, you tell us it's nothing at last. 1. You say this Mediatorial Righteouscess, Sir, is not subjectively in us. I know no Judicious Divine ever talked so, nor would you, if you understood mediatorial Righteousness, as it's apparent you do not. 2. You say there's no change of Person betwixt Christ and them. You mean, that the Believer becomes not Christ, nor Christ the Believer: We mean so too. 3. You say too, that Believers are not as righteous as he, you mean such a Righteousness Mediato­rial. 4. You basely insinuate, that their Righteousness in Justifi­cation is imperfect; for the Spots and Blemishes we speak of is in respect of Righteousness.

I question not whether Christ by his Righteousness merited for all the Elect, that they should in his time and way be certainly Par­takers of it's saving Effects; and did not only purchase a conditional Grant of those Effects, viz. That Proposition, He that believeth shall be saved. P. 39.

It seems Christ then merited a certainty of Salvation only of the Elect; I thought their Salvation was made certain by Election; the Foundation of God stands sure, 2 Tim. 2.19. Your meaning is, Christ's Merits made our Salvation certain, which in [Page 87] respect of Election was uncertain. 2. And but certain in another way, viz. Of a Conditional Grant that is not yet performed, and belongs to the Non-elect as well as to the Elect; and there's yet an Uncertainty remaining, notwithstanding the Certainty purchased. 3. It's very odd to say, Christ purchased a Propo­sition, and a conditional one too, the Condition whereof must be something not purchased to be performed by us, that we may have the Gift promised: For if the Certainty depend upon the Merit and Purchase, then both the Condition and Promise is pur­chased, and then the Purchase is absolute. I would know whe­ther the certainty of the Salvation of the Elect be purchased conditionally or absolutely; if purchased conditionally, then this Proposition, The Elect shall be saved, is yet uncertain in respect of the Purchase of Christ, and is but a contingent Proposition, and not certain, which is a Contradiction. If you say Christ pur­chased absolutely the Salvation of the Elect, all your contingent Purchase falls to the Ground: But Christ purchased Persons abso­lutely, not conditional Propositions; and is he that believes shall be saved, a conditional Proposition indeed?

Nor whether besides these Effects being made ours, the very Righteousness of Christ be imputed to true Believers, as what was always undertaken and designed for their Salvation, and is now effe­ctual to the actual Pardon and Acceptance to Life; yea, is pleadable by them for their Security, and is as useful to their Happiness, as if them­selves had done and suffered what Christ did.

Gentlemen, you would think that Mr. Neonomian had here owned the Doctrine of Imputation; but it is nothing so, he doth but sham it still. Mark, he says, Besides the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, the very Righteousness of Christ is impu­ted as to Effects, or Effectualness, i. e. Pardon and Acceptance is the Effects; but he tells you not that it is the proper and imme­diate Righteousness, he will have the Righteousness of Christ to have some Effects, and is imputed as to such: So that Sanctification and Glorification being Effects, are as much the Imputation of the very Righteousness of Christ. It's a strange thing to confound the Cause and Effects; to tell us the very Cause is imputed, and pre­sently to tell us he means the Effects: This is to talk Daggers; for Cause and Effect are opposita. But he saith, the Righteousness of Christ is what was undertaken and designed for their Salvation, and is effectual, and in that Sense imputed. Very good; so that it was a subordinate means to accomplish that end, as was also Creation, (which was by Christ, Col. 1.) preaching the Gospel, their Calling, Sanctification; hence the Imputation of Christ's [Page 88] Righteousness is but to give it a place in the order of means for our Salvation, and in that order of means hath it's Effects. But he saith, there is a Priviledge by it as well as a proper Ef­fect, it's pleadable for their Security. I would know how it comes to be pleadable; is it from its own certainty to us, and our Salvation by it, or from our performance of the condition of the Grant? if a Conditional Grant he purchased, we cannot plead the certainty of our state from the purchase, but very remotely after another plea first; if the condition of the Grant be never so small, we must first plead it, before we can plead the purchase; we must have a plea for the right to the purchase before we can have any plea to the Grant by the purchase. Lastly, he saith, The Righteous­ness of Christ is as useful this way as any, as if Christ had suffered in their stead he means; i. e. a New Gospel will do your business as well as the Old and True.

I question not whether Christ by his Righteousness me­rited — that Believers shall be perfectly Holy, even without Spot and Blemish.

But you say, Christ's Merits are Imputed only as to their Effects; and in that sence the Merits of Christ are Imputed for Sanctification in the same manner as to Justification.

I doubt not but Spots and Blemishes may consist with his Justified State, &c.

Nor I, Spots as to Inherent Holiness, but by vertue of Christ's Righteousness Imputed unto Justification, he is with­out Spot before God; this Righteousness hath no Spot in it, but you charge it for Errour to say they are so Righteous that they have no Spot in them.

The difference lyes in these Points.

1. Whether there be a change of Person between Christ and the Elect, this you affirm, and I deny.

I affirm there is in the true Gospel Sence, not in such a forced inviduous Sense that you would put upon us.

2. Whether the Mediatorial Righteousness of Christ be subjectively in us? This you affirm, and I deny.

It's false, I affirm it not.

Whether we be as Righteous as Christ, be a proper and safe Speech? This you affirm, I deny; though I yield that we are for the sake of his Righteousness, delivered from the Guilt of Sin, and en­titled to Life; yea, accepted with God against all Excluding Bars.

We deny a Believer is as Righteous as Christ in respect of Justitia Meditoria; the Righteousness Imputed is not that Righte­ousness; [Page 89] neither is it communicable by Imputation; but it's the Ju­stitia Mediatoris, that is quasi, the Material Cause of our Justification, materia ex quâ, you make it Imputed but in the Effect; and in the best sense you make it but a cujus gratia res est; and so we are Sanctified and Glorified: but we say the Righteousness of Christ is the Material Righteousness of our Justification, no other Righteousness or Condition coming in with it in the Imputation, and that thereby Believers are as free from the Condemnation of the Law, and in the Eye of Justice, as Christ himself; if his Righ­teousness had not been such, he could not have arose from the Dead. You say you yield that for the sake of Christ's Righteousness we are delivered from Guilt; How? Is it not because he bore the Guilt, and satisfied for it? It's this bearing Guilt, and satisfying God's Justice, that we by Faith stand in, and all our Guilt covered by, it's this very Satisfaction in the full Nature of it, is Imputed to us. —You say, accepted of God against all Excluding Bars. This is little better than Nonsence; however your meaning lyes very fair in it, that our acceptance to God's positive Favour and Love is not here, but elsewhere; and Acceptance as to Excluding Bars, is only a Negative acceptance, an Acceptance and no Acceptance; the removing the Bars and Obstacles to acceptance, supposeth there may be an acceptance upon some other Terms. It is a miserable thing that Christ's Righteousness should do no more than remove a Bar. The Apostle saith, We are accepted in the Beloved, Eph. 1. he should have said, The Bars of acceptance are removed by the Be­loved: now provide for your Acceptance as well as you can.

Whether because Christ is perfectly Holy, can we be said to be perfect in Holiness upon the account of any Imputation of his Ho­liness to us, or we so Esteemed by God? This I affirm, you deny.

You should affirm it upon your Principles, allowing no Imputation, but as to the Effects of his Righteousness; and I tell you, in a perfect Person, such as Adam in Innocence, and Christ the Second Adam, there is no difference between Personal Righ­teousness and Holiness.

The Question is, Whether the Elect Believer before he is perfectly Holy, is wholly without Spot, Filth and Blemish? This you affirm, and I deny; though I grant that those Spots, Blemishes, and Filth shall not subject them to the Curse and Wrath of God, nor for­feit Saving Benefits.

We say in respect of the perfect Righteousness of Je­sus Christ, that is Imputed unto a Believer, he is perfect and without Spot in the Eye of God's Justice, and that in Christ this [Page 90] Righteousness is perfect Holiness, and as such, is theirs as in their Head, Col. 1.19, 21, 22. Chap. 2.10. And in your Divinity you say these Spots, &c. shall not subject them to Curse and Wrath: If so, it hath perfectly freed them from the Charge of Sin in the Eye of God's Justice, all their Iniquities are forgiven, and their Sin co­vered with the Righteousness of Christ, that they stand [...], be­fore the Throne, Rev. 14. For if Justice charge them with Sin, i. e. lay it to their Charge, it must condemn them to the Curse and Wrath due; but [...] Who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect? it is God that Justifieth, Rom. 8.33. And then follows, [...], Who shall Condemn? Therefore where there's just Accusing before God, there's also Condemning; and hence though there be remaining Sins and Corruptions in the holiest Be­liever, yet God mark [...] them not so as to lay them to their Charge in the way of Vindicative Justice; they are not (say you) sub­jected to Curse and Wrath.

I shall confirm my Positions.

1. There is no Change of Person between Christ and the Elect. D. W. p. 41.

I pray what do you mean by that Position?

Christ was the Saviour, and never ceased to be so, we are saved; Christ was the Redeemer, and we the Redeemed; Christ for­gives, we forgiven.

Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in Redemption, for Justification or Forgiveness, doth not denominate us Saviours, or Redeemers; Relata sunt contraria negantia, and as they stand mu­tually affected, cannot be converted into each other; you are now upon a sure side. A Father cannot be the Son in that respect as he is the Father, and yet he may be a Son too; and therefore, relata sunt contraria, quia referuntur ad idem subjectum attributionis; and though they are contraries, yet do consist ex mutua alterius affecti­one; and hence, omnis integra relatio constat ex duabus partibus; in respect of one, the relatum is causa, and correlatum the Effect. In the respect of the other, the relatum is effectum, and the correla­tum causa. Redeemer and Redeemed are Mutual Causes and Ef­fects, and yet Contraries; and the Contraries yet do Exist by the Mutual Affection that they have to each others.

What is all this to the purpose?

I would hereby give you to know that I under­stand the Logical Difference between Redeemer and Redeemed and if you knew it your self, you would be ashamed to use this Argument to any Men of Learning; but such studyed Di­vines [Page 91] take themselves to have such puzzling Pates, that they can be dictators to all Men.

It's prophane Arrogance for us to pretend to his Prero­gatives; and it's Blasphemy to debase him among their number, who were Enemies, and without Strength.

Logick failing, it's not amiss to betake your self to some high strains of Rhetorick; some great words may make a Man look big, but never affright Wise Men from the Truth.

My sec [...]nd Argument is, The Meditorial Righteousness of Christ is not subjectively in us.

No, nor by Imputation neither, i. e. Justitia Mediato­ria, but Justitia Mediatoris is both subjectively in Christ and us; Originalitèr in Christ, Imputativè in or upon us; we are the Subjects by your leave of Imputed Righteousness, and Christ of Imputed Sin; and this very subjectiveness cuts off both your Arguments at once, because the very proposition that we are the Subjects of Imputed Righteousness, denies our selves to be the Authors of that Righteous­ness, and affirms another to be so; my very saying that the Creditor took another's Bond for my Debt, and delivered up my Bond to me upon his Payment, doth sufficiently acquaint all rational Men that I not only ascribe the Payment to another Man, but do af­firm that his Money was accepted on my Account; and if any should hear me say that I became a Surety, because he paid my Debt, they would think I were Mad; but if I say, that the Credi­tor took such an one as Pay-master in stead of me, and his Money paid was reckoned to me, no Man but would judge it very good sence besides Mr. Neonomian.

I do not speak of Inherent Righteousness, of which he is not only the Pattern, but also is the Cause and Worker, Phil. 3.9.

We would not mistake you, you would be understood that we are the Subjects of Inherent Righteousness; and I tell you, so are we of Imputed Righteousness, genere Imputationis, Christ is not; as Christ is the subject of our Sins, genere Imputationis. That which God Imputes to us, and Faith Applies to us, we are the Subjects of it, for subjectum is cui aliquid adjungitur; and here is a note of Conjugate Arguments, wherein is Abstractum, concretum & modus Agendi, Justus is subjectum Justitiae Imputatae; and in this pair of Relates, the adjunct is also the cause of the Subject, which is a Logical Mystery that every unstudied Divine doth not understand. As for Phil. 3.9. which you pervert and understand of our Inherent [Page 92] Righteousness, we shall examine that anon. I see you are very fond of your first Argument, and every Argument must run into it like a Mathematical Principle, that must clinch every demonstra­t [...]on; such as this, Three Angles of a Triangle are equal to two square Angles; or that any two Lines not Parallel protracted will at last cut, &c. Now say you, if Christ's Righteousness be Impu­ted to us who was a Saviour, then we are Saviours; and it runs thus; if a Surety pays my Debt, then I am a Surety; if my Father pays my Debt, I am thereby made a Father, whether I have Children or no. If a Rich Merchant pay the Debt of a Poor Cob­ler, and fetch him out of Ludgate, the Cobler hereby becomes a Merchant. A Justice of Peace takes off the Penalty from a Consta­ble for some Fault, whereby he hath forfeited his Office, and there­fore the Constable must become a Justice of Peace. The absurdity of your Inference hence easily appears, Imputation of the Action of one Party to another, no way inferrs Physical Change, or Indi­vidual Identity, but signifies a Relative Change, not of one into another, but of both to the Law; the Law takes the Surety for the Debtor, and the Original Debtor to be a Pay-master in the Surety. As the Sponsor becomes a reputed Debtor, and the prin­cipal Debtor becomes the reputed Pay-master; and note, when we speak of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, we understand not the Imputation of his Offices, as you would have us: is not that the Commutation here meant by you?

It's Inconsistent with the Nature of Gospel Imputa­tion.

It is Inconsistent with our Doctrine of Imputation, but must necessarily follow from your Notion of Mediatorial Righteousness; and all your Inferences upon this Hypothesis is but Fighting with your own Shadow; and therefore we shall leave you therein, Canere tuis Musis, your Arguing affects us not in the least.

The Doctrine of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us to Justification, and a sweet permutation of Persons in a Law sence and relation, we must assent and stand by, notwithstanding all your Cavils against it; the Scriptures are plain and express for it, and will stand as Bulwarks to defend this Doctrine against all Papists, Socinians and Neonomians; and because you Mr. Neo­nomian quote Dr. Owen, would have us to believe that he is a Pa­tron to your Notions, and Men that read him not may think so from your Authority, I would disabuse them, and shew you now [Page 93] naked, how diametrically opposite to you that Learned Doctor is? he saith,

There is in Scripture represented to us a Commu­tation between Christ and Believers, Dr. Owen of Justific. p. 39. as unto Sin and Righteousnes, i. e. in the Imputation of their Sins unto him, and of his Righteousness unto them. In the Improve­ment and Application hereof unto our Souls, no small part of the Life and Exercise of Faith doth consist. This was taught the Church in the Offering of the Scape-Goat, Levit. 16.21, 22. This Goat was sent away with this Burden upon him; and whether he did Live, and was a Type of the Life of Christ in his Resurrection, or whether he perished in the Wilderness, being cast down the Precipice of a Rock, &c. its generally acknowledged what was done to him, and with him, was only a Representation of what was done really in the Person of Christ — He did not trans­fuse Sin from one Subject to another, but transferred the Guilt of it; and to evidence this translation of Sin from the people unto the Sacrifice. Aaron in his Confession, put and fixed both his Hands on his Head. Thence the Jews say, That all Israel was made as Innocent on the day of Expiation as they were in the day of Crea­tion; from v. 30. wherein they came short of Perfection or Con­summation, Heb. 10. But this is the Language of every Expiato­ry Sacrifice; quod in ejus caput sit, let the Guilt be upon him; hence the Sacrifice was called [...] Sin and Guilt, Lev. 4.29.7. 2, 10, 17.

And so God laid on Christ the Iniquities of us all, that by his stripes we might be healed, Isa. 53.5, 6. Our Iniquity was laid on him, and he bear is, v. 11. and through his bearing it we were freed from it. His Stripes were our Healing, our Sin was his, Im­puted to him; his Merit ours, Imputed unto us. He was made Sin for us, &c. that we might become the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5.21. This is that Commutation I mentioned, he was made Sin for us; we are made the Righteousness of God in him, God not Imputing Sin to us but Righteousness.— The same is expressed by the same Apostle, Rom. 8.3, 4. The Sin was made his, he an­swered for it, and the Righteousness which God requireth by the Law is made ours, the Righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us, not by our doing it, but by his. This is that Blessed Change and Commutation, wherein alone the Soul of a Convinced Sinner can find rest and peace. So he hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us, that the Blessing of Abraham might ocme upon us, Gal. 3.13, 14. He was made a Curse, whereof his [Page 94] Hanging on a Tree was a Sign and Token; hence said to bear our Sins in his Body on a Tree, 1 Pet. 1.24. compare Deut. 21.23. And in the Blessing of Faithful Abraham all Righteousness and Ac­ceptation with God is included.

And to take off Impertinent Clamours of some against this Do­ctrine, he quotes the original words of Justin Martyr, [...], &c. He gave his Son a Ransom for us; the Holy for Transgressors; the Inno­cent for the Nocent, the Just for the Unjust, the Incorruptible for the Corrupt, the Immortal for Mortals. For what else could hide or cover our Sins but his Righteousness? In whom else could we Wicked and Ungodly ones be justified or esteemed Righteous, but in the Son of God alone? O sweet Permutation, or Change! O Unsearchable Work! — That the Iniquity of many should be hid in one Just One, and the Righteousness of One should justifie many Transgressors. Gregory Nysson speaks thus, He hath trans­ferred unto himself the Filth of my Sins, [observe the Expression Mr. Neonom. [...],] and communicated to me his Purity. So Augustin, He was Sin that we might be Righteousness, not our own, but the Righteousness of God, not in our selves, but in him, as he was Sin, not his own, but ours, not in himself, but in us. And he thus Comments on, Psal. 22.1. How saith he of my Sins, because he prayeth for our Sins, he made our Sins to be his, (mark Mr. Neonomian) that he might make his Righteousness to be ours; O sweet Commutation and Change. And he quotes Chry­sostom on 2 Cor. 5. Hom. 11. What Word, what Speech is this? What Mind can comprehend or express it? for he saith, He made him who was Righteous to be made a Sinner, that he might make Sinners Righteous — And he speaks not of an Inclination, but ex­presseth the quality it self. He faith not, He made him a Sinner, but Sin; that we might be made not meerly Righteous but Righte­ousness; and that the Righteousness of God; when we are Justifi­fied, not by Works, (for if we should there must be no Spot found in them,) but by Grace, whereby all Sin is blotted out. And how far is this from your Divinity, Mr. Neonomian? See more, p. 43, 44, &c.

He quotes also Bernard and Luther, and divers others, which you may read, Mr. Neonomian, at your leisure, I find you have the Book, especially that Excellent Discourse of Albertus Pighius.

He addeth, Nor are we to be moved that Men who are unac­quainted with these things in Reality and Power, do reject the [Page 95] whole Work of Faith herein, as an easie Effort of Fancy and Ima­gination. For the Preaching of the Cross is Foolishness unto the best of the Natural Wisdom of Men. P. 49.

Dr. Owen gives the Original of your Argument against Imputati­on of Christ's Righteousness to us, P. 509. viz. That if the Righte­ousness of Christ be Imputed to us so as to be made ours, then are we as Righteous as Christ himself, because we are Righteous with his Righteous­ness. Dr. Owen shews this to be Bellarmine's Argument against the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, Lib. 2. C. 7. Si verè nobis Imputatus Justitia Christi, &c. If the Righteousness of Christ be Impu­ted to us so as to be made ours thereby, then are we as Righteous as Christ himself, because we are Righteous with his Righteousness.

A. These things are plainly affirmed in Scripture, that as unto our selves, we are all as an unclean thing, and all our Righteous­ness is as filthy Rags, Isa. 64.6. on the one hand, and that in the Lord we have Righteousness and Strength, Isa. 45.24, 25. on the other. That if we say we have no Sin we deceive our selves; and yet that we are the Righteousness of God in Christ; wherefore these things are consistent whatever Cavils the Will of Man makes against them; unless we take Socinius's his Rule of Interpretation, namely, where any thing seems repugnant to our Reason though never so express in Scripture, not to admit of it, &c. 2. Notwith­standing the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, and our being made Righteous thereby, we are Sinners in our selves, and so cannot be said to be as Righteous as Christ, but only made Righteous in him, who are Sinners in our selves. 3. We must di­stinguish between the Personal Righteousness of Christ, and our Personal Righteousness, and between Righteousness of Inhesion and Imputation, being of divers kinds. 4. The Righteousness of Christ was the Righteousness, personally of the Son of God, in which re­spect of Infinite Perfection, and not to be compared to, &c.

And as to that place which you boast of, it's wholly against you; Page 242, 243. Here you prevaricated with your Reader in rehearsing Dr. O. for having shewed what Imputation is, he tells us, That Righteousness it self is Imputed, and not any of the Effects, but the Effects of it are made ours by vertue of that Imputation. To say the Righteousness of Christ, i. e. his Obedience and Sufferings are Imputed to us only as unto Effects, is to say, We have the Benefit of them, and no more, but Imputation it self is denied; so say the Socinians, but they knew well, and in­geniously grant that they overthrew all true, real Imputation there­by, [Page 96] and quotes Schlictingius, saying, We concede Christ's Righte­ousness is ours, as it redounds to our Good and Righteousness, &c. And is it not pleasing to see some among our selves with so great Confidence take up the sense and words of these Men.

But Dr. Owen saith, That Imputation is not the Trans­mission or Transfusion of the Righteousness of another into them that are justified, that they should become perfectly and inherently righteous there­by, &c. p. 242. D. W. p. 51.

We say so too; but Dr. Owen doth not say, We are justify'd by the Imputation of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness, he opposeth that Imputation as a Socinian Notion.

He doth not: For he saith, That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as to it's Effects, hath this sound Sence, namely, The Effects of it are made ours by reason of that Imputation. It is im­puted, so reckoned unto us of God, as that he really communicates all the Effects of it unto us.

But what immediately follows in the next Sentence? Dr. O. p. 243.

Why did you not quote all the Dr. said? Is not this base false dealing? You would only quote as much as should serve your turn. ‘But to say the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us, only its Effects are so, is really to overthrow all Imputation: For (as we shall see) the effects of the Righteousness of Christ can't be said properly to be imputed to us; and if his Righteousness it self be not so, Imputation hath no place herein: nor can it be understood why the Apostle should so frequently assert it as he doth, Rom. 4. Therefore the Socinians, who do expresly oppose the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, and plead for a Participation of it's Effects and Benefits only, do wisely deny any such kind of Righte­ousness of Christ, i. e. of Satisfaction and Merit, as alone may be imputed to us. Here's matter of Fact, to shew your double-deal­ing.’

But the Assembly is of my mind. Q. 69. What is the Communion in Grace which the Members of the Invisible Church have with Christ. A. In their partaking of the Vertue of his Mediation in their Justification, Adoption, Sanctification, and whatever in this Life manifests their Ʋnion with him; so that in their Judgment it's the vertue of Christ's Mediation operates on us, and not the Mediatorial Righteousness in us.

This is strange Language, to talk of Imputing the Mediation of Christ to us; and this is that you now plainly tell us, is the Mediatorial Righteousness that you mean all along; or that [Page 97] partaking of the Vertues of Mediation and Imputation are con­vertible Terms? Those Reverend Divines do not say, the Mediation of Christ was imputed to us, no more than his Kingship, Priestship, Prophetical Office; yet we are in a Sence made Kings, Priests and Prophets, but not by Imputation: They tell you only of the Ef­fects of his Mediation, of which Justification is one. If you would have told us what they say of Imputed Righteousness, you should have rehearst the next, Q. 70. What is Justification?

A. ‘Justification is an Act of God's Free Grace unto Sinners, in which he pardoneth all their Sins, accepteth and accounteth their Persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect Obedience and full Satisfaction of Christ by God imputed to them, and received by Faith alone.’

See the Shorter Catechism, Q. 33. See also the Confession, di­rectly condemning all your Scheme of Divinity at once, C. 9. Of Justification.

‘Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifyeth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by pardoning their Sins, and by accounting and accepting their Persons as righte­ous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing Faith it self, the Act of believing, nor any other Evangelical Obedience to them as their Rigteousness, but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfacti­on of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith.’ The Savoy Conf. ch. 11. is the same verbatim.

Now, Gentlemen, I appeal to all Men of Sence and Honesty, whether Mr. Neonomian hath dealt fairly, thus to represent the Judgment of Dr. Owen and the Reverend Divines of the Assembly, or thus to impose upon the weak, and such as have not Will or Leisure to search into the Truth of what he saith.

I tell you what the Savoy says, which is the same Ar­ticles with the Assemblies.

But you tell us, or would have us to understand, that the meaning of the Assembly about Imputation, is, that the Vertue of Christ's Mediation ( i. e. in your declared Sence) the Ef­fects only operates upon us; and then after rehearsal of the Words of the Savoy, you add, Thou seest it's Christ's Righteousness is im­puted for Pardon, and not infused. You'll oppose imputation to Infusion, which none of us plead for: But this Imputation is in [Page 98] your Sence only as to the Effect, which you would have us to believe is the Judgment of Dr. Owen and the two Assemblies: And I find you lamely rehearse the Article of your Confession, as being ashamed to behold your Erroneous Doctrine so fully condemned by them.

Do not think such pitiful little Sophisms as these, are such as do become a professed Minister of the Gospel, or that your Reverend Vouchers have not prejudiced their Honour by asserting so publickly to the World, That in all material things you have fully and rightly stated the Truths and Errors in this Treatise; and look upon this as a Work of considerable Service to the Church of Christ, &c. when your manifest Design is to hide Truth by Equivocations, false Representations, and odious forced Consequences; and to im­pose old palpable decried Errours. Veritas non querit angulos.

Now, Sir, that you may see we have more than Authority for this great Doctrine of Imputation of Christ's very Righteousness:

1. I prove, that to say Christ's Righteousness is imputed only as to Effects, is to deny the Doctrine of Imputation.

Consider, from the Nature of Imputation it self. Imputation is the reckoning and esteeming that unto one man, which is done by another: As in case of Debt or Wrong done by one Man to ano­ther, a third comes and does, or promiseth that thing whereby the Offended Person becomes satisfied with the Offender, previous to which Satisfaction in Nature is his reckoning the Payment made, or to be made, unto the Offender; it's not the taking of this or that Payment in any kind that is Satisfactory for the Of­fender, unless it be by the offended Person reckoned to him.

Paul to Philemon, v. 18. gives the clear Notion of Imputation both as to Wrong and Righteousness, [...], If he hath criminally or unrighteously done thee wrong in filching or stealing, impute this to me, or put it upon my Account: Take me as Paymaster, and put my Payment on his Account, i. e. In respect of any wrong that he hath done thee, or Debt that he owes thee; Here's my hand for it, [...], I will repay it to thee. Now Paul stood bound for Onesimus to Philemon; and unless Philemon had accounted Paul's Payment or Obligation to Onesimus in respect of any Wrong sustained by him, Onesimus is still peccant, and an unreconciled Offender in the Eve of Philemon.

Now the Effects of Righteousness is the Benefits received by Imputation, not Imputation it self. Suppose the nearest Effects of Christ's Righteousness, as Satisfaction, Reconciliation, Justi­fication, [Page 99] Adoption, Imputation, is cause of those Effects. God is satisfied, and reconciled, and justifies the Sinner, because he im­putes and reckons to him the payment or appeasing Act of the Surety. I argue then,

1. That which is a Benefit received by vertue of Imputed Righ­teousness, is not imputed Righteousness it self, but God's being satisfied, reconciled, and Justifying us, is the Benefit only of Imputed Righteousness, Ergo. As to the Major, That thi [...]g which is re­ceived by vertue of something else, is not the same with it; nay, they are contraria affirmantia. Now God's giving us the Bene­fit of Imputed Righteousness, is that which doth in a way of Justice result from the said Righteousness imputed: The Imputation is the Gift of Grace, therefore Christ's Righteous­ness is first imputed, and graciously reckoned ours to all in­tents and purposes. Hence results in a way of Justice God's Satisfaction, Reconciliation, and the Sinners Justification. Hence it will needs follow, if there be no more in Imputation than God's be­ing satisfyed, reconciled, Justifying, I will say, how comes it to pass? You'll say, Through Christ's Righteousness, it's an Effect of it. I say so too. But how come we to have these Effects, if God never reckoned and accounted Christ's Righteousness unto us? either we are righteous some way or other before God declares us righteous, or we are not: If not, it's not a true Sentence: If we are righ­teous, we are so by our own Righteousness, or anothers: if by anothers, it must be some way or other ours either by Commu­nication of it essentially, or by reckoning and esteeming it unto us as if it were ours; but to reckon the Effect only, is not Imputing of it at all.

Arg. 2. To say the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness is only the bestowing of the Effects, is to ascribe Justification to the Righ­teousness of Christ in no other sence than we do Sanctification and Glorification; for it is to say that Justification is but a Meritorious Benefit, and so is Sanctification and Glorification; for all those are purchased and procured by him. Now there's a vast difference between payment of a Debt owing, and making a purchase of a new Estate: it's true Christ did both, he satisfied and he purchased; as for the purchase Money there's no need it should be Imputed to us; if the Estate being purchased be bestowed freely, it is enough, but as for Satisfaction made for our Wrong or Debt, this must be rec­koned and accounted to us before we can come at a Legal Dis­charge, or procured Riches.

Arg. 3. To say Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us only as to Effects, is to say, That there is some other Righteousness be­sides this for us to be Justified by, for it implies that we are become Righteous by another Righteousness; the Priviledge of having whereof is only procured by Christ's Righteousness; and the plain truth of it, the Original Rise of this Notion is only to open way for another Righteousness to come in to our Justification, which is a­nother Gospel; yea, not only contrary to Sound Doctrine, but Radically Destructive to the true Grace and Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Arg. 4. If we cannot have the Effects of the Righteousness of Christ, unless the very Righteousness of Christ be Imputed to us, then the Righteousness of Christ is Imputed otherwise than in Effects; but we cannot have the Effects of the Righteousness of Christ, &c.

The Consequence of the Major is so clear it needs no proof.

I prove the Minor; we cannot have the Effects of the Righteous­ness of Christ, unless his very Righteousness be Imputed. The Reasons are, 1. Because our Offences will stand in the Eye of Ju­stice, and we shall remain unrighteous, having no Righteousness of our own, nor any of another reckoned to us. For we can be Righteous no other way but by our own, or by anothers; and Christ's Righteousness signifies nothing as to us, if it be not placed to our account; and hence being not made Righteous by it, can never be Sanctified, &c. 2. We can have none of the Effects, be­cause they all proceed from Love of Reconciliation unto Sinners; now the Enmity being not taken away by Satisfaction, there is no Reconciliation, and therefore we cannot possibly partake of the Effects of Christ's Righteousness.

Arg. 5. To say we have only the Effects Imputed, is to deny Impu­tation, for the Effects are not ours by Imputation, but Personally and Really; as suppose Justification, God doth not Justifie us by Imputing Justification, but really upon Imputed Righteousness. 2. If Christs very Righteousness be not Imputed or Accounted to us in Justifica­tion, some other Righteousness must, for God cannot Justifie a Sinner without accounting him Righteous by some very Righteous­ness either of his own or of anothers.

2. I prove that the very Righteousness of Christ is Imputed.

Arg. 1. That Righteousness that satisfied the Justice of God for our Offences, is Imputed unto us; but the very Righteousness of Christ satisfied the Justice; Ergo, The Major is very evident; for if A do pay Money for B, and D to whom it is due accepts it in [Page 101] discharge of B's Debt; then D doth place it to B's Account, and gives a Receipt accordingly to A, as having paid him so much for the use of B.

As for the Minor, that the very Righteousness of Christ satisfied the Justice of God for us; it appears, 1. By his Intention in giv­ing himself for us, and God's accepting of us in him as his Be­loved. 2. Because if God be satisfied for our Breach of the Law, it can be no other Righteousness that could do it; it must also be the very Righteousness, and not the Effects; now that which God was satisfied with upon our account, is accounted to us; for if it be not accounted to us, it is not accepted for us, our Debt stands still, and the Hand-writing against us. 3. If the very Righteous­ness of Christ do not satisfie, no Effects of Righteousness can; for nihil dat quod non habet.

Arg. 2. That Righteousness which Christ our Advocate pleads for us, is Imputed to us. But Christ our Advocate pleads his very Righteousness; for he entred in with his own Blood, and pleads those very Sufferings, and that payment upon our very ac­count, Heb. 9.14. C. 10.19, 20. C. 7.25.

Arg. 3. That Righteousness which answers all the demands of the Law on behalf of a Sinner, is Imputed to Justification; but it was Christ's very Righteousness answered all the demands of the Law, in Active and Passive Obedience, Rom. 10. Ergo, Minor, there's nothing that the Law expects expresly as to Active or Pas­sive Obedience, but Christ hath performed it in his very Righte­ousness when he was in his state of Humiliation, what was done was done then, the Effects were afterwards in his Exaltation.

Arg. 4. That which is pleaded in Prayer by us for Forgiveness, and ought to be, is Imputed to us; but the very Righteousness of Christ is pleaded by us, this is the sake of Christ for which we ask of God pardon of Sin, we have nothing to do to plead that Righteousness which is not accounted to us. There's none of us pleads our own Righteousness, but the very Righteousness of Christ.

Arg. 5. That Righteousness upon which a Sinner hath peace with God, is the Righteousness reckoned to us for Justification; but Christs very Righteousness is that by which we have peace with God, Eph. 2.13, 15. and Peace of Conscience, Heb. 9.14. c. 1. beg. Rev. 1.5.

Arg. 6. Christ could not be said to be Jehovah our Righteous­ness, if his very Righteousness were not Imputed to us, but only the Effects, Jer. 23.6. And upon what is it grounded that the Church is named as it is in Chap. 33.16. but upon Christ's Impu­ted Righteousness?

Arg. 7. I might add that Argument which others have urged, that as the Sin of the first Adam was Imputed to his Seed, so the Righteousness of the second to his Seed. See Rom. 5. But it's ea­sie to prove the Sin of Adam was Imputed to all his Posterity, he be­ing a publick Person, and all we in his Loins; if Mr. Neonomian de­ny this, we will go upon the proof of it another time.

‘It behoveth him to bear the Punishment and Wrath of God, not for his own Person, but for our Persons, and so making a happy Change with us, he took upon him our sinful Person, and gave unto us his Innocent and Victorious Person, wherewith we being now cloathed are freed from the Curse of the Law. Luth. on Gal. 3.14.’

‘Christ's Mediation was a Redeeming Mediation, he must give himself for a Ransom or Counterprize. 1. The price is a stand­ing price that the Law requires, without the least Variation or Abatement. 2. There must be an Exchange betwixt the Media­tor and us; he must be a Counterpane standing in our room or stead, 1 Tim. 2.6. 3. There must be an Exchange of Person for Person, which is the surest Exchange in War or Captivity, when nothing but one Person will be taken in the room of ano­ther; no Gifts or Rewards could unbind the Infinite Justice of God, 1 Tim. 2.6. Tit. 2.14.4. There must not only be Person for Per­son, but like for like. 1. In Nature; one of an Inferiour or Superiour Nature would not do, Heb. 2.16. Phil. 2.7. 2. There must be an Exchange of State for State, Phil. 2.7. 2 Cor. 8.9. Isa. 53. 3, 4. Mat. 20.28. Gal. 3.13. Mr. Stone of New Eng.’

You seem to speak as if Christ's Holiness were Imputed to us, and that we are perfectly Holy.

You know I told you, it may follow from your Do­ctrine, viz. Imputation of Sanctification, as well as Justifying Righteousness; because Sanctification is an Effect and Vertue of Christ's Mediation. I shall now speak but a word to this Point; viz. That our Life of Sanctification is in Christ, we are sanctified in Christ Jesus; and he is made of God to us Sanctification: As we are Created in him, so we live in him as to Holiness, and we have a compleatness of Sanctification in him; and though that fulness of Sanctification is not properly said to be communicated by Im­putation, as by derivation of Grace; yet this Infused Grace arising in­to Duty, and our Duties mingled with much Corruption, must be covered by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, that they may be accepted as well as our Persons. Dr. Horton on Rom. 8.3. understands the Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ, to be [Page 103] all that Holiness wherewith the living and quickning Spirit of God, hath filled the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ, which is the fulness of Sanctification in all Grace and Holiness.

Though Christ be perfectly holy, yet his Holiness is not so imputed to us, as that we are perfectly holy, p. 46. You say we appear before God perfect in Holiness, p. 428.

You seem to imply, as if Christ's Holiness were ours by Imputation, so much as it is ours; and therefore you insinuate as if there were such a thing as partial Imputation: But we speak not any thing either of Christ's Holiness, as so Sanctification by way of Imputation, but of real Communication from him to us; of which perfect Fulness we do receive, by the new Creation in him, and Grace received from him, as Members from the Head, in our measures, by vertue of our mystical Union to him.

2. I said, ‘Let me tell you, if God had not laid the Iniquities of Men on Christ, Dr. Cr. p. 428. there's never a Soul had entred into Heaven: For there's no Refuge to fly to, there's no hope of drawing near to the ever­lasting Kingdom of Blessedness, till the Lord Jesus cleanse you thoroughly from all Sinfulness and Filthiness; and so you appear before God perfect in Holiness. It is his white Rayment makes us worthy to walk with the Lamb in White; he counsels the Church of Laodicea to buy of him White Rayment. Now see now we are abu­sed by you.’ The Words you refer your Proof to, doth relate to, and is intended of the state of Glory, that the Saints must be perso­nally and perfectly holy before they can draw near to God in that full Fruition of him in the state of Blessedness in Heaven. If there is any thing understood of the Saints Perfection in this Life, it is not denyed but that their Graces and Duties are imperfect here, as they come from and are acted by them, and are mingled with much Sin and Pollution; but their acceptation with God must be in a way of Perfection. 1. In that Christ, of whom we are Members, and who is made unto us Sanctification, as the Head of the Body, the Ro [...] and Fountain is perfect in Sanctification, and we in him, Col. 1.19. ch. 2.10. 2. That all the best Duties and Services as coming from us, and performed by us, being mingled with Sin and Corruption, must be accepted in and through Christ, and co­vered in his righteousness; so that as they are presented unto God by our Advocate, they come before him washed white in the Blood of the Lamb, and persumed in his Incense.

God cannot account a sincere Christian perfectly holy: The Ʋnion in Marriage doth not transferr habitual Qualifications from Hus­band [Page 104] to Wife. Is a foolish Wife perfectly wise because her Husband is so? It's absurd: Our restored Holiness is through the Operations of the Spirit, and not by transfusion. If the very Holiness of Christ's Per­sons be in us, if increated, then we are God's; if created Holiness of Christ's Humane Nature be in us, it must depart from him, and cease to be in him. P. 47.

It would take up deservedly some Paper to shew the Error and Sophistry of what you have spoken: The Summ is, that you deny Christ to be a publick Person, and that all that Grace and Fulness that is in him by reason of the Hypostatical Union of both Natures, and that Unction without measure which he received, was only to qualify him singly and for himself, as an Indi­vidual Person, and not to be conveyed and communicated un­to us; and therefore none of his Fulness is received by us; that the Spirit, not his Spirit: Neither do we live by ver­tue of our Union to him, as a Root, Head, Fountain; but if we partake of the Divine Nature, as the Apostle Peter, Eph. 2. ch. 1. saith, We are made Gods. If we partake of the Vertues of Christ, we rob him, and they are no more in him. You abuse the Similitude of Husband and Wife used by the Apo­stle, Eph. 5. and would make it run on Four Feet. You consider not that Adam and Eve at first was the true Type the Apostle aims at to represent Christ and his Church by: Eve being taken out of Adam, had her Nature in him first, and was created out of him, and so was Flesh of his Flesh, and Bone of his Bone. You must distinguish between the Individual Person and Qualification of the first Adam, and his publick Capacity, Headship and common Nature; he had a peculiar distinct Person and Habits belonging to it as such, but he had also a common Nature communicable to his Wife and to his Posterity by Propagation, not only Eve's Nature, but ours was in him radically. And therefore the Prophet Malachy saith, that God made but one at first, Mal. 2.15. though he had the residue of the Spirit, and could have made more, as he did in the Creation of Angels; but therefore one, that he might seek a Seed of God, [...]. Now this Seed of God was found in the Seed of the Woman that was made out of Man, and was but one; as Adam was made but one common Person, so Christ, and the Church his Wife is made out of him, created in him as Eve was, and have a Nature common in Christ. And doth it follow, that because Adam had the common Nature to Eve and his Posterity, 1. That his Indi­vidual Qualities were communicated, taken from him, and given to Eve? Was Adam turned into Eve? Was Adam's Wisdom, Ho­liness, [Page 105] his Natural or Moral Vertues taken from Adam, and given to her or them? The common Nature of a Genus is communicated and propagated by Individuals, without robbing the Individual. Mankind is propagated daily by Individuals, yet those Individuals lose nothing of their proper Adjuncts. If Men were not Strangers to Logick and Natural Philosophy, and ordinary Terms of Law, they would not make so much ado about this common Na­ture of Christ, which in him is Mystical and Transcendent.

I shall not here enlarge, but enquire what is the Opinion of the Protestant Divines.

Dr. Davenant, I pray speak in this matter what your Sense is. Dr. Davenant on Col. 1.19. 1. ‘There was in Christ a fulness of habitual Grace; neither take we this to be Infinite, seeing it was a created Qualitas, and inhered in the mind of Christ, which also was a Creature, it could not be infinite; but by fulness of Grace we understand all those Perfections to which the Nature of Grace doth extend it self. 2. We consider why Christ ought to have a fulness of Grace: 1. E Debito congruitatis, it was due to him in a way of meetness, by reason of his Union to the Word. 2. It was meet that which was nearest to the influ­encing Cause, should partake most of the Influx. 3. There was Debitum necessitatis, It was necessarily due, from the Supposition of the End, by reason of the Habitude [or relation of Christ himself to the Humane Nature; for Grace was conferred upon him, not as a private Person, but as an universal Principle,] from whom it is transfused into other Men, [you say it's not by Trans­fusion, p. 47.] All things ought to be full, and in an oneness. The Evangelist shews, that Grace is diffused to us, Eph. 4.7.’

And on Colos. 2.10. (1.) ‘To be compleat in Christ, 1. Is spoken from the Effect. Christ is not only perfect, in whom dwells all the Fulness of the Godhead, but he makes us perfect and com­pleat, we having all things in him and his Doctrine necessary to Salvation. 2. The Second Reason is taken from his Office; Christ is the Head. As to the first, We have perfect Wisdom, right Knowledge of the Doctrine of the Gospel, John 17.13. 1 Cor. 2.2. 2. We have compleat Righteousness, for Satisfaction to the Law of God, and for our Sins. 3. In Christ we have Sanctifi­cation or inherent Righteousness: For what is Sanctification other than the washing away of our Errours and Vices, whereby we are set at a distance from God, and the Susception of Gifts and Graces, whereby we may draw nigh to God in his Service— And this is done as we stand united to Christ by his Spirit, Rom. 1.4. ch. 8. 9.’

‘ In eo] non ex eo aut per eum solummodo. In him, not from him, or by him only; but he saith, We are compleat in him, to give us to understand, that we have that foresaid Wisdom, Righte­ousness and Holiness, not as we behold Christ as existing far from us, but as we are incorporated in Christ, as we have Christ abiding and dwelling in us; and we have this Grace from Christ, not the Stream from the head Fountain; for it's not needful that he that will drink of a Fountain, should go into the Fountain— But it's otherwise here; for we cannot receive of Christ's Ful­ness, unless we are in him. As the Old Adam is in us, as the cause of Corruption and Death, so the New Adam dwells in us as the Cause of Righteousness and Salvation. So we are said to be in Christ, to dwell in him, to abide in him, John 15.4, 5. Whatever therefore Men hope or please themselves with of Grace, Righteousness, Sanctification or Glorification, it will prove a meer Mock and Dream, if they be not in Christ, and Christ in them. And now Christ is in us, and we in him, when we are united to our Head, and grafted as Branches into the Vine, by the Bond of the Spirit, and Faith wrought by the Spirit in our Hearts, Rom. 8.9. John 3.36.’

Speak to this Point, Dr. Horton.

‘In that Text, Rom. 8.2. There are three Terms before us; There's Life, the Spirit of Life, there's the Law of the Spirit of Life. 1. By Life we are to understand, the Grace of Holiness and Sanctification; not that which is inherent in our Nature being regenerate, but the full and perfect Holiness which is in the Humane Nature of Christ as the proper Subject of it; this is the Fountain from which there is a continual flowing of Grace to all that are truly united unto Christ. 2. By the word Spirit we understand the Spirit of God, the Original from whence it flows, the Activity and Intention of it. This Life; for Spirit is a Word of Emphasis— 3. The Law is the Prevalency and Force of this Spirit of Life— All Holiness wherewith the living and quick­ning Spirit of God hath filled the Humane Nature of Christ, and it hath freed thee and me, and all others that are in Christ from the Power of the sinful and deadly Corruption of our Nature; and there is a Fulness and Sufficiency of all Grace and Holiness in Christ considered as Man. Col. 1.19.2.3, 9. John. 1.14. Psal. 45.7. John 3.34.’

DEBATE VIII. Concerning the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace.

BEcause the Question about the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace hath been greatly Controverted, and is one of the most considerable Points on which matters in dif­ference doth depend, I am desirous some one or other of us first may truely describe, and impartially unfold the Nature and Diffe­rence of Covenants. Mr. Philalethes, I take you to be an unby­assed Man; and I think I have heard you offer some things of this kind, which may tend much to the clearing up of many Points before us of this nature.

Sir, I shall readily contribute my Mite, and submit it to the consideration of your better Judgments.

1. The word Covenant comes a Conveniendo; because when two Parties agree in some one thing or more on mutual terms, it's usually called a Covenant; and it comprehends and takes in the Nature of a Contract or Bargain. The Latin have divers words to express a Covenant by; Pactum, compactum, conventum, foedus. Cicero gives a very plausible account of the Etymology of foedus, that is, quasi fidus, quod in foedere interponatur fides; that in a Covenant there is a plighting of troth; but it seems the word is most proba­bly derived from an old Heathenish Custom of ratifying a Covenant by the Sacrificing of a Sow great with Pigs, quod in foedere foeta porca feriretur. I take pactum therefore or compactum to be the better word, and expressing enough of the thing meant, coming from pa­ciscor, quasi pacis Actum; and if it carry the significancy of any Ceremony in Covenanting, it's that of striking of Hands, percussio manuum; thence Covenanting is called striking a Covenant. The Greek words some of them vary not from the Import of the Latin, such as [...]; but these are hardly used by the N. Te. or the LXXII Interpreters for a Covenant, and there­fore we need not stay upon them. The word in most use is, [...], a Testament, such a Covenant as is like a Last Will and Testa­ment; for this seems to be the true original meaning of this word; Isocrates using it thus, [...], Fortunas populo ex Testamento reliquit; and yet many instances may be given, [Page 108] wherein it appears that all sorts of Covenants are exprest by it; but it's observable the Spirit of God pitcheth upon this word as most expressive of Sacred Covenants; because the promulgation of the Covenant of Grace was always managed in a way of Testament, Typically with the Patriarchs, and under the Mosaical Dispensa­tion, and really by the Offering up of Christ; and the Apostle gives us this account of it, Heb. 9.15, 16. Hence the Promise of Life confirmed by the Death of Christ, declared and promulgated in the Gospel of the Old and New Testament is [...]. The He­brew word for it is [...] from [...] elegit; because the Persons Covenanting do it on free choice, and so the Conditions or Terms are mutually agreed on, or from [...] precidit, succidit, quia Victi­mae cedi in foederibus pangendis solebant, in making the Covenant, the Sacrifice was cut in pieces, and laid so that the Covenanters pas­sed between them, Gen. 15 10. And by a Metonimy, the Sacri­fice or Ceremony used in Ratification was called by the Name of the Covenant it self; and after this manner is Circumcision called a Covenant, Acts 7.

2. A Covenant then is a mutual Obliga­tion upon certain terms between two Parties. Poedus non est pactum tan­tum [...] unius lateris, quale illud cum creaturis irra­tionalibus, Hos. 11.18. Clo­penb. de Foed. Vet. A Covenant differs from a Vow, because in a Vow there need be but one part; a Man may promise to, and resolve with himself to do this or that thing, there need not be two parties in making a Vow; though most times it is making a promise to God, and then it carries the Nature of a Co­venant, and to this may belong a Sanction by way of Imprecation upon non-performance.

3. As there are two parties in a Covenant, so in a Covenant properly so, there are two parts, a Condition and a Promise. The Condition is the Terms offered by the Covenanter to the Covenantee, Foedus ē pactum mutuae fidei. upon the performance of which the Promise be­comes due unto him; and this supposeth these two things necessari­ly. 1. The Covenantees ability to perform the said tendred Con­dition. 2. His Consent and Acceptance of the Terms; and here there is no other Sanction usually than the Promise and Forfeiture expressed in the Obligation upon non-performance, confederatorum mutuòse obligantium.

[Page 109]4. A Covenant is either express and compleat in parts, There's a Covenant express, and a Covenant in Law; a Covenant express, when all Terms are ex­pressed; a Covenant in Law is that which the Law intendeth to be made in such a case, though it s not expressed; the first is called al­so a Covenant in fact; there is al­so a Covenant Personal and Real. Olden Dorpius, Cook. i. e. a Covenant perfectè, or modo quodam. A perfect Co­venant is when two Parties of equal Liberty and Rank do freely, voluntarily, and upon deliberation enter into mutual Obligations, with express Conditions and Promises; and here it's always requisite that there be as it were an equality, i. e. at least a due proportion between the Persons Cove­nanting, that each may be capable of standing upon his own Terms as well as the other, and not one bound to Terms at the meer good will and pleasure of another; as a Child cannot in Nonage stand upon Terms with a Parent, but must be concluded in his or her will and pleasure; or a single Subject with a Soveraign Prince, &c. and therefore the condition to be performed ought to be such, which is not precedently due by any former Relation or Duty; here must be a power in each party, as sui juris, to take or refuse without breach of any former Obligation. In this Covenant the Sanction is agreed upon by way of stipulation and restipulation, exchange of conditions with forfeiture mutually.

5. There are Covenants which are not Express, Explicite or Compleat in the former manner, i. e. not between parties bearing a proportion to one another; and therefore one bound in Duty or Relation to be subjected to the Will and Pleasure of the other An­tecedently, or fallen under the Breach of their Duty, and Relative Obligation, and so lying at his Mercy; and such are the Cove­nants that are made between Parents and Children under Age, Masters and Servants while in Service; between Soveraign Princes in Actual Dominion, and their Subjects. Of these Covenants there are two sorts. 1. A Covenant by way of Legislation, or a Law Cove­nant. And, 2. A Covenant by way of Promise, or free Obligati­on, without Condition required to Entitle to the Promise; the Spirit of God calls the first of these a Law, and it's properly so, and the second a Covenant of Promise.

6. A Law Covenant, 1. Presupposeth these two things. 1. Foedus minimè hic intelligi­tur reciprocum aut equale jus contrahendi propter partium inaequalitatem cum altera sit Deus altera homo, creatura, non est humani sed divini hu­jus foederis institutio dicitur [...] Legislatio. Clopenberg. de Foed. Vet. A Soveraign Le­gislative Power duly lodged in the Law-giver, or else his Law Covenant is but Ʋsurpation. 2. A Power and Ability in the Subject to perform the Conditions [Page 110] his Law requireth, or else the said Law is Ʋnreasonable, Ʋnjust and Tyrannical.

2dly. It implies, 1. That both the Condition and Sanction be at the will and pleasure of the said Soveraign Law-giver. 2. That the first and natural end of the Law is Obedience to the preceptive part, which Obedience is due first by a Relative, Politick or Natural Re­lation of the Subject to the Legislator, so antecedaneous to the Law, and secondarily to that particular Law Obligation.

3dly. Consequently to this Obedience, whether it be little or more, there is an Entitling to the remunerative part of the Law, if any expressed, or implied; and by vertue of the compact is a Re­ward, and the said Obedience, though infinitely disproportionable, is meritorious. But in case of Transgression, the Sanction by way of Penalty takes place, and is called the Wages of Sin, such a Covenant as this was the Covenant of Works; and it's not to be supposed that this Law Covenant was grievous to Adam, having a Concreated Perfection both of Ability to perform it, and an ab­solute Delight in the whole revealed Mind and Will of God, from the highest Principle of Love to God with all his Heart and Soul; neither could his Obedience be without unwavering, stedfast Faith, wherein when he began to stagger, his Fall began.

7. Adam stood under this Law Covenant as under a Covenant of Works, wherein he is to be considered, and the Law it self. 1. He himself under these Considerations. 1. As Endowed with a Perso­nal Perfection, and lying under a particular obligation to Obedi­ence, both previous to, and directly by that Law with Sanction, which the Soveraign Creator brought him under. 2. God brought not him only as a single private Person under this Obligation only, but as a publick common Person, the Head of all Mankind; and he was not only the Covenant Representative, but the Natural Fountain; the whole Nature being in his Loins, and therefore that first Cove­nant Breach of his threw the whole Nature out of Covenant, the Law charging Transgression upon the whole Humane Nature, and laying it under the sentence of Death, Rom. 5. Hence his Sin is just­ly Imputed to all his Posterity, the whole World becoming guilty before God, besides that a Corrupted Nature which is propagated to all his Posterity. 2dly. The Law it self. 1. The particular Command, or rather Prohibition that Adam stood under, had these things in it. 1. It was but a small Branch of that Moral Obedience which God expected from him, and put him upon tryal by, but his breaking thereof in one point made him guilty of all, God shew­ing thereby unto him and the World that no Condition could be [Page 111] accepted but perfect Obedience. 2. He was not required to work out unto himself any further Grace than he had freely received, but to persist in that, and therefore the Duty incumbent upon him was perseverance in Grace. 3. The particular Obedience requi­red of him for his probation, was very easie and small, next to nothing; negative, and but with-holding his Hand from an Apple, and bore no proportion as a Condition to the Promise of Eternal Life, and therefore could never have merited in respect of the Value, but would have been Meritorious by reason of Law compact. 3. If he had persevered, it must have been by Grace, as his Ability was of Grace, and so it is with the Angels that stand; they have nothing but what they have received, and therefore they are saved by Grace in a Covenant of Works.

8. The Law by reason of the Fall of Man, and God's Will to restore him by a Saviour, is not Vacated and Abolished, but remains the same still in the commanding Part and Sanction. It requires Moral Obedience of Man as God's Creature, and continues to con­demn Man for the first Sin, and all Sins derived from it, both Ori­ginal and Actual, in Unregenerate and Regenerate; the precep­tive parts of it are Rules of Obedience to Redeemed Ones, and the Sanction remains even to them in Christ Jesus, the Law obtain­ing its compleat end as to Righteousness Active and Passive in the second Adam. Besides this, the Law that God governs the World by, and will Judge it by at the last Day, the Works of Wicked Men will be Condemned, and their Persons for their Works; the Saints shall be also Justified by their Works, because their Persons and their Works are perfect in Christ Jesus, they being in him, shall be found perfect before God, and there is no Condemnation be­longing to them, nor Sin to be laid unto their Charge.

DEBATE IX. Of the Nature of Saving Faith.

AT our last Meeting we finished our Debate about the Covenant of Grace, and the Conditions of it. What have you further, Mr. Neonomian, to discourse Mr. Antinomian about.

Divers Points besides that he is erroneous in. The next I would challenge him upon, is Saving Faith, and the Nature of it: For his Errour is this:

That Saving Faith is nothing but a Perswasion or absolute concluding within our selves, That our Sins are pardoned, and that Christ is ours. D. W. p. 73.

But you do not deny Faith to be a Perswasion, do you? If you do deny that Perswasion is the Genus of Faith, every com­mon Porter, or Youth in the Sreet, will contradict you; for they will tell you, that they do believe this or that to be true. Ask them what they mean by Believing, they will tell you, They are perswaded of it. They take Faith and Perswasion to be equivalent Terms, and indeed reciprocal; for that which I am perswaded of I do believe, and that which I believe I am perswaded of. But go on, let us hear what Mr. Antinomian saith in this Point.

Sir, he tells us, that the whole Essence of Faith is nothing else but the Eccho of the Heart answering the foregoing Voice of the Spirit and Word of Grace. My Sins are forgiven me, saith Faith. And the Soul that can assume thus from the Spirit and Word of Grace, hath the whole Essence of believing. D. C. p. 493.

I doubt not, Sir, but to prove that this is a good Ac­count of Saving Faith. I said, ‘That which hath the Whole Es­sence of Faith, is not a Dead but Living Faith,’ ( i. e. which bring­eth forth Fruits. D. C. p. 493. But the Question was, Whether Faith gives Evidence by it self or no, by it's own direct Act. Now I said, The whole Essence of Faith is nothing else but the Eccho of the Heart answering the Voice of the Spirit and Word of Grace, &c.

Now I thought I could not give a more lively Account of it; for the Eccho is [...], The Daughter of the Voice; it's begotten by the Voice. So saith the Scripture, Rom. 10.16, 17. He quotes Isa. 53.1. Who hath believed our Report? [...]: [Page 182] The Word signifies the Voice heard, or that comes to the hearing. And so doth the Hebrew Word import, [...], Who hath believed or heard our Voice? i. e. Who hath so heard it, as to make an Impression thereof upon their Hearts believingly? And the Apo­stle saith, When this heard Voice takes in a due Impression upon the Heart through the Spirit, it begets Faith, and that Impress is Faith, Rom. 10.17. [...], &c. Faith verily is from hearing, and this hearing by the Word of God. Hearing, or the Voice that is heard, is by the Word of God. Hence that Expression of the Apostle, James 1.18. [...], Of his own Free-will (working effectually by his Spirit in opening and new framing the Heart, as Lydia's) he begets us by the Word of Truth. The Truth of the Word is received into the Heart as it were with an Eccho, and Formation of the Heart into it, Progenuit [...] all udit ad nostram adoptionem cujus facti sumus per fidem partici­pes, John 1.12, 13. Fides au­tem est ex auditu verbi, Rom. 10.17. Ideo etiam dicuntur mi­nistri filios gignere sed quatenus Dei instrumenta, [...] Cor. 4.15. Phil. 10. Beza. by an Assent to it as true, and Consent to it as a good Truth. And this is indeed the Writing the Law of God in the Heart, the Law being taken often for any Truth declared in the Word. After this manner the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 4.15. In Christ Jesus I have begotten you by the Gospel, [...]: So that the Gospel begets Faith, Phil. 10. The Apostle James, ch. 1.15. useth the Word [...], concerning Sin when it is finished or compleated, brings forth Death, i. e. Sin when it appears as it is, it's Death and Condemnation in the Conscience: So the Word brought thus by the Spirit into the Heart, the Soul is freed from Condemnation; it thereby hath Life, he believes, to the saving of the Soul. And can this be denied to be good Faith, and true Faith, and all the Essence of our Divine Faith, it being the believing of the Word so as to close with it, and receive it, according to the Nature and End of it. The Apostle, Heb. 11.1. describes Faith by two Words, Marvellous Signifi­cent in our Sence, by [...] illud quo subsistunt. Beza. [...], Persuasio, Syr. It notes Confidence or Presence of Mind without fear. So Polyb. It's rendred Confident, or con­fident Perswasion, 2 Cor. 9.4. ch. 11.17. and Heb. 3 14. where it signifies, and is rendred Confi­dent Perswasion. [...], which is a Subsistance: The Word is besides used concerning the Person of the Father, Heb. 1.3. where Christ is said to be the Character of the Father's Hypo­stacy, we read it Personality. So here Faith is said to Personate the Truth, or to be the Image of it, as it were in the Heart; or rather things hoped for; it [Page 183] makes them as it were present, ecchoing them in the Heart, the Eccho speaking the same things the Voice doth; and he saith, [...], the Evidence, or rather Demonstration of things not seen, it takes up a Demonstration from God's Authority, not from Sence or Reason. Here Argumentum Inartific. Divine Testimony is of greater Force than any Artificial Arguments can be. There is also another Word whereby Faith is ex­press'd, and it's [...], Rom. 4.20. [...], Persuasio, plena certioratio. Stev. It's said of Abraham, He was strong in Faith. [...]. [...]. Persuasae Intelligentiae. Stev. And what was his strength of Faith? It was his Fulness of Perswasion or Confidence, ver. 21. [...], He was fully perswaded of what God had promised. The Word is used for Faith; Col. 2.2. To all riches of the full assurance of understanding: Denoting that Faith is primarily an Act of the Understanding; this Word is often used for it, 1 Thess. 1.5. Heb. 6.11. & 10.22. And [...] for plenam fidem vel persuasionem habeo, Luke 1.1. Rom. 14.5. The very Greek Word for Perswasion is used, [...], whence [...], 2 Tim. 1.5, 12. [...], I am perswaded, i. e. Do believe that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him, Rom. 8.38. I am perswaded that neither Death nor Life, &c. i. e. This was his strong Faith. Rom. 14.14. I am perswaded in the Lord Jesus, that there's nothing unclean of it self. This was his Faith. I will but name one place more, Heb. 11.13. it's said of those eminent Be­lievers mentioned in that Chapter, That they received not the Promises in the fulfilling of them by performance, but saw them afar off, and being perswaded of them, saluted them in their own Hearts, [...].

You must own Saving Faith to be a Saving Perswasion you see, or else you must deny the Scriptures; and according to the Weakness and Strength of Perswasion we account our Faith is weaker or stronger, yet hath it's Forma & Differentia from its proper Adjuncts and Object.

When he puts a Man to examine his Faith, he hath these Words, (D. W. p. 73.) How do I know I believe in Christ? He an­swers, Do I rest my Heart upon his Truth? Do I receive it as a Truth that I do believe? Or do I reject it, and will not receive it? Then I do not believe it. But if thou sit down and rest upon this Truth, and receive it, and do in reality believe it, then you may absolutely conclude Christ is yours. D. C. p. 107.

I am sorry to see that you should have such an Aversion to these things. I was preaching from Isa. 42.6, 7. and shewing how Christ receiveth Sinners as Sinners, he never

What, can you, Mr. Neonomian, with any face except against this Doctrine? Doth not the Apostle say, 1 John 5.10. He that believeth on the Son hath a witness in himself? Is there any clearer Evidence of an Action than the doing it? Ask a Man how he knows he can eat: saith he, I do eat, I do taste and swallow what I eat. So that Instance of the Sun shining, which he gives, there's no doubt but the first Evidence the Soul hath is in Believing it self; tho he tries his Faith by it's Fruits also, and receives Evidence therefrom. Is not Faith illustrated in Scripture by all our Senses, Hearing, Tasting, Smelling, Feeling or Touching, Seeing? And is there not Perception in the Exercise of all the Senses? And how shall I know better that I do exercise them, than by perceiving their Objects, which is a Witness, an Evidence, a Demonstration to my self above all others that it is so. The Natural Man indeed re­ceiveth not, [...], the things of the Spirit by Faith, 1 Cor. 2.14. and therefore they are foolishness to him: But the Spiritual Man doth, i. e. by Faith.

He says, If the Lord give to any to believe this Truth, D. W. p. 74. Dr. C. p. 296. that it is his Iniquity the Lord hath laid on Christ, God himself cannot charge one Sin on that Man: and he makes a difference between a strong Believer and a weak, to consist in the degree of his Perswasion. Dr. C. p. 158.

This was a Use that I made upon that Point of laying Sin on Christ, ‘If God have laid our Iniquity upon Christ, then whosoever thou [Page 185] art to whom the Lord will be pleased to give the believing of this Truth, that the Lord hath laid thine Iniquity on Christ, that laying thine Iniquity upon him is an ab­solute and full Discharge to thee, that there neither is nor can be any Iniquity for the present, nor for hereafter, that can be laid to thy Charge; and then follows what he hath rehearsed.’

And if this be not true Doctrine, that every Believer that by the Grace of God sees his Sins laid on Christ, hath a full pardon of all Sins, past, present and to come; so that Sin shall never be charged on him for Condemnation before God; I am to seek for the Doctrine of the Gospel. I quote that place, Rom. 8.33. to me a very full Proof.

And I do affirm, that the Degrees of our Faith doth stand in the Degrees of the sight of Christ's Glory, and the Perswasion we have in our Hearts of our part in him. And I do not say, That ‘he is no Believer that hath not this perfectly; far be it from me to say so; there are that are Believers, that are weak in the Faith; and there are Believers that are strong in the Faith; the more the Light and Glory of the Gospel shines in the true Intention of God to his People, the more shall they return to their rest, the more shall they have Joy and Gladness. Why may not a Believer then say as David did, The Lord hath been very bountiful to me, that I may return to my rest. God hath done every thing in Christ, and taken away all things that can disturb my Peace and Comfort. Dr. C. p. 158.’

I pray, Mr. Neonom. let us have your Description of Saving Faith.

I shall express it in the Assemblies Words, ch. 14. A. 2. D. W. p. 72, 73.

Gentlemen, weigh this Account of Faith well; which if it were re­garded, and no essential part excluded, when Faith is considered as a Condition of any Gospel-benefit.— One would think no man need prove that it is not saving Faith when any Essential part of it is wanting; and that it must be saving Faith, when we mention Faith as a Condition.

That Reverend Assembly do here express the Essential Parts of Faith, and something more as the Effects of it. I take it not to be intended for a Definition, wherein only Essentials are put, but a Description that takes in Subjects, Adjuncts, Effects, &c.

The Definition is first given. A. 1. That the Grace of Faith is whereby the Elect are enabled to believe to the Saving of their Souls. After they proceed to shew the Causes of it, the Word and Spirit, and after that its several ways of Acting, and it's Effects.

They do in the shorter Catechism give a briefer Account of it, which may be more properly called a Definition.

Quest. 86. What is Faith in Jesus Christ?

Answ. Faith in Jesus Christ is a Saving Grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for Salvation, as he is offered to us in the Gospel.

And if you please to turn to Quest. 31. you shall see what they mean by receiving and resting: There they say,— ‘Effectual Calling is the work of God's Spirit, whereby convincing us of our Sin and Misery, enlightning our Minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our Wills, he doth perswade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel.’

And in the Larger Catechism you have a full Description of Faith as Justifying, Quest. 72. wherein there is the Genus of it, a saving Grace; the principal efficient Cause, the Spirit; the Causa mini­strant, the subservient efficient Cause, the Word: Both Causae procre­antes. The Subject in whom it is wrought, a sinful, miserable and lost Creature, really so, and in his own Eyes. And then you have the Material Cause, the truth of the Promise of the Gospel. In the Confession (wherein it's more largely express'd) it's whatever is revealed in the Word, this is the Objective part of it, and Ma­terial. The Form of Saving Faith is an Impression wrought upon the Soul from the proper Efficacy of the Spirit, by the Word, ac­cording to the acceptable Nature and Evidence thereof. The Truth must have Goodness in it, because we believe many things that we fear and are averse to. The Word works objectively upon the Understand­ing, perswading it to assent and set to it's Seal, that the Word is Truth, and from the Goodness in that Truth it perswades the Will to embrace, because Voluntas sequitur ultimum dictamen intellectus; and the consenting of the Will is an Effect of the assenting of the Under­standing; Hence then it's not barely believing without Ground, but upon some Authority. In the Confession 'tis said, For the Autho­rity of God himself speaking in the Word, which is believing on Christ, believing in God, from whence follows an awful Reverence and Regard to his Word, as also the resting and depending of the Soul thereon: And when it's determined to the Grace of Justifica­tion, (it's as in the Larger and Shorter Catechism) it receiveth Christ and his Righteousness in the Promise, and resteth thereon for Pardon of Sin. Justifying Grace through the Righteousness of Christ is the Object, and that which it aims at, is the accepting and accounting of a Mans Person Righteous in the sight of God for Sal­vation, which is fuller express'd in the Confession, shewing what sa­ving Faith in the largest Sence designs, viz. accepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone (excluding all other Foederal Conditions) [Page 187] for Justification, Sanctification and Eternal Life, by vertue of the Covenant of Grace. Now you see how clearly they make Faith a Perswasion, and that it doth all objectively, by taking in the Truth and receiving it; for the Understanding receiveth and em­braceth by being perswaded, it takes in the Light of Truth, and the Will embraceth by being perswaded, and the great procatarctick Cause is the Covenant of Grace. Now I see you have a clean con­trary Notion of making it a Condition and moral Instrument, i. e. A moral Condition of the Covenant, and so a Work, and as such to reach the End of the Covenant, which I utterly deny; for that would destroy it's own Nature and Use, and also the Covenant of Grace it self.

The Question is not, whether Assurance be attainable in this Life as an effect of Faith? D. W. p. 74.

A Perswasion of Truth, and certainty thereof, is Assu­rance, and so far as I do believe, there is this in the Act of Faith, though a weak Faith hath Doubtings attending, but not therefore commendable: And there can be no Faith without some degree of Perswasion concerning the Truth of the Object. You speak here of an Assurance (which must be reckoned of the highest Degree of Perswasion) and therefore you deal not fairly to change your Terms from Perswasion to Assurance. There is a two-fold Assu­rance, the Plerophory of Faith, and an Assurance that I have true Faith, which is Spiritual Sence and Argumentation from it's Na­ture and Effects; one is by the proper direct Act of believing, the other by reflex Acts of the Soul upon it self.

Nor whether a Sinner ought to apply, yea, doth personally apply the general Offers of Christ and Life by his own Compliance with the Terms of the Gospel; for upon a true acceptance of a whole Christ, he is mine in vertue of the Gospel-promise, which God will perform in giving Christ and Life to all that accept him as he is proposed for our ac­ceptance.

You are very dark and obscure in what you here speak. 1. By Personal Application I understand particular Application, and so it's your Sense that a Sinner ought to make a particular Ap­plication of the general Offers of Christ and Life in the very Act of believing; and so far I joyn with you, and that his thus believ­ing is his Compliance, the Gospel's Work being perswading, my Compliance is to be perswaded, and there's nothing else expected, (which you call Terms; the Terms is that we put in no Terms) but accepting Christ freely offered. And you say he is yours in vertue of the Gospel-Promise; you must intend in the vertue of the [Page 188] Gospel-Promise believed, or else you have no right but as you had before, believing an Intentional Right only; if it be a claimable Right, it's in a Promise believed; for whatever Right is real in the Promise, none will plead any but what he believes. And it is in vertue of the Promise to give Christ and Life to many that do not yet accept of him: For it's the vertue of the Promise to give Life to dead Sinners, that they may actively and comfortably receive and accept him.

Nor whether a convinced Sinner hath a more special Regard at first of the Priestly Offices and Sufferings, as what are more sensibly fitted to his guilty state.

I understand not what you mean by Priestly Offices, as if Christ had more Priestly Offices than one: Christ doth exercise his Priestly Office in the state of Humiliation and Exaltation; but I have not seen any before that ascribes to Christ two Priestly Offices: And if you mean Justifying Faith, it's Office is to lay hold on and apply the Person of Christ in his Priestly Office.

Nor whether every thing recorded in Scripture must be dwelt on with the same regard, concern and assurance as the Essentials of the Covenant of Life.

You mean here Faith as to the general Nature of it; you do not distinguish it from Faith in the Justifying Nature all along.

Nor whether Faith contain in it a reliance on Christ as our only Saviour, and on his Satisfaction and Merits, as what alone purchased our Pardon and Acceptance, as well as it includes the realizing Assent to the Truth, and unfeigned fiducial Consent to acceptance of a whole Christ in all his Offices. All these I affirm.

You acknowledge then that Faith contains in it, 1. A Reliance on Christ as an only Saviour. How can this be without some perswasion? A rational Man never rests and leans upon a thing that he hath not some ground of Perswasion that it's strong enough to bear him. 2. You own it includes a realizing Assent to the Truth, and this is a very high Perswasion of a Truth, with a particular Application of it to a Man's self as belonging to him. 3. You say there's an unfeigned Fiducial Consent to, and Accep­tance of Christ and all his Offices. This is strong Confidence, when the Soul is so far perswaded of the reality of the Tender of Christ made in the Promise, that he doth not only take him, but with boldness; questions not but he hath the Son, and hath Life in this very Act of Believing. You say we rely on Christ's Satis­faction and Merits, as what alone purchased our Pardon and Ac­ceptance. [Page 189] This is true in a true Sence, but we easily see what you mean by what you speak before.

The real difference is, whether the whole Essence of Saving Faith consists in an inward Perswasion or Assurance that our Sins are par­doned, and Christ is ours. This you affirm and I deny: Yea, I deny that it is at all of the Essence of Saving Faith. D. W. p. 75.

What I said, and you charge for my Errour, I stand to it, and have made it appear to be Truth. I said the whole Es­sence of Faith is the Eccho of the Heart answering the Voice of the Spirit and Word of Grace, and thereby it's the Obedience of Faith: The Soul believes and closeth with Truth according to the nature of it, and in such a manner as is required. You wrong me to say, I used the Words Perswasion or Assurance: I said, If you receive Truth, and in reality believe it, and rely upon it, you may conclude that Christ is yours; and this is now a Conclusion made upon my believing too. I pray would you not say so to a poor Sinner, If thou dost believe on the Lord Jesus with all thy Heart, thou shalt be saved; and you ought to conclude you shall be saved? And this is a perswasion of my state upon believing.

Mr. Neonom. It's indeed a marvellous thing that you should say and unsay a thing in the same Breath; to own Faith a re­liance on Christ, that it carries a realizing Assent to the Truth, and an unseigned Fiducial Consent, and now to say Perswasion is not at all of the Essence of Faith.

I said it contained, and it included it; I said not they were of the Essence.

This is just like your wonted way of Dodging? How doth Faith contain and include these things? As in a Box, which contains and includes things of a Specifick Nature different from it self. Well, we will attend your Proof.

The second thing in difference is, Whether Saving Faith in­cludes not in it's Nature that powerful efficacious Assent to the Word, and fiducial consenting to acceptance of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, with a Reliance on his Merits, and obediential Regards to God as the Truth above-mentioned doth express. This you deny and I affirm.

Now we are for filling up the Box; and this Assent, or Perswasion and Consent or Reliance is put in, but not as the Essence of Faith; and among the rest there is obediential Regards. And why comes in this, but only because he would make up Faith in­to a moral Condition? I speak of the Essence of Faith; you talk of containing, including, and tell us those things that are contained and included. I told you not what was necessarily concomitant [Page 190] to Faith; I did not speak of Love, Sicerity, Hope, &c. which are Concomitants to Faith, and inseparable from it, but yet be not Faith in the Essential Consideration.

I will now confirm the Truth. 1. Faith is not an Assu­rance or inward Perswasion, that Christ is ours, and our Sins are par­doned.

I say Faith is a Perswasion of Truth propounded unto me upon credible grounds. You should first state the Question con­cerning Faith in general, Whether it be Humane Faith or Divine; and then Divine Faith is that which takes all Divine things in gene­ral for it's Object, or that which hath some more particular Di­vine Truth for it's Object, as Justifying Faith. There is also a par­ticular Divine Faith, which is not saving in it's special Nature, as Faith of Miracles, Historical, &c.

That which I will prove is, that Saving Faith is not Per­swasion.

Very well; i. e. That Perswasion is not the general Nature of Faith. We are not to meddle here with the distinguish­ing Specifick Form of one Faith from another. Let us joyn issue there.

Yes; but I will have my Liberty to dispute of what I please, whether it be the Question or no.

1. Men may have this Faith, tho' they do not savingly believe, Matth. 7.22. Ch. 25.1, 2. Nay, the most profligate Sinners grow secure by it.

Your Argument runs two ways, or should. 1. Against Perswasion, as not being the Genus of Faith; and it stands thus: If they that do not savingly believe may have Perswasion, then Per­swasion is not of the Essence of Faith; but they that do not saving­ly believe may have Perswasion, Ergo. Negatur consequ. Homo est Animal, Ergo Brutum non est Animal. There's two Species of Be­lievers, those that have a Faith, not saving, as meerly Historical, Temporary, or Faith of Miracles, and those that have Saving. Faith is the Genus of both those Species, which is Perswasion. Now you argue, because such as have not a Saving Faith have Perswasion, therefore they that have Saving Faith, have not Perswasion. Non sequitur, but rather quite contrary, that they have; for the Genus communicates it's common Nature to both Species.

No, no, I don't mean so; I mean that Faith is not an in­ward Perswasion that Christ is ours.

I thought so, I was going to speak that. No indeed, it's not a distinction of Faith, but a particular Instance of one thing [Page 191] believed by us. If you should ask me, what Faith is? and I should tell you, it's believing Peter betray'd Christ, or that Paul was con­verted, you would take me to be very ridiculous: Or I should say, it is not believing that I am a rich Man: So that if you will have the Question run in a particular Instance: it's easily decided; for all true Rules of Art must be [...], true de omni. Therefore I acknowledge, to say, Faith is a Perswasion that Christ is mine, is no more a Definition of Faith, than to say Animal est rationalis cre­atura, is a Definition of Animals. But this is true, if you affirm the Genus of the Species, Creatura rationalis est animal, and it holds [...], but not reciprocè. This therefore I affirm, that he that believes that Christ is his, and his Sins are forgiven, doth believe it by a Perswasion. You say, those that said Lord, Lord, and the Foolish Virgins had a Faith of Perswasion, and many profligate Sin­ners have a presumptuous Perswasion, but not true Believers: Therefore, say you, Faith is not a Perswasion that their Sins are forgiven: You might as well say, because some have a false Faith, therefore none have a true; because one Man that trades is perswa­ded his Stock is good, and deceives himself, and breaks; doth it follow that no Merchant must perswade himself that his Stock is good. These are mighty Inconsequences.

Many true Believers have not this Perswasion.

Give an Instance of a Believer that hath not a Perswasion of the thing he professeth to believe, and so far as he is not perswaded he doth not believe. Doth any one believe the Record that God hath given us Eternal Life, and this Life is in his Son, 1 John 5.11? if he doth, he is perswaded of it. But you'll say, He doth not believe Christ is his: He ought confidently to believe there is Pardon and Acceptance from him; and to get this Witness of Faith in his own Heart. You'll grant he ought to have the Son: How shall he have him, but by receiving him in the Promise? Believing on him as the Faithful Witness, depending on the Truth of the Pro­mise, and the reality of the Purpose and Intention of Christ to­wards us; and there is not the weakest true Believers but have a Perswasion, such as their Faith is, tho' it may not so proper­ly be called Assurance, because that denotes a strong and high degree of Faith; but it's a Perswasion accompanied with much doubting, a staggering Faith; Lord, [...] I I believe, help my Ʋnbelief: Lord, I am perswaded in some measure, help my doubting.

Such as had assurance do (by this Doctors Opinion) fall into the Sin of damning Ʋnbelief, whenever they doubt their Interest in [Page 192] Christ, and especially if they conclude that they have no interest in him.

Vix dignus sum hâc contumeliä, ac tu indignus qui feceris. Do you in your Conscience judge that I hold falling away from Grace? Is not Unbelief of a damning Nature of it self, and so far as it prevails, brings the Consciences of the best under Guilt? And wherein consists the Doubts and Fears of God's People, but in the prevailing of Unbelief, which shakes their Faith, and dar­kens their Perswasion? is my Doctrine the more condemnable, be­cause I hold, as Experience and God's Word witnesseth, that Faith, as other Graces, have their Ebbings or Flowings? And do not you hold Unbelief to be a damning Sin in it self? But is there not a great difference between the degrees of Faith, yea, of Assu­rance, as you you self grant elsewhere? And what degrees of Unbe­lief and doubting a Child of God may fall into, even to the making very dangerous Conclusions concerning himself, and not fall totally from faith; it's beyond us to judge: There are great Instances in Scripture, and we have seen some.

This Perswasion should suppose an Interest in Christ doth not give it; it is a false Conclusion, that Christ is mine before he is so; and must the great Terms of Life be a Lie. We are to examine our selves, whether we are in the Faith or not, 2 Cor. 13.5. Where hath God made this Proposition, My sins are laid on Christ: Ʋnless you are for general Redemption; the Word of Grace promiseth Pardon to none but a Believer, and the Spirit speaks to none but a Believer.

In all things we receive of Gift there must be a right of Donation first; if we take before it's given, it's Theft; and un­less I am perswaded that the giving Hand is reached out, I can't re­ceive. We have our first Earnest for Blessedness in the Perswasion of Faith, in the very Act of it; and it's Non sence to talk any way of partaking of Christ, but by the Spirit and Faith: And he that in an Act of believing at first finds Christ in the true Perswasion of Faith, doth not, nor cannot say of Christ he is his before he is so. The Soul cannot be too nimble for Christ; and if he that believeth not, makes God a Liar, what are those that perswade to Unbelief? That Faith in it's very Act is an Evidence, is no hinderance to the Trial and Examination of our selves by the Fruit of Faith besides. And though the Proposition in the Gospel be an indefinite Proposition, yet the Application by Faith in a Sinner, ought to be particular and fiducial, or else the Faith of Believers will be no more than that of others that believe only that Christ came to save Sinners; and if the Promise of Pardon were not to Sinners as such, it were not Pardon; [Page 193] and if a Man upon Trial must first find by Signs that he doth believe, before he lay claim to Pardon, Sinners would be in a sad condition: But this is the comfort, that as the Promise of Pardon is the great En­couragement to believing, so believing it self is the receiving and perceiving of it: And the Soul saith, or should by Faith, He loved me, and gave himself for me. At the sight of Christ it saith, My Lord, and my God. If the Lord speak to a Believer, in believing, by his Word and Spirit, Thy Sins are forgiven, it's not said so to one that is a Believer first: Relata are simul naturâ: The Promise of Pa­ternity is not a Promise or Gift to one that's a Father first, nor Sonship to one that is a Son first. God promiseth himself to be a Father to them that are Loammi: And how gross is that Assertion, That the Spirit speaks it to none but to a Believer as a Believer. Doth not the Spirit speak Peace, before we receive it by an Act of Faith? Doth not this cause us to believe, it's the Light causeth the Eye to see? It's the Light shining into the dark Unbelieving Heart, that perswades the Heart; it's God that saith to the Soul, I am thy Salvation, before we can believe it.

The Second thing that I will prove is, that Saving Faith hath the Essentials expressed in the above-mentioned Truth, as Assent, Trust, Con­senting, Acceptance of Christ, Reliance, &c.

You said before, that Inward Perswasion of the Par­don of Sin was no Part of Saving Faith. And said in the next, that it contained Assent to the Word, Fiducial Consent and Accep­tance of Christ. A Man therefore may understand you, that tho it contained it, yet it was not of it's Essence. Now you seem to say, these are Essentials; if you do not, you hide your self again in the Word Include. If you say, These be Essentials which you name, we say so too, but allow not yours, &c. and all these Essentials are in the Word Perswasion. Assent is the Perswasion of the Understanding, Consent the Perswasion of the Will to the Truths and good things propounded, the Promise whereby the Soul relies upon Christ therein for himself, particularizeth Christ and all Blessings to himself as his; and now go on, and prove all that you said before to be false.

You are mistaken, I will prove my Position true, and then see where your Errour will be.

1. Faith can be no less than the Souls Answer to the Call of God, &c.

We say it is so, and he bids us believe; but it's not Faith as such; for all Obedience is an answer to the Call of God.

The Scripture describes Saving Faith by all these Acts; it's the evidence of things not seen, Substance of things hoped for, Heb. [Page 194] 11.1. Receiving of Christ, John 1.12. Isa. 55.4. Acts 13.26. Rom. 15.12. Isa. 44.5.

This we say it is, Evidence and Substance of things at a distance, is a full Perswasion of them according to the Nature of them; such a Perswasion as carries the whole Soul forth to God to rest and rely upon him, having Union with Christ thereby, bring­ing him in all his Excellencies into our Souls, and taking him for our own. Doth a Man believe any good thing promised, and doth not he catch at it for himself, if he have any savour of it? If the Promise of Pardon present it self to us, doth a Man believe till he appropriate it to himself, saying, It is mine, though an unworthy Sinner? If a condemned Prisoner hears a Pardon is come out for some, he may believe that; but till he believes he is one, it's no Comfort to him, tho there may be hopes at least he is in it.

Christ can't be received as a Saviour without these.

It's very true, he is never received as such till I re­ceive him as my Saviour, and believe him to be so in some mea­sure; and this I am bound to do, to receive him by confident Per­swasion and resting upon him.

A Faith without these Essentials could never produce those great Effects as are ascribed to Faith, to purifie the Heart, Acts 15.9. to be a shield against Temptations, Eph. 6.16. works by Love, Gal. 5.6. sanctifies us, Acts 26.18. By Faith we are risen with Christ, Col. 2.12.

It's certain that no Faith can do it, but such as makes a particular Application by a perswasion of the Love of God, or Interest in Christ, Pardon of Sins, and Reconciliation to God through him, that can produce the Effects spoken of; this will purifie the Heart from an evil guilty Conscience, to serve the Liv­ing God; this will be a Shield against the most Mortal Darts of Sa­tan, that he shoots at our state by bringing in Law Condemnations. Hereby Love to God is produced in the Soul, and we Act towards God and our Neighbours in Love, hereby we are brought to true Obedience, such as the Law required at first for the Principle, to Love the Lord our God with all our Hearts, Soul and Strength; and therefore the Apostle saith, Love is the Sum of all Obedience, as our Saviour said. It's the fulfilling of the Law, through this Grace of the Spirit; for by receiving Forgiveness of Sin, we have an Inhe­ritance among them that are Sanctified. Pardon believed is the Root of Sanctification, and this cannot be without it, for by Faith we are risen with Christ, we are planted in the likeness of his Death and Resurrection; and Faith in this Point of Christ's Resurrection, [Page 195] is that which sets us above the Charge of Sin and Condemnation. By the Resurrection of Christ Preached, we are begotten to this lively believing hope, and we are risen with him through this Faith of the Operation of God; hence the Body of Sin is destroyed, Death abolished, Life and Immortality brought to light; Christ by his Resurrection being discharged and justified from the Iniquities of us all, which were laid upon him, and which he bore in his Body upon the Tree.

An Inlightned Regenerate Soul cannot Act towards Christ, when he is first presented to its view below these Instances.

No, it's the sight of Christ, and taste of Christ that car­ries him forth to all Duties of Sanctification, he having Christ in all his fulness; he hath done with all his Conditions, all his Righte­ousness is filthy Rags. A Soul truely instated by a lively Faith is far above padling with his own little poor sinful Duties, as con­ditions between him and Christ, he can serve Christ, obey him, and his Commandments are not grievous to him, neither will he think they have any such Vertue in them as to give him Right to Christ, in any way of Foederal Conditionality.

His mistakes are, because Faith is the Evidence of things unseen, (i. e. it assents unto unseen realities) therefore he thinks that our Faith is nothing but our assent.

I think I understand the Import of those words, as I have told you; but I shewed you it's such a work of the Spirit and Word, whereby the Heart Ecchoes to the Word by such perswa­sion of the Truth, whereby Christ and the Truth is as it were formed in us; and your selves can give no account of Faith that reacheth the Essentials thereof, but what we have done from the Word of God.

Because the Word of Grace promiseth Justification unto all true Believers, therefore an assurance of my being Justified is believ­ing, whereas I must first be a Believer in order to Pardon, before I justly can or ought to believe that I am pardoned.

The word Assurance is a word you Impose; it was not in the words you alledge against me; what is it the Gospel would have us believe, if it be not Forgiveness of Sins? Acts 13.38. Be it known unto you, that through this Man is preached unto you forgiveness of Sins, and by him all that believe are justified, &c. What do they believe? It's Forgiveness of Sins, and in this Act of Faith is the Justification by Faith, in that they believe forgiveness of Sins, and as they are weakly or strongly perswaded, through the Spirit of Grace working the Promise upon their Souls. In Justification by [Page 196] Faith, Faith is not nor cannot be before it, but they are Relata quae mutua alterius constant affectione.

2. This is accompanied in sincere believing, with an approba­tion of the way of Deliverance and Salvation proposed, &c.

This Assent and Approbation causing the Heart to rest upon Di­vine Grace, Wisdom and Love, and apply it self thereto accord­ing to the Mind of God, is the Faith whereby we are Justified; and concludes in it Renunciation of all other Ways and Means of at­taining Righteousness, the Consent of the Will, Acquiescence of the Heart in God, Trust and Confidence, &c.

DEBATE X. Of the Free Offer of Christ to Sinners, and of Preparatory Qualifications.

WE have discoursed several Points in our late Meet­ings, I suppose you have had pretty good satis­faction in all material things you have charged Mr. Antinomian with for Errour, I hope you cannot charge him with more Errour.

But I can; I have a whole Cargo yet behind; and this is one among the rest that he saith.

That Christ is offered to Blasphemers, Murderers, and the worst of Sinners; that they remaining ignorant, unconvinced, unhumbled, and re­solved in their purpose to continue such, they may be assured they have a full Interest in Christ, and this by only concluding in their minds upon this Offer, that Christ is theirs. D. W. p. 81.

I hope he offers Christ to them then, in all his Salvation as he is revealed in the Gospel, that he gave himself for us, to Re­deem us from all Iniquity, and purifie to himself a peculiar People zealous of good Works, Tit. 2.14. And if he doth so, I know not why he may not offer Christ as such to the worst of Men, I know no other way to make them better. But what were his words?

I need give no Proof of it; it is a declared Point, which he oft strives to prove, that all the Elect are actually united to Christ, be­fore they believe. But of this in our next Discourse. D. W. p. 81. He saith,

Is not Ʋnbelief a barr to have a part in Christ? A. It is a Barr to hin­der [Page 200] the manifestation of Christ in the Spirit, but it's not a Barr to hinder one from having a part in Christ. D. C. p. 110.

He leaves out part of the very Sentence I spake: I said, ‘It is not a Bar to hinder the manifestation of Christ in the Spirit on whom God doth bestow.’ [A Sinner being passive in the Work of Grace, God break­eth all those Bars of Brass, when Christ manifests himself in the Spirit by Converting Grace; mark how my words refer plainly to Gods Act, and not to ours.] ‘I proceeded thus, It is true, that you nor I can say by Experience that Christ is our Christ, untill we believe, as long as we con­tinue in total unbelief, we cannot conclude to our own Spirits that Christ is ours: But unbelief [mark my very words] is not simply a Bar to the bestowing of Christ to such a Person; he bestows him without any regard to belief or unbelief, [ i. e. as a reason of bestowing him;] if unbelief should be a Bar to hinder Christ from being bestowed upon Persons, where is the Person upon whom Christ should be bestow­ed? There's no Person under Heaven considered simply as ungodly, under the No­tion of ungodlidess, but he is considered as an unbeliever.’

You must needs grant this to be true, that a sinful state is not a Bar to the power of God in working Grace upon the Heart, he speaks altogether in respect of the Act of God upon the Soul, where he works, and nothing can lett or hinder.

But he seems to insist on Mens coming to Christ, and clo­sing with him. D. W. p. 82. He saith, No consideration in the World can so aggravate a Mans condition, would he make his condition as bad as the Devils themselves; yet if there be but a coming, there can be no consideration, in the highest pitch of sinfulness for Christ to reject him. D. C. p. 206. D. C. 206.

I profess, Mr. Neonomian, I wonder what kind of Gospel you would have, that you call this Errour.

He saith, Whatever thou art, suppose a Drunkard, a Whore-master, a Swearer, a Blasphemer, a Mad-man in Iniquity; couldst thou but come to Christ, I say come, only come, it is no matter if there be no alteration in thee when thou dost come to Christ. D. C. p. 202.

These words were in the same Sermon, and before I spake the words above rehearsed,

But coming or believing is no other in your Judgment than an inward perswasion or concluding that Christ is ours; and this is not in order to an Interest, but to our Knowing; as it appears by those words.

Do I speak any otherwise than concluding this upon their coming; how often do I say couldst thou but come to Christ, and so I say again, can but a Sinner, the vilest, but come to Christ, they may conclude that Christ will not cast them off? And you say that I intend by this coming nothing but an inward perswasion that Christ is mine; my words will not bear that sence, for I say all along, if thou come thou maist conclude Christ is thine; is coming meerly perswasion?

That is your meaning, you do not distinguish between coming to Christ, and knowing your Portion in Christ, D. W. p. 82. You say, I must tell you there's no better way to know your Portion in Christ, than upon the general tender of the Gospel to conclude absolutely he is yours; say to your selves, and let not this be contradicted, seeing Christ hath reached [Page 202] out himself to Sinners as Sinners, my part is as good as any Mans: Set down thy Rest here, question it not, but believe it; venture thy Soul upon it, without seeking for further Security: But some will say, He doth not belong to me; Why not to thee? He belongs to Sinners as Sinners; and if there be no worse than Sinfulness, Rebellion, and Enmity in thee, he be­longs to thee as well as to any in the World. D. C. p. 106.

You may easily see how he puts upon me his own sence and meaning; you must know, Gentlemen, that which he re­hearseth is in another Discourse of mine, which was from Isa. 42. where I speak to this Enquiry, How shall I come to know that I am a­mongst the number of those Sinners that shall not miscarry? A. D. C. p. 106. ‘Observe by the way, now we are speaking of knowing, whe­ther Christ be my Christ or no, not simply of Christ's being ours, [where you have a flat denial of what he asserts to be my meaning,] but of Christs manifestation and knowing him to be ours; and I shew the direct way is to make a particular application of the general tender of the Gospel by believing: I say, not that all believing and trusting on Christ is full Assurance, but this I say, that the strongest and best Assurance is confidently venturing all in believing on Christ, and receiving the Salvation offered and tendred to us by the Free Grace of God in the Promise: The best way to be sure of a Rich Gift offered me, (suppose by the King) which I am amazed at, that so great a Person should offer me so great a Treasure, and question whether he is rear in it; I say, the best way to know whether he intends it for me or no, is humbly and thankfully to take it, and not to stand still and scruple whether it belongs to me or no, saying, Surely he don't mean me, when it's to none but such Persons that he offers it to.’ But I no where say, that Murderers, &c. remaining in a purpose to be such, may conclude their Interest in Christ; this is a false Accusation.

Let us hear, Mr. Neonomian, what is the truth in this matter, how you teach this Doctrine of the offer of Christ.

The Truth is this, Christ is freely offered to be Head and Saviour to the vilest Sinners, who will knowingly Assent to the Truth of the Gospel, and from a Conviction of their Sin and Misery out of Christ, are humbled, and truely renounce all their Idols and Sins; denying their Carnal Self, and Merits, and accept of Christ as offered in the Gospel, relying on him alone for Justification, Sanctification, and Eternal Life. D. W. p. 80.

And you should add, When they see they can do all these things, then they should come to Christ, and not before; you reckon that a Sinner is only invited to Christ for Remission of Sins, but not for Repentance, and the sensible Concomitants thereof, whereas his Office is to give Repentance too. And how do you mean? That Christ is offered to be Head and Saviour, do you mean Mystical Head? Christ makes himself so to every Sinner, he works Faith in them. If you mean King, as I suppose you do, [Page 203] that the first Notion Christ offers himself to Sinners under, is as King, and that's the first Notio [...] a Sinner is to reccive him under; it is not true, the whole Current of the Gospel and common Ex­perience is against it. An Earthly King will not offer himself as Kings to a Rebel, but under the Notion of Pardon and Forgive­ness.

Again, Is not a knowing Assent to the Truth of the Gospel a higher degree of Perswasion and Assurance than I speak of in com­ing to Christ? If you intend Truth of the Gospel as I do, and then it's offering Christ as a Saviour to the vilest of Sinners that will come to him, and saying to the vilest of Sinners, That they should come to Christ, and he will in no wise cast them off; but if you look for Sinners truely humbled, and truely renouncing their Sins and Righteousness, and in a readiness to accept Christ before you offer him, I know not when you will offer him, and they must cease to be vile Sinners, and become Holy out of Christ before he be offered.

But observe, 1. Christ is freely offered to the vilest of Sinners, for their Acceptance of him according to the Gospel. D. W. p. 80.

So say we.

2. He is not offered so, as if any Sinner might have a Saving Interest in him, till they are willing to deny themselves, renounce all Sins and Idols, and do accept of, and rely on him as a full Saviour ac­cording to the Terms of the Gospel.

And these I suppose are your Terms, your Moral quali­fying Conditions, so that the Work must be pretty well over for Mortification and Vivifaction before Christ comes in, before a Sa­ving Interest in Christ may be had; a Sinner must not touch him, or the Preacher so much as offer Christ to teach them the Doctrine of Self-denial, or to enable them through the Beauty and Excel­lency of his Grace and Love to renounce Idols: Did you ever know any Sinner renounce Idols till he saw a ground and reason in Christ for it, and felt his power in the Grace of the Gospel? The Spirit saith, The Blood of Christ cleanseth us from all Sin; and accordingly the Promise of Christ is, Ezek. 36.25. I will sprinkle clean Water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your Idols will I cleanse you; and you will have a vile filthy Sinner to be washed first, and have his Idols removed first, and exercise one of the highest Virtues in the Christian Religion, to deny him­self, before he dare to come to Christ, or before any one must offer Christ to him; and if he be offered, it must be upon the condition of these Gigantine performances.

There cannot be an Acceptance of Christ, without a re­nouncing Sin and Idols, and denying Carnal Self, and our own Merits, as opposite to him: And on the other hands, to renounce Sin and Idols, and deny our selves, will not avail us, without an Acceptance of Christ, and reliance on him.

This is an old Brittish way of Arguing; because Ac­ceptance of Christ is accompanied with renouncing Idols, &c. therefore he may not accept Christ till he hath renounced Idols, and denied himself, &c. Because a Man hath Arms and Legs, therefore a thing must have Arms and Legs before it be a Man; or because a Man is Animal risibile, therefore he must be Animal risibile before he is a Man, and made a Man afterwards: There is one and the same cause of renouncing Sin and Accep­tance of Christ, and Christ is held forth in the Gospel to turn Men from Darkness to Light, and the power of Sathan unto God; and Sinners are even the worst to be called and invited to him, to come for all those Ends and Purposes, for Destruction of Sin and Life of Grace; and I tell you, there cannot be one of these Sins mortified, or Idol renounced, without Faith in the Blood of Christ, I say, before Faith and Acceptance of Christ.

I mention some things as Antecedently necessary to our re­nouncing Sin and Idols, &c.

This you mean, Antecedently necessary to know the true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent.

I mean Knowledge, Assent, Conviction of Sin and Mise­ry, &c. these are Preparatory Qualifications; not that an Interest in Christ always follows these, but they dispose the Soul to a hearty acceptance of Christ, in opposition to all Rival Opposites, and are necessary thereto in some degree.

I cannot understand your meaning, unless this be it, that Nature and Grace differ only gradually, and that some Men do grow up out of a Natural condition by these degrees, and some do fall off and not come to it; first, there must be Conviction of Sin, and humbling, and then follows Self-denial, and renouncing Idols; and then Christ comes in at last when he can be willing, and these previous Qualifications must dispose the Soul for Christ; this is Popery.

The declared design of the offers of Christ to Sinners, is that they be thus willing to Accept of Christ, and partake of an Interest in him.

The declared design of offering Christ, is not to tell them they must thus prepare themselves before Christ is of use to them; but that they come to Christ and receive of his Grace, to [Page 205] furnish them with his Spirit, and all gracious Effects and Operati­ons. It is the Spirit that convinceth of Sin, and all Saving Con­victions and Humiliations, and Renunciation of Idols, are included in Repentance and Mortification, which are the Effects of the true Grace of God in the Heart, whereby Faith is wrought; and that Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for Righteousness and Life, puri­fies the Heart, and produceth Repentance, Love, compliance with the Commands of Christ, and they are not grievous. You propound wrong Methods for the Curing Diseased Souls; this way will not do.

You mistake me still, I will tell you where the difference is not. 1. It is not whether there is in Christ a sufficiency of Merit and Grace to save the worst of Sinners?

The question is, whether the Grace and Merit of Christ be not efficient in the Saving the worst of Sinners.

2. Nor whether Christ is offered to the worst of Sinners, if they will accept him on the Terms of the Gospel?

But the Question is, Whether the Sinner can accept of Christ on such Terms, before Christ hath wrought in them to will and do, and made them willing in the Day of his Power? And whether they ought not to be Invited to Christ, and to receive him in the Gospel Offers, for the working this willingness by effica­cious Grace.

3. Nor whether Sinners are not often the Objects of Gods Effectual Calling, in order to an Interest in Christ.

God's Effectual Call is an Interest in Christ, and there's no Effectual Call can be before an Interest in Christ, it's the putting the Soul in Actual Possession of Christ, and the uniting it to Christ.

Nor whether there may not be Knowledge, Assent, Con­victions, Humblings, and feigned Resolves, and yet a Soul fail of an In­terest in Christ, for want of true Conversion, tho' they are hopeful Signs?

But the Question is, Whether you ought to make com­mon Grace the Foederal Condition of special, and tell Souls that they cannot receive Christ in a way of special Grace, till they have attained common Grace out of Christ?

Nor whether the degrees of Convictions and Humblings are equal in all? D. W. p. 84.

You should have told us whether you mean saving, or common; if they be saving, they are wrought as an Effect of Union to Christ; if common and out of Christ, it's no great mat­ter what degree they are of, for there is nothing in an unregenerate [Page 206] Man, though never so plausible, that gives him a disposition to a new Heart, no more than one that's stone dead can have in himself a disposition to Life; they that are in the Graves of Sin hear the voice of the Son of God and live; he quickens them that are dead. Privantia non habent media, there's no medium between Death and Life.

Nor whether Preparatory Qualifications do Merit true Grace.

You should have told us what Merit, ex congruo, or condigno; if you deny the word, you assert the thing. For a Foede­ral Condition is a Merit, Virtute compacti.

Yea, or whether Faith or Repentance do Merit an Interest in Christ? This I deny, and say, That their whole use depends on Gods Ordination.

I wonder you'l ground your denial upon such a weak Reason; for would not Adam's Merits have depended on God's Ordination? And doth not Christ's Merits depend on God's Or­dination?

Nor whether a Soul may neglect to accept of Christ as Pro­phet, Priest, and King, because they feel not that degree of these Hum­blings and Convictions which they desire and expect.

But being you set them a digging in the Rock of their own Hearts for the Pearl of Great Price, you should tell them how deep it lyes, before they are likely to find it; for all these Convictions and Humblings are before they come at Christ; you put them upon hard Service, unless you tell them when they are convinced enough, and humbled enough; and why do you use the word neglect, for as long as they are upon the work you assign them, they wait for you to offer Christ to them, and you tell them it's better to stay longer, and there's reason for it, according to your Hypothesis; if some degrees of Humblings must be had to fit them for Christ, then more degrees will make them more fit.

Nor whether these Preparatory Qualifications be the Work of the Spirit by common Grace. This I affirm.

So then they may dig, and not find the Mine, and spend all their days in Common Grace, and never find Spiritual Grace; now here you fully declare your self that Common Grace is the Condition of Special Grace: What a Work is here with Conditions?

Nor whether their immediate Influence [I mean of Pre­paratory Qualifications] be to prepare the Soul for a true consenting▪ Ac­ceptance, [Page 207] which it is hereby less averse to, and more disposed for. This I affirm.

I know not what sence to put upon this but the Pa­pists Congruity; and that common Grace is a degree, or a qualifying condition of Saving Grace, and that Common and Spe­cial differ not Specifically, but Gradually only, which to me is gross Divinity.

‘And amongst such as he quotes for his Opinion, he brings the 13th. Article of the Church of England, Artic. 13. Of Works before Justification. Works done before the Grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not plea­sant to God, for as much as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make Men meet to re­ceive Grace, (or as the School Authors say) deserve Grace of Congruity; yea, ra­ther for that they are not done as God wil­leth or commanded them to be done; we doubt not but they have the Nature of Sin. which he would wrest to his sence; that although Works before the Faith of Christ, or the first Actual Grace, are excluded as meritum ex congruo by the said Article, & exceptio firmat regulam in opposi­tum; yet he saith, Other Works (according to the said Ar­ticle) done as Fruits of Faith, may in some measure dispose, and de congruo deserve promereri gratiam Justificationis; which Opinion he would make Augustin to be of. And whereas it's said in the said Article, We doubt not but they have the Na­ture of Sin, he would palliate it thus, saying, Non dicunt talia simplicitèr esse peccata, sed potius participare, quod sine omni dubio est terminus diminuens; i. e They say not that such are simply Sins, but do partake of Sin, which without all doubt is a Term of Diminution, ( i. e. the word rather) or else they would have said that they were Sins without Restriction.’ You see what Jesuitical Evasions here are to esta­blish your Qualifications, which you and the Pa­pists are so fond of; whereas these first Reform­ing Protestants say, Non disponunt hominem ad re­ceptionem gratiae; but the rather we doubt not but they have the Nature of Sin; yet you will say, they prepare for true Acceptance, and make the Soul less averse, and more disposed to it; whereas the quite contrary mostly ap­pears, that those that become meerly morall, and leave off the practice of some gross Sins, and do some good Works, from that Principle are usually the most averse, and least disposed to the Grace of God of the two.

I shall shew you wherein the Real difference is,

1. Whether coming to Christ is an inward Perswasion that Christ is mine. This you affirm, and I deny.

You abuse me in charging me with speaking what you would fasten upon me, for I spake distinctly of these two things; first of coming to Christ, and then of knowing that Christ is mine by my being come to him; but yet I say that this coming to Christ ought to be by a particular perswasion that Christ is offered to me as a Sinner, freely offered to me without any consideration of any Qua­lification, and this perswasion every Believer hath less or more. Dr. Twiss distinguisheth between fides in Christum, & fides de Christo, Faith in Christ, and Faith concerning Christ being ours; the first is this, coming to Christ for Life, the other, our Perswasion and sweet Sense of the Love of God in Christ.

2. Whether Christ is offered to Sinners, with a design that they may conclude they have a Saving Interest in him, before they are Regenerated by the Spirit, and savingly Believe.

The Design of offering Christ to Sinners, is that they may receive the offer freely and immediately; and that when they are come to Christ, they should know this Faith was not of them­selves, or did spring out of any Natural or Moral Qualification; but from Christ the Author of it, and from their Union to Christ Jesus, which I take to be a Saving part in him, and that they cannot believe without a Saving part in Jesus Christ before they believe. He having blessed us with all Spiritual Blessings in Christ, of which Faith is none of the least. And Dr. Twiss saith, Faith being one proper Effect only of a Saving Interest, though not claimable by them till they believe; Justitia Christi, sicut Christi est, &c. The Righteousness of Christ as it is Christs, and performed by him, so it's ours as wrought for us, juris ratione, and before Faith, as Meritorious of Efficacious Grace for the working of that Faith. Lib. 1. p. 2. § 25. For if without Christ they can do nothing, then they cannot be­lieve without part in him, and the Covenant Promise gives a part before that receiving him, in giving Christ; for the Gift of Christ must be by nature before we can receive him.

3. Whether the Soul of a Sinner as to its habitual disposition and purpose, is under the Reigning Power of Enmity, Rebellion and Fil­thiness, till after he hath a Saving Interest in Christ. This you affirm, and I deny.

I do affirm that a Sinner hath no habitual disposition or true purpose of Heart for God, and is under the power of Enmity, &c. till he hath a Saving Faith. Here you will have a Sinner free from dominion of Sin, before he is under the dominion of Grace; the Heart changed and Sin mortify'd without saving Interest in Christ, he must be sanctified before Christ is Justification or Sanctification to him. This is strange Doctrine!

Whether some degrees of Conviction, and Humiliation of Soul be necessary Prerequisites to the Souls true Acceptance of Christ for Pardon. I affirm this, and you deny it.

We have told you, what Protestants long since say, That no Antecedent Qualities before the Grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are pleasing to God, or make Men meet to receive Grace; but all such are Sins, the rather, because they are not done as God wills: for Effectual Vocation is by an Interest in Christ; therefore it's vain and frivolous to talk that those things are Prerequisites that are the thing it self.

I shall only prove the Truth as contained in the third and fourth Question.

1. That the Soul of a Sinner, as to its habitual disposition and power, is not under the Reigning Power of Enmity, Rebellion and Filthiness, till after it hath a Saving Interest in Christ.

2. Effectual Vocation makes this change in the habitual disposition of the Heart, and this Vocation is necessary to our Interest in Christ.

What is it that you would prove? That which you are to prove is this, That the habitual disposition of the Soul is chang­ed, as to the dominion of Sin, and as to the filthiness thereof, be­fore a Saving Interest in Christ; and now you shift the Terms, and after you have been speaking all this while of Preparatory Works, how we must be humbled, have self-denial, and cast off all our Idols, before we have an Interest in Christ; now you shuffle your Cards, and say, The Soul is not continued under the Reigning Power of Enmity, &c. till after his Interest in Christ. Doth not any Man that hath half an Eye see this Juggle? and for­sooth you'l prove that this disposition of habitual and reigning Enmity doth not remain till after our Interest in Christ; why? Because it's taken away in our Saving Interest in Christ: Is not this shifting and shuffling? That all this while you make such a noise and vapour of what we have before we come to Christ; It's no­thing else but what we have by Vertue of an Interest in Christ. And your Argument should run thus: If Effectual Calling makes this change in the habitual disposition of the Heart, and is necessary antecedaneously to our Interest in Christ, then this Enmity, Re­bellion and Filthiness is taken away before our Interest in Christ; Ergo: We deny the consequence, for this reason, Because the reign­ing power of Sin hath it's first blow in our Effectual Calling, and then, and not before, we are beginning to be made holy, and this Effectual Calling is our Interest in Christ; Sin shall not have domi­nion [Page 210] over us, because we are under Grace; Christ is made to us Sanctification, and we are Sanctified in Christ, &c. And now you shift your Hands and fay, We do not lye under this Enmity till af­ter our Saving Interest; and good Reason, because Christ hath slain the Enmity upon the Cross, and the Doctrine of Reconcilia­tion being received by Faith in our Effectual Calling, the Enmity is slain there also; the New Man put on, we are Created in Christ Jesus to good Works, and the depraved disposition and habit changed, and now what you go about to conclude; is so far from the Question, that it is against you: but you say, P. 85. That this disposition is altered in Effectual Vocation, and there can be no true coming to Christ for Pardon, and especially for Sanctification, without that purpose; whence it appears, that Effectual Vocation must be before Saving Faith in Christ, and that therein the Reign­ing Power of Sin must be slain before Justifying Faith, or any San­ctifying Grace, that is the Fruit of it.

The Confessions are for me, for they both say, That this Call lyes in Enlightning the Minds Spiritually — taking away the Heart of Stone, giving a Heart of Flesh, &c.

I pray take their words together; they say, Confes. ch. 10. All those whom God hath predesti­nated unto Life, and those only [mark the words, I know you cannot swallow all this Article without keck­ing,] he is pleased in his Appointed and Accepted Time, effectu­ally to call by his Word and Spirit, [Is not this to give them Sa­ving Interest in Christ?] out of that state of Sin and Death, [Is not this the habitual purpose and disposition of the Heart under the Reigning Power of Enmity, Rebellion and Filthiness?] in which they are by Nature, to Grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ, enlightning their Minds savingly, taking away the Heart of Stone, giving a Heart of Flesh, &c. Here is terminus à quo and ad quem. And now you would argue, because this habitual Disposition, En­mity and Reigning Power of Sin is taken away in and by our Sa­ving Interest in Christ; therefore it's done before our Saving In­terest; and because that would look so grosly absurd, you say therefore, It doth not remain till after our Interest in Christ. I pray Gentlemen judge, whether this be not either very foul play, or from gross Ignorance of the Rules of Right Reasoning?

2. How Inconsistent with Vocation, Regeneration and Con­version, are Hearts of such vile disposition.

Death and Life, Darkness and Light are inconsistent; they are Privantia; a natural Estate and Effectual Calling are [Page 211] such, because this takes that out of one state into another in an in­stant, by uniting them to Christ, they thereby pass from Darkness to Light, from Death to Life; and the Passage from Death is the Passage into Life; it's our Death unto Sin, and Life unto God through Jesus Christ, Rom. 6.11. And being made free from sin, you became Servants of Righteousness, Ver. 18, 22.

That cannot he a true Faith and Acceptance, that consists with such vile Dispositions, &c.

True, but are not such vile Dispositions changed in the New Creation? The taking away the Heart of Stone, and giving a Heart of Flesh, is at once; and generatio unius is corruptio alterius, and Faith is now in the New Heart, yea, the very Es­sence of it.

Can he be said to accept of Christ, who, as you say, hath a Knife in his Hand, and Thoughts in his Heart to murder Christ, and yet without so much as laying down his Arms? D. W. p. 87.

I wish you have not Thoughts in your Heart, and a Knife in your Hand, not only to wound my Ministry but the Doctrine of Free-Grace, you shew such an inveterate Spirit against both. Gentlemen,

Speaking from that Text, John 6.37. and endeavouring to re­move Objections from poor distressed Souls that dare not come to Christ, because of a high deep Sense of their Filthiness and Loath­somness, and that are always aggravating their Condition under the saddest and most dreadful Consideration: You will say, ‘For all this high Aggravation of Loathsomness and Sinfulness, my Case is worse than all this you speak of; Dr. C. p. 220. therefore there is some­thing in my Condition, that if I come to Christ he must cast me off: [Mark, Gentlemen, these are the bitter Complaints of a poor distressed Soul against himself, set on by Temptation, to keep him from Jesus Christ.] Besides positive Filthiness, I am a Rebel, a sturdy Enemy; I fight against God, I quarrel with God, and take up Arms against him.’

I endeavour to remove this Objection thus, ‘Imagine your Condition is a Condition of as great Madness and Enmity against God as you can devise,’ [as always it is look'd upon to be by one labouring under a wound­ed Conseience, in whom Sin is revived by the Law: The Remedy that I advise, is, to bring this poor broken-hearted Creature to Christ to be bound up, I go on and say] ‘Sure you will say, If I be such an Enemy, I must lay down my Arms before Christ will have to do with me, or ad­mit me to come to him. Will a King let a Cut-throat Traitor, while he hath Thoughts in his Heart to murder him; will he let him come with a naked Knife in­to his Presence, and graciously embrace him in his Arms?’

For Answer, still see the close of the Text, ‘Observe, that if this be true, that in respect of this Rebelliousness in thy Spirit against God, thou say, If I come [Page 212] to Christ, he will cast me off. This word, in no wise, cannot be true— Do you think it was out of the Thoughts of Christ, viz. our Enmity and Rebellion? And if he thought of it, do you not think he would not have put it in to clear up this Truth? Look into Psal. 68.18. and Rom. 5.6, 7, 8.’

Now observe what I say, ‘I do not speak this to the intent that any should conceive, that God leaves Persons rebellious, Dr. C. p. 211. vile and loathsom as he doth find them when he closeth with them, but I say that time when the Lord closeth with them, it's a state of Rebellion; and if thou come to Christ in this Con­dition, it manifestly shall appear to thee, that he will open his Bosom for thy Head to rest upon; as well as for the Righteousest Saint in the World; so Christ invites every one that thirsts to come and drink of the Water of Life freely.’

I would fain know, Mr. Neonomian, what you would say to a distressed Soul in such a condition, that would not only liken himself to a Murderer or a Cut-throat Traytor, but will give you an Instance that he is so even at this very time; he hath continually horrid blasphemous Thoughts of God, yea, Atheistical, and such as is a Horror to mention. He will tell you what a sink of Vileness and Hypocrisie he is in upon all respects, what would you tell him? indeed here's the Skill of a Divine.

Tell him, I would tell him he must be humbled for those Sins, and he must cast out these filthy Thoughts, and that he must pray and hear the Word, and watch over his Heart, and resist Satan; and in­deed must get rid of this Enmity that is in his Heart, and this Rebellion, and then he may come to Christ for Pardon.

Ay, but I can do none of these; my proud Heart will not be humbled, my filthy Thoughts will remain, I cannot love God, nay, I cannot pray, and the Word of God is a Terror un­to me; I fly from the Law; and as for the Gospel I dare not come at it, God is a Terror to me.

I would tell him, such a vile Heart, corrupt Affections, Blasphemous Thoughts, are inconsistent with Vocation, Regeneration, Con­version: I would tell him he can't have true Faith or Acceptance with Christ, which consists with such vile dispositions, and is void of a purpose to be otherwise.

And would you not think meet to invite this poor Soul to come to Jesus Christ in this sad Condition?

No indeed, that I would not, in that miserable pickle.

What would you do with him?

I would tell him, he hath a proud Heart which God is hum­bling, his Lusts must be mortify'd, he must bear the Indignation of the Lord; God will shine in upon you in his due time when you are fit for it, and your Sins be purged; in the mean time you must wait.

But may not a Man speak to such an one of Help laid upon one that's mighty to save.

Take heed of being too bold there: If Christ be mentioned it must but be as King and Law-giver; if you be too busie in talking of Christ as Priest and Sacrifice, and of laying his Sins on Christ, it may prove such a Narcotick to him as may cast him into the contrary Extream of carnal Security, and Presumption that his condition is better than it is.

Do you deal thus always with distressed afflicted Souls, when they come to you for advice?

No, not always in private Conference, but in the Pulpit this way must be taken, or else you'll have a company of vile loath­som Sinners grow too sawcy upon the Doctrine of Grace and the Pro­mise.

And yet here your Ministry is very successful; you re­ceive many Members I suppose, you have to deal with great Va­riety of Cases.

I do not trouble my self with that way of Experiences, I know no Rule for that: I ask them whether they have been humbled, and whether they are sincere in taking Christ as their Lord; and I tell them now, God accepts Sincerity and Imperfect Duties as the Condition of the Covenant of Grace; and I find this way succeeds very well, and I hope to make it take throughout the City, and extirpate those Antinomian Principles, and Congregational too.

Indeed Mr. Neonomian, I must take my liberty to dissent altogether from you in your Method with, and Cure of distressed Consciences; it was not the way formerly. I am for bringing such a poor loathsom polluted Creature to the Fountain set open for Sin and Uncleanness, &c. and not say he must be washed first.

Can we thus Marry Christ? what a carnal, selfish thing is Believing? A meer using Christ for our own safety in our Abominations, which we resolve shall rule over us without one desire to be rid of them. D. W. p. 88.

Do you think there will be any Fellowship between Christ and Belial? One must be gone. When Christ comes in un­to the Heart, he binds the strong man armed, and spoils him of his Goods. I am sorry to hear you banter a poor Sinner's believing in Christ, under the sense of the Vileness and Sinfulness of his Dis­position, and the Enmity of his Heart; or that you should sup­pose, or suggest to the World, that there is any way under Hea­ven to change the Heart and Disposition savingly, or heal the Con­science, but by bringing a poor Creature to Jesus Christ, and him [Page 214] Crucify'd, and saying to him, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved. There is Pardon, Forgiveness, Cleansing, in the Blood of Christ, therefore the Course that I take always, is to endeavour to set the Lord Jesus Christ in all his fulness before an awakened Sinner; and if he be yet secure, and going on in his evil ways, I bring him as near to Christ as I can; I endeavour to con­vince him that he sins against Christ as well as the Law, the preci­cious Blood of Christ that was shed for Sinners; I do what I can to bring him to Christ to be taught, to be invited, overcome by the Sweetness and Amiableness of Jesus Christ, and let him know the danger if he persist obstinate.

But some degrees of Convictions and Humiliations of Soul are necessary prerequisites to the Souls Acceptation of Christ for Pardon, weary and heavy laden that Christ invites, Mat. 11.28. I came not to call the Righteous, [i. e. conceited and secure] but Sinners to Re­pentance. Luke 5.31, 32. They in Acts 2.37. were pricked to the Heart; the Gaoler felt some Humbling concern. Acts 16.30. Paul knew what this trembling was; so Zacheus and the Prodigal, Luke 15.14, 15. D. W. p. 87.

All his humblings, prickings, weariness, awakenings, were by the Power of Gospel Grace, and by the preaching of Jesus Christ. Christ's Ministry is enough with his Power to save Souls; he needs no prerequisites. The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation, therewith he wounds, and therewith he makes whole; Christ makes weary, and gives rest; he convinceth Sinners, and gives Repentance; the preaching Christ Crucified pricked those Converts to the Heart, and healed those Wounds. It was the same Hand of Grace that awakened the Gaoler, and when he had a Knife in his Hand even to Murder Christ in his Members; and when he saw that was wrinched out of his Hand, took a Knife to Murder himself; in the height of that desperate Villany, he was command­ed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he should be saved. The case plainly is this, That Jesus Christ himself, the Minister of the true Sanctuary, and the preaching of him, is the only and sufficient Remedy to change and save the worst of Sinners through the effectual working of the Spirit; the order and method is vari­ous, it's as the Spirit listeth, we are not to prescribe any methods or measures of Humblings, much less to say such and such Moral Vertues or Duties are necessary Prerequisites and Qualifications be­fore a Sinner comes to Christ. The Apostle Paul said, That he de­termined to know nothing, i. e. (so as to Preach) among them, but Jesus Christ and him Crucified, 1 Cor. 2.2. I am for working Hu­miliations [Page 215] by setting Christ before the most refractory Sinners' for all Salvation; true Mourning and Humiliation proceeds from looking on him whom a poor Sinner hath pierced: I am for the bringing of the most Leprous Sinner, (I cannot engage he will come,) to wash in this Spirtiual Jordan, though I find you are ra­ther for washing off his Leprosie first in the Rivers of Abana and Pharfar Rivers of Damascus.

I am not for bringing such foul filthy Sinners to Jesus Christ, it sounds very ill in the Ear, to say Christ saves Murderers, Adulterers, Persecutors, &c. and to invite them to come to Christ reaking in their Sins, and under the Reigning Enmity of their Hearts; it's fit that they should be civilized first, and this wicked, profligate disposition removed, and that they have new Hearts before they come to Christ; for I tell you Christ will not pardon them else.

You mistake the whole sence of the Gospel, or will not understand it, that you may seem to have a plausible pretence to oppose it: When Sinners are invited to come to Christ, it's not meerly under the Notion of Pardon, but of all Salvation; he is offered, and the Sinner is invited to come unto him, as having gi­ven himself for us, to redeem us from all Iniquity, and to purifie to him­self a peculiar People Zealous of good Works. A Sinner is by the Go­spel called to Christ in all states of his Unregeneracy, whether o­penly Prophane, or Morally Vertuous; one is as easily saved by Christ as the other; the former ordinarily sooner, easier conver­ted seemingly than the latter; neither is the latter better qualified and fitted for the Grace of God than the other. That place quoted by you, 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. is a clear proof how the Word of God's Grace works these true Convictions in the Saving Work, and that your Humblings in the state of Unregeneracy are no necessary Pre­requisites to the Grace of God.

I will discover your Mistakes in these things. Because they that truely come to Christ shall have an Interest in Christ, therefore he thinks whosoever can perswade himself that he hath an Interest in Christ doth come to him.

It would have been well if it had been my Happiness to have attain'd to your degree of Learning, and had so great a Capa­city for it as you, that I might not have fallen under so gross mi­stakes. I confess it's pity a Doctor should be so silly a John-an-Oaks as you represent me. But what shall I say to it? It's not every Man's Portion to be Learned or Wise, only there's one Proverb I remember that is some satisfaction to an empty Skull, Non est da­tum cuivis Corinthum appellere. But methinks you mistake about my [Page 216] Thoughts, if I have Wit enough to tell my own Thoughts. It is strange I should be so stupid, as Credere quod habeo & habeo, as to believe that I have when I have not, and to call that Perswasion my having: I spake of having Christ by coming to Christ, and then of our knowing that we have Christ. If you will examine what I think, I will tell you, I think coming to Christ is by be­lieving and appropriating Christ, and what is generally delivered of him and by him unto my self; if it be by way of Promise, of­fer, or command; and that this believing is such perswasion of the Goodness and Truth of Christ and his Gospel Salvation, that it carries me forth to rest and stay my self confidently thereon, and that I can perswade my self of the Truth of my Faith from its Act on its proper Object, and by the several Fruits that it doth produce.

Because sometimes the worst of Sinners are made Subjects of Preparatory Work, and of Effectual Calling as God's Act on them, therefore he thinks, that these Sinners are invited to conclude they have an Interest in Christ, before they do at all answer that Call. D. W. p. 90.

You intimate as if you thought some Sinners were more capable Subjects of Effectual Calling as to God's Act than others, and that there's a Preparatory Work distinct from God's Act in Effectual Calling, which I do not think. Besides, I think God's Act in Effectual Calling upon a Sinner, is more than a bare Invitati­on: And I do not think or say, That any Man concludes their Per­sonal Interest in Christ because they are invited, but because be­ing invited they did come; therefore not before they answer the Call by coming.

But his greatest cause of mistake is, that he thinks the worst of Sinners, if Elect, have as much Interest in Christ as the greatest Saint.

Est Argiva Calumnia; when you make it appear that I think so, by what I have spoken, I will answer to it, and your Sarcastick Inference therefrom.

You may see the large Catechise; Q. What is Justifying Faith? They tell us, That a Sinner is convinced of Sin and Misery who receiveth Christ.

But they tell us that that Conviction which is Saving comes by Saving Faith, their words are, Justifying Faith is a Saving Grace wrought in the Heart of a Sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he being convinced of his Sin and Misery, and of disability in himself and other Creatures to recover him out of his [Page 217] lost Condition, not only assenteth to the Truth of the Promise of the Gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his Righte­ousness, &c. And in the Shorter Catechism you may see a more particular account of Saving Convictions, that they are wrought in Effectual Calling, though they be not so properly of the Nature of Justifying Faith; for they say, Effectual Calling is the Work of God's Spirit, whereby convincing us of our Sin and Misery, en­lightning our Minds, &c. He doth perswade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the Gospel. You see Conviction and Illumination are both the Saving Works of the Spirit. And in the Confession they'll tell you, That Saving Faith is of a larger extent as to the Object it Acts upon, than meerly Justifying, Saving Faith; it convinceth, it enlightens, it justifies, it sanctifies, and in this sence they tell you the Nature of Saving Faith, Chap. 14. whereby they are enabled to believe to the saving of their Souls — and by this Faith a Christian is enabled to believe to be true what-ever is revealed in the Word, and —from thence comes trembling at the Word, and embracing the Promises of Life, &c. So that this contradicts not, but confirms the Doctrine of the 39 Articles, That all Works before Faith, even Legal Convictions, are no more than Sin; it's but the filthy Conscience-polluting Guilt of Sin, which Thousands have, and which do not dispose the Sinner to love God, but to hate him; nor to seek Pardon, but to seek out a Righteousness of his own.

Dr. O. tells us, p. 133. Of Justif. There is nothing in the whole Doctrine that I will more firmly adhere to, than the necessity of Con­victions previous to true Believing. D. W. p. 89.

If he mean saving believing, he must mean previous sine qua non, not as a Preparatory Vertue, but as Sin is previous to Pardon, and thereby Guilt also, whereby Sin pollutes the Consci­ence, and is both sin and misery; and this may arise from a meer natural stirring of the Law, or by the preaching of it, which is the Death of Sin, the Wrath and Curse that attends it; and this may and must arise from a common Faith; for a Man is not convin­ced of any thing that he believes not. But if he mean Saving Convicti­ons, they are good Fruits, and wrought in Saving Faith. This he in­tends here: For he said just before, Let no Man think to understand the Gospel, who knows nothing of the Law; God's Constitution, and the Nature of things themselves, have given the Law the precedency with respect unto Sinners; for by the Law is the Knowledge of Sin, and Gospel Faith is the Souls acting according to the Mind of God, for deliverance from that State and Condition which it is cast under [Page 218] by the Law; and he supposeth the State of a Man under meer Legal Conviction to be a State of Death and Condemnation.

He saith, Displicency, Sorrow, Fear, a desire of Deli­verance, with other necessary Effects of true Conviction. P. 102.

True Convictions, i. e. Saving, have such Effects; but observe, he is there distinguishing between common Convicti­ons, which before Faith are the common Condition of Sinners more or less, which is the Death they lye under. He saith, ‘Temporary Faith and Legal Conviction are the Principles of all Works or Duties in Religion An­tecedent unto Justification, [observe now what he saith] which therefore we must deny to have in them any Causality thereof; and so he proceeds to shew what Af­fections and Duties in Religion may follow thence; not that they are Gospel Vertues, but rather solendida peccata; and they, I say, are so far from disposing the Natural Man to Justification by Grace, that they dispose him rather to seek Justification in him­self by the Works of the Law, till the Law comes to be Preached in true Spirituality in the Gospel, and received by Faith. — And he saith, P. 103. That Refor­mation of Life — and these things are where real Convictions are; but yet it must be said, that they are neither severally nor jointly, though in the highest de­gree, either necessary Dispositions, Preparations previous, Congruities in a way of Merit, or Conditions of our Justification.’

Now is not this a Marvellous measure of Presumption, and pal­pable Design upon your Reader to take the Imperfect Sence of a Man's Discourse to justifie your Errours, when you must needs see, the said Discourse is point blank against you; I'll hear no more therefore of your Allegations in this point out of Dr. O.

Mr. Norton speaks of Preparatory Works between the Carnal Rest of the Soul in a State of Sin and Effectual Vocation.

I know of no such middle State, for there is but two States, that of Death, and that of Life; that of Light, and that of Darkness; but the Works done before Conversion he tells you are called Preparatory by way of meer Order, which he saith all the Orthodox assert; for that which is plainly first in Order and Nature must be said to be so; all the Sin and Wickedness, as well as the common Graces and Religion, performed by an Unregene­rate Man, are all Antecedent to his Regenerate State. But saith Mr. Norton, It's contrary to the Scriptures to say they are Prepa­ratory, by way of Causation, Merit and Congruity, [ i. e. by disposing, fitting, and making Men the sitter for Effectual Grace, as you say] as asserted by the Papists and Arminians.

DEBATE XI. Of Union with Christ before Faith.

ANother Errour of his is, All the Elect are Actually Ʋnited to Christ, before they have the Spirit of Christ, or at all believe in him, even before they are Born; yea, and against their will. D. W. p. 90.

Your Terms are all Ambiguous, you seldom use a word of two or three Syllables, but you'l have him Bifrons like Janus; I pray produce your proof, and I shall see which way you look most.

The Title of a Sermon of yours is, Christ ours before gracious Qualifications. D. W. p. 91.

That is, in respect of making Trial thereby, I seeing yet no Sanctification in Works to try by; it's certain such Pardon is to be had, and that the Grace of Forgiveness is applicable before Works, or a Person capable of doing them, as to Elect Infants, and to the Dying Thief, and hath the same place in every Elect Person that doth believe, forgiveness is applied to him before he can exert any of the working Fruits of Faith, and being applied to him by God's Grant, it may be applied to himself by Believing; but because you insist on nothing in this Sermon that you particular­ly express, I say no more of it now.

Sure you intend only to exclude Works, and not Faith. D. W. p. 91.

I do not exclude Works from a ground of Assurance, for I own when the Conditions are granted and found, [ i. e. the Fruits of the Spirit in the Heart, the Soul may close with the Grace of God by way of Assurance; but I say also, there may be an Assurance of Faith without particular respect to the said Works; I say not that Works evidence not, but that there is an evidence besides.

No, you tell us of dangerous Consequences that must fol­low on it if Persons are not united to Christ, and partake not of Justi­fication before they believe; and addeth, There is not, I say, such a thing as an uniting or knitting Power in Faith, as that Faith doth or should become an Instrument to unite a Soul to Christ. Dr. C. p. 616.

My Discourse was from 1 John 2. 1, 2. The main de­sign of my Discourse there is to prove, That Faith is the Fruit of our Ʋnion to Christ.

He denies the presence of Faith, to this end he spends much time to prove that Christ is ours before we come to him, and that our not coming unto him doth not import a state of disunion with Christ. D. W. p. 614.

I said, Let us suppose the coming in this place is spoken of believing, Ye will not come to me that you might have Life; it cannot follow, that although there be no Life till believing, therefore there can be no Union till believing: I say, If it possibly might be imagined, that there may not be Life from Christ till believing, [Page 221] yet it follows not that there must be believing before this Union; Suppose, I say, that there cannot be Life before there be believing, yet there must be Union be­fore there can be Life fetched from Christ, —Faith being the Fruit born, as a­foresaid.

He saith, You may as soon conceive, that a Man is able to see whilst he hath no Head, as think a Man can have Spiritual Eyes; whether the Eye of Faith to behold Christ, or the Eye of Mourning to lament ones Wickedness, before there be Actually the Presence and Conjunction of Christ the Head to such a Body. Dr. C. p. 104.

I say so, and will stand to it.

I wonder you should find fault with that Divinity, or note down that Expression for an Errour; you cannot suppose that there can be any living Act performed without Life, as the cause of it, which Life must be our Union to Christ, which according to the most Orthodox is, and must be before Faith it self at least, Na­turâ.

He says, We partake of the Spirit by vertue of this Ʋnion.

Yes, how should Members partake of the Spirit and Life that is in the Head, but by vertue of this Union, and yet the Spi­rit unites. A Branch engrafted partakes of the Spirits of the Root by vertue of an Union, and the Spirits unite and knit it.

He saith, God did not only decree to put such Qualifications into them; but I say farther, That God gives Actual Possession of this Christ, and that Christ takes Possession of that Person before there be any Qualifications. P. 618.

I doubt not but Christ takes Actual Possession of us saltem naturâ, before we have any holy Qualifications, but as to our Actual Possession of Christ, it's better exprest that we have it by Faith; although where there is Possession there is relatum & cor­relatum.

The Question is not, Whether God hath decreed the Ʋnion of the Elect? Nor whether this Ʋnion is agreed in the Covenant of Re­demption? D. W. p. 92.

But it is, Whether the Elect have not a Union of Fe­deral Relation in the Covenant, as you call of Redemption, as be­ing a Seed in him, and Covenanted with in him, and he as a com­mon Person representing them, and undoubtedly is that Root or Head out of which all his Elect Seed or Members do spring.

Nor is it any Question, whether Christ's giving us the Spi­rit [Page 222] of Grace do begin this Ʋnion, and the Spirit given in order to Sa­ving Operations produceth this Faith whereby the Ʋnion is Consum­mated?

Well, well, if you own so much, what do you make a Controversie of this Point; it seems you acknowledge the Union is begun with Christ giving his Spirit in order to Saving Operati­ons, only you say it's consummated by our Active cleaving unto Christ by believing, and he doth as good as say as much; he saith, There is no Activeness of this Life of Christ in the Elect, till they do believe, and in this sence he will say the Elect are not united, viz. by Faith till they do believe; as for his Notion of the Elect being in Christ before calling, it hath been discours'd already, and let's not fetch things over again.

There is a Passive Recipiency, and there is an Ac­tive Recipiency; Dr. C. p. 98. there is a Passive receiving of Christ, and that is, so that Christ is received without any Hands; but in an Active receiving of him, he is not received without Hands. This passive re­ceiving of Christ, is just such a receiving of him, as when a froward Patient takes a purge, or some bitter Physick; he shuts his Teeth against it, but the Physician forceth his Mouth open, and pours it in down his Throat, and so it works against his will by the over-ruling power of one over him.

For my part I like not such Similitudes, and it insinuates that Men are said to receive Christ against their Wills. D. W. p. 101. Dr. C. p. 612. And he said too, That our first coming to Christ, is as a Coach is said to come to Town, when it is drawn to Town.

You know his meaning by those Similes, and they are not to run on four Feet; it's enough they serve to illustrate that part of Truth which they are used for. Mr. Antinomian means as you do as to Man's Will. There's nothing more contrary to a rebellious carnal Man, than the Graee of God; their Hearts are full of Enmity and Hatred to God and Truth; but yet he shews you often that God gives Gifts to the Rebellious. And here you see how he gives it, and what he gives; it may be he binds them with the cords of afflictions, and opens their Eyes to see their undone condition, pours into their Consciences whole Potions of the Guilt of Sin, and the Laws Condemnation, whereby as undone Creatures, through Grace they become willing and ready to receive Christ, and he becomes precious to them by the same hand of his Spirit. If you should pick up odd Similes out of Sermons, which it may be hath done good, and God hath blessed, you may expose many a good Man's Labours. See holy Cranmer's, and I think such were were of famous Mr. Rogers of Dedham; and consider the [Page 223] Spirit of God allows preaching Christ to be foolishness to the World: Therefore be very wary how you despise, reproach or redicule in these cases, lest in striking pretendedly at Men and their weakness, you happen to give a slant Blow at the Spirit of God: For he tells you there is such a kind of Recipiency of Christ, he instanceth in Ephraim, Jer. 31.18, 19. And in the like Dialect Elihu speaks to Job, chap. 36.8, 9. If they be bound in Fetters, and held in the Cords of Affliction, then he sheweth them their Works and their Transgressions, that they have exceeded. And in the Metaphor of a Coach or Chariot, the Spirit of God speaks in the Sacred Scrip­ture; and the Church saith to Christ, Draw me, and I shall run after thee.

The real difference is, 1. Whether the Elect are actually united to Christ before they are born? 2. Whether the Elect are united to Christ till they are effectually called, and truly believe?

That though there be not an active Union on our Parts but by Faith, so that it can't be said properly to be a Con­jugal Union by mutual consent of Parties, yet there is a relative Union, such as between Father and Child, where the Child gives not consent to this relation; he is wholly passive in being brought into it. God from Eternity constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect, to be as it were one Body, one Lump, wherein Christ is the Head, and they the Members; Christ the Root, and they the Branches: They are given to Christ, John 17. To be in Christ, Eph. 1. Being they are called his Seed, before they are called, John 10. His Seed, Isa. 53.11, 12. Heb. 2.14. Brethren. Ver. 11. He that sanctifyeth, and they they that are sanctifyed, are [...], i. e. as some add, [...], or [...], of Body or Lump. And by vertue of this Union it is that the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ descends particularly unto them, and not to the rest of Man­kind.

But you will see all along how he makes Christ first in this Personal Union to Christ by the Spirit and Faith.

I'll tell you what I take to be Truth in these Points, Every Man is without Christ, or not united to Christ until he be Effectually called; but when by this call the Spirit of God enclineth and enableth him willingly to accept of Christ as a Head and Saviour; a Man becomes united to him, and partaker of those Influences and Privi­ledges, which are peculiar to the Members of Jesus Christ. D. W. p. 90.

I except against what you have asserted, in these Par­ticulars.

1. You say a Man is not united to Christ before Effectual Calling, thereby I understand you, that he is not united to Christ in any sence, whereas I affirm he is united to Christ before Ef­fectual Calling in the Senses which M [...] R [...]therford doth assert, be­fore mentioned.

2. I understand you mean that in Effectual Calling a Man is not united to Christ till he doth Actually accept of Christ the Head by an Act of Faith, whereas the Head unites the Members to it self before they can reach up to the Head.

3. You make Union to be the same with Communion, and to consist in a participation of Priviledges.

Now as to the second thing, That in Effectual Calling there is a compleat Union with Christ before the Act of Faith, I do affirm, upon these Reasons.

1. From the utter Impotency of the Soul without and before Union with Christ to any good Act, for Union standeth in indivisi­bili; it's a conjunction of two in one, an half one is none: if we put forth an Act of Faith to lay hold on Christ before we be com­pleatly united to him, we put forth a good Act, and bring forth good Fruit before we be in him, and before we be good Trees; but we cannot bring forth good Fruit before we be good Trees; and we cannot be good Trees before we be in Christ, Mat. 7.18. John 15.4, 5. Therefore we do not put forth an Act of Faith be­fore we be so compleatly united to Christ, so united to Christ as to live by him, John 11.26. Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never dye, &c.

In our Regeneration we are meerly Passive, our Faith is not then Active, but in our Regeneration we are compleatly united to Christ; Ergo, we are compleatly united to Christ before the Act of Faith. The major is proved from Eph. 2.1, 2, 3. Dead Men are Passive to Regeneration, and Dead Men we are till we are Regenerated. The Minor is proved from the joint concurrence of Regeneration, Conversion and Union with Christ, which are all wrought together simul & semel.

If we be united first to Christ by an Active Faith, then an Active Faith is the cause of our Union with Christ, but an Active Faith is not the cause of our Union with Christ, therefore by an Active Faith we are not first united to Christ.

If Active Faith were not the cause of the Union of the Hu­mane Nature of Christ with the Divine, then it is not the cause of our Union with Christ; but Active Faith is not the cause of the Union of the Humane Nature of Christ with the Divine: Ergo, Maj. No other cause can be assigned of our true Union with Christ, than of the Union of our Nature with the Second Person, viz. Divine Assumption, Isa. 42.1, 6. As the Divine Nature assu­med ours, John 1. so the Person of Christ takes us to Mystical Union with him.

If our Union with Christ be first by an Act of Faith, then it is by a Work of ours, (though a Work of Grace) but it is not by a Work of ours: Ergo, Min. If it be by a Work of ours, it is not of Grace, but it's of Grace. Ergo, Maj. Rom. 11.6. These are Mr. Cotton's Arguments.

I'll answer your Arguments another time, pray hear mine now to confirm the Truth.

[Page 226]1. The Scriptures expresly affirm, Ʋncalled, Ʋnconverted ones to be ununited to Christ; Eph. 2.12. Rom. 16.7. Rom. 11.17.

It's true in respect of the Union in Effectual Calling, but yet not in respect of their Hidden, Federal, and Relative Uni­on, which Mr. Rutherford speaks of.

2. The Spirit of Christ, and Faith in him, are the things whereby God hath ordained us to be Ʋnited with Christ, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Ephes. 3.17.

We grant it in respect of our Union to Christ in Ef­fectual Calling.

I see you will throw off all my Arguments by Mr. Ruther­ford 's unhappy distinction of Ʋnions; therefore I will name no more of them for the present.

The Assembly is full on this Point, that our Union to Christ is before the Act of Faith. Shorter Catechism.

The Spirit first comes as a Bond of Union, and works Faith to Unite by its Act; in the first Union by the Spirit we are passive, made new Creatures, new Born, receive Spiritual Life. In the second we are Active, put forth lively Acts, and lay hold on Jesus Christ, and all Gospel Grace. And if the Confessions say we are United to Christ by his Spirit, and by Faith, as you acknowledge, then there is a Union by the Spirit, which is effective of that which is by Faith.

You say my mistake is, in thinking all Grace is wrought by Christ as an Actual Head; you mean Grace comes not at first from Christ as our Head, but as a designed Head; therefore you find fault with my founding our Union on Christ as our Head. Where I say, P. 104. Christ is the Head of his Church, i. e. the Foun­tain of all Spiritual Sense and Motion: A Man cannot have Spiri­tual Eyes of Faith, unless he have this Spiritual Head, &c. I am not alone here, for Mr. Norton and others make Christ as our Head, the Fountain and Spring of all Spiritual Life and Motion. Evan. P. 249. The Person of Christ Mediator, is the first Saving Gift actually applyed to any Elect Person. —The motion of the Spirit upon the Soul is from Christ the Head. See p. 250.

DEBATE XII. Of Justification by Faith.

VVE having formerly discussed the Doctrine of Justi­fying Righteousness, I desire we may now enquire into the Nature of Justification by Faith; for Mr. Antinomian hath this Errour among the rest.

That the whole use of Faith in Justification, is only to manifest that we were Justified before; and Faith is no way necessary to bring a Sin­ner into a Justified State, nor at all useful to that end. D. W. p. 103.

I must hear your proof, Sir, before I enter upon my defence.

You put this Objection, Is not believing required unto the Justification of the ungodly? Answ. An ungodly Person after he is Justified doth believe; but you will say it is an Act of Christ by Faith. Answ. Then Christ doth not Justifie alone, &c. Nay, I say more, Christ doth Justifie a Person before he doth believe, &c. He cannot be­lieve that which is not, —but he is first Justified before he believes, then he believes he is Justified. Dr. C. p. 85.

How often is it said, it's God that Justifieth? Justification is an Act of God, and not of ours, Faith is an Act of ours; it's God by his Grace efficiently Justifies, and imputeth the Righteousness of Christ; we are materially and objectively Justified by the Righte­ousness of Christ, and by that alone; and this I say is before a Sinner believes efficiently, because the Object must be before the Act of the Recipient Organ. A Man sees because there is Light to see, which illuminates the Organ; especially such a Light as takes off a privation of sight, and restores the Habit, so that Justification in regard of Application must be before believing; the first Appli­cation in ordine naturae saltem, is to an ungodly Man, eo nomine, that he may believe, who is thereby made to believe that he may be Ju­stifyed, for in Justification we are both Passive and Active; as Mac­covius saith.

You ask, But what doth Faith serve for? D. W. p. 103. Dr. C. p. 85. You answer, It serves for the manifestation of that Justification which Christ put upon a Person by himself alone.

He saith, We do not believe that we may be Justified, but because we are Justified.

Yes, we do believe that we may be justified declara­tively— I say there, ‘Tho' Faith it self cannot be called our Righteousness, Dr. C. p. 86. yet in respect of the Glory that God ascribes to it, that it seals to Men's Souls the fulness of Righteousness; how can you consider a Person, a believing Person, and withall an ungodly Person? When Persons are Believers, they cease to be ungodly; but if Men be not justified till they do believe, Christ doth not justify the ungodly, but rather we must believe on him that justifies the righteous. But as I said, we do not believe that we may be justifyed; but we do believe, and truly believe when we are, and because we are Justified. So that still it stands firm, we are not justified, we are not in Covenant, we partake not in the Covenant by any Condition we perform, till which Perfor­mance the Covenant cannot be made good unto us; but we are in Covenant, and Christ makes us to be in Covenant for his own sake, without any Condition in the Creature. God will have mercy on whom he will, without any-thing in the Crea­ture to partake first.’

He saith, God doth add never a tittle of Pardon it self more to him that is a Believer, than to that Person not yet converted to the Faith, &c. D. W. p. 104.

I say the Pardon of Sin by the Blood of Christ, is as full for the Unconverted Elect Person, as fully passed over in Grant, to that [Page 230] Person as to the Believer himself; God doth add never a Title of Pardon it self more to him that is a Believer, than to that Person not yet Converted to the Faith, in regard of the substance of the Pardon it self, and this I clear as a great Truth, if any will give themselves the trouble of reading it, which I stand to.

He saith, Faith as it takes hold on Christ's Righteousness, it doth not bring this Righteousness of Christ to the Soul, but doth only de­clare the presence of that Righteousness, that was there even before Faith was, and there denies Faith to be so much as an Instrumental cause of our Justification. Dr. C. p. 597.

Shew me how any Person ununited to Christ can believe, and how any one that is unjustified can be actually united to Christ, as he must needs be before he can believe.

He tells you that Justification is from Eternity in several places.

You know that to be a false charge, for I have told you a Man cannot be said to be Justified before he hath a Being. I have often enough told you in what Sence I apprehend Justification to be before Faith; but deny no [...] the Justification by Faith spoken of by the Apostles, in the true Sence of it according to my best under­standing, I have told you that Justification is first in its provision, is fully procured and provided; and it's first in Grant, Gift and Application, applyed unto us before we make Application of it by an Act of Faith, whereby we do not bring it into the Heart, but the Grace of God doth, which we see, behold, and improve there by Faith manifesting and declaring our Justified Estate, whereby our Consciences are freed from Guilt and Condemnation; hence I call it Justification in Conscience, in foro Conscientiae. Mr. Ruther­ford Rutherford, Exc. 1. c. 2. who wrote against the Antinomians saith, ‘There is a Justification in the Mind of God Eternal, and a Justification in time terminated in the Consci­ence of a Believer.’

‘ Norton, p. 315.That Justification is Actually and Absolutely procu­red for the Elect before Faith, and shall infallibly be applyed to them all in time, seemeth to reach the Scope intended by the Godly [Page 231] Learned, whose Spirits have more particularly laboured to hold forth the whole Truth in this precious part of Soul-Reconciling Doctrine, and Soul-Supporting My­stery of the Gospel.’ To say, That we are Justified by vertue of a sin­gular Promise in the Court of Conscience, and in our own Per­sons, (in which sence the Scripture constantly saith, We are Justi­fied by Faith) is not (that I know of) affirmed by any.

Hence it appears that the Doctrine of our Justification before Faith is not an Errour, but a Great and Glorious Truth, and it is no prejudice to the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, but the Foun­dation, Ground and Reason of it; neither is it any Door opened to Licentiousness, an unbeliever having no more Confirmation or Encouragement to persist in Sin thereby, than by the Doctrine of Election, which gives none; but as Mr. Norton saith, ‘It's no small part of the Ministry of Reconciliation, that God Imputed to Christ the Sins of the Elect before they did believe, and will never Impute them unto the Elect.’

Neither is my speaking of Faith's taking hold of Christ's Righ­teousness, and saying, That it brings not Christ's Righteousness to us, but presupposeth it given and granted, such an absurdity as you would make it. For Dr. Ames. saith very distinctly, ‘Justifying Faith precedes Justification it self as a cause of its Effect, but Faith ap­prehending Justification, necessarily presupposeth and follows Justification, as the A [...] doth the Object about which it is Conversant, and this I take to be the true No­tion of Justification.’

That Great Man for Holiness and Learning, Chamier, saith, ‘I deny that Faith is the cause of our Justification, for then our Justification would not be of Grace, Cham. Parstrat. Tom. 3. l. 13. c. 10. Sect. 18. but of our selves, but Faith is said to justifie, not because it effecteth Justifi­cation, but because it is effected in the Justified Person; and in another place he saith, Faith doth neither merit, ob­tain or begin our Justification; Lib. 22. c. 12. Sect. 5. and Sect. 9. for if it did, then Faith should go before Justification, both in nature and time, which may in no wise be granted; for Faith it self is a part of Sanctification; now there is no Sanctification but after Justification, which really, and in its own nature is before it.’

I think, Sir, I have cleared my self sufficiently from the Charge of Errour in this Point, viz. That our Justification is in being be­fore Faith. And now, Sir, before we proceed to the other part of your Charge concerning the manner of Faith's Justifying, let us hear your Arguments against Justification in any sense going be­fore Faith.

One Real Difference between us is, Whether we are Justi­fied before we believe? Which I deny; for, 1. We are Justified by Faith, is the common Language of the Holy Ghost, Rom. 5.1. Gal. 2.16. D. W. p. 105.

We own it, and say too that we are Justified by Faith, and this doth not prejudice, but confirm what we assert.

Faith is enjoyned as an effectual means of Justification by Christ.

We deny not that Faith required in the Gospel, and wrought by the Spirit, is as an effectual means of Application of Justification; but therefore it follows not that it's in being before: That which is not in being cannot be applyed.

The Gospel denounceth and declareth all condemned till they do believe.

The Gospel declares only their state of Condemnation under the Law, the Gospel properly condemns not; and we own that every one by nature is a Child of Wrath, and in the sense of the Law is a condemned Person; and every one is shut up under the Law, as the Apostle saith, till Faith comes, his New-Covenant Blessedness belonging to him, is not yet made manifest, nor is his Nature and State changed.

Ʋnbelief is the Cause why men are barred from Justification, and remain obnoxious to Misery.

It is God that justifies, and no Sin can barr God's Act of free Mercy in pardon of a Sinner, in the Pardon of Unbelief as well as of other Sins, when God will justifie. It's very absurd to say, Sin barrs God's Act of Pardon. It's true, Unbelief influenceth a Sinner as to his own Acts, and will be charged upon him as his Fault, and will [Page 233] aggravate that Condemnation which he hath under the Law, because from his own corrupt Will and Affection he will not receive Pardon and Life that is offered in the General and Indefinite Tender there­of made in the Gospel: And therefore Christ saith, John 5.40. Ye will not come to me that you may have Life. Heb. 3.18, 19. They could not enter by reason of unbelief. Unbelief on our part doth keep us from Christ, but hinders not on God's part, that effectu­ally draws all the Elect, justifying of them, and working Faith in them, Rom. 8.29, 30. Eph. 1. The whole Unregenerate state is a Barr, till God break it by Regeneration, which is a free Work of Grace, as Justification is an Act of Grace, and must be found where-ever a Sinner is Justifyed by Faith, and that in order there­unto.

The other Question in difference between us is, Whether the Ʋse of Faith in Justification be only to manifest our Justification, which we personally had before: This you affirm, and I deny. And add, That Faith justifies by receiving Christ, and therein answers the Ordina­tion of God, who hath promised to justifie the Believer by application of Christ's Righteousness in this gracious effect of it upon a guilty Soul. D. W. p. 105.

You alter the Terms of my Expression, to make for your own turn. My Words were these,

And I say, That it is not the Condition without which we re­ceive no benefit from Christ, but rather a manifestation thereof. My Words are not, That the use of Faith is only a manifestation, but I say, Rather a manifestation of Benefits received, than a con­dition of receiving benefits. And I say, it is a Declaration and Manifestation. And what is the Promise in the hand of Faith, but a Declaration of the Grace of God in Justification of a Sinner, and thereby a manifestation of it unto the Conscience? Whereby Justification comes to be in foro Conscientiae: For I say, Where the Condemnation of a Sinner is by the Law, there the Absolution of the Sinner is by the Gospel, but Condemnation of a Sinner is in Conscience by the Law; therefore there his Absolution is by the Gospel, and that's by a Gospel-Sentence pronounced and believed, which Sentence is God's Declaration, and Faith sealing to the Truth of it, applies it, and is the Eccho of the said Declaration in the Soul. And you say Faith justifies as receiving Christ, and you say well, Christ is received in the believing of the [Page 234] Gospel-Declaration. The Declaration in the Gospel is, Life by Christ. See 1 John 2.25. This is the Promise that he hath pro­mised us, evrn eternal Life. 1 John 5.11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son; and this is the witness of God which he hath testifi'd of his Son. Ver. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: It should be Testimony, [...]: This very believing is a Testimony of the Truth of the Promise, and his part in it, as by the latter part of the 10th Verse appears, He that believeth not makes God a Liar; and as the truth of the Promise concerns him­self, ver. 12. He that hath the Son hath Life; this believing he saith is having the Son as declared in the Promise and Record, that takes in the Declaration believingly. And this is apprehending, and applying, and relying on the Promise, and Christ in it, both as Truth and Goodness. Believing is our modus recipiendi, or manner of re­ceiving, and we do believe that we may receive and apprehend him unto Justification.

You add, and say first, Faith justifies by receiving of Christ; but you say, it's Application of Christ's Righteousness as to gra­cious Effects you mean only: You do not deal above-board, you are not for the application of Christ's Righteousness it self impu­ted to us, and put on by us in believing: We have noted your Er­ror in this kind already; you'll not have Christ's Righteousness imputed to us for our Righteousness, according to all the Lan­guage of the Scripture, but only the Effects given us, as effectual Calling, Sanctification and Glorification: So that the Righteousness of Christ justifies no otherwise than it sanctifies and glorifies; for it doth these as Effects. But I pray express your self more clearly how Faith Justifies, or what part Faith hath in Justification ac­cording to your Sense, without so much ambiguity.

The difference is not, Whether Faith or any other Grace be a Jot of the meriting Righteousness for which we are justified. D.W. p. 104.

But it is, whether Faith, or any other Grace be a qualifying Condition for Justification; if it be so let me alone to prove it a meriting Righteousness, whether you call it so or no.

Nor whether Faith, or any Grace, add any thing to the vaine of Christ's Merits. These I deny. D. W. p. 104.

No wonder; for you have rated Christ's Merits, S. Clara dicit, om­nes convenire scien­tium, de causa effici­cate & meritorià Justificationis efficiens est Deus, meritoria Christus solum ergo con­troversitur de formuli. De Justif. Peccatoris. how much their Value shall be; Valeant quantum valere possunt: But there are [Page 235] other things quasi merita at least, that must give right to the Bene­fits procured by Christ's Merits, which you call your subordinate Righteousness.

Yea, I add, that if Christ's Righteousness could be ap­plyed for Pardon to the vilest Sinner before he believes, it would justifie him; but God hath declared that it shall not be applied to Ʋnbelievers.

That's not, for God hath declared the contrary, that he justifies the ungodly; and if Justification as God's Act be not applied to us first, before we are Believers, there would never be any Believers; for Justification is the cause of Sanctification, and not Vice versa: But Justification by Faith, i. e. Justification as ap­plied by a sensible gracious Act of ours, is after Sanctification, and we must distinguish in Application of Righteousness between Gods Acts and ours, for God must apply Grace before we can par­take of it.

Nor whether we are Justified the same Moment as we true­ly believe in Christ, and the Blessing is not suspended for any time longer. This I affirm, because God justifies us by the Promise as his Instrument; and this Promise declares that he will justifie him that believes.

You'll own then that we shall not stay for the Bene­fit; if we perform the Condition, God will pay ready Mony; but the Qualification must be first in us by Nature. But why I pray? Is it not manners at least to give God the Honour of being first in this Work, and say, We believe in that moment we are justified?

2. I find now you will not have Faith to be the Instrument of Justification, but have found out another; whereas you find fault with me, that I will not have Faith the Instrumental Cause of Justification, in its being no more than a passive receiving Instru­ment; and you'll have the Promise to be the Instrument declaring Justification; and what can Faith do, but receive this Declaration, and thereby declare to the Conscience of the Sinner what the Go­spel-Instrument declares.

Nor whether an Elect Person once justified by Christ, shall be kept by Christ's Care in a justified state.

You do not suppose then that Justification is certainly durable in it's one Nature, that it is an everlasting Righteousness, but that it is loosable in it's own Nature, and needs a continued flux of Supply as our Graces in Sanctification. As thus, a Traytor par­doned by the King is not unalterably pardoned, but shall be kept by the King's Care in a pardoned state.

Or whether God hath decreed, that the Elect shall certainly believe, and so be justified?

But hath he decreed that the Elect shall never be ju­stified in any Sence before they believe? or that Faith should be wrought as a qualifysng Condition for Justification?

Nor whether true Faith be an infallible sign of Justifi­cation.

But you make it nothing else to us, if it justifies as a Condition, if your Condition doth not foederally merit the Pro­mise, it's nothing to God, but an infallible Sign whereby he sees when to justifie us, and to us that we are justify'd by him. And what is this better than a manifestation, you making it only a ma­nifesting Condition? You're excellent good to multiply Whethers to no purpose: You might bring in a 1000 Whethers more, and say, it's not the Question, Whether it be further to the East or West Indies, nor whether Brittain be an Island or Continent.

I'll come to the Point, and tell you the Truth Tho' Faith be no way a meritorious Cause of a Sinners Justification, yet God hath promised to justifie all such as truly believe.

That's true; so he hath promised to Sanctifie and glorifie them.

And requires Faith as an Indispensible Qualification in all whom he will justifie for Christ's merits.

This now is to the purpose; now we see how Faith justifies as an indispensible Qualification; a greater Condition than was laid upon Adam a thousand-fold.

You see the Justifying Nature of Faith is Metonimically ascribed to it; as the Eye is said to be the Light of the Body, because it lets in the Light; so Faith as the Spiritual Eye sees the glory of Christ, as the Ear lets in the Justifying Promise declaratory. Hence it's said, this is Life Eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, which is to acknowledge him by Faith as he is revealed.

That Faith justifies not as a Qualifying Condition is ma­nifest.

1. Faith as a Quality is a Work of the Law. The Law com­manded Faith a leading Duty in it: But no Man is justified by the works of the Law, Rom. 3.28. So Wolleb. Willet. This Proposition [we are justified by Faith] understood legally with the Papists, is not true, but blasphemous; but understood correlatively, is true. Vosin. Cat. p. 2. Q. 63.

2. That which cannot stand with Grace in Justification, cannot have any Influence on Justification as such; but for Faith to have any causal Influence as a Work on Justification, is inconsistent with Grace. The Minor is prov'd, Eph. 2.8. Ergo.

3. That which gives no more to Faith in the business of our Ju­stification, than to other Works of Sanctification, cannot be true; but to make Faith to Justifie as a Qualification, gives no more to Faith than to other Works of Sanctification, Ergo. The reason is, because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification un­to Faith, and in a way of Opposition to all Works of Sancti­fication, Rom. 3.28. Gal. 2.16. Chap. 3.11.

4. If you say, That Faith justifies only as an antecedent Con­dition, not at all meritorious, Virtute eompacti, then it's no more a Condition than our coming into the World, or Acts performed by us before Faith; and it gives no more to Faith than to the Works of Nature, as Worldly carnal Sorrow, Legal Repentance, and such moral Acts as carnal and unregenerate Men daily perform; such as you call your Preparatory disposing Conditions, and they are the cause of Faith, as much as Faith of Justification, and con­sequently the causes of Justification, Causa causae est etiam causa causati, and are in in eodem genere causarum.

5. Whatever justifies as a Foederal Condition is meritorious, but Faith justifying as a qualifying Condition, upon which Life is pro­mised, justifies as a Foederal Condition. The Major is true, in [Page 238] the account of all; for the Condition need not to be adequate to the Reward in Intrinsick Value; tho' it be never so small, yet up­on Performance of the Condition the Reward is due Debt. And indeed all Conditions in Contracts and Covenants are proper meri­torious Causes, by vertue of the Compact and Agreement made between the Covenanters. For the Minor, If it justifies as a qua­lifying Condition, it must justifie as a Foederal Condition, or meer Antecedent Condition: And if you say as an antecedent Conditi­on, it's at best but Causa sine qua non, which we call No Cause.

6. The Scripture doth sufficiently explain it self in what it says of Justification by Faith, when it says we are redeemed, sa­ved, justified by Christ, by his Blood, by his Death, &c. That the Spirit of God, when it says we are justified by Faith, intends not any Moral or Physical Causality in Faith as a Qualification, but on­ly by vertue of it's Object. Mr. Bradford the Holy Martyr rea­soneth thus—

What was accounted to Abraham for Righte­ousness? Zanch. on Phil. 3. not the Action by which, but that which he did believe; or Faith, not in respect of it self apprehending, but in respect of the Object apprehended.

Faith taken as a Quality doth not Justifie us, &c. Rivet. Ca­thol. Orthod.

Bellarm. l. 1. de Justific. c. 17. Rhem. in Annot. Rom. 3.The Papists tell us, That Faith doth not justifie as an Instrument in apprehending the Righteousness of Christ, but as a proper and true cause it actually justifieth, by the Digni­ty, Worthiness, and Meritorious Work thereof, and say these [Page 239] words in Scripture, justificari ex fidem, per fide, do betoken an Actual force and power in Faith to Justification; and then saith the Jesuite, Faith is a Work; we are justified by Faith, Ergo, by a Work.

To this he adds, That Faith is our Justice it self, Ergo, not the Apprehension only of Righteousness: This he Builds on, Rom. 4.5.

They tell us, That Faith justifies us per modum causae efficientis & Meritoriae, as a Proper, Efficient and Meritorious Cause. And Bellarmine tells us, ‘That if we could be perswaded that Faith doth justifie, Im­petrando, promerendo, & suo modo inchoando Justificationem, then we would never deny that Love, Fear, Hope, and other Vertues did justifie as well as Faith.’

Now to avoid the Absurditities, they are forced upon by the Protestant Arguments; they have two shifts.

1. That this Merit is not from us but from God, because Faith is the Gift of God's Grace, and therefore though we be justified by Merit, we are justified by Grace too, and that it is of Grace that our Faith Merits.

2. They say, That Faith Merits Justification, non ex condigno, of the worthiness of it, but de congruo, of the fitness of it; and this is that which our Neonomians say, That it qualifies and disposeth us to Justification, so that the justifying a Believer is the doing a thing that is fit and meet to be done, the Person being disposed and qualified thereunto. It's sad that Protestants should now come to lick up the Papists Vomit, and re-assert those gross Errours in Fun­damental Truths, that all our Orthodox and Famous Opposers of the Popish Heresie have refuted and decryed by one Con­sent.

But that this Errour might the better be swallowed by Prote­stants, the subtle Enemy of Truth and Mankind forgeth it again, gives it a good heat, and brings it upon his Anvil, polisheth it, and makes it much more plausible to look upon.

The Arminians say, Faith justifies sensu proprio; the [...] Credere, the very Act of believing is imputed to us for Righteousness, being accepted of God, and accounted to us as the whole Righteousness of the Law. So we are justified by Faith in the sight of God, not by its Merit, for they ascribe all the Merit of Justification to Christ, but only they ascribe to it a conditional, subordinate Righteous­ness by vertue of the Ordination of God. For Arminius saith, Armin. in declar. sentent. ad ordines Holland. & Westfris. Ipsa fides tanquam Actus juxta Evangelii Mandatum prestitus Imputatus coram Deo, in, sive ad Justitiam, idque in gratia, cum­que non sit ipsamet justitia legis. i. e. Faith it self as an Act per­formed [Page 240] according to the command of the Gospel is Imputed before God, in or unto Righteousness, and that in Grace, when it is not the very Righteousness of the Law. J. Goodw. Treatise of Justif. p. 22. I shall give the refined and subli­med Notion of this Arminian Doctrine from a Man of no small dexterity in pleading for it.

Now see what the Neonomian says expresly of your indispensible Qualification; though you, Sir, always will look one way while you row another. The Question in one of you is plainly asked and answered by a great Leader and Guide among you.

Now I shall shew you how by the Orthodox Protestants, this Doctrine of Neonomanism hath been opposed as Antichristian and Destructive to the Grace of God.

Pemble's Treat. of Justif. c. 2. p. 164. fol.The Learned Mr. Pemble gives the Anatomy of this Doctrine, after that he had shewed that Faustus Socinus, Michael Servetus, Christophorus Ostodorus, and Arminius, were the Forgers, next to the Jesuits, and Propagators of this Doctrine.

I shall only leave with you the Opinion of the Orthodox Pro­testants concerning Justification by Faith, who have strenuosly op­posed the Papists, Socinians, Arminians and Neonomians in this Point.

He speaks of Justification in a double Acceptation—

Hence Mr. Norton hath these words. Orthod. p. 315.

DEBATE XIII. Of the Necessity, and Benefit of Holiness, Obedience, and Good Works, with Perseverance therein.

HOW do you, Mr. Neonomian, are you well, methinks you look a little Moody.

It would disturb any Orthodox Man's Spirit to see how Er­rour prevails; I profess I am almost weary of this Club, if this be your Calvinian Club, I do think I must betake my self to some other, you know, where I shall find more soundness in Doctrine.

O pray, Mr. Neonomian, let not Disputants be angry with one another; Disputation should be for Information of the Judgment, not for the gratifying Pride and Passion; put another Question, it may be we may agree in that.

I will try you once more, and if you boggle there, Fare you well.

Gentlemen, note that whatever I shall speak now of any Act of Grace, except Penitent Believing, referrs not to the Forgiveness of Sins, or the Sinners Admission into a Justified Estate.

The Benefits that I here speak of, are not the Forfeiture of Pardon, the Possession of Heaven, and some other Particular Blessings, as Increase of Peace, Returns of Prayer. D. W.

I find now you clapt two Conditions into one; why had we not these Conditions twisted together before? Methinks you incommoded your self in not doing it yesterday, for vis unita for­tior, but you reckon Faith and Repentance, reach no further than the first Justification, I think the Catholicks are of your Mind for that. 2. You talk of forfeiting Justification, the meaning in English, is falling away from Grace.

Some Mens Brains had need be taken out and washed in Vi­negar, for there's no making them understand; it were well that you were better studied in Terms of Art.

Prethee, Mr. Antinomian, sit down and hold thy Peace a while, you'll never leave till you have put the Gentleman into a Fustion fume, and then we shall lose his good Company; pray go on, Mr. Neonomian.

I smell him where he will be.

Nay, not yet neither.

I tell you then, if I may be permitted to speak what an Er­rour this Antinomian holds. He saith,

1. Men have nothing to do in order to Salvation. 2. Nor is Sancti­fication, a way of any Person to Heaven. 3. Nor can the Graces or Duties of Believers; no, nor Faith it self do them the least good to pre­vent the least Evil. 4. Nor are they of the least use to their Peace or Comfort. 5. Yea, though Christ be explicitely owned, and they be done in the strength of the Spirit of God. 6. And a Believer ought not to think he is the more pleasing to God, by any Grace he Acteth, or Good he Doth. 7. Nor may Men expect any Good to a Nation by their Humilia­tion, Earnest Prayer for Reformation of a People.

Now Sir you have a Rowland for your Oliver, here's a long and strong Inditement laid in against you, I wish you a good deli­very, Mr. Antinomian.

As I take it, there's about seven things you charge me with, I pray make your Proofs per partes; I shall be abler to give my Answer.

You have told us, seeing all things are setled by Christ for us of free Gift; I say, all we do is for Christ himself, and not for our selves. —Christ comes and brings Justification, loving Kindness and Salvation. —What needs then all this Travel for Life and Sal­vation, seeing it is here already? But seeing we get nothing by it, &c. D. W. from Dr. Cr. p. 41, 42.

By this you prove, that Men have nothing to do in or­der to Salvation. Gentlemen, I must crave your patience, to hear that part of my Discourse that you may judge of it. It was upon John 14.16. ‘I was saying, D. Cr. p. 41. How near hath Christ made the way unto the Father? Thus near that he that believeth shall be saved.’ Let me be bold to tell you, you are in as full a state of Justification before God. [Now mark, I was speak­ing of passing from one state to another in Justification; and do you not remember what he said? [That whatever he should speak now referring to any Act of Grace, except believing penitently, referrs not to Forgiveness of Sins,] and now he alledgeth what I said upon that account to prove a change about Sanctification.

‘ You are in a true State of Salvation, you that are Believers, are as those that are already in Heaven, D. Cr. p. 41. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved: Such a near way Christ is, yet still peo­ple will be Cavilling, where are good Works all this while? What justified by Faith alone! Saved by Christ alone! Let me tell you, If Christ be the way’ [of Justification, and only Federal Condition of Eternal Life, [Page 256] i. e. of all Salvation in Faith and Holiness] ‘then Works are not the way, except they be Christ, but must we not work? Yea, but for other purposes, the Lord hath propounded other Ends, [not meriting your Salvation] for which you are to work, ye are bought with a price, that's done; therefore glori­fie God in our Bodies, being delivered out of the hands of your Enemies, [our State is secured, our Safety past] we serve in Holiness and Righteousness, &c. do we serve toward Deliverance, then it's not past. 1. We are delivered from VVrath before we step a step in Duties; we do not the Duty to be delivered, but we do Duty because we are delivered.’ [And now follows what he charg­eth for such a fault, and take notice that I speak all along of the change of our state in Justification by Faith, and that works have nothing to do in, neither are we to look upon them as such.] ‘All things are setled by Christ for us of free Gift, all we do is for Christ himself, not for our selves, [ i. e. to put our selves in Christ's Room, thereby to Rob him of his Glory,] if we do it for our selves, we do but labour in vain; suppose we compass never so much good by doing, [thinking thereby to put our selves into a justified Estate] it is but labour in vain, it was compassed before-hand for us, [in the justi­fying Righteousness of Christ. — Christ brings Salvation, enters into Covenant; what needs all that Travel for Life and Salvation? i. e. with a design of purchasing it thereby, for all that is said is spoken to the Price that Christ bought us with, and I instance in running for Money, that a Man need not run for a price that he hath freely without; so that he that works for Justification works in vain, for saith the Apostle, The Jews that followed after the Law of Righteousness obtained it not, but ran in vain; and this the Apostle means in that place, Have ye indeed suffered so much in vain? why? because you obtained not your end thereby, not likely so to do.’

But it's not your Intention that nothing we do can Merit, but not that they are required as the requisite means and way to obtain these Blessings. D. W. p. 122.

You intend this, p. 45, 46. you say, I will note one thing be­fore I go on to make clear this thing, &c.

I will give you my own words and sence. The words he referrs to are part of an Answer to an Objection. D. Cr. p. 45.

‘ Answ. I say the contrary, it is the only way to lead Men into a more enlarged way of Holiness than any way in the VVorld, which I will declare to you by and by. VVe have shewed that Christ is a safe way, a lightsome way, a near way; we will make good now that the consideration that Christ is a free way to all Comers, is the only way to Build up Men to an enlarged course of Holiness, more than the greatest Self-denial, frequentest Prayer, greatest Study, bearing down of the Body, &c. And this will further appear, if we enquire how Christ is such a way, as there is no way wherein there is a quicker, wherein there is a better riddance of Businesses and Employments Believers have, than in Christ; [now comes in what he quotes] I will note one thing by the way, to make clear this thing; viz. It is a received Con­ceit of many, that Obedience is the way to Heaven; and though it be not Causa Reg­nandi, yet it is Via ad Regnum. Let me give you a hint or two of another thing, D. Cr. p. 45. or two, and lay down this Position; There is no Believer under Heaven, that doth come to Heaven before he hath served his Generation, there is no Person that is a Believer and hath received [Page 257] Christ, but that after he hath received Christ he is Created in Christ Jesus unto good Works, that he should walk in them.’ [Here you may see I am for good Works in a Gospel Way and Sence,] I say, he that sprinkleth [...] with clean Water, that they may become clean from all their filthi­ness, writes his Law in their inward parts, &c. so that I say [mark well my words] that Sanctification of Life is an inseparable Com­panion with the Justification of a Person by the Grace of Christ, but withall I must tell, that all this Sanctification is not the way of that Justified Person to Heaven. It is the Business of a Person that he hath to do in his way to Christ. Dr. Cr. p. 46.